CHAPTER SEVEN

CONTRIBUTION OF NYERERE’S UJAMAA TO DEVELOPMENT IN TANZANIA

By Evaristi Magoti Cornelli

7. Introduction

Having described in the last chapter the validity of Nyerere’s ujamaa, we will now in this chapter

examine the contribution which Nyerere’s ujamaa made to the development of Tanzania. In

order to identify accurately the contributions of Nyerere’s ujamaa to the development of

Tanzania it will be helpful to carry out the following tasks: the first task will be to examine rather

briefly the state of development in Tanzania before the rise of Nyerere’s ujamaa. This is

important because it makes it easy to identify the contributions which have been brought about

specifically by Nyerere’s ujamaa. The second task will be to describe Nyerere’s view of

development. This is significant because development has been defined differently by different

theoreticians. A clear understanding of what Nyerere meant by development can help to make a

correct assessment of the contribution of Nyerere’s ujamaa to Tanzania. The third major task in

this chapter will be to identify the contributions of Nyerere’s ujamaa. That is important because

it is the main objective of this chapter. In seeking to identify the contributions to development in

Tanzania, Nyerere’s ujamaa will be broken into its main components, namely the policy of

socialism and the policy of self-reliance and each of these major components of Nyerere’s

ujamaa will be dissected into their own respective components in view of determining what each

component contributed to the whole picture of development in the country. In approaching it in

this way, the accurate picture of the contribution of Nyerere’s ujamaa will emerge. The chapter

1

will end with a brief discussion on the success and the failures of Nyerere’s ujamaa, Nyerere’s

ujamaa today and the future of Nyerere’s ujamaa. Let us then continue in the following section

wit the first task of describing the state of development in the country before the rise of

Nyerere’s ujamaa.

7.1. The State of Development Before Nyerere’s Ujamaa.

First then is an account of development before the rise of Nyerere’s ujamaa and its influence on

the contribution of Nyerere’s ujamaa. It has already been pointed out in chapter one of this thesis

that the people of Tanganyika even before coming in contact with people from Europe and Asia

were materially not very rich but, slave trade and colonialism did not make them materially rich

either. If anything the two main historical events left Africans even poorer and completely

dependent on the outside world for survival. In practical terms this means that materially, many

people did not have the basic material needs for life: they did not have food, clothes and decent

shelters. Health services were rare and far between, almost none existence in some parts of the

country. They did not have running water, they did not have modern means of communication,

infrastructures were poor, and most people were illiterate. In addition, society was divided along

racial, religious, sex, and ethnic lines. As it has already been pointed out in the previous chapters,

although they all lived in the same country and society, and were all under the same ruler, within

that society people did not have the same rights. Europeans were more privileged, that is to say,

they had more rights than other citizens such as the Indians who occupied the second class

citizenship but who were more privileged and had more rights than the native Africans whose

rights did not count very much. In sum the pre-ujamaa society was a society which segregated

2

and discriminated people because of their race, religion, sex, and tribe. It was in a nutshell, a

society in which the basic human rights were not respected. Nyerere’s conception of

development arose against this background as Tanzania’s response to a situation of both material

poverty and spiritual poverty. People were materially poor because they did not have the basic

material needs, such clothes, shelters and food and they were spiritually poor because they

lacked modern education as well the basic human rights. In the following section we shall see

how these objective conditions determined Nyerere’s conception of development and the

development strategies to bring about the kind of development he had in mind

7.2. Nyerere’s View of Development

Having described in the last section the state of development before the rise of Nyerere’s ujamaa,

we will now in this section examine Nyerere’s vision of development and its influence on the

contribution of Nyerere’s ujamaa to development in Tanzania. In order to come to a better

understanding of Nyerere’s vision of development, let us take time in the following section to

first describe Nyerere understanding of the term development. Nyerere’s conception of

development is important because it contains within itself clear objectives and goals which, in

turn determined the means and the approach that constitutes Nyerere’s vision of development.

3

7.2.1. Meaning of Development

Let us then in this section ask how Nyerere described the term development and the implication

of that description on the legacy of Nyerere’s ujamaa in Tanzania and Africa. Development as

Nyerere described it is “the creation of conditions both material and spiritual, which enables man

the individual and man the specie to become his best” (Nyerere, 1974, p. 84).This explanation of

development needs unpacking. According to Nyerere, the material conditions that a human being

in Tanzania needed for his/her well being involves food, shelter, and clothes. The list of material

things that a person needs for his well being is clearly long and depends to a very large extent on

the level of development achieved by a given society.1 In Tanzania, however, Nyerere kept on

insisting that before thinking of securing additional needs it was better first to think of securing

basic material goods to keep the people alive, namely, food, decent houses and clothes. If

Tanzania could have reached a stage where its people had sufficient food, decent houses and

clothes to cover themselves, then Nyerere would have been satisfied to say that Tanzania has

developed. In terms of material goods, the availability of food, the existence of decent houses,

and the ability of people to dress well, was a pointer of development. Put differently, for

Nyerere, Tanzanians would have been at their best if they had food to eat, decent houses to live

in and clothes to protect themselves.

Nyerere seemed to be convinced that the spiritual condition which enables the human person to

become his best is freedom. From the perspective of society, freedom is “the ability of citizens of

1 In developed countries, for example, a car or means to travel are no longer a luxury because it has become an object of desire necessary for the well being of individuals.

4

Tanzania to determine their own future and to govern themselves without interference from non-

Tanzanians” (Nyerere, 1974, p. 25). This means that where society is concerned freedom implies

social, political and economic independence, or simply, self-reliance. The ability of people to

govern themselves and thereby determine their own destiny is therefore, in Nyerere’s

consideration, an index of development. In the circumstances where a human person is not free,

because he is under the control of other people, and where a human person cannot determine for

himself his/her own destiny, the human person is not at his best. Positively, it can be said that,

people in society are at their best when they are able to govern themselves and determine their

own future. A nation is therefore developed when it governs itself and when its people are

capable of determining their own future without interference from people in other societies.

The people of Tanzania were, as a consequence of slave trade and colonialism suffering from

hunger, diseases and poverty. These conditions of poverty, disease, and hunger were preventing

people not only to govern themselves and to determine their own future, but they were also

preventing the citizens of Tanzania to be what they ought to have become if they had enough to

eat and if they were not dying younger of diseases that can be prevented. Development,

therefore, did not only consist of independence and the right to self-determination but, it also

consisted of “freedom from hunger, diseases and poverty” (Nyerere, 1974, p. 25). This means

that a human being is at his best when he/she is free from hunger, diseases and poverty. In

Nyerere’s estimation, therefore, a nation can be said to be developed if its people have enough to

eat, if they live longer (that is they do not die of preventable diseases) and if they are not

deprived of material and spiritual needs. Yet, according to Nyerere, having enough to eat, and

living longer depends on the knowledge and the skills to produce wealth (Ibid. p. 26), that is to

5

say, a society whose people do not have knowledge and skills to produce wealth and to cure

diseases cannot truly be said to be developed. A society is developed if its people have the skills

and the knowledge to produce wealth, and to prevent diseases.

From the perspective of an individual, freedom for Nyerere, involves possession of a number of

rights such as the right of an individual to “live in dignity and equality with all others, [the] right

to freedom of speech, freedom to participate in the making of all decisions which affect his life

and freedom from arbitrary arrest” (Nyerere, 1974, p. 25). This means that an individual in

society is at her best when her rights as a human being are protected, promoted and maintained.

According to Nyerere, therefore, a nation is developed if the human rights of its individuals are

protected and maintained and respected. A nation that does not respect the rights of its citizens is

according to Nyerere, not sufficiently developed.

Development, for Nyerere, however, is not a “personal and ‘internal’ matter which can be

divorced from the society and the economy in which the [individual] lives and earns his daily

bread” (Nyerere, 1974, p. 84-85). Underlying this is a belief so central to Nyerere that “man lives

in society” (Nyerere, 1974, p. 85) and as mentioned in chapter two of this thesis, the

development of an individual and that of the society are so tied together that an individual cannot

develop alone in isolation from community just as the society cannot develop without the

individual. The individual depends on the community just as the community depends on the

individual.

6

7.2.2 The Purpose of Development

Having described in the last section, Nyerere understanding of the term development, we will

now in this section examine the purpose of development according to Nyerere and its influence

on the legacy of Nyerere’s ujamaa. Development like any other phenomenon in society has its

objectives and goals. According to Nyerere, “the purpose of development is man” (Ibid. p. 91)

and man is every human being irrespective of color, race, religion, sex, or tribe. So it can be said

that the objective and goal of development, for Nyerere, is the human person or human beings.

The reason for this human centered development is Nyerere’s belief in the equality of all human

beings. The claim can now be expressed thus: the purpose of development is human beings

because all human beings are equal. In Nyerere’s view, therefore, development is not only for a

few people in society but, for all members of the society irrespective of the race, religion, tribe,

sex or tribe. A society in which only a few of its members are developed cannot, in Nyerere’s

estimations, be considered as developed. A developed society is one in which all its members are

free

Human centered development has the following characteristics: the first feature of a human

centered development is that the well being of the human person is the standard measure of

material goods. In Nyerere’s view, material things in themselves have no meaning. They only

acquire their proper meaning when they are used to improve the living conditions of human

beings. Another way of expressing this is to say, that to Nyerere, material things are tools of

development, which is tools used to bring about the well being of a human person. Thus, human

centered is not primarily about the accumulation of material things but, about the well being of 7

individuals in society. This element is confirmed by the following passage from Nyerere’s policy

paper, Man and Development:

For the truth is that development means the development of people. Roads, buildings, the increase of crop output and other things of this nature are not development; they are only tools of development. A new road extends man’s freedom only if he travels upon it. An increase in the number of school buildings is development only if those buildings can be, and are being, used to develop the minds and the understanding of people. An increase in the output of wheat, maize, or beans is only development if it leads to a better nutrition of people…(Nyerere, 1974, p. 26)

The point is that in Nyerere’s scheme of things, material things in themselves are not pointers of

development. They acquire their significance when they are used to improve the human

condition. Material things which, do not aim at improving the living condition of people but, are

just produced without taking into consideration the negative effects which they are likely to have

on individual and society, are in Nyerere’s consideration irrelevant and useless. In Nyerere’s

view, development is development of the people only in so far as the goods produced have no

negative effects on individual and society, that is to say, development is development of people

if material goods are aimed at improving the conditions in which the human person lives.

