Ethiopian dictator Meles Zenawi died in August after ruling the country from 1995 to 2012. Contrary to regime claims of economic development, he will be remembered for crushing all dissent to his rule.
Discussing Meles’ legacy is not discussing one person; Meles represented his party and government. The discussion on his legacy is political and not personal. I have nothing against Meles the person, and this discussion is not about giving or denying him credit; it is about the future of our country, it is about the plight of our people.
THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION ON 1974 AND TPLF
The TPLF was created in 1975, i.e. one year after the plebeian revolution broke out in Ethiopia and overthrew the autocrat. It is crucial to ask what the role of the would-be TPLF leaders/cadres was in the February revolution. Very few of them such as Aregawi Berehe had already been involved in the student movement but we don’t know what role they had during February 1974.
One thing we know for sure is the fact that some of their leading cadres such as Birhane Gebre Kirstos and Nestanet Asfaw were disinterested in the movement until the scourge of ethnicity rose at the end of 1974 when some Tigrean and Oromo students demanded to be sent to Tigrai and Oromiya regions for the Derg’s zemetcha campaign.
Actually, what is more important is their characterization of the February revolution. The TPLF leaders denied the class content of the revolution but held instead the view that the revolution brought out ethnic contradictions and antagonisms in Ethiopia. This was in fact advanced to ‘rationalize’ the extreme form of parochial ethnic construction that they declared in their 1976 Manifesto. As we will see below, this was a completely erroneous characterization.
The class content of the February revolution was so glaring that one only has to glance at the main demands that were advanced by the numerous strikes and demonstrations at the time. In addition, the fundamental demands in 1974 corresponded to structural questions pertaining to freedom and democracy.
On top of the numerous strikes and demands by the downtrodden of every sector of society, the earth-shaking action came when the young Ethiopian working class launched the first general strike in the country and perhaps in Africa as well. The resolutions that the then Confederation of Ethiopian Labour Unions (CELU) passed during the general strike was fundamentally political and went beyond the sectoral demands of the working class. It demanded democracy and freedom, abolition of the monarchy, land to the tillers and more demands that are related to the poor and oppressed.
If we sum up the nature of the demands brought forth in February, the main ones were freedom and democracy, an end to the monarchy (targeting the ruling class), land to the tillers (a class question), religious equality (the class content is reflected in the demand by poor priests who demanded the removal of the higher clergy), women’s equality (a class question), a people’s republic and a provisional government to form it and so on. These questions reflected the contradictions between social classes that existed at the time.
No apparent demands for ethnic rights and/or exclusiveness were observed in the entire period of the revolution. It was at such a time and under such a situation that the TPLF leaders completely denied the class content of the revolution and clung to their characterization that finally led to the ethnicization of politics when they came to power.
Actually, in their 1976 Manifesto, they unambiguously stated that the solution to Ethiopia’s problem is when the various nationalities wage an ethnic war against Shoan Amharas, bring about ‘national democratic revolutions in each nationality’ and see if they can reconstitute Ethiopia again. It is this same theory that Meles reintroduced as the ethnicization of politics when he assumed power both in the TPLF and EPRDF. The legacy of Meles on ethnicization of politics should be assessed against this background.
The overriding demand for freedom and democracy during the February revolution should not be seen as a sheer political demand for recognition of rights. Democracy and freedom are historical questions as far as Ethiopia is concerned as it is a poor country and hitherto ruled by autocracies of one type or another. Freedom and democracy constitute a negation of systems that strangled its people and subjected them to a poverty of biblical proportions. But, we all know that Ethiopia’s historical question was not answered by the Derg in the affirmative.
Quite the contrary, as the Derg ruled the country by official state terror. By negating the demand for freedom and democracy, the Derg opted to ‘generate development’ through its own way. But, we all know it never happened. At the end of the day, the legacy of the Derg is rule by official terror, total suppression of free and independent participation, the subjugation of the individual (despite the rhetoric on being revolutionary, proletarian, socialist, etc), the supremacy and unquestioned authority of the party and state, the consequent rebellions, the defeat of the Left and rise of ethnic-based movements and an over-centralized economy and colossal poverty.
