Liberating development? Rule and liberation in post-independence Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tanzania was a critical ally to the independence movements of Southern Africa, and its post-independence experiences of nation-building became an important model for them. The country was a pioneer in the transformation of liberation movements into governing parties, the formation of the single-party state, the introduction of heterodox socialism cum economic nationalism and the rapid emergence of illiberal and authoritarian tendencies in newly liberated countries. This article argues that in Tanzania such authoritarian tendencies were intimately and paradoxically tied up with a principally benevolent commitment to transforming society along egalitarian lines and the rapid advancement of rural development. This commitment bore repressive fruits, however, when it combined with Nyerere's and other politicians' paternalistic view of the peasantry and their belief that they knew best; a framing of postcolonial politics as an ongoing struggle against neo-colonial enemies; and a parallel suspicion that counter-revolutionary, reactionary forces lurked behind a lack of popular enthusiasm for the single-party state's project of establishing Tanzania's particular brand of ‘ujamaa’ socialism. The Tanzanian case suggests a complex picture of the nature of authoritarian tendencies in former liberation movements in post-independence Southern Africa; Tanzania's experience shows that there is more, sometimes significantly more, to such tendencies than just the self-serving motives of ruling elites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".