Our country’s election laws, Act (no. 1 of 1985) and the Local Authorities (Elections) Act (no. 4 of 1979); provide that where, upon the designated closing time, there is only one candidate who has returned the requisite ‘nomination forms’ to the Returning Officer, and if no objection is raised against such candidate within a period of twenty four hours thereafter, such candidate shall be declared by the relevant Returning Officer to have been “elected unopposed”.
This has been a familiar occurrence in our electoral history, both of general elections as well as of bye-elections at the Parliamentary and Local Authorities level; when CCM candidates in a number of constituencies and Wards were declared by their respective Returning Officers as having been elected unopposed. This has also featured prominently in this year’s forthcoming October parliamentary and Local Authority elections in which, immediately after the closing hour on nomination day, 25th August, 2020; information was widely circulated in the social media platforms, to the effect that CCM had obtained a windfall of 18 parliamentary seats in constituencies in which its candidates had been elected unopposed; plus some 450 Local Council members, who had also been elected unopposed in their respective Wards.
This was before the objections to the said nominations had been raised, and determined by the National Electoral Commission. But even after all the objections had been dealt with and finally determined; !8 CCM candidates were confirmed by the Commission as having been validly elected unopposed; plus two others, who also became unopposed as a result of their Opposition contestants’ voluntary withdrawal from the race.
However, the basic concern of this article is not about the numbers of unopposed candidates. It is all about the ‘ingenious’ paradox, that is involved in such unopposed election outcomes.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “paradox” as “a situation that has two opposite features, and therefore seems strange”. In relation to the phenomenon of ‘candidates being elected unopposed’, the paradox arises because, on the one hand, such outcomes have the positive feature of satisfying the requirements of the electoral laws cited above. But on the other hand, they also have the negative feature of disenfranchising the electorate in the affected constituencies. This is clearly bad, because it creates a serious ‘democracy deficit’ on our democracy landscape.
The principal purpose of this article, is to draw attention to this ingenious paradox.
The Paradox of unopposed election candidates.
This paradox was first identified by Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, who then took what were considered to be the most appropriate corrective measures, in the prevailing circumstances at the material time.
The month of October of every year, is normally our “ month of remembrance” of Nyerere’s death on 14th October, 1999; This being the month of October, 2020; I will take this opportunity, for the benefit of our younger generation, to make a presentation on Mwalimu Nyerere’s leadership endeavours in this regard during his lifetime; as a way of paying continuing respect to our departed father of the nation. For, although Nyerere is gone, his ideals must be kept alive, so that they may continue to inspire our nation. Indeed, as that Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle (1795 – 1881) said in his book titled “Heroes and Hero-worship” : “No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men”. Undoubtedly, Mwalimu Nyerere was one such great man, and this narrative should preferably form part of his biography.
For Mwalimu Nyerere, the matter of candidates ‘ being elected unopposed’ was a serious issue of disenfranchising the voters; as will be narrated in the paragraphs that follow here below.
An ingenious paradox.
The idea of candidates being declared to have been ‘elected unopposed’ was an invention of the
legal pundits of colonial times. Because it surfaced even during the first two pre-independence parliamentary elections which were held under the supervision of the British colonial Administration in Tanganyika in 1958/59 and 1960; when many of the TANU sponsored candidates were declared to have been elected unopposed, in the face of stiff competition under the obnoxious ‘tripartite voting system’. For the 1958/59 parliamentary election, a total of ten constituencies had been created by the British Administration, for which the Authority had decided to hold in two separate phases, with five constituencies holding their election in September 1958, and the remaining five in February 1959. The reason given for this arrangement was that these elections could not be held throughout the country at the same time, because “ it was too great an administrative undertaking”. (compare this with the first post-independence general election of 1965, which was easily held throughout the country in all the 107 constituencies on the same day). In both phases, most of the TANU sponsored candidates were elected unopposed, despite the stiff competition from two other participating political parties : the United Tanganyika Party (UTP) and the African National Congress (ANC).
The scenario of TANU sponsored candidates being ‘elected unopposed’ was repeated in the 1960 pre-independence parliamentary election; in which as many as 58 TANU sponsored candidates , out of a total of 71 constituencies, were declared to have been elected unopposed.
