For the past several months, there has been much display of public sorrow and grief in Ethiopia. But not for the millions of invisible Ethiopians who are suffering and dying from starvation, or what the “experts” euphemistically call “acute food insecurity”. These Ethiopians are spread across a large swath of the country (see map above, “Estimated food security conditions, 3rd quarter 2012 (July-September 2012, Famine Early Warning Systems Network FEWS NET).
According to the international “experts”, starving people are not really starving. They are just going through “scientific” stages of food deprivation. In stage one or “Acute Food Insecurity”, people experience “short term instability (“shocks”) but are able to meet basic food needs without atypical coping strategies.” In stage two or “Stressed” situations, “food consumption is reduced but minimally adequate without having to engage in irreversible coping strategies.” In stage three or “Crises” mode, the food supply is “borderline adequate, with significant food consumption gaps and acute malnutrition.” In stage four “Emergency”, there is “extreme food consumption gaps resulting in very high acute malnutrition or excess mortality”. In stage five or “Catastrophe”, there is “near complete lack of food and/or other basic needs where starvation, death, and destitution are evident.” When are people in “famine” situations?
Rarely will the international experts, donors, multilateral organizations, NGOs or ruling regimes use the dreaded “F” word. In Ethiopia, the word “famine” has been deemed politically incorrect because it conjures up images of hordes of skeletal humans walking across the parched landscape, curled corpses of famine victims under acacia trees and children with distended bellies clutching their mothers at feeding camps. It also portends political upheavals. In their analysis of recurrent famines in Ethiopia, Professors Angela Raven-Roberts and Sue Lautze noted, “Declaring a famine was also a complicated question for the Ethiopian government. Famines have contributed to the downfall of Ethiopian regimes… Some humanitarian practitioners gauge their successes, in part, according to ‘famines averted’… President George W. Bush challenged his administration to ensure that famines were avoided during his tenure, a policy known as ‘No Famine on My Watch’; declaring the existence of a famine could be seen as a political shortcoming and, therefore, a political vulnerability.” The one exception to the official embargo on the use of the word “famine” is Wolfgang Fengler, a lead economist for the World Bank, who on August 17, 2011, definitively declared, “This [famine] crisis is man made. Droughts have occurred over and again, but you need bad policymaking for that to lead to a famine.” In other words, the fundamental problem with “acute” or “chronic” malnutrition (short-term or long-term starvation) in Ethiopia is poor governance, not drought.
In January 2010, Mitiku Kassa, the agriculture minister in Ethiopia, 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.’ The late Meles Zenawi was equally 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.” If a technical definition of “Emergency” was intended, that would mean “extreme food consumption gaps resulting in very high acute malnutrition or excess mortality”. To the average observer, that sounds like old fashioned famine. But it is all a semantic game of euphemisms. Kassa made bold 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.”
In 2011, according to the U.N., some 12.4 million people in Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya and Djibouti were affected by chronic hunger and tens of thousands of people died from starvation (excuse me, “acute food insecurity”; or was it “acute malnutrition”?). Needless to say, there is not a single case in which starving Ethiopians have been surveyed to classify themselves into one of the five neat “scientific” categories. There is little doubt the vast majority of people presumed to be facing “acute malnutrition” would readily declare they are actually facing famine. But the fact of the matter is that the scope and magnitude of the “acute malnutrition” (or whatever fancy term is used to describe plain old starvation) in Ethiopia could never be independently verified because there is a conspiracy of silence between the ruling regime, international donors, NGOs and even some members of the international press who mindlessly parrot the official line and rarely go out into the affected areas to observe and document the food situation on a regular basis. So, the chorus of silent conspirators would chime in saying, “4.2 million people face acute malnutrition and need immediate life-saving help.” They would never say “4.2 million people are facing life ending famine”. The fact of the matter is that famine by any other fancy name is still famine and just as deadly!
The so-called “acute” (short-term) food shortages, malnutrition, insecurity, etc., are now a permanent (chronic) feature of Ethiopia’s food political economy. “Droughts” are blamed year after year for the suffering of millions of Ethiopians and year after year the regime’s response is to stand at the golden gates of international donors panhandling emergency humanitarian aid. The regime has done next to nothing to deal with the underlying problems aggravating the conditions leading to famine (see my July 2010 commentary “Apocalypse Now or in 40 Years?”), including high population growth, environmental degradation, low agricultural productivity caused by subsistence farming on fragmented small plots of land, government ownership of land, poor transportation and dysfunctional markets that drive up the real cost of food for the poor and other factors. Instead the regime’s solution has been to give away the most arable land in the country to so-called international investors who “lease” the land for commercial agriculture and export the harvest for sale on the international market while the local population starves. Alternatively, the regime relies on the so-called Productive Safety Nets Programmes (PSNP) which purportedly aim “to prevent asset depletion at the household level, create assets at the community level” by providing vulnerable populations income through public work projects and direct support. A joint undercover team from BBC’s Newsnight and the bureau of investigative journalism at London’s City University, separate investigations by Human Rights Watch and other international organizations have documented that PSNP resources have been used to reward supporters of the ruling party and punish members of opposition parties or non-supporters.
In 2012, to say that millions of Ethiopians will face starvation every year (disguised in the bureaucratic lingo of “acute malnutrition”, “food insecurity”, etc.) is like predicting the sun will rise tomorrow. But it is the long term prospects for “food insecurity” in Ethiopia that are unspeakably frightening. In 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau made the catastrophic prediction that Ethiopia’s population by 2050 will more than triple to 278 million. Considering the fact that Ethiopia cannot feed its 90 million people today, how could it possibly feed triple that number in less than forty ears? But such facts have not stopped the ruling regime from denying the existence of famine conditions and declaring a crushing victory on famine in just a few years. The late Meles Zenawi in 2011 declared: “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.”
Ethiopia and to a lesser extent many African countries face a formidable challenge in feeding their people in the next year or so. In 2011, Africa imported $50 billion worth of food from the U.S. and Europe. Food prices in Africa are 200-300 percent higher than global prices, which means higher profit margins for multinationals that produce and distribute food. With a steady growth in global population, the prospect of transforming Africa into vast commercialized farms is mouthwatering for global agribusinesses and speculators. One of the new “hunger games” that was recently proposed by the G-8 Summit is the “New Alliance for Food Security” aimed at accelerating the “transfer” of hundreds of millions of hectares of arable African land to Cargill, Dupont, Monsanto, Kraft, Unilever, Syngenta AG and the dozens of other signatory multinationals. Working jointly with Africa’s corrupt dictators, these multinationals aim to “liberate” the land from Africans just like the 19th Century scramble for Africa; but will they really liberate Africa from the scourge of hunger, famine, starvation and poverty?
2013 as a Year of “Catastrophic Global Food Crises”
Scientists are predicting that 2013 will be a “year of serious global crises” with significant food shortages and price hikes. The crises is triggered by recent droughts in the main grain producing countries including the U.S., Russia and Australia. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 80 percent of the U.S. has undergone some drought or “abnormally dry” conditions this past summer. This has resulted in significant loss of corn, wheat and soybean crops and is expected to reduce exports of grains and trigger increased prices on the global commodities markets. This crises will inflict a double whammy on the food importing countries of Africa. Increases in commodity prices (food, energy) will have a disproportionate impact on large vulnerable populations in Ethiopia because the impoverished households typically spend more than half their total incomes on food.
Two decisive factors for the coming global food crises have been identified. According to a highly regarded recent study by the New England Complex Systems Institute, [NECSI] (a group of academics from Harvard and MIT who specialize in predicting how changes in environment can lead to political instability and upheavals), the global food crises is driven by efforts to replace food crops with biofuel crops and greedy global investors (e.g. hedge funds, investment banks, etc.) who speculate (bet) on commodity (food) prices. NECSI researchers Marco Lagi, Yavni Bar-Yam and Yaneer Bar-Yam argue that because “the American breadbasket has suffered debilitating droughts and high temperatures [this summer], leading to soaring corn and wheat prices in anticipation of a poor harvest, we are on the verge of another crisis, the third in five years, and likely to be the worst yet, capable of causing new food riots and turmoil on a par with the Arab Spring.” NECSI researchers predict that in 2013 a “spike in prices is inevitable.”
Catastrophic Famine and Food Riots in Ethiopia in 2013?
On November 24, 2010, the Ministry of Agriculture in Ethiopia announced that the number of people in need of emergency food aid had decreased from 5.2 million from earlier in the year to 2.3 million. Agriculture minister Kassa was quoted as saying that the “overall good performance of rains in 2010 and successful disaster management endeavors have reduced the disaster risks and vulnerabilities and decreased the number of food beneficiaries”. In April 2011, the Ethiopian regime appealed for emergency food assistance in the amount of USD 398.4 to meet the needs of some 3.2 million people. Later that year, officials reported that the number of needy people had increased to 4.5. On September 12, 2012, the agriculture ministry announced that 3.7 million Ethiopians will need humanitarian assistance between August and December 2012. According to Kassa, “The country needs 314 million metric tons of food to meet the gap.” Of the 3.7 million “food insecure people”, 47 percent of them are in Somali region followed by 27 percent in Oromiya, 10 percent in Tigray, and 7.7 percent in Amhara regional states.
Food prices have been soaring in Ethiopia for the past three years. In August 2011, the Ethiopian Central Statistics Agency reported food prices, which comprise more than half the Consumer Price Index, were up 47.4 percent from 2010. Transportation costs and housing were up more than 40 percent during the past year (the price of a liter of gasoline was 21 birr). In 2011, the regime imposed price controls on basic staples which led to shortages and was subsequently dropped after the controls proved to be ineffective in controlling inflation or increasing supply. Michael Atingi-Ego, head of the International Monetary Fund mission to Ethiopia in a press statement this past June noted, “For 2011/12, the mission projects real GDP growth at 7 percent and end-year inflation at about 22 percent… Gross official foreign reserves have declined to under two months of import coverage… Rebuilding gross official foreign reserves will provide a buffer against potential exogenous shocks given the current volatile global environment.” The fact of the matter is that when the “inevitable global food crisis” hits in 2013 with inflation running at over 20 percent and foreign reserves of two months, the only outcome to be expected is total disaster.
One does not need a crystal ball to predict famine in Ethiopia on the order of magnitude seen in mid-1970s and mid-1980s given the “inevitable price hikes” in the global food markets and the manifest lack of meaningful preparedness and remedial policies by the ruling regime. In a recent “confidential preliminary” report, Tadesse Kuma Worako of the Ethiopian Development Research Institute offers an analysis that exposes the multidimensional effects of food price increases on the population beyond mortality rates:
In Ethiopia, food expenditure of total household income estimated to account for more than 60 percent that any increase in food price has negative effect on the well-being of large majorities… Food-price increases are having serious consequences for the purchasing power of the poor. Affected groups include the rural landless, pastoralists, small-scale farmers and the urban poor. Despite the various causes of food crises, the hardships that individuals and communities face have striking similarities across disparate groups and settings. These include: inability to afford food, and related lack of adequate caloric intake, distress sales of productive assets, and migration of household members in search of work and reduced household spending on healthcare, education and other necessities… Ethiopia is a country which registers one of the highest child malnutrition rates in Sub-Saharan Africa. Child stunting, which is measured as abnormally low weight to height for age in children, is an indicator of poor long-run nutritional status. Although the prevalence of child stunting in Ethiopia decreased during the second half of the 2000s, the prevalence is still significantly high compared to developing countries average. Early childhood malnutrition (among children between six and 36 months) can cause irreversible damage to brain and motor-skill development, stifle human capital formation by causing delays in enrollment and later increasing the probability of grade repetition and drop-out, lower current health status, and increase in lifetime risk of chronic disease associated with the premature mortality.
Tadesse believes that proper policies could have averted much of the hardship on the population yet remains concerend about the decisive role of global food proices and the exchange rate. “The negative effects of high food prices could have been ameliorated if policy makers had been better informed about the food price situation. In the long-run however, domestic food and non-food prices are determined by the exchange rate and international food and goods prices which means that the exchange rate and international prices explain a large fraction of Ethiopia’s inflation.”
An Early Warning for Famine and Political Upheaval in Ethiopia in 2013
On December 13, 2011, NECSI scientists reportedly wrote to the US government alerting policy makers that global food prices were about to cross the threshold they had identified resulting in global political upheavals. Days later, Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia and set the Middle East on fire in what is now known as the “Arab Spring”. Emperor Haile Selassie was overthrown in 1975 because he neglected to address the famine situation in the northern part of the country, which to this day suffers from famine or as they say “acute” and “chronic” malnutrition. The military socialist junta that ruled Ethiopia denied there was a famine in Ethiopia in the mid-1980s and was overthrown in 1991 by those who are in power today. History shows that high food prices often trigger major political upheavals. In a study of the “food crises and political instabilityin North Africa and the Middle East”, NECSI scientists argue:
In 2011 protest movements have become pervasive in countries of North Africa and the Middle East. These protests are associated with dictatorial regimes and are often considered to be motivated by the failings of the political systems in the human rights arena. Here we show that food prices are the precipitating condition for social unrest and identify a specific global food price threshold for unrest. Even without sharp peaks in food prices we project that, within just a few years, the trend of prices will reach the threshold. This points to a danger of spreading global social disruption…. Conditions of widespread threat to security are particularly present when food is inaccessible to the population at large. In this case, the underlying reason for support of the system is eliminated, and at the same time there is “nothing to lose,” i.e. even the threat of death does not deter actions that are taken in opposition to the political order. Any incident then triggers death-defying protests and other actions that disrupt the existing order.
The government of PM Hailemariam Desalegn must come forward and explain how it expects to deal with the effects of the “inevitable global food crises” in Ethiopia in light of its depleted foreign reserves and how his government will avert potentially catastrophic famine in the country. Planning to panhandle more emergency food aid simply won’t cut it. Relying on Productive Safety Nets Programmes simply won’t do it. If the government of PM Hailemariam Desalegn cannot come with a better answer or alternative to the looming famine over the horizon, it should be prepared to face not only a hungry population but also an angry one!
For several years now, I have been “speaking truth to power”. In fact, the tag line for my blog page is “Defend Human Rights. Speak Truth to Power.” It is a special phrase which asserts a defiant moral and ethical position against those who abuse, misuse and overuse their powers. By speaking truth to power, the speaker bears witness against those whose power lies in lies. But speaking truth to the powerless is sometimes also necessary. The powerless have no power to abuse, but their fault lies in not knowing their true power. While the abusers of power have might, the powerless who are abused have the power of right. It is the power of right that the powerless must use in their struggle against the abusers of power in achieving their ultimate victory because, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, “Right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”
In June 2010, I wrote a weekly commentary entitled “Speaking Truth to the Powerless”. I expressed deep concern over what I perceived to be manifest political paralysis and inaction in the Ethiopian opposition following the daylight theft of the May 2010 election in which the ruling party claimed to have won 99.6 percent of the seats in parliament. I urged the Ethiopian “opposition” to take a hard look at itself and take corrective action. I explained that “my aim is not to lecture or to bash” but merely to help “clean out the closet so that we could begin afresh on the long walk to democracy. It is said that the ‘truth hurts’, but I disagree. I believe the truth heals, empowers and liberates its defenders.”
Ethiopia’s Opposition Through the Eyes of the Ruling Party
As opposition parties, journalists and dissidents faced unrelenting persecution by the ruling party and underwent apparent disarray following the 2010 election, I wondered what the party bosses of the ruling party really thought of the opposition (and the people) in making their outrageously absurd and audacious claim of total electoral victory. I thought then, as I do now, that looking at the “opposition” through the eyes of the ruling party bosses might give the opposition, particularly opposition parties, some insights into what courses of action they ought to take as the political situation evolves given recent changes:
… Zenawi knows the opposition like the opposition does not know itself. He has studied them and understands how they (do not) work. Careful analysis of his public statements on the opposition over the years suggests a rather unflattering view. He considers opposition leaders to be his intellectual inferiors; he can outwit, outthink, outsmart, outplay, outfox and outmaneuver them any day of the week. He believes they are dysfunctional, shiftless and inconsequential, and will never be able to pose a real challenge to his power. In his speeches and public comments, he shows nothing but contempt and hatred for them. At best, he sees them as wayward children who need constant supervision, discipline and punishment to keep them in line. Like children, he will offer some of them candy — jobs, cars, houses and whatever else it takes to buy their silence. Those he cannot buy, he will intimidate, place under continuous surveillance and persecute. Mostly, he tries to fool and trick the opposition. He will send “elders” to talk to them and lullaby them to sleep while he drags out “negotiations” to buy just enough time to pull the rug from underneath them. He casts a magical spell on them so that they forget he is the master of the zero-sum game (which means he always wins and his opposition always loses)…
Who is the “Opposition”?
Who is the Ethiopian “opposition”? That is an intriguing question for which there is probably not a definitive answer. There is certainly not a monolithic opposition in the form of a well-organized party. There is no strong and functional coalition of political parties that could effectively challenge both the power and ideology of the ruling party. There is not an opposition in the form of an organized vanguard of intellectuals. There is not an opposition composed of an aggregation of civil society institutions including unions and religious institutions, rights advocates and dissident groups. There is not an opposition in the form of popular mass based political or social movements. The problems of “opposition politics” in Ethiopia is the age old problem that has plagued African opposition politics following the “invention” of the one-man, one-party state in Africa by Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana in the early 1960s. Nkrumah crushed, suppressed and persecuted his opposition, including political parties, judges, union leaders, dissidents. Over the past one-half century, those who opposed the incumbent regimes in Ethiopia have been victims of not only legal and political restrictions but also all forms of persecution including imprisonments and extrajudicial killings. I find it difficult to fully characterize or quantify the Ethiopian opposition. As I asked in my commentary after the May 2010 election: “Is the opposition that amorphous aggregation of weak, divided, squabbling, factionalized and fragmented parties and groups that are constantly at each other’s throats? Or is it the grumbling aggregation of human rights advocates, civic society organizers, journalists and other media professionals and academics? Or are the groups committed to armed struggle and toppling the dictatorship by force the opposition?
Or is it all or none of the above?
What is the Proper Role for the “Opposition” in the Ethiopia?
Playing the role of opposition in a police state is not only difficult but also extremely risky. Following the May 2005 election, nearly all of the opposition party leaders, numerous civic society leaders, human rights advocates and journalists were rounded up and jailed for nearly two years. Over the past six years, opposition parties have been denied any meaningful political space and their leaders, along with an ever growing number of journalists and dissidents have been harassed, intimidated, imprisoned, exiled or worse. But the opposition, particularly the opposition parties, have also been severely weakened and suffered erosion of public credibility by failing to develop a coherent set of policies, programs and ideology that are different from the ruling party’s. Some parties and party leaders have lacked accountability and transparency in their actions and omissions. Others have resisted internal democracy within their organizations. Still others have promoted a cult of leadership around a single individual or small group of individuals who themselves have manifested dictatorial tendencies and engaged in factional struggles within their organizations to consolidate their power.
Regardless of how one might define the “opposition” in Ethiopia, there is no question that the ruling party’s claim of electoral victory of 99.6 percent stands in stark contrast to the fact that in 2005 opposition parties routed the ruling party’s candidates in landslide victories throughout the country. The principal lesson the Ethiopian “opposition” needs to learn from the experiences of the past six years is that the opposition’s role is not simply to “oppose, oppose and oppose” for the sake of opposing. The opposition’s role and duty goes well beyond simply opposing the ruling party and its policies. Their role goes to the heart of democratic governance of the country. Their principal role is to relentlessly demand accountability and transparency in governance. They should always question the actions and omissions of the ruling party in a principled and honest manner, challenge, analyze, criticize, dice and slice the ruling party’s policies, ideas and programs and offer better, different and stronger alternatives. It is not sufficient for the opposition to champion the failures of the ruling party and make broad claims that they can do better.
Heaping insults, gnashing teeth and denigrating the ruling party and its leaders not only erodes the superior moral position of the opposition, it is also counterproductive and distractive to the opposition in its role of promoting accountability and transparency in governance. Many in the opposition speak out against those in power in the language of anger, frustration, fear and loathing. Few seem to be prepared to challenge the rulers on the basis of cold hard facts and logic. It is rare to see the opposition undertake a thorough analysis and critique of the ruling party’s policies, programs and projects. That task if often done by foreigners who undertake specialized studies and investigations. For instance, the regime’s policy which allows predatory land grabs by international agro-businesses was exposed not by Ethiopia’s opposition but foreign NGOs and researchers. The disastrous environmental impact of the various hydroelectric dam projects in the country were revealed by foreign researchers, not the opposition. The bulk of the work documenting human rights violations in Ethiopia is done by the various international human rights organizations, not the opposition. Much of the economic analysis on Ethiopia is done either by the various international lending institutions whose review is highly questionable on conflict of interest grounds or economic commentators in the popular media. By failing to challenge the ruling party on substantive policy and programmatic grounds, the effectiveness and credibility of the opposition has been significantly diminished. What is needed is not verbal condemnation, demonization and teeth gnashing against those in power, but critical and systematic analysis of the failures of the regime, its programs, policies and laws followed by well-thought out proposals that offer real alternatives and hope of a better future to the people if the opposition were to hold the reins of power.
The opposition, particularly opposition political parties, can play many vital roles beyond simply preparing to run for elections. They can help build consensus and aggregate the interests of their members and the broader society. They can articulate their policy preferences and choices and educate the wider community. They can promote debate, dialogue and national conversations on issues, problems and the direction of the country. They are best positioned to build and institutionalize a democratic culture. If opposition parties are to succeed, they must take action to provide leadership training opportunities to the youth and women. Many opposition party leaders are way past the age of fifty and few women are seen at top leadership levels. While “age is nothing but a number”, there is a distinct difference between youth and geriatric politics. The younger generation has greater enthusiasm, dynamism and commitment to carry on with the cause. Opposition parties also need to work closely with media and civil society institutions to reach out to the people.
Sometimes the opposition can also agree with those in power to do the right thing and serve the greater public interest. In 2007, the late Meles Zenawi expressed his “hope that [his] legacy” would be not only “sustained and accelerated development that would pull Ethiopia out of the massive deep poverty” but also “radical improvements in terms of good governance and democracy.” Prime Minster Hailemariam has vowed and pledged publicly numerous times to carry out Meles’ legacy. There is no harm in joining Hailemariam implement Meles’ legacy of “improving good governance and democracy.” The opposition should hold Hailemariam accountable for improving good governance by insisting on the release of political prisoners, repeal of repressive laws, opening up of political space and broader democratization.
What Kind of Opposition is Needed Today?
I believe the ruling party’s dominance and persistence is made possible in significant part by the shambolic (chaotic) state of Ethiopian opposition politics. In other words, if the opposition were not so divided and uncentered, the ruling party would have been far less successful in imposing its arbitrary rule. So, what kind of opposition is needed today?
Loyal Opposition? In some parliamentary systems of government, the term “loyal opposition” is used to describe opposition non-governing parties in the legislature. In a functioning democratic parliamentary system, it is the duty of the loyal opposition to challenge the policies and programs of the governing party without fear of harassment, intimidation or persecution. Obviously, there can be no “loyal opposition” in Ethiopia when the ruling party controls 99.6 percent of the seats in parliament. It is not possible to have a one-person loyal opposition.
Silent or Silenced Opposition? There is much silent and silenced opposition to the ruling class. The majority of the people are afraid to show their opposition to the regime because they are afraid of retaliation or retribution. If they criticize the ruling party or its leaders, they could lose their jobs, be dismissed from school, suffer economic harm or even serious persecution. People are jailed for simply saying they oppose the regime. In an incredible development recently, four individuals were criminally charged for stating in public, “Meles is dead. Good riddance. We are not sorry he is dead. The government is dead. There is no government.” (To see the official charging document, press here.) There are many who privately express opposition but would not dare to make their views known because of fears of prosecution and persecution.
Disorganized Opposition? An opposition that is floundering, angry and disorganized is unlikely to pose a challenge to the ruling party. A disorganized opposition is unable to formulate viable and appealing policies or convert popular discontent into decisive political action. Neither is it able to convince and mobilize its base or expand its reach and influence.
Divided Opposition? A divided opposition is best guarantee for the dominance of the ruling party. The myth of the supremacy and invincibility of the ruling party and its leaders is built on the foundation of a divided opposition. The ruling regime survives and thrives using a strategy of divide and rule; and when the opposition itself is divided, it is easy for those in power to abuse, mock and denigrate them.
A United Principled Democratic Opposition? That is what Ethiopia needs today. Such an opposition is built on a foundation of the values of tolerance, cooperation and compromise. A united opposition is consensus based and results in a coalition of divergent interests and groups. The coalition provides a forum to work together not only to compete in elections but also in formulating broad based policies, providing broader representation of the electorate and broader representation of the views and demands of the majority. Since a wide consensus of opinion is necessary in coalitions, policies and actions will be debated and examined thoroughly before being presented to the public. Coalitions provide a basis for good governance because their decisions are made in the interests of a majority of the people. Coalitions may sometimes be fractious but the tendency to build consensus often overcomes that impulse. The Ethiopian opposition ought to organize around coalition politics to effectively challenge the ruling party and its policies.
What Is to Be Done by the Ethiopian Opposition?
Following the 2010 election, I offered unsolicited advice to Ethiopia’s opposition. It does not seem there were any takers at the time. But I am a tenacious and steadfast advocate who is not easily deterred. So, I offer the same advice again now that the political game has changed and despite the repetitious litany among the leaders of the regime that nothing has changed and things will continue as before. Things have changed fundamentally and will continue to change even more dramatically in the near future. That irreversible change is from dictatorship to democracy. There is no force on earth that can stop that change. No amount of bluster, swagger, bombast, hubris or imperiousness by those clinging to power can stop the change from dictatorship to democracy. There is only one question left to be answered: What is to be done by opposition parties and the aggregation of civic society and media institutions, human rights advocates, dissidents and others in Ethiopia’s transition from dictatorship to democracy?
Atonement and Reconciliation With the People: All of the opposition political party leaders who participated in the 2005 election need to go back to the people and ask forgiveness for squandering their hopes, dreams and aspirations. They need to tell the people straight up, “We did let you down. We are deeply sorry. We promise to do our very best to earn back your trust and confidence.” The people deserve an unqualified public apology from opposition leaders. They will be forgiven because the Ethiopian people are decent, understanding and compassionate.
Learn From Past Mistakes: It is said that those who do not learn from past mistakes are doomed to repeat it. Many mistakes and blunders have been committed by opposition leaders in the past. These mistakes need to be identified, studied and lessons drawn from them so that they will not be repeated again.
Understand the Opposition’s Opposition: The opposition’s opposition should not be underestimated. Their strength is in dividing and ruling and in playing the ethnic card. If the opposition unites and acts around a common agenda, they are powerless.
Stop Playing Victim: Some in the opposition manifest “victim mentality”. When one feels like a victim, one tends not to take action or responsibility. There is some recent criticism of Hailemariam over his public statements concerning the jailed journalists, political prisoners and other issues. Last week, he told the Voice of America that the political prisoners in the country are actually “terrorists” who “work with a violent organization” while “wearing two hats”, one “legal” and the other “illegal”. He gave no indication if he intends to open up the political space. The fact of the matter is that regardless of what Hailemariam and the ruling party say or do not say, the opposition must be relentless in demanding the release of all political prisoners and repeal of oppressive laws. That is what accountability is all about. The opposition must always stand up for what is right. Releasing political prisoners is right; keeping them imprisoned is wrong.
Develop a Common Agenda in Support of Issues and Causes: The core issues democracy, freedom, human rights, the rule of law and the unity of the people and the physical integrity of the Ethiopian nation are shared by all opposition elements. Why not build collective agenda to advance and support these issues?
Agree to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable: Opposition leaders and supporters must abandon the destructive principle, “If you do not agree with me 100 percent, you are my enemy.” There is nothing wrong with reasonable minds disagreeing. Dissent and disagreement are essential conditions of democracy. If the opposition cannot tolerate dissent within itself, could it justifiably condemn those in power for intolerance?
Guard Against the Cult of Personality: One of the greatest weaknesses in the Ethiopian opposition has been the cult of personality. Time and again, the opposition has created idealized and heroic images of individuals as leaders, showered them with unquestioning flattery and praise and almost worshipped them. Let us remember that every time we do that we are grooming future dictators.
Always Act in Good Faith: Opposition leaders and others in the opposition must always strive to act in good faith and be forthright and direct in their personal and organizational relationships. We must mean what we say and say what we mean. Games of one-upmanship will keep us all stranded on an island of irrelevance.
Think Generationally, Act Presently: The struggle for genuine democracy is not merely about winning elections or getting into public office. The struggle is for great causes — establishing a durable democracy, protecting human rights and institutionalizing accountability and the rule of law in Ethiopia. If we believe this to be true, then the struggle is not about us, it is about the generations to come. What we do should always be guided by our desire to make Ethiopia better for our children and grandchildren.
Give Young People a Chance to Lead: There is a hard reality that most of us in the older generation in the opposition have been unable to face. That reality is that we need to learn to get out of the way. Let’s give the younger generation a chance to lead. After all, it is their future. We can be most useful if we help them learn from our mistakes and guide them to greater heights. If there is one thing universally true about young people, it is that they love freedom more than anything else. Let the older generation be water carriers for the young people who will be building the “future country of Ethiopia,” as Birtukan Midekssa, the first female political party leader in Ethiopia, used to say.
Think Like Winners, Not Victims: Victory is not what it seems for the victors, and defeat is not what it feels for the vanquished. There is defeat in victory and victory in defeat. Both victory and defeat are first and foremost states of mind. Those who won the election by a margin of 99.6 percent project an image of being victorious. But we know they have an empty victory secured by force and fraud. The real question is whether the opposition sees itself as a bunch of winners or losers. Winners think and act like winners, likewise for losers.
The Opposition Needs to Reinvent Itself: The ruling party, though its public statements, is trying to reinvent itself as the same old repressive police state. They say “nothing will change” from the time of their former leader. The opposition also needs to reinvent itself by rededicating itself to democratic principles, articulating the peoples’ aspirations with greater clarity and cogency, creating democratic alliances, strengthening its position as voices of the people and by always standing up for right and against might.
The Opposition Must Never Give Up: Sir Winston Churchill was right when he said: “Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” This is a winning strategy the Ethiopian opposition should adopt and practice passionately!
Ethiopians had their new year on September 11. It is now 2005. On September 21, they also got a new prime minster. How delightfully felicitous to have a new prime minister in the new year! Heartfelt congratulations and best wishes to the people of Ethiopia are in order.
Hailemariam Desalegn was sworn in as prime minister before a special session of parliament. It was a rather low key affair with little pomp and circumstance. There were no parades and no sounds of bugle or trumpet announcing the changing of the guard. No inaugural balls. It was a starkly scripted ceremonial affair with minimal fanfare and political theatricality. Some 375 of the 547 members of Parliament sat quietly and heard Hailemariam recite the oath of office and gave him a hearty round of applause.
Since late May, Hailemariam has been operating in political limbo. He was officially described as “deputy”, “acting” and “interim” prime minster, the latter two offices unauthorized by the Constitution of Ethiopia. There were also some nettlesome constitutional questions about the duties of the deputy prime minister in the absence of the prime minister and the proper method of succession. Those issues aside, Hailemariam’s swearing in ceremony was scheduled on several prior occasions only to be cancelled without adequate explanation. The abrupt cancellations fueled all types of speculations and conspiracy theories about turmoil and confusion among the ruling elites. To complicate things further, it was officially announced days before the actual swearing in ceremony that Hailemariam would be sworn in early October. For some publicly unexplained reason, a special session of parliament was suddenly called for the purpose of naming a prime minister creating additional public confusion about the manifest dithering among the power elites.
Hailemariam takes office under a cloud of apprehension. Speculations abound that he is really a “figure head”, a “front man” and a “seat warmer” for the entrenched interests in a transitional period. Critics suggest that he will have little independence of action and will be puppet-mastered by those who control the politics and economy behind the scenes. Others suggest that he is a “technocract” who is unlikely to survive in a political machine that is lubricated by intrigue, cabalist conspiracy and skullduggery. But some, including myself, have taken a wait-and-see attitude and would like to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Hailemariam’s “inauguration speech” hammered the theme of “Stay the Course.” He said under his leadership the programs and projects that have been initiated and underway will continue to completion. “Our task is to stay the course on the path to firm development guided by the policies and strategies [of our party]. We will continue to pursue development and democracy by strengthening our collective leadership and by mobilizing the people.” He said modernizing agriculture and the rural economy by accelerating agricultural development were top priorities. His government “will work hard” to improve agricultural infrastructure. He promised help to cattle raisers. He emphasized the need for better educational quality and entrepreneurial opportunities for the youth. He said the country needs a curriculum focused on science, technology and math. His administration will work hard to expand opportunities for women and pay greater attention to women’s health and improved health care services to mothers. He called upon the intellectuals and professional associations to engage in rigorous applied policy analysis and research to solve practical problems.
Hailemariam said his vision is to see Ethiopia join the middle income countries in ten years. To achieve that, he said significant improvements are needed in industry and manufacturing. His administration will pay special attention to remove development bottlenecks, improve the export sector and facilitate greater cooperation between the private sector and the government. He promised to work hard to alleviate housing and transportation problems in Addis Ababa. He touched upon the economy noting that though inflation is coming down, much more action is needed to bring it under control. He urged Ethiopians to bite the bullet (tirs neksen) and make sure the existing plans for ground and rail transportation, hydroelectric power generation and telecommunications are successfully executed. He pledged to complete the “Hedasse Gidib” (“Renassaince Dam”) over the Blue Nile. He referred to corruption and mismanagement in land administration, rent and tax collections and public contracts and pledged to get the public involved in eliminating them. He noted that there were significant deficits in good governance in the operation of the police, courts, security system that need to be improved.
Hailemariam emphasized that importance of human rights. He urged the parliamentary oversight committee to review the work of the Human Rights Commission for improvements. He underscored the vital role of the Elections Commission, the Human Rights Commission, press organizations and opposition parties in the country’s democratization. He said he was ready to work “closely” with press organizations, civic society institutions and other entities engaged in the democratic process. On foreign policy, he focused on regional issues, Ethiopia’s contribution to peace-building in Somalia, South Sudan and the Sudan.
The speech could best be described as “technocratic” in the sense that it focused on ways of solving the complex problems facing the country. The speech was short on rhetoric, oratory, appeals to the pathos of the masses and big new ideas and promises. He did not sugarcoat the deep economic problems of the country with hyperbolic claims of 14 percent annual growth nor did he make any grandiose claims about Ethiopia as the “one of the fastest-growing, non-oil-dependent economies in the developing world”. There were no impactful or memorable lines or sound bite phrases in the speech. He offered no inspirational exhortations in words which “soared to poetic heights, igniting the imagination with vivid imagery”. There were no anecdotes or storytelling about the plight of the poor and the toiling masses. It was a speech intended to serve as a call to action with the message that he will work hard and asks the people to join him. He spoke of responsibility, hard work, willingness to lead, standing up to challenges, engaging the opposition, civil society and press institutions, etc. for the purpose of improving the lives of the people.
Hailemariam’s speech was a refreshing change from similar speeches of yester years in a number of ways. It was delivered in a dignified and statesmanlike manner. It was not an ideologically laced speech despite repeated references to the guiding grand plan. It was accommodating and bereft of any attitude of the old militaristic and aggressive tone of “my way or the highway.” There was no finger pointing and demonization. He did not use the old tricks of “us v. them”. He did not come across as an arrogant know-it-all ideologue. He offered olive branches to the opposition, the press and other critics of the ruling party. What was even more interesting was that he did not pull out the old straw men and whipping boys of “neoliberalism”, “neocolonialism”, and “imperialism” to pin the blame on them for Ethiopia’s problems. He did not pull any punches against the local opposition or neighboring countries. He used no threats and words of intimidation. Even when he addressed the issues of corruption, mismanagement and abuse of power, he aimed for legal accountability rather than issuing empty condemnatory words or threats.
Another surprising aspect was the fact that the speech contained none of the old triumphalism, celebratory lap running and victorious chest-beating exercises. There was no display of strength of the ruling party, no self-congratulations and ego stroking. He softly challenged the opposition and the people to work together in dealing with the country’s problems. His speech seemed to be aimed more at making the people think and act on existing plans than making new promises. Over all, the speech was written with intelligence, thoughtfulness and purpose. Hailemariam spoke in a cool and collected manner and tried to get his points across directly. What he lacked in rhetorical flair, he made up with a projection of self-assurance, humility, respectability and profesionalism.
What Was Not Said
There were various things that were not said. Though Hailemariam acknowledged the structural economic problems and the soaring inflation, he offered no short-term remedial plans. He repeatedly came back to “stay the course” theme. Does “staying the course” mean “our way or the highway”? Is national reconciliation an idea the ruling party will consider? There was no indication in the speech about the transitional process itself, but he did offer what appeared to be olive branches to the opposition, the press and others.
Hailemariam also did not give any indication about the release of the large numbers of political prisoners that are held throughout the country. Nor did he mention anything about re-drafting the various repressive press, civil society and so-called anti-terrorism laws. For over a decade, all of the major international human rights and press organizations have condemned the government in Ethiopia for its flagrant violations of human rights, illegal detention of dissidents and suppression of press institutions and persecution of journalists.
Words and Actions: Shoes of the New Prime Minister
It is often hard to judge politicians by the speeches they make. It is not uncommon for politicians to deliver inspirational speeches and come up short on the action side of things. It is true that action speaks louder than words. In his speech, it seems Hailemariam sought to move himself, his party and the people to action. But he is in a difficult situation. He feels, or is forced to feel, that he has to “fill in big shoes”. He said he will walk in footsteps that have already been stamped out. But the shoe that fits one person pinches another. But for all the hero worship, Hailemariam must realize that there is a difference between shoes and boots. For two decades, boots, not shoes, were worn. Those boots have made a disfiguring impression on the Ethiopian landscape. It must be hard to pretend to walk in the shoes of someone who had sported heavy boots. The problem is what happens when one wears someone else’s shoes that do not fit. Do you then change the shoe or the foot? I hope Hailemariam will in time learn to walk in the shoes of the ordinary Ethiopian. He will find out that those shoes are tattered and their soles full of holes. Once he has walked a mile in those shoes, he will understand what it will take to get every Ethiopian new shoes. He must also realize that “it isn’t the mountain ahead that wears you out; it’s the grain of sand in your shoe.” There comes a time when we all need new shoes. That time is now. All Ethiopians need new shoes for the long walk to freedom, democracy and human rights. Prime Minster Hailemariam does not need hand-me down shoes; he needs shoes that are just his size and style and rugged enough for the long haul.
I believe Hailemariam gave a good “professional” speech. I do not think it will be remembered for any memorable lines, phrases or grand ideas. It was a speech that fit the man who stood before parliament and took the oath of office. As a self-described utopian Ethiopian, I thought the very fact of Hailemariam taking the oath of office symbolically represented the dawn of a long-delayed democracy in Ethiopia. Few would have expected a man from one of the country’s minority ethnic group to rise to such heights. Whether by design, accident or fortune, Hailemariam’s presence to take the oath of office, even without a speech or a statement, would have communicated a profound message about Ethiopia’s inevitable and unstoppable transition to democracy. Most importantly, now any Ethiopian boy or girl from any part of the country could genuinely aspire to become prime minister regardless of his/her ethnicity, region, language or religion.
I do not know if history will remember Hailemariam’s “inaugural” speech as a game changer. History will judge him not for the words he spoke or did not speak when he took the oath of office but for his actions after he became prime minister. It’s premature to judge. I like the fact that he appeared statesmanlike, chose his words carefully, focused on facts and presented himself in businesslike manner. It is encouraging that he expressed commitment to work hard to make Ethiopia a middle income country within a decade. He showed a practical sense of mission and vision while keeping expectations to reasonable levels.
To be Or Not To Be a Prime Minister
“Being Prime Minister is a lonely job,” wrote Maggie Thatcher, Britain’s first female prime minsiter. “In a sense it ought to be; you cannot lead from a crowd.” I would say being a prime minister for Hailemariam, as the first prime minster from a minority ethnic group, will be not only lonely but tough as well. But somebody has got to do it. Hailemariam has his work cut out for him and he will face great challenges from within and without, as will the people of Ethiopia. I wish him well paraphrasing Winston Churchill who told his people in their darkest hour:
I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Democracy. Democracy at all costs. Democracy in spite of all terror. Democracy, however long and hard the road may be, for without democracy there is no survival.”
I believe Ethiopia will survive and thrive and her transition to democracy is irreversible, inevitable, unstoppable and divinely ordained!
On a personal note, I would give Prime Minster Hailemariam a bit of unsolicited advice. Smile a little because when you smile the whole world, not just the whole of Ethiopia, smiles with you!
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at: http://www.ethiopianreview.com/amharic/?author=57
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/ and www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/
It seems Ethiopia finally has a new prime minister. Two days ago, the leaders of the ruling EPDRF party approved Hailemariam Desalegn, the current deputy prime minister [DPM], to replace the late Meles Zenawi as party chief and prime minister. But Hailemariam will not be sworn in until early October according to Bereket Simon. No explanation was given for the two-week delay. Prior public statements by Bereket indicating that Hailemariam will be sworn into office following a special session of parliament have proven to be false. Whether Hailemariam will indeed be sworn into office in October remains to be seen.
Hailemariam’s approval has been shrouded in secrecy and mystery fueling speculations that the shadowy kingmakers were in some turmoil over his selection and in disagreement on whether he is the right man for the job. Conspiracy theorists were having a field day divining the secretive selection process. But there was manifest constitutional crises in the country as it became increasingly clear that Meles was not in charge between late May and the official announcement of his passing on August 21. That confusion was compounded by conflicting official statements characterizing Hailemariam not just as “deputy prime minster” as designated in the Ethiopian Constitution but alternatively as “interim prime minster” and “acting prime minster”, offices that are not authorized by the Constitution. As of now, Hailemariam remains a prime-minister-in-waiting.
Hailemariam’s Personal Challenge
Hailemariam faces extraordinary challenges when he begins his term as prime minister. The first formidable challenge will be to his credibility and perceived lack of independence. In one of my weekly commentaries in July, I predicted that Hailemariam will succeed to the prime ministership despite sticky constitutional questions. I argued that the appointment of Hailemariam, as a member of one of the country’s minority groups, guarantees the power brokers behind the scenes the only opportunity to maintain their power and influence by proxy. I suggested that a DPM from an ethnic minority would be unable to maintain an independent base of support and must necessarily rely on the military-police-security-economic complex created over the past twenty one years to survive. I speculated that the DPM as PM will prove to be no more than puppet in the hands of the power brokers.
I believe there are many doubting Thomases today, particularly in the opposition, who are likely to be dismissive of Hailemariam because he was Meles’ protégé and the unanimous choice of the shadowy and secretive group of kingmakers. Some will likely perceive him or portray him as a “Meles’ Clone” and a puppet who could be easily manipulated and blindly and unquestioningly do the bidding of the powers that be who made him prime minister. His detractors will likely argue that Hailemariam can only be a figurehead since true power will remain with those who control the military, the police and security forces and the elites who have a chokehold on the economy. Others will opine that Hailemariam’s appointment is all a trick and a scam by the powers that be to get themselves out of a constitutional jam and hoodwink the people and con the international donors into continuing to dole out billions in aid. Still others will argue that Hailemariam is just a seat warmer installed until the power brokers could buy more time and appoint one of their own. If push comes to shove, they can kick him out of office at any time and replace him with another puppet; and if need be impose martial law just to cling to power. There will be some who will cynically predict the kingmakers will use him and lose him. I suspect there will be umpteen reason given to discredit and dismiss Hailemariam.
At this time, I am not inclined to be dismissive of Hailemariam’s potential to become a good and sensible leader. I reserve judgment not out of naiveté or because I do not have constitutional questions about his succession or political misgivings about the secretive process that led to his appointment. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt because I believe fundamental fairness requires that he be given a chance to prove or disprove himself as a capable and effective leader. When one is gnawed by an overwhelming sense of doubt not based on facts, it is important to strive and keep an open mind and make informed judgment. I do not believe in guilt by association, and will not hold against Hailemariam the fact that Meles was his mentor. I also aim to avoid the “soft bigotry of low expectations”. I do not know what Hailemariam is capable of doing in the future. I do not have evidence that Hailemariam has an atrocious record of human rights violations individually or in concert with others. Nor do I have evidence that he flouts the rule of law, is hostile to press freedoms or schemes to suppress democratic institutions.
Fairness requires that I judge him by his deeds and words. I shall reserve judgment. I trust Hailemariam will be wise enough to refrain from and avoid the inflammatory rhetoric of Meles as he begins his new office. I hope he will show humility and not display the belligerence, arrogance and hubris of his predecessor. I hope he will do more to reach out to his opposition and try to work with them, and not trap himself in a bubble surrounded by sycophants. I trust he will be more conciliatory than confrontational; more understanding of the opposition and their frustrations and less condemnatory of those who may disagree with him. I hope he will have the wisdom to understand the inebriating power of power and the absolutely corrupting nature of absolute power and learn to use power wisely by tempering it with justice and compassion. I hope he will listen more and lecture less; under promise and over deliver and show respect for institutions, his opposition and his compatriots. On a personal level, I hope he will be able to share my unshakeable belief in the sanctity of human rights and commitment to upholding the rule of law. But I also have a special wish for him: He has a long walk to make and he can get to his destination if he walks and strives to help his compatriots walk in Mandela’s shoes than anyone else’s.
Hailemariam as Meles’ Successor
Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “I am the successor, not of Louis XVI, but of Charlemagne.” King Louis XVI of France was a symbol of the ancien regime [old order”] in contrast to the new order of the French Republic. Charlemagne [Charles the Great] is regarded to be the founder of France and Germany and the leader credited for uniting Western Europe for the first time since the Roman Empire. I am not sure what it means to be Meles’ successor. But Hailemariam has the choice of continuing the “ancien regime” of Meles or lead in the invention of a new democratic Ethiopia. He can choose to clone himself as Meles II and crush human rights, dissent, press freedom and civil society institutions, expand the toxic ideology of ethnic politics, steal elections just to cling to power and like his predecessor become the overlord of a police state reinforced by a massive security network of spies and rule by spreading fear and loathing throughout the country. In other words, he can choose to become as tyrannical as the tyrant he had succeeded. But Hailemariam also has the choice to learn from Meles’ mistakes. He has the choice to come out of Meles’ shadows and become his own man. He can be more tolerant, ethical, accommodating and democratic than his mentor.
Regardless of whether he regards himself as Meles’ successor, I would like to help Hailemariam fulfill one of Meles’s dreams. Such a statement coming from Meles’ severest critic in life might surprise many. Meles expressed the “hope that [his] legacy” would be not only “sustained and accelerated development that would pull Ethiopia out of the massive deep poverty” but also “radical improvements in terms of good governance and democracy.” If Hailemariam genuinely wants to honor and pay homage to his mentor and teacher and not just pay lip service to Meles’ memory, he should make the task of improving good governance and democracy job one. These improvements must necessarily begin with the immediate release of all political prisoners, repeal of anti-terrorism, civil society and other oppressive laws and a declaration of allegiance to the rule of law. Tackling these issues will not diminish or condemn the memory of Meles. It will actually enhance his image and prestige post-mortem. Keeping political prisoners jailed and continued implementation of the repressive laws will only serve as constant reminders of Meles misdeeds and arbitrary rule.
Hailemariam as a Peacemaker
It would be a wise move for Hailemariam and the invisible power brokers to take this transitional opportunity to extend an olive branch to the opposition and invite them to a dialogue on the future of the country and go the extra mile to engage them in discussions that could lead to power sharing and a smooth democratic transition. Meles played a “zero sum game” for the last twenty one years. He won all the time and everyone else lost all the time. In the end, Meles lost. Hailemariam can play a win-win game and win in the end.
Ethiopia for the past 21 years has been a one-man, one party state. In May 2010, the ruling party claimed it had won 99.6 percent of the seats in parliament reducing the opposition from 174 to only two seats. In 2008, the ruling party won all but a handful of 3.6 million seats. Such electoral victories make a travesty of democracy and a mockery of electoral politics. That is why the ruling party should engage its diverse opposition in power sharing talks. To be sure, power sharing could come in many formulations. I employ the idea in its simplest formulation, namely a political arrangement or forum in which opposing groups in a society have an opportunity to genuinely participate in democratic governance. I understand that power sharing is not a cure all to the longstanding political ills of Ethiopia. It will not magically resolve ethnic polarization and divisions in society or create peace, stability and an efficient system of governance overnight. But power sharing talks and arrangements in Africa have often facilitated the transition to democratic rule and peace-building by providing opportunities for contending and even warring parties to cooperate in searching for nonviolent conflict resolution. In countries where power sharing arrangements have been successful, they have led to compromises, moderation, democratic governance and durable peace.
In the past few years, power sharing arrangements have reduced tensions and stabilized volatile political situations in Kenya and even Zimbabwe. In 2009, a “grand coalition government” among bitter political enemies was established in Kenya. Subsequently, they were able to write a new constitution which was approved by an overwhelming 67 percent of Kenyans in 2011. In 2008, President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai signed a power sharing deal. They are now vigorously debating adoption of the draft constitution prepared by the Select Committee of Parliament on the New Constitution. Both countries face serious political challenges and have a long way to go before achieving full democratization. But the power sharing arrangements have placed them on the right track.
Nigeria has a long history of power sharing dating back to independence. Despite endemic corruption and political mismanagement of the country, there is a power-sharing agreement between the dominant party and smaller parties aimed at promoting inclusiveness and political stability in the country. Two decades ago, Mandela was able to hammer out a power sharing agreement which facilitated South Africa’s transition from Apartheid to democracy. Power sharing arrangements have been tried in Burundi, Guinea, Madagascar and the Ivory Coast with different outcomes. I believe such an arrangement could offer a peaceful way out of the current political stalemate in Ethiopia. It is a sensible option. I hope Hailemariam and his leadership group will follow Nelson Mandela’s prescription and seriously consider a power sharing arrangement: “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” There is no shame or harm in making a peace offering to the opposition and engaging them in power sharing discussions. It is the new way in Africa.
Hailemariam as a Political Leader
Hailemariam’s political challenge will be whether he will do what it takes to uphold the rule of law and reverse the arbitrary rule of his predecessor. Meles often talked about “our Constitution” and the “rule of law” but rarely followed either. He was the object of relentless criticism by all international human rights organizations for disregarding Ethiopia’s Constitution and international human rights treaties and conventions. Every year, the U.S. State Department Human Rights Report documented massive human rights violations as did so many other international human rights organizations. But he was dismissive of such reports. Hailemariam cannot afford to alienate all international human rights and press freedom defenders.
Meles was a man with a mission. Hailemariam can be a man of vision. The country has enormous problems that require massive efforts and resources to resolve. Talking about an “Ethiopian Renaissance” will not deal with the chronic food crises in the country or rein in the galloping inflation, improve the poor health care and educational system or alleviate the grinding poverty that afflcits the majority of the people. Building shiny structures, roads and dams will make for great public relations and impress donors to dole out more aid. But there are enormous human costs associated with such ventures. Just last week, the International Monetary Fund urged Ethiopian officials to reconsider their plans to construct “Africa’s largest hydropower plant” because that project could siphon away much needed funds from other critical needs areas. According to IMF country representative Jan Mikkelsen, “there’s a need to rethink some of those projects a little bit to make sure that they don’t absorb all domestic financing just for that project. If you suck in all domestic financing to just a few projects that money will be used for this and not for normal trade and normal business.” Hailemariam should be more practical and envision a new Ethiopia where the state stieves to meet the basic needs of the people, and not invest precious resources in quixotic white elephant projects.
Hailemariam should maintain vigilance for political minefields. He could learn valuable lessons from the experiences of former Ethiopian president Negasso Gidada’s treatment by the ruling party documented in his book “Negasso’s Way”. According to Negasso, he was roped into becoming president by Meles who convinced him to accept the position even though he resisted it. After he became president, Negasso recounted how he was tricked into doing things that he did not agree with, including signing a proclamation that denied corruption suspects their right to bail in violation of the Constitution and allowing Meles to use that law to neutralize and persecute his opponents. “There are people who ask me why I signed that bill. However, I want people to understand that I signed the bill because of my strong stand against corruption. I thought EPDRF had the same stand. It was too late for me to understand it was all scam.” After Negasso left office and sought to engage in opposition politics, the ruling party drafted a special proclamation to divest a former president of his privileges, security protection and retirement benefits if he returns to politics. Negasso’s experiences may offer instructive lessons to Hailemariam.
Hailemariam can choose to become not just a leader but the best leader; but he must know what it takes to be one. As Lao Tsu instructed, “To lead people, walk beside them … As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence. The next best, the people honor and praise. The next, the people fear; and the next, the people hate … When the best leader’s work is done the people say, ‘We did it ourselves!’” Hailemariam should aim for leadership which will allow the people to say, “We did it ourselves!”
Hailemariam as a Man With an Appointment With Destiny
Meles Zenawi was a man who had an appointment with destiny; and he missed it! I believe Hailemariam has his own appointment with destiny. Cynics may be quick to say Ethiopia’s leaders are condemned to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I hope that will not be the case for Hailemariam. He will determine his own destiny as a leader. If he is able to summon the courage, integrity and fortitude to put the peoples’ interest above his party’s interests, he could become a role model for a new breed of Ethiopian leader. But if pursues absolute power, prefers revenge over mercy, confrontation over conciliation and continues the politics of ethnic fragmentation and division like his predecessor, he too will miss his appointment with destiny.
Ethiopia at the Crossroads of Democracy and Dictatorship
Ethiopia today stands at the crossroads. It can march forward into democracy by taking confident steps that begin radical improvements in good governance and democracy. It can continue to slide backwards and deeper into the vortex of dictatorship. It can take free fall into chaos and civil strife. What Ethiopia needs at the crossroads is not finger-pointing, teeth-gnashing, eye-rolling or bellyaching. There is enough blame to go around. Condemning the memory of Meles and reincarnating Meles in the person of Hailemariam will not help us march to a democratic future. It will only continue the tradition of grievance and victimhood and culture of antagonism and hypercriticism. What Ethiopians need to realize is that this is the right time to join hands to heal the open wounds of fear, loathing and antagonism in our hearts, minds and souls. This is the time to be creative about alternative futures built on a solid foundation of the rule of law, respect for human rights and democracy.
Since the beginning of 2012, I have been writing about “Ethiopia’s inevitable transition from dictatorship to democracy”. I have outlined various scenarios on what could happen during the transition. Today the question is not whether a one-man dictatorship in Ethiopia is over, but if dictatorship will reinvent itself and rear its ugly head once more. The “future” Meles spoke of is now. We should all work collectively to implement his aspirations for “radical improvements in terms of good governance and democracy”. With the Ethiopian new year upon us, we can all begin afresh on the road to “radical improvements in good governance and democracy”.
We need to plan for the inevitable, inescapable and unstoppable transition of Ethiopia from dictatorship to democracy. Dictatorship will end in Ethiopia. It is only a matter of when. Democracy will also rise in Ethiopia. It is a matter of how and what type. The point is that it necessary to begin a purposeful dialogue and plan ahead about the prerequisites for an effective and smooth transition to democratic governance now, not when the dictatorship falls. I believe dialogue needs to begin now on at least four major issue areas: 1) how to engage and increase the capacity of key stakeholders in identifying potential triggers of violence during political transitions and preventing them; 2) identifying and devising strategies and opportunities for reducing ethnic, religious and communal tension and conflict in anticipation of a transition; 3) enhancing the role of civil society institutions in facilitating public engagement and interaction during the transitional period, and 4) anticipating critical constitutional issues that could significantly impair the transitional process.
I stand by my views. I believe there is a way out of the darkness of dictatorship. Nelson Mandela paved that two way road in South Africa and called it “Forgiveness and Goodness.” We should all prepare ourselves and the people to travel that two-way road. It is time for national dialogue!
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at: http://www.ethiopianreview.com/amharic/?author=57
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/ and www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/
For the past several months, there has been much display of public sorrow and grief in Ethiopia. But not for the millions of invisible Ethiopians who are suffering and dying from starvation, or what the “experts” euphemistically call “acute food insecurity”. These Ethiopians are spread across a large swath of the country (see map above, “Estimated food security conditions, 3rd quarter 2012 (July-September 2012, Famine Early Warning Systems Network FEWS NET).
Respeaking Truth to the Powerless
Ethiopians had their new year on September 11. It is now 2005. On September 21, they also got a new prime minster. How delightfully 
It seems Ethiopia finally has a new prime minister. Two days ago, the leaders of the ruling EPDRF party approved Hailemariam Desalegn, the current deputy prime minister [DPM], to replace the late Meles Zenawi as party chief and prime minister. But Hailemariam will not be sworn in until early October according to Bereket Simon. No explanation was given for the two-week delay. Prior public statements by Bereket indicating that Hailemariam will be sworn into office following a special session of parliament have proven to be false. Whether Hailemariam will indeed be sworn into office in October remains to be seen.