Kumbe Tanganyika iliponea chupuchupu ardhi yake yote kutwaliwa na wakoloni!
Kumbe Tanganyika iliponea chupuchupu ardhi yake yote kutwaliwa na wakoloni!
Kimwakaleli
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 16, 2018
- 7,755
- 11,737
Hizo za waafrika(Namibians )ni viwanja Sasa!
BLACKTIGER
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 21, 2012
- 1,568
- 1,923
Tanganyika ardhi yake kubwa inamilikiwa na wa zenj!
The Mongolian Savage
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 5, 2018
- 8,082
- 17,838
Magonjwa Mtambuka
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 2, 2016
- 32,246
- 31,176
Hebu wataje tuwajue.
Hismastersvoice
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 26, 2013
- 21,741
- 26,735
Kutokutawaliwa na wakoloni ndiko kumetufanya tuzalishe wakoloni weusi kutokana na kutojitambua na kutokupenda haki zetu.
John Wickzer Mulholland
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 13, 2023
- 6,656
- 14,403
Jambo hili umelileta kiushabiki zaidi bila ya kufanya tathmini ya kina kwa Hoja zenye mashiko.
Fanya utafiti wako wa kina bila ya kuwa na biasness, mwisho wa siku naamini utaupata Ukweli mchungu Sana kuhusiana na suala hili.
Mathalani, Zimbabwe kabla ya miaka ya 2000 Wazungu wachache Sana takribani 4% walikuwa wanamiliki Ardhi ya nchi hiyo kwa ukubwa wa takribani 60% ya Ardhi yote. Wakati huo Wananchi karibia wote wa nchi hiyo walikuwa na uhakika wa maisha yao wa angalau wa kuweza kupata chakula Cha Milo miwili kwa Siku.
Wakati Rais Robert Mugabe alipowanyang'anya takribani 58% ya Ardhi yote iliyokuwa inamilikiwa na Wazungu hao na kuwamilikisha Watu weusi Raia wa nchi hiyo, matokeo yake ni kwamba takribani 90% ya Watu wote kabisa waliopo katika nchi hiyo ya Zimbabwe walikosa Kabisa uhakika wa kuweza kupata chakula Cha kununua ambacho kimezalishwa kutoka kwenye nchi hiyo. Aidha, idadi kubwa sana ya Watu wake walikosa kabisa uhakika wa kuweza kupata angalau mlo mmoja kwa siku. Hali hiyo pia ilisababisha kuanguka kabisa kwa uchumi wa nchi hiyo ya Zimbabwe na Wananchi wengi Sana zaidi ya Watu milioni 6 kutoroka nchi hiyo na kuamua kukimbilia katika nchi za jirani, hususani katika nchi ya Afrika Kusini
nicholasmari
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 28, 2024
- 630
- 583
We mnyarwanda Tanganyika inaingiaje hapo, mbn unahangaika sana na nchi yetu we bwege? Ongelea hbr za Rwanda.
nicholasmari
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 28, 2024
- 630
- 583
Rubbish, uvivu wako unamsingizia nani, Tanzania ardhi imejaa we umeweka makalio yako hapo kwa shemeji unaandika uharo.
nicholasmari
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 28, 2024
- 630
- 583
Nyerere alishatuasa kuwa nchi iliyoendelea ni ile ambayo wakulima ni 3%-5%, sasa mtu unang'ang'ania ardhi huwezi kuilima kwanini usiwe maskini. Nchi yetu ni maskini kwasababu wakulima(wa kujikimu) ni zaidi ya 70%.
Beira Boy
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 7, 2016
- 19,976
- 32,195
JUA ni Kali Sana
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 7, 2025
- 1,202
- 1,543
Aise
Mkuu, ni kweli ulisemalo! na ni tangia lini?
Mkuu, una pointi; lakini imejificha ndani sana, ni watu wachache tu nadhani wataielewa pointing yako.
Lycaon pictus
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 31, 2021
- 9,189
- 16,128
Wana hali mbaya sana. Wazawa wamebaki kuwa manamba na vibarua.
Doctor Mama Amon
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,089
- 2,725
Extrapolating Yoda's thread on PPP frameworks which are dangerous to national security: How does Namibia and Tanzania compare in terms of their respective transitions from ‘one person, one vote democracy’ toward ‘one dollar, one vote plutocracy’ and beyond?
Introduction
On 31 December 2024, in her speech to close the year 2024 and welcome the year 2025, President Samia announced that in 2025, toll roads will be built, connecting the four regions of Dar es Salaam, Coast, Morogoro and Dodoma.
A little later, Mr. David Kafulila, Executive Director of PPP Projects Coordination Unit, revealed that the Public Private Partnership (PPP) framework will be used in the construction of these roads.
