Making A Case for a Tanzanian Professional Engineer to be Our President!

Print or Email This Article

Tanzania model of development spearheaded by teachers, lawyers and non engineering presidents is sparking a productive discussion of whether we have been in unsteady hands or not. Philippines has been braving similar headwinds of wholesale adoption of her former colonial master development paradigm, the US, where lawyers instead of engineers lead a nation.

Since the founding father of the Chinese green revolution, Deng Xiaoping, came to power China made deliberate efforts to have engineers providing leadership at the helm of the nation, sacrificing the US model of having lawyers guiding a nation. This is contrasted with the US where lawyers and businessmen, not engineers mostly lead their country.

The US is having economic challenges of its own despite pursuing multiparty democracy, the American system of governance under lawyer tutelage has led to unprecedented economic inequality that has contributed to the rise of criminality, drug abuse and similar destructive behaviour. China despite swerving multiparty democracy has pulled over three quarters of a billion people out of poverty, a remarkable feat the world has ever seen!

That leaves us in a quandary of whether a functioning multiparty democracy or the relevant types of leadership skills is what Tanzania is lacking? Tanzania is bedevilled with a multiparty democracy that is lurching and her economic development model is heavily, externally sourced, enduring butterflies of her own. There is no tangible effort to link and empower local human resources in our national development strategy.

The question this discourse is posing is whether Tanzania’s development model was programmed to fail from the beginning? That the issue at stake is not the type of democratic governance such as multi party or not, but rather what kind of professionals are steering the nation’s wheel? With the wrong drivers are we not hurtling into a ditch, and get stuck there forever? Here we go.

Does former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte has a point?

Rodrigo Duterte, the former president of the Philippines (2016–2022), is prominently cited for his criticism of U.S. influence and policies, which indirectly ties to broader tensions between U.S. economic and legal frameworks and his administration’s approach. Duterte’s critiques align with the theme of rejecting Western-driven models, particularly in governance and human rights. Below is a synthesis of relevant points:

Key Context on Duterte’s Criticism of U.S. Influence.

1. Anti-U.S. Rhetoric and Economic Concerns.

 Duterte frequently criticized U.S. “interference” in Philippine affairs, particularly regarding human rights concerns over his violent “war on drugs.” His inflammatory remarks, including calling former U.S. President Barack Obama a “son of a whore,” strained diplomatic and economic ties. U.S. investors warned that his combative stance and extrajudicial killings harmed the Philippines’ economic image and rule of law, raising concerns about foreign investment.

2. Shift Toward China.

Under Duterte, the Philippines pivoted toward China, embracing infrastructure deals under China’s Belt and Road Initiative. His administration prioritized partnerships with Chinese businesses, exemplified by controversial deals involving allies like Michael Yang (a former economic adviser linked to drug trade allegations). This shift reflected skepticism toward Western-aligned economic models and legal frameworks.

3. Rejection of ICC and Western Legal Standards.

 Duterte openly defied the International Criminal Court (ICC), which investigated his drug war for potential crimes against humanity. He refused cooperation with the ICC, framing it as foreign overreach and asserting Philippine sovereignty. His legal battles involved Filipino ICC-accredited lawyers, but he dismissed international judicial processes as illegitimate.

Why “Lawyers” Are Implicit in the Critique.

While Duterte did not explicitly attack a “U.S. economic model driven by lawyers,” his governance style clashed with legalistic frameworks:

Rule of Law vs. Authoritarian Pragmatism:

Duterte’s drug war bypassed legal due process, favoring swift executions over judicial proceedings. This approach contrasted with U.S.-aligned emphasis on legal accountability.

Corruption and Cronyism:

Allegations of graft in deals involving Duterte’s allies (e.g., the Malampaya gas project) highlighted a system prioritizing personal connections over transparent legal or economic norms.

Conclusion.

Rodrigo Duterte embodied a rejection of Western legal and economic influence, favoring authoritarian pragmatism and closer ties with China.

China’s prioritization of engineers over lawyers.

China’s prioritization of engineers over lawyers in its developmental model stems from a combination of historical priorities, state-driven economic strategies, cultural values, and systemic adaptations of legal frameworks. Below is a detailed analysis synthesizing relevant insights.

1. State-Led Industrialization and Infrastructure Focus.

China’s rapid economic growth since the late 20th century has been driven by large-scale infrastructure projects, manufacturing, and technological innovation. Engineers are central to executing these goals, particularly in sectors like transportation, energy, and urban development.

For example, China’s Trust Law (2001) emphasizes commercial trusts for financing engineering and real estate projects, reflecting a legal framework designed to support state-backed industrial initiatives rather than individual or family estate planning common in Western systems . This alignment of legal structures with industrial goals underscores the state’s reliance on engineers to deliver tangible outcomes.

2. Cultural and Historical Emphasis on Technical Expertise.

Confucian traditions historically prioritized bureaucratic governance and technical competence. In modern China, this evolved into a focus on STEM education and engineering as pathways to national rejuvenation. The government’s “engineer dividend” policy leverages a young, cost-efficient workforce (44% of engineers under 30) to drive innovation in AI, robotics, and electric vehicles. Unlike lawyers, whose roles are often viewed through the lens of enforcing or navigating rules, engineers are seen as builders of the physical and digital infrastructure critical to economic success.

3. Legal System Adaptations and Subordination to State Goals.

China’s legal system, including its Trust Law, diverges from Western models by prioritizing state interests over individual rights. For instance:

 Trust Law Ambiguity:

Unlike Anglo-Saxon trusts, China’s Trust Law does not require transferring legal ownership to trustees, allowing the state to retain indirect control over assets.

Lawyers as Policy Implementers:

Lawyers in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) act as facilitators of state policy rather than independent legal advocates. They align their work with government directives, focusing on compliance and project execution rather than adversarial legal challenges.

This contrasts with the U.S., where lawyers often shape policy through litigation and lobbying, a dynamic less tolerated in China’s centralized governance model. 

4. Economic Prioritization of Technical Over Legal Innovation.

China’s economic model emphasizes output-driven growth (e.g., manufacturing, infrastructure) over service-oriented sectors like law. Engineers contribute directly to GDP growth through projects like high-speed rail networks and renewable energy systems, while lawyers are relegated to supporting roles in contract enforcement and regulatory compliance. The Trust Law’s focus on commercial trusts for financing large projects exemplifies this bias toward technical and industrial applications over legal innovation.

5. Systemic Distrust of Legal Autonomy.

Historically, China’s legal profession has been viewed with suspicion due to its potential to challenge state authority. Lawyers advocating for civil rights or corporate independence often face restrictions, whereas engineers operate within state-sanctioned frameworks. For example, China’s Trust Law grants settlors significant control over trustees, reflecting a cultural preference for centralized authority rather than decentralized legal autonomy. This ensures that legal frameworks serve, rather than disrupt, engineering-led growth.

Comparative Analysis.

Conclusion.

China’s trust in engineers over lawyers is not accidental but a deliberate outcome of its developmental strategy. By tailoring legal systems to support industrial goals (e.g., Trust Law adaptations), prioritizing technical education, and subordinating legal professions to state directives, China has institutionalized a model where engineers drive growth while lawyers enforce compliance. This contrasts sharply with Western systems where lawyers often shape economic and political landscapes through litigation and policy advocacy. However, this model risks rigidity if legal frameworks fail to evolve with the vagaries of market complexities.

The relationship between professional expertise (engineers in China vs. lawyers in the U.S.) and economic trajectories is complex, but visceral insights suggest distinct trends shaping these narratives. Below is a synthesis of the key factors:

China’s “Engineer Dividend” and Economic Growth.

1. Demographic and Educational Advantages.

China boasts a vast workforce, with 857.98 million people aged 16–59 (as of 2024) and 240 million individuals receiving higher education! This creates a robust talent pool for high-tech industries.

 China had 19.05 million scientists and engineers (as of 2020) to underpin AI, robotics, and electric vehicle innovation. As of 2024, China boasts an engineering workforce of approximately 4.5 to 5 million engineers, making it one of the world’s largest pools of engineering talent. For example, BYD grew from 10,000 engineers in its early EV days to over 100,000 by 2024, driving its global dominance. 

2. Cost Efficiency and Youth.

Lower wages compared to those of developed nations enhance the accessibility of China’s engineering talent. Additionally, 44% of engineers are under 30, ensuring long-term sustainability versus 20% in the U.S.

3. Government-Driven Industrial Strategy.

China’s focus on “new quality productive forces” and modern industrial systems channels engineering talent into strategic sectors, fostering rapid technological advancement and global competitiveness.

The U.S. Legal Sector’s Role in Economic Challenges.

1. Economic Sensitivity of Legal Practices.

The U.S. legal market is highly cyclical. Transactional work (e.g., M&A, real estate) declines sharply during downturns, while litigation and bankruptcy surge. For instance, in 2023, demand for transactional work at large firms fell by ~5%, while midsize firms thrived in counter-cyclical areas.

Law firms face pressure to adapt pricing models (e.g., fixed fees, value-based billing) and reduce overhead, but resistance to structural change can slow responsiveness.

2. Cost Structures and Client Behavior.

Clients increasingly scrutinize legal spending, favouring midsize firms for cost efficiency. This shift challenges large firms reliant on high hourly rates and rigid billing practices.

Corporate legal departments insource work or use hybrid staffing models to cut costs, reducing demand for traditional law firm services.

3. Systemic Risks and Overleveraging.

Economic fragility in sectors like banking and commercial real estate (highlighted by Lawrence White, NYU economist) creates ripple effects for law firms. For example, banking crises could strain firms with concentrated practices in volatile areas.

Reliance on debt and expansion during growth periods leaves firms vulnerable during downturns, as seen in past recessions.

 Comparative Analysis.

 Critical Perspective.

While engineers are undeniably central to China’s tech ascendancy, attributing U.S. stagnation solely to lawyers oversimplifies broader economic complexities. The U.S. faces challenges like inflation, interest rate volatility, and banking sector fragility, alongside structural issues in legal services. Conversely, China’s model risks overreliance on state direction and potential bottlenecks in innovation quality. Both nations’ economic futures hinge on balancing professional expertise with systemic reforms.

Tanzania is confounded by tough choices!

Tanzania’s multiparty democracy is dead and buried, while her heavy, external over-dependence on foreign investment has alienated most Tanzanians economically. While there has been the rise of her puny GDP, the Tanzanian national cake is gobbled by a few well politically connected individuals, amplifying the existential socioeconomic tensions in the society. Tanzania’s development model aims to create a few billionaires and tens of millions of paupers. It narrates why Tanzania is now a police state rather than a citizen one. Unsustainable enforcement costs of the draconian rule of law burden the nation by diverting resources from the national building! All this is attributed to colossal manpower misallocations.

Part of the problem is the huge failures of multiparty democracy of “chugging out” substandard leaders who are clueless on how to pull millions of Tanzanians out of the shackles of poverty. It is increasingly becoming obvious what Tanzania lacks is quality leadership, and the suppression of multiparty democracy has worsened the problem. Most unprepared leaders of the challenges ahead have been bragging about “kula bata…” at a time when most Tanzanians can hardly afford a meal a day, dilating how far our insular leaders are “out of touch” with the harsh reality a common mwananchi is bristling with.

Most technical sectors are in the hands of nonprofessionals, depriving them of the technical leadership necessary to guide us properly in the 21st-century Age of Information. Most cabinet ministers and permanent secretaries in technical departments are serious manpower misallocations contributing to poor planning, foresight, and guidance, stoking involved shoddy work that is backtracking us.

No wonder the lack of legitimacy to govern is pushing CCM to compromise human-centred development through buying loyalty, contributing to the sorry state of affairs we envisage today. No matter how forcefully the security forces descend on innocent blood, they cannot resolve these dichotomous paths we are trudging down.

It will be intolerable poverty, neither extrajudicial brunt force nor the opposition political parties that usher in meaningful reforms of governance in Tanzania. Since even the opposition political parties exhibit similar contradictions in their leadership setups. Therefore, the resistance and protests against economic alienation will proffer human-based development similar to the Chinese model. With the youth still reluctant to demand change slowly, I am beginning to wonder if  the first president of Kenya was right about us:

“ …Waganda wamelala wakiamka watajiletea mabadiliko yao. Wakenya wagonjwa lakini wakipona watajiletea maendeleo yao. Lakini watanzania ni maiti kamwe hawataweza kuamka na kujiletea maendeleo yao…”

Mzee Jomo Kenyatta didn’t explain why Tanzania is “accursed forever”, but I have a sneaky feeling he misunderstood change is shaped by many variables. The most important one is the credible threat to survival. In his days, Tanzania was the equivalent of the “Eden Garden” so we had no reason to stand up to what we believed in. However, Tanzania of today is edging closer to HELL, meaning the “survival difference” with our neighbours has evaporated. We too will be forced by the state imposed circumstances to behave like our neighbors: demanding better living standards for ourselves and our children’s children.

China’s technical knockout punch.

Technical management has been at the forefront of the world’s second-largest economy, and all of its presidents had a solid foundation in engineering training. Since 1993, all presidents of China have a background in engineering. The high technical and academic standards have been maintained for more than three decades, a period in which the country has undergone intense industrialization, modernization, and growth!

Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping are the three most immediate engineer presidents who were in command of the Chinese economy. Jiang Zemin, president between 1993 and 2003, was an electrical engineer who graduated from the University of National Chiao Tung. Before leading the country, he served as Mayor of Shanghai and Minister of Industries.

His successor, Hu Jintao, graduated in hydroelectric engineering from Tsinghua University, which is considered the best in China. He has had outstanding performance in infrastructure projects, including the Three Gorges Power Plant, the largest hydroelectric plant in the world. He led China from 2002 -2012.

 Xi Jinping, current president, is a chemical engineer, also a graduate of Tsinghua University. His management reinforced the commitment to its own technology and industrial independence. He is the president of China from 2012 to now.

Since independence in 1961 (63 years ago), there have been zero engineers who became presidents in Tanzania. Nyerere (1961 – 1985) was a social science teacher, and so was his successor, Mwinyi (1985 – 1995). Mkapa (1995 -2005) was a journalist, while Kikwete (2005 – 2015) was an economist who never practiced it! Magufuli (2015-2021) was a chemist, and Samia Suluhu Hassan (2021 – 2025) has an economics and public administration background.

Interestingly, it was under the chemist Magufuli that Tanzania’s infrastructure began to jerk forward in gigantic steps, albeit it was foreign-sourced. No non-technical Tanzanian president rivalled Magufuli’s infrastructural record, signalling the dire need to focus on the pertinent professionalism in the public service as a strategy to catapult Tanzania into an industrial powerhouse.

Our baby steps will commence when the president’s office occupant is a professional engineer.

Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory