Farewell Dr. Sengondo Mvungi, your work on behalf of the people speaks volume – we recall citing you below:
A revealing, albeit stereotypical explanation of the lack of full
participation in village governance and decision-making, was noted by Sengondo
E. Mvungi (2007) in his discussions with community leaders and CSO officials in
Katesh. The discussants alleged that pastoralists did not know that it was
important to elect pastoralist leaders into elective decision making organs of
state. Instead, it was further alleged, the pastoralists elected
agriculturalists in order to relieve themselves of the hustle of attending
endless meetings instead of taking care of their herds. That is why when official
policy and administrative decisions were made, the discussants concluded, these
came as hailstorm upon pastoralists who were absent all the way, but involved –
by default – in accordance with law. The following case illustrates why the
alleged abdication by the pastoralists need to be investigated further given
that the co-researcher observed how they participate passionately in
hamlet/village meeting that discuss issues that really concern them:
In Katesh, officials in the District Council told us that pastoral
community leaders had accepted that three of the wheat farms which were subject
to court litigation be sold to liquidate debts, and two be divided one to
pastoralists (Gawal) and the other (Warret) to agriculturalist. The so-called
pastoralists and agriculturalist who were to benefit from the re-distribution
of land were not those that had gone to court. Later when we spoke to community
leaders they told us a different story. They said that the community leaders
were not consulted. The Officials of the District council handpicked
individuals from the villages, 17 in all and only 7 were pastoralist. They were
hand picked just a day before the meeting and had no time to consult. The
community leaders we spoke to expressed fears that this was done in order to
allow part of the land to be allocated to some big fishes in the District
Council. According to them they had to rise up in arms to prevent the parceling
of the farms” (Sengondo E. Mvungi 2007:
21).[1]
Another issue of concern pertaining to participatory governance and
decision-making is that of conflating ‘political statements’ with ‘legal
provisions’ or with ‘governance directives.’ The co-researcher observed that
there were cases where political statements made in political rallies or
political platforms that had no authority whatsoever on a given matter were
literarily adopted over and above binding legal provisions and/or governance
directives on such a matter. In some cases, as it seemed to be the case when
the MP of Hanang attending Ming’enyi Village Assembly on 12 November 2008,
those statements are done in good faith as an attempt to prevent conflicts or
fast-track the resolution of conflicts.
[1] In the parliamentary session of 14 August 2006 the MP of Hanang,
Dr. Mary Michael Nagu, lamented that the debt of approximately Tsh 1.5 Billion
that the District had inherited from Warret and Gawal farms was a heavy burden.
Therefore she requested the then Ministry responsible for Empowerment to take
transferable properties so that it can sell them and use that money to repay
the debt, asserting that the capacity of the Hanang District Council to oversee
the sale of those properties was limited. She also proposed that the task be
given to the liquidator who sold the properties of other farms. The
co-researcher observed people moving properties they bought in Gawal farm.
SOURCE:
