Elections 2010 Dr Slaa's doctrine of government and polls lessons since 1965

[Rutashubanyuma]

By Ani Jozen
25th September 2010

Hearing leading opposition candidate for the presidency, Dr Wilibrod Slaa outline his programme of government, one would be forgiven to imagine that cost cutting is the central issue in the polls. For that to be the case, it would have to be the main item in government agenda generally, such that no president could, by any conceivable drift from the norm, forget that this is the case. Yet that does not appear to be the case, in which case Dr Slaa's central tenet is at odds with reality.

Addressing another mammoth rally at Karatu – where he seems to spend more time than is relevant for a presidential candidate – he said he would bring about massive changes in the format of government. He said he would change the constitution so that ministers aren't drawn from Parliament – forgetting that to change the constitution he would have to obtain two thirds of the same MPs for the purpose. Who said that two thirds of MPs don't wish to be cabinet ministers?

That however is only a logical problem because chances of that situation coming up are marginal, and instead the proper issue is why such a separation is hard to see. The singular point is that a minister is in a better position to work to bring about more appreciable resource flows to his constituency, than a non-minister. It is this aspect which endears voters to candidates or aspirants for the nomination (as CCM candidate) who look like they can become ministers, as hope improves.

Studies of the trends in Tanzania's one party democratic elections since 1965, and especially the 1965 study as it set out the principal characteristics of electoral behaviour, are firm on that point. An individual whom the government entrusts with responsibilities at the national level reciprocally becomes more accepted in his home base, and vice versa. How far ministers attract higher resources to their constituencies isn't a deeply researched aspect, but cabinet post induces loyalty.

In that sense another aspect comes up which Dr Slaa – or his political adviser Prof. Mwesiga Baregu – doesn't appear to have grasped, is that while the National Assembly is representative in terms of constituencies, cabinet is differently also representative. Here the issue is mainly larger entities with a sufficiently unitary ethos, for instance large ethnic groups, religious denominations, administrative regions, professional groups, etc. Representation here is based on trust relayed.

Even if there would be cessation of representation at constituency level becoming the basis of cabinet appointment, it is impossible to also eliminate representation at the societal level. The issue would be which aspect is more helpful for stability of government, whether it is constituency-based appointments, or professionals. The big talk among elites is to pick ministers from among professionals, an idea which lacks political acumen; it ignores the fact that Government isn't just the president.

This criticism is similar to another which surfaces in some talk shows, that CCM was using too much money to ‘brand' its presidential candidate, whereas he is known by the vast majority of voters. It is true that most voters either know or have heard of JK, but it is unclear if this suggestion also includes the formulation that for that reason they would vote for him. What it fails to bring to light is that billboards and placards bring voters to think continuously of JK, virtually alone.

Stalwarts of multiparty democracy who think that the best definition of multiparty elections is the strong possibility of ‘sharing' cabinet posts see no reason for having to preoccupy the voter with the image of JK. This is to commit an error which Mwalimu made a reference to in 1981 at the University of Dar es Salaam when responding to an inane question on ‘tribalism' at the Hill. The questioner – later a politician with a tiny political party – said UDSM prevented him getting a presidential appointment despite Mwalimu being familiar with him.

Mwalimu did not throw out the question though it lacked merit, as that would be to commit an error of precisely the sort he wanted to caution the university community against it. It is to create a problem by carelessness; one ignores an aspect of social tensions and huge problems arise from there, and thus he had to answer that question elaborately. That way, those among the audience with such feelings would be dissuaded, while ignoring the question would prove them right.

In that case it would be carelessness on the part of CCM – and to an extent government as a whole – to economize on a vibrant and adequate publicity of the CCM candidate, for a major reason. National unity largely depends on popularity of the president in all places, that means he is known in every corner of the country and he is respected, or liked, in all those areas. That way no gaps open up where this or that section of society starts to look for substitute leadership, a new vision, etc.

