Elections are very important part of a democratic polity. They are means through which citizens choose their representatives. The 2010 general elections in Tanzania were unique in that there was stiff competition between the ruling and opposition parties. The Mbeya urban constituency is exemplary of such competitive politics. In this article, I examine the entire electoral process and actors in the constituency with a view to evaluate their impact on both electoral outcomes and democracy. I argue that overall the entire process went smoothly albeit some specific problems related to voter registration, inadequate institutional capacity in managing elections, corruption, polling, and tallying of votes. In some instances, these problems led to violence in the constituency.

This article1 explores the messy practice of decolonising a concept through collaborative work between scholars researching together the meaning of everyday humanitarianism in Tanzania. Humanitarianism is typically understood as the state-centric, formal, Northern-driven helping of distant others in crisis. Using the concept of everyday humanitarianism, our article challenges these assumptions in three ways. First, it explores the everyday humanitarian actions of ordinary citizens in times of crisis. Second, it explores these responses in a Southern context. Third, it focuses explicitly on the givers and not only the receivers of humanitarian help. Our work grounds decolonisation in the actual practices of research aimed at theory building as an iterative back-and-forth exchange with particular attention to power, rather than as a transplant of Northern theory on the South, or its opposite. Our first argument is that the objective of collaborative research to capture the local politics of giving and then use these practices to interrogate the theoretical concept of everyday humanitarianism can be decolonising. Second, we argue that the practices of the academic labour that produces knowledge or inductive theory can also be decolonising. Understanding both the challenges and the possibilities of decolonising ‘humanitarianism’ will provide an opportunity to document and thus legitimate the complexity that is inherent in decolonising a discipline.

A large body of literature exists around the study of elections. What often goes unnoticed, however, is that elections take place between and within parties. While the former has received significant attention, the latter has not. This is true of African elections generally, and Tanzanian elections specifically. This study examines one important aspect of intra-party democracy – the process of candidate selection. Particular attention is paid to the electoral outcomes of selection methods in two purposively selected political parties in Tanzania, the ruling Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) and the opposition Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (CHADEMA). Based on an examination of party nomination rules, electoral observation reports, the media, and stakeholder interviews, I argue that candidate selection methods in both parties are, by design, undemocratic. Non-restrictive candidacy requirements, exclusive selectorates, centralised selection and appointment, rather than democratic voting procedures, dominate selection processes. Undemocratic candidate selection has affected the share of votes and seats received by both parties in elections.