THE ARUSHA DECLARATION
Date: February 5, 1967
Place: Arusha, Tanzania
Basic elements: – The TANU Creed,
– The Policy of Socialism;
– The Policy of Self-Reliance;
– TANU Membership;
– The Leadership Code.
Described at the time as: A textbook model of Third World development, one of the most coherent and constructive documents to have emerged in Africa so far – Los Angeles Times.
Actions which followed and are associated with it: Nationalisation of the “commanding heights” of the economy – the Banks, insurance companies and much of estate agriculture.

Tanzania has been celebrating. A Shs 1,2 million Heroes Monument has been unveiled in Dodoma. The Tanzanian flag has been hoisted by youths on the top of Mount Kilimanjaro. Other groups of young people have been walking and cycling from all over Tanzania to Dodoma to join in the celebrations. Potholes have been filled in on roads, buildings have been painted. There was music and dancing.

But there has also been a great deal of reflection. The occasion? The 20th Anniversary of the Arusha Declaration and the tenth Anniversary of the CCM Party.

It is a cliche to say that Tanzania is at a crossroads but everything seems to indicate that that is just where Tanzania is. And one of the most encouraging things about Tanzania today is the degree of freedom with which everyone joins in the discussion about the best direction for Tanzania in the future.

The Achievements
The celebrations, or, more correctly, the reflections began in December 1986 when, as reported in Bulletin No 26, President Mwinyi opened an International Conference on the Arusha Declaration in Arusha. He made a pragmatic speech, as is his custom, and began by saying that Tanzanians always knew that building socialism in a society with inherited capitalist and feudalistic tendencies would be a long process. “It is for this reason” he said, “that no time frame was established for the implementation of the Arusha Declaration. It is not surprising therefore,” he said, “that today, almost twenty years after the adoption of the Declaration, Tanzania is neither socialist nor self-reliant.”

He went on “but the process of building socialism and self-reliance has begun. It is also a fact that the foundation for further progress towards our cherished goal has already been firmly laid down. Remarkable and positive change has taken place in Tanzania since the adoption of the Arusha Declaration.

“The most fundamental principle of our socialist policy is equality among all citizens …. equality means equal access to basic social services. It also means equality in decision making on matters of interest and importance to society. It means, above all, equality in personal incomes.

“The results of our efforts to give reality to the principle of human equality are most visible in the field of education, By providing free education Tanzania has made remarkable achievements in the struggle against one of our enemies, ignorance. At the time of independence in 1961 only 486,000 children went to primary school. Today 3.7 million go. In 1961 only 11,832 pupils were enrolled in public secondary schools. In 1984 40,617 were enrolled. At independence we had one University College with only 14 students. Today we have two full universities – Dar es Salaam with 3,970 students and the Sokoine University with approaching 500 students.

“Great achievements have also been made in the field of health. By providing free medical services, the Government has ensured that no Tanzanian dies of disease because of lack of money to pay for medical care.

“The number of hospitals has increased from 98 at Independence to 149 today. The number of dispensaries has increased from 978 to more than 2,600: At the time of Independence there were only 12 Tanzanian doctors for a population of more than ten million people. The equivalent of one doctor far over 830,000 people. Now there are about 800 doctors which is equivalent to one doctor far 26,000 people. The achievements made in the field of health are clearly reflected in the quality of life. For example, infant mortality rate has fallen from 225 babies for every 1,000 children born to 137. People live longer. Life expectancy is now 51 years. This is still low compared to more advanced societies but at independence it was only 35.

“The improvement in health services has been greatly enhanced by the provision of clean water to an increasing number of people, particularly in the rural areas. In 1961 only about 11% had access to clean water. Today it is estimated that over ten million people or just under 50% of the population have access to clean water within 400 meters of their homes.

“The policy of socialism has enabled us to prevent the growth of gross inequalities in incomes between Tanzanians. For example, in 1962 the ratio of urban personal income after tax was estimated to be 18.8 to 1. In 1966 the ratio was 15.7 to 1. In 1984 the ratio was 4.9 to 1. This progress towards equality in personal incomes has been made possible through deliberate fiscal, monetary and income policies. These policies have helped us to prevent the growth of a class society”.

The Debate
The debate began at the International Conference and continued in the press and in public forums from then until the celebrations began early in February 1987. It will continue in the future as the Central Committee of the NEC began planning a further workshop on the Arusha Declaration while the celebrations were still underway.

The debate was not confined to Tanzania. Haroub Othman, writing in ‘The Observer’ looked at what he described as the “unfulfilled promise” of the Arusha Declaration. “One of its major weaknesses was its failure to provide an analysis of the Tanzanian class system; the struggle for independence and democracy and that for socialism was not addressed” he wrote. After listing some of the remarkable achievements of Tanzania especially in the social services he pointed to some of the serious policy errors that had been made, particularly in the economic sphere. “Agricultural investment has been abysmally low; less than 15%; state farms have consequently ground to a halt while the peasant farmer struggles to fend for himself, his only contact with the Government being through the various taxation mechanisms necessary to prop up bureaucracies in marketing boards.

“Agricultural production is not just stagnant: it is showing a downward curve. Tanzania now has to depend on food aid, of necessity with political strings. The performance in industry has not been much better – most industries are working at about 30% capacity if they are not shut ,down. Indiscipline, inefficiency and corruption have become the norm.

“This sad economic state has led to the virtual death of one of the Arusha Declaration’s main pillars – the Leadership Code. This sets out the code of conduct for public leaders. It essentially sought to limit the accumulation of wealth by such leaders. But the galloping inflation and the low salaries have made a total mockery of the Code. What about the Party? Ah, the man in the street will tell you, the Party is supreme. It is also specified in the Declaration as the tool for building socialism. But the grass root branches are weak – no meetings, no membership dues, no ideological classes. Consequently the Party has to be heavily subsidised by the Government, From Shs 11,124,417 in 1973/74 (39.3% of the Party’s total budget) to Shs 384,014,700 in 1984/85 (92.5% of the Party’s budget). The question is supreme to whom?”

‘Africa Now’ in the cover story of its February 1987 issue focussed on implementation of the villagisation policy. “While the villagisation policy was undoubtedly good. it was the manner with which Party and Government officials went about implementing it that exposed it to grave criticism from which it was to suffer for years to come. It was clear that the people who were handpicked to spearhead the implementation of the programme knew very little or absolutely nothing about what they were being asked to undertake, treating it more as a military style operation than as a project that might take a lifetime to accomplish ….. The failure of the overall supervising authority to discover in time what had gone wrong and to institute remedial measures was another factor which led to unfortunate results. Indeed, it was not until the second part of the decade that calls for ‘de-urbanisation’ of the ujamaa villages, so as to allow more room for agricultural undertakings, began to be voiced. But the damage had already been done”.

The article went on on the subject of the Leadership Code. “A committee was set up for the Code’s enforcement and to investigate alleged violations of it. But, over a period, it is apparent that the committee has failed in its purpose and lacks both the eyes with which to see the violations of the Code and the teeth with which to punish the miscreants”.

The Tanzanian News Agency (Shihata) in one of a series of articles during the celebrations took a strongly positive position: “The Declaration is a great document, a towering masterpiece to have emerged in Africa; it is almost a revelation, It drew acclaim from all over the world and amassed a wealth of prestige and respect for Tanzania – then and now, only a poor Third World African nation. To belittle the spirit of the document, therefore, is to despise oneself; to demand its removal is to betray the Tanzanian masses who agonised with it through its formation. To dislike it indicates a moral turpitude of self-aggrandisement and self centredness in the true spirit of the bourgeois mentality”.

At a rather lower level of rhetoric, Shihata produced a number of articles on specific aspects of the Declaration and its aftermath, For example, on the subject of the banks it wrote “the banks, most of which were foreign owned, withdrew skilled and experienced personnel in the vain hope of disrupting their operations and making the country’s financial transactions come to a standstill. But, far from wrecking the banks and slowing down economic development, the banks operated more efficiently, expanding their activities and realised more profits. The National Bank of Commerce is today giving better service to the people of Tanzania than the private banks did. The Bank now has 150 branches in the whole country compared to 41 at the time of nationalisation. ]n 1984/85 it declared a dividend of Shs 40 million”

Daily News staff writer Halima Shariff also pointed to one of the more positive elements… Tanzania today is more self-reliant in terms of indigenous experts manning various sectors of production and adopting her own development policies”. But, in a well balanced article he thought it appropriate to mention also the recent report of the Auditor General. The report had said that the Government had suffered a Shs 52,688 million loss in cash and stores in 1984/85 in 18 ministries and departments and in 14 regions. People had been apathetic about prompt accounting. He went on to welcome the Shs 120 billion Economic Recovery Programme launched in June 1986 and the allocation of between 30 and 40 per cent of annual development budgets to agriculture. He went on “we need to be more action oriented and do what we have to do today, not tomorrow”

The Socialist
Some cutting comments came from a reader of the Daily News who signed himself “Socialist” – “As I understand it, socialism is an attitude of mind; it cannot be acquired by one’s ability to propound Marxist and Leninist philosophies alone. It could be acquired by a person who believes in justice and liberty – one who hates poverty, oppression and war. Any person who has a belief in that should count himself a socialist, I believe that socialists are made from their beliefs and nothing more.

“Most of the people in our country, though of such beliefs, are scared out of socialism because of what those persons who call themselves Socialist are doing. Look around you, you may not fail to spot a person who exploits and oppresses his fellow human beings. One wonders as to whether they truly understand what they talk about when they call themselves socialists.

