Sixty years on, what went wrong with ‘Project Tanzania’?

Tanzania was one of the most promising nations in Africa in the early 1960s. To many observers, local and foreign, it conjured up images of a vibrant young nation that was about to go places.

In that regard, 1963 was possibly its highest point. Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere had co-founded the OAU, he had made a tour of the Scandinavian nations, and was received in the US by President John F. Kennedy. In East Africa, the prospects of a federation were high, in the south, Tanzania was at the forefront of African liberation, and internationally, its influence was sky-high.

Writing to the US government, a report from the US ambassador to Tanganyika had these words: Tanganyika’s and Nyerere’s prestige have never been higher. Looking back, indeed, Tanzania has hardly had it better.

Sixty years on, that young nation is not so young anymore. The vibrancy that characterised it has turned into lethargy and the hopes into cynicism. It is a nation of professional complainers. It has probably dawned on the people how unfortunate their circumstances are.

To appreciate how far Tanzania has fallen behind, it is good to observe the progress that others have made. By 1961, GDP per capita in Tanzania was equivalent to South Korea’s. But South Korea increased its productivity 300 times, while Tanzania only managed to grow 12 times.

Today, Tanzanians still use hoes to till their farms. They walk for 45 minutes to fetch water. They go around picking sticks for cooking. They go to schools without desks. They go to bushes to defecate. Indeed, even in Dar es Salaam, the vast majority still use pit latrines!

Nyerere was a truly outstanding individual, but somewhere along the course of his leadership, Tanzania’s nation-building project took a very wrong turn. What went wrong?

One, politics was made supreme.

In 1964, soldiers marched to the State House to express their grievances over pay, promotions, and the continued presence of British officers in the army. Theirs was a human resources issue, but when soldiers revolt, that’s a mutiny.

Nyerere was caught off-guard, and he asked the British to assist. They did. On a continent where governments were falling all around, something had to be done to stop a repeat of that incident. So, the army was turned into a political wing of the ruling party. Today, even with multiparty politics, practices haven’t changed very much.

Beyond the military, the government bureaucracy wasn’t spared either. Bureaucrats learned not to think in terms of strategic plans, but to think in terms of election manifestos! Ultimately, you end up with public officials who think that they are serving a political party, and not the nation.

No nation has ever developed in the absence of a competitive bureaucracy. Without it, political expediency reigns at the expense of strategic goals.

Two, idealism.

In 1965, only a year after the British had secured Nyerere’s presidency, Tanzania broke off diplomatic relations with Britain. Seen from the point of view of the British, this was very erratic behaviour on Nyerere’s part. Instead of using diplomacy, thus signalling his reliability as a friend to Britain, he severed relations with Tanzania’s most important strategic partner!

History never rewards unpredictability.

Since Nyerere’s times, pragmatism has never been Tanzania’s strength. Tanzanians are happy to horde empty land rather than see investors develop them. They would rather live in the dark than allow entrepreneurs to distribute electricity. Outsiders might think – how pitiful, they have no alternatives! Alas, alternatives abound but are being blocked. In short, the government is standing in the way of people’s development by its bizarre laws, policies, and practices.

This has been happening since quite early in Tanzania’s history. The economy was growing in the 1960s, and all that Nyerere had to do was to stay out of the way. But, alas, where is the glory in that? Not only did the government introduce regressive policies, they imposed them on communities which were prospering by doing the opposite.

If a nation is happy to suffer because of its foolish ideas, then it is quite appropriate that it should suffer because of that foolishness.

Three, rejection of democracy.

Despite Nyerere’s humanist credentials, some of the policies during his rule were highly undemocratic. The banning of multiparty politics. The detention of opponents. The nationalisation of private property. The forceful resettlement of people in ujamaa villages. Restrictions on independent media, etc.

It looks like Nyerere was quite happy to allow democracy to thrive, as long as the people chose from the options he had already prescribed!

Failure to establish a progressive democratic culture in Tanzania was one of the biggest misses of Nyerere’s political career. His autocratic tendencies set a horrible example for those who succeeded him. By disempowering the people, the less benevolent leaders who followed him have no incentive to listen to anyone. They can practically get away with anything.

Democracy is a necessary requirement for sustained development. When a nation ignores rules of political competition, rule of law, protection of minority rights, and balance of power, it will inevitably pay for those mistakes as Tanzania does.

What Tanzania is today is a product of what Nyerere did or didn’t do. The great man was human, and there are areas where he failed big time. Sadly, Tanzania is still paying for that.