THE LINE THAT MUST NOT BE CROSSED BETWEEN THE RULING PARTY AND THE SECURITY AND DEFENCE FORCES

 

Adeladius Makwega – MBAGALA

 

“Security and Defence Forces: Institutions of the Nation, Not Property of a Political Party.”

 

What Issue Is Mwanakwetu Raising Today?

 

Indeed, in a nation seeking to build a strong democracy, there is a line that must never be crossed: the line separating political parties, government, and security and defence institutions. A political party may win an election and form a government, but the police, military, intelligence services, prisons, immigration authorities and other security institutions must never become the property of a political party.

 

These institutions belong to the nation. Their responsibility is to protect the Constitution, the law, peace, national security and the lives and property of all citizens, regardless of which political party they support, what they believe in, or which political position they hold.

Today, Mwanakwetu wa Mbagala looks at some of the dangers that may arise when security and defence institutions are placed under excessive political influence. This is not an issue concerning one political party alone. It is a national issue that affects every Tanzanian.

 

You may support one political party today and another tomorrow. Governments may change. Political leaders may change. But the protection of the nation must remain the responsibility of institutions that serve all citizens.

 

First: Weakening Democracy

Democracy does not end with casting a ballot on election day. It requires public institutions to operate according to the Constitution and the law, while ensuring that all political sides can participate without fear.

When security institutions appear to be used to protect political interests rather than national interests, political competition can lose its fairness.

Imagine a situation in which the police repeatedly prevent opposition parties from holding meetings, while meetings organised by another political side continue without similar restrictions. Citizens may begin to ask themselves: Is the law the same for everyone, or does it change depending on which political side you belong to?

The history of South Africa offers a painful lesson through the Marikana tragedy of 2012. On 16 August 2012, police confronted striking mineworkers at Marikana, resulting in the deaths of 34 people that day. The South African government established the Marikana Commission of Inquiry to investigate the events surrounding the tragedy.

 

Marikana was more than a one-day news story. It became a reminder that when the use of state power raises serious questions, public confidence in state institutions can suffer.

The lesson is simple: security institutions must operate under the law and remain accountable to the nation, rather than serving political interests.

 

Second: Political Bias

When a political party exercises excessive influence over security institutions, there is a danger that people may begin to be treated according to their political positions rather than according to the law.

For example, a citizen who participates in opposition political activities may face restrictions or pressure that are not experienced by a citizen engaging in similar activities while supporting the ruling party.

Even when individual incidents may have different legal explanations, the perception that the law is being applied by two different standards is itself a serious problem for a public institution.

Egypt provides an example that offers an important lesson. Ahead of the 2018 presidential election, Human Rights Watch reported arrests of opposition figures and activists, including Abdel-Moneim Aboul Fotouh, a former presidential candidate and leader of the Strong Egypt Party. The organisation also reported arrests involving people associated with political activity and criticism of the government.

 

Mwanakwetu does not use this example to claim that every security action in Egypt was politically motivated. Rather, it illustrates the danger that arises when state security institutions are perceived as being used against political opponents.

When citizens begin to believe that their rights depend on which political party they support, the principle of equality before the law begins to weaken.

 

Third: Intimidation and Repression

When security and defence institutions become part of political competition, their authority can be used to intimidate or silence political opponents, activists, journalists and citizens with different views.

A lawful public gathering should be handled according to the law. The police have a responsibility to protect people and property, but they must also ensure that their authority is not used in a way that unlawfully deprives citizens of their rights.

The history of Chile under military rule following the 1973 coup demonstrates how serious this danger can become. During the military government of Augusto Pinochet, state security forces were involved in arrests, torture, killings and disappearances of people regarded as opponents of the regime.

The lesson from Chile is profound: when the power of the gun becomes entangled with political conflict, fear can spread throughout an entire society.

Citizens may become afraid to speak, demonstrate, write or participate in civic activities. Yet democracy requires citizens who are free and confident enough to exercise their rights. When fear dominates, rights may remain written on paper but disappear from everyday life.

 

Fourth: Weakening Free and Fair Elections

A free and fair election requires more than a ballot box. It requires an environment in which political parties and candidates can reach citizens, explain their policies and campaign without intimidation or the selective use of state power.

If one political party is given greater freedom to hold campaign meetings while other parties are repeatedly restricted without consistent and equal justification, political competition may be weakened.

The experience of Egypt in 2018 demonstrates why the political environment surrounding an election matters. Before that election, Human Rights Watch and other rights organisations reported arrests involving people regarded as opposition figures or potential political challengers. Such developments raised concerns about the fairness of the political environment surrounding the election.

The lesson is not that every election involving security measures is automatically unfair.

The fundamental point is that security should facilitate elections, not determine who is able to participate more freely than others.

 

When security institutions protect an election, they should be seen as protecting the electoral process—not protecting one political side.

 

 

Fifth: Declining Public Trust

When a citizen sees a police officer, that citizen should see an institution capable of providing protection in times of danger. When a citizen encounters a soldier, that citizen should know that the person represents the nation—not a political party.

But when security institutions become strongly associated with politics, public trust may decline.

A citizen may begin to ask:

If I am attacked at night, should I call the police? Will they really come? What if the people threatening me are politically connected? If my property is stolen, will I receive equal protection? If I am threatened because of my political views, will I receive assistance?

These questions may appear small, but when they become widespread, their consequences can be enormous.

National security is not built by the police alone; it is built through cooperation and trust between citizens and security institutions.

That is why political neutrality matters. A citizen who knows that the law protects them regardless of their political affiliation is more likely to trust state institutions and cooperate with them.

 

Sixth: Disruption of the Separation of Powers

In a democratic system, a political party and the government are not the same thing.

A political party may win an election and form a government, but state institutions must continue to perform their duties according to the Constitution and the law.

If a security officer is instructed to carry out the wishes of political party leaders instead of following lawful authority, the boundary between the political party, government and state institutions can disappear.

Pakistan offers a historical example of the challenges that may arise in this area. Human Rights Watch has documented the significant influence that security institutions have, at different periods, exercised over civilian authorities in Pakistan, particularly in matters involving national security and counterterrorism.

This does not mean that the military is a political party. The important lesson is that when military and security institutions exercise excessive influence over civilian politics, the boundaries of political and institutional authority can become blurred.

Democracy requires every institution to understand its constitutional limits and remain accountable under the law.

 

 

Seventh: Increasing Political Conflict

When citizens believe that official institutions will not listen to them or treat them fairly, they may lose confidence in lawful and political mechanisms for resolving disputes.

Political conflicts can begin with words, move into demonstrations and eventually develop into violence. When institutions responsible for resolving disputes are not trusted, the situation can become even more difficult.

Zimbabwe in 2008 provides a lesson about the consequences of severe political conflict following an election. Violence, intimidation and abuses against people associated with the opposition were reported during that period.

The broader lesson is that when state institutions are perceived as belonging to one side rather than serving everyone, political disputes can become more intense.

That is why a country needs courts, electoral institutions, security agencies and other public bodies that can be trusted by people across the political divide.

 

Eighth: The Risk of National Instability

History teaches us that when a nation loses confidence in its institutions, the cost can become much greater than anyone initially expects.

Kenya after the 2007 election is a well-known example. A dispute over the election results was followed by widespread violence that left more than 1,100 people dead and displaced more than 600,000 people.

The lesson is not that every political or electoral dispute will produce such consequences.

The lesson is that when political conflict meets weak institutions, mistrust and fear, it can develop into a national crisis.

That is why it is important to build institutions that citizens can turn to during times of crisis rather than fear.

The police should be the police of all citizens. The military should be the military of the nation. Intelligence services should protect national security—not the interests of a political party.

 

Conclusion: The Nation Comes First

Mwanakwetu wa Mbagala, when everything is said and done, this is not an argument against government or in favour of the opposition. It is not an argument for one political party against another.

It is an argument about the future of our nation.

The examples discussed here are not presented to attack particular countries or political parties. They are lessons from history—lessons that can help us think about how to protect our own institutions.

A political party may come to power and later leave office. A government may change. Leaders may change.

But national institutions must remain.

Today, you may be in power; tomorrow, you may be outside government. Today, you may belong to the majority; tomorrow, you may belong to the minority.

That is why we need a system in which the law protects every citizen without first asking who they voted for.

When security and defence institutions belong to the nation, everyone benefits. When they are turned into instruments of political competition, the institutions themselves may lose respect, citizens may lose trust, and the nation may begin to divide.

Let us build a culture in which we can disagree politically without hating one another; compete without intimidation; criticise without revenge; and defend the Constitution regardless of who is in power.

Because at the end of the journey, a political party may belong to today—but the nation belongs to generations.

Everything discussed here serves one fundamental purpose: to prevent the line between the ruling party and the security and defence institutions of the nation from being erased.

Mwanakwetu, are you there? Remember:

“The Line That Must Not Be Crossed: The Ruling Party and the Security and Defence Forces.”

I wish you a good day.

makwadeladius@gmail.com
0717649257