CCM is equally disturbing. It’s central ideology, Ujamaa and Kujitegemea, consists of two mutually exclusive elements. To me, a philosophy or an ideology to make sense, must be digestible to the individual’s level. Ujamaa is essentially a form of socialism. Kujitegemea is a self determination / independence akin to classical libertarianism. The two, like oil and water, do not mix, they will always remain separate. Ujamaa and is rooted in cooperatives unions and Ujamaa village shambas. Kujitegemea, just as Christianity or Islam cannot be practised at the collective level if it cannot be practiced at the individual level. You cannot say I am a Christian or a Muslim only when I am with others, individually I am not. This will be propesterous.
Quoting “Mwelekeo wa Sera za CCM Katika Miaka ya Tisini, 1992 pp 4-5” which was also quoted in “Sera za Uchumi za Chama Cha Mapinduzi”
… CCM will continue to it’s unity and solidarity building policy among Tanzanians…The aim of Ujamaa and Kujitegemea in the nineties will be to ensure that the people themselves do own and operate the economy of our country…
Is Ujamaa even compatible with kujitegemea at the unit level? Is CCM really still practicing “Ujamaa and Kujitegemea” or is this the big elephant in the room nobody mentions, a farce of gigantic proportions we simply choose to ignore? Where is this in spirit ? Where is SUKITA? Where are the cooperative unions today? Where is the progress under the CCM leadership?
Due diligence in matters big and small, a long celebrated and proven virtue, is fully dismissed and ignored to a level that is questioning the validity and effectiveness of our existing charade of institutions. While I understand that being excessively pedantic, especially if unfocused, may prove just as bad as being systemically non-formal – I have been accused of pedagogy on matters ranging from the correctness of the grammar of the Tanzanian constitution, the University of Dar-es-salaams website despicable globish (even to us mere globish speakers) to the written communication skills of Dr. Wilbroad Slaa. I get it, the cost of due diligence must be justified by the end result, we don’t want to institute a due diligence that will consume more resources and in the end suffocate our system. The Americans, with their lawsuit society, are envying the Chinese because the latter can institute changes quicker with no unjustified concerns for the environment or ethics in geopolitics. An American doctor, or for that matter any American, can more easily let another die without providing any help just because one is afraid of a lawsuit. This is not what I have in mind. Although this has helped a lot in matters of making most people responsible, it is developing into “the remedy that killed the patient” type of solution. We should institute a formalism, lawsuit society if you will, that is balanced by the human element and a sober reasoning.
Where are our consumer protection organizations and watchdogs? Why don’t we have more Haki-Elimus to not only follow up on policy matters, but also set the pace? Are Tanzania’s consumers that satisfied? The lack of due diligence builds a culture of complacency, in this culture gives you a populace that, even when it knows the problems (a prime example being leadership) and what can be done to change that situation, after much analysis fatalism kicks in. This is why a candidate can give the same election promise with no realization for three consecutive elections (while the lack of an alternative figures a lot in this, the people could still register their dissatisfaction with a greater chagrin to these magistrates of power). If you don’t have reasonable due diligence, you simply do not get the clogs in the engine, an eventual doom is inescapable. A lot has been said about this in sociological departments and symposiums, some strongly relate our lack of a well coordinated reward system – even pricing system – with this nonchalance and lack of due diligence as an expected reaction. Although we do maintain a number of exemplary individuals among us, I have peripherally known the lives of a few, they seem to be the last of a dying breed, an endangered species.
Indeed how can we blame compensation when it’s level has risen without a corresponding – even minutely – rise of diligence? In fact it can be argued that things are getting worse. Ministers contradict each other without the need of further explanation as if “collective responsibility” is a debunked Victorian-era old wives tale, and occasionally even the president is contradicted (Masha on Bashe). At lower levels of the societal chain things are breaking up at an alarming rate. Even larger than the issue of lack of diligence, is the lack of outrage. Even people who should know do not raise these issues, or if they do, the raising is not passionate enough to override characterization that it is done as a necessary and expected chore. But then again, taking the example of the press, its agency is not as free as we would be duped to believe. The government simply reflects the philosophical question, if you restrict one to move out of an area he cannot cover in movement, is he really restricted? Some quarters restated this same question with a point of view sympathetic to the president on whether he should participate in a public debate. Thomas Jefferson argued convincingly – if a bit patronizing – that without education there is no democracy, for the exercise of one’s democracy must be accompanied with an informed decision system.
But what about a largely uninformed populace in an electocracy like ours? Should the qualifications of democracy care about the state of the decision system? Or just that the people’s confidence is respected regardless of the reason? Indeed, does our colloquialism stem from our lack of real freedom of expression, core democratic principles and education or are these shortcomings the results of our colloquialism? Some brand this an elusive vicious cycle. Is insistence on a certain type of democracy just as patronizing as the Jeffersonian view that without education there is no democracy? Should we care whether Jefferson was patronizing, so long as he was right? These are hard questions, but I don’t see a great deal of debate, not from home. I see online (e.g, JamiiForums) some people distinguishing modernization/ development on one hand with westernization on the other. I must say this can get rather unoriginal because although this may serve as an example, the very mention confirms that the distinction may still be theoretical because the debate is largely fueled by western ivory towers. The average Tanzanian may care less about whether modernization is westernization or not, but can we take a jump in this Maslowian hierarchy and look at issues without the tint of fighting for survival? Is it necessary to take all these bribes or is it just greed? Are some of us being the parasite that is not blessed with the faculties to recognize that, if it’s consumption is not symbiotic, the host will die and chances are, the parasite will die too. Where is the responsibility for anything long term?
How does a society cultivate deep rooted positive changes? If I want to be objective, I have to at least acknowledge that this is not a simple question with a ready made answer. But the fact that we can’t flip a switch and remove the ghoulish darkness of complacency, colloquialism and a paralysis of our institutions and shine the light of excellence instead we must embrace an efficient, policy oriented system that will be rooted in not only respect for established research but also self education, meritocracy, a disregard to fatalism. To be sure I do not claim to know the answer, for the answer is a dynamic process that requires an execution and not mere theorizing. But I can rest assured that once we adopt a more studious approach, an attention to detail currently deemed luxurious and a system that recognizes and reward excellence amply, we will be on the right track, perhaps needing calibration and brainstorming as we will always need, but at least we wont be moving in the wrong direction.
Related links:
On colloquialism, the genesis of an incoherent non-policy politics (I)
