Ni kweli mkuu. Lakini cha zaidi ni kuwa haya mataifa ya magharibi, hasa USA na Uingereza hawana DEMOCRACY. Wanapita kila mahala eti wanasambaza demokrasia wakati kwao haipo. Nitafurahi kufafanua kama kuna anaepinga.
Ni kweli mkuu. Lakini cha zaidi ni kuwa haya mataifa ya magharibi, hasa USA na Uingereza hawana DEMOCRACY. Wanapita kila mahala eti wanasambaza demokrasia wakati kwao haipo. Nitafurahi kufafanua kama kuna anaepinga.Siyo Uingereza pekee, ni mataifa yote ya magharibi, wao wamejiweka katika hali fulani ya kujikweza dhidi ya mataifa mengine.
Wanaamini wana haki ya kusimamia na kukosoa mataifa mengine bila ya wao kuingiliwa.
Nimeiona dah, afadhali hawa watusaidie maana huyu Baba Ubaya kah!
Magufuli Reveals His True ColoursAfter 10 months in office, the Tanzanian president’s reputation for bulldozing through corruption is tainted with concerning reports of suppressing political dissent.
21 SEP 2016 / BY PETER FABRICIUS - ISS – Institute for Security Studies
Not long ago, the hashtag [HASHTAG]#WhatWouldMagufuliDo[/HASHTAG]? became a rallying cry across East African and continental social media, as ordinary African citizens hailed the astonishing first 100 days of Tanzania’s new President John Magufuli.
Chosen by the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party as a compromise candidate, the relatively unknown politician won last November’s presidential elections and then immediately set about disrupting business as usual in Tanzania. He quickly became the scourge of the WaBenzi – often, quite literally, ordering ministers and other state mandarins to replace their limousines and 4X4s with humble sedans no larger than 1400cc, and otherwise banning extravagance, pomp and ceremony in favour of getting the work done for ordinary citizens.
‘This is a public service, not a gravy train. Anybody who came here to make riches should quit and join the private sector,’ he thundered. He also took a broadsword to overseas travel by ministers and officials. He himself has been abroad only twice as president, to neighbouring countries Rwanda and Uganda. He has skipped two African Union summits, one Southern African Development Community summit and the current UN General Assembly.
Magufuli was also hailed as the hopeful herald of a new kind of African leader
And he has aggressively attacked corruption and superfluous bureaucracy. The man who had earned the nickname ‘Bulldozer’ when he was minister of public works, fired scores of corrupt officials and slashed kilometres of red tape to get things done.
‘We are not here to rob the average Tanzanian, but to make his life better,’ he said, becoming a president for the people.
Many of those using the [HASHTAG]#WhatWouldMagufuliDo[/HASHTAG]? hashtag were citizens of other African countries, wishing that Magufuli would come to purge their pompous and corrupt bureaucracies. And Magufuli was also hailed further afield as the hopeful herald of a new kind of African leader. But now, 10 months later, though he still apparently retains popular support, quite a lot of the novelty of ‘the Magufuli way’ has begun to wear off.
The [HASHTAG]#WhatWouldMagufuliDo[/HASHTAG]? hashtag is not used nearly as much as it was. And the tone has changed. This week, for instance, one K Manchester tweeted: ‘#WhatWouldMagufuliDo? Jail Tanzanians for airing political opinions on social media. Get over it Mags.
Magufuli’s suppression of political dissent is raising concerns, also among foreign investors
For, indeed, the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court last week had just charged five people for insulting Magufuli on social media under a new cyber-crimes law.
The ‘insults,’ at least by South African standards, were remarkably mild – though clearly increasingly apt. ‘I don’t know what is going on in JPM’s head… He doesn’t even know how to say sorry. We are at this stage because of one person who believes that what he thinks is always right… he needs to understand that politics isn’t about resentment and the opposition isn’t an enemy… he should learn to compete with the opposition on the basis of debate, not force,’ said one.
Indeed. Several people have been charged under the same law and in June, one of them was sentenced to three years in prison and a Sh7 million (US$3 190) fine. Magufuli’s government has also banned three newspapers, mainly for ‘inflammatory’ reporting, and closed two radio stations for broadcasting ‘seditious’ material.
