Last week, there was a great deal of teeth-gnashing, knuckle-cracking and gut-wrenching by Ethiopia’s dictators over Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) 2010 report. The dictators belched out much sound and fury that signified nothing. Their fury had to do with HRW’s conclusion that “Ethiopia is on a deteriorating human rights trajectory as parliamentary elections approach in 2010.” In blunt and unequivocal language, HRW whipsawed the dictators with the facts:
Broad patterns of government repression have prevented the emergence of organized opposition in most of the country. In December 2008 the government reimprisoned opposition leader Birtukan Midekssa for life after she made remarks that allegedly violated the terms of an earlier pardon. In 2009 the government passed two pieces of legislation that codify some of the worst aspects of the slide towards deeper repression and political intolerance. A civil society law passed in January is one of the most restrictive of its kind, and its provisions will make most independent human rights work impossible. A new counterterrorism law passed in July permits the government and security forces to prosecute political protesters and non-violent expressions of dissent as acts of terrorism. Ordinary citizens who criticize government policies or officials frequently face arrest on trumped-up accusations of belonging to illegal “anti-peace” groups, including armed opposition movements. Officials sometimes bring criminal cases in a manner that appears to selectively target government critics…
The dictators bellyached about HRW’s “unfairness” and bitterly complained about its malicious and willful blindness to the great strides and democratic achievements they have made over the past several years. “How could HRW overlook our prized Code of Conduct for Political Parties negotiated by 65 political parties?” they lamented. How could they disregard a “Code” that is so “impressive, transparent, free, fair, peaceful, democratic, legitimate and acceptable to the voters”? To add insult to injury, they even overlooked the appointment “by parliamentary acclamation” of a new human rights commissioner. No matter. All HRW cares about is carping about the “civil society and anti-terrorist laws” and fabricating stories about human rights abuses in the Somali Regional State. Those cynical and contemptible rascals have “no interest in, and no time for, any promising developments.” After all, they are just stooges and mouthpieces of the evil Ethiopian “dissident” Diaspora whose sole aim is to discredit the “democratic achievements” of the dictatorship.
When candidate Barack Obama ran for the U.S. presidency, he used a folksy idiom to describe John McCain’s pretensions as a new force of change in Washington. “That’s not change [McCain is talking about]. That’s just calling the same thing something different. But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change; it’s still going to stink.”
Well, you can jazz up a bogus election in a one-man, one-party dictatorship with a “Code of Conduct”, but to all the world it is still a bogus election under a one-man, one-party dictatorship. You can appoint lackeys to issue a whitewash human rights report on “allegations” of abuse in the Ogaden and call it an objective inquiry commission report, but it is still a whitewash. You can appoint a fox to guard the chicken coop and call it safeguarding human rights, but the sly fox will not spare the chickens. You can put lipstick on dictatorship to make it look like a pretty democracy, but at the end of the day, it is still an ugly dictatorship!
Ethiopia’s dictators think we are all damned fools. They want us to believe that a pig with lipstick is actually a swan floating on a placid lake, or a butterfly fluttering in the rose garden or even a lamb frolicking in the meadows. They think lipstick will make everything look pretty. Put some lipstick on hyperinflation and you have one of the “fastest developing economies in the world”. Put lipstick on power outages, and the grids come alive with megawattage. Slap a little lipstick on famine, and voila! Ethiopians are suffering from a slight case of “severe malnutrition”. Adorn your atrocious human rights record by appointing a “human rights” chief, and lo and behold, grievous government wrongs are transformed magically into robust human rights protections. Slam your opposition in jail, smother the independent press and criminalize civil society while applying dainty lipstick to a mannequin of democracy. The point is, “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper and call it ‘democracy’ but after 20 years it stinks to high heaven!”
Of course, all the sound and fury is a calculated effort at misdirection. Instead of talking about the factual allegations in the HRW report, the dictators want to make Human Rights Watch the ISSUE. But HRW is one human rights organization that needs no lipstick to do its work, or to cover it up. HRW’s investigators do not work on a commission. They don’t get paid a dime for digging up mass graves in distant lands and conduct complex forensic studies. They make no money walking the scorching deserts for days and thumping the under brush in the tropical forests to interview remotely located civilian victims of war crimes and human rights abuse. HRW does not work for profit. They do their exceedingly difficult and dangerous work to prevent human rights abuse and to hold states, armed groups and others accountable for human rights violations. They receive their financial support largely from individual donations and gifts. HRW never takes sides in any conflict. To do their work, they do not make their own rules but use established international human rights conventions, treaties, domestic laws and resolutions of world bodies.
Vile accusations against HRW are not new. All governments and groups stung by HRW’s factual reports squeal like a stuck pig. They try to discredit HRW’s reports as methodologically flawed, unsubstantiated, speculative, slanted, unfair, biased and so on. They try to distract and misdirect public attention from the evidence of their criminality in the reports by attacking HRW as an antagonistic and politically vindictive organization. In the past few years, HRW has been vilified by those on opposite ends of the same conflict. Egypt and Saudi Arabia have called HRW a “Zionist” organization. The Israeli government has accused HRW of being “obsessed with Israel” and dubbed them “supporters of terrorism.” But HRW is an organization with the highest level of integrity. They will not back down from holding any government accountable, including the U.S. In its latest report, HRW praised President Obama for abolishing secret CIA prisons and banning all use of torture, but they clobbered him ferociously for “adopting many of the Bush administration’s most misguided policies” including the policy of “indefinite detention without charge” of “enemy combatants”.
There is no secret to HRW’s investigative work. They conduct extensive interviews of alleged victims of human rights abuse. They work with confidential informants in victims’ communities and gather evidence from others sources within a given country. They talk to officials and top political leaders and analyze government reports and any other relevant documentation and data. They conduct field investigations and their experts conduct forensic studies, perform ballistics tests and examine medical and autopsy reports. They always seek official permission to conduct their investigations, but most governments generally refuse or ignore the requests to enter their countries for such purposes. HRW has a rigorous system of checking and cross-checking facts. Before publication, HRW always presents its findings to the relevant governments for comment and feedback, and to incorporate changes and make corrections where appropriate. Often, regimes and governments remain silent and provide no feedback on the reports before publication. Once the reports are made public, governments sensitive to criticism unleash their spin-doctors to moan and groan about HRW in an attempt to capture media attention and deflect public scrutiny from the evidence in the reports that incriminate them.
“No one loves the messenger who brings bad news.” But attacking the messenger does not make a lie out of the message, just as putting lipstick on a pig does not make the pig a swan (perhaps a vulture).
Support Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other human rights organizations!
Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.
