By Prof. Ruth Meena
They stood us up on what was going to be a hot date or even worse like a groom jilted at the altar. We were looking forward to a verbal smack down, a spar of words. This was going to be the juiciest piece of live television since the campaign season hit our screens. We were waiting, with curled toes. Telenovela’s, a firm favourite of Tanzanians wouldn’t have stood a chance that Sunday. We were waiting to watch someone fumble, lose their footing and give a verbal retort that would be worthy headlines the next day. Alas! It wasn’t meant to be.
The CCM presidential candidate John Magufuli who had initially confirmed attendance, did not show face, while the UKAWA presidential candidate, Edward Lowassa rejected the idea outright. We were hopeful that Lowassa would have reconsidered once he heard his opponent was going up on stage to take the limelight. Neither did. None of them explained. Camera shy perhaps? Hardly. What is even more disappointed is that none of them cared to share their reasons for not showing up. Do they suddenly not need us anymore? We the public wonder and thus left to our own imagination, decide to speculate of possible reasons for leaving us salivating like Pavlov’s dog.
Some observers attribute this to a cost benefit analysis, claiming that the strategists thought the candidates’ time was better spent meeting people face to face in public rallies rather than the debate. So then, why did CCM confirm attendance then leave us out in the cold?
What we suspect is a real fear, is that of failing to have a feisty comeback and thus fail to recover from the embarrassment thereafter. They would simply not know how to rise back from the ashes, so far into the campaign season and at such a critical point. Rallies are safer, where you are cocooned by your chums, supporters and the euphoria of a fiesta. Besides, hardly anyone truly challenges you in a rally. Most who come out to listen to you, already support you. The ambiance is simply much more conducive for one’s confidence. The public debate on the other hand are hostile. Someone else controls the aesthetic, the audience are divided and there is just too much poking. The facilitator sneak in an angle that will throw you off their game, the audience who are glaring back at you with the camera are squinting their eyes in expectation. You don’t know who is on your side. Already the candidates are exhausted from the sheer demand of the campaign schedule. I suspect it would take very little is needing to crack than veneer. A small poke in the right place and they would snap. Fragile times. Media engagement of this type requires political maturity, calmness and quick thinking during the gruelling questions that are thrown from every direction, the social media space, the host and your opponents.
The few presidential candidates who showed up for the debate, impressed. They demonstrated a clear sense of policy directions, strategy and vision. Unfortunately, most were not visible to the public during the course of the campaign, with the exception of Anna Mghwira from ACT Wazalendo. For most of the public, this was the first time we heard their names and saw their faces. Mghwira, was a clear frontrunner in the debate. The ACT Wazalendo candidate was focused, calm and responded to most of the questions including those which the other candidates avoided. The rest avoided the question of what they would do if they did not win. Mghwira said, “I shall respect the wishes of Tanzanians”. Now, had the CCM or UKAWA candidate been present, and responded in this manner, this would have been a clear victory for Tanzanians. It would have assured Tanzanians of a peaceful election outcome, one that would have distinguished Tanzania as a peaceful country in the region and the world. Our reputation would have surpassed any doubt poised by naysayers who are watching with anticipation if the peaceful giant is capable of withstanding a contest as heated as this. The current mood indicated by the political rallies, impresses that none of the two main candidates are prepared to concede defeat positively.
The other possible reason for these two parties refusing to go through the grilling exercise is that the two have more in common that it would have been difficult to articulate alternative systems, structures, and policy directions. Both have shopping list of promises they are going to deliver. Neither, have a distinct method of how they will arrive to the changes they have so generously promised. What principles are these changes founded on? What systems are they going to put in place? These are questions they have yet to articulate during their rallies. Principles of gender equality, equitable and inclusive development, how they will foster internal party democracy, issues of accountability and the rule of law have not featured in their public rallies. The two candidates, at least their political advisors might have suspected a great focus in these areas, and opted out of the debate.
Whatever the reasons may be, it is unfortunate that the public missed out on some great TV moments that may have served to solidify the candidates’ position among supported or garner more voters from the undecided lot. For the invisible candidates, this was a great opportunity to take the limelight.
No comments: