|
Varsity student boycott smacks of political undertones
2007-04-24 09:52:49
By Beatrice Philemon
There have been two major issues that have negatively touched the nation in the past week or so.
This is apart from the Rift Valley Fever (RVF) scare that has been going on for over a month or two since it entered this country from our neighbours in the north.
One of the blood-chilling incidents was the Buffalo Bus carnage in Kilimanjaro which took the lives of scores of citizens and maiming scores others.
The second disturbing incident involved the University of Dar es Salaam student boycott, which led to the closure of the Mlimani Campus and the Chang’ombe University College.
In all the three incidents, members of the public have directed some blame at the Fourth Phase government of President Jakaya Kikwete. The blame has come in varying forms and magnitudes.
The main criticism has come from the political opposition camp, and rightly so, according to me.
It is natural and expected, and this is where I salute plural democracy.
Here it shows that the opposition is not asleep but fully awake and doing its job well.
Most of us expect this from the opposition camp so long as they do so honestly without under-the-table dealings.
On the Rift Valley Fever, the opposition said the government showed its unpreparedness for such disasters, saying openly that the government mishandled the entire issue.
To some great extent, I go along with the opposition here because government explanations to the public had been scanty and often confusing. Some citizens had stopped eating meat altogether.
On the Buffalo bus accident, again the opposition pointed fingers at the government for being lax and not making follow-ups of its decisions, leaving room to graft conjecture; that maybe the traffic police were deliberately turning a blind eye to offending drivers because they were benefiting from their laxity somehow.
I would also like to share this view that the traffic police tasked with overseeing the safety of the passengers by strictly and firmly ensuring that the traffic rules and regulations were adhered to, to the letter, are not doing so.
But we are used to fire brigade type of reaction. This way we shall always be treating the disease rather than preventing it.
Then came the University boycott. Let me state from the outset that boycotts at the oldest highest learning institution, the University of Dar es Salaam are a normal occurrence. We are used to them.
In (sloppy) journalist parlance, boycotts at the University of Dar es Salaam are `not news`.
I am yet to witness a complete university calendar year without one boycott or another.
That will be news, and by some canny coincidence, the boycotts always occur when the students are about to sit for their examinations.
Have the boycotts got anything to do with what they call exam fever (not rift valley fever)? Well, maybe it isn’t like that.
This time, if I am not mistaken, the students were demanding an immediate increase in their research, field practicals, up-keep money.
In short an increase in their bursary, which in fact is a loan that they are supposed to repay somehow later after they graduate?
But the students were also demanding that the government should foot all the bill whether in the form of a loan or not because many students came from poor families and could not afford even the 40 per cent contribution.
That is to say the loan should cover 100 per cent expenses until they graduate.
That is a fair demand, I must agree. I think most people would say that is a fair demand.
The government too, I believe, considers that a fair demand.
In fact the President and his government have often repeated that no student would be sent home because he or she is poor.
We are also told that the President was already working on the matter and the students were assured that all their problems would get answers by September this year.
We are further told that the University administration was not only willing to, but also invited student leaders to discuss the matter, but the student leaders seemed not interested in the discussions. They seemed to have another agenda of their own.
And the agenda, according to the University Vice -Chancellor, Professor Rwekaza Mukandala, was to appease the student community.
Professor Mukandala alleged that the student leadership was elected into office on the promise that they would put so much pressure on the government that it complies with their demands including offering loans to cover 100 per cent expenses.
That was why the student leadership was not ready to discuss with the university management, distancing themselves from all the agreements they had reached earlier on.
Maybe the student community was not told that the pressure on the government would involve them all in such boycotts.
The sad part of it is the beating of students who were not ready to participate in the boycott.
I thought the university was the place to go to learn about democracy, to tolerate other people`s views and opinions.
Haven`t they heard of nguvu ya hoja versus hoja ya nguvu. Only despots resort to the latter. What a shame!!!
Yet, the entire boycott smacked of politics. At one point I was as confused as a disoriented rabbit as far as the students demands were.
One placard they carried during their boycott read: `Tatizo si bodi ya mikopo tu…..ni pamoja na hii serikali ya kishkaji ya Kikwete.
Another placard read: `Elimu ya juu lazima!! Safari za nje & magari ya kifahari ni anasa na Aibu.`
So, it was not a question of inadequate loans that the student were boycotting but Kikwete`s `dubious` government? So the students were boycotting against Kikwete’s foreign trips and not the inadequate loan package?
In other words, the students had misgivings about Kikwete`s government and his foreign trips and the loans issue was just the springboard.
Doesn`t this sound more political than academic? Both Kikwete`s foreign trips and his government `malfunctioning` have recently been targets of attack by some of the opposition political parties.
To me, it looks as if the opposition political parties were looking for another mouthpiece to help them push their agenda and they found the mouthpiece in the university student body.
Wasn`t it why the opposition leaders immediately came to speak for the students pretending to sympathise with them?
If this is true, I think it is unfair for the political parties to use the students as a bait for provoking the government so that they push their agenda.
It is unfair for the political parties to incite students to break the law and order for the politicians` personal interests. Think of other tricks or strategies.
|
