In my article of last week, I gave our esteemed readers proper notice of the culmination of the series of articles relating to my forthcoming book, titled The story of my life in the Public Service: A Contribution to the Political History of Tanzania”; which had commenced at the beginning of January this year. Thus, we must now move to other interesting topics.
In today’s article, we will kick-start these discussions with a brief examination of the essential ingredients of the multi-party electoral system.
The multi-party electoral system.
It should be common knowledge, that Tanzania’s electoral system was inherited from the British system; which, essentially, makes provision for what is known as “Government by political party”; which means that the different political parties are expected to actively compete in open elections; after which, the winner becomes entitled to form the Government of the day. Thus, as noted above, the most significant feature of this year’s general election seems to be the unprecedented, very active participation by large numbers of aspirants of different political parties in these elections at all levels.
Participating in elections is, in fact, the raison d’etre for the registration of political parties in Tanzania. This is specified in the Political Parties Act (no. 5 of 1992), which gives the following definition of a political party:- “Political party “ means any organized group formed for the purpose of forming a Government, or a Local Authority, within the United Republic through elections, and for putting up, or supporting candidates for such elections”. Thus, according to this definition, any other group which is not formed for the purpose of participating in elections, does not qualify to be called a ‘political party’. Such group could perhaps be called an “interest group”, or “pressure group”, which is formed for the sole purpose of pursuing the achievement of a given specific lawful objective.
The hidden challenges of multi-party politics:
Many political parties, only one basic policy.
The leading principle in multi-party electoral competitions, is that voters should select the party which presents the best policy options. This is the first crucial ingredient of the multi-party political system.
In normal situations, electoral competition requires that each participating political party will present, in its election manifesto and in its campaign speeches, some clearly defined policy positions, which will enable the voters to make an informed choice between the alternative policies being so presented by the different participating parties. This, basically, implies that each participating party will endeavour to persuade and convince the majority of the voters to vote for their respective candidates, on the basis of the party’s attractive policies, which they will implement after getting the coveted opportunity to form the Government.
However, in almost all the developing countries, including Tanzania; , in reality, there is only one policy option that really matters to the electorate; namely, the need to enhance the social and economic welfare of the people, by eliminating poverty, ignorance, disease, and of course corruption. A close look at the slogan with which have been used by the different political parties in the recent past, such as CCM’s “kuleta maisha bora kwa kila mtanzania”; CHADEMA’s “”Tunachukia umasikini”; or CUF’s “Haki sawa kwa wote”; may appear to be different; but, basically, all of them are focusing on the same issues relating to the fight against the four common enemies mentioned above. This, obviously, makes it difficult for the voters to make their choices on the basis of the parties’ policy differences between them, and therefore unable to “vote for the party with the best policies”.
A gentle reminder of Mwalimu Nyerere’s position.
“My argument is that a multi-party system can be justified only when the parties are divided over some fundamental issues. Otherwise, it merely encourages the growth of factionalism. Let us take the case of two major parties. Both have the interests of the people at heart, or so they claim. Both believe that education is a good thing, and that it should be made available to everybody. Both believe that medical care should be within the reach of all persons, and so on. Given that fundamental agreement, it would be far more sensible if both sides were to disband, and let the electorate choose the best individuals from among them all, and these individuals will meet in Parliament to discuss the details of doing the required jobs, and cooperate fully in getting them done” (Mwalimu Nyerere in ‘Freedom and Unity’, Oxford University Press, 1966, page 196).
That is probably why, in the absence of such clearly identifiable policy differences between the Ruling party and the Opposition parties; the latter have resorted to a campaign strategy, of merely calling upon the electorate “to remove CCM from Power”.
CCM can, of course, be removed from power by the majority of voters at a general election, but this can only happen in certain specified circumstances, specifically, in situations where the voters themselves have been fully convinced, from their own collective assessment, that the Ruling party has totally failed them in their expectations. And I submit that such conclusion will be reached ONLY when CCM has miserably failed to deliver on its promises, but certainly NOT as a result of campaign demands by opposition parties for its removal
The absence of the requisite multi-party political culture.
This is the second crucial ingredient of the multi-party democratic political system. Multi-party democracy is based on the proposition that at certain agreed intervals, say after every five years; competitive elections will be held between the relevant political parties, thus providing an opportunity for power either to remain in the hands of the then ruling party, or to pass to another political party or coalition of parties, as the case maybe. The multi-party political culture requires that the losing party will form the Opposition in parliament, with the function of seeking to challenge the government’s policies and actions therein; while waiting for the opportunity when they will themselves win an election, and form the government of the day.
This concept was plainly expressed in an article written for the Commonwealth Journal “The Parliamentarian” by the then Prime Minister of Grenada, Dr. Keith Mitchell, MP, in the following words:- “The Caribbean people have long had a reputation for passionate partisan debate in the adversarial form of parliamentary multi-party democracy inherited from Westminster. But they also enjoyed the reputation of playing by the rules, whereby the winners took office, and the losers accepted the results, and continued the debate from the opposition benches inside Parliament. But today, passionate political debates are being continued in an alarming number of instances not in Parliament, but in the streets. And they are being pressed not by debate, but by demonstrations.
Our acceptance of the Parliamentary system of government is being seriously eroded”. It has been my contention, that this kind of situation is brought about by the lack of the requisite multiparty political culture, which should therefore be created, developed, and properly nurtured. This lack of the requisite multi-party political culture is explained by the fact that this culture is actually rooted in the Western countries of Europe and North America. Indeed, experience has shown that in many of the non-Western countries which do not have his kind of culture, operating the system of multi-party democracy has, inevitably, been quite problematic. To confirm this, let me cite only two examples, quoted from the Journal of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, “The parliamentarian” :-
Our acceptance of the Parliamentary system of government is being seriously eroded”. It has been my contention, that this kind of situation is brought about by the lack of the requisite multiparty political culture, which should therefore be created, developed, and properly nurtured. This lack of the requisite multi-party political culture is explained by the fact that this culture is actually rooted in the Western countries of Europe and North America. Indeed, experience has shown that in many of the non-Western countries which do not have his kind of culture, operating the system of multi-party democracy has, inevitably, been quite problematic. To confirm this, let me cite only two examples, quoted from the Journal of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, “The parliamentarian” :-
(i) Lesotho. “Ever since the independence of Lesotho, political activity in the country has been partisan in form, and exclusionary in character. Society has been balkanized into new groupings which call themselves political parties, all dedicated to vie for, and exclude one another from, the control of state power. Political parties in Lesotho are the antithesis of nation building. This is the origin of the mutual disdain and repugnance that members of different political parties feel for each other, which has produced a basis for political instability that has become a permanent feature of politics in the country”.
(ii) Kenya.
“The re-introduction of political pluralism was one of the greatest political developments in Kenya since independence. But it now appears that political parties have turned into a liability, not only stifling democracy, but also impeding the transformation of Kenya into a modern society. Virtually all political parties in Kenya have sacrificed healthy competition and internal democracy, at the altar of individual aggrandizement”
These examples serve to demonstrate that the lack of the multi-party culture, is a major hindrance, and indeed a huge fault line, in the proper functioning of the multi-party political system through multi-party elections.
Multi-party democracy requires the presence of a strong Opposition camp.
The emergence of the “UKAWA” Coalition was intended to strengthen the Opposition camp. The presence of a strong Opposition is indeed necessary for the vibrancy of electoral democracy.
Two former Presidents of the United Republic of Tanzania, are on record as having bemoaned the apparent weaknesses of the Opposition during their period in office. President Mkapa (as he then was), in his speech to inaugurate the 8th Parliament, made the following pertinent comments regarding the weakness of the Opposition:- “If we do not have serious political competition between comparable teams, we will slowly degenerate into political frivolity”. He was referring the results of the 2000 general elections, in which the Opposition camp performed poorly at all levels. Both In the Presidential election, where CCM had obtained a huge 71% of the total valid votes cast; and in the Parliamentary elections, where CCM has scored a handsome 87.45% of all the Parliamentary seats.
On his part, President Jakaya Kikwete of the fourth phase Government, speaking at a new year sherry party which he hosted for the foreign Diplomats accredited to Tanzania on 10th January 2006, lamented that “the poor performance of the Opposition parties in the 2005 general elections had raised great concern as to whether Tanzania was unwittingly reverting to the previous one-party political system”.
The results of that general election showed that in the Presidential election, CCM had scooped a premium 80.28%, leaving the seven participating Opposition parties to share the remaining small percentage; while in the Parliamentary elections, of the 13 participating political parties, CCM had scored an overwhelming majority of 206 parliamentary seats, while only three Opposition parties were able to obtain a tiny share of the remaining Parliamentary seats. It is this poor electoral performance that the former Presidents were talking about.
The results of that general election showed that in the Presidential election, CCM had scooped a premium 80.28%, leaving the seven participating Opposition parties to share the remaining small percentage; while in the Parliamentary elections, of the 13 participating political parties, CCM had scored an overwhelming majority of 206 parliamentary seats, while only three Opposition parties were able to obtain a tiny share of the remaining Parliamentary seats. It is this poor electoral performance that the former Presidents were talking about.
(will continue next week)
piomsekwa@gmail.com / 0754767576.
No comments:
Post a Comment