“It is high time the socialists, if there are any, put their own houses in order to attract other members to their fold. It is my contention that a mere lecturing of a person for three months and then give him a card does not make him a socialist.

“The Arusha Declaration is said to be a blueprint of socialist construction in Tanzania. Are we more socialist now than we were in 1967? Have the anti-socialist attitudes we had then changed? Are we not now more capitalist minded than we were in 1967? Look at our youths. What are they doing? Look at our firms. How are they managed? Look at our workers. Look at our peasants. Look at our offices. And, finally, look at our Party.

“Since we have said that socialism is an attitude of mind, it is not difficult for any person who understands socialism and who is honest with himself to judge the extent of our success in building socialism in this country since 1967”

Self – Reliance.
Meanwhile back in this country, the article by Haroub Othman in the “Guardian”, referred to above, had brought a response from one of its readers. Christine Lawrence in a letter to the Editor referred to part of his article in which he had said that the forthcoming Party Congress in October would be the last hope for socialists in Tanzania. She went on to write that: Socialist in his sense seems to imply a limited concept allied to a Western/Marxist stereotype of a socialist state. Whatever comes out of the next Party Congress will be a Tanzanian variety of socialism, and this is as it should be.

“Self-reliance is certainly not dead. As you know, the majority of people in Tanzania live in rural areas. In spite of great difficulties over the years, they have continued to be self-reliant. These are the people who elect the Government, upon whom the economy depends and for whom the Party must speak most loudly.

“As regards the “aggressive policy of seeking aid” what can a poor country do except stand on its own feet and shout? They certainly stood out a long time against the IMF terms and in so doing gave encouragement to other nations in similar dire straits. To say that this policy is not self-reliant is quite mistaken.

“Haroub Othman rightly points out that there have been some achievements in the years since the Arusha Declaration. If the time has now come to revise the Arusha Declaration, should we not regard this as a sign of growth and development?”

The Guardian printed this letter under the heading “Stand up for Self-Reliance.” And that is exactly what Mwalimu Nyerere did in his speech at the climax of the celebrations on 5th February 1987 in Dodoma. The speech occupies 32 pages; in the extracts which follow we have tried to give the main gist of the first part of this important speech. The remainder will be covered in issue No. 28. David Brewin

Mr. President, Wanachama wa CCM, Wananchi,

We have a double celebration today. 20 years of the Arusha Declaration. And 10 years since Chama cha Mapinduzi came into existence.

It is a celebration. And on both counts it deserves to be. Despite all our problems, or perhaps because of our problems, we have a right to rejoice because we have reached this anniversary and enjoy peace and quiet.

Chama Cha Mapinduzi
For twelve years we had a One Party State with two parties. On February 5th 1977 we put that right. Chama Cha Mapinduzi was born. That event marked a very important step forward for Tanzania. It reduced the opportunity for dangerous intrigue against the independence and unity of our nation. Few people in the world have noticed the great success of that move. For it is only when you fail that the rest of the world comments. Yet CCM has already proved its worth. When enemies of our unity tried to divide us, Chama Cha Mapinduzi was able quickly and in unity to clean up the political atmosphere where it had got soiled. But we still have a lot of work to do.

When CCM was formed, we all said that we hoped it would take the good points of both TANU and ASP and forget the bad. In some things that has happened. But it has not always happened.

At some time since then CCM has got lax. We allowed our record of unity to make us big headed and lazy. Many of our Branches and Cells do not hold meetings in accordance with the constitution. That means that democracy within the Party was weakened. How can members control their Party and help decide its policy when they don’t meet. And when meetings are held, they are not meetings for discussion, but just to listen to speeches and take orders from leaders. In these conditions it is hard for our leaders to learn what the people think. This too means that our democracy has been weakened.

But at District, Regional and National level, meetings have always been held regularly. And at all Party Committee meetings we have the very good practice of discussing everything openly and frankly. Also four other things have ensured that the peoples problems have always been brought to the attention of the national Party and the Government.

First, our people are politically conscious – resulting from long term political education. Secondly, we have a Parliament and Revolutionary Council where the troubles of the people are discussed openly and without fear. Thirdly, we have a good number of Party members and leaders who have remained very active, And, fourthly, we have a Government and Party press which has drawn attention to faults and problems as well as successes.

As a result, our democracy has been maintained. And to strengthen that democracy further, the Party has begun to correct its faults. District, Branch and Cell elected leaders are now more concerned to call meetings; for if meetings are not held they have to explain why. The improvement is not universal yet; and the system of checking up does not operate everywhere yet. But it will.

