Yes, 2019 copy of Political Parties Act merits revisiting

One quite significant theme which emerged was the way in which amending several provisions of the Political Parties Act in its 2019 version may create a more livable atmosphere for the work of political parties.

There appeared to be little dissent on the issue, so it is likely that there is merit in that observation, by experience at least.

For one thing, legislation making the Registrar of Political Parties the arbiter in whatever is being done by parties, and what appears to be draconian provisions on obtaining and using funds, are deemed as not helpful for democracy.

There ought to be room for the courts on the one hand when it is an issue that concerns a political party as an organisation, such as in the way the 19 ‘disowned’ Chadema MPs have filed litigation on their expulsion from the leading opposition party.

There was a dispute lately on another political party whose legal status is in limbo, but administrators took a bigger than life profile in the issue, with critics arguing that it does not amount to fair play.

A few other details in the exchange of views were revealing in their depth and diversity, partly for what was actually observed even if not actually said but it can be extracted from what was presented.

The focus of the discussion was the nature and characteristics of political space in different countries, including levels of free elections observed in each country.

A senior opposition figure referred to studies conducted in the recent past, seeing Tanzania lagging behind Kenya and Malawi in democracy and political space, and recommending constitutional review to alter this.

Saying that opposition parties have won once or twice in either country because the two countries have done a lot in constitutional review and amendment of laws is only partially the case.

The other reason is fractured political space where large blocks of voters align with key ethno-political leaders who change alliances. This game of chairs in ethnic coalitions is all too often confused with having a vibrant democracy.

Attached to it was the idea that the constitutional review that Tanzania had started could have brought excellent developments had it been fully completed and adopted.

In that case the government was given the classroom task of learning from neighbouring countries to prioritise constitutional change. But, of course, the bigger issue is the constitutional environment for policy changes to enable ‘Big Results’.

Only because the ruling party was fully united in its ethos was it possible for vast changes to be conducted in governance, altering budgeting from 74 per cent for recurrent uses and 26 per cent development expenditure, to 61 per cent and 39 per cent, respectively.

If the watered-down presidency that the opposition insists the country ought to adopt were in use, the sums could have been altered to use an even bigger portion for recurrent expenditure.

Democracy without unity of purpose can lead to sleaze, where politicians find legroom to feel happy. And this just cannot be a recipe for the thriving of good governance and meaningful development.