Dar es Salaam. The Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar has already reached six decades. If it were a working person, he would have spent two years at home after retirement.
Despite that longevity, there is still debate about the Union’s strength, sustainability, and structure.
At times, this debate emerges alongside others, such as the new Constitution, the distribution of powers, and economic and political questions about how the two sides of the Union cooperate.
Some see the Union as a rare example of success on the African continent, emphasising that it has withstood political turbulence, economic changes, and differences in outlook for several decades.
However, others argue that any institution that lasts for a long time requires self-assessment, self-correction, and improvement in order to match new environments.
According to law, history, and Union affairs analysts, debate should not be guided by emotions, but by logic, evidence, and national evaluation.
Tanganyika and Zanzibar united on April 26, 1964, under the leadership of the Father of the Nation, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, on the side of Tanganyika, and Sheikh Abeid Amani Karume for Zanzibar.
Reforms are not breaking; they are strengthening
Legal and constitutional expert, Prof Adrian Mrosso, says the question of Union reforms should not be interpreted as a sign of weakness of the Union itself.
He says all constitutional systems in the world evolve through regular improvements, and the Union should not be different.
Prof Mrosso sees the major question not as whether reforms are needed, but which areas require adjustment.
“The two-government system has shown great historical strength, but that strength does not remove the need to review it whenever there are operational challenges. Reforms are not breaking the Union, they are strengthening the Union,” he says.
Some areas that can be examined, he says, include transparency in the distribution of authority, management of Union matters, and resolution of recurring challenges regarding the interpretation of authority between the two sides.
He warns that the debate on a three-government system should not be adopted as a quick solution before assessing whether existing challenges originate from structural defects or from the implementation of the current structure.
“Not every Union challenge requires changing the system. Others require better management, clear laws, and stronger institutions,” he stresses.
Three governments not a threat
On her part, political and governance analyst, Dr Helena Rutabana says the debate on three governments should not be seen as an argument to disrupt stability, but as a structural discussion deserving careful examination.
She says those who support that system often build arguments that it can provide broader distribution of authority and reduce operational conflicts that may arise within the two-government system.
“Three governments is not a concept of breaking the Union. For some analysts, it is a proposal to reorganise authority so that each side feels it has sufficient space within the shared structure,” she says.
However, she says that debate must be guided by analysis of costs, administrative efficiency, and impact on national cohesion, noting that without doing so, the discussion may remain theoretical without practical answers.
She says the nation can open a professional debate about both systems without turning it into an agenda of division.
“What is important is not fearing debate, but ensuring debate produces knowledge, not panic,” she says.
Researcher in political history, Prof Leonard Chavula, says the experience of many political systems worldwide shows that institutions endure not by remaining as originally established, but by their ability to adapt.
He says the Union has passed through different political and economic periods, a situation that demonstrates its capacity to endure.
But the analyst says such endurance should not be taken as a reason to avoid opening debate on improvements.
“History teaches that systems which refuse to evaluate themselves begin to face internal conflicts that are not seen early. Self-evaluation is protection, not weakness,” he says.
In his view, the reform debate could begin with an assessment of Union matters, how they are reduced or retained, and whether existing mechanisms for addressing them are sufficient.
He also says the younger generation needs to be involved in that debate, because many did not participate in the history of establishing the Union, but are the ones who will carry it into the future.
“A country cannot conduct tomorrow’s debate using yesterday’s language alone. History must meet expectations of the younger generation,” he stresses.
On the other hand, policy analyst, Dr Samuel Nkwabi, says the debate on two or three governments is often given greater weight than the fundamental question of institutional strength.
He says a country can operate under any system, but if institutions responsible for coordination, accountability, and management are weak, challenges will persist regardless of the number of governments.
“Frequently, we discuss structure before discussing institutional capacity. That is where the debate loses professional weight,” he says.
In his view, the first reforms likely to yield results include strengthening cooperation systems, improving transparency in decisions on Union matters, and establishing strong mechanisms for resolving differences before they escalate into conflicts.
He adds that the reform debate should not be reduced to a choice between two or three governments, but should instead be a broader discussion about the quality of governance.
“If you build weak institutions within three governments, you will get the same challenges. If you build strong institutions even within two governments, you can get a lasting solution,” he says.
Reforms should include the Union economy
Political economy analyst, Dr Miriam Kasesela, says the Union debate often remains focused on politics and the Constitution, while overlooking the economic foundation.
She says one of the key questions is whether the existing system matches the current needs of economic cooperation, trade, taxation, investment, and management of resources.
“Union reforms should not remain only in constitutional texts. They should also examine whether ordinary citizens see its benefits in their daily lives,” she says.
Therefore, she says the debate on two or three governments cannot be complete without measuring financial implications.
Three governments, for example, may raise questions about operating costs, while improvements within the current system may carry lower costs.
But she says even if the current system continues, there is a need to strengthen areas of economic cooperation so that the Union is seen more as an instrument of development.
“A lasting Union does not depend on history alone, but one that is seen to deliver value for citizens of today,” she says.
