omarilyas

Nashindwa kuelewa!

@1st Sept 2011

Nashindwa kuelewa kama serikali ya CCM hapo mwanzoni ilikuwa na nia ya kuanzisha mahakama ya Kadhi hadi pale viongozi na asasi za "kanisa" walipokuja juu dhidi yake na kupelekea kutikiswa kwa mtaji wake katika soko la kura, iweje leo tujidanganye kuwa uamuzi wa serikali haukushawishiwa ama kushuritishwa na kanisa!

Lakini pia wakati naamini katika busara za kukubali hoja hii kwa maslahi ya utanzania wetu, nashindwa kuelewa hii hoja ya kuwa kodi ya mtanzania haiwezi kutumika kuendesha mahakama ya Kadhi.

Iweje isiwe sawa kutoa kodi hizo kwa asasi za dini wakati tayari tumekuwa na tunaendelea kufanya hilo kwa kusaidia mabilioni ya kodi hizo kwa asasi na mashirika ya kidini?

Nimewahi kusikia kuwa mara baada ya Rais kushinda uchaguzi ambao inaaminika kuwa uliathiriwa na msimamo hasi wa "kanisa" dhidi ya serikali na CCM, serikali imeahidi ama kutoa zaidi ya shilingi bilioni 50 kwa mashirika na asasi kadhaa za "kanisa".

Nashindwa pia kuelewa ni vipi kodi ya mtanzania haipo kwa ajili ya maslahi ya watanzania wakati waislamu ni sehemu ya watanzania?

Na pia ni utanzania gani tunaoujenga kwa kudai kuwa ni haramu kwa kodi ya David kutumika kwa maslahi ya Omar?

Naamini kuwa msimamo huu unaweza kuwa hafueni ama ushindi kwa mtizamo wa watanzania wa upande mmoja lakini kuongeza malalamiko na hisia hasi upande mwengine. Lakini pia ni muhimu kutambua kuwa wakati wale wa upande mmoja wanadhani kuwa hotuba hii ya Rais imeonyesha uthabiti ambao wengi tunapenda kuuona unaongoza asasi hii nyeti ya Uongozi, wapo wa upande mwengine ambao watachukulia hotuba hii kama ulegelege wa kukubali kushindwa na nguvu za upande mwengine na sio kwa busara za kulinda utaifa wetu.

Ukweli ni kuwa mzizi wa tatizo hili ni ujanjaujanja uliotumika kuliingiza suala hili la mahakama ya Kadhi katika ilani ya CCM ambayo ililenga kuidhibiti CUF katika soko la kura.

Na sasa nahofia msimamo wa sasa wa serikali ya CCM ni kujaribu kuidhibiti CHADEMA katika soko la kura la 2015.

Ni wazi pia kuwa ubinafsi na ujanjaujanja wa baadhi ya wanasiasa, wasomi na zaidi viongozi wa dini ulifanikiwa katika kubomoa hoja hii ya mahakama ya kadhi na kuijengea mazingira ya uadui kati yetu badala ya kuijenga kama chachu ya upendo kati yetu.

Hii imetokana na hulka ya ushindani na propaganda hasi iliyogubika mjadala mzima wa mahakama ya Kadhi kama ilivyokuwa ukiendelea bungeni, katika vyombo vya habari, katika kampeni, misikitini na makanisani, vijiweni na hata majumbani mwetu.

Wakati waislamu waliongea kwa mtazamo wa haki yao na hisia za kubaguliwa na mfumo, wakristo walijikita zaidi "ubaya" na nia mbaya ya Mahakama ya Kadhi.

Wengi wao walikwepa kuongelea yaliyomo katika mchakato mswada wa sheria ya kuendesha mhakama hiyo na sehemu ya katiba katika suala hilo.

Kwa mtazamo wangu hutuba hii ni kipenga cha kuanzisha rasmu mjadala huu na sio kuhitimishwa.

Mwisho naamini kuwa hii ni sehemu ya changamoto ambazo kama taifa linaloendela tumekuwa na tunapaswa kupitia ili kukomaa kidemokrasia.

Muhimu ni kuendeleza utamaduni wa shauku ya kutaka kujua mambo kwa undani wake zaidi ya propaganda za viongozi wawe wa kisiasa ama kijamii na wajenga maoni wetu, kuvumiliana na pengine kuaminiana kwamba wote tuna nianjema katika kujenga tanzanianjema.

Africas silent anger!

August 2011

Reports of Libya rebels massacre of black skinned Libyans and emigrants from sub sahara Africa makes my blood boils with anger.

However this is not news to me as I saw it from the beginning that religious fanatism and racism is fundamentally centered within the NATO supported rebels.

They hated to be led by a Bedouin Ghadafi, they hated his African agenda as it was obvious during the massacre of black Africans some years ago around Benghazi and bengazis dominated eastern tripoli.

Unfortunately there those misguided Activists have guts to question why most of African government stand of not rushing to legitimize these racist fanatic myopic opportunists western nurtured and aided venture....aghhhh

Thinking Africans wont embrace rebels due to so called Ghadafi bankrolling history is as closed minded as those thinking that #libya is only oil issue.

If it's the issue of bankrolling it is the African leaders silence on the utterly abuse of their little trust to international community safeguarding their masters paycheck that should be noticed.

Actually most if those who were really bankrolled like Senegal, Gambia, Malawi and others were the first to betray him.

It's time for those who think they know us better than ourselves to understand that though we are fucked up as a continent we still cling to principles over opportunism when it comes to what is Africa and our grand aspirations!

I wish those #libya rebels cheerleaders would notice the silence anger that is boiling inside African population and how it gonna blow!

Ya Bungeni ni matunda ya soko la kura...

Ya Bungeni ni matunda ya soko la kura...
29 June 2011

Ni hatari, si salama na wala sio busara kuacha hatima ya taifa letu iamuliwe kwa mujibu wa maslahi ya soko la kura. Soko ambalo kwa muda mrefu tumekuwa tunalidumaza kifikira. Soko ambalo badala ya kuwa mkombozi wa mtanzania limegeuzwa kuwa janga la utaifa wetu. Soko lililogeuzwa kuwa mazalia uozo wa kisiasa. Soko ambalo kamwe halitaweza kutuondoa katika lindi la maadui umasikini, ujinga, maradhi, ufisadi na ubaguzi.

Bunge letu la sasa ni matunda ya mfumo na utamaduni wa kisiasa unaojengeka wenye kuweka mbele maslahi ya soko la kura na kusahau ama kudharau wajibu wa uongozi na kamwe sio kupanuka kwa demokrasia.

Wakati wanasiasa wetu wanaamini kuwa siasa za kukosa busara na staha dhidi ya "Watawala" zinashabikiwa na vijana wengi hivyo ni mtaji muafaka wa kura, wamesahau uongozi ni dhamana na una majukumu yake!

Kimsingi baadhi yao wanaamini kuwa hizo ndio siasa zinazovutia wapiga kura vijana. Hawajali wajibu wao kama viongozi. Wanasahau ni Tanzania wanayoijenga sasa ndiyo wayakayopaswa kuitawala wakishika dola.

Lakini zaidi ufinyu wa ustadi katika siasa za kujenga zenye kuambatana na uerevu wa masuala ya kitaifa na kidunia katika uga wa siasa unapelekea baadhi ya wanasiasa wetu kuamini katika siasa za ujanjaujanja ili kuficha mapungufu yao.

Naweza kusema hili ni zao historia ndefu ya nchi yetu kujikita katika utoaji wa bora elimu na pia tatizo la ukosefu wa watu wenye ujuzi, uwezo na umahiri wa masuala mbalimbali ya kimaendeleo katika platform za siasa kama bunge letu.

Lakini pia ukosefu wa hulka ya uthubutu miongoni mwa watanzania wenye elimu bora, misingi thabiti na umahiri wa masuala ya uongozi na siasa kuingia katika taaluma ya siasa na kukimbilia maeneo salama kimaisha na kimaslahi.

Kwa upande mwengine soko hili la kura limefanikiwa kutupa viongozi tunaowaona na wakaendelea kupata ushabiki na hata ufuasi miongoni mwetu hasa sisi vijana kutokana na miaka mingi ya matumizi mabaya ya imani ya watanzania. Imani ambayo watanzania waliwapa viongozi wao pamoja na asasi za utawala.

Ni kutokana na tabia za baadhi ya viongozi wetu kutumia vibaya imani na ridhaa ya watanzania hata kufikia kuwadhihaki na kuwabeza huku wakishindwa kutatatua hata ya matatizo ya msingi ya wananchi hao nako kumewezesha wanasiasa wajanjawajanja kuchakachua soko la kura.

Uchakachuaji ambao badala ya kuwapa nafasi watanzania kuwa na upeo mkubwa wa kuchagua viongozi bora unawafanya wawe wahanga wa kuchagua viongozi wahuni zaidi, walafi zaidi, wazembe zaidi na wabinafsi zaidi.

Ili kuepukana na hatari hii ni wajibu wetu sote kuwa mstari wa mbele kujenga upya misingi ya siasa safi na uongozi bora. Na hili litafanikiwa endapo sote ambao tumebarikiwa kupata elimu na kujengeka kifikira kukataa kuwa wahanga wa siasa zenye kujali na kuamini katika kasumba za kisiasa badala Ukweli wa mambo.

Lakini pia kuwa tayari kuhakikisha kuwa kila mtanzania anapaswa kujua ukweli wa mambo na kumuepusha kuwa mhanga wa siasa za kasumba, hovyohovyo na majitaka. Siasa ambazo huwezesha udumavu wa kifikira na pia kuwa mtaji wa wanasiasa wajanjawajanja, wahuni na hata madhalimu wanaojivika vilemba vya uwanamapinduzi, uzalendo na ukombozi. Wanasiasa ambao wako tayari kuweka rehani mustakbali wa taifa letu kwa maslahi yao ya kisiasa na binafsi.

Nelson Mandela Leadership Philosophy and my Zanzibarinjema Dream.

Happy Birthday Mzee Madiba.

Though I abhor the western pimping-iconization of #NelsonMandela, I duly admire and salute his unshaken philosophy of forgiveness n rainbow nation.

To understand the value of Nelson Mandela philosophy Tanzanians need to look Zanzibar timulutous history.

Zanzibar timulutous history of never ending sociopolitical cleavages has dwarf all it's economic power potential.

While we now have a new Gov of National Unity dispensation in #Zanzibar, more needs done to protect and nurture the spirit of cooperation in making Zanzibarinjema.

The noble leadership of three genuine and humble brothers, Ally Shein, Seif Sharif and Ali Seif Idi, needs be supported by institutions of forgiveness, trust and hope above all.

For this to be achieved and sustain above the three personalities and the constitution, a culture of constructive engagement and embracing of the power of diversity is paramount.

More, I sometime think maybe we should dare to establish Kamisheni ya Ukweli, Uwazi na Maelewano!

Mtazamo wangu kuhusu majibu ya Zitto dhidi ya makala ya leo katika gazeti la Tanzania Daima

Mtazamo wangu kuhusu majibu ya Zitto dhidi ya makala ya leo katika gazeti la Tanzania Daima.

Sifa kuu za mbumbumbu wa siasa ni kupenda na kuamini katika siasa chafu, wivu na uadui! Ni wazi kinachofanywa na wahariri wa gazeti hilo linalomilikiwa na mwenyekiti wa chama chake ni mfano halisi wa umbumbumbu wa siasa.

Shutuma dhidi ya Zitto kwa kulalamika mtandaoni kuhusiana na kitendo hicho cha Tanzania Daima kuandika habari yenye nia mbaya kwake zinaonyesha kuwa kuna watu wangependa kuona Zitto anakufa kisabuni. Mpaka Zitto alipofikia kureact namna hii ni wazi kuna juhudi alizofanya kuleta busara miongoni mwa viongozi wenzake ambao ukweli ni kuwa wengi wao wanaamini ili wafanikiwe wao ni lazima Zitto aangamizwe bila ya kujali kuwa in a way wanaangamiza chama chao.

Lakini pia hii tabia ya kutumia busara ya kuepusha taswira ya mgawanyiko ama mgogoro ndani ya Chadema katika kufunika uozo wa ubadhirifu aka ufisadi na siasa chafu zenye kujaa chuki haina tofauti na ile ya wenzao wa CCM ya kutumia Amani na Utulivu katika kufunika uozo wao. Ni wazi athari ya kuamini katika ujanjaujanja huo zinainekana zinavyowazamisha kama chama na taifa kwa ujumla.

Maadui wa kweli wa umoja, amani na utulivu ama ndani ya vyama vyenu ama nchi yetu ni wale wanaonajisi umoja, amani na utulivu huo kwa kuendeleza ubadhirifu aka ufisadi, siasa chafu, wivu na chuki na sio wale wanaothubutu kusimama kuonyesha, kukemea na kujitetea dhidi ya uharamia huu wa kisiasa na hata kimaisha

Lakini pia yawezekana kwa kuwa wengi hawajui ni mangapi amenyamazia ndio maana baadhi wanasisitiza busara ya kunyamaza. Wakati wanaona kuwa ni busara kwa Zitto kunyamaza wenzake wanachukulia kama udhaifu na mtaji katika kufanikisha nia yao mbaya iliyojikita katika utamaduni wa kuamini katika siasa chafu.

Wakati wengi wanasisitiza Zitto kunyamaza kwa maslahi ya chama chao wenzake busara hiyo hawana na kwa muda mrefu sasa wamekataa kuitambua. Busara ya kunyamaza huku wenzako wakikumaliza inageuka ujinga pale inapohusu wasio amini katika busara hiyo.

Kwa ujumla ni vizuri maadui wake wanajianika ili watu watambue nia zao chafu na mipango yao haramu!

Mtizamo wangu kuhusu matukio ya hivi karibuni na mitazamo kuhusu kesi ya Balozi Mahalu

Wednesday 18th May 2011

Naweza kusema kuwa siasa za ujanjanja na hovyohovyo zimefanikiwa kuifikisha nchi kwenye state of paralysis, from state capacity to political thinking even among the self anointed critical citizens....

Nimejaribu kuisoma sijui ni ripoti ama makala iliyotumwa katika jukwaa la Jamiiforums.com hivi leo, kuona ni wapi ama ni vipi Mkapa amemkaanga Kikwete zaidi ya kujikaanga mwenyewe sioni.

Nikiangalaia kwa karibu nakubaliana na Mbopo kuwa huu ni muendelezo wa siasa za ujanjaujanja ambazo sasa zinaelekea kujikita katika mahakama zetu na kugeuza kuwa kama yale majukwaa rasmi na yasiyo rasmi kisiasa ambayo inaelekea kwa baadhi ya wanasiasa kama Mabere Marando, hayajatosheleza kufisadisha siasa za nchi yetu kwa manufaa ya muda mfupi na yale binafsi.

Watanzania wote tumegeuzwa kuwa mashabiki wa ama upande wa Kikwete ama upande wa “Wengine” bila ya kujali jukumu letu la kuweka mbele umakini zaidi ya ushabiki katika kufuatilia, kuchambua na kuzungumzia maswala muhimu ya kuikomboa nchi yetu kama ambavyo tunapenda kujinadi.

Siamini kama ushahidi huu wa kuwa serikali ilikuwa na taarifa na kwamba eti taratibu zote zilifuatwa zingeliweza kuwa ushahidi wa maonevu dhidi ya mshitakiwa katika macho ya washabiki wa upande mwengine ambao unadai kuwa huu ni uonevu na ulipaji kisasi.

Wote hapa tunajua kuwa utawala wa Mheshimiwa Mkapa ulikuwaje, inashangaza kuona kuwa kuna watu wanadhani kuwa Waziri wa wakati ule alikuwa na uwezo wa kukataa kile ambacho bosi wake Rais anataka ama amekubali kifanyike.

Lakini pia inashangaza kuona kuwa usemi wa kuwa ununuzi huo ulifuata taratibu na ulikuwa na baraka zote za serikali unaweza kusafisha uwezekano wa wizi ama rushwa wakati wote tunajua kuwa hata EPA ilikuwa na baraka na utaratibu uliofuatwa.

Halafu huu mchezo wa kukimbilia kuwa kesi kama hizi ni uthibitisho dhana, madai ama shutuma kuwa Rais ana hulka ya kisasi ni ujinga na upumbavu. Haiwezekani watu tupige kelele Rais achukuwe hatua dhidi ya ufisadi na mafisadi halafu anapochukuwa hatua dhidi ya wale ambao hawamo katika listi zetu za kuwachukia ama kuwahukumu kuwa ndio mafisadi basi Rais ndio ageuzwe mkosaji.

Kwa mtazamo wangu, fikira kama hizi ndio zinazowavunja nguvu na kuwafanya baadhi ya viongozi wetu kuamua ama kujiunga na ufisadi ama kuunyamazia huku wakilinda na kuboresha maslahi yao kwani wanakuja amini kuwa hao wanaopaswa kuwapigania ni mabingwa wa kutoa shukurani za punda kwa kuwapiga mateke pale wanapojitahidi kuwatetea na kuwalinda.

Zaidi naamini umefika wakati na ni muhimu kwa Uongozi wa Mahakama zetu kuchukua hatua kuzuia madhubutu kuhakikisha kuwa mahakama zake hazirasimishwi kuwa majukwaa ya siasa za ujanjaujanja na hovyohovyo kama ambavyo imekuwa ikijionyesha katika miaka ya hivi karibuni. Kama kweli hii habari imetolewa na upande wa utetezi unaongozwa na Wakili Marando ambaye hivi karibuni amekuwa wazi akitumia habari ama sehemu yake katika shughuli za mahakama kufanyia siasa, ni lazima hatua kali zichukuliwe kabla hali hii haijaota mizizi. Inatosha kuona jinsi mahakama zetu zimegeuzwa kuwa kisima cha rushwa na uonevu mwengine, kuruhusu siasa za majukwaani kuota mizizi katika mahakama zetu ni kucheza na hatima ya nchi yetu.

Maoni yangu kuhusu mjadala wa mchakato wa katiba mpya

******Maoni yangu kuhusu mjadala wa mchakato wa katiba mpya

Nakubaliana na suala la kuwa na muswada wa Kiswahili ingawa sidhani kama hilo liwe jambo la kuathiri mchakato huu muhimu kama ambavyo baadhi ya watu wanavyojaribu kuchochea na wengine kushabikia.

Pia nakubaliana na suala la muda wa mchakato na ukomo wa hatua moja hadi nyingine kuwekwa bayana.

Vilevile nakubaliana na maoni kuhusu suala la kutajwa kwa wazi constitution making bodies na nguvu zake na Kupunguza nguvu za maamuzi mikononi mwa Rais.

Pia suala la hadidu za rejea kuwekwa na bunge lakini naunga mkono suala la uteuzi kubaki mikononi mwa Rais huku bunge likaachiwa jukumu la kuwapitisha na pia kuchagua uongozi wake ingawa nafasi ya Katibu kubaki kuwa jukumu la serikali iwe Rais ama waziri mhisika.

Suala la sheria dhidi ya watakaozuia shughuli za kamati ni muhimu kuwepo ukichukulia dalili mbaya zinazoanza kujionyesha na utamaduni wa kutoheshimu wala kuvumilia mawazo mbadala unaojijenga katika jamii. Si CCM itakayoamua lakini ni mahakama zetu.

Napinga kabisa maoni ya kuwa mijadala ya maoni kufanyika majomboni chini ya uongozi wa wabunge. Wabunge wetu wengi hawana ujuzi wa kuongoza mijadala ya maoni tofauti, wengi hawana heshima katika jamii zao, wamejawa na chuki za kiitikadi na pia hawana nidhamu ya ukweli.

Maoni yangu ni kuwa mijadala ianze katika ngazi za kata ambako itasimamiwa na watendaji wa kata wakisimamiwa na wawakilishi wa kamati, asasi za kiraia na vyama vya siasa(mmoja mmoja). Hapa watakusanya maoni yote kama yalivyo na kusimamia uchaguzi wa wawakilishi wao (idadi iwe watano- mwanaume, mwanamke, kijana, mwanamama, kiongozi wa kijamii) watakaokwenda katika mjadala wa wilaya ambao nao utachakusanya maoni kama yalivyo na kuchagua wawakilishi wa mkutano wa mjadala wa kitaifa.

Maoni yatakayotoka katika ngazi ya wilaya yatakuwa streamlined katika masuala na wingi wake halafu yapelekwe katika mjadala wa kitaifa ambako watashiriki wawakilishi wawili AMA watatu kutoka katika kila wilaya ambao watachukua asilimia 50 hadi 60 ya mkutano.

Pia kutakuwa na wawakilishi wa makundi maalumu, asasi za kiraia, viongozi ama makundi ya kijamii, wafanyakazi, wakulima, wafanyabiashara, wataalamu na pia wawakilishi wa vyama vya siasa (mmoja kutoka kila chama chenye usajili na uwiano wa kura za uchaguzi uliopita (popular votes) kwa vile vilivyopo bungeni)

Maoni hayo ndiyo yatumike kutengeneza rasimu ya katiba mpya itakayopelekwa na kujadiliwa katika national constitutional assembly or convention kabla ya kupelekwa bungeni kama mswada halafu kupelekwa katika kura ya maoni.

Nawakilisha

Siasa zetu, Nguvu za Maaskofu na Mahusiano ya jamii zetu

January 2011

Nimekuwa nikisita sana kutoa maoni yangu katika mjadala huu kutokana na kutambua kuwa wengi wetu tumekuwa tukiongozwa na mihemuko na ushabiki zaidi kuliko uhalisia wa mambo katika kuendeleza majadiliano ama malumano yetu. Lakini leo naomba nijitoe muhanga kusema kile ambacho naamini kinapaswa kusemwa kabla ya kujikuta kuwa tumefikia mahala pabaya zaidi kusipokuwa na kurudi nyuma.

Ni kweli kabisa viongozi wa dini, wawe Mashehe, Maulamaa, Maaskofu, Mapadre na Wachungaji wana haki na wajibu wa kukemea maovu yote bila ya kuchagua wakiwa kama wanadamu na pia raia wa nchi yetu.

Ni kweli kabisa kuwa katika historia ya nchi yetu, wakati wote viongozi wa dini wamekuwa wakijihusisha na masuala ya kisiasa kwa njia moja ama nyingine, iwe kushutumu ama kupigia debe kundi fulani ama suala moja na lingine.

Ni kweli kabisa viongozi wa kijamii wana umuhimu mkubwa katika kusaidiana na wale viongozi wa siasa katika kuendeleza jamii kwenye neema zaidi na kuepusha kwenye majanga yawe ya kisiasa, kijamii ama kiuchumi.

Ni kweli kabisa kuwa Maaskofu haswa wale wa kanisa la katoliki wana nguvu kubwa yenye mfumo makini wa ushawishi katika jamii yetu kuanzia katika masuala ya kijamii na hata kisiasa.

Hata hivyo ni muhimu sana kutambua kuwa haki na wajibu huu ni lazima utambue UHALISIA wa mazingira tuliyonayo kama jamii. Ni wajibu wa viongozi kuangalia hali halisi haswa ya mahusiano ya kijamii ili kupima faida na hasara za kutekeleza haki na wajibu wao.

Tanzania yetu ni Tanzania tunayoamini katika UMOJA na AMANI. Hii ni nyenzo muhimu katika kufanikisha dira ya maendeleo ya nchi yetu. Watanzania kama jamii ama taifa tunaamini kuwa tunapendana na kuheshimiana. Lakini hilo halina maana kuwa watanzania wote tunaaminiana, kupendana ama kuheshimiana kama tunavyopenda kuamini na kujigamba mbele ya wengine.

Ni ukweli ambao wengi tunajaribu kuukataa kuwa watanzania hatuaminiani. Na kutokuaminiana huko kupo katika misingi ya kisiasa, kimapato, kiasili, kikabila na hata kidini.

Miaka ya zamani ilikuwa sio kitu cha kawaida kusikia mtu akisema hawezi kumuamini mchaga. Lakini sasa hilo ni neno la kawaida kusemwa tena bila ya kificho wala haya. Miaka ya zamani ilikuwa sio kawaida kusikia Muislam akisema hamuamini Mkristo ama Mkristo kusema kuwa hamuamini Muislam, lakini sasa hilo ni neno la kawaida kusemwa tena bila hata kificho.

Yapo mengi yanayodaiwa kuwa chanzo cha hali hii ya kutokuaminiana tuliyonayo sasa. Wapo wanaoamini ni kutokana na umaskini, wapo wanaoamini ni kutokana na ujinga, wapo wanaoamini ni kutokana na siasa za ushindani usio na kifani, wapo wanaoamini kuwa ni kutokana na historia, wapo wanaoamini ni kutokana na siasa za kidunia hasa siasa za marekani na ulaya katika kupambana na kile kinachotabulika kama ugaidi wa kiislamu na wapo wanaoamini yote kwa pamoja ama sababu nyingine tofauti.

Zote zaweza kuwa ni sababu lakini cha muhimu ni kuwa uhalisia unaonyesha kuwa watanzania hatuaminiani. Na mbaya zaidi ni kuwa kutokuaminiana katika misingi ya kikabila na kidini kumekuwa kunakuwa ama kukuzwa zaidi kuliko kushughulikiwa kwa nia ya kupunguzwa kama sio kuondolewa kabisa.

Katika moja ya hotuba zake, Mwalimu Nyerere aliwahi kusisitiza kuwa ingawa nchi yetu inajengwa katika misingi ya kutokuwa na ukabila, udini ama ubaguzi wa aina yeyote ile, si kweli kuwa watanzania sio wabaguzi. Aliendelea kudai kuwa utakuta wengie tunajigamba kuwa tunachukia udini ama ukabila lakini tukiminya kidogo tunatoka mapovu ya udini na ukabila. Na ndio maana UTANZANIA wetu ukajengwa kwa misingi ya kupiga vita ubaguzi wa aina yoyote ile kwa sababu uo na ni hatari kwa taifa.

Mtizamo huu unasisitiza ule mtizamo ambao yawezekana hakuandikwa katika sheria zetu lakini ulikuwepo miongoni mwa fikira za utanzania wetu kuwa si BUSARA kuchanganya dini na siasa. Hii ni busara ambayo inatambua haki na wajibu wa viongozi wa dini zetu kushiriki katika kupiga vita maovu ya aina zote lakini pia inatambua umuhimu wa kuepuka athari za kufanya hivyo kutokana na hali halisi ya jamii yetu.

Wote tunakumbuka ni jinsi gani viongozi wa kisiasa na kidini walivyokuwa mstari wa mbele kusisitiza BUSARA hii katika miaka ya tisini ambako kulikuwa na vuguvugu kubwa la viongozi wa dini ya kiislamu kutoa matamko ya kisiasa. Wengine ambao leo hii tunajaribu kuhalalisha hilo ndio tuliokuwa mstari wa mbele kulaani vitendo vya mashehe hao wakati ule.

Wapo ambao wanatumia matamshi ama uungwaji mkono wa wazi wa Askofu Kilaini katika ugombea wa Rais Kikwete mwaka 2005. Lakini wanaacha kusema ni jinsi gani viongozi wenzake wengineo ambao walilaani kitendo chake hicho na kumpelekea kupunguziwa madaraka yake kama ilivyo sasa.

Moja ambalo wengi wanashindwa kung'amua ni kutambua mchango mkubwa wa kujenga maelewano na kupunguza kutoakuaminiana kulikowahi kufanywa na kiongozi huyo miaka ile. Wengi tunashindwa kufikiria tamko lake lile katika upana wake na ni jinsi gani tamko kama lile kutoka kwa kiongozi mkubwa wa kanisa la Katoliki kumpigia debe mgomba urais Muislam linavyoweza kujenga na sio kubomoa kama endapo lingekuwa ni tofauti na lile.

Wengi hawajui ama wameshasahau nini kilichowapata baadhi ya mashehe ambao wamekuwa mstari wa mbele kusifia uongozi wa Mwalimu Nyerere ambaye kwa baadhi ya waislamu yeye anawakilisha chanzo kikuu cha madhila yote ambayo wanaamini wanayapata kutokana tu kuwa wao waislamu. Lakini wengine tunatambua umuhimu wa mitazamo chanya ya baadhi ya viongozi wa kiislam kwa Baba wa Tafa sio tu kwa kuendeleza misingi aliyotuachia lakini hata kupunguza hali ya kutokuaminiana miongoni mwa wanajamii wa dini zetu mbili kubwa.

Wakati wengi wa waislamu wakitambua mapungufu mengi yaliyopo katika serikali ya Rais Kikwete na chama chake ni ukweli usiofichika kuwa kuna mtazamo unaolingana miongoni mwa waislamu walio wengi kuhusiana na matamshi ama makaripio yasiyoisha kutoka kwa viongozi wa dini ya kikristo ambayo wanaamini yanamlenga zaidi Rais Kikwete kuliko utashi wa kupiga vita ufisadi, ombwe la uongozi ama haki na demokrasia. Mtizamo huo ni ule wa kutokuamini nia ya dhati ya makaripio hayo.

Ni ukweli ambao wengi tunapaswa kuutambua kuwa mtizamo kama huo hapo mwanzo ulikuwa miongoni mwa wale ambao wengi tungependa kuwatambua kama SIASA KALI/ EXTREMISTS ambao wapo katika pande zote za dini zetu, hivi sasa ni mtazamo wa wengi ama MAINSTREAM feelings. Huo ni ukweli ambao wanaoshabikia hali iliyojijenga katika miaka karibia minne iliyopita wanapaswa kutambua na kupima kama ni busara viongozi wa dini wawe waislamu ama wakristo wanapaswa kuendelea kuachwa ama hata kushabikiwa pale wanapotoa matamshi yenye kuonekana kama yana malengo ya kisiasa.

Yawezekana kabisa hali hii ya viongozi wa kidini kuwa mstari wa mbele kutoa matamko ya kisiasa yakawa yanaendana kabisa na matakwa na nia njema kabisa miongoni mwa watanzania kuona kuwa taifa letu linaepushwa na wingi zito za madhila ya ufisadi linalotanda, lakini pia kama raia makini ni muhimu kupima kama msaada huo unazidi umuhimu wa BUSARA ya viongozi wa kidini kutofanya hivyo.

Kuna watu wa mtazamo kuwa chanzo cha hali ya kutokuaminiana kati ya watanzania ama makundi ya kidini nchini ni viongozi wetu wa dini. Mtazamo wangu ni kuwa katika suala la kutokuaminiana viongozi wa dini wana dhambi ya kuchochea na kutofanya juhudi za kutosha kuondoa hali hiyo.

Mzizi wa hali hii ni jamii zetu kuanzia ngazi za familia. Wengi wetu tunakuzwa katika hali ya kuaminishwa kuwa dini zetu ni nzuri na za kweli sio kwa mafanikio yake bali kwa kulinganisha na "ubaya" wa dini zingine. Hali hii hutoka katika familia hadi katika mfumo mzima wa kijamii ukiwemo mfumo wa elimu yetu. Na hata tunapokuwa wakubwa hali hii tunakutana nayo mitaani na vijiweni. Inapofika katika ngazi ya makazini na nafasi za kiuchumi na kisiasa ndio hali inakuwa mbaya zaidi. Tatizo linakuwa zaidi pale viongozi wetu wa kidini wanapoamua kuchagua makundi ya kisiasa kama nyenzo za kulinda, kutetea ama kuhakisha maslahi yao binafsi na pia makundi yao.

Sasa unapokuta tunakuwa mfumo hovyo wa kisiasa unao hodhiwa na wanasiasa wajanjawajanja na wenye tamaa isiyo na kifani, ndipo mchanyato huo unapokuwa mkubwa na kupelekea hali hii ya kutukuaminiana kugeuka kuwa hali ya kuchukiana kama ambavyo inajijenga sasa.

Naamini kuwa wanasiasa na wanaharakati kama watakuwa tayari kuwajibika zaidi na kwa umakini zaidi wanaweza kabisa kufanikisha kile ambacho viongozi wa kidini wanachojaribu kukifanikisha ama kuzuia. Ni wazi kuwa kukaa pembeni kwa viongozi wa kidini kutotumia haki yao ama kutotekeleza wajibu wao wa kukemea maovu kwa style ya makaripio ya wazi ama matamshi ya majukwaani, kutaweza kujenga zaidi kuliko kubomoa kama mbavyo hali inavyoelekea hivi sasa.

Wanasiasa, wanaharakati na raia makini wana wajibu wa kutimiza wajibu wao ipasavyo ili kuhakikisha kuwa viongozi wetu wa kidini wanatilia maanani uhalisia wa mazingira ya kisiasa na kijamii tuliyonayo kama taifa ambayo ukweli yanataka yanataka subira zaidi, busara zaidi na uvumilivu wa hali ya juu kuliko hali ilivyo sasa.

Tanzania: Beyond sectarian interests

Tanzania: Beyond sectarian interests
A PAPER BY PROF. HAROUB OTHMAN

By Haroub Othman
No-one knows whether the 1964 union between Zanzibar and Tanganyika was dictated by cold war considerations first, with pan-African ideals of unity playing second fiddle to ideology and personal survival, writes Haroub Othman. But what is clear, Othman argues, is that despite Tanzania’s controversial history, the union brought peace and stability to the region, in contrast with the secessionism and violence seen elsewhere. While corrective measures – supported by the people – are required to ensure that it is fit for purpose, the union is a better option than breaking into a federal structure with Kenya and Uganda, says Othman.

Since the 1920s the countries of East Africa, namely Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda and Zanzibar, had developed common services and joint institutions. Matters such as posts and telecommunications, harbours, railways and currency were run jointly. There was also a body to coordinate the development of Kiswahili. This, no doubt, was easy in view of the fact that all the four countries were neighbours and under one colonial power. The white settlers in Kenya had at one time pressed the British government for a federation of the East African countries on the lines of that of Central Africa. But people in Tanganyika and Uganda feared that if that was to happen it would throw their countries into the hands of white supremacists in Kenya, in the same way that the peoples of Central Africa found themselves under the white supremacists of Southern Rhodesia at the time of the Central African Federation. And so this idea was opposed at the time.

But as the countries were approaching independence and because of the close cooperation among the nationalist organisations, the idea of federation re-emerged. Nyerere, in a statement made in Addis Ababa when Tanganyika’s independence was imminent, said that he was prepared to delay his country’s independence if the four countries of East Africa could come to independence at the same time and form a federation. But with independence each country retreated into its own national shell, and what was agreed was the formation of the East African Common Services Organisation that later in December 1967 was transformed into the East African Community.

When, therefore on 26 April, 1964, the People’s Republic of Zanzibar and the Republic of Tanganyika announced that they had merged to form a union, the international community felt that Zanzibar and Tanganyika had succeeded where the four East African countries together had failed. But was it the ideals of Pan-Africanism that brought Zanzibar and Tanganyika together? Was the union the result of an African initiative or was it propelled by cold war rivalry? The circumstances in which the union was formed raised a lot of questions, many of which are still unanswered, and some have been at the centre of continuing debates and controversies in Tanzania in the last twenty years. Were the fears of ZNP (Zanzibar Nationalist Party) that Zanzibar would be ‘taken over’ by Tanganyika had been proven true? In later years, the union was to haunt the Zanzibar politicians for a long time, with each of them playing the ‘union card’ either for legitimacy on the mainland or for support at home.

Nyerere stated that he casually proposed the idea of the union to Karume when the latter visited him to discuss the fate of John Okello. According to Nyerere, Karume immediately agreed to the idea and suggested that Nyerere should be the president of such a union. In a New Year message to the nation on 2 January 1965, Nyerere implied that even if the ASP (Afro-Shirazi Party) had come into power through constitutional means and not as a result of a revolution, the union would still have taken place. But Amrit Wilson’s research has revealed that there was a very strong Western pressure, especially from the United States, for the Zanzibar revolution to be contained because it was felt that it held the threat of the spread of communism in the East African region. The Untied States, Britain and the then West Germany, which Tanganyika was heavily dependent on at the time, viewed the revolutionary government in Zanzibar as either a surrogate of the communist powers or dancing to their tune. The international press had already started to characterise Zanzibar as the ‘Cuba of Africa’, though to be fair to Duggan, he had referred to Zanzibar as ‘Tanganyika’s Cuba’ far back in July 1963 when he had interviewed Nyerere in Washington during the latter’s state visit to the US.

In a cable message to US embassies in Dar es Salaam, Nairobi and Kampala, the US Secretary of State Dean Rusk instructed his diplomats to urge Nyerere, Kenyatta and Obote to explain to Karume the dangers involved in his dependence on Babu and:

‘The danger Babu represents… to the security of Zanzibar and East Africa generally… they should recognise here that the big problem is that Karume himself has great confidence in and dependence on Babu… also that Nyerere has said that Karume needs Babu who, despite his background, can and must be worked with. Kenyatta and Joseph Murumbi on the other hand appear to regard Babu as undesirable and the chief threat to Karume. Would it be useful to raise with Nyerere, despite his previous objection, the idea of a Zanzibar-Tanganyika Federation as a possible way of strengthening Karume and reducing Babu’s influence? Such action at this time may also help Nyerere’s own position.’

In an interview with Amrit Wilson in 1986, Frank Carlucci, the US consul in Zanzibar at the time of the union who was later thrown out of Zanzibar because of CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) activities (and who later rose to become the director of CIA and US secretary of state for defence), confessed that there was United States’ pressure on Nyerere.

Susan Crouch in her book Western Responses to Tanzanian Socialism 1967-1983 reveals that:

‘To this end the American Central Intelligence Agency was active in trying to create the conditions for union, fanning antagonisms among Zanzibar’s revolutionary leaders, and creating a fear of Zanzibar as a communist threat among East African leaders.’

Was the union then, as is indicated in US state department papers, dictated by cold war considerations first and the questions of pan-African ideals of unity were secondary to ideological factors and questions of personal survival?

It has also been suggested that Karume wanted a union with Tanganyika as a means of warding off his marxist and left wing colleagues. What seems to be the case is that after the electoral defeat of July 1963, Karume’s leadership within the ASP parliamentary group was shaky. There was a schism in it, with Karume being challenged by Othman Shariff, and some of the party’s MPs calling for a government of national unity that would bring together in government all the political parties in parliament. After the revolution, Umma Party radical elements in the government (Babu, Khamis Abdalla Ameir, Ali Sultan Issa, Ali Mahfoudh, Salim Rashid, Badawi Qullatein, etc) were forging links with the ASP leftists (Abdallah Kassim Hanga. Abdulazizi Ali Twala, Hassan Nassor Moyo, etc.), and this might have scared Karume and other moderate elements within the regime. At the same time, the radical way in which the revolution was surging ahead might have alarmed the regime in Dar es Salaam. It should not be forgotten that within days of the revolution in Zanzibar, an army mutiny took place in Tanganyika (later repeated in Kenya and Uganda); and even though we know now that there was no link between the revolution and those mutinies, it was difficult to see it that way at the time.

As a result of the army mutiny in Dar es Salaam, Tabora and Nachingwea, there was virtually no government in Tanganyika for three days, anarchy prevailed, and Nyerere was forced to request British military intervention to bring the country back to normalcy.

The West, particularly the Untied States, perceived developments in Zanzibar in the context of East-West rivalry, and given the leftist credentials of the Umma Party and some of the ASP leaders that were prominent in the revolutionary council, it was assumed that a Cuba-type situation was evolving. The best way of averting it, short of direct military intervention a la Playa Giron (though this was thought of and preparations made), was to try an ‘African initiative’. And it worked.

QUESTIONS OF LEGITIMACY

Many questions continued to be raised regarding the legal basis of the union: Whether the two presidents on their own had the powers to sign such a union agreement; why the Zanzibar’s attorney-general, as the principal legal advisor to the government, was not consulted; why there was no referendum; and whether in joining such a union, Zanzibar was not in fact ‘swallowed’ and ‘annexed’ by Tanganyika.

Discussions on the union were conducted very secretively. From the archival materials and the statements of those who were in the ‘corridors of power’ at the time, it would appear that not many people in the Tanganyika government or the Zanzibar Revolutionary Council knew what was happening. Apart from Nyerere and Karume, the only other people who might have been privy to those discussions were Rashidi Kawawa, Oscar Kambona, Job Lusinde, Abdallah Kassim Hanga, Abdul-Aziz Ali Twala and Salim Rashidi.

When these discussions were at an advanced stage, Nyerere is said to have called in his attorney-general at the time, British expert Roland Brown, and asked him to draft a union agreement without anybody knowing. In the case of Zanzibar, the attorney-general, Wolf Dourado, is said to have been sent on a one-week ‘leave’ and instead a Ugandan lawyer, Dan Nabudere (according to his own account which was corroborated by Babu), was brought in to advise Karume on the draft submitted by Tanganyika. Both Brown and Nabudere were present in the Karume-Nyerere discussions. One can speculate that one reason why Dourado was not involved was because he was ‘inherited’ from the previous ZNP/ZPPP (Zanzibar Nationalist Party-Zanzibar and Pemba People's Party) regime and the revolutionary government was hesitant to involve him in such a sensitive matter.

Under both the 1962 Republic of Tanganyika constitution and the Zanzibar presidential decree No.5 quoted above, the two presidents had the powers to enter into international agreements on behalf of their governments. What is also important is that the union agreement was ratified by both the Tanganyika parliament and the Zanzibar Revolutionary Council. Contrary to what some writers have said, the Nyalali Commission was satisfied that the Revolutionary Council met to ratify the Articles of Union. Both Abdulrahman Babu and Khamis Abdallah Ameir, the two former Umma party leaders who were in the Revolutionary Council at the time, have confirmed that the matter was discussed in the council, and while there were reservations on the part of some members, these were ‘quashed’ by Abdallah Kassim Hanga who made an emotional intervention to support the union.

Once the Articles of Union had been ratified by the two legislative bodies in Tanganyika and Zanzibar, there was no further requirement in law to make them enforceable. The question of referendum would not have arisen because under the Commonwealth legal tradition, in which the two countries were brought up, the notion of a referendum was unknown. The referendum was introduced as a legal requirement under British law in the 1970s during the heated debate in the United Kingdom on the question of its entry into the European Economic Community. To have also expected the Zanzibar revolutionary government to call a referendum on the union, four months after it came into power through unconstitutional means, was like expecting the French revolutionaries of 1789 to have invited King Louis XVI for dinner after they had overthrown him. Should ASP have conducted a referendum to ask Zanzibaris whether or not to stage a revolution? In law, therefore, the Union Agreement, as both Prof Issa Shivji and Dr Kabudi have pointed out, is valid.

ARTICLES OF UNION: 1 + 1 = 3

The Union Agreement, signed by Karume and Nyerere in Zanzibar on 22 April 1964, is known as the Articles of Union. When this agreement was announced the following day, many people inside the two countries, and outside too, were taken by surprise. The strong feeling was that the West had won in their intention to containing the Zanzibar revolution; in fact there were military preparations by both Britain and the United States in case there was a violent reaction in Zanzibar against the union.

What the Tanganyika leadership wanted at the time was to play down the whole event. In a cable message of 23 April 1964 to the US secretary of state, the US ambassador in Dar es Salaam, William Leonhart, informed:

‘Mbwambo, chief protocol, has just telephoned a personal request… that, to the maximum extent, any US public statements on Tangovernment –Zanzibar union be avoided. Situation over the next few days in Zanzibar could be very critical and both the Soviet and Chinese reaction is undetermined.’

In an address later to the National Assembly requesting the ratification of the Articles of Union, Nyerere insisted that the move was inspired by the ideals for an African unity. ‘Unity in our continent does not have to come via Moscow or Washington’, he insisted.

The Articles of Union have been given different interpretations and characterised as federal, quasi-federal, an interim arrangement towards one government, etc. Some have seen the union as similar to the relationship between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

Those who were close to the scene at the time also differ as to what type of relationship it is. The US ambassador in Dar es Salaam, in a cable message to his government on 22 April 1964, the day the Articles of Union were signed by Karume and Nyerere, stated:

‘Like the relationship between Northern Ireland and Britain, the union of Zanzibar and Tanganyika gave the island limited regional administrative autonomy… but ensured overall power… was held by the centre at Dar es Salaam’. But Frank Calucci, reporting from Zanzibar the next day, said that Karume was ‘still under the impression that he is agreeing to a federation of two autonomous states, not a centralised union envisaged under the present articles’. Attwood, the U.S. Ambassador in Kenya at the time, says he was informed by Dustan Omari, Nyerere’s permanent secretary then, ‘that the major power would rest in the centre… but that Zanzibar would retain its own internal governmental affairs’.

While I have difficulty in accepting some of the assertions of some of the writers on the character of the union for reasons that I will advance later, I would only want to agree with the notion that the Articles of Union are the Grundnorm, the fundamental law of the United Republic, on which the Constitutions of Tanzania and Zanzibar, and other laws, have to be based and from which they derive their legitimacy. Like any supreme law in any other legal system, no other law or constitutional act can be in conflict with it.

Articles of Union provide for matters that would be under the union arrangement. From the original 11 items in 1964, the list has now expanded to 23. Some people question the validity of such an expansion, though one must admit that there was nothing that was added into the list unconstitutionally. The Articles of Union also provide for the existence of two governments: One for the whole United Republic for all union matters and for non-union matters in Tanganyika, which, under the 1977 Union Constitution is referred to as Tanzania mainland, and one for Zanzibar in all matters that are non-Union. According to Nyerere, Karume wanted a total union, but he (Nyerere) cautioned against it, saying that such a move might be construed by Zanzibaris and others as meaning that Zanzibar had been swallowed up, annexed, incorporated into or taken over by Tanganyika. He insisted that Zanzibar’s identity must be maintained.

There is no way one can construe the ‘Article of Union’ as a basis for a federal set-up. Nor can they be seen as an interim arrangement towards a one government. They intended to create a single state with two authorities, but with one of those authorities having a limited geographical jurisdiction. The intention was to retain the identity of the smaller unit. By this event, Tanganyika has not been lost; in fact it has been enlarged. Even if it is accepted that the union was a Western conspiracy against the Zanzibar revolution, the effect of the intention was to deny Zanzibar the capacity to be an international actor, not to interfere with what was happening inside the country. To be able to change the internal course of events would have entailed changing the regime. What might have confounded some of the law experts looking at the relationship between Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania was the fact that no such example existed in the Anglo-Saxon legal system. The closest they could think of then was that of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

CONSOLIDATING THE UNION: POPULAR APPROVAL

At the time of the Union Zanzibar and Tanganyika were ruled by different political parties, ASP and TANU respectively. The Articles of Union did not require the formation of a single political party for the whole United Republic. Thus in the period 1964-1977 each party operated within its own geographical area, though at the approach of every general election, the two parties held a joint congress where they nominated a join presidential candidate for the elections. Only in 1977, after a national survey of members of both parties, did the two parties merge to form the Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) with authority over the whole country. But why did Zanzibaris agree to such a merger? Nyerere had always expressed surprise when recalling the radiant faces he saw and the jovial mood of the Zanzibaris the day CCM was proclaimed at the Amaan stadium in Zanzibar. The fact is that Zanzibaris were celebrating not only the birth of CCM but also the demise of ASP. By that time the general feeling in the islands was that the ASP had outlived its usefulness. The revolution which it had championed had stooped so low as to devour its own sons: Most of the leaders were busy amassing wealth; prison and death were the only options open to political dissent; and political thuggery was a virtue.

One matter that was added in 1984 to the list of union items was that of national security. This happened at the time when Ali Hassan Mwinyi was president and Seif Shariff Hamad the chief minister of Zanzibar in 1984-85, commonly known as the Third Phase government. Not having much confidence in the security personnel they inherited, who might have had personal allegiance to Jumbe and Seif Bakari, the new administration sought the extension of the National Security Act of the mainland to Zanzibar. In that case it was possible to transfer the security personnel in Zanzibar to the mainland and vice versa.

So from the above one can see the following: First, Zanzibaris wanted a merger of the parties, and for the united party to have authority all over the country, in the hope that it would rescue them from a regime that was no longer able to inspire confidence and instil enthusiasm; and second, a ‘consolidation’ of the union in this regard was necessary for one faction of the leadership to ward off any possible challenge by the other.

The long-term effect of the parties’ merger was to have matters that were entirely within Zanzibar’s jurisdiction, and that were not union matters, decided by a pan-territorial political party where Zanzibari representation was not decisive. This became clear in 1984 when Aboud Jumbe was forced to resign as Zanzibar president: It was the party’s NEC which appointed Ali Hassan Mwinyi as an interim president and later nominated him for election as the president of Zanzibar. Since NEC’s Zanzibari membership is no more than a third of the total, this means therefore that a Zanzibar president could be chosen by a forum, which is predominantly non-Zanzibari. And this was further evidenced with the nomination by CCM’s NEC of the present president of Zanzibar.

A number of other measures were taken to consolidate the union, particularly in the constitutional realm. A permanent constitution was put in place in 1977 instead of an interim one that had been in existence since 1964.

ZANZIBAR’S IDENTITY IN THE UNION

In the Articles of Union, Zanzibar is allowed to retain its autonomy and pursue its own policies in all matters other than those stipulated as Union matters. In this case, the power to decide is left to the Zanzibar organs such as the house of representatives, the revolutionary council and the president of Zanzibar and chairman of the revolutionary council. The union constitution stipulates that constitutional amendments require the approval of two-thirds of Zanzibaris sitting in the union parliament and the same proportion of mainlanders.

In order to avoid a clash in the legislative functions of the two sides of the union, it has been provided that if the house of representatives enacts any law which should be under the jurisdiction of the union parliament that law will be null and void, and also if the union parliament enacts a law on any matter under the jurisdiction of the house of representatives that law will be null and void.

The constitution also provides for effective Zanzibari representation in the union parliament. It also guarantees a separate judiciary system for Zanzibar which has jurisdiction over Zanzibar alone. Even though the court of appeal of the United Republic is a union organ, it has no power to decide on a case involving a dispute between the union government and the Zanzibar revolutionary government.

However one might view the circumstances that made Zanzibar merge with Tanganyika in 1964, the fact of the matter is that Zanzibar was not annexed or forcefully incorporated. It agreed on the union out of its own free will and as a result of decisions made by its own organs. The argument that within the union Tanganyika has lost its identity has no basis. If anything it has enlarged its territory. It is Zanzibar’s autonomy and identity that must be maintained lest, as Nyerere himself has pointed out several times, an impression is created that the larger and more populous Tanganyika has swallowed Zanzibar. Such a situation is not new even in the most centralised states. In China, despite the fact that the country has a centralised authority and no federal traces of any kind, yet because of certain historical, political or cultural reasons, certain areas are conferred autonomy, and are constitutionally given the status of autonomous regions. As will be pointed out later there are entities in present-day Europe that enjoy full autonomy within one state. To entertain the thought that the Articles of Union are a temporary arrangement, and that ultimately the intention should be to create one government is to manifest ‘big brother chauvinism’

DEBATES ON THE UNION: A POLLUTED ATMOSPHERE

In 1983/84 and 1990/92 extensive political and constitutional debates took place in the country that deeply probed the question of the union. The debates of 1983/84 resulted in major amendments to the 1977 union constitution and the formulation of a new Zanzibar constitution in 1984. But they also resulted in the forced resignation of Aboud Jumbe from all his state and party positions, the sacking of a Zanzibar chief minister and the serious warning given by the ruling party to a number of prominent Zanzibar figures. The debates of the 1990/92 period resulted in the Nyalali Commission making major recommendations on the structure of the Union. In between the two periods also another Zanzibar chief minister was sacked, and several leading Zanzibar politicians were dismissed form the ruling party.

As stated above, the question of Zanzibar being ‘sold’ to the mainland was an issue in pre-revolutionary Zanzibar. And if one remembers that the political parties were almost evenly divided, then one can assume that almost half of the Zanzibar population was already biased against the mainland even before the union. The post-revolution politics in the islands did not help matters much. Karume went into a union to save himself from his marxist and left-wing colleagues; and since Jumbe was not considered to be the ‘heir apparent’ before Karume’s assassination in 1972, he was not thought of as the natural successor when he took over. It has been speculated that the revolutionary council had Colonel Seif Bakari in mind, but Nyerere advised that since Karume was killed by an army officer, Seif Bakari taking over might be construed as a military coup. Jumbe, feeling that he had not much support within the revolutionary council, depended very much on Nyerere’s and mainland’s support. It is no wonder then that it was during his presidency that much of the consolidation of the union took place, with the most items added to the union list. It is significant too that the merger of the parties took place then. But this dependency on the mainland was costing him much popular support at home. Either as a way of outflanking his opponents or because of genuine problems he found in the union (after all he was for a long time a minister for union affairs before he became president of Zanzibar), he first raised the question of restructuring the union in a speech seven years before the 1983/84 debates.

Other politicians in Zanzibar too have used the mainland as a trump card either to crush their opponents or to climb the political ladder. Seif Shariff Hamad, Khatib Hassan, Shaaban Mloo and others accused Jumbe in 1984 of planning to break up the union, and thus forced Jumbe to resign from his political posts then. They in turn faced the same accusation from their opponents in 1988 and were dismissed from the party.

The issues that were raised in both the 1983/84 and 1990/92 debates centred on the following:

1. Whether the Articles of Union of 1964 provided for a federation, that is three governments (one of Tanganyika, the other of Zanzibar, and a third a federal one) or only two governments as presently existing;
2. As the union government is also the government for the mainland in non-union matters, does this not give the impression that mainland is the union?
3. Does Zanzibar get a fair share in the distribution of benefits coming form the union?
4. Is Zanzibar well represented in the diplomatic service?
5. Does it get a fair share of foreign aid coming to Tanzania?
6. Since the people of Zanzibar were not consulted at the time of the formation of the union, should there not be a referendum now to ascertain whether the people wanted the union or not?

Most of these questions, as can be seen, were coming from Zanzibar, and what surprised many people at the time of the 1983/84 debate, was that they were being aired in the state-owned-and-controlled official mass media.

No such strong feelings were voiced on the mainland during the debates. Many people who made submissions to the Nyalali Commission said hardly anything about the system of governments that the union should have. It was only after the opening up of the political system and the establishment of more political parties that one began hearing very strong views coming form the mainland on the question of the Union; some of those going even further than anybody in Zanzibar had ever contemplated.

THE NYALALI COMMISSION: AGREED TO DISAGREE

One of the major recommendations of the Nyalali Commission was for the replacement of the present union set-up with a federal one. This was one of the areas that bought about a very heated debate within the commission and which necessitated members of the commission having to vote. Later those who were opposed to the federal idea had to append their own dissenting opinion to the main report to explain their position. But the division in the commission on this issue almost came to a mainland/Zanzibar division.

