HEGELIAN and NYEREREAN ETHICS AND CONTEMPORARY TANZANIAN ETHOS

This paper was presented by Dr.Jason Ishengoma(UDSM) at the second Philosophy in East Africa 2010 held at the Blue Pearl Hotel,Ubungo Plaza,Dar es Salaam(18^th -19^th ,November,2010.)The Conference was organized by the Philosophy Association of Tanzania (PHATA).

1.  INTRODUCTION

Ethos, in the sense of norms or morals, is lived before they are reflected upon. This implies that we first live in a society that has its own ethos, and it is when these seem to conflict with the real social consciousness of the members of that given society that the reflection, that is, the questioning of their importance or their ground is produced. Before that, social norms are taken for granted. Moral philosophy or Ethics, unlike morals or norms, is a reflection on morals, a searching for the ground on which morals are based.

In this paper I want to elaborate two studies: Hegel and Nyerere by showing how the two philosophers developed the ethical principles of the individual human subject who is free and social at the same time. My reading of Hegel is limited to his treatment of the idea of “recognition” in the Phenomenology of Spirit, and my reading of Nyerere rounds on his “New Synthesis of Man and Society” in Freedom and Unity.

2. BACKGROUND: KANT AND HEGEL

Hegel’s philosophy falls in the post Kantian era. Both Kant and Hegel had a common starting point that of man as thinking will: the concept of freedom that is the core idea for modern philosophical reflection. Kant considers the will of human subject as unattainable identity with the universal will of the transcendent intelligible world, while Hegel synthesized the two in the concrete social ethical reality whereby each individual subject has his moment or station and his definite duties; stipulated by the social norms. Unlike Kant whose subject self is abstract, Hegel’s subject is concrete and objective. For Kant, man’s rationality is innate in every man as the faculty of giving clear, distinct and fixed ideas; while for Hegel reason is an immanent impulse of rationality that is in a continuous movement realizing itself in human experience.

Their metaphysical foundation of ethics differ in that Kant’s is unspeakable, remains always in search; while for Hegel it has always manifested itself in human history. For Kant the moral imperative the “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”, (Kant: 1990. 38) does not refer to any concrete historical situation, it is res interna. Hegel on his part expressed his metaphysics in definite and concrete forms found in the res publica produced by man in a concrete given social set-up: the state which is the temporal conditions for exteriorization of the categorical imperative. Kant’s ethical trend is a continuation of modern thinking which absolutizes the human subject by alienating him from the society: individualistic and psychologistic ethics; while Hegel’s ethics goes back to traditional trend which defines man as virtually a social creature in need of virtue. Hegel’s view is that ethics properly understood corresponds to a historically specific form of social organization in which the subject becomes self-conscious.

Nyerere on his part developed an ethical theory based on African philosophical anthropology of family-hood. He maintains that the principles of love, sharing and work that hold African traditional society could apply to a larger community: a nation.

3. ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATION OF HEGEL’S ETHICS

The search for the principle of reality and the ultimately rational justification is the fundamental problem with all socio-political theories. Without justification of any theory almost any opinion is as good as its opposite. There are no more criteria on which to judge any theory. What is the ontological reality upon which our judgment and theories are based? This is the question that Hegel struggled with in his day by trying to bring an answer in midst of liberal with no external founded thinking. Hegel takes into account the society he lived in, the liberal society articulated by thinkers like Descartes, Hume, Lockes and Kant for whom the individual human subject finds his norms and truth from his interiority without reference to the outside world, the tradition; and out of this situation Hegel built his theory that solves the tension between tradition and a free modern human subject.

To be sure Hegel did not provide ethical theory but his theory could but be the implication of his logical metaphysics theory. Hegel’s ethics is founded on his doctrine of recognition giving the ontological priority of solidarity over the individual in isolation as it is suggested by Descartes. Hegel prescribes mutual recognition coming from creativity or production. This sounds well in the African context where the individual is always seen in the eyes of the community.

            REASON

Hegel strongly believed that the logical categories order the philosophy of spirit. This basically means that the content of Hegel’s philosophy of human culture is structured and ordered by the logical categories which represent the truth of the world. These categories are those of Reason as the capacity to think.

The starting point of the subject, as spirit, is Experience. Through the experiences, consciousness discovers what it is in truth; this is done not simply through observing nature but through thinking. Hegel (1972) tells us that the “I” is the “universal next to and for itself”(para.439) what all human have in common with myself being the I But the “I” has this activity of universalization that is to it.  The “I” is this very act of thinking seen as subject:

Because I am at the same time in all my feelings, representations, situations like culture, morality etc., the thought is present everywhere and, as category, penetrates all these determinations. (Hegel, 1972, para. 20)

The specificity of man, the subject, is thinking; and all other determinations or forms are outside this specific character of man. It is this activity that frees man of the immediate, from particular to universal, it is this activity that is at the root of the dialectics of consciousness and self-consciousness. As Hegel (1972) puts it

Thanks to rethinking something is altered in the way by which the content is first in the sensation the intuition, the representation; which is but by the mediation of an alteration that the true nature of the object has an access to the consciousness. (para. 22)

Hegel does not mean that “thinking alters its object but that by altering the way in which this object is given, it penetrates its true nature, its universal nature”. (Hegel, 1987, para. 32) The act of thinking the universality is self determination and freedom; its freedom is to think the way all individuals think. Universals found in the immediate (not freed) are simple objects. In the immediate nature, the object is immersed and not distinct, and it is by subjectivity that the object becomes in and for itself.

Hegel has rightly emphasized the importance of thinking as an activity by which Truth is reached. He also makes an important distinction between what the consciousness produces in understanding and the thinking of infinity. Metaphysics of understanding is dogmatic because it keeps half-truths isolated, while speculative idealism brings the principle of totality and may reach further than inadequate formulations of the abstract thinking.  It should be kept in mind that before he is dialectic, Hegel is first and foremost speculative. By speculative Hegel maintains that reality is by bipolarity: he would say for example that any thought is concrete, as any concrete is thought. Or to put it in other words we can say that “the soul is neither only finitude nor infinitude it is as one as the other; and for that matter neither one nor the other”. “The battle for, the speculative reason is a fight to break the rigidity to which understanding had reduced all things”. (Hegel, 1987, para. 32)

This fight of reason is always negation of what thought at first sees, in which is accomplished a mediation that does not come from outside in one word it is reflection in itself. As activity, thought is “active universal”, hence what it produces is the universal and may be called a self-actualizing universal. “Represented as subject, the thinking existing subject as thinker is I.”(Hegel, 1972, para.20) The ‘I’ which is not a simple I but a universal I, that which is given to every one. This is the principle by which the subject discovers itself as well as the heart of the object, it is reflection or re-thinking.

This being the case Hegel’s ethics takes what is presented in the concrete, the social norms, and establishes its foundation, that is, its spirit. Hegel discovered that what makes human free and habitant of the world of the truth of their own existence is habiting in a state of pure recognition in absolute otherness. This discovery is illustrated in his Phenomenology of Spirit in the dialectic of “Lord and Bondsman relationship”.

The historical-social process of struggle for survival by which the rational becomes actual by establishing the habitant that is one’s own, in its real concrete world, as contrasted with its logical aspects, is a process of mutual affirmative recognition. Recognition is the intersubjective existential configuration, the actuality, in which the concept of freedom appears. The dialectic of recognition is not an easy way where things follow a well paved road.  It is a fight, “the fight for life and death”, because self-consciousness is at first “the simple being for self”; all that which is not itself is excluded and unessential. Singularity which is the first characteristic of self-consciousness, is exclusive, it is a negative character.  The exclusivity can work in the subject-object relationship; I can deny the existence of a tree by cutting it down and transforming it into what I want: a timber or a door. By so doing I affirm my consciousness as a being with internal capacity of doing and acting. I am capable of doing something. But in social relationship that is not the case, because the other is also self-consciousness. Hegel portrays a story of the first social encounter, where there are two individuals facing each other, individuals who do not yet recognize the other as a self-consciousness individual, but as immediate living-being.  In that pure abstraction of self-consciousness, this self-consciousness shows itself as a pure negation of his objective mode.

