Malawi’s Election and The Politics of Doubt

James Woods*

Malawi went to the polls on 16 September with characteristic discipline and patience. The queues were calm, the vote largely peaceful, and the story was not violence or chaos but the quiet dignity of participation. Yet beneath that calm lies a storm. The ballots have been cast, but the true contest now is over trust.

Unofficial tallies circulating widely suggest Peter Mutharika’s Democratic Progressive Party is in the lead. The Malawi Electoral Commission has not declared results, reminding the country that the law gives it eight days to verify every tally sheet before a winner is proclaimed. That delay is legal, but in the charged atmosphere it has become political oxygen. Into the silence have stepped rival narratives, one of confidence from the DPP, the other of conspiracy from the ruling party, MCP.

On Friday night, Vitumbiko Mumba, the Malawi Congress Party’s running mate, called a press conference that will be remembered less for evidence than for theatre. He alleged manipulation across thirteen districts, arrests of polling staff and even confessions of wrongdoing. Yet when asked, the Commission’s chair, Justice Annabel Mtalimanja, was unambiguous, no formal petition with verified evidence from MCP had been submitted at the time of speaking. Local reporting confirms a complaint was filed, but not in the form Mumba described. What has been confirmed is an arrest in Nkhoma, where a returning officer was detained after a suicide attempt. Beyond that, the sweeping claims have not been substantiated by observers from SADC, the African Union, COMESA or the European Union, all of whom praised the calm of the vote and warned against premature declarations of victory or fraud.

For Malawians watching at home, the impression was unmistakable. The press conference looked less like the defence of democracy than a political antic, an effort to muddy the waters as the count tilts against the incumbents. It is a tactic familiar across Africa, when the ballot box will not give you victory, seed doubt in the process and hope suspicion succeeds where numbers fail. It is a dangerous game.

By contrast, the DPP’s director of elections, Ben Phiri, urged the Commission to ensure openness in the results management process, echoing the observers’ own language. His message was straightforward; Malawians deserve to see the outcome of their vote in full daylight. That call for transparency, rather than slogans of irregularity, is where legitimacy now rests.

The wider context cannot be ignored. Inflation running above 27 per cent, confirmed in the IMF’s Article IV report, has gutted household budgets. The World Bank has tracked a currency sliding under relentless pressure and a fuel system paralysed by shortages. Agriculture has been battered by droughts and by Cyclone Freddy, leaving millions food insecure. These are the conditions in which Malawians went to the polls, not out of loyalty to slogans but out of a search for competence. It explains why many have turned back to Mutharika, not out of nostalgia but as a rebuke to unfulfilled promises under Lazarus Chakwera.

In 1994, Malawi held its first multi-party elections. Hastings Kamuzu Banda of the MCP, after three decades in power, was defeated and handed authority to Bakili Muluzi of the United Democratic Front in a peaceful transfer that remains one of the most important democratic milestones in the country’s history. That is the precedent Malawi should be following today.

The dilemma we face is not unique. Malawi’s dilemma today is part of a continental story. In Zambia in 2021, Edgar Lungu resisted before conceding to Hakainde Hichilema. In Senegal in 2024, Macky Sall’s attempt to extend his mandate collapsed and the opposition triumphed. Across Africa the ballot is increasingly removing incumbents, but the true test comes after the count, will leaders accept the verdict, or will they attempt to bend institutions until they break?

This is Malawi’s moment of reckoning. The voters have done their part. The observers have offered their guidance. The Commission now carries the weight of history. It must communicate not just at the end of eight days, but as it verifies, sheet by sheet, district by district. Trust is not built in silence; it is built in disclosure.

History will not remember one night of theatre in a Lilongwe presser. It will remember whether Malawi’s institutions respected the people’s will.

*James Woods is a political advisor, strategic communications expert, and former Malawian diplomat. He served as Head of Chancery at Malawi’s Mission to the European Union, accredited to Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Andorra, and Monaco. He has advised presidents, governments, FTSE and NASDAQ-listed companies, and global investors across Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Previously worked for the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. He is also a partner in Rainbow Sports, where he has led international football and investment projects, including the partnership between CD Leganés (Spain) and Malawi. He writes regularly for Pan-African Visions on governance, elections, business, sport, and strategic communications. An Archbishop Desmond Tutu Fellow, he holds an Executive MBA from the University of Oxford (Kellogg College), a Master’s in Social Policy and Development Economics from the London School of Economics, and a BA in Political Science.