He further explained that not everyone will have to use the toll road as each toll road will have an alternative non-toll road.
This arrangement gives the user the freedom to choose the road according to their ability to pay for the service, Kafulila suggested.
It follows that the Nation will have two types of travelers.
First, the wealthy who have the ability to pay high prices and thus have the opportunity to travel quickly between Dar es Salaam and Dodoma.
And secondly, the poor who have limited ability to pay high costs and thus lack the opportunity to travel quickly between Dar es Salaam and Dodoma.
These poor ones will to travel via alternative roads with high congestion and slow speeds. They will arrive in Dodoma late.
Finally, under this transportation system, there are patients who will reach Dodoma hospitals timely and others who will be late for medication.
There are students who will attend Dodoma universities timely and others will be late.
There are traders who will reach the Dodoms market on time and others will be late. And the list goes on.
In short, this PPP policy implementation will be detrimental to national unity.
Instead of constructing trans-regional road infrastructures for uniting the country, we shall have roads which are tools for dividing the nation between the rich and the poor.
Instead of Tanzanians traveling on roads they own through the hands of the government, they will be traveling via roads owned by the private sector and mostly owned by foreigners.
Toll roads are not public goods but private goods. But only public goods unite the nation.
In short, while Public-Private Partnership (PPP) can reduce economic inequality by providing access to essential infrastructure and services in developing areas, which can contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction, its effectiveness in reducing inequality in travels services through critical infrastructure like roads depends heavily on how well it is designed and implemented, ensuring benefits reach marginalized populations and not just exacerbate existing inequalities.
Without being very careful, we will soon start following the Namibian path. According to Yoda's thread the following facts obtain in Namibia:
- The average farm size is 7,000 hectares.
- Black Namibians, who are the indigenous majority making up 94% of the population, own 16% of farm land.
- White Namibians, who are descendants of colonizers from Germany and South Africa, making up 6% of the population, own 70% of farm land.
- And the government of Namibia, which represents the majority of the population, owns 14% of farm land.
- Thus, 80% of agricultural economic decisions in Namibia are made by the White minority who make up 6% of the population, hence deciding on behalf of the black majority making up 94% of the population.
Thus, there is a need to question the quality of the current government's PPP policy because it expands the gap between the rich and the poor while using it as the basis for running the country without any meaningful efforts to reduce it.
So we must interrogate the phenomenon of economic inequality as the first step toward interrogating the PPP policy framework.
Methodology
So, let me contribute to this thread by starting with a few questions for warming up the debate:
- What is economic inequality?
- What is the percentage of national wealth that is possessed by foreigners?
- What Is wrong, if anything, with economic inequality?
- Why does the size of material inequality matter?
- And what does It mean for the worst off to be dominated by the well off ?
- Who should have the power to establish and shape primary rules of the game of social and economic life that can curb economic and social inequalities?
Against the above stated background, I suggest that, many critical thinkers agree that the contemporary level of economic inequality is incompatible with, and in fact causally related to, high levels of unemployment, job insecurity, and an increase in extreme poverty.
Generally economic inequality can be measured along several dimensions: (top) incomes, wages, consumption, wealth, land, effort, or opportunity.
And specifically, wealth is defined as the total value of non-financial and financial assets such as housing, land, deposits, bonds and equities, held by households, minus their debts.
In a "wealth distribution pyramid" we get a visual representation of how wealth is distributed across a population, typically depicted as a pyramid where the base represents the large number of people with relatively low wealth, and the top represents a small group of individuals with a significantly higher concentration of wealth, highlighting the disparity between the rich and the poor.
In 2022 when worldwide net private wealth stood at $454.4 trillion, a typical wealth distribution pyramid showed the following wealth distribution:
Source: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/global-wealth-distribution/
Thus, the "wealth share of the richest one percent" is an economic indicator that refers to the percentage of total wealth within a country or region that is held by the top 1% wealthiest individuals, essentially measuring how much of the total wealth is concentrated among the richest people in a population.
It is a key econokic metric used to analyze income inequality.
In terms of this metric, many persons believe that being richest means having a nice house, a late-model car, owning a helicopter, possessing an aeroplane, and a summer cottage.
They are wrong. The wealthiest 1% of the world's families own a disproportionate share of the world's wealth. In recent years, the richest 1% have captured a growing share of new wealth, while the bottom 99% have seen a smaller share.
In general this wealthiest 1% segment of the world families owns large portions of major corporations, plantations, ports, mines, multibillion-dollar investment funds, islands in the Caribbean and Zanzibar, and even rocket ships that take them into outer space.
