The July 9th 2026 Decleration of reconciliation yesterday at Zanzibar state house

 The July 9, 2026 Declaration of Reconciliation: Will Zanzibar Finally Institutionalize What History Has Repeatedly Deferred?

Mussa Shehe

On July 9, 2026, Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) and ACT Wazalendo signed the Declaration of Reconciliation. The event deserves recognition. At a time when political disagreements around the world are increasingly descending into polarization, any commitment to dialogue rather than confrontation is a welcome development.

Yet the significance of this declaration cannot be understood in isolation. For those familiar with Zanzibar's political history, the more consequential question is not whether the declaration is commendable. Rather, it is whether Zanzibar is finally prepared to institutionalize reconciliation instead of repeatedly negotiating it.

The restoration of multiparty politics in 1992 was expected to usher in a democratic era founded on electoral competition, political tolerance, and the consent of the governed. Instead, much of Zanzibar's subsequent political history has been characterized by contested elections, declining public trust, political polarization, and recurring attempts to restore confidence through negotiated settlements.

It was under these circumstances that Muafaka I (1999) and Muafaka II (2001) were negotiated. These agreements did not emerge because political differences had disappeared; they emerged because all parties recognized that dialogue had become preferable to prolonged political confrontation. The reconciliation initiative of 2009 subsequently led to the 2010 referendum and the establishment of the Government of National Unity (GNU), a constitutional innovation widely regarded as one of the most significant milestones in Zanzibar's contemporary political development.

The Declaration of July 9 therefore joins a long historical tradition of negotiated political settlements in Zanzibar. Unsurprisingly, public reactions to the agreement have reflected both hope and caution.

Commenting on the Declaration, a resident of Stone Town said it was still too early to be optimistic, emphasizing that only time would determine whether the agreement would be implemented and achieve its intended objectives.

A supporter of one of Zanzibar's political parties, who received the Declaration cautiously, argued that the changing political dynamics across Tanzania, together with the desire to make Zanzibar a "future political heaven," had created the conditions that made the agreement possible.

Other political figures welcomed the initiative by calling for reconciliation under the simple but powerful slogan, "Let us forgive one another and build together." Beyond the political arena, the language of reconciliation also found expression in religious discourse. During Friday prayers on July 10, 2026, one imam drew on the historic reconciliation between the Banu Aus and the Banu Khazraj, urging the people of Zanzibar to emulate their example of unity and reconciliation in the interest of lasting peace.

Not everyone, however, was prepared to embrace either optimism or pessimism. One lawyer deliberately refused to identify with either camp, choosing instead to remain somewhere between hope and uncertainty. His response was brief but revealing: "Only God knows."

Perhaps the most thought-provoking reflection came from a scholar who invoked both philosophy and Swahili literature. Referring to the Scottish philosopher David Hume's famous observation that "custom is the great guide of human life," the scholar recalled the words of the renowned twentieth-century Swahili writer Shaaban Robert:

"Mtu si mtumwa wa kitu chochote katika dunia hii zaidi ya kawaida zake mwenyewe; kawaida ndiyo serikali kuu."

The comparison was striking. Although writing in different contexts, both Hume and Shaaban Robert recognized the extraordinary power of habit in shaping human behaviour and public life. The scholar therefore concluded with a question that arguably lies at the heart of the July 9 Declaration:

Will this agreement change established political habits?

As he cautiously remarked, "Time will tell."

A professor at a Tanzanian university offered yet another perspective, observing that "One might think it is a well-tested strategy to diffuse the crisis rather than resolve it." Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, it captures an enduring concern in Zanzibar's political history: the possibility that negotiated settlements may successfully calm immediate tensions without necessarily addressing the institutional conditions that produced them in the first place.

Taken together, these diverse reactions reveal an important reality. The Declaration has generated optimism, caution, skepticism, religious reflection, philosophical inquiry, and historical comparison. More importantly, they all point—directly or indirectly—to the same fundamental question: can reconciliation become a permanent feature of Zanzibar's political institutions rather than another temporary political settlement?

The questions raised by these reactions are neither new nor merely rhetorical. They point to a deeper structural issue that has characterized Zanzibar's political development for decades. The central challenge has rarely been the absence of political agreements. Rather, it has been the inability to transform those agreements into durable institutions and enduring political norms.

David Hume's famous observation that "custom is the great guide of human life" helps explain why this distinction matters. His insight extends beyond individuals to political systems. Governments, institutions, and political actors often default to established habits rather than the principles they formally proclaim. Political behaviour is shaped not only by constitutions and negotiated agreements but also by routines, incentives, institutional culture, and the informal norms that govern political life. Unless those habits themselves are transformed, new agreements may simply reproduce familiar outcomes under different political circumstances.

This is why the distinction between political agreements and institutions is so important.

Political agreements are events. Institutions are systems. Agreements depend on signatures; institutions depend on rules, accountability, incentives, and public confidence. Agreements may reduce immediate political tensions, but only institutions can prevent those tensions from becoming recurring features of the political landscape.

Viewed from this historical perspective, an important question deserves careful consideration.

Why, after Muafaka I, Muafaka II, the 2009 reconciliation process, the Government of National Unity, and the post-2020 electoral reconciliation agreement, does Zanzibar still require another Declaration of Reconciliation in 2026?

The historical record suggests that the principal challenge has never been the absence of political settlements. Instead, it has been the institutionalization of those settlements. The issue has never been simply reaching agreements; it has been ensuring that the principles embodied in those agreements become embedded in governance, public administration, electoral management, and everyday political practice.

Interestingly, the remarks delivered by the Chairman of ACT Wazalendo during the signing ceremony appeared to acknowledge this challenge, albeit indirectly. In his speech, he identified three distinct groups with differing perspectives on the Declaration. I have no desire to identify myself with any of those groups. What I can say, however, is that I count myself among those who have personally experienced the circumstances that made this Declaration necessary.

From that standpoint, I found his remarks particularly significant because they implicitly recognized that reconciliation cannot ultimately be measured by political symbolism or ceremonial gestures. Its true measure lies in whether institutions are willing and able to translate political commitments into administrative practice, legal safeguards, and public confidence.

Viewed in this light, the July 9 Declaration should not be interpreted as the conclusion of a political process. Rather, it marks the beginning of a far more demanding phase.

The real test is whether Zanzibar can build institutions that command public confidence regardless of electoral outcomes. It is whether inclusive governance becomes a permanent feature of the political system rather than a temporary political compromise. It is whether transparency, accountability, constitutionalism, and the rule of law become enduring characteristics of governance instead of aspirations periodically reaffirmed through political declarations. Above all, it is whether political authority is genuinely returned to citizens through institutions capable of holding elected leaders accountable.

Perhaps Zanzibar's greatest challenge has never been the shortage of leaders capable of signing agreements. Its greater challenge has been building institutions strong enough to ensure that agreements survive changes in political leadership. Strong institutions outlive individuals. Political settlements that depend primarily upon personal goodwill often fade when the personalities who negotiated them leave office.

The challenge, therefore, is not merely to achieve reconciliation but to normalize it. Reconciliation should cease to be an exceptional political intervention triggered by moments of crisis and instead become embedded in the ordinary functioning of democratic institutions. Political maturity is achieved not when disagreement disappears, but when institutions become sufficiently resilient to manage disagreement without repeatedly requiring extraordinary settlements.

For that reason, neither excessive optimism nor excessive pessimism is warranted. Optimism alone cannot build institutions, and pessimism alone cannot reform them. What deserves careful attention now is whether political commitments evolve into public policy, whether public policy shapes administrative behaviour, and whether those practices ultimately become part of Zanzibar's enduring political culture.

