Prime
Coalitions under scrutiny ahead of 2024/25 elections in Tanzania
In 2015, Tanzania's political landscape experienced a major transformation with the establishment of Ukawa, a coalition uniting several opposition parties. PHOTO | COURTESY
What you need to know:
- Ukawa’s formation illustrated how uniting various political factions under a single banner can enhance their electoral power, making them credible alternatives to the ruling party.
In 2015, Tanzania experienced a significant shift in its political landscape with the formation of Ukawa, a coalition of opposition parties born from frustrations over stalled constitutional reforms.
The coalition was led by Chadema, with Edward Lowassa, who had defected from the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), as its presidential candidate against CCM’s John Pombe Magufuli.
Within constituencies, parties nominated single candidates based on their perceived strengths in specific areas. This alliance challenged the long-dominant CCM, which secured only 58 percent of the vote—a notable decline that marked the lowest percentage for the ruling party’s vote in the history of multi-party politics in Tanzania.
Consequently, CCM's dominance in Parliament was curtailed, resulting in 260 seats for CCM, 73 for Chadema, 42 for the Civic United Front (CUF), and one seat each for NCCR Mageuzi and new entrant ACT-Wazalendo.
Some analysts, however, argue that CCM's decline was primarily due to internal fractures, particularly the controversial decision to drop top candidates Edward Lowassa and Bernard Membe in favour of Magufuli. Nonetheless, the emergence of Ukawa served as a wake-up call for CCM.
While the merger highlighted the potential of collective opposition, it also raised questions about the implications of such alliances, especially given the legal framework governing political parties in Tanzania, which prohibits post-election mergers.
Analysts believe mergers can create a formidable opposition, increasing the likelihood of electoral success.
Ukawa’s formation illustrated how uniting various political factions under a single banner can enhance their electoral power, making them credible alternatives to the ruling party.
According to Dr Revocatus Kabobe from the Open University of Tanzania, one of the main benefits of a united opposition is the avoidance of vote fragmentation.
“In a multi-party election, where several opposition parties compete separately, they often split the opposition vote, allowing the ruling party to win by a wider margin. By forming a coalition, opposition parties can pool their support, increasing their chances of defeating the ruling party,” he explains.
Dr Kabobe also emphasizes the importance of pooling scarce resources. He argues that political parties can strengthen their campaigns through shared funding, human resources, and grassroots networks, leading to more effective voter outreach and engagement.
“Campaigning in a general election requires significant financial, logistical, and human resources. A united front allows opposition parties to pool these resources, making them more competitive against the well-established ruling party,” he notes.
Furthermore, a coalition can present a cohesive platform that resonates with a broader audience. “A coalition allows the opposition to present a consistent and unified message to the electorate, which can be more compelling than fragmented messages from individual parties. A clear, cohesive message focusing on key issues—such as governance, economic reforms, anti-corruption measures, and democratic freedoms—can resonate strongly with voters,” Dr Kabobe adds.
According to the academic, consolidating votes, pooling resources, and presenting a unified vision, the opposition can pose a more formidable challenge, increasing the likelihood of a competitive election and the potential of ushering in political change.
However, legal barriers present significant impediments to forming such alliances. The Political Parties Act of 1992, amended in 2024, prohibits post-election mergers, complicating the formation of alliances after the electoral process has begun.
For instance, in 2015, Juma Duni Haji had to leave the Civic United Front and join Chadema to become a running mate for the Ukawa coalition, highlighting the challenges posed by legal constraints.
Dr Richard Mbunda from the University of Dar es Salaam believes that a coalition similar to Ukawa in 2015 is unlikely to materialize this time. “Given the legal requirements for creating a coalition and the limited time remaining, it will take a miracle for these parties to recreate a Ukawa-like coalition,” he asserts.
He adds that the two most active parties, Chadema and ACT Wazalendo, are not aligned on many issues and are instead focused on building their bases for the upcoming local government elections.
Merging parties often bring together differing ideologies, policies, and leadership styles, which can lead to internal strife.
Disagreements among coalition members may undermine the alliance’s effectiveness. For example, after Ukawa was formed, it faced immediate challenges, including the controversial acceptance of Edward Lowassa, leading to the resignation of Chadema’s presidential candidate from 2010, Dr Wilbroad Slaa, and CUF’s Prof Ibrahim Lipumba.
The opposition parties often perceive each other as competitors rather than allies facing a common opponent.
“There is a vivid personality clash between Mbowe, Lissu, Zitto, and even Lipumba,” Dr Mbunda observes.
The experience of Ukawa underscores the complexities and potential benefits of political party mergers. While such alliances can strengthen opposition parties and enhance democratic participation, they also pose significant risks, particularly when legal frameworks and internal dynamics come into play.
As political landscapes evolve, understanding these dynamics will be crucial for parties seeking to navigate the challenges of coalition politics and effectively serve their constituents.
