The long march of democracy in West Africa seems to be well underway. In July 2009, I wrote a weekly commentary marveling about Ghana’s multiparty democracy. Wistfully, I asked the {www:rhetorical} question: “Why is democracy in motion in Ghana, and on life-support in Ethiopia?”
In May 2011, in another commentary I expressed my admiration for Cote d’Ivoire President Alassane Ouattara when he publicly asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to conduct an investigation into gross human rights violations in his country, despite the high risk that he and his top leaders and supporters could potentially be implicated in such an investigation. I rhetorically asked: “Could the election of Alassane Ouattara signal the beginning of Africa’s second independence? Is there hope for the end ofthugtatorship in Africa and the beginning of a new era of democratic {www:governance}, openness and political accountability?”
Hope springs {www:eternal} in Africa and light is now visible at the end of Africa’s thugtatorship tunnel. On May 31, 2011, Nigeria’s newly-elected president Goodluck Johnathan’s lifted the dark curtain of secrecy that had shrouded Nigerian politics for decades by signing a freedom of information act (FOIA). Nigerians now have the legal right to demand open government, political accountability and transparency.
Meanwhile, democracy in East Africa remains on life support. It suffered a massive stroke in Ethiopia in May 2010 when dictator Meles Zenawi declared election victory by 99.6 percent. Since 2005, Zenawi has put that country’s tiny private independent press on the ventilator and {www:tethered} the rule of law to the heart-lung machine. He put human rights in intensive care and has managed to anesthetize the population into silence. A couple of weeks ago, he secretly sought to negotiate a deal with the Governing Board of the Voice of America (VOA). If the VOA blacklists and blackballs his critics in the U.S. and banishes them from ever appearing on VOA broadcasts, the electronic jamming will be lifted. Last week, Zenawi’s henchmen appeared before the Human Rights Committee of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to boldly claim that the independent press operates freely in the country, there is not a single instance of official torture and so on.
In Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, who seized power in 1986, became president-for-life in 2011. In Kenya, democracy survived by the skin of its teeth after 1,500 people were killed and 600,000 displaced in election-related violence in 2008. Somalia? What more can be said about Somalia?
Freedom of Information in Nigeria
Nigeria’s FOIA, like Ouattara’s request for an ICC investigation, is one of those {www:bellwether} events that could be used to determine whether Africa is poised for a second independence from thugtators in uniform or designer suits. The law has been in the planning and deliberation process for over a decade. It aims to deal with the core problems of governance in Nigeria – endemic corruption, lack of accountability and transparency and official secrecy. Gbenga Adefaye, President of the Nigerian Guild of Editors, explained that the Act “has expanded the frontiers of press freedom for Africa’s most vibrant press.” He praised Johnathan for his “personal commitment to openness, transparency, accountability and good governance.”
The consensus among Nigeria’s opinion leaders is that the law will not only serve to improve governance but also empower citizens and enhance their ability to effectively participate in the democratic process. Armed with critical information on the functions and operations of government institutions and performance of political leaders, citizens could help keep government clean, expose and fight corruption and hold accountable those officials who rob the public treasury and abuse their powers.
The law establishes “the right of any person to access or request information” from “any public official, agency or institution.” One need not give a reason to request information. A public agency must provide the requested information within 30 days. If the information is not turned over, the person requesting can get a court order to compel disclosure. The law makes a narrow exceptionfor information that is likely to “ jeopardise national security, affect the conduct of international affairs or would amount to the release of trade secrets of the country.”
All “public institutions” are required to keep “records and information on all of their activities, operations and businesses”. The information to be kept include a wide variety of documents ranging from organizational manuals, official decisions, rules, regulations, planning documents, reports and studies to applications for any contracts, permits, grants, licenses or funds and even the names and salaries of public employees. Such information must be “widely disseminated and made readily available in print, electronic and online sources, and at the offices of such public institutions.”
A public institution may deny a request but must “state reasons for the denial.” If a “wrongful denial of access is established, the defaulting officer or institution shall on conviction be liable to a fine of N500,000.00].” Any public employee who “willfully destroys any records kept in his/her custody or attempts to doctor or otherwise alter same before they are released” is subject to imprisonment for one year.
Unfreedom of Information in Ethiopia
In 1991, Zenawi as a victorious rebel leader declared, “Now is the beginning of a new chapter. It is an era of unfettered freedom.” Twenty years later today, we have an era of “unfettered” unfreedom of information. While Nigeria is opening its political process to the light of public scrutiny, Zenawi has blanketed the country with an electronic information blackout and kept busy drawing up blacklists of imaginary enemies he wants censored and gagged in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Since 2010, Zenawi has electronically jammed the broadcasts of the Voice of America, Deutsche Welle and the Ethiopian Satellite Television (ESAT). Following the 2005 elections, he managed to totally decimate the independent press by shuttering newspapers and jailing journalists. Last month he jailed two young journalists, Woubshet Taye, deputy editor of Awramba Times (a struggling weekly paper) and one of the few female journalists in the country, Reyot Alemu of Feteh (another struggling weekly paper) newspapers, on bogus charges that they were “organizing a terrorist network.” According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, “Alemu had recently criticized the ruling party’s public fundraising method for a major dam project on the Nile, and Taye has critically covered local politics as the deputy editor of his newspaper.”
Last week, Zenawi jailed Swedish photojournalist Johan Persson and reporter Martin Schibbye on charges that they crossed over the border from Somalia without accreditation. Press repression in Ethiopia is so massive and intense that Zenawi even censored World Press Freedom Day events this past May. Ethiopia has the second lowest Internet penetration rate (after Sierra Leone) in sub-Sahara Africa. Every Ethiopian pro-democracy website is blocked from access in Ethiopia.
President Ronald Reagan said, “Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders.” If that is true, Ethiopians today must be suffering from an acute case of hypoxia and breathing through the heart-lung machine. Supposedly, Ethiopia has a freedom of information law (Proclamation No. 590/2008 – A Proclamation to Provide for Freedom of the Mass Media and Access to Information.) Anyone who has carefully studied this proclamation will be impressed by the lofty platitudes, truisms and boilerplate legal clichés and verbiage borrowed from the laws of other nations. But as a piece of legislation, it is hollow, vacuous and meaningless. In Article 4, it provides, “Freedom of the mass media is constitutionally guaranteed. Censorship in any form is prohibited.” Yet the proclamation bursts with heavy-handed censorship. Onerous burdens are placed on “editor-in-chiefs”, “media owners”, “publishers”, “importers”, “printers”, “distributors” and ordinary citizens who seek to gather or disseminate information through an elaborately camouflaged system of registration, certification and licensing requirements. It compels self-censorship through direct threats of serious criminal and civil prosecution for “offenses committed through the mass media” (Arts. 6-9; 41.)
Under the proclamation, citizens supposedly have a right of “access, [to] receive and import information held by public bodies, subject to justifiable limits based on overriding public and private interests.” But the “justifiable limits” include non-disclosure of any Cabinet documents or information (Art. 24), any information relating to the “financial welfare of the nation or the ability of the government to manage the economy of the country” (Art. 25), and any information on the “operation of public bodies [including] an opinion, advice, report or recommendation obtained or prepared or an account of a consultation, discussion or deliberation… minutes of a meetings…” (Art. 26). Simply stated, no information may be released on the activities of government ministers and officials, banks or any other official financial institutions and the internal {www:proceedings} or external reviews of public institutions. To top it all off, any public body may refuse a request for information if it determines for any reason the “harm to the protected interest which would be caused by disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure.” (Art. 28.) Such is freedom of information by smoke-and-mirrors.
Nigeria now has a reasonable chance of having openness and transparency in government with its FOIA. For decades, Nigeria’s government has suffered a reputation as one of the hopelessly corrupt in the world. Allegations of massive {www:graft}, fraud, abuse, waste and conflict of interest in government have persisted year after year. Despite anti-corruption laws and enforcement efforts, the problem of corruption in Nigeria has not diminished. The Nigerian judiciary and law enforcement agencies are criticized widely for lack of integrity and professionalism.
