Just about two weeks ago, on Sunday 16th May, 2021, Parliamentary bye-elections were held in the two constituencies of Muhambwe and Buhigwe, both located in Kigoma Region. Bye-lections were also held in a number of Local Government wards in different Regions of the country.
Bye–elections are, of course, perfectly normal occurrences; they are actually dictated by the relevant national electoral laws, which provide that whenever a vacancy in any of the stipulated elective positions, it must be filled “as soon as may be practicable” through the process of bye-elections. Bye-elections should not therefore generate any active discussions; expect, perhaps, concerning the fairness in the conduct of their respective implementation processes, where this becomes challenged.
Bye–elections are, of course, perfectly normal occurrences; they are actually dictated by the relevant national electoral laws, which provide that whenever a vacancy in any of the stipulated elective positions, it must be filled “as soon as may be practicable” through the process of bye-elections. Bye-elections should not therefore generate any active discussions; expect, perhaps, concerning the fairness in the conduct of their respective implementation processes, where this becomes challenged.
Thus, the purpose of basing today’s presentation on bye-elections is not to challenge any aspect of the said bye-elections. I have only taken the opportunity offered by the political awareness that was generated by these political events, to make a little contribution to the general civic education, by making an analysis of certain crucial aspects of our multiparty electoral democracy; primarily for the benefit of our civics teachers and students.
But it may also be important to draw attention to the seemingly little attention that is normally given by voters to at such bye-elections, as was once again evidenced by said bye-elections whereby, in the Muhambwe constituency, where the total number of registered voters is given as 127, 766, but only 35,335 of these actually turned out at their respective polling stations on election day. Similarly, in the Buhigwe constituency, where out of the 112,333 registered voters, only 30,713 presented themselves at their respective polling stations on election day.
However, it should be noted that there other cogent reasons for this voter ‘absenteeism’. The main one is that whereas general elections normally determine which of the participating political will form the ensuing government of the day; bye-elections have no such role, except, perhaps, in very rare cases were the ruling party has a dangerously thin majority in Parliament which could be wiped out at election. But that is currently not the case here in Tanzania, where the ruling party has a huge, unassailable, majority in Parliament. Hence, in our circumstances, bye-elections are held just because the law requires them to be held; without any hope of substantially altering the representational structure of political parties inside Parliament. Thus, they cannot be expected to generate the same enthusiasm as the general elections.
But it may also be important to draw attention to the seemingly little attention that is normally given by voters to at such bye-elections, as was once again evidenced by said bye-elections whereby, in the Muhambwe constituency, where the total number of registered voters is given as 127, 766, but only 35,335 of these actually turned out at their respective polling stations on election day. Similarly, in the Buhigwe constituency, where out of the 112,333 registered voters, only 30,713 presented themselves at their respective polling stations on election day.
However, it should be noted that there other cogent reasons for this voter ‘absenteeism’. The main one is that whereas general elections normally determine which of the participating political will form the ensuing government of the day; bye-elections have no such role, except, perhaps, in very rare cases were the ruling party has a dangerously thin majority in Parliament which could be wiped out at election. But that is currently not the case here in Tanzania, where the ruling party has a huge, unassailable, majority in Parliament. Hence, in our circumstances, bye-elections are held just because the law requires them to be held; without any hope of substantially altering the representational structure of political parties inside Parliament. Thus, they cannot be expected to generate the same enthusiasm as the general elections.
But that notwithstanding, the wide public political mobilization and attention generated by these bye-election events, gives me the opportunity to make an analysis of the following crucial aspects of the wider issue of multi-party electoral democracy :-
(i) The negative aspects of candidates being elected unopposed.
(ii) The harmful effects of election boycotts.; and
(iii) The problems created by the “no-show” parties on election day.
(iv) The negative aspects of candidates being elected unopposed.
There was no candidate who was “elected unopposed” in the two parliamentary bye-elections mentioned above; but there was a large number of such CCM candidates in the general election of last year, 2020. Thus, comments on this matter of candidates “being elected unopposed” are still valid. Hence, in respect thereto, I wish to draw attention a hidden ‘ingenuous’ paradox to which is related. The word ‘paradox’, is defined as : “a situation that has two opposite features, and therefore seems strange”. In this context, the paradox arises because: on one hand, the matter of candidates being elected unopposed is definitely a good thing, because it satisfies the requirements of the law, as well as saving a lot of time and money which would have otherwise been spent in carrying out the election process.
(iv) The negative aspects of candidates being elected unopposed.
There was no candidate who was “elected unopposed” in the two parliamentary bye-elections mentioned above; but there was a large number of such CCM candidates in the general election of last year, 2020. Thus, comments on this matter of candidates “being elected unopposed” are still valid. Hence, in respect thereto, I wish to draw attention a hidden ‘ingenuous’ paradox to which is related. The word ‘paradox’, is defined as : “a situation that has two opposite features, and therefore seems strange”. In this context, the paradox arises because: on one hand, the matter of candidates being elected unopposed is definitely a good thing, because it satisfies the requirements of the law, as well as saving a lot of time and money which would have otherwise been spent in carrying out the election process.
But on the other hand it is a bad thing; because it has the negative effect of disenfranchising the electorate in the relevant constituencies, thus creating a serious ‘democracy deficiency’ in our multi-party electoral democracy landscape.
Further elaboration of this ‘hidden’ paradox is provided in the examples which are given here below, in relation to the pre-independence general elections.
In my book titled “Uongozi na Utawala wa Mwalimu Nyerere” (Nyambari Nyangwine Publishers, Dar es Salaam, 2012); I presented the full story of the paradox created by candidates being elected unopposed; in relation to the TANU candidates who participated in the pre-independence elections; and explained how this paradox greatly troubled the mind of Mwalimu Nyerere, and subsequently led to his making of a major decision to change the country’s Constitution, just because he personally felt very strongly, that such occurrences were bad for democracy.
However, it appears that in the present-generation political environment, no one seems to look at it that way, because the relevant discussion which I have heard taking place among interested political pundits regarding the matter of by-elections; is simply that “they are too costly to the nation”; with some of them suggesting that MPs who defect to other political parties should be allowed to retain their seats in Parliament, in order to avoid such costs. And such views being countered by those others who maintain that “democracy is expensive, and therefore, whenever vacancies occur in Parliament for whatsoever reason, the voters should not be deprived of their right to elect their representative therein, for the reason alone of avoiding costs.
It would appear that the latter views happen also to be the position of the relevant election laws, which provide that whenever a vacancy occurs, it must be filled “as soon as may be practicable”.
In my book titled “Uongozi na Utawala wa Mwalimu Nyerere” (Nyambari Nyangwine Publishers, Dar es Salaam, 2012); I presented the full story of the paradox created by candidates being elected unopposed; in relation to the TANU candidates who participated in the pre-independence elections; and explained how this paradox greatly troubled the mind of Mwalimu Nyerere, and subsequently led to his making of a major decision to change the country’s Constitution, just because he personally felt very strongly, that such occurrences were bad for democracy.
However, it appears that in the present-generation political environment, no one seems to look at it that way, because the relevant discussion which I have heard taking place among interested political pundits regarding the matter of by-elections; is simply that “they are too costly to the nation”; with some of them suggesting that MPs who defect to other political parties should be allowed to retain their seats in Parliament, in order to avoid such costs. And such views being countered by those others who maintain that “democracy is expensive, and therefore, whenever vacancies occur in Parliament for whatsoever reason, the voters should not be deprived of their right to elect their representative therein, for the reason alone of avoiding costs.
It would appear that the latter views happen also to be the position of the relevant election laws, which provide that whenever a vacancy occurs, it must be filled “as soon as may be practicable”.
Indeed, looking at this matter only from the ‘cost saving’ point of view, whenever election candidates are elected unopposed, all the parties involved become relieved of that burden of the costs of managing the relevant by-election. But beyond that, no one seems to pay any attention to the negative ‘democracy deficiency’ outcomes resulting there from, or associated there with; namely, disenfranchising the voters.
The pre-independence general elections.
When this phenomenon dominated the pre-independence elections of 1957/58, as well as those of 1960; the matter was bad enough that it moved Mwalimu Nyerere to initiate a major change in the then multiparty Constitution, in order to remove this (unintended) outcome of disenfranchising the electorate.
The pre-independence general elections.
When this phenomenon dominated the pre-independence elections of 1957/58, as well as those of 1960; the matter was bad enough that it moved Mwalimu Nyerere to initiate a major change in the then multiparty Constitution, in order to remove this (unintended) outcome of disenfranchising the electorate.
It should be noted that this was a result of the massive support for TANU among the people of Tanganyika at the material time which created this situation. However, in the present circumstances, is it still a valid proposition, to assume that whenever CCM candidates happen to be elected unopposed, this is a reflection of the massive voter confidence in the ruling party?
This is a valid question because there other factors which could account for such state of affairs, including:- (a) the evils of corruption; (b) election boycotts by some of the Opposition parties; and (c) the non-participation by other political parties. Non-participation by other political parties could perhaps be a calculated ‘sabotage conspiracy’ by such parties, deliberately designed in order to create a visible ‘democracy deficit’ in our electoral democracy landscape “creating a democracy deficit” is a subject which merits more intensive discussion. The analysis which follows below, is intended to contribute to such discussion, by generating some interest in, and hopefully responses, to this important subject.
The ‘democratic deficit’ in our electoral democracy.
((i) Non-participation in elections.
It may perhaps be helpful to remind our readers of the true purpose of elections as was envisaged originally by the relevant law, (Act no. 5 of 1992); which provides the following definition of a political party:- “Political party” means “any organized group of people for the purpose of participating in elections by putting up, or supporting, candidates for such elections”.
Participating in elections is therefore the raison de etre of any political party. This means that any other group which is formed NOT for the purpose of participating in elections, does not qualify to be called a ‘political party’. Such a group could perhaps be called a “pressure group”, or “interest group”; but certainly not a political party. Hence, the fact of non-participating in elections constitutes a defiance of that law.
(ii) The harmful effects of election boycotts.
Election boycotts by aggrieved political parties, are quite understandable; because ‘boycotts’ are generally regarded as essential protest ‘weapons’ in the fight against genuine injustice.
This is a valid question because there other factors which could account for such state of affairs, including:- (a) the evils of corruption; (b) election boycotts by some of the Opposition parties; and (c) the non-participation by other political parties. Non-participation by other political parties could perhaps be a calculated ‘sabotage conspiracy’ by such parties, deliberately designed in order to create a visible ‘democracy deficit’ in our electoral democracy landscape “creating a democracy deficit” is a subject which merits more intensive discussion. The analysis which follows below, is intended to contribute to such discussion, by generating some interest in, and hopefully responses, to this important subject.
The ‘democratic deficit’ in our electoral democracy.
((i) Non-participation in elections.
It may perhaps be helpful to remind our readers of the true purpose of elections as was envisaged originally by the relevant law, (Act no. 5 of 1992); which provides the following definition of a political party:- “Political party” means “any organized group of people for the purpose of participating in elections by putting up, or supporting, candidates for such elections”.
Participating in elections is therefore the raison de etre of any political party. This means that any other group which is formed NOT for the purpose of participating in elections, does not qualify to be called a ‘political party’. Such a group could perhaps be called a “pressure group”, or “interest group”; but certainly not a political party. Hence, the fact of non-participating in elections constitutes a defiance of that law.
(ii) The harmful effects of election boycotts.
Election boycotts by aggrieved political parties, are quite understandable; because ‘boycotts’ are generally regarded as essential protest ‘weapons’ in the fight against genuine injustice.
Nonetheless that positive factor notwithstanding; it must also be realized that election boycotts have their own ‘downside’ effects on the boycotting parties themselves, in the sense that they normally become the losers in the game; because they end up being ‘left out in the cold’, so to speak, with no chance at all of influencing decisions which will be made in Parliament in their absence, and even of enjoying the substantial material benefits which will accrue to their successful participating colleagues.
On the other hand though, election boycotts could also be based on the ‘fear of losing’ the relevant election. This could indeed be so, because we have repeatedly witnessed on a number of occasions, this ‘fear of losing’ being clothed in the fabrics of election boycotts; which they then attempt to justify by using the familiar, borrowed rhetoric, that they “have no confidence in the National Electoral Commission”; or by advancing unsubstantiated claims that “the elections will not be free and fair”, and so on; in futile attempts to justify their said boycotts.
On the other hand though, election boycotts could also be based on the ‘fear of losing’ the relevant election. This could indeed be so, because we have repeatedly witnessed on a number of occasions, this ‘fear of losing’ being clothed in the fabrics of election boycotts; which they then attempt to justify by using the familiar, borrowed rhetoric, that they “have no confidence in the National Electoral Commission”; or by advancing unsubstantiated claims that “the elections will not be free and fair”, and so on; in futile attempts to justify their said boycotts.
However, considering the fact that such arguments are the kind of presumptions which, if they have any merit at all, could be successfully argued in the courts of competent jurisdiction, with a view to seeking nullification the relevant election; it still remains a puzzle why such arguments should be used to justify the deliberate creation of this ‘democracy deficit’ in our electoral democracy landscape; when there is this reliable court option for obtaining relief from any election malpractices..
Mr. Justice Barnabas Samatta (as he was then), made this point absolutely clear in one of his judgments, when he said the following: “the doors to the temple of justice are always wide open and welcoming to anyone who is aggrieved by a contravention of the law”.
Mr. Justice Barnabas Samatta (as he was then), made this point absolutely clear in one of his judgments, when he said the following: “the doors to the temple of justice are always wide open and welcoming to anyone who is aggrieved by a contravention of the law”.
Therefore, in my humble opinion, complete disregard of these consequential negative election boycott effects, is basically unwise and indefensible; unless, of course, it is deliberate sabotage!
(iii) The problems created by the ‘no-show’ parties.
And then there are those other Opposition parties who just do not show up at all. Surely, the ‘fear of defeat’ which we referred to above, cannot be claimed to deter participation by these (usually small-size) political parties. Considering that the formula for winning an election is absolutely clear and undisputed, just because it is based solely on numbers; i.e. whoever receives the greatest number of votes, becomes the winner. Hence, any party which has a very small number of members or followers knows, or should know, that it has no chance whatsoever of winning an election, particularly in the face of stiff competition from the well-established parties such as CCM, which enjoys the support of thousands of followers in every Village!
(iii) The problems created by the ‘no-show’ parties.
And then there are those other Opposition parties who just do not show up at all. Surely, the ‘fear of defeat’ which we referred to above, cannot be claimed to deter participation by these (usually small-size) political parties. Considering that the formula for winning an election is absolutely clear and undisputed, just because it is based solely on numbers; i.e. whoever receives the greatest number of votes, becomes the winner. Hence, any party which has a very small number of members or followers knows, or should know, that it has no chance whatsoever of winning an election, particularly in the face of stiff competition from the well-established parties such as CCM, which enjoys the support of thousands of followers in every Village!
Their “no-show” action becomes a problem because their participation is important, primarily for the sake of maintaining our cherished electoral democracy. Indeed, their full participation in the whole election process is what provides a guaranteed remedy for the hidden malady of disenfranchising the electorate.
Pi0msekwa@gmail.com /0754767576.
Pi0msekwa@gmail.com /0754767576.
Source: Daily News and Cde Msekwa Last Thursday.
No comments:
Post a Comment