The second feature of human centered development is that the purpose of production is the well

being of the human person. Production is very important for development but, Nyerere

cautioned that in spite of its importance, the “purpose of production must always be the greater

well -being of man; goods must be produced because they are useful and make life better”

(Nyerere, 1976, p. 9).This means that for Nyerere, “the creation of wealth is a good thing”

(Nyerere, 1968, p.92) only because it serves man’s well being. However, “the production of

wealth ceases to be good the moment wealth ceases to serve man and begins to be served by

8

man” (Nyerere, 1968, p. 93). In Nyerere’s view, a human person begins to serve wealth when

wealth is sought for its own sake and when it is sough “[so as] to dominate somebody else”

(Nyerere, 1968, p. 6). For when a human person begins to seek wealth for its own sake, he has

become not a free man but, a slave of wealth. Thus, the production of wealth is only meaningful

when it is for the greater well being of people. Underlying this, is Nyerere’s belief that there was

no virtue in producing goods for the sake of producing and then creating a market for it in view

of making profit. As he puts it: “there is no virtue in ‘creating a market’ for something which

people have never thought of wanting and really have no need for, but which someone hopes to

make a profit by producing” (Ibid. p. 10). This mistrust of market economy played a very

significant role in Nyerere’s ujamaa approach to production in the country. As it will be shown

later in this chapter, emphasis in production and distribution was placed on basic material goods,

such as clothes, food and building materials. It is therefore, not surprising that Nyerere’s ujamaa

directed most of its efforts, into agricultural production, establishment of textile industries, and

cement factories.

The third characteristic of human centered development is that “the purpose of all social,

economic and political activity must be man – the citizens and all the citizens of this country,”

(Nyerere, 1968, p. 92). Concretely, this means that in a society where the objective of

development is the human person, government policies must be decided on the basis of whether

or not they can bring about improvements in the quality of life that people live. In Nyerere’s

view, social, political and economic policies must enhance the well being of people and not the

other way around. A society, whose policies are not for the well being of its people, can hardly

9

deserve to be called developed. A developed country is one whose policies are aimed at

improving the living conditions of its people.

7.2.3. Principles of Development

Having shown in the last section that development is freedom and having shown that authentic

development for Nyerere, is the development of people and not material things, we will now in

this section, explore Nyerere’s account of how people develop and the impact of that account on

the contribution of Nyerere’s ujamaa to development in Tanzania. In his diagnosis of

development Nyerere’s identified several maxims by which people develop. The first maxim

which underpins Nyerere’s view of development is that “development of the people can only be

effected by the people” (Nyerere, 1974, p. 28). This means that for Nyerere, the agents of

development are the people themselves. He maintained that “people cannot be developed; they

can only develop themselves” (Nyerere, 1874, p. 27). This means that for Nyerere, what

develops people, that is, what makes people proud, what makes people to be self-confident in

themselves, what gives them a sense of fulfillment and achievement as human beings, and what

makes them realize their full potential as human beings, is not what other people do for them but,

what they do by themselves. Putting that somewhat differently, it can be said that, for Nyerere,

what makes a human person realize himself fully as a human being with all the potential to

become what she should become in freedom, is not what other people do for him/her but, what

she does by herself. Underlying this is Nyerere’s belief that a person realizes himself better by

his own acts and not by the acts of others. Thus, for example, a person may have a house made

for him/her by others but, other people cannot give the same person, the confidence, the 10

fulfillment, and the realization that comes from one’s own active participation in the construction

of one’s own home or house. It is in that regard that Nyerere writes:

[a person] develops himself by what he does; he develops himself by making his own decisions, by increasing his understanding of what he is doing, and why; by increasing his own knowledge, and ability and by his own full participation - as an equal – in the life of the community he lives in (Nyerere, 1974, p. 27)

The point is that for Nyerere, a human person is at his at his worst, when his own needs and that

of his family are provided for by somebody else, when he carries out orders from other people

who are well educated than himself, and when he is led to do things of which decision he did not

participate. Put simply, for Nyerere, a person is at his worst when he/she behaves as a slave or is

treated as a slave. By contrast, a person is according to Nyerere, at his best when, for example,

she earns enough to be able to provide better living conditions for herself and for her family;

when she improves her education and when he participates in decisions which concern her.

The second maxim which underpinned Nyerere’s view of development is that the well being of

the people cannot be brought about by force and deceitful promises but, by peaceful means. That

is what he means when he writes: “if the purpose of development is the greater freedom and well

being of the people, it cannot result from force” (Nyerere, 1974, p. 28). Nyerere was of the

opinion that the use of force can only manage to get people to produce material things but cannot

be successful in bringing about development in terms of greater freedom and well being. The

reason is summed up by the proverb “you can drive a donkey to water, but you cannot make it

drink” (Ibid. p. 28). This can be translated to suggest that, people can only be led (up to the well,

so to speak) but, cannot be forced to improve their own living condition. Just as the donkey in

the proverb can only be led to the well, but cannot be forced to drink the water in the well, so too

11

are the people; they can be led to improve their own living condition but, cannot be forced to

improve them if they don’t want.

Nyerere identified several ways by which people can be helped to bring about their own

development: “the first is leadership through education and the second is democracy in decision

making” (Nyerere, 1974, p. 29). Let us examine these two factors in turn beginning first with

leadership through education. In Nyerere’s view, a leadership that helps people bring about their

own development is not the kind that shouts at people, abuses them and orders them around but,

a leadership that discusses issues with people explains arguments and identifies itself with the

people whom it is leading. The correct leadership, Nyerere says:

[Talks and discusses] with people, [explains and persuades]. It [makes] constructive suggestions and [works] with the people to show by actions what it is that it is urging them to do. It means being one of the people, and recognizing its equality with them (Ibid. p. 29)

A persuasive leadership, therefore, is for Nyerere more likely to mobilize people to bring about

their own development than the leadership that forces people to do what the leadership wants.

The second factor that can help people bring about their own development is democracy.

According to Nyerere, “the people must make the decisions about their own future through

democratic procedures” (Ibid. p. 30) and the democratic procedures require several things: first,

the leadership should be part and parcel of the decision making process and not above it or

outside it. Secondly, there must a free debate. The debate leading to a decision must be free

because “it is an essential element of personal freedom” (Ibid. p. 31). Thirdly, a decision must be

taken. Discussion, however, free cannot go on indefinitely; after discussing the issue from all

points of view, then the decision must be reached. Here, the decision of the majority must be

12

allowed to prevail for “just as just as the minority on any question have a right to be heard, so the

majority has the right to be obeyed” (Ibid. p. 31). This means that once a decision has been

made, then it has to be accepted as a decision of all member of the community including that

minority who has lost. They have to collaborate with others in the implementations of the

decision reached. Lastly, discipline must follow decision. Once decision has been taken it is up

to all the members to cooperate in carrying out that decision. For if democracy is to lead to

development of the people, “there must be both freedom and discipline. For freedom without

discipline is anarchy: discipline without freedom is tyranny” (Ibid. p. 34). Discipline usually

allows for an orderly conduct of affairs and if it is not there, that is if everybody does whatever

thinks is best, then anarchy sets in and there can be no development of people in anarchy.

Similarly, if there is too much discipline to the point where people lose their freedom, then

quickly tyranny sets in and there can be no development of people in tyranny.

Nyerere’s conception of development can, therefore, be briefly summarized as follows:

development is a process of creating conditions which enables a human person to be at his best.

A human person is at his best not only when per capita income2 rises but also when he/she is

free. Freedom for Nyerere has a variety of meanings. It means independence, self-reliance, as

well as the capacity for self- actualization and self-realization. It means the ability to realize

one’s human rights as well as the absence of hunger, diseases and poverty. The purpose of

development is not a race, a tribe, or a religion but, the human person. The human person, as

aptly summarized by Reginald Herbold Green, is the “ends as well as the chief means; the

2 Economic development is usually thought to take place when per capita income rises. A country’s per capita income (which is the same as per capita output), is usually considered the best valuable measure of the value of the goods and services available to a person, per person, to the society per year (see the article on Economic Development, in the Encyclopedia Britannica Library, 2004, CD-ROM

13

justification for, as well as the judge of, development” (Green, 1995, p. 81). Development in

Nyerere’s thought the, is inclusive and the ground for that whole embracing approach to

development is the belief in human equality. Production, though an essential component of

development is good only when it improves the living conditions of people but, when it is done

for its own sake, it loses its value. The agents of development are the people themselves because

what makes them realize their full potential as human beings is not what other people do for

them but what they do by themselves. People can bring about their own development by being

led persuasively and by participating themselves in decisions that concern them; they cannot be

bullied into development; certainly not when development means freedom. That in short, was

Nyerere’s description of the term development and what is further needed in this exploration of

Nyerere’s vision of development is how Nyerere and his colleagues in TANU/CCM, sought to

bringing about development in Tanzania. In the following section we will examine Nyerere’s

strategy of development for Tanzania, namely, Ujamaa.

7.3. Ujamaa: Development Strategy for Tanzania

Having explored in the last section Nyerere’s conception of development, we will now in this

section, examine ujamaa, the strategy that Nyerere and colleagues thought would bring about

development in the country, and its contribution to development in Tanzania. Nyerere’s attempt

to realize his views on development were expressed in the manifesto of ujamaa, the AD. As we

have already explained in chapter three of this thesis, the AD’s intention was to bring about

development in Tanzania through the policy of socialism and self-reliance. In the following

section we will examine these two policies in turn beginning first with the policy of socialism.

14

7.3.1. The Policy of Socialism

First then is the policy of socialism and its contribution to development in Tanzania. Socialism,

as described in chapter five of this thesis, is identified by several features, including, acceptance

of the principle of human equality, democracy, public ownership of the means of production, and

religious tolerance. Let us pose a moment and examine these features in turn to see what each

contributed to development in Tanzania.

7.3.1.1. Human Equality

First then is the principle of human equality which constitutes an essential feature of socialism,

one of the main policies of Nyerere’s ujamaa and its contribution to development in Tanzania.

The principle of human equality underscores the belief that all human being are equal. In

Nyerere’s ujamaa, and therefore in Tanzania, the acceptance of the belief that all human beings

are equal did have the following implications: the first implication concerned itself with

individual’s right to dignity and respect (Nyerere, 1968, p. 13). To appreciate the contribution of

such a declaration to development in Tanzania, it is worth recalling that in Tanzania poverty

exacerbated by years of slave trade and colonialism, had stripped Tanzanians, especially blacks,

of their worth and respect as human being. To have a political program which affirmed and

promoted the worth and respect of every member of sociality, irrespective of racial, religious and

sex differences, was one of the major contributions of Nyerere’s ujamaa to development in

Tanzania. 15

Secondly, the principle of human equality in Tanzania means that “every citizen is an integral

part of the nation” (Ibid. p. 13). In a more practical vein this means that “every individual man

and woman, whatever color, shape, race, creed, religion, or sex, is an equal member of society

with equal rights in the society and equal duties to it” (Nyerere, 1968, p. 78). Again this cannot

be understood apart from the situation which prevailed in Tanzania. Up to the time of the AD,

society was still organized in a way which indicated that some races in the country were of vital

importance to the state than others. As indicated already in chapter four of this thesis, Europeans

were considered to be citizens of central importance because they had more rights and privileges

than people of other races. Indians, on their part, had right but not the same as Europenas. They

were considered to be people of secondary impotence to the state and at the bottom of the

hierarchy of importance were Africans. To be able to deliberately abolish this hierarchy of

importance and try to build a society in which people of all races have equal rights and duties, is

one of the most important achievements of Nyerere’s ujamaa to development in Tanzania.

