Maoni, Ushauri, Mapendekezo na Pongezi kwa Rais Samia Suluhu Hassan

[Lucas Mwashambwa]

Vijana kama wewe ni hasara kwenye hili taifa

Jikite kwenye hoja na siyo Viroja.

 

[Tlaatlaah]

Lina na wewe umeanza uchawa ndio maana ulikosa ubunge.

nikose ubunge?🤣

Na nimezungukwa na Neema na Baraka za Mungu namna hii kweli nakosaje mambo muhimu kama hilo gentleman?

Yaani kusema ukweli bayana bila chenga ndio nisipate ubunge kweli ndrugo zango?

kwani ni uongo kwamba hakuna anaeweza kuvaa viatu vya uongozi wa nchi hii vya Dr.Samia Suluhu Hassan ispokua yeye mwenyewe?

kwamba nisiseme ukweli huo nikae kimya badala kuusambaza ukweli huo kwa umma? Its not fair. Tumpe mama maua yake tafadhali 🐒

 

[Nyoka kibisa]

Mimi siyo chawa bali ni msema kweli.na msema kweli siku zote ni mpenzi wa Mungu.

Endelea kuimba mapambio

 

[safuher]

Let us be honest Mkuu,ni sawa wewe ni mdau wa maendeleo.

Lakini huwa nasikitika sana kuona sifa kama hizi ambazo lengo lake nashindwa kung'amua vyema.

TANZANIA tuna watu zaidi ya 60M,humo ndani kuna watu wengi wanaoweza kuvaa viatu vya mama yetu samia.

Ni kweli huwezi anazo sifa nyingi nzuri mama,lakini hiyo haifanyi wasiwepo wengine wenye sifa kama zake au waliomzidi.

Kusema hakuna mwenye sifa kama yeye ni kuitukana Tanzania na kuitukana CCM pia.

Kwa maana CCM mpaka sasa hawakuweza kuandaa viongozi wenye weledi kama wa Mama samia ?hiyo sio kweli.

Ninaamini CCM kuna watu wenye weledi wengi kama Mama ambao wanaweza kuvaa viatu vyake.

Ninaamini Tanzania ina watu wenye weledi kama Mama ambao wanaweza pia kuvaa viatu vyake na Nchi ikaenda vizuri.

Mkuu Lucas Mwashambwa hivi vyeo watu wanavipata baada ya kuandalia,na sio kwamba wanavipata kisha ndio huandaliwa.

Hivyo kwa sasa ninaamini CCM chama makini kimeshaandaa tayari watu ambao wanaweza kuvaa viatu vya mama japokuwa watu hao wanaweza kuacha mama amalize.

 

[Damaso]

Kuna kipindi fulani alikuwepo Muingereza anafanya kazi Bugando miaka ya 2003, alikuwa na sifa sana! Akimsifia mbwa wake kuwa ni hodari katika kukamata wezi na kutambua hatari.
Siku moja aliamka asubuhi akakuta viungo vyote vya mbwa wake vipo mlangoni, wahuni kutoka Bugarika waliingia kwake na hawakuchukua chochote zaidi ya kufanya jambo lao.
If they don't understand, then message was never meant for them anyway!

 

[Lucas Mwashambwa]

Let us be honest Mkuu,ni sawa wewe ni mdau wa maendeleo.

Lakini huwa nasikitika sana kuona sifa kama hizi ambazo lengo lake nashindwa kung'amua vyema.

TANZANIA tuna watu zaidi ya 60M,humo ndani kuna watu wengi wanaoweza kuvaa viatu vya mama yetu samia.

Ni kweli huwezi anazo sifa nyingi nzuri mama,lakini hiyo haifanyi wasiwepo wengine wenye sifa kama zake au waliomzidi.

Kusema hakuna mwenye sifa kama yeye ni kuitukana Tanzania na kuitukana CCM pia.

Kwa maana CCM mpaka sasa hawakuweza kuandaa viongozi wenye weledi kama wa Mama samia ?hiyo sio kweli.

Ninaamini CCM kuna watu wenye weledi wengi kama Mama ambao wanaweza kuvaa viatu vyake.

Ninaamini Tanzania ina watu wenye weledi kama Mama ambao wanaweza pia kuvaa viatu vyake na Nchi ikaenda vizuri.

Mkuu Lucas Mwashambwa hivi vyeo watu wanavipata baada ya kuandalia,na sio kwamba wanavipata kisha ndio huandaliwa.

Hivyo kwa sasa ninaamini CCM chama makini kimeshaandaa tayari watu ambao wanaweza kuvaa viatu vya mama japokuwa watu hao wanaweza kuacha mama amalize.

Aliyeandaliwa na kuchaguliwa na kuinuliwa na Mungu ni Mheshimiwa Daktari Mama Samia Suluhu Hasssan kuliongoza Taifa letu hadi 2030.

 

[The Legacy]

Mwambie apitishe katiba ile ya Walioba kama hajakaa pembeni mwenyewe.

 

[milele amina]

Kama akili yako ni ndogo huwezi kuelewa.

Siku nikikuelewa nitahamia CDM

 

[Lucas Mwashambwa]

Mwambie apitishe katiba ile ya Walioba kama hajakaa pembeni mwenyewe.

Yaani Ninyi kila siku ni kutafuta vichaka vya kuficha udhaifu wenu tu.Hivi ni nani katika Nchi hii mwenye uwezo wa kushindana na Rais Samia katika sanduku la kura?

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Ndugu zangu Watanzania,

Kwanza ningependa kuwakumbusheni kwa machache kati ya Mengi kuhusu mtu kuwa Rais.Ningependa kuwaambieni ya kuwa Mtu hawi Rais wala kukidhi vigezo vya Urais kwa kufanya tukio moja au kwa matukio yampito kama mvuke.wala mtu hawi RAIS kwa kuongea sana maneno mdomoni pake bila mipaka, mpangilio,utaratibu na utulivu.

Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye utulivu wa akili,mwenye afya njema ya akili .mwenye uwezo wa kudhibiti na kutawala hisia zake ,hasira zake,Mihemko yake,chuki zake, kinyongo chake na hata matamanio yake binafsi. Urais hauhitaji ujuaji. Urais ni taasisi inayohitaji mtu mwenye historia ya kiutendaji iliyotukuka. unaweza kumbeba beba mtu kwa njia zote na kumuweka katika nafasi fulani lakini kamwe huwezi kumbeba beba na kumzoa zoa mtu kumuweka kwenye kiti cha Urais.

Kwa hakika ni lazima utalitikisa,kulitetemesha,kulipoteza,kulivuruga,kulisambaratisha, kulikwamisha na kuleta sintofahamu kwa Taifa ikiwa ni pamoja na kuhatarisha usalama na umoja wa kitaifa.unaweza kumpa mtu upendeleo wa kumpatia nafasi yoyote ile na hata akifanya makosa yasiwe na athari kwa Taifa .lakini kamwe huwezi kumpa mtu Urais kwa majaribio na matamanio yako tu binafsi.

Urais siyo mahali pa kujifunzia kazi au kufanyia majaribio.Urais ni nafasi inayohitaji mtu aliyepevuka kiakili na kimwili,mtu anayejiheshimu,asiye na utoto utoto hata katika maandishi yake na maamuzi yake.Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye ngozi ngumu na mwenye uwezo wa kuogelea na kupiga mbizi katika Mawimbi ya kila aina na kulivusha Taifa.Urais hauhitaji ushindi katika kila mjadala.bali unahitaji maridhiano,subira, uvumilivu,usikivu kila panapotokea jambo lenye kugusa hisia za watu na mivutano. .

Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye uwezo ,akili ya kuongoza watu na kuwaleta pamoja licha ya tofauti zao za kisiasa ,mitizamo,Imani na mengine Mengi. Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye uwezo wa kufikiri ndio kufanya maamuzi na siyo kufanya maamuzi au kutoa maneno au kauli na kisha kufikiria juu ya maamuzi au kauli au maneno yaliyokwisha kutolewa na kutoka kinywani kama Risasi.

Ukiangalia hayo machache niliyoyaeleza utakubaliana nami kuwa hakuna mwenye uwezo wa kuvaa viatu vya Rais Samia vya Uraisi. Ni Daktari Mama Samia Suluhu Hasssan anayestahili kuendelea kuliongoza Taifa letu.kwa sababu ameonyesha uwezo,utulivu na stamina ya hali ya juu sana hata katikati ya mambo mazito yenye kila aina ya hisa kali , minyukano ya maneno ,mawazo na maoni tofauti tofauti yenye kuibua hadi maneno ya ubaguzi na kibaguzi.

Rais Samia wakati wote ameonyesha umakini na utulivu wa kiwango cha juu sana.Historia yake pia ya kiutendaji imetukuka na iliyoonyesha ukomavu na utulivu wa kiuongozi alionao.amepita katika majaribu ya kila aina lakini amevuka akiwa imara na madhubuti.tofauti na wengine unakuta jambo dogo tu anajikuta akipaniki,kuhemuka,kupoteza utulivu,umakini na ustahimilivu na kujikuta akitumia na kuongozwa na jazba na hisia.

Rais Samia ameanzia na kupita maeneo mengi mpaka kufika hapo alipo kiutumishi.amekaa na kufanya kazi na watu mbalimbali na wenye aina tofautitofauti za kiuongozi.ndio maana yakuona ameiva na kukomaa kisawasawa.Anajiheshimu na ameiheshimisha taasisi ya Urais.Anajuwa nini anafanya na nini anapaswa kufanya na nini hapaswi kufanya hata kama anatamani kufanya kama binadamu wengine.kuna mwingine unakuta ni kiongozi mkubwa lakini anafanya vitu ambavyo vinashusha hadhi na kuchafua kiti alichokalia.ni lazima ufahamu ya kuwa kuna vitu binafsi inabidi ujizuie kufanya au kutenda.ni lazma ufahamu kuna uhuru binafsi fulani inabidi ukubali kupunguza unapokuwa kiongozi wa juuView attachment 3132946

Kazi iendelee, Mama Ametufikia na kuwafikia watanzania kwa utumishi wake uliotukuka wa kugusa maisha ya watanzania wanyonge wasio na Sauti.

Lucas Hebel Mwashambwa, Mama ANATOSHA kuendelea kuliongoza Taifa letu kwa muhula wa pili.

A LETTER TO MY SUPERIORS ON THE URGENT NEED TO NEUTRALISE THE CLEAR, PRESENT AND IMMANENT DANGER OF STATE DEMISE BY INVOKING OUR NATIONAL IDEOLOGY OF 'TANZANIANISM' WHICH IS PREMISED ON FIRM CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

• We should always reject all politicians who manifest theoretical and practical incompatibility with our national dream of a united society in which all citizens work together in pursuit of longevity, dignity, liberty, prosperity, justice and equality, for their ultimate common good

"We are at War . [We are] involved in a war against (the evils of disease, ignorance, exploitation, colonialism, racism, slavery, religious fundamentalism, superstition, political bigotry, abductions, extra-judicial killings,) poverty and oppression in our country; the struggle is aimed at moving the people of Tanzania (and the people of Africa as a whole) from a state of poverty to a State of prosperity. We have been oppressed a great deal, we have been exploited a great deal and we have been disregarded a great deal. It is our weakness that has led to our being oppressed, exploited and disregarded. Now we want a revolution – a revolution which brings an end to our weakness, so that we are never again exploited, oppressed, or humiliated." --J.K. Nyerere(1967), Arusha Declaration

I. Introduction

Against the dictatorship of the present era, as we Tanzanians struggle in pursuit of our constitutionally protected vision of a nation whose citizens confidently brag of longevity, dignity, liberty, prosperity, justice and equality, we should compellingly dispute, with evidence provided, one crazy claim often made by President Samia's sycophants.

These sycophants are popularly known as "Watetezi wa Mama," "Chawa wa Mama," or "Majembe ya Mama," as one pro-Samia commentator, who is also an expert of experiential marketing, recently put it through his WhatsApp status.

They assert without providing evidence for, and we should deny by providing evidence against, the claim that, President Samia Suluhu Hassan has a track-record which makes her the best candidate for presidency in a constitutional, democratic and republican state called Tanzania.

Such a disputation can and should include at least twelve arguments, namely, biological, anthropological, sociological, theological, economic, deontological, epistemological, moral, mereological, political, historical and praxiological arguments, all of which are informed by the teachings of the Father of the Nation, Julius Kambarage Nyerere, as entrenched in our state constitution.

To this end, the following five-step argument is proposed, and defended, within the limits of the evidence available at my disposal:

1. An ideology, such as conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, utilitarianism, Marxism, socialism, free market capitalism, coordinated market capitalism, totalitarianism, fascisim, nazism, nationalism’, environmentalism, feminism, Christianity, Islam, Secular humanism, Republicanism, Anarchism, Ecologism, or Tanzanianism, is a set of ideas by which people posit, explain and justify ends and means of organized social action, which is aimed at either preserving, amending, uprooting or rebuilding a given social order.
2. The ideology of Tanzanianism is a set of ideas by which Tanzanians posit, explain and justify ends and means of their organized social action, which is aimed at either preserving, amending, uprooting or rebuilding a given social order.
3. Thus, we should exploit the ideology of Tanzanianism in our bid to posit, explain and justify ends and means of our organized social action, which is aimed at either preserving, amending, uprooting or rebuilding the prevailing social order.
4. The prevailing social order under President Samia is incompatible with the ideology of Tanzanianism.
5. Thus, we should invoke the ideology of Tanzanianism to posit, explain and justify an agenda for amending, uprooting or rebuilding the social order that prevails under President Samia.

Expository analysis, synthesis and clarification follow.

II. A conceptual framework for framing the argument

“An ideology is a more or less coherent set of ideas that provides the basis for organized political action, whether this is intended to preserve, modify or overthrow the existing system of power. All ideologies therefore have the following features. They: (a) advance an account of the existing order, usually in the form of a ‘world-view’ (b) outline a model of the desired future, a vision of the good society (c) explain how political change can and should be brought about – how to get from (a) to (b).” (Heywood 1998:7-8).​

Source: Adapted from Heywood (1998:8)​

As a general rule conceptual frameworks help us to organize the existing knowledge and theories related to a specific topic by providing us with a structure for understanding the relationships between different concepts and variables.

In the present analysis I propose that our conceptual framework is, and should be, the national ideology of "Tanzanianism" as framed by the Father of the Nation, Julius Kambarage Nyerere (1922 — 1999), during the early days of nation-building in the 1960s and 1970s.

At that time, and more likely so today, five key questions of political economy, as framed by Ido (2012:8), prevailed and exercised the minds of Nyerere and his contemporaries, namely:

• How do different “types of democracy” (ToD) affect “varieties of capitalism” (VoC)?
• How do “varieties of capitalism” (VoC) affect different "types of democracy” (ToD) ?
• How do political and economic dynamics that arise from an international political and economic order affect different “types of democracy” (ToD) when mediated by "varieties of capitalism” (VoC)?
• How do political and economic dynamics that arise from an international political and economic order affect "varieties of capitalism” (VoC) when mediated by different “types of democracy” (ToD)?
• If so, which ideological solution should we adopt as we strive to build a sovereign nation-state whose citizens are free from colonialism, slavery, racism, exploitation, poverty, oppression and any other known form of injustice?

In responding to these questions, Nyerere was guided by a number of facts and assumptions.

First, he assumed that "types of democracy" (ToD) and "varieties of capitalism" (VoC) are binary variables. Accordingly, VoC became either (1) a Liberal Market Economy (LME) or (2) a Coordinated Market Economy (CME).

The category of Coordinated Market Economies (CME) is often modulated on the example of Germany, Japan and Scandinavian countries, which are taken as benchmarks, while Liberal Market Economies (LME) is often modulated upon the example of the United States, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which are taken as an alternative benchmark (Giesen 2020:128).

The distinguishing feature of each type is that they solve problems of coordination between the firm and its financiers, employees, suppliers, and customers in different ways.

In liberal market economies (LMEs), coordination occurs primarily through market mechanisms, whilst in coordinated market economies (CMEs) formal institutions play a much more central role in governing the economy and regulating firm relations with stakeholders.

For example, in LMEs, wages are set by market forces, whilst in CMEs, they are determined through industry-level collective bargaining between employers' associations and trade unions.

But, the most important distinction between the two varieties is about the basic conception of the role of the state in the economy. The government is either viewed as a player in the economic game, or it is viewed as a referee. These two positions are mutually exclusive by definition.

Where the state is only a referee of the game of economic life it is responsible for defining and enforcing the rules of the market, without its officials getting involved in determining the outcome of the game.

In this case, who wins or loses the game ought not be the concern of the state. Rather, the concern is limited to ensuring that the economic game is played according to the rules.

Coordinated Market Economies (CME) define the role of the state as only a player within the economic game. And Liberal Market Economies (LME) define the role of the state as only a referee of the game.

Nyerere was well aware of the fact that, proponents of LME who are thus opponents of CME claim that when the state is viewed as a player within the economic game, there is really no autonomous economic sector apart from the political sector; and that, if the state is viewed as a referee of the economic game, then economic decisions are separate from political decisions (Pressman 2006:193 ).

Ultimately, he concluded that, most political economy positions fall into either one or the other camp: to intervene into the market or not to intervene. ​

Furthermore, for Nyerere, ToD became either (1) a Majoritarian (or Westminsterian) Democracy (MD) or (2) a Consensual (earlier called Consociational) Democracy (CD).

Nyerere also knew that all real democratic polities (REDs) also have real capitalist economies (RECs), and that not all real capitalist economies have real democratic polities.

From this he inferred that some variety of capitalism (VoC), say free market economy or coordinated market economy, may be necessary for some type of democracy (ToD), say consensus democracy or majoritarian democracy, but not sufficient.

He also inferred that, having a democratic political regime is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the survival or success of a capitalist economy.

Apparently, following into the footsteps of Buchanan(1975), Nyerere recognized that, we can usefully distinguish between (1) the protective state, (2) the productive state, and (3) the redistributive state.

The protective state engages in those activities that could not be provided through the market mechanism, but yet are essential for the maintenance of civil order - police, courts and national defense.

The productive state captures the capacity of the government to engage in activities that also could not be provided through the market mechanism, yet raise the productivity of society, for example, roads, bridges and certain public works projects.

And the redistributive state employs the coercive powers of the state to benefit one party by exploiting another.

If the redistributive state is unbounded, it will undermine the effectiveness of the protective and productive state. This fact led Nyerere and his contemporaries to advocate the somewhat strained notion of a "strong minimal state."

Accordingly, it was his conclusion that, the key for steering toward a just society is to strike a balance that allows one to find an appropriate mechanism that enables the protective and productive state, but constrains the redistributive state.

This strategy allows one to avoid one of the main problems with many market-oriented thinkers who concentrate on reducing the role of government in economic life while tending to overlook the crucial role the state must play in a vibrant market economy.

Against this background, Nyerere raised the following question: What type of social, economic and political organization do we want for a successful nation:

Is it an individualistic capitalism (liberal market economy) where the winner takes all at the expense of the loser, or a state capitalism (coordinated market economy) where many citizens pull together their resources so as to create a common environment that enables each individual and every community to thrive, or we need both, while rejecting the weaknesses of each side?

After arguing by elimination, finally Nyerere appears to have settled for a just society which can be brought about through the strategy of socialism and self-reliance within the context of republican constitutional democracy.

I suggest that, by "socialism" Nyerere meant Coordinated Market Economy (CME) which is a synonym of "state capitalism," and that, by "self-reliance" Nyerere meant LIberal Market Economy (LME), which is a synonym of "non-state capitalism."

Accordingly, this arrangement, as proposed by Nyerere, is a conjunctive scenario, as opposed to a disjunctive scenario, where, the government is both a player and a referee, subject to some restrictions.

The following diagram roughly summarizes the causal link between ToD, VoE, Globalization, and hence a broader conceptual framework for thinking about the ideas of Nyerere.

Figure: The impact of Globalization (G) on Types of Democracy (ToD) as mediated by Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) and the effect of Globalization (G) on VoC as mediated by ToD

Source: Adapted from (Ido 2012:8)

Based on this though process, which is characterized by logical twists and philosophical turns, Nyerere developed a full-fledged ideology of socialism and self-reliance in 1967 which was refined and embedded into the state constitution ten years later.

With maximum brevity, Ambassador Christopher Liundi (2012), has summarized the response provided by Nyerere, through his book entitled "Quotable Quotes of Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere."

Ambassador Christopher Liundi​

The quotes were "collected from speeches and writings" of Mwalimu Nyerere. It was published by Mkuki na Nyota Publishers Ltd.

A soft copy of this book is hereby attached. And I argue that this book is one of the best summaries of the ideology of "Tanzanianism."

Against this understanding of Nyerere's though process, I propose to present this ideology analytically and synthetically, but after I have given a general definition of an "ideology."

Definition of an ideology

According to the original definition offered by Seliger (1976), which was later improved by Heywood(1998:7-8) as quoted above, and which I subscribe to without hesitation:

"An ideology is a set of ideas by which men posit, explain and justify the ends and means of organized social action, irrespective of whether such action aims to preserve, amend, uproot or rebuild a given social order" (Seliger, 1976:14).​

An ideology is here seen as a set of ideas with which the means and goals of organized social activities are postulated, explained and justified.

Ideologies as systems of ideas serve to guide action in order to attain specific outcomes. Thus, ideas affect strategic interactions, helping or hindering joint efforts to attain‚ more efficient outcomes, outcomes that are at least as good as the status quo for all participants.

These ideas help to clarify principles and conceptions of causal relationships, and to coordinate individual behavior. Once institutionalized, furthermore, these ideas continue to guide action in the absence of costly innovation.

However, ideologies compete over the control of political language as well as competing over plans for public policy.

Indeed, their competition over plans for public policy is primarily conducted through their competition over the control of political language (Giesen 2020:3).​

So, the above definition views ideology as an action-orientated system of thought, that can be analyzed impartially and objectively, without making statements about whether a particular ideology is beneficial or not, represent truth or not, is used as a tool of oppression, or is a source of liberation.

This definition reveals that there are three aspects of any ideology: (1) it gives a statement about the current state of society; (2) it promotes a view of what a perfect, or at least the best possible, society should look like; and (3) it presents a way how to get from the current state to that perfect/best state.

On a social level ideologies function through the state and its organs, classes, institutions, organizations, associations, mass movements, and small groups.

The state and its organs (courts, police, military, government, legislation) and other organizations and groups use different resources to enhance their ideology and combat other ideologies.

Those who are in power mostly use resources of political power, propaganda, money, and physical violence.

Those who tend to uproot those who have power and install themselves into power are not able to use political power but can use all other resources - propaganda, money, and physical violence in cases of mass protests or revolutions.

Political parties are usually seen as the focal point for the development and propagation of ideologies.

They usually have three main goals: (1) gathering more supporters, members, and voters for their ideological program; (2) competing in elections in order to win positions of direct political power; (3) implementing policies that reflect their ideological views.

Other collective social actors, who do not directly try to gain positions of political power, also often possess, spread and try to implement an ideology.

Education institutions, from elementary schools to universities, engage in open or tacit ideological socialization and/or propaganda.

Churches and other religious organizations can also be a vessel for ideological indoctrination and socialization.

Educational and religious organizations usually propagate dominant ideological dogma, but can sometimes be a place for spreading subversive ideology.

Governmental institutions like courts, military, police, and local and state bureaucracy in some countries demand of their employees ideological adherence to official state ideology, and propagate that ideology to wider society.

Workers' unions are also often ideologically based. While some organizations of the civil sector don't engage in politics and ideology, there are a lot of NGOs, think tanks, foundations, and other civil organizations that more or less openly engage in the ideological struggle

The Father of our Nation Tanzania, appears to have understood ideology to this extent.

His thought process which led to our current national ideology appears to have arisen from his understanding that, human societies are akin to sports like football, since sports illustrate two truths that can help us understand how the social world works so that we can make it a better place.

First, Nyerere believed that, sports teach us that, we live in a universe which is governed by principles, such that; and that, we need to learn and obey these sports principles if we want to “win” the game of sports life.

And secondly, Nyerere believed that, when sports principles are formulated and followed by members of the sports community, certain patterns emerge which allow us to distinguish between different types of sports such as football, tennis, basket ball, and so on.

From this thought process, Nyerere reasoned that, the principles and patterns of sports also analogically apply to the wider social world we inhabit.

This is to say that, our social world is governed by a discernable set of rules and patterns of ideas about human life which can be arranged and cataloged into discernable patterns called ideologies or worldviews.

These patterns, in turn, enable their followers to find purpose and meaning in life, avoid mistakes and define success.

Generally, an ideology embraces the fundamental categories of human thought such as theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history, which collectively make up a set of ideas that has practical consequences, as evidenced by Marx and Lenin's Communist Manifesto and Nyerere's Arusha Declaration, among many other ideas (Myers and Noebel 2015).

