FOR the last two weeks we have been discussing the impact of the statement made by the Leader of the nineteenth century British WHIG PARTY, who said that “the duty of the Opposition is to oppose everything propose nothing and throw out the government”, on present opposition political parties in Tanzania. We will continue with that discussion in today’s presentation, but from a different angle, namely the distinction between “opposing everything” (however unreasonable and absurd that might be) and “opposing certain things based on sheer ignorance” of the consequences that might follow their success; citing the example of the senseless/pointless opposition to every government budget.
However, my own experience shows that some sensible matters have also been vehemently opposed (by political parties or other groups or even individuals), purely out of ignorance of the negative consequences of their proposed action. In my working experience of several decades, I have witnessed the occurrence of many such matters right here in our jurisdiction which I will share with our readers in this presentation.
These are:-(i) TANU’s opposition to the colonial “tripartite vote” legislation of 1957; (ii) that of the many individuals who opposed the proposed re-entry into the multi-party political dispensation (1991) and (iii) the opposition by the Parliament of the Australian Capital Territory, to the inclusion of the “Bill of Rights in their constitution; which was based not really on “ignorance”, but on the questionable grounds that: “In the first place, there is absolutely no need for it, because our rights are adequately protected by our conventions, our Acts of Parliament, and our democratic system, which is one of the strongest in the world,
Another objection is that a Bill of Rights will generate a litigation culture and the only benefit will be to the lawyers. There is also the concern that a Bill of Rights takes away power from an elected Parliament, to an unelected Judiciary”!
But before we embark on that topic; I will make a small digression in order to express my amazement and wonder at the events I witnessed only last week regarding the extraordinary power of religious FAITH on individuals, that was displayed by extraordinary huge numbers of people who attended the said event, wherever it occurred.
This was the catholic “marathon race” of the sacred picture of the virgin Mary, Lady of Fatima; though my District of Ukerewe, and onwards through the City of Mwanza; on its way to the rest of the country; as evidenced by pictures taken and distributed by Radio Maria.
I myself attended and witnessed this event at our local Nansio Parish; where the Parish priest told us that the last time this event occurred, was exactly 106 years ago and it will not happen again for another 106 years. All this sounds pretty mysterious, but that is what emphasises the power of religious faith on individuals.
The Holy Bible is, of course, full of even more amazing stories about individuals, such as the ‘martyrs of Uganda’, who willingly suffered death for the sake of their religious faith, which they refused to abandon even on command from their country’s pagan ruler, Kabaka Mutesa II; plus other stories about religious persecutions, and even fierce wars in the countries of Europe; which have greatly contributed to strengthening faith in many individual believers; But such extreme life sacrifices have not happened in modern times. And this is what makes witnessing last week’s ‘Our Lady of Fatima’ marathon event truly amazing. It is clear evidence to prove that religious feelings are still very deeply rooted in peoples’ hearts, in this part of the world.
This particular event can be likened to the honest feelings of joyful excitement coming from the heart that is normally displayed by football fans, on occasions when their teams are playing. I know that political rally events can also fill football stadiums “to the brim”; but these are often the result of some hard work done by the organizers, who hire lorries and other forms of transport to ferry their supporters to the venue of the event.
They obviously cannot be compared with the massive, sentimental gatherings, that accompanied the “Our Lady of Fatima” marathon race through the streets, and particularly at their designated destinations.
We will now go back to today’s scheduled topic; which focuses on the issue of those who oppose sertain things, “purely out of ignorance of the consequences of their actions”; in sharp contrast to those who “oppose everything, with the aim of overthrowing the government”.
(i) TANU’s opposition to the colonial tripartite vote
It should be remembered that the country then known as ‘Tanganyika’, was Administered by the British government as a “Trusteeship Territory”; under a mandate granted to them by the United Nations Organisation. This means that in its administration of Tanganyika, the British government was obliged to submit regular reports to that Organisation regarding its management of that mandate; and to obey instructions issued by that Organisation.
One such instruction was to require the Administering Authority “to prepare the people of Tanganyika for eventual independence”. And for that purpose, regular Missions were dispatched to Tanganyika from New York, to inspect the progress being made in the implementation of that objective, in order to enable the Organisation to assess, and determine, the time when such independence could be granted. The last such Mission came to Tanganyika in 1954; and estimated that the country could be granted independence “in twenty to twenty five years”; ie. between 1974/75, and 1980.
But other events occurred rapidly, (including TANU’s huge successes in mobilizing the people to participate in the tight for independence); which somehow forced the British government hasten the process of Tanganyika’s advance to independence. Thus, they enacted a law to make provision for the first ever Legislative Council elections to be held in 1957. That law included the controversial provision which imposed a compulsory “tripartite” voting system; which meant that in order for any vote to be considered valid, the voter must have voted for three candidates, namely, a European; an Asian; and an African.
Trouble began when some TANU leaders, including TANU’s Secretary General, Zuberi Mtemvu; started raising strong objections to this racial arrangement, claiming that “Africa must be governed only by Africans”. The next TANU annual Conference was scheduled to meet in Tabora in January 1958. Hence, Zuberi Mtemvu and his supporters, started campaigning for a boycott of the said Legislative election, as a show of protest against this imposed requirement.
However, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, knew the negative consequences that would result from such boycott. He therefor prepared himself for the “battle” of changing that misguided viewpoint by his colleagues at that conference. In his abundant wisdom he crafted an ingenious strategy, which was to try to convince the majority of the delegates attending that conference to abandon the idea of boycotting that election; but that goal should achieve without him appearing to have used his powers as President of the party and Chairman of the conference, to put undue pressure on them to accept his views.
Thus, on the day of the Conference, he chaired only the usual preliminary part of every meeting, that of approving Minutes of the previous meeting and matters arising therefrom. Thereafter, when they reached the main agenda of considering the controversial issue of the tripartite vote, he surprised the conference by announcing that he would temporarily vacate the Chair for the duration of the discussions on that agenda, until a decision is reached and asked the conference to elect a temporary Chairman.
Mwalimu Kihere, the TANU Chairman for Tanga Province, was accordingly elected; and took the chair. This gave Mwalimu Nyerere the opportunity to argue his case from the “back benches” like all the other delegates. That is when he carefully explained the negative consequences of boycotting the scheduled election. He pointed out that the proposed action will shut TANU out of the Legislative Council; which will enable the other parties to pass oppressive legislation which could delay the achievement of the desired independence totally unchallenged.
He further pointed out that “if we agree to participate, TANU could select Asian and European candidates who were sympathetic to the struggle for independence to stand on TANU tickets, which would enable TANU to get seats in the Legislative Council, and thus be in a position to fight the enemy from within the Legislature”; plus making their voices heard by the United Nations, in their struggle to show that Tanganyika was actually ready for independence much sooner than their estimated “twenty to twenty five years” timetable.
It was his cogent arguments which convinced the majority of the delegates to abandon the boycott stand, and instead, genuinely agreed to a resolution “to participate in the scheduled Legislative Council elections”.
Malimu Nyerere’s strategy had succeeded. But Zuberi Mtemvu and his fellow “African racists” immediately broke away from TANU, and formed their own splinter party, which they named the “African National Congress” (ANC); which also participated in the said election, alongside the colonial Administration’s sponsored party, the “United Tanganyika Party” (UTP). TANU won all the 10 available Legislative Council seats; thus delivering a ‘death’ blow to those other parties.
This episode is recorded in TANU documents as “Uamuzi wa Busara”; and is regarded as the ‘cornerstone’ in the political history of our country; for it marked a fundamental turning point in the difficult process leading to the achievement of country’s independence.
(ii) The opposition to the return to multi-party politics.
I am here referring to the exercise which was assigned by President Ali Hassan Mwinyi to the ‘Nyalali Commission’ in March 1991; and given the task of “consulting the people of Tanzania, to find out whether, or not, they were willing and ready to accept the change from the single party political system to the multi-party system”. I had the good fortune of being appointed a member of this commission.
President Mwinyi was given that mandate by the CCM National Executive Committee meeting in February 1990; which had made the fundamental decision that “a change from the single-party system to multi-party politics was inevitable, and must be implemented”; and had authorised the President to appoint a high-level Presidential commission, whose duty would be “to carefully assemble, and coordinate, the expressed views of the people, and report accordingly”.
What the commission actually encountered in the course of its public meetings with the people, is the substantive point of this presentation; for it confirms the assertion that most of the participating individuals (who expressed opposition to the proposal to return to the multi-party system) were, in fact, motivated by sheer ignorance of the actual working of the multi-party system.
A typical argument that was advanced, was that “under the one party system, we are required to pay party fees and other contributions, to the party. Now, assuming that some ten different parties will emerge under the system now being proposed, it means that we will be required to pay fees and subscriptions, to all of these numerous parties, which will create immense financial problems for us poor people!” The outcome of such absurd arguments was that 80 percent of all the people who were interviewed, rejected the proposal to change the political system.
piomsekwa@gmail.com/0754767576.
Source: Daily News today