I am less confident of progress in the second area. I do not know whether real discussion does now take place when Party meetings are held. Nor am I sure that, if any discussion does take place at Branch meetings, it includes a consideration of what they can do to solve a local problem. And if this does happen I am doubtful about how often the meeting makes plans, and then acts to overcome the difficulty – by local effort.

Our Party is very good at mobilising people for a rally, a mass meeting like this one or the reception of an honoured guest. We are not so good at organising the people for voluntary work to solve their own problems.
And when a big celebration is to take place, it is very easy for the Party to decide to put a cess on something which is produced or sold locally. This is a mistake. First it is not the job of the Party to put a cess on goods; this is the responsibility of the Government. And, secondly, the ease of acting in that way encourages laziness in the Party.

Party elections take place this year. The possibility of losing their jobs always wakes people up! An election also gives Party members a chance to get rid of leaders who have failed them or to re-elect those who have tried to carry out their responsibilities. Just now there is a great deal of activity in the country! In pointing that out I am not campaigning – for anyone!. I am just saying that CCM is here to stay.
When the Party celebrates its 20th anniversary I believe it will be stronger, more socialist, and still more firmly rooted among the people.

The Arusha Declaration
Today we are also celebrating 20 years of the Arusha Declaration. It was one of the good things taken over by the CCM from one of its constituent parties!

The Arusha Declaration defines the ideology of the Party. It is our basic statement of purposes and principles; it is the foundation of all Party and Government decisions.

In the course of time every basic document deserves review to see whether it still applies to changed conditions. The American Constitution is over 200 years old and still valid; but it has been amended 26 times. So it is not surprising that some people whisper that the Arusha Declaration needs revision.

Even I agree that it does. One obvious example is the need for a new edition with the word CCM instead of the word TANU – throughout! Apart from things like that, let us look at it again.

The Creed
Part One sets out the Creed ~ the ideology of the Party:
– That all human beings are equal;
– That every individual has a right to dignity and respect;
– That every citizen is an integral part of the nation and has
the right to take an equal part in Government ……. and so on. All the nine principles are of this kind. So who wants to change them? There may be a few individuals who do, but they are certainly not the Peasants and Workers of Tanzania. There is nothing to amend – unless we want to improve,the style and the punctuation!

Policy of Socialism
Part 2 of the Arusha Declaration defines what socialism is. It is important to understand this Part very thoroughly, for all sorts of things get called socialism these days!

This Part 2 has four sections. The first explains exploitation, and says that exploitation of man by man is incompatible with socialism. And it concludes: “Tanzania is a nation of peasants and workers, but it is not yet 11 socialist society. It still contains elements of feudalism and capitalism with their temptations. These feudalistic and capitalistic features of our society could spread and entrench themselves”

That was said 20 years ago, but it is still true. It is not easy to root out the foundations of capitalism and feudalism from any society. And when a country is in serious economic difficulties – as we are – the capitalists use the problem as a means of trying to get it to abandon its socialist ambition. They try to persuade the people as a whole, and the chicken-hearted socialists, to abandon the path which has brought them to where they are now. They tell them that if they would use a different and non-socialist path they would be more prosperous, and they would not experience any difficulties. Converting our people away from socialism is the objective of the capitalists and exploiters all over the world, as well as of their followers in Tanzania. Yet I do not believe the capitalists will succeed.

Secondly, the Arusha Declaration says that to root out exploitation the major means of production and exchange must be “controlled and owned by the peasants through the machinery of their Government and their cooperatives”.

But the Declaration does not go into detail about what should be owned by the nation, what by local authorities, what by cooperatives. Nor does the Declaration say what sections can be controlled by means other than public ownership. It says land must be publicly owned; but it does not say “the 100 acre shamba owned by one person must be nationalised; the 99 acre shamba owned by a different person must not be nationalised”. It leaves the Government, under the general guidance of the Party. and in the light of circumstances at any one time, to do what is necessary to implement the principle of public ownership and control.

So when a new problem comes up, we again discuss and decide what should be publicly owned, and what economic activities of the nation can be controlled by other means – whether by licencing, by taxation or something else.

Tanzania has already completed the task of taking the major means of production and exchange into public ownership. This is a vitally important achievement in any country, especially in a Third World country, which is trying to build socialism.

We criticise the efficiency of some of the Parastatals which run these enterprises on our behalf. And we reorganise them from time to time – sometimes even allowing some minor units to go back to private ownership. But we do not revise the principles of public ownership and control. There are those who would like us to do so but they are not socialists. Public ownership and control is an essential element in socialism.

The third section of this part of the Arusha Declaration emphasises that “true socialism cannot exist without democracy also existing in the society”. How can that be denied? Socialism is based on the principle of human equality and dignity. Every person must be able to take part in their government.

