PRESIDENT MWINYI – 92% SUPPORT
PRESIDENT ABDUL WAKIL – 41% OPPOSED

The results of the Presidential elections in Tanzania gave President Ali Hassan Mwinyi a massive win but the results of the elections held earlier in Zanzibar gave President (of Zanzibar) Idris Abdul Wakil only 58.6% of the vote.

The Daily News reporting on the day after the results were declared (1 November, 1985) stated that the results were not unexpected but they overwhelmed Ndugu Mwinyi, and he said so, as well as Mwalimu Nyerere, who shed tears of joy.

Mwalimu declined comment on Ndugu Mwinyi’s victory when he was invited to speak by the Chairman of the National Electoral Commission, Chief Adam Sapi Mkwawa. “I cannot say anything,” he pleaded.

He was probably overjoyed by the positive response to his repeated call on voters during the election campaign to give his successor a massive confidence-building “YES” vote.

Ndugu Mwinyi’s score is just a point short of Mwalimu Nyerere’s 93.01 per cent win in the 1980 election. The retiring President won 91.46 per cent of the 4.5 million votes cast in 1975.

Announcing the results at a colourful ceremony held at Diamond Jubilee Hall in Dar es Salaam, Chief Mkwawa said 5,181,999 or 74.98 per cent of the 6,901,555 registered voters cast their votes on Sunday.

He said 4,778,114 people voted “YES” while 215,626 or 4.16 per cent voted “NO”. Chief Mkwawa said 188,259 votes accounting for 3.64 per cent of the total were spoilt.

The Commission Chairman said it was clear from the results that more than half of the voters had accepted the sole Presidential candidate, a minimum score set by the 1984 Union Constitution.

“I, therefore, hereby declare that Ndugu Ali Hassan Mwinyi has been elected President of the United Republic of Tanzania under Section 41(3)(c) of the 1977 Union Constitution as amended by Act Number 15 of 1984,” the Commission Chairman said.

The announcement was greeted by prolonged applause from Party, Government leaders and foreign diplomats gathered in the hall to hear the results.

President Nyerere, vividly the happiest man in the hall, gave Ndugu Mwinyi a hug. Then came the turn of other dignitaries to shake hands with the President-elect. These included Mama Maria Nyerere and Mama Sofia Kawawa.

Emotions were charged by a ceremonial number Yuko Wapi Ndugu Mwinyi Tuhangaike Naye – literally translated to mean “where is Ndugu Mwinyi, we want to have a field day with him” – which was played by the National Service Taarab Group.

Amid the fanfare, Young Pioneers gave Ndugu Mwinyi a scarf and garlanded Mama Mwinyi.

In his brief but meaningful acceptance speech following the formal announcement of results, Ndugu Mwinyi said: “I publicly accept to carry the burden of state, to serve and not to rule as a servant of all Tanzanians”.

Ndugu Mwinyi promised, that he would endeavour to serve the people of Tanzania diligently and honestly without favour, regardless of their religion, colour, station in life or place of origin. Referring to his election, he said: “I must confess that I am immensely overwhelmed by the outcome. Even where I was sure of being elected, but I honestly did not expect such a massive mandate”.

“I am most grateful. I also want to thank all the people, especially those who were lucky enough to register and actually vote on October 27. I particularly thank those who voted “Yes” for demonstrating full confidence in me. “These people have gambled correctly and I sincerely thank them for this. I will strive to live up to their expectations”.

Ndugu Mwinyi went on to thank those voters who voted “NO”, for their political awareness and use of their conscience to vote in Tanzania’s democratic elections. “I do promise that I will serve all of them, even if I knew them, equally with any other Tanzanian citizen”.

He concluded: “I have already said I am overwhelmed, indeed I am, I have nothing to add”.

In Zanzibar, the Chairman of the Zanzibar Electoral Commission announced that 131,471 (58.6%) voted Yes to Ndugu Wakil (formerly the speaker of Zanzibar’s legislature) and 75,220 (41.3%) voted No. In its November issue “Africa Events” endeavours to explain what happened in Zanzibar on the basis of the existence of two power blocks vying with each other for ascendancy in Zanzibar’s politics. One group are said to regard themselves as the legitimate heirs of the late Sheikh Abeid Karume and his Afro-Shirazi Party (ASP) and the other more closely in sympathy with the liberalisation measures introduced by President Mwinyi when he became President of Zanzibar last year. Ndugu Wakil was said to have had the support of the former group.

Apparently there were other factors including traditional feelings between Zanzibar and Pemba; the people of Pemba voted Yes for Wakil in much smaller numbers than those in Zanzibar.

According to “New Africa” Ndugu Wakil had been initially selected as candidate for President by the National Executive Committee (including islanders) by only 85 votes to 78 for Zanzibar Chief Minister Seif Shariff Hamed who hails from Pemba. Ndugu Wakil subsequently re-appointed Ndugu Hamad as Zanzibar Chief Minister.