 In this non-ethical life, the other is taken as an immediate living-being (an object) that must be annihilated so as to confirm self-consciousness; to be certain that I am myself. That pure negation means disregard of all “determined being-there,” that manifest itself as a living thing, a life that should be annihilated if required. Consequently, to consider the other as an object (remember she/he is also self-consciousness) is to start a battle; because the other has also the same movement, she/he is the pure negation thus he/she want allow to be terrorized. This is what Hegel says to be: “a twofold action: action on the part of the other and action on its own part”. [1]  In the first “action” the individual confronts the other by threatening his/her life, she/he tends towards the death of the other. In the second “action” (action on its own part) the individual by threatening the other’s life, the other who also have the same activity, she/he engages her/his own life. Here is where the principle of freedom for Hegel (1977) is articulated:

 It is only through staking one’s life that freedom is own” because “the Individual who has not risked his life may well be recognized as a person, but he has not attained to the truth of this recognition as an independent self-consciousness. (para. 187)

The fight of self-consciousness leads to negation of all objectivity, any or particular.

         RECOGNITION:

The recognition of personality, begins with the recognition of a person's property, and takes the form of human relations recognized through the mediation of external objects: social relations which seem to have an external existence - words, concepts, institutions and laws as well as tools[2] and products which meet the needs of people other than the producer. In the Hegelian dialectic, the producer is the bondsman, and the one who enjoys the product is the master. Through the historical struggle between the producer and the two comes to consciousness of what they truly are: they depend on each other. The producer who produces more than he/she wants for her/his consumption, needs the other, call it the market, to display his/her production; and the consumer needs the product in order to satisfy his/her desire.

In order for the producer to produce more than it is required for his/her own needs, there is a force behind that Hegel terms fear. Fear is manifested in the servile consciousness though the transformation of the object: labour. Gadamer (1976) explaining this moment writes:

Freedom of self-consciousness consists not only in self-confirmation given to existing things, but also in a true assertion of self in opposition to the tendency of existing objects (p.70) 

The truth of the rational subject, a subject who confirms and asks for freedom, does not depend simply on recognition of the person as equal-recognition of the law; the truth of freedom comes from what Gadamer calls “the consciousness of being able to do”, “that constantly sees itself confirmed in what it does and has done.”(Gadamer, 1976 p. 70)  It is through work as “forming-formator” that self-consciousness suppresses the foreign element of the object and imposes its form.  The object thus formed is in fact the true reality before which self-consciousness has stood trembling. 

The relation between the desire and its object is no more annulment but it takes “a permanent form”.  The act of forming has not only a positive result – shaping things – it is “also, the negative significance of fear.”(Hegel: 1977. para. 196) Man is at first confronted with “a being for self” which he transforms and of which he denies the “being-for-self” and cultivates in it his own image; consciousness becomes thus “in and for-self”. “But this objective negative moment is none other than the alien being before which it has trembled.” (Hegel, 1977, para. 196)  Through work, self-consciousness has become master of the first master, it has imposed its proper form to the object; it has kept the object into existence (not as first relation of desire) but that object is no more alien or foreign.  It is through consciousness of servitude, in fear, that the truth of self consciousness is found:

The being-for-self is present in the bondsman himself; in fashioning (cultivating) the thing, he becomes aware – that being–for-self belongs to him, that he himself exists essentially and actually in his own right. (Hegel, 1977, p.ara. 196)

The object thus formed is no more alien; the form it has taken is just the form of consciousness, that form which now exists exteriorly is in fact the interior form of consciousness.  Hegel (1977) confirms this by saying:

The two moments of fear and service as such, as also that of formative activity, (cultivating activity) are necessary, both being at the same time in a universal mode. (para.1976)  

Discipline and obedience are required in service so as to be able to make something that may really be said one’s own.  Production does not come only from a primary desire it must be disciplined and controlled. For Hegel that which is thus produced needs a market. The market is the culmination of the process of human development which holds the product of the person’s labour. It is through the object in the world that one is recognized by others as somebody who has produced something for them. The society recognizes this object (the work as object) which is found in the objective spirit.  (see the copy right)

In the dialectic Lord and bondsman we have the springing up of humanity, individual and social; the base of ethical life.  The ethical problem at hand is two sided: we need to have individuals who know themselves as such (the pure ‘I’), who stands shinning out; at the same time we need to have the “Lord” (society) that shapes the others according to his/her own will.[3] The historical man and woman, the one who can “writes or narrates” his/herstory, is shaped and lives in a given society.

The free individuals are those who risk their life and who, through fear, are are capable of self-determination. The determination-in-self is not isolation but, first and foremost, realization that we need one another. That realization must be proved, that is, we must work as if all life depends on the self alone and at the same time realize that life depends on the others.  Society that gives tools to the individual person through “education and formation” is vital for self-consciousness; but that society itself must be founded on rational base if it must deal with rational subjects. It should not be based n fear or on force, but on universal principles that every reasonable person may recognize and by which be recognized.

Hegelian ethics takes that ontological principle of recognition and formative activity, as its base. It shows that the ethical world, the social norms, because they are human, they are fruits of human labour and as such should be seen not as foreign objects created by the master for control and manipulation, but as essentially product of reason that portrays the consciousness at work. The two kinds of ethics, that of Being, (ethics of Virtue) and that of Doing, (ethics of Duty); are in fact two sides of the same coin. The question of “what sort of person should I be?” which carries the ethics of being is as important to the question “what must I (not) do?” the concern for the ethic of duty.

4. NYEREREAN ETHICS

4.1 BACKGROUND

I have spent a lot of time and space elaborating Hegelian ontology that is the base of his ethics, that I won’t be able to give the same treatment to Nyerere. It suffices to say here that as Africans we can learn a lot from Hegel because African people, of which Nyerere is representing, are known to have tribal ethics that puts more emphasize on society than on an individual. But this tribal ethics is dying and Nyerere (1974) saw that early in the sixties. He writes: Traditional order is dying; the question which has yet to be answered is what will be built on our past and, in consequence, what kind of society will eventually replace the traditional one (p. 6)

Nyerere’s intellectual struggle was to formulate ethical or moral principles that would shape a modern Tanzanian society. It is generally agreed that Nyerere gave practical value to the primacy of the individual human rights of all Africans in their own countries without any discrimination. Although TANU started as an exclusive African party, it had at its core the vocation for all humanity. This universal principle was not without difficulties as Nyerere (1974) himself admits:

Inevitably there were some few members of TANU whom discrimination had made bitter, and whose basic lack of self-confidence has caused them to fail in this test. And inevitably there were also those whose membership and participation in the independence struggle had been motivated by greed and jealousy. Such people still exist in Tanzania, as elsewhere in the world. But the masses in Tanganyika and the vast majority of the TANU leadership stood firmly by the moral principle for which they had campaigned. (p. 4)

Nurturing his country from the cradle, Nyerere advocated national consciousness as the strength of TANU (Tanganyika African National Union) in the search for independence, in which all people will be respected as humans, have equality of opportunities and have equal Rights. In short TANU’s conscietization was based on certain moral principles that members were expecting to acquire once freedom was achieved. This consciousness is attributed to the history of Tanganyika which was a Trustee Territory under British administration, the feeling of the common oppressor and the Kiswahili language which was understood by many and was used as lingua franca. The first work for Nyerere was to create the National Consciousness by conscietization and awakening self-confidence and identity among Africans that was eroded due to long colonial submission starting with Arabs, German ending with British. Nyerere (1974) insists that “A vital task for any liberation movement must be to restore the people’s self-confidence.” (p. 3)

Without using any dialectic movement or argument, Nyerere believes that the core for any respectable member of society should first and foremost be to develop confidence in one’s abilities.

