POLITICS AND IDEOLOGY IN TANZANIA + Harry Goulbourne Although the state, being an instrument of class-rule in class society, has at its disposal a usually effective and repressive machinery (the armed forces, the courts, the administration, etc) it cannot always depend on force to suppress the dominated class(es) within the social formation. To do so would be to encourage a near, or actual perpetual condition of civil war. The state has therefore, as Lenin so well under- stood, to maintain the ideological weaponry (the ideological state appa- ratus) of the dominant class so as to ensure class-domination by cohe- sive means and ensure the peaceful process of social reproduction. Both the repressive and ideological apparatuses have been stressed in recent discussions of the capitalist state, but unfortunately, such discussions have generally not been extended so as to adequately account for the deve- lopment of neo-colonial state under imperialism, in particular, there has been little or no recognition of the importance of the ideological state apparatus of these states. Before, however, this can be corrected there is a need as this paper restricts itself in doing, to clear the ground of what has passed, generally, Jor discussion of the question of ideology, within the specific context of Tanzania where the literature on the country's apparently 'novel experience' has been imbued by a spirit of "T an zaphili a (which) was widespread among progressives, liberals and left-wing radicals". 1 1. Ideolo~ and Social Classes. The analysis of ideology must necessarily (not merely as a contigency) be linked with that of social classes for it is actual class practices which give rise to ideology. In capitalist society the dominant class establishes a dominant ideology which projects that class' world-view and this ideology attempts to penetrate all classes and establishes an ideological hegemony over all existing ifub-ideologies. The only authe- ntic opposition to this is proletarian ideology understood as being, not the spontaneous sub-ideology of the working-class, but the revolution- ary ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Thus, only the two main classes +Department of political science, University of Dar. es Salaam. 215 in capitalist society are capable of articulating independent, (coherent) ideologies. The dominant ideology of the bourgeoisie is not static, it changes and develops, incorporating elements of the various sub-ideo- logies, to meet the changing needs of capital. Fundamentally it aims at subjugating the proletariat to the dictatorship of capital; thus, its social role is two-fold: it aims at establishing and maintaining the cohesion of the social formation and thereby provides a peaceful basis for and the actual means content of the reproduction of the relations of pro- duction. 2 The principal task of revolutionary ideology is therefore to wage ideological struggle against bourgeois ideology. In the context of imperialism and underdevelopment in the so_called 'third world' countries this sharp ideological struggle sometimes appear blurred, largely because of the frequent absence of a national bourgeoi- sie and a large working class. For although under imperialism the capital has penetrated all aspects of these societies - bringing the peasantry under the capitalist mode of production and within capitalist exchange, creating a petit- bourgeoisie and a small working class-due to its internal contradictions imperialism is incapable of thoroughly developing these societies although particular societies may appear to be so and there are significant differences between particular societies. In the absence of any national bourgeoisie and a sizeable, well-develop- ed working class, the petit-bourgeoisie which emerged during the colonial phase of imperialism comes to playa more significant social, economic and political role than was traditionally allocated to it in the home-grounds of capital. The significance of this class is readily seen in the fact that it was willing to organize and lead the nationalist stru- ggle for political independence from which it stood to gain in every way possible ~ the established framework of imperialism by such a stru- ggle. It is of more than usual importance therefore when looking at the petit- bourgeoisie in these countries to treat their 'ideology' seriously from a class position - a feature which is almost entirely lacking in the literature on the Tanzanian petit- bourgeoisie. The phenomenon of 'petit- bourgeois ideology' must be related to the reality of that class economic and social position in a given society. 