The political “hot news” at the beginning of this month ; was the information relating to the Report of the ‘special Task Force’ which had been set up earlier by President Samia Suluhu Hassan, consisting of representatives from political parties, civil society Organizations, government officials and other stakeholder experts, which had been tasked “to coordinate views regarding the necessary reforms that are need, in order to provide ‘a fair space’ for all participating stakeholders’. Thus, the “provision of fair space” appears to be, currently, the “greatest need for the greatest number of people” in the politics of Tanzania.
According to the information reported in THE CITIZEN on Sunday of 1st May, 2022; most of the views expressed centered mainly on electoral reform proposals. It was reported thus:- “The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS); and the General Council of Islamic Communities and Institutions in Tanzania; had a chance to present their views on Friday, with both sides providing alternatives to ensuring free and fair elections”. And further that the matters of major concern were the following:-
According to the information reported in THE CITIZEN on Sunday of 1st May, 2022; most of the views expressed centered mainly on electoral reform proposals. It was reported thus:- “The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS); and the General Council of Islamic Communities and Institutions in Tanzania; had a chance to present their views on Friday, with both sides providing alternatives to ensuring free and fair elections”. And further that the matters of major concern were the following:-
(i) the involvement of District Executive Directors (who are government employees), as election Returning Officers; in respect of which the spokesman from the Islamic communities Organization said: “DEDs are appointed by the President,, and therefore they are very likely to alter election results in favour of their boss”; and (ii) the establishment of “an independent Electoral Commission”; regarding which the spokesman from TLS said: “we have suggested an independent electoral commission, whose supervisors should not be among the government employees, so as to avoid conflict of interest and bias”.
(iii) The urgent need for a “new constitution”; a point which was “hammered home” by CHADEMA Chairman Freeman Mbowe, in his speech during the opening of that party’s meeting of its Baraza Kuu.
I was moved to write this article, primarily for two reasons:-
(a) to examine the rationale of associating these purely electoral reforms with the need for a new constitution;
(b) to provide a helpful reminder, that the need ‘for fair space’ applies not only to political parties; but also to the equally important women sector of our society, who are also entitled to be considered for this “fair space”
Electoral reforms do not require a new constitution.
Any country’s Constitution is the fundamental law of that country. It is a very special legal document which is clothed in a special form of sanctity, aimed at protecting it from any ‘casual’ encroachments. Such protections include restrictions placed on the kind of issues which qualify for inclusion therein; the special way in which the constitution is enacted (which is totally different from the way the ordinary laws of the land are enacted); and even the procedure for its amendment, is demonstrably different from that which is followed in amending the ordinary laws of the land.
That is actually what explains why the Constitutions of older countries, like that of the United states of America, has survived for centuries without being replaced with new constitutions. But whenever the need arises for reforms to be made thereto, that is done simply through amendments.
I was moved to write this article, primarily for two reasons:-
(a) to examine the rationale of associating these purely electoral reforms with the need for a new constitution;
(b) to provide a helpful reminder, that the need ‘for fair space’ applies not only to political parties; but also to the equally important women sector of our society, who are also entitled to be considered for this “fair space”
Electoral reforms do not require a new constitution.
Any country’s Constitution is the fundamental law of that country. It is a very special legal document which is clothed in a special form of sanctity, aimed at protecting it from any ‘casual’ encroachments. Such protections include restrictions placed on the kind of issues which qualify for inclusion therein; the special way in which the constitution is enacted (which is totally different from the way the ordinary laws of the land are enacted); and even the procedure for its amendment, is demonstrably different from that which is followed in amending the ordinary laws of the land.
That is actually what explains why the Constitutions of older countries, like that of the United states of America, has survived for centuries without being replaced with new constitutions. But whenever the need arises for reforms to be made thereto, that is done simply through amendments.
Thus, it is my strong contention, that such purely electoral issues, are not the kind of matters that are not governed by the country’s Constitution; since they are governed by the country’s electoral laws. However, for entirely different, and cogent reasons, we certainly do need a new Constitution which will rectify many areas, including:-
The issue of providing ‘fair space’ for women’s participation.
