A FRENCH poet and writer, Paul Valery (1871-1945), is on record as having said this: – “Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them”. In 2013, I published a book tiled Reflections on the First Decade of Multi-party Politics in Tanzania” (Nyambari Nyangwine Publishers, Dar es Salaam); in which I narrated a variety of interesting stories relating to Tanzania’s transition from the single-party, to multi-party political dispensation; which demonstrate, through actual examples, of the kind of ‘lack of political ‘awareness’, regarding the issues that are discussed therein.
In this context, the expression “lack of political awareness” is used to mean the lack of ‘a proper understanding of the issues involved in the politics-related question that is under discussion”. In today’s presentation, I will return to, and build on, some of those stories; for the benefit of our younger generation of esteemed readers, and other stakeholders, as a “brain-teaser” for them to try and find out, whether Paul Valery’s contention quote above, is also applicable here in our home situation; namely, whether the politicians of the relevant periods discussed herein, were perhaps intentionally practicing what Pal Valery described as the “art of preventing people from taking part in affairs that properly concern them”; in other words, the art of denying people the benefit of ‘political awareness’, required in order to enable them to take part meaningfully in such affairs.
And for that purpose, we will travel ‘down memory lane’ to the relevant periods and events; starting with one example of such ‘gleaming’ lack of ‘political awareness’, that occurred during the period of British colonial Administration in what was Tanganyika (now Tanzania Mainland, a constituent part of the United Republic of Tanzania); and which, had it not been ‘nipped in the bud’, would most probably have retarded progress in the struggle for the country’s independence.
This is the matter of the “tripartite vote”, which was imposed by the British Colonial Administration for the country’s first Legislative Council elections of 1957/58. Here is the story: –“For the purpose of protecting their racial interests, that Administration passed Legislation which imposed the unusual requirement that “in order for his vote to be counted as valid, every voter must cast three votes, one each for a European, African, and Asian candidate”. This requirement was vehemently opposed by the majority of TANU members; who planned to boycott those elections as a sign of protest.
But the TANU President, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, was among the small minority who disliked the idea of boycotting the elections, for the very good reason that boycotting the elections would allow their opponents to enter the Legislative Council virtually unopposed, thus giving them a freehand to adopt any legislation they wanted, including legislation which would make the struggle for independence, even more difficult.
Apparently, the proponents of the boycott were completely unaware of this danger! Thus, it took Mwalimu Nyerere’s remarkable ingenuity, plus his extraordinary powers of persuasion, to convince his party colleagues to drop that boycott idea; and instead, agreed to participate fully in the said elections.
Mwalimu Nyerere did this at the famous 1958 TANU annual conference, at which he decided to vacate the Chair so that, in his own words, “to enable him to argue his case from the “backbenches”, so as to avoid the temptation of using the influence of the Chair to force delegates to agree with him”. This was, indeed, one of Nyerere’s unique leadership qualities, that clearly distinguished him from many others in similar apex positions.
There is another example that provides similar demonstration of this “lack of political awareness” on the part of the persons involved. This is the mutiny by the ‘left over’ colonial army, then known as the “Kings African Rifles”; which occurred relatively soon after independence, in January 1964, at a time when the newly independent country had not yet organized its own defense forces, and was still relying on the “left over colonial “Kings African Rifles.”
It was during the night of January 19/20, 1964 when this mutiny suddenly occurred at Colito Barracks, Dar es Salaam. Later reports showed that the mutiny was not motivated by any political ambitions, such as overthrowing President Nyerere’s government; but that their aim was to remove the commanding British Officers, to be replaced by indigenous Tanzanian Officers; plus demands for enhancing the soldiers’ salaries and improving their other conditions of service.
The mutineers had taken control of some key government facilities, including Radio Tanzania, and the Dar es Salaam International Airport. Thus, as a routine precaution, the Security organs had whisked President Nyerere and Vice President Kawawa, away to a safe location in Kigamboni area. It was, basically, a criminal act. Thus the offenders were arrested and tried, and after conviction, they were sent to prison for terms of two years each, except for their leader, Sergeant Hingo Ilogi, who was imprisoned for a longer period.
