|
100 days and debate starts on proximity of JK to Mwalimu
2006-04-10 08:28:37
By Ani Jozeni
A Sort of debate has started among our neighbours while it is as yet difficult to notice that it exists locally, but in any case some sentimental comparisons have been made, between the current administration and the first phase presidency.
Just how far there is an effort at comparison, if it is a sporadic sentimental question that is raised or it is in certain regards a systematic effort at self-identification, as one parameter of building up loyalties, it is still uncertain.
But by certain measures the debate can be a little animated.
A contributor to that debate, or in a way an initiator to some readers, is a certain Nestory Rutashubanyuma writing by email to the Kenyan weekly ’Sunday Standard’ in its latest issue, who apparently wrote to reject comparisons or rather proximities being drawn on the two administrations, or regimes.
As his view was negative to positive comparisons it may be of some use, if only to underscore issues of authenticity, as to who current rulers represent, depth of convictions, and perhaps a few unending myths about the first phase presidency. Some negative comparisons might not task disadvantage to the fourth phase.
The writer considered comparisons to be ’unfair’ as the current administration is being equated with ’the exemplary Julius Nyerere presidency,’ noting however that ’there are similarities, but the management styles of the two administrations are so different…’
He sounds perplexed at ’some pundits in their quest to justify those incorrigible distortions have focused on a few similarities rather than the differences,’ which he then sets out.
A bundle of similarities is then given, of being based on CCM, guided by socialism and self-reliance, strive to alleviate woes of Tanzanians, ’reflected in a litany of rhetoric, premised on quixotic foundations,’ the author notes.
While one needs to retain this ’quixotic’ mode of thought and action for both JK and JKN, he says positively that ’both had incessantly engaged the public on its visions albeit for different reasons.’ Or is it different objectives?
Moving on the differences, he says that ’the Nyerere regime invoked a collectivism creed at the expense of individualism for its survival.
The Kikwete regime deludes itself with copious election promises, which trumpet the role of an interventionist government in national development to secure its legitimacy.’
Evidently the contrast is insufficiently drawn, as definitely the ’collectivism’ ended a long time ago, but interventionism hasn’t started with the fourth phase, nor indeed the importance of election promises.
Is this just skepticism about promises, or underlining an irrelevance of interventionism, that it is just meant to create legitimacy? But what is government if it won’t intervene, here or in UK?
And before we forget, it is useful to examine if current regime visions are ’quixotic’ in character, meaning a ’chasing after windmills,’ (instead of soldiers or real armies, on the basis of acts of the deranged Spanish knight in ’Don Quixote’).
Obviously nothing is that simple or derisory, and the reason for this feeling on the part of the author is his own lack of sticking to facts.
’The major differences of the two regimes could best be captured through the prisms of the character, tastes and general demeanor of lead players – the presidency and the premiership,’ he suggests.
’Major players in the Nyerere regime had their early careers arduously shaped in the civil service or union activism.
The top brass of the incumbent regime boast of ruling party employment for its inception and career development,’ he offers as principal contrast. Is the negative contrast fully warranted?
Two fault lines appear in this contrast, first in the supposition that the first phase key officials were brought up and so to speak qualified for their national tasks in a way that sounds convincing to the critic, but he doesn’t see the same at present.
Just the opposite is rationally the case, as first phase personnel especially at the beginning were starters in each and everything, Mwalimu himself coming to office as prime minister at the age of 38, and his closest lieutenants mostly much younger than himself.
Only a few of the cabinet formed in December 1961 had something like experience of governing, including Sir Ernest Vassey (Finance) who at one time had served as Mayor of Nairobi.
Trade unionists like Rashidi Kawawa or ex-TAA officials like Mwalimu himself, or those from cooperatives like Clement George Kahama or the late Paul Bomani could be said to be militants, but not having ’their early careers arduously shaped in the civil service or union activism.’
In that context, ’early careers’ would have to be very early indeed, not a fountain of experience.
After removing this ’ardous’ preparation for governing of first phase key personnel, the next difficulty is how far the ’top brass of the incumbent regime boast of ruling party employment for its inception and career development.’
This obviously is factually correct at the point of departure, though it doesn’t follow through logically, since after this early part of their careers they had extensive experience in Parliament and in Government as such.
Premier Lowassa came into the legislature back in 1985, and JK himself went into the House in 1990, and by 1995 they were already experienced as full cabinet ministers.
It is evident therefore that there is an attempt to play down this aspect in favour of the starting off point, and secondly, an unwarranted supposition that a starting off point in the civil service and trade unions is better than in the ruling party, at employment level.
It would appear that the civil service to the critic fosters skills and trade unions legitimate representation of group interests, while he prefers to deride experience in the ruling party – for reasons that one can only qualify as prejudice.
If the author was interested in how it is possible to bring up a cadre of leadership interested in the problems affecting common people in Tanzanian circumstances, relying on the two pedestals and ignoring CCM is a little questionable in its intents.
If anything, the very exemplary Mwalimu (according to the author) is there to solve the problem.
The last election conference of CCM was held under a large banner quoting Mwalimu’s 1990 speech to its election conference at the time – that ’without a strong CCM our country will stumble.’ Do civil servants have a vision?
Civil servants, and to that extents unionists, are people who are used to writing down either reports of what there is on the ground, or a list of demands as to what their members want, and at no time to they actually work with what language calls the people, or the masses, in their numbers, just to express their wishes, or expectations.
It is in the arena of politics that the ’temperature’ of mass feelings is taken, a comprehension of their most ardent wishes, an evaluation of what can be achieved, and indeed, unless one is in a durable way attached to these people, nothing can be done.
Civil service programs can be replaced one by another depending on circumstance (ministry in which one is employed), but attachment to the people doesn’t disappear.
Experience in the civil service says a few things about familiarity with procedures, but it says nothing of intent to serve the people.
For one thing, the critic did not dwell on the more plausible comparison, namely that of the third phase and the current administration, and instead preferred to build a marginally idealistic picture of the first phase to deride the current holders of office.
Otherwise the presumed superiority of civil service experience (true of the holders of office of the past administration) is illustrated in full measure as sharply contrasting with those coming from the ruling party.
As a rule they are more sensitive to the people, as working at the party grassroots builds a humbleness of attitude, is tied to humbler character that is hard to find in bureaucratic corridors of directors, commissioners, superintendents or board chairmen.
The notion of ’the economy is growing’ with setting up funds for individuals to take loans, with little care for poverty in its wider sense or its intensification, was typical.
Saying that ’the Nyerere regime’s close proximity to the hoi polloi was informed through its physical experience on the plight of the poor, while the current crop of leadership heavily rely on party history and policies, rather than personal physical involvement of the leadership’ is inaccurate.
As noted, it avoids comparisons with the third phase and wishes to believe that JK in particular came up with his election promises (and after he took office, programs) by citing party documents, etc.
Everyone knows that this is not the case, that a gap exists between the party collective outlook and JK personally, and the charisma is due to proximity with the people.
If proof there needs to be, how is it that at his graduation in 1975 he refused a post with the Bank of Tanzania of all places and went for the ruling party, and stayed in far off Lindi where he also obtained his partner in life?
An explanation for this attitude on the part of the critic comes up towards the end of his letter, where he takes note that Mwalimu often recycled ’proven failed leaderships’ but has harsh words for the way the current administration was constituted.
’…the Kikwete leadership panache (is) a gratitude to the vanguard machinations of wana-mtanda (meant mtandao, evidently) and powerful business groups,’ lashing out fiercely that ’…(it) is discriminatory and vindictive to those the regime perceive(s) did (not) support its (taking over the) presidency.’
One is hard put to see the basis of that, and no extensive proof for that is needed, in say excluding Dr Abdallah Kigoda from the cabinet, but with a gender balance taking up none other than the blood sister of the same. Both should sit in cabinet?
Surprisingly, the critic finds that ’under Nyerere the premiership issued diktats that were researched and realistically executable while the incumbent premier’s roadside bombshells are impervious to interactive dialogue and (are) archaic,’ which one can only qualify as gratuitous.
Perhaps it would have been a little helpful if the critic praised the third phase premiership, whatever he feels about one or two issues, but diktats of the first phase are simply not the set of decisions to make this presidency be faulted.
The critic may have been a little young at the time of ’Operation Maduka,’ nor indeed is he remembering the chaos that was created by the ’war against saboteurs,’ and for that matter plenty of errors of implementing villagisation stemmed from that same premiership.
It was for that matter said that in 1985 Mwalimu was aware that had his veteran premier (removed in 1977 but remained party vice chairman) been picked to contest, registering voters would slumber.
With just 100 days or perhaps 110 by now, it may be a little early to judge the premier’s effectiveness, though some criticism has been aired for instance concerning removing stone crushers from Kunduchi, but no one can say the move has met with vast criticism from environmentalists or human rights groups, a few scruples and qualms apart.
Nor indeed was the premier responsible for wholesale clearing of informal traders along major roads, and if anything his involvement was in failing to reverse the move – again because civil servants whom the critic would qualify as responsible for this ’research’ and setting up ’executable’ tasks would be up in arms if he actually reversed their clearing out of traders.
So the premier opted to ’render unto Caesar,’ and retained his calm to maintain the peace.
|
