The most important person in Dar

That title is not meant as a joke. Anyone who has travelled enough to compare Tanzania with other countries will agree that the most striking feature here, as one drives or walks the streets, is the number of kids or adolescents or young adults who are going to school, or college or university - anything to get an education. Literacy is universal here, whereas in Europe it took two thousand years. The most significant people here are those who emphasized the need for this literacy (Julius Nyerere the foremost) and those who continue to push it, as does Dr. Alli at the national library of Tanzania.

Dr. Alli Abushiri Shomari Mcharazo is director general of the Tanzania Library Services Board, a person of many qualifications and much experience, as university lecturer (London, UK), researcher in human resources (Tanzania) chief librarian (UCLAS, Muhimbili and DSM) and author, with 34 published works. As if this were not enough to keep him occupied he is also a member of several significant boards and educational projects, and a consultant for several important bodies.

When he was kind enough to grant me an interview in his office he told me that from childhood he had been consumed by a great love for books. This is uncommon in any country but particularly so in this one, where almost all information comes by word of mouth and oratory is a much respected gift.

Dr. Alli was born in Tanga in 1959 where his parents were resident, his mother (only 16 when she bore him) originally from Lindi, and his father's people had a centuries old feeling for the outer world - which seems to this writer to be vital to explaining Dr. Alli's outlook. However he was brought up by his maternal grandmother in a village miles from urban facilities, where life was quite tough but he lived in a group, the school was congenial. In 1976 he began at Kinondoni Secondary School in Dar es Salaam - although glad to be continuing at school the separation from his grandmother was experienced as traumatic. However he lived first with an uncle then with an aunt, and in 1979 left school to become store clerk with Riddoch Motors for a year, before finding a place in Tanzania library services. National Service was done at Makutopora, near Dodoma. There were field attachments in libraries to gain experience, first at Forodhani Secondary School in DSM, then in Mweka Wildlife College, Moshi, then at Acton High School and at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London.

Continuing education, from 1991-94 he was at Ealing College of Further Education, but earned his MA and then his doctorate at Thames Valley University, also in London, was lecturer there up until 1997,when became principal librarian in Tanzania. From 2000 to 2004 he was librarian at the University College of Land and Architectural Studies, and from 2004 to 2007 at Muhimbili University College of Health Sciences.... and director general in May 2007,chairman of the Tanzanian library association in 2008.

Dr. Ali believes that reading is so important because it is a form of communication - we can pass on information by means of a document. Moreover reading is an enriching experience. Libraries supply the tools for this with extra facilities to support that reading. This librarian took for his doctorate the subject: Aspects of distance education and its implication in informant provision.

From Dr. Ali's beliefs and my own, I recommend everyone in Dar es Salaam to become a member of the national library and to spend much time there, and I recommend the government to invest in public libraries, build them in all centres of population.

From 2000 to 2004 he was librarian at the University College of Land and Architectural Studies, and from 2004 to 2007 at Muhimbili University College of Health Sciences.

