Opinion
Analysis
Can the government contain
road accidents?
The tragic road accident that occurred at Kiwira River Bridge near the border
with Malawi once again brought to attention the insecurity and danger one faces
when travelling on our country’s roads.
It was reported that six people travelling in a minibus from Kyela to Kasumulu
died on the spot when the bus collided head-on with a lorry.
Preliminary investigations reveal that the accident might have been caused by a
cyclist who had lost control of his bicycle. The cyclist was unable to stay in
his lane which left the two approaching drivers confused.
According to the information obtained from the Regional Police Commander,
Suleiman Kova, the accident involved a Toyota Hiace and a Scania lorry with
registration numbers TZT 3903 and T669AEM respectively.
The accident is a big setback not only to those who lost loves ones but also to
the nation as a whole. It is very disappointing to see that road accidents are
on the increase despite education for motorists.
The police, through its traffic department, have been trying hard to curb the
number of accidents, yet the numbers are not decreasing.
Noticeably, quite often most victims of road accidents are passengers of
commuter buses travelling up country. Last year for instance there were dozens
of accidents involving commuter buses travelling to several destinations.
Reckless driving remains the main reason for the accidents. Most drivers who
travel up country do not seem to follow road safety instructions although they
pretend to do so, just to please watch dogs at Kibaha weigh bridge.
Careful driving is perhaps the only remedy for frequent accidents. Great care
must be exercised by all motorists
An overburdened civil society
The government’s trend of outsourcing its duties continued last week when it
became known that the government is doing very little to follow up the
regulations it passes; this time concerning FGM, female genital mutilation.
It has been made clear by the government that FGM practices should be
discouraged. The government feels that the practice no longer fits the Tanzanian
society and therefore should be removed. However, in reality the government is
doing very little to make sure that the tradition vanishes.
Rather it is happy to leave the burden to various non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), civil society network organisation and so on. And this is where the
problem lies.
When the government sets out strategies it is also its responsibility to ensure
that they are followed. But what we are witnessing is quite the opposite.
The government has left it to NGOs to make sure that parents do not have heir
young daughters circumcised. And this is problematic and raises a number of
questions. Firstly, NGOs do not have any law enforcing powers, they can only
recommend and suggest. Not set out standards for the public to follow.
Secondly, why does not the government put any effort into the FGM issue? Setting
out rules is one thing, making them trickle down to the people concerned
something altogether different. Is it because it does not have the resources and
is willing to handover the duties to the numerous NGOs (both national and
international) which have popped up recently? Or is it afraid that it will make
itself unpopular if it is acting too harshly against FGM?
Now it looks as if the government is content to give civil society increased
powers. But is this a practical solution? Or even a viable one? And is it
something which civil society actually is happy with? Last week representatives
complained that the government has failed in its responsibility to ensure that
FGM is outlawed.
The government is by its very nature, the body which has the powers to ensure
that laws and regulations are followed. It is in its mandate to do so, of course
with the approval of the Parliament. The power of the state has at its disposal
a number of law enforcing bodies and institutions through which it can channel
its directives. Civil society has not.
back
to headline
A constitution in need of urgent change
By Evarist Kagaruki
Listening to the parliamentary debate recently over the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, one could not
mistake the enormity of the riddles underlying the Constitution. The heated and
serious debate underscored the fact that our constitution requires a complete
overhaul and not ad hoc amendments or patchy changes. In the language of the
opposition political parties, who represent the view of the vast majority on
this issue, Tanzania needs a new constitution.
The debate in question was reminiscent of the mono-party era parliamentary
business when debates in the House were healthy, constructive, very productive
and entertaining. Those times are long gone! But they remain (nostalgically)
memorable. Now, under the multiparty system, we have a parliament with a very
weak opposition. The political balance of power is heavily tilted in favour of
the ruling party (CCM) which has an absolute majority. The CCM Members of
Parliament control the invariably dull debates hinged, as it were, on
partisanship. They decide on the direction of a motion and, ultimately, the
vote.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, even those CCM legislators who during the
debates espouse the same position as the opposition MPs, are forced to betray
not only their conscience, but also their constituents when the time for voting
on a Bill or motion comes. They are compelled to adhere to the “doctrine” of
party discipline where all CCM MPs are obliged to support the government
position. Those who would dare to vote against the government would effectively
be declaring themselves “rebels” against their own party. They could end up
being stripped of the membership and losing their seats as a consequence.
It is for this reason that it was not surprising to see all the CCM MPs who
during the exciting debate on the Bill in question had challenged the
government, ultimately supporting it by voting in favour of the Bill. Not
supporting it would be tantamount to committing political suicide!
Right now the architects of the 14th Amendment Bill are rejoicing over the
“victory” scored in parliament, as afore-said. But, quite frankly, it was a
flawed victory. Why? There are several reasons: First, the constitutional
amendments in reference did not have the consent of the people. Broad sections
of the population were not consulted, which is very undemocratic.
Second, most of the amendments are antithetical to the interests of the broad
masses. Take, for instance, the issue of “takrima” (a disguised form of
corruption) during elections. Most Tanzanians abhor corruption and would expect
their representatives to reject the inclusion of “takrima” in the constitution.
Many are baffled to see a party that has declared war on corruption (via its
election manifesto) unashamedly legalising the evil!
Finally, the controversial constitutional amendments were strongly opposed even
by CCM parliamentarians. This means, that if the vote were secret, the Bill
would have had difficulty going through, despite the fact that CCM have almost
90% majority in parliament. On this premise, one can deduce that when the
opposition MPs walked out of the House in protest against the way the government
handled the Bill, a sizeable number of CCM legislators walked out together with
them, though not with their legs but their hearts and minds.
Anyway, the 14th Amendment Bill is a done deal. This post-mortem will not change
anything. But it is important to remind the people that they should not give up
on their demand for a new constitution. There will come a time when CCM will
listen to the voice of the majority: it could be either at the ballot box or in
the streets through peaceful mass demonstrations. The problem with CCM is that
they think (in fact believe) they are here to rule” for ever”! The controversial
constitutional amendments are normally conceived in that frame of mind. This is
a false belief.
How the grand party fails to learn from the nearest experience of the once
“indefatigable” KANU of Kenya confounds many an observer. CCM claims to be the
“guardian” of democracy in the country. But they have yet to prove that they
accept the fact that a constitution’s legitimacy derives from the long-term
political, economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations of the people,
and not from the political expediency of the government of the day.
The fact that our constitution has been subjected to six amendments since the
advent of multipartysm in the country twelve years ago is in itself sufficient
proof of the need for a new constitution befitting the present political system.
back
to headline