Atupele Muluzi’s recent Facebook post, in which he claims to have delivered 1.7 million votes to the DPP-UDF alliance in 2020, invites serious reflection. While every politician is entitled to interpret their role in past events, such statements should be grounded in facts, not inflated narratives.
Atupele’s political journey began with real promise. In 2012, he was appointed to cabinet by then-President Joyce Banda. But just two years later, he chose to step away and contest the presidency under the UDF banner. In that 2014 election, he secured 717,224 votes—about 13.7 percent—placing fourth. It was a moment that seemed to mark his political peak.
Following that defeat, Atupele entered into a strategic relationship with the DPP, one negotiated largely behind closed doors and influenced by his father, former President Bakili Muluzi. He was given a cabinet post in the Mutharika administration. However, many within the UDF saw this as a personal arrangement. The party itself did not benefit. No other UDF member was brought into government, and party structures were sidelined. Meanwhile, the DPP took firm control of the Eastern Region, a traditional UDF stronghold. As a senior figure in government, Atupele rarely, if ever, spoke out against governance failures—a silence that many saw as complicity, and one that gradually eroded his political base.
His declining influence was reflected in the 2019 elections, where he managed just 235,164 votes—a mere 4.67 percent. He also lost his parliamentary seat in his home area of Kapoloma. For a politician who had once shown so much potential, this was a significant fall from grace. Then came the 2020 court-sanctioned fresh election. Once again, Atupele joined forces with Peter Mutharika, this time as his running mate. But rather than adding value, the alliance secured 1,751,877 votes—about 200,000 fewer than Mutharika had received in 2019 when he ran alone. This data directly contradicts Atupele’s assertion that he brought in 1.7 million votes. If anything, it suggests the opposite.
What becomes apparent over time is a pattern in Atupele’s decision-making: moves often made with personal political survival in mind, rather than for the advancement of his party or the national interest. He has repeatedly shifted alliances in the lead-up to elections, cut exclusive deals with little consultation, stayed silent during key governance failures, and now, appears to be rebranding himself again—reportedly in search of a new political home, possibly within the MCP. If true, this would be yet another realignment made without broader consultation or endorsement from his base.
Atupele Muluzi’s career is increasingly seen not as a symbol of youthful leadership or political renewal, but as a cautionary tale of what happens when ambition overrides principle. His attempts to recast himself as a kingmaker or a central player in national politics now ring hollow to many Malawians who have watched his influence wane over time. What Malawi needs now are leaders who are rooted in service, not entitlement—leaders who build movements, not just moments. And above all, leaders who listen and remain accountable to the people, not simply chase political relevance for its own sake.
Atupele had his chance. The numbers, and the verdict of history, are clear.
2 Comments
8pnc4p
8pnc4p