Structural variables of a typical ideology

Structurally, then, we can say that, an ideology such as "Tanzanianism" includes all of the following elements of ideas:

• The nature of human beings, who are human animals as opposed to brute animals (anthropology),
• Members of the super set of visible and invisible entities which are citizens of the real world in which we live (ontology),
• Signs, their meanings and power (semiology),
• Relations between wholes and their parts (mereology),
• Power sharing in groups (politology),
• Production and distribution of goods and services (economics),
• Social statuses and human relations (sociology),
• How the minds of humans and other animals work (psychology),
• Standards of true knowledge, its sources and limitations (epistemology),
• Terminal and instrumental human values and goods (axiology),
• Human rights and duties, their origins and social implications (deontology),
• Norms of human conduct which can facilitate human flourishing (normatology/ethics),
• Life, death and the attributes of organisms as opposed to corpses (biology),
• Gods, their attributes and relations to the universe (theology),
• The origin of the universe and its contents (cosmology),
• The future of the universe (eschatology),
• Effects and their necessary and sufficient causes (etiology),
• The role of sexual libido in facilitating interpersonal bonding through sexual acts, intergenerational unity through babe making and body-self integration through a complete sexual response cycle (sexology)
• Human acts which the society regards as sufficiently menacing to its fundamental interests to justify formal reaction to restrain the violator by passing a law that imposes a criminal penalty (criminology).
• Norms which prevent arbitrariness and insist on consistency in the distribution of benefits and burdens to members of the society by ensuring that the society consistently treats similar cases similarly and treats different cases differently (justice)
• Norms governing the interaction between humans and their planetary environment (ecology)
• The principles of scientific research and the application of the resulting knowledge to create tools that can satisfy human needs (technology)
• Effective and efficient planning and execution of human acts (praxiology).

Ideological families and traditions

According to Sociopedia, a free online social science encyclopedia, under the entry "ideology," different countries have different ideologies.

This stems from the fact that these ideologies are influenced by different factor. Some of the factors include political history and experience, the economic structure and the form of government in question.

It is also possible to have a hybrid of ideologies. This is usually driven regular reform and review of the existing policies and legal frameworks.

Given the above variables defining a typical ideology, one can easily identify several families or classes of ideologies, depending on the adopted taxonomy.

The first and the most widely known and used classification strategy is the linear classification strategy which divides the ideologies from left to right.

On this linear scale, ideologies like communism and anarchism are considered to be at the end of the left side and Nazism and Islamism at the end of the right side of the ideological spectrum within this classification, with all other ideologies positioned in between those two positions.

Secondly, there are more nuanced classifications of various ideologies, with most of them being two-dimensional classifications.

One of the first two-dimensional classification systems introduces two factors, which are named "Radicalism" (R-factor) and "Tender-Mindedness" (T-factor).

Under another two dimensional taxonomy all ideologies the two dimensions are “equality” and “freedom”.

In a third similar classification one dimension presented on the horizontal axis is “economic freedom” and another dimension presented on the vertical axis is “personal freedom”.

And finally, we have a morphological classification of ideologies, which defines a given ideology in terms of variables which are arranged in three concentric circles, namely, core circle, adjacent circle, and peripheral circle (Freeden 1996:140).

According to Freeden (1996:140), ideologies are "combinations of political concepts" arranged in concentric circles, where some concepts are "core," some are "adjacent," and others are "peripheral." He explains this point metaphorically as follows:

"Ideologies may be likened to rooms that contain various units of furniture. ... If we [enter a room and] find liberty, rationality, and individualism at its center, while equality – though in evidence – decorates the wall, we are looking at an exemplar of liberalism. If order, authority, and tradition catch our eye upon opening the door, while equality is shoved under the bed or, at best, one of its weaker specimens is displayed only when the guests arrive, we are looking at a version of conservatism. Core, adjacent and peripheral units pattern the room and permit its categorization (Freeden 1996:86-7).​

As a result of the application of these taxonomic systems, today we have the following families of ideologies: Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism, Anarchism, Nationalism, Fascism, Populism, Feminism, Ecologism, Multiculturalism, Fundamentalism (Freeden, Sargent, and Stears 2013).

The following matrix shows a sample comparison of these ideologies based on the ideological variables I have mentioned above.

Source: Adapted from Myers and Noebel (2015:iv),

Ideology and the individual

How ideology works on a level of an individual is best explained using the concept of attitude.

Attitude refers to an individual’s evaluation of something (object, person, place, idea, art, etc.).

Something can be evaluated, to varying degrees, as being positive or negative, good or bad, favorable or unfavorable.

Something that is evaluated is known as an attitude object. Evaluation of an attitude object can sometimes be below the level of an individual’s conscious awareness.

An individual tends to respond to an attitude object with some degree of positivity or negativity.

Once formed attitude is expressed through the cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to an attitude object.

The cognitive aspect of attitudes toward any particular ideology can be expressed through understanding and possessing knowledge about it, being able to explain to someone else that ideology, and being able to debate about the merits of that ideology.

Of course, not all people possess deep knowledge and understanding of different ideologies, or even about ideologies that they themselves support.

Feelings, emotions, and physiological responses to a particular ideology constitute affective aspects of someone's experience with that ideology.

People tend to express positive emotions toward policies, people, and values that are connected to the ideology they support and negative emotions toward things that are connected to the ideology they resent or detest.

The behavioral aspect of someone’s attitude toward a specific ideology refers to acquired behavioral patterns and willingness to act in situations when that behavior or action can support that person’s ideology, or give resistance to the ideology that that person doesn’t support.

All three aspects of an individual’s attitude toward an ideology don’t have to be at the same level of intensity and development, that is, someone can have, for example, a big emotional (affective) reaction to a despised ideology, without possessing any knowledge (the cognitive aspect of an attitude) about that ideology.

Political significance of an ideology

So far we have seen that, an ideology constitutes the vital link between theory and practice in politics. But why, specifcally, do we need political ideologies? What role or roles do ideologies play?

According to Heywood (1998:267ff) the roles of an ideology include the following: making sense of the world; investing politics with moral purpose; and forging the collective.

Making sense of the world: The most significant role performed by political ideologies is to widen and/or deepen our perceptual field, and, in the process, to make better sense of the world in which we live.

In this sense, ideologies are ‘lenses’ through which we seek political understanding, sometimes referred to as ‘world-views’. This relates to the first key feature of political ideology: advancing a critical account of the existing order.

If we try to see the world simply "as it is" that is, without the benefit of political ideology, we will see only what we expect to see, what we think we will see.

The chief benefit of political ideologies is therefore that they alert us to relationships, processes and structures of which we may previously have been unaware.

For example, looking at the world through a "feminist lens" not only means rectifying the traditional "invisibility" of women in the spheres of politics, art, literature, culture and so on, but it also allows us to see how the world might look if women’s values and concerns were treated as matters of central importance.

In the same way, political ideologies help to expose "hidden" prejudices and biases.

This makes them a device for promoting critical self-refection, a means of uncovering "taken-for-granted" assumptions and understandings about the established order.

In the case of feminist ideology, this is reflected in our attempts to expose the ways in which mainstream thinking about social and political affairs is "gendered."

Investing politics with moral purpose: An additional source of ideology’s survival and success deals less with our ability to "make sense" of events, developments and circumstances, and more with how we should react to them in ethical or emotional terms.

This relates to the second key feature of political ideology: outlining a model of a desired future, a vision of the "good society." Ideologies are the principal source of meaning and idealism in politics.

They touch those aspects of politics that other political forms cannot reach. A post-ideological age would therefore be an age without hope, without vision.

If politicians cannot cloak the pursuit of power in ideological purpose, they risk being seen simply as power-seeking pragmatists, whose policy programs lack coherence and direction.

This is evident in the case of modern, "de-ideologized" party politics, in which, as parties become detached from their ideological roots, they struggle to provide members and supporters alike with a basis for emotional attachment.

As parties come to sell "products" of leaders or policies rather than hopes or dreams, party membership and voter turnout both fall, and politicians become increasingly desperate to re-engage with the "vision thing."

Forging the collective: A further advantage of political ideologies is that they give people a reason to believe in something larger than themselves.

This is important because people’s personal narratives only make sense when they are situated within a broader socio-historical narrative.

Tis relates to the third key feature of political ideology: acting as a form of social cement, providing social groups, and indeed whole societies, with a set of unifying beliefs and values.

This has been evident in the common association of political ideologies with particular social classes – for example, liberalism with the middle classes, conservatism with the wealthy or aristocracy, socialism with the working class, and so on.

These ideological traditions are capable of reflecting the life experiences, interests and aspirations of a social class, and thereby help to forge a sense of belonging and solidarity.

However, political ideologies can also bind together divergent groups and interests within the same society.

For instance, liberalism fosters a collection of bedrock values, including individual rights, democracy and constitutionalism, while nationalism inculcates a common set of political allegiances and cultural affiliations.

In providing society with a unifying political culture, ideologies deliver order and social stability.

Nevertheless, a unifying set of political ideas and values can develop naturally within a society, or it can be imposed on it in an attempt to manufacture obedience and exercise control.

Dangers of ideologies

Despite their usefulness, political ideologies have been subject to criticism and attack.

In short, political ideologies can be used but they can also be abused. When they are abused, their dangers include the following: imprisoning the mind; distorting truth; pitting "us" against "them."

Imprisoning the mind: The notion that ideologies, as paradigms, serve the interests of political understanding may fail to acknowledge that they may also promote tunnel vision, or even act as intellectual prisons.

Instead of widening and deepening our perceptual field, paradigms may allow us to see only what their account of political reality allows us to see.

By generating conformity among those who subscribe to them, ideologies come to resemble political religions, sets of values, theories and doctrines that demand faith and commitment from believers, who are unable to think outside or beyond their chosen world-view.

Such a tendency can be further explained by a range of cognitive dispositions.

Sunk cost fallacy, for instance, stops us giving up on a cause because we do not want to admit that we were wrong to invest in it in the first place.

We fall foul of this mental habit not just when we invest financially but when we invest ourselves in an idea, strategy or ethical position.

Confirmation bias (scotosis) is the tendency to seek out, interpret, judge and remember information so that it reinforces one’s pre-existing beliefs and values.

It also explains why people rarely access websites, blogs, journals, books and newspapers that contain material that challenges their established views.

Cognitive entrenchment theory suggests that the greater a person’s familiarity with, and knowledge of, a particular issue, the harder it is for them to approach the issue in an open-minded and self-critical manner.

This implies that there is always a trade-of in intellectual activity between expertise and flexibility.

Distorting truth: A second problem with political ideologies is that they have, seemingly unavoidably, an unreliable relationship with truth.

Indeed, to suggest that ideologies can be deemed to be either true or false is to miss the vital point that they embody values, dreams and aspirations that are, by their very nature, not susceptible to scientific analysis.

No one can prove that one theory of justice is preferable to any other, any more than rival conceptions of human nature can be tested by surgical intervention to demonstrate once and for all that human beings possess rights, are entitled to freedom, or are naturally selfish or naturally sociable.

Ideologies are embraced less because they stand up to scrutiny and logical analysis, and more because they help individuals, groups and societies to deal with the world in which they live.

Nevertheless, ideologies undoubtedly embody a claim to uncover truth. In this sense, they can be seen as regimes of truth. As regimes of truth, ideologies are always linked to power.

In a world of competing truths, values and theories, ideologies seek to prioritize certain values over others, and to invest legitimacy in particular theories or sets of meanings.

However, this is never done on the basis of a standard of truth that has an objective character.

Although all ideologies may have an unreliable relationship with truth, truth decay has become more prominent due to the rise of populism, particularly through its emphasis on conspiracy theories.

Pitting "us" against "them": Although political ideologies build within people a sense of collective belonging, this is often accomplished through a deepening of conflict and division.

In some cases, the link within an ideology between conflict and the collective is stark and unmistakable.

Marxism, for instance, embraces the doctrine of class war, while fascists extol the virtues of the national community while also believing in a conception of life as unending struggle.

Nevertheless, the association between conflict and the collective may have a wider application, and perhaps taints all ideological traditions.

Theorists in the field of social psychology have argued that there is a basic tendency for people to divide the world into an in-group (us), consisting, in this case, of those who support one’s own ideological beliefs, and an out-group (them), consisting of those who support rival political ideologies.

In a process of negative integration, our sense of "us" is strengthened by the existence of "them", sometimes seen as the "other", who we come to distrust, fear or even hate.

In short, it is the tendency of the ideological landscape to be structured according to the "us/them" or "I-Other" divide, which can be weakened by developing an ideology that embraces more universal ideas about humanity.

Choosing between ideologies

So far we have seen that, every political ideology is like bag of mixed blessings.

For example, while ideologies may constitute an essential road to political understanding, this road may also promote tunnel vision and distort truth.

However, the balance between understanding and distortion may not be uniform across the ideological landscape.

Rather, it differs from ideology to ideology, certain ideologies proving to be more reliable or more insightful than others. In that sense, some ideologies may matter more than others.

This may be evident in a number of ways. One of these is that ideologies vary in the extent to which they correspond to "the facts" and succeed in explaining real-world events and developments.

Socialism, for instance, has widely been viewed as a less reliable and insightful political ideology, as a result of the declining significance of social class since the 1970s.

A widening gap thus developed between ideological belief as reflected in the socialist assumption that social classes are the principal actors in history and reality.

However, the correspondence-to-reality approach to evaluating political ideologies is not without its difficulties.

In particular, it is rooted in the confident belief that facts have an objective existence separate from our values and assumptions.

The notion of a distinction between facts and values is nevertheless foreign to the thrust of ideological thought, which is concerned not just with understanding the world, but with doing so for a purpose: namely, remaking the world for the better, whatever that may mean in practice.

When we choose between political ideologies, then, we are not evaluating rival intellectual frameworks so much as selecting the most compelling vehicle for ethical and emotional engagement in politics.

Against this understanding of ideologies and their roles in statecraft, let me now go straight to the point.

III. A biological argument

"Every person has the right to live and to the protection of his life by the society in accordance with the law." (Constitution of Tanzania (1977), article 14)​

Every society has its criteria for assigning meaning, value and protection to human life as manifested through the processes of birth, growth, aging and death.

The word "life," as used here, means what medicine, safety and sanitation officers seek to preserve, what killers destroy, and what death terminates. This is biological life.

This meaning is alternative to another meaning, according to which, "life" means the whole course of a person's existence; that is, what one's resume reveals, that whose meaning philosophers seek to explain, and that which is revealed in biographer's account. This is social life. (Grisez 1973).

Characteristics of living things

A biological organism is anything which has biological life. But what, exactly, is this biological reality called life? We can grasp the concept of life by listing some of its necessary criteria.

For the purpose of the present analysis, there are about 18 attributes of living things, which I shall discuss, namely:

• Movement,
• Excretion,
• Respiration,
• Reproduction,
• Yielding to death,
• Irritability,
• Nutrition,
• Growth,
• Bodily spatial boundary,
• Age defining temporal boundary,
• Bodily spatial continuity,
• Indivisible temporal continuity,
• Etiological integration of complementary parts (coordination), and
• Striving for the purpose of self-maintenance or continued survival (organismality).
• Adaptation
• Unity of being
• Naturality
• Traits of heredity

These attributes, some of which being necessary properties and other being contingent properties, are manifested by animals, plants and insects (Ganti 2003; Wilson 1999, Olson 2021).

They can be remembered by the help of the acronym "MERRYING BABIES' AUNT." This phrase comes from a collection of the first letter from each of the said attributes. Let me define each briefly.

Movement is the ability of an organism to change its position or shape. This can be as simple as a plant bending towards the light or as complex as a human running a marathon. Movement is crucial for survival as it allows organisms to find food, escape predators, and reproduce.

Excretion is the process by which organisms remove waste products from their bodies. These waste products can be harmful if allowed to accumulate, so excretion is crucial for maintaining the health of an organism.

Respiration is the process by which organisms convert nutrients into energy. This energy is used to power all other life processes. In most organisms, respiration involves inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide, but some organisms, such as anaerobic bacteria, can respire without oxygen.

Reproduction is the process by which organisms produce new individuals of the same species.

This can involve sexual reproduction, which combines the genetic material of two parents, or asexual reproduction, which produces offspring genetically identical to the parent.

Reproduction is crucial for the survival of a species, though not necessarily for individual organisms.

Through reproductive function, life transcends the individual, uniting persons with one another and human beings with their natural environment.

This is the case since, reproduction is a vital function involving at least two organisms; hetero-affective sexual reproduction involves at least three, the father, mother and the child.

Thus, the human person is not a monad. These considerations are of the utmost significance in the background of ethical reflections upon problems involving sexual relations, marriage and the family.

Such problems should not be treated on assumptions that clearly isolate "mere biological processes" from "personal values," as if human parenthood, human sexual relations, and human engagement in the natural world were reducible to one aspect or to the other, or resolvable into an inadequately integrated juxtaposition of both aspects.

Yielding to death is a process of dying which leads to death. It is an aptitude to vanish.

Life has the predisposition to vanish, rendering a living being dead. Life appears at the birth of a living being and disappears at death. The capacity to die is a unique, distinctive, and characteristic feature of living beings.

An entity that cannot experience death cannot be alive. All existence that possesses life is born and eventually dies.

They have a beginning and an end. Every living being dies, and every being which dies was once a living being. Nonliving beings cannot be killed.

This suggests a simple and practical test for assessing life: if an entity can be killed, it is alive. This is because only living beings can experience death. Seeds and viruses are living beings by this definition since both can be killed.

Death is the process of permanently reverting to the inanimate state and thus being fully controlled by the laws and forces of physics. It is an irreversible phenomenon.

So, death is permanent loss of organic unity. It can be defined as the permanent loss of the capacity for carrying out vital functions that are essential properties of a living organism, such as movement, excretion, respiration, reproduction, irritability, nutrition and growth.

Death can come about due to injury, disease, hunger, aging, poison, attacks by external agents, or other causes. In the animal kingdom, death results into a dead body called a corpse.

So, it follows that, there would be no death without biological life, but life can exist without death.

Thus understood, death is an irreversible and permanent loss of the biological and physical integration of an organism. It is a permanent end of the existence of an organism.

In other words, “death” is the permanent cessation of functioning of the organism as a whole. It is a strictly biological concept, applicable to nonhuman and human organisms.

So we can say that, given an entity which is biological organism, it dies, if and only if it ceases to be alive at a given time, and at that time, bodily internal changes occur that make it physically impossible for it ever to live again (Feldman 1992:65).

In this definition, there are four issues that inform a mature understanding of human death. They are finality, non-functionality, universality and causality.

Finality (irreversibility) is the understanding that death is a permanent condition and acnnot be prevented or undone.

It addresses such questions as: will the dead person (or plant or animal) come back to life? Will they be dead forever and ever? Is there anything that could make them come back to life?

Non-functionality is the understanding that death involves the cessation of all biological and psychological life processes, such as breathing, movement, sensation, and thought.

It addresses such questions as: Can a dead person or plant grow? Breath? Think? DReam? Do dead persons know that they are dead?

Universality is the understanding that death inevitably happens to all living things.

It addresses such questions as: Do all people, animals and plants die at some time? Can some live forever? Will our parents and friends die? Will I die?

And causality is the understanding that death can be brought about by internal and external causes that are not unique to individuals but apply to all living things.

It addresses such questions as: What makes a person, animal or plant die? Do they have to be very old to die? Are there other things that cause death apart from old age?

In short, "death" as defined above results into irreversible and permanent body-self disintegration, also known as irreversible and permanent body-spirit dualism, which is a separation of the spirit from the body.

Accordingly, in humans, the verb "TO KILL" means an act of causing an irreversible loss of psychological and physical integration characteristic of a human organism, where, this disintegration is marked by an irreversible and permanent loss of consciousness and every other mental function.

As such, the human right to biological life entails negative precepts such as "you shall not kill an innocent human person," "you shall not commit genocide," "you shall not engage in infanticide," and the like.

It is a fundamental, inalienable human right that belongs to personal/civil rights in the system of human rights.

This right consists of the following elements: the inalienability of the human right to life, the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of life, and the right to protect one’s life and that of others against unlawful encroachment. It is a right against genocide, politicide, infanticide, abortion and other similar activities which terminate human life.

As such, a human person has the right to protect his life, by using all legitimate means and resources for the prevention of premature mortality.

The right to life requires that states take appropriate measures to remedy the general conditions in society that may endanger lives or prevent persons from living a dignified life.

Irritability, or response to external stimuli, or sensitivity, is the ability of an organism to perceive and respond to changes in its environment.

This can involve physical stimuli, such as light and temperature, or chemical stimuli, such as the presence of certain substances in the environment.

Irritability, also known as sensitivity, is crucial for survival as it allows organisms to adapt to changing conditions.

In human beings, irritability is done through the five sensory organs which are coordinated by the brain and thereby linked to human rationality. So, human life is rational.

This is to say that, unlike brute animals, a human animal is a biologically embodied center of rationality.

Thus, biological human life is an embodied personal reality. Thus, we can say that, biological human life is an intrinsic attribute of the human person.

Given the attribute of human rationality, it follows that innocent human life is inviolable, given a proper understanding of the personalistic norm.

The personalistic norm is an elementary principle of the moral order, according to which:

Whenever the human person is an object of action in our conduct, we should remember that we may not treat them merely as a means to an end, as a tool, but we must take into account that every human person has or at least should have one's end respected. (Wojtyla 2013:6)

On this view, the innocent human life is an absolute value in the sphere of human action because persons are ends in themselves.

Nutrition is the process by which organisms obtain the materials necessary for energy production, growth, and other life processes.

This can involve consuming other organisms, as in animals, or producing their own food, as in plants.

In fact, nutrition is crucial for survival as it provides the raw materials for all other life processes.

Through nutrition life transcends the individual, uniting persons with one another and human beings with their natural environment.

This is the case since, nutrition involves both the organism and something not already united with it.

There is vital interchange with a natural environment, directly or indirectly with the inorganic world.

In other words, if individuals that live are really substantial entities, they also have real relations to other living individuals and to the inorganic aspects of the natural world.

Thus, the human person is not a monad. These considerations are of the utmost significance in the background of ethical reflections upon problems involving the use of natural resources.

Such problems should not be treated on assumptions that clearly isolate "mere biological processes" from "personal values," as if human parenthood, human sexual relations, and human engagement in the natural world were reducible to one aspect or to the other, or resolvable into an inadequately integrated juxtaposition of both aspects.

Growth is the process by which organisms increase in size or complexity.

This can involve the addition of new cells through cell division, or the enlargement of existing cells.

Growth is crucial for survival as it allows organisms to develop from a single cell into a complex organism.

Bodily spatial boundary is an attribute according to which every organism is a compound thing whose body has a definite form that occupies space of a given volume.

It is spatially localized, since it occupies some, but not all space. At any given time there are place it is and places that it is not.

It is a spatial boundary between environment and an organism. When viewed with a naked eye, this boundary can be sharp like an edge of a rule or vague like a puff of smoke.

But the distinction between sharp and vague boundaries is a result of our perceptual abilities.

This is the case since, even a sharp boundary as defined by naked eye will appear vague like a cloud when its subatomic structure is viewed with a microscope.

This vagueness does not mean that a typical organism does not have a boundary. It only means that it is impossible to specify that boundary beyond some point without arbitrariness.

Age defining temporal boundaries is an attribute according to which every organism has a lifespan which starts on a given date at birth and stops on a given date at death.

It is temporally localized, since it occupies some, but not all time segments. There are times when it exists and when it does not exist.

At any given moment there are time segments it occupies and time segments that it does not occupy. It has a beginning in time and it will have an end in time.

But, as spatial boundaries, it may be impossible to specify precisely when it begins to exist or stops existing without arbitrarily choosing one moment.

However, this vagueness cannot undermine our confidence that an organism has temporal boundaries because there clearly are times when it did not exist and there will clearly be times when it will not exist. These conditions suffice to ensure temporal boundaries.

The key term to be noted here is life span. According to Aggarwal (2021:4-7), Life span is a period from birth to natural death of an organism. Each organism has a certain length of time for which it will survive.

Even if an organism does not meet an accident, does not suffer from disease, does not fall prey to predators, death is a certainty, it still comes as a last event of ageing. Each species has its own life span.

The main stages during lifespan are juvenile, maturity, aging/senescence, and death stage. Juvenile stage refers to the stage from birth till an organism attains the capacity to reproduce.

The maturity stage refers to a stage when an organism is able to reproduce. The aging/senescence stage refers to gradual deterioration of organs, where, the terminal irreversible stage of ageing is called senescence.

And death stage refers to the terminal end of degenerative changes that occur in the body, leading to permanent cessation of vital activities of an organism.

All the above changes are determined by genetic constitution of an organism and environmental factors.

The terms "maximum lifespan", "average lifespan", and "life expectancy" are related to the length of a person's life, but they have different meanings:

Maximum lifespan: The longest amount of time that a person in a population has been observed to live. Jeanne Calment (1875–1997) is the verified record holder for the longest lifespan at 122 years.

Average lifespan: The average lifespan of a population. For example, the average life expectancy at birth in the world in 2019–2020 was 72.6–73.2 years.

Life expectancy: The average lifespan of a newborn, assuming that mortality levels remain constant. For example, the CDC estimated that life expectancy at birth in the U.S. in 2022 was 77.5 years.

According to Aggarwal (2021:5), approximate lifespans for some organisms are as follows:

Bodily spatial continuity is an attribute according to which the body of a living thing has a continuous body across the space it occupies.

Its spatial boundaries at any given time bound a continuous organism-filled space. This space, however, does not include all the space within the boundaries of its outline.