The average net worth of the richest 1% of the global families now towers above the net worth of the average citizen more than ever before. It is a threat to national security, unity and stability.
For example:
- In 2020: The richest 1.1% of adults owned 45.8% of the world's wealth.
- In 2021: The richest 1% captured 63% of new wealth created between December 2019 and December 2021.
- And in 2023: The top 1% of American households owned 30% of net worth.
Another issue is that of the dangerous relationship between money and politics.
Excessive economic inequality gives leverage to the best-off that can be easily converted into political power.
Political power, in turn, reinforces their socioeconomic position and increases the distance from those at the bottom of distribution.
This vicious circle generates a drift from the principle ‘one person, one vote’ to that of ‘one dollar, one vote’.
This is a journey from democracy to plutocracy. Plutocracy is a political philosophy in which a state is governed or ruled by the wealthy. Under this philosophy, the power of the ruling class derives from their wealth and not their merit.
Usually, there is a transition from democracy to plutocracy.
The state starts from a democracy, a quasi-democracy or a pretend-democracy in which the state pretends to be democratic, but its principles and practices are anything but democratic.
Necessarily, plutocracy leads to kakistocracy, a government run by the worst, least qualified, most incompetent, and the most Machiavellian or most unscrupulous citizens.
Under plutocracy and kakistocracy, the very many, including the poor and the middle class, end up being ruled by the very few including the super-rich.
The elite’s economic power not only distorts electoral campaigns, but also influences the public political agenda.
It is against this understanding that, I find, the thread started by Yoda, either directly or indirectly, attempting to address the questions I listed above, though within the context of Namibia.
To clarify these matters, let us define our key terms further.
On my view: We have several reasons to condemn inequality between a few well-off and the many worst-off.
Specifically, huge economic inequality between the best-off and worst-of might:
- create humiliating differences in status,
- give the rich unacceptable forms of power over those who have less,
- undermine equality of economic opportunity,
- undermine the fairness of political institutions, since large inequalities in income and wealth undermine the ideal of political equality, given that wealthy people can translate their economic power into political influence,
- result from violation of a requirement of equal concern for people’s interests,
- arise from economic institutions that are unfair.
The limits of permissible inequality are to be expressed through two ratios: one between the wealth of the best-off segment of the population and the wealth of the worst-off segment; the other between the incomes of the same segments (post-tax and transfer benefits).
Conclusion and recommendations
In view of the above, I suggest that, the criterion for limiting economic inequality should take the following form:
“In society W, no one should have an income (post-tax and transfer benefits) that exceeds the limit of being X times higher than the average income of the bottom Z% of the national population, and no one should possess a wealth (post-tax and transfer benefits) that is Y times higher than the average wealth of the bottom Z% of the national population.”
We should remember that, social power exists as the capacity of a social actor A, by mobilizing certain ‘key power resources’, to make social actor B think and act in a certain way by establishing, shaping, and stabilizing primary rules that govern ‘social’ relations in which both A and B are involved.
Primary rules are usually identified as ‘social structures’ or ‘the basic structure of society’.
Specifically, the basic structure of a society is the way in which the main political and social institutions of the society fit together into one system of social cooperation, and the way they assign basic rights and duties and regulate the division of advantages that arise from social cooperation over time.
The said basic structure is composed of all major social institutions: the political constitution, the legally recognized forms of property, and the organization of the economy, and the nature of the family.
On this view, domination occurs when a person or a group does not have the adequate power to be co-authors of the primary rules of society.
According to one view, power is always and exclusively between identifiable agents: Agent A has the capacity to interfere and alter the free actions, choices and ideas of agent B.
That is, both A and B agents’ actions, interests and ideas are not only influenced but also partially formed by social structures. We identify ‘social structures’ with the notion of ‘primary rules’.
The point is not who has power within identifiable agents’ relationships, like the famous and classic ‘master–slave relationship’, rather who has power with respect to others to set otherwise primary rules.
According to another view, power is not exclusively located in agents, but rather also and mainly exercised by social structures themselves without identifiable agents, insofar as these structures operate with several impersonal mechanisms.
The result is that, the structural (or systematic) form of domination cannot be traced back to power asymmetries resulting from unequal distribution of resources; e.g., wealth, knowledge, recognition.
Finally:
Let us address the following question through further studiws:
In so far as economic inequalities arising from shoddy PPP arrangements are concerned, to what extent is Namibia similar and different from Tanzania?
O believe that Mr. David Kafulila, the Director of PPP office, my long time friend, may be in a better position to assist us with further key facts about the "wealth share of the richest one percent" in Tanzania and their role in domestic politics through the instrumentality of their dollar power.
Mr. David Kafulila, Commissioner for Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) under the Ministry of Finance, in Tanzania