Welcome to my review of Book 2 of Development As Rebellion (A Nyerere Biography) written by Issa Shivji, Saida Yahya-Othman and Ng’wanza Kamata and published by Mkuki na Nyota.

On this review I will focus on the issue of citizenship which is found on chapter 5- Seek Ye The Political Kingdom and the Union which is found in chapter 6- The Struggle For Power. The reason I chose these two subject matters is because citizenship had the potential to divide the country in the days leading to indepedence and the Union is still a contentious issue to the point that it has become almost taboo to discuss and debate. I am gad the book dealt with both this issues with straightforwardness that is sometimes lacking in our current political discose. Please note that all quotes are from the second book of the three book series.

Now let us begin with citizenship. For a Tanzanian who was born in the 80s and grew up in the 90s and early 2000s, it almost came as a shock to me that citizenship was a hottly contester matter leading up to independence. I grew up seeing a multiracial country with blacks, Arabs and Asians. After now having read the book and fully understanding the independence struggle and the racial dynamics that existed during colonial times I now grasp how race and citizenship was a controversial matter.

“ “Mset we don’t need. Better a Tanganyika with black skin.” This was the slogan used by many Africans in Tanganyika against the policy of multiracialism.” (Development As Rebellion, 46). From here we can see that the us versuses them was not just a matter of the colonized versuses the colonizer but blacks against other races. Throughout the book you can see how during colonial times there was a pecking order with the white colonialists or settlers on top, Asians in the middle and blacks at the bottom. Becau of this history it is easy to understand why most blacks felt that a post independent Tanganyika should belong to blacks. The system had oppressed the majority blacks and they emotionally and understandably viewed an independent Tangayika as land for the blacks. It is even more unfortunate and probably increased the ill feeling of blacks towards other races when the colonial government went out of its way to try and ensure a post-colonial Tangayika would maintain the racial pecking order by ensuring that all races will have equal representation in the legislature.

“Nyerere was concerned that the colonial government wanted to maintain the parity representation- equal number of representation for each race.” (Development As Rebellion, 47). Why would this have been problematic? It would have meant that elections would be based on race and that the majority blacks would be underepresented and the minority whites and asians would be overrepresented. That would have been a formula for racial tensions, civil unrest and dare I see I prerequisite to a civil war. It is thus fortunate that Nyerere catagorecally denied such kind of politics ad in fact he was very much against racial divide that as we see later on in the book he refused a system which would allow majority blacks to discriminate against the minority.

As pointed out above, blacks envisioned a black Tanganyika where blacks were superior to the other races. So contentious was the issue that “In the past the issue generated serious political debate…one side, those in support of an inclusive society…, on th other side, those who believed in an exclusionary approach where certain previliges would be confined to Africans.” (Development As Rebellion, 83). It is very clear that a good number of blacks wanted revenge on those they felt had oppresed them.

One thing I admire Nyerere is his vision. As much as he knew that blacks were oppressed he had the wherewithal to understand that a nation building on racial divide cannot be sustained. We see even today fellow African states such as South Africa and to a lesser degree Zimbabwe struggle with this matter. I don’t think it was merely a matter of principle of equality for Nyerere but the politician in him understood that in the wrong run the black Tanganyikan with there shear majority in numberd would come to enjoy opportunities afforded to them by independence without the political backlash of suppressing other races. Even today as we see most of the prominent businesspeople come from the Asian or Arab communities, it is NOT at all at the expense of black Tanzanians. The only advantage Asians and Arabs may have is that of generational they have inherited and increased after each subsequent generation. If anything, we blacks have plenty to learn from our fellows about creating generational wealth.

Nyerere was si believed in his conviction that he was ready to threaten to resign if an inclusivd approach was not adopted. He said, “This is your own government,…if you believe that by refusing citizenship based on colour it has betrayed you,…the government will resign.” (Development As Rebellion, 96).

Ultimately Nyerere and his thinking prevailed and the creed in which citizenship was based upon became “The most important principle which has been adopted is that the possesion of Tangayikan citizenship must entail a complete and whole-hearted attachement and devotion to Tanganyika and Tanganyika alone.” (Development As Rebellion, 87).

History has proven Nyerere right. We live in a fairly harmonious multiracial, multireligious and multitribal society, a fit not achieved even by “democratically advanced" states such as the United States. It is my hope that current leaders can learn from this and believe in long term visions rather than simply the politics of the day. Compromise on the approach but never on the vision.

Moving on now to the Union matter. I will start of by stating that I unequivocally believe in the Union. I believe the Union is a beautiful and wonderful creation. However I feel we can not keep ignoring whatever grievances exist regarding the Union. Even a married couple can agree to seek councelling without the intention of a divorce.

With that said I will simply focus on what the book detailed as the course for creating the Union. The authors state that “The official motivation for the Union was the close historical ties between the two countries. While there is some truth to this, the ties were not natural but social and political.” (Developement As Rebellion, 174). I hope we can all agree on that, that the Union is political and there is no need to pretend that we were naturally enclined to unite. Hence I hope it is never viewed as mutiny or treasonous to discuss political solutions to the Union.

How do we know that the Union is purely political? Nyerere himself said a few years before indecence in regards to Zanzibar, “If I could tow the island out into the middle of the Indian Ocean, I would do it.” (Development As Rebellion, 182). Hence the Union came about as percieved need rather than a want.

So why was Nyerere concerned about Zanzibar? “Nyerere’s concern may have stemmed from the possibility of Zanzibar becoming a base for one of the superpowers as superpower rivalry on his doorstep was the last thing he wanted.” (Development As Rebellion, 182). During this time Tanganyika was among the few non-alligned nations in the world neither attached to the West and capitalism nor to the East and communism. If you read the part on the Mutiny on chapter 6 you understand how Nyerere was worried about outside influence in Tanganyika. He did not want any ideology other than his own “infecting” Tanganyika.

Here is where I think where our current problems begin. The Union was a marriage of convinience to ensure that both Tanganyika and Zanzibar are not exposed to outside influence during a time of great divide and the rise of neo-colonialism in the world. However, what if now the need that forced us to united does not exist any more? How do we still continue to maintain a Union which is benefitial to both parties involved?

I tend to agree with the two governemt solution because as Nyerere goes on to say in Book 3, a third Tanganyika government would have the potential to swallow up the Zanzibar governemt. I ideally we could have a one government state but I doubt a proud people such as the Zanzibaris would allow it as they want to maintain their identity. Hence it is plausible to make ammendments to the two government system but improve on it farther to ensure it answers all concerns of both parties involved.

To cap it off, the second book has been such an eye opener in terms of highlighting to the reader the historical contenxts of some of the key policies we have today. The authors do not try and take a position but rather give the reader all tje necessary material to reach their own conclusions. Looking forward to writing on the third book which was by far my favourite of the series.

Thomas J. Kibwana.