TOWARDS THE 2020 GENERAL ELECTIONS: THE NEED TO LEARN FROM HISTORY.’

 

Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge (1772 -  1834),  a  renowned  British  poet,  is  on  record  as  having  said  the  following:-   “If  men  could  learn  from  history,   what  lessons  it  might  teach  us !  But  passion  and  party   blind  our  eyes,  and  the  light  which  experience  gives  becomes  a  lantern  in  the  stern,  which  shines  only  on  the  waves  behind  us”.  

 Now  that  we  are  in  the  process  of  “warming  up”  for  this  year’s  general  elections;   it  appears  prudent   to  remind  our  esteemed  readers,    to  cast  their  reflections  also  on  what  lessons  we  can   learn  from  some  past  elections;   our  own   national  elections,  as  well  as  from  those  of   other  countries ,  particularly   Kenya’s   2017  general  elections.   

Two  specific  lessons.

There  are  two  specific  lessons   that  I  wish  to  discuss  in  this  article:   One  is  the  unjustifiably    high   level   of   election  expenses  incurred  by   individual  candidates,  and  their  political  parties :   which  could,   certainly,   be  avoided;  (as  exemplified  by  some  of  our  own  past  by-elections).            The   other  is   the  occurrence   of  unnecessary  community   violence  during  elections;  ( which,  if  indeed  there  is  a  will,   could   be  avoided).

 Relevant  past  experience.

In   September   2008,  I  personally  witnessed,  and  complained  loudly  about,   what  I  regarded  as  the  “totally  unjustified  amounts  of  public  money  being  wasted  on   bye-election  expenses”.    At  that  material  time,  I  was  the  CCM  Vice- Chairman  for  Tanzania  Mainland,  serving  under  the  then  CCM  national  Chairman,  President    Jakaya  Kikwete   of   the  fourth  phase  government.  Thus,  in  that  capacity,  I  had  been  assigned  the  task  of  leading  the  Ruling  party’s  campaign  team  in  the  by – election  that  took  place  in  Tarime  constituency.                     

That  is  where  I  witnessed  the   two   matters   mentioned  above,   that   amazed  me  to  the  extent  that  I  published   a  special  presentation  titled   “Reflections  on  the  Tarime   bye – election” ;  in  which  I  expressed  my  disappointment   regarding   these  matters,  namely   that  of   elections  being  too  expensive  unnecessarily;    and  the  unnecessary  community  violence  that  accompanies  some  of  them.

The  high  level  of  election  expenses. 

In  that   presentation   titled  “Reflections  on  the  Tarime  by-election”;   I  made  the  following  observation:  “Even  of  the  matter  is  looked  at  only  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  visible  elements  of  expenditure,  namely  the  large  numbers  of  campaign  personnel  imported  from  outside  the  constituent  itself,  thus  demanding  the  deployment  of  equally  large  numbers   of  vehicles,  supplemented  by   hired  helicopters;   it  can  be   safely  assumed  that  the  cost  of  the  campaign  for  each  of  the  major  participating  parties,  namely  CHADEMA  and  CCM,   must  have  been  exceedingly  high”.                                      

For  the  benefit  of   our  present  day  readers,  it  may  be  helpful  to  give  a  brief  resume  of  the  relevant   events  and  circumstances  pertaining  thereto.   The  preceding  2005  general  election  results  had  given  CCM  a  total  of  206  constituency  seats  in  Parliament;  whereas  CHADEMA  had  secured  only  5  seats,  including  that  of  Tarime.   It  was  therefore  obvious  that   winning  that  single  seat  would  not  materially  alter   the  balance  in  the  respective  strengths  of  those   two  parties  inside  the  House.      

I  therefore  posed  the  relevant  questions:  “why   then,  should  this  single  seat  be  fought  over  like  it  was  a  matter  of  life  and  death,  considering  the  fact  that  the  capture,  or  retention  (as  the  case  may  be),  of   that  single  seat   would   in  any  case  not  result  in  CCM  losing  power,  or  CHADEMA  acquiring   power?     AND,   like  the  proverbial   ‘white  man’s  (malaria)  burden  of  colonial  times,   is  this  not  a  self – imposed  poor  man’s   (financial)  burden ?”   I  so   asked.                                                                      

Subsequently,   however,  I  was   gratified  that  in  the  succeeding  by-elections  which  were  held  thereafter,  no  helicopters  were  hired  for  the  campaigns,   and   the  “imported”  campaign  personnel   from  distant  Regions,   were  also  significantly  reduced.    My  pertinent   questions   quoted  above,  had  been   answered.                                                   

I  was  further  gratified  that  my  “whistle-blowing”  efforts   against   “the  unnecessary  high  cost  of  elections”   soon    got  a  sympathetic  hearing  from  both  the  Government  and  the  Legislature;  who,  quickly   thereafter   in  2010,  enacted  new  legislation   cited  as  “The  Election  Expenses  Act  (no.  6)  of  2000);  which  imposed  strict  controls  on  the  use  of  funds    by  individual  candidates  and  their  political  parties,   during  the  entire  election  process.   The  ‘election  process’   was  defined   to  include (a)  the  initial  stages  for  the  nomination  of  candidates;  (b)  the  election  campaign  stage;  and  (c)  the  election  event  itself.  These  controls  include  the  requirement  for  the  disclosure  of  the  sources  of  all  the  campaign  funds,  and   strict   accountability  for  them;    plus,  even  more  important,    the  imposition  of  an  upper  limit  to  all  the  expenses  that  may  be  incurred   by  candidates  and  political  parties   during  the  entire  ‘election  process’.

The   worrying   acts  of  election  violence.

In   that  same  presentation  titled   “Reflections  on  the  Tarime  by-election”,   I  also  narrated  certain   acts  of  violence  that  had  occurred  in   Toronto,  Canada,  during  their   campaign  period.   Coincidentally,   just   as  I  was  preparing  to  write   my  piece  on  Tarime,    I  received  a  copy  of  the  “International  Jerald  Tribune”  newspaper  of  10th  October,  2008,  which  carried  the  following  story  at  page  7:  “POLITICS  IN  CANADA  TURN  UGLY,  AND  DANGEROUS”;  and  continued  as  follows:  “Last  weekend,  Toronto  residents  woke  up  to  find  the   brake  lines  on  their  cars  severed,  their  telephone  and  cable television  lines  cut,  and  political  graffiti  scratched  onto  their  automobile  paint  and  scrawled  on  their  homes.   The  sole  link  between  the  victims  was  the  display  of a  lawn  sign  promoting  a  Liberal  candidate  in  the  current  Federal  elections.   The  attacks  occurred    in  two  leafy,  upper  middle  class  residential    neighbourhods.    The  incident  has  brought  an  unwelcome  tinge  of  nastiness  to  the  election  campaign”.                                                                                                                  What  an usual  coincidence:    Tarime  and  Toronto  experiencing  similar  kinds  of  campaign  violence problems  at  about  the  same  time!

Post –election  violence  in   Zanzibar.

The  said   election  campaign  violence  in  Toronto,  may  well  have  been  a  rare  occurrence.  But  post-election  violence  in  Zanzibar  has  been  a  frequent,  re-appearing  episode,   starting  with  the  first  post-revolution  multi-party  general  elections  of  1995;  in  which  the  CUF  Presidential   candidate  lost  the  Presidential  election;    whereupon   he,   and  his  party,   immediately  announced  the  rejection  of  the said   election  results,  claiming  that  they   had  been  “manipulated”   by  the  Zanzibar  Electoral  Commission  in  favour  of  the  winning  CCM  Presidential  candidate;    whose  legitimacy  they  therefore  refused  to  recognize.;  and   in  addition,  they  also   announced  a  policy  of  non-cooperation  with  the  newly  elected  Zanzibar  Government.    As  a  consequence  thereof,   some  of  their  members  and  supporters   started  engaging  themselves  in  unlawful  acts  of  civil  disobedience,  and  of  undermining  the  Zanzibar  Government.                                     

This,  in  turn,  produced   an  angry  counter  reaction,   whereby  the  winning  party  used  state  power  to  fight  back,  ostensibly  in  order  to  maintain  peace.    A   number  of  CUF  members  were  arrested  and  charged  with  the  grave  offence  of  treason,  thus  causing  many  others  to  flee  to  Mombasa  in  neighbouring    Kenya,   to  avoid  similar  arrests. 

The  cumulative  effect  of  all  this,  was  a  nasty  political  impasse,  which  lasted  for  four  years,   out  of  that  five-year  leadership  period. 

  Lessons  from  our  neighbours.

A  presentation  made   by  one  Justice   Novati   Rutenge,  which  was  published  in  THE  CITIZEN   of  Monday,  11th  September,  2017;  carried  the  following  news  item:   “Kenya’s  2017 general  elections  were  a  cautionary  tale  of  how  electoral  malpractices (call  it  outright  rigging)  can  divide  a  country  and  lead  to  deep-seated  turmoil  .  .  .  After   taking  what  seems  to  be  all  the  steps  in  the  right  direction  in  terms  of  setting  up  a  fool-proof  electoral  process,   just  how  did  Kenya  manage  to have  botched  election? “    Rutenge  was  referring  to  the  unprecedented  community  violence  which  erupted  immediately  following  the  announcement  of  the  Presidential  election  results.

But   Kenya’s  2017  Presidential   elections  were  also  nullified   by  the  Kenya   Supreme   Court.     Another   commentator  by  the  name  of  Deus  Kibamba  penned  his  personal  opinion  in THE  CITIZEN    of   6th  September,  2017,  as  follows:  “The  first  lesson  to  be  learnt  from  the  nullification  of  the  Kenya  Presidential  election  results,  is  that  a  good  constitutional  dispensation  can  safeguard  the  independence  of  the  Judiciary”.   His   assertion   seemed   to  suggest   that   Tanzania  does   not   have  a  “good  Constitutional  dispensation !   This  is  strange  and  surprising,  because  Tanzania  does  have  a  Constitution  which  guarantees  the  independence  of  the  Judiciary,  which  is  provided  for  in  its   article  107B.   

Yet   another  commentator,  Dr.  Benson  Bana  of  the  University  of  Dar es Salaam,  observed  that   “they  have  taught  us  a  very  big  lesson,  which  is  that  Presidential  election  results  should  be  allowed  to  be  challenged  in  court”.    But,   surprisingly,    Dr.  Bana   failed   to  acknowledge   the  fact  that  the  proposed  new  Constitution  of  the   United  Republic  of  Tanzania,  (which  had  already  been  enacted  y  the  Constituent  Assembly  in  October  2014, three  years  before  the  Kenya  Presidential  elections  were  held);   had  already  made  provision  for  Presidential  election  results  to  be  challenged  in  Court,  as  per  article  90 (1)  and  (2)  of  that  proposed  Union  Constitution  that  is  only  awaiting  approval  by  a  referendum.   Which  means  that,   had  it  not  been  for  this  newly  introduced  procedure  of  holding  a  referendum  to  approve  a  new  Constitution ;   the  proposed  new  Constitution  would  have  been  already   in force,  and  would  have  been  implemented  in  respect   of   our  2015  Presidential  election,  ahead  of  Kenya’s    2017 general  election. 

A  distorted  view  of  the  independence  of  the  Judiciary.

THE  CITIZEN    of  5th  September,  2017;  also  carried  the  following  news  item:  “Opposition  leaders  across  Africa,  long  frustrated  in  their  campaigns  to  topple  firmly  entrenched  leaders,  are  hailing  the  shock  of  last  month’s  Presidential  vote  in  Kenya,  calling  it  a  good  example  for  their  own  countries  to  emulate”.   That  news  item  quoted  a  number  of  opposition  leaders,  including  Zimbabwe”s   Opposition  leader  Morgan  Tsivangirai,  who  was  reported  to  have  told  thousands  of  his  supporters  at  a  rally:  “If  it  can  happen  in  Kenya,   it  can  happen  in  Zimbabwe  as  well”;  and  Burundi’s   Opposition  leader  Nditije,  who  was  reported  as  having  said  that  “Kenya’s  decision  stands  in  stark  contrast  to  the  cowardice  shown  by  Burundi’s  courts (which  had  cleared  President  Nkurunziza’s  election bid).   Nditije   further  claimed  that   “Kenya’s  Supreme  Court  is  a  model  of  the  independence  of  the  Judiciary,  which  should  be  followed”.  The  same  news  item  also  quoted  Uganda’s   Opposition  leader  Kizza  Besigye,  who  was  reported  to  have  said  that  “The  Uganda  Judiciary  should  learn  from  their   Kenyan  counterparts,  to   also  be  independent”,  and  continued  thus:  I  doubt  if  the  same  could  have  happened  in  Uganda”. 

My  own  comment  was  that    “all  these  appear  to  be  very  strange  views  regarding  the  independence  of  the  Judiciary;   for  they  seem  to  suggest  that  the  Judiciary  becomes    independent   only  when   it  overturns  Presidential  election  results . . .  This  is  stranger  than  fiction”.

Thus,  it  is  important  to  note  that   there  are  both  positive,  as  well  as  negative,  lessons  to  be  learnt  from   Kenya’s   election  performance  (and  that  of  other  countries).     With  regard  to  Uganda’s  Presidential  elections;    commentator  Justice  Novati  Rutenge,   whom  I  quoted  above,   had   said  the  following:  “Presidential  elections  in  Uganda  have  been  routinely  stolen  by  the  declared  winner,  President   Yoweri  Museveni,  and  therefore,  in  terms  of  sustaining  democracy,  they  were  useless  and  meaningless”.  That,   of  course,  was  his  personal  opinion.   But  if  it  is  true,  it  only  confirms  the  point  that   if  we  are  to  learn  any  lessons  from  our  neighbours,   we  must  avoid  the  negative  ones.

(will  continue  next  week)

piomsekwa@gmail.com  /  0754767576.

Source: Daily News and Cde Msekwa.

REMEMBERING PETER TOSH

 Peter Tosh  was an icon. As a reggae musician, Tosh was in his class with the mighty reggae musicians such Robert Nesta Marley (Bob Marley), Neville O'Reilly Livingston (Bunny Wailer) and Rita Marley (Alpharita Constantia). He died on 11 September 1987–––when he went back home to Jamaica to visit–––after thugs who seem to know him broke into his house and wanted him to give them money. They tortured him to death. His mark on reggae music is indelibly forever. May his Soul Rest in Eternal Peace. RIP Legend Peter Tosh (Winston Hubert Macintosh).

North Sudan, the country of aversions and awes

 After the fall of Sudanese long-time despot, Omar Bashir, over a year ago, Sudan thereof added another feather to its cap. It became the first country on earth to have three presidents in one week.  The month that Bashir was deposed, April, goes to the annals of history that there once was a country that had three different presidents within three days as they succeeded each other, after one of the three ruled for just a day. On Wednesday 10^th April 2019 Sudan's president was Bashir before Ahmed Awad ibn Auf stepped in on Thursday 11^th after the army booted down Bashir. The next day, namely 12^th, ibn Auf was removed from power after demonstrators accused him of being a Bashir stooge. On the same day, Abdel Fattah Abdelrahman Burhan was sworn in to take over from ibn Auf as the third president within one week. Sudanese are entering the books of history as the people who were able to overthrow two military despots in 24 hours. This has never been done anywhere on earth.

Recently, North Sudan became the first country on earth to enter agreements with rebels. This is a normal thing for many regimes facing opposition in Africa. What’s unique is the fact that this peace agreement’s brokered by South Sudan, which, apart from being the part of  the former Sudan that ended up seceding, was at war with Sudan that it abandoned and formed its own autonomous newest country on earth, the Republic of South Sudan(RSS).  Indeed, this shows the true colours of politicians. Those who were baying for each other’s blood yesterday, may be in bed snuggling tomorrow and vice versa. If what pushed the putsch in Khartoum to negotiate with rebels and accept to be reconciled by its former nemesis could lead them to reunify North Sudan and South Sudan, Sudanese in both countries would forgive their sins and treasure their legacy. The division of Sudan was a fatal and stupid mistake that both sides will always regret as the days go by.

Apart from having three presidents in three days, Sudan is renowned for being an African country that regards itself as an Arab one. Its black people still believe they’re Arabs but not Africans though Arabs always have never accepted them as Arabs. Instead, they remind them who they actually are. If anything, it is this fake Arabism that led to the division of the Sudan that produced two feeble and self-destructive countries, which faced insurgencies thereafter to end up going to the dogs. To know if an animal is a goat or a sheep or a mongrel, just take it to those you think are the animals of its species. If the animal in point is truly a goat, goats will accept it. If it is not, goats will refuse to accept it as one of theirs. This shows Sudan's exceptionality when it comes to self-perception and self-identification. Actually, Sudan is always running away from its shadow. 

Similarly, Sudan is the country with many more pyramids not to mention the biggest animal migration on earth (AFP, March 22^nd, 2012) that takes place in the Boma National park South Sudan and humungous wealth that has never helped either or both of the two. For, all such attractions are not attractive to the west since the duo has never been in their good books not to mention experience violent conflicts they’re now working on. Despite contributing in creating the Egyptian pyramids, Sudan has never received any credit about it.