There are many who say implementation of the law will be nearly impossible because of the prevailing culture of corruption in Nigeria. No one believes the FOIA is a panacea to the problem of corruption or governance in Nigeria, but the availability of a legal tool that can be used aggressively by a determined few in the media could put a big chill on the criminal activities of the thugs and gangsters that have a chokehold on power. Minimally, Nigeria’s FOIA could be used to name, shame and prosecute some of the most corrupt officials and create broad public awareness for clean honest government.
It is said that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Freedom of information is the principal tool by which the absolute powers of dictators can be curbed. African dictators, like hyenas on the African plains, like to operate in the dark invisible to the prying public eye. It is through freedom of information laws that these hyenas could be forced out of the dark and into the public square and be held accountable.
Hope springs eternal in Africa. The rising sun of democracy over North Africa is casting rays of hope on West Africa. The sun that rises for North and West Africa will also rise for East Africa. The African Lords of Darkness should not feel victorious because keeping a nation in the dark does not mean the people are blind, deaf and dumb. The light of freedom shines in the hearts and minds of the oppressed during the day and at night; and there is no power on earth that can put out that light. Those condemned to live in darkness should always remember that night always turns into light; the moon, the stars and the heavens shine brightly in the darkest of nights, and it is always darkest before the dawn. Until dawn breaks, let us reflect on the words of Shakespeare: “There is no darkness but ignorance…I say, this house is as dark as ignorance, though ignorance were as dark as hell; and I say, there was never man thus abus’d.” I say there was never nation thus abus’d.
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ andhttp://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/
It is hard to talk about Ethiopia these days in non-apocalyptic terms. Millions of Ethiopians are facing their old enemy again for the third time in nearly forty years. The Black Horseman of famine is stalking that ancient land. A year ago, Meles Zenawi’s regime denied there was any famine. Only ‘minor problems’ of spot shortages of food which will ‘be soon brought under control,’ it said dismissively. The regime boldly predicted a 7-10 percent increase in the annual harvest over 2007. Simon Mechale, head of the country’s Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency, proudly declared: ‘Ethiopia will soon fully ensure its food security.’… Zenawi’s regime has been downplaying and double-talking the famine situation. It is too embarrassed to admit the astronomical number of people facing starvation in a country which, by the regime’s own accounts, is bursting at the seams from runaway economic development.
I concluded with a rhetorical question:
Images of the human wreckage of Ethiopia’s rampaging famine will soon begin to make dramatic appearances on television in Western living rooms. The Ethiopian government will be out in full force panhandling the international community for food aid. Compassion fatigued donors may or may not come to the rescue. Ethiopians, squeezed between the Black Horseman [Scriptural metaphor for famine] and the Noisome Beast [Scriptural metaphor for evil beasts that terrify the land], will once again cry out to the heavens in pain and humiliation as they await for handouts from a charitable world. Isn’t that a low down dirty shame for a proud people to bear?
In January 2010, I followed up with another commentary titled Ethiopia’s “Silently” Creeping Famine challenging the “famine deniers.” At the time, Mitiku Kassa, a top official of Zenawi’s regime had declared: ‘In the Ethiopian context, there is no hunger, no famine… It is baseless [to claim hunger or famine], it is contrary to the situation on the ground. It is not evidence-based. The government is taking action to mitigate the problems.’ Kassa issued assurances that his regime had launched a food security program to ‘enable chronic food insecure households attain sufficient assets and income level to get out of food insecurity and improve their resilience to shocks…and halve extreme poverty and hunger by 2015.’ Zenawi was entirely dismissive: “Famine has wreaked havoc in Ethiopia for so long, it would be stupid not to be sensitive to the risk of such things occurring. But there has not been a famine on our watch — emergencies, but no famines.”
It is now July 2011 and the Black Horseman is standing at the gate. No more “emergencies”, just plain old-fashioned famine. This time it is the international aid agencies that are frantically sounding the 5-alarm famine. They warn that if donors do not provide substantial emergency food aid to 12 million people now, there will be famine of Biblical-proportions in Ethiopia and other neighboring countries unseen in the last 60 years. UNICEF warns that “millions of children and women are at risk from death and disease unless a rapid and speedy response is put into action.”
The silently creeping famine was visible to anyone who bothered to study the periodic reports of the aid agencies (and read between the lines) and regularly monitored the “famine early warning systems” over the past few years. But until now, no aid agency or donor country could force itself to use the “F” word. Political correctness had trumped the truth and the welfare of millions. The very aid agencies that are now frothing at the mouth sounding the alarm of a doomsday famine were describing the problem for the last few years in terms of “severe malnutrition”, “food shortages”, “acute food security phases” “food insecurity, scarcity, insufficiency and deprivation”, “chronic dietary deficiency”, “endemic malnutrition” and other clever phrases. They simply could not call a spade a spade. But famine by any other name is still famine. The “severe malnutrition” of yesterday has become today’s famine silently spreading to consume 12 million people.
Apocalypse in 40 Years?
Lately, everybody has been talking about facts and figures. It’s been all about percentages. Meles Zenawi says between now and 2015 Ethiopia’s economy will be growing at 12-15 percent a year. Recently, he told his party members: “We have devised a plan which will enable us to produce surplus and be able to feed ourselves by 2015 without the need for food aid.” That plan is anchored in what Zenawi calls “agricultural development–led industrialization” (ADLI), which purports to focus intensively on agriculture by technologically boosting the low level of productivity of small scale farmers and commercially linking them to the non-agricultural (industrial) sector. Zenawi says by 2015 extreme poverty in Ethiopia will be cut by 50 percent along with hunger (“severe malnutrition”) consistent with the U.N. Millennium Development Goals. The Ethiopian currency has been devalued by 20 percent over the past year. The annual inflation rate is galloping at 34.7 percent according to official reports (likely much higher). The International Monetary Fund predicts Ethiopia will likely have economic growth of 7.5 percent in 2011. On the political side, Zenawi said he won the May 2010 election by 99.6 percent. But lost in the stacks of fantasy percentages is a little big 3 percent that will ultimately determine the survivability of the Ethiopia people.
Last week, the U.S. Census Bureau had frightening predictions for Ethiopia, Nigeria and India. By 2050, India will be the most populous nation in the world, bypassing China sometime in the mid-2020s. Nigeria’s current population of 166 million will explode to 402 million. In just four decades, Ethiopia’s population will more than triple to 278 million, placing that country in the top 10 most populous countries in the world.
Ethiopia’s population growth has been spiraling upwards for decades. In 1967, the population was 23.5 million. It increased to 51 million in 1990 and by 2003, it had reached 68 million. In 2008, that number increased to 80 million. The Census Bureau estimates Ethiopia’s population today at 91 million. Since 1995, the average annual rate of population growth has remained at over 3 percent.
Every government and regime in Ethiopia over the past one-half century has blamed famine on “acts of God.” For the last two decades, the current regime has blamed “food shortages”, “chronic or severe malnutrition”, “food insecurity”, etc., on “poor and erratic rains,” “drought conditions,” “deforestation and soil erosion,” “overgrazing,” and other “natural factors”. Zenawi’s regime even had the brazen audacity to blame “Western indifference” and “apathy” in not providing timely food aid for the suffering of starving Ethiopians. There is not a single instance in which any Ethiopian government or regime has ever taken even partial responsibility for food shortages, extreme malnutriion or failure to act and prevent starvation and famine.
The issue of “food security” aside, the central question is: Does Zenawi have a policy to deal with the little big 3 percent problem?
In 1993, Zenawi’s “Transitional Government of Ethiopia” in its “National Population Policy of Ethiopia” (NPPE) declared that “its major goal [was] the harmonization of the rate of population growth and the capacity of the country for the development and rational utilization of natural resources thereby creating conditions conductive to the improvement of the level of welfare of the population.”