MELES’ LEGACY
In 1991, Meles’ EPRDF took power against the backdrop of the legacy left by the Derg. On top of their demand for freedom and democracy in 1974, the peoples of Ethiopia all the more wanted and demanded freedom and democracy when the EPRDF took power. What makes freedom and democracy historical questions is also the fact that they are so resilient that they are continuously being demanded by every new generation. Let’s now glance at the legacy left to us by Meles and his regime.
It was unexpected and a paradox of historical proportions that Meles has been anointed with all sorts portraying him as ‘genius’ and who ‘brought about development and economic growth’ not just by the propaganda machine he set up but also by leaders of the West, including Barak Obama and leading world media. What is their basis or source of information? It is not difficult at all to destroy these assumptions as they are founded on falsification. The legacy of Meles at the political level is not very different from that of the Derg.
In summary: similar to that of the Derg, Meles’ political legacy is a prevalence of rule by official terror [Mengistu resorted to the infamous Red Terror to destroy the left; Meles also enacted a law ‘against terrorism’ to destroy his critics and opposition in general]. Like the Derg, it did not permit free and independent expression, no independent existence outside the state. Mengistu framed up the left with criminal charges in order to destroy any opposition and critique, so did Meles Zenawi in the 2005 elections and after. The Derg made the unions his own instruments by quashing their independent existence; so did Meles Zenawi. In a similar fashion the Derg did not permit NGOs to function, Meles quashed them by ‘law’.
Meles’ legacy, like that of the Derg, also includes committing massacres in various parts of the country. Meles’ army committed massacres in Gambela, ostensibly to crush a resistance by the Anuak; in the Ogaden on the excuse of crushing the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF); and in the streets of Addis Ababa and other towns under the guise of putting down protests against the stealing of the election results in 2005. In his earlier days in power, Meles’ regime was also involved in three but little known massacres targeting Amhara communities in Wollega.
Another manifestation of the use of sheer force and terror is the practice of mass arrests. Since the advent of EPRDF power, a characteristic feature is the mass arrests conducted throughout the entire period of the 21 years of its acquisition of political power. The climax of the practice of mass arrests came in 2005 when Meles’ army and police arrested more than 11,000 persons throughout the country. Meles’ legacy on the mass arrest front also includes the mass arrests of individuals of Oromo extraction. Today, the country’s jails outside Tigray and Amhara regions are filled with Oromo political prisoners in the vain attempt to crush the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF).
By now, the entire world knows that one of Meles’ legacies is the mass arrest of journalists. In the entire period of its 21 years of rule, Meles’ regime has been characterized by international human rights organizations as ‘enemy number one’ of the free press. At the end of his rule, Meles even locked prisoners in jail, charging them with terrorism and sentencing them for a maximum period of 18 years.
Very recently and as the last repressive action of his rule, Meles resorted to a massive clamp down against Muslim protesters. His regime forcefully introduced a newly concocted interpretation of Islam and imposed it on the Muslim community through its stooges within the Muslim clergy. The Muslim community came out in protest, particularly after Friday prayers, but they were suppressed by force and its leaders are locked in prison.
INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNANCE
Meles has also been praised for bringing stable and much better governance. However, from the perspective of sustainable development, how true is this? A glance at what is required in terms of having a properly functioning modern state that can generate sustainable development unambiguously attests to the fact that in his entire 21 years of rule, Meles Zenawi has completely failed to develop the institutions of governance at the level which is required in Ethiopia. What are the requirements to build a modern state that can generate sustainable development? In brief, it is crucial to transform the current institutions of governance into a proper modern state. This means there must be a clear division of power and role between the three major component parts of the state, i.e. the executive (government), legislature (parliament) and the judiciary.
The executive must be accountable to the parliament and judiciary, the legislature to the people and the judiciary to both government and legislature. In order to have such a clear division of power and role, freedom and democracy serve as the basis. Without freedom and democracy, one cannot come up with such distinct roles and powers of the major institutions of the state. We know very well that what Meles has instituted in this respect is exactly the opposite. The executive controls both the legislature and judiciary and that is why the legislature is a rubber stamp and the judiciary is a pawn of the executive. In fact, what Meles instituted is worse than that. Since 2001, i.e. after he eliminated his rivals within the TPLF and other EPRDF organizations, he has institutionalized a personalized power where he alone decided on issues ranging from major to minor.
In short, Meles has, just like the absolutist state of medieval Europe, institutionalized a personal dictatorship a la Louis IX who said, ‘L’etat est mois’ (‘I am the state’.) We can even call this the ‘Melesization’ of the state. He personified the state to the worst level. And this is the state of affairs that he called ‘the democratic developmental state’. What is ‘democratic’ and ‘developmental’ in this personified state, only he could explain. Unfortunately, he never did.
On top of all these, in order for a state to be called a state in the proper sense of the term, it must be accountable to society and society must have the mechanism to make the state accountable to it. Secondly, constitutionalism and prevalence of the rule of law must be one of the principal characteristic features of the modern state. Again, the entire world knows that these two characteristics never existed under his Ethiopia.
CIVIL SOCIETY
In political science, state and civil society are symbiotic to each other. That means a state cannot exist without civil society and vice versa. One cannot talk about the state without civil society because the evolution processes of both are simultaneous and inter-dependent. The institutions of the state can only develop through freedom and democracy which are also the basis for the emergence of civil society.
From the development perspective, civil society is a precondition for social development as civil society is the object and subject of development. If development should be human-centered, it should be designed for people. Development should be designed to lift the poor and marginalized out of the ashes and crown them with dignity, a title which all humans deserve.
This calls for crowning society with freedom and democracy through which it develops and transforms itself into civil society. We see here again that freedom and democracy are pivotal for the emergence of civil society and that without civil society ‘development’ is only material and not human centered. As universally recognized, Meles’ legacy in this respect is indisputably horrible. However, even those who accuse him of being a dictator but give him credit for the ‘economic growth’ he ostensibly brought about, failed to see the crucial role that freedom and democracy have in the transition period.
One crucial element in the process of social development is the transformation of individuals from subjects to citizen. This transformation process is historical, belonging to a period of transition from a situation of non-democracy to democracy and freedom. Without freedom and democracy, individuals cannot be transformed into citizens. It is only if they are free and independent that they can become aware and knowledgeable about the conditions (political, economic, social and ideological) that govern their existence.
The transformation of subjects to citizens is a crucial element in the development and governance processes. Viewed from this perspective, the legacy of Meles is absolutely negative and in fact a hindrance to this transformation of individuals. Under Meles, the individual Ethiopian has been reduced to less than the subject of the Haile Selassie days.
In summary, we have seen how freedom and democracy are crucial in the processes of the three transformations, i.e. government to a state, society to a civil society and subjects to citizens. We have also seen that freedom and democracy are the basis for these transformations. Meles’ legacy on all these transformation processes is absolutely negative and counter-productive.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Human rights, like freedom and democracy, are an integral part of both the modern state and development. What distinguishes humans from animals is not their capacity to think (as a few animal species have also been proved to have the potential to think), but their capacity to express in speech and writing what they think. Denying humans the right to express what they think is tantamount to reducing them to the level of animals. By denying the Ethiopian people their fundamental human rights, the right to expression and other fundamental human rights, Meles Zenawi has subjected Ethiopians to the level of animals.
We can also add here violations of other fundamental human rights such as women’s rights, the rights of indigenous peoples (pastoralists, hunter-gatherers), the rights of the child and youth, etc … All these human rights violations are executed in violation of international instruments such as conventions and declarations by the United Nations and African Union. That is precisely why the government of Meles Zenawi had come under fire by the various Treaty Bodies of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva as well as by the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights. In fact, in a rare move, the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights condemned the violation of human rights in Ethiopia in its last session in April 2012.
DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
Contemporary development discourse has it that freedom and democracy is a precondition for development. This is the fundamental principle that has been universally accepted. But, what does Meles say on this? He rejects this principle and in one of his last public utterances he said, ‘I don’t believe in this night-time, you know, bed-time stories and contrived arguments linking economic growth with democracy’ (April, 2012).
