Cheche: Reminiscences of a Radical Magazine

12. Socialism Yesterday

12 Socialism Yesterday Karim F Hirji “[T]here is no treachery in the truth. There may be pain, but to face honestly all possible conclusions formed by a set of facts is the noblest route possible for a human being.” - Sherlock Holmes - 134 Chapter 12 Introduction The order to disband USARF and cease publication of Cheche, though conveyed by the university administration, came from the State House. Of that, there is no doubt. And in that, it infringed upon academic freedom, and the right to free speech. It was a blow against open, critical debate on socialism in Tanzania. A Pan-African student organization with progressive credentials that had not engaged in illegal activity of any form was commanded, without due process or being accorded opportunity to defend itself, to close its shop immediately. Why? And what did that action signify? Placed in the international context, the ban was a sign of the times. Not just radicals and students but virtually all persons expressing views mildly critical of the existing order were being jailed, tortured or murdered across the world. Outspoken writers and editors faced harsh reprisal from the state; publications were outlawed. That was the life in Iran under the Shah, the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos, Indonesia under General Suharto, Turkey, and South America. Across Africa, dissent was routinely suppressed. The police in Kenya and Malawi, thus, periodically mounted offensives against students and critics, and seized material deemed sensitive. Many repressive regimes received lavish funds, military assistance and diplomatic support from the USA. In the Western world, people protesting the war on Vietnam, fighting for civil rights or otherwise opposing the status quo, many of whom were university-based, faced reprisals. In socialist nations like China and USSR, dissenting voices were curtailed and suppressed. Only the official party line was allowed to make it into print. Viewed in that setting, the ban on USARF and Cheche was like a slap on the wrist, a far cry from the harsh assault on dissent elsewhere. Mwalimu Nyerere did not behave like Mobutu Sese Seko of Congo (Zaire) who often murdered students and opponents with impunity (Legum 1972). Yet, that does not mean we should not analyze this case of direct state interference in progressive student activities in 1970. Examining the context in which took place, and seeking the reasons behind it provide us a valuable opportunity to learn from history. The day after the ban, USARF issued a statement which asked: [T]his university is supposed to stimulate debate within the socialist context. Can socialism be built without sincere and rigorous discussion? USARF (1970). soCialism YesterDaY 135 Accordingly, how did the ban on USARF and Cheche fit within the general drive to construct a socialist society in Tanzania? Was it an anomaly or reflective of a trend? And there are more queries: What were the main features, in theory and practice, of socialism in Tanzania? Why did this effort fail? This chapter focuses on these critical matters. Other, contrasting views on these issues also exist. Here, I express my personal views with the hope that they will provide a stimulus for a fruitful debate. Bureaucratic Capitalism Let us begin with the salient features of the socialist experiment in Tanzania. While Mwalimu Nyerere had talked about socialism from the early days of Uhuru, the Arusha Declaration of 1967 marked the first serious step in that direction. The Declaration envisioned a society based on equality, service for the common good and justice for all. It advocated public ownership of the major means of production and other pillars of the economy; it sought to extricate the masses from poverty, ignorance and disease by establishing Ujamaa villages; and it limited the private income-generating activities of political and governmental leaders to prevent the emergence of a privileged stratum cut off from and ruling over the common man. It also stated that these goals would be achieved primarily with internal, national efforts, and not through reliance on foreign funds or support. Banks, factories, agricultural estates, major trading firms, and other economic entities were thereafter taken over by the state. Commercial and rental buildings and, later, smaller business entities, were put under public ownership. Western powers, the local business community, and state bureaucrats were, to say the least, not in favor of these moves. Furthermore, it did not have discernible backing, at the outset, from university students. On the other side, the Declaration was met...