Mtei alipotofautiana na Mwalimu Nyerere

[JokaKuu]

Mkandara,

..Jasusi alitoa hoja kwamba huenda Mwalimu alichukizwa na kitendo cha Mtei kuwaandalia chai jamaa wa IMF wakati Mwalimu alimwambia waondoke nchini.

..hoja hiyo ya Jasusi ndiyo ilonifanya mimi kuuliza kwanini Mwalimu hakuwaagiza maofisa wake wengine kama Waziri wa Mambo ya Ndani etc wawafukuze nchini hao jamaa wa IMF?

Jasusi,

..lazima tuelewe kwamba Tanzania ni wanachama wa IMF. tulijiunga na shirika hilo wakati Mwalimu yuko madarakani.

..binafsi sidhani kama Mtei alipaswa kuwaacha solemba jamaa wa IMF kama walivyofanyiwa na Mwalimu Nyerere pale Msasani.

..kwa mtizamo wangu, Mwalimu alikuwa hataki kusikia mambo ya devaluation, na Mtei na jamaa wa IMF walikuwa wanaona kwamba we had no way out bila ku-devalue pesa yetu. nadhani hicho ndicho kilichomtibua Mwalimu.

Shwari,

..kuna mahali tulikosea ndiyo maana ikabidi tuende kuomba msaada/ushauri kwa IMF/WB.

..nchi "VIMEO" ndiyo zinazokimbilia kutafuta misaada na mikopo ya IMF na WB.

..kama tungekuwa tunaendesha mambo yetu vizuri wakati wa Mwalimu wala msinge wasikia hao IMF na WB.

..nchi zinazotafuta mikopo IMF na WB ni sawa na watu wenye bad credit, ambao ni risk kuwakopesha. sasa ukishakuwa na bad credit kwa kweli inabidi uwe na nidhamu ya hali ya juu ili kuweza kujikwamua.

..tatizo la nchi yetu siyo ushauri mbaya wa IMF na WB, bali nidhamu ndogo na kukosa uzalendo ktk maamuzi yetu.

..NCHI HII INA MATATIZO MAKUBWA SANA. UJAMAA ULITUSHINDA. UBEPARI NAO UNAELEKEA KUTUSHINDA.

Zakumi,

..kuna mahali Watanzania tulikuwa hatuambiwi ukweli wote.

..nadhani behind the scene mambo yalikuwa hayaendi vizuri.

..yale matatizo ya kiuchumi ya miaka ya mwisho ya utawala wa Mwalimu nahisi ni mlipuko wa matatizo madogo madogo yaliyokuwepo kwa miaka mingi.

 

[Mkandara]

Jokakuu,

tatizo la nchi yetu siyo ushauri mbaya wa IMF na WB, bali nidhamu ndogo na kukosa uzalendo ktk maamuzi yetu.

Mkuu nakukubali, wanasema... When seaching for the truth don't look no further than yourself!

 

[Zakumi]

Zakumi,
Mkuu wangu hizi hadithi mnakuja nazo toka wapi? lini Paka wa nyumbani na wa Porini wakawa sawa? Hata kwa daktari haiwezi kuwa sawa unless unazungumzia wanyama wa aina hiyo iwe simba, chui tiger na kadhalika lakini wanyama hao ulotaja hawafanani kimaumbile hata kidogo. Hata mimi nisokuwa daktari I can tell the difference.
Hizi habari za mwalimu kuwafuata IMF ni zipi na wakati gani?... ikiwa maelezo yenu yanatokana na kitabu cha Mtei nitawaelewa lakini hayo mengine jazeni kwanza kisha sisi tutatafuta ukweli.

Juma Contena,
Mkuu wangu hakuna kiongozi Afrika ambaye hakushindwa.. sababu ya nchi zetu kuwa maskini hadi leo ni kutokana na kushindwa kwa viongozi mengine yote ni figures na hesabu za kujaza pakacha hata kama nyanya ni mbovu.

Mkandara:

Paka wa nyumbani anaweza kutoroka na kuishi machakani (stray cat). Hivyo mpenda paka anaweza kumuona huyu ni tofauti na paka wake wa nyumbani (domesticated).

Lakini Veterinary anachoangalia ni anatomy. Na paka wa nyumbani na yule aliyehamua kuichi machakani anatomy yao ni sawa.

Similary mtu yoyote anayetaka kupima performance ya uchumi katika kipindi cha Nyerere ni lazima aziangalie from anatomical point views na sio kuleta longolongo la kisiasa.
.

 

[Zakumi]

Mh, samahani but i had to say somen about this one. It dont matter that much the number of literate people he produced. Even today the UK has a huge number of illiterate adults, Lakini we can not compare ourself to them. The issue should be aliacha watu wangapi ambao ni highly schooled those are what matters in social progress.

Lastly its time you guys accepted Mwalimu was a failure by facts. No matter how much you try to paint a good picture of his reign. Historical results tells us he failed and by the time he left office the only thing he can claim to have achieved was creating a torrerant nation.

Na ujamaa ndio mmh, i dont understand anyone who defends a system thats prone to fail even if we return it today.

JC:

Nimeshafanya kazi kuhusu elimu ya Tanzania. Azimio la Musoma ndio lilipitisha sera za kufuta ujinga.

Katika Azimio hili wataalamu wa mambo ya elimu walitoa ushauri kuwa hili quality ya elimu ibaki palepale basi mpango mzima uchukue zaidi ya miaka 20.

Mwalimu alikataa na kusema kuwa mpango mzima unaweza kufanyika kwa miaka 7. Hoja yake kubwa ni kuwa nchi haina sekondari za kutosha. Hivyo vijana wengi wazuri wanaishi darasa la saba tu. Hawa vijana wangeweza kupewa mafunzo na kuwa waalimu (in theory hili lilikuwa linawezekana).

Lakini kwenye utekelezaji, undugu na ukiritimba ukatokea. Na matokeo yake ikawa mbumbumbu wanapewa nafasi za kufundisha.

Hivyo kilichotokea, lilikuwa ni ongezeko la watu kujiandikisha shule lakini kulikuwa hakuna quality yoyote ya education.

Vilevile explosion ya idadi ya wanafunzi haikuenda sambamba na ongezeko la bajeti ya wizara ya elimu. Hivyo huwezi kutegemea mabadiliko makubwa kwa kutegemea voluntier workforce.

 

[JokaKuu]

Paka wa nyumbani anaweza kutoroka na kuishi machakani (stray cat). Hivyo mpenda paka anaweza kumuona huyu ni tofauti na paka wake wa nyumbani (domesticated).

Lakini Veterinary anachoangalia ni anatomy. Na paka wa nyumbani na yule aliyehamua kuichi machakani anatomy yao ni sawa.

Similary mtu yoyote anayetaka kupima performance ya uchumi katika kipindi cha Nyerere ni lazima aziangalie from anatomical point views na sio kuleta longolongo la kisiasa.

Zakumi,

..ukitaka kudadisi matatizo ya nchi hii halafu akamhusisha Baba wa Taifa Mwalimu Nyerere huwezi kufika popote.

..kosa la Mtei lilipaswa kuwa kushindwa kutoa ushauri mzuri ambao ungeiepusha nchi na matatizo yaliyopelekea kwenda kutafuta msaada kwa mashirika ya IMF na WB.

..binafsi naona sasa tumshike shati Mzee Mtei atueleze alikuwaje alipokuwa Waziri wa Fedha aliharibu kazi kiasi cha kupelekea nchi kutafuta ushauri/msaada wa IMF na WB.

 

[Lunanilo]

Asante mtoa taarifa hii.Hii inatusaidia kujua tuliko toka, tulipo, na tunakokwenda

 

[Zakumi]

jokaKuu,
Mwalimu alikuwa mkali lakini hakuwa na roho mbaya. Ndio maana hiyo nafasi ya ukurugenzi ilipofikia zamu ya Tanzania, ni Mwalimu aliyependekeza Mtei aende Washington. Hilo limethibitishwa na Mwakikagile na Mzee Mtei mwenyewe. Hiyo ya simu sidhani Mwalimu alifanya direct call mwenyewe. Alikuwa na tabia ya kuwaambia wasaidizi wake "nitafutieni Mzee Bomani, nitafutieni Mtei." Lakini najua alikuwa amemwambia Mtei aachane nao na siyo kuwa-entertain. But to me that is a small matter. I am glad Mzee Mtei ameandika ya upande wake and I look forward to reading the book. Siku tukikutana nikumbushe nikupe mchapo wa mkutano wa mara ya kwanza kati ya Mwalimu na Mtei pale Moshi baada ya Mtei "kujiuzulu. P.S. Nani alikwambia ushauri wa wale wazungu ulikuwa mzuri? Suali halikuwa ni ushauri. Ilikuwa ni protocal. Walipelekwa kukutana na Mwalimu as a courtesy call, they turned the meeting into lecturing Mwalimu.

Jasusi:

Mwalimu hakupenda kukosolewa. Typical ya wazee wa kiAfrika. Kulikuwa na makala ya majiano na Chifu Kunambi (my chief) kwenye website ya ippmedia. Chifu anasema kuwa siku moja alimwambia ukweli kuhusu siasa zake. Na hapo ukawa ndio mwisho. Na ikachukua muda ku-reconcile.

Tunaposema kuwa Mwalimu ni binadamu kama binadamu wengine. Ni lazima tukubali kuwa amekulia katika mazingira ya kiAfrika ambayo bado inatukuza parochial system.

Wengine mpaka leo tunashindwa ku-criticize wazazi wetu hata kama wanachemsha.

 

[Zakumi]

Zakumi,

..ukitaka kudadisi matatizo ya nchi hii halafu akamhusisha Baba wa Taifa Mwalimu Nyerere huwezi kufika popote.

..kosa la Mtei lilipaswa kuwa kushindwa kutoa ushauri mzuri ambao ungeiepusha nchi na matatizo yaliyopelekea kwenda kutafuta msaada kwa mashirika ya IMF na WB.

..binafsi naona sasa tumshike shati Mzee Mtei atueleze alikuwaje alipokuwa Waziri wa Fedha aliharibu kazi kiasi cha kupelekea nchi kutafuta ushauri/msaada wa IMF na WB.

Jokakuu:

Mimi ni mshabiki mkubwa sana wa data. Sources za data zangu zinaonyesha hakuna aliyekuwa anaelewa extent ya matatizo ya kiuchumi yaliyoikumba nchi za kiAfrika wakati hule.

Kijuujuu nchi za kiAfrika zilikuwa zinaonekana kama nchi zenye matatizo ya hapa na pale ya kiuchumi. Deep inside nchi hizi zilikuwa brankrupt states.

Hivyo binafsi ningependa kumuuliza Mtei kuwa kabla ya kukutana na IMF na Mwalimu kukataa masharti, yeye alikuwa anafanya nini kwa sababu kila indicator ilikuwa ina-register negative.

 

[Shwari]

Kama JokaKuu alivyosema, "ujamaa ulitushinda. Ubepari nao unaelekea kutushinda."

Siasa za ujamaa zilianza mwaka wa 1967 ingawa utekelezaji wake haukuanza mara moja. Tuliziacha siasa hizo karibu baada ya miaka ishirini. Na tumejaribu kutekeleza siasa za ubepari, kiuchumi, zaidi ya miaka ishirini.

Watanzania wangapi wamenufaika kutokana na siasa za uchumi za kibepari baada ya zaidi ya miaka ishirini tangu tulipoanza kutekeleza mipango ya uchumi ya upebari?

Watoto wengi shuleni hawana vitabu vya kutosha, in spite of the free market forces which have been unleashed in pursuit of capitalism. Pia wengi wao wanakaa chini, katika vumbi, na katika matope mvua ikinyesha, au wanasomea chini ya miti, in spite of capitalism ambayo ilitegemewa kuwasaidia wananchi wote pamoja na maskini. Kuna secondary schools ambazo hazina hata mabweni, in spite of capitalism.

Wagonjwa hawapati matibabu ya kutosha - hawana hata vitanda hospitalini.

Mishahara haitoshi.

Hayo yote siyo failure of socialism. It's going on now, in Tanzania today, under capitalism.

Jirani zetu Kenya have pursued capitalism since independence - for 46 years. Almost half a century!

Are the masses in Kenya better off than our people, the masses, in Tanzania? What has capitalism done for them - to lift them out of poverty - after 46 years? Capitalism has only enriched a few, the privileged few. And it's doing exactly the same thing in Tanzania today.

I am not saying we should re-introduce socialism. I am saying DON'T glorify capitalism when it has not solved problems of poverty socialism also failed to solve.

