CCM’s race for speaker: The projection of a party in charge

The process of nominating a candidate for the vacant post of parliament speaker for the long ruling party, CCM started off with a bang and concluded with a whimper. After seventy one members picked up nomination forms, in the end only one name was picked with no explanation why the rest did not make the cut or whether they are unqualified for the role.

It is possible to hazard a few reasons for this outcome. President Samia Suluhu Hassan, who doubles as CCM’s national chairperson has spoken in the past of giving women more opportunities for leadership positions, claiming that if she does not do that no one else will. The nominee, who has been deputy speaker was the most high profile candidate but not the most influential among those who threw their proverbial hats in the ring.

After all some came out of their political ‘hibernation’ to remind the party that they are still around and should not be considered to have retired altogether.

Back to the point: Picking someone else other than her would have been nothing short of declaring the lack of confidence in her leadership abilities.

In a different political reality that would have meant another resignation.

The other reason has to do with the evolving political dynamics of a party headed towards intra-party elections at a time of flying accusations of some leaders in CCM making plans and possible line-ups for allies who will come in handy in the presidential race in 2025. Allowing members of parliament to vote on several names would not have helped CCM in any way other than further washing their dirty laundry for all to see.

This was not the time for continued display of divisions. Also, as a side note, it was about the chairperson imposing the will of a party she leads to MPs from her party who she has questioned their motives because of what some of them have said in the past in the august chambers of parliament.

Anything less than a majority support from CCM MPs for the nominated candidate would be seen as ‘revolting’ against their own party and the chairperson or worse, continued plotting for 2025. However, this latest chapter once again underlined why the processes of intra-party elections in CCM are both transparent and opaque.

The transparent bit has to do with a fairly straightforward process where members pick up nomination forms. This phase rarely causes any wrangles.

The ‘mysterious’ ways in which CCM moves from there is where the opaque processes of names being ‘axed’ or the entire process being scrapped comes into play. The finer details have changed from time to time.

It is rare for reasons to be given and when that happens it almost always contradicts some other decisions made by the same party on another constituency or another candidate. The presidential race is even murkier. Consider the names of the five finalists presidential hopefuls in 2015, for a mere mortal it is difficult to convincingly say why those five made the cut and the rest did not.

With those vying for parliamentary seats there is a litany of examples where the party picks someone else other than the individual who won the primaries, after all the winners of the primaries are never sure they will make it to the final list of endorsed nominees. In some constituencies the political bad blood between candidates is so severe that it simply moves to the next round of elections.

The process of voting is marred by claims of irregularities and corruption allegations.

No wonder, CCM considers the outcomes of these primaries merely as reference points and not something that is binding to the party’s decision makers.

While this was another exercise in projecting the party’s supremacy; one that is in charge over the individual, it also showed that the party continues to struggle with its demons.