            The analogue on identity of animals applies to a just signed agreement between the government in Khartoum and the rebels though not all. It is exceptionally worrying because of the fact that some top dogs in the upper echelons of power in Khartoum stand accused of committing genocide in Darfur. One of them is the most influential military man in office, Lieutenant General Mohamed Hamdan Daqlo aka Hemerti. For, he is the one said to be behind the formation of Janjaweed terrorist group (BBC, June 5^th2019) that Bashir’s regime used to commit genocide in Darfur. That’s why when the government in Khartoum signed peace agreement with some rebels that the South Sudan brokered, other groups refused to append their signatures to the agreement. Rebel groups such as the SLM faction led by Abdel Wahid Nour and a wing of the SPLM-N headed by Abdelaziz al-Hilu still view Khartoum as the chief suspect of genocide Darfur has suffered up until now for almost two decades. There’s no way any agreement that doesn’t address the root cause of the conflict in Darfur and other areas such as Nuba Mountain, Kordofan and others can stand and resolve the conflict. Those behind heinous crimes in Darfur need to be brought to book. For the suspects that are in power need to be expelled so that justice can be done for the people of Darfur and Sudan in general.

What happened in Darfur is a shame of its kind not only for North Sudan but also for Africa and Muslim world. Despite almost all Darfur being Africans and Muslims, their brethren Africans and Muslims who view themselves as Arabs from Sudan perpetrated genocide against them as they were led by Bashir, ibn Auf and current head of the junta Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Africans, as well, seem to have not been bothered with such a crime committed to ones of their owns. Thus, some rebel groups signed the agreement without necessarily advocating for the right of Darfur despite the fact that they purport to fight for the right of Darfur. These include the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), both of the western region of Darfur. Ironically, Sudanese are the most generous people for any foreigner, especially if he or she is Arab, Caucasian or Indian. This is my experience of almost all Africans who are ready to neglect ones of theirs and make foreigners comfortable even at their expenses.

Underscoring the magnitude of the crime that Sudan committed on Darfur, true Darfur rebels won’t want to sign agreement with stinking people with blood-spattered hands.  Even though some rebels such as Minni Arkou Minnawi–––a Zaghawa whose people have never been touched by genocidaires; and who are believed to have come from Chad–––easily signed the agreement simply because they’re not Darfur. True Darfur will never go to bed with their murderers. As well, peace agreements have been used by some rebels as the means to negotiate with regime in order to get money or meet warlords’ personal ends.  To get away with murder North Sudan tribalized the conflict in order to get some pawns it uses to legitimize itself and show the international community that it is serious about resolving the conflict. 

 Another exceptionality that Sudan enjoys currently is that it has become a first Arab-speaking and self-perceiving country to execute African spring successfully. Burkina Faso was the first African country to launch its African Spring that saw its long-time despot Blaise Compaore pulled down before the Gambia replicated the same by showing Jammeh the door. This means, other sister countries under stinking dictators such as Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Togo, Uganda and elsewhere need to take a leaf from former Sudan.

In sum, those who wrongly think that Africa is bankrupt when it comes to pulling surprises to the world should think twice. Major lessons to learn here are:

Firstly, we need to accept ourselves as who we truly are.

Secondly, the world needs to know that North and South Sudan are not occupied by monsters. There are humans who can, unexpectedly though, do good things at bad times. However, what the junta in Khartoum is doing is a good thing though done in a bad way by the suspects of genocide in Darfur.

Thirdly, the putsch in Khartoum needs to understand that no hanky-panky can sustain it in power. The right thing for it to do is allow civilians form the government as it goes to the barracks.

And fourthly, Africa still has a long way to go vis-à-vis its true identity, its centrality and how its wealth can peacefully and practically benefit Africans. The two Sudan have provided a very good example on how Africa needs to decolonise itself.

Source: African Executive Magazine today.

UCHAGUZI MKUU USIA WA BABA WA TAIFA

 

TUNATAKA KAMPENI ZA KISASA SI ZA KISASI

 

Mwaka huu ni msimu wa uchaguzi mkuu nchini. Bila shaka, watanzania, wanasiasa na wasio wanasiasa, wapiga na wapigiwa kura wako tayari kuushiriki kikamilifu kujipatia viongozi bora watakaowaletea maendeleo. Kabla ya kuzama kwenye mada ya leo, tuwakumbushe wasomaji wetu wa siku nyingi: tumerejea kwa kishindo baada ya miaka kama minne ya kutokuwa hewani. Pia si vibaya kutoa salamu za rambirambi kwa taifa na familia ya rais mstaafu Benjamin William Mkapa aliyetutoka ghafla hapo tarehe 23 Julai, 2020 na kuzikwa kijijini kwake Lupaso, Masasi, Mtwara tarehe 30 Julai, 2020. Mungu ailaze roho yake mahali pema peponi, Amina.

            Tuingie kwenye mada yenyewe. Uchaguzi mkuu wa mwaka huu ni tofauti sana na chaguzi zote ambazo taifa letu limewahi kushiriki. Kwani:

 Kwanza, uchaguzi unafanyika wakati dunia ikiendelea kupambana na janga la gonjwa la Covid-19 ambalo limesababisha madhira makubwa kwa mataifa karibu yote duniani. Pili uchaguzi mkuu unafanyika kwenye kipindi ambacho Tanzania imeshangaza wengi kuweza kuwa nchi ya uchumi wa kati kabla ya muda uliokadiriwa ukiachia mbali wakati mugumu wa janga la Covid-19. Tuchukue fursa hii kuwapongeza watanzania wote kwa michango yao katika kufikia hatua hii adhimu na muhimu. Kwa upekee, tunaipongeza serikali ya awamu ya tano na Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) ambacho ni chama tawala na ambacho sera zake zimetuwezesha kufikia hatua hii kwa umahiri wao katika kusimamia uchumi hasa kipindi hiki kigumu baada ya kusimamiwa vizuri.

            Pili, uchaguzi mkuu ni tukio kubwa na muhimu katika nchi ambapo wananchi hupata fursa––kila baada ya miaka mitano––kutumia na kufaidi haki yao ya kikatiba na kidemokrasia kuchagua viongozi wao watakaoongoza na kusimamia uendeshaji wa shughuli za kitaifa kwa miaka mitano ijayo. Hili si jambo dogo. Ni jambo linalohitaji maadalizi na utayari mkubwa kulishiriki na kulifanikisha kwa mustakabali wa taifa na watu wake. Wapo wanaosema kuwa kampeni haijaanza kisheria, wapo ambao wameishaanza kampeni kabla ya kampeni kuanza jambo ambalo ni kinyume cha sheria.

            Yafuatayo ni mambo muhimu tunayopaswa kuzingatia kama wananchi na wadau wa demokrasia na uendeshaji wa mambo yetu kama jamii, taifa na watu. Hivyo, lazima tuzingatie yafuatayo:

            Mosi, kufanya kampeni na uchaguzi vya kistaarabu vitakavyohusisha sera na si matusi wala uzushi. Tunataka kampeni za kisasa na si za kisasi. Tunataka sera si shari. Tunajua; huu ni wakati wa kusema na kusikia mengi. Hata hivyo, mengi haya yatakayosemwa au kusikika yawe yana tija na si hadithi wala kelele za kupoteza fursa, muda na fedha za wananchi wanaogharimia zoezi hili adhimu na la bei mbaya kwa taifa. Hili ni muhimu; si kwa matokeo yanayokubalika na kukidhi haja bali kwa amani na usalama wa taifa. Kampeni za matusi na uzushi zipingwe na kupiga maarufuku kwa nguvu zote ili kulinda tunu za taifa tulizorithi kwa waanzilishi wake. Kujenga amani ni sawa na kujenga nyumba. Ni vigumu kujenga nyumba lakini rahisi kuibomoa. Gharama na muda wa kubomoa ni rahisi kuliko za kujenga.

            Pili, katika uchaguzi mkuu, kama taifa tujiepushe matumizi mabaya ya uhuru wetu wa maoni kwa kujiepusha na kutishia amani na usalama wa taifa. Hivyo, hakuna haja ya kutishana wala kuminyana. Tujipe nafasi ya kunadi sera zetu na si matusi wala uzushi. Hakika tukifanya hivi, tutakuwa tumejihakikishia uchaguzi bora na mfano kwa wengine. Kwani, ni wakti kama huu nchi nyingi huingia kwenye mtego wa maadui wa kuvuruga amani, utangamano na usalama wake bila kujua madhara yake. Tupingane kwa hoja na sera na si matusi na uzushi. Kwani, taifa litakuwapo baada ya––kama ambavyo limekuwa kabla ya uchaguzi mkuu. Uchaguzi na wagombea huja na kupita. Lakini taifa litakuwapo siku zote.

            Tatu, tuhakikishe haki inatendekea kwa wagombea wote. Wapewe nafasi sawa ya kunadi sera zao bila vikwazo wala vitisho ilmradi wote wazingatie sheria za uchaguzi na za nchi. Hivyo, katika kunadi sera zetu, hakuna haja ya kusingiziana, kuzushiana, kuchukiana wala kudanganyana. Isitoshe ni ukweli usiopingika kuwa tutampata rais, wabunge na madiwani watakaokubaliwa na wale wanaotaka wawakilishe katika serikali yake. Pia wapo, tena wengi, ambao watashindwa. Kwani maana halisi ya uchaguzi, licha ya kuwa zoezi la kidemokrasia na kistaarabu, ni mchujo ambapo wengi huitwa na wachache huchukuliwa. Hivyo, kushinda na kushindwa ni matokeo halali ya uchaguzi ilmradi yafikiwe kihalali na kisheria.

            Nne na mwisho, tujiepushe na vitendo vya rushwa na laghai na siasa rahisi rahisi za majitaka zenye kila dalili za takataka na uchakavu kulhali. Tufanye kampeni na siasa za uadilifu na uaminifu kwa ajili yetu na taifa letu kwa ujumla. Hapa lazima tuseme kuwa pande zote lazima kuwa makini kweli kweli katika matamshi na mipango yao. Wapiga kura nao lazima wapime sera, sifa na ahadi za wagombea wanaojitokeza mbele yao kuwashawishi. Maana wasipokuwa makini, watakuwa wamejitengenezea tatizo la miaka mitano ijayo. Hii ni kutokana na ukweli kuwa mfumo wa demokrasia hii ya kimagharibi unaelezea namna ya kuwachagua wagombea bila kutoa maelekezo ya namna ya kuwaachisha kabla ya kufikia ukomo wa kipindi chao cha miaka mitano. Watakaopokea rushwa ya wagombea wajue wanauza haki zao kwa miaka mitano ijayo ya maisha yao ambacho si kipindi kifupi kama maisha ya binadamu. Wanachotoa ni kikubwa kuliko wanachopata. Pia wagombea wajitenge na vitendo vya rushwa na ahadi za uongo, maana, mwisho wa siku, watateseka pia kutokana na ahadi zao mbovu. Kwani kufanya hivyo, licha ya kutukana na kutapeli demokrasia, wanawanyima wananchi fursa ya kuwa na viongozi wanaowafaa kwa miaka mitano ijayo. Kimsingi, demokrasia ya kweli hutaka wagombea kufanya ushawishi kwa wapiga kura wao kwa kutumia sera na hoja zenye mashiko na si uchochezi, visingizio na matushi wala uzushi. Hili tutaliongelea sana kwenye makala zijazo tutakapokuwa tukidurusu matamshi ya baadhi wagombea ambayo tutaona yanakiuka kanuni za mchezo na uhalisia wa mambo. Hivyo, watakaoongopa, kuzua, kucheza rafu wajiandae au kukiuka maadili kwa ujumla kujikuta hapa ugani wakianikwa bila huruma wala upendeleo.

            Kwa leo, tunaishia hapa. Tuonane wiki ijayo panapo majaaliwa.

Chanzo: Nipashe Jumapili leo.

MUTUNGA, KIAI AND MUTUA THREE KENYANS I ADMIRE

Professor Makau Mutua (distinguished professor of Law at SUNNY Buffalo University, New York);  Dr Willy M Mutunga (former Kenya's Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court- above)  and Maina Kiai ( former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights and Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association) are three Kenyan bin-Adams I admire. Knowing and interacting them taught me something. They are so much connected to Tanzania. They adore Mwl  Julius K Nyerere (father of Nation and his Ujamaa policy) and Tanzania for what we are. As thinkers, this can be seen in their academic works and life. I was astound when I met them in Nairobi. Knowing I was a Tanzania, they started calling me ndugu. They were proud of speaking Swahili while many Kenyans are afraid of doing so. More importantly, their humility blew me away. Despite being academics and holders of such high positions, they still were accessible personalities something rare for many Kenyans of their calibre. These are the two Kenyans I admire so to speak.

TOWARDS THE 2020 GENERAL ELECTIONS : A contribution to voters’ education.

The  National  Electoral  Commission  has  already  approved  a  long  list  of  Institutions  that  will  be  allowed  to  participate  in  the  exercise  of  proving  what  is  described  as  “voter   education”  to  the  prospective  voters  for  the  October  2020  general  elections.   I  am  personally  not  aware  of  the  topics  that  are  taught   in   such   voter  education  classes;  but   I  would  like  to  make  a  small  contribution  in  connection  therewith;   for  whatever   little  value  it  may  add. 

 What  the  voters  must  know:    The   President  needs  a  majority  in  Parliament.

In order  to  achieve  smooth  and  conflict-free  operations of our  ‘Parliamentary system’   of government;   the   relevant  general  election  must   give  the  elected   President  a  clear  majority  of   MPS  in the National Assembly.   Thus,  it  is  my  humble  submission, that   this point   should constitute  a  significant  part of the ‘voter education’ programmes  that  are   being  offered  to   our voters,   in preparation for the  forthcoming    October 28th  general  elections.

‘Voter education’   is primarily intended  to enhance  the  voter’s   awareness   of  the  true  meaning  of  the  outcomes   which may result from his vote,   so  to   enable  him to vote wisely, and  in a way   that will   achieve the kind of outcome which  will be of maximum benefit  to  the country’s governance system. 

Unfortunately  however,     in  the  past  general  elections,   some of those  who  participated in providing  ‘voter education’   were  not  very   helpful  to  the  voters   in  respect  of   the  need to  enhance   their  understanding  of  this  important  aspect  of  multi-party  elections,  because  the     most  common  message  that  was  being  delivered  to  the  voters , was  typically  urging  them :    “ to  listen carefully to the candidates’ campaign speeches, and then vote for  the candidate  of your choice”.   This,  indeed,    was   good and  correct   advise   during  the  by-gone  days  of   the   ‘one-party  State  elections.    However,  it  is  wholly  unsuitable,  and  is  actually  misleading,   for  the  multi-party  elections;   due  to  the  following  reasons:-

 In   the   multi-party   political  dispensation,   the purpose   of  a  general  election  is  to enable the voters to select what will become the country’s  Ruling  party  for the following five years.   In other words, voters are expected to make a choice between   the   competing   political parties,   and  certainly  NOT  between  the  individual   the  candidates.  This is  so   because  the Westminster Parliamentary   system  of government  (which we inherited  from  Britain),  is  known  as   “Government   by  political party”.     This  means  that  it  is  the  political  party  that  wins  the   general  election  which  forms   the  country’s  Government;    and  not  the  individual  persons  who   won   that   election,   in  their  individual  capacities. 

Thus,   it  would  be   much more  accurate  for  the  voter  education  providers,   to  urge the voters  “to vote for  “ the political party of his choice”,  rather  than   for  “the candidate of his choice”. 

That  is  precisely  the  reason  why  political  parties  produce   their  election  manifestos,  in  which  they  outline  their  policy  options,   and  programmes;   in  the  hope  of   persuading   the   voters   ‘to  vote  for  the  party  with  the  best  policies’.    

Hence   in  this  article,  we  will  endeavour  to    explain   a  very   fundamental  Constitutional point  that  is  involved  here,  which  is   absolutely  necessary    for the smooth operation  of  our  inherited ‘parliamentary system of government’,  namely  that   the  newly  elected  the  election  results  should   give   the   newly  elected  President   a majority  of  MPS  in the National Assembly.    This  is  necessary  because  any  other  election  outcome   is bound  to  create  certain  difficult   problems   in  the  operations   of   this     parliamentary  system  of  governance.           

 For  that  reason,   ‘ voter  education’   should  help  the  voters   to  understand,   that  if  they   decide  to vote for the Presidential   candidate of  any   given political party,  they  should  also vote for the parliamentary candidate of that same party;   in order to avoid a situation in which  the President faces  an  ‘Opposition-dominated’    National Assembly;    that  is to say,   in  which the majority of its members  belong  to  a political party,  or parties,  other than that of the President himself.

This is important,   and   necessary,   simply  because  if the President does not have a majority in the National Assembly, there are several provisions in the Constitution of the United Republic,   which have the capacity to generate conflict,  and could therefore give rise to instability,  in the process of the  country’s  governance;  such  as  the following:-

(i)  The appointment of the Prime Minister.

Article 5i(2) of the Constitution provides as follows:

 “As  soon  as  possible,  and  in  any  case  within  fourteen  days  after  assuming  office,  the President shall appoint a member of Parliament elected from a constituency, and from a political party having a majority of members in the National Assembly,  or, if no political party has a majority, a person who appears to have the support of the majority of the members, to be Prime Minister of the United Republic”.

Thus,  because  the   President  is  obliged to appoint  the Prime Minister  ‘from the majority  party  in  Parliament’,   if  such  party  is  not   his own  party,  he will be  obliged to negotiate with the leaders of that majority party   in order to agree on a candidate for this appointment.   Two  possible  problems  may arise.   One  is  that   in  the  event  that such negotiations will take longer than the mandatory 14 days,  there will have occurred a breach of the Constitution,   and  this   is clearly against the principles of good governance.                                                                                                    

The other   problem   is   that   the  Constitution  requires  the  Prime  Minister’s  appointment  to  be  ratified  by  the  National  Assembly.  Thus,   if  the  President  attempts  to appoint a Prime Minister who has not been approved by  the  relevant  Opposition  leaders,  his appointment  will  obviously   not be ratified by the National Assembly,  a  situation  that  will  create a  major   conflict  between  the President and the National Assembly;    which  is   most  undesirable   for  the  country’s   proper management  and   good governance.

