Tanzania Electoral Body Schedules Presidential Vote for October
More than 37.6 million voters will be eligible to vote in the election, Independent National Electoral Commission Jacob Mwambegele said in a statement on Saturday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
10 minutes ago
- Fast Company
How leaders can be transparent about their belief systems without alienating anyone
Not long ago, leaders largely steered clear of the rough-and-tumble of politics. They inhabited a culture of impartiality, and for the most part stayed in their lane, rising now and then when called upon to offer observations about their specific sectors. Those times are over. We now live in an era of CEO activism, where shareholders, employees, and consumers expect corporate leaders to take a stand on issues far beyond their core industry—issues like immigration, DEI, or gender rights. Whereas before, hardly anyone outside of their industry could pick a chief executives out of a lineup, today's business leaders from Howard Schultz to Bill Gates to Elon Musk are household names, with the ability to influence public discourse—and policy—with a single tweet. For a business, there are distinct advantages to taking a political stand. At the same time, there is a fine line between brand enhancement and brand destruction. In this climate, how can a leader be transparent about her or his belief system without alienating anyone? Rewards and Risks First, it's hard, if not impossible, to reveal your belief system without alienating someone. It's almost a given: audiences and stakeholders these days may demand a political stand, but they can also be thin-skinned and easily offended when they don't agree with that stand. For the leader, the key is to avoid alienating significant portions of the constituencies and stakeholders responsible for the company's ultimate success: shareholders, employees, and consumers. When it comes to affiliating openly with a political figure or party, there can be advantages, such as privileged access and perhaps the ability to favorably influence policy direction. That said, there are also risks. Some of them are obvious: political fortunes are volatile, and public opinion is fickle, both of which can spell trouble for an aligned business. Political leaders have many priorities, and can shift their own positions on a dime, leaving a company that has publicly pledged allegiance with a case of whiplash. They are also prone to scandal, leaving aligned brands exposed to public outrage. Moreover, while there are certainly dangers in speaking out, silence can also have negative consequences in the public eye. It's important to realize that political parties, personalities, even movements come and go. Leaders are in this for the long haul; they should want their company to prosper for more than one election cycle. Recent events demonstrate the power of public opinion. The Trump administration's executive orders against diversity and inclusion initiatives split the business communities. Target rushed to align with the new directives, but Costco remained true to its own DEI stance. As a result, consumers punished Target and rewarded Costco. Staying true to the core Remember that politicians are paid to be politicians. Executives are not. Leaders are paid to ensure a company grows and prospers far into the future. That might mean rubbing elbows with those in power, or even contributing to campaigns, but it does not have to mean selling the soul of your identity, i.e. politicizing the brand or dragging a company's image (along with you) for the sake of a small short-term advantage. Reputations are hard to rebuild, and customers, once lost, are hard to reclaim. While a leader's personal beliefs may inform actions both private and professional, there are a few basic principles that can act as guardrails, providing the freedom to be transparent while preventing the leader's viewpoints and actions from creating conflicts and harming the company's fortunes. 1. Focus on values, not politics Nobody expects an executive and a workforce of thousands to agree on every issue. But a leader can set the tone by emphasizing core organizational values rather than personal political opinions. Companies are strongest when they articulate and consistently adhere to a clear set of values—regardless of shifting political winds. 2. Tie beliefs to business mission As a leader, you are a steward of your company's mission—not a political spokesperson. If your personal convictions align with your business's purpose, express them in a way that supports that mission. If they don't, reflect on whether your current role aligns with your values. A CEO thrives when personal belief and business purpose reinforce one another. 3. Build credibility through consistency While political trends are fickle, brand trust is built over time. Consumers reward companies that consistently uphold their stated commitments—whether to sustainability, product quality, or inclusion. Consistency is credibility. 4. Respect dissent, invite dialogue Foster a culture where respectful disagreement is welcome. Employees should feel safe expressing differing opinions without fear of retaliation. Provide spaces—forums, listening sessions, anonymous feedback tools—for difficult conversations to happen constructively. Diversity of thought is a strength, not a liability. 5. Be strategic If you choose to speak out, do so with intention. Consult your communications team, evaluate stakeholder impact, and conduct a risk-benefit analysis. As Harvard Business Review contributors Aaron Chatterji and Michael W. Toffel advise: 'Select issues carefully, reflect on the best times and approaches to get involved, consider the potential for backlash, and measure results.' Who's doing it right? A number of well-known CEOs have made a point of voicing their beliefs, and have not suffered for it. On the contrary, they have developed a leadership style that manages to be both values-informed and advantageous from a business standpoint. 1. Satya Nadella (Microsoft). Nadella openly discusses empathy and his Hindu faith, speaking often of caring for his son with special needs. He is upfront about his personal values of humility and purpose, but does not impose these upon the firm directly, emphasizing instead organizational culture and customer impact. Under his watch, Microsoft has quadrupled its market capitalization. 2. Dan Schulman (former CEO, PayPal). Schulman has been vocal in support of social justice and economic inclusion, which he links to his personal Jewish ethical values. PayPal pulled out of North Carolina to protest anti-LGBTQ legislation, a move that was criticized by the right but rewarded by stakeholders, with shareholder returns remaining strong. 3. Rose Marcario (former CEO, Patagonia). Markario's Buddhist beliefs and environmental ethics were strongly aligned with Patagonia's corporate mission. So when the company sued the Trump administration over its intention to dismantle and sell off national monuments, it mobilized the company's core outdoor audience and strengthened the brand, with increases in both consumer loyalty and profits. 4. Ken Frazier (former CEO, Merck). In 2017, Frazier resigned from President Trump's American Manufacturing Council following the administration's tepid response to the white supremacist marches and ensuing violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. Frazier's action was seen as deeply principled, and Merck's shareholder value was not damaged. Other CEOs (UnderArmour, Intel, et al) followed suit, in part because Frazier's action created a public demand for moral leadership. Finding balance In the end, leaders must balance their own need to reveal their personal beliefs with the greater good of the organization. This is both an internal and external journey that requires a high degree of reflection as well as an appreciation for the complexity of the company and its role in both the market and society. It's an extremely challenging time to be a leader, but also an exciting one.
New York Times
11 minutes ago
- New York Times
Leaders of Parallel Government Named in War-Torn Sudan
A coalition led by the paramilitary group fighting for power in Sudan's brutal civil war has announced the leadership for its self-declared parallel government, further tearing the fabric of an politically fraying nation. As fighting in central and south Sudan intensifies, the Sudan Founding Alliance said Gen. Mohamed Hamdan, leader of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, would head a 15-person government council that would include regional governors. A statement issued on Saturday named a Sudanese politician, Mohamed Hassan Othman al-Ta'ayshi, as prime minister. The coalition said the formation of the council renewed its 'commitment to building an inclusive homeland and a new, secular, democratic, decentralized, and voluntarily unified Sudan founded on the principles of freedom, justice, and equality.' When pressed, the spokesman for the coalition, Alaa Eldin Awad Naqd, said, 'We have six-month emergency plans in every service sector, and there are strategic plans in all sectors in the country.' He would not elaborate. The next step for the parallel government, he said, will be the formation of a ministerial council. Democracy activists in Sudan have long denounced the military's stranglehold on power, but the coalition's lofty language notwithstanding, fighters for the Rapid Support Forces, known as the R.S.F., have been accused of atrocities. Rights groups, the United Nations and the United States have accused both sides of war crimes, but only the R.S.F. has been implicated in genocide. A 2023 outbreak of violence against the Masalit ethnic group by the R.S.F., whose fighters are predominantly ethnic Arabs, led to allegations of ethnic cleansing. Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Sunday condemned the coalition's announcement and called on other governments to avoid interacting with 'this illegitimate entity declared by the terrorist militia.' Alan Boswell, the Horn of Africa director at the International Crisis Group, said the coalition's announcement would only deepen Sudan's division. 'R.S.F. appears to think this move will increase its own legitimacy and leverage,' he said. 'More likely, it will only make the war even harder to end and Sudan even harder to piece back together.' The war grew out of a feud between opposing generals in April 2023 and has since killed tens of thousands, displaced millions and plunged much of the country into famine. Though Sudanese forces drove the R.S.F. out of Khartoum in March, the paramilitary-led coalition has declared its own government in the areas it still holds. Most of that territory is in the Kordofan and Darfur regions, with the exception of the embattled city of El Fasher, which is held by Sudan's Army. American officials have warned of ethnic slaughter if the R.S.F. is able to take over the city. Abdalrahman Altayeb contributed reporting.
CBS News
41 minutes ago
- CBS News
In NYC mayor's race, Republican Curtis Sliwa has no intention of dropping out
Curtis Sliwa, the Republican nominee for mayor of New York City, says he will not drop out of the race to help Mayor Eric Adams or former Gov. Andrew Cuomo defeat Democrat Zohran Mamdani. The Guardian Angels founder, who lost to Adams in 2021, told CBS News New York's "The Point with Marcia Kramer" on Sunday the idea of candidates strategically dropping out to block Mamdani, a Democratic socialist, from winning Gracie Mansion is unrealistic and possibly unfair to voters. "Everybody loves to play fantasy politics. If you've received matching funds and you drop out, you gotta give it all back," Sliwa said. "You think Cuomo's gonna give it all back? You think Jim Walden's gonna give it all back? Not gonna happen. You think I'm gonna give it all back? I'm not independently wealthy. Number two, you're still on the line. They don't take your name off." Sliwa said his supporters would not vote for Cuomo "under any circumstance." "So let the people decide. Nobody's dropping out. This fantasy idea of Jim Walden, who is really a surrogate for Andrew Cuomo, is not resonating with anybody," he said. Cuomo said he would drop out only if Adams is ahead of him in pre-election polls, and Walden made a similar promise. Adams said Cuomo should exit the race regardless because he already lost once to Mamdani in the Democratic primary. Sliwa said Mamdani proved his strength as a candidate in the primary, but he opposes his biggest campaign promises -- a rent freeze on stabilized units, fare-free buses and city-run grocery stores. "I wouldn't vote for a rent freeze because obviously you're gonna see an abandonment of properties," Sliwa said. "Half the people don't even pay the fare on the bus to begin with. We gotta talk about fare enforcement. Adams hasn't done any fare enforcement. Cuomo, when was governor, hasn't done any ... Somebody's gotta pay for the free buses, right? Nothing is free. You gotta pay for it. The point is, I'm the only one saying enforcement, everybody pays the fare. If you can't afford it, there's half reduction, a third reduction." "City-run grocery stores. Hey, how did that work in Kansas City recently? They imploded. I was in Havana, I saw. You walk in with a ration book if you're a citizen in Cuba. If you're a tourist, you get to walk to normal kinds of Walmart supermarkets where everything is set. It doesn't work," he continued. In his campaign, Sliwa is promising to slash the city's corporate taxes and property taxes in the outer boroughs. But reducing crime is still his top priority. "First off, you've got to have law and order, because you could cut people's taxes, you could make it more corporate friendly, and they're not gonna stay," he said. "I'm gonna add 7,000 cops. And guess who I am taxing? Jimmy Dolan, Madison Square Garden, you owe $43 million in property tax a year. He's had a sweetheart deal." Sliwa said he'd also tax Columbia University and New York University "only on their real estate holdings that have nothing to do with education." "They've become big real estate firms. They own so much real estate in Greenwich Village and Morningside Heights that has nothing to do with education. That has to be taxed," he said. Sliwa said he believes some Republican Party leaders would prefer a Mamdani victory because it could boost the GOP in the 2026 midterms. "I don't believe President Trump thinks that. He's a New Yorker, but there are others who hate New York," Sliwa said. "There are a lot of people, even Democrats, around the country, they hate, they despise, they loathe New York." Sliwa is attempting to become the first Republican to move into Gracie Mansion since Rudy Giuliani in 1994. Michael Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the GOP and won the mayor's race in 2001. Bloomberg was an independent during his third term. Cuomo opted to wage an independent campaign after losing the Democratic primary. Adams chose to skip the primary and seek reelection as an independent. Walden also qualified to be on an independent ballot line. There was no Republican primary. Click here to watch Sliwa's full interview.
