>LETTERS

COMMUNICATING WITH THE ANCESTORS

Dear Editor,
J. C. Chakanza’s article in the May/June edition was certainly thought provoking. I was brought up in Europe by a devoutly Catholic mother but later came to the conclusion that, whilst the major religions were wonderful recipes for an harmonious world, things started to go wrong when man took over from their founders. My contention today is that all organised religion is a form of politics. I prefer my politics raw, open and honest but respect all those who hold genuine beliefs; who follow the dictates of their conscience and adhere to the essence of their religion. I accept that many feel a deep need to have their thoughts directed by ritualised and communalised observance.
In spite of my beliefs, you may find it strange that I should admit that I often find myself wishing to share my thoughts or experiences with my long dead mother. She feels so close to me at times. It is easy for me to understand my African brothers’ beliefs that their ancestors continue as a real presence in their lives. I was honoured many years ago to witness a manifestation of this belief when I spent the night with a Village Headman friend in T.A. Nankumba’s area, Mangochi, at a ceremony in which he and the villagers called upon their ancestors by name for assistance. I saw nothing sinister in the practice.
I have often told my African friends and acquaintances that the form but not the essence of the Christianity which was introduced to them by the European missionaries is very different from the form of Christianity practiced by the first Christians. Over the centuries it has mutated as it accommodated pre-existing forms and rituals from Roman and Northern European customs and beliefs. Mr. Chakanza’s call for an African form of Christianity is only a call for a similar accommodation.
The Christian Church has a long history of intercessionary saints. They may be considered as relating to God and the living much as do the ancestors of African custom. The Christian Church, at least the part of it that has not puritanically rid itself of this concept, should have no problem in accepting it into the mainstream body of worship. However, I wonder how my Muslim brothers reconcile these strongly held beliefs with a religion that clearly states that the Creator has no need of an intermediary; that man may - should - communicate directly with his God. I somehow believe that many, both here and elsewhere, find no conflict of conscience. One thinks of the Marabous of the Sahel and the many shrines to Muslim ‘saints’ to be found in the Middle East which would indicate that, elsewhere, traditional beliefs have crept into formal Islam. Can Tchalichi cha Makolo make the leap into mainstream religion. Will it go, or has it already gone, the way of Voodoo and Santara or will it take on forms that can be integrated without disrupting the basic elements of Christianity? Could this be a subject for Mr. Chakanza’s next article?

Ardent Reader,
Blantyre


LIFE UNDER KAMUZU BANDA


Dear Editor,
I am happy that you gave the proposal to revive Kamuzu Day a passing unfavourable mention in your editorial. I am one of the many thousands who suffered the indignity and cruelty of detention without trial. My sufferings were of short duration and as nought compared to the many who were just left to rot in the inhumane conditions of our prisons and the ‘specialist’ detention centres such as Mikuyu and Dzaleka. As a favoured mzungu, I was allowed food from home and did not have to eat the swill that was served up once a day to my fellow prisoners. One of my fellow detainees actually cried tears of shame at the idea that I may have thought that Malawians ate such filth at home.
Martyr’s Day stopped too early in the history of this nation. More people suffered after independence than before. There are the high profile victims such as Aleke Banda, Sam Mpasu, Brown Mpinganjira, Nga Ntafu, Jack Mapanje, Orton and Vera Chirwa, Richard Sembereka, Attati Mpakati, Mkwapatira Mhango, Paramount Chief Mwase, the brutal slayings of the Mwanza four and the many others whose names have yet to come to mind. Then there are the many thousands of ordinary people, often the victims of petty jealousies, whose stories should be told. Even President Mutharika was reputedly a refugee from the cruelty of Kamuzu’s days. That his Government could even consider a holiday to celebrate his rule is beyond my comprehension!
We must not forget those who suffered during the Muluzi regime; the loss of a student life in Zomba and the death of an innocent girl child in Blantyre – both to Police bullets. Nor should we forget the death of Everson Matafale in Police custody whilst his own brother continued to sing the praises of the regime.
It is true that Kamuzu led the Nation from Colonial Government to Independence. It is true that he had a vision of Malawi that he shared with the people. It is true that the Nation was almost completely united behind him. We need not have a day to remind us of that unless we have a day to remind us of the cruelties. My proposal is that we should scrap one of our already too many public holidays and rename it ‘Day of the Innocents’.
Your contributor John L. Allen Jnr mentions the fact that all offices had to display a portrait of Kamuzu and that no other portrait could be displayed in a way that belittled him. In the early 1960’s one of those famously not united behind Kamuzu was the late Chester Katsonga, father of the Mwanza/Neno MP’s, who was leader, if my memory is correct, of the Mbadwa Party. I remember him being chased through the streets of Limbe by a stone-throwing mob intent on having no opposition to their hero. He was certainly an ‘enemy’ of Dr. Banda throughout his life. Some years later I was in his bar at the old airport in Lilongwe. Chester was incorrigible. On one wall of the bar he had a very, very small portrait of Dr. Banda and on the facing wall a massive portrait of himself. May I suggest that you ask your readers to send in their stories of the unknown innocents.

Harold C. Williams
Blantyre


SECTION 65 RULING: ANOTHER VOTE FOR MULTIPATYISM

Dear Editor,
The validation of Section 65 by the Supreme Court of Appeal on 15th June 2007 is the manifestation that the Judiciary is really independent in this country.
The ruling came as a surprise to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) leaders, as they did not expect it to go against their wishes. All along, they had hoped that the ruling would shame friends of the courts who included opposition parties and the civil society.
The ruling, which was delivered a day after the Freedom Day holiday, signifies nothing but another vote for multiparty democracy after that of 1993. In fact, the country would have gone to a one party system of government had it been Section 65 was invalidated by the court. A majority of members of Parliament would have joined DPP willy-nilly in the name of excising their democratic right - ’freedom of association and conscious.’
The ruling has also advantaged the United Democratic Front (UDF), as its MPs were on the verge of being swallowed by the DPP.
However, although we celebrate that the section has been validated, we caution political parties against amending sections in our constitution to suit their political egos. Members of Parliament ought to serve the interests of the people not of their political parties. With the interpretation on Section 65, democracy has been entrenched; parties will subscribe to the rule of law not to rule by default or using the rule of the jungle. Bravo the Supreme Court!

Peter Mandelson,
EU Trade Commissioner