|
Why should Mkapa remind CCM, CUF of muafaka?
2005-06-25 07:24:05
By Ani Jozeni
Election tempers started cooling mid this week when President Benjamin Mkapa opted to remind the two principal rival parties, CCM and CUF, of making use of the reconciliation committee.
This reminder came out of the blue, unexpected virtually in any quarter, except some peace activists among various organisations, a few of whom came to town, as it were.
It seems some behind the scenes pressure contributed to this change.
For local observers listening to political pronouncements across several parameters, and also some attentive external watchers, the matter wasn’t as straightforward.
The directive was aired in a manner as to take up the pressure off the political field, while at the same time reaffirming a few habitual accents in a far off event.
It was after opening the Tulawaka gold mine, addressing villagers in the region, reiterating use of state organs.
Had this affirmation taken the place of the directive to reconvene the reconciliation committee of the rival parties that was formed late 2001, it would have intensified the contention.
But since it came after issuing that directive, it didn’t have as dynamic an effect as it would be expected, save its having helped to pour cold water for those who thought plenty will change after the committee is reconvened. It’s a see-saw game.
Interpreting both of these gestures may to an extent be interesting, though it is difficult if anyone can make up why they were given at the same time.
For if the present wants none of the kind of contention that has been building up, especially in attacking the CCM candidate’s household in Bagamoyo, it was sufficient to ask the reconciliation committee to reconvene.
It wouldn’t be necessary to reinforce hostilities, that quickly.
It means however that much as it is vital for a working atmosphere, maintaining a 'hot line' between the two secretaries-general when things look like they are getting out of hand, nothing is being conceded.
Just who the president was reassuring by reiterating willingness and intent to use 'state organs' (the only situation in which this reference is made, euphemism for the police) is unclear. Was it the Zanzibar authorities, for once?
There is reason to think that the reassurance was directed in that zone because most of CUF demands relate to the process of registration of voters in the Isles, for which CCM may not be preparing to budge.
There was a sort of assurance of 'readiness' to address any shortcomings observed in that direction, given by a no lesser person than Isles President Amani Abeid Karume lately. Certain quarters were asking hard questions.
With visible signs piling up in the past few months that the two parties are driving towards an electoral bull fighting session, concerned agencies are raising the stakes.
A visit last week by British African Affairs Minister Lord David Triesman was an eye opener, as the UK cabinet official wasn’t a familiar name save to some diplomatic quarters locally.
And there was also a visit from the Commonwealth Secretariat, of Africans.
It will be recalled that in the post-1995 electoral chaos in Zanzibar, with treason trial repetition following the contested announcement of results, it was an African mission of the Commonwealth which tried to mediate.
Experts in political psychology will attest to the fact that this was one reason for failure, as a mediator who represents a multilateral organisation has no teeth to bite. It requires a superpower or donor country to do it.
That is why the change in tone noticed in the president’s directive wasn’t definitely due to the visit by the African officials of the Commonwealth Secretariat, but Lord Triesman.
While his remarks on the situation in addressing parliamentarians in Dodoma and elsewhere may have been mitigated, some in his entourage were forthright, even accusatory.
A report carried in this newspaper by Reuters Nairobi correspondent told it all.
The report signed by one Helen Nyambura noted that donors have usually taken Tanzania as an example of political stability and peace, but 'critics' question its 'record of brutality and suspected electoral dirty tricks’' in Zanzibar.
If this kind of tone characterised the UK delegation, it can be surmised that the president had some reason to flag down the rising animosity after the Bagamoyo fracas.
And then reiterate some truths.....
Apart from the UK delegation’s visit, and possible insistence, as the matter was a subject of comment earlier before the visit, noting also extensive external campaign by CUF on the registration, other signals were noted.
There is an ongoing campaign by US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on democracy and free elections in Egypt, and reform in Saudia, much of which was unspeakable in the past. Worries exist on us.
While in earlier days (during the Clinton Administration in particular) Tanzania was likely to be given a clean bill of health, in governance and reform, these days it’s a bit harder to elicit that sort of opinion in downtown Washington.
Despite that the president regularly cites World Bank studies showing how Tanzania is doing very well in economic reform and governance, the US isn’t impressed. We aren’t part of a special aid facility.
Before leaving office, ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters and Tanzanian residents in the US, at a time when the president was visiting there, that the country didn’t qualify for the Millennium Challenge Account aid facility.
At one point a journalist (or resident?) wondered if the US was placing Tanzania in the same basket as Zimbabwe - the usual contrasts that Tanzania loves to hear. Secretary Powell was adamant.
He insisted that Tanzania didn’t qualify for assistance under that facility, and it is unclear how far the stance is changing in the wake of a wider debt relief accord, with the UK.
But then local critics had spoken enough about two huge purchases and spectacular failures in privatisation, that all this shows weaknesses in the reform aspect.
US criteria are more stringent than World Bank schemas, and it may soon start hurting, here.
For once, not many people may have noticed that there is a sea-change in the sort of climate in governance evaluation, from the situation in polls 2000 and at present.
Just three points of focus need be mentioned, for instance the change in the UK from an African Affairs minister as sympathetic to Tanzania as Claire Short, to Lord Triesman, who sounds sceptical.
And once the UK is won over to some ‘overt’ action, all will be lost.
An even more noticeable change is the US administration, where in late 2000 they were also holding polls there, and Ambassador Rev. Charles Stith excused the Zanzibar West issue by citing Florida.
He told a packed hall at the University of Dar es Salaam chapel that each country has its electoral problems, and in some regards made Florida more problematic for democracy than Zanzibar. Was that Africanist, or cynical?
Armed with this 'clean bill of health,' the government stuck to its guns, that elections were over, hence no more activities of that nature would be allowed, like rallies, demonstrations.
CUF leaders on the other hand insisted on demonstrating after 90 days if their grievances went unheard, and they duly came out, the result of which everyone remembers, or the government tries to forget. But in a past era it never forgot Sharpeville.
This time there are fewer indulgent people like Rev.
Stith in the State Department, even if senior diplomats in its country mission are still around, including Charge d’Affaires Michael Owen.
After Secretary Powell had shown clear scepticism about Tanzania, a repetition of some past errors - even if a blind eye is turned to the deportation of water company contracted executives - things may be hard. It is thus useful not to err on this.
As if to complete the change of scene, a replacement of World Bank President James Wolfensohn after two terms in office, with a White House insider and university administrator Paul Wolfowitz isn’t unnoticed here.
The new World Bank President has been insisting that Africa’s debts are chiefly due to poor governance, in which case he is seeking reform more earnestly, intensely, than Wolfensohn. The latter placed poverty first.
|
