Pros and cons of door-to-door campaigns as polls draw closer

From the crowded streets of Dar es Salaam to the quiet rural villages of Kagera, candidates and their agents are going house to house, speaking directly to voters and persuading them to support their parties.

The approach is commended for taking politics to the people’s doorsteps, creating space for dialogue and direct interaction. However, it has also raised concerns over the potential for bribery and other unethical practices, which are more difficult to detect in private spaces than in public rallies.

The Director of Prevention at the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB), Ms Sabina Seja, told The Citizen that the bureau is fulfilling its legal mandate through three key interventions—education, investigation and enforcement.

“The PCCB carries out its responsibilities to prevent and combat corruption through public awareness, investigations, and action against those involved in corrupt practices,” she said.

She added that while door-to-door campaigns are not illegal, they fall outside any specific legal framework that allows for oversight. “The PCCB cannot prevent people from visiting one another, and it is not possible to know whether acts of corruption take place during such visits,” she said.

Ms Seja explained that the bureau focuses on public education and preventive action. “Our main role is to educate citizens through short text messages, media broadcasts, and investigative measures aimed at identifying and curbing corruption,” she said, urging Tanzanians to reject any inducements during campaigns.

Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) Deputy Secretary General for Mainland Tanzania, Mr John Mongella, said the ruling party’s door-to-door campaign is centred on connecting with citizens, listening to their needs, and explaining policy priorities.

“Our door-to-door approach is about listening to people, not bribing them,” he said. “We have the widest grassroots network in the country, and we don’t need to buy trust.

We earn it through performance and consistency. Anyone caught offering inducements does so outside the party’s principles and will face disciplinary action.”

ACT-Wazalendo Secretary General, Mr Ado Shaibu, also defended the strategy, saying it allows candidates to have meaningful, two-way conversations that large rallies rarely achieve. “Not everyone who attends rallies does so for politics. Some go for entertainment. But when you visit someone’s home, you have their full attention. You can discuss policy issues, the cost of living, and people’s daily challenges,” he said.

He dismissed allegations that door-to-door campaigning encourages bribery. “Our strength lies in ideas, not money. We train our members to win hearts and minds, not votes through gifts. Tanzanians are ready to vote based on issues, not envelopes,” he added.

Civic United Front (CUF) Deputy Secretary General, Ms Magdalena Sakaya, noted that smaller parties depend heavily on personal interaction to reach voters who might otherwise be left out.

“For smaller parties, the playing field is uneven. Big parties can afford large rallies and national media coverage, but others rely on personal engagement. Door-to-door campaigns are not just strategy—they are survival,” she said, acknowledging that the method can be abused if agents lack discipline.

“When you campaign in private spaces, monitoring becomes difficult. For CUF, our message is our only currency,” she said.

NCCR-Mageuzi Deputy Chairperson for Mainland, Mr Joseph Selasini, said the method helps restore trust between politicians and the electorate.

“People are tired of being shouted at from podiums.

They want leaders who visit their homes and listen to their problems,” he said. “But proximity also demands discipline. We have instructed all our candidates to avoid any behaviour that could be interpreted as bribery.”

Political analysts, however, urge caution.

Professor Makame Ali Ussi from the State University of Zanzibar said the intimacy of door-to-door visits can build strong emotional connections but also obscure transparency.

“When someone comes into your home and speaks your language, it builds trust—but what happens behind closed doors is difficult to verify,” he noted.

He added that in Tanzania’s social culture, small gestures such as giving sugar, cooking oil or transport money can easily be misconstrued.

“Such actions may be seen as generosity, but in an election context, they could constitute bribery,” he said.

Dr Onesmo Kyauke of the University of Dar es Salaam described the door-to-door strategy as a “double-edged sword” that is especially beneficial for smaller parties but exposes them to scrutiny.

“It allows candidates to reach more voters personally, but it also opens them up to accusations of vote buying,” he said.

Dr Kyauke advised parties to invest in training campaign agents on ethics and transparency. “If managed well, door-to-door campaigns can be the cleanest form of politics,” he added.

Dr Paul Loisulie from the University of Dodoma said the rise of personalised campaigning reflects democratic maturity. “We are moving away from rally politics to relational politics—where engagement replaces spectacle,” he said. “But this power must be used responsibly. A handshake should never be followed by an envelope.”