The recent shift in Betchani Tchereni’s public stance from a forthright critic of Malawi’s economic policies to a defender of the same system has sparked debate, and rightfully so.
When economists transition from the role of independent watchdog to that of a government official, a change in tone may be expected.
However, the public is justified in demanding consistency, transparency, and integrity from those whose professional authority stems from their commitment to truth, not political alignment.
Tchereni’s previous critiques resonated with many because they appeared grounded in objective analysis and a genuine concern for policy direction.
As such, his new role does not absolve him of the responsibility to maintain the same level of rigour and honesty. If he now finds merit in policies he once criticised, he must explain what has changed, backed by data, not declarations.
Simply switching sides without such clarity undermines the credibility of both his past critiques and his current endorsements.
This is not a matter of disallowing a change in perspective. Experts can and do change their views, especially when exposed to new information or the constraints of decision-making. But credibility in public discourse demands that such shifts be communicated openly.
When a professional who once championed accountability appears to offer uncritical praise, it raises red flags about whether their voice has become an instrument of political loyalty rather than of economic analysis.
Malawi, like any democracy, depends on the integrity of its institutions and the professionals who guide them. In times of economic hardship, the public relies on voices like Tchereni’s to cut through political rhetoric with clear, evidence-based insights.
When those voices change abruptly without clear justification, trust erodes—not just in the individual, but in the broader system of governance.
Ultimately, the role of an economist is not just to interpret numbers, but to speak truth to power. Whether inside or outside government, that responsibility should never be compromised.
