Why Tanzania continues sidestepping debates during election campaigns

Yet, within this intense period of political engagement, a profound silence persists—the absence of a structured, nationally televised presidential debate.

This omission is not a mere oversight for this election; it is a deeply ingrained tradition, a missing piece of the electoral puzzle that has characterised Tanzanian politics for almost the entirety of its multi-party era.

Despite a growing and vocal public interest in substantive policy discussions, presidential debates have consistently failed to materialise, leaving a gaping hole in the nation’s electoral discourse and denying voters a crucial platform for comparative analysis.

This reluctance is not for a lack of trying. The story of Tanzania’s presidential debates is one of great promise followed by a steady decline. It began on a high note in 1995 with a debate featuring two candidates, Augustine Mrema of NCCR–Mageuzi, and Professor Ibrahim Lipumba of CUF. However, Dr Juma Ngasongwa on behalf of Benjamin Mkapa of CCM.

Prof Lipumba, John Cheyo of UDP, and Mrema, for the first time, held a historic debate at the Kilimanjaro Hotel, organised by a panel led by the former editor of the Business Times newspaper, Bernard Palela.

This expectation was immediately dashed in the 2000 election. The incumbent, President Benjamin Mkapa, declined to debate. His main opponent, Augustine Mrema (now with TLP), and other opposition candidates boycotted in response, causing the debate to collapse before it began and establishing a damaging pattern.

The 2005 election followed a similar script. The leading opposition candidate, CUF’s Prof Ibrahim Lipumba, announced he would only participate if the incumbent, CCM’s Jakaya Kikwete, agreed to debate.

The CCM camp again refused, and the event was cancelled, cementing a ‘no incumbent, no debate’ impasse.  By 2010, the concept was severely weakened. Once again, the CCM candidate, incumbent President Jakaya Kikwete, declined to participate.

The opposition fragmented; some candidates, led by Willibrod Slaa of Chadema, debated without him, but the event was dismissed as irrelevant without the frontrunner, further eroding the debate’s significance.

The final blow came in 2015. Initially, there was hope as all major candidates, including CCM’s John Magufuli and Chadema’s Edward Lowassa, agreed to participate.

However, days before the event, the state broadcaster pulled out, making a professional broadcast impossible.

Political experts suggest that this absence is fundamentally rooted in Tanzania’s entrenched political culture of mass rallies and a preference for direct voter engagement, which has overshadowed the potential benefits of structured debates.

“Our political landscape still heavily relies on rallies as the primary means of communication. There’s a prevailing belief that face-to-face interactions in rallies are more effective in reaching and persuading voters,” said Prof Makame Ali Ussi from the State University of Zanzibar.

This culture creates a distinct comfort zone for candidates. A rally allows for broad, emotive promises—new factories, free education, improved infrastructure—without the immediate pressure to explain detailed costing, implementation timelines, or potential trade-offs.

He added: “The energy and size of the crowd become the primary measure of success, rather than the depth and resilience of policy ideas.”

Beyond culture, a cold, calculated political calculus is also at play. Dr Onesmo Kyauke, a political analyst from the University of Dar es Salaam, points out that some presidential candidates may avoid debates due to apprehensions about confrontations.

“There’s a fear among candidates that participating in debates could inadvertently boost their opponents’ profiles. They really have a fear of making a misstep in a live debate setting is a deterrent for many,” he noted.

He said this for an underdog candidate; a debate is a no-lose opportunity; they stand to gain visibility and credibility simply by sharing the stage.

“For the favourite, it is often perceived as a no-win situation; they are expected to perform flawlessly and gain little, but stand to lose a great deal if they stumble,” he said.

He continued: “Consequently, the front-runner almost always has a strategic incentive to avoid debating altogether.”  A further, more subtle barrier is the nature of campaign messaging itself. The lack of emphasis on policy-driven campaigns contributes to the reluctance.