The third implication of the principle of human equality is that in Tanzania every individual was

guaranteed the right to freedom of expression, of movement and of association within the context

of the law (Nyerere, 1968, p. 13). Again to understand the significance of this provision, it is

helpful to recall that up to the time of the AD, African movements in European areas were

restricted and it was only in special circumstances that Africans could associate with Europeans

and/or Indians. As a general rule, individuals moved and associated with people of the own race

and religion. The abolition such restrictions in terms of movement and association and the

attempt to create a society in which people move freely and associate, with whom they want

16

within the context of the law, was a big contribution of Nyerere’s ujamaa to the development of

the people in Tanzania.

The fourth implication of the principle of human equality is that every individual was guaranteed

the right to protection of life and property (Ibid. p. 13). In some societies this can be assumed to

be a natural obligation of any government but under colonialism that obligation could not be

taken for granted and did not have the same meaning. Up to the AD, for instance, the ‘right to

life’ did not mean the right to receive from others the goods and resources necessary for the

preservation of life. Nor did it mean the right to welfare. It simply meant the right not to be killed

unjustly but even this is subject to debate.3 After the AD, the right to life acquired a wider

interpretation for it implied the right not to be killed unjustly as well as the right to receive from

others, especially the rich, and the government, the goods and resources necessary for the

preservation of life. The attempt to protect human life not only from unjustified killing but also

by providing the resources or means of livelihood to prevent a person from death is one of the

major contributions of Nyerere’s ujamaa to development in Tanzania. Having expanded the

meaning of the right to life, Nyerere’s ujamaa also expanded the meaning of the right to

property. Up to the AD, the ‘right to property’ did not imply the right to receive from others the

goods and the resources necessary to meet one’s need but, it implied the right to acquire goods or

property. After the AD, the right to property included the right to receive from others the goods

and the resources necessary to meet one’s basic needs as well as the right to acquire goods and

resources according to the law. The widening of the right to property is one of the most

significant contributions of Nyerere’s ujamaa to development in Tanzania.

3 Consider, for instance people who were killed during the resistance to slave trade and colonialism: it is arguably difficult to say their death was justified.

17

Fifthly, the principle of human equality required every Tanzanian citizen who works to have a

just return for his/her labor (Nyerere, 1968, p. 14). This is significant and its affirmation

constitutes development because during colonialism up to the AD, workers and laborers,

especially Africans, were not paid just wage for their labor. As Sunseri has pointed out, slave

laborers in settler plantations worked long hours but the wage they received was very little. In

addition, even after independence the disparity in terms of income for party and government

officials was far bigger than what ordinary people earned. According to Cranford Pratt the gap

between the income of the highly paid and the lowliest paid was narrowed significantly during

the time of Nyerere’s ujamaa. While in 1966 the ration between the highly paid and lowly paid

was 26:1, in 1977, the ratio had dropped to 9:1. The leadership cope, which the AD identified,

and which was later extended to include all members of TANU, may not have produced

socialists, but it played a significant role in narrowing the income gap between top government

workers and other civil servants. The attempt to shape a society so that people who work are paid

a fair wage and to try to build a society in which there is no big gap between the rich and the

poor are instances of trying to realize the principle of human equality and constitute significant

contribution of Nyerere’s ujamaa to the development of the people in Tanzania.

Lastly, the principle of human equality also demanded that the government provide “equal

opportunity to all men and women irrespective of race, religion, or status” (Ibid. p. 15). In

particular, emphasis was placed on educational and employment opportunities. In terms of

educational opportunities, we have already explained in chapter four of this thesis that, education

was provided on racial and religious basis. In this racialist society, those who suffered the most

18

were Africans who did not have the same educational opportunities as their European and Asian

counterparts. The abolition of segregation in schools and the program of education for self-

reliance may not have created socialists and may have given rise to some other problems, but the

provision of education for all, however, imperfectly, was one of the most significant

contributions of Nyerere’s ujamaa to development to Tanzania. No country could ever claim to

develop if 85% of its population was illiterate but, Nyerere ujamaa managed to reduce the level

of illiteracy in the country to 90%, which is development by any standard.

In terms of employment, Nyerere insisted that people should be employed on merit and not

because of their race or religion. He maintained that the purpose of Tanzanian socialism, as was

not to serve a particular kind of people or tribe but, it was to serve all Tanzanians regardless of

their color, size, shape, skill, ability, or anything else (Nyerere, 1968, p. 38). The commitment of

Nyerere’s ujamaa to equality of all human being is further indicated by the economic institutions

it created. The economic institutions built in accordance with the AD, such as the Tanganyika

Bank of Commerce (TBC), Tanzania Insurance Company (TIC), the State Trading Corporation

(STC), the National Development Corporation (NDC), Tanganyika Cooperative Bank (TCB),

and the National Milling Corporation (NMC), to mention a few, were intended to serve all

Tanzanians irrespective of their differences. According to Nyerere, if those who benefited the

most happened to be blacks or Indians or Europeans, it was not because of their blackness or

because of their race or color but because of their humanity (Nyerere, 1968, p. 38-39).

19

In Nyerere’s ujamaa, discrimination and segregation on the basis of color, race, religion, sex, and

tribe did not have any role to play either in the running or in the services offered by the

institutions created. Employment opportunities were open to all who had appropriate

qualifications, and the services were given to all who needed them. Neither did the institutions

erected by Nyerere’s ujamaa employ only socialists or only capitalists nor did it offer services

only to capitalists or only to socialists. In the view of the democrats both capitalists and socialists

were human beings and therefore employment opportunities and services could not be denied

them. That is what Nyerere means when he writes: “we have to recognize in our words and our

actions that capitalists are human beings just as socialists are” (Nyerere, 1968, p. 41). Since both

capitalists and socialist are human beings, the task of Tanzanian socialists was not to “persecute

capitalists or make dignified life impossible for those who would be capitalists if they could”

(Ibid. p. 41), nor was it to “put each person into a pre-arranged category of race or national origin

and judge them accordingly” (Ibid. p. 42) but rather to “judge the character and ability of each

individual” (Ibid. p. 42). This means that in Nyerere’s ujamaa, what was important for judging a

person in terms of employment or service was not his/her race, tribe, sex and religion but the

person’s character and ability. That is important because in Nyerere’s view, without adherence to

the principle of human equality it would be very difficult for Tanzanians to build a socialist state.

As he says, “if we are to succeed in building a socialist state in this country it is essential that

every citizen, and especially every TANU leader, should live up to that doctrine” (Nyerere, 1968,

p. 43), the doctrine of the equality of human beings.

20

In sum it can be said, that the creation of a society which respects the principle of human

equality and which respects human rights as they are expressed in the United Nation’s Universal

Declaration of Human rights, is one of the most significant contributions of Nyerere’s ujamaa to

development in Tanzania. This, however, does not mean that during ujamaa, Tanzania became a

paragon of virtue. No. There were instances of abuses of human rights but, what it means is that

in comparison with where Tanzania came from (from slave trade and colonialism) what

Nyerere’s ujamaa attempted to achieve in terms of human rights and equality constituted real

development for the people of Tanzania.

7.3.1.2. Popular Democracy

Having examined in the last section the principle of human equality, and its contribution to

development in Tanzania, we will now in this section examine democracy, the second feature of

the policy of socialism, one of the main policies of Nyerere’s ujamaa, and the contribution of

Nyerere’s democracy to the development of Tanzania. In the AD, provision ‘c’ of the TANU

creed proclaims that “every citizen has the right to take an equal part in Government at local,

regional, and national level” (Nyerere, 1968, p. 13). The fact that Tanzania became a de facto

one state soon after independence was clearly a setback but compared to what was happening

before Nyerere’s ujamaa, it can be said that there was increased popular participation in the

affairs of government and the will of the people became more and more important during

Nyerere’s ujamaa than at any other time in the history of Tanzania. Clearly, as we have shown in

last chapters, people were not involved in the political decisions that created Nyerere’s ujamaa

21

and before the AD the party was according to Pratt leaning more towards authoritarianism rather

than democracy (Pratt, 1979, p. 219) but, after the AD there were deliberate moves aimed at

“enabling the peasants to participate in decision making in issues that affected their life”

(Kweka, 1995, p. 71).

In the area of democracy, the first attempt of Nyerere’s ujamaa at populat democracy was to let

people chose their own leaders. A cell4 leader, a leader of a hamlet or a neighborhood5, leaders of

villages, wards, councils, and representatives in parliament were all elected by the people. With

respect to decisions about representatives in parliament, the ruling party was entrusted with the

task of making sure that parliamentary elections were free and reflected the will of the people.

To that end, A.N.Kweka, has noted that the party arranged for competitive elections and

organized campaigns all over the country for candidates who vied parliamentary seats.

Candidates from different backgrounds were allowed to compete and the number of contestants

in each seat increased with every general elections. For instance, the average number of

contestants in each constituency in 1970 was seven, and in 1975 it was eleven. After filling in the

forms, the contestants presented themselves to the district Party conference which selected the

top two names to be approved by the TANU’s central committee. More often than not, NEC

returned the top two names proposed by the district party conference, and after NEC’s approval

it was up to the candidate to look for mass support in the constituency. As a result people ended

up with a certain amount of freedom to elect their candidates (Kweka, 1995, p. 71)

4 A cell is a collection of ten household and its leader is commonly known in Swahili as ‘Balozi’, meaning a representative of ten households.

5 These are the lowest local government units in rural and urban areas respectively ( Chaligha, 2002, p. 13)22

The second attempt of Nyerere’s ujamaa to increase popular participation in decision making

was through ujamaa villages. As has already been described in the fourth chapter of this thesis,

Nyerere instruction on ujamaa village was that in the village there would be equality of all

members. By coming to live and work together in a village, they would form a village

government that would make decision on issues which concerned their life. Villagers were not

supposed to accept everything from leaders but they have the power to accept or refuse ideas or

suggestions from their leaders if they believed was not for the common interests of all the people

in the village. According to Kweka, the ruling party emphasized this idea in its 1971 TANU

guidelines, where it made a link between development and democracy, and declared that it was

in support of any move which gave the villagers more power to control their affairs. In this

connection, leaders and experts were required by the party, to make sure that all members in a

village participated in the conception, planning and implementation of their development

programs and plans (Ibid. p. 72). Similar measures and emphasis were directed at workers.

According to Kweka, the general thrust of the 1970 circular, establishing workers council in

work-places, was to promote further industrial democracy. It sought to give workers greater and

more direct responsibility in production. The guidelines produced by the party attacking

oppressive, arrogant and contemptuous leaders at work-laces, was also meant to give workers

greater say in the places where they worked. But when the workers decided to lock out the

leaders who were contravening the guidelines issued by the party, the government came to the

rescue of leaders (Ibid. p. 73).

23

In sum, the de facto one party state may have spoiled the democratic credentials of Tanzania in

the outside world, but in the context of Tanzania where multiparty democracy was already

beginning to divide the people along tribal, ethnic, racial, religious lines, the one party state, can

in retrospect be considered as one of the sources which brought about unity now prevailing in the

country, and the peace that the country has enjoyed since independence. In that respect, it can be

said that, the establishment of peace, was one of the most significant contributions of Nyerere’s

ujamaa to development. In addition, attempts to increase popular participation in decision

making process cannot be undermined especially when it is considered that previously, during

colonialism Africans did not have the right to elect the colonial government let alone

representatives in higher organs of decision making. The freedom of people to elect their own

representatives in parliament, even in one party state, constituted a significant contribution of

Nyerere’s ujamaa to development in Tanzania.

7.3.1.3. Public Ownership of Means of Production

Having shown in the last section that the attempt of Nyerere’s ujamaa to increase popular

democracy through a one party democracy, though imperfect, contributed significantly to

people’s participation in decision making process and that it helped to create unity and peace in

the country, we will now in this section examine the contribution to development in Tanzania of

public ownership of the means of production, which is one of the central features socialism, the

most important policy of Nyerere’s ujamaa. As we have already explained in the previous

chapters, public ownership of the means of production was realized through the program of

24

nationalization. The primary purpose of nationalization was to minimize if not eliminate

exploitation of one person by another or exploitation of one group of people by the other. The

first property that was nationalized early on was land. It has to be recalled that under the

colonial period, the system of freehold ownership of land, had left many Africans without land.

After independence, the government abolished freehold ownership of land and the state assumed

land control so that any Tanzanian who was in need of land could use it (Nyerere, 1968, p. 84-

85). This was a big step because land is one of the means of livelihoods. In putting land at the

disposal of ordinary citizens, the government was not only providing them with means of

livelihood (protecting the lives of its ordinary citizens) but it was also at the same time

minimizing the loopholes for exploitation. At least they did not have to pay rent to the landlord.

The easy availability of land to ordinary citizens (the poor) as well as the rich was as much as an

of equality (in ownership of land) as it was an act of development for the poor Africans. In

addition to land, the government also assumed full control of some foreign companies, majority

share in other companies, and equal share in yet other companies (Nyerere, 1968, p. 86). The

purpose of the nationalization exercise was not to integrate further the Tanzanian economy into

international capitalism, as Marxists charge but, to counter the exploitation of one man by the

other and to provide citizens of Tanzania (irrespective of their color, religion, race) equal

opportunities to own the major means of production. In order to prove that the purpose of the

nationalization exercise was for the service of the people and not for the international capitalists,

democrats point out that, when the land was nationalized, for example, it was not given to

international capitalists but it was available to any Tanzanian of any color, tribe, or race to use as

he/she wanted. Similarly, the banks which were nationalized may have given Tanzania a chance

to access foreign capital but the nationalization also made it possible for Africans to access funds

25

in banks, and to take insurance, things which were not possible during colonialism. Attempt by

Nyerere’s ujamaa to open up the way for Africans to access land and other modern means of

production without prejudice was one of the contributions of Nyerere’s ujamaa to development

in Tanzania. Of course, nationalization by itself did not create socialism in Tanzania, and neither

did it eliminate exploitation of one man by the other. Nevertheless, it was a very important step

which Nyerere’s ujamaa had to take in order to liberate black Tanzanians from the restrictions

that surrounded their development goals.

7.3.1.4. Religious Tolerance.

Retaining in the last section, the contribution of nationalization of major means of production to

the development in Tanzania, leads us now in this section, to examine the contribution to

development of religious tolerance, an important feature of socialism, the first pillar of Nyerere’s

ujamaa. The AD guaranteed every individual in the country the freedom of religious belief

(Nyerere, 1968, p. 13). This means that individuals were free to believe in any religion provided

that freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others. Tanzania, according to Cuthbert K.

Omari, is constituted by the three major religions: Christianity, Islam and African Traditional

Religions (ATR). Within the major religions, there are denominational differences. In

Christianity, for instance, there are Anglicans, Lutherans, African Inland Churches, the Seventh

Day Adventists, and Moravians, only to mention a few. Within Islam, there are Sunnis and

Shihas. African Traditional Religion has as many religions within it as there are tribes and ethnic

26

groups. In addition, there is a small minority, mainly foreigners, who are adherents of religions

such as Shintoism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism (Omari, 1995, p. 24). This shows that from

the point of view of religion, Tanzania is a multi-religious society.

Historically Christianity has been described as one of the religions which pioneered colonialism

in Tanzania and which during the time of colonialism collaborated with the colonial government

to enforce policies and programs. In the eyes of many people Christianity and colonialism were

identical. One of the measures taken by the government after independence was to define the

relationship between state and religion. In the constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania,

article 19 (1-3), it specifies that:

Every person has the right to the freedom of thought or conscience, belief or faith, and choice in matters of religion, including freedom to change his religion or faith

This means that in Tanzania, every citizen has the constitutional right to the freedom of faith

and/or religion. A citizen of Tanzania has the liberty to believe in any religion, and to practice

his/her religion without interference from the state if that faith or religion does not impinge on

the freedom of others citizens. When consideration is given to the fact that before the AD,

religions such as the African Tradition Religions (ATR), were not considered as religion, and

when consideration is given to the fact that Christianity was the most favored religion of

colonialists, it becomes clear that freedom of religion was one of the contributions of Nyerere’s

ujamaa to development.

27

As a corollary to the right of religious belief, the government declared its neutrality in relation to

religions. In the same constitution, article 19 (2) provides that:

Without prejudice to the relevant laws of the united Republic of Tanzania, the profession of religion, worship and propagation of religion shall be free and a private affair of an individual; and the management of religious bodies shall not be part of the activities of the state authority

As a consequence of this provision, Cuthbert Omari notes that, religions established their own

national organization to cater for their own respective issues national wide. In that way

Christians established the Christiania Council of Tanzania (CCT), Catholics established the

Tanzania Episcopal Conference (TEC), Muslims, established the Muslim Council of Tanzania

(MCT) or in Swahili, BAKWATA (Baraza Kuu la Waislam Tanzania). Then there is the Ismailia

community (IC), and the Hindu Community organization (HCO) (Omari, 1995, p. 19). This

means that religions in Tanzania had the forum and the organizations to manage their own affairs

without involving the government in issues which pertained to their own respective religions.

Yet, in spite of these measures, the relationship between the two has not always been an easy

one. More often than not, the state has collaborated with the religions in achieving certain social

goals (like in the provision of education and health care) as the religions have sought the

collaboration of government in achieving certain objectives (tax exemptions, fighting

corruption). In the process some controversies have emerged but they have been largely managed

without too much bloodshed.6 The freedom of worship and the neutrality of the state with respect

to religion are all instances where the freedom of an individual was enhanced and protected.

Thus, if there is any contribution to development which Nyerere’s ujamaa did in this respect, it

was to increase the freedom or the rights of individuals and society. 6 The mwembechai incidence where Muslims were killed by the police for having broken butchers in Dar-es-salaam which sold pork meat.

28

In conclusion, Nyerere’s ujamaa pursued two main strategies: socialism and self-reliance. In the

last section we explored the contribution to development in Tanzania of the first strategy of

Nyerere’s ujamaa, namely socialism. In light of what has been described, it can be said that, the

contribution of socialism to development in Tanzania was largely in terms of human equality and

human rights. Measured against the background of slave trade and colonialism, ujamaa’s major

contribution to development in Tanzania consisted mainly of the restoration of basic human

rights, through the acceptance of the principle of human equality. In the following section, we

will examine the contribution to development in Tanzania of the second pediment of Nyerere’s

ujamaa, namely the policy of self-reliance.

7.3.2. The Policy of Self-Reliance

Obtaining in the last section the contribution of the policy of socialism to development in

Tanzania, leads us now in this section to examine the contribution to development in Tanzania of

the policy of self-reliance, the second pillar of Nyerere’s ujamaa. The policy of self-reliance was,

as explained in chapter three and five of this thesis, characterized by three processes: the process

of disengagement from international economic system, the process of internal restructuring, and

the process of resumption of trade with international system on equal basis. In the following

section, we will only identify the contribution to development of the first two processes because

they are the processes which Tanzania attempted to implement.

29

7.3. 2.1. Delinking from the International Economic System

First then let us in this section, examine the contribution to development in Tanzania of the

process of disengagement from the international economic system, one of the features of the

policy of self-reliance, the second most important pediment of Nyerere’s ujamaa. It has to be

recalled here that Nyerere’s conception of self-reliance, as we explained in th previous chapter,

was divided into a long term and short term. In the long term, self-reliance meant that

Tanzanians would have to depend on themselves and not on others for their development. In the

short term, however, Nyerere’s conception of self-reliance was very pragmatic. Under the

leadership of Nyerere, Tanzania maintained trade with the outside world and as pointed out in

chapter five, foreign aid to Tanzania increased tremendously. This pragmatism was of enormous

advantages to the development of the country. The ‘aid boom’ as we have called it enabled the

government to do a lot of things for the development of the people in this country. First, it was

during the time of the aid boom, that many textile industries in the country were constructed. In

almost every region where cotton is cultivated there was a textile industry. Thus, there was a

textile industry in Mwanza, Musoma, Dar-es-Salaam, and Morogoro, to mention a few. The

textile industries were using cotton that was produced locally and this use of local cotton

provided farmers with a sure market for their cotton. In addition to creation reliable market for

cotton farmers, textile industries did not only provide employment to a lot of Tanzanians but, it

also provided the country with cheap clothes to wear. By selling manufactured clothes outside,

the country was able to get some foreign exchange needed for other development projects in the

30

country. The primary purpose of establishing textile industries, however, was not to produce

clothes for export but, to counter the lack of clothes amongst Tanzanians. To have established

textile industries to produce clothes for people who lacked clothes was one of the major

contributions of Nyerere’s ujamaa to material development in the country.

The second achievement of the aid boom was in the area of social services, which involves

education, healthcare, clean water and electricity. In terms of education, we have already

explained in chapter four how educational opportunities were expanded and how various

measures were taken to make sure that education is accessible to all. This involved the provision

of free education to all, the nationalization of all private schools and facilities and the

establishment of the University of Dar-es-Salaam (UDSM), which was the highest institution of

learning in the country. In terms of healthcare, Pratt, has noted that, a net work of health centers

were established in the rural as well as in the urban areas and services were offered, not only to

some tribes, or members of one religion, but to all Tanzanians irrespective of their religion and

tribe and political conviction (Pratt and Mwansasu, 1979, p. 217-218). The nationalization of all

private hospitals, such as Bugando Medical Centre (BMC), Kilimanjaro Community Medical

Centre (KCMC) and Muhimbili Medical Centre (MMC), and their elevation to referral hospitals,

was a step forward in the direction of improving the health condition of the people. In terms of

clean water, it was during the time of Nyerere’s ujamaa that the Tanzania Water Supply (TWS)

was established by the government in order to provide clean water in urban centers as well as in

the rural areas. In terms of electricity, it was during the time of Nyerere’s ujamaa that the

Tanzania Electrical Supply Corporation (TANESCO) was created to supply electricity in the

31

urban as well as in the rural areas. The creation of all these institutions and attempts to make

them accessible to as many people as possible constituted a significant contribution to

development of Nyerere’s ujamaa.

The third advantage of the aid boom was in the area of infrastructures, which involves roads,

railways, airports and airplanes, harbors, boats and ships, and telecommunications, such as

telephones, fax, and radios. Some of the notable roads that were constructed include, the roads

linking all regions of Tanzania, the most notable railway, is the Tanzania-Zambia Railway

(TAZARA), the most notable airports are the Dar-es-salaam International Airport (DIA), and

Kilimanjaro International Airport (KIA), not to mention the airports in most of the regions; in

terms of aviation, the most notable was Air Tanzania corporation (ATC), the body which

controlled Tanzanian Air line. In terms of transport in seas and lakes, the most notable was the

establishment of Tanzania Harbors Authority (THA), which included harbors in Tanga, Mtwara,

Dar-es-Salaam, and Zanzibar not to mention ports in Lake Victoria, Nyasa, and Tanganyika. In

the area of telecommunication, the most notable was the establishment of Tanzania

Telecommunication Company Limited (TTCL) and Radio Tanzania Dar-es-Salaam (RTD).

When consideration is given to the fact that these services did not exist and if they existed they

were not accessible to Africans, it can be said that the creation of these institutions, and attempts

to make them available to as many people as possible, was an instance of development for

Tanzania.

32

The fourth advantage was in the financial and the commercial sectors. In the financial sector, we

have already shown that some financial institutions were wholly nationalized, and in others the

government has either majority share or it had half of the shares. The most notable financial

institutions, however, was the National Bank of Commerce (NBC), Tanzania Housing Bank

(THB), Community and Rural Development Bank (CRDB), Tanzania Postal Bank (TPB), the

National Insurance Company (NIC) and the National Provident Fund (PPF). In terms of trade

and commerce the government created the National Development Corporation (NDC), and the

State Trading Corporation (STC), and the National Milling Corporation (NMC), to mention but,

a few. Each of these institutions created by Nyerere’s ujamaa had their own specific contribution

to development in Tanzania and the attempt to try to identify the contribution of each is a task

that needs to be carried out on its own. For the purpose of this thesis, it is sufficient to point out

here that the creation of these socialist institutions and the particular services they provided albeit

imperfectly, was in itself an achievement, and a significant contribution of Nyerere’s ujamaa to

development in Tanzania.

7.3.2.2. The Process of Internal Restructuring

33

Having shown in the last section that Nyerere’s pragmatism in the process disengagement from

the international economic system increased foreign aid to Tanzania which was used to establish

institutions to improve the living conditions of people in Tanzania, we will now in this section

examine the contribution to development in Tanzania of the process of internal restructuring,

which is the second feature of the policy of self-reliance, the second pediment of Nyerere’s

ujamaa. In Tanzania, the process of internal restructuring implied a shift from urban to rural

development and from industries to agriculture. The transformation of agriculture from a

primitive state to a modern state involved a number of measures: the first measure which we

have mentioned often but which marks the first step towards development as Nyerere’s

conceived it was the nationalization of land. This enabled land to be available to peasants in the

rural areas, for production. This as we have already said, was a remarkable achievement because

those peasants who under the freehold land system did not have land, and therefore could not

produce food for themselves, did have under Nyerere’s ujamaa the opportunity to use land for

their own development without paying rent to a landlord.

The second measure which we have also examined in detail but which also marks development,

in Nyerere’s sense, was the creation of ujamaa villages. Although some of the villages were

established by force, there can be no doubt that in these villages, people could be reached easily

for different purposes, most notably, education in agriculture and access to social services. In

ujamaa villages the people could decide for themselves what they wanted to produce for their

development and could easily be assisted by the government in ujamaa villages than in scattered

settlements. The very fact that eventually people moved from their scattered settlements to

34

ujamaa villages, where peasants cound acquire education and access some social services, such

as medical care, is in itself an indication of development.

The third measure taken by government to improve agriculture and which can be considered as

achievement of Nyerere’s ujamaa, was to construct within the country, industries to produce

agricultural equipments, necessary to increase production and boost the agricultural sector.

Although in Ian Parker’s estimation some of initiatives taken in that regard contained serious

contractions,7 there can be no doubt that the construction of the Tanga Fertilizer Plant (TFP), in

north-eastern Tanzania, the Ubungo Farm Implements (UFI) and the Ujamaa Village Cashew-

Processing Project (UVCPP), (Parker, 1979, p. 54-58), to mention a few, was a step in the right

direction and did contribute significantly to the development not only of agriculture but, also of

the peasants in the rural areas. The TFP, for instance, did according to Parker, produced

fertilizers which modern agriculture requires to increasing output (Ibid. p. 54-55). Initially

fertilizer was imported from abroad but, in the period of Nyerere’s ujamaa, it was produced

locally. That in itself was, in Nyerere’s terminology, development. The UFI factory was,

according to Ian Parker, established in Tanzania with the technical assistance of the Chinese

government and its aim was to produce hoes, ploughs and machetes (Parker, 1979, p. 56). Before

UFI was constructed, farming tools were imported from abroad at a very high price but, during

the time of Nyerere’s ujamaa, farming tools, though not highly technical, were manufactured

locally, a move that saved Tanzania’s foreign currency and which helped peasants to have easy

7 In the consideration of Ian Parker, the construction of the factories mentioned is an example of the contradictions at the heart of the development programs and projects of Nyerere’s ujamaa. For an account of the contradictions inherent in Nyerere’s ujamaa see Parker, I., ‘Contradictions in the transition to Socialism: the case of the National Development Corporation’ in Mwansasu, B. and Pratt, C, (eds), Towards Socialism In Tanzania, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Buffalo, 1979, [1981], p. 46-71

35

access to needed tools, as well as to develop. The UVCPP, on its part, was, according to Ian

Parker, set up by the NDC, in order to provide employment for the local growers of cashew nuts

instead of creating employment for the people in India who had the technology for

decertification (Ibid. p. 57). In addition, the National Agricultural and Food Corporation

(NAFCO), was established by the government to exercise oversight over agricultural projects

and investments in the sector (Ibid. p. 52). For Tanzania, a country that did not have industries of

that nature, and which did not even have corporations of such a nature, the emergence of such

factories, industries and corporations, was no small matter.

The fourth measure to improve agriculture involved the program of education for self-reliance.

The program of education for self-reliance, as we have shown in chapter four of this thesis,

introduced wide ranging reforms in the education sector but, as it was pointed out there, the

program of education for self-reliance, was a program that emphasized both, the theoretical and

practical aspects of agricultural education so much so that schools and other educational

institutions also became centers of production. In addition to theoretical studies, students at all

levels of education were also obliged to have their own farms where they realized in practice

what they were learning in theory. In carrying out the program, there were clearly some abuses

which tainted the expected achievements but the claim advanced by Marxists that the program

killed education in Tanzania, is arguably misguided because the quality of education in other

African countries which did not have to implement the program of education for self-reliance

was not much better than the quality of education that was provided in Tanzania then. In

addition, many observers would, in retrospect, agree that education for self-reliance was much

36

better than it is today. This means that the quality of education provided today, when there is no

education for self-reliance, is poorer than it was during the time of education for self-reliance.

Alongside the program of education for self-reliance, the government also established colleges of

agriculture, such as Tengeru, Lyamungo, Nyeregezi Agricultural Centre, and Uyole which

focused on researches in agriculture. In these colleges local experts in agriculture were trained

and upon successful completion of their studies they were sent into villages to educate and assist

peasants in their farming activities. All these attempts combined to improve production in the

country until the misfortunes of draught and other causes set in. In sum, it can be said that the

contribution to development in Tanzania of the policy of self-reliance, the second main policy of

Nyerere’s ujamaa, consisted mainly of the creation of institutions (social and economic

institutions), factories and industries, which facilitated growth in agricultural production, which

helped in turn to relatively improve the living conditions of people.

7.4. Nyerere’s ujamaa: Failure and/or Success?

Having described in the last sections the contributions to development in Tanzania of the two

main policies of Nyerere’s ujamaa, namely socialism and self-reliance; we will now in this

section make an overall estimation of the contribution of Nyerere’s ujamaa to development in

Tanzania. Views about the overall contribution of Nyerere’s ujamaa are sharply divided between

scholars who believe Nyerere’s ujamaa was a total failure and those who believe it was a

success. But, as shown in this study, Nyerere’s ujamaa was, in some respects, a failure and in

37

other respects it was a success. In the following section these two aspects of Nyerere’s ujamaa

will be examined in turn beginning first with its failure.

7.4.1. Failure

First then is an account of failure and its influence on the legacy of Nyerere’s ujamaa in

Tanzania. The general consensus among students of Nyerere’s ujamaa is that Nyerere’s ujamaa

did not succeed in its objectives. In particular, it did not eradicate poverty, its main objective and

it did not eradicate dependence on foreign powers, which was exacerbating the condition of

poverty. The two main problems it set out to counter still prevailed when Nyerere resigned as

head of state in the mid 1980’s. There are several explanations for the failure of Nyerere’s

ujamaa. The first, not in the order of priority, is that Nyerere’s ujamaa failed because it failed to

disengage itself from the metropolitan bourgeoisie. These analysts who according to Samuel

Mushi, belong to the Marxist-dependence tradition, believe that Tanzania’s cooperation with

international capitalism contained itself the seeds of the failure of Nyerere’s ujamaa (Mushi,

2001, p. 4). Reflecting on the question of Aid to Tanzania, Severino Rugumamu has noted that

Nyerere’s ujamaa started to show signs of failure when donor fatigue with the Tanzanian

experience set in and when conservative political parties in the United States, Germany and the

United Kingdom rose to power. Teaming up with the institutions of the IMF and the WB the

conservative governments instituted a move away from socialist policies to liberal policies by

denying funds to socialist countries in African and elsewhere (Rugumamu, 1997, p. 171-173).

38

Secondly, other analysts, especially those who evaluated Nyerere’s ujamaa from the liberal and

neoliberal tradition, claim that Nyerere ujamaa failed because of it depended too much on the

personality of Nyerere, rather than the political institutions and because it was “dominated by

self- coroneted ‘princes’, ‘autocrats’, ‘prophets’, or ‘tyrants’, such system lacked popular

legitimacy” (Ibid. p. 4). Thirdly, neo-Marxists on their part claim that Nyerere’s ujamaa failed

because, it lacked a popular base and because the socialist principle were not rigorously,

implemented and enforced (Ibid. p. 4). Fourthly, according to Colin Legum, the failure of

Nyerere’s ujamaa was in other reasons than those advanced Marxists, and liberals. In Legum’s

estimation, the setbacks were attributable to “adverse balance in international trade, the impact of

the quadrupling of oil prices after 1973, and the long period of devastating drought” (Legum,

1995, p. 193). Lastly, there are those who attributed the failure of Nyerere’s ujamaa to bad

management and poor implementations of policies, as it was the case in the impelementation of

the program of education for self-reliance and the program of mobilizing people into ujamaa

villages. Nyerere himself, however, did not believe that the deterioration of social services in the

country was due to the socialist policies but rather due to the economic difficulties of the 1980’s.

This explanation is found in a passage that Colin Legum quotes from Nyerere’s speech at the

University of Dar-es-salaam.

Within Tanzania, there is no doubt that over the last years our economic capacity has gone down, and the quality of our education and health services have declined. Our schools lack textbooks, paper, and other essential equipments, and our clinics and dispensaries do not always have even the most basic drugs. The maintenance of clean water supplies have also deteriorated. To the extent that these things have been happening while other expenditures have been allowed to mount, then in practice we have – perhaps through negligence and the lack of attention – made an unplanned retreat from socialism. But I believe that it is mainly the economic difficulties of the last years, not a weakening of our

39

ideological commitment or our social stand, which has caused the problems afflicting the social services (Nyerere, quoted by Legum, 1995, p. 194).

As can be seen from this short survey, there is a variety of explanations for the failure of

Nyerere’s ujamaa. This suggests that there is no one single reason to explain the failure of

Nyerere’s ujamaa to deliver prosperity to the people of Tanzania. The most likely plausible

explanation is that each of these reasons had a role to play in the failure of Nyerere’s ujamaa. It

is the combination of those reasons which ultimately made it impossible for Nyerere’s ujamaa

to deliver on its promises. But, does this failure mean that Nyerere’s ujamaa bequeathed nothing

to Tanzania? Is failure the legacy that Nyerere’s ujamaa left behind? For many scholars, the

answer to these questions is negative because in some respects, Nyerere’s ujamaa was a success.

In the following section, let us examine the success story of Nyerere’s ujamaa.

7.4.2. Success

Having examined in the last section the causes advanced for the failure of Nyerere’s ujamaa and

its implication on its legacy, we will now in this section examine the success of Nyerere’s

ujamaa and the implications on its legacy. It is true that when Nyerere resigned in 1985,

Tanzanians were still poor and heavily dependent on donor countries. What is often overlooked

by the critics of Nyerere’s ujamaa, most of whom judge development by GDP, is that the

poverty of Tanzanians in 1961 was not the poverty of Tanzanians in 1985. In 1961, Tanzanians

did not have any human rights: they were segregated, humiliated and oppressed in a variety of

40

ways. I addition, 85% of the population then was illiterate, the mortality rate was between 20

and 30 years old, there were very few hospitals for Africans and were poorly equipped.

Furthermore, there were no financial services, which Africans could not access. There was

housing schemes for Africans and generally the basic needs of most Africans were not met. In

1985, when Nyerere resigned, the respect for human rights was firmly in place and people had

virtually all accepted the principle of human equality. According to Legum, since independence

infant mortality rate dropped by 40%, and life expectancy which at independence was between

20-30 years rose to 50 years in 1985 when Nyerere resigned. There was also improvement in

education. In 1961, only 500.000 had four years of primary school but in 1984, 95% of all

children who had the age to go to school were enjoying primary school. Similar growth was

also recorded in secondary and higher education. The strategy of ujamaa villages did not fulfill

its promise but, it laid the basis for further agricultural developments and it improved the quality

of life of the peasantry. The greatest contribution of Nyerere’s ujamaa to development in

Tanzania, however, is peace and unity. There can be no doubt that, Nyerere’s ujamaa managed

to create unity within the nation of people divided by tribes, religions, and race. The fact that

Tanzania was able to avoid civil wars which have ravaged other African countries, and managed

to help more than 200 tribes , and more than three big religions to live together is a clear

indication that there are certain things which Nyerere’s ujamaa succeeded to achieve. Nyerere

himself did not believe that ujamaa achieved nothing. Although in some respects he admitted

failure, he also believed that during ujamaa there were certain things which were built. This

belief is contained in a speech to mark his 75th birthday, at the Institute of Development Studies

at the University of Dar-es-salaam. He writes:

41

So Norman Manley was asked as Jamaica was moving towards independence, “Mr. Prime Minister, are you going to nationalize the economy? His answer was: “you can’t nationalize nothing. You people here are busy privatizing not nothing, we did build something, we built something to privatize (Nyerere, 2000, p. 21).

The things which Nyerere is referring to here and which were being nationalized then were the

industries, factories, and the institutions that were built during the time of Nyerere’s ujamaa: they

include, TANESCO, DAWSCO, and TTCL, ATC, Sugar factories (in Morogoro and Moshi, in

Kilimanjaro), Cement Factories (Wazo Hill in Dar, Tanga Cement, and Mbeya Cement in

Songwe), and textile industries, to mention but, a few.

The dimensions of success in Nyerere’s ujamaa were caused by a variety of reasons: the first one

concerns itself with the acceptance of the principle of human equality. If Nyerere has maintained

sectarian policies of racism and tribalism, and maintain that one tribe is better than other, as it

was the case in some African countries, Tanzania as we know it today would not have existed.

Secondly, the use of Swahili as a common language helped to create a sense of oneness even

though it destroyed the tribal languages. Thirdly, the program of education for self-reliance may

have had some problems but, it managed to achieve 95%literacy, the highest in Africa. The

contemporary ruling class in Tanzania and the emerging middle class all owe their education to

Nyerere’s ujamaa, which gave them free education and nationalized private schools so that all

children from all types of background can have education. Fourthly, success was possible

because of the government’s stance on religion. The neutrality assumed with regard to religion

was very important to defuse the tensions between religious faction and between one religion and

the other. Fifthly, the leadership code and other measures to minimize exploitation, such as

42

nationalization of the means of production, may not have delivered the big picture but, it

managed to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and minimized the chances of peasants

being exploited. Sixthly, the success of Nyerere’s ujamaa, was also partly due to the leadership

and personal integrity of Nyerere himself. Although in some respects he was all the names

mentioned above, (self-coroneted autocrat, prophet, an autocrat and you name it), he was also in

other respects, a leader who cared deeply about the people of Tanzania and their poverty and

whose leadership was not tainted by any corrupt practices, as were some African leaders of post-

colonial Africa, who embezzled funds from their own people. That is what Colin Legum, one of

his close associates mean when he writes: “Nyerere’s personal example is never questioned, not

even by his strong critics [because] his life [was] one of dedicated commitment, austerity, hard

work, humility and integrity” (Legum, 1995, p. 195). If Tanzania had fallen into the hands of a

corrupt leader, of the kind that emerged in other African countries, like Zaire, the prospect would

have been bleak indeed. The implication of these achievements is that there were things which

Nyerere’s ujamaa managed to achieve and which can be considered as its legacy. Lastly, success

was also possible because of Nyerere’s pragmatism and the commitment of the donor

community to assist Tanzania in its development programs.

7.5. Nyerere’s Ujamaa Today

43

Having examined in the last section the failures and success of Nyerere’s ujamaa, and its

implication on the legacy of Nyerere’s ujamaa, we will now in this section examine Nyerere’s

ujamaa in Tanzania today. In Tanzania today, Nyerere’s ujamaa is not the policy that informs

and directs strategies against poverty in the country. Although the constitution of the United

Republic of Tanzania, Article 3 (1), still provides that Tanzania is a democratic and socialist

state, which adheres to multiparty democracy, in practice Tanzania today is not a socialist

country, but a capitalist, liberal state which adheres to multiparty democracy. The Tanzanian

government abandoned the policies of Nyerere’s ujamaa, which were socialist policies, and

embraced the policies of capitalism, as were advocated by neo-liberalists such as Margret

Thatcher in the UK, Ronald Reagan, in the USA, of Chancellor Helmut Kohl, of Germany

through their financial institutions, the IMF and WB.

The movement away from Nyerere’s ujamaa began in 1985, when Nyerere retired from the

presidency and when Ali Hasan Mwinyi, took over the reins of power. According to Mohabe

Nyirabu, a senior lecturer in political science and public Administration at the university of Dar-

es-salaam, soon after taking office, President Mwinyi’s administration signed a number of

agreements with the IMF and WB which paved the way for implementation of what is known as

Structural Adjustment Policies or SAP’s (Nyirabu, 2003, p. 3-4). SAP was a policy that was

prescribed to all Third World Countries, by western countries through its Britton Wood

institutions of the WB and IMF. Basically, according to Adebayo Olukoshi, SAP required the

following conditions: devaluation of national currencies (in Tanzania, the Shilling);

liberalization of trade, investment and foreign currency transactions; deregulation of prices and

44

interest rates; the promotion of cost-cutting, deficit reducing measures such as subsidy

withdrawal, cost sharing and cost recovery; retrenchment of workers in the public sector;

privatization and commercialization of the public enterprise, essential for anti-statism; pro-

market philosophy and promotion of private property (Olukoshi, 2000)8.

In order to receive funds from the WB and the IMF, Tanzania embarked on the implementations

of SAP’s with the following consequences: first, in the context of Tanzania, SAP’s implied a

shift from “state-shape- society to market-shape-society assumption” (Mushi, 2001, p. 7). I

practical terms, this meant the abolition of some of the key principle aims of the AD and,

therefore, of Nyerere’s ujamaa, namely, the involvement of the government in economic

development of the country, abolition of the government’s effective control of over the means

of production and exchange and the government’s involvement in the eradication of all types of

exploitation. The withdrawal of the state from these principle aims led to what Mushi has called

“state contraction” (Mushi, 2001, p. 7), that is to say, the state was, according to Nyirabu,

“reduced to maintaining law and order” (Nyirabu, 2003, p. 5). Secondly, the government

withdrawal from the economic activities of the countries gave rise to private development

agents and civic groups. In this connection, the “democratization of development” (Mushi,

2002, p. 7), gave rise the formation of all kinds of civic groups and organizations, in both rural

and urban areas, who were aspiring to take on the mantle of developing Tanzania.

8 Olukoshi, A. “Structural Adjustment and Social Policies in Africa: Some Notes (The Nordin Africa Institute, Uppsala, S – 751 45, Sweden, November, 2000) at the following website: gasp.stakes.fi/NR/rdonlyres/FA5DE69C-1098…/aolukoshi.pdf

45

Thirdly, as the state continued to shrink, government development projects in the rural areas

stopped and the provision of social services, such as schools, health care, water, which had been

a significant feature of Nyerere’s ujamaa deteriorated even further because according to the new

dispensation of neo-liberalism, such services were supposed to be provided at a fee by

government, Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s), and private entrepreneurs. Private

schools and private hospitals emerged but, as Mushi, has pointed out, the capacity of none-state

agents, was very small and as a result they could not afford to provide social services in the

country as the wisdom of the neo-liberalism dictated (Ibid, p. 8). Those who have the capacity,

the fee they charged for services were so high that ordinary people could not afford the cost. As

a result, there emerged in the country hospitals and schools for the rich and the poor, with

government schools and hospitals considered to be for the poor, as they are poorly equipped and

have no qualified staff and the most expensive hospitals and schools considered to be for the

middle class and super rich.

Fourthly, in less than a decade, the government which for more than 20 years controlled the

major means of production, embarked on a privatization exercise. As a result almost all

economic institutions built by Nyerere’s ujamaa were privatized. They included the Tanzania

Telecommunication Company Limited (TTCL), National Association Sea Aviation Corporation

(NASACO), Air Tanzania Corporation (ATC), Tanzania Railways Corporation (TRC),

Tanzania Electricity Supply Company, (TANESCO), the National Bank of Commerce (NBC),

Tanzania Harbors Authority (THA), Cement factories (songwe, wazo, tanga), Sugar Industries

46

(Mtibwa in Morogoro and TPC in Moshi), Textile Industries and NAFCO, to mention but a few

(Magoti, 2004, p. 65). All in all, it is estimated that more than 400 public enterprises were

privatized and that resulted in a sizeable number of retrenchments of workers. In many of the

enterprises that were privitazed workers resisted the privatization move due to various reasons

including, lack of consultation, exclusion in acquisition of shares of the privatized companies,

and delays in payment of their lawful entrenchment entitlements. Even after privatization,

worker demonstrations, strikes and threatened strikes have not stopped (Mukandala, 2008, p.

