Tanzania election stakeholders demand dialogue on opposition party's exclusion

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania

Tanzania main opposition party - CHADEMA’s refusal to sign the election code of ethics leading to its technical disqualification is a troubling sign for Tanzania’s democracy and undermines the credibility of the 2025 elections, a range of analysts have asserted.

In separate interviews yesterday, a number of experts assessed the broader implications of the party’s involuntary polls boycott for the the legitimacy of the electoral process.

Deus Kibamba, a lecturer at the Centre for Foreign Relations, said the elections have lost integrity, referring to his 30 years of experience in observing elections in 41 countries.

He argued that the code of ethics is not essential to participation, affirming that the main electoral laws passed for 2025 don’t require party signatures. “In most countries I’ve studied, signing the ethics code is optional,” he stated. 

“Parties that sign commit to certain principles—Chadema chose not to,” he said, pointing out that neither the constitution nor laws relating to elections like the Political Parties Act, the 2024 Election Act, or the electoral commission law state that refusal to sign the ethics code disqualifies a party.

“These elections have lost meaning. I’m not just saying ‘no reforms, no election’—it’s worse. Parliament shouldn’t be dissolved early. Instead, it should focus on reviving constitutional reforms ahead of the vote,” the noted activist demanded.

He referred to the Nyalali Commission report back in 1992 that multiparty democracy wouldn’t thrive under CCM dominance unless upwards of 40 negative pieces of legislation were repealed, which have been altered here and there but not repealed.

Chadema’s position is consonant with the party’s long-standing demand for reforms, he said, underlining that claims of being disqualified over the ethics code lacks legal basis. “This seems more like a strategy to sideline them,” he remarked, urging President Samia Suluhu Hassan to initiate national dialogue. “The country cannot head into elections amid conflict,” he stated.

Dr. George Kahangwa, a political science lecturer at the University of Dar es Salaam, said Chadema’s exclusion weakens democratic competition.

“Imagine a football league without Simba or Yanga—it’s just not the same. Chadema is the main challenger to CCM and without them voters lack real choice,” he stated.

The opposition party’s refusal to sign the code reinforces its commitment to reforms. “It would be contradictory to demand reforms and then agree to an election under the same flawed system. Their position shows principle, not defiance,” he declared

Calling for urgent dialogue, he said that in peacekeeping, when the first shot is fired, one side has already lost. Real peace is built through dialogue. “That’s what democracy is—acknowledging differences and talking them out.”

He similarly urged President Samia to bring all parties to the table before the campaign season begins, while Onesmo Olengurumwa, coordinator for the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC) called for the a national consensus to ensure peaceful and inclusive progress ahead of the 2025 elections.

Stressing the need for dialogue involving all sectors of society and not just politicians, he said that wisdom is needed to reach a national consensus. 

He proposed including religious leaders, civil society, political parties and government institutions in the talks, overseen by neutral, respected elders. Despite reform calls dating back to 1992, only limited changes have been made, he said, underlining that it is time for all groups—not just politicians—to get involved.

The dialogue needs to begin early to avoid last-minute reform demands and allow proper election preparations, where key issues include constitutional gaps, legal and administrative flaws along with inconsistencies in implementation, he said.

He criticized the recent arrest and treason charges against Chadema national chairman Tundu Lissu, pointing at disproportionate force that could deter citizen participation. “If there were charges, he should have been summoned legally.”