Three-tier govt system unrealistic

Dar es Salaam. Martin Meredith, author of The State of Africa, recalls that in 1947, the Yoruba leader in Nigeria, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who had dominated Nigerian politics for thirty years, wrote in his book: “Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographic expression. There are no “Nigerians” in the sense as there are “English,” “Welsh,” or “French.” The word “Nigerian” is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria and those who do not.”

I am writing this in view of the Draft Constitution proposals made by the Constitutional Review Commission in relation to the adoption of a three-tier government structure for the United Republic of Tanzania.

It seems that being one of Africa’s most stable countries, we are fed up with stability. We now want the half-century-old United Republic of Tanzania to permit its own dismembering through a constitutional change process that will make actual levels of state controls on the Mainland uncertain, disputed and virtually crippled.

A three-tier government system will transform the people into mere toilers, who will consequently feed a grossly burgeoned class of politicians. These will permanently harass them over increased electoral obligations as well as their unending squabbles and lobbying for political office. We will also have three legislatures, with the legislators frequently outdoing each other in wasteful oratory and abuse of House procedures as a way of catching the attention of hapless television viewers.

On top of the burden of shouldering a hefty tax bill, will come unending citizens’ obligations to a coterie of new judges, administrative fat cats and cabinet members of the government of Tanganyika, who will be imposed on the populace, not to mention a new State House for the Tanganyika president, new state residences, huge fleets of cars and 4xWDs and an ostentatious National Assembly. All these will demand the attention and sweat of the people.

The three-government proposal, upon its introduction, drew immediate support from liberal and academic circles, and also from advocates of the formation of Tanganyika government, who keep saying: “We want our Tanganyika.”

But what is Tanganyika? To put it in an Awolowo way: “Tanganyika is not a nation. There are no “Tanganyikans” as there are “English,” “Welsh,” or “French.” The word “Tanganyikan” is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who lived within the boundaries of Tanganyika and those who did not.”

Indeed, Tanganyika was neither the creation of “Tanganyikans” nor their leaders. It was a product of Bismarck and the Berlin Conference in 1884-85. At that time, Bismarck, who had also embarked on a German unification crusade, was calling upon Germans to “think with their blood.” Germany is made up of Germans, so the call was valid. However, the Tanganyika he created was made up of 120 African tribes.

Creation of Tanganyika

Since Tanganyika’s creation in the 1880s up to independence in 1961, if somebody would ask Tanganyikans to “think with their blood,” they would definitely think along tribal lines instead. During the colonial era, they lived inside the boundaries of Tanganyika. However, both their allegiance and communal identification was basically tribal.

Tanganyikans were not allowed to vote or be voted for, nor reside in white residential areas, while the government leaders, the governor, the provincial commissioner, district commissioners, senior bureaucrats and traders, legislative council members etc, were all white. So, throughout the half-century-plus colonial period, the people of Tanganyika were basically ethnocentric and did not harbour any sense of nationhood. During that period, up to the time the name was substituted, the people of Tanganyika fitted with Awolowo’s description of Nigerians. So, the talk about ‘our Tanganyika’ does not hold water.

There was a Tanganyikan state, but there was no Tanganyikan nation. Nation-building began with those, who fought for the Tanganyika independence under Tanu. These worked day and night to convince the people of Tanganyika that they were one, thus had to join forces to remove the colonialists. That’s how the seed of nationalism was planted under Mwalimu Julius Nyerere. Indeed, the founding fathers of Tanganyika’s nationalism believed that “All human beings are my brethren and Africa is one.” That was one of Tanu’s creeds since its formation in 1954. Nowadays, we can safely state that Tanzania is made up of Tanzanians. Those who go abroad note the difference with colleagues from other African countries, who identify themselves and group together under tribal banners. Not Tanzanians!

Come independence of Tanganyika, the motto was “Freedom and Unity.” In 1964, the leaders of Tanganyika and Zanzibar agreed to unite their countries, and, through their respective state mechanisms, founded the United Republic of Tanzania.

The 1964 mutiny was a blessing in disguise as it provided a pretext for dismantling the inherited colonial army and creation of a patriotic army properly titled as the Tanzania People’s Defence Forces (TPDF). True to its name, the TPDF is one of the most disciplined, professional and people-friendly armies in Africa. The TPDF has done a lot to foster unity and stability in Tanzania. These achievements have been realised due to the existence of a feasible and effective State structure in Tanzania.

Sad to say, the Constitutional Review Commission has come forward with a proposal for a three-government structure for the United Republic of Tanzania. Those who support such an arrangement are yet to give empirical views to show which two countries in history had successfully adopted a three-government union structure. As for a precedence of a two government union, there is the Union of Northern Ireland and United Kingdom. It would have been of great benefit if members of the Constitutional Review Commission would have visited any two-country, three-government union to help them come up with such a recommendation.

There are those who want the three-tier government system to be in place simply because they are annoyed by the incessant anti-Union pressure from a section of the Zanzibari population. So they want to do away with the Zanzibaris once and for all. However, this is not the best way to address the problem, as I shall later explain.

The greatest danger that will come with Tanzania adopting a three-government structure is the confusion of roles plus the fuelled, unbridled rivalry between the Mainland (National?) chief executive and the United Republic Chief (National?) Executive, given the strong possibility that both the president of Tanzania Mainland and of the United Republic shall be based in Dar es Salaam.

Now imagine, the President of the United Republic is from Chadema, the President of Zanzibar is from CUF, given the prevailing low political culture (a habitual watcher of Parliament proceedings will agree with me!), the potential for rivalry added to the confusion of roles and visibility of three presidents in a single country will seriously test and weaken the state structures of the Mainland Government, and, by implication, of the Zanzibar government. The United Republic of Tanzania and its constituent governments, will thus, through the ongoing constitutional review process, transform itself into a failed state by public vote.

Coercive power

Whoever is discussing the formation of a new government structure has to take into account both the internal and external political factors. So far, discussants are only mindful of the internal political factors. It is only Prof Shivji, who has reminded us that outside the borders of Tanzania, there are both small and big sharks who have geostrategic interests in the natural resources and political life of Tanzania. Indeed, the existence of lurking external political players should not be ignored by any sober-minded national strategist.

We have to remember that the international system is characterised by anarchy and conflict and that all states seek to maximise their power and ensure their status. All sober national leaders sleep with their eyes wide open next to those of the most friendly countries! If Tanzania wants to weaken government control over the main legitimate coercive agents, including the police and armed forces, prisons and courts of law, then it wants to go the DRC and Central Africa way where criminal multinational looters of abundant natural resources and the armed gangs they finance are well-entrenched.

We have to remember that coercive power is essential to the effective functioning of a state. It allows a state to claim authority within its borders and protect both its people and resources.

As for those Mainlanders who want to do away with Zanzibar simply because they are fed up with secessionist demands constantly made by a well-organised Zanzibari group, not necessarily the majority, let me quote Mwalimu Nyerere in Kiswahili as I remember him stating at the famous Kilimanjaro Hotel media meeting: “…Iwapo Wanzanzibari wanataka kujitenga, na nyinyi mnawaambia: Hivi kweli Wanzanzibari mnatuacha?

Nao wakaamua kuwaacha, mtabaki salama….Lakini ninyi (Tanzania Bara) mkiwafukuza, hamtabaki salama.” (If Zanzibaris want to secede, and you keep pleading to them: Zanzibaris, are you really leaving us? If they persist on leaving and do leave, you shall remain safe. However, if you (Mainland Tanzanians) kick them out, you won’t remain safe.”)

Future prospects

So, the most feasible way to break the Union can come from Zanzibar through a majority vote and a subsequent House of Representatives Declaration to officially opt out of the Union.

However, tracing the history of Zanzibar election outcome since the early 1960s up to this moment, the vote tally difference has always been hair-thin, around 49-53 per cent victory for the winner of the Hizbu-Afro Shirazi (now CUF-CCM) duels, which means that only some 50,000-100,000 votes can swing the poll outcome.

Any referendum result will give a close tally if it only involves Unguja and Pemba residents, but if it also involves the mobilisation of hundreds of thousands of Zanzibaris domiciled in all corners of the Mainland, as it should at all costs, then the feasibility of a ‘No Union’ outcome will be quite difficult, if not impossible, to attain. Nevertheless, those campaigning for the dissolution should muster irresistible popular—and not only media—pressure to get the ball rolling.