Lolan Ekow Sagoe-Moses

UJAMAA: AFRICAN SOCIALISM OR NYERERE’S ABSTRACTION?

The political philosophy known as Ujamaa, (swahili for “Familyhood” ), referred to by its

chief proponent as “ African Socialism” has been the subject of much scholarly debate.

Such debate has usually been centered around interpretations of Ujamaa as a practical

developmental strategy and an alternative avenue to “economic growth” whatever that

is. Majority of the scholarly perusal has concluded that Ujamaa failed due to problems of

implementation. My hypothesis is a departure from this line. I contend that Ujamaa

failed due to fundamental mistakes of conception . In formulating Ujamaa , Nyerere

labeled it “African Socialism” and claimed its principles were a reassertion of traditional

values of communalism . I find that this is an abstraction and by doing so , Nyerere

creates two stumbling blocks. First, he fails to truly consider the ethnic particularities in

conceptualization and organization of land ownership , familial relations , farm work

and commercial exchange. Second, he appropriates the principles of family solidarity to

an entire society. I shall show , using an analysis of the social structures of the Sukuma,

Parukia and Kuria ethnic groups that ujamaa was limited in its application to the family.

Wider village-level co-operation was governed by the principles of ujimaa amongst

other forms of organization.

 UJAMAA- WHAT IT IS, WHAT ITS NOT

To embark on a study of any political philosophy it is first necessary to

understand its cardinal principles. Ujamaa , loosely translated as “familyhood” ( Nyerere,

1968) in Swahili, is defined as “ an attitude of mind” ( Nyerere, 1968) .Though he later

specifies the institutions and system of societal interaction that are necessary for its

implementation, Nyerere’s initial preoccupation is with socialism as a way of thinking

about society. This “attitude of mind “ is based on the premise that “people care for each

other’s welfare,” ( Nyerere, 1968) Ujamaa is thus based on humanism and

communalism. The Ujamaa individual sees himself only as part of the society and

conceives his principal role as contribution to and reliance on his society. At the same

time, the individual’s welfare is the be all and end all of life and not a means to achieve

power , wealth or both.

What this implies is that no man should exploit his fellow man in view to

becoming more powerful than him or her. This is a direct anti-thesis to capitalism which

Nyerere clarifies , claiming that this attitude and not the absence or presence of wealth

are what distinguish a capitalist from an African Socialist ( Nyerere, 1968) . A millionaire

can thus be a socialist if he desires wealth for the purpose of benefitting his fellow man ,

likewise a poor man a capitalist if he desires wealth to dominate others. The welfare of

the fellow man must be the individual’s primary concern just as the welfare of each and

every man must be the cardinal concern of the society. When Nyerere condemns the

“acquisitiveness for power and prestige” ( Nyerere, 1968) as “unsocialist,” it must be

stressed that he is referring to “ acquisitiveness” for personal power and prestige ;

acquisitiveness for the power and prestige of a group would thus be deemed acceptable,

even praiseworthy.

The second cardinal principle is that society supersedes the individual in

importance. That the individual must have an “ attitude of mind” which compels him to

care for the welfare of others would imply that he may neglect his own welfare assuming

that society will cater to his and his family’s needs ( Nyerere, 1968 ) Communalism is

thus the logical progression from humanism . Each individual’s humanism leads to

society’s communalism and vice-versa. It must be stressed here that for Nyerere,

communalism does not mean communism or European socialism. Nyerere categorically

states that unlike European socialism, African socialism based on communalist

principles does not deem class struggle a necessary principle for its emergence. To

subscribe to this principle is to imply that classes must exist , and hence capitalism, for a

socialist society to be born ( Nyerere, 1968). Nyerere’s African socialism on the contrary

is based on the assumption of a classless society.

Now the absence of a class conflict and the existence of a classless society does not

imply that there is no “ working class” or “ruling class” when defined as a distinct group

of workers or rulers it simply means that their status as workers or rulers does not

make them wealthier or poorer than other societal segments. A worker must have the

same standard of living as the community “ elder” as everyone including an elder was a

worker ( Nyerere, 1968) Each worker contributed to a communal pool of wealth from

which he then demanded his fair share based on this work and considering the amount

of the overall communal contribution( Nyerere, 1968) . Communalism of necessity

implies an organized or informal but widely recognized unit of societal organization.

“The Foundation and the objective of African Socialism is the extended family,”

according to Nyerere ( Nyerere, 1968) . Nyerere does not simply contend that the

extended family is the foundation but also that it is the structural end of socialism. The

society is an ever-growing extended family such that an African Socialist must classify all

as “ brethren.” ( Nyerere, 1968) This extension of the extended family’s solidarity is a

key point of contention which I shall address shortly.

The cardinal principles of humanism and communalism aside, the

philosophical basis of Ujamaa, as a “way of life” ( Nyerere, 1968) particularly in villages

lies in three basic assumptions. First, respect: recognition by each family member of the

rights of all other members. Second, common property , meaning that the basic

necessities possessed by one person are the property of the group such that all members

of the community must be similarly endowed. Third, the obligation to work, meaning

that all family members and guests of the family who partake of food for an extended

period of time must assist in the family’s labor. (Hyden, 1972) These three assumptions

underlie the principles of communalism and humanism and must be examined to prove

Ujamaa’s worth.

PHILOSOPHICAL DEFFICIENCIES OF UJAMAA

The assumption of the obligation to work is closely linked to the idea of

universal respect and a classless society. If everyone is a worker , then no one

works for another , there is no exploitation and thus no classes. The problem

with Nyerere’s conception of class is that he presumes that relative wealth

determines class . ( Nyerere, 1968 ) He fails to examine and define class as it is

conceived in both traditional Tanzanian societies and the immediate post-

colonial era. As Okoko points out, the justification for the assumption of a

classless society lacks analysis of the productive forces at work in Tanzanian

society. ( Okoko, 1987)

With regards to contemporary Tanzanian society, Nyerere fails to

acknowledge the emergence of a political leadership stratum and a bureaucratic

leadership stratum, who’s superior class derives from their political and social

power (Okoko, 1987) The modern day national level trend is indicative of even

more developed indigenous class systems. The customary laws of Sukuma for

instance, state that “ Each able-bodied man of a village must cultivate a certain

area, usually 45 square feet , of the plot of the chief. ….The cultivators receive for

the work compensation in kind …or in money, generally 30 cents for 45 square

feet. “ ( Cory, 1970) Therefore chiefs and people in authority could obtain the

labor of others due to the pedestal on which they are placed as guardians of the

society’s laws, traditions and resources. Indeed some may argue that Nyerere

makes provision for this when he says that “the apparent extra wealth which

certain positions of leadership may bring.. is a necessary aid to the carrying out of

their duties.” (Nyerere, 1968) If it is seen as a necessary aid by the people

however, there should be no need to demand payment for this “aid” to the chief,

especially if, as Nyerere argues, such cultivation of a chief’s land is usually done to

create a reserve stock of food in instances of famine (Nyerere, 1976)

That this is a written customary law and thus obligatory shows the

formal authority which a political leader such as a chief can summon for his own
economic benefit, a privilege which an ordinary man of lower status cannot

obtain. In this system therefore, social and political status and not higher

economic standing is the indicator of class. It may seem premature to jump to

such a conclusion as to prove the existence of a class one must identify a distinct

group of people who are greater in monetary wealth, power or social status than

their peers. The chief aside, such a group does indeed exist in the holders of large

tracts of land known as igobe. Customary law permitted them the right to employ

paid workers ( Cory, 1970)

In a conventional class system access to a particular class is usually

determined by type of occupation . In Sukuma society however, it seems that

access to class is determined by status in society which itself is obtained by

wealth of kin . (Cory, 1970) A man may thus become wealthier by inheriting land

from his father or by marrying wives who give birth to more children , as this will

allow him to increase the size of his individual holding since amongst the

Sukuma, the land of a son is considered by extension his father’s until the father’s

death ( Cory, 1970) . A similar practice prevailed amongst the Kuria who

allocated land based on the number of wives, number of sons and number of

female dependants living with a man ( Tobisson, 1986) In Nyerere’s assumption

that “every man is a worker,” ( Nyerere, 1976) he is stating that every man is an

equal worker. Not only is this not true, but we realize that social status and

power can become an avenue to personal wealth.

Furthermore he categorically states that in traditional African society there

had never been “ laborers or “factory hands”” ( Nyerere, 1968) who did work for
others. He further assumed that work was never done for pay. The customary

laws of the Sukuma who have historically constituted roughly 16% or 5.5 million

of Tanzania’s population ( Cory, 1970) clearly prove otherwise. In particular

reference to the obligation of the chief to pay individuals who worked on his plot

of land, it can be conjured from this requirement that the clear distinction

between individual farm work for subsistence, communal work for the village’s

benefit and for profit cultivation by an individual was recognized. Payment in

kind or in cash would logically be in compensation for the opportunity cost of

working on the chief’s land which would be possible time spent on individual

plots of land . Though an instance of communal work, the clearing of land for the

chief falls under the umbrella of reciprocal relations where each party keeps

score. Ujamaa assumes the absence of varied types of “workers.”

To expatiate on the assumption of property ownership, Nyerere believes

that the basic goods were “ held in common” ( Nyerere, 1968) by the people in

traditional society. Ujamaa shares common ground with traditional Sukuma

custom in stating that Failure of occupancy was the only valid reason for barring

land ownership. ( Cory, 1970) Ujamaa is at odds however because it defines the

scope of the community as the entire nation, while attempting to use the

principles of Ujamaa , reserved for the family unit relations and not even

extended to the tribe in many traditional Tanzanian polities.

When Nyerere claims that an individual Tanzanian cannot ignore his

brother’s needs, the nagging question remains, who does he or she consider a

brother ( Kopytoff, 1964 ) Ujamaa as understood by Tanzanians was a set of

principles applied to the extended family and not to the wider ethnic group .

( Edwards,1978 ) Communal property holding according to Sukuma law for

instance dictates that areas surrounding a personal dwelling are fenced and can

only be used by their inhabitants. Uncultivated land can be used for grazing by

the general populace but private grazing land can be marked by “hoeing a line or

planting euphorbia,” at intervals along the boundary. ( Cory, 1970) Furthermore,

the Sukuma created a specific social authority , the Basumba batale for the

mobilization of communal labor ( Cory, 1970) Thus communal labor though the

norm within extended family units was a cyclical occurrence within the

community.

The practice of the Arusha of Northern Tanzania further illustrates this

point. The Arusha had two main units of societal organization , the lineage group

and the age grade system. Whereas the lineage group consisted of heads of

various family’s all originating from one ancestor, the age group consisted of

males of an age range who were usually circumcised together. While the age-

group could be called upon for purposes of mutual communal defense by the

community, the lineage group system served as a source of communal labor only

for its members. ( Gulliver, 1963) Within the lineage group itself, only individual

homestead’s of the family heads have the right to property. Individual

homestead’s are independent and autonomous and a lineage elder cannot claim

property rights to an individual homestead or food proceeds from their crop.

( Gulliver, 1963)
 Arguments that failures in implementation are to blame for the failure

of Ujamaa use the principal point that the people were not consulted. The

problem was not simply that the people were not consulted, but that even when

they were consulted, their idea of co-operation rested more in “ujimi” as opposed

to “ujamaa” ( Hyden,1992 ) Ujima refers to co-operation between villagers in

seasons of planting, harvesting and cultivating . ( Edwards,1987 ) This usually

involves youth clearing communal land under the orders of the chief as described

in the case of Sukuma communal labour. Ujamaa thus though not foreign to

village inhabitants was foreign to organization outside the family system.

The failure of Ujamaa ideology is most clearly illustrated by the production in

1967 of the Arusha declaration barely 2 years since the publication of Nyerere’s treatise,

“ Ujamaa.” The Arusha declaration was introduced because spontaneous measures by

the populace in actualization of the Ujamaa state of mind were not forthcoming. The

government therefore had to repackage Ujamaa as a way of life and take a centrally

planned approach to villagization. The final two principles of the Arusha declaration

state:

“(h) That in order to ensure economic justice the state must have effective control
over the principal means of production; and
(i) That it is the responsibility of the state to intervene actively in the economic
life of the nation so as to ensure the well-being of all citizens, and so as to prevent
the exploitation of one person by another or one group by another, and so as to
prevent the accumulation of wealth to an extent which is inconsistent with the
existence of a classless society.” ( Nyerere, 1967)

Arusha’s timing and content clearly demonstrate the frustration of the state apparatus

with the slow pace and in many cases non-existence of classless communities and
cooperation in the Ujamaa mold. As there was little government-led creation of villages

in the period before Arusha, it can be assumed that peasants seldom took the lead as the

sole success story in the two years after the declaration of Ujamaa was Ruvama

development authority . (Omari , 1976) Ruvama itself was eventually banned due to

jealousy by government officials seeking to control and direct its development. ( Omari,

1976)

Though there were significant mistakes with the implementation of Ujamaa

villagization, it is evident here that the errors begin with its conceptualization. Ujamaa’s

major assumptions, of universal work and communal ownership, upon which the

cardinal principles of humanism and communalism were built were to a large degree

unfounded. Furthermore, the very concept of Ujamaa itself, described only a limited

form of cooperation in villages , that within the extended family unit. To attempt to

appropriate this model to an entire village, let alone an entire nation is comparable to

trying to fire a bullet from a canon. This explains Ujamaa’s failure.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cory, H. (1970). Sukuma Law and Custom. Hartford, Connecticut, United States: Negro
Universities Press.
Edwards, D. M. (1998). Matetereka : Tanzania's Last Ujamaa Village. Edinburgh, United
Kingdom: Centre for African Studies : Edinburgh University .
Gulliver, P. (1963). Social Control in an African Society : A Study of the Arusha:
Agricultural Masai of Northern Tanganyika. London, United Kingdom: Routledge & Kegan
Paul Ltd.
Hyden, G. (1992). Beyond Ujamaa in Tanzania: Underdevelopment and an Uncaptured
Peasantry . Berkely , California, United States: University of California Press.
Kopytoff, I. (1964). African Socialism. (C. G. William H. Friedland, Ed.) Stanford,
California, United States: Stanford University Press.
Nyerere, J. (1979). African Socialism in Practice The Tanzanian Experience. (A. Coulson,
Ed.) Nottingham, United Kingdom: Spokesman.
Nyerere, J. (1968). Freedom and Socialism : Uhuru na Ujamaa. London, United Kingdom:
Oxford University Press.
Nyerere, J. (1968). Ujamaa Essays on Socialism. London, United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press.
Okoko, K. A. (1987). Socialism and Self-Reliance in Tanzania. London, United Kingdom:
Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Omari, C. (1976). Strategy for Rural Development : Tanzania Experience. Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania: East AFrican Literature Bureau.
Tobisson, E. (1986). Family Dynamics among the Kuria. Goteborg, Sweden: Acta
Universitatis Gothoburgensis.