Former President Nyerere referred to the Zanzibar problem during one of his pre­election visits to the island. He said that the Chama Cha Mapinduzi will never entertain the idea of having conflicting groups within its ranks and that the main task of CCM leaders and members at the moment is to build a strong party.

He said it was healthy for CCM members to hold different views on certain issues, but this did not mean having groups engaging in “tug of war” within the Party.

He said prior to Tanganyika’s independence and the revolution in Zanzibar there existed several parties. On the Mainland there were TANU, Congress and other small ones. In the Isles there were the Afro Shirazi Party, UMMA and ZPP.

But after Tanganyika’s independence and the revolution in the Isles all the other parties dissolved themselves and their members joined the mainstream of TANU and ASP.

“Because we accepted them into our ranks, there was no reason whatsoever to continue to be suspicious of them since they became part of us”, he said.

The Party Chairman explained that the same people who did not belong to either TANU or ASP during the independence struggle were later absorbed by CCM in 1977.

What was important from these people was their allegiance to CCM and not to their former parties, including TANU and ASP, he stressed.

On Zanzibar’s political history, Mwalimu said at one time Pemba was the power base of the UMMA Party whilst the Afro Shirazi Party was dominant in Zanzibar.

Mwalimu dismissed as absurd claims by some CCM members and leaders in Zanzibar that there were good and bogus members within Chama Cha Mapinduzi.

He also said it was a great sin for CCM members to discriminate against fellow members on the basis of colour, or because their fathers and relatives belonged to Parties other than ASP.

“CCM is not a racist Party and with its formation we began a new chapter to build unity and forget the past” Mwalimu stressed.

On the nomination of Ndugu Ali Hassan Mwinyi for the Union Presidency, he said many people in Zanzibar were not happy because he had done commendably well during his short tenure of office in the Isles and would have wanted him to be their leader for a few more years.

On the other hand, a few disgruntled elements in Zanzibar were happy that Mwinyi would soon be moving to Dar es Salaam to head the Union Government which they considered better for them because as they saw it Ndugu Mwinyi was misleading Zanzibar.

Mwalimu stressed that whatever Ndugu Mwinyi had been able to do in the Isles was a result of his diligent application of Party policies and, therefore, whoever challenged him on this was challenging CCM and should be prepared to fight CCM, the Party Chairman warned.

He said after his retirement his main concern would be to build a strong and united CCM on the basis of the laid down objectives.
David Brewin

The very welcome appraisals of Julius Nyerere which appeared in the previous edition of “The Bulletin” have been matched by a special interview with the President, broadcast by Channel Four TV in which the interviewers were Tariq Ali and Darcus Howe.

It provided an altogether fascinating insight into the nature of both the politician and the man. It also gave him a chance to look back over his years in power, and to provide at least a few clues to the historians who will later be trying to assess the importance of Julius Nyerere, not only as President of his own country, but also as one of the principal architects of emergent Africa.

It was therefore a natural starting point to ask him first what he thought was the greatest achievement in Tanzania’s development during the last twenty years. Nyerere was absolutely clear in his reply. “The greatest achievement is that we are a united nation; a nation with a purpose.” He took his main illustration from the field of education, pointing out that when the British left there were only 300,000 children in primary education for four years. Today in Tanzania there are three and a half million children receiving primary education and each child is able to stay in school for seven years. Nyerere conceded that there were many things his Government had not been able to do, and many social advances were still to be made, but he obviously took enormous pride from the fact that between eighty five and ninety per cent of the people of Tanzania were now literate. “We have virtually wiped out illiteracy in our country”, he declared confidently, and there is little doubt that for him this single fact is more important than any other social development in the independent life of his nation.

The President was then asked to comment on part of the Arusha Declaration – that every government leader must be a peasant or a worker, and must in no way be associated with the practices of either capitalism or feudalism. He affirmed that despite all difficulties this had been achieved. The main problem, of course, had been to educate an entire nation to accept priorities quite different from those which many other newly independent countries had made. Normally the populace wanted quick wealth and a very rapid rise in the standard of living. It had been necessary in Tanzania to show that the proper development of the country could not be attained by the easy grabbing of riches and the smooth acceptance of easy capitalist criteria.

Throughout the whole interview Nyerere returned again and again to the terrible contrast between poverty and wealth which continually plague the world. He had obviously been very impressed by the huge response which many individuals in the Western world had made to the tragedy of the Ethiopian famine. And yet the governments of the Western world had on the whole failed to match this response. Instead their statesmen had tried to put the blame on their democratic systems, defending themselves by claiming that in a democracy ‘it is very difficult to transfer wealth from their systems to poorer nations.’ Here President Nyerere was at his most passionate and eloquent. “I accept that; I know that it is difficult. But why did those statesmen stop there? They are refusing to educate their own people. And yet those same people, as individuals, responded. It was the governments that failed.”

The President conceded, however, that African governments and statesmen were by no means free from blame. They should be truly responsible to their own people. “I don’t think we are educating our own people enough.” In countries where there were no political parties, and only armies held control, there were inevitably very big problems. “It is very difficult for armies to mobilize their people.” It was in the many comments of this sort, dotted about the interview, that Julius Nyerere showed quite plainly that little escapes him in African affairs, and the behaviour of certain countries make him unhappy.

In the last two minutes of the interview after lengthy discussion on relations with the IMF and South Africa, Julius Nyerere talked whimsically about his own future. Yes – he would stay on for a further two years as Chairman of his Party, but then he would leave public life. With a broad smile on his face he denied that it was a unique event. “It is not unique. Leopold Senghor did it before me. I am doing it because it is time to do it. My country has allowed me to lead it for thirty years. If you gave me another thirty I could not do more.”

And so the man who more than any other statesman has become the image of Tanzania for the world outside will, when his two years as Chairman have come to an end, “retire to my village, to keep my six cows, and help with the village farm”. And at the very end of the interview, having reviewed the problems of his own country and of the world, and nailed once more his colours uncompromisingly to the mast, he was still smiling.

Noel Kennedy Thomas

In the original publication these quotes appeared individually, spread out through the bulletin.

We have built a nation – together. The angel Gabriel could not have built Tanzania alone, still less a fallible human being like myself. Even if the Angel Gabriel had been assisted by Ministers and public servants made up of other Angels, he still could not have built Tanzania. You, the people of Tanzania, acting together and individually, have built Tanzania into what it is – a proud, united, and self-confident nation. I thank you all very much.
Julius Nyerere, Farewell Speech,
4 November, 1985

.

It is easier to respond to a simple challenge like an invasion than to withstand the constant difficulties and disappointments, as well as triumphs, of trying to develop a poor and backward country like ours. Yet for nearly 22 years – on the mainland for longer – we have worked and struggled together, and you have supported my leadership while we went through the very many difficulties and troubles of our short national life. And even now we are still contending with extremely difficult economic circumstances, with no sign that external conditions will move in our favour. I repeat; we have faced the sacrifices and fought the difficulties together. We are still doing it. And although I say we have done these things together, it is you, the people of Tanzania, who have borne the real burden – which is a very heavy one.

Over the last six or seven years our country has been hit by many events over which neither Government nor people had any control. Our standard of living has consequently gone down instead of going up. But you, the people of Tanzania, have not just become uselessly and destructively angry, nor suggested that we should sell our independence for very temporary relief from our economic problems. Instead, you have supported me and your Government, and fought against the effects of the break up of the East African Community, the drought, the drop in our export prices, and the international economic recession. And you have understood that the struggle is not over, – that it will go on for a long time.

Thank you very much.
Julius Nyerere, Farewell Speech

.

For we have an international reputation, and I have an international reputation also. You have created both. When a person is hard-pressed or in other economic trouble, he can either crawl on his knees and beg the rich for alms, or he can stand up for justice while he endures and struggles to become more self-reliant. The same thing is true of a nation. But the nation has to be politically strong and proud in order to make the latter choice. You, the people of Tanzania, have provided that strength by your unity, your self-respect and your pride in our independence.
Julius Nyerere. Farewell Speech

.
 
And the truth is that religious conflict could have been a bigger danger to us in Tanzania than tribalism. We inherited a situation where the two major religions had about the same number of adherents, but where as far as the Africans were concerned one had had almost a monopoly of access to secondary and higher education. When we began to Africanize posts which were previously held by the colonial servants, almost all of the few Africans who had the necessary educational qualifications were Christians. This fact could have been used to divide us along religious lines – and there were a few individuals who did try to do that. But the muslims of our country absolutely refused to be hoodwinked by this attempt to divide us; in doing so they made a contribution to our later peace and development which is of inestimable value. And they gave us a chance, through our educational policies, to correct the imbalance we had inherited – which we have done. I am now in the happy position of sometimes not knowing whether a new Member of Parliament, a Minister, or a new Principal Secretary in our Government Ministries, is a Muslim or a Christian or neither – unless their first name happens to give it away. And even that is not a sure guide in Tanzania, for we have Christians with Muslim names, and Muslims with Christian names. The religious tolerance and freedom in our country is your creation; what I have done is to speak up for these values on your behalf.
Julius Nyerere. Farewell Speech

.

What more can I say? We have worked together, rejoiced together, been sad together, and mourned together when we have lost a colleague or a friend of our country. We have laid the foundations of socialism and self-reliance together. I thank you for your comradeship in all these struggles. I thank you for making Tanzania what it is.
Julius Nyerere. Farewell Speech

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