CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Distinguished Guest of Honour,Distinguished Organizers of the Conference,Distinguished inviteesLadies and Gentlemen,
I would like to start by thanking ESAURP (Eastern and Southern African Universities Research Programme) and its executive Director Prof. Maliyamkono the organizers of this Conference for giving me the opportunity to give an address on a topic that is very much on the top of minds of the representatives of Tanzania’s and Zanzibar’s Development Partners. I feel honored and privileged.
A few words about my background before offering my views on development partnership easing political conflict. I am not going to read my CV, because that is of little or no public interest. No, it is rather the fact that I have had the advantage of having lived in interesting times and interesting places that has some relevance to what I am going to say later on.
I started my international experience gathering in Afghanistan more than 30 years ago. A two-year assignment with FAO brought me to most corners of Afghanistan. This was before the Soviet invasion and the long tragic civil war that followed. The internal violent conflict is not yet over in spite of tremendous efforts made to bring about normalisation in the country. The country is ethnically, culturally, economically, socially and language wise strongly divided, which makes any harmonisation attempt extremely difficult. I think I learnt a few things:
There is no such thing as a society without conflicts but there is a fundamental choice that can be made: you try to sort out the conflict peacefully or you try to sort it out with violent means. Political conflicts are good and provide dynamism in a society’s development provided they are managed constructively by those involved. It is not easy, but the alternative is devastating because it ultimately results in suppression and killing. Creative energy and checks and balances in society are therefore crucial.
I have also spent a couple of years in West Africa in the late 70-ies in the newly liberated Guinea-Bissau – a former Portuguese colony. I saw the effects of colonialism and witnessed the very difficult process of transforming a liberation movement - PAIGC - into a political movement with the responsibility to run a government. The country is small – a population of about 1 million – and poor with several ethnic groups, different languages with the very difficult process for the people of building a country still in front of them.
In the mid 80ies I came to Indochina and Laos. This was ten years after a devastating war had ended, where the United States had put in massive resources in its attempt to crush North Vietnam and the FNL. The suffering of civilians we can just imagine and it was still felt not least from the thousands and thousands of booby-traps, that is causing deaths and injuries to civilians still this very day. What impressed me most was the ability of the people to be able to forgive their former enemies. We forgive but we will never ever forget. Today we see that Vietnam and the United States have close relations and have managed to carry on well aware of their violent history.
In the mid 90ies I came to Sri Lanka – a country that was in the midst of an internal violent conflict that was about to rip the country and the people apart. More than 60 thousand dead in a relatively low intensity war that started in 1983. The violent conflict is described as an ethnic conflict between the singalese and the tamils, who have lived together on that beautiful island for some 2 500 years. Great efforts are being made in Sri Lanka with strong support from Sri Lanka’s development partners and very particularly Norway to design and push a peace process forward. It was initiated a few years ago but we have still not seen the end of it. During the years in Sri Lanka I think I also learnt a few things:
Violent internal conflicts just don’t appear out of nowhere. They are normally the result of badly managed conflicting interests that are allowed to develop and sometimes exploited for short term political gains.
The majority must take minority concerns into consideration or injustices - real or perceived ones - can provide the fuel for extremism that we have witnessed examples of in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.
This also goes for the individual. If an individual has been a victim of grave injustice, humiliation or other unfair treatment, a seed has been planted that can too easily develop into hatred and an urge to violently retaliate against the oppressor.
Some important political decisions by the majority were identified as key ingredients in what originally triggered off the violent conflict in Sri Lanka. The decision to introduce Singhla, the language of the majority as the only National Language, was one such decision. Now it is not enough to undo these decisions to end the conflict. The violent conflict had been institutionalised in society and requires extraordinary measures to end.
Mr. Chairman,
A year ago I came to the beautiful Tanzania. A peaceful country representing stability in the region. But like anywhere else a country that has to manage conflicting interests. These conflicts have been managed peacefully, which has contributed to the political stability in the country. This is also one of the important prerequisites for sustainable human and economic development. And consequently we have witnessed an impressive development over the last few years. Sweden together with other development partners are indeed pleased to note this and to be associated with it as Tanzania’s development partners.
