Contextualizing citizenship in Tanzania

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Contextualizing citizenship in Tanzania © Authors, 2020 Published version Nguyahambi, Ajali M.; Chang’a, Haji H.; Matunga, Benta N.; Kilonzo, Rehema G.; Kontinen,Tiina Nguyahambi, A. M., Chang’a, H. H., Matunga, B. N., Kilonzo, R. G., & Kontinen, T. (2020). Contextualizing citizenship in Tanzania. In K. Holma, & T. Kontinen (Eds.), Practices of Citizenship in East Africa : Perspectives from Philosophical Pragmatism (pp. 73-89). Routledge. Routledge Explorations in Development Studies. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429279171-6 2020 6 Contextualizing citizenship in Tanzania Ajali M. Nguyahambi, Haji H. Chang’a, Benta N. Matunga, Rehema G. Kilonzo and Tiina Kontinen Introduction In order to explore citizenship habits, it is important to examine the circumstances and environments in which they have been formulated and where they are currently exercised (Holma & Kontinen, this volume). The circumstances relevant for our purposes include both the historically evolved societal and political environments where citizenship is practiced, and the forums of citizenship learning that shape these ideas and practices. In this chapter on Tanzania, we approach them through the notion of maendeleo (in Swahili lit. “development”), which is continuously used in public discourses to emphasize the roles and responsibilities of the state and its citizens. From the point of view of citizenship practices, the idea of maendeleo does not only define the explicitly political features of citizenship, it also affects everyday participation and how shared issues are addressed. In contemporary Tanzania, maendeleo is not a new term, as it was central before, during and after independence in 1961. Tanzania has passed through different phases of leadership and plans; however, in each phase the main issue has been development for the people. In recent years, the slogan, “maendeleo hayana chama”(development has no political affiliation), has increasingly become popular, especially with government officials and the ruling party –the Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) –emphasizing that development is meant for everyone regardless of political affiliation. In addition, it denotes the specific political orientation of the state and the expected, “unpolitical”form of citizens’participation in governance and development processes. Further, this discourse has emphasized the role and responsibilities of ordinary citizens in contributing to development, portrayed as the task of every individual in the country. Consequently, in Tanzania, strong contestations over citizenship rights and roles have not been prevalent; rather, citizenship has been exercised more or less within the framework defined by the governing political party: first during the single-party era of African socialism, and second, after the re-introduction of multiparty politics in 1992. Overall, citizenship in Tanzania has been characterized by phases of decolonization, post-independence nation-building and one-party African socialism, with later liberalization of the economy and re-introduction of multiparty politics with regular elections (Aminzade 2013). In planning development, the focus has been on technical issues and formal institutions, with the construction of citizenship taking place simultaneously in diverse situations. While a large number of different ethnic groups live in Tanzania, the consolidation of Kiswahili as a national language has strengthened shared “Tanzanian”values in the belonging and identity of its citizens (Rwengabo 2016; Kessler 2006). Moreover, the educational system prioritizes training people to become good citizens through the school curriculum, moulding individuals into responsive citizens who will participate in their own development. In the post-independence decades, education in general and adult education in particular has been a valued way to strengthen the competencies and commitment of citizens. Citizenship learning has taken place in multiple spaces and places such as the formal school system, official civic education and through practical learning in civil society and everyday life. In this chapter, we provide an understanding of Tanzanian history and the contemporary moment through the lenses of development, citizenship and learning. We first revisit pre-colonial history and the birth of the nation, discussing the emergence of the discourse of maendeleo in nation-building in a single-party era. Following that, we reflect on the implication of the introduction of multiparty politics, highlighting contemporary aspects related to citizenship. Independence and the birth of a nation Like most of the African countries, Tanzania’s history is intertwined with colonialism. Contemporary mainland Tanzania, Tanganyika, was initially part of German East Africa (1885–1918), and then a British colony until 1961. The ways in which these two different colonial powers established their relationship with their subjects (rather than citizens) have shaped the habits and structures of governance until today (Schneider 2006). In the pre-colonial era, communities in Tanganyika aligned in political and societal structures based on traditional arrangements according to the different ethnic groups established in the chiefdoms. During the colonial era, the Germans supported the Swahili culture, establishing a government school system along the coast with Swahili as the language of instruction; consequently, coastal leaders cooperated with the German colonial administration. The British, on the other hand, exercised “indirect rule”(Schneider 2006, 98) through pre-exist- ing chiefs who would do their bidding, hence favouring the larger ethnic groups, such as Chagga (in Kilimanjaro) and Sukuma (in Shinyanga and Mwanza), over the small ones (Mpangala 1992). Given the environment of potential ethnic and tribal divisions created by the British colonial regime, pre-independence movement leaders preferred to employ associations capable of bringing together different ethnic groups. Thus, they organized their struggles through the Tanganyika African Association (TAA) and later the 74 Nguyahambi et al. Tanganyika African National Union (TANU), which had already assumed a national character, to attaining political independence in December 1961. Soon after this, Tanganyika embarked on a nation-building project that ranged from altering existing British colonial policies to radically departing from them, with the Arusha Declaration in 1967 providing the framework of implementation. Nation building was guided by the policy of Ujamaa socialism –which encouraged citizens to participate in communal activities in their respective villages –and was an overtly top-down political project that aimed to address ethnic divisions created during the colonial period and create a sense of national unity. The purpose was to inculcate citizens with desirable political ideals, that is, a strong attachment to the nation that transcended ethnic and regional identities. Nation building was thus meant to foster national identity (Aminzade 2013), which was required due to the multiethnic nature of the political society. Additionally, explicit efforts to reduce divisions on the basis of religion were made; the secularity of the state was announced from the beginning and the independent government promised equality for all religions. This is the background for discontent among religious activists (i.e. Muslims) who often complain about “unequal opportunities”in education and government employment compared with the Christian population (Liviga & Tumbo-Masabo 2006; Bakari & Ndumbaro 2001). The nation-building project involved the establishment of associational bonds across ethnic groups alongside the adoption and experimentation of progressive social policies. For example, Ujamaa villages were created in order to facilitate the provision of shared common resources and social services, as well as making it easier to mobilize them politically. Among others, the nation-building project was meant to consolidate social cohesion, which was considered important in sustaining collective community projects. Nation building required state power and resources to enforce (Rwengabo 2016), and the first president of the country, Julius Kambarage Nyerere (1961–1985) provided leadership agency in the implementation of the project. It started in the early years of independence with the goal of cultivating national cohesion by integrating populations into the emerging state apparatus wherein a common identity was claimed. Thus, today’s national citizenship identity resulted from a deliberate domestic process, which was politically top-down rather than the result of spontaneous actions initiated by the people. Despite the multiplicity of ethnic groups in postcolonial Tanganyika, the nation-building project managed to develop a relatively coherent identity –in comparison to Uganda, for instance (Alava et al., this volume) –through a fusion of sub-national and ethnic social identities. As a move towards establishing a centralized government legitimized by the goal of building cohesion and national identity (Pratt 1981) all unions based on ethnic identity were abolished and religious associations were warned to stay out of politics. This was when the chiefdom system was banned and the potential discontent of influential chiefs controlled by giving them civil service posts. Consequently, Contextualizing citizenship in Tanzania 75 nation building acquired shared cultural resources and symbols such as the Swahili language, which served as an ideological and political communication tool. In addition, nation building achieved the loyalty of populations to the same geo-political unit, and the elimination of ethnic dominance over political institutions (Miguel 2004). Overall, post-independence nation-building in Tanzania is generally regarded as a success, as Tanzania has avoided the seriously violent ethnic and religious conflicts prevalent in many other African countries. The emergence and formulations of “maendeleo” The notion of maendeleo, development –considered one of the strongest pillars in the nation-building project –was embedded in the post-indepen- dence policies of Ujamaa na Kujitegemea (familyhood and self-reliance). Ujamaa as a political notion denoted a strong sense of communal spirit, a sense of belonging and the assumption of mutual responsibility for societal development, which was explicitly related to traditional African values (Stöger-Eising 2000). In this respect, it constituted a societal project: African socialism that combined nation-building policies with social and economic development strategy. Hence, Ujamaa offered a distinct set of egalitarian principles that formed the bedrock of values and efforts to institute profound social change in collective ways of living, directed and shaped by the state. The Ujamaa philosophy promoted the total participation of all community members in communal labour in the rural sector, communal ownership of land, nationalizations in the private sector and the provision of public services such as health and education at the national level (Jennings 2017). As such, citizens’participation in development activities was to be realized through mutual help and voluntary engagement in everyday community life. Indeed, notwithstanding the rhetoric of voluntarism, Ujamaa community members had an obligation to work, which took the form of cooperation in production and sharing in distribution (Stöger-Eising 2000). Therefore, a communalized work force and collectivized means of production were the cornerstones of maendeleo; people who were reluctant to participate in communalized development activities in Ujamaa villages were referred to as parasites (kupe in Swahili). The rights and duties of citizens were defined alongside the kind of education that aimed to transmit values compatible with the creation of an egalitarian society. In order to ensure the effective implementation of the Ujamaa policy and attainment of its egalitarian goals, a powerful bureaucracy was installed to take control of its management. The policy was part of the Arusha Declaration of 1967, which was a concrete set of prescribed leadership codes, such as “freedom”,“justice”and “unity”, to be adopted by political officials and bureaucrats. The Tanganyika African National Union (TANU), which was the only political party within the single-party 76 Nguyahambi et al. system, was entrusted with a supervisory role and leadership. The Ujamaa policy advocated state-led development that emphasized nation building and nationalism (Hyden 1981). Therefore, Ujamaa as the framework for the path of development in Tanzania denotes a specific ideological focus in the promotion of nationalism, the transformation from colonial hegemony to a meaningful sense of nationhood and citizenship, and African particularism in a socialistic form of governance. State-led implementation of the Ujamaa policy germinated into “developmental paternalism”(Pratt 1981; Schneider 2006), hence embedding Ujamaa in the rise of an authoritarian state that was supposed to take a paternalistic care of the development of its citizens. Although Nyerere (1968) elaborated on the connections between development and the participation of people in the communities, the realization of expected outcomes started to dwindle as the government largely took over the responsibility of development without much involving the grass roots level. Different mechanisms were employed to implement the nation-building project, including the adoption of Kiswahili as a national language, the presence of civic curricula in schools and the official use of national symbols and slogans. In addition, some specific laws were made to promote national unity and discourage divisiveness. The nationalism discourse was monopolized by the ruling party, TANU (later CCM), through widespread party branches in all villages, schools, public services, major industries, major civic groups and trade unions (Mmuya & Chaligha 1994). The population was mobilized to extremely high levels of support for the party, notwithstanding the generally passive roles occupied by ordinary people, while the government controlled political expression, political organization and the message of nation building. The primary objective of the government was to address three declared enemies (ignorance, diseases and poverty), hence it limited any potential voices of dissent or alternative nationalizing narratives (Nyerere 1962; 1968). Those who did not participate in the national building project were considered traitors, which helped to guarantee the involvement and support of every citizen in development projects, across classes, races, ethnicities and gender. The limited space for political expression and organization, however, produced a post-colonial citizenship agenda that was political and propagandistic rather than focused on citizenship rights and corresponding duties. Citizens became mere receivers of party policies and instructions, which they were to support and implement whenever they got the opportunity (Lawson & Rakner 2005; Komba 1996). State institutions managed the citizenship education agenda during the post-colonial era. President Julius Nyerere spearheaded nation-wide civic education through his speeches and other programs, moulding a new political orientation among citizens, guided by socialism and self-reliance (Mushi 2009). The pedagogical approaches employed were non-participatory and devoid of critical analysis, allowing the censorship of contradicting perspectives. The definition of a “good citizen”by the independent government Contextualizing citizenship in Tanzania 77 included the need for all citizens to pledge their commitment and loyalty to the ruling party, the government and key national leaders. In this regard, critical citizenship was associated with the notion of violence, and hence not acceptable in interactions with the state. The delivery channels of civic education included formal political education for the youth in schools and colleges, as well as adult education. There were also public campaigns promoting economic and social development, while radio commentaries (Radio Tanzania Dar es Salaam –RTD) and print media (government and party-owned newspapers, e.g. Uhuru, Mzalendo, Sunday News and Daily News) publicized programs on issues like Ujamaa Vijijini, Mtu ni Afya, and Siasa na Kilimo (Ujamaa, health, science and agriculture). Ultimately, citizenship education cultivated a parochial political culture that enabled the group holding power under the one-party ideology to have maximum control with the minimum conflict (Mallya 2008). All general elections between 1965 and 1990 were held in a single-party system, hence with limited policy alternatives, even when the ruling party did not please citizens. For example, the presidential position had one candidate and the electorates were required to vote YES or NO, with no optional candidate. Over time, however, international ideas of “development”influenced the internal debates in different ways. For example, throughout the 1970s the development discourse was dominated by the “participatory development model”, which focused on the need to involve people in decision making and in the implementation phase. Following the series of global economic disasters 1 during the late 1970s, the development discourse from the early 1980s was dominated by Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) that embraced a market economy as opposed to one that was state planned. Under the guidance of the Bretton Woods Institutions –the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) –countries in sub-Saharan Africa were pressured to adopt privatization of state-owned enterprises and resources, deregulation and devaluation of currency, reduction of trade barriers, elimination of subsidies in public service provision and the agricultural sector, and principles of good governance and pluralism in politics. However, Tanzania, under the leadership of President Nyerere, was reluctant to subscribe to international development strategies engineered by the Bretton Woods Institutions, rather favouring state-planned strategies (Kiondo 1993). Nyerere was of the view that SAPs were modern imperialist mechanisms of colonization that minimized the ability of the government to organize and regulate its economy in the face of multinational companies. This threatened sovereignty over the economy because international institutions could dictate the nation’s economic policy; yet, despite pursuing policies of self-reliance, Tanzania was heavily dependent on international development aid. Therefore, in the late 1980s, the neoliberal agendas of the international community forced Tanzania to reduce the public sector, embrace the market economy and initiate governance reforms in the direction of multiparty politics to address the pressures of democratization. 78 Nguyahambi et al. Era of reforms and multiparty politics After three decades (1960s–1980s) of experimenting with socialism and a policy of self-reliance, Tanzania decided to undertake political and economic liberalization. Political liberalization materialized through the introduction of a multiparty political system and greater space for civil society organizations to function with autonomy from state control. Economic liberalization came through change from a planned economy to a free market economy, which allowed the privatization of state-owned means of production. Politically, Nyerere’s post-independence policy had abolished the multiparty political system 2 which had existed during the pre-independence period. Nyerere’s argument was that colonialism was defeated and what lay ahead of every citizen was the fight against the three new enemies of ignorance, poverty and disease. According to Nyerere, the three enemies did not require multiparty politics, hence perpetuating negative images of opposition political parties in order to diminish their public support. The later retreat from the Ujamaa policy came as the outcome of internal and external factors. Internally, President Julius Nyerere and other political activists started to advocate for change from single-party to multiparty political system. Nyerere realized that political pluralism had awarded a victory to the global agenda of democratization, which could no longer be resisted. Meanwhile, the Ujamaa policy had become associated with economic shortcomings and the failure of the state in the field of public service delivery at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s (Mogella & Kiondo 2006). Consequently, the country adopted a National Economic Survival Programme (1981–1982) and successive SAPs (1982– 1986). Externally, pressure and conditionalities from donor countries, the WB and the IMF made the government implement SAPs, though these reform packages were strongly resisted by Nyerere. Toward the end of 1980s, Ujamaa lost popularity as a favourite lexicon of development in Tanzania. Instead, vocabularies such as mageuzi 3 (literally, change or transformation) and utandawazi (globalization) captured the social, economic and political discourses. The new terminologies suggested new duties for the state and corresponding rights among citizens in these fields. In 1992, a multiparty political system was re-introduced through Political Parties Act 1992 (No. 5 of 1992), ending nearly three decades of a single-party system. The newly established opposition political parties took the lead in introducing and promoting the new political language that propagated mageuzi. However, the agenda for changes took place in a context in which the notion of Ujamaa was still alive in the intellectual sphere and diffused across the country by the authorities and ruling party, Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM), whose stance has remained conservative. Although Tanzania amended its constitution in 1992 to become a multiparty state, the CCM has continued to control the government. Currently, there are 22 political parties that participate in general elections, which involve the election of the president, members of parliament and ward Contextualizing citizenship in Tanzania 79 councillors. They also participate in elections for local government authorities to elect village and hamlet chairpersons. To date, Tanzania has conducted five general elections at intervals of five years from 1995 to 2015. All five elections have witnessed a peaceful transition from one government to another, while retaining the leadership of the CCM. The influence of opposition political parties has continued to grow, especially among the few active parties that have representation in the national assembly, including Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (CHADEMA), the Civic United Front (CUF), the National Convention for Construction and Reform (NCCR) –Mageuzi, and the recently established Alliance for Change and Transparency (ACT – Wazalendo). Currently, the national assembly and ward councils are generally dominated by the ruling party with more than 70 per cent of about 390 members of parliament and about 5350 ward councillors respectively (Tume ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi 2016). The rest of the seats are distributed among the opposition parties although the numbers are also affected by the defection of members of parliament and ward councillors from opposition parties to the ruling CCM party. When the reforms were taking place in the early 1990s, the majority of citizens seemed to be under the influence of the ideas and charismatic leadership of Nyerere and accustomed to the prevalent rule of the CCM at all levels of the society; indeed, there was some resistance to change in the political system. For instance, a public opinion survey reported in the Nyalali Commission Report (1991) indicated that 80 per cent of population had said “no”to the proposed multiparty system (Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania 1992); ironically, the new political environment necessitated the provision of civic education in order to promote political pluralism (Mallya 2008; Komba & Ndumbaro 2003). Since the adoption of political liberalization, civic education (at least in theory) has aimed to create well-informed citizens who show their affection for their country by critically examining state institutions. The purpose is to enable citizens to engage and participate actively in critical discussions regarding government policies, structures and actions, in contrast to the historical narratives of the 1960s that carefully framed the past, picking and choosing facts in order to emphasize national unity and peace (Kessler 2006). However, the ideal of a good citizen as a participant in the process of political change rather than the subject of the state is far from being realized. These reforms have, however, also opened civic space for various interest groups, private sector actors and civil society organizations to play a part in development processes (Mundy 2008). Previously, civil society mobilization, such as women or youth movements, was co-opted by the state into centralized mass organizations. The opening of civic space was accompanied by the mushrooming of civic organizations; in the first decade, for example, the number of registered Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) increased from 224 in 1993 to 8,499 in 2000 (Lange et al. 2000). As part of the structural adjustment package, the plethora of CSO interventions was fuelled by the expansion of donor funding for civil society and NGOs, as donors searched 80 Nguyahambi et al. of the United Nations. Retrieved from www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/? iso3=TZA Freedom House (n.d.). Freedom in the world 2019: Tanzania. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2019/tanzania UNDP (n.d.). Tanzania (United Republic of): Human development indicators. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Reports. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/TZA The World Bank Group (2019). Worldwide governance indicators: Interactive data access. Retrieved from http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index. aspx#reports Notes 1Economies in many countries across sub-Saharan Africa experienced economic glitches such as oil and debt crises and multiple economic depressions, leading policy makers to decide that deeper intervention was necessary to improve a country’s overall well-being. 2Tanganyika had a multiparty political system before attaining independence in 1961. The parties included the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU), the African National Congress (ANC), the United Tanganyika Party (UTP) and the All Muslim National Union of Tanganyika (AMNUT). However, soon after independence, Mwalimu Nyerere, who was TANU chairman and the first president of Tanganyika, announced a single party political system in 1962 and banned other political parties although they had all struggled for independence. Hence, a Single Party Constitution was introduced in 1965; TANU became the only party and all citizens joined it. 3Mageuzi reflected political and economic liberalization, a critical turn from a single party to a multiparty system, and from socialism to a free market economy. 4HakiElimu is a civil society organization that strives to transform education, in and out of schools, and to influence policy making and its effective implementation, while stimulating imaginative dialogue and social change. References Alava, H., Bananuka, T.H., Ahimbisibwe, K.F. & Kontinen, T. (2019). Contextualizing citizenship in Uganda. In this volume. Aminzade, R. (2013). Race, nation and citizenship in post-colonial Africa: The case of Tanzania. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bakari, M. & Ndumbaro, L. (2001, November). Religious and governance in the post-lib- eralization era. Paper presented at the Conference on Religious and Politics. Research andEducationforDemocracyinTanzania(REDET).DaresSalaam,Tanzania. CIVICUS (2018). State of civil society report 2018. Retrieved from CIVICUS Monitorwww.civicus.org/documents/reports-and-publications/SOCS/2018/socs-2018-over view_top-ten-trends.pdf Dill, B. (2009). The paradoxes of community participation in Dar es Salaam. Development and Change, 40(4), 717–743. Fouéré, M.-A. (2014). Julius Nyerere, Ujamaa, and political morality in contemporary Tanzania. African Studies Review, 57(1), 1–24. Contextualizing citizenship in Tanzania 87 Green, M. (2012). Anticipatory development: Mobilizing civil society in Tanzania. Critique of Anthropology, 32(3), 309–333. Green, M. (2019). Scripting development through formalization: Accounting for the diffusion of village savings and loans associations in Tanzania. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 25(1), 103–122. Holma, K. & Kontinen, T. (2019). Practices and habits of citizenship and learning. In this volume. Hunter, E. (2008). Revisiting Ujamaa: Political legitimacy and the construction of community in post-colonial Tanzania. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 2(3), 471–485. Hyden, G. (1981). Beyond Ujamaa. In B. Mwansasu & C. Pratt (Eds.). Towards socialism in Tanzania.Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press. Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania (1992). Tume ya Rais ya Mfumo wa chama Kimoja au Vyama Vingi ya Siasa Tanzania, 1991 (Nyalali Report, Vol. 1–3). Dares-Salaam: Government Printer. Jennings, M. (2017, September). Ujamaa. Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Africa History. Retrieved from DOI: doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.013.172 Kessler, I.R. (2006). What went right in Tanzania: How nation building and political culture have produced forty four years of peace (Unpublished thesis). Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Services of Georgetown University, US. Kiondo, K.S. (1993). Structural adjustment and non-governmental adjustments in Tanzania: A case study. In P. Gibbon (Ed.). Social change and economic reform in Africa (pp. 161–183). Uppsala: The Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Komba, W.L.M. (1996). Changing politics and political culture in Tanzania: The impact on political education and civics curricula, 1967–1994 (Doctoral dissertation, University of London Institute of Education, London). Retrieved from https://core. ac.uk/download/pdf/33676995.pdf Komba, W.L.M. (2013). Citizens’views on appropriate civic education curricula under multiparty democracy in mainland Tanzania. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(3), 27–37. Komba, W.L.M. & Ndumbaro, L. (2003). Towards a coordinated national civic education strategy in Tanzania. Journal of the Faculty of Education, University of Dar es Salaam, 23, 147–167. Lange, S., Wallevik, H. & Kiondo, A. (2000). Civil society in Tanzania (CMI Report R 2000:6). Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute, Development Studies and Human Rights. Lawson, A. & Rakner, L. (2005). Understanding patterns of accountability in Tanzania. Oxford: Oxford Policy Management. Retrieved from www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/ doc98.pdf Liviga, A. & Tumbo-Masabo, Z. (2006). Muslims in Tanzania: Quest for an equal footing. In R.S. Mukandala, S. Othman, S. Mushi & L. Ndumbaro (Eds.). Justice, rights and worshipreligion and politics in Tanzania (pp. 129–164). Dar es Salaam: University of Dar es Salaam, REDET Department of Political Science and Public Administration. Maghimbi, S. (2010). Cooperatives in Tanzania mainland: Revival and growth (Cooperative Development in Africa Working Paper No. 14). Retrieved from www.ilo. org/public/english/employment/ent/coop/africa/download/wpno14cooperativesinta nzania.pdf Mallya, E. (2008). Civic education in Tanzania: An assessment. Research and Education for Democracy in Tanzania (REDET). Retrieved from www.academia.edu/ 12987169/CIVIC_EDUCATION_IN_TANZANIA_AN_ASSESSMENT 88 Nguyahambi et al. Mercer, C. (2002). The discourse of maendeleo and the politics of women’s participation in Mount Kilimanjaro. Development and Change, 33(1), 101–127. Miguel, E. (2004). Tribe or nation? Nation building and public goods in Kenya versus Tanzania. World Politics, 56(3), 327–362. Mmuya, M. & Chaligha, A. (1994). Political parties and democracy in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Dar Es Salaam University Press. Mogella, C. & Kiondo, A. (2006). Historical development of the civil society in Tanzania. In A.S. Kiondo & J. Nyang’oro (Eds.). Civil society and democratic development in Tanzania (pp. 19–32). Harare: Mwengo. Mongula, B. (2007). State-civil society relationship: The case of the state and HakiE- limu in Tanzania. Tanzania Journal of Development Studies, 7(1), 1–15. Mpangala, G. (1992). Major issues in Tanzanian economic history: Pre-colonial economy and social formations. Dar es Salaam: Dar es Salaam University Press. Mundy, K. (2008). From NGOs to CSOs: Social citizenship, civil society and “Education for All”.Current Issues in Comparative Education, 10(1/2), 32–40. Mushi, P.A.K. (2009). History and development of education in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: University of Dar es Salaam Press. Nyang’oro, J. (2006). Civil society and political development in Tanzania: An introduction. In A.S. Kiondo & J.E. Nyang’oro (Eds.). Civil society, democratic governance and political development in Tanzania (pp. 8–18). Harare: Mwengo. Nyerere, J.K. (1962). TANU na Raia, Julius K. Nyerere, Rais wa TANU. Dar es Salaam: Tanganyika National African Union. Nyerere, J.K. (1968). Ujamaa: Essays on socialism. Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press. Pratt, C. (1981). Tanzania’s transition to socialism: Reflections of a democratic socialist. In B. Mwansasu & C. Pratt (Eds.). Towards socialism in Tanzania (pp. 193– 236). Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press. Rodima-Taylor, D. (2013). Gathering up mutual help: Relational freedom of Tanzanian market-women. Social Analysis, 57(3), 76–94. Rodima-Taylor, D. (2014). Passageways of cooperation: Mutuality in post-socialist Tanzania. Africa, 84(4), 553–575. Rwengabo, S. (2016, August). Nation building in Africa: Lessons from Tanzania and South Sudan. Paper presented at Mandela Institute for Development Studies (MINDS) Youth Dialogue. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Schneider, L. (2004). Freedom and unfreedom in rural development: Julius Nyerere, Ujamaa Vijijini, and villagization. Canadian Journal of African Studies/Revue canadienne des études africaines, 38(2), 344–392. Schneider, L. (2006). Colonial legacies and postcolonial authoritarianism in Tanzania: Connects and disconnects. African Studies Review, 49(1), 93–118. Shivji, I.G. (2007). Silences in NGO discourse: The role and future of NGOs in Africa. Oxford: Fahamu. Stöger-Eising, V. (2000). Ujamaa revisited: Indigenous and European influences in Nyerere’s social and political thought. Africa, 70(1), 118–143. Tume ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi (2016). Taarifa ya Tume ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi Kuhusu Uchaguzi wa Rais, Wabunge na Madiwani, 2015. Dar es Salaam: Tume ya Taifa ya Uchaguzi. Twaweza (2019, January 28). The statement on proposed amendments to the Political Parties Act (2002). Twaweza. Retrieved from www.twaweza.org/index.php?i=1739 Contextualizing citizenship in Tanzania 89