This is one of the issues which can be effectively handled only through the making of appropriate reforms to the Constitution, as clearly evidenced by our own constitutional history. I am here referring to the particular issue of “women in Parliament”.
The introduction of the women’s ‘special seats’.
It may presumably be remembered by some of our readers, that the main purpose for the introduction of such ‘special seats’ for women; was to address the gender impediment to women’s political advancement, through this methodology of giving them greater representation, not only in Parliament, but also in the Local Government Authority Councils.
It is for that reason that the country’s Constitution was amended, initially to include a new provision for “not less than 15% of the total number of MPs to be women. And the Local Government Laws were similarly amended to provide for “not less than 25% of each Council’s members to be women. A subsequent constitutional amendment further raised this percentage point to “not less that 30%. And was further raised in 2020 to not less than 40%. This provision was, however, not intended to reduce ‘the open space’ which is available for competition by anyone irrespective of gender, namely the constituency seats. Instead, it was intended to just provide for ‘extra space’ for women, to enter the Legislative Branch of the government, and the Local Authority Councils.
But, and indeed unfortunately, the notion of ‘special seats’ created two unintended disadvantages for the women:- One was there developed a male ‘conspiracy’ of unfairly treating them as ‘preferential seats, (with the negative aim of lowering their value, compared to the regular Parliamentary constituency MPs). Thus, as a consequence thereof, the ‘special seats’ MPs tended to be treated as ‘inferior class’ MPs; a ‘male ‘conspiracy’ which appeared to hurt the women MPs psychologically, but, to their great credit, they bravely continued to ‘soldier on’.
The issue of providing ‘fair space’ for women’s participation.
This is one of the issues which can be effectively handled only through the making of appropriate reforms to the Constitution, as clearly evidenced by our own constitutional history. I am here referring to the particular issue of “women in Parliament”.
The introduction of the women’s ‘special seats’.
It may presumably be remembered by some of our readers, that the main purpose for the introduction of such ‘special seats’ for women; was to address the gender impediment to women’s political advancement, through this methodology of giving them greater representation, not only in Parliament, but also in the Local Government Authority Councils.
It is for that reason that the country’s Constitution was amended, initially to include a new provision for “not less than 15% of the total number of MPs to be women. And the Local Government Laws were similarly amended to provide for “not less than 25% of each Council’s members to be women. A subsequent constitutional amendment further raised this percentage point to “not less that 30%. And was further raised in 2020 to not less than 40%. This provision was, however, not intended to reduce ‘the open space’ which is available for competition by anyone irrespective of gender, namely the constituency seats. Instead, it was intended to just provide for ‘extra space’ for women, to enter the Legislative Branch of the government, and the Local Authority Councils.
But, and indeed unfortunately, the notion of ‘special seats’ created two unintended disadvantages for the women:- One was there developed a male ‘conspiracy’ of unfairly treating them as ‘preferential seats, (with the negative aim of lowering their value, compared to the regular Parliamentary constituency MPs). Thus, as a consequence thereof, the ‘special seats’ MPs tended to be treated as ‘inferior class’ MPs; a ‘male ‘conspiracy’ which appeared to hurt the women MPs psychologically, but, to their great credit, they bravely continued to ‘soldier on’.
The second disadvantage was that this ‘special seats’ provision also appeared to reduce the women’s chances of being elected in the constituencies, since the male chauvinists were conspiratorially telling the voters ‘not to vote’ for any woman candidate in the constituencies, “since the women have their own reserved seats in Parliament”!
This deliberately crafted misleading ‘strategy’ seems to have impacted negatively on the women’s chances of getting elected in the constituencies. For example, in the tenth Parliament, out of 239 the constituencies, women candidates (of all political parties) were able to win in only 21 constituencies. And in the eleventh Parliament, out of an increased number of 264 constituencies, women candidates were able to win in only 26 constituencies.
The original intention was also frustrated.
