It is now totally clear that the form of opposition based on the goal of winning parliamentary elections is a dead-end, obvious as it is that the leadership of the TPLF has never contemplated the prospect of sharing power with the opposition, let alone ceding defeat to the verdict of the ballot-box. Ethiopians face two choices: either to resign themselves to the idea of an indefinite rule of the TPLF or to rise up and confront the regime with their own violence. There is, however, a third possibility, which is non-violent resistance and whose essential characteristic is the refusal to cooperate through such actions as massive strikes, demonstrations, boycotts, etc. Though highly efficient to overthrow dictatorial regimes, the recourse to non-cooperation requires the conviction that the government in place is not open to the game of elections and, most of all, leaders ready to suffer all the gruesome hardships that dictators usually preserve for opponents. Before reflecting on the way ahead, it is imperative to assess correctly the outcomes of the recent parliamentary election. People have reacted diversely to my previous article concerning the election (see “Yes, a Fake Election, but for what Purpose?”), with many disapproving my characterization of the outcome as a “defeat of the opposition.” According to my critics, the blame should be put on Meles… click here to continue reading
Note: In my first commentary [1] on the theme, “Where do we go from here?”, I suggested that the ruling dictatorship in Ethiopia following its 99.6 percent “victory” in the May 2010 parliamentary “election” will continue to do business as usual in much the same way as it has over the last two decades. In the second commentary[2], I focused attention on the Ethiopian opposition collectively and argued that they must atone to the people and reinvent themselves if they hope to play a significant role in that country’s future. In this commentary, I accuse Western donors as accessories to the crime of democricide in Ethiopia and argue for greater accountability in Western aid and loans to the dictatorship in Ethiopia.[3]
Accessories to Democricide in Ethiopia
In the criminal law, an accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime without actually participating in it. Those who are “accessories before the fact” assist in the commission of a crime. “Accessories after the fact” help the criminal conceal his crime and escape liability. In a perfect world, Western donors in Ethiopia would be prosecuted for being accessories before and after the fact to the crime of first degree “democricide” and for aiding and abetting a ruthless kleptocracy. But we live in an imperfect world, and must be content with bringing them to trial in the court of world opinion.
For the past two decades, Western donors and the international banks have nurtured, coddled and sustained some of the most brutal and tyrannical regimes on the African continent. They have done it rather craftily. First, they created the fictional character of the “new breed African leaders” and promoted them as Africa’s saviors. They were presumably much different than the old style in-your-face dictators like Robert Mugabe, Mobutu Sese Seko, Idi Amin and the self-coronated Emperor Jean Bedel Bokassa. The “new breeders” were said to be committed to multiparty democracy, economic reforms and civil liberties. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair lionized Meles Zenawi and his ilk (Yoweri Musaveni of Uganda, Kagame of Rwanda, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa). Of course, Clinton and Blair knew they were selling the natives the same old rancid wine of dictatorship in a new bottle labeled “New African Democrats.” Zenawi gloated and basked in the sunshine of Western praise and used that fame devastatingly against his opposition: “I am the one, and only one. So I am by the grace of the Western donors.”
Ethiopian Mortality = Western “Stability”
The primary explanation for the silence of Western donors in the face of gross and massive human rights violations, corruption and electoral fraud in Ethiopia is “stability”. On May 24, 2010 Agence France Press quoted a Western diplomat in Addis Ababa saying: “It’s a great thing if there are several opposition parties, but when it comes to the long-term stability of the country and the region, Meles is still your best bet.” Such anonymous diplomatic statements are repeated with such nauseating frequency that one is confused about the meaning of the word. We know the diplomatic justification of “stability” for Western donor inaction in Ethiopia has a long and ignoble history. In the early 1970s, they failed to act against the imperial regime because doing so could destabilize the country. They said the same thing about the military junta that overthrew the Ethiopian monarchy, except they wanted to maintain stability in the cold war balance of power in the Horn. Now, they are pulling out the same old tired rabbit out of their hat. “Meles is the best bet for the long term stability of the country.”
Zenawi has cultivated and foisted the “stability” canard on the Western donors for years. He has tried to convince them that he is the glue that keeps the 80 million Ethiopians from exploding into ethnic warfare and civil war. The donors know it is all a grim fairy tale, but they go along with it. The facts speak differently. It was Zenawi who created ethnic Bantustans to keep the people corralled in homelands as part of his divide-and-rule strategy. He is the one who facilitated the process by which the country lost its outlet to the sea. He is the one giving away territory secretly to neighboring countries and selling the country’s best land to outsiders. By the time Zenawi is done with Ethiopia, stability will be the last thing Western donors will be concerned about.
The second justification for Western donor inaction in Ethiopia has to do with Zenawi’s cooperation (particularly with the U.S. and the U.K.) on the war on terror. In 2006, Zenawi proxied a war for the U.S. to wipe out al-Qaeda terrorists in Somalia. He got bogged down in a war he promised will take only a couple of weeks; he found few, if any, al-Qaeda terrorists. Two years later he suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Somali fighters and exited leaving behind a rap sheet of untold war crimes against Somali civilians. The Bush Administration lionized him for making “monumental advancements in the political environment” and “opening up political space.” The third reason for inaction is said to be the impracticality and futility of ending or suspending aid. Significant cut backs in economic aid and loans would not be practical because of the nature of the needs on the ground; and using aid to leverage change could invite condemnation by other poor countries. The carrot and stick approach is said to be unworkable in the Ethiopian context.
True Lies
As Helen Epstein has shown in her recent meticulously researched and cogently argued piece “Cruel Ethiopia”[4], since 1991 the Zenawi dictatorship in Ethiopia has received some $26 billion in development aid from Western donors including the US Agency for International Development, the World Bank, the European Union, and Britain’s Department for International Development. By 2008, Ethiopia was the highest foreign aid recipient in the African continent with an inflow of $3 billion in foreign aid. The obvious questions are: 1) What really happened to all of the aid money? 2) Did it do any good?
Supposedly all of the aid money and loans have helped produce “double digit economic growth” and spawned a variety of social programs. Do Western donors know the real truth about the efficacy of their aid money and loans and the real growth of the Ethiopian economy? Of course, they know; but prefer to play dumb. The truth is that Zenawi’s claim of “double digit economic growth” is simply FALSE! As I have recently demonstrated in one of my commentaries, all of the figures about double digit growth over the past half dozen years or so years were simply and literally cooked up in the regime’s statistics office[5] and served to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on a silver platter with garnish. It is a simple trick not known to many: The IMF asks its client states to provide economic performance statistics. In Ethiopia’s case, they pull numbers out of thin air or their back pockets and give it to the IMF, which in turn incorporates it in its official reports. Zenawi turns around and tells the world that the IMF said the country’s economic growth has been in the double digits. It is just that simple!
