regard to three key areas : foreign travels , foreign investments , and regional security .
In 1997 , Tanzania , like many other African countries , adopted the so-called “ economic diplomacy .” In doing so , Tanzania departed from what was then termed “ liberation diplomacy ,” which had been in place since independence . In this new foreign policy era , the debatable assumption was that political liberation had been achieved on the continent ; and that it was then time to focus on the economic front .
Magufuli ’ s ban on foreign travels
Notwithstanding the controversy as to what the term “ economic diplomacy ” entails , one of its salient features in many African countries is the requirement for leaders , including presidents , prime ministers , ministers , parliamentarians and other senior government officials , to frequently travel abroad to “ brand ” their countries to wealthier countries and powerful economic actors . These travels are justified by governments as necessary to enhance the image of African countries and change the negative perceptions about Africa ’ s economic environment abroad . They are also considered necessary because they help connect domestic businesspeople with their global counterparts who might have otherwise not met without the intervention of these leaders .
Part of this global engagement requires African leaders to take on some global initiatives or be part of various global foundations / groups / economic blocs to increase their countries ’ “ international stature .” Former President Benjamin Mkapa excelled on this front . Similarly , his immediate successor in office , Jakaya Kikwete , excelled on foreign travels to the extent that some in the region labelled him “ a globe trotter .” However , and this is the issue where Magufuli ’ s stance was justified , the frequent foreign travels of Mkapa and Kikwete yielded little positive impact on the domestic front .
In his first speech as president , while inaugurating the eleventh parliament in Dodoma in November 2015 , Magufuli offered some numbers about the price tag of these foreign trips while mentioning some of the state institutions which had the most numbers of foreign travellers . Between 2013 and 2015 , a total of Tsh 356.324 / - billion ( approximately 168 million USD at the time ) was used for foreign trips with the lion ’ s share going to airplane tickets and allowances for travelling officials . Consequently , he banned “ unnecessary ” foreign trips . For his troubles , he was labelled a “ populist ,” which is a misleading , useless term in providing any meaningful insight into his decision , and by extension his time in office . The general public applauded his decision , which was only problematic to the elite and those who had benefited from frequent foreign travels . Critics even pointed to his heart condition as the real reason behind the fact that he was the least foreign travelling president compared to his predecessors . However , while such personal circumstances may have impeded his ability to travel , this criticism fails to provide the general context that prompted him to cut government expenditures related to foreign trips for all public servants , including himself . From Magufuli ’ s perspective , public resources which could have been used for more impactful projects had been lost for far too long .
Foreign Direct Investments
The most contentious and controversial aspect of Magufuli ’ s governance in the era of “ economic diplomacy ” revolved around his attitude towards foreign direct investments ( FDIs ). Prior to his electoral victory , questions about the country ’ s sovereignty and the secrecy that surrounded the contracts the government had signed with mining companies had fuelled public anger . As part of the reforms by former President Mkapa to attract foreign investors in the country , many public parastatals were privatized and the mining sector saw one of the biggest increases in FDI . Laws and policies were made or amended to increase the country ’ s “ competitiveness ” in attracting these investments . However , in some of the regions where giant mining companies were given land for their activities , the processes were chaotic and confrontational . The relationship between these companies and the communities around their investments was either very tense or outright bad .
41