Some call it a transitional era, while others see it as the beginning of a new era. International law is being reduced to mere suggestion and a tool of the powerful; brute force is replacing dialogue and diplomacy, while many see the United Nations as being stripped of its relevance from within.
In this edition of Kivulini Talks, a panel of policy and diplomacy analysts reflects on the state of the world from a Tanzanian perspective. The panelists include Dastan Kweka, an analyst and researcher; Diana Kamara, a researcher and writer; Festo Mulinda, an analyst focusing on diplomacy and politics; Buberwa Kaiza, a policy expert; and The Chanzo’s analyst, Tony Alfred K. The panel was moderated by Khalifa Said.
Watch the full session, or continue reading below.
Khalifa Said: How are you, viewer of The Chanzo? We welcome you once again to the series of programmes we have been running here at The Chanzo, Kivulini Talks. And today we are here once again with our colleague here, with whom we are going to discuss the whole issue of Tanzania amid global transformation: how are we going, what are we doing to see how we can prepare to deal with things that will happen down the road, or that are already happening right now.
My name is Khalifa Said, and I will be moderating this conversation for you, and on behalf of my colleagues behind the camera, we welcome you warmly. Welcome.
Panellists: Thank you.
Khalifa Said: Perhaps I’ll start with a brief introduction, and then we’ll open the discussion. As I mentioned before we started recording, right now the world is witnessing very big transformation in various spheres: artificial intelligence, or as others call it, machine intelligence; climate change; armed conflicts in the Middle East, but also civil wars, as we are witnessing in Sudan and many other places in the world.
It’s fair to ask, as a country, how are we preparing to deal with the impacts that will result from all these things that are happening? So I’m here with people who follow these issues closely, by reading, by researching and by investigating, and we’d like to get their perspective on how they see the world and how we as a country are preparing.
So my first question, perhaps to all of you: if you were to summarise the state of the world as you see it right now, how would you describe it? The world, how do you see it as it is right now, given everything that is happening? Perhaps we can start with you, Festo.
Festo Mulinda: Thank you very much. I’d like to borrow a phrase from Mzee Mwinyi, may God rest his soul: I see the world as a madman’s head right now. I once said somewhere that the world lacks a grown-up right now — a grown-up in the sense of whether a country, most likely a country, that thinks in the interest of the world, that thinks about stability, thinks about peace, thinks about connections, international connectedness, let’s say.
We are in a world where the United Nations no longer has power; I could say it no longer has meaning. Veto powers are used forcefully and for self-interest. The interests of citizens in different parts of the world are handled according to the will of one particular nation. So we are in a world that lacks leadership, that lacks direction.
The Greek historian Thucydides [spoke about] the Thucydides trap, that when you have an established great power that then becomes fearful of another rising power, conflict is bound to arise between the two, either directly or through their respective allies. And we see that: America has sat at the top for a very long time, about a century now, but as they themselves openly say, they have a policy they call “to contain China,” a policy of keeping China in check so it doesn’t move from where it is, doesn’t raise its head, doesn’t partner with others.
And that affects all the rest of us. If you partner with the Chinese, if you partner with the Russians, they put a mark on you, they flag you: “You, sir, have bad intentions.” Now we’ve reached a point where conflicts are erupting which, if you look at them closely, are just national interests, but they affect the whole world.
Khalifa Said: All right. Diana, how do you see the world? How would you summarise it, the way you look at it?
Diana Kamara: On the one hand, authoritarian rule and the use of force are right out in the open. We ourselves here in Tanzania have our own examples, but America’s war, and how the European Union views the Iran issue, the threat of an invasion of Iran comes at a time when we see, on one side, on that same side as well, America can simply go and seize a president inside his own country, take him to America to put him on trial.
On the other hand, because of what happened in Gaza and the Palestinian war, there has emerged worldwide solidarity through social media. So those movements have helped us see that there is still hope. And because of that, truly, on one side we are worse off, because the use of force continues, and that hunt for resources without any disguise is going on at a very high level.
But on the other side we see, especially after what happened in Gaza, how people are able to find each other, search for information, inform one another, see what is happening, oppose it and keep building solidarities beyond our own nations. So on one side it’s very bad, but on the other side it’s very good. There’s hope, because we can now, through social media, even if it still oppresses us, rise above the petty internal politics of our nations and look at what lies ahead of us as human beings in general.
Khalifa Said: Brother Buberwa, how do you see the world?
Buberwa Kaiza: Thank you very much. The way I see the world is that the world, since we began to know it, if you look at the science side, if you look at systems of governance and politics, the world has been changing every so often, and it has never stood still. So if you look at the world’s tree of change, you’ll see that every so often, it may be after a hundred years, the world changes. Perhaps the main question that can be asked is about when the world changes, who is changing it, and whether Africa, and we in Tanzania, perhaps have a place in a changing world, to be part of driving those changes.
You’ll recall, for example, about a hundred and fifty years or so, ah, a hundred and thirty, forty, you’ll see we entered colonialism from 1884, and that colonialism set a completely new direction for Africa, different from how it had been at that time. We got new rulers who created nations for us, drew borders for us, named our nations for us. Before the colonialists came, [Tanganyika] did not exist. They were the ones who said, “The [Tanganyika] we want is this one.” They showed them Tanzania; “The Kenya we want is this one,” and that is what we have to this day.
But later, because communication was not as extensive worldwide as we might imagine, another confusion arose. It was during this confusion that we saw the United Nations established after the Second World War, after one was founded after the First War and failed. But also we had hope in the United Nations, but we as Africa were not part of it; we were just recipients. But now, what is happening, we also see that the cracks in the United Nations have grown large.
Dastan Kweka: The way I see it, I think the world is in a period of transition, and I think it’s a transition from a world that for a long time has been under the sway of Western nations, which were the ones dominating to a large extent. And now we see, on the other side of the world, especially Asia, powerful nations are emerging, for example China, for example China, India, and not only China and India, but there are others; even if you look at nations like Malaysia, the Philippines, look at Vietnam, for example.
And we are heading toward a world in which, to a large extent, Western nations are forced to deal with conditions in which their influence has declined. And I think, to a large extent, that situation is really what you see causing trouble in the world right now. We have reached a stage where America, for example, feels as if it is doing its business in conditions that are not just, I think you could say not fair, right? But for many years they were the ones who made the rules and the guidelines and everything. This transition period is really what is causing trouble.
And I think the big issue that Mr. Buberwa also touched on is that this situation, how can we interpret it? I think quickly, I think we’ve been here before: in the fifties, sixties, the period when our country was gaining independence, we were there, right? We were there because it was a period that was one of the Cold War. Right now you could call it something like a cold war, but we haven’t reached that stage overall, but we’re heading there.
And I think in these circumstances we can learn and say: when we were there, what kind of thinking did we have that helped us? I think the first was the issue of unity as Africa, right, and as developing countries: that we must stand together, because this is a time when the powerful are jostling for a seat at the decision-making table. What should we do? We must come together and unite as Africans, as, as developing countries. I think I can put it that way.
Khalifa Said: We’ll come to how we can engage with this situation, but give Tony the mic. Tony, what’s your summary of the world?
Tony Alfred K: I could say it’s a period of labour pains; something new is being born. So there will be great pain, but there is something new being born. But there’s also a contradiction as to whether it’s still the years of the people or of strongmen rulers. You know, there was the time of kings, generals; every time it goes like that. So there’s that.
So you see in many places there emerge strongmen who seize, who monopolise people’s power and subjugate the people. So when I look at this period, I still think it’s transitional, but it’s still the era of the people. So these strongmen will fall, and the people will still remain, holding the power of authority.
Khalifa Said: Perhaps staying with you: so we’ve tried to describe the world as we see it, but we are in Tanzania, and Tanzania will no doubt have to enter into that new era we’ve tried to describe here, or that new world. And I wanted to ask you, how do you see Tanzania entering that world? So I was just trying to think: are we entering from the position of strength, vulnerability or illusion, in your view? How do we enter that new era, which is here, it looms large, let’s say we are already in it?
Tony Alfred K : I think we are entering in a state of great weakness.
Khalifa Said: Weak, you mean?
Tony Alfred K: Yes… The first weakness in a period of confusion, or of disarray, is that it’s a period when you need your people to be very united. He talked about the sixties; one of the great strengths that gave leaders at the time great strength was that they had a united nation, but also a nation that believed its leaders had good intentions toward them. Now at present we are divided, but there is also no will to unite people.
So it’s a great weakness that, no matter who you have behind you, because right now we see small nations attaching themselves to big nations, if your people are not united, if they’re divided, you cannot withstand the shocks. You’ll be, you’ll be a country that is used. So that’s the first one.
But the second thing, I think we haven’t yet, we haven’t moved from, when we came out of independence struggle, we knew what Tanzania’s image in the world was: that Tanzania believed that human beings are all equal, human beings should be free, and it fought for that. Right now Tanzania, it’s as if we believe in nothing. I don’t know what we believe in; even I myself fail to understand what we believe in. So that too is a challenge.
But we also have an opportunity. The opportunity we have now is that we have, we have certain resources which give us an opportunity. For example, we have critical minerals, but also we are in the middle of surrounding countries that have, that have huge global attention, like Congo. So if you compare, for example, Tanzania and Congo: Tanzania, we too have critical minerals; we have critical minerals that you see big powers fighting over, I mean America, China, Europe.
But if you look at Tanzania, for example, the Lake Zone: in the Lake Zone there are Chinese who are trying to take, I mean they’re investors in one way or another. But in the Lake Zone, coming over to Kagera, the Americans are opening a big strategic mine for critical minerals. Coming to the railway: right now we have the TAZARA railway. The TAZARA railway connects Tanzania and Zambia for critical minerals; here we’re talking at a global level. But at the same time you have Lake Tanganyika, which now connects Tanzania — there are ways we’ve improved it — so critical minerals from Congo pass through easily. These are routes the Chinese especially depend on.
But at the same time, if you look at the railway we’re building, this central one, the SGR, it can be connected all the way to Burundi, but also all the way over to Kagera it can be used, which is where we say there are interests of, like, the Americans, the West in general. So Tanzania, we have ways that we can still, we’re in a position, we can cooperate with all these big nations, and we have a big role.
Khalifa Said: We’ll come to that, because first I just wanted us to see that level of preparedness. Perhaps let me come to you, Festo, because I think it’s a fair question, so it’s a fair question to ask: there are these big changes happening at the global level; looking at ourselves here, policy-wise, strategy-wise, as a country, do you see any level of preparation? Are there interventions that we’re making as a country that you could say are preparing us to participate meaningfully in that new world building itself right now?
Festo Mulinda: For about the past ten years, Tanzania has been positioning itself in, let me say, a mode of lying in wait, waiting to see where to grab hold at a given moment. We don’t have a clear vision. Someone from one of these developed nations once asked, he caught me off guard somewhere, he asked me, “So you people, what is your plan? What kind of country do you want to be in twenty years?” He told me generations; one generation is twenty years. “So over the next twenty years, how do you think your country wants to be?” I didn’t have answers, because I’ve been through periods where, I’ve been through many campaigns: green Tanzania, industrial Tanzania. Everyone comes with his own thing.
And honestly, policy-wise, we are not prepared. You may hear that this vision for 2050 has been launched; it has huge publicity, but in terms of policy, in terms of systemic preparation, that vision itself still has no certainty of being achieved. And let me say outright that I am sure by 2030 we cannot have a one-trillion-dollar economy if we don’t change systemically, if we don’t change in the way we organise ourselves as a nation.
So there is no, there is no plan in terms of policy or systems that I see the country has prepared to keep up with current conditions and get through the period that my brother here has called a transitional at international level.
Khalifa Said: All right, perhaps Brother Buberwa, in your view, do you think, because at the start we spoke in very general terms, but for example, if we try to be a bit specific, what changes, specifically, could happen in the world and have a very big impact on Tanzania and its people?
Buberwa Kaiza: Thank you. In my opinion, and perhaps standing by what I come across in various writings, I agree with what he says, that we are very far behind and there is no specific national preparation, but we have reactions. There are reactions to this issue: we act because we’ve reacted to something, but not because we’ve planned. If we plan, then there’s a procedure for it.
For example, if you take the group of small-scale farmers, take the group of small-scale livestock keepers, take the group of small-scale fishers, take the group of small-scale miners, according to the statistics available at present, that is 92% of Tanzanians. But if you go do research and perhaps look at Parliament’s decisions over all the years, right now it’s the thirteenth Parliament, if I’m not mistaken, look at Parliament’s decisions over all the years, go to the councils and look at the councils’ decisions, then assess to find out how Tanzania has been preparing, or at what time it planned to make sure that farmers, or the four groups I mentioned, are the main producers in ensuring that Tanzania moves from where it is.
For example, because without the majority producing, producing raw materials, producing food, reaching markets, now there’s the internet; you can have internet in the village, and the village can know that we should, or “here in our village we are able to produce what”, people, all the farmers there, maybe two hundred thousand or a hundred thousand, knowing what they can produce, when, saying, “We produce, and after six months we need someone to come buy these crops of ours,” and they produce and find a way that will work. But all of that, the government must know and have this plan: that we need farmers to produce so the nation can move from where it is.
And we need, for example, small-scale miners. According to the TEITI report, I think we know TEITI, the committee that looks at how minerals bring revenue, the 2023 report says that 45% of government revenue from minerals came from small-scale miners. 45 percent; 55 percent came from large-scale miners, who are not Tanzanian companies. And the law we have helps those large-scale miners, not small-scale miners. So what you see here is that those who brought in all that money the government took, but there is no policy or legal means to empower them, that these are our strategic producers.
So if you look at the farmers, look at the livestock keepers, look at the small-scale fishers, look at small-scale farmers, small-scale fishers, the fish we eat, the meat we use, the food we eat, it’s all like luck; just luck that it turned out that way. So in these circumstances I can say we have not made preparations, because if you leave out this group of people, the 92 percent, leave them out of the plans, your matters of a vision written by academics, who write and finish, it means nothing. You must look at Parliament and find that matters relating to farmers are what is being debated.
And for example, just one quick example: you have people called agricultural experts who sit at council level, in the DED’s office, the Council Director. If there’s no allowance money, fuel money for a motorbike to go to a certain village for extension services, they can’t go until there’s an allowance budget for them to go. But you ask yourself, if these serve farmers, why don’t they live out there in the villages? So why doesn’t the government post them there? They rent houses there, the government pays salaries, and then the farmers too have plans to work.
Pperhaps what I see is that we need to rethink, to fundamentally redesign even what is called the Vision for the coming twenty-five years, twenty-fifty. It too needs to be reviewed to reflect the reality of things, not looking at factories to be built, which are basically an extension of the markets of those who manufacture in their own countries, coming here for you to buy what they produced. It doesn’t empower people who produce here to send their goods to be sold out there in the world. So that’s my opinion. Thank you.
Khalifa Said: Now, Kweka, first there’s the question I asked Brother Buberwa, that what changes do you see at the global level that could happen and have a very big impact on us here, that, and I’d like you to touch on it a bit. But also another question is that can’t someone say we’re not being fair to the government when we say that we haven’t prepared? Because the government will tell you, “We have a vision, we have policies, there’s, I don’t know, we slightly changed our foreign policy to put in economic diplomacy.” From the government’s position it could say, “We’re doing what we can to make sure we are positioning the country in line with the global changes that will happen,” right? In your view?
Dastan Kweka: I think, going back to where I started, that the world is in a period of transition, and I think one of the biggest effects in this transition period is that international law is being disregarded to a very large extent. And in a world where the powerful disregard these laws as they please ,where we came from, they disregarded them, but with, with a little shame, but now that shame is disappearing, it’s dangerous for small nations like ours and others in Africa and developing countries.
And I think that is the first, biggest effect. You see how the Russian invades, for example, Ukraine; you look at how Israel is a small nation, but what it is doing in Gaza with the support of Western countries is unacceptable. So I think the erosion of commitment to international law is a problem, a big one, which I think you see here too.
But also there are effects economically, in very specific ways. I think my colleagues have spoken here about the issue of minerals, for example, and resources, right? To a large extent, because the international legal system is collapsing, even the way countries engage in resource extraction in developing countries becomes a kind of thuggery. Because at least there used to be shame, but the thuggery is becoming very great. And I think Congo and other places, though these countries individually will be trying to get fair contracts, but there was a framework, there were international agreements that to some extent tried to give a voice to countries that are small. So I think I’d say those are among the harms we’re seeing, besides other issues.
Now coming to here at home, whether we’re prepared, I think there are issues like — there are two or three ways to look at it. The first is the common understanding of domestic policy is that foreign [policy] is a continuation of domestic policy, right? Now I think here at home there are some areas where we have clarity, a shared understanding of what we want. For example, it’s important to grow our economy, because without growing the economy it’s hard to fight poverty. On that I think we agree.
But there’s another very fundamental issue, which relates to people’s rights, and I think Tony touched on it here: that a human being doesn’t just want food and a place to sleep and clothing; a human being also wants freedom, wants his honour to be valued, that dignity, a person’s humanity, right? And that’s why I think if you look even at TANU’s writings, they placed great emphasis on a person’s dignity, because it’s not just food and clothing and a place to sleep; it includes a person’s dignity. And I think that’s an area that needs emphasis, because we’ve already seen it divide us right now, and it’s dividing us in a way that could make us fail to cope with this transition period.
But I think the second is about the issue of nationhood. I think it’s been mentioned here too, nationhood: that “I’m Zanzibari,” “I’m, I don’t know, a Mainland Tanzanian,” for example; some say Tanganyikan, others Mzanzibara; everyone says his own thing. But I think fundamentally nationhood is essential, but what kind of nationhood, right? We’ve already said we’re the United Republic of Tanzania. We may have differences, some we can work on, but we have a certain nationhood.
But also, let me finish, I wanted to say there was also a broader nationhood beyond individual nations, which was Pan-Africanism, African unity. I think the leaders who came before, the likes of Mwalimu and others, knew that if you have this small nation of Kenya, Uganda and other countries, without a bigger nationhood, these small, small nations will make us revert to an even lower nationhood, which is this one where we say, “I’m from the Mainland,” “I’m Zanzibari,” maybe “I’m, I don’t know, Manyema,” “I’m from I don’t know where.” So you must have a nationhood that is bigger than these little nationhoods we have. And I said at the start that this is a fundamental strategy: if we unite at the continental level, we’ll get rid of these petty nationhoods we have. That’s how I see it.
All right, so I won’t say we haven’t prepared; we have prepared, because we have policies, we have clarity about what we want, but we have things that divide us which, if we don’t work on quickly, will throw us off course.
Khalifa Said: One of the very big changes happening in the world right now, and whose effects have already become evident, is that countries that were at the forefront of giving aid, for example development aid, are “looking inward,” as we say, looking at themselves. Many of these countries are European, Western Europe and the Nordic countries. And we see in the way this manifests itself is these countries moving away from what is called development cooperation and shifting to trade; we see countries like Sweden, and many other countries are following. But of course the whole issue of controlling migration, many countries now are looking at themselves first before looking at other countries.
And I wanted to ask you, and perhaps everyone can take part in this: in these changes, how should we as a country react? For example, we heard the President herself, directly, say — I think she was swearing in regional commissioners, I think in Zanzibar, she said there’s no money. And there’s no money for various reasons, but one of the reasons is these, these long-standing partners of Tanzania are withdrawing development aid and saying now let’s do business. Strategically, as a country, what needs to be filled in? What would you like to see happen that perhaps right now, perhaps in implementation, perhaps in, you’d say that right now we see we’re preparing well to deal with, with these changes?
Tony Alfred K: I think first, the basis of why we talk about foreign policy as a whole, I think since time immemorial there are three things. Prosperity: that you want your country to prosper. Security: that as you cooperate with others you want some way to protect your security. But the third is there are values, humanity: when you see others suffering, you help them. So if you look at these foundations, and if we go back, so the first thing, first I want us to change, or I wish we’d change our outlook.
For example, right now we see America has imposed a ban: Tanzanians can’t get visas to go. I think that’s fine. What’s the problem? That’s, that’s the Americans’ policy. I mean, you have your country; what’s the problem? That’s the first; I start there.
But the second, the problem I have is that the whole world is closing its doors. Everywhere everyone is closing their doors, but here in our country we have problems: people are fleeing the country. So this makes things very difficult. In the past, you’ll remember, in Tanzania we used to say to those being chased by settlers, “Welcome to Tanzania.” I mean we assured the world and Africa, actually the world; there were people coming from Jamaica, America, fleeing to Tanzania; they’re still here today; there were people from all African countries. Now people are fleeing Tanzania, going abroad.
So that’s the first challenge. So we have to accept that the world is closing its doors; let’s make sure our country works for everyone. I mean, it can’t be that people flee because of abductions, flee because of being jailed on false charges. I mean, all of that is weakness in this world, which will make the country difficult.
But the second thing, I think you saw recently there was the challenge of Chinese visas; it became a big issue, and it’s a big issue because we truly depend on China. Now imagine you have a challenge with Chinese visas. People believed it was a kind of retaliation, that China did that after the law that was introduced, the one about certain jobs not being allowed to be done by foreigners, which largely affected citizens of China who were doing those jobs.
But others also believed China did it because of making sure its traders, who have gripped the markets, the wholesale markets here, continue holding on to them, like helping them further. That’s what people believed, but China said it wasn’t true. So there’s —
Khalifa Said: When did they say it?
Tony: It was about, I think, three weeks. It issued a statement saying the visa challenge has been resolved, and now people say it’s been resolved, but it said those things weren’t true, though I have doubts. Personally I have doubts whether that’s so. I believe there’s a way — you know, China is a country of efficiency, efficient in the world at everything. Now just for Tanzania’s visas, which are very few visas, somehow there was confusion; it has to leave you with questions.
Now imagine, reflect: in this period you have America has completely barred us from going there, and then you have China too. There’s a way this, it says something about us, our foreign policy. Our respectability as a country has been shaken. I mean people don’t even remember where Tanzania is. So we have to find a way to restore our respect in the world.
And you restore respect by doing things that, when people look, see that’s a country that respects itself, that’s a country that fights for its people to get justice, that’s a country, for example when corruption scandals occur, it fights, it deals with them. Now we have many things that make us not respected, so we have to restore our respect.
So the first thing I answered you: security. So I can pass to my colleagues, but the second, as I see it, the country’s respect, and that starts with foreign policy. But our laws — it’s not possible to have laws which someone looks at and sees these are laws like, let’s say, a place where bandits rule could use them in the same way. I mean cruel laws: you arrest people, you lock them up. I mean people are just amazed. I mean a young man is arrested; he’s said to want to burn police stations across the country. Now these are things that lower our standing as a country.
READ: Kivulini Talks: The State of Media in Tanzania—Alive, Ailing, or Dead?
So there’s a way we have to find ourselves; we have lost the soul, the spirit of the nation. And there, you know, often, for example, when leaders hear things said about the country, they identify themselves with the country. Tanzania will be around for the next thousand years, I believe, I hope; leaders will pass. So there are things we have to look at in that way: how do we restore our respect as a country, which has been lost. Thank you.
Khalifa Said: Festo, then Kweka, the same question: how should we respond to these changes I’ve touched on there? Many European countries that were our big development partners are saying now, “We too have our own issues here; we have to look after ourselves.” How should we strategically respond to that, to that, as a country?
Festo Mulinda: Thank you, and I think let me add to, to Mr. Tony’s two examples there of other nations shutting their doors on us, not just America and China. Just last month, visas to go to Japan were fifty-two thousand shillings; they’ve raised it, now it’s two hundred and fifty thousand, five times. They don’t give a reason, but they’ve raised it for us so that fewer of us go, in one way or another.
Now I, I really believe strongly, there’s a psychology professor called Jordan Peterson, a Canadian clinical psychologist; he says: Khalifa here, if he wants to advise me to quit alcohol, for example, if in his room where he lives things aren’t well arranged, he hasn’t cleaned, arranged the books here, a cup there, made it neat, he shouldn’t tell me anything about my drinking. Clean your room first. If you can’t clean your room, you have no legitimacy whatsoever to judge my drinking.
Now our nation has a serious identity challenge: how we regard ourselves, how we regarded ourselves in the past and now; we’ve changed a lot. Here at home trust has been lost. We need to build trust, first between citizens and their government, to have a connection. If we say we’re being wronged abroad, we’re being rejected there, let’s organise ourselves here so citizens trust. Right now that isn’t there.
We look at what’s happening in Iran, leave aside any propaganda, but there’s still a high percentage of trust between citizens and their government. They agree that “we are being invaded for reasons that aren’t really to save us; it’s because of the interests of the nations invading us.” We here are not at that level. The government sits on its own; the citizens sit on their own.
I’ll give one example: there are small projects usually given by the government of Japan; they call them Grassroots Human Security development projects — small ones, just two hundred, three hundred million — to build schools, build toilets, two classrooms, install water pipes at schools. That, honestly, as a nation we don’t need. We don’t need them in a nation that buys very expensive new vehicles from that very same country which we ask to build us toilets for a hundred million. How many toilets can one vehicle build in this country?
So we’ve failed to clean our room here, and we truly can’t have legitimacy to talk about an external plan. We’re not trusted abroad; we’ve failed to handle our internal affairs. So I believe we should start at home, clean our house, then we’ll be understood.
Khalifa Said: Over to you, Brother Buberwa.
Buberwa: Thank you very much. I believe that, as I said earlier, we haven’t started in terms of plans, yeah, but on this I’m coming to that, in terms of plans, in terms of policy, of preparing people, in terms of capital, and in terms of knowing what the world is like. So what we can do right now: one is to make sure every Tanzanian who is able to produce, produces what he can produce, so the government puts in place support.
I know very well there are many households — as I gave the example of these four groups — which have the capacity to produce, potentially, perhaps thirty, forty thousand dollars a year, as they say, GDP per capita. They have that capacity, meaning they have land, they have labour. They have no choice over which crops to grow; the crops there now are those introduced by the colonialist. You’ll hear “we grow cotton, we grow coffee, we grow cashews,” only those. You don’t see that they’re not obliged to grow chillies, not obliged to grow other short-term crops that have export value, that can be sold abroad, as long as you reach where they’re needed.
So in those circumstances we’re left waiting for those relations of diplomacy, economic diplomacy, meaning what do they want out there, rather than us knowing what we can produce and take to them. So I think the biggest thing here is the policies of, of our countries investing in us to ensure that everyone produces, and then when everyone produces, they’re able to stand on their own — meaning support with markets, internet, infrastructure, roads out in the villages, people getting knowledge, all of it being there, experts being out in the villages, people knowing that Tanzania’s position right now is that we all produce to supply the world — so that when we receive aid, perhaps we no longer receive handed-out aid, and we are able to be self-reliant, because we have that capacity.
I think that mentality, that thinking, if it emerges, the country will move from where it has stalled. Otherwise perhaps it becomes very difficult: out there they fail to bring aid because, fine, they don’t have it, and we’re left depending on aid that won’t come, and we have productive capacity we don’t use. I think that’s, that’s the problem we have; we need to change.
Khalifa Said: Diana, what about other stakeholders, other actors? Because the government is only part of, of the nation, right, right? There are universities, there are trade unions, there are citizens’ own associations, the media. Looking at them doing their own things, does it give you the picture that we’re positioning ourselves well in line with the global changes that are happening and others that are coming?
And of course there’s also the question that touched on the bad side, but also there’s a good side, for example, of solidarity, of hope. Do you also see that in the way that we as Tanzania, we as various stakeholders here in Tanzania, carry out our activities in line with the things happening in the world?
Diana Kamara: Various stakeholders also, they’re institutions formed according to prevailing thinking. The dominant thinking is liberal, so we think about justice, freedom, representation, parliament, accountability. On one hand it’s a good thing that the private sector, various groups, everyone tries to see that these things are observed, this toward — because, as Mzee Buberwa said, I mean we’re looking ahead; we want to reach where — because change is constant; we must change. But when we’re dominated by liberal thinking, we think matters are only about elections and leadership. We forget matters that would still require solidarity, matters that would still require activism.
READ: Kivulini Talks: Tanzania’s Multi-Party System— Fix It or Forge Ahead Without Course Correction?
A small example that I always think about is household cooking energy. It’s something that NGOs, CSOs should be talking about; it’s something the government should be talking about, so that we too become self-conscious as Tanzanians that we need to transform. There’s no reason, in a country that has huge capacity to generate electricity, we haven’t reached our capacity to generate electricity — but we have no reason not to generate enough electricity to also use in homes. There’s no reason we’re still using charcoal and firewood. Even here in Dar es Salaam there are people still cooking with firewood, because there’s no strategy of, there’s no such vision.
The government will tell you it has a strategy for clean energy use, but have you ever seen an advert? Have you ever seen a campaign? Have you ever seen it being done in the streets? And we ourselves, you know, these things are just connected. What we saw happen in Nepal could befall us, and it befalls us in small ways, as we keep cutting down trees. That’s how we increasingly endanger what? The environment, and ourselves.
When El Niño comes, an area that has been deforested, those people will be affected more than people who, where the area still has trees. But instead they go and arrest those who cut trees and burn charcoal. Why doesn’t the government put in place a lasting strategy for cooking energy, for example reducing prices, removing some taxes on gas and electricity?
So readiness — we have no readiness, because even these private sectors and other actors, we’re all in a liberal moment, outside the home, thinking about representation and so on. But those politics that truly affect us, we can argue about elections, but will we argue that we need to cook and eat at home when we don’t have a solid strategy after sixty years?
All of them, yes, they’ll talk about policy, but for me, the policy that is implemented is everything you see the government has put money into, the Minister has talked about, the MP has talked about, our councillor has come and talked about, or the local government — something being implemented. So that alone is enough to show me that we’ve been prepared so that — I mean they’ve put us in very difficult conditions, because whatever happens, just when El Niños come, I mean we are set for failure.
Khalifa Said: Kweka.
Dastan Kweka: Yes, I think we live in a world that, to a large extent,and it has been so for many years since this idea of the nation, in the sense of the state, came into being in the world, the nation is the one responsible for protecting its people’s rights, right? And in a world where the international system is in a transition period, and international law has collapsed to a large extent, it’s dangerous for individual nations to be shaken.
So we here,I think my colleagues have said it, and I said at the start that there are cracks and we’ve already been shaken, so we must strengthen the nation, because let’s agree that if our nation is shaken, we individually in here will be in a bad state. So we must strengthen the nation.
And second, I think we should put effort into production, especially toward the goal of self-reliance in the circumstances we’re in. And that’s why I mentioned at the start that we were once there, in the sixties and seventies; we had certain foundations. The importance of self-reliance is great because developed countries individually too, their nationhood has been shaken. That’s why, for example, you see the population in those countries is declining — in the sense of those who call themselves natives, it’s declining. They depend heavily on people from abroad to help them, even in services like caring for the elderly, for example, and basic hospital services and other areas. So we too must look at that area, to a large extent, of strengthening nationhood.
And I wanted to say the second: let’s put effort into ensuring we produce with the aim of self-reliance. Now self-reliance means being self-reliant, and not necessarily that, what they call autarky; you still continue to cooperate with others, but with the aim of self-reliance.
I think I wanted to say the third, which is fundamental, I think Mr. Mulinda touched on it there, is that we must look at the gap between the haves and the have-nots. For example, we live in Dar es Salaam now; every day when I pass through town here, I’m reminded of how poor I am, because the gap is very big between the haves and the have-nots, in terms of what people own, from luxury cars to mansions and just lives of luxury. You can clearly see where we’re heading.
People can’t just stay silent; we’ll reach a point this gap between the haves and the have-nots will destroy the calm we have, because people will reject this situation. And we once had a firm stance on equality in the nation; I think we’ve moved away from that now. We’ve put more effort into growing the economy; we’ve forgotten that the gap between the haves and the have-nots is a very big threat.
Khalifa Said: Perhaps another question I want to ask you is, and this too relates to the big changes that have happened there, Mr. Festo gave us that theory of a certain gentleman whose name I’ve forgotten, but there is: America as a superpower wants to remain there; China, China says it doesn’t want to be a superpower, but that’s a debate for another day. But there has also been, there’s now a debate: Tanzania, Tanzania, should it look West or look East? Should it embrace the people of the West or embrace the people of the East? And we see here, for example, when the President has gone to China, gone to Russia, there’s a bit of debate that perhaps Tanzania is pivoting away from.
But my question that I want to ask you is that no matter whom Tanzania decides to cooperate with — because first, that is Tanzania’s sovereign power itself, to decide whom it wants to cooperate with — but no matter whom Tanzania wants to cooperate with, what are the core national interests that should be beyond debate, that no matter whether they go to America, go to the European Union, go to China, these national interests must be protected at any cost, no matter whom we in Tanzania cooperate with? Perhaps, Diana, you’re smiling.
Diana Kamara: You know, during Magufuli’s time, when he decided to cooperate with the Israelis, he said “we are non-aligned,” but to a large extent it was a distortion. The meaning of non-alignment is that West and East, we’ll cooperate with them as long as we protect our interests. The difference between non-alignment and now holding onto whatever is that when we were non-aligned, we had — true, we couldn’t stop America from continuing the war in Vietnam, but that didn’t mean we wouldn’t speak. We would say, “We condemn America’s war on Vietnam; we’ll condemn America’s actions in South America.”
Now, as we hold onto whatever, we see these same countries — the European Union, how it responds to the Iran issue, how it responds to the migrant issue; we see what America is doing in South America, something that is outrageous, removing Cuban doctors [from] Honduras, Jamaica, wherever, all countries that don’t have, that don’t have a public health sector that can withstand even just ordinary health-sector matters. We look at them, and then we still want them to keep loving us and to love us and keep us close to them.
They used to keep us close because we protected their interests, the mining companies. We don’t speak out against them or point fingers at them about the things they do; we can’t even issue a statement as a country about the invasion going on openly, the seizure of other countries’ leaders, just to the extent that we want them to keep loving us and keeping us close. It compromises our interests.
So the international policy we give ourselves and the face we give ourselves show that the interests of the state are self-protection itself. That’s why even the question of the issue of aid — it’s the state that must be shaken. Its citizens are used to it; fishers, farmers don’t set the prices of goods; what they’re given is what they get. So we’re used to it. It’s the state that will be shaken, not us citizens.
Khalifa Said: Brother Buberwa, my question is the same: no matter whom Tanzania decides to cooperate with, what national interests must it protect, that these are beyond debate, we must fight for them, whether, whether they go to America, go to the European Union, go to China or go anywhere?
Buberwa: Thank you, Khalifa. Perhaps let me add a small caveat: Tanzania, which one? There are two Tanzanias: there’s the Tanzania of the rulers, and then there’s the Tanzania of ordinary citizens. So the thing to look at there is rulers and citizens all meeting in Tanzania — in terms of interests, in terms of decisions, in terms of policy, in terms of listening, responding, I mean accountability, in terms of any systems or institutions, in terms of those feelings that, in other nations, when an ordinary citizen raises any noise, it’s received quickly, because that gap, the gap between rulers and ordinary people who are citizens, basically, who are the republic, is very small. Perhaps just that.
Before I go on to advise on the matter itself, perhaps there’s a need for our policies first to ensure that we reduce that gap. For example, the police, for example: if you go to the police even today, ah, if you go to the CRO, you’ll be asked your tribe, male or female; he sees you’re a man, he asks “male,” “female,” he asks you. The point we’re making here is that all of these came from the colonial era, and we know what the colonialist wanted. So if we start with the most basic step, it’s to remove those remnants the colonialist left, systemic, structural, institutional, intellectual, attitudinal. Once we remove those, then we find a Tanzania that we now only think of theoretically.
Then comes your question: that Tanzania, what are our interests in such a Tanzania? It’s humanity, as has been said here: a Tanzania that has humanity. How will you achieve humanity? Every citizen who can produce enters the mainstream of the country’s production, is known, such that even if he drops a bit, I know something has declined; if he increases, you know you have an increment. It shows for each citizen able to produce, and that production linked to world production. That means we’ll be able to have a Tanzania — the one the government talks about will be the Tanzania of other ordinary people. That’s one.
READ: Kivulini Talks: Reconciliation Talks in Tanzania After October 29—Ruse or Genuine Intention?
But the second, on humanity: if we want humanity, we enter into health. Citizens who have good health means that they can produce, they can, can stand up, they can influence things. What does it mean for us here? If you go, and I don’t know if I’ll have time to give an example, one, but let me just go quickly, if you go to hospital and say, “I dreamt I’m sick,” no one will listen to you, because our health policy is to keep a person from dying. Not dying means you’re already sick, you’ve had an accident. But if you have issues like, “I’m not sure, because every day I dream badly; I want medical help”, perhaps not a health practitioner as such; public health, to be enabled to know how, perhaps I sleep badly, perhaps it’s food, perhaps the environment around him.
So what I’m saying here is that our health system needs to be changed as well, to care for people’s health rather than caring for the sick. So you come to fall ill perhaps accidentally, but in the system we have now we invest more in medicines, we invest more in hospital buildings, and we’re told we’ve come very far because buildings have been built, a certain number; basically you’re talking to the sick.
So perhaps let me leave it to my colleagues to continue, but the point is that we must change policy systems and outlook. But the very first step: restore the relationship between citizens and rulers so they’re in one place, and then start seeing issues like health, production issues and other issues.
Khalifa Said: My brothers and sisters, I thank you very much. I want to ask you another question, just one last one, then we’ll go to closing. Very briefly, we’ll all answer. But we’ve talked about many things here, discussed many things, and I wanted to ask you to complete the sentence for me — you remember that exercise we did in primary school — that “By this time next year, Tanzania will be in a good position to keep up with the changes happening in the world if this happens,” “if this is done.” So just quickly, in a short sentence, tell me that, in your view, by your belief, by your hope, that around this time next year Tanzania will be in a good position to cope or participate in global changes if this is done, and then tell me what that is in your view. Let’s start with Festo.
Festo: Thank you. And Tanzania next year around this time: if we can build trust between citizens and government, put in place accountability systems, because that’s the big quarrel we have now, and it gets sorted, whether by writing a new constitution or putting in place policies that bind the ruler to be unable to make decisions on behalf of citizens without involving them, we will be heading toward a good vision. Thank you.
Khalifa Said: Thank you very much. Diana, around this time next year?
Diana: Around this time next year, Tanzania can prepare itself for the changes happening in the world if we put genuine commitment into building the public sector, because the public sector is what will be able to liberate the citizen, rather than putting effort and strategies into building bureaucracy and the private sector.
Khalifa Said: Thank you. Brother Buberwa?
Buberwa: Thank you very much. The answer to that question requires a short-term strategy. What we were talking about are good words; they’re good ideas. But since the general election last year, October 29, Tanzania has not been safe; it hasn’t been as it used to be. There’s deep division, there’s hunting one another, people are being abducted, people are being taken to court, being taken to the police. There’s a situation that fundamentally doesn’t build a nation that’s solid and together.
So we have a crisis. We have a duty as a nation to ensure that plans, procedures, policies to bring the nation together and get out of the crisis we’re in — rulers being like, listening to citizens, and citizens agreeing with the rulers — and then this problem we have, of the crisis stemming from the election, ends. I think if we get to that point, next year around this time we’ll be a nation that can begin to think about the things we were discussing.
Khalifa Said: Kweka?
Kweka: Thank you. I think I’ll join my colleagues: let’s strengthen unity and solidarity in the nation. That’s very important because of the situation in the world; you need a strong nation. And I think second, let’s strengthen solidarity and cooperation with other African nations, because at the end of the day we are Africans, and we once had that outlook. Let’s return to the basis and anchor ourselves there. Thank you.
Tony: And allow me also to contribute on that one about values. I think what we need to do is make Tanzania safe for everyone, so everyone will be able to contribute. But there’s that one I had and was waiting to contribute on; let me contribute there, that one on values.
Of course, in the past we’d say our core values that we look at, which we’ll look at in every relationship: humanity, that all human beings are equal, but also Africanness, African unity. And I wanted to talk about African unity, Pan-Africanism.
The challenge we have now: our African leaders are uniting, but not to advance the interests of the people; it’s to oppress us, the people. So you have leaders collaborating in abducting people, in chasing people out of their countries. I mean that’s how it is; that’s the unity that has emerged. So now, if Tanzania, one of our core values is advancing Pan-Africanism, perhaps we should redefine it. We need to return to the foundation of Pan-Africanism: that Africans too are human beings who love freedom and so on.
But the second thing: there’s a very big debate going on in the world, a debate that, about values. That people say, there were those who followed those values, that another country can care. For example, if your country starts executing people, another country says, “Look, we don’t accept you executing people; we refuse.” Or if you start seizing people’s property, another country can intervene. Now the world right now is debating that: if we’re getting our interests, if we, if we, let’s say our country, is getting something out of that country, whether it’s business or whatever, is there any importance in a country caring about values? So the world, for example the West, now has this big debate: should they care about these values? And you know the West used to push this very hard, democracy and so on.
Now, I think one of the things we should look at, especially coming from Tanzania: the world has never had a vacuum. For example, if right now all countries decided everyone pursues their own interests, let’s say when people in other countries are being executed, you keep quiet as long as your children are safe; when your neighbours are being turned to refugees, you keep quiet — now what will happen? If all the world’s governments decide to keep quiet and care about their own interests, there will be a vacuum, which, because the world has no vacuum, something will fill it, and it could be religion. Most likely it becomes religion; I believe it could be religion or some ideology that will be different. So if the nations of the world want to decide on that question, they must consider that a vacuum cannot exist.
READ: Kivulini Talks: Tanzania After October 29—Where Do We Go From Here?
But another thing, let’s go back and look at the example of Tanzania on values. I mean, for many years Tanzania was a poor country, but it fought in other countries. I don’t know, you hear they went to Seychelles; we even stationed troops in Seychelles to oversee the country; Uganda, Mozambique. The first, in nineteen sixty-four, when the army was being formed, its first mission, before it was fully organized, they went to Mozambique to fight, to fight for the people of Mozambique to be free. Now if you come back to Tanzania, it’s that there are values. Tanzania wasn’t that rich, but it was able to fill the vacuum that existed, of caring about values. So I just think other countries could emulate that example of Tanzania. Thank you.
Khalifa Said: All right, my brothers, I thank you very much for your views and reflections, and I hope you too, viewer, have benefited from and enjoyed, ah, the contributions the panellists here were making. I think if there’s one big thing I personally may have taken from all the contributions that our colleagues here have made, it’s the importance of us as a country truly calming our heads and cleaning up our affairs here at home, and being united, having solidarity, and not starting to deal with petty things, ah, because without that, our capacity to respond to the big global changes will be very small.
But you too can have views on the questions we’ve asked here and the arguments raised here, and you can write to us in the comment section or write to us on our numbers, which you’ll see here, ah, as they pass, and our email addresses.
This is where we’ve reached the end of the conversation we were having here with these colleagues of ours about Tanzania’s place in the big global changes happening right now. I, who was moderating this conversation for you, am Khalifa Said, and on behalf of my colleagues behind the camera, Joseph Kirati, Ambrose Dawai and Frank Mtoro, until next time, goodbye.
