To
the best of my knowledge and recollection, this is completely new and unprecedented,
and a real ‘first’, in all our history of defections by top-level politicians.
This assertion is evidenced by the following examples,
selected ad hoc from memory; in
all of which there was no such massive ‘follow the leader’ response by the defector’s
supporters. Take the early example of TANU
Secretary-General Oscar Kambona’s defection from TANU in 1967; and that of the
then heavy weight politician Agustino Lyatonga Mrema’ defection to NCCR-MAGEUZI
in 1995,( where he was received with just about the same amount of fanfare,
plus high expectations of “strengthening the Opposition”), which however didn’t
materialize. And, more recently; by another
top-level politician and former Prime Minister, Edward Lowassa’s defection from
CCM in 2015; who defected to CHADEMA and later returned home; which I aptly described
as “Domestic political tourism”.
A matter of hero worship.
But
the instant case of Mr. Hamad is entirely different. It is a distinctive
demonstration of what is commonly recognized as “hero worship”, which is
defined as “great admiration for somebody, because you think he is extremely
attractive, intelligent, etc”. I am here
reminded of a story told by former President Ali Hassan Mwinyi, who gone on a
visit to Pemba. He said that while he
was being driven through the streets, he expressed admiration at the high level
of infrastructure development that had taken place since his previous
visit; and showered praise on the then President of Zanzibar, Amani Abeid Karume, for these outstanding
achievements. But, he said, he was quickly
silenced by the response he got from the person who was driving him, whose
unsolicited reply was thus: “Mzee, the people of Pemba are not impressed by what
Karume is doing. All they want is their beloved Seif Sharrif Hamad to become
President of Zanzibar. He will surely bring
much greater development than what you are seeing now”. Now, that is truly “hero
worship”; i.e. a demonstration of a very sincere and committed admiration for
an individual person. This is what helps to explain why so many of his
supporters went along with him when he defected to ACT-Wazalendo on Monday 18th
March, 2019.
Hero worship on an empty stomach?
But
that is, essentially, what may be described as “political business”. And this
quickly reminds me of a statement made by a famous United States statesman, Woodrow Wilson (1856 - 1924); who is on record as having said the following in a speech in New York, in 1912 : “Business
underlies everything in our everyday life, including our spiritual life. Just witness
the fact that even in the Lord’s Prayer, the first petition is for our daily bread.
No one can worship God on an empty stomach! Can ‘hero worship’ be done on an empty stomach? Good food for thought.
The ‘Ambition’ and ‘Frustration’ factors
in Hamad’s case.
In
one of my previous articles in this column, I made strong submissions to the
effect that although the individual
motives which induce politicians to defect to other political parties will
inevitably vary, but basically, they always revolve around two distinctive
factors, which are the “push” factors on the one hand; and the “pull” factors
on the other. The “push” factors are the (intolerable) conditions which
literally ‘force’ a person to quit his
party and move to another; and the ‘pull’ factors are the attractive prospects
which induce a person to join a given
party. And these two factors are
themselves promoted by two other factors, which are ‘Ambition’, and
‘Frustration’ respectively.
In the instant case of Seif Sharrif Hamad, we
have heard it ‘live’ from him stating the reasons for his move at a press
conference which he convened specifically for that purpose. His stated reason was “to place himself in a
more conducive environment in which to carry forward his political objectives
of fighting for political rights and for democracy”. Such conducive environment had abruptly
disappeared for him in CUF. And that was his ‘push’ factor, which pushed him
out of CUF. However, it is no secret that his sole political objective is “to
remove CCM from power in Zanzibar, and acquire that power himself”. That is his insatiable ‘ambition’ (the ‘pull’
factor); which attracted him to ACT-Wazalendo.
It should be pretty obvious that in making his
move, Mr. Hamad was in fact looking for a platform where he will continue to
play “primus inter pares” (first
among equals) in the Opposition arena. No
wonder he chose not to join CHADEMA, with whom CUF had willingly partnered
during the 2015 Presidential elections, by providing the candidate for running
mate. And all this is being done under the
smoke screen of “fighting for political rights and for democracy”. But, in
reality, in such cases where democracy within political parties is being so
deliberately ‘suffocated’ by such insatiable personal ambitions to acquire
power by leading politicians, aren’t we, the people of this country, being
taken for a ride? This
now reminds me of a statement which is attributed to Adlai Stevenson, that
well-known United States statesman of the early 1960s, who is reported to have
invented his own version of the familiar cliché of “power corrupts”, when he
said the following in January 1963: “Power
corrupts, but lack of power corrupts absolutely”.
