EDITORIAL | The Forum
Tanzania’s 2025 general election was less a democratic contest than a carefully managed performance. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has now confirmed what most observers already suspected: President Samia Suluhu Hassan essentially ran against herself.
In its preliminary report, the SADC Electoral Observation Mission (SEOM) concluded that Tanzania’s elections “fell short” of regional democratic standards. The verdict was delivered in the polite but unmistakable language of diplomatic rebuke. Voters, the mission said, could not freely express their will.
The mission, led by Malawi’s former Speaker of Parliament Richard Msowoya and authorized by President Peter Mutharika in his capacity as SADC’s chair of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation, observed intimidation, arrests, and media control.
The supposed competition featured 17 presidential candidates, but the main opposition was missing from the ballot. Tundu Lissu, leader of Chadema, remains in jail on treason charges for demanding electoral reforms. Luhaga Mpina, a former minister and candidate for ACT-Wazalendo, was disqualified over alleged paperwork errors. The courts promptly upheld the decision. With both figures removed, the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) coasted to an uncontested victory.
Even SADC’s own observers faced hostility. Teams reported being stopped and questioned by security forces, having their documents seized, and being ordered to delete photos. Internet shutdowns crippled communication on voting day, making independent verification impossible.
Yet despite these obstacles, the observers’ conclusion was blunt: the process lacked credibility. It did not meet the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections. That is diplomatic phrasing for failure.
Tanzania has long been held up as a model of stability in the region. But stability without choice is simply stagnation. Under President Suluhu, who took office in 2021 promising reform, the space for dissent has steadily shrunk. She began by softening her predecessor’s authoritarian image, only to later embrace the same tools of control: censorship, selective arrests, and restrictions on rallies.
The state broadcaster devoted most of its coverage to the ruling party. Private outlets self-censored out of fear. Civil society organizations accused the electoral commission of deliberately excluding them from voter education campaigns. Opposition funding dried up after donors were warned against supporting “unapproved” actors. By the time voting began, the playing field was already tilted beyond recognition.
SADC’s findings mirror those of other independent observers. “There’s been a campaign of harassment and intimidation in the lead-up to the elections,” said Pauline Bax of the International Crisis Group before the elections. During the elections, in some polling stations, SADC noted, there were signs of ballot stuffing and heavy police presence that intimidated voters. Others stayed away altogether.
To its credit, SADC did not pretend all was well. That marks a quiet but meaningful shift in the regional body’s posture. For too long, SADC has been accused of signing off on flawed elections in the name of “regional solidarity.” This time, it seems willing to name the problem.
Much of that may be due to the leadership of President Peter Mutharika, who currently chairs SADC’s political and security organ. Malawi’s own democratic rebound after its 2019 election annulment gave him a platform to insist that legitimacy must rest on real competition, not managed outcomes. His choice of Msowoya – he is respected among peers – to head the observer mission underlined that point.
Still, the question remains what SADC will do next. The mission has urged Tanzania to review its constitution to allow independent candidates, permit legal challenges to presidential results, and strengthen the independence of the electoral commission. It also called for greater gender and youth participation and unrestricted media access.
But recommendations mean little if Dar es Salaam refuses to act. The fusion of party and state power under the CCM is deep, and Suluhu shows no sign of loosening that grip. Her government continues to justify restrictions as “maintaining order,” a phrase that in many African capitals has become a synonym for silencing critics.
SADC’s final report, due in a few weeks, may soften the tone but not the substance. The reality is clear: Tanzania held an election without real contestants. Democracy is not measured by how smoothly an election runs, but by whether citizens are free to decide who governs them. Tanzanians were denied that freedom. And SADC, to its credit, has called it what it is.