History rarely remembers those who merely signed agreements; it remembers those who successfully implemented them. The lasting significance of the July 9, 2026 Declaration of Reconciliation will therefore not be determined by the ceremony at which it was signed, but by the integrity, consistency, and institutional commitment with which it is implemented.

Ultimately, it is results—not signatures—that will determine its place in Zanzibar's political history.

FAHARI YA MACHO INAVYOFILISI DUKA

 FAHARI YA MACHO INAPOFILISI DUKA: Mbweni, Maadili na Soko Huria la Unafiki

Kuna msemo wa Kiswahili usemao: “Samaki mkunje angali mbichi.” Lakini sisi tumengoja mpaka samaki awe stockfish wa Norway, kisha tunashangaa kwa nini havunjiki bila nyundo.

Nimeitazama simulizi ya wakaazi wa Mbweni, Zanzibar, wakisimama kidete kupinga baa na kumbi za starehe katika maeneo yao ya makazi. Wakisema wanalinda maadili. Wakisema wanazuia uhalifu. Wakisema wanataka mazingira salama kwa watoto wao. Maneno mazuri. Maneno ya kuvutia. Maneno yanayopata likes na views kwa kasi kuliko sera za ajira.

Lakini kama alivyotuonya Karl Marx, mara nyingi jamii hupenda kushughulika na superstructure—dalili—wakati base ya kiuchumi ndiyo inayozalisha tatizo. Baa siyo mzizi; ni tawi. Kumbi za starehe si chanzo; ni kivuli cha mti uliopandwa zamani kwa mbolea ya utalii, soko huria na uchumi wa huduma.

Tuliposema “karibuni wageni”, tulimaanisha wageni wa aina gani? Tulipofungua milango kwa jina la uwekezaji, tulifikiri mitaji huja na tasbihi? Au tulidhani fedha huingia bila falsafa yake?

Max Weber aliwahi kueleza kuhusu “roho ya ubepari” – ile ari ya kimaslahi inayovaa suti ya maadili lakini moyoni ina hesabu za faida. Leo tunashuhudia roho hiyo ikitembea Mbweni kwa jina la “burudani”, “ajira kwa vijana”, “ukuaji wa uchumi”. Na sasa, wale wale waliopiga makofi wakati majengo yanapanda, wanashika mawe majengo yanapotoa kelele.

Ni vigumu kula keki na kuendelea kuimiliki.

Jamii yetu ilijenga uchumi wa utalii kwa mikono yake miwili. Ikaupa kipaumbele. Ikaufanya uti wa mgongo. Leo tunasema uti huo una maumivu ya maadili. Lakini uti hauwezi kuugua bila mwili mzima kushiriki. Kama alivyosema Émile Durkheim, jamii inapopoteza mwelekeo wa pamoja huingia katika hali ya anomie—mkanganyiko wa maadili. Hapa ndipo tulipo: tunataka soko huria, lakini kwa masharti ya madrasa; tunataka dola ya kisasa, lakini kwa maadili ya kijiji kisichobadilika.

Na tusijidanganye—tatizo si pombe pekee. Tatizo ni mabadiliko yasiyosimamiwa. Ni mipango miji iliyoachwa mikononi mwa tamaa. Ni pengo la ajira linalowasukuma vijana kwenye “uchumi wa usiku”. Ni magari yanayotumika kama vyumba vya siri kwa sababu nyumba hazina faragha na mazungumzo ya ngono ni mwiko mchana lakini biashara usiku.

Tunahukumu matokeo, tunalea sababu.

Wakaazi wa Mbweni wana haki ya kuhoji. Lakini pia lazima tujiulize: Je, tulichelewa? Je, tulipoona mchicha unaota pembeni ya nyumba tulidhani ni mboga ya leo, tusijue kesho utakuwa mbuyu? Tulipoona vibali vinatolewa, tulinyamaza kwa sababu “mwenye nacho” alikuwa amenyoosha mkono?

Hapa ndipo kejeli inapoanza kujicheka yenyewe.

Kwa miaka mingi, Unguja na Pemba vilijulikana kwa utulivu, kwa ustaarabu, kwa elimu na kwa ukarimu. Lakini pia vilijulikana kwa ukimya wa kukubali. Ulikuwa ukimya wa busara au wa woga? Ulikuwa uvumilivu au uzembe wa kimfumo?

Antonio Gramsci alizungumza juu ya hegemony—namna tabaka tawala linavyofanya fikra zake zionekane kama fikra za wote. Leo ukisema “hii ni haki ya kikatiba ya kufanya biashara”, mjadala unafungwa. Ukisema “haya ni maadili ya jamii”, mjadala mwingine unafungwa. Haki dhidi ya maadili. Uchumi dhidi ya utamaduni. Njia panda.

Na njia panda haichagui mwenye haraka.

Wengine wanasema haya ni mabadiliko ya wakati. Sawa. Lakini si kila kinachoitwa maendeleo ni ustaarabu. Na si kila kinachoitwa maadili ni suluhisho. Kijana akija nyumbani uchi kutafuta hifadhi, je, ni “kwenda na wakati” au ni dalili ya mfumo uliomwacha njiani? Swali si la kejeli tu; ni la sera.

Tatizo la Mbweni si Mbweni peke yake. Ni kioo. Leo ni kule, kesho ni Kinuni, keshokutwa ni Nyarugusu. Leo tunapinga baa; kesho tutapinga ajira zinazotokana na baa. Leo tunasema ondokeni; kesho tutasema vijana hawana kazi.

Hii ndiyo paradox ya jamii inayotaka matokeo ya ubepari bila athari zake.

Kuachia yaendelee si busara. Kuyaondoa kwa ghafla ni hatari. Suluhisho si kufunga milango yote, wala si kuacha wazi bila bawaba. Suluhisho ni sera makini, upangaji miji, udhibiti, na zaidi ya yote—uamuzi wa pamoja unaochelewa lakini si “too little too late”.

La sivyo, fahari ya macho itaendelea kufilisi duka la maadili. Tutabaki na mabango ya “mazingira salama” huku usiku ukiendelea kuuza tiketi.

Mimi si mhubiri, wala si mpiga debe wa starehe. Ninasema tu: tusipende kupambana na kivuli cha mti tulioupanda wenyewe. Kama mzizi ni mkubwa kama mbuyu, basi hatuwezi kuuangusha kwa fimbo ya mkutano mmoja wa wananchi.

Tunahitaji shoka la sera, si miayo ya hasira.

Na kama mkono wa kuume una nguvu, basi utumike kwa hekima, si kwa jazba. La sivyo tutajikuta tunasulubiwa na maamuzi yetu wenyewe, tukilia juu ya paa tulilojenga kwa mikopo ya sifa na kulipa kwa riba ya maadili.

Mungu atufanyie wepesi—lakini kabla ya wepesi wa mbinguni, tujifanyie ujasiri wa duniani.

Lakini kabla hatujamaliza kwa dua, labda tuanze na maswali—kwa sababu jamii inayokimbia maswali huishia kuabudu majibu mepesi.

Je, maadili ni kitu kinacholindwa kwa kufunga mlango wa baa, au ni kitu kinachojengwa kwa kufungua mlango wa fursa?

Je, tunapopiga vita pombe, tunapiga vita kemikali au tunapiga vita upweke, ukosefu wa ajira na kukata tamaa?

Je, soko huria linaweza kuvaa kanzu ya utamaduni bila kuacha harufu ya faida?

Je, haki ya kikatiba ya kufanya biashara ina mipaka pale inapoanza kugusa usingizi wa mtoto wa jirani, au haki huwa haina majirani?

Je, jamii inaweza kudai usafi wa maadili huku ikiishi kwa kodi na ajira zinazotokana na kile kile inachokilaani?

Je, tulipofungua milango ya utalii tulijua kwamba wageni huja na mizigo yao ya fikra, au tulidhani mizigo yao huishia uwanja wa ndege?

Je, tunachokipinga leo ni baa, au ni kioo kinachotuonyesha sura yetu tuliyoisahau?

Je, maendeleo ni nini—idadi ya majengo au ubora wa roho?

Na kama maendeleo yanapimwa kwa fedha, je, maadili yanapimwa kwa nini?

Je, tunaposema “zamani haikuwa hivi” tunamaanisha zamani kulikuwa na usafi, au zamani kulikuwa na siri?

Je, kizazi cha leo kimeharibika, au kimeacha kuogopa kusema kile kilichokuwa kikifanyika gizani?

Je, tatizo ni kelele za muziki, au ukimya wa sera?

Je, tukifunga baa zote, tutajenga viwanda?

Na tusipojenga viwanda, tutafunga nini tena ili kujisitiri?

Je, jamii inaweza kubaki kisiwa cha maadili katikati ya bahari ya utandawazi, bila kuogelea wala kuzama?

Na mwisho kabisa—

Je, tunataka kweli suluhisho, au tunataka tu adui wa kumlaumu?

Kwa sababu huenda tatizo si Mbweni.

Huenda tatizo ni sisi.

Na huenda suluhisho si kufukuza kivuli, bali kukubali kwamba mwanga tunaoutafuta lazima uanze ndani yetu.

Wasalam Ramadhan Maqbool.

NANI AMEUWA MAGEUZI na MARIDHIANO YA SAMIA NA WAPINZANI NCHINI TANZANIA

 Leo nitawakumbusha siku nilipokutana  na RAIS SAMIA  mwaka 2023 na mazungumzo yetu juu ya nia yake ya kuleta MAGEUZI Tanzania  niliondoka pale nikiamini Tanzania mpya inaletwa na mama Mzanzibari na hata agenda kuu ya Uraia pacha ya watu wa diaspora ipo salama kwa wakati muafaka ukifika baada ya uchaguzi wa 2025 kumalizika. Masuali yangu ya kwa Nini ulimueka FREEMAN MBOWE ndani

na kutokubaliana nae na njia yake ya utawala wake wa kuwaeka wapinzani wake Ndani nilimuambia hapa ulikosa busara za hali ya juu na yeye alinieleza tafrani zake alizokumbana nazo Ndani ya CCM ya upinzani wa  watu wanaompinga na wengi  waliokuwa wafuasi wa bosi wake RAIS Magufuli na baadae kina Mbowe kumuongezea tafrani   za kudai katiba mpya alihitaji kufocus  kupanga serikali yake ya watu walio watiifu kwake

Rais Samia alitamani sana kuona Tanzania yenye muelekeo wa serikali ya mseto baada ya uchaguzi wa 2025 kuona hatuoneshani vidole bali wanaionyooshea vidole Taifa la Tanzania na sisi kama Watanzania tunawanyooshea mabeberu vidole kama Watanzania bila kujali tofauti ya vyana vyetu.

Kwa Nini ndoto ya Rais Samia imetekwa NYARA?

Wakati Rais Amani Karume anafanya mazungumzo ya Siri na RAIS wa MOYO WA WAZANZIBARI Maalim SEIF Sheriff HAMAD alipambana na vikwazo vikubwa ndani ya chama chake cha CCM na kuitwa msaliti hadi mitandaoni na mabalozi wetu nje wenye asili ya Zanzibar nikuwa RAIS KARUME anataka kuiuza CCM Zanizbar kwa  chama cha CUF Na huko  CUF kwa hasira nyingi za makovu ya CCM ya huko nyuma ya Komandooo ya muafaka wa ulioanzishwa na katibu wa jumuia ya madola  EMEKA  ANYAOKU . Licha  ya DR SALMIN AMOUR  alieusaliti muafaka no 1.Maalim SEIF na RAIS KARUME walianzisha muafaka no 2 kutengeneza maslahi ya Utulivu wa Zanzibar sio maslahi ya CCM na CUF , lakini Maalim SEIF na yeye alikumbana na mabomu ya wahafidhina wa CUF kuwa  anajipendekeza kwa RAIS KARUME hakuwa salama kwa kushambuliwa kuwa anapigania mafao yake kustaafu ya uwaziri kiongozi yaliokatwa na kunyimwa mafao yake toka alipofukuzwa CCM .Maalim na timu yake ya watu watano walipambana kuhakikisha hakuna kidudu mtu anafanikiwa mara hii kuyakoroga mazungumzo yale .

Baadae wote wawili Maalim SEIF na 'Rais Karume walijua wapo vitani kuwa ndani ya vyama vyao kuna camp za wahafidhina zinazopinga mazungumzo yale kutokana na kambi ya CCM kuhofia kundi fulani maslahi yao kuguswa ikiwa CUF wataingia serkalini na ndani ya CUF makovu ya watu kupigwa risasi kuuliwa mwaka 2001 hadi  Tanzania kuzalisha wakimbizi Mombasa Kenya kitendo ambacho Rais Mkapa aliandika kwenye kitabu chake ndio doa la utawala wake Tanzania kuzalisha wakimbizi nje ya NCHI 

 wakati Tanzania ilikuwa ni  NCHI ya kupokea wakimbizi  wa nje . Maalim na Rais Karume waliafanikiwa mazungumzo yao kwa Kila upande kulegeza kamba na kufikia mauafaka uliiopelekea kuanzishwa Sheria ya kura ya maoni iliowakilishwa kwenye baraza la wawakilishi la Zanzibar

Wazo letu la wengi   la wanadiaspora wengine waliotumia mlango wa nyuma wa diplomasia la kutaka KINA LISSU na LEMA na Kampeni aya Mheshimiwa Mbowe kuachwa na wlaiopo nje warudi nyumbani kuondoa doa la kuwa Tanzania ina wakimbizi wa kisiasa nje ya NCHI alilichukua kwa mikono miwili hata haikufika miezi miwili mama wa KIZANZIBARI nilimuona yupo ubelgiji anakutana na TUNDU LISSU hapo niliamini kabisa kwenye moyo wangu kua SAMIA sasa hatanii bali anataka kuleta mshikamano wa taifa letu kwa nadharia ya Maalim SEIF na kuyaponya yale makovu ya walioumizwa na makovu ya CCM ya tawala zilizopita na makovu ya chaguzi zilizoacha misiba na simanzi nyingi hasa kwa ndugu zake kule Zanzibar roho za watu 29 zilipotea na mamia ya Wazanzibari wenzake kuachwa na ulemavu.

Nafikiri  Wapinzani  wa CHADEMA waliasahau kuwa  wahafidhina wanaompinga mageuzi ndani ya CCM bado wapo .Mfano wa  Kitendo kile kiliniacha na huzuni kubwa  baada ya Kumsikia Makamo wa pili wa RAIS wa Zanzibar Mheshimiwa Hemed alipendekezwa na Magufuli kuwa Makamo wa RAIS kukanusha kuwa hakuna watu waliouliwa  Zanzibar au kupigwa risasi  yeye hana taarifa hizo na Kila waliojaribu kumkaribia Rais Mwinyi kuwasaidia mayatima waliouliwa ndugu zao  alijieka mbali kwenye kuwakaribia au kuwatembelea kuwafariji kwa misiba waliopata familia hizi 29 waliouliwa ndugu zao na hata majeruhi kama viongozi wa CUF na Waziri wa Afya wa ACT sasa alietekwa na kupigwa na kuumizwa pamoja na mjumbe wa tume ya uchaguzi wa CUF ndugu Ayoub  Bakari ambae sasa hiviamerudfi tena kwenye tume ya uchaguzi wa Zanzibar.

MAADHIMISHO YA SABA SABA KENYA

Kenya Protest one year aniversary

Kenyan governemnet supress peacefull protest.