|
The legitimacy of takrima-1
2005-09-14 08:10:43
By Noel Kaganda
Takrima may be defined as an act of traditional hospitality which entails giving or receiving of gifts as a token of appreciation of service, assistance, or favour given to an individual or group of individuals who benefited from such treatment.
The term takrima stems from the kiswahili word ukarimu, which simply means generosity or hospitality. The term is considerably new, although the practice itself is quite ancient, as the above definition would suggest. Takrima is a form of a tip or a token, thus it’s offering is voluntary and not obligatory.
Takrima as a practice is well entrenched in many African societies. For all one can say, every person likes a little treat here and there.
The natives of East Africa and especially Tanzania are renowned for their exceptional generosity (ukarimu). Suffice to add, the practice has rather transformed into a custom.
It is quite normal to see persons especially in East Africa,
give a little tip after receiving a favour or service. Indeed some would take it very negatively, if not awarded the same.
The lifestyle and economy of most people in East Africa has transformed the practice into a dangerous habit.
Classes with regard to the level of hospitable gestures have emerged, i.e. the class of the haves and willing, who can afford and are ready to offer the traditional hospitality; and that of the have nots, who basically cannot afford or are not willing to offer such tokens.
This literally means that the class of haves is most likely to win loyalty from the recipients of hospitable tokens than that of the have nots, who basically will not only lose the loyalty in return but might be pushed aside for lack of generosity.
In other words, the class of haves is more favourable to the recipients than that of have nots, hence the emergence of favouritism.
A token of appreciation given so as to win favour, obtain a service, or loyalty and one that unlawfully places one in an advantageous position over other persons is corruption.
Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as amended severally, provides that any person including public officials who corruptly solicits, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from a person an advantage as an inducement to disregard his official duty or betray his trust for the benefit of the giver, shall be guilty of an offence.
Public officials are quite aware of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and other related codes of ethics.
In deed one cannot get away with accepting, and/or obtaining or attempting to obtain bribes, not matter how small they may be. The enforcement trends as far as the Prevention of Corruption Bureau, concerning the same, is not a matter to be covered here.
Interestingly, however, one would comment on the issues of takrima in relation to the whole process of general election campaigns and in particular, the ongoing campaigns, in Tanzania.
The question that one would wish to present here is, whether the Law permitting takrima is sound, in conformity with the Constitution and international human rights standards.
It is provided in The Electoral Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 2000, under section 98(2) that anything done in GOOD FAITH as an act of NORMAL or TRADITIONAL hospitality shall be deemed not to be illegal.
It provides further, under subsection (2) that NORMAL or ORDINARY expenses spent in GOOD FAITH in the election campaigns or in the ordinary cause of election process shall be deemed not to be treating, bribery or illegal practice.
The aforementioned, would translate as follows in a particular electoral campaign scenario: Let’s say, Juhudi is our imaginary candidate from political party ’’A’’, contesting for a parliamentary seat in a particular constituency. Dhuluma is another aspirant for the same seat; belonging to political party ’’B’’.
Juhudi happens to be an ambitious, intelligent, patriotic fellow who recently obtained his Masters degree in Political Science, at a certain university.
He is eager to serve his people and his country. He is full of wisdom and bright ideas, which the voters see and recognise. Unfortunately, he has only limited resources, just sufficient to sustain him during the campaigns.
Dhuluma on the other hand, is a corrupt fellow, has been representing the said constituency for over a decade. More or less he has contributed nothing to his constituency apart from looting the country’s wealth and resources.
He has a huge influence over the people in his constituency. They like him, because come election, he puts Santa Claus to shame, for he provides them with all sorts of gifts, ranging from houses, cars to bicycles and cash.
Through gifts, he has managed to secure loyalty and has obtained an advantageous position over Juhudi.
|
