Loading...

Friday, April 25, 2014

Harvard University Visits Tanzania - 4 May 2014

Miriam Makeba - A Luta Continua

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Serikali Tatu zitaondoa Kero ya (Wana)jeshi?

Serikali Tatu zitaondoa Kero ya (Wana)jeshi?

Chambi Chachage

Aliyekuwa Mwenyekiti wa Tume ya Mabadiliko ya Katiba ameibuka tena na kile ambacho gazeti maarufu la Mwananchi kinayaita "Maswali Saba ya Jaji Warioba." Kama ilivyokuwa siku alipolihutubia Bunge Maalum la Katiba, mwanasheria huyo nguli amezikonga nyoyo za watetezi wa mfumo wa Serikali Tatu, almaarufu kama S3. Safari hii alikuwa mzungumzaji wakati wa kutoa matokeo ya utafiti wa asasi isiyo ya kiserikali ya Twaweza inayoongozwa na mwanaharakati maarufu, Rakesh Rajani.

Kati ya yale aliyonukuliwa akiyasema Jaji Warioba, lililonifanya nitafakari sana alfajiri hii ni hili kuhusu wanajeshi:"Tatizo ambalo wametueleza ni kuchoshwa na kitendo cha kupiga mizinga 21 kwa Amiri Jeshi Mkuu wakiwa Dar es Salaam na wakiwa Zanzibar. Walisema kwa nidhamu ya jeshi, Amiri Jeshi Mkuu ni mmoja tu. Nadhani mngewaondolea kero hiyo na si mambo mengine." Huku kuchoshwa inasemekana kunatokana na ile hali ambayo aliwahi kuisemea hivi katika hotuba yake kwa Bunge Maalum la Katiba: "Waasisi walituachia Muungano wa Nchi Moja yenye Serkali Mbili, siyo nchi Mbili zenye Serikali Mbili."

Tukiirejea Rasimu ya Pili ya Katiba ambayo Tume hiyo inayoitwa kimakosa kuwa ni Tume ya Warioba kutokana na utamaduni wa kuzipa tume majina ya wenyeviti wao pengine kutokana na ushawishi wao, tunakutana na suluhisho hili la hiyo kero ya wanajeshi katika Ibara ya 71(2): Rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano atakuwa Mkuu wa Nchi, Kiongozi wa Serikali na Amiri Jeshi Mkuu..." Lakini Rasimu hiyo hiyo inatuambia katika Ibara ya  237(1) kuwa kutakuwa Baraza la Ulinzi na Usalama la Taifa ambalo litakuwa pia lina wajumbe hawa wawili: Rais wa Tanganyika na Rais wa Zanzibar. Hili ni Baraza ambalo, kwa mujibu wa Ibara ya 72(2)(a), litakuwa chini ya uwenyekiti wa Amiri Jeshi Mkuu huyo wa Nchi ambaye, kwa mantiki ya hoja ya jana ya Jaji Warioba, ndiye atakuwa na stahili ya kupigiwa mizinga 21 (katika eneo moja tu la nchi) hivyo kuondoa hiyo kero ya jeshi.

Swali la kujiuliza ni, je, kero hii itokanayo na kile ambacho tunaweza kukiita kuwa na nchi ndani ya nchi ama dola ndani ya dola kitakuwa kimeisha baada ya kuanzisha Serikali Tatu? Na hapa ndipo inabidi tujiulize kwa kina Rasimu ya Pili ya Katiba inamaanisha nini hasa inaposema "Nchi" na inaposema "Nchi Washirika" katika muktadha wa "Shirikisho". Ni wazi kabisa kuwa inaposema Nchi inamaanisha Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania hasa pale inaposema "sheria za nchi" na kuiwekea msisitizo. Utata unakuja pale inapotoa ufafanuzi huu katika Ibara ya 254(1): "Katika Katiba hii, isipokuwa kama itaelezwa vinginevyo...."Nchi Washirika" maana yake ni Tanganyika na Zanzibar..."

