Political discourse in Malawi deserves more maturity than character assassinations and personal vendettas.
Che Bisika’s recent piece paints Dalitso Kabambe as a villain rather than engaging with the broader strategic question facing the DPP: how do we win 2025?
Rather than framing this moment as an opportunity for collaboration, Bisika draws a divisive line in the sand rooted in paranoia and fear.
Malawi’s political history is full of realignments, rebranding, and reimaginings.
To suggest that someone who re-enters the political arena with ambition is automatically a “crook” is to misunderstand politics itself.
Dalitso Kabambe, like many politicians, has changed affiliations—but that alone does not invalidate his vision or disqualify his leadership.
Leaders are tested not just by their past, but by their potential to mobilize support and contribute to a collective goal.
Bisika’s emotional language—calling Kabambe a “parasite,” a “wolf,” and “treacherous”—does not build argument; it builds animosity.
Such rhetoric does not move the nation forward—it fractures it further.
If Kabambe bought a party, then what does it say about the political marketplace we all participate in?
The truth is that many political stakeholders in Malawi have, at one point, used resources to galvanize influence.
The question we should be asking is not who funded what, but who can deliver what the people of Malawi need today.
Kabambe may not be perfect, but he brings economic expertise, administrative experience, and a growing youth following that cannot be ignored.
To suggest that Kabambe is trying to “hijack” the DPP is an insult not just to him but to the DPP’s ability to discern and negotiate.
A strong political party does not fear alliances—it chooses them wisely.
The internal democracy of the DPP should be robust enough to manage any partnership without collapsing under suspicion.
Painting Kabambe as an “opportunist” implies that political growth must be static—which is both unrealistic and unhealthy.
Malawi’s politics need bridge-builders, not gatekeepers.
The Age Bill is a separate debate, and linking Kabambe to it without proof does not make the claim legitimate—it makes it speculative.
Enock Chihana and others voiced opposition to the bill, yes, but silence does not always equal conspiracy.
Bisika ignores that strategic silence is often a political tool, and it does not always mean disloyalty.
Comparing Kabambe to Saulos Chilima to make him look small is a false equivalence; every leader has their path, and Chilima himself was once doubted before he earned public respect.
Bisika admits that UTM supporters may vote for DPP—not because of Kabambe—but because they want justice for Chilima.
But isn’t that exactly the point?
Coalitions shift when people shift.
And if the people are willing to follow Kabambe into a DPP-led alliance, isn’t that evidence that his presence might be more of an asset than a threat?
Calling Kabambe “a liability” ignores the value of inclusion, negotiation, and reform.
DPP needs numbers, and it needs new blood—alienating ambitious leaders will only shrink the base.
Forming alliances with AFFORD and UDF is a good idea, yes—but why not also work with UTM if it strengthens the chances of 2025 victory?
There is a difference between being cautious and being fearful.
Let’s not burn bridges before we’ve even explored where they might lead.
In the end, the goal should be bigger than personalities—it should be about rescuing Malawi’s economy, institutions, and people from collapse.
DPP has every right to be careful—but it must also be strategic.
To exclude a potential partner because of strong opinions is to risk throwing away a key to victory.
Malawi deserves leaders who think ahead—not just shout the loudest.
Let’s build, not break.
Let’s include, not exclude.
Let’s lead, not attack.
Let’s win. Together.