For example, there is a hollow tube of non-organism-filled space that runs from the animal organism’s mouth through its digestive system. The contents of this tube are not a part of the organism either.

So, a typical organism appears to be not like a sofa set in a sitting room, which, though spatially bounded by the walls of the room, it is at any time composed of a number of spatially discontinuous parts.

But, there is a puzzle here. While the territory of the United Republic of Tanzania including the islands of Unguja, Pemba and Mafia is discontinuous, it is none the less a single concrete object.

And so is a bedroom suite, or a scattered deck of cards. Indeed, every physical object which is not subataomic is, according to physics, made up of spatially separated parts.

On this view, simply because a higher order organism is composed of subatomic particles with gaps between them, it is, in fact, a spatially discontinuous particular.

So, in order to speak consistently, we need to differentiate between relative spatial continuity and absolute spatial continuity.

By relative spatial continuity we mean that in the body of an ordinary particular which is said to be spatially continuous there are no macroscopic gaps between its parts, where we ignore the microscopic gaps between its subatomic parts.

On this view all higher order animals, that is, animals which are visible by a naked human eye are relatively spatially continuous.

And by absolute spatial continuity we mean a more restrictive criterion, that there are neither macroscopic gaps nor subatomic gaps of any size between any parts of an entity.

Because all organisms are composed of gappy subatomic parts, no organism is absolutely continuous. As such, absolute spatial continuity is not a criterion of biological individuality.

It is for this reason, its often said that a fertile pair which copulates without using any contraceptive are one literal biological organism, in so far as their procreative potentials are concerned.

By using biblical language, a fertile pair which copulates without using any contraceptive realize "bodily union" normally referred to as "one flesh union."

In this case, "bodily union" is framed in terms of the following metaphysics:

Aristotle (1984) says that several things can be one in a number of ways. For example, they can be be one in number (a single tree), be one in species (two oak trees), be one in genus (an oak tree and a maple tree), be one in substrate (wine and water), to name just a few things one might mean by unity.

He also adds that, “most things are called one because they do or have or suffer or are related to something else that is one.” The point is that, several things can be unified through some other thing that is one.

On this view, then, the uncontracepted union of the reproductive organs of a fertile man and a fertile woman really unites them biologically since reproduction is one function.

And so, in respect of that function, the fertile hetero-affective copulating pair are indeed one reality, we may call a procreative super-organism.

More clearly, then, we can articulate this position as follows: a heterosexual couple engaged in sexual intercourse are one, that is, form an organic union, in virtue of something else that is one: the single, though complex activity, reproduction, where, the goal or good, the telos of reproduction is the source of the unity of the action.

Accordingly, Johnston (2013:298) concludes that, “when activities A, B, and C, for instance, are all ordered toward a single goal, D, then A, B, and C are not distinct activities but are parts of a single process ordered toward D,” then, “the goal or telos as the source of the unity of complex processes makes sense of the … claim that” a fertile copulating hetero-affective pair are one literal biological organism.

Thus, Johnston (2013) concludes that, we can therefore reframe the one-flesh sexual union thesis as follows: heterosexual couples engaged in uncontracepted sexual intercourse realize bodily unity by participating in something that is one, a single act of the reproductive kind, where the singularity of this act is secured by the good/goal of reproduction.

Indivisible temporal continuity is an attribute according to which the life span of a living thing is continuous across time.

This is to say that, from the time an organism begins to exist it remains continuously in existence until it ceases to exist.

It does not pass in or pass out of existence like a river that goes dry and the flows again. Thus, organisms are not temporally gappy, though they may have vague temporal boundaries.

It does not have two or more lifespans, since death is an irreversible and permanent process.

Etiological integration of complementary parts is an attribute according to which bodily organs work interdependently, under the coordination of the brain, such that, one organ provides inputs required for the work of the next organ, one organ system feeds into another, and one level complements another.

This is so because, living things are highly organized and structured, following a hierarchy that can be examined on a scale from small to large.

The smallest unit of living organisms is the cell, while the sum of all living things and the locations that they inhabit is called the biosphere. From the cell to the biosphere we have 11 levels as follows: Atom, Molecule, Cell, Tissue, Organ, Organ System, Organism, Population, Community and Biosphere.

The atom is the smallest and most fundamental unit of matter. It consists of a nucleus surrounded by electrons. Atoms form molecules which are chemical structures consisting of at least two atoms held together by one or more chemical bonds, where the atoms can be of the same or different elements.

A cell is the structural and functional unit of all living things. A tissue is a group of cells with a common structure and function, being a group of similar cells carrying out similar or related functions.

Organ is composed of tissues functioning together for a specific task. Organ systems are made up of multiple organs that work together to perform specific functions.

An organism is an individual that contains a set of organ systems. Only the organism level life vanishes when an organism dies, but life at lower levels endures. The organs and cells of a dead person are still alive and continue to be alive for some time, making organ transplants possible.

Population is a set of organisms of the same species in a particular area. Community is a set of interacting populations in a particular area. Ecosystem is a community plus the physical environment. And biosphere refers to the regions of the Earth’s crust, waters, and atmosphere inhabited by living things.

Striving for the purpose of self-maintenance is an attribute according to which a living thing, through a complementarity of internal bodily organs, pursues the ultimate goal of self-maintenance of the body as a whole (organismality/Organic unity).

The attribute of "organic unity" or "teleological unity" needs a detailed explanation.

As opposed to rocks in the non-living world, all living things lead to the conclusion that living things act independently as if they have an “agenda” of their own.

For example, every living thing goes about its business of living building nests, collecting food, reproducing and protecting the young.

This purposeful character is so well defined and unambiguous that biologists have come up with a special names for it, such as “vitality,” “teleonomy,” “teleological organicity,” and “organismality.”

The fact that multicellular animals, like humans, behave in a purposeful manner is question begging. What exactly is the purpose?

If you ask a number of different people what their goal or purpose in life is you will get a variety of answers.

One person might say their goal is to travel the world, another to make a lot of money, yet another to make the national Olympic team, to get married and have ten kids, yet another to write a book on the nature of life. The list is endless.

Of course any one person might have a number of different goals in mind. We humans are a restless species, never entirely satisfied.

But if we want to get to the very essence of biological purpose, we need to think beyond these subjective purposes.

Within an organism, the whole exists for the sake of the parts and vice versa. It has no purpose other than to produce these parts in a specific way.

Furthermore, each individual part produces itself by its own inner force, and so all the individual parts produce the whole so that the product of nature continually produces itself, and maintains itself precisely insofar as it produces itself.

For example, the highest and final, hence the most developed, stage of the organizational force in the individual plant is the seed.

Now the seed can be fully explained by reference to the plant’s being organized as purpose by means of it, the plant’s organization returns back into itself, and recommences its course from the beginning. The act of organization is not ended, but rather drives itself onward in an eternal cycle.

Thus, the word “organism” refers to the concept that living systems are differentiated from other natural objects by their organization, in other words, the interconnectedness of their parts.

Organisms share this characteristic with machines, from which they can however be distinguished by the self-maintenance of their organs and by their ability to reproduce.

The whole organism is set in motion to produce some ultimate effect, which appears to be the propagation of the species, while preservation of the individual is the proximate effect.

Thus, the functional relationship between individual and species consists in the activity of procreation, an activity that involves not only one organism and its offspring but, for many species, two organisms of different sexes and their joint offspring.

What makes organisms unique is thus not only the internal reciprocity of organic functions but also the interconnectedness of mating and the generational transcendence of species being.

In a sense, the body of an organism is “organized” and “self-organizing.” It is “organized” in that all of its parts exist for the sake of the others and of the whole.

It is “organizing” in that the whole also exists for the sake of the parts. These parts produce each other reciprocally, so that in the organism everything is a purpose and reciprocally also a means.

It is for these reasons, Lee and George (2008:66) have stated the following:

“Like other organisms, the human being has a matter-form composition. The various cells, tissues, organs, and so on, must be organized or unified so as to make up one being. The ultimate principle of unity cannot be a material organ, since this would only give rise to an aggregate of this organ with other bodies (and so the unity of this organ with others would remain unexplained), but it must be a form or order determining the components to be one substantial entity. In a living being, this form or principle of unity can be referred to as a soul, since the soul is (philosophically) defined as the first principle of life in an organized body.”​

Lee and George (2008:182) continue to clarify the concept of organic unity in the following terms:

“An organic action is one in which several bodily parts – tissues, cells, molecules, atoms, and so on – participate. Digestion, for example, involves several smaller, chemical actions of individual cells. But the several components of digestion form a unitary, single action. The subject of this action is the organism. So, the organism is a composite, made up of billions of parts. Its unity is manifested and understood in its actions.”​

Along this thought process, Lee and George(2008:184-185, n.15-16) conclude that an organism is a “single unit” consisting of reciprocally cooperating organs, whose nature is known through its self-maintenance actions which are jointly performed by the said organs, and which “become organically or biologically one when jointly performing those types of actions.”

Organic unity is a single property which is a universal across all living things. It comes from causal integration of bodily organic functions, in terms of which the living body strives through an internal complementarity of bodily organs for the ultimate goal of self-maintenance/survival of the body as a whole. This property is also called organismality.

Two scientists, Strassmann and Queller (2009:3144) have the following to say about the said organic unity:

“We suggest that the essence of organismality lies in this shared purpose; the [complementary] parts work together for the integrated whole, with high cooperation and very low conflict. Specifically, the organism is the largest unit of near-unanimous design; the qualifying ‘near’ is required because some conflicts, like meiotic drive, probably remain in all organisms.”​

According to the principle of organismality, then, vital functions such as reproduction, growth, and nutrition are not really common functions of “all” living things. Children and eunuchs do not reproduce, while adults do not grow any longer.

At the level of abstract statement we can say, correctly, that living things are characterized by these vital functions. But in concrete reality, what is involved in the life of one kind of organism is not what is exactly involved in the life of another kind of organism.

The "common" biological functions of human beings are specifically human; the "common" biological functions of a dog are specifically doggish; and so on. On this view, the temptation to view life as a closed set of properties that all living things have in common is wrong.

The universal fact is that, each biological organism is a unity, meaning that, it is a compound thing, having multiple organic functions, where the organism exercises its own complementary functions for the sake of the whole body.

From this it follows that biological life is the mode of existence of organic entities. This mode of existence embraces the capacity for organic functions to strive for some teleological end called survival. The exercise of these complementary functions is the actuality of biological life.

Consequently, if all complementary organic function ceases, there is no biological life and hence no biological organism, but a corpse.

Adaptation

An adaptation refers to the process of becoming adjusted to an environment. Adaptations may include structural, physiological, or behavioral traits that improve an organism's likelihood of survival, and thus, reproduction.

Unity of being

Both living and nonliving things involve chemical processes. But living organisms stand out from the crown. They are geared towards specific results in living things.

They are things of action. They behave with purpose, reacting to their surroundings, growing and reproducing themselves. None of these characteristics apply to things that are not living, like a pebble, a mountain, or a sandy beach, for example.

The intense chemical activity in a living entity reminds us of a well-running chemical factory with a virtual governing agency of factory responsible for order, coordination, intent, knowledge, and skill.

In organisms, life is purposive and goal-driven. From a single cell to an organism, life acts like it has a goal to reach, and the life processes are geared towards accomplishing that goal.

Life appears to come preloaded with an elusive program that turns the potentiality of a living being into actuality by fostering intentional development and growth.

Unlike inanimate beings, it seems that each lifeform comes with an encoded mission and is equipped with the tendency to move towards accomplishing that mission.

With inherent dynamism, life turns a static assembly of matter into a dynamic entity, like a busy factory floor.

There is a continual realization of a set of potentialities embedded within the nature of life of a particular species, driven and directed by inclinations, with traits serving as templates.

In other words, an intrinsic characteristic of all living beings is “unity” or “oneness” with well-defined boundaries. Life integrates and unifies living beings into individual entities, behaving in unison.

The tendency of maintaining unity is called “unicity.” It is an encoded feature of life. Cells are bounded by membranes.

Skins serve as the bounding surfaces of animals. Barks serve as the bounding surfaces of trees. Life interlinks all constituents of an organism to function as one entity, distinct from other entities.

Life transforms diversity into unity, interrelating constituent parts to each other and the whole. It unifies seemingly unrelated and unconnected constituents under one rule and subjugates them to one code of conduct within the domain of life.

No matter how large or complex a living organism is, it functions as ‘one’ with definite borders – like a car with thousands of parts acting together as one entity at the command of a driver (or driver software in the case of autonomous cars).

Life is like an invisible glue that transfuses into all constituents and holds the physical body of a living organism together as one to maintain wholeness within its boundaries.

It seems like all the activities in a living organism serve life and work toward maintaining life and integrity. When an organism dies, it loses its integrity. The dead body starts to disintegrate as if the invisible glue has disappeared, and the parts become untied and fall apart.

Therefore, an organism is much more than a collection of chemically active molecules. Chemical reactions continue to occur within the decomposing body of a dead organism.

However, those incoherent stray chemical reactions transform the lifeless whole into its constituent pieces to be reused as building blocks in constructing other living organisms.

Naturality as opposed to artificiality ​

Life is a natural phenomenon. Life just occurs; it cannot be made artificially by humans just like the laws and forces of physics are natural and cannot be made artificially by humans.

There is no such thing as ‘human-made life’ created from scratch using lifeless ingredients. We can tap into life and modify life as humans, but we cannot create life.

Therefore, everything we make using inanimate entities as constituents is bound to be lifeless.

Ordinarily, the actions and behaviors of inanimate beings are entirely determined by the laws and forces of physics.

All human-made technological items such as robots, smartphones, and machinery which resemble living beings are nonliving as well.

Even devices that closely resemble humans are also governed by the instructions in their software. However, they are still lifeless beings since their software or driver is human-made, whereas the set of laws and instructions of animate beings is natural. Gene editing is simply the manipulation of life, not the creation of life.

There is no cause-and-effect relationship between life and the physical realm. Unlike bringing together hydrogen and oxygen to produce water, there are no physical causal links that we can use to produce life.

Life just happens – we do not have any control over making it, just like we do not have any control over the law of gravity.

As a result, life is not produced from nonlife; it is reproduced from life. Life disappears from a living being when the physical body conditions are no longer hospitable to life.

Therefore, all we can do to preserve life is to keep the physical body of the living being in favorable conditions compatible with life.

We cannot create life, but we can accommodate the spread of life by setting up environments in which the spark of life in seeds and fertilized eggs can flourish and thrive.

Traits of operation, growth, and heredity​

Life comes bundled with a set of hereditary traits that characterize and differentiate the living species.

This is akin to how all chemical elements come bundled with a set of traits such as protons and neutrons, which collectively make up one mass number that distinguishes one element from another.

The mass number of an element is the total number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom. It is also known as the atomic mass number or nucleon number.

Heredity is the process by which parents pass on certain genes to their offspring, which can influence many aspects of the life of an organism.

Simply stated, a gene is a piece of chemical material, called Deoxyribo-Nucleic Acid (DNA), that serves as (1) the source of the instructions that build and maintain living bodies; and (2) the unit that passes along such information to succeeding generations through reproduction.

These traits form a “code of conduct” that accompany life and which can be considered to comprise the software of life, while the physical body constitutes the hardware. The built-in active agent with the ability to initiate action serves as the operator.

At the cell level the said “code of conduct” is called deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).

The DNA is a protein molecule that contains genetic instructions for the operation, growth, and reproduction.

Specifically, life appears to come complete with a built-in “code of conduct,” which is a set of laws, rules, principles, and norms by which the living entity behaves in conformity with the inclinations of the species.

In other words, life comes complete with packages of operating manuals for all the organs, tissues and cells of the body.

This is just like a computer software package that comes with driver software for all the components of the machine, such as the screen, speakers, and hard drive, as well as application software called apps for specific tasks.

The code of conduct is the rule book for the live organism to follow when performing the prescribed life functions.

It contains the protocols and commands to abide by, and it details how the constituents of the body will respond to the stimuli from the outside, such as perception through the five senses, food and drug intake, repair of injured tissue, assessment of danger, elimination of threats, preservation of life, and managing contingencies.

The life sciences, and the social sciences in the case of humans, are all about inquiring about the codes of conduct of different species, both physiologically and behaviorally.

Most life functions such as the heart beating, kidneys filtering blood, and holding the body temperature at a certain level are automated and beyond the organism's control.

Sentient, conscious beings with free will, like humans and to a limited extent higher animals, have a certain level of control on the overall actions of the body and the external body parts, but hardly any control over the operation of the internal organs such as the heart, liver, and kidneys.

They are internally hardwired and are inaccessible to us. This is like driving a modern car: we can control when and where the car will go, when it will speed up and slow down, and when it will stop, but we cannot control the internal operation of the engine, battery, etc.

With a TV set, we can change the channels and adjust the volume to our liking, but we cannot interfere with the internal operation of the device.

The driving software of autonomous vehicles with millions of lines of coding gives an idea about the complexity of the elusive code of conduct.

To summarize, we have seen that, Chromosomes are thread-like cell structures found in the nucleus of cells. Each of these chromosomes comprises proteins and a single molecule of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). These are the unique instructions fundamentally obtained from the parents, which are passed onto the offspring.

The chromosome number or chromosome count in a species is constant and is called the euploid number. The majority of organisms have an even number of chromosomes because chromosomes are in pairs. Animal chromosome numbers range from 254 in hermit crabs to 2 in a species of roundworm.

The fern called Ophioglossum reticulatum has 1260 chromosomes! Humans have 46, chimpanzees have 48, potatoes also have 48. All of these numbers have come about because of chance.

Thus, it is logical to conclude that, chromosomes ground human rationality, and human rationality grounds human dignity. This fact was recently stated by Fernandez (2024), when he stated the following:

"Every human person possesses an infinite dignity, inalienably grounded in his or her very being... The classical definition of a person as an 'individual substance of a rational nature' clarifies the foundation of human dignity. As an [embodied] 'individual substance,' the [human] person possesses ontological dignity, that is, at the metaphysical level of being itself... The only prerequisite for speaking about the dignity inherent in the [human] person is their membership in the human species [as specified by their chromosome count, which is 46 in number] ... (Fernandez 2024: Para 1, 9, 24).

Unleashing the value of human life

So, given these attribute of a life, one may now ask: How and to what extent should we consider valuable the life of a human being as opposed to the death of the same human being?

To answer this question, six points should be emphasized. First, the property of life which distinguishes a biological human organism from a human corpse is the attribute of organic unity or organismality. Thus, a corpse lacks organic unity while an organism possesses it.

Second, as opposed to mechanical organismality, human organismality is an intrinsic property of the human person.

It means a natural "agenda" of self-maintenance which intrinsically pursued by every organism. It is an intrinsic agency as opposed to extrinsic agency we note in cars which are under the control of drivers and in computers which are under the control of embedded programs.

Third, life is a value which transcends the individual since it unites humans across generations and humans and across the natural non-human world.

Fourth, by reason of the personalistic norm, biological human life is a value which does not admit of arbitrary violation.

Fifth biological death is an evil which results from the destruction or depreciation of biological life, which is natural attribute, which cannot be created through human effort.

And sixth, we have seen that, every human person possesses dignity, which is inalienably grounded in one's membership in the human species, hence one's biological being as specified by its chromosome count of 46 threads.

This dignity is a fundamental uniqueness which is grounded by the human person's "rational nature." This rationality is the foundation of human dignity, which is thus, ontological dignity at the metaphysical level of being.

The constitution on the right to life

The Constitution of Tanzania (1977) under article 14 states as follows:

"Every person has the right to live and to the protection of his life by the society in accordance with the law."

In light of this doctrine, on several occasions Nyerere addressed the relationship between the powers of public officials, biological life and the common good of a nation. His statements were meant to answer the following key question:

In defense of the common good, what can a public official do that a private person cannot do?

His answers appear to come along the following lines: One, Nyerere held that, as opposed to a private citizen, only someone who has authority for the common good can kill those who are guilty of capital offense.

This means that, a private citizen must not even kill someone who has been sentenced to death.

Two, Nyerere taught that, a soldier may kill enemy soldiers because he is acting on the authority of the ruler.

Three, Nyerere insisted that, some one in authority may also inflict the penalty of lesser bodily harm or incarceration for the sake of the common good.

On Nyerere's view, the general principle here is that, any private citizen may act on behalf of the common good unless the act in question involves harming another, while only someone who holds authority for the common good may inflict fatal harm on behalf of the community.

However, Nyerere emphasized that, there are some acts that no one, even someone in a position of authority, can do in defense of the common good. He firmly taught that, no one is justified in killing the innocent, even in defense of the common good.

This is because, Nyerere argued, the life of the just citizens is conserving and promotive of the common good, since they themselves are the more important part of the multitude. In other words, no one ought to cause harm to another unjustly, in order to promote the common good. (Miller and McCann 2005:110)

President Samia on the right to life

However, given the prevalence of extra-judicial killings, abductions, tortures and enforced disappearances, it is overtly clear that President Samia and her government are practically incompatible with the Tanzanian vision of abundant biological life for every innocent citizen .

IV. An anthropological argument

​

"The object of this Constitution is to facilitate the building of the United Republic as a nation of equal and free individuals... Therefore, the state authority and all its agencies are obliged to direct their policies and programmes towards ensuring that human dignity is preserved and upheld" (The Constitution of Tanzania(1977), article 9(f)).

"All human beings are born free, and are all equal. Every person is entitled to recognition and respect for his dignity" (The Constitution of Tanzania(1977), article 12 (1)-(2))

"It shall be unlawful for any person to be compelled to join any association or organization" (The Constitution of Tanzania(1977), article 20(4) )​

Anthropology is a philosophical study of human nature. According to philosophical anthropology, any human society, if it is to be peacefully ordered and productive, must lay down as a foundation the principle that, every human being is a person whose nature is endowed with intelligence and free will from which rights and obligations flow directly and simultaneously.

This is why, the Father of the Nation, Julius Kambarage Nyerere(1978) repeatedly teaches that, "It is their ability to act deliberately, for a self-determined purpose, which distinguishes humans from the other animals."

Further evidence of his total commitment to the principle of human equality, in terms of the capacity for deliberation, self-determination and goal setting, can be seen in his independence address to the United Nations General Assembly, when he said:

“The basis of our actions, both internal and external, will be an honest attempt to honor the dignity of man. We believe that all mankind is one, and that the physiological differences between us are unimportant in comparison with our common humanity”.

But, by using guns, swords and clubs to force citizens to assent to her party and government's policies, President Samia has practically refuted Nyerere's understanding of the nature of the human person. Pure and simple.

V. A sociological argument

Sociologically speaking, a polity such as the United Republic of Tanzania is society, meaning that, it is an enduring union of a number of persons morally bound under authority to cooperate for a common good., the latter being that which is sought by the members, that is, which they hope to gain by their cooperative effort.

As normally used today, the phrase “common good” refers to those facilities or institutions that all or most members of a community agree are necessary to satisfy certain interests they have in common.

A few of the things making up the common good in a modern democracy might include basic rights and freedoms, a transportation system, cultural institutions, police and public safety, a judicial system, an electoral system, public education, clean air and water, safe and ample food supply, and national defense.

For example, people might say, “The new bridge will serve the common good,” or “We will all profit from the new convention center.”

Because the systems and facilities of the common good impact all members of the society, it stands to reason that most social problems are in some way tied to how well or poorly these systems and facilities are working.

The common good of a nation is common denominator across political, social, religious, cultural, sexual and racial divisions.

This is why, the Father of the nation, Julius Kambarage Nyerere (1974) was alwlays in search of the common good in a pluralistic society, made of more than 120 tribes, more than ten religious denominations, and more than four races.

Nyerere (1974) reminds us that, “We shall continue, as we have begun, trying to create a society in which all citizens work together in freedom, dignity, and equality, for their common good.”

However, under the current government as lead by President Samia, every public servant is free to pursue the private good at the expense of the common good, provided that such a pusuit is within the radius of one's sphere of jurisdiction. President Samia has dubbed this "The 'Urefu wa Kamba Binafsi' Principle."

This principle is directly opposed to Nyerere's doctrine on the anatomy and physiology of a political society.

VI. A theological argument

“Every person has the right to the freedom of conscience, faith and choice in matters of religion, including the freedom to change his religion or faith” (The Constitution of Tanzania, article 19(1))

“Therefore, the state authority and all its agencies are obliged to direct their policies and programmes towards ensuring… that the Government and all its agencies accord equal opportunities to all citizens, men and women alike without regard to their colour, tribe, religion or station in life” (The Constitution of Tanzania, article 9(g)).​

Given that Tanzania is a pluralistic society, Nyerere taugh politicians to cherish religious neutrality, as a national value, an agnostic theology. This fact is clear through his address to religious leaders when Nyerere(1970) stated categorically that:

"Nchi yetu haina dini rasmi japo watu wake wana dini zao; chama chetu hakina dini rasmi japo wanachama wake wanazo dini zao."

According to the said speech (attached), Nyerere(1970) makes the following interesting remarks:

"Nchi ya Tanzania na TANU hazina Dini; Wananchi ndio Wana Dini... Kichama, TANU Hatujui kama Mungu yupo au hayupo (Hatuulizani); Tunaulizana Habari za Maji, Maharagwe na Mabarabara..... Lakini hatuulizi Kabisa kama ipo Pepo; kama kwenda Mbinguni ziko ngazi ngapi ? Tunaulizana ya kwetu yanataka Kura, sasa la Mungu mtalipigiaje kura ! Kwamba wengi wamekubali Mungu yupo kwahio yupo au hayupo? Mimi nina dini yangu, Karume ana dini yake, Kawawa na Waheshimiwa wengine wana dini zao... Waheshimiwa mbalimbali kila mtu ana dini yake..... Tunapokutana kwenye mikutano hatumuulizi leo Umesali? ... Hiyo ni hiari yake, kasali hakusali anajiuliza mwenyewe..."

However, under Samia's regime, voices are now heard agitating for the formation of an Islamic state by joining OIC. She is totally silent on this anomaly. Such silence contradicts our national dream of a religiously neutral state.

VII. A political argument

"All state authority in the United Republic shall be exercised and controlled by ... organs vested with executive ... judicial ... legislative and supervisory powers over the conduct of public affairs" (The Constitution of the URT (1977), article 4(1)).

"The organs ... shall be the Government ... the Judiciary ... and ... the Parliament" (The Constitution of the URT (1977), article 4(2)).

"Every citizen of the Untied Republic who has attained the age of eighteen years is entitled to vote in any election held in Tanzania" (The Constitution of the URT (1977), article 5(1)).

"The United Republic of Tanzania is a state which adheres to the principles of democracy ... and accordingly (a) sovereignty resides in the people and it is from the people that the Government t... shall derive all its power and authority; (b) the primary objective of the Government shall be the welfare of the people; (c) the Government shall be accountable to the people; and (d) the people shall participate in the affairs of their Government" (The Constitution of the URT (1977), article 8(1)).

"The civic rights, duties and interests of every person and community shall be protected and determined by the courts of law or other state agencies established by or under the law." (The Constitution of the URT (1977), article 13(3)).

"The authority of the Government of the United Republic shall be exercised by either the President himself or by delegation of such authority to other persons holding office in the service of the United Republic." (The Constitution of the URT (1977), article 34(4)).

"All Executive functions of the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania discharged by officers of the Government shall be so done on behalf of the President." (The Constitution of the URT (1977), article 35(1)).

"The President shall have authority to constitute and to abolish any office offices and to in the service of the Government of the United Republic." (The Constitution of the URT (1977), article 36(1)).

"The President shall be free and shall not be obliged to take advice given to him by any person, save where he is required by this Constitution or any of 1984 other law to act in accordance with the advice given to him by any person or authority." (The Constitution of the URT (1977), article 37(1)).

"The President shall be elected by the citizen in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution and in accordance with the law enacted by Parliament pursuant to the provisions of this Constitution, making provisions concerning the election of the President." (The Constitution of the URT (1977), article 38(1)).

Every society must have its own criteria and norms of government formation, distinguishing between good government as opposed to bad government, removal of government from office, and the limits of government power in relation to the freedoms of individuals and intermediate social groups. The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania has a comprehensive list of the criteria and norms of state governance, as the above quotations show.

The functions of government

By definition a polity is the institutional system forming the framework for political action and covers the concrete normative, structural elements of politics set out in the constitution.

Both written rules such as the constitution and the laws governing the voting system, and the structure of the state and unwritten rules form the framework for the political sphere.

The most important unwritten rules in the broader sense include the political culture of a community, which is defined by the constitution, which is the social contract between citizens and the state that defines the rights and duties of both parties.

Specifically, in a constitutional republican democracy, the framework of rights and duties is used in constitutional law between citizens and the state to accord citizens protection against state tyrannies, and also to ensure the enjoyment of their civic liberties against each other.

Jurisprudence on human rights has determined that rights do not exist in isolation, but create corresponding duties upon the other party. Consequently, rights create duties in citizens and also the State.

The broad domains that the rights-jurisprudence falls into are two. On one hand, we have civil-political rights, and socio-economic rights, on the other hand.

The former are in the nature of right to freedom of speech and expression, right to faith and worship, right to travel freely, right to a forum of justice, right to participate in social life, the right to enjoy equal treatment, and so on.

The corresponding duties upon the State are to respect these freedoms, and to abstain from acting in ways that may restrict these rights; and to protect citizens from restrictive actions of others that may threaten these rights.

Socio-economic rights include the right to housing, the right to education, the right to water and the right to food.

Socio-economic rights usually lay emphasis on an additional duty of fulfillment. With these rights, the state is obliged to extend the same duties of respect and protection, and also an additional duty to fulfil the substantive components of the right

This essentially means that the State cannot merely respect or extend protection but also has to divert economic resources towards making sure citizens actually realise these rights.

Seen in this manner, the logic of rights and duties can be applied to commoning practices.

The difference is that the social contract is not between two individuals, or between citizens and State, but rather exists as an agreement between all commoners.

The right to use and access resources therefore gives rise to corresponding duties. These duties include not only respecting the rights of other commoners to use and access resources, but also to protect their enjoyment of it in a mutually collaborative way.

Further, the aspect of fulfilling those rights has ramifications for ensuring sustainability of resources.

This requires active stewardship and care in order to ensure that the resources continue to be enjoyed.

In other words, the state constitution which is a social contract, is a legally enforceable agreement.

Under the law of contract, legal enforcement is possible only when there is a promise and a counter-promise made by two parties to the agreement.

The agreement implies that there is an exchange of things. In return for taking, there is a giving involved.

An agreement without a "consideration" or reciprocated promise is not a legally enforceable contract.

A "consideration" in legal parlance, refers to anything of value given to someone in return for goods, services or some promise.

Against this understanding of of a state constitution as a social contract, Nyerere taught that, the state's "essential minimal activities" are:

• Eliminating or neutralizing their outside rivals (war making),
• Eliminating or neutralizing their rivals inside their own territory(state making),
• Eliminating or neutralizing the enemies of their clients (protection),
• Acquiring the means of carrying out the first three activities (extraction),
• Authoritative settlement of disputes among members of the population(adjudication), Intervention in the allocation of goods among the members of the population (distribution), and
• Control of the creation and transformation of goods and services produced by the population (production).

President Samia and her team have practically repudiated this position through her repeated breach of the social contract she vowed to uphold.

She practically rejects the claim that human rights are claims of an individual citizen against corresponding obligations of the state.

She practically repudiates the claim that under constitutional law the state is obliged to protect, respect, fulfill, and facilitate human rights.

She negates the position according to which to respect human rights means that: States must not interfere with or limit the enjoyment of human rights.

She rejects the position according to which to Protect human rights means that: States must protect individuals and groups from human rights abuses.

And she acts a deaf to the position according to which to Fulfil human rights means that: States must take positive action to make it easier for people to enjoy basic human rights.

In order to see these facts clearly, it is enough for us to look at the anatomy and physiology of autocratic forms of government as opposed to democratic governments.

Autocratic forms of government: Absolute monarchy

Autocracy is the political doctrine and practice of unlimited centralized authority and absolute sovereignty, as vested especially in a monarch or dictator. The essence of an autocractic system is that the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency, be it judicial, legislative, religious, economic, or electoral.

King Louis XIV (1643–1715) of France furnished the most familiar assertion of autocracy when he said, “I am the state”. Autocracy has existed in various forms in all parts of the world, including in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

The most commonly studied form of autocracy is absolute monarchy, which originated in early modern Europe and was based on the strong individual leaders of the new nation-states that were created at the breakup of the medieval order.

The power of these states was closely associated with the power of their rulers; to strengthen both, it was necessary to curtail the restraints on centralized government that had been exercised by the church, feudal lords, and medieval customary law. By claiming the absolute authority of the state against such former restraints, the monarch as head of state claimed his own absolute authority.

By the 16th century monarchical absolutism prevailed in much of western Europe, and it was widespread in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Besides France, whose absolutism was epitomized by Louis XIV, absolutism existed in a variety of other European countries, including Spain, Prussia, and Austria.

The most common defense of monarchical absolutism, known as “the divine right of kings” theory, asserted that kings derived their authority from God. This view could justify even tyrannical rule as divinely ordained punishment, administered by rulers, for human sinfulness.

In its origins, the divine-right theory may be traced to the medieval conception of God’s award of temporal power to the political ruler, while spiritual power was given to the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, the new national monarchs asserted their authority in all matters and tended to become heads of church as well as of state, as did King Henry VIII when he became head of the newly created Church of England in the 16th century.

Their power was absolute in a way that was impossible to achieve for medieval monarchs, who were confronted by a church that was essentially a rival centre of authority.

More pragmatic arguments than that of divine right were also advanced in support of absolutism. According to some political theorists, complete obedience to a single will is necessary to maintain order and security.

A monopoly of power also has been justified on the basis of a presumed knowledge of absolute truth. Neither the sharing of power nor limits on its exercise appear valid to those who believe that they know—and know absolutely—what is right.

This argument was advanced by Vladimir Lenin to defend the autocratic authority of the Communist Party in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.

Autocratic rulers who emerged later in the 20th century, in addition to Hitler and Stalin, included Benito Mussolini of Italy, Mao Zedong of China, and Kim Il-Sung of North Korea, whose son (Kim Jong Il) and grandson (Kim Jong-Un) continued the pattern of autocratic rule in the country into the 21st century.

Autocratic forms of government: Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is a recent species of autocracy, which is characterized by the concentration of power in a single centre, be it an individual dictator or a group of power holders such as a committee or a party leadership.

This centre relies on force to suppress opposition and limit social developments that might eventuate in opposition. The power of the centre is not subject to effective controls or limited by genuine sanctions: it is absolute power.

Often, totalitarian states and other autocracies attempt to borrow legitimacy by adopting the language of the constitutions of nonautocratic regimes or by establishing similar institutions.

It is a common practice, for example, in many modern totalitarian states to establish institutions—parliaments or assemblies, elections and parties, courts and legal codes—that differ little in appearance from the institutional structures of constitutional democracies.

Similarly, the language of totalitarian constitutions is often couched in terms of the doctrines of popular rule or democracy.

The difference is that in totalitarian regimes neither the institutions nor the constitutional provisions act as effective checks on the power of the single centre: they are essentially facades for the exercise of power through hierarchical procedures that subject all the officials of the state to the commands of the ruling individual or group.

The underlying realities of autocratic rule are always the concentration of power in a single centre and the mobilization of force to prevent the emergence of opposition.

Totalitarianism is distinguished from previous forms of autocracy in its use of state power to impose an official ideology on its citizens.

Nonconformity of opinion, as already noted, is treated as the equivalent of resistance or opposition to the government, and the state police or secret police, along with other institutions of compulsion, are used to enforce the orthodoxy of the proclaimed doctrines of the state.

A single party, centrally directed and composed exclusively of loyal supporters of the regime, is the other distinguishing feature of totalitarianism.

The party is at once an instrument of social control, a vehicle for ideological indoctrination, and the body from which the ruling group recruits its members.

Autocratic forms of government: Modern dictatorial survival strategies

How do dictators hold onto power? The totalitarian tyrannies of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and others relied largely, although not exclusively, on mass terror and indoctrination.

According to Guriev and Treisman (2015), although less ideological, many 20th Century military regimes, from Franco’s Spain to Pinochet’s Chile, used considerable violence to intimidate opponents of the regime. Personalistic dictators in Africa and the Caribbean—such as Mobutu, Bokassa, Somoza, and the Duvaliers—also relied on blood and fear to sustain their rule.

However, in recent decades, a less carnivorous form of authoritarian government has emerged, one better adapted to the globalized media and sophisticated technologies of the 21st Century.

From the Peru of Alberto Fujimori to the Hungary of Viktor Orban, illiberal regimes have managed to consolidate power without isolating their countries from the world economy or resorting to mass killings.

Instead of inaugurating “new orders,” such regimes simulate democracy, holding elections that they make sure to win, bribing and censoring the private press rather than abolishing it, and replacing ideology with an amorphous anti-Western resentment.

Their leaders often enjoy genuine popularity—albeit after eliminating plausible rivals—that is based on “performance legitimacy,” a perceived competence at securing prosperity and defending the nation against external or internal threats. State propaganda aims not to re-engineer human souls but to boost the leader’s ratings, which, so long as they remain high, are widely publicized. Political opponents are harassed and humiliated, accused of fabricated crimes, and encouraged to emigrate.

The new-style dictators can brutally crush separatist rebellions and deploy paramilitaries against unarmed protesters. But, compared to most previous autocrats, they use violence sparingly.

They prefer the ankle bracelet to the Gulag. Maintaining power, for them, is less a matter of terrorizing victims than of manipulating beliefs about the world. Of course, totalitarian leaders also sought to influence public beliefs— some were great innovators in the use of propaganda.

Yet, how they used it was quite different. Dictators such as Hitler and Stalin sought to fundamentally reshape citizens’ world views by imposing comprehensive ideologies. The new autocrats are more surgical: they aim only to convince citizens of their competence to govern.

The totalitarian dictators often employed propaganda to encourage personal sacrifices for the “common good.” Their successors seek to manipulate citizens into supporting the regime for selfish reasons.

Finally, although propaganda was important for the old-style autocracies, violence clearly came first. “Words are fine things, but muskets are even better,” Mussolini quipped.

Recent tyrannies reverse the order. “We live on information,” Fujimori’s security chief Vladimiro Montesinos confessed in one interview. “The addiction to information is like an addiction to drugs.”

Montesinos paid million dollar bribes to television stations to skew their coverage. But killing members of the elite struck him as foolish: “Remember why Pinochet had his problems. We will not be so clumsy.” When dictators are accused of political murders these days, it often augurs the fall of the dictatorship.

Some bloody military regimes and totalitarian states remain—for instance, in Egypt and Burma, or North Korea.

And some less violent non-democracies existed even in the heyday of authoritarian repression (mostly monarchies and post-colonial African regimes). But the balance has shifted.

Whereas in 1975 only 22 percent of non-democracies were engaged in mass killings, by 2012 this share had fallen to 6 percent (Guriev and Treisman 2015).

Besides Fujimori’s Peru and Orban’s Hungary, other regimes that share some or all of these characteristics include Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Mahathir Mohamad’s Malaysia, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey.

China’s recent party bosses also fit in some respects, but whereas the other leaders inherited flawed democracies and undermined them further, the institutions hollowed out in China were those of totalitarian communism.

In short, modern dictators survive not because of their use of force but because they use propaganda to convince the public—rightly or wrongly—that they are competent.

Citizens do not observe the dictator’s type but infer it from signals inherent in their living standards, state propaganda, and messages sent by an informed elite via independent media.

If citizens conclude that the dictator is incompetent, they overthrow him in a revolution. The dictator can invest in making convincing state propaganda, censoring independent media, co-opting the elite, or equipping police to repress attempted uprisings—but he must finance such spending at the expense of the public’s living standards.

We show that incompetent dictators can survive as long as economic shocks are not too large. Moreover, their reputations for competence may grow over time—even if living standards fall.

Censorship and co-optation of the elite are substitutes, but both are complements of propaganda.

Due to coordination failure among members of the elite, multiple equilibria emerge. In some equilibria the ruler uses propaganda and co-opts the elite; in others, propaganda is combined with censorship.

In the equilibrium with censorship, difficult economic times prompt higher relative spending on censorship and propaganda. The results illuminate tradeoffs faced by various recent dictatorships.

VIII. An economic argument

According to Nyerere(1967), in his Arusha declaration, "The four prerequisites of development are different; they are (i) People; (ii) Land; (iii) Good Policies; (iv) Good Leadership...Land is the basis of human life and all Tanzanians should use it as a valuable investment for future development. Because the land belongs to the nation, the Government has to see to it that it is being used for the benefit of the whole nation and not for the benefit of one individual or just a few people."

Yet, land, which is one of the key factors of production, is the prime concern of settler colonialism, which Nyerere opposed and President Samia has endorsed, through the Dubai Treaty, for the benefit of Arab settlers in Tanzania.

IX. A deontological argument

Nyerere's vision for human rights based approach to development was set out in the Arusha Declaration of 1967, where, Nyerere (1967) stated the following, among others:

"The objective of socialism in the United Republic of Tanzania is to build a society in which all members have equal rights and equal opportunities; in which all can live in peace with their neighbors without suffering or imposing injustice, being exploited, or exploiting; and in which all have a gradually increasing basic level of material welfare before any individual lives in luxury." (Nyerere 1968)

The key phrase in this quotation is "a society in which all members have equal rights."

On this poing Muyebe and Muyebe (2001) have clearly demonstrated that, in so far as human rights are concerned, human personhood is like a multiply branched tree.

Every human person is a living being, hence there is a biological life factor in each human person, and its attendant biological rights to life;

Each human person is a psychological and somatic being, hence there is a physical and psychological factor in a human person, and its attendant psychological and somatic rights;

Each person is a rational being with an embodied spirit, hence there is an intellectual and spiritual factor in a human person, and its attendant intellectual and spiritual rights;

Each person is a political being, hence there is a political factor in a human person, and its attendant political rights;

Each person is an economic being, hence there is an economic factor in a human person, and its attendant economic rights;

Each person is a social being, hence there is a social factor in a human person, and its attendant social rights;

And each human person is a sexual being, hence there is a sexual factor in a human person, and its attendant sexual rights.

As a rule every human right is aligned to correlative duty. So Nyerere was a staunch believer in the norms of human rights and duties, which directly flow from human dignity.

For "a society in which all members have equal rights," the government is a duty bearer bound to serve citizens who are right holders.

Hence, a distinction must be made between a rights-based development model and a charity-based development model.

The word charity means benevolent giving by those who have more to those who have less.

The important implications here lie in the power relationship between the givers and receivers, where givers voluntarily make decisions to fill the gaps of the needs of the receivers or so-called beneficiaries.

The decision-making power of the beneficiaries, therefore, is limited in this approach.

On one hand, in the charity-based development model the goal is filling the gaps of social and material needs of beneficiaries; the participants in the development programs are individuals who treated as beggars, objects of charity or beneficiaries; and service provisioning is based on the discretion of givers who have no obligations at all.

On the other hand, in the rights-based development model the goal is fulfilling human needs in a human rights sensitive manner; the participants in the development programs are rights-holders and duty-bearers; and service provisioning is based on national and international law oriented obligations and accountability for fulfilling the rights of individuals.

So, the rights-based development model shifts the government away from charity to obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil rights.

It does this by integrating human rights norms and principles into the state constitution and the derivative statutes.

That is, Under the human rights based approach to development, the plans, policies and processes of development are anchored in a system of rights and corresponding obligations established by national law, and they include civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, and the right to development.

The approach requires human rights principles of universality, indivisibility, equality, non-discrimination, participation, and accountability to guide the planning and implementation of government projects. It emphasizes the need to develop the capacities of both "duty-bearers" to meet their obligations, and "rights-holders" to claim their rights.

As such, Nyerere was opposed to charity-based development model. On this score Nyerere stands in stark contrast with President Samia, the latter parading as a provider of aid or assistance to citizens. This is a betrayal of our national dream concerning the role of government as a duty-bearer, and not a charity-giver.

X. A mereological argument

In his farewell address to the Tanzanian Parliament on 29th July, 1985, just before his retirement from the presidency, Mwalimu said:

“One area to which I accorded the highest priority during the whole of my leadership period was the building of a nation which was truly united, and based on respect for human equality and dignity. I made this very clear in my inaugural address to the National Assembly in December 1962, as I had already done the year before in my independence address to the United Nations General Assembly. Looking back now on my 25 years of leadership, I can say with great satisfaction that we have succeeded in achieving this basic and fundamental objective. We now have a Tanzanian nation that is united, and which respects the dignity of every human being”

On this view, Nyerere believed that there is an inseparable connection between a whole and its parts such that, the existence of each member of the nation is necessary for the integrity of the whole. On this view, the principle of totality, according to which, a part of the corporate entity such as a society can be sacrificed for the good of the whole, is extremely unacceptable.

But, President Samia overtly claims that "kifo ni kifo tu," meaning that some citizens can be arbitrarily killed without the integrity of the nation being affected anyhow. To this extent she has betrayed the principle of mereological untiy as taught by Nyerere. She is incompatible with the Tanzanian dream.

XI. A historical argument

Nyerere (1967) proved that he was a good historian. He well knew that we study history in order to know where we came from, and where we are and where we should go safely without commuting past mistakes. This is why he wrote:

"We are at War . [We are] involved in a war against (diseases, ignorance, exploitation, colonialism, racism, slavery, religious fundamentalism, superstition, political bigotry, abductions, extra-judicial killings,) poverty and oppression in our country; the struggle is aimed at moving the people of Tanzania (and the people of Africa as a whole) from a state of poverty to a State of prosperity. We have been oppressed a great deal, we have been exploited a great deal and we have been disregarded a great deal. It is our weakness that has led to our being oppressed, exploited and disregarded. Now we want a revolution – a revolution which brings an end to our weakness, so that we are never again exploited, oppressed, or humiliated." --J.K. Nyerere(1967), Arusha Declaration

He talks about "oppressions" and "exploitations" which are historically related to colonialism, racism and slavery, which were perpetrated by Christian Europe on the African Continent.

It is for this reason that if you request any mature Tanzanian to vote for a European presidential candidate as the potential president of Tanzania the answer is a clean "NO."

The reasons are clear. One is because of Nyerere's effort at providing public education on the evil of European colonists, racists and slave masters.

And the second reason is that, our school history curricula have clearly revealed the dark side of Europeans as colonists, slave masters and compulsive racists.

However, Nyerere and these same curricula have inadvertently or by design omitted a key fact that the evils committed by Christian Europe against Africa were equally committed by Islamic Asia against Africa from the seventh century and that Arabs from Islamic Asia are still doing the same today parading as trophy hunters, carbon traders and foreign direct investors in our ports.

Specifically, historical evidence on record incontrovertibly reveals that the Arabs used the sword of Mohamed to militarily conquer Super Saharan Africa, from Egypt to Mauritania.

Black Egypt and the neighboring Berber Kingdoms were exterminated or subjugated.

This is akin to what is happening today in Ngorongoro where Arabs parading as trophy hunters and carbon traders are creating another Arabic satellite state inside Tanzania.

To make their ambitions successful President Samia's government recently attempted to forcibly evict the Maasai traditional communities from their ancestral lands.

Samia has welcomed Arabs to manage huge portions of our forests.

And she has welcomed Arabs to manage our sea and ocean ports for an open ended period of time.

Moreover she has signed concession agreements which have given huge percentages of revenue share as compared to what Tanzania gets from such foreign investments. In a nut-shell Samia has endorsed Arabic settler colonialism in Tanzania.

By settler colonialism I mean the type of colonialism in which the colonizer comes to a “new” place not only to seize, exploit and go back home, but to stay, making that “new” place his permanent home.

Settler colonialism thus complicates the “center–periphery model” that was classically used to describe colonialism, wherein an imperial center, called the “metropole,” dominates distant colonies, called the “periphery.”

Typically, one thinks of European colonization of Africa, India, the Caribbean, the Pacific Islands, in terms of external colonialism, also called “exploitation colonialism,” where land and human beings are recast as natural resources for primitive accumulation of coltan, petroleum, diamonds, water, salt, seeds, genetic material, chattel.

To this extent President Samia who supports Arab settler colonialism, racism and slavery is totally incompatible with the Tanzanian Dream and defined as embedded in our constitution by the Father of our nation.

The time for her peaceful exit is now. We should no longer tolerate a president who is a double agent of one's grandfather's and the close relatives of Tip Tipu, once the prominent slave trader

XI. An argument from justice

“The United Republic of Tanzania is a state which adheres to the principles of democracy and social justice...” (The Constitution of Tanzania (1977), article 8(1)).​

“Therefore, the state authority and all its agencies are obliged to direct their policies and programmes towards ensuring… that all forms of injustice ... are eradicated” (The Constitution of Tanzania (1977), article 9(1)(h)).​

​

​

“All persons are equal before the law and are entitled, without any discrimination, to protection and equality before the law” (The Constitution of Tanzania, article 13(1)).​

​

​

The expression ‘discriminate’ means to satisfy the needs, rights or other requirements of different persons on the basis of their nationality, tribe, place of origin, political opinion, colour, religion, sex or station in life such that certain categories of people are regarded as weak or inferior and are subjected to restrictions or conditions whereas persons of other categories are treated differently or are accorded opportunities or advantage outside the specified conditions or the prescribed necessary qualifications except that the word ‘discrimination’ shall not be construed in a manner that will prohibit the Government from taking purposeful steps aimed at rectifying disabilities in the society” (The Constitution of Tanzania, article 13(5))​

Every society which faces the problem of distributing scarce goods to its members should have a set of criteria in terms of which it can consistently distinguish between justice and injustice, where, justice and injustice are terms of approval and disapproval respectively.

As a rule, justice is good and injustice is bad, where the former is to be pursued and the latter is to be avoided. So, every theory of justice rests on some view of what is good for humans as opposed to what is bad thereof.

The principles of justice determine what types of inequality are bad or unjust, and therefore how they should be consistently eliminated or mitigated.

Where the said consistency is among individuals at the same time, we express this decisional rule as "equality." Where the consistency among decisions takes place over time, we express our decisional rule as "precedent."

So understood, the principles of justice are instruments for harmonizing power, poverty, efficiency, individual merit, and economic liberties.

They prevent the risk of domination between the best-off citizens and the worst-off citizens, by ensuring that, economic inequality does not exceed a certain range or proportion.

Such a limit is meant to enable both the best-off citizens and the worst-off citizens to be co-authors of the legal, political, and socio-economic rules that govern the social relations in which they are involved.

On this view, domination is said to occur when a person does not have adequate key power resources with respect to others to be co-author of the primary rules that govern the social relations in which they are involved.

In this sense, domination means to violate or disrespect deliberative autonomy in the pursuit of some goods.

And the said “goods” may include money, human organs, job or educational opportunity, public authority, power, basic rights and liberties, the avoidance of some specific burdens, or every other similar things (Ali 2023:21).

In general, principles of justice aim at finding consistent decision making principles in an effort to strike a balance between liberty and equality, on one hand, and between individual autonomy and the common good, on the other hand (Renaud and Águas 2016).

In its primary meaning, justice characterizes states of affairs, which are relational situations involving subjects and their objects. Just acts and just human beings are those that tend to bring just situations into being. The situation with which justice is concerned consists in an ensemble of possessive relations between subjects and their objects.

In a possessive relation, the individual is treated as a distinct subject from the object or mode of treatment that he controls, appropriates, or enjoys.

To this extent, justice then, may be defined as rightful possession. To possess something rightfully is to hold it in accordance with one’s entitlement or valid claims.

To summarize my conception of justice, I should say that, the word "justice" refers to a non-arbitrary and coherent treatment of all individuals and social groups within a society, by treating like cases alike, equal cases equally and different cases differently, in such a way that each member of a society is given one’s own share of benefits and burdens (Velasquez 2012; Ohlsson and Przybylinski 2023).

Moving from formal justice to substantive justice

We have seen that, a just situation exists when what individuals come to have or to undergo correspond to their valid claims.

In other words, a just situation exists when no individual possesses or enjoys less than one’s valid claims, where validity is premised in a certain principle of distribution of some goods which specifies appropriate criteria for judging or treating individuals in a certain way.

In this case, the point is that, if I grant that a given moral principle specifies appropriate criteria for distributing some goods to certain individuals in a certain way and that particular individuals satisfy those criteria, I cannot without self-contradiction fail to distribute the said goods to these individuals.

In the absence of other considerations, I am equally debarred from arbitrary discrimination against others and from unwarranted exceptions in my own favour.

Thus, the formal principle of justice states that, “In the distribution of goods to members of the society, like cases are to be treated alike and different cases are to be treated differently.” (Galston 1980:143).
This theory of justice contains, as an indispensable element, an independent theory of the individual human good. This is the case since general distributional principles are vacuous without some determinate concept of what benefits and what harms individuals.
However, taken by itself, the formal principle of justice, as stated above, cannot lead to substantive principles. So, it is necessary to lend some precision to this very general assertion.

Following Galston (1980), it appears to me that, the broad outlines of substantive justice may be expressed in terms of four principles, namely: the ordinal principle, the supply principle, the non-violation principle, and the proportionality principle.

The ordinal principle states that, given two individuals, the first may have a larger valid claim than the second if and only if the first satisfies the relevant criteria to a greater extent than the second does.

It merely makes clear the logical implications of linking claims to criteria. This is to say that, nothing except variations along the continua picked out by the criteria is relevant to determining the extent of rationally grounded valid claims.

This is a question of merit, where, merit refers to all the kinds of valuable qualities or performances in respect of which persons may be graded as equals simply because they belong to one class.

And if a case is to be made for equality, then, it must be based on some quality or qualities that human beings in a given class possess equally. There are two possible strategies.

First, we may appeal to merit based on some natural qualities by pointing to some physically verifiable attributes that all human beings have in common, to the same degree. However, no such a property exists.

Secondly, we may appeal to merit based on some non-natural qualities such as theological and metaphysical attributes. Theologically, we may say that “we all possess the property of being the children of the same God who created heaven, earth and their populations.”

Metaphysically, we may say that, “we all possess the property of intelligence, free will and emotions,” all of which are abstract properties.

These are mental and volitional abilities, collectively referred to as rational ability, that is “rationality” in a word.

The supply principle states that, valid absolute claims must be modified if and only in a specific situation the total of such claims exceeds what is available for distribution.

It points out that, the force of all claims depends in part on the possibility of satisfying them.

Thus, absolute claims implicitly contain presumptions and can be expressed as hypothetical propositions of the form: If the means exist, I am entitled to the full satisfaction of this claim.

And the non-violation principle states that, a just situation exists when no individual possesses or enjoys less than his original or modified valid claims.

It reminds that, in some respects individuals are not necessarily treated unjustly if some, but not all, receive more than their valid claim.

The proportionality principle states that, a just situation requires that treatment be directly proportional to criteria satisfaction.

It means that, equal increments of criterion satisfaction should give rise to equal increments of claims.

Thus, in light of the above clarifications, the formal principle of justice can be restated as follows:

In distributing benefits and burdens to members of the society, like cases are to be treated alike and different cases are to be treated differently, provided that:

(1) Individuals having larger valid claims than their fellows satisfy the relevant criteria to a greater extent than individuals having smaller valid claims;

(2) Valid absolute claims are modified in a specific situation where the total of such claims exceeds what is available for distribution;

(3) No individual possesses or enjoys less than his original or modified valid claims; and

(4) Treatment of claimants is directly proportional to their criteria satisfaction.

Against this formulation of formal justice, it should be noted that, the content of justice is affected by three kinds of variables, namely, allocable goods, scarcity of goods, and spatial and temporal limitations. Let me explain.

First, allocable goods are divided into different categories. We have economic goods such as income, property, productive tasks, opportunities for development; political goods such as citizenship and positions of leadership or authority; and recognition goods such as honor, status and prestige. Each of these categories brings into play a distinctive ensemble of claims.

Second, allocable goods have properties of scarcity and abundance. Distributive principles are affected in important ways by the overall level of allocable goods, that is, by scarcity and abundance.

This is the case because some claims, in particular, those based on needs, are expressed in absolute rather than relative terms. Moreover, some relational goods such as leadership and public honor are intrinsically scarce.

Third, it is customary to conceive of distributive principles as applicable within particular human communities, and its immediate neighborhood, both human and natural.

Dimensions of justice

Justice, so understood formally, is still abstract. It needs to be made more concrete by addressing five key variables, namely, the subject of justice, the object of justice, the domain of justice, the circumstances of justice, and the principles of justice.

These variables refer to the "who, what, where, when and how" dimensions of justice.

The subject of justice dimension or who dimension of justice points to whom justice principles or concerns are applicable, that is who counts. They can be individuals, groups, men, women, citizens, strangers, humans, animals, nature, children, future generations or past generations.

The object of justice dimension or what dimension of justice concerns the entities to which justice claims are addressed. They can be the family, firms, NGOs, INGOs, states, social processes, and so on.

The domain of justice where dimension of justice concerns the arena or geographical or political scale within which justice claims are made and addressed.

It can be the village, intra-national region, a nation, an intra-continental region, an inter-continental region, or a globe.

Geographically, it addresses the extent o scale to which, universality and particularity are juggled in theories of justice.

And topically, we can speak of educational justice, health justice, environmental justice, political justice, economic justice, sexual justice, and the like

The circumstances of justice dimension or when dimension of justice concerns the conditions under which principles of justice come into play. They may be patriarchal, colonial, post-colonial, and so on.

Finally, the principles of justice dimension or how dimension of justice concerns the principles by which burdens and benefits are to be distributed to members of the society and how they are determined.
Any principle that determines how a certain good, for instance a material resource, should be distributed or divided among two or more claimants is a distributive principle of justice.
The list of possible distributive principles could be very long; and, of course, our concern for inequality can be very different depending on which of these principles we opt for.

However, there is no reason to believe that the same set of principles of justice should be adopted for every domain of morality and for every type of normative judgment.

For example, nothing forces us to think that the distributive principles that apply to the sphere of education should also apply to the sphere of healthcare. Each sphere has its own uniqueness.
For this reason, it is impossible to establish which of the distributive principles are more valid or plausible than others without making the scope and object of our investigation clear and well defined in terms of subjects, objects, domain and circumstances.

The fifth dimension of justice asks, who has the rightful power to establish and shape such principles and how should that task be done?

That having been said, in order to fully appreciate the concept of "justice" as found on the ideology of "Tanzanianism," the terms "justice" and "injustice" warrant further amplification by looking at different types or classes of justice.

I suggest that, depending on the subjects and objects of justice in question, there are three broad types of justice. We have commutative justice, contributive justice and distributive justice.

Commutative justice

Commutative justice, or contract justice, specifies how individual agents should treat each other in a scenario which involves an exchange of equal value between two equally competent parties who freely agreed to it.

Sometimes a legal document is involved to validate such a transaction, but the vast majority of the contracts we experience are casual or implied.

So, commutative justice is justice in exchange relations. It is essentially achieved when the mutual consent of the contracting parties is reasonable, uncoerced, and fair to everyone involved.

It is governed by the ethics of rights and duties. In general, a right is an individual’s entitlement to something. A person has a right when that person is entitled to act in a certain way in relation to others or is entitled to have others act in a certain way toward him or her.

The entitlement may derive from a legal rule that permits or empowers the person to act in a specified way or that requires others to act in certain ways toward that person, in which case, the entitlement is then called a legal right.

Entitlements can also derive from a system of moral rules independently of any legal system for a particular country.

Such rights, which are called moral rights, are based on moral norms that specify that all human beings are permitted or empowered to do something or are entitled to have something done for them.

Moral rights, unlike legal rights, are globally universal insofar as they are rights that all human beings of every nationality possess to an equal extent, simply by virtue of being human beings.

Unlike legal rights, moral rights are not limited to a particular jurisdiction. If humans have a moral right not to be tortured, for example, then this is a moral right that human beings of every nationality have regardless of the legal system under which they live.

In other words, rights are powerful devices whose main purpose is to enable the individual to choose freely whether to pursue certain interests or activities and to protect those choices.

In our ordinary discourse, we use the term right to cover a variety of situations in which individuals are enabled to make such choices in very different ways.

We have claim rights and liberty rights. Claim rights prohibit people from doing (or not-doing) certain things.

Liberty rights permit them to do (or not do) certain things. So, if nobody has a claim to anything, then nothing has a prohibition, and therefore everything is permitted, and everybody has liberty to do anything.

Specifically, a liberty right is a right which does not entail obligations on other parties, but rather entails only freedom or permission for a right-holder.

Liberty rights are thus to be exercised at free will by the holder of such rights, without any sort of obligation on another person in the (holder’s) exercise of his or her right. We have positive and negative and liberty rights too.

Positive liberty right is freedom of the agent to act without being prevented by others to so act. An example is the right to smoke while alone in a room.

Negative liberty right is freedom of the agent not to act without fear of being forced by others to act. An example is the right not to smoke while alone in a room.

In other words, liberty rights are legal protections which secure for individuals a basic set of freedoms fundamental for leading a good life. A negative liberty right constitutes freedom from interference, while a positive liberty suggests a freedom to act.

In general, a liberty right is fully defined by the following compound statement: If person A has a right to do, have, or be treated as X, then A does not have a duty to forbear doing, having or being treated as X, since there is no rule which demands A's forbearance in this case; and if person A has a right to do, have, or be treated as X, then all individuals other than A have a duty to forbear interfering with A’s doing, having or being treated as X (Galston 1980:127).

In contrast, a claim right is a right which entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other parties regarding a right-holder. In other words, a claim right is a sort of an imposition of an obligation on another person to respect the right of a claimant. We have positive and negative and claim rights.

Positive claim rights are duties of other agents to do something with respect to the right holder so that the latter may freely pursue his or her interests as one pleases.

Examples are the right to education, the right to work and the right to social security.

And negative claim rights are duties of other agents not to do anything with respect to the right holder so that the latter may freely pursue his or her interests as one pleases.

Examples are the right to be free from certain type of education, the right to be free from certain type of work and the right to be free from certain type of social security.

In general, a claim right is fully defined by the following compound statement: If person A has a claim right with respect to person B, then, person A does not have a duty to perform action C; and If person A has a claim right with respect to person B, then, person B has a duty to perform some action C with respect to A, as required by some rule D (Galston 1980:127).

Against this typology of rights, it is clear that, contractual rights and duties emerge to be the limited rights and duties that arise when a person enters an agreement with someone else.

These rights are attached to specific individuals involved in the agreement, and do not extend to individuals who are not parties to the contract.

These contractual rights arise from a specific transaction between specific individuals.

Someone cannot have any contractual rights over you without an actual promise or agreement.

The contractual rights depend on a publicly accepted system of rules. Both parties must agree and recognize the same system of conventions.

By taking the agreement, one person has the obligation to do what the other person agrees to do. Without these rights modern business societies could not operate.

These contractual rights also contain special rights and duties one faces when accepting a position or role in an organization or institution. Doctors have for instance the special duty to care for the health of their patients.

There are four basic conditions for contractual rights: The parties know what they are agreeing to.

There may be no misrepresentation. No duress of coercion. It must be no agreement to an immoral act.

Contributive justice

Besides our relationship with others based on a one-to-one relationship, we relate to others by being in some kind of group with them, where one-to-many relationship arise.

What especially makes a group, that is, what defines it, gives it an identity, and brings its members together, is some kind of common interest or common good, that is, what is good for the group as a group.

The largest group to which we belong is society, the network of economic, political, and cultural relationships that sustain life. Like any group, society has a common good.

In a society or any group, the principles of contract justice are no longer adequate. We need another kind of justice: social justice. This is the justice of fair organization and cooperation. There are two sides to social justice: contributive justice and distributive justice.

Contributive justice is what the individual person is indebted to society, what the individual must contribute to the common good. It is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in promoting the common good.

Contributive justice obligates us to cooperate with good laws, policies, systems, and regulations and to try to change in a constructive way those that are bad or deficient.

Actions not required by human law are still necessary to maintain the common good.

Examples of contributive justice are obeying the speed limit, paying taxes, working at a job that helps rather than hurts people, voting, respecting private and public property, donating money to the church and other non-profits, and volunteering.

It can be difficult to figure out what one owes the common good. One principle of contributive justice is that each person is obligated to contribute according to his or her abilities.

Another principle of contributive justice is that democratic methods should be used as much as possible to decide who has to give what.

There is also a role in contributive justice for those in authority. They must coordinate the efforts of society members to contribute to the common good.

Distributive justice

Distributive justice is what society is indebted to the individual person. This is what each individual should receive as his fair share of the common good.

Questions of distributive justice arise when different people make claims on society’s benefits and burdens and all the claims cannot be satisfied.

The central cases are those where there is a scarcity of benefits, such as jobs, food, housing, medical care, income, and wealth, as compared with the numbers and desires of the people who want these goods.

The other side of the coin is that there may be too many burdens, such as unpleasant work, drudgery, substandard housing, health injuries of various sorts, and not enough people willing to shoulder them.

If there were enough goods to satisfy everyone’s desires and enough people willing to share society’s burdens, then conflicts between people would not arise and distributive justice would not be needed.

When people’s desires and aversions exceed the adequacy of their resources, they are forced to develop principles for allocating scarce benefits and undesirable burdens in ways that are just and that resolve the conflicts in a fair way. The development of such principles is the concern of distributive justice.

The fundamental principle of distributive justice is that the like should be treated alike, the equals should be treated equally and the different should be treated differently.

More precisely, the fundamental principle of distributive justice may be expressed as follows:

"Individuals who are similar in all respects relevant to the kind of treatment in question should be given similar benefits and burdens, even if they are dissimilar in other irrelevant respects; and individuals who are dissimilar in a relevant respect ought to be treated dissimilarly, in proportion to their dissimilarity." (Velasquez 2012:113)​

Examples of distributive justice are awarding job promotions, selecting among applicants for school admission, drawing the line on who gets government aid, and picking the first string for a sports team.

Some common methods of distribution are identifying the most competent, “first come, first served,” taking turns, auctioning, equal shares, and being random. Often distributive justice is the fair distribution of burdens, as in deciding military conscription.

Distributive justice is practiced by those in positions of authority, those who have to decide “who gets what.” Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace.

Distributive justice requires those in authority to be of service to others. Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. Political leaders who do not really serve are opportunists. Business leaders who do not really serve are plunderers.

Distributive justice takes into account each individual’s need based on a true understanding of human nature, while also considering each individual’s merit and society’s need. The just society is not one in which there are always equal results.

For example, it is wrong to maintain that flat, arithmetical equality of income and wealth is a demand of justice.

In short, the principle of distributive justice refers to the fair and equitable distribution of social, political, and economic benefits and burdens, and the equal opportunity to benefit from the common good.

It is justice related to the proper ordering of proportional shares of or access to public goods, carried out by the state in its transactions with the individual and corporate members of the civil society.

According to Velasquez (2012) and Ohlsson and Przybylinski (2023), there are different ways of unpacking the general principle of distributive justice. They include:

• Justice as maximum utility (utilitarian justice),
• Justice as equality (egalitarian justice),
• Justice as contribution through corporeal functions (capitalist justice),
• Justice based on needs and abilities (socialist justice),
• Justice as maximum freedom (libertarian justice), and
• Justice as freedom qualified by rules of fairness (liberal justice).

Utilitarian justice

Promoters of utilitarian justice argue that in any situation the right course of action is the one that will provide many people with the greatest amount of benefits while minimizing harms.

This is a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis. On this view, actions and policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and the costs they will impose on society. Generally, the utilitarian principle holds that:

"An action is right from an ethical point of view, if and only if, the sum total of utilities produced by that act is greater than the sum total of utilities produced by any other act the agent could have performed in its place." (Velasquez 2012:84)​

This utilitarian principle assumes that we can somehow measure and add together the quantities of benefits produced by an action and then measure and subtract from those benefits the quantities of harm the action will produce.

Once we do this for every action we could take, we then chose the action that produces the greatest net benefits or the lowest net costs.

That is, utilitarianism assumes that any benefits or costs an action can produce can be measured on a common quantitative scale and then added or subtracted from each other.

One major problem with the utilitarianism theory is that it is very difficult to measure utility. How can we measure the different levels of utility for the different parties involved.

When we cannot determine which actions will give us the greatest amount of utility, then we cannot apply the utilitarianism principle.

Another problem is that some benefits or costs seem impossible to measure. How can we measure the value of health or life? When we cannot predict all the future benefits and costs we cannot measure the action.

Some other problem that can arise is that it may be unclear whether we should count something as a cost or as a benefit. Different people place different values on things. A cost to one can be seen as a benefit to another.

Finally, all benefits are measurable and this should imply that all benefits could be traded for equivalents of each other. However, this is not true since we do not place an equal value on all goods.

There are also non-economic goods; goods such as life, love, freedom, equality, health and beauty whose value is such that it cannot be measured in economic terms. We are not willing to trade these goods for any amount of economic goods because noneconomic goods cannot be measured in economic terms.

However, defenders of utilitarianism have a reply to these problems pointed out by critics.

They argue that, although utilitarianism requires accurate quantifiable measurements of all costs and benefits, this requirement can be relaxed when such measurements are not possible.

And that, there are several common-sense criteria that can be used to determine relative values of categories of goods. One such criterion depends on the distinction between instrumental and intrinsic goods.

Instrumental goods are things that are considered valuable because they lead to other good things. And intrinsic goods are things that are desirable independent of any other benefits they may produce.

Another common-sense criterion which is used by utilitarians to weigh goods turns on the distinction between needs and wants.

There are goods that we need to survive, basic needs like food, and there are goods that we want, desires like luxury goods. These luxury goods are called mere wants. Some things that we want are also the things that we need.

The best quantitative measure for the costs and benefits is in terms of their monetary equivalents. The value of a thing to a person is measured by the price. When we know how much everyone is willing to pay for several goods we can determine the average values items have in a group.

Using monetary values is also beneficial when taking into account uncertainty and the effects of time. However, there are also people against using monetary values because some things cannot be priced, such as health and life.

The utilitarians say that when market prices cannot provide quantitative data for decisions, other sorts of quantitative measures are available.

According to some critics the major difficulty of utilitarianism is that it is unable to deal with moral issues related to rights and related to justice. Utilitarianism ignores the importance of these two aspects of ethics.

Concerning rights, where right is defined as individual entitlements to freedom of choice and well-being, utilitarianism may let us approve an act that is morally wrong and is a violation of a person’s right.

Concerning justice, where justice is defined as distributing benefits and burdens fairly among people, utilitarianism can lead to harm when it is applied to situations that involve justice.

Egalitarian justice

Promoters of egalitarian justice argue that there are no relevant differences among people that can justify unequal treatment.

Everyone in a society should receive exactly equal shares of the benefits and burdens. Goods should be allocated to people in exactly equal proportions.

According to the egalitarians, all benefits and burdens should be
distributed according to the following formula:

"Every person should be given exactly equal shares of a society’s or a group’s benefits and burdens." (Velasquez 2012:114)​

The principle of egalitarianism is not only applied in society but also in smaller groups or organizations. Many people view equality as a social ideal.

However, there are also people that criticize this principle. These critics claim that there is no quality that all humans possess and therefore it is not possible that all human beings are equal.

Other critics argue that this principle ignores need, ability and effort in the distribution of goods. When everyone in society is given exactly the same goods then there is no incentive to put more effort in work.

Egalitarians make a distinction between two different kinds of equality: Political equality: equal participation in and treatment by the political system. Economic equality: equality of income, wealth and opportunity.

The critics that others have had on egalitarians are against economic equality and not against political equality.

Capitalist justice

Promoters of capitalist justice argue that each individual should receive benefits in proportion to its contribution to the society, group, task or exchange.

The more a person contributes the more benefits he should receive. This principle is the most widely used principle of fairness to establish salaries and wages. In a more simple statement, capitalist justice requires that:

"Benefits should be distributed according to the value of the contribution the individual makes to a society, a task, a group, or an exchange." (Velasquez 2012:116)​

So, to determine what each individual gets we have to determine what the value of contribution of each individual is. This can be measured in terms of work effort. The more effort people put in their work, the greater the share of benefits they receive will be.

However, capitalist justice ignores the needs of people vulnerable members of the society such as the sick, the elderly and the young, whose productivity is negligible or impossible. Therefore this position is by many seen as unjust to this extent.

Socialist justice

The promoters of socialist justice argue that burdens should be distributed based on people’s abilities and benefits should be distributed based on people’s needs.

Work should be redistributed so that each person can be as productive as possible. Benefits are used to promote human happiness and well-being. The socialist principle, then, can be paraphrased as follows:

"Work burdens should be distributed according to people’s abilities, and benefits should be distributed according to people’s needs." (Velasquez 2012:117)​

It seems logical that we should take needs and abilities into account when distributing benefits and burdens.

People should work in a company that fits their ability and people that are less healthy should receive more contributions. However, there are opponents to this socialist principle.

One critique they have is that according to the principle there would be no relation between the effort of a worker and the remuneration the worker receives.

They argue that workers would have no incentive to work harder if there is no relation between effort and remuneration.

Another objection is that if the socialist principle would hold then it would destroy freedom.

The occupation that a person would enter would depend on his ability according to his principle, and not on free choice.

Also the goods the individual receives are not determined by free choice.

Libertarian justice

According to libertarian justice there is no specific way of distributing goods that can said to be just or unjust apart from the free choices individuals make.

A distribution is just as it is the result of individuals that can freely choose and trade the goods they want.

This principle argues that the right to freedom from coercion is the most important right a person has.

The basic principle of libertarian distributive justice can be summarized as follows:

“From each according to what he chooses to do, to each according to what he makes for himself and what others choose to do for him and choose to give him of what they’ve been given previously and haven’t yet expended or transferred.” (Velasquez 2012:119)​

Opponents of this view argue that also other forms of freedom must be secured. They also claim that the libertarianism principle will generate unjust treatment of the disadvantaged.

Liberal justice

The principles of liberal justice can be summarized by saying that a distribution of benefits and burdens is just if, the following principles hold true:

Firstly, each person’s liberties must be protected from invasion by others and must be equal to those of others. This is called the principle of equal liberty.

Secondly, social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they improve the position of the least advantaged person. This is called the difference principle.

And thirdly, everyone should be given an equal opportunity to qualify for the more privileged positions in society’s institutions. This is called the principle of fair equality and opportunity.

Generally, the principles of liberal distributive justice can be paraphrased by saying that:

“The distribution of benefits and burdens in a society is just, if and only if: (1) Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for all, and (2) Social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they are both (a) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity." (Velasquez 2012:121)​

According to this theory, Principle (1) is supposed to take priority over Principle (2) if the two of them ever come into conflict, and within Principle (2), Part (b) is supposed to take priority over Part (a).

To understand the phrase “fair equality of opportunity” in various sector of human life we need to clarify the term “opportunity.”

Generally, opportunities can be analyzed as a specific kind of relationship between subjects and objects in a given sector of human relations.

The subjects are individuals that have an opportunity for accessing certain objects, namely the goods that are to be distributed.

By applying this conceptual framework to the sector of educational justice, where we talk of educational opportunities, we can easily see that, the objects are educational outcomes.

This implies that, in education, we should ensure that all children have the achievements necessary for equal citizenship. These achievements provide opportunities that encompass but go beyond opportunities for employment. They also encompass opportunities for political, civic and social participation.

So, the phrase “fair equality of opportunity” can be changed to read “fair equality of educational opportunity.”

Similarly, we can talk of “fair equality of healthcare opportunity,” “fair equality of political opportunity,” “fair equality of economic opportunity,” and so on.

In short, this theory of liberal justice brings the approaches of justice discussed so far together. This theory provides us with a general method for evaluating the adequacy of moral principles.

The defenders of liberal justice provide the following arguments to cement their position:

That, the theory preserves the basic values embedded in our moral beliefs: freedom, equality of opportunity and concern for the disadvantaged.

That, the theory matches well with the basic economic institutions both in free market economy and coordinated market economy.

That, the theory incorporates the communitarian and individualistic strains of the human rights culture.

And that, the theory takes into account the criteria of need, ability, effort and contribution.

The principle of subsidiarity

Furthermore, it should be noted that, the principles of liberal justice demand that the principle of subsidiarity is respected.

According to the principle of subsidiarity, the government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently.

It should not replace or destroy smaller communities and individual initiative. Rather it should help them to contribute more effectively to social well-being and supplement their activity when the demands of justice exceed their capacities.

Accordingly, liberal justice rules out the one extreme of rugged individualism or absolute libertarianism which ignores the common good.

Individual liberty sometimes hurts the common good because of fallen human nature.

Similarly, liberal justice rules out the other extreme of collectivism as epitomized in Communism and Nazism, which squashes liberty, personal property, and creativity.

Communism and Nazism also stifle personal responsibility to grow in virtue, except for the “virtue” of always obeying the government since collectivism inevitably leads to concentrating all authority in the government.

Collectivism violates the principle of subsidiarity and obliterates the many non-governmental associations and institutions that are needed for the common good.

Stock-taking on the principles of justice

So far we have seen that, social justice covers the comprehensive context, the overall social order, in which the agents involved in commutative, contributive and distributive justice carry on their activities along with those involved in other forms of association.

At this point, an attempt to integrate the principles of utility, rights and justice will suggest that, somehow moral judgment should simultaneously be based on:

Maximizing the net utility of our actions, since it is important that we do not waste the resources that we have; respecting the moral rights of individuals and treat them proper; and ensuring a just distribution of benefits and burdens among the members of a group.

Our space of standards of justice consists of these three basic moral considerations.

Moral standards related to justice are more important than moral standards of utilitarian considerations and moral standards of caring are more important than moral standards of impartiality.

However, the criteria for determining which moral standards are most important remain rough and intuitive. A decision must be collectively made.

This is what Nyerere did when he persuaded his followers to formulate the principles of social justice as laid down in the Arusha declaration and later in the state constitution of 1977.

Principles of justice in our constitution

The idea of social justice forms the bedrock of a great deal of thinking about morality in Tanzania's constitution and the history that preceded it.

It is for this reason that, through the Arusha Declaration, Nyerere (1967) taught that, "every individual has the right to receive a just return for his labour" and that "in order to ensure economic justice the state must have effective control over the principal means of production."

This teaching was later embedded in the state constitution(1977), under article 8(1), according to which, "the United Republic of Tanzania is a state which adheres to the principles of democracy and social justice."

Then, article 9(h) of the said constitution further explains the national vision of justice in the following terms:

"The object of this Constitution is to facilitate the building of the United Republic as a nation of equal and free individuals enjoying freedom, justice, fraternity and concord, through the pursuit of the policy of Socialism and Self-Reliance which emphasizes the application of socialist principles while taking into account the conditions prevailing in the United Republic. Therefore, the state authority and all its agencies are obliged to direct their policies and programmes towards ensuring ... that all forms of injustice, intimidation, discrimination, corruption, oppression or favouritism are eradicated."​

In short, Nyerere was a staunch believer in social justice, which he pursued through coordinated market capitalism, as opposed to President Samia's free market capitalism, which is unconstitutional. The two are incompatible.

XII. A legal argument

Every state must have its own beliefs, norms, and values related to a set of human acts which are regarded as sufficiently menacing to its fundamental interests to justify formal reaction to restrain the violator by passing a law that imposes a criminal penalty (criminal law). Nyerere was a staunch believe in the rule of law and good governance, but President Samia is not.

XIII. An argument from human sexuality

Every state must have its own beliefs, norms, and values related to sexual libido management and its role in facilitating interpersonal bonding through sexual acts, intergenerational unity through babe making and body-self integration through a complete sexual response cycle (sexology).

According to the state constitution, each and every Tanzanian shall not denigrate ontological human equality (Constitution, 12(1)).

We also believe that, polyandrous polygamy and polygynous polygamy denigrate human equality between males and females.

Thus, it follows logically that polyandrous polygamy and polygynous polygamy are violative of article 12(1) of the constitution.

Moreover, we know that, there are de-jure and de-facto practices in Tanzania which condone polyandrous polygamy and polygynous polygamy.

Thus, it is right to conclude that, de-jure and de-facto practices in Tanzania which condone polyandrous polygamy and polygynous polygamy are unconstitutional.

The Father of the Nation, Julius Kambarage Nyerere stood firm on this matter.

However, President Samia has repudiated this position by theoretically and practically encouraging polygamy, hence a violation of the constitution she vowed to uphold.

XIV. An axiological argument

Every state must have its own beliefs, norms, and values related to what is good and what is bad for humanity.


XV. An ecological argument

Every state must have its own beliefs, norms, and values related to the governance of the interaction between humans and their planetary environment (ecology). Nyerere was a staunch believe in environmental conservation and climate management, but President Samia is not.

XVI. An epistemological argument

"Every person (a) has a freedom of opinion and expression of his ideas; (b) has a right to seek, receive and, or disseminate information regardless of national boundaries; (c) has the freedom to communicate and a freedom with protection from interference from his communication; and (d) has a right to be informed at all times of various important events of life and activities of the people and also of issues of importance to the society" (The Constitution of Tanzania (1977), article 18).​

“Basic rules of ethics for public leaders shall … prescribe any other provisions as are appropriate or necessary for the purpose of promoting and maintaining honesty, transparency, impartiality and integrity in the conduct of public affairs and for the protection of public funds and any other public property (The Constitution of Tanzania (1977), article 132(5)).​

For two humans, the message sender and the message recipient, to make a successful communication, they must use words which are signs that represent the ideas located in their minds, where these signs carry a specific meaning as understood by the message originator and the message receiver.

Communication will be unsuccessful if, either one of them does not understand the meaning of the words used, or each of them, the message sender and the message recipient, severally, assigs different meanings to the words used.

So, in a democracy, everyone can say whatever they want and the outcomes of such free expression may not not be all the same. Some may be empirically unfounded. Others may be inconsistent, fallacious, or contradictory.

Moreover, such communications may be accompanied with malinformation in its different forms.

There are those participants who are truthful and there are those who lie intentions and bring about disinformation.

Some people lie unintentionally and hence bring about misinformation.

These challenges of malinformation, disinformation and misinformation raise problems and understandable concerns with respect to the common good of truth.

How can we make collective choices that effectively affect reality without reference to and proper use of the concept of truth?

The answer is that, every society must define her objective standards of truth and falsehood, transparency and opacity, so as to make sure that democratic citizen are capable of communicating properly about public policies which are fully aligned to their true needs and welfare.

Our constitutional right to be told truth

In light of the above constitutional provisions, it is generally acknowledged by many right minded thinkers that citizens of Tanzania have a certain need for truth.

This need for truth is as a source of rights for truth that should be protected by society.

This is the case since, the concept of truth is important in public debates by activists, jurists, politicians, and and theologians who use it in discussing social problems, responsive public policies, related laws, and human rights in general.

From this perspective, an examination of the right to truth reveals, and many thinkers acknowledge, that the concept of truth does not inform only one right, but an entire system of connected human rights.

For this reason, thinkers have proposed a bundle of human right to truth, also konown as espitemic rights sometimes.

On the view proposed by D'Agostini(2021), at an abstract level, the "right to truth" is the right of a citizen to be correctly informed, not to be misled or deceived or kept in the dark about relevant issues. She argues that, at a concrete leveol, it entails a plurality of rights.

This bundle of epistemic rights results from the fact that the use of the concept of "truth" as when we say that "this is true," or we ask "is this true?," generates different goods and needs, which should be protected and satisfied jointly, by politics and law.

On this view, she suggests, we do not only need to know how things stand, but we also need to have criteria to distinguish truth from falsity; we need to be considered reliable sources of truth; we need to trust the institutional sources of information; and we need to live in cultural contexts in which there is clear and shared awareness about these needs.

The first epistemic right is the right of citizens to know the truth about relevant topics, so the right to be correctly informed, that is, not being deceived, misled, or kept in the dark about topics which are relevant to their lives.

Originally, it is a claim of individuals or groups against governments and authorities, involving an appeal to civil society or international institutions, but
one should intend it in a wider sense, as expressing the need that we all have to be protected from false, elusive or misleading communications.

As such, the obligation claimed by this right invests individuals as well as media and public sources of information in general with a duty to tell truth.

The second epistemic right is the right to be in the conditions of evaluating the information one receives by having criteria and critical skills to select true contents.

It is the right to be in the condition of judging and searching for truth. This is for instance the right of school attendance, which should ideally guarantee the acquisition of basic information about natural and human world, but also the acquisition of means of improving one’s knowledge, and critically judging the information one receives.

A country in which the educational system is inefficient or lacking in one of these requisites suffers an epistemic deficit

The third epistemic right is the right of citizens to be acknowledged as reliable sources of truth, so not to suffer a credibility deficit.

Any human being is to be considered, in principle, a good conveyer of true information. If this right is violated, the person suffers a credibility deficit, which is damaging for her, and for the entire community in which she lives.

The fourth epistemic right is the right of citizens to have reliable educational and media institutions, so being in the condition of evaluating a thesis, a theory, or an epistemic agent (person or institution) as a conveyer of true information.

Human societies have different ways of conferring credibility: awards, public offices, responsibility positions, spaces of public intervention, etc.

When these credibility institutions are corrupted (so that the aim of truth is systematically submitted to other values and aims) the fourth epistemic right is violated.

The fifth epistemic right is the right of citizens to live in a social context in which all epistemic rights are openly protected and safeguarded.

This right can also be defined as the right to have structures, norms and rules specifically addressed to satisfy the human need for truth in its diverse aspects.

And the sixth epistemic right is the right of citizens to live in a culture in which the human need for truth is acknowledged, and there is general awareness about the role of truth in human life.

This is is the right to live in a cultural context in which people are aware of the nature of the concept of truth, they do not ignore its pervasive power, and its importance for public and private life; they are specifically aware of how misuses of believed truths can be disruptive for the wellbeing of individuals and communities.

As it may be noted, the first four epistemic rights are already safeguarded, at least in principle and in some respect. In democratic societies there is general attention to protect people from deceit and to promote the public acknowledgment of truth.

Following the increase of communication in the digitalized world, new measures have been activated in various ways and contexts to safeguard the first two epistemic rights.

There are rules, principles and committees that prevent epistemic discrimination, hence protecting the third right, and provide for the epistemic self-regulation of academic institutions, hence protection of the fourth right.

So formally, the first four rights are protected, which means that in a sense also the fifth right, that is, the right to live in a cultural context in which these problems are under the attention of the public sphere, is envisaged.

Only the sixth epistemic right appears to be "new," to some extent, but it expresses, ultimately, the condition that grounds all the previous rights.

In fact, the epistemic rights theory proposed by D'Agostini(2021) is not meant to propose new rights, rather to explore the interests and needs involved in the human rights system, to explain why epistemic rights are justified and there must be attention about them.

In short, the said six epistemic rights do not form a list of separate principles and requirements, rather they constitute, altogether, a system of interrelated claims, corresponding to strictly connected needs.

In other words, all of the epistemic rights D'Agostini(2021) mentions are premised on then claim that people have a duty to use the concept of truth in the most profitable way, for themselves and for the community.

Concretely, this duty is articulated in a series of different claims. One, she claims that, people should not be deceived or misled by distorted communications, and they should not be kept in the dark about relevant themes.

Two, she claims that, people should be provided with critical means to distinguish true from false or untrue communications.

Three, she argyes that, there must be reliable social institutions which are positively oriented to search for truth, and which favour people’s ability to access truth.

Four, she claims that, people need to live in a cultural context that positively addresses the safeguarding of these epistemic rights, and they also need to live in a context in which there is a general awareness about the epistemic rights, and about the power truth holds in determining our lives.

The basic distinction regards three spheres in which the action of truth is socially and politically relevant.

They are the sphere of information and communication, the sphere of epistemic institutions, and the sphere of culture. So, the specific duty bearers are people who are cources of information in each sphere.

D'Agostini(2021) concludes that, her six epistemic rights express six essential features of a good and authentic democracy, meaning that, safeguarding these epistemic rights is the an essential condition of democratic justice.

She suggests three points. One, that, it is practically impossible to defend epistemic rights if people are not educated to cultivate a critical awareness for distinguishing right and wrong, good or bad beliefs.

Two, that, it is impossible to give people critical means if the academic institutions do not guarantee the credibility of truly reliable theories, and they cannot do so if they are not truth-oriented in their research and educational activities.

And three, that, it is impossible to nurture epistemic rights, if the juridical and political culture is not positively concerned with the acknowledgement, legitimation and formalization of the related rights. Watson (2021) supports this view.

Difference between truth and falsehood

The claim that citizens have a right to truth is question begging concerning the concept of "truth." What is truth?

Philosophically, there are four complementary theories of what truth is. They all support the above discussion in relation to the citizen's right to truth.

They are: correspondence, conventionalism, coherence, and pragmatism. Considering them will help us to grasp the fundamental nature of truth.

According to correspondence theory of truth, a proposition or a belief ‘P’ is True if and only if it corresponds to facts as natural facts as opposed to social facts.

Concerning natural facts, dominant philosophers provide a list which entails an ontological framework having a four-fold classification of the denizens of reality, namely, particular substrates (objects), universal substrates (kinds), particular attributes (tropes) and universal attributes (properties). (Lowe 2006:8,60)

According to conventionalism theory of truth, a proposition or a belief ‘P’ is True if and only if it corresponds to social facts as opposed to natural facts, where, the former refers to mutually agreed facts via human consensus or majority vote.

In this case, the word “social” refers to the entirety of what is made by human beings, including the products of human work and artistry.

On this view, the subject of the social sciences, the world of social and institutional facts has its origin and development in human behaviour and interpersonal acceptance.

These social facts form a portion of the real world. They are objective facts in the world that are only facts by human agreement. Thus, there are things that exist only because we humans believe them to exist.

For example, state presidents, works of art and good manners do not exist out of themselves. They are facts only by human agreement.

That is, there must be people who believe that there are state presidents, works of art, and good manners and who demonstrate this regularly by their behavior. (Searle 1965,1969,1975,1983,1995,2004,2007,2010)

According to coherence theory of truth a proposition or a belief ‘P’ is True if ‘P’ is coherent with other propositions or beliefs that we have already accepted (or with “the whole” of our knowledge);

And according to pragmatism theory of truth a proposition or belief ‘P’ is True if it is useful to believe that p (or if to believe that p is crowned by success). Let us discuss each.

Truth as correspondence

The correspondence view of truth holds that something is true if and only if it corresponds to the way things actually are in the real world.

That is, truth is what is actually out there. If I say, “Canada is the northernmost country in North America,” my statement is true if and only if there is a country called Canada, a continent known as North America, a direction we identify as north, and the country called Canada is in the continent of North America and truly occupies the northernmost part of said continent.

On this view, an essential feature of a human thought is that it can be true or false. It embodies a condition that the world either satisfies or fails to satisfy. This conception has its home in a view of the world as objective and independent of our experience and of our thinking. A thought must be true or false independently of our judgment. It is just this feature of thoughts which makes our grasp of them an indispensable ingredient of our awareness of the world. It is this which opens up the external world to us.

To take a different example, consider the worldview belief that there is a divine being responsible for the original creation of the universe.

Under the correspondence theory of truth, that worldview belief is true only if the universe is, in fact, a created entity. That is, it is not self-existent or self-created and there exists a supernatural, that is a nonmaterial, being that itself is not a part of the universe but rather created the universe.

Correspondence is a common-sense approach to the nature of truth. Indeed, it is the way we intuitively understand the concept of truth. Relativism may have eroded acceptance of correspondence, but it is still the most valuable theory available.
Truth as convention

The conventional theory of truth is premised on the contrast between “brute facts”, facts that are totally independent of any human opinions, and “social facts” or “institutional facts,” which are so called because they require human choice for their existence.

According to Searl (1995:41), the central span on the bridge from physics to society is collective intentionality, and the decisive movement on that bridge in the creation of social reality is the collective intentional imposition of function on entities that cannot perform those functions without that imposition.

On this view, we live in a world made up entirely of physical particles in fields of force. Some of these are organized into systems. Some of these systems are living systems and some of these living systems have evolved consciousness.

With consciousness comes intentionality, the capacity of the organism to represent objects and states of affairs in the world to itself.

Thus, within this ontology, we must distinguish between “brute facts” and “social facts” or “institutional facts.”

Institutional facts involve intentionality. In particular, they involve not simply the intentionality of individuals but a special form that this intentionality takes, namely, “collective intentionality” as opposed to “individual intentionality.”

The point here is that, certain intentional states that individuals have take a first person plural form. They are not simply of the form “I intend that p” or “I believe that p” but “We intend that p” or “We believe that p.”

Such collective intentionality is critical to understanding “institutional facts,” since it plays a crucial role in assigning meaning or “status functions” to particular “brute facts.”

Status functions are functions assigned to brute facts that those brute facts have and can perform only because we have collectively assigned them that function.

One way in which to express this point about the collective ascription of status functions to brute facts is by saying that we use “constitutive rules” of the form “X counts as Y” in order to assign a status function to some piece of the physical world and so create an “institutional fact.”

By two or more individuals sharing first person plural intentional states, whether they are intentions, beliefs, or desires, that assign status functions, those individuals are able to create social or institutional facts.

Such facts form clusters or networks, have a normative dimension to them (either in terms of what they require or in terms of what they allow), and can come to guide the actions of both those sharing the first person plural intentional states that generate them as well as those who simply grasp the social reality that such facts constitute.

A common example of institutional fact is the institution of money which is accepted and used in a given country.

Other examples include the following social phenomena: marriage, property, hiring, firing, war, revolutions, cocktail parties, governments, meetings, unions, parliaments, corporations, laws, restaurants, vacations, lawyers, professors, doctors, taxes, sports and games.

In short, in our world, the world we live in, we can distinguish two sorts of facts, ‘brute’ facts and ‘institutional’ facts.

The brute facts are those facts of the world that exist wholly independent of us. This means that, although we have to make these facts intelligible to be able to speak about them, the factual objects themselves are not dependent on the human social environment. Think of brute facts as being objects in the sense of mountains, sand, atoms, etc.

We could also call these ‘brute’ facts, primitive facts. They are primitive, for they are not depending on a complex social environment for their existence.

The institutional facts are, as their name already hints at, dependent on human institutions for their existence. Searle’s most used example is money.

The one dollar bill as a piece of paper has no value whatsoever, it is, however, in the institution of a monetary economy, that we have placed value upon this piece of paper.

Now that we have set the basic distinction between “brute reality,” and “social reality,” it is time to discuss the main building blocks for social reality.

The fundamental “traits” for the constitution of social reality are; the assignment of function, the use of constitutive rules, and most importantly, collective and individual intentionality.

A function is imposed upon an object. It is external to the object itself, and thus not an inherent part of that object.

In the use of language we impose a specific function, namely, that of representing, onto marks and sounds.

Not only can humans impose functions on “natural” objects, they can also impose functions on objects especially designed for this purpose. The assignment of functions is always intentional, and thus observer-relative.

It is important to note that, an institutional fact exists by the grace of rules. We distinguish regulative rules and constitutive rules.

The regulative rules regulate the things that are, while constitutive rules constitute a certain thing.

Examples are, respectively, the rule that we all drive on the right hand side to regulate traffic flows, and the rules of the games of chess that are constitutive for the game itself, for without those rules there would be no game of chess.

The constitutive rule s also that type of rule that provides the possibility for creating institutional facts. It generally has the form; X counts as Y in context C.

An object or property X gets the symbolic meaning Y in a certain context C.

In this formula, we can discover the other two elements of social reality: within a certain context C, there is a collective intentional stance towards object X, upon which there has been imposed a certain function (F), such that the object X, within context C, means Y.

This is how, the imposition of function, the constitutive rules, and collective intentionality, together form the basis for the construction of social reality as opposed to brute reality.

Truth as coherence

According to the coherence view of truth, a belief is true if and only if it coheres with other beliefs one holds. That is, to be true something has to fit with what one already accepts as being true.

It is important to make a quick detour to explain the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions, a distinction that we will come back to throughout the remainder of this chapter.

A necessary condition is such that it is required in order for the outcome to be obtained.

For example, one might correctly say that clouds are a necessary condition for snow to occur.

To say that clouds are a necessary condition for snow is to say that it will never snow unless there are clouds in the sky.

To use a different example, one might also say that death is a necessary condition for murder to have occurred. That is, someone cannot have been murdered if they are not in fact dead.

In both examples, I have identified conditions that are necessary but not sufficient.

Clouds are necessary for there to be snow, and death is necessary for there to have been murder, but neither is a sufficient condition.

A sufficient condition is such that obtaining that condition is all that is required in order for the outcome to be obtained.

For example, being enrolled and present in my epistemology class is a sufficient condition for being a Dar University student.

Taking a course this semester at Dar University is sufficient to establish your identity as an OBU student.

Sometimes sufficient conditions can be established by flipping necessary conditions around.

Thus, for example, I noted that death is a necessary but not sufficient condition for murder to have occurred. That is, one cannot have been murdered if one is not dead.

Flip those terms around, and you can see that having been murdered is a sufficient but not necessary condition for being dead. That is, if one has been murdered, one certainly is dead.

Coherence certainly seems to be a necessary condition for truthfulness.

If one holds as worldview presuppositions both (a) that the universe is composed solely of material things and (b) that human beings are dualistic compositions of material body and nonmaterial soul, then one holds fundamentally contradictory beliefs. The beliefs do not cohere together and thus cannot both be true.

Coherence is not, however, a sufficient condition for truthfulness. The primary problem with a coherence theory of truth is its inevitable relativism.

One’s own worldview can be examined for coherence and hence truthfulness, but it would appear to be impossible to compare worldview beliefs for relative truth value.

A Christian who believes that Jesus was raised from the dead by God the Father can hold that belief coherently within his own worldview.

A Muslim who believes that Allah vindicated Jesus and rescued him from death on the cross may be able to hold that belief coherently within his own worldview.

But under the coherence theory of truth on its own, one cannot judge which worldview belief about Jesus is true.

One can only say that a set of beliefs is coherent and thus possibly true, or that it is incoherent and therefore necessarily false. Truth is necessarily coherent, but coherence does not necessarily entail truth.

Truth as pragmatism

The pragmatic view of truth holds that what works, or what is fruitful, is true.

If a belief leads to further understanding or virtuous living or whatever else is held as working or being fruitful: one of the inherent difficulties with pragmatism is delineating what conditions must be met for something to be pragmatically beneficial, then that belief is true. If a belief has no pragmatic value but rather leads to an epistemological or ethical dead end, then it is not true.

Pragmatism capitalizes on the essential insight that truth ought to have some “cash value,” some identifiable benefit.

The pragmatic view of truth has been particularly influential in philosophy of science where often known as instrumentalism it suggests that a scientific theory is more likely to be true or approximately true if it is fruitful for further research, predictive success, or technological improvements.

There are significant problems, however, with a strictly pragmatic view of truth.

First, pragmatism holds that something is true if it works or is fruitful. But who determines or delineates what it means for a belief or worldview to work or to be fruitful?

One person might insist that belief in God “works” because it helps that person lead a fulfilled life, with peace and joy in the midst of uncertainty and trial.

Another person insists that such criteria simply demonstrate that God belief is an emotional crutch, indicating a flaw in the individual.

Second, pragmatism, like coherence, leads inevitably to a relativistic view of truth. If Christianity “works” for one person, but naturalism “works” for someone else, then both beliefs are true for the individual who holds them.

Pragmatic value, then, is another necessary but not sufficient condition for truthfulness. Truth in worldview must transcend pragmatism.

Criteria for Worldview Analysis

One undertakes the task of analyzing and evaluating one’s worldview in order to obtain a truer understanding of reality and thereby live a more consistent life.

As in other areas of life, truth in worldview is not relative to the individual but is rather an objective reality.

Though the correspondence theory of truth is the superior starting point, insights can be gleaned from each of the three theories of truth (Naugle 2002).

Along with the correspondence theory of truth, we affirm that a worldview can only be true if it reflects what is actually real.

Individual components of a worldview, by the same token, are true only insofar as they correspond to the objective world.

Worldview beliefs are true when the answers they provide to the fundamental worldview questions reflect what is actually the case.

On the other hand, if worldview beliefs are contradictory to known facts about the real world, then those beliefs are necessarily false.

