Balozi Sefue, Madaraka ya Rais na Katiba Mpya: Je, Tunaelewa hoja yake ya msingi?

[a4afrika]

Asante Mkuu wangu Mchambuzi kwa kunielewa.
UCHANGA wa Taifa! Tunapozungumza Uchanga moja kwa moja tunagusa Ukomavu. Je, vigezo gani vitumike? Binafsi naona hivi viwili;-
1. Uwezo wa Taifa Kujiendesha lenyewe! Uchanga ni utepetepe, kama ni mtoto hawezi hata kukaa chini mwenyewe. Ukomavu ni KUJIMUDU, kama ni mtoto ni yule anayeweza kukaa ama kusimama mwenyewe pasi kushikiliwa! Sasa sisi kama Taifa, kipi tunaweza kujidai nacho kuwa tunajimudu nacho? Je, ni siasa zetu hizi za kusikiliza mzungu anatakaje? Ama Uchumi wetu huu wa kuamuliwa na mzungu? (copy and paste style) Hata tamaduni zetu wenyewe hatuwezi kuzifanya zisimame, TUMEKOMAA NINI? Je, sisi si kama mtoto amtegemeae mamaye kumkalisha ama kumsimamisha?
2. Uzoefu: Hapa tunaweza kupima uchanga ama ukomavu wa Taifa kwa kuangalia Umri! "Ukiona nyani mzee ujue amekwepa mishale mingi". Miaka 50 si haba kuitwa mkomavu! Maana ndaniye, kama Taifa tume-experience mengi mno...njaa, magonjwa, na hata vita, sera na mifumo tofauti tofauti, itikadi mbalimbali, imani, sayansi na teknolojia n.k...vyote tumevishuhudia! Je, yatosha kusema TUMEKOMAA kwakuwa tu UMRI WETU umeruhusu kushuhudia MAMBO MENGI? Binafsi ninahofu kigezo hicho, kwani inaweza tokea ya mfyatua tofali la udongo, anayesubiri wiki moja kwenda kunyanyua tofali kujengea, kumbe kuna mwenye HILA naye ambaye tangu siku ya kwanza amekuwa akilimwagia maji tofali lisikauke hadi siku ya saba. Ole kwa mnyanyua tofali, akidhani limekomaa na kulinyanyua kwa pupa kwakuwa tu limeshafikisha wiki, LITAMPASUKIA MIKONO na kubaki mdomo wazi! Na hiyo ndio Tanzania. "UKOMAVU WA TAIFA UTAPIMWA NA FIKRA ZA WATU WAKE KATIKA KUAMUA NAMNA BORA YA KULI-TREAT TAIFA LAO WENYEWE, KULINGANA NA MAZINGIRA NA NYAKATI ZAO WENYEWE" tukifikia hapo, ni sahihi kusema tumekomaa!
*Mkuu wangu Mchambuzi, nimefurahi sana kueleweka kuhusu Demokrasia na anguko lake. Inquality, poverty, ethnic, religious polarization, fragmentation, e.t.c kama vyanzo vya anguko la Demokrasia...vyote hivyo vinadhihirisha "IRRELEVANCE OF DEMOCRACY" katika mataifa yetu Afrika! Mfumo usiosadifu jinsi tulivyo utatufikisha wapi? Mfano wa kutosadifu kwa huu upuuzi, INQUALITY haikuanza leo, tangu ukoloni. Tunajua kwamba yapo maeneo ambyo yalipata huduma za kijamii mapema sana, mfano shule na hospitali. Lakini yapo maeneo pia ambayo yalipata kujua shule na hospitali miaka 10-20 baada ya uhuru. Leo demokrasia inataka watu hao wawili tofauti, wa-be treated sawa! Kama ni fursa ya ajira washindanishwe, biashara, uongozi, kula, kuvaa na kulala kwao kuwekwe kwenye sahani moja wajinyakulie. Tumesahau kuwa kipindi A anaenda shule B alikuwa shambani analima ama udongoni amejilaza na maumivu ya kichwa! No Consideration, na watu wanakenua meno. Itaachaje kuzua machafuko?
Hapa umenena maneno mazito sana mkuu wangu, katika nchi changa, "Wanasiasa wanatafuta kuungwa mkono by exploiting nationalism and unity exaggreting internal threats kwa umma" cha kusikitisha zaidi system imewaruhusu kufanya hayo kwa madai ya uhuru wa kuropoka! TUNAENDA WAPI NDUGU ZANGU? Hakika hilo linadhihirisha uchanga wetu. Maana katika ukomavu wa taifa kinachopimwa ni FIKRA za watu wake sio umri! Kama wenyenchi wenyewe wanashindwa kutofautisha kujenga na kubomoa nchi, kipi kilichokomaa kwao? Labda tuite UCHANGA ULIOKOMAA.
Katiba Mpya na matumaini ya watanzania hii ni HATARI lakini salama, maana wengi wataamka na kujua thamani yako katika maendeleo yetu. Niliwahi kusema hivi, katiba ni maafikiano yanayorasimisha SERA juu ya mfumo fulani kutoka Falsafa/Itikadi fulani. Mifumo iliyopo leo imeoza na ndiyo hiyo ifungayo zoezi la kupata katiba mpya. Hakuna misingi mikuu ya kulijenga taifa, ndio maana tunahitaji "REFORMATION OF STATE, OUR OWN STATE" Mkuu Mchambuzi ulishanena hili, leo limerudi tena, hapo ndipo napoichukia JF maana litapita tena. Upi uwe mwisho wa kelele hizi tupigazo?
Mungu wetu yu tayari kutushindia vitani.
Anaita sasa!

 

[Raia Fulani]

Mchambuzi
Napenda kukubaliana nawe katika hoja hizi kutokana na unyambulishaji wako katika post zilizotangulia. Nina shaka pia. Kabla ya kuja mkoloni tulikuwa na nini kabla ya Taifa? Historia nimeisahau kidogo, ila nakumbuka kuwa kulikuwa na himaya (Empire) kadhaa katika Afrika hii. Tutofautishe Empire na State? Ninaamini kuwa jamii tofauti ndani ya eneo ambalo lilikuja kuitwa Tanganyika na mkoloni zilikuwa na mifumo yao ya kiutawala na kiuchumi. Kutaja chache kina Mangi Meli, Mangi Mareale, Chifu Mkwawa, Chifu Rumanyika, Mtemi isike, na himaya nyingi kadhaa ambazo zilikuwa zinajijenga na kujitanua kiutawala na kiuchumi kwa njia za vita na zinginezo. Binafsi naamini kuwa state formation zilianza hata kabla ya mkoloni. Mkoloni alipoingia akavuruga state zilizokuwa na kutengeneza za kwake kwa lengo la kurahisisha kutawala. Kwanza walichofanya ni kuwagawa wananchi waliokuwa katika state fulani na ndio maana tunashuhudia leo wamakonde Msumbiji na Tanzania. Wamasai Kenya na Tanzania. Wajaluo kenya na Tanzania. Wahaya Uganda, Rwanda na Tanzania. Hili unalizungumziaje Mchambuzi

 

[jouneGwalu]

Sina uhakika na muelekeo wa mjadala, ndio maana toka awali sikutaka sana kuzama kwenye hili suala la uchanga au ukubwa wa taifa letu....

Kitu pekee kinachonikera katika mjadala wa uchanga na udogo wa taifa letu ni kuwa mara zote umetumiwa na watawala wetu katika kukwepa majukumu, kuhalalisha uzembe wao na kuwachagulia wenyenchi nini ni sahihi kwao kwamba watu wenyewe hawajui nini kinawastahili.

Suala la uchanga (kwa maana toka tulipokuwa huru) halina mashiko tena, sababu kuna mifano ya nchi ambazo zimepata uhuru mbele yetu na kugubikwa na migogogro kedeked ila bado leo hii yameweza kuwa ni mataifa ya maana sana.
Pia kwa kurejea mfano wa EMT kuna nchi hadi miaka ya mwisho ya 60 tulikuwa tunalingana nayo kiuchumi na nyingine kuzizidi ila leo kwenye ulimwengu uliotamalaki usasa na teknolojia ya kurahisisha kila kitu wametuzidi sana .....

Kwa mifano hii ni rahisi sana kuiua hiyo hoja ya uchanga wa taifa, sababu je kama taifa tungeendelea na ile speed ya miaka ya 70 kabla ya vita ya Uganda (naweka pembeni suala la vita baridi ya mataifa makubwa), kweli leo hii tungeendelea kulia lia na uchanga wa taifa??

Hivyo suala la uchanga ni la kuliweka pembeni sababu linatoa mjumuisho wa vitu tu, twende kwenye masuala mahususi na ya moja kwa moja kwamba ni nini kinachopelekea tujione wachanga leo hii??

Sawa kama hayo tunayoyaita "mataifa makubwa" yamepitia zaidi ya miaka 200 toka uhuru wake, je na sisi tunahitaji miaka 200 kweli ili tuje kujiita taifa kubwa, kweli??

Nadhani hapo utaona kuwa suala la ukubwa wa taifa sio miaka mingapi au vizazi vingapi vimepita ila ni kujielewa kama taifa dira yenu kuwa mnataka kujenga taifa la namna gani na kuamua kuanza kujenga hilo taifa kwa kuanzia misingi na mifumo ya kuachiana vizazi na vizazi ili kukamilisha hilo taifa mnalolitaka, hichi ndio kitu ambacho hakipo au hata kama kipo basi hakieleweki mpaka sasa kwenye nchi hii....

Ila tu kwa kurejea kwenye mjadala halisi, kwa mambo na kasi ya dunia ni ngumu sana kupona kama tutaendelea na kumrundika kazi kubwa zote Rais.
Ni lazima tugawanye uongozi na mamlaka yake kwenye mamlaka nyingine na kuziunda tusihofie kuumia kutokana na huo "uchanga" labda maumivu yatazaa ukomavu kama nchi na kusonga zaidi.

Turudi kwenye maswali manne uliyouliza, nadhani nitarejea!

 

[Mchambuzi]

Raia Fulani in relation to bandiko namba 82:

Asante kwa kuendeleza mjadala huu muhimu, hasa kuhusiana na suala zima la State and Our Society in Tanzania vis a vis Government. Kama nilivyokwisha jadili huko nyuma, A STATE huzaliwa kutokana na mahitaji ya makundi mbalimbali ndani ya jamii husika, na kwa kawaida mahitaji hayo huwa na mahusiano na masuala makuu matatu: Kwanza ni suala la Usalama wa jamii husika na mali zao; Pili ni suala la Ustawi wa maisha ya wanajamii husika; na Tatu ni suala la kutatua the constant conflicting demand on scarce resources – yani the common economic problem of Scarcity - unlimited wants versus limited resources available to meet such wants; Hilo ni moja;

Pili, a State pamoja na taasisi zake is supposed to act rational na wenye nafasi za utumishi katika state husika wanatofautiana na wanajamii wengine kwa maana moja kubwa kwamba – watumishi hawa wana mamlaka ya kufanya kazi ya kuongoza na kusimamia masuala yote ya msingi katika jamii – kisiasa, kiuchumi na kijamii, sasa whether mamlaka hayo yanatokana na matakwa ya wanajamii au yanatokana na matumizi ya mabavu, hili ni suala linalo relate na moja ya hoja zangu za msingi katika mjadala huu – yani uwepo wa problematic state in Tanzania.

Katika historia ya ulimwengu, STATES zimekuwa zikitofautiana sana, hasa machimbuko yake, na kuna wanazuoni kadhaa ambao wamejadili hili kwa kina kwa mfano Marx, Webber, na Durkheim. Kwa ufupi, Marx anaelezea state kama matokeo ya class relations; Webber anaeleza kwamba ni matokeo ya organization (kwa kutumia dhana za domination, power and authority), na Durkheim kwamba ni matokeo ya division of labor ndani ya jamii husika. Tutawajadili mitazamo yao kwa kina baadae iwapo itabidi, hasa to relate na mazingira yetu Tanzania kabla ya ukoloni na baada ya ukoloni.

Vinginevyo STATES za awali (the world all over) zilianza kama rudimentary states – hasa kama tu mwendelezo/extension ya household ya mfalme au chifu. Kama ulivyojadili hapo juu, ni kweli kwamba kabla ya uhuru, Tanganyika (baadae Tanzania) kulikuwepo na tawala za kichifu zenye mifumo yake ya uchumi, siasa na utawala lakini hakuna jamii hata moja ya kabla ua ukoloni ambayo ina fit well na theory za Webber, Marx na Durkheim. Tukiachana na hilo, jamii za kichifu kama tunavyoelewa kupitia historia zilikuja kuharibiwa na wakoloni katika kipindi ambacho jamii hizi zilikuwa zinaimarika zaidi na pengine kukaribia kiwango kinachoelezwa na wanazuoni hao hapo juu. Na baada ya uhuru, sisi wenyewe kupitia Mwalimu Nyerere tukaamua kufutilia mbali utawala wa kichifu, ingawa ilikuwa kama ni self contradictory kwani kwa upande mwingine, Ujamaa ulilenga kurudisha values zote ambazo ziliharibiwa na ujio wa ukoloni.

Matokeo yake ni muendelezo wa a problematic state kama nilivyojadili huko nyuma ambapo kwa upande mmoja, kuna STATE yenye a few formal institutions (hasa civic institutions) zenye kuunganisha wananchi in a collective way, lakini kwa upande mwingine, kuna informal and community based institutions ambazo zinapingana na dhana ya uraia (collectivity approach of state formation) unaojengwa na civic and formal institutions ambazo kimsingi zinaendesha shughuli zake kwa mtindo wa communities za makabila haya, dini ile n.k. Mbaya zaidi ni kwamba kwa ujumla wake, watanzania wengi wapo more loyal to these informal institutions kuliko civic institutions. Pengine hii inachangiwa na ukweli kwamba Nyerere hakuwekeza juhudi katika kugeuza watanzania kuwa Raia kwanza mara tu baada ya uhuru lakini huu ni mjadala mwingine.

Hata viongozi wetu wengi wapo more loyal to informal and community based institutions kwani hizo ndio zinawazaa kama wabunge, madiwani, marais n.k. Civic institutions zinakuja kukamilisha tu mchakato wa informal institutions. Na kibaya hapa pia ni kwamba Civic institutions zimegeuzwa kuwa sehemu ya viongozi kuchota mali na kuipeleka kwenye community zao ambako kuna more loyalty. Huu ni mwendelezo wa imani kubwa ya wananchi wengi kwamba kama vile ilivyokuwa serikali ya kikoloni (kuwa alien to common man), serikali baada ya uhuru nayo ni ya aina hiyo, haipo kwa faida ya wengi, kwahiyo dawa ni kuchagua viongozi makini waende huko Dar-es-salaam kukamata madaraka kasha wakwapue state property kuja kutuendeleza kimiradi na kimfuko pia.

Such antagonism inachangia sana uwepo wa a problematic state in Tanzania na since independence tumekuwa na a state ambayo ni weak, soft and fragile kama nilivyojadili awali. Ni kutokana na hali hii, baada ya uhuru Mwalimu aliamua kugeuza former colonial state kuwa a party state, lakini miaka sita baadae, akaona haifai, hivyo azimio la arusha na ujamaa vikazaa a developmental state, ambayo haikuweza ku deliver sustainably, hivyo ikauwawa na kupisha a contracting state ambayo ndio tunayo sasa kwa miaka 28 (tangia mwaka 1985), na such a state imeshindwa kabisa to deliver the goods to the common man. The STATE is now on the verge of becoming a failed state politically and democratically, kwani tayari economically (on the micro level which matters more than macro level), Tanzania is already a failed state.

 

[Mchambuzi]

jouneGwalu ,

nashukuru sana kwa mchango wako namba 83; naelewa hoja yako ya msingi juu ya madhara ya kujitambulisha sisi kama taifa changa, lakini nakubaliana zaidi na wewe kuhusu jinsi gani watawala wanatumia hii kama loophole kukwepa majukumu yao. Lakini pamoja na hayo, suala la Tanzania kuwa taifa changa (a young state) lipo pale pale na sina uhakika kama umepitia hoja zangu zinazojadili kwanini nimekuwa na mtazamo huo. Pia jingalafalsafa ameuliza zwali la msingi sana kwenye bandiko namba 81 kwamba kama taifa, tumekomaa nini? Natarajia kusikia mawazo yako juu ya hili.

Vinginevyo nakubaliana na wewe kwamba kuna umuhimu wa kumpunguzia madaraka rais, ingawa kuna maeneo mengine nadhani sio lazima yapunguzwe bali yadhibitiwe ipasavyo.

Mwisho nikushukuru kwa kutambua maswali yangu manne katika bandiko namba moja sehemu ya hitimisho, wengi wamekuwa wakiyakwepa maswali haya, hivyo kupelekea mjadala mara nyingine kukosa dira. Nitashukuru iwapo utarejea na kujadili maswali husika.

Zakumi, tunakukosa huku, pole na mafua.

EMT, nguruvi3, raia fulani, bongolander, kichuguu, ningependa kusikia mawazo yenu kuhusu swali la mwenzetu jingalafalsa kwenye bandiko namba 81 anapohoji kwamba:

Je, Tanzania kama Taifa tumekomaa nini?

 

[Nguruvi3]

JouneGwalu #83, nakubaliana nawe kabisa kuwa neno uchanga linatumika kama kitisho na ukweli kuwa hapa tulipo hatuna uchanga tena. Kwanza sisahihi kusema sisi ni wachanga baada ya kujitawala miaka 50.

Nchi kama Marekani ilikuwa changa katika miaka 50 kwasababu haikuwa na template ya kukomaa.
Sisi tumepata uhuru mwaka 1961 kukiwa na model na template zote mezani, hatuna sababu ya kutembea wakati wenzetu wanakimbia.

Lakini pia tujiulize ni uchanga upi? mwaka 1961 nchi za Asian Tiger ikiwemo China zote zilionekana third world pengine kwa uchanga wake. Leo nchi hizo hazipo kundi moja na sisi. Je, wenzetu waliwezaje kuvunja uchanga miaka 50 na sisi tusubiri miaka 200 kama USA?

Mchambuzi, nakubaliana nawe kuhusu formal institution na informal and community based institution.
Ni kweli kuwa sisi tupo zaidi katika informa and community base institution.
Sababu za sisi kuwa loyal ni matokeo ya wananchi kukataa tamaa na civic institutions.

Mahali popote ambapo pana weak civic institutions jamii hutafuta mbadala uwe wa heri au wa shari.
Hiyo ndio natural justice inavyo dictate.

Ni kwa muktadha huo hapa tulipo tunapaswa kwanza kuimarisha forma institutions na hapo ndipo unapoungana nani na Raia Fulani tunaposema ili ku-shift mtazamo wa wananchi kutoka katika community based then tuanze na marekebisho hapo.

Nimesoma maoni ya viongozi katika tume ya katiba mpya. Hakuna hata mmoja aliyeridhika kuwa kuna uhuru wa institutions anayoongoza katika utendaji, ubunifu na uongozi kwa ujumla.

Jana Gavana wa BOT amezungumza kidiplomasia sana kwa kusema BoT inaingiliwa katika utendaji na serikali na hapa ana maana Rais kwasababu katika serikali hakuna anyeweza kumwingilia Gavana kama si rais peke yake. Ameomba BoT ipewe nguvu za kikatiba.

Ni maoni kama hayo yametolewa na CAG, Tume ya uchaguzi, wastaafu viongozi n.k.
Hii maana yake ni kuwa uongozi wa nchi haupo katika institutions bali kwa mtu mmoja.

Sasa Gavana anayeangalia uchumi wa nchi kama anadhani hawawezi kutenda kwasababu ya kufungwa mikono, kwanini tudhani kuwa tukisubiri miaka 200 tutakuwa tumekomaa.

Hakuna mtoto anayekomaa akiwa amebebwa asiyepewa fursa ya kutambaa au kutemebea hata kama kuna nyakati atakuwa katika matatizo. Ukomavu ni kitu comprehensive ambacho kina both side, negative na positive.
Kinachoangaliwa ni jinsi gani ya ku-overcome challenges zitokanazo.

Ni kwa msingi huo ndio maana nasema rais apunguziwe madaraka ili uongozi wa nchi uwe katika istitutions zilizo huru.
Ukiangalia hoja za kwanini rais asipunguziwe madaraka, nyingi zimezama katika usalama na stability ya nchi.
Ninachouliza ni kuwa mbona kun-abuse ya nguvu hizo na bado hakuna security concern?

 

[EMT]

EMT,

Nianze na suala la uchanga wa taifa; Bandiko hili linalenga zaidi kuchokoza mada based on mjadala wako kwenye bandiko namba 73;

Nikianza na suala la uchanga wa taifa, hoja zangu katika hili zinatokana zaidi na kutatizwa kwangu na tabia ya watanzania wengi kuchanganya dhana mbili kama vile ni kitu kimoja – dhana ya ‘state' and ‘government'; Nilijadili dhana hizi kwa undani kwenye uzi mwingine ufuatao https://www.jamiiforums.com/great-t...wa-rais-kikwete-mjadala-wa-nadharia-tete.html Tukirudi kwenye mada husika, iwapo tutakuwa tutaangalia Tanzania kama nchi iliyokuwa chini ya ‘Sovereign GOVERNMENT' for the past 52 years, then hoja kwamba Tanzania sio Taifa Changa, ni hoja yenye mashiko;

Kwanza kabisa nakubali tatizo la kuchanganya kati ya state na government. Kuna mpaka watawala walioko madarakani wanaamini kuwa the current government is "sovereign". Wamekaa madarakani kwa muda mrefu kiasi cha kuwafanya kuamini hivyo. Wameachana na dhana kuwa ipo siku serikali hiyo itaondoka madarakani na kuiachia serikali nyingine. Ni "sovereign state" aka "state sovereignty" na siyo government sovereignty. In addition, hata maana ya state sovereignty imebadilika sana in the contemporary world.

Lakini tukiamua kujadili Tanzania ‘As a STATE', mtazamo wangu ni kwamba we are still very young; Mifano ya Kenya, Rwanda n.k, hasa juu ya jinsi gani wamepiga hatua katika kipindi cha miaka 50 bado hakibadili ukweli kwamba as states, nchi hizi bado zipo very vulnerable and things may reverse at any time - hakuna guarantee of sustenance; Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, zote ni problematic states, one step away from being failed states; Suala la Tanzania being a problematic state pia nilishajadili kwa kirefu katika uzi mwingine huko nyuma;

Kwa hoja kama hii unaweza pia kusema kuwa Afghanistan is a very young state kwa kuwa bado ni vulnerable, guarantee ya substance ni ndogo, ni problematic state and it can actually be said that is already a failed state?

The government there can't physically control its territory, has no, or only a limited, monopoly on the legitimate use of force, cannot adopt and enforce decisions binding for the whole country, is unable to provide basic public services, and cannot represent the whole country in the international community. That state is a failed or failing one regardless of how young or old it is.

Nikirejea sehemu ya mjadala wangu huo nilisema kwamba - Kwa upande mmoja – A Government (Serikali) ni taasisi ambayo jukumu lake kubwa ni kutunga na kutekeleza sheria na sera mbalimbali ndani ya jamii husika; Muhimu pia ni kwamba taasisi hii ina nguvu na mamlaka ya kutawala eneo husika la kijiografia pamoja na wakazi wanaoishi eneo hilo; Mamlaka na nguvu hii imegawanyika katika maeneo makuu matatu:

Legislative (Bunge) – nguvu ya kutunga sheria na sera mbalimbali;
Executive – nguvu ya kurututisha utiifu wa sheria (enforce law);
Judiciary (Mahakama) – nguvu ya kufafanua au kuanisha Sheria mbali mbali ili kuongoza shughuli za kila siku katika uendeshaji wa serikali - kisiasa, kiuchumi na kijamii;

Naweza kukubaliana na wewe, lakini I believe hivyo ulivyoodhoresha sivyo tuu vinavyotumika ku-determine a legitimate government. At the end of the day and particularly in the contemporary world, suala kubwa ni kuwa na legitimate government. A government can have a legislature, judiciary and executive lakini kama haina legitimacy kutoka kwa wananchi then haitakuwa na effective control of the State.

Kwa upande mwingine, nilijadili kwamba maana ya ‘State' ni ‘a geographic entity' ambayo ina fiscal system yake mahususi, ina Katiba Yake na Soveregnity (freedom from external control);

Katika haya mawili (state vis a vis government), we certainly have an aged government but the story is different when it comes to Tanzania as a state;

I think a state is more than a geographic entity. Kwa mfano, tukija kwenye State recognition under international law, nilishaandika sehemu nyingine in the context of Zanzibar kuwa any territory can recognise itself as a State under its own internal laws. But self-recognition does not mean that such territory has achieved a Statehood under international law.

At the end of the day, it is not what a territory thinks it is, but what other States think it is. Kwa mfamo, Somaliland inajitambua kama State, but other States do not recognise it as such. Other countries regard Tanzania as a state.

Accordingly, a territory must satisfy the criteria set by international law in order to be recognised as a State. These criteria are for State recognition; not recognition of governments. Criteria for state recognition under international law.

1. A permanent population. There must be some people to establish the existence of a State but there is no a specification of a minimum number of people and again there is no a requirement that all of the people be national of the state.
2. Territory. The second qualification is territory where the permanent population live on. However, there is no a necessity of having well- established boundaries as the international Court of Justice said in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, "... there is... no rule that the land frontiers of a state must be fully delimited and defined". The well-known example is the uncertainty of the land frontiers of Israel when it was admitted as a State.
3. Government. A State requires a government that functions as a political body within the law of the land. But it is not a condition precedent for recognition as an independent State.
4. Capacity to enter into international relations with other states. The fourth and last qualification is about independence. In other words independence is indicated by the criterion of capacity to enter into international relations with other states.

Hapo unaweza kusema kuwa Tanzania haina hizo criteria ili kutambuliwa as a State?

Ili nieleweke vizuri zaidi natokea wapi na wasiwasi wangu kuhusu hoja kwamba Tanzania sio Taifa changa, pengine niulize swali lifuatalo: Je, kwa miaka 52 iliyopita (tangia uhuru wa kisiasa), Tanzania imekuwa ikifanya kitu gani kinachofanania na State Building? Kwani bila ya uangalifu, tutaendelea kupuuza juu ya umuhimu wa kurudia juhudi za state building, hasa strengthening of formal and civic institutions za kuendesha maisha ya kisiasa, kijamii na kiuchunmi; Hivi sasa, informal and community based institutions ndio zinaendesha nchi, huku formal and civic institutions zilizopo zikitumika tu kama rubber stamps; Iwapo kuna mtu anaweza ku-point kwamba tumekuwa katika harakati za state building kwa mifano hai, basi hivyo ndivyo tutaweza kupata hoja zenye mashiko kwamba sisi sio wachanga kwani when it comes to this and that, we have mileage;

State building ina theory mbili na sijui unamaanisha ipi. Theory ya kwanza ni kwamba state building ni shughuli inayofanywa na external actors wakijaribu kujenga au kuimarisha taasisi ambazo ni dhaifu kwa sababu ya vita or failing state. Mifano inaweza kuwa Afghanistan na Iraq.

Theory ya pili ambayo imepata umaarufu mwaka 2007 baada ya kusainiwa kwa mkataba baina ya nchi zinazotoa misaada kwenye nchi ambazo zimeathirika na vita au weak States. Katika mkataba huo nchi zilizoendelea zilikubali kuunga mkono state building as their "central objective" in conflict affected countries.

Of course the second theory can be criticised because state building may also be viewed as an indigenous, national process driven by state-society relations. The endogenous view believes that countries cannot do state-building outside their own borders.

But I believe that state-building takes place in all countries and at all times. Hadi leo Marekani pamoja na utajiri wao they still build their state. Kwa hiyo, sidhani kama state building inaweza kuchukuliwa as an excuse to ku-justify uchanga au maendeleo duni ya taifa.

Vinginevyo naendelea kuamini kwamba we have hardy done much to build Tanzania as a State, instead, we have been busy forming new governments for the past 50 years; State building efforts zilifanyika katika kipindi kidogo sana na zikafa (1967 – early 1980s); it is in this light that I am strongly convinced kwamba as a STATE, Tanzania bado ni wachanga sana (not necessarily experience in forming governments for political leadership and administration purposes)';

The following table might help nieleweke zaidi:

Mwaka	Main Feature	Main Objective
1961 – 1966	Party State (TANU)	To establish order
1967 – 1985	Developmental State (TANU/CCM)	Progress
1985 – Present	Contracting State	Control

Kufuatana na the table above, - baada ya uhuru, the ultimate objective ya mwalimu na TANU was to create and sustain a new order; Ingawa Mwalimu was optimistic about the future, he had no experience of exercising power; He was anxious to secure his own position at the helm of the "inherited colonial state', thus the rise of TANU (later CCM) as the Party State;

In 1967 throughout 1985, Mwalimu's objective shifted from ORDER to DEVELOPMENT; he (and TANU) realized that he had to show wananchi that he and TANU) had abilities to develop the country; it is in this context that Nyerere developed an interest in grabbing control of the State for the purpose of guiding progress – kwahiyo hapa the party state was replaced by the Developmental State;

From 1985 to the present – hapa we see the World Bank and IMF taking over; Serikali imeondolewa katika suala zima la State building, na suala hilo kuachia nguvu za soko, huku serikali ikifanya facilitation and to a smaller extent, regulation; The bottom line ni kwamba throughout this period, our government have become increasingly dependent on policy advice and funding for economic reforms from external sources;

You may be right, because on other hand, kuna tofauti kati ya state building na nation building. Nation-building (nation referring to the population itself, as united by identity history, culture and language) is defined as the process of encouraging a sense of national identity within a given group of people. This a definition relates more to socialisation than state capacity.

The basis of the two concepts is different. The term nation emphasises the consciousness of unity whilst the state emphasises political unity. So, a state may lack the feeling of oneness among its people and yet remain a state.

Sasa tangia kupata uhuru Tanzania ilikuwa inafanya state building or nation building? What Mwalimu Nyerere was trying to do? Building a state or a nation?

Kwahiyo hoja zangu za msingi juu ya kwanini sikubali moja kwa moja kwamba sisi sio wachanga kama Taifa ni based on arguments kuu mbili hapo juu – kwanza ni dhana ya problematic state, pili ni mjadala wangu kuhusu evolution yetu kama Taifa kutokea party state – to developmental state to contracting state; Na hoja nyingine ya kuongezea hapa ni kwamba – bado tunaishi under the first generation of leaders, and I believe kwamba it is also an important variable or unit of analysis katika kubaini uchanga au ukomavu wetu kama Taifa;

I beg to differ with you on this. As I said above, a problematic state does not make that state a young state. Vinginevyo tutakuwa tunatumia uchanga huo ku-justify matatizo yanayotukabili kama taifa. Inabidi ifike mahali tukubali kuwa tumeshakomaa vya kutosha kutatua matatizo yanayotukabili. Tuache kutumia excuse ya uchanga to try to justify our level of development.

Nitakupa mfano hai. Singapore ilipata uhuru mwaka 1965. Sisi tulipata uhuru mwaka 1961. Lakini Singapore has experienced exceptionally rapid growth, low inflation, and a healthy balance of payments. Kwa nini Singapore wameweza lakini sisi tumeshindwa pamoja na kwamba wao ni "wachanga" zaidi yetu?

 

[Zakumi]

Katika mchango wake wa hivi karibuni juu ya Katiba Mpya, Katibu Mkuu Kiongozi Balozi Sefue amekuja na hoja kwamba “Kupunguza Madaraka Ya Rais Ni Hatari Kwa Usalama Wa Nchi”, na kusisitiza kwamba kuna umuhimu wa madaraka hayo kubakia kama yalivyo chini ya Katiba Mpya;

Hoja ya Balozi Sefue imepokelewa kwa hisia mbalimbali, lakini hisia zinazotawala mijadala mingi ni za kupinga hoja kuliko kuunga mkono hoja Ni muhimu pande zote mbili za hoja zikapewa nafasi ya kusikilizwa, lakini ni muhimu zaidi ikaeleweka kwamba wanaopinga hoja ya ya Balozi Sefue ni wahanga wa kuyumba kwa uongozi wa nchi kwa muda mrefu sasa – kisiasa, kiuchumi na kijamii, hasa katika suala zima la maamuzi muhimu na magumu katika uongozi wa taifa kisiasa, kiuchumi na kijamii, vinginevyo hakuna dalili yoyote kwamba wapinga hoja ya balozi Sefue ni watanzania waliokosa Uzalendo kwa Taifa lao au ni watanzania wasio litakia mema Taifa lao. Kimsingi, watanzania wengi wanazidi kuamini kwamba tatizo la kuyumba kwa uongozi wa taifa pamoja na madhara makubwa kwao kisiasa, kiuchumi na kijamii litapatiwa ufumbuzi iwapo tu taasisi ya Urais itapunguziwa madaraka yake chini ya katiba ya sasa.

Ni muhimu tukatambua kwamba Katiba ya nchi iliundwa kwa makusudi ya kufanya Rais wa nchi awe ‘the living symbol of our National Unity”. Kwa mtazamo wangu, hili ndio chimbuko la hoja ya Balozi Sefue. Mjadala kuhusu jinsi gani taasisi ya Urais imefanikiwa au imefeli katika hili, ni mjadala mwingine. Vinginevyo hili ni suala ambalo pengine linachangia kwa kiasi kikubwa kuibuka kwa hoja nyingi juu ya udhaifu wa taasisi ya Urais katika nyakazi hizi za Mageuzi ya Kisiasa kuelekea Mfumo wa Demokrasia ya Uliberali inayofuata mfumo wa vyama vingi vya siasa, mageuzi ambayo nilijadili sehemu nyingine kwamba - kitendo cha Rais Kikwete kuyaruhusu yatokee kwa kasi zaidi kuliko Marais waliomtangulia, kimechangia sana kwa Kikwete kuonekana ni Rais dhaifu kwa mujibu wa hoja ya Mh. J.J Mnyika, mwaka 2012.

Vinginevyo tangia uhuru, taasisi ya Urais imekuwa ikikabiliwa na UDHAIFU MKUBWA, lakini tofauti na Kikwete, Marais waliomtangulia walificha madhaifu haya kwa njia mbalimbali, hasa kupitia udhibiti wa mageuzi ya kisiasa na kuruhusu democratization kuingia nchini kwa mtindo wa Top – Down Approach (badala ya Bottom – Up), kwa mfano implementation ya maoni mengi ya tume ya Nyalali ‘incrementaly’ badala ya ‘radically’, ambapo tume ilipendekeza sheria kadhaa pamoja na vifungu fulani fulani vya Katiba ya 1977 vifanyiwe marekebisho ili Katiba ya nchi iendane na mhaitaji ya mfumo wa vyama vingi vya siasa. Lakini badala yake, mapendekezo mengi (pamoja na suala la Katiba Mpya) yaliwekwa pembeni na serikali ya CCM kwa zaidi ya miaka ishirini. Suala lingine linaruhusu ‘Uhuru wa Vyombo vya Habari’ ambavyo katika awamu za nyuma, lilidhibitiwa kikamilifu.

Kwahiyo incremental implementation ya demokrasia ya uliberali nchini pamoja na udhibiti wa vyombo vya habari vilisaidia sana kwa marais wa awamu za nyuma kukinga madhaifu ya taasisi ya Urais yasijitokeze, madhaifu ambayo kimsingi ni ‘inherent to our problematic state since the first day of independence in 1961’. Uamuzi wa Rais Kikwete kuruhusu yote haya chini ya utawala wake ndio imemfanya awe mhanga wa maamuzi yake mwenyewe na kuonekana dhaifu per Mnyika’s argument.

Ili kujikinga na madhaifu yanayoendana na taasisi ya Urais (The Executive) inayoongoza ‘A PROBLEMATC STATE OF TANZANIA’, ndio maana Mwalimu alikuwa akisisitiza na ku ‘justify jinsi gani:

“Power in the right hands is good and indeed necessary for a new State”.

Madaraka husika ya Rais ambayo yamezidi kuzua controversy katika awamu ya nne ambayo pia kimsingi ndio yanabeba hoja ya Balozi Sefue includes:

• He/she is the head of state with Full Executive Powers and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces;
• The Cabinet which he appoints largely from MPs is ‘only’ advisory to him;
• He has full powers to appoint, promote, dismiss and to exercise disciplinary control over the Civil Service including the Judiciary and so forth;
• He/She also has an overall responsibility for Government Organization and Direction;

Under a new and young Nation, Mwalimu aliona umuhimu wa kuweka haya katika Katiba i.e. the country’s Constitution was deliberately designed to create a powerful Chief Executive who would give the nation vigorous national leadership. Lakini pia, Mwalimu understood of the challenges ahead and in one of his speeches he argued that:

“We recognize that the system of checks and balances is an admirable way of applying the brakes to social change. Our need is not for brakes – our lack of trained manpower and capital resources, and even our climate, act too effectively already. We need accelerators powerful enough to overcome the inertia bred of poverty, and the resistance which are inherent in all societies.”

Source: J.K Nyerere, “How Much Power For a Leader”, The Observer, June 1962. Reprinted in African Report, Vol. 7, No. 7, July 1962, p.5.
________

Mwalimu also understood of the threats that lied ahead, and in one of his speeches he contended that:

“Our Union has neither the long tradition of nation-hood, nor the strong physical means of national security, which older countries take for granted. While the vast mass of people give full and active support for their country and its government, handful individuals can still put our nation into jeopardy, and reduce to ashes the efforts of millions.”

Source: President’s Speech at the Opening of University College, Dar-es-salaam, 21 August 1964, Dar-es-salaam, Ministry of Information and Tourism, p.17.
____

Nyerere assumed ‘full executive powers’ kutokana na ukweli kwamba baada ya uhuru, kazi ilikuwa ni Economic Development that was supposed to deliver also on the social front, bila ya kuathiri ‘UMOJA WA KITAIFA’. According to Mwalimu:

“New Nations like Tanganyika are emerging into independence as a result of a struggle for freedom from colonialism…Once the first free government is formed, its supreme task lies ahead, the building up of the country’s economy, so as to raise the living standards of the people, to eradicate diseases, to banish ignorance and superstition. This is no less than the struggle against colonialism, calls for the maximum united effort by the whole country if it is to succeed. There can be no room for difference or division…This is our time of emergency and until our war against poverty, ignorance and disease has been won, we should not let our unity be destroyed by a desire to follow somebody else’s book of rules”.

Source: ‘One Party Rule’, Spearhead, Dar-es-salaam, November 1961. Reprinted in Paul E. Sigmund Jr., ed., The Ideologies of Developing Countries, New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1963, pp. 197 – 202.
_______________


Ili kuweza kufanikiwa katika kazi hii, to Mwalimu, it was necessary for the country to become a ‘ONE PARTY STATE’. In one of his speeches, Mwalimu argued that:

“The Tanzanian System of one party democracy was designed to enable people to elect a competent government which reflects their wishes and desires and to do this without damaging the society and the long term objectives they have set for themselves”

Source: The Nationalist, July 1970.
___________


However, Mwalimu also warned that:


“In the future, it is possible that a Second Party will grow in Tanganyika, but in one sense such a growth would represent a failure by TANU”.

Source: Socialism & Participation: Tanzania’s 1970s National Elections: The Election Study Committee, University of Dar-es-salaam, 1974.
_________________

Na mwisho ni juu ya URais na Usultani/Ufalme na Udikteta. Miaka michaceh baada ya uhuru, watanzania wengi walikuwa wanajenga hoja kwamba kuna umuhimu wa Mwalimu Nyerere kuwa “Rais wa Maisha” na kwamba Katiba itamke kwamba hapatakuwa na uchaguzi katika ngazi ya Urais nchini Tanzania. Mwalimu alijibu hoja hizi kama ifuatavyo – akilenga Katiba ya nchi:

“It should be able to fit any person tall or short, fat or slim. It is not like a dress which is cut to fit a particular person. The people often inspired to the idea of having a life president because they trust their leaders but the present constitutional provision that every five years we should have a presidential election is quite convenient. May be after five years of office the electorate will want another leader or may be the leader himself will want to be relieved. It should be clearly understood that people change…the way is – if we want him we will elect him again after five years; if not, then we say ‘sorry’ to him. We are not electing to the President a Sultan but a worker”

Source: The Standard, 12 September 1970.
________________


HITIMISHO

Tukirudi kwenye hoja ya Balozi Sefue juu ya umuhimu wa kubakisha madaraka ya Rais kama yalivyo katika Katiba Mpya, kuna masuala kadhaa muhimu ya kujadili, ikiwa ni pamoja na haya yafuatayo:

• Moja: How Far Do We Still Agree With Nyerere that:

“POWER IN THE RIGHT HANDS IS GOOD AND INDEED NECESSARY FOR A NEW STATE?

Hili ni swali muhimu hasa kwa watanzania ambao bila ya kujijua wamekuwa ni kigeu geu kwani kwa upande mmoja wanataka rais ajaye asiwe na madaraka kama ilivyo chini ya katiba ya sasa, lakini kwa upande mwingine, hao hao wana hamasa kubwa ya kutaka rais ajaye awe na uwezo wa kufanya maamuzi magumu, huku wakipendekeza umuhimu wa kuwa na Kiongozi kama Rais Kagame wa Rwanda na kutaja taja baadhi ya Wanasiasa ambao wanadhania watakuwa na uwezo wa kufanya maamuzi magumu. Ni muhimu kundi hili likatambua kwamba – UKAGAME utakuwa ni mgumu sana chini ya Katiba Mpya iwapo madaraka ya sasa ya Rais yatapunguzwa kama wanavyopendekeza.

• Mbili – Kinachokera wananchi wengi kuhusu ukubwa wa madaraka ya Rais Kikatiba ni nini hasa: Je, ni kwamba bado tunahitaji Rais mwenye ‘full executive powers’ lakini tatizo ni kwamba such power is in the wrong hands? Au ni kwamba haijalishi nani au chama gani kinatoa Rais wa Tano, Suala la Rais kuwa na ‘full executive powers’ kwa Tanzania limeshapitwa na wakati?

• Tatu – Kwa wale wote wenye mapenzi na vyama vya upinzani – hasa Chadema, kwa maoni yenu, ili Rais atakayetokana na Chadema (kwa mfano) awe na uwezo wa kuirudisha nchi katika mstari, je atafanikiwa zaidi iwapo ataendelea kuwa na ‘full executive powers’ kama ilivyo ndani ya Katiba ya sasa ambapo atakuwa in a better position kutekeleza majukumu yake ya Urais kwa ufanisi zaidi au uwezo wake kurudisha nchi katika mstari na pia kuongoza kwa ufanisi zaidi utajitokeza iwapo nguvu na mamlaka ya Rais yanapunguzwa chini ya Katiba mpya?


• Nne – kutokana na dhana iliyojijenga miongoni mwa vyama vyote vya siasa kwamba umuhimu mkubwa wa Chaguzi Kuu ni kushinda ili kukamata dola na kuunda serikali - na iwapo tunakubaliana kwamba “Tanzania As State is Problematic” kwani tangia uhuru tumejikita zaidi katika kuunda serikali badala ya STATE BUILDING & CONSOLIDATION, Je, juhudi zetu towards State Building zitafanikiwa zaidi chini mwenye full executive powers au asiyekuwa na such powers?

Ngoja niingize mtazamo wa kihistoria kuhusu madaraka makubwa ya rais. Madaraka makubwa ya rais sio wazo lilotokana na watanzania au waafrika.

Kihistoria, viongozi wa Urusi na China walijilimbikizia madaraka makubwa ambayo waliyatumia katika mapinduzi ya viwanda na mabadiliko ya kijamii.

Mabadiliko makubwa yaliotokea Urusi na China yaliwashawishi viongozi wa nchi changa za kiafrika katika miaka ya 60, 70 na 80 kujilimbikizia madaraka hili na wao waweze kufanya mabadiliko.

Utawala wa kidemokrasia ambao nchi nyingi za kiafrika zilirithi kutoka kwa watawala wake una matatizo yake. Moja ya matatizo hayo ni nguzu za bunge na mahakama.

Hivyo viongozi wengi wa kiAfrika kuanzia Nkwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere etc etc walikimbilia kujilimbikizia madaraka hili wawe kama Joseph Stalin wa Urusi au Mao Tse Tung wa China. Nia zao zilikuwa ni kutumia madaraka kuleta mabadiliko haraka kwa jamii.

Matatizo yaliopo ni kuwa viongozi pamoja na kujilimbikizia madaraka hayo, hawakuwa na ujuzi wa kutumia madaraka hayo kuleta mabadiliko ya kweli. Chukua mfano wa vijiji vya ujamaa Tanzania. Hile ilikuwa ni amri ya rais. Katika nchi yenye uhuru wa bunge na mahakama, nguvu zisingeweza kutumika kuwahamisha watu kinyume cha matakwa yao.

Ukweli wa mambo viongozi wa Tanzania hawana utamaduni wa kutumia madaraka yao hili kuleta mabadiliko ya kijamii.Kuanzia baba wa Taifa mpaka JK hakuna aliyeweza kutumia madaraka yake zaidi ya longolongo. Je kuna umuhimu gani kuendelea kuwapa madaraka watu wanaoshindwa kuyatumia? Chukua mfano kuhamisha makao makuu kutoka DSM kwenda Dodoma.

 

[Mchambuzi]

EMT,

cc: nguruvi3, bongolander, zakumi, jounegwalu na wengineo

Tumekuwa na mjadala mzuri sana kuhusu Government Vis a Vis State, ambao umezaa pande kuu mbili. Upande wa kwanza ni ule ambao unajadili kwamba sisi kama Taifa tumekomaa kwahiyo hoja ya kutokomaa isitumike kama kisingizio cha kwanini sisi kama taifa bado ni maskini lakini muhimu zaidi, isiwe ndio sababu ya msingi kwanini Katiba ijayo isimpunguzie madaraka Rais wa nchi. Upande wa pili wa hoja ni ule ambao unajadili kwamba sisi kama taifa, bado ni wachanga, huku msisitizo mkuu ukiwa ni juu ya umuhimu wa kutofautisha baina ya State na Government. Hoja hii inajadili kwamba linapokuja suala la kuunda serikali, kwa hili tumekomaa kwani tumekuwa tunafanya hivyo kwa miaka zaidi ya hamsini, lakini linapokuja suala la Serikali inaundwa kuendesha State ya aina gani, kwa kweli ni bayana kwamba hatujawa consistent, hivyo we don't qualify kujitazama kama tupo matured. Nimekuwa nikilind hoja yangu hii kwa kujadili kwamba linapokuja suala la State, tangia uhuru tumekuwa katika kipindi cha majaribio throughout kwa mfano from Party State (1961 – 1966); Developmental State (1967 – 1985); na hatimaye Contracting State (1986 – hadi sasa yani 2013); Na katika kipindi chote hiki, tumekuwa tunaunda serikali, lakini serikali haijawahi kuwa consistent na aina ya taifa linalojengwa, na hapa ni rahisi sana kuona jinsi gani maana ya dhana Taifa Kukomaa au State Maturity inapwaya.

Kumekuwa na hoja nyingi zinazohusisha mifano ya mataifa kama vile Singapore na nyinginezo (mfano rejea mijadala ya EMT) ambayo yalipata uhuru wake katika kipindi kinachokaribiana na Tanganyika/Tanzania (1960s), na hoja inajengwa kwamba wenzetu hawa (tofauti na sisi) wamefanikiwa kupiga hatua kubwa sana katika maendeleo kama Mataifa. Ni kwa mantiki hii, hoja inajengwa kwamba Tanzania kama Taifa sio wachanga. Hivyo tuache kutafuta visingizio juu ya umaskini wetu. Naona uzito mmoja tu katika hoja hii, nao ni watanzania (hasa viongozi) kuacha kusingizia uchanga wetu kwamba ndio sababu sisi bado maskini au ndio sababu kwanini bado tunahitaji Rais mwenye full executive powers. Pamoja na umuhimu wetu kuwa na mtazamo huu kama taifa, lakini tusikwepe ukweli kwamba nchi kama Singapore na nyinginezo wameweza kufikia walipo sasa kutokana na kuwa CONSISTENT KWA MIAKA ZAIDI YA HAMSINI juu ya Taifa la namna gani wanataka kujenga, na wao walitumia dhana ya kupanga ni kuchagua kwa umakini sana.

