By Aklog Birara, Ph.D.

(Part two of five)

In part one, I provided basic socioeconomic arguments of why unity of purpose and action among opponents of the TPLF/EPRDF is no longer an option for those who wish to see a unified, diverse and prosperous Ethiopia whose institutional foundation is grounded in fundamental principles of human dignity and freedom for the individual to choose, speak, associate and move; in the rule of law and a level playing field for each and all; in genuine equality, justice, fairness, inclusion and participation; and in political pluralism that allows and encourages peaceful competition.

For the above to take roots, the struggle for justice and freedom must be anchored in Ethiopian society, and especially youth, taxi-drivers, shop owners and the rest of the middle class of professionals, bureaucrats and the poor in rural and urban areas. It is these social forces that brought dictatorial regimes to their knees. Those on the outside can provide material, financial, technical and diplomatic support.

These and other {www:lofty} principles assume that ultimate power and the authority to determine legitimacy to govern reside with Ethiopian citizens and not with political elites. It is only when the institutional and leadership architecture that empowers ordinary citizens takes solid roots that there would be a respectful relationship between ordinary people, the state and government and the leadership that administer it on their behalf. In this sense, future change must be dramatically different from the past. Ordinary citizens will exercise this potential power through free, fair, transparent, open and competitive elections. This is why it is important to remember that opposition to the governing party is only one and necessary component of change; but not the only component.

Equally important is the ability to envision an appropriate transition toward meaningful and people centered change and to frame the alternative system that will replace the old order. Both the transition and the alternative must reflect the interests of the Ethiopian people as a whole and neither can be an afterthought.

Why people revolt

The ongoing Arab Spring in North Africa and the Middle East exploded because dictatorial and or authoritarian regimes refused to give-up their privileged political and economic positions peacefully. It is the pursuit of economic power and better social status that motivated them to assume political power by any means necessary in the first place. Once they assumed political power that offered them wealth beyond their imagination, they cling to it regardless of costs to any person or to any group. The tolerate greed, nepotism, corruption and exclusion because they created them. It is this that leads experts to conclude that dictatorial regimes encourage and rationalize income inequality and wealth concentration directly or indirectly. It is part of the architecture of running the state as a business enterprise. At most, those with political and economy power are likely to persecute and jail only small fish to appease the public and donors. The big fish at the top are always protected from the regulatory and legal system. It is they created the very system that benefits them and their core allies whether foreign or domestic. It is they that must protect ‘the goose that lays the golden egg,’ so to speak.

Reflect on what social and political forces drove Ethiopia’s Emperor and the dictator Mengistu HaileMariam out of power in disgrace? What forces compelled Ben Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his family to flee with an estimated 1.5 tons of gold that belongs to the people of Tunisia? What compelled Mubarak and his cohorts to cause massive carnage and to face the humiliation of court proceedings in the country he ruled for crimes against humanity and for stealing billions of money that belongs to the Egyptian people? Why did Gadhafi and his die-hards refuse to submit to the will of the Libyan people peacefully and get caught, hauled from a sewage pipe, humiliated and killed by liberation fighters as young as 19 years old that he had called “rats”? The manner and brutality and ‘savagery’ of his death will be a subject that will haunt millions of people for decades to come. For Libyans and other people who seek and deserve freedom and justice, saving Gadhafi’s life and subjecting him to the meaning of the rule of law would have sent a better omen. Instead, it sent chills accusations of the opposition itself is “lawless.” This may or may not be unfair. Only the future evolution of governance will tell.

Would other dictators in the rest of Africa including Ethiopia draw lessons from these shameful experiences and allow peaceful change through genuine free, fair, open and competitive elections? Listening to the Ethiopian Prime Minister in the aftermath of what happened in Libya; one concludes that dictators have no ear for human dignity, justice, freedom, equality, the rule of law and accountability. They feel invincible. In light of this, simple indignation will not be adequate.

I highlighted the major similarities and differences that characterize these diverse regimes in previous articles on the Arab Spring. In each case, and in today’s Ethiopia, those who govern failed and still fail to open up opportunities for the vast majority of the population, especially youth. For example, the TPLF/EPRDF regime runs an economic empire that has made a few individuals super rich, and is leading the vast majority to greater depths of poverty. The governing party failed to level the playing field in the economy. Party owned and endowed enterprises such as EFFORT, GUNA and others dominate the national economy. Believe it or not EFFORT owns at least 30 diverse and dominant companies. It started with little or no capital and now serves the economic and social interests of the top leadership of the TPLF and their extended families.

The top leadership of the TPLF/EPRDF is one of the most rigid and dismissal of any in the world. It really believes that its assault on human rights is to protect the public from all forms of “terrorism.” It continues to get away with violations in part because it has powerful Western backers; and in part the opposition is divided and weak. In light of this, the regime failed to hold anyone accountable for atrocities following the 2005 elections; for massacres in Gambella, and in the Ogaden; and jailing and killing an untold number of Ethiopians under the pretext of defending the state and the Constitution. The regime is the judge, jury and executioner. Do not expect it to change any time soon.

Economic and social injustice is widespread and there is nothing the public or dissenters can do about it. Donors and others are stunned of corruption and illicit outflow in excess of US$11 billion from one of the poorest and emergency food aid dependent countries in the world. They will not do anything unless opponents in the Diaspora close ranks and work collaboratively against corruption and {www:illicit} outflow in donor capitals everywhere. Corruption is an economic crime against the poor and the future of Ethiopian youth. In North Africa and the Middle East, we note corruption, cronyism, illicit outflow, and other economic and social ills constituted the material reasons of why people continue to die for justice, human dignity and freedom.

Here is the bottom line. People do not revolt out of hate for their fellow man or woman. They revolt out of desperation that the system in which they live is totally broken and that those who govern are not or will not be accountable to them. Escalating food prices, income inequality, corruption, nepotism and massive unemployment were among the material reasons why hundreds of thousands of youth and others revolted against repression, economic and social injustice and inequality. When a system is impervious to change, they have no option. Tunisian youth, professionals and the middle class arrived at the conclusion that the system under which they lived was intolerant of reform. This is similar to Ethiopia but took a more peaceful route. Citizens, especially youth, took matters into their own hands and gave real meaning to citizen voice, participation and popular revolt. The rest is history. Today, 110 political parties are in the process of competing in what is projected to be the freest and fairest election in Tunisia.

For Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan, Syrian and Yemeni youth, the battle cry could be termed as ‘inequality and corruption stupid.’ Gross inequality in incomes and wealth arise when a system allows economic and social preponderance for one group over the rest, and discriminates deliberately and systematically. Tunisia was and still is more market friendly than Ethiopia. Yet, inequality was pronounced as was corruption. Egypt was worse. Gaddafi and his large family run the country as a family business. He lost his life and perhaps all his wealth and the wealth of his family. Freedom leads to the inevitable demand for accountability. But who in the top echelons of the Ethiopian government party is listening?

In Ethiopia, the economic and social system tends to emulate the worst features of crony capitalism and dictatorial ‘socialism.’ I say the worst features of capitalism because cronyism is rampant. Greed and corruption are widespread and punishing for the society. Humanitarian and other forms of aid are politicized and skew the allocation of resources along ethnic and party lines. If aid that saves lives is distorted, one will have little confidence that the rest of the economy and financial system is not distorted either. Ethiopia is neither farmland nor water resource poor. Yet, it is one of the ‘hungriest and unhealthiest” countries in the world. Take food self-sufficiency and security and investments in agriculture under the so-called Agriculture Development-led Industrialization (ADLI) approach–a strategy intended to boost the capabilities of smallholders and other rural folk–and assess outcomes.

Why did the regime fail to boost the capabilities of smallholders by providing them tenure security? As I document in my latest book, “The Great Land Giveaway: yemeret neteka ena kirmit in Ethiopia,” the country is not able to achieve a level of agricultural productivity per hectare that it had attained in 1973 or 38 years ago? Believe it or not, the governing party no longer believes that Ethiopian smallholders and other domestic entrepreneurs can modernize and commercialize agriculture or anything else for that matter. In 2009, 22 percent of Ethiopia’s rural poor depended on some form of international emergency foreign aid to survive. I conclude from these facts and from skyrocketing food prices that the governing party’s strategy was not to release the productive potential of Ethiopian smallholders and to make the country food self-sufficient. Rather, it was to control the ‘peasantry’ and to make the rural population dependent and an appendage. A pro poor economic and social policy would have resulted in a smallholder Green Revolution in Ethiopia. Generous donors such as USAID, the World Bank and others share the blame in that they did not invest in smallholder commercial farming. Some donors perpetuate dependency by focusing on relief rather than on sustainable and participatory development.

It is a fact that twenty years ago, people could afford to buy food. Today, millions survive on one meal a day. Forty years ago, the educated and others aspired to join the middle class and expected to build and own their own home. Today US$50,000 cannot buy you a decent home in Addis Ababa or other major urban areas. The façade of villas, apartment and office buildings and other construction in Ethiopia’s capital and other urban centers is glitz at its worst. Rent seeking and corrupt culture produced the glitz. Who owns major buildings anyway? Who rents them to foreigners? It certainly is not the Ethiopian middle class. They worry about their next meal. These investments are owned by few powerful individuals, families and monopolies. The direct link between business monopolies and political power is a firm indicator of the merger of party, state and ethnicity. It is this merger that enables the governing party to misallocate national resources; and to transfer waters and farmlands and other pillars of the economy from the Ethiopian people to a selected few domestic allies and to foreign governments and businesses.

These economic and social distortions and adverse impacts on ordinary Ethiopians are essential to grasp in promoting a culture of collaboration and unity among opposition groups whether civic or political; and whether within the country or abroad.

(Part three of this series will highlight the dangers that emanate from massive transfers of water basins and farmlands and other pillars of the economy to foreign governments and businesses. The piece will continue to reinforce why unity of purpose and action is critical, urgent and everyone’s business.)

By Aklog Birara, PhD

It will be an understatement to state that, regardless of ethnic, religious, gender, age or ideological {www:affinity}, Ethiopians and people of Ethiopian origin discuss their country of origin with passion and genuine interest. Broadly, they share a common set of principles. This is the good news. However, there is another side to the story that generates animated conversation within and outside the country. This short article reflects my own assessment and conclusions with regard to the two schools of thought that have more or less raged for more than forty years.

What is the area of consensus?

All of us wish to see good governance based on the rule of law, equality and justice, commitment to human rights and human dignity, freedom and political {www:pluralism} otherwise known as democracy. Clearly and by any socioeconomic and political measurement, the world in which ordinary Ethiopians live is as inhospitable as anyone could imagine. It is this in- hospitability that drives those of us who hope for a better tomorrow for all Ethiopians that dictate these generally shared values. They are fundamental and critical enough to force each activist to soul search so that we can contribute to the realization of the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the Ethiopian people as individuals and as communities.

What then is the hurdle or problem?

For more than forty years, political parties, groups and their supporters focused less on the commonalities that bind them as people and drove their thinking and their actions through the prism of ‘irreconcilable differences.’ This is a trap implanted by the current governing party. The experiences of people across the globe in general and the recent people-anchored revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East inform that there is no contradiction between the {www:essence} and meaning of one or unified Ethiopia that embraces all of its citizens, and freedom and democracy. Divisions along ethnic, religious or rigid ideological lines and the contention that Ethiopia is an artificial creation of the ‘colonial type’ continue to act as barriers in pursuing and achieving the hopes and aspirations of all of the Ethiopian people. What best describes Ethiopia and Ethiopians is that they are the sole creators of a mosaic of nations and nationalities that defended the national independence and territorial integrity of the country for thousands of years. This Ethiopian made multi-nation building was not imposed by colonial powers. At various times in history, all Ethiopians contributed to the formation of this mosaic. I suggest that no single nationality group has preponderance over this, recognizably, tumultuous history through which other countries had to pass. Ethiopia deserves the same treatment as other countries that have gone through rough waters in which an untold millions were killed in what most experts believe is the natural evolution of both homogenous and {www:heterogeneous} or multi-ethnic nations. Belaboring the agony of the past that comes from each successive system of governance detracts from singular focus on the future.

I should like to illustrate the enormous economic, social, political and security costs for all members of Ethiopian society of past and current preoccupation with ‘irreconcilable types of differences’ by citing five examples:

• The so-called developmental state led by the TPLF/EPRDF has induced one of the worst income inequalities in the world. The gap between the small super rich whose incomes, wealth and assets originate directly or indirectly from a discriminatory and exclusive system has reached a dangerous level. This pronounced inequality in wealth and assets deprives better livelihood for the vast majority of the Ethiopian people. It undermines fairness and equity and retards the development process. Inequality takes a toll on the national economy in that those with low incomes and the poor cannot afford to purchase even domestically produced goods and services. In the end, inequality that comes from discriminatory and exclusionary policies and programs will threaten the very fabric of the society and will lead it to instability and fragility. The regime is able to get away with gross inequality because there is no political competition. It is not accountable to the public but to itself. Opponents can and should mobilize and work in unison to bring gross inequality to the attention of the world community.

• In a succession of reactions to poor and repressive governance, my generation opposed and revolted against the Imperial regime, the Socialist Military Dictatorship and now the TPLF/EPRDF dictatorship without a clear vision of the future and the alternative political and socioeconomic order that will govern the country.

• Ethiopia and its diverse population lost their legitimate access to the sea. Therefore, the Ethiopian and Eritrean people that share a great deal in common lost economic and comparative advantages that would benefit both. Political elites in both regions who exploit divisions and tensions have put them at risk.

• The TPLF/EPRDF exploited the void in unified political and civic opposition and granted millions of hectares of Ethiopian fertile farmlands and waters to more than 1,000 licensees from 36 countries, and to favored supporters of the regime. Yemeret neteka ena kirimit affects sovereignty, dignity, citizenship, security and wellbeing, long-term national interest, the environment and ordinary lives of people.

• The same void in political wisdom, organization and national leadership within the opposition exposes individuals and groups within the country for constant and relentless assault by the governing party and state. The Failed States Index for 2011 and Wiki leaks reveal shocking information concerning the brutality of the one party state on Ethiopian society: group grievances not addressed, human flight in thousands, uneven development and income emanating from discrimination, economic decline and relentless inflation, increasing de-legitimization of the state and gross human rights violations almost on a daily basis. The regime has compromised the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Wiki leaks reveal that the governing party cost Ethiopia “a large chunk of territory” that the regime transferred to the Sudan in a secret deal. The single party state is “the judge, jury and executioner” with no end in sight.

All of these and more present a dire picture that cannot be resolved unless all opposition parties, groups and civil society close ranks and place the interests of all of the Ethiopian people at the center of their struggle.

What then is the alternative?

In my assessment, a firm and determined commitment for the unity of the Ethiopian people and for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country is the surest path to freedom and political pluralism. I have no doubt in my mind that unfettered unity will lead the Ethiopian people to freedom and political pluralism. The country is large and potentially rich enough to accommodate the hopes and aspirations of all of its diverse population. The ills, misinterpretations of history, ‘brutalities’ and other transgressions of the past can and should be addressed by a democratically elected government rather than used as a precondition for transformation. In Australia, South Africa and other democratic countries, legitimate representatives of the people set-up institutional mechanisms to investigate and address past grievances. Ethiopia can achieve the same goal.

I believe that we can draw a critical lesson of what not to do from our own recent political history that division along ethnic lines rather than genuine commitment for the pursuit of freedom for all Ethiopians is a losing proposition. For example, I would hate to imagine that ethnic and other divisions would subject Ethiopians to perpetual civil war in order to satisfy the narrow interests of foreign powers or the needs of political elites. The regime’s relentless attack on individuals and groups in the country is a prime indicator that it will not tolerate any form of dissent. This is the reason why I argued in several articles that the regime is more like Libya, Syria and Yemen than Egypt or Tunisia. This attribute should compel all to work in tandem and energize all Ethiopians within the country to rise against repression and oppression.

The incontestably able and dedicated Ethiopian humanist and political activist Obang Metho, Executive Director of the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia captures the essence of what I am saying in two themes: “Humanity before Ethnicity” and “No One Will be Free Until All are Free.” Division and fragmentation go exactly in the opposite direction from realizing freedom and political pluralism for each and all. If the ultimate objective is to dislodge the TPLF/EPRDF oppressive system of governance and replace it with a government of national reconciliation, peace, unity in diversity, freedom and equality, justice and equitable participation in social and economic life, human rights and the rule of law, then all aspirants must join forces and aim for the same goal. This is the reason why I suggest that the unity of all of the Ethiopian people is the surest path in achieving freedom and democracy in the country we love. Imagine if all Ethiopian rise against oppression. Who in the world can stop them? There is no force that can.

In my view, the hopes and aspirations of Ethiopia’s 90 million people are constrained by an enormous gap in national political organization and wise leadership. It is response to and filling this gap that will enable them to achieve genuine freedom, political pluralism and participatory and equitable economic and social opportunities. Ultimately, it is realization of this noble goal—that can only come from a unity of national purpose–that will create the foundation to conquer abject poverty, hunger and famine, dependency, unemployment, diseases, corruption and gross income inequality and illegal outflow of billions of dollars from one of the poorest and hungriest countries in the world.

Lack of unity of purpose and recognition that Ethiopians share common values and aspire for a common destiny will prolong the agony of the Ethiopian people. If we defer accepting the principles of Ethiopian sovereignty and territorial integrity and the unity of its diverse population, it will be difficult if not impossible to achieve the kinds of transformative, grassroots and youth-led popular revolutions we are witnessing in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and Yemen. In none of these countries is the principle of national unity and the unity of people at risk. The tragedy of not forging ahead with a unity of purpose that comes from accepting these fundamental principles that will serve all Ethiopians in the long-run is that Ethiopia’s economy will be in shambles. Instability and gross violations of human rights will persist. We see evidence of this in hyperinflation, gross inequality and selected and indiscriminate killing, persecutions and jailing of innocent people by the governing party. The regime explains these and other anomalies as the price of growth and development; and ‘anti-terrorism.’ The terror comes from the one party state itself.

Where do we start and where do we end-up?

At the end of the day, political and social actors must believe in and trust the Ethiopian people to do the right thing. I do. The long-term interests of the country and its entire people must guide political and social action. I have no doubt in my mind that peaceful, country anchored and youth led transformation is possible; in fact, inevitable. The rest of us in the Diaspora have a moral obligation to contribute to the democratization process through collaboration rather than division or silence or skepticism or detachment.

If we remain preoccupied with our differences rather than the common bonds that we share as Ethiopians, and the aspirations and hopes we believe in for future this and future generations, we will contribute to the enormous risks that the country and its diverse population face. As some in Addis Ababa said recently, we will simply accept the tragic notion that “Ethiopia is a country that resembles a person who is traveling in a pitch-black dark night.” I know what it means to travel in a “pitch black night. “ In Waves, I depicted my own and my father’s journey in Northern Gondar at night not knowing exactly where we were headed to; but hoping that we will end-up at our destination by some miracle. A country led by an arrogant, cruel, repressive and exclusive ethnic clique is a country that moves in the dark. For those in power and with wealth, nothing can be as good and as bright as staying in power and enjoying the spoils of political capture. For the disenfranchised—the vast majority of the Ethiopian people—the Ethiopian regime is a nightmare. It turns daylight into darkness, hope into misery, aspiration into despair, and hope into hopelessness. The rest of us must reject this situation.
Our person-made and too often, self-serving divisions will postpone the democratization process indefinitely. This artificial division will allow the current repressive regime to single out and decimate persons of conscience, principle and stamina who expose inhumanity and cruelty. It will deny current youth the possibility of closing ranks and standing solidly for freedom and political pluralism in a sustainable way. It will undermine the noble tradition of the Ethiopian people to live side by side. It will give political elites a chance to divide and weaken all of us. It will prolong the life of a divisive, oppressive, inhumane and brutal regime. If the situation continues for too long, the country will continue on a path of eternal darkness, fragility and greater ethnic based fragmentation. This condition will not serve anyone. At minimum, the Diaspora can try to cleanse itself of the culture of egoism, individualism, village-like mentality, elitism, partisanship and division, attributes that sustain the TPLF/EPRDF regime. The current onslaught against civil liberties, individual rights and freedoms is as much a manifestation of a desperate regime that has gone berserk as much as it is a manifestation of weaknesses within the opposition camp whether within the country or in the Diaspora.

The march of history tells us that the brave and principled souls within the country who are sacrificing their lives, their families and their wellbeing are precisely what Ethiopia and Ethiopians need today. At minimum, we can and should stand shoulder to shoulder with them and reject repression and oppression of the one party dictatorial state today and not tomorrow.

By Aklog Birara*

Part I of 111

I tend to think that, in Sub-Saharan Africa, Ethiopian fascination with the Tunisian and Egyptian popular revolutions exceeds any other. This admiration emanates from wishes and aspirations among Ethiopia’s youth and the small middle class to see similar changes in their homeland. I admit that it is too early to draw conclusive parallels between the “Jasmine Revolution,” Tahrir Square and the popular “Arab Spring” youth and middle class-led revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the rest of North Africa and the Middle East on the one hand and aspirations in Ethiopia on the other. However, I contend that the core social, economic and political triggers are almost the same. These include repressive governance, growing income inequality, endemic corruption, illicit outflow of resources, bulge in the youthful population that sees no hope for the future, poverty, hunger, food price inflation and shortages, dependency on external funding, and a government that is completely out of touch from the needs of the population.

Most Ethiopians in the Diaspora appreciate the huge differences between Ethiopia on the one hand and Tunisia and Egypt on the other. At the same time, they feel that there are similarities. The Egyptian popular uprising has been in the making for at least three decades, Ethiopia’s for 20 years. Ethiopian intellectuals assert that popular revolts in Egypt and Tunisia benefitted hugely from unique internal conditions that are not prevalent in Ethiopia. Some have difficulty recognizing differences that are likely to determine the fate of the country. Nevertheless, they identify at least six important attributes as instrumental in both countries that differ from Ethiopia. These unique country identities do not in any shape underestimate ideological and sectarian or class differences that exist. Over the past two months, we saw manifestations of sharp class and values differences among political leaders in one of the most mature democracies in the world, the United States.  Differences are thus a way of life. How they are resolved is the critical factor that determines political wisdom and maturity in any country. A successful uprising does not necessarily mean that normalcy follows soon after. The day after is as important as the day before an uprising. Lingering differences in class and ideology surfaced when former President Mubarak came to Cairo on August 4, 2011 and sat on a stretcher to face charges for crimes against humanity, embezzlement, and corruption and operation against the interests of the Egyptian people. Clearly, Mubarak has his supporters who benefitted enormously from his dictatorial regime. The fact that he is facing trial in his own country by his own people is one of the most extraordinary achievements of the Egyptian revolution. Some Ethiopians genuinely believe that a similar situation is tenable in Ethiopia. I am doubtful that all Ethiopians are willing and ready to work collaboratively for the good of the country and its diverse population for a similar situation to emerge. The fact that one of the most powerful and oppressive leaders in the Arab world had to face the humiliation of being caged in as if he is a common criminal is remarkable. This should embolden Ethiopians to close ranks and focus on one core principle that makes sense: organize and strive to achieve a people or citizen-led and centered change of freedom that will serve the interests of all of the Ethiopian people, and not elites. In my assessment, the culture of division among all sorts of opposition groups is the single most critical barrier to change than the regime itself. Division for all sorts of reasons prolongs the longevity of the regime.

With this backdrop, I shall discuss the key differences between Ethiopia on the one hand and Egypt and Tunisia on the other.

First and foremost is that the two Arab countries share a common thread of overall {www:homogeneity}of their population. Ethiopia’s population estimated at 90 million this year is composed of 80 different ethnic groups. Diversity is an asset as long as the socioeconomic and political system empowers each member and recognizes the fundamental right to engage and participate fully, freely, and peaceably.

Second, Tunisia and Egypt possess a critical national institution in the composition and role of their defense establishments. They are national and highly respected. In Ethiopia, a minority ethnic clique transformed a liberation movement into a defense establishment to protect the party and state by dismantling its national or Ethiopian characteristics. The lack of fair and balanced representation in the armed forces reinforces the dictatorial and {www:exclusionary} nature of the regime commanded by the Tigrean minority that dominates the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). Most Ethiopians feel that the defense establishment’s predominantly minority ethnic-composition in the command structure weakens its national character and role. The regime expects that the defense establishment will come to its rescue In the event of an uprising. It did it in 2005 and there is no guarantee that it will not do it again. Ethiopians appreciate the fact that Egypt’s defense establishment represents the country as a unified whole. Despite sectarian, class and ideological differences, there is no indication that Egypt suffers from ethnicity or {www:irreconcilable} ideology. Ethiopians admire the fact Egyptians and Tunisians fight as nationals of their respective countries. Politically designed ethnic divide and rules undermine the Ethiopian body politic in that it pities one group against another. Elites fall into this trap almost all the time. They hope that this corrosive culture does not spread to religion. Muslims and Christians have an established tradition of peaceful co-existence that the governing party now manipulates to maintain permanent suspense.

Third, the populations in Tunisia and Egypt show enormous respect for their national institutions. Political elites do not revise their histories. Many are not so sure if Ethiopian elites are uniformly patriotic and bound by the same national spirit and respect for their national institutions, heritage, cultures, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. If there is no sense of commonness, the struggle forward will be much harder if not impossible.

Fourth, both Tunisia and Egypt have larger middle and highly educated classes that are cohesive than Ethiopia’s. This attribute is decisive in any uprising. Egyptians and Tunisians benefited enormously from representation of cross-sections of their populations: teachers, mechanics, doctors, street vendors, the poor, and the middle class were involved. This type of mobilization and determination makes a difference. In these countries, youth denied those used to petty jealousies, rivalry, and hatreds political space and embraced those who were inclusive and forward-looking. Can one say the same about Ethiopians? I am not so sure.  1/

Fifth, Tunisians and Egyptians enjoy more access to information technology than Ethiopians do. This is a critical difference. Ethiopia is among the least technology-friendly countries in the world. This is not by choice but by government design. In North Africa and the Middle East, the technological tools activists need—Internet, Mobile phones, Face Book, You Tube, Twitter, and newspapers are more readily available than to Ethiopians. In this century, it will be much harder to initiate popular uprisings without these tools.

Sixth, Tunisians and Egyptians used banners, flags, and symbols that mirror national identities. “We are Tunisians and Egyptians.” These themes {www:resonate} with the vast majority of Ethiopians who feel that the governing party uses ethic divide and rule to govern the country without the participation of the population. The general sentiment is that when people unite as one, no power can stop them. Ethiopians admire these attributes about Egypt and Tunisia. They just need to reflect on what it takes to translate lessons into tools.

Egypt has a special appeal for Ethiopians for two reasons: Ethiopia and Egypt share the Nile River and have a long history in terms of religious, cultural, and political interactions that go back thousands of years. The Ethiopian and Egyptian Coptic faiths have a great deal in common. Ethiopians watched attentively various media on February 1, 2011 when close to two million Egyptians from diverse backgrounds gathered at Tahrir Square to pray and protest together for a common purpose. Ethiopians with access to the media admired civility, national pride, and unity among Egyptians. The message that came across was this: Egyptians did not suffer from irreconcilable ideological, political, and tribal, gender, and demographic, religious, and social, differences. They subordinated differences to the greater quest of freedom, the rule of law, human rights, and political pluralism. The Egyptian flag served as a symbol of national identity and unity. The vast majority of protestors displayed levels of discipline and camaraderie unparalleled anywhere. In doing this, they took away the legitimacy and moral authority of the state that had kept them in chains. In particular, Ethiopians admired the Egyptian defense establishment that refused to “kill” its own citizens. This contrasts with Ethiopia where hundreds were killed and more than 40,000 people jailed by security and police forces in the aftermath of the 2005 elections. The defense establishment stood silent. Had the situation deteriorated, it would have taken sides. The parallel that seems similar to Egypt is the grassroots-based popular revolution in Ethiopia that brought down the Imperial regime in the 1970s, and the huge protests in support of democratization in 2005. In both instances, Ethiopians struggled and protested as one people. Differences and similarities aside, Ethiopians continue to feel that Egypt and Tunisia offer them tantalizing lessons in peaceful change. As recently as June 12, 2011, Ethiopians in the Diaspora held various forums on the “Ethiopian Awakening and the Arab Spring” at which prominent Egyptians shared lessons of experience from people-led and grassroots revolutions. Emphasis is “Be bold and resolute.”

The search for freedom, justice, the rule of law and people-centered governance is the same in all three countries and in many Sub-Saharan African countries governed b y dictatorial governments. These aspirations for hope and freedom should not at all mask substantial differences between multi-national Ethiopia and Egypt and Tunisia. Recognition of these differences will help anchor the quest for freedom anchored in Ethiopia within context. Tunisia has an expanding and highly educated youth, and a rising and urbanized middle class with a cadre of professionals within the country and a Diaspora that is politically connected. This is the same for Egypt. Both countries are more urbanized and integrated with developed nations than Ethiopia. Repression, oppression, concentration of wealth in a few hands, corruption, high youth unemployment, food price inflation, and income inequality are deep in all three countries. Unmet expectations in employment, income inequality, suffocating bureaucracy and corruption are hallmarks in all three. The outside world, including the aid and humanitarian factory businesses portray all three as generally stable and growing. For example, “The IMF’s last country report on Egypt published in April 2010” noted that “sustained and wide-ranging reforms since 2004 had reduced fiscal, monetary, and external vulnerabilities, and improved the investment climate.” I recall the IMF representative to Ethiopia said the same thing commending the Ethiopian government for improving the lives of the population. Hunger, famine, seven million orphans, the flight of talent out of the country, skyrocketing food prices, and restrictions on the private sector do not bother the IMF or other financial and aid institutions. Their role is to lend and to defend their activities by siding with governments, and not with the population.

Ethiopia is one of the “hungriest and unhealthiest countries” on this planet. Those with wealth and power do not suffer from these national ailments and live by defending a rotten system that keeps poor people poor and forces the middle class to join the poor. The governing party and its zealous, fanatic, and irrational supporters deny the existence of hunger, famine, and destitution in the country. Sixty to seventy percent of Ethiopian youth is unemployed. There are 7 million orphans. Today, more than 4.5 million Ethiopians face famine. Despite these facts, the IMF finds nothing wrong with chronic inflation stimulated through deficit financing and aid. It commends the regime for improving the standard of living of the population. Ethiopian academics say that the IMF finds nothing wrong with youth unemployment, endemic corruption, and illicit outflow of funds from one of the poorest countries on this planet. In its previous report on Egypt, the IMF had said that, “economic performance was better than expected, although headline inflation remains elevated.” I wonder if this commendation took account of the lives of ordinary Egyptians including youth. Most Ethiopian elites feel that multinational agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank do injustice to the poor and youth by presenting rosy pictures of countries that face social crisis. “There were imminent, overwhelming problems that either evaded the IMF’s attention or it chose not to report. The risk of a social explosion would have been obvious to observers, right. Not to the IMF.” 2/

High youth unemployment in all three countries is a common thread as are the sizes of their youth populations that need jobs, incomes, and homes. Almost 40 million Ethiopians were born after 1991 and the millions of orphans for which Ethiopia is famous are consequences of poverty. Youth have experiences only with one ruling party and one leader in their lifetime. The Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, rules with an iron-fist and has been in power for 20 years. The same is true for millions of Tunisian and Egyptian youth whose rebelled and overthrew theirs. Bloomberg estimates that Tunisia must create 1 million jobs per year to keep up with those entering the labor market each year. Ethiopia seems to have given up on the prospect of creating jobs for millions. The economy has stalled and the private sector is not expanding at a rate that corresponds to domestic demand. Thousands of youth immigrate to all corners of the world each month because they do not see their future in the country. If Ethiopia cannot meet the demands of food self-sufficiency and security today with 90 million people, most of them young, what economic and social miracle does the government expect to cope with 278 million by 2050? The social and economic situation in Ethiopia is direr than the situations in Tunisia and Egypt.

“The worsening economy, combined with repression and resentment of corruption around President Ben Ali, set Tunisia up for a fall. The protests started when a 26 year old fruit and vegetable seller, Mohamed Bouazizi, set fire to himself on December 17, 2010.” Ethiopians were awed and moved by a death that led to the “Jasmine Revolution.” Ethiopians contend that the level oppression and repression by the one party state and the gross inequality brought by the system are far worse than anything is in North Africa and the Middle East. The Tunisian uprising and its ramifications seem moved the hearts and minds of a growingly restive, and youth population in Ethiopia. The country’s double-digit growth masks structural and policy distortions and imbalances in Ethiopia the same way as they did in Tunisia, Egypt, and the same way as they are manifesting in several countries in the Middle East. Similar to Ethiopia–non-oil producing economy–, growth in Tunisia disguised high unemployment, skyrocketing prices, and gross income inequality between the have and the have-nots. Ethiopia’s gaping inequality and stark life differences between those who control the state and the economy and the majority who find it difficult to eat two meals a day is a time bomb waiting to explode. This, I predict with confidence. No person accepts a verdict by someone in power who blurts out in a private setting in Addis Ababa, “let them eat dirt and stone; they did not vote for our party.” In Ethiopia, life and death are very dependent on ethnic and political loyalty. Increasingly, poverty is partial. 3/

What motivates youth to die for and change systems?

Ethiopia is poorer and less developed than Egypt and Tunisia. At the end of 2010, Bloomberg estimated that Tunisia had a per capita income of US9, 500 compared to Ethiopia at US$370, a staggering difference. Sixty-seven percent of the Tunisian population is urbanized. Eighty percent of Ethiopians live in rural areas. Tunisia has one of the highest literacy rates in the Arab world and Ethiopia one of the lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa. High levels of literacy, an educated and rising middle class, urbanization, and technology savvy youth with easy access to television, the Internet, mobile phones, You Tube, Twitter, and newspapers eased communication during the uprising. Contrast these assets to Ethiopian youth with low incomes who rent newspapers to seek jobs. The communication tools that are abnormal in Ethiopia are standards in other parts of the world. Modern communication tools are prerequisites in strengthening social networking, and in stimulating change. I am not saying that peaceful change cannot take place without information technology (IT). It will be much harder though. Repression and fear did not deter Tunisia’s urban and integrated population from organizing and sharing information quickly and effectively.

In contrast, Ethiopia is one of the world’s least networked and urbanized countries in the world. The governing party designed this dysfunctional social architecture deliberately to keep the population disconnected from one another. High illiteracy among the rural population reinforces control, a sense of detachment and sheer isolation. The country’s young adults defined as those aged between 15 and 29 years exceed 50.3 percent, almost similar to Tunisia. This is why demographers call this age cluster a “bulge” that may explode anytime anywhere. This group demands and deserves unrestricted political rights, civil liberties and equitable access in education, health care, housing, information technology, employment and creation of enterprises. Just think of one simple example Ethiopia’s haves and have-nots face each day. A hard working Ethiopian who faces economic hurdles each day is unlikely to continue to watch his child starve while those with political and economic power feed their children with ease. No one will continue to tolerate a socioeconomic and political system in which a privileged few amass wealth and live well, and the majority work hard but cannot afford food to eat. The difference between those in powers and with ill-gotten wealth and those on the periphery are stark enough that officials and their supporters are widely accused of economic and social crimes. I suggest that anyone who denies the face of famine and starvation looks at the heart-wrenching faces of children and women in the Ogaden and the poorest of the poor in the streets of Addis Ababa and other major cities. Senior officials and their supporters in the Diaspora continue agonizing economic and social life as the new normal, as if the Ethiopian poor and most vulnerable are born to die poor. The Ethiopian government relies on continued exodus of the country’s youthful age group to foreign countries as a permanent solution to its poor and repressive governance and economic mismanagement. Like Tunisians and Egyptians, Ethiopians say that the government must open opportunities and allow unrestricted freedoms to harness information technology and to create small and medium size enterprises that would employ millions. 4/

In contrast to Tunisia, isolation is a way of life in rural Ethiopia. This sector of the society is practically shutout of the information revolution that has swept the rest of the world including the rural poor in countries such as Bangladesh and India. This, compounded by fear and regime reinforcement of ethnic and religious differences is a self-reinforcing closed system. Ethiopia’s poor has minimal or no education. Representation of females in schools and public positions is among the lowest in Africa. Unlike Egypt and Tunisia, Ethiopia’s poor have no time to reflect and to protest. They are largely isolated from one another and fragmented along ethnic and religious lines, and cannot share information with one another. Denial of access to information that is standard in the rest of the world allows the regime and ethnic elites to manipulate, divide, coerce, entice, and keep the poor and the disconnected under permanent fear and control. The regime knows that information is power; and it denies it because of its potency. Illiteracy, restrictive access to information and near total isolation of the rural poor from one another and from the world beyond makes them weak and vulnerable. This is why Ethiopians in the Ogaden or in Gambella suffer silently and in isolation from the rest. The regime’s draconian measures against the population in 2005 are still fresh in the minds of people. The regime perfected the instruments of command and control by placing a premium on ethnic and ideological loyalty over common and shared public interest. Ethiopians say that the regime uses ethnic fear to bolster divisions, mutual suspicion, and disempowerment, and to create an astrosphere of permanent suspense. The regime bribes the poor, educated alike, and forces them to its side. It uses humanitarian and other forms of aid as instruments of control and division.

Whether one believes it or or not, Ethiopia is the largest aid recipient in Africa and the third largest in the world after Afghanistan and Iraq. Donors know that the regime uses aid as a political instrument to punish opponents and to reward supporters. Donors know that, unlike youth in Tunisia and Egypt, Ethiopians do not enjoy unrestricted access to information. They know that fear permeates the society, and breeds more fear rather than bold and daring response to repression, oppression, and poverty. Accepting this fear culture is thus a self-fulfilling prophecy. If one wants freedom and choice, one must fight for it. The governing party boasts that this is how it arrived at state power. One does not need to accept its challenge. Tunisians and Egyptians teach us that change is inevitable as long as millions are ready to fight and die for political freedom and economic opportunity. Here is a huge hurdle Ethiopians need to cross if they want peaceful change. Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, most talented intellectuals hide behind the mask of anonymity waiting for miracles to occur. They want freedom for the Ethiopian people and are ashamed to see recurring famine and chronic hunger. However, they think that someone should offer freedom to them on a silver platter. Egyptians and Tunisians showed the world that no power in the world could stop an outraged and angry population. Almost 1,000 Egyptians lost their lives fighting for freedom and dignity. Hundreds are dying for similar causes in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Senegalese are fighting for the same; and there will no doubt be more. Most highly educated Ethiopians say that the two North African nations teach us the cardinal lesson that those who wish to establish a people-centered society of freedom—political liberties and human rights—must set aside minor differences and struggle in unison.

Ethiopians remind one another that the country’s youth are not novices to uprisings. They are among the pacesetters of change in Africa. In the 1970s, they closed ranks and brought down the Imperial regime. Repression and brutality by the Socialist Dictatorship from 1974-1991 prompted all segments of society and especially youth to come together as Ethiopians. Popular opinion is that in the aftermath of the 2005 elections, the Ethiopian people sowed the whole world commitment to political liberties, human rights and the rule of law. This is generally true. Many say that this remarkable history of popular struggle against oppression for which thousands of innocent Ethiopians sacrificed their lives may serve as a gentle reminder of the potential that exists. Political leaders squandered a rare opportunity for political change because they were shortsighted and self absorbed with power. Well-informed international and domestic experts agree with the Ethiopian public sentiment that the Ethiopian government must respond to five major social and economic problems:

a)      Skyrocketing food prices and shortages in urban areas;

b)      Persistent hunger in rural areas that requires recurring international emergency food assistance that involves thousands of non-governmental agencies that have made it a source of their own livelihood;

c)       High and chronic youth unemployment and underemployment;

d)      Gaping income inequality, corruption, and illicit outflow of funds estimated at between US$8.345 to US$11 billion over the last 20 years of TPLF/EPRDF rule; and

e)      Closure of political, social, and economic spaces for the vast majority of the population.

These, they argue, constitute the objective social and economic conditions for peaceful revolution in Ethiopia similar to Egypt and Tunisia. The reader should seek no additional material evidence than the current economic {www:turmoil} in the country that afflicts ordinary people, and the famine in the Ogaden and other parts of Southern and Eastern Ethiopia. Behind these staggering economic and social facts are, however, substantial disagreements among Ethiopians on the end vision and alternative, method, organization, and leadership of the democratization process. One is obliged to admit that there is an enormous vacuum in alternative vision, political organization, and leadership. My own view is that social change is inevitable. People will not accept to live and die poor while a limited few with political power and connections enjoy opulent lives in one of the poorest countries in the world. Change can and should be stimulated and led by Ethiopia’s youth, the middle class, and poor resident within the country, with those in the Diaspora providing the requisite material, intellectual and diplomatic support.

Recent experience shows that, in any uprising, the governing party in Ethiopia will react mercilessly and cruelly against citizens irrespective of nationality or age configuration. TPLF and EPRDF supporters genuinely believe that the only way to maintain peace, stability, and security in the country is through brute force that will compel the defense establishment to take sides. This argument, they feel, appeals to Western backers of the regime. Unlike Egypt, my sense is that the politicized and ethnicized defense establishment will defend the regime and Constitution. If you are among those like me who receives some of the most asinine e-mails from hard-core defenders of the TPLF/EPRDF regime, you will appreciate the fact that the top leaders of the government do not believe in negotiation and compromise. They believe in continued dominance of the political and economic system indefinitely. While those who want peaceful change draw hope and inspiration from the Egyptian and Tunisian youth-led and people anchored revolutions, realists, me among them, say that the two countries are different from Ethiopia. They contend rightly that the TPLF/EPRDF regime headed by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is much closer to Libya, Syria, and Yemen than Egypt or Tunisia. Just see continued assaults and atrocities on innocent civilians in these countries and deduct implications for Ethiopian society. The TPLF’s basic documents on the economic front reveal how far it has come in negating its own commitment to the Ethiopian people, reinforcing the contending view that its primary objective was not to serve the entire population but to capture political power and with it to assert dominance over the national economy and its natural resources. For example, a newly released document of the TPLF “meglecha” written in Yekatit 1968 Ethiopian calendar states the TPLF will pursue “land reform and bring all of the commanding heights of the economy under national or state control for the benefit of all of the Ethiopian people.” What did it do instead? It transferred national resources from the society to the party and to its core supporters. It invited foreign investors to take over the manufacturing sectors and the most arable lands of the society. It created a corrupt system that facilitates the transfer of billions of dollars out of the country.  IN short, political capture of the state led to economic capture of the commanding heights of the national economy. 5/

Accordingly, I would conclude that the objective conditions that trigger popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt are similar to those that prevail in Ethiopia. At the same time, I appreciate substantial and substantive differences between Ethiopia on the one hand and Egypt and Tunisia. In Part two of this series, I will identify and diagnose North African and Middle Eastern popular uprisings that come closer to the Ethiopian reality.

*Aklog Birara, PhD is a former Senior Advisor with the World Bank Group. His forthcoming book, The Ethiopian Great Land Giveaway will shed light on yemeret neteka ena kirimit and its implications for the country. [email protected]