Not picking MPs into the cabinet commits the same error that Mwalimu warned, in the sense that it takes national unity for granted, and doesn't see the point in MPs being in the cabinet as well. Nor does this view see the cabinet itself in a representative manner of various societal groups, from among individuals who have already elicited loyalty by being elected as MPs.

The Chadema argument about a small size of government, or the more outright anarchist suggestion of removing MPs from cabinet quite simply ignore the chemistry of national unity.

It would thus imply that many of the suggestions that are being put up by Dr Slaa have adventurism built into their articulation, because they ignore the central item in government, keeping the country together. They think of matters only in terms of costs, and ignore what sort of pressures the presidency has to grapple with in cabinet composition, assigning people to ministries, and dropping them when it is necessary. If Chadema and Co. were right, individuals like ex-Attorney General Andrew Chenge wouldn't pass the preferential polls, and wouldn't even try that.

The point is that national unity requires the presence and approbation of the top organs of state by those elected by the people. A fully professional cabinet is a non-starter- even in a country like the US where the cabinet is largely seen as professional, it is in actual fact representative – as it picks individuals who had served in previous administrations of that party. And more so, government in the US is shared between Capitol Hill and the White House, so major decisions of a cabinet character like budgeting are conducted directly by elected representatives. The whole idea of ‘government of professionals' is adventurism and unworkable.

When thus Dr Slaa talks of a cabinet with ministers and deputy ministers whose number does not exceed 20, he is either unaware what it takes to govern, or is engaged in a foolhardy paradise of promises. Chances are that the latter is the case, as within his own party a representative character of nominations for the Special Seats brought about a substantial rift in the party, leading to ex-Tarime MP Chacha Zakayo Wangwe challenging Freeman Mbowe to the chairmanship of the party. The later episode wasn't bright, but it shows representation isn't an idle matter, that constituencies enabling polls victory expect to be rewarded, just that.

SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

Mapungufu ya makala hii ni kama ifuatavyo:-

Na ninamnukuu........

"...the case, in which case Dr Slaa's central tenet is at odds with reality.

Addressing another mammoth rally at Karatu – where he seems to spend more time than is relevant for a presidential candidate – he said he would bring about massive changes in the format of government. He said he would change the constitution so that ministers aren't drawn from Parliament – forgetting that to change the constitution he would have to obtain two thirds of the same MPs for the purpose. Who said that two thirds of MPs don't wish to be cabinet ministers?"

Msomi huyu anashindwa kuelewa ya kuwa kuleta mabadiliko ya katiba yataanzia kwenye sheria ya kuwa na kura ya maoni ili kupitisha mabadiliko ya kikatiba. Sheria tajwa yahitaji "simple majority" tu ya wabunge waliohudhuria kikao husika. Tatizo la baadhi ya wasomi wetu ni wavivu wakufikiri na kutokana na mazoea ya Bunge kuwa ndicho chombo cha kubadili katiba basi anadhani hakuna utaratibu mwingine. Utaratibu sahihi ni kuwashirikisha wananchi kupitia kura ya maoni.


Eneo la pili alilopotosha ni hili hapa na ninamnukuu:-

"The singular point is that a minister is in a better position to work to bring about more appreciable resource flows to his constituency, than a non-minister. It is this aspect which endears voters to candidates or aspirants for the nomination (as CCM candidate) who look like they can become ministers, as hope improves.

Studies of the trends in Tanzania's one party democratic elections since 1965, and especially the 1965 study as it set out the principal characteristics of electoral behaviour, are firm on that point. An individual whom the government entrusts with responsibilities at the national level reciprocally becomes more accepted in his home base, and vice versa. How far ministers attract higher resources to their constituencies isn't a deeply researched aspect, but cabinet post induces loyalty."

Kwanza anapotosha pale anapodai ya kuwa nafasi ya waziri mbunge katika kuhamisha rasilimali za Nchi na kuzipeleka kwenye jimbo lake pale anapodai hakuna utafiti wa kutosha kwenye suala hilo. Hivi anahitaji utafiti upi huku tunajua yale ambayo Bw. Msuya aliyoyafanya kule kwenye jimbo lake la uchaguzi la Mwanga pale alipokuwa Waziri Mkuu?

Barabara ya Rombo ilivyotengewa pesa kwenye bajeti na ilivyojengwa huku pakiwepo malalamiko ya kuwa barabara tajwa haikuwa ni kipaumbele cha Taifa ila imepewa uzito kwa vile Waziri wa Ujenzi wa wakati huo alikuwa ni Bw Pesambili Mramba? Wabunge walidai fedha hizo zihamishiwe barabara ya Itigi-Singida lakini lishindikana.

Hata hivi sasa, yapo malalamiko ya kuwa tangia Bw. Pinda Mizengo awe Waziri Mkuu miradi mingi ya maji imehamishwa kutoka majimbo mengine ya uchaguzi ili kumjenga kwenye jimbo lake? Sasa ni ushahidi gani unataka? Taifa la Kenya limebadilisha katiba yao na kuwaondoa mawaziri kuwa wabunge kutokana na hilo tatizo la mgongano wa kimasilahi kati ya kazi za jimbo na kazi za kitaifa.


Upuuzi wa msomi huyu vilevile upo kwenye maandiko haya ambayo nayo ninayanukuu:-

"The big talk among elites is to pick ministers from among professionals, an idea which lacks political acumen; it ignores the fact that Government isn't just the president.."

Hivi "political acumen" ipi anaiongelea kama waziri-Mbunge anatumia nafasi yake vibaya ili kujiimarisha jimboni na kubeza kuimarisha utaifa?

Pungufu jingine lipo katika kujihami kwa kumwegemea Nyerere bila ya kwanza kukiri ya kuwa Nyerere mwenyewe alikiri ya kuwa mfumo uliopo umeshindwa kuzalisha viongozi wazuri pamoja na ya kuwa ardhi nzuri tunayo, watu wapo, sera nzuri zipo za ujamaa na kujitegemea na hapa msomi huyu alipoteleza ninamnukuu tena:-

"Not picking MPs into the cabinet commits the same error that Mwalimu warned, in the sense that it takes national unity for granted, and doesn't see the point in MPs being in the cabinet as well. Nor does this view see the cabinet itself in a representative manner of various societal groups, from among individuals who have already elicited loyalty by being elected as MPs."

Hakuna suala la "national unity" kama mawaziri wabunge wanahamisha utajiri wataifa hili changa na kupeleka majimboni mwao na hivyo kuongeza misuguano ya mgawanyiko wa kimapato na matumizi mabaya ya ofisi ya umma kutokana na uwajibikaji finyu uliopo.

Kuwawajibisha mawaziri wabunge Bungeni uzoefu tulionao umeonyesha wazi ni kazi ngumu kwani wabunge nao hulainishwa na tamaa ya madaraka ya uwaziri huohuo, teuzi mbalimbali kama za wakuu wa mikoa na wilaya na nafasi mablimbali za kiutendaji serikalini kama vile ujumbe wa Bodi za wakurugenzi.

Kumbuka sababu za kuzimwa kashfa ya Richmond Bungeni na vipi maagizo ya wabunge ya Dr. Hosea kutimuliwa pale Takukuru serikali ya CCM ilvyoyapuuzilia mbali na Bunge halikuwa na ubavu wa kumfungulia JK mashitaka ya kuivunja katiba...n.k

Mwisho msomi huyu anatetea mfumo uliopo bila ya kuainisha bayana mapungufu ya kiutekelezaji ya huu mfumo tulionao ambao kwa kiasi kikubwa umechangia sana lindi la umasikini tulionao nao unakolezwa na ufisadi. Mhandishi ameonyeshamwelekeo wa kiushabiki wa kisiasa zaidi na hivyo kukosa tija ya kututatulia matatizo ya kimaedeleo tuliyonayo.

Hii ni nukuu ya mwisho maana naona hastahili uchambuzi wa upuuzi wake zaidi ya hapa:-

"...When thus Dr Slaa talks of a cabinet with ministers and deputy ministers whose number does not exceed 20, he is either unaware what it takes to govern, or is engaged in a foolhardy paradise of promises. Chances are that the latter is the case, as within his own party a representative character of nominations for the Special Seats brought about a substantial rift in the party, leading to ex-Tarime MP Chacha Zakayo Wangwe challenging Freeman Mbowe to the chairmanship of the party. The later episode wasn't bright, but it shows representation isn't an idle matter, that constituencies enabling polls victory expect to be rewarded, just that."

Kenya kwenye katiba yao mpya wameangalia kwa umakini juu ya nafasi za uwaziri zinavyotumiwa vibaya na Raisi aliyepo madarakani ili kununua uzalendo bungeni kwa masilahi yake binafsi. Idadi ya mawaziri inayoongelewa na Mhe. Dr. Slaa inarandana sana na ile kwenye katiba ya Kenya.

Katika katiba yetu ilivyo sasa Raisi anaweza kulichagua Bunge lote likaingia serikalini na kuulia mbali mgawanyo wa madaraka hafifu uliopo kati ya Bunge na Serikali ambao ndiyo muhimu katika kuboresha uwajibikaji kiutendaji serikalini.

Mfumo uliopo ndio umezaa Kagoda, Meremeta, Radargate, EPA, Twin Towers scandals at BOT, ajira za upendeleo serikalini na maovu mengi ambayo Bunge ndicho chombo kinachopaswa kuyathibiti lakini kinashindwa kwa vile nacho kimo jikoni serikalini..........

AMA KWELI KIGUMU CHAMA CHA MAPINDUZI

 

[hagonga]

Mkuu nimekukubali, Hoja za huyu jamaa haina mizizi. Naidhani ni ya kisiasa zaidi!

 

[msaragambo]

Mamluki hao wanatumwa kupima uelewa wa watu na kumwaga maji taka tu.

 

[Mlalahoi]

Hawa akina Ani Jozeni wanasumbuliwa na njaa.

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

Shukrani kwa michango yenye rutuba

 

[Jatropha]

by ani jozen
25th september 2010

hearing leading opposition candidate for the presidency, dr wilibrod slaa outline his programme of government, one would be forgiven to imagine that cost cutting is the central issue in the polls. For that to be the case, it would have to be the main item in government agenda generally, such that no president could, by any conceivable drift from the norm, forget that this is the case. Yet that does not appear to be the case, in which case dr slaa's central tenet is at odds with reality.

Addressing another mammoth rally at karatu – where he seems to spend more time than is relevant for a presidential candidate – he said he would bring about massive changes in the format of government. He said he would change the constitution so that ministers aren't drawn from parliament – forgetting that to change the constitution he would have to obtain two thirds of the same mps for the purpose. Who said that two thirds of mps don't wish to be cabinet ministers?

That however is only a logical problem because chances of that situation coming up are marginal, and instead the proper issue is why such a separation is hard to see. The singular point is that a minister is in a better position to work to bring about more appreciable resource flows to his constituency, than a non-minister. It is this aspect which endears voters to candidates or aspirants for the nomination (as ccm candidate) who look like they can become ministers, as hope improves.

Studies of the trends in tanzania's one party democratic elections since 1965, and especially the 1965 study as it set out the principal characteristics of electoral behaviour, are firm on that point. An individual whom the government entrusts with responsibilities at the national level reciprocally becomes more accepted in his home base, and vice versa. How far ministers attract higher resources to their constituencies isn't a deeply researched aspect, but cabinet post induces loyalty.

In that sense another aspect comes up which dr slaa – or his political adviser prof. Mwesiga baregu – doesn't appear to have grasped, is that while the national assembly is representative in terms of constituencies, cabinet is differently also representative. Here the issue is mainly larger entities with a sufficiently unitary ethos, for instance large ethnic groups, religious denominations, administrative regions, professional groups, etc. Representation here is based on trust relayed.

Even if there would be cessation of representation at constituency level becoming the basis of cabinet appointment, it is impossible to also eliminate representation at the societal level. The issue would be which aspect is more helpful for stability of government, whether it is constituency-based appointments, or professionals. The big talk among elites is to pick ministers from among professionals, an idea which lacks political acumen; it ignores the fact that government isn't just the president.

This criticism is similar to another which surfaces in some talk shows, that ccm was using too much money to ‘brand' its presidential candidate, whereas he is known by the vast majority of voters. It is true that most voters either know or have heard of jk, but it is unclear if this suggestion also includes the formulation that for that reason they would vote for him. What it fails to bring to light is that billboards and placards bring voters to think continuously of jk, virtually alone.

Stalwarts of multiparty democracy who think that the best definition of multiparty elections is the strong possibility of ‘sharing' cabinet posts see no reason for having to preoccupy the voter with the image of jk. This is to commit an error which mwalimu made a reference to in 1981 at the university of dar es salaam when responding to an inane question on ‘tribalism' at the hill. The questioner – later a politician with a tiny political party – said udsm prevented him getting a presidential appointment despite mwalimu being familiar with him.

Mwalimu did not throw out the question though it lacked merit, as that would be to commit an error of precisely the sort he wanted to caution the university community against it. It is to create a problem by carelessness; one ignores an aspect of social tensions and huge problems arise from there, and thus he had to answer that question elaborately. That way, those among the audience with such feelings would be dissuaded, while ignoring the question would prove them right.

In that case it would be carelessness on the part of ccm – and to an extent government as a whole – to economize on a vibrant and adequate publicity of the ccm candidate, for a major reason. National unity largely depends on popularity of the president in all places, that means he is known in every corner of the country and he is respected, or liked, in all those areas. That way no gaps open up where this or that section of society starts to look for substitute leadership, a new vision, etc.

Not picking mps into the cabinet commits the same error that mwalimu warned, in the sense that it takes national unity for granted, and doesn't see the point in mps being in the cabinet as well. Nor does this view see the cabinet itself in a representative manner of various societal groups, from among individuals who have already elicited loyalty by being elected as mps.

The chadema argument about a small size of government, or the more outright anarchist suggestion of removing mps from cabinet quite simply ignore the chemistry of national unity.

It would thus imply that many of the suggestions that are being put up by dr slaa have adventurism built into their articulation, because they ignore the central item in government, keeping the country together. They think of matters only in terms of costs, and ignore what sort of pressures the presidency has to grapple with in cabinet composition, assigning people to ministries, and dropping them when it is necessary. If chadema and co. Were right, individuals like ex-attorney general andrew chenge wouldn't pass the preferential polls, and wouldn't even try that.

The point is that national unity requires the presence and approbation of the top organs of state by those elected by the people. A fully professional cabinet is a non-starter- even in a country like the us where the cabinet is largely seen as professional, it is in actual fact representative – as it picks individuals who had served in previous administrations of that party. And more so, government in the us is shared between capitol hill and the white house, so major decisions of a cabinet character like budgeting are conducted directly by elected representatives. The whole idea of ‘government of professionals' is adventurism and unworkable.

When thus dr slaa talks of a cabinet with ministers and deputy ministers whose number does not exceed 20, he is either unaware what it takes to govern, or is engaged in a foolhardy paradise of promises. Chances are that the latter is the case, as within his own party a representative character of nominations for the special seats brought about a substantial rift in the party, leading to ex-tarime mp chacha zakayo wangwe challenging freeman mbowe to the chairmanship of the party. The later episode wasn't bright, but it shows representation isn't an idle matter, that constituencies enabling polls victory expect to be rewarded, just that.

source: the guardian

like ccm and their contenstants from the grass root to national level you have purposely ignored to discuss the consequences of grand corruption to national unity that you claim to vehemently defend. Can you dwell on the subject please