Showing posts with label Political sciences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political sciences. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Comparison and differences of Nkrumah and Nyerere’s thoughts on African socialism.

 
The term socialism has no single definition as have been defined by various scholars as follows;
               According to Rappoport (1928) defined socialism based on the recognition of interests common to all citizens in order to promote a free individual in a free society.[1]
                According to Quinn (1980) socialism is apolitical term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually and relations are governed by political hierarchy.
                 Generally socialism can be defined as an economic system characterized by public ownership and centralized planning of all major industries, banks, and insurance. Under capitalism these giant enterprises dominate the economy but are privately owned and operated for purpose of generating wealth for their owners.
                   African socialism is believed in sharing economic resources in a traditional African way as distinct from classical socialism.[2]Many African politicians of the 1950s and 1960s professed their support for African socialism, although definitions and interpretation of this term varied considerably. This is because African socialism has not been the production of one single thinker.
                     African socialism was a form of social system rooted in African soil and culture. Traditional African societies governed by socialist’s rules. These was an attempts made by African thinkers to recapture traditional African values to services modern African societies as an indication that traditional African societies had something to teach in the modern world so as to uphold African culture and values.[3]African socialist’s thinkers are like Nyerere, Nkrumah, Kaunda, and Senghor. All African thinkers were similar in some aspects although in some cases was differed. Before looking in the comparison and differences of these thinkers thought let us first see their biography.
                      Julius k. Nyerere; was born at Butiama, a village near Musoma on the shores of lake Victoria in 1922 he was the son of chief Nyerere Burito of the Wazanaki tribe he attended primary education in Musoma and secondary school at Tabora. He spends two years at Makerere College and graduated as Master of Arts in 1952 from Edinburg University (Scotland). While in Britain Nyerere joined a socialists club known as Fabians. Fabians socialists whose political thinking was based on the ideas of utopian socialists was to influences  Nyerere’s early political thinking these utopian socialists who influenced Nyerere were like St.Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen.  He later on served as a teacher   at St. Francis Pugu and become one of founders of Tanganyika National Union (TANU) in 1954. Nyerere’s construction on African socialism based on the concept of “UJAMAA”; to him Ujamaa means family hood (African extended family) meaning that all individuals in the state as members of the same family. Nyerere dead in 1999.
                  Kwame Nkrumah; was born at Nkroful, gold coast (today Ghana) in1909. Lincoln University graduated in Bachelor of Arts in 1939 at university of Pennsylvania in United States of America, also graduated in bachelor of sacred theology and masters in philosophy in 1945. Nkrumah taught philosophy and Negro history from 1935-1945.  During his stay in America, racism and the poor living standards of the black Americans were also to influence his political thinking.  Nkrumah’s thought on the construction of African socialism was based on his philosophy of consciencism.  To him consciencism  was as a map in an intellectual terms of disposition of forces which enable African society to digest western, Islamic and euro-Christian elements in Africa and develop them  in such way that they fit into African personality. To him African culture alone cannot construct a viable ideology of modern African states. The following are the comparisons and differences of Nkrumah and Nyerere’s thoughts on African socialism, starting with comparison.
                  Both Nkrumah and Nyerere championed the single party system in building strong foundation of socialism in Ghana and Tanzania respectively. Through the monoparty system the two nationalists in Africa ensured the existence of strong unity solidarity among their people purposely for social, political, economic and cultural development in their states and Africa in general.[4]
                Both agree on the common features of socialists a state which is common ownership of means of production, distribution and exchange. Production is for use and not for profit according to Nkrumah also Nyerere in Arusha declaration his major point was the major means of production and exchange are under the control of peasants and workers.[5]
                Both Nkrumah and Nyerere held a platonic notion that the purpose of the state is to create a proper environment for blossoming of desired ethical condition,  this means the aims of socialism was to reconstruct African societies in the manner that humanism of traditional African life reasserts itself in a modern technical community.[6]
                 Both opposed non-secular system in building socialists states in which the governance systems had to be separated from the religious affairs so as to promote strong unity and solidarity among the people thus why Nyerere said Tanzania has got no religion but her people have their own religions. Nkrumah on the other hand separated religion from the state affairs.
                 Both believed on the egalitarian system in which they ignored classes that may perpetuate exploitation among members in the socialists’ states. To them public ownership and central planned economy was much better for the development of newly independent African countries.
                   Both Nyerere and Nkrumah in their socialists’ thoughts believed that self determination in political, economic, ideological and cultural aspects of life is where African all over the world can solve their problems or difficulties and building strong foundation of socialism in their respective countries.
The following are the contrasts of Nyerere and Nkrumah’s thought on African socialism.
                  Nyerere’s thought in socialism was based on the concept of Ujamaa while Nkrumah’s thought on African socialism was based on the concept of conscienscism. To Nyerere Ujamaa means family hood (African extended family) meaning that all individual in the state as members of the same family while conscienscism was as map in an intellectual term of disposition of forces which enable African societies to digest external element and develop them to fit into to African personality.
                   Nkrumah and Nyerere differed on the format of production which could best encourage the renaissances of these values while allowing for some degree of technologically derived change. Nyerere argue that the institution which first bred this value must be recreated. In effect he felt that changes in the social organization of production could be reversed through will and leadership but Nkrumah on the other hand from the perspective of dialectical materialism believed that change could be encouraged and channeled in a direction but never reversed. For Nkrumah only proper changes were real.[7]
                  Nyerere argued that African culture alone can construct a viable ideology of modern state while Nkrumah argues that African cultural alone cannot construct a viable ideology of modern African state, for him a viable ideology for the development for African should be based on synthesis of traditional and western, Islamic and euro-Christian elements of African states.
                   Generally both thinkers (Nyerere and Nkrumah) developed political ideas which had profound impact on their countries and African in general. The political ideas and contributions of Nkrumah and Nyerere are significant and remain very valid for today’s Africa because Nkrumah developed the notion of “neo colonialism” which outlined the features of continued exploitation of former colonies after formal political independence was achieved and Nyerere advanced the ideology of self reliance as a necessary component of socialism that is both were steadfast in their condemnation of exploitation and oppression. Finally both did not succeed in putting their political ideas into to practice like their dream of a united Africa remains unfulfilled.










                                            REFFERENCES
Fenner, B. (1963) African socialism. The Bodley head, London
John, S, S. (2002) “Julius Nyerere and the theory and practice of (Un) democratic socialism in  Africa” The legacies of   
                                 Julius Nyerere. Africa world press
Peter, T, P. (1970)   Kwame Nkrumah. New York: the Africane Publishing corporation.


[1] C, Rappoport. (1928) what is Socialism. P-4
[2]F, Brockway. (1963) African Socialism. P-25  
[3] Friedland and Rosberg Jr. (1964) African Socialism. P-3
[4] S.S.John(2002) Julius Nyerere and the theory and practice of (Un) Democratic Socialism in Africa
[5] S.S.John(2002) Julius Nyerere and the theory and practice of (Un) Democratic Socialism in Africa 

[6] F, Brockway. (1963) African Socialism. P-12
[7] T, P, Omari(1970)Kwame Nkrumah. P-10

How did transition from Multipartism to Monopartism take place in Tanzania and Kenya in the early 1960’s?


A multi-party system is a system in which multiple political parties have the capacity to gain control of government separately or in coalition.[1] It is a system where there are large amounts of major and minor political parties that all hold a serious chance of receiving office, and because they all compete, a majority may not come to be, forcing the creation of a coalition. While Monopartism is political system in which popular parties are discouraged in the state and only single party dominate the government system and control the ruling activities in the state.
Therefore Multipartism system in East Africa around early 1960’s was determined by ethnicity, racial, religionalism, regionalism and tribalism. For instance, Kalenjin, political alliance, Maasai united Front, in Kenya while in Tanzania involved Arab association, African association, Shiraz and Indian association.
Also around 1960’s the situation started to changes, since most of the parties was struggling to get political power for their own interests, that is why other political parties  tend to collapse totally while others continued to maintain its political power for a long time as Mono-party in the state.  So the discussion on this paper will concentrating on explains on how Tanzania and Kenya transformed from the Multipartism to Monopartism in the early of 1960’s. But the discussion will start with Tanzania and then accomplished with Kenya as follows;
Tanzania is a country which constitutes the union between Tanganyika (now Tanzania mainland) and Zanzibar. Both Zanzibar and Tanzania mainland provide us with interesting political developments during the nationalists struggle for independence, and the period after independence. The period of struggle for independence was characterized by the growth of ethnised politics.[2]  Therefore the transition from Multipartism to monopartism in Tanzania was based on the following ways in the case of Zanzibar Island.
Through the split, it was the situation where by the political parties tend to join and some time to diverge each other due to their own interests in terms of political, economic and social influences, so that split also was influences much by the parties’ leader who tend to introduce their own new political parties. In the line of process above the Zanzibar started to develop the Mono-party system. The political parties involves were the Zanzibar National Party (ZNP) which was formed in 1955, and then Afro-Shiraz Party(ASP) in 1957 under Abeid Amani Karume, also Zanzibar and Pemba People’s Party (ZPPP) in 1959 under the leader ship of Sheikh Muhamed Shamte and lastly Umma Party in 1963, under  Abdulrahaman Mohamed Babu.   So in these political parties the ZPPP was a splinter of ASP, the spilt of ZPPP from ASP was typical of the racial character of Zanzibar nationalists’ politics, as ZPPP was basically a party of Shirazi racial group which had frictions with Africans mainland origin within ASP. The Umma party was formed also as a splinter of the ZNP under the leader of Abdulrahaman Mohamed Babu. Babu was dissatisfied with the racialist policies and ideological tendencies of the ZNP and therefore decided to move out and form the Umma party. This was therefore a party which was more revolutionary with less tendencies of racialism.[3] In the time Umma party was as Mono-party system but later on the election held.
The transition following by election in 1957 and 1963 four elections were held. The first election was held in July 1957 with intention of having of 6 elected members in the legislative council. In that election, ASP which was a newly formed party got 5 seats and 1 seat was won by a Muslim league thus the ZNP was totally defeated. The outcome of these election not only shocked the ZNP and Arabs, but it also greatly increased tension between Africans and Arabs landowners and from external donors, So the ZNP preparing it for the next election another election of July 1963, the result was that ASP won 13 seats, the ZNP 12 and ZPP 6 seats. The coalition was done between ZNP and ZPPP gave them a total of 18 seats.[4] The ZNP formed the government as Mono-party in 19th December in 1963.
 The next remarkable steps were through revolution and constitution changes of Zanzibar. Since the results of 1961 and that 1963 under Arab minority did not please ASP and Africans as whole. This ASP prepared for a revolution which took place on the 12th January in 1964. The Zanzibar revolution had three main objectives, it was intended to remove the British colonialist and that done through constitutional changes also the revolution was to bring about socialism. Since the Zanzibar revolution brought the ASP and the Africans majority into political power, from the time Multipartism was abolished, thus the ASP and later CCM enjoyed a Mono-party of power under a one-party system.[5]
After seeing the Zanzibar transition from multiparty to Mono-party let also discuss the Tanzania mainland as to accomplish the transition of Tanzania.
 Tanzania mainland was dominated by multiparty like Tanganyika United Party (UTP), African National Congress (ANC) African Muslims National Union of Tanganyika (AMNUT) each party was defending its own interest. But it was Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) which was a National and territorial party. It was formed in 1954 under the leadership of Mwailmu Julius Nyerere.  TANU was born out of the Tanganyika African association (TAA) where TANU replaced all branches of TAA in Tanganyika and become the popular party[6].  The Monopartism in Tanzania mainland was established through the following ways,
Through abolition of racialization and regionalization political parties where by Mwalimu Julius Nyerere was against that system therefore he decided to adopt one party system in 1965. The decision to establish a one-party system was reached by the executive committee of TANU in 1963 after which a presidential commission was formed which prepared a one-party constitution in 1964, and then adopted in 1765.[7] Also the one-party system in Tanzania was able to develop a strong mass-based national ideology, and that is the ideology of socialism and self-reliance where as the one-party system was declared in 1965 and in 1967 the Arusha declaration which passed the policy and ideology of socialism under Mwalimu Julius Nyerere whereby the socialism was instated on the monoparty system in the state. So from the time the Tanzania was typically the mono-party state under TANU and later CCM.
Apart from Tanzania also Kenya showed the transformation from Multipatism to Monoaprtism. The formation of ethnic political parties and therefore the growth of ethnised politics began to take place also during 1950’s. The political parties which were formed were district and ethnic-based, among of such organization included the Kalenjin political alliance, the Maasai united front and the Abaluhya political union.[8] At the time of independence Kenya had a multi-party system with three political parties which were KANU, KADU, and APP. Through Kikuyu-Luo based , KANU  gradually began to marginalised the Luo and it therefore because of Kikuyu party soon after independence, KADU  was based on minority ethnic groups while APP  was based on the Kamba ethnic group.[9] So the following steps after independence initiated the mono-party in Kenya.
Through restricting the provision of government financial support to the oppositional political parties.  As the technique to maintain their power the ruling party initiated its existences after independence. Soon after independence in 1963, the rulling party KANU, and its new government under President Jomo Kenyatta began to take steps which made it difficult for the opposition parties to operates. So in 1964 KADU and APP dissolved themselves voluntary and therefore KANU come under a defacto one-party system[10]. Due to that situation Kenya abolished the Multiparty system and continued with the mono party system from the time.
Another way was through banned of some political parties and assassination of some leaders in Kenya who had great influences, in order to reduce the emergence of more strong political parties which can oppose the ruling one.  For example the assassination of Tom Mboya in 1969, the tension that follow resulted into the  arrest and detention of Oginga Odinga and other KPU leader and  KPU  was banned by the government, once more Kenya became a de facto one party state.  With the departure of Odinga from KANU in 1966 and the assassination of Tom Mboya in 1969 the Kikuyu enjoyed full control of both the party and the state.[11]
In addition it was through government propaganda and politicians influences. The ruling government was against the introduction of multiparty in order to control their power. Particularly when the KANU and the government resisted against pressures to introduce multipartism they argued that mulitipartism would disintegrate the country into ethnic violence. Also it was supported by the fact that the Kalenjin ethnic groups are said to have been instigated by some Kalenjin politicians who were opposed to multi-party because they wanted to maintain the one-party state quo in order to perpetuate the Kalenjin power bases.[12] In summary the whole process initiated the mono-party system in Kenya though later on, the system changed too.
Generally speaking around the 1990’s the system of mono-party in both Kenya and Tanzania changes since then, world politics was changed to democratic ways, so the ruling system under one party was no longer function again. So the thing like influences from Structural Adjacent Programme(SAP’s) and other supports from donor countries influenced Tanzania and Kenya to adopt the international multiparty politics. Also internally it was seemed like that the one-party system was too much corrupt and bad governance so people was in need of political  freedom so the only solutions was through the respond to world mulitipartism, so up to date almost the all Africa  country have adopted the multipartism.










   REFERENCES
Mpangala, P. (2000). Ethnic Conflicts in the Region of the Great Lake: origins and prospects for
                                    Change. Dar es Salaam institute of Kiswahili research
Msekwa. P.  (2006). Reflection on the first Decade of Multipartism politics in Tanzania. Hanns
                              Seidel foundation. Dar es Salaam.


[1] www.fact-index.com/m/mu/multi-party-system.html.
[2] Gaudence P. Mpangala (2000). Ethnic Conflicts in the Region of the Great Lake: origins and    prospects for Change. Pp57-58

[3] Gaudence P. Mpangala (2000). Ethnic Conflicts in the Region of the Great Lake: Origins and    prospects for Change..  Pp60-61
[4]Pius Msekwa. (2006). Reflection on the first Decade of Multipartism politics in Tanzania. Pg 1

[5] Gaudence P. Mpangala (2000). Ethnic Conflicts in the Region of the Great Lake: Origins and    prospects for Change. Pg 62
[6] Ibid Pg 65
[7] Ibid pg 66
[8]  Oyugi in Gaudence P. Mpangala (2000). Ethnic Conflicts in the Region of the Great Lake: origins and    prospects for Change. Pg 52
[9] Ibid Pg. 53
[10] Ibid Pg. 54
[11] Oyugi, in Gaudence P. Mpangala (2000). Pg 54
[12] Wamue, in Gaudence P. Mpangala (2000). Pg.56