“When your adversaries play hardball, it’s cheating. When your friends do it, it’s fair play.” — Anonymous.

This adage captures perfectly the double standard one senses in Tanzania’s political terrain today. When you log onto social media, especially X (formerly Twitter), you will encounter a barrage of verbal exchanges between CHADEMA and ACT Wazalendo. What should have been a united front in the struggle for democracy has degenerated into a bitter tug-of-war, disheartening those of us who still cling to the promise of change.

For many observers, the infighting has blurred the real contest. Citizens are left wondering: Who is the opposition’s true competitor? Scrolling through Instagram, Facebook, and X reveals a profound lack of leadership clarity — and a vacuum where practical, people-centred politics should be. Tanzanians yearn for guidance to reshape politics into a force for solutions, not spectacle

One can’t help but wonder: Who benefits from all these woes?

According to a recent REPOA governance survey, the majority of Tanzanians say they prefer a multiparty system over a single-party state — a hopeful indication that democratic aspirations remain alive. Yet trust in political parties remains fragile. Roughly 59 per cent of citizens say they trust both CCM and the opposition combined, while a third trust only CCM, and a mere one in ten express confidence in the opposition alone. 

READ MORE: Engage or Disengage? Tanzania’s Opposition Faces a Critical Decision 

Many, particularly rural, less educated, and CCM-aligned respondents, still view political pluralism as inherently divisive and prone to violence — perceptions that peaked in 2005 and have only partially receded.

A theatre of ego

This erosion of confidence in parties suggests that public infighting and a lack of focus on citizens’ urgent needs are taking their toll. Each party claims to serve the people’s interests. Yet too often, the political discourse devolves into ridicule, point-scoring, and moral grandstanding — a performance more concerned with proving who is “right” than with delivering meaningful change. At times, politics in Tanzania feels like a theatre of ego, not a vehicle for building a better tomorrow.

The two sides of the battle give a sense of how we claim to believe in democracy, yet we seem unwilling to tolerate those who think differently. Dissent is met not with reason but with hostility, as if refusing to echo a particular narrative makes one an enemy of the people. This kind of intolerance is in contrast to the very essence of democracy: the ability to coexist, contest, and compromise.

The current disagreement between the two opposition camps regarding the upcoming elections is more of a myth than a genuine issue, especially considering the time we have before October. Each camp is entitled to its perspective and should respect the views of the other.

For those boycotting elections, isn’t it their duty to make a compelling case to the public, rather than waging a proxy war against fellow opposition parties? Does the politics of insult and contempt advance their cause, or simply distract them? Does another party truly stand between them and their goals, or is it their lack of strategy?

READ MORE: Is Democracy Still Delivering? A Reflection on a Fading Promise 

And for those choosing to contest, the responsibility is no less heavy: to make clear why elections — however flawed — remain a critical, if imperfect, instrument of power. No matter how dim the light at the end of the tunnel may seem, that does not erase the people’s right to participate and decide who governs them.

The focus must return to the people’s welfare. Tanzanians need clear, concrete answers to bread-and-butter issues — not endless attacks on personalities.

Watching the spectacle

Meanwhile, those in power — Chama Cha Mapinduzi — can afford to sit back and watch the spectacle. They hardly need to defend themselves when their challengers are busy tearing each other down instead of presenting compelling, people-centred alternatives. At this juncture, the way is paved for CCM to increase trust in those who have doubts about the opposition, as reiterated above. Through the ongoing unfounded exchange of words, the opposition is losing those who are swingers when it comes to multipartism.

What Tanzanians deserve are coherent, forward-looking policies that put food on the table, improve livelihoods, and restore hope. Politicians come and go. But sound, sustainable policies endure.

When the opposition becomes consumed by infighting, it risks alienating the very people it claims to fight for. Ordinary citizens start to see politics as little more than a playground for the elite, detached from the realities of daily life. That disillusionment breeds apathy, not change.

READ MORE: Theatre of the Good Cop, the Bad Cop, and the Bad Guy: A Political Allegory 

Of course, history reminds us that divisions within liberation movements are nothing new, and not necessarily fatal.

We saw similar dynamics in the lead-up to Tanzania’s independence. TANU, alongside movements like the United Tanganyika Party (UTP) and the African National Congress (ANC), pursued Uhuru through different philosophies. TANU, under Julius Nyerere, focused on mass mobilisation, unity, and nonviolent resistance. UTP, in contrast, aligned itself more closely with settler and conservative interests, while the ANC worked mainly in regional pockets. These differences often led to tension; ultimately, TANU prevailed due to its compelling promises.

In the African-American struggle against racial injustice, Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. Du Bois represented sharply divergent strategies. Garvey, the Jamaican visionary who inspired Bob Marley’s immortal Redemption Song, called for African Americans to separate and return to Africa. Du Bois, the first Black Harvard Ph.D. and NAACP co-founder, championed integration and working within American institutions. The two opposed each other bitterly, yet their ideas together enriched the larger movement for Black liberation.

South Africa’s struggle against apartheid saw the ANC and the PAC disagree profoundly on tactics — yet both contributed to dismantling the racist regime. The nation today remembers Mandela and Sobukwe alike.

Lessons

The lesson is clear: disagreement on methods is natural — and even healthy. But staying focused on the shared goal and letting the best ideas rise in the marketplace of policy is what ultimately serves the people.

READ MORE: G-55, Mandela, and CHADEMA’s Cleansing Journey: Where We Are Headed Is Where We Deserve to Be 

It is crucial to learn from other countries to achieve better results. In Hungary’s 2022 elections, six ideologically diverse opposition parties — ranging from greens to socialists to conservatives — united under one coalition called United for Hungary to challenge Viktor Orbán’s long-dominant Fidesz party. 

Additionally, we can adopt a refined version of the new UKAWA. Similarly, we should engage influential individuals in our own country to promote cooperation among opposition parties, encouraging them to collaborate rather than maintain a contentious relationship.

As Tanzanians, we long for a politics that uplifts rather than demeans — that unites rather than divides.

Let’s hope our leaders remember this: to fight for better policies, not personalities. To bring politics back to the people.

Because it is not the divisive noise that changes lives — it is the vision, and the courage to serve.

Fortunata Kitokesya 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.