HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
At the time of independence, well established Co-operatives were marketing export crops in the richer parts of the country. In 1963, the National Agricultural Products Board was created to handle food crops for domestic consumption and Co-operatives were made sole agents for buying at village level. The result was mushroom growth of Co-operatives in areas where they had never previously flourished. They were used to distribute government services to farmers. Growth outstripped the ability of the members to control their leaders and, in 1966, a Presidential Special Commission of Enquiry reported widespread dissatisfaction with Co-operatives.
The Government’s reaction was to tighten their control of Co-operatives. Measures included the 1968 Co-operative Societies Act, which strengthened the power of the Registrar, and the creation of a United Co-operative Service, from which managers were seconded to the Secondary Co-operatives. At the same time, there was continued development of innovative, multimedia field education for members and staff of
Co-operatives.
The results were mixed. Many of the Co-operatives which had started in the ’60s remained dependent on the government. The gap between them and the longer established Co-operatives widened. Then, in 1975, the Villages and Ujamaa Villages Act made each village into a single corporation responsible for both the administrative functions of local government and the commercial functions hitherto carried out by Co-operatives. The rural Primary Co-operatives ceased to exist and, in 1976, the District and Regional Co-operative Unions were also abolished.
In the years which followed, villages were supposed to sell direct to statutory Crop Authorities. Unfortunately, most Crop Authorities performed badly in marketing the farmers’ output and even worse in selling inputs to the farmers. There was popular pressure to bring back the District and Regional Unions.
In 1982, a new Co-operative Societies Act was passed. At village level, local government functions were partially separated from commercial functions and a Co-operative Development Committee was given responsibility for the latter. The creation of District and Regional Co-operative Unions was again authorised.
At the time of writing, the revived Co-operative Unions are starting to operate. Generally, they have been able to regain possession of immovable capital assets such as buildings. Often, they are having problems recovering movable assets, and accounting records, from the liquidators, who fortunately never completed their liquidation proceedings. If Co-operatives recover money, it is likely to be at face value with no allowance for inflation.
The one asset they are recovering at enhanced value is the goodwill of their members. It seems that the failures of the years before 1976 have been partly forgotten. The dominant memory is of the successes. The restoration of the unions is greeted as the return of a golden age.
CURRENT DEBATES
Voluntary membership
The most important of the current debates is concerned with the principle of voluntary membership. Under the 1975 Act, everybody resident in a village was automatically a member. The Act passed in 1982 continued this departure from the generally accepted principles of Co-operation by retaining automatic membership.
In March 1985, the words “shall be a member” were amended so that now every resident “may be a member” out, as yet, the amendment has not been widely publicised and nor have the consequent amendments to other clauses been made.
If Co-operatives are the only channel for marketing a crop, membership is not fully voluntary for those who depend for their living on growing it. In recent times, there has been a “parallel market” in some commodities and there is some move towards legalising some private enterprise in marketing. To the extent that there are alternative marketing channels, voluntary membership of Co-operatives could become real.
Some oppose these developments on the grounds that they will create wasteful competition and widen the gap between those who can exploit the free market and those who cannot. Others welcome them on the grounds that members are more likely to behave responsibly towards a Co-operative they freely chose to join. The knowledge that unless members receive good service they will take their business elsewhere can encourage Co-operatives to be efficient.
Single-village Co-operatives
As the Law now stands, several villages are allowed to join together in a single Co-operative and Societies have been organised on this basis. However, there are powerful voices in favour of going back to the 1975 rule that each village should have its own Co-operative. It is obviously true that many villages are at present unable to generate enough business to pay the salary of a competent manager. In these cases, a single-village Co-operative can be said not to be viable. However, some oppose calling a village in which people have to make the only living available to them “unviable”.
There is a regrettable tendency to treat this as a question which must be settled uniformly for the whole country. Co-operatives usually work best if the members of each one decide on the structure that suits their particular circumstances. However, in Tanzania as elsewhere, Co-operative diversity makes some politicians and bureaucrats uneasy. It is generally accepted that the decision to abolish ALL Co-operative Unions in 1976 was a mistake. It is not so generally accepted that such top-down blanket decisions would conflict with Co-operative democracy, even if they were economically justified.
Status of Co-operative Union of Tanzania (CUT)
During the period 1976 to 1982, the national-level body representing the Cooperatives was the Union of Co-operative Societies (UCS). This was a “mass organisation” allied to the party in the same way as the women’s organisation (UWT) and the youth league.
The 1982 Act revives the Co-operative Union of Tanzania (CUT) as the apex body for all Co-operatives. It provides for the government appointed Commissioner for Co-operatives to hand over important powers to the CUT and obliges him to consult with its Secretary General on some other matters. The fact that the local Co-operative Unions are once again available as a link between the village level Primaries and the centre could make it easier for CUT to be a democratic federal body controlled by member Co-operatives. On the other hand, it could be controlled by the party as was the UCS.
Compromises are possible between these two extremes. It is already decided that the Government is going to hand some powers to CUT. The discussion is about the balance between party control and Co-operative control of CUT.
Co-operative Groups
No Co-operative Society other than a Rural Co-operative Society is allowed to operate within a village but people with special skills resident in the village may form themselves into “Co-operative Groups” within the main Co-operative. Groups of women who have been running shops under the auspices of UWT are being encouraged to put themselves under the umbrella of their village Co-operative. So are church based handicraft groups.
Such affiliation has advantages for the groups. If any have an income, they could benefit from sharing the favoured tax status of the Co-operative. The Co-operative has an obligation to guarantee loans for them. Though the groups must accept the “general guidance” of the village Co-operative Development Committee, they are entitled to representation on the committee.
Affiliation may also have its disadvantages. In some parts of the country, women are not in practice allowed to be members of the Co-operative in which they are being asked to merge their group. Also, UWT, which represents the special interests of women, would lose income if the groups it initiated stopped paying UWT subscriptions when they became part of the Co-operative. In the case of church groups, the
Co-operatives may not be able to match the helpful supervision, and the effective communication with the towns, which some churches have been providing for their groups.
The Co-operative Societies Rules require each group to maintain its own funds ’ but there must be a danger that the assets built up by a small group will be frittered away by the losses of the larger Co-operative. Even if money is not lost in this way, member loyalty may be lost. People may not feel so committed to a large Co-operative as they were to their small group. The way in which groups are being encouraged to merge IN ORDER TO GET A LOAN fosters dependence rather than self-reliance.
The balance of opinion seems to be in favour of merging the groups in the Co-operatives but this may be because the case against has not been adequately considered.
THE FUTURE
There is no easy future for the revived Co-operatives. The problems that defeated the Crop Authorities have not all vanished. Any marketing organisation would find life difficult in the squeeze between final prices dictated by world markets and producer prices which must cover costs of production. Nobody can market without spare parts and fuel for vehicles. The Co-operatives are sometimes expected to market quantities which are too small to be economic. Socially useful pricing policies, designed to help poorer regions, sometimes make it impossible to cover the costs of marketing.
As Co-operatives meet these problems, the attitude of the members will be crucial and here, there are grounds for optimism. The Co-operative Unions have been revived as a response to popular pressure. This is more healthy than imposition from above. The vigorous and well-informed debate in the Rural Societies I visited was very encouraging. People spoke openly in criticism of past and present government policies but the discussion was constructive and good tempered. Crop Authorities were criticised for not listening to the farmers and the members mean to make their voice heard in the new Co-operatives. Nobody should undervalue the strength which
this type of political awareness gives the Tanzanian Co-operatives.
Peter Yeo