Mapokezi ya Nyerere huko Uingereza

Nyani Ngabu said:
A glowing tribute of Mwalimu by PLO Lumumba.

Click to expand...

Asante sana Nyani Ngabu.

He was a towering figure. It will be hard to find another leader of comparable stature not only in Tanzania but in Africa as a whole. Professor Ali Mazrui put it succinctly in his eulogy on Mwalimu:

"He was one of the giants of the twentieth century. He did bestride this narrow world like an African colossus....Intellectually, I admired Julius K. Nyerere of Tanzania higher than most politicians anywhere in the world....Julius Nyerere was my Mwalimu too. It was a privilege to learn so much from so great a man."

And he was incorruptible:

“Nyerere is personally considered to be above reproach. A wealthy Nairobi-based Greek businesswoman, whose family has been involved in Tanzania for two generations, says, 'Nyerere is the only man in East Africa who cannot be bought.' A practicing Roman Catholic of simple tastes, the 55-year old philosopher-president is said to be the lowest paid head of state in Africa.” – ((Roger Mann, "Nyerere Visit Seen as Symbol of Shift in U.S. Policy on Africa," The Washington Post, 4 August 1977).
 
Kuna ziara mojaa ya Uingerezza ya awali kabisa.

Nyerere alimaliza ziara za kikazi.

Akaanza kuzunguka London.

Wakaenda pub kama watu wa kawaida.

Wakajichanganya bila yeye kujulikana kwamba ni rais wa nchi.

Mwenye pub akavutiwa kuona wageni Waafrika. Akawa anamuuliza maswali Nyerere mmetoka wapi? Nyerere akamwambia tumetoka Tanzania tumekuja katika mikutano. Hakumwambia mimi ni rais.

Yule mwenye pub alimfurahia sana Nyerere, akampa tour ya lile eneo akimuonesha majengo na kumpa historia ndeefu ya sehemu ile ya London. Muda wote huo yule mwenye pub hajui kwamba huyu Nyerere ni rais wa Tanzania.

Nyerere aliifurahia sana hii ziara isiyo rasmi ya London. Aliona ukarimu wa mtu huku akijua kuwa huyu mtu hanifanyii ukarimu huu kwa sababu mimi ni Julius Nyerere rais wa Tanzania, amenifanyia ukarimu kwa sababu ya moyo wake tu wa ukarimu.

Kwa story hii zaidi na nyingine za awali vitafute vitabu vya Paul Bjerk "Building A Peaceful Nation: Julius Nyerere And The Establishment of Sovereignty in Tanzania, 1960-1964" na "Julius Nyerere".
 
Julius K. Nyerere, from his speech, "Without Unity, There is No Future for Africa,"
Accra, on Ghana's 40th independence anniversary, 6 March 1997:​

"In May 1963, 32 independent African states met in Addis Ababa, founded the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), and established the Liberation Committee of the new organisation, charging it with the duty of coordinating the liberation struggle in those parts of Africa still under colonial rule. The following year, 1964, the OAU met in Cairo. The Cairo Summit is remembered mainly for the declaration of the heads of state of independent Africa to respect the borders inherited from colonialism. The principle of non-interference in internal affairs of member states of the OAU had been enshrined in the Charter itself. Respect for the borders inherited from colonialism came from the Cairo Declaration of 1964.

In 1965, the OAU met in Accra . That summit is not as well remembered as the founding summit in 1963 or the Cairo Summit of 1964. The fact that Nkrumah did not last long as head of state of Ghana after that summit may have contributed to the comparative obscurity of that important summit. But I want to suggest that the reason why we do not talk much about the summit is probably psychological: it was a failure. That failure still haunts us today.

The founding fathers of the OAU had set themselves two major objectives: the total liberation of our continent from colonialism and settler minorities, and the unity of Africa. The first objective was expressed through the immediate establishment of the Liberation Committee by the founding summit [of 1963]. The second objective was expressed in the name of the organisation –the Organisation of African Unity. Critics could say that the Charter itself, with its great emphasis on the sovereign independence of each member state, combined with the Cairo Declaration on the sanctity of the inherited borders, make it look like the "Organisation of African Disunity." But that would be carrying criticism too far and ignoring the objective reasons which led to the principles of non-interference in the Cairo Declaration. What the founding fathers – certainly a hardcore of them – had in mind was a genuine desire to move Africa towards greater unity. We loathed the balkanisation of the continent into small unviable states, most of which had borders which did not make ethnic or geographical sense.

The Cairo Declaration was promoted by a profound realisation of the absurdity of those borders. It was quite clear that some adventurers would try to change those borders by force of arms. Indeed, it was already happening. Ethiopia and Somalia were at war over inherited borders.

Nkrumah was opposed to balkanisation as much as he was opposed to colonialism in Africa. To him and to a number of us, the two – balkanisation and colonialism –were twins. Genuine liberation of Africa had to attack both twins. A struggle against colonialism must go hand in hand with a struggle against the balkanisation of Africa. Kwame Nkrumah was the great crusader of African unity. He wanted the Accra Summit of 1965 to establish a union government for the whole of independent Africa. But we failed. The one minor reason is that Kwame, like all great believers, underestimated the degree of suspicion and animosity which his crusading passion had created among a substantial number of his fellow heads of state. The major reason was linked to the first: already too many of us had a vested interest in keeping Africa divided.

East Africa​

Prior to the independence of Tanganyika, I had been advocating that East African countries should federate and then achieve independence as a single political unit. I had said publicly that I was willing to delay Tanganyika’s independence in order to enable all the three mainland countries to achieve their independence together as a single federated state. I made the suggestion because of my fear – proved correct by later events – that it would be very difficult to unite our countries if we let them achieve independence separately.

Once you multiply national anthems, national flags and national passports, seats of the United Nations, and individuals entitled to a 21-gun salute, not to speak of a host of ministers, prime ministers and envoys, you would have a whole army of powerful people with vested interests in keeping Africa balkanised. That was what Nkrumah encountered in 1965. After the failure to establish the union government at the Accra Summit, I heard one head of state express with relief that he was happy to be returning home to his country still head of state. To this day, I cannot tell whether he was serious or joking.

But he may well have been serious, because Kwame Nkrumah was very serious and the fear of a number of us of losing our precious status was quite palpable. But I never believed that the 1965 Accra Summit would have established a union government for Africa. When I say that we failed, that is not what I mean; for that clearly was an unrealistic objective for a single summit.

What I mean is that we did not even discuss a mechanism for pursuing the objective of a politically united Africa. We had a Liberation Committee already. We should have at least had a Unity Committee or undertaken to establish one. We did not. And after Kwame Nkrumah was removed from the African scene, nobody took up the challenge again.

Confession and plea​

So my remaining remarks have a confession and a plea. The confession is that we of the first generation leaders of independent Africa have not pursued the objective of African unity with vigour, commitment and [the] sincerity that it deserved. Yet that does not mean that unity is now irrelevant. Does the experience of the last three or four decades of Africa’s independence dispel the need for African unity?

With our success in the liberation struggle, Africa today has 53 independent states, 21 more than those which met in Addis Ababa in May 1963. If numbers were horses, Africa today would be riding high! Africa would be the strongest continent in the world, for it occupies more seats in the UN General Assembly than any other continent.

Yet the reality is that ours is the poorest and weakest continent in the world. And our weakness is pathetic. Unity will not end our weakness, but until we unite, we cannot even begin to end that weakness. So this is my plea to the new generation of African leaders and African peoples: work for unity with the firm conviction that without unity, there is no future for Africa. That is, of course, assuming that we still want to have a place under the sun. I reject the glorification of the nationstate we inherited from colonialism, and the artificial nations we are trying to forge from that inheritance. We are all Africans trying very hard to be Ghanaians or Tanzanians. Fortunately for Africa, we have not been completely successful.

The outside world hardly recognises our Ghanaianness or Tanzanian-ness. What the outside world recognises about us is our Africanness. Hitler was a German, Mussolini was an Italian, Franco was a Spaniard, Salazar was Portuguese, Stalin was a Russian or a Georgian. Nobody expected Churchill to be ashamed of Hitler. He was probably ashamed of Chamberlain. Nobody expected Charles de Gaulle to be ashamed of Hitler, he was probably ashamed of the complicity of Vichy. It is the Germans and Italians and Spaniards and Portuguese who feel uneasy about those dictators in their respective countries.

Not so in Africa. Idi Amin was in Uganda but of Africa. Jean Bokassa was in Central Africa but of Africa. Some of the dictators are still alive in their respective countries, but they are all of Africa. They are all Africans, and all perceived by the outside world as Africans.

When I travel outside Africa, the description of me as a former president of Tanzania is a fleeting affair. It does not stick. Apart from the ignorant who sometimes asked me whether Tanzania was in Johannesburg, even to those who knew better, what stuck in the minds of my hosts was the fact of my African-ness.

So I had to answer questions about the atrocities of the Amins and Bokassas of Africa. Mrs Ghandi [former prime minister if India] did not have to answer questions about the atrocities of the Marcoses of Asia. Nor does Fidel Castro have to answer questions about the atrocities of the Somozas of Latin America.

But when I travel or meet foreigners, I have to answer questions about Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire, as in the past I used to answer questions about Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia or South Africa.

And the way I was perceived is the way most of my fellow heads of state were perceived. And that is the way you [the people of Africa] are all being perceived. So accepting the fact that we are Africans, gives you a much more worthwhile challenge than the current desperate attempts to fossilise Africa into the wounds inflicted upon it by the vultures of imperialism. Do not be proud of your shame. Reject the return to the tribe, there is richness of culture out there which we must do everything we can to preserve and share.

But it is utter madness to think that if these artificial, unviable states which we are trying to create are broken up into tribal components and we turn those into nation-states we might save ourselves. That kind of political and social atavism spells catastrophe for Africa. It would be the end of any kind of genuine development for Africa. It would fossilise Africa into a worse state than the one in which we are.

The future​

The future of Africa, the modernisation of Africa that has a place in the 21st century, is linked with its decolonisation and detribalisation. Tribal atavism would be giving up any hope for Africa. And of all the sins that Africa can commit, the sin of despair would be the most unforgivable.

Reject the nonsense of dividing the African peoples into Anglophones, Francophones, and Lusophones. This attempt to divide our peoples according to the language of their former colonial masters must be rejected with the firmness and utter contempt that it richly deserves.

The natural owners of those wonderful languages are busy building a united Europe. But Europe is strong even without unity. Europe has less need of unity, and the strength that comes from unity, than Africa.

A new generation of self-respecting Africans should spit in the face of anybody who suggests that our continent should remain divided and fossilised in the shame of colonialism, in order to satisfy the national pride of our former colonial masters. Africa must unite! That was the title of one of Kwame Nkrumah’s books. That call is more urgent today than ever before.

Together, we, the peoples of Africa will be incomparably stronger internationally than we are now with our multiplicity of unviable states. The needs of our separate countries can be, and are being, ignored by the rich and powerful. The result is that Africa is marginalised when international decisions affecting our vital interests are made. Unity will not make us rich, but it can make it difficult for Africa and the African peoples to be disregarded and humiliated. And it will, therefore, increase the effectiveness of the decisions we make and try to implement for our development.

My generation led Africa to political freedom. The current generation of leaders and peoples of Africa must pick up the flickering torch of African freedom, refuel it with their enthusiasm and determination, and carry it forward." – (Julius K. Nyerere, from his speech, "Without Unity, There is No Future for Africa," Accra, on Ghana's 40th independence anniversary, 6 March 1997; reprinted in Godfrey Mwakikagile, Western Involvement in Nkrumah's Downfall, New Africa Press, 2015, pp. 210 – 217).
 
Mwalimu Nyerere in an informal speech that was conversational in tone at a conference at the University of Dar es Salaam on 15 December 1997. It amounted to a farewell speech to Africa, coincidentally in the same year he gave another farewell speech to Africa in Accra on the 40th anniversary of Ghana's independence. He died two years later. Professor Haroub Othman, a great admirer of Mwalimu Nyerere, who was in the audience when Mwalimu spoke at the University of Dar es Salaam described it as one of Nyerere's best speeches.

You wanted me to reflect. I told you I had very little time to reflect. I am not an engineer (reference to the vice-chancellor of the University of Dar es Salaam who identified himself as an engineer in his introductory remarks) and therefore what I am going to say might sound messy, unstructured and possibly irrelevant to what you intend to do; but I thought that if by reflecting, you wanted me to go back and relive the political life that I have lived for the last 30, 40 years, that I cannot do.

And in any case, in spite of the fact that it’s useful to go back in history, what you are talking about is what might be of use to Africa in the 21st century. History’s important, obviously, but I think we should concentrate and see what might be of use to our continent in the coming century.

What I want to do is share with you some thoughts on two issues concerning Africa. One, an obvious one; when I speak, you will realise how obvious it is. Another one, less obvious, and I’ll spend a little more time on the less obvious one, because I think this will put Africa in what is going to be Africa’s context in the 21st century. And the new leadership of Africa will have to concern itself with the situation in which it finds itself in the world tomorrow - in the world of the 21st century. And the Africa I’m going to be talking about, is Africa south of the Sahara, sub-Saharan Africa. I’ll explain later the reason why I chose to concentrate on Africa south of the Sahara. It is because of the point I want to emphasise.

It appears today that in the world tomorrow, there are going to be three centres of power: some, political power; some, economic power, but three centres of real power in the world. One centre is the United States of America and Canada; what you call North America. That is going to be a huge economic power, and probably for a long time the only military power, but a huge economic power. The other one is going to be Western Europe, another huge economic power. I think Europe is choosing deliberately not to be a military power. I think they deliberately want to leave that to the United States. The other one is Japan. Japan is in a different category but it is better to say Japan, because the power of Japan is quite clear, the economic power of Japan is obvious.

The three powers are going to affect the countries near them. I was speaking in South Africa recently and I referred to Mexico. A former president of Mexico, I think it must have been after the revolution in 1935, no, after the revolution; a former president of Mexico is reported to have complained about his country or lamented about his country. "Poor Mexico," said the president, "so far from God yet so near the United States." He was complaining about the disadvantages of being a neighbour of a giant.

Today, Mexico has decided not simply to suffer the disadvantages of being so close to the United States. And the United States itself has realised the importance of trying to accommodate Mexico. In the past there were huge attempts by the United States to prevent people from moving from Mexico into the United States; people seeking work, seeking jobs. So you had police, a border very well policed in order to prevent Mexicans who seek, who look for jobs, to move into the United States. The United States discovered that it was not working. It can’t work.

There is a kind of economic osmosis where whatever you do, if you are rich, you are attractive to the poor. They will come, they’ll even risk their own lives in order to come. So the United States tried very hard to prevent Mexicans going into the United States; they’ve given up, and the result was NAFTA. It is in the interest of the United States to try and create jobs in Mexico because, if you don’t, the Mexicans will simply come, to the United States; so they’re doing that.

Europe, Western Europe, is very wealthy. It has two Mexicos. One is Eastern Europe. If you want to prevent those Eastern Europeans to come to Western Europe, you jolly will have to create jobs in Eastern Europe, and Western Europe is actually doing that. They are doing that. They’ll help Eastern Europe to develop. The whole of Western Europe will be doing it, the Germans are doing it. The Germans basically started first of all with the East Germans but they are spending lots of money also helping the other countries of Eastern Europe to develop, including unfortunately, or fortunately for them, including Russia. Because they realise, Europeans realise including the Germans, if you don’t help Russia to develop, one of these days you are going to be in trouble. So it is in the interest of Western Europe, to help Eastern Europe including Russia. They are pouring a lot of money in that part of the world, in that part of Europe, to try and help it to develop.

I said Western Europe has two Mexicos. I have mentioned one. I’ll jump the other. I jump Europe’s second Mexico. I’ll go to Asia. I’ll go to Japan. Japan - a wealthy island, very wealthy indeed, but an island. I don’t think they’re very keen on the unemployed of Asia to go to Japan. They’d rather help them where they are, and Japan is spending a lot of money in Asia, to help create jobs in Asia, prevent those Asians dreaming about going to Japan to look for jobs. In any case, Japan is too small, they can’t find wealth there.

But apart from what Japan is doing, of course Asia is Asia; Asia has China! Asia has India, and the small countries of Asia are not very small. The population of Indonesia is twice the population of Nigeria, your biggest. So Asia is virtually in a category, of the Third World countries, of the Southern countries; Asia is almost in a category of its own. It is developing as a power, and Europe knows it, and the United States knows it. And in spite of the huge Atlantic, now they are talking about the Atlantic Rim. That is in recognition of the importance of Asia.

I go back to Europe. Europe has a second Mexico. And Europe’s second Mexico is North Africa. North Africa is to Europe what Mexico is to the United States. North Africans who have no jobs will not go to Nigeria; they’ll be thinking of Europe or the Middle East, because of the imperatives of geography and history and religion and language. North Africa is part of Europe and the Middle East.

Nasser was a great leader and a great African leader. I got on extremely well with him. Once he sent me a minister, and I had a long discussion with his minister at the State House here, and in the course of the discussion, the minister says to me, "Mr. President, this is my first visit to Africa." North Africa, because of the pull of the Mediterranean, and I say, history and culture, and religion, North Africa is pulled towards the North. When North Africans look for jobs, they go to Western Europe and southern Western Europe, or they go to the Middle East. And Europe has a specific policy for North Africa, specific policy for North Africa. It’s not only about development; it’s also about security. Because of you don’t do something about North Africa, they’ll come.

Africa, south of the Sahara, is different; totally different. If you have no jobs here in Tanzania, where do you go? The Japanese have no fear that you people will flock to Japan. The North Americans have no fear that you people will flock to North America. Not even from West Africa. The Atlantic, the Atlantic as an ocean, like the Mediterranean, it has its own logic. But links North America and Western Europe, not North America and West Africa.

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. That is the first point I want to make. South of the Sahara is totally isolated in terms of that configuration of developing power in the world in the 21st century - on its own. There is no centre of power in whose self-interest it’s important to develop Africa, no centre. Not North America, not Japan, not Western Europe. There’s no self-interest to bother about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara is on its own. Na sijambo baya. Those of you who don’t know Kiswahili, I just whispered, "Not necessarily bad."

That’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. African leadership, the coming African leadership, will have to bear that in mind. You are on your own, Mr. Vice President. You mentioned, you know, in the past, there was some Cold War competition in Africa and some Africans may have exploited it. I never did. I never succeeded in exploiting the Cold War in Africa. We suffered, we suffered through the Cold War. Look at Africa south of the Sahara. I’ll be talking about it later. Southern Africa, I mean, look at southern Africa; devastated because of the combination of the Cold War and apartheid. Devastated part of Africa. It could have been very different. But the Cold War is gone, thank God. But thank God the Cold War is gone, the chances of the Mobutus also is gone.

So that’s the first thing I wanted to say about Africa south of the Sahara. Africa south of the Sahara in those terms is isolated. That is the point I said was not obvious and I had to explain it in terms in which I have tried to explain it. The other one, the second point I want to raise is completely obvious. Africa has 53 nation-states, most of them in Africa south of the Sahara. If numbers were power, Africa would be the most powerful continent on earth. It is the weakest; so it’s obvious numbers are not power.

So the second point about Africa, and again I am talking about Africa south of the Sahara; it is fragmented, fragmented. From the very beginning of independence 40 years ago, we were against that idea, that the continent is so fragmented. We called it the Balkanisation of Africa. Today, I think the Balkans are talking about the Africanisation of Europe. Africa’s states are too many, too small, some make no logic, whether political logic or ethnic logic or anything. They are non-viable. It is not a confession.

The OAU was founded in 1963. In 1964 we went to Cairo to hold, in a sense, our first summit after the inaugural summit. I was responsible for moving that resolution that Africa must accept the borders, which we inherited from colonialism; accept them as they are. That resolution was passed by the organisation (OAU) with two reservations: one from Morocco, another from Somalia. Let me say why I moved that resolution.

In 1960, just before this country became independent, I think I was then chief minister; I received a delegation of Masai elders from Kenya, led by an American missionary. And they came to persuade me to let the Masai invoke something called the Anglo-Masai Agreement so that that section of the Masai in Kenya should become part of Tanganyika; so that when Tanganyika becomes independent, it includes part of Masai, from Kenya. I suspected the American missionary was responsible for that idea. I don’t remember that I was particularly polite to him. Kenyatta was then in detention, and here somebody comes to me, that we should break up Kenya and make part of Kenya part of Tanganyika. But why shouldn’t Kenyatta demand that the Masai part of Tanganyika should become Masai of Kenya? It’s the same logic. That was in 1960.

In 1961 we became independent. In 1962, early 1962, I resigned as prime minister and then a few weeks later I received Dr. Banda. Mungu amuweke mahali pema (May God rest his soul in peace). I received Dr. Banda. We had just, FRELIMO had just been established here and we were now in the process of starting the armed struggle.

So Banda comes to me with a big old book, with lots and lots of maps in it, and tells me, "Mwalimu, what is this, what is Mozambique? There is no such thing as Mozambique." I said, "What do you mean there is no such thing as Mozambique?" So he showed me this map, and he said: "That part is part of Nyasaland (it was still Nyasaland, not Malawi, at that time). That part is part of Southern Rhodesia, that part is Swaziland, and this part, which is the northern part, Makonde part, that is your part."

So Banda disposed of Mozambique just like that. I ridiculed the idea, and Banda never liked anybody to ridicule his ideas. So he left and went to Lisbon to talk to Salazar about this wonderful idea. I don’t know what Salazar told him. That was ‘62.

In ‘63 we go to Addis Ababa for the inauguration of the OAU, and Ethiopia and Somalia are at war over the Ogaden. We had to send a special delegation to bring the president of Somalia to attend that inaugural summit, because the two countries were at war. Why? Because Somalia wanted the Ogaden, a whole province of Ethiopia, saying, "That is part of Somalia." And Ethiopia was quietly, the Emperor quietly saying to us that "the whole of Somalia is part of Ethiopia."

So those three, the delegation of the Masai, led by the American missionary; Banda’s old book of maps; and the Ogaden, caused me to move that resolution, in Cairo 1964. And I say, the resolution was accepted, two countries with reservations, and one was Somalia because Somalia wanted the Ogaden; Somalia wanted northern Kenya; Somalia wanted Djibouti.

Throw away all our ideas about socialism. Throw them away, give them to the Americans, give them to the Japanese, give them, so that they can, I don’t know, they can do whatever they like with them. Embrace capitalism, fine! But you have to be self-reliant. You here in Tanzania don’t dream that if you privatise every blessed thing, including the prison, then foreign investors will come rushing. No! No! Your are dreaming! Hawaji! They won’t come! (hawaji!). You just try it.

There is more to privatise in Eastern Europe than here. Norman Manley, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, in those days the vogue was nationalisation, not privatisation. In those days the vogue was nationalisation. So Norman Manley was asked as Jamaica was moving towards independence: "Mr. Prime Minister, are you going to nationalise the economy?" His answer was: "You can’t nationalise nothing."

You people here are busy privatising not nothing, we did build something, we built something to privatise. But quite frankly, for the appetite of Europe, and the appetite of North America, this is privatising nothing. The people with a really good appetite will go to Eastern Europe, they’ll go to Russia, they’ll not come rushing to Tanzania! Your blessed National Bank of Commerce, it’s a branch of some major bank somewhere, and in Tanzania you say, "it’s so big we must divide it into pieces," which is nonsense.

Africa south of the Sahara is isolated. Therefore, to develop, it will have to depend upon its own resources basically. Internal resources, nationally; and Africa will have to depend upon Africa. The leadership of the future will have to devise, try to carry out policies of maximum national self-reliance and maximum collective self-reliance. They have no other choice. Hamna! (You don’t have it!) And this, this need to organise collective self-reliance is what moves me to the second part.

The small countries in Africa must move towards either unity or co-operation, unity of Africa. The leadership of the future, of the 21st century, should have less respect, less respect for this thing called "national sovereignty." I’m not saying take up arms and destroy the state, no! This idea that we must preserve the Tanganyika, then preserve the Kenya as they are, is nonsensical!

The nation-states we in Africa, have inherited from Europe. They are the builders of the nation-states par excellence. For centuries they fought wars! The history of Europe, the history of the building of Europe is a history of war. And sometimes their wars when they get hotter although they’re European wars, they call them world wars. And we all get involved. We fight even in Tanganyika here, we fought here, one world war.

These Europeans, powerful, where little Belgium is more powerful than the whole of Africa south of the Sahara put together; these powerful European states are moving towards unity, and you people are talking about the atavism of the tribe, this is nonsense! I am telling you people. How can anybody think of the tribe as the unity of the future? Hakuna! (There’s nothing!).

Europe now, you can take it almost as God-given, Europe is not going to fight with Europe anymore. The Europeans are not going to take up arms against Europeans. They are moving towards unity - even the little, the little countries of the Balkans which are breaking up, Yugoslavia breaking up, but they are breaking up at the same time the building up is taking place. They break up and say we want to come into the bigger unity.

So there’s a building movement, there’s a building of Europe. These countries which have old, old sovereignties, countries of hundreds of years old; they are forgetting this, they are moving towards unity. And you people, you think Tanzania is sacred? What is Tanzania!

You have to move towards unity. If these powerful countries see that they have no future in the nation-states - ninyi mnafikiri mna future katika nini? (what future do you think you have?). So, if we can’t move, if our leadership, our future leadership cannot move us to bigger nation-states, which I hope they are going to try; we tried and failed. I tried and failed. One of my biggest failures was actually that. I tried in East Africa and failed.

But don’t give up because we, the first leadership, failed, no! Unajaribu tena! (You try again!). We failed, but the idea is a good idea. That these countries should come together. Don’t leave Rwanda and Burundi on their own. Hawawezi kusurvive (They cannot survive). They can’t. They’re locked up into a form of prejudice. If we can’t move towards bigger nation-states, at least let’s move towards greater co-operation. This is beginning to happen. And the new leadership in Africa should encourage it.

I want to say only one or two things about what is happening in southern Africa. Please accept the logic of coming together. South Africa, small; South Africa is very small. Their per capita income now is, I think $2,000 a year or something around that. Compared with Tanzanians, of course, it is very big, but it’s poor. If South Africa begins to tackle the problems of the legacy of apartheid, they have no money!

But compared with the rest of us, they are rich. And so, in southern Africa, there, there is also a kind of osmosis, also an economic osmosis. South Africa’s neighbours send their job seekers into South Africa. And South Africa will simply have to accept the logic of that, that they are big, they are attractive. They attract the unemployed from Mozambique, and from Lesotho and from the rest. They have to accept that fact of life. It’s a problem, but they have to accept it.

South Africa, and I am talking about post-apartheid South Africa. Post-apartheid South Africa has the most developed and the most dynamic private sector on the continent. It is white, so what? So forget it is white. It is South African, dynamic, highly developed. If the investors of South Africa begin a new form of trekking, you have to accept it.

It will be ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous, for Africans to go out seeking investment from North America, from Japan, from Europe, from Russia, and then, when these investors come from South Africa to invest in your own country, you say, "a! a! These fellows now want to take over our economy" - this is nonsense. You can’t have it both ways. You want foreign investors or you don’t want foreign investors. Now, the most available foreign investors for you are those from South Africa.

And let me tell you, when Europe think in terms of investing, they might go to South Africa. When North America think in terms of investing, they might go to South Africa. Even Asia, if they want to invest, the first country they may think of in Africa may be South Africa. So, if your South Africa is going to be your engine of development, accept the reality, accept the reality. Don’t accept this sovereignty, South Africa will reduce your sovereignty. What sovereignty do you have?

Many of these debt-ridden countries in Africa now have no sovereignty, they’ve lost it. Imekwenda (It’s gone). Iko mikononi mwa IMF na World Bank (It’s in the hands of the IMF and the World Bank). Unafikiri kuna sovereignty gani? (What kind of sovereignty do you think there is?).

So, southern Africa has an opportunity, southern Africa, the SADC group, because of South Africa.

Because South Africa now is no longer a destabiliser of the region, but a partner in development, southern Africa has a tremendous opportunity. But you need leadership, because if you get proper leadership there, within the next 10, 15 years, that region is going to be the ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) of Africa. And it is possible. But forget the protection of your sovereignties. I believe the South Africans will be sensitive enough to know that if they are not careful, there is going to be this resentment of big brother, but that big brother, frankly, is not very big.

West Africa. Another bloc is developing there, but that depends very much upon Nigeria my brother (looking at the Nigerian High Commissioner - Ambassador), very much so. Without Nigeria, the future of West Africa is a problem. West Africa is more balkanised than Eastern Africa. More balkanised, tiny little states.

The leadership will have to come from Nigeria. It came from Nigeria in Liberia; it has come from Nigeria in the case of Sierra Leone; it will have to come from Nigeria in galvanising ECOWAS.

But the military in Nigeria must allow the Nigerians to exercise that vitality in freedom. And it is my hope that they will do it.

I told you I was going to ramble and it was going to be messy, but thank you very much.

Source:

Mwalimu Nyerere Memorial Site, South Centre, Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.

This is an abridged version of Nyerere’s speech at an international conference at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 15 December 1997. Transcription was done by Mrs. Magombe of the Nyerere Foundation, Dar es Salaam.

Translation of Kiswahili into English in the preceding text done by Godfrey Mwakikagile. The speech is reprinted in Godfrey Mwakikagile, Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era, New Africa Press, 2008, pp. 546 – 553.
 
Julius Nyerere Talks to New African​


"This 1985 interview with Julius Nyerere, still calls for some food-for-thought and debate....On his appointment as Chairman of the OAU, with his Presidential term drawing near to an end in Tanzania, Julius Nyerere spoke to New African’s Anver Versi. Here Africa’s greatest philosopher and theoretician gives his clear and frank views on such tricky subjects as the IMF, the OAU, Ujamaa, the food crisis, the Nkomati accord and much more." – New African, 25 January 2018.

NEW AFRICAN: What is the OAU doing about Africa’s food crisis, particularly Ethiopia’s crisis?

JULIUS NYERERE: The OAU can do very little. I am told there are 36 African countries with varying degrees of need for food. Tanzania is one of them. The needs of some of the countries, like Ethiopia and Chad, Mali and Mozambique are immense. They cannot be supplied from Africa. They can only be supplied from outside Africa.

This does not mean that Africa cannot do anything about it. What can be done by Africa ought to be done and I hope we are going to do it. We were able to make a modest contribution to Ethiopia – in fact we have established a fund. But whatever Africa can do will certainly not answer the immediate problem. People are dying and there is food in the world. I hope the international community has been sufficiently aroused to make this food available.

What is the long term solution?

To produce enough food; and most countries can produce sufficient food. Africa can produce enough for itself and more. When we have a shortage of food in Tanzania it is not because of lack of rain but because of primitive agriculture. For four years we have had food shortage even though we have had sufficient rain. If our farming had been sufficiently advanced, southern Tanzania would be producing enough food for the deficit areas and more.

This year, if I can give the peasants fertilisers and insecticides they will be able to produce all the food they need. But if I don’t then we shall have to import food next year.

What is your verdict on Ujamaa?

Our problem is that farming is primitive and backward. There are only two ways in which you can improve farming. If you are going to introduce modern methods and farm on a large scale, the peasants have to work collectively, they cannot afford modem methods of production individually. The farmer on his one hectare can stil. produce sufficient for himself but if you want more he has to do more than that. Farming has to be more advanced. And it can only be more advanced if it is organisec co-operatively.

Is Ujamaa a failure?

Have you been around?

No

Then go around.

Is there resistance to the Ujamaa policy within the country?

There is a belief in the world that Tanzania has collective farming. This is not true. But I have always believed that collectivization should be done voluntarily and is therefore a slow process. Actually, had we collectivised, we would not have had the problems we now face because all the villages that have collectivised are doing very well. We have not forced collectivization at all.

Are you satisfied with the state of the economy?

No I cannot be satisfied when we cannot feed ourselves. Our farming is backward and we must improve it to achieve, at the very least, self-sufficiency. How can I be satisfied with the economic situation when we cannot afford even the basics like medicines in our dispensaries?

What are your problems with the IMF?

Naturally, if we go to the IMF and say we want a loan from them, and for the past five years we have been wanting a loan from them, we don’t write down the conditions and ask them to sign; similarly they cannot write down the conditions and expect us to sign. What we expect is to negotiate and agree on conditions which we judge to be acceptable. For more than the past four years we have been struggling to try and agree but all the time the conditions they have put to us have proved unacceptable. But we are still negotiating. The IMF has been working for many years in our countries. They go out and make conditions and say "If you follow these examples your economy will improve", but where is the example of an economy booming in the Third World because they have accepted the conditions of the IMF?

Mexico?

Do the Mexicans agree? No I don’t think so. When we say this, you think we blame the IMF. We are not blaming the IMF. It was established in 1944 to deal with the problems of developed countries. And they established the rules. Their rules are to do with the imbalance of trade between developed countries. But then we came in. And the IMF never sat down and said these rules were never intended for the poor world. They did not admit that it was not just a problem of trade, but one of development – a structural problem. They never changed the rules.

They come to us and say "Devalue, Mr Nyerere' and I say, "Supposing I devalue what will happen?"

"You will export more." Export what? More coffee? I do not have coffee lying around because the value of the Tanzania shilling is too high! This is utter nonsense.

But you have devalued all the same?

Of course, because I found good reason to devalue —but not the IMF reason that somehow I would increase exports. This proposition is simply not true and the IMF rules are not applicable. The rich countries know intellectually that these rules were never intended for the poor countries. They know that. But they have discovered that the IMF is a very good instrument for controlling the economies of the Third World and so they maintain the rules. They never really meant the IMF to be an instrument of control —but they discovered it and are not going to change the rules.

Is it true that you refuse to make any changes in your economic policy, especially changes suggested by the IMF?

Every government has its own economic policy and there are changes going on all the time. Sometimes you increase subsidies, sometimes you remove them, a t times you raise wages, at other times you freeze them, we are doing this all the time.

But no responsible government will sign on the dotted line. Only very corrupt governments will do so because some of the money will go into private accounts in Switzerland. But a serious government in the Third World will ask serious questions before it signs.

I cannot simply sign and then have riots in the streets. We are a very poor country but we are also very strong politically. The IMF may be economic experts, I am the political expert in my country. I am not going to sign and then have the police of Tanzania turn against the people of the country – this has never happened here since we became independent.

There has been some criticism that your government interferes too much in the economy?

What government in the world does not influence the economy in one way or the other? Can you say that the Reagan Administration is so detached that its activities have no impact on the economy? The huge deficits that now pervade the economies of most of Western Europe are a government decision. Would you say that Mrs Thatcher’s policies do not affect the British economy?

In Tanzania we do a little more than they do but this is partly historical, partly ideological. When the British left, who was there to run the economy? Nobody!

We had to organise the industries and take control of the economy ourselves.

What IMF conditions do you particularly object to?

They say reduce the government deficit and I agree but there is a limit to how much I can raise taxes and cut expenditure.

They say liberalise imports and this I find rather unrealistic. How can we liberalise imports when we don’t have enough money to import essentials in the first place?

In 1977, when coffee prices were good and we had a surplus, they came and said, "These surpluses are embarrassing, liberalise your imports". So we did and got into trouble. We are still in trouble.

And they say increase the bank rate because then the peasants will save more! I tell them this is ridiculous but they counter that it works in America so it must work in Tanzania. "When Reagan increases the bank rate, capital flows from Western Europe to America", they tell me, "so if you increase the bank rate in Dar, money will flow in from the peasants." This is stupid but the IMF cannot be stupid so we argue.

What is the answer?

One day it will dawn on the poor countries as it dawned on the workers of Europe. They will have to struggle. It will dawn on the poor countries that an instrument like the IMF has become the substitute for a colonial Empire. It is now an instrument for an economic empire — controlling their economies. And it will dawn upon the Third World Countries one day that they are not free. And when what happens they will begin to find the methods of struggling.

What do you think about the Nkomati accord?

For South Africa it has been absolutely wonderful. And the Americans think it is a tremendous example of the success of . . . what is that policy called? – Ah yes! "Constructive engagement"! They keep on saying how wonderful it is. We think it is a humiliation. We don’t want any more Nkomatis. It is the success of the South African policy of destabilising the frontline states and it is assisted in this by the USA. And it is proper that we should view it completely frankly. It is a defeat on our part. We understand why Mozambique had to look for some accomodation at Nkomati but they haven t even got the minimum they thought they could get out of it. But we understand why they did it, because there was a promise that South Africa might stop supporting the MNR and Mozambique decided they needed peace to start some development in their country. But they have not even got that. From the very beginning, South Africa never meant to honour that agreement because during the very negotiations the South Africans were actually sending in more armed men. They were breaking the agreement before they had signed it! Even after the agreement they continued sending people and are still doing so.

What is the future of the OAU?

The organisation was founded with two main objectives, first, to continue the liberation of the continent. In this we have been reasonably successful. We have had some setbacks in Southern Africa and problems in Namibia and South Africa itself.

It is a problem that is painful at present, but historically it should not worry us very much because quite clearly Namibia will become independent – nobody can prevent it. When you have a superpower like the US blocking independence it will succeed for a while – but there is no superpower that can prevent a country like Namibia winning its independence eventually. So historically we are optimistic. And in South Africa apartheid is going to be wiped off the face of the earth.

So we have now reached the 'hard core' of the liberation struggle. We shall continue.

The other objective is unity. Most of the founding fathers had in mind the true political unity of Africa —a United States of Africa; I didn’t know how we would have made it initially, but we had in mind a united Africa. Some of us were quite clear that this was not going to be easy. To unite sovereign states is very difficult. The problem was that once we had been "parcelled out", we could not come together before we were independent.

We started out as national states and it was the national states which formed the OAU. I still believe that the ambition of making Africa one political entity is a very remote undertaking. We will have to leam the negative lesson of the nation state that the Europeans have learnt. It is very slow process, even for Europeans to begin to come together. So I hope that Africa can achieve the maximum amount of co-operation while keeping the goal of continental unity in view all the time. In the meantime we must do what is possible when nation states, with all their limitations, decide to work together. We will achieve total independence. The other objective of making ourselves economically independent is going to be difficult, but less difficult than actually getting Africa to unite politically to form the United States of Africa such as Kwame Nkrumah had in mind.

What are your short term objectives?

With the withdrawal of Morocco (from the OAU) we have not solved the problem of Western Sahara. It is still here. Morocco wanted to incorporate Western Sahara, the Saharwis don’t like being incorporated and therefore the problem persists. Admitting the Sahara to the OAU does not solve the problem. But it has been removed from the OAU as a divisive issue. It’s gone. But as a problem of Moroccan expansionism, is still there.

What about Chad?

had is an internal problem. We can try to help them but frankly it depends upon the Chadian people themselves to stop killing one another. That is one part of the problem. The other part is the Libyans and the French and we hope they will keep out and allow the people themselves to reach some sort of a reconciliation. We have passed a resolution to this effect and we will try to help them. But the decision will have to come from the Chadians themselves. All we can do is put them together in a room to say "stop fighting". That’s all we can do.

As a socialist country, what are your policies on foreign participation in Tanzania?

There is one tyre factory in Tanzania that is a joint venture between us and an American company. We entered into this agreement after the Arusha Declaration. We do enter into economic agreements with private companies from all over the world.

But now there are lots of them. There are rumours that we may have oil so we are signing agreements with many companies. There are also rumours that we may have minerals so more companies are coming in.

There have not been many foreign companies here not because of our policy but because there was nothing for them. The capitalists will come when they discover there is something to come for.

You do not regard that as going against socialist principles?

I believe the saying: "Use the capitalist if you want to develop socialism".

Written by Anver Versi. ​

Award-winning journalist Anver Versi is the editor of New African magazine. He was born in Kenya and is currently based in London, UK.​


Comments:

Ibrahim Rashid: Great article. Thanks a lot.

Jahrateng Skabelli: Classic Mwalimu! Still very germane wisdom and pragmatism.

newafricanmagazine.com

This 1985 interview with Julius Nyerere, still gives some food-for-thought

Even back then, Tanzania's founding president Julius Nyerere, considered one of Africa's greatest philosophers and theoretician made his views and principles very clear. here he discusses subjects such as Africa's relationship with the IMF, the OAU, the his controversial Ujamaa farming method...
newafricanmagazine.com newafricanmagazine.com
 

The Heart of Africa. Interview with Julius Nyerere on Anti-Colonialism​

New Internationalist, issue 309, January-February 1999​


[In recognition of Nyerere's passing, I present his last great interview]​

The first issue of The Internationalist in 1970 had as its cover story an interview with President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, then at the very centre of the new movement for world development.

Three decades on, Nyerere is, Mandela aside, Africa's most respected elder statesperson, still active in attempts to resolve the current conflicts in Burundi and DR Congo.

No-one is better placed to look back on the anti-colonial century.

Ikaweba Bunting interviewed him for the NI.

Introduction​


The briefings and consultations at the Burundi peace negotiations in Arusha, Tanzania, had been going on all day. It was now seven in the evening and we had been at it non-stop for more than 12 hours. This was a tedious and demanding task, listening to each party go through their interpretation of history and presenting their case. There was a lot of repetition, political manoeuvring and tension. Patience was a most valuable asset.

I was beginning to feel the enormity of the task coupled with the strain of such an intense process - and all I had been doing was taking notes. So I knew that a 76-year-old man in the eye of the storm had to be exhausted. But he showed no sign of it.

The old man, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere - former President of Tanzania and one of Africa's most revered twentieth-century leaders - had been asked by the Organization of African Unity to act as Facilitator, getting the warring parties in Burundi to negotiate a political settlement. I remember that he had a studied reluctance before accepting the task. But since he undertook the work he has never shown a trace of doubt that a negotiated and equitable peace would be achieved. And, as the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) evolves, overtures are being made to involve him in seeking a political solution - he is felt to be the only person who could talk to all sides involved in the conflict and to whom they might all listen.

Now, at the end of this exhausting day, a discussion began on the current war in the DRC. Mwalimu became animated. He began to elaborate on the political implications of the wars in the Great Lakes region of Central Africa (see special feature on the Great Lakes: Oneworld.org ).

He was very disturbed by the growing belligerence of the countries involved and the increase in mass murders. He expressed particular concern about the persecution of the Batutsi based on the mythical racial theory that categorizes them as Hamitic, Caucasian black people who must be exterminated because of their sinister plans to rule Africa. He said he felt a tinge of embarrassment because he had boasted only months earlier that Africa was entering a new era and managing its own problems. `Now the stupidity of fighting over this big forest is going to set us back. Mobutu always gave us problems but we never fought over the Congo.'

Some of the senior members of the team begged their leave but I stayed, soaking up as much as I could, aware that moments like these are jewels to be treasured. Finally he exclaimed: `We are going to have to think about this some more and consider what can be done to stop this awful killing and get some kind of peace in our region.' I could tell by his tone and body language that this meant `good night'. As I was leaving, Mwalimu - the word means `teacher' and has been Nyerere's respectful title among Tanzanians for decades - called me back to say: `You have to get your Pan-African Working Group together and start tackling this problem; let's arrange another meeting.'

It has been my privilege to be associated with Mwalimu Nyerere for the past 25 years. During a visit to Harlem, New York, in the late 1960s Mwalimu extended an invitation to Africans in the Diaspora to come to Tanzania and participate in building a socialist African state. I came over through a new organization called the Pan-African Skills project and have lived in Tanzania ever since, for a quarter of the century.

Nyerere's Tanzania was a magnet then for anti-colonial activists and thinkers from all over the world. Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni, for instance, was deeply influenced by his time as a student at the University of Dar-es-Salaam. Museveni belonged to a study group led by the Guyanan Walter Rodney, who wrote his seminal book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa while he was a professor there.

The University of Dar-es-Salaam became the centre for the guerrilla-intellectuals and activists of African liberation movements. FRELIMO of Mozambique, the ANC and PAC of South Africa, ZANU and ZAPU of Zimbabwe, the MPLA of Angola and SWAPO of Namibia all had offices and training camps in Tanzania. The country also gave safe haven to US civil-rights activists, Black Panther party-members and Vietnam War resisters.

It was an exciting place to be. Under a head of state who valued equal rights, justice and development more than the pomp and power of office, Tanzania was at the heart of the anti-colonial struggle.

Over the years I have often been able to sit with Mwalimu and reflect on Africa's struggles for self-determination and development. Now, in December 1998, prompted by the New Internationalist special issue on The Radical Twentieth Century, Mwalimu Nyerere and I sat down over two days at his home in Butiama, Tanzania, and reflected on his role over the past 50 years as an activist and statesperson in the anti-colonial cause.

Interview​


Ikaweba Bunting (IB): What was the anti-colonial movement's greatest contribution to humanity?

Mwalimu Julius Nyerere (MJN): There are two fundamental things that the anti-colonial liberation movement contributed to humanity. The first is simply that the suffering of a whole chunk of human beings through the actions of others was halted. The arrogance of one group of people in lording it over the human race and exploiting the poorer peoples was challenged and discredited - and that was a positive contribution made by the liberation struggle to all humanity.

Second, the liberation movement was very moral. It was not simply liberation in a vacuum. Gandhi argued a moral case and so did I. Liberation freed white people also. Take South Africa: there, the anti-apartheid victory freed whites as well as black people.

IB: When did you first encounter the idea of liberation from colonialism?

MJN: I cannot say I encountered the idea of liberation in a totality like a flash of light. I did not have an experience like Paul on the road to Damascus. For me it was a process - something that grew inside of me. Our elders fought and were defeated by the Germans and the British. We were born under colonialism. Some of us never questioned it. Those who got educated began to think about it. What many of us went through was simply a desire to be accepted by the white man. At first this is what it was - a kind of inert dissatisfaction that we were not accepted as equals.

World War Two and what it was fought for - democracy and freedom - started the process for many people, especially those who were in the Army. For me the transformation came later. At Makerere in 1943 I started something called the Tanganyika African Welfare Association. Its main purpose was not political or anti-colonial. We wanted to improve the lives of Africans. But inside us something was happening.

I wrote an essay in 1944 called The Freedom of Women. I must be honest and say I was influenced by John Stuart Mill, who had written about the subjugation of women. My father had 22 wives and I knew how hard they had to work and what they went through as women. Here in this essay I was moving towards the idea of freedom theoretically. But I was still in the mindset of improving the lives and welfare of Africans: I went to Tabora to start teaching.

Then came Indian independence. The significance of India's independence movement was that it shook the British Empire. When Gandhi succeeded I think it made the British lose the will to cling to empire. But it was events in Ghana in 1949 that fundamentally changed my attitude. When Kwame Nkrumah was released from prison this produced a transformation. I was in Britain and oh you could see it in the Ghanaians! They became different human beings, different from all the rest of us! This thing of freedom began growing inside all of us. First India in 1947, then Ghana in 1949. Ghana became independent six years later. Under the influence of these events, while at university in Britain, I made up my mind to be a full- time political activist when I went back home. I intended to work for three years and then launch into politics. But it happened sooner than I planned.

[Note: Independence came in 1961, and Nyerere became President. Six years later, he issued the Arusha Declaration, which nailed Tanzania's colours firmly to the mast of socialism and self-reliance. The great Caribbean historian CLR James once called the Arusha Declaration `the highest stage of resistance ever reached by revolting Blacks'.]

IB: Does the Arusha Declaration still stand up today?

MJN: I still travel around with it. I read it over and over to see what I would change. Maybe I would improve on the Kiswahili that was used but the Declaration is still valid: I would not change a thing. Tanzania had been independent for a short time before we began to see a growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in our country. A privileged group was emerging from the political leaders and bureaucrats who had been poor under colonial rule but were now beginning to use their positions in the Party and the Government to enrich themselves. This kind of development would alienate the leadership from the people. So we articulated a new national objective: we stressed that development is about all our people and not just a small and privileged minority.

The Arusha Declaration was what made Tanzania distinctly Tanzania. We stated what we stood for, we laid down a code of conduct for our leaders and we made an effort to achieve our goals. This was obvious to all, even if we made mistakes - and when one tries anything new and uncharted there are bound to be mistakes.

The Arusha Declaration and our democratic single-party system, together with our national language, Kiswahili, and a highly politicized and disciplined national army, transformed more than 126 different tribes into a cohesive and stable nation.

However, despite this achievement, they say we failed in Tanzania, that we floundered. But did we? We must say no. We can't deny everything we accomplished. There are some of my friends who we did not allow to get rich; now they are getting rich and they say `See, we are getting rich now, so you were wrong'. But what kind of answer is that?

The floundering of socialism has been global. This is what needs an explanation, not just the Tanzanian part of it. George Bernard Shaw, who was an atheist, said, `You cannot say Christianity has failed because it has never been tried.' It is the same with socialism: you cannot say it has failed because it has never been tried.

IB: After independence you pursued an African socialism while in Kenya Jomo Kenyatta embraced a more conservative nationalism. The two of you came to symbolize opposing visions of development. Were you conscious at the time of the need to chart a different course that might inspire other new African nations?

MJN: Anti-colonialism was a nationalist movement. For me liberation and unity were the most important things. I have always said that I was African first and socialist second. I would rather see a free and united Africa before a fragmented socialist Africa. I did not preach socialism. I made this distinction deliberately so as not to divide the country. The majority in the anti-colonial struggle were nationalist. There was a minority who argued that class was the central issue, that white workers were as exploited as black workers by capitalism. They wanted to approach liberation in purely Marxist terms. However, in South Africa white workers oppressed black workers. It was more than class and I saw that.

Jomo Kenyatta was clearly capitalist and we were trying a different course. But I must confess I did not see myself as charting out something for the rest of Africa. One picks one's way. I never saw the contradictions that would prevent Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania from working together. I was na‹ve, I guess. Even now for me freedom and unity are paramount.

I respected Jomo (Kenyatta) immensely. It has probably never happened before in history. Two heads of state, Milton Obote [Uganda's leader] and I, went to Jomo and said to him: `let's unite our countries and you be our head of state'. He said no. I think he said no because it would have put him out of his element as a Kikuyu Elder.

IB: In 1990 you were quoted as saying that you thought the absence of an opposition party had contributed to the Tanzanian ruling party's abandonment of its commitments. Do you think it was a mistake for so many new African nations to opt for a one-party state?

MJN: I never advocated this for everyone. But I did for Tanzania because of our circumstances then. In 1990 the Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) abandoned the one-party state for a multi-party system. But we do not have an opposition. The point I was making when I made the statement was that any party that stays in power too long becomes corrupt. The Communist Party in the Soviet Union, the CCM of Tanzania and the Conservative Party of Britain all stayed in power too long and became corrupt. This is especially so if the opposition is too weak or non-existent.

IB: What were your main mistakes as Tanzanian leader? What should you have done differently?

MJN: There are things that I would have done more firmly or not at all. For example, I would not nationalize the sisal plantations. This was a mistake. I did not realize how difficult it would be for the state to manage agriculture. Agriculture is difficult to socialize. I tried to tell my government that what was traditionally the family's in the village social organization should be left with the family, while what was new could be communalized at the village level. The land issue and family holdings were very sensitive. I saw this intellectually but it was hard to translate it into policy implementation. But I still think that in the end Tanzania will return to the values and basic principles of the Arusha Declaration.

IB: Why did your attempt to find a new way founder on the rocks?

MJN: I was in Washington last year. At the World Bank the first question they asked me was `how did you fail?' I responded that we took over a country with 85 per cent of its adult population illiterate. The British ruled us for 43 years. When they left, there were 2 trained engineers and 12 doctors. This is the country we inherited.

When I stepped down there was 91-per-cent literacy and nearly every child was in school. We trained thousands of engineers and doctors and teachers.

In 1988 Tanzania's per-capita income was $280. Now, in 1998, it is $140. So I asked the World Bank people what went wrong. Because for the last ten years Tanzania has been signing on the dotted line and doing everything the IMF and the World Bank wanted. Enrolment in school has plummeted to 63 per cent and conditions in health and other social services have deteriorated. I asked them again: `what went wrong?' These people just sat there looking at me. Then they asked what could they do? I told them have some humility. Humility - they are so arrogant!

IB: Do you think Third World independence actually suited the industrialized world, leaving it with the economic power but without the political responsibility?

MJN: It seems that independence of the former colonies has suited the interests of the industrial world for bigger profits at less cost. Independence made it cheaper for them to exploit us. We became neo-colonies. Some African leaders did not realize it. In fact many argued against Kwame (Nkrumah)'s idea of neo-colonialism.

The majority of countries in Africa and the rest of the South are hamstrung by debt, by the IMF. We have too much debt now. It is a heavy burden, a trap. It is debilitating. We must have a new chance. If we doubled our production and debt-servicing capabilities we would still have no money for anything extra like education or development. It is immoral. It is an affront. The conditions and policies of the World Bank and the IMF are to enable countries to pay debt not to develop. That is all! Let us argue the moral case. Let us create a new liberation movement to free us from immoral debt and neo-colonialism. This is one way forward. The other way is through Pan-African unity.

IB: Should African resistance movements have embraced Pan-Africanism more readily? Do you think we should be working now towards a federal United States of Africa?

MJN: Kwame Nkrumah and I were committed to the idea of unity. African leaders and heads of state did not take Kwame seriously. However, I did. I did not believe in these small little nations. Still today I do not believe in them. I tell our people to look at the European Union, at these people who ruled us who are now uniting.

Kwame and I met in 1963 and discussed African Unity. We differed on how to achieve a United States of Africa. But we both agreed on a United States of Africa as necessary. Kwame went to Lincoln University, a black college in the US. He perceived things from the perspective of US history, where the 13 colonies that revolted against the British formed a union. That is what he thought the OAU should do.

I tried to get East Africa to unite before independence. When we failed in this I was wary about Kwame's continental approach. We corresponded profusely on this. Kwame said my idea of `regionalization' was only balkanization on a larger scale. Later African historians will have to study our correspondence on this issue of uniting Africa.

Africans who studied in the US like Nkrumah and [Nigerian independence leader] Azikiwe were more aware of the Diaspora and the global African community than those of us who studied in Britain. They were therefore aware of a wider Pan-Africanism. Theirs was the aggressive Pan-Africanism of WEB Dubois and Marcus Garvey. The colonialists were against this and frightened of it.

After independence the wider African community became clear to me. I was concerned about education; the work of Booker T Washington resonated with me. There were skills we needed and black people outside Africa had them. I gave our US Ambassador the specific job of recruiting skilled Africans from the US Diaspora. A few came, like you. Some stayed; others left.

We should try to revive it. We should look to our brothers and sisters in the West. We should build the broader Pan-Africanism. There is still the room - and the need.
 
Interview – Mwalimu Julius Nyerere

Alliance magazine, 1 June 1998​

In Africa peace, unity and people-centred development are inextricably linked. The newly established Mwalimu Nyerere Foundation will aim to promote dialogue in these areas. Caroline Hartnell talked to Mwalimu Nyerere about who would be involved in that dialogue and in the process of development in Africa.


The Nyerere Foundation has been set up as a permanent tribute to you. What do you hope it will achieve?

As a founder leader of my country, I was interested in the development of the continent, the unity of the continent, and the link between that and the peace of the continent. So really because we need the development — Africa is now the poorest area of the world — and because that agenda is there, the agenda of unity, the agenda of peace, perhaps the Foundation can make some kind of contribution to the dialogue in these areas.

One of the objectives of the Foundation is people-centred development. Can you say a bit more about what you mean by 'people-centred development'?

Well, this has always been a belief of mine, that we can talk about development 'in the air' so it is development of things, rather than development of people. Our development requires that we build roads and factories and so forth. You know that we have to have growth. And we now talk of development in terms of GNP and we say this country is developing because its GNP is x, and another one is not developing well because its GNP is lower than that. We’ve always said 'Yes, fine; the building of roads is right', but how does this relate to the well-being of the people? Because development must really concern the well-being of the people — that’s number one.

Secondly, it has always been my belief that you can’t develop people — poor people have to develop themselves. So how are people developed? How do people relate to the decisions that are made about the development of a country, the development of a community? Who makes these decisions, how are the people involved? This is what I mean. That people must be involved in the decision-making in areas which concern their own lives, and development has to be about the well-being of a people. And because that is not always so, this needs to be said all the time.

How do you see the three key objectives of peace, unity and people-centred development as being linked together?

Well, in Africa they are very linked. In the sense that how can you have development without peace? And also how can you have peace without development? Especially the kind of development I’m talking about. You can’t have peace, in any country, in my view, without justice because I believe peace is a product of justice. Therefore, if your development is not people-centred, you can produce wealth while at the same time you’re producing poverty. But this creates social tension in the community and then you cannot have peace. That’s why I’m saying ‘people-centred development’ because peace and justice have to go together. So those are linked, and in the case of Africa, of course, some of these countries are so small and vulnerable, so unviable, that I can’t see how you can have development without these countries working together in some way. Either they cooperate economically or they move even beyond economic cooperation. Unity is necessary for the development of the continent, necessary for peace I think also.

So perhaps you should have added justice as a fourth objective?

Well, I’m putting justice into people-centred development. That covers it, that contains my justice for me.

These are very large aims that the Foundation has. How do you think that you can attempt to promote them?

I don’t believe the Foundation can really achieve these objectives. We can articulate them, we can help governments to think about them – we don’t want governments to forget about justice. I keep on saying in my own country that one of the things we need is to have a dialogue about development. So if we can stimulate dialogue about development, that is a help.

I hope we can play a role in getting, for instance, East Africa or the southern countries of Africa — that’s actually where my own thinking is concentrated at present – to discuss together. And not simply the governments of these countries. I think we can also stimulate community thinking and community working together. People being involved. In East Africa, where we had a very advanced structure of organized economic cooperation – the ‘East African Community’ — I believe one of the reasons why we lost the initiative was that it was very much an official initiative. The governments and the bureaucracy were building this unity. It did not involve the people very much. I think we need to involve the people at different levels.

The Foundation’s literature talks about governments, people and local institutions being involved in this dialogue. Do you see the business sector as playing any part?

Yes — certainly. I can’t see in the modern world any kind of development that doesn’t involve the business sector, the business community and, in a sense, I think now there is no way in which we can push unity on the continent without involving the business community. I keep on saying, in Europe the business community is more positively pushing about unity than the politicians. The politicians are the conservatives, they’re the ones who are very nationalistic, but the business community pushes for unity. I think what is true in Europe is going to be true in Africa also. The business community will have to play their own role in demanding the wider markets, for instance. I think it is the business community which is going to be pushing the governments.

Looking at the process of development in Africa, know you focus a lot on the importance of African countries getting together and doing it themselves and not having their agenda dictated from outside, but do you see countries outside Africa as having any part to play in the process?

They will, but I believe, myself, their part is going to be limited. People emphasize a great deal that ‘these countries’ must attract foreign direct investment, for instance. I keep on saying that there is a limit to this, especially in Africa now. Foreign direct investment will go to areas where the conditions for making money are ripe. This means big markets — those are in the process of being created in Africa, they’re not there now.

Eastern Europe has a much more developed infrastructure than any part of Africa, perhaps with the exception of South Africa. The infrastructure has to be a given before the foreign investment can come in. And the skills — you have to have the skills. Lots of investors move out of Europe or move out of North America and go to Asia. One of the attractive things there is that you’ll get good quality work because the skills are there, but it’s cheaper. You move out of Europe and you get the same kind of work, the training is there. And this you’re not likely to find in many parts of Africa. In Africa, when it comes to minerals, it’s different: if in Tanzania some investor discovered a lot of gold somewhere, they’d come, they’d bring the training and put in the infrastructure — they’d do the necessary things. But in normal investment, the conditions are simply not there.

But even if that was not true, my own theory is that countries develop themselves, just as individuals develop themselves. The responsibility for developing Africa is an African responsibility. Most of the resources to develop Africa will have to come from Africa. And it is completely wrong for Africans to think that the resources for developing their countries will come from outside Africa. So I urge, I have always urged, a spirit of self-reliance: that every country will have to mobilize its own internal resources to the maximum and the countries of Africa will have to cooperate to the maximum and enhance their capacity to develop. The rest of the world will come in, they’ll come in and help. They’ll come in and fit in. But the major effort has to be made locally.

You’ve talked about investment from outside not going in at the moment because the situation isn’t right in terms of infrastructure. But what about foreign aid agencies or foreign foundations, non-profit organizations. Do you see any role for them in Africa?

Yes, they can play a role but it’s always going to be a limited role for us because, frankly, you can’t develop a continent on the basis of charity. So there is going to be a role for the humanitarian organizations, NGOs going in helping individual communities and so forth. This will continue, and I think it’s very useful. But one shouldn’t exaggerate the importance.

How important do you feel education is in contributing to the process of development?

Education is key. Was it in the last election in the United States that President Clinton said, 'If you ask me priority number one I’ll say education, priority number two I’ll say education, priority number three I’ll say education.' It isn’t Clinton who should be saying that, it should be heads of government in Africa who should be saying that. Education should be priority number one, number two, number three. You can’t develop those countries without education. This is the key instrument of development, and resources should be spent on education.

Looking back over your very long career in African politics, do you feel the direction in which countries are going now is positive. Rather a large question.

It is a large question. I’m very optimistic about what is happening in Africa now. The continent has gone through stages. We went through the stage when I and my colleagues, those of us who had led the liberation movements, were extremely exuberant and very hopeful about the continent. We went through a period which was no good at all, what I call the neo-colonial period, when soldiers took over the continent, encouraged sometimes, often, by ex-colonial powers. I mention Mobutu as the worst example but Mobutu was not the only one — we had a lot of these people in West Africa and Central Africa. That phase is going out now. I believe firmly that the phase of these African leaders — unelected, unaccountable to the population, a bunch of looters — that age is on the way out now.

A new leadership is coming out in Africa, very confident about themselves, and I think they are going to be accountable to the population; they are part of the population and they want to help the development of the continent. If you look at the continent of Africa and see what is happening, there is a completely new development there. The governments are different kinds of government. We still have pockets — we have Somalia, that’s a question mark, and you have other question marks that I’m not going to mention — but there is the whole of a chunk of Africa, from the Red Sea to Cape Town and now from Dar es Salaam right across to the Atlantic, to the new Congo. If the Democratic Republic of Congo holds, if the promise that the Congo is to the rest of us, if that actually proves to be correct, then there is a tremendous positive change taking place and that will mean a lot.

----------------​

Known throughout Africa as 'Mwalimu' – the Swahili word for teacher – Julius Nyerere was the first President of the United Republic of Tanzania after Tanganyika and Zanzibar united to form one sovereign state in April 1964. He was re-elected as President four times but refused to stand again in 1985. Since leaving office he has continued to work for the principles he had always espoused. In 1987 he became Chairman of the South Commission, set up to look at the developmental problems of the South and what the South can do to solve them. Since 1990 he has been Chairman of its successor organization, the South Centre.

-----------------​


The Mwalimu Nyerere Foundation

The Foundation, set up in 1996 as a permanent tribute to Mwalimu Nyerere, has its main object the promotion of Peace, Unity and people-centred Development. To this end it will seek to promote dialogues within Africa involving governments, peoples and local institutions. Mwalimu himself has agreed to be its first Chairman.

The Tanzanian government has given the Foundation two plots of land in Dar es Salaam. On these it plans to build a headquarters large enough to contain offices, flats and conference facilities which can be leased or rented out to earn income to carry out the Foundation’s objectives.

An Executive Director, Joseph Butiku, has been appointed by Mwalimu, and he is currently working to establish an organizational structure and recruit core staff. While the vision and objectives of the Foundation are clear, its pressing need is to draw up concrete and detailed plans for inaugural programmes which will hopefully attract funds to the organization.

For further information, contact the Mwalimu Nyerere Foundation, 6 Sokoine Drive, PO Box 71000, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Tel: +255 51 113 431. Fax +255 51 112 790.
 
El Mussawar interviews Nyerere​

In an interview with Nawal El Saadawy of Egypt's El Mussawar first published on 19 October 1984, Mwalimu Nyerere discusses Palestine, Tanzania's relations with Libya, and Africa's economic woes.

Nyerere's name brings to my mind the names of the leaders of the 1960s: Nkrumah, Lumumba, Nehru, Tito, leaders who, with Gamal Abdel Nasser, led the two huge continents of Africa and Asia towards unity within the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organisation of African Unity. Those years were full of hope; then came the seventies to abort these hopes. Now we are in the eighties and Africa is being buffeted more and more by crises as heavy as the waves of the sea in a storm. Now the continent which is rich in natural resources suffers from problems of food supply. Nyerere rules his country, Tanzania, like the captain of a ship, steering his vessel to avoid the deep currents and the whirlpools. In doing so, he has made his country an island of stability while still continuing to be an African leader who has never stopped struggling.

When you meet him, he is as calm as the waters of Msasani Bay where he lives in Dar es Salaam, and as delicate as a poet. He also writes poetry. He is as simple as a child when he laughs, and as modest as are the truly great. When you sit with him, you yourself feel great; he never seeks to dominate you but gives you all the space in which to be yourself.

He greatly admired Nasser; they worked together for the liberation of the African continent from colonialism. Many times during the last twenty years he has played an historical role in preventing the division of the OAU.

Although his country is poor in financial resources, he has consistently refused to accept foreign aid under unacceptable conditions or at the expense of his country's independence. He rejected West German aid and turned it down for the sake of Zanzibar's independence; he sacrificed British aid for the sake of Rhodesia's independence; he continues to resist Reagan for the sake of Namibian and South African independence. And for the sake of his support for the Palestinians, he sacrifices much. During the October 1973 (Arab-Israeli) war, he spoke up against Israel and closed the Israeli embassy in Dar es Salaam. In 1974, he opened the Palestinian embassy whose flag still flies in the capital.

I sat down beside Julius Nyerere at the hour before sunset on the terrace of his house by the sea, the mango and the papaya trees and tropical flowers around us in profusion. He has lived in his own house in Dar es Salaam for the past twenty years-from soon after independence. Behind me was a blackboard where his children used to write and in the corner was a huge receiver-set through which he can follow debates in Parliament. There were no carpets on the floor; the leather-covered chairs were old. I called him "Mwalimu Nyerere" as his own people do. He is kind-hearted and has a sense of humour. He laughed frequently while commenting on the contradictions of our world. I forgot I was with a head-of-state. The hour-and-half passed by very swiftly. And so I began with my questions.

NAWAL EL SAADAWY: We have followed closely the support you have constantly given to the Arabs. You never stopped supporting Egypt even though you did not like Camp David. You have also always supported the cause of the Palestinians. How do you see their struggle?

JULIUS NYERERE: We have never hesitated in our support for the right of the people of Palestine to have their own land. Our generation was a generation of nationalists struggling for the independence of our own countries- that is what we were there for. But the plight of the Palestinians is very different and much worse. When we were fighting for our independence, I was IN Tanzania, Kenyatta was IN Kenya. Even now, the Namibians and the South Africans are in their OWN country. But the Palestinian plight is more terrible and unjust; they have been deprived of their own country, they are a nation without a land of their own. And therefore they deserve the support of Tanzania and the entire world. The world must hear their voice and give them understanding and support.

As for supporting the Arab world, you must remember that I believe very strongly in unity. Sometimes, I am accused of supporting unity for its own sake but I believe that unity is an instrument of liberation. And the oppressed must not easily give up their unity-only the enemy can rejoice at its loss. One of my major statements on unity was made in Cairo in a speech at Cairo University in 1964. At that time, both Nasser and Nkrumah were getting impatient with the "reactionaries" in our continent but I said we should not have a confrontation with other African countries; they were a part of us and we all had to live with each other.

Many years later, when some Arab countries tried to have Egypt expelled from the OAU, I defended the unity of the OAU. We can criticize Egypt, I said, but we can never expel an African state from the OAU- where will it end? Similarly, during the Non-Aligned Summit of 1979 in Havana, there was an attempt on the part of some Arab countries to expel Egypt from the Non-Aligned Movement. I was asked to join them but I argued that Egypt was a member of the OAU and as such could not be expelled from the Non-Aligned Movement.

We will destroy the OAU, and our unity through it, if we begin expelling each other. Egypt is a vital member of the Arab world and of Africa. Sadat went too far in embracing Israel; he was alone because of this; the Arab countries felt betrayed by him. But Africa too lost Egypt-it made a tremendous difference to us, this absence of Egypt. What is the OAU without Egypt? Egypt was a pillar of the OAU, of the Non- Aligned Movement. Earlier this year, President Mubarak came to visit Tanzania, his visit was a success and I believe he is now playing an important role in the Arab world and in Africa.

NAWAL EL SAADAWY: What about your relations with Libya?

JULIUS NYERERE: We have never cut our relations with Libya; Gaddafi got entangled in the Uganda war against us without really meaning to. Idi Amin was a good actor and pretended Uganda was a Muslim country; amazingly many other countries were also taken in by him. Uganda is not a Muslim country, it is a Christian country, almost as Christian as Southern Sudan. I tried to explain all this to Gaddafi in 1973 when I met him for the first time in Algiers during the Non-Aligned Summit. He had some very vague ideas then about Tanzania. He thought that during the revolution in Zanzibar (1964), Christians had fought against Muslims. I told him that Zanzibar was 99% Muslim and the Zanzibaris, during their revolution, had got rid of their feudalists just as he had got rid of the feudalists in Tripoli in 1969. I wanted to explain this and so get Gaddafi off that hook. He also felt that Tanzania was a Christian country because I am a Christian. But we are very mixed in Tanzania and we have three times more Muslims here than in Libya. But we are also very secular and we do not believe that politics and religion go together in that sense. During the Uganda war, I never wanted to make a big issue out of Libya's involvement in it. Since then, I have tried to get our friend Gaddafi to understand and I think he now has a greater appreciation of what is happening in this part of the world.

NAWAL EL SAADAWY: There is no doubt that African unity is now facing another crisis, especially with the signing of the Nkomati non-aggression pact between Mozambique and South Africa. What are your views on this?

JULIUS NYERERE: Up to 1980, the liberation struggle went extremely well and we achieved the independence of Zimbabwe. We were then very optimistic about Namibia's independence. And in a sense, we had South Africa on the defensive. Now the situation has changed. South Africa is on the attack. It is bad enough that she is on the offensive against her own people inside South Africa and Namibia; but she is also on the attack against the Frontline States, with full American support. The Americans are backing South African aggression against us - they approve of this policy. So the destabilization is succeeding. We do not like what is happening in Mozambique but the South Africans and the Americans are jubilant. We understand why the Frelimo government was forced to reach some agreement with South Africa, but we can no more rejoice at this than could the Arabs over Camp David. The Americans support South Africa and are now saying how wonderful it is that there is an agreement between South Africa and Mozambique! It is a source of humiliation for us but of jubilation for them - this defines their attitude towards us as human beings.

For Mozambique, things have got worse since Nkomati, and Angola has learnt its lesson from this- that to let the Cubans leave Angola now would be suicide. So there will be no independence for Namibia because of the American linkage (the Reagan government's link between the departure of Cuban forces from Angola and the settlement of Namibian independence as per UN Resolution 435). South Africa's interest in Angola is to get rid of the MPLA government and install UNITA instead, an ambition shared by the Americans. So we will continue the struggle and we will continue to avoid the division of the Frontline States. We do not want the American-supported offensive to divide us as Camp David divided the Arabs. We believe in unity and so we will remain together.

NAWAL EL SAADAWY: The economic problems facing Africa and the Third World are getting worse. America leads the countries of the North in hindering all progress in the South. How do you feel about this now?

JULIUS NYERERE: These problems are enormous and I do not feel optimistic. We are not going to see much movement - or even sympathy - from the North about our problems in the next few years. The arguments for change are there and are well-known but we will not see any change because the Americans(of the Reagan regime) do not want any change. And this suits the other countries of the North. They do not like America's attitude towards their own problems but they are not willing to move ahead without the US and adopt policies for the benefit of the South which the Americans oppose.

This was clear to me at the North-South Summit in Cancun (Mexico 1981). There, some 22 countries of the North and the South met to see whether we could get the main leaders of the industrialized world to appreciate our problems and so do something about them. Prior to Cancun, there had been two meetings, the Commonwealth Summit at Melbourne (hosted by Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser) and the meeting of the Industrialized Seven at Ottawa (hosted by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau), where some basic ideas had been hammered out.

At Cancun, it was clear to me that the major leaders of the North, Canada, France, UK, Japan, fully understood the situation and accepted the need for action on the specific problems of global negotiations and an energy affiliate for the World Bank. There was a general consensus on these points but Reagan, alone, opposed us and that was that. It was then also clear to me that the other members of the North were not prepared to move without the US; the Americans have the veto and therefore we will see no movement.

But I am also pessimistic about the South. Just as the North, so the Third World too is afraid of moving in spite of the fact that we possess so many resources. It is not a question of money either - the Third World has it too. At one time, there was the suggestion of a tri-partite form of cooperation to help the Third World develop through a combination of European technology, Arab money and African raw materials. But we have only ourselves to blame; we lack the will to use our own resources for our own liberation.

NAWAL EL SAADAWY: It is clear that your concepts of socialism and democracy are your own, based on the belief that socialism can be realized without class conflict and democracy without a multi-party system. Are your ideas still the same or have they changed after 30 years of practical experience?

JULIUS NYERERE: My political education was of the Western liberal type up to the time of independence and so I believed in the multi-party model. But in the struggle for independence, we organized our independence party extremely well. We then found ourselves in the ridiculous position of behaving as if we had a multi-party system with only one party!

So we decided, out of necessity, to legalize the fact that we were a single party. Ironically, it was necessary for us to do this in order to introduce some form of democracy into the country because otherwise, our own TANU party would have continued to win all the seats - no other party ever acquired a single member and we were returned unopposed.

In Parliament too, we behaved as if there was another party in the House but there was no debate there at all because there was no opposition. This was a ridiculous situation so we had to legalize the one-party system and then have opposition inside it in order to have democracy and debate. This has had extremely good results. It has given this country one of its major strengths--unity.

Of course unity is based on many different things but the unity we have built through the one- party system has been a very strong one because it has also allowed the party to articulate the reasonable aspirations of the majority of our people. Philosophically speaking, I am not a believer in the one-party system exclusively; my own inclination is towards a multi-party system but I do not regard that system to be the only way to democracy. We have tremendous debate and opposition in our party; we are a mass party, not a vanguard party, and we have the whole spectrum of opinions in our party of two million members. This fact has also helped us to contribute to the struggle for liberation - our mass party gave us the unity necessary for this.

As for socialism, my first contact was with European, mainly British, socialism, not with the socialism of Marx and Lenin. When I started the movement towards independence, we talked of independence, not socialism, about which we had some vague ideas. This was not altogether a bad thing, I believe, because it allowed us to form our own ideas after independence and in the face of the real problems that came to us, rather than through a particular theory. Hence the Arusha Declaration which is a very simple document having two parts: one on socialism and another on self-reliance. It is not a profound theory but a way of dealing with practical problems which arose after independence. For example, soon after independence, we realized that civil servants expected to have the right to earn rent from the houses they had built through receiving government loans. We had to explain that this was wrong and so the Arusha Declaration says that everyone should work for his or her living. This causes a lot of trouble but it is very simple and still very relevant.

The principle of self-reliance came in response to the fact that, after independence, our members of Parliament began demanding money all the time. This was clearly an impossible demand-we all have to depend on ourselves everywhere-in the regions and the villages. So we decided to formulate the need for self-reliance as a principle. So I have nothing to change here -the need for self-reliance at all levels has never been more vital. What has gone wrong with the Arusha Declaration is that it is not being carried out; it remains relevant and I would not change a comma if I were to re-write it now.
______

Listening to President Nyerere, I remembered the speech he gave last week at the All African Women's Conference in Arusha. This speech reflects to a great extent the fundamental ideas rooted in African culture, ideas which have always emphasized dialogue and discussion rather than mere obedience. In this speech, Nyerere also showed the links that exist between the three problems of an unjust international economic system, of poverty and of the exploitation of women. He underlined the fact that every oppressed group in history has obtained its freedom through its own will and efforts. And so the African woman will have to liberate herself through her own struggle, just as the Third World must fight for its own economic emancipation.

After the Arusha meeting, I returned to Dar es Salaam where I began to hear that Nyerere was planning to resign as President next year and to devote himself to leading the Party, CCM. And so I asked him about this.

JULIUS NYERERE: It is true I am going. I am not very old; I am 62, but that is not the point. The point is that I have been leading my country since the beginning of the struggle for independence 30 years ago and since the union with Zanzibar 20 years ago. So I think by now I have probably done all that I can do to help my country. One could go on but I do not believe that "going on" is the issue. It is so much more important to look at the future, to begin to look forward to a new leadership to deal with the new problems. I was not even intending to stand as President at the last elections in 1980; so I said publicly then that the 1980-85 term would be final. There is a lot of pressure on me but I believe I have to help Tanzania to look to the future and to get away from the fear of "what happens". I do not like this fear. My enemies and the enemies of Tanzania want me to go because then every thing will stop; the socialism, the unity, the liberation. This is nonsense. I would want to retire if only to prove them wrong! But next year, I believe I should take one step back and remain Chairman of CCM until 1987. I believe a younger person should take over as Head-of-state.
_____

Nyerere has said elsewhere that a strong party is important because it is in this way that people can take part in achieving social justice and development. We all have the right to this but history shows that it is not enough to have the right; we must also have the power to exercise our rights, the power that comes only through unity and continuous resistance.

In the plane going back to Cairo, I felt so optimistic. I saw the Nile extending from its source in the heart of Africa to reach Egypt, the African-Arab state. And on the horizon of the eighties I saw our hopes extend, the hope of Egypt returning to her rightful place in the heart of the Arab world - and Africa.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

Dr Nawal El Saadawy is a writer–feminist–activist, (and a medical doctor-psychiatrist by profession) who has just returned to Egypt after three years in political exile. In 1984, she came to attend the All Africa women's meeting, held in Arusha in preparation for the UN World Conference on Women in Nairobi in 1985. Mwalimu Nyerere officially opened this Arusha meeting and afterwards was interviewed by El Saadawy in Dar es Salaam.

This article comprises an interview originally published in the Cairo-based Egyptian weekly magazine El Mussawar on 19 October 1984.

Translated from the Arabic by Nawal El Saadawy.

This article will be a contributing chapter to a forthcoming Pambazuka Press book entitled Nyerere's Legacy edited by Chambi Chachage and Annar Cassam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Discussions

Back
Top Bottom
Forums
New posts
Post thread
Back