The belief that the UTM was the driving force behind the MCP’s electoral victory in 2020 is an exaggerated narrative that does not stand up to scrutiny when looking at the numbers. Although the Tonse Alliance won a decisive victory against the DPP-UDF coalition, the UTM’s actual contribution to this victory was much less than what some claim.

Let’s break it down.

In the 2019 tripartite elections, the DPP led the field with 39% of the vote, or 1,940,000 votes. The MCP came second with 35% and 1,781,000 votes, while the UTM obtained 20% with 1,080,000 votes. Fast forward to the new 2020 presidential election: the DPP’s vote share remained stagnant at 39%, but its vote total fell to 1,751,000, a loss of 190,000 votes. Meanwhile, the MCP-led Tonse Alliance climbed to 59%, securing 2,504,000 votes.

This means that the Tonse Alliance added 723,000 votes to the MCP’s initial 1,781,000. On the surface, this might look like a direct transfer of the 2019 UTM’s 1,080,000 votes to the alliance. However, this is far from the truth. If UTM had actually contributed all of its 2019 votes to the alliance, the total would have been at least 2,861,000. Instead, the actual additional votes have been much lower than this figure.

The truth behind the numbers

It is essential to remember that the Tonse Alliance was not simply an MCP-UTM collaboration. It was a coalition of eight parties, including PP, AFORD, Petra, Freedom Party, PPM and others. Each of these parties brought votes to the table. The additional 723,000 votes received by the MCP in 2020 constitute a collective contribution from all alliance partners, not just the UTM.

In fact, looking at the distribution, it is fair to estimate that the UTM only contributed around 400,000 votes, significantly less than the 1,080,000 votes obtained in 2019. This drop does not is hardly surprising.

Why has the influence of UTM diminished?

By 2020, UTM’s support base had weakened. Many of his voters, discouraged by the 2019 defeat, became disillusioned and withdrew their support. These were voters who hoped that Saulos Chilima, the leader of the UTM, would win the presidency. His reformist, youth-focused campaign generated enthusiasm in 2019, but the 2020 partnership with the MCP alienated some of his supporters.

For many UTM voters, Chakwera and the MCP represented the old political order they had opposed. Disenchanted and frustrated, some UTM supporters chose to abstain from voting altogether in 2020, leading to a decline in turnout from the party’s base.

The reality of MCP’s strength

Contrary to claims that the MCP cannot win without UTM, the numbers tell a different story. The MCP retained its vote share of 1,781,000 in 2019 and perhaps added more thanks to a base of motivated supporters eager to capitalize on the second chance to put their party in power. MCP supporters were stimulated by these new elections and their determination was evident in their participation.

Looking ahead to 2025, MCP’s position appears even stronger. The Afrobarometer report suggests that MCP supporters are more motivated than at any time in Malawi’s electoral history. They are likely to register in large numbers and vote in droves. In contrast, parties like the DPP could face significant voter apathy, with their supporters less willing to participate even if they are in opposition.

A final word

Historical statistics suggesting MCP cannot win without UTM are misleading. The 2020 victory was not just about UTM, but also a coalition effort, with MCP carrying much of the weight. On the contrary, the influence of the UTM was already declining in 2020, and its contribution to the Tonse Alliance was much less decisive than many think.

As we approach 2025, it is clear that MCP has the momentum and motivated base to stand on its own. The party should focus on capitalizing on this energy, while others, like UTM, must deal with their waning influence and the need to reduce their influence.

Follow and subscribe to Nyasa TV:

Sharing is caring!