msemakweli
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 20, 2014
- 1,627
- 880
IS TANZANIA READY FOR A FULLY FLEDGED PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT?
One of the most outstanding features of the proposed constitution, aside from the tree tier government proposal, is the introduction of a fully fledged presidential system of government built on the principle of separation of powers. In this type of government, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are separate entities but are expected to keep each other in check. The USA is a prime example of a country with such a form of government. The big question is, can this type of government work for Tanzania?
Tanzania currently operates on a unique hybrid system that combines elements of both of both the presidential and parliamentary systems of government, in which the president is both head of state and government, and has been imbued with wide ranging powers, which many view as an imperial presidency. He/she appoints a cabinet and a prime minister from among members of parliament.
In a full presidential system, for one, cabinet ministers will not be members of parliament. Opponents of this system, however, argue that cabinet ministers should be people with knowledge about the inner workings of parliament so as to be able to easily propose and move bills related to their ministries through parliament.
Also, though this separation of the executive from the legislature is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that parliament can now easily scrutinize the actions of the executive, the opposite effect is attained if the legislature is controlled by the president's party. This situation exists particularly here in Tanzania, where the ruling party has an overwhelming majority of seats in parliament.
On the other hand, if the president comes from a party other than the one with majority seats in parliament, there is increased potential for political gridlock instability. They also trash the view that in the presidential system, cabinet ministers concentrate more on their work and are not distracted by the politics of the day since they don't attend parliament and are not bound to any political interests, theoretically. But, that is why there exists a permanent secretary for each and every ministry.
While ministers set the policy agenda based on the political manifestoes of the ruling party and are answerable to parliament and the public for the performance of their ministries (public faces of their ministries), the permanent secretaries are the administrative nonpolitical heads of their ministries. Their positions are career-based, unlike those of ministers, which are political.
Thirdly, presidential elections in presidential systems are zero-sum, winner take all contests. The winner receives the full mandate of the people to become the head of state and government, while the losers are expected to go home and lick their wounds by indulging in goat-rearing and bee-keeping.
In the USA for example, after losing to Obama in the last election, mitt Romney has kept a low profile and has only been involved in politics by campaigning for other candidates of the Republican Party. But this is not the USA.
Take neighboring Kenya for instance, which recently adopted this system of government. The leader of official opposition has found himself in unfamiliar terrain, for after losing in the presidential elections, he now technically does not represent anyone since he holds no elective position. He is not even a member of parliament. Parliament provided an avenue for him to be heard and to channel his energies. He however finds this confusing for he still commands a huge following around the nation, and therefore still believes he needs to be heard. That explains the endless calls for national dialogue and referenda.
The situation in Tanzania, in my opinion, won't be any different for here too, like in Kenya and unlike in the USA, the man defines the party and not vice versa. It is easier for Mitt Romney to retreat and lick his wounds than it is for, say, Wilbroad Slaa.
In my opinion, we need to have a president as head of state and commander in chief, and a prime minister as head of government. After winning a national election, the President-elect should resign from any positions he/she held in any political party then upon being sworn in, invite the leader of the party with majority seats in parliament to form a government. Find my full proposals here
One of the most outstanding features of the proposed constitution, aside from the tree tier government proposal, is the introduction of a fully fledged presidential system of government built on the principle of separation of powers. In this type of government, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are separate entities but are expected to keep each other in check. The USA is a prime example of a country with such a form of government. The big question is, can this type of government work for Tanzania?
Tanzania currently operates on a unique hybrid system that combines elements of both of both the presidential and parliamentary systems of government, in which the president is both head of state and government, and has been imbued with wide ranging powers, which many view as an imperial presidency. He/she appoints a cabinet and a prime minister from among members of parliament.
In a full presidential system, for one, cabinet ministers will not be members of parliament. Opponents of this system, however, argue that cabinet ministers should be people with knowledge about the inner workings of parliament so as to be able to easily propose and move bills related to their ministries through parliament.
Also, though this separation of the executive from the legislature is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that parliament can now easily scrutinize the actions of the executive, the opposite effect is attained if the legislature is controlled by the president's party. This situation exists particularly here in Tanzania, where the ruling party has an overwhelming majority of seats in parliament.
On the other hand, if the president comes from a party other than the one with majority seats in parliament, there is increased potential for political gridlock instability. They also trash the view that in the presidential system, cabinet ministers concentrate more on their work and are not distracted by the politics of the day since they don't attend parliament and are not bound to any political interests, theoretically. But, that is why there exists a permanent secretary for each and every ministry.
While ministers set the policy agenda based on the political manifestoes of the ruling party and are answerable to parliament and the public for the performance of their ministries (public faces of their ministries), the permanent secretaries are the administrative nonpolitical heads of their ministries. Their positions are career-based, unlike those of ministers, which are political.
Thirdly, presidential elections in presidential systems are zero-sum, winner take all contests. The winner receives the full mandate of the people to become the head of state and government, while the losers are expected to go home and lick their wounds by indulging in goat-rearing and bee-keeping.
In the USA for example, after losing to Obama in the last election, mitt Romney has kept a low profile and has only been involved in politics by campaigning for other candidates of the Republican Party. But this is not the USA.
Take neighboring Kenya for instance, which recently adopted this system of government. The leader of official opposition has found himself in unfamiliar terrain, for after losing in the presidential elections, he now technically does not represent anyone since he holds no elective position. He is not even a member of parliament. Parliament provided an avenue for him to be heard and to channel his energies. He however finds this confusing for he still commands a huge following around the nation, and therefore still believes he needs to be heard. That explains the endless calls for national dialogue and referenda.
The situation in Tanzania, in my opinion, won't be any different for here too, like in Kenya and unlike in the USA, the man defines the party and not vice versa. It is easier for Mitt Romney to retreat and lick his wounds than it is for, say, Wilbroad Slaa.
In my opinion, we need to have a president as head of state and commander in chief, and a prime minister as head of government. After winning a national election, the President-elect should resign from any positions he/she held in any political party then upon being sworn in, invite the leader of the party with majority seats in parliament to form a government. Find my full proposals here