By Fumbuka Ng’wanakilala
DAR ES SALAAM | Fri Oct 29, 2010
More than two-thirds of Tanzania’s population of 40.7 million are aged between 10 and 35 years, according to government estimates, and analysts say a high turnout by young voters could help the main opposition candidate.
“More than ever before, youths are motivated to vote,” said Dar es Salaam-based rights activist Ananilea Nkya. “They want to see changes in the way their country is being run.”
With nearly 20 million people eligible to vote, the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party and the main opposition Chama Cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Chadema) have shifted their focus to first-time voters and the tech-savvy middle class.
Political parties and supporters are using text messages, video clips on YouTube, updates on Facebook and blogs to woo young first-time voters in a country that suffers from corruption, poverty and poor infrastructure.
Like other African countries with limited bandwidth, Internet connectivity is relatively low in Tanzania, but the country has more than 17 million mobile phone users.
Many young Tanzanians use mobile phones to connect to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
LEAD DWINDLING
According to the latest opinion polls, Willibrod Slaa of the opposition Chadema party has chipped away at incumbent President Jakaya Kikwete’s once double-digit lead.
The 62-year-old Slaa has been campaigning on a platform of change, with promises to end corruption and review mining contracts in Africa’s third largest gold producer.
In April, a poll by Redet, a political research arm of the University of Dar es Salaam, gave Kikwete 77.2 percent. In October, another poll by researchers at the university gave the 60-year-old president just 38 percent.
Political commentators said young voters, a demographic known for low turnout vote in previous elections, could swing the election.
“Victory for Dr Slaa depends on high voters turnout … a high turnout will bring more independent voters compared to a lower turnout. If the turnout is around or less than 60 percent, that will favour CCM,” said political analyst M.M. Mwanakijiji in a post on the popular online discussion portal JamiiForums.
An ongoing online opinion poll by Tanzania’s leading Swahili newspaper, Mwananchi, gave Slaa 77.1 percent against Kikwete’s 17.3 percent of the vote on Friday. A similar poll on JamiiForums gave Slaa 68.88 percent and Kikwete 22.06 percent.
Ibrahim Lipumba of the opposition Civic United Front (CUF) trails a distant third in all opinion polls.
“There is a battle for the cyberspace in the election campaigns and Chadema is winning this battle hands down because of its huge youth support,” political analyst Moses Kulaba said.
“IN SAFE HANDS”
Cecy Semtawa, a 22-year-old first-time voter said she would vote for Slaa because of his pledge to provide free education, healthcare and affordable housing.
“Slaa has promised to cut taxes on cement and other building materials so that we can all build decent houses. He seems to be very sincere and is determined to fight corruption. I will vote for that,” she said.
However, Kikwete, who is seeking a second and final term in office after a campaign dominated by promises to fight corruption and poverty, is still the analysts’ favourite to win.
Tanzania has enjoyed relative stability in an often unsettled region and has managed to hold three successive multi-party presidential elections since 1995, after more than three decades of one-party rule.
“Tanzania is in safe hands under CCM’s leadership. We are the only party that can maintain peace and stability,” Kikwete told a popular youth radio station on Friday ahead of a planned nationwide television interview later in the day.
Analysts said Slaa still faces a challenge of transforming the optimism shown at his well-attended campaign rallies across Tanzania into actual votes.
“There are attempts by agents of corruption to influence the outcome of the general election. If we have a free and fair vote, we might see major leadership changes after the polls as a result of the youth vote,” activist Nkya said.
Source: Reuters
Ananilea Nkya, “M.M. Mwanakijiji” (not obviously a pseudonym to an international audience) and Moses Kulaba. Not forgetting the Chadema voting “Cecy Semtawa”. Clearly the editor who cleared this piece is unfamiliar with Tanzania. Or else s/he’s also an opposition activist. Oh Reuters!
Do you think articles like these would be printed in Tanzanian newspapers like Nipashe or Daily News?
I’m wondering, because a lot of new media forms such as blogs and social networks that are currently discussing the TZ elections have similar triangulation from commentators. In other words, I am seeing a lot of editing coming in from the public when they have the access to constructively do so.
So yes, if something has been put up, we should actively seek truth in it. This of course, considering that everyone sees a different truth.
It’s just bad journalism. Full stop. For the basics of good journalism, see this: http://ow.ly/31Tx3
See? It’s not so difficult. Identify an issue that is current and relevant, put it in context, interview people from all sides…… and write it up. Ng’wanakilala could learn a thing or two from reading this.
Same goes for MCL ‘journalists’ whose modus operandi is to identify an issue and then look for reaction and comment from Ayub Rioba, Lwaitama, Rajani…. the usual suspects. It is not reporting – it is recycling of opinions that one already agrees with.
It is good that some people can point out this bias, but most readers of the Reuters piece will not have the knowledge with which to do so. They are reading Reuters coz they don’t understand Tanzania. They trust Reuters. But in this case, they shouldn’t.
Would it appear in DN or Nipashe? Of course not. But it would certainly make the cut in Mwananchi. Either way, it is bad journalism.
It seems Tanzania is heading full on into a debate about intellectual property concerning Internet-based media. One of the central questions in this debate is, when is something an op-ed piece, and when is it an “objective” fact-based news piece. The problem with Internet-based media is that you cannot distinguish between these two types of media so easily; Internet-based media participants pull their information from both kinds of sources.
In order to maintain “good journalism” therefore, I think media houses need to make very clear what their sources are, and how their information was collected.
What is public media if it is not, afterall, a space to discuss things applicable to everyone?
@AK This is a piece of mainstream journalism, a piece of news analysis. Ng’wakilala states clearly who his sources are: and they are a coterie of opposition activists. This can be spotted by somebody familiar with the Tanzanian scene but probably not by his editor and not by most readers of the piece. It is a dishonest piece of news analysis. Does his editor know that the ‘political analyst’ quoted is a pseudonym?
I really don’t see how this relates to intellectual property. it is bad journalism: pure and simple.
@ …
It’s interesting to hear this good journalism, bad journalism responce. I personally find it interesting to hear international media coverage about the opposition. So just to make it clear to myself, by your typical playbook, would you consider the following article ‘good’ or ‘bad’ journalism? (http://goo.gl/Le2h)
Joji, I’m glad you are interested. But read the piece again. it is not ‘international media coverage about the opposition’. it is *by the opposition*. Put yourself in the shoes of a reader somewhere in Australia who is familiar with East Africa, interested, but can’t quite remember the Tanzanian president’s name… she comes across this article…..
As for the Economist piece…. I was interested to read of JM’s plans to play the markets for Bumbuli.
Was it good or bad? I’d say bad. the juxtaposition of old vs new at the start is a cliche, no? We are that JM is in a minority in CCM? A minority by which classification? This is not made clear. The map, not the writer’s decision, is embarrassing.
Would the country ‘sail ahead’ if JM was at the helm? I don’t know, and the piece doesn’t convince me either way.
But most importantly Joji, how does Jonathan Ledgard do a piece on January Makamba when in Bumbuli without managing to get even one useable quote? Remember, JM is a highly articulate and intelligent man. Not one quote? The one thing that can give a story authenticity? Now why might that be the case?
Who decides on what is good or bad anyway? Especially when bi-laws on the Internet are being established ad-hoc? I think that in some ways, public consensus matters. Ergo, these comments should be considered part of the original piece, similar to a commentary. This is what I meant by intellectual property.
@AK. I decided they were bad! 🙂 It’s called having an opinion. I have to say, considering the comments as part of the original piece is just a bit too 90s po-mo for me.
Hii makala ina matundu kuliko chujio.
tunaambiwa “a poll by Redet, a political research arm of the University of Dar es Salaam, gave Kikwete 77.2 percent”
Kisha tunaambiwa “another poll by researchers at the university gave the 60-year-old president just 38 percent”
anataka kutuaminisha tu kuwa kuna “researchers” walioendesha poll bila ya kuwa rasmi?
anatunukulia maneno ya Mwanakijiji ambae hajifichi kuwa ameshiriki kuwaandikia Chadema ilani ya uchaguzi pamoja na kuandika zile za majimbo.
Licha ya kuwa kwenye makala ya Mwanakijiji iliyonukuliwa haikusema amefikiaje tarakimu hizo, nafasi ya mwanakijiji kwa chadema inamuondoa kuwa ‘political analyst’ tu na kumfanya walau ‘political analyst’ wa Chadema kama si ‘propaganda manager’ wa Chadema.
Tungependa mageuzi yatokee, lakini sio kwa kuandika makala zilizoegemea upande mmoja na kuziita hali halisi.
@hyperkei…….. co-sign
@…
I support having an opinion, and I think opinions are part of journalism today. I’m afraid, however, that by discounting comments as “90s po-mo” (hii po-mo ni nini jamani?) you are basically saying the way we discuss this article is not relevant to the original article posted by Vijana FM. I think it very much is.
Comments are as much a part of the discussion as original pieces that prompt comments. And part of commenting is putting forth opinions.
So to be clear, I was trying to encourage you to discuss why you thought this was an example of bad journalism. Not because I think you are wrong, but because I think you have something of value to say to readers of this article. You are providing them with a perspective they would otherwise not be provided with on this space.
Thanks for your continued conversation.
po-mo as in post modern, and in this case the idea that everything is relative, texts are malleable, the reader assigns meaning not the author etc.
But……… we have been overtaken by events!
isn’t the election remarkable? Leaders are doing a good job at not inciting people in response to the delays: as are people themselves. Here’s hoping that all of us can remain calm until Friday, speak truth to power and keep on keepin’ on.