Reflecting with Nyerere on people-centered leadership

INTRODUCTION: ‘WHO ARE WE? WHO AM I?’

When talking about leadership, we need to ask three questions: leadership of what? Of whom? And for what? We are situated within a particular context which will be understood differently, depending in part on our own positions within society.

How do we position ourselves in this moment of his/herstory, when Africa is undergoing another ‘scramble for Africa’, heightened by the global fiscal/economic crisis of 2008/09? When Eastern and Western powers are competing between and among themselves for natural resources and military/political hegemony. With unheard of violence against women and children. There is no neutrality here, no middle ground.

Leadership ethics are relevant not only to formal big P politics as found in central and local government, and in political parties, but also to the way leaders conduct themselves within civil society organizations, including activist groups and the media, as well as within the commercial and corporate sector.

My article is informed by Nyerere’s thoughts on colonialism and post-colonialism. It is also highly informed by my participation in women’s struggles for equality, justice and social transformation in Tanzania and Africa, beginning in 1967, and our efforts to build a transformative feminist movement. I remain a youth of the 1960s and a ‘child of Nyerere.’ As a teenager, I was already active in the civil rights movement in USA; and in 1967, 23 years old, I became a wife, a citizen of Tanzania, bore my first daughter, was active in the struggle for ‘socialism and self-reliance’ and challenged patriarchy at home and at work.

In those days we were highly critical of Nyerere’s contradictions and government actions, but I continue to recognise and appreciate Mwalimu’s steadfast love for the people of Tanzania and Africa; his commitment to equity, justice and freedom; his enduring learning attitude and openness to new ideas; his political savvy. Mwalimu is sorely missed at this crisis moment in African/human history. I/we look for similar inspirational leadership in today’s youth who will carry on the struggle for an equitable, just, transformed world.

Thus this article is written with certain assumptions in mind that ought to be set forth from the start. First, I believe that the major issue today is not corruption nor competent governance – these phenomena require explanation. The major issue remains that of exploitative and oppressive structures and relations of production and reproduction, which are over-determined by the further strengthening of imperialist relations. These imperialist relations underlie such problems as debt, unequal terms of trade, foreign exchange strangulation, and the growing power of multinational corporations within Tanzania’s economy, and that of Africa as a whole. Imperialist relations interact with capitalist, patriarchal, racist, traditionalist and fundamentalist structures, systems and relations – they cannot nor should they be separated from each other.

Corruption and the lack of patriotic leadership has increased during the last 20 some years, but not in a vacuum. An enabling environment was created for corruption, individualism and compradorial tendencies by neo-liberal ideology and macro economic reforms which successfully took a dominant position in Tanzania – and much of the rest of Africa – in the mid-1980s. I propose therefore that the major challenge we face is: the abolition of unjust exploitative and oppressive structures and systems, and the creation and maintenance of structures and systems within the economy/polity which are characterized by equality and justice at all levels, beginning in the home and family, and extending to the regional and global level.

To cite Mwalimu Nyerere, in his speech to the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs twenty-two years ago (1986):

“Yet policy mistakes by our young governments, or the existence of shameful corruption in many countries, is not sufficient explanation for Africa’s current economic condition. Although all African Governments differ in ideology, policy, and structure … all countries have suffered a similar kind of economic regression and now face similar problems.

I believe that the basic explanation for Africa’s present economic condition lies in the fact that no African country has yet managed to shake off the neo-colonial hold of industrialized nations over our economies. .. Africa therefore continues to have an unequal dependency relationship with the developed nations – mostly former colonial powers.” [pp 8-9">

In the same speech, Mwalimu reminds us of the historical context leading up to the present situation, which was defined by the struggles of African peoples against colonialism and racism [and, I would add, against sexism">:

“Our people’s demand for independence, however, derived its major strength from their demand for human dignity and freedom. They wanted to govern themselves, in their own interests. And while they were demanding improvements in their conditions of life and in the provision of social services, they also wanted freedom and peace in their villages and towns and in their own lives.” [pp 5-6">

Mwalimu then goes on: “… on balance, it cannot be said that we have fulfilled our people’s hopes for democracy and Human Rights” [p. 6"> – and that, I believe, ought to be the main focus of our deliberations today, whereby democracy is understood broadly to refer to participatory development and participatory democracy, in which all women and men participate equally in making key decisions on resource allocations, at all levels – in other words, they all lead; and they benefit equally; where there is no systematic discrimination against one or another social group on any grounds whatsoever, thus realizing the people’s demand for human dignity and freedom.

