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.
No comments:
Post a Comment