As experience has shown, once ballots are counted and a new president is sworn in, attention quickly shifts to electoral law reforms. Committees are constituted, consultations conducted and recommendations compiled, only for many of them to be quietly shelved until the next five-year electoral cycle.
This recurring pattern raises a fundamental question. Are we pursuing transformative reform, or merely adjusting the mechanics of a system that requires deeper reflection?
As Malawi once again reviews its electoral framework following the September 26, 2025 Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government Elections, there is an opportunity to broaden the scope of the debate. Beyond administrative and technical adjustments, we should confront a more structural issue.
Does the current presidential term arrangement best serve Malawi’s democracy and development aspirations? It may be time to seriously consider a shift from the existing two five-year presidential terms to a single, non-renewable seven-year term.
This proposal is neither reckless nor anti-democratic. Rather, it reflects an understanding that supreme laws exist to serve the evolving realities of human society. Malawi’s 1995 Constitution was crafted in the context of a young democracy emerging from decades of authoritarian rule.
- Advertisement -
Over 30 years later, democratic institutions have matured, even as new challenges have emerged. Rising election costs, persistent political violence, abuse of incumbency and short-term policy thinking call for reforms that are equally mature and forward-looking.
One of the most significant distortions in the current system is the overwhelming focus on re-election. From the moment a president assumes office, the countdown to the next election begins. Governance is often overshadowed by political survival. Policy decisions are assessed less on their long-term national benefit and more on their immediate electoral appeal.
This environment encourages populism, inconsistency and hesitation in implementing difficult but necessary reforms, particularly those whose benefits may only materialise beyond a single electoral cycle.
Closely linked to this is the abuse of incumbency. Across Africa, and not least in Malawi, sitting presidents often enjoy structural advantages that can be exploited during re-election campaigns. Evidence from post-election observation reports indicates a persistent misuse of State resources, public media, and government machinery for incumbent advantage.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
A single, non-renewable presidential term would significantly reduce this incentive. Without the prospect of re-election, the temptation to manipulate public resources for political gain would be greatly diminished.
A one-term presidency also offers the prospect of higher-quality governance. A president elected for a single seven-year term would, from the outset, be conscious that their legacy, not their electoral prospects, defines their leadership.
This can foster decisiveness, consistency and long-term thinking. Major reforms, whether in infrastructure development, economic restructuring, climate resilience or institutional strengthening, require both time and political courage. Seven uninterrupted years provide a realistic window for planning, implementation and consolidation.
Electoral violence is another concern that deserves candid examination. Malawi’s recent electoral history, particularly in 2014 and 2019, includes episodes of violence that resulted in loss of life, destruction of property and the disruption of economic activity.
As elections become increasingly high-stakes, the fear of losing power, or desperation to retain it, fuels tension and conflict. Reducing the frequency of presidential elections could help lower political temperatures, allow security agencies to prepare more effectively and create a less volatile environment for democratic competition.
The financial burden of elections further strengthens the case for reform. According to the Malawi Electoral Commission, the most recent elections cost approximately K2 billion, largely drawn from public resources. Every five years, substantial funds are channelled toward voter registration, logistics, security and election administration. These are resources that can otherwise save Malawians from the prevalent punitive taxes.
Extending the presidential term to seven years would reduce the frequency of these expenditures, easing fiscal pressure and reducing reliance on apparently fatigued development partners.
Importantly, a clearly entrenched, non-negotiable single-term limit would strengthen, not weaken, democracy by guaranteeing leadership turnover. Several countries, including Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines and Guatemala, operate single-term presidential systems that balance political stability with accountability.
These experiences demonstrate that democratic legitimacy does not depend on the possibility of re-election but on strong institutions and active citizen oversight.
Malawi is well placed to consider such a reform. Constitutional bodies have repeatedly demonstrated resilience and independence, the Judiciary has earned both local and international respect, and citizens have shown a strong commitment to democratic principles.
Past electoral reform processes have already entertained bold ideas, including proposals to change the electoral system or introduce open terms, signalling a willingness to think beyond convention.
Therefore, the current cohort of electoral law reformers needs to be more courageous and have an honest dialogue. Parliament, civil society, faith leaders, academics and citizens must engage this proposal on its merits.
The objective should not be to protect political elites but to design a system that delivers better governance outcomes for Malawians. Democracy is not only about how leaders are chosen but also about how effectively they govern once entrusted with power.