Something that Zenawi has received praise for is his record on generating development and economic growth. It is only the people of Ethiopia who still wallow in abject poverty and under-development that simply dismiss such claims; because, neither development nor economic growth has taken place under Meles. Now, let’s separate our comments into two: development and economic growth.
Development: we only mention the fundamental domains for sustainable development to occur and ask whether or not they are attained in Ethiopia under Meles.
– Political democracy? Obviously no.
– Environmental preservation? The opposite has happened.
– Gender equality: never, women are still treated as slaves.
– Child and youth development has not been taken seriously (as inheritors to lead the future generation)
– Population: unchecked population boom contributing to poverty.
Economic growth: the truth about the hullabaloo on ‘economic growth’ is based on a propaganda gimmick introduced by Meles himself in the wake of the stolen 2005 election. The principal ‘lesson’ that Meles drew from the 2005 election in which his party lost miserably is that it was necessary to change the pattern of rule. Thus, closing down the private media, advocacy NGOs and human rights organizations as well as opposition parties was essential as these were the main institutions that contested government claims on economic growth.
Thus, closing down all avenues of alternative information was found out to be essential to embark on wild claims on economic growth. Then, all of a sudden, and precisely after 2007, wild claims of economic growth were made by Meles’ regime. Those who swallowed these claims seem never to ask how come this ‘economic growth’ is recorded all of a sudden after 2005. What happened after 2005? Did they find oil? Diamonds? What did they get that boosts their capability to accumulate capital and invest it? Meles made wild claims particularly in agricultural outputs.
These are very fishy figures and no independent verification was permitted. (It is impossible to take government figures on economic growth for granted without independent verification.) The whole stratagem of Meles was to dispel the pressure from the West who pressed for the liberalization of the political situation. To dispel this, he devised a propaganda gimmick that compels the West to drop its pressure on grounds that after all Meles has ‘ brought economic growth’.
This is not to deny that there have occurred incremental economic changes. Yes, roads have been built, buildings have been constructed in Addis, and real estate business has grown. Let there be no confusion, however, that in the first place, these incremental changes do not necessarily indicate economic growth. Secondly, there is always incremental change even under conditions of poverty and under-development.
However, the two main questions are: (1) what should have been the rate of the incremental change to label it as growth against the backdrop of size of population, level of the poverty prevalence, etc…? And (2) what could have the Ethiopian people attained had they instituted a democratic government of their like as they demanded in 1974? These are the questions we should ask before equating these incremental changes alone as ‘economic growth’. Thirdly, in order for economic growth to occur, there must be even development in the main sectors of the economy such as agriculture, industry and commerce.
NEW YORK — Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn has pledged to maintain the controversial policies of his predecessor, Meles Zenawi, who died last month. The Ethiopian leader outlined his views on foreign and domestic issues in an interview with VOA’s Peter Heinlein in New York.
In a 30-minute conversation, Prime Minister Hailemariam discussed topics from Ethiopia’s strained ties with neighboring Eritrea, relations with China and the United States, and the government’s clampdown on media.
The interview was Hailemariam’s first since taking office last week. It took place in New York, on the eve of his first address as prime minister to the United Nations General Assembly.
On Eritrea, he said he sees no sign of a thaw in a relationship that has been frozen since an indecisive two-year war that ended in 2000. That conflict left at least 70,000 people dead.
Eritrea says progress depends on Ethiopia’s acceptance of an international border commission ruling that favors Eritrea’s position. However, Hailemariam says the only solution lies in bilateral dialogue.
“There is no change in policy. Our policy designed after the war since nine years, a standing policy that we need to have dialogue without conditions, so we offered this to the Eritrean government and leadership and are waiting for this to happen for the last nine years and will continue to do so,” said Hailemariam.
Ethiopia’s relations with Egypt also have been strained over sharing Nile River waters. The government of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak had resisted efforts by Ethiopia and other countries along the upper Nile to renegotiate a colonial-era water sharing agreement.
Hailemariam says he will wait to see what policies the new government in Cairo will adopt.
“The previous Egyptian regime was looking into the Nile issue as a security issue. There are a number rumors that this is [seen as] a security issue, but I cannot tell you the government’s position until now. So I don’t want to deal with those speculations because we haven’t come across officially a change of policy with the current Egyptian governmen,” he said.
Hailemariam also expressed satisfaction with the election of a new president in neighboring Somalia, and with the signing of a cooperation agreement between Sudan ad South Sudan. He said both developments will contribute to regional stability.
The Ethiopian leader said relations with both China and the United States are good. He rejected a suggestion that Ethiopia is tilting toward Beijing for economic and ideological reasons, and he defended the decision of Ethiopia’s ruling party to strengthen relations with China’s Communist Party.
“Our party has very close ties with the Communist Party of China because we have areas where we can learn from the work the Chinese Communist Party is doing, simply because we are people centered, where Chinese Community Party has experience with working with people at the grass root, so we learn with China, this kind of approach, it doesn’t mean our ideology is similar to China,” said Hailemariam.
On domestic issues, Hailemariam defended the imprisonment of several journalists and opposition politicians under a recently enacted anti-terrorism law. He said those sentenced to long jail terms, such as award-winning blogger and fierce government critic Eskinder Nega, had been living a double life, or as he called it, “wearing two hats.”
“Our national security interest cannot be compromised by somebody having two hats. We have to tell them they can have only one hat which is legal and the legal way of doing things, be it in journalism or opposition discourse, but if they opt to have two mixed functions, we are clear to differentiate the two,” he said.
The Ethiopian leader also suggested his government will continue to clamp down on opposition media, including jamming VOA Amharic service broadcasts and blocking foreign websites considered objectionable.
“My government has no policy of blocking these issues. It is depending on the websites or whatever, if there is any connection with these kind of organizations, it’s obvious. That’s done in every country. You cannot open a blog of Osama bin Laden in the United States,” he said.
Hailemariam is filling out the remainder of the late prime minister Meles’ term, which ends in 2015. He said if the ruling Ethiopia Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front, or EPRDF, gives him the chance, he would like to serve at least one more term. But he added, “that will be a decision of the party”.
The EPRDF has held power in Addis Ababa since 1991, when it ousted the pro-Soviet Marxist dictator Mengistu Hailemariam after a lengthy armed struggle.
Wikileaks has released documents today that shed new light on what has cause the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409 in 2009. The new WikiLeaks releases are email threads from the global intelligence firm Stratfor dating back to the time of the Ethiopian Airlines crash. While investigations were taking place in Beirut and Paris, Stratfor was prying for answers from different high level sources. The sources included a hospital director in Beirut, a Lebanese military source, and a Hezbollah media source… [read more]
The eulogy delivered in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa by Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, on the occasion of the funeral and mysterious death of dictator Meles Zenawi will probably go down in the annals of US diplomacy as one of the most inauspicious moments in which an opportunity was missed to assert the values of this great country.
To the dismay of the people of Ethiopia, the Ambassador failed to seize the moment to send an unwavering message of America’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law to a captive audience that included TPLF cadres and some of the most notorious African dictators, and instead chose to join the likes of Omar al-Bashir of Sudan in profiling a larger-than-life portrait of the deceased despot, who had ruled that poor African nation with an iron fist for over two decades.
In complete ignorance of her own State Department report on the abysmal human rights records of Zenawi, Rice gave credence to the outlandish fanfare the TPLF cadres had orchestrated, in a brazen imitation of the Kim of North Korea, to idolize the “Great Leader”, and added her voice to the ululation the inhabitants of Addis were dictated to wail under deplorable duress.
For a seasoned diplomat, that moment was a golden opportunity to reiterate to the cadres of the TPLF and other African dictators in attendance the timeless message of Barack Obama in which he perceptively counseled:
“…. there are some who advocate for democracy only when they’re out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy. “
In point of fact, diplomats do not often get a second chance to redeem themselves from catastrophic missteps. Fortunately for Rice there is a second chance to make nice with the Ethiopian people and to discharge her diplomatic responsibilities with prudence by engaging the Ethiopian delegation on what is expected of good governance, when they come to New York to attend the U.N. General Assembly on September 28, 2012.