It is true that real progress towards socialism is difficult if the capitalists succeed in using democracy to confuse the mass of the people about the meanings and implications of socialism. They then vote for non-socialists. But you certainly cannot build socialism, or maintain it, unless it is understood, and rests on the will of the people and the support of the people. You cannot force people to be free or to be socialists!

The final section of this part of the Arusha Declaration says that socialism is more than organisations or slogans. It is an ideology and a belief – an attitude of mind. “A socialist society can only be built by those who believe in, and who themselves practice, the principles of socialism”.

Our experience shows the need for socialist commitment by leaders which includes all Party members. Our socialist progress has been hindered by some dishonest, selfish, Party leaders and members who support socialism with their mouths but not with their actions. Such people bring discredit on the CCM and on the doctrine of socialism.

Self-Reliance
Part 3 of the Arusha Declaration deals with Self-Reliance. It starts by saying “TANU is involved in a war against poverty and oppression in our country; this struggle is aimed at moving the people of Tanzania from a state of poverty to a state of prosperity.” You don’t need me to tell you we have not won that war! After a very good start we have experienced many setbacks.

The next section is headed “A poor man does not use money as a weapon.” We said that in 1967 because very many people were constantly demanding that the Government give them money in order to bring development. But today we still talk in the same way. We still seem to think that the money is there and the trouble is the Minister of Finance.

We still talk as if without money there can be no development of any kind. Ask why the office is dirty – “no money.” Why the streets are full of rubbish “no money”. Usually these days there is the additional excuse – “there is no foreign exchange”. Or “Hali ya hewa ni mbaya” (conditions are bad).

Yet we know that the amount of money a country has is a sign of how developed it is. America is a developed country; its national income is equivalent to 15,390 U.S. Dollars for every citizen. Tanzania is not developed. Our national income is equivalent to 210 U.S. Dollars for every citizen. Thus it is obvious that it would be very stupid indeed for us in Tanzania to try to imitate these wealthy people either in our everyday lives or in our plans for economic development.

But we can still develop ourselves on the basis of self-reliance. Our development strategy has to be based on what we can do for ourselves.

That is what the Arusha Declaration said 20 years ago. And now we know it to be true – from experience.

Of course there are some things you cannot do without money. So we are grateful for the aid we have received from friendly countries and people … But the aid is given to help our own efforts, not to put us to sleep …. Now however, some people don’t think of doing anything for themselves. A village school is needed – we ask for aid; a maize mill – we ask for aid. And if we ask why these things have not been built they say we have not yet got a donor!

That approach was always contrary to the Arusha Declaration. Now it is absurd also.

Often now Government is told “we will lend you money if you abandon your socialist policies”. That is what the Arusha Declaration said would happen. It is obvious that if we depend on money for our development when we don’t have any money, we shall become slaves of those who do have it, The proverb says: the rich govern the poor, and he who borrows is the slave of he who lends, The Arusha Declaration says~ to govern yourself is to be self-reliant. All the governments of Tanzania have refused to agree to pal i Hcal conditions for aid or loans. That is true of President Mwinyi’s Government as it was for mine.

But it is obvious that we have to remain vigilant. The IMF is not a friend of Tanzania. It is an institution used by the imperialist countries which govern it to control the economy of a poor country and destabilise the governments of countries they do not like. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. So let us be vigilant! If you agree to give them a goat they will demand a camel.

(Mwalimu Nyerere went on to emphasise the vital importance of agriculture in Tanzania’s economy and the need to concentrate effort on the peasant farmer rather than on large scale farming. He spoke briefly about Party membership – again the Arusha Declaration did not need changing – and then spoke at some length on the Leadership Code. He had no objection to leaders making a little extra money in their spare time but said that the Code must be maintained in its essentials. “If some leaders break the Code what should we do? Abandon the Code? Religious leaders try to reform those of their followers who sin. If reform does not take place, the sinners are expelled from the Mosque or Church. CCM is not a religious Party but we have the ideology and rules of socialists. When we enter the Party all of us promise to adopt this ideology and follow these practices. And if we break that promise the Party has the right to try to get us to reform. If it does not succeed it has the right to expel us”.
We hope to publish further extracts in our next issue – Editor

The Honourable Anne Makinda, Minister of State in the Office of the Prime Minister and First Vice President was clearly delighted to be the first to pass on the news to the Bulletin, during her recent visit to Britain, that President Mwinyi now had five women in his Cabinet. She suggested that in publishing the news of the Government reshuffle, which took place on March 23rd 1987, we should make quite clear in our heading that Tanzanian women had taken a further big step forward.

The changes were brought about as the result of the failure of the Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Basil Mramba) to win his disputed election case.

