The recent protests by vendors in Blantyre and Mzuzu may have faded from the streets, but the issues they raised have not. They offer a useful window into a wider national dilemma: how does Malawi fix its public finances without breaking the fragile livelihoods that hold the economy together? On paper, the government’s direction is clear.
Debt is high—over K22 trillion, or around 90 percent of GDP. Domestic borrowing is expensive, inflation remains stubborn, and public finances are under strain. There is little room left for delay.
Raising revenue, tightening controls and improving efficiency are no-brainers. Yet reforms do not happen on paper alone. They land in markets, shops and border posts, where people already feel squeezed.
[paywall]
At the centre of the latest unrest is the Electronic Invoicing System, designed to improve tax compliance and reduce leakages. Before that, traders protested invoicing rules and changes to import valuation. Different measures, same reaction.
This is no coincidence. It reflects the pressure that builds when reforms arrive faster than people can adjust to them. For many small businesses, especially in the informal sector, compliance is not just a legal requirement; it is a daily calculation.
New systems introduce uncertainty. What happens if you make a mistake? What if the system fails?
What if enforcement is uneven? In an economy where margins are thin, uncertainty feels risky—and risk invites resistance. This matters because Malawi is consolidating at a particularly difficult moment.
Incomes are falling, opportunities are limited, and households have few buffers left. When reforms increase costs or complexity, even temporarily, the impact is immediate. The promised long-term benefits—stability, growth, better services—feel distant and abstract.
That gap between short-term pain and long-term gain is where trust is lost. There is also a broader issue at play. Fiscal consolidation is often presented as a technical exercise: raise revenue, control spending, reduce deficits.
But lived experience tells a more complicated story. People are more willing to comply when they believe the burden is shared and the system is fair. When compliance tightens but waste, exemptions and leakages appear untouched, frustration grows.
When traders are monitored closely while corruption and inefficiency elsewhere seem unchecked, reforms feel selective rather than collective. This is why focusing only on tax tools is risky. Malawi’s fiscal problem is not simply that too few people pay tax.
It is that the economy struggles to generate value, exports remain shallow, and governance weaknesses allow resources to leak out of the system. Without addressing these structural issues, fiscal tightening begins to resemble symptom management rather than a cure. There is a real danger here.
Excessive pressure in a weak economy can backfire. Higher compliance costs can slow activity, discourage formalisation and ultimately reduce the very revenues government is trying to protect. Consolidation that ignores growth risks becoming self-defeating.
This is where spending reforms matter just as much as revenue measures. Efforts to strengthen financial management systems and improve oversight are essential. Better controls can reduce waste, limit overspending and build confidence that public money is being used properly.
For citizens, visible discipline on the spending side makes compliance on the revenue side easier to accept. But systems alone are not enough. Technology cannot replace political will.
Without enforcement, accountability and consistency, reforms remain fragile. People quickly notice when rules are applied unevenly or when discipline fades at the top. The recent protests, then, should not be read as a rejection of reform.
They are better understood as a warning about how reform is experienced on the ground. Abrupt implementation, weak communication and poor sequencing raise resistance, even when policies make economic sense.
[/paywall]
All Zim News – Bringing you the latest news and updates.
