Nia yangu ni kufuata mkondo huhuu wa uhalali wa Rais kuchagua bunge la katiba.
Kwanza kabisa, Magna Carta iliandikwa na WATU WACHACHE sana ambao ni Feudal Barons and was only for non-serfs, aiming at taking the judiciary power from the king. Waingereza wengi walikubali na kumodify vipengele vingine over time.
Tusiende mbali, ila katiba na mikataba mingi hazikuandikwa na watu kidemokrasia directly, lakini hiyo haimaanishi kuwa watu hawazikubali. Mfumo wa muungano utaamuliwa na wananchi, hilo halikwepeki. Hayo mengine itabidi mbargain na CCM theres no eazy does it.
WANANCHI watasikiliza mawazo mbalimbali kuhusu muungano halafu wataamua.Ingekuwa vizuri kungekuwa na chombo huru cha kusimamia katiba, ila sidhani kama rais amevunja sheria au katiba. Na sidhani kuwa katiba ya Tanzania ni illegitimate ..... halafu ya uingereza na US ni legitimate. Thats a double standard.
So many things are unethically legal.
Mkuu
Kobello,
Nadhani kilicho sahihi ni kwamba mchakato wa katiba marekani ulianzishwa na watu wachache sana na kuendeshwa kwa usiri mkubwa katika hatua za awali lakini mawazo ya wengi yalikuja kuhusishwa baadae katika hatua ya ratification. Tukiangalia historia ya taifa hili tunaelewa wazi kwanini hatua za awali za mchakato wa katiba ziligubikwa na usiri na udhibiti wa hali ya juu lakini pia tunaona wazi kwamba delegates kutoka states mbalimbali walishiriki katika heated debates kwenye convention huku wakiweka maslahi ya states zao mbele; baadae rasimu ilipoenda kwenye umma, yalitokea maandamano, criticisms kutoka makundi mbalimbali kutoka different states, critics from the media n.k, huku mjadala mkubwa ukiwa ni juu ya kuzingatia maslahi ya states mbalimbali, makundi mbalimbali n.k. Na historia inatuonyesha jinsi gani serikali ilivyokuwa sikivu kwani wananchi hawakupigwa risasi wala mabomu, vyombo vya habari havikufungiwa au wamiliki kumwagiwa tindi kali, bali mawazo yote yalisikilizwa na kuzingatiwa kwa kiwango kikubwa sana; ni kutokana na haya ndipo hatimaye maridhiano yakapatikana; kwa maana nyingine, there was a public consensus on the final content ya katiba husika.
Nikipata muda nitakuja kufafanua zaidi jinsi gani as the process unfolded it became more transparent and democratic lakini muhimu zaidi, ratification of the final document was based on matakwa ya wengi;
Kwa sasa naomba tubakie kwenye hoja ya msingi ambayo ni kwamba -despite the fact kwamba katika hatua ya awali mchakato wa katiba ya marekani ulihodhiwa na watu wachache to begin with, historia inaweka wazi kwanini ilitokea hivyo, na pia inaonyesha wazi jinsi gani mijadala miongoni mwa delegates at the convention ililenga maslahi ya states walizotoka pamoja na makundi waliyokuwa wanayashirikisha;
Muhimu hapa pia ni kwamba convention husika iliitwa kwa manufaa ya taifa, sio chama cha siasa au kundi la watu fulani; andat the end of the day, the constitution of the united states embodied a broad national consensus, hence commanded political legitimacy;kwa upande wa Tanzania, sio katiba ya 1962 na ile ya 1977, sio muungano 1964, wala sio uamuzi wa kuiua Tanganyika 1965 embodied a national consensus and commanded political legitimacy; matukio yote haya hayakuwa transparent, hayakuwa democratic na hayakutokana na negotiations and protracted debates, badala yake yalitawaliwa na usiri siri na kuhodhiwa na kundi la wachache from start to finish;
Tunaweza kujadili experience za mataifa ya wenzetu as much as we wish lakini in the process, suala la maana for us to consider ni kwamba - katika hali ya sasa ambapo taifa lipo njia panda, je:
*how can we crystallize a national consensus?
*what can command the loyalty of the ruled and the rulers regardless of party ideologies or political persuasion?
Jibu ni KATIBA itakayotokana na wananchi. Vinginevyo it remains to be a fact kwamba maamuzi juu ya katiba ya 1977 yalikuwa ni among the most undemocratic decisions in the political history of our country, na hata mchakato wa sasa, a crisis is imminent, WHY? Kwa sababu - mchakato umekosa a national consensus na hivyo it won't command political legitimacy. This will remain a fact regardless of the magnitude of our comparative analysis on what transpired in other nations and the experiences that they went through (UK, USA etc).
Let's use the current constitutional process to build a national consensus and come up with a constitution that commands political legitimacy. By doing so, our new constitution (unlike now) will command the loyalty of both the ruled and the rulers, regardless of their political persuasion. That's what we need at best, as it will help us avoid bloodshed or categorically be included in the league of the "failed states"; one doesn't need to be a brain surgeon to realise that both of these dangers are imminent if not looming;
Sent from my BlackBerry 8520 using JamiiForums
