A landslide victory, exceeding 97% of the vote, has been declared for Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan, a result that reverberates with unease across the nation and beyond.
The election, held on October 29th, was anything but a contest, critics argue. Key opposition figures were systematically barred from running, effectively transforming the vote into a coronation rather than a democratic process. President Hassan faced sixteen candidates, but none posed a significant challenge.
Immediately following the announcement, unrest erupted. Demonstrators flooded the streets of major cities, protesting the results and attempting to halt the vote count. The military was deployed alongside police, struggling to contain the escalating riots.
The nation’s digital arteries were constricted as internet access became intermittent, disrupting daily life and hindering communication. Universities postponed their reopening, a stark indication of the widespread disruption and simmering tensions.
A tense calm descended upon Dar es Salaam, the commercial capital, but it was a fragile peace enforced by heavily armed security forces. Roadblocks were erected, and citizens were subjected to identity checks, a visible manifestation of the government’s control.
While Tanzanian authorities remain silent on casualty figures, reports from the United Nations suggest a grim reality. At least ten deaths have been reported in Dar es Salaam, alongside the towns of Shinyanga and Morogoro, painting a picture of escalating violence.
International concern is mounting. The United Nations Secretary-General has urged restraint from all parties, fearing further escalation. A joint statement from the foreign ministers of the U.K., Canada, and Norway cited “credible reports of a large number of fatalities and significant injuries.”
The crackdown on dissent has been relentless. Opposition leader Tundu Lissu remains imprisoned, accused of treason for advocating electoral reforms. Another prominent figure, Luhaga Mpina, was simply prevented from even contesting the election.
For the Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party, this election was about preserving its decades-long dominance, a grip on power threatened by the emergence of dynamic opposition leaders promising change.
Such overwhelming victories are rare in the region, typically only seen under authoritarian regimes like that of Rwanda’s Paul Kagame. This outcome raises serious questions about the fairness and legitimacy of the process.
Human rights organizations have documented a disturbing pattern of enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, and extrajudicial killings in the lead-up to the election, creating a climate of fear and intimidation.
A United Nations panel reported over 200 cases of enforced disappearance since 2019, expressing alarm at a clear pattern of repression. The government has systematically stifled dissent, banning platforms and silencing critical voices through intimidation and arrest.
Even within Tanzania’s history of single-party rule, dating back to 1992, the current political maneuvering is remarkable. Previous leaders, while maintaining control, allowed for a degree of opposition, a tolerance absent under President Hassan’s leadership.
Tanzania stands as an outlier, diverging from the youth-led democracy movements gaining traction elsewhere in the region. Critics accuse Hassan of embracing an authoritarian style that actively suppresses political participation.
The CCM party, with its long-standing ties to the Communist Party of China, has governed Tanzania since its independence in 1961. This unbroken rule continues with Hassan’s victory, a testament to the party’s deeply entrenched power.
The CCM is inextricably linked to the state, controlling the security apparatus and structured to ensure a regular rotation of leadership every five to ten years. Hassan’s ascent to the presidency, following the sudden death of her predecessor, John Pombe Magufuli, was remarkably smooth.
That orderly transition reinforced Tanzania’s reputation for stability and peace, a key factor in the CCM’s enduring support, particularly among rural voters. This stability, however, now appears to be built on a foundation of suppression and control.