4.2 NYERERE’S SOCIAL DOCTRINE.

Nyerere’s base for social justice is based on his principle belief that “man’ s existence in society involves an inevitable and inescapable conflict –conflict of his own desires.” These desires can be summed up in one concept: freedom. Freedom in his thinking has two sides: freedom for and freedom from. Freedom for is that desire to achieve something, to do something that one aspires; this is positive freedom. And freedom from is that desire of non-interference or threat from the outside forces be they human or natural. The philosophy behind the principle justification for this desire for freedom is pragmatic and people centered powers ethics meaning that African desire for freedom moves around “an understanding of the hard facts of reality for Africa in the modern world” (Nyerere: 1974. 5). It is a loose and gain situation that the individual weights knowingly that he/she will benefit from. Nyerere (1974) says:

Men do not freely agree to participate in social relations for purpose of material wealth, for efficiency, or for the glory of the group, except in so far as these things serve them. Group wealth and group power are not themselves virtues for which men would sacrifice themselves or for which they should be sacrificed. They are virtues only in so far as they serve the object of society –which is man. (p. 7)

The idea of society nurtured by Nyerere is based on human equality in which everyone equally enjoys the national cake. In this way, there must be limits set by public ethics or laws to limit private interests against public desire. Possibly this is why during his era, little was heard about corruption (Mafisadi). They feared the system as it was working austerely.

Nyerere’s social moral principles is supported by a coherent doctrine or theory based on self-reliance and self-consciousness. Self-reliance doctrine in the Arusha Declaration went hand in hand with education or conscietization. The conscietization process is necessary for people centered development. Nyerere (1974) argues:

Development is for men/women, by men/women and for men/women. The same is true for education. Its purpose is the liberation of man/woman from the restraints and limitation of ignorance and dependency. Education has to increase men/women physical and mental freedom –to increase their control over themselves, their own lives, and the environment in which they live”  (p.  95)

How does the individual come to accept moral and social orders as a free and responsible agent? The answer to this is Nyerere’s philosophical anthropology that defines man/woman as conscious-individual in the world. This world, the society, shapes the individual but at the same time reveals to him/her his/her inner being: self-consciousness. Nyerere’s ethics is the humanizing morality through education whose role is to help a person to develop themselves, decide for themselves what path for development to follow, how to cooperate for the purpose of desired objects. The desired objects can be attained through work which liberates man/woman from natural dictated situation to human cultivated environment. Again, for Nyerere,  the capacity to form, that is to give form to the object, comes from learning through interactions at the same time it reveals to the individual person his/her inner capacity, the self-consciousness. Humans are thus not simple tool users, but also formators.

The ujamaa policy had social, economic as well as political ethics. It was based on traditional belief that each individual though unique, is part and parcel of the whole; the family and for Nyerere the nation. The axis of this belonging is the participation of each individual in production. The traditional African production was not simply for the needs of the individual but was as well for the good of the whole. Each “member of the family accepts the obligation to work”, (Nyerere, 1974, p. 9) to contribute to the common good. TANU under Arusha Declaration creed emphasized that, money was not the center for development but people. It called for leaders not to make tours to European cities but to use and spend more time in the villages, conscientizing the people on how to bring about development through their own efforts: to show to them that they can do; to build self-confidence based on work that is vital for any proper human centered development. It laid down several principles, which were widely used as public ethics for all Tanzanians especially the public leaders.

The traditional belief in family-hood was expanded to include every Tanzanian and indeed every human being as being my “ndugu” (close relative).

A man or woman knows that she/he is a unique person with private desires. But she/he also knows that his actions must, for his/her own good, be restricted to those which are consistent with the good of his social unit  -his/her family. The institution of the family, and its procedures, then encourage that attitude of respect a society which can be harmonious and beneficial for all members equally. (Nyerere, 1974, p.9)

CONCLUSION

We have shortly shown how Hegel’s idea of recognition is vital for ethics and how Nyerere’s concept of ujamaa is the base for social ethics. The difference that is traced in the two sides is that; Nyerere, like Plato admits that the problem of moral integrity is due to ignorance. That’s why he put much emphasis on education, not simply the formal one, but continuous education.

Hegel on his part builds his metaphysics on reason as the capacity to think dialectically, that is, to see things in their totality rather than in their isolation. Recognition explains how free individual accomplishes his freedom in relationship with the other rather than in seclusion. The true human object of desire is achieved in the other rather than in the lonely self.

Nyerere on his side explains the need of the other in the hobbessian style. The self surrenders his/her freedom so as to gain more freedom. The personal desires are not necessarily reconciled with those of the other. There is no logical necessity as it is for Hegel.

Hegelian comprehensive and systematic ontology is elaborated from a “logical” starting point. The assumption is, since the contents of consciousness are “universal” they must be publicly graspable by others as well.

Nyerere’s stand is from his historical moment: the African ujamaa concept of love, sharing and work, these are principles on which modern Tanzanian ethics should be built. People should be awakened to engage in their own development. This philosophy of People’s involvement approach in development is articulated by our learned social scientist like Wamba Dia Wamba, Abdallah Aman Babu, to mention some.

In Hegel’s time there was a question of the individual subject for whom his/her individuality as a rational thinking subject (cogito ergo sum subject) was vital. For Nyerere the eroding traditional social order needed replacement. Nyerere’s education for liberation program was geared towards a creation of a rational free subject capable of analyzing his/her situation in view of his/her modernized africanity.

My ending question is this: “With what have we replaced that awakening project?”

 It is my view that the vacuum (left by rejecting the awakening project) is felt in the rising of fundamentalism be it in religions, tribal or racial that we are witnessing in today’s Tanzania. The presence of religious and ethnic attachment during this year’s general election, is it not asking us to create Tanzanian National Consciousness?

References:

GADAMER Hans-Georg,  (1976)        Five hermeneutical studies Yale University Press, (trans. P. Christopher Smith)

HEGEL,                  Phenomenology of Spirit, Oxford University Press, (1977) (trans. A. V. Miller)

Logic, Oxford, (1987) (trans. By W. Wallace)

Science of Logic.  TomeI, The Being, Aubier, (1972) Science de la logique, tome II

ISHENGOMA Jason,    Le sujet Humain et la Modernite chez Hannah Arendt, Memoire pour la Capacite doctorale, (1997) L’Institut Catholique de Paris.

KANT,  Emmanuel        Critique of Pure Reason, (1984) Everyman’s Library, (trans. J. M. D. Meiklejohn, Intr. by A.D. Lindsay) 

Critique of Practical Reason, (1989) The Library of Liberal Arts,  (trans.Lewis White Beck) ;

Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. (1990)The Library of Liberal Arts,  (trans.Lewis White Beck)  

NYERERE J. K.            Freedom and Unity, (1974) Oxford.

---

[1] Phen. # 187

[2] Remember that tools are social objects for no tool was ever the product of a single person any more than the need fulfilled by a tool.

[3] This point of having the “Lord” sounds like that of Aristotle who says that politics is the architetonic science because it the society through politics that decides what type of art to be instilled in children’s mind. Nichomecean Ethics  1094 a28

THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHING PHILOSOPHY IN EAST AND CENTRAL AFRICA.

The Keynote Speech by Prof. Ernest Wamba dia Wamba at the Second Philosophy in East Africa Conference 2010 held at the Blue Pearl Hotel, Ubungo Plaza, Dar es Salaam.The Conference was organized by the Philosophy Association of Tanzania(PHATA).