Along with the coherence theory of truth, we affirm that a worldview can only be true if it is internally consistent or coherent.

Individual components of a worldview, by the same token, are true only insofar as they are logically consistent with other true worldview presuppositions.

On the other hand, if two beliefs within a worldview contradict one another, then at least one of those worldview components is necessarily false.

Along with the pragmatic theory of truth, we affirm that a worldview can only be true if it is livable—that is, if a person can live with integrity and purpose within that worldview.

Individual components of a worldview, by the same token, are true only insofar as the individual can consistently live out those beliefs.

On the other hand, if the logical implications of a worldview belief simply cannot be lived out with integrity, then that belief is necessarily false.

In order to arrive at a truer understanding of the world, one can engage in worldview analysis, evaluation, and examination.

By subjecting our own worldview beliefs and those of others to various tests for truth, we can arrive at a fuller, more complete understanding of the world.

If worldview is the conceptual lens through which we see, understand, and interpret the world and our place within it, then it is incumbent on us as thoughtful and intentional people to ensure that we are wearing the right lenses.

Can we attain a perfectly true worldview in all its aspects? Probably not, but we can certainly evaluate the worldview we do hold and bring it into closer conformity to the truth.

At any rate, our inability to attain a fully true worldview seems a poor excuse for not bothering to try.

To pursue worldview truth, we suggest three worldview tests—internal consistency, external consistency, and existential consistency.

The three worldview tests for truth draw on insights from the correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic views of truth.

Each of the worldview tests is a necessary but not sufficient condition for worldview truth.

If, however, a worldview or components of a worldview passes all three tests with flying colors, it becomes highly probable that the worldview is an accurate, beneficial view of reality.

Internal consistency: logical coherence

A worldview must make sense of itself. If the tenets of a worldview fit together, that worldview or those worldview components is more likely to be true.

If, on the other hand, two worldview beliefs are logically incoherent, those worldview components cannot possibly both be true.

The worldview coherence test refers to and depends on the fundamental laws of logic—the law of noncontradiction, the law of the excluded middle, and the law of identity.

The law of noncontradiction observes that something cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and place in the same manner.

For example, the red object on my office desk this morning cannot be both an apple and a non-apple.

The law of identity states with deceptive simplicity that something is what it is.

According to the law of identity, then, if that red object on my desk is in fact an apple, then it must actually be an apple.

It cannot be something other than what it is. If, however, it is in fact not an apple but rather a pear-apple, then it would not actually be an apple at all; rather, it would be a non-apple.

The law of the excluded middle, meanwhile, is the logical observation that any proposition must be either true or false.

If I state, “there is a red apple on my desk right now,” that statement is either true or false. It is true if, in fact, it corresponds to reality—if there really is a red apple on my desk.

If there is not a red apple on my desk right now, then the propositional statement is false.

What the statement cannot be is neither true nor false. If the red object on my desk is not actually an apple but rather a pear-apple, then my statement is false.

Even if I am convinced that the object on my desk is an apple, when in reality it is a pear apple, my statement is still false.

If, however, I state, “I believe there is a red apple on my desk right now,” then the statement would be true even if I have mistaken the pear-apple for an apple.

The laws of logic are essential for all reasoning and discourse. You cannot exchange ideas or seek to discuss intelligible matters without relying on them.

Some worldview components run into immediate problems with the laws of logical thought.

For example, the anecdote opening this chapter illustrates the logical problems inherent to moral relativism.

The moral relativist argues that moral standards are different for different individuals or cultures.

The moral relativist goes on to insist that the difference in moral standards is not merely descriptive (i.e., describing the way morals are actually practiced by different people or cultures) but prescriptive.

That is, the relativist argues that there is no overarching, objective standard of morality that delivers ethical duties and responsibilities(dos and don’ts) to individuals.

Thus, if one culture practices incest while another designates it a taboo, neither culture is right in an absolute or objective sense.

There is no universal standard; there are only individual or cultural standards for morality.

Relativists run into immediate problems when someone cuts them off in traffic, or fails them for a well-written philosophical position paper, or punches them in the nose.

Typical relativists will insist that something “wrong” has been done to them in each case.

To expand the problem, the relativist will also likely agree that it was wrong for the Nazis to execute millions of Jews in concentration camps, that it is wrong to cut off the left ear of every second baby girl born, and that it is wrong to own another human being as a personal slave todo with as you please.

But, of course, if relativists insist that those practices are wrong, they believe that they are wrong for all people in all cultures, not just for people who hold to their personal or cultural moral viewpoint.

Moral relativism, the way most individuals hold to it, is therefore incoherent; it holds two contradictory beliefs. For example:

• Premise 1: Owning another human being as a piece of personal property is objectively and absolutely wrong and should not be permitted.
• Premise 2: Thus (from premise 1), there is at least one moral fact that applies to all people trans-temporally and transculturally.
• Premise 3: There are (according to moral relativism) no absolute or objective moral standards that apply to all people transculturally and trans-temporally.
• Conclusion: There are no absolute moral standards, and there is at least one absolute moral standard.

By the laws of logic, if your original proposition in this case, the combination of two original worldview beliefs generates an explicit contradiction, it necessarily entails the falsity of the original proposition in this case, the falsity of at least one of the original worldview beliefs.

Thus, moral relativists are left with a dilemma: either their worldview belief in moral relativism is false, or their worldview belief that certain actions are objectively and absolutely wrong is false.

Either way, there is a contradiction within the worldview structure.

Worldview examination can bring such internal contradictions to light and enable the individuals to discern which worldview belief lies closer to the core of their worldview, or which belief is more soundly grounded rationally, evidentially, and existentially.

Worldview alteration or conversion can then follow to establish greater consistency.

Unfortunately, most professing moral relativists have never examined their worldview beliefs and are entirely unaware that they are embracing an impossible contradiction.

Moral relativism is not the only worldview component to suffer from logical incoherence.

Ronald Nash examines skepticism, logical positivism, determinism, physicalism, and evidentialism, exposing their violations of the law of noncontradiction.

Nash’s discussion of evidentialism is of particular interest. Evidentialism is the belief that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”

Evidentialism is not able to satisfy its own requirements and thus falls prey to self-refutation.

As a philosophical system, it implies the truth of two contradictory propositions: (1) It is immoral to believe any proposition without empirical proof. (2) It is moral to believe this proposition, even though there is no empirical proof for it.

Evidentialism, therefore, must be either revised or rejected as a component of worldview.

It is important to note that worldviews need to be altered only when there is an actual logical contradiction contained within worldview beliefs.

A perceived contradiction is not the same as an actual contradiction. For example, some non-Christians insist that the Christian view of the Trinity is logically incoherent.

The notion of one God existing in three persons, it is argued, makes no sense. It embraces two contradictory beliefs—the one-ness and three-ness of God.

However, the “contradiction” in the Trinity is only perceived, not actual. For it to be a contradiction, the Christian belief would have to be that the Trinity is both three gods and one god, or that God is both three persons and one person.

In actuality, however, the Christian belief is that the Trinity is three persons and one god. While difficult to work out conceptually, there is no actual contradiction within the belief.

If there were an actual contradiction, the logical argument would have to look something like this to demonstrate it.

• Premise 1. God exists as one Being.
• Premise 2. God exists as three Persons.
• Premise 3. Thus, God is one divine Being who exists as three Persons.
• Premise 4. Individual human persons each comprise one human being.
• Premise 5. It is impossible for individual human beings to be composed of more than one Person.
• Premise 6. Thus, it is impossible for one human being to exist as three Persons.
• Conclusion 1. Thus, it is impossible for one divine Being to exist as three Persons.
• Conclusion 2. Thus, if God is one divine Being, then God exists as one Person.
• Conclusion 3. Thus, it is false that God is one divine Being who exists as three Persons.

That is, the Christian conception of God’s triunity is logically incoherent.

All six premises seem, from a Christian view, to be clearly true. What, then, might be the problem?

Why doesn’t the argument show that Christian trinitarianism is incoherent?

The conclusion actually does not follow from the premises.

In fact, nothing at all regarding divine Being and persons follows from the six premises. There needs to be an intermediate premise:

• Premise 7. It is necessary to presume that what is true for human beings and persons also applies to divine Being and Persons.

With premise 7, you now have a connection between the six premises and the conclusions.

Problem? There is no reason to accept premise 7 as true. Indeed, from a Christian perspective, there seems to be good reason to deny the truthfulness of premise 7.

Even from other supernaturalist philosophical viewpoints, premise 7 will seem to be clearly false.

There is absolutely no reason to presume that the same conditions and limitations that apply to human personhood and being apply in the same way to the infinite, eternal God of the universe.

The first test for worldviews, then, is the test of logical coherence or internal consistency.

A worldview must make sense within itself if it is to be worthy holding. We take it to be intuitively preferable to avoid holding a set of beliefs when at least one of those beliefs must necessarily be false.

External consistency: evidential correspondence

In addition to making sense of itself, a worldview must make sense of reality. Worldviews, as narratives or conceptual constructs, must account for what we know about the world. (Samples 2007)

Our worldview should help us make sense of the world around us rather than present cognitive or existential dissonance in the face of external reality.

Thus, evidential correspondence, like logical coherence, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for worldview truth.

External consistency is a negative truth test: absence of external consistency indicates the falsity of the worldview or worldview components.

Thus, if a worldview says that x is true of the world while we are justifiably persuaded that x is not true of the world, then the worldview is probably false in that respect.

The alternative is that our perception of the world is false in that respect; that possibility must be seriously entertained.

I am assuming that the individual not only believes that x is not true of the world but has knowledge [justified true belief] that it is not true.

That is, his belief is matched by reality; it is true that x is not true of the world. And hehas justification or warrant for his belief that x is not true of the world.

A clarification is in order. It might seem at first glance that external consistency involves testing things only in the physical world—what Nash calls the “outer world.”

External consistency, however, refers to all things that are external to the worldview.

The test for internal consistency sets the tenets of a worldview side by side to discern whether they are logically coherent, i.e., whether they can even possibly all be true.

That test is applied only within the worldview—testing multiple beliefs within the worldview with one another to see whether they fit together.

The test for external consistency sets the worldview alongside reality, and reality is outside external to the worldview.

For example, I watch the sun rise. If my worldview declares that there are no such things as extraterrestrial bodies, such a stars, planets, etc, then my undeniable observation of an extraterrestrial body falsifies at least that aspect of my worldview.

That is an external test evidential correspondence that relates to Nash’s “outer world.”

If, on the other hand, my worldview declares that human beings do not need food to survive and will never experience desires for physical sustenance, then my undeniable experience of severe hunger pains after six days without food and water falsifies at least that aspect of my worldview.

That is an external test for evidential correspondence that relates to Nash’s “inner world.” Both sides of reality—the outer physical, empirical, five-senses world and the inner psychological, intuitive—matter when it comes to testing a worldview for external consistency.

Thus, to possess evidential correspondence, a worldview or worldview components must match up with the way things are in the empirically observable outer world as well as the subjectively experienced inner world. Failing to match up to either world reveals a lack of external consistency.

Many worldview beliefs seem to lack such evidential correspondence.

For example, worldviews that deny the reality of pain and death have difficulties explaining the inner world’s response to the body meeting a fast-moving bus in the outer world.

The worldview does not possess factual adequacy; it does not explain the universal experience of pain and death.

Others argue that a worldview that perceives human beings as determined runs counter to the strong intuition we all have of making truly free choices.

Others insist that a worldview that embraces an eternal or self-creating universe is falsified by scientific evidence demonstrating a spatiotemporal beginning to the universe at the Big Bang.

Others argue that belief in a relatively young universe less than ten thousand years runs afoul of overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old.

Others argue that a worldview belief that human life ends at physical death is falsified by the evidence of near-death experiences.

Others insist that a worldview that denies the existence of a divine creator fails in the face of empirical evidence of transcendent design.

Still others argue that a worldview that embraces the inherent goodness of all human beings is falsified by both introspection and the daily news.

Although the test of external consistency is crucial, it can be very difficult to apply.

Recall that worldview is generally formed pretheoretically; that is, an individual’s worldview is developed at a young age and is influenced by parents, cultural surroundings, education, and so forth.

One’s pre-theoretical worldview affects the way that one sees the surrounding world, including what is accepted as an external fact to begin with.

Thus, a naturalist with a belief that life ends at physical death will generally reject the evidential importance of near-death experiences (NDEs): the naturalist’s pool of live options rejects the very possibility that NDEs are valid.

A young-earth creationist who grows up with the belief that the universe is very young sees the earth as a recent creation by God.

Thus, scientific evidence pointing toward an ancient earth and universe will be either discounted (by confirmation bias) or reinterpreted (by experiential accommodation).

Either way, something may seem to me an external fact requiring explanation, but to someone with a different worldview it may not be a fact requiring explanation at all, or the explanation may be very different.

In this way, the pervading influence of worldview on our experience and interpretation of events and data can make it very difficult to apply the test of external consistency.

Nonetheless, all is not lost. As noted in chapter two, worldviews can be and are altered at both the peripheral and core levels.

Furthermore, if someone is both conscious of his worldview and willing to engage in intentional examination of his presuppositions, then it is possible to be persuaded to accept something as an external fact that had previously been ruled out of court.

Hence the importance of worldview thought and worldview study: if one is aware of one’s worldview, one can engage in reflective self-examination.

Why do I accept scientific evidence for the age of the universe? Why do I believe that human beings are inherently good? What are the external data that support my worldview beliefs?

Do I still think that x is a fact of the external world? Or do I think there is good reason to question x? If I reject x, what impact does it have on the rest of my worldview?

In sum, it is essential to be self-reflectively aware and to expose worldview to the test of external consistency or evidential correspondence.

If one’s worldview does not match up with reality, one needs to adjust one’s worldview beliefs accordingly.

Existential consistency: pragmatic satisfaction

We have seen that a worldview must make sense of itself and must make sense of the world around us.

Finally, in order to be a worldview worth holding, our worldview must make sense of life. We must be able to live consistently within our worldview. (Naugle 2002)

For example, consider the moral relativist depicted earlier in this chapter.

Most moral relativists will insist that certain practices slavery, torture, coldblooded murder are morally wrong for all people at all times, regardless of the perpetrator’s own moral beliefs.

However, belief in moral facts is inconsistent with the overarching embrace of moral relativism.

I noted earlier that the moral relativist therefore faces a dilemma: either moral relativism is false or the relativist’s moral intuitions about the objective wrongness of certain actions is mistaken.

Most relativists have never examined their beliefs critically and thus have never faced this dilemma.

Most relativists, when they are forced to face this dilemma, will acknowledge that moral relativism must not be absolutely true; there are, in fact, some moral standards that apply to all people in all places at all times.

Other moral relativists, however, will bite the bullet and acknowledge that it is their moral intuitions that are mistaken.

Sam Harris, a contemporary atheist philosopher and author, writes of an encounter with an educated moral relativist who insisted that one cannot morally condemn even the cultural practice of plucking out the eyes of every third child at birth since there are no transcultural moral standards that are binding on every one.

Harris, himself a moral realist, is aghast that someone would continue to affirm moral relativism rather than acknowledge what ought to be rationally and existentially obvious to any educated and virtuous person—that it is wrong in all places and at all times to perpetrate such horrors on a child.

How ought one respond to a moral relativist who denies the legitimacy of moral intuitions?

Avicenna, a medieval philosopher, humorously noted: “Any one who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.”

Perhaps his advice could be adapted to apply to the moral relativist: those who deny that some things are objectively wrong should be beaten and burned for fun until they admit that it is objectively wrong to beat and burn an individual for fun.

Moral relativists simply cannot live by their own precepts. Those who insist there is no transcendent right and wrong in one breath complain with their next breath that someone has treated them unfairly.

Pragmatic satisfaction, or existential consistency, is another difficult truth test for worldviews.

Whereas an observer might insist that a worldview is entirely unlivable, a proponent of that worldview might respond perhaps honestly that the worldview is quite subjectively satisfactory.

Nonetheless, pragmatic dissatisfaction is often a prime contributor to worldview self-examination.

This was certainly the case in my own worldview journey. As a young man, I developed a strongly held naturalistic worldview.

Two of the implications of my worldview, however, gave me deep existential angst: meaninglessness and postmortem extinction.

The attempts by philosophers and authors like Bertrand Russell and Albert Camus to insist that an atheist could find or construct meaning and purpose in life seemed to me quite hollow, empty, and self-contradictory: if my life ceased at death, and the universe was headed for a cold death, what difference could I possibly make, and what would be the point anyway?

Similarly, the reality of ceasing to exist at my physical death left me unsatisfied, with the feeling, amorphous but undeniable, that there ought to be more than this.

Similarly, some Christian theists first begin to doubt or examine their worldview because of existential inconsistency.

Their worldview, unconsciously held, suggests that they ought to experience God’s blessing in their life through peace, joy, health, and wealth.

When suffering comes, or material security is lost, their worldview does not match up with the circumstances in their lives, and existential dissonance increases.

Their worldview is not making sense of their life experience. Thus, something has to give. The belief that gives ought to be the expectation for sugar and spice and everything nice.

Nowhere does God promise his children health, wealth, and a life of ease. Indeed, Jesus promises trouble and tribulation for those who sincerely follow him.

Another aspect of existential consistency is worth mentioning, if only briefly.

Human beings ubiquitously have numerous existential needs—he enumerates eight self-directed needs and five other-directed needs.

An existentially consistent or pragmatically satisfying worldview will, it is argued, meet those existential needs rather than leaving them thwarted or unsatisfied.

If we have unshakable yearning for a deep meaning in life, a worldview that denies the existence of meaning in life will be existentially inconsistent.

We will not be able to sustain such a worldview. It could be argued that atheistic existentialism fails the test for existential consistency since it maintains that we can (must) construct some proximate meaning/purpose for ourselves while contending that we live in a cold and absurd universe devoid of transcendent meaning.

Conclusion

A worldview is the conceptual lens through which we see, understand, and interpret the world and our place within it. Whether in narrative or propositional format, a worldview answers four fundamental questions about life, the universe, and everything:

What is our nature? What is our world? What is our problem? What is our end? Worldview affects the way that we live, move, and have our being.

Through confirmation bias, worldview determines what evidence and arguments we accept as valid and worth incorporation.

Through experiential accommodation, worldview adjusts arguments and evidence to fit our preconceptions.

Through the pool of live options, worldview determines what we will consider as plausible explanations for a given event or experience. And through life motivation, worldview gives direction to our thoughts, choices, and actions.

An unexamined worldview is not worth living. We all want to hold a true worldview. We may never achieve an entirely true worldview, but we dare not use that as an excuse to avoid examining our worldview.

It is incumbent on thoughtful, intentional individuals to scrutinize their worldview—in its components as well as its overarching whole—to assess its truth value.

The three primary tests for worldview truth are tests of consistency: internal, external, and existential.

The test for internal consistency, or logical coherence, seeks to ensure that the worldview makes sense within itself, that it is free from logical contradictions.

The test for external consistency, or evidential correspondence, seeks to ensure that the worldview makes sense of the world, that it is factually adequate.

The test for existential consistency, or pragmatic satisfaction, seeks to ensure that the worldview makes sense of life, that it is subjectively livable.

Thus far, our worldview thinking has been primarily theoretical and conceptual.

In the rest of this book, we will move from the theoretical realm to the concrete. In part two, we will articulate and explore the contours of a Christian worldview.

In part three, we will examine some major alternative worldviews.

In both sections, we will be mindful that broad worldviews or textbook worldviews are rarely if ever fully incarnated in individuals and that one’s worldview is unique to oneself.

In both sections, we will apply what we have learned in this first section. We will examine broad answers to the four fundamental worldview questions: What is our nature?

What is our world? What is our problem? What is our end? We will survey how the worldview affects its proponents via confirmation bias, experiential accommodation, the pool of live options, and life motivation.

Finally, we will apply the worldview truth tests surveyed in this chapter to each of the worldviews we address in the rest of the book.

Part two, articulating the contours and implications of a Christian worldview, is, in our opinion, the heart of this project.

While the conceptual work in parts one and three are helpful to thinkers of all stripes, part two has a specifically Christian importance.

Each of the authors embraces Christian theism as the true overarching worldview, the correct conceptual lens through which we see, understand, and interpret the world and our place within it.

But Christian worldview is a concept that needs to be thoroughly explored and worked out; that will be the task of the following three chapters.

President Samia is theoretically and practically incompatible with the epistemological principle of truth as correspondence.

XVII. A praxiological argument

And praxiologically speaking, in development projects planning, implementation and review, individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every social institution and every social and economic development project.

This is why, the Father of the Nation, Julius Kambarahe Nyerere(1978) repeatedly teaches that, development is for the living persons, by the living persons, and of the living persons.

In his own words, Nyerere(1978) says, " So development is for Man, by Man, and of Man.”

This is to say that, every human person has rights and duties flowing directly from his nature as an intelligent and free agent, where, these human rights are universal, inviolable and inalienable.

In effect, every person has the right to life and to the means necessary for the proper development of life. These means are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, and medical care.

Accordingly, any development project is useless unless its purpose is to serve each and every living citizen, instead of dead persons, who are now being killed by the deep state simply because President Samia has been compromised by the same deep state.

Furthermore, Nyerere stated in his independence address to the United Nations General Assembly on 4th December, 1961, that

“Because Tanganyika was a Trust Territory under British administration, this was a great help in my work to achieve independence for the country, namely, peacefully and through non-violent methods.”

The same principle applies to development programming, which should b done peacefully, in collaboration with living persons.

But, paradoxically, President Samia and her team practically behaves in a way which insinuates that, the right to an adequate standard of living which requires, at a minimum, that every living citizen should enjoy the necessary subsistence rights, including adequate food, abundant water, decent clothing, sanitary housing, healthcare and the related liberty rights which are premised on modern enabling infrastructures, is a right, not for the living persons, but a right for dead persons!

XVIII. A cause and effect analysis

These arguments are necessary and/or sufficient for us to logically conclude that, President Samia has totally repudiated our national dream in a way that makes her unfit for the office she currently occupies.

Such a repudiation is premised on reasons which are not difficult to excavate.

I suggest that, President Samia has been miserably and disproportionately compromised by the deep state which includes domestic and foreign actors.

Specifically, there is substantial, circumstantial and credible evidence to suggest that, President Samia is a double agent of the Arab World, the fact which, if confirmed, on balance of probability, makes her a traitor, hence unworthy of occupying the political position she holds now.

The said deep state is an unelected group of vicious individuals which secretly influences the country’s economic, social, political, constitutional and legal affairs, by often compromising the executive, judicative, legislative, the informative and their official plans as originally laid down democratically, where, by the informative sector I mean the media sector.

This deep state works hard to pursue the private good as opposed to the common good of the Nation at any cost machiavellistically.

The methods used to realize this evil goal include huge gifts to top leaders, bribes, lethal threats, spurious treaty ratifications which automatically nullify the supremacy of state constitution hence opening space for foreign domination, making dubious legal amendments which elevate some actors above the law, drafting vacuous court rulings to support bogus inter-governmental agreements (IGAs), signing bogus and exploitative Host Government Agreements (HGAs) with foreigners, and exterminating critical voices through covert fatal operations under the assistance of rogue elements some of whom are secretly hired from security enforcement organs of the state by using dirty money.

XIX. Conclusion, summary and recommendations

We have seen that, human personhood is like a multiply branched tree including the following branches: life factor in each human person, physical-psychological factor, intellectual-spiritual factor, political factor, economic being, social factor and a sexual factor.

Given that the purpose of all government projects is human welfare, it follows that. These factors must be simultaneously addressed by the government without any asymmetry.

President Samia and her team have practically and theoretically repudiated this understanding of the human person.

In short President Samia has betrayed our personal sovereignty, our state sovereignty and has violated her presidential oath of defending the state constitution, the life of citizens, their natural resources and their liberties.

She is not fit for holding any public office inside a constitutional, democratic and Republican state, of which the United Republic of Tanzania is a typical case.

She needs to be told this bitter truth instead of being allowed to listen to sweet words from her sympathizers who are not much different from boot lickers, cheap bread hunters and intellectually bankrupt advisers.

But, most important is the urgency of our time for state crafters to learn about the Deep State’s genesis, goals, its operations by which it pulls strings from behind the scenes, and what can be done to overcome it now before Tanzania turns into a full fledged satellite state of the UAE.

We should be fast to learn from what happened to indigenous communities in Black Egypt, the Maghreb and Sahel region countries in North Africa since the 7th century.

Historical evidence on record tell us that, Black Egypt and the Berber Kingdoms, stretching from Libya to Mauritania through Morocco, were exterminated and/or subjugated by Arabic settler colonists to pave way for the permanent Arabization and Islamization of Super Sahara Africa.

The eagle eyed squads are, morally and legally, duty bound to spare Sub Sahara Africa, including Tanzania, from this sad ordeal of colonialistic, slaveristic and racistic extermination and/or subjugation by foreigners parading as trophy hunters, the FDI carriers and carbon traders.

XX. Pictorial demonstration of Arabic Settler Colonialism in Super-Saharani Africa

ARAB MAGHREB UNION (AMU)

NORTH AFRICAN COUNTRIES

XXI. Key references

1. TANU (1967), The Arusha Declaration and TANU’s Policy on Socialism and Self Reliance (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: The Publicity Section of TANU).
2. Nyerere, J.K. (1970), "Ujamaa wa Tanzania na Dini," Hotuba ya Kufungua Semina ya Viongozi wa Madhehebu Mbalimbali ya Dini MKoani Tabora, 27 Julai 1970"
3. Nyerere, J.K. (1974), “From Uhuru to Ujamaa,” Africa Today 21.3:3-8, p.7
4. Seliger, M. (1976), Ideology and Politics (London: George Allen & Unwin)
5. Nyerere, J.K. (1978), “Development is for Man, by Man, and of Man: The Declaration of Dar es Salaam,” in B. Hall and J. R. Kidd (eds.), Adult Learning: A design for action (Oxford: Pergamon Press), p.27.
6. Muyebe, S. and Muyebe, A. (2001). The African Bishops on Human Rights (Nairobi: Paulines Publications Africa ), p. 14-15.
7. Myers, J. and Noebel, D. (2015), Understanding the Times: A Survey of Competing Worldviews (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Ministries and Colorado Springs: David C. Cook).
8. Renaud, M. and Águas, C. (2016), Theories of Justice. In: Hank ten Have, (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham.
9. Miller, P.D. and McCann, D.P. (2005) (eds.), In Search of the Common Good (London and New York: T&T Clark).
10. Feldman, F. (1992), Confrontations with the Reaper: A Philosophical Study of the Nature and. Value of Death (New York: Oxford University Press).
11. Grisez, G. (1973), “The Value Of a Life: A Sketch,” Philosophy in Context, 2:7-15.
12. Queller, D. and Strassmann, J. (2009), "Beyond sociality: the evolution of organismality," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society for Biological Sciences, 364: 3143–3155.
13. Renaud, M., and Águas, C.(2016), "Justice: Theories of," In Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics, 1705–12 (Cham: Springer International Publishing).
14. Velasquez, M. G. (2012), Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 7th Edition (Pearson Education, Inc.)
15. Ohlsson, J. and Przybylinski, S. (2023), (Eds.), Theorising Justice: A Primer for Social Scientists (Bristol: Bristol University Press).
16. Wojtyla, K. (2013), Love and Responsibility (Boston: Paulin Books and Media)
17. Di Donato, L. and Grimi, E. (2019), (Eds), Metaphysics of human rights 1948-2018: On the Occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the UDHR (Delaware, USA: Vernon Press)
18. Monticelli, R.D. (2021), Toward a Phenomenological Axiology: Discovering what matters (Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan)
19. Ali, N.(2023), How Rich Should the 1% Be? Proportional Justice and Economic Inequality (New York: Routledge).
20. Galston, W.A. (1980), Justice and the Human Good (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press)
21. Ganti, T. (2003), The Principles of Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
22. Liundi, C. C. (2012), Quotable Quotes of Mwalimu Julius K Nyerere: Collected from Speeches and Writings (Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publishers).
23. Lee, P. and George, R.P. (2008), Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press).
24. Freeden, M. (1996) Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
25. Olson, E. (2021), What is the problem of biological individuality? In Anne Sophie Meicke and John Dupre (editors), Biological Identity: Perspectives from Metaphysics and Philosophy of Biology (Routledge).
26. Wilson, J. (1999), Biological Individuality: The Identity and Persistence of Living Entities (NY: Cambridge University Press).
27. Heywood, A. (1998), Political Ideologies: An Introduction, 2nd edn (London: Macmillan).
28. Freeden, M., Sargent, L.T. And Stears, M. (2013), The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies (New York: Oxford Univerity Press).
29. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1016b6-9, In Jonathan Barnes(1984) (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. Two (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press).
30. Johnston, R. (2013), “Marriage and the Metaphysics of Bodily Union: Framing the Same-Sex Marriage Debate,” Social Theory and Practice, 39.2:288-312.
31. Naugle, D. K. (2002), Worldview: The History of a Concept (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
32. Samples, K. R. (2007), A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Grand Rapids: Baker Books).
33. Sire, J.W. (2009), The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. 5th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic).
34. Aggarwal, S. (2021:4-6), A Textbook of Biology for Class XII (New Delhi: S. Chand School Books)
35. D’Agostini, F. (2019), "Misunderstandings about truth," Church, Communication and Culture, 4.3:266-286.
36. D’Agostini, F. (2021), “Alethic Rights. Preliminaries of an Inquiry into the Power of Truth.” Social Epistemology, 1-18.
37. Watson, L. (2021), “Response to Franca d’Agostini’s ‘Alethic Rights: Preliminaries of an Inquiry into the Power of Truth’,” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 10.7:33-39.
38. D’Agostini, F. (2021), “Alethic or Epistemic? A Reply to Lani Watson.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 10.11: 1-9.
39. Lowe, E. J. (2006), The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science (Oxford: OUP)
40. Searle, J.R. (1965), What Is a Speech Act?, in M. Black (ed), Philosophy in America (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), p.615-628;
41. Searle , J.R. (1969), Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press);
42. Searle , J.R. (1975), A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts, in K. Gunderson (ed), Language, Mind, and Knowledge (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press),p. 344-369;
43. Searle , J.R. (1983), Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press);
44. Searle , J.R. (1995), The Construction of Social Reality (New York, Free Press);
45. Searle , J.R. (2004), “Social ontology: Some basic principles,” Anthropological Theory, 6.1: 12-29;
46. Searle , J.R. (2007), Freedom and Neurobiology: Reflections on Free Will, Language, and Political Power (New York: Columbia University Press);
47. Searle , J.R. (2010), Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
48. Pressman, S. (2006), Alternative Theories of the State(New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
49. Ido, M.(2012), Varieties of Capitalism, Types of Democracy and Globalisation (New York: Routledge).
50. Giesen, K.(2020), Ideologies in World Politics (Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS)
51. Buchanan, J.M. (1975) The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52. Sergei Guriev, S. and Treisman, D. (2015), “How Modern Dictators Survive: An Informational Theory of the New Authoritarianism,” Paper presented at ISNIE/SIOE Conference at Harvard, USA.
53. Fernandez, V.M. (2024), Declaration “Dignitas Infinita” On Human Dignity (Vatican: Dicastery for The Doctrine Of The Faith).
54. Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (New Haven: Yale University Press)
55. Lijphart, A. (2000), Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Views (New Haven: Yale University Press)
56. Lijphart, A. (1984), Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government (New Haven: Yale University Press).

XXII. Copy to:

1. CCM Secretary Genaral, Dr. Emmanuel Nchimbi (Aione kwenye faili)
2. CCM central committee members.
3. CCM National executive committee (NEC) members
4. CCM national annual general meeting members
5. CSO leaders
6. Political parties leaders
7. Religious leaders
8. Cabinet members
9. Members of the Tanzania Intelligence security service Agency
10. Members of the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS)
11. Members of University Students Association
12. Members of UDASA
13. RC's, RAS's, RSO's,
14. DC's, DAC's, DSO's
15. WEO's, DEO's, VEO's
16. Reasonable Voters
17. DGIS
18. CDF

 

[antimatter]

Lina na wewe umeanza uchawa ndio maana ulikosa ubunge.

Aisee,
Ndiyo nani huyo chawa?!

 

[SAGAI GALGANO]

I disagree. President Samia has been disproportionately compromised by a deep state which includes actors from the Arab world, and and hence a double agent of the Arab World, which makes her a traitor.

A deep state is an unelected group which secretly influences a country’s economic, social, political, constitutional and legal affairs, by often compromising the official plans originally laid down by democratically formed state organs, while doing so at any cost, including exterminating critical voices through covert fatal operations under the assistance of rogue elements some of whole are hired from security enforcement organs of the state.

In short She has betrayed our state sovereignty and violated her presidential oath of defending the constitution, the citizens and their liberties.

To this extent any development project is useless since the purpose is serving a living citizen, and not dead persons, who are now being killed by the deep state simply because President Samia has failed to protect them.

She needs to be told this bitter truth instead of listening to sweet words from boot lickers and parrots.

You said it all Mama Amon,thank you and God Bless you for this hard and bitter truth.

 

[mmaroroi]

Ndugu zangu Watanzania,

Kwanza ningependa kuwakumbusheni kwa machache kati ya Mengi kuhusu mtu kuwa Rais.Ningependa kuwaambieni ya kuwa Mtu hawi Rais wala kukidhi vigezo vya Urais kwa kufanya tukio moja au kwa matukio yampito kama mvuke.wala mtu hawi RAIS kwa kuongea sana maneno mdomoni pake bila mipaka, mpangilio,utaratibu na utulivu.

Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye utulivu wa akili,mwenye afya njema ya akili .mwenye uwezo wa kudhibiti na kutawala hisia zake ,hasira zake,Mihemko yake,chuki zake, kinyongo chake na hata matamanio yake binafsi. Urais hauhitaji ujuaji. Urais ni taasisi inayohitaji mtu mwenye historia ya kiutendaji iliyotukuka. unaweza kumbeba beba mtu kwa njia zote na kumuweka katika nafasi fulani lakini kamwe huwezi kumbeba beba na kumzoa zoa mtu kumuweka kwenye kiti cha Urais.

Kwa hakika ni lazima utalitikisa,kulitetemesha,kulipoteza,kulivuruga,kulisambaratisha, kulikwamisha na kuleta sintofahamu kwa Taifa ikiwa ni pamoja na kuhatarisha usalama na umoja wa kitaifa.unaweza kumpa mtu upendeleo wa kumpatia nafasi yoyote ile na hata akifanya makosa yasiwe na athari kwa Taifa .lakini kamwe huwezi kumpa mtu Urais kwa majaribio na matamanio yako tu binafsi.

Urais siyo mahali pa kujifunzia kazi au kufanyia majaribio.Urais ni nafasi inayohitaji mtu aliyepevuka kiakili na kimwili,mtu anayejiheshimu,asiye na utoto utoto hata katika maandishi yake na maamuzi yake.Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye ngozi ngumu na mwenye uwezo wa kuogelea na kupiga mbizi katika Mawimbi ya kila aina na kulivusha Taifa.Urais hauhitaji ushindi katika kila mjadala.bali unahitaji maridhiano,subira, uvumilivu,usikivu kila panapotokea jambo lenye kugusa hisia za watu na mivutano. .

Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye uwezo ,akili ya kuongoza watu na kuwaleta pamoja licha ya tofauti zao za kisiasa ,mitizamo,Imani na mengine Mengi. Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye uwezo wa kufikiri ndio kufanya maamuzi na siyo kufanya maamuzi au kutoa maneno au kauli na kisha kufikiria juu ya maamuzi au kauli au maneno yaliyokwisha kutolewa na kutoka kinywani kama Risasi.

Ukiangalia hayo machache niliyoyaeleza utakubaliana nami kuwa hakuna mwenye uwezo wa kuvaa viatu vya Rais Samia vya Uraisi. Ni Daktari Mama Samia Suluhu Hasssan anayestahili kuendelea kuliongoza Taifa letu.kwa sababu ameonyesha uwezo,utulivu na stamina ya hali ya juu sana hata katikati ya mambo mazito yenye kila aina ya hisa kali , minyukano ya maneno ,mawazo na maoni tofauti tofauti yenye kuibua hadi maneno ya ubaguzi na kibaguzi.

Rais Samia wakati wote ameonyesha umakini na utulivu wa kiwango cha juu sana.Historia yake pia ya kiutendaji imetukuka na iliyoonyesha ukomavu na utulivu wa kiuongozi alionao.amepita katika majaribu ya kila aina lakini amevuka akiwa imara na madhubuti.tofauti na wengine unakuta jambo dogo tu anajikuta akipaniki,kuhemuka,kupoteza utulivu,umakini na ustahimilivu na kujikuta akitumia na kuongozwa na jazba na hisia.

Rais Samia ameanzia na kupita maeneo mengi mpaka kufika hapo alipo kiutumishi.amekaa na kufanya kazi na watu mbalimbali na wenye aina tofautitofauti za kiuongozi.ndio maana yakuona ameiva na kukomaa kisawasawa.Anajiheshimu na ameiheshimisha taasisi ya Urais.Anajuwa nini anafanya na nini anapaswa kufanya na nini hapaswi kufanya hata kama anatamani kufanya kama binadamu wengine.kuna mwingine unakuta ni kiongozi mkubwa lakini anafanya vitu ambavyo vinashusha hadhi na kuchafua kiti alichokalia.ni lazima ufahamu ya kuwa kuna vitu binafsi inabidi ujizuie kufanya au kutenda.ni lazma ufahamu kuna uhuru binafsi fulani inabidi ukubali kupunguza unapokuwa kiongozi wa juuView attachment 3132946

Kazi iendelee, Mama Ametufikia na kuwafikia watanzania kwa utumishi wake uliotukuka wa kugusa maisha ya watanzania wanyonge wasio na Sauti.

Lucas Hebel Mwashambwa, Mama ANATOSHA kuendelea kuliongoza Taifa letu kwa muhula wa pili.

Kwa yanayoendelea Nchini Tanzania kwa sasa ni kweli. Utekaji unaendelea bila wahusika kutafutwa haraka na ubadhirifu wa mali ya umma upo juu na watendaji wa umma kula urefu wa kamba zao.

 

[BLACKTIGER]

ACHA UCHAWA!

 

[Manyanza]

Ndugu zangu Watanzania,

Kwanza ningependa kuwakumbusheni kwa machache kati ya Mengi kuhusu mtu kuwa Rais. Ningependa kuwaambieni ya kuwa Mtu hawi Rais wala kukidhi vigezo vya Urais kwa kufanya tukio moja au kwa matukio yampito kama mvuke.wala mtu hawi RAIS kwa kuongea sana maneno mdomoni pake bila mipaka, mpangilio,utaratibu na utulivu.

Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye utulivu wa akili,mwenye afya njema ya akili .mwenye uwezo wa kudhibiti na kutawala hisia zake, hasira zake, Mihemko yake, chuki zake, kinyongo chake na hata matamanio yake binafsi. Urais hauhitaji ujuaji. Urais ni taasisi inayohitaji mtu mwenye historia ya kiutendaji iliyotukuka. unaweza kumbeba beba mtu kwa njia zote na kumuweka katika nafasi fulani lakini kamwe huwezi kumbeba beba na kumzoa zoa mtu kumuweka kwenye kiti cha Urais.

Kwa hakika ni lazima utalitikisa, kulitetemesha, kulipoteza, kulivuruga, kulisambaratisha, kulikwamisha na kuleta sintofahamu kwa Taifa ikiwa ni pamoja na kuhatarisha usalama na umoja wa kitaifa.unaweza kumpa mtu upendeleo wa kumpatia nafasi yoyote ile na hata akifanya makosa yasiwe na athari kwa Taifa lakini kamwe huwezi kumpa mtu Urais kwa majaribio na matamanio yako tu binafsi.

Urais siyo mahali pa kujifunzia kazi au kufanyia majaribio.Urais ni nafasi inayohitaji mtu aliyepevuka kiakili na kimwili,mtu anayejiheshimu,asiye na utoto utoto hata katika maandishi yake na maamuzi yake.Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye ngozi ngumu na mwenye uwezo wa kuogelea na kupiga mbizi katika Mawimbi ya kila aina na kulivusha Taifa. Urais hauhitaji ushindi katika kila mjadala. Bali unahitaji maridhiano,subira, uvumilivu,usikivu kila panapotokea jambo lenye kugusa hisia za watu na mivutano.

Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye uwezo, akili ya kuongoza watu na kuwaleta pamoja licha ya tofauti zao za kisiasa, mitizamo,Imani na mengine Mengi. Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye uwezo wa kufikiri ndio kufanya maamuzi na siyo kufanya maamuzi au kutoa maneno au kauli na kisha kufikiria juu ya maamuzi au kauli au maneno yaliyokwisha kutolewa na kutoka kinywani kama Risasi.

Ukiangalia hayo machache niliyoyaeleza utakubaliana nami kuwa hakuna mwenye uwezo wa kuvaa viatu vya Rais Samia vya Uraisi. Ni Daktari Mama Samia Suluhu Hasssan anayestahili kuendelea kuliongoza Taifa letu kwa sababu ameonyesha uwezo, utulivu na stamina ya hali ya juu sana hata katikati ya mambo mazito yenye kila aina ya hisa kali, minyukano ya maneno, mawazo na maoni tofauti tofauti yenye kuibua hadi maneno ya ubaguzi na kibaguzi.

Rais Samia wakati wote ameonyesha umakini na utulivu wa kiwango cha juu sana.Historia yake pia ya kiutendaji imetukuka na iliyoonyesha ukomavu na utulivu wa kiuongozi alionao.amepita katika majaribu ya kila aina lakini amevuka akiwa imara na madhubuti.tofauti na wengine unakuta jambo dogo tu anajikuta akipaniki, kuhemuka, kupoteza utulivu, umakini na ustahimilivu na kujikuta akitumia na kuongozwa na jazba na hisia.

Rais Samia ameanzia na kupita maeneo mengi mpaka kufika hapo alipo kiutumishi amekaa na kufanya kazi na watu mbalimbali na wenye aina tofautitofauti za kiuongozi.ndio maana yakuona ameiva na kukomaa kisawasawa.

Anajiheshimu na ameiheshimisha taasisi ya Urais.Anajuwa nini anafanya na nini anapaswa kufanya na nini hapaswi kufanya hata kama anatamani kufanya kama binadamu wengine.

Kuna mwingine unakuta ni kiongozi mkubwa lakini anafanya vitu ambavyo vinashusha hadhi na kuchafua kiti alichokalia ni lazima ufahamu ya kuwa kuna vitu binafsi inabidi ujizuie kufanya au kutenda ni lazma ufahamu kuna uhuru binafsi fulani inabidi ukubali kupunguza unapokuwa kiongozi wa juu.
View attachment 3132946

Kazi iendelee, Mama Ametufikia na kuwafikia watanzania kwa utumishi wake uliotukuka wa kugusa maisha ya watanzania wanyonge wasio na Sauti.

Lucas Hebel Mwashambwa, Mama ANATOSHA kuendelea kuliongoza Taifa letu kwa muhula wa pili.

Thread 'Voices From Within: Japo 2025 Tumepanga Twende na Mwanamke, 2025 Mama Akabidhi Kwanza Mwanamume, Kisha 2030 Ndipo Aje Mwanamke' https://www.jamiiforums.com/threads/voices-from-within-japo-2025-tumepanga-twende-na-mwanamke-2025-mama-akabidhi-kwanza-mwanamume-kisha-2030-ndipo-aje-mwanamke.1980867/

 

[Red black]

nikose ubunge?🤣

Na nimezungukwa na Neema na Baraka za Mungu namna hii kweli nakosaje mambo muhimu kama hilo gentleman?

Yaani kusema ukweli bayana bila chenga ndio nisipate ubunge kweli ndrugo zango?

kwani ni uongo kwamba hakuna anaeweza kuvaa viatu vya uongozi wa nchi hii vya Dr.Samia Suluhu Hassan ispokua yeye mwenyewe?

kwamba nisiseme ukweli huo nikae kimya badala kuusambaza ukweli huo kwa umma? Its not fair. Tumpe mama maua yake tafadhali 🐒

Acha maneno mengi

 

[mrangi]

uchawa ndiyo gonjwa #1 kwa sasa

ova

 

[The Legacy]

Sasa mwambie mama akiuzulu aone nchi itakavyonawili.

Tukishindwa tunamrudishia nchi yake.

 

[hp4510]

Ndugu zangu Watanzania,

Kwanza ningependa kuwakumbusheni kwa machache kati ya Mengi kuhusu mtu kuwa Rais. Ningependa kuwaambieni ya kuwa Mtu hawi Rais wala kukidhi vigezo vya Urais kwa kufanya tukio moja au kwa matukio yampito kama mvuke.wala mtu hawi RAIS kwa kuongea sana maneno mdomoni pake bila mipaka, mpangilio,utaratibu na utulivu.

Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye utulivu wa akili,mwenye afya njema ya akili .mwenye uwezo wa kudhibiti na kutawala hisia zake, hasira zake, Mihemko yake, chuki zake, kinyongo chake na hata matamanio yake binafsi. Urais hauhitaji ujuaji. Urais ni taasisi inayohitaji mtu mwenye historia ya kiutendaji iliyotukuka. unaweza kumbeba beba mtu kwa njia zote na kumuweka katika nafasi fulani lakini kamwe huwezi kumbeba beba na kumzoa zoa mtu kumuweka kwenye kiti cha Urais.

Kwa hakika ni lazima utalitikisa, kulitetemesha, kulipoteza, kulivuruga, kulisambaratisha, kulikwamisha na kuleta sintofahamu kwa Taifa ikiwa ni pamoja na kuhatarisha usalama na umoja wa kitaifa.unaweza kumpa mtu upendeleo wa kumpatia nafasi yoyote ile na hata akifanya makosa yasiwe na athari kwa Taifa lakini kamwe huwezi kumpa mtu Urais kwa majaribio na matamanio yako tu binafsi.

Urais siyo mahali pa kujifunzia kazi au kufanyia majaribio.Urais ni nafasi inayohitaji mtu aliyepevuka kiakili na kimwili,mtu anayejiheshimu,asiye na utoto utoto hata katika maandishi yake na maamuzi yake.Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye ngozi ngumu na mwenye uwezo wa kuogelea na kupiga mbizi katika Mawimbi ya kila aina na kulivusha Taifa. Urais hauhitaji ushindi katika kila mjadala. Bali unahitaji maridhiano,subira, uvumilivu,usikivu kila panapotokea jambo lenye kugusa hisia za watu na mivutano.

Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye uwezo, akili ya kuongoza watu na kuwaleta pamoja licha ya tofauti zao za kisiasa, mitizamo,Imani na mengine Mengi. Urais unahitaji mtu mwenye uwezo wa kufikiri ndio kufanya maamuzi na siyo kufanya maamuzi au kutoa maneno au kauli na kisha kufikiria juu ya maamuzi au kauli au maneno yaliyokwisha kutolewa na kutoka kinywani kama Risasi.

Ukiangalia hayo machache niliyoyaeleza utakubaliana nami kuwa hakuna mwenye uwezo wa kuvaa viatu vya Rais Samia vya Uraisi. Ni Daktari Mama Samia Suluhu Hasssan anayestahili kuendelea kuliongoza Taifa letu kwa sababu ameonyesha uwezo, utulivu na stamina ya hali ya juu sana hata katikati ya mambo mazito yenye kila aina ya hisa kali, minyukano ya maneno, mawazo na maoni tofauti tofauti yenye kuibua hadi maneno ya ubaguzi na kibaguzi.

Rais Samia wakati wote ameonyesha umakini na utulivu wa kiwango cha juu sana.Historia yake pia ya kiutendaji imetukuka na iliyoonyesha ukomavu na utulivu wa kiuongozi alionao.amepita katika majaribu ya kila aina lakini amevuka akiwa imara na madhubuti.tofauti na wengine unakuta jambo dogo tu anajikuta akipaniki, kuhemuka, kupoteza utulivu, umakini na ustahimilivu na kujikuta akitumia na kuongozwa na jazba na hisia.

Rais Samia ameanzia na kupita maeneo mengi mpaka kufika hapo alipo kiutumishi amekaa na kufanya kazi na watu mbalimbali na wenye aina tofautitofauti za kiuongozi.ndio maana yakuona ameiva na kukomaa kisawasawa.

Anajiheshimu na ameiheshimisha taasisi ya Urais.Anajuwa nini anafanya na nini anapaswa kufanya na nini hapaswi kufanya hata kama anatamani kufanya kama binadamu wengine.

Kuna mwingine unakuta ni kiongozi mkubwa lakini anafanya vitu ambavyo vinashusha hadhi na kuchafua kiti alichokalia ni lazima ufahamu ya kuwa kuna vitu binafsi inabidi ujizuie kufanya au kutenda ni lazma ufahamu kuna uhuru binafsi fulani inabidi ukubali kupunguza unapokuwa kiongozi wa juu.
View attachment 3132946

Kazi iendelee, Mama Ametufikia na kuwafikia watanzania kwa utumishi wake uliotukuka wa kugusa maisha ya watanzania wanyonge wasio na Sauti.

Lucas Hebel Mwashambwa, Mama ANATOSHA kuendelea kuliongoza Taifa letu kwa muhula wa pili.

Vijana wa ccm mnapenda kuanzisha hoja ambazo hazina mashiko kabisa

Nani anataka Urais? Kuna mtu yoyote wa CCM kasema anataka Urais?

Au hoja yako unataka kumlinganisha mama samia na nani?

Hakuna mtu wa CCM ambae anataka Urais form ya mgombea ni moja Tu

Hakuna chama cha upinzani Tanzania so obviously ni mama atashinda

Lucas unataka kutengeneza mazingira ya Kula posho kirahisi, ionekane kama ushindi wa mama utapatikana Kwa mbinde Sana

Ndio maana kila mwisho wa Andiko lako lazima useme mama mitano tena it's like kuna debate ya kumpa miaka mingine

Njoo na hoja zingine hizi za mama Achana nazo

Yeye ndio mgombea pekee na yeye ndio mshindi

 

[Lucas Mwashambwa]

ACHA UCHAWA!

Mimi siyo chawa