In any nation the link between democratization (in its numerous meanings) and resources is found, in many respects, and in fact attaches itself to issues related to nationalism, identity and the quest for self-determination. For nationalism has always been a political claim (Brubaker 2004), and considering the fact that these claims are not sober or value-neutral but determined by a people’s desire to control territory and the wealth found in it, then the Tanganyika-Zanzibar question and the dangers it poses to the country’s democracy -and more importantly its Union – could be surmised as part of peripheral nationalism in which the likelihood of secession is greater.
Borrowing from Barber (1995), the Jihad (in his created meaning referring to ethnicity and ethnic tendencies) and the McWorld (market and technological forces) would not avail any territory or its people to any of their desired form(s) of democracy – the best possible form of government. And once secession happens it might entice other resource-abundant regions within the country to follow the same path. The problem then is whether or not the seceded states will be able to sustain themselves! Now the market and the nationalistic sentiments have converged, and in all, would overwhelm the nation. How would Tanganyika look like after the demise of the Union? How would Zanzibar look like, as well? These ethnic and market forces that have increased with free market ideas will lead to a more chaotic route than what the people and world would prefer.