3 The petit- bourgeoisie can be divided into two though not mutually exclu- sive, types: there is the small-property owner who appeared often in 216 the Marxist classes and whom Marx sometimes thought would disappear in face of the development of capitalist production. Some members of this group would be pushed down into the working-class whilst others would move upwards into the bourgeoisie proper - it was seen as a transitional group. But no sooner did Marx and Engels talk of the dis- appearance of this social stratum as capitalism removes that strata's small-property and craft base, than they also spoke of the stratum which would emerge as capitalism expanded and needed more clerks, managers, etc., in short, a group which would earn its living by earning a salary. 4 Their exploitation would be direct and not based on the creation of sur- plus, thus, for Marx, this group often seemed part of the working-cla!!!!. But it is possible to speak of certain 5trata within this group which may be called members of the petit-bourgeoisie. True to Marx's prediction expanded capitalism has given rise to this second faction of the petit- bourgeoisie and although both types can ge seen in contemporary African societies (sometimes distinct, sometimes merging, sometimes the one pre- dominating over the other) this second type has been particularly con5- picuous with the emergence of the neo-colonial !!tate apparatus. The petit- bourgeois is therefore necessarily fragmentary and disparate in nature: not only is there no unity in the factions' relations to production, they are also dependent upon other social classes and even their ideology which is the class' most cohesive expression is itself composed of element!! from the two main classes besides which it exists. The phenomenon of 'petit- bourgeois ideology', however, corres- ponds to the two factions of the class. The small-property consciousness of the small-owner is not sur- prizing, nor is his political (populist) concern with the right of indivi- dual to have a stake in the 'community'. The salaried petit- bourgeois holds dear, on the other hand, to the notion of upward mobility and has aspirations to do well by his personal merits. Both sets of values, al- though corresponding to the factions' social positions in society, funda- mentally spring from the dominant bourgeois ideology of capitalist soci- ety. But there are also reflections of the ideology of the proletariat in the ideological bag of the petit-bourgeoisie. For example, there is fre- quent talk of anti-capitalism, but what is usually meant by this is anti- big capitalism for the big capitalist's presence disturb!! the petit- bour- 217 geois1 value of equality and equality of opportunity which, presumably, we all need to improve and prove our individual worth. Thus the petit- bourgeois1 anti-capitalism never goes beyond social-democratic refor- mism in a hypocritical attempt to 'equalize', to make all men, as it were, petit-bourgeois. Another important example is that the petit-bourgeois stresses the paramountcy of the state as an institution existing above society; whereas, therefore, the liberal-bourgeois stresses the import- ance of a weak state, the social democratic petit-bourgeois places emp- hasis on the interventionist role of the state which he sees, not as an institution which must be smashed as does the proletariat, but as an ins- trument for effecting reforms. Of course, the petit-bourgeois brings his own contribution to these borrowed elements and this transmutation is what makes it possible to talk about 'petit-bourgeois ideology1. Its ideo- logical constructs are necessarily eclectic and pragmatic thereby reflec- ting the very insecure, shifty nature of the petit-bourgeoisie itself. Given these general characteristics of the petit-bourgeoisie, there seems no immediate reason to believe that any particular national petit-bourgeoisie will depart from the norm, significantly. Yet, it has been the case, generally, that the petit-bourgeoisie as a class in Tanza- nia has been singled out for its seeming departure from this without there being any clear analysis to account for such a situation, apart from the frequent use of the empty phrase that the country is undergoing a 'novel experience1. There is therefore a total absence of an account for the ideological apparatus of the state in Tanzania in the growing literature on the country's political, economic and social developments. 2. The Left and Ideology in Tanzania. Cliffe and Saul, two of the leaders of the 'Tanzaphilia' movement, have written a-great deal in an attempt to explain the 'novel experience' of Tanzania but there is a conspicuous absence of any serious treatment of the question of ideology in their work. This absence is not due to any lack of opportunity, for their titles suggest a continual, if not continuous, preoccupation with socialism in Tanzania. For example, there is their Socialism in Tanzania, which, although running into two volumes, has very little or nothing to say about socialism. Analyses of socialism in Tanzania is shied away from as if there arm no problems to be dealt with or 218 if there were any they have already been dealt with and solved. 