By Burnett Munthali
Whenever we write—whether as journalists, analysts, or commentators—we must do so based on issues, facts, merit or demerit, performance or failure, and never on personal attributes such as age or physical appearance.
The recent article by Shire Times, titled “Mutharika Press Conference: A Tired Lion Dragged Back to the Hunt,” is not merely a critique—it is a concerning descent into sensationalism and personal attack, wrapped in the guise of political commentary.
At a time when Malawi urgently needs sober, issue-based political discourse, Shire Times chooses ridicule and mockery, targeting the age and health of a former Head of State without any reference to his constitutional rights or actual policy positions.
The Constitution of Malawi is very clear: it does not bar any citizen from seeking the presidency based on age, so long as they meet the qualifications outlined in Section 80.
Nowhere does it state that one must be young, physically agile, or able to perform campaign theatrics in order to qualify.
By comparing Peter Mutharika to a “cracked clay pot” or “rusted iron,” the article reflects not just poor taste but a deep-seated ageist bias that undermines the dignity of democratic participation.
Malawi’s democracy empowers the people—not media platforms—to determine who is fit to lead through the power of the ballot.
It is not the place of any journalist, however eloquent or provocative, to dictate who should step aside from politics.
Like any other presidential aspirant, Mutharika has the full right to speak, hold press briefings, and participate in the electoral process.
To portray loyal supporters such as Shadreck Namalomba as “clutching straws in a storm” is to insult legitimate political engagement and ignore the pluralism that democracy thrives on.
Whether or not one believes in Mutharika’s political comeback, participation in a democratic process should never be framed as forced or illegitimate merely because of a candidate’s age.
History reminds us that Malawi has seen young leaders who failed to deliver—and older ones who made lasting contributions to national development.
Leadership and wisdom are not the property of youth; they often grow stronger with age and experience.
Criticism of Mutharika—or any other political figure—should be based on facts, track record, decisions made in office, or policy direction, not on demeaning metaphors or assumptions about physical strength.
As a nation, we must guard against media narratives that prioritize entertainment over enlightenment, and derision over democratic debate.
Let us demand writing that informs, critiques, and questions power on the basis of truth—not taunts.
The Malawian people are capable of making informed choices. Let them decide who is fit to lead—at the ballot box.
Until then, let us all respect the Constitution, respect our elders, and respect the principles of dignity and fairness that uphold our democracy.