KUDOS FOR OBAMA, BUT AFRICA EXPECTS MORE

After grueling months of electioneering, that big day came and on Tuesday, Americans went to the polls to elect their president.Through that exercise, they categorically spoke, that the man they want, yet again, at the helm for the next four years is Mr Barack Obama, the very one who made history as the US first African-American president when he defeated Republican John McCain in 2008. The victor of the Tuesday poll, dubbed the most expensive US presidential election in recent history, won over 300 electoral-college votes out of 358 at the expense of Republican Mitt Romney, who conceded defeat hours ahead of the final tally. There had been concern on the part of the pro-Obama camp that “anything might have happened”, if their man’s performance in the first presidential debates – where Senator Romney impressed many – was anything to go by. And then, as it were, unemployment had soared during his maiden tenure, contrary to his 2008 election pledge. The Romney camp had harped on that drawback in its efforts to impress voters that the incumbent had failed and therefore, should go! Now, that has come to pass. Mr Obama will continue with his second and last four-year tenure as the world’s sole superpower’s 44th president. He won beyond the expectation of many, thanks to a majority of the American voters’ faith in the “man they know” and their discomfiture towards the Republican who, sadly, saw supporters of Obama as “idle people who don’t have to pay taxes.” Unlike presidential elections elsewhere in the world, that of the US has global ramifications. The US, whose current gross domestic product of $15 trillion represents almost a quarter of the world’s $62 trillion, is easily the most influential nation on earth. Strongest economy As the world’s strongest economy, not to mention its military might (it commands 41 per cent of the global military spending of  $1,735), the US has the capacity to dictate a lot of what happens elsewhere across the globe. Mr Obama’s 2008 win was received with a lot of excitement in Africa. Why, according to many, the president of the “Big Brother” nation was “one of us”, having been of a Kenyan father! Given Africa’s generally parochial politics, where leaders tend to abashedly direct national resources to political supporters and their villages of origin, there was a belief that Mr Obama would spoil the “continent of his father”. It is clear that in the world’s biggest democracy, matters are not run on the basis of the big man’s whims. It is American interests, and not the president’s interests (and sentiments) that reign supreme. Irrespective of who occupies the White House, the US as a nation has specific areas of focus, which means “development partners” must not expect much simply because there is change or otherwise, at the top. However, the executive’s background and style of leadership must surely influence the implementation of initiatives that benefit recipient nations while serving American interests as well. The US is fully aware that its business, security and cultural dominance can be sustained only if poverty and social upheavals are put in check in other nations, including those in sub-Saharan Africa. That is why we expect that President Obama will use his second and final tenure of office to boost in developing nations in areas of health, poverty alleviation and education. As he had aptly said in his 2008 acceptance speech, his victory was not about “him”, it was about “us”. And for a man who leads the country touted as “the land of opportunity”, the pronoun “us” is not just about Americans; it is about the world at large.

Is Africa about to become the next economic tiger?

If you are looking for some good cheer in a pretty gloomy world, consider the growing consensus among some of the world’s smartest money that the next big emerging market may be Africa. Above all, that is great news for Africans: As we have seen across so much of Asia, economic growth has accomplished what decades of well-meaning development efforts failed to do, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. If that happens in Africa, the world will be transformed. This case for Africa as the world’s new economic tiger is made forcefully in The Fastest Billion: The Story Behind Africa’s Economic Revolution, a data-packed collection of essays to be published at the end of this month and brought together under the aegis of Renaissance Capital, an investment firm with Russian roots and global ambitions. The consensus view among many students of the global economy is that investment decisions are about choosing, in the words of Mohamed A. El-Erian (pictured), chief executive of the fund manager Pimco, “the cleanest dirty shirt”: The United States faces a fiscal cliff and political gridlock, Europe is tenuously poised between years of painfully slow growth and outright collapse, and even go-go China is slowing. By contrast, in the view of Stephen Jennings, the Renaissance chief executive, Africa is on a tear. “It is the only region in the world where growth is accelerating,” he said by phone from Moscow. “If you strip out South Africa, the rest of the region is actually growing very, very quickly.” Jennings says he believes Africa is following the path to economic development that has been trod in recent decades by countries like Brazil, China and India - only in Africa the transformation is happening even faster. “The chances are this will be like Asia and this will go on for the next 30 years,” Jennings said. “It is helpful to remember where Asia was in the early 1970s. Then, most of the wars were in Asia, the lowest GDP and life expectancy were in Asia. People thought that was Asia’s lot.” We hold those same prejudices, only more deeply, when it comes to Africa, Jennings argued. But, quietly, Africa has been remaking itself. “It is not something that we are predicting - it is something that is happening,” he said. “You have this very broad-based, Asia-like process of modernisation.” Jennings, who pointed out that Kenya had halved infant mortality in five years, an improvement it took India 25 years to achieve, predicts that within a generation, Africa’s place in the world will be utterly changed. By 2050, he believes Nigeria will be the most populous country in the world and the African economy will be bigger than that of the United States and Europe combined. Jennings is not alone in predicting an African renaissance. Two years ago, McKinsey, the management consulting firm, put a savanna spin on the emerging market cliche in a report titled, “Lions on the move: The progress and potential of African economies.” Foreshadowing “The Fastest Billion,” this report painted a picture of an Africa whose economic pulse “has quickened,” with gross domestic product rising 4.9 per cent per year from 2000 to 2008. “While Africa’s increased economic momentum is widely recognised, less known are its sources and likely staying power,” the McKinsey study argued. “Our analysis suggests that Africa’s long-term economic prospects are quite strong. Global businesses cannot afford to ignore the potential.” An obvious source of Africa’s new might is the surge in commodity prices, and both reports acknowledge the impact of natural resources. But they also have a shared conviction that domestic factors are at play. The predictable one is improved governance. Less predictable is the joint celebration of Africa’s excellent demographics. Not so long ago, Africa’s tragedy was its children - now that is why the global elite think Africa may be a strong bet. This is just the beginning of a revolution in our thinking about babies and the economy: The Industrial Revolution transformed children from a family’s labor force to its luxury good. That is still the case; but for the national economy, babies are becoming the most precious resource of all. Both McKinsey and Renaissance have produced hopeful documents, and for a continent that mostly gets hand-wringingly gloomy news coverage, that is a very welcome perspective. But it is worth challenging one optimistic assumption, particularly because of its wider implications. That is the view that in Africa, economic growth and democracy will go together. Their synonymity is a comfortable belief. But in Africa, as in other emerging markets like China, Russia and even Turkey, it may not be true. For example, Mohamed Keita, Africa advocacy director at the Committee to Protect Journalists, argues that in countries that are cracking down on freedom of the press, like Ethiopia, economic growth deflects attention from growing authoritarianism rather than undermining it.

