Andrea Lemnge was a Chadema General meeting member who is not shying away from admitting he once supported the party’s slogan “No Reform, No Election.” but now has changed tack after careful consideration.
He has decided to hopscotch into another vehicle which he will reveal to us soon that will guarantee his name will be in the ballot box for Rombo Constituency parliamentary elections. He has his own grievances against election boycotts despite Chadema claiming “No Reform, No Election” isn’t. This is his riposte.
Andrea Lemnge’s Statement: A Journey from Principle to Pragmatism.
(Former CHADEMA General Meeting Member to Rombo Constituency Parliamentary Seeker).
I. My Initial Support for “No Reform, No Election.
Like many in CHADEMA, I fervently backed our campaign for electoral justice. Our demands were clear: an independent electoral commission, judicial review of presidential results, constitutional reforms to end the ruling party’s 60-year dominance, and a 51% vote threshold for victory.
These were not mere slogans but necessities for a fair Tanzania. When President Samia Hassan’s government ignored the Nyalali Commission’s unimplemented reforms and diluted the 2023 Task Force recommendations, boycotting the code of conduct signing felt like our only weapon.
II. The Turning Point: Why I Withdrew Support.
1. The Boycott’s Collateral Damage.
The party’s refusal to sign the code of conduct triggered an INEC ban, excluding CHADEMA not just from the October 2025 elections but “all” polls until 2030. This decision effectively disenfranchised “6.7 million CHADEMA voters” and abandoned our candidates. I could not endorse a strategy that sacrificed grassroots aspirations at the altar of unbending principle.
2. Repression vs. Reform: A Losing Battle.
While we debated boycotts, the state intensified its crackdown:
– Leader Tundu Lissu jailed on treason charges (punishable by death) for demanding reforms.
– Hundreds of supporters arrested, media censored, and abductions of critics.
– INEC’s ban weaponized our boycott to label us “unconstitutional”.
Our moral stand had become a trap—empowering the state to criminalize dissent while offering no path to rescue democracy.
3. Internal Fractures and Hypocrisy.
The G55 faction I aligned with recognized the campaign’s contradictions:
– Funding cuts:
Boycotting elections forfeits state funding, crippling local operations.
– Voter abandonment:
As John Mrema argued, “A party is not a pressure group”; our duty is to contest power, not surrender it.
– Leadership intransigence:
While Lissu vowed “peaceful means”, his refusal to negotiate incremental reforms isolated allies. Even President Samia’s limited concessions (e.g., investigating abductions) were dismissed.
III. My New Path: Rombo Needs a Voice.
“I am joining CHAMA CHA UKOMBOZI WA UMMA (CHAUMMA).” This decision stems not from ideological shift but pragmatism:
– Ballot access:
CHAUMMA guarantees my candidacy for Rombo Constituency. My community deserves representation—not symbolic resistance.
– Reform from within:
CHAUMMA’s leader Hashim Rungwe welcomes defectors seeking to unify opposition pressure on CCM . We will push for electoral reforms “while” participating in institutions.
– Avoiding irrelevance:
CHADEMA’s self-exile until 2030 risks permanent marginalization. As defections accelerate, CHAUMMA offers a viable vessel to challenge CCM’s monopoly.
IV. Conclusion: Reform Through Resilience.
I still believe in CHADEMA’s ideals—but not in martyrdom. Democracy thrives when we engage, even in flawed arenas. To my former comrades: Let us fight not by abandoning elections but by forcing the system to hear the people’s voice. Rombo will be in the ballot box this October. I urge you to join me where principle meets possibility.
> “A boycott that silences the oppressed is no revolution—it is surrender.”
> —Andrea Lemnge, Rombo Constituency Candidate (CHAUMMA).
If he loses, will he see why Chadema stood for “No reform, No Election.”?
Andrea Lemnge’s potential electoral loss “would not necessarily make him “see why” CHADEMA clung to “No Reform, No Election“—in fact, it might reinforce his critique of boycotts. Here’s why:
1. His Core Argument Isn’t About Winning—It’s About Participation.
Lemnge’s defection centers on the belief that “boycotts surrender democratic space entirely”. Even if he loses, his candidacy:
– Forces CCM to campaign in Rombo (costing resources/time).
– Gives voters a choice beyond the ruling party.
– Keeps opposition voices in Parliament’s discourse (e.g., debating bills, exposing corruption).
“Losing ≠ irrelevance” in his calculus. Boycotting, to him, is “guaranteed” capitulation.
2. A Loss Could Validate His Critique of CHADEMA’s Strategy.
If rigging or unfair play causes his defeat, Lemnge would likely argue:
> “This proves the system is flawed—but had CHADEMA participated nationally, we could’ve documented and challenged fraud from inside Parliament or in courtrooms. Boycotting left us with no platform to even protest!”
CHADEMA’s absence from the ballot, in his view, eliminates all leverage to demand reform.
3. CHADEMA’s Stance Relies on Unproven Assumptions.
The boycott strategy assumes:
– International pressure will force reforms (“unlikely, given muted global response to repression”).
– Mass voter sympathy will grow (“but CCM historically gains from opposition voids”).
– The regime cares about legitimacy (“it’s thrived despite disputed elections since 1965”).
“Lemnge sees these as strategic delusions.” A loss wouldn’t change that analysis.
4. His Fallback Position: “We Tried” vs. “We Surrendered”.
Even in defeat, Lemnge can claim moral/political high ground by contrasting:
| No. | His Path. | CHADEMA’s Path. |
| 1.0 | Fought despite uneven field. | Withdrew from the field. |
| 2.0 | Represented voters’ anger. | Left voters voiceless |
| 3.0 | Kept pressure on CCM. | Allowed CCM unchecked rule. |
The One Scenario Where He “Might” Reconsider
If his candidacy “objectively weakens the opposition” (e.g., by siphoning votes from a viable anti-CCM candidate and handing CCM a landslide), he could face internal criticism. Even then, he’d likely blame CHADEMA’s boycott for creating the vacuum that forced him to run under CHAUMMA.
“Verdict:”
Lemnge’s defection is a rejection of CHADEMA’s “theory of change”, not its ideals. A loss would reinforce his view that “boycotts aid autocrats” by gifting them uncontested power. To “see why” CHADEMA boycotted, he’d need proof that surrendering 5+ years of political space (2025–2030) will achieve more than incremental resistance—a bet he clearly considers futile.
Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
