Opinion
Analysis
Are we citizens or customers?
When the government decides to withdraw from its task and lease out its
services, does it mean that the citizens turn into customers? In the future,
will we be citizens of the United Republic of Tanzania or customers in Tanzania
Ltd.
When the government was in charge of things you normally associate a government
to engage in you knew where and to whom to raise your complaints. And the
government knew its responsibilities.
Now things are more complicated and the government is happy to declare that it
is not in charge or has anything to do with this or that. Rather it puts itself
in the position of the complainants, asking private companies for explanations
and quick remedies. How convenient.
The government is pushed to let the private sector take over its tasks; that has
been the order of the day for some time now. The World Bank has already set the
tone which the donor community follows. We are meant to believe that as
customers we are given a choice. Having a choice is always better. Only when we
have a choice are we true individuals, free from any forced commitments or
belongings.
But what happens when the private company that we have chosen to use decides
that what it is doing does not make a profit, that rationalising and improving
service in areas where customers are willing to pay is more profitable than
making sure that all its customers (even the less reliable ones) can enjoy the
services.
The state is happy to let go of all its responsibilities over crucial social
services to parastatal or private companies just to let the market take over,
together with its assumed rationality. Later they point to the fact that the
companies are more concerned with maximum profit making and less about taking a
social responsibility.
Perhaps it is the case that certain services (transport, water provision,
telecommunication, schools and hospitals) are not meant to be privatised. There
should not be in their interest to make money but to serve the people. It is
thanks to these services that people are able to thrive. The state should be
responsible for the system just to let the private sector and other factors in
society work. It is not profitable to build a railway, but profitable to have
one.
No to security groups
In the wake of the prevailing saga on security groups that most political
parties were claimed to have formed, the government has eventually broken its
silence. It was certainly important to do so provided we are in the run-up to
the general elections due in October.
Last week the Deputy Minister for Home Affairs John Chiligati, imposed a ban on
all groups said to be responsible for internal security of political parties.
His vigorous statement undoubtedly came because opposition parties (CUF and
CHADEMA) reiterated their quest of having youth groups.
We think that it is not politically viable having unlawful groups. It is also
understood that the police force might not be able to guarantee maximum security
to the party’s properties, but that does not justify the logic for them forming
the groups.
As the minister highlighted, there are still many options that the parties ought
to utilise. If at all the issue is security, they can hire private companies
which are recognised by law.
The police force should remain the only body responsible for defence and
security of the people and their properties. Of course it was clear that the
parties were motivated to form the said groups certainly because of sporadic
incidents of violence and vandalism that happened in recent days.
That should not be the reason for the formation of the groups. There should not
be any political reason to justify the formation of the groups as so many
questions, especially on whether the groups could indulge in confrontation with
one another, remain unanswered.
Tanzania has had a good reputation of peace that is set as an example to many
African countries which in one way or another are in conflicts and wars.
Our country adopted a multi-party system certainly for a good and justifiable
reason: to enhance democracy and by no means fuel violence. Those who think they
can take advantage of the system to tarnish our country’s image should not be
allowed to succeed.
back
to headline
Alternating presidency between Isles and
Mainland is unthinkable
By Evarist Kagaruki
When the political landscape of Tanzania changed as a result of the introduction
of multipartyism 12 years ago, certain sections of the country’s constitution
also had to change. One of the changes was about the removal of the system of
having two Vice Presidents, one of whom (the president of Zanzibar) assumed the
chair automatically by virtue of his position as Zanzibar Head of State. With
that change, there was now only the position of one Vice President left.
Connected with this was the procedure to elect the Vice President (a new element
in the constitution) under the new political dispensation. The agreed procedure
(after an impassioned debate and a lot of apprehension from Zanzibar) was that
the Vice President be chosen on the basis of the American system of “running
mate”. Under this system, a party candidate nominated for the presidential
election has another named member of his party linked with his candidature. When
the candidate is elected by the people as the next president, his running mate
automatically becomes Vice President.
But taking into consideration the history of our country and bearing in mind the
need to consolidate the Union, Tanzanians agreed that the constitution should
also stipulate that when the presidential candidate came from one side of the
Union, his running mate should come from the other side. Thus, in the 1995 and
2000 general elections, because the president of the United Republic came from
Tanzania Mainland, the Vice President had to be a person from Zanzibar.Besides
this constitutional set up, the Mainland and Zanzibar had long before (when
Mwalimu Nyerere retired as president) made a mutual and amicable agreement that
the Union presidency should alternate between Tanzania Mainland and Zanzibar.
The objective, again, was to consolidate our Union. Of course the architects of
this innovative idea did not envisage at the time that the political system
would change from monopartyism to pluralism and that, therefore, such a
situation would make that arrangement (of alternating the presidency) obsolete!
This came to their realisation when the change actually happened in 1992.
Interestingly, however, there are reports – complemented by street palaver –
that some “important” people (it is not clear whether they are Mainlanders or
Zanzibaris) are now raising the issue as part of the on-going CCM presidential
candidature debate. The argument is, we are told, that this time (the fourth
phase) the CCM presidential candidate should come from the Isles because, they
contend, this is “Zanzibar’s turn”!
It is alleged that the people advancing the argument for continuation of the
“alternate arrangement” are those who want the Vice President Dr. Ali Mohamed
Sheen to be the next president of the United Republic. Dr. Shein has not
indicated publicly he is interested in running for the presidency, although that
does not mean he is not going to join the race when the time comes (the time to
pick the nomination forms). Analysts think that he would make a “good compromise
candidate” in case of a stalemate in the nomination of a CCM presidential
candidate.
But going back to the point, there is no way the “alternate formula” could work
any more under the existing multiparty political system. That was possible when
we were a one-party state and CCM fielded only one presidential candidate
nominated through the party caucus. Now the situation is completely different;
we have numerous parties and there is in place a democratic system of getting a
CCM presidential candidate through open and transparent competition. There is no
shortcut to Ikulu!
All CCM presidential aspirants now have to go through the rough and tumble of
competing for the highest office on the land. Aspiring candidates are supposed
to be treated fairly equally by the party throughout the nomination process. It
is only the “best” in the pack that will emerge party candidate after the party
Congress has made a final decision. If a Zanzibari has all the requisite
qualifications (as set out by CCM) I don’t see why he or she should not be
nominated as the party’s presidential candidate. For this reason, Zanzibaris
should be encouraged to come out and join the race. They, as Tanzanians, stand
an equal chance.
back
to headline