Mwalimu Nyerere: The Father of Our Nation

[bagamoyo]

Freedom and unity
Freedom and socialism
Freedom and development
Poverty is bad but poverty in thoughts is worse

Source: Personal development

How Mwalimu Nyerere was heavily influenced by John Stuart Mill , the guru of theory of Utilitarianism

The History of Utilitarianism

First published Fri Mar 27, 2009; substantive revision Mon Sep 22, 2014

Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good.

The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’.

Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality. Everyone's happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the good impartially considered. My good counts for no more than anyone else's good. Further, the reason I have to promote the overall good is the same reason anyone else has to so promote the good. It is not peculiar to me.

All of these features of this approach to moral evaluation and/or moral decision-making have proven to be somewhat controversial and subsequent controversies have led to changes in the Classical version of the theory

READ MORE : The History of Utilitarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[bagamoyo]

Julius Nyerere with President J.F Kennedy​

Photo courtesy of Arrival ceremony for Julius Nyerere, President of Tanganyika, 11:30AM | JFK Library

 

[bagamoyo]

ARRIVAL CEREMONY FOR JULIUS NYERERE, PRESIDENT OF TANGANYIKA, 11:30AM​

President John F. Kennedy shakes hands with President of Tanganyika, Julius Nyerere, upon President Nyerere’s arrival at the White House aboard a United States Army helicopter. US Chief of Protocol, Angier Biddle Duke, stands in center. South Lawn, White House, Washington, D.C.
Source : Courtesy of JFKENNEDY LIBRARY Arrival ceremony for Julius Nyerere, President of Tanganyika, 11:30AM | JFK Library

 

[bagamoyo]

21 Mar 2020
Managua, Nicaragua

JULIUS NYERERE Former President of Tanzania Speech in Nicaragua in 1988​

Liberation Theology in Latin America
By Olivia Singer
During the mid-20th century, disenchanted members of the clergy and the oppressed classes of Latin America united together to reinterpret the role of the Catholic Church in everyday society and to reclaim religion towards the pursuit of social justice. Liberation theology encouraged a break from an elitist notion of the Church and the return of control to the people. By involving the poor in their own liberation and offering Christianity as a tool towards a more perfect society, liberation theologians dramatically changed the relationship between not only the Church and the state, but also the Church and the people. Guided by the innovative Peruvian priest, Gustavo Gutiérrez, this movement reinvigorated marginalized people in Peru and throughout Latin America, while still utilizing a formal theological approach. Though ultimately opposed by the Vatican because of its radical leanings, liberation theology both permanently implicated the Church in the destiny of the oppressed and allowed for the participation of the poor in the future of the Catholic Church.

Photograph of Gustavo Gutiérrez Merino, courtesy of user Mohan
Rise of Liberation Theology
Throughout the 19th century, the Church aligned itself with the upper classes and only minimally addressed the grievances of the poor. The great Latin American independence movements, which had promised liberation and new hope through separation from the Iberian empire, only benefitted an elite sector of society, the light-skinned creoles (Tombs 27). Essentially, the creole class assumed the gaps in governance left behind by the peninsulares and did little to alleviate the struggles of the lower classes. These nationalistic uprisings maintained a Catholic church that tended to identify itself with the rich (Brown 9-10). Since religion had played a major role in the conquering of Latin America, the Church naturally aligned itself with the ruling elite (Tombs 15). Rather than a reflection of the people, the Catholic Church acted as a privileged model of success and power.
By the early 20th century, despite a consistent reinforcement of the status quo social structure, the Church began to exhibit evidence of slight moves towards a social tradition. The Church transitioned from simple encouragement of individual charity to an acknowledgement of distributive and social justice. Inspired by Leo XIII’s 1891 Rerum Novarum (Of New Matters), the notion of “an option for the poor” or special consideration for lower classes began to become more prominent (Tombs 44). Throughout this time period, Latin American states experienced growing urbanization and industrialization as efforts increased to create a more independent economic system through nationalizing programs like import substitution (Skidmore, Smith and Green 358). Such rapid economic changes led to increasing pressure for similar political and social reforms (Tombs 49-50). Rapid change forced the Church to either fall behind or reevaluate its practices if it wished to maintain its position of influence. One of the most important manifestations of a changing religious ideology was the advent of the Catholic Action movement. In Peru, this movement was led by Holguin of Arequipaand Farfán of Cusco, who established some separation between the Church and the state and introduced a more militant Catholicism (Peña 1994, 39). This initial organization helped to link social activists and leftists who would later work to create liberation theology (Peña 1995, 2). The Catholic Action movement helped to alter the role of religion in society, linking the Church to political action. These changes underlay a growing desire to break the allegiance between the Church and the rich. Slowly, the Church began to recognize the possibility of a crucial role in the world of the oppressed (Brown 9-10).

Pope Leo XII, author of Rerum Novarum, courtesy of the U.S. Library of Congress
Among these participants in the Catholic Action movement was Gustavo Gutiérrez, the most famous figure in the founding and promulgation of liberation theology (Peña 1994, 39). Gutiérrez was a Peruvian theologian and priest, ordained in 1959. Part Quechua Indian, Gutiérrez did not represent a part of Lima’s aristocracy, but rather rose from the oppressed class. As a result of his intellectual prowess and success as a student at San Marcos University, Gutiérrez was offered the opportunity to pursue graduate studies in Louvain, Belgium and Lyon, France, where he was exposed to the canon of traditional European theology (Brown 22). This experience abroad provided Gutiérrez with valuable intellectual skills and an understanding of traditional theology. Later on, such formal knowledge of the Catholic structure and teachings, when coupled with the views of the popular constituency, allowed for effective organizing and dramatic change (Peña 1994, 38). Upon his return from Europe, Gutiérrez began to realize how little the theories that he had learned abroad applied to the current situation of poverty and oppression in Latin America (Peña 1995, 5). The texts that he had studied covered in depth the path to salvation, but focused little on the physical situation of the poor. Gutiérrez felt that the Church had a duty to recognize these structural inadequacies and help the impoverished of Latin America. Hoping to address some of this social injustice, Gutiérrez became a lay militant of the Catholic Action movement as archdiocesan adviser and later national adviser to the UNEC (The National Union of Catholic Students) (Klaiber 238). Work for this movement allowed Gutiérrez to gain essential connections and networking opportunities that would later assist in the dissemination of liberation theology.
Moved by the Cuban Revolution of 1959 and increasing pressure for similar change, progressive clergy members began meeting to discuss the future of the Church and its role in the politics of society. CELAM or the Latin American Episcopal Conference worked to push the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican or Vatican II, a series of meetings from 1962 through 1965 that focused on Church unity and renewal, toward a more progressive stance. Vatican II represented an international conference where high-level Catholic religious figures rethought Church policy and discussed processes of modernization (Vatican II Online Documents). In 1968, CELAM organized a meeting in Medellin, Colombia, with the hope of supporting base ecclesiastic communities and continued reformation of the Church (Sigmund 23). It was at this conference that Gustavo Gutiérrez first presented the term “liberation theology” in a paper called “Toward a Theology of Liberation” in which he articulated a commitment to actions and expressed the importance of theology as critical evaluation, stating that “theology is reflection” (Tombs 105). The concepts referenced during this talk in 1968 were more clearly laid out in his 1971 magnum opus, “A Theology of Liberation.” In an atmosphere of increasing clerical reform, liberation theology emerged as a new way of “being human and Christian” (Gutiérrez in Gibellini, 2). A highly networked group of religious figures began a movement to align Christianity with the needs of the poor.
Major Components of Liberation Theology
Liberation theology looks to understand Christianity and religion through the salvific process of liberation. Such a theology does “not stop with reflecting on the world, but rather tries to be a part of the process through which the world is transformed” (Gutiérrez 1973, 12). People are encouraged to become active agents of their own destiny and in effect to liberate themselves from the confines of injustice. This theology extends beyond development to three distinct levels of real freedom or liberation, representing the aspirations of oppressed peoples, a means to look at history and a new approach to Biblical interpretation (Gutiérrez 1973). At the first level, the poor were to liberate themselves from economic exploitation. Overcoming poverty became a fundamental tenant of liberation theology. At the second level, the hope was liberation from fatalism, the recognition of free will. Lastly, at the theological level, liberation from sin would result in ultimate liberation and communion with God (Tombs 123-125). Espousing these three tenants helped to recognize the varying ways in which Catholic teachings could be applied, creating a space for liberation in both a worldly economic and highly spiritual sense.
By creating a process to overcome historical constraints, liberation theology presented the possibility of liberation at the political, existential and theological levels (Tombs 125). Rather than focusing solely on the potential of the afterlife, liberation theologians encouraged the pursuit of a satisfactory life on Earth. Proposing a “preferential option for the poor,” the Church was encouraged to extend its work to directly address the struggles of the impoverished and to work specifically to ameliorate “physical and spiritual oppression” (Sigmund 21-22). Rather than small ineffective reforms, liberation theology supported work towards systemic change and even the possibility of revolution as a means of freeing the poor from oppression (Hillar). While violence was not encouraged, it was justified as a possible last resort or necessity of the revolution (Lynch 1991). For the first time, formal religious theology used Biblical interpretation to promote the political and social influence of the Church in the empowerment of the poor.
Traditional Opposition to the Movement