Of the 11 members from Zanzibar, seven wanted the present union set-up, with some major changes, to remain; three wanted a federal and one was undecided. Of the same number from the Mainland, nine wanted a federal set-up and two wanted the present arrangement to continue. What is important is that both sides agreed that there were problems within the union. Even though at the time the complaints form the mainland were not so loud compared to Zanzibar, it would have been wise if those complaints were addressed and resolved. The majority of members of the commission felt that in a federal set-up, both Tanganyika and Zanzibar would retain their identity, federal areas would be clearly defined and the responsibilities of each would be understood, and the federal entity would be distinct from the national ones.

Those holding the minority opinion, on the other hand, were of the view that there was nothing in the Articles of Union to suggest that their framers had a federal set-up in mind; that a federation would be a step backward and might be a prelude to the dissolution of the union; that corrective measures could be taken, if there is political will, which would define union matters, list union institutions and apportion the responsibility of each side on those matters. Examples were provided from the two Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Finland where entities (Faroe Islands, Aaland Islands and Greenland) have full autonomy in a number of areas that they exercise within a non-federal state. The dissenting opinion in the Nyalali Report pointed out:

‘Greenland and Faroe Islands, both of which are part of Denmark, have full autonomy in many matters. For example, a parliament that is not subject to interference form the central government of Denmark, and all political and economic matters agreed upon and even in international relations. The islands of Faroe have their own flag hoisted in all government buildings and on ships registered in Faroe islands. Also Faroe Islands authority issues passports;

Denmark had agreed to join the European Economic Community. So did Greenland. But later, Greenland withdrew from the Community. Therefore, all EEC agreements and conditionality accepted in Denmark did not apply in Greenland. Similarly, the Islands of Faroe are not a member of the EU.

In regard to Finland, the islands of Aaland have their own parliament and government. The islands of Aaland also have their own ‘identity’ for persons born in the islands and who have not lived abroad consecutively for five years or more. The islands have their own flag, issue their own stamps and its citizens are not subject to military service. The islands of Aaland are a demilitarised zone. The Central Bank of Finland must consult the government of Aaland before it takes measures that might harm the economy of Aaland. This, despite the fact that they share a common currency;

The islands of Aaland, as is the case for Greenland and Faroe, are, on their own right, represented in the Nordic Council that consists of Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland.’

WHITHER THE UNION?

As pointed out above, there have been historical links between Zanzibar and Tanganyika long before the coming of the colonialists in East Africa; and colonialism did not in fact stop such interactions from continuing. During the struggle for national independence, the two main political parties in the two countries cooperated – though there is nothing to suggest that the two parties were thinking of merging into a union of this kind after they came into power. What they had in mind was to form a federation with Kenya and Uganda. Until the elections of July 1963, ASP still thought that it would win power through the electoral process; and it would appear that their main supporters, TANU (Tanganyika African National Union), thought likewise.

Now the union is a fact. Despite a lot of problems, it has brought stability and peace in the region. It is difficult to speculate what would have happened to the Zanzibar revolution without the union: Whether Zanzibar would have advanced faster or whether a counter-revolutionary force would have taken over and embellished a dictatorship worse than anything the islands have actually experienced especially during the first phase government. What is clear though is that the union has brought the two peoples much closer together.

I do not believe that the unity of the two peoples can be strengthened by restructuring the present set-up into a federation. I see movement from the present set-up to a federation as a step towards the dismemberment of the union; and I do not think that that is to the short or long term benefit of the people of Tanzania. The present problems can be resolved if there is a strong political will on the part of our political class and if the people are told the truth about those problems.

Only when corrective measures are taken, would it be possible to sustain and strengthen the union. Otherwise if the difficulties inherent in the Articles of Union and the problems arising from implementation are only emphasised and not resolved, the tendency would be towards the withering away of the union.

In this era of multi-parties and openness, it is even more important that matters are discussed and solutions founded on popular will. Of all the political parties that have been established since the abolition of the one-party system, only one, the Democratic Party led by Reverend Mtikila, has come out strongly against the union and called for its dissolution. Others are prevaricating between ‘referendum’, ‘federation’ and modifications within the present set-up. The CCM and its governments which seemed earlier on to strongly accept the dissenting opinion in the Nyalali Report, now seems to be torn apart, with a strong group calling for a federal set-up.

The national language, the ethics of equality and human dignity, and the Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar are what overcame the ethnic hatred, religious bigotry, regional parochialism and national differences and forged national cohesion and unity. It is these that have made Tanzania an example in a continent beset with secessionism, ethnic violence and religious pogroms. One hopes that there is capacity, honesty and patriotism within Tanzania that will look beyond the sectarian interests. The alternative is too horrendous to contemplate.

*A full version of this paper was published in 1993 by the Danish Centre for Development Research. It also appeared in the book Zanzibar and the Union Question, edited by Prof Chris Peter and Professor Haroub Othman and published by the Zanzibar Legal Services Centre.

Mwalimu Nyerere anapogeuzwa mtaji wa ufisadi endelevu

Kama kuna mhimili pekee wa utaifa wetu ambao hadi sasa umeweza kuhimili mikiki mikiki lukuki yenye nia ya kuubomoa na kuufutilia mbali katika historia ya nchi yetu basi ni jina la Mwalimu Nyerere.

Miaka kumi baada ya Mwalimu kuondoka duniani bado jina la Mwalimu limekuwa kama nguzo kuu ambayo watanzania kwa pamoja wamekuwa wakiendelea kutegemea kama turufu pekee ya kulinda, kutetea na zaidi kuhalalisha maoni, matakwa, mitizamo na hata matumaini yao. Jina la Mwalimu Nyerere limeendelea kuwa turufu pekee ya watu mbalimbali katika ulingo wa kisiasa, kiuchumi na hata kijamii kuhalalisha maoni, mitizamo na hata maslahi yao. Jina la Mwalimu Nyerere limeendelea kuwa lulu ya wengi hata kufikia wengine kudai kuwa na hati miliki ya matumizi yake na kuwanyima wengine haki hiyo.

Wakati nchi yetu ilipokuwa ikilazimika kufuata mkumbo wa kuanzisha mfumo wa demokrasia ya vyama vingi, Mwalimu Nyerere aliweza kujitokeza kuwa sehemu muhimu ya mabadiliko hayo. Mengi yemesemwa kuhusu nini alisema na alikuwa na maana gani. Mojawapo ni lile la kuwa upinzani imara utatoka ndani ya CCM.

Imekuwa ni kawaida siku hizi kusikia watanzania wengi wakilalama, kusema na hata kupayuka kuwa ili nchi yetu iwe na demokrasia imara basi ni sharti CCM imeguke na kutimiza kile wanachodai utabiri wa Mwalimu Nyerere.

Mwanzoni haya yalikuwa yakizungumzwa sana miongoni mwa wachache waliopo katika vyama vya upinzani. Baadae hali hii ikaanza kujitokeza zaidi miongoni mwa watanzania waliochoshwa na “maovu” ya CCM lakini hawako tayari kujiunga ama kuunga mkono na vyama vya upinzani vilivyopo wakiamini kuwa huo sio upinzani wa kuaminika na utakaoweza kutoa mbadala makini wautakao wao.

Katika miaka ya hivi karibuni kinachoitwa utabiri wa Mwalimu Nyerere umekuwa zaidi ukizungumziwa sana na wana CCM wakiwemo viongozi waandamizi, viongozi wastaafu na hata wanachama wa kawaida.

Kufuatia mparaganyiko mkubwa uliojitokeza kuanzia mkutano wa halmashauri kuu ya CCM wa mwaka 2002 na kuhalalishwa rasmi wakati wa uchaguzi wa wagombea wa CCM katika uchaguzi wa mwaka 2005 ambao matunda yake yakaanza kujitokeza rasmi na kwa uwazi zaidi ndani ya bunge hili la sasa na kusambaa pande zote za nchi. Kile kinachoitwa “Utabiri wa Mwalimu” kimegeuzwa kuwa mtaji mkubwa wa kisiasa miongoni mwa wanaCCM na hata katika vyama vingine.

Kutokana na kugubikwa na utamaduni wa siasa chafu zenye kuendekeza rushwa na ufisadi, ubinafsi, migongano ya kimaslahi, chuki, uadui, majungu, kutokuaminiana na kukosa dira ndani ya chama hicho, watanzania wengi wamejikuta wakilazimika kukaa mkao wa kula kusubiri kutimia kwa utabiri wa Mwalimu wa kuwa upinzani imara utatokana na kumeguka kwa CCM.

Kwao wao ni kuwa matatizo yanayolikumba taifa letu yanatokana na sababu mbili. Moja ni migogoro ya ndani ya chama ambayo kwa maoni yao inasababishwa na baadhi ya wanachama wenye hulka ya kuthamini rushwa na ufisadi zaidi ya “maslahi ya chama na taifa” na Pili ni kukosekana kwa upinzani imara utakaoweza kukishurutisha chama cha CCM kurudi katika mstari ulionyooka na kukifanya kuwa imara kama inavyotakiwa.

Ni wazi kuwa wakati Mwalimu akitoa hicho tunachokiita utabiri wa kumeguka kwa CCM na kupatikana kwa upinzani imara nchini, alikuwa akifikiria ni jinsi gani chama chake alichokipenda na kukitumikia kwa uaminifu mkubwa kinaweza kurudi katika mstaari mnyoofu.