1t is hardly surprizing therefore that currently papers on socialism in Tanza- nia can be written without a word as to what socialism is and what it entails. 1t is taken as a given, above debate and analysis and all that is now required is to chart the course of its mechanie.al operations in the country. This is very different from the admonitions of the President himself who has encouraged debate in the belief that this will lead to a greater understanding of the country's commitment. lf therefore we want to know about socialism in Tanzania we have to go back to the writing of Nyerere himself - Uhuru na Umoja (1966), Uhuru na Ujamaa (1968) and Uhuru na Maendeleo (974), which contain a wealth of material on socialism as he understands it. Yet, these writer's pretentiously entitled essays would suggest that they have something worthwhile to say regarding the questions of ideo- logy. But, for example, Saul's "African Socialism in One Country: Tanzania" (972) starts, not with an explanation of socialism nor even of 'African socialism', but with an attack on what he calls the "ultra-left critique" of African politics (that is, Saul's African politics) which is "insensitive to African reality and the (sic) range of possibilities of the continent". 5lt appears that for him patronization is more important than clarity and his relativism seems to provide him with a sufhciency of 'sensitivity' to 'the range of possibilities' in Africa. The point here is not to be sensitive to the whole range of possibilities found in Saul and Cliffe's writing but simply to make a point or two about their assump- tions on the question of ideology in the Tanzanian context. In the first instance their discussion of ideology can hardly be called analysis at all; they amount merely to descriptive accounts more akin to behavioural political science than to marxist analysis. In an article entitled "Ideology, Organization and the Settlement Experience in Tanzania" 6 by Cliffe and Cunningham, not only are there the usual contradictions and inconsistencies - me pe(lsahts, we are tol~, "although extremely poor, do not harbour a deep bitterness as a result of oppre- ssion and exploitation,,7 - but there is hardly any treatment of ideology. Yet, the aim of the paper is staated a~ being an attempt "to examine this experience (settlement) and the settlement ideology which motivated it". 8 It seemed surprizing to the authors that the colonial TAC settlements 219 "were hardly socialist", but rather, their aim was to create (actually this was so elsewhere also) a yeomanry class to ensure the colonial status quo. They also seem surprized that such an obviously colonial aim should have persisted until 1967 but this is because for these ana- lysts political independence marked a fundamental break with the past. Throughout the paper 'ideology' as a word is banded about but never analysed. For example, we hear of "settlement ideology", of "explicitly , socialist ideology", of a "coherent set of values, essentially Nyerere 5 idea of ujamaa" and, best of all, "concrete ideology" - none of which, not even 'concrete ideology', are explained. The authors' conclusions are very revealing: not of ideology in Tanzania as of their own ideological stance. "Socialist development", they write, (and this is taken as given) will not occur in rural Tanzania until there is "a cadre of leaders who will live and work with the pea- sants" and who are "identified and trained ideologically and in practi- cal skills and that a thorough understanding of Tanzania's ideology (is) spread to all levels". 9 Not only is there no indication as to what socia- list ideology entails, but as to who these aadres will be and from which class(es) in the society they will be recruited is not mentioned. It seems too that the 'ideology' is something that can be learnt and applied mechanically; and, of course, it is unrelated to classes. In another essay, "The Policy of Ujamaa Vijijini and Class Struggle" (1970)10 Cliffe says that he agrees with Lenin by arguing that the peasant in Tanzania, quoting Lenin, "are not antagonists of capitalism,,1l and that there is a process of class differentiation going on in the country- side. Even if we assume this to be so, no sooner does Cliffe make what is in his hands an assertion than he proceeds, not to show the contradiction between peasants and other classes, but, rather, that the contradictions are not antagonistic in the rural areas and "should not be seen as an element in a class struggle. ,,12 It should be noted here that Cliffe is not applying Mao's understanding of contradictions to the effect that there are principal and secondary contradictions and that these require different handling; what Cliffe is concerned to say here is that although he cannot deny that there are class differentiations developing in the countryside, these, toreturn to his theme of non- exploitation = absence of class bitterness, which obtains in Tanzania's rural areas, this class difference will not and ought not to lead to 220 class-consciousness. Again, too, Cliffe, returns to his prescriptive and didactic style; he calls for a "vast army of cadres,,13 although this time he does recognize that there should be "some class criterion ...• in the selection of these cadres .... ,,14 but as to which class(es) he has in mind there is still no telling. Thus, since there is only a confused understanding of the class relations in the country, it would be too much to expect an analysis of ideology as well. Saul in his review of Nyerere on Socialism, (969) sees the President's 'activities' only from a moralist perspective i he talks of 'pragmatism' but does not follow it to its logical conclusion. Nor is the "lack of analytical precision,,15 that Saul sees in the President's work followed up and explained. Indeed the pragmatism and the posi- tivism he sees in Nyerere's work are not entirely removed from Saul's own work. Throughout the article there is a general mood of apology for Nyerere on the one hand - this is unc9-lled for since the President is certainly capable of a clarity of expression where Saul is ambiguous and thereby mystifying - and on the other for marxism (others have tried it and it works!) But this seems typical of the man's patronizing attitude. Saul does not patronize Cabral but abuses him. Recognizing the importance of the African petit- bourgeoisie, Cabral made his famous statement that the: petit- bourgeoisie can either ally itself with imperialism and a reactionary strata in its own country and try to preserve itself as a petit- bourgeoisie or ally itself with the worker and peasants who must themselves take power. 16 Without pondering the last two phrases of this statement 5 aul jumps to the conclusion that the Tanzanian leadership has committed such altruistic suicide as Cabral had in mind. Coupled with this the Tanzanian leadership has attempted to "find a mass base for Tanzanian socialism among those who have, objectively, a more immediate stake in the promise of socialist transformation". 17 Of course, it may well be possible to distinguish between those with "a more immediate stake" in socialism from those who should and would have an objective stake in socialism, but Saul does not care to draw such a distinction. Workers and peasants do not and cannot live on a promise, therefore for them it is the fulfilment which is 'at stake' . 221 It is also quite clear that Saul, like Cliffe, has no perspective of classes and of class struggle, or, if he has it is an unconscious one and in any event class analysis does not apply to Tanzania. This, of course is quite contrary to Nyerere's own position. For although he has argued that in traditional African Society there were no classes there is at least a strong implication in his writings that it is the danger of further class differentiations which threatens socialism, as he understands it, in Tanzania" .17 The President recognizes, as Saul does not, that socialism is not built by Government decisions, tior by Acts of Parliament; a country does not become socialist by nationalisations or grand designs on paper" .19 Saul therefore conceives of the class struggle in Tanzania very much in terms on intra-class conflict - although even for this he prefers the term "intra-elite contestation". 20 The masses play only a marginal role in his class struggles but this minimum involvement, he is, rather magnanimously, prepared to concede, "may well be of even more crucial long-run importance than intra-elite contestation". 21 Moreover, this 'contestation' (in an open, laissez-faire, liberal market-place?) is also helping to demystify the masses" and can make available to them a posi- ~ understanding of the terms of their exploitation and the realities of their structural position within the system". 22 It certainly is a 'novel experience' to hear marxists speaking in such terms - that is, that a dominant, ruling ideology which is expressly not marxist proletarian ideology and within the framework of imperialism, can become at the same time, a liberating ideology. This conclusion holds for both Cliffe and Saul. The understanding of ideology as false-consciousness within capitalist society, ideology being an attempt to hide the reality of social existence, not only from the exploited but, eventually, also from the very class for whom it was projected to serve, is entirely rejected by these writers. In their view ideology can be used to liberate the oppressed and exploited class in society even before the political victory of that class. Indeed, in the typical petit- bourgeois-christian fashion the 'ideology' which plays such a liberating role need not be of a marxist proletarian nature. Any ideology will do, for pragmatism and eclecticism which never refuses outrightly and principally nor yet wholehearte