4)9. The point is that with privatization, and liberalization of the economy, international

capitalism, assumed full control of the Tanzanian economy and the state, through the investment

code10 became the protector and through the Presidential Parastatal Sector Reform Commission

(PSRC) became the promoter of interests of the multinational companies. Expressing similar

sentiments, Nyirabu writes: “with privatization, society is stripped of its most valuable national

asset and faces the risk of manipulation and dictation by global corporate elites” (Nyirabu,

2003, p. 5).

Lastly, the liberalization of the economy was followed by the liberalization of politics, in that

the ruling party, the only one party which had hitherto dominated politics in the country and

which was one of the characteristic features of Nyerere’s ujamaa, was challenged by the

emergence of more than 18 opposition parties, the most prominent of which were Chama cha

Demokrasia na Maendeleo (CHADEMA), or the party of Democracy and Development, the

9 See , ‘Speech by Prof. R.S. Mukandala, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Dar-es-Salaam on the Occasion of Official Opening of the 16th Conference on the State of Politics in Tanzania, Nkuruma Hall, University of Dar-es-salaam, 19th august, 2008 (unpublished material).

10 What does it say?47

National Convention for Construction and Reform (NCCR-Mageuzi), The Tanzania Labor

Party (TLP), and the Civic United Front (CUF). The emergence of multi party democracy in

1992, did according to Mushi, “completed the process of installing the market as the dominant

force in the country’s development agenda [because] at least in theory, there was now a ‘free’

economic market and a ‘free’ political market” (Mushi, 2001, p. 7). It is significant to note that

‘free’ is in inverted commas, because the freedom trumpeted was questionable and highly

suspect.

By 1995, Nyerere’s ujamaa, was for all practical purpose and intent, not the policy which

informed the social, political and economic activities in the country but capitalism. Writing in

1997, Samuel Mushi, a professor of Political Science and Public Administration, at the

university of Dar-es-salaam, is reported by Nyirabu to have stated that “the Mwinyi era 1985-

1995, was the liberal decade par excellence” (Mushi, quoted by Nyirabu, 2003, p. 4). This

means that, under the presidency of Hon. Hassan Mwinyi, who was the head of state from 1985-

1995, Tanzania became completely liberalized. But since there have been no major changes in

terms of policy, since 1985, Mushi’s estimation can be extended to include not only the one

decade that he refers to but, also to subsequent decades that followed. In light of that

observation, it can be said that, the last two and half decades have been the liberal decades par

excellence for even the ruling party CCM which for more than 20 years was fighting capitalist

tendencies within the party and the country, made an acrobatic u-turn and advocated capitalism.

In what became known as the Zanzibar Declaration, the NEC of CCM, on the 23 February

1991, abolished the Leadership Code (LC), which is one of the features of the AD and of

48

Nyerere’s ujamaa and opened the way for party, government leaders, and members to get

involved in capitalist ventures, such as owning rental houses or property, starting private

business and earning more than two salaries (Nyirabu, 2003, p. 4-5), which is the exact opposite

of what the LC in AD taught. The point is that since 1985, Tanzania has been shaping itself not

along the principles of Nyerere’s ujamaa but along the social, political and economic policies of

capitalism as expressed in neo-liberalism.

In some circles today, it is almost a taboo to talk about the AD and Nyerere’s ujamaa because

neo-liberalism is considered to have ushered in a period of economic well being for Tanzanians.

This point is succinctly expressed by Nyirabu when he writes:

According to the current trend in political discourse, the liberal measures introduced by Mwinyi have resulted in better days for Tanzanians and therefore it is unthinkable even to talk about the merits of the Arusha Declaration (Nyirabu, 2003, p. 6).

Underlying that estimation is the belief that in the last two decades and half, capitalism has

improved the living conditions of people and the justification for that has been the rise in the

national Gross Domestic Product.11 The belief, in some circles, that capitalism has improved the

living conditions of people (which is arguably not the case for the majority of Tanzanians), does

not, however, imply that Nyerere’s ujamaa has no support and it certainly does not mean that

Nyerere’s ujamaa is a useless policy that can now be discarded on account that Tanzania has now 11 This is controversial because according to the Poverty and Human Development Report of 2002, the rise in GDP could not be translated into better conditions of living for all. In fact according to the report, the better conditions of living were recorded only in Dar-es-salaam but a survey on the country as whole indicated that the situation of poverty had not yet improved (see United Republic of Tanzania, Poverty and Human Development Report, 2002, The Research and Analysis Working Group, Mkuki na Nyota Publishers, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, p. 5-60)

49

found a remedy for its poverty and dependence. In Nyerere’s view, to dismiss ujamaa and

therefore, the AD which brought it into existence, as useless now simply because capitalism has

improved the living conditions of the minority of people, is an act of self -delusion. In a passage

quoted by Nyirabu (2003) from Issa Shivji (2000), Nyerere mounted a defense of the relevance

of ujamaa in the following terms:

The Arusha declaration offered hope. A promise of justice, hope to the many, indeed the majority of Tanzanians continues to like this hope. So long as there is this hope, you will continue to have peace….[ujamaa] did not do away with poverty but it has given you all in this hall, capitalists and socialists alike, an opportunity to build a country which holds out a future of hope to the many…Therefore we cannot say we have reached a stage when we can forget the Arusha Declaration. Don’t fool yourselves. This would be like that fool who uses a ladder to climb and when he is up there kicks it away. All right you are up there, you have kicked away the ladder, right, so stay there because we will cut the branch. You are up there, we are down here and you have kicked away the ladder. This branch is high up we will cut it. Your fall will be no ordinary fall either (Nyerere, as quoted by Nyirabu, 2003, p. 6).

This passage is crowded and need to be unpacked. The hope that the AD offered is that

ultimately all people, of all colors, tribe, race, sex, religion, educated and uneducated alike, will

develop because they are, from the point of view of humanity, equal. The hope that Tanzanians

like, according to Nyerere, is the hope in the well being of all and not a few. In Nyerere’s view,

hope in development for all is the source of peace in the country and in his view it is that hope

which still holds the country together in peace. Expressing the idea differently, it can be said

that, for Nyerere, peace in the country is premised on the principle of human equality which

implies development for all in society and he seems to believe that as long as that hope continues

Tanzania will remain peaceful but when that hope will be lost, the country will not be able to

50

hold together in peace. Nyerere maintains that Ujamaa may not have eradicated poverty, but it

established a situation of peace in the country, which the current leadership can use to create a

better future for all. For Nyerere, therefore, the time to forget about ujamaa is not now, because

in his estimation, it is ujamaa which has led Tanzanians to the point where they are now and if

they throw ujamaa away, simply because of the newly found dispensation of capitalism, the

country will not be able to hold together and it will eventually fall apart. Thus, in Nyerere’s

view, ujamaa is still relevant and valid today, because it is some of the principles of Nyerere’s

ujamaa which are still binding the country and its people together but, the moment those

principles will be disregarded, the country, like the fool up on a branch who kicked away the

ladder which took him to the top, will experience a spectacular heavy fall.

It might be argued that Nyerere’s claims are compromised because he is the founder of ujamaa

and its main proponent but, even if one may not wish to agree with Nyerere’s assessment of his

ujamaa today, and may have problems to endorse Nyerere’s ujamaa’s strategies to eradicate

poverty, one can still find some aspects of his policy that are important and useful. Take, for

example, the problem of corruption in the country. Corruption, the state of bribing officials in

exchange for services needed, is a way of life in Tanzania but, over the last twenty five years,

this has been more pronounced in two key areas: in the mining sector and in the energy sector. In

the energy sector, the purchase agreement between the government and private power generating

companies, such as Richmond, Dowans Holdings, IPTL, and Songas, to mention a few, have

been influenced by corruption. In addition, it has been claimed that corruption has also played a

big role in the privatization agreement between the government and the following companies:

51

Kiwira Coal mining Company (KCMCO), the International Container Terminal Services LTD

(TICTS), the purchase of Air Tanzania (ATC) by the South African Air ways (SAA), the

purchase of radar from the British BAE System Company (BBSC), the buying of the presidential

jet, and the selling of government houses located in prime areas to public servants and leaders. In

the mining sector, corruption has been reported in the selling and ownership of all large-scale

gold mines to foreigners. It is alleged that it is corruption which has led leaders to abandon the

principle of partnership in lucrative areas of investment and which makes investors in the sector

pay a very small loyalty of 3%. The solution of the neo-liberals in Tanzania to the problem of

corruption has been the establishment in 2007 of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption

Bureau (PCCB) and the establishment of a presidential ethical commission for leaders. But, these

attempts have note reduced let alone prevent the level of corruption in the country. Similarly, the

Presidential Ethical Commission (PEC) has not helped party and government leaders to maintain

ethical standards when they make government purchases and when they sign contracts with

foreign firms and companies. Neo-liberals in the country could potentially benefit from adopting

some of Nyerere’s radical thoughts, namely, the re-establishment of the leadership code. The LC

may not have created socialists but, it made it impossible or at least very difficult for party and

government officials to use their positions to enrich themselves.

Currently, the Neo-liberals are involved in a struggle to minimize the gap between the poor and

the rich which has grown bigger ever since Tanzania started implementing SAP’s. After realizing

that the wealth of the rich is not trickling down fast enough to curb the agitation of the poor, the

neo-liberals initiated what is called, National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty

52

(NSGRP)12, or MKUKUTA in Swahili, of which Property and Business Formalization Program

(PBFP) or MKURABITA, in Swahili, is an essential component. The program seeks to identify

property and/or business in the informal sector and allows ordinary citizens to move them in the

expanded market so as to capture as much economic value as possible and to gain access to

networks beyond family circles. The main objective of PBFP is to empower the poor majority in

the country by increasing their access to property and business opportunities in order to develop

strong expanded market economy. Proponents of the program believe that the formalization of

assets and business in the informal sector can help to narrow the gap between the rich and the

poor because the poor can use the formalized assets and businesses to access capital and thus

improve national growth and reduce household poverty.13 The program, however, is not working

because businesses in the informal sector, even after formalization, are not managed properly

and are not managed properly because of the lack proper education in business. Consequently,

even after formalization, citizens in the informal sector have not been able to access capital

because financial institutions are still reluctant to trust assets and businesses in the informal

sector. In addition, instead of reducing household poverty, the program is increasing household

poverty because capital secured is usually so little that it cannot enable a person in the informal

sector to compete in the market. As a result citizens in the informal sector, whose property and

business is formalized, end up spending capital for purposes other than those intended, a

situation which, in the final analysis has left many people poorer than they ever were before

formalizing their assets and securing capital from banks and other financial institutions in the

12 The document explaining this in detail can be found on line at the official website of the United Republic of Tanzania (URT), at http://www.tanzania.go.tz/

13 The information is in the document of Property and Business Formalization Program (PBFP), which can be found on the official website of the United Republic of Tanzania (URT), at http://www.tanzania.go.tz/

53

country. A more thorough recognition of the basic assumptions of Nyerere’s ujamaa, that the gap

between the rich and poor is caused by unequal distribution of resources and by a concentration

of the means of production in the hands of a few14 would be very helpful in the current struggle.

In academia the Mwalimu Nyerere Foundation (MNF)15 continues to be the advocate of peace,

unity and human centered development, through research and policy advice in the region and in

Africa as a whole. The foundation was heavily involved in the Burundi peace process and is

currently involved in the resolution of the conflicts in Sudan, namely the conflict between the

North and South Sudan and between the Sudanese government and Dafur. In the country, the

foundation assists young students to pursue studies on Nyerere’s ideas and has been very critical

of the current government of President Jakaya Kikwete, whose policies are being blamed for

exacerbating the condition poverty in the country. In 2008, the University of Dar-es-salaam,

established the Mwalimu Nyerere Professorial Chair in Pan African Studies (MNPCPAS) in

order to reinvigorate intellectual discussions as well as motivate research on development issues

facing Tanzania, in particular and Africa in general. Since its inception, the chair has been

organizing every year, the Nyerere Annual Lectures (NAL) by some prestigious African

Statesmen and women on topics related to development in Africa. In addition, the Chair has also

been organizing Vice-Chancellor's Palaver on Development Directions (VCP-DD), which is

14 It estimated that the economy of Tanzania is controlled by six people.

15 The Mwalimu Nyerere Foundation is an intellectually and politically independent non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Tanzania. The vision is for the Foundation to become a "regional centre of excellence and advocate in the promotion of peace, unity and people-centered development in Africa and the world through justice for all." The mission is to achieve this through research, policy advice, consultative exchanges and partnerships. In all this, the Foundation's work is based on Mwalimu Nyerere's belief in the fundamental principle that all humanity, regardless of their differences, is the purpose and justification for the existence of society and that people are fundamental to any process of development.

54

basically an intellectual discussion on the directions of development of the country. These

discussions have been very critical of the policies of the WB and IMF that are being

implemented by the current government because they are leading Tanzanians away from human

centered development, the development of all people, which was the objective of Nyerere’s

ujamaa to the development of material things for a few individuals in the society.

If Nyerere were to come back and start working in the situation obtaining in Tanzania today, he

might find himself arguing for the same principles he argued for more than thirty years ago but

with even more support, understanding and sympathy than he ever got in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

This is partly because the twenty five years of neo-liberal capitalism have vindicated some of the

basic claims of Nyerere’s ujamaa, namely that in Africa; capitalism cannot bring about

development for all. The experience of life under capitalism has indeed shown that capitalism

instead of bringing development for all is promoting the well being of only a few in the country.

In this and in many others aspects, people are now able to tell where Nyerere’s ujamaa was

wrong and where it was right. While many may have some doubts about Nyerere’s wisdom to

nationalize agriculture and land, a few would today dispute the fact that development, material

and spiritual, is for all people and cannot be only for a privileged few. The broadening of

development to include all members of society, irrespective of their differences is in part a result

of Nyerere’s ujamaa’s contribution to development in Tanzania.

7.6. The Future of Nyerere’s Ujamaa.

55

Having discussed the situation of Nyerere’s ujamaa today, we will now in this section examine

the future of Nyerere’s ujamaa. Tanzania has changed ever since Nyerere retired from the

leadership of the ruling party in 1990 and especially since he died on the 14 th October 1999. Of

course the question of how Tanzania can develop is still being asked today, because Tanzania is

still poor and is still dependent on the developed countries but, the answers that are being given

are different and have had consequences which have bearings on the future of Nyerere’s ujamaa.

The contemporary answer to a one party state has been the introduction of multi-party

democracy with more than 18 political parties. Although Nyerere would not have endorsed a

plethora of political parties as a requirement of democracy and, therefore, of development, the

existence of opposition parties in the country is a development that Nyerere would gladly

welcome, because it broadens the scope of political choices and the freedom of an individual and

the society.16 Within this democratic climate there are political parties, such as CHADEMA,

which is more sympathetic to some of the principles of Nyerere’s ujamaa and it is very likely

that if and when they come to power, some of the principles of Nyerere’s ujamaa, especially

those which bring about the development of all citizens, will be promoted and maintained.

The answer that neo-liberals have given to the problem of poverty has transformed Tanzania

from being a classless society or at least a society where the gap between the rich and poor was

not very big, to a society of classes, most notably, the ruling class, the middle class, and the class

of peasants, ordinary people. The existence of huge gaps between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have not’,

is a development that Nyerere would have not gladly endorsed because he believed that the 16 Although in a referendum to decide whether or not Tanzania should embrace multi-party democracy the majority objected to the formation of other political parties, Nyerere insisted that it was not possible to go on with a one party democracy because the time, as he argued was ripe for Tanzania to have a multiparty democracy.

56

system which develops a few and under develops many, contained within itself the seeds of

destruction and disintegration of society. Put differently, for Nyerere, a system which did not

accept the principle of human equality, and which thought there was merit in only developing a

few people, was doomed to failure. The view that seeks development for all is increasingly being

shared by many people in the country, especially during this period when people are preparing

for the general elections. It appears that the candidate who promises development for all is the

candidate most likely to win the votes of many than the candidate who promises development of

a few people in society.

The reforms carried out under the instruction of the WB and the IMF (i.e. state withdrawal from

economic activities) has transformed the country from being a strong state, (a state which

controlled at least in part, the major means of production, a state which is heavily involved in the

economic activities in the country, a state which provides social services to its people) to a weak

state (a state which has no other responsibility apart from maintaining law and order). The

reduction of Tanzania from being a strong state to a weak state is a development that Nyerere

and some Tanzanians would dread to accept because of the belief that that Tanzania is a young

nation which still needs a strong state to be able to deal effectively with the forces of

globalization. The private sector in Tanzanians does not have the resources to compete with the

international companies, and very few individuals if any had the capital to make investments

which can compete with the big companies, so the interference of the state was still needed. A

weak state cost people their livelihood, and has created resentment of capitalism and its

57

defenders. There is still desire of a strong state among the people and the party that advocated

that would is more likely to win more votes.

Poor allocation of resources, especially land is one of the consequences of the neo-liberal

policies which are most likely to lead to a revival of Nyerere’s ujamaa. In the last two decades

and half there has been an increase in investment projects in areas requiring big pieces of land.

These sectors include agriculture and livestock, construction, energy, natural resources, tourism,

manufacturing, commercial buildings, petroleum and mining. The land law of 1999 was

amended in 2003 to allow non-citizens to obtain a right of occupancy or a derivative title for

investment proposes. Recent events in different of the country have shown that the big investors

have grabbed huge chunks of land leaving small land users with no land to carry one their

activities. This has caused conflicts and resentments among the ordinary people who now think

that the land rights which Nyerere’s ujamaa bestowed on them are slowly being eroded by the

government through its foreign investors. There is a longing for the days of Nyerere’s ujamaa,

when land was available to all Tanzanians, small and big users alike, for the development of the

country and its people.

Irritation among the people arising from the neo-liberal policy of privatization of public

enterprises may in the future determine the revival of Nyerere’s ujamaa. Two main objections

are usually put forward here: the first one is that most of the institutions created by Nyerere’s

ujamaa have, over the last two decades and half, been sold at throw away price. The best

58

example to illustrate this is the selling of TTCL, to Detecon, a Dutch based multinational Mobile

Systems company. According to Nyirabu, in 2002, the workers of TTCL asked Benjamin

William Mkapa, then the head of state, to ask the mobile company to pay the outstanding debt of

US$60 million for the purchase of the 35% shares in the company. The president did not take

any action and it is believed the foreign company bought the firm at a throw away price

(Nyirabu, 2003, p. 6). The second objection has been about the massive redundancy which

privatization has triggered and the low wages workers in those private companies have been

receiving. Redundancy, low wages, and poor conditions of work in private companies have been

a source of many grievances among workers in the private sector. The best examples in this

regard are Tanzania Railways Corporation (TRC) and TANESCO. In the case of TRC lawful

payments for those who were retrenched delayed and workers who retained their job could not

be paid their salaries in time but, the top leadership from India was being paid by the government

huge sums of money. The situation in TANESCO was more or the same because a South African

Net Group Company (SANGC0 which in 2002 took over the management of TANESCO, was

accused by workers for rewarding themselves huge sums of money without doing anything

(Op.cit. p. 6). The feelings of discontent which are now a common feature in many companies

have caused riots, strikes, and outright resentment of the government as well as its liberal

policies. It has made many workers to think of Nyerere’s ujamaa, as a policy which really cared

for national assets and the well being of the ordinary people and workers.

In sum it can be said that grievances over the growing gap between the rich and the poor,

concerns over land grabbing by multinational companies and investors, distress over

59

privatization of public property, unemployment and low wages, grievances over dubious

contracts and purchases, and pain caused by the rising level of corruption and religious tension

are, in terms ideology, experienced against the background of Nyerere’s ujamaa. Expressed

differently, Nyerere’s ujamaa is the prism through which many ordinary people perceive the new

dispensation. As such, they are constantly making comparisons between what life was during

Nyerere’s ujamaa and what is now. It is therefore, not surprising that in many rallies and

demonstrations and strikes, it is always the name of Nyerere that is evoked in songs and

speeches. This indicates that, for Many Tanzanians, Nyerere’s ujamaa is still the standard

measure, and the litmus test for judging whether an ideology is valid or not. To counter the

grievances, however, it is not necessary to go back to Nyerere’s ujamaa, as there are other ways

of dealing with grievances such as those we have described but until the mechanism to eradicate

those grievances are put in place and are seen to be effective, Nyerere’s ujamaa will continue to

be the ideological view that many people in the country will in the future turn to for their well

being. Just before his death in 1999, Nyerere was asked by Buting, a journalist whether in

retrospect, there are things which he could have done differently. In response to that question

Nyerere did indicate that eventually Tanzanians will revive the values and the principles of the

AD. In His words:

There are things that I would have done more firmly or not all. For example, I would not nationalize the sisal plantations. This was a mistake. I did not realize how difficult it would be for the state to manage agriculture. Agriculture is difficult to socialize…The land issue and the family holdings were very sensitive. I saw this intellectually but it was hard to translate it into policy implementation. But I still think Tanzanians will return to the values and the basic principles of the Arusha Declaration (Buting, 1999, p. 5)

60

Even if the return to Nyerere’s ujamaa is rejected and may come to pass, the vision of

development for all because all human beings are equal, is one vision that could prove to be very

important in any future negotiations about development in Tanzania.

61

country “bedeviled by …poverty; people are sick, ignorant, and live in very poor condition”

(Nyerere, 1976, p. 9). In addition, according to Nyerere “[Tanzania’s] national income per head

[was] something between Tsh. 400 and Tsh.460 pr year” (Ibid. p. 9), which is the equivalent of

about 100 pounds a year. There was, therefore, a need to increase production of goods to enable

everyone to live in conditions of human dignity. This means that production of goods was an

essential aspect of Nyerere’s ujamaa. Its war against poverty was premised on production of

wealth. Without the production of wealth there would have been no way it could even try to

eradicate the deprivation which surrounded people in Tanzania.

62