After the conclusion of the Twelfth Parliament of the United Republic of Tanzania on Friday, June 27, 2025, I found myself reflecting over the weekend on its performance. This parliament stands out for me personally as it is the first one I’ve followed closely throughout its entire term.
Although I began following parliamentary proceedings as early as my secondary school years, particularly during the Ninth Parliament around 2008 due to political turbulence at the time like the suspension of Zitto Kabwe, the Richmond and Dowans scandals, this Twelfth Parliament is the one I’ve monitored most consistently.
During my recent reflections, a historical parallel came to mind, a story I encountered two years ago while reading about French political developments before the Paris Commune. It concerned the courts and parlements during the reign of King Louis XIV of France who ruled from 1643 to 1715. In my view, our current parliament resembles these French parlements, which served not so much as checks on power but as instruments of royal absolutism.
The parlements of pre-revolutionary France were not representative bodies in the modern democratic sense. They did not enact laws, but rather reviewed and registered royal edicts. Nonetheless, they were expected at least nominally to limit royal overreach. However, under Louis XIV, these institutions were reduced to rubber-stamping the king’s will.
The nobles who staffed the parlements often acquired their positions through inheritance or purchase, something that doesn’t seem too far removed from the financial and political investments needed to enter our modern-day parliament.
Louis XIV, the self-proclaimed “Sun King,” was a master of co-optation. He neutralized the parlements by aligning their economic and social interests with his own. Nobles were rewarded with favors and influence, ensuring their loyalty while consolidating his absolutist rule. He famously declared, “It is legal because I wish it to be.”
The consequences of this absolutism were devastating. Unchecked royal expenditures, burdensome taxation, and silenced political elites plunged France into turmoil toward the end of Louis XIV’s reign.
READ MORE: Should We Amalgamate Parliament With the State House?
Drawing this parallel to our time, I see similar patterns in Tanzania’s parliamentary operations over the past 15 years. Constitutionally, our National Assembly is mandated to check the power of the executive. In practice, however, it increasingly resembles a ‘partner’ or even a subordinate to it.
In the Twelfth Parliament, many MPs acted more like defenders of the executive than watchdogs on behalf of the people. At times, they were more vocal in defending government actions than even the ministers themselves. This behavior was evident in national debates where scrutiny was replaced by praise.
Yes, there were exceptions. I recall a few significant issues where MPs pressed the executive—such as the debate over EPC+F contracts, the World Bank-financed LTIP project, and the recruitment criteria in law enforcement agencies. In these cases, Parliament showed signs of unity and assertiveness. But these moments were few and far between.
One might argue that this docility stems from the current dominance of one party in Parliament? However, I believe the issue goes deeper. Our parliamentary system allows the executive considerable leverage over MPs. The President, who is also the head of government, plays a central role in both arms of the state. Taking example how vocal MPs are silenced not through censorship but by elevation— sometimes appointed to ministerial roles where collective responsibility often overrides independence.
There is also the political survival instinct. MPs particularly those from the ruling party are expected to toe the party line. To do otherwise risks alienation or loss of favor, especially when the party leadership controls nominations and political futures. Even opposition MPs have, in previous parliaments, displayed behavior influenced by internal party politics over national interests.
This reality calls into question the structure of our representative democracy. If Parliament becomes merely a reflection of the executive’s will, then the foundation of checks and balances is at risk.
READ MORE: Why Ministers Should Not Be Members of Parliament
Some have been advocating for a more pluralistic democratic system, where representation is broadened beyond political parties to include civil society actors such as trade unions, peasants’ cooperatives, grassroots organizations, and other non-party interest groups. These could elect their own representatives, helping make Parliament more reflective of diverse societal voices.
We must not replicate the model of King Louis XIV’s parlements. Doing so would spell the decline of republicanism in Tanzania by giving rise to a modern aristocracy where access to political power will depend on proximity to the executive and financial clout, rather than democratic legitimacy.
Our Parliament should reclaim its role as the people’s assembly, not merely in form, but in function. It should serve not just as a check on the executive, but also as a genuine platform for public participation in shaping national policy and direction.
This is not an unrealistic ideal. In the early years of our independence, such signs of Parliament existed. As the former Speaker of Parliament, Pius Msekwa, recalled in 1977:
“The National Assembly was generally acknowledged to be the supreme institution for policy-making and control… Even in the government’s view, the National Assembly was regarded as the more important organ when it came to decision-making on major issues…”
That legacy is one we must reclaim before the ‘partnership’ between Parliament and the executive becomes indistinguishable from collusion.
Joel Ntile is a writer and analyst working with The Chanzo. He can be reached at joel@thechanzo.com or @JoelNtile on Twitter. These are the writer’s opinions and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of The Chanzo. Want to publish in this space? Contact our editors at editor@thechanzo.com.
