|
Takrima: Is the debate over now, after Tendwa’s intervention?
2005-04-18 08:30:57
By Rayner Ngonji
The debate on whether takrima is corruption or not is still raging. Divergent views have been developed over the issue, with some people strongly defending the habit.
Members of Parliament in the on-going session last week, showered acclaim on the practice, legally established six years ago.
The Minister of State, President’s Office (Good Governance) Wilson Masilingi told the session, there was no way the meaning of takrima could be interpretated otherwise.
‘’Takrima, or hospitality remains like that no matter what shape it takes,” he said, adding that the only institution that could change the meaning of the word was the National Assembly.
The Minister emphasised that neither religious organisations nor workshops and seminars could alter its meaning to bribery.
The Registrar of Political Parties, John Tendwa perceives this issue differently.
He says traditional hospitality practised during election campaigns and popularly referred to as takrima, is form of bribery and not hospitality, as claimed by some politicians, and others.
Tendwa, an advocate by profession, says takrima as it’s being practised today, is simply bribery.
He elaborated that previously the host offered takrima to a visitor, but now it’s the guest who entertains the host, resulting in the term being equalled to bribery.
The Registrar maintained that the law has changed the concept of takrima and that the practice has put democracy in the country in jeopardy.
According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, hospitality means friendly and generous behaviour towards guests.
Tendwa’s remarks followed the behaviour of some presidential aspirants on the ticket of Chama Cha Mapinduzi, giving their supporters financial support during their upcountry trips to solicit for guarantors.
However, it’s not clear if those who are defending the practice are doing so in the interest of the public, or other reasons.
Under these circumstances, Tendwa’s remarks are perhaps sufficient to consider the debate closed.
Takrima has widely been perceived by the majority of Tanzanians as corruption.
Whether we like it or not we have got to accept this.
Minister Masilingi has said it’s only the Parliament that could change the meaning and not any other organ.
Right! That is clear. But the issue is not who has the powers to change the provision, but that it is irksome.
The clamour from civil society organisations etc. is an indication that an appeal is being made to the State authorities to get the law changed.
The government legalised takrima a few months before the 2000 general elections, ignoring a public outcry over the move.
It trampled over the concerns of opposition parties, lawyers and educationists who cautioned that legalising takrima would invite and embrace corruption.
The increasing level of graft practices in elections, stands a good chance of ruining not only multiparty democracy but also the democratic process itself.
Professor Gaudens Mpangala of the University of Dar es Salaam observes that political corruption remains a major impediment to free and fair elections.
Presenting a paper on ‘Political trends‘ at a forum on multiparty democracy, Prof. Mpangala said a study carried out by the Prevention of Corruption Bureau (PCB) and the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) in 2002 indicated that political corruption during 1995 and 2000 was far greater than during the single-party system between 1990 and 1995.
He cited the dominance of a single party in Parliament, and the weak opposition as a major problem facing the growth of democratic practices in Tanzania.
Speaking at the same session a Member of Parliament for Mtama, Bernard Membe said fishy processes of candidate nomination for the presidential or National Assembly seats, by political parties hinders multiparty democracy during Parliamentary debate.
He said some opposition legislators were weak because they feared reprisal from their party leaders.
He proposed that legislators should be given immunity to protect them from disciplinary action from their parties’ leaderships.
Indeed, general elections that are marred by irregularities like corruption, stand a slim chance of meeting the electorate’s expectations in the legislature.
It’s unlikely that it will permit the rule of law to be upheld, democratically.
Maintaining such provisions casts doubt as to our seriousness in eliminating the vice.
We could rightly be judged as practising a playboy sort of governance.
|
