Ethiopia's prime minister Hailemariam Desalegn (L), Burundia's president Pierre Nkurunzinza (2nd L), his wife Denise and Tanzania's President Jakaya Kikwete (R) stand in Kasarani stadium during Kenya's celebrations marking 50 years of independence from British colonial rule. AFP PHOTO / TONY KARUMBA
Adaptation
is still continuing with an effort among opposition groups in the
Constituent Assembly, after President Jakaya Kikwete ended what was
really a preliminary phase of the work of the delegates, where it was
unclear what the solution to constitutional problems would be.
In that case the dispute was focusing on the mode of voting, on the premise that scores of CCM MPs would go along with the Warioba second draft, on condition that they didn't have to shout it loud. After the speech not even a secret vote would save the draft, as JK poked not holes but questioned sense in the draft, its credibility as a constitutional format, simply.
With the president's speech, the mandate of the CA was redefined, from its august status of deciding the future of the country, whether it would remain the United Republic of Tanzania or it splits into the Republic of Tanganyika and possibly the Republic of Zanzibar, the dearest wishes of the most militant agitations.
The president made it clear that the CA should work on each of queries of the union, look at issues technically and realistically, take suggestions from all sides and put everything on the table, including the Isles constitution of 2010. Judge Warioba didn't take to task the change, but wanted Tanganyika to draw up its own.
In other words the format as presented by the learned judge and former premier was one of asserting Tanganyika's right to do what Zanzibar has already done, as if what Zanzibar had done was beyond discussion.
In that sense Judge Warioba saw issues from the viewpoint of the street, which takes actions of governments as facts beyond all manner of questioning, adding to the fatigue with complaints from the Isles on their participation in the Union government, etc. The second draft as well as the first saw these problems as insurmountable, thus advocated neat separation.
What transpired in the first week of the CA tended to confirm worst apprehensions in the manner in which Simanjiro MP Christopher ole Sendeka clashed with an Isles minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
The latter noted that he has been in the House of Representatives for 30 years, thus someone 'cannot come from Simanjiro' and teach him procedure. 'He has to admit that he knows too little.'
With JK'\s speech all this becomes something of the past, as the clashing groups are no longer battling CA chairman Samuel Sitta on the mode of voting so that it is possible to get a Warioba-based vote, that is, which confirms popular views on the constitution.
The matter is now stark clear and vivid that the president shall only ink a document that solves queries of the union, not one which breaks it, in which case the two groups of CCM must seek common position on those queries, and the various oppositions contribute ideas to rectifying things, not breaking the country. The CA delegates understood, but opposition said that was all just a CCM agenda.
One person who has been trying to find a way through, a sort of balance between JK and the opposition, is Kigoma North MP Zitto Kabwe. Treading a familiar but innovative path, he outlined what he said were ten mistakes in the JK speech, but somewhere a 'mistake' was repeated in the listing, allowing the MP at least one mistake in his narration.
The litany of accusations was a rather muted defence of the Warioba draft, though it was evidently short of substance, especially when the Zitto remarks were placed alongside a shorter summary by JK on his twitter page.
Topping the list of errors visible in the JK speech is JK's "reading the speech without it being written and worked over by advisers," which stems from photos of the president on his trip working on his speech in the plane, not 'advisers.' In this context the MP is pushing for mediocrity, while the president did what was needed - namely to give a detailed personal and statesmanly viewpoint, not a hodge podge of advisory compilations, which in actual fact is what Judge Warioba brought up. He faced sharp positions of bishops, NGOs, parties wishing for three governments.
'The second mistake was to mention U-pemba more than the word Zanzibar' on the basis of Zitto's remarks, which is misplaced as well; Pemba people have a certain distinctiveness on the Mainland which other Zanzibaris tend to lack.
At any rate the formulation comes from Mwalimu Nyerere's remarks at the Kilimanjaro Hotel in March 1995, explaining how Pemba people would be the first to be cleared out, a position that JK reiterated.
He said that no one would bother them in their homes or activities on the Mainland at present, 'but if Tanganyika is formed the rules will change,' an aspect which Zitto predictably did not cite, or take to issue as it is true.
The third mistake was to mention by name the Chief of Defence Forces that he can overthrow the country or rather that JK can be overthrown. He did not mean the CDF can be overthrown! Is Zitto unfamiliar with presidential speeches in the US?
Zitto is far too savvy not to know US presidential style and the way elements of it are equally applicable in our situation, for instance citing the unique contribution of individual citizens by name in this or that aspect, as JK did with groups, of Wapemba and then the CDF.
This way of putting up issues is like placing photos on the front page of a newspaper, that it makes it live, draws matters closer to the reader - or in this case the listener, seeing starkly and frankly what Judge Warioba's three governments would mean. The army would revolt the union format and shift to Tanganyika, transfer allegiance, or take over to defend the union if it so wishes.
The fourth clear mistake in the president's speech was "to show the Mainlanders that they can ruin the Pembans or Zanzibaris" in a situation where Tanganyika has been formed, a mistake because the church would have preferred that this danger is covered up.
Hasn't the church in the Central African Republic been arming and giving food and other supplies to 'anti-balaka' forces wielding machetes against Muslims, stopping convoys of internally displaced people to harm them?
Didn't the church participate in the Rwanda genocide in 1994? Is the church so incapable of seeing all these dangers of divisions while they are obvious, and it supports the format with zest and gusto, knowing it is bent on reducing the power of Muslims?
Zitto is of course not a member of the church, but he still has his CHADEMA membership project to nurse, despite other initiatives, so he is adopting a tactical position instead of a principled one. It is as if JK is asking Mainlanders to ruin, grab property of Zanzibaris (not Pembans, as this reality hurts Zitto more than the abstract Zanzibaris) whereas Mwalimu had pointed it out long ago.
That is what happened in Sudan, as a new South Sudan that had no civil service to speak of but a rudimentary bush-scattered skeletal services and low levels of commerce was given 200,000 southerners from the north. Zitto says we must follow this model.
The sixth mistake is a little unclear, that the JK speech was contributed to by a certain MP though it looks as if it was CA chairman Samuel Sitta that the Kigoma North MP is referring to.
That of course is a bit confusing, as it is suggesting that nothing that Sitta ever spoke should be heard from the president, meanwhile as he was Speaker of the National Assembly and much earlier, Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
And precisely what were those words? Is there anything to do with Mainland (as Sitta also rejected the term Tanganyika but the president was more liberal with it) that is known to the Urambo East MP and not to the rest of the country? Or did JK say he would ditch CCM, the union, to embrace the draft?
Seventh is no mistake as it repeats the fourth, but to make it clearer, he could have prolonged the president's remarks to suggest that churches would be under total siege in Zanzibar, though the present is awful enough, with acid, bullets and arson every three months.
More significant is mistake number eight, which is to cite the 12 provisions and say they were legally added "which is manifestly false" on the basis of the retrieved twitter text.
Such an affirmation is not surprising as the issue about provisions and how they were arrived at often brings up a Greek situation in debate, some even asking for the signed agreement for a union, implying it doesn't exist, in which case Julius Nyerere and Abeid Karume sleepwalked into the union!
Ninth mistake was to show clearly his party's instincts and its positions without hidihng anything - in which case he did not emerge as the president of all but the leader of his party, dividing the CA into CCM and others.
Examining the speech one sees a different tonality altogether, where the president underlines that despite that CCM has a majority, it can't by itself attain two thirds of each side, Mainland and Zanzibar, to approve each of the provisions in the constitutional draft.
In that case he appealed to all sides to abandon set positions and see if the idea of another party or group is helpful to solve a specific problem; if so adopt it to get the votes.
The tenth and worst mistake on the basis of the twitter summary or text is for the president to have stated that what he was saying were his personal views "now if so why didn't he give the views to the commission or tell his wife and children at his home" is the lese majeste that follows that remark.
Obviously Zitto is just trying to make a point out of 'personal' aspect, which simply meant that he is not dictating to CCM MPs how they should vote, but highlights the clear weaknesses of the draft, knowing it will be hard for CCM MPs to differ with him.
At any rate Zitto is in a Catch-22 situation against the president with that remark, as he says 'if they are personal views tell them to the commission or to your family,' and if JK had stated that 'CCM will not tolerate deviation from this important national matter,' Zitto would rally for break up of CA for clear presidential interference. Isn't it brilliant?
In that case the dispute was focusing on the mode of voting, on the premise that scores of CCM MPs would go along with the Warioba second draft, on condition that they didn't have to shout it loud. After the speech not even a secret vote would save the draft, as JK poked not holes but questioned sense in the draft, its credibility as a constitutional format, simply.
With the president's speech, the mandate of the CA was redefined, from its august status of deciding the future of the country, whether it would remain the United Republic of Tanzania or it splits into the Republic of Tanganyika and possibly the Republic of Zanzibar, the dearest wishes of the most militant agitations.
The president made it clear that the CA should work on each of queries of the union, look at issues technically and realistically, take suggestions from all sides and put everything on the table, including the Isles constitution of 2010. Judge Warioba didn't take to task the change, but wanted Tanganyika to draw up its own.
In other words the format as presented by the learned judge and former premier was one of asserting Tanganyika's right to do what Zanzibar has already done, as if what Zanzibar had done was beyond discussion.
In that sense Judge Warioba saw issues from the viewpoint of the street, which takes actions of governments as facts beyond all manner of questioning, adding to the fatigue with complaints from the Isles on their participation in the Union government, etc. The second draft as well as the first saw these problems as insurmountable, thus advocated neat separation.
What transpired in the first week of the CA tended to confirm worst apprehensions in the manner in which Simanjiro MP Christopher ole Sendeka clashed with an Isles minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
The latter noted that he has been in the House of Representatives for 30 years, thus someone 'cannot come from Simanjiro' and teach him procedure. 'He has to admit that he knows too little.'
With JK'\s speech all this becomes something of the past, as the clashing groups are no longer battling CA chairman Samuel Sitta on the mode of voting so that it is possible to get a Warioba-based vote, that is, which confirms popular views on the constitution.
The matter is now stark clear and vivid that the president shall only ink a document that solves queries of the union, not one which breaks it, in which case the two groups of CCM must seek common position on those queries, and the various oppositions contribute ideas to rectifying things, not breaking the country. The CA delegates understood, but opposition said that was all just a CCM agenda.
One person who has been trying to find a way through, a sort of balance between JK and the opposition, is Kigoma North MP Zitto Kabwe. Treading a familiar but innovative path, he outlined what he said were ten mistakes in the JK speech, but somewhere a 'mistake' was repeated in the listing, allowing the MP at least one mistake in his narration.
The litany of accusations was a rather muted defence of the Warioba draft, though it was evidently short of substance, especially when the Zitto remarks were placed alongside a shorter summary by JK on his twitter page.
Topping the list of errors visible in the JK speech is JK's "reading the speech without it being written and worked over by advisers," which stems from photos of the president on his trip working on his speech in the plane, not 'advisers.' In this context the MP is pushing for mediocrity, while the president did what was needed - namely to give a detailed personal and statesmanly viewpoint, not a hodge podge of advisory compilations, which in actual fact is what Judge Warioba brought up. He faced sharp positions of bishops, NGOs, parties wishing for three governments.
'The second mistake was to mention U-pemba more than the word Zanzibar' on the basis of Zitto's remarks, which is misplaced as well; Pemba people have a certain distinctiveness on the Mainland which other Zanzibaris tend to lack.
At any rate the formulation comes from Mwalimu Nyerere's remarks at the Kilimanjaro Hotel in March 1995, explaining how Pemba people would be the first to be cleared out, a position that JK reiterated.
He said that no one would bother them in their homes or activities on the Mainland at present, 'but if Tanganyika is formed the rules will change,' an aspect which Zitto predictably did not cite, or take to issue as it is true.
The third mistake was to mention by name the Chief of Defence Forces that he can overthrow the country or rather that JK can be overthrown. He did not mean the CDF can be overthrown! Is Zitto unfamiliar with presidential speeches in the US?
Zitto is far too savvy not to know US presidential style and the way elements of it are equally applicable in our situation, for instance citing the unique contribution of individual citizens by name in this or that aspect, as JK did with groups, of Wapemba and then the CDF.
This way of putting up issues is like placing photos on the front page of a newspaper, that it makes it live, draws matters closer to the reader - or in this case the listener, seeing starkly and frankly what Judge Warioba's three governments would mean. The army would revolt the union format and shift to Tanganyika, transfer allegiance, or take over to defend the union if it so wishes.
The fourth clear mistake in the president's speech was "to show the Mainlanders that they can ruin the Pembans or Zanzibaris" in a situation where Tanganyika has been formed, a mistake because the church would have preferred that this danger is covered up.
Hasn't the church in the Central African Republic been arming and giving food and other supplies to 'anti-balaka' forces wielding machetes against Muslims, stopping convoys of internally displaced people to harm them?
Didn't the church participate in the Rwanda genocide in 1994? Is the church so incapable of seeing all these dangers of divisions while they are obvious, and it supports the format with zest and gusto, knowing it is bent on reducing the power of Muslims?
Zitto is of course not a member of the church, but he still has his CHADEMA membership project to nurse, despite other initiatives, so he is adopting a tactical position instead of a principled one. It is as if JK is asking Mainlanders to ruin, grab property of Zanzibaris (not Pembans, as this reality hurts Zitto more than the abstract Zanzibaris) whereas Mwalimu had pointed it out long ago.
That is what happened in Sudan, as a new South Sudan that had no civil service to speak of but a rudimentary bush-scattered skeletal services and low levels of commerce was given 200,000 southerners from the north. Zitto says we must follow this model.
The sixth mistake is a little unclear, that the JK speech was contributed to by a certain MP though it looks as if it was CA chairman Samuel Sitta that the Kigoma North MP is referring to.
That of course is a bit confusing, as it is suggesting that nothing that Sitta ever spoke should be heard from the president, meanwhile as he was Speaker of the National Assembly and much earlier, Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
And precisely what were those words? Is there anything to do with Mainland (as Sitta also rejected the term Tanganyika but the president was more liberal with it) that is known to the Urambo East MP and not to the rest of the country? Or did JK say he would ditch CCM, the union, to embrace the draft?
Seventh is no mistake as it repeats the fourth, but to make it clearer, he could have prolonged the president's remarks to suggest that churches would be under total siege in Zanzibar, though the present is awful enough, with acid, bullets and arson every three months.
More significant is mistake number eight, which is to cite the 12 provisions and say they were legally added "which is manifestly false" on the basis of the retrieved twitter text.
Such an affirmation is not surprising as the issue about provisions and how they were arrived at often brings up a Greek situation in debate, some even asking for the signed agreement for a union, implying it doesn't exist, in which case Julius Nyerere and Abeid Karume sleepwalked into the union!
Ninth mistake was to show clearly his party's instincts and its positions without hidihng anything - in which case he did not emerge as the president of all but the leader of his party, dividing the CA into CCM and others.
Examining the speech one sees a different tonality altogether, where the president underlines that despite that CCM has a majority, it can't by itself attain two thirds of each side, Mainland and Zanzibar, to approve each of the provisions in the constitutional draft.
In that case he appealed to all sides to abandon set positions and see if the idea of another party or group is helpful to solve a specific problem; if so adopt it to get the votes.
The tenth and worst mistake on the basis of the twitter summary or text is for the president to have stated that what he was saying were his personal views "now if so why didn't he give the views to the commission or tell his wife and children at his home" is the lese majeste that follows that remark.
Obviously Zitto is just trying to make a point out of 'personal' aspect, which simply meant that he is not dictating to CCM MPs how they should vote, but highlights the clear weaknesses of the draft, knowing it will be hard for CCM MPs to differ with him.
At any rate Zitto is in a Catch-22 situation against the president with that remark, as he says 'if they are personal views tell them to the commission or to your family,' and if JK had stated that 'CCM will not tolerate deviation from this important national matter,' Zitto would rally for break up of CA for clear presidential interference. Isn't it brilliant?
SOURCE:
GUARDIAN ON SUNDAY
No comments :
Post a Comment