Recognizing Ethiopia is at a crossroads, the Ambassador should exercise discreet diplomacy and send a strong message to the EPRDF kingmakers that the time to play ethnic politics is over; and that leaders who do not play by the rule of law, who consider themselves above the law and who deny their people basic human rights and the freedom to choose their own government, will be disallowed membership to the community of civilized nations and denied access to much-needed loans and financial assistance.
More importantly, the Ambassador should take to heart and reinforce Barack Obama’s direction:
“… Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments– provided they govern with respect for all their people.”
Following the unexpected demise of Meles Zenawi, leaders of his ethnic-based party, the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), and the umbrella front, the EPRDF, have on many occasions expressed their determination to continue his repressive policies by other means, without regard to the rights and aspirations of the people of Ethiopia for a free and all-inclusive representative government.
Many peace and freedom loving Ethiopians hope that the recent announcement by the regime’s propaganda chief, Bereket Simon, concerning the appointments of Hailemariam Dessalegn, a Southerner, as chairman and Demeke Mekonnen, an Amhara, as vice-chairman, of the EPRDF, is not a window-dressing move intended to enable the perpetuation of the ethnocentric dictatorship of the TPLF, that still is in full control of the vital economic, military and security institutions of the country.
Ethiopians at home and in the Diaspora anxiously pray that the EPRDF cadres are not succumbing to an age-old trick of dictators who appoint figureheads and hold sham elections in order to buy time to eliminate opponents and entrench themselves in power. They painfully remember all too well how Mengistu HaileMariam deceptively used this ruse when he placed Aman Andom, an Eritrean, and later Teferi Banti, an Oromo, as heads of state, before he conveniently eliminated them and imposed his brand of brutal dictatorship.
With the vast majority of the army generals still hailing from the minority Tigrai ethnic group, TPLF affiliated conglomerates controlling the vital economic activities in the country, journalists and other dissenting members of the society languishing in prison in thousands, major opposition groups completely shut out from the political process, and all relevant mediums of communication controlled by the ruling party, many genuine Ethiopians wait to be convinced that it is not a charade for the EPRDF cadres to pretend they have a change of heart in naming members of other ethnic groups to leadership positions.
The Ambassador and the US government have a historic opportunity to impress on the EPRDF cadres to establish a strong Ethiopia and leave a lasting legacy by abandoning the destructive ethnic policy of the late dictator, and opening the door for genuine dialogue and discourse on the way forward to building a better Ethiopia – an Ethiopia in which individual rights will be respected; everyone will have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and no individual or group will be above the law.
All internal and external players should understand the bitter fact that a minority member of a society cannot continue to rule, repress, exploit and deny the basic rights of the vast majority through force, repression, subterfuge and espionage. History has shown time and again, be it in Apartheid South Africa or Ian Smiths’ Rhodesia, that repression and exploitation by a minority ethnic group would inevitably fade away. Failure to understand this historical verity has drastic consequences; and as John F. Kennedy famously said: “Those who make peaceful evolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”.
In case the EPRDF leaders and their sponsors find it necessary to be reminded, the following are prudent measures, embraced by all freedom and peace loving Ethiopians, that should be implemented immediately as a demonstration of goodwill and readiness to change :
Release, unconditionally, all political prisoners, including such journalists as Eskinder Nega.
Annul all repressive laws promulgated in the name of “war on terror” but intended to harass, intimidate and incarcerate opposition groups and individuals.
Invite all opposition groups inside and outside of Ethiopia who fight for the establishment of rule of law and democracy in Ethiopia, and form a consensus on a framework for establishing democracy in the country.
Permit unfettered freedom of speech and expression.
Desist from implementing irresponsible economic and fiscal policies, abandon the current campaign of land grabs, and foster a market economy where all citizens participate in business opportunities without regard to political, religious or ethnic affiliations.
Diversify the monolithic army leadership through active recruitment of talents from all ethnic groups that constitute the Ethiopian mosaic.
(The writer can be reached at Selam Beyene, Ph.D. [email protected])
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/
After I wrote a commentary a few days ago saying that we Ethiopians need to give the new prime minister some time to prove himself worthy of our support, I have received a flood of responses from some who supported my call, others who strongly opposed me, and a few who are in the middle. Supporters of TPLF are also disguising themselves as opposition and trying to exploit the discussion to their advantage. They want Hailemariam to fail so that they will return to power.