Development assistance has in general gone through a considerable change over the last 40 years or so. Prof. Göran Hyden, a well-known Swedish researcher on Tanzanian development has described this very well: In the 1960s projects were the preferred mechanism and development was seen as something for the people. Over the years the role and view of development assistance has gradually changed. In the 1970s integrated development programmes were seen as a better mechanism for the development of the people. Later it was viewed that correct policies were more important in creating an enabling environment in which people could make their own decisions; development was seen as being carried out with the people. Since the 1990s more focus is put on ”getting politics right” - Good governance, accountability, a growing role for civil society. Local people must own development. Development today, therefore, is seen as carried out by the people.
Today we are closely following the formulation of a new Poverty Reduction Strategy of Tanzania and will with the Government discus a joint assistance strategy. We also see a clear tendency to further move away from donor funded and managed projects and more clearly focus on the structures, the systems and the processes that already exist in Tanzania. General budget support is a mechanism that is gaining ground as a preferred mechanism. It is the budget process from government departments through the budget proposal to Parliament in Tanzania that will decide how the Government revenues including the budget support will be utilised. The important thing is that it is the priorities of Tanzania itself that will decide on budget allocations. This is possible in a country like Tanzania, where the development partnership has a strong and solid base. However, with the budget support we also see a more engaged development partnership in the sense that more emphasis will be put on outcome and results in the fight against poverty. For example more emphasis will be put on the MDGs than goals of a particular project or programme. Indicators for pro-poor growth, health, literacy, democracy, governance, human rights, gender balance are far more relevant to identify and monitor in order to reach the goal of global sustainable development.
I was recently in Stockholm for the annual Ambassadors Conference and consultations and there are two questions raised when it comes to Tanzania:
Firstly, what happens to Tanzania’s reform agenda after the elections in 2005?
Secondly, what will happen in Zanzibar? Will the forthcoming elections in Zanzibar be free and fair?
I will not elaborate on the reform agenda of Tanzania after the 2005 elections but offer my views on issues closer to us here today – Zanzibar and the Muafaka Process.
In a society with strong conflicting interest, a legitimate political framework is key. The Muafaka process is a National product with a National vision. The process is owned and managed by the parties. Real commitment is needed in order to fulfil the measures outlined in the Muafaka accord.
Zanzibar’s development partners are strong supporters of the Muafaka process. We are assisting financially and if invited to do so we could possibly provide technical assistance or advice. We believe there is a commitment and a capacity in Zanzibar to carry the Muafaka process through. A broad based dialogue like this one here today and individual contributions of stakeholders are important components in the process.
The solution or the way to balance the conflicting interests has been found in Zanzibar by the two parties. It required - and continues to require - dialogue, patience and a joint ambition by the leaders to pass on to the next generation something that is better than what they took over and a legacy of having contributed to an improvement and laying the ground for a long term solution.
Development partners are neutral to the outcome of elections as long as these are free and fair, for example in accordance with the recently adopted SADC principles and guidelines for democratic elections. The people of Tanzania and Zanzibar through their governments and political parties carry that responsibility.
Failure of “getting politics right” – that is good governance, accountability, growing role for civil society - may result in yet another problematic election and an unclean bill from election observers. This, I am afraid, may have other implications. There may be a drop in foreign investments and in tourist arrivals with repercussions to the economy. This will affect not only Zanzibar alone but also the Union of Tanzania as a whole.
Somebody told me that Power Sharing - the way it has been outlined in the Muafaka Accord - is something very un-African. I do not know Africa that well to pass a judgement on that, but I know Africa well enough to see that a successful power sharing arrangement here in Zanzibar could clearly serve as a model for other societies in the region. It could contribute to maintaining peace and security in the run up to, during and after elections as well as to long term political stability in Zanzibar – an objective we all strive for.
I thank you for your attention