Reading historical moments is different from living them. If you read about joyful historical times, no sentence or paragraph can fully convey to you, the feelings that existed in their fullness.

Likewise, if you read about difficult historical moments written in tears and blood, a single line, paragraph, or even pages in a history book can not carry the full weight of the human experience; it is hard for an ink to capture the weight of emotions from historical moments.

I believe that in the year 2025, we are in one of the historic election years; an election that will shape or change the fate of our nation in a way that will affect several generations to come. This article is a bit long, so in summary, I will explain a few reasons why this is a historic election year, then I will go into more detail:

First, it is a historic election because the pages of our times will record it as the first election to take place after the death of the sitting President. The person who was Vice President and then became President after the death of the President is now going to lead a campaign to reach the people in order to be elected. Every decision she makes at the moment will be her lifetime legacy for generations to come.

Second, it is a historic election because the leader of the main opposition party, who is also the 2020 presidential candidate, is in prison facing treason charges. It is also historic because for the first time, the main opposition party will be out of the ballot box. Through its no reform, no election stance, the party has urged people not to take part in the election. In this election, I expect that if things remain as they are, there will be people who will choose not to vote — especially due to a lack of trust in the electoral system. This carries serious implications for political legitimacy, confidence in political systems, and even our unity.

Third, every election has its main issues. I believe that in this election, there are two key issues: first, the value of life in our country, and second, our state of remaining a Republic, by which I mean our ability as citizens to decide on matters, whether that still exists. However, I believe that, judging from the early stages of the ongoing election process, these issues will not be given priority. As a result, there will be a significant gap between the expectations of citizens and what the politicians are presenting. In other words, the politicians will have their own agenda, and the citizens will have theirs.

Fourth, there are many indications that the ruling party, Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM), does not believe in— or no longer sees value in— multiparty democracy. And here, I am not saying it does not believe in democracy.

Fifth, the global shift from politics of persuasion to politics of the powerful— along with political changes in our region, East Africa, including the strained relationship between citizens and those in power, creates an opening for global politics to turn leaders in our regions into “puppet leaders’ and risk having client states controlled in all major aspects by major world powers, regardless if its from the East or West. This is a matter of historic times.

I have divided this write-up by looking at the main actors, key events, or important conditions that make this a historic year. I will begin with CCM and other parties, then I have analyzed social engineering in the current context.

Finally, we will conclude with external actors, and at the very end, I will share my perspective on why I believe there is a need for a national consensus before the election date, a point which, in my view, is currently not receiving the attention it deserves.

The ruling party

In 2017, when the non-governmental organization Twaweza released its polls result showing that CCM enjoyed a 65% approval rating, an intense debate ensued in the country. Opposition parties contested the findings, particularly because the main opposition party, CHADEMA, had an approval rating of 17%, down from 32% in 2013. What was not discussed, however, was that it was not only that CCM appeared popular, but it also seemed to have regained lost popularity, because in 2013 and 2014 its approval had dropped to 54%.

I think it was important by then to ask how CCM, as the ruling party, managed to regain its popularity. For Africa, at the time, CCM was performing political miracles, especially since that research was independent and not fabricated.

The main reason we can point to for that phenomenon can be described using the term Statecraft. This is the skill of governing a state. The word carries the idea of expertise, creativity, and even the ability to adapt to the times in state governance.

I will give a few quick examples to illustrate this point about Statecraft. Before 1992, CCM went through several periods of negative attempts. For example, in 1969, some senior TANU leaders were accused of plotting to make changes in the government through the use of force. Similarly, in 1982, there was another attempt, and this one came even closer to succeeding. After that, major changes were implemented, including the introduction of term limits and changes in leadership.

The biggest change was CCM positioning itself to be adaptable.We saw this in 1992 with the introduction of multiparty politics, which was essentially an issue pushed directly by Mwalimu Julius Nyerere after prolonged pressure from reformists outside CCM. And they have continued to try and learn, over the years. For example, after the lowest voter turnout in 2010 and several scandals that shook the party’s legitimacy, CCM agreed to the process of drafting a new constitution, while internally introducing several programs for self-reinvention.

However, from 2016 onwards, CCM took a different course as the party; to date, there are many indications that Statecraft within the party has continued to fade. Some of the developments included neglect of persuasion politics and the emergence of politics by force; this is when we saw acts of political violence being extremely normalized. It was at this point that we saw many young politicians who advanced rapidly in government and CCM were those who were comfortable with the use of violence in politics, those with an extremely narrow view of people having different political views and opinions.

From that time, we have seen a shift from having political mastery and political expertise to relying heavily on security strategies as the main tool for achieving political goals. During the leadership of Chairperson Samia Suluhu Hassan, there were efforts to restore the politics of persuasion. However, those efforts faded and completely disappeared from the second half of 2023 onwards.

This heavy reliance on security strategies to achieve political goals places us in unique and historic times. Politicians engage in politics, understand politics, and solve issues politically; this makes the foundation of state power remain within the premises of civilian politics as it is supposed to be. Historical experience shows that when security tools are used for an extended period to achieve political objectives, the long-term outcomes for society are entirely different, and even the center of power tends to shift.

One of the changes we are now beginning to see is in our elections.For a long time, despite their shortcomings, election periods still carried the sense that there was a choice to be made. However, in 2019 and 2020, things changed; more than once, senior CCM leaders have admitted that things were not right. It is in this context even some members of parliament inferred that their parliamentary seats were gifts given to them by President John Magufuli.

Many expect to once again receive these political positions as gifts, if they pass through the internal process of the ruling party. This is a unique change. It is here that I return to my argument that there are indications that CCM no longer believes in multiparty politics; although, in my view, CCM has been one of the greatest beneficiaries of multiparty democracy, just as other Tanzanians have benefited. Since the introduction of multiparty politics, people who became frustrated within CCM would move to opposition parties, and life would go on. Before that, we saw several negative attempts.

This situation makes CCM’s internal elections very important. We saw that in January 2025, CCM amended its Constitution to expand the scope of voters within the party. These changes are almost similar to those of 2010, which were later abolished; this time around, there are some technical improvements. In short, we can say that the January 2025 reforms are like creating conditions for an election within an election. For the party’s future, this is a good thing, and Stephen Wasira, the Vice Chairperson of CCM (Mainland Tanzania), spoke in depth about this matter while in Mwanza on February 11, 2025.

I can say that these changes, in my opinion, are like a ‘CCM experiment’.I believe CCM analyzed the situation and concluded that if there is enough competition within CCM itself, the public’s thirst to get good candidates will be quenched even before the general election.

Thus, there will be no major demand externally over how the election is conducted, because those who make it through CCM will be those who have already been tested by a large percentage of the population. I believe that even CCM’s emergency congress on July 26, 2025, to amend its constitution again and increase the number of names going to the primary vote to more than three is part of an effort to ensure competition within the party’s internal stages.

If CCM’s primaries had gone as written in the rule books, then we could say the “CCM experiment” had succeed — that is, having an election within an election. However, the conduct of the primaries shows that this has not been achieved to a large extent, ranging from allegations of bribery, breakdowns in procedures, fake ballots, violence, to candidates disappearance and even claims of abduction. It appears that everything that was complained about as shortfalls in the past elections has also happened in CCM’s internal election.

And I will explain the reason this is happening. At the moment, through the use of state machinery, CCM is considered to have an upper hand in the election, especially after what happened in 2019, 2020, and 2024, the main pressure experienced in the general election has now shifted to CCM’s internal elections, because it is expected that whoever wins there will receive the ‘gift of being elected’.

If the official election process could be expected to be at least as it was before 2015, many would understand that passing through CCM does not necessarily mean you have won. It is difficult for CCM to have better elections than the official national elections. You can fill a cup with seawater, but you cannot make an ocean from a cup of water.

In short, for the first main actor in this article, I can conclude by saying there are strong indications that CCM no longer believes in the democracy of a multiparty system. I repeat, I am not saying it does not believe in democracy, but at present, I personally see it as being in the early stages of trying to find an alternative to multiparty democracy, and this is a historic matter.

Social engineering

I suppose you would now expect me to talk about the opposition parties.However, first come with me to the issue of social engineering, and I will also discuss the other parties.

To this day, there is still debate about why universities have political science subjects. However, whether you agree or disagree, the way a society is — the things we call traditions, habits, and the character of a community- are things that are built and become normal after certain decisions are made. This is a kind of social engineering that cannot be touched, tasted, or smelled, yet we live it, and it affects everything in life.

I will give you an example of the idea of social engineering before going further. The first example is Tanzania and the use of Kiswahili. We have found ourselves using Kiswahili as our language, but this did not fall like manna from heaven; it happened because of the series of decisions made due to the popularity of the language as a trade language. The first decision came during the German colonial period, when they saw Kiswahili as a language that could be used for their activities, so they formalized its use in schools and appointed Akidas in various areas who spoke Kiswahili.

However, it was still not a language that had spread to every corner 100% until a decision was made after independence to promote it, teach it, and give it priority. Personally, and for others of my generation, we no longer know our ethnic languages the way our parents did; a complete circle of social engineering has been accomplished.

I have given this example so that it will be easier for you to understand when I talk about this theory of social engineering. There are events or certain developments in our society that I believe show we are currently undergoing social engineering — reshaping our society in a historically significant way.

Now lets dive into it. If you read Aili Mari Tripp’s book, where she interviews Nyerere’s secretary and personal assistant, Joan Wicken, you will see that she recounts how, after Nyerere returned from China, he said he was cautious, or even disturbed, by the way he saw Mao being glorified there. He tried to change this, and we can say he succeeded to some extent.

Even today, I believe he is remembered and respected, but he is not worshiped. Several events contributed to this — for example, publicly apologizing for dismantling local governments, and at times failing to get what he wanted, including the successor he preferred. All this helped build a culture of having leaders we respect but who remain our people, not gods.

From 2016 to now, there has been a very strong push to glorify the top leaders of the country. This push has gone hand in hand with creating a mindset of servitude — or, in the more familiar term now, machawa (sycophants). It has become a requirement, almost a basic obligation, for citizens to praise leaders, and it even appears risky not to do so. This is an example of social engineering.

There is also an issue that has sparked debate within CCM, a debate on dynasty politics. Now, when you combine this social engineering of granting leaders an almost divine status with dynasty politics, if this is indeed the direction we will be maintaining, I believe we are living in historic times — times we may one day look back on and say, “This is when we changed.” Stay with me, and I will give you the conclusion, tying this to the broader context of historic moments.

There is another form of social engineering taking place, the incidents of abductions and disappearances of people. Even if we try to pretend otherwise, this is something that sits right at the forefront of many Tanzanians’ minds. Parents fear for their children, wives fear for their husbands, and friends fear for their loved ones.

These events have continued to instill fear, and because most are linked to political issues, they have begun reshaping our society in an unprecedented way. First, there is the response of those who choose to distance themselves and encourage others to stay away from politics, especially by avoiding complaints or saying anything that might offend those in power. Here, our society is splitting into two groups: those who join the first group of praise-singers, and those who decide to remain completely silent and subdued, accepting whatever befalls them.

However, there is also a growing perception among people who are starting to see that the main reason these things happen to them or their loved ones is because they are defenseless, like an antelope before a lion. It is here that you begin to hear language of encouraging self-defense, and even talk of revenge.

The social engineering through these incidents of abductions and disappearances makes these times historic, because it creates unpredictable conditions for everyone in the long term. No one can predict with certainty how society will evolve; it’s not that bad things have not happened in the past, it is that this is the first time, the culprit seems to be beyond any known mechanisms of accountability set by society. So, the fundamental truth is that if these incidents continue, our society will not remain what it once was.

One of the early signs is, for example, people openly celebrating when leaders face misfortune, especially death. Ordinarily, Tanzanians view death with gentleness, compassion, and humility, whether out of sincerity or pretense, but cheering about the death of somebody is something new.

The third pivotal point on social engineering is CHADEMA’s “No Reform, No Election” stance. While this campaign is long-standing, it took a new direction after the 2024 local government elections.

I can say that the local government election was a strategic mistake by CCM. In any scenario, CCM was assured of winning between 55% and 70% in that election, because it is the only party with such a wide network compared to any other party, unlike in a general election, a civic election has hundreds of thousands of posts. There is no opposition party at the moment with the muscle to fully place candidates countywide.

The decisions made and the way the election was conducted set off a chain of events that, even with all the tools available, have made it difficult for CCM to have a complete steering of political course. Strategically, it has found itself forced to react to many things.

Let’s pause for a moment. I want to remind you of one of the funniest moments to ever happen in opposition politics before I continue with the above point. This was in 2014, when Vunjo MP Augustine Mrema of the opposition party TLP stood in parliament to ask whether President Jakaya Kikwete, whom he called his friend, no longer liked him. This is because President Kikwete had appointed James Mbatia of the NCCR party as an MP. Mrema felt threatened that Mbatia was now seeking to unseat him in Vunjo, something that happened eventually.

For the opposition parties, this is not a good look; it shows an opposition that is controlled by the ruling party. But if we look at the Mbatia–Mrema incident from the perspective of the ruling party, you have to give them credit: managing the opposition without using brute force, what more could you ask for?

Not just this event, but many others show that CCM, as the ruling party, has been able to craft various strategies and tactics to manage the opposition, even allowing them to oppose on things that do not significantly threaten its interests.

Now, continuing from the thought we paused above: after the local government elections, things changed, especially within the main opposition party, CHADEMA. The leadership that was there, was removed, and the direction of the party shifted, with massive rallies showing the party was gathering support the likes of which had never been seen in recent years. Many events that have happened up to today have shown that the relationships CCM had managed to cultivate over the years within that party have been completely disrupted.

CHADEMA’s ‘No Reform, No Election’ campaign, in addition to presenting demands about the election, also has significant potential to shape our society, especially on moving people from moderate positions to more extreme stances, especially when combined with the surrounding events.

It is normal during election periods for people not to turn out to vote for various reasons; many times, it’s due to laziness, weather conditions, or political reasons. On the issue of voter turnout, CCM conducts its own internal research, and the study it carried out after the low turnout in the 2010 election showed that the main reasons were political, namely, disillusionment with the party’s conduct.

However, despite the opposition’s complaints, there was never any reason that could generally cast lasting doubt on the legitimacy of the CCM candidate who won the election. Unlike this time, in the current period, the main opposition party has decided to present an option that is clear to its members and supporters — namely, to choose not to choose. This has a major and fundamental impact on political legitimacy in this election, as everyone who does not turn out to vote will be counted as having chosen not to choose. There are many who, during election periods, are driven to vote by the excitement of campaigns, but now they will encounter other motivations as well.

In the history of our multiparty elections, I do not think there has ever been a time when political legitimacy has been as important as in 2025. This is because it is the only time in Tanzania’s history when the country is going to elect a President after the sitting President had died in office. Beyond the ‘No Reform, No Election’ campaign, there are clear signs that the issue of political legitimacy will be a major topic of discussion after the election, both in general and even within CCM.

It may have been difficult to follow exactly what I have been explaining about the social engineering taking place, so let me make it clear again. First, our society is in, or heading toward, a period in which an environment is being built to put our leaders above our laws, regulations, and constitution. In the midst of this situation, abductions and disappearances enter as a means of instilling fear in people.

On the other side, we are seeing, first, that some people are beginning to view abductions and disappearances through a self-defense lens; and second, we are seeing campaigns to deny legitimacy to those in power.

Both of these sides are leading toward the social engineering of a society that is ultimately divided. Returning to what I explained earlier, when security methods are used for a long time to achieve political goals, the center of power shifts. Whatever we are currently building in our society is, without a doubt, a cup full of uncertainty. Worse still, we have already begun to view some of our problems through the lens of Tanganyika versus Zanzibar, and others see the chain of criticism as perhaps also having a religious motivation.

There is self-deception in thinking that after the election, we will seek consensus or begin the process of drafting a new constitution as a form of bringing the nation together. Historical experience shows that when those in power face intense anxiety over their acceptance and the legitimacy of their authority, whether imagined, perceived, or real, what often follows is the increased use of force and authoritarianism. This was the case in Haiti, the Soviet Union, and even with our neighbors in Malawi and Uganda.

External Actors

At the beginning, I said I would structure this article by describing different actors — starting with those closest to us, and now moving to the more distant ones — with all these elements coming together in the end.

From our historical experience, we often see that the nations that influence or can influence our political and even economic direction are the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China, often grouped as the East and the West. Meanwhile, we view nearby nations, especially in East Africa, through the lens of neighbors, meaning, their affairs are ours, and our affairs are also close to them.

One of the changes we now see globally is that major powers are shifting their politics from persuasion to coercion. In other words, if a country with military or economic might says “jump,” you are expected to jump, or else face the consequences.

For countries like Tanzania, historical experience shows that we are in the worst possible moment to have a divided society. One thing that largely protected the First Phase Government, especially during the height of global tensions, was that its people trusted it; they believed in the stability and intentions of their leaders.

This was not because of incidents of abduction or disappearance; they trusted their leaders, and those leaders made efforts to respond to grievances and correct mistakes when they occurred. Experience shows that even friendly nations today view matters in such a way that no one wants to get too involved in other people’s problems, even where there appear to be fundamental interests.

For example, we have seen the Democratic Republic of Congo, where China has more investment than any other country, yet when the situation called for a player, it was unwilling to get its hands too dirty. The main reason is that, in almost any situation, good or bad, major powers can still operate and adapt in preserving their interest.

Now, for our case, there are two main schools of thought regarding global players, which I believe are faulty. For many stakeholders in positions of power, the belief is that when you damage relations with your citizens, especially on fundamental issues concerning the relationship between the public and those in authority, when faced with international backlash, you can always turn to China and Russia.

But there is also a school of thought among opposition party stakeholders that there can be an international democratic solidarity when human rights are being suppressed. I believe both of these perspectives hold some truth; however, they are not reliable in today’s world.

For those in power, you need people on your side now more than ever, because all the major powers, regardless of which side they are on,  if given the chance to turn a country of interest into a puppet state, they will gladly take it. And there is no easier way to lose a nation’s sovereignty than to lack legitimacy at home while relying on external support. You will be steered like a kite driven by the wind.

For stakeholders who rely on democratic solidarity from abroad, the current times show that politics today, from Washington, Brussels, to Beijing and the Kremlin, are getting more transactional than ideological. If their interests are genuinely protected by those in power, the solidarity they display will be mostly for show.

Worse still, there is a tendency among major powers to reach a certain level of understanding when it comes to smaller nations in which they have vested interests. This has been evident in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is reminiscent of the days of the Berlin Conference, the only difference being that today we will also see Asian nations at the table.

But there are also emerging, smaller nations with economic power that are also moving around to build their influence. Looking at this five-year period, one of the sparks that completely changed our politics came from a foreign nation — a country that had never before been significantly involved in our political affairs.For those who follow events, we know how our politics took a different turn after the port agreement. It is not the purpose of this article to analyze that agreement — it is a debate that has already been had.

But after that tension period because of the contract, which involved the United Arab Emirates, we saw the collapse of reconciliation politics. Money flooded our politics once again, and we have never gone back. When you put all this together, the point is that global politics is shifting, and any kind of division within the country makes us susceptible to manipulation, and we risk having shaky sovereignty in front of an evolving global landscape.

Finally, East Africa is in danger of being swallowed by global politics.East Africa is at risk of becoming a testing ground for new global political strategies, sparks of which have already been seen in Congo, and now they are beginning to spread.

Traditionally, Tanzania has been the place where, when neighbors faced political problems, they would look to as a standard — an example — whether in the moral authority of leaders, the ethical weight of governance, or even in international positions. However, now in East Africa, we are all looking very similar: in Kenya, people are abducted by those in Subarus; in Tanzania, people are abducted by those in Land Cruisers; in Uganda, people are abducted by those in drones.

I understand that a deep sense of anxiety among those in power arose after Kenya’s Gen Z protests. After those protests, we saw major changes in our politics, especially warnings and emphases from various institutions. Cases of abductions also increased. We saw the case of Sativa, we saw Soka and his colleagues disappear to this day, and we saw the abduction and killing of Ali Kibao, incidents that remain unresolved to this day, and many other incidents.

For Tanzania, that image of the wise elder in East Africa is gone.For East Africa, there is no one who can place a hand on fellow colleague shoulder, to say this is wrong.This is an open door for other nations to steer East Africa. If there is no change, we are living in historic times — not just in Tanzania, but the whole of East Africa.

Conclusion

Not long ago, I was speaking to someone on various developments, and I was shocked by his take that during elections, it is normal for events to happen, especially bad things.

In my mind, the only question that came was: bad things happen to whom? However, he went on to explain that various people suffer misfortunes and even deep grief, but these are things that pass.

Every time I think about that person’s words, I became disappointed even more.The way he spoke, I believe he meant other people — not himself, his family, or his loved ones. If he were sure bad things could happen to him or his family, I don’t think he would have sat there thinking, speaking, or reasoning like that; he would have insisted that bad things should never happen to anyone.

I believe there is great importance in having a national consensus — a consensus like the one that was reached in 1960, three months before the election. After the experience in the 1958-1959 election, the British-led Government had an agreement with TANU on changing some of the complaints, which led to the amendments of the constitution ahead of the August 1960 election.

I agree that this is not the right time to make constitutional changes, but there is a need for national consensus. First, for the release of political leaders who are being held; second, for all parties in Tanzania to be allowed to participate in the election; and third, for political leaders from all sides to meet in front of elders and religious leaders, and agree on a way forward toward the 2025 election.

Otherwise, I believe the current situation will bring even greater uncertainty in future elections — just as the bad state of the 2020 election has given birth to the uncertainty of the 2025 election. I think it will become normal for a strong opposition party to be banned from political activity a few months before the election; it will become normal for an influential opposition leader to be imprisoned before an election. How long can that go on?

And the matter of legitimacy and people’s say on the issue will cease to be important; the center of power will continue shifting from civilian politics toward security-centered politics. Because once the cup of legitimacy dries up, for many, it will be refilled with authoritarianism, and politicians in power will face a new confusion when they realize they do not hold all the levers of power.

If there is no political consensus, I believe 2025 could mark the beginning of the most historically uncertain period Tanzania has ever seen.

Tony Alfred K is an analyst working with The Chanzo. He can be reached at tony@thechanzo.com and on X @tonyalfredk. These are the writer’s own opinions, and they do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of The Chanzo Initiative. Do you want to publish in this space? Contact our editor at editor@thechanzo.com.