Table of Content
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Problem formulation ..................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Refining the problem formulation ........................................................................................................... 3
2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Choice of country and sector ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Project specifications .................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Validity, reliability, and generalization .................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Case Study.......................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Research Strategy ........................................................................................................................................... 8
2.6 Scientific stance ............................................................................................................................................... 9
2.7 Choice of empirical material....................................................................................................................... 9
2.8 Choice of theoretical approach ................................................................................................................ 10
2.9 Critical reflections on the methodological choices .......................................................................... 11
3. Theoretical approach ........................................................................................................................ 11
3.1 The logic of collective Action Theory .................................................................................................... 12
4. The overall framework ..................................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Conceptualization and operationalization .......................................................................................... 14
4.1.1 Human rights ........................................................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 The Empirical Framework ........................................................................................................................ 15
5. Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 17
5.1 Part 1 ................................................................................................................................................................. 17
5.1.1 Right to life (lack of justice)............................................................................................................................... 18
5.1.2 Freedom from torture (abuse of power) ..................................................................................................... 19
5.1.3 Freedom of opinion and expression .............................................................................................................. 22
5.2 Part 2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 25
5.2.1 The Government on Human Rights ................................................................................................................ 25
5.3 Part 3 ................................................................................................................................................................. 29
5.3.1 United Nations in Tanzania ............................................................................................................................... 29
5.3.2 Amnesty International ......................................................................................................................................... 30
6. Theoretical Perspectives .................................................................................................................. 31
6.1 Civil society ..................................................................................................................................................... 32
6.2 Government and governance ................................................................................................................... 33
6.3 International actors ..................................................................................................................................... 35
7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 37
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 39
Page 1 of 43
1. Introduction
Human rights violations are a serious problem highly effecting development around the
world. The rights-based approach to development has therefore become increasingly present
and relevant when talking about efficiency and effectiveness of development and how to
better achieve sustainable development (UN, 2010; UNDP, 2005; Nelson, 2007; OECD DAC,
2007; Paris Declaration, 2005; LHRC, 2012, 2013).
In Tanzania, East Africa, the numbers of human rights violations keep increasing despite the
fact that Tanzania is considered a success story in terms of development, and several actors
are active within this sector (UNDP, 2005; OECD DAC, 2007; LHRC, 2012, 2013 among others).
Furthermore The United Republic of Tanzania is considered a donor darling, and the country
is one of the largest recipients of development aid in Sub Saharan Africa (Stewart, 2013).
Tanzania is receiving aid primarily through General Budget Support (GBS), Basket Funds, and
direct project support. The Tanzanian national budget is highly dependent on the financial aid
resources transferred to the budgets as aid contributes to almost 30% of the national budget
(Policy Forum, 2012).
There are a high number of international actors through bilateral and multilateral agreements
as well as international NGOs who are actively working with the human rights issues in
Tanzania. Additionally, Tanzania’s civil society is rapidly growing within this sector, even
though the Tanzanian government is known to restrict their activities on several accounts
(Mutau, 2009). However, the Tanzanian civil society is also dependent on financial resources
from overseas donors and get a share of the above mentioned direct project fund. The largest
part of foreign assistance is delivered through GBS (Tanzania, Ministry of Finance, 2012).
Despite the large presence of human rights activits, human rights initiatives, and a large
amount of international funding, human rights are still lacking on several accounts in the
country, not only in the numbers of violations, but also in the number of convictions of those
who violate peoples’ rights (LHRC, 2012, 2013). So despite the fact that Tanzania is receiving
Page 2 of 43
numerous international funding and support, there is still too many incidents where the
people of Tanzania are having their rights violated and are unable to get justice.
1.2 Problem formulation
Based on the above introduction the project tends to answer the following problem
formulation:
Why are human rights still suffering in Tanzania, East Africa? And how can
that be explained by the theoretical approach: Collective Action Theory?
1.3 Refining the problem formulation
The project is an empirical study of human rights in Tanzania, and it focuses on the issue of
increased human rights violations in Tanzania despite the fact that there are a large number
of actors and initiatives taken to ensure human rights in the country (UNDP, 2005; OECD DAC,
2007; LHRC, 2012, 2013 among others). Different perspectives might explain the reason why
human rights are suffering in Tanzania, however, this project will focus on the empirical
material available from the main actors in terms of improving the human rights sector in
Tanzania: the Tanzanian government, civil society, and international actors.
The problem formulation will first be answered by an identification of the used terms and
concepts within this field in an overall framework. Furthermore an empirical framework will
be presented of the three main actors (see next section).
Second we will present an in-depth empirical analysis as a case study based on reports
conducted from the three chosen main actors: the Tanzanian government, local NGOs and
international actors. Through the analysis we want to examine what the core issue(s) to the
increased human rights violations are.
Third after the in-depth empirical analysis we want to follow up and thereby support our
findings by using a theoretical perspective that can help to explain the circumstances revealed
in regards to human rights in Tanzania.
Page 3 of 43
2. Methodology
In the chapter of methods the thoughts about the methodology in our project will be described.
Furthermore an argumentation of our theoretical considerations will be presented. The chapter
is build up of three sections: first, an argumentation for the projects genesis and relevance in
terms of our choices of the case study. Second, an introduction to the different sections of the
methods used in the project. And third, an argumentation for our approach to the case study and
data collection.
2.1 Choice of country and sector
The choice of country and sector was first and foremost based on an overall interest in human
rights issues in Africa. By taking a look through the countries in Africa we chose Tanzania,
East Africa, as our case study because we found it interesting and puzzling that despite the
fact that Tanzania is considered a successful development story among international actors,
Tanzania still faces severe issues when it comes to upholding human right standards. A part of
our decision-making was therefore also due to the fact that Tanzania is the second largest
recipient of aid in Sub-Saharan Africa and is highly aid dependent (Stewart, 2013). The focal
point of analysis is thereby the sector of human rights in Tanzania, and the different actors’
role in ensuring these rights, as we find human rights to be necessary for development.
2.2 Project specifications

1. Problem Area
The sector of human rights in Tanzania, East Africa, is suffering as seen by the
increased number of human rights violations over the past years.
2. Methods
Single case study
 Inductive approach
Combination of qualitative and quantitative material
 Empirical analysis


Page 4 of 43

3. Empirical material
 Tanzania as a Case Study
Material from the Tanzanian Government, NGO’s in Tanzania and international
actors.
4. Analysis
Case study: an analysis of different cases concerning human rights violations in
Tanzania in order to examine the core of the problem. The different cases are
conducted from three main actors: the Tanzanian government, local NGOs and
international actors.
5. Theoretical Perspectives
Based on the analysis we will discuss a theoretical approach: Collective Action Theory
that can academically and theoretically explain and support our empirical
argumentation.
6. Conclusion
Present the results of our research and analysis, and answer the problem formulation
The figure presented above is to list how the project is designed in terms of our problem area.
The design figure clarifies that the suffering of human rights in Tanzania, East Africa, is the
point of departure of this project. The project thereby follows an inductive approach where
we examine the relevant and available empirical material concerning the human rights
context in Tanzania with the purpose of developing new empirical arguments and
conclusions. This will be done through an analysis of already existing documents and reports
that has relevance for our chosen problem area. We have chosen the document analysis as a
methodological approach because other approaches such as interviews, survey etc. are
excluded because of our limited resources. However, to examine our problem formulation by
using for example interviews of the relevant sources would help us to clarify some of the
Page 5 of 43
problems related to our problem area because of the possibility of reducing biases. Interviews
will not be carried out in this study because of our limited resources especially time limit.
In terms of the chosen existing empirical material used in our project we have chosen to
combine quantitative and qualitative material conducted by other sources since it will give us
the most ideal view when studying our problem area. Much of the existing empirical material
there exist in our problem area is conducted through quantitative research but because we
are working with a social phenomenon we find it important also to use qualitative material so
by choosing a combination of those two it is possible to grasp the reality and reduce biases as
much as possible.
In the effort of preparing an adequate study we have tried to meet some of the possible biases
that might occur. We are generating empirical material but we are doing that by using already
existing empirical evidence. We have tried to narrow our chosen existing empirical material
down to the actors involved in the problem area to get a more valid point of view throughout
the analysis. In this case we have chosen material from Tanzanian NGOs that are dealing with
human rights issues as well as material from the Tanzanian government and international
actors to get a nuanced picture of how the situation of human rights is perceived by the
different actors.
It is worth mentioning that the methodological documentation is not only chosen as it is an
extent related advantage but also because it is the most relevant approach to use in the study
of the problem area. All these choices throughout the methods gives us an opportunity to
analyze valid and reliable material in terms of the faced human rights issues in Tanzania, East
Africa, and develop some conclusive arguments as to what we see as being the core problem.
Once the core problem has been identified we will discuss our findings in a theoretical
approach: Collective Action Theory that might explain the situation.
2.3 Validity, reliability, and generalization
We find the validity, reliability and generalization in our project of great importance so thereby
we have focused on the core areas within these to reduce some of the possible biases that can
occur.
Page 6 of 43
The validity in our project is present in terms of the choice of empirical work, which heightens
the validity in our project because it gives us an insight in how the chosen main actors address
increased human rights issues in Tanzania and how the current situation is in the human
rights sector in Tanzania. The validity is addressing the connection between our problem
formulation in the project and what is actually being studied. Furthermore, by studying
human rights from an inductive approach and choosing specific reports from specific actors
we are aware of the impact this can have on the validity. However, we attempt to overcome
this by discussing our findings in a theoretical approach that can support our argumentations
and conclusions conducted in the empirical analysis. In general a high validity which will be
touched upon throughout the project will give us the opportunity we need to get a more
nuanced picture of the human rights situation in Tanzania, East Africa.
Reliability is in general ensured by transparency throughout the whole process, which in this
case is our project. We will in our project make sure of a great deal of transparency so the
reader of the project have the opportunity to make further research or just evaluate the
quality of our work in terms of our analysis and conclusions. By going through the design
figure presented in Section 2.2 the transparency is ensured by a clarifications of the path and
different steps towards making the project. Furthermore all of our choices is defined and
justified in the methods review – all to ensure the transparency and thereby the reliability in
our project.
Working with generalizability we know that the generalization in a case study can be
relatively low and thereby limits the possibilities for generalization examining a topic from a
statistical point of view. But in this case we are examining our problem area from an
analytical view, which gives us the possibility to answer our problem formulation because it is
possible to link individual cases with theoretical notions working with a case study.
Furthermore we are interested in a single case, which is Tanzania, East Africa, and the sector
of human rights. The purpose of this study is not to contextualize our problem area with other
problem areas but instead studying the situation in Tanzania in terms of human rights
violations and how the chosen main actors address increased human rights issues in Tanzania
(Maaløe, 1996).
Page 7 of 43
2.4 Case Study
As mentioned above we have chosen to examine our problem area as a case study of Tanzania.
The characteristics of a case study are that it offers an in-depth study that gives us the
opportunity to study a social phenomenon (Antoft & Salomonsen, 2007). Our case is
examined by looking at the empirical context regarding human rights in Tanzania, which will
be presented in Section 4.2. This gives us the opportunity to analyze and argue for our
empirical argumentations and conclusions, which will be supported and explained by a
theoretical approach: Collective Action Theory (De Vaus, 2001).
We choose to use a single case study in this project because of our interest in human rights
issues in Tanzania, and a single case study gives opportunities in terms of going in-depth (De
Vaus, 2001). Our case study is a part of a larger complexity due to the fact that we are
studying social phenomenon where our starting point is in the empirical work, which we after
an analysis will try to explain within a theoretical approach: Collective Action Theory. The
chosen theory will shed light over the argumentation and conclusion that we have made in the
analysis and thereby contribute to a nuanced and adequate answer to our problem
formulation.
All of this lets us to our last argument in terms of our use of the case study; we are using an
inductive approach throughout the process because we are trying to explain our findings in
our analysis in a theoretical approach.
2.5 Research Strategy
By using the document analysis as a research strategy in the project we have the opportunity
to use and analyze existing empirical material regarding the issues of human rights that
Tanzania is facing today. When using the document analysis, we are able to get an insight in
the societal role created by the author. The societal role regarding issues of human rights as
just presented (Duedahl & Jacobsen 2010). Our strategy in terms of our analysis we will use a
text and content analysis, which trough codes of words can say something about the meaning
and composition of the words used in the document regarding our problem area. Because we
Page 8 of 43
are analyzing trough codes of words, we will be using a combination of a quantitative and
qualitative approach as presented in the design figure (Duedahl & Jacobsen, 2010). However
we are aware of the biases combined with the document analysis in terms of using existing
empirical material because whether or not the author of the documents was created in
his/hers view of the problem and not ours and is on the same time based on other material
than ours (Duedahl & Jacobsen 2010). However we think it is possible to overcome such
biases by examine the problem with the right scientific stance.
2.6 Scientific stance
The problem area of the project in terms of our empirical findings has been examined based
on a critical scientific stance to give us an analytical guidance in our case study. The critical
thinking is to be seen in that we are critical of our observations in terms of the empirical data.
This will help us to identify the context from codes of words as presented in our research
strategy (cf. Section 2.5).
In our theoretical perspectives we are using a neoliberal approach to our findings. Neoliberalism is concerned with absolute gains rather than relative gains where the state and its
interest is the main subject of analysis
The reason why we choose to use a neoliberal approach is because of our choice of explaining
our empirical findings within a theoretical approach. Collection Action Theory is based on
neoliberal assumptions such as the government being the main actor acting in the interest of
everybody and the actor providing public goods, which have common and collective benefits
for the society. The basic problem consists of the fact that main actors (government/state) is
sometimes not acting in the interest of everybody and instead acting economically rational
and this behaviorist approach can result in free rider problems and thereby inefficient
initiatives taking against human rights violations.
2.7 Choice of empirical material
The existing empirical we have chosen is a combination of both qualitative and quantitative
data. All of the chosen data is selected with the stated intention that it should be
Page 9 of 43
representative of reality. Our empirical material used in terms of our case study is primarily
collected from the Internet because of the choice of country and the fact that we are
interested in resent sources, which is typically best collected from the Internet. In terms of
our chosen theoretical approach, our chosen material is primarily collected from books. Every
time we have chosen existing empirical material we have, as indicated, focused on the
materials’ relevance, validity, and representativity for our problem area as well as the specific
problemformulation. Furthermore, we are aware of the fact that it is secondary existing
material we are using and thereby no actual influences have on the chosen documents
(Duedahl & Jacobsen, 2010). We have chosen the existing empirical material trough four main
criteria’s: representativeness, significance, reliability and authenticity (Duedahl & Jacobsen,
2010). Thereby we have been able to determine how much the documents are contributing to
the answer of the actual problemformulation (Duedahl & Jacobsen, 2010). Our touch is
reflected on our conducted empirical project and choices throughout the project (Duedahl &
Jacobsen, 2010).
Because we are interested in why human rights in Tanzania are suffering we think that the
three chosen main actors; the Tanzanian government, local NGOs and international actors is
of great relevance. It was very important to get an insight in documents conducted by
Tanzanian institutions because we wanted to get a nuanced picture of why human rights is
suffering which is being supported by documents conducted from international actors.
Furthermore, we are interested in a snapshot of the situation of human rights in Tanzania we
have tried to time limit our documents which in our case study is from 2006-2013. Within this
timeframe we argue that there was enough time to implement initiatives taken from different
development actors and thereby enough time to make improvements within the sector of
human rights.
2.8 Choice of theoretical approach
This project is about why human rights are still suffering in Tanzania. We are as mentioned
earlier in the project using an inductive approach, which means that we are examining the
relevant existing and available material regarding the human rights context in Tanzania with
the aim of developing new empirical arguments and conclusions. Our choice of explaining our
Page 10 of 43
findings within a theoretical framework gave us different opportunities in terms of theories.
Opportunities such as World System Theory and Dependency Theory were our options. We
choose however, to use Collective Action theory because of the many stakeholders and its
different interest in terms of improving the human rights situation in Tanzania. By using the
Collective Action Theory we have the opportunity to look at the main actors and explain how
they address increased human rights issues in Tanzania and thereby explain our findings
within the chosen theoretical approach, since Collective Action Theory argues that actors have
different interests and own agendas, and that everyone wants to benefit from the processes,
which can explain the diffuseness of the human rights sector in Tanzania.
2.9 Critical reflections on the methodological choices
As indicated above we have done some critical reflections in terms of the methodological
choices throughout the project. An important critique is the fact that we are using secondary
empirical material and thereby gets to be a part of an existing intertextuality. This means that
our findings in our analysis regarding why human rights are suffering in Tanzania only covers
a limited amount of explanations within the context of human rights. Conversely this
limitation just presented gives us the advantage that the complexity of the analysis is
restricted, which benefits in terms of an in-depth case study. In terms of the understanding of
the nuances of our main actors, it is worth mentioning that we didn’t have the opportunity to
hear the local citizens of Tanzania themselves about how they address human rights issues,
which can be problematic. This has a negative effect on the validity of the project and the
answer of the problem formulation. On the other hand we have chosen existing empirical
material from a local NGO that included this part of society by interviewing victims of
violations against human rights.
3. Theoretical approach
In the theoretical framework we will introduce the logic of collective action as formulated by
Mancur Olson in 1971, which will be used to explain our findings in our analysis about why
human rights are still suffering in Tanzania.
Page 11 of 43
3.1 The logic of collective Action Theory
Mancur Olson (1931 – 1998) published the Collective Action Theory in 1965 for the first time.
Olson was an American economist and social scientist. One of his contributions was the
Collective Action Theory and its role in terms of economic development.
The theory challenged the accepted wisdom at the time that if everyone in a group (of any
size) has interests in common, then they will act collectively to achieve them, and in a
democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority.
The theory argues that individuals in any group attempting to act collectively will have
incentives to ”free ride”1 on the efforts of others if the group is working to provide public
goods. Individuals will not ”free ride” in groups that provide benefits only to active
participants (Olson, 1971).
Public goods are defined by being non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Non-excludable means
that one person cannot reasonably prevent another from consuming the good, and nonrivalrous means that one person’s consumption of the good does not affect another’s, or viceversa (Olson, 1971). In practice public goods include e.g. police protection, law and order, or
state’s defense, which means that any government is beneficial for the largest part of its
citizens through providing law and order, meaning that everyone benefits from the public
goods supplied by the government (Olson, 1971). However, without selective incentives to
motivate participation, collective action is unlikely to occur even when large groups of people
with common interests exits (Olson, 1971).
The theory furthermore noted that large groups will face relatively high costs when
attempting to organize for collective action while small groups will face relatively low costs,
and thereby individuals in large groups will gain less per capita of successful collective action
(Olson, 1971). Consequently, in the absence of selective incentives, the incentive for group
action dimishes as group size increases, so that large groups are less able to act in their
common interest than small ones. This is in line with the durable argument of specialization
A free rider in economics refers to someone who benefits from resources, goods, or services without paying for
the cost of the benefit. Free riding may be considered a problem when it leads to under-provision of goods or
services, or when it leads to overuse or degradation of a common property ressource (Baumol, 1952)
1
Page 12 of 43
from economic theory that suggests that specialization creates comparative advantages and
more efficiency. It refers to the ability of a party to provide a particular good or service at a
lower marginal and opportunity cost over another.2
A government is supposed to act in the interest of its citizens, but the interest of a government
is to stay in power. This makes the tax logic the same in either democracies or dictatorships,
meaning that a president candidate only has to “buy” his way to the most votes by e.g. offering
a redistribution of taxes that benefit this part of the population (Svendsen, 2012). Unlike
governments, development actors (excl. local governments) act in the interest of their
members. Theoretically this means that development actors do not see the advantages of
providing public goods, even though they themselves will benefit from them as well, as a
public good is not directly to their own members, and thereby they have the opportunity to
exclude other actors. Furthermore, to provide a public good as a development actor will,
based on Olson’s collective action theory, not be efficient because stakeholders with common
interests involved create and have incentives to “free ride” on the efforts of others (Olson,
1971). The basic problem consists of the fact that within the scope of Olson’s model
individuals, acting economically rational does not have an interest in contributing to the
provision of a public good. This is even the case if they themselves are able to utilize the good
after it has been obtained.
To sum up, Collective Action Theory as presented by Mancur Olson, captures the essence that
all actors have their own different interests and will act in accordance with those why it
becomes difficult for large groups to act collectively to provide public goods that will be
accessible to everyone. Instead all the individuals want to benefit from the processes and the
efforts of others to provide public goods instead of engaging themselves. This is the principle
of ‘free riding.’
Adam Smith was the first to mention the idea of comparative advantage in his book “The wealth of nations”
(1776).
2
Page 13 of 43
4. The overall framework
The overall framework will outline the conceptualizations and operationalizations of terms and
concepts that will be used throughout the project. Furthermore an empirical framework of the
three main actors will be presented to create a basic understanding before going into an indepth case study in our analysis.
4.1 Conceptualization and operationalization
4.1.1 Human rights
Human rights are defined by ”the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled,
often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality
before the law” (Dictionary of the English Language, 2000). In practice human rights are a part
of a value system, which is universally accepted and codified in international treaties, which
all states can agree on (OECD DAC, 2007; LHRC, 2012). Human rights can be divided
differently (economical rights, societal rights, political rights etc.) but the division we are
focusing on here is civil rights. Civil rights concern the right to life, equality before the law
including access to justice and fair trials, freedom of expression, and freedom from torture
(LHRC, 2012).
The human rights’ focus in this project is mainly concerned with the civil rights and liberties
while acknowledging that there is no clear distinction between civil rights, liberties and
human rights. Though some scholars have tried to distinguish between the two, the terms are
used interchangeably depending on the context (Stone, 2008). Human rights provide an
overall framework of freedoms in which more specific civil liberties can operate. This project
will therefore not make a distinction, since the point of departure is blurred (Stone, 2008).
Human rights in this project is at such concerned with the extension of freedoms and sees
Civil rights and liberties as part of the category of negative rights that involve the right to be
protected from certain conditions such as arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, and death
(LHRC, 2012).
Page 14 of 43
4.2 The Empirical Framework
Tanzania, independent since 1961, currently multi-party democracy, as the largest country in
East Africa and with a very attractive geographical position, has an attractive investment
environment. The country has very diversified population with more than 120 tribes with
different languages, rituals, celebrations and traditions (Tanzania Human Rights Report
2012).
The United Republic of Tanzania is a union of mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar which have
somewhat different governance systems. The governance system in Tanzania is composed of
Legislative, Executive and Judiciary bodies. The executive branch is held by the president
(Jakaya Kikwete), which is chosen for a five-year term, and the cabinet. The executive power
covers the entire United Republic of Tanzania (LHRC, 2012). The Tanzanian Parliament or the
National Assembly of Tanzania holds the legislative power and its members are also elected
for a five-year term. The judicial branch is composed of various courts and is based on English
Common Law (LHRC, 2013). Zanzibar has its own legislative body, House of Representatives,
which establish laws only for Zanzibar as long as it does not affect the Union. Zanzibar judicial
branch is parallel with the court system of the Mainland Tanzania (Central Intelligence
Agency, 2014).
The United republic of Tanzania as a stable, parliamentary democracy faces many weaknesses
in regard to government’s transparency and accountability. The outcome of the government’s
ability to manage development and achieve its Millennium Development Goals (MDG) is very
poor. The concept of good governance, rule of law including protection of human rights in not
effectively applied (UN in Tanzania, 2011). Additional, the juridical system faces many
challenges: “implementation in the justice sector is held back by corruption, inadequate
infrastructure, uneven national coverage, biases against women and children (…) as well as
insufficient protection of the rights of the poor” (UN in Tanzania, 2011). Poor access to justice
and abuse of power are of the main problems affecting the protection of human rights.
Therefore, Tanzania is trying to cooperate with several development actors in terms of aid
management and improvements of human rights (for instance: UN, local and international
NGOs) but at the same time it is worth mentioning that the Tanzanian government is known
for restricting the civil society (Tanzania Government, 2013).
Page 15 of 43
Tanzania is highly dependent on development aid to the point of being considered as donor
darling. The development aid is delivered in the form of general budget support (GBS), basket
fund and direct project fund (DPG 1). The most preferable aid modality is GBS which in years
2012/13 was amounted on 167,724,022 USD. The remaining modalities are as follows: basket
fund with 27,040,976.36 USD and direct project fund with 24,801,079 USD (Aid Management
Platform System Tanzania, 2012). In terms of the above mentioned it is worth mentioning
that aid dependency can negatively influence a country’s planning abilities as well as
development programs (Policy Forum, 2010).
LHRC
Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) is a local, non-governmental, sharing organization
with a mission to empower civil society in Tanzania. LHRC has dedicated its actions to
monitor human rights violations and to provide necessary legal aid and to create widespread
awareness in regard to human rights. LHRC covers Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar. This
NGO is widely known and respected organization which together with the African
Commission on Human and Peoples Rights has the status of an observer over Tanzania’s
progress in human rights sector (LHRC, 2014).
United Nations – Tanzania
In terms of cooperation with the Tanzanian government the UN in Tanzania is assisting the
Tanzanian government’s agencies as well as non-state actors (NGOs, CSOs) to improve good
governance and protection of human rights. The UN assistance also includes coordination of
the received international development aid in Tanzania. To improve the protection of human
rights, UN in Tanzania provides technical support to the Tanzanian government and the
organizations within the civil society (UN in Tanzania, 2011).
Amnesty International
Amnesty International is a non-governmental organization which is funded mainly by public
donations and membership fees. Amnesty International stands for human rights through
defending freedom of expression, reviling and demanding justice for human rights violations,
and expressing opposition against death penalty. The organization jointly with their members
Page 16 of 43
and volunteers oppose governing powers which do not provide justice and adequate
protection of human rights. Amnesty International uses social media, demonstrations, and
direct lobbing against those who cause or allow on human rights violations (Amnesty
International 2014). Such actions are the main tools Amnesty International uses to ravel
human rights violations and to pressure the government of Tanzania to improve the situation
of human rights.
Summing up, Tanzania is very diverse country, and the environment in terms of human rights
in Tanzania is characterized by numerous donors and an active civil society who are actively
engaging with human rights issues. However, the government and the civil society are highly
dependent on resources from international actors. The government faces several problems
concerning lack of transparency and accountability as well as corruption and poor
management of state resources, which questions whether the large amount resources
received by the Tanzanian government is put to good use. The government tries to corporate
with local NGOs and international organizations, but at the same time the government is
known to restrict the civil society in several ways.
5. Analysis
The analysis is divided into three parts and each main actors perspectives on violations against
human rights, which reflects a weak justice system in Tanzania. The first part focuses on a
Tanzanian local NGO; The Legal and Human rights Centre (LHRC) – findings in terms of
violations of human rights on three main areas: rights to life, freedom from torture and freedom
of opinion and expression. The second part will focus on the findings of the justice system from
the Tanzanian government – Governments periodic report on human rights. The third part of
the analysis will consist of international actors’ perspectives on the justice system in Tanzania –
United Nations in Tanzania and Amnesty International.
5.1 Part 1
Human rights violations and abuse seems to remain to be a serious challenge if we take a look at
the human rights report conducted by LHRC.
Page 17 of 43
5.1.1 Right to life (lack of justice)
LHRC is putting a lot of emphasis on expressing how important the right to life is and that this
human right is the most important of all human rights because: ”if there was no right to life
there would be no point in having any other human rights. The right to life is the supreme right
(...)” (LCHR, 2013: 15). LHRC is arguing that the right to life in Tanzania is under threat
because of the laws providing for capital punishment in some cases. LHRC reports that death
penalty is one of the most barbaric, inhuman and brutal ways of punishments and is a
violation of human rights because it violates the right to life (LHRC, 2013). Although death
penalty is retained as a punishment in Tanzanian laws (the Penal Code, Cap 16 [R.E 2002] of
the Laws of Tanzania and the Penal Code, Cap 16 [R.E 2002] of the Laws of Tanzania) LHRC
argues that records show that Tanzania in general is categorized as a country that abolish
death penalty in practice which may indicate that the government isn’t involving the civil
society and there is a lack of justice to be found in the justice system in Tanzania (LHRC,
2013).
Extrajudicial killing is also considered in terms of the rights to life and is being described as:
”an act of the killing that is done by State machinery through the State law enforcement organs
such as the police force, the army, the prison service forces and other paramilitary forces of the
State” (LHRC, 2013: 20) Extrajudicial killings is against Penal Code Cap 16 [R.E 2002] of the
Laws of Tanzania which prohibits the act of killing. This act is thereby done with any legal
process (LHRC, 2013). LHRC argues that there has been done very little from the political
leadership in Tanzania to prevent those kind of killings. Furthermore, LHRC is arguing that in
recent years has been an increase in the killings done by the law enforcement bodies as
described above and there has been no option for prosecution because the killings is being
done by the law enforcement bodies. The political leadership of the country has not done the
necessary enforcements to prevent these acts. LHRC is backing this up with a statement given
by the political leaders (has been made in several occasions) (LHRC, 2013). One of the
statements was given by the Prime Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania on the 20th of
august 2013 (the parliamentary session) where Peter Kayanza was responding to a question
by saying:
Page 18 of 43
”Ukifanya fujo na unaambiwa usifanye hiki na wewe ukaamua kukaidi utapigwa tu,
maana hakuna namna nyingine…eeeheee maana lazima wote tukubaliance nchi
inaongozwa kwa misingi ya kisheria. Sasa kama wewe umakaidi, hutaki unaona kwamba
wewe ni imara zaidi, wewe ndio jeuri, zaidi, watakupiga tu! Na mimi nasema muwapige
tu! Sababu hakuna namna nyingine, eeeh maana tumechoka sasa” (LHRC, 2013: 21).
Translated:
“If you make trouble and you are told not to do that and you decline you will just be
beaten, because there is no other way......yeah, we have to agree on one thing that the
country is run under the rule of law (sic). Now, if you decline, and think that you are the
strong one, that you are the most stuborn, they will beat you! And I say, just beat them!
Because there is no other way, we are fed up!” (LHRC, 2013: 21).
This quotation suggests that the government has no intentions to make sure that the citizens
comply the law rather than the use of force. Further it suggests that state empowerments are
allowed to use force against the Tanzanian people. Here we see examples regarding lack of
justice in the Tanzanian justice system.
As a final comment is it worth mentioning that between 27th of February and the 3rd of May
2013, 23 incidences are to be found with more than 23 people being killed by state
empowerments (LHRC, 2013).
5.1.2 Freedom from torture (abuse of power)
The constitution of the United republic of Tanzania (1977) contains a general prohibition
against torture but at the same time the Penal Code allows for acts of torture such as hanging
as a punishment, which has been proved to be inhuman and degrading as described in the
section of the right to life. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of torture to be found in
the Tanzanian legislation and there have never been reported instances of torture being
criminalized. LHRC is arguing that this: ”brings about a gap in addressing acts of torture, which
have been on the rise in recent years” (LHRC, 2013: 51). Acts of torture is typically being done
Page 19 of 43
by state empowerments when the criminal is in custody of the law empowerments (LHRC,
2013).
One incident for acts of torture reported by LHRC was followed by demonstrations in Mtwaea
over the gas saga. Among people that were arrested were Civic United Front (CUF) Assistant
Director of Parliamentarian Affairs and Election Mr. Shaweji Mketo who was asked from CUF
headquarters to go to Mtwara to aware the development of the case. He was charged in
Mtwara District with violence among others. The story goes: Mr. Shaweji during his stay in
Mtwara received information that one of his colleagues was raped by a soldier who was a
member of the Tanzanian People’s defense Force (TPDF) at Msimbati village. Mr. Shaweji
went to go visit his colleague in Msimbati with other CUF members to see the condition she
(name withheld) was in. On the way back from Msimbati Mr. Shaweji and the other CUF
members met two vehicles belonging to the TPDF. Mr. Shaweji explained in his testimony
that:
“Walifungua mlango wa mbele kwa nguvu na kunichomoa kutoka katika gari wakati huo
nikiwa nimefunga mkanda. Baada ya kuufungua, walinikunja shati na mmoja wa askari
alichomoa fedha zangu kutoka katika mfuko wa shati, kiasi cha shilingi 85,000 ambazo
zote zilikuwa noti za shilingi elfu tano tano. Nilipoushika mkono wake kwa nia ya
kumzuia asichukue fedha zile, ghafla askari mwingine alinipiga na kitako cha bunduki
huku akifoka kwa nini namkunja shati kanali wa jeshi. Nilihisi huenda mgongo ulikuwa
umeachana kutokana na kipigo kile” (LHRC, 2013: 53).
Translated:
“They opened the front door by force and pulled me out of the vehicle still with my seatbelt on. They grabbed me by my shirt and one of the soldiers took my money from my
breast pocket, amounting to 85,000 (Tanzanian shillings) which were in five thousands
bill. I hold his hand in protest and that is when another soldier hit me with the back of the
gun shouting why I was grabbing the army colonel’s shirt. I felt as if my back spelt apart
with the beating” (LHRC, 2013:53).
They were afterwords taken to an army camp where the soldiers tortured them all. The
soldiers wanted to know which of the government officials that were running the campaign
Page 20 of 43
against the construction of a gas pipeline through a part of Tanzania. Mr. Shaweji continues
his testimony:
“Kiongozi mmoja wa jeshi, aliyetajwa kuwa na cheo cha Kanali alichukua vitu vyetu
vyote ikiwemo compyuta yangu ya laptop, simu zetu, fedha taslimu na kila kitu
tulichokuwa nacho. Baadae alitueleza kuwa wanayo taarifa ya kuwapo vigogo serikalini
ambao wanafadhili baadhi ya vikundi kuhakikisha gesi haisafirishwi kutoka Mtwara
kwenda Dar es salaam. Hivyo, kwa usalama wetu ni vyema tuwataje vigogo hao,
vinginevyo ndiyo ingekuwa mwisho wa maisha yetu, huku akijigamba kwamba heri
wachache wauawe kusudi nchi iwe salama na kuwa funzo kwa wengine” (LHRC, 2013:
53)
Translated
“An army officer, who went by the rank of Colonel, took all our belongings, among them
my laptop, our mobile phones, cash money and everything we had. He then told us that he
had information that there were government leaders who were funding groups, which
were advocating against gas transfer from Mtwara to Dar es Salaam. Thus for our own
safety, we better had to name these leaders or otherwise that would be the end of our
lives. He was saying this while bragging that it was better that few die as long as the
country will be safe, and that this would be a lesson to others” (LHRC, 2013: 53, 54).
Mr. Shaweji’s testimony further reveals that:
“Wakati wa mateso tulivuliwa nguo zote kila mmoja wetu na kupelekwa katika mashina
ya miti................mkuu huyo wa jeshi aliwaamuru wanajeshi hao kutupiga kwa dakika tano
na yeye kutegesha muda. Tulipigwa mfululizo na kusitisha kipigo kila baada ya dakika
tano, ambapo mkuu huyo alipita kwa kila mmoja wetu kutuhoji juu ya vigogo hao wa
serikali na kwa nini tulienda Msimbati” (LHRC, 2013: 54)
Translated:
“During the torture, we were all stripped naked and were taken to nearby tree trunks
where the said army leader ordered the soldiers to beat us for five minutes. He himself
was keeping time. We were beaten continuously in five minutes intervals while the army
Page 21 of 43
leader passed interrogating us on Government leaders and as to why we went to
Msimbati” (LHRC, 2013: 54).
The victims were after the incident of torture handled to Mtwara police where they got
interrogated for their statements of being tortured. They were here charged with conspiracy
to commit crime, illegal assembly, and inciting fear. The court granted bail and but none of the
victims were able to pay themselves out of the bail conditions which resulted in the victims
still were remained in custody. Doing all this time none of the victims were brought to a
hospital for treatment for their injuries after the torture. After twenty days the bail conditions
were met and they got out of prison.
A case like the above described is a case of abuse of power where the Tanzanian justice
system is too weak to grant justice to those who have been violated. The fact that CUF
members were tortured because of a visit to one of their colleagues, who was raped by a
soldier, both instances done by a Tanzanian institution, is a crucial act of violations against
human rights. Furthermore, these instances happened because of demonstrations from the
Tanzanian people as part of the civil society due to the result of the gas saga questions the
freedom of the civil society within the sector of human rights, which in fact has been the most
rapidly growing for the past two decades and accounts for the most critical voices against the
state (Mutua, 2009). However, the Tanzanian government is trying hard to control the civil
society and has closely regulated NGOs and sought to either co-opt or muzzle them as seen by
the case above.
5.1.3 Freedom of opinion and expression
Freedom of opinion and expression is in Tanzania protected by article 18 of the Constitution
of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977, which states that:
“Every person – Has a freedom of opinion and expression of his ideas; Has a right to seek,
receive and impart or disseminate information regardless of national frontiers; Has a
right to freedom to communicate and right of freedom from interference with his right to
Page 22 of 43
information; Has a right to be informed at all times of various important events of lives
and activities of the people and also of issues to the society” (LHRC, 2013: 64).
LHRC (2013) argues that freedom of opinion and expression are linked to development and
democratic accountability. In addition to this it is also important in terms of violations against
human rights because it through information from the civil society can expose and create
awareness about these violations. Despite article 18 presented above there is no guaranteed
protection in Tanzania because of the lack of legislative protection presented in the right to
life section (LHRC, 2013).
An example of development in terms of the human right of freedom of opinion and expression
is the switchover from analogue to digital technology. Digital switchover is the process of
turning the analogue broadcasting system of information in the civil society into a system of
digital technology. The state agreed on doing this in 2006 before the 17th of June 2015. The
switchover meant that people had to be able to capture digital frequencies or buy equipment
that made it possible to capture digital frequencies. This was very costly for most television
viewers and people could not afford to get access to digital information. This meant that the
switchover actually denied people to get access to digital information, which is against article
18 presented above (LHRC, 2013).
In terms of the right to information LHRC reports that the: ”Constitution of the United Republic
of Tanzania, 1977, protects the freedom of information and the right to access information. This
constitutional protection and guarantee was meant to grant citizens broad access to
information that may impact their lives, including state-held information. However, in Tanzania
this constitutional right has not been backed by a specific legislation to make the Government
release state-held information to the citizens on a regular basis or upon request” (LHRC, 2013:
68). Associated stakeholders have since 2006 tried three times to enact a law that will
guarantee the right to information but the government has not responded yet. Right to
information in terms of the civil society is still a challenge in Tanzania. The government and
the related institutions have suppressed the right to information by for example banning
newspapers, and because of the bureaucracy involved in the processes it is very difficult to
follow up on information (LHRC, 2013). The fact that the government has not responded to
Page 23 of 43
stakeholders who’s interest lies in improving the conditions for the rights to information and
thereby blocked the whole process is just another example of how weak the Tanzanian
government and justice system is.
Attacks and threats against journalist is also reality in Tanzania. Doing the Mtwara gas saga
presented in the section of freedom from torture, journalists in Tanzania failed to report on
the gas related issues as a consequence of lack of information from the government and
related institutions, which resulted in journalists reported what the public wanted to hear.
This resulted in the authorities accusing journalists of violence in terms of exhibiting the
authorities. Consequently journalists was threatened from all angles: the public because they
did not have the wanted information, and by the authorities because journalists were critical
to the missing information about the newly found natural gas. Journalists went into hiding
because of the attacks and killing that some of the journalists experienced (LHRC, 2013).
Here again we see another case where justice is non-existing in the Tanzanian justice system.
The journalists has in this case nowhere to go in terms of upholding their human rights
because of the lack of justice which resulted in the journalists went into hiding because they
were afraid to get attacked or killed by the actors involved. The fact that people are afraid to
walk around the streets but would rather be hiding from the rest of the society is a huge
indicator for the lack of justice in Tanzania.
Going through all of the cases we argue that there is a clear problem with the Tanzanian
justice system and the system is very weak. The fact that people don’t have access to justice
when they are experiencing violations against human rights and that the Tanzanian
institutions are using their power to violate human rights gives us a clear understanding of
how weak the Tanzanian justice system really are. If we take a look at what the governmental
act to improve the justice system by preventing human rights violations we actually get
another picture of the justice system in Tanzania. Lets take a look:
Page 24 of 43
5.2 Part 2
In the second part we are outlining information on Tanzanian justice system from Government’s
periodic report on human rights and the role of Tanzania’s national organ on human rights: the
Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance.
5.2.1 The Government on Human Rights
Tanzania is a legal part to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. In accordance
with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which Tanzania is member of,
the country is obligated to submit a report every second year on the actions taken to promote
and protect the rights of individuals stated in the Charter. The Charter guarantees for
instance, right to life (Art 4), prohibition of torture and degrading treatment (Art 5), freedom
from discrimination (Art 2), and equality before the law (Art 13 African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights). Such periodic reports after the submission to the African Commission
on Human and Peoples' Rights are made public.
According to the African Commission, Tanzania is late with the submission of three periodic
reports. It is explained due to the lack of human and financial resources and short reporting
time (African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, 2014). The last periodic report,
according to the Commissions, was submitted in April 2007 and covers the period from 19922006. According to the report the Tanzanian Government has created and implemented the
Legal Sector Reform Programme, which, among other aspects, covers human rights. One of the
main objectives is to provide “Timely Justice for All by the year 2008 (…)” (The United Republic
of Tanzania, 2006: 2). Basic human rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United
Republic of Tanzania and the Bill of Rights3. The country has also adopted and domesticated
international principles regarding discrimination and children rights in the form of the Penal
Code, Criminal Procedure Act, and Evidence Act (The United Republic of Tanzania, 2006).
With regard to the right to life and dignity, the Criminal Procedure Act (2002) requires from
the police that the use of force can only be preceded only when necessary. Tanzanian
3
Bill of Rights, it is a declaration/list of the most important rights of Tanzanian people (East African Community,
2009).
Page 25 of 43
Constitution “prohibits all forms of exploitation and degradation of a person particularly
slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment” (The
United Republic of Tanzania, 2006: 10). The Police Force and Auxiliary Services Act regulates
the conduction of arrests and investigations. It prohibits unreasonable use of force and
degrading treatment (LRCT 2008). Additionally, “the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement
Officials requires that ' in the performance of their duty Law Enforcement Official shall respect
and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold human rights of all persons” (The United
republic of Tanzania, 2006: 11). Violations of those rights are punished by disciplinary
charges or other actions persuaded by the court (The United republic of Tanzania, 2006).
Furthermore Information and Broadcasting Policy (2003) provides all citizens of Tanzania
with the right to information and freedom of opinion. Additionally, all the media institutions
have created The Media Council of Tanzania in order to protect their rights and to provide
further development of professional media in Tanzania (The United Republic of Tanzania,
2006). The Government has also taken measures towards equal disbursement of human
rights. The Tanzanian Government is aware of the fact that some groups, particularly women
and children, are most exposed to violations of their basic rights. Therefore, the Government’s
actions are supplemented with cooperation with local NGOs, for instance The Tanzania Media
Women Association (TAMWA), which specializes in educating and promoting human rights
among women (The United Republic of Tanzania, 2006). The Tanzanian government states
that the progress towards human rights has been remarkable however, there is still room for
improvement. The government is also aware of some illegal practices but at the same time it
is optimistic in achieving its objectives.
For better promotion and preservation of human rights in Tanzania the Tanzanian
government has established the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance to
improve the human rights situation in Tanzania (CHRGG). The Commission’s role is to
promote, protect and preserve human rights in Tanzania. Additionally, the Commission is to
perform investigations on human rights violations to advise the Tanzanian government and
public institutions such as NGOs and CSOs on possible solutions in terms of improving the
human rights situation in Tanzania (The United Republic of Tanzania, 2006).
Page 26 of 43
The CHRGG consists of a judge and mainly lawyers whose central role is to investigate human
rights violations. This human rights institution has the power to prosecute nonetheless it
mainly educates the public and advises the Government of Tanzania on specific issues. The
commission employs over 160 specialists and operates with a budget of $2, 4 million, which is
funded from the government’s budget and donors. However, the Commission deals with a
very high number of complains yearly, not sufficient budget and staff members contributes to
overburdening the Commission which results with high content of unresolved cases. During
the years of 2001 – 2006 the commission has received 14,487 complaints, and only 1, 8% of
the cases were categorized as human rights violations the rest was related to governmental
maladministration4 (EISA, 2009).
The law does not clearly state whether the reports of the Commission should be available for
the public. However, all “reports have to be tabled before the National Assembly before the
public can access them” (EISA, 2009: 1 and LHRC, 2013: 444). This may explain the low
number of reports accessible. Among many documents and reports in Swahili, the report on
Research and Public Enquiry on the Implementation of Children’s Rights in Zanzibar (2008)
can be found on CHRGG homepage (CHRGG, 2011). This report reveals a number of violations
against children and puts institutions such as police, hospitals, courts, and parents as the main
malefactor (CHRGG, 2008). The lack of cooperation between the Commission and the
Tanzanian government also results in the Commission’s weak performance. The Tanzanian
government delays or refuses to answer on Commission’s inquiries (LHRC, 2006).
Accordingly, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights have made its remarks on
Tanzania’s periodic report. While the Commission has recognized the country’s efforts to
protect human rights, the area of concern is still wide. Tanzania has ratified many
international treaties however the country’s dualist nature requires a domestication of all
instruments, which has not been done. Further, to limit extra-juridical killings and
unreasonable use of force by the police there is a need for an independent institution, which
4
Maladministration: ”situation where the individual or group in charge is unjust, dishonest, or ineffective in their
leadership (…) frequently used to describe corrupt behavior by any public official” (Business dictionary, 2014).
Page 27 of 43
will take care of such malpractices. The Commission criticized also the under-resourcing of
the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance. Therefore it suggests provision of
greater human and financial resources (African Commission on Human & Peoples’ Rights,
2008).
The above described suggests that the government is actually doing many acts in terms of
improving their justice system by promoting and protecting human rights in Tanzania. With a
first eye glance it looks like the Tanzanian government is engaging in several act and
cooperation to secure human rights for the Tanzanian people. Though it is worth mentioning
that the Commission Tanzania is late with the submission of three periodic reports on how
they are improving the conditions of human rights due to the lack of human and financial
resources and short reporting time. Not having conducted the necessary material for proof in
terms of improving the conditions for human rights is a bit suspicious especially when a
Tanzanian NGO (LHRC) seven years later still reports incidences of violations against human
rights done by Tanzanian institutions. Furthermore another NGO (TAMWA) promotes
protection of human rights by engaging actors, including the Tanzanian government, for a
change of approach towards women and children rights violations. Despite many actions
taken to protect human rights, for instance prevent Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and
early marriages, which have a disastrous effect on young women and children, the results are
very poor (TAMWA, 2012).
Furthermore the fact the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance which was
established by the Tanzanian government to improve the human rights situation in Tanzania
receives so many complaints and only following up on a very small part of them indicates that
Tanzania is trying to make themselves look good in terms of the international society but is
not really interested in improving the human rights situation. Additionally the low number of
report conducted the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance (created by the
Tanzanian Government) explained by the fact that the law does not clearly states if the
reports should be available for the public is not shining a letter light over the Tanzanian
government and their effort to improve the human rights situation in Tanzania. In this sense it
is worth mentioning that it is a bit suspicious that the Commission’s performance is weak in
Page 28 of 43
terms of improving the human rights situations as a result of the lack of cooperation between
the Commission and the Tanzanian government.
So in sum: although the Tanzanian government is trying to improve the situation of human
rights violations on paper it does not seem like that the Tanzanian government is having the
rights intentions doing so because of the lack of commitment to the acts against human rights
violations.
5.3 Part 3
Next we are going to take a look on how international actors (United Nations in Tanzania and
Amnesty International) are experiencing the situation of violations against human rights and
thereby the Tanzanian justice system. As the Tanzanian Local NGO they also see that Tanzania
has a weak justice system
5.3.1 United Nations in Tanzania
United Nations in Tanzania actively support the Tanzanian government and Civil Society
Organizations (SCO) - for instance, support for governmental reforms of the justice system
and promotion of free media and access to information (UN in Tanzania 2011). To improve its
outcomes, UN in Tanzania has created a UN Development Assistance Plan (UNDAP) 20112015 which is a linkage of all UN agencies and partners working as one: “This ‘One Plan’ for
Tanzania supports the achievement of the Internationally Agreed Development Goals (IADGs),
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the realization of international human rights in
the country (…) (UN in Tanzania 2012: 2). The UNDAP also operates on one budget ’The One
UN Fund’: “The One UN Fund aims to streamline the management of donor contributions to DaO
in Tanzania, increasing use of government systems and procedures where possible. Allocations
from The One UN Fund (…) are performance based, emphasizing delivery of results” (UN in
Tanzania 2012: 3). UNDAP’s strategy to improve protection of human rights in Tanzania is
divided on two sections: the Social Protection Program and the Governance Program.
UNDAP’s Social Protection program supports the social protection system in Tanzania and
focuses mainly on violations against women and children. It provides technical support,
budget analysis and provides the resources to ensure better protection system in the country
Page 29 of 43
(UN in Tanzania 2012). The Governance Program is directed on governmental institutions
responsible for aid management and human rights protection. This program deals with issues
such as: access to justice, the provision of fair trial, conditions of detention, gender equality
and discrimination. For instance, “Police Gender and Children’s Desks are being set up (…) as a
result of collaborations by UNICEF, UNFPA and UNWOMEN - improving the capacity of the
police to handle cases of GBV and child abuse on the Mainland and in Zanzibar” (UN in Tanzania
2012: 29).
Due to the fact that UN in Tanzania devotes much attention to the judiciary system testifies
that this governmental organ does not function effectively which is reflected in the Tanzanian
Justice system. The Tanzanian justice system needs resources, qualified people, and
commitment from the law enforcement agents in order to properly handle cases of human
rights violations.
5.3.2 Amnesty International
Research made by Amnesty International (2013) on human rights in Tanzania also shows
many concerns and doubts in regard to the government’s actions on promoting and
protecting human rights. Freedom of media, for instance, is being restricted and regulated
with rules which are neither incompatible with Tanzanian Constitution nor international
principles. For example:
“In July, Mwanahalisi, a weekly tabloid, was banned amid allegations that it
published seditious articles likely to incite violence and jeopardize peace after
publishing a story on the abduction and beating of Dr Steven Ulimboka,
Chairperson of the Special Committee of Doctors and leader of the doctors' strike.
The newspaper remained banned at the end of the year” (Amnesty International,
2013: 1).
Further example shows use of excessive force by the police department:
Page 30 of 43
“In February, police arrested 16 human rights defenders, including 14 women, for
holding an unlawful assembly. They were released the same day. The defenders
were part of a group of around 200 activists taking part in a public demonstration
in the capital, Dar-es-Salaam, calling for the government to resolve the doctors'
dispute”(Amnesty International, 2013: 1).
Additional, discrimination and killing related to cultural beliefs, violence against women and
children still remain a major problem among human rights violations. For instance, female
genital mutilation, child marriages and gender discrimination remains widespread in
Tanzania. Investigations of such violations remain slow and have a very low rate of
prosecutions. The overall government’s determination in protecting human rights is
insufficient (Amnesty International, 2013).
In sum, the promises made by the government do not reflect the reality and implementation
of pro human rights treaties and legislations leave much to be desired. As two of the main
actors shows us we argue that a constant abuse of power and a lack of justice which is a
reality in Tanzania and that the Tanzanian government, related Tanzanian institutions and
law enforcement agency are ignorant of the procedures and new laws which do not make the
current human right situations in Tanzania better. We argue that the above analysis reflects a
highly weak justice system in Tanzania. The core of the problem why human rights are
suffering in Tanzania is therefore because the justice system is weak. Because of the weak
justice system there are no clear consequences of violating human rights in Tanzania. The
initiatives both from civil society, international actors, and the government are there as seen
above, and they put a great focus on the issues, but it seems that the justice system is not
strong enough to follow up on them and act accordingly to ensure that human rights
standards are upheld.
6. Theoretical Perspectives
The theoretical perspectives will try to explain our observations and findings from the analysis in
a theoretical manner based on the Collective Action Theory as presented by Mancur Olson in
Section 3. It has been argued that three main actors are present within the sector of human
Page 31 of 43
rights in Tanzania, and this section is therefore divided between these three to look how their
different interests influence the human rights sector in Tanzania.
The analysis found that the core issue to why human rights are suffering in Tanzania is
because of the weak justice system, and neither of the chosen main actors in the project are
directly focusing on the justice system. Instead they are trying to set focus on human rights,
create awareness and not how to ensure them in the future through strengthening the justice
system. To promote and help the justice system in Tanzania to deal with human rights
violations would benefit all the actors, however they fail to provide the necessities in this
sector, which the theory of Collective Active can give us some explanations to. The essence of
Collective Action Theory is that actors have different interests and act in accordance with
those rather than collective interests, which make everyone want to benefit from the
processes, that relates to the notion of ‘free riding’ as outlined in Section 3.
In the case of Tanzania we have identified three main actors in the sector of human rights: the
government, civil society, and international actors. The government in Tanzania is responsible
for allocating the right amount of resources to ensure that the Judiciary has sufficient financial
resources, and at the same time the government is dependent on financial resources from
international actors (cf. Section 4.2). According to Collective Action Theory, all three actors
will have different interests, and they will act in accordance with their interests and in the
interest of their members. What is lacking in Tanzania is the access to reliable, efficient courts
and skilled staff such as judges to ensure access to justice. To provide these would in fact be
providing public goods that all the actors would benefit from, but since the different actors
have their own interests, this affects their behavior and choices in terms of acting collectively.
This section takes a look at the different actors individually and how their individual interests
and behavior might affect the others and the current human rights situation in Tanzania.
6.1 Civil society
The civil society in Tanzania is highly dependent on international funding usually from
Western, charities, governments, and institutions (Mutua, 2009). It is needless to say such
near-total dependence on foreign funds can distort the ideological vision of civil society and
Page 32 of 43
alienate it from the people on whose behalf it is supposed to struggle. As put by Chidi
Odinkalu (African) “human rights groups exist to please the international agencies that fund
and support them” (in Mutua, 2009: 8). It means that civil society will have to implement
observable outputs in order to please international agencies so they can see what their
resources have been spend on (Easter, 2002), and in this way their main interest becomes a
maximization of budgets (Niskanen, 2007). Investing in human rights is not instantly visible,
and since donors try to increase their visibility and their own projects’ successes it can be at
the expense of the recipient country, in this case Tanzania, where it becomes difficult to make
coherent policymaking and build the proper capacity in the public sector to comply with
human rights standards (Knack and Rahman, 2004).
The Collective Action Theory would argue that civil society in Tanzania has an interest in
increasing their budgets due to economic rationality, and in order to do so they have to
comply with international actors and donors whom they depend on for funding. The
consequence of this can be that they alienate themselves more and more from the people on
whose behalf they are supposed to struggle. Because of the dependency the Tanzanian civil
society has on international actors it might be that it becomes difficult for them to engage in
collective action when it comes to strengthening the justice system, since it is a long-term
process and might not show immediate effects. Instead they put focus on the issues and act in
smaller scales instead of acting collectively with others likeminded to put pressure on the
government to allocate enough resources to help the justice system.
6.2 Government and governance
The government in Tanzania is responsible for allocating state resources, and therefore they
have the role of intermediate between the Judiciary and the international actors, whom they
depend on. The lack of resources transferred to the Judiciary has something to do with
governance since the money has to go through the government. The government’s
responsibility is a result of governance. If a government pursues good governance they will
feel responsible towards all their citizens, whereas bad governance decreases governments’
collective responsibility to the country as a whole (Knack, 2001).
Page 33 of 43
The dependency the Tanzanian government has on international aid through GBS can
possibly weaken governance, since it reduces the government’s dependency on the citizens’
tax (Policy Forum Tanzania, 2012). With high levels of aid, a recipient government like
Tanzania is primarily accountable to foreign donors rather than taxpayers (Knack, 2001;
Policy Forum Tanzania, 2012). Due to the fact that Tanzania is mostly dependent on aid
through GBS, the effectiveness of their financial resources relies on the Tanzanian
government to spend, use, or invest the money in the most economically efficient way
(Skarbek and Leeson, 2009). It is at such the Tanzanian government’s responsibility to
allocate the resources to the benefits of its citizens, which in this case would be the human
rights sector, since this sector seems to be neglected as seen through the analysis (cf. Section
5). The UNU-WIDER (2012) supports this conclusion in the context of Tanzania in their paper
“Unintended Consequences of Foreign Aid in Tanzania,” where they state that the increasing
trend of supporting Tanzania through GBS has the unintended consequence of shifting power
to the president and the finance minister, who make most decisions regarding GBS.
Collective Action Theory can explain the reason why the government is not allocating the
necessary resources with the fact that the main interest of a government is to stay in power.
In both democracies as well as dictatorships Olson (in Svendson, 2012) argues that politicians
can “buy” their way to the most votes e.g. by offering a redistribution of taxes that benefits the
part of the population that can keep them in power (Svendsen, 2012). Providing the public
goods needed to ensure human rights for everybody will therefore not be targetted directly
those who are able to keep the Tanzanian government in power. Investing in human rights
would be a long-term development investment that will not positively affect one particular
group in society, but a collective of the whole country. This do not give any obvious incentives
for the government to invest in possibly insecure long-term development, when they can use
the financial resources to benefit the part of the population who can secure their position at
the next election (Knack, 2001, 2004 etc.). Furthermore, because there are high costs
involved, it is economically rational not to provide public goods. Through the analysis of the
government’s initiatives (cf. Section 5.2) we saw that the Tanzanian government on paper has
several initiatives to ensure human rights in the country, however in practice the effects are
not seen, which can be explained by the above argumentation that is based on Collective
Action Theory.
Page 34 of 43
One reason to why the Tanzanian government is not having the right interests in terms of
ensuring human rights by allocating money to this sector could be a matter of governance.
Good governance act in the interests of all the citizens, while bad governance decreases
governments’ collective responsibility to the country as a whole (Knack, 2001). If the
government in Tanzania were governing the whole country with all its citizens, it would also
be interested in protecting their human rights by ensuring the necessary resources to the
Judiciary, and not only act in accordance with their interest to stay in power.
6.3 International actors
The Collective Action Theory will argue that the international actors such as Western charities
and governments will not benefit directly from the provision of public goods and therefore
they count on free riding, meaning that they expect other actors to ensure processes that they
can benefit from as well. International actors also have a tendency to enter several sectors in
several countries, where the consequence becomes that a single donor is only responsible for
a small share of the development assistance in a recipient country also referred to as ‘donor
fragmentation’ (Knack, 2004). This leads to the responsibility for success or failure being
diffused, and there is not really a single donor that has a lot at stake in one country’s economic
and social development, and thus tend to free ride (Belton, 2003 in Knack and Rahman, 2004).
There are a large number of international donors and initiatives in Tanzania, and the theory
argues that individuals, which in this case will be the individual charities and governments, in
large groups will gain less per capita of successful collective action, which can explain the
current situation in Tanzania as stated in the analysis (cf. Section 5).
On top of the fact that international actors tend to free ride according to Collective Action
Theory, their aid behavior also puts an administrative burden on recipient countries through
the fact that recipient countries have to deal with e.g. transactions costs from dealing with
numerous donors with diverse rules, different languages, different calendars etc. (Knack and
Rahman, 2004). The UN (2005) announced that there should be more coordination among
international development actors, however there is little evidence on progress on this issue
(Easterly, 2007). The weakness of the Tanzanian system might therefore also be explained by
Page 35 of 43
the burden that is put on them from the international actors, whom they are highly dependent
on.
Another issue in the Judiciary in Tanzania as outlined in cf. Section 5.3 is the lack of qualified
staff Knack and Rahman (2004) also see that the international actors can have a negative
influence on this, since they have greater responsibility towards their own projects’ successes
rather than the recipient country’s overall success they sometimes ‘steal’ or ‘poach’ skilled
local staff by promising higher wages, much higher than what the local government can offer,
and thereby drain the local public sector of qualified staff. The interest of the international
actors is to get the best-qualified staff, which will happen on the expense of the recipient
country. In Tanzania the Judiciary has announced that they indeed are lacking when it comes
to qualified staff, so the dependency and the many human rights initiatives by outside actors
might be a part of the reason why the Judiciary is drained from skilled staff.
Despite the fact that international actors have several initiatives in terms of improving the
human rights situation in Tanzania, the Collective Action theory argues that because they
have their own interests to look after as well they fail to act collectively with other actors
within the field such as the civil society. A reason why it is this way might be that
international actors (excl. international NGOs) mainly are assisting Tanzania through
multilateral and bilateral support that is unearmarked aid to the government’s national
budgets, and hereafter it is not the responsible of the international actors to make sure that
the funds are allocated human rights, but the government’s. A way to overcome this could be
to increase direct project funds rather than budget support.
To sum up it is clear that the actors within the human rights sector in Tanzania can be seen to
have different interests and thereby suffer to pursue collective action when it comes to
ensuring human rights in Tanzania. The Tanzanian government can be seen as not feeling
responsible enough for its citizens, but instead feel more accountable for international actors
who support the government with funding, which they can redistribute to benefit those in the
citizenry that can make sure the government stay in power. Because the civil society is
dependent on international funding it might distort their objectives and efficiency in actively
putting pressure on the Tanzanian government to strengthen the justice system. What the
Page 36 of 43
LHRC does as outlined in the analysis (cf. Section 5.1) is to outline and publicly show the
issues, but they act as an individual. The international actors, such as the UN and Amnesty
International who are very active in Tanzania, are not directly affected by violations of neither
human rights nor the weak justice system. It can be argued that they as well as the other
actors in the long run would benefit from a strong justice system, but they count on free
riding, and thus that they will benefit from the process of improving the justice system
conducted by the government or the civil society. Why it would make sense for the
international actors to support the civil society in Tanzania rather than the government, since
it might be argued that the government faces problems with good governance.
7. Conclusion
During the project we have studied why human rights are still suffering in Tanzania, East
Africa and how that be explained by the theoretical approach: Collective Action Theory. The
problems associated with human rights in Tanzania are based on how the Tanzanian
government handles the issues of human rights violations as a result of a weak justice system.
The situation in terms of the human rights violations in Tanzania is current, which we found
very interesting to study because as argued in the project: human rights are an important part
of development as it reflects the level of the rule of law and good governance. Therefore the
promotion and preservation of human rights is crucial for a country’s development.
The way we examined the problemformulation was by making a document analysis of the
chosen empirical material as the methodological approach in the project. This gave us the
opportunity to give us an insight in why human rights are still suffering in Tanzania. Our aim
of the project was to conduct empirical material with an inductive approach to the case of
Tanzania. After our analysis we tried to explain our findings within a theoretical framework:
Collective Action Theory. This contributed to a nuanced and adequate answer to our
problemformulation:
Why are human rights still suffering in Tanzania, East Africa? And how can
that be explained by the theoretical approach: Collective Action Theory?
Page 37 of 43
The analysis in the project was divided into three parts. The purpose in the analysis was to
examine why human rights are still suffering in Tanzania by analyzing the chosen main
actors: civil society, the Tanzanian government and international actors. In the first part of the
analysis we examined our problem area from a local NGO’s perspective on the current
situation of human rights violations. We found that there are several instances of human
rights violations, which reflects a lack of justice and abuse of power. The second part of the
analysis focused on the Tanzanian government’s perspective on our problem area. We found
that the Tanzanian government is trying to improve the situation of human rights violations
on paper but it does not seem like the government has the right intentions because of their
actions and lack of commitment to the acts against human rights violations. In the final
section of the analysis we examined involved international actors’ perspective in the current
situation of human rights violations in Tanzania, which supported our findings in the first part
of the analysis. We argue that our findings in our analysis reflect a weak justice system in
Tanzania, East Africa. The promises made by the Tanzanian government does not reflect their
acts in terms of improvement of the sector of human rights and the two main actors shows us
that there are a constant abuse of power and lack to justice. As a result of a weak justice
system there are no consequences of violating human rights in Tanzania. The initiatives taken
from development actors puts a lot of focus on the issues meet within the sector of human
rights but as indicated the justice system don’t seems to be strong and effective enough to
ensure that human rights standards is upheld in Tanzania.
In the discussion we tried to explain our findings with an inductive approach as argued in a
theoretical framework: Collective Action Theory. In this sections it is argues that the different
development actors within the human rights sector in Tanzania can be seen to have different
interests and thereby there is as lack of collective action in terms of improving the human
rights situation. The three chosen main actors is trying to create awareness about the issues
faced within the sector of human rights but act individually to benefit the most of the
situation. The fact that there exists a lack of collective action does not make the situation
better when it comes to strengthening the justice system in Tanzania and thereby improve the
current situation of human rights violations in Tanzania.
Page 38 of 43
Bibliography
African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights’ (1981) Available from:
<http://www.achpr.org/files/instruments/achpr/banjul_charter.pdf> [Accessed 6 May 2014].
African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. (2014) State Reports and Concluding
Observations. Available from: < http://www.achpr.org/states/reports-and-concludingobservations/> [Accessed 19 May 2014].
Amnesty International. (2013) Annual Report: Tanzania 2013 Available from: <
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-tanzania-2013> [Accessed 24 May
2014].
Antoft, Rasmus Holmby & Salomonsen, Heidi. (2007) Det kvalitative casestudie: Introduktion til
en forskningsstrategi. Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Business Dictionary. (2014) “maladministration” [online dictionary] Available from:
<http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/maladministration.html> [Accessed 30 May 2014].
Central Intelligence Agency (2014) “Tanzania Governance” [Online database] Available from
<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tz.html> [Accessed 14 May
2014].
CHRGG, Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance. (2008) 2008 Report on Research
and Public Enquiry on the Implementation of Children’s Rights in Zanzibar.
CHRGG, Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance. (2011)Documents.
<http://www.chragg.go.tz/chraggreports.php> [Accessed 19 May 2014].
DAC Update. (2007) Human Rights and Aid Effectiveness. Available from:
<Www.oecd.org/dac/governance/humanrigths> [Accessed 1 May 2014].
Page 39 of 43
De Vaus, David (2001) Research Design in Social Research. 1st edition, Sage Publications, Inc.
Development Partners Group Tanzania (2014) “Disbursements”
<http://www.tzdpg.or.tz/index.php?id=1254> [Accessed 29 May 2014].
Duedahl, Poul & Jacobsen, Michael Hviid (2010): Introduktion til dokumentanalyse. 1st edition,
Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Easterly, W., (2002) The cartel of good intentions: The problem of bureaucracy in foreign aid.
The Journal of Policy Reform.
Easterly, W., (2007) Are aid agencies improving? Economic Policy, 22(52), pp. 633.
EISA, Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa. (2009) Tanzania: Commission for
Human Rights and Good Governance. Available from <http://www.content.eisa.org.za/oldpage/tanzania-commission-human-rights-and-good-governance> [Accessed: 9 May 2014].
Google Dictionary (2014) “Bill of Rights” [dictionary] Available from: <
https://www.google.dk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF8#q=what%20is%20bill%20of%20rights> [Accessed 30 May 2014].
Knack, S., (2001) Aid Dependence and the Quality of Governance: Cross-Country Empirical Tests.
Southern Economic Journal, 68(2), pp. 310.
Knack, S., (2004) Does Foreign Aid Promote Democracy? International Studies Quarterly, 48(1),
pp. 251.
Knack, S. and Rahman, A.,(2004) Donor fragmentation and bureaucratic quality in aid recipients.
Policy Research Working Paper, (3186),.
LHRC, Legal and Human Rights Center. (2006) Tanzania Human Rights Report 2006: Progress
through Human Rights.
Page 40 of 43
LHRC, Legal and Human Rights Center. (2012)Tanzania Human Rights Report 2012.
LHRC, Legal and Human Rights Center. (2013)Tanzania Human Rights Report 2013.
LRCT, Law Reform Commission of Tanzania. (2008) The Police Force and Auxiliary Services Act.
Maaløe, Erik (1996) Case-studier af og om mennesker i organisationer. København. Akademisk
Forlag.
Mutua, Makau (2009) “Human Rights NGOs in East Africa: Political and Normative Tensions”
Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights, University of Pennsylvania Press. Available at:
<http://www.google.dk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=S7FNwcsGGk8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=human+rig
hts+in+tanzania&ots=WyySITZ9px&sig=Cfd4LChjN4SicV3sraxSm_glKo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=human%20rights%20in%20tanzania&f=false>
[Accessed 2 May 2014].
Nelson Paul (2007) Human rights, the Millennium Development Goals, and the future of
development coopera- tion, World Development, vol. 35, No. 12
Niskanen, W.A.,(1933-, 2007) Bureaucracy & representative government. New Brunswick, NJ:
Aldine Transaction.
Olsen, Mancur (1971) The Logic of Collective Action - Public Goods and the Theory of Groups:
Harvard University Press.
Paris Declaration. (2005) Available from:
<http://effectivecooperation.org/files/resources/Paris%20Declaration%20in%20Brief%20ENGLIS
H.pdf> [Accessed 2 May 20014].
Page 41 of 43
Policy Forum Tanzania. (2010) Dependency on Foreign Aid: How the situation could be saved. An
analysis of Tanzania’s Budget 2010/2011 Available from: < http://www.policyforumtz.org/files/RevenueEnglish.pdf> [Accessed 30 May 2014].
Skarbek, D.B. and Leeson, P.T., (2009) What can aid do? The Cato Journal, 29(3), pp. 391.
Stone, Richard (2008) Civil Liberties and Human Rights, 7th Edition. Oxford Press: New York.
Svendsen, G.T., (2012) Mancur Olson. København: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.
Tanzania Government (2013)”Development Partners” <http://www.tanzania.go.tz/home/pages/86>
[Accessed 23 May 2014].
Tanzania, Ministry of Finance. (2012) 2012 Aid Management Platform System Disbursement Flash
report.
TAMWA, Tanzania Media and Women Association. (2012) Female Genital Mutilation Fact Sheet,
Early Marriage Fact Sheet 2012.
The Free Dictionary. “human Rights” [dictionary] Available from:
<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human+rights>[Accessed 30 April 2014].
The United Republic of Tanzania. (2006)The Second to Tenth Consolidated Periodic Report
Submitted by the United Republic of Tanzania under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights.
United Nations Development Program. (2005) Human Development Report 2005: International
Coorporation at a Crossroads: Aid, Trade, and Security in an Unequal World.
United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2010) 2010 International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights Report.
Page 42 of 43
UNU-WIDER, United Nations University (2012). Unintended Consequences of Foreign Aid in
Tanzania. World Institute for Development. Economic Research. Extracted from:
http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/newsletter/articles-2012/summaries/en_GB/09-2012stewart-wp2012-37/. [Accessed 31 May 2014]
United Nations Tanzania. (2012) 2012 Annual Report Delivering as One in Tanzania.
Page 43 of 43