Maybe it would be also useful to dig deeper into the the "raison d'être" of the future states chosen for these two major uncertainties (politics and economy). What makes politics be for the selfish few and be for the greater good? What are the drivers of a stagnant economy and the drivers of a growing diversified economy? Are these two uncertainties really independant? I don't know Malawi, but it seems very likely that there are some connections between these uncertainties. In particular a growing and diversified economy would not be very compatible with politics for selfish few as the selfish few would ensure capturing most of the growth benefits by making growth not diversified and concentrating their power on it. The politics for the selfish few would go much more consistently with a different state of growth which would be a growing non diversified economy. But this scenario is not offered here, while probably as plausible and challenging as the others. Similarly considering that investing for the "greater good" can be associated with a stagnant mono dimension economy raises consistency and ideology questions. In terms of consistency, to what extent could a stagnant and mono dimensional economy be logically associated with progressive policies? Then, on ideology, it goes against the global discourse on governance and growth and all the work done in the recent past to show that good governance is a key driver of growth.
Some food for thought, thus...
Dr. Robin Bourgeois