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

[Simplicity.]

Nguruvi3, mag3 na wengineo mpotezeeni huyu jamaa, tumeshajua anatafuta kiki ya ukuu wa wilaya, achaneni na thread yake hii. Ametumia jina halisi ili ajulikane kirahisi.

Nami nashauri, Nguruvi3 , Mag3 achaneni na huyu mbu**. Atawapotezea muda bure, ameshajitoa ufahamu.

 

[Simplicity.]

Rais anatafuta wataalamu wa IT hadi Rwanda, na wewe mleta uzi inaonekana umesomea hicho (kwa mjibu wa uzi - Deusdedit Kahangwa atangaza nia ya kugombea ubunge jimbo la Karagwe kwa tiketi ya CHADEMA) ingawa haieleweki ulisoma na kuspecialize kwenye nini, ni heri mara 100 ungekuja hapa kuonyesha kuwa Rais anakosea kwa kwenda kutafuta wataalamu Rwanda wakati mimi na wengine tupo na hiyo kazi tunaiweza badala yake unafanya siasa za kujichafua!

Kama hiyo fani unaimudu ingekulipa sana kuliko hizi siasa taka (nafahamu wengi mnaacha fani mlizosomea na kuingia kwenye siasa taka kwa sababu ni wababaishaji). Hebu cheki comment ya Lizaboni kwenye huo uzi halafu linganisha na comment yake ya kwenye huu uzi! Watu wa Lumumba watakutumia, wakiona umechafuka vya kutosha wanajifanya hawakujui, Lizaboni alivyoona umebugi, amekimbia hata haonekani.

 

[Simplicity.]

Bavicha wataelewaje wakati hawajui english

Halafu wewe Dr. Uchwara unaonekana ni tapeli: Nafasi za kazi Peco Company

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

Nimeupenda uchambuzi wako wa kisomi inanikumbusha kipindi cha kuandika paper au masuala ya research.
however, despite the fact that your analysis and conclusion is logical turning to the other side tunaweza kumpima mtu kwa nia yake ndani ya mind yake na moyo wake.
Ni kwamba mhusika kwa shauku aliyo nayo ya kuleta maendeleo asingependa kabisa mtu kumzuia au kuweka kigingi kwenye mapito yake. Na moja ya vikwazo vikubwa ni siasa na wanasiasa na si UKAWA pekee kama wengi wanavo perceive. Nasema siasa na wanasiasa! kwa hivi hapendi kabisa hizo siasa na kwa kusema vile ni kuonyesha ishara ya kupiga marufuku hizo siasa.
CCM wanajidanganya sana kwa kuwaponda wapinzani. Nadhani wataona mheshimiwa atakaposhika uenyekiti. Atakomesha pia siasa ndani ya ccm kwani nako kuna siasa sana kuliko hata ukawa. Sasa kupiga marufuku siasa kuna advavtages na diadvantages to many sides particularly polilitical animal. mpiga marufuku anaweza kulenga mawili, yeye mwenyewe au wanachi au yeye na wanachi sawia. na hapa si suala la chama! Mleta mada nakupongeza kwa analysis yako ya kisomi wangu ni mtazamo tu.

.
Noted.

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

.
Nafahamu wengi mnaacha fani mlizosomea na kuingia kwenye siasa taka kwa sababu ni wababaishaji).

.
Kwani siasa ni kitu gani? Tuchuke budgeting politics au policy-making politics. Mtaalam wa IT atakuwa mwanasiasa mzuri katika sekta ya IT, mtaalam wa plumbing atakuwa mwanasiasa mzuri katika sekta ya maji, etc. Soma tena original thread yangu utafaidika.

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

Nguruvi3, mag3 na wengineo mpotezeeni huyu jamaa, tumeshajua anatafuta kiki ya ukuu wa wilaya, achaneni na thread yake hii. Ametumia jina halisi ili ajulikane kirahisi.

.
Mimi ni RC wa Medulla Obangata zote tayari.

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

John Burgess - The world cannot function without politics because humans cannot function without politics. Even within the smallest unit of human society, the family, politics are in action. Family members are constantly bargaining among themselves about the "who gets what, when, and how." So do members of any larger group, be it tribe, town, country, or total of all countries. The only way to avoid politics is to live by oneself, cut off from all other humans.

.
Now you have talked sense.
My original thread talked about about all this including "family politics."

 

[kbosho]

DC iringa amepiga marufuku mikutano ya vyama siasa kwenye wilaya yake

 

[Jog69]

I think they are afraid of Lowasa, if they leave him freely politicizing then this might cost them as it was inside the CCM

 

[bussness]

Let us be rational .the topic is too subjective than to be objective kwani majukumu ya police ni kuzuia RAIA kutekeleza majukumu ya kisiasa au kulinda usalama pale raia anapoteoeleza majukumu halali

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

1. Rais amezungumzia 'marufuku' si katika mkutano mmoja. Tueleze, ulimwelewa kwa kauli alizotoa katika mkutano gani kati ya aliyozungumzia.

I have quoted the president's key phrase in my post. Read it again.

2. Tukichukulia hoja ya hotuba ya viwanja vya Biafra ndiyo 'base' ya argument yako, bado hujamkariri vema. Alichosema ni kuwa '..uchaguzi umekwisha anataka kutekeleza aliyoahidi kwa wananchi. Kwamba, madiwani na wabunge waende wakazungumze kwa bidii katika maeneo yao'. Hapo alimaanisha hoja za kisiasa zipelekwe bungeni au kwa baraza la madiwani. Kwa mtazamo wa baadhi, ni ujumbe makundi hayo yasifanye siasa nje ya maeneo yao. Hili ni baada ya wabunge wa upinzani kutaka mikutano kueleza nini kinaendelea bungeni. Ikiwa ni hivyo, kuna ukiukwaji wa katiba na sheria za msajili wa vyama zinazotoa fursa kwa mtu kushiriki shughuli za kisiasa kwa kufuata taratibu zilizoanishwa. Pia kuna tatizo, wananchi wa kawaida wanaachwa nje ya mfumo wa kisiasa,unaogusa maisha yao kila dakika, saa na siku. Ukimsikiliza, aliomba jeshi la Polisi lisadie kazi hiyo

Hujasoma hoja yangu na kuielewa. Angalia chronological sequence hii:

1. Electoral politics (jukwaani)
2. Budgeting politics (bungeni, kanseli, wdc)
3. Legislation politics (bungeni, kanseli)
4. Monitoring and evaluation politics (general citizenry dialogues)

Kauli ya rais utaielewa kwa njia hiyo. mengine ni kutapatapa.

Kumbuka, ni jeshi la Polisi lililozuia mikutano bila sababu za maana kabla ya hapo. Si kazi ya jeshi la Polisi kusimamia kipindu pindu, au magonjwa yasiyojulikana. Jeshi la Polisi lina enforce sheria zilizopo na halipaswi ''kutunga sheria''. Kauli za magonjwa zinatolewa na wizara au idara husika na kuwa enforced na jeshi. Ikiwa afisa Afya, Daktari wa manispaa, mkoa au wizara hawajapiga marufuku mikusanyiko, jeshi la Polisi linapata nguvu kutoka wapi ku enforce kisichokuwepo? Lini mazishi yamekuwa tukio la kisiasa hata kama linagusa wanasiasa? Kwanini Mazishi ya Mwanza yalikuwa na matatizo, juzi kada wa CCM Arusha amezikwa kwa mkusanyiko kama ule wa Mwanza?

Sijaongelea jeshi la polisi katika thread yangu. Usinitoe kwenye mada.

Na kama tukisema 'any form' ya mikutano, tuna maana hakuna shughuli za kisiasa.
Ikiwa ni hivyo, hii violation of human right kwa mujibu wa katiba ya nchi inapaswa kugusa jamii nzima na si sehemu ya jamii au makundi fulani. Ni vipi mahafali yenye hadhi za kipa imara,ndoa au harusi limekuwa tukio la kisiasa? Na tukio la mahafali linakiuka sheria gani ya nchi kiasi cha jeshi kuingilia ili ku enforce. Kuruhusu CCM kuendelea na shughuli ni discriminations ambayo kikatiba imekatazwa. Endapo ni specific form za mikutano, CCM wanaweza kuendelea na mkutano wao.

Soma tena majibu yangu kwako kuhusu matumizi ya logical quantifiers such as some, any, all, etc. Bado hujaelewa somo.

Hoja inakuwa, kwanini Zitto na ACT walikatazwa specific form pale millennium tower?

Ukitaka kuelewa kwa nini Zitto alikatazwa soma maandishi yake kadhaa. Jana humu JF alisema kuwa ule ulikuwa ni mkutano wa kikatiba as per ACT constitution. Hakutaja kifungu ili tujue quorum, na wajumbe husika. This type of public disinformation inamfanya akose credibility kwa wachambuzi wa masuala. Angalia mfano mwingine wa jinsi Zitto anavyopotosha umma:

"Bunge la Jamhuri, chini ya uongozi wa Naibu Spika, Dk. Tulia Akson, limesimamisha kazi kwa mkupuo wabunge wake saba... Sababu inayoelezwa na Bunge ni kuwa wabunge hawa walifanya fujo ndani ya ukumbi wa Bunge, tarehe 27 Januari 2016... (Lakini) kosa kubwa la wabunge ni kuhoji maamuzi ya serikali. Kuhoji kitendo cha walioko madarakani kuzuia wananchi kuona wawakilishi wao... Wabunge wamesimamishwa kazi kwa sababu ya kukataa Bunge kuendeshwa kwenye giza." (Zitto, "JK Amtupa Mbali Magufuli", Mseto toleo na. 472, Juni 9-15, 2016, uk. 5).​

Huu ni ulaghai wa makusudi. Wabunge walisimaishwa kazi, sio kwa sababu ya kuhoji maamuzi ya serikali, bali kwa sababu ya NAMNA walivyohoji maamuzi ya serikali. Zitto analifahamu hili lakini anapotosha umma. Katika mazingira haya vyombo vya dola haviwezi kubaki watazamaji tu. Vitachukua hatua. Hilo ndilo lililo tokea. Tuheshimu ukweli.

CCM hawafanyi mkutano kwa taratibu za usajili wa vyama. Huu ni mkutano wa ziada katika kalenda yao, kwa maana kuwa siyo 'binding'. Wasipochagua mwenyekiti watakuwa hawajakiuka sheria yoyote ya vyama vya siasa. Hivyo hoja kuwa ni kikao kinachozingatia sheria za usajili wa vyama ni misrepresentation!

Mkutano ujao wa CCM ni aina mojawapo ya beaurocratic meetings--mikutano ya kiutendaji ndani ya taasisi. Unawea kuwa ordinary au extra-ordinary. Mikutano ya aina hiyo haijakatazwa na Rais.

Hoja inabaki , CCM wanafanya mkutano usio katika 'any forms au specific form'. Tunauliza, Polisi linawapa 'go ahead' kwa vigezo gani ambavyo wapinzani hawakukidhi. Na Rais amepiga marufuku aina gani ya mikutano kati hizo mbili anazotetea Deus?

Huu mkutano wa CCM ni kati ya specific forms of discourse which were not banned by the president.

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

DC iringa amepiga marufuku mikutano ya vyama siasa kwenye wilaya yake

.
Kuhusu taarifa hizi, napendekeza twende hivi kimawazo:

Scenario I:

1. Provision X outlaws conduct Y by some person P, if and only if there is no reason Z that justifies overriding provision X.
2. There is no reason Z that justifies overriding provision X and the person P has manifested conduct Y.
3. Thus, the person P has violated provsion X.

Scenario II:

1. Provision X outlaws conduct Y by some person P, if and only if there is no reason Z that justifies overriding provision X.
2. There is a reason Z that justifies overriding provision X and the person be has manifested conduct Y.
3. Thus, the person P has not violated provision X.

Kwa sababu hii, kwangu mimi, taarifa yako siwezi kuifanyia kazi kwa kuwa inakosa viambata muhimu--contextual facts!

 

[Simplicity.]

.
Kwani siasa ni kitu gani? Tuchuke budgeting politics au policy-making politics. Mtaalam wa IT atakuwa mwanasiasa mzuri katika sekta ya IT, mtaalam wa plumbing atakuwa mwanasiasa mzuri katika sekta ya maji, etc. Soma tena original thread yangu utafaidika.

Maelezo yako haya ninayoyaquote ni sahihi, lakini siasa za Tanzania hazipo hivyo, za Bongo ni "gutter politics".

 

[Descartes]

Bavicha wataelewaje wakati hawajui english

Ndo maana jana wakati wa kumkarimu mgeni kutoka India hotuba ilitolewa kwa Kiswahili au...?

 

[Descartes]

Maelezo yako haya ninayoyaquote ni sahihi, lakini siasa za Tanzania hazipo hivyo, za Bongo ni "gutter politics".

Nakusoma. Unasafiri naye vizuri. Mtafika salama tu...

 

[Rugaiyulula]

Of political discourse, strategic equivocity and sustainable univocity: 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.” Similarly, all other media houses fell into the same trap of public disinformation in the name of their preferred strategic ambiguity by equivocating on the word "politics."

In the same spirit of strategic ambiguity, Zitto Zuberi Kabwe, 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.

Wakati mwingine nashindwa kuelewa udaktari wa wasomi wa siku hizi kotoka TZ. Ndiyo maana ajira hata kwa wa TZ zina taabu saana tukienda nje.
Uchaguzi ukiisha vyama vyote hurudi kujijenga upya tayari kwa ucha guzi ujao. Nina uhakika unajua njia za vyama kujijenga ni poamoja na kutafuta ufuasi miongoni mwa jamii. Sheria na katiba inasema hivyo. Kazi ya pili ya vyama vya siasa ni kuikosoa serikali iliyopo madarakani pale wanapoona sivyo wangefanya na hii ni kazi ya kudumu kikatiba, kwa maana hivyo rasimi vinaitwa vyama vya upinzani / opposition parties is to oppose the government. Unashangaza kuwa na katiba sharia za vyama vingi hapo hapo hutaki opposition au unaweka masharti yaliyo nje na katiba.

Naomba ikiwezekana resubmit your thesis for possible review.

 

[Em Foo Sii]

mere bunches of opportunists

MERE BUNCHES OF OPPORTUNISTS
Thats politics

 

[Nguruvi3]

mahoza #354 na Mwanapropaganda ahasanteni kwa busara zenu, tumewasikiliza. Mnaweza kuona jinsi hii ilivyokuwa 'political stunt' ili mtu atoke na kiki. Hata hivyo, kuna nyakati itabidi tuendelee kufungua ubongo watu waone ndani zaidi na kumwelewa.

Luhanyula #358 nilikwambaia atakimbia kwa muda uzi ukisonga atakuwa amekwepa hoja.

Unaweza kuona anavyomshambulia Zitto na ACT badala ya kujibu hoja aliyoanzisha ya ' Any specific na specific forms' ya mikutano

Hajaweza kuueleza umma maana ya kauli hizo na zinatumiwaje na jeshi la Polisi kwa wakati tulio nao! Alikimbia, sasa amerudi na kurukia hoja nyingine

Deus, kama kuna busara iliyobaki ni kufuta huu uzi.
Utazame mwenyewe ukiwa chumbani na hoja za wanajamvi na ulivyojibiwa halafu ujiulize, kama ni thesis ungepata hata nafasi ya marekebisho!?

Tupo hapa, in the end utakuwa umeueleza ulimwengu wewe ni nani na utaondoa doubt kwa waliokuwa nayo ingawa sehemu kubwa umeshafanikiwa kuwatoa mashaka juu yako

 

[treborx]

Of political discourse, strategic equivocity and sustainable univocity: 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.” Similarly, all other media houses fell into the same trap of public disinformation in the name of their preferred strategic ambiguity by equivocating on the word "politics."

In the same spirit of strategic ambiguity, Zitto Zuberi Kabwe, 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.

Unaweza kusema utakacho kwa vile kila mtu ana uhuru wa kutoa mawazo yake. Lakini ukweli uko pale pale, kazi ya chama cha siasa ni nini? tatizo ni woga tu, na hasa woga wa kupingwa. Kama wote tumeingia kwenye mfumo wa demokrasia ya vyama vingi na kukubaliana kwamba "tutapingana kwa hoja/sera bila kupigana" kwa nini tuanze kutafuta visababu vya "active vs inactive politics? to me this is rubbish and cheap talk. Kuna misingi na haki za watu, ikiwa ni pamoja na vyama vya siasa. Kama watu hawakiuki misingi hiyo, kuwakataza na kisha baadhi ya watu wengine kuruhusiwa kufanya mambo yale yale ni moronic-politics. Sorry, dude.

 

[Nyakageni]

mahoza #354 na Mwanapropaganda ahasanteni kwa busara zenu, tumewasikiliza. Mnaweza kuona jinsi hii ilivyokuwa 'political stunt' ili mtu atoke na kiki. Hata hivyo, kuna nyakati itabidi tuendelee kufungua ubongo watu waone ndani zaidi na kumwelewa.

Luhanyula #358 nilikwambaia atakimbia kwa muda uzi ukisonga atakuwa amekwepa hoja.

Unaweza kuona anavyomshambulia Zitto na ACT badala ya kujibu hoja aliyoanzisha ya ' Any specific na specific forms' ya mikutano

Hajaweza kuueleza umma maana ya kauli hizo na zinatumiwaje na jeshi la Polisi kwa wakati tulio nao! Alikimbia, sasa amerudi na kurukia hoja nyingine

Deus, kama kuna busara iliyobaki ni kufuta huu uzi.
Utazame mwenyewe ukiwa chumbani na hoja za wanajamvi na ulivyojibiwa halafu ujiulize, kama ni thesis ungepata hata nafasi ya marekebisho!?

Tupo hapa, in the end utakuwa umeueleza ulimwengu wewe ni nani na utaondoa doubt kwa waliokuwa nayo ingawa sehemu kubwa umeshafanikiwa kuwatoa mashaka juu yako

Mkuu, mimi nasubiria ajibu hilo swali ili tuanze kuchambua mazuio ya wakuu wa Wilaya (watakatifu na vinywa vya rais) na kauli mbalimbali za jeshi la Polisi (waaminifu na watiifu wa amiri wa majeshi wanaofuata chain of command)

Halafu ndiyo tutajua ukweli uko wapi. Muda huo Mheshimiwa Ole Sendeka kakaa mtaa wa Lumumba wala hafanyi '' any form of politics'' kama anavyoonekana kwenye ofisi yao hapa Lumumba