However, these relatively ‘short-term’ sentences were considered to be ‘too mild’ for the offences committed and this led to public protest demonstrations in Dar es Salaam. In those circumstances; President Nyerere felt obliged to issue a formal statement, in which he said the following:- “Serikali inataka kuweka wazi kwamba inakubaliana na malalamiko hayo, na usema kwamba adhabu walizopewa wanajeshi waliofanya maasi, hazina uwiano hata kidogo na uzito wa makosa waliyoyafany, na ukubwa wa athari za vitendo vyao kwa nchi yetu. Lakini pamoja na hayo, Serikali haitafanya lolote la kujaribu kubadilisha adhabu hizo; kwani kufanya hivyo ni kuvunja misingi ya utawala wa sheria, ambao ndio msingi muhimu unaolinda uhuru na usawa wa raia wetu. Hatuwezi kuruhusu hasira zetu dhidi ya waasi hao, zitufikishe kwenye kuvunja msingi huo”.
He was defending the cardinal principle of “the rule of law” His words also help to confirm another of the unique qualities which are attributed to Mwalimu Nyerere, namely that he was “a man of principle”.
He was indeed, but his strict “adherence to principles” did, in some other cases, cost this country dearly, in terms of the withdrawal of financial aid by some donors in retaliation.
Those were the donors who were obviously providing such aid “with strings attached”; and included the country that was then known as ‘West Germany’, which angrily withdrew their aid money when President Nyerere rejected their unreasonable demand on him to close the East German Embassy in Zanzibar, following the Union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar in April 1964; a consequence of the “cold war” politics of that period.It also includes the British withdrawal of their aid money in 1965; as a consequence of the action taken by Tanzania of having brokenits diplomatic relations with Britain, over what was known as the “Rhodesia question”.
This refers to the serious controversy which emanated from Southern Rhodesia’s ‘rebellion’ when that British colony (which was ruled by ruled by a minority government of White settlers), suddenly issued a “Unilateral Declaration of Independence”(UDI) in June 1965; and Britain’s failure, or refusal, to take action to quell that rebellion by its colony. In the paragraphs above, I have described the criminal act of mutiny by the Kings African Rifles, as having been due to the “lack of political awareness’.
This perhaps needs some clarification. It is because of the methods that were used by the Authorities in the recruitment of a replacement Army; when they deliberately confined themselves to members of the TANU Youth League (TYL) as the primary qualification for joining the new Army; plus, the appointment of a “political Commissar”, who would carry out the task of ‘grooming’ the new Army politically.
This is what gives me the impression, that the Authorities must have been convinced that this mutiny ‘mayhem’ was caused by the lack of ‘political awareness’; a deficiency which they sought to rectify through the taking of these ‘corrective’ steps. We will now move on to our final example; which is the rejection of the multi-party proposal by 80 per cent of the people interviewed by the Nyalali commission.
I had the good luck of being appointed member of the “Nyalali Commission” which was tasked to collect the peoples’ views on whether, or not; our country should adopt the multi-party political system. This commission was appointed by President Ali Hassan Mwinyi in March 1991, and placed under the Chairmanship of the then Tanzania’s Chief Justice, Hon. Justice Francis Nyalali.
For the purpose of travelling around our vast country in order to collect the views of the people, we divided ourselves into smaller groups of three members each, with each group being assigned a group of neighbouring Regions, or Zone. I was nominated to lead our group, which toured the Lake Victoria Zone. It was in the course of this tour that we encountered very clear evidence of this “lack of political awareness” among many of the people we interviewed.
Our procedure was that one of us (usually myself as leader of the group), would make a presentation of the issues involved; after which we would invite their views and comments.
Here is a small sample of some of the comments we received from different people in different locations, which they gave as their reasons for rejecting the proposed transition to multi-party politics.
The most often repeated reason was the ‘fear’, that multi-party politics will bring unnecessary trouble, as evidenced many of the people we interviewed, who said this:- “We hear that in countries which are operating the multi-party political system there is constant trouble, with people always picking quarrel among themselves in political arguments. We surely do not want that kind of situation to come to our peaceful country”.
Some of the people made interesting additions to this basic reason. For example, one old man said: “If you people are so determined to make this change, I ask you to wait a little until I am dead and gone to heaven, in order to save me from this coming trouble”. While another person elsewhere, expressed his view that “under the present single-party system, we are required to pay party fees and contributions to the party.
But under the new system of many parties that you are now proposing, as many as ten different parties will be formed, and all of them will be charging fees, and collecting contributions from us. That will be too big a financial burden for us poor people to carry. So please have pity on us! This was the ‘lack of awareness’ that existed among the people (who, understandably, were only aware of the single-party governance system, to which they had been exposed during the entire period of 30 years or so since independence).
