Magufuli didn’t ban all forms of politics...

[RUSTEM PASHA]

Tunaomba ujibu haya masuali endelee na mnakasha wako.Umeulizwa hivi na Nguruvi3.

aposema 'any form, una maana aina zote za mikutano, iwe ya ndani, nje au popote.
Hapa unatueleza mikutano hiyo isiwe jangwani, mahotelini au popote
Ukisema 'specific forms' una maana ipo iliyoruhusiwa(upekee) na iliyokatazwa.
Kwa mfano, ukikataza mkutano wa jangwani (wazi) hiyo ni specific.
Unaweza kuruhusu ya ndani (kama vikao vya kawaida) nayo ni specific
Kwa mantiki hiyo, any form zinazuia mkutano mkuu wa CCM pia.
Specific Form zinazuia mikutano kama ule wa Zitto na ACT pale Millenium tower au wa CCM kule Dodoma.
Sasa tufafanulie kwa dhana ya any form na Specific form unalenga kutueleza nini?
Na kwa muktadha wa kauli ya Magufuli na waziri mkuu, ni kipi kilikatazwa kati ya any form na specific form . Na Polisi wanafanyia kazi agizo lipi la any form au specific form?

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

.
Kimsingi ofisi ya mkuu wa wilaya haiwezi kutatua tatizo lolote hata ikitokea bahati mbaya mwananchi akafikisha kero yake,DC atalazimika kuipeleka Halimashauri maana ndio mamlaka halali,kisheria na kiutaratibu. DC ana vikao viwili vya kisheria yaani kikao cha ulinzi na usalama cha wilaya, na DCC yaani kamati ya ushauri ya wilaya. Vikao vyote viwili sio vya maamuzi bali mashauriano. Halimashauri ndio mamlaka halali yenye vikao vya maamuzi,na maamuzi yake yanaweza kuhojiwa mahakamani,halimashauri inaweza kushtakiwa/kushtaki etc,halimashauri ina bajeti na ina uwezo wa kukusanya mapato yake,ikiwa ni pamoja na kujitungia sheria ndogo ndogo....

.
Mimi sioni tatizo la ofisi ya DC katika mtazamo huo wako. Kwa mujibu wa kanuni ya vertical division of labour ofisi ya DC ni muhimu na lazima iwepo kwa ajili ya kusimamia kazi za RC katika ngazi ya wilaya. Katika lutekeleza jukumu hili, kikao cha DCC ni muhimu sana. Na sio sahihi kusema kwamba kikao hiki kina consultative powers tu. It also has deliberative powers (check the red text in the appendix below).

Hivyo, swali linalopaswa kutukuna vichwa ni hili: Je, kazi za DC haziwezi kufanywa na DED, au kinyume chake, na hivyo kupunguza ukubwa wa serikali? Swali kama hili linapaswa kuulizwa pia katika ngazi ya kata ambako kuna WEO na DEO. Yaani, haiwezekani kazi za WEO zikafanywa na WEO au kinyume chake, na hivyo kupunguza ukubwa wa serikali? Mjadala wa aina hiyo utakuwa na tija.

======================================================
FUNCTIONS OF DISTRICT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

The District Consultative Committee shall consist of

a) the District Commissioner who shall be the Chairman;
b) the Chairman of the District Authority or the Urban Authority within the district;
c) the Divisional Secretaries in the District;
d) a Member of Parliament representing constituency in the district;
e) Members of Parliament whose nomination originated from political parties within the region;
f) Members of Parliament appointed by the President pursuant to Article 66(1 )(e) of the Constitution of the United Republic 1977 hailing from the region;
g) all Heads of Division in the Councils;
h) all Ward Executive Officers in the Councils;
i) Chairman and Secretary of registered political parties having offices within District."
j) Such other members as may be co-opted or invited by the Chairman to the District Consultative Committee.
k) (K) The Council Director shall be the Secretary to the District Consultative Committee.

The functions of the District Consultative Committee shall be to:

a) receive reports on development programmes reports and give advice to effective implementation of the development plans;
b) consider reports and advise Regional Commissioner on National Development Project;
c) consider reports and advise on the activities of parastatals cooperative societies and other non-governmental organization operating in the district;
d) ensure that local government authorities execute and implement their development activities as mandated in the development plans;
e) ensure effective implementation of the Council decisions;
f) ensure adherence to code of conduct for political parties in maintenance of peace and tranquility within the District;
g) manage natural disasters and coordinate disaster relief within the District. For avoidance of doubt, natural disaster includes occurrences such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, drought, fire, famine or epidemics.

 

[Simplicity.]

Jamaa alitambua hapa ni mahali anaweza kutupa chochote watu wakameza. Ni assignment yake, kituo cha kazi leo ni ..

Hapa watu wana ufahamu, weledi na kujitambua. Leo kaingia porini bila kutarajia.
Baada ya kufanya fyongo, CCM ina haha kujinasua na aibu hii. Polisi wanatafuta pa kutokea

Kuna mwingine anaitwa Sophist, nahisi ni Kahangwa anatumia ID nyingine, wewe soma hoja zake, haieleweki anachokitetea.

 

[Sophist]

kama dhamira yako ni kuviponda vyama vya upinzani, kuwa tangu vianzishwe takribani miaka 25 iliyopita vimekosa dira, kumbuka pia ccm iko mafarakani miaka 55 ilyopita bado nchi ni askini, shule hazina madawati

two wrongs do not make right.

 

[bridalmask]

Of political discourse, strategic ambiguity and sustainable clarity: Did Magufuli ban all forms of political discourse?​

View attachment 364452 ​

On 23 June 2016, President Magufuli of Tanzania discouraged direct political discourses which prevailed during the general elections as political contestants from various political parties competed for key political offices.

