Remembering Julius Nyerere: A legacy of leadership in Tanzania

In a country still grappling with regional disparities and social inequalities, many Tanzanians still long for the inclusive policies and societal harmony that Nyerere advocated.

His legacy remains significant in contemporary discussions about governance, social justice, and national identity.

In an exclusive interview The Citizen’s Paul Owere speaks to Prof Issa Shivji, and below are the excerpts of the interview

Reflecting on 25 years since Mwalimu Nyerere’s death, how do you assess his vision of Ujamaa and its long-term impact on Tanzanian society? Has Tanzania stayed true to his ideals?

We often associate Ujamaa with Socialism and self-reliance. This is true but not the whole truth. In its essence and motivation, Ujamaa was a nationalist ideology to unite a people as a nation beyond their tribal, ethnic, religious and other divisions.

Immediately after independence, Mwalimu was preoccupied with the task of building a nation because colonialism did not leave us with a nation.

In that regard, I think, Tanzania was reasonably successful compared to many other African countries. There was a time when our young people proudly identified themselves as Tanzanians belonging to one nation, Tanzania.

No, Tanzania has not remained true to Mwalimu’s ideals or ideology. The neo-liberal ideology embraced over the last three decades has made considerable inroads into our nationalist ideologies. Increasingly, our politicians and some of our compatriots feel no shame in identifying themselves by their ethnic or regional origins or religious affiliations.

Our country is increasingly witnessing fault lines and fissures along ethnic and regional and religious lines. In one of his last speeches, Nyufa (Cracks), Mwalimu warned us of the emerging cracks in our society. I believe these cracks have widened since his speech. Worse, our politicians and elites do not feel embarrassed about politically identifying themselves along ethnic, regional or religious lines.

In your opinion, how would Nyerere approach the socio-economic challenges that Tanzania faces today, such as youth unemployment, political pluralism and globalisation?

The issue of unemployment is a socio-economic question. The type of neo-liberal economic programmes we have adopted inevitably result in unemployment. Our economy is driven by market, profit and private investment. Private capital does not take into account social considerations.

It mostly invests in profitable sectors – service, tourism, entertainment, real estate etc – which create very little new employment. Even where private capital investment in manufacturing, the new employment it creates is minimal.

Roughly two-thirds of employment is in the agriculture sector, one-fourth in services and less than ten per cent in industry. So long as the industrial sector remains small, we will continue to face the problem of unemployment. For Mwalimu to face this problem, he would have had to abandon some of the neo-liberal precepts, like uncontrolled free market and unregulated private invest. He would have placed greater emphasis on the public sector. He would have tried to develop the industrial sector led by public investment in employment generating industries. In short, he would have tried to develop an integrated national economy where important sectors are interconnected and reinforce each other.

On the so-called political pluralism, of course, it was Mwalimu who opened up the debate on multi-party. But he continuously emphasised that political parties should not be based on parochial ideologies. Whether multi-party necessarily means political pluralism is another question. Do our parties fundamentally differ in their ideological orientation and political programmes? I don’t think so.

To the extent globalisation means submitting to the dictates of foreign powers and giving free rein to capital, Mwalimu would have opposed it. He would have still preferred to keep strategic sectors of the economy – banks, insurance, big manufacturing plants, electricity etc – in the public sector. In other words, as I said, to develop a national economy as opposed to a dependent neo-liberal economy.

Mwalimu Nyerere was a staunch advocate for African unity. How relevant is this Pan-African vision in today’s era of regionalism and national interests?

Pan-Africanism is more relevant today than ever before. As tiny individual states (vinchi as Mwalimu used to call them), which are moreover riddled with internal divisions, we cannot face the onslaught of imperialism. This was clearly shown how each of the African countries, even the radical ones among them, gave in to neo-liberal precepts in the 1980s. We are still chained to the neo-liberal cart as we freely dispose of our natural resources and thoughtlessly accept rampant privatisation of the public sector at the behest of “foreign donors” and international financial institutions.

In his 1997 speech in Accra, Mwalimu said Africa was at the cross roads: either to rise to Pan-African unity or sink into the quagmire of tribalism and regionalism.

What do you believe are the most misunderstood or overlooked aspects of Nyerere’s political philosophy and leadership?

The core of Mwalimu’s philosophy was the premise that all human beings are equal; they are equal in their dignity. Anything which offends human dignity is an affront to the equality of human beings. So, for example, torture, abduction, poverty, exploitation, extortion, all offend human dignity. When these things happened during his time, and they did happen, he made the culprits accountable. I’m not so sure if our leadership since Mwalimu feels as strongly about human equality and dignity.

The core value of leadership, Mwalimu believed, was integrity. He frowned upon leaders using their positions to accumulate wealth for themselves. By the same token, Mwalimu, like the Greek philosopher Plato, believed a good leader is one who does not savour a political position but takes it because he or she cannot tolerate fools.

In a world increasingly driven by neoliberal economic models, how would Nyerere’s socialist principles be received in today’s global order? Could Ujamaa have evolved differently in today’s context?

All over the world, including in the West that advocated neo-liberalism in the first place, people are fed up with neo-liberal policies which have led to greater inequality and poverty, and, indeed, erosion of democracy. There is increasing rethinking, particularly among the youth, about rampant capitalism and its brainchild neo-liberalism. I have no doubt, that some of the human values and ethos on which Mwalimu’s Ujamaa was based are immediately relevant to today’s world if it is not to descend into the barbarism of genocide, wars and violence.

Of course, if Ujamaa were to resurrect today, it would not be the same. Contexts are different. People would have applied it with greater imagination. We learn from the past, yes, but it would be foolish to replicate it.

Given Nyerere’s influence on African liberation movements, what are the most significant aspects of his leadership that resonate with today’s political landscape in Africa?

Again, in his 1997 speech Mwalimu observed that his generation of leaders accomplished the task of liberation from colonialism but failed to bring about pan-African unity. He urged the current generation to take up the task of African unity. Pan-Africanism ought to, and actually does resonate with the African youth.

In fact, the youth are going beyond the first generation of Pan-Africanists in that they are fighting for a people-centric and not a state-centric Pan-Africanism.

Nyerere was known for stepping down voluntarily from power, which is rare in African politics. What can current African leaders learn from his humility and willingness to hand over power?

If there is one thing the current generation of African politicians have to learn from leaders like Mwalimu, it is that political power is a privilege to serve people, not a right to lord over them. A political position should humble you; not make you proud and arrogant to humiliate others. Personally, I think, no political leader should rule for more than a term of, say, five years.

As we look back on 25 years, how do you think Nyerere would view the state of Tanzania’s democracy today, particularly with regard to political freedom, human rights, and governance?

In my view, Mwalimu wouldn’t be particularly happy with our democracy and mode of governance. If democracy means participation of the people in decision-making, we are far from it.

We may have political parties, parliament and all the paraphernalia of a liberal democracy but that does not in itself translate into a people’s participatory democracy.

Well, on fundamental rights and freedoms, like the right to organise freely, right to express and right to human dignity and integrity, we have not fared well. We may be a little better than some African dictatorships, but then you do not judge your health by comparing it with that of a sick person. The silver lining, though, is that people do speak out.

The downside is that not a sufficient number of our elite speak out on the violation of the right of people to life, liberty and livelihood in the villages and slums. Working people suffer from the tyranny of petty officials twenty-four seven.

On top of that they are subjected to the tyranny of poverty as they are deprived of the means of their livelihood (grabbing of land in villages, demolition of their shelters in towns, constant harassment of machinga and mama ntilie). There is no greater tyranny than the tyranny of poverty. Poverty offends human dignity.

Just like in any other administration, there were mistakes during his tenure, in your opinion what do you consider to have been one of Nyerere’s greatest mistakes?

Yes, indeed there were mistakes. I think the greatest “mistake” was forced villagisation. The second big mistake was to suppress working people’s organisations like trade unions and co-operatives. The third was to repress people’s struggles from below. Unfortunately, like many righteous leaders, Mwalimu believed that he could do things for the people, not with them.

 Last but not least, why do you think Tanzanians continue to yearn for his leadership 25 years after?

When people yearn for Mwalimu’s leadership or Mwalimu-type leadership, they are not yearning for the past.

They are actually commenting on the present. It is not an expression of nostalgia; rather it is a ventilation of grievances against the present. It is a political act. Remembering Mwalimu in a certain way is a way of people doing their politics.