This also helps us to appreciate Mwalimu Nyerere’s sterling efforts, which he invested in the fight against such ignorance. Presumably, there will be those who still remember Mwalimu Nyerere’s persistent campaign for universal Adult education, during the early years following the country’s independence; and a similar campaign for political education, through the establishment of Kivukoni College, and its six zonal colleges.
He did this primarily because he abhorred the idea of governing an ‘ignorant nation’ which, he pointed out, “is easy to misgovern, for they won’t realize that they are being misgoverned”. He was, indeed, a man of principle.
piomsekwa@gmail.com / 0754767576.
And for that purpose, we will travel ‘down memory lane’ to the relevant periods and events; starting with one example of such ‘gleaming’ lack of ‘political awareness’, that occurred during the period of British colonial Administration in what was Tanganyika (now Tanzania Mainland, a constituent part of the United Republic of Tanzania); and which, had it not been ‘nipped in the bud’, would most probably have retarded progress in the struggle for the country’s independence.
This is the matter of the “tripartite vote”, which was imposed by the British Colonial Administration for the country’s first Legislative Council elections of 1957/58. Here is the story: –“For the purpose of protecting their racial interests, that Administration passed Legislation which imposed the unusual requirement that “in order for his vote to be counted as valid, every voter must cast three votes, one each for a European, African, and Asian candidate”. This requirement was vehemently opposed by the majority of TANU members; who planned to boycott those elections as a sign of protest.
But the TANU President, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, was among the small minority who disliked the idea of boycotting the elections, for the very good reason that boycotting the elections would allow their opponents to enter the Legislative Council virtually unopposed, thus giving them a freehand to adopt any legislation they wanted, including legislation which would make the struggle for independence, even more difficult.
Apparently, the proponents of the boycott were completely unaware of this danger! Thus, it took Mwalimu Nyerere’s remarkable ingenuity, plus his extraordinary powers of persuasion, to convince his party colleagues to drop that boycott idea; and instead, agreed to participate fully in the said elections.
Mwalimu Nyerere did this at the famous 1958 TANU annual conference, at which he decided to vacate the Chair so that, in his own words, “to enable him to argue his case from the “backbenches”, so as to avoid the temptation of using the influence of the Chair to force delegates to agree with him”. This was, indeed, one of Nyerere’s unique leadership qualities, that clearly distinguished him from many others in similar apex positions.
There is another example that provides similar demonstration of this “lack of political awareness” on the part of the persons involved. This is the mutiny by the ‘left over’ colonial army, then known as the “Kings African Rifles”; which occurred relatively soon after independence, in January 1964, at a time when the newly independent country had not yet organized its own defense forces, and was still relying on the “left over colonial “Kings African Rifles.”
It was during the night of January 19/20, 1964 when this mutiny suddenly occurred at Colito Barracks, Dar es Salaam. Later reports showed that the mutiny was not motivated by any political ambitions, such as overthrowing President Nyerere’s government; but that their aim was to remove the commanding British Officers, to be replaced by indigenous Tanzanian Officers; plus demands for enhancing the soldiers’ salaries and improving their other conditions of service.
The mutineers had taken control of some key government facilities, including Radio Tanzania, and the Dar es Salaam International Airport. Thus, as a routine precaution, the Security organs had whisked President Nyerere and Vice President Kawawa, away to a safe location in Kigamboni area. It was, basically, a criminal act. Thus the offenders were arrested and tried, and after conviction, they were sent to prison for terms of two years each, except for their leader, Sergeant Hingo Ilogi, who was imprisoned for a longer period.
However, these relatively ‘short-term’ sentences were considered to be ‘too mild’ for the offences committed and this led to public protest demonstrations in Dar es Salaam. In those circumstances; President Nyerere felt obliged to issue a formal statement, in which he said the following:- “Serikali inataka kuweka wazi kwamba inakubaliana na malalamiko hayo, na usema kwamba adhabu walizopewa wanajeshi waliofanya maasi, hazina uwiano hata kidogo na uzito wa makosa waliyoyafany, na ukubwa wa athari za vitendo vyao kwa nchi yetu. Lakini pamoja na hayo, Serikali haitafanya lolote la kujaribu kubadilisha adhabu hizo; kwani kufanya hivyo ni kuvunja misingi ya utawala wa sheria, ambao ndio msingi muhimu unaolinda uhuru na usawa wa raia wetu. Hatuwezi kuruhusu hasira zetu dhidi ya waasi hao, zitufikishe kwenye kuvunja msingi huo”.
He was defending the cardinal principle of “the rule of law” His words also help to confirm another of the unique qualities which are attributed to Mwalimu Nyerere, namely that he was “a man of principle”.
He was indeed, but his strict “adherence to principles” did, in some other cases, cost this country dearly, in terms of the withdrawal of financial aid by some donors in retaliation.
Those were the donors who were obviously providing such aid “with strings attached”; and included the country that was then known as ‘West Germany’, which angrily withdrew their aid money when President Nyerere rejected their unreasonable demand on him to close the East German Embassy in Zanzibar, following the Union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar in April 1964; a consequence of the “cold war” politics of that period.It also includes the British withdrawal of their aid money in 1965; as a consequence of the action taken by Tanzania of having brokenits diplomatic relations with Britain, over what was known as the “Rhodesia question”.
This refers to the serious controversy which emanated from Southern Rhodesia’s ‘rebellion’ when that British colony (which was ruled by ruled by a minority government of White settlers), suddenly issued a “Unilateral Declaration of Independence”(UDI) in June 1965; and Britain’s failure, or refusal, to take action to quell that rebellion by its colony. In the paragraphs above, I have described the criminal act of mutiny by the Kings African Rifles, as having been due to the “lack of political awareness’.
This perhaps needs some clarification. It is because of the methods that were used by the Authorities in the recruitment of a replacement Army; when they deliberately confined themselves to members of the TANU Youth League (TYL) as the primary qualification for joining the new Army; plus, the appointment of a “political Commissar”, who would carry out the task of ‘grooming’ the new Army politically.
This is what gives me the impression, that the Authorities must have been convinced that this mutiny ‘mayhem’ was caused by the lack of ‘political awareness’; a deficiency which they sought to rectify through the taking of these ‘corrective’ steps. We will now move on to our final example; which is the rejection of the multi-party proposal by 80 per cent of the people interviewed by the Nyalali commission.
I had the good luck of being appointed member of the “Nyalali Commission” which was tasked to collect the peoples’ views on whether, or not; our country should adopt the multi-party political system. This commission was appointed by President Ali Hassan Mwinyi in March 1991, and placed under the Chairmanship of the then Tanzania’s Chief Justice, Hon. Justice Francis Nyalali.
For the purpose of travelling around our vast country in order to collect the views of the people, we divided ourselves into smaller groups of three members each, with each group being assigned a group of neighbouring Regions, or Zone. I was nominated to lead our group, which toured the Lake Victoria Zone. It was in the course of this tour that we encountered very clear evidence of this “lack of political awareness” among many of the people we interviewed.
Our procedure was that one of us (usually myself as leader of the group), would make a presentation of the issues involved; after which we would invite their views and comments.
Here is a small sample of some of the comments we received from different people in different locations, which they gave as their reasons for rejecting the proposed transition to multi-party politics.
The most often repeated reason was the ‘fear’, that multi-party politics will bring unnecessary trouble, as evidenced many of the people we interviewed, who said this:- “We hear that in countries which are operating the multi-party political system there is constant trouble, with people always picking quarrel among themselves in political arguments. We surely do not want that kind of situation to come to our peaceful country”.
Some of the people made interesting additions to this basic reason. For example, one old man said: “If you people are so determined to make this change, I ask you to wait a little until I am dead and gone to heaven, in order to save me from this coming trouble”. While another person elsewhere, expressed his view that “under the present single-party system, we are required to pay party fees and contributions to the party.
But under the new system of many parties that you are now proposing, as many as ten different parties will be formed, and all of them will be charging fees, and collecting contributions from us. That will be too big a financial burden for us poor people to carry. So please have pity on us! This was the ‘lack of awareness’ that existed among the people (who, understandably, were only aware of the single-party governance system, to which they had been exposed during the entire period of 30 years or so since independence).
This also helps us to appreciate Mwalimu Nyerere’s sterling efforts, which he invested in the fight against such ignorance. Presumably, there will be those who still remember Mwalimu Nyerere’s persistent campaign for universal Adult education, during the early years following the country’s independence; and a similar campaign for political education, through the establishment of Kivukoni College, and its six zonal colleges.
He did this primarily because he abhorred the idea of governing an ‘ignorant nation’ which, he pointed out, “is easy to misgovern, for they won’t realize that they are being misgoverned”. He was, indeed, a man of principle.
piomsekwa@gmail.com / 0754767576.
Source: Daily News today
No comments:
Post a Comment