Deus J. Kahangwa
Senior Member
- Jan 7, 2013
- 189
- 122
Of political discourse and media's bifurcation between equivocity and univocity: Did Magufuli ban all forms of political discourse?
In the alternative, he encouraged indirect political discourses through the parliament, district councils and ward development councils, where the elected politicians can compete through formal arguments, both written and oral. He said nothing about direct democracy at the Local Government Authority level. (Check the video: Video)
The next morning, it was too obvious that the most active segment of the civil society--the media-- either misunderstood the logic of the President’s statement or deliberately engaged in self-misdirection for ulterior motives.
The term “civil society” refers to institutions that are ‘private’, in that they are independent from government and organized by individuals in pursuit of their own ends. Civil society therefore refers to a realm of autonomous groups and associations: businesses, interest groups, clubs, families and so on.
For example, Mtanzania daily newspaper reported, “Mafufuli: Hakuna siasa hadi 2020,” literally meaning, “Magufuli says no politics until 2020.” Similarly, all other media houses fell into the same trap of public disinformation in the name of their preferred strategic ambiguity by equivocating on the word "politics."
In the same spirit of strategic ambiguity, Zitto Zuberi Kabwe, the ACT-Wazalendo Supreme leader slammed the President for declaring a war on multiparty democracy by allegedly banning all forms of political discourse. Professor Kitila Mkumbo too, through his recent article in Raia Mwema newspaper, has accused the President of virtually banning all forms of political discourse until 2020.
As a result of this widespread misrepresentation of the Presidents statements, the general public has ultimately been made to believe the same—that, the President has banned all forms of political discourse until 2020.
Due to this disinformation through the Tanzania’s media, Chadema’s youth wing (BAVICHA) and CCM’s youth wings (UVCCM) are now in a fierce linguistic war as to whether the forthcoming CCM’s national convention is violative of the president’s directive or not. BAVICHA believes holding the convention will violate the president’s directive, while UVCCM thinks not. I think UVCCM is right and BAVICHA is wrong. Let me explain.
It appears to me that, when the president said that "wanasiasa...wafanye siasa za ushindani kwa nguvu zote baada ya miaka mitano" he was referring to "direct political discourse" as opposed to "indirect political discourse" --direct democracy as opposed to indirect democracy. At a national level, "direct political discourse" takes place between politicians and voters in the form of “electoral politics” which allow the society to vote new leaders into key offices.
So, it is right to say that, by his statement, the President banned “electoral politics" at a national level in the present post-election period. He said nothing about indirect political discourses.
In other words, he did not ban indirect political discourses both at a national and sub-national levels. National conventions and other indoor meetings in accordance with the constitutions of political parties are not direct political discourses. Thus they were not banned by the president.
It is my hope that, this line of reasoning will most probably stand out clearly if we look at the definition of the word “politics” and the related doctrine that "man is a political animal."
ON ARISTOTLE'S DOCTRINE THAT MAN IS A POLITICAL ANIMAL
Aristotle, judging by his writings, was extremely interested in contemplating the nature of man. Man’s role in society and the motivations that drive him to act in certain ways under certain conditions clearly held a great fascination for him.
Indeed, his two great works, Politics, believed to have been written about 350 B.C., and Nicomachean Ethics, written about 340 B.C., include protracted and well-reasoned discussions regarding this very question.
It was in the earlier of those two works, Politics, in which Aristotle penned one of his most well-known and oft-cited quotes, that “man is by nature a political animal.” In beginning his protracted rumination of politics and the nature of man, and placing Aristotle squarely in the context in which he lived (ancient Greece) he first ponders the manner in which man forms communities, and how those communities are structured.
He reasons that, it is natural for every mature and conscious human person to desire to know the what-ness, where-ness, when-ness, why-ness, who-ness, whose-ness and how-ness of valuable things. Hence, his conclusion:
“Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always acts in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.”