Amongst the principal changes were the following. Firstly, a new Ministry has been created to be responsible solely for Water. The Minister is Mr Pius Ngw’andu. Mr Paul Bomani, Minister of Agriculture and Livestock Development became Minister of Labour and Manpower Development. The former Minister of Labour, Mr Daudi Mwakawago became Minister of Trade and Industries. The Minister of Education, Mr Jackson Makweta became Minister of Agriculture and Livestock Development and his post was taken by Professor Kighoma Ali Malima. Mrs Gertrude Mongela took over the additional responsibility for Lands to add to her existing portfolio in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.

A further change was a lightening of the load on the President’s Office. Ne now remains with only one Minister of State – Mrs Anna Abdalla. The Minister of Finance, Economic Affairs and Planning now has two Ministers of State – Messrs Damas Mbogoro and Simai Pandu Mohamedi. Similarly, the Minister of Communications and Works now has a second Deputy Minister (J. J. Gachocha). Mrs Amina Salum Ali took over a new post in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for International Cooperation. Mrs Fatma Said Ali remains Minister for Community Development, Culture, Youth and Sports.

Extracts from a paper presented to the Conference on “Tanzania after Nyerere” held at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University. A full version with a list of references will be included in a book on the Conference to be published by Francis Pinter – later this year – Editor

One of the greatest achievements of Tanzania under the leadership of Julius Nyerere has been the political stability which the country has enjoyed, setting Tanzania’s political development apart from the ugly experience of many Third World countries. Academics at Dar e s Salaam University have also enjoyed an unprecedented autonomy and freedom to experiment and discuss critical national issues with confidence, an atmosphere that President Nyerere has helped’ to provide. The President’s own clarity of thought and commitment to the liberation struggles in Southern Africa have given us inspiration and added a new dimension to our understanding of international relations, Indeed Nyerere towered high above the parochialism and mediocrity of his many contemporaries, striving to rise above tribalism, racialism, class interests and sometimes, even above national interests, in a herculean effort to create a better world.

But the President was also a dictator and a ruthless implementer of the policy of Villagisation (1975) which forcefully moved 11 million peasants from their homes to strange surroundings. The President did hot hesitate to imprison people with out trial, if they were viewed as a threat to the state, notwithstanding his humanitarian ideals and values. The surprising and interesting fact about the President is that he chose to function within the boundaries of the law. Thus what makes President Nyerere interesting is the manner in which he utilised the state machinery.

The paper below examines the different roles the President played in policy-making and attempts to generalise their effects on the state machinery. The President’s greatest success was the maintenance of political stability and unity; his failure was his inability to create and consolidate a system to safeguard his achievements. This failure cannot be isolated from the way in which he utilised the state machinery.

The Tripartite System of Policy-Raking

Tanzania has had a tripartite system of policy-making which allows the Party, the Government and the President to formulate policy on different bases. This arrangement was made more complex and difficult because the state lacked a consensus. The Party and Government sponsored different and competing ideologies of development, which were often reflected in conflicting policies within this relationship, the President’s role and relationship with the two organs was extremely important as he could change the equation balance. Between 1962 and 1967 the President was closer to the Government, and supported Government capitalist policies. From 1969 to 1974, the President became closer ideologically to the Party; this affinity was reflected in his support for the Party policies such as Mwongozo (1971), re-location of the capital from Dar es Salaam to Dodoma (1973), and the Musoma Declaration (1974). Likewise this period was characterised by his withdrawal of support from policies which were favoured by the Government.

After 1974, with the first economic crisis, the President attempted to establish an equilibrium, by balancing conflicting objectives. This was seen especially in his vacillation from one position to another. The concept of a tripartite system of policy-making reveals a complex and intricate scenario of institutional manoeuvrings, changes of alliances, of issues and of policies. For example, two organs of the state would cone together to push through a policy which did not have the support of the third organ. A case in point, according to Green, was the Villagisation policy which was supported by both the President and the Party but not by the Government. At other times, one organ of the state would pass a policy unilaterally. The policy of Operation Maduka (1976) was passed by Prime Minister Kawawa unilaterally and reversed by the President, also unilaterally. On other occasions the state would come together in an attempt to co-ordinate policy-making; this usually happened when it was confronted with a crisis. Within this complex web of institutional interactions, the President’s role and support became critically important for he could determine the policy.

The President played different roles in policy making. For instance, as there was no institutional co-ordination between the Party and the Government, the President became the only co-ordinating mechanism; he was required to modify policy in order to balance conflicting demands and objectives. In addition, the Republican Constitution of 1962 had given him, according to his own words, “enough powers to make me a dictator”, and enabled him to by-pass both the Party and the Government and pass policy unilaterally. Sometimes, however, the President could be very democratic and take a policy issue to the Government and sometimes to the Party for ratification. By utilising the tripartite arrangement to suppress, sponsor, pass, support or change policy, the President was placed in a strategic position within the state to direct and control policies.

