TALKING POINT : Why political intolerance is on the rise in Tanzania

It is beyond debate that intolerance is on the rise in Tanzania. The manifestations of a society that is unable to contain its anger emanating from social and political disagreement are there for all to see.

From the recent brutal killing of researchers in Dodoma to the senseless murder of people with albinism and the elderly, intolerance is invariably at the centre of a society that seems to have gone berserk.

In institutional and state circles, intolerance manifests itself in the form of a lack of consensus on key issues of national concern. A case in point is the no-holds-barred power struggle in the Civic United Front, pitting a faction that is loyal to Prof Ibrahim Lipumba against the one aligned with Secretary-General Seif Shariff Hamad. CUF is not an isolated case, as almost all major parties – from the ruling CCM to opposition outfits such as Chadema, TLP and NCCR-Mageuzi – have had to grapple with deep divisions at some point. No political party can claim to have had a trouble-free existence during the 24 years of political pluralism in Tanzania.

So, what is the panacea? There are three approaches to dealing with this challenge, at least from the point of view of a systems approach to democratisation. First, our own constitution review process dating back to 2011 could have been a great opportunity. Ultimate power needs to be vested in the people and the delegation of such must be carefully executed through elections and beyond.

The current trend where elections are increasingly becoming a traded commodity, with money, clothing, drink and food freely changing hands, adds to the crisis of democratic dysfunction. The constitution must retain presidential term limits that have effectively been abolished in neighbouring Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In addition, the arrangement must be devolved to include lower levels of governance, including Parliament and municipal councils.

In line with the proposals of the “Warioba Commission”, I would go for a two-term limit for all elective positions. Hence, if an MP, councillor or village chairperson has been elected once, it should be clear that they remain with only one more five-year term in office.

Also, we need to go beyond paying lip service to representative democracy. Everyone must be aware that where democracy has worked, it has been a function of both representative and direct processes. For instance, what available space is there for MPs or members of the House of Representatives to collect the views of the people they represent between elections? Just because one has been elected does not mean they have a monopoly of decision-making and thought.

A functioning democracy requires that elected politicians regularly go back to voters to consult. Elected leaders must remain cognizant of the fact that their mandates are to be renewed regularly, not once every five years. In effect, the day-to-day consulting is more valuable than the one-off mandate renewal during an election. If I may ask, how many MPs take the trouble to revert back to the public for views on upcoming debate in the House? Or, how many are willing to lead the way in implementing development interventions in constituencies and local councils? How many elected representatives actually have a permanent residence in areas they represent? Not surprisingly, the proposal that people seeking to be elected to Parliament should have permanent residencies in constituencies they are interested in was struck off by the Constituent Assembly in 2014.

Alongside representation, the people must be allowed to speak out. Among politicians, Article 18 of the Constitution has been reluctantly accepted. Imagine, for instance, a president directing the security apparatus to ban political activity until 2020. What does this mean? What impact does this have on the furtherance of civic space? Assuming the level of compliance remains this high, why should we have the office of the Registrar of Political Parties? Why should parties continue receiving subsidy when political activities have effectively been banned?

We need to have a rethink of the kind of democracy we want. Are we strengthening institutions and organisations or individuals? Why have we gone out of our way to lock independent candidates out of elections? Why the fuss? With people elsewhere enjoying the right to stand in elections as independent candidates, why is Tanzania so reluctant?

Finally, how feasible is it that Tanzania can work out a solution to having highly monetised elections and how soon? Political intolerance signals the low levels of public trust in the processes themselves.

Deus Kibamba is trained in Political Science ,International Politics and International law.