CHADEMA inapogeuka kaburi la demokrasia

[nivoj.sued]

Chadema kirudi kilikotoka

Na Kondo Tutindaga
MwanaHALISI
Toleo na. 371, uk. 3.

Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Chadema), kimehitimisha ziara zake katika kanda tano, kati ya nane inaoziunda.

Kanda ambazo chama kimemaliza ziara zake ni pamoja na Kanda ya Kati(Dodoma, Morogoro na Singida); Magharibi (Kigoma, Tabora na Katavi); Kusini (Lindi, Mtwara na Ruvuma); na Nyasa(Iringa, Njombe, Mbeya, Songwe na Rukwa).

Miongoni mmwa kazi zilizofanyika ni kusimika viongozi—wenyeviti wa kanda, makamu wenyeviti na wahazini.

Hata hivyo, mvutano mkali ulikuwa katika kinyang’anyiro cha kumtafuta mwenyekiti wa Kanda ya Nyasa. Hapa wanasiasa wawili mashuhuri wa ndani ya chama hicho, walijitokeza kuwania nafasi hiyo.

Hawa ni Patrick Ole-Sosopi, makamu Mwenyekiti wa Baraza la Vijana la Chadema (BAVICHA) na Mbunge wa Iringa Mjini, Mchungaji Peter Msigwa. Lakini, kinyume na matarajio ya walio wengi, “Kamati Ndogo ya Kamati Kuu,” ilitangaza kumuengua Sosopi na kumpitisha Msigwa kuwa mgombea bila kuwa na mshindani.

Mwenyekiti wa Taifa wa Chadema, Freeman Mbowe, alinukuliwa akisema, “uamuzi wa kumkata Sosopi umefikiwa kwa maslahi mapana ya chama.”

Binafsi, naheshimu maamuzi ya Kamati Kuu (CC), lakini kamwe sikubaliani na kilichofanyika, siyo leo, kesho na hata milele, kwa sababu tatu kubwa.

Kwanza, kitendo kilichofanyika, ni ubakaji wa wazi wa demokrasia ndani ya chama hicho. Hakijawahi kufanyika hata wakati wa ukandamizaji wa mfumo wa chama kimoja.

Wakati huo, wananchi hawakuachwa kuchagua mtu na kivuli. Kulisimishwa wagombea wawili, mmoja alitumia alama ya jembe na mwingine nyundo.

Wala maslahi ya chama hayawezi kuwa ni kumwondoa Sosopi na kumpitisha Msigwa. Maslahi ya chama yako mbali zaidi ya hapo.

Ndiyo maana hata Mbowe mwenyewe ameshindwa kueleza anachokiita “maslahi mapana ya chama,” yanaweza vipi kuharibiwa na Sosopi, lakini yakalindwa na Msigwa.

Pili, nguvu ya chama tawala—Chama cha Mapinduzi—bado ni kubwa sana. Ndicho kilichowaapisha na kuwaweka madarakani viongozi wa ngazi za juu wa vyombo vya dola, yaani majeshi, Mahakama na wengineo.

Baadhi yao wakati wanapitia kwenye michakato ya siri ya kuingizwa katika vyombo nyeti, ilibidi wapate sahihi za viongozi wa chama kila ngazi.

Wengine, wanakiheshimu chama hicho kuliko aliyewateua na kuwaapisha! Tunawaona wanavyohangaika kuokoa chama hiki kwenye chaguzi mbalimbali, ikiwamo nafasi ya umeya kwenye Halmashauri za Miji na Manispaa. Wanajua bila chama hawatakuwa na kazi. Chadema ni wahanga wakubwa katika hili.

Tatu, Chadema bado ni chama kichanga mno. Hakina dola na hivyo hakitaweza kuhimili vishindo vinavyotokana na tuhuma za ukiukwaji wa demokrasia.

Mathalani, wapo wanachama wa viongozi wa ndani ya chama hiki waliotoka CCM, wakiwamo mawaziri wakuu wawili wastaafu, Edward Lowassa na Frederick Sumaye.

Sumaye na Lowassa waliondoka CCM kutokana na kutoridhika na uvunjifu wa demokrasia. Sumaye alijiondoa CCM baada ya kukishutumu kuharibu taratibu katika kumpata mgombea urais.

Akisema, ndani ya chama hicho kuna watu wachache wanaokwenda kwenye vikao na majina ya wagombea mfukoni, kinyume na taratibu na kanuni za chama.

Kwamba, katika mfumo huu, mtu mwenye nafasi ya juu akitaka akuingize kwenye uongozi anaweza kufanya hivyo na kama hataki anakuondoa.

Lingine ambalo limemuondoa ndani ya chama hicho ni gonjwa la rushwa. Alisema, ukipinga rushwa unaonekana tatizo.

Naye Lowassa aliondoka CCM kwa sababu zinazofanana na Sumaye. Jina lake liliondolewa kwenye kinyang’anyiro cha urais, bila hata kuhojiwa.

Hivyo basi, ikiwa Chadema itaendelea kuendekeza utaratibu huu kwa kuwa kuna baadhi ya viongozi wanataka kumbeba mgombea wao, hakutakuwa na sababu ya wanaopinga “udikteta wa CCM” kuendelea kuwa Chadema.

Wanawezaje kusimama kumtuhumu mwenyekiti wa chama walichokikimbia aliyetoa majina ya wagombea wake wa urais mfukoni, wakati huko waliko mwenyekiti wao amekuja na jina la mgombea kwenye mkoba wa kokoa?

Nani anaweza kusimama na kusema Rais John Pombe Magufuli kuwa anadumaza demokrasia, wakti ndani ya chama chao baadhi ya watu wanabebwa kwa mbeleko?

Msigwa aliachwa na viongozi wakuu kuvuruga taratibu na kanuni. Aliruhusiwa kuzunguka karibu mikoa yote inayounda kanda hiyo, kujitangaz kwa wapiga kura.

Alitumia mitandao ya kijamii na magazeti kumshambulia mshindani wake. Akawatumia baadhi ya wabunge kumfanyia kampeni na wengine wakiwemo wajumbe wa Kamati Kuu (CC), kutoa machapisho yanayomuunga mkono. Akawananga kwa matusi baadhi ya wagombea wenake na waliokuwa wanampinga.

Lakini, pamoja na vituko vyote hivyo, hata pale viongozi wakuu wa Chadema walipoamua kumbakisha pekee, matokeo ya uchaguzi yaliyotangazwa yalimwacha mwmanasiasa huyo na waliombeba midomo wazi.

Wajumbe wengi walimnyima kura. Alipata kura 62 kati ya 106 zilizopigwa. Wajumbe 44 walimpinga. Ujumbe ulifikishwa unakotakiwa.

Kwa kujibu wa taarifa za ndani ya chama hicho, jina la Sosopi liliondolewa kwa kuwa anatoka Kaskazini. Kuruhusu dhambi ya aina hii kujitokeza ndani ya chama hiki, kutaweza kukiangamiza chama chenyewe na viongozi wake.

Kwamba, katika karne ya 25, wanaojiita waumini wa demokrasia, ndio wanakuwa vinara wa kupitisha mgombea kwa kura ya ndio au hapana.

Msigwa alikuwa hapambani kushika mafasi hiyo kwa sababu anataka kujenga chama katika eneo lake. La hasha. Kama angetaka kufanya hivyo, angeweza kufanya hivyo miaka 10 iliyopita.

Alitaka uenyekiti wa kanda ili kumwezesha kuingia Kamati Kuu (CC), kulinda ubunge wake na kuwa na ushawishi kwenye uteuzi wa wabunge wa viti maalum. Hicho ndicho alichokuwa anakitafuta.

Ni vema basi, Chadema kikarudi kuwa chama cha umma, badala ya utaratibu wa sasa wa kutaka kukifanya kuwa chama cha viongozi au mtu mmoja.

Yawezekana nguvu ya kiongozi ni ya muhimu sana. Yaweza kuwa na maono(kama ya Baba wa Taifa); yaweza kuwa ya ubabe (kama ya Mkapa); yaweza kuwa nguvu ya uungwana (kama ya Kikwete na Mwinyi); lakini nguvu hiyo inabidi aiuze kwa viongozi wenzake kwa njia ya kuwashawishi, sio kuwatisha.

Hivyo, wote wanaopiga makofi na kushangilia midomoni lakini mioyoni wakiwa wamenuna kwa woga, wanafanya makosa makubwa yatayokigharimu chama na wao wenyewe pale mambo yanapogeuka. Tuombe Mungu wasifike huko.

kondotuti@gmail.com

 

[nivoj.sued]

Hivi Kamati Ndogo ya Kamati Kuu ya Chadema anafuata itikadi gani na falsafa ipi?

Kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 3.1 ya Katiba ya Chadema(2006), "fikra na mtazamo wa Chama" cha Chadema "ni kuamini katika 'Nguvu na Mamlaka ya Umma' (The People’s Power) katika kumiliki, kuendesha, kubuni, na kuendeleza maamuzi, mawazo, rasilimali, uchumi na siasa ya nchi yao (ibara ya 3.1)." Hii maana yake ni kwamba, "CHADEMA ni chama cha itikadi ya MRENGO WA KATI (center party)." (Tazama ibara ya 3.1.1).

Hata hivyo, Chadema ni chama kisicho na falsafa iliyotamkwa ndani ya Katiba yake toleo la mwaka 2006. Ukweli ni kwamba, kile kinachotajwa kuwa ni "falsafa" ni ufafanuzi wa itikadi ya chama. Napendekeza kwamba, hii ndiyo sababu, madudu anayoyalalamikia Mzee Tutindaga yanakuwa yanajirudia rudia kila kukicha.

Hivyo, baada ya kusoma makala ya Kondo Tutindaga kama ilivyonakiliwa hapo juu, nimeamua kuanzisha mjadala huu kwa kuweka msingi wa kinadharia ili madai yangu kwamba "Chadema haina falsafa rasmi" yaweze kueleweka. Endelea kujisomea kujisomea….

(REFERENCE/SOURCE: Terence Ball, Richard Dagger and Daniel O’Neil, POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES AND THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL, 9th edition (NY: Pearson Education, Inc, 2009).

1. A WORKING DEFINITION OF “IDEOLOGY”

There is at first sight something strange about the word “ideology.” Other terms ending in “-ology” refer to fields of scientific study. So, for example, “biology”—the prefix coming from the Greek bios, or “life”—is the scientific study of life. “Psychology” is the study of psyche, or mind. “Sociology” is the study of society.

It seems only logical, then, that “ideology” would be the scientific study of ideas. And that is just what ideology originally meant when the term ideologie was coined in eighteenth-century France. Over the last two centuries, however, the meaning of the term has shifted considerably. Rather than denoting the scientific study of ideas, “ideology” has come

As we shall use the term, then, an ideology is a fairly coherent and comprehensive set of ideas that explains and evaluates social conditions, helps people understand their place in society, and provides a program for social and political action.

An ideology, more precisely, performs four functions for people who hold it: the (1) explanatory, (2) evaluative, (3) orientative, and (4) programmatic functions. Let us look more closely at these four functions.

1.1 Explanation.

An ideology offers an explanation of why social, political, and economic conditions are as they are, particularly in times of crisis. At such times people will search, sometimes frantically, for some explanation of what is happening. Why are there wars? Why do depressions occur? What causes unemployment? Why are some people rich and others poor? Why are relations between different races so often strained, difficult, or hostile? To these and many other questions different ideologies supply different answers.

But in one way or another, every ideology tries to answer these questions and to make sense of the complicated world in which we live. A Marxist might explain wars as an outgrowth of capitalists’ competition for foreign markets, for instance, while a fascist is apt to explain them as tests of one nation’s “will” against another’s.

A libertarian will probably explain inflation as the result of government interference in the marketplace, while a black liberationist will trace the roots of most social problems to white racism.

Their explanations are quite different, as these examples indicate, but all ideologies offer a way of looking at complex events and conditions that tries to make sense of them. Moreover, ideologues—people who try to persuade others to accept their ideology—typically want to reach as many people as possible, and this desire leads them to offer simple, and sometimes simplistic, explanations of puzzling events and circumstances.

1.2 Evaluation.

The second function of ideologies is to supply standards for evaluating social conditions. There is a difference, after all, between explaining why certain things are happening and deciding whether those things are good or bad. Are all wars evils to be avoided, or are some morally justifiable? Are depressions a normal part of the business cycle or a symptom of a sick economic system? Is full employment a reasonable ideal or a naïve pipe dream? Are vast disparities of wealth between rich and poor desirable or undesirable?

