A leadership test is performed and assessed during a crisis, and we have one right now, but Tundu Lissu and Chadema have miserably failed that test. It is a test of character, vision, creativity, and resilience. In all four corners, Tundu Lissu and Chadema have let down themselves and the nation through counterproductive distractions such as “No reform, no election.”
Elections are not won because the election laws are fair and just but are won despite the laws harbouring formidable flaws. The “No reform, no election” platitude has failed to appreciate it is a no starter, a bridge heading to nowhere and leaves Chadema at a precarious cliffhanger. It is an adopted position that weakens Chadema more than any other. Why has Tundu Lissu, a man with an unquestionable brilliant legal mind, and Chadema followed the legacy bequeathed to them by his predecessor, Freeman Mbowe, defied logic and commonsense? This article looks at the best alternative route Chadema should energetically pursue if they are to improve upon their odds of winning the general elections, hands down.
It is an indisputable fact that the election laws have violated the Constitution, and the efforts to rectify those anomalies were treacherous and deceitful! While it is expeditious to blame the courts for the decision to refuse to knock off DEDs from corrupting our elections, the legal points raised were fickle and heavily reliant upon the court’s discretion rather than pegging their legal assault upon the law. One NGO perspired to assault the credibility of the DEDs. Little did they know that the ambit fell on specific performance, a matter that doesn’t question the violation of the constitution but implores the courts to be considerate of the plaintiffs’ predicament.
The matter before the courts was whether DEDs were biased when empowered by the election laws and the onus of managing elections on behalf of the NEC. Such a question missed the point because it was immaterial whether DEDS were biased, but the proper question was whether the constitution permitted them to act on behalf of the NEC. This is why the Appeals Court made a finding that the respondents did not provide any evidence to establish DEDs were members of the ruling party, CCM, therefore, the contention DEDs were biased was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
That legal approach was caused by the litigants who were assailing issues that fell under “specific performance”, proffering courts with a leeway to exercise their own discretion. This is not a matter that fits on “specific performance” but rather on clear points of law where judicial discretion is inapplicable. Chadema has won a policy debate that bureaucrats appointed by the president cannot manage elections, but that is not a justifiable legal argument!
First, the constitution as it is, there is nothing wrong for bureaucrats to manage our elections so this policy puff is simply unenforceable. However, whether NEC can delegate her constitutional election management mandate to constitutional aliens such as bureaucrats is another matter. That is a legal argument worth for judicial interpretation of the constitution in respect of election laws.
Tundu Lissu and Chadema create a lot of fracas over presidential appointees from managing the elections on behalf of NEC. Again, that is not where the problem is. NEC may appoint non-presidential appointees who may act and misbehave the way presidential appointees do. The result may still be a massively rigged election, just as if DEDs were in the driver’s seat.
This is why even CCM organising and publicity secretary Makala pointed out that DEDs will not manage the forthcoming elections on behalf of NEC. We don’t know how Makalla came to know whom NEC will pick to run elections on its behalf. If Makalla is right, this amounts to “insider trading”. Looks like CCM is inside NEC and knows exactly the plans there leaving all of us wondering whether there will be an election at all or a sham one masquerading as the real thing!
What Tundu Lissu and Chadema fail to grasp is that they cannot prevail outside the ambit of law irrespective of the election laws have intentionally violated the constitution since 1995 elections. Our constitution earmarked the NEC to manage elections, but clever lawyers illegally robbed those powers from the NEC and handed them to unaccountable bureaucrats. NEC is now a bystander that awaits bureaucrats to inform it of the outcome of the election outcomes contrary to clear provisions of the constitution. The constitution designated NEC to be the manager of our elections, not the unaccountable bureaucrats who are not answerable to it.
At the heart of the election, there is a bitter dispute about why the so-called independent NEC is not independent because it has its own hired secretariat scattered all over the country. Why the so-called independent NEC is purposed to be hollowed by unaccountable bureaucrats? NEC doesn’t even have disciplinary and recruitment powers over the bureaucrats the election law forces it to delegate her mandate to! What Tundu Lissu and Chadema ought to do is seek judicial intervention to strike out all the election laws that require INEC to delegate her mandate to the unaccountable bureaucrats.
INEC must employ staff that it can control through recruitment and disciplinary powers to ensure clean elections rather than being forced to offload its constitutional mandate to bureaucrats that INEC has no powers to hire and fire. What the election laws have done is strip the INEC of her constitutional powers to manage our elections. This is a point of law that courts should be asked to intervene and strike out all provisions of the election laws that empower bureaucrats to usurp the prerogative powers of the INEC. Then Tundu Lissu and Chadema will be in a stellar position to advocate their favourite sound byte: “No reform, No election.”
Those who claim that the judicial route is closed don’t know what they are talking about. First and foremost, the previous legal assault was based on different legislation that has been repealed, but of more significance, the position of the law in question is also very different. The former legal suit was about the DEDs harbouring an inherent element of bias, while this one will be the provisions of the new election laws that offload constitutional powers of management of elections to bureaucrats unemployed by INEC that were unconstitutional.
INEC must be the sole employer of those required to manage elections. It is unconstitutional for election laws to introduce non-accountable bureaucrats to INEC to manage elections on its behalf. INEC will have no say over how elections are being conducted unless her own employees carry the mandate as stipulated in the constitution.
Tundu Lissu and Chadema’s “No reform, no elections” clarion is premature because legal options have not been fully exhausted. The new election law has not been tested in the courts on how much it adheres to the Constitution. Unless Tundu Lissu and Chadema follow the stricture of the law before seeking “extrajudicial means” to achieve their goals, we should all have a reason to dismiss their political outbursts as a case of frustration, mediocrity and squandered opportunity.
Such leadership that fluffs at an hour of reckoning has failed the leadership test founded on consummate strategy and perseverance. We tend to confuse an ability to criticize what others are doing with leadership. The two are not an item. Tundu Lissu made a career in vehement repudiation of the ills of the government, but is he also a consummate strategist who can lead Chadema to an election victory? So far, there are no signs he is, and marshalling civil unrest and chaos will not defeat CCM at the ballot box but will give her a reason to unleash the security forces to put Chadema’s followers into harm’s way.
So, what is the point of opening the sluice gates of bloodshed without bagging the elections?
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
When has the opposition party chadema won Presidential elections That’s a never, Even when they seem to have a chance to win They Won’t. So is it Wrong to say “No we can’t play along with that anymore?”Its Not premature move it is what it is. Tanzanian Citizens Can’t do Nothing About It Nature of The Country