Our Members of Parliament (MPs) are free at last. They will no longer be judged by the development projects they deliver to their constituents in order to secure re-election, nor will they need to spend colossal sums “bribing” voters. From now on, they will be parliamentarians only—unless new Community Development Fund (CDF) guidelines are revised to give them a supervisory or oversight role.
The revised CDF guidelines must clearly define the roles of MPs, councillors, district commissioners (DCs) and chiefs, and specify explicit sanctions for abuse. It also remains unclear whether these guidelines will be national in scope or vary by district or constituency. This development is the culmination of years of suspicion and contestation over the roles of MPs and councillors.
On this occasion, councillors appear to have prevailed. Since 1994, surveys have consistently shown widespread public disillusionment with the Malawi Parliament as an institution and with MPs as representatives of the electorate. Researchers have found these sentiments to be common and persistent The surveys further reveal that citizens expected MPs to be responsive, accountable and transparent; to visit their constituencies regularly; and to deliver tangible development benefits.
[paywall]
Yet, despite the availability of CDF resources, many constituencies remain underdeveloped. Currently, there is a strong public perception that MPs will seize the K5 billion allocation and divert it to personal projects. This perception, however, remains a suspicion rather than a proven fact.
In practice, CDF funds have always been held by the DC, who disburses them for approved projects. What remains contested is how participatory and inclusive the process of identifying these projects has been. With their role in development financing curtailed, MPs must now collectively devise a strategy—through the National Assembly—to reconnect with their constituents and rebuild trust.
There are instructive examples elsewhere. The National Assembly of Zambia (NAZ) has established constituency offices in all 167 constituencies. From these offices, MPs serve the public regardless of party affiliation and actively solicit constituents’ views before parliamentary debates.
Malawi, although seven times smaller geographically and with a similar population, has 229 constituencies yet lacks such infrastructure. As early as 1995, the Malawi National Assembly planned to establish pilot constituency offices, funded by the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa), with recurrent costs later absorbed into the national budget. This initiative was intended to take Parliament closer to the voter, but it was never fully realised.
Other parliaments offer further lessons. Like those of New Zealand, Australia, Britain and South Africa, the Zambian Parliament operates its own radio station to broadcast parliamentary proceedings, reducing reliance on public broadcasters. Namibia has also pioneered Mobile Training Units—bus-based facilities equipped with computers and satellite links—that travel across the country.
These units expose citizens to parliamentary processes, collect public feedback on bills, and transmit concerns directly to parliamentary committees and MPs, often receiving responses in near real time. This two-way communication significantly narrows the gap between Parliament and the public. Additionally, Namibia operates a Constituency Channel for parliamentary radio and television outreach.
In Moldova and India, parliaments designate outreach and open-house days, while Australia invests heavily in civic and parliamentary education for schools. Malawi rarely undertakes such initiatives. It is, therefore, time to take Parliament to the voter by establishing constituency offices and mobile outreach units in every constituency, translating parliamentary business into local languages, and making democratic participation a lived reality rather than a distant ideal.
[/paywall]
