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/
Did I enthusiastically support presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008? Absolutely! Do I agree with everything he has done over the past four years as president? No! Has he carried out all of the promises he made in 2008? No! Am I disappointed in President Obama in 2012? Yes! But so are millions of Americans who supported him in 2008. So are tens of millions of other people throughout the world who saw his election as history making and wished him well.
Still Support President Obama
Despite lingering disappointments, I support the reelection of President Obama because he represents my values. As President Bill Clinton put it in his speech at the Democratic Convention last week, there are two choices in the 2012 presidential election:
If you want a you’re on your own, winner take all society you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities— a ‘we’re all in it together’ society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. If you want every American to vote and you think it’s wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama. If you think the president was right to open the doors of American opportunity to young immigrants brought here as children who want to go to college or serve in the military, you should vote for Barack Obama. If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American Dream is alive and well, and where the United States remains the leading force for peace and prosperity in a highly competitive world, you should vote for Barack Obama.
I want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities— a ‘we’re all in it together’ society.
The rallying cry the Republicans have resurrected from three decades ago is, “Are you better off now than you were in 2008?” Let the facts speak for themselves.
When President Obama took office in 2008, the U.S. was losing 750,000 jobs per month. In 2012, there are nearly 100 thousand jobs added every month. Under President Obama’s watch, over 4.5 million private sector jobs have been created in the U.S. Are we better off in 2012 than we were in 2008? Yes!
In 2008, the U. S. economy had crashed. Trillions of dollars in investments were vaporized on Wall Street and the auto industry teetered on the verge of collapse. By 2012, the stock market valuations had doubled; and the American auto industry did not die in bankruptcy court as Mitt Romney had prescribed. By June 2012, General Motors’ sales figures were up by 15.5% over 2011. GM had sold 248,750 vehicles, registering its best performance since 2008. Chrysler had its best sales figures since 2007 with gains of 20.3 percent. Are investors and the investment climate better today than it was in 2008? Has the American auto industry “come back roaring again”?
Until President Obama put his presidency on the line and enacted the Affordable Health Care Act in 2009, some 40 million Americans had no health insurance. By 2014, most Americans will have access to affordable health insurance. They can shop around for competitive coverage using “health insurance exchanges”. Insurance companies will not be allowed to cherry pick the healthiest patients and discriminate based on preexisting conditions. Parents can keep their children on their insurance until age 26. Older Americans who use the Medicare program will continue to get discounts on their medications. Are these millions of Americans better off today than they were in 2008? Certainly!
Before President Obama created the Consumer Financial and Protection Bureau, crooked financial institutions ranging from credit card companies to student loan sharks used all sorts of legal tricks and confusing language to trap and rip off unwary consumers. The hedge fund managers and Wall Street financial manipulators lived high on the hog while millions of Americans lost their homes and investments. Are American consumers better off in 2012 than they were in 2008? You bet!
Women comprise 47 percent (or 66 million women) of the total U.S. labor force. In many industries, women are paid less than their male counterparts. Before 2008, women did not have the legal right to enforce their right to equal pay for equal work. President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which protected women and all other workers who are victims of wage discrimination on gender, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or disability. Are these Americans better off in 2012 than they were in 2008? No doubt about it!
As of June 1, 2008, the United States had 182,060 military personnel deployed in Iraq. In 2012, all U.S. combat troops have been pulled out of Iraq. By 2014, all combat troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan. President Obama signed a law to help veterans by providing tax credits to employers who hire them and expanded educational access and various reemployment and transitional services to veterans. Under President Obama’s watch, the world’s view of the United States “improved sharply”. Are these members of the armed services better off in 2008 than they are in 2012? Is America more respected and viewed in better light than it did in 2008? Do we have a better Commander in Chief in 2012 than we did in 2008? Darn right we do!
It is true that not all are better off today than they were in 2008. Osama bin Laden was much better off in 2008 masterminding terror from his his villa in Pakistan. So were many of his brothers-in-terror: Sheik Saeed al-Masri (Al Qaeda’s number three commander), Anwar al-Awlaki (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), Abu Hafs al-Shahri (Al Qaeda’s chief of Pakistan operations), top Al Qaeda leaders Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, Ilyas Kashmiri, Ammar al-Wa’ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, Hamza al-Jawfi, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, Ali Saleh Farhan, Harun Fazul and Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan (Al-Qaeda East Africa), Younis al-Mauritani, Tehrik e-Taliban, Baitullah Mahsud, Jemayah Islamiya, Noordin Muhammad (Al Quaeda Indonesia), Abdul Ghani Beradar (Taliban deputy and military commander), Muhammad Haqqani (Haqqani network commander), Lashkar-e Jhangvi (Qari Zafar leader) and Hussein al-Yemeni, Dulmatin (top Jemayah Islamiya leader responsible for the 2002 Bali night club bombings which killed over 180 people) and many, many more. These guys were definitely better off in 2008 than they are in 2012!
President Obama knows his work is not finished and he has a lot more to do in improving the economy. But the road he has travelled over the past 4 years has been a hard one. He faced stiff opposition every inch of the way. He was obstructed, blocked, thwarted, vilified and demonized. The top leader of the Republicans in the Senate vowed, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. That’s my single most important political goal, along with every active Republican in the country.”
As President Clinton observed, President Obama “inherited a deeply damaged economy, he put a floor under the crash and began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.” There is a lot more to be done. More jobs need to be created and more investments must be made in education, job training and infrastructure improvements. But President Obama cannot fix problems that have taken decades to create in one term.
President Obama, Ethiopia and Africa
Did President Obama deliver on the promises he made for Africa to promote good governance, democracy and human rights? Did he deliver on human rights in Ethiopia? No. Are Ethiopian Americans disappointed over the unfulfilled promises President Obama made in Accra, Ghana in 2009 and his Administration’s support for a dictatorship in Ethiopia? Yes. We remember when President Obama talked about the need to develop robust democratic institutions, uphold the rule of law and the necessity of maintaining open political space and protecting human rights in Africa. We all remember what he said: “Africa does not need strong men but strong institutions.” “Development depends on good governance.” “No nation will create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy.” Was he just saying these words or did he truly believe them?
There is always a gap between political rhetoric and political action. Many Ethiopian Americans who supported President Obama enthusiastically in 2008 today criticize him for hypocrisy and for failing to deliver on his promise of promoting democracy and human rights in Ethiopia. Should we really criticize the President for being indifferent, disinterested, unconcerned and uncaring?
Truth be told, what the President has done or not done to promote good governance, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia is no different than what we, the vast majority of Ethiopian Americans, have done or not done to promote the same values in Ethiopia. That is the painful truth we must face. The President’s actions or lack of actions mirror our own. Just like the President, we profess our belief in democracy, good governance and human rights in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa. But we have also failed to put our values in action. President Obama was constrained in his actions by factors of U.S. national security and national interest. We were constrained by factors of personal interest and personal security.
In the pursuit of Al Quaeda in Somalia and the Horn of Africa, the Obama Administration shelved human rights, good governance and democracy in Ethiopia. Waging a proxy war in Somalia and snagging a drone base were the icing on the cake for the U.S. The Administration shamefully turned a blind eye when elections were stolen in broad day light, journalists and dissidents and opposition leaders were jailed at will. U.S. National security and national interest trumped Ethiopian human rights and democracy. That was wrong in my view because the pursuit of a U.S. anti-terrorism policy in the Horn was not mutually exclusive of the pursuit of a principled human rights policy in Ethiopia.
But let us look at ourselves as Ethiopian Americans and what we have done or not done to promote human rights, good governance and democracy in Ethiopia over the past 4 years. When it comes to speaking up and standing up for these values, most of us have chosen silence and inaction. While the vast majority of us privately extol the virtues of democracy and human rights in Ethiopia, we are scared stiff to make a public statement insupport of our beliefs. We are afraid that if we speak up, the regime in Ethiopia will take away our homes and investments. We are afraid that we will not be issued visas to travel there and even face persecution. We placed our personal interests and personal security over the national interest an security of Ethiopia.
But there are other hard questions we should ask ourselves: What did we do to bring pressure on the Obama Administration to promote human rights, good governance and democracy over the past 4 yeras? Did we organize to have our voices heard by the Administration? Did we exercise our constitutional rights to hold the Administration accountable?
In all fairness, when we point an index finger at President Obama and accuse of him of not doing much in Ethiopia or Africa, we should take a quick glance at the three fingers pointing at us. We should rightly be disappointed with President Obama for his record in Ethiopia and Africa. But we should be more disappointed with ourselves. The ultimate fact of the matter is that it is not President Obama’s responsibility to free Ethiopians or Africans from dictatorship although it is his moral duty not to support dictatorship. But as President, he balances and must balance American national and security interests just as we balance our personal and security interests and act accordingly. It is wise for people who live in glass houses not to throw too many stones.
But President Obama deeply believes in human rights and knows how hard and difficult it is to make it a reality. Last Spring, he made that clear in the context of the long and arduous struggle for human rights in America. “The civil rights movement was hard. Winning the vote for women was hard. Making sure that workers had some basic protections was hard. Around the world, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, what they did was hard. It takes time. It takes more than a single term. It takes more than a single president. It takes more than a single individual… What it takes is ordinary citizens who keep believe, who are committed to fighting and pushing and inching this country closer and closer to our highest ideals.” Protecting human rights in Ethiopia and Africa is hard, very hard. It was hard for Nelson Mandela. It is hard for President Obama. It takes ordinary citizens like ourselves to fight and push for democracy, human rights and good governance in Ethiopia and the rest of Africa.
Remember, November 6, 2012
This is not the time to blame one another or trade accusations about what President Obama has done or not done in Africa or Ethiopia. We all know about the deep and structural problems of Africa with dictatorship and corruption. It takes a lot more to fix Africa than what an American president can do in one term. As Ethiopian Americans, we must not make the mistake of being a single issue group concerned only about a single country or single continent. We must understand that our issues are intertwined with the issues and problems of others. We must not forget that when we vote for President Obama, we vote for him as President of the United States, not Ethiopia or Africa.
On November 6, we face a single question. That question is not about human rights or democracy in Ethiopia. That question is about what kind of society we want to see in America. As President Clinton said, “If you want a you’re on your own, winner take all society you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities— a “we’re all in it together” society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”
President Obama in his acceptance speech said:
America, I never said this journey would be easy, and I won’t promise that now. Yes, our path is harder – but it leads to a better place. Yes our road is longer – but we travel it together. We don’t turn back. We leave no one behind. We pull each other up. We draw strength from our victories, and we learn from our mistakes, but we keep our eyes fixed on that distant horizon, knowing that Providence is with us, and that we are surely blessed to be citizens of the greatest nation on Earth.
I shall vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden on November 6, 2012 because I would like to be a part of a United States of America of Shared Opportunities and Shared Responsibilities. I support President Barack Obama not because he is a perfect president but because he is an imperfect president seeking to build a more perfect and harmonious America of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities— a “we’re all in it together” society.
I believe President Obama understands what he has to do in the next four years and that he has miles to go before he sleeps. Put in the poetic words of Robert Frost: “The woods are lovely, dark and deep./ But I have promises to keep,/ And miles to go before I sleep.”
President Obama still deserves the full and unflagging support of the tens of thousands of Ethiopian Americans in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin and the rest of the states. I ask all of my readers and supporters to help re-elect President Barack Obama. Yes, we still can…
We must all register to vote before we can vote! Click HERE for more information on how to register.
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at: http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic and http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/ and www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/
It is time to bury the hatchet and move forward in Ethiopia! Nelson Mandela taught that “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” I would add that your enemy also becomes your friend and your ally. Historically, when warring nations of Native Americans made peace with each other, they would bury their axes (hatchets) into the ground as a symbolic expression of the end of hostilities. I say today is the perfect time for all Ethiopians to bury the hatchet of ethnic division, religious sectarianism, regional conflict and human rights violations. It is the perfect time to shake hands, embrace each other and get our noses to the grindstone to build a new democratic Ethiopia where the rule of law is upheld and human rights and democratic institutions respected.
Today, not tomorrow, is the best time to put an end to historic hatreds and resentments and open a new chapter in Ethiopia’s history. Today is the best time to unchain ourselves from the burdens of the past, close the wounds that have festered for generations and declare to future generations that we will no longer be prisoners of resentments of the past. Nelson Mandela said that “Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies.” Mandela did not drink from the poison of resentment and managed to outlive most of his “enemies” and is still alive and kicking at 94. But today there is a lot of resentment going around in Ethiopia and in the Ethiopian Diaspora. There is the quiet and despairing resentment of those who feel wounded and defeated by loss. There is the gloating resentment of those who feel victorious and morally vindicated by the loss of others. Then there is the resentment of those who are indifferent because they just don’t care. Today is a great day to say good-bye to historic animosities. Today is a great day to end bitterness, not tomorrow. Reaching out to our adversaries must begin today, not tomorrow. Reconciliation must begin today, not tomorrow. Most importantly, “radical improvements in good governance and democracy” must begin today, not tomorrow.
Let’s Begin Radical Improvements in Good Governance and Democracy Today
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.” Today is the day to begin in earnest radical improvements in good governance and democracy. These improvements must begin with the release of all political prisoners, repeal of anti-terrorism, civil society and other oppressive laws and declaration of allegiance to the rule of law.
All political prisoners in Ethiopia must be released. Their situation has been amply documented for years in the reports of the U.S. Government, U.N. agencies and various international human rights organizations. The 2011 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Ethiopia (April 2011) documented “unlawful killings, torture, beating, and abuse and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces, especially special police and local militias, which took aggressive or violent action with evident impunity in numerous instances; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly of suspected sympathizers or members of opposition or insurgent groups; detention without charge and lengthy pretrial detention…”
In its 2010 World Report-Ethiopia, Human Rights Watch (HRW) concluded that “torture and ill-treatment have been used by Ethiopia’s police, military, and other members of the security forces to punish a spectrum of perceived dissenters, including university students, members of the political opposition, and alleged supporters of insurgent groups… Secret detention facilities and military barracks are most often used by Ethiopian security forces for such activities.”
A report of the U.N. Committee Against Torture (November 2010) expressed “deep concerns about numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations concerning the routine use of torture by the police, prison officers and other members of the security forces, as well as the military, in particular against political dissidents and opposition party members, students, alleged terrorist suspects and alleged supporters of insurgent groups such as the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) and the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF). It is concerned about credible reports that such acts frequently occur with the participation, at the instigation or with the consent of commanding officers in police stations, detention centers, federal prisons, military bases and in unofficial or secret places of detention.”
It is difficult to accurately establish the number of political prisoners in Ethiopia. International human rights organizations are not allowed access to political prisoners or to investigate their situation. But various reports provide estimates that vary from several hundreds to tens of thousands. Recent estimates by Genocide Watch peg the number of political prisoners at around one hundred thousand. Political dissidents, critics and opposition leaders continue to be arrested and detained every day. In the past year, an undetermined number of members of the Oromo Federalist Democratic Movement (OFDM) and the Oromo People’s Congress (OPC) have been detained for political reasons. Other opposition parties have reported similar arrests of their members. Alleged members of the Oromo Liberation Front continue to be arrested and detained without charge. In just the past few months, journalists, opposition political leaders and activists, including Andualem Arage, the charismatic vice chairman of the opposition coalition Medrek, Natnael Mekonnen, an official of the Unity for Democracy and Justice Party, the internationally-celebrated journalists Eskinder Nega and Reeyot Alemu, and editor Woubshet Alemu have been sentenced to long prison terms.
Radical improvements in good governance and democracy also require repeal of the so-called “Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009”. Over the past few years, this “law” has been used to round up and jail dissidents, journalists and opposition party political leaders as “terrorists.” The law has been condemned by all international human rights organizations. Human Rights Watch criticized the law as “potent tool for suppressing political opposition and independent criticism of government policy.” The vaguely drafted “anti-terrorism law” in fact is not much of a law as it is a velvet gloved iron fist used to smash any opponent of the regime. Speech aimed at “advancing a political, religious or ideological cause” and intending to “influence the government”, “intimidate the public”, “destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social institutions of the country” is classified as “terrorism”. Making or publishing statements “likely to be understood as encouraging terrorist acts” is a punishable offense under the “law”. Anyone who provides “moral support or advice” or has any contact with an individual accused of a terrorist act is presumed to be a terrorist supporter. Anyone who “writes, edits, prints, publishes, publicizes, disseminates, shows, makes to be heard any promotional statements encouraging, supporting or advancing terrorist acts” is deemed a “terrorist”. A person who “fails to immediately inform or give information or evidence to the police” on a neighbor, co-worker or others s/he may suspect of “terrorism” could face up to 10 years for failure to report. Two or more persons who have contact with a “terror” suspect could be charged with conspiracy to commit “terrorism”.
Under the “anti-terrorism” law, “The police may arrest without court warrant any person whom he reasonably suspects to have committed or is committing terrorism” and hold that person in incommunicado detention. The police can engage in random and “sudden search and seizure” of the person, place or personal effects of anyone suspected of “terrorism”. The police can “intercept, install or conduct surveillance on the telephone, fax, radio, internet, electronic, postal, and similar communications” of a person suspected of terrorism. The police can order “any government institution, official, bank, or a private organization or an individual” to turn over documents, evidence and information on a “terror” suspect. A “terror” suspect can be held in custody without charge for up to “four months”. Any “evidence” presented by the regime’s prosecutor against a “terror” suspect in “court” is admissible, including “confessions” (extracted by torture), “hearsay”, “indirect, digital and electronic evidences” and “intelligence reports even if the report does not disclose the source or the method it was gathered (including evidence obtained by torture).
As I have previously commented, the “anti-terrorism” law criminalizes democratic civic existence itself: “Thinking is terrorism. Dissent is terrorism. Speaking truth to power is terrorism. Having a conscience is terrorism. Peaceful protest is terrorism. Refusing to sell out one’s soul is terrorism. Standing up for democracy and human rights is terrorism. Defending the rule of law is terrorism. Peaceful resistance of state terrorism is terrorism. But one must be reasonable about “terrorism”. Nelson Mandela was jailed for 27 years as a “terrorist” by the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Following his release, he said, “I was called a terrorist yesterday, but when I came out of jail, many people embraced me, including my enemies, and that is what I normally tell other people who say those who are struggling for liberation in their country are terrorists. I tell them that I was also a terrorist yesterday, but, today, I am admired by the very people who said I was one.” The “antiterrorism law” must be repealed.
The so-called Charities and Societies Proclamation No. 621/2009 must be repealed. This “law” has been severely criticized by all of the major international human rights organizations. Among its draconian elements include prohibitions on foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from engaging in human rights and democratic advocacy activities in Ethiopia including advocacy of gender and religious equality, conflict resolution or justice system and electoral reform. A local NGO that receives more than ten percent of its funding from foreign sources is considered “foreign”. Since few Ethiopian NGOs are financially self-sufficient, the vast majority depend significantly on foreign sources for their funding. This law has effectively put them out of business. The law allows an administrative body to have final authority over NGO disputes by granting it broad discretion to deny, suspend or revoke the registration of any NGO. Criminal sanctions and fines are also provided for violations of the law exposing NGO officials, members, volunteers and service recipients. Moreover, this law flagrantly violates various sections of the Ethiopian Constitution dealing with freedom of expression, assembly and association as has been pointed out by various human rights organizations.
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. Or Ethiopia can continue to slide backwards and deeper into the vortex of dictatorship. Or it can free fall into chaos and strife. The choice is ours to make. There are important lessons to be learned by all. Those in power should be mindful that “making peaceful revolution impossible is making violent revolution inevitable.” Others should heed the message of Dr. Martin Luther King who once told the great Harry Belafonte his concerns about racial desegregation and its potential consequences: “I fear, I am integrating my people into a burning house,” wondered Dr. King metaphorically referring to the potential for racial conflict and strife that could result from outlawing discrimination. Belafonte, somewhat taken aback asked Dr. King, “What should we do?” Dr. King told him that we should “become the firemen [and] not stand by and let the house burn.’” We all need to be Ethiopian firemen and firewomen and begin “radical improvements in good governance and democracy” today, not tomorrow!!
Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at: http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic and http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/ and www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/
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.
Disappointed but…
It is time to bury the hatchet and move forward in Ethiopia! Nelson Mandela taught that “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” I would add that your enemy also becomes your friend and your ally. Historically, when warring nations of Native Americans made peace with each other, they would bury their axes (hatchets) into the ground as a symbolic expression of the end of hostilities. I say today is the perfect time for all Ethiopians to bury the hatchet of ethnic division, religious sectarianism, regional conflict and human rights violations. It is the perfect time to shake hands, embrace each other and get our noses to the grindstone to build a new democratic Ethiopia where the rule of law is upheld and human rights and democratic institutions respected.