Dar es Salaam – Response Note

The Dar es Salaam stimulus paper has so far attracted 12 comments from as widely spaced locations as Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Hong Kong and Tanzania; pointing to as wide a range of issues as population migration into cities, problems such as traffic congestion, unplanned housing, stress on social delivery services, urban poverty (leading in some extreme cases to throwing of newly-born babies into garbage pits), as well as the issue of satellite towns as a strategy for relieving pressure in urban centres and spreading amenities wider. The recent explosions of military equipment in Dar es Salaam, which affected people’s lives and property, have come up in discussions, adding to the multifaceted dimensions. Surely, a response as brief as what this is supposed to be may not possibly address all the points but can only endeavour to pick on the most salient matters. It will be structured around three principal issues.

 (1) The multidimensional problems of Dar City.

Problems of Dar es Salaam, as a city and a growing urban region as several have observed [Stacey Huget; Margaret Sutherland; Mike Osborne; John Briggs; Mpoki Mwaikokesya] are many and multidimensional, although, strictly speaking, they may not be unique and far different from those confronting cities in other countries of similar geographical and socio-cultural situations such as Nairobi in Kenya, Kampala in Uganda and even Lagos in Nigeria: urban population congestion, poor squatter-housing, a fast rate of rural-urban migration, diminished or relatively diminishing urban facilities (sewerage, water and electricity supply, physical infrastructure, access and feeder roads). These are problems and challenges that have had a critical and continue to have a deleterious effect on urban development plans for a ‘modern city’ as well as on human welfare in urban environments.

The question remains: what is to be done? Are the city and municipal authorities caught up in a labyrinth from which they fail to make headway, or, are these problems that require a pragmatic planning and remedial approach, with an innovative use of some kind of internal, probably multidisciplinary think-tank of planners, ecologist-environmentalists, sociologists/anthropologists, economists and technologists? Some urban authorities have used this approach, institutionalizing a technical [technocratic?] work team rich in diverse perspectives and skills and the woes have been fairly minimized. Within the recollections of the past several decades, the municipal councils of Zambia used such a ‘planning-and-maintenance’ approach in the 1970s well into the ’80s and probably the ’90s. Lusaka, Kitwe, Ndola, Luanshya, Mongu and Kabwe (Broken Hill) became some of the most exemplary cities and towns within the eastern-southern Africa sub-region[1] in cleanliness and orderliness, attracting as they did several urban councils in the region—including the Dar es Salaam city council—to send delegates to tour and learn from them. Such practice seems to be supported by many [Peter Kearns; Mike Osborne; Norman Longworth; Margaret Sutherland], with a selective if carefully thought-out ‘twinning of cities’, possibly followed by ‘twinning of schools in the twinning cities’ as one of the viable ways of regional and international exchange and cooperation. The purpose would obviously not—and should not—be simply motivated by short-term material gains (just a tour, a travel allowance, per diems or shopping) but to learn and tap some wisdom from the accomplishments of others. In fact, in today’s age of ICT (information and communication technology), not everything will always demand physical visits; a lot can be learned from communication and demonstrations in cyberspace by use of e-mail, institutional websites and facebooks.

 (2) The need and a case for support for municipal councils.

On account of the many multifaceted human-made problems as mentioned in (1) above, municipal authorities find themselves on the ‘receiving end’ – not only facing the stark situation and being obliged to solve it, but also receiving the many blames and criticisms for having had no foresight to forestall and prevent the situation. They also have to organise themselves to seek financial and material assistance from the central government in order to meet the milling crowd of emergencies. This is a ‘receiving end’ in more than one sense; but in each of these (and probably other) senses of being at a receiving end of a problem, the municipal authorities—and all municipal councils everywhere—require a hearing ear. They need the hearing ear of (i) the central government in terms of a well considered budgetary subsidy, of (ii) the general public in terms of certain user-fees or rates that must be paid to enable them to provide certain amenities that cannot be met through the regular budgetary streams, and of (iii) the helping and technocratically-minded professions in terms of readiness to provide (volunteer) ideas and skills towards solution of continually emerging challenges.

With specific regard to (iii), more often than not, municipal councils require a ‘consortium’ of professions and technocrats not all of who may be available within the human resource envelope on the council’s regular payroll. Logically, they would have to have a pragmatic approach in outsourcing (for voluntary or else piece-rate consultancy), depending on the nature of the problem/challenge to be confronted. But this requires an ‘open and pragmatic mind’, on the part of a learning municipal authority, towards problem-solving and creative service provision in an urban-planning-and-renewal context. Perhaps, in connection with this, it is now high time for urban councils, particularly in Africa, to go back to the practice of engaging professionals specialised in social anthropology and/or sociology, a cadre of professionals (among others) that was purposefully employed by administrations during the colonial period but which was almost immediately discontinued upon independence. But such a cadre—the Hans Corys, the M. M. Hartnolls, the Philip Gullivers, to talk of the eastern Africa subregion alone—was so useful and insightful in terms of urban study, social-problem investigation, a repertoire of ‘intelligence’ about demographic tendencies and behaviour patterns, and inputs into spatial mapping and planning for better municipal administration. Reading from the Hong Kong, the Hume and Glasgow stimulus papers and the kind of instigated change these papers are relating, I suspect that the change-and-renewal process in those regions benefited from research-based insights of a consortium of professions, including social anthropologists and sociologists.

 (3) The role of Universities in the learning game.

My quick interpretation of Amina Kamando’s comment of 10^th March—a comment that has surely been made by several others in different contexts in relation to universities—is that, apparently, universities were not doing enough in making themselves available to society (beginning with their own surrounding local communities) in social action leading to change and renewal, and that they were not collaborating adequately with their surrounding communities for mutual advancement and mutual benefit. In principle, I will agree that universities, as part-and-parcel of [and as a sub-system within] society, must not stay aloof as a passive bystander. They are part of the wider social system and are partners in the wider struggle for change. They ought to be an interested party! They are supposed to be and to act as ‘developmental universities’ in the definition and sense of social reformers in developing and developed societies alike (such as Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and James Coleman of the US). And this is based on the perception that universities are ‘pace-makers’ for society in studying and investigating important socio-cultural themes of critical consequence to development. They are also pace-makers in forging ahead in developmental research and innovation that lead to advancement in technology, better production, disease prevention, attitudinal change regarding certain habits, etc.

This imperative notwithstanding, I would like to humbly submit, as I did to Amina in my counter-comment of 16^th March, that ‘it takes two to tango’. We expect that both sides will be willing to cooperate and collaborate. While one side (the university) must take a first step in approaching the other side for information sharing and possible collaboration, the other side must be a willing listener for any propositions for ‘teaming up’ for mutual advantages and mutual benefits. The university—any university, by virtue of its nature of knowledge creation endowment—will often have ideas (research-based data, insights, solutions and alternative scenarios to demonstrate, to give ‘free of charge’ as a public-community service, or for a token fee in cost-recovery). But it [the university] cannot and will not impose itself and its ideas on an uninterested and unwilling potential partner—say on an uninterested municipal director, on a government department chief executive officer, or on a village council bureaucrat who doesn’t want to listen to such overtures. Unfortunately, this has been the nasty experience encountered by many forward-looking pro-active universities in developing countries, in situations and areas where some have come to be suspected or feared as a threat to the existing traditional wisdom, or a competitor for some financial or material gain, or as a potentially critical or domineering partner to be avoided relative to the authorities’ desired status quo that assures the continued traditional patterns of loyalty and ways of doing things. It is a situation that remains a universal challenge even today, particularly in many third-world contexts. But it is something that would have to be and must be overcome. Yet success in this, as far as universities are concerned, would lie for the most part in the approaches, methods, strategies and tactics they take and in the attitude they carry into the situation. Invariably—or almost invariably—these are approaches, methods and attitudes that ought to be clear of any air of ivory-tower elitism.

The Glasgow SP (by Janice Lane) cites examples of what universities can do for the public good and human advancement: e.g. the Glasgow museums resource centre and museums around European cities set up for intercultural tolerance and life-long learning. Rupert Maclean, in the Hong Kong SP, talks similarly of small poverty-alleviation projects such as the Sunny Family project and the Shep Kip Mei Creative Arts Centre community outreach project. The Hume SP (by Peter Kearns) talks of the Global Learning Centre and its ‘Ideas Lab’ as well as the Learning Village Research Day, among other innovative creations. My hunch is that such initiatives are products of mutual exchange between proactive institutions, including universities, and willing and eager municipal authorities.

Finally, I express my gratitude to all commentators on the Dar es Salaam stimulus paper. Not only have their comments helped to expand the locus of discussions, but also they, just as the authors of the stimulus papers referred to in this response note, have helped me try to amplify or else to clarify some of the points raised in the original paper.