One government without eliminating SMZ possible, use your imagination

[msemakweli]

It is truely sad how we automatically assume that the Zanzibaris will never settle for the one government structure. I believe it is possible to have one national government without dissolving the SMZ. We just have to employ our imaginations, and, going by what happened in the CA, i am starting to think people are seriously in shortage of the same.

Rigid thinking has engulfed our minds and hearts, and is a slow poison that we need to reed ourselves of. Take for instance the United Kingdom, which is a union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The government of the UK was in charge of all national matters plus all matters regarding England. It is even rumoured that our founding father, Julius Nyerere, adopted the idea of a two tier government structure from them.

However, due to political pressures such as we are experiencing, power was devolved to all the constituents of the United Kingdom, effectively granting each of them a reasonable amount of autonomy. Today, the UK still remains a unitary state, despite having several regional parliaments (Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland).

Why can't we here in Tanzania have a central government, existing alongside various regional governments (one for each mkoa, and counting Zanzibar as one under the SMZ) in a system of devolution of powers? Of course the Zanzibaris should enjoy special privileges to distinguish them from other regional governments, like producing the Vice President if the President comes from the mainland and vice versa, and maybe making it constitutionally impossible for the Central Government to disband the SMZ, contrary to the norm in a devolved government.

The rest should just be left to history; the fact that Tanzania is a union of two countries and not one. It happened, and for that we thank our founding fathers. Now lets carry forth from where they left off.

Devolved system of govt may just be what Tanzania needs


As Tanzanians explore structures of government to adopt, I suggest they consider devolution.

Devolution refers to the statutory transfer of powers from the central government of a sovereign state – in this case the Union Government of Tanzania – to governments at a sub-national level – in this case the regions. It differs from federalism in that devolved powers ultimately reside in the central government, thus the state remains, de jure unitary.



Isn't this the solution to our little problem? It offers us some kind of a midpoint between those who think that we need one government (Unionists) and those who are of the view that we need three (federalists). I subscribe to the view that none of the above will work to quash dissatisfactions fully, and that the latter will lead to the eventual collapse of the Union. As patriots, we should shiver to even entertain such a thought!



Now, imagine a scenario of three tiers of government: The Union government, the regional government and the local government. Each of the 26 regions of the country, counting Zanzibar as one, has its own regional government, consisting of a regional executive committee and a regional assembly.


The governors and the lieutenant governors are the chief executives and deputy chief executives of the regions respectively.

Of course, the Union government still controls the major revenue bases (income tax, Customs, corporate tax, VAT etc), but the regional governments collect some taxes such as property tax and all taxes on beer and gambling.



A given fraction of the union government's revenues are shared out among the regions according to a given formula that takes various parameters such as population and land area into account.



Powers devolved to the regional governments include regional agriculture, regional education and health services, regional transport, intra-regional trade, regional planning and development, disaster management and emergency services, regional public works, coordination of local governments et cetera.

All powers not assigned to the regions remain as powers of the Union government. Each region has two senators who represent it in the senate, and is divided into a number of constituencies, depending on its population, for representation in the national assembly.



Each region also serves as a single member constituency for the election of women representatives to the national assembly. In accordance with the Union Treaty, should the president hail from one side of the Union (Tanganyika or Zanzibar), then the vice president must come from the other side.

In the above model, for one, the Zanzibaris will enjoy a reasonable amount of autonomy from the Union. They will have an assembly and executive, serving under a "Governor of Zanzibar."



They will have authority to make and implement decisions that fall within their exclusive jurisdiction. However, they will have to recognise that they are part of a larger state, Tanzania.

Secondly, it guarantees the safety and continuity of our Union by establishing a strong Union government, unlike in the proposed federal structure. It also honours the Union treaty's provision of having the president and vice president come from different sides of the Union.



Lastly, it brings with it all the advantages of having a devolved government, including more localised representation of political views, more localised spending of resources, promotes democratic and accountable exercise of power, balances economic development in the country, gives powers of self-governance to the people and enhances the participation of the people in national socioeconomic development, protects and promotes the interests and rights of minorities and marginalised communities.



If properly administered, each of our regions could be turned into a self-sufficient economic territory!


Raphael Kambamwene,
Dar es Salaam

 

[Kobello]

. Today, the UK still remains a unitary state, despite having several regional parliaments (Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland). Why can't we here in Tanzania have a central government, existing alongside various regional governments (one for each mkoa, and counting Zanzibar as one under the SMZ) in a system of devolution of powers? Of course the Zanzibaris should enjoy special privileges to distinguish them from other regional governments, like producing the Vice President if the President comes from the mainland and vice versa, and maybe making it constitutionally impossible for the Central Government to disband the SMZ, contrary to the norm in a devolved government.

England has no regional "Parliament".
If every mkoa will have a government, then the union will be Federal. The people, strongly voted down the federal form of Government, contrary to what has been published recently
(see, constitutional review commission's stats).
The caviar is, not disbanding the SMZ. While one side proposes a merely theoretically functioning three-tier system by establishing Tanganyika, the other side insists on the Status quo.
Im for a one unitary, centralised and socialist government with the elimination of Zanzibar. But it's the coward's stance that is gaining popularity, uniting under one roof of a three-tier government which undoubtedly represent two different goals.
One, aiming at disbanding or purposely and openly diluting the Union, while the other side, whose idea of a federated state (majimbo) was heavily crushed by the mass, are just aiming at - as speculated by the other side under a different roof, and of course me, personally- securing seats and hence power.

Your idea is not workable, and doesn't represent a true unitary government. let alone the highest degree of unpopularity and unfairness.

 

[msemakweli]

England has no regional "Parliament".
If every mkoa will have a government, then the union will be Federal. The people, strongly voted down the federal form of Government, contrary to what has been published recently
(see, constitutional review commission's stats).
The caviar is, not disbanding the SMZ. While one side proposes a merely theoretically functioning three-tier system by establishing Tanganyika, the other side insists on the Status quo.
Im for a one unitary, centralised and socialist government with the elimination of Zanzibar. But it's the coward's stance that is gaining popularity, uniting under one roof of a three-tier government which undoubtedly represent two different goals.
One, aiming at disbanding or purposely and openly diluting the Union, while the other side, whose idea of a federated state (majimbo) was heavily crushed by the mass, are just aiming at - as speculated by the other side under a different roof, and of course me, personally- securing seats and hence power.

Your idea is not workable, and doesn't represent a true unitary government. let alone the highest degree of unpopularity and unfairness.

True. Engalnd has no regional parliament. Yet. Plans are underway to establish one for England, to be based in London. Second, I think you are not well aquainted with the whole idea of government devolution. you see, unlike in a federal state, the devolved powers of the subnational authority ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains, de jure unitary. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute.

 

[Kobello]

True. Engalnd has no regional parliament. Yet. Plans are underway to establish one for England, to be based in London. Second, I think you are not well aquainted with the whole idea of government devolution. you see, unlike in a federal state, the devolved powers of the subnational authority ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains, de jure unitary. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute.

Please refer to post # 1.
When you talk about government (later cited as "subnational authority"), do you ever think of the executive and the judiciary of that "subnational authority" and legislation(s) that created them?
In federal states,devolved powers also reside in a "central"/Federal government. The word "central" is subjective in this case, but is usually used in unitary states. Like GoT VS. Ilala Municipality. Not as in Nyeri government vs. Government of Kenya.
Once you put "Mikoa", you put "States" in to the equation and the structure changes. And when you give Zanzibar a comparastively more autonomy, you turn it into a province (like US vs. Virgin Islands).
In short, you are just breaking-up the union.

 

[msemakweli]

Please refer to post # 1.
When you talk about government (later cited as "subnational authority"), do you ever think of the executive and the judiciary of that "subnational authority" and legislation(s) that created them?
In federal states,devolved powers also reside in a "central"/Federal government. The word "central" is subjective in this case, but is usually used in unitary states. Like GoT VS. Ilala Municipality. Not as in Nyeri government vs. Government of Kenya.
Once you put "Mikoa", you put "States" in to the equation and the structure changes. And when you give Zanzibar a comparastively more autonomy, you turn it into a province (like US vs. Virgin Islands).
In short, you are just breaking-up the union.

1. The regional governments will each have an executive council, under the leadership of a governor and a lieutenant governor. They will also have a regional assembly each, but no regional courts. the national judiciary would be enough for that purpose.
2. mikoas are not necessarily 'states'. How about we call them 'counties' then?
3. Both devolution and federalism describe the distribution of power between a centralised national government and subordinate bodies. But, whereas in a federal system the power is ceded upwards to a national government of limited authority (as proposed in the draft constitution), the power is transferred downwards in a devolved state from a central government to subsidiary assemblies. This will ensure the continuinity of the union, contrary to what you may imagine.
4. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute, which is not usually the case in a federation. For instance, the federal govt of the USA can never dissolve the Californian state government or Texas state government, but the Kenya government can, at its will, dissolve the County government of Nairobi or Mombasa.