- Who pays for development?
Economists like to say – “There is no free lunch” – true enough. But the questions we need to ask then are:
– Who pays?
– Who benefits?
– Who decides?
To make economic policy is to make choices about use of resources, about spreading the costs and foreseeing benefits. To make choices means that sacrifices have to be made. Question becomes – who makes the sacrifices?
The answer to that question is not simple and not evident.
Looking back to history and the time of the industrial revolution 19th century it shows us a period of great progress in ways of production, in growth of wealth. But this period of the 19th century went together with great pain and suffering and exploitation of the labour force, of the majority of the population. Growth came on the back of workers being obliged to work for long hours, no rest, bad housing and child labour, no social security, colonial invasion to obtain resources and plundering other countries of their resources.
The cost of the development in the industrial revolution came at a very high price for the majority workers and small farmers. They paid for the progress that benefitted a minority of rich capital owners.
Are we not facing the same situation today in Tanzania where 70% of the population hardly benefits from the economic progress enjoyed by the 30% of the population that has capacity to join the program. The silent majority standing on the sideline while the procession of the ones who benefit marches by.
The recent anger of our young people is not to be seen as an aboration of some uneducated hooligans. The anger of our youth must be seen under the light of that growing inequality in our society. The young people have no employment, there are few opportunities, to start a small business is very problematic, initiatives are frustrated by bureaucratic obstacles on failing to obtain financial input, a great many laborers receive a minimum wage just enough to pay for one week costs and this in sectors of growth like tourism and service sectors.
The tourist sector is hailed as a great income earner for Tanzania, but many hotels pay their workers very small salaries and demand shifts of working hours of 13 – 14 hours daily. There is no one to defend the rights of those workers, and the hotel owners are enjoying great profits.
The security guards at the houses of the rich earn 150,000/= a month, while the rich people receive an income that is more than 100 times the salary of the watchman.
When we go back to the questions above, who pays, who benefits, who decides – it is clear that it is those who decide are those that benefit and those who benefit are the ones to decide on policies. It is the vicious circle of the “haves” against the “have nots”.
We need to realize that the relationship between the rich and the poor will always tend to be exploitative. History is full of examples, the world over, in all ages. The so called free market will always tend to be in favour of the rich. It is no different in Tanzania.
The structural adjustment programmes have resulted in economic progress, but not for the majority. They are the ones who make the Sacrifices, who pays is not enjoying the fruit of that progress. The new vision 2050 as proposed by authorities continues the same line of thinking and planning. If we are to create participation of the 70% of those being left behind in our population, we need intervention by rulers to regulate that free market development.
Those who keep preaching the capitalist model, which we adopted since the 80’s of last century, they continue to say – “wealth must be created before being distributed” they impose the sacrifice of waiting for the fruits until later for the majority. They also forget that creating wealth first continues to build up the wealth of those who already have it and they will block any attempt at distribution for the majority in order not to have to sacrifice and bear a greater part of the burden of the costs.
There is need for authoritative intervention to break this vicious circle of wealth – creators deciding to benefit the wealth – holders.
If those who make the decisions are the ones who profit from this system, will there be any hope for decision makers to change policies in favour of the poor?
There is need to seriously think about offering greater opportunities for participation in decision making in favor of greater benefit for the majority.
The proper answer to the anger of the young people is to sit down and discuss issues and re-direct our policies to difficult priorities – shifting from economics of growth, to economics of equal opportunities.
Greater participation in decision making.
To create greater opportunities for the majority, to tackle the problem of growing inequality is a national issue, a problem we must face together, with all the forces available.
This is not a subject for political bickering and political fights and scoring political points among different groups.
It is not popular mobilization, mass rallies and propaganda making and promising dream – plans that will solve the problem. It needs cool reflection, scientific study, moral commitment, focusing on priorities, create attitudes of efficiency and fulfilling one’s duties.
We need to look at ourselves, at our behaviors, at our structures, at our culture.
Is there the political will to do this serious examination of conscience, asking ourselves in truth if our behavior is ready to see our weaknesses, our lack of interest in the common good? Does the idea of common good have any meaning for those who look after their own interests? After the 29th October protests, we have not seen any examination of conscience on the part of authorities.