Having established his position with regard to the manner in which man congregates and forms communities and their political corollary, the state, Aristotle then delves deeper into the nature by which animals in general, and man in particular, form such communities. Animals naturally form communities; man is an animal; states, collections of individual villages, are political entities; therefore, man is a political animal. To again quote Aristotle on this point in Book 1 of Politics:
“It is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. . .Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. . .And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust . . . and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state.”
In conclusion, then, we can say that, Aristotle’s statement that “man is a political animal” can be taken in one of the two major ways. One reading is to say that man is naturally sociable and that they are naturally drawn to various political associations in order to satisfy their social needs.
And another reading, which sees the word “political” in a less charitable light, might state that, since politics is based upon violence and threats of violence, the phrase emphasizes the “animal” side of human nature rather than its rational and cooperative side.
However, those who turn their back on the violence inherent in politics, in Aristotle’s view, also turn their back on society, declaring themselves to be outlaws, without a “tribe”, and without a heart.
Apart from Aristotle, many other philsophers have spoken about politics too. For example, According to the Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung, “Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.”
According to the Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz, “War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means.”
David Easton in his “A Systems Analysis of a Political Life(1965)” states that “A political system can be designated as those interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society."
Hannah Arendt in his “The Human Condition (1958)” states that: “To be political, to be in polis means that everything is decided through words and persuasion and not through force and violence.”
Harold Lasswell speaks of politics in terms of “Who Gets What, When and How” through his book entitled “Politics: Who Gets What, When and How? which was published in 1958.
And one of the leading modern exponents of political philosophy, Bernard Crick, through his classic study In Defence of Politics(1962/2000), offered the following definition: "Politics is the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival of the whole community."
In general, then, while the relationship between war and politics is often quite close, there is a world of difference between non-violent and violent means to achieve one’s objectives. But recognizing how close these two essential human dynamics are to each other should elevate our appreciation for the importance of a healthy and robust politics in our societies and lives.
MY DEFINITION OF POLITICS
Against this extended background, it seems proper for me to define general politics as follows:
Politics is a process in which a community of two or more persons, employ either coercive or non-coercive methods of power deployment to shape each others' behaviors, as they make decisions on who produces, distributes and consumes what goods, when, where, how and why, thereby making sure that, each and every interest group gets an opportunity to allocate and control goods in proportion to its power of persuasion or coercion, as the case may be.
In this definition, the key words/phrases are: power, community, goods, what, when, where, how, and why. I shall discuss the significance of each in turn.
The key word “POWER” in this definition should be understood in the sense it was used by Max Weber and Robert Dahl.
According to Robert A. Dahl through his book entitled “The Concept of Power” (1957), “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.”
And according to Max Weber, "Power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his will despite resistance from others, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests."
Thus, we can say that power is the ability to cause effect, where this ability is the difference (C) between the ability (A) of an actor and the resistance (B) from others, which allows the actor to carry out his will in cooperation with others who would otherwise not cooperate.
In terms of debates and argumentation the key types of power at issue are informational power (epistemological power), logical power, referent power, traditional power, and charismatic power, where the first type feeds into the latter categories.
The keyword "GOODS" means any sought-after value in life. It refers to any object, activity, idea, principle, goal, or other phenomenon upon which large numbers of people place appreciable value, something which is considered by many individuals and groups within the political community to be desirable, attractive, useful, rewarding, beneficial, or advantageous.
One set of goods may be tangible, or material, in form, that is, in the form of money, property, or other economic goods, services, and conditions. Another set of goods may be intangible; that is, the goods may be symbolic, ideological, cultural, ethical, moral, or religious in character.
Examples of intangible goods in politics include the expressed goals of political activists who assert that they are concerned primarily with "social" or "family" issues, that they seek mainly to promote and defend "social" or "family" values.
The keyword “WHO” refers to the winner-loser-contestant in a political conflict, for example, Magufuli versus Lowasa in an electoral contest, MP’s versus MP’s in a medicare budget fight, two or more aspiring managers in a match of office politics, or a neighborhood civic group versus a real estate developer in a community zoning dispute.
The keyword “WHAT” relates to the stakes in the battle, for example, preservation of an endangered species in an environmental politics fight, creation of a voting district designed to empower a particular group in a redistricting process, or custody of the family dog in the personal politics surrounding a contested divorce.
The keyword “WHEN” suggests that timing often can be a critical element in determining the achievement of a political goal. For example, maneuvering one’s boss for a pay raise will be a lot more difficult after an unfavorable earnings report; promoting passage of a death penalty statute may be substantially more successful after a grisly and callous murder.
The keyword “WHERE” indicates that political possibilities may differ from one terrain to the next. For example, passing gay rights legislation in America will be easier than in conservative Tanzania; locating a halfway house for substance abusers in a highly organized and affluent suburb can be much more difficult than in a poorly organized and disadvantaged neighborhood; paying hospitals for providing the same service will result in different levels of payment for urban teaching versus rural community institutions; getting one’s spouse to spend time with the in-laws may be easier if those relatives live in the same geographic area as opposed to an island in the Caribbean.
The keyword “WHY” synthesizes all of the above to explain why some person, group, or other entity (1) got what they wanted, (2) did not get what they wanted, (3) got what they did not want, or (4) did not get what they did not want.
And the key phrase “NON-COERCIVE FORMS OF POWER” places democratic politics on a continuum of methods by which rgoods within a society are distributed.
At one end of the continuum is democratic political action in a polity; while at the other end are violence, dictatorship, and war where normal civic functions in a polity have been eliminated .
In other words, this is to say that, in figuring out how to allocate resources in society, a democratic political action is an alternative to a violent political action . At each end of this political spectrum we have a Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreements (BATNA) which is violent by nature.
At one extreme we the state, where the state's BATNA is organized violence through coercive state organs in their collectivity. They include the army, police form and intelligence service units.
At the other extreme we have the civil society, where the Civil Society's BATNA is organized violence in the form of "People's Power" manifesting itself through demonstrations and public rallies. Whenever "People's Power" overrides the power of coercive state organs a civil revolution is said to occur.
So, we can say that, there are two major types of politics: Pure democratic politics and pure non-democratic politics. Pure democratic politics employ non-coercive power, while pure non-democratic politics use coercive power. They form two extremes of a power deployment spectrum running from coercive power to non-coercive power.
My essay is about pure democratic politics. And against this background, I will define the phrase “pure democratic politics” as follows:
Pure democratic politics refers to any process whereby a community of two or more persons, decide on who produces, distributes and uses what goods, when, where, how, and why, by using non-coercive methods of power deployment such as logical and emotional appeals, thereby making sure that, each and every interest group gets an opportunity to allocate and control goods in proportion to its power of persuasion.
In terms of this understanding, politics is seen as a particular means of resolving conflict: that is, conflict resolution by compromise, conciliation and negotiation, rather than through force and naked power. This is what is implied when politics is portrayed as “the art of the possible.”
Such a definition is inherent in the everyday use of the term. For instance, the description of a solution to a problem as a “political” solution implies peaceful debates, negotiations, and meditations, as opposed to what is often called a “military” solution.
This concludes the bigger part of my expository analysis of the word “politics.” But it is not all. One helpful way to test the usefulness of a definition is to try it out with familiar categories. Following are some recognizable categories of politics presented here to test the definition of politics as the way people decide who gets what, when, where, how and why, but without resorting to violence.
DEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL POLITICS
Who gets the office—public or private—after being chosen by vote? This could be the Tanzania’s president, MP, councilor, school committee member, ward committee chairman, student council president, labor union secretary treasurer, condominium association president, chair of a local gay rights organization, minister, or thousands and thousands of other positions.
DEMOCRATIC BUDGET POLITICS
Who gets what levels of resources from federal, state, county, municipal, or private budgets, for what purposes, and from whom? Governments obtain their revenues from a variety of sources and then pursue a political process to determine how those funds will be allocated. In government, for example, choices are made among uses such as education, municipal aid, prisons, health needs, environmental programs, transportation and public works, tax cuts, public assistance, courts, and much more. Each one of these uses has a host of interest groups, lobbyists, and activists determined to get the largest possible share of the pie.
HEALTH CARE POLITICS
How much money is allocated for health purposes, and how are those funds distributed to, for example, hospitals, physicians, health plans, home health programs, public health initiatives, and community health centers? Within each of these categories, controversies also emerge concerning who gets what: teaching versus community versus rural versus public hospitals; primary-care physicians versus specialists; inpatient versus outpatient services; home and community versus institutional services. Who gets what rights when they belong to a managed-care organization? Who gets the right to have physician-assisted suicide?
REDISTRICTING POLITICS
Who gets what populations and borders when the time comes to redraw political district boundaries? Officeholders will seek to get and hold onto as many like-minded voters as possible and to minimize concentrations of voters who may not be as supportive. A familiar subtheme of this topic in America involves racial and ethnic issues, namely, who gets how many African Americans and/or Hispanics drawn into their districts?
CIVIL RIGHTS POLITICS
Who gets what protections written into law to guard against discriminatory treatment? Who gets special consideration to mitigate the effects of past discrimination? Who, if anyone, gets preferential treatment for jobs and educational admissions? In this political arena, as in many others, we can observe both internal politics—among and within various organizations for dominance and influence—and external politics involving these groups and non–civil rights groups opposed to or supportive of their goals and activities.
EDUCATIONAL POLITICS
Who gets to teach evolution versus creationism? Who gets a new school building in their community, and who pays for it? Who gets tenure, and who does not? Who gets public education resources: the traditional public school system or quasi-public charter schools? Who gets public dollars to promote higher education: the state university system or scholarship programs to help students attend private universities?
OFFICE POLITICS
Who gets the best office, the one with the corner window? Who gets the job title, the promotion, the raise? Who gets the burden of having to sit next to the copier machine? Who gets access to other employees’ E-mail folders?
NEIGHBORHOOD POLITICS
Who gets public permission via zoning approval to build an extension onto his or her house? Whose neighborhood gets the new subsidized housing for mentally ill individuals? How late will the corner tavern be permitted to stay open? Who gets to be (or gets stuck as) the leader of the local block association?
FAMILY POLITICS
Who takes care of the kids on the weekend? Who gets what household chores? Who gets to watch their favorite television program when there’s a conflict in scheduling? Who gets the kids or the house or the car in a marital separation? Who gets to have Thanksgiving dinner at their house?
APPLYING MY DEFINITION OF POLITCS TO JPM’s UTTERANCES
Against this radius of “pure democratic politics” as defined above, I wish now to examine if the recent utterances by JMP are within the radius or beyond. For my analysis to make sense, I have first to state the norms of evaluation.
I strongly believe that, in a democracy, rule of law is a key attribute in terms of which we can condemn or commend the behavior of rulers and their subjects. This principle, implies that, all human rights that are recognized within the legal perimeter should be fulfilled.
According to Professor John Finnis’ book entitled, “Natural Law and Natural Rights” (New York/Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980, p. 199-200.), the following are the fundamental postulates of any legal system of human rights:
(a) All assertions or ascriptions of rights can be reduced without remainder to ascriptions of one or some combination of the following four ‘Hohfeldian rights’: (a) ‘claim-rights’, (b) ‘liberty rights’, (c) ‘power rights’, and (d) ‘immunity rights’; and
(b) To assert the existence of a legal right is to assert a four-term relation between one person, one act-description, one other person, and a normative rule R.
(c)Concerning claim-rights and liberty-rights, if A and B signify persons, F stands for an act description signifying some act, and R signifies a rule that relates the two parties, then, the following logical relations among A, B, R and F will obtain:
(i) A has a claim-right that B should F, if and only if [there is a rule R which specifies that] B has a duty to A to F.
(ii) B has a liberty (relative to A) to F, if and only if [there is no rule R which negates the claim that] A has no-claim-right (‘a no-right) that B should not F.
(iii) B has a liberty (relative to A) not to F, if an only if [there is no rule R which negates the claim that] A has no-claim-right (‘a no right’) that B should F.
Finnis concludes that, from the above analysis, one should easily see, in light of these four-term relations that, the most important of the aids to clear thinking provided by legal schema of human rights is the distinction between A’s claim-right (which has as its correlative B’s duty) and A’s liberty , which is A’s freedom from duty and thus has as its correlative the absence or negation of the claim-right that B would otherwise have.
He insists that, A claim-right is always either, positively a right to be given something (or assisted in a certain way) by someone else, or, negatively, a right not to be interfered with or dealt with or treated in a certain way, by someone else. When the subject-matter of one’s claim of right is one’s own act(s), forbearance(s), or omission(s), that claim cannot be to a claim-right, but can only be to a liberty .
In short, Finnis states that, every known human right, has four elements, namely: the claim; the right holder or claimant; the duty bearer; and the normative justification, in terms of which we know we may come to know the claim, right-holder, and duty-bearer. A claim is a good to which the claimant is entitled. It can be a material good or otherwise.
Given this understanding human rights, one questions emerges. Do all human rights carry equal eight or they stand in some hierarchical relationship? That is to say, are human rights commensurable or incommensurable? These questions seek to provide a directive on how, when and why one human right can be traded for another human right.
On this line of inquiry, Alan Gewirth, has written an instructive essay entitled, “Are there any absolute rights? through “The Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 31, Number 122 (Jan. 1981), pg 1-16.” Gewirth suggests that, human rights can be classified according to whether they are fulfilled, violated, infringed, overridden or not. He says:
“A right is FULFILLED when the correlative duty is carried out, i.e. when the required action is performed or the prohibited action is not performed. A right is INFRINGED when the correlative duty is not carried out, i.e. when the required action is not performed or the prohibited action is performed… A right is VIOLATED when it is unjustifiably infringed, i.e. when the required action is unjustifiably not performed or the prohibited action is unjustifiably performed. And a right is OVERRIDDEN when it is justifiably infringed, so that there is sufficient justification for not carrying out the correlative duty, and the required action is justifiably not performed or the prohibited action is justifiably performed. A right is absolute when it cannot be overridden in any circumstances, so that it can never be justifiably infringed and it must be fulfilled without any exceptions (Gewirth, pg.2).
According to this analysis, which I endorse, it follows that, the rule of law requires two things. First, all absolute rights should never be infringed. And secondly, unless there is a legally recognized exception under which justifiable infringement of a non-absolute human right is allowed, all non-absolute human rights should not be infringed.
Against this analysis, the question arises: Under the current Tanzania’s legal system, is there any legally recognized exception under which justifiable infringement of a non-absolute human right is allowed? The answer is affirmative as I proceed to show.
Following the enactment of Act No. 15 of 1984 section 6, section 30 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania (1977), provides “limitations upon, and enforcement and preservation of basic rights, freedoms and duties.” It states the following:
“30(1) The human rights…set out in this Constitution, shall not be exercised by a person in a manner that causes interference with or curtailment of the rights … of other persons or of the public interest.
“30(2) It is hereby declared that the provision contained in this Part of this Constitution which set out the basic human rights … do not invalidate any existing legislation or prohibit the enactment of any legislation or the doing of any lawful act in accordance with such legislation for the purposes of
(a) Ensuring that the rights … of other people or of the interests of the public are not prejudiced by the wrongful exercise of the … rights of individuals;
(b) ensuring the defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, rural and urban development planning, the exploitation and utilization of minerals or the increase and development of Property Or any other interests for the purposes of enhancing the public benefit;
(c) ensuring the execution of a judgment or order of a court given or made in any civil or criminal matter;
(d) protecting the reputation, rights … of others or the privacy of persons involved in any court proceedings, prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information, or safeguarding the dignity, authority and independence of the courts;
(e) imposing restrictions, supervising and controlling the formation, management and activities of private societies and organizations in the country; or
(f) enabling any other thing to be done which promotes, or preserves the national interest in general.
“30(3) Any person alleging that any provision in this Part of this Chapter or in any law concerning his right or duty owed to him has been, is being or is likely to be violated by any person anywhere in the United Republic, may institute proceedings for redress in the High Court.
“30(4) Subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court shall have original jurisdiction to bear and determine any matter brought before it pursuant to this Article; and the state authority may enact legislation for the purposes of
(a) regulating procedure for instituting proceedings pursuant to this Article;
(b) specifying the powers of the High Court in relation to the hearing of proceedings instituted pursuant to this Article;
(c) ensuring the effective exercise of the powers of the High Court, the preservation and enforcement of the rights, freedoms and duties accordance with this Constitution
“30(5) Where in any proceedings it is alleged that any law enacted or any action taken by the Government or any other authority abrogates or abridges any of the basic rights, freedoms and duties set out in Articles 12 to 29 of this Constitution, and the High Court is satisfied that the law or action concerned, to the extent that it conflicts with this Constitution, is void, or is inconsistent with this Constitution, then the High Court, if it deems fit, or if the circumstances or public interest so requires, instead of declaring that such law or action is void, shall have power to decide to afford the Government or other authority concerned an opportunity to rectify the defect found in the law or action concerned within such a period and in such manner as the High Court shall determine, and such law or action shall be deemed to be valid until such time the defect is rectified or the period determined by the High Court lapses, whichever is the earlier.”
“30(2) It is hereby declared that the provision contained in this Part of this Constitution which set out the basic human rights … do not invalidate any existing legislation or prohibit the enactment of any legislation or the doing of any lawful act in accordance with such legislation for the purposes of
(a) Ensuring that the rights … of other people or of the interests of the public are not prejudiced by the wrongful exercise of the … rights of individuals;
(b) ensuring the defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, rural and urban development planning, the exploitation and utilization of minerals or the increase and development of Property Or any other interests for the purposes of enhancing the public benefit;
(c) ensuring the execution of a judgment or order of a court given or made in any civil or criminal matter;
(d) protecting the reputation, rights … of others or the privacy of persons involved in any court proceedings, prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information, or safeguarding the dignity, authority and independence of the courts;
(e) imposing restrictions, supervising and controlling the formation, management and activities of private societies and organizations in the country; or
(f) enabling any other thing to be done which promotes, or preserves the national interest in general.
“30(3) Any person alleging that any provision in this Part of this Chapter or in any law concerning his right or duty owed to him has been, is being or is likely to be violated by any person anywhere in the United Republic, may institute proceedings for redress in the High Court.
“30(4) Subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court shall have original jurisdiction to bear and determine any matter brought before it pursuant to this Article; and the state authority may enact legislation for the purposes of
(a) regulating procedure for instituting proceedings pursuant to this Article;
(b) specifying the powers of the High Court in relation to the hearing of proceedings instituted pursuant to this Article;
(c) ensuring the effective exercise of the powers of the High Court, the preservation and enforcement of the rights, freedoms and duties accordance with this Constitution
“30(5) Where in any proceedings it is alleged that any law enacted or any action taken by the Government or any other authority abrogates or abridges any of the basic rights, freedoms and duties set out in Articles 12 to 29 of this Constitution, and the High Court is satisfied that the law or action concerned, to the extent that it conflicts with this Constitution, is void, or is inconsistent with this Constitution, then the High Court, if it deems fit, or if the circumstances or public interest so requires, instead of declaring that such law or action is void, shall have power to decide to afford the Government or other authority concerned an opportunity to rectify the defect found in the law or action concerned within such a period and in such manner as the High Court shall determine, and such law or action shall be deemed to be valid until such time the defect is rectified or the period determined by the High Court lapses, whichever is the earlier.”
Thus, it appears to me that, the recent utterances of JPM, on limited political activism, can be shielded by the principle of “public interest” (aka "national interest" or "public benefit") as defined under sections 30(1), 30(2)(a), 30(2)(b) and 30(2)(f) of our state constitution(1977).
CONCLUSION
In light of the above analysis, it does not appear to me that President Magufuli banned all political discourses in this nation. I think not. He only banned those activities, which, in his estimation, may interfere with, nation-building programs under his supervision. Thus, there is a need for our civil society, and our media houses in particular, to upgrade their "information analysis and evaluation" skills when it comes to reporting political matters.