                                              Ernest Wamba dia Wamba

I.                   Introduction.

The world has been facing major crises for some time now. They range from the crisis of the biosphere (hit by climatic changes), through that of the world capitalist economy (as revealed by financial crisis) to that of the political kingdom (as democracy is imposed even by military force.) While tremendous amount of food is produced in the world (it is said that in the USA 9 million USD worth food being burned everyday), world hunger is rising. While sex has been liberalized, raping of women and men is rising, etc.  Most current ideas, values and beliefs (influencing behaviours and attitudes) are failing to tackle those problems.

Philosophy (not as knowledge, but philosophizing or thinking) is being interrogated. Some fairly new positions or schools have come out, such as Roy Bhaskar’s Dialectical Critical Realism, Alain Badiou’s Dialectique des Vérités éternelles and the so-called movement of break from homo sapiens sapiens towards “homo universalis”.

We do witness a lot of thinking being done on spirituality and the critique of organized religions.  It is said that world fundamental beliefs about God and Life are not working and in fact are leading towards world suicide. The ideas that people are separate from God and life and life is not one and that there are not enough resources for everyone and one needs to struggle to have access to resources, etc. are leading to even wars as legitimate means.  It is said that new beliefs have to be produced before it is too late if we really want to survive.

On the other hand, as science is being transformed, from an emphasis on the physical to that on life sciences, the belief that it is the last salvation resort is also relaxed. Commodity fetishism putting up spectacle (Guy Debord) or the world of images (Plato’s cave) as the horizon for most of the commoners makes it difficult to these for reality to be grasped. This may be one reason for the re-emergence of Plato as a major philosopher, after such a long time of ant-platonism (Alain Badiou).  His metaphor of the cave and his concept of Idea are useful to critique the dominant regime of opinions. As says Badiou: “Without the Idea, there remains only an animalized humanity. Capitalism is the animalization of human beast.  What is not under the reign of the Idea will be under that of death. Human species cannot be animal-like innocently.  Man is such a species that needs the Idea to inhabit reasonably his own world.” Either we stand up with an Idea or we perish as species.  Difficult as it is, we must find/produce/discover the Idea.

It was not accidental that, by the time of his death, Mwalimu Nyerere had translated into Kiswahili Plato’s Republic.  He had finished proofreading the manuscript for publication when he died. It is a pity that it got misplaced or hidden, hopefully not destroyed and will some day resurface.  It would be a major instrument in this region, where Kiswahili is a major language, to teach philosophy with a new touch.

On the other hand, the task that African philosophy was supposed to have assumed –that of an African reconstruction of world philosophy, as a spiritual and intellectual completion of colonial freedom and healing—has not been completely addressed. Although freed from capitalist slavery and colonial oppression/exploitation, the African is not completely free, let alone emancipated.  So far, it seems, African philosophizing is just another footnoting of Plato—in the sense that Whitehead characterized Western philosophizing. The outcome of the asian journey of the soul is hardly taken up by African philosophy.  Should it not that, the violent freeing or self-liberating of the most humiliated soul in the world, have produced a thundering impact on world thinking?  As it said the last will be the first and the first will be the last!

If Deleuze was right that one thinks only when forced to; maybe, no major events, powerful enough, have taken place to force the African to think and produce the idea of his/ her emancipation and that of the world.  It is understood, since Plato, that immediate knowledge is not conducive to emancipation. The notion or paradigm, popularized as a model for reaching awareness, that the acquisition of new knowledge will lead to the break away from the regime of ordinary knowledge—as a way of coming out of the cave or seeing beyond the spectacle—is mistaken.  It is in this perspective I want to say something about teaching philosophy in East and Central Africa.

        II   East and Central African regions: a challenging human predicament.

What is in this area?  Do we have a measure for this apparently incommensurate region?  The “States” are without nations, despite all the proclamations of nation-building. Are they not just fragments of former colonial implant-States—with some exceptions, of course?  Are people satisfied with these?  Do people, everywhere here, have a subjective consciousness of belonging to a Nation?  Is what Soyinka calls ‘national space’ organized by a national consciousness?  Are we members of tribes, nationalities, ethnic groups, negro-africans? Are these active ways of naming what is there?  Are Hutu or Tutsi a people, a race, a tribe, a caste, a nationality, an ethnic group, a class? Do the members view themselves as being so?  We have, have we not, to clarify the ontology of this area?  The epistemic and ontological fallacies should be exposed.

Suffering, in this area, has been apocalyptic: from the brutal capitalist slavery, to the Leopoldian heart of darkness (not that we have now heart of enlightenment) to the colonial regimentation and apartheid to post-colonial genocides, suffering lingers on.  The human person has been so harsh to another human person here. The maxim of equality, the main category of emancipative politics, has been very remote. What Idea of politics must be discovered to have peace here?  How much healing is needed?  After slavery, in former kingdom of Kongo, Lemba healing, briefly made it possible for the family to again be possible; it was a non-statist people initiative, it emerged from a distance from the State.  People in the region are calling for more State presence, where the very little there is, is so brutal.  When you are called into the “security” office, in Kinshasa, most often chances of coming back home safe are nil.  What Idea of State will bring enlightenment?  We face the worst variant of a Hegelian State whose truth, as Hegel said, is war (inside by the criminalization of oppositions; and outside by the redefinition/reconsolidation of State space.) 

What about this fatalism we face, intimidating especially the youth: the belief that the powerful and rich “international community” (often viewed wrongly as being unified) decides everything for us. People reject the little free choice they have as being irrelevant.  Is not democracy making choices; it is not being imposed a rich sponsored ruler. What Idea of democracy will effectively serve the people here? Even arithmetic honesty in counting the votes is here lacking. There seem to always be two different people winning in the voting, officially and otherwise.  Democracy as a mirage joins the spectacle.

The religious fatalism also still holds on: the belief that time will come when the Lord will intervene and the clean, God-fearing rulers are going to rise! Prophecies of Kimbangu Simon, for example, galvanize consciousness, and people just wait.  Just in Kinshasa alone, about 8000 new Churches of Spirit (“églises de réveil”) have been counted. Some are, of course, shops of selling a spiritual something for the benefit of ministers of church. Poverty, misery and threats from sorcery, incurable and curable diseases etc. are dealt with by activating a healing spiritual feeling, in the victim. Satanic religious fatalism as well is rampant: spiritual houses, magic, ngangas, marabouts---a thriving business. Philosophy must deal with these as well to re-responsabilize people.  Maybe, should we add also this most powerful variant of fatalism that is not traced to somebody: the belief that money decides everything and is right?  Even some fatalism concerning identities: big posters are seen in Kinshasa urging people to use chemicals to have fairer skin to become “more beautiful”.  Is this not a form of rape of identity?  One wonders that the Congolese Information minister, speaking of 3 raped women in Kinshasa, refers to them as “fait divers”, as nothing.

Negative values are pointed the finger to as responsible of our region’s problems.  All the governments, in the region, have each a program to eradicate corruption, for example. On would think that, teaching about values and valuation would be part of it. There is nowhere a child is taught the experience of positive values.  He/she does not learn what it means to be honest, to be just, or to be responsible for everyone’s survival with dignity. Not only families are in crisis, the ontology prevailing there creates biases: “you are a Mungala; you have to be careful with Bakongo!”the child learns in the Bangala family, as an example.  The schooling system is based on a curriculum of memorization of facts—these become obsolete by the time the last graduation takes place.   Departments, commissions, organizations of defence of human rights are plenty; would it not be better to get children learn the respect for everyone’s human rights early on? Just the fact of the general atmosphere of poverty, conducive to lack of self-esteem, makes positive valuation difficult.  In the DRC, 6% of the working people have jobs, for example; one person works for 15 people. Teachers are so impoverished that the sacred profession of theirs has been spoiled. Who constitutes, here, the social forces for a new measure? And how do we overcome their disjunction?

Fundamentally, it is critical awareness that seems to be lacking. Even genocide seems to have generated more feelings of revenge than the needed critical awareness that humans are one and what happens to one may happen to the other. Even just for these few things said here, teaching philosophy in these regions may be worthwhile.

