Mwanamayu
JF-Expert Member
- May 7, 2010
- 11,349
- 6,476
Namheshimu sana Mzee wangu Sitta lakini hoja yake kuhusu wembamba wa safu ya uongozi wa Chadema, hasa kama hoja yake ya msingi kwanini Chadema hawapo tayari kutawala ni hoja nyembamba sana; isitoshe hao viongozi kama Kawawa, alikuja kuwa KAWAWA baada ya TANU kukamata uongozi; Fundikira alikuja kuwa FUNDIKIRA baada ya TANU kukamata uongozi; same applies kwa orodha ya viongozi wote including Mwalimu; vinginevyo kabla ya hapo, wote walikuwa wanaharakati waliojiunga TANU 1954, na kuja kutwaa madaraka ya nchi miaka saba tu baadae (1954 - 1961); Kinachohitajika na chama cha siasa ni LEADERSHIP, it could be one charismatic leader ambae anazaa followers who later proceed to become LEADERS as well; Mwalimu was the only LEADER wa TANU, and it is because of his influence, he attracted others who later became leaders, ingawa none kwa kiwango chake;
YESU na MTUME wote hawa walikuwa viongozi, and we all know how they influenced people from different walks of life who later became followers...then leaders..., both BELIEVERS AND NONE BELIEVERS; It has to begin from somewhere;
Ninaandaa makala kumjibu Mzee Sitta, kama mwanachama mwenzake wa CCM ninayeamini katika dhana ndani ya chama chetu kwamba kukosoa na kujikosoa ni silaha ya mapinduzi. Kwanini nataka fanya hivi? Kwa sababu nina amini kwamba BILA CHADEMA MADHUBUTI, CCM MAKINI HAIWEZEKANI!
Hiyo para yako ya pili ungeindoa kwani haileti maana wala kuongeza uzito kwenye hoja yako kwani ni masuala ya imani zaidi.