The President as a co-ordinating Mechanism

The problem of separation of policy-making from implementation was compounded by the absence of an institutional mechanism for coordination or consultation. It was difficult to co-ordinate discussion of the objective of policy with the problems of implementation. A policy which brought the Party and Government into a headlong clash was the policy on private capital, The Party opposed private capital because it created greater social inequalities; the Government supported it because of its contribution to economic growth. As head of both the Government and the Party, the President was in a strong position but he was subjected to contradictory pressures and demands, which were reflected in frequent changes of policy. Sometimes the Government would appeal to the President to modify a policy after it had been passed by the Party. A case in point was the Arusha Declaration. The nationalisation of foreign capital, together with the antagonism shown against private capital generally, led to a situation where private local capital stopped investment and threatened to bring the economy, trade, commerce etc. to a halt.

The Government appealed to the President and a month later in February, another document was issued, entitled, “Public Ownership in Tanzania”, which “welcomed private investment in all those areas not reserved for Government in the Arusha policies”. The new policy modified considerably the model of socialist development which was embodied in the Arusha Declaration.

What is significant is that President Nyerere changed his theoretical and political position, and his alliance. In his Opening Speech at Arusha in January, 1967 the President had stressed the problems of exploitation, a position which had brought him closer to the Party’s. A month later, the President accepted the policy of Public Ownership and was closer to the Government’s position, which he strongly supported at the Party Special Meeting held in Mwanza in September 1967.

However the President could also change a policy as a result of intervention from Party activists. For instance, the Party has had an immense impact on policies concerning international trade. As far back as 1962 Party activists, both in Parliament and in the Party forums, have consistently demanded the replacement of internal trade, which was controlled by Asian capital, by the co-operatives and state institutions. Until 1967, the President resisted the demand to nationalise local capital, especially internal trade.

In 1967, however, foreign capital was nationalised as the result of the Arusha Declaration. The import-export firms were subsequently affected. Three years later in 1970 the wholesale trade was nationalised. Indeed, one can argue that by 1969 the President changed his support for Government’s capitalist policies and moved to the Party’s more radical position of socialist development. With the nationalisation of local capital, the President accepted the principle of rapid nationalisation: once again, the President altered his theoretical and political positions and alliances.

The Presidency as an Independent Policy-Making Organ

But the President did not always respond to Party and Government pressures and demands. Sometimes, the President would act unilaterally, that is, without consulting either the Government or the Party. As we have seen the Republican Constitution had given him the powers to do so. Examples are difficult to come by, but research has indicated that the President was capable of acting as a dictator when he was confronted by a crisis and/or when he believed very strongly in a specific position.

A well documented case is the breaking off of diplomatic relations with Britain and West Germany in the 1964/1965 foreign policy crisis. According to Pratt the President took this decision without consultation with the Cabinet even though it affected the funding of the development plan. The decision to resign as Prime Minister in 1962 was also taken unilaterally by the President. According to Msekwa, the decision was “unexpected and unknown to the National Executive Committee of the Party”. Leys saw the resignation of Nyerere as Chief Minister as an attempt to avert a split between the Party and the Government.

The Arusha Declaration was also in response to crises. The Government was not consulted (Pratt) and Party members received no advanced notice (Mwansasu). In line with the crisis theory, Tanzania also experienced a number of mini-crises: the 1964 army mutiny, the emergence of wa-Benzi (Pratt) signifying the growth of gross inequalities among the social classes, the student crisis (Coulson), the coups taking place in Vest Africa and the Salaazar, Smith, and Verwoerd threat to the region and to Tanzania. President Nyerere used the Arusha Declaration as a shock treatment to pre-empt what he believed was a crisis looming over Tanzania. In this instance he came to believe that a different development strategy would help Tanzania avert political instability.

President Nyerere was also prepared to act unilaterally when and if he believed that his position on an issue was morally correct. His support for the Biafran case was an example, but the President was very careful after the Biafran experience not to repeat a similar case in foreign policy. However, the domestic scene was his own backyard, and here the President would often go against the advice of his Cabinet. After the Arusha Declaration the President discouraged private commercial farming because he believed that it was capitalist and exploitative, although the Cabinet had hoped to maintain it because of its contribution to the GDP. As a result, the Government had to rely very heavily upon the progressive farmers for export and food production. In 1967 the President supported this category of farmers but in 1969 he withdrew his support when he passed his Presidential Circular on Ujamaa 1969, which called for a frontal approach to the implementation of Ujamaa villages. Again, this policy was taken against the advice of senior Government officials(Pratt) . The villagisation policy was also taken against the advice of the Government (Green). Ve can therefore see that President Nyerere’s moral beliefs played a very important role in policy-making………

The President as a Democrat

In Tanzania both Parliament and the Party can ratify or pass policy. For instance, the President took the Union issue (between Zanzibar and Tanganyika) in 1964 to the Government; in presenting the Union agreement in Parliament he re-emphasised the absolute supremacy of the National Assembly (Msekwa), Nyerere himself dealt with the Union. According to Tordoff, “it seems unlikely that more than a handful of Ministers were consulted in advance over the Union” The policy of Decentralisation (1972) was initiated by the President and sent to the Government for ratification and implementation.

