Our politics isn’t open for criticism: Reflecting on Bashe’s word on Lowassa
Hussein Bashe, Nzega Urban MP has made headlines the past few days as he spoke his mind about the direction of the country under the stewardship of President John Magufuli and the issues which the ruling party, of which he is a member, should improve if it is to continue to be politically relevant even though he left no doubt that he thinks his party will still be around for a long time to come.
Unfortunately, as is with many political parties which claim on turning this country democratic even if intra-party democracy is very poor to non-existent, it is difficult to know with certainty what to make of Mr Bashe’s comments as the dangers of his comments being taken personally with our thin-skinned politicians on one side or being considered as an act of a politician trying to survive in the tumultuous political environment at a time when his party is still dealing with “saboteurs” and “traitors” from within.
The issues he raised like his party’s handling of former prime minister, Edward Lowassa during the primary process as it worked out a way to emerge out of a contentious electoral process without splitting. To him, Lowassa was treated unfairly. His party has long rejected that argument, claiming all party rules were followed but as any keen observer of our politics will say, CCM has a long history of unpredictable electoral processes and elevating or crushing political dreams under unclear circumstances be it at the presidential level or parliamentary level where many candidates’ dreams were ended in Dodoma.
CCM is not the only guilty one in this. The electoral processes in all political parties in the country can and do bend at times to follow certain political winds or the powerful factions within the party. Political parties set themselves certain criteria to pick special seats members of parliament for instance, like the number of votes a party receives, or its women members who run for constituencies and lost are to be given priority but when it comes to practicality, rules are forgotten and political expediency is paramount to whatever rules in place.
There are many ways one could explain this lack of tolerance within our political parties when it comes to dissenting voices; one of them being the long shadow cast by the legacy of the one-party state. The process of nominating a sole presidential candidate was closed to the public. Ruling elites discussed and reached their own consensus which was projected to the public where they had to vote for that particular candidate or a shadow.
To this day, whether it is CCM or the opposition parties, the process of nominating a presidential candidate is not for the public or rank and file party members. Political elites have to reach an agreement which is then presented to them the rest of the members and later on to the public.
Under such circumstances it is difficult to allow dissenting voices as power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual or a group of few individuals within a party. So, fair treatment is not a priority here. It has never been with our political parties from the earliest days of multipartism.
Dissenting voices are frowned upon and could easily be interpreted as undermining the leaders and unity of a party. At the very least, for such voices to be tolerated, one has to present them through “proper party structures”, where they do not see the light of day as they are buried deep behind the doors of secrecy, and if a member insists on not conforming to party rules, there are only two ways available for them: being kicked out of the party or walk out on their own.
A political party has to be representative of the population in terms of accepting different opinions and constructive criticism. As things stand it is highly unlikely that CCM or any opposition party will change course of how they do things as keeping your members on a tight leash guarantees powerful factions within the parties and the leaders control of their parties.
Our politics are yet to be open for any criticism, whether from within or from outside a party.