Hapa tunaona mtanziko wa dhahiri kati ya jitihada za Rasimu kuunda/kusimika nchi moja - ya Tanzania - yenye "sheria za nchi" na hofu ya kuvunja/kuondoa nchi zingine mbili - za Tanganyika na Zanzibar - zitakazokuwa/zenye sheria za nchi husika kama 'zitakavyoruhusiwa/zilivyoruhusiwa' na Ibara za 64, 65, 66, 67 na 68. Ni jaribio tete na tata la kuridhisha kila upande/eneo.

Ni dhahiri kuwa, bila mabadiliko makubwa katika Katiba ya Zanzibar na bila ya itakayokuwa Katiba ya Tanganyika kuacha kutosimika Utaifa wa Kitanganyika, mtanziko huu wa Rasimu ya Pili ya Katiba utapelekea kuwa na nchi tatu badala ya nchi moja. Na si nchi tatu tu, bali pia wananchi wa nchi tatu. Sote tayari tunajua kumekuwa/kuna wananchi wa Zanzibar. Utangulizi wa Katiba ya Zanzibar ya 1984 toleo la 2010 unasema hivi: "NA KWA KUWA wananchi wa Zanzibar tumeamua rasmi na kwa dhati kujenga katika nchi yetu jamii inayozingatia misingi ya uhuru, haki, udugu na amani." Itakuwa ni maajabu kuwa na Katiba ya (Serikali ya) Tanganyika isiyo na/ya (wana)nchi wa Tanganyika.

Maajabu hayo ndiyo ambayo mtetezi mkuu wa Serikali Tatu zilizoboreshwa (S3z), Zitto Zuberi Kabwe anataka kuyafanya. Nia yake inayoonekana kuwa njema na ya dhati kabisa ni kurasimisha nia ya Rasimu ya Pili ya Katiba ya kuwa na Nchi Moja na kufifisha kama sio kuua kabisa mtanziko wa kuwa na nchi zingine mbili za ziada ambazo zitazalishwa na S3 ambazo hazijaboreshwa. Lakini swali zito sana ambalo bado halijajibiwa na mtetezi huyo ni: Je, unaweza(je) kuwa na Serikali (kwa mantiki ya Serikali Kuu na sio Serikali za Mitaa) ya eneo (ambalo kihalisia ni nchi wala sio mtaa, kijiji, wilaya, mkoa au jimbo) bila kuwa na nchi na wananchi ambao wanahudumiwa na Serikali hiyo? Kwa lugha rahisi zaidi: Je, unaweza(je) kuwa na Serikali ya Tanganyika bila kuwa na nchi ya Tanganyika na wananchi wa Tanganyika, yaani Watanganyika?

Ukishindwa kutokuwa na Watanganyika na Wazanzibari utaweza kuwa na Watanzania? Mtanziko wa kuwa Mtanganyika na papo hapo kuwa Mtanzania tunauweza? Wataalamu wa masuala ya wasifu wanasema sisi sote tuna wasifu zaidi ya mmoja, kwa mfano mtu anaweza akawa Mpare na bado akawa Mtanganyika na vile vile akawa Mtanzania. Lakini hapa (U)Pare sio nchi, serikali, taifa, dola wala taifa-dola, tulishauvunja 'udola' wake labda umebaki 'ukabila' tu. Lakini (U)Tanzania ni nchi, ni serikali, ni taifa, ni dola na dola-taifa. Je, tutaweza kuidumisha kwa kuunda/kurejesha tena (U)Tanganyika ambayo haitataka kuwa vyote hivyo - nchi, serikali, taifa, dola, dola-taifa na hivyo kuinyonga Tanzania maskini?