At the time of the Arusha Declaration we nationalized the major means of production, we integrated all major civil organizations into the one party, we weakened local government and centralized everything in a system of centralized statism – i.e.
The state provides.
It killed local initiative
When we were obliged to re-structure this, we developed it into a new centralization, namely for those who have capacity in economic terms (foreign and local).
We did not give it back to the people to organize themselves.
- Linked to that is the question of our culture – authoritarianism and a chief’s, mentality is still very strong. Democratic participation is weak and is in fact not promoted because of our culture. We do not challenge authority easily, we are not trained to be critical in a positive way, with a desire to seek better ways. Democratic culture is not about imitating a Western culture; it is about organizing the participation of the people in decision making.
Obviously such participation must have local cultural elements, local ways of speaking and searching. Democracy is not so much about multi-party systems, about regular elections, about making rules. It is first of all about a mentality to give each one a place in society, a word to contribute, a dignity to uphold toward every person.
It is about re-dressing the Centre of decision making via civil society associations, academic freedom, efficient media services who are free to search and think. It is about a fundamental change in governing starting from the local level.
It is a basic mentality change we need.
Are we really bothered about the fact that so many people are poor? Does it stir Conscience? Does it move us to want to do something about it?
Or do we simply shrug our shoulders and say bad luck?
- What means development in the first place?
Is it about “things” – “Wealth” – or is it about quality of human living.
What vision do we have of development?
A big house, a gadget, expensive parties or is it about peace, harmony, having basic necessities, opportunities to be happy and contribute to a family belonging together.
Is our vision an inspiration for the society to live and behave well, to be at home? The concept of Ujamaa gave us an inspiration, but we did not succeed in working it out and implement it in workable structures and behaviors.
Why was that?
We need to analyse this and dare to look at ourselves and see where we succeed and where we fail.
We have navigated from a strict socialist system, to a strict liberal capitalism – but we did not manage to find a middle way, respecting our vision and inspiration as a family nation, and behave like people who have a family culture, caring for one another and for the common good.
We need to answer the question – what development do we want?
This is much more than economics
We need to start from the moral foundation of our implementation – the moral principles and values of human dignity, common good, solidarity, subsidiarity. How to form society to follow those principles and values and organize our structures and behaviours in an efficient way to practice those values and let our society be imbued by this culture.
It requires a spirit of discerning together what should be our priorities for policy making.
Unfortunately, we do not seem to arrive at this point of sitting together as a nation and listen to each other, and provide each one with the opportunity to participate. It needs a very different type of attitude.
What we experience is that leaders are not prepared to listen to people’s desires and needs. There is no willingness to develop an attitude of looking for the common good, of what is best for our nation. Leaders continue to refuse to accept change, to see the need for constitutional changes, practice top – down decision making. Sadly, we saw even the violent intervention against protests which put further tension on an already tense anger in the population. People in leadership, in law and order services seem to give in to the desire to remain in control, rather than seek the means to solve the social tension. To use terror tactics and silencing alternative thinking and allow abductions – are signs of weakness on the part of authority.
It is time we dare to think in terms of the truth of our situation. The so called praise of Tanzania being a country of peace and harmony, has to be put under the scan of reality check. The victims of abuse and poverty have no voice – no authority is willing to take up their cause – the silent majority has no voice.
We need a serious political change, beginning with a process of reconciliation, based upon seeking truth and justice. After that open a national dialogue on whether we want a system of multiparty and if yes how to go about it making it an equal playing field, what the Nyalali commission recommended or do we want to build another democratic system, based upon African cultural elements of different groups in society being represented in government – democracy is about participation and representation – and Tanzania can find another form more adapted to its culture of consensus building, rather than a competitive form via different parties.
Obviously this is asking for a big change and will take time – but the actual situation is sufficiently problematic, not to allow it to deteriorate further into chaos. Maybe the exercise of the Tume ya Uchunguzi can provide a way forward. Maybe?
We say “maybe” because the condition for a true reconciliation does not seem to be present, as the authority does not acknowledge that they have made mistakes and that the structures for true democratic dialogue are not presently available.
- Application to the making of Social policy
One field where the previous reflection on the cost of development is keenly felt is the issue of social policy. There is a clear difference between Capitalism and Socialism in the approach to deal with the question. But before describing that difference we need to look at the more fundamental issue – what mentality or vision should we have towards granting people social security, before building social policy.
Max Weber, already in 1919, after a devastating chaos of war he pointed out that dealing with a new peaceful society we need two basic tools:
- there is science as a Vocation
- there is politics as a Vocation
By that he emphasized that we need to look at social realities with objectivity, seeing things as they really are. And secondly to stress the moral responsibility of the political actors, including taking responsibilities for consequences of their decision and readiness to critically evaluate them.
It means cultivate the ethics of responsibility – practice the ethics of virtues, of searching ways and means to choose the good and diminish the bad, seeking together the political will to engage into making our Nation and people into a value – based society.
Once we have that moral mentality and vision we can then proceed to make a social policy.
Looking at the social realities objectively we see a society in Tanzania where the majority are poor, belong to the informal sector of irregular income, or belonging to the rural subsistence sector, or the informal urban groups – it means that a system, built on individual contribution to cater for social security will not work and cannot work.
Group approach or community approach is needed, based upon self-help initiatives, developing the subsidiarity principle where authorities enable people who take such initiatives – National organization of social security is not advisable – it is the temptation of centralized form of government and the mentality which has been developed of the state must provide.
The subsidiarity principle calls for serious reflection on what is available, like saccos, cooperative societies, association of a cultural nature like burial funds. family support in cases of sickness, providing supplies in nature in cases of hunger or crop failure. There is the supply oriented system of providing one way for the whole country (e.g. Universal Insurance Scheme) or one could build a demand oriented security based upon the local community.
In this second approach there is a room for voluntary contributions, a moral quality of caring for one another and knowing that each member of the community has a place and is guaranteed security.
It means enlarging, through a spirit of solidarity, what tradition and culture presented in the family – a supporting community on the basis for social security and social services. It is less based on money and contributions, but on relationship and readiness for moral support. It is building on an association like churches, cooperatives, social action by trade Unions.
Leaders, political and civil and religious, think of themselves as the ones to solve the problems and maintain the power over the distribution of available resources. To let go of this power to distribute resources and let others at lower level decide on the use of resources – this willingness is not there, it is a self – centred power disease
It calls for service attitudes in a community, calling for people of integrity and moral quality. Any system breaks down if it does not have such people. It is clear that in Tanzania we need to work on this very hard and urgently.
We need to build a spirit of self-help, self-dedication and volunteering. Tanzania just cannot cope with the problem of joblessness, unemployment, under employment, poverty.
As a nation we must accept this challenge.
Before we make plans for economic growth and investments, organize top- down approaches, we must get down to the nitty – gritty approach of helping people to solve their own problems, and making the facilitation of such local initiative. The main contribution of government, must be facilitating opportunities and initiatives taken locally. It takes another type of governing, a service- governing not a ruling- governing.
We can refer to a recent report which said that 70% of startup initiatives fail within 3 years of starting – and the reasons given are: poor financial management, limited business skills, inadequate market research, high taxation, limited access to financial loans, burdensome bureaucratic Procedures, infrastructural gaps.
It shows what is meant when government and administration are not facilitating local initiatives.
This reflection shows that social policy making is complex, is much more than reaping the fruits of economic growth and economic plans, so much more than planning health insurance scheme, educational loans, provision of water, electricity, habitat
It does include, these efforts and institutions.
But it requires more than that.
It calls for a society which practices a civilization of love – a people who care for one another and for the common good and seek ways and means to provide such a mutual security.
This is not a romantic dream, a nostalgic craving for an impossible world. For a nation to have a dream is not Utopia, but creating an inspiration which can stimulate and motivate us all to dedicate oneself to building a society where it is good to live and which corresponds to God’s dream over His Creation. This is true social security.
Fr. Victor Missiaen, M.Afr
