Learn Hardcore Swahili: Katika demokrasia nzuri, watu wote wana haki sawa bila kujali jinsia au rangi yao. - In a good democracy, all people have equal rights regardless of their gender or their race.

katika – neutral “in/within,” often abstract or general contexts:
- Katika elimu bora, watoto wote… = In good education, all children…
ndani ya – literally “inside of,” more physical, concrete:
- ndani ya nyumba = inside the house
kwa – very broad: “by/with/through/for/because of”; could sometimes translate as “in,” but it sounds different:
- kwa demokrasia nzuri would sound more like “by means of / through good democracy,” not “in a good democracy.”

So katika is the natural choice here to set the context: within the framework of a good democracy…

Why is it “demokrasia nzuri” and not “nzuri demokrasia”?

In Swahili, adjectives almost always come after the noun they describe:

demokrasia nzuri = good democracy
mtu mzuri = good person
jiji kubwa = big city

Putting the adjective before the noun (nzuri demokrasia) is not correct in standard Swahili. So the normal pattern is:

noun + adjective
demokrasia + nzuri

Could you also say “demokrasia njema” instead of “demokrasia nzuri”? Is there a difference?

Yes, you could say demokrasia njema, and it would still mean “a good/proper democracy.”

nzuri – very common, general “good, nice, fine.”
njema – also “good,” often with a slightly more formal or “proper / virtuous” feel.

In practice, demokrasia nzuri is more common and neutral; demokrasia njema can sound a bit more elevated or moralistic, like “a righteous/proper democracy.” Both are grammatically correct.

Why is it “watu wote” and not “wote watu”?

The usual order is:

noun + wote = all (of that noun)

So:

watu wote = all people
watoto wote = all children
vitabu vyote = all the books

Wote watu is not the normal way to say this and would sound wrong.

Also note: wote agrees with the noun class of watu (class 2, people-plural), so you get watu wote, not watu yote or something else.

What exactly is “wana” in “watu wote wana haki sawa”? Is it the verb “to have”?

Yes. Here wana is the verb “have” formed from kuwa na (to have, literally “to be with”).

Structure:

wa- = subject prefix for they (3rd person plural, class 2)
-na = present tense marker OR part of kuwa na (“to have”)

So:

wana = they have
(literally “they are-with”)

Other tenses with the same verb:

walikuwa na haki = they had rights
watakuwa na haki = they will have rights
wangeweza kuwa na haki = they could have rights

Sometimes you will also see wanayo haki sawa, explicitly marking “have them” (those rights), but wana haki sawa is perfectly natural and very common.

Why is it “haki sawa” and not something like “haki zilizo sawa” (rights that are equal)?

Haki sawa is the normal, simple way to say “equal rights” in Swahili.

haki – “right(s), justice.” It’s a class 9 noun with the same form in singular and plural, so haki can mean a right or rights, depending on context.
sawa – here working like an adjective: equal, the same, fair.

So:

haki sawa = equal rights
haki sawa kwa wote = equal rights for all

The longer form haki zilizo sawa is grammatically correct and literally means “rights which are equal.” It’s more explicit and somewhat heavier. In everyday speech, haki sawa is shorter and more idiomatic.

Does “sawa” change form for plural, like adjectives in some other languages?

No. Sawa does not change its form for singular/plural or noun class in this usage.

Examples:

haki sawa = equal right(s)
mishahara sawa = equal salaries
fursa sawa = equal opportunities

The agreement is not shown on sawa itself; it’s understood from context and the noun.

How does “bila kujali” work grammatically, and what does it literally mean?

Bila kujali is a very useful expression meaning “regardless of / without considering / without caring about.”

Breakdown:

bila = without
kujali = to care, to pay attention, to mind/consider
- ku- = infinitive marker (“to …”)
- -jali = verb root “care (about), pay attention to”

So bila kujali literally is:

without (to-)care → without caring → regardless of

You can use it with many things:

bila kujali jinsia = regardless of gender
bila kujali umri = regardless of age
bila kujali asili yao = regardless of their origin/background

Why is it “jinsia au rangi yao” and not “jinsia yao au rangi yao”?

You can say jinsia yao au rangi yao, and it’s fine, but it’s more repetitive.

Swahili often puts the possessive once at the end when it obviously refers to both items:

jinsia au rangi yao
= their gender or race (literally: gender or color-of-their)

Because jinsia and rangi are being listed together, it’s understood that yao applies to both. So both:

jinsia au rangi yao
jinsia yao au rangi yao

are grammatical. The first is just more compact.

What does “au” mean, and is it different from “ama” or “wala”?

In this sentence, au means “or.”

jinsia au rangi yao = gender or their race

Comparisons:

au – the usual “or” in statements and questions.
ama – can also mean “or”, sometimes with a slightly more formal or contrastive feel, often in questions:
- Unataka chai ama kahawa? = Do you want tea or coffee?
wala – often used in negative contexts, more like “nor”:
- Hawabagui kwa jinsia wala rangi. = They don’t discriminate by gender nor by race.

In this neutral, affirmative sentence, au is the natural choice.

Why is it “rangi yao” and not “rangi yao zao” or “rangi zao”?

Rangi yao is correct because:

“Rangi” is a class 9 noun. For possessives, class 9 uses the “y-” pattern:
- rangi yangu = my color/race
- rangi yako = your color/race
- rangi yake = his/her color/race
- rangi yao = their color/race
The “-ao” part shows the possessor is “they” (3rd person plural). The “y-” at the start is the agreement with “rangi” (class 9).

So rangi yao = color-of-their (class‑9) → their race/colour.

rangi zao would be used if “rangi” is clearly plural (“colors”) rather than a single concept like race:
- rangi zao ni nzuri = their colours are nice (e.g. paints, flags).

In this sentence we mean race as a single attribute per person, so rangi yao (singular “race”) is natural.

Does “yao” agree with “watu wote” or with “rangi”?

In a way, it connects to both, but grammatically:

The person/number part (“-ao” = “their”) refers to watu wote (they).
The class marker (“y-”) agrees with rangi (class 9).

So rangi yao = their color:

“their” → the people (watu wote)
agreement pattern “y‑” → the noun rangi

Could I rewrite “Watu wote wana haki sawa bila kujali jinsia au rangi yao” as “Kila mtu ana haki sawa bila kujali jinsia au rangi yake”? Is that equivalent?

Yes, that is a very natural alternative, with a slight shift in how it’s framed:

Watu wote wana haki sawa…
= All people have equal rights…
Kila mtu ana haki sawa…
= Each person has equal rights…

And:

rangi yao (their race – plural owners)
rangi yake (his/her race – singular owner)

So:

Kila mtu ana haki sawa bila kujali jinsia yake au rangi yake.
= Each person has equal rights regardless of his/her gender or race.

Meaning-wise, this is effectively the same idea, just phrased in terms of “each person” instead of “all people.”