POLITICAL REFORM IN TANZANIA

Tanzania, famous for its failed experiment in socialism based on rather inventive notions of African familyhood (ujamaa), was a one-party state until the government approved the introduction of multiparty politics in 1992. During the long period of ujamaa and its aftermath, Tanzanian citizens endured a top-down system of governance, in which they were given little chance to participate in decision-making.Footnote ² In spite of political and economic policies that were often quite detrimental to people's freedoms and livelihoods, Tanzania has always remained remarkably peaceful. Kelsall (Reference Kelsall2000: 534) notes that a ‘key feature in post-Independence politics in that country has been a striking absence of rural political mobilization’. With the economic decline brought on in part by the country's economic and political policies, Tanzania agreed in 1986 to accept an IMF structural adjustment programme. Tripp (Reference Tripp1997: 75) states that ‘had Tanzania failed to reach this agreement, it would have faced drastic cuts in aid from the Nordic countries and other Western donors’.

Following on the heels of economic reform, a Presidential Commission headed by Chief Justice Francis Nyalali was dispatched in 1991 to survey the opinions of the citizens of Tanzania about adopting a multiparty system. While the commission found that 80% of those surveyed preferred the continuation of a single-party system, the commission recommended that a multiparty system be adopted nonetheless. Baregu (Reference Baregu and Widner1994) asserts that this response by Tanzanians was hardly surprising, given that most Tanzanians knew no other form of politics. Many Tanzanians were genuinely worried that an opposition party would increase their troubles: ‘if one CCM has brought us such misery, many CCMs will finish us off’ (Baregu Reference Baregu, Mukandala, Mushi and Yahya-Othman2000: 20).Footnote ³

In its extensive interviews around the country, the Nyalali Commission discovered that, although uneasy about the introduction of a multiparty system, Tanzanians did want serious reforms of the existing political system. In particular, they had grown weary of a one-party state that had begun ‘to resemble a racket for the protection of corrupt and acquisitive public officials’ (Kelsall Reference Kelsall2003: 56). Mmuya and Chaligha (Reference Mmuya and Chaligha1992: 16–17) note that Chama cha Mapinduzi (Revolutionary Party) had been nicknamed:

The decision to adopt a multiparty system again reflected both external donor pressure and attempts to address internal demands, particularly those that grew louder in protest over corruption. Nyerere, Tanzania's founding father and the architect of ujamaa, had been firmly committed to a one-party state throughout his tenure in office, but came out in favour of a multiparty system in 1990, claiming ‘that the party leaders were closer to their offices and desks than to the people’ (Tripp Reference Tripp1997: 196). While the government has been rhetorically committed to a multiparty system, in practice it has not done all it can to create an environment conducive to free and fair elections. A Tanzania Electoral Monitoring Committee (TEMCO) report (quoted in Kelsall Reference Kelsall2003: 61) stated that the 2000 elections ‘on the Mainland were free but not fair [emphasis in the original]. The unfairness comes from the big state bias in favour of the ruling party.’ In addition, civil society organisations are pressing for constitutional reform, which they feel critical to establishing a real democracy in Tanzania. While the transition to a multiparty democracy was to bring with it the disentanglement of the party from the government, this process has been slow to occur, and is often not well understood at the local level. The conflation of CCM with the government was a feature in the politicking leading up to the 1995 elections. At local meetings, local and district government officials were wearing CCM tee-shirts and starting and ending proceedings with CCM chants (Snyder Reference Snyder2001).

After the introduction of multiparty politics, many Tanzanians remain sceptical of the benefits of the new system. Before the elections in 1995, many people in Mbulu District expressed their concern that if opposition politicians were elected, it might take a long time for them to ‘grow full’ from eating the wealth of the people.Footnote ⁴ In 2000, Mbulu residents, while less concerned about the multiparty system bringing an end to Tanzania's peacefulness, nonetheless remained committed to the governing CCM. In neighbouring Karatu District, however, CCM had been thoroughly beaten, and the MP and 80% of the elected ward councillors came from the opposition party, Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Party for Democracy and Development, or CHADEMA). A full discussion of these events is beyond the scope of this article, but their occurrence had an impact on events in Mbulu, and influenced people's actions there in ways that will become apparent below. In the 2005 Mbulu district elections, six councillors were elected from CHADEMA and ten from CCM. While CCM still dominates, this is an important change in district politics.

In this new era of political reform, donors have placed considerable emphasis on transforming the top-down nature of Tanzania's style of governance, to ‘improve the accountability and implementation of development policy by politically empowering the population’ (Kelsall Reference Kelsall2000: 534). One of the ways in which the government is attempting to aid empowerment is through decentralisation. This move is not unique to Tanzania, but has been a part of political reform throughout the continent, and has been viewed by donors, academics and civil society as an important corrective to pervasive top-down, autocratic regimes. In 1996, the government of Tanzania initiated the Local Government Reform Programme, by which local District Councils have been given more responsibility and financial resources for guiding district development and operating with greater autonomy from central government.Footnote ⁵ Efforts have also been made to separate the state from the party in the jobs of key appointed officials. For example, after 1992 the katibu kata (ward secretary), who was both a party and state official, became the afisa mtendaji, or ward executive officer, a state-appointed official. Yet, as one such official admitted to me: ‘We have different titles today but the job is the same.’ Village development committees are supposed to come up with requests and plans for development projects in their communities. However, as Green (n.d.) has observed, there is still little change in how government business is conducted on the ground. Cooksey and Kikula (Reference Cooksey and Kikula2005: 25) point out that ‘most of the funds that LGAs (local government authorities) receive and spend are the result of national level prioritizing, with donor aid a key component’.

Certainly, this top-down approach was still in evidence over the decision to increase the number of primary school classrooms throughout the country. Other development initiatives in Mbulu were similarly top-down in their approach. For example, in 2002, the district commissioner of Mbulu visited villages in the highlands, proclaiming that each household must plant one-quarter acre in coffee and one-quarter acre in pyrethrum to meet the nation's need for cash crops. This directive was made nationwide in highland areas. While it seems unlikely that it will be rigorously enforced, it certainly fails to recognise the views of farmers, many of whom have been uprooting these crops because they have lost money year after year trying to sell them in volatile world markets. While this example seems to indicate that the culture of governance in Tanzania is slow to change, the events surrounding the building of school classrooms suggest that villagers are beginning to demand more accountability and decision-making responsibilities from the government.

THE SCRAMBLE OVER CLASSROOM BUILDING

The Primary Education Development Programme includes the building of classroom buildings, teachers' houses and latrines, as well as teacher training and textbook provision. It aims to increase enrolment rates and generally improve primary education in the country. HakiElimu (2007) reports that between 2000 and 2006, ‘the net enrolment rate climbed from 56% to 96%’. According to Dr Wilbrod Slaa, Karatu member of parliament (CHADEMA) and former shadow minister for the Parliament, 65 billion Tshs. were set aside for classroom building in 2003, while 45 billion Tshs. were allocated for 2002, and 41 billion Tshs. the previous year (Slaa 2004: email communication). President Benjamin Mkapa delivered information about the project to the citizens of Tanzania through speeches on radio and television, and explained that citizens should monitor the work through local School Education Committees. As the project developed, however, it was decided that citizens should construct the classrooms themselves up to the lintel, and the government would then take over and complete them. Each classroom was estimated to cost 3·6 million Tshs. (roughly $3,600) to complete. In Mbulu District, many wards (which incorporate three or more villages and are the most significant unit of political organisation at the local level) decided that with 3·6 million Tshs. they could complete more than one classroom per school. However, the resulting rush to build meant that many classrooms have gone unfinished, because not enough funds have been allocated to complete them all.Footnote ⁶ In Karatu District, 172 classrooms were built up to the lintel but funds for only 36 classrooms reached the district, so many remain unfinished.Footnote ⁷

