In his speech to a seminar of political leaders held in Zanzibar on 19th February this year, President Mkapa made a very fundamental point which needs to be deeply thought over and widely debated. In his view, the whole Tanzanian society and people need a muafaka or national consensus. He expressed his apprehension that the political and economic reforms that have taken place over the last twenty years have loosened national ties, unity and brotherhood/sisterhood (udugu) in our society and country. 'I earnestly urge,' he said, 'that the market or free economy, together with political freedoms and freedom of the press should not be the beginning of the weakening of our unity, national solidarity, or should not dilute our nationalism, union and udugu.' (translation from the original Kiswahili mine).

He continued: 'The market economy will result in some of us becoming richer than others. Political freedom has brought many parties and their many honourable leaders. But this should not be a reason for some to feel better than others. We, Tanzanians, should remain ndugu.' He went on to say that it is our udugu which makes us equal human beings, with equal dignity, equal rights and equal basic needs. 'Our udugu,' he emphasised, 'is not ideological; rather it is embedded in our African culture.'

Given the emphasis on udugu, a little digression on the political origin of the term 'ndugu' in Tanzania is appropriate. It was first used by trade unionists to express class (social) solidarity. Later, in particular after the adoption of the policy of socialism and self-reliance, the term became prominent in the party and political vocabulary. It expressed nationalism and the policy of ujamaa. In both cases, therefore, 'ndugu' was explicitly an expression of ideology. Be that as it may, let us return to the core question raised by the President.

In my view, there are three points in the President's submission which, with respect, are indisputable. One, that over the last two decades the national consensus in our society has begun to disintegrate pausing a veritable threat to national unity and social solidarity. Two, that the adoption of neo-liberal policies and orientations has begun to polarize our society. The emergence of the filthy rich and pathetically poor in our country is undeniable. Three, that there is a need to reconstruct national consensus and concord.

The central question is: what would be the basis of the new national consensus? To being to answer, let us examine our recent history.

The struggle for independence was a mass movement. The consensus of the large majority was based on the nationalist ideology, or the right of self-determination. Immediately after independence the nationalist consensus began to show cracks with the rise of the wabenzi, whose ambition was simply to step into the shoes of the colonial masters. The University students demonstrated against National Service in October 1966 accusing the politicians of drawing fat salaries while they were being asked to make sacrifices. Responding angrily, Mwalimu thundered:

'You are right when you talk about salaries. Our salaries are too high. … Do you know what my salary is? Five thousand damned shillings a month. Five thousand damned shillings in a poor country. The poor man who gets two hundred shillings a month – do you know how long it's going to take him to earn my damned salary? Twenty-five years! … The damned salaries! These are the salaries which build this kind of attitude in the educated people, all of them. Me and you. We belong to a class of exploiters. I belong to your class. … You are right, salaries are too high. Everybody in this country is demanding a pound of flesh. Everbody except the poor peasant. How can he demand it? He doesn't know the language. … What kind of country are we building?'

Three months later came the Arusha Declaration which declared that we wanted to build a socialist society, a society where every one is a worker or a peasant, where no one exploits another, where a genuine leader does not live off the sweat of another man. The building of a socialist and self-reliant society was the new national consensus. It mobilized the masses and inspired the youth.

The ujamaa consensus lasted almost a decade before the economic crisis of the late seventies and early eighties undermined it. Both the nationalist and the ujamaa consensus were ideologically based. Both were national visions to build a society based on equality. The socialist vision specifically addressed the cracks in the nationalist ideology which began to appear in the post-independence period with the rise of the self-enriching wabenzi.

Twenty years of neo-liberal policies have not generated any new national vision which can mobilize and inspire. The national consensus has been undermined by the market economy as ethnic, racial, religious, class and gender fault-lines have resurfaced. The rhetoric of political pluralism and economic liberalism cannot cover the deepening divide between the haves and have-nots, between the walalahoi, walalahai and walalaheri, that is, the poor, the middle and the rich.

Under the circumstances, what would be the basis for a new consensus? That is what we need to debate. While it may not be possible to say what it should be based on, we can certainly say what it cannot be based on. National consensus, by definition, cannot be built on some metaphysical values of cultural brotherhood when the underlying material reality is characterised by extreme class and social divisions.

We are fast slipping down the road of what the nineteenth century British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli called 'two nations', the nation of the rich and the nation of the poor 'between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws.'

Nor can national consensus be constructed on the basis of imported or imposed metapolitical values of political pluralism and hedonistic individualism.

With President Mkapa, we need first to admit that the old consensus has broken down and with Mwalimu, as in 1966, we need to ask: What kind of country are we building? Do we want to build a country of Two Nations?

© Issa Shivji. Shivji is Professor of Law at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

* Please send comments to