This has been a familiar occurrence in our electoral history, both of general elections as well as of bye-elections at the Parliamentary and Local Authorities level; when CCM candidates in a number of constituencies and Wards were declared by their respective Returning Officers as having been elected unopposed. This has also featured prominently in this year’s forthcoming October parliamentary and Local Authority elections in which, immediately after the closing hour on nomination day, 25th August, 2020; information was widely circulated in the social media platforms, to the effect that CCM had obtained a windfall of 18 parliamentary seats in constituencies in which its candidates had been elected unopposed; plus some 450 Local Council members, who had also been elected unopposed in their respective Wards.
This was before the objections to the said nominations had been raised, and determined by the National Electoral Commission. But even after all the objections had been dealt with and finally determined; !8 CCM candidates were confirmed by the Commission as having been validly elected unopposed; plus two others, who also became unopposed as a result of their Opposition contestants’ voluntary withdrawal from the race.
However, the basic concern of this article is not about the numbers of unopposed candidates. It is all about the ‘ingenious’ paradox, that is involved in such unopposed election outcomes.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “paradox” as “a situation that has two opposite features, and therefore seems strange”. In relation to the phenomenon of ‘candidates being elected unopposed’, the paradox arises because, on the one hand, such outcomes have the positive feature of satisfying the requirements of the electoral laws cited above. But on the other hand, they also have the negative feature of disenfranchising the electorate in the affected constituencies. This is clearly bad, because it creates a serious ‘democracy deficit’ on our democracy landscape.
The principal purpose of this article, is to draw attention to this ingenious paradox.
The Paradox of unopposed election candidates.
This paradox was first identified by Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, who then took what were considered to be the most appropriate corrective measures, in the prevailing circumstances at the material time.
The month of October of every year, is normally our “ month of remembrance” of Nyerere’s death on 14th October, 1999; This being the month of October, 2020; I will take this opportunity, for the benefit of our younger generation, to make a presentation on Mwalimu Nyerere’s leadership endeavours in this regard during his lifetime; as a way of paying continuing respect to our departed father of the nation. For, although Nyerere is gone, his ideals must be kept alive, so that they may continue to inspire our nation. Indeed, as that Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle (1795 – 1881) said in his book titled “Heroes and Hero-worship” : “No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men”. Undoubtedly, Mwalimu Nyerere was one such great man, and this narrative should preferably form part of his biography.
For Mwalimu Nyerere, the matter of candidates ‘ being elected unopposed’ was a serious issue of disenfranchising the voters; as will be narrated in the paragraphs that follow here below.
An ingenious paradox.
The idea of candidates being declared to have been ‘elected unopposed’ was an invention of the
legal pundits of colonial times. Because it surfaced even during the first two pre-independence parliamentary elections which were held under the supervision of the British colonial Administration in Tanganyika in 1958/59 and 1960; when many of the TANU sponsored candidates were declared to have been elected unopposed, in the face of stiff competition under the obnoxious ‘tripartite voting system’. For the 1958/59 parliamentary election, a total of ten constituencies had been created by the British Administration, for which the Authority had decided to hold in two separate phases, with five constituencies holding their election in September 1958, and the remaining five in February 1959. The reason given for this arrangement was that these elections could not be held throughout the country at the same time, because “ it was too great an administrative undertaking”. (compare this with the first post-independence general election of 1965, which was easily held throughout the country in all the 107 constituencies on the same day). In both phases, most of the TANU sponsored candidates were elected unopposed, despite the stiff competition from two other participating political parties : the United Tanganyika Party (UTP) and the African National Congress (ANC).
The scenario of TANU sponsored candidates being ‘elected unopposed’ was repeated in the 1960 pre-independence parliamentary election; in which as many as 58 TANU sponsored candidates , out of a total of 71 constituencies, were declared to have been elected unopposed.
This was, of course, very good news for TANU, for it saved the party a great deal of valuable time, as well as resources, which would have been spent on campaigning and mobilizing votes for its candidates. And, for the same reasons, it was similarly good news for the candidates themselves; and for the Government; which also saved money which would have been spent on organizing and managing the entire election process.
However, Mwallimu Nyerere the democrat, felt that these outcomes were bad for democracy; and decided that, after independence such system must be changed, in order to do away with this undemocratic disenfranchisement of the electorate which, he strongly felt, was creating a serious deficit in the country’s democratic dispensation.
According to Mwalimu Nyerere’s own statements, it was abundantly clear to him, and indeed to many other political observers, that this particular situation was created by TANU’s massive popularity and unchallenged support, among the people of Tanganyika; plus Nyerere’s own personal charisma, and his general political appeal to the people.