III.                 Teaching of philosophy in East and Central Africa.

In many places philosophy is taught in the area, of course.  It would be good if we could make a survey of how it is done and what impact it has generated on the terrain. This could help us bring to the fore the things that render its teaching important.

I cannot do it here, due to the fact that I have not been involved recently in any Department of philosophy at all.  I have been asked recently to teach one course. We shall try, in the future, to do such a survey.  

We have briefly shown that there are issues, in the regions, requiring, to be addressed, a critical awareness. It has always amazed me that those who oppose the teaching of philosophy would want to adopt the outcomes of what philosophy orients, if not gives foundation to, rather than the foundations themselves. It is the whole question of the relationship between the Idea and reality or the Idea and action which is at stake.  The usual way of viewing this is to view the idea as guideline to action (leading to the notion of a program) or as a moral judgement of actions; but not seeing the Idea as creating its own places or actions per se, the idea as a prescriptive possible.

We often do not ask ourselves: what is the measure of a learned African in “liberal arts,” for example?  In the West, the learned liberal art person needs to know the traditions: Ancient Greek and Latin tradition, Jewish and Christian tradition, the Enlightenment tradition and Science.  Is there something that would make the learned African differ from that measure?  Just his/her being incomplete—ignoring the Western foundations, for example-- will be celebrated?  In the West, the Asian traditions and even the African ones (not withstanding the fact that Africa is a constitutive part of America) are increasingly included in the measure. The ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, went to Ancient Egypt and used the insight gained from there to reconstruct and rethink their traditions.  I advocate the study of the whole world philosophy and the African reconstruction of it.

It is the nature of philosophizing, as a theoretical palaver, that makes philosophy capable of enticing critical awareness.  As Bhaskar wrote (Plato ETC, 194:9): these are some of the enduring features of the philosophical tradition:   “a)its concern with giving a rational account or logos of the nature of things, as opposed to one accepted, say, purely on the basis of authority( Hegelian ‘positivity’) or faith or force or caprice or tradition or convention; b) its concern with the perplexity of phenomena, with paradox and the problematicity of being.”

Kwame Nkrumah speaks of social contention in philosophical systems (Consciencism, 1974: 5) and Louis Althusser spoke of it as “class struggle in theory”.

Alain Badiou (Manifeste pour la philosophie, 1989) approaches it in terms of its conditions.  Philosophy is prescribed or called for by conditions which are generic procedures of truth, procedures through which truth emerges as an event.  Philosophy is seen as a dialectics articulating the compossibility of various truths.  It asserts that there are truths in the world.  Four generic processes of truth have been identified by him: science (mathesis), a deductive and demonstrative procedure leading to discoveries; love as a procedure of truth giving rise to figures of love such as courtly love: art (more precisely: poem) giving rise to masterpieces; and politics or more precisely emancipative politics (progressive, revolutionary, self-referent politics) such as the invention of democracy in ancient Greece.  Philosophy is the site through which is made the enunciation: “there are truths”; philosophy is a seizure of truths, it grasps these in their compossibility, it exhibits the unity of thought.  The emergence of truths motivates philosophical thinking. In its very practice, philosophy reflects the system of its conditions: its argumentative exposition imitates science; its persuasive style of exposition imitates art; the intensity of the philosophical act imitates love without an object; and it addresses itself to all so that all may grasp the existence of truths, as such, it imitates political strategy without having power as its target.

It is a matter of pedagogy that philosophy will be taught as practice of philosophizing, that is, of thinking, and not as simple knowledge acquisition. It has to be constitutively dialogical and aporetic. In its orientation to rationality, it is required that rationality be accountable and self-reflexive.  In view of our conditions of rampant unfreedom--even when rights of freedom are incorporated in our constitutions-- appropriate strategies of teaching have to be found.  In Kenya, philosophy used to be taught on the radio. I do not know what impact this had on the terrain. While reason is shared among humans, its use cannot be improvised.  That is why past experiences of people, who used effectively their reason, have to be a starting point. Making Plato be recast in a contemporary mode may be the way to go about teaching him.  Where mathematical examples he used were wrong, we correct those and replace them with correct ones.  I think that some of the conditions he set to study philosophy, such as to be a geometrician, should be probably followed—within the spirit of Badiou’s suggestion.

There is a lot of talk about empowerment; this is often understood in terms of practical professions and arts.  Should there also not be an empowerment of the mind and the spirit? Should we not start thinking  beyond narrow uses of subjects and pose the crucial issues of why our graduates fail to be creative, taking real initiatives and discovery-inclined in their work?  Is this not also what philosophizing can help achieve?

Nothing in our countries should be taken as given. In our condition of oppression, any given is oppressive.  Not even the Hegelian creative and self-destructive World Spirit should be taken for granted.  If philosophy teaching can generate such critical awareness in our countries, then, hope may ensue.

Those are the few ideas I would like to put to you colleagues.  Mfumu na Mfumu!

Nganga na Nganga! Bana Batele Bana basekole!  (The politician measures up with a politician; the scientist measures up against a scientist; some affirm others counter).

                                       Dar-es-Salaam, November 18^th, 2010.     

  

TUNAMTANZANISHAJE MTANZANIA?

“Ili tuendelee tunahitaji vitu vinne: WATU, ARDHI, SIASA SAFI NA UONGOZI BORA”


Maneno haya yaliyoandikwa na waasisi wa Azimio la Arusha. Tuliyaimba na kuyakariri kama kasuku enzi za ujana wetu. Tuliaminishwa na kufahamishwa kwamba hayo manne ndiyo misingi ya maendeleo. Kwamba tuliyakubali na kuyaelewa hayo hilo ni jambo lingine, ila ukweli ni kwamba tulifundishwa na kutakiwa kuamini hayo. Mimi binafsi bado ni muumini wa misingi hiyo ya maendeleo ya taifa ambalo linataka maendeleo ya watu kama alivyotufundisha Baba wa Taifa, na siyo ya vitu.

Mengi yameandikwa na kufanyiwa utafiti juu ya misingi hiyo ya maendeleo. Tunajua mengi kuhusu utajiri tulio nao juu ya ardhi yetu na chini yake; tunajua hata utajiri ulioko majini kama ziwani na baharini. Wasomi wanajua na wanafanya utafiti juu ya siasa na uongozi unaofaa kwa ajili ya nchi yetu kwa kipindi hiki cha soko huria. Tunajua mengi na tunatafiti mengi juu ya misingi hiyo ya maendeleo. Lakini je tumeweza kujiuliza kama kuna watu ambao maendeleo hayo yanawalenga au tunachukulia kivyepesivyepesi kwamba wapo ili mradi tunayo idadi fulani ya wakazi juu ya ardhi hii? Kinachomfanya mtu awe Mtanzania ni nini? Ni kule kuzaliwa na kukulia kwenye ardhi ya nchi inayotambuliwa kwamba ni Tanzania? Je mtu huzaliwa akiwa raia wa nchi fulani au hufundwa kuwa raia wa nchi husika? Hayo ni maswali yanayonitinga ninapotafakari mstakabali wa nchi yetu.


