Skip to content

Ethiopia ethnic federalism

Ethiopia: They Shall Inherit the Wind

Posted on by Alemayehu G. Mariam

windThe Sandcastles and Dams of African Dictators

All dictators on the African continent have sought immortality by leaving a legacy that will outlive them and endure for the ages. But all have inherited the wind.

Kwame Nkrumah led the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence from colonialism in  1957. Nkrumaism sought to transform Ghana into a modern socialist state through state-driven industrialization. He built the Akosombo Dam on the Volta River, at the time considered the “largest single investment in the economic development plans of Ghana”. He promoted the cult of personality and was hailed as the “Messiah”, “Father of Ghana and Pan Africanism” and “Father of African nationalism”.  He crushed the unions and the opposition, jailed the judges, created a one-man, one-party state and tried to make himself “President for life”. He got the military boot in 1966. He left a bitter legacy of one-man, one-party rule which to this day serves as a model of dictatorship for all of Africa. Nkrumah died in exile and inherited the wind.

Gamal Abdel Nasser sought to create his own brand of Arab socialism and nationalism and propagated it as a secular Pan-Arab ideology. Using an extensive intelligence apparatus and an elaborate propaganda machine, he promoted a cult of personality projecting himself as the “Man of the People.”  He built the Aswan High Dam with Soviet aid. He ruled Egypt in a one-man, one-party dictatorship and crushed all dissent, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. Today the Muslim Brotherhood is in power and Nasserism is in the dustbin of history.  Nasser left a legacy of military dictatorship in Egypt and inherited the wind.

Mobutu Sese Seko proclaimed himself “Father of the Nation” of Zaire (The Democratic Republic of the Congo), and became dictator for life. He declared, “In our African tradition there are never two chiefs….That is why we Congolese, in the desire to conform to the traditions of our continent, have resolved to group all the energies of the citizens of our country under the banner of a single national party.” Mobutuism consisted of the delusional thoughts of Mobutu and his program of “Zairianization”. He promoted a cult of personality describing himself as the “the all-powerful warrior who, because of his endurance and inflexible will to win, will go from conquest to conquest leaving fire in his wake”. Mobutu built the Inga Dams over the Congo River hoping to create the largest hydroelectric facility in the world. He left a legacy of kleptocracy and inherited the wind.

Moamar Gadhafi proclaimed the “Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” and ushered the era of the state of the masses (Jamahiriya). He sought to elevate Libyan society by reducing it to a massive collection of “people’s committees”. He brutally suppressed dissent and squandered the national resources of that country. He launched the Great Man-Made River, the world’s largest irrigation project and proclaimed it the “Eighth Wonder of the World.” After four decades in power, the “Brother Leader” and author of the Green Book literally suffered the death of a sewer rat. He left a legacy of division and destruction in Libya and inherited the wind.

Idi Amin Dada, the “Butcher of Uganda” and the most notorious of all African dictators, imposed a reign of terror on the Ugandan people and sadistically displayed his tyrannical power to the international press. He pompously described himself as “His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.” He built no dams by damned the Ugandan people for 8 years until he was forced into exile. He left a legacy of death, destruction and ethnic division in Uganda and inherited the wind.

The “Great Leader”?

The late Meles Zenawi, like all African dictators, sought to make himself larger than life. He was not only Ethiopia’s savior but Africa’s as well. He sought to project himself as a “visionary leader”, “inspirational spokesman for Africa” and supreme practitioner of “revolutionary democracy.” Following his death sometime in late Summer 2012, the propaganda to deify, mythologize, exalt, immortalize and idolize him became a theatre of the absurd. Hailemariam Desalegn, Meles’ handpicked titular prime minster, in his speech to the party faithful in parliament virtually made Meles a lesser god offering blessings of “Eternal Glory to Our Great Leader.” Even the original “Great Leader” Kim Il-sung of North Korea achieved no more glory than being “The Sun of the Nation”. Desalegn promised to consummate his own divinely delegated mission with missionary zeal: “My responsibility now… is to successfully carry out the aims and ambitions of a great and notable leader… Following in the footsteps of our great leader, we will strive to maintain and develop the influential voice in regional, continental and international forums” and “successfully implement the aims and vision of our great leader. He was not just a brilliant generator of ideas: he was, par excellence, the embodiment of selflessness and self-sacrifice…”

Was Desalegn talking about Meles or the Man of Galilee?

The Vision and Legacy of the “Visionary Great Leader”

Like all African dictators before him, Meles had illusions, delusions and obsessions. He did not have a grand vision; he had illusions of grandeur. Like Mobutu before him, Meles had the illusion of building Africa’s largest dam, the so-called Grand Renaissance Dam, on the Blue Nile at a cost preliminarily estimated (unadjusted for cost overruns) at nearly USD$5 billion. Experts believe such a dam if built will “flood 1,680 square kilometers of forest in northwest Ethiopia, near the Sudan border, and create a reservoir that is nearly twice as large as Lake Tana, Ethiopia’s largest natural lake…. The current cost estimate [for the dam] equals the country’s entire annual budget…” Moreover, the dam “could cut the Nile flow into Egypt by 25% during the reservoir filling period” and substantially reduce the reservoir capacity of the Aswan High Dam. According to a document obtained by Wikileaks from the private intelligence group Stratfor, “Sudan’s president Omer Al-Bashir had agreed to build an Egyptian airbase in his country’s western region of Darfur to be used for assaults on The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) should diplomatic efforts fail to resolve the dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia over Nile water-sharing.”  A legacy of regional war and strife?

