Distribución de los AINE individuales por tramos de edad

In order to understand the origins of contemporary decentralised government in Tanzania, it is necessary to first unpack its colonial legacy (Mawhood, 1993, p. 74; Eckert, 1999, p. 214). At the time when Tanganyika gained political independence from her British colonial masters in 1961, the nation, as indicated, had inherited a partly decentralised government structure and institutional arrangements which included 67 local government authorities (James, Mdoe, & Mishili, 2002; Tidemand & Msami, 2010; Mmari, 2005; Binagwa, 2005). The British local government model was, in effect, adopted (Mmari, 2005) and in the immediate post-independence era the native authorities, and district and town councils continued to function with the powers granted to them by colonial legislation (Binagwa, 2005; JMT, 2011; Bienen, 2015).

In 1962 the government embarked on a programme to establish democratic local government authorities (Max, 1991; Masanyiwa, 2014). This was done through an amendment to the Local Government Ordinance of 1953 which abolished the existing 54 native authorities and replaced them with a new countrywide system of local councils. The Local Government Ordinance of 1953 was further amended by the African Chiefs

11 _{The Local Government Ordinance of 1953 provided for the gradual replacement of native authorities by}

district councils, which were rural municipalities.  

50

Ordinance (repeal) Act, No.13 of 1963 (JMT, 2011, p. 32; Bienen, 2015).12 In abolishing the native authorities, the chiefs were effectively removed from the local government system (Max, 1991; James et al., 2002; URT, 2004) although they were permitted to continue performing their cultural and traditional roles (JMT, 2011). The Tanzanian government’s justification of the decision to abolish native authorities is that it was necessary to eliminate leadership and administrative systems based on tribalism in order to build a unified national system of administration (JMT, 2011, pp.32–33).13

Democratic local government elections were held for district councils which replaced the native authorities (Coulson, 1982, 2013; Max 1991; Binagwa, 2005). The membership of these councils comprised elected members (councillors), who formed the majority; members appointed by the Minister responsible for local government; and members co- opted by the councils, if any (Max 1991; Shivji & Peter, 2003; Binagwa, 2005). These elected officials and appointed administrators constituted local government authorities, with the former assuming responsibility for policy and decision-making. The local government authorities had the mandate to collect taxes and deliver public services to the communities, and enjoyed some degree of autonomy.

During the first decade of independence, basic social services such as education, health care, and water were provided by local governments and access expanded rapidly (JMT, 2011). However, due to growing financial constraints the system of local government was increasingly unable to fulfil its mandate and provide adequate services (Mmari, 2005). This was due both to the limited financial base available to local governments and to difficulties in tax collection (URT, 2004). This state of affairs was aggravated by the fact that the political environment at the time was not supportive of greater revenue generation by local authorities, while the grants provided to them by the central government were insufficient to provide the public services most needed by the poor majority (Mmari, 2005; URT, 2004). As a consequence, socio-economic conditions in the country in the first half decade of independence (1961–1966) remained largely the same as in the colonial era (Crouch, 1987, p. 15).

12 _{However, the Local Government Ordinance 1953 (with its amendments) remained the principal}

legislation that provided for the administration of local government for the entire first decade of independence (see Shivji and Peter, 2003 for detailed discussion of local legislations in the 1960s).

13 _{See also Binagwa, 2005.}

51

Partly in response to the lack of development progress and partly due to the geopolitics of the time, in the mid-1960s Tanzania embarked on a socialist programme called

Ujamaa, or African socialism (Crouch, 1987, p. 15). The goals of Ujamaa which were

launched in the 1967 Arusha Declaration, were to eliminate exploitation, to ensure public ownership of key economic sectors, and to establish a socialist society (Crouch, 1987, p. 54). The Declaration was an ideological policy document articulating new economic and social priorities for the nation (Bjerk, 2010).

An important initiative of the Ujamma programme was the collectivisation of rural communities. In 1962 an attempt had been made to implement a ‘village settlement scheme’ in mainland Tanzania. The aim of the scheme had been to move people from urban to rural areas and to engage them in productive economic activities, and farming in particular, (Hydén, 1980; Mawhood, 1983) but it had made little progress. Following the Arusha Declaration, however, the village settlement scheme was taken far more seriously and the government campaigned forcefully for the establishment of Ujamaa villages, which were intended to be fundamental institutions for building African socialism (Mawhood, 1983; JMT, 2011). The villagisation programme was also intended to provide a framework through which the government could deliver such services as rural health care, education and water supplies (Crouch, 1987; Mawhood, 1993). In the early years of the programme significant breakthroughs were indeed recorded in the provision of education, rural health care, and water supplies services albeit from a very low base (Crouch, 1987; JMT, 2011).

Along with compelling people to settle in collectives to facilitate service delivery,

Ujamaa villages were intended to realise the principles of producing and sharing along

socialist lines (Mawhood, 1993, p. 97). This reflects the nature of government’s approach to citizen participation in the first decade of independence. At this time government administration at the village level took various forms. The section which follows reflects on the deconcentration approach adopted in the 1970s when enactment of the Villages

and Ujamaa Villages (Registration, Designation and Administration) Act of 1975 both

abolished local governments and attempted to regularise village governance (Mawhood, 1993).

52