In June, police outlawed all protests as the main opposition planned rallies against what it called Magufuli’s ‘dictatorship’. Last month, Edward Lowassa, leader of the main opposition Chadema party, and several of his officials were reportedly arrested for inciting people to join in a mass ‘Day of Defiance’ protest that was planned for 1 September, but has now been postponed for a month while religious leaders try to mediate.
Is Magufuli shaping up in the familiar, authoritarian mould of a Paul Kagame?
Magufuli’s suppression of political dissent is now starting to raise concerns, not only among Tanzanians and democracy defenders, but also among foreign investors, who fear it may stoke political instability in a country long regarded as a pillar of regional stability.
Investors are increasingly eyeing Tanzania’s natural resources, including the continent’s third-largest gold reserves and an estimated 57 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. But they are starting to get wary.
And it’s not just the growing political uncertainty, but also Magufuli’s high-handed and typically bulldozing approach to business itself that is causing concern. Bloomberg recently quoted the research group africapractice as saying, in a 30 August report, that Magufuli’s aggressive push to register immediate results with his economic reforms was posing risks for private businesses.
The report said that Magufuli was largely sticking to market-oriented policies – but businesses were becoming worried about his introduction of many new VAT and import taxes, and bans on some imports and exports, to finance his ambition to increase revenue by 31% and to stimulate local industry.
Respect for institutions remains the vital missing ingredient in Magufuli’s leadership style
The report also complains that Tanzanian bureaucrats, driven hard by Magufuli to achieve ambitious revenue goals, are now pursuing a political rather than an economic agenda.
Meanwhile, Magufuli is increasingly centralising decisions in his office, even as that office remains largely inaccessible to entreaties by business people for clarification or softening of policies.
‘There is a clear risk that short-term gains for government could come at the cost of long-term investment,’ the report says. Though not mentioned in the report, Magufuli’s interventionist and protectionist management style can be seen in his government’s decision not to sign the European Union-East African Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) after agreement had been reached at the end of years-long negotiations.
Magufuli believes tariff-free EU imports will damage the local industry he is trying to nurture. Neighbouring Kenya is annoyed because, as a middle-income country, its exports to the EU market will attract 25% greater import duties from 30 September if the EPA is not implemented. As a low-income country, Tanzania doesn’t care as it will continue to enjoy full EU market access anyway.
Overall, perhaps the jury may still be out on Magufuli, who is after all, a few months short of completing his first dynamic year in office. But as things now stand, he seems to be shaping up in the familiar authoritarian mould of a Paul Kagame – though perhaps less brutal in his efficiency – rather than the new kind of African leader which he seemed to promise.
Bulldozing through corruption, incompetence, pomp and ceremony in the name of the ordinary citizen is no doubt good. But it is respect for institutions, instead of trying to do it on his own, which remains the vital missing ingredient that could make Magufuli a really good leader.
Peter Fabricius, ISS consultant (Foreign affairs journalist - Johannesburg, South Africa)
Spot on BRO!Ila design flan style yao inafananaSomeone questioned about Africa; "Is Africa looking to Putin's leadership?" I answered YES, we already have our own Magufuli who bear a resemblance to Putin.
Look at their actions, now.
Everybody appreciates a good leader, one who looks out for his country in a kind and gentle way. Both are no-nonsense leaders.
Look again at their annual Q&A session.
Both stay closed to their citizens needs. Well informed and best presidents that any country could ask for.
PS: Can you imagine a western leader having a Q&A like this? Especially one that runs for a couple of hours? Absolutely not! The only time western politicians make themselves available to the people is when their jobs are on the line at election time.
But Magufuli and Putin expose themselves to the brickbats as well as the bouquets. Respect to them, they're real leaders.
Cc: Kifyatu silasmasha Cicero
The Pumbaz of riceTanzania's President John Magufuli has begun his time in office with a set of high profile policies and a blaze of publicity. The regional and international media has revelled in images of Magufuli sweeping the streets and disciplining civil servants, praising his efforts to reform a political system that has failed to meet citizens' needs for many years.
However, in the shadows of these laudable activities the president has demonstrated a worrying authoritarian inclination to repress dissent and reject institutional checks and balances.
It is therefore important to deconstruct Tanzania's "Magufuli miracle", and to reflect more critically on the capacity of populist presidents to promote development and democracy in Africa. If history is any guide, the overwhelming popularity that Magufuli enjoys today is unlikely to last.
From the start, Magufuli has positioned himself as a dynamic populist. Positioning himself as an anti-elite figure on the side of the ordinary people, he moved to slash government waste, cutting foreign travel and diverting money from the inauguration ceremony for MPs to pay for hospital beds. At the same time, he announced a war on corruption, promised a crackdown on big businessmen and tax avoiders, and fired a number of civil servants said to be underperforming in one way or another. Many of these policies have improved the quality of life for ordinary Tanzanians in demonstrable ways. A directive to the state-owned energy company to reduce fees and tariffs, for example, has put money back into citizens' pockets.
We shouldn't overlook these achievements. Under previous administrations, corruption was so pervasive it undermined the provision of basic public services. Moreover, it had become clear the ruling party was not capable of reforming itself. As Hazel Gray argued in a recent article in African Affairs, the divisions within Chama Cha Mapinduzi, and the inability of any one faction or leader to exert effective central control, undermined the capacity of the government to get a grip on spoils politics.
CHANGE PICTURE
President Magufuli's rise to power promises to change this picture, in part because of his willingness to lead by example, and in part because of his determination to get the job done by operating outside of official structures. It is therefore unsurprising Magufuli's approval ratings are the envy of presidents around the world -- 96 per cent according to a mobile phone survey of 1,813 respondents conducted in June this year. These figures may be inflated -- the methodology of the survey was controversial -- but they reflect the public's belief that the president is doing a good job.
In large part, this seems to be driven by the fact that ordinary citizens feel that a number of key institutions are performing better under the new government. The vast majority of citizens (85 per cent) say the performance of the Tax Revenue Authority has improved, with similar results for schools (75 per cent), police stations (74 per cent), the courts (73 per cent), healthcare (72 per cent) and water access (67 per cent). Perhaps most tellingly, almost all of those surveyed (95 per cent) agreed that government officials and employees had become more accountable and responsive.
In this sense Magufuli has not just delivered a significant blow to the prevailing culture of corruption, he has also started to rebuild public confidence in the capacity of the state to deliver, which is a critical first step to building a more effective social contract.
The main problem with populism is that the early gains secured by leaders like Magufuli are rarely sustained.
In the African context, populists often begin with a burst of energy, attacking corruption and promising political (and often constitutional) reform. The response from both domestic and international audiences is typically high praise, which serves to both consolidate the position of the leader and embolden them. But this often results in populists overreaching, attempting to deliver impossible gains in part because they have started to believe their own political theatre.
Where this occurs, the final act of a populist's career is often characterised by a desperate attempt to complete what they started amidst falling support, culminating in a very public, and often dramatic, fall from grace.
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
This process can have negative consequences for both democracy and development. As I was recently reminded by Nicolas van de Walle, the John S Knight Professor of International Studies at Cornell University, in a democracy it is not enough for the outcome to be fair, the process needs to be fair also. When it comes to democracy, a fair process is often understood to include open elections, inclusive governance, and respect for the rule of law.
The problem with populism is that leaders rarely follow due process. Instead, they build reputations that are explicitly based on their willingness to break down institutional barriers in order to achieve their goals. Magufuli's approach exemplifies this tendency. His nickname, the "Bulldozer", plays on exactly this claim to fame: It was earned when he was responsible for driving a project to build roads across the country but now refers just as much to his reputation as a leader who, when he faces obstacles, smashes his way through them.
In other words, populist government is usually a "you need to break eggs to make an omelette" kind of politics. The problem is that it is rarely just one or two eggs that get broken. It is hard to see this at the start of a populist's time in office, because the known failings of previous governments, and the popularity of their actions, mask the limitation of their strategies.
But in time the refusal to follow or strengthen official rules hollows out institutions, weakening the system of checks and balances and so leaving the political system more open to abuse. This is what happened in Zambia, where President Michael Sata's idiosyncratic populism put in power a party that has weakened the electoral commission, harassed the opposition, and failed to reduce corruption.
SIMILAR PATH
Magufuli is following a similar path. Many of his most celebrated acts, such as dismissing corrupt or ineffective government employees, did not follow due process. Instead, institutional rules for reviewing performance and removing staff were ignored in favour of presidential directives. Similarly, many of his most eye-catching reforms were announced with little or no prior discussion with his own party. Thus, like Sata, they are only likely to last while the president remains in office and retains his high popularity.
Significantly, the new Tanzanian president has demonstrated some worrying authoritarian tendencies. The first evidence of this was his willingness to endorse the decision to annul the elections for the Zanzibari President and House of Representatives, which the government is widely assumed to have lost. Although the initial decision was made before he took office, Magufuli's decision to uphold it, and to push ahead with new polls in the face of an opposition boycott, drew criticism from both rival political leaders and the international community.
Despite this, some commentators were tempted to dismiss Magufuli's actions this on the basis that the politics of Zanzibar are distinctive and elections on the island have often been deeply problematic. When viewed in this light, it was possible to excuse Magufuli on the basis that he was only doing what his predecessors had done before, and that had only just taken office and could not be expected to resolve an intractable problem like Zanzibar in his first year in office.
However, developments on the mainland have followed in a similar vein. Opposition rallies have been prohibited, protestors have been tear gassed, FM radio stations have been closed, and both civil society groups and media outlets have complained about government censorship harassment. Although Magufuli subsequently qualified the ban on opposition rallies following domestic and international pressure, allowing MPs to hold events in their own constituencies, it is clear that the president is no democrat.
WORTH SACRIFICING
One possible response to this point - and a response that I have received a number of times during discussions of this issue over social media - is to argue that in some cases it is worth sacrificing democracy for development. After all, is it not better that women can access maternal care under a leader who does not play by the rules of the game than to go without under a committed democrat? But in reality this is a false trade off, because in the long-run efforts to promote development and to fight corruption will not be successful unless they strengthen the institutions of the state.
Stopping corruption by sacking officials in an ad hoc manner and making decisions on the spur of the moment may look dynamic and effective, but in reality it exacerbates the problem. At root, corruption occurs because institutional checks and balances are not sufficient to prevent individuals from abusing their positions. Dealing with this by further undermining official processes ignores the heart of the problem and actually leaves institutions more, not less, vulnerable to manipulation.
Again, the experience of Sata is instructive. Many of the studies that have been conducted of his time in public office, whether at the Ministry of Health or the Presidency, have concluded that although Sata did not steal much himself, the way in which he broke down institutional checks and balances facilitated corruption by others. In this way, populist anti-corruption measures served to facilitate looting.
This, ultimately, is the true tragedy of populism in Africa. Although populist leaders often start well, they rarely sustain either democracy or development.
Nic Cheeseman teaches African politics at the University of Oxford in the UK.
Spot on!Tanzania's President John Magufuli has begun his time in office with a set of high profile policies and a blaze of publicity. The regional and international media has revelled in images of Magufuli sweeping the streets and disciplining civil servants, praising his efforts to reform a political system that has failed to meet citizens' needs for many years.
However, in the shadows of these laudable activities the president has demonstrated a worrying authoritarian inclination to repress dissent and reject institutional checks and balances.
It is therefore important to deconstruct Tanzania's "Magufuli miracle", and to reflect more critically on the capacity of populist presidents to promote development and democracy in Africa. If history is any guide, the overwhelming popularity that Magufuli enjoys today is unlikely to last.
