As Tanzania heads toward its upcoming 2025 general elections, the political atmosphere is tense, stagnant, and increasingly uncertain. A series of events, both within political parties and in the broader public sphere, has drawn national and international attention, revealing deep fractures in the country’s democratic landscape.
Political parties are preparing for the elections, with the two leading opposition parties taking distinct paths. CHADEMA has adopted a hardline stance with its No Reforms, No Elections campaign, boycotting the electoral processes to demand systemic change. Meanwhile, ACT Wazalendo is pursuing electoral reform through its Linda Demokrasia, or Protect Democracy, operation, choosing to engage while pushing for electoral and democratic safeguards.
Both parties have been mobilised nationwide. ACT Wazalendo has held leadership assemblies to educate citizens on their platform, while CHADEMA organised public rallies advocating reform. These rallies culminated in the arrest of party chairperson Tundu Lissu on treason charges, a move that shocked the nation and raised serious concerns about civil liberties and political freedoms.
In a further escalation, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) convened all registered parties to sign the general election Code of Conduct. Most complied; CHADEMA did not. Consequently, INEC, acting under contentious rules that ACT Wazalendo intends to challenge in court, disbarred CHADEMA from participating in the elections, further intensifying political tensions. This development also exposed internal fractures within CHADEMA, as a faction opposed the boycott and advocated for participation instead.
Uneven field
This ongoing contest plays out on an uneven field. The ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), continues to benefit from a political terrain that offers little room for opposition growth or public empowerment. Politics has drifted away from addressing the needs and aspirations of ordinary citizens. What remains is a power struggle in which incumbency, institutional control, and intimidation frequently obscure genuine democratic engagement.
READ MORE: ACT Wazalendo: Can Tanzania’s Left-Leaning Party Overcome the Odds to Challenge CCM in 2025?
Over time, the bond between politics and the public has weakened, particularly among citizens who feel disillusioned. The belief that elections are predetermined has eroded voter enthusiasm, especially among opposition supporters. Ironically, this apathy strengthens CCM’s position, as voter disengagement clears the path for near-uncontested victories. The prevailing narrative of “Why vote if the result is already decided?” has become a quiet but dangerous form of surrender.
But here lies the paradox: refusing to vote does not dismantle the system; it entrenches it.
Political science research consistently shows that opposition boycotts, rather than delegitimising authoritarian regimes, often backfire by granting incumbents easy victories, weakening opposition parties’ credibility, and silencing dissenting voices. Even in a hostile environment, participation remains a form of resistance. The ballot, however flawed, is one of the few remaining levers of public power.
This is not to minimise the challenges opposition parties face. In Tanzania’s current political climate, their visibility is severely limited. With no parliamentary representation and few council seats, their voice is faint and their influence diminished. But democratic space cannot be regained by withdrawal alone. Even marginal participation—winning a few seats—can offer a platform for visibility, credibility, and future influence.
Important battlegrounds
As political scientist Andreas Schedler argues in Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition, flawed elections remain important battlegrounds in hybrid regimes. A total absence from the electoral arena often leads to long-term marginalisation.
So, what should political parties do now? Should they boycott a flawed process to delegitimize it, or risk engagement to defend and reclaim what remains of democratic space? Do people still need political parties to represent their voices, or must new civic movements emerge to fill the void?
One thing is clear: vibrant, functional, and courageous political parties are essential for democracy to survive. When parties opt out of elections entirely, the future becomes even more uncertain. Boycotts without mass public mobilisation or strong international pressure rarely succeed; more often, they reinforce authoritarian control.
If opposition parties refuse to appear on the ballot, who will challenge the ruling party’s policies? Who will propose alternative visions for national development? Who will speak for the marginalized?
Studies suggest that while boycotts may gain symbolic support, without domestic momentum, they more often trigger democratic regression. They may send a message, but they cannot pass laws, influence budgets, or hold power to account. Only participation can do that.
Examples from elsewhere
Tanzania’s opposition needs to closely examine the political landscape in Africa and learn from it, particularly from some of the continent’s democracies that are currently enjoying a degree of stability and human rights such as Namibia and Ghana. There is a noticeable shift across Africa, moving away from people-driven governance based on electoral principles towards military-oriented leadership. This change arises from a growing demand for independence, effective service delivery, and justice.
READ MORE: In Tanzania, It Appears That Authorities’ Best Strategy to Maintain Peace Is to Break It into Pieces
Looking back at Kenya’s situation, the opposition leader’s decision to boycott the repeat presidential elections in 2017 did not enhance citizens’ access to their rights or justice. Instead, it seemed to embolden the misconduct of then-President Uhuru Kenyatta’s regime.
The real significance of this boycott lay not in the act itself but in the economic embargo that the opposition leader encouraged his supporters to implement against selected products linked to the winning candidate.
Ultimately, the two sides reached a truce, resulting in a coalition government known as the “handshake.” In the end, the people lost out regardless of the outcome. By comparing this scenario with the recent developments in Burkina Faso, we can see a clear contrast that reshapes our understanding of people-centric elections and governance.
Tanzania’s opposition parties must act as the voice of reason, representing the concerns, fears, and aspirations of those who feel marginalised by the current system. It appears that many have succumbed to the desires and ambitions of power, which may not reflect the true needs of citizens. Regardless of their voting choices, people deserve access to quality healthcare, dignified living conditions, shelter, meaningful education at all levels, and guaranteed livelihoods and justice.
The occurrence of an election may not be significant if politicians do not listen to citizens’ needs for their rights to be respected, protected, and promoted. Additionally, citizens should be able to access justice that allows them to fully enjoy their civic and political freedoms, including the right to choose their preferred form of governance and political leadership. A boycott without a larger plan to enhance civic freedoms only serves to disenfranchise an already marginalised community.
At this crossroads, Tanzanians must weigh not just their frustrations but the long-term costs of disengagement. Crisis or not, elections matter. They are not a cure-all, but they remain one of the few tools citizens must use to shape their country’s direction. Whether one casts a hopeful vote or a protest vote, it is still a voice. And no democracy survives without it.
Fortunata Frederick is a lawyer and human rights expert. She is available at fortukito@gmail.com or on X as @fortunatak. The opinions expressed here are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Chanzo. If you are interested in publishing in this space, please contact our editors at editor@thechanzo.com.
One Response
In a further escalation, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) convened all registered parties to sign the general election Code of Conduct. Most complied; CHADEMA did not. Consequently, INEC, acting under contentious rules that ACT Wazalendo intends to challenge in court, disbarred CHADEMA from participating in the elections, further intensifying political tensions.
Was CHADEMA really disbarred by INEC? I think CHADEMA disbarred itself for not signing the general election Code of Conduct .