While referring to individual demands for freedom and dignity, Mwalimu also emphasized the collective nature of these demands, and argued that the African people can only realize real democracy and freedom by uniting together so as to fight against ‘neo-colonialism’ [i.e. imperialism"> and to struggle instead for equitable, just development and economic liberation.

In the next section of this article, I will explore what leadership ethics means, highlighting the central question of positionality. Context issues are further examined in the third section, from the point of view of the most oppressed and exploited group in Tanzanian society. The final section seeks to answer the question, how do we shape a people-centred leadership which is accountable first to the people – meaning women, men and children – and not capitalist investors and ‘donors’ nor the local money merchants who pay for political parties and their elections.

WHAT DOES LEADERSHIP ETHICS MEAN?

From a transformative feminist point of view, leadership ethics centres around the question of positionality and identity, as well as the question of transparency and accountability. What is the position of the leader, in terms of gender, class, rural-urban location, ethnicity/race, and nation/region, in the present context that has been summarized above? With whom does the leader [or the collective leadership"> identify? We refer here to positionality and identity in practice, not in rhetoric. The measure of a leader’s positionality and identity will be that leader’s actions, behaviour, and thoughts in both private and public life. Government leaders in turn will be judged not by their policy statements but by actual implementation of policies, and resource allocations which reach the end user, for example, the nurse and the patient, the student and the teacher.

Who is the leader accountable to? Again, accountability is measured by actions, not by mere rhetoric. How does the leader respond to the conflicting demands of different social categories in our society, in the context of the dominant relations of power and ownership of wealth? In whose interests does this leader serve – the big corporate investors and the global/multilateral/bilateral agencies which support them or the exploited and oppressed majority? Does the leader support conservative forces which seek to maintain the status quo with respect to gender, class, race and national relations – or revolutionary forces which seek to promote participatory democracy and development through emancipation of all oppressed and exploited groups? Again, the question needs asking not only of government and political leaders, but also the leaders of a media house, an activist organization, a student movement, a commercial enterprise or the leaders of a nuclear and/or extended family/clan.

Another dimension of leadership ethics is the level of courage and commitment of a given leader. Is s/he prepared to stand up and voice his/her position on a given issue, regardless of the consequences, even when it means taking a minority position and challenging the might of the power structure within a given party, the government, a civil society organization, even a commercial company? Is s/he prepared to defend the interests of the dominated and oppressed and exploited majority vis-à-vis an increasingly voracious and wealthy and powerful minority at local and national – and regional and global level? Will s/he speak truth to power, without fear? And are we prepared to support her/him?

In the views of many Tanzanians today, elected leaders – including most Members of Parliament (MPs) and District Councilors – are a bunch of sheep, afraid to speak out on injustice and inequalities, afraid to stand out alone and separate from the pack. Most elected leaders have no intention of serving the interests of the exploited majority – they bought their positions with big money provided by themselves or by their commercial benefactors, and have taken political power so as to enrich themselves – the very opposite of what Mwalimu’s philosophy called for, and exactly what he warned the people against.

Where do people-centred leaders come from, the kind of committed leaders that Mwalimu spoke about who are wholly and completely dedicated to serving the majority of the people? I will argue here that they are not born as people-centred leaders – they are constructed in part by their birth and upbringing, and also by the social forces which define their circumstances. They are constructed by the structures and systems of organizing and leadership which are created and sustained within our respective families, communities, civil society organizations [including religious institutions, advocacy NGOs, grassroots movements">, political parties and the government itself. Top down dictatorial leaders, on the other hand, are constructed by bureaucratic hierarchical structures and systems of organizing and leadership.

Here I would like to distinguish between leader-centred groups and group-centred leaders, drawing on the inspiration of Ella Baker, a leader of the civil rights movement against racism and classism in the United States in the 1940s through the 1970s [Grant 1998"> and the experiences of collective participatory decision-making in some feminist/women’s organizations, including that of Tanzania Gender Networking Programme (TGNP).

Leader-centered groups – the vast majority in modern capitalist society – are characterized by the leadership of charismatic individuals with whom the organization or movement or party is identified. In a literal sense, these groups will be known as so-and-so’s organization, completely identified with a person, and not the collectivity contained within. A hierarchy of power is created, based on top-down decision-making, such that the majority of staff and/or members are excluded from participation in significant decisions about policy and resource allocations. Should that leader be removed, silenced or have left of her/his own accord, such organizations often fall apart. Most government structures in Africa are also organized in this way, where ideology, force and repression are relied upon to maintain the leader/party in power, as well as the granting of patronage and favours so as to maintain the support of specific power and pressure groups.