Nyerere focused on helping the masses. But CCM today is only for the rich. Chama cha utawala kilichoongozwa na Nyerere ni tofauti kabisa na chama cha utawala tulichonacho sasa. And the leadership code that was enshrined in the Arusha Declaration played a major role in curbing ther predatory activities za mafisadi tunaowalalamikia kila siku hapa Jamii Forums and everywhere in Tanzania.

Watu wanaomlaumu Nyerere na kusema kwamba aliharibu uchumi wa nchi yetu na siasa zake za ujamaa wakumbuke kwamba siasa za ubepari pia hazijatusaidia. Hazijawasaidia mamilioni ya wananchi ambao ni maskini. Hazijalisaidia taifa letu. Ni mafisadi waliofaidika. Na nchi yetu imeuzwa kwa mabepari kutoka nchi za nje. We don't even own our minerals anymore.

Mwalimu alijua matatizo tuliyonayo na alifanya kila jitihada kujaribu kuyatatua matatizo ingawa hakufanikiwa kama alivyotegemea na kama tulivyotegemea. Pia alikuwa na broader pespective ya matatizo yetu kama part of of the Third World.

Hakuna wajuzi wa maendeleo ambao wameweza ku propound development theories ambazo zimeweza kusaidia nchi zetu. Prescriptions za development theorists, most of whom come from the industrialised world, wana propose solutions to our problems from their perspectives and historical experiences in their part of the world - whether they are socialist-oriented kama John Saul aliyefundisha UDSM au capitalist-oriented. One of the leading development therists, Colin Leys, who once taught at Makerere in the sixties, has conceded the failure of development theory with regard to third world countries, as propounded by development theorists mostly in the industrialised world, and has even written a book, "The Rise and Fall of Development Theory."

He acknowledges it has not worked and calls for a paradigm shift.

By the way, it was Colin Leys who was responsible for the rapid rise of Ali Mazrui to full professorship at Makerere at the tender age of 33 because he saw so much talent and so much potential in him.

Anyway, Nyerere alijaribu kutafuta njia itakayotuwezesha kuendelea on our own initiative not only in terms of resources but also in terms of development ideas - ideas generated by us in our own historical context, based on our experience and suited to our own local circumstances - instead of waiting or expecting other people to think for us. Ndiyo maana he came up with ujamaa. At least he tried to do something based on African conditions. Even one of his critics, Professor Ali Mazrui, conceded in his article, "Nyerere and I":

"With his concept of Ujamaa, Nyerere attempted to build bridges between indigenous African thought and modern political ideas....Tanzania was one of the few African countries which attempted to find its own route to development instead of borrowing the ideologies of the West....Nyerere's policies of nation-building amount to a case of Unsung Heroism. With wise and strong leadership, and with brilliant policies of cultural integration, he took one of the poorest countries in the world and made it a proud leader in African affairs and an active member of the global community....Julius Nyerere was my Mwalimu too. It was a privilege to learn so much from so great a man."

Tulikuwa na matatizo mengi kiuchumi enzi ya Nyerere. But they were not unique or peculiar to Tanzania. Na si kwa sababu ya ujamaa tu. Hata viongozi makabaila, jirani zetu Kenya, na ubepari wao, hawakufanikiwa, na hawakujaribu hata kidogo, kuwasaidia wananchi maskini kama Nyerere alivyojaribu na alivyojitahidi na siasa za ujamaa.

Infrastructure walionayo Kenya, na ambayo Wakenya wanajisifia sana, haikujengwa na serikali za Kiafrika tangu enzi ya Mzee Kenyatta. Ilijengwa na wakoloni, Waingereza, kabla ya uhuru. Viongozi wa Kenya tangu uhuru hawakufanya, na hawajafanya, chochote, kujenga infrasturcture nchini Kenya. Ni tofauti kubwa sana na Tanzania tangu tupate uhuru. Infrastructure yetu, a substantial part of it, ilijengwa baada ya uhuru.

And the broader Third World context of our problems can not be ignored, or be dismissed lightly; a point that was underscored by Nyerere. Pia ni kweli kwamba socialism did not succeed in 20 years in Tanzania. But it's equally true that capitalism also has NOT succeeded in MORE THAN 20 years in Tanzania since we abandoned socialism. As Godfrey Mwakikagile states in his book "Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era":

"Socialism failed to develop the country's economy despite some success in the area of light manufacturing and import-substitution items, an achievement which is often overlooked when critics of Nyerere's economic policies harp on Tanzania's failure to develop under socialism. But the failure was disastrous, although for a number of other reasons as well besides socialism. For example, the end of the coffee boom of the 1970s and soaring oil prices also had a devastating impact on Tanzania's fragile economy, especially in 1979, the same year the country fought a six-month full-scale war against Idi Amin's forces - from November 1978 to April 1979 - which cost Tanzania $500 million. But the socialist development strategy also had a devastating impact on the country, and no amount of clever sheet balancing can mitigate its effects.

It was during this period, between 1981 and 1985, that President Nyerere entered into negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other international donors to help revive the economy. That marked the beginning of the end of socialism in Tanzania as a state ideology and strategy for development. It was a fundamental change, and Nyerere was not enthusiastic about it; which explains why he was opposed to some of the IMF proposals and demands - the extent to which liberalization of the economy should be carried out - and entered into those negotiations only reluctantly. However, Tanzania had no choice but to comply with the IMF's mandatory conditions to try and improve her economy. As the executive secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), distinguished Nigerian economist Dr. Adebayo Adedeji, stated in 1983 when negotiations between Tanzania and the IMF were still going on:

"The donor countries and institutions have the last word, rather than the governments themselves, such as in the recent controversy between the IMF and Tanzania. I think, in the final analysis, that the IMF won. This is the grueling reality of poverty. When you are poor, you can never be right. It is the rich country that is right, because it is the only one that can help you."8

Like all the other African countries, Tanzania had to adopt stringent austerity measures as a condition for financial aid from the IMF. The measures included structural adjustment programmes which demanded reducing controls on marketing and currency exchange rates and cutting overall public expenditure. Implementation of the programmes led to recession and caused a lot of hardship on the people, not only in Tanzania but also in other African countries and elsewhere in the underdeveloped regions of the world. The suffering seemed to last forever. As Joe Mensah, a lawyer and senior civil servant in Accra, Ghana, stated: "How many years does one have to live on earth, and how many of those must be spent in hardship?"9

But that is the kind of hardship people had to endure to implement structural adjustment programmes imposed on poor countries by donor nations through the IMF and other multilateral institutions. That is the nature of capitalism which does not have mechanisms to minimize its negative impact on the poor when it is implemented solely to achieve economic growth and not to provide services for the needy. And President Nyerere was fully aware of the contradictory nature of capitalism.

It is a system which seeks to develop society to benefit members of that society, yet survives and thrives on the exploitation of the very people it is intended to help. And the weakest members of society are the most vulnerable under such a system because capitalism is predatory by nature.

That is why there is an imperative need for government intervention to curb the predatory instincts of capitalism and protect the weakest members of society from ruthless competition fostered by free market policies. Nyerere believed that socialism, the very antithesis of capitalism, could do just that and bring about social equality by implementing egalitarian ideals espoused under such a system. Yet because of the weakness of Tanzania and other African countries in the international system dominated by the metropolitan powers, he also saw his people suffer immensely when the IMF imposed stiff conditions on Tanzania which had to be implemented in order for the country to qualify for financial aid. And it was a continental phenomenon.

The devastating impact of structural adjustment programmes ignited debate across Africa - and in other parts of the Third World - about the functional utility of IMF prescriptions for the ailing economies on the continent if the people who were supposed to be helped by these measures turned out to be the very people who suffered the most. Structural adjustment programmes had not helped the poor as the experts claimed they would; a point underscored by Chinua Achebe in his Presidential Fellow Lecture to the World Bank Group in 1998:

"I believe it was in the first weeks of 1989 that I received an invitation to an anniversary meeting - the twentieth-fifth year, or something like that - of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris....

They talked in particular about the magic bullet of the 1980s, structural adjustment, specially designed for those parts of the world where economies had gone completely haywire.

The matter was really simple, the experts seemed to be saying; the only reason for failure to develop was indiscipline of all kinds, and the remedy was a quick, sharp administration of shock treatment....The most recurrent prescriptions for this condition were the removal of subsidies on food and fuel and the devaluation of the national currency....

Then the governor of the Bank of Kenya made his presentation. As I recall the events, he was probably the only other African at that session. He asked the experts to consider the case of Zambia, which according to him had accepted, and had been practising, a structural adjustment regime for something like 10 years, and whose economic condition was now worse than it had been when they began their treatment.

An American expert who seemed to command great attention and was accorded high deference in the room, spoke again. He repeated what had already been said many times before: "Be patient, it will work in time, trust me," or words to that effect....

I signaled my desire to speak and was given the floor. I told them what I had just recognized. I said that what was going on before me was a fiction workshop, no more and no less! 'Here you are, spinning your fine theories to be tried out in your imaginary laboratories. You are developing new drugs and feeding them to a bunch of laboratory guinea pigs and hoping for the best. I have news for you.

Africa is not fiction. Africa is people, real people. Have you thought of that? You are brilliant people, world experts. You may even have the very best intentions. But have you thought, really thought, of Africa as people?

I will tell you the experience of my own country, Nigeria, with structural adjustment. After two years of this remedy we saw the country's minimum wage fall in value from the equivalent of 15 British pounds to 5 pounds a month. This is not a lab report; it is not a mathematical exercise. We are talking about someone whose income, which is already miserable enough, is now reduced to one-third of what it was two years ago. And this flesh-and-blood man has a wife and children.

You say he should simply go home and tell them to be patient. Now let me ask you this question: Would you recommend a similar remedy to your own government? How do you sell it to an elected president? You are asking him to commit political suicide, or perhaps to get rid of elections altogether until he has fixed the economy. Do you realize that's what you're doing?'"10

None of the experts could give a good answer to any of those questions. And as Nyerere said, Tanzania had adopted some of these solutions recommended by Western experts, "but we have been in trouble ever since." And what Chinua Achebe said about the pain and suffering caused by structural adjustment programmes, not only in his own country Nigeria but in other parts of Africa as well, should also remind us of what Nyerere said to World Bank officials in 1984 when they insisted on implementing harsh measures as a condition for aid to Tanzania: "I cannot sign an agreement and then have riots on the streets. You may be the economic experts but I am the political expert - allow me at least to say how much the people can take."11

But donor nations insisted on implementing structural adjustment programmes and other austerity measures as a condition for aid to poor countries, prompting Nyerere to ask in 1986 what has now become one of his famous questions: "Must we starve our children to pay our debt?" The answer, from the rich nations, is 'yes'....

Nyerere was against capitalism to achieve capitalist goals because of its nature as a predatory system which capitalizes on greed and exploits the most vulnerable members of society, and divides society along class lines, accentuating cleavages and turning man against fellow man for material gain including high social status. IMF-imposed solutions to improve Tanzania's - and Africa's - economy would achieve exactly that, despite professions to the contrary by its proponents who contended, and still maintain, that benefits will trickle down to members of the lowest strata - the working class and other low income earners as well as destitutes - throughout society. Yet, this trickle-down theory has not been validated by experience in all contexts, if any at all, in Africa and many parts of the Third World.

Good economic policy must translate into good social policy. But that is not the case with IMF prescriptions when they hurt and even kill the poor. And Nyerere understood this well probably more than any of his contemporaries. It also explains his uncompromising commitment to socialism to alleviate the plight of the poorest of the poor by implementing egalitarian ideals to achieve social equality and justice by redistributing wealth and increasing government spending for social services.

That is why, during his presidency, education was free, and medical service was also free, for everybody. And the government had to continue playing a major role in the economy to ensure equality because for historical and pragmatic reasons, it was the only institution in Tanganyika, later Tanzania, which controlled the largest amount of resources and was capable of functioning as the engine of progress in a country where the people - the poorest of the poor in one of the poorest countries in the world - had virtually nothing in terms of capital to invest in the economy. As President Benjamin Mkapa stated in an interview in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, broadcast on American television (PBS) in March 2001:

"We establish(ed) a network of social-service delivery that was extremely egalitarian, and it succeeded very well indeed. It helped us to build an unparalleled sense of nationhood in our country, very much so, and a sense of equality, a challenge of opportunity for all of us. But the world was changing, and in the end we overstretched ourselves in the sense that the governmental proceeds could not sustain the vast network, and so we had to open up the doors to the private sector.

In fairness, let us say that the private sector wasn't excluded by either law or practice, but because we promoted a public sector-driven economy, the private sector was somewhat hesitant in coming in. What we did was to encourage them to come in, with assurances that we will not nationalize their enterprises.

So the first 20-something years where we established an extensive, large public sector-driven economy were extremely necessary, frankly, given the historical background....

When we first became independent, we had been part of the British empire during the colonial days, although we were very much on the periphery of the empire because we were a United Nations Trust Territory. That trust was placed in the British, as different from the protectorates such as Uganda or the colonies such as Kenya.

The British government and the citizenry of the United Kingdom had greater interest (in the colonies and protectorates), and therefore those countries witnessed greater economic investment and economic development than ourselves. Because we were peripheral and not essential, they didn't feel very keen to come and invest here. We were a very, very backward economy, and therefore the likelihood of development through the private sector was extremely remote.

President Nyerere undertook to promote the policy of economic development through public sector engines, the government itself being at the wheel and providing the wherewithal for investment, for production, and so on. So we had a public-sector economy here. For the first 30 years or so of our independence, we built public ownership, public management, and public investment....But we reached a point where we had to open up...the doors to the private sector....

If you define socialism as an economic development policy of public ownership, then there's no doubt that we reached a stage where growth was unsustainable or unachievable. That is why I said we had to open up, in order to invite other stakeholders or other participants in the growth process. So in that sense it failed, it couldn't continue, it couldn't be sustained. But defined as a process in which we are building a national economy in which there's a sense of both egalitarian ownership and partnership, it was extremely successful and may have been the major root cause for the stability that has characterized our political life."12

Even before Tanzania adopted the "Arusha Declaration: Socialism and Self-Reliance" in February 1967, five years after independence in December 1961, Nyerere was already committed to socialism as the best way to alleviate poverty, narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, and achieve social and economic justice for all.

In fact, socialist principles were already enshrined in the country's ruling party, the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU), long before socialism was formally adopted as a state ideology; although the country did not pursue socialist policies during the first years of independence in the early and mid-sixties despite Nyerere's commitment to socialism.

The acceptance, hence adoption, of the Arusha Declaration by the national executive committee of TANU in Arusha on January 29, 1967, and subsequent publication of this political and economic blueprint on February 5, 1967 - signaling the formal adoption of the declaration by the country on the latter date - marked a turning point in Tanzanian politics.

The ideology of the country was made explicit by this document; and the introduction of the leadership code - leadership qualifications - as well as the decision to nationalize major means of production and other vital assets set the country on a socialist path long envisioned by Nyerere. As stated in the first part of the TANU creed which also constitutes the first part of the Arusha Declaration: "The policy of TANU is to build a socialist state. The principles of socialism are laid down in the TANU constitution....to ensure that this country shall be governed by a democratic socialist government of the people."

And it is important to remember that TANU was founded in July 1954 to fight for independence. Therefore Nyerere and his colleagues were, as far back as 1954, committed to the creation of a socialist state even before they led the country to independence in December 1961.

There is no other document or piece of writing which explicitly defines Nyerere as a socialist, and Tanzania as a country committed to socialism under his leadership, as the Arusha Declaration which he himself wrote. And whatever mistakes one may find in his socialist beliefs and policies can be found in this document.

Its proponents view the declaration as one of of the best political and economic blueprints ever written; and its opponents as one of the worst, or most idealistic and impractical, even though many of them have not even read it. It is for the readers to judge for themselves when they read the Arusha Declaration and decide what they think about it, and what they think about Nyerere himself as an ideological thinker. The declaration is reproduced here in its entirety....

That is the Arusha Declaration. Throughout the document, one theme constantly comes up. And that is Nyerere's deep concern for the well-being of the poor, the peasants and the workers, especially the peasants, who constitute the vast majority of the population of Tanzania and those of other African countries and others in the Third World.

The Arusha Declaration earned Nyerere a reputation as one of the most prominent socialist thinkers in the world, and one of the most articulate spokesmen of the poor and the oppressed.

But in fairness, it must also be emphasized that even before the Arusha Declaration, he had already earned a reputation as one of the leading spokesmen of the Third World and of oppressed and exploited people everywhere round the globe. As he stated in one of his earliest speeches in the international arena, about two years after he led Tanganyika to independence, at a United Nations conference of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) in Rome in November 1963:

"I think it is useful from time to time to remind ourselves that it is people - human beings with all their prejudices, hopes, stupidities, and potentialities - who are the purpose of every human organization and institution. The purpose of government is to secure for the people conditions in which they can live happily and peacefully, and the modern conception of its function demands that it should do this in a positive manner....The conditions in which many of the people now live and move are a negation of human dignity, and a disgrace to the twentieth-century world. Our governments have to secure an improvement so great that it demands a complete social and economic revolution in the country. And just as this change must be the objective of governments in underdeveloped countries, so also it is the declared aim of a whole complex of international organizations....

Apart from South Africa - which I intend to ignore today - there is now an almost world-wide recognition of the common humanity of man, and a growing sense of human brotherhood....Politically we talk of one world, yet we remain hundreds of individual nations who are taking only the first elementary steps towards recognizing their interdependence....Economically, I believe the irrelevance of this phrase is still greater....The world presents a picture of such violent economic contrasts that, for all the contact there can be, different sections of mankind could be living not just on different planets, but in different solar systems....

You know the statistics of poverty contrasted with riches; of obesity in one country and hunger in another. You know too that although within every country there are economic inequalities - with even the USA having its poor and undernourished - the startling inequalities come between the general standards of living in the different nation states of the world. $60 per head is the national income of India, and $2,000 per head in the United States....By far the greater majority of mankind does not get enough to eat, or does not get the sort of food which will keep a person healthy....

While these facts are not new, neither are they becoming out of date. This is the matter which must concern us now....For all the consciousness of world economic inequalities, for all the international organizations which have been established to remedy this situation, the gap between the haves and have-nots of the world is widening on a progressive scale. The richer you are the more wealth you accumulate, and the poorer - regardless of your effort - the less you can improve the situation. Economically, there are still two worlds, not one....For reasons of human dignity, and for the sake of peace and justice, these economic inequalities in the world must be reduced and the mass of the people must be able to relieve themselves from the burden of poverty....

The world can produce more of the goods needed by the people; the underdeveloped countries can themselves produce more. Indeed one of the distinguishing characteristics of an underdeveloped country is the low productivity of its workers and land. When we talk about a country being underdeveloped this is what we mean - that its gross domestic product is low in comparison to its population. People do not produce much and do not consume much - two things which are not so automatically interchangeable as pure economic theory implies.

The problems of the underdeveloped countries are thus twofold. Firstly, to increase production of goods and services which people need; and secondly, to increase consumption of the goods and services which denote a good and free life. The latter means that the goods and services produced must either be those directly required by the producers; or they must be able to flow through a system of exchange which brings, back to the producers, a purchasing power equivalent to the wealth their efforts have created. In other words, the marketing must be so organized that farmers can sell their products for a fair price, and the goods they require must likewise be available to buy at reasonable cost.

I think it is safe to say that in every underdeveloped country, neither increased output, nor increased consumption, can be achieved without very great and fundamental changes in the whole economy and social structure. We in Tanganyika, for example, (and you must excuse me if I draw most of my illustrations from the country I know best) have almost ninety-seven per cent of our people living in rural areas, and most of these earn their living by agriculture. It is obvious therefore that we should think in terms of increasing our agricultural output....

(But) despite the great hunger in the world - the real shortage of nourishing foods - the terms of trade have continually moved to the disadvantage of the primary producers in underdeveloped countries....When we try to sell to the developed countries we discover one of two things; either they protect their own industries from what they call the 'products of sweated labour,' or they can produce more cheaply than we because of the intensity of their capital investment. The fact that our labour is 'sweated' because we cannot afford investment - that we have nothing but our own hands to use - is inevitably of no interest to the developed countries. Neither is the fact that the only way we can stop 'sweated labour' is by building our economy.

Again, we find that even in agricultural products the developed countries, for internal distributive reasons, pay the(ir) farmers one price, and offer the goods on the world market for a much lower one - or even give them away. Singly, few of us can afford to refuse these gifts; indeed, my own country was extremely glad of them when we suffered famine conditions two years running through crop failures. But the effect is liable to be disastrous to efforts to build up new trade patterns between the poor countries by means of which each would increase their total wealth. And the very existence of these stocks under national control means that when underdeveloped countries can supply the existing markets at fair prices, stock releases from rich countries can at any time make the price we receive completely uneconomic.

None of these are matters which can be settled in isolation, commodity by commodity. The whole question of international monetary liquidity is involved, as well as other factors relating to orderly marketing of available and increasing world supplies. These matters can never be settled while every point has to be negotiated between dozens of countries, with unanimity always essential. We all know that whatever discussions we enter into, a country which has a stockpile of certain commodities, or which controls a large sector of the supply or effective demand, must agree to the final decision if it is to be worth anything. Such countries - and they are in practice almost always the wealthier ones - thus determine the result; they act as litigant and judge in the one case. The 'free international market' is inevitably, unavoidably, an arena in which the weakest goes to the wall....

Internationally,...the theoretical rejection of the co-existence of rich and poor countries has led to 'Aid' - the voluntary gifts from the rich to the poor. With this we have to pit our puny efforts against the whole trend of world investment and world trade.

On this basis the gap between the rich and poor nations cannot fail to increase. The effect of 'Aid' we get can be wiped out - and often is - by a marginal price change in one single raw material. This situation will inevitably continue until we have planned development and planned trade, internationally as well as nationally.

For a really constructive attack on world poverty which has hope of speedy success, there is no alternative. At the moment, however, many underdeveloped countries, include my own, themselves contribute to the expansion of this gap between rich and poor. We do this because in practice we appear to accept the doctrine that the world is one, and we subscribe to the multilateral free trade-theory with only minor protectionist and revenue taxes.

Our membership of GATT, for example, prevents our discriminating between suppliers in favour of other underdeveloped countries; our freely convertible currency means that any multiplier effect of our development not only spills, outside the country, but spills most often into the pockets of those who don't need it. And we accept 'tied loans' - often called 'aid' - which sometimes force us to buy in expensive markets and and then pay interest on the total. In addition, we allow the importation into our economy of any sort of luxury goods which an intensive advertising campaign can persuade people to buy!

There is a lot to be said in favour of each of these policies considered in isolation, and some of them are in any case, for various reasons, unavoidable. But the net result of them is that economically we, and other nations like us, act as though all the individual nations were in fact equals.

We poor countries (for, whatever our potential may be, we are certainly poor now) beg from the rich on the one hand, and at the same time compete with them to obtain capital and skilled manpower for investment, and markets for goods produced at very different levels of technique. On this basis the disparities between us are bound to get bigger, just as the runt of the litter is the one which always goes hungry.

As a rational people in control of our own destinies, obviously, the underdeveloped nations cannot allow the present situation to continue indefinitely. Either we go forward with everyone else into a World Economic Development Plan, or we shall have to go backward for the time being into economic isolationism. When only the law of the jungle reigns, the struggle for existence must naturally end up with - the survival of the fittest. This may be all right when it applies to beasts; as a method of contact between human beings it is intolerable. But as long as this law prevails it is only prudent for the weak to keep a good distance between themselves and the strong.

The choice is clear. Either we really become one world, with the problem of poverty in certain areas being attacked scientifically on a world scale; or, alternatively, we recognize that there are two worlds, the rich world and the poor world, and the latter gets down to the problem of protecting itself against the dominance of the other....

If there cannot be... a single economic plan for one world, then let there be a plan for that half of the world whose poverty puts out of the question the luxury of uncontrolled economic individualism. Between the poor anywhere, there can always be trade and the development of activity, provided that they do not try to base this on the medium of exchange which is held by and acceptable to the rich....Even a completely independent free market which is restricted to the poor of the world would be better for us than relying entirely on the present system in which the poor are at the mercy of the rich....Through the ruthless pursuance of such a policy we shall ultimately be able to defeat the poverty, both objective and relative, which now oppresses us. A continuation of the present combination of 'aid' and 'free international competition' will never do that."14

Nyerere's presentation at FAO, which was a McDougall Memorial Lecture, clearly articulated his position as a leading champion of the Third World whose primary focus was not only on narrowing the yawning gap between the rich nations and the poor nations - that is, between the North and the South - but also on promoting self-reliance among the underdeveloped countries as a way of protecting and promoting their interests in a world dominated by the metropolitan powers of the industrial West. It was a theme he carried on and formally articulated about three years later in the famous Arusha Declaration whose relevance went beyond Tanzania and embraced the whole African continent and resonated well in other parts of the Third World.

And he was explicit in his admission of the underdeveloped nature of Tanzania and other Third World countries - despite the relative disparity in wealth and development among them - as much as he was in his criticism, and sometimes condemnation, of the industrialized nations for their exploitation of the poor and underdeveloped regions of the world. As he stated at the ministerial meeting of the Group of 77 composed of Third World countries held in Arusha, Tanzania, on February 12, 1969, almost exactly two years after the Arusha Declaration was adopted, there was an imperative need for a new international economic order to correct the imbalance in the international system which always operated to the detriment of the underdeveloped nations.

He even told the delegates to the conference that they were fully aware of the poverty of Tanzania as clearly demonstrated by the quality of the facilities they used during their stay in the country. As he put it: "I suspect that some of you may have found that your accommodation gives you too frequent a reminder that this meeting is being held in an underdeveloped country. I want to assure you that we tried hard! I hope, however, that you will not find your rooms or the facilities so unsatisfactory that you cannot do your work properly."15 His disarming candour was one of the great qualities of his leadership. As he used to tell us in Tanzania, the only way we can develop is to admit that we are a poor country and use what resources we have to achieve progress and prosperity by depending on ourselves. In a global context, he urged Third World countries to do the same, while also demanding economic justice from the industrialized nations which dominated the world and continued to exploit them.

At the Third World conference in Arusha, President Nyerere went on to say that the odds were stacked up against the underdeveloped countries, no matter how hard they worked, because of the asymmetrical relationship between the rich and the poor countries in an international system created and dominated by the industrialized nations:

"Newly de-colonised nations, and the older countries of Latin America, had all inherited the same idea from the dominant Euro-American culture: work hard and you will become prosperous. Gradually we all discovered that hard work and prosperity were not cause and effect; something external to ourselves always seemed to break the reputed connection! The so-called neutrality of the world market place turned out to be a neutrality between the exploiter and the exploited, between a bird of prey and its victim.

If in our effort to find resources for survival - let alone development - we carried out the textbook procedures of raising capital, we always seemed to end up under the virtual control of the transnational corporations or subject to IMF deflationary policies - or both. We did not achieve progress; we simply moved from the frying pan into the deep-freezer! Even if we tried to do nothing except sell our traditional exports and buy our traditional imports, we found that we could buy less and less with more and more of our hard work."16

Nyerere stated in no uncertain terms that the present system had been developed by the industrialized nations to serve their purposes, and not of the rest of the world, as well, which was also an integral part of this global arrangement. The result was that the metropolitan powers, which have formed a cohesive bloc and act as one when dealing with other countries, control the levers of international exchange and finance, and also control the wealth accumulated through centuries of colonialism, gun-boat diplomacy, and an initial advantage in mass production techniques.

He also emphasized that Third World countries did not create the world's institutions of production and exchange and have virtually no say in those institutions and even in making decisions which affect them. And as Benjamin Mkapa - Tanzania's third president (1995 - 2005) and a disciple of Nyerere who, like his mentor, was also in his own right one of the most eloquent spokesmen of the Third World - said, in what was probably one of his best speeches, at the third Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD III), Africa's advancement is retarded, governed, and determined by history that is not of our making.

He went on to say that in terms of institutions of global governance, Africa was frozen in 1945, a time when practically all African countries were mere extensions or integral parts of other regimes and were thus called dominions, colonies or overseas territories: "It is history shaped by presiding institutions of which none of us are cornerstones and by rules in the making of which we have had no say. No African country had a say in the construction of present institutions of global governance and our say in their decision making is very limited."

President Mkapa went on to say that demands for the reconstruction of and realignment of such institutions, in order to benefit the entire world, have simply been ignored by the industrialized nations who are the greatest beneficiaries of these lopsided institutional arrangements, tipping scales in their favour. As he put it: "We refuse to have a global indaba or baraza to discuss the post-cold war era and the unipolar world it has produced. As a result the idea of unilateralism and exclusion is creeping on us as the preferred philosophy. But is it globally preferred and is it the right philosophy for human equality?"

He warned that the power and influence arising from global dominance, especially by the industrialized West, as a result of the strong economies that emerged in the post-World War II era should not be perfunctorily ignored.

He went on to say that economically, there was a distinct threat to food and income security and the reduction of poverty because African commodities, which are mostly raw materials exported to the industrialized world, especially agricultural and mineral exports which are the mainstay of African economies, were sold on terms determined by the metropolitan powers at very low prices; prompting him to ask:

"Are we going to have rules based on internationalism or a sprawling rampant bilateralism, spewing forth bilateral trade agreements?"

The president also said that human security in Africa, and indeed anywhere else in the Third World, was incompatible with the debt crisis which continued to devastate African economies and institutions. He further pointed out that even in his own country Tanzania, one of the few countries to qualify for limited debt cancellation and better credit terms under the enhanced Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt initiative, servicing the remaining debt - which was enormous - was still a big drain on resources which could be used to fight poverty in one of the poorest countries in the world, yet one of the most heavily indebted.

President Mkapa went on to say that there was still no Marshall Plan for Africa and no comprehensive debt cancellation initiatives, leaving hundreds of millions of people on the continent at the mercy of the developed nations which continued to exploit them. He also appealed to fellow Africans by saying that Africa, in solidarity, must fight deprivation,dispossession, and greed; emphasizing that:

"We need to rethink nationally about the political and economic order in which we live. Neither complacency nor fervent hope are sustainable alternatives to bold, open consensus dialogue."

He warned that for her own sake and survival, Africa needed to rethink internationally in the era of the worsening debt crisis in the Third World, increasing income inequalities, terrorism, and the spread of new diseases such as AIDS. and the resurgence - sometimes with new strains - of old ones including malaria and tuberculosis.

He also said human security must find expression in agriculture and rural development, and that since slightly more than half of Africans were women, gender issues must be a critical component of any policy and strategy aimed at developing the continent, especially in the rural areas which are the backbone of African economies in this predominantly agricultural continent.

He went on to say: "Human security must emanate from poverty reduction for the poorest and economic growth for both the developing and developed countries....African countries have to define poverty in their own contexts and construct through a participatory approach, a national vision to eradicate it."

The president outlined the goals and priorities for Africa, emphasizing that the first challenge was to get together to plan, mobilize and implement strategies for development; and the second to ensure that Africa developed with hope and dignity. He also said that, economically, Africa inexorably has to move towards a greater private-sector driven economy in this era of globalization. But it must also be a fairly regulated economy with a discernible proportion of local ownership and entrepreneurship, directly or through joint venture ownerships.

President Mkapa emphasized that proper regulation of a market economy had to include an institutional framework against corruption, and the application of the principle of tripartism between the government, employers and unionized labour in policy formulation and legislation.17

He was blunt in his assessment and analysis of Africa's predicament and peripheral role in the global arena, and correctly pointed out that the international system built since the end of World War II on foundations laid by the developed countries, especially the industrial West, has frozen out Africa - and, indeed, most of the Third World - and was established without any participation by any of the African countries which were mere possessions of the imperial powers. This reminds me of what Tom Mboya once experienced when he went to London in 1960 to attend the constitutional talks on the independence of Kenya as a member of the Kenyan delegation led by him and Oginga Odinga when Jomo Kenyatta was still in prison. He said when he was walking around, one old English lady stopped him and asked him, "Which one of our possessions do you come from?"

Tragically, little has changed. Although African countries are independent today, theirs is only flag independence, as Nyerere once said, with their economies still controlled by the former colonial powers and other industrialized nations. And nothing is going to change until a new international economic order which takes into account the needs, interests, and aspirations of the poor and underdeveloped countries, is established with the full participation of all the countries of the Third World as equal partners in negotiations with the industrialized nations.

Otherwise the security of the entire world will be threatened by this injustice, caused by greed of the developed world which is sustained by industrial might at the expense of the underdeveloped nations. That is also one of the themes Nyerere articulated with magnificent eloquence throughout his leadership which spanned almost half a century, earning him distinction as one of the most influential Third World leaders, indeed one of the most prominent leaders in the entire world, who ever lived. And he died as one.

At the Third World conference in Arusha, Tanzania, in 1979, President Nyerere put in proper historical perspective the relationship between the industrialized nations and the underdeveloped countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, and offered practical solutions to the perennial problems these countries faced under an international system that was deliberately built to ignore their interests. As he bluntly stated:

"We are all, in relation to the developed world, dependent - not interdependent - nations. Each of our economies has developed as a by-product and a subsidiary of development in the industrialised North, and is externally oriented. We are not the prime movers of our own destiny. We are ashamed to admit it; but economically we are dependencies - semi-colonies at best - not sovereign states....

The unity of even the most powerful of the sub-groups within the Third World is not sufficient to allow its members to become full actors, rather than reactors, in the world economic system. The unity of the entire Third World is necessary for the achievement of fundamental change in the present world economic arrangements....But we have to do more than stand united....We have to work together; our nations have to co-operate economically. This is where the diversity of the Third World can be our strength also....We have to build up trade among ourselves."

He also went on to say that the underdeveloped and developing countries should co-operate in establishing Third World multinational corporations owned and controlled by them, to serve their purposes and to remain independent of transnational corporations - formed and owned especially by the West - which dominate the world economy. He also said Third World countries need to have institutions of research and development directed at serving the needs of those countries and developing their resources; and establish jointly-owned industries when the separate markets of the Third World countries are too small for the economic viability of certain production processes.18

Nyerere's status as the eminent Third World leader, especially during the last years of the Cold War, was enhanced when he was chosen as the chairman of the South Commission, a position he formally assumed in October 1987. As he stated at the commission's inaugural ceremony:

"This independent international commission to examine the problems of the Economic South is the product of a long period of thinking and talking among intellectuals and other leaders of the South.

At the second summit meeting of Third World scholars and statesmen in Kualar Lumpur last year, the idea was finally brought to a head. A steering committee was set up under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed with the task of getting the project under way. On 1st September 1986, I agreed to be chairman of such an independent Commission of the South. The idea was then supported by by the Harare summit meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in September 1986, and early this year it was welcomed at the ministerial meeting of the Group of 77 in Havana.

Also, I myself and a group of friends and colleagues from the steering committee have been discussing the idea with governments and intellectual leaders in many countries of the Economic South. Today's meeting follows these events....

The Third World came into self-conscious existence as the anti-colonial movement achieved its successes in the post-1945 period. It consisted mainly of the countries of Latin America and the newly independent countries of Asia and Africa....Even now, some decades later, the common characteristics of what we call the Economic South are: extreme economic and technical backwardness; a dependency on, rather than a relationship of genuine interdependence with, the Economic North; powerlessness in making vital but underlying structural decisions which affect the lives of their peoples; and - save in a few exceptional cases - an intolerable level of national poverty....

The 1980s...have been a period of massive disappointment for most of the Third World. Standards of living have been actually falling in a large number of countries - which has inevitably led to social, economic and political tensions. Rising populations have meant that more jobs are required, but investment levels have almost everywhere fallen under the inexorable pressure of adjustment to a sharp deterioration in the international economic environment....

This deep disillusionment has now spread far beyond the intellectuals and political leaders with whom it started. For now it stems from wide and unpleasant experience, not from statistical and intellectual analysis. And it is reflected in great suspicion towards the prevailing strategies of development, and actual hostility towards the policy advice emanating from the international financial institutions and the creditor governments....

There is now convincing evidence that the economic crises in the Third World are in no small measure the result of a massive malfunctioning of the international arrangements which govern the flows of international trade, money, finance and investment. Over those kinds of arrangements developing countries have no control.

It is true that we in the South have made our own policy mistakes, and frequently failed to be efficient - or even effective - in the implementation of good policies. But our blunders do not account for the almost universal economic malaise of the world in general and the Third World in particular. One cannot gain a true understanding of the nature of the debt crisis, for instance, without taking note of the steep fall in commodity prices, the worsening of the Third World's terms of trade, and the general decline in the export earnings of the Economic South. Nor can one appreciate just how great is the debt burden for underdeveloped economies unless one considers the interest rates in relation to, and side by side with, the sharply declining commodity prices.

Further, at a time when countries of the Third World need massive transfers of resources to expand and restructure their economies, resources are in fact flowing in the reverse direction - from the poor South to the rich North. And at a time when the need of developing countries for additional export earnings is ever more pressing, their exports face new protectionist barriers - especially non-tariff barriers. Not surprisingly, growth impulses have sagged every year.

This harsh global economic environment means that debt servicing involves, year after year, an intolerable squeeze on both consumption and investment. This is an unsustainable situation, fraught with grave consequences.

Despite this reality, there is no sign that the countries which have the major responsibility for managing the international economic system are alive to the damage which the totality of their policies are inflicting on the Third World....Every effort is being made to impose on the Third World preconceived and ideologically oriented policy packages and perspectives. These are of a nature which will seriously undermine their ability to evolve an autonomous development strategy suited to the circumstances and the needs of the peoples of the South....

The North no longer plays its theoretical - and in the post-World War years actual - role of being a locomotive pulling Third World growth behind it....If the South is to regain and then sustain the momentum of its growth, it must therefore find new sources of growth within itself. Increased emphasis on agriculture and food production, and the economic well-being of small and marginal farmers, as well as of other disadvantaged groups, could contribute to this. It could, for example, considerably widen the home market for locally produced industrial goods, at least for those Third World countries which already have the nucleus of a self-sustaining industrial sector.

Even in the least developed countries, such emphasis on agriculture and food production is the only means by which any capital can be raised from internal sources, although this is not made easy by the continuing fall in international commodity prices....Co-operation must be multi-dimensional and must include areas such as trade, investment, science and technology, and the development of both economic infrastructure and human resources....

Giving a concrete shape to the ideal of collective self-reliance must therefore constitute a major task for the Commission....For the South, the North continues to be economically important because of its markets, its technology, and its potential as a source of capital. The Commission's stress on South-South co-operation therefore does not imply any lack of interest in restructuring the present North-South relations regarding trade, technology, investments and capital transfers. Nor can the Commission fail to concern itself with the future of multilateralism, and the promotion of an equitable management of global interdependence. In particular, the Commission must consider and make proposals directed at ensuring that the multilateral financial institutions truly nurse and promote sound development in the whole world - including the Third World.

There can be no running away from the logic of interdependence....The Commission...will therefore have to take a hard look at evolving North-South relations. In doing this it will have to recognise that unless the South organises and improves its bargaining power, its pleas for a restructuring of the international economic system are unlikely to be heeded. This is a struggle for independence and genuine independence is never given given on a platter. It is only when the South realises and develops its own potential, through national and collective self-reliance, that it will find an adequate response to the North....

The South is tired of being the world's taker - whether of import and export prices; of interest rates and political conditionality for financial and commercial transactions; of technology; of ideology and self-interested advice; and even of charity and benevolence. It is also tired of having its agenda set for it. It is therefore proposing to set its own agenda for its own action."19

In his subsequent speeches and lectures, as in previous ones about the relationship between the developed and the developing nations, Nyerere underscored the imperative need for fundamental change in the international system which perpetuated the exploitation of the Third World by the industrialized world. He was also painfully aware of the chronic dependency by the countries of the South - most of which are poor and underdeveloped - on the industrial North. These are some of the subjects he addressed in his speech to the summit conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Belgrade in September 1989 where he also said that some countries in the North have even resorted to military means to pursue their political and economic interests in a number of countries in the underdeveloped South.

He went on to say that the acute economic crisis in Third World countries forced them to be dependent on the North and made them very vulnerable to all sorts of pressures exerted by the industrialized nations; and were virtually held to ransom by threats of withholding credit, investment, economic assistance, and even denied them access to markets in the developed world, thus making it impossible for underdeveloped countries to sell their commodities and earn the capital and foreign exchange they desperately need. As sovereign entities, they were thus caught in a predicament which made their independence meaningless. And that is one of the main reasons why Nyerere talked so much about the need for self-reliance, not only within countries such as Tanzania, but also in the entire Third World.

Yet, in spite of the urgency for self-reliance within and among Third World countries, working with each other, Nyerere was also fully aware of the industrial and military might of the North, as he aptly demonstrated in his lecture, "The Developing Countries and the World of Tomorrow," to the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva in January 1990:

"We live in a divided world. Until now the division which has received most attention has been the East-West division. The division is basically a European division, and the two so-called World Wars were basically European wars; but Europe is such an important region of the world that European wars spread throughout the globe and profoundly affect all countries. Therefore, although the East-West division is so European that until very recently it could be symbolised by a wall in Berlin, it is rightly regarded as a world division. And because of Europe's power and history, it is a very dangerous division. For this reason alone, I would welcome the current signs that this East-West division and confrontation is coming to an end.

But I want to welcome the likely end to the East-West division in particular because it could bring into better focus a more fundamental and more truly world division. That is the economic division between North and South, and the near-monopoly of international, economic, and military power possessed by the North.

The Economic North is rich, industrialised and powerful. It is organised - in the Group of Seven, in OECD, in the European Community and so on. Its members have the veto in the United Nations Security Council; only China from the South does so, and that is a historical accident arising from the second world war. Countries of the North control the IMF, the World Bank, and other powerful international institutions where the vote is determined by wealth. The countries of the South, on the other hand, all have in common, underdevelopment, powerlessness to influence the world economy, and - with a few exceptions - poverty.

While largely dependent on commodity prices, the countries of the South cannot determine them or, individually, even greatly influence them; these prices are set in the North. With economies which are highly import dependent for both capital goods and basic inputs, they cannot determine the prices of those goods either; these too are set in the North. The prices of both what they sell and what they buy are set in the North.

While needing to obtain capital for development, the South is exporting capital because of interest rates and international exchange rates set in the North. And even in this age when military power has largely been replaced by economic power as a means of domination, the countries of the South are subject to invasion, Northern-financed-and-controlled subversion and rebellion, and constant threats to their sovereign integrity. I only have to mention Vietnam, Grenada, Libya, Nicaragua, Angola, Cuba, the Comoros and Panama to illustrate that point. Can anyone imagine any nation of the South invading Luxemburg, or bombing the White House to kill its occupant, or planning the assassination of a European president, or financing the equivalent of the Contras?...

This dominance in all fields is now maintained and protected through the workings of the international economic structures and practices; these evolved and were designed in the North to meet its own interests and needs, and the North therefore fiercely protects them. But these structures and practices also help to perpetuate the underdevelopment of the South and its offshoots - poverty, ignorance, malnutrition and disease."20

He went on to say that for hundreds of millions of people in the Third World, hunger had simply become a way of life; basic education and health care beyond reach. While the North had now begun to talk even in terms of a new post-industrial era in which it would make even more advances, industrialization in most parts of the South had hardly begun. Basic communications and social structure, especially in Africa, doesn't exist in most cases, and the capital needed to overcome these handicaps is not available.

But he also warned that such division between the haves and the have-nots is potential for instability, and this instability can be maintained only by force. And that is the case within countries and in the international system dominated by the developed nations. He further warned that despite attempts by the North to create a new international economic order of its liking, the North alone cannot bring order - any kind of order - to the world. Genuine order is a product of justice, and no system imposed on the majority for the benefit of a few can be either viable or stable in the long run. "And change leading towards an end to poverty is now possible. The world has the resources and the knowledge to eliminate malnutrition and hunger, preventable disease, ignorance, and hopelessness. There is no excuse for the indignity of absolute poverty existing in 'tomorrow's world.'"21

Nyerere further stated that change was already taking place in the world, and was inevitable, because of advances in science and technology, and through structural arrangements by the industrialized countries backed by the power they have over the rest of mankind. The changes now taking place are a result of what are called the blind forces of the market, which is the prevailing orthodoxy in the North but which has also been considerably and, in many cases successfully, propagated in the South. Opposition to this ideology or doctrine by some Third World governments and humanitarian agencies because of its rapacious nature is strongly condemned by the North which even uses military might - let alone economic and political power - against small and weak countries which try to control and manage the inevitable impact of such global change in the interests of their own people.

He went on to say that even science and technology which could be used for the benefit of the entire mankind was being used as a weapon against the poor in the South because it was concentrated in the North. And the industrialized countries had no interest in developing technology which would benefit Third World countries and poor people because it was not profitable for them.

It is also for the same reason that they don't try to find cures for tropical diseases. They are not going to earn a lot of money for such cures in Third World countries. Therefore research in tropical medicine is not a priority for the West or any other industrialized part of the world. And Africa's chronic dependency on the West and other industrialized parts of the world, including mid-level countries in the industrial hierarchy such as India, for medicine and other supplies is a source of constant embarrassment and humiliation for us in the world's least developed and poorest continent.

It is also such a shame that African doctors and scientists have done little to alleviate our plight; they hardly do any research and have produced very little in that area and are partly responsible for our deplorable condition. Therefore we will continue to beg for medicine from the developed countries, as we also continue to blame them for their refusal and unwillingness to find cures for diseases which kill millions of Africans every year.

But much of the blame lies on the industrialized world which is also partly, not solely, responsible for the brain drain Africa suffers every year; African governments also have to accept responsibility for this probably more than anybody else because of their unwillingness to provide incentives and create conditions which would enable most of the professionals to stay in their countries instead of forcing them to emigrate to other countries seeking greener pastures and better working conditions especially in the industrialized West. The benefits, and multiplier effect, of the technological advances made by the industrialized nations are beyond dispute.

But this technological advantage enjoyed by the West also has had devastating consequences in Third World countries in myriad ways. And the prime motive behind any research done in the industrialized countries is profit. There is nothing altruistic about it. Billions of people in Third World countries are left on their own without hardly any help from the developed nations to help alleviate their plight. The logic of the market forces dictates that whatever is done in science and technology must be concentrated in areas which generate wealth and consolidate the dominant position the rich and developed North has over the poor and underdeveloped South. The industrialized countries have such enormous power and influence over the Third World that their hegemonic control has become an omnipresent phenomenon virtually on a global scale. As Nyerere pointed out, "even seeds collected without charge from the South are subjected to research and then patented - and sold to the South."21

And because of the dominant position the North has over the South, the underdeveloped countries do not have, and cannot raise, enough capital to fund research let alone invest in their economies to achieve progress. As Nyerere stated:

"It is the poor South which transfers massive amounts of capital to the rich North. This has happened through various mechanisms. Thus, for example, the adverse movements in terms of trade between primary commodities and manufactured goods has meant immense loss to the majority of countries in the South, which rely heavily on the export of primary commodities for their export earnings. One estimate gives a loss for sub-Saharan Africa of 42 billion US dollars between 1980 and 1987! This is money lost by the poorest countries of the world.

Not concealed through the workings of 'market determined prices' are transfers during the 1980s from South to North through debt-servicing. Including both long term and short term debt, World Bank figures show a net transfer of 164 billion US dollars in five years, 1984 - 1988. The amount of this transfer in anyone year is not determined solely by the amount which the countries of the South have borrowed in the past. For, as Northern countries try to fight their domestic inflation by raising interest rates, they increase the debt servicing obligations of the indebted countries. For every percentage increase in interest rates, the debt service obligations of the 17 most indebted countries goes up by 5 billion US dollars.

And thirdly, instability among the exchange rates of Northern currencies which are used as international media of exchange has caused great losses to the developing countries, with the importance of this factor varying according to their debt and trade patterns. Visiting Indonesia in November 1989, I was told that the country had in the previous twelve months, made a net loss of one and a half billion US dollars as a result of international exchange rate instabilities.

All these transfers from South to North are carried out through the workings of systems and institutions. Questions of morality are consequently not applicable, for, systems and institutions are impersonal and cannot commit any sin. Completely honest people can therefore live with, and even participate in, these massive robberies by the rich from the poor without as much as a suspicion that they are doing anything wrong, and indeed while being upset and concerned about the persistence of poverty and injustice in the world.

Yet the immorality is there, in the injustices and the thefts of value from the poor. A bearable and sustainable world of tomorrow demands an end to this sin by changing the systems and institutions which act as the instruments of robbery. The Bretton Woods institutions and GATT are prominent among the international instruments used in support of these iniquitous capital transfers from poor to rich, or to place further handicaps on the efforts of the developing countries to overcome their poverty.

Thus, for example, the Bretton Woods institutions, intended according to their initially declared purposes to promote stability and growing prosperity in the world, are themselves now net recipients of capital transfers from the South. Further, - from the viewpoint of the South - they appear to have become effective Northern instruments of control over developing countries, as dominant voting power is used for political and ideological purposes.

GATT has a different kind of institutional structure, but in practice it too is used to serve the rich and developed. Its declared purpose is to promote 'free trade' and 'liberalisation,' in accordance with the economic theory of comparative advantage. I do not challenge that theory - applied among equals. But if I am put in a boxing ring with a Mohammed Ali, and both of us are told that we must play according to the rules of the game, the result will be murder, not a boxing match....

Human survival on this planet is incompatible with reckless exploitation of the world's resources, regardless of whether this happens as a result of poverty or as a method of maintaining and expanding existing lifestyles of affluence. Equally important: peace and security on a single and closely integrated planet is incompatible with continuous and institutionalised injustice."22

Although Nyerere blamed the North for the South's stunted economic growth because of massive exploitation of its resources by the industrialized nations, perpetuated by the structural imbalance in multilateral institutions dominated by the metropolitan powers, he did not absolve the South of all responsibility for its deplorable condition; emphatically stating that responsibility for development of the South is the responsibility of the South. He stressed the need for Third World countries to work in solidarity and end their dependency on the North, yet made it clear that there was a need to work and cooperate with the North in areas of mutual interest and for the benefit of all mankind to end institutionalized injustice resulting from domination of the international system by the industrialized nations. As he bluntly stated, "I am not making an absurd call for for xenophobic self-sufficiency. I am simply saying that the South can, and must, overcome its widespread sense of hopelessness and reduce its current dependence upon the North - particularly the North West."23

He also warned developing countries of the danger they faced in a unipolar world dominated by the United States after the end of the Cold War in which the West emerged victorious because of the economic collapse of the Eastern bloc countries. The developed North, especially the North West led by the United States, now felt that it was free to dictate terms to other countries, using its economic clout to force them to adopt its political philosophy and free market policies even if this was not always in their best interest. With the Soviet Union no longer on the global scene to act as a counter-weight against the West, there was no other power to challenge the United States, with the former communist countries themselves including Russia having adopted free market policies and other Western doctrines to develop their economies. The collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellites meant that the North was now no longer divided between East and West but had become one and even more powerful. As he stated in his speech at the Non-Aligned Movement summit conference in Jakarta, Indonesia, in September 1992:

"The East-West confrontation within the North has come to an end. But this was not the result of deliberate mutual accommodation among the Cold War opponents, for the sake of world peace and building a more just and peaceful world. On the contrary, it resulted from a complete economic and political collapse in the Eastern bloc within the North....

These events have had two very important consequences for all the countries of the South. First, they increase the urgency for developing countries to build national self-reliance and increase their economic cooperation in all fields. There was never enough money in the North for all the aid, credit, or even direct foreign investment which the Southern countries in total were hoping (and indeed competing) for. And now, such limited resources as the countries of the market economies of the North are willing to use abroad are being, and will be, directed more towards meeting the huge demands of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe than towards developing countries of the South....

Secondly, the triumphant West now believes that its success in the Cold War gives it the right (as well as the untrammelled power) aggressively to promote its economic and and political philosophy throughout the South. Directly, and through international finance and trade institutions controlled by the wealthy states, and sometimes by embargoes or even political intervention, the North is therefore forcing developing countries of the South to conform to the patterns which it designs.

Ever increasing 'conditionality' is applied to aid, credit, and even normal trade relations of developing countries; increasingly, conditionalities are being used to force us to adopt Western political systems, exclusively individualistic definitions of 'human rights,' and national economic management policies prescribed by the West. At the same time protectionism of different kinds is increasing in the North, and our separate weakness is being used to ride roughshod over our opinions in international negotiations as well as bilateral South-North discussions.

The reality is that the widening North-South gap in income and technological capacity is being used to secure Northern control over our development strategies, our political structures, our economic policies, and our military defences. And North-South dialogue on matters related to world governance - which requires equal and mutual respect among countries - is rapidly being superseded by Northern power confronting and dominating over the separate nations of the South....

Now that we are no longer faced by a divided North, nor subjected to rival pressures from East or West, let us invite all the countries of the South to join us so that together we become really a Movement of the whole South....The end of the Cold War means that a hitherto divided North is now becoming a united North. There is no earthly reason why the end of division among the rich should lead to disunity among the poor."24

Nyerere conceded that the development options for the Third World were constrained by the exercise of international power politics. Yet he saw prospects for a countervailing force if the developing countries used their combined strength - remember, there is dignity in numbers - to extract concessions from the developed North.

With all its might, political and economic as well as military, the industrial North could not afford to sever ties with the South. The South is the source of the world's largest amount of raw materials; it is also a market for manufactured goods from the North. And the countries of the South can use that as leverage in negotiations with the industrialized nations to get meaningful concessions from them.

But Third World countries have not been able to do that, or they have had only little success in that area, because of external forces and internal factors. Their fate even in this post-Cold War era is determined by dynamics of power in the international arena where they remain peripheral actors despite their status as sovereign entities entitled to the same rights as the industrialized nations.

Although the end of the Cold War ended the rivalry between the two super powers and ideological camps of East and West, which had direct impact on Third World countries where Western powers and Eastern-bloc countries competed for client states, thus dividing the South; the South itself was also partly responsible for the division within itself because Southern countries competed for economic aid and other forms of assistance from the developed North, especially from the North West which is the richest and most industrialized part of the world. And they still do so today, even without the Soviet Union on the international scene where many Third World countries played one super power against the other for attention and assistance.

The competition among them now is for aid from the North West, especially from the United States and other highly developed countries such as Great Britain, Germany, France and Canada. This competition among Third World countries for investments and other resources from the West is exacerbated by the interference in their internal affairs by the metropolitan powers which dictate terms to them on what kind of policies they must follow if they are to qualify for aid.

And as long as the countries of the South put their own interests first, as they all inevitably do, without coordinated action in a number of areas of mutual interest when dealing with the North, they will remain divided and make it even much easier for the Western powers and other industrialized countries of the North to continue to exploit them. Nyerere was fully aware of this danger probably more than any other leader in the Third World, besides Fidel Castro, and often stood out as a lone voice in the wilderness crying for equality and justice for the world's poorest countries.

When he spoke, the world listened. When he acted, Africa followed. When he died, the world mourned. He was not only an African and a Third World leader, but a world leader. As Newsweek stated when he died: "The world has lost a man of principle."25

He was not only "The Conscience of Africa" but of the entire world, and one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the poor who ever lived." - (Godfrey Mwakikagile, "Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era," pp. 440 - 442, 443 - 446, 460 - 47).

 

[Ngomo]

hii imetulia kwa mambo mengine mwalimu ankumbukwa kwa hili alichemsha

 

[Edwin Mtei]

Rafiki yangu amenipigia simu kushauri nifungue JF nione yanayosemwa juu yangu na hasa kutofautiana kwangu na Mwalimu Nyerere. Namshukuru. Nawashukuru pia wanaoonyesha interest katika simulizi hii ya maisha yangu iliyopo katika kitabu "From Goatherd to Governor"nilimojaribu kuweka experience na maoni yangu.


Pili katika comments hizi nimejifunza mengi na ningetaka kufuatilia hasa maandiko ya Godfrey Mwakikagile ambaye kama ikiwezekana ningemkaribisha nyumbani kwangu Arusha tuweze kujadili misimamo ya Mwalimu.. Hata Bwana "Shwari" pia ningeomba tukutane tubadilishane mawazo.


Tatu, nimesoma "Shwari" akisema na kukubaliana kwamba ili nchi kama yetu iendelee inahitaji "massive transfer of resources from developed countries". Naweza kusema ni mazingira yanayoweza ku-attract such resources nilijaribu kum-persuade Mwalimu akubali kuyaandaa Tanzania, lakini nikashindwa. Nimekiri katika kitabu changu kwamba the weakness I regret most in me is that I was not persuasive enough to make Mwalimu accept my approach to national economic issues.


Nne, kuna wanaJF wanaodhani ni mimi nilisababisha matatizo ya kiuchumi na fedha niliyotaka kuyatatua mwaka 1979/80. Nawashauri wasome hicho kitabu. Kwanza Vita vya Kagera au Idi Amin, by any stretch of the imagination, could not have been caused by or attributed to me. This was the immediate cause although I also highlightin my book the policies emanating from the Arusha Declaration and the mismanagement of the public corporations.


Tano, kuhusu lile tukio la mwisho la Mkutano kati ya Mwalimu, mimi na IMF Mission, nakumbuka ni Bo Karlstrom, IMF Delegation Laeader na mimi tu, tulizungumza. IMF staff aliyekuwepo alikuwa anaandika tu yale yaliyokuwa yanasemwa. Kama mtu huyo alijigamba baadae kwamba alizungumza pale, ni uzushi.


Mwisho, nakubaliana na wanaoshauri kwamba Press Secretary wa Mwalimu wakati huo, Paul Sozigwa aulizwe ili athibitishe kama aliagizwa atangaze "Edwin amejiuzulu" au la. Joseph Butiku aliyekuwa Msaidizi wa Mwalimu wakati huo anaweza pia kuulizwa. Wote JF wanawafahamu.


Ningetaka kurudia shukrani zangu kwa Watanzania wanaoonyesha interest katika mambo niliyaandika kuhusu maisha yangu na utumishi wangu kwa nchi yangu.

 

[Zakumi]

Rafiki yangu amenipigia simu kushauri nifungue JF nione yanayosemwa juu yangu na hasa kutofautiana kwangu na Mwalimu Nyerere. Namshukuru. Nawashukuru pia wanaoonyesha interest katika simulizi hii ya maisha yangu iliyopo katika kitabu "From Goatherd to Governor"nilimojaribu kuweka experience na maoni yangu.


Pili katika comments hizi nimejifunza mengi na ningetaka kufuatilia hasa maandiko ya Godfrey Mwakikagile ambaye kama ikiwezekana ningemkaribisha nyumbani kwangu Arusha tuweze kujadili misimamo ya Mwalimu.. Hata Bwana "Shwari" pia ningeomba tukutane tubadilishane mawazo.


Tatu, nimesoma "Shwari" akisema na kukubaliana kwamba ili nchi kama yetu iendelee inahitaji "massive transfer of resources from developed countries". Naweza kusema ni mazingira yanayoweza ku-attract such resources nilijaribu kum-persuade Mwalimu akubali kuyaandaa Tanzania, lakini nikashindwa. Nimekiri katika kitabu changu kwamba the weakness I regret most in me is that I was not persuasive enough to make Mwalimu accept my approach to national economic issues.


Nne, kuna wanaJF wanaodhani ni mimi nilisababisha matatizo ya kiuchumi na fedha niliyotaka kuyatatua mwaka 1979/80. Nawashauri wasome hicho kitabu. Kwanza Vita vya Kagera au Idi Amin, by any stretch of the imagination, could not have been caused by or attributed to me. This was the immediate cause although I also highlightin my book the policies emanating from the Arusha Declaration and the mismanagement of the public corporations.


Tano, kuhusu lile tukio la mwisho la Mkutano kati ya Mwalimu, mimi na IMF Mission, nakumbuka ni Bo Karlstrom, IMF Delegation Laeader na mimi tu, tulizungumza. IMF staff aliyekuwepo alikuwa anaandika tu yale yaliyokuwa yanasemwa. Kama mtu huyo alijigamba baadae kwamba alizungumza pale, ni uzushi.


Mwisho, nakubaliana na wanaoshauri kwamba Press Secretary wa Mwalimu wakati huo, Paul Sozigwa aulizwe ili athibitishe kama aliagizwa atangaze "Edwin amejiuzulu" au la. Joseph Butiku aliyekuwa Msaidizi wa Mwalimu wakati huo anaweza pia kuulizwa. Wote JF wanawafahamu.


Ningetaka kurudia shukrani zangu kwa Watanzania wanaoonyesha interest katika mambo niliyaandika kuhusu maisha yangu na utumishi wangu kwa nchi yangu.

Mzee Mtei:

Shukrani kwa mchango wako na pumzika kwa amani.

 

[Mkandara]

Tano, kuhusu lile tukio la mwisho la Mkutano kati ya Mwalimu, mimi na IMF Mission, nakumbuka ni Bo Karlstrom, IMF Delegation Laeader na mimi tu, tulizungumza. IMF staff aliyekuwepo alikuwa anaandika tu yale yaliyokuwa yanasemwa. Kama mtu huyo alijigamba baadae kwamba alizungumza pale, ni uzushi

Shukran sana Mzee Mtei,
Hakika umetufungulia mengi ambayo kwa uhakika yanajenga zaidi kuliko hizi habari za Wadanganyika kazi yao kuweka midomoni mwa watu maneno yao wenyewe..

Tatu, nimesoma "Shwari" akisema na kukubaliana kwamba ili nchi kama yetu iendelee inahitaji "massive transfer of resources from developed countries". Naweza kusema ni mazingira yanayoweza ku-attract such resources nilijaribu kum-persuade Mwalimu akubali kuyaandaa Tanzania, lakini nikashindwa. Nimekiri katika kitabu changu kwamba the weakness I regret most in me is that I was not persuasive enough to make Mwalimu accept my approach to national economic issues.

Kwa hili pia nashukuru umeligusia kwani hata leo hii bado ni MAZINGIRA ndiyo hu attract resources toka nje na sii hizi fikra za kuleta watu wawekezaji kuwa source ya maendeleo yetu, wakipewa misamaha ya kodi na kadhalika hali wananchi wenye nchi wakipuuzwa. Pia neno Uzalendo limebakia ktk kamusi...

Nchi yetu imeshindwa kuandaa mazingira ambayo yataweza ku attract.. Mwanamke mzuri huvutia wanaume kwa urembo wake, tabia yake na malezi yake kinyume cha fikra kwamba urahisi wake (bure) ndio main attraction kwa wanaume. Waswahili wanasema Bure ghali na tatizo kubwa la nchi zetu tunapenda kuwaonyesha wawekezaji kwamba sisi ni karibu na bure -Tupe kilevi hata beer moja, maadam maelewano tutawapa nchi. Ukweli ni kwamba sisi kama changudoa, we're attracted to them..

 

[Zakumi]

Shukran sana Mzee Mtei,
Hakika umetufungulia mengi ambayo kwa uhakika yanajenga zaidi kuliko hizi habari za Wadanganyika kazi yao kuweka midomoni mwa watu maneno yao wenyewe..

Kwa hili pia nashukuru umeligusia kwani hata leo hii bado ni MAZINGIRA ndiyo hu attract resources toka nje na sii hizi fikra za kuleta watu wawekezaji kuwa source ya maendeleo yetu, wakipewa misamaha ya kodi na kadhalika hali wananchi wenye nchi wakipuuzwa. Pia neno Uzalendo limebakia ktk kamusi...

Nchi yetu imeshindwa kuandaa mazingira ambayo yataweza ku attract.. Mwanamke mzuri huvutia wanaume kwa urembo wake, tabia yake na malezi yake kinyume cha fikra kwamba urahisi wake (bure) ndio main attraction kwa wanaume. Waswahili wanasema Bure ghali na tatizo kubwa la nchi zetu tunapenda kuwaonyesha wawekezaji kwamba sisi ni karibu na bure -Tupe kilevi hata beer moja, maadam maelewano tutawapa nchi. Ukweli ni kwamba sisi kama changudoa, we're attracted to them..

Mkandara:

Cool down brother. Unaowalaumu wewe walitakiwa kuikuta misingi imejengwa tayari.

Na mzee Mtei naonyesha kabisa kuwa misingi mizuri haikujengwa.

 

[JokaKuu]

Kwanza Vita vya Kagera au Idi Amin, by any stretch of the imagination, could not have been caused by or attributed to me. This was the immediate cause although I also highlightin my book the policies emanating from the Arusha Declaration and the mismanagement of the public corporations.

Mzee Mtei,

..asante kwa kujitokeza na kuweka mambo sawa kuhusu kilichotokea pale Msasani.

..kuhusu vita vya Kagera, naomba kuuliza kama ushauri wako ulitafutwa kuhusu gharama za kupigana vita na Uganda.

..naomba kujua ni katika hatua gani ushauri huo ulitafutwa.

..pia naomba kufahamu kama uliwahi kuonya kwa namna yoyote ile kwamba vita vya Kagera, na haswa kujiingiza kwetu ndani ya Uganda, kungekuwa na gharama kubwa kwa taifa kiasi kile.

..Mwalimu aliwahi kusema kwamba asingepigana na Amini laiti angefahamu gharama za vita ile kwa uchumi wetu. kutokana na kauli hiyo, inaelekea washauri wa uchumi na fedha wa Mwalimu hamkutoa ushauri unaofaa kwa wakati muafaka.

NB:

..pia kuna taarifa zilitoka kwenye internet[mwandishi toka Uingereza] kwamba vita ile ilifadhiliwa na watu wa nje. je madai hayo yana ukweli wowote?

 

[Watanzania]

Mwenyezi Mungu, shukrani tunaongelea jambo la msingi an si upuuzi wa Mafisadi wa Tanzania! Amen!

Nikirudi kwenye hoja, ingawa naweza kumvulia kofia Mtei kwa ujasiri wa kuongea kilichotokea, bado natatizwa na mambo kadhaa yaliyoya kawaida ambayo tunayo mpaka leo.

Kwanza nikimuongelea Mtei, sidhani kama kitabu hiki nia yake ni kujionyesha kuwa yeye alikuwa na busara zaidi kuliko Mwalimu Nyerere au kuwa yeye ni bingwa zaidi. Sijakisoma kitabu bali kwa kusoma yaliyosemwa, na ninavyomfahamu Mtei, nitashangaa sana nikisikia kuwa alitunga hiki kitabu kujigamba.

Kuna mambo kadhaa yaliyojitokeza katika majadiliano yenu humu nduani kuhusu nafasi na amri zinazotoka WB/IMF.

Ukweli ni kuwa hakuna sera hata moja ya WB/IMF iliyowahi kufanya kazi na kuwa bora na mahiri na kuinua ustawi wa jamii au nchi kwa muda mrefu au kwa kudumu.

Kila sera na pendekezo la WB/IMF pamoja na kuwa wanakuja kwa nia ya kutusaidia kwa kutupa misaada na mikopo ambayo ukiangalia kwa undani ni kukomaza utumwa kwetu, haijawahi kufanya kazi mahali popote kwa mafanikio ya muda mrefu.

Kinachovunwa na misaada/mikobo na ushauri wa WB/IMF ni sawa na ile starehe ya asili aliyopewa Mwanadamu anapomaliza tendo la kujamiiana!

WB/IMF hawana nia ya kuona nchi kama Tanzania ikipiga hatua za kimaendeleo na kuwa nchi inayojitegemea na kujitosheleza. Siku Tanzania ikifika hatua hiyo, jua kwamba hakutakuwa na Taifa Kubwa duniani na hakuna atakayekuwa akitegemea cha mtu.

Fikiria katika Ukoo na Familia, pale kila mtu anapojitutumua na kujitegemea, yule ambaye siku zote alijiona Masihi na anazo za kuwakoga wenzake na kuwadhalilisha, nguvu na majigambo hayo huisha pale nduguze wanapoacha kwenda kumuomba misaada au kumtegemea. Mtu huyu sasa hugeuka kuwa Mwenzetu!

Hivyo ndivyo ncho ambazo ni Matajiri duniani, hsa matajiri kutokana na unyonyaji, ndivyo wanavyoogopa kuona nchi nyingine zina kuwa na nafasi na nguvu sawa si za kiuchumi, tuu, bali mpaka kisiasa, kijamii na kuwa na sauti kubwa.

Angalia jinsi nchi kama Marekani inavyoipiga vita China au hata Urusi na hata kufanya mbinu juu chini kuhujumu kuimarika kwa nchi kama China na India kiuchumi.

Ubabe wa Nyerere, ulistahili kutokana na ukweli kuwa WB/IMF hawakuwa wakitutakia heri, walikuwa wanatupa lile bwii la mara moja mtu akipiga jani au kukausha balasi la chibuku na kujisikia yuko freshi na baada ya muda kupita, mtu huyu hurudi pale pale alipokuwa.

Thamani ya fedha ya nchi ni Usalama wa Taifa. Hivyo kwa WB/IMF kusema Tanzania ipunguze bajeti ya Ulinzi ili ijitutumue lakini ni sawa kwa Marekani na Urusi kuongeza bajeti zao za Kijeshi badala ya kufanya mambo ya maana kusaidia Mwanadamu wa kawaida ni UJUHA mtupu! Haiwezekani Tanzania mpunguze jeshi, lakini Marekani aongeze jeshi, kwa minajjili gani?

Mtei alikuwa na mawazo mazuri, lakini kama Wachumi wengine wa Tanzania hata wa leo walioko BOT kama Marehemu Balali au Ndulu, wanasahau somo moja nalo ni WATU na MAZINGIRA!

Nchi haiwezi kujengwa kwa uchumu wa kukariri insha za kwenye vitabu au madaftarini, nchi itajengeka kwa kuangalia mazingira halisi, kuwaelewa watu wake na kutumia nyenzo zinazoeleweka kwa jamii hiyo.

Mfano, huwezi kuhubiri kulima kutumia Combine Harvester au Planter la kuvunja na shikam ikiwa kulima kwa jembe la mkono na kupalilia magugu ni kitu kigeni kwa mtu ambaye miaka 100 iliyopita, vizazi vyake vilikuwa vikijinyofolea mizizi na kujishibisha!

Uchumi IMARA kwa nchi kama Tanzania utajengwa kwa njia nyepesi sana na wala si nadharia za ajabu (complex theories and mechanism) ajabu ambazo ni za vitabu vya jamii ambazo zilipita hapa tulipo miaka 400 - 700 iliyopita.

Si dhana yangu kutetea kuwa sisi ni wachanga hivyo hatuwezi au tusubiri miaka yetu 800 kukukua kimaendeleo, bali ni kubadilisha mtazamo wetu na kujiuliza tutamjengeaje Mtanzania misingi imara ya kujizalishia mali si kwa matumizi ya kila siku tuu, bali ni ziada na kuanza kujitegemea?

Ukiangalia kichwa kichwa, mapendekezo ya Mtei yanafaa hata leo hii, lakini tatizo si kukosekana kwa mapendekezo, bali ni utaahira wetu (mentality) ambao unaathiri kufanikiwa kwa mambo mengi na ndipo utaelewa anachosema Bob Mkandara kuhusu WATU na MAZINGIRA.

NIkirudi kwenye Azimio la Arusha, Azimio ukilisoma, halina mahali popote paliposema watu wanyang'anywe mali au washurutishwe kuishi kimasikini au kwa dhiki au kulazimishwa kuhama makazi.

Programu za kufanikisha Azimio na siasa za Ujamaa na mtazamo wa kujenga jamii zilizoshikamana iwe kwa dhamiri za kuleta maendeleo na kujenga umoja na kujenga Taifa au woga wa kushindwa kudhibiti jamii ndio kulifikia kufanya utekeleaji wa programu kama Vijiji vya Ujamaa, Maduka ya Ushirika na mengine kufeli.

Aidha, UNAFIKI na UZANDIKI wa watendaji wa Serikali ambao walihubiri Ujamaa, hukuwao wenyewe wakiwa ni MAFISADI na WAHUJUMU wakuu wa sera walizokuwa wakituaminisha Watanzania, kuliongezea chachu ya kuzorota kwa kukua kwa ufanisi na juhudi katika uzalishaji mali.

La mwisho, nitarudi kumlaumu Mwalimu Nyerere, pamoja na mapenzi yangu ya dhati kwake.

Kama vile Mwalimu alivyoweza kutushawishi kulienzi na kulipenda Azimio la Arusha na hata kuishi katika mfumo wa Ujamaa na siasa za Ujamaa na Kujitegemea, Mwalimu alipaswa kutushawishi kujirekebisha pale ilipoonekana kuna ulazima wa kubadilisha mfumo ili tuanze kuleta mafanikio.

Nafikiri ni kiburi na jeuri ya kutokutaka kuonekana kuwa yeye Mwalimu alikuwa anakula Matapishi yake ndiko kulimfanya atuongoze mwishini mwa Urais wake kwa Mafumbo na Misamiati migumu, badala ya kutuambia ukweli na kututaka tujiunge naye katika vita mpya kuushinda Ujinga, Maradhi na Umasikini.

Lakini, pamoja na hayo, bado nauliza, ikiwa Nyerere ni miaka 10 tangu atutoke dunia hii, ni mzimu au mzuka gani ambao unawafanya Wachumi na Wanasiasa wa Tanzania washindwa kutuundia mfumo wetu wenyewe wa kiuchumi unaofanya kazi kwa matakwa yetu wenyewe na si kwa kile tunacholazimishwa au kutishiwa na WB/IMF na hata Paris Club?

Mkirudi kulisoma Azimio la Arusha, kuna sehemu naambatanisha hapa chini ambapo kunazungumzi amadhara ya kutegemea fedha za kutoka kwa Wahisani, japo najiuliza kwa nini Nyerere mwenyewe alikubali misaada jinsi alivyoipokea au ilikuwa ni njia yake ya kudai marejesho (reparations due to colonialism)?

Labda kwa kuwa Azimio la Arusha lilikuwa gumu kulielewa kama vile ilivyo vigumu kwa Mkristo kuielewa Biblia, ndio maana bado tunaamini Azimio lilikuwa baya. Mithili pale Azimio linaposema , je watu tulilielewa vipi na wale waliokuwa viongozi walielewa vipi kauli kama hizi?

Nashukuru kuwa Mzee Mtei, kaongea bila kumumunya, kayaweka wazi yaliyotokea na kadri tutakavyomsoma, tutakuja baini kuwa laiti kama Wachumi wasomi wetu wangegeuka na kujenga Uchumi wa Tanzania kwa kuangalia WATU na MAZINGIRA, Tanzania tungekuwa mbali mno.

Labda walichosahau kina Mtei, Balali, Ndulu na Mkulo ni kung'ang'ania kujua mambo ya M1, M2 na M3 na zile chati/grafu za demand na supply badala ya kumchunguza Mluguru anazalisha mali vipi na anaelewa vipi maana ya kujitegemea na kuwa tajiri!

Ndio maana kwenye ile mada yangu inayosuasua ya Creation of Wealth or Creating Richness, watu bado tunaangalia nani mchawi na sasa hivi mchawi si Ujamaa tena au kukosekana kwa tija, ubunifu na ufani si kati yetu bali mchawi n Mafisadi!

Kweli thread hii ni moja ni ya wiki. Inazungumuzia masuala ya namna ya kuendeleza nchi. Kuwa ni sera gani hasa zinafaa. Lakini suala linabaki ni utekelezaji, hata kama tuna sera nzuri gani kiasi gani kwa sasa tatizo ni uadilifu usiofaa ukiongozwa na vingozi wa kitaifa.

 

[Shwari]

Rafiki yangu amenipigia simu kushauri nifungue JF nione yanayosemwa juu yangu na hasa kutofautiana kwangu na Mwalimu Nyerere. Namshukuru. Nawashukuru pia wanaoonyesha interest katika simulizi hii ya maisha yangu iliyopo katika kitabu "From Goatherd to Governor"nilimojaribu kuweka experience na maoni yangu.


Pili katika comments hizi nimejifunza mengi na ningetaka kufuatilia hasa maandiko ya Godfrey Mwakikagile ambaye kama ikiwezekana ningemkaribisha nyumbani kwangu Arusha tuweze kujadili misimamo ya Mwalimu.. Hata Bwana "Shwari" pia ningeomba tukutane tubadilishane mawazo.


Tatu, nimesoma "Shwari" akisema na kukubaliana kwamba ili nchi kama yetu iendelee inahitaji "massive transfer of resources from developed countries". Naweza kusema ni mazingira yanayoweza ku-attract such resources nilijaribu kum-persuade Mwalimu akubali kuyaandaa Tanzania, lakini nikashindwa. Nimekiri katika kitabu changu kwamba the weakness I regret most in me is that I was not persuasive enough to make Mwalimu accept my approach to national economic issues.


Nne, kuna wanaJF wanaodhani ni mimi nilisababisha matatizo ya kiuchumi na fedha niliyotaka kuyatatua mwaka 1979/80. Nawashauri wasome hicho kitabu. Kwanza Vita vya Kagera au Idi Amin, by any stretch of the imagination, could not have been caused by or attributed to me. This was the immediate cause although I also highlightin my book the policies emanating from the Arusha Declaration and the mismanagement of the public corporations.


Tano, kuhusu lile tukio la mwisho la Mkutano kati ya Mwalimu, mimi na IMF Mission, nakumbuka ni Bo Karlstrom, IMF Delegation Laeader na mimi tu, tulizungumza. IMF staff aliyekuwepo alikuwa anaandika tu yale yaliyokuwa yanasemwa. Kama mtu huyo alijigamba baadae kwamba alizungumza pale, ni uzushi.


Mwisho, nakubaliana na wanaoshauri kwamba Press Secretary wa Mwalimu wakati huo, Paul Sozigwa aulizwe ili athibitishe kama aliagizwa atangaze "Edwin amejiuzulu" au la. Joseph Butiku aliyekuwa Msaidizi wa Mwalimu wakati huo anaweza pia kuulizwa. Wote JF wanawafahamu.


Ningetaka kurudia shukrani zangu kwa Watanzania wanaoonyesha interest katika mambo niliyaandika kuhusu maisha yangu na utumishi wangu kwa nchi yangu.

Mzee Mtei,

Shikamoo.

Kwanza, nataka kukupa shukrani nyingi kwa kujiunga nasi hapa Jamii Forums. Tumejifunza mengi sana kutoka kwako. Wengi wetu tunategemea kujifunza zaidi nyakati zijazo tunapoendelea kujadili masuala ya taifa letu.

Pili, asante sana kwa kunialika nyumbani kwako ili tubadilishane mawazo. Nitafanya kila jitihada na nitawasiliana nawe kuhusu jambo hilo.

Asante sana, Mzee wetu.

Mungu akubariki na aendelee kukupa maisha marefu.

 

[Edwin Mtei]

Mhe. Joka Kuu,

Nilikuwa najaribu kukujibu juzi niliposoma maswali yako, lakini Tanesco wakakata umeme, na mimi nikakata tamaa nikaendelea na mashughili mengine. Ni matumaini yangu kwamba hakutakuwa na interruption tena mpaka nimalize kuandika hili jibu.

Kwanza: Vita vikishazuka dhidi ya taifa lolote, haiwezekani kukawa na waziri au mzalendo anayeweza kusema eti tupunguze gharama. Tanzania tulikuwa tunajihami na kujaribu kuokoa maisha ya watu wetu waliotishiwa na majeshi ya Amin. Ninavyosema ktk kitabu changu ilikuwa ni lazima tuweke kando kila tulichopanga kufanya ili tumfukuze Nduli Amin na majeshi yake.

Ninaelezea pia ktk Kitabu kwamba jukumu langu lilikuwa kuandaa utaratibu wa kuhamisha fedha toka Kasma na mafungu ya miradi na hudumd zilizokwisha idhinishwa ili zitumike kwa madhumuni ya vita. Jukumu la pili lilikuwa kutafuta mikopo ya fedha na vifaa toka ng'ambo kuwezesha shughuli hii muhimu kufanikiwa mapema.

Pili: Ukisoma kitabu changu utaona maelezo yangu jinsi "the genesis" ya break-up ya Jumuiya ya Afrika Mashariki, ilivyokuwa tied up with the Amin war na Milton Obote kuwa mkimbizi hapa Tanzania. Nahisi wengi wa viongozi na washauri wa Mwalimu, mimi nikiwepo, walikuwa wanaeleza wasiwasi wao juu ya msimamo huu na kupendekeza various solutions, lakini hazikukubalika.

Tatu: Umemnukuu Mwalimu kwamba angetambua gharama za vita vya Kagera hangepigana katika vita hivyo. Sijui Mwalimu alikuwa anazungumzia katika mazingira gani aliposema hivyo. Naweza tu kusema kwamba Mwalimu hakuwa na jinsi ya kuepuka vita baada ya uvamizi wa majeshi ya Nduli Amin. In fact yeye mwenye akihamasisha umma umuunge mkono, alitamka "sababu ya kumpiga Amin tunayo na uwezo wa kumpiga tunao". Sijui hilo tamko linawianaje na nukuu yako.

Nne: Taarifa uliyoipata toka Uingereza kwamba vita vilifadhiliwa kutoka nje, nahisi ilikuwa inahusiana na wale Wa-Libya waliojiingiza Gaddafi alipojaribu kusaidia Amin wakati karibu vita viishe. Baadhi yao walitekwa na wapiganaji wa Kitanzania na waliletwa Dar es Salaam tukaenda kuwaona na kuwazomea wakipanda meli kurudishwa kwao.

Kama nilivyokwisha eleza mimi mwenyewe nilihusika kwenda ng'ambo nikiambatana na maofisa wa wizara yangu, pamoja na makanali au meja toka wizara ya ulinzi ku-negotiate mikopo kufinance vifaa vya vita. Tuliunganisha pia mikopo kwa ajili ya shughuli nyingine, hasa kufufua uchumi. Kama hiyo mikopo imelipwa, huwezi ku-interpret kwamba upande wetu tulifadhiwa na watu wa nje. Ni jambo la kawaida kukopa, bora ulipe.

Nimalizie kusema tena kwamba nashukuru maandiko yangu yamewafanya mjadili mambo haya ya kihistoria. ambapo kwa hakika yatatusaidia kujirekebisha. Narudia kwamba, kama wewe au mwaJF mwingine, angetaka kuendeleza mjadala au kuja nyumbani kuzungumzia mambo mengine, namkaribisha. Naishi Arusha, na simu yangu ni 0787 387 177 au 0754 387 177.

 

[Zakumi]

Mzee Mtei:

Shukrani tena kwa jitihada zako za kujaribu kuweka mambo sawa. Sisi wengine matatizo ya kichumi yanatokea tulikuwa vijana wadogo, na mashuleni tulikuwa tunafundishwa sababu kubwa za matatizo yetu ni Vita vya Amini, Kuvunjika kwa jumuia ya Afrika mashariki na blah blah nyingine.

Nakumbuka baada ya wewe kuachia ngazi, Mwalimu alitoa hotuba kubwa, Iliyofuatiwa na maandamano makubwa sana ya siku tano. Jumuia zote za tano za CCM zilifanya maandamano. Hivyo tuliokuwa mashuleni na walio makazini waliacha shughuli zao karibu kwa wiki nzima kuandamana. Kwa kipindi kile kama mwanafunzi nilifurahi likizo ya maandamano, lakini baada ya kutoka nje na kuangalia jinsi wenzetu wanavyotukuza kazi, nimeona ulikuwa ni upuuzi mtupu wenye manufaa kisiasa tu.

Sasa yafuatayo ni maswali yangu binafsi. Swali la kwanza: nini kilichokuwa mawazoni mwako kuona kuwa umma mzima unaandamana kwa wiki nzima kupinga masharti ya IMF ambayo ndani yake yalikuwemo mawazo yako ya kubadilisha nchi?

Swali la pili: uchumi mzuri una characteristics zake. Characterisct ya kwanza ni lazima upande na kushuka (economic cycles) kutokana na influences ya mambo ya ndani na nje. Characteristic ya pili ni uwezo wa uchumi kujisahihisha wenyewe (self correcting). Na kuna characteristics nyingine pia, lakini ningependa kuongelea hizi mbili. Baada ya kuvunjika kwa jumuia ya Afrika mashariki na vita vya Uganda, uchumi wa Tanzania haukuonyesha characteristics hizi mbili. Hivyo down the road, hata kama jumuia ya Afrika mashariki isingevunjika au vita kutokea, Tanzania lazima ilikuwa iende kwa mashirika ya kifedha na kupewa prescription kama ilivyotokea katika nchi ambazo hazikukumbwa na matatizo hayo mojawapo ikiwa Zambia. Hivyo ningependa kuelewa kama ulikuwa na hisia zozote kuwa uchumi wetu ulikuwa unaendeshwa kwa nguvu ya soda kabla ya matatizo ya vita vya Kagera?


Swali la tatu: Nini mchango wa sekta ya umma. Mara nyingi hapa JF, watu wanasema zamani tulikuwa na hiki tulikuwa na kile. Lakini pamoja na hayo sikuona sababu zozote za kumiliki vitu hivyo wakati tulikiuka basic business requirements. Kwa mfano tulijenga viwanda vya nguo kama vile Mutex (Musoma) wakati tukielewa kuwa mahitaji ya umeme yalikuwa makubwa kuliko uzalishaji. Tulijenga Kilimanjaro machine tools kaskazini ya nchi wakati chuma na makaa yanapatikana Mbeya. Mamlaka za mazao zikawa zinatumia muda kwenye timu za michezo wakati hakuna juhudi za maana zilizofanywa kuendeleza mazao na wakulima. Je ni vitu gani vilivyokuwa vinaongoza mipango ambayo ilikuwa irrational and unsustaibale?

Swali la nne: What are your views on foreign aid? Katika kipindi cha miaka ya 70, Tanzania iliongoza kwa kupokea misaada. Na mwanahistoria mmoja anasema kuwa mafanikio ya huduma ya jamii kama vile maji, elimu na afya yaliyojitokeza miaka ya 70 hayakutokana na uongozi au utekelezaji wa siasa safi za kijamaa bali juhudi za viongozi wan nchi kushauri nchi zilizoendelea na mashirika ya misaada kuwa intent ya matumizi ya misaada ni kunufaisha umma.

 

[friendsofjeykey]

hivi watu kama hawa waliwezaje ku survive enzi za mwalimu?