The President also took major policy decisions to the Party Both the Arusha Declaration (1367) and the policy of Villagisation (1975) were taken to the Party. Commenting on the latter, Msekwa states that: “The NEC discussed and accepted the President’s submission, and directed that it should he implemented throughout the country”. As Head of both Party and Government, the President could take a policy issue to either organ for discussion and ratification This situation gave him a great deal of room to manoeuvre because he would take a ‘policy issue to the organ which was more sympathetic to the policy or where he thought it would stand the greatest chance of being accepted without major modifications, challenges or the risk of being miss-handled. Democracy was facilitated by the flexibility of these structures.

Sometimes the President encouraged discussion between the tripartite organs – the Government, the Party and the President. This happened when the state was confronted with a crisis. The policy on private capital from 1976 onwards is a case in point. Various discussions within the state have been held at various times to discuss the pros and cons of private capital. Another example is the recent IMF package, the discussions of which occupied the state for almost 10 years. Over this period Nyerere’s position changed considerably, He had vehemently opposed the IMF package in 1978 which led to the resignation of his Minister of Finance, Htei. In 1986 as the Party Chairman, Nyerere was responsible for almost constraining members of the NEC to accept the IMF package. Once again, Nyerere changed his position and alliances.

The Presidency: A State within the State

We can see that the President was placed in an important and strategic position within the state, which enabled him to control policy in a very important way. The different constitutional traditions, parliamentary democracy, republican rule, supremacy of the Party, which Tanzania enjoyed, together with Institutional arrangements for policy-making which existed, virtually made the presidency a state within the state.

The Presidency became both a stabiliser and a source of policy in stability. Like the rock upon which Peter built his Church, the nation would look towards President Nyerere for guidance. Even the warring Party and Government would accept the President’s arbitration and acquiesce. With his charisma, national and international status, and his intellectualism, President Nyerere was able to drape a cloak over the dissensions and weaknesses within the state and maintain stability and unity in the country – two major contributions of the President. But the Presidency was also a source of policy-instability which was reflected in the extreme policy changes which the country has experienced. Such fundamental policy changes implied changes of positions and alliances. It created uncertainties within the state and in the larger society and destabilised the economy.

President Nyerere failed to build and consolidate a system. The conflict between the Party and the Government (1962-1982) and the dissentions between the President and his Government (1969-1982) indicated that the state lacked a consensus over serious policy matters. Indeed some of the policies passed during the Party-Presidency alliance weakened the role of the Cabinet and Government generally, which in turn inhibited the development of a strong and independent administration, a pre-requisite for building and consolidating a system.

This situation was made worse by the deteriorating economic performance, leading to an acute economic crisis which manifested itself in a shortage of consumer goods and rising inflation. Patronage, a network of clients and the ethos of the “economy of affection” gradually eroded the few professional norms and standards which had prevailed in the modern sector (Hyden).

Conclusion

The centrality of the Presidency within the state structure and the practice of switching fundamental positions and alliances did not encourage the development of consensus and of an effective administration. In addition, the docility of the public in general, the dependency of officials (Government and Party), professionals and businessmen on the state has inhibited the development of a social class which could have acted as a restraining influence on some of the measures, practices and policies which have been taken by the state. The manner in which state resources have been managed and the disregard of law and regulations which is taking place – are all an indication that there is a Government without governance, and a state without a system.

The challenge confronting Mwinyi’s government is to build a system. There is a need to strengthen the administration and make it a powerful tool to manage and supervise socio-economic activities. Corrupt and incompetent officials need to be weeded out and a new class of professionals encouraged to staff the administration. The public should also be encouraged to sue incompetent state institutions and to report malpractices.

The new constitution (1984) radically alters the arrangements for policy-making. The President is no longer the Head of both the Government and the Party, and the new President lacks the flexibility which the former President had enjoyed. The separation of the two systems – Party and Government, and their parallel administrations – can make co-ordination and co-operation difficult to achieve especially in case of conflict, which could reverberate from nation alto village levels. The position of Prime Minister has also become a powerful one within the state, The axis of power relation within the state still configurates within the tri partite relations of the President, the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Party. Thus the concept of a tripartite form of policy-making has changed its form under the new conditions but without having lost its validity.

A post-Nyerere Tanzania will need to pay greater attention to building and consolidating a system which would strengthen the state and prevent its disintegration – a phenomenon which is already taking place in some parts of Africa

Jeannetta Hartmann – University of Dar es Salaam