From the start, Magufuli has positioned himself as a dynamic populist. Positioning himself as an anti-elite figure on the side of the ordinary people, he moved to slash government waste, cutting foreign travel and diverting money from the inauguration ceremony for MPs to pay for hospital beds. At the same time, he announced a war on corruption, promised a crackdown on big businessmen and tax avoiders, and fired a number of civil servants said to be underperforming in one way or another. Many of these policies have improved the quality of life for ordinary Tanzanians in demonstrable ways. A directive to the state-owned energy company to reduce fees and tariffs, for example, has put money back into citizens' pockets.
We shouldn't overlook these achievements. Under previous administrations, corruption was so pervasive it undermined the provision of basic public services. Moreover, it had become clear the ruling party was not capable of reforming itself. As Hazel Gray argued in a recent article in African Affairs, the divisions within Chama Cha Mapinduzi, and the inability of any one faction or leader to exert effective central control, undermined the capacity of the government to get a grip on spoils politics.
CHANGE PICTURE
President Magufuli's rise to power promises to change this picture, in part because of his willingness to lead by example, and in part because of his determination to get the job done by operating outside of official structures. It is therefore unsurprising Magufuli's approval ratings are the envy of presidents around the world -- 96 per cent according to a mobile phone survey of 1,813 respondents conducted in June this year. These figures may be inflated -- the methodology of the survey was controversial -- but they reflect the public's belief that the president is doing a good job.
In large part, this seems to be driven by the fact that ordinary citizens feel that a number of key institutions are performing better under the new government. The vast majority of citizens (85 per cent) say the performance of the Tax Revenue Authority has improved, with similar results for schools (75 per cent), police stations (74 per cent), the courts (73 per cent), healthcare (72 per cent) and water access (67 per cent). Perhaps most tellingly, almost all of those surveyed (95 per cent) agreed that government officials and employees had become more accountable and responsive.
In this sense Magufuli has not just delivered a significant blow to the prevailing culture of corruption, he has also started to rebuild public confidence in the capacity of the state to deliver, which is a critical first step to building a more effective social contract.
The main problem with populism is that the early gains secured by leaders like Magufuli are rarely sustained.
In the African context, populists often begin with a burst of energy, attacking corruption and promising political (and often constitutional) reform. The response from both domestic and international audiences is typically high praise, which serves to both consolidate the position of the leader and embolden them. But this often results in populists overreaching, attempting to deliver impossible gains in part because they have started to believe their own political theatre.
Where this occurs, the final act of a populist's career is often characterised by a desperate attempt to complete what they started amidst falling support, culminating in a very public, and often dramatic, fall from grace.
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
This process can have negative consequences for both democracy and development. As I was recently reminded by Nicolas van de Walle, the John S Knight Professor of International Studies at Cornell University, in a democracy it is not enough for the outcome to be fair, the process needs to be fair also. When it comes to democracy, a fair process is often understood to include open elections, inclusive governance, and respect for the rule of law.
The problem with populism is that leaders rarely follow due process. Instead, they build reputations that are explicitly based on their willingness to break down institutional barriers in order to achieve their goals. Magufuli's approach exemplifies this tendency. His nickname, the "Bulldozer", plays on exactly this claim to fame: It was earned when he was responsible for driving a project to build roads across the country but now refers just as much to his reputation as a leader who, when he faces obstacles, smashes his way through them.
In other words, populist government is usually a "you need to break eggs to make an omelette" kind of politics. The problem is that it is rarely just one or two eggs that get broken. It is hard to see this at the start of a populist's time in office, because the known failings of previous governments, and the popularity of their actions, mask the limitation of their strategies.
But in time the refusal to follow or strengthen official rules hollows out institutions, weakening the system of checks and balances and so leaving the political system more open to abuse. This is what happened in Zambia, where President Michael Sata's idiosyncratic populism put in power a party that has weakened the electoral commission, harassed the opposition, and failed to reduce corruption.
SIMILAR PATH
Magufuli is following a similar path. Many of his most celebrated acts, such as dismissing corrupt or ineffective government employees, did not follow due process. Instead, institutional rules for reviewing performance and removing staff were ignored in favour of presidential directives. Similarly, many of his most eye-catching reforms were announced with little or no prior discussion with his own party. Thus, like Sata, they are only likely to last while the president remains in office and retains his high popularity.
Significantly, the new Tanzanian president has demonstrated some worrying authoritarian tendencies. The first evidence of this was his willingness to endorse the decision to annul the elections for the Zanzibari President and House of Representatives, which the government is widely assumed to have lost. Although the initial decision was made before he took office, Magufuli's decision to uphold it, and to push ahead with new polls in the face of an opposition boycott, drew criticism from both rival political leaders and the international community.
Despite this, some commentators were tempted to dismiss Magufuli's actions this on the basis that the politics of Zanzibar are distinctive and elections on the island have often been deeply problematic. When viewed in this light, it was possible to excuse Magufuli on the basis that he was only doing what his predecessors had done before, and that had only just taken office and could not be expected to resolve an intractable problem like Zanzibar in his first year in office.
However, developments on the mainland have followed in a similar vein. Opposition rallies have been prohibited, protestors have been tear gassed, FM radio stations have been closed, and both civil society groups and media outlets have complained about government censorship harassment. Although Magufuli subsequently qualified the ban on opposition rallies following domestic and international pressure, allowing MPs to hold events in their own constituencies, it is clear that the president is no democrat.
WORTH SACRIFICING
One possible response to this point - and a response that I have received a number of times during discussions of this issue over social media - is to argue that in some cases it is worth sacrificing democracy for development. After all, is it not better that women can access maternal care under a leader who does not play by the rules of the game than to go without under a committed democrat? But in reality this is a false trade off, because in the long-run efforts to promote development and to fight corruption will not be successful unless they strengthen the institutions of the state.
Stopping corruption by sacking officials in an ad hoc manner and making decisions on the spur of the moment may look dynamic and effective, but in reality it exacerbates the problem. At root, corruption occurs because institutional checks and balances are not sufficient to prevent individuals from abusing their positions. Dealing with this by further undermining official processes ignores the heart of the problem and actually leaves institutions more, not less, vulnerable to manipulation.
Again, the experience of Sata is instructive. Many of the studies that have been conducted of his time in public office, whether at the Ministry of Health or the Presidency, have concluded that although Sata did not steal much himself, the way in which he broke down institutional checks and balances facilitated corruption by others. In this way, populist anti-corruption measures served to facilitate looting.
This, ultimately, is the true tragedy of populism in Africa. Although populist leaders often start well, they rarely sustain either democracy or development.
Nic Cheeseman teaches African politics at the University of Oxford in the UK.
Time is a very good speaker. It will tell us the truthAs a Tanzanian, many Presidents have come and go but we have never had a principled President like President MAGUFULI. President MAGUFULI took power when the country was in bad state. The rule of law was not respected and justice was for sale.
President MAGUFULI inheritated this country when nothing was working including our justice system. People like you with a song of democracy are there to destruct President MAGUFULI leadership and you have no place in our country. We Tanzanians, he is the only hope we have so far.
The problem of the West is to distract other countries in the name of democracy. Democracy is not only freedom of speech, democracy is fairness, justice, and share the national cake, that is what exactly President MAGUFULI is doing in a difficult situation were many leaders in Africa have failed.
Many leaders in the west criticised Kagame by calling him a dictator, to day Rwandies are enjoying good governance and good standard of living. Some of the people who enriched themselves by stealing from the public depriving the majority, are the majority of the people who claim to be fighting for democracy.
There is no country with a perfect democracy, America under Bush and United Kingdom under Tony Blair, these are the countries with good justice and so called democracy, yet their leaders went against the wish of the people and went on to start Iraq war creating the world we have to day in the name of democracy look now, is the people of Iraq enjoying democracy today?
President MAGUFULI has given hope to the majority of Tanzanians, please do not let us lose our hope. We pray for our President to suceeed and he will.
A Professor is saying that Magufuli is a populist president. And like others in Africa is bound to fail. But it is very sad for a professor caliber to write without giving evidence. For example, who was/is a populist president and has failed?Source of what? The info? It's right there.....Prof Nic Cheeseman from Oxford University wrote the article!
Yaani mpaka sasa hujaamini kuwa huyu Prof yupo sahihi??A Professor is saying that Magufuli is a populist president. And like others in Africa is bound to fail. But it is very sad for a professor caliber to write without giving evidence. For example, who was/is a populist president and has failed?
Without evidence, no. Maybe you can help him by giving us a populist president in Africa who has failed in his/ her reigns.Yaani mpaka sasa hujaamini kuwa huyu Prof yupo sahihi??
Pole!
Which evidence? Like the one given by Dr. Mwele and refuted by a non scientist?Without evidence, no. Maybe you can help him by giving us a populist president in Africa who has failed in his/ her reigns.
Unfortunately for you, Tanzania will triumph through Magufuli regardless of your negative wishes! May God give you a long life to witness our new Tanzania in next 8 years and reflect back to you speculations with shame!Tanzania's President John Magufuli has begun his time in office with a set of high profile policies and a blaze of publicity. The regional and international media has revelled in images of Magufuli sweeping the streets and disciplining civil servants, praising his efforts to reform a political system that has failed to meet citizens' needs for many years.
However, in the shadows of these laudable activities the president has demonstrated a worrying authoritarian inclination to repress dissent and reject institutional checks and balances.
It is therefore important to deconstruct Tanzania's "Magufuli miracle", and to reflect more critically on the capacity of populist presidents to promote development and democracy in Africa. If history is any guide, the overwhelming popularity that Magufuli enjoys today is unlikely to last.
From the start, Magufuli has positioned himself as a dynamic populist. Positioning himself as an anti-elite figure on the side of the ordinary people, he moved to slash government waste, cutting foreign travel and diverting money from the inauguration ceremony for MPs to pay for hospital beds. At the same time, he announced a war on corruption, promised a crackdown on big businessmen and tax avoiders, and fired a number of civil servants said to be underperforming in one way or another. Many of these policies have improved the quality of life for ordinary Tanzanians in demonstrable ways. A directive to the state-owned energy company to reduce fees and tariffs, for example, has put money back into citizens' pockets.
We shouldn't overlook these achievements. Under previous administrations, corruption was so pervasive it undermined the provision of basic public services. Moreover, it had become clear the ruling party was not capable of reforming itself. As Hazel Gray argued in a recent article in African Affairs, the divisions within Chama Cha Mapinduzi, and the inability of any one faction or leader to exert effective central control, undermined the capacity of the government to get a grip on spoils politics.
CHANGE PICTURE
President Magufuli's rise to power promises to change this picture, in part because of his willingness to lead by example, and in part because of his determination to get the job done by operating outside of official structures. It is therefore unsurprising Magufuli's approval ratings are the envy of presidents around the world -- 96 per cent according to a mobile phone survey of 1,813 respondents conducted in June this year. These figures may be inflated -- the methodology of the survey was controversial -- but they reflect the public's belief that the president is doing a good job.
In large part, this seems to be driven by the fact that ordinary citizens feel that a number of key institutions are performing better under the new government. The vast majority of citizens (85 per cent) say the performance of the Tax Revenue Authority has improved, with similar results for schools (75 per cent), police stations (74 per cent), the courts (73 per cent), healthcare (72 per cent) and water access (67 per cent). Perhaps most tellingly, almost all of those surveyed (95 per cent) agreed that government officials and employees had become more accountable and responsive.
In this sense Magufuli has not just delivered a significant blow to the prevailing culture of corruption, he has also started to rebuild public confidence in the capacity of the state to deliver, which is a critical first step to building a more effective social contract.
The main problem with populism is that the early gains secured by leaders like Magufuli are rarely sustained.
In the African context, populists often begin with a burst of energy, attacking corruption and promising political (and often constitutional) reform. The response from both domestic and international audiences is typically high praise, which serves to both consolidate the position of the leader and embolden them. But this often results in populists overreaching, attempting to deliver impossible gains in part because they have started to believe their own political theatre.
Where this occurs, the final act of a populist's career is often characterised by a desperate attempt to complete what they started amidst falling support, culminating in a very public, and often dramatic, fall from grace.
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
This process can have negative consequences for both democracy and development. As I was recently reminded by Nicolas van de Walle, the John S Knight Professor of International Studies at Cornell University, in a democracy it is not enough for the outcome to be fair, the process needs to be fair also. When it comes to democracy, a fair process is often understood to include open elections, inclusive governance, and respect for the rule of law.
The problem with populism is that leaders rarely follow due process. Instead, they build reputations that are explicitly based on their willingness to break down institutional barriers in order to achieve their goals. Magufuli's approach exemplifies this tendency. His nickname, the "Bulldozer", plays on exactly this claim to fame: It was earned when he was responsible for driving a project to build roads across the country but now refers just as much to his reputation as a leader who, when he faces obstacles, smashes his way through them.
In other words, populist government is usually a "you need to break eggs to make an omelette" kind of politics. The problem is that it is rarely just one or two eggs that get broken. It is hard to see this at the start of a populist's time in office, because the known failings of previous governments, and the popularity of their actions, mask the limitation of their strategies.
But in time the refusal to follow or strengthen official rules hollows out institutions, weakening the system of checks and balances and so leaving the political system more open to abuse. This is what happened in Zambia, where President Michael Sata's idiosyncratic populism put in power a party that has weakened the electoral commission, harassed the opposition, and failed to reduce corruption.
SIMILAR PATH
Magufuli is following a similar path. Many of his most celebrated acts, such as dismissing corrupt or ineffective government employees, did not follow due process. Instead, institutional rules for reviewing performance and removing staff were ignored in favour of presidential directives. Similarly, many of his most eye-catching reforms were announced with little or no prior discussion with his own party. Thus, like Sata, they are only likely to last while the president remains in office and retains his high popularity.
Significantly, the new Tanzanian president has demonstrated some worrying authoritarian tendencies. The first evidence of this was his willingness to endorse the decision to annul the elections for the Zanzibari President and House of Representatives, which the government is widely assumed to have lost. Although the initial decision was made before he took office, Magufuli's decision to uphold it, and to push ahead with new polls in the face of an opposition boycott, drew criticism from both rival political leaders and the international community.
Despite this, some commentators were tempted to dismiss Magufuli's actions this on the basis that the politics of Zanzibar are distinctive and elections on the island have often been deeply problematic. When viewed in this light, it was possible to excuse Magufuli on the basis that he was only doing what his predecessors had done before, and that had only just taken office and could not be expected to resolve an intractable problem like Zanzibar in his first year in office.
However, developments on the mainland have followed in a similar vein. Opposition rallies have been prohibited, protestors have been tear gassed, FM radio stations have been closed, and both civil society groups and media outlets have complained about government censorship harassment. Although Magufuli subsequently qualified the ban on opposition rallies following domestic and international pressure, allowing MPs to hold events in their own constituencies, it is clear that the president is no democrat.
WORTH SACRIFICING
One possible response to this point - and a response that I have received a number of times during discussions of this issue over social media - is to argue that in some cases it is worth sacrificing democracy for development. After all, is it not better that women can access maternal care under a leader who does not play by the rules of the game than to go without under a committed democrat? But in reality this is a false trade off, because in the long-run efforts to promote development and to fight corruption will not be successful unless they strengthen the institutions of the state.
Stopping corruption by sacking officials in an ad hoc manner and making decisions on the spur of the moment may look dynamic and effective, but in reality it exacerbates the problem. At root, corruption occurs because institutional checks and balances are not sufficient to prevent individuals from abusing their positions. Dealing with this by further undermining official processes ignores the heart of the problem and actually leaves institutions more, not less, vulnerable to manipulation.
Again, the experience of Sata is instructive. Many of the studies that have been conducted of his time in public office, whether at the Ministry of Health or the Presidency, have concluded that although Sata did not steal much himself, the way in which he broke down institutional checks and balances facilitated corruption by others. In this way, populist anti-corruption measures served to facilitate looting.
This, ultimately, is the true tragedy of populism in Africa. Although populist leaders often start well, they rarely sustain either democracy or development.
Nic Cheeseman teaches African politics at the University of Oxford in the UK.