This latter aspect became clearly manifested during Tanganyika’s first Presidential election which was held in November 1962, in preparation for the country change from its then (British) Dominion status, to a Republic. That election had two participants: Mwalimu Julius Nyerere sponsored by the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU); and Zuberi Mtemvu, who was sponsored by the African National Congress (ANC). Mwalimu Nyerere’s election victory was far in excess of 95%.
Nyerere’s solution : the introduction of a single-party system
We stated earlier, that the negative effect of candidates being ‘elected unopposed’ was the disenfranchisement of the voters in the affected constituencies. This defect was distinctly noticeable because the pre-independence general elections were confined only to Parliamentary elections. This was vastly different from the current practice; wherein a general election consists of three distinct elections, namely of the President, of the members of Parliament, and of the members of the Local Authority Councils. Thus, in today’s circumstances, It is practically impossible that all three aspirants will be elected unopposed in any given constituency . Thus, where an aspirant for membership of Parliament is unopposed, voting will still take place for the other positions. Consequently, the question of ‘disenfranchising the voters’, does not arise. It should not be a matter of surprise therefore, that in those circumstances, it became a major issue of concern for Mwalimu Nyerere; for the reason only that it denied the people concerned, their democratic right of selecting their leaders through the ballot box.
It is primarily for that reason, that Mwalimu Nyerere considered it necessary to find a solution. It should be remembered that at that time, Tanganyika had a multi-party Constitution. Thus, as a result of the 1960 pre-independence general election, with TANU having won 70 out of the 71 seats available in the Legislative Council; the country had been turned into a de facto one-party state. The worrying factor for President Nyerere, was the fact that the voters in 58 of those 71 constituencies, had been disenfranchised; because their MPs had been elected unopposed.
It was this latter fact, that led President Nyerere to the conclusion that democracy would be better served, if the people were allowed to choose from several competing TANU candidates. He said thus: “ We have to dispense with the disciplines of this multi-party system. I would say that such disciplines are not only unnecessary in our prevailing circumstances, but that they are bound, in time, to prove fatal our democracy”.
Hence, having reached that conclusion, he then set out to establish the mechanism for achieving that particular objective.
The appointment of the ‘One-party’ Commission.
President Nyerere was sworn into office on 9th December, 1962, the first anniversary of the country’s independence. And very soon thereafter, in January 1963, the TANU National Executive Committee, under Nyerere’s chairmanship, passed a special resolution recommending the introduction of a ‘single-party’ system of government. In implementation of that resolution, President Nyerere soon appointed the Commission, which was placed under the chairmanship of Vice-President Rashid Kawawa. The Commission worked diligently until 22nd March, 1965, when it presented its Report to President Nyerere; who then submitted it to Party’s National Executive Committee for consideration, after which it went through the normal legislative process. Ultimately, the One-Party Constitution was enacted on 8th July, and became effective from 10th July, 1965.
President Nyerere was determined, that the envisaged one-party Constitution must create a properly functioning, democratic State. Thus, when he appointed the Commission which was tasked to prepare the proposals for this Constitution, he also issued certain specific directives and guidelines regarding the principles of democracy, which that Commission was required to incorporate in its proposals. This was successfully accomplished, as evidenced in the PREAMBLE to that Constitution, which read as follows:-
“WHEREAS freedom, justice, fraternity and concord, are founded upon the recognition of the equality of all men, and of their inherent dignity; and upon the recognition of their rights to protection of life, liberty and property; to freedom of conscience, expression, and association; their rights to participate in their own Government, and to receive a just return for their labour; AND that when men are united together in a community, it is their duty to respect the rights and dignity of their fellow men; to uphold the laws of the State, and to conduct the affairs of State in such a way that its resources are preserved, developed and enjoyed for the benefit of all its citizens, and to prevent the exploitation of one man by another; AND WHEREAS Such rights are best preserved and protected; and such duties ar most equitably disposed in a democratic society where the Government is responsible to a freely elected Parliament representing all the people; and where the courts of law are free and impartial; NOW THEREFORE this Constitution, which makes provision for the Government of Tanzania as such a democratic society, is hereby enacted by the Parliament of the United Republic of Tanzania”. This is an important part of our political history. (will continue next week)
piomsekwa@gmail.com / 0754767576.
However, Mwallimu Nyerere the democrat, felt that these outcomes were bad for democracy; and decided that, after independence such system must be changed, in order to do away with this undemocratic disenfranchisement of the electorate which, he strongly felt, was creating a serious deficit in the country’s democratic dispensation.
According to Mwalimu Nyerere’s own statements, it was abundantly clear to him, and indeed to many other political observers, that this particular situation was created by TANU’s massive popularity and unchallenged support, among the people of Tanganyika; plus Nyerere’s own personal charisma, and his general political appeal to the people.
This latter aspect became clearly manifested during Tanganyika’s first Presidential election which was held in November 1962, in preparation for the country change from its then (British) Dominion status, to a Republic. That election had two participants: Mwalimu Julius Nyerere sponsored by the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU); and Zuberi Mtemvu, who was sponsored by the African National Congress (ANC). Mwalimu Nyerere’s election victory was far in excess of 95%.
Nyerere’s solution : the introduction of a single-party system
We stated earlier, that the negative effect of candidates being ‘elected unopposed’ was the disenfranchisement of the voters in the affected constituencies. This defect was distinctly noticeable because the pre-independence general elections were confined only to Parliamentary elections. This was vastly different from the current practice; wherein a general election consists of three distinct elections, namely of the President, of the members of Parliament, and of the members of the Local Authority Councils. Thus, in today’s circumstances, It is practically impossible that all three aspirants will be elected unopposed in any given constituency . Thus, where an aspirant for membership of Parliament is unopposed, voting will still take place for the other positions. Consequently, the question of ‘disenfranchising the voters’, does not arise. It should not be a matter of surprise therefore, that in those circumstances, it became a major issue of concern for Mwalimu Nyerere; for the reason only that it denied the people concerned, their democratic right of selecting their leaders through the ballot box.
It is primarily for that reason, that Mwalimu Nyerere considered it necessary to find a solution. It should be remembered that at that time, Tanganyika had a multi-party Constitution. Thus, as a result of the 1960 pre-independence general election, with TANU having won 70 out of the 71 seats available in the Legislative Council; the country had been turned into a de facto one-party state. The worrying factor for President Nyerere, was the fact that the voters in 58 of those 71 constituencies, had been disenfranchised; because their MPs had been elected unopposed.
It was this latter fact, that led President Nyerere to the conclusion that democracy would be better served, if the people were allowed to choose from several competing TANU candidates. He said thus: “ We have to dispense with the disciplines of this multi-party system. I would say that such disciplines are not only unnecessary in our prevailing circumstances, but that they are bound, in time, to prove fatal our democracy”.
Hence, having reached that conclusion, he then set out to establish the mechanism for achieving that particular objective.
The appointment of the ‘One-party’ Commission.
President Nyerere was sworn into office on 9th December, 1962, the first anniversary of the country’s independence. And very soon thereafter, in January 1963, the TANU National Executive Committee, under Nyerere’s chairmanship, passed a special resolution recommending the introduction of a ‘single-party’ system of government. In implementation of that resolution, President Nyerere soon appointed the Commission, which was placed under the chairmanship of Vice-President Rashid Kawawa. The Commission worked diligently until 22nd March, 1965, when it presented its Report to President Nyerere; who then submitted it to Party’s National Executive Committee for consideration, after which it went through the normal legislative process. Ultimately, the One-Party Constitution was enacted on 8th July, and became effective from 10th July, 1965.
President Nyerere was determined, that the envisaged one-party Constitution must create a properly functioning, democratic State. Thus, when he appointed the Commission which was tasked to prepare the proposals for this Constitution, he also issued certain specific directives and guidelines regarding the principles of democracy, which that Commission was required to incorporate in its proposals. This was successfully accomplished, as evidenced in the PREAMBLE to that Constitution, which read as follows:-
“WHEREAS freedom, justice, fraternity and concord, are founded upon the recognition of the equality of all men, and of their inherent dignity; and upon the recognition of their rights to protection of life, liberty and property; to freedom of conscience, expression, and association; their rights to participate in their own Government, and to receive a just return for their labour; AND that when men are united together in a community, it is their duty to respect the rights and dignity of their fellow men; to uphold the laws of the State, and to conduct the affairs of State in such a way that its resources are preserved, developed and enjoyed for the benefit of all its citizens, and to prevent the exploitation of one man by another; AND WHEREAS Such rights are best preserved and protected; and such duties ar most equitably disposed in a democratic society where the Government is responsible to a freely elected Parliament representing all the people; and where the courts of law are free and impartial; NOW THEREFORE this Constitution, which makes provision for the Government of Tanzania as such a democratic society, is hereby enacted by the Parliament of the United Republic of Tanzania”. This is an important part of our political history. (will continue next week)
piomsekwa@gmail.com / 0754767576.
No comments:
Post a Comment