|
Crucial challenges of Tanzania in the 90s
2008-03-11 09:49:50
By Pius Msekwa
In this article, former long-serving speaker of the National Assembly PIUS MSEKWA, now CCM vice-chairman, recalls the controversy over a three government system for Tanzania.
The Nyalali Commission of February 1991 was a Presidential Commission set up under the leadership of then-Chief Justice Francis Nyalali of Tanzania to collect the views of citizens and make appropriate recommendations on whether the country should adopt a multiparty or single party system. It was during term of President Ali Hassan Mwinyi.
Like the Commission, a Group of 55 Union Parliamentarians supported the 1993 Motion for separate governments for Tanzania Mainland and the Zanzibar islands. The MPs were stopped in their tracks by founder President Julius Nyerere, then in retirement.
Msekwa discusses the political dynamics of those years which were centred on introduction of multi-party democracy and the temptation of having a three-government Union structure. Please read on:
The challenges at the preparatory stage were faced primarily by the Nyalali Commission, as they were very clearly reflected in the Terms of Reference which were given to that historic Commission, of which I was a member.
The first item of the terms of reference was: `to find out, among other things, whether the people of Tanzania wanted a change to the multi-party political system, or to remain under the single party system’.
After touring the country for the greater part of one year in search of the people`s views on this matter, the Commission’s finding was that 80% of the people wanted to remain under the single party system.
Challenge number one was: In those circumstances, should the Commission just let this overwhelming majority have their way by recommending the retention of the single party political system?
The Commission`s answer was NO. Their argument being that the remaining 20% of the people who wanted a change to multi-party politics was already a substantial minority whose voices could not continue to be ignored.
A substantial part of this who expressed unhappiness at the way their party was operating. Hence, said the Nyalali Commission, change was inevitable. And recommended accordingly.
Item 7 of the Terms of Reference asked the Nyalali Commission `to consider and identify any problems that might arise with regard to Zanzibar`s place in the Union in case it is decided to change the political system; and whether it would be in the best interests of Zanzibar to implement such changes in the political system, having regard to Zanzibar`s bitter political history.
Clearly implied in this item was the fear that a change to a multi-party system could cause serious problems for Zanzibar, considering its bitter political past.
The Commission`s interpretation of this item was that it was expected to consider the possibility of following Zanzibar to remain with the single party system.
Challenge number two: Should the Commission find a way of making such a recommendation, i.e. of `one country, two systems`? Once again the Commission said NO. One country, it argued, should have one political system.
But it agonized over how best to help Zanzibar to overcome, or to contain, some of the anticipated problems if they have to operate a multi-party system.
Specifically, as mandated by this particular item of the Terms of Reference, namely to consider `Zanzibar’s place in the Union`.
The Commission`s attempt at finding a viable response is what resulted in its recommendation, which subsequently created an enormous political challenge to CCM, of the `three government structure` of the Union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar.
The facts were that because the Commission had recommended the introduction of a multi-party political system for the whole of the United Republic, it argued that in those new circumstances of multi-party competitive politics, `the best way of maintaining and perhaps strengthening the Union, was to recommend a new federal structure, consisting of a state government each for Tanganyika and Zanzibar, and an umbrella Union government`.
It must be stated however, that there was no unanimity on this particular recommendation; because a minority of the Commission members wrote and submitted their own minority report, which argued against the restructuring of the Union in the manner proposed. It should also be stated that this recommendation was rejected by the Ruling Party.
But this rejection created further challenges when Parliament subsequently took up the matter, and passed its own resolution demanding that the Constitution be changed to provide space for a three – government structure of the Union!
The interesting story of how that particular challenge emerged, and how it was resolved, it told here below.
The intervention by Parliament
On 24th August, 1993, on a Private Member`s motion introduced in the House on behalf of a pressure group of 55 members (the G55); Parliament unanimously passed a resolution which directed the government.
`To initiate and implement a process of consultation with the general public and the relevant national institutions, for the purpose of submitting to this Parliament not later than April 1995, recommendations for a more acceptable structure of the Union which will accommodate the need for a Tanganyika Government within the United Republic of Tanzania’.
The CCM referendum of 1994
The passing of this resolution by Parliament was quickly followed by a hive of ``crisis management`` activities within CCM; the National Executive Committee of the Party (of which I was a member) quickly met and decided to hold a Party referendum, whereby each CCM Branch throughout the country was instructed to hold a meeting of all members of the relevant Branch (which is provided for in the CCM Constitution).
The only agenda for all such meetings was to discuss and decide, by secret ballot, each CCM member’s personal preference on the issue whether the structure of the /union government should be: (a) a one government structure; or (b) a two-government structure; or (c) a three government structure. Party Branches were given up to one year to complete that exercise.
The final results, which were received and noted by the Party’s National Executive Committee in August, 1994; showed that an overwhelming majority of CCM members have voted in favour of retaining the existing two-government structure of the Union.
In the light of these results, Parliament at its next ordinary session which was held in October 1994, passed another resolution to repeal its earlier resolution which had demanded the establishment of a separate government for Tanganyika within the Union. And that is how this issue was resolved within CCM. But that was not to be the end of this matter.
In 1998 the President of the United Republic appointed a Constitution Review Commission, (the Kisanga Commission). One of its terms of reference required the Commission `to seek the people’s views on the structure of the Union’.
In its report to the President dated 20th August, 1999 the Commission said the following:
`The structure of the Union which would be most appropriate and suitable in the present circumstances of our country, is the three-government structure``.
Furthermore, during the general elections of 2000 and the Pemba by-elections of 2003, one of the main campaign issues raised by CUF and Jahazi Asilia Parties, was this same issue of the structure of the Union.
Those parties generally expressed the view that in order to ensure greater autonomy for Zanzibar, the three-government structure was inevitable. Hence from their point of view, this challenge has not yet found a solution.
Other challenges during the preparatory stage.
Two other important challenges during this period were (a) the need to find a way of avoiding an unelected Vice-President of the United Republic; and (b) to find a way of ensuring that both the President and the Vice-President will come from the same political party.
These challenges ware resolved with the active participation of Parliament, through the enactment of appropriate legislation.
The first issue arose from the fact that Article 37 (5) of the Constitution of the United Republic provides for automatic succession to the Presidency by the Vice-President, in cases where the President ceases to hold office, either through death, resignation, or other reason, for the remainder of the period during which the departed President would have held office. Which means that during that period, the country will be ruled by a President who was not elected by the people.
This challenge was resolved by adopting the American system of `pairing` the Presidential and the Vice-Presidential candidates during the elections, in order to ensure that both are elected by the citizens of the United Republic; and further that both were elected from the same political party.
The second issue arose from the political situation in Zanzibar, where two of the political parties there appeared to be of approximately equal strength, and hence there was strong probability that Zanzibar could elect its President from CUF, when the Union President was from CCM. Two issues were involved here.
One was in relation to the CUF President of Zanzibar assuming office as President of the United Republic, in the circumstances described in Article 37 (5) of the Constitution of the United Republic.
Political scientists have long identified one serious disadvantage in the system of `government by political party` as being that which forces ``large numbers of people who voted for the losing parties to be governed for long periods by people whose policies they disagree with`.
In this case, large numbers of people in Tanzania Mainland, who did not vote for the CUF President of Zanzibar, will be governed for a long period by a President whose policies they disagree with!
The response to this challenge was the 11th Constitutional amendment, which repealed the provision which made the President of Zanzibar an automatic Vice-President of the United Republic.
|
