Opinion: Democracy begins at home HRDC’s leadership crisis exposes a deeper contradiction
A movement that built its name defending democracy, justice and accountability now finds itself ensnared in the very principles it once demanded from others.
The unfolding leadership dispute within the Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC), in which Michael Kaiyatsa’s leadership has been rejected by the organisation’s ad hoc committee, is more than an internal misunderstanding it is a test of credibility, legitimacy and democratic consistency.
If HRDC has spent years calling on political parties and government institutions to respect the will of the people, then it must now be prepared to practise those same values within its own structures. Democracy cannot be demanded in public and denied in private.
The latest conflict became public after HRDC adhoc committee vice chairperson Sammy Aron announced during a press briefing in Lilongwe that the committee does not recognise Kaiyatsa as the legitimate leader of the coalition. Aron further revealed that the matter has been taken to court for legal determination.
This followed recent remarks attributed to Kaiyatsa, who, under the HRDC banner, reportedly issued a stern warning to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), urging the opposition party to address issues affecting Malawians. However, according to Aron, Kaiyatsa had no mandate to speak on behalf of the coalition.
That accusation raises a fundamental question: who speaks for HRDC?
Leadership in civil society organisations, just as in political institutions, derives legitimacy from consent, due process and accountability.
If members within the coalition have rejected Kaiyatsa’s authority, then forcing himself into leadership only undermines the democratic principles HRDC claims to defend. One cannot preach democracy while resisting it internally.
This dispute is damaging not only because of the personalities involved, but because of what HRDC represents within Malawi’s political landscape.
Over the years, the coalition has become one of the country’s most visible pressure groups, mobilising citizens, challenging injustice and demanding reforms. Its moral authority has often rested on the belief that it stood above the politics of power and self-interest.
Yet internal wrangles such as this threaten to erode that standing. When an organisation becomes consumed by leadership battles, it loses sight of the public interest.
The people who once looked to HRDC for guidance may begin to question whether the coalition still speaks for citizens or merely for competing factions within itself.
Malawi is already facing serious national challenges: a rising cost of living, youth unemployment, governance concerns and widespread frustration over economic hardship.
This is not the moment for civil society to weaken itself through avoidable internal conflict. The country needs strong, united and principled advocacy groups now more than ever.
If Kaiyatsa believes he has legitimate backing, then the democratic route is straightforward: allow transparent internal processes, submit to the will of members and respect lawful outcomes.
Leadership should never be sustained through stubbornness or personal entitlement. True leaders do not cling to positions; they earn trust and renew it through consent.
The decision to take the matter to court may bring legal clarity, but courts alone cannot restore moral credibility. That responsibility lies with HRDC itself.
The coalition must show Malawians that it is capable of resolving disputes through fairness, openness and democratic maturity.
Ultimately, the lesson is clear democracy begins at home. If HRDC cannot uphold democratic values within its own ranks, it will struggle to convincingly demand them from the nation.