Are racial tensions inevitable or avoidable? Again, an ideology supplies its followers with the criteria required for answering these and other questions. If you are a libertarian, for example, you are likely to evaluate a proposed policy by asking if it increases or decreases the role of government in the lives of individuals. If it increases government’s role, it is undesirable. If you are a feminist, you will probably ask whether this proposed policy will work for or against the interests of women, and then either approve or disapprove of it on that basis.

Or if you are a communist, you are apt to ask how this proposal affects the working class and whether it raises or lowers the prospects of their victory in the class struggle. This means that those who follow one ideology may evaluate favorably something that the followers of a different ideology greatly dislike—communists look upon class struggle as a good thing, for instance, while fascists regard it as an evil.

Whatever the position may be, however, it is clear that all ideologies provide standards or cues that help people assess, judge, and appraise social policies and conditions so that they can decide whether those policies and conditions are good, bad, or indifferent.

1.3 Orientation.

An ideology supplies its adherent with an orientation and a sense of identity— of who he or she is, the group (race, nation, sex, and so on) to which he or she belongs, and how he or she is related to the rest of the world. Just as hikers and travelers use maps, compasses, and landmarks to find their way in unfamiliar territory, so people need something to find their social identity and location.

Like a compass, ideologies help people orient themselves—to gain a sense of where they are, who they are, and how they fit into a complicated world. If you are a communist, for example, you most likely think of yourself as a member of the working class who belongs to a party dedicated to freeing workers from capitalist exploitation and oppression, and you are therefore implacably opposed to the ruling capitalist class.

Or if you are a Nazi, you probably think of yourself as a white person and member of a party dedicated to preserving racial purity and enslaving or even eliminating “inferior” races. Or if you are a feminist, you are apt to think of yourself as first and foremost a woman (or a man sympathetic to women’s problems) who belongs to a movement aiming to end sexual oppression and exploitation. Other ideologies enable their adherents to orient themselves, to see their situation or position in society, in still other ways, but all perform the function of orientation.

1.4 Political Program.

An ideology, finally, tells its followers what to do and how to do it. It performs a programmatic or prescriptive function by setting out a general program of social and political action. Just as doctors prescribe medicine for their patients and fitness trainers provide a program of exercise for their clients, so political ideologies prescribe remedies for sick societies and treatments designed to keep the healthy ones in good health.

If an ideology provides a diagnosis of social conditions that leads you to believe that conditions are bad and growing worse, it will not be likely to win your support unless it can also supply a prescription or program for action that seems likely to improve matters.

This is exactly what ideologies try to do. If you are a communist, for example, you believe it important to raise working-class consciousness or awareness in order to prepare for the overthrow of capitalism, the seizure of state power, and the eventual creation of a cooperative, communist society. If you are a Nazi, however, you think it important for the “superior” white race to isolate, separate, subordinate—and perhaps exterminate—Jews, blacks, and other “inferior” peoples.

If you are a libertarian, your political program will include proposals for reducing or eliminating government interference in people’s lives and liberties. But if you are a traditional conservative, you may want the state or government to intervene in order to promote morality or traditional values. Different ideologies recommend very different programs of action, as these examples demonstrate, but all recommend a program of some sort.

Political ideologies perform these four functions because they are trying to link thought—ideas and beliefs—to action. Every ideology provides a vision of the social and political world not only as it is, but as it should be, in hopes of inspiring people to act either to change or to preserve their way of life.

If it does not do this—if it does not perform all four functions—it is not a political ideology. In this way our functional definition helps to sharpen our picture of what an ideology is by showing us what it is—and is not.

One thing an ideology is not is a scientific theory. To be sure, the distinction between an ideology and a scientific theory is sometimes difficult to draw. One reason for this is that the proponents of political ideologies often claim that their views are truly scientific. Another reason is that scientists, particularly social scientists, sometimes fail to see how their own ideological biases shape their theories.

And political ideologies frequently borrow from scientific theories to help explain why the world is as it is. For example, some anarchists and some liberals have used Darwin’s theory of evolution for their own purposes, as have Nazis and some communists.

Difficult as it may sometimes be to separate the two, this does not mean that there is no difference between a theory, such as Darwin’s, and an ideology that draws on—and often distorts—that theory.

Scientific theories are empirical in nature, which means that they are concerned with describing and explaining some feature or features of the world, not with prescribing what people ought to do.

To the extent that these theories carry implications for how people can live, of course, they also carry implications for the normative problem of how people should live. This is especially true of theories of society, where empirical and normative concerns are remarkably difficult—some say impossible—to separate.

But to say that scientific theories have implications for action is not to accept that they are ideologies. The scientist is not directly concerned as a scientist with these implications, but the ideologue certainly is.

We can also use our functional definition to distinguish political ideologies from some of the other “isms,” such as terrorism, that are occasionally mistaken for ideologies. Because the names of the most prominent ideologies end with the suffix “ism,” some people conclude that all “isms” must be political ideologies. This is clearly a mistake.

Whatever else they are, alcoholism, magnetism, and hypnotism are not political ideologies. Nor is terrorism. Terrorism may offer a program for social and political action, thus performing the programmatic function, but it does not itself explain and evaluate conditions or provide people with an orientation.

Terrorism is a strategy that some ideologues use to try to advance their causes, but it is not itself an ideology. Nor are nationalism and anarchism, as we shall see shortly.

This functional definition, finally, helps distinguish democracy from political ideologies. Unlike socialism, conservatism, and the other ideologies, democracy offers no explanation of why things are the way they are, and it is only in a very vague and loose sense that we can say that democracy serves the evaluative, orientative, or programmatic functions.

Almost all political ideologies claim to be democratic, furthermore, which is something they could hardly do if democracy were an ideology itself.

One can easily claim to be a conservative democrat, a liberal democrat, or a social(ist) democrat, for instance—much more easily than one can claim to be a socialist conservative, say, or a liberal fascist. This suggests that democracy, or rule by the people, is an ideal rather than an ideology—a topic to be pursued further in the next chapter.

In all of these cases, the functional definition helps to clarify what an ideology is by eliminating possibilities that do not perform all four functions. There are other cases, however, where our functional definition is not so helpful. The task of distinguishing a political theory or philosophy from an ideology is one of them.

In this case the functional definition offers little help, for political theories can also perform the same four functions. The chief difference is that they do so at a higher, more abstract, more principled, and perhaps more dispassionate level.

The great works of political philosophy, such as Plato’s Republic and Rousseau’s Social Contract, certainly attempt to explain and evaluate social conditions, just as they try to provide the reader with a sense of his or her place in the world.

They even prescribe programs for action of a very general sort. But these works and the other masterpieces of political philosophy tend to be highly abstract and complex—and not, therefore, the kind of writing that stirs great numbers of people into action.

Political ideologies draw on the works of the great political philosophers, much as they draw on scientific theories to promote their causes. But because their concern to link thought to action is so immediate, political ideologies tend to simplify, and even to oversimplify, the ideas of political philosophers in order to make them accessible—and inspiring—to masses of ordinary people.

The difference between a political philosophy and a political ideology, then, is largely a difference of degree. Although they can do the same things, political ideologies do them in much simpler, less abstract ways because their focus is more tightly fixed on the importance of action.

This, in the end, marks an important difference between political theories, on the one hand, and political ideologies, on the other.

Similar problems arise with regard to religion. Most religions, perhaps all, perform the explanatory, evaluative, orientative, and programmatic functions for their followers. Does this mean they are ideologies? It does if we define an ideology to be simply a “belief system,” as some scholars propose.

Many scholars and quite a few ideologues have noted, moreover, the ways in which political ideologies take on the characteristics of a religion for their followers; one account of communism by disillusioned ex-communists, for instance, is called The God That Failed.

There is no denying that religious concerns have played, and continue to play, a major role in ideological conflicts—as we shall see in subsequent chapters. Still, there is an important difference between religions and political ideologies.

Religions are often concerned with the supernatural and divine—with God (or gods) and the afterlife (or afterlives)—while ideologies are much more interested in the here and now, with this life on this earth.

Rather than prepare people for a better life in the next world, in other words, political ideologies aim to help them live as well as possible in this one.

This difference, again, is a matter of degree. Most religions take an active interest in how people live on earth, but this is neither their only nor necessarily their main concern. But for a political ideology, it is.

Even so, drawing sharp and clear distinctions between political ideologies, on the one hand, and scientific theories, political philosophies, and religions, on the other, is not the most important point for someone who wants to understand ideologies.

The most important point is to see how the different ideologies perform the four functions and how they make use of various theories, philosophies, and religious beliefs in order to do so.

2. HUMAN NATURE AND FREEDOM

For a political ideology to perform these four functions—the explanatory, evaluative, orientative, and programmatic—it must draw on some deeper conception of human potential, of what human beings are capable of achieving. This means that implicit in every ideology are two further features: (1) a set of basic beliefs about human nature and (2) a conception of freedom.

2.1 Human Nature

Some conception of human nature—some notion of basic human drives, motivations, limitations, and possibilities—is present, at least implicitly, in every ideology. Some ideologies assume that it is the “nature” of human beings to compete with one another in hopes of acquiring the greatest possible share of scarce resources; others hold that people are “naturally” inclined to cooperate with one another and to share what they have with others.

So, for example, a classical liberal or a contemporary libertarian is likely to believe that human beings are “naturally” competitive and acquisitive.

A communist, by contrast, will hold that competitiveness and acquisitiveness are “unnatural” and nasty vices nurtured by a deformed and deforming capitalist system—a system that warps people whose “true” nature is to be cooperative and generous.

Still other ideologies take it for granted that human beings have a natural or innate racial consciousness that compels them to associate with their own kind and to avoid associating or even sympathizing with members of other races.

Thus, Nazis maintain that it is “natural” for races to struggle for dominance and “unnatural” to seek interracial peace and harmony. They also deny that there is a single, universal human nature shared by all human beings; each race, they say, has its own unique “nature.”

These competing conceptions of human nature are important to the understanding of political ideologies because they play a large part in determining how each ideology performs the four functions that every ideology must perform. They are especially important because each ideology’s notion of human nature sets limits on what it considers to be politically possible.

When a communist says that you ought to work to bring about a classless society, for instance, this implies that he or she believes that a classless society is something human beings are capable of achieving, and something, therefore, that human nature does not rule out.

When a conservative urges you to cherish and defend traditional social arrangements, on the other hand, this implies that he or she believes that human beings are weak and fallible creatures whose schemes for reform are more likely to damage society than to improve it.

Other ideologies take other views of human nature, but in every case the program a political ideology prescribes is directly related to its core conception of human nature—to its notion of what human beings are truly like and what they can achieve.

2.2 Freedom

Strange as it may seem, every ideology claims to defend and extend “freedom” (or “liberty,” its synonym).

Freedom figures in the performance of both the evaluative and programmatic functions, with all ideologies condemning societies that do not promote freedom and promising to take steps to promote it themselves. But different ideologies define freedom in different ways.

A classical conservative’s understanding of freedom differs from a classical liberal’s or contemporary libertarian’s understanding, for instance; both, in turn, disagree with a communist’s view of freedom; and all three diverge radically from a Nazi’s notion of freedom.

This is because freedom is an essentially contested concept.8 What counts as being free is a matter of controversy, in other words, because there is no one indisputably correct definition of “freedom.”

Because every ideology claims to promote freedom, that concept provides a convenient basis for comparing and contrasting different ideologies. In later chapters, therefore, we will explicate each ideology’s conception of freedom by fitting it within the triadic, or three-cornered, model proposed by Gerald MacCallum.

According to MacCallum,9 every conception of freedom includes three features: (A) an agent, (B) a barrier or obstacle blocking the agent, and (C) a goal at which the agent aims. And every statement about freedom can take the following form: “A is (or is not) free from B to achieve, be, or become C.”

To say that someone is free, in other words, is to say that he or she is free from something and therefore free to do something. The agent is the person or group that is or should be free. But an agent is not simply free; to be free, an agent must be free to pursue a goal, whether it is speaking one’s mind, practicing one’s religion, or merely going for a stroll in the park.