Mimi si shabiki wa siasa za kivyama. Mara ya kwanza na ya mwisho kuhudhuria kampeni za kisiasa kabla ya mwaka huu, ilikuwa ni mwaka 1975 nilipokuwa napiga kura kwa mara ya kwanza. Kulikuwa na wagombea wawili mmoja ana alama ya jembe na mwingine ya nyumba. Sikumbuki nilimpigia kura mgombea yupi kati ya hao wawili. Wakati huo nilikuwa Mjumbe wa Mkutano Mkuu wa Chama kwa tiketi ya Vijana wa TANU, tawi la Kaisho kule Karagwe. Hizo zilikuwa siku za ujana wangu ambapo nilipikika nikaiva kisiasa. NiliTANUishwa, nikaTANZANishwa. Nikapewa mafunzo na maono kuhusu nchi yetu. Watanzania wote, wake kwa waume, vijana kwa wazee, tulioneshwa lengo: Ujamaa na Kujitegemea. Tuliambiwa tusiwe kupe kuwanyonya wengine ili tuishi, bali tujitegemee. Tulipewa matumaini kwamba kwa pamoja tutafika kule tunakotaka kufika kwenye Ujamaa na Kujitegemea. Tulipewa shauku na hamu ya kuishi ili tufike huko. Tulijivuna kuwa Watanzania.

Wakati huo yule aliyetayarishwa kumtanzanisha mtoto wa kitanzania (Mwalimu) hakupelekwa kwenda kusoma kwenye Chuo cha Ualimu kama ilivyokuwa zamani kabla ya kuzaliwa taifa la Tanzania, bali alipelekwa kwenye Chuo cha Elimu ya Taifa. Ajifunze namna ya kumpa fundo mtoto wa kitanzania la kuwa Mtanzania anayeishi na wengine kwa kufanya kazi inayomfanya ajitegemee. Wakati huo tulitambua umuhimu wa elimu inayomkomboa mtu kwa kumfanya ajitambue yeye ni nani na pale pale awatambue wengine ambao si kama yeye bali na wao wapo katika uso wa dunia hii. Je? tumerudi kulekule kwenye chuo cha ualimu ambao hauna utaifa?

Maendeleo ni ya Watu na si ya vitu, anatuasa Mwalimu. Ni mtu wa namna gani ambaye anaweza kuhodhi maendeleo? Kwa maoni yangu, ni yule ambaye amefahamishwa, akapewa uwezo wa kuchanganua, kushakia yaani kutilia shaka kile anachokiona na kuambiwa ili apate kujua kwa kutumia ubongo wake uliochemka na siyo ule ulioganda kwa mapokeo ya kwa kuambiwa tu. Ni yule ambaye anajua anachojua na kujua ujinga wake yaani kile asichokijua. Huko ndiko kuondokana na ujinga ambao enzi za Mwalimu hakukuishia darasani bali ilikuwa ni kazi ya maisha yote. Kisomo chenye manufaa (cha watu wazima) kilitaka kuleta changamoto hiyo!

Kuhesabu vyumba vya madarasa, barabara za lami n.k, ni safi kabisa. Lakini je, wenye hizo barabara na shule wanajua kwamba ni zao au wanaaminishwa kwamba ni kazi ya serikali? Elimu ya kweli inapaswa kumwonesha, kumfahamisha raia, (na siyo mwana wa nchi,) kwamba vile vitu ni vyake: vimetokana na juhudi zake, na utashi wake wa kutaka kutoka pale alipo ili afike pahali pazuri zaidi. Je Mtanzania wa leo anajua na kuamini kwamba hivyo viashirio vya maendeleo ni vyake? Au anaamini na kuaminishwa kwamba vimeletwa? Kama vitu hivyo vinavyoashiria maendeleo vingekuwa vya watu, watu wale wasingekuwa wanaomba serikali iwajengee shule, iwajengee barabara, iwaletee maji nk. Wangepanga wenyewe, wakaamua wenyewe na kuitaka serikali (siyo kuomba) itekeleze hayo. Kwa raia ambao wamefundwa, hiyo ni haki yao ambayo wanatakiwa kuidai, na kwa serikali inayotokana na watu (raia) huo ni wajibu wao ambao wanatakiwa kuutimiza.
Yote haya yanawezekana kama tuna elimu inayomfanya mtu (Mtanzania) ajitambua. Atambue yeye ni nani? Kwamba ni raia wa nchi hii, mwenye wajibu na haki ya kuishi, kufanya kazi na kushirikiana na wenzake kwa manufaa yake binafsi na yale ya taifa lake. Huo ndiyo msingi mama wa elimu, uhuru na maendeleo: KUJITAMBUA (self-consciousness)

Inasikitisha kufuatia kampeni zetu za kisiasa. Kuna vijana wengi ambao wanahudhuria kampeni hizo. Lakini nyingine ni burudani tu. Badala ya kuwaamsha watu ili wajitambue kwamba sasa ni wakati wao kama raia wa kupanga mstakabali wa nchi yao, kwamba nchi inawategemea wao kuijenga, kuchagua nani wa kuwaongoza kuelekea kule ambapo wanaoneshwa; wanaimbiwa ngojera za kuletewa maendeleo. Tangu lini maendeleo ya watu yakaletwa kwa watu?
Najiuliza hivi kweli tunawatendea haki vijana wa nchi hii? Je tunawapa elimu inayowakomboa ili wadadisi mambo, wawe watundu wa fikra kwa kutunduiza fikra? Sina uhakika.

Bila kuwapa hayo: matumaini, maono na taswira; vijana wetu watatupiga mawe kwa haki kabisa. Tunawaboa!

Na Jason Ishengoma,Phd

KWA WALIMU WOTE

Sikilizeni walimu wenzangu mwito kutoka kwa Mwalimu mwenzetu. Mwito wa kututoa katika dimbwi la usingizi. Nadhani ni Mwalimu tu anayeweza kujua na kueleza kilio cha wenzie. Tumsikilize kwa makini Mwl. E. Kezilahabi. Haya siyo maneno wala mawazo yangu. Ni mawazo ya Mkereketwa anayefikiri juu ya hatima ya nchi isiyojali wakunga wake: Walimu.


Sikilizeni wimbo huu:
Nilipokuwa mtoto niliitwa Chacha
Kwa matamshi yangu ya sasa
Nilipokuwa kijana niliitwa Chaupele
Nilipokuwa mtu mzima niliitwa Manywele
Nilipokuwa Mwalimu nikaitwa Bure.

Huu utakuwa wimbo wako
Utakapostaafu urudipo nyumbani
Umelewa kangara na nyayo zako
Zikishindwa kulenga njia nyembamba vijijini.
Utakuwa kichekesho cha watoto
Watakaokuita, Ticha! Popote upitapo.

Kumbuka Mwalimu utakapostaafu.
Mijusi watataga mayai ndani ya viatu
Vyako vilivyokwisha visigino
Na ndani ya sidiria chakavu
Zilizoshikizwa kamba kwa pini.
Mende watazaliana ndani ya chupa tupu
Za marashi na za bia.

Na manyigu yatajenga ndani ya kofia
Zilizosahaulika kutani.
Utakapokufa nge watazaliana
Chini ya jiwe juu ya kaburi lako,
Na mlevi fulani (isome fisadi) akipita atapenga
Na kupangusa vidole kwenye jiwe pweke.
Mwanzo na mwisho wako ndio huo.

Lakini wakati ungali hai
Unaweza kubadilisha mkondo wa maji.
Lakini kwanza tuzungumze. Wewe na mimi.
Acha mioyo yetu izungumze.
Baada ya kunyanyaswa
Na kisha nusu mshahara.

Utafundisha tena nyimbo kuwasifu viongozi?
Utafundisha tena ngonjera?
Utapeleka tena wanafunzi asubuhi
Wakijipanga barabarani kusubiri
Mgeni afikaye saa kumi, na apitapo
Apunga tu mkono kuwatia kichaa cha shangwe
Na huku nyuma mwasambaa na njaa?

Tazama hilo rundo la madaftari mezani
Utamaliza kwa mshahara mkia wa mbuzi?
Tuzumgumze. Ninyi na mimi.
Acha mioyo yetu izungumze.
Mkiwa waoga na kujikunja kama jongoo
Mtawekwa kwenye vijiti na kutupwa
Nje ya ua, na ndani mtawaacha
Wacheza ngoma wakitunga nyimbo mpya.