In the alternative, he encouraged indirect political discourses through the parliament, district councils and ward development councils, where the elected politicians can compete through formal arguments, both written and oral. He said nothing about direct democracy at the Local Government Authority level. (Check the video: Video)

The next morning, it was too obvious that the most active segment of the civil society--the media-- either misunderstood the logic of the President’s statement or deliberately engaged in self-misdirection for ulterior motives.

For example, Mtanzania daily newspaper reported, “Mafufuli: Hakuna siasa mpaka 2020,” literally meaning, “Magufuli says no politics until 2020.” All other media houses fell into the same unethical trap of public disinformation through the fallacy of equivocation.

In the same spirit of equivocative communication, Zitto Katwe, the ACT-Wazalendo Supreme leader slammed the President for declaring a war on multiparty democracy by allegedly banning all forms of political discourse. Professor Kitila Mkumbo too, through his recent article in Raia Mwema newspaper, has accused the President of virtually banning all forms of political discourse until 2020.

As a result of this widespread misrepresentation of the Presidents statements, the general public has ultimately been made to believe the same—that, the President has banned all forms of political discourse until 2020.

Due to this disinformation through the Tanzania’s media, Chadema’s youth wing (BAVICHA) and CCM’s youth wings (UVCCM) are now in a fierce linguistic war as to whether the forthcoming CCM’s national convention is violative of the president’s directive or not. BAVICHA believes holding the convention will violate the president’s directive, while UVCCM thinks not. I think UVCCM is right and BAVICHA is wrong. Let me explain.

It appears to me that, when the president said that "wanasiasa...wafanye siasa za ushindani kwa nguvu zote baada ya miaka mitano" he was referring to "direct political discourse" as opposed to "indirect political discourse" --direct democracy as opposed to indirect democracy. At a national level, "direct political discourse" takes place between politicians and voters in the form of “electoral politics” which allow the society to vote new leaders into key offices.

So, it is right to say that, by his statement, the President banned “electoral politics" at a national level in the present post-election period. He said nothing about indirect political discourses.

In other words, he did not ban indirect political discourses both at a national and sub-national levels. National conventions and other indoor meetings in accordance with the constitutions of political parties are not direct political discourses. Thus they were not banned by the president.

It is my hope that, this line of reasoning will most probably stand out clearly if we look at the definition of the word “politics” and the related doctrine that "man is a political animal."

ON ARISTOTLE'S DOCTRINE THAT MAN IS A POLITICAL ANIMAL

Aristotle, judging by his writings, was extremely interested in contemplating the nature of man. Man’s role in society and the motivations that drive him to act in certain ways under certain conditions clearly held a great fascination for him.

Indeed, his two great works, Politics, believed to have been written about 350 B.C., and Nicomachean Ethics, written about 340 B.C., include protracted and well-reasoned discussions regarding this very question.

It was in the earlier of those two works, Politics, in which Aristotle penned one of his most well-known and oft-cited quotes, that “man is by nature a political animal.” In beginning his protracted rumination of politics and the nature of man, and placing Aristotle squarely in the context in which he lived (ancient Greece) he first ponders the manner in which man forms communities, and how those communities are structured.

He reasons that, it is natural for every mature and conscious human person to desire to know the what-ness, where-ness, when-ness, why-ness, who-ness, whose-ness and how-ness of valuable things. Hence, his conclusion:

“Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always acts in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.”​

Having established his position with regard to the manner in which man congregates and forms communities and their political corollary, the state, Aristotle then delves deeper into the nature by which animals in general, and man in particular, form such communities. Animals naturally form communities; man is an animal; states, collections of individual villages, are political entities; therefore, man is a political animal. To again quote Aristotle on this point in Book 1 of Politics:

“It is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. . .Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. . .And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust . . . and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state.”​

In conclusion, then, we can say that, Aristotle’s statement that “man is a political animal” can be taken in one of the two major ways. One reading is to say that man is naturally sociable and that they are naturally drawn to various political associations in order to satisfy their social needs.

And another reading, which sees the word “political” in a less charitable light, might state that, since politics is based upon violence and threats of violence, the phrase emphasizes the “animal” side of human nature rather than its rational and cooperative side.

However, those who turn their back on the violence inherent in politics, in Aristotle’s view, also turn their back on society, declaring themselves to be outlaws, without a “tribe”, and without a heart.

Apart from Aristotle, many other philsophers have spoken about politics too. For example, According to the Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung, “Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.”

According to the Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz, “War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means.”

David Easton in his “A Systems Analysis of a Political Life(1965)” states that “A political system can be designated as those interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society."

Hannah Arendt in his “The Human Condition (1958)” states that: “To be political, to be in polis means that everything is decided through words and persuasion and not through force and violence.”

And Harold Lasswell speaks of politics in terms of “Who Gets What, When and How” through his book entitled “Politics: Who Gets What, When and How? which was published in 1958.

While the relationship between war and politics is often quite close, there is a world of difference between political and violent means to achieve one’s objectives. But recognizing how close these two essential human dynamics are to each other should elevate our appreciation for the importance of a healthy and robust politics in our societies and lives.

MY DEFINITION OF POLITICS

For this reason, I will take the word “politics” to refer to any process whereby two or more persons, through persuasion and without resorting to physical violence, decide on who gets what value, when, where, how, and why.

In this definition, the key words/phrases are: value, what, when, where, how, and why. I shall discuss the significance of each in turn.

The keyword "value" means any sought-after value in life. It refers to any object, activity, idea, principle, goal, or other phenomenon upon which large numbers of people place appreciable value, something which is considered by many individuals and groups within the political community to be good, desirable, attractive, useful, rewarding, beneficial, or advantageous.

One set of values may be tangible, or material, in form, that is, in the form of money, property, or other economic goods, services, and conditions. Another set of values may be intangible; that is, the values may be symbolic, ideological, cultural, ethical, moral, or religious in character.

Examples of intangible values in politics include the expressed goals of political activists who assert that they are concerned primarily with "social" or "family" issues, that they seek mainly to promote and defend "social" or "family" values.

