Saturday, 19th July 2025
Polepole’s resignation and harsh criticism of the current administration show a classic case of status loss grief, and identity displacement, conditions observed psychologically when individuals once close to power lose influence. His actions show signs of narcissistic wounding, where the erosion of public relevance brings about defensive storylines, denial of progress, and projection of internal frustrations onto external systems, all arising from a bruised ego that struggles and is unable to come to terms with its new reality.
1. Introduction.
On July 13, 2025, Tanzania’s former Ambassador to Cuba, Humphrey Polepole, submitted his resignation from government service, citing what he described as a loss of “peace of heart and faith in the current administration.” His statement, widely circulated online, outlined personal and political concerns ranging from party traditions to leadership ethics, touching upon what he views as a deviation from the ideals of Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM). While the tone of the letter was emotional and introspective, it has ignited public debate about the motivations behind such a departure and its broader implications.
Viewed through a psychological lens, Polepole’s resignation reveals a common reaction to losing political influence rather than a substantive critique of the government. Individuals accustomed to power sometimes struggle to accept shifting political realities, and their frustration can lead to public statements that are more about personal disappointment than objective assessment. Such emotional responses do not diminish the clear progress Tanzania continues to make under President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s administration.
Furthermore, psychological insights suggest that when former insiders feel excluded from current leadership, they may resort to projection or blame-shifting using public criticism to mask their own inability to adapt to change. Polepole’s grievances, framed as concerns over ethics and party traditions, appear more as expressions of personal dissatisfaction than as legitimate challenges to the government’s direction or integrity.
Ambassador Polepole’s resignation should be seen less as a principled stand and more as a reaction to being sidelined in a new political era. Meanwhile, Tanzania continues to move forward with real progress, national unity, and practical leadership that puts people’s needs ahead of personal agendas. People need to see the difference between emotional complaints and the actual developments happening on the ground, because what keeps the country stable is standing by the state and working together for the greater good of all. Those who have served before should put the country first, rather than personal frustrations that hold the country back.
2. Loss of Power and Identity.
Transitions out of political authority are not just career shifts, but rather, they are serious psychological experiences. For individuals who have spent years in proximity to power, their roles often become closely connected with their identity, purpose, and social relevance. When that authority is no longer present, a psychological vacuum can emerge. For some, like Ambassador Polepole, this may result in a sense of being sidelined, which in turn sets off a personal struggle that is “Who am I if I am no longer at the centre of influence?” This inner question often manifests outwardly through dissatisfaction, moral critique, or public withdrawal.
This phenomenon is sometimes described as an identity crisis, where the individual struggles to reconcile their past role with the present reality. A person who once played an important role in political strategy, communication, and statecraft may suddenly feel invisible or less relevant in a new national setting. For some, the natural human response is to react with criticism not because the system is necessarily failing but rather because they no longer recognise their place within it. Critique then becomes a coping mechanism and a way to redefine self-worth by adopting the role of a “truth-teller” instead of a participant in the current system.
In cases where a person has invested deeply in their image or role, the loss of status can cause what psychologists call narcissistic wounding. This doesn’t imply a clinical diagnosis, but it does suggest that the blow to a person’s sense of importance can evoke strong emotions such as anger, denial, or even attempts to delegitimise those still in power. The declaration that “nothing meaningful is being done” may come less from facts on the ground and more from the emotional challenge of accepting a government that continues to function effectively without them.
This internal process often follows the stages of grief, such as denial, anger, sadness, and acceptance. Many political figures who leave the spotlight experience these emotions as they come to terms with the reality of change. In Polepole’s case, his heartfelt expressions suggest that he may still be going through the early emotional stages, especially anger and denial. While this is human and understandable, it’s important that national conversations stay focused on facts, vision, and goals that move the nation forward rather than being influenced by personal grief.
3. Cognitive Biases.
As individuals transition away from positions of authority, it’s natural for some to experience internal conflict, especially when they see a government functioning without their direct input. In such moments, the mind can unconsciously rely on cognitive biases to protect self-worth. One of the most common is confirmation bias, where the individual develops their belief that the leadership is illegitimate, ineffective, or unworthy. Rather than recognising ongoing development, improved international relations, and better civic freedoms, together with several other achievements under President Samia’s administration, the person may choose to spotlight isolated concerns as proof that the nation is on the wrong path instead of seeing the progress being made in real time.
Another psychological mechanism at play is projection, where internal fears such as feeling forgotten, sidelined, or judged are attributed to others. In this case, Ambassador Polepole may label the current administration as “unfair” or “morally compromised” not necessarily because it is true but rather because it shows his own unresolved discomfort with being outside the centre of decision-making. Similarly, sour grapes rationalisation can emerge when claiming that “nothing meaningful is happening” becomes a way to justify a person’s exclusion and to imply that absence from power was a choice based on principle, not loss. While these responses may provide emotional relief to the individual, they do not match the real progress and national stability that continue to define Tanzania’s current leadership.
4. Possible Personality Factors.
Beyond cognitive biases, certain personality tendencies can also influence how former leaders see and react to changing political environments. Individuals with rigid thinking or low openness to change may find it difficult to appreciate the value of a new leadership style, especially when it differs in tone, approach, or priorities. They may feel unsettled when the methods they once supported are replaced by more consultative or change-focused governance. In such cases, resistance is less about policy and more about discomfort with change. When this rigidity is combined with strong personal beliefs, it becomes harder to accept that effective leadership can exist beyond their own legacy.
At the same time, there may be an undercurrent of entitlement or unconscious superiority, which is a belief that their era, values, or contributions were more authentic or righteous. When not dealt with constructively, this can breed paranoia or mistrust, leading to assumptions that the new administration is actively undermining past achievements or seeking to erase their influence. In reality, the current government under President Samia Suluhu Hassan has shown great restraint and respect for institutional continuity. Rather than undoing the past, it is building upon it by modernizing governance, increasing freedoms, and restoring Tanzania’s global standing. Those unwilling to see that progress may be caught not in truth but in a story formed by unresolved pride and fear of being forgotten.
5. Conclusion.
Ambassador Humphrey Polepole’s resignation may appear, at face value, to be an act of conviction, but a deeper analysis reveals a pattern of emotional reasoning and personal dissatisfaction, not national crisis. His statements reflect the psychological tensions often experienced by those who once occupied influential positions but now find themselves on the periphery. His letter, filled with lofty ideals, seems less concerned with objective realities and more with preserving his relevance in a political environment that has moved forward without him. Rather than offering constructive engagement, he chooses to detach and dramatize, which is a decision that speaks volumes about personal pride rather than patriotic responsibility.
What Polepole labels as decline in leadership ethics, party discipline, and government effectiveness is in fact a period of institutional maturity and strategic reorientation aimed at inclusivity and national stability. Under the calm and visionary leadership of President Samia Suluhu Hassan, Tanzania has reopened diplomatic channels with the world, reclaimed its voice in international affairs, restored civic freedoms at home, improved the economy, and taken steps to uplift the people economically, among other efforts. These are not the signs of a government in decline but rather the hallmarks of a government that understands governance beyond empty rhetoric and personal ambitions. Rather than acknowledging progress, Polepole chooses to discredit it, which is likely a result of psychological difficulty in accepting his diminished relevance. His claims lack substance when viewed against the facts.
True patriotism adapts, contributes, and supports progress, even when a person is no longer leading from the front. It accepts change with grace and critiques with facts, not emotions. Unfortunately, Polepole’s approach has been to politicize personal frustration and frame his own exit as a national alarm, when in truth, the country continues to move forward with stability and determination. The administration has remained committed to the people, institutions, and future of Tanzania and not on appeasing former insiders who now see changes as betrayal.
His departure is not a blow to the system but rather a relief from a voice that has grown increasingly fixated on preserving personal legacy instead of building national progress. Over the past four years, President Samia’s administration has carried out impactful infrastructure initiatives, revived stalled development projects, rebuilt trust with international partners, and introduced more transparent and participatory approaches to leadership and governance through the 4Rs philosophy namely Reconciliation, Resilience, Reforms, and Rebuilding. The education and health sectors have seen increased funding, and the private sector has been empowered through improved investment climate and dialogue. These are not theoretical successes but rather measurable outcomes felt by everyday Tanzanians. In contrast, Polepole’s rhetoric offers no solutions, no evidence, and no recognition of this momentum. His approach recycles familiar slogans disconnected from the lived realities of the people and the tangible results of a forward-looking administration. In the end, Tanzania moves forward with or without him.
Thank you.
Written by Christopher Makwaia
Tel: +255 789 242 396
— The writer, is a University of West London graduate (formerly Thames Valley University) and an expert in Management, Leadership, International Business, Foreign Affairs, Global Marketing, Diplomacy, International Relations, Conflict Resolution, Negotiations, Security, Arms Control, Political Scientist, and a self-taught Computer Programmer and Web Developer.
