Sovereignty is non-negotiable: Tanzania must shape its future

DAR ES SALAAM: WHEN the UK’s Human Rights Ambassador, Eleanor Sanders, declared that Tanzania’s post-election unrest required an “independent, transparent and inclusive investigation”, the language sounded familiar: grave concern, calls for accountability, invocation of fundamental freedoms. These are serious matters. But so too is sovereignty.

Tanzania is not a protectorate. It is a sovereign republic with functioning institutions, a written constitution and a long record of internal conflict resolution that predates and outlasts many of its contemporary critics.

To suggest, implicitly or explicitly, that it cannot manage its own political tensions without external tutelage risks reviving an old and uncomfortable habit: the reflex to treat African states as perpetual wards of Western oversight.

Since independence under the leadership of Julius Nyerere, Tanzania has distinguished itself in a region often scarred by coups and civil wars.

It has maintained relative political continuity, preserved territorial unity and avoided the cycles of state collapse seen elsewhere.

It mediated regional conflicts, hosted refugees and contributed troops to peacekeeping missions. The union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar, itself a complex constitutional arrangement, has endured for more than six decades.

That endurance is not accidental. It reflects a political culture that has, by and large, resolved its internal disputes through dialogue, law and institutional reform.

None of this is to deny that Tanzania faces challenges. No democracy is free from tension, particularly in the charged aftermath of elections.

But history demonstrates that Tanzanians possess both the institutional memory and the political mechanisms to address such tensions without external direction.

Non-interference is a principle, not a convenience International law is not silent on this matter.

The doctrine of noninterference in the internal affairs of sovereign states is embedded in the United Nations Charter and has long been defended by post-colonial nations precisely because they understand the consequences of foreign meddling.

Calls from abroad for investigations, however well-intentioned, must therefore be weighed carefully.

There is a thin line between solidarity and interference. When external actors pronounce on domestic events before local processes have run their course, they risk prejudging outcomes and inflaming divisions.

Tanzania has its own judicial system, its own constitutional framework and its own law-enforcement oversight mechanisms.

If allegations of misconduct arise, these institutions are the first and proper avenue of redress. To bypass them rhetorically is to myopically and, probably, ill-intentionally imply their inadequacy without evidence.

Tanzania has the right to defend its peace and order Every sovereign state has not only the right but the duty to defend its national security, public order and economic stability.

The United Kingdom does so vigorously when confronted with unrest. France does so. Germany does so.

The principle is neither controversial nor uniquely African. Where violence erupts after elections whether in Washington, Paris or Dar es Salaam governments are expected to restore order.

ALSO READ: Tanzania affirms its commitment to protect human rights at the global stage

When the US Capitol was stormed in January 2021, American authorities responded with force, mass arrests and extensive prosecutions.

No foreign government demanded that the United States surrender its investigative process to an international commission. Tanzania is entitled to the same presumption of competence.

If there are actors , then domestic or external who seek to instigate chaos, undermine constitutional order or provoke confrontation with security forces, the state is obligated to respond within the bounds of the law.

To characterise all security responses as repression is to ignore the complexity of maintaining public order in volatile circumstances. Peace is not self-executing.

It requires institutions willing to act when disorder threatens to spiral. Tanzania’s democratic evolution has been gradual and internally driven.

The reintroduction of multiparty politics in the 1990s did not occur at the behest of foreign governments but as part of a domestic reform process.

Electoral laws have been amended, political parties registered and civic space contested in ways that reflect Tanzania’s own trajectory.

Democracy is not a template imported wholesale; it is a practice shaped by national history, culture and constitutional development.

Western democracies themselves took centuries, and not a little upheaval to stabilise their systems.

It is therefore incongruous to demand that a comparatively young multiparty democracy meet standards that older systems themselves often struggle to uphold. Moreover, the economic stakes are high.

Tanzania is one of the fastest-growing economies in east Africa, pursuing infrastructure expansion, energy development and industrialisation.

Political instability, or the perception of it amplified externally, can deter investment, unsettle markets and harm ordinary citizens whose livelihoods depend on continuity.

A government confronted with unrest must weigh not only civil liberties but also the livelihoods of millions.

That balancing act is not evidence of authoritarian impulse; it is the daily reality of governance. The danger of megaphone diplomacy Public criticism from foreign diplomats rarely happens in a vacuum.

Such comments often echo inside the country and can strengthen hardliners on all sides. Opposition groups may see them as outside support, while the government may view them as pressure.

This can reduce space for local dialogue. Good engagement, if it is to help, should usually be quieter and respectful of domestic processes.

Tanzania has repeatedly shown it is open to reform discussions and regional cooperation through bodies such as African organisations.

These institutions are built on shared consensus rather than outside pressure. Megaphone diplomacy, however, risks hardening positions and encouraging claims of foreign interference.

Accountability, but on Tanzanian terms No one denies the seriousness of allegations that sometimes arise during election periods.

If credible claims exist, they must be investigated. Justice and accountability for wrongdoing strengthen a nation. But accountability imposed from outside can be politically sensitive.

Accountability built from within through courts, parliament, human rights bodies and civic participation, tends to be more lasting because it is owned by the society.

Tanzania has the ability to conduct inquiries in line with its constitution and laws.

It has legal experts, civil society and public institutions capable of scrutiny. To suggest otherwise would ignore Tanzanians’ capacity to handle their own affairs. The broader principle is equality among nations.

Sovereignty means that Tanzania stands as an equal partner with the United Kingdom and others.

Respect for that equality requires caution. Maintaining peace, economic stability and democratic processes is primarily the responsibility of Tanzanians.

Foreign partners may raise concerns, but such concerns should not become orders. Advice should not turn into instructions. Solidarity must not resemble supervision.

Tanzania’s history shows a nation able to solve its internal challenges without surrendering control to outsiders. It deserves space to do so again, lawfully and on its own sovereign terms.