Hata hivyo wengi wetu tunashindwa kuangalia mazingira na mantiki halisi yaliyompelekea Mwalimu kuamini kuwa upinzani imara utatoka ndani ya CCM.

Mwalimu aliamini kuwa kutokana na misingi imara aliyoiwekeza katika CCM ni wazi kuwa kitaendelea kuwa chama imara kama kitapata upinzani imara utakaowalazimu wanaCCM kujiangalia na kujisafisha ili kuendelea kutawala. Kwa hali iliyokuwepo wakati ule Mwalimu alipotoa matamshi yale ni wazi aliona mkanganyiko wa kimisingi na kiitikadi ambao ulikuwa ukichipua ndani ya chama hicho. Ni wazi kuwa Mwalimu aliposema upinzani imara alimananisha kuwa upinzani ambao utakuwa unatofautiana na CCM kimisingi, kisera na kiitikadi na sio magomvi na ushindani wa nani anafaidika zaidi na ufisadi na nani anazuiliwa kufaidika zaidi na ufisadi huo kama hali ilivyo sasa.

Mimi naamini kuwa Mwalimu hakuwa mzembe wa kimawazo wa kuamini kuwa upinzani imara utatoka CCM bila ya kutambua sehemu ya tofauti za kimisingi na kiitikadi ambazo zingelipelekea baadhi ya wanaCCM kujitoa na kuanzisha chama chao.

Mwalimu aliongelea mgawanyiko wa CCM kwa mantiki ya kuwa kwa kuwa kulikuwa na baadhi ya wanaCCM wakiwemo viongozi wakuu wakiamini kuwa misingi, sera na itikadi ya Ujamaa na Kujitegemea imepitwa na wakati na wangependa kuona CCM na Tanzania zinafuata misingi ya ubepari. Ni wazi hali hiyo ingepelekea chama hicho kugawanyika katika misingi hiyo na hivyo kuleta upinzani imara wenye kufuata tofauti za kimisingi, kisera na kiitikadi.

Tukumbuke kuwa ni wakati huohuo ndipo Mwalimu aliwahi kutamka kuwa kati ya vyama vilivyokuwepo aliamini kuwa CHADEMA ambacho kilikuwa kikijinasabisha na sera na itikadi za KIBEPARI kwa waziwazi bila ya kificho kama ilivyo kwa CCM ndicho kitaweza kuwa imara hapo mbeleni.

Ni vizuri tukajiuliza, Mwalimu akiwa kama mjamaa aliyekubuhu ni kwa nini hakusema kuwa NCCR ingeliweza kuwa chama makini wakati wao walikuwa wakijinasabisha na ujamaa wa mrengo wa kati lakini akasema ni CHADEMA. Iweje Mwalimu adhani kuwa CHADEMA kilichoanzishwa na mtu ambaye alimtaka ajiuzulu uwaziri wa fedha kutokana na kuonyesha nia ya kukumbatia ubepari kiwe cha kutolea mfano wa upinzani makini na sio NCCR iliyokuwa bado ikithamini chembechembe za ujamaa?

Vilevile tusisahau ukweli kuwa wakati hadi siku zake za mwisho Mwalimu aliendelea kuamini katika ujamaa lakini pia alishangaa rafiki yake mwaminifu Mzee Kawawa aliposema atakuwa na CCM hadi mwisho wa maisha yake. Ni wazi Mwalimu alishangaa ujasiri wa Mzee Kawawa kusema kuwa atakuwa mwanachama muaminifu wa CCM hata kama kitaamua kukumbatia ubepari kama dalili zilivyokuwa zikianza kujionyesha wakati ule.

Kwa Mwalimu suala la misingi na itikadi ndilo lilikuwa suala la yeye kuendelea kuwepo CCM ama kuachana nacho. Hivyohivyo alikuwa akiamini katika suala la kumeguka kwa CCM kutokana na tofauti za kimisingi na kiitikadi na kutokea kwa upinzani imara hapa nchini na si vinginevyo.

Hapa ndipo ninakuja kuona kuna upotoshaji mkubwa sana wa kile kinachoitwa utabiri wa Mwalimu kuhusu upinzani imara nchini. Ninaamini kuwa upotoshaji huu unafanyika ama kwa kutokujua ama kwa makusudi kabisa ili kuendelea kumtumia Mwalimu Nyerere kuhalalisha maslahi na mikakati ya kuendeleza mfumo fisadi unaoendelea kushamiri nchini mwetu.Hawa wapo tayari kuwaaminisha Watanzania kuwa endapo wao watatoka CCM na kuanzisha ama kujiunga na chama kingine basi chama hicho ndicho kitakuwa upinzani makini. Hawa wasingependa watanzania kuwauliza na hata wao wenyewe kujiuliza maswali magumu ya kama kweli kumeguka kwa CCM kutokana na hali na sababu za hivi sasa ndio kunatosheleza kuleta upinzani imara katika mntiki ya ule alioutabiri Mwalimu Nyerere.

Inatia wasiwasi zaidi kuona kuwa hivi sasa wakati tunaelekea katika uchaguzi mkuu wapo baadhi ya wanaCCM na hata wasio wana CCM wamekuwa mstari wa mbele kuendeleza upotoshaji huu kuwa mpasuko utakaotokea hapo ndio utakaoleta upinzani imara nchini.

Mbaya zaidi inasikitisha kuona kuwa miongoni mwa vyama vya upinzania wapo ambao badala ya kutilia mkazo suala la kujenga upinzani imara wameamua kuendelea kukaa mkao wa kula kusubiri kile wakiitacho mmeguko wa CCM ili nao wafaidike na makapi ya chama tawala kufanikisha ndoto zao za kurithi mfumo fisadi.

Inatisha kuona ni jinsi gani kwa muda wa miezi michache sana tayari kuna zaidi ya watanzania elfu kumi ambao wanadhani tayari wamepokea mwito wa utabiri wa mwalimu wa kujenga upinzani imara kutokana na mmeguko wa CCM.

Siamini kuwa Mwalimu Nyerere alikuwa ameshindwa kufikiri kiasi cha kudhani kuwa bila ya kujali sababu na mitizamo ya hao Kimisingi, Kiitikadi na Kisera basi hao watakaotoka CCM wataweza kujenga upinzani imara aliokuwa akiufikiria yeye.

Sidhani kama Mwalimu alikuwa amechoka kuifikiria Tanzania yake hadi kuamini kuwa tofauti zinazoonekana sasa zinazohusishwa na suala la rushwa na ufisadi ama ushindani wa kimakundi wenye taswira ya uhodhi wa madaraka ndani ya CCM, zinatosheleza kupelekea kupatikana kwa upinzani imara nchini.

Naamini kuwa wapo wengi wanaotambua kuwa utabiri wa Mwalimu Nyerere kuhusu upinzani imara ulikuwa na maana ya kuwa utatokana na kumeguka kwa CCM kwa tofauti za misingi, itikadi na sera na sio tofauti hizi tunazoziona sasa.

Naamini kuwa Mwalimu Nyerere aliona upinzani imara utakaotokana kuvunjika kwa CCM kutokana na kukua tofauti za kimisingi, kiitikadi na kisera ambazo zitasimamiwa kidete na kupelekea ama wahafidhina waumini wa Ujamaa kuondoka katika chama hicho na kuwaachia wajanjawajanja waumini wa Ubepari au waumini wa ukombozi wa Kibepari kuondoka katika chama hicho na kuwaacha waumini wa Imani za Kijamaa kuendeleza kile ambacho yeye alikianzisha.

Ni wazi kuwa kutokana na hali inavyokwenda sasa uwezekano ni mkubwa wa CCM kumeguka katika misingi ya wale walio mstari wa mbele katika vita ya ufisadi. Yaani wale ambao wanaona kuwa ufisadi sio tatizo kubwa ndani ya chama chao na wale ambao wanaodhani kuwa ufisadi ni mzigo mkubwa ambao chama kinapaswa kujivua ili kuweza kuendelea kulinda uhalali wa kuwa chama tawala.

Yawezekana kuwa hili litaweza kupunguza ukiritimba wa CCM katika utawala. Lakini sidhani na wala siamini kuwa Mwalimu aliufikiria mgawanyiko wa aina hiyo ndio upinzani imara kama ambavyo wengi wanavyopotosha.

Upinzani ambao utatokana na kumeguka kwa CCM kutokana na ushindani wa kimakundi ambao umeegemea zaidi katika masuala (kama vile ufisadi na ushindani wa uhodhi wa nguvu za kiushawishi ndani ya chama) na sio kuegemea katika misingi, itikadi na sera, ni upinzani unaojengwa kwa nguzo legelege.

Ni wazi kuwa upinzani wa aina hiyo hautaweza kuwa imara kwani ni rahisi kujikuta yale ambayo wameyaacha huko walikotoka ili kuanzisha ama kuhamia chama kingine yataibuka tena huko walikoenda lakini zaidi hauwezi kuwa wenye kuweza kuleta suluhu la matatizo ya kitaifa yanayotukuma hivi sasa na hata huko mbeleni.

Upinzani imara ambao utakuwa na manufaa ya kwa watanzania ni ule utakaotokana na tofauti za kimisingi, kiitikadi na kisera na sio tofauti hizi za kiujanjaujanja tunazoziona sasa.