Since the dawn of African independence from colonialism in the early 1960s, African liberation leaders and founding fathers qua dictators, military junta and “new breed” leaders have sought to justify the one-man, one-party state — and avoid genuine multiparty democracy — by fabricating a blend of self-serving arguments which converge on the notion that in Africa there is a democracy before democracy. The core argument can be restated in different ways: Before Africa can have political democracy, it must have economic democracy. Africans are more concerned about meeting their economic needs than having abstract political rights. Economic development necessarily requires sacrifices in political rights. African democracy is a different species of democracy which has roots in African culture and history. African societies are plagued by ethnic, tribal and religious conflicts which can be solved not by Western-style liberal democracy but within the framework of the traditional African institutions of consensus-building, elder mediation and conciliation. Western-style democracy is unworkable, alien and inappropriate to Africans because the necessary preconditions for such a system are not present. Widespread poverty, low per capita incomes, a tiny middle class and the absence of a democratic civic culture render such a system incongruous with African realities. Liberal democracy could come to Africa only after significant economic development has been achieved. Any premature introduction or misguided imposition of it by the West could actually harm Africans by destroying their budding faith in democracy itself.
Stripped of rhetorical flourish, such self-serving arguments exploit manifest contradictions and deficits in African societies for the purposes of justifying the consolidation and fortification of the powers of the one-man, one-party state, and preventing the institutionalization of a competitive multiparty democratic process with electoral and constitutional accountability. The claim of primacy of “economic democracy” is based on an impressionistic (not empirically substantiated) assumption that the masses of poor, illiterate, hungry and sick Africans are too dumb to appreciate “political democracy”. In other words, the African masses are interested in the politics of the belly and not the politics of democracy and political rights. Africans live for and by bread alone. Elections, legal rights and liberties are meaningless to the poor and hungry masses. This assumption is pure nonsense as various well designed and executed empirical studies of democratic attitudes in Africa have shown. The claim of ethnic conflict to justify the one-man, one-party system is internally self-contradictory. If indeed the communalism and the institutions of traditional, pre-colonial African societies are the most effective means for dispute resolution and consensus-building, it is illogical to insist on investing a single leader and his party with sweeping and expansive powers.
All the layered sophistry and paralogism of African dictators is intended to mask their insatiable hunger for power and produce one set of self-serving axiomatic conclusions: Africa is not yet ready for genuine multiparty democracy. The one-man, one-party system is the only means to save Africa from itself, and from complete social, economic and political implosion. The one-man, one-party system will evolve into a genuine multiparty democracy at some undetermined time in the future. In the meantime, the one-man, one-party show must go on.
Post-independence African history is instructive in understanding the scourge of the one-man, and the curse of one-party rule in Africa. Ghana’s independence from colonialism as the first sub-Saharan African country in 1957, and the role played by its first prime minister and later president Kwame Nkrumah is central to understanding the pervasive problem of civilian and military dictatorships in Africa. Ghana was undoubtedly the most economically and socially advanced country in sub-Saharan Africa with an advanced educational system and relatively well-developed infrastructures when it gained its independence. Nkrumah was a role model for the dozens of leaders of African countries that achieved independence in the 1960s and 1970s. Despite Nkruma’s status as the unrivalled champion of Pan-Africanism and strong advocacy for a united Africa, he was also the single individual most responsible for casting the mold for the one-man, one-party dictatorship in post-independence Africa. Barely a year into his administration, the once fiery anti-colonial advocate of political rights and democracy had transformed himself into a power-hungry despot. He enacted a law making labor strikes illegal. He declared it was unpatriotic to strike. Paranoid about his opposition, he enacted a preventive detention act which gave him sweeping powers to arrest and detain any person suspected of treason without due process of law. He even dismissed the chief justice of Ghanaian Supreme Court, Sir Arku Korsah, when a three-judge panel Korsah headed acquitted suspects accused of plotting a coup. Nkrumah amended the constitution making his party, the Convention People’s Party, the only legal party in the country. He capped his political career by having himself declared president-for-life.
Other African leaders followed in Nkrumah’s footsteps. Julius Nyrere became the first president of Tanganyka (Tanzania) in 1962 and announced his brand of African socialism built around rural folks and their traditional values in a ujamma (extended family) system. Millions of villagers were forced into collectivized agriculture. He modeled his constitution after Ghana’s and followed Nkruma’s script. Nyrere established a one-man, one-party state around his Tanganyika African National Union, outlawed strikes, nationalized private banks and industries, duplicated Nkruma’s preventive detention act to go after his opponents and greatly increased his personal power.
With the exception of a few countries, Africa had been incurably infected by Nkrumah’s one-man, one-party virus before the end of the 1960s. Most of the leaders of the newly independent African countries followed Nkrumaha’s political formula by declaring states of emergency, suspending their constitutions, conferring unlimited executive powers upon themselves, and enacting oppressive laws which enabled them to arrest, detain and persecute their rivals, dissenters, and others they considered threats at will.
The economic and political outcomes of the one-man, one-party dictatorships by the end of the 1960s were dismal. Nkrumah’s program of rapid industrialization by reducing Ghana’s dependence on foreign capital and imports had a devastating effect on its important cocoa export sector. Many of the socialist economic development projects he launched failed. By the time he was overthrown in a military coup in 1966, Ghana had fallen from one of the richest African countries to one of the poorest. Similarly, Tanzania nose-dived from the largest exporter of agricultural products in Africa to the largest importer of agricultural products. The one-man, one-party state also proved to be ineffective in reducing ethnic tensions and preventing conflict. Civil wars, genocides, low level ethnic conflicts and corruption spread throughout the continent like wildfire.
Waiting in the wings were Africa’s soldiers. Accusing the civilian governments of corruption, incompetence and mismanagement of the economy and claiming a patriotic duty to rescue their countries from collapse, military officers knocked off these governments one by one. Gen. Joseph Mobutu seized power in the Congo (Zaire) following a protracted political struggle between Patrice Lumumba and Joseph Kasavubu. Col. Houari Boumedienne overthrew Ahmed Ben Bella in Algeria. A group of army officers overthrew the monarchy in Brundi. In the Central African Republic, Col. Bokassa (later Emperor Jean Bedel Bokassa) overthrew David Dacko. Gen. Idi Amin overthrew Milton Obote in Uganda. Nigeria flipped two coups, one by Gen. Johnson Ironsi who was overthrown by Gen. Yakubu Gowon. Many other African countries suffered similar fates.
There is overwhelming evidence to show that the one-man, one-party state has been a total failure in Africa over the past one-half century. Under these dictatorships, African countries have faced civil and border wars and ethnic and religious strife. Famine, malnutrition and insufficient food production have caused the deaths of millions of Africans. The poverty and unemployment rates continue to rise despite billions in foreign aid and loans. Infant mortality is nearly 100 per thousand (compared to 5 in the United States). Africans have the lowest life expectancies in the world. After fifty years of independence per capita income in much of Africa had declined so much that President Obama had to artfully remind Africans in his speech in Ghana: “Countries like Kenya, which had a per capita economy larger than South Korea’s when I was born, have been badly outpaced.” Politically, the one-man, one-party dictatorships have brought neither ethnic harmony nor good governance; and they have failed to forge a common national identity for their people.
Today we still hear the same rubbish about a democracy before democracy recycled by a “new breed” of silver-tongued African leaders. Meles Zenawi, the chief architect of the one-man, one-party state in Ethiopia says:
Establishing democracy in Africa is bound to take a long time and that elections alone will not produce democracy and do not necessarily bring about democratic culture or guarantee a democratic exercise of rule. Creating a democracy in poverty-ridden and illiterate societies that have not yet fully embraced democratic values and are not yet familiar with democratic concepts, rules and procedures is bound to take a long time and to exact huge costs.
Similar arguments are made by Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Paul Kagame of Rwanda; and even the wily old coyote, Robert Mugabe, pulls the same stunt at age 85 to justify clinging to power.
The “new breed” dictators are trying to sell the same old snake oil in a new bottle to Africans. But no one is fooled by the sweet-talking, iron-fisted new breed dictators who try to put a kinder and gentler face on their dictatorship, brutality and corruption. They should spare us their empty promises and hypocritical moral pontifications. For one-half century, Africans have been told democracy requires sacrifices and pain; and they must look inwards to their village communities, traditional elders and consensus dialogue to find the answers. Africans don’t want to hear that “democracy” takes time and they must wait, and wait and wait as the new breed of dictators pick the continent clean right down to the bare bones. Africans want Africa to no longer be the world’s cesspool of corruption, criminality and cruelty.
The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as democracy before democracy. There could be either democracy or one-man, one-party dictatorships in Africa. We all know exactly what the latter means. The only question is how best to implement constitutional multiparty systems in Africa. On this question, there may be an ironic twist of history. As Ghana was the original model of the one-man, one-party state in Africa, Ghana today could be the model of constitutional multiparty democracy in Africa.
As I have argued previously argued[1], Ghana today has a functioning competitive multiparty political system guided by its Constitution. Article 55 guarantees “Every citizen of Ghana of voting age has the right to join a political party.” Political parties are free to organize and “disseminate information on political ideas, social and economic programmes of a national character.” BUT TRIBAL AND ETHNIC PARTIES ARE ILLEGAL IN GHANA under Article 55 (4). That is the key to Ghana’s political success. The Ghanaians also have an independent Electoral Commission which ensures the integrity of the electoral process, and under Article 46 is an institution “not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.” Ghanaians enjoy many a panoply of political civil, economic, social and cultural rights. In 2008, Ghana (population 23 million) ranked 31 out of 173 countries worldwide on World Press Freedom Index (Ethiopia- population 80 million ranked 142/173). There are more than 133 private newspapers, 110 FM radio stations and 2 state-owned dailies. Ghanaians express their opinions without fear of government retaliation. The rule of law is upheld and the government follows and respects the Constitution. Ghana has an independent judiciary which is vital to the observance of the rule of law and protection of civil liberties. Political leaders and public officials abide by the rulings and decisions of the courts and other fact-finding inquiry commissions. Ghana is certainly not a utopia, but it is proof positive that multiparty constitutional democracy can and will work in Africa.
Africa’s and Ethiopia’s future in the 21st Brave New Globalized Century lie in genuine multiparty democracy, not in recycled one-man, one-party, pie-in-the-sky-promising dictatorships. Poverty, ethnic conflict, illiteracy and all of the other social ills will continue to haunt Africa for decades to come. Dealing effectively with these issues can not be left to failed-beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt, one-man, one-party dictatorships. If Africa is to be saved from total collapse, its ordinary people must be fully empowered in an open, pluralistic and competitive multiparty political process. For those who have any doubts about Ethiopia’s readiness for genuine multiparty democracy, let them look at the facts of the 2005 election: 26 million eligible Ethiopians were registered to vote in that election out of a population of 74 million.A stunning 90 percent of the 26 million actually voted. NO MORE ONE-MAN, ONE-PARTY DICTATORSHIPS IN AFRICA. GENUINE MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY, NOW!
[1] http://www.ethiopianreview.com/content/10396
Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.
Aristotle wrote that “man is a political animal” to suggest that the defining characteristic of human beings is involvement in the civic life of their communities. Today, many Ethiopians across the board are strangely disengaged and alienated from Ethiopian politics. For the “alienated majority”, the disengagement is justified. They liken Ethiopian politics to a driverless bus, a pilotless plane or a freight train careening down a steep gorge without an engineer. People are starving. The economy is in shambles. Human rights violations are widespread. There is no rule of law. Corruption is endemic; and misery is a fact of daily life. Many have given up on politics believing that the country is in the iron clutches of “evil forces”, and pray for rescue through divine intervention. The average person in Ethiopia is a walking tale of woe and misery. A good segment of the civically active and potentially active community in exile is turned off by what they perceive to be the politics of endless recriminations, accusations, labeling, name-calling and finger-pointing. Ethiopian “Diaspora” politics is viewed by some as an exercise in self-indulgence at best, and not infrequently cannibalistic.
The discourse in contemporary Ethiopian politics undoubtedly has a sharp edge to it. It tends to be confrontational and adversarial, which serves its own purposes. It is also preoccupied by exertion of moral outrage over the general decline of the country. Rightly so, the moral bankruptcy, criminality, ineptitude, abuse of power, corruption and decadence of the current dictatorial regime has been laid out for the world to see. Much is written and said about the palace intrigues and behind-the-scenes maneuvers in the dictator’s lair. But the political discourse has yet to produce a clear, convincing and coherent alternative to the total and unmitigated mess created by the current dictatorship. In short, no one has stepped forward to articulate and define a brave new vision of a better future for the people of Ethiopia.
The current state of affairs in Ethiopia calls for the reinvention of politics in the democratic opposition by disconnecting from the self-destructive politics of the past and overwrought politics of the present, and connecting to a new politics of the future which transcends partisanship, ethnicity, ideology, language, region and so on. This reinvention requires several things: a paradigm shift in political thought and behavior, a radical change in perspective, a new approach and lexicon for political communication and a redefinition of the issues within a broader national agenda. It calls for politics that is “compassion-centered” and pragmatically oriented to creatively solving the entrenched problems of governance.
What is needed to begin the “reinvention” of Ethiopian politics? The “reinvention” is a multi-step process whose ultimate aim is to cultivate a true democratic civic culture shared by all Ethiopians. Step 1 begins with a clear understanding of the current situation so that we need not spend any more time trying to convert a one-man, one-party dictatorship into a genuine multiparty system, or even wasting time talking about it. As one can not change copper into gold, neither can one change dictators into democrats. What is it that we need to clearly understand about the current dictatorship before we begin the task of reinventing the Ethiopian politics of the future?
The answer is not complicated. The dictators of Ethiopia are trapped in a historical time warp. They have clutched the reigns of state for two decades and ostentatiously display the trappings of political power and wealth. But they have not been able to transform “bushcraft” into statecraft as recent scholarship by one of the original founders of the party-in-dictatorship today has shown. In their armed campaign against the Derg junta, decision-making was left in the hands of the few. The few leaders exercised raw, brute power over their followers and the communities they controlled. They silenced dissent and criticism ruthlessly, and leaders who disagreed were marginalized, labeled as traitors and removed. Everything was done in secrecy. Power was understood not as a public duty but as a means of self-enrichment, political patronage and intimidation. Leadership meant the cult of personality. The best they have been able to do is to transform the “politics of the bush” fighting the Derg into a one-man, one-party state, whose guiding motto is, “What is good for the TPLF/EPDRF is good for Ethiopia!”
The transition from “bushcraft” to statecraft requires tectonic transformations. Democratic statecraft requires an appreciation, understanding and application of basic democratic principles such as the rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances and constitutionalism in the governance process. The dictators have little experience with or practical understanding of such principles. It is illogical for anyone to expect them to institutionalize accountability which they never had or experienced in their political lives. They never had free elections in the bush; and it is no wonder that they were totally surprised when they got thumped in the 2005 elections. Upholding the rule of law is absurd to them because they believe themselves to be THE LAW. The idea of an independent judiciary and impartial administration of justice is alien to them because they have no understanding or practical experience with due process. They scoff at civil liberties and civil rights as Western luxuries because they never lived in a system where the powers of government are constitutionally subordinated to the rights of the individual. In short, it is wishful thinking to expect from them the kind of statecraft necessary for democratic governance.
Reinventing politics means learning the lessons of the past and present and transforming the current political culture of oppression and corruption into a genuine future democratic civic culture. It means finding creative ways of replacing the climate of silence and fear with a culture of free expression, deliberation and debate and tolerance of dissent and divergent viewpoints.
There are many ways of reinventing Ethiopian politics. One approach is to adapt the model of the American civil rights movement. That movement was not aimed at seizing political power; rather it sought to organize, mobilize and channel basic popular disaffection on fundamental issues of civil and human rights. It was a movement guided by the idea of empowering ordinary people. From the outset, it was an inclusive movement. The maids, street cleaners, clergymen, doctors, lawyers and bankers participated equally in the movement and took ownership of their collective destiny. The religious institutions were the centers of “civic democracy” as they mobilized the community to be involved in the struggle for civil rights. Young people got involved in large numbers and became the vanguard of the movement. The NAACP led the legal battles in the courts.
There is a special burden on all Ethiopians, and particularly the exiled intellectual community to lend assistance in getting the process off the ground. It is to be acknowledged that there are the “old” and “new” generation of Ethiopian intellectuals in exile. Many in the “old” generation have bit their tongues in public. They have withdrawn from public debate turned off by what they perceive to be uncivil dialogue. There are also the “new” generation of intellectuals who circulate their brilliant scholarly papers, research studies and analysis on various facets of Ethiopian society for review but do not necessarily see the need to share it with the wider public in a manner accessible to those without a technical background. It is vital that both generations be involved and directly engage the public in envisioning the future of the future country. They must come out of self-imposed censorship and share their extraordinary knowledge and innovative ideas with the rest of us.
Without the involvement of progressive Ethiopian intellectuals, it would be difficult to nurture and cultivate a vigorous civic culture that will enable us to envision a dynamic, pluralistic and inclusive society of the future. Most importantly, they can be sources of creative and innovative ideas that will be needed to make the transition from ethnic-building to nation-building and help empower each Ethiopian to forego ethnic identity for a new national democratic identity based on a shared history of suffering oppression and a common conviction for a shared destiny. In the meantime, their participation is needed to inform and elevate the contemporary debate and in speaking truth to power.
In the final analysis, reinventing Ethiopian politics is about redefining the problem of politics not merely as competition for political power but as a process of developing a democratic civic culture and strengthening the moral fiber of ordinary citizens to take collective responsibility and perform their individual civic duties. None of these seem strange to the shameless idealist and audacious optimist who thinks everything is possible and nothing is impossible, and believes with every fiber in his body that Ethiopia can be a utopia!
[1]“The Future of the Future Country” is serialized set of special commentaries written by the author in honor of Ethiopia’s foremost political prisoner Birtukan Midekssa. Birtukan, the first woman leader of a political party in Ethiopia’s history, is an individual of extraordinary intelligence, integrity, courage and fortitude. Her favorite aphorism is, “Ethiopia is the country of the future.”
Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.
“Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive,” said Sir Walter Scott, the novelist and poet. Is there “famine” in Ethiopia, or not? Are large numbers of people “starving” there, or not? Is convulsive hunger a daily reality for the majority of Ethiopians, or not?
Ethiopian famine map
No one wants to use the “F” word to describe the millions of starving Ethiopians. In August 2008, the head of the dictatorship in Ethiopia flatly denied the existence of famine in a Time Magazine interview. Meles Zenawi explained, “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.” Last week, the dictatorship’s “Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development”, Mitiku Kassa, reacting defensively to the latest Famine Early Warning System (FEWSNET) projections, was equally adamant: “In the Ethiopian context, there is no hunger, no famine… It is baseless [to claim famine], it is contrary to the situation on the ground. It is not evidence-based. The government is taking action to mitigate the problems.” This past October, Kassa claimed everything was under control because his government has 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.”
But there is manifestly a “silent” famine and a “quiet” hunger haunting the land under Zenawi’s “watch.” In April, 2009, Zenawi gave an interview to David Frost of Al Jazeera in which he openly admitted that famine is rearing its ugly head once again in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. Frost asked: “Is there any danger that as a result of this [current] crises there could be famine like there was famine in 1984?” Zenawi responded:
Well, the famine of 1984 was precipitated by drought in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa in general. The famine that could emerge as a result of this [current] crises is likely to be silent across the continent in terms of not swaths of territory that are drought affected but people suffering hunger quietly across the continent. That is the most likely scenario as I see it.
So, if the famine Horseman of the Apocalypse is haunting Ethiopia and the continent, “silently” and “quietly”, why are we not sounding the alarm, ringing the bells and hollering for bloody help? Why are we quiet about the “quiet” hunger and silent about the “silent” famine enveloping Ethiopia today? Why?
It is mind-boggling that no one is making a big deal about the fact that famine and hunger are back in the saddle once more in Ethiopia. Ethiopians need help, and they need a lot of it fast and now. Of course, nothing more depressing than the sight, smell and experience of famine and hunger. For the second part of the 20th Century, much of the world believed the words “Ethiopia” and “famine” were synonymous. But it is unconscionable and criminal for officials to avoid using the “F” word to describe the forebodingly bleak food situation in Ethiopia today because they are concerned it would cast a “negative image” on them. Even the international experts have joined the local officials in boycotting the use of the “F” word. Just last week, the U.S.-funded FEWSNET declared that the majority of Ethiopians will be facing “food insecurity” (not hunger, not starvation, not famine) in the next six months. According to FEWSNET, because of poor harvests from the summer rains in 2009
as well as poor water availability and pasture regeneration in northern pastoral zones” [and coupled]with two consecutive poor belg cropping seasons… high staple food prices, poor livestock production, and reduced agricultural wages, [there will be an] elevated food insecurity over the coming six months [particularly in the] eastern marginal cropping areas in Tigray, Amhara, and Oromia, pastoral areas of Afar and northern and southeastern Somali region, Gambella region, and most low-lying areas of southern and central SNNPR…. In most areas of the country, food insecurity during the first half of 2010 is projected to be significantly worse than during the same period in 2009… Food security in eastern marginal cropping areas will likely deteriorate even further between July and September 2010. Overall, humanitarian assistance needs are expected to be very high.
Is it not a low-down dirty shame for international organizations, political leaders, officials and bureaucrats to use euphemisms to hide the ugly truth about famines and mass-scale hunger? These heartless crooks have invented a lexicography, a complete dictionary of mumbo-jumbo words and phrases to conceal the public fact that large numbers of people in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa are dying simply because they have nothing or very little food to eat. They talk about “food insecurity ”, “food scarcity”, “food insufficiency”, “food deprivation”, “severe food shortages”, “chronic dietary deficiency”, “endemic malnutrition” and so on just to avoid using the “F” word. FEWSNET has invented a ridiculous system of neologism (new words) to describe hungry people. Accordingly, there are people who are generally food secure, moderately food insecure, highly food insecure, extremely food insecure and those facing famine (see map above). Translated into ordinary language, these nonsensical categories seem to equate those who eat once a day as generally food secure, followed by the moderately secure who eat one meal every other day, the highly insecure who eat once every three days, the extremely insecure who eat once a week, and those in famine who never eat and therefore die from lack of food.
For crying out loud, what is wrong with calling a spade a spade!? Why do officials and experts beat around the bush when it comes to talking about hunger as hunger, starvation as starvation and famine as famine? Do they think they can sugarcoat the piercing pangs of hunger, the relentless pain of starvation and the total devastation of famine with sweet bureaucratic words and phrases?
As officials and bureaucrats quibble over which fancy words and phrases best describe the dismal food situation, hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians are dying from plain, old fashioned hunger, starvation and famine. The point is there is famine in Ethiopia. One could disagree whether there are pockets of famine or large swaths of famine-stricken areas. One could argue whether 4.9, 6, 16 or 26 million people are affected by it. But there is no argument that there is famine; and this is not a matter for speculation, conjecture or exaggeration. It can be verified instantly. Let the international press go freely into the “drought affected” and “food insecure” areas and report what they find. For at least the past two years, they have been banned from entering these areas. Is there any doubt that they would reveal irrefutable evidence of famine on the scale of 1984-85 if they were allowed free access to these areas?
Obviously, it is embarrassing for a regime wafting on the euphoria of an “11 percent economic growth over the past 6 years” to admit famine. It is bad publicity for those claiming runaway economic growth to admit millions of their citizens are in the iron grip of a runaway famine. If the “F” word is used, then the donors would start asking questions, relief agencies would be scurrying to set up feeding stations, the international press would be demanding accountability and all hell could break loose. That is why the dictatorship in Ethiopia reacts reflexively and defensively whenever the “F” word is mentioned. They froth at the mouth condemning the international press for making “baseless” claims of famine, and castigate them for perpetuating “negative images” of the country merely because the international press insists on finding out verifiable facts about the food situation in the country. The fact of the matter is that unless action is not taken soon to openly and fully admit that large swaths of the Ethiopian countryside are in a state of famine, we should soon expect to see splattered across the globe’s newspapers pictures of Ethiopian infants with distended bellies, the skeletal figures of their nursing mothers and the sun-baked remains of the aged and the feeble on the parched land.
Denial of famine by totalitarian and dictatorial regimes is nothing new. During 1959-61, nearly 30 million Chinese starved to death in Mao’s Great Leap Forward program which uprooted millions of Chinese from the countryside for industrial production. Mao never acknowledged the existence of famine, nor did he make a serious effort to secure foreign food aid. Ironically, the Chinese Revolution had promised the peasants an end to famine. The Soviet Famines of 1921 and 1932-3 are classic case studies in official failure to prevent famine.
Why is it so difficult for dictatorships and other non-democratic systems to admit famine, make it part of the public discussion and debate and unabashedly seek help? Part of it has to do with image maintenance. Official admission of famine is the ultimate proof of governmental ineptitude and depraved indifference to the suffering of the people. But there is a more compelling explanation for dictators not to admit famine conditions in their countries. It has to do with a fundamental disconnect between the dictators and their subjects. As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen argued,
The direct penalties of a famine are borne by one group of people and political decisions are taken by another. The rulers never starve. But when a government is accountable to the local populace it too has good reasons to do its best to eradicate famines. Democracy, via electoral politics, passes on the price of famines to the rulers as well.
An examination of the history of famine in Ethiopia lends support to Sen’s theory. Emperor Haile Selassie lost his crown and life over famine in the early 1970s. He said he was just not aware of it. The military junta’s (Derg) denied there was famine in 1984/85 while it waged war and experimented with the long-discredited practice of collectivized agriculture. That famine accelerated the downfall of the Derg. The current dictators have opted to remain willfully blind, deaf and mute to the “silent” famine and “quiet” hunger that are destroying the people.
The official response to famines in Ethiopia over the past four decades has followed a predictable pattern: Step 1: Never plan to prevent famine. Step 2: Deny there is famine when there is famine. Step 3: Condemn and vilify anyone who sounds the early alarm warning on famine. Step 4: Admit “severe food shortages” (not famine) and blame the weather, and God for not sending rain. Step 5: Make frantic international emergency calls and announce that hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians are dying from famine. Step 6: Guilt-trip Western donors into providing food aid. Step 7: Accuse and vilify Western donors for not providing sufficient food aid and blame them for a runaway famine. Step 8: Tell the world they knew nothing about a creeping famine until it suddenly hit them like a thunderbolt. Step 9: Put on an elaborate dog-and-pony show about their famine relief efforts. Step 10: Go back to step 1. This has been the recurrent pattern of famine response in Ethiopia: Always too little, too late.
The fact of the matter is that famines are entirely avoidable as Sen has argued with substantial empirical evidence.
Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence … they disappeared suddenly with the establishment of a multiparty democracy and … a free press and an active political opposition constitute the best early-warning system a country threaten by famines can have.
There is another question that needs to be answered in connection with the “severe food shortages” in Ethiopia. Why are millions of fertile hectares of land under “lease” or sold outright to foreigners to feed millions continents away when millions of Ethiopians are starving? To paraphrase Sen, such a thing would be unthinkable in a functioning multiparty democracy!
With no pun intended, the “breadcrumbs” of famine (or as they euphemistically call it the “early warning signs”) are plain to see. There have been successive crop failures and poor rainfall; water availability is limited and staple food prices are soaring; livestock production is poor as is pasture regeneration. Deforestation, land degradation, overpopulation, pestilence and disease are widespread in the land. If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and walks like a duck, it is famine!
If those whose duty is to sound the alarm and get help are not willing to do their part, it is the moral responsibility and duty of every Ethiopian and compassionate human being anywhere to create public awareness of Ethiopia’s creeping famine and call for HELP! HELP! HELP!
“There has never been a famine in a functioning multiparty democracy.” Amartya Sen
(Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.)
“Ethiopia is the country of the future,” Birtukan Midekssa would often say epigrammatically. Ethiopia’s No. 1 political prisoner is always preoccupied with her country’s future and destiny. Her deep concern for Ethiopia is exceeded only by her boundless optimism for its future. For that reason, her maxim echoes not only a manifest general truth, but also makes a profound and complex historical argument that calls for a paradigm shift in the way we understand contemporary Ethiopian politics and envision the future.
To be the country of the future necessarily means not being the country of the past. Birtukan’s Ethiopia of the future is necessarily the categorical antitheses of an imperial autocracy, a military bureaucracy and a dictatorship of kleptocracy. Her vision of the future Ethiopia is a unified country built on a steel platform of multiparty democracy. Birtukan would have been pleased to explain her vision and dreams of the future country of Ethiopia; unfortunately, she can not speak for herself as she has been condemned to “rot” in jail.
As we begin the second decade of the 21st Century, it is important for the rest of us to carry on the conversation that Birtukan has so insightfully sparked. She is concerned about Ethiopia’s future because she understands that a nation without a clear sense of its future is a nation without a destiny, and one doomed to suffer the scourges of tyranny and oppression. When Birtukan speaks of Ethiopia as the country of the future, she speaks of it in the same way as Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of his American dream. He dreamt that one day in the future, America “will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed… that all men (and women) are created equal.” He dreamt that Americans, despite their bitter history of oppression and injustice, “will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood” and resolve their differences amicably and peacefully. Above all, he dreamt of a future where his “four children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Birtukan also has a dream that one day Ethiopians will sit together at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood to discuss their historic grievances and current issues, atone for and forgive each other for past transgressions, and in a renewed spirit of reconciliation, compromise and accommodation, forge a common destiny. She dreams of the day when her 4-year old daughter and the millions of children in Ethiopia will grow up in a country where they are judged not by their ethnicity, tribal affiliation, gender, language, religion, region or wealth, but by their abilities and the content of their character. She dreams of a just and moral society.
Fully accepting and working towards such a future for Ethiopia may sound naïve and idealistic to some given the present grim state of affairs. If the trend projections of the doomsday soothsayers are to be believed, in Ethiopia’s future, there is no future. The scientists tell us that Ethiopia will prove to be a poster child for “environmental determinism” in 40 years. It’s population will double to 150 million by 2050; and overpopulation, coupled with large and growing per capita resource consumption and negative environmental impact will trigger a complete collapse of the society by the middle of the century. These scientists point to evidence of large-scale deforestation and habitat destruction, soil degradation, decline in potable water supply and water pollution, overgrazing, desertification and so on as the unmistakable present warning signals of future collapse.
The agricultural experts express shock and dismay in the sale and lease of millions of hectares of land to foreign corporations who are set on producing food for export back to their home countries while Ethiopians are dying of massive starvation and famines (officially known in the politically correct phrase “severe food shortages”). The economists paint an equally dire picture of a country overburdened by debt to international lenders and a local economy in the chokehold of businesses closely allied with the ruling regime, and whose principal capitalization is derived from conversion of previously government-owned properties through a bogus privatization process. With land and key sectors of the economy such as telecommunications under the control or ownership of the regime or its supporters, without a functional financial services sector and youth unemployment in excess of 70 percent, the practitioners of the “dismal science” predict a dismal economic future for Ethiopia.
There are even those who predict political implosion long before systemic collapse. A research group with expertise in international crises analysis recently sounded the alarm over “the potential for a violent eruption of conflict in Ethiopia ahead of the May 2010 elections amidst rising ethnic tensions and dissent.” The international human rights groups and organizations who have extensively documented the regime’s sustained pattern of crackdowns on dissent, criminalization of civil society groups, persecution of the independent media, election rigging and theft, massive rights violations and implementation of repressive decrees consign Ethiopia to the scrapheap of the most hopeless and wretched nations on the planet. If we are to believe the doomsday soothsayers, Ethiopia is presently in critical triage on life support. They peg her survival without complete societal collapse and political implosion in the first half of the 21st century at much less than 50 per cent.
We must categorically reject the dark predictions of the naysayers and the merchants of doom and gloom. The future of Ethiopia is in the hands, hearts and minds of its people, not in the tea leaves read by the experts. As John M. Richardson, Jr. said, “When it comes to the future, there are three kinds of people: those who make things happen, those who let it happen, and those who wonder what happened.” Birtukan belongs in the first category. Because of the enormous sacrifices she has made, she rightly deserves to be called a future maker, as anyone who chooses to join her in her quest for a better future in Ethiopia would be. What makes Birtukan unique is that she understands that if we do not work together actively to shape the future, the past will assuredly shape it for us. Only when the future makers put their shoulders to the grindstone and do the heavy lifting can we prove the experts wrong and guarantee that Ethiopia’s best days are yet to come.
The future of the future country will be decided in a battle between the “future makers” and “future takers”. We are witnesses to the handiwork of the future takers today. They have taken everything in the present — the rights of the people, their dignity, their daily bread, their land, their hopes and their dreams — so that there will be no future. They calculate the future to be a continuation of the past, and they will do everything in their power to perpetuate the past into the future. Future takers worship at the altar of greed and corruption; and for them fairness, decency, generosity and morality are anathema. The battle between the future makers and future takers will be waged and decided in the hearts and minds of the people. The future takers will wage a war of tears and fears. The future makers will fight back with hope, faith, charity and love.
We should reject the static and deterministic outcomes predicted by the experts because their assumptions about Ethiopia are fundamentally incorrect. Their analytical models are predicated on a flawed postulate that Ethiopians are fundamentally a weak and desperate people who are passive objects of oppression, charity and pity. We must reject out of hand, and without hesitation, any argument that suggests Ethiopia’s future will be sealed in ethnic fragmentation, political dissolution and national self-destruction. We must cast aside any theory that predicts the systemic collapse and the end of a nation whose history dates back 3000 years. We have been a nation of survivors. We have survived and prevailed over the plague of European colonialism when nearly all of Africa succumbed to it. We have survived recurrent famines of Biblical proportion. We have endured conflicts and wars. We have survived autocracy, despotism and kleptocracy. Let there be no doubt: We will survive until the end of time because we are the “masters of our fate” and the “captains of our destiny”.
Philosophers and historians speak of a recurrent cycle in human events. Great nations rise and fall. Governments come and go. Leaders change and are replaced. But nations survive because each generation accepts its responsibilities and forges ahead with the enormous tasks of future-building. When Birtukan says Ethiopia is the country of the future, she means to say that this generation of Ethiopians has a rendezvous with destiny. Whether Ethiopia will self-destruct in ethnic fragmentation and strife is not carved in stone. This generation can avert that dark future by working for and promoting ethnic diversity and national unity. A new generation of statesmen and stateswomen could trump the political expediency and machination of those desperately clinging to power. Whether Ethiopia is doomed to ecological collapse is not determined by the inexorable forces of global warming. Carefully planning and prioritization of societal needs, implementation of creative policies, public awareness, education and mobilization could help steer away the Ethiopian nation from the dangerous shoals of ecological calamity.
The future requires responsibility, creativity, endurance and sacrifice. It can not be left to a few leaders, politicians, intellectuals or experts. If there is one thing to be learned from the recent past, it is that the Ethiopian people know what kind of a future they want. Their verdict in the 2005 elections stands as a final testament for a genuine multiparty democracy. History is also on the side of freedom and the youth. Despite all the setbacks of recent years, the values of democracy, freedom and human rights have taken deep root in the psyche of Ethiopian youth. They will be leading the forward march of Ethiopia into a glorious future. With Ethiopia’s future in the hands of her young people, we have cause to be confident and even to celebrate. Let our youth learn from a wise African saying: “Tomorrow belongs to the (young) people who prepare for it today.”
“The Future of the Future Country” is a special commentary to be offered in periodic serialized future segments by the author.
Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media. twitter@pal4thedefense
Birtukan Midekssa condemned to life in prison by a vengeful dictator, but unconquered.
Birtukan thrown into the dungeon of wrath and tears, but defiant.
Birtukan beaten, bludgeoned and bloodied, but unbowed.
Birtukan mocked, ridiculed and disrespected, but gracious.
Birtukan denounced, vilified, strong-armed and manhandled, but unafraid.
Ethiopia under the crushing boots of soldiers of fortune.
Birtukan, Invictus!
Ethiopia, Invictus!
I remember the 29th of December, 2008. Almost a year ago to the day, the only woman political party leader in Ethiopia’s 3,000-year history was manhandled and abducted to prison. Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, founder and former chairman of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, was an eyewitness to the crime. He told the Voice of America that he was having a conversation with Bitukan and another person outside an office building when four unmarked official vehicles stormed on the scene. Approximately 10 armed men got out and surrounded Birtukan. They grabbed and dragged her into one of the vehicles. One of the thugs savagely assaulted the nearly 80-year old professor with the butt of his rifle. In seconds, Birtukan was snatched away to the infamous Kality prison, and the professor to the hospital.
The facts leading up to the street abduction of Birtukan’s are not in dispute. On December 10, 2008 the “Federal Police Commissioner” sent two District 12 policemen to order Birtukan to come to his office. She went thinking that he probably wanted to talk about her political party. He wanted to talk about her pardon which resulted in her release from prison in 2007. She questioned his authority to interrogate her on the matter. He mocked her and she left. On December 24, 2008, the “commissioner” ordered her to appear in his office and gave her an ultimatum: Retract a statement she made in Sweden allegedly denying receipt of a pardon, or face immediate imprisonment.
Birtukan has never denied receiving a pardon. In Sweden where she allegedly denied the so-called pardon in a talk to a small group of supporters, she merely explained the legal and political circumstances surrounding the grant of pardon. In Q’ale (My Testimony), her last public statement issued a couple of days before her abduction, she made full acknowledgement of the so-called pardon:
I have not denied signing the document which the elders persuaded us to sign on June 22, 2006 for the sake of national reconciliation. How could it be said that I denied a pardon document I signed, and whose content I accepted? How is that a crime? Where is the mistake?
The fact of the matter is that Birtukan was granted a bogus pardon for a bogus crime for which she was convicted in a kangaroo court. As it is said, “any excuse will serve the tyrant”; and for Zenawi to claim that he jailed Birtukan because she denied receiving a pardon is an insult only to his own intelligence. The real reasons have to do with incapacitating her from running in the 2010 elections, and thwarting her efforts to build a broad coalition of political parties to oppose his dictatorship. No doubt, he takes her outright defiance as a personal slight.
But who is Birtukan Midekksa? Dictator Zenawi not long ago proverbially characterized her to his rubberstamp parliament as a faddish hen that hanged herself. If we must indulge in animal metaphors to describe her, she is best characterized as a lioness fighting hordes of hyenas. She has always defined herself as an ordinary woman irrevocably committed to the rule of law, freedom, democracy and human rights. She understands her adversaries well. Days before her abduction, she told journalist Abiye Teklemariam, founding editor of the independent weekly Addis Neger, (which recently folded following the dictatorship’s relentless war on the independent press in Ethiopia):
You have to know that they are paper tigers. They are weak, but want to appear strong. They would think caging a woman with a three year old daughter who lives under their firm surveillance every day demonstrates their toughness…. They forcefully make people hostage to their family and social commitments. They compel you to choose between freedom and family.
So for anyone who wants to know the real Birtukan, the answer is simple. She is the Lioness of Ethiopia who chose, without the slightest hesitation, freedom over family, country over child; and above all, Mother Ethiopia over the mother that gave her birth. She is an Ethiopian woman of integrity, humility, conviction, principle and intellect. It is a special honor and privilege for me to pay tribute to this extraordinary woman and outstanding Ethiopian political leader on the first anniversary of her unjust imprisonment.
I believe every blessed nation is given by Providence an individual that personifies its suffering and its pain, its present predicament and its future grandeur. Such an individual evolves to become a transformative leader guiding a lost and hopeless nation out of the darkness of discord and strife into the sunshine of freedom, equality and democracy. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela sutured the racially and ethnically torn South African body politics and led his people to a successful multiparty democracy. In India, Mahatma Gandhi rid his country of the plague of colonialism with nothing in his hands but love in his heart and nonviolent resistance in every fiber of his body. In the U.S., Martin Luther King seared the conscience of Americans and helped them confront the twin demons of racism and discrimination. In Burma (Myanmar), Aung San Suu Kyi has languished in prison for years, yet for every Burmese she stands as a shining beacon of hope and redemption. Ethiopia is blessed to have Birtukan Midekssa who today languishes in prison for standing up to a ruthless and barbaric dictator. She willingly gave up her personal liberty so that her people could one day live in freedom and enjoy the blessings of democracy.
I first met Birtukan on September 9, 2007, when she arrived at Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C., leading a delegation of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (Kinijit) party to North America. I had the honor of chairing an informal North American coordinating committee for that delegation which included Dr. Berhanu Nega, Dr. Hailu Araya, Ato Gizachew Shiferraw and Ato Brook Kebede. Their reception at Dulles is now the stuff of legend. Thousands of Ethiopians showed up and filled that cavernous airport. A special airport detail was assigned for crowd control. The motorcade that followed them to their hotel was several miles long. In the nearly one-half century of that airport’s existence, nothing so historic, spectacular and triumphant had ever been witnessed. It was a September to remember.
From the very moment I met Birtukan and the delegation, I was impressed by their humility, simplicity, integrity, matter-of-factness and optimism about Ethiopia’s future. Many Ethiopians were pleasantly surprised to see a woman leading such an important delegation. Many who met Birtukan in the following weeks deepened their respect and appreciation when they saw that she has a “a good head and a good heart [which] are always a formidable combination” in a leader, as Mandela once noted. In private and in her public statements and speeches, she did not dwell on the past but showed intense concern and optimism for Ethiopia’s future. Remarkably, she never showed any bitterness or animosity towards those who had unjustly imprisoned and persecuted her for nearly two years.
Who is afraid of Birtukan Midekssa? Birtukan’s maxim is, “Ethiopia is the country of the future.” The dictators are not afraid of Birtukan, but they are terrified of what she represents: Ethiopia’s bright future. Birtukan stands for the unity of all Ethiopians and stands against ethnic hatred, division and strife. That petrifies her captors. As Mandela “dreamt of an Africa which is in peace with itself, ” Birtukan dreams of an Ethiopia at peace and harmony with itself. That sends shivers down the spines of those who have caged her. Birtukan appeals to Ethiopia’s youth, who represent over 70 per cent of the population. Her universal youth appeal makes the dictators shake in their boots. Birtukan stands resolute in the defense of the rule of law, the “Constitution of Ethiopia”, freedom, democracy, equality, human rights and accountability. That makes her tormentors panic-stricken. As Ethiopia is the country of the future, Birtukan is the shining star rising over the horizon of that future.
Birtukan is in prison, but she is the freest person in all of Ethiopia. She stood up to dictatorship and did not back down. They threw everything at her. They kept her in solitary confinement hoping she would go mad in isolation. They denied her visitation with her lawyers believing she will forget her basic human and constitutional rights. They denied her books, a radio and newspapers thinking she will feel lost in the dark. They would interrupt her family visits before she finished exchanging smiles, hugs and kisses with her mother and daughter hoping to crush her emotionally. They would not allow her friends and colleagues to visit her expecting she will feel abandoned and forgotten. They played every dirty psychological game to humiliate, mistreat and provoke her; and they thought that would break her spirit, weaken her resolve and plunge her into the depths of despair and sorrow. They have spared nothing to make her believe that she will suffer and die alone in prison. But Birtukan survives, and she will survive and prevail. Prison for a true political leader is like fire to steel. Prison makes the political prisoner stronger and steadfastly resolute.
Mandela said, “In my country we go to prison first and then become President.” I shall argue that Birtukan is just doing what is required of all great leaders before they are called for duty in the service of their country. When Mandela was sentenced to life, he did not waste his time in prison crying over his fate; rather, he used his time to prepare himself for his future leadership duties in bringing all South Africans together. It is the natural occupation of all great imprisoned political leaders to use their time in prison to prepare for the solemn duties that await them. I do not doubt that Birtukan is doing that right now. But political prisoners are the ultimate survivors. As Mandela said, it is an essential condition of survival for the political prisoner to believe that good will in the end triumph over evil. Mandela was written off for decades by his tormentors, but his name was at the tip of every freedom-loving South African’s tongue. It was in prison that Mandela learned to understand and even empathize with his hateful persecutors. He honed his negotiating skills in prison and developed infinite patience and perseverance in his pursuit of equality and justice for all in South Africa. Like Mandela, Birtukan is undergoing necessary training in prison before she is called to perform her solemn duties of state.
Birtukan does not see the struggle for freedom, democracy and human rights as a short-term effort. She knows in every fiber of her body that it will take time and enormous effort to purge the poison of ethnic politics from Ethiopian society. She knows it will not be easy to establish and practice the principle of the rule of law in a land that has suffered for so long under the immoral creed of might makes right. Birtukan understands that it will take a massive effort to build working coalitions, partnerships and alliances to forge a strong multiparty political system. She knows it will take all of Ethiopia’s youth to build bridges from the north to the south and east to west. But Birtukan also knows that she will be ready for these challenges when she is called to report for duty.
In his recent diatribe on Birtukan, Zenawi said that she became the proverbial faddish hen believing that powerful people in the West would get her out of jail quickly. The dictator apparently believes that Birtukan is “too much of a darling” for the West and stealing the spotlight from him. The fact is that Birtukan never put much stock in diplomats or Western pressure to help her personally or to bring about fundamental change in Ethiopia. Though she understood the need to build support in the international community, she knew very well that all of the heavy lifting has to be done by Ethiopians:
I thought that diplomatic battle was a major part of the non-violent struggle. In politics, as they say, a week is too long. I have learnt my lessons. This is our fight. We ask them to join the fight for freedom and justice. We ask them to live up to their rhetoric and supposed creed. But we don’t beg them. This is our fight, not theirs. They would come running when they think they think that we have won it… We have to stop overemphasizing their value…. They like winners. They have strategic objectives which only winners can help them achieve. We should show them that we are winners, not beggars.
Zenawi becomes apoplectic at the mention of Birtukan’s name. His hackles go up and he could hardly contain his rage and antipathy towards her. Taking a chapter out of the book of Burma’s dictator, Gen. Than Shwe, he recently told a press conference, “There will never be an agreement with anybody to release Birtukan. Ever. Full stop. That’s a dead issue.” On this point, he is right. As Mandela said, “Only free men (and free women) can negotiate; prisoners cannot enter into contracts.” Birtukan is a political prisoner and can not negotiate an “agreement” for her freedom. She will also never beg for her freedom. “Ever. Full stop.” Period!
Don’t cry for Birtukan, Ethiopia! “The truth is she never left you. She kept her promise. Don’t keep your distance.” The dictators will do everything to break her spirit, torment her body and make her life in prison a living hell. Mandela told his Apartheid tormentors, “You may succeed in delaying, but never in preventing the transition of South Africa to a democracy.” The dictators may succeed in jailing Birtukan and thousands of others for however long they want and victimize and dehumanize them; but they will never, never be able to keep Ethiopia ethnically fragmented and its people at war with each other so that they can cling to power. Nor will they be able to permanently stave off the triumph of freedom, democracy and human rights from that ancient land.
On a personal note, I thank Birtukan for inspiring me and many others like myself to be involved in the struggle for human rights and democracy in the country of our birth. The courage of her convictions refreshes us every day like the pure mountain spring water. For all Birtukan Midekssa has done and tried to do, and in the spirit of eternal gratitude, I dedicate to her William Ernest Henley’s poem, “Invictus” (Unconquered). Nelson Mandela had this poem written on a piece of paper which he kept in his cell to uplift his spirit over the long years of incarceration. I trust this poem will uplift Birtukan’s spirit as much as it did Mandela’s.
Invictus
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
Birtukan, stay strong! The “night that covers” you will not last forever. Darkness always turns into light.
Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog onThe Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.