To my surprise, the most aggressive criticism of what I’ve said came mostly (not all, but mostly) from individuals who are contributing little or nothing to the struggle for freedom in Ethiopia. By contrast, those who have been expressing goodwill toward Hailemariam are mostly those who have been active in the struggle. My focus in this commentary are the cynics.
One of those cynical individuals is a friend of mine who called me on Friday afternoon, right after the new prime minister was sworn in, to give me tongue lashing. She said, ‘How dare you ask us to support Hailemariam? How is he better than Meles? Nothing has changed… Didn’t’ you hear his speech today? He didn’t give any hint of change… I am angry at you… etc.’
I asked her: ‘Did you expect Hailemariam, who is currently surrounded by TPLF hynas, to say any thing that would antagonize them? Do you want him to get assassinated? Do you want him to become another Teferi Benti or Aman Andom?’
My friend: ‘At least he could have hinted that there will be changes and that he will release the political prisoners… He is too weak to say or do any thing that contradicts the wishes of his TPLF bosses…’
Me: ‘Do you mean Hailemariam should be brave like Andualem, Eskindir, Prof. Asrat…? I am sure you would not shed a drop of tear if TPLF put a bullet in his head? What have you done when TPLF jailed brave Ethiopians like Andualem? What have you done when Meles gunned down all those young pro-democracy protestors in the streets of Addis Ababa? I bet you didn’t lose even one hour of sleep over that…’
Not surprisingly, my friend did not have any answer.
It is the same story with many (not all) of those who are now condemning Hailemariam before the guy was not even sworn in. Such individuals are engaged in nothing more than political bullshitting. Empty talk, no action! They come up with all kinds of excuses not to support opposition groups and the independent media. And yet, they have no shame in expecting some one to sacrifice himself.
Let’s be serious: Was it really that difficult to overthrow Meles Zenawi, or at least force him to come to the negotiation table? Meles’s strength was our apathy, laziness, and disunity. Meles could not have thrown the political leaders and journalists in jail had enough people been serious about the struggle. Without firing a single shot, through economic boycott alone, we could have crippled Meles and his Woyanne junta. It is because most people have become so selfish and stopped caring for one another that very few people have to pay heavy sacrifices.
Hailemariam cannot do any thing by himself. His first priority is not our demand. It should be his own survival. He is surrounded by TPLF, a gang of cold-blooded murderers who are capable of killing him in a split second. To me, the fact that Ethiopia is no longer led by an evil dictator who hated her and her people is by itself a major change. By all accounts Hailemariam is not an evil person, and he doesn’t hate Ethiopia. I heard from various people who know him closely that he is a decent man. That is a good starting point. Now it is up to us to help him transition Ethiopia to genuine democracy by weakening and defeating the enemy, TPLF. We have the power to defeat TPLF without firing a shot. Let’s do it.
If you want Hailemariam to release the political prisoners, I have this message for you: get off your butt and let’s campaign against the TPLF, not Hailemariam. Let’s boycott all business enterprises that are controlled by TPLF, such as Ethiopian Airlines (that is headed by an incompetent TPLF cadre named Tewolde Gebremariam), Wugagan Bank (owned by Sebhat Nega), Guna Trading (controlled by Azeb Mesfin) and others. For the next 3 month or so let’s also reduce the money we send to our families in Ethiopia by 20 – 30 percent. TPLF will be forced to agree to release all the political prisoners, or else they will run out of money. That is how the U.S. forced TPLF to accept Hailemariam as prime minister. There was no money in the bank after Meles Zenawi’s family and friends looted the treasury. Banks had stopped giving hard currency to importers. The economy, that is dominated by TPLF, was about to collapse. The U.S. promised them hard currency infusion if they do not block Hailemariam from becoming prime minister. They relented. We can do the same think. We can force TPLF to accept our demands.
If you are not willing to take part in such campaign, shut the hell up please.
Ethiopians had their new year on September 11. It is now 2005. On September 21, they also got a new prime minster. How delightfully