(ii) The functions of the Prime Minister.

The functions of the Prime Minister are specified   in articles 52 and 53  of  the Constitution of the United Republic;  which   require the Prime Minister “ to perform or cause to be performed any matter or matters which the President directs to be done”;  and  further   that the Prime Minister “shall be accountable to the President for the exercise of his authority”.

I   should  perhaps  point  out,  that  these provisions were made during the period of the  ‘One-Party’ system of government,   in which case they could not create any such problems.   But under  the  present  multi-party system,  in  any   cases  where the President and the Prime Minister happen to belong to different ideological camps  (and therefore  will   have been elected on the basis of different election manifestos) ;   these are obviously potential areas of conflict,  which  can  be avoided  by  the voters giving the elected President   a comfortable majority in the National Assembly.

(iii) The Legislative functions of Parliament.

The  country’s  Constitution  provides   that   no  Bill which is passed by the National Assembly can become law  without the President’s  Assent.   In enacting this provision, the Constitution- makers appear to have foreseen the possibility where the President would be unwilling to give his assent to a certain Bill, that is  presumably why they made provision (in article 97 thereof) for dealing with such a situation,  if  and  when  it  occurs.   Article 97  provides   that  the President must return  such   Bill to the National Assembly,  together with a statement  of his reasons for withholding  assent.   And if the National Assembly, after considering the President’s reasons, again adopts the Bill with a two-thirds majority,  the President,  in that case,  must give his assent to the Bill, or if he still withholds his assent, he must dissolve Parliament in order to pave the way for new elections to be held.

Under normal circumstances, no one expects such a major conflict to arise, and this would appear to be a purely hypothetical provision.    But  still,  it  is a potential  area for conflict between the President and the National Assembly, which could best be avoided at the time of voting,  by giving the President  a comfortable majority in the National Assembly.

(iv) The provisions relating to the quorum in the House.

 Article 94 of the Constitution provides that the quorum at every sitting of the National Assembly shall be  ‘half of all the members of the House’;   and further that every question which is proposed for decision in the National Assembly  ‘shall be determined by a majority of the members present and voting’, except where it is provided otherwise.

These  provisions,  perhaps   unwittingly,  create an opportunity for  a  National Assembly  whose majority is in opposition to the President,   to  embarrass him;   for example,   by  instructing  a  number of  their members to absent themselves  from a sitting of the House,  when an important government business, such as the annual government budget,  is  due to be approved.  This would make the ensuing   decision illegal, for having  been  adopted  in the absence of a quorum;   and  could  be  successfully  challenged  in  a  court  of  law. 

Hence,  voter  education  should  also  address  this  problem,  which  can  be  avoided  by  the  voters  giving  the  Presidential  candidate  of  their  choice,  a comfortable majority of  MPS   in the National Assembly  at the time of voting.

Learning  from  history:   the  Presidential Elections  Bill  of 1962.

Our  Legislative history shows  that  the  1962 Presidential  Elections Act,  was specifically designed to achieve this particular objective,  of   giving the President a guaranteed majority in the National Assembly;  for   it  had  included  an innovative provision  of pairing the Presidential  candidate with the Parliamentary candidates.   The procedure to be used was a kind of indirect election, whereby every candidate who stood   for election to Parliament,   was   required   to make a statutory declaration,   indicating  the  name  of  the Presidential candidate whom  he supports.   Thus, under  this  arrangement, when  the results of the Parliamentary elections   are announced,  the Presidential candidate who secures  the  support  of  more than half of all the members  who  were  elected  to  Parliament,   is declared   to have been elected President.   

This   meant,  in  effect,    that   while voting for the Parliamentary candidate, the voters  would,  at the same time,   be voting for the President.   This  arrangement   was   obviously  intended  to ensure that   the person who was elected President,   was  guaranteed  to  have majority support  among  the  MPs   in the National Assembly,   in order  to secure the   desired  smooth  operations   of the government   machinery.

 However,   this   innovative  system   was  never used,  as  it  was  rejected   during   debate  in  the  National  Assembly,   and  had  to  be  replaced  with  the   more   popular   method   of electing  the President    directly   by  all  the  registered  voters.    

We  said  at  the  beginning  of  this  article,  that  voter  education  is  intended  to  enhance  the  voters’  general   awareness  of  the  outcomes  that  may  result  from  his  vote. Our  electoral  history  has   shown  that   the   voters’   tendency  is  to  vote  for  the  individual  candidate,  regardless  of  his  political  party.                                                                     

Thus,  in  the  particular  circumstances  of  this  year’s  general  election,  wherein    the  factor  of   President  Magufuli’s  popularity  will  most  likely  dominate,   some  voters  may  be  ready  to  vote  for  President  Magufuli,  but   be  tempted  to  vote  for  a candidate  “of  their  choice”  who  happens  to  belong  to  an  Opposition.    This  presentation   will,  hopefully,   be  of  some  help  to  them.

 (will  continue  next  week)

piomsekwa@gmail.com   / 0754767576.

Source: Daily News and Cde Msekwa.

 

 

Hypothesis of stamping terrorism in Africa

Before the discovery of cryptotora thamicola––the fish with ability to climb––nobody’d believe that there’s a fish that’d climb anything. Now that this is a reality that strikes the right chord. We can apply the same rationale to devise how Africa can get rid of itself of terrorism that’s now growing exponentially shall it remain unfettered. Africa’s like an elephant that can’t build a house despite having potentials of clear-felling many trees. To the contrary, despite its feebleness, the bird’s able to build a very comfy effervesce to lay its eggs and rest in after daily chores.

Essentially, lingering terrorism in Cameroon, Ethiopia, Mali, Nigeria and Somalia––not to mention the new one in Mozambique recently––is one of the results of the division and partition of African countries whose roots can be traced on the Berlin Conference 1884 that created modern time feeble and fickle African states. However, hypothetically, there’s a formula of how Africa can get rid of and rid itself of terrorism and other violent conflicts gyrating around the struggle for power and resources in order to supply the world free market as it was envisaged and invented by capitalistic and imperialistic nations of the world. If anything, this formula––if well utilised––is likely to free Africa from the grips of this contemporary calamity that’s lead to socio-economic miseries for the majority of Africans. The formula’s very applicably simple. Suppose. Every African country contributes 500 GIs each; and maintains them––as it normally does––to fight terrorism wherever it strikes in Africa. This legation can also be used to vanquish coups like the one that recently sequestered power in Mali. Counting the number of African states, we’re talking of over 25,000 strong. Can’t such a number eradicate terrorism in Africa within a foreseeable time really if it is actualised and applied? Again, what is the problem? Methinks. The answer’s that every Africa sees terrorism in certain countries as a national but not international or African problem. I don’t know if al-Shabaab (Somalia), Ansar al-Sunna (Mozambique), Boko Haram (Nigeria) the GSPC (Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat), and the (AQMI, Al-Qaida au Maghreb Islamique) (Sahara) among others have the muscles to outshine such an ensemble. Its sheer size’s itself a weapon to reckon with for its adversaries. So, you can see how the division and partition of Africa by western colonisers is now contributing hugely to terrorism. We used to myopically look at colonialism as a historical fact. However, recently, after Africa’s colonial legacy of division and feebleness has proved to more a colonial past. Instead, it’s a present and future threat to Africa. Colonialism adversely affects Africa in many ways. Currently, it is helping terrorism to take root in Africa. As well, thanks to colonialism and its machinations, former colonial powers are now occupying Africa military under the ruse of pursuing terrorists. For the west, someone or a group becomes a terrorist whenever one attacks its interests.  But when one gives the west the pretext to occupy others, such a person or a group will be condemned on the daylight and applauded in the dark. That’s why the US is currently negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Remember. When the US was fighting the then USSR in Afghanistan, it established and armed the Taliban whom it turned against after it embraced Osama bin Laden who also was cloned by the US.

That said, for those who wrongly think that the west will help them to stamp terrorism out of their jurisdictions are in a reverie for their peril. Capitalism doesn’t have a permanent enemy but instead has permanent interests. This is the slogan the US uses whenever it wants to turn against its ally. That’s is why–––if its interests are guaranteed and safeguarded–––the west will turn its foe into an ally and vice versa as it has proved in many instances. Former Libyan and Iraq strongmen, Muamar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein respectively knew this too well. Saddam’s cloned by the west to end up being killed by the same. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. An African proverb has it that he who created the pate is the one who obliterates it. Similarly, he who created African states is the one who will destroy them.

Considering the formula so proposed here, Africa must stop gutlessly daydreaming. Instead, it must gather the oomph to think about some important things, which are a sine qua non for its development, existence, peace, prosperity and stability, which are:

 One, African countries must think about uniting Africa as the only viable means of regaining its power and lost glory instead of being egged on by self-cheating mentality and pointless dependency.

Two, Africa must start thinking about cooperation not only economically but also military for it to assuredly and practically move forward. If we consider terrorism–––though isn’t referred to as such–––that’s been going on in the DRC simply because it’s endowed with humungous sources of natural resources, we’ll understand why Africa needs to have its own army for maintaining order and peace by taking on the evils that create violence in order to enable our former colonial masters to get the ruse to exploit and occupy us as is the case in point.

Three, Africa’s indolent military arsenals many countries buy and keep for the fear of their neighbours––the west likes to use enflame each other for the distabilisation of all.

Fourth, by remaining divided, Africa is helping terrorism to devour it. Take an example of Kenya’s attempt to stamp out the al-Shabaab in Somalia.  For almost eight years since Kenya put the boots in Somalia on 16^thOctober, 2011 it’s never successfully extinguished the al-Shabaab. How long will the conflict drag on? Here the problem is the division of Africa as every country acts and thinks solo without, for example underscoring that al-Shabaab is the threat not only to the entire region but also Africa. Refer to how, inn July 2010, al-Shabaab attacked two bars in Kampala, Uganda, killing more than 70 persons.

What would have happened had the EAC and the Horn of Africa collectively chipped in? Had all African countries donated the number proposed above or more, what’d have been the situation in Somalia? When Kosovo faced genocide at the same time as Rwanda did, the NATO rapidly moved in and stopped the peril once and for all. White people love each other even if they’re enemies. They might fight among themselves over various things. Yet, they’ll never evidence the bloodshed of the ones of their own. If anything, this is the lesson they practically learned from the WWI. That’s why the allies decided to nuke Japan but not Germany which was the head of the axis during the WWII. White people didn’t want to see the ones of their own being butchered or nuked while there were the non-whites in Japan to use to teach their enemy the lesson. For, if we consider who’s indeed a troublemaker during the WWII, we find nobody except Germany and Italy under Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini respectively. Why didn’t the allies nuke Germany or Italy, which where the epitomes of the entire aggression? The answer is simple. Swahili sage’s it that dog’s teeth don’t bite each other.

In sum, a long story short, Africa needs to wake up from its slumber and start thinking collectively about multilaterality and true unity instead of doing so severally for its peril. That’s why colonialism and Africa’s complicity have contributed hugely to the embodiment of terrorism. To outshine it, we need to eschew our gullibility, individuality, divisive and toxic nationalism, pretentious regionalism and the like. Instead, we must embark on Africanism, oneness and Unitarianism of our wonderful continent. This way, we practically and surely can fight terrorism whenever it surfaces in whatever face, form or façade.

Source: African Executive Magazine today.