Hayo yote yakitokea Tanganyika haitataka kuwa na jeshi lake kweli? Itaridhika tu na hiki ambacho Rasimu ya Pili ya Katiba inakisema katika Ibara ya 250: "Bila ya kuathiri masharti ya Sura hii, Wakuu wa Nchi Washirika wanaweza kumuagiza kiongozi yeyote wa Jeshi la Polisi au Idara ya Usalama wa Taifa kuchukua hatua yoyote ambayo ni muhimu kwa ajili ya kulinda au kuimarisha usalama wa eneo lolote la Nchi Mshirika husika"?  Wataridhika hasa ukizingatia huyo Mkuu wa 'Nchi Mshirika' wa Tanganyika ndiye atakuwa na watu/wananchi wengi zaidi na  hivyo kuwa na wanajeshi wengi zaidi kwenye Jeshi la Wananchi wa Tanzania labda itokee maajabu mengine ya kuwa na jeshi dogo?

Wanajeshi wataridhika? Wananchi je? Wa wapi? Tanganyika? 

African Languages in the Disciplines Conference

 

Monday, April 21, 2014

Imagining Tanganyika

Imagining Tanganyika

Chambi Chachage

Now it is clear that those who want Tanganyika back have different views. They differ on what it is or would be. For some it is a government. Others see it as a country. Yet others perceive it as a state. We also have those who envision it as a nation if not a nation-state.

It is about time now that we imagine Tanganyika vividly. Not just on paper but also on the ground. We have been given at least two main blueprints: A three-government (S3) structure and an improved three-government (S3z) structure. S3 is federal. S3z is unitary.

Both structures draw from the second draft of the Constitution that the then chair of the Tanzanian Constitution Review Commission, Judge Joseph Sinde Warioba, submitted to the President and the Constituent Assembly (CA). In fact even S3 is as an improved structure as S3z as no one really expects the CA will pass the draft as it is word by word.

S3 is now primarily associated with the self-proclaimed Union of the People’s Constitution i.e. Umoja wa Katiba ya Wananchi (UKAWA). Its political face is a consortium of 3 opposition parties and their chairs: CUF, CHADEMA and NCCR-Mageuzi. Among the 201 members of CA whom the President elected, purportedly on the basis of public recommendations, there are champions of S3 and a couple of members of the mainland arm of the ruling party, CCM, and ostensibly many in its Zanzibar’s arm.

Zitto Zuberi Kabwe (ZZK) is the main proponent of S3z. In a twist of irony his proposed model invokes the letter “z”, albeit implying “zilizoboreshwa” (improved). This, in a way, is also a concoction of S3 and S1, the latter standing for a one-government structure.

Even though S1 seems to be the most ideal structure, it remains a no-go zone as it continues to have the potential of swallowing Zanzibar even more than the current two-government structure (S2). To see this one only has to look at the picture above, of a scale, that Prof. Abdul Sheriff, now a CA member, used to illustrate why the current Union government has been constraining Zanzibar’s autonomy over the years through the doubling of Union matters from 11 to 22. It sums up the position of Zanzibar nationalists.

Why, I keep wondering, we are not seeing Zanzibari nationalists embracing S3z in contrast to S3. The answer, I am convinced, is in the relatively more bargaining power that Zanzibar would have in a S3. This also includes the power of implementing its exist strategy when and if the government of Tanganyika in S3 end up being way much bigger.

This is what I had in mind when my article ‘Can the Union be successfully implemented under any form of power?’ asked ZZK to move beyond arithmetic and engage with power analysis.[1] His S3z, as I have repeatedly tried to show, aims to resolve the weakness of the Union government in S3 by concentrating more power on it at the expense of the proposed government of Tanganyika and that of Zanzibar. But it ignores the fact that it is such centralization of power that the Zanzibari nationalists have been protesting against.

As a dilemmatic Pan-Africanist who supports the Union and yet support the relative autonomy of Zanzibar, I wrote this in 2009: “It may be true that “the founder of the Union”, as Dr. Sengondo Mvungi recalls in The Citizen cited above, “had said that the two governments was merely a transitional stage toward a single government.” But why then have we witnessed a lot of high level reservations over the years toward the increase of Union matters in the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania? Indeed those matters have constitutionally doubled from the original 11 in the Articles of Union. To make matters worse, as Prof. Abdul Sherrif and Ismail Jussa observes in their chapter on ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Backwards: The State of Constitutionalism in Zanzibar-2007’, out of the 17 areas covered by the East Africa Community Treaty only 4 are Union matters! In that regard the other 13 areas fall within the jurisdiction of the revolutionary government. Yet its representation in the fast-tracking of the East African Federation is as ambiguous. No wonder, as the two authors note, “a question that was raised repeatedly by the people of Zanzibar during the Wangwe Commission public hearings was one related to the fact that the Union government had assumed powers that are exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Zanzibar government. If we don’t deal squarely with these reservations they will surely pile up and explode. Perhaps in the spirit of the Nyalali Commission there is a need to hold a referendum. What do people want?"[2]

Jussa, a member of both CA and UKAWA, has been reiterating those same arguments in his eloquent submissions in Dodoma.[3] No wonder S3 is appealing to him and his fellow Zanzibari nationalists. It will enable Zanzibar’s government to exercise its (lost) power.

Unfortunately, S3 would weaken and thus break the Union government, directly through the government of Tanganyika and indirectly through the government of Zanzibar. With three centers of executive powers that need to be separated from, and across, three centers of judicial powers and three centers of legislative powers, power will tilt in favor of Tanganyika because of its enormous human and natural resources. The juggernaut will grind into a halt when Zanzibari nationalists realize (if they had not yet anticipated) their wish for Tanganyika to take off the coat of the Union has been realized, albeit ironically.

Our weak Tanzania will be at the mercy of the powerful Tanganyika thus providing a recipe for disaster – Zanzibar parting ways not least because Tanganyika will have to either ‘wear’ the coat of the Union to save Tanzania or simply abandon it to wither away.

Coming to the rescue is ZZK’s S3z that in effect attempts to create a bigger monster with parallel if not conflicting heads, that of a Union government that is more powerful than the governments of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. We are told that it “is centred on Tanzania being a one sovereign state headed by One Head of State called the President of the United Republic of Tanzania” who “will have an exclusive authority on all Union matters and henceforth apart from being a head of state he/she will also be an executive head of the Union Government” who, together “with his/her Union Cabinet”, he/she “will be assisted by two Vice Presidents, one being a head of Government of Tanganyika with executive powers on all non union matters in Tanganyika and the other one a head of Government of Zanzibar with executive powers on all non union matters in Zanzibar.”[4]

Yet, we are also told, Tanganyika and Zanzibar will have their own executive Prime Ministers (PMs) who “will come from a political party with majority in the Zanzibar House of Representatives and that of Tanganyika”. One wonders if these Prime Ministers (PMs) and the Vice Presidents (VPs) are one and the same people. If they are not, why are executive VPs assisting, on non-union matters, a president executing union matters?

Engaging with power analysis on variants of S3 remains pertinent. Judge Warioba’s unpacking of power dynamics remains as powerful and relevant: “Sasa hivi kiini ni ugomvi wa madaraka kati ya Serikali ya Muungano na Serikali ya Zanzibar. Hivi ukileta serikali tatu, ugomvi huu hautakuwapo? Ukileta Serikali ya Tanganyika yenyewe haitadai madaraka? Mwisho wataomba madaraka hadi Serikali ya Muungano isiwe na chochote. Hivi Serikali ya Tanganyika kwa mfano ikawapo, ikataka iwe na wimbo wake wa Taifa, bendera yake, nembo yake, kisha inadai ifanye biashara ya nje, unafikiri tutakuwa tumefika wapi? Ni kwamba tutakuwa tunaondoa Muungano na kurudisha Tanganyika na Zanzibar. Lakini kama wananchi wanataka hivyo, sawa (i.e. Now the source is the conflict/struggle for power between the Union government and the government of Zanzibar. If you bring three governments, the conflict/struggle won’t be there? If you bring the government of Tanganyika, it won’t ask/demand power? At the end they will ask/demand power until the Union government has nothing. For example, if the government of Tanganyika come into being and if it wants its own national anthem, flag, court of arms, and then demand to trade with other countries, where do you think we will get to? We would thus be doing away with the union and going back to Tanganyika and Zanzibar. But if that is what the people want, okay). [5] Yet S3z has 9+ centers of power?

Patience is of uttermost importance. As the late member of the Constitution Review Commission, Dr. Mvungi said in quote above, S2 was simply a transitional structure. Understandably, Zanzibar nationalists have been fed up as Jussa has repeatedly affirmed in the CA. Theirs, as we have noted in my previous article, is a cry of broken trust. It is difficult for them to trust that the ruling party will keep their promise of modifying S2 in such a way that it will meet their demands. We need another dispensation to rebuild trust.

Finally, let us take a walk of imagining Tanzania. Imagine its executive head is in Dar es Salaam or Dodoma. Also imagine the executive head of the United Republic of Tanzania is in the same or another city. Then imagine is Tanganyika a land, a people, a nation, a nation-state, a government, all of the above or none of the above. After that imagine what is Tanzania then in any of those sets of imagination and what power does it have. Is it still an imaginable a father/motherland? Or is it just a figment of our imagination-Utopia?

Zitto Kabwe: Power Balances Under S3z Union

Power balances under S3z Union

Zitto Kabwe

In the ongoing constitutional making process discussions have centred on the structure of the Union. While pro status quo are calling for continuation of the two tier structure of the Union whereby Executives of Union and that of Tanganyika are merged and a separate executive for Zanzibar, pragmatic pro reforms are after one executive for each Union partner and a Union Executive for Union matters. Chambi Chachage is for the former with strong argument based on power relations and that the Tanganyika Executive will eventually dominate the small partner and kill the union itself. He writes “My bone of contention remains: How do we ensure the distribution and separation power between and within three layers of executive, judiciary and legislature without breaking the Union”?  He concludes “Power analysis can thus help us structure our union in a sustainable way. Our public debate must involve it. Ultimately, it is the people who decide. But it is the structures that determine to what extent such decisions would be sustained. Let us speak truth to power”[1]. And I totally agree with him that we analyse power relations created by the proposed structure, similarly by any Union structure that we will end up with. Moreover I agree with him that regardless of the fact that constitution is a legal matter but any decision will be inherently political.

About Power Joseph Nye writes “...power is hard to measure. But that is also true of love, and we do not doubt its reality simply because we cannot say we love someone 1.7 times more than someone else. Like love (and leadership), power is a relationship whose strength and domain will vary with different contexts. Those with more power in a relationship are better placed to make and resist change”[2]. Empirical studies have shown that the more powerful are less likely to take on the perspectives of others. Power is influence. Power is control, be it hard or soft. Be it through coercion or persuasion. The improved three tier Union structure (S3z as proponents call it, z standing for ‘zilizoboreshwa’) will face power relations that must be comprehended not only by its supporters but also its critics. Power equilibrium must be achieved. Because power operates both relationally and reciprocally, sociologists speak of the balance of power between parties to a relationship: all parties to all relationships have some power: the sociological examination of power concerns itself with discovering and describing the relative strengths: equal or unequal, stable or subject to periodic change. Sociologists usually analyse relationships in which the parties have relatively equal or nearly equal power in terms of constraint rather than of power. Thus 'power' has a connotation of unilateralism. If this were not so, then all relationships could be described in terms of 'power', and its meaning would be lost. Given that power is not innate and can be granted to others, to acquire power you must possess or control a form of power currency [3]. Hereunder I describe the power structures of the proposed three tier Union for analysis.

S3z is centred on Tanzania being a one sovereign state headed by One Head of State called the President of the United Republic of Tanzania. The President will have an exclusive authority on all Union matters and henceforth apart from being a head of state he/she will also be an executive head of the Union Government. Together with his/her Union Cabinet, the President will be assisted by two Vice Presidents one being a head of Government of Tanganyika with executive powers on all non union matters in Tanganyika and the other one a head of Government of Zanzibar with executive powers on all non union matters in Zanzibar. Thus, the Presidency comprises the President and the two Vice Presidents. Only the President will be directly elected by the people and must obtain at least 50% + 1 of all votes casted and not less than a third of the valid votes from each Partner state. The Prime Minister of Zanzibar and that of Tanganyika will come from a political party with majority in the Zanzibar House of Representatives and that of Tanganyika. That means, the party with majority in the House of Representatives of Tanganyika will form the Government of Tanganyika, similarly for Zanzibar.