Sikilizeni walimu.
Anzeni kufundisha hesabu mpya:
Mjinga mmoja kujumlisha na wezi (mafisadi) ishirini
Ni sawa na sifuri.
Fundisheni historia mpya:
Hapo zamani za sasa
Hapakuwa na serikali.

Sikilizeni kwa makini.
Umoja hatuna:
Twasambaratika kama nyumbu.
Tulichonacho ni woga,
Na kinachotuangusha ni unafiki.
Lakini tusikate tamaa kama mbuni.
Tukiupata umoja bado tunayo silaha.
KURA.

(Kezilahabi, Dhifa, Vide-Muwa publishers, Nairobi. 2008)

Walimu wenzangu, tunalipeleka wapi taifa kwa woga wetu? Kweli tunaliunda taifa la kesho la kuigwa? Kwa nini tunafanya mauaji kwa taifa tukijua kweli kwamba tunayofundisha hayawezi kuwapeleka watoto wetu popote na hii inasababishwa na mafao duni yanayotufanya tukimbilie mitaani kutafuta riziki ya kutufikisha mwisho wa mwezi? Tunayo silaha, katuasi Mwalimu mwenzetu. KURA

Jason Ishengoma,Phd

UHURU WETU NI UTASHI AU NI KUBURUZWA?

. “Uhuru hupatikana kwa kuutoa uhai wako.(kujitoa mhanga) Mtu ambaye hajathubutu kujitoa mhanga, yaani kuutoa uhai wake, anaweza kweli kujidai kwamba anatambuliwa kama mtu, lakini hakufikia ukweli wa utambuzi huo kama nafsi huru inayojifahamu.”
(Phenenomelogy of Spirit. # 187)

Maneno hayo nimeyanukuu kutoka katika kitabu cha mwanafalsafa wa kijerumani, Hegel kutoka katika kitabu cha “Mwonekano wa Roho”. Hegel aliandika kitabu hicho wakati mabomu ya Napoleon Bonapatre yanalindima katika mji wake wa Stuttgart 1807.
Vita vya Napoleon vilikuja baada ya Mapinduzi ya Ufaransa ambayo yaliwatimua watawala wa nchi hiyo iliyoongozwa na mfalme Louis wa 16. Pamoja na kwamba mfalme huyo alikuwa na maaskari na vifaa vya kumlinda, hakuweza kushindana na nguvu za umma uliochoka kwa udhalimu na ukandamizaji pamoja na maisha magumu yaliyotokana na maisha ya anasa ya watawala wa wakati huo.

Tumo katika kipindi cha kuelekea uchaguzi. Ni kipindi ambacho tunaambiwa ni muhimu katika utekelezaji wa kile ambacho wale waliotufinyanga wanakiita Demokrasia. Kwao hao Wafinyanzi wetu demokrasia ina maana ya utawala unaotokana na wengi badala ya wachache wanaojiona kama vile ni wateule wa Mungu. Tunaaminishwa kwamba demokrasia ni ya wote na katika utekelezaji wake baadhi wanaweza kuwakilisha wengi.

Hayo yote sina ugomvi nayo maana tumo katika mkondo wa kileo au kisasa. Tatizo langu ni pale ninapotaka kuswali namna tunavyolielewa wazo zima la demokrasia. Katika nchi yetu kumekuwa na mfumo unaoifanya nchi iwe kama kaya, na yule anayepewa kuongoza nchi, na siyo kutawala, anajiona kama mkuu wa kaya. Kuelewa, kutumia na kuendekeza dhana ya kiongozi wa nchi kama baba mwenye nyumba ni kurudisha nyuma fikra zetu na kutotaka kuelewa nchi au dola ina maana gani katika fikra zetu Waafrika na hata katika fikra za wafinyanzi wetu. Baada ya Raisi wa Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania kuhutubia wazee wa Dar-es-Salaam kwa ukali kuhusu mgomo wa wafanyakazi uliotaka kuitishwa, baadhi ya Watanzania walitafsiri hotuba hiyo kama ya baba mwenye nyumba ambaye amekasirishwa na watoto wake. Kwa fikra zangu, hata raisi mwenyewe alipokuwa akihutubia alifikiri anawahutubia walio chini ya himaya yake. Hakuhutubia kama vile wale ni wabia wenzake waliopewa majukumu tofauti na mwajiri namba moja yaani UMMA.

Fikra hizi za kuona nchi kama mwendelezo wa kaya, na napenda kutumia neno kaya na siyo familia, zimo katika vichwa vya watu kwa muda mrefu sana. Plato katika maandishi yake ya “Republic”, anaiona nchi kama mwendelezo wa kaya. Ndiyo maana anaona mpangilio wa nchi au dola lazima ufuate ule wa kaya. Baba ni kichwa na mfikiriaji; mama ni kifua chenye upendo anayewalea watoto; watumwa, ambao wakati huo walikuwa sehemu muhimu ya kaya, ni miguu na mikono ya kufanya kazi ili kila mmoja apate riziki yake. Kwa mawazo ya Plato nchi inapaswa kuwa hivyo: ni kaya kubwa zaidi. Kila mmoja kwa nafasi yake kadri ya uwezo alio nao. Si Plato tu, Mwalimu Nyerere katika falsafa yake ya Ujamaa hayuko mbali na Plato. Anatumia dhana ya kiafrika ya kaya, ambayo anaisimika katika neno la Kiswahili jamaa linalotoka katika lugha ya kiarabu, na kulitumia kama dhana ya falsafa ya siasa ya kiafrika.
Fikra hizo ziliendelea kutawala kwa muda mrefu hadi yalipojitokeza Mapinduzi ya fikra na siasa ya kileo ambapo dhana ya Kujiendesha (uhuru) inatawala. Katika dunia ya leo ambayo ilijionesha dhahiri katika ulimwengu wa kimagharibi kwa Mapinduzi ya Ufaransa, fikra ya kujiendesha, na siyo kujitawala, ndiyo mhimili na maelezo ya maisha ya watu.
Kwa nini fikra ya kaya haiwezi kuhimili vishindo vya fikra za kileo? Kaya ni mkusanyiko wa watu ambao unatokana na ulazima wa uhalisia au maumbile kinyama. Watu kama watu, [na siyo kwa kuwaita Bin Adam kama vile Binti Adam hawana lao katika kusanyiko hilo], huanza mkusanyiko wa kikaya kwa vile maumbile yanawavuta mwanamume na mwanamuke, wote kama wana au watoto, waunganike. Muungano huo siyo wa hiari. Ni muungano wa kimaumbile, wa lazima. Katika muungano wao huo, huzaa watoto ambao nao aidha ni wake au ni waume. Muungano wa kikaya, ni muungano wa lazima siyo muungano wa kujiendesha (huru). Fikra ya kujiendesha haiwezi kuwemo katika fikra ya kaya. Katika kaya hakuna utashi; kuna ulazima. Hakuna aliyechagua kuzaliwa katika kaya fulani, hakuna anayechagua baba au mama au kaka au dada. Unajikuta katika kaya hiyo na hauna utashi wala uchaguzi.

Katika dunia inayoendeshwa na dhana ya kujiendesha, dhana ya kaya inapotosha ukweli na kufanya fikra zetu zigande. Na katika mgando-fikra huo wa kutotaka kudadisi, kuchambua na kupekuapekua masimulizi (historia), watawala wetu wanapata mwanya wa kujifanya miungu na kututawala. Tunachohitaji katika nchi inayojiendesha, ambayo kwa maneno ya kila siku mmaiita huru, ni viongozi, wanaotuongoza kuelekea kule tunakotaka kuelekea: wanaosimama na sisi wakiwa mbele katika kujiendesha na siyo kuendeshwa. Uongozi huo unawezekana pale ambapo watu wanaojiendesha wanachagua viongozi wao kwa uhuru. Uchaguzi wa namna hiyo unatokana na UTASHI.

Lakini maisha hayaendeshwi kwa utashi tu. Utashi hauwezi kulima “ulime”, utashi hauwezi kujenga nyumba. Tunahitaji akili pia. Akili, hudadisi, hushakia, hugundua, huhesabu. Akili hupanga. Akili haichagui. Taswira ya akili ni kuona jinsi kitu kilivyo. Akili haiwezi kuchagua kati ya hiki au kile itaona kama ni sawa au si sawa na wala si kama ni kibaya au kizuri. Haiwezi kutaka kufanya jinsi inavyotaka. Akili huogozwa na uhalisia wa kitu kwa jinsi inavyokiangalia na kukiona. Akili inatumika katika kupanga, kutenda jambo au kufanya kitu. Wale wanaotumia akili katika kutenda au kufanya jambo tunawaita Wata-alamu, yaani watu wa taaluma. Utaalam unatokana na elimu inayoleta ujuzi au ufundi, yaani namna ya kufunda vitu; yaani, kuvifanya vitu viwe na umbo au fundo. Katika jamii inayojiendesha ni lazima kwanza mtu ajue anaweza kufanya nini ili kuendesha maisha yake. Anaweza kulisha vipi kaya yake kwa kuzalisha chakula cha kutosha kipindi chote cha mwaka. Anahitaji kutumia akili. Kwa kutumia akili hiyo hiyo, mtu anaona mipaka yake. Anaona kwamba hawezi kwenda mbali kwa kukaa na kaya yake peke yake. Anahitaji kaya nyingine, anahitaji ufundi na ujuzi wa mwingine ili aweze kupata kile anachokitamani na kukipenda. Hapo anatumia utashi wake kuchagua kushirikiana na wenzake ambao siyo wa kaya yake bali wenye kaya zao ili wote kwa pamoja wafikie kile ambacho kila mmoja anakitamani lakini hawezi kukipata akiwa peke yake. Akili inamfanya mtu aone uhalisia wa vitu na utashi unamfanya achague njia ya kufuata ili kufikia lengo lake. Lengo ni kile unachokitamani, kile unachotarajia. Hicho ndicho unachokichagua.

Katika utashi ndimo demokrasia imejikita, ni kuchagua. Uchaguzi unahusu kuchangua wale watakaotuongoza na wala siyo wale watakaotutawala. Kuongoza ni kuonesha njia. Huwezi kuonesha njia kama hujui unapokwenda yaani unapoelekea. Kuishi kwa kujiendesha yaani kwa uhuru ni kujua unakotaka kwenda na kutafuta njia ya kukufikisha kule Ili kuwa na viongozi tunahitaji kujua lengo la watu husika. Kujua njia kunahitaji kutumia akili, siyo utashi. Viongozi pamoja na wale wanoongozwa wanahitaji WAONESHAJI, wanaojua njia ilivyo. Hawa ni Watawala (administrators) na wala siyo viongozi (Leaders). Watawala wana uwezo wa kudhibiti, kufanya vitu viende kwa utaratibu fulani. Wanajua njia, ni wataalam. Lakini je, watu kama watu tunaweza kuwaachia wataalam, watu wanaotumia akili yao tu, kutuonesha kule tunakotaka kwenda bila kuwadhibiti?

Katika ushirikiano wa kileo hilo ndilo lililozaa mgawano wa madaraka katika jamii kati ya Uongozi ambao unapewa Serikali na Utawala ambao unafanya kazi chini ya serikali. Serikali ya watu wanaojiendesha wenyewe, ni serikali inayotokana na watu. Inachaguliwa. Inapochaguliwa serikali hiyo inakabidhiwa watawala, yaani wataalam wa nyanja mbalimbali ili wawafanyie kazi WENYEDOLA, yaani wenyenchi, na siyo tu wananchi, kwa malengo waliyokubaliana. Viongozi wanaokabidhiwa serikali wanawakirisha matakwa au utashi wa wenyedola. Serikali haina dola, inakabidhiwa vyombo, ili ivitumie vyombo hivyo kwa niaba ya wenyedola.

Vyombo vya dola ni vyombo katika maana kamili ya vyombo. Havina utashi wala mamlaka ya kufanya vinavyotaka. Vinafuata matakwa ya wenyedola ambao ni raia wa dola hilo. Lakini katika tabia na mazoea tuliyojiumbia, vyombo vya dola vinaanza kujiona kama vile viko juu ya wenyedola. Kuwaonesha wenyedola mbinu za maguvu ya kuwatishia kama watadai haki yao ya kuchagua wale wa kukabidhiwa mikoba ya kuendesha dola, ni kwenda kinyume na uongozi wa kujiendesha. Wataalm wa kutumia dhana za kudhibiti adui wa dola (jeshi) wako chini ya wenyedola. Jeshi halina nguvu juu ya UMMA. Adui wa umma ni adui wa dola. Na jeshi linalotishia umma limeacha kuwa chombo cha dola. Utawaua raia wangapi wanapoanza kupigana wenyewe kwa wenyewe? Jeshi utakuwa wapi? Nje ya umma au sehemu ya umma?
Serikali yoyote ni mali ya umma, ni mali ya wenyedola. Lakini tumekuwa na kasumba ya kuchanganya serikali na umma. Hata vyombo vya umma, kama vile wafanyakazi, badala ya kuitwa watumishi wa umma (civil SERVANT); watu wa kutumwa na umma, tumewaserikalisha na kuwaita wafanyakazi wa serikali. Tukumbuke kwamba serikali inabadilika kila baada ya uchaguzi. Je? Wafanyakazi hao uwa wanabadilisha mwajiri kila baada ya miaka mitano? Je wafanyakazi wa serikali, wanaajiriwa na nani wakati serikali mpya inapoundwa? Serikali huondoka lakini umma hubaki. Watawala wetu, yaani watumishi wa umma, wangejifunza hilo kwamba anayedumu ni umma na wala siyo serikali, tungepiga hatua. Tungeachana na vitisho tunavyopatiwa wenyedola ambao tumenyanganwa dola au nchi yetu na tukabaki ni wana wa nchi tu: WANANCHI. Tumebakiza haki ya kuzaliwa tu ambayo kama nilivyogusia hapo juu haitupi nafasi ya kujiendesha, yaani kuwa huru. Ni ulazima tu kwamba ni wana wa nchi hii.

Tabia yetu tuliyojijengea ya kuangalia mambo bila kuyadadisi na kuyashakia, ndiyo inayotufanya tutawaliwe na watawala wanaotufanya ni watoto na wao ni baba. Hali hiyo hiyo ndiyo inatufanya watumishi wa umma tujione ni sehemu ya uongozi ambao umejifanya utawala. Mtumishi ni mtaalam, amewekwa pale na wenyedola ili atumike kwa sababu ya utaalam wake na siyo urai wake. Serikali inaongoza wenyedola kwa kupitia watawala ili watawale njia. Lakini kule tunakoelekea tunapataka sisi na wala siyo serikali wala watawala.
Serikali yoyote ni wapangaji katika nyumba inayoitwa taifa na siyo wenye nyumba.
Tuifungue akili yetu ione na iwe huru ili tujiendeshe kuelekea kule tunakakotaka.

Swali: je taifa la Tanzania linataka au linaelekea wapi? Labda kwa kuwa hatuna dira, hatuna mwelekeo, hatujui nani mlenga shabaha mzuri anayeweza kutufisha pale.
Kama mwanafikra nabaki nikiranda katika msitu wa kufikiri: je taifa letu lina Watu ambao kwa mtazamo wa Azimio la Arusha ndiyo msingi wa kwanza wa maendeleo? Je hatuna mkusanyiko wa watu ambao hawana muono wa pamoja hivyo kila mmoja anajali kaya yake na tumbo lake? TUTAFAKARI!


By Dr. Jason Ishengoma.