the contribution of ujamaa to development in tanzania
TRANSCRIPT
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