G.K. Munishi
1. Introduction: The Welfare Idea in Tanzania - A Nationalist Premise
This paper sets out to argue that the development of the welfare state in Tanzania since independence derives for the most part not from an informed systematic ideology of socialism and self-reliance, as espoused by the Arusha Declaration (TANU, 1967), but mainly from the development of state formation and legitimation. The development of, and now also the challenge of sustaining, the momentous welfare tendencies put in place by the state are rooted in four factors which are briefly discussed in this paper.
In the first place, the imposition of a European political (colonial) oligarchy which had a capitalist agenda to enforce a fostered inegalitarian development. The inegalitarian colonial system administered the development and the distribution of goods and services on the basis of class and race, thus planting the first seeds of political dissatisfaction which grew into political demands for autonomy by those who felt disadvantaged.
Segregative colonial tendencies tended to lead to a development of African anti-colonial nationalism. The ānewā nationalists plausibly advocated the very opposite of the principles on which the colonial administration was based, such campaigns and advocacy gave the nationalists the basis for the political mobilisation of hitherto disadvantaged groups within the colonial territoriality1. The direct opposites of the colonial administration were democracy and egalitarianism, anti-racism, anti-class preponderances etc, in effect the nationalists were carefully moulding a system of support that would not alienate any of the groups in the colony except the colonial masters. With this tactical move a clearly defined ideology, such as scientific socialism or capitalism, was not an appropriate reference for the nationalist campaigners.
The development of the colonial administration contained four contradictory elements which reinforced the mass-mobilisational potential of the nationalist campaigners. Their opposites were embedded in the nationalist agenda, or political manifesto, that in 1967 culminated in the Arusha Declaration. The inegalitarian tendencies of the colonial regime translated into the post independence stateās commitment to equal access to all social and essential services, in other words a commitment to a high degree of egalitarianism. The racist element in the colonial administration translated into a subtle discouragement of racist references in post independence developments. I must admit that given the extent to which the Europeans and Asians were a dominant (proto) class, it has been difficult to erase racial biases implicit in some policy actions such as the nationalisation of houses and settler farms.
Since the colonial administration had emphasised elitism, through moves such as making alliances with rural chiefs, the nationalist campaigners differed in their approach and discouraged elitism, creating instead sentiments which categorised the African Chiefs as colonial elites and agents of the colonial masters.
Lastly, in order to marshall the necessary support from all āprogressiveā quarters, the potential colonial class disposition was discouraged in nationalist campaigns and the ideology of development once independence had been attained was never to clearly advocate class struggles. Therefore whoever could support the African independence cause in the territory seemed to be invited to do so, irrespective of their colour or class.
With the developments in the political arena described above one realises that Tanzanian politics have been characterised by a strong emphasis on nationalism and populism. These two factors worked to unite politicians of all leanings who were sympathetic to the nationalist cause - African elites, religious groupings, cooperative-society organisers, labour organisations and all advantaged and disadvantaged groups who had reasons to denounce the colonial administration. These developments together with the characterisation of the social dimension did not, in any substantive way, amount to a development of socialist ideology. Further, what appears to have been a socialist cause in 1967, namely the Arusha Declaration, is not in any substantive way a socialist ideology as applied in a Tanzanian context2. Rather it was a populist movement which sought all sorts of compromises in order to mobilise different groups in the country without sharpening class contradictions. Indeed the Arusha Declaration itself is not premised on the existence of class struggles, as would have been expected of a socialist ideology. The compromises made thus far culminated in what is, at best, a populist ideology.
Post independence development policies have often been expressed in populist tones and mostly express grievances, pointing to the inequality of access to social services, pointing out the loss of autonomy to participate in the distribution of the available cake and expressing a desire to restore an old order of African familihood. The populist expressions embedded in the Tanzanian welfare state could be said to constitute a protest mobilisation of the hitherto disadvantaged groups (pre-independence), to unite as a movement and organise into categories that could reap and enjoy āthe fruits of independenceā3.
The populist demands of the independence movement were given a sharper expression and state legitimation by the Arusha Declaration. Broad expressions such as nationalisation, free education, free medical services and so on are not necessarily socialist tenets because such policies have also been adopted in capitalist countries at some point in their development. Characterisations of the Arusha Declaration as socialist amount to no more than simplistic generalisations. The Arusha Declarationās āsocialistā tendencies, in terms of an egalitarian society, democracy and equality, were premised in the nationalist movementās evolution and not in a socialist revolution (Bolten, 1985). The development of a āwelfaristā state needs to be viewed with the above background in mind. It is not necessarily premised on socialism, nor entirely on the Arusha Declaration for that matter. There are reasons why a welfare system is an inevitable development at some point in the evolution of a political system.
Rationale for a Welfare State Development
A central question that arises is why a political system needs to develop and sustain a welfare state. There are many answers to the question. From a Marxist point of view it is argued that the support for, and subsidisation of, social services such as education, health, low-cost housing, water and so on, meets the demands of the labour market under capitalism. Such services are kept at affordable prices in the service of capitalist economic interests (Harris, 1980: 250-251). In other words some degree of welfare service provision is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the reproduction of labour. It ensures an availability of labour which is healthy, educated and housed.
Given the state of the Tanzanian economy at independence, and even in its present form, one can hardly sustain the above rationalisation for a welfare state. At independence the capitalist nexus was underdeveloped and even today it is not fully developed. Secondly under a capitalist system the taxation system extracts some support from capitalist companies, channels the minimum required welfare services in support of labour reproduction and ensures that social and labour unrest are kept under control. In fact to take this point further in regard to state craftsmanship, the capitalist system sometimes surpasses socialist countries in that some of the social services it delivers are more affordable and more widely available in some capitalist countries than in some socialist countries. In the interests of the capitalist state, for example, the transport system is heavily subsidised, or a system of cheap and efficient public transport is put in place for use by the labouring masses. These elements of capitalist state management cannot be operationalised in Tanzania because the private formal sector has been minute. Further there were political opportunities that could be exploited if an alternative or a modification of the above approach were opted for, which is what happened.
The second view, which could relate to Tanzania, does not differ very much from the Marxist approach. It is to assume that the development and sustenance of a welfare state is a strategy for political mobilisation, national integration and penetration - in effect a strategy for political and social control. This approach engenders the development of governmental institutions which directly produce and distribute the elements of a welfare-state, namely the essential services.
The social control view also perceives a situation in which public education and other acculturalising social services or agents act to mould the ideas and views of the population at large, i.e. mechanisms of the state which induce discipline and compliance. Under this view, the state should have every reason to participate directly and even guide those who are not in mainstream governmental institutions. The primary aim of the stateās participation is to condition, control and direct the development of values and attitudes conducive to reinforcing the stateās legitimacy. As part of the same strategy of state management class contradictions are rendered obtuse and contained, even though this occurs during a significant period in the development of the state, indeed it could be seen as a retardation of the capitalist development of antagonistic relations (Prezeworski 1980).
The Context and the Seeds of Welfarism in Tanzania
The introductory section argued that the development of welfarism in Tanzania is strongly rooted in nationalist-populist sentiments and ideology rather than in socialist ideology, as propounded in the Arusha Declaration. In any case the Arusha Declaration has been cited as a cause that retarded the development of capitalism in the country (Mueller, 1980:203-226). It has also been described as a statist development strategy from above (Moody et al., 1976). When considering the kind of public institutions which developed after independence and the management of these institutions, the post Arusha Declaration state-citizen relations are likened to patron-client relations in regard to the management of such institutions, or indeed are captioned as managerial feudalism of some sort (Munishi, 1989:153-167). Such a characterisation of Tanzanian development points out that the state of welfare services is not necessarily due to the āsocialistā preponderances of the post independence state. In other words the Arusha Declaration has not been a necessary and sufficient condition for the development of welfare services in Tanzania. However one cannot forcibly argue that the Arusha Declaration did not assist in the facilitation and reinforcing of welfarist concerns in the country. This is to say that welfarism is not necessarily a function of a socialist state formation. Even capitalist states are advocates of welfarism.
In a broad context one can envision the development of the welfare state scenario in Tanzania running through several stages. As stated above it was the contradictions within colonial state management - the extreme segregative policies, the elitism, inegalitarianism and so on, which led to the cultivation and rationalisation of certain nationalist sentiments that sought to establish the direct opposites of the colonial administration. In effect, the nationalist campaigners promised the politically mobilised groups and masses that a new government would work to ensure essential social services, even for the very poor.
The second stage in the scenario is the growth of a popular-based political party, i.e. the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU), which strategically transformed itself from being a social organisation for the advocacy of the minute African elites into a political party promising to take over power, a party that promised to redress the balance as far as the distribution of social services were concerned and to struggle to widen the latitude of popular participation in the new nationās cake, once independence had been achieved. TANUās initial political agenda was populist, in a bid to mobilise all grievances against the colonial regime. Local interest groups and organisations ...
