Dear friends, A constitution making process should be designed such that its result will depict and represent the wishes of the people on the way their society should be ruled or governed. Today I took time to ponder on some issues of the newly passed constitutional review Act and I am amazed at the provision which requires the commission to observe sanctity of the Union and other named matters in discussing the new constitution. It says some issues should not be touched! I think this is grossly wrong. If some Tanzanians wanted to have a ‘Mfalme' instead of a ‘President', for whatever reason, what would be wrong with discussing it and if the majority are convinced, what would be wrong with having the system representing what people want? Or if some Tanzanians dislike the Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar (or would like to have somethings changed, such as a format or the number of governments: 1, 2 or 3), why indeed would we stop them giving their feelings. Why would someone force people to live a way they do not really like or understand? Tanzanians should discuss everything they wish to discuss. A constitution is too basic to be decided by a few people. It is also not something we are going to do and do and do every time. I am really uncomfortable with this restriction. May I ask, if we leave some difficult questions unanswered even after making a new constitution, will the questions die? Will they not cost our society when the people dictating what to be discussed are no longer available to be put to task?