NUTA
Chapter 1
Introduction: A Tanzanian Overview
Tanzania has undergone two transformations in the last thirty years. It has transformed its economy from one of state ownership and control to a market-based system. In addition, it has transformed its political system from a constitutionally entrenched single-party system to an openly competitive multiparty system. It has accomplished these transformations peacefully and without major incidents of ethnic violence or civil disruption. Tanzania is conspicuous for what has not taken place there. In a region of the world that has experienced more than its share of political turbulence, including failed states, military coups, local warlords, ethnic cleansing, regional secessions, civil war, severe famine, and dictatorial rule, Tanzania is special because of its sheer normalcy. It has a stable and functioning political system that works: children attend school; civil servants pursue their careers, receive promotions, and retire; the universities admit, teach, and graduate their students; hospitals and clinics provide medical services; bus systems carry workers to and from their jobs; roads are repaired and upgraded; the country’s public utilities, such as telecommunications, water, electricity, and trash disposal operate, though sometimes intermittently; and government ministries carry out their assigned functions on a day-to-day basis. To supplement the services it has difficulty providing, the government offers a hospitable atmosphere for innumerable nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), whose activities supplement the public sector in such differing policy areas as environmental matters, gender equity, human rights, poverty alleviation, housing, and education and health services.
Tanzania has a strong claim to academic attention for its history of civil peace during the first five decades of independence. The Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) or Revolutionary Party, which began life as the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) in 1954 and which has now been in power since 1961, has compiled an unbroken record of peaceful governance. With the exception of a brief and unsuccessful army mutiny in January 1964, it has never had a military challenge or any other serious challenge to its leadership. The CCM can make a compelling claim to popular legitimation as the heir of the country’s nationalist movement and as a political party that enjoys widespread popular support across the country’s social and ethnic spectrum. Its record of civil peace has fostered a distinctive climate of public opinion. Tanzanians are aware that their country has managed to avoid the tendencies toward civil strife and failed government that have arisen elsewhere in Africa, and this has created a special sense of pride in being Tanzanian.
Another achievement is Tanzania’s principled role in international affairs. During the 1960s, Tanzania provided sanctuary, support, and diplomatic status for a number of southern African nationalist organizations, committing scarce economic resources to their liberation struggles. Following on its commitment to the principle of self-determination, Tanzania was almost alone in recognizing and assisting Biafra’s struggle for independence from Nigeria. Tanzania also provided a place of sanctuary for a number of African Americans seeking refuge from the racial atmosphere of mid-century United States. In its determined pursuit of the principle of nonalignment in world affairs, Tanzania was prepared to strain the patience of both sides in the global cold war. A Muslim majority country with a Muslim president, Tanzania aligns itself with the United States in the war against terrorism and is a voice of moderation in international affairs.
Tanzania has distinguished itself from numerous African countries in other important respects as well. One important difference has to do with the persistence of the democratic idea. In common with many African countries, Tanzania underwent a change from the multiparty system of the immediate post-independence period toward a more autocratic pattern of authority in the years following. However, there was an important difference. In Tanzania’s case, the changeover took place in a constitutional manner. Tanzanian political leaders sought to validate the change by propounding a democratic theory of single-party rule.1 They then sought to translate this theory into political reality by creating an elaborate electoral framework whose purpose was to nurture popular participation and candidate competitiveness within the penumbra of single-party government.
The duration, magnitude, and visibility of an electoral process in which voters could choose between two CCM candidates imparted enduring credibility to the democratic idea. Democratic theorists could find much to fault about the way Tanzania practiced single-party democracy. The governing party regulated the country’s election procedures with utmost care. It screened its candidates for their loyalty to the party’s core principles and then imposed tight controls on their campaigns. These required candidates to appear together so that they could be carefully monitored. The party’s electoral rules also forbade candidates from discussing nonsocialist development alternatives and proscribed appeals to ethnicity, religion or race. Party authorities disqualified candidates who violated these rules.
Although Tanzania’s electoral system imposed these limitations on freedom, it would be a mistake to dismiss its early elections as simply a democratic subterfuge. Tanzania held six single-party elections between 1965 and 1990, and the debates between CCM candidates were heavily attended and widely discussed. Voters at the district level were presented with a choice of candidates and took this choice with utmost seriousness. Indeed, to make voting possible for voters who could not read the candidates’ names, each candidate was assigned a distinct symbol, either a hoe or a house. Throughout the period of single-party rule, the Tanzanian government maintained the premise that legitimate authority was based on the rule of law and not the personal rule of an individual or small elite group. Although the major policy decisions were made