Romney or Obama, Israel will see steady US course

Most Israelis would be reassured if Mitt Romney won next week’s US presidential election, feeling they had an unquestioning friend rather than a dispassionate critic in the White House.But any change would probably be a question of style over substance, analysts say, with a Republican administration expected to follow the path already laid out by President Barack Obama when it comes to Iran and the Palestinians. The allies are too joined at the hip on fundamental challenges for the head to make that much difference. “There is a great deal of continuity in foreign policy,” said Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and member of the ruling conservative Likud party. “Things don’t change overnight if a new president takes power.” Obama, a Democrat, never enamoured himself to the Israeli people, nor to their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.The US leader was accused of trying to browbeat Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians, particularly in his efforts to halt settlement-building in the occupied West Bank, and of refusing to impose red lines on Iran’s atomic project. While Obama also oversaw ever-closer military ties between the two allies, Israelis remembered the perceived slights - such as his failure to find time to see Netanyahu when he flew to New York last month to address the United Nations.He is also disparaged for not visiting Israel as president. There again, only four of the last 11 US presidents managed to make the trip, with only two coming their first term. A survey released on Sunday by Tel Aviv University showed Israeli Jews preferred Romney to Obama by almost a three to one margin - the inverse of the predicted American Jewish vote.“There is clear daylight between the prime minister and the White House, and most Israelis believe that Obama deliberately wanted it that way,” said Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “But there wouldn’t be much of a difference between (Obama and Romney) on the Palestinian conflict or even with the Iranian issue. The course of future US policy is pretty much set.” Romney has certainly tried to play up divergences with Obama over Middle East policy, repeatedly accusing his rival of throwing Israel “under a bus” and suggesting he would adopt a tougher line with the Iran’s powerful clerics. But in their debate on foreign policy last week, the two men appeared in broad agreement on a range of issues, competing with each other to show their support for Israel and making clear it was by far their most important partner in a troubled region. They also adopted a similar line on Iran - promising to prevent Tehran from getting nuclear weapons without mentioning the words “red line”, or committing to using military force. “It is ... essential for us to understand what our mission is in Iran, and that is to dissuade Iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means,” Romney said. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons. Romney’s language was duly noted in Israel, even raising questions of whether a Republican administration, haunted by the Iraq-tattered legacy of former President George W. Bush, would have the stomach for a daunting new Middle East conflict. According to that theory, if anyone is likely to send in the warplanes, it is the Democrat Obama, who has succeeded in convincing Russia and China to back tough sanctions on Iran and is viewed with less suspicion around the globe than Romney. But Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and a Netanyahu confidant, suggested that the sort of military mission often envisaged for Iran, centred on air power, would banish the ghosts of the Iraq quagmire. “No one wants another war in the Middle East, but there is a huge difference between a major ground war with a commitment of troops that march into an Arab capital, and the spectrum of options that exist now. Some of them may involve just air assets or intelligence cooperation,” he said. Whether or not there proves to be any substantive difference between the two presidential contenders in terms of core policy-making, there can be no doubt that the conservative Netanyahu would feel more comfortable dealing with the Republican Romney. In his two terms as prime minister, Netanyahu has only ever dealt with Democratic presidents - first Bill Clinton and now Obama. He is often quoted as having said “I speak Republican” and his relations with Obama were at very best frosty. “If Romney wins, (Netanyahu) will be in paradise. If it is Obama, it will be hell,” said one former aide, who worked alongside Netanyahu for a stretch of his second stint in office. The writer filed this analysis from Washington

Obama walks into the record books

By winning on Tuesday, Barack Obama becomes the second Democrat to be elected twice since the Second World War era that witnessed a Democrat, President Franklin Roosevelt, winning four presidential polls in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944.  President Roosevelt, who is well respected as the leader of the United States during the Second World War, and the man who rescued the nation from great economic depression, died on April 12, 1945 after serving as president for 12 years, one month, one week and one day.  President Roosevelt was the last beneficiary of the old system which did not have a presidential term limit, a reason why he ran four times. Later the Twenty-second Amendment of the US Constitution set a presidential term limit of two terms, which was ratified in 1951.  After his death, his Vice President, Harry Truman, assumed the presidency but thereafter only won one term in 1948, as he lost, in 1952, to a Republican, General Dwight Eisenhower, a military commander in the Second World War.  Thus, after Roosevelt, it took America 52 years until 1996 to elect a Democrat, Bill Clinton, to a second term, following his first in 1992. But what happened after Roosevelt and thereafter?  Maybe Americans grew tired of Democrats, so with Truman’s perceived weakness at the start of the Cold War, they elected a general-turned politician, Republican Eisenhower, who then served two terms until January 1961.  Then Eisenhower’s Vice President, Richard Nixon, took the challenge to face the Democrats but lost to John Kennedy in one of the most closely-contested presidential polls in US history. Unfortunately for Kennedy, he was assassinated on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. Notably, President Kennedy was a close friend of Julius Nyerere, by then the President of the Republic of Tanganyika. Nyerere visited Kennedy at the White House in July 1963, four months before his assassination.  After Kennedy’s death, his Vice President Lyndon Johnson took over immediately, sworn-in on board Air Force One. He was elected easily in 1964 by a sympathy vote and went on to escalate the Vietnam War grossly in 1965 when he dispatched 200,000 American troops.  After messing up in Vietnam, he decided not to run for re-election in 1968 leaving the door open to Nixon to realize his dream. Nixon started his effort to end the conflict and won re-election in 1972. He didn’t finish his second term as he was forced to resign in August 1974 following the Watergate Scandal. Before his resignation, Nixon lost his vice president, Spiro Agnew, to an embarrassing resignation over a corruption scandal. Nixon had to appoint the House Minority Leader, Republican Gerald Ford, to be his new Vice President.  When Nixon resigned Ford found himself the president without running for office. Ford concluded the Vietnam War in 1975, which was a great relief to Americans, but he made the mistake of pardoning Nixon while Americans wanted him to go to jail. That decision would later cost him election in 1976.  Another Democrat, Jimmy Carter, won election, entered office in January 1977 and like Kennedy, he was a good friend of Africa especially when he sent an African American, Andrew Young, his ambassador to the United Nations, to visit African countries with the question: “What do you want America to do for you?” Nyerere visited the White House for the second time in August 1977 during the Carter administration, but disappointed it after Carter sent the famous boxer, Mohammed Ali, to plead with African countries to boycott the Moscow Olympics in 1980. Nyerere rejected the idea and Tanzanians won two medals. Other nations like Kenya boycotted the games. After one term, Carter lost badly to Ronald Reagan, a Republican in the 1980 election because of what Americans perceived as weakness in foreign and defence policies, and a bad economy at home. Reagan would serve two terms leaving the office to his Vice President, George H. W. Bush who lost to Clinton after serving one term. President Clinton became one of the most popular presidents America has ever had despite a publicized scandal. But unfortunately, his Vice President, Al Gore, lost a disputed election to George W. Bush in 2000 after a protracted legal battle.  President Bush served two terms from January 2001 to January 2009 and left office one of the most unpopular US presidents around the world in recent history. Then Obama won against Republican John McCain and became the first black man to occupy the White House.  Obama’s Tuesday re-election is not an ordinary victory in the history of American presidency. He is only the second Democrat, after Clinton, to be re-elected since the Second World War. Compared to Republicans, Democrats are loved around the world for being peace lovers and respectful of other nations, and that is what makes world citizens happy about Obama’s re-election. Mr Matinyi is a consultant based in Washington, DC

Tanzania’s tourist camp shines in 100 best hotels

Breath taking view from the poolside at luxury tented Serena Kirawira Camp in Western Serengeti. photo | COURTESY OF KIRAWIRA SERENA CAMP By Adams Ihucha The Citizen Correspondent Arusha. Condé Nast Traveller Magazine has recognised Kirawira Serena Camp in Serengeti as one of the top 100 hotels and resorts in the world, lifting Tanzania’s tourism to international limelight. Kirawira luxury tented Serena camp came ahead in the chain of Serena hotels, which all received global recognition for excellent service and accommodation at the 2012 Condé Nast Traveller Readers’ Choice Awards. The camp earned three slots in the Top 100 hotels and resorts of the world and the Platinum Circle, which was launched to celebrate 25 years of Condé Nast Traveller late in October. This circle recognises the superstars of the Gold List and consists of hotels, resorts, and cruise lines that have made the list every year for the past five years running. Kirawira stood out alongside other Serena properties in the Top 25 resorts & safari camps in Africa, which rates the top resorts and safari camps in South Africa, Botswana, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and Zambia. Top 25 Resorts and Safari Camps in Africa included Kirawira Serena Camp in eight position, Amboseli Serena Safari Lodge (13th), Serengeti Serena Safari Lodge (15th), Mara Serena Safari Lodge (17th) and Ngorongoro Serena Safari Lodge (25th). Top 15 hotels in Africa saw Zanzibar Serena Inn (10th) and Serena Mountain Village of Arusha (15th) being featured. Top 100 hotels in Africa category saw Serengeti Serena Safari Lodge hold 17th position, Ngorongoro Serena Safari Lodge (24th) and Serena Hotels (84th). The Condé Nast Traveller Readers’ Choice Awards has become a platform to celebrate excellence and best practices in travel and accommodation, and recognises organisations that have driven tourism by rapidly transforming the sector and the economy at large. Mr David Sem, Serena Hotels Country Sales manager said on this front clients of Serena hotels have recognised their outstanding contribution to the development of the continent, the economic aspirations of its citizens and the transformation of Africa’s image in international markets. Serena Hotels was awarded for branding the six destinations that it has presence in as attractive tourism destinations and for providing the highest standard of service and product whilst operating in a sensitive manner towards monitoring interests of the local population including traditions, culture and future development.

INVESTING IN GIRLS PAYS OFF

Education is one of Tanzania’s priorities, and for good reason. It is the most effective means to getting rid of the three enemies of development—poverty, ignorance and disease. We need to invest in quality education for our children, if only to ensure they grow into responsible adults. But lack of funds and learning and teaching facilities stand in the way of progress in education.  When choices have to be made, girls tend to get the short end of the stick. In many parts of the country, schoolgirls quit due to early pregnancies and marriage. This was not a big problem in the past because there were many boarding schools—which meant they did not have to travel long distances, which translates into an opportunity to be sidetracked. Parents and teachers, too, played their part well. Today’s girls face many temptations. They can easily be lured by sugar daddies into love affairs and leave school for the supposedly easy life.  We can minimise this problem and eventually eradicate it if we take the following steps: First, we can construct more boarding schools or hostels to minimise distractions and ensure girls are protected. Second, parents should play their role in shaping the worldview of their children.  This means forging close relations with their offspring and following up their academic progress. Third, teachers should lead by example.  All too often, they are part of the problem.  Finally, we urge the government to invest in quality education. This is the key to success.