The demise of the Tanzania Judiciary
“You must understand that there are two ways of contending, by Law, and by force: The first is proper to men; the second to beasts; but because many times the first is insufficient, the recourse must be had for the second” — The Machiavellian and the Defenders of Freedom-James Burnham.
Reading and watching daily news about the scourge of citizens who have resorted to the political elite for the injustices they face makes you wonder what happens to the three-legged assumptions of state; the Executive, the Parliament and the Judiciary. Specifically, the Judiciary part.
When few men and women from the political class rise as the arbiters of law and justice, one must also contend with the end of democracy. For the fundamental instinct of humans to misapply power is natural, and the Judiciary is there to be a guiding star in mitigating this. However, when such a fundamental institution is scandalized with corruption, hijacked by the political class for their publicity ends, consequently, the society stands to suffer.
Currently there isn’t a clean separation of power among these entities. In a democratic country, which spends ungodly amounts of time marketing itself as ‘democratic’, one would have expected that the activities of the judiciary to be left to it, and not left to presidential appointees becoming law givers and law takers.
Such arrangement work only if Tanzania want to be an authoritarian state. Else, a strong Judiciary is a desirable and vital institution in our country. As citizens we owe to at least demand that and protect it when the few (but powerful) attempt to undermine it.
It is a fundamental error to assume that those entrusted with power will not misuse it. Currently those in positions of power will not want a strong constitution or judiciary. They fear it will bring an end to their powers and privileges. That it will circumvent and overly regulate their not so democratic actions.
“If our interest is in man as he is on this earth, so far as we can learn from facts of history and experience, we must conclude that he has no natural aspiration for peace or harmony, he does not form states in order to achieve ideally good society, nor does he accept mutual organization to secure the maximum social welfare. But men, and a group of men, do by various means, struggle among themselves for relative increases in power and privileges.” -The Machiavellian and Defenders of Freedom.
The distinctiveness of the Tanzania system is the structure of our government — one aspect of it is the lack of independence of the Judiciary or parliament. Of course, the malice of inept dissents from state law makers in the international arena will be a long topic to discuss. The three pillars of the government have merged to one and run a soup of contradictions. Elements and signs of a failed state or failed state awaiting? You tell me! Nevertheless, institutional decay has been a common phenomenon in our country, whether we want to agree or not.
The silence about the lack of separation of powers in the government has cascaded from the past administrations to current administrations. The political elite assert that the judiciary is a corrupt institution which has failed to ameliorate the society injustice. So the political elite has decided that it is their responsibility to correct that.
Quite seductive a proposition it is, though void of substance of due process. Yet if they are now the arbiters of law and justice, who holds them accountable?
What about those subjects which require legal interpretations, does a political appointee garner sufficient competence to deal with such matters? Currently one must engage in a willing suspension of disbelief to be able to accept what is happening to the Tanzania Judicial system. It is sad and shameful.
It will not be an exaggeration to argue that our Judicial system is a mere shell of its old self and is currently being exploited by the autocratic cliques for their own ends with no regard for public interests.
It is not like the public opinions of the homo politicus are unknown. And yet it is hard to reconcile their presumption that they would always be able to identify the public interest and act single mindedly upon it.
The philosopher king hypothesis is in full operation in Tanzania today and one will struggle to not see it in nearly everything going on. One can’t help but wonder whether they will ever grow to face up to Karl Popper’s problem of “what if the elite turn out not to be benevolent Philosopher Kings?”
Even if we are to agree that our philosopher kings are right, we still need to remember that the surfeit of self-confidence is perhaps understandable in a brilliant politician, however a presumption of immortality is not. When the philosopher kings meet their fate, as we all will one day, society will still need institutions. Will it not be madness to assume or to be sure of a replete availability of ‘rational’ philosopher kings?
I would rather have strong institutions.
Currently, we must be content with the opportunistic politicians who will exploit the desperate conditions of the people, but who choose not to rescue them from the quagmire of destitution or injustice.
Proverbs 21:3
(The judiciary acts as a check and balance.)