Definitely there must be legislatures for Union, Zanzibar and Tanganyika. It is proposed that the Union Parliament (Bunge) be a joint sitting of both houses of representatives. Bunge will legislate on matters on the Union List which will be implemented by the Union Government and on concurrent matters implementation of which will be done by partner governments. This means Union matters will be exclusively legislated by Bunge, concurrent matters legislated by Bunge but enforced by partners and the remaining (non union and non concurrent) exclusively legislated by partners. With this the balance of power will be struck. As for Judiciary, already in Tanzania we have separate jurisdictions for partners and only the Court of Appeal is a Union matter. However Court of Appeal shall be replaced by Supreme Court which will be a Union Court and a court of last instance for matters to be decided by the Constitution or specific legislations.

This briefly described structure can be analysed and improved or discarded. Heads of Government of Zanzibar and Tanganyika being part of the Union Cabinet and the legislatures of both partners being Union legislatures tries to strike this balance of power. The Union Finance Minister through Union Revenue Authority will collect taxes except those not mentioned in the list of Union matters, maintain what is needed to run the Union Government and distribute to partners what remains. This is a more clear structure with checks and balances inbuilt. Most importantly this structure gives partners their autonomy while maintaining a strong union. List of Union matters shall be the list agreed in 1964 as provided for in the articles of the Union and concurrent matters must be agreed amongst partners and be included in the new constitution as a second schedule.

When conflicts occurs, the Government of Zanzibar will be able to discuss the matter with the Government of Tanganyika coordinated by the Union Government. Currently, when Zanzibar raises an issue it meets the Union as the partner is nowhere to be seen. S3z ends this confusion.


[2] The Powers to Lead, Joseph S. Nye Jr., 2008.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Can the Union survive under any form of power?

Can the Union be successfully implemented under any form of power?

“All the states but our own are sensibe that knowledge is power” – Thomas Jefferson


Chambi Chachage


The Union is both a political and structural question. Political in the sense that it involves the distribution and separation of powers, not only among the executive, judiciary and legislative within the uniting parties but also across them. It is also political in regard to the ways people engage in a democratic process of constraining or decentralizing power.

As such, political will – of both the people and their leaders – is important in maintaining a union. If the majority of the people want or do not want it, and when they are organized enough, then it is just a matter of time before power tilts in their favor. People’s power.

However, the structural is also political. In a polity that is not aiming for anarchy, a union must have a form. This cannot be just any form. Claiming, as Zitto Zuberi Kabwe does, that it “is a concept which can be successful implemented under any form” is to ignore the contextual limitation of certain structures.[1] It is also to ignore the balancing of power.

Prior to that claim, in his article on ‘Three-govt system will cement Union, increase openness” (The Citizen 20/04/2014), the dynamic politician states: “the Union stems and anchors on belief. It is an ideology; it is whether you believe in or not in the Union”. But beliefs/ideologies do not exist in a political vacuum. They operate in structures of power.

It is these structures that shape people’s experiences of the Union. Our two-government system that has survived for 50 years is a case in point. In doubling Union matters from the original 11 over the years, the United Republic of Tanzania increasingly swallowed Zanzibar’s semi-autonomy. It thus fermented public distrust through the abuse of power.

Trust, as Maria Sarungi Tsehai’s invocation, in the Constituent Assembly (CA), of Julius Kambarage Nyerere’s 1977 speech on the Constitution, is important in constitutional making.[2] When CA members, Juma Haji Duni and Ismail Jussa Ladhu, queried why Zanzibar is being promised now the things it has been demanding and what would enforce them in a proposed modified two-government structure, it was a cry of broken trust.[3] For them, a three-government structure would enable Zanzibar to exercise power.

For Tundu Antiphas Lissu and the coalition of the few in his CA committee, There Is No Alternative (TINA) to a three-government structure even if the (resulting) Union government of Tanzania would be weak vis-à-vis the governments of Tanganyika and Zanzibar.[4] In other words, Zanzibar took its power back through its 2010 constitutional amendment so let Tanganyika also do so although Tanzania would not have much power.

Kabwe’s proposition for a three-government structure, on the other hand, aims to empower the Union government. However, as noted earlier, it ignores the balancing of power necessary for sustaining a democratic union. Surely, as he notes, “any type or form of Union can break if the people do not want the merger.” But people wanting any type or form of union is not a guarantee for its sustainability. It needs a solid structure of power.

Even though he asserts that there “is no scientific proof that three governments will break the Union,” the examples that the dynamic politician provides are not scientific proof that the three governments that he is proposing won’t break the union. “Those who prophesy that three governments will break the Union”, he thus concludes, “are politicising the issue unnecessarily because the Union is a belief, it is an ideology.” But some of these 'prophets of doom' are simply asking him to go beyond 'arithmetic' and analyze power.

Ironically, he wants us to take a leaf from a colonial structure that we abandoned in 1962, a year after we won independence: He states: “Before Tanganyika became a Republic, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere and later Mzee Kawawa served as Prime Ministers. The Queen was only head of the state. We should modify and adopt this system by having a single head of state and two Prime Ministers leading the two partner states. Under this system we will have one head of state, one state and three governments.” Three centers of power.

Queen Elizabeth II did not become our executive head of the state on 9 December 1961. The executive head of state was only one, the Prime Minister. Even when we decided to have a prime minister who somehow shared executive powers with the president, our structure ensured that he is subordinate enough as he doesn't have a separate jurisdiction. It would be a problem if she/he heads 'a large yet separate area' with her/his own power.

Understandably, Kabwe aims to appease if not please both parties – proponents of two and three-government structures – by meeting all of them somewhere in or near the middle. But you can’t please everyone all the time. This is more so in matters of power.

He writes: “Costs of managing security activities will be less under three governments than in two governments. This is because under three governments everybody will be happy as within it there are two governments as well as one government. If we decide on two governments, those who want three governments will not be happy and this might attract discontent which will weaken the merger.” His proposal? Another layer of power.

Lest I put words into his mouth let us read this: “I would like to urge my fellow members to make sure that we safeguard this Union at any cost by making drastic changes in its system and format by creating another executive body which will deal with Tanganyika matters.” We are told this executive body would be under a PM. This executive premier, however, is not going to be running a separate country – only matters pertaining to Tanganyika as if it would be an 'entity' that is neither a country nor a people in power.

My bone of contention remains: How do we ensure the distribution and separation power between and within three layers of executive, judiciary and legislature without breaking the Union? Whether we call them presidents or prime ministers we are talking of three executives of Tanzania, Tanganyika and Zanzibar, respectively. And whether we call them parliaments or houses, we are talking of three legislatures. Or whether we call them courts or committees, we are also talking of three judiciaries. All nine vested with power.

Judge Joseph Sinde Warioba knew very well these structural limitations when, after a thorough review of recommendations regarding a three-government structure, the analytic in him once concluded that: “Matokeo yake Serikali za Tanganyika na Zanzibar zitakuwa na nguvu sana na Serikali ya Muungano itakuwa dhaifu kabisa” (i.e. the government of Tanganyika and that of Zanzibar will have a lot power and the Union government will be utterly weak).[5] But the democratic in him later conceded: “Lakini kama wananchi wanataka hivyo, sawa” (i.e. but if that is what the people want, okay).[6] If that is surely what we, the people, want so be it, albeit after knowing it is all about power.