Mr. Hamad appears to have been “corrupted absolutely” by the lack of
power in Zanzibar. He is obviously prepared ‘to go to great lengths’ in order
to acquire it. With
regard to the multitude of followers who defected to ACT-Wazalendo along with
him; if we decide to accept Woodrow Wilson’s
‘doctrine’ of “no worshipping on an empty stomach”; we will quickly find an
answer to what motivated his supporters to go along with him. It must be their (great) expectation of the attractive
personal benefits that will accrue to them, in the event of his success in
becoming the President of Zanzibar.
An achievable objective, or wishful thinking?
But
this could end up being mere wishful thinking, for there are certain known
conditions which can facilitate the removal of a ruling party from power; all
of which are based on one major factor, which is the loss of popularity among the electorate. And this loss of popularity is normally the
result of the intervention of any of the following three occurrences:-(a) the
relevant party’s failure to deliver; or (b) the relevant party’s self-inflicted
injuries, (such as nasty scandals, particularly relating to corruption by the
people in power); or (c) the presence of an unpopular establishment figure,
whose removal galvanizes massive political support. Examples abound around the
world, where these factors have played a decisive role in removing ruling
parties from power. We do not have
sufficient editorial space in this article to indulge in their discussion. We
leave it to the reader to examine, and establish to his complete satisfaction, whether
these factors are applicable to Chama cha Mapinduzi, the ruling party in Tanzania.
But I will venture to suggest, that in
view of our two Governments’ transparent successes in their delivery
performance of goods and services to the people, any talk of “failure to
deliver” would probably be taken as no more than a humorous joke.
The purpose of political parties.
But
still, for those interested political analysts, the Seif Sharrif Hamad event
opens up for discussion the bigger questions regarding (a) the purpose of political parties; and (b) the
basis for the membership thereof.
Political parties and their designated
purposes.
“We,
the people”, have been told, consistently, and repeatedly, that political
parties were designed to serve a specific purpose; and also that political parties
“are absolutely essential to democracy”.
The omnibus purpose
of every political party is, of course, to acquire state power. For example,
with regard to Chama cha Mapinduzi
(CCM), this objective is manifestly stated in article 5 of its Constitution;
while the notion that political
parties are absolutely essential to
democracy is based on the fundamental principle that democracy gives the
majority the right to govern, and there is no way of creating such majority
without establishing political parties, which can compete for the right to
govern by presenting their different policies and programmes to the relevant electorate,
and each party trying to persuade that electorate, through organized campaign
meetings, to vote for their policy and programme options. Consequently,
membership of political parties is generally expected to be based on individual
persons being wholly satisfied with the policies and programmes of a given
party, and thus being persuaded to join the said party as a member, or to
remain a member thereof.
Unfortunately
however, what we are witnessing through the frequent defections by our politicians
from one political party to another, typically nomadic style; creates a totally
different impression, namely that of absolute ‘non-commitment’ to the policies
and programmes of any party, and of being driven solely by personal ‘ambition’
to acquire power, or ‘frustration’ at the lack of that possibility in the party
from which he defects.
Political parties not deeply rooted in
our traditional cultures.
In
my humble opinion, there is a strong cultural impediment which prevents our
politicians from ‘abiding by the rules of the game’ that govern political parties;
namely, the fact that the theory and practice of political parties, is not
deeply rooted in our own traditional cultures. This is so because the governance system of
our traditional rulers, commonly known as
“Chiefs”, was never based on
political parties. And even the British
colonial governance system was also not based on political parties; with the
British King or Queen being the ruler of the colonized Territory, represented
on the ground by a Governor appointed by that ruler. Strategically, that
colonial system also fully utilized the traditional Chiefs for their governance
purposes, under a strange doctrine known as “indirect rule”.
Thus, it is only when the British
colonialists eventually succumbed to the inevitability of granting independence
to their colonial Territories, when they introduced the requirement of
political parties. And, in all cases, including Tanzania that imposed
requirement is what gave birth to the first ever political parties to be
established. Thus, political parties were, in effect, an imported commodity,
NOT deeply rooted in the traditional culture of “we the people of this country”.
The fact that
Maalim Hamad was able to transfer together with so many of his CUF
political family members, plus so many CUF office properties, easily confirms the contention that his action was truly ‘nomadisme
politique’ , or ‘nomadic politics’;
which is different from the Lowassa style of ‘Domestic political tourism’.
piomsekwa@gmail.com
/ 0754767576.
Source: The Daily News, today and for the courtesy of Cde Msekwa himself
No comments:
Post a Comment