The keyword “WHO” refers to the winner-loser-contestant in a political conflict, for example, Magufuli versus Lowasa in an electoral contest, MP’s versus MP’s in a medicare budget fight, two or more aspiring managers in a match of office politics, or a neighborhood civic group versus a real estate developer in a community zoning dispute.

The keyword “WHAT” relates to the stakes in the battle, for example, preservation of an endangered species in an environmental politics fight, creation of a voting district designed to empower a particular group in a redistricting process, or custody of the family dog in the personal politics surrounding a contested divorce.

The keyword “WHEN” suggests that timing often can be a critical element in determining the achievement of a political goal. For example, maneuvering one’s boss for a pay raise will be a lot more difficult after an unfavorable earnings report; promoting passage of a death penalty statute may be substantially more successful after a grisly and callous murder.

The keyword “WHERE” indicates that political possibilities may differ from one terrain to the next. For example, passing gay rights legislation in America will be easier than in conservative Tanzania; locating a halfway house for substance abusers in a highly organized and affluent suburb can be much more difficult than in a poorly organized and disadvantaged neighborhood; paying hospitals for providing the same service will result in different levels of payment for urban teaching versus rural community institutions; getting one’s spouse to spend time with the in-laws may be easier if those relatives live in the same geographic area as opposed to an island in the Caribbean.

The keyword “WHY” synthesizes all of the above to explain why some person, group, or other entity (1) got what they wanted, (2) did not get what they wanted, (3) got what they did not want, or (4) did not get what they did not want.

And the key phrase “THROUGH PERSUASION AND WITHOUT RESORTING TO PHYSICAL VIOLENCE” places politics on a continuum of methods by which rights and resources within a society are distributed.

At one end of the continuum is democratic political action in a civil society; at the other end are violence, dictatorship, and war where normal civic functions have been eliminated or have lost their capacity to work. In other words, political action is the principal alternative to violence in figuring out how to deal with the disparate needs, desires, and values in society.

This concludes the bigger part of my expository analysis of the word “politics.” But it is not all. One helpful way to test the usefulness of a definition is to try it out with familiar categories. Following are some recognizable categories of politics presented here to test the definition of politics as the way people decide who gets what, when, where, how and why, but without resorting to violence.

DEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL POLITICS

Who gets the office—public or private—after being chosen by vote? This could be the Tanzania’s president, MP, councilor, school committee member, ward committee chairman, student council president, labor union secretary treasurer, condominium association president, chair of a local gay rights organization, minister, or thousands and thousands of other positions.

DEMOCRATIC BUDGET POLITICS

Who gets what levels of resources from federal, state, county, municipal, or private budgets, for what purposes, and from whom? Governments obtain their revenues from a variety of sources and then pursue a political process to determine how those funds will be allocated. In government, for example, choices are made among uses such as education, municipal aid, prisons, health needs, environmental programs, transportation and public works, tax cuts, public assistance, courts, and much more. Each one of these uses has a host of interest groups, lobbyists, and activists determined to get the largest possible share of the pie.

HEALTH CARE POLITICS

How much money is allocated for health purposes, and how are those funds distributed to, for example, hospitals, physicians, health plans, home health programs, public health initiatives, and community health centers? Within each of these categories, controversies also emerge concerning who gets what: teaching versus community versus rural versus public hospitals; primary-care physicians versus specialists; inpatient versus outpatient services; home and community versus institutional services. Who gets what rights when they belong to a managed-care organization? Who gets the right to have physician-assisted suicide?

REDISTRICTING POLITICS

Who gets what populations and borders when the time comes to redraw political district boundaries? Officeholders will seek to get and hold onto as many like-minded voters as possible and to minimize concentrations of voters who may not be as supportive. A familiar subtheme of this topic in America involves racial and ethnic issues, namely, who gets how many African Americans and/or Hispanics drawn into their districts?

CIVIL RIGHTS POLITICS

Who gets what protections written into law to guard against discriminatory treatment? Who gets special consideration to mitigate the effects of past discrimination? Who, if anyone, gets preferential treatment for jobs and educational admissions? In this political arena, as in many others, we can observe both internal politics—among and within various organizations for dominance and influence—and external politics involving these groups and non–civil rights groups opposed to or supportive of their goals and activities.

EDUCATIONAL POLITICS

Who gets to teach evolution versus creationism? Who gets a new school building in their community, and who pays for it? Who gets tenure, and who does not? Who gets public education resources: the traditional public school system or quasi-public charter schools? Who gets public dollars to promote higher education: the state university system or scholarship programs to help students attend private universities?

OFFICE POLITICS

Who gets the best office, the one with the corner window? Who gets the job title, the promotion, the raise? Who gets the burden of having to sit next to the copier machine? Who gets access to other employees’ E-mail folders?

NEIGHBORHOOD POLITICS

Who gets public permission via zoning approval to build an extension onto his or her house? Whose neighborhood gets the new subsidized housing for mentally ill individuals? How late will the corner tavern be permitted to stay open? Who gets to be (or gets stuck as) the leader of the local block association?

FAMILY POLITICS

Who takes care of the kids on the weekend? Who gets what household chores? Who gets to watch their favorite television program when there’s a conflict in scheduling? Who gets the kids or the house or the car in a marital separation? Who gets to have Thanksgiving dinner at their house?

CONCLUSION

In light of the above analysis, it does not appear to me that President Magufuli banned all political discourses in this nation. I think not. Thus, there is a need for our civil society, and our media houses in particular, to upgrade their "information analysis and evaluation" skills when it comes to reporting political matters.

You can't imagine with ua all novel of political propaganda there is no any single point than defense mechanism and trying to run away from the truth.
Simply you may trying to lie the fools but not the elites,ua missions & plans FAIL.PERIOD.

 

[Sophist]

Kuna mwingine anaitwa Sophist, nahisi ni Kahangwa anatumia ID nyingine, wewe soma hoja zake, haieleweki anachokitetea.

Jitahidi kuelewa kinachoandikwa kwa dhana na facts, badala ya kuhangaika na gist hadi kuishia kuwajadili watu. Nguvu yako iko kwenya maarifa na ujuzi ulionao badala ya siasa za vyama. Uzoefu wa akina Msafiri Mtemelwa ni shule ya kutosha kabisa.

 

[Sophist]

Kuna mwingine anaitwa Sophist, nahisi ni Kahangwa anatumia ID nyingine, wewe soma hoja zake, haieleweki anachokitetea.

Jitahidi kuelewa kinachoandikwa kwa dhana na facts, badala ya kuhangaika na gist hadi kuishia kuwajadili watu. Nguvu yako iko kwenya maarifa na ujuzi ulionao badala ya siasa za vyama. Uzoefu wa akina Msafiri Mtemelwa ni shule ya kutosha kabisa.

 

[Simplicity.]

Hapa ndipo ndugu yetu anapodanganya na kupotosha umma. Hoja yake inakosa mashiko na ni ya uongo kwa sababu zifuatazo

1. Nimepitia Political parties act, hakuna kipengele kinachosema siasa za uchaguzi ni za muda maalumu.

Mleta mada anachanganya Political parties act na sheria za tume ya uchaguzi.

Ratiba ya uchaguzi hai define political process katika nchi.

Ratiba ya uchaguzi ina eleza hatua za uchaguzi katika msimu uliotajwa kikatiba.

Kwamba, kutakuwa na uchaguzi kila baada ya miaka 5.
Tume ya uchaguzi inatoa ratiba hiyo kama ambavyo sheria imeiwezesha.

Shuguli za kisiasa kwa mujibu wa ''Political parties act'' inatoa fursa za kufanya siasa bila muda kwa kifungu Sehemu ya Pili 4-(1) inayoeleza ushiriki wa vyama na haki za mikutano n.k.

Hakuna mahali popote pale sheria ya vyama vya siasa au tume ya usajili imeeleza mwisho wa msimu wa siasa, narudia msimu wa siasa.

NEC walikabidhi ripoti ya kukamilisha uchaguzi si kumaliza msimu wa siasa.

Hivyo kazi ya NEC ni kuratibu chaguzi si kumaliza muda wa siasa nchini.

Kazi ya msajili wa vyama kwa mujibu wa sheria ni kusimamia shughuli za vyama vya kisiasa vlivyoandikishwa bila kuweka msimu,

Huyu ndugu haoni jambo jipya alilosema Rais, pengine tumkumbushe kifungu 18 cha katiba ya JMT na sehemu ya pili na ya tatu ya sheria ya vyama vya siasa nchini zinavyoeleza.

Atueleze Rais alitumia utaratibu gani kupiga marufuku juu ya sheria zilizopo?

Deus hatengenisha shughuli za msajili na NEC anawezaje kutueleza mambo ya siasa?

Siasa ni shughuli endelevu katika jamii ndiyo maana imewekewa act.

Uchaguzi ni shughuli inayokamilisha sehemu ya shughuli za kila siku za siasa inasheria zake

Sasa huyu mchumia tumbo amesema amekuwa akifundisha siasa kwa miaka, mimi nilimwuuliza kwa sababu unafundisha ndio unadhani unajua kuliko wengine? Hakujibu. Sasa ni muda mwafaka wa huyu tapeli wa kisiasa kutafutwa na kushtakiwa, atakuwa amepotosha wanafunzi wake wote kwa hali hii, na hili.

 

[Simplicity.]

Jitahidi kuelewa kinachoandikwa kwa dhana na facts, badala ya kuhangaika na gist hadi kuishia kuwajadili watu. Nguvu yako iko kwenya maarifa na ujuzi ulionao badala ya siasa za vyama. Uzoefu wa akina Msafiri Mtemelwa ni shule ya kutosha kabisa.

Kwa hiyo wewe hoja yako ni nini kwenye huu uzi? Halafu Msafiri ndio nani? Ni shule kwenye kitu gani?

 

[Shoctopus]

Your

Of political discourse, strategic ambiguity and sustainable clarity: Did Magufuli ban all forms of political discourse?​

View attachment 364452 ​

On 23 June 2016, President Magufuli of Tanzania discouraged direct political discourses which prevailed during the general elections as political contestants from various political parties competed for key political offices.

In the alternative, he encouraged indirect political discourses through the parliament, district councils and ward development councils, where the elected politicians can compete through formal arguments, both written and oral. He said nothing about direct democracy at the Local Government Authority level. (Check the video: Video)

The next morning, it was too obvious that the most active segment of the civil society--the media-- either misunderstood the logic of the President’s statement or deliberately engaged in self-misdirection for ulterior motives.

For example, Mtanzania daily newspaper reported, “Mafufuli: Hakuna siasa mpaka 2020,” literally meaning, “Magufuli says no politics until 2020.” All other media houses fell into the same unethical trap of public disinformation through the fallacy of equivocation.

In the same spirit of equivocative communication, Zitto Katwe, the ACT-Wazalendo Supreme leader slammed the President for declaring a war on multiparty democracy by allegedly banning all forms of political discourse. Professor Kitila Mkumbo too, through his recent article in Raia Mwema newspaper, has accused the President of virtually banning all forms of political discourse until 2020.

As a result of this widespread misrepresentation of the Presidents statements, the general public has ultimately been made to believe the same—that, the President has banned all forms of political discourse until 2020.

Due to this disinformation through the Tanzania’s media, Chadema’s youth wing (BAVICHA) and CCM’s youth wings (UVCCM) are now in a fierce linguistic war as to whether the forthcoming CCM’s national convention is violative of the president’s directive or not. BAVICHA believes holding the convention will violate the president’s directive, while UVCCM thinks not. I think UVCCM is right and BAVICHA is wrong. Let me explain.

It appears to me that, when the president said that "wanasiasa...wafanye siasa za ushindani kwa nguvu zote baada ya miaka mitano" he was referring to "direct political discourse" as opposed to "indirect political discourse" --direct democracy as opposed to indirect democracy. At a national level, "direct political discourse" takes place between politicians and voters in the form of “electoral politics” which allow the society to vote new leaders into key offices.

So, it is right to say that, by his statement, the President banned “electoral politics" at a national level in the present post-election period. He said nothing about indirect political discourses.

In other words, he did not ban indirect political discourses both at a national and sub-national levels. National conventions and other indoor meetings in accordance with the constitutions of political parties are not direct political discourses. Thus they were not banned by the president.

It is my hope that, this line of reasoning will most probably stand out clearly if we look at the definition of the word “politics” and the related doctrine that "man is a political animal."

ON ARISTOTLE'S DOCTRINE THAT MAN IS A POLITICAL ANIMAL

Aristotle, judging by his writings, was extremely interested in contemplating the nature of man. Man’s role in society and the motivations that drive him to act in certain ways under certain conditions clearly held a great fascination for him.

Indeed, his two great works, Politics, believed to have been written about 350 B.C., and Nicomachean Ethics, written about 340 B.C., include protracted and well-reasoned discussions regarding this very question.

It was in the earlier of those two works, Politics, in which Aristotle penned one of his most well-known and oft-cited quotes, that “man is by nature a political animal.” In beginning his protracted rumination of politics and the nature of man, and placing Aristotle squarely in the context in which he lived (ancient Greece) he first ponders the manner in which man forms communities, and how those communities are structured.

He reasons that, it is natural for every mature and conscious human person to desire to know the what-ness, where-ness, when-ness, why-ness, who-ness, whose-ness and how-ness of valuable things. Hence, his conclusion:

“Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always acts in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.”​

Having established his position with regard to the manner in which man congregates and forms communities and their political corollary, the state, Aristotle then delves deeper into the nature by which animals in general, and man in particular, form such communities. Animals naturally form communities; man is an animal; states, collections of individual villages, are political entities; therefore, man is a political animal. To again quote Aristotle on this point in Book 1 of Politics:

“It is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. . .Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. . .And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust . . . and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state.”​

In conclusion, then, we can say that, Aristotle’s statement that “man is a political animal” can be taken in one of the two major ways. One reading is to say that man is naturally sociable and that they are naturally drawn to various political associations in order to satisfy their social needs.

And another reading, which sees the word “political” in a less charitable light, might state that, since politics is based upon violence and threats of violence, the phrase emphasizes the “animal” side of human nature rather than its rational and cooperative side.

However, those who turn their back on the violence inherent in politics, in Aristotle’s view, also turn their back on society, declaring themselves to be outlaws, without a “tribe”, and without a heart.

Apart from Aristotle, many other philsophers have spoken about politics too. For example, According to the Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung, “Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.”

According to the Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz, “War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means.”

David Easton in his “A Systems Analysis of a Political Life(1965)” states that “A political system can be designated as those interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society."

Hannah Arendt in his “The Human Condition (1958)” states that: “To be political, to be in polis means that everything is decided through words and persuasion and not through force and violence.”

And Harold Lasswell speaks of politics in terms of “Who Gets What, When and How” through his book entitled “Politics: Who Gets What, When and How? which was published in 1958.

While the relationship between war and politics is often quite close, there is a world of difference between political and violent means to achieve one’s objectives. But recognizing how close these two essential human dynamics are to each other should elevate our appreciation for the importance of a healthy and robust politics in our societies and lives.

MY DEFINITION OF POLITICS

For this reason, I will take the word “politics” to refer to any process whereby two or more persons, through persuasion and without resorting to physical violence, decide on who gets what value, when, where, how, and why.

In this definition, the key words/phrases are: value, what, when, where, how, and why. I shall discuss the significance of each in turn.

The keyword "value" means any sought-after value in life. It refers to any object, activity, idea, principle, goal, or other phenomenon upon which large numbers of people place appreciable value, something which is considered by many individuals and groups within the political community to be good, desirable, attractive, useful, rewarding, beneficial, or advantageous.

One set of values may be tangible, or material, in form, that is, in the form of money, property, or other economic goods, services, and conditions. Another set of values may be intangible; that is, the values may be symbolic, ideological, cultural, ethical, moral, or religious in character.

Examples of intangible values in politics include the expressed goals of political activists who assert that they are concerned primarily with "social" or "family" issues, that they seek mainly to promote and defend "social" or "family" values.

The keyword “WHO” refers to the winner-loser-contestant in a political conflict, for example, Magufuli versus Lowasa in an electoral contest, MP’s versus MP’s in a medicare budget fight, two or more aspiring managers in a match of office politics, or a neighborhood civic group versus a real estate developer in a community zoning dispute.

The keyword “WHAT” relates to the stakes in the battle, for example, preservation of an endangered species in an environmental politics fight, creation of a voting district designed to empower a particular group in a redistricting process, or custody of the family dog in the personal politics surrounding a contested divorce.

The keyword “WHEN” suggests that timing often can be a critical element in determining the achievement of a political goal. For example, maneuvering one’s boss for a pay raise will be a lot more difficult after an unfavorable earnings report; promoting passage of a death penalty statute may be substantially more successful after a grisly and callous murder.

The keyword “WHERE” indicates that political possibilities may differ from one terrain to the next. For example, passing gay rights legislation in America will be easier than in conservative Tanzania; locating a halfway house for substance abusers in a highly organized and affluent suburb can be much more difficult than in a poorly organized and disadvantaged neighborhood; paying hospitals for providing the same service will result in different levels of payment for urban teaching versus rural community institutions; getting one’s spouse to spend time with the in-laws may be easier if those relatives live in the same geographic area as opposed to an island in the Caribbean.

The keyword “WHY” synthesizes all of the above to explain why some person, group, or other entity (1) got what they wanted, (2) did not get what they wanted, (3) got what they did not want, or (4) did not get what they did not want.

And the key phrase “THROUGH PERSUASION AND WITHOUT RESORTING TO PHYSICAL VIOLENCE” places politics on a continuum of methods by which rights and resources within a society are distributed.

At one end of the continuum is democratic political action in a civil society; at the other end are violence, dictatorship, and war where normal civic functions have been eliminated or have lost their capacity to work. In other words, political action is the principal alternative to violence in figuring out how to deal with the disparate needs, desires, and values in society.

This concludes the bigger part of my expository analysis of the word “politics.” But it is not all. One helpful way to test the usefulness of a definition is to try it out with familiar categories. Following are some recognizable categories of politics presented here to test the definition of politics as the way people decide who gets what, when, where, how and why, but without resorting to violence.

DEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL POLITICS

Who gets the office—public or private—after being chosen by vote? This could be the Tanzania’s president, MP, councilor, school committee member, ward committee chairman, student council president, labor union secretary treasurer, condominium association president, chair of a local gay rights organization, minister, or thousands and thousands of other positions.

DEMOCRATIC BUDGET POLITICS

Who gets what levels of resources from federal, state, county, municipal, or private budgets, for what purposes, and from whom? Governments obtain their revenues from a variety of sources and then pursue a political process to determine how those funds will be allocated. In government, for example, choices are made among uses such as education, municipal aid, prisons, health needs, environmental programs, transportation and public works, tax cuts, public assistance, courts, and much more. Each one of these uses has a host of interest groups, lobbyists, and activists determined to get the largest possible share of the pie.

HEALTH CARE POLITICS

How much money is allocated for health purposes, and how are those funds distributed to, for example, hospitals, physicians, health plans, home health programs, public health initiatives, and community health centers? Within each of these categories, controversies also emerge concerning who gets what: teaching versus community versus rural versus public hospitals; primary-care physicians versus specialists; inpatient versus outpatient services; home and community versus institutional services. Who gets what rights when they belong to a managed-care organization? Who gets the right to have physician-assisted suicide?

REDISTRICTING POLITICS

Who gets what populations and borders when the time comes to redraw political district boundaries? Officeholders will seek to get and hold onto as many like-minded voters as possible and to minimize concentrations of voters who may not be as supportive. A familiar subtheme of this topic in America involves racial and ethnic issues, namely, who gets how many African Americans and/or Hispanics drawn into their districts?

CIVIL RIGHTS POLITICS

Who gets what protections written into law to guard against discriminatory treatment? Who gets special consideration to mitigate the effects of past discrimination? Who, if anyone, gets preferential treatment for jobs and educational admissions? In this political arena, as in many others, we can observe both internal politics—among and within various organizations for dominance and influence—and external politics involving these groups and non–civil rights groups opposed to or supportive of their goals and activities.

EDUCATIONAL POLITICS

Who gets to teach evolution versus creationism? Who gets a new school building in their community, and who pays for it? Who gets tenure, and who does not? Who gets public education resources: the traditional public school system or quasi-public charter schools? Who gets public dollars to promote higher education: the state university system or scholarship programs to help students attend private universities?

OFFICE POLITICS

Who gets the best office, the one with the corner window? Who gets the job title, the promotion, the raise? Who gets the burden of having to sit next to the copier machine? Who gets access to other employees’ E-mail folders?

NEIGHBORHOOD POLITICS

Who gets public permission via zoning approval to build an extension onto his or her house? Whose neighborhood gets the new subsidized housing for mentally ill individuals? How late will the corner tavern be permitted to stay open? Who gets to be (or gets stuck as) the leader of the local block association?

FAMILY POLITICS

Who takes care of the kids on the weekend? Who gets what household chores? Who gets to watch their favorite television program when there’s a conflict in scheduling? Who gets the kids or the house or the car in a marital separation? Who gets to have Thanksgiving dinner at their house?

CONCLUSION

In light of the above analysis, it does not appear to me that President Magufuli banned all political discourses in this nation. I think not. Thus, there is a need for our civil society, and our media houses in particular, to upgrade their "information analysis and evaluation" skills when it comes to reporting political matters.

Your problem is the deliberate ignorance of the role of the police force in this affair! You should ask yourself in the fist place, why have the police authorities banned all peacefull opposition party rallies and public meetings? Secondly are you the President's spokesman? Why don't you address the press directly if you want to correct their misrepresentation of what you claim to be the President's position on freedom of speech and multiparty politics?

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

.
Unaposema 'any form, una maana aina zote za mikutano, iwe ya ndani, nje au popote. Hapa unatueleza mikutano hiyo isiwe jangwani, mahotelini au popote. Ukisema 'specific forms' una maana ipo iliyoruhusiwa(upekee) na iliyokatazwa. Kwa mfano, ukikataza mkutano wa jangwani (wazi) hiyo ni specific. Unaweza kuruhusu ya ndani (kama vikao vya kawaida) nayo ni specific. Kwa mantiki hiyo, any form zinazuia mkutano mkuu wa CCM pia. Specific Form zinazuia mikutano kama ule wa Zitto na ACT pale Millenium tower au wa CCM kule Dodoma. Sasa tufafanulie kwa dhana ya any form na Specific form unalenga kutueleza nini? Na kwa muktadha wa kauli ya Magufuli na waziri mkuu, ni kipi kilikatazwa kati ya any form na specific form . Na Polisi wanafanyia kazi agizo lipi la any form au specific form?

.
Unauliza, "Kwa muktadha wa kauli ya Magufuli na waziri mkuu, ni kipi kilikatazwa kati ya any form na specific form?"

Kwa kuangalia swali hili, naona kwamba bado hujaelewa dhana yangu pale nilipokutaka utofautishe logical quantifiers kama vile: any, some, all, none, etc. Essentially, logical determiners include, among others, every, a, any, some, all, two, most and the. Combining them with nouns (or noun phrases) yields a special group of expressions called generalized quantifiers in GQT, such as the following:

a. every {boy, funny boy, boy who lives in London}
b. a {boy, funny boy, boy who lives in London}
c. any {boy, funny boy, boys, boys of the same age}
d. some {boys, funny boys, boys of the same age}
e. all {boys, funny boys, boys of the same age}
f. two {boys, funny boys, boys of the same age}
g. most {boys, funny boys}
h. the {boy, funny boy, boys, funny boys, boys of the same age}

Kwa hiyo, ninaposema: "any form of political discourse" ninamaanisha "all forms of political discourse"; na ninaposema "specific forms of political discourse" namaanisha "some forms of political discourse." Kauli ya Magufuli inahusu hili kundi la pili la logical quantifiers. Baada ya kusema hivyo, sasa nikusaidie kuona universal set ya form of political discourse na hatimaye nikuonyeshe subset inayokatazwa na Rais.

Universal set: Every know communicative event such as cabinet meetings, parliamentary sessions, election campaigns, public rallies, interviews with the media, internal bureaucratic meetings, symposia, seminars, workshops, political road shows, protest demonstrations, and so on.

Subset inayokatazwa: Public rallies and demonstrations.

Mpaka hapo tuko pamoja? Msalimie rafiki yako mnywa kahawa.

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

Your

Your problem is the deliberate ignorance of the role of the police force in this affair! You should ask yourself in the fist place, why have the police authorities banned all peacefull opposition party rallies and public meetings? Secondly are you the President's spokesman? Why don't you address the press directly if you want to correct their misrepresentation of what you claim to be the President's position on freedom of speech and multiparty politics?

.
It is at my discretion to determine the type, scope and mode of communicative action I should implement. My thread sought to answer the question shown in the heading and I preferred to communicate with Jamiiforums visitors. My scope exlcudes the police force decisions and actions as I believe they should be addressed on a case by case basis. There is no generality in all of them. Moreover, you should know that every reserach work needs time and other resources in proportion to the scope.

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

You can't imagine with ua all novel of political propaganda there is no any single point than defense mechanism and trying to run away from the truth. Simply you may trying to lie the fools but not the elites,ua missions & plans FAIL.PERIOD.

.
I disagree.

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

unagundu U-DC hola U-RC Hola U-DAS na nafasi zimeisha

.
Matusi hapana.

 

[Elungata]

Ngoja tumwite lofa Elungata aje kumsaidia. Hivi unajua unaweza kuanzisha uzi humu ukaishia kujuta? Ushauri wangu awaombe mods waufute tu!

...aaaaand i have said before,from the bottom of my heart,i genuinely and honestly do not care what you call me...... I have been called many things but iam still here...

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

This is a very stupid and very low defense! All the interpretations by Media and Opposition Politicians were correct. You can not give a vague statement and expect people to get into your head and read what you meant! Also, Direct politics is not a crimes in Tz. So, whether you ban direct or indirect politics, that is infringement of the Human Rights stipulated by both the URT Constitution and International Treaties in which Tz is a State Party! I repeat, this is too low, you could better go and cook makande rather than coming here with such a horrible defense!

.
I disagree.

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

unagundu U-DC hola U-RC Hola U-DAS na nafasi zimeisha

.
I disagree.

 

[Bulamba]

.
Kamusi ya Kiswahili Sanifu (TUKI, 1981) uk. 301 unasema kwamba "unafiki" ni ama "hali ya kujifanya kuwa ni rafiki na hali ni adui" au "hali ya kutokuwa mkweli." Umesema "mleta mada ni mnafiki." Unataka ichukuliwe maana ipi? Kama ni ya kwanza mleta mada ni adui wa nani? Kama ni ya pili, mleta mada amesema uwongo gani? Funguka...

Ni muongo wewe.Unajaribu kuchukua uongo na kuuvisha maneno mengi ili uhadae watu.
Alichosema Mh.Rais kipo wazi na hakuna aliyekanusha.
Walichosema polisi awali nacho kipo wazi.Walisema mikutano ya siasa ni mwiko na wakaenda mbali kwa kuanza kupambana na mikusanyiko yoyote ya wanasiasa iwe ya ndani au ya nje.
Ni vema ukakaa kimya ijulikane wazi hatuna tena utawala wa sheria Tanzania.Watu wafanye kazi tu.Waache siasa mpaka 2020.

 

[Simplicity.]

Siasa za majitaka za kutafuta ukuu wa wilaya au mkoa zimeisha, mpaka 2020.

Wakuu wa Wilaya:

ARUSHA

Arusha – Mrisho Mashaka Gambo
Arumeru – Alexander Pastory Mnyeti
Ngorongoro – Rashid Mfaume Taka
Longido – Daniel Geofrey Chongolo
Monduli – Idd Hassan Kimanta
Karatu – Therezia Jonathan Mahongo

DAR ES SALAAM

Kinondoni – Ally Hapi
Ilala – Sophia Mjema
Temeke – Felix Jackson Lyaviva
Kigamboni – Hashim Shaibu Mgandilwa
Ubungo – Hamphrey Humphrey Polepole

DODOMA

Chamwino – Vumilia Justine Nyamoga
Dodoma – Christina Solomon Mndeme
Chemba – Simon Ezekiel Odunga
Kondoa – Sezeria Veneranda Makutta
Bahi – Elizabeth Simon
Mpwapwa – Jabir Mussa Shekimweli
Kongwa – John Ernest Palingo

GEITA

Bukombe – Josephat Maganga
Mbogwe – Matha John Mkupasi
Nyang’wale – Hamim Buzohera Gwiyama
Geita – Herman C. Kipufi
Chato – Shaaban Athuman Ntarambe

IRINGA

Mufindi – Jamhuri David William
Kilolo – Asia Juma Abdallah
Iringa – Richard Kasesela

KAGERA

Biharamulo – Saada Abraham Mallunde
Karagwe – Geofrey Muheluka Ayoub
Muleba – Richard Henry Ruyango
Kyerwa – Shaban Ilangu Lissu
Bukoba – Deodatus Lucas Kinawilo
Ngara – Kanali Michael M. Mtenjele
Missenyi – Kanali Denis F. Mwila

KATAVI

Mlele – Rachiel Stephano Kasanda
Mpanda - Lilian Charles Matinga
Tanganyika – Saleh Mbwana Mhando

KIGOMA

Kigoma – Samsoni Renard Anga
Kasulu – Martin Elia Mkisi
Kakonko – Hosea Malonda Ndagala
Uvinza – Mwanamvua Hoza Mlindoko
Buhigwe – Elisha Marco Gagisti
Kibondo – Luis Peter Bura

KILIMANJARO

Siha – Onesmo Buswelu
Moshi – Kippi Warioba
Mwanga – Aaron Yeseya Mmbago
Rombo – Fatma Hassan Toufiq
Hai – Gelasius Byakanwa
Same – Rosemary Senyamule Sitaki

LINDI

Nachingwea – Rukia Akhibu Muwango
Ruangwa – Joseph Joseph Mkirikiti
Liwale – Sarah Vicent Chiwamba
Lindi – Shaibu Issa Ndemanga
Kilwa – Christopher Emil Ngubiagai

MANYARA

Babati – Raymond H. Mushi
Mbulu – Chelestion Simba M. Mofungu
Hanang’ – Sara Msafiri Ally
Kiteto – Tumaini Benson Magessa
Simanjiro – Zephania Adriano Chaula

MARA

Rorya – Simon K. Chacha
Serengeti – Emile Yotham Ntakamulenga
Bunda – Lydia Simeon Bupilipili
Butiama – Anarose Nyamubi
Tarime – Glorious Benard Luoga
Musoma – Vicent Anney Naano

BEYA

Chunya – Rehema Manase Madusa
Kyela - Claudia Undalusyege Kitta
Mbeya – William Ntinika Paul
Rungwe – Chalya Julius Nyangidu
Mbarali – Reuben Ndiza Mfune

MOROGORO

Gairo – Siriel Shaid Mchembe
Kilombero – James Mugendi Ihunyo
Mvomero – Mohamed Mussa Utali
Morogoro – Regina Reginald Chonjo
Ulanga – Kassema Jacob Joseph
Kilosa – Adam Idd Mgoyi
Malinyi – Majula Mateko Kasika

MTWARA

Newala – Aziza Ally Mangosongo
Nanyumbu – Joakim Wangabo
Mtwara – Khatibu Malimi Kazungu
Masasi – Seleman Mzee Seleman
Tandahimba – Sebastian M. Walyuba

MWANZA

Ilemela – Leonald Moses Massale
Kwimba – Mtemi Msafiri Simeon
Sengerema – Emmanuel Enock Kipole
Nyamagana – Mary Tesha Onesmo
Magu – Hadija Rashid Nyembo
Ukerewe – Estomihn Fransis Chang’ah
Misungwi – Juma Sweda

NJOMBE

Njombe – Ruth Blasio Msafiri
Ludewa – Andrea Awesso Tsere
Wanging’ombe – Ally Mohamed Kassige
Makete – Veronica Kessy

PWANI

Bagamoyo – Majid Hemed Mwanga
Mkuranga – Filbert H. Sanga
Rufiji – Juma Abdallah Njwayo
Mafia – Shaibu Ahamed Nunduma
Kibaha – Asumpter Nsunju Mshama
Kisarawe – Happyness Seneda William
Kibiti – Gulamu Hussein Shaban Kifu

RUKWA

Sumbawanga – Khalfan Boniface Haule
Nkasi – Said Mohamed Mtanda
Kalambo – Julieth Nkembanyi Binyura

RUVUMA

Namtumbo – Luckness Adrian Amlima
Mbinga – Cosmas Nyano Nshenye
Nyasa – Isabera Octava Chilumba
Tunduru – Juma Homela
Songea – Polet Kamando Mgema

SHINYANGA

Kishapu – Nyambonga Daudi Taraba
Kahama – Fadhili Nkulu
Shinyanga – Josephine Rabby Matiro

SIMIYU

Busega – Tano Seif Mwera
Maswa – Sefu Abdallah Shekalaghe
Bariadi – Festo Sheimu Kiswaga
Meatu – Joseph Elieza Chilongani
Itilima – Benson Salehe Kilangi

SINGIDA

Mkalama – Jackson Jonas Masako
Manyoni – Mwembe Idephonce Geofrey
Singida – Elias Choro John Tarimo
Ikungi – Fikiri Avias Said
Iramba – Emmanuel Jumanne Luhahula

SONGWE

Songwe – Samwel Jeremiah
Ileje – Joseph Modest Mkude
Mbozi – Ally Masoud Maswanya
Momba – Juma Said Irando

TABORA

Nzega – Geofrey William Ngudula
Kaliua – Busalama Abel Yeji
Igunga – Mwaipopo John Gabriel
Sikonge – Peres Boniphace Magiri
Tabora – Queen Mwashinga Mlozi
Urambo – Angelina John Kwingwa
Uyui – Gabriel Simon Mnyele

TANGA

Tanga – Thobias Mwilapwa
Muheza – Mwanaisha Rajab Tumbo
Mkinga – Yona Lucas Maki
Pangani – Zainab Abdallah Issa
Handeni – Godwin Crydon Gondwe
Korogwe – Robert Gabriel
Kilindi – Sauda Salum Mtondoo
Lushoto – Januari Sigareti Lugangika


Hata hivyo nakushauri usikate tamaa, labda utabahatika kupewa nafasi mojawapo ya wale waliokosewa majina, wenye vyeti feki, au watakaokosea protokali wakati wa kuapishwa.

 

[Nyakageni]

Kahangwa ameshindqa kueleza 'any form' au 'specific form' zimelenga nini na zimetumikaje katika wakati tulio nao

Amekimbia, nani mwingine aliyebaki anayeweza kutetea hayo?

Kada mpya Mwanakijiji anajipanga, atakuja