Pundits of neo-liberal policies claim that tourism development in Tanzania prior to mid 1980s was stymied by the policies of those years that promoted the state sector at the detriment of the private sector.

Therefore, tourism began to pick up in the mid-1980s because of the economic liberalization policies. What is not taken into account in such a view is the fact that a tourist is a consumer of commodity (leisure), which is differentiated in time and space.

To understand the rapid growth of tourism industry, it is imperative to go beyond simple economic or environmental considerations. Tourism is a commodity, therefore, an expression of social relations. It exists outside of a daily social space, and like all other commodities, it has value as a social sign in the mind of those who produce it. This manifests itself in the way the commodity is represented as a way to convince the consumers. These representations, especially in advertisements, are a discourse, which gives a certain image as a "sign of belonging to a group and thus a social status".

Tourism has historically represented particular forms of life style, i.e. a specific way of life of a group of people within society. Sociologists have demonstrated that the economists' assumption that commodities merely satisfy needs is insufficient: they also have a function of social signification. They have the value of an ideological reference. There are hierarchical indications revealed by conspicuous consumption. It is the dominant classes that define for other classes and sub-groups the model of vacation consumption.

In actual fact, it was the changing nature of tourism industry and consumption patterns that changed the fortunes of tourism in Tanzania and some other countries. Mass tourism was under heavy attack by the 1980s. Since it had become a "mass" phenomenon with the decreased price of transportation and accommodation, this model of tourism was increasingly becoming unstable as it tended towards the destruction of the previously consumerist aristocratic model. The latter model had remained in the 1960s and 1970s, but since the social distance between various social groups had been blurred, of necessity, new destinations had to be sought for the middle classes.

Mediterranean resorts were declared to be among the dirtiest in the world because of huge amounts of polluting elements in the sea and air. The same was being said of most beach areas in the world. Mass tourism attracted trenchant criticism as a shallow and degrading experience for the host nations and people. The new tendency was to uphold with high esteem environmental beauty and ecological diversity. It was in this context that the new middle classes in the Atlantic world began to promote travel to third world countries "as a means of preserving fragile ecological landscapes and providing an 'ethnically' enhancing encounter" (so-called eco-tourism and community-based tourism.

The old type of mass-packaged tourist holidays which were premised on travel for the sun, sand and sex adventures were increasingly being replaced by adventurous forms of tourism within which travelling, trekking, trucking, hunting, fishing, canoeing, aquatic sports, snorkelling, ballooning, bicycling, mountain climbing, hang gliding, river rafting, etc. were becoming the principal activities. Most of these reflected the exciting and adventurous life style of the new middle class: it was a resurrection of the aristocratic model of the old adventurous 'heroic' conquistador.

What was on the increase was flexible packaged, individually oriented tourism, which claimed environmental and cultural sensitivity (cynically called ego-tourism or eco-terrorism). The result was the diffusion of tourist markets all over the world and search of new forms of tourist consumption. And thus, for example, there is a growing tendency among countries to advocate for "quality tourism". It is advocated openly that mass tourism is not necessarily a means to economic well-being; that what is required is a "selected market of more paying tourists as opposed to an uncontrolled influx of clients who could be disastrous to the environment".

The new forms off tourist practices are viewed benevolently: there is hardly any criticism against them. In other words, the outlooks of the new western middle classes have been internalised even in the host countries. The role of these middle classes in the "new social movements" that have arisen especially around the notion of "other cultures and the environment and ecological issues" is hardly questioned. As far as this kind of promoting tourism is concerned, Ian Munt commented; "It is the colonial emphasis on discovery and expropriation that has been rediscovered within a neo-colonial tourism."

The above merely points to the fact that tourism ethos, as developed historically, relate to a long tradition of social relations, to environmental and ecological ideas of the 19th and early twentieth centuries: those colonial notions about settlement patterns and the need for conservation. Tourism is part of a global complex network of economic, social, racial, legal and cultural relationships. Central to the whole issue is the question of control of land and natural resources. It is this aspect which is completely ignored by those who do not interrogate the 'universalistic' conceptions of 'post-modernity' and 'globalization'.

How it is possible to have community based tourism under such circumstances as the ones outlined above; that is one problem we have. The very existence of community based is dependent on the existence of poor people! Community-based tourism's most popular image is that of a rural village far from the beaten path. It is about conservation of large tracts of virgin rainforest, reforestation work and organic agriculture. Travellers are supposed to support this work through their visits. It is some kind of a romantic notion mainly limited to poor rural settlements. And tourism is supposed to be the "Band Aid", by helping to alleviate poverty.

What is community tourism after all? In simple terms, it is supposed to be that tourism in which local residents (often rural, often poor and marginalised) are active participants as land-managers/users, entrepreneurs, employees, decision-makers, and conservators. The community not only cooperates in running the campsites, but the residents also have a say in decisions over tourism development in their area and work with other parties (so-called stakeholders) to develop opportunities for employment, enterprise, skill development, and other improvements in local livelihoods.

The communities are supposed to undertake collectively and in a participatory way planning of the development of tourism, and in some cases as local individuals and families when it comes to enterprise development. Often than not, the history of how these communities became impoverished is not taken into account, and the attempts at alleviating their so-called poverty are considered from the point of view of philanthropy rather than rights.

Given the nature of the industry itself and the vested interests around it, it is clear that community based tourism is a contradiction in terms. Private companies cannot be expected to share profits and power with rural communities simply because it's a kind thing to do. How does one promote private and community interests at the same time? How does one enrich a few individuals and some companies or even multinational enterprises and at the same time reduce poverty?

Community tourism must be practiced within a specific locality. The fact is if there is to be anything like community based tourism, then local people are supposed to have some form of tenure over tourism resources if they are to have the power in the tourism market and a genuine decision-making role in planning. Without tenure they have no security for making long-term investment, and no power to charge for tourist access.

In this regard, tenure is critical. For developing wildlife-viewing tourism, communities need rights to have control and access to land, and not just off-take of wildlife. It means giving the community institutions powers in making decisions, not just receiving revenues.