Among the major objectives of the NPPE included “closing the gap between high population growth and low economic productivity through planned reduction of population growth…, reducing the rate to urban migration, reducing the current total fertility rate of 7.7 children per woman to approximately 4.0 by the year 2015… mounting an effective country wide population information and education programme addressing issues pertaining to small family size and its relationship with human welfare and environmental security.”
Among the strategies to be used in achieving these objectives included “expanding clinical and community based contraceptive distribution services, raising the minimum age at marriage for girls from the current lower age limit of 15 to, at least, 18 years, making population and family life related education and information widely available via formal and informal media”, facilitating delivery of population and family planning related services by non-governmental organizations and changing the law “to remove unnecessary restrictions pertaining to the advertisement, propagation and popularization of diverse conception control methods.”
Given the fact that the average annual rate of population growth in Ethiopia has remained at over 3 percent since 1995,commenting on the NPPE is belaboring the obvious.
Will There Be Ethiopia in 2050?
Whether Ethiopia survives as a viable nation in 2050 free of war, disease, pestilence and famine will not depend on an imaginary 15 percent economic growth or a ludicrous 99.6 percent election victory. It will depend on what is done to deal with the little big 3 percent problem. In other words, overpopulation poses the single most critical problem and decisve issue in Ethiopia today and the years to come.
Thomas Malthus, the 18th Century British economist argued that human population, if unchecked, tends to grow much faster than the capacity of the land to produce food. He explained that population can be controlled through “preventive checks” (such as family planning, wide use of contraceptives to slow growth, marriage at later age) or “positive checks” (mortality caused by war, disease, plague, disaster). The bottom line is that if Ethiopia cannot adequately feed, clothe and shelter 90 million of its people today, there is no way on earth she can do so for 278 million in just 40 years. If the “Malthusian catastrophe” is what is looming on the Ethiopian horizon, the outcome is predictable and certain: massive starvation and famine, extreme overcrowding, endemic poverty, total depletion of natural resources and massive environmental degradation. Widespread and extreme civil strife, conflict over scarce resources and epidemics will complete the grim picture.
What needs to be done is pretty clear. As the Indian economics Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has convincingly argued, the best way to avert famines (and simultaneously deal with the underlying problem of overpopulation) is by institutionalizing multiparty democracy and strengthening human rights: “No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy” because democratic governments “have to win elections and face public criticism, and have strong incentive to undertake measures to avert famines and other catastrophes.”
Ethiopia’s famine today is a famine borne of “food scarcity” as much as it is a famine borne of a scarcity of democracy and good governance. Ethiopians are famished for democracy, starved of human rights, thirst for the rule of law, ache for accountability of those in power and yearn to breathe free from the chokehold of dictatorship. But after two decades of one-man, one-party rule, we do not even see the ghost of democracy on Ethiopia’s parched landscape. We can only see a malignant and entrenched dictatorship that continues to cling to power like ticks on a milk cow; and in the dark and gloomy 40-year Ethiopian horizon, we see the specter of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse aiming their swords, spears and arrows against a defenseless population of 278 million. Our only shield is a genuine multiparty democracy that functions under the rule of law!
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ and http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/
The Voice of America’s (VOA) Journalist Standards & Practices (document 11-023 and 11-024), under the section captioned “WHAT DO VOA’S AUDIENCES HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT? Audiences ‘ Bill of Journalism Rights” provides that VOA’s audiences have the:
right to expect that journalists will monitor power and give voice to the voiceless. The press should use its watchdog power to uncover things that are important and new and that change community thinking… The press should monitor all the key centers of power in the community-including but not limited to government.
Last week, a visiting delegation of the VOA Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) in Ethiopia was served an ultimatum by dictator Meles Zenawi: If the VOA wants the electronic jamming of its broadcasts to Ethiopia stopped, it must silence and banish from its microphones the voices of specific individuals in the Ethiopian Diaspora and some within Ethiopia. The delegation told Zenawi that the VOA is voice of the voiceless, not the silencer of the already voiceless.
It was an amazing display of nerve, hubris and insolence. In what amounts to a black list of enemies, Zenawi handed the VOA delegation a roster of well-known Ethiopian opposition leaders, activists and advocates who have long championed the causes of democracy, freedom and human rights in Ethiopia. Among the individuals Zenawi wanted blackballed by the VOA include Paulos Milkias, Beyene Petros, Getachew Metaferia, Seeye Abraha, Merra Gudina and Berhanu Nega. But the black “list goes on” with the names of numerous other individuals. This author is reportedly among the individuals the VOA was asked to ban.
My hat’s off to the VOA’s BBG for upholding its “Audiences ‘ Bill of Journalism Rights” and legal mandates against such a brazen assault on its journalistic integrity and professionalism.
The Irony of Defending a Dictator
It is ironic that Zenawi is now trying to take away my right to speak freely in America sitting in his palace in Ethiopia. Last September, I stood up to defend his right to speak freely in America, at Columbia University’s World Leaders Forum. I was perhaps the only individual in the in the Ethiopian pro-democracy opposition who stepped forward and publicly and vigorously defended Zenawi’s right to speak at that Forum. I faced withering criticism and censure in public and private for defending Zenawi’s right. So many were disappointed in me for taking such a public stand. Some openly questioned my sanity suggesting that I was living in my “academic fantasyland” to defend such a “ruthless dictator”. Others pitied me for being “hopelessly naïve”. Some even doubted my integrity by suggesting that I had “sold out” to Zenawi by defending his right to speak in America.
I am glad to have defended Zenawi’s right to speak, and would do so again without hesitation. The ultimate proof of one’s unwavering belief in freedom of expression is one’s unwavering acceptance of the right of free expression of those whose views one considers abominable. That was why I stood up and unreservedly defended Zenawi’s right to speak at Columbia:
But as a university professor and constitutional lawyer steadfastly dedicated to free speech, I have adopted one yardstick for all issues concerning free speech, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ I underscore the words ‘everyone’ and ‘regardless of frontiers…’
Though I condemn Zenawi for his abuse, mistreatment and cruelty against Serkalem and Eskinder and other journalists, disagree with him on his repeated theft of elections, trashing of the human rights of Ethiopian citizens, boldfaced lies about economic growth… unjust incarceration of Birtukan Midekssa… crackdown on the press and civil society organizations, subversion of the legislative process to mill out repressive laws… I shall vigorously defend his right to speak not just at Columbia but at any other public venue in the United States of America.
Now, Zenawi tries to strong-arm the VOA into taking my right of free speech in America by having me and others blackballed. Zenawi has sealed the mouths, plugged the ears and poked out the eyes of 80 million Ethiopians. Now he has the temerity, the sheer audacity to demand the VOA to do his dirty job in America!?!
I am not sure whether to laugh out loud, take offense or express outrage at such a brazenly impudent attempt to interfere with the right of free speech and of the press in America. But this is not the first time Zenawi has tried to jerk the VOA or other international broadcasters. In 2005, he charged five Ethiopian-born VOA journalists in his kangaroo court on trumped up “genocide” and other charges. Last year, he likened the VOA to Rwanda’s genocide-Radio Mille Collines. Zenawi has managed to intimidate Deutche Welle (DV) (German Radio Ethiopia Broadcast) editors into keeping his critics off the air by orchestrating a campaign or fear and smear. The fact of the matter is that Zenawi can intimidate and threaten Deutsche Welle and the independent press in Ethiopia. But he will never be able to do the same to the VOA!
One is left wondering if Zenawi has a clue about speech and press freedoms in America. Does he really believe the VOA or any other individual or institution in America has the power to muzzle, censor, blackball or otherwise prevent any person in America from exercising their freedom of expression? Does he really believe he can intimidate the VOA into abandoning its legal duties and mandates and journalistic standards to accommodate his paranoid need for a complete and total news and information blackout in Ethiopia? How does one respond to the ignorantly arrogant and arrogantly ignorant?
Educating a Dictator: Freedom of Speech in America 101
The German literary figure Johann Wolfgang von Goethe observed, “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” There is nothing more frightful to the system of American liberties than the insidious demand by Zenawi to gag, muzzle and blackball his critics in America and forever ban them from appearing on VOA programs and broadcasts. By making such an insolent and criminal demand, Zenawi showed not only his abysmal ignorance of the American Constitution and law but also struck a blow at the very heart of the most precious of all American liberties: freedom of speech and of the press. Zenawi’s blacklist for the suppression of the free speech rights of American citizens and others is no less threatening than an attack by Al-Qaeda on the American homeland. The only difference is that Al-Qaeda schemes to take American lives, Zenawi American liberties.
Free speech and the free press are the bedrock and cornerstones of American society. Free speech and the free press are what make America, America, and not prison nation Ethiopia. Without free speech and the free press, there is no America! What makes America different from any other nation in the world is her Bill of Rights of which the First Amendment – the right to expressive freedoms — is foremost, her fiercely independent judiciary and the American people’s unyielding commitment to individual freedom. Zenawi has the gall to demand an agency of the U.S. Government blacklist American citizens and others!
It is obvious that Zenawi needs a basic lesson in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is unquestionably the paramount element of the U.S. Constitution. It guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. The constitutional language used in securing these rights is crystal-clear, sweeping, uncompromising and unambiguous: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” “No law” means no government official or institution has the power to restrict, censor, suppress, restrain, muzzle or blackball any American citizen or inhabitant of the U.S. from exercising their right to free speech or restrain the independent press from performing its institutional functions.
Political speech in America is sacred and given the highest level of constitutional protection. Any person in America has the right to publicly criticize, denounce, condemn and berate any government institution or leader with impunity. The right of Americans to criticize their government evolved over centuries of struggle for individual rights. Like Zenawi today, in 1735, long before the American Republic was established, the greedy and arrogant British Governor of New York, William Cosby, tried to prosecute newspaper publisher John Peter Zenger for badmouthing him (seditious libel). Cosby lost as Zenger was acquitted by a jury. Zenger’s case laid the foundation for press freedom in America.
In 1798, the Federalist Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts with the aim of punishing influential Republican newspaper editors and opposition leaders for badmouthing the president, Congress, or the government. Under the Act, a Congressman was convicted and imprisoned for calling President Adams a man who had “a continual grasp for power.” The Act expired in 1801 and President Jefferson pardoned the two dozen people convicted under that Act.
At the onset of the American Civil War in 1861, President Lincoln tried to silence his critics by suspending the right of citizens to challenge their detention (writ of habeas corpus) by military authorities. The Supreme Court struck down Lincoln’s order, and in a passionate defense of American liberties wrote:
By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers, or the clamor of an excited people… The nation…has no right to expect that it will always have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if this [broad power of martial law] be conceded, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate.
Towards the end of WW I, Congress enacted the Sedition Act of 1918 with the aim of punishing communists, socialists, anarchists and anti-war protesters who criticized the United States government. The U.S. Supreme Court established the so-called “clear and present danger” test as an evidentiary standard in criminal prosecutions to determine if the speech in question presented a real and immediate danger to the public. That test proved useless and was abandoned.
For the last 50 years, the powers of the U.S. federal and state governments to regulate and interfere in freedom of speech and of press have been severely curtailed. Just in the past couple of months, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws that interfered with the free speech rights of those on the outer fringes on American society. In one case, it ruled in favor of the right of a church group that protests at the funerals of soldiers and Marines killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The First Amendment protects even the rights of members of such a lunatic fringe determined to dishonor the memories of American heroes who gave up their lives to defend the free speech and protest rights of such a group.
In another case, the Court struck down a California law that sought to prohibit distastefully violent video games: “The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.” Last year the Court ruled that corporations have the same free speech rights as natural persons holding: “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The jurisprudence of free speech and press and protection for dissenters and government critics has a long and honored tradition in America. In 1971, in the “Pentagon Papers” case, the U.S. government attempted and failed to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing classified documents packed with damaging revelations about America’s conduct of the Vietnam War. In 1967, the State of New York attempted and failed to require state employees to declare their loyalty to the state or face dismissal from their jobs. In 1973, the Court upheld the right of individuals who have an interest in obscene material.
In 1989, the state of Texas attempted and failed in its efforts to criminalize the burning of the American flag in political protest. In 1992, the Supreme Court affirmed the free speech rights of hate-mongering Neo-Nazis and racist Klansmen. The government does not even have the power to discriminate against the viewpoints of this lunatic fringe. In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down indecency laws applying to the Internet keeping Congress out of regulation of the great equalizer: The Internet.
Zenawi may have been inspired by the short and sordid history of blacklisting in America. In the early 1950s, Senator Eugene McCarthy began a communist witch hunt by creating a blacklist of Americans suspected of communist ties and disloyalty. After falsely and recklessly accusing numerous individuals, McCarthy was censured by the Senate in 1954. He died no better than a skid row drunk in 1957.
President Nixon drew up a list of his critics in his “Political Enemies Project” in 1971. Nixon and his crew discussed “how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” Two years later, Nixon screwed himself and his crew out of a job when he resigned in total disgrace, and forty members of his administration were either indicted or jailed.
American presidents have been criticized, vilified and insulted not just by ordinary individuals but also the members of the press, opposition political leaders and the press. When Jimmy Carter talked about “ethnic purity”, Jesse Jackson slammed him for resorting to “Hitlerian racism.” The unions depicted and lashed out against President Ronald Reagan as the “enemy of working people”. The Libertarians reviled Reagan for being a “war monger.” Newsweek tagged President George Bush, Sr. a “wimp”. Bush felt so hurt by that label he commented on June 16, 1991: “You’re talking to the guy that had a cover of a national magazine, that I’ll never forgive, put that label on me.”
President George W. Bush, Jr. has been criticized, humiliated, vilified, ridiculed and everything else for his policies, personality, performance, mispronunciation of English words and for inventing his own “language” of “Bushism”. Members of the “Tea Party” have compared President Obama to Adolf Hitler and caricatured him in the image of all sorts of wild animals. A popular radio show host accused Obama of “planning a terrorist attack against the U.S.” Sara Palin accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”
The point is that there is not a damn thing American presidents can do to stop citizens from criticizing them, denouncing their policies, ridiculing their lifestyles or discrediting their ideas. That is the American way. If Zenawi thinks he can have the VOA blacklist and gag his critics in America, I would like to know on what planet he spends most of his time.
Blacklisting Ethiopians and Ethiopian Americans in America: Potential Violations of American Law?
If the demand for blacklisting had been done by any branch of the U.S. government, state governments or any subdivision or agency of any government in the U.S. or any private individual, legal action could lie under 18 U.S.C. sections 241(conspiracy against rights) and 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law) and other federal criminal statutes prohibiting solicitation to commit a crime. There are also avenues for a private right of action in Federal Court for violation or attempted violation of a constitutional/civil right. Solicitation and attempt by a foreign government to deprive American citizens or inhabitants of the U.S. of constitutional/civil rights in the United States presents legal issues of the utmost seriousness.
Truth: The Dictators’ Nightmare
One of the great justices of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote: “Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” I say censorship reflects the lack of confidence of a leader who cannot defend his ideas or vision, if he ever had one. If Zenawi should take one lesson from everything that is written here, it is simply this: In America, everyone has the absolute right to express his/her political views on whatever issue they desire. Neither Congress, the President of the United States nor a dictator from Africa has the power to take that right away.
We live in the United States of America, not the Benighted States of America. Zenawi has silenced the voices of 80 million people in the Dystopia of Ethiopia he has created over the past 20 years. He will never be able to do what he has done in Ethiopia in the United States of America. Let all “wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law” take a lesson from history: “No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.”
July 4, 2011
Today is July 4, 2011. Exactly 235 years ago, America declared its independence from colonial tyranny that flagrantly dispossessed Americans of their basic liberties: Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, the right to a fair and speedy trial and more. It is the irony of ironies that 235 years later, another generation must rise up to defend these scared liberties against an African tyrant.
Long live freedom of speech and of the press in America and in Ethiopia!
(This is the second installment in a series of commentaries I pledged to offer on U.S. policy in Africa under the heading “The Moral Hazard of U.S. Policy in Africa”. In Part I, I argued that democracy and human rights in Africa cannot be subordinated to the expediency of “engaging” incorrigible African dictators whose sole interest is in clinging to power to enrich themselves and their cronies.)
African Status Quo Broken
When U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made a brief stop at the African Union summit meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia a couple of weeks ago, she was talking my language: human rights, democracy, rule of law, accountability, transparency and the rest of it. She announced to the coterie of African dictators that the “status quo had broken” and she had come to talk to them about how they can regain democracy, achieve economic growth, and maintain peace and security.
Clinton said democracy in Africa is undergoing trial by fire despite a few successes in places like “Botswana, Ghana, and Tanzania.” She told the swarm of jackbooted African dictators that their people are gasping for democracy: “[W]e do know that too many people in Africa still live under longstanding rulers, men who care too much about the longevity of their reign, and too little about the legacy that should be built for their country’s future. Some even claim to believe in democracy – democracy defined as one election, one time.” She said Africa’s youth are sending a “message that is clear to us all: The status quo is broken; the old ways of governing are no longer acceptable; it is time for leaders to lead with accountability, treat their people with dignity, respect their rights, and deliver economic opportunity. And if they will not, then it is time for them to go.” The alternative for Africa’s “long standing rulers who hold on to power at all costs, who suppress dissent, who enrich themselves and their supporters at the expense of their own people” is to face the types of “changes that have recently swept through North Africa and the Middle East. After years of living under dictatorships, people have demanded new leadership; in places where their voices have long been silenced, they are exercising their right to speak, often at the top of their lungs.”
U.S. Sounding Like a Broken Record
For some time now, President Obama, Secretary Clinton and other top U.S. officials have been doing the same song and dance about dictatorship and poor governance in Africa. In July 2009 in Ghana, President Obama declared, “Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.” Today Secretary Clinton says: “Good governance requires free, fair, and transparent elections, a free media, independent judiciaries, and the protection of minorities.”
Two years ago, President Obama lectured African dictators: “No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.” Today Secretary Clinton sarcastically notes, “Too many people in Africa still live under longstanding rulers… [who] believe in democracy – democracy defined as one election, one time.”
Two years ago, President Obama berated African dictators: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history.” Today Secretary Clinton warns the same dictators, “If you do not desire to help your own people work and live with dignity, you are on the wrong side of history.”
Two years ago, President Obama threatened African dictators: “I have directed my administration to give greater attention to corruption… People everywhere should have the right to start a business or get an education without paying a bribe. We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don’t, and that is exactly what America will do.” Today Secretary Clinton pleads with the same dictators: “We are making [corruption] a priority in our diplomatic engagement, and we look to our partners to take concrete actions to stop corruption.”
Last year, President Obama told a delegation of African youths: “Africa’s future belongs to its young people… We’re going to keep helping empower African youth, supporting education, increasing educational exchanges… and strengthen grassroots networks of young people…” Today Secretary Clinton laments, “A tiny [African] elite prospers while most of the population struggles, especially young people…”
When it comes to Africa, the Obama Administration is increasingly sounding like a broken record.
Empty Words and Emptier Promises
The U.S. has been talking a good talk in Africa for the last two years, but has not been walk the walk; better yet, walking the talk. Following the May 2010 “elections” in Ethiopia in which dictator Meles Zenawi claimed a 99.6 percent victory, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley said, “We value the cooperation that we have with the Ethiopian government on a range of issues including regional security, including climate change. But we will make clear that there are steps that it needs to take to improve democratic institutions.” The U.S. “clearly” took no action as Ethiopia has become a veritable police state behind a veneer of elections.
Following the rigged elections in Uganda in February 2011, Crowley said, “Democracy requires commitment at all levels of government and society to the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, independent media, and active civil society.” The U.S. promptly congratulated Yoweri Museveni on his election victory and conveniently forgot about the rule of law and all that stuff.
Following the elections in Cote d’Ivoire last November and Laurent Gbagbo’s refusal to step down (calling it a “mockery of democracy”) Crowley said, “The U.S. is prepared to impose targeted sanctions on Ivory Coast’s incumbent President Gbagbo, his immediate family and his inner circle, should he continue to illegitimately cling to power.” The U.S. imposed a travel ban, but that did not matter much since Gbagbo had no intention of leaving the Ivory Coast. Months later he was collared and dragged out of his palace like a street criminal.
In July 2009, the White House in a press statement said, “The United States is concerned about the recent actions of Niger’s President Mamadou Tandja to rule by ordinance and decree and to dissolve the National Assembly and the Constitutional Court as part of a bid to retain power beyond his constitutionally-limited mandate.” The U.S. took no action against Tandja, but Niger’s military did.
A couple of weeks ago, Ali Bongo Ondimba of Gabon visited the U.S. and received a warm reception at the White House which put out a press statement applauding the “the important partnership between the United States and Gabon on a range of critical regional and global issues.” Ali is the son of the notorious Omar Bongo who ruled Gabon with an iron fist for 42 years before his death in 2009.
Not long ago, Crowley called Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea a “dictator with a disastrous record on human rights.” Nguema’s son, Teodorin frequently travels to his $35 million-dollar mansion in Malibu, California flying in his $33 million jetliner and tools around town in a fleet of luxury cars. He earned a salary of $6,799 a month as agriculture minister. Forbes estimates his net worth at $600 million.
America Should Stop Subsidizing African Kleptocracies
The U.S. should stop subsidizing African kleptocratic thugtatorships through its aid policy and hit the panhandling thieves in the pocketbook. In one of my weekly commentaries in November 2009 (“Africorruption, Inc.”), I argued that the business of African governments is corruption. Most African “leaders” seize political power to operate sophisticated criminal enterprises to loot their national treasuries and resources. As Geroge Ayittey, the distinguished Ghanaian economist and arguably one of the “top 100 public intellectuals worldwide who are shaping the tenor of our time” recently noted, Africa’s “briefcase bandits” run full-fledged criminal enterprises. Sani Abacha of Nigeria amassed $5 billion, and the Swiss Supreme Court in 2005 declared the Abacha family a “criminal enterprise”. Omar al-Bashir of the Sudan has stashed away $7 billion while Hosni Mubarak is reputed to have piled a fortune of $40 billion. In comparison, Ayittey says, “The net worth of 43 U.S. presidents from Washington to Obama amounts to a measly $2.5 billion.”
Foreign aid is known as the perfect breeding ground for corruption in Africa.According to the Brussels Journal (“Voice of Conservatism in Europe”), “Most serious analysts of the failures of development aid [in Africa], including a number of government commissions, not only identified corruption in recipient governments as a reason the aid programs failed but, in fact, found the projects actually fueled additional corruption and increased the plight of the people.” Africa’s thugtators not only siphon off foreign aid targeted for critical school, hospital, road and other public works and community projects to line their pockets, they also use the aid they receive to fortify their regimes and suppress the democratic aspiration of the people. In its October 2010 report on Ethiopia, Human Rights Watch reported:
Foreign aid has become one of the government’s most effective tools in suppressing and punishing criticism. Human Rights Watch’s research found that local officials often deny assistance to people they perceive as political opponents – including many who are not actually involved in politics at all. Impoverished farmers know they risk losing access to aid which their livelihoods depend on if they speak out against abuses in their communities. Most respond by staying quiet; aid discrimination has made freedom of speech a luxury many Ethiopians quite literally cannot afford.
Simply stated, an endless supply of the hard earned cash of American Joe and Jane Taxpayer is making it possible for African thugtators to cling to power and crush the legitimate aspirations of African peoples. The thugtators know that as long as billions of American taxpayer dollars (free money) keep flowing into their pockets, they do not have to do a darn thing to improve governance, respect human rights or institute accountability and transparency.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told a gathering of African dictators in Uganda in 2010 that “the U.S. Department of Justice is launching a new Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative aimed at combating large-scale foreign official corruption and recovering public funds for their intended and proper use.” More power to Holder. It is great to grab the corrupt and thieving African dictators and their cronies in the U.S. as they launder hundreds of millions of dollars every year buying businesses and homes and making “investments”. But it is more important to hold them accountable for the billions of aid dollars they receive from U.S. every year.
If the Obama administration is committed to battling corruption as ‘one of the great struggles of our time’, as it has so often declared, it needs to undertake a thorough and complete investigation of aid money given to African dictators. In November 2009, U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelley stated that the U.S. is investigating allegations that “$850 million in food and anti-poverty aid from the U.S. is being distributed on the basis of political favoritism by the current [Ethiopian] prime minister’s party.” There exists no official report in the public domain today concerning the outcome of that investigation. (If any such report exists, we are prepared to scrutinize it.) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, one must logically assume that no one for sure knows what happened to the USD$850 million handed over to Zenawi. Since the State Department does not seem to be up to the job of investigating aid-related corruption allegations in Ethiopia, it is appropriate for the General Accounting Office (the independent nonpartisan Congressional watchdog) to undertake a full investigation of the Human Rights Watch allegations.
When the U.S. hands out billions of dollars of free money to countries like Ethiopia without any meaningful accountability and discernable performance requirements, the effect on governance and observance of human rights is disastrous as evidenced in the fact that Zenawi used American aid money to suppress dissent and steal elections in 2010. In Ethiopia, where aid constitutes more than 90% of the government budget, establishing the scope of corruption in aid is absolutely necessary. Such accountability could have a huge impact not only on improving governance in Ethiopia but also in all other U.S. aid recipient countries on the continent.
Corruption is fundamentally a human rights issue. As Peter Eigen, founder and chairman of Transparency International has argued:
Corruption leads to a violation of human rights in at least three respects: corruption perpetuates discrimination, corruption prevents the full realisation of economic, social, and cultural rights, and corruption leads to the infringement of numerous civil and political rights. Beyond that, corruption undermines the very essence of the rule of law and destroys citizens’ trust in political leaders, public officials and political institutions.”
By turning a blind eye to endemic aid-related corruption, the U.S. is unintentionally promoting disregard for human rights protections and undermining the growth of democratic institutions and institutionalization of the rule of law and good governance in Ethiopia and the rest of Africa. When foreign aid provides 90 percent of the regime’s budget in Ethiopia, is it any wonder that Zenawi’s regime “won” the May 2010 “elections” by 99.6 percent?
As the old saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I regret to say that aid given to Africa with the best of intentions in the name of the most generous people in the history of the world has made the continent a heaven for bloodthirsty dictators and hell for the vast majority of poor Africans. I wonder if the American people would tolerate and approve of the the crimes that are being committed in Africa using their hard earned dollars year after year if we took it upon ourselves to educate them!
There is the economics of Adam Smith, the intellectual father of capitalism. There is Levitt & Dubner’s freakonomics of weird stuff. Then there is the fakeonomics (economics by gimmickry) of Meles Zenawi, the dictator in Ethiopia and author of the five-year “Growth and Transformation Plan” (GTP). Zenawi forecasts a “not unimaginable” 14.9 percent economic growth for Ethiopia over the next five years after devaluing the currency by 20 percent, slapping price controls on many food items and watching from the sidelines annual inflation galloping at 34.7 percent. He has accused the country’s business community of price gauging and hoarding and threatened to shut them down, jail them and literally cut the hands of any business person caught in the illicit trade of coffee.
The GTP is a make-a-wish list of stuff. It purports to be based on a “long-term vision” of making Ethiopia “a country where democratic rule, good-governance and social justice reigns.” It aims to “build an economy which has a modern and productive agricultural sector with enhanced technology and an industrial sector” and “increase per capita income of citizens so that it reaches at the level of those in middle-income countries.” It boasts of “pillar strategies” to “sustain faster and equitable economic growth”, “maintain agriculture as a major source of economic growth,” “create favorable conditions for the industry to play key role in the economy,” “expand infrastructure and social development,” “build capacity and deepen good governance” and “promote women and youth empowerment and equitable benefit.”
The ‘economic plan’ (“GTP”) itself floats on a sea of catchphrases, clichés, slogans, buzzwords, platitudes, truisms and bombast. Zenawi says his plan will produce “food sufficiency in five years.” But he cautions it is a “high-case scenario which is clearly very, very ambitious.” He says the ‘base-case’ scenario of ‘11 percent average economic growth over the next five years is doable” and the ‘high-case’ scenario of 14.9 percent is ‘not unimaginable’. The hype of super economic growth rate is manifestly detached from reality. The Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative Multidimensional Poverty Index 2010 (formerly annual U.N.D.P. Human Poverty Index) ranks Ethiopia as second poorest (ahead of famine-ravaged Mali) country on the planet. Six million Ethiopians needed emergency food aid last year and many millions will need food aid this year. An annual growth rate of 15 percent for the second poorest country on the planet for the next five years goes beyond the realm of imagination to pure fantasy. The IMF predicts a growth rate of 7 percent for 2011, but talking about economic statistics on Ethiopia is like talking about the art of voodoo.
Strong growth has continued in 2010/11 that the mission estimates at 7.5 percent (compared to an official estimate of 11.4 percent)…. The mission sees lower growth for 2011/12, at about 6 percent, on account of high inflation, restrictions on private bank lending, and a more difficult business environment… The growth and investment objectives of the new five-year Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) are ambitious. The mission urged the authorities to the pace implementation of the plan to avoid any further overheating of the economy. Success will also hinge on allowing room for the private sector to thrive and maintaining a low risk of debt distress…
Ethiopia’s dependence on foreign capital to finance budget deficits and a five-year investment plan is unsustainable… I can’t see it’s sustainable short of discovering huge oil reserves, essentially an unexpected windfall… I don’t see how they can sustain such an aggressive investment plan without getting into serious problems… If you’re not as a nation saving enough, you are dependent on foreign capital or other means of financing investment in an unhealthy, unsustainable way… That’s the sort of trap they seem to be falling into… On debt there is a danger… If this public investment-led growth at some point really stumbles or stagnates for a while then all these debt equations could unravel. … I do worry that without the private sector expanding much more vigorously then rapid growth is not likely to be sustainable and if that’s the case then all these debt balances could go out of control.
On June 6, Zenawi’s finance chief said the WB and IMF are all wrong. He insisted the GTP will “double economic growth by registering 14.9 percent growth on average”. He proclaimed that in the next five years there will be “fast and sustainable economic growth,” and “food security at household and national level.” There will be “more than 2000 km of railway networks would be constructed” and power generation will be in the range of “ 8,000 to 10,000 MW from water and wind resources during the next five years.”
On June 9, Zenawi’s deputy, Hailemariam Desalegn, offered assurances that “economic expansion won’t drop below 9 percent in the fiscal year to July 7, 2012, from 11.4 percent this year.” He boasted that “the whole community has mobilized to buy bonds. This huge savings and mobilization is used for infrastructure development… We are getting loans from China, India, Turkey and South Korea, so all these foreign savings are also mobilized… So I think we can perform on the ambitious plans that are in place.”
Cutting Through the Diplomatic Bull
For the last several months, Zenawi has been staging one farcical political theatre after another to distract attention from his brutal repression and to pretend that he is the one immovable object in the Sub-Saharan universe come the gusting southerly winds of change from Tunisia, Egypt and Libya or high water. He has been engaged in belligerent talk of regime change in Eritrea, inflammatory water war-talk with Egypt, wild allegations of terrorist attacks, proclamations for the construction of an imaginary dam over the Blue Nile, vicious attacks on international human rights organizations and wholesale jailing and intimidation of opponents.
Now Zenawi is shifting from political to economic theatre. As the country convulses in spiraling inflation Zenawi says, “It’s all good. Not a problem.” But the verdict of the big time bankers is in: Zenawi’s GTP is pure fantasy, a figment of his imagination. Of course, bankers like diplomats avoid straight talk and prefer to tip-toe and tap-dance around the truth. When they can say the GTP has as much chance of success as a snowball in hell, they would say the plan is “ambitious,” “unhealthy” and “unsustainable.” Instead of saying the plan is manifestly doomed to failure, they hedge on absurd contingencies that the plan will work only if “huge oil reserves are discovered” or the country gets an “unexpected windfall”. When they can say the Ethiopian economy has collapsed, they hem and haw about their concerns that the plan could “further overheat the economy”. They twiddle their thumbs and “worry about the private sector not thriving,” and express concern over Ethiopia’s “dependence on foreign capital”, the “unraveling of debt equations” and “debt balances getting out of control.”
Fakeonomics 101
As I have demonstrated in a previous commentary, Zenawi’s economic planning is based on juggled figures, massaged statistics and irrational exuberance about overrated and illusory economic development. Systematic falsification of economic data, fraudulent statistics and creative accounting in economic reports have largely gone unchallenged for years by the learned economists. The lack of systematic and sustained critique by Diaspora economists is all the more surprising and baffling given the fact that the economic swagger and wind-bagging about stratospheric economic growth and development comes from a regime not known for its economic “literacy”. The Economist Magazine in its November 7, 2006 editorial, in the context of the Starbucks coffee row, bluntly stated: “The Ethiopian government, one of the most economically illiterate in the modern world, would do well to take Starbucks’s advice.” The same observation was repeated in 2009 at a high level meeting of Western donor policy makers in Berlin where, according to a Wikileaks cablegram, a German diplomat suggested that Ethiopia’s economic woes could be traced to “Meles’ poor understanding of economics”. Today, to the surprise of many observers, the IMF and WB who have previously swallowed whole the regime’s preposterous economic claims are openly echoing the views of the German diplomat and the Economist Magazine.
Deceit, chicanery, paralogy and sophistry are the hallmarks of Zenawi’s regime. For many years, that regime has managed to scam the multilateral bankers and donors by talking about “sustainability,” “double-digit growth”, “renaissance” and “accelerated development in the developmental state”. It has even sought to shame and intimidate Western banker and donors by moral hectoring of the evils of “neoliberalism”. Zenawi seems to follow the old principle that “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” In the Information Age, if you tell one big lie and embellish it with little lies every day, you will end up fooling yourself and no one else. (That obviously does not apply to Ethiopia which is hopelessly stranded and trapped in the Censorship and Disinformation Age).
The economic facts about Ethiopia are plain for all to see: The economy is in the stranglehold of organized racketeers and regime cronies. Regime-affiliated businesses and enterprises control “freight transport, construction, pharmaceutical, and cement firms receive lucrative foreign aid contracts and highly favorable terms on loans from government banks.” According to the regime’s data, by the end of the 2009 fiscal year, Ethiopia’s outstanding debt stock was pegged at a crushing USD$5.2 billion. Remittances by Diaspora Ethiopians were the mainstay of the economy, and in 2008 Ethiopians in the U.S. alone sent $1.2 billion. “Ethiopia is Africa’s largest recipient of foreign aid (at $3.3 billion in 2008 and rising).” The regime has auctioned off millions of hectares of the country’s best land for less than pennies. “For £150 a week (USD$245), you can lease more than 2,500 sq km (1,000 sq miles) of virgin, fertile land – an area the size of Dorset, England – for 50 years, plus generous tax breaks.”
According to the regime’s data, Ethiopia’s year-on-year rate of inflation jumped to 34.7 percent in May (2011) from 29.5 percent a month earlier; and food prices rose 40.7 percent during the year. Every year, Zenawi’s regime runs up the SOS flag begging for emergency humanitarian aid . So far in 2011, humanitarian pledges, commitments and contributions to the regime exceed USD$212 million. To get a government job or higher education, one has to be a member of Zenawi’s party. Ethiopia’s current population of some 80 million is expected to double in the next thirty years. It is mind-numbing to imagine the number of people who will be living in abject poverty without access to health care, education and employment in Ethiopia in three decades. The regime has failed to implement any policy aimed at controlling population growth.
One has to assume that those in the inner circle of the regime are aware of the massive economic crises in the country despite their manifest lack of “economic literacy.” But that assumption may be questionable given the fact that the regime appears to be in denial and has used its modest economic ingenuity to pin the blame for Ethiopia’s galloping inflation and the rest of that country’s economic problems on global market forces. Zenawi now offers the GTP as a “pie in the sky” plan that will not only provide food security but also catapult Ethiopia into becoming a middle income country like Malaysia in five years. The fact of the matter is that the regime’s self-centered short-term interests in accumulating wealth for its members and determination to cling to power forever have trumped the long-term strategic interests of the country.
Zenawi now is not only having difficulty persuading its bankers that it has the right economic policy, but the bankers are looking at his plan with increasing derision and cynicism. Ohashi says the GTP will work if Ethiopia “discovers huge oil reserves” or gets “an unexpected windfall.” Ohashi might as well have said the plan will work if manna falls from the sky.
Zenawi’s fakeonomics is nothing new. The old communist regimes in Eastern Europe used to pull the same types of political and economic stunts. They would hold “elections” and declare they won it by 99 percent (to their credit not by 99.6 percent). They also had their “five-year economic plans” in which they predicted and “achieved” incredible economic growth. For instance, they would set a production target of ten thousand tractors a year and actually produce five thousand. They would publicly report they produced fifteen thousand tractors and give the factory bosses increased wages and bonuses for exceeding the production target. The communist regimes would even say they did not have inflation just high prices and deny high quality food items and other amenities to the masses while the nomenclatura (party bosses) and their cronies wallowed in luxury. The reality in Ethiopia is that basic necessities are unavailable and unaffordable to the vast majority of the people, and even those who could afford the inflated prices must have the right connection to get an adequate supply. A regime incapable of providing sugar, cooking oil and other basic staples to the people now boasts of making Ethiopia a middle income country in five years.
Are Ethiopians better off economically today than they were five years ago? The answer to that question will be the answer to what they will be five years from now!
In the final analysis, it is not about the plan. It’s about the man. As George Ayittey said, “Africa is poor because she is not free.” I say Africa is poor because of dictators who cling to power like ticks on a milk cow.
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ and http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/
George Ayittey, the distinguished Ghanaian economist, and arguably one of the “Top 100 Public Intellectuals” (a person of ideas who stands for things far larger than one’s academic discipline) worldwide who “are shaping the tenor of our time” has been at war with Africa’s tin pot dictators and their lackeys for at least two decades. In 1996, he told African intellectuals exactly what he thought of them: “Hordes of politicians, lecturers, professionals, lawyers, and doctors sell themselves off into prostitution and voluntary bondage to serve the dictates of military vagabonds with half their intelligence. And time and time again, after being raped, abused, and defiled, they are tossed out like rubbish — or worse. Yet more intellectual prostitutes stampede to take their places…”
No one tells the truth about Africa’s dictators or their Western sugar daddies better than Ayittey. Recently, he was in Oslo at the World Freedom Forum skewering African dictators and mapping out battle plans. He reminded his audience:
In the 1960s, we got rid of the white colonialists, but we did not dissemble the oppressive colonial state. We removed the white colonialist and replaced him by black neocolonialists, Swiss bank socialists, crocodile liberators, quack revolutionaries and briefcase bandits. Africans will tell you, we remove one cockroach and the next rat comes to do the same exact thing.
Africa’s “briefcase bandits” run full-fledged criminal enterprises. Sani Abacha of Nigeria amassed $5 billion, and the Swiss Supreme Court in 2005 declared the Abacha family a “criminal enterprise”. Omar al-Bashir of the Sudan has stashed away $7 billion while Hosni Mubarak is reputed to have piled a fortune of $40 billion. In comparison, Ayittey says, “The net worth of 43 U.S. presidents from Washington to Obama amounts to 2.5 billion.”
How Do You Fight and Win Against African Dictators?
Ayittey’s “law” of African dictatorship says African dictators cannot be defeated through “rah-rah street demonstrations alone.” To purge Africa from the scourge of dictatorships, Ayittey says three things are required:
First, it takes a coalition to organize and coordinate the activities of the various opposition groups. It is imperative that you have a small group of people– call them an elders’ council to coordinate the activities– [composed] of eminent and respectable personalities who have no political baggage. They must be able to reach out to all the opposition groups. We formed one in Ghana called the Alliance for Change… Second, you got to know the enemy, his modus operandi, his strengths and weaknesses… You find his weaknesses and exploit it…. All dictators [operate] by seiz[ing] the civil service, media, judiciary, security forces, election commission and control the bank. They pack these institutions with their cronies and subvert them to serve their interests. For a revolution to succeed, you have to wrest control of one of more of these institutions. Third, you have to get the sequence of reform correct…
Last year, there were ten elections in Africa. The dictators won all ten… Why? Because the opposition was divided. In Ethiopia, for example, there were 92 political parties running to challenge the dictator Meles Zenawi… It shouldn’t be this way. The council should bring all of the opposition into an alliance…
What Can Ethiopians Learn from Ayittey?
Is Ayittey right in his assertion that “dictator Meles Zenawi” keeps winning “elections” because the opposition is divided? Why is there not a “coalition to organize and coordinate the activities of the various Ethiopian opposition groups”? Is it possible to set up an “Ethiopian Alliance for Change”? What are the weaknesses of the dictator? These are questions that need to be discussed and debated by Ethiopians in Ethiopia and in the Diaspora.
Looking Through the Dictators’ Lenses
Ayittey is absolutely right in his prescriptions on how to remove dictators. In understanding the modus operandi of African dictators, one must necessarily go beyond an examination of the dictators’ actions, decision-making processes and command-and-control relationships and try to see the world through the dictators’ lenses. I believe it is equally important to have a sophisticated understanding of the mindset of African dictators, the motivations that drive them to commit unimaginable acts of cruelty, the perverted logic of their thought processes and why they cling to power when they are totally rejected by the people.
Analysis of the psychodynamics (mental, emotional, or motivational forces especially at the unconscious levels) of African dictators shows some act out of hate and others from greed and the need to dominate. Still others act from painful early childhood impressions which “tend to coalesce into a natural view of the world”. They spend the rest of their lives trying to get even against those who may have slighted them. All of Africa’s dictators are sociopaths. They have no empathy (no emotional capacity for the suffering of others) towards others. They are devoid of ethical and moral standards. For them it is normal to lie, steal, cheat, kill, torture and violate the rights of others. It is vitally important to have a clear and objective understanding of the mindset of African dictators to anticipate their likely responses in a variety of situations and their tactical adaptations to actions taken against them by their pro-democracy opponents.
My view is that “if you have seen one African dictator, you have seen them all”. African dictators manifest three basic traits: 1) denial of reality, 2) narcissism and 3) paranoia (fear). African dictators have difficulty accepting reality, that is, the world as it objectively manifests itself. They see only what they want to see; and to avoid what they don’t want to see, they manufacture their own convenient world of illusions out of the whole cloth of their personal beliefs, opinions and fantasies. When they win elections, they win by 99.6 percent. When unemployment and inflation are skyrocketing, they see annual economic growth of 15 percent. When people are starving, they see “pockets of severe malnutrition”. As they continue to abuse power without any legal restraints and convince themselves that they are above the law and accountable to no one but themselves, they transform their world of illusion into a world of delusion where they become both the “lone rangers” of the old American West and the sole custodians of the Holy Grail, with miraculous powers to save their nation.
African dictators are narcissistic. They believe they are the center of the universe and everything revolves around them. Because they are narcissistic, they are limited in their thinking, selective in their views, narrow in their vision, intolerant of dissent, solicitous of praise and adulation often surrounding themselves with yes-men, distrustful of everyone (except those in the small close group of people who feed them only the information they want to hear). They remain rigid and inflexible and their approach and attitude towards their opposition is never to compromise or negotiate. At best, they see their opposition as wayward children who need constant supervision, discipline and punishment to keep them in line. Their mantra is: “It’s my way which is the only way, or the highway, ain’t no way or you-are-on-your-way-to-jail!” To their way of thinking, conciliation and reconciliation with their opposition is humiliation, and a deep wound on their pride.
African dictators rule by fear, yet they and their henchmen and cronies live in a state of fear. It is true that those who are feared by the people in turn fear the people who fear them. They are afraid of their own shadows. They are afraid of criticism, and most of all they are afraid of the truth. They interact only with those in their inner circle (the “state within the state”, the “knights of the roundtable”). They often find out that their trusted and loyal lackeys have little real understanding of the outside world or the complex domestic issues and problems. Even when there are a few in the inner circle who might have some sophisticated understanding, they are often afraid to tell the dictators the truth.
Coalition Against African Dictatorships
Unless pro-democracy elements understand the psychodynamics of African dictators, they will likely remain on the defensive and inherently reactive mode. The fact of the matter is that African dictators study and know their opposition better than the opposition knows itself. They know how their opponents think, at what price they can be bought and sold and that many of them would rather join them to rip off the people than fight them. As Ayittey observed, they know even Africa’s best and brightest can be bought and sold like those in the world’s oldest profession. African dictators are always making psychological assessments of their opposition. They know what to do to exploit the smallest disagreements among their opposition. They know the leadership of their opposition is fixated on strategies that will bring quick results and avoid tactics that will work but take longer time to produce results. They know their opposition cannot prevail because they do not have the youth on their side, or have the willingness, readiness and capacity to mobilize and engage the youth. African dictators know the meaning of the statement made by their patron saint: “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.”
Know Thyself, Not Just the Dictators
To defeat African dictators, pro-democracy forces must do a great deal of self-introspection. Why do many in the African opposition do things that will help dictators become stronger? Opposition infighting is the greatest source of strength to African dictators. Why can’t opposition leaders get along with each other if they are irrevocably committed to the causes of freedom, democracy and human rights? Often opposition leaders can’t see the forest for the trees. Why don’t opposition leaders actively work to build trust, cooperation and camaraderie across party, ideological, ethnic, religious lines? Perhaps a code of conduct for opposition groups is needed to promote a culture of truth-telling, fair and ethical dealing, tolerance and loyalty to principles and causes than individuals regardless of their leadership role.
A couple of years ago, I wrote a commentary complaining about the disarray in the Ethiopian opposition and pleading with opposition elements to put the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights above partisan or individual interests.
Those genuinely in the opposition must accept responsibility for their inability to come together and articulate a vision for the country. They deserve blame for squandering valuable opportunities to build organizational alliances, develop alternative policies and train young leaders… But that is no excuse for not closing ranks against dictatorship now, and presenting a united front in support of democracy, freedom and human rights.
When we understand the dictators and ourselves, we can devise strategies and tactics to replace the “vampire African states” that Ayittey often speaks about with democratic governments that operate under the rule of law and with the consent of the people. Ayittey said, “Africa is poor because she is not free.” I say Africa remains under the boots of ruthless dictators because her best and brightest children are the shoe-shiners of the dictators. It is time to close ranks against African dictators.
George Ayittey, the distinguished Ghanaian economist, and arguably one of the “