Meles did not have a growth and transformation plan; he had delusional plans of economic growth and transformation. As I have demonstrated in “The Voodoo Economics  of Meles Zenawi”, Meles “has been making hyperbolic claims of economic growth in Ethiopia based on fabricated and massaged GDP (gross domestic product) numbers, implying that the country is in a state of runaway economic development and the people’s standard of living is fast outstripping those living in the middle income countries.” When the U.S. State Department reported an average inflation rate (FY 2008-2009) of 36 percent, Meles predicted a decline in inflation to 3.9 percent in 2009/10. His Growth and Transformation Plan (or what I called “Zenawinomics”) which I reviewed in  my June  2011 commentary “The Fakeonomics of Meles Zenawi”, “is a make-a-wish list of stuff. It purports to be based on a ‘long-term vision’ of making Ethiopia ‘a country where democratic rule, good-governance and social justice reigns.’ It aims to ‘build an economy which has a modern and productive agricultural sector with enhanced technology and an industrial sector’ and ‘increase per capita income of citizens so that it reaches at the level of those in middle-income countries.’ It boasts of ‘pillar strategies’ to ‘sustain faster and equitable economic growth’, ‘maintain agriculture as a major source of economic growth,’ ‘create favorable conditions for the industry to play key role in the economy,’ ‘expand infrastructure and social development,’ ‘build capacity and deepen good governance’ and ‘promote women and youth empowerment and equitable benefit.’ Stripped of its collection of hollow economic slogans, clichés, buzzwords and catchphrases, Meles’ growth and growth and transformation plan is plain sham-o-nomics.  A legacy of inflation, economic mismanagement, crushing foreign debt and environmental destruction?

Meles had no national vision; he only had a vision of ethnic division. His warped idea of “ethnic federalism” is merely a kinder and gentler reincarnation of Apartheid in Ethiopia. For nearly two decades, Meles toiled ceaselessly to shred the very fabric of Ethiopian society, and sculpt a landscape balkanized into tribal, ethnic, linguistic and regional enclaves. He crafted a constitution based entirely on ethnicity and tribal affiliation as the basis for political organization. He wrote in Article 46 (2) of the constitution: “States shall be structured on the basis of settlement patterns, language, identity and consent of the people.” In other words, “states”, (and the people who live in them) shall be corralled like cattle in tribal homelands in much the same way as the 10 Bantustans (black homelands) of Apartheid South Africa.  These tribal homelands are officially called “kilils” (enclaves or distinct enclosed and effectively isolated geographic areas within a seemingly integrated national territory). Like the Bantustans, the Killilistans ultimately aim to create homogeneous and autonomous ethnic states in Ethiopia, effectively scrubbing out any meaningful notion of Ethiopian national citizenship. Meles’ completely fictitious theory of “ethnic (tribal) federalism)”, unknown in the annals of political science or political theory, has been used to justify and glorify these Kililistans and impose an atrocious policy of divide and rule against 90 million people. A legacy of ethnic balkanization, political  polarization, brutalization, and sectarian strife?

Under Meles, Ethiopia became the poster country for international alms and charity and crushing international debt. During his two decades plus tenure, Ethiopia has been among the largest recipients of  “economic aid”, “development aid”, “military aid”, “technical aid”, “emergency aid”, “relief aid”, “humanitarian aid” and aid against AIDS in the world. As I  argued in my commentary “Ethiopia in BondAid?”, Meles has successfully subverted international aid and loans, particularly U.S. aid, to strengthen his tyrannical rule.  A legacy of international aid addiction and beggary?

Corruption under Meles Zenawi has put Ethiopia on life-support. The World Bank recently issued a 448-page report entitled, “Diagnosing Corruption in Ethiopia” . The cancer of corruption has metastasized in the Ethiopian body politics.  The Telecommunications Sector of Ethiopia is in terminal stage:

Despite the country’s exceptionally heavy recent investment in its telecoms infrastructure, it has the second lowest telephone penetration rate in Africa. It once led the regional field in the laying of fiber-optic cable, yet suffers from severe bandwidth and reliability problems. Amid its low service delivery, an apparent lack of accountability, and multiple court cases, some aspects of the sector are perceived by both domestic and international observers to be deeply affected by corruption.

In the Construction Sector, “Ethiopia exhibits most of the classic warning signs of corruption risk, including instances of poor-quality construction, inflated unit output costs, and delays in implementation.” Corruption in the Justice Sector “takes one of two forms: (a) political interference with the independent actions of courts or other sector agencies, or (b) payment or solicitation of bribes or other considerations to alter a decision or action.” Corruption in the Land Sector is inherent in the law. “The level of corruption is influenced strongly by the way policy and legislation are formulated and enforced. For example, the capture of state assets by the elite can occur through the formulation of policy that favors the elite.” In other words, the laws are written to rig the bidding process to give Meles’ cronies, buddies and supporters a significant advantage so that they can pick up state assets at fire sale prices. A legacy of endemic corruption?

Meles’ “revolutionary democracy” as an ideology or policy guide never quite transcended the sloganeering and phrase-mongering stage, but he indulged in its rhetoric whenever he was overcome by revolutionary fervor.  In a seminal analysis of “revolutionary democracy” and arguably the “first paper to seriously examine the political programme and political philosophy of EPRDF based on a review of its major policy”, Jean-Nicolas Bach of the Institute of Political Studies (Bordeaux, France) in 2011 described “Abyotawi democracy (revolutionary democracy) [as] neither revolutionary nor democratic.” Bach argued that revolