CCM in act of defiance has sent former President Jakaya Kikwete and former House Speaker Anne Makinda to defend the indefensible!
Kikwete trolled the calls for electoral reform as misinformed, while Makinda sidestepped the issue by reminding voters to stick with President Dr. Samia Suluhu Hassan. She said about other elections of parliamentary and councillors voters may do what they think proper but not in the presidential race.
What did they really say?
Former President Jakaya Kikwete.
Hon. Jakaya Kikwete made his case against election reforms in the seminar organized by State attorneys. This is what he advocated:
“…wengine wanasema piga kura linda kura yako. Ukiambiwa kaa mita 200 mwambie njoo ukae wewe. Kama unapapenda hapa. Kuna wengine wanasema Octoba tunatiki. Kumbe wako wengi hapa.
Na wengine wanasema “No Reform, No Election.” Kauli hizi ziko za namna mbalimbali. Lakini jambo la kutia moyo, ni kwamba na ninachoweza kuwaambia watanzania wenzangu itakapofika wakati wa kupiga kura hiyo tarehe itakayotajwa na Tume?
Akili za kuambiwa changanya na za kwako.” End of quotation.
Former House Speaker, Anne Makinda.
This is what she campaigned for:
“..hao wengine hata mkiwapigia mbona hawatashinda? Kwanini upige kura ya kupoteza? Nakwambieni kwa urais kwa ubunge na udiwani shauri yenu.
Lakini kwa Urais, ukipiga kura nyingine yoyote ile umeshindwa. Kwanini umepiga kura ya kushindwa? Pigeni kura mama aibuke na kishindo kweli kweli dunia itambue tunavyo mpenda na alivyo tuheshimisha na alivyoheshimisha dunia.
Hakuna mwanamke mwenye akili ya ajabu kama mama Samia. Sijawahi kuona … Sijawahi kuona..maono hata nchi ya jirani wanamwonea wivu. Haya maneno yanayopita mitandaoni ya kishenzi ni wivu.
Ni wivu sasa sisi tumfunike mama. Tumpe kura zetu zote..tumpe heshima akina mama. Hata tofauti zetu.”
Key Takeaways.
- Neither of them acknowledged the current electoral regime wasn’t a national consensus.
- Former President Kikwete urged voters to make a correct decision during voting, essentially sanctioning a flawed process.
- Former House Speaker Anne Makinda went even further by alluding that presidential elections were predetermined and voting for anybody else was a waste.
- Neither was a “national moral compass” like Nyerere was in 1991 when he said multiparty democracy was inevitable.
- Neither recommended listening to those who felt disenfranchised by the current electoral regime.
- Both are beneficiaries of a flawed electoral system, and placed personal interest above national ones.
Why the dearth of moral leaders undermine national security.
The defense of Tanzania’s electoral system by former President Jakaya Kikwete and former House Speaker Anne Makinda reflects a complex interplay of “political self-interest, institutional loyalty, and strategic positioning” within the ruling CCM framework. Here’s a breakdown of their motivations based on contextual evidence:
1. Institutional Entrenchment in CCM.
– Both figures are “lifelong beneficiaries” of CCM’s dominance. The party has maintained power since 1965 through constitutional manipulations, including presidential control over electoral commissions and gerrymandering.
– Kikwete’s dismissal of reform demands (“Akili za kuambiwa changanya na za kwako” – “Minds to be told to mix and your own“) implicitly endorses a system that enabled his rise. Similarly, Makinda’s parliamentary career depended on CCM’s electoral machinery, including her contested 2020 win in Mbeya Urban.
2. Protecting Legacy Interests.
– Kikwete’s stalled reforms:
As president (2005–2015), Kikwete initiated constitutional reviews but failed to deliver meaningful change. The process collapsed after CCM factions rejected proposals for independent electoral commissions and a three-government union structure. Defending the current system avoids scrutiny of his unfulfilled promises.
– Makinda’s symbolic role:
As Tanzania’s second female Speaker and first African IPU president, her call to reelect President Samia (“*tumpe kura zetu zote*” – “give her all our votes”) leverages gender progress to divert attention from electoral flaws. This aligns with CCM’s narrative that Samia’s presidency symbolizes modernity, despite systemic repression.
3. Strategic Avoidance of Opposition Gains.
– Makinda’s assertion that voting for opposition presidential candidates is futile (“*kupiga kura nyingine … umeshindwa*” – “if you vote for others … you’ve lost”) acknowledges CCM’s “entrenched advantage”. The party uses state resources, security forces, and legal barriers (e.g., 2019 Political Parties Act) to weaken opponents.
– Kikwete’s focus on voter behavior (“*piga kura linda kura yako*” – “vote, guard your vote”) shifts blame to citizens, ignoring documented issues like opposition rally bans (2016–2023) and enforced disappearances of critics.
4. Personal and Factional Survival.
– Kikwete’s strained relationship with former PM Edward Lowassa—who defected to the opposition in 2015—reveals CCM’s internal rivalries. Backing reforms could empower factional opponents.
– Current Speaker, Tulia Ackson pivot to the safer Uyole constituency (instead of opposition-heavy Mbeya Urban) exemplifies **gerrymandering benefits**. Her move followed CCM’s redistricting efforts to fragment opposition strongholds.
5. Regional and International Credibility.
– As an EAC election observer in Kenya (2022), Kikwete emphasized “good governance” standards. Defending Tanzania’s flawed electoral system at home avoids exposing hypocrisy and preserves his “diplomatic reputation”.
– Both figures frame Samia’s leadership as “unprecedented” (“Hakuna mwanamke mwenye akili ya ajabu” – “No woman has such remarkable intelligence”) to attract international goodwill, diverting from demands for structural reforms.
Why They Avoided “Nyerere-like” Moral Leadership?
Unlike Nyerere, who endorsed multiparty democracy in 1991 despite founding CCM, Kikwete and Makinda prioritize “party loyalty over national consensus”.
Their speeches sidestep:
– Constitutional flaws:
The executive still controls electoral commissions.
– Violence and repression:
UN reports cite 200+ enforced disappearances since 2019.
– Opposition marginalization:
2020 elections reduced parliament to a de facto one-party body.
Key Differences: Nyerere (1991) vs. Kikwete/Makinda (2025)
| No. | Aspect. | Nyerere (1991). | Kikwete & Makinda (2025). |
| 1.0 | Stance on Multipartyism. | Acknowledged inevitability. | Ignored opposition demands for reforms. |
| 2.0 | Electoral Criticism | Critiqued CCM’s monopoly. | Defended existing system. |
| 3.0 | National Unity Focus. | Prioritized broad consensus | Prioritized CCM loyalty. |
| 4.0 | Moral Authority. | Lean on stature to push change. | Exploited stature to maintain status quo. |
Conclusion:
Systemic Preservation Over Reform
Their rhetoric underscores CCM’s strategy: “personalize power” (Samia’s “exceptionalism”) and “depoliticize injustice” (blaming voters instead of institutions). As beneficiaries of a system that conflates party and state , Kikwete and Makinda exemplify how CCM elites prioritize control over credible democracy—especially with high-stakes elections approaching.
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