In Kainam ward, classrooms were built in each village, and in new schools (consisting of one building) that had been built recently to serve lower grades. In Hareabi village, the community was divided over where to build a second classroom. It was agreed that the main primary school should put up one new classroom, but that an additional classroom should be built to begin a school in a new section of the village, to reduce overcrowding in the main primary school and to serve students living at a great distance from the existing school. Talk of a new school immediately led to disagreement and fighting, and a variety of people, in particular local elites, jostled to take advantage of possible new opportunities. One faction proposed that the classroom be built about 5 km away from the main school, in Aya Guuma neighbourhood. This faction consisted, not surprisingly, of residents of this area. One of the most vocal proponents of this location was a schoolteacher from the main school, who lived near the proposed new location and, it was rumoured, hoped to become the head of the new school. The other advocate was a local contractor who had his eye on the building contract. These two men are successful figures in this village and, each in his different way, quite influential. The vast majority of village residents are farmers who produce primarily for subsistence, and do not have sources of off-farm income. Though often on the opposite side in local affairs, these two men were both rumoured to have something to gain from working together to sway public opinion in favour of their preferred location. The argument in favour of this location, elaborated in all the public government meetings on this affair, reasoned that there was a much larger number of students who could be serviced by a school in this site than in the other proposed, more remote, area. The other faction consisted of families who lived at the greatest distance from the main school in the Tsaayo Qwalach neighbourhood, some as far as 11 kilometres away. They argued that their children had to set out in the dark and walk for hours to get to school, and back again in the evening. This trek was a considerable hardship for these children and their families. Many parents, fearful of hyenas and other dangers of walking in the dark, had to forgo work on their farms for hours, as they accompanied their small children to what they felt was a safe distance from the main school.

A delegation from the Tsaayo Qwalach neighbourhood travelled to the DC's office in Mbulu town, to demand that the school be built in their area because of what they reasoned was a far greater need. To resolve this matter, the ward executive officer (afisa mtendaji kata) called a village meeting, having been pressured by the district commissioner to bring the issue to a close.

At the meeting, after much deliberation and arguing, the ward executive officer told those assembled to form two lines, one line for those who wanted the school built at the nearer location, and the other for the distant neighbourhood. At this directive, the CCM branch secretary, two schoolteachers and a small contingent from Aya Guuma led by the Hareabi village chairman left the meeting in protest. Those who remained, voted (by standing in their respective lines), and after the count was taken, it was determined that Tsaayo Qwalach had more votes, and the ward executive officer declared that the school should be built there.

The matter did not end there however. Officials called a ward meeting in January 2002 to discuss the results of this village meeting, as well as the behaviour of those who had walked out of it. Pressure was brought to bear on the local officials and the schoolteachers to resign, and soon thereafter two schoolteachers and the CCM secretary submitted letters of resignation.Footnote ⁸ Yet, after resolving where the school should be built, no progress was made on actually mobilising people and resources to start the construction. The district commissioner, himself under pressure from central government, got word that no work was being done, and had the village chairman, the sub-village chairman of Ayaguuma and the village officer put in the district lock-up, because they were ‘obstructing the development of the people’ (DC 2002 int.).

The division secretary (who is above the ward executive officer and under the DC) came to Hareabi to oversee the election of temporary officials to serve in place of those dismissed, and these new local government officials then called a meeting to again solicit the views of the people on the classroom building problem. At this point, those who gathered for the meeting suggested that to resolve matters with the least bitterness, two classrooms should be built, one in Ayaguuma and one in Tsaayo Qwalach. In late February, a village meeting was called again, and the ward education officer announced the order from the District Department of Education that the school must be built in Tsaayo Qwalach, as plans had been made and officials from the department had drawn up blueprints for the classroom. This announcement resulted in an outcry by some Hareabi villagers, who began arguing again about the classroom location. The ward executive officer intervened, and suggested that a vote again be taken on the matter. He asked those who wanted two schools to form one line, and those who wanted one classroom built in Tsaayo Qwalach first and then later in Ayaguuma to form another line. At this point community members became exasperated, and the meeting dissolved into disorder with everyone refusing to form lines and register their vote.

It had become apparent that no action would be taken in the current climate of chaos in Hareabi, so a final meeting was called in which the district commissioner, the ward executive officer, the division secretary, the temporary village government officials, and both ward and district education officials came to Hareabi to discuss the matter with villagers. At this meeting, both the schoolteacher and the local building contractor were vocal in their criticism of how the matter had been handled. The contractor complained that ‘We have democracy now. We should be able to decide our affairs ourselves without district and ward government officials intervening!’ This view was supported by a few in the crowd. In several interviews with residents of Ayaguuma, they felt that the decision to build a school in Tsaayo Qwalach was being forced on them from above by ward and district officials, and that ‘These days, with democracy, things are supposed to be different.’ Yet this view did not reflect all of those interviewed from Ayaguuma. Indeed, several people supported Tsaayo Qwalach's demand for the classroom to be built there, saying they sympathised with the children and their parents who had to trek the long distance to the main Hareabi school. Some suggested that it was just the selfishness of a few individuals who stood to gain personally from the school's location in Ayaguuma, who had managed to push others to support them.

In an interview with the ward executive officer (2002 int.), he stated:

‘How’, he asked, ‘would they now manage to organise themselves to build two classrooms in separate locations, costing money and time?’ He suggested that all this divisiveness was due to only a few selfish people. ‘However’, he was careful to add, ‘it is not my decision. It is the villagers of Hareabi who must decide what to do.’

The temporary village chairman explained that when he was appointed, he went around to village elders and various residents to ask what they thought about this situation, and sought advice on what to do. When people expressed the desire for two classrooms in two locations to be built, he felt that local government should support their decision ‘in the name of democracy’. In his own view, he stated, ‘I think that the first school to be built should be that of Tsaayo Qwalach’ (Village Chairman 2002 int.). He was disappointed that the ward executive officer called another meeting to review the matter, as he had hoped that the friction could be ended with the decision to build two schools.

One man interviewed from Tsaayo Qwalach was saddened by the news that people wanted to build two schools, because ‘People do not have the money to send their children to secondary school and they have not even finished building the secondary school. How are they going to manage to build two schools?’ (Tsaayo Qwalach resident 2002 int.). A woman from Ayaguuma supported the request of the families living farthest away to build a school there. She said, ‘Those people who want to build the school closer, in my own neighbourhood, are just seeking their own advantage. They have something specific to gain. Also, they just want to win at this point, for its own sake’ (Ayaguuma resident 2002 int.). As one man said during a village meeting, ‘There are families who can't afford to educate their children. There are families who don't even have enough to eat. How are people like these going to build two schools?’

In the end, these deliberations resulted in the decision to build the school in Tsaayo Qwalach first and then, later, if funds became available, to build a classroom in Ayaguuma. Many villagers felt that indeed democracy had been upheld in this case, while others argued that the state had simply proceeded as usual to ignore citizens' demands. Many Hareabi residents pointed out that the state had removed their elected officials without their consent on the grounds that these officials were obstructing development. However, when I delved deeper into why Hareabi residents had voted these officials into office, when they had a reputation for not doing much work and spending all their time in the local beer halls, one man stated ‘That is why we voted them into office. We don't want government officials bothering us with their development projects, taking our money and never doing anything. We knew these men would not bother us with that’ (Hareabi resident 2002 int.).Footnote ⁹ His views were affirmed by many people I interviewed.

The political manoeuvres over the classroom building project surfaced again in local elections in 2004. The contractor who had pushed for the Aya Guuma location ran for the village chairman position on the CCM ticket.Footnote ¹⁰ He seemed likely to win until another Hareabi resident put himself forward on the CHADEMA ticket, the opposition party that has come to dominate politics in neighbouring Karatu District. This candidate won by a large margin, and now Kainam residents are talking about the possible decline of CCM in Mbulu District.