Group-centred leaders, in contrast, are grounded within their organizations or institutions, or movements; and the groups/organizations/movements they lead are identified not by a particular individual, but rather by the collectivity and its vision and mission. Decisions are made in a collective and participatory way, through animation [participatory dialogue and debate"> – which is time consuming but ensures that everyone concerned understands what the decision is about, what the implications are, and will be prepared later to abide by the decision of the majority, if not the consensus of all.

Group-centred leadership also connotes a learning organization/institution which continually strengthens and enriches its understanding of the current reality of struggle and development because the dynamics allow for continual reflection and criticism, self-criticism and counter-criticism. People-centred leaders are nourished within group-centred leadership structures; mentored, supported and corrected when they begin to lose their way – be it in terms of positionality, identity, transparency or accountability. Corrective mechanisms are in place to immediately censure inappropriate behaviour and actions. Everyone has an interest in ensuring that openness, transparency and accountability prevail – because the organization or movement is ‘owned’ by its members and/or collectivity. They identify with the organization – the organization identifies with them – and not with one individual.

Of course, this is an ideal, one which group-centred leadership organizations strive to achieve but it does make a difference.

Having explored the meaning of leadership ethics in this section, I would like to analyse the contextual issues and circumstances in which we are carrying out this public dialogue today; the context which also partly determines what kind of leaders we get, what kind of organizations and government [centrally, locally, globally">, and what kind of families. They also shape the forms of resistance and struggle which are emerging in Tanzania, and the growing power of contentious organizing and contentious discourse among the exploited and oppressed women and men in the rural areas and in town.

CONTEXTUAL ISSUES IN THE CONTEXT OF NEO-LIBERAL GLOBALISATION

At the broad level, today as we discuss leadership ethics, we are located within a particularly ugly moment of 'his'tory, very definitely a history dominated by imperial, capitalist, patriarchal, white supremacist and traditionalist structures of power and wealth. Global politics is heavily determined by the decisions/actions of a few powerful largely white men situated in advanced capitalist countries, and their collaborators and compradors in the increasingly subjugated and underdeveloped world – none more marginalized and subjugated than Africa. The imperial capitalist forces are frantic in their efforts to survive what is in reality a moment of crisis in capitalism. Instruments of force and repression are relied upon, including outright warfare and military domination – moreover, the military industrial complex has become one of the most powerful if not the most powerful sector of modern capitalist society. The capitalist economy depends on the military industrial complex, with myriad consequences in terms of research, ideology and discourse, including the discursive construction of particular forms of masculinity and femininity in a militarized society and world.

Imperial capitalism also relies on ideological instruments to rule and dominate, including patriarchal values and beliefs, and here the battle for the minds, aspirations, emotions and dreams of women, men and especially youth and children looms large. The convergence between far right politics, undemocratic governance, religious fundamentalism and market fundamentalism has increased throughout the world. It informs dominant discourse in the media and popular culture [including the mindless popular corporate culture of cinema and song">. The politics of HIV&AIDS [condoms or abstinence"> are one expression of the ideological struggle. Another is the transformation of African universities from radical centres of excellence in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, characterized by debate and innovative research, to the market-mainstreamed centres of mediocrity today, dependent on foreign donations of money and ideas.

In the 1960s and 1970s, African governments – and none more than that of Tanzania led by Mwalimu Nyerere – sought to challenge Western imperial hegemony and to support popular movements for decolonization, and for social equality and justice for all. Whatever their personal inclinations, Tanzanian leaders of government and political parties were shaped by strong ideological forces and institutional mechanisms so as to abide by a certain level of respect for the ‘common people’. Wealth where it existed was not flaunted and in real terms, the gap between the powerful and the wealthy and the poor in Tanzania was among the lowest in Africa. Many leaders actively sought to serve their nation and the African continent; and they and the Tanzanian people had pride in who they were – Africans and Tanzanians. Regardless of differences of gender, class, race, ethnicity, religion, and rural-urban location – there was a real sense of Tanzanian pride.

