Ruling parties and the state in Africa

CCM’s Secretary General, Dr Bashiru Ally, was recently quoted as saying that ruling parties in Africa use state apparatus to remain in power. That, for a ruling party to lose power while it had, the state machinery at its disposal can only be explained as being “lazy” on the part of the removed ruling party.

Although he was philosophical about it in some ways by saying that a ruling party has the state machinery at its disposal to deliver what it promised to the people, and that it is only problematic for the ruling party to rely on the state for survival if the ruling party uses the state to harass or mistreat its political opponents.

In an election year, at a time when opposition politicians and government critics have argued that the political playing field is increasingly in favour of the ruling party, CCM, such a statement can be considered “controversial”. Opposition politicians in the past have cried foul play, that CCM cheated them out of their electoral victories. But in our experiences with multiparty democracy, the story cannot be such one-sided. It can equally be said that opposition parties are just bad losers.

Dr Bashiru’s statement is nothing new and there are other politicians who have said different things to the same effect. Then CCM’s secretary of publicity and ideology, Nape Nnauye’s infamous statement he delivered while addressing a public rally in Nyehunge, Sengerema, in 2015 when he said CCM would retain the state house even with a hand’s goal, in no uncertain terms alluded to the state machinery. This, too was delivered in an election year.

For the obvious reasons, such statements lead opposition politicians and their supporters to cast doubts on the fairness of the whole electoral process. If memory serves me right, Dr Ally’s statement is almost a replica of what Kenya’s former president Daniel arap Moi said in his farewell address to parliamentarians in Dodoma, when he too, said that for African ruling parties to lose power, they had themselves to blame.

Despite the outcries every time such statements are heard, they point to the obvious. To better understand this reality one has to look in the past and see the long shadow cast by previous decisions and the paths post-independence Africa took. You had those who concentrated their efforts in political regimes, mainly how decisions are made and those behind such decisions, and how they are effected. Others paid attention to the state and its organs, like the army, police, or courts.

In this country we are yet to escape the shadow of the past.

During the one-party era, TANU and ASP and later CCM, “the party” became so entrenched in the affairs of the state that it was impossible to mention the one without the other. This has remained part of our political lexicon to this day, it is absolutely normal to hear “party and government leaders”. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever what one means when they speak of ‘the party”. This, after nearly three decades since the return of multiparty politics. There are many parts in this country to this day where people can hardly tell the difference between the party and the state; and the first time an individual comes into contact with the state is through the party. In African elections, ruling parties and the state have come to develop some sort of a symbiotic relationship, especially in countries with historical parties like CCM. There are many other countries which changed their ruling parties only for the new parties in power to find ways to maintain their grip on power through the state machinery.

The obvious stated end game of political parties is to capture state power through peaceful means, and stay there for as long as possible. That means implementing the election manifesto a political party promised voters by using the state. A political party does not have a budget for infrastructures or delivering social services. A political party cannot deliver economic growth without being in control of the state.

In other words, all a political party can do is promise, and for those promises to be actualized, it must be in control of the state. This is like a coin, there are two sides, and it can land either way, it so happens in Africa it more often lands on a certain side.

Being shocked or surprised at such statements means that those who are shocked or surprised know the coin will land on a side they did not pick.

After all what’s incumbency without influences due or otherwise?