For over two hundred seventy five weeks, without missing a single week, I have written long expository commentaries on the deeds and misdeeds of the man who has been at the helm of power in Ethiopia for over two decades. Meles Zenawi has now passed on. The cause of his death remains a closely guarded state secret.
There is little I can say about what Meles has done or not done in death that I have not said in life. But his death saddens me, because as John Donne said, “Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind. Death comes equally to us all, and makes us all equal when it comes.” As a committed human rights advocate, even the death of a tyrant diminishes me because I am involved in the cause of humanity– justice, fairness, equality, dignity, benevolence, compassion, forgiveness, honesty, integrity and magnanimity.
I bid Meles farewell not in words of lamentation or grievance but in words that record lost opportunities yet express hope, optimism and confidence in the future of Ethiopia.
Meles Zenawi was a man who had an appointment with destiny. Fate had chosen him to play a historic role in Ethiopia and beyond. He was one of the leaders of a rebel group that fought and defeated a brutal military dictatorship that had been in power for 17 years. In victory, Meles promised democracy, respect for democratic liberties and development. But as the years wore on, Meles became increasingly repressive, intolerant of criticism and in the end became as tyrannical as the tyrant he had replaced. In his last years, he created a police state reinforced by a massive security network of spies and surveillance technology. He criminalized press freedom and civil society institutions. He crushed dissent and all opposition. He spread fear and loathing that penetrated the remotest parts of the countryside. For over 21 years, Meles clutched the scepter of power in his hands and cast away the sword of justice he held when he marched into the capital from the bush in 1991. Meles was feared, disliked and demonized by his adversaries. He was loved, admired, idealized and idolized by his supporters. In the end, Meles died a man who had absolute power which had corrupted him absolutely. In his relentless pursuit of absolute power, Meles missed his appointment with destiny to become a peerless and exemplary Ethiopian leader.
But who was the Meles Zenawi we saw morphing from a promising democrat into a flagitious dictator over the past 21 years? Who was the man we accuse of human rights violations and crimes against humanity? Who was the man we blame for the stillbirth of democracy in Ethiopia and the creation of “an African police state” as CNN recently characterized it? Is he alone responsible for the suffering and woe that have befallen that poor nation? Perhaps some may be surprised to hear one of Meles’ severest critics in life raising such questions in his death. But the truth must be told.
We created and nurtured Meles over the past 21 years. We were his aiders and abettors. We share responsibility in his deeds and misdeeds. “We” are the great nations who lionized and gave billions of dollars to Meles every year even as we meticulously documented his massive record of human rights violations year after year. “We” are the members of the political party that controls 99.6 percent of the seats in parliament who rubber-stamped his repressive laws that criminalized journalists and civil society organizations and made “terrorists” out of our best and brightest youth. “We” are the judges who made a travesty of justice by subverting the halls of justice into kangaroo courts. “We” are the soldiers, police and security operatives who used our guns on innocent civilians. “We” are the civil servants who stood at Meles’ beck and call and did his bidding unquestioningly. “We” are the journalists for state media who covered up and justified his violations of human rights. “We” are the businessmen and women who profited from official corruption to line our pockets. “We” are the young men and women who signed up for party membership to access opportunities in a system we knew to be corrupt. “We” are Ethiopia’s intellectuals who chose not to stand up to Meles or stand up for principle. “We” are the opposition party leaders who bickered, quarreled and quibbled when millions looked up to us to lead us on the shining path to democracy. “We” are the Ethiopian Diaspora who kept silent, turned a deaf ear, muted lips and blind eyes as ordinary Ethiopians were subjected to extrajudicial killings, dissidents and critics jailed and political prisoners tortured and abused. “We” are the individuals who could have said or done something when Meles did wrong but chose to remain silent. The truth must be told. None of us can wash off our hands the sins of silence, complicity and indifference over the past twenty-one years. So “We” all should be mindful that when we point an index finger at Meles, three fingers are pointing at ourselves.
Meles was an exceedingly ambitious man who understood power, but only the dark side of power. He could not come to terms with the truth that real power comes from the consent of the people and must be exercised in accordance with the principle of the rule of law. He held the power of life and death, but used it more for the latter. He was the policeman, judge, jury and executioner. He was the law, and his will was the law of the land. Meles was blinded to the fact that with great power comes great responsibility. He scorned the idea that those who hold power must temper it with compassion, justice and tolerance. But having absolute power made Meles feel absolutely invincible, indestructible, indomitable and unconquerable. He missed his appointment with destiny.
Meles could have been a peerless and exemplary leader in Ethiopia and in Africa. Many of the world’s dictators in history were great leaders. Their “greatness” came from their brutal subjugation of their people. But exemplary leaders achieve greatness because they are loved, revered and cherished by their people. Their greatness comes from their openness of heart, mind and soul. Nelson Mandela is a peerless and exemplary leader embraced by the entire world even though he was in office for four years and spent much of his adult life languishing in Apartheid prisons. Today he is seen as an icon of humanity. What makes Mandela an exemplary leader is not his charisma, oratory, organizing or administrative skills. Mandela was concerned about people, not power. Mandela’s first and foremost concern was dignity, the dignity of all South Africans and the dignity of all humanity. Mandela became a peerless leader because he took a single seed of love from his heart and planted in the arid soil of racial hate and watered it with goodwill, patience and tolerance. When the world wagered on a bloodbath in South Africa, in six years Mandela brought black and white South Africans together and baptized them in the holy water of truth and reconciliation. Today South Africa is a shining example of a multiracial society with its own imperfections.
Meles had an appointment with destiny to walk in Mandela’s shoes and follow in his footsteps. He could have forged a strong and united Ethiopian nation. He had the chance to build bridges that connected people across ethnic lines, roads that linked hearts and minds. But he chose the path of ethnic division and fragmentation. He chose to build edifices to decorate the cities, roads that led to nowhere and dams that damned the people and gave away the land to foreigners for pennies in the name of development and investment. Meles missed his appointment with destiny to forge a united Ethiopian nation.
Meles had an appointment with destiny to become not only a peerless and exemplary leader bust also a compassionate one. He was a man with an iron will, which was also his undoing. He was quick to anger and intemperate in his disposition. He was unkind to those over whom he had total control. When he jailed Birtukan Midekssa in December 2008, he said, “there will never be an agreement with anybody to release Birtukan. Ever. Full stop. That’s a dead issue.” Birtukan had done nothing wrong. When he denied an incubator for the premature baby of internationally-acclaimed husband and wife journalists, Serkalem Fasil and Eskinder Nega, born in prison, he showed himself lacking in fundamental human decency. When he told American diplomats that “we will crush the opposition with all our might”, he revealed himself to be a ruthless man. Whenever it was in his power to show mercy, he chose vengeance. Like Mandela, by working with his adversaries, Meles could have made them his partners and eventually his friends. He missed his appointment with destiny.
Meles had an appointment with destiny to uplift the people of Ethiopia not only materially but also in their sense of self-dignity, personal autonomy and security. Meles believed “there is no direct relationship between economic growth and democracy historically or theoretically.” But there can be no sustainable development where people are denied basic rights and are forced to resort to violence, conflict and war. The essence of humanity is dignity. It is not all about filling the belly. It is true that a hungry man is an angry man, but a hungry man hungers not only for bread but also for freedom and self-dignity. The poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich crave dignity about all else, even food. Over a quarter of a century ago, a Western reporter covering the famine in Ethiopia was stunned to find out that the famine victims at a relief center did not fight over the little bit of food that was being distributed among them. He was deeply touched by the fact that the famine victims would rather die in quiet dignity than fight their fellow victims to get a piece of bread. But dignity comes in many forms: the freedom to speak, to think, to worship, to assemble, to petition for grievances, and most importantly, freedom from fear of one’s government. Meles believed man can live by bread alone and single-mindedly championed and worshipped brick and mortar projects. He missed his appointment with destiny.
Meles was not a forgiving or a tolerant man. He was inclined to pardon once in a while when it was convenient, but not to forgive. He held the pardon he gave out as the Sword of Damocles over the heads of his pardonees. He always let them know that he could revoke his pardon and throw them back in jail at will. He preferred confrontation to negotiation, imposition of his will to compromise. He had a need to win all the time and played zero sum games. Meles missed his appointment with destiny.
Meles was a man who never admitted making mistakes. It did not seem to occur to him that he could admit mistakes and ask forgiveness for deeds done in error or take actions to correct mistakes. He could never bring himself to utter the phrases “I made a mistake” or “I am sorry.” When asked about the deaths of some 200 protesters and wounding of nearly 800 in the aftermath of the 2005 elections, his response was numbingly bureaucratic, “I regret the deaths but these were not normal demonstrations. You don’t see hand grenades thrown at normal demonstrations.” As the evidence presented by Meles’ own Inquiry Commission showed, none of the demonstrators were armed let alone carry grenades. Meles never explained and never said he was sorry for those deaths. I was transformed from an indifferent armchair academic into a resolute human rights advocate because of those killings.
Following the killings of hundreds of people in Gambella, Meles issued a whitewash report. He denied the occurrence of any human rights violations in the Ogaden, Afar and Oromia regions. He often showed conduct unbecoming of a statesman whenever others pointed out his mistakes. When his opponents challenged his policies, he called them “dirty”, “mud dwellers”, “pompous egotists” and good-for-nothing “chaff” and “husk.” He humiliated and demeaned parliamentarians who challenged him with probing questions or disagreed with him. He characterized the work of the European Union election observers in the 2010 election as “garbage”. He described the Voice of America as the voice of genocide similar to one of the infamous Rwandan radio stations in the mid-1990s. He never apologized to those he had wronged.
Meles insisted on being right all the time. He did not seem to believe that he can learn from his mistakes and failures. Meles once acknowledged he may have made a mistake. Responding to a journalist’s question about Diaspora Ethiopians protesting his overseas visits, Meles said, “We may be at fault in some way. I am sorry. That maybe we didn’t communicate well enough to those Ethiopians living abroad what is happening, what we are doing here.” He missed his appointment with destiny by failing to effectively communicate with Diaspora Ethiopians.
Meles could have been an exemplary leader if he had upheld the rule of law. He often talked about “our Constitution” and the rule of law but rarely followed either. He was the object of relentless criticism by all international human rights organizations for disregarding Ethiopia’s Constitution and international human rights treaties and conventions. Every year, the U.S. State Department Human Rights Report documented massive human rights violations as did so many other international human rights organizations. But he was dismissive of such reports. For the Meles regime, human rights organizations were “highly frustrated and self-appointed kingmaker institutions in the U.S.” bent on “tarnishing the image of the country.” He missed his appointment with destiny.
Meles was a man with a mission. He confused mission with vision. He spoke of an “Ethiopian Renaissance” and some say he “wanted to restore Ethiopia to its former glory”. But many doubted his motives and even his true allegiance to the country. In his speech on the Ethiopian millennium in 2007, he lamented the fact that “at the dawn of the new millennium, ours is one of the poorest countries in the world.” But he was reassuring: “A thousand years from now, when Ethiopians gather to welcome the fourth millennium, they shall say the eve of the third millennium was the beginning of the end of the dark ages in Ethiopia.” Sadly, many before him have been driven by the same impulse to resurrect ancient glory. They failed in Berlin and Rome over one-half century ago and more recently in Tripoli and Bagdad. Though they built roads, dams and magnificent edifices and waged war, they were all consigned to the dustbin of history.
Our Appointment With Destiny
We the living now have a new appointment with destiny. But before we keep our appointment, we must face the truth and come to terms with Meles’ legacy. The truth is that the faults and vices we ascribe to Meles are not his alone. We have been known to hunger and lust for power, to put our partisan interests above the common good, to manifest dictatorial impulses even when we are out of power, trade principle for convenience and self-interest, behave with intolerance, become condemnatory instead of conciliatory, deny making mistakes and above all find every excuse not to say, “I am sorry” when we make mistakes. We cannot right Meles’ wrongs until we acknowledge our own.
Condemning the memory of Meles as we move forward will serve no purpose. It will only continue the tradition of grievance and victimhood and culture of antagonism. Meles’ legacy should not be that he continues to rule from grave. We must learn the right lessons from his 21-year rule and move forward to heal the open wounds of fear, loathing and antagonism. There is no need to perpetuate historic hatreds. We must strive for love, wisdom and compassion towards one another. Now that Meles has passed, we can all put Mandela’s shoes, put our noses to the grind stone and together build an Ethiopia on a solid foundation of the rule of law, respect for human rights and democracy. The question we now face is clear: Will we also miss our appointment with destiny?
Beginning earlier this year, I have been writing about “Ethiopia’s inevitable transition from dictatorship to democracy”. I have outlined various scenarios on what could happen during the transition. Today the dictatorship of one man in Ethiopia is over, but dictatorship itself is alive and well. To complete the transition to democracy and make our appointment with destiny, we must take resolute steps to begin a national dialogue for reconciliation. As we prepare for this dialogue, we must make the release of all political prisoners and repeal of the oppressive “anti-terrorism and civic society” laws job number one.
On the Road to Good Governance and Democracy
I have relentlessly chronicled the deeds and misdeeds of Meles Zenawi for some years now. I had nothing personal against the man. I never knew him. But I have followed and studied his politics, actions and speeches. I have disagreed with him on practically everything because I have been tunnel-visioned on human rights. My singular cause is human rights in Ethiopia. I got involved in Ethiopian human rights following the massacre of unarmed protesters in the aftermath of the 2005 elections. I have looked at Meles’ deeds and misdeeds through the prism of human rights. I am an ardent human rights advocate and if that be a fault, I proudly embrace it.
I believe Meles had an appointment with destiny to live and die as a hero and make the whole country his tomb. His epitaph could have recorded great deeds inscribed not on granite but enshrined in the hearts of his countrymen and women. As a human rights advocate, I am pained to think of Meles’ legacy in the dark vision of the victims of the 2005 massacres, the subhuman prisons that warehouse the hundreds of thousands of political prisoners, the courts which became political tools, the subversion of the rule of law and so on.
I have sought for some signs that Meles at least believed in human rights in the abstract. I shall give him the benefit of doubt that he did. In an interview with Al Jazeera in 2007, Meles said, “I’d hope that my legacy would be one of sustained and accelerated development that would pull Ethiopia out of the massive deep poverty that it was mired in, full and total stabilization of the country, radical improvements in terms of good governance and democracy. I’d hope by the time I retire, we’d have made significant strides in all of those in the future.” By the time of his death in 2012, the “radical improvements in terms of good governance and democracy” had seen a radical regression into tyranny and despotism. The “future” Meles spoke of is now. We should all work collectively to implement his aspirations for “radical improvements in terms of good governance and democracy” now. This is Meles’ legacy his surviving officials should acknowledge openly and work with others to implement as the ultimate tribute to Meles’ leadership. The “radical improvement in good governance and democracy” begins with the release of all political prisoners, repeal of antiterrorism and civil society and other oppressive laws and declaration of allegiance to the rule of law. As the Ethiopian new year is just around the corner, we can all begin afresh on the road to “radical improvements in good governance and democracy”.
I wish I would have been able to deliver a eulogy that celebrated Meles’ two-decade old tenure in power; to speak of a man who was a hero in life and in death; a man for whom men, women and children flooded the streets of their own free will to express heart felt sorrow and shed tears. I wish I could have spoken of a man who made his appointment with destiny and became a peerless and exemplary leader. The greatest homage I can pay Meles in death as one of his severest critics in life is to uphold and defend his vision of “radical improvements in terms of good governance and democracy” in Ethiopia.
Meles once told a journalist that “if Ethiopians thought he [was a dictator] I would not sleep at night. But I don’t believe they do.” But I am afraid the very last words Meles heard before he fell “asleep” were the words of a young Ethiopian journalist. In response to a question on whether he ever imagined he would be in power for so long, Meles was reflective: “That was clearly not what I expected. It’s happened. I don’t regret it but I just hope that, at the end of it all, it will have been worth it.” I sincerely hope it was all worth it for him.
Let others speak of Meles as a “visionary” leader, “an African leader of major historical significance” and write his glorious hagiography. I shall bid him farewell by paraphrasing Shakespeare in Julius Caesar.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Meles, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
And so,
Friends, Ethiopians, countrymen and women, lend me your ears;
Last week, The Economist Magazine rhetorically inquired, “What if Mr. Meles goes for good?” Shouldn’t the question be, “Is it not good for Ethiopia if Mr. Meles goes for good?”
Those who know where Mr. Meles has gone are not talking; and those who are talking don’t know where he has gone. But everyone knows dictator Meles Zenawi has completely vanished from public view. He was last seen at the G20 meeting in Mexico on June 19. He looked gaunt and debilitated. On July 18, an Agence France Press report citing “several diplomatic sources” reported that Zenawi is a goner “in a critical state” at a hospital in Belgium and he “might not survive”. Ethiopian Satellite Television (ESAT), citing an anonymous source at the International Crisis Group (ICG), reported that Zenawi is dead and gone. ICG issued an opaque denial stating that it had “no direct knowledge” of Zenawi’s “health” or death. In a staged interview with party-controlled media on August 1, Zenawi’s spinmesiter and “communication minister”, Bereket Simon, declared “the prime minister’s health is in very good condition.” Last week, Simon said Zenawi will be back before the Ethiopian New Year which is usually celebrated on September 11. In my last commentary, I argued that Zenawi should be declared AWOL and formally removed because he has been gone absent from office without constitutional leave.
It is ironic that absolute silence should be the ultimate fate of the man The Economist described as “‘the voice of Africa’”. For over two decades, the garrulous and bombastic Zenawi used words like a surgical knife to filet, slice, dice and shred his opponents and critics. He tongue-lashed his parliamentarians like a bully at a children’s reformatory school. But the “voice of Africa” has now become voiceless himself just like the 90 million Ethiopians he had rendered voiceless. Pitiful party hacks have become his mouthpieces. They say he will be back in a jiffy. Why doesn’t Zenawi show his face if he is in “very good condition”? How come there is no photo or video of him in “very good condition”? If he cannot be seen, can’t he release a 30-second audio tape sayin’ he awright? Out of sight, out of mind?
The evidence that “Mr. Meles is gone for good” is compelling and unrefuted. Other than empty assurances by Zenawi’s spinmeisters, substantial evidence is lacking to prove Zenawi is alive or sentient. Rene Lefort in a recent article noted, “The widespread conviction shared by most diplomats and experts is that, whether Meles is dead or alive, he is no longer in charge and never will be again, so the candidacy for his succession is open.” For all practical purposes, Mr. Meles is gone or he is just as good as gone!
But so “What if Mr. Meles goes for good?” Or comes back? Or stays? Or whatever? Tin pot dictators come and go in Africa and the Middle East like the plague. Over the past year and half, people have been asking, “What if Gadhafi, Ben Ali, Mubarak, Ali Saleh, Gbagbo… are gone for good?” Well, they are all gone for good and life has gotten better every day they have been gone. What if Bashar al-Assad, Robert Mugabe… are gone for good? What happened after Charles Taylor, Mobutu Sese Seko, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Idi Amin, Mengistu Hailemariam … were gone?”
“What if Mr. Meles is Gone for Good?”
For some time now, I have been wrestling with the question, “What if African dictator X is gone?” In January 2011, in a commentary entitled, “After the Fall of African Dictatorships”, I noted that I did not know what happens the day African dictators are gone, but was reasonably sure what happens the day after they are gone: “The fact is that the morning after the fall of Africa’s dictators, the people will be stuck with a ransacked economy, emptied national banks, empty store shelves, torture chambers full of political prisoners and dithering and power-hungry opposition leaders jockeying for position in the middle of political chaos.” This past April I cautioned, “The chaos that occurs on the transitional bridge from dictatorship to democracy [in Ethiopia] creates the ideal conditions for the hijacking of political power, theft of democracy and the reinstitution of dictatorship in the name of democracy.”
Over the past two decades, Zenawi accumulated power by fermenting a toxic brew of ethnic politics, corruption and repression. He transformed an oligarchic authoritarian system (so-called collective leadership) into a ruthless neopatrimonial personal dictatorship (those directly hooked into Zenawi’s power grid) by continuously and systematically purging those he suspected of disloyalty and opposition. He cunningly wiped out many of his comrades-in-arms who did the heavy lifting and bush fighting to bring him to power. He surrounded himself with new allies, friends, business partners and party members who made it possible for him to survive and prevail without much internal or external challenge. At the time of his disappearance, Zenawi had become invincible, Il Duce Supremo (“The Supreme Leader”).
But like all dictators, Zenawi never thought he would be “gone”. He likely believed he would rule with an iron fist for one-half century like Fidel Castro or at least 30 plus years like Mugabe. If he had to go, he likely believed he would go on his own time, terms and in grand style. From time to time, he titillated the public by hinting he might step down (in 2015 if his party lets him), but he fully expected to be the grand puppet master behind the throne pulling the strings for decades to come. If the hubristic Zenawi ever thought he would be gone from office, it was likely that he believed the cause would a mass uprising. Little did he understand one of the fundamental laws of dictatorships: When dictators go, they go pretty damn quick. Ben Ali of Tunisia was gone in days. Hosni Mubarak in weeks. Gadhafi in months. A whole slew of African dictators over the past six years were gone in a flash from a variety of illnesses.
Zenawi never considered grooming a successor and risk being upstaged. No dictator worth his salt would groom his replacement and unloose his rivals and opponents. Designating a successor is the most dangerous thing any dictator could do because doing so could stir the pot and agitate the beehive. But it is the very absence of an heir apparent or a successor that has plunged Zenawi’s ruling party in a jam now. The shadowy power brokers are in deep political turmoil today as they try to choose Zenawi’s replacement. But regardless of whether Zenawi goes or stays, his neopatrimonial system is crumbling and doomed. As a result, his friends, cronies, party leaders and members, supporters, bureaucrats and generals are in a state of panic and high anxiety.
“What if…?”
Zenawi (does not) returns? Those who know where Zenawi has gone are not talking; and those who are talking don’t know. Seeye Abraha, former defense minister and co-founder of the liberation front that brought Zenawi to power recently implied Zenawi is gone for good when he noted that Zenawi “will be leaving very big boots that cannot be filled by anyone else.” Seeye is right. In a 2009 weekly commentary, I described Zenawi as “a dictator with a thousand faces”. No one in the ruling party has Zenawi’s combination of Machiavellian cunning and craftiness, defiant willpower, stony cold-bloodedness or bottomless capacity for intrigue and chicanery. As the old saying goes, one has to give the devil his due. No one in Zenawi’s party can match his intelligence, intellectual agility, shrewdness or plain street smarts. Zenawi stayed in power for 21 years by outwitting, outfoxing, outsmarting, outmaneuvering, outpoliticking, outtricking, outfinessing and outplaying not only every one of his opponents but also rivals in his own party. But he had his own contradictions. He had sharp intellect but lacked insight; he had ideas but lacked vision; he was smart but not judicious; he was shrewd but not perceptive; he was single-minded in his goals but pursued them obtusely. He was driven but lacked conscience or compassion. He pursued politics with depraved indifference. He was a man of many vices and few virtues. He suffered the character flaws of those malignant and vengeful Shakespearean characters “consumed with venomous malice”, addicted to “unmitigated villainy” and deaf-mute to every appeal of humanity.
The fact remains that it really does not matter if Zenawi is gone for good (or for bad), comes back temporarily or whatever. Zenawi has been “gone” for good since May 18 at the G8 Food Security Conference in Washington D.C. That day, with his head bowed and his spirit totally crushed, the last ounce of fight left in Zenawi left him. If he should return, he will be merely a shell of the former Zenawi. The old cocky, self-absorbed and snarly Zenawi is gone forever. The recycled Zenawi, if there is one, will be a defeated, defanged, declawed, debeaked and decrowned version of the old Zenawi. That is just a fact. Zenawi’s handlers may fool themselves into believing that “absence makes the heart grow fonder”; but in Zenawi’s case, absence has made him irrelevant. Any fantasies about his return to power with his former glory is ludicrous, pointless, senseless and mindless. The odds are Zenawi ain’t never coming back! He is gone for good!
The “status quo” continues. Spinmeister Simon in his last press statement said, “The status quo is maintained – there is no change and there will be no change in the near future.” Simon talks much but says nothing. It was not clear what he meant by “status quo” but the current situation is murky: There is an AWOL “prime minster”. The “deputy prime minister” is invisible. There is a shadowy group of power brokers scheming behind the scenes to find Zenaiw’s replacement. The power and leadership vacuum is manifest. There is total confusion and cynicism in the country about who is minding the store. The only silver lining in the dark cloud shrouding Zenawi’s disappearance is the public euphoria that the two decade-old one-man, one-party dictatorship nightmare could have ended with Zenwai gone. As the charade of “collective leadership” is played out in Zenawi’s circle of power, the “status quo” continues.
In February 2010, Eskinder Nega (my friend and personal hero), the ultimate symbol of press freedom in Ethiopia, using as a backdrop the May 2010 “election” in which Zenawi’s party won by 99.6 percent, crystal-balled the inevitable implosion of the ruling “EPDRF” party and sketched out the qualifications of the motley crew of droll characters standing in line as Zenawi’s heirs-apparent to the throne (I strongly recommend Eskinder’s article [Click here] to anyone interested in grasping the current palace intrigue in Ethiopia; last month Zenawi jailed Eskinder, winner of the prestigious PEN America Freedom to Write Award for 2012, and arguably the most outstanding journalist of his generation, for 18 years):
Scratch beyond the surface and the EPRDF is really not the monolithic dinosaur as it is most commonly stereotyped. If what defines an organization is the unique amalgam of its history, quality of leadership, cohesion, grass root presence, vision, and perhaps even its luck, then the EPRDF, fast approaching its twentieth year, has evolved in to a coalition of four distinct phenomenon: the increasing confusion of the dominant TPLF; the acute cynicism of the ANDM; the desperate nihilism of the OPDO and the inevitable irrelevance of the incongruent SEPM…
A nasty, but so far bloodless, backstage interplay of these dynamics in what is now a battle to succeed Meles Zenawi has inaudibly developed in to a real threat to the cohesion of the EPRDF, arguably more dangerous than the electoral threat posed by its opponents. We now know that disaster was only averted this year with the extension of Meles’ term in office—-something he had always counted on, according to diplomats—-but this has yet to result in the much anticipated—-or rather, hoped for—ceasefire between two bickering claimants to the throne—OPDO and ANDM….
By contrast, the EPRDF is clearly a hierarchal organization with a singular power at the top in Meles Zenawi and subsequent levels of delegated power beneath him. Though collective leadership is formally acknowledged, it has no relevance in practice…
But the question remains if the prestige and power of EPRDF’s chairperson will endure after Meles. Both the OPDO and the ANDM are betting on it, but none of the EPRDF’s four constituent members have been able to come up with a political heavyweight remotely capable of ensuring a seamless transition…
Bereket Simon, whose support is generally deemed critical to the eventual successor, was instrumental in marshaling pressure for Meles’ term extension, but his considerable influence is expected to wane once Meles eventually leaves the limelight. His health notwithstanding, Bereket is still, along with Meles, EPRDF’s dynamo, his clear genius for intrigue a cause of much resentment both inside and outside the EPRDF…
The enigma of this drama is the role of Sebhat Nega, the king maker two of decades ago whose backing was vital for Meles’ accession to the helm of the TPLF. The side he chose at the climax of the fallout between Meles and Seye Abraha et al was no less crucial for the final outcome. Sebaht has chosen to leave TPLF’s politburo but remains a member of the CC. But both count for much less since the departure of Seye Abraha et al, his continued influence has more to do with his access and the propensity of Meles to listen to him. Most pundits are puzzled about his stance on the succession issue, but almost all agree that the side he chooses will be considerably emboldened..
An apparatchik or party hack is installed as “prime minister”. It is likely that the palace intriguists could broker a deal and install a relatively benign party hack who could serve, defend and protect their interests. The names of the party apparatchiks that have been leaked as part of a trial balloon are pitiful. They all lack political experience, professional competence, charisma and leadership qualities and are unlikely to appeal to members in their own party let alone have national appeal. Regardless, if a replacement for Zenawi is chosen from the ranks of the inner closed circle of the ruling party, that person will be selected for his unquestioning loyalty to the shadowy power brokers, and not for his competence or leadership qualities. But such dilemma is a common and inherent problem in all dictatorships. The pattern of leadership recruitment in dictatorships overemphasizes loyalty over competence which makes transition and succession difficult and chaotic.
An emergency is contrived and martial law declared. As the internal structure of the ruling party inevitably fractures, it will likely create ideal conditions for mass resistance and uprisings. The evidence so far shows that the regime is aggressively using its police and paramilitary forces to crush citizens demanding an end to state interference in religious affairs. As the regime faces more organized and defiant and potentially violent opposition, it will use the military to deal with such threats. The power brokers could just as easily trigger a war with a neighboring country to consolidate power. But use of the military could ultimately prove to be a double-edged sword. Dependence on a multiethnic, multi-religious army could backfire. The very military that enables a dictatorial regime to suppress its opposition could easily turn against the dictatorship itself.
The current “deputy prime minister” is elected as “prime minster” (PM).As I have demonstrated in a previous commentary, under Article 75 of the Ethiopian Constitution, the deputy prime minister is a political puppet of the PM. The DPM cannot constitutionally succeed the PM temporarily or permanently. The best bet for the power brokers is to orchestrate the “election” of the current “DPM” as “PM” because it’s only through him that they have any hope of maintaining their chokehold on power. The current DPM simply does not have a sufficient support base in the party structure, bureaucracy, military, civic society, economic structure, etc. to be able to act independently. He is the only viable lifeline the scheming power brokers and palace intriguists have to power.
Begin a national dialogue for power sharing and transition to democracy. In one of my commentaries in April, I predicted the foreseeable end of dictatorship and the beginning of a democratic transition in Ethiopia (though I did not expect Zenawi to be “gone” so quickly) and called for an immediate national dialogue on specific issues:
We need to plan for the inevitable, inescapable and unstoppable transition of Ethiopia from dictatorship to democracy. Dictatorship will end in Ethiopia. It is only a matter of when. Democracy will also rise in Ethiopia. It is a matter of how and what type. The point is that it necessary to begin a purposeful dialogue and plan ahead about theprerequisites for an effective and smooth transition to democratic governance now, not when the dictatorship falls. I believe dialogue needs to begin now on at least four major issue areas: 1) how to engage and increase the capacity of key stakeholders in identifying potential triggers of violence during political transitions and preventing them; 2) identifying and devising strategies and opportunities for reducing ethnic, religious and communal tension and conflict in anticipation of a transition; 3) enhancing the role of civil society institutions in facilitating public engagement and interaction during the transitional period, and 4) anticipating critical constitutional issues that could significantly impair the transitional process.
Ultimately, the question should be not be, “What if Mr. Meles goes for good?” but rather, “Is it not good — just great — for Ethiopia if Mr. Meles is gone for good?” But the best question is, “How can we make Ethiopia better after Mr. Meles is gone for good?”
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at: http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic and http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24
Previous commentaries by the author are available at:
http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/ and www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/
What happens when a “prime minister” goes AWOL? That is, absent without constitutional leave of absence. Dictator Meles Zenawi has disappeared from public view for several weeks now. He was last seen in public on June 19 at the G20 Summit in Mexico. His disappearing act has provided more grist for speculation and caused pained and grimaced official obfuscation.
On July 19, in a rambling, disjointed and incoherent press statement, Zenawi’s spinmesiter and “communication minister”, Bereket Simon, stonewalled any information on Zenawi’s health and whereabouts by offering a cryptic and manifestly dubious explanation. Simon said Zenawi was receiving medical care for some undisclosed minor health problem at some undisclosed location. The cause of Zenawi’s health problem is alleged to be exhaustion resulting from long public service. Simon’s statement strangely suggested that Zenawi was simultaneously at a medical facility and a Club Med-type vacation spot. Simon assured the public that Zenawi will return to his duties shortly.
“Deputy prime minister” Hailemariam Desalegn chimed in with the inane observation that “There is no serious illness at all. It’s minor only. As any human being, he has to get medication and he’ll be coming back soon.”
Of course, the overwhelming majority of Ethiopian human beings get no medication whatsoever when they face “serious illness”. Anyway, what exactly is Zenawi’s “not serious illness”? What kind of medication is Zenawi getting? How soon is soon for Zenawi to return to office?
Bereket Simon put on a nice act at the press conference; but his body language betrayed his words. Simon wore a morose face as he monologued his way through his rehearsed statement. His physical gestures showed all of the forensic signs of a suspect under extreme stress fudging the truth. He was manifestly tense and visibly preoccupied. His demeanor was combative, his posture defensive and his words evasive. He was manifestly uncomfortable answering questions about Zenawi. He fidgeted and wiggled his fingers, occasionally gesturing. He squirmed and sat rigidly folding his arms. He avoided eye contact with his questioners. His responses to press questions were repetitive and robotic. He spoke softly and slowly but his words were calculated, halting, artful and guileful. He tried to project the appearance of being forthcoming while actually providing very little substantive information. In other words, Simon windbagged and sandbagged at the press conference but did not say much that was informative. It was obvious that Simon was not coming clean with the real deal about Zenawi’s situation. Was Simon hiding or covering up something? Simon and Co., may expect us to believe their cock and bull story about a vacationing Zenawi, but we know when we are lied to, deceived, duped, hoodwinked, misled and bamboozled.
In a staged interview with a member of party-controlled media on August 1, Simon continued to stonewall release of any meaningful information on Zenawi’s health or whereabouts. Simon said, “the prime minister’s health is in very good condition. The medical treatment and rest have improved his health. He is in a much better health condition than before.” Simon did not say where Zenawi is getting medical treatment, the nature of his illness and the health improvements he gained over the past couple of weeks, or when he is expected to be back in office.
Bereket Simon accused Ethiopian Satellite Television (ESAT), without naming it, of engaging in a “campaign of spreading massive lies and hearsay” about Zenawi. He alleged that ESAT had falsely cited ICJ (sic) [ICG- International Crises Group] as its source of information on the demise of Zenawi which, according to Simon, the ICG had denied. Simon, in characteristic manner, misstated the facts. What the ICG stated in its press release is quite different: “Crisis Group denies media reports about PM’s fate. International Crisis Group has no direct knowledge about the state of health of Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.” Any sophisticated reader knows that the phrase “no direct knowledge” is a term of art commonly used by journalists and researchers to protect their confidential sources. “No direct knowledge” simply means the “knowledge” the ICG has on Zenawi is not based on personal observation, direct investigation or surveillance but derived from reliable informant(s). In other words, the ICG does not have direct photographic or physical evidence of Zenawi’s health or fate, but it has indirect informant-based information. This elementary journalistic technique seems to have escaped Simon.
For all his sophistry and obfuscation, Simon seems conveniently oblivious of two simple questions and the old saying that a picture (that is not photoshopped) is worth a thousand words:
1) If Zenawi is in “very good condition”, why not release a photograph of him in that condition?
2) If Zenawi is getting rest and relaxation, why not release a picture of him “vegging out” on the beach or touring the museums?
The fact of the matter is that the last photograph and video of Zenawi taken in Mexico showed him to be in extremely bad condition. Instead of accusing the opposition of lying and exaggerating information about Zenawi’s health or alleged death, would it not be easier to put them all to shame by producing a one-minute video of Zenawi “in very good condition” taking a dip in the swimming pool or hanging out with four of his crew as reported in the last couple of days? Alternatively, how about one-minute audio tape of Zenawi telling the people that he is doing well and enjoying himself on vacation.
Is the “status quo” an AWOL “prime minster”, an invisible “deputy prime minister”, a shadowy group of power brokers scheming behind the scenes, a manifest power and leadership vacuum, total confusion and cynicism in the country or the two decade old one-man, one-party dictatorship? At the end of the day, “Stonewall” Simon and Co., will have to answer two questions:
Is Zenawi alive, dead, or has he simply gone AWOL?
Or is Zenawi now functioning in a new capacity as “absentee prime minister”?
What Can Be Done About a “Prime Minister” Gone AWOL?
The cumulative evidence unmistakably points to the fact that Zenawi is “absent” within the meaning of Article 72(b) of the Ethiopian Constitution which provides, “The Deputy Prime Minister shall… (b) act on behalf of the Prime Minister in his absence.” Zenawi was absent from the annual parliamentary session where the country’s budget was approved. Desalegn “acted on behalf of the prime minster” during that parliamentary session. There is evidence that Dessalegn has chaired “Council of Ministers” meetings, an act he can perform only in the “absence” of the “prime minister” under Article 72(b). Zenawi was absent from a scheduled NEPAD [New Partnership for Africa’s Development] conference held in Addis Ababa. Senegalese President, Macky Sall chaired the meeting on Zenawi’s behalf. Zenawi has completely vanished from public view for some 46 days. There is no date certain when Zenawi will be present in his office to resume his duties, a fact which points unmistakably to his “absence” from office.
The evasive, equivocating and misleading statements given by Simon and Dessalegn to the public on Zenawi’s diagnosis, treatment and prognosis provide clear and convincing evidence that Zenawi is not “present” in Ethiopia let alone functioning as a “prime minister”. The fact that Simon and Desalegn downplayed Zenawi’s illness as “minor” without revealing the diagnosis is not only manifestly absurd but also an admission of his “absence” due to serious illness. If Zenawi’s illness is indeed “minor” as Simon and Desalegn insist, they could simply state, for instance, that Zenawi is battling a nasty bout of the flu. The total lack of transparency, the shroud of secrecy and mystery in providing accurate and timely information on Zenawi’s health and whereabouts is compelling proof of Zenawi’s “absence”.
The key constitutional question about Zenawi’s “absence” is not whether he is in “good condition”, “recuperating”, “resting”, on vacation or if he plans to come back tomorrow, next week or next month. The dispositive question is whether Zenawi as “prime minister”, for whatever reason and for whatever length of time, is unable or disabled from performing the “powers and duties of the Prime Minister of the Federal Republic” under Article 74(1) (namely serving as “as head of government, chairman of the Council of Ministers and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces”) within the meaning of Article 75(b). All of the available evidence points to one, and only one, conclusion: Zenawi is not in a position to discharge his powers and duties under Article 74 and has left his office without constitutional leave of absence.
Are There Constitutional Remedies in the Case of an AWOL Prime Minister?
In light of the clear and convincing evidence that Zenawi is absent from office for purposes of Article 75 (b), can he be declared constitutionally AWOL? If such a declaration could be made, who has the constitutional power and duty to make it?
Article 72(2) prescribes, “The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are responsible to the House of Peoples’ Representatives [HPR].” The plain meaning of this provision is that the prime minister is ultimately accountable to the HPR. That accountability imposes, first and foremost, an affirmative duty on the “prime minister” to formally notify and provide the HPR with accurate, ongoing and complete information on his health and whereabouts. The available evidence indicates that netiher Zenawi nor his office has provided such information to the HPR.
Article 55(17) provides that the “House of Peoples’ Representatives has the power to call and to question the Prime Minister and other Federal officials and to investigate the Executive’s conduct and discharge of its responsibilities. Article 55(18) provides, “at the request of one-third of its members, [the House of Peoples’ Representatives] shall discuss any matter pertaining to the powers of the executive. It has, in such cases, the power to take decisions or measures it deems necessary.” (See also Art. 76(3).) Under Article 58(4), “the Speaker of the House may call a meeting of the House when it is in recess” to take up urgent business. The Speaker of the House is also obliged to call a meeting of the House at the request of “more than one-half of the members.”
Under the foregoing provisions of the Constitution, the HPR as a whole, or a subset of its members have the constitutional power to call and question the prime minster, deputy prime minster or any other federal officials to ascertain the exact whereabouts and health situation of Zenawi. The HPR has the power to investigate the actual circumstances surrounding Zenawi’s absence from office and complete disappearance from public view. Launching a formal inquiry into the absence of the “prime minister” is an affirmative obligation and unavoidable constitutional duty of the HPR. Such an inquiry can be initiated at the “request of one-third of [HPR] members” when in session, “more than one-half of the members” when the HPR is in recess and/or by the “Speaker of the House” sua sponte at any time.
There could be other constitutional mechanisms to ascertain and secure a declaration of “absence” under Article 75(b). It is possible for any “concerned” or “interested parties” to raise the issue of the “prime minister’s” “absence” as a constitutional matter and seek adjudicatory relief. Article 82 provides for a “Council of Constitutional Inquiry” (CI) and grants it the power to “to investigate constitutional disputes” and “submit its recommendations to the House of the Federation” pursuant to Article 83(1) which must “within thirty days of receipt, decide a constitutional dispute submitted to it by the Council of Constitutional Inquiry (CI).” Article 17 of the Council of Constitutional Inquiry Proclamation No 250/2001 affirms the CI’s investigatory powers and extends subject matter jurisdiction over “any law or decision given by any government organ or official which is alleged to be contradictory to the constitution…” To seek review in the CI under the Proclamation, a litigant need only be a “concerned party” (Art. 17 (3)) or an “interested party (Art. 20(1); e.g. individual, group, political party, etc.). Such a party can request “inquiry” and adjudication into the constitutionally unexcused “absence” of the “prime minister” from office under Article 75(b).
The “status quo” today, to use “Stonewall” Simon’s phrase, is that the “prime minister” is “absent” and the “deputy prime minster” cannot constitutionally succeed the absent “prime minister” under Article 75(b). As a result, the country has no “head of government” (Art. 74(1)) or a functioning constitutional executive branch. Given the urgent and pressing nature of the issue, a “concerned or interested party” should be able to seek expedited review by the CI. Alternatively, a “concerned or interested party” should be able to seek declaratory relief in the “Federal Supreme Court” which has “the highest and final judicial power over Federal matters” under Article 80. Since Article 75(b) raises an indisputable “Federal matter”, the “Federal Supreme Court” should properly exercise jurisdiction and determine whether the “prime minister” is “absent”.
A separate two-pronged constitutional challenge could also be advanced to determine the “absence” of the “prime minister” under subsection 1 of Article 12 of the Constitution which affirmatively requires “activities of government shall be undertaken in a manner which is open and transparent to the public.” The secrecy and shroud of mystery surrounding Zenawi’s whereabouts and health situation is contrary to the constitutional mandate of maintaining an “open and transparent” government. Transparency for purposes of Article 75(b) means providing accurate, complete, timely and ongoing information to the public on the status of the “prime minister” to discharge the duties of his office. The people are entitled to know if their “prime minister” is ill, the general nature of his illness, the general nature of the medical treatment he is receiving, where he is receiving such treatment, the general prognosis and his expected or anticipated date of his return to office and whether he is actually acting as “prime minister” under Article 74(1). For purposes of Article 72(2), transparency means providing accurate, complete, timely and ongoing information to the HPR. As a last resort, under subsection (3) of Article 12 the “people may recall any one of their representatives whenever they lose confidence in him.” A recall undertaking in Zenawi’s election district could also produce the answer to the question of whether Zenawi is “absent”.
“Simon Says…”
I have often said that talking constitutional law to Zenawi and crew is like preaching Scripture to a gathering of Heathen. All of the foregoing constitutional analysis will fall on deaf ears partly due to lack of constitutional comprehension by Zenawi and crew and mostly because they do not give a damn. They could not care less about the Constitution, the rule of law and the rest of it. Their 21-year record of trashing the principle of the rule of law proves that the Constitution to them is not worth the paper it is written on. But as someone who believes in the rule of law, I must defend the principle even in the face of seasoned and inveterate constitutional scofflaws.
Having said that, are we all ready to play the well-known children’s game called “Simon says…”? In that game, one player takes the role of “Simon” and issues instructions (usually physical actions such as “stand up” or “sit down”) to the other players. The instruction should only be followed if prefaced with the phrase “Simon says” as opposed to just making the statement. If a player follows an instruction that is not preceded with the phrase, “Simon says…”, the player is kicked out of the game. The object for the player acting as “Simon” is to get all of the other players kicked “out” of the game as quickly as possible. The winner of the game is the last player who has successfully followed all of the given commands. So “’Stonewall’ Simon says Zenawi will return to his office shortly.” “Zenawi is on vacation…” “Simon says Zenawi has gone AWOL…!!!”
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at: http://www.ethiopianreview.com/amharic/?author=57
Previous commentaries by the author are available at:
http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/ and www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/
In an interview I gave to the Voice of America Amharic program last week, I was asked to comment on the nature of constitutional succession in the event of death, disability, resignation, illness, incapacity or removal from power of the prime minster (PM) in Ethiopia. The answer I gave seems to have surprised, shocked, dismayed and appalled many. The Ethiopian Constitution makes no provisions for the orderly transfer of power in the event of a vacancy in the PM’s office. Simply stated, there is no constitutional process for succession of executive power in Ethiopia!
The issue of succession has become critical in light of the prolonged and mysterious absence of the current holder of PM’s office and the garbled official explanation for his complete disappearance from public view. Some Ethiopian opposition leaders have apparently argued for the installation of the deputy prime mister (DPM) as a constitutional successor to the PM or at least serve as acting PM until the final health status of the current holder of the PM’s office is established. Their argument is neither textually nor inferentially supported by any reasonable reading of the relevant provisions of the Ethiopian Constitution.
The office of the DPM is mentioned 4 times in the Ethiopian Constitution, three of which occur in Art. 75; and once in Article 76 in which the DPM is mentioned as a member of the Council of Ministers. Article 75 defines the totality of powers, duties and roles of the DPM:
1. The Deputy Prime Minister shall: (a) perform the duties assigned to him by the Prime Minister; (b) represent the Prime Minister in his absence. 2. The Deputy Prime Minister is accountable to the Prime Minister.
Under Article 75, the DPM is a political creature of the PM’s making, and not an actual constitutional officer with prescribed duties and functions. Unlike the PM (art. 73), the DPM is not “elected”, rather s/he is a mere political appointee who is selected by the PM. Whatever powers the DPM has comes directly and exclusively from the PM, and not the Constitution. The DPM “performs duties assigned by the prime minister” and has no independent or residual statutory or constitutional duties or powers. The PM directs the activities, functions and roles of the DPM as the PM sees fit. The DPM can be dismissed or replaced by the PM at any time. In short, the DPM’s office is in reality an empty constitutional shell — a make-believe office — devoid of any constitutional or statutory responsibilities.
It is important to examine the constitutional nature of the DPM’s office more closely to understand the enormity of the constitutional crisis facing Ethiopia today regardless of whether the current holder of the PM’s office returns to office. The DPM is constitutionally designated as the “representative” of the PM. The term “representative” in Article 75 does not have the same meaning as the term “representative” in the “Council of Representatives” whose members are “elected for a term of five years” with full authority to “represent” their constituencies (Article 58). The DPM as the PM’s “representative” is not a “PM in waiting or in the wings”. The DPM could stand in or appear on behalf of the PM as directed and assigned, or possibly “represent” the PM as an agent or proxy if specifically authorized. But the DPM has no independent constitutional powers to “represent” the PM or perform the PM’s duties and responsibilities as the PM’s “representative”.
To be sure, there is no textual basis in Article 75 or in any other part of the Constitution to infer that the DPM can exercise any of the PM’s powers under Article 74. For instance, the DPM has no constitutional authority to function as “the head of government, chairman of the Council of Ministers and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces” under any circumstances. Nor does s/he have the power to act as “acting prime minster” or perform in any other similar capacity in the event of a vacancy in the PM’s office or in the absence of the PM. The DPM does not have the constitutional power or authority to “direct, coordinate and represent the Council of Ministers,” or to “appoint all high government officials.” The DPM cannot “perform other duties assigned to him by this Constitution and other laws” because neither the Constitution nor other “laws” give the DPM any “duties” whatsoever to perform. Whatever the DPM does, s/he does at the direction, supervision and pleasure of the PM. Practically speaking, the DPM is the PM’s “gofer” (errand runner) and factotutm (handy person), and not a true constitutional officer.
Analysis of Articles 72-75 (“Executive Power”) demonstrates that the DPM’s office was structurally designed as a shadow, symbolic or make-believe office with the manifest aim of giving the public impression that there is a deputy PM who could take over in the event of a vacancy in the PM’s office in the same sense as a vice president would succeed a president. It is an office created with constitutional smoke and mirrors with the intention of creating the illusion of a constitutional plan of executive succession without actually creating one. Article 75 could be an amazing constitutional sleight of hand or an egregious omission in constitutional design!
Is Ethiopia in Constitutional Crises?
It is manifest that Ethiopia is now facing not only a leadership and power vacuum but also a monumental constitutional crises in the absence of a constitutional plan or procedure for succession. A constitution without a clear plan of succession is an invitation to political chaos, conflict and instability. In the United States, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (which supersedes other prior succession Acts) establishes the line of succession to the powers and duties of the office of President of the United States in the event that neither a President nor Vice President is able to “discharge the powers and duties of the office.” The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes procedures for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President and responding to Presidential disability.
Article 60 of Ghana’s Constitution also provides clear provisions on presidential succession: “(6) Whenever the President dies, resigns or is removed from office, the Vice-President shall assume office as President for the unexpired term of office of the President… (8) Whenever the President is absent from Ghana or is for any other reason unable to perform the functions of his office, the Vice-President shall perform the function of the President until the President returns or is able to perform…” Even North Korea has a plan of succession though the process is a dynastic family affair in which power is passed from grandfather to son to grandson as we have witnessed recently.
Why is there no plan or clear statement or language on succession of executive power in the Ethiopian Constitution? I noted above that the particular design of the office of the DPM could be an amazing constitutional sleight of hand or an egregious omission and irremediable defect in constitutional design. If the drafters of the 1995 Ethiopian Constitution never anticipated, imagined, calculated or believed the person who becomes PM of Ethiopia will ever be removed from office by any means and for any reason and thus designed the DPM’s office as it is, then their omission could be regarded as a grossly negligent act of incompetence for which they should collectively suffer public condemnation and castigation. But it is unlikely that the DPM’s office was designed with such obvious oversight or inadvertence. It is not an act of omission; it is an act of commission.
A reasonable analysis of Article 75 suggests that the drafters intentionally and with great foresight designed the DPM’s office the way they did (toothless, powerless, duty-less) out of an abundance of caution to guard against any potential future loss of the PM’s office (and with it control of the state, armed forces, economy, etc.,) from the hands of those elements who have had a chokehold on the office for the past 21 years. Given the ethnically tangled nature of Ethiopian politics, the individuals who controlled the drafting of the Constitution understood that the PM’s and DPM’s office could not be in the hands of members of the same ethnic group. That is to say, if the PM is a member of one ethnic group, the deputy prime ministership must necessarily be given to a person from another ethnic group to maintain the illusion of power sharing and play a clever political balancing game. If there is a real possibility of succession under this “power sharing” arrangement, the outcome could be potentially catastrophic to the power brokers controlling the PM’s office in the remote and unlikely event the PM is unable to discharge his/her duties and must leave office.
Under Article 75, the DPM could prove to be a Frankensteinian creation of the PM capable of destroying its own creator. If the DPM succeeds the PM, then the power brokers and structure that supported the PM could collapse with the supporters of the DPM as PM gaining power. As a result, there is high likelihood that the power brokers and supporters of the PM who vacated office could potentially lose power and influence and be marginalized under the new PM. However, the power brokers and supporters of the PM who vacated office could still maintain their power and influence by installing a DPM from one of the minority ethnic groups in the country. By making such an appointment, the PM and supporters effectively create the illusion that members of the country’s ethnic minorities are gaining recognition, power and status hitherto unavailable or denied to them while immunizing themselves from the criticisms of other major ethnic group contenders who may be making claims to the DPM’s office.
The appointment of a DPM from a minority group ensures that power remains in the hands of the power brokers and supporters of the PM whether the PM stays in office or vacates for any reason. The only way a DPM from an ethnic minority could survive politically as a PM is with the support of those who supported the PM who vacated office. The DPM as PM simply will not have a sufficient support base in the party structure, bureaucracy, military, civic society, economic structure, etc. to be able to act independently. The DPM as PM could only survive as a mere puppet in the hands of the power brokers and supporters of the PM who vacated office.
Facing such a daunting constitutional dilemma, the power brokers and supporters of the current holder of the PM’s office will have no viable option but to ram through by unconstitutional means the installation of the holder of the DPM as PM. If such was the design, Article 75 could be regarded as a masterful stroke of political genius unrivalled in modern African constitutional history. The downside is that given the manifest constitutional problems of succession, other power contenders are unlikely to accept such an outcome which is patently unconstitutional and undemocratic. They may insist on a new election for a PM within a reasonable period of time if it comes to pass that the current holder of the PM’s office could no longer perform the duties of that office.
To dodge this enormous constitutional dilemma and avoid an election for a new PM at any cost, the power brokers and supporters of the holder of the PM’s office could create various distractions and diversions. It is very likely that they could fabricate an emergency (internal by claiming insurrection or external by triggering conflict) and declare martial law. They could engage in dilatory tactics by refusing to make firm and clear announcements on the status of the current holder of the PM’s office. They could seek the intervention or mediation of outside powers to help resolve the crisis by proposing a short-term transitional solution until a permanent solution is found either by constitutional amendment or new elections. They are likely to use the “constitutional court” under Article 83 to obtain an interpretation of Article 75 which is manifestly contrary to the plain meaning of the constitutional text. No doubt, they will have many tricks up their sleeves to get themselves out of the constitutional jam, buy time and cling to power.
The smart move for the power brokers and supporters of the holder of the PM’s office now would be to take this fantastic opportunity and offer an olive branch to the opposition and invite them to a dialogue on power sharing and other matters. There is no shame, defeat or harm in making a peace offering to the opposition. It has been done in Kenya and even Zimbabwe. It was done in South Africa under the most difficult of circumstances. It has been tried with different outcomes in Burundi, Guinea, Madagascar and the Ivory Coast.
In 2009, Kenya formed a “grand coalition government” among bitter political enemies. They were able to write a new constitution which was approved by an overwhelming 67 percent of Kenyans in 2011. In 2008, President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai signed a power-sharing deal. Last week, Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai pushed for approval of a draft constitution prepared by the Select Committee of Parliament on the New Constitution (COPAC). Both countries have a long way to go on the road to full democratization but they are certainly on the right track. The only sensible way out of this constitutional predicament is to follow Nelson Mandela’s prescription: “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” It’s the perfect time now for all to bury the hatchet, shake hands and get their shoulders to the grindstone and build a new Ethiopia.
Constitutional Transition From Dictatorship to Democracy
The DPM issue is only the tip of the iceberg of the enormous constitutional crises to face Ethiopia. Those of us in the business of constitutional law and analysis have known of the structural flaw in the design of the DPM’s office, the expansive nature of executive power as well as numerous other flaws in the current Constitution for a long time. Truth be told, our characterization of the current holder of the PM’s office as “dictator” over the years was not mere rhetorical flair but an accurate and precise description based on a careful and penetrating analysis of the Ethiopian Constitution and the way power is concentrated in one office and one person.
A dictator is a person “who has absolute power or authority.” That is what the 1995 Ethiopian Constitution created in Articles 72-75. Article 74 created a PM whose powers are total, unbridled and unlimited and without any plan of succession. The PM and his hand-selected Council of Ministers are the “highest executive authority” in the country. The “Prime Minister” is the “head of government, chairman of the Council of Ministers and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.” The PM is only nominally accountable to the Council of Deputies and the judiciary. S/he is not accountable to the Council of Ministers. In fact, the PM has total and absolute dominance over these institutions. The PM has the power to “dissolve the Council [of Representatives] before the expiry of its term so as to conduct new elections”, dismiss or replace any member of the Council of Ministers at will and nominate and dismiss judges. Under the Constitution, the PM is accountable to no one. The PM’s word is the constitution and the law. The PM is an absolute constitutional dictator though that sounds oxymoronic!
The Life and Death of African Dictators
All dictators believe they can live forever. But only the evil they have done during their lifetimes lives forever. Sitting in the saddle of power, African dictators fear no one, not the people or even God. They have convinced themselves they are heroes and “gods” in their own right. They try to project the image of invincibility and immortality. But they are neither; they are mere mortals. They get sick, they suffer pain and they die like the people they oppressed, jailed, tortured and killed. They hold their people in total contempt and treat them like dumb children. They try to convince their people that they are healthy when they are sick and alive when they are dead.
In the past 7 years, the story we hear in Ethiopia today has been told many times in Africa. In 2005, President Gnassingbé Eyadéma of Togo, at the time Africa’s longest-ruling dictator, died of a “heart attack” as he was being rushed to Europe for treatment. Though he had heart and other serious health problems for years, those facts were hidden from the public until it was suddenly announced that he had passed away. In 2009, Gabon’s long reigning dictator, Omar Bongo Ondimba, died in a hospital in Spain. Government officials in Gabon had long denied he was sick or had any serious health problems. But Bongo had cancer. In 2009, President Umaru Yar’Adua of Nigeria reportedly left the country for what was described as “routine medical check up” in Saudi Arabia. After months of prolonged absence, he returned to Nigeria and died of lung cancer. Earlier this year, President Malam Bacai Sanhá of Guinea-Bissau died at a Paris hospital from what was officially described as “advanced diabetes” and a hemoglobin problem (possibly leukemia). Sanha denied that he had health problems and said his situation “was not as serious as people want to make out”. President Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi also died earlier this year from what was described officially as a heart attack after being transported to South Africa in a comatose state.
In all of these cases, the serious health issues were underplayed by the leaders themselves and their officials. They often blamed the cynical opposition for exaggerating news and information of their health condition. The officials in Ethiopia have a constitutional duty under Article 12 to perform their responsibilities “in a manner which is open and transparent to the public”. That transparency includes the duty to divulge full information to the public on the prolonged absence of the holder of the office of PM.
The life and death of President John Atta Mills of Ghana last week stands in stark contrast to the other African dictators. For the past several months, the Ghanaian public was aware that President Mills was having serious health problems. He was making few public appearances and had retreated from public view, leaving his vice president, John Dramani Mahama, to attend public functions. Though he won the presidency by a razor-thin margin in 2009, Mills soon gained the love, respect and appreciation of his people. In its online editorial, The Nation, Nigeria’s top circulation publication observed: “The open affection Ghanaians showed President Mills and the Ghana Parliament’s fidelity to constitutional provisions are areas Nigeria can learn from. President Mills respected his office and honoured his people by working hard for them. Little wonder, the people reciprocated by treating him as a rare hero in death.” Africa needs rare heroes. The alternative for Africa’s villains has been prophesied by Gandhi long ago: “There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall — think of it, ALWAYS.”
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at: http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic and http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24
Previous commentaries by the author are available at:
http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/ and www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/
President Nelson Mandela turned 94 on July 18, 2012. May he live long with gladness and good health!
All who love and revere President Mandela call him Madiba. He is the ultimate symbol of human love, hope, courage, charity, endurance, patience and perseverance. He is the personification of good will, tolerance, generosity, forgiveness and reconciliation.
In South Africa’s darkest hours, Madiba emerged from the darkest dungeons of Pollsmoor Prison wearing a big smile on his face and carrying a torch light in his hand to free all his people from a wretched prison called Apartheid. When South Africa’s fate dangled between the forces of good and evil, Madiba stepped in the middle and said, “Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another.” He convinced those armed for war to disarm for peace, to bury the hatchet, dagger and arrow and to beat their swords into ploughshares, shake hands, hold hands and put their shoulders to the grindstone to build a new South Africa. When the world stood in awe of what he had done, he humbly reminded us: “I am not a saint, unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying.” Don’t we all wish we had more sinners in high places in Africa who just keep on trying?
I have had many imaginary conversations with Madiba, but only one that I have dared to make public. In one of my weekly commentaries in May 2011, I reported on one such imaginary conversation. The topic was the triumphalism of African dictators. Somewhat impatiently, I asked Madiba: “What the hell is wrong with African dictators?!?” Madiba did not want to generalize, but he was very clear about Apartheid dictatorship and what needed to be done to restore South Africa to its timeless beauty. He said, “Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another. If there are dreams about a beautiful South Africa, there are also roads that lead to their goal. Two of these roads could be named Goodness and Forgiveness.”
Nightmares and Dreams of a Beautiful Ethiopia
Among the few privileges of being a human rights advocate and an academic are telling the unvarnished truth to anyone who cares to listen, speaking truth to power and defiantly hoping (even against hope) for a future that is much better than the past. That privilege comes from the special nature of human rights advocacy. A true human rights advocate has no political ambition. The politics of human rights is the politics of human dignity, not ideology, political partisanship or the pursuit of political office. The committed human rights advocate thrives on hopes and dreams of a better future, not the lust for political power or craving for status, position or privilege. As Vaclav Havel, the late Czech Republic and human rights advocate put it, “Hope is a state of mind, not of the world. Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well,… but rather an ability to work for something because it is good.” Defense and advocacy of human rights is something one does because it is good. As Havel said, “Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed.” I have been relentlessly “sermonizing” (as some affectionately refer to my weekly commentaries) on human rights in Ethiopia and against dictatorship for many years now. I have done so not because I believed my efforts will produce immediate political results or expected structural changes overnight. I stayed in for the long haul because I believe defending, advocating and writing about human rights and righting government wrongs is right, good and the moral thing to do.
Lately, there has been much talk about nightmare scenarios and very little about dreams of a beautiful Ethiopia and the two roads that could take her to that place and moment in time where she “will not experience the oppression of one by another”. Some whisper of the nightmare of civil war if one man goes or stays? Is Ethiopia so insignificant in the eyes of man and God that her destiny is tied to or determined by what happens or does not happen to one man? Others bemoan the horrors of the past and seethe with anger and bitterness. They can only see the twilight of a vanishing order and are blinded to the sparkling new day dawning over the horizon. Far too many exercise themselves with things that are divisive, disruptive and discordant. They seem to forget that we have strong bonds of family, history, culture, language and religion that bind us in a beautiful mosaic called Ethiopia.
There are some who seem obsessed with speculation and rumors about the fate of a state built on the shoulders of one man. Would it not make more sense to be concerned about the plight and state of suffering of the other 90 million? Louis XIV, the absolute monarch of France who reigned for 72 years is reported to have said, “L’etat, c’est moi” (“I am the state”). Must we subject ourselves to the Sturm und Drang of what could happen to Ethiopia after the fall of a one-man, one-party state that has been in power for 21 years? For all the speculation, guestimation and supposition on the part of the Ethiopian opposition and the secrecy, mystery, fudging, hedging and dodging by discombobulated regime officials, the answer may be the same as Mark Twain’s who upon reading his premature obituary quipped: “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” Should we really be concerned about a moribund regime?
Truth be told, we should be concerned about a nation that has been in intensive care and on life support for the past 21 years and beyond. We should pray for the healing, speedy recovery and and well-being of Ethiopia. We should be searching high and low in our hearts, minds and souls for the best medication to heal Ethiopia from the cancer of tyranny and dictatorship and the pathology of hate and narrow-mindedness. We should work tirelessly to detoxify the Ethiopian body politic from the poison of ethnic domination, sectarianism and bigotry.
To restore Ethiopia to good health, we must begin national dialogue, not only in the halls of power, the corridors of the bureaucracy and the military barracks but also in the remotest villages, the church and masjid meeting halls and other places of worship, the schools and colleges, the neighborhood associations and in the taverns, the streets and markets and wherever two or more people congregate. We have no choice but to begin talking to each other with good will and in good faith.
Since the beginning of 2012, I have been penning special commentaries in a series I called “Ethiopia’s transition from dictatorship and democracy”. These commentaries were fragments of my dream that Ethiopia will soon make a transition from dictatorship to democracy. Of course, dreams could easily change into nightmares. In one such commentary, I shared my nightmares about what could happen “on the bridge from dictatorship to democracy.” I wrote, “there is often a collision between individuals and groups doggedly pursuing power, the common people tired of those who abuse and misuse power and the dictators who want to cling to power. The chaos that occurs on the transitional bridge from dictatorship to democracy creates the ideal conditions for the hijacking of political power, theft of democracy and the reinstitution of dictatorship in the name of democracy.” In another commentary last month, I pleaded for constitutional “pre-dialogue” (preparatory conversations) in anticipation of some potential roadblocks on Ethiopia’s inexorable march to a constitutional democracy.
Recent events seem to signal the imminence of a sea change in Ethiopia. While some are preoccupied with the nightmare of what could happen in Ethiopia if one man or one party stays or goes, my nightmares have been about what those opposed to the one man will do whether he stays or goes. History shows that political transitions in Ethiopia have been nightmares, a race to the bottom. The transition from monarchy to military socialism proved to be a colossal disaster. In the name of socialism, millions perished from famine and political violence. The transition from military “socialism” to “revolutionary democracy” led to the creation of a police state in Ethiopia unrivalled in the modern history of Africa. The flicker of democracy that was seen in 2005 was snuffed out in the blink of an eye. Now, the sun seems to be setting on the police state; and it could be curtain time for the chief of police. There is volcanic pressure building up slowly but surely in Ethiopia. We see small precursor eruptions here and there. Public dissatisfaction with the status quo has turned to utter public desperation. People cannot afford the basic necessities of life as inflation and cost of living soar to new heights. Corruption, abuse of power, massive repression and poor governance are about to blast the dome on the grumbling volcano. The situation is deteriorating by the day. One has to assume that against the backdrop of the “Arab Spring”, Ethiopia’s iron-fisted rulers must be a little worried about the winter of discontent of the Ethiopian people being made glorious by a democratic Summer.
What the managers of the police state will do or not do concern me less than what those who profess to stand for democracy, freedom and human rights will do or not do. Will they do what they have always done in the past: Never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity? Continue to play the same old zero sum game (that is, they win and everybody else loses) of politics? Play games of one-upmanship trying to outdo, outwit, outthink, outsmart, outplay, outfox, outmaneuver and outbully each other, while those in the saddle of power laugh at them? Play the blame game, finger pointing game and demonization game to show how bad everybody is and how good they are? Will they invent new games?
Or will the opposition collectively be able to soar to new heights of greatness? Will they forgive each other for the injuries of the past and pledge to work for a secure and just future for all Ethiopians? Will they be able to forge a partnership to deal with the multiplicity of problems facing the people? Will they lead the people to consensus by prioritizing and focusing on things for which there is broad agreement, or will they nitpick their way into a stalemate over minutiae? Above all, will they have the courage to reach out to each other in the spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood, shake hands, bury the hatchet and put their shoulders to the grindstone to work together in the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia? Will they have the courage to walk in Madiba’s footprints?:
The sight of freedom looming on the horizon should encourage us to redouble our efforts. It is only through disciplined mass action that our victory can be assured. We call on our white compatriots to join us in the shaping of a new South Africa. The freedom movement is a political home for you too…
As freedom looms over the horizon in Ethiopia, do we all have the courage, humility and foresight to say to those in power and out of power, “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” Is it possible to create a broad partnership of justice, equality, freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia today? Could we say now to those who have a tight grip on power what Madiba said to his white compatriots then, “The freedom movement is a political home for you too…”
Hate the Sin, Not the Sinner
In his autobiography, Gandhi wrote, “Man and his deed are two distinct things. Whereas a good deed should call forth approbation and a wicked deed disapprobation, the doer of the deed, whether good or wicked, always deserves respect or pity as the case may be. ‘Hate the sin and not the sinner’ is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world….” If one hates another because of race, color, religion, ethnicity or other factors, the result is more hate. Madiba said, “No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.” If hate is learned, it can also be unlearned. If love can be taught, it can be spread across the land.
We must follow Gandhi’s precept that if we must hate, we “hate the sin and not the sinner.” It is a tough precept to follow and live by. We have all been part of the problem and part of the solution at one time or another. If this is not true, then “He who is without sin should cast the first stone.” But now all of us have an opportunity to become part of the grand solution to the political problems facing Ethiopia. It is a rare chance that comes once in generations. Let’s not squander it.
In William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, Mark Antony as part of his funeral oration following the death of Caesar said, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones…” Scripture teaches that “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.” Those who have lived in hate and done evil in their lifetimes will have a testament in history for their deeds which will live long after they are dead and gone. If we obsess with the sinners, we will surely inherit the wind of those who have troubled their houses. We will inherit a tornadic wind that will tear the basic fabric and foundation of the Ethiopian nation. But if we focus our attention on the sin and together atone for it, we stand to inherit democracy from the ashes of dictatorship; human rights from the depths of human wrongs; freedom from oppression, love from hate; reconciliation from animosity and forgiveness from rancor. Such are the wages of good. Those who hold the reign of power should realize that things cannot continue the way they are now. They have a simple choice to make; and in the words of Robert Kennedy: “A revolution is coming — a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are fortunate enough — But a revolution which is coming whether we will it or not. We can affect its character; we cannot alter its inevitability.” Why is it not possible to have a revolution in Ethiopia where we can all win because we are all on the side of freedom, democracy and human rights?
So, What Time Is It In Ethiopia Now?
Scripture teaches that there is “A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.” So, what time is it in Ethiopia now? I say it is time for peace–high time to dream for peace. It is time to replace bitterness with reconciliation; hate with love that heals the community; revenge with forgiveness; despair with hope; hurt with healing; fear with courage; division with unity; doubt with faith; shame with honor; deceit with candor and sincerity; anger with reason; cruelty with kindness and caring; enmity with friendship; duplicity with openness; complacency with action; indifference with passion; incivility with gracefulness; suspicion with trust; selfishness with altruism; dishonesty with integrity; convenience with virtue; cunning with scruples; ignorance with knowledge; benightedness with imagination; acrimony with civility, desire with fulfillment and sniping and carping with with broad national dialogue. The time to talk and act is now!
Dreams of an Ethiopia at Peace: Roads to Goodness and Forgiveness
Madiba had a great dream for Africa. He said, “I dream of an Africa which is in peace with itself. I dream of the realization of unity of Africa whereby its leaders, some of whom are highly competent and experienced, can unite in their efforts to improve and to solve the problems of Africa.” Madiba said, “This must be a world of democracy and respect for human rights, a world freed from the horrors of poverty, hunger, deprivation and ignorance, relieved of the threat and the scourge of civil wars and external aggression and unburdened of the great tragedy of millions forced to become refugees.”
Ethiopia is today a dystopia– a society that writhes under a dictatorship that trashes human rights and decimates all opposition ruthlessly. Last year, Zenawi told two high level U.S. Government officials what he will do to his opposition: “We will crush them with our full force.” All Ethiopians, regardless of ethnicity, language, religion, class or region must be able to imagine an Ethiopia where no petty tyrant will ever have the power or even the audacity to say he will “crush” another fellow citizen, or has the ability to use “full force” against any person just because he can. Ethiopians must be able to dream of a future free of ethnic strife, famine and oppression; and strive to work together for a little utopia in Ethiopia where might is NOT right but the rule of law shields the defenseless poor and voiceless against the slings and arrows of the criminally rich and powerful. It is true that Utopians aspire for the perfect society, but Ethiopians should aspire and work collectively for a society in which human rights are respected, the voice of the people are heard and accepted (not stolen), those to whom power is entrusted perform their duties with transparency and are held accountable to the law and people.
In my long-winded way, what I was trying to say was this: “Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another.”
Even utopian Ethiopians know that as we work for unity, they will be working double overtime for disunity. For every act done to create trust, they will fabricate ten acts to create suspicion and distrust. It is said that a thousand mile journey begins with the first step. In making its declaration, the OLF has taken a giant leap for all Ethiopians. Each one of us must now take our own small steps for our Ethiopianity (humanity before ethnicity or nationality).
My dream of Ethiopia at peace is a dream based on the idea that all Ethiopians need to be a little bit utopian. Madiba is the greatest utopian in living memory. He was utopian enough to say, “I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and — and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” Yet, he was realistic enough to warn that if discussions and negotiations fail to resolve issues, there could be alternatives dreadful to contemplate: “There are many people who feel that it is useless and futile for us to continue talking peace and non-violence – against a government whose only reply is savage attacks on an unarmed and defenceless people. And I think the time has come for us to consider, in the light of our experiences at this day at home, whether the methods which we have applied so far are adequate.” Is it futile to begin talking in Ethiopia now? To continue talking? To choose the path of nonviolence in the face of “savage attacks on an unarmed and defenceless people”? I think not.
It is plain to all that the present system of one-man, one-party, one-everything has no future in Ethiopia. It will come to an end peacefully or otherwise, sooner or later. But we must learn from recent history. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” That is what happened in Libya not long ago, and is happening in Syria today. There is no need to make the mistakes made in Libya or Syria.
Madiba understood that the transition from Apartheid dictatorship to majority democratic rule must involve all South Africans, not just the elites and others whose aim is to become power contenders. Madiba said:
The people need to be consulted on who will negotiate and on the content of such negotiations. Negotiations cannot take place — Negotiations cannot take place above the heads or behind the backs of our people. It is our belief that the future of our country can only be determined by a body which is democratically elected on a non-racial basis. Negotiations on the dismantling of apartheid will have to address the overwhelming demands of our people for a democratic, non-racial and unitary South Africa. There must be an end to white monopoly on political power and a fundamental restructuring of our political and economic systems to ensure that the inequalities of apartheid are addressed and our society thoroughly democratized.
All Ethiopian political and civic leaders must understand that “the people need to be consulted” and the future of our country can only be determined by a body which is democratically elected on a non-ethnic basis. It is delusional to think that the one-man, one-party model will continue unchanged. It is dumb to think that the clever, cunning and shrewd could outwit and out power play the rest and seize political power and continue the same old game of one-man, one-party, one-everything rule. It is wise to remember the saying that “you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people ofall of the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” These days it is hard to fooll anybody. Those who may be scheming to play this game should give it up and not waste their time. It is foolhardy to think that anything other than genuine multiparty democracy fortified by the rule of law, reinforced by respect for human rights and sustained by the good will of the people could bring peace to Ethiopia. Regardless, the one-man, one-party party that has been going on for the past 21 years is now over!
It is a Tough Job, But All of Us Have to Do it!
When Madiba was released from Pollsmoor Prison in 1990, his first public words were about the unity of all South Africans, not the evils of Apartheid or the crimes and inhuman acts committed by one race over the other. Madiba said uniting the people is job one on day one:
The need to unite the people of our country is as important a task now as it always has been. No individual leader is able to take on this enormous task on his own. It is our task as leaders to place our views before our organization and to allow the democratic structures to decide on the way forward. On the question of democratic practice, I feel duty-bound to make the point that a leader of the movement is a person who has been democratically elected at a national conference. This is a principle which must be upheld without any exceptions.”
No individual leader or single organization in Ethiopia can take on the enormous task of uniting the people. It is the task of all leaders of political organizations, faith institutions, civic associations, youth and women’s groups and others to inspire the people to come together, to unite and to dream together about a new Ethiopia where no one shall again experience the oppression of one by another. It is impossible to unite the people without detoxifying the conversation and abandoning the obsession about one man. To do what Madiba did in South Africa, we must commit to the important task now, and that is “uniting the people of our country.”
My Birthday Present to Madiba
Last week Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that “the greatest gift we can give Madiba is to follow his example.” So I shall give him Madiba his birthday gift by pledging to walk in his footsteps. I am eternally grateful to Madiba for what he has done for all humanity. His words and deeds have inspired me not only to speak truth to power and dream about a bright future for Ethiopia and Africa, but also to begin teaching, preaching and reaching out to all to begin a journey on the road to forgiveness and goodness. I understand Madiba’s way does not come with an iron clad guarantee of success, but I have yet to find another way that could lead to a durable peace in Ethiopia but the ways of forgiveness and goodness. I could be wrong, but I would rather take the wrong turn on Madiba’s road than take the road to nowhere because that is the alternative. Some may think I am just a naïve and gullible lawyer whose head swoons in the clouds of the ivory tower. I should like to think I have my feet firmly planted in the ground.
I do hope that there will be people who will agree with me that I am right in following Madiba’s example. Perhaps they may even consider joining me on that long and hard road despite their fears of being sneered and jeered along the way. But I shall travel that road in Madiba’s footsteps alone if I must. Henry David Thoreau said, “If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” And if I should get tired walking alone, I will just limp along behind the millions of Ethiopians who will be marching on Madiba’s way lockstep to the drumbeat of freedom, democracy, dignity and peace. But before rushing to judge me harshly or kindly, forget not that I am just a utopian Ethiopian. “Some men see things and say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’”. Why not walk in Madiba’s footsteps? Why not dream of Ethiopia with her children at peace? Why not outdream each other about what is possible, viable and attainable in beautiful Ethiopia? Let us all become utopian Ethiopians! Why not?
Happy 94th Madiba! Long Live Madiba! Long Live Nelson Mandela! Long Live Ethiopia!
To paraphrase an old expression, “There are two things that are quintessentially important in any society. The first is free speech and I can’t remember the second one.”
Free speech is the bedrock of all human freedoms. In my view, the value a society gives to freedom of expression determines whether that society is free or unfree. A society is unfree if individuals are afraid to speak their minds, to think unpopular thoughts, to criticize government, or to dispute ideas and opinions. Expressive freedoms were so paramount to the founders of the American Republic that they provided constitutional protections unrivalled in the history of mankind. In breathtakingly uncompromising, unambiguous, and sweeping words that could be found in the English language, they declared: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
There are many reasons that justify sweeping protections for free speech in any society. Without freedom of speech, the person is like a corked bottle, keeping under pressure his/her ideas, views or feelings about politics, government or society. Leaders and institutions could not be criticized or held accountable where free speech and the press are criminalized. There is little room for any meaningful artistic, literary or intellectual pursuits where free expression is censored or sanctioned. In short, without free speech, “self-development is crippled, social progress grinds to a halt, and official lies become the only ‘truth.’”
I am not writing here to discuss the abstract virtues of or government infringement on free speech. Many of my readers know that I take an uncompromising view on the practice of free speech. When dictator Meles Zenawi came to speak at Columbia University’s World Leaders Forum in September 2010, I defended his right to speak despite strong disapproval and scathing criticism from friends, colleagues and others. Yes, even Zenawi, who has the dubious honor of being called the “second-leading jailer of journalists in Africa” by the Committee to Protect Journalists, has the right to engage in free speech. When the 500+ page memoir of former Ethiopian junta leader and dictator Mengistu Hailemariam was electronically scanned this past January in violation of copyright laws and posted online because Mengistu was a “mass murderer” who should not “benefit from the sale of his book”, I defended his right to write and express himself. In defending the free speech rights of these two brothers-in-dictatorship, I was practicing Noam Chomsky’s axiom that “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” I venture to add that by not defending the rights of those we despise, we risk becoming their clones.
Free speech encompasses not only the right to speak (and not to speak) to others but also the right to hear (or not to hear) from others. It is a decision for each individual to make. I like to keep an open and critical mind; and therefore listen very attentively to those with whom I disagree strongly. It is logically impossible for me to agree or disagree (or even to disagree disagreeably) without listening to those with whom I agree or disagree. If I suspect a claim to be false, I contest the facts. If I find the truth shrouded, I undress the lies. If I disagree with an idea, I challenge it. If I agree with a point of view, I bolster it. But to do all these, I have to tolerate the right of free expression of those with whom I agree or disagree. But free speech is not only about my right to expression, but also the right of others to do the same.
The Fierce Urgency of Now for the Unfree to Speak, to Write, to Advocate… Freely
All of the foregoing discussion is intended to provide a springboard for a more specific discussion of the plight of those I characterize as “unfree” to speak or write publicly. There are legions of Ethiopian and non-Ethiopian scholars involved in the study of Ethiopian society, commentators and intellectuals who feel unfree to speak or write on matters of great public importance to Ethiopians. Many scholars in Ethiopia are silenced by official threats of employment termination, summary dismissals and even arrest and prosecution. The fear of “censorship by mudslinging and public vilification” keeps many Diaspora Ethiopian scholars silent. Many of these scholars often point to the barrage of personal attacks they face whenever they write or speak on matters that do not conform to the prevailing orthodoxy. If they say something politically incorrect, they are jumped on. If they express views that oppose one group or another at a conference, their names are dragged in the mud. If they write a historical analysis, they are vilified as apologists of a bygone era. They are intimidated and unnerved into silence by the self-appointed and self-righteous censors of democracy. As a result, many learned and experienced Ethiopian and non-Ethiopian scholars who have spent years studying Ethiopia have completely withdrawn from participation in the vital public debates of the day.
But all scholars involved in the study of Ethiopia face the fierce urgency of now. They must renounce the vows of silence they have imposed upon themselves or has been imposed upon them by the self-appointed and self-righteous censors of democracy and come forward to help the people of Ethiopia transition from dictatorship to democracy. Ethiopia today stands at the crossroads. The signs of change are plain to see. The dawn of freedom and democracy that enveloped North Africa and the Middle East is ever slowly swallowing the darkness of dictatorship and tyranny. The best days of Ethiopia’s dictators are long gone. These are the desperate days of desperate dictators who are playing out their end game by resorting to desperate measures. We see them stoking the flames of sectarianism. They are clamping down on all avenues of free expression. They are unleashing unspeakable violence to cling to power. They are finally facing the music; they are now beginning to understand the true meaning of Gandhi’s message: “There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall – think of it, always.” So in the end game, the tyrants and murderers will pull out their trump card, their long-planned final solution: “Après moi le deluge (after me the flood)!” (or in the words of the proverbial donkey, “after me, no more grass”). But they seem to forget that floods, fires and earthquakes do not discriminate; they consume and destroy everything in their path.
But these are also hopeful days for the people. They can finally see a flickering light at the end of the long dark tunnel of tyranny. They can see a beacon of light pointing in the direction of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The tables are turning in plain view. The people are losing their fear of the tyrants; and the tyrants are showing their fear of the people. They are worried sick of what the people might do. The people are also angry and hungry. Anger leads to bitterness, hatred and violence. Hunger destroys not only the body but also the soul. A hungry man is an angry man. That is what the tyrants fear as the last chapter of the end game is being written.
The times they are a-changing. Ethiopian scholars can no longer stand on sidelines as spectators in these trying times. They cannot afford to be “summer soldiers, sunshine patriots” and fair-weathered fans of freedom, democracy and human rights, as Thomas Paine might have put it. They must be actively engaged in the struggle against tyranny now; and not prepare to struggle for power later. They must stand with the people now, and not stand by them later.
Ethiopian scholars and intellectuals must share their expertise and knowledge to overcome not only the tyranny of man but also the tyranny of hunger, disease, ignorance and poverty. Tyranny must be confronted on all fronts. It is up to the agricultural experts to make battle plans to defeat the tyranny of hunger and famine. According to the Legatum Index, “Ethiopia’s education system is poor at all levels and its population is deeply dissatisfied.” Ethiopia’s educational scholars must rise to challenge the tyranny of a hopelessly decayed educational system. “On most health outcomes, Ethiopia performs very poorly.” According to Foreign Policy, “There are more Ethiopian physicians practicing in Chicago today than in all of Ethiopia, a country of 80 million and Africa’s second-most populous country.” Shouldn’t Diaspora Ethiopian physicians gather their forces to confront the tyranny of disease that afflicts our people? Shouldn’t Ethiopian economists, engineers, scientists, lawyers, historians, artists, researchers, etc., come forward and forge alliances to confront tyranny in all its manifestations?
Writing and speaking in their fields of expertise is only the beginning. I plead with members of the Ethiopian academic and scholarly community to also become public intellectuals. The internet has become the great equalizer not only between citizens and all powerful governments but also between the intelligentsia and “ignorigentsia” (the willfully ignorant or woefully uninformed). In many ways, the internet has given free speech its ultimate expression. The learned scholars and academics and those spewing words of provocation, hatred and intolerance potentially have equal access to the hearts and minds of millions. But for all of the information and resources available on the internet, there is precious little that is relevant, enlightening and actionable. Ethiopian intellectuals need to organize themselves to bridge the information and knowledge gap and come up with fresh and creative ideas to help transition Ethiopia from dictatorship to democracy.
Nearly two decades ago, the late Prof. Edward Said of Columbia University in a series of lectures argued that the role of the intellectual in society is not merely to advance knowledge and learning but also human freedom. He made his arguments even more compellingly for exiled intellectuals. Prof. Said urged scholars to aspire to become public intellectuals connecting their scholarship to issues and policies that impact the lives of ordinary people. He argued that intellectuals must advocate and work for progressive change while remaining vigilant over those who abuse and misuse their power. Above all, the intellectual has an obligation to always speak truth to power and the duty to stand for and with the voiceless, the powerless and the defenseless:
… The intellectual in my sense of the word, is neither a pacifier nor a consensus builder, but someone whose whole being is staked on a critical sense, a sense of being unwilling to accept easy formulas, or ready-made clichés, or the smooth, ever-so-accommodating confirmations of what the powerful or conventional have to say, and what they do. Not just passively unwilling, but actively willing to say so in public. This is not always a matter of being a critic of government policy, but rather of thinking of the intellectual vocation as maintaining a state of constant alertness, of a perpetual willingness not to let half-truths or received ideas steer one along…”
….
And this role [the intellectual’s] has an edge to it, and cannot be played without a sense of being someone whose place it is publicly to raise embarrassing questions, to confront orthodoxy and dogma (rather than to produce them) to be someone who cannot easily be co-opted by governments or corporations, and whose raison d’etre is to represent all those people and issues that are routinely forgotten or swept under the rug.
In the same vein, the late Czech president, human rights advocate and playwright Vaclav Havel wrote,
The intellectual should constantly disturb, should bear witness to the misery of the world, should be provocative by being independent, should rebel against all hidden and open pressure and manipulations, should be the chief doubter of systems, of power and its incantations, should be a witness to their mendacity.”
I believe Ethiopia’s intelligentsia could play the roles described by Said and Havel, and even go beyond their prescriptions and serve as consensus-builders, bridge-builders, facilitators, promoters and pacifiers. I would like to urge them to become Ethiopia’s eyes, ears and mouths and teach and preach to the younger generation and the broader masses. They do not have to be concerned about dumbing down their messages to the people, for when speaking truth to power the people get the message loud and clear.
These are different times. A new age is dawning without the old virtues that infused public dialogue and discourse. Civility, decency and respect in the public sphere were once considered necessary. The virtue of civility made it possible to disagree without being disagreeable; decency demanded that we agree to disagree without becoming mortal enemies. But the internet offers a convenient refuge of anonymity and unaccountability to the cacophonous and intolerant hordes whose mission is to drown out these virtues. But there is one surefire solution. Follow George Bernard Shaw’s wise admonition: “Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it!”
As one does not avoid going to sleep for fear of having nightmares, one must not disengage from public debate on the vital issues that affect Ethiopia today for fear of mudslinging and censorship by public vilification. Regardless, Ethiopian scholars and intellectuals must answer the urgent question of the day: Are they prepared to “bear witness to the misery” of the Ethiopian people by speaking truth to power?
Now is the time to stand up and be counted!
(to be continued in a future commentary…)
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at: http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic and http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24
Previous commentaries by the author are available at:
http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/ and www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/
Last week, The Economist Magazine rhetorically inquired, “What if Mr. Meles goes for good?” Shouldn’t the question be, “Is it not good for Ethiopia if Mr. Meles goes for good?”
In an interview I gave to the Voice of America Amharic program last week, I was asked to comment on the nature of constitutional succession in the event of death, disability, resignation, illness, incapacity or removal from power of the prime minster (PM) in Ethiopia. The answer I gave seems to have surprised, shocked, dismayed and appalled many. The Ethiopian Constitution makes no provisions for the orderly transfer of power in the event of a vacancy in the PM’s office. Simply stated, there is no constitutional process for succession of executive power in Ethiopia!
President Nelson Mandela turned 94 on July 18, 2012. May he live long with gladness and good health!