“Power corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. This historical dictum lays a basis in good governance theory and practice for governments to be controlled. Such control ranges from criticism to compliment. This is spearheaded by individuals and institutions of various kind. Most of this is envisaged to be engineered by the civil society, to what extent?-its an issue that merit ponder.

In modern administration the extolled way to cultivate democracy and development is to strengthen institutions and then leave the government to make and regulate policies, the implementation is left to various actors including the civil society. Of course this does not rob of the state duty to provide some services.

Under such circumstances civil society is looked upon as the Voice of the Voiceless. Civil society is expected through its accountability and voice, to push the government to make policies that favor the underprivileged. Promote citizens participation in issues affecting their lives, sit at dialogue tables with the government and in certain circumstances supplement government efforts by delivering services. Are these done?, history unveil can reveal.

Memory of single party and centralized economy era of the late President Julius Nyerere reminds that civil society was limited then. State had orchestrated umbrella organizations to coordinate all forms of associations. Activist civil movements were curfewed and individual initiatives to organize for common social causes were either buried or dwindled.

Later came the era of about turn to political and economic liberalization that automatically freed CSOs from party chains and mushrooming of many other civil society organizations. Consequently, even donor community was pulled by this wind and had to shift more support from the government to CSOs. But mostly wave swelled to delivery of service, advocacy and criticism to the government was minimal. Conversely, this was an era of messy free-for-all that abused the essence of civil society.

Soon after followed the epoch of disciplined Benjamin Mkapa who was committed to strengthen institutions on one hand but a staunchest advocate of pocketing them on the other. Civil society organizations that maintained their stand were either deregistered as it was for National Youth Forum (NYF) or mouth-taped as it happened to HakiElimu. This can be evidenced by the aggressiveness of the then President in supporting the enactment of 2002 NGO Act that was branded by many as a nail to the coffin of civil society watchdog function in Tanzania. Apparent, the legislation requires NGOs be “non-political” and report to the government. To what extent can they ‘criticize’ the government without being branded as “political”? The retort is within the two examples given above.

While the civil society has been squeezed against the control wall the government got the benefit of doubt from the development partners due to their confidence that has been bestowed by economic performance. A shift of gear from program and project funding to budget support was engaged without taking due consideration whether or not Tanzania is in the list of well-governed countries that can be trusted with bulky funds at the center. The very same center criticized for poor institutional mechanisms to maintain accountability and promote responsibility.

Civil society are theoretically supposed have a leading role in democratic development as they are people-centered, efficient, cost effective and can be watchdog to state. But in Tanzania, they practically they have miniature membership, formed through top down approach and are in most cases expensive operated depending on donor money. Conditions imposed by donors only serve to influence the direction of the civil society that should have emanated on the local needs. Under this malice, how can they remove the bolt in government’ eye?

Nevertheless, the civil society activism in criticizing the government is limited by the social support from the populace. In welfare societies the actions of the civil society is in most cases are amplified by the reactions of the mass and hence the governments succumb to double edge of pressure. But in Tanzania, the Afro Barometer survey gives facts citizens participate in democracy and development activities if their mobilized from the top. Ironically, They thus support democracy and its value but they unwilling to stand for them including initiate political and social demands.

The 2005 General Elections have now changed some faces in leadership particularly the presidency. But the axis of power has the same face and in fact in has tilted more to a de facto one party state. The ruling party has snatched over eighty percent of representation hence with the existing weak opposition, watch dog function can not be fruitful performed by the political parties. Power is still vested not on offices but on connection with the logic of governmental institutions as sources of authority still tempered with. Under these circumstances, strong civil society is needed more than ever to fill the vacuum of oblivion opposition.

The current government under President Jakaya Kikwete is said to have come with new vigor, new energy and new speed, it must also be seen in strengthening the role of civil society. It should be taken as aide memoir and supplementing squad to fulfill the bunch of promises unleashed during the campaigns. People’s power in necessary to realize real change for real freedom. Civil society should be taken as watch dog rather be rendered toothless.