Pope Benedict XVI during a trip to Brazil in 2007, courtesy of Agência Brasil
As followers of liberation theology grew in numbers, the Vatican felt increasingly threatened by the movement’s connections to radical movements and leftist tendencies. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a part of the Vatican’s office, issued a number of critical instructions that questioned the movement’s Biblical usage and its emphasis on Marxist notions of class struggle. Then Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) writes that the purpose of the instruction is to alert religious figures and the faithful of “the deviations, and risks of deviation, damaging to the faith…brought about by certain forms of liberation theology which use, in an insufficiently critical manner, concepts borrowed from various currents of Marxist thought” (CDF Vatican Website). The Vatican felt that the connection between the movement and Marxism where incompatible with Catholic teachings. Marx encourages class struggle and social disruption that conflicted with the traditional order and stability of the Church (Peña 1995). The Vatican feared that these forms of social unrest and questioning would weaken the power and influence of the Church.
However, the connections between Marxism and liberation theology are not as clear-cut as critics have tried to argue. Though liberation theology recognizes the power of man as a master of his own fate and proposes revolutionary praxis in a manner similar to Marxism, liberation theology lacks many fundamental aspects of Marxism. Liberation theology attempts to draw on certain aspects of Marxist theory, while denying others, which directly conflicts with Marx’s requirement that his work be taken as a whole. The theology makes no claims against the incompatibility between religion and empiricism and maintains Christian doctrine, which Marx vehemently opposed. When more carefully compared to each other, the sole clear connection between Marxism and liberation theology is a focus on empowering the poor and class struggle (Lynch 20, 26). Despite the fairly scant theoretical connections between the two, words like revolution and socialism linked and continued to link liberation theology with the highly controversial and often feared doctrine of Marx, preventing more widespread acceptance and formal approval of the Vatican. Opposing the notion of class struggle, supporters of traditional theology felt that the movement’s promotion of a “people’s church” could undermine Catholic institutions by departing from classic doctrine and weakening the authority of Catholic teachings (Peña 1995).
To some extent, the fears of the Vatican were indeed enacted by the liberation theology movement through the creation of Christian Base Communities (CEBs) and Theological Reflection workshops. Christian Base Communities were small Christian groups led by lay figures in individual towns or small areas that embodied the teachings of liberation theology. They encouraged popular participation and worked to try to avoid pastoral problems by creating an emphasis on community work and support. CEBs taught peasants basic skills like reading and writing along with religious teachings in an effort to empower and liberate them (Hillar). From these groups, the poor were able to organize and create a sense of unity that allowed for social questioning. Later into the movement, the base communities not only acted as a means to disseminate liberation theology, but also as a means of inspiration for the liberation theology movement. CEBs allowed the poor to direct the movement and to emphasize the struggle of the oppressed (Tombs 199).
Similar to the CEBs, Gustavo Gutiérrez organized the Jornadas de Reflexión (Theological Reflection Workshops). These workshops, held throughout the summer, allowed for discussion of liberation theology and created a space for dialogue between activists, theologians and all those who had an interest in learning about the theology. Initially started in 1971 with two hundred participants, the workshops grew over the 1970s and 80s to reach 2.496 participants by 1987 (Peña 1994, 42). The workshops created a space for popular exchange and allowed for deeper explanation of the concepts of the movement. The sense of power and autonomy that the CEBs and the Theological Reflection Workshops created within the lower classes was exactly what the Vatican had feared. The ability of the poor to work to redefine their own fate and their own relationship with the Church exemplified the kind of loss of traditional authority of which Ratzinger spoke. However, rather than the feared deviation from the Christian faith, this empowerment of the poor and inclusion of a popular sentiment created a more tangible way for the oppressed to access and interact with their Christianity. Though the opposition greatly feared this empowerment, liberation theology ands its programs undeniably educated and enhanced the lives of lower classes by providing the outlets and tools to more actively address their own situations.
Ultimate Decline and Lasting Impact of Liberation Theology
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the movement had begun to lose its push as new economic and social concerns arose that liberation theology could not directly address. Even the once “new-age” theories of liberation began to seem outdated as notions of revolution and the hopes of the impoverished altered with the falling of the Berlin Wall and the continued rise of neoliberalism (Tombs 272). The Vatican’s continued pressure against the movement began to take its toll. By arguing that liberation theology could lead to disunity and excessive focus on material success, opposition was able to successfully undercut the more noble goals of this movement (Lynch 1994, 3). Evidence that the movement was clearly in retreat could be seen by the frequent changes that it began to undergo, leaving little certainty as to its true direction. A new focus on spirituality added an “other-worldly” dimension that liberation theologians had long sought to avoid. By arguing that this movement secularized the Christian faith and effectively rid Catholicism of its connection to the afterlife, John Paul II and other prominent religious leaders were able to quell the movement and alarm people enough to associate liberation theology with a loss of faith (Lynch 1994, 10). By the 1980s, the Catholic right proposed reconciliation theology in direct opposition to liberation theology. Supported by the Vatican, reconciliation theology suggested that by reconciling oneself to God and to others, conflict could be avoided and class struggle skirted (Peña 1995, 23). Essentially, the Vatican and more traditional sects of Catholicism proposed a watered-down version of the theology that avoided the physical and social disruption that liberation entailed.
Despite its ultimate fall in popularity, liberation theology changed the role of the Church in Peru and all of Latin America forever. By giving a voice and sense of empowerment to the impoverished, liberation theology held the Church accountable for the welfare of the lower class, recognizing the essential role of social justice in Christian teachings. This movement rethought the power structures of Latin American society and showed that religion could promote highly politicized campaigns. Although the prospect of radical change alarmed the Vatican, the potential for an uprising finally incorporated the voices of the poor in religious discourse. Religious figures like Gustavo Gutiérrez helped to use formal clerical training to integrate the liberation of the working class into Biblical interpretation. Followers of the movement demanded that the Church move beyond simple charity work towards a more active role in the promotion of social justice. Liberation theology brought the focus of the Church away from solely eternal salvation to the more pressing necessity of earthly liberation of the poor from oppression and suffering. Source : Liberation Theology in Latin America | Modern Latin America

On August 15th, 1988, Julius Nyerere, former president of Tanzania, gave a public lecture at a church in Managua. President Daniel Ortega spoke next.

THIS VIDEO PRESENTS THE TALK BY NYERERE. In 1979 the Nicaraguan people, under the leadership of the Sandinista Front for National Liberation, had overthrown the Somoza dictatorship.

Many Christians had participated in various ways in the struggle for liberation and continued to take part in the programs of the revolutionary government.

During the 1980s the Sandinista Revolutionary Government, which included three priests in the cabinet, sought to move Nicaragua in a socialist direction but had to concentrate resources on defending the country and the revolution against the US-supported counter-revolutionaries (Contras).

In early 1990, Daniel Ortega was defeated at the polls by a broad coalition which had Violeta Chamorro as its candidate. Julius Nyerere (1922 – 1999) was a Tanzanian anti-colonial activist, politician, and political theorist. He governed Tanganyika as Prime Minister from 1961 to 1962 and then as President from 1963 to 1964, after which he led its successor state, Tanzania, as President from 1964 to 1985. Ideologically an African nationalist and African socialist, he promoted a political philosophy known as Ujamaa.
Source : Joseph Mulligan

 

[bagamoyo]

Prospects of Mankind ; Africa: Julius Nyerere Interview (1959)​

Eleanor Roosevelt discusses Africa and the prospects for decolonization with Julius Nyerere, Barbara Ward, Ralph Bunche, and Saville Davis. Guests: Julius Nyerere, founder of the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU), chief minister of British-ruled Tanganyika, later became the first Prime Minister of Tanganyika (now Tanzania); Barbara Ward, resident of Ghana, distinguished economist and writer, and lecturer at Harvard University; Ralph Bunche, Nobel Peace Prize winner and United Undersecretary for Special Political Affairs; Saville Davis, Managing Editor of The Christian Science Monitor.

Source : AfroMarxist

 

[Wacha1]

Very interesting, Nyerere huyu ambaye mmekuwa mnamsimanga hadi alipokwenda kaburini? Nyerere huyu ambaye mnasema alikuwa anawadhulumu Waisilamu?

 

[Bujibuji Simba Nyamaume]

Kuna mtu anataka historia iandikwe upya, watoto wasifundishwe Tena habari za Nyerere.
Kabila lenye historia ni Wamasai peke yao😅🤣😂

 

[bagamoyo]

Address to South African Parliament by the late Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere​

October 15, 2014
SANF 14 no 55
As the world commemorates the 15th anniversary of the death of former Tanzanian President, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, on 14 October 1999, the Southern African News Features publishes the following speech he made to the South African Parliament in October 1997.
Cape Town, 16 October 1997

Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere:

So the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara is that you are isolated from the centres of power. Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. Africa south of the Sahara, in the world today, is on its own — totally on its own. That’s the first thing I wanted to say.

The second thing I wanted to say is that Africa is changing. I’ve been to Europe, Asia, North America and Latin America, and Africa is a stereotype. The Africa which now arouses some interest is the Brazzaville Africa, that Rwanda Africa, that Somalia Africa, that Liberia Africa. That is the Africa which arouses interest, and I don’t blame these people. That’s the Africa that they know.

And so I go out. I come from Tanzania, and we don’t have these blessed troubles that they have in other places, but I go out. Sometimes I get annoyed, but sometimes I don’t get annoyed. Here I am a former president of my country. There are no problems in Tanzania — we have never had these problems that they have — but I’m an African. So when they see me they ask about the problems of Rwanda. I say, “I don’t come from Rwanda.” And they answer, “But you come from Africa” But if Blair were to come to Dar es Salaam, I wouldn’t ask him what is happening in Bosnia. If I meet President Kohl somewhere. I don’t ask him, “What is happening in Chechnya?” Kohi could say, “Why are you asking about Chechnya? I don’t know what is happening in Chechnya.”

But this is not true about Africa. Mr. President, here you are trying to build something which is a tremendous experience, but perhaps you are different. Sometimes they think South Africa is different, so perhaps they would say, “This is President Mandela, this is different.”

But for the likes of me, no, I am an African. And sometimes I get irritated, but then I say, “Why? Why do I get irritated?” Because, of course, I am a Tanzanian.
But what is this Tanzania? Why should these Europeans see me as a Tanzanian? What is this Tanzania? This is something we tried to create in my lifetime. I built Tanzania. So what is this Tanzania? The Europeans are right. The North Americans are right to look at me as an African, not as a Tanzanian, because Tanzania is a creation of colonialism, which is causing us a lot of trouble on the continent.

So, to some extent, Europeans are right when they choose to see us in this differentiated manner. The Tanzania here is a president of Tanzania. He struggled there for 23 years before he stepped down to try and turn those 125 tribes into some kind of nation, and he has succeeded to some extent. This is what I want them to think of. Why? They see me correctly as an African. So that is where I want to end. This is the other thing I really wanted to say.

Africa South of the Sahara is isolated, Africa south of the Sahara is changing. That stereotype of “There is trouble in Africa all the time” is nonsensical. There is trouble in Africa, there is trouble in Asia, there is trouble in Europe, there is trouble everywhere, and it would be amazing if after the suffering of the blessed continent for the last 100 years, we didn’t have what we are having.

Some of these nations we have are not nations at all. They make no sense at all, any geographical sense or ethnic sense or economic sense. They don’t. The Europeans set somewhere and said, “You take that part, you take that part.” They drew these lines on a map and here we are, trying to create nations which are almost impossible to create. But we are changing. The continent is changing.

My friend who was introducing me mentioned neocolonialism. I’m glad you still use the word “neocolonialism”, because, you know. We went through a period when some of our people thought we were so advanced now to talk about neocolonialism. Uh-uh, no, no. It is almost communist to talk about neocolonialism. He is a communist? Well, I am not a communist, but I agree with you! We went through a neocolonial period in Africa. It nearly destroyed all the hopes of the struggle for the liberation of the continent, with a bunch of soldiers taking over power all over the continent, pushed, instigated and assisted by the people who talk about this stereotype of Africa.

We have just got rid of Mobutu, who put him there? I don’t know what Lumumba would have been if he had been allowed to live. I don’t know. He was an elected leader, but angered the powerful and they removed him within weeks. Then Mobutu came on the scene within weeks and he’s been there since. He was the worst of the lot. He loots the country, he goes out, and he leaves that country with a debt of US$14 billion.

That money has done nothing for the people of Congo. So I sit down with friends of the World Bank and IMF. I say, “You know where that money is. Are you going to ask Kabila to tax the poor Congolese to pay that money? That would be a crime. It’s criminal.” And that was the type of leadership we had over a large part of Africa. They were leaders put there either by the French or by the Americans. When we had the Cold War, boy, I tell you, we couldn’t breathe.

But Africa is changing. You can make a map of Africa and just look at the countries stretching from Eritrea to here. Just draw a line and see all those countries. You still have a Somalia and a Burundi there, but it’s a very different kind of Africa now, it has elected governments, it has confident governments. Actually, most of those countries with the exception of Uganda, have never been under military rule. Never! And since you’re coming onto the scene, this is completely different kind of Africa.

When we were struggling here, South Africa still under apartheid, and you being a destabilizer of your neighbors instead of working together with them to develop our continent, of course that was a different thing. It was a terrible thing. Here was a powerful South Africa, and this power was a curse to us. It was not a blessing for us. We wished it away, because it was not a blessing at all. It destroyed Angola with a combination of apartheid; it was a menace to Mozambique and a menace to its neighbors, but that has changed. South Africa is democratic. South Africa is no longer trying to destroy the others. South Africa is now working with the others. And, boy please work with the others!

And don’t accept this nonsense that South Africa is big brother. My brother, you can’t be big brother. What is your per capita income? Your per capita income is about US$3,000 a year. Of course compared with Tanzania you are a giant. But you are poor. When you begin to use that money this is arithmetic, simple arithmetic and if you divide the wealth of this country for the population, of course everybody gets US$3, 000, but not everybody in this country is getting US$ 3,000. That would be a miracle. That is simply arithmetic.
So when you begin to use that wealth, Mr. President and I know you are trying to address the legacy of apartheid — you have no money. You are still different from Tanzania, but you have no money.

You are still more powerful. So Tanzania and the others to say that South Africa is big brother, and they must not throw their weight around, what kind of weight is that? And, in any case, this would be positive weight, not the negative weight of apartheid.

So this is a different Africa. I am saying that this Africa now is changing. Neocolonialism is being fought more effectively, I think, with a new leadership in Africa. And I believe the one region which can lead this fight is our region. With the end of apartheid and South Africa having joined SADC, this area of Africa is a very solid area. It is an extremely solid area. It is strong, it has serious leaders and these leaders know one another. I know that because where some of them have come from, they have a habit of working together, Mr. President, so let them work together. Deliberately. It should be a serious decision to work together. Why? You have no other choice. You have absolutely no other choice.

South Africa, because of its infrastructure, can attract more investment from Europe, from North America, than Tanzania can. Fine, go ahead. Do it, use your capacity to get as much investment as you can. That’s good. But then don’t be isolated from the rest of Africa. What you build here because of your infrastructure and the relative strength of your economy, you are building for all of us here.

The power that Germany has is European power, and the Europeans are moving together. The small and the big are working together. It is absurd for Africa to think that we, these little countries of Africa, can do it alone. Belgium has 10 million people. Africa south of the Sahara if you exclude South Africa has 470 million Africans, I sit down with the Prime Minister of Belgium, and he talks to me about European unity. I say, “You are small, your country is very small, so how can you talk of European unity with giants like Germany and the others? He says, “This question of the protection of our sovereignty we leave to the big powers. We lost our sovereignty ages ago.”
These countries are old, their sovereignty is old. These Europeans fought wars.

When we were studying history, it was the history of the wars of Europe. They fought and fought, and they called their wars World Wars. But now I can’t imagine Europeans fighting. No, war in Europe is an endangered species. I think it’s gone, certainly war between one country and another. The internal problems you will still have, the problem of the Balkans, but that is a reflection of something that is like Africa.

So I’m saying that Africa is changing because the leadership in Africa is changing. Africa is beginning to realize and we should all encourage Africa to get that realization more and more that we have to depend upon ourselves, both at national level and at the collective level. Each of our countries will have to rely upon its own human resources and natural material resources for its development. But that is not enough. The next area to look at is our collectivity, our working together. We all enhance our capacity to develop if we work together.
Source : Address to South African Parliament by the late Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere

 

[bagamoyo]

Julius Nyerere Interview (1996)​

Source : AfroMarxist

Transcript of the interview :

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Next, Charlayne Hunter-Gault concludes her series on the origin of the crises in Central Africa. She talks with Julius Nyerere, a key figure in efforts to bring peace to the region.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Julius K. Nyerere, the 74-year-old former president of Tanzania and one of Africa's most respected elder statesmen, led his country to an independence in 1961 and presided over it until 1985. Searching for a development path for his dirt-poor country, he introduced a governing concept that was meant to meld socialism with traditional tribal government. He called it "Ujamaa," Swahili for familyhood.

Through benign one-party rule and emphasizing racial and tribal harmony and moralistic self-sacrifice, Nyerere unified Tanzania from a far flung collection of tribes into a nation. But the country faltered. After Nyerere stepped down from power in 1985, the country was in shambles, and the socialist experiment was viewed as a failure. Nyerere resigned voluntarily after serving four terms. He handed over power to a constitutionally chosen successor, one of the few peaceful transitions in a region dominated by military governments and coup d'etats.
Rwanda and Burundi.

Neighboring Burundi and Rwanda have not been so lucky. Since their independence in 1962, both have been torn by fighting between factions from the majority Hutu tribe and the minority Tutsis. Millions on both sides have been killed, most recently from the Hutu genocide against Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. That produced waves of refugees also in the millions that spilled into Tanzania, Zaire, Uganda, and other border states. The minority Tutsis have now regained control of Rwanda and have called for reconciliation as thousands of Hutus have begun returning to the ravaged country. In Burundi, a military coup by Tutsi leader Pierre Boyoya is still in effect, despite a call by leaders from the region to return to democratic rule.

Julius Nyerere has come out of retirement and at recent summits in Arusha, Tanzania, and elsewhere has been involved in mediating the conflicts in the Great Lakes region. Called "Mwalimu," the Swahili word for "teacher," Nyerere has devoted much of his time to African solutions to Africa's problems.

OLARA OTUNNU, International Peace Academy: Very few leaders understand as deeply the roots, the evolution, the nature of the conflict in the Great Lakes as he does. Very few leaders have ideas about what to do about it as he does, and very few leaders have the influence that he has within that sub-region.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: We met Nyerere during a recent visit to New York and asked first about Rwanda, and the prospects for reconciliation there.

JULIUS K. NYERERE, Former President, Tanzania: It's not going to be easy to prevent people who have lost members of their families to want revenge. This cannot be prevented. And so some revenge killings here and there might take place, but the government, itself, is going to work extremely hard to reconcile the people, and then my hope is that the international community will help them in two ways: one, that we do get hold of the perpetrators of the genocide and put them on trial, at the international tribunal in Arusha. I hope we do that. Some of these people are being harbored in the capital, in the capitals of a large number of our countries. We should hand them over. Secondly, we should help the government with the resources. And that government is going to try and reconcile their country.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Are African government in which--in countries where these militia people are hiding now prepared to hand them over?

JULIUS NYERERE: Well, so far, they're not handing them over. Some are in Africa. Some are not in Africa. Some are in Europe, and it's just possible some may be outside Europe. We all have a responsibility to hand over these people. This is an essential element in the reconciliation of the peoples of Rwanda. I hope that will happen.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: What is the main problem in Burundi? You've been most recently involved there, yourself.

JULIUS NYERERE: Well, the main problem is a problem of power. In Rwanda, you had a majority in power. You have these divisions called Tutsi, Hutu, and in Rwanda, you had the Hutu in power, and the minority Tutsi excluded. In Burundi, it was the other way around. You had the minority Tutsis in power, and the majority excluded. And this is--this is the problem we have to deal with, that power, really virtually since independence has been in the hands of the minority, supported by the army. And that is really basically the problem we are dealing with.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: What would the solution be?

JULIUS NYERERE: The solution will be a reconciliation. We'll have--we will have to negotiate a system under which both the majority and the minority feel reasonably happy.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: What's the biggest obstacle?
The biggest obstacle.

JULIUS NYERERE: Well, the biggest obstacle at present is that those who are in power, the minority--the minority is in power--they are like one riding on the back of a tiger. And they really want almost a water-tight assurance before they get off the back of the tiger because they feel if they get off the back of the tiger--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: It will eat them.

JULIUS NYERERE: --it will eat them. So really, we have--I think we have to be patient and devise some method that gives the assurance to the minority that democracy does not mean that they're going to be wiped out by the majority, and really to give the majority--to get the minority, itself, to realize that clinging to that power is no answer.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: The African governments in the region, you've been working with the leaders there, and they have imposed sanctions on Burundi. Has this had any effect?

JULIUS NYERERE: Leaders of the region are absolutely united on this one, and the significance of this is sometimes lost in the outside world. The outside world regards Africa as military rule and--and dictatorships by single-party system. My system was single-party system. But they don't realize the significance of what has taken place in East Africa. These leaders who met in Arusha were really saying to the military regime in Burundi we can no longer accept military rule on our borders.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: And this is a major change.

JULIUS NYERERE: This is a major change on the continent, and I really hope that the significance will be the allies outside Africa.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Does the history of this conflict, this Great Lakes region conflict, so many deaths, so many terrible things happening to the people, innocent people, in the region, does it yield any lessons for the future in terms of how you prevent future conflicts of this size and scope and nature?

JULIUS NYERERE: Well, I mean, this is not simply in this region. It's everywhere.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: In the world.

JULIUS NYERERE: In the world. It's not simply us; it's everywhere.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: It's not ethnic.

JULIUS NYERERE: It's not ethnic. And I am ethnic... I keep saying I think it's matter of justice. It's a perception of the people feeling that they're not being treated justly. And ethnicity yes, but Singapore has ethnic groups, as Chinese, the dominant group, has Malays, has Indians, but Singapore has done well economically. Had Singapore not done well economically and you have these ethnic groups there, the economy is not doing well, you would be hearing about the ethnic divisions of Singapore, and I have a feeling that, oh, if Singapore was doing well that somehow one ethnic group was dominating the others economically, we would hear that. And this problem is basically economic.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: You mentioned the one-party rule in your country where you were president for four terms during which time you promoted the principle of "Ujamaa," socialism, and you have acknowledged that it was a miserable failure. What lessons, in retrospect, do you draw from that and the kind of economies that African countries might more profitably pursue?

JULIUS NYERERE: Where did you get the idea that I thought "Ujamaa" was a miserable failure?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Well, I read that you said socialism was failure; the country economically was in shambles at the end of the experiment.

JULIUS NYERERE: A bunch of countries were in economic shambles at the end of the 70s. They are not socialists. Now, today it needs so much courage to talk about socialism, therefore, perhaps we should change the phraseology, but you have to take in the values of socialism which we were trying to build in Tanzania in any society.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: And those values are what?

JULIUS NYERERE: And those values are values of justice, a respect for human beings, a development which is people-centered, development where you care about people you can say leave the development of a country to something called the market which has no heart at all since capitalism is completely ruthless, who is going to help the poor, and the majority of the people in our countries are poor. Who is going to stand for them? Not the market. So I'm not regretting that I tried to build a country based on those principles. You will have to--whether you call them socialism or not--do you realize that what made--what gave capitalism a human face was the kind of values I was trying to sell in my country.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: So what's the answer? Because, with all due respect, the economy of Tanzania did not thrive under the socialism that you practiced. So what is the--what do you see as the answer for African countries which are still predominantly poor?

JULIUS NYERERE: The problem is not a question of socialism. You have to deal with the problem of poverty. You have to deal with the problem of poverty in your country, and your country is not socialist, or we're in trouble. People in rich countries don't realize the responsibility of handling poverty in countries like mine. But those countries will develop. Countries in Africa are poor, both capitalists and socialists, and today we don't have a single one with these socialists.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Finally, you've been critical of some western countries and their roles in Africa. At the same time you've called on western nations to help--I think your phrase was clean up the mess in Rwanda and Burundi. Can you explain what at least sounds like a contradiction?
The colonial legacy.

JULIUS NYERERE: Well, I'm saying some of the problems we are now handling in Africa, some of the mess we're trying to clean up in the continent we have inherited, the mess of the borders we have inherited.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: The colonials who--

JULIUS NYERERE: The colonial--

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: The colonial powers drew the borders.

JULIUS NYERERE: Yes. The colonial powers and some not colonial powers in Africa have supported regimes which are very corrupt on that continent. I think now they should stop backing up these corrupt regimes and let Africans in their own way try and establish regimes which can care about people. Some of the governments of the West, and including the United States, has really been very bad on our continent. They have used the Cold War and all sorts of things to back up a bunch of corrupted leaders on our continent. I think they should stop now and let the people of Africa sort out their own, their own future.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Does that include the leader of Zaire, Mobutu Seseseko?

JULIUS NYERERE: Well, I didn't say so.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Many people say so.

JULIUS NYERERE: When we have African problems, we, ourselves, have a duty to solve our problems. I think we must accept that. When you have African problems, we should try on our own to solve those problems. We would prefer the outside world to keep out. If we want help, we can seek for help. But do you realize sometimes we ask for help, and it doesn't come. On the 5th of last month our leaders met in Nairobi, and if said need an external--we need a force to go into Zaire to help the refugees to come back. It's not happening. And we appealed to the United Nations to establish that force, and we said we would also be participating in that force. Well, quite frankly, this is not happening. What is happening is a kind of self-help within Eastern Zaire, itself. And the refugees are going back. I hope--I think the lesson which Africa should draw from that is that they should rely upon themselves to the maximum when it comes to dealing with African problems.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mwalimu Nyerere, thank you.

 

[Malcolm X5]

Huyu mzee alikuwa best politician aisee,was such a leader,sense of hopes,sense of humour and intelligent sana,mfano interview hiyo ya: Prospects of mankind,
Barbara ward na Nyerere pekee wanaiongelea Africa namna ya kipekee,wanavyoijua kinagaubaga,kuna sehemu wamenifurahisha kushtuka pamoja “where”? Pamoja wakiwa wanafahamu Hilo jambo halipo Africa kwa nchi hizo tajwa,loved this,Nyerere was such an exceptional..

 

[The Icebreaker]

Aisee.

 

[Tate Mkuu]

ARRIVAL CEREMONY FOR JULIUS NYERERE, PRESIDENT OF TANGANYIKA, 11:30AM​

President John F. Kennedy shakes hands with President of Tanganyika, Julius Nyerere, upon President Nyerere’s arrival at the White House aboard a United States Army helicopter. US Chief of Protocol, Angier Biddle Duke, stands in center. South Lawn, White House, Washington, D.C.
Source : Courtesy of JFKENNEDY LIBRARY Arrival ceremony for Julius Nyerere, President of Tanganyika, 11:30AM | JFK Library

Uzuri wa Baba wa Taifa alikuwa ni mtu smart sana kichwani. Anaye mkaribia kwa usmart kichwani, yena kwa mbaalini kijana wake Ben! Hao wengine ni tia maji tia maji tu.

Alikuwa anajiamini na alikuwa ni mtu mwenye maono ya mbali. Bahati mbaya tu hakufanikiwa kuwa na Wasaidizi wenye maono kama yake. Udhaifu wa Mwalimu kwa mtazamo wangu, ni kwenye ile sera yake tu ya Ujamaa na Kujitegemea pamoja na kushiriki kwake kuianzisha CCM mwaka 1977.

 

[bagamoyo]

TANU Women. Gender and Culture in the Making of Tanganyikan Nationalism, 1955-1965
Susan Geiger
(Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; Oxford: James Currey; Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota, 1997)

Review by Katalin Medvedev
LIFE HISTORY AS A FEMINIST METHOD
Susan Geiger’s TANU Women is a significant contribution to three areas of scholarly interest: African social history, and women’s histories, and feminist methodology.

Geiger provides an alternative reading of Tanzanian social and nationalist history. Through the life histories of more than 30 Swahili women from Dar es Salaam as well as disproves that Tanzanian nationalist culture and statehood were the brainchild and product of a Western-educated male elite, particularly Julius Nyerere, the first president of independent Tanzania and the leader of the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU).

Instead, she shows that Nyerere’s ideology and leadership style came from appropriating a pre-existing, indigenous nationalist political culture and praxis among Swahili women, manifest in their everyday lives. Some of these sites of influence were informal networks, such as women’s egalitarian trans-ethnic ngoma dance groups, which functioned as “melting pots” of the Tanzanian nationalist state. In Geiger’s view, Tanzanian nationalist consciousness originated in these dance groups, in which different ethnicities came together for the sole purpose of enjoyment and to build community.

As a feminist scholar, Geiger has an explicit transformative agenda. She consciously writes a people’s — mostly women’s — history, not an “official” history.

However, while correcting the androcentric bias of male exceptionality and agency in traditional historiography, the subjects of Geiger’s life histories are not the usual suspects of oral narratives. They are not meant to be representatives of “ordinary” or “exceptional” women.

Geiger does not believe in such objectifying and homogenizing categories. Instead, her work is innovative, representing Swahili urban and rural women’s instrumentality in the nation’s empowerment through their collective biographies. She presents multiple truths through varied perspectives on women’s subjective realities.

At the same time, Geiger’s
feminist approach emerges in another way. She expects the reader to understand the life histories as a critical analysis of patriarchal gender relations on two levels: in political practices and in personal relationships.

The biographies are not meant to be comprehensive life histories. They fall into the genre of “focused life histories” because the events described are mostly limited to the period from 1955 to 1965, which comprised the formative years of TANU. Analyzing the gendered, contextual realities
of the research subjects, Geiger convincingly argues that Swahili women’s relocation to the capital allowed not only for more unsupervised female mobility and autonomy, but also economic as well as sexual independence.

For instance, the rectangular, open architectural design of a typical Swahili communal residence in the city provided a natural infrastructure for unrelated women to interact, cooperate and develop solidarity networks.

Geiger further argues that a shared knowledge of Swahili language and Muslim cultural norms played a crucial role in the growth of a distinctive Swahili female political consciousness, which was egalitarian and womancentered, welcoming to trans-ethnic and transtribal ideas, and open to different class levels.

Central to the book is Bibi Titi’s narrative, which is the “thread that extends and connects the narratives of TANU women’s activities and nationalism and moves the larger narrative forward chronologically and
conceptually” (p. 19). Geiger focuses on Titi not only because she acknowledges Titi’s contribution to the construction of the nationalist state as one of TANU’s most efficient and most well known organizers, but also because Geiger can show that the hierarchical relationship between researcher and research subject is not necessarily absolute. Titi demonstrates agency as a political actor as well as a research subject.

In Titi’s life history, which is co-authored by her and Geiger, Titi does not come across at any time as a “monolithic” Third World subject. She takes charge of her own representation; Geiger does not speak for her, but unobtrusively provides missing information. This is a radical approach in a Western scholarship that extols and rewards individual achievement, and zealously guards copyright privileges. In putting Titi’s story center stage, the reader discerns the influence of two treatises that appear to have influenced Geiger’s understanding of nationalist history. One is John Iliffe’s book, A Modern History of Tanganyika (1979), which is regarded as one of the most authoritative and comprehensive books on the country, and the other is Benedict Anderson’s book, Imagined Communities (1983). From the former, Geiger utilizes the idea that colonial states create subjects, not nations. From the latter, she understands that particular activities, such as the simultaneous reading of daily newspapers, are key in the formation of national consciousness.

Geiger finds similar significance in the function, modus operandi and
widespread participation of people in ngoma groups as a pre-condition for constructing a nationalist ethos and consequently the Tanzanian state. In its final presentation, however, this parallel, despite some similarities, seems somewhat forced and self-serving. But that is a minor glitch in a mammoth production that is hard to emulate.

Geiger provides the most significant contribution to feminist methodology in the detailed discussion and theorization of her 5-step research process and use of life histories in the preface and introduction. She is aware
that life history can be critiqued for its possible biases and distortions as well as for providing a subjective account; she, however, argues that the “issue of subjectivity does not itself constitute reason for disregarding the data available in life history narratives” (1986, p. 338). She refuses to choose between subjectivity and analytical rigor. She maintains that by disclosing one’s positionality; by being reflexive of the political implications of the facets and stages of the research process and the publication of findings; and through collective authorship one can alleviate some of the potential misrepresentations inherent in all interpretive work. She calls for re-conceptualizing the research situation as “co-authoring” — not as a “speaking for,” but as a “speaking with” model.

Geiger finds such a collaborative effort among Swahili women, so the reader also can see the unity between the philosophy of the content and the execution of
the project. Geiger believes that multiple interpretations, obvious silences, inconsistencies, and lack of linearity and chronology in the narratives are natural in memory work. Despite this, she advocates life history as a research method because it provides the opportunity for a “broader and deeper understanding of women’s consciousness, historically and in the present” (Geiger, 1986, p. 335).

Most importantly, Geiger argues that life histories merit the attention of feminist scholars because they allow for meaningful cross-cultural comparisons about women’s collective experiences and oppression. Therefore, the question of the future of women’s political participation in post-colonial Africa is also implicit in the book. TANU Women is exemplary feminist scholarship in its objectives, content and execution. Geiger has set very high standards for the next generation of feminist scholars. Her devotion to her work would intimidate all but the most persistent and strongwilled
— Geiger spent two decades on her book — but it is also a challenge for those on a similar quest. The loss to academe with Geiger’s recent passing away will be felt for a long time.

SUSAN GEIGER received her Ph.D. in African history from the University of Dar es Salaam in 1973. She is Associate Professor in the Women's Studies Department, and on the graduate faculties in history and the Center for Advanced Feminist Studies at the University of Minnesota. She coedited "Women, Family, State and Economy in Africa" (SIGNS, special issue, 1991), and Interpreting Women's Lives: Feminist Theory and Personal Narratives (Indiana Univ. Press, 1989). She has published in the Journal of African History, the International Journal of African Historical Studies, the Journal of Women's History, and SIGNS.

 

[Smart911]

Thank you for the articles...

 

[bagamoyo]

26 Mar 2021

Tanzania Songa Mbele - UMOJAH BROTHERS GROUP (Official Video)​

Tanzania Songa Mbele - UMOJAH BROTHERS GROUP (Official Video) Artists: Innocent Galinoma, Ras Gwandumi, Ras Inno, Ras Mizizi na Pampi Judah Wimbo Maalum Wa Kumbukumbu Ya Rais Wa Jamhuri Ya Muungano Wa Tanzania Mh. John Pombe Magufuli (RIP).

 

[bagamoyo]

22 April 2021
Dodoma, Tanzania

 

[bagamoyo]

Sunday, September 10, 2017​

The Legacy of Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere​

The Legacy of Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere
There are those who are bent on tarnishing the legacy of Mwalimu Nyerere. The campaign to tarnish the legacy of Mwalimu is based on various claims; one of the most frequent criticism lies in the economic challenges that the country faced during his tenure.

The criticism fails to take into account some of the major gains in the development of people, not things, the sacrifices made for the liberation of southern Africa and its consequences, and more importantly, many critics fail to take into account the larger context of the 1960s and 70s.
Nyerere’s contributions to the struggle for freedom and independence is unparalleled in Africa. ANC of South Africa, FRELIMO of Mozambique, ZAPU and later ZANU of Zimbabwe, SWANU/SWAPO of Namibia, all these organizations established a presence in Tanganyika before independence, and starting in 1963, opened up military camps. FRELIMO, one of the most successful groups in southern Africa, was formed in Tanganyika in 1962.

Nyerere gave the different groups from Mozambique based in Tanganyika an ultimatum: either unite or leave the country. The outcome was a meeting at Arnautoglu Hall, in Dar es Salaam, that led to the formation of FRELIMO. The establishment of military camps in Kongwa in 1963 was the beginning of liberation armies from southern Africa that eventually ended racist minority rule in southern Africa. FRELIMO, ANC, SWAPO, ZANU, all established military camps at Kongwa.

The SWAPO consultative conference in Tanga, Tanzania was a turning point in the struggle for Namibia. So was the ANC conference in Morogoro, Tanzania in 1969; this was an important moment for the struggle for South Africa. For the South Africans, Namibians, Zimbabweans, and Mozambicans, Tanzania was one of the most important places in the history of their struggles.

Nyerere committed Tanzania's limited resources to the liberation of southern Africa from 1961 through the 1980s. Tanzania was punished politically and economically for this. The economic cost for Tanzania’s role in supporting liberation movements in southern Africa cannot be overestimated.
Britain cut off economic aid to Tanzania in 1965 over disagreements on Southern Rhodesia. The government of Tanganyika had signed a 7 million pounds aid package with Britain; the aid was cancelled because of Southern Rhodesia.

Nyerere was committed to the principle of NIBMAR, No Independence Before Majority Rule in Zimbabwe. And for this reason, he was ready to let go the financial assistance from the West. This was no easy decision for an independent country just 3 years after winning independence. As far back as 1960, Nyerere indicated the desire to leave the Commonwealth if South Africa was allowed to join the Commonwealth.

Nyerere took part in formation of the Anti Apartheid Movement in London in 1959 with the help of his close friend and comrade K.W. M. Chiume from Malawi. He gave the keynote speech during a meeting that launched the Anti-Apartheid Movement in the UK. Later, pressure from Tanganyika eventually forced South Africa out of the Commonwealth. No amount of money, aid, would convince Mwalimu to betray his conscience. He believed that all humans were created equal, that human dignity, the dignity of Africa, was worth more than a few pieces of silver.


The economic difficulties Tanzania faced must be placed in a wider context. Let us not forget that Tanzania was not alone in Africa in facing economic difficulties. There are many reasons for this and not much has changed to this day. World oil crisis of 1973 due to Arab/Israel war devastated the economies of countries such as Tanzania. Tanzania's foreign reserve was wiped out during the crisis. Natural disasters such as the serious drought of the 1970s in eastern Africa worsened the regional economic situation.

The war between Tanzania and Uganda came just as Tanganyika was showing signs of recovery towards the end of 1970s. The Tanzania/Uganda war of 1978-1979 finished whatever the government of Tanzania had in its reserves. Tanzania leaders had to travel to different capitals around the world to get what they needed for the war. Idi Amin who was put into power with the help of British and Israel intelligence had turned his back on his masters.

Muammar Gaddafi of Libya committed his resources and army to help Amin against Tanzania. Nyerere would later refuse an offer of millions of dollars from Gaddafi to free the mostly black Libyan soldiers sent to fight with Uganda against Tanzania. He instead put the Libyan soldiers on a plane back to Libya free of charge. This was a bloody and costly war that raged for almost a year.

Tanzania won the war; but the cash-strapped nation was left in an even greater debt.
Tanzania was already in a difficult economic situation at the start of 1980. There are many who like to criticize Nyerere for the economic hardships of the 1970s and 1980s as if they just started from nowhere and that the difficulties were only the result of socialist policies. Again, one is missing the big picture if they do not take into account the broader context. In addition to outside conditions that Tanzania had no control over, such as drought and oil crisis abroad, there was an underground economic war waged against Tanzania that made a bad economic situation worse by 1980.

Lastly, IMF and World Bank policies, i.e. Structural Adjustment Programs, further destroyed whatever prospects countries like Tanzania had in strengthening their economies by mid-1980s.
Mwalimu Nyerere was not an angel and he did make mistakes. Yet Nyerere took a country with a handful of doctors and engineers and a literacy rate of about 15% after 40 years of British rule and left it with over 90% literacy rate in 1985. The literacy rate has decreased significantly since then. As Nyerere pointed out correctly: he was interested in the development of people, not things. You can have skyscrapers, expensive homes and cars, great monuments, but if such things are owned and enjoyed by a few while the majority remain in poverty, then such things/development are ultimately meaningless. On the balance, Nyerere's contributions far outweigh his shortfalls.


There is no doubt about it, Nyerere was a giant among giants. History will absolve him and place him in his rightful place as one of the most remarkable African and world leaders of the 20th century.


© Azaria C. Mbughuni

 

[bagamoyo]

Saturday, February 13, 2016​

Tanzania and liberation ideology!​

Liberation!
It was in the halls of the University College (now the University of Dar es Salaam), that some of the greatest minds shared ideas about the future of Africa.

A generation of young scholars and militant students debated and came up with strategies for the struggle to liberate Africa. Many caught this fever; it was a fever that inspired countless Tanzanians and Africans. But what happened since?

A young generation of Tanzanians appears hopelessly lost; worse, a group of people lacking any ideological grounding have hijacked important positions and are busy enriching themselves at the expense of the majority. And so it appears to many observers that the greatest ambition of many young people today is to find a shortcut for accumulating wealth.

Not too long ago, there was a generation dedicated to total liberation. Has this old generation failed us? What is the struggle for the young people today? Where do they draw motivation and inspiration?

A group of young African students and teachers held an OAU mock session on the quest for United States of Africa in 1969 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The session led to a heated debate between students representing various African countries on the strategy to build unity and the struggle to end colonial rule in Africa.

This historic debate was held at the Kinondoni Muslim Secondary School. A young unknown student from the University College, Dar es Salaam named Issa Shivji represented Tanzania at the debate. Shivji told 17 delegates that Africa could not “bear any further humiliations by foreigners.” He argued that Africa was “poor and weak” and added that “power could only be achieved if the economy of Africa was developed.”

It was through economic empowerment that Africa would be in position to achieve the greater goal of “United States of Africa.” Shivji proposed an ambitious goal: the establishment of the United States of Africa by 1975. He envisaged achieving this monumental task in a period of about just 6 years. It is only now, more that 30 years later that we can look back in retrospect and marvel at the idealism and enthusiasm of the young students.

The question of prioritizing the liberation of Africa or moving forward with unifying Africa was one point of contention; some delegates pointed out that Africa had to be liberated from colonialism first before embarking on the quest for unity. Numerous countries, including Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, were not free in 1969 when the debate took place. Issa Idris, delegate representing Malawi, pointed out during the debate that it was pointless to discuss United States of Africa while numerous African countries remained under colonial rule.

Another delegate, Leonard Kasulwa, argued that an earlier date should be set for achieving the union government of Africa. The debate took place at a period when Tanzania was one of the most important centers in the ideological battle for the emancipation of Africa politically, economically, and socially.

There was a war raging in the neighboring Mozambique; Tanzania was directly involved in that war. Dar es Salaam attracted some of the best minds from Africa and the Diaspora during the 1960s.

Students like Shivji, Yoweri Museveni, and countless others, had the privilege of listening to some of the best minds of the time. The “Dar es Salaam School”, as it became known, made its mark in Tanzania and the rest of the world. Countless revolutionaries such as Walter Rodney, Nathan Shamuyarira, and others, shared ideas with colleagues, students, and leaders belonging to various liberation movements housed in Tanzania.

A collection of writings and speeches by Mwalimu Nyerere was published under the title Freedom and Socialism in May of 1969. The essays linked up freedom and socialism; Mwalimu not just talked the talk, he dedicated most of the country’s meager resources to the liberation of Africa. It was under this context that the young students and teachers met at Kinondoni Muslim Secondary School to debate the best strategy for building a strong and united continent.

Shivji and other young students came of age during an era of great revolutionary thought; they were shaped by the urgency of the situation at the time. For them, African unity and removal of colonial rule was important; some of them identified the dangers of neocolonialism and warned of its future dangers. Class struggle, they argued, could not be divorced from the struggle for political independence. The academics and other great minds of the time, thought carefully about the challenges they faced, engaged in rigorous debates, and inspired a whole generation of young men and women.

That great era of Pan-Africanism, socialist revolution, appears as if it has come to an end; so it seems.
It is now up to the new generation of African academics and leaders to revive the debate on how best to tackle the challenges that face Tanzania and the rest of Africa. The political, economic, and social liberation of Tanzania is linked inextricably with the liberation of Africa. Africa appears to be sinking and laging behind; neocolonialism continues to sink its teeth and Africa is far from breaking the chains that holds it to the ground. The problems facing Tanzania are not so different from other African countries.

The problems stem partly from outside interference and part of it lies within. The emancipation of Africa politically, economically, and socially is an urgent matter that the new generation will have to address.

The liberation of the African must be a stepping stone in the wider quest to liberate all humanity from poverty, superstition, and the achievement of basic needs and equality to all under the Sun. As that great son of Africa, Robert Sobukwe, once pronounced: "We are fighting for the noblest cause on earth, the liberation of mankind.." And I will add womankind to this great struggle!
But what is the next step?
© Azaria Mbughuni

 

[bagamoyo]

Julius Nyerere interview 1985 on mistakes made during Nationalisation


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2E8bJxavYbc

 

[bagamoyo]

21 November 2023
Piazza della Pilotta,
Roma RM

COLLOQUIUM ON THE "MWALIMU" JULIUS NYERERE​

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZga8LvmNEc
Source: UniGregoriana

His Excellency Mahmoud Thabit Kombo ambassador of Tanzania was in attendance to delivered an opening remark and also greetings from Her Excellency Dr. Samia Suluhu Hassan president of the United Republic of Tanzania ...

An international colloquium about Mwalimu Nyerere a politician with a soul a servant of God this colloquium explores the link between faith and political career of Mwalimu the first president of Tanzania as an example of New Politics advocated by Pope Francis ....

When Pope Francis speaks of politics as a vocation and calls for more politicians with soul, who could qualify? One answer could be Julius Kambarage Nyerere, the father-founder of Tanzania, also known by the Swahili name of “Mwalimu”, which means “teacher”, because of the profession he had before entering politics. The Catholic Church is currently reviewing Nyerere’s life in consideration of beatification. On 21 November 2023
the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome is holding an international colloquium on the revered philosopher-king in Africa, but relatively unknown to many in Europe.

The forum will feature the lectures of Dr. Ng’wanza Kamata, co-author of the three-volume biography of Julius Nyerere published in Dar es Salaam; Dr. Ethan R. Sanders, Professor of History, Politics and Political Economy, Regis College; and Fr. Festo Mkenda, SJ, Academic Director of Roman Archives of the Society of Jesus. Nyerere’s son, Charles Makongoro Nyerere, is coming especially to attend the event in honor of “Mwalimu”. Tanzanian Ambassador to Italy, H.E. Mahmoud Thabit Kombo, is gracing the event, as well the Jesuit Justice and Ecology Network – Africa (JENA) and the Fondazione “Fratelli Tutti "

“Mwalimu” Julius Kambarage Nyerere, the first president of Tanzania (in office 1961-85), is a flesh-and-blood exemplar of what Pope Francis describes as «a politician with soul» (Evangelii Gaudium 273). Born in Tanganyika to a Zanaki king, Prince Nyerere was also known by the Swahili name of “Mwalimu”, which means “teacher”, because of the profession he had before entering politics.

Nyerere fought for human-centered development, democratized education and health care, and maintained a deep respect for human rights and peace in a dangerous and unstable part of the world ......

READ MORE : Source: International Colloquium on the "Mwalimu" Julius Nyerere