the petty bourgeoisie which headed the various bodies that had
formed the ‘front’ for independence, and which were in unison
more and more alienating themselves from their mass following.
The author of the above quotation tends to negate his words
when later, despite the success of TANU in the ‘tussle’, he ob-
serves that ‘the pre-Arusha Declaration economy was essentially
capitalistic in operation, foreign in design and non-African in
character and composition’.'* That ‘tussle’ cannot, therefore, be
seen as one for ‘wanting to retain the colonial economic infra-
structure’ and for ‘wanting to restructure the economy to initiate
socialist development’, but one essentially of intra-class
predominance.

Following the abolition of the Tanganyika Federation of
Labour, the government reconstructed a new trade union
movement which by legislation would be closely controlled by
government: for instance its finances were subject to control by
the Ministry of Labour, and its top officials were to be appointed
by the country’s President. In 1967 a new act was passed, the Per-
manent Labour Tribunal Act, which was intended to control in-
creases of wages through a tribunal which would have the
authority to ratify all wage negotiations taking into account both
productivity and the need to keep income differentials in the coun-
try as small as possible.

All this eroded completely the connection between the trade
union organisation and the workers whom it was supposed to
represent. The formation of a government controlled trade union
organisation merely meant the launching of a new bureaucratic
organisation which neither had any power of its own nor com-
manded the allegiance and respect of the workers. It was thus not
long before a government commission had to be appointed to look
into the trade union movement in the country following
widespread complaints from the workers, many of whom were
actually calling for its abolition since it was totally dormant and
parasitic.

The Commission's report did not help much and protests
against the organisation continued throughout the decade. After
all, the government did not accept the Commission's recom-
mendation to allow the movement considerable autonomy par-
ticularly as regards the appointment of its officials.

The decade of the sixties was therefore one of total bureaucratic

142