Sacrifice for some, relief for others

Malawi is negotiating a new programme with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), built around familiar demands: controlling government spending, reducing debt, keeping inflation under control and strengthening governance.

The proposed framework also promises to protect social spending. But for families struggling to afford food, transport and fuel, one question remains: who will pay for the recovery, and who will avoid the sacrifice?

On October 7, the IMF reported progress in discussions with Malawi on a possible Extended Credit Facility programme. However, talks are not the same as a signed agreement. The final conditions must be separated from proposals that are still being negotiated.

Enter a nation of unequal sacrifice, where government promises recovery, the IMF demands discipline, and citizens wonder whether their belts have any holes remaining.

Fiscal consolidation could mean collecting more revenue, controlling public spending and reducing expenditure considered unnecessary. Monetary measures would aim to slow inflation, while debt management would focus on reducing the pressure created by borrowing. These goals are understandable: Malawi cannot continue borrowing without limits. But the pain comes when savings at Treasury result in empty hospital shelves, delayed development projects or reduced support for farmers.

The final programme’s targets, tax measures and spending controls must be made public. Citizens have a right to know what government is agreeing to, and what those decisions will mean for their daily lives.

Meanwhile, households are already carrying the cost of economic difficulties. Rising prices are reducing the value of wages and informal earnings. Fuel shortages are disrupting transport and increasing the cost of moving food and goods. Farmers are facing higher costs for inputs and transport, while small businesses are struggling with rising expenses and customers who have less money to spend.

Government may describe these challenges as a combination of external and domestic shocks. But for a market trader, they mean fewer customers, lower profits and a household budget that no longer balances.

The danger is that fiscal discipline becomes a polite way of shifting the burden onto those who can least afford it. Higher consumption taxes can hurt poor families because they spend most of their income on basic needs. Removing subsidies without affordable alternatives can make essential goods more expensive. At the same time, high borrowing costs can discourage investment, weaken small businesses and threaten jobs.

Protecting social spending must be more than a comforting statement in an IMF document. Government must prove that money is reaching hospitals, schools, agricultural programmes and vulnerable households.

A budget allocation is not medicine delivered to a hospital. An approved bursary is not school fees paid. An announced social protection programme does not feed a family until the money reaches those who need it. The gap between what government approves and what it actually releases is where promises must be tested.

The 2026/27 budget will provide an important test. Government expects revenue and grants of K8.13 trillion, including domestic revenue of K6.45 trillion. Tax revenue is projected at K6.20 trillion, compared with K4.39 trillion expected in 2025/26. This is a major increase. Authorities must explain how they will achieve this target, who will carry the tax burden and how enforcement will avoid damaging struggling businesses.

Debt reduction is also necessary. Interest payments consume money that could support schools, hospitals and roads. However, cutting development spending without care can weaken economic growth and reduce job opportunities, leaving government with a smaller economy from which to collect revenue. The challenge is to remove waste while protecting investment that creates growth.

Where are the safeguards? Government should publish quarterly reports comparing budget allocations with actual releases for medicines, education, agricultural support and social protection. It should disclose tax exemptions, show progress in reducing debt and explain how vulnerable families will be protected if the cost of living rises.

The success of the programme should not be measured only by IMF funding received or financial targets achieved. It should also be judged by whether inflation falls, food becomes affordable, jobs are created, household incomes improve, medicines are available, children remain in school, businesses access affordable credit and fuel supplies become reliable.

These results should be reported regularly. When targets are missed, government should explain why and what action will be taken.

Malawi needs economic discipline, but it must begin with transparent spending, fair taxation and accountability for public resources—not the belief that citizens can continue absorbing higher costs forever.

The IMF may help Malawi secure financing and restore confidence. But it cannot guarantee that a mother can afford supper, a farmer can buy fertiliser or a young person can find work. Those outcomes will depend on the choices made by government.

If everyone must sacrifice for recovery, will those controlling public money surrender privilege, waste and secrecy first? Otherwise, Malawi may balance its books while households struggle to afford a meal.

[email protected]; Cell: 0888833906

The post Sacrifice for some, relief for others appeared first on Nation Online.