No one can be free to pursue a goal, however, unless he or she is also free from particular obstacles, barriers, or restraints. These may take a wide variety of forms—walls, chains, prejudices, and poverty, to name a few—but the point is that no one can be free when there are obstacles that prevent him or her from doing what he or she wants to do. So “freedom” refers to a relationship involving an agent who is both free from some obstacle and free to achieve some goal. We can visualize this relationship in a diagram (see Figure 1.1).

Consider how these three aspects of freedom are present even in so ordinary a question as, Are you free tonight? The agent in this case is “you,” the person being asked the question. There are no obvious obstacles or goals specified in the question, but that is because the point of the question is to learn whether some obstacle keeps the agent from pursuing a particular goal.

That is, when we ask someone whether he or she is free tonight, we are trying to determine whether anything—such as the need to study for a test, to go to work, or to keep a promise to someone else—prevents that person from doing something. If not, then the agent in this instance is free.

But what of political freedom? According to MacCallum, people have different views of what counts as freedom in politics because they identify A, B, and C in different ways. Let us examine each of these, beginning with the agent, proceeding to a consideration of the agent’s goals, and returning to examine the barriers or obstacles facing the agent in pursuing those goals.

2.2.1 The Agent.

The agent can be an individual, a class, a group, a nation, a sex, a race, or even a species. As we shall see in Chapter 3, liberals typically talk of freedom as the freedom of the individual. Marx and the Marxists, by contrast, focus their attention on the freedom of a particular class—the working class (Chapter 5). Mussolini and the Italian Fascists identified the agent as a nation-state, and German fascists (Nazis) identified it as a race (Chapter 7). For feminists, the gender identity of the agent is all important (Chapter 8). And other ideologies identify the agent in different ways.

2.2.2 The Goal.

Agents have goals. Different kinds of agents have different kinds of goals. A Nazi’s goal is the “purity” and supremacy of the white race. A communist’s goal is the achievement of a classless communist society. A liberal’s goal is for everyone to live in his or her own way, without undue interference from others. A feminist’s goal is to live in a society that recognizes and rewards the capacities and worth of women. And so on for all other ideologies.

2.2.3 Obstacles.

In pursuing their goals, agents often encounter obstacles in their path. These obstacles can take a variety of forms—material or physical conditions (poverty or physical disabilities, for instance); crime; or social, political, and economic ideas, ideologies, institutions, practices, traditions, and beliefs. Women confront sexism and sexual discrimination.

Communists confront the apathy and “false consciousness” of the workers and the economic and political power of the capitalist class. Nazis confront Jews, blacks, and other so-called “inferior races.” Ideologies also frequently view other ideologies as obstacles or barriers to be removed. Fascists, for instance, see the liberal emphasis on the individual and the socialist emphasis on equality as obstacles in the way of a united, disciplined, and free society.

Whatever form the obstacles take, they must be overcome or removed. The more obstacles these agents can remove, the freer they will be. To the degree that they are unable to overcome the barriers, they are not free but “unfree.”

When the individuals—or class or race or gender—a political ideology takes to be its agent are not free to realize their goals, then the ideology will call for action to remove the obstacles to their freedom. Throughout the history of political ideologies, that action has often taken the form of revolution.

3. CASE STUDIES ON IDEOLOGY, HUMAN NATURE AND FREEDOM

3.1 Liberalism, Human Nature and Freedom

In Chapter 1 we noted that some conception of human nature provides the underpinnings for every political ideology. In the case of liberalism, the emphasis on individual liberty rests on a conception of human beings as fundamentally rational individuals.

There are, we shall see, significant differences among liberals on this point. But in general liberals stress individual liberty largely because they believe that most people are capable of living freely.

This belief sets them apart from those who believe that human beings are at the mercy of uncontrollable passions and desires, first pushing in one direction, then pulling in another. Liberals acknowledge that people do have passions and desires, but they maintain that people also have the ability, through reason, to control and direct their desires.

Most women and men, they insist, are rational beings who know what is in their own interests and, given the opportunity, are capable of acting to promote those interests.

Liberals generally agree that self-interest is the primary motive for most people. Some argue that self-interest should be given free rein, while others respond that it should be carefully directed to promote the good of all; but most hold that it is wisest to think of people as beings who are more interested in their own good than in the well-being of others.

This implies, in turn, that all these rational, self-interested men and women will find themselves competing with one another in their attempts to promote their personal interests. This is healthy, liberals say, as long as the competition remains fair and stays within proper bounds.

Exactly what is fair and where these proper bounds lie is a subject of sharp disagreement among liberals, as is the question of how best to promote competition. For the most part, though, liberals are inclined to regard competition as a natural part of the human condition.

On the liberal view, then, human beings are typically rational, self-interested, and competitive. This implies that they are capable of living freely. But what does it mean to live in this way? How, that is, do liberals conceive of freedom?

To answer this question, let us employ the model introduced in Chapter 1 depicting freedom as a triadic relationship involving an agent who is free from some obstacle to pursue some goal. In the case of liberalism, the agent is the individual. Liberals want to promote the freedom not of a particular group or class of people but of each person as an individual.

To do this, they have sought to free people from a variety of restrictions or obstacles. In the beginning liberals were most concerned with removing social and legal barriers to individual liberty, especially social customs, ties of feudal dependence, and religious conformity. Since then other liberals have claimed that poverty, racial and sexual prejudice, ignorance, and illness are also obstacles to individual liberty.

But in spite of these differences, liberals agree that the individual must be free to decide for himself—and, more recently, herself—what goals to pursue in life. Most liberals have believed, that is, that the individual is the best judge of what is in his or her interest, so each person ought to be free to live as he or she sees fit—as long as the person does not choose to interfere with others’ freedom to live as they see fit (see Figure 3.1).

That is to say that equality is also an important element in the liberal conception of freedom. In the liberal view each person is to have an equal opportunity to enjoy liberty. No person’s liberty is more important or valuable than any other’s. This does not mean that everyone is to be equally successful or to have an equal share of the good things of life, whatever they may be.

Liberals do not believe that everyone can or should be equally successful—only that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberalism thus stresses competition, for it wants individuals to be free to compete on an equal footing for whatever they count as success. Anything that prevents a person from having an equal opportunity—whether it be privileges for the aristocracy, monopolies that block economic competition, or discrimination based on race, religion, or gender—can be an obstacle to a person’s freedom that ought to be removed.

Liberalism, in short, promotes individual liberty by trying to guarantee equality of opportunity within a tolerant society. In the English-speaking world, these ideas are so much a part of our lives and our thinking that they seem natural. But that is because these liberal ideas are so much a part of our heritage throughout Western civilization in general.

These ideas were not always taken for granted, however, not even in England and Europe. To appreciate their full significance we need to see how liberalism began as a reaction against the European society of the Middle Ages.

3.2 Conservatism, human nature and freedom

In Chapter 1 we noted that every political ideology rests on a conception of human nature, including some notion of human potential—of what men and women have it in them to do and to be.

In the case of conservatism, the fundamental conviction is that human beings are, and always will be, deeply flawed. This is why some scholars call conservatism “the political philosophy of imperfection.”

But what does it mean to say that human beings are imperfect? According to conservatives, it means that we are neither as intelligent nor as good as we like to think we are. We may believe ourselves capable of governing solely by the light of reason, but we are wrong.

The light of reason does not shine far enough or bright enough to enable most of us to see and avoid all of the problems that beset people and societies, conservatives say, and even the smartest among us can never foresee all of the consequences of our actions and policies. That is why the boldest attempts to do good often do the greatest harm.

In the face of our passions and desires, moreover, human reason is weak, even impotent. When we want something that we know is not good for us, or when we want to do something that we know may harm others, we often find ways to rationalize our conduct—to invent “reasons” for following our desires.

Human beings are not only intellectually imperfect, then, but morally imperfect, too. We tend to be selfish, to put our desires and interests above others’, and to reach for more power and wealth than is good either for us or for social peace and stability.

Indeed, most conservatives have believed that in some sense, either theological or psychological, human beings are marked by original sin. They believe, that is, that the story of Adam and Eve’s defiance of God in the Old Testament Book of Genesis conveys a basic truth, whether literal or symbolic, about human nature.

Just as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden could not resist the temptation to reach for something more—something they knew they were not meant to have—so men and women continue in their pride and greed to risk the destruction of all they have in their desire for something more.

This, conservatives say, is how it always has been and always will be. To hope for some radical change in human nature—to hope that our intellectual and moral imperfections can be removed—is vain and foolish. More than that, it is dangerous.

Any attempt to remake human beings by remaking their societies is likely to end in disaster. The best we can do, as they see it, is to restrain the passions and instincts that lead to conflict. This we can do through government, which imposes restraints on us, or through education—whether in schools, churches, families, or other groups—which teaches us self-restraint. As one conservative puts it,

The function of education is conservative: not to deify the child’s “glorious self-expression,” but to limit his instincts and behavior by unbreakable ethical habits. In his natural instincts, every modern baby is still born a caveman baby.

What prevents today’s baby from remaining a caveman is the conservative force of law and tradition, that slow accumulation of civilized habits separating us from the cave.

Or, as another conservative has said, “Every new generation constitutes a wave of savages who must be civilized by their families, schools, and churches.” This view of human nature leads directly to the conservative warning against bold attempts to improve society.

Radical proponents of other ideologies hold out visions of utopian societies; they call for revolutions to create perfect societies; or they promise at least to bring about great progress. Conservatives are skeptical of these ideological claims—so skeptical, indeed, that conservatism has been called an “anti-ideology.”

In their view, these grandiose attempts to transform human life and society are doomed to end not only in failure but in catastrophe. We do much better, conservatives argue, to proceed slowly and cautiously in our attempts to improve society; and we are much wiser to cherish a peaceful and stable society than to risk its loss in the futile quest for perfection. This has been the fundamental conviction of conservatism from its beginning just over 200 years ago in the writings of Edmund Burke.

3.3 Socialism and communism, human nature and freedom

It is often said, especially in the United States, that socialism is contrary to human nature and “opposed to freedom.” Socialists dispute both of these claims. They deny, first, that people are by nature competitive and self-interested. If people appear to be selfish and competitive, they argue, it is because social circumstances encourage and reward these traits—not because human nature makes us that way.

Socialists conceive of human nature as a set of possibilities or potentialities waiting to be realized and perhaps perfected under the right conditions—namely, those prevailing in a post-capitalist socialist society. People are by nature potentially caring and cooperative, and able to take the interests of the entire community as their own.

They will readily recognize and attempt to relieve the suffering or oppression of others. And they will work for the common good instead of (or in addition to) their own individual interests. Under capitalism, however, these potentials are not only unrealized, but discouraged, perverted, and distorted beyond all recognition.

Capitalist society supplies incentives to encourage—and sometimes to richly reward—selfish and competitive behavior, and to punish or prevent (or at least not reward) selfless and cooperative behavior.

In capitalist society selfishness, competition, and the pursuit of individual interests are lauded as “natural,” and selfless public-spiritedness as “unnatural.” Under capitalism, as the libertarian guru Ayn Rand put it, selfishness is a virtue.

With regard to freedom, socialists are certainly opposed to the liberal-individualist understanding of freedom that we discussed in Chapter 3 and to the conservative’s notion of “ordered liberty” described in Chapter 4. But this is because socialists propose an alternative conception of freedom, not because they consider freedom undesirable or unimportant.

The socialist view of freedom can be readily understood by referring once again to our triadic model. For socialists, the agent who is to be free is not the abstract or isolated individual, but “individuals in relations.”

Human beings are by nature and inclination social or communal creatures, socialists say, so we should think of an agent as someone who is connected to and dependent upon other people in various ways. In particular, we should think of agents as individuals engaged in relations of production, distribution, and exchange with others.

The agent, in other words, is the producer, or worker, viewed not as an isolated individual, but as a member of a class—the working class. Members of the working class share several common goals, furthermore, including but not restricted to the following: fulfilling work, a fair share of the product they produce (or the profits thereof), a voice in the management of their affairs, and an equal opportunity for everyone to develop and use his or her talents to their full extent.

In pursuing these goals, finally, workers find that the system of capitalist production thwarts their aspirations by throwing various obstacles in their way. These obstacles or barriers can be either material or mental. They include the division of society into a wealthy class of owners and a poorer class of producers who are forced to sell their labor to eke out a subsistence living. People who must devote most of their time and energy merely to making a living can scarcely hope to develop fully their talents.

The division of society into classes of unequal political power and economic wealth also results in the sharpening and hardening of class differences that perpetuate these inequalities from one generation to the next. “The rich get richer,” the old saying goes, “and the poor get poorer.” To the extent that the rich own, or at any rate control, the system of education and information (radio and television stations, newspapers, and so on), they are able to raise and maintain still other obstacles.

They can, for example, erect and maintain mental barriers by seeing to it that the poor remain ignorant of radical alternatives to the status quo. In this way the members of the poorer classes may be kept in ignorance of their “true” or “real” interests and of the alternative political visions and economic arrangements that might better serve those interests.

To be truly free, then, is to be free from such obstacles and to be free to pursue one’s aims and aspirations—so long, that is, as they are not detrimental or harmful to others. Thus one should not be free to make a private profit off the labor of another.

Because we are social or communal creatures, it makes no sense to speak of one person’s being free and another’s not. Either all are free or none is. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in The Manifesto of the Communist Party when they proclaimed that in a socialist society, “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

This conception of freedom, quite different from the liberal view examined earlier, is summarized in Figure 5.1.

3.4 Fascism, human nature and freedom

While Mussolini was in power, he encouraged the belief that Italian fascism rested on a philosophical or ideological basis. The fascists had a plan for transforming Italy, he said, a plan that grew out of a coherent view of the world. Included in that view were distinctively fascist conceptions of human nature and freedom.

For the fascist, an individual human life only has meaning insofar as it is rooted in and realized through the life of the society or the nation as a whole. Fascists reject atomism and individualism, in other words, and subscribe to an organic conception of society.

The individual on his or her own can accomplish nothing of great significance, they said. It is only when the individual dedicates his or her life to the nation-state, sacrificing everything to its glory, that the individual finds true fulfillment.

The Italian Fascists also stressed the value of the state, which they saw as the legal and institutional embodiment of the power, the unity, and the majesty of the nation. To be dedicated to the service of the nation was thus to be dedicated to the state—and to its great and glorious leader, Il Duce.

The state was to control everything, and everyone was to serve the state. For the fascist, Mussolini proclaimed, “everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State.”

Thus, freedom for the fascists was not, and is not, individual liberty but the freedom of the nation, the integrated, organic whole that unites all individuals, groups, and classes behind the iron shield of the all-powerful state. Individual liberty, in fact, is an obstacle to freedom because it distracts people from their true mission to “believe, obey, fight.”

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to live as one chooses—these are all “useless liberties,” according to the fascists. The only freedom that truly matters is the freedom to serve the state. In terms of our triadic definition of freedom, then, the Italian Fascists conceived of liberty as shown in Figure 7.1.

True freedom, in the fascist view, is found in serving the state, and there is nothing more fulfilling than doing one’s part, however small, to promote its power and glory. But how was the glory of the state to be achieved? Through military conquest, Mussolini said, and conquest required the discipline and loyalty of the Italian people.

This Mussolini and the fascists attempted to win through massive propaganda efforts, always designed to appeal to the emotions and instincts of the people. The people were a mass, a “herd” incapable of leading themselves. They needed an elite to guide them, and they especially needed a dictator with an almost mystical ability to know where their “true” interests lay.

Hence the people were told, in schools and in speeches and in slogans emblazoned on walls, that “Mussolini is always right!” Everything—newspapers, radio, schools—was to be used to instill this conviction in the people. In 1936, for instance, the compulsory reader for eight-year-olds in Italian schools contained the following:

The eyes of the Duce are on every one of you. No one can say what is the meaning of that look on his face. It is an eagle opening its wings and rising into space. It is a flame that searches out your heart to light there a vermillion fire. Who can resist that burning eye, darting out its arrows? But do not be afraid; for you those arrows will change into rays of joy. A child, who, even while not refusing to obey, asks “Why?” is like a bayonet made of milk. . . . “You must obey because you must,” said Mussolini, when explaining the reasons for obedience.

But indoctrination and propaganda are not enough to convert a people into a modern military machine; they also need weapons, fuel, and food. To this end, Mussolini tried to encourage industrial production in Italy. He did this through the policy of corporativism, according to which property was to remain in private hands even as it was put to public use.

To prevent disputes between owners and workers from disrupting business and production, the Ministry of Corporations was supposed to supervise economic affairs. The economy was divided into twenty-two sectors, or corporations, each of which was administered by representatives of ownership, labor, and the Ministry of Corporations.

The representatives of the ministry were supposed to look after the interests of the public as a whole, and the three groups were supposed to work together in harmony for the good of all Italians. In practice, however, the fascist representatives of the ministry could do pretty much as they pleased. They were often pleased to accept bribes and to do as those who paid the bribes—usually the owners—suggested.

Partly for this reason Mussolini was unable to realize his military ambitions. Nor, despite all the talk about totalitarianism, was Mussolini able to convert Italy into a society in which the Fascist Party and state truly controlled all aspects of life. That was his aim, however, and that is surely the important point. To the north of Italy, another variety of fascism appeared in the 1920s with the same totalitarian aim—and came much closer to succeeding.

4. CONCLUSION

From what has been said above, what is the Chadema's practical ideology? Let us discuss this question as we reflect about the following recorded party ideology and philosophy...

===============3.0 FALSAFA NA ITIKADI===============

3A. FALSAFA YA CHAMA

3.1 Falsafa ni fikra na mtazamo wa Chama ambayo ni kuamini katika “Nguvu na Mamlaka ya Umma” (The People’s Power) katika kumiliki, kuendesha, kubuni, na kuendeleza maamuzi, mawazo, rasilimali, uchumi na siasa ya nchi yao.

3.2 Aidha falsafa ya “Nguvu na Mamlaka ya Umma” ndiyo msingi na chimbuko la kuundwa dola ya nchi, na kuwa, Umma ndiyo wenye madaraka ya mwanzo na ya mwisho katika kuamua hatima ya nchi na taifa pasipo kuingiliwa, kudanganywa au kughilibiwa na viongozi, watawala au wageni.

3.3 Ujenzi na udumishaji wa Demokrasia na Maendeleo nchini vitatokana na Nguvu na Mamlaka ya Umma wa Watanzania. Nguvu na Mamlaka ya Umma itabainishwa, kuainishwa na kulindwa katika Katiba ya nchi na Umma ndiyo utakuwa chimbuko la Katiba hiyo.

3.4 Historia inaonyesha kuwa “UMMA” wa Watanzania haujawahi kuwa na sauti, mamlaka na madaraka juu ya maamuzi ya hatima ya maisha ya watu. Uhuru, nguvu, mamlaka na madaraka wakati wote, tokea enzi za ukoloni mpaka leo, vimekuwa vikihodhiwa na kumilikiwa na watu wachache ambao wana mamlaka ya kuongoza SERIKALI na kuwakandamiza wananchi.

3.5 CHADEMA tunaamini kuwa mifumo na miundo ya utawala wa nchi yetu havijawapo kwa ajili ya kuutumikia umma, bali umma ndiyo huzitumikia serikali hizo ambazo ni mali ya watu wachache wanaopoka “Nguvu ya Umma”. Sambamba na hilo, umma wa Watanzania umekuwa hauna mamlaka ya mwisho ya kuhoji maamuzi ya serikali yanayowaathiri watu, na hivyo kujikuta hauna mamlaka juu ya rasilimali, sheria, utawala, na uendeshaji wa nchi. Aidha, Katiba ya Nchi imekuwa miliki ya Serikali kwa kutumia Bunge ambalo linatawaliwa na mawazo kongwe ya ukiritimba wa enzi za mfumo wa Chama kimoja cha siasa nchini.

3.6 CHADEMA tunaamini na kutambua kuwa “kuchaguliwa” kuunda utawala wa kuongoza nchi hakumaanishi wachaguliwa kujitwalia mamalaka ya UMMA na kisha kuyatumia mamlaka hayo kuwakandamiza “waliowachagua” kwa sababu tu ya kutetea maslahi binafsi badala ya maslahi ya umma.

3.7 Hivyo basi, falsafa ya “Nguvu na Mamlaka ya Umma” ndiyo njia ya msingi ya kubadilisha fikra na uongozi unaokandamiza umma, ili kuibua fikra mpya na kuweka uongozi unaoweza kumilikiwa, kuhojiwa, na kuwajibishwa na umma kwa kutumia vyombo vilivyopatikana kwa utashi wa wengi kupitia chaguzi huru na za haki.

3.8 Falsafa ya “Nguvu na Mamlaka ya Umma” inalenga kuwaamsha, kuwahamasisha, kuwaelimisha, kuwashawishi na kuwaandaa Watanzania wachukue hatua ya kuimiliki, kuitawala, kuilinda na kuifaidi nchi yao tofauti na kipindi cha miaka mingi chini ya mfumo wa chama kimoja cha siasa na miaka kumi na nne ya mwanzo ya mfumo wa vyama vingi.

3B. Itikadi ya CHADEMA

3.1.1 CHADEMA ni chama cha itikadi ya MRENGO WA KATI (center party).

3.1.2 CHADEMA ni chama kinachoamini kukuza na kuimarisha uchumi wa nchi kwa kutumia raslimali za nchi yetu bila kuathiri uhuru wa Taifa, na kuhakikisha kuwa umma kwa ujumla unanufaika na raslimali zao.

3.1.3 CHADEMA inaamini katika kujenga na kuimarisha uchumi wa soko huru, utakaoheshimu na kulinda haki na mali za watu, biashara huru na sekta ya watu binafsi bila kupoka mamlaka ya umma katika maeneo nyeti hususani pale penye hitilafu ya soko au penye maeneo nyeti ya kiuchumi. Tunaamini katika soko huru sio soko holela.

3.1.4 CHADEMA inaamini kuhakikisha matumizi bora ya raslimali asilia za nchi ili zichangie kikamilifu katika pato la taifa na hasa kuboresha huduma za kiuchumi zinazotumiwa na wananchi wote.

3.1.5 CHADEMA inaamini katika uzalendo na kuthamini mila na desturi zetu zilizo nzuri. 3.1.6 CHADEMA inaamini katika uhuru chini ya sheria zilizo za haki.

3.1.7 CHADEMA inaamini katika siasa ambazo ziko juu ya vyama zenye kusimamia zaidi maslahi ya Taifa.

3.1.8 CHADEMA inaweka umuhimu wa pekee katika familia kama moja ya taasisi muhimu ya kijamii.

3.1.9 CHADEMA inaamini katika umuhimu wa uhuru wa kuamini katika kujenga maadili ya mwanajamii mmoja mmoja bila kuifanya dini kuwa sehemu ya dola.

3.1.10 CHADEMA inaamini taifa linaundwa na watu, hivyo uhai wake unawategemea watu, na mabadiliko yake yanatokana na watu.

3.1.11 CHADEMA inaamini katika kujenga uwezo wa wazawa katika kumiliki na kuendesha uchumi.

3.1.12 CHADEMA inaamini kumiliki raslimali na mali miongoni mwa wananchi kunawapa uhuru zaidi hivyo tunataka kujenga chama na baadaye taifa lenye kutoa fursa, ambapo kila mtu bila kujali asili na hali yake anaweza kutimiza na kufanikiwa kadiri ya vipaji vyake.

 

[jingalao]

Hili ni mwanaHALISI au mwanahalisi

 

[Kisu Cha Ngariba]

Njoo na ile ID yako nyingine

 

[Mwanga Lutila]

Ukiona hadi huyu mzee kaandika jua kweli lilikuwepo tatizo na lisipotatuliwa litaendelea kuwepo.

 

[jingalao]

CC: Mzee wa maono Mmawia

 

[Mwanga Lutila]

Hili ni mwanaHALISI au mwanahalisi

MwanaHalisi.

 

[jingalao]

Makala nzuri...

Shuhudia matusi kama vile umeiandika wewe

 

[jingalao]

CC: Salary Slip

 

[jingalao]

Ukiona hadi huyu mzee kaandika jua kweli lilikuwepo tatizo na lisipotatuliwa litaendelea kuwepo.

Jinsi ubakwaji wa Demokrasia ulivyotokea kule Nyasa-Nyuma ya pazia

 

[jingalao]

Ukiona hadi huyu mzee kaandika jua kweli lilikuwepo tatizo na lisipotatuliwa litaendelea kuwepo.

Jinsi ubakwaji wa Demokrasia ulivyotokea kule Nyasa-Nyuma ya pazia

 

[nivoj.sued]

Njoo na ile ID yako nyingine

.
Ninayo moja tu, hii hapa...

 

[Mwasita Moja]

Bavicha hawataki kukosolewa, muda siyo mrefu watakuita msaliti...


Muulize Nassary amebandikwa jina la usaliti tayari

 

[Salary Slip]

CC: Salary Slip

Mambo matatu ya kurekebisha ndani ya CHADEMA

 

[nivoj.sued]

MAKALA: CHAMA CHA DEMOKRASIA NA UBAKWAJI WA DEMOKRASIA HALISIA



Mathias Canal (Picha na David Mtengile)

CHAMA CHA DEMOKRASIA NA UBAKWAJI NA DEMOKRASIA HALISIA
Na Mathias Canal

'Katika sehemu ya maelezo yake Raisi wa 16 wa Marekani Bw Abraham Lincoln namnukuu aliwahi kusema kuwa Demokrasia ni mfumo wa serikali ambapo wananchi wote ni sawa mbele ya sheria na wanashiriki katika kufanya maamuzi ya kitaifa juu ya masuala ya umma. Wakati mwingine wananchi hushiriki moja kwa moja - hii ina maana kwamba wao hupiga kura moja kwa moja kwenye masuala kama vile katika chaguzi.

Kabla sijaanza kuzungumzia uchaguzi wa CHADEMA Kanda ya Nyasa Tutazame Mwongozo wa kumteua muaniaji Urais nchini Marekani Kabla ya Wamarekani kuamua nani wanayemtaka awe rais ajaye, wao kwanza huteua nani atakayewania kiti hicho.

Mchakato huo hungo'oa nanga kwa mchujo wa kamati za wajumbe ambapo wananchi hupata fursa ya kumchagua muaniaji kiti cha urais kwa tiketi ya chama cha Democratic au kile cha Republican.Mshindi wa mchujo huo huwakusanya wajumbe - hawa ni wanachama wenye nguvu ya kupiga kura kumchagua mgombea katika mikutano ya chama.

Nchini Marekani inakumbukwa kuwa kulikuwa na upinzania mkali katika uchaguzi wa nafasi ya Rais kati ya vyama viwili ambapo ni Republican na Demokratic, Kwa upande wa Democrats upinzani mkali ulikuwa kati ya Hillary Clinton na Seneta Bernie Sanders ambaye alionekana nae kupata uungwaji mkono zaidi dhidi ya Clinton. Kwa upande wa Republican kulikuwa na wagombea kama Marco Rubio na Ted Cruz sambamba na Donard Trump aliyeibuka kuwa mshindi wa chama hicho na mshindi wa nafasi ya Urais wa Marekani.

Tutakubaliana wote kwa pamoja kwamba Vyama vyote nchini Marekani vilisimamisha wagombea katika kura za awali kabisa ambao wote kwa pamoja walipigiwa kura na wajumbe wao hapakuwa na kura za Ndio na Hapana kwa maana ya Kivuli/Jiwe na Mtu sasa tutazame mchakato ulivyo kuwa kwenye vyama vinavyounda umoja wa katiba ya Wananchi UKAWA vikiongozwa na Chama Cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo CHADEMA jinsi vilivyompata mgombea wake wa Urais.

Julai 30, 2015 nikiwa natazama Luninga majira ya saa tatu na dakika moja usiku niliona katika kipindi cha Dira ya Dunia kinachorushwa na chombo cha habari cha BBC kupitia Televisheni ya Star Tv kikiarifu kuwa WANACHAMA wapya wa Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Chadema), Edward Lowassa pamoja na na Juma Duni Haji wamepitishwa katika Mkutano Mkuu wa chama hicho kugombea ngazi ya urais na umakamu wa rais kwa asilimia 99.3 ambapo jumla ya wajumbe 2021 kati ya 2035 waliotakiwa kuhudhuria kwenye mkutano huo, walipiga kura za NDIO kwa kuwa hapakuwa na wagombea wemngine na kuibua kishindo katika mkutano huo uliofanyika kwenye Ukumbi wa Mlimani City Jijini Dar es Salaam.

Awali kabla ya kufanyika uchaguzi huu Mwenyekiti wa CHADEMA Taifa Mhe Freeman Alikael Mbowe Akizungumzia utaratibu wa kuteua mgombea huyo alisema kuwa, kwa mujibu wa katiba hiyo kifungu namba 7.16, mgombea urais pamoja na makamu wake wanateuliwa na sio kupigiwa kura.

Yaani kama kuna mtu hakuelewa vyema hapo katika maelezo hayo naomba nimsaidie kwa hili naamini ataelewa vyema zaidi Mbowe alisema kuwa kwa mujibu wa katika huku akitaja kifungu Mgombea Urais hapigiwi kura na wajumbe bali anateuliwa. Hii ni kauli ya kishujaa nay a ubakaji wa Demokrasia kwa uwazi kabisa.

Tujikumbushe Demokrasia ni nini kabla ya kuendelea na mjadala ili tuende sawa: Utawala wowote wa Demokrasia ni ule unaotokana na ridhaa ya wananchi, ambao kutokana na utaratibu waliojiwekea hufanya maamuzi ya kuwapata viongozi wao.

Wananchi hushiriki moja kwa moja - hii ina maana kwamba wao hupiga kura moja kwa moja kwenye chaguzi. Tukubaliane sasa ndani ya Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo CHADEMA hakuna Demokrasi kama ambavyo inahubiriwa katika vijiwe na majukwaa ya kisiasa.

Na kama demokrasia ni pamoja na kushirikisha wananchi kufanya maamuzi kwa nini Mbowe aliamua yeye kwamba Lowassa na Duni wateuliwe sio kupigiwa kura na wajumbe zaidi ya 2000, kwa akili ya kawaida tu na karne hii unaweza kuwaambia watu fanyeni maamuzi kati ya Jiwe/kivuli na mtu...?

Lakini katika hili sikuwaona vijana wa CHADEMA wakihoji wala wale wa Umoja wa Kizazi cha Kuhoji (UTG) wakihoji. Huenda walipitiwa hawakuliona hili sasa tuendelee.

UCHAGUZI KANDA YA NYASA

Kwa kunukuu gazeti la Rai linalochapishwa na KAMPUNI ya New Habari (2006) Ltd ambayo pia inachapisha magazeti ya Mtanzania, Bingwa, Dimba na The African, la Disemba 8, 2016 liliandika habari ilikuwa na kichwa cha habari kilichosema UCHAGUZI CHADEMA NI ‘VITA’ KALI
‘NI vita’, hivyo ndivyo tafsiri inapatikana kufuatia mvutano mkali ulioibuka ndani ya Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Chadema) kati ya Mchungaji Peter Msigwa na Patrick Ole Sosopi ambao walikuwa wanapambana kuwania nafasi ya uenyekiti kanda ya Nyasa.

Msigwa ambaye ni Mbunge wa Iringa Mjini alipamba na kijana Machachari katika Siasa za Tanzania Patrick Ole Sosopi ambaye ni Makamu Mwenyekiti wa Baraza la Vijana wa Chadema (Bavicha), kuwania Kanda hiyo ya Nyanda za Juu Kusini (Nyasa) inayojumuisha mikoa ya Iringa, Mbeya, Rukwa, Njombe na Songwe.

Tangu maandalizi ya uchaguzi kanda nane za Chadema yalipoanza mwezi uliopita kulikuwapo na majibizano kati ya wafuasi wa wagombea hao wawili ambao kwa namna moja au nyingine wamekuwa wakitumia mitandao ya kijamii kuanika madhaifu ya kila mgombea.

Hata hivyo, Msigwa alionekana kushambuliwa zaidi na wafuasi wa Chadema Kanda ya Nyasa kutokana na madai mbalimbali ikiwamo tabia ya kutoshirikiana na wabunge wenzake katika kukijenga chama, pia kujiweka mbali na wabunge wa chama hicho kipindi walipokuwa wakipambana kutetea madai yao kwa Naibu Spika wa Bunge Dk. Tulia Ackson.

Kwa mujibu wa taarifa zilizolifikia gazeti la RAI zinaeleza kuwa baadhi ya wabunge na viongozi wa chama hicho walionekana kusita kumuunga mkono Mbunge huyo kutokana na madai ya ubinafsi aliouonyesha katika kipindi cha kampeni za uchaguzi mkuu 2015 kwa kushindwa kushirikiana na makada wa chama hicho kuzunguka sehemu mbalimbali.

Hata hivyo baadhi ya wafuasi wa Ole Sosopi walionekana kulalamika kutukanwa kwenye mitandao ya kijamii ambapo mmoja wao alisema: “Nimeshangaa sana watu kunifuata inbox na kunitukana hata wengine kutumia lugha ambayo si njema. Kumuunga mkono Sosopi ‘it’s just my perception.’ Kwa kuwa nina akili timamu siwezi kujibu matusi kama mlivyofanya “Imeniuma sana, nimeumia sana. Naomba niliweke wazi hili, Peter Msigwa ni Mbunge wangu, ni mlezi wangu na sina ugomvi naye. Sosopi na Msigwa wote ni Chadema na wote ni familia moja ndani ya chama chetu Chadema,”

SIKU YA UCHAGUZI WA KANDA YA NYASA

Tarehe Disemba 22, 2016 ndio siku ambayo Chama Cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo CHADEMA kilifanya uchaguzi huo lakini mapema asubuhi kabla ya kuanza kwa uchaguzi jina la Patrick Ole Sosopi liliondolewa katika kinyang’anyiro cha kugombeanafasi ya uenyekiti Kanda ya Nyasa na Uongozi wa Kamati kuu ya Chama hicho iliyokuwa inaongozwa na Mwenyekiti wa CHADEMA Taifa Freeman Alkael Mbowe.

Sosopi alipewa taarifa kwa njia yam domo kwamba jina lake limetolewa pasina kupewa hata maelezo kwa njia ya maandishi lakini pia taarifa hiyo alipewa asubuhi siku ya uchaguzi sio siku moja ama mbili kabla ya uchaguzi

Aliyekuwa Mkuu wa Wilaya ya Ubungo ambaye kwa sasa ni katibu wa Nec, Itikadi na Uenezi wa CCM Taifa Hamphrey Polepole aliwahi kusema kuwa Huu si wakati wa siasa za kutafuta uongozi; Ni wakati wa siasa za maendeleo na kujenga nchi hapo alikubaliana na dhana ya mfumo wa kupunguza madaraka kwa viongozi inayohubiriwa naserikali ya wamu ya tano chini ya Rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania Dkt John Pombe Magufuli ya kuwataka viongozi kuwa na cheo kimoja serikalini ikibidi kuwa na cheo kimoja pia kwenye chama cha siasa isiwe zaidi ya hapo.

Kabla ya kuendelea naomba nikurejeshe katika kauli ya Mchungaji Peter Msigwa ya Mwaka 2015 aliyoisema kwamba “Raisi apunguziwe madaraka, na wakuu wa mikoa pia wana vyeo vingi sana wapunguziwe" by peter msigwa 2015.

Lakini tutazame sasa vyeo alivyonavyo mchungaji Msigwa kwenye chama na seriakli kabla ya kutazama uchaguzi wa Mwenyekiti Kanda ya Nyasa ulivyoendeshwa

Mchungaji Msigwa ni Mbunge wa Jimbo la Iringa Mjini
Mchungaji Msigwa ni Mjumbe wa Mkutano Mkuu Chadema
Mchungaji Msigwa ni Mjumbe wa Baraza kuu Chadema
Mchungaji Msigwa ni Mjumbe wa Kamati Kuu Chadema
Mchungaji Msigwa ni Mwenyekiti wa Chadema Mkoa wa Iringa
Mchungaji Msigwa ni Mwenyekiti wa Kanda ya Nyasa

Mchungaji Peter Simion Msigwa amekipata cheo cha sita ndani ya Chadema na kuwa Mwenyekiti wa Kanda ya Nyasa baada ya wagombea wengine kuenguliwa, hivyo kuwa mgombea Pekee ambaye ni yeye Msigwa na Mgombea mwingine ambaye ni Jiwe/kivuli. Binafsi najiuliza sana lakini najiuliza kimya kimya hivi vikao vya vyeo hivyo vyote vya watu sita anahudhuriaje!

Maana ya upatikanaji wa Mchungaji Msigwa kama Mwenyekiti wa Chadema Kanda ya Nyasa ni kwa njia ya kuteuliwa na sio kuchaguliwa lakini Demokrasia ambayo CHADEMA huihubiri ni wazi wamekuwa wakiivunja wao maana wanawanyima nafasi wagombea pendwa na kukata majina yao na hatimaye wanakubali mgombea mmoja ashindane na kivuli pamoja na kwamba hakubaliki.

UCHAGUZI WA CHADEMA KANDA YA NYASA ULIKUWAJE BAADA YA MSIGWA KUBAKI MGOMBEA PEKEE AKISHINDANA NA KIVULI CHAKE MWENYEWE

Kwa mujibu wa andiko la lililosomeka kama “NIMEAMINI MAISHA BILA UNAFIKI HAYAENDI”
lililoandikwa na Mwalimu Pasaka Rucho mara baada ya mchakato mzima wa kumalizika na mshindi kutangazwa. Umeeleza tangu mchakato kuanza wajumbe walitaharuki sana kusikia taarifa ya kutolewa kwa jina la sosopi, tazama mchakato ulivyokuwa:

Wajumbe halali ni 98
Waliosusia 28
Waliopiga kura ni 106
Kura za ndio kwa msigwa 62
Kura za hapana ambazo zilipigia kivuli cha mgombea ni 44

Hii ikiwa na maana Ukichukua Kura 44 za Hapana dhidi ya Msigwa + na kura 28 za wajumbe waliosusia uchaguzi jumla yake ni =72 hivyo Sosospi tayari kama alikuwa mshindani alikuwa amejihakikishia ushindi kwa kura 78.

Kura zilizoongezeka kwa zile zilizopigwa ni 8 maana wapiga kura waliongezeka kutoka wapiga kura halali 98 na kuwa na wapiga kura wasio halali 8 waliofanya idadi kuongezeka na kuwa na wapiga kura 106.

Wajumbe waliopaswa kubaki ndani ukiondo waliokuwa wamekataa kuingia ndani ni 70

98-28=70.

Kwa maana halisi ni kwamba kulikuwa na wapiga kura 36 walioletwa na kuwa wajumbe wasio halali maana baada ya kura 44 za Hapana na wajumbe 28 kutoka ukumbini hivyo kulipaswa kupatikana kura za halali 28 ambazo ndizo kura za Ndio kwa Msigwa.

Hii inamaanisha kwamba katika hali ya kawaida hata kama wajumbe wale 28 wasingeingia kama walivyofanya Msigwa angeshinda kwa kura 26 tu kwa maana ya wajumbe waliopaswa kubaki ndani 70- wajumbe 44 waliomkutaa=26 ambayo ndio idadi ya kura za Msigwa katika uchaguzi huo.

kwa ufupi kwa kutumia wajumbe halali katika uchaguzi kama Sosospi asingetolewa uchaguzi ungemalizika hivi:

Sosopi 72 (73.5%)
Msigwa 26 (26.5%)

HITIMISHO

Nianze kwa kumnukuu Dkt Benson Bana wa Chuo Kikuu cha Dare s salaam ambaye amebobea katika masuala ya siasa alipokuwa akizungumza katika mkutano wa wadau wa siasa wa uimarishaji demokrasia ya vyama vingi.

Alisema pamoja na mafanikio hayo bado kuna mapungufu mengi hasa ya kutokuwa na utamaduni wa vyama vingi, utamaduni unaoambatana na vyama kuwa na aidolojia (itikadi), kukosekana kwa lugha za kistaarabu katika majukwaa ya siasa na hata mitafaruku ya ndani ya kivyama.

Mfumo wa vyama vingi ni hali ya kuwa na chama zaidi ya kimoja,katika nchi moja.Madhumuni ya kuwa na vyama vingi vya siasa ni kuleta ushindani wa kisiasa,ili kuleta maendeleo ya nchi,upinzani wa kisiasa sio uadui kama watu wengi kwenye nchi zinazoendelea wanavyodhani,kuwa na vyama vingi ni kuongeza wigo wa demokrasia katika jamii huska. Hata hivyo mara kadha amesema kuwa ili nchi yetu iweze kupiga hatua ni dhahiri lazima kuwe na Upinzani imara unaochukia Rushwa, na Uminyaji wa Demokrasia.

Binafsi sasa nakitoa Chama Cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo CHADEMA katika Ukuzaji wa Demokrasi kwa kauli ya Mbowe kwa kusema kuwa Mgombea Urais hachaguliwi bali anateuliwa jambo ambalo ameliongoza pia kwa kumteua Mwenyekiti wa Kanda ya Nyasa Mchungaji Msigwa badala ya kuruhusu wajumbe kugombea na kuchagua kiongozi wanaomtaka.

TANZANIA ina vyama vya siasa 21 vyenye usajili wa kudumu huku kikiwepo kimoja ambacho kina usajili wa muda. Vyama hivi vimepatikana baada ya mabadiliko madogo ya Katiba yaliyotoa fursa ya kurejesha mfumo wa vyama vingi katika nchi yetu mwaka 1992.

Kufuatia mabadiliko haya, Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) ndicho kilichokuwa cha kwanza kupata usajili wa kudumu mwaka 1992, huku kikifuatiwa na vyama vipya vya CUF, CHADEMA,UMD, NCCR, NLD, UPDP, NRA, TADEA NA TLP vilivyopata usajili wa kudumu mwaka 1993.

Vyama vingine na usajili wao kwenye mabano ni: UDP (1994), Demokrasia Makini (2001), CHAUSTA (2001), DP (2002), APPT(2003), Jahazi Asilia (2004), SAU (2005), AFP (2009), CCK (2012), ADC (2012), CHAUMMA (2013) na ACT (2014). RNP ni chama pekee kilichopo katika orodha ya vyama visivyo na usajili wa kudumu.

Katika vyama vyote hivi 21 mpaka sasa ni CHADEMA pekee ndicho kisichokuwa na Demokrasi kama ambavyo nimebainisha katika maeneo kadha wa kadha katika andiko langu.

Mwandishi Henry Mwangonde Aprili 23, 2014 katika gazeti la The Citizen, alimnukuu Dk. Benson Banna Katika makala yake ya “Vyama vingi vimeisaidia Tanzania” na kuandika; “vyama vya siasa nchini Tanzania havina nguvu katika kutanua mianya ya demokrasia kutokana na kukosa sera nzuri, mikakati pamoja na tabia ya viongozi wa vyama hivi kutokutumia mtaji wa wanachama wao kuviendeleza badala yake kuwatumia kwa masilahi binafsi.”

Kwa mujibu wa Dkt Bana katika makala hiyo; vyama hivi vimeshindwa kutanua miaya ya demokrasia kwa kuwa havina demokrasia ndani yake.

Ni aibu kubwa sana kwa CHADEMA chama kinachojificha katika Mwamvuli wa Demokrasia katika Karne hii ya 21 kusimamisha mgombea Kivuli/Jiwe na Mtu…! Na bado kivuli kinapata kura 44? Watu 28 wanaishia mitini? Mtu anapata kura 66 naye anarudi kumsimulia Mkewe na Watoto kwamba ameshinda uchaguzi.

Sasa hapa wachambuzi na wajuzi wa Siasa watahoji Tofauti ya CHADEMA na Yule mtu waliompa umaarufu kwa kumuita Bwana Yule upo wapi…? Lakini nimkumbushe Msigwa na CHADEMA kuwa raha na uzuri wa kura za Ndio na Hapana ni pale amabapo mshindi anaibuka kidedea kwa kura nyingi sio unapata kura 62 wakati zinakukataa ni kura 44 huku kura zingine 28 zikisusia namna ya Demokrasia ndani ya Chama.

Wakati vyama Vingine nchini vikiwa vinasonga mbele katika kuimarisha chaguzi zao za ndani ya Chama lakini CHADEMA wao wanarudi nyuma na kutoa mwanya kwa vyama vyenzake kusonga mbele.Naitazama CHADEMA kuanguka Kama umaarufu wa NCCR Mageuzi mwaka 1995.

Nitafurahi sana kuona na kusikia kauli za vijana mbalimbali wa CHADEMA wakiwemo UTG wakihoji kuhusiana na Uminyaji wa Demokrasia ndani ya chao chao CHADEMA ili tuzijue rangi zao katika kuhoji na kujenga hoja.

Mwandishi wa Makala haya ni Mathias Canal, Mchambuzi wa maswala ya jamii na siasa nchini Tanzania, Anapatikana kwa Barua Pepe ya canalmathias@gmail.com na kwa simu namba 0756413465

Source: HOTUBA,MAKALA, MAONI BINAFSI: MAKALA: CHAMA CHA DEMOKRASIA NA UBAKWAJI WA DEMOKRASIA HALISIA

 

[jingalao]

KWENU VIONGOZI WA CHADEMA TAIFA

UCHAGUZI KANDA YA NYASA UTAZAMWE UPYA,HALI NI TETE, UBAGUZI,FEDHA,NGUVU YA NAFASI,UCHU NA TAMAA YA MADARAKA ZINATAWALA NA SIO MAPENZI KWA CHADEMA.

Tunajua kwa sasa uchaguzi unaendelea wa kutafuta viongozi wa kanda,,ambazo katika nchi hii nzima kuna kanda 8 tu. Na kiongozi wa kwanza wa kanda kuchaguliwa atakua ni wa kanda ya kati.

Nataka haswa nizungumzie hali jinsi ilivyo kwa kanda ya Nyasa, ambayo ni kanda kubwa kuliko zote, yenye mikoa ya Iringa, Mbeya,Songwe,Njombe. Katika kanda hii kuna wagombea ambao wametangaza nia na wamepata ridhaa ya kushindania nafasi hiyo. Ila kuna mgombea mmoja sinto mtaja jina hapa, lakini nitamuelezea kwa undani kwa jinsi ambavyo amekua mwiba kwa chama katika mkoa wake na hii inatosha kumfanya asiwe kiongozi tunaemuhitaji kukiongoza chama kwa kanda nzima.

Uchaguzi wa kanda ya Nyasa unatarajiwa kufanyika mwezi December kama sio January baada ya chaguzi zingine. Lakini je! Chama kiko tayari kuona Kanda ya Nyasa inagawanyika na hata kupoteza makada wake kisa muheshimiwa fulani? La hasha haipaswi hata kidogo. Lazima muheshimiwa huyo azuiliwe na wenye dhamana ya kuchagua waambiwe ukweli wale wanaotoka maeneo ya mikoa jirani na anapoishi muheshimiwa huyo. Ambao hawaujui ukweli huu, wasipumbazwe na umaarufu wake.

Muheshimiwa huyo amekua uharibufu wa ndani kwa chama kwa sasa na uongozi taifa unalijua hilo.

KWANINI NI MUHARIBIFU:

1) Kwanza alianza kukataa makubaliano ya chama pale kiliposema hakitashirikiana na CCM nje na ndani ya Bunge lakini yeye alikiuka makubaliano hayo, na kushirikiana na CCM, na tabia hii ya kukiuka makubaliano na wenzake katika chama yalipelekea KUENGULIWA KWAKE kutoka KAMATI KUU YA CHAMA. Kwasasa muheshimiwa huyo hayupo kamati kuu tena. (Tafuteni mje ni nani huyo alienguliwa kamati kuu mwa huu na ni mbunge)

2) Mh. Huyo alipofuatwa na viongozi wenzake kama wakina Lissu na wakina Halima Mdee kwenye Group lao la wabunge wa CHADEMA na baadhi ya viongozi huko, aliwajibu wenzake kwa kiburi mpaka kufikia kusema "nyie wakina nani bhana" kisha aka left group

3) Amekua mchonganishi wa viongozi kwa viongozi ndani ya chama mkoani kwake(sinto utaja mkoa huo) ambako ndiko kikao cha uchaguzi kitafanyika kwa kanda ya Nyasa. Mh huyu hana mahusiano mazuri na viongozi wa chama mkoa, amefikia level ya hata kutoongea nao kwa sasa. Na bado anataka kua kiongozi wa kanda ya Nyasa, hii itazamwe upya.

4) Amekua akiwatukana CHASO mkoa kwamba wao ni Omba Omba, ile hali nilipoongea na uongozi uliopita wa CHASO mkoani humo. Walikanusha tuhuma hizo kwamba Mh. Hujawahi wapa support waliyo hiitaji kwako, na ulipotoa shilingi laki mbili walipo kwama mchago wa mahafali basi ikawa shida na walihitaji laki tano iliyopelea. CHASO inakulaumu kwa tabia zako za kujiweka juu kuliko chama na kukidharau chama. Amekua mtumia lugha ya matusi sana kwa viongozi wenzake, hujibu kwa dhihaka anapokosolewa..na mnukuu alipowahi mjibu mwenyekiti wa CHASO pale mwenyekiti huyo alipoomba mchango, muheshimiwa alijibu "huwezi fuga mbwa kwa mavi ya mlevi" akimaanisha mbwa ni CHASO mfugaji ni CHADEMA na fedha ni MAVI alafu yeye ndio MLEVI. Kama kafikia hapo kuwajibu viongozi wanaokijenga chama vyuoni kwa wasomi hivyo inakuaje kwa wasiopo katika elimu za juu?

5) Umekua ukiudharau uongozi wa BAVICHA kuanzi mkoa mpaka wawakilishi wa kitaifa waliopo mkoani kwako.

6) Kwa muda wote wa kua mbunge haujawahi kukitetea chama katika nia ya kukijenga nje ya jimbo lako, umekua ukibishana sana na uongozi wa mkoa kwenda maeneo kadha wa kadha kukijenga CHAMA na umewekeza nguvu nyingi jimboni kwako kwa maslahi yako tu ya ubunge.

7) Haujawa dira ya umoja katika chama, unakumbuka ulipoombwa na CHASO uwe mgeni rasmi ukakataa, na ulipoombwa umuombe Godbless Lema aje, ulikataa na ukasema hakuna mbunge anaeweza kuja mkoani mwako bila idhini yako? Mpaka mahafali yalihairishwa na wana CHASO na BAVICHA wakaumia sana dhidi yako?
Ulikataa kufanya maandalizi ya lile KONGAMANO lililohusu "HALI YA MKWAMO WA KISIASA ZANZIBAR" lililo andaliwa na BAVICHA kupitia CHASO mpaka BAVICHA kupitia CHASO wakaamua kumuomba Tindu Lissu mbunge wa jimbo la mkoa mwingine aje, na Lissu bila hiana alikuja. Na wewe kwa aibu ukaja kwenye mdahalo huo tena ukajiweka high table. Mh. Umepotoka na hautufai kutuongoza kanda ya Nyasa.

MH NA DHANA YA UBAGUZI

1) UBAGUZI WA KUIHUBIRI FEDHA NDANI YA CHAMA. Umekaririwa ukitamka matamshi ya kibaguzi dhidi ya mgombea mwenzako katika kinyang'anyiro hicho(video clip tunayo) umesema, hutuwezi kua na kiongozi wa kanda asiye na PESA? Je! CHADEMA kwa sasa imeamua kuihubiri pesa na kumuona mtu huyu afanyalo ni sahihi? CHAMA TAIFA FUATILIENI UKWELI HUU WAITENI WATU WA CHAMA WATASEMA UKWELI, MH huyo amewa bagua watu kwa tuhuma za kuwapa pesa baadhi ya watakaopiga kura ili wampigie kura (Mh achunguzwe)

2) UZAWA, Mh. Huyo amenadi ubaguzi wa kiuzawa kwamba mpinzani wake katika nafasi hiyo si mwenye asili ya Nyasa, kwakua tu ana asili ya Kimasai. Amejaribu kumuundia ubaguzi huo ili yeye achaguliwe.

DHUMUNI KUU LA MH. HUYO

Mpaka tunaadika makala hii, dhumuni haswa la Mh. Huyo ni kuitaka nafasi ya yeye kua mjumbe wa kamati kuu na sio kukijenga chama (Trust me). Kwakua amepoteza sifa za kua kwenye kamati kuj kupitia sifa ya ubunge wake. Sasa kwakua anatambua ukiwa Mwenyekiti wa kanda inakupa sifa za kua mjumbe wa kamati kuu moja kwa moja ndio maana mh. Huyo amepagawa na kusaka nafasi hiyo adhimj kwa kila njia na hila.

WANA NYASA MUWE MAKINI MTAKIUA CHAMA NA KUWAGAWA WATU,KWA KUMUOGOPA MTU AMA KUMPIGIA KURA KISA UMAARUFU WAKE.

USHAURI WANGU KWA CHADEMA.

Najua mnamjua mlengwa kusudiwa wa andiko hili, sasa ili asikivuruge chama huku NYASA ni heri mumpe huo UJUMBE WA KAMATI KUU TAIFA anakolenga. Mpeni tu kwa kupitia sifa ya ubunge wake. Asikivuruge chama, tumemuheshimu lakini inatosha, ataharibu mkimpa nafasi hiyo nyeti. Mh. Kwasasa hana mapenzi na chama tena, bali ni pesa na vyeo.

Mdau huyu aliwaonya

 

[THINKINGBEING]

Ni vigumu sana kuirekebisha CHADEMA kutokana na unafiki wa wanachama wake.
Wapo tayari chama kife kuliko waone ukimkosoa Mbowe

 

[juvenile davis]

Tatizo la wanachama wa chama changu ni uelewa,,ukikosoa mambo kama hayo utaonekana msariti,hadi wengine wanakutukana,wapo tayari kila anachofanya.Mbowe kuona ni sahihi

 

[zithromax]

Chadema kiruki kilikotoka (kwa kufuta Kamati Ndogo ya Kamati Kuu)

Na Kondo Tutindaga
MwanaHALISI
Toleo na. 371, uk. 3.

Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Chadema), kimehitimisha ziara zake katika kanda tano, kati ya nane inaoziunda.

Kanda ambazo chama kimemaliza ziara zake ni pamoja na Kanda ya Kati(Dodoma, Morogoro na Singida); Magharibi (Kigoma, Tabora na Katavi); Kusini (Lindi, Mtwara na Ruvuma); na Nyasa(Iringa, Njombe, Mbeya, Songwe na Rukwa).

Miongoni mmwa kazi zilizofanyika ni kusimika viongozi—wenyeviti wa kanda, makamu wenyeviti na wahazini.

Hata hivyo, mvutano mkali ulikuwa katika kinyang’anyiro cha kumtafuta mwenyekiti wa Kanda ya Nyasa. Hapa wanasiasa wawili mashuhuri wa ndani ya chama hicho, walijitokeza kuwania nafasi hiyo.

Hawa ni Patrick Ole-Sosopi, makamu Mwenyekiti wa Baraza la Vijana la Chadema (BAVICHA) na Mbunge wa Iringa Mjini, Mchungaji Peter Msigwa. Lakini, kinyume na matarajio ya walio wengi, “Kamati Ndogo ya Kamati Kuu,” ilitangaza kumuengua Sosopi na kumpitisha Msigwa kuwa mgombea bila kuwa na mshindani.

Mwenyekiti wa Taifa wa Chadema, Freeman Mbowe, alinukuliwa akisema, “uamuzi wa kumkata Sosopi umefikiwa kwa maslahi mapana ya chama.”

Binafsi, naheshimu maamuzi ya Kamati Kuu (CC), lakini kamwe sikubaliani na kilichofanyika, siyo leo, kesho na hata milele, kwa sababu tatu kubwa.

Kwanza, kitendo kilichofanyika, ni ubakaji wa wazi wa demokrasia ndani ya chama hicho. Hakijawahi kufanyika hata wakati wa ukandamizaji wa mfumo wa chama kimoja.

Wakati huo, wananchi hawakuachwa kuchagua mtu na kivuli. Kulisimishwa wagombea wawili, mmoja alitumia alama ya jembe na mwingine nyundo.

Wala maslahi ya chama hayawezi kuwa ni kumwondoa Sosopi na kumpitisha Msigwa. Maslahi ya chama yako mbali zaidi ya hapo.

Ndiyo maana hata Mbowe mwenyewe ameshindwa kueleza anachokiita “maslahi mapana ya chama,” yanaweza vipi kuharibiwa na Sosopi, lakini yakalindwa na Msigwa.

Pili, nguvu ya chama tawala—Chama cha Mapinduzi—bado ni kubwa sana. Ndicho kilichowaapisha na kuwaweka madarakani viongozi wa ngazi za juu wa vyombo vya dola, yaani majeshi, Mahakama na wengineo.

Baadhi yao wakati wanapitia kwenye michakato ya siri ya kuingizwa katika vyombo nyeti, ilibidi wapate sahihi za viongozi wa chama kila ngazi.

Wengine, wanakiheshimu chama hicho kuliko aliyewateua na kuwaapisha! Tunawaona wanavyohangaika kuokoa chama hiki kwenye chaguzi mbalimbali, ikiwamo nafasi ya umeya kwenye Halmashauri za Miji na Manispaa. Wanajua bila chama hawatakuwa na kazi. Chadema ni wahanga wakubwa katika hili.

Tatu, Chadema bado ni chama kichanga mno. Hakina dola na hivyo hakitaweza kuhimili vishindo vinavyotokana na tuhuma za ukiukwaji wa demokrasia.

Mathalani, wapo wanachama wa viongozi wa ndani ya chama hiki waliotoka CCM, wakiwamo mawaziri wakuu wawili wastaafu, Edward Lowassa na Frederick Sumaye.

Sumaye na Lowassa waliondoka CCM kutokana na kutoridhika na uvunjifu wa demokrasia. Sumaye alijiondoa CCM baada ya kukishutumu kuharibu taratibu katika kumpata mgombea urais.

Akisema, ndani ya chama hicho kuna watu wachache wanaokwenda kwenye vikao na majina ya wagombea mfukoni, kinyume na taratibu na kanuni za chama.

Kwamba, katika mfumo huu, mtu mwenye nafasi ya juu akitaka akuingize kwenye uongozi anaweza kufanya hivyo na kama hataki anakuondoa.

Lingine ambalo limemuondoa ndani ya chama hicho ni gonjwa la rushwa. Alisema, ukipinga rushwa unaonekana tatizo.

Naye Lowassa aliondoka CCM kwa sababu zinazofanana na Sumaye. Jina lake liliondolewa kwenye kinyang’anyiro cha urais, bila hata kuhojiwa.

Hivyo basi, ikiwa Chadema itaendelea kuendekeza utaratibu huu kwa kuwa kuna baadhi ya viongozi wanataka kumbeba mgombea wao, hakutakuwa na sababu ya wanaopinga “udikteta wa CCM” kuendelea kuwa Chadema.

Wanawezaje kusimama kumtuhumu mwenyekiti wa chama walichokikimbia aliyetoa majina ya wagombea wake wa urais mfukoni, wakati huko waliko mwenyekiti wao amekuja na jina la mgombea kwenye mkoba wa kokoa?

Nani anaweza kusimama na kusema Rais John Pombe Magufuli kuwa anadumaza demokrasia, wakti ndani ya chama chao baadhi ya watu wanabebwa kwa mbeleko?

Msigwa aliachwa na viongozi wakuu kuvuruga taratibu na kanuni. Aliruhusiwa kuzunguka karibu mikoa yote inayounda kanda hiyo, kujitangaz kwa wapiga kura.

Alitumia mitandao ya kijamii na magazeti kumshambulia mshindani wake. Akawatumia baadhi ya wabunge kumfanyia kampeni na wengine wakiwemo wajumbe wa Kamati Kuu (CC), kutoa machapisho yanayomuunga mkono. Akawananga kwa matusi baadhi ya wagombea wenake na waliokuwa wanampinga.

Lakini, pamoja na vituko vyote hivyo, hata pale viongozi wakuu wa Chadema walipoamua kumbakisha pekee, matokeo ya uchaguzi yaliyotangazwa yalimwacha mwmanasiasa huyo na waliombeba midomo wazi.

Wajumbe wengi walimnyima kura. Alipata kura 62 kati ya 106 zilizopigwa. Wajumbe 44 walimpinga. Ujumbe ulifikishwa unakotakiwa.

Kwa kujibu wa taarifa za ndani ya chama hicho, jina la Sosopi liliondolewa kwa kuwa anatoka Kaskazini. Kuruhusu dhambi ya aina hii kujitokeza ndani ya chama hiki, kutaweza kukiangamiza chama chenyewe na viongozi wake.

Kwamba, katika karne ya 25, wanaojiita waumini wa demokrasia, ndio wanakuwa vinara wa kupitisha mgombea kwa kura ya ndio au hapana.

Msigwa alikuwa hapambani kushika mafasi hiyo kwa sababu anataka kujenga chama katika eneo lake. La hasha. Kama angetaka kufanya hivyo, angeweza kufanya hivyo miaka 10 iliyopita.

Alitaka uenyekiti wa kanda ili kumwezesha kuingia Kamati Kuu (CC), kulinda ubunge wake na kuwa na ushawishi kwenye uteuzi wa wabunge wa viti maalum. Hicho ndicho alichokuwa anakitafuta.

Ni vema basi, Chadema kikarudi kuwa chama cha umma, badala ya utaratibu wa sasa wa kutaka kukifanya kuwa chama cha viongozi au mtu mmoja.

Yawezekana nguvu ya kiongozi ni ya muhimu sana. Yaweza kuwa na maono(kama ya Baba wa Taifa); yaweza kuwa ya ubabe (kama ya Mkapa); yaweza kuwa nguvu ya uungwana (kama ya Kikwete na Mwinyi); lakini nguvu hiyo inabidi aiuze kwa viongozi wenzake kwa njia ya kuwashawishi, sio kuwatisha.

Hivyo, wote wanaopiga makofi na kushangilia midomoni lakini mioyoni wakiwa wamenuna kwa woga, wanafanya makosa makubwa yatayokigharimu chama na wao wenyewe pale mambo yanapogeuka. Tuombe Mungu wasifike huko.

kondotuti@gmail.com

mim na wasiwasi hata na 62 % ya kura kama alifikisha hiyo alama

 

[Deus J. Kahangwa]

USALITI WA DEMOKRASIA KTK CHADEMA: Baada ya Kuvuruga Kura za Maoni ya Ubunge, Kuchakachua Ubunge Viti Maalum na Kukata Wagombea Kanda ya Nyasa, Sasa Wanahamia Wapi?

Na Deusdedith Jovin Kahangwa
Simu: 07583414483/0659654692/0682702333
Toleo la: 27 Decemba 2016.

Akiandika kupitia gazeti la MwanaHALISI toleo namba 371, ukurasa wa tatu, mwandishi Kondo Tutindaga ameitaka “Chadema kirudi kilikotoka,” kwa maana ya kuachana na tabia yake ya kuitumia “Kamati Ndogo ya Kamati Kuu,” chombo kisicho na uhalali wa kikatiba, kubaka demokrasia.

Ubakaji wa demokrasia anaouongelea Tutindaga umetokea wakati Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Chadema) kinaendelea na kujijenga kupitia ziara za kikanda, ambapo, katika kila Kanda, kimesimika Mwenyeviti wa Kanda, Makaimu Mwenyeviti wa Kanda na Mhazini wa Kanda.

Tayari Chadema wamemaliza kazi hii katika Kanda ya Kati (Dodoma, Morogoro na Singida); Magharibi (Kigoma, Tabora na Katavi); Kusini (Lindi, Mtwara na Ruvuma); na Nyasa (Iringa, Njombe, Mbeya, Songwe na Rukwa).

Katika kinyang’anyiro cha kumtafuta mwenyekiti wa Kanda ya Nyasa ndiko ubakaji wa demokrasia unaolalamikiwa ulipofanyika.

Hapa wanasiasa wawili ndani ya chama hicho, walijitokeza kuwania nafasi hiyo. Kuna Patrick Ole-Sosopi, makamu Mwenyekiti wa Baraza la Vijana la Chadema (BAVICHA) na Mbunge wa Iringa Mjini, Mchungaji Peter Msigwa.

Lakini, wakati maandalizi ya uchaguzi yakiendelea, “Kamati Ndogo ya Kamati Kuu” ya Chadema ilitangaza kumuengua Sosopi na kumpitisha Msigwa kuwa mgombea pekee ili apigiwe kura za “ndiyo na hapana.”

Kwa mujibu wa kauli ya Mwenyekiti wa Taifa wa Chadema, Freeman Mbowe, “uamuzi wa kumkata Sosopi umefikiwa kwa kuzingatia hoja kadhaa kuhusu maslahi mapana ya chama,” hoja mojawapo ikiwa inahusu ukweli kwamba, kwa asili, Sosopi anatoka Kanda ya Kaskazini.

Kwa mujibu wa matokeo rasmi, Mchungaji Msigwa, alipata kura 62 kati ya 106 zilizopigwa, wajumbe 44 wakimpinga. Yaliyompata Sosopi mwaka huu, ndiyo yalinipata mwaka jana wakati nagombea ubunge wilayani Karagwe kupitia Chadema.

Mwaka jana ilikuwa ni mara yangu ya pili kugombea ubunge baada ya kutotangazwa mshindi mwaka 2010. Kwa sababu hii, mwaka 2011 niliamua kurudi Wilayani kabisa ili nijiimarishe. Nilipata kibarua kama mwalimu katika shule moja kwa ajili ya kutafutia nauli pale. Ndani ya chama Wilayani nilipewa kazi ya Afisa Mipango wa Chadema.

Nikaandaa mpango wa kazi kwa kuzingatia kanuni inazohusiana na “strategic local resources mobilization.” Nilijifunza kanuni hizi wakati nafanya kazi kama mtafiti msaidi wa Dk. Wilson Babyebonela, alipokuwa anafanya tasnifu ya uzamivu juu ya usombaji wa taka ngumu katika Wilaya ya Kinondoni (solid waste management). Kitaaluma mimi ni mtalaam wa ICT. Hivyo, nilimsaidia katika upande wa “documentation and data processing.”

Niliandaa mpango kazi mzuri sana. Utekelezaji wake ulizinduliwa na Kamati ya Utendaji ya Wilaya kupitia kikao kilichomalizika kama saa saba mchana. Saa tisa tulimsikia Katibu Mwenezi wa CCM redio Fadeco akiusoma na kuwataka wananchi wasitupe ushirikiano.

Hapo nikajua tulikuwa tunafanyiwa ukachera bila kujua. Lakini hakuishia hapo. Taarifa zaidi zinasema, nakala ilipelekwa kwa Katibu Mkuu wa CCM, Abdurahaman Kinana, na siku hiyo hiyo akaanza kuzunguka Tanzania nzima kuutekeleza.

Sio hivyo tu, hata Chadema Taifa waliupenda mpango kazi wa Wilaya ya Karagwe niliouandaa. Hivyo, mpango wa Chadema Taifa uliokuwa umeandaliwa siku chache kupitia mkutano maalum uliofanyika mwanza, ukatupwa na mpango kazi wa Wilaya ya Karagwe ukaboreshwa na kuwa mpango kazi wa Chadema Taifa. Utekelezaji ukaendelea.

Hata hivyo, utekelezaji wake uligonga kisiki kimoja kikubwa. Baadhi ya wakubwa Chadema Makao Makuu hawakupenda wazo la “strategic local resources mobilization.” Kwani, lilikuwa linamaanisha kwamba rasilimali zilizoko makao makuu zitumwe Wilayani ili kuwaongezea nguvu walioko huko.

Hii maana yake ni kwamba, wakubwa hawa wangekosa DSA ambazo walizizoea pale walipokuwa wakisafiri kwenda Wilayani kama “consultants” kutoka Makao Makuu. Kwa sababu hii, Kinana wa CCM akafanikiwa kuwa mbele ya Dk Slaa wa Chadema, japo wote walikuwa wanatekeleza mkakati ule ule moja niliouandaa.

Hata hivyo, katika ngazi ya Wilaya ya Karagwe mambonyaliosonga mbele vizuri. Nilisimamia ujenzi wa uongozi katika ngazi za misingi, matawi, kata mpaka wilaya. Sikukata tamaa. Nilisonga mbele. Agosti 2015 kura za maoni zikafanyika. Tulikuwa wagombea kumi, baadhi wakiwa mabilionea. Nikawabwaga wote pamoja na vijisenti vyangu kiduchu.

Baada ya kura za maoni kufanyika, majina matatu yakapelekwa Makao Makuu ya Chadema, Mtaa wa Ufipa KInondoni, kwa ajili ya uthibitisho wa Kamati Kuu, kwa mujibu wa Katiba ya Chadema 2006.

Ushindi wangu kupitia kura za maoni Karagwe haukukatiwa rufaa na mtu yoyote. Hivyo, sikuwa na sababu ya kusafiri hadi Dar es Salaam kufuatilia kikao cha Kamati Kuu. Lakini nilitoka Karagwe nikahamia makao makuu ya Mkoa, Bukoba ili niweze kuwa nanusa nusa yanayojiri kwa ukaribu, kupitia mifumo ya mawasiliano iliyomo ndani ya chama.

Niliondoka Bukoba kurudi Karagwe baada ya kuthibitisha mambo mawili. Kwanza, jina langu lilipitishwa na Kamati ya Usalama ya Taifa iliyoongozwa na Mkurugenzi wa Usalama wa Taifa, Wilfred Rwakatare.

Pili, jina langu lilipitishwa na Kamati Kuu ya Chadema iliyoongozwa na Freeman Mbowe. Baada ya hapo hapakuwa na kikao kingine chenye mamlaka ya kikatiba kutengua maamuzi hayo.

Hata hivyo, maamuzi hayo yalichezewa kupitia Kamati Ndogo ya Kamati Kuu iliyoteuliwa kwa ajili ya kusimamia mgawanyo wa majimbo na kata ndani ya UKAWA. Wilaya ya Karagwe haukuwa na mgombea ubunge kutoka vyama vingine vya UKAWA.

Hivyo, JIna la mgombea ubunge wa Karagwe halikupaswa kuguswa na Kamati Ndogo ya Kamati Kuu. Lakini bado madudu yalifanyika.

Kamati ile ndogo, ya Mtaa wa Ufipa Kinondoni, ilifuta jina langu na kumchomeka mshindi namba mbili. Niliwauliza viongozi wa ngazio zote wa Chadema kuhusu sababu ya jina langu kukatwa sikupata majibu.

Kwa hasira nilihamia TLP ili kupata fursa ya kupinga uonevu huo kwa vitendo jukwaani, na hivyo kuimarisha demokrasia kwa njia ya hoja.

Na mpaka leo sijawahi kupewa sababu na kiongozi yeyote wa Chadema kuhusu jambo hili lililokiuka Katiba ya Chadema inayoongelea “mamlaka na nguvu ya umma.”

Utafiti wangu ulionyesha kuwa, hata kama ni kinyume cha utaratibu, jina langu lilikatwa kutokana na maagizo ya Mwenyekiti wa Chadema, Freeman Mbowe, kutokana na hoja ya “kulinda maslahi mapana ya chama.” Mwaka mmoja baadaye, sababu ile ile sasa imetumika tena kubaka demokrasia huko Nyasa.

Ninapoyaangalia matukio haya, ninayo tafsiri moja. Ndani ya Chadema, bado maamuzi mengi hayatokani na itikadi wala falsafa ya chama iliyotamkwa kwenye katiba. Jambo hili linaifanya Chadema ishindwe kutekelezwa jukumu lake kama sehemu ya jumuiya ya kiraia katika kuisimamia serikali.

Demokrasia ya vyama vingi ni kama mwavuli. Mwavuli huwa na “spokes” kadhaa kwa ajili ya kuunyoosha. Spoke mojawapo ikifyatuka au kulegea, mwavuli hulegea pia. Kama mvua ikinyesha basi, ni balaa. Hii ndiyo mantiki ya vyama vingi vilivyo imara. Na uimara wa chama ni falsa, itikadi na sera zake.

Napendekeza kina Mashinji, Edward Lowassa na Frederick Sumaye waanzie hapa katika kuikarabati Chadema.

Lakini pia wasisahau kuwa, Chadema ya sasa inahitaji damu mpya katika Kamati Kuu na Sektreatriati. Kwa sasa pale mtaa wa Ufipa kuna “compromisers” wengi. Hawa wanajenga kwa mkono wa kushoto na kubomoa kwa mkono wa kulia.

Ni hawa hawa waliobadilisha mara nne orodha ya majina ya wagombea ubunge wa viti maalum yaliyokuwa yanapelekwa NEC mwaka jama. Tufike mahali tusema “enough is enough” kwa faida ya uhai wa demokrasia nchini.

Kwa hapa itoshe kusema kuwa, pamoja na kwamba upinzani unaweza kuingia kulu kirahisi mwaka 2020 endapo kuna vyama vichache, lakini hilo haliondoi ukweli kuwa, uwepo wa vyaka vingi vya upinzani unafanikisha utendaji wa civil society as a gate-keeper, a watch-man and an agenda-setter.

Hivyo, kunahitajika mfumo wa sheria unaoruhusu mambo yote mawili kwa pamoja. Kwanza, hili la pili liwezekane kati ya uchaguzi mkuu mmoja na uchaguzi mkuu mwingine. Na pili, hilo la kwanza liwezekane wakati wa uchaguzi mkuu.