Zebras with spots and leopards with stripes

The other day, along with my young family,  I had the privilege of visiting not only the Manyara and Serengeti National Parks but also the Ngorongoro Crater.  And as the prevailing slogan that is plastered at the Naabi Hill gate entrance office says, “Serengeti shall never die”, and of course neither will Manyara, Ngorongoro and the other thirteen national parks managed by the Tanzania National Parks.  This made me wonder if Tanzania shall never die as well and seeing that this coming December 9th our country will celebrate its 50th birthday I started thinking about the State of the Union (to borrow from American political speak and considering that we too are a union), in particular, the future of our politics.

Our politics have become increasingly divisive.  The emergence of CHADEMA as the major opposition party to the ruling CCM has created rifts in Tanzania’s political scene unseen since the re-introduction of multi party politics in the early 1990’s.  Tanzanians, as they always do, debate political policies of both the government and its alternative, which includes most recently CHADEMA.  In last year’s general election, the people spoke with their votes by giving the opposition relatively more parliamentary seats and a stronger showing in the popular vote.  CHADEMA also made huge gains in the Lake zone where CCM incumbent candidates simply failed to listen to the people.  CHADEMA though should refrain from bringing out the champagne bottle just yet because CCM is knocked down, but not yet out for the count.  In fact, as a percentage increase CHADEMA’s parliamentary gains are actually quite modest and CCM still wields a commanding majority in parliament.

Additionally, CCM’s relatively poor showing in last year’s election is due to both CCM’s fielding weak candidates who lost touch with their constituents and CHADEMA’s prowess in fielding strong candidates who danced to the beat of the people.  The election results, however, were not a reflection of any fundamental switch by the electorate away from CCM and towards CHADEMA.  A closer look at the CCM candidates that lost their seats shows that some of them were weak candidates and all of them completely failed to listen to the wants of the people.  Now, this is not to say that CHADEMA did not field strong candidates or that these gains were not legitimate political victories — no.  CHADEMA is certainly  a party to reckon with and is eventually poised to win the presidency and gain a majority in parliamentary (not necessarily in that order).  I am simply not convinced that this will necessarily happen any time soon.

Having said all this, let us take a closer look at the two parties, on paper.

CHADEMA, in its constitution focuses primarily in the Nguvu na Mamlaka ya Umma or the People’s Power.  The document continues on to talk about issues that include, but not limited to, the need for the defence of the right to human life, right to practice any religion and the strengthening of our democracy, particularly by combating corruption.  These are all excellent values and goals.  On the other hand, CCM (in its constitution) also emphasizes the right to human life, right to practice any religion and strengthening of our democracy, once again by focusing on the war against corruption.  So, in terms of intentions, the score is 1-1.  The tie-break comes when implementing these ideas and policies.  Although both parties seek, more or less,  the same destination they differ on the route to take.

CCM has been implicated in one-too-many corruption cases to be on the moral high horse.  The seemingly inability of CCM to police itself is disheartening to the people and disingenuous to its members.  In fact, CCM officials who commit corruption are not only violating the laws and ethics of the government but also CCM’s codes of ethics.  The score is thus 1-2 to CHADEMA.

In general, both parties believe in the free market as an engine for growth, however, CHADEMA particularly emphasizes (in its constitution) their belief in soko huru (free market) and not soko holela (unregulated market).  CHADEMA, not only (correctly so) advocates for reigning in the market when the market fails, but also for maeneo nyeti ya kiuchumi (sensitive or important areas of the economy).  Now, I agree on the former, but disagree on the latter.  This vague statement on sensitive areas of the economy leaves great ambiguity that can be exploited to the detriment of the economy, and thus the people.  Is education more nyeti than health?  This is not so clear-cut.  In general, I am opposed to government intervening in the economy, as our bitterly swallowed history of centrally controlled economy has taught us and so am cautious about agreeing with CHADEMA on this issue.

CHADEMA’s intentions, like CCM’s, are good ones, but the route they choose not necessarily so.  Providing free healthcare and education to the masses.  Good.  Increasing taxes on an already heavily tax burdened public. Bad.  In economic terms, many seemingly good intentioned policies turn out to be bad for the people.  For instance, imposing import duties on so many products in the name of protecting domestic industry only stifles competition, dwarfs innovation, and increases the cost of living for ordinary Tanzanians.  Far from popular belief, for example, the Tanzanian middle class is growing as is evident by (and not limited to) the increasing demand for imported cars, building of more “international schools” and the increasing growth of jobs in the formal sector (which outpaced jobs added to the informal sector).  And because middle class Tanzanians are buying more foreign products taxing this growing (and essential) income group is bad for the economy.

Although many of CHADEMA’s populist policies sound great for Tanzania, most are not.  I agree that Tanzania should negotiate a larger stake in revenues from its minerals, but disagree that this will significantly alter Tanzania’s economic situation, keeping in mind that even if we were to get say 50% of these revenues it would still not be the dominant sector of the economy (mining currently occupies only 2.3% of the economy).

I agree that every one should get access to education and health care, but disagree that this can (please note the emphasis on can) feasibly be done for free.  Yes, funds can be increased by increasing our stake in the mineral sector (though negligible) and reducing (hopefully completely eradicating) the practice of mismanaging public finance.  But if the funds will come from an increase in taxes, particular on income (both corporate and individual) then no.  For education in particular, simple economic demand theory would suggest that this would significantly increase the amount of people seeking to get an education.  This would create even more burden on the limited supply of classrooms and teachers.  And building more warrants more public income and thus more taxes?  In the end, these additional students, along with the already existing ones, would get sub standard education and average quality of education would drop to the detriment of Tanzanian society. The same argument would apply for healthcare.

Now, my idealogical perspective is not held hostage to either being liberal or conservative.  To borrow from Chris Rock, in certain issues like religion, the death penalty, contraceptives, freedom of speech, I am a liberal; however, in things like taxes, terrorism, I am conservative.  Taxes are already far too high and people will always (and do) try to evade taxes — by misreporting their incomes (hard to do if you are in formal employment but a breeze if your informally or self employed), use double accounting in the receipts they report to the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA), and so on.  These problems will increase the monitoring costs of the TRA in trying to enforce (or encourage, for good humour) tax compliance.  Understandably, of course, the government needs revenue for public works and taxes is a primary source of revenue, for all governments, but we need to devise better taxing schemes that increase revenues without stifling productivity.  I am not sure, CHADEMA, with its agenda for free education and healthcare will sit down to devise such a scheme.

Good intentions do not necessarily translate to good results.  I offer the following example: forcing dala dalas (public transport buses) to adhere to a price ceiling for student fares is a highly admirable thing to do.  Tanzania encourages education and thus students should pay less.  Result: kondaktas (bus conductors) aggressively prevent students from boarding their buses, leaving many students stranded for hours.  Reason: the kondakta does the arithmetic (correctly so) that one adult is worth at least two students and since space on the bus is finite, it is optimal to get as many adults as possible rather than students.  Why don’t the students who can afford the adult fares just simply pay adult fares, you might ask, as this will surely reduce the overall amount of students stranded and thus freeing up some space in subsequent trips for the less fortunate students, thus reducing average waiting times for poorer students.

The problem is, of course, that even those who can afford to pay adult fares usually never get a chance to.  Having adorned a uniform, which marks her as a student, the kondakta may never allow the student to even voice this desire to pay the adult fare.  Additionally, and most importantly, the kondakta will still be skeptical to the student’s professing to pay the adult fare, because once inside (presumably comfortably on a seat) the student has every right, under the law, to renege on the initial agreement and simply pay the student fare.

Now imagine that this law did not exist and that the market chose the fare for students and adults alike(the current state is still sub optimal because there exists a ceiling on adult fares as well, and the economic argument against this ceiling still applies as well).  For one, you would see less students stranded at bus stations.  Secondly, and most importantly, because students would pay the same fare as adults dala dala owners would seek to increase their fleets, thus increasing the overall buses available to the public.  This would reduce once again, the average waiting time for students.  At this point,  the score is thus 2-2.

To reiterate, good intentions do not necessarily provide for good results.

Now, conclusively, I am neither CCM (because I disagree with CCM’s inability to police itself) nor CHADEMA (because I disagree with the government providing free education & healthcare), per se.  I agree with both parties in their integral beliefs but differ on their policies (as do they, am sure).  In general, I am with CCM when it comes to economic policies, particularly if it entails less regulation and more decentralization of tax collection, expenditure and other government functions to the local municipalities.  I agree with CHADEMA, primarily on legal issues that include the strengthening of political and legal institutions in combating corruption and on some aspects of the constitutional review.  But if it were a matter of life or death and I had to choose one or the other, I would lean towards CCM (a shocker, right?)

So let me end from where I began.  CHADEMA and CCM are simply not zebras and leopards, respectively.  They are zebras with spots and leopards with stripes, respectively.  For me, as I hope to convince the reader (and indeed all Tanzanians), I do not see CHADEMA’s policies as simply zebra-like and CCM’s policies as simply leopard-like, because they share many commonalities, and are too me hybrids of many different ideas.  Although I do not know the final score in this CHADEMA-CCM battle, I hope that this discussion will ignite further conversation about the political future of our country and decide wisely, on a case-by-case, whom we want to lead our country.  Finally, let us not simply put ourselves in clear-cut categories, because politics, as in life, is full of zebras with spots and leopards with stripes.