By Burnett Munthali
Allan Ntata’s article, No More Puppet President, is an emotionally charged and politically provocative piece that seeks to remind Malawians of the events surrounding the 2019 presidential election and the subsequent political transition.
He argues that Peter Mutharika’s attempt to cling to power was illegitimate and that the people of Malawi, through protests and legal battles, successfully overturned a fraudulent election.
Ntata’s use of strong and emotive language, such as “steal Malawi’s future with Tip-Ex,” paints a dramatic picture of electoral malpractice, reinforcing the notion that democracy was under siege.
His rhetorical approach effectively appeals to the emotions of Malawians who lived through the crisis, evoking memories of fear, anger, and resistance.
However, while the article is compelling in its urgency, it also raises concerns about its one-sided perspective and lack of nuance in analyzing Malawi’s political landscape.
Ntata categorically dismisses any possibility of Peter Mutharika’s political redemption, portraying him as a puppet controlled by “unelected thugs” and singling out Norman Chisale as the shadow leader.
This assertion, while striking, lacks substantive evidence and comes across as speculative, potentially diminishing the credibility of his argument.
By framing Mutharika as nothing more than a figurehead for corrupt forces, Ntata oversimplifies the complexities of political decision-making within the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Malawian politics in general.
The article also presents a binary narrative—good versus evil, democracy versus dictatorship—without acknowledging the broader challenges that the current government has faced since coming into power.
While the 2019 election nullification was hailed as a victory for democracy, the reality of governance under the Tonse Alliance has not been without controversy, and Ntata fails to acknowledge this.
His argument assumes that the alternative to Mutharika’s return is a thriving democracy, yet public sentiment has shown frustration with the current administration’s economic struggles, governance failures, and unfulfilled promises.
Furthermore, the piece employs repetition as a stylistic device to emphasize key messages, such as “if we forget, we betray the sacrifice of every Malawian who fought for justice.”
While this technique is effective in reinforcing his argument, it also gives the article a propagandistic tone rather than an analytical one.
A more balanced critique would have acknowledged both the risks of Mutharika’s return and the failures of the current administration, offering readers a more comprehensive understanding of Malawi’s political realities.
Additionally, Ntata’s depiction of Malawians as warriors who fought and won democracy, though inspiring, may overlook the reality that many citizens are disillusioned with all political players, not just Mutharika.
The challenges Malawi faces—corruption, economic hardship, and governance inefficiencies—persist, and these cannot solely be attributed to past leadership.
For his argument to be more persuasive, Ntata should have provided concrete examples of how the current administration has upheld the democratic gains achieved in 2019, rather than simply warning against a return to the past.
The use of hashtags such as #NoMoreTipExDemocracy and #MalawiFoughtForThis gives the article a social media activism appeal, but it risks simplifying complex political dynamics into slogans rather than substantive debate.
Ultimately, while No More Puppet President is a powerful reminder of Malawi’s recent political history, it is weakened by its singular focus on demonizing Mutharika without critically assessing the present state of governance.
Malawi’s democracy requires not just the rejection of past injustices, but also a commitment to addressing present and future challenges with equal scrutiny.
