(Mis)aligning democracy: A tale of horses, carts and political realities

By Justice Novati Rutenge

We are fresh out of one of the most politically charged weeks in recent Tanzanian history. The public display of internal conflict in one major political party contrasted sharply with the extraordinary show of unity in another, turning the nation into a political amphitheatre. For me, it has ignited a deeper reflection on the heart and soul of democracy—an ideal frequently lauded in theory, but too often distorted, manipulated, and ultimately, betrayed in practice.

The age-old struggle between principle and procedure played out before our eyes last week. Are we hitching the horse of principles to the cart of procedures, or are we, in fact, putting the cart before the horse?

This tension is not new. It echoes even in Biblical narratives. The Good Samaritan defied social norms to help a wounded man ignored by religious leaders bound by ritual purity, reminding us that compassion should always transcend rigid rules. Similarly, Jesus himself challenged established procedures—healing on the Sabbath and overturning the tables of the money changers—to uphold the core principles of wellness and true worship.

These lessons find a stark echo in the political events that unfolded this past week, where a cascade of procedural dilemmas took centre stage. Questions surrounding the oversight of elections, the timing and mechanisms for vetting and selecting candidates, and a host of other procedural intricacies dominated the political discourse.

Tyranny of procedure

Procedures, divorced from principle, can subvert the very essence of democracy. When rules become tools for vested interests, rather than safeguards for the common good, we risk sacrificing the soul of democracy at the altar of procedure.

The irony of being overly procedural is this: procedures themselves can be changed, often procedurally, to serve predetermined outcomes rather than fundamental principles. Imagine, for instance, a football match where, mid-game, the leading team proposes a rule change: shrinking the goalposts. Clever! I suppose if you are winning, why not make it harder for the other team to score? Brilliant strategy in the moment, but with questionable long-term implications.

Here is the kicker: what happens when you find yourself on the losing side? This is not a trivial question. The landscape of politics is inherently volatile, characterised by shifting allegiances, ideological realignments, and the rise and fall of factions. Suddenly, those small goalposts might not seem so appealing. This is the problem with procedural manoeuvring for immediate gain. It sets a dangerous precedent. Who knows what rule changes the future holds? Perhaps next time, they will decide to play with an oval ball or allow tackles from behind. Such actions, while procedurally sound within the confines of the amended rules, erode the integrity of the game itself.

This is by no means a suggestion to pursue an ideal set of procedures. Idealism alone does not win games, or elections for that matter. But a little foresight goes a long way. Where are the impartial veterans in our political arena? Where are the ones who understand that today's tactical advantage could become tomorrow's strategic liability? Surely, they would caution against the temptation to prioritise winning the current match at the expense of the game's integrity for future generations. The pursuit of victory, devoid of principle and long-term vision, ultimately undermines the very foundations upon which the game is built.

Conflict aversion

Beyond the universal desire for victory, a uniquely Tanzanian trait was on full display in this week of political theatre: conflict aversion. While both parties grappled with this cultural tendency, their approaches differed dramatically.

Chadema found itself embroiled in what many perceived as an existential crisis precisely because it failed at conflict aversion. Internal debates over leadership term limits, a seemingly procedural matter, exposed deep-seated divisions within the party. While such contestation can be a healthy sign in a democracy, signifying a willingness to challenge the status quo and engage in robust internal dialogue, Chadema's struggles were evidently damaging and disruptive.

The public airing of grievances, the accusations and counter-accusations, the very public display of internal discord – all of this painted a picture of a party teetering on the brink. This raises a critical question about the nature of healthy democratic discourse. While transparency and open debate are essential, the descent into a public spectacle of infighting suggests a failure of internal mechanisms for conflict resolution. It seems that the pressure had been building for years, with simmering tensions and unresolved grievances finally boiling over.

This is where the long shadow of conflict aversion becomes apparent. The very issues that fuelled this recent crisis – issues that were, in fact, raised years ago, such as those articulated in the waraka that led to Zitto Kabwe's expulsion – likely persisted due to a culture of avoiding confrontation. Those who might have recognised the warning signs and sought to address the underlying problems may have remained silent, prioritising the appearance of unity over addressing their deep-seated discontent.

CCM, on the other hand, in its pursuit of a seamless transition of power, opted for the manufacture of consensus. The party appeared to prioritise unity over the messy, yet often essential reality of internal debate and contestation. This display of harmony reflects a broader tendency in Tanzanian society to avoid open conflict, even when it means overlooking differing viewpoints. The desire for consensus, often lauded as a virtue, can become a tool for stifling genuine democratic discourse.

Undeniably, party consolidation is a significant outcome, and CCM may well have achieved a rare state of internal cohesion. Whether this ultimately proves to be a masterstroke of strategic manoeuvring or a Faustian bargain struck at the expense of genuine internal discourse remains to be seen.

Towards a more responsive democracy

This past week's political theatre served as a stark reminder that democracy is a delicate balancing act. It requires a commitment to both principle and procedure, to both unity and contestation.

My biggest hope is that we will strive for a political system that embraces open dialogue and constructive dissent, even across the divides that separate us. We need to nurture a culture where disagreements are not suppressed but addressed, where grievances are not ignored but acknowledged and resolved.

Ultimately, the true test of our democracy lies in the ability to deliver for the people. This can only be achievable through a political system that is truly responsive to the diverse ideas and needs of all Tanzanians.

Justice Novati Rutenge is Executive Director at the Foundation for Civil Society (FCS). The views expressed here are his own