The Immaturity of Party Ideology?

 

Adeladius Makwega – MBAGALA

 

“All of Tanzania’s defence and security organs belong to CCM. Let the country cry and suffer, but this is the CCM state.”

 

This statement, reportedly made by Paul Chacha, a member of the CCM National Executive Committee (NEC), has sparked debate and raised questions about the position of Tanzania’s defence and security organs within the country’s constitutional and political system.

 

At the same time, Tanzania’s defence and security organs have remained silent, as though they neither heard the statement nor saw the need to provide clarification.

 

The fundamental question is this: Is this a statement that deserves serious attention and scrutiny, or is it simply a statement that Tanzanians should ignore?

 

Article 147(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania provides:

“No person, organisation or group shall, except the Government, establish or maintain in Tanzania an armed force of any kind.”

 

Article 147(2) further provides that the Government of the United Republic may establish and maintain armed forces for the purpose of protecting the security of the territory of Tanzania and its people.

From a constitutional perspective, the principle is therefore:

 

Defence and security organs → Government/United Republic → Nation and citizens

and not:

Defence and security organs → CCM → CCM members.

Another important provision is Article 147(3), which prohibits a member of the armed forces from joining any political party, while preserving that person's right to vote.

Article 147(4) further explains that, for this purpose, the term member of the armed forces includes a person employed in the Tanzania People's Defence Force, the Police Force, the Prisons Service and the National Service.

 

There is therefore a fundamental distinction between the Government's responsibility to establish and administer defence and security organs and a political party claiming ownership of those organs.

 

The Political Parties Act also establishes boundaries between political parties and Government security organs. Section 18 places restrictions on a political party, its leader or member forming, recruiting or operating a militia, paramilitary force or security group intended to take over the functions of the Police or another Government security organ. The law also places restrictions on military training and training in the use of force or weapons for political purposes.

 

This demonstrates the importance of maintaining a distinction between political parties and Government defence and security institutions.

 

Furthermore, the expression “CCM state” is not a constitutional term. The Constitution recognises the United Republic of Tanzania and its Governments in accordance with the Constitution. It does not define Tanzania as a “CCM state.”

 

It is true that CCM is a political party and can form a government through political and electoral processes. However, being the governing party does not mean that the organs of the State become the property of the party or that they are required to serve as institutions of that party. Tanzania formally adopted a multiparty political system in 1992, further establishing the distinction between political parties and institutions of the State.

Therefore, if the statement that “all of Tanzania's defence and security organs belong to CCM” has been accurately quoted, and the word “belong” is intended to mean political ownership or political allegiance to CCM, it is not a statement that should simply be dismissed. It touches upon important constitutional principles concerning the role of defence and security institutions, their political neutrality, and the distinction between the Government and a political party.

 

The central issue is not to condemn the individual who made the statement, but rather to examine its intended meaning, consider the statement in its full context, and assess it against Tanzania's Constitution and laws. It is also important to ask how Tanzanians themselves perceive such a statement in the current political environment.

This question becomes even more significant at a time when citizens have been engaged in serious discussions about human rights, public security, abductions, alleged torture and deaths reportedly associated with political circumstances.

Such matters require investigation by the relevant authorities and evidence-based conclusions, rather than broad conclusions without adequate proof.

Under the constitutional and legal framework discussed above, defence and security organs are institutions of the Government that are expected to perform their duties in accordance with the Constitution and the law for the security of the country and its people; they are not institutions that the Constitution defines as the property of a political party.

 

Therefore, if the statement “All of Tanzania's defence and security organs belong to CCM; let the country cry and suffer, but this is the CCM state” was intended to mean that these institutions belong to CCM or should serve CCM as a political party, then the statement deserves serious scrutiny in light of the Constitution and the laws of Tanzania, rather than simply being ignored.

 

Ultimately, this debate is not only about CCM. It concerns the relationship between political parties, Government, the State, defence and security institutions, and the people of the United Republic of Tanzania.

 

It is also important to recognise that Tanzanians hold diverse political views and affiliations, including CCM members, members of other political parties, and citizens who do not belong to any political party.

 

At the same time, the silence of the defence and security organs following the statement cannot, by itself, be interpreted as acceptance of it. However, because the statement concerns the status, allegiance and constitutional position of State institutions, the absence of an official clarification leaves an important question before the public: Do these institutions regard themselves as national institutions serving the Constitution and the people, or do they accept the interpretation that they belong to a political party?

 

In my view, it is important for defence and security institutions to provide institutional clarification whenever a statement is made that could be interpreted as associating them with a particular political party. Likewise, if Paul Chacha's statement has been accurately reported, it would be appropriate for him to clarify publicly what he intended to mean in order to remove the uncertainty that has arisen in society.

 

Mwanakwetu, as a CCM member, openly states that this statement is deeply troubling and deserves serious discussion within the party.

In my view, Paul Chacha, regardless of his position within the party, should recognise the weight of his words and the responsibility of political leaders to uphold respect for the Constitution, State institutions and the principles of the nation.

 

That is why I ask:

Should Tanzania's defence and security institutions call upon Paul Chacha to clarify or withdraw the statement?

And further:

Is Paul Chacha merely a ““The Immaturity of Party Ideology”,” or does his statement represent his personal interpretation rather than the official position of CCM or the Government?

This matter deserves clear answers.

I wish you a good day.

Email: makwadeladaius@gmail.com
Phone: 0717649257