By Burnett Munthali
Governance and Human Rights Advocate Undule Mwakasungula recently criticized former President Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika (APM) for calling his recent speech a “national address,” claiming that such a privilege is reserved exclusively for sitting presidents. While Mwakasungula’s concerns reflect a broader debate on the relevance and roles of former presidents in shaping public discourse, his critique appears to overlook key democratic principles and the nuances of political communication in Malawi.
Mwakasungula’s assertion that only sitting presidents are entitled to deliver a national address raises questions about his understanding of democratic freedoms and constitutional rights. A “national address” is not a legal or constitutional term restricted to sitting presidents; rather, it refers to a speech directed to the nation on matters of national interest.
Former presidents, as custodians of experience and wisdom, retain a moral obligation to comment on national affairs. APM’s use of the term “national address” may be unconventional, but it is neither deceptive nor illegitimate. Instead of focusing on semantics, the focus should be on the content and value of the speech itself.
Firstly, Mwakasungula’s critique centers on the terminology used by APM rather than the substance of his message. Such an approach shifts attention away from the critical issues raised in the speech, such as governance, economic management, and political accountability. In a democracy, the quality of ideas should matter more than labels.
Secondly, by suggesting that former presidents should not deliver speeches addressing the nation, Mwakasungula risks silencing important voices in the democratic space. Former leaders possess unique insights and perspectives that can enrich public debate. APM’s speech, whether termed a “national address” or otherwise, contributes to this dialogue and offers alternative viewpoints to the current administration’s policies.
Thirdly, Mwakasungula’s remarks could be interpreted as politically motivated rather than rooted in genuine concern for governance. Criticism of APM’s speech might have carried more weight if it engaged with the content of the address rather than dismissing it based on its designation. This approach raises concerns about impartiality and the selective targeting of political figures.
Globally, former presidents often engage in public discourse, offering their perspectives on national and global issues. For instance, in the United States, former presidents frequently deliver public addresses and participate in policy discussions without their legitimacy being questioned. Malawi, as a democracy, should embrace this tradition rather than stifling it.
APM’s speech reflects his continued commitment to addressing Malawi’s challenges, including governance issues, economic hardships, and social injustices. Critiquing his message constructively would have been more productive than dismissing his right to speak.
Mwakasungula’s comments represent a missed opportunity to engage meaningfully with the substance of APM’s address. Instead of fostering dialogue, his remarks risk polarizing public opinion and discouraging former leaders from contributing to national discussions.
In conclusion. while Undule Mwakasungula’s concerns about terminology may resonate with some, they fail to address the larger democratic principles at stake. Malawi’s political landscape benefits from diverse voices, including those of former presidents. Rather than focusing on labels, critics should evaluate the substance of political discourse and engage in constructive dialogue to advance national interests.
APM’s decision to speak to the nation demonstrates his continued relevance in Malawi’s political discourse. The onus is on citizens and leaders alike to prioritize the content of such speeches over the semantics of their titles. In a democracy, no voice should be silenced or dismissed based on arbitrary rules about who can address the nation.
- Songwe Border United Gears Up for Second Round Survival Battle
- MRP clarifies failure to appear on the 2025 ballot box
- Jumbe urges Malawians to speak truth to power on 16th September, 2025
- Lwara claims Chakwera is bidding bye not campaigning for votes
- Registrar orders Chakwera, MCP stop handouts, shame to MCP family
- Chakwera dismisses leadership failure claims as malicious propaganda
- Christ Mandate Church and Wonderful Kids Foundation trained in conservation agriculture methods
- Joyce Banda Vows Economic Revival: “Let’s Fix Malawi Again!”
- Question to the Head of State, President Dr. Lazarus Chakwera:
- Dr. Joram Nyirongo Bows to Pressure — Apologizes to Nankhumwa Over Offensive Post
- The myth of “The boss is always right” in the modern era
- Mwanamvekha: “Fuel Crisis Ends With Mutharika Comeback”
- Chakwera clarifies MWK 500,000 baby bonus promise as slip of the tongue amid election campaign trail
- Unborn but already a victim: K450,000 stolen from expectant mother’s aid program
- “Dying for a Bite: Gaza’s Children Starve Amid Apocalyptic Aid Chaos”
- Lilongwe Mpenu MP distributes party cloth to voters and civil servants in bid for support
- Ekhaya Farm Foods Powers Praise Umali’s K12 Million Live Experience Concert
- AFORD President Enock Chihana Ambushed in Kasungu
- FDH Bank Promo Sparks Excitement as Customers Win Big