What is not understood is the degree to which this nationalist identity was constructed through the actions and thoughts of grassroots women politicians and activists who merged their struggles for individual dignity as women with that of a collective struggle for national autonomy and dignity as an African people. It is ‘TANU Women’ who forged alliances across ethnic and religious boundaries, who promoted Kiswahili as the medium of political discourse, who used local African cultural forms such as women’s songs and dance groups to energise the nationalist struggle and make it their own. Women anti-colonial agitators exemplified courage in the face of tremendous odds. They defied the power of the colonial state and the power of African patriarchy. They successfully fashioned non-violence methods with which to face colonial police forces, and were able to organize huge demonstrations with 40,000 people or more.
Door to door campaigns to raise funds and increase party membership were led and composed by women members, and this provided the foundation for a national liberation movement which was not defined by political party politics – its horizons were far broader, the very construction of a free and independent nation.

As argued by Susan Geiger in her life histories/herstories of TANU women activists (1997, 2005), this nationalist identity was strong enough to survive, not only the first twenty years of independence, with the many achievements in real economic growth and a better quality of life for all in the late 1960s and 1970s, but also the hard times of the 1980s. However, we must ask today, how much is left of that sense of pride in being a Tanzanian? Of being an African people?

What do we have today? Horrendous gaps between the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, with wealth and power being openly flaunted in the face of the excluded majority. In less than ten years Tanzania has witnessed the mallisation of society and economy. Shopping centres spring up with fences, gates and guards to lock out the poor majority, and an increasing number of the wealthy and the powerful now live in gated communities – also protected by fences, guards, and dogs – and thus Tanzanian society begins to resemble that of apartheid South Africa, that which once its leaders sought to demolish. Rich children attend elite private schools, while the poor majority attend low quality government and community schools that resemble, superficially, the old ‘native’ schools for Africans of the colonial period. I say superficially because those colonial native schools did teach their students how to read and write, whereas today how many primary school leavers remain functionally illiterate!

Now I want to dig down deeper to explore the view from below of the context in which a growing number of Tanzanians live and struggle. Imagine you are a 12 year old girl who has been sexually abused by your uncle, father, teacher or priest. Or a 16 year old pregnant girl, pulled out of school and married off by her father(s) to an old man without choice. Or a young 11 year old girl whose auntie brings her to town, promising her an education, and instead she winds up a domestic servant in a stranger’s house, raped by the ‘father’ and the ‘sons’, thrown out of the house when she gets pregnant by the mistress of the house, left to her own devices so what can she do but become a commercial sex worker.

Or a female casual labourer on a tea plantation who makes barely Tshs 2000 a day plucking tea with a baby on her back from sun up to sun down. After five years’ work she asks about regular employment and is fired. Or a 32 year old woman in her sixth delivery who dies because she didn’t have the money to pay for transport to the district hospital, the only place where emergency delivery care would be found. What is the view of the collectivity of Tanzanian mothers, the vast majority of whom have experienced the death of at least one child because of malnutrition, the lack of safe clean water, the lack of quality health care, the lack of food security, the lack of a sustainable livelihood?

And I ask you, what kind of leaders do we have in this nation who are so oblivious of the fact that systematically, every hour of every day, at least one woman dies because of complications of pregnancy and childbirth? Where more than 40% of young girls’ first experience of sex is violence [incest, rape – in the majority of case, by someone close to them">? Where today, more than 47 years after independence, this nation’s economy still depends on the headloads of women to provide fuel, water and foodstuff for their families and communities? And the hand hoe to feed this nation? Where the national economy continues systematically to exploit the unpaid labour of women and children to provide basic sustenance and reproduction of their families and the communities, and by extension, the labour force of the economy – added to which, we actually have an official government policy called Home Based Care which exploits this same unpaid labour to provide care and treatment for People Living with HIV (PLHIVs), with little or no resource allocations to support them?

What kind of leadership in government but also in development and economic studies do we have, which contemplates without shame the fact that the most common form of employment right now for young women is commercial sex, along with domestic work and bar work? A government which talks about providing jobs and economic empowerment, but in practice demolishes the stalls and – by extension – the means of livelihoods of mama ntilies [women foodstuff sellers"> and their brother wamachingas [street hawkers"> in the bomoa bomoa campaign? What kind of leadership ethics do we have from the point of view of the mama nitilies, the raped girl child, or the girl student who is systematically discriminated against in school, home and the community not only on the basis of her sex, but also her class and her rural or poor urban location?

Although these are individual stories, they reflect systematic discrimination, systematic male violence against women and girls, and systematic strategies to keep women in their place as the most exploited and oppressed group in our society. Underlying these stories is the state’s perpetuation of customary laws, for example, which rob women of their rights to property and the fruits of their labour. The state’s absolute failure to develop a coherent employment strategy for all so as to ensure that every woman – and man – has access to a sustainable livelihood with dignity and livable income. The state policy of privatization and cost sharing in social services, which denies citizens their rights to primary health care, safe and clean water, and basic education.

WHERE DOES PEOPLE-CENTERED LEADERSHIP COME FROM?

At the beginning of this article, I argued that people-centred leadership is constructed – leaders of this nature are not born that way. Alternative organizing and leadership styles are essential which foster and reward women and men leaders who are patriotic, committed, dedicated, democratic and participatory in action. They are desperately needed to lead social movements for change, as well as to lead other institutions and organizations in civil society, as well as in political parties and government. On the other hand, strong and powerful social movements are needed to successfully demand people-centred leadership of elected officials, and a free and independent media.

Transformative pedagogy is also a way to promote people-centred leadership, whereby each student feels compelled to do their best for the common good, as well as for their own individual achievement. Participatory methods and philosophy of learning, organizing and action research have been developed within the animation conceptual framework which is also refered to by some as participatory action research, or Paulo Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed. Several activist organizations in Tanzania, for example, have adopted animation as the way they organize themselves, and also how they facilitate dialogue and debate among the communities in which they work [see Mbilinyi in Mbilinyi et al 2003">. A basic assumption of animation is that the role of a facilitator is to creatively listen and to learn from the oppressed, exploited groups with whom s/he works; and to create an interactive process of experiential learning whereby people assess their situation, analyse the basic causes, and act to change their circumstances on their own behalf. In this case, the educator does not teach, the educator facilitates a mutual learning process. Similarly, in the context of a political party or a movement, the political leaders do not preach and they do not command compliance – instead, they go to live and learn from the people, first, and later articulate the popular demands of the people, namely the oppressed and exploited women, men and children.

Mwalimu’s thoughts on liberating education were inseparably linked with his conception of a more participatory political and development process. For example, in Education for Self Reliance (1967):

“It would thus be a gross misinterpretation of our needs to suggest that the educational system should be designed to produce robots, which work hard but never question what the leaders in Government or TANU are doing and saying...Our Government and our Party must always be responsible to the people, and must always consist of representatives – spokesmen[sic"> and servants of the people.” (Lema et al 2004).

In ‘Adult Education and Development’ (1976), Mwalimu placed liberation of human beings as the centre and rationale for development, and not the production of goods. Warning against paternalistic attitudes and top-down structures of leadership, he also argued that [Ibid: 135">

“… Man [sic"> can only liberate himself or develop himself [sic">. He[sic"> cannot be liberated or developed by another. For Man [sic"> makes himself [sic">. ..The expansion of his[sic"> own consciousness, and therefore of his[sic"> power over himself [sic">, his [sic"> environment, and his [sic"> society, must therefore ultimately be what we mean by development”

This calls for transformative pedagogy – in Mwalimu’s words, “the first function of adult education is to inspire both a desire for change, and an understanding that change is possible.” [Ibid: 137"> What is included?

“It includes training, but is much more than training. It includes what is generally called ‘agitation’ but it is much more than that. It includes organization and mobilization, but it goes beyond them to make them purposeful.” [Ibid: 138">

According to Mwalimu, political activists and educators “are not politically neutral; by the nature of what they are doing they cannot be. For what they are doing will affect how men [sic"> look at the society in which they live, and how they seek to use it or change it ... Adult Education is thus a highly political activity. Politicians … therefore … do not always welcome real adult education” [Ibid">.

Mwalimu’s concept was of a contentious education process, which promoted revolutionary struggle, while at the same time fostering high standards of excellence in scholarship (Lema et al 2006):
• Musoma Resolution: Directive on the Implementation of ‘Education for Self Reliance’ [1974">

‘… Education ought to enable whoever acquires it to fight against oppression…’

‘…we have not succeeded in liberating ourselves mentally, nor in having self-confidence, nor in selecting that which is most suitable to our objective conditions instead of continuing to ape the systems of other people whose economy and mode of life is totally different from ours’

• Address at the Twenty Fifth Anniversary of the University of Dar es Salaam [1st July 1995">

“... a University can only fulfill its functions if it is the hub of, and a stimulus for, the kind of scientific thinking which is a necessary preliminary to constructive action… a University – which in this context means its staff and students – must have untrammeled freedom to think, and to exchange thoughts, even if the thinking leads some of its members to become unorthodox in their conclusions…”

“In addition to the University’s duties to the society, there is a particular obligation on University students as a result of their having what are in developing countries exceptional educational opportunities…In 1970, and in the context of a country committed to building socialism, I described this obligation as being a willingness to give service to the community ‘without demanding further privileges from the community.’ Whether Tanzania is still an aspiring socialist country or not, I stand by that statement.”

“…no government is completely free in its choices… [it cannot"> decide to privatize Universities (that is, to leave the provision of tertiary education to ‘the market’) without abandoning even the shadow of a commitment both to equal opportunity for all its citizens, and even to genuine university education … I fail to see how the prime purpose of making a profit is consistent with the academic freedom and excellence which is an intrinsic part of being a University.”

I wish to close with a passionate speech which Mwalimu made to teachers in Dar es Salaam in 1969, ‘The Job of Teachers is Revolution’, which is befitting this commemoration of his life:

“When we talk of change or revolution in education, teachers begin arguing: ‘Oh! You will lower standards!’ But whose standards? They are colonial standards – and of how much use have they been to us? If these standards were good and relevant to our situation, we would not be talking of weakness and poverty today. We must be able to see what is good for ourselves and only in this way can we change. You teachers therefore must accept to be revolutionary teachers, not teachers to make people go to sleep.”

“Even if you are working in the village your job is to bring about African Revolution. You are carrying out your duty for the whole of Africa. Because history has given us Tanzania, we have to eradicate weakness and poverty in Tanzania. But we are not working for Tanzania alone. We are also working for Africa because of the suffering we have experienced as Africans.”

“You are working for Africa and secondly you are playing your part in a world-wide revolution. A situation where the rich exploit the poor will go. All exploiters will be dealt with in the world.”

“If you as teachers do not lead the poor African, when that day comes when there will be one to lead them out of poverty and misery you should agree to step down and accept to be led by an army of poor Africans. And I will be happy to see you trodden upon because you were useless as leaders. You must lead the poor…”

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/452/nyerere%27s-legacy.gif

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Marjorie Mbilinyi, a former professor of development studies at the University of Dar es Salaam, is based at the Tanzania Gender Network Programme (TGNP) in Dar es Salaam.
* This is an updated version of an article published in TGNP’s Gender Platform in 2008.
* This article will be a contributing chapter to a forthcoming Pambazuka Press book entitled 'Nyerere's Legacy', edited by Chambi Chachage and Annar Cassam.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.

REFERENCES
Geiger, Susan 1997 TANU Women: Gender and Culture in the Making of Tanganyikan Nationalism, 1955-1965 Oxford, James Currey

Geiger, Susan [popularization/trans Elieshi Lema"> 2005 Wanawake wa TANU: Jinsia na Utamaduni katika Kujenga Uzalendo Tanganyika: 1955-1965

Grant, Joanne 1998 Ella Baker: Freedom Bound New York, John Wiley & Sons

Kitunga, Demere 2007a “Challenges of Feminist Organising and Movement Building” Ulingo wa Jinsia [July-September">

Kitunga, Demere 2007b “Vuguvugu la Ukombozi wa Wanawake Kimapinduzi na Changamoto Zake” Ulingo wa Jinsia [Toleo Maalum">

Kitunga, Demere and Marjorie Mbilinyi 2006 “Notes on Transformative Feminism” Ulingo wa Jinsia [July-Sept">

Lema, Elieshi, Marjorie Mbilinyi and Rakesh Rajani eds 2004 Nyerere on Education Dar es Salaam, HakiElimu & E & D Limited

Lema, Elieshi, Issa Omari and Rakesh Rajani eds 2006 Nyerere on Education II Dar es Salaam, HakiElimu & E & D Limited

Mbilinyi, Marjorie 2007 “Achievements and Challenges in Feminist Participatory Organising and Movement Building” Ulingo wa Jinsia [July-Sept">

Mbilinyi, Marjorie, Mary Rusimbi, Chachage S L Chachage and Demere Kitunga eds 2003 Activist Voices: Feminist Struggles for an Alternative World Dar es Salaam, TGNP & E&D Limited

Nyerere, Mwalimu Julius K 1986 “Reflections on Africa and its Future” Address at the Nigerian Institution of International Affairs [8th December"> mimeo