Listen to this article

By Our Reporter

A political debate that began with concerns over the representation of Muslims and people of Yao origin in Malawi’s government has now opened a much bigger question: Are Muslims and Yaos being valued as political partners only when politicians need their votes?

The debate has intensified following a study that raised concerns over the political representation of Muslims and Yaos under the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

According to the study cited by Malawi Freedom Network, Muslims and Yaos have played an important role in political mobilisation and electoral support, yet their presence in key government appointments has allegedly remained disproportionately low.

The study claims that Muslims and Yaos accounted for about 4 percent of appointments under an MCP administration and about 2 percent under a DPP administration.

Those figures have not been independently verified and should be measured against the original study, its methodology and underlying data. But the political question they have triggered is difficult to ignore.

Why are communities that are heavily mobilised during elections sometimes made to feel invisible when power is shared?

From campaign promises to the national cake

For many Muslims and Yaos, the frustration is not necessarily about demanding government positions simply because of their religion or ethnicity.

It is about fairness, inclusion and equal opportunity.

Political parties routinely campaign across communities, promising development, representation and an inclusive government. Religious and ethnic communities are encouraged to vote for candidates who claim that their victory will bring change to everyone.

But once elections are over and the distribution of government positions begins, some members of these communities say the political mathematics appears to change.

The question being asked is blunt:

If our votes matter during elections, why does our identity suddenly become a disadvantage when appointments are being made?

That question deserves a serious national conversation.

The argument is not that every Muslim or Yao person must be appointed to government. Nor should public positions be distributed according to religion or ethnicity.

Rather, appointments should be based on competence, qualifications, experience, integrity and national representation—without quietly excluding someone because their name sounds Muslim or Yao.

When a name becomes a political disadvantage

One of the most troubling issues raised in the debate is the allegation that some qualified Malawians can be judged before their qualifications are even considered.

A person’s name should never become a substitute for assessing their ability.

A Muslim name does not automatically mean a person represents Muslims.

A Yao name does not automatically mean a person represents the Yao community.

And being Muslim or Yao should never be treated as evidence that a person is less patriotic, less competent or less deserving of public responsibility.

Malawi belongs to all its citizens.

A person’s loyalty to the country should be determined by their conduct and commitment to Malawi—not by their religion, surname, language or ethnic background.

The concern therefore goes beyond appointments.

It touches on the deeper problem of identity politics and the danger of reducing citizens to voting blocs.

“We are not political property”

The growing message from critics of the current political culture is becoming increasingly clear:

Muslims and Yaos should not allow themselves to become political property.

A community should not be mobilised every election as a reliable voting bloc and then forgotten when decisions about power, opportunities and national resources are made.

This does not mean Muslims and Yaos should abandon political parties.

It means they should demand accountability from them.

If a political party wants the support of Muslim and Yao voters, it should be prepared to explain its policies on education, employment, business opportunities, infrastructure, agriculture, youth development, public appointments and economic empowerment.

The relationship should not be:

“Give us your votes and we will remember you later.”

It should be:

“Here are our policies. Here is our record. Here is how we intend to govern for every Malawian.”

That is a much healthier democracy.

MCP and DPP face a bigger question

The debate also places both MCP and DPP under scrutiny.

Neither party should be judged simply by how many Muslims or Yaos it appoints.

The more important question is whether their recruitment and appointment systems are genuinely merit-based, transparent and inclusive.

If qualified Muslims or Yaos are being overlooked because of their perceived identity, that is a serious matter.

If, on the other hand, the alleged percentages are inaccurate or fail to account for the full structure of government appointments, then the parties should provide evidence and explain the numbers.

That is precisely why the debate should move beyond political accusations.

Publish the numbers.

Show who was appointed.

Show the qualifications.

Show the criteria used.

Show the regional, gender, professional, religious and ethnic distribution where legally and ethically appropriate.

Transparency would do more to settle the argument than political speeches ever could.

Muslims and Yaos must also look inward

There is another uncomfortable part of this debate.

Communities cannot demand political representation while allowing politicians to divide them into competing factions during elections.

Muslims and Yaos need to ask difficult questions about their own political participation.

Are communities voting based on policies or personalities?

Are politicians being challenged when they fail to deliver?

Are young people being encouraged to participate in political decision-making?

Are qualified professionals being supported to enter public service?

Are communities demanding accountability from their own elected representatives?

And perhaps most importantly:

Are Muslims and Yaos negotiating collectively for development, or are politicians negotiating with individuals and small groups one by one?

A politically active community cannot rely entirely on politicians to protect its interests.

It must develop informed voters, credible leaders, strong civic organisations and a culture of accountability.

Unity does not mean voting for one party

Calls for Muslims and Yaos to unite should not be interpreted as a demand that everyone vote for one political party.

That would simply replace one form of political dependence with another.

Unity should mean agreeing on fundamental principles.

Those principles could include:

Equal treatment of all Malawians.
Merit-based public appointments.
No discrimination based on religion or ethnicity.
Transparent government recruitment.
Fair access to national opportunities.
Accountability from elected representatives.
Protection of religious freedom.
Investment in communities regardless of voting patterns.
Rejection of political manipulation of ethnic and religious identities.

A Muslim can belong to MCP.

Another can support DPP.

Another can support UDF, UTM, AFORD, PDP or another political movement.

Another can remain independent.

That is democracy.

The goal should not be to create a Muslim political party or a Yao political party. The goal should be to ensure that no political party can take Muslim or Yao voters for granted.

The national cake belongs to every Malawian

The phrase “national cake” is often used in political conversations to describe government opportunities, appointments and access to national resources.

But the national cake should never belong to political parties.

It belongs to the people.

A Malawian farmer in Mangochi, a teacher in Machinga, a businessperson in Blantyre, a student in Zomba and a civil servant in Lilongwe all have an equal stake in the country.

Religion should not determine who gets opportunities.

Ethnicity should not determine who gets opportunities.

A surname should not determine who gets opportunities.

And political loyalty should not be the price of citizenship.

If Malawi is serious about building an inclusive democracy, public appointments must increasingly be judged by competence, integrity, transparency and national interest.

This debate should not become a religious war

There is also a danger in this discussion.

The legitimate concern about political representation must not be turned into hostility between Muslims and Christians, or between Yaos and other ethnic communities.

That would play directly into the hands of the politics the debate is criticising.

The issue is not that one religious group deserves more than another.

The issue is that every Malawian deserves equal dignity and a fair chance to contribute to national development.

Muslims should not be asking for privileges.

Yaos should not be asking for privileges.

They should be demanding the same thing every citizen should demand:

fairness.