Yes, we need to read between these lines in Article 62(3) of the second draft of the proposed constitution and know its implications: “Bila ya kuathiri au kukiuka masharti ya Ibara hii, Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano, kwa makubaliano na masharti maalum baina yake na Serikali ya Zanzibar au Serikali ya Tanganyika, inaweza kutekeleza jambo lolote lililo chini ya mamlaka ya Serikali ya Zanzibar au Serikali ya Tanganyika kwa mujibu wa masharti ya makubaliano hayo” (i.e. Without prejudice to, and without breaching the provisions of, this Article, the government of the united republic, in agreement and on the basis of the stipulations, between it and the government of Zanzibar or Tanganyika, may implement any thing that is within the jurisdiction of Zanzibar or Tanganyika according to those agreements.”[7] With a weak union government, who has the bargaining power?

Even Professor Ibrahim Haruna Lipumba of the protesting UKAWA is aware of such power differentials. In his powerful presentation prefaced with his trademark disclaimer “Mada hii ni mawazo binafsi” (i.e. this presentation is my personal reflections), he points out: “Tume ya Jaji Warioba haikufanya uchambuzi wa kina na kubaini kuwa mfumo wa serikali ndiyo msingi wa mantiki ya kuingiza sehemu kubwa ya vyanzo vya mapato ya serikali ya Tanganyika kuwa jambo la Muungano. Msingi huu ukiondolewa, utaratibu wa kugharamia serikali ya Muungano unahitaji kufikiriwa kwa makini la sivyo serikali ya Muungano itakuwa haina vyanzo vya mapato vya uhakika (i.e. Judge Warioba’s Commission did not undertake an in-depth analysis and/to determine that the structure/system of government is the basis of the logic of making large part of the government of Tanganyika’s sources of income to be a union matter. When this basis is removed, the arrangement of financing the Union government has to be rethought/revised carefully otherwise the Union government won’t have reliable sources of income)[8]. In annals of power, he who pays the piper calls the tune for money is also a source of power.

Opinions matters. So do opinion polls. However, they are not substitutes for informed public debates and referendums. They are only supplements or complements. After all voting is one of the ways in which people can ensure that power is not a monopoly of one entity. As we brace to hear Judge Warioba, again, as he grace the release of what Rakesh Rajani’s Twaweza refers to as “the most recently available nationally representative data on the second draft of the constitution”, let us bear in mind that the most important structural thing that would make people strengthen, weaken or break the Union is power.[9]

Not so long ago Professor Issa Gulamhussein Shivji aptly noted: “That brings us to the so-called three-government formula. Let me sound a word of caution here. Used simplistically as a formula, this notion contains the problem, of generating wrong signals as if three governments in themselves mean more democracy and power to the people. Playing with numbers—one, two, or three governments—triviliases the complexity of the issue and unnecessarily divides people, creating irrational loyalties to numbers, so to speak…. It is best therefore to shift the discussion to the complexity of power sharing structures rather than reduce the question to the numbers of government. The central question in any federal type arrangement is the distribution of power between the centre and regional state and government organs”.[10] This also applies to a unitary nation-state our pragmatic politician is concocting out of three governments – the question of power.

Power analysis can thus help us structure our union in a sustainable way. Our public debate must involve it. Ultimately, it is the people who decides. But it is the structures that determine to what extent such decisions would be sustained. Let us speak truth to power.




[4] Maoni Ya Wajumbe Walio Wa Wachache Katika Kamati Namba Nne Kuhusu Sura Ya Kwanza Na Sura Ya Sita Ya Rasimu Ya Katiba Ya JAMHURI YA MUUNGANO WA TANZANIA [Kanuni Ya 32(4) Ya Kanuni Za Bunge Maalum, 2014]
[5] Kutoka Makavani. Kwa Nini Muundo wa Shirikisho Utaua Muungano
[8] Changamoto ya mfumo wa serikali tatu: Kugharamia serikali ya Muungano
[10] Let the People Speak: Tanzania Down the Road to Neoliberalism

Karibu kwenye ulingo wa kutafakari kuhusu tunapotoka,tulipo,tuendako na namna ambavyo tutafika huko tuendako/Welcome to a platform for reflecting on where we are coming from, where we are, where we are going and how we will get there

  © Blogger templates 'Neuronic' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP