As Malawi inches closer to the 2025 general elections, opposition parties are once again flirting with the idea of forming a political alliance.
At the centre of this evolving discourse is the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), a former ruling party now seeking a path back to power after a dramatic fall in 2020.
This resurgence of alliance talks raises a crucial question that Malawians and political observers alike must consider: is history repeating itself?
The political landscape today bears striking similarities to the pre-election environment of 2020 when the Tonse Alliance emerged as a powerful coalition against a ruling party that had lost public trust.
Back then, the Tonse Alliance brought together ideologically diverse but politically motivated parties with a singular mission—to unseat the DPP government, which had become synonymous with corruption, judicial interference, and authoritarian tendencies.
The coalition’s strength lay in its unifying purpose, its strategic collaboration, and its ability to rally widespread public support across regions and age groups.
Led by Dr. Lazarus Chakwera of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and Dr. Saulos Chilima of the UTM, the alliance offered a fresh political narrative that promised transformation, justice, and inclusive governance.
Malawians responded with enthusiasm, hopeful that the Tonse Alliance would reset the trajectory of national leadership.
The alliance managed to execute a well-coordinated campaign across the country, symbolized by a strong sense of unity among leaders who, in the past, had often clashed politically.
Their victory in the court-sanctioned fresh presidential election was a historic moment that reflected not only a shift in political power but also a shift in citizen expectations for accountability and reform.
However, the honeymoon period for the Tonse Alliance did not last long.
Soon after assuming power, cracks began to appear within the coalition.
Conflicting ideologies, divergent policy priorities, and mistrust among alliance partners emerged as serious challenges to effective governance.
The very diversity that made the alliance appealing during the campaign became a source of division in government.
UTM supporters felt shortchanged in appointments and influence, and this sentiment spread to other minor parties that had sacrificed political capital for a shared goal.
Internal disagreements over decision-making processes and control of key ministries weakened the cohesion of the alliance.
The public, having invested its hopes in a new era, grew increasingly disillusioned as promises of economic recovery, job creation, and good governance were delayed or unmet.
Corruption scandals, slow institutional reforms, and visible intra-alliance tensions further eroded public confidence in the government.
The Tonse Alliance’s experience serves as a cautionary tale for the DPP and other opposition parties now exploring alliance possibilities.
It illustrates that the formation of a coalition is only one part of the equation; sustaining it through the trials of governance is the real test.
The DPP must ask itself whether it is prepared to lead a coalition that respects power-sharing, tolerates diversity of thought, and commits to joint decision-making beyond the ballot box.
Equally, smaller parties must assess whether they are joining a cause that will recognize and value their role, not just during the campaign, but in the actual business of governing.
The lessons from the Tonse Alliance underscore the importance of having clear terms of engagement before entering any coalition.
There must be documented and agreed-upon frameworks that define power-sharing formulas, allocation of ministerial portfolios, conflict-resolution mechanisms, and joint policy priorities.
Without such structure, even the most promising alliances risk disintegrating under the weight of ambition and mistrust.
Another key lesson is the need for continuous internal dialogue.
During the Tonse Alliance’s early days, a lack of consistent communication and coordination among alliance members led to public confusion and policy contradictions.
Future alliances must, therefore, invest in mechanisms that foster internal unity and consensus-building throughout their tenure.
Public perception also plays a significant role in the success of a coalition.
The Tonse Alliance thrived initially because it tapped into a national mood that demanded justice, transparency, and change.
But it faltered when it failed to sustain those values in its operations.
Any alliance formed ahead of 2025 must learn to align its promises with deliverables and be transparent about its internal challenges.
The Malawian electorate is now more politically aware and less forgiving.
They are unlikely to tolerate empty promises or internal squabbles disguised as governance.
Voters want results, unity, and leadership that transcends personal ambition.
If the DPP-led alliance is to resonate with the masses, it must be built not just on the desire for electoral victory, but on a credible plan for inclusive and principled governance.
It must include strong institutional arrangements that prevent dominance by any single party and promote collective ownership of the alliance agenda.
It must be driven by national interest, not just political expedience.
History, if ignored, becomes a trap.
But if studied carefully, it becomes a teacher.
The DPP and its potential allies have an opportunity to learn from the Tonse Alliance—not to copy it, but to correct its errors and refine its successes.
They can build a coalition that goes beyond opposition rhetoric and offers a credible alternative that is united in vision and disciplined in execution.
The choices they make now will determine whether this new alliance stands as a milestone in Malawi’s democratic maturity—or another chapter in the cycle of political disappointment.
The future, while uncertain, is theirs to shape.
But only if they learn from the past.
