By Burnett Munthali
When asked what he plans to do within the first 100 days in office, the leader gave a bold response.
He dismissed the idea of a 100-day yardstick, saying he does not operate within such limitations.
“I don’t believe in 100 days,” he declared firmly.
His priority, he explained, is to ensure that the price of food is reduced so that ordinary Malawians do not continue to suffer.
He also emphasized that fuel prices must come down as quickly as possible to ease the burden on transport and the wider economy.
Another urgent matter on his list is the immediate availability of affordable fertilizer to help farmers prepare for the next farming season.
According to him, these are basic needs that cannot wait for arbitrary timelines or long bureaucratic processes.
“Food, fuel, and fertilizer are essentials,” he stressed, “and people must not struggle to access them.”
He made it clear that he does not subscribe to the notion of setting a fixed 100-day agenda.
Instead, he believes leadership should focus on concrete actions that deliver relief to people without delay.
In his words, “Projects are either short-term, medium-term, or long-term. But I do not limit myself to 100 days.”
This perspective, he argued, allows for flexibility and long-term vision, while still addressing the urgent needs of the nation.
His comments reveal a leadership style that prioritizes immediate economic relief over symbolic benchmarks.
They also suggest a determination to set a new tone of urgency and pragmatism in government.
Traditionally, governments around the world have used the “first 100 days” as a symbolic milestone to demonstrate early momentum and political will.
It is often seen as a window of opportunity to win public trust, showcase priorities, and set the tone for the rest of the administration.
In Malawi, this tradition has played a visible role in shaping public perception of new leaders.
When Bingu wa Mutharika assumed office in 2004, his early focus on food security through the fertilizer subsidy program won him quick credibility and cemented his reputation as a reformer.
Joyce Banda, who rose to power in 2012, used her first 100 days to restore international donor confidence by reversing controversial policies and engaging global partners.
Peter Mutharika’s 2014 entry was judged heavily on whether he could stabilize the economy after Cashgate, and his initial reforms were closely scrutinized within that 100-day window.
Even Lazarus Chakwera in 2020 faced heightened expectations to deliver within 100 days, particularly on job creation and anti-corruption promises, though implementation fell short of the public’s impatience.
By rejecting this benchmark, the current leader challenges the conventional measure of success and instead roots his legitimacy in practical delivery rather than arbitrary timelines.
This approach could redefine public expectations by shifting the focus from political symbolism to tangible results in people’s daily lives.
However, it also raises the stakes: if immediate relief on food, fuel, and fertilizer is not delivered, the public may judge his leadership more harshly than if he had deferred progress to a longer-term agenda.
In this way, the “no 100 days” philosophy is both a bold rejection of tradition and a risky gamble that places performance and urgency at the center of governance.