Tofauti ya Tanzania na nchi kama Singapore licha ya kwamba tulipata uhuru katika kipindi kimoja ni kwamba wao wamekuwa consistent na aina gani ya STATE wanajenga, kwani tofauti na sisi, Singapore na wengine tangia uhuru (1960s) hawajapata major interruptions katika ujenzi wa taifa. Sisi tumekuwa ni mabingwa wa kuhama (au kuhamishwa) kwa mfano kutoka option ya kuwa a Party State (miaka sita), baadae kuhamia a Developmental State (miaka kumi na nane) na baadae tena kuhamia kuwa a Contracting State (miaka 28 sasa). Ni katika muktadha huu ndio swali la mwenzetu Jingalafalsafa linakuwa na uzito wa kipekee kwamba Tanzania kama State Tumekoma Katika Nini? Tukitazama dhana ya Ukomavu au Maturity and then apply it katika muktadha wa mjadala wetu, ni dhahiri kwamba we are not matured as a state. Na kamwe hatuwezi kuwa matured bila kuwa na consistency juu na aina gani ya STATE tunayotaka kuijenga.

 

[Bongolander]

JingalaFalsafa,

Asante sana kwa mchango wako bandiko namba 74; Kimsingi, kama nimekuelewa, uachojaribu kujadili ni jinsi gani collapse of our democracy is imminent; Kama ni po sahihi, basi naunga mkono hoja; Ni masuala kama haya ndio yananifanya niamini kwamba Tanzania as a STATE bado ni changa sana kama nilivyojadili elsewhere; Likelihood ya democracy to collapse huchangiwa na inequality, poverty, ethnic and religious polarization and fragmentation, etc, na yote haya yapo Tanzania kwa vile we never finished our State Building Project (hence uchanga wetu kama taifa);

Wajibu wa State Building ulikuwa ni wa CCM, lakini badala ya kuendeleza juhudi za STATE Building and Consolidation alizoanzisha Mwalimu, CCM imejikuta ikijikita zaidi katika kushinda chaguzi ili kukamata dola na kuunda serikali ambayo literally imekuwa ikiendesha a problematic state; Na situation after 1985 ambayo ilipelekea a shift from developmental state to contracting state (rejea mjadala wangu bandiko namba), ndio imekuwa ni beleshi la kuichimbia CCM kaburi lake; Kwa sasa CCM ipo in a catch - 22 situation - LACKING LEGITIMACY, IT CANT BE EFFECTIVE; LACKING EFFECTIVENESS, IT CANT DEVELOP LEGITIMACY;

Lakini pamoja na yote haya, CCM survives kwa sababu - katika demokrasia zilizokomaa, wapiga kura evaluate utendaji wa vyama vilivyopo madarakani mainly kwa kigezo cha economic outcomes; Lakini katika demokrasia na Taifa Changa kama Tanzania, wanasiasa wanatafuta kuungwa mkono by exploiting nationalism and unity, exaggerating internal threats kwa umma kutokana na uwoga wa CCM kwa upinzani mkali wa Chadema, matumizi ya nguvu ya dola kuthibiti uprising (kinyume cha katiba), na pia manipulating media; Ploys kama hizi kwa kiasi kikubwa zinafanikiwa kwani wapiga kura walio wengi Tanzania kwanza ni - they are inexperienced na pili, ni - they are unsophisticated;Tatizo lililopo ni kwamba watanzania wameweka matumaini yao yote katika Katiba mpya kama vile huo ndio mwarobaini; Wanajidanganya kwani thats only the half, the other half ni kwamba (i quote Dr. Ambedkar on this one:

"However a good constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who called to work on it happen to be a bad lot; However a bad constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work on it happen to be a good lot; The working of the constitution does not depend wholly on the nature of the constitution; The constitution can provide only the organs of the State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working for these organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties."

Nakubaliana na hoja ya Dr. Ambedkar, na ndio maana katika mijadala mingi nimekuwa nikihimiza juu ya umuhimu wa kuhakikisha kwamba electoral reforms zinaenda sambamba na political party reforms huku masuala muhimu ya kuhakikisha kwamba Katiba za vyama vya Siasa zinakuwa harmonised na sheria za nchi kwa mujibu wa Katiba ya nchi, yanazingatiwa;

cc:
jouneGwalu, Bongolander, Kichuguu, Ogah, EMT, Nguruvi3

Mkuu mchambuzi unajua kuna baadhi ya mambo tunatakiwa kuyaangalia in simplest terms. Tuyaangalie kwa jicho la kawaida let us not be professorial or philosophical.

Hapa Tanzania kuna kundi la watu ambao bado wanataka kujustify uzembe wao kwa kusema sisi ni wachanga, tunasonga mbele. Lakini ukiangalia nchi kama Rwanda ambayo miaka 20 iliyopita ilianza kwenye scratch, lakini sasa it is way up there kuliko Tanzania. Why?

Kwanini miaka 40 iliyopita, tulipokuwa 'wachanga' wachanga zaidi kuliko sasa, tuliweza kuwa political imperialist kusini mwa Afrika, lakini sasa hata Mtwara inatushinda. We could do that kwenye mazingira ambayo demokrasia haikuwepo, elimu ilikuwa haitoshim, pesa zilikuwa chache.

Kwanini tuwe ovyo zaidi wakati tuna pesa zaidi kuliko zamani, elimu zaidi na uhuru zaidi.

The only explanation iko kwenye uongozi wa nchi. Chama tawala na serikali. Tatizo tunamwangalia tu JK na kumtupia madongo kwa kuwa yeye ndiye serikali mkuu. Lakini ingia chini, Mkuu wa Mkoa, mkuu wa wilaya, etc etc Angalia chama ngazi zote. Angalia nje ya serikali, nje ya CCM, utaona kuwa umejaa uozo tu.

Ni kweli we are operating a plural economy on the platform of defacto singular politics, no doubt hili si sahihi. Kwa kuwa CCM hata ikifanya uchafu kiasi gani kwa mentality ya sasa ya vyombo vya usalama, na mentality ya sasa ya mimi kwanza, chama pili, dini yangu tatu, Tanzania mwisho etc etc.........bado tutakuwa pale pale na kuendelea kurudi nyuma.

I am a strong advocate wa mabadiliko ya katiba, ikiwa ni pamoja na kipengele cha kupunguza madaraka ya rais. Lakini let us be honest hali hiyo haitaweza kuondoa 'uchanga' wa Tanzania. Kimsingi tunatakiwa kuwa na vipengelea vya kuwafanya wanasiasa wawe wanadeliver, sio kama sasa ukiwa mbunge ni kula tu kwa miaka mitano. Ukiwa mkuu wa mkoa kazi yako ni kukaa tu ofisini kufanya kazi za kila siku kuendesha mkoa etc etc nakubalina sana na hiyo quote uliyoweka hapo, hasa hii subquote

The constitution can provide only the organs of the State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working for these organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties."

Inabidi kuwe na mechanism ya kutaka tuwe na maelendeo, kuhimiza maendeleo, kuhakikkisha tuna maendeleo, na watu wanafanya kazi hiyo. Pia tuwe na mentality ya kufuatilia na kusimamia. Kwa sasa ni kama tuna vichwa vya panzi tunaibiwa leo kwa style ya EPA tunalia kidogo kesho tumesahau, tunaibiwa kwa style nyingine tunacheka. Kwa sasa hakuna ufuatitiaji na ushughulikiaji, ndio maana unasikia kiongozi fulani anaiba pesa na kujaza usiwsi kila mwezi, au anajenga nyumba na kununua magari kila siku.