But the story of “economic growth” goes beyond fabricated statistics to the story of a chokehold on the economy by a full fledged kleptocracy. As Helen Epstien describes[6]:
According to the World Bank, roughly half of the rest of the national economy is accounted for by companies held by an EPRDF-affiliated business group called the Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray (EFFORT). EFFORT’s freight transport, construction, pharmaceutical, and cement firms receive lucrative foreign aid contracts and highly favorable terms on loans from government banks. Ethiopia is not a typical African kleptocracy, and there is no evidence that Meles personally benefits from these businesses. Rather, they are part of a rigid system of control that aid agency officials, beguiled by Meles’s apparently pro-Western exterior, have only recently begun to recognize.
What about the health programs that have been touted as the crown jewels of so much aid effort? The evidence on those programs is no less shocking. Helen Epstein who actually completed a first hand investigation of aid supported health and social services reported:
I first traveled to Ethiopia in 2008 to study the country’s new public health strategy. Nearly every government and aid agency official I met expressed enthusiasm for the many programs underway. Rates of AIDS, malaria, and infant mortality were falling and Ethiopian health officials told me that there was no corruption; medicines were always in stock, even in faraway rural clinics; and community health workers were trained, efficient, and never absent from their posts….. Most of these programs were in rural areas far from the capital, Addis Ababa, where my interviews took place. I wanted to see them for myself, not least because I knew that some of the claims I was hearing weren’t entirely true. Government officials claimed that in 2005, 87 percent of children had received all major vaccines, but an independent survey suggested that the figure was closer to 27 percent. Similarly, the fraction of women using contraception was 23 percent, not 55 percent as government officials claimed. The annual growth in farm production was also probably nowhere near the government’s own figure of 10 percent.
… One day, I heard an aid official give a lecture about a small nutrition project in one of the poorest regions of the country…. A few days later I visited the region myself. I was amazed by what I saw there. Roads were under construction, a university had recently opened, and crowds of children were on their way home from a new school. Health workers spoke enthusiastically about the malaria bednet program, the immunization program, the pit latrine program, and the family planning program… But when I went to visit the nutrition project, my enthusiasm faded. It was intended for children, but many of their mothers were also malnourished. Several had obvious goiter, and a few were so anemic they nearly fainted while they were speaking to me. When I asked these women why they could not adequately feed their children or themselves, most replied that they didn’t have enough land, and therefore couldn’t grow enough food either to eat or to sell.
Hanna Ingber Win’s recent five-part analysis of maternal health care programs in Ethiopia supported by the U.N. Population Fund paints a similar picture of failed international aid policy[7]. In my commentary on Win’s report, I noted: “It is simply preposterous and irrational to talk about economic growth or development when a country has ‘one of the world’s worst health care systems.”[8]
Western Donors Through Zenawi’s Eyes
In a recent commentary, I outlined my views on what I believe to be Zenawi’s strategy in dealing with the Western donors[9]. The fact of the matter is that Zenawi knows the Western donors very well; and he anticipates and plans for any moves they are likely to make on the aid and loan chessboard. He knows what makes them tick and not tock. He knows they want two things: 1) “stability” (whatever it means) and 2) plausible deniability (that is if something goes wrong, they can say they did not know about it). Zenawi’s logic in dealing with the Western donors is demonic, but flawless in execution. When he massacred hundreds of unarmed protesters in the streets and imprisoned some 50 thousand political prisoners (by official Inquiry Commissions accounts) and stole the 2005 election, he was rewarded with hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and aid. When he herded and jailed nearly all of the opposition leaders, he was given more aid and loans. When he passed a repressive press and charities law, he was showered with more aid and loans. Every time the international human rights organizations issued reports of gross violations of human rights, Western donors rewarded Zenawi with more aid and loans, NEVER less. The best the Western donors have done in terms of bringing pressure on Zenawi has been to windbag about human rights, democracy and all of that good stuff. Lesson learned: Getting aid and loans from the Western donors and banks is like taking candy from a child. There is nothing to it!
Zenawi knows the Western donors so well that he now openly shows his contempt for them by getting in their faces. He jammed the Voice of America and came out in public and told the U.S. that it is no different than the genocidal interhamwe maniacs in Rwanda. American taxpayers dropped a cool $4 billion of their hard earned dollars in Ethiopia in the past few years, and they get spit in the faces. What a shame! The point is that Zenawi will continue to taunt and play confrontational with Western donors until they put a stop to it. That will happen when hell freezes over and the devil goes ice skating!
It’s All About Mind Over Matter
The bottom line for the Western donors it that it is all a simple problem of mind over matter. They don’t mind the dictatorship and its corruption and human rights violations, and Ethiopians don’t matter. In other words, they don’t give a damn if there is democracy, dictatorship or despotism. They are all words that start the letter “D”. They just want a “stable” government that will let them do their thing. Millions are dying from starvation? Send a few boatloads of grain to ease their consciences. Human rights violations? Stolen elections? Political prisoners? Suppression of press freedom? Issue a few public statements expressing dismay. Otherwise, have breakfast with the dictator in Stockholm, lunch in Toronto and dinner in Pittsburgh. It is all about mind over matter. Western donors and international banks don’t mind, and Ethiopians don’t….
The Need for Greater Accountability for Aid and Loans
Few are foolish enough to believe that Western aid and loans alone could develop Africa. In fact, the evidence is entirely to the contrary. In her recent book, Dead Aid, Dambissa Moyo has made a compelling argument to “cut aid to Africa” not only because it has not promoted development, but also because it has compounded Africa’s problems. Moyo argues that aid helps create kleptocratic governments in which powerful elites embezzle public revenues. William Easterley in his book The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good, has shown the incestuous relationship between the international aid bureaucracies and corrupt local officials that benefit from aid funds.
High aid revenues going to the national government benefit political insiders, often corrupt insiders, who will vigorously oppose democracy that would lead to more equal distribution of aid. Systemic evidence in a couple of recent studies suggests that aid actually decreases democracy and makes government worse. Steve Knack of the World Bank finds that higher aid worsens bureaucratic quality and leads to violation of the law with more impunity and to more corruption.
Both Moyo and Easterly have argued for more accountability and tougher scrutiny of the “foreign aid industry.” The problem of accountability is complicated by the fact that the aid and lending agencies have a vested (conflict) interest in proving that their programs are working, and the dictatorships want to show that they are using the money well. It is a well known fact that the performance of the aid agencies is judged primarily by short-term criteria such as how much aid is disbursed, rather than longer-term effects on accountability. Aid and lending agencies are also insulated from the consequences of their failures. This often makes it difficult to implement a structure of accountability and transparency in recipient countries. For instance, the IMF has no mechanism to hold its client states accountable for the economic data they collect as I have demonstrated in my recent commentary . USAID performs perfunctory annual program evaluations that are self-serving and intended to show that U.S. tax dollars are actually doing good in Ethiopia.
In the short term, the best that can be done is to demand transparency on the part of the donor countries in the administration of their aid money, and in seeking greater accountability on the part of the multilateral lending institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. For instance, there have been numerous recent allegations of U.S. aid being used to buy votes and influence elections in Ethiopia. In the U.S., Congress has the power to look into such allegations of abuse of U.S. aid money. The second area of action should focus on demanding imposition of “governance conditionality” (reasonable conditions on grant of aid). H.R. 2003 (Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act) is a good example in this regard.
Those advocating for change in Ethiopia should take heed of the words of Helen Epstein:
The problem with foreign aid in Ethiopia is that both the Ethiopian government and its donors see the people of this country not as individuals with distinct needs, talents, and rights but as an undifferentiated mass, to be mobilized, decentralized, vaccinated, given primary education and pit latrines, and freed from the legacy of feudalism, imperialism, and backwardness. It is this rigid focus on the ‘backward masses,’ rather than the unique human person, that typically justifies appalling cruelty in the name of social progress.
The question is simple: When we witness the crime of democricide being committed against the “backward masses,” we have the choice of acting to stop it, or being accessories before and after the fact. I can imagine the thunderous crescendo of 80 million people shouting with index fingers pointing at the Western donors: “We accuse!”
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/of-elections-and-diapers_b_595203.html
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ethiopia-speaking-truth-t_b_602507.html
[3]See also, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/western-diplomatic-omerta_b_453003.html
[4] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/13/cruel-ethiopia/
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ethiopia-the-voodoo-econo_b_542298.html
[6] See footnote 4.
[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hanna-ingber-win/mothers-of-ethiopia-part_b_300333.html
[8] http://www.abugidainfo.com/?p=11726
[9] See footnote 1.
I am still struggling to make sense of Sunday’s election from the viewpoint of the Woyanne government itself. There is no doubt that its results represent a crushing and demoralizing defeat for the opposition. Such a colossal defeat shows once again the pettiness and the self-defeating impact of the disputes among opposition forces by underlying the imperative of unity as the only path to acquire any political weight in a democratic contest. It also reflects the extent to which the opposition has underestimated the power of manipulation and intimidation that the Meles’s regime still possesses. As a result, it jumped into the electoral contest without sufficient guarantees of impartiality, a position inspired by the prevailing belief that the regime is on its last legs.
But the big enigma of Sunday’s election has to do with the exact benefit that the Woyanne ruling clique is gaining from a defeat of this magnitude of the opposition. The more the regime denies that votes were rigged and voters and candidates intimidated, harassed, and threatened, the less easily answerable becomes the question of knowing why the regime cooked up a victory claiming 99.66 % of parliamentary seats. Let alone external observers and governments, any person alien to Ethiopian politics would conclude that such a result can be obtained only if the opposition has been stifled or non-existent.
If the Woyanne regime wanted to shore up its legitimacy badly tarnished by its electoral defeat in 2005, the reasonable thing would have been to give some seats to the opposition, thereby providing some semblance of fairness to the election. To the extent that a total victory takes away all credibility from the electoral process and, therefore, defeats the initial purpose of recognition, the decision to conduct a fake election resulting in the ousting of the opposition from the parliament sounds discordant indeed. Hence my question: what is the purpose of plotting a fake election that lamentably fails to convince anyone, since we can assume that Meles and his clique expect some king of benefit from the exercise?
I have played with various hypotheses; I have also reflected on what some commentators had already said or written, such as the construction of a totalitarian state or the deliberate intention of undermining nonviolent forms of struggle. These two reasons are valid: the eradication of the opposition completes the construction of a full-fledged totalitarian state, just as it presents nonviolent opposition as a hopeless strategy. However, these two goals hardly agree with the equally important need that the Woyanne regime has to be recognized as a legitimate winner by the international community.
All the same, let us look closer: there is more than one way of obtaining international recognition. There is the democratic way of majority vote; there is also the default way demonstrating the utter insignificance or unviability of the opposition. As far as the Woyanne regime is concerned, Sunday’s election has shown to Ethiopians and the whole world that there is no opposition to speak of. In my view, the decision to concoct an election purging the opposition from the parliament reflects the TPLF’s complete desertion of the very idea of free and fair elections. The TPLF elite has drawn from its 2005 electoral debacle the final conclusion that it cannot rely on any sort of fair competition.
On the other hand, one of the implications of the total defeat of the peaceful opposition is to discourage nonviolent struggles and push more people toward armed struggle. The prospect of widened violent confrontations will allow the Woyanne to openly give up its democratic façade and crack down opponents, henceforth accused of using unconstitutional means to come to power. In this game of violence, the Woyanne regime is better equipped and experienced and can also gain recognition as a government defending itself against terrorism.
The other and by far the most important implication of the crushing defeat of the opposition is its ability to provide emotional soothing. The humiliation of the 2005 election is still fresh in the mind of many Woyanne leaders and cadres. From the viewpoint of removing an emotional wound, the landslide victory supplies a demonstration of force that humiliates both opposition leaders and those millions of Ethiopians who voted for Kinijit. It shows, by hook or by crook, the total control of the country by the Woyanne totalitarian machine. In other words, it says: here is the bare fact, deal with it!
From such a resounding demonstration of force, we can even expect a timid opening of the political space. Now that things have been straightened out, the game of “free election” can resume with the understanding that the right to oppose––a gracious gift of the victor––must never include the goal of defeating the TPLF.
(Dr Messay Kebede is professor of philosophy at The University of Dayton, Ohio. He can be reached at [email protected])
There is an old morality tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes about a king who is so self-absorbed, vainglorious and obsessed with his appearance that he hired two suit makers and gave them vast amounts of money to sew him the finest silk robes. They agreed to make the robes but warned the king that the types of robes they make are invisible to anyone who is unfit for their official position or hopelessly stupid. As they set out to sew their make-believe robes, the king and his ministers would drop in from time to time and offer their admiration for the suit makers’ craftsmanship of the invisible robes. None would dare challenge the suit makers afraid of being called incompetent or stupid. Finally, the suit makers dressed the king in their pretend silk robe and marched him down the street with his courtiers to the applause and cheers of his obedient subjects. The people could see that the king was naked but were afraid to say so fearing his anger. A child in the crowd suddenly yelled out that the king is naked; and the crowd began chanting: “The king is naked!” The king cringed with shame and embarrassment, but held himself up proudly as he continued to walk naked in the royal procession.
The tale of the naked emperor is an apt allegory for the so-called Ethiopian election being held on May 23. The ruling regime in Ethiopia has been blowing its horn about an invisible “democratic election” for over a year. They brought in the best European “election” tailors to embroider the finest “election code of conduct.” They threatened, cajoled, bribed and withheld food aid from the people to force them out into the street and clap and ululate for them as they paraded themselves in their invisible majestic robe of democratic election. Some Western and African representatives volunteered to line up the streets cheerleading for the king. The European Union (EU) sent a delegation of 150 observers to observe 32 million voters vote at 43,000 polling stations in an election that was won by the ruling regime long before it was even conceived. The African Union (AU) deployed 60 observers to do the same in flagrant disregard of its own Elections Observation and Monitoring Guidelines, Section V (14). Both the EU and AU boogied down at the naked king’s parade with full knowledge that “the people who cast the votes (and observe the votes) decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
Dictator Meles Zenawi prohibited diplomatic representatives from traveling outside the capital during the “election”. He told Al Jazeera a few days ago that it was a bad idea for diplomats to observe the elections because it was disapproved by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), the Swedish organization which helped him devise the “election code of conduct”: “I know that some diplomats in Addis are offended when they are told they [can not go outside Addis Ababa], but I am sure [allowing them to travel] is not internationally [IDEA] accepted best practice.” That is simply not true! It is a verifiable fact that IDEA strongly encourages all individuals, organization and governments who conduct or are involved in elections to maintain openness, transparency and neutrality because “The public will measure the legitimacy of an election on the basis of both the actual integrity of its administration and the appearance of integrity of the election process.” IDEA emphatically urges “each person or organization using its code of conduct to apply it flexibly, together with good common sense, to meet the requirements of each situation.” By IDEA’s own standards, allowing the diplomats to observe would be “best practice” because they could help ensure and verify the integrity of the election process.
The fact of the matter is that we have witnessed an election in terrorem for the past year in which the ruling party has harassed, intimidated, threatened and inflicted violence against opposition party leaders and members. On April 13, 2010, Zenawi issued a thinly veiled threat to Ethiopian opposition leaders that he will hunt them out of their hiding places and burn them at the stake if they boycotted the May, 2010 “election”, or agitate the youth for political action.[1] Weeks before “election” day, the ruling regime mounted a sustained campaign of smear and fear, distortions and lies, fabrications and accusations and allegations and charges of incitement to violence, “acting against the constitution” and other malicious hyperbole and propaganda against opposition leaders. All this was manifestly intended to prepare public opinion (and the donor community) for the inevitable incapacitation, neutralization and paralysis of all opposition in Ethiopia in the post-“election” period. As usual, Western donors have covered their eyes with their hands pretending not to see, but peeking at this travesty of democracy between their fingers. They know the whole election farce is staged for their cynical amusement and to beg them later for more handouts. They have become willing collaborators in their own manipulation. So the king proudly marches down the boulevard to applause; but alas! he has no clothes.
Of course, the issue is not whether the emperor has clothes, but whether the people have clothes to cover their backs withered by two decades of dictatorship, enough food to quell the hunger in their stomachs, adequate shelter from the elements and enough oxygen of freedom to breath. In the final analysis, there is one and only one question of consequence in this “election”:
Are the people of Ethiopia better off today than they were 5 years ago?
Do Ethiopians have more food to eat today than they did five years ago? Is there less unemployment in the country today than five years ago? Less inflation? More health care? More press freedom? More human rights protections today than five years ago? Is there more accountability, transparency and openness in government today than five years ago? Do young Ethiopians today have more confidence in their future than they did five years ago? Do Ethiopia’s youth have more employment opportunities today than they did five years ago? More academic freedom in the universities? Do Ethiopians have more access to the vast universe of information available on the internet than they did five years ago? (On May 3, World Press Freedom Day, President Obama singled out Ethiopia as one of four countries in the world that have prevented their citizens from “gaining greater access than ever before to information through the Internet, cell phones and other forms of connective technologies.”) Do Ethiopians today have more confidence in their future, their rulers and public institutions than they did five years ago?
The answer is a resounding NO.
After 19 years of one-man, one-party rule, does the same crew of kleptocrats cling to power like barnacles to the sunken Ethiopian ship of state? Do the dictators continue to use more violence, intimidations, threats and arbitrary arrests and detentions against their opposition to maintain themselves in power? Do those who massacred 193 innocent protesters and wounded hundreds more after the 2005 elections still walk the streets free? Are the country’s prisons full of political prisoners? Are the members of the ruling party and their allies getting richer, and the masses growing hungrier and poorer everyday? Are the robbers who stole millions of dollars worth of gold bars from the national bank in broad daylight in 2007 still roam the streets free enjoying their loot? Is the environment more degraded today than it was five years ago? Is corruption so endemic in Ethiopia that the country for the last five years has been ranked at the very bottom of the International Corruption Index? Does Ethiopia still rank at the very bottom of the U.N. Human Development Index (in 2005 (169/177 countries; in 2009 (171/182) [2]?
The answer is a resounding YES!
The fact of the matter is that talking about elections in a police state is like talking about a fish riding a motorcycle. It is silly. It is sheer madness. [3]
But Ethiopia today stands at the crossroads of history; and as the old African saying goes, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there.” At this crossroad, Ethiopians can choose to take the right way or the wrong way. The right way is the way of national reconciliation, compromise, mutual understanding and tolerance. The wrong way is the way of force, violence, brutality, threats, intimidation and persecution. Ethiopians can choose the easy way or the hard way. The easy way is to follow and live by the rule of law and ensure everyone’s human rights are respected and all are held to account for their actions and omissions. The hard way is the way of dictatorship, despotism, deceit and conceit. Ethiopians can take the high road or the low road. The high road is the way of morality, ethical conduct, common sense and compassion. The low road is the way of dishonesty, lies, distortions and trickery. We can take the road to somewhere or the road to nowhere. The road to somewhere take us to national unity, commonality of purpose, harmony, coalition-building and cooperation. The road to nowhere takes us to ethnic division and tribal conflict, irrational fear and hatred and needless violence and destruction. We can take the superhighway or the dirt road. The superhighway will take us on a wonderful journey to a brave new world of information, ideas and knowledge on the wings of modern technology. The dirt road has a one-way ticket to dictatorship, tyranny, darkness and ignorance. We can walk together on the united way or remain stranded on a divided highway.
Ultimately, we can choose the way of all our ancestors — the Ethiopian Way — or join the way of the ignoramuses who arrogantly proclaim that “if it is not my way, there ain’t no way but the highway.” We must choose the Ethiopian Way — the way of humanity, unity, solidarity, integrity, honesty, cordiality, empathy, fraternity and congeniality.
If we choose to take the Ethiopian Way, we must collectively make our roadmap to get us to our preferred destination. We will need to set the mileposts and detail out the rules of the road. We must brightly mark the “yield” and “stop” signs together with the “no crossing” and “danger” signs along the way. We must be prepared to take the “the road less traveled” to get to our destination. That is the road of tolerance, good will, broad-mindedness, patience and understanding. We must avoid the beaten path of personal attacks, hatred and prejudice, recriminations, accusations and pettiness. We can not begin a new journey along the Ethiopian Way with the old mindset: “If you don’t agree with me in everything, you are my enemy.” We must trade it in for a new spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood across ethnic, linguistic, class and regional lines. We must reinvent a new mentality that substitutes the concerns of ethnicity and partisanship with the needs of our basic humanity, our unity in our Ethiopian nationality and our personal authenticity.
Let us use this bogus election as the impetus for the development of a comprehensive political, economic, social and legal agenda for Ethiopia that is based on a compelling vision of a better future for this and coming generations. Let us cast off the shortsightedness and narrow partisanship of the past. Let us gather ideas from all segments of society — and not just from the intellectuals and the elites – and pursue them inclusively and aggressively with a common sense of purpose and destiny. If desperate times require desperate actions, times of great opportunity such as this one require quick, bold and determined action. Carpe diem! Let us seize the moment and set a new course for Ethiopia.
The future is bright for Ethiopia regardless of the already-won election of 2010. No doubt some will be disheartened and dispirited; but it is illogical to be disappointed about an “election” outcome that has always been a foregone conclusion. It is natural to anguish over the loss of such a great opportunity to plant the seeds of democracy in Ethiopia. But we must always be mindful of the fact that nothing will give the dictators greater pleasure than having us all depressed and dejected about their “victory” in this “election”. Their ardent wish is that we abandon and give up the struggle for the cause of democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law in Ethiopia. But they fail to grasp a simple fact: These causes are much larger and greater than any one election, one dictator, one party or one regime. These causes represent the quintessential, timeless and universal yearning of all humanity in recorded history. As the great Nelson Mandela said, “Let freedom reign. The sun never set on so glorious a human achievement.” We must never let the sun set on freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Ethiopia.
As for the “election”: Let us just say that it ain’t the votin’ that makes for a free and fair election. It is the countin’. We sure know who will be burning the midnight oil on May 23 counting, double-counting, triple- and quadruple-counting the same ballots to proclaim victory at the crack of dawn on May 24. This Ethiopian election caper aside, it has been said that a “politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” Let us all strive to develop in earnest the true attributes of genuine statesmanship and stateswomanship so that we may be able to help the next generation become Ethiopia’s Greatest Generation!
Free Birtukan Midekssa and all political prisoners in Ethiopia!
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ethiopia-the-fire-next-ti_b_560470.html
[2] http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Indicator_tables.pdf
[3] See http://www.ethiopianreview.com/content/11046
(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.org, allafrica.com, afronline.org, newamericamedia.org and other sites.)
It is election season in California. Two positions are open. The governorship and Federal Senate positions are up for grabs. Both parties, that is the Democrats and Republicans are going thru the primary process to nominate their strongest candidates for the November elections. November is Six months away but the contest is becoming hot.
Television and radio are the two preferred medias to reach the electorate. We are being inundated by sleek commercials costing millions of dollars. The candidates are spending their own money, their supporter’s money and their friend’s money as if it grows on trees. There is no such thing as ordinary elections. It is both art and a science. Nothing is left to chance. Commercials are prepared after a lengthy process of focus groups, pools, psychological impact, sociological studies and good old ‘makes me feel good’ assessments.
There have been lengthy debates between the contestants organized by independent groups. Free, vibrant and long debates on issues are standard. There is a media watch group checking all the facts thrown by the candidates. A small mistake can be their undoing, so they are very careful before they open their mouth. They avoid what is known as ‘foot in the mouth disease’. Supporters organize town hall meetings, neighborhood functions and public rallies to introduce their candidate. Fans put signs on their front lawn, windows, cars and every conceivable open space to advertise their preferences. They set up phone banks to call every voter, prepare mailers, use their email accounts and move heaven and earth to reach every last voter.
There is no such thing as government imposed ‘Election code of conduct’ on the candidates, journalists or the party’s. The local Police, State Police and the Federal police (FBI) are not part of the equation. The State has not yet threatened the candidates regarding their positions on issues and the possibilities of being charged for their frank opinions. The Governor has not warned the party’s regarding any wild intentions of withdrawal from the election. No one has offered to come and observe the election. The candidates have not requested observers either.
The candidates know that the voter is sovereign. They are no attempt to belittle the citizen or intimidate an opponent. It is not acceptable behavior. One-person one vote is the rule. It is not always perfect but there is no organized attempt to steal, cheat or exclude.
The voting in our neighborhood is conducted in a small church around the corner from our house. They have a roll of names from DMV, check your name and hand you a ballot. Ethiopians that have arrived a matter of six years ago and that have acquired US citizenship can vote. The only requirement is citizenship and age.
It is election season in Ethiopia too. Citizens are voting for membership in the Federal Parliament. The Party with the highest number of winners will form the next government. That is well and good, but as they say the ‘devil is in the details’. There are a few issues we have to clarify in this Kafkaesque process of election in Ethiopia. Kafkaesque is an apt description of what is billed as election. Here I am using the term to mean ‘intentional distortion of reality, senseless disorienting, often menacing complexity and a sense of impending danger’ by the one party state.
To begin with there is the ‘National Election Board of Ethiopia’ (NEBE) appointed by the ruling party. The members of this government body owe their allegiance to the party. Please see PM Meles’s interview with Stephen Sackur’s regarding the election board. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY2NNOYKM8M) Their survival depends on the whims of the Prime Minster and his TPLF party Politburo (it is an old Soviet term to mean Central Committee of the ruling mafia group). It is alive and well in Ethiopia. There is also an ‘Election Code of Conduct’ proposed as (‘”I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse” kind) and a few ‘chosen’ ones signed the contract. The ‘code of conduct’ is an all-reaching agreement that controls the activities of the Party’s, the Media the Candidates and the air they breathe. It is entirely drawn by the ruling TPLF party and the TPLF appointed Judiciary is the final arbitrator of all issued raised. If the election is a football match this will be analogous to having the TPLF assign the referee, linesmen, the football rules and is in control of the stadium with its own security force.
There are over eighty political party’s registered by NEBE. All but less than five are organized by the ruling TPLF party. Most exist by name only to be activated on a need basis. They can field candidates recruited by the regime, accept state funds thru the ruling party and show up for make believe debates and official functions. They have assigned ‘leaders’ from their own ethnic group but TPLF cadres (mostly Tigrai) run the show from behind.
The fantasy created is so real that it puts real competition to shame. There are candidates but they cannot campaign, meetings are allowed but meeting venues are closed or owners of such places as hotel halls or parks are threatened by the state not to allow opposition activities. Candidates meetings with their constituents are discouraged by arresting and intimidating their supporters. Please read Dr. Negasso Gidada’s article (http://ethioforum.org/wp/archives/1451) Debates are held but since all parties are counted as real the opposition ends up with a fraction of the time. The opposition candidates have to be careful what they say in the heat of the debate since the Prime Minster have warned about the dangers of prosecution after the election.
The opposition cannot campaign in the Kilils due to fear of intimidation and the real danger of being beaten, jailed, and property like cars, video cameras damaged. Please see Dr. Merera’s report regarding his visit to Moyale (click here). The only exception seems to be in Tigrai due to the fact that the candidates were former members of the ruling party and seem to have clout in the military. It is ‘check mate’ situation in Tigrai. The rest of the Kilils are like the American ‘wild west’ where might is right.
Television and radio are the sole property of the TPLF party. The opposition is given the two minutes during debates that are also delayed for ‘editing’ purpose while the ruling party is allowed twenty-three hours and fifty minutes. The independent ‘print media’ has been decimated thus it does not play any significant role while make believe ‘independent’ newspapers are a few but loud.
Supporters of the opposition Party cannot campaign door to door, neither holds meetings in their own houses nor put up placards on their cars or front door. It will surely invite catastrophe and this fact is clear to all. The mere attempt of wearing T-shirts with the opposition name and picture is a criminal offense. The law to watch out regarding meetings is the new ‘terrorist’ law passed after the last election. Please see Human Rights Watch analysis of the law here.
Election observers are members of the TPLF party and its junior affiliates. Foreign observers are a few in number and rendered ineffective by the ‘code of conduct’ that specifies no video, no picture and no interview in the pooling places. Ferenji philosophy is ‘I will not tell unless you complain’.
Suffice to say that the only thing the two elections have in common is the word ‘election’. In California the citizen is free to make his choice without undue pressure from anyone. In California the chances of electing the most capable person for the position is statistically high. In California the candidates have utilized every available media to let the citizen know their stand on issues. In California the Kilil and the Federal government have taken ‘hands off’ attitude and recognized the right of the citizen to make a decision based on his own conscience. In California the ‘candidates’ are not threatened with harm, their family and friends intimidated or stay up all night gripped with fear of what tomorrow might bring.
In Ethiopia the election is over before it started. For the opposition it is what is called as ‘fait accompli’ situation. That means it is over before you know what happened and it is not reverse able. As the sun will rise up from the East tomorrow morning TPLF (EPDRF) will have a majority in parliament, Ato Meles will be elected Prime Minister and more than ten million Ethiopians will wake up hungry with no prospects for a good lunch the day after the ‘democratic election’.
In this election over half of the country is closed to the opposition. There have been three reported incidents of candidates being murdered the last two months. The one Party State has been known to use lethal force on its citizens. It is a clear warning of what is to come. There are not enough brave souls that are foolish enough to tempt fate and stand for elections. In the Democratic Republic of Ethiopia the Chairman of the strongest opposition party is jailed on trumped up charges (Chairman Bertukan Mideksa). The logo of the opposition is awarded to an affiliate of the ruling party (CUDP logo to EDP). The name of the opposition party is handed to ‘hand picked’ leader (CUD to Ato Ayele Chamiso). Even the Chairman of an opposition party is removed from his position and a new one replaced by the NEBE (Dr. Merera and ONC). In Ethiopia the chances of electing the most capable person is nil, zero none.
Please note this not due the Ethiopian people being stupid and incapable. It is due to a lack of good governance. Election 2005 marks a watershed in our country’s history. It showed us that our people embrace the concept of good competition and fair election. The road to the elections were the most exiting, hopeful and a rebirth of the good old Ethiopian ‘free and proud’ mindset. The atmosphere was ripe with anticipation and people were filled with purpose and unity. That Ethiopian sense of ‘not trusting’ was hovering in the background but we choose to believe that a positive outcome was possible. What can I say the Nation was drunk with hope?
The ruling party sent all kinds of signals to show that it hasn’t changed. A few candidates were murdered and some beaten. We knew it was part of the ‘weaning process’ of a Party that was used to violence. You just can’t expect them to quit cold turkey. The PM raised the specter of ‘interhawme’. Alarms were raised and dismissed. Another hiccups we thought. The May rally at Meskel Square was our epiphany. At last we knew that we are good people that can unite for a great purpose. Please read Ato Debebe Eshetu’s article on Awramba Times. Meskel Square showed that under the right conditions we are capable of rising above religion, ethnic affiliation and social class.
We come to the most important question now. Why participate in such a farce? The real answer is, it does not really matter much. Why discuss something that is insignificant in the great scheme of life. What is true is that a democratic election is a process of building a successful, growing and peaceful society. Those countries that hold democratic and free elections have a stable, peaceful and healthy society. Those that deny the basic right of their people suffer from civil war, insurrection and a miserable population always on the verge of catastrophe.
The Ethiopian election is not democratic. The Ethiopian Nation the TPLF leaders have built for the last eighteen years has not borne any fruit. It has only exacerbated the problems they inherited from the failed Junta dictatorship. The TPLF philosophy is not capable of growing the economy, creating real peace and having a happy, healthy and content population. The economic system of favoring an ethnic group to lord it over all others does not work. The idea of a single ruling party and ethnic group monopolizing both the military, and the business sector does not work. The concept of power emanating from above and treating the population as serfs does not work.
Thus electing some members from Medrek, some from AEUO, EDP and others is not a game changer. The problem is not the number of party’s. The system itself is the problem. With the Ethiopian system the question is not a matter of fine-tuning it. It is a complete overhaul that is called for. Party’s can go ahead participate to their hearts content, but remember other than creating employment for a few more individuals it is not going to make an iota of difference. And arguing whether to participate or not at this eleventh hour is only to create a distraction from the shameless act that is to follow. Just do not expect us to cry when you scream foul because Meles cheated or your behind is hauled to Kaliti for further schooling on the true nature of a dictatorial one party state. We promise not to say ‘we told you so!’ Furthermore, this business of bitching because you are not offered a solution is very lame. If someone tells you jumping from a cliff will kill you it doesn’t mean that not jumping will help you solve your problem. Telling you not to jump gives you another chance to contemplate, and to find a lasting solution that will prevent you from entertaining this crazy idea of trying to solve a fundamental problem by ending your life.
It is the same two act play (farce) of May 2005. The stage is the same. The director is the same. The stagehands are the same. The script is the same. The players are the same stage veterans. The stagecraft (lighting, makeup, props) is the same. The audience is the same. Act I, last scene, “End Game”. (Kick the propaganda machine in overdrive and pump up the media volume! Ethiopian opposition leaders, enter stage right.)
On April 28, 2010, Reuters reported:
The Ethiopian opposition may provoke violence during the first national elections since a disputed 2005 poll ended with street riots and the jailing of politicians, the ruling party has said. The government said in 2005 that the violence was planned to force an unconstitutional change after a vote in which both sides claimed victory.”
On April 13, 2010, dictator Meles Zenawi issued a thinly veiled threat to Ethiopian opposition leaders that he will hunt them out of their hiding places and burn them at the stake if they boycotted the May, 2010 “election”, or agitate the youth for political action:
If my estimation is correct, some of you are walking this direction [boycotting the election] I think you are making a huge mistake because to light the fire and at the last [moment] to go into hiding, would not be good, because to light the fire and [be] behind it, and also to fight and use the blood of children, that would not be something that is useful.
It is plain to see that the political and “legal” stage is now set for a round-up of opposition leaders once official victory is declared over the already-won “election” scheduled for May 23. (How else could Zenawi make such arrogantly confident threats unless he is absolutely certain that he has already won the “election”?) A cascade of distortions, accusations and allegations of incitement to violence, charges of “acting against the constitution” and other malicious hyperbole are flooding the media as part of a calculated pre-emptive campaign of pre-“election” intimidation of opposition leaders, and in preparation of public opinion for the inevitable incapacitation, neutralization and paralysis of all opposition in Ethiopia in a post-“election” period.
Prof. Beyene Petros, an opposition party leader for the past 18 years, is the most recent victim of accusations of inciting violence. He is alleged to have said that “if the public is not happy with a government they can create some kind of problem, can protest and can bring down the government without elections.” He immediately rejected the allegations: “Violence was not implied at all in my argument. I was just talking about normal democratic process. They [the ruling regime] have been trying to find something in an effort to incriminate us… I spoke of a public that votes into and votes out of power, all through the ballot box. And that is mandated by the constitution. There was no incitement to violence.” Eskinder Nega, the distinguished and highly respected Ethiopian journalist who, together with his equally distinguished and internationally acclaimed journalist wife Serkalem Fasil, has long suffered at the hands of the ruling dictatorship, in his latest piece in the series “Letter from Ethiopia” described Beyene as “one reliable politician, by universal consensus, that sincerely abhors any prospect of violence.”
A few months ago, opposition Medrek-coalition leaders Gizachew Shiferwa and Gebru Asrat were accused of allegedly declaring that they will boycott the May 2010 “election”, drawing Zenawi’s ire and threats. They denied making any such declarations. Another Medrek leader, Seeye Abraha, is now a victim of a vilification campaign in Tembien district in Tigray where he is running for a parliamentary seat. Voters in Tembien are being told the reason they are getting only partial deliveries of foreign food aid is because Seeye has persuaded the Americans to cut back. Muktar Keder, head of the office of the ruling party, three days ago accused Seeye of “paving the way for violence” by allegedly stating that if he did not win in Tembien district, it meant the elections were rigged.
For the past year, Zenawi has repeatedly accused the opposition of bad faith in the international media: “The intent of these individuals is to try and discredit the election process from day one,” declared Zenawi at a press conference on September 16, 2009. (It baffles the reasonable mind to comprehend a credible election in May 2010 when opposition candidates in 2008 won just three of 3.6 million seats in local and by-elections. But facts and logic play no role in this political drama.) Zenawi has also accused opposition leaders of whipping up passions with inflammatory rhetoric, and charged that unnamed opposition elements were collaborating “covertly and overtly” with Eritrea. When opposition leaders protested the harassment and intimidation they were facing at the hands of the ruling party and complained that over 200,000 monitors appointed for the May “election” are either members or supporters of the ruling party making it impossible to hold free and fair elections, Zenawi blasted them: “These accusations are meant to incite public unrest and violence. I would like to remind you (opposition) that this would result in dire consequences on yourselves.” In the past few months, Zenawi and his spokesmen have repeatedly threatened to arrest and prosecute opposition party leaders who have violated the so-called election code of conduct after the “election” is over.
All of the pre-election wrath and fury signifies two things: 1) intimidation of opposition leaders into permanent silence, and 2) if they insist on speaking up and challenging Zenawi, to set them up for kangaroo court prosecution and imprisonment. The grand plan is now in place and the die cast to round-up opposition leaders and jail them after the “election” regardless of what they do or do not do. It is a question of when, not if.
We have seen this play (farce) staged time and again. They used the same frame-up to re-arrest and jail Birtukan Midekksa, the first female leader of a political party in Ethiopia’s history in December 2009. Zenawi fabricated the most absurd and ridiculous charge one can possibly imagine as a pretext to knock her out of the running in the May 2010 election. He said she had denied receiving a pardon in July, 2007 in a talk she gave in Sweden. She was ordered to retract. A big media buzz was created to stir up anxious anticipation. Then with the precision of a Delta Force commando unit, a horde of security thugs in unmarked vehicles literally snatched Birtukan off the street like some murderous terrorist for the ultimate Hollywood-style dramatic effect. She was immediately thrown into solitary confinement where she remained for six months.
The fact is that Birtukan had never denied receiving a pardon. In Q’ale (My Testimony), her last public statement issued a couple of days before her street side abduction, she made full acknowledgement of receiving a pardon by signing an official document to that effect. The U.S. State Department Human Rights Report (2010) stated that Birtukan “was held in solitary confinement until June [2009], despite a court ruling that indicated it was a violation of her constitutional rights.”
Flashback to November 2005. Zenawi ordered the arrest and imprisonment of nearly the entire opposition leadership, human rights advocates, journalists and civil society leaders. He said they had orchestrated street violence in the post-2005 election period that resulted in hundreds of casualties. He claimed they had incited the use of violence to change the government, the same charge leveled at Prof. Beyene and other opposition leaders:
It’s very obvious now that the opposition tried to change the outcome of the election by unconstitutional means. We felt we had to clamp down. We detained them and we took them to court. In the process, many people died, including policemen. Many of our friends feel that we overreacted. We feel we did not. There is room for criticism nevertheless it does not change the fact that this process was a forward move towards democracy and not a reversal. Recent developments have simply reinforced that. The leaders of the opposition have realised they made a mistake. And they asked for a pardon, and the government has pardoned them all.[1]
The very official Inquiry Commission that Zenawi himself set up to investigate the post-election violence totally and completely exonerated the opposition leaders and the demonstrators of any wrong-doing, and totally and completely pinned the blame on the security forces who were under Zenawi’s direct command and control [2]:
There was no property destroyed. There was not a single protester who was armed with a gun or a hand grenade as reported by the government-controlled media that some of the protesters were armed with guns and bombs. The shots fired by government forces were not to disperse the crowd of protesters but to kill by targeting the head and chest of the protesters.
Of course, Zenawi knew the opposition had nothing to do with any street violence or insurrection in 2005. He had hatched a plan to jail the opposition leaders long before the 2005 election was ever held, as he is doing right now. For instance, on May 6, 2005, nine days before the elections and months before the occurrence of any street demonstrations, Reuters reported that Zenawi had accused opposition leaders of trying to cause a “Rwanda-type genocide” by spreading ethnic hatred and strife, organizing a violent uprisings aimed at overthrowing the government, and treason. Indeed, after opposition leaders were arrested in November 2005, they were charged with genocide, which was dropped after the international legal community and media and unnamed diplomatic sources described the purported evidence of genocide as “laughable”.
Zenawi was pretty candid about how he orchestrated the arrest of the opposition leaders in November 2005. Congressman Christopher Smith, Chairman of House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations recounted a revealing conversation he had with Zenawi in his opening statement at a hearing (H.R. 4423 “Ethiopia Consolidation Act of 2005”) on March 28, 2006 [3]:
During my visit to Addis last August [2005], I met with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, and I asked him why he had not investigated the June shootings of demonstrators by agents of his government. His response was that the investigation might require the arrest of opposition leaders, and he didn’t want to do that while by-elections were still scheduled. He went on to tell me that he had dossiers on all the opposition leaders and could arrest them for treason whenever he wanted. Thus, their arrests were all but certain even before the events that ostensibly led to their being incarcerated.
What we are witnessing today is that same pre-planning that was set in motion in 2005 to swoop down and scoop up the opposition leaders who have challenged Zenawi after the election. For the past weeks, theer has been a barrage of the same types of allegations, accusations and charges made in 2005. When Zenawi says opposition “accusations are meant to incite public unrest and violence,” he is setting them up for a charge of violation of Article 240 (Armed Rising or Civil War). When he says opposition elements are “covertly and overtly” collaborating with certain groups and countries, he is preparing to charge them with violations of Article 248 (High Treason). When Sekoutore, the ruling dictatorship’s spokesperson, declared on April 28 that “Any statements that propagate violence and illegal ways of changing government are banned by the code of conduct,” he is signaling a charge of violation of Article 238 (“Outrages against the Constitution or the Constitutional Order”).
Facts are being fabricated in the Dirty Tricks department of the ruling regime for election day shenanigans to charge the opposition leaders with violations of Article 239 (“Obstruction of the exercise of Constitutional Powers”). There will likely be episodes manufactured between now and “election” day to pin on the opposition allegations of sabotage or terroristic acts in violation of Article 247 (Impairment of the Defensive Power of the State). There is no question whatsoever that opposition leaders will be charged with violations of Article 269 (Genocide) as it can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that all of them have listened to the Voice of America Amharic Service programs, which according to Zenawi “has copied the worst practices of radio stations such as Radio Mille Collines of Rwanda in its wanton disregard of minimum ethics of journalism and engaging in destabilizing propaganda.”
In the last 3 weeks prior to the “election”, we are witnessing a repeat of the 2005 Election Endgame. It is all so obvious. The poor opposition leaders are being set up for the final coup de grace (final blow) as they stand helplessly crying out for democracy and the rule of law.
They ruling dictatorship will crank up the propaganda machine to the max in the next three weeks to fabricate stories that will create a negative public perception of the opposition leaders. The regime will use every trick to put the opposition in false and bad light in the media (while denying them an opportunity to respond to charges and allegations in the ruling party-run state media). They will distort, exaggerate and misrepresent the public statements of opposition leaders. They will ratchet up the general climate of fear, paranoia, anxiety and uncertainty in the country as election-day day approaches. There will be daily talk about threats of violence. There will be arrests of individuals committing violence. There specter of “Shabia” and “Al Shabab” conspiracies will be raised. Just yesterday, it was announced that the regime had arrested 10 members of the Somali Al-Shabab Islamist group and the Oromo Liberation Front as they were allegedly preparing to launch terrorist activities in Ethiopia ahead of the “elections”. There will be reports of mysterious occurrences of explosions in which the “evidence” points to the opposition. Late last week, the ruling regime in a press conference accused Medrek of attempting to kill one of its party members in the Ilan Gelan woreda in the Western Showa Zone of Oromia region. There was a reported fight at Addis Ababa University (AAU) between regime and Medrek supporters resulting in injuries in the last 48 hours.
The regime will seek out any convenient pretexts and excuses to declare a state of emergency beginning at the close of the polls on May 23, just as they did in 2005. Political gatherings of any kind will be prohibited for the months following the “election”. The regime will declare victory on election day before all the votes are counted; and they will stage repeated delays in announcing the official election results in the following weeks to give the impression that meticulous vote counting is being made. And on and on. Of course, all of this is also intended to give the international community early warning of a massive crackdown that will take place, and to prepare them not to “overreact” when the sledgehammer falls on the opposition’s head.
It is all deja vu. We saw this farcical Kangaroo Theatre Production in 2005. When will they open up the “dossiers” on the opposition leaders? When will the sledgehammer fall? When will they scoop them up? May 23? May be the 25th? June 30th? When will they join their leader Birtukan for a long post-election rest and relaxation at the Akaki Hilton Spa and Resort (AHSR) [a/k/a Akaki Federal Prison]?
There is an old prophesy told in the lyrics of a song of African slaves from the harrowing days of slavery in America: “God gave Noah the Rainbow Sign: No more water. The fire next time!”
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.org, allafrica.com, newamericamedia.org and other sites.