Another unintended outcome, was the unintended frustration of the original “intention of the constitution-makers” in this case, which was that women would use these ‘special seats’ only as “a passage way”, to be utilized for the purpose only of gaining greater confidence, plus experience, which would equip them adequately for participation in the regular constituency election competitions; for example, after they had served in that capacity for the first five years; they would willingly give those opportunities to other women to enter and occupy these special seats, in order for them to gain the same experience; thus spreading those benefits to a larger number of women in the community.
However, what actually transpired was totally different; as many of those who got elected to these ‘special seats’ did not want to leave them; thus frustrating the good intention of the constitution-makers.
The issue of the independent candidates’ participation in elections.
This is another matter which requires a new Constitution, which will remove the present constitutional restriction on the participation of “private candidates” in all our elections. These restrictions are prescribed in articles 39, 47, and 67 of the Constitution.; and must have been introduced for ‘good reasons’ in the circumstances of the times when they were imposed; but those times and circumstances have now changed.
The issue of providing ‘fair space’ for winning elections.
The underlying purpose for demanding a ‘new Constitution’, an ‘independent electoral Commission’, etc; is the desire on the part of the opposition parties to defeat CCM at a given general election. This is indeed, an entirely valid objective to be pursued under the multi-party political system which we are operating in Tanzania.
However, CCM’s defeat at past general elections has not occurred, largely because of its inherent, or in-built advantage; namely the unity of its very vast membership population, which is what has effectively shielded this party from any such defeat. This ‘inherent strength’ has been tested twice, and proved to be manifestly solid.
The first test was when Augustine Mrema decamped from CCM, just before the 1995 first multi-party general election; with high expectations of winning that election on an opposition ticket. To his great disappointment, that did not happen. Which reminds me of the Biblical story of Samson, whose extraordinary strength lay in the hair on his head. Mrema’s apparent massive political strength appears to have been rooted in his membership of CCM; because soon after he decamped there from, his political strength suddenly evaporated.
The second test came when Edward Lowassa, also decamped to CHADEMA just before the 2015 general elections; with similarly high expectations of winning that election on an opposition ticket. But, again like in the Biblical Samson story, Lowassa’s seemingly huge political strength was also embedded in his membership of CCM, and similarly evaporated when he defected to the Opposition. This evidence, I submit, adequately proves CCM’s inherent, or in-built, institutional strength; which is expressed in its Kiswahili slogan of “Chama kwanza, mtu baadaye”.
It is conceded, however, that CCM can indeed be defeated at a general election, because of other weaknesses, such as the following:-
The ‘self-inflicted’ injuries.
CCM’s biggest election defeat threat, is in the area of “self-inflicted injuries. These are defined as ‘injuries that are carelessly imposed upon itself by its own negligent actions’. From my own experience in the service of CCM, the main such injury has been its carelessness in the selection of its candidates for the general elections.
In my considered opinion, this is the only “killer disease” which is most likely going to remove CCM from power; if, or when, the party will fail to select electable candidates.
The lack of committed trust in the top leader.
Another such ‘killer’ disease that could cause CCM’s demise from power; is the “loss of people’s trust” in its top leader’. The test of such ‘loss of trust’ in CCM’s top-leader, was amply demonstrated during President Jakaya Kikwete’s final term in office. This ‘loss of trust’ was created principally by the emergence of certain scandals, which were directly associated with a number of government leaders in his government; and, consequently, they also became associated with him as the President.
The said scandals included:
(a) the ‘Richmond scandal’, which eventually led to the resignation of then Prime Minister Edward Lowassa; and
(b) the equally damaging scandals which followed thereafter in very quick succession; relating to money which was allegedly stolen from the Central Bank’s External Payments Account (EPA); scandals which were again associated with government leaders, including Ministers, in President Kikwete’s government.
Naturally, such serious accusations created a great deal of anger among many Tanzanians, which was directed specifically at President Kikwete himself, accusing him of deliberately protecting the culprits, in view of his alleged failure to take effective action against them.
Another unintended outcome, was the unintended frustration of the original “intention of the constitution-makers” in this case, which was that women would use these ‘special seats’ only as “a passage way”, to be utilized for the purpose only of gaining greater confidence, plus experience, which would equip them adequately for participation in the regular constituency election competitions; for example, after they had served in that capacity for the first five years; they would willingly give those opportunities to other women to enter and occupy these special seats, in order for them to gain the same experience; thus spreading those benefits to a larger number of women in the community.
However, what actually transpired was totally different; as many of those who got elected to these ‘special seats’ did not want to leave them; thus frustrating the good intention of the constitution-makers.
The issue of the independent candidates’ participation in elections.
This is another matter which requires a new Constitution, which will remove the present constitutional restriction on the participation of “private candidates” in all our elections. These restrictions are prescribed in articles 39, 47, and 67 of the Constitution.; and must have been introduced for ‘good reasons’ in the circumstances of the times when they were imposed; but those times and circumstances have now changed.
The issue of providing ‘fair space’ for winning elections.
The underlying purpose for demanding a ‘new Constitution’, an ‘independent electoral Commission’, etc; is the desire on the part of the opposition parties to defeat CCM at a given general election. This is indeed, an entirely valid objective to be pursued under the multi-party political system which we are operating in Tanzania.
However, CCM’s defeat at past general elections has not occurred, largely because of its inherent, or in-built advantage; namely the unity of its very vast membership population, which is what has effectively shielded this party from any such defeat. This ‘inherent strength’ has been tested twice, and proved to be manifestly solid.
The first test was when Augustine Mrema decamped from CCM, just before the 1995 first multi-party general election; with high expectations of winning that election on an opposition ticket. To his great disappointment, that did not happen. Which reminds me of the Biblical story of Samson, whose extraordinary strength lay in the hair on his head. Mrema’s apparent massive political strength appears to have been rooted in his membership of CCM; because soon after he decamped there from, his political strength suddenly evaporated.
The second test came when Edward Lowassa, also decamped to CHADEMA just before the 2015 general elections; with similarly high expectations of winning that election on an opposition ticket. But, again like in the Biblical Samson story, Lowassa’s seemingly huge political strength was also embedded in his membership of CCM, and similarly evaporated when he defected to the Opposition. This evidence, I submit, adequately proves CCM’s inherent, or in-built, institutional strength; which is expressed in its Kiswahili slogan of “Chama kwanza, mtu baadaye”.
It is conceded, however, that CCM can indeed be defeated at a general election, because of other weaknesses, such as the following:-
The ‘self-inflicted’ injuries.
CCM’s biggest election defeat threat, is in the area of “self-inflicted injuries. These are defined as ‘injuries that are carelessly imposed upon itself by its own negligent actions’. From my own experience in the service of CCM, the main such injury has been its carelessness in the selection of its candidates for the general elections.
In my considered opinion, this is the only “killer disease” which is most likely going to remove CCM from power; if, or when, the party will fail to select electable candidates.
The lack of committed trust in the top leader.
Another such ‘killer’ disease that could cause CCM’s demise from power; is the “loss of people’s trust” in its top leader’. The test of such ‘loss of trust’ in CCM’s top-leader, was amply demonstrated during President Jakaya Kikwete’s final term in office. This ‘loss of trust’ was created principally by the emergence of certain scandals, which were directly associated with a number of government leaders in his government; and, consequently, they also became associated with him as the President.
The said scandals included:
(a) the ‘Richmond scandal’, which eventually led to the resignation of then Prime Minister Edward Lowassa; and
(b) the equally damaging scandals which followed thereafter in very quick succession; relating to money which was allegedly stolen from the Central Bank’s External Payments Account (EPA); scandals which were again associated with government leaders, including Ministers, in President Kikwete’s government.
Naturally, such serious accusations created a great deal of anger among many Tanzanians, which was directed specifically at President Kikwete himself, accusing him of deliberately protecting the culprits, in view of his alleged failure to take effective action against them.
It is this ‘loss of trust’ in him, which drastically reduced his election victory from the grand 80.25% which he had obtained in 2005, down to 61.17% , which he received in the 2010 Presidential election. “Beware the ides of march” (William Shakespeare in Julius Caesar, Act I scene II).
piomsekwa@gmail.com/0754767576.
piomsekwa@gmail.com/0754767576.
Source: Cde Msekwa
No comments:
Post a Comment