Loading...

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Wasomi Wanapowagombania Wakulima

Dastan Kweka:

Niliposoma mfululizo wa hii makala katika gazeti la Raia Mwema (katika awamu mbili), niliifurahia na kukereka. Niliifurahia kwa sababu inagusa jambo ambalo ni la msingi sana na lenye athari kubwa kwa watu masikini wa nchi hii. Na ililichambua kwa kina kwa kutazama historia na mifumo iliyochagiza mabadiliko kwa karne kadhaa. Jambo hilo ni mustakabali wa wakulima wadogo. Hata hivyo, kwa kiasi nilikereka pia hasa kutokana na namna vipengele kadhaa vilivyojikita katika fikra zilezile za kukosoa bila kuangalia mienendo mipya, kujifunza na kupendekeza mbadala.

Siku chache baada ya kusoma Makala ya ndugu Sabatho Nyamsenda, nilisoma pia makala ya Paul Sarawati (zote katika gazeti la Raia Mwema). Makala ya Ndugu Sarawati ilikua na kichwa, Wakulima Kilimanjaro wageukia kilimo cha parachichina iliandikwa kwa namna ya kumsifu muwekezaji mkubwa aliyeko sanya Juu (Wilaya ya Siha) na namna aalivyowawezesha wakulima wadogo kugeukia kilimo cha parachichi na kupata faida. Sikufurahishwa na makala hii hasa kutokana na kuwa nimeishi na kukulia Kilimanjaro na nimekuwa nikifuatilia mabadiliko makubwa yanayoendelea kutokea katika maisha ya wakulima wadogo mkoani humo na nafasi ya wawekezaji wakubwa katika mabadiliko hayo. Hivyo niliamua kuandika kidogo kuhusu suala hilo katika blogu yangu (Unaweza kufuata link hiyo na kusoma jibu langu fupi kwa makala hiyo). Hata hivyo sikumtumia mwandishi husika.

Sasa nitaenda moja kwa moja kwenye baadhi ya mambo ambayo yamejitokeza katika makala hii ya Ndugu Sabatho na ambayo nina mtazamo kinzani dhidi yake.

Kuhusu Kurasimisha  Umiliki wa Rasilimali (Hasa Ardhi)

Kuhusu hili mwandishi anaandika, “Hapa tunapaswa kujifunza kwamba wale wanaopigia debe urasimishaji wa rasilimali za wanyonge (mfano: kutoa hati za ardhi kwa wakulima) huwa la lengo la kurahisisha uporaji wa ardhi hiyo.”

Mimi nafanya kazi katika taasisi ambayo mojawapo ya miradi yake ni kuwawezesha wakulima kurasimisha umiliki wa ardhi wanayolima kwa lengo la kuikinga dhidi ya uporaji, kupata fidia stahili ikiwa inatwaliwa au kuwawezesha kutumia kupata mikopo ya kujiinua, pale inapobidi. Ingawa fikra za kina Hernando De Soto zilitawaliwa na haja ya kuwawezesha wakulima wadogo ‘kuchuma faida za uliberali mamboleo’, mapungufu yamekuwa makubwa hasa ya uporaji wa ardhi baada ya wakulima kuchukua mikopo na kushindwa kulipa (kama mwandishi alivyotoa mfano wa India). Hata hivyo, sisi katika NGO ninayofanyia, kwa kujifunza kutokana na mapungufu hayo, tunawawezesha wakulima kupata hatimiliki na kisha kuwahimiza kuanzisha SACCOS na VICOBA na kuendelea kujiinua wenyewe badala ya kuchukua risk kubwa kwa kukopa kwenye taasisi kubwa za fedha ambazo nyingi zina riba kubwa na siyo rafiki kwa mkulima mdogo. Kimsingi, faida za hatimiliki kwa wakulima wadogo ni zaidi ya hoja ya mikopo (hasa kutoka katika taasisi kubwa za fedha) na mara zote tunawaelimisha wakulima wadogo tunaofanya nao kazi kuhusu hili suala. Kwa mantiki hii, hilo tangazo la mwandishi kwa wakulima wadogo kuwa “wale wanaopigia debe urasimishaji wa rasilimali za wanyonge (mfano: kutoa hati za ardhi kwa wakulima) huwa la lengo la kurahisisha uporaji wa ardhi hiyo” ni upotoshaji na lina mapungufu makubwa hasa kwa vile ni jumuishi, lina mtazamo finyu na hasi kuhusu urasimishaji wa umiliki wa ardhi na linakosa kujadili mifano chanya (best practices) ya utekelezaji wa wazo hilo.

Nafasi ya NGOs katika Kuwaunganisha Wanyonge

Katika hili mwandishi anaandika;

“Kazi ya wanyonge kuungana isiachwe mikononi mwa mabwanyenye-uchwara kupitia vyama vya siasa au asasi zisizo za kiserikali (NGOs). Hawa wote, katika nafasi zao, ni watumishi wa mabepari wa kimataifa. Hata kama hapa na pale huonekana kuwa na ugomvi, ugomvi huo huwa haulengi katika kuubomoa ubepari. Wote hawa wanapigania nafasi ya kuwa mawakala wema wa mfumo wa kibepari. Ndio maana, hapa nchini, hakuna chama cha siasa chenye nia ya dhati ya kuleta mfumo mbadala, na harakati zao zinalenga kuepusha mapambano ya kitabaka katika jamii.”

Katika muda mfupi niliofanya kazi katika NGOs na uzoefu kwenye taasisi nyingine (zikiwemo za tafiti za kilimo), hakuna mahali ambapo pametawaliwa na mijadala inayohusu wanyonge na namna ya kuwasaidia (au kuwawezesha kujisaidia) kuliko kwenye NGOs. Tatizo kubwa ni kuwa wigo wa mijadala hiyo unadunishwa na namna NGOs zinapata fedha (funding system) ambayo pia hutegemea sana malengo ya wanaoitoa. Tunapoona maandamano ya wanaharakati Davos, Copenhagen na kadhalika, dhidi ya mikutano ya wakubwa na ajenda zao, lengo ni kuwa mawakala wema wa mfumo wa kibepari? Nafikiri, badala ya kurejea ukosoaji jumuishi wa kiwango hiki, ni vema kujikita katika mawazo mbadala ya namna gani ya kutatua matatizo ya kimfumo katika NGOs ili taasisi hizi ziweze kuchangia vyema katika kuung’oa mfumo kandamizi. Mchango wa taasisi hizi (hasa zile zenye kufanya kazi sawasawa) katika kupigania haki za kiraia (Civil rights), kupigania uwajibishwaji wa makampuni makubwa kama Monsanto, Shell, BP na kadhalika ni mkubwa.

Kiitikadi, NGOs ni sehemu ya uliberali-mamboleo na kimsingi kwa kiasi pia zimechangia kunawiri kwa mfumo. Lakini kama siyo jukumu letu kama wasomi kufikiri namna ya kuzibadili kiitikadi, mbadala wake ni upi? Tayari tumeshaona nyingi zikipigwa vita na dola kwa sababu ya misimamo yake na hasa kwa kupinga ukandamizaji na dhuluma. Tayari kuna maungio.

Lugha ya Mwandishi

Mimi ni mfuasi wa sera za Kisoshalisti (siyo ujamaa kama tunavyoujua). Hata hivyo, sina hakika ni kwa kiasi gani uandishi wa kebehi kwa wadau wengine unasaidia katika kuwabadilisha au kuwafanya waungane na wale wanaoonekana wanaendesha ‘harakati safi’ za kubomoa mfumo. Mfano mimi ninayetumia muda wangu mwingi vijijini nikijadiliana na kupanga mikakati na wakulima wadogo namna ya kuwajibisha makampuni makubwa ya madini yanayovuna utajiri katika ardhi yao bila kurejesha hata chembe, naweza kuwaita walioko vyuo vikuu wakifundisha (kama mwandishi wa hii makala), kuwa ni ‘watu wenye anasa ya kubwata bila kutenda’ - (Armchair advisors). Ndivyo vita vya maneno vinavyotumika. Kumbe kwa kiasi kikubwa wadau hawa wanategemeana. Kuna haja ya kuwa na mjadala mpana wa namna ambavyo lugha hizi na ‘kebehi za kisomi’ zinavyojenga kuta badala ya madaraja katika kufikia malengo mbalimbali, siyo tu ya kubomoa mfumo kandamizi wa kibepari.

Sabatho Nyamsenda:

Kwanza nikupatie pole kwa kukereka na lugha ya mwandishi. Yumkini ndilo lililokuwa lengo lake: kuwakera mabwanyenye na vijibwa vyao. Sasa wewe kama ulivyosema, sio bwanyenye. Lakini sina hakika kama sio mtumishi wao. Lugha ya mwandishi huwakera pia hata wasomi wenzake katika vyuo vikuu (soma http://www.raiamwema.co.tz/wasomi-kaeni-kando-wanyonge-shikeni-hatamu na hapa pia http://www.raiamwema.co.tz/elimu-yetu-izalishe-wasomi-wa-umma-si-makahaba-wa-kitaaluma). Huwakera wanasiasa, huwakera mawakala wengine wa ubepari, n.k. Kwa ufupi, wote hukereka na hawapendezwi na lugha ya mwandishi. Sio lengo la mwandishi hata kidogo kukufurahisha wewe, kwani hajioni kama mtumishi wako.

Tazama ilipo tofauti yako na mwandishi:
WEWE na NGO yako mnajiona kama wakombozi wa wanyonge. Mmewaona kuwa hawajiwezi, mbumbumbu, na hivyo mmejibatiza wajibu wa “kuwawezesha” na “kuwasaidia”.

Ngoja nisijeonekana nakubandikia maneno mdomoni. Hivyo nitakunukuu:

“Katika muda mfupi niliofanya kazi katika NGOs na uzoefu kwenye taasisi nyingine (zikiwemo za tafiti za kilimo), hakuna mahali ambapo pametawaliwa na mijadala inayohusu wanyonge na namna ya kuwasaidia (au kuwawezesha kujisaidia) kuliko kwenye NGOs”.

Sasa, hapo ndipo unapotofautiana na mwandishi. Na nikiri kabisa kuwa una haki ya kukereka.

Yeye mwandishi hata alipohudhuria kongamano husika, alijishusha, akajinyenyekeza na kusema kuwa amekwenda “kujifunza”. Eti anawaambia wanyonge kuwa wao ndio chanzo cha maarifa! Ujumbe wa mwandishi ni kwamba wanyonge watajikomboa wenyewe. Kwa bahati nzuri, kauli-mbiu ya MVIWATA ni “Mkombozi wa Mkulima ni Mkulima mwenyewe”. Mrengo huo wa wanyonge kujikomboa wenyewe unatumika sana katika mapambano ya nchi za Amerika ya Kusini.

Mwandishi huwaambia wanyonge kuwa kutokana na historia ya mapambano yao ni kosa kubwa sana kukasimisha mamlaka ya kujikomboa kwa “wasomi” kama yeye, wanasiasa, wana-ma-NGO kama wewe, kwani mwisho wa siku huishia kuwauza kwa mabepari.

Lakini huwakumbusha pia kuwa kabla ya majilio ya vyama vya siasa, vyuo vikuu na NGOs wanyonge wenyewe walikuwa wakipambana. Mapambano yalianza tangu siku ya kwanza pale wanyonge walipokutana na mkono wa damu wa ubepari kupitia biashara ya utumwa.

Nadhani hiyo inafafanua walau jambo moja katika majibu yako. Mengine yatafuata, kukiwa na haja ya kufanya hivyo.

CHANZO:

New Book on Global History of Cotton & Capitalism

REVIEWS:






INTERVIEWS:

EXCERPTS:

ARTICLES:



Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Hope for a New Katiba after Escrow?

Rekindling Hope for a New Katiba for Tanzania

Salma Maoulidi

Tanzania is in need of a miracle to get out of the mess it finds itself in after partisan interests derailed the constitutional review process embarked on at the end of 2011. Competing interests within the ruling party, which was originally opposed the constitution review process, as well as among those vying for power in the upcoming general elections, have polluted, not just the review process, but the overall political environment in the country.

The endorsement of the Proposed Constitution (PC) by the Constitution Assembly (CA) leaves very little room to manoeuvre a middle ground, leaving many exasperated. Amid the hopelessness, Humphrey Polepole, an ex-member of the Constitution Review Commission (CRC), urges citizens and civil society to refuse to surrender their destinies to a ruling clique that is bent to get their way in dictating Tanzania’s fate.

Crisis over the Constitution’s Legitimacy
Regardless what the outcome of the Referendum will be, Tanzania will have little cause to celebrate. The rationale that prompted the rewriting the 1977 Constitution was that it was not enough to fine tune problematic provisions through regular constitutional amendments. More drastic measures were warranted if Tanzania hoped to become a mature democracy. The prudent choice was to engage in a new constitutional pact through a consultative and inclusive process.

Part Six of the Constitution Review Act of 2012 states that if the proposed constitution fails to garner more than 50% of the vote in the Referendum then Tanzania will continue to use the 1977 constitution. Such a condition is in complete opposition to the primary objective of undergoing a constitution review. Additional concerns over the legitimacy of the PC include the fact that it departs significantly from the CRC Draft which is being defended as encompassing the will of the masses. The disregard of popular views by the CA is one of the key reasons behind the Katiba stalemate.

The adoption of the PC was also problematic. The CA endorsed entire sections of the PC instead of individual provisions. Also votes that are purported to have passed the PC have been contested as irregularities over tallying have been confirmed. There is overwhelming evidence of foul play with key constituencies planning to challenge the anomalies in court. Therefore, voting for the PC as it is amounts to a political blunder and a constitutional mockery.

Equally there are legal and operational challenges in facilitating the Referendum. For example, the Voter’s Register is yet to be updated potentially disenfranchising millions of eligible voters. Similarly, the National Electoral Commission (NEC) of Tanzania is yet to outline the modalities between itself and the Zanzibar Electoral Commission (ZEC) in administering the Referendum in light of the fact that each side of the union has its own legislation pertaining to the conduct of elections and referendums.

Contextualising the Separation of Powers
Khoti Kamanga, a law lecturer at the University of Dar es Salaam, contends that the constitutional review process has brought some of the theoretical constitutional concepts alive. The question of separation of powers, for instance, has been vividly displayed in the overall conduct of the CA and most recently in the handling of the Tegeta Escrow Account sagaArticle 55(4) of the 1977 Constitution requires that Ministers are Members of Parliament (MPs), a fact that compromises the notion of accountable governance. And if ministers are let go for abuse of office or incompetence, such dismissal does not affect their other portfolios. Former ministers forced to quit office in the course of their service remain in Parliament where they influence or oversee key policies they may have vested interest in.

Opposition legislators captured the mood of many when they objected to the former Attorney General (AG), Andrew Chenge, who was also implicated in the Escrow deal to input deliberations that were in fact discussing his fate. Despite his many controversies, Mr. Chenge heads the Parliamentary Budget Committee (a position he is expected to be forced to vacate by January following the parliamentary resolutions on the Escrow scandal), and was the Chair of the Drafting Committee in the CA. Fredrick Werema, the outgoing AG, is also a High Court Judge. His prosecution will, however, be complicated by the fact that, as a Judge of the High Court, he is thus immune from ordinary prosecution. Prior to a presidential demotion, Prof. Anna Tibaijuka, on her part, argued against her resignation stating that she was not directly responsible for the ministry implicated in the Tegeta Escrow scandal nor has her ministry been linked to Escrow. 
  
Separation of powers is not only relevant with regards to the exercise of power within the three arms of government, but also in the fuzzy separation between party roles and representative roles. Members of the CA, for example, were expected to represent the interests of the groups or constituencies they derived from, but time and time again Party whips influenced decisions of committees as well as of the CA. A similar situation arises with ministers who defend their party’s manifestos instead of the national interest.

Who Best to Police Impunity and Excesses?
Escrow exposed public officials who failed to exercise due diligence in handling matters of national and public interest. But other legislators, pushed by partisan sentiments or electoral ambitions, vigorously opposed any action against accused officials in disregard of Article 53 providing for collective ministerial responsibility. Nor the Ethics Council envisaged under Article 57(2)(g) or the Secretariat of The Public Leaders Ethics Commission have proved effective in checking official impunity.
Escrow also showed how public officials regularly disregard legal or ethical codes when discharging their functions. During the last parliamentary session, for instance, the Deputy Minister for Justice and Constitution Affairs, Angellah Kairuki, at various times, called on the former AG, Andrew Chenge, to suggest the legal language that was to be used to formulate Parliamentary resolutions over the Escrow deal in which Chenge was implicated. Even the Speaker did not sound the alarm when this was done until members of PAC and the Opposition objected to it on principle. And even then, the ruling party's MPs serving in government protested.

The defiance exhibited by cabinet ministers to assume responsibility, symbolic or actual, over lapses or violations has exposed the despotic nature of the political regime. It also begs the question of the utility of Article 53 on assuming collective responsibility. Ministers implicated in Escrow each wanted to be tried individually provided that actual intention to abuse their authority was established. In an effort to save face before the local elections, ruling party legislators thought it more pressing to negotiate the fate of the Prime Minister (PM), Mizengo Pinda, instead of defending the Constitution, promoting the national interest and the rule of law.

The question of accountability has also been underscored in the recently concluded flawed local government elections. The minister responsible for local government, Hawa Ghasia, is caricatured in one of the local dailies distancing herself from the local government authorities which oversaw the elections countrywide. The primary concern of most Tanzanians partaking in different stages of the constitution review process was enhancing the accountability of public institutions and officials. But key provisions of the PC have been rendered toothless by the CA. Kamanga believes that the present leadership crop in Tanzania could not afford to retain the leadership qualities outlined in the CRC Draft Constitution since they hardly measure up.

The Zanzibar Factor
Zanzibar amended her Constitution in 2010 in a move Mainland Tanzania believes violated the 1977 Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania (URT). Among other things, the 2010 constitutional amendment redefined the status of Zanzibar, declaring it is a country or autonomous entity within the URT. The amendment also provided for the Government of National Unity (GNU) whose future has been tested following the machinations of the CA in passing a PC that is believed, by some factions in Zanzibar, not be in her interest. Even so the former AG of Zanzibar - who was forced out of office due to his stance - has attracted much praise on the Mainland over his defence of the Zanzibar Constitution. 

Similarly, during the constitutional review process, the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar  (SMZ) was periodically accused of not meeting its obligation in servicing the union financially pursuant Chapter 7 of the 1977 Constitution. However, Escrow and other persistent graft accusations involving key ministries operating under the ambit of the URT has absolved Zanzibar with one commentator noting “why would Zanzibar want to associate with thugs?”

Keeping Hope for a New Constitution Alive
Among the numerous benefits of the constitution review process, aside from increasing political consciousness among Tanzanians, is the opportunity to address pervasive impunity in Tanzania’s governance culture. What prescription can release Tanzania from its present predicament? 

Harold Sungusia from the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) suggests that the Constitution Review Act can be amended to overcome the current impasse. Said Juma, an Assistant Programme Officer with the Tanzania Council for Social Development, (TACOSODE), stresses that the emphasis should be to allow Tanzanians to make their own minds about the constitution, not to impose views or decide for them.

Importantly, salvaging the constitution review process requires that Tanzanians must believe that all is not lost, even within the current legal setup. The PC can still be amended if it does not go through the first round of voting on either side of the union. Independent voices can influence the content of the problematic provisions at this stage so that the necessary changes are incorporated before the PC is put once again for the final vote. If no miracles happens in between it is the second stage of voting that will decide if Tanzania adopts a new constitution or remains with the 1977 Constitution.

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Unapomwacha Adui yako Fisadi Nyuma

Unapomwacha Adui yako Fisadi Nyuma

Chambi Chachage

Filamu ya Shaka Zulu ina ujumbe muhimu katika vita dhidi ya ufisadi. Kama tulivyoona katika makala ya Tunahitaji Viongozi Wenye U Tatu, tulipopata Uhuru tuliambiwa kuwa maadui zetu wakuu wa maendeleo walikuwa watatu – ujinga, umaskini na maradhi – ila baadaye tukajulishwa kuwa ameongezeka wa nne,yaani rushwa. Sasa rushwa imekubuhu na kuwa ufisadi ambao kwa hakika ni adui mkuu maana anakuza hao wengine watatu.

Katika filamu hiyo tunamuona Shaka akisema hivi: “Never leave an enemy behind or it will rise again to fly at your throat.” Maneno haya, kwa tafsiri ya haraka haraka, yanamaanisha: “Usimwache adui yako nyuma la sivyo ataibuka tena na kukurukia akukabe koo.” Shaka alisisitiza pia kuwa hiyo ndiyo pekee ya kumkabili adui.

Tatizo kubwa katika vita dhidi ya ufisadi ni kuwa maadui, yaani mafisadi, huachwa nyuma hivyo huibuka tena na tena kutukaba koo. Unakuta mtuhumiwa yule yule wa kupokea fedha za ufisadi wa rada ni mtuhumiwa huyo huyo wa kupokea fedha za ufisadi wa Escrow. Na unakuta mtuhumiwa yule yule wa ufisadi wa mgodi wa Kiwira ni mtuhumiwa huyo huyo wa kupokea fedha za kifisadi za Escrow. Tunamuacha tu.

Wahenga walinena, “akuanzaye mmalize”.  Na kuna njia nyingi za kummaliza adui aliyeanza kukufanyia ufisadi unaokuongezea ujinga, maradhi na umaskini pamoja na ufisadi zaidi. Katika nchi inayofuata utawala wa sheria, njia kuu ni kumshitaki na kumuadhibu vilivyo pale inapothibitika pasipo shaka kwamba amefanya ufisadi.

Lakini, je, ukimuadhibu kwa faini na kumfunga jela si atakulipa tu vijisenti na atatoka na kukukaba koo tena? Siyo rahisi hasa kama adhabu hiyo imejumuisha kumfilisi mali zake na kuvunja mtandao wa ufisadi unaoweza kumwezesha kulipiza kisasi. Ni vigumu kama utakuwa umemkata mabawa yanayoweza kumfana akurukie tena na kukukaba koo.

Si anyongwe? Hapana. Ya Uchina tuwaachie Wachina. Tuendelee na harakati zetu za kuondokana na adhabu ya kifo inayoondoa haki ya msingi kabisa ya mwanadamu yoyote yule, yaani kuishi. Tujikite kwenye kutunga na kutekeleza sheria zenye adhabu kali zaidi dhidi ya ufisadi, yaani, zitakazotufanya tuogope ufisadi kuliko hata tunavyoogopa kifo.

Mwanakijiji ameliweka hivi: “Kashfa ya akaunti ya Escrow ni miongoni mwa kashfa zinazotokana na watawala kuwadhania, kuwachukulia na kuwatenda Watanzania kwa ujinga. Kashfa kama hizi zinaishia mawaziri kung’oka, watu kushtakiwa na hata baraza la mawaziri kuvunjwa lakini chama kilichounda Serikali kinaendelea kwa kuruhusiwa kuingiza sura mpya. Tungekuwa na mfumo wa kumwajibisha Rais pale mawaziri wake wanapovurunda basi Baraza la Mawaziri linapovunjwa na yeye mwenyewe anaondoka nao na haruhusiwi kugombea na anapoteza mastahili yote ya ustaafu! Wangekuwa wanaogopa hata kudokoa ndotoni! Hata mawaziri wanaojiuzulu wangekuwa wananyang’anywa mafao yao na mali yote yenye utata kufilisiwa. Wangeona hela za umma chungu!” Hakika ufisadi ungegeuka shubiri ambayo tusingetaka kuichukua pima.

Ujumbe huo wa Shaka unawahusu pia wanasiasa na wanaharakati wapambanaji ambao aghalabu wanawaonea huruma baadhi ya mafisadi na kuwaach(i)a  kutokana na sababu mbalimbali. Kushughulikia baadhi ya mafisadi na kuwaachia wengine, kwa kisingizio kuwa makosa au maslahi yao ni madogo zaidi na/ama walijitahiditahidi kuzuia ufisadi ila wakazidiwa nguvu na wakuu wao wa kazi hivyo ufisadi huo ukatokea, ni kumwacha adui nyuma na kumpa nafasi ya kujipanga upya ili je kukukaba koo tena. Ni kubariki ufisadi.

Mafisadi wao hawana hulka ya kumuacha adui nyuma. Ndio maana mfuatiliaji mmoja wa ufisadi aliniasa hivi kwa Kiingereza, “it pays to watch your back.” Ila hatutakuwa na haja tena ya kutazama tazama nyuma kwa hofu na sisi tukiacha kuwaacha nyuma mafisadi.

Karibu kwenye ulingo wa kutafakari kuhusu tunapotoka,tulipo,tuendako na namna ambavyo tutafika huko tuendako/Welcome to a platform for reflecting on where we are coming from, where we are, where we are going and how we will get there

  © Blogger templates 'Neuronic' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP