By Our Reporter
A democracy is only as strong as its willingness to protect institutions, not individuals.
The renewed call to impeach Malawi’s presidency over alleged disrespect toward the vice presidency and the constitution forces the country to confront a question that goes beyond personalities: can constitutional offices survive political convenience?
The vice presidency in Malawi was never designed to be ceremonial.
Section 79 of the Constitution vests the vice president with executive authority and establishes the office as first in line for succession, a deliberate safeguard against instability.
When that office is sidelined, excluded from core decision-making, or publicly diminished, the damage extends beyond one person and reaches the architecture of the state itself.
Impeachment is not a tool for settling political scores.
Under Section 80, the Constitution permits removal of a president only for gross misconduct, violation of the Constitution, or inability to discharge duties, and it sets a high bar requiring a two-thirds majority in parliament.
That threshold exists for a reason: to prevent abuse while ensuring accountability when the supreme law is truly breached.
The argument being made by those demanding impeachment is that repeated actions by the presidency have crossed that line by eroding the constitutional dignity of the vice presidency.
Examples cited include exclusion from state functions, denial of access to security briefings, and public statements that reduce the vice president to a subordinate rather than a constitutionally elected partner in the executive.
If proven, such actions are not minor administrative decisions.
They strike at the principle that every constitutional office must be respected, because the moment one office can be humiliated without consequence, no office is safe.
Malawi’s history makes this debate especially urgent.
Past tensions between presidents and vice presidents have already tested public trust, and each unresolved conflict has left institutions weaker than before.
A pattern of marginalizing the second-highest office teaches future leaders that constitutional roles are optional, and that lesson will outlive any single administration.
Comparative experience offers a warning.
In democracies from Zambia to South Korea, disputes over the status of vice presidents have led to legal clarifications that strengthened, rather than weakened, constitutional order.
Malawi now faces a similar test, and how it responds will define the next generation of governance.
Critics of impeachment warn that the process itself could destabilize the country, distract from economic hardship, and deepen partisan divisions ahead of elections.
That concern is real, because political instability carries immediate costs for citizens struggling with inflation, unemployment, and public service delivery.
But constitutional fidelity also has a cost, and the price of ignoring it is higher in the long run.
A constitution ignored for the sake of short-term calm becomes a document without meaning, and a democracy without enforceable rules is not a democracy at all.
The judiciary will inevitably be central to this moment.
Malawi’s courts have already shown courage in the 2020 election case, where they annulled a presidential election and reaffirmed that no one is above the law.
If an impeachment motion reaches parliament, legal interpretation will be required to determine whether the president’s conduct meets the constitutional standard of gross misconduct.
That process must be transparent, evidence-based, and free from political intimidation if public confidence is to be preserved.
Civil society and ordinary citizens have a role to play that is just as important as that of lawmakers.
Malawians must demand that any impeachment discussion be grounded in constitutional text and verifiable facts, not in rhetoric or revenge.
At the same time, they must reject the idea that stability requires silence in the face of constitutional erosion.
True stability comes from institutions that function as designed, even when it is uncomfortable for those in power.
The vice president’s own position in this debate matters.
Silence can be interpreted as consent, but it can also reflect the impossible position of an officeholder caught between constitutional duty and political survival.
Regardless of individual choices, the office itself deserves protection, because it belongs to the people, not to the person occupying it today.
For parliament, the decision is not about loyalty to a president or to a vice president.
It is about loyalty to the Constitution that gives parliament its authority in the first place.
Lawmakers who vote on this issue will be remembered not for which side they supported, but for whether they defended the rules that make governance possible.
International observers and SADC partners will be watching closely, because Malawi’s democratic reputation influences the region.
A credible, constitutional process would strengthen Malawi’s standing, while a politicized or abandoned process would send the opposite signal.
This is ultimately a question of precedent.
If the presidency can disregard the vice presidency without parliamentary or judicial pushback, future leaders will inherit permission to disregard any office they find inconvenient.
If, however, institutions respond firmly and lawfully, Malawi will set a precedent that strengthens the constitution for decades to come.
Impeachment may or may not be the right outcome, but the conversation itself is necessary.
Democracies mature not by avoiding hard questions, but by answering them openly and according to law.
Malawi now stands at that intersection, and the choice made in the coming months will echo far beyond this presidency or this vice presidency.
The constitution is not a political weapon, and it is not a decoration.
It is the agreement Malawians made with each other about how power should be exercised and limited.
Respecting the vice presidency is not about protecting a person.
It is about protecting that agreement, and with it, the future of Malawi’s democracy.
