With just a week before Malawians cast their ballots on September 16, a new survey commissioned by citizen-researcher Shyley Kondowe has shifted the debate on voter sentiment, offering results that appear more credible than the scandal-ridden Institute of Public Opinion and Research (IPOR) poll released last week.
The survey, conducted between September 1 and 8 across all 28 districts, covered 3,664 registered voters and revealed President Dr. Lazarus McCarthy Chakwera of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) as the clear frontrunner with 55% support, compared to 34.8% for Arthur Peter Mutharika of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
The rest of the candidates and undecided voters shared 10.2%
Unlike the IPOR poll, which presented glossy national figures without disclosing a regional breakdown, this survey explicitly disaggregates voter preferences at national, regional, district, and constituency level.
- In the Northern Region, Chakwera leads with 46.8% against Mutharika’s 30%.
- In the Central Region, the MCP dominates with an overwhelming 81.5%, leaving Mutharika trailing at 12%.
- In the Southern Region, DPP predictably takes the lead with 63.7%, but even here Chakwera commands a significant 23.1%—a reminder that MCP’s presence is not negligible in DPP strongholds
This regional mapping mirrors Malawi’s long-established electoral realities and voter registration patterns.
The Central Region, with the highest concentration of registered voters, has always been MCP’s fortress. The South, where DPP historically dominates, also holds large numbers of voters, while the North, though smaller, remains politically competitive.
By providing granular, district-level data, the survey reflects the way elections are actually fought in Malawi: on the ground, region by region, seat by seat.
Now why does the survey carry more weight and why should Malawians believe it?
The survey openly presents numbers at multiple levels, national, regional, and constituency, allowing independent verification. IPOR, by contrast, withheld its regional distribution, leaving analysts guessing whether its sample favored DPP-leaning areas.
This survey engaged 3,664 voters, compared to IPOR’s 2,400. Crucially, it ensured participation in all 28 districts, including Likoma, which IPOR excluded.
While IPOR used abstract “multistage cluster sampling,” Kondowe’s approach relied on face-to-face ward-level interviews (eight per ward nationwide), making the findings rooted in real communities. This method reduces urban bias and captures the voice of rural voters, who make up the majority of Malawi’s electorate.
Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) figures show that the Central and Southern Regions account for nearly 90% of registered voters. Kondowe’s data mirrors this balance, unlike IPOR’s opaque distribution that raised suspicions of oversampling the South to inflate DPP’s standing.
This latest survey was commissioned by a citizen researcher and a network of stakeholders without ties to political parties.
In contrast, IPOR’s reputation has been battered by revelations of clandestine links to the DPP and allegations of cash-for-favor dealings.
The contrast between the two surveys is clear. IPOR’s poll gave Mutharika 41% and Chakwera 31%, projecting a DPP lead. Yet its lack of transparency, statistical vagueness, and alleged financial compromises with the opposition have eroded its credibility.
This citizen-initiated survey not only tells a different story, it does so with numbers that fit Malawi’s political geography and registration map. By placing Chakwera ahead nationally, but acknowledging DPP dominance in the South, it captures the nuanced reality of Malawi’s fragmented electorate.
IPOR’s findings, meanwhile, appear to have been designed to create a false narrative of DPP resurgence, a psychological tool to demoralize MCP and UTM supporters. In doing so, IPOR has undermined the very democratic values it claims to advance.
If this survey is closer to the truth, then the September 16 election is MCP’s to lose. With a commanding national lead and overwhelming dominance in the Central Region, Chakwera enters the final stretch with momentum.
What is clear, however, is that Malawians should treat the latest findings as a more reliable compass of public opinion than the compromised IPOR poll.
Polls do not decide elections, but they shape perceptions. When surveys are credible, they guide democratic debate. When they are compromised, they become tools of manipulation.
As Malawians prepare to vote, the lesson is simple: believe the numbers that reflect the ground, not those that feed political egos.
