For decades, Malawi has been a recipient of significant international aid. Main donors, including multilateral organizations like the World Bank, the European Union, and various UN agencies, as well as bilateral partners such as the UK and the US (USAID), have channeled billions of dollars into the country. Major international non-governmental organizations like ActionAid and Save the Children have also invested heavily in development projects. Yet, despite this sustained influx of support, poverty in Malawi remains stubbornly persistent, and the country continues to be one of the poorest in the world. This raises an important question for all of Malawi’s development partners: why isn’t the current strategy working?
The grim reality is that Malawi’s leaders appear to have little genuine interest in lifting the living standards of Malawians. A docile approach and lack of urgency in tackling poverty and other systemic problems has become a hallmark of governance. It sometimes looks as if everyone who gets elected to the presidency, switches off as soon as they are elected, and does the bare minimum. To put it differently, there’s nothing truly impressive, truly game-changing or awe-inspiring which 3 of Malawi’s last Presidents have achieved. It’s as if becoming elected was the main achievement, not what you achieve after you get elected. And so you look at a President’s term in office and notice quite visibly that very little has been achieved over the 5 years in office.
The challenges facing Malawi are many and well-documented: a heavy dependence on rain-fed agriculture, an extremely high population growth rate, and a lack of economic diversification. Plus the usual stubborn ones: Forex shortages and fuel shortages.
All these are compounded by poor governance and deep-seated corruption that undermine all efforts to achieve sustainable development.
This lack of political will is manifest in several outrageous actions that have shocked Malawians and donors alike. Under the current government of President Lazarus Chakwera, who came to power on an anti-corruption ticket, the situation has not improved. In January 2022, Chakwera was forced to dissolve his entire cabinet following corruption allegations. Key ministers, including the Minister of Lands, were implicated in bribery cases, while the Minister of Energy was accused of meddling in fuel import deals. Even more alarmingly, the country’s Vice President, Saulos Chilima, was arrested and charged with accepting a bribe from a British-Malawian businessman, Zuneth Sattar, in exchange for influencing government contracts. These events demonstrate a blatant disregard for public service and a systemic pursuit of personal enrichment at the highest levels.
Furthermore, the highly centralized nature of government continues to stifle progress. While Malawi has a legal framework for decentralization, the process has been incomplete and ineffective. Political leaders have maintained control over resources and decision-making, leaving district councils with limited capacity and autonomy. This centralization is a major obstacle to targeted development. Unlike the UK’s Barnett formula, which provides a transparent and equitable system for allocating public expenditure to its constituent countries, Malawi has no such organized formula for targeting poverty and development at the district level. This often leads to state funding benefiting districts from which the incumbent leaders hail, creating a cycle of uneven development and deepening regional inequalities. The Constituency Development Fund (CDF), a fund allocated to each Member of Parliament for local projects, is a case in point, as it is often subject to political influence and a lack of accountability.
Maybe it is time for Malawi’s donors to confront this painful reality. The current approach of direct budget support and traditional project funding, while well-intentioned, and with some successes, is not delivering the kind of transformative results seen in other countries. The money often gets lost in the labyrinth of corruption and patronage, failing to reach those who need it most. The current strategy is enabling, rather than solving, the country’s governance problems.
A different approach is way overdue. Donors should consider new models of engagement that bypass the central government and directly empower communities. This could involve supporting civil society organizations, strengthening local anti-corruption institutions, and channeling aid through mechanisms that are transparent, decentralized, and accountable to the Malawian people, not just the political elite.
Otherwise Malawi’s donors will continue to inadvertently subsidize a broken system that lacks the urgency and vision to truly tackle poverty. A bold and fundamental shift is not just an option, but a moral imperative.
malawiace.com 