The late, renowned Kenyan scholar – Ali Mazrui – wrote in his famous article on Tanzania, “Tanzaphilia”, that, “Intellectuals everywhere in the world have a weakness for fellow intellectuals.” This maxim is vivid in Issa Shivji’s recent essay, ‘The Dialectics of Maguphilia and Maguphobia.’ The author, in his wide-ranging (historical) account of the actions that laid the foundation for the rise of a person that he has described as a “messianic” Bonaparte, has highlighted a range of controversial measures that were taken by the first phase President – Julius Kambarage Nyerere – as he sought to consolidate power, and pursue the nation building agenda.
Such measures included the abolition of multi-party system, dissolution and re-establishment of the army, and its integration into the party, and the evisceration of trade unions, as well as other civil society bodies. Yet, Shivji exudes unmitigated compassion towards these actions by subtly expressing doubt as to whether Nyerere’s actions were authoritarian. It is as if grand ambitions, such as nation building, and the pursuit of national unity have an inherent value that cast doubt on the definition of authoritarianism.
As a critical, leftist scholar who came of age during Nyerere’s long tenure of office, a time when the nation experimented with the ideals of socialism, the author’s compassion is understandable. Shivji was able to choose his career trajectory, and publish his notable book during this period, without any significant (negative) consequences. Also, as the co-author of one of Nyerere’s biographies, and former holder of a Professorial chair in Nyerere’s name, he definitely has a stake in Nyerere’s legacy. This is to say, when reading the author, one has to understand that his background and intellectual orientation has had the effect of moderating his views on the first phase government.
Shivji’s description of the fifth phase President – John Pombe Magufuli – as a messianic Bonaparte, is based on the circumstances underpinning his ascendancy to power. In his essay, the author writes, “When classes are weak, or have been disarmed ideologically and organisationally over a generation, politics suffer from Bonapartist effects.” Then he notes elsewhere in the same essay that, “Bonapartism has arisen in historical situations where the struggling classes have either exhausted themselves and there is an apparent vacuum in the body politic or reign of the previous ruler has been so laissez faire that ‘law and order’ has broken down.”
These two quotations shed some light on what, according to the author, constitutes Bonapartism. The problem is that Shivji presents Bonapartism as if it is an influential framework that has a unified theory behind it, ignoring all contestations in literature, and assuming its full applicability to the Tanzanian context. Besides, a reader wonders what value the framework brings to the essay, given its narrow origin. The author’s constant effort, throughout the essay, to anchor it to populism points to a sense of awareness to its superficiality.
The author’s core argument is that the state’s weakening of other centres of power, which started during the first phase government, and the subsequent organizational and ideological deterioration of the ruling party created the conditions necessary for the rise of a Bonapartist leader, especially due to the establishment’s failure to mitigate the effects of neoliberalism on the ‘struggling’ classes. He contends that the third phase President – Benjamin William Mkapa – “can easily be described as the father of neo-liberalism in Tanzania” and that, by the end of his rule, it “was a full-blown neo-liberal state.” Shivji also observes that the regime of the fourth phase President – Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete – was the most laissez faire in the country’s history, but does not, for instance, explain why the tenure of the second phase President – Ali Hassan Mwinyi – which was fairly laissez faire, did not produce a similar outcome. As for the sixth phase President – Samia Suluhu Hassan – he cautiously asserts that, “It is too early to say the direction that the new regime will take” though “it is likely to be a little more liberal politically and economically and a little less heavy on invoking rhetorical invectives against western governments.”
In my view, the emboldened opposition under Kikwete, especially as it benefited from the growing support of the struggling classes, and the alignment of forces with the civil society (especially NGOs), explains the difference. But Shivji writes dismissively about NGOs, regurgitating his old, standard argument that they lack both constituency, and agenda of their own, mainly due to the predominant nature of their foreign funding. The uncertainty surrounding the sustainability, and even the legitimacy of NGOs operations is a well-known issue. However, the author’s consistent failure to acknowledge a sense of agency among those that take part in it, amounts to a form of intellectual rigidity. If the unqualified funding logic is extended to Shivji’s own activities, one would be justified to question whether KAVAZI (Nyerere Resource Centre), which is now defunct, came close to having its own agenda, given that a significant portion of its funding came from foreign benefactors.
The author indicates that President Magufuli had many firsts, and suggests the country experienced kidnappings and disappearances for the first time during his administration. To be fair, the country saw extreme violation of rights, and disappearances in Zanzibar during Abeid Amani Karume’s tenure as the first President of the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar and First Vice-President of the United Republic of Tanzania, to the extent of attracting protest from the International Community. Nyerere is on record arguing that it would take a while for Zanzibar to be brought fully under the union, indicating that he wasn’t comfortably in charge of the situation. In the mainland, lengthy detentions without trial weren’t unheard of under Nyerere. I personally remember a neighbor’s son who ‘disappeared’ in the early 70’s, and only re-appeared many years later – sometime in the late 90’s. Disappearance, both actual and figurative, did not start with Magufuli.
Of all initiatives that were undertaken by President Magufuli, the author writes quite positively about reforms in the extractives sector. He describes the Permanent Sovereignty Act (2017) as a progressive piece of legislation, and commends the (initial) ban on international arbitration (which has been technically rescinded) as a great ‘advance.’ As a person that has spent nearly a decade specializing in extractives sector governance, I understand that ownership is often not a matter of contention. After all, it is a norm that the state owns the resources on behalf of its populace.
What is of paramount importance is the state’s capacity to manage concessions granted to Multi-National Corporations (MNCs). Tanzania’s problem has not been ownership, but limited capacity. The ownership question is an agenda that has been popularized by politicians, for it is easy to sell.
In terms of international arbitration, Shivji must be well aware, as a qualified lawyer, that MNCs avoid seeking adjudication in local (especially third world countries courts) due to the judiciary’s lack of independence, and competence challenges. The author’s essay points to this phenomenon when he describes a situation where the head of the Judiciary would receive orders, in public, from the President. In short, the provision for local arbitration wasn’t in line with industry standards, and was bound to fail.
The author’s reflection on the legacy of the previous regime in Tanzania is detailed, provocative, and fascinating. My rejoinder has only focused on a few angles that stood out for me, but the essay will remain a key reference document for years to come. One wonders whether there is a memoir, full of personal anecdotes, including from Shivji’s “progressive’ former student and the late Magufuli’s ‘last’ Chief Secretary – Bashiru Ally Kakurwa – on the way!
Read with great interest..hasa kwenye NGO funding..I think wajamaa kuna shida moja wamegoma ku-acknowledge their fluidity ikija kwa funding na benefiting from unaoutwa ubeberu au even acknowledging classism among the wajamaa…but kwa andiko la Prof. Shivji I guess kwa vile aliandika mtizamo wangu juu ya awamu ya 5 hasa juu ya the late sikutizama kingine..Nimependa ulivyoongelea Nyerereism na some of its reference kwa andiko na zama za the late JPM…Great article
@Dastan Kweka
This is another ‘brilliantly’ written piece. I will tell you why.
1. You have this amazing abaility to choose & use just the right vocabulary for (your) subject matter. And there is no shortage of them whenever you drop a piece.
When a writer writes prolificaly and there is no ‘pattern’ in their writing (repeated terms, concepts, phrases, etc.) That’s a brilliant one. Words are a rare resource for a writer.
2. You use complex phrases/sentences and yet deliever the message clearly.
Very few writers can do this successfully. There is a very high risk one will confuse readers with this writing style. You’ve mastered it very well.
………………………………….
I am learning a great deal.
Keep writing.
There is no slightest doubt that this is a masterpiece review from a great Scholar of our time- @Dastan Kweka.
It offers a great insight towards an understanding of the complex nature of governance that our country has witnessed over various regimes. Questioning the Giant Shivji’s beliefs and sentiments across Presidential reigns in Tanzania reinforces an interest to read more especially for most us possessing a culture of neglecting and/or taking for granted the political functions and their ramifications to our society. I can’t wait to read- BA’s Rejoinder as called for by the author-Dastan Kweka.
This is a very good read, Dastan. Keep on writing
Great stuff @Dastan Kweka. A catalyst to continuing intellectual debates
An interesting debate that allows us to reflect on Shivji’s piece. Bravo, Kweka.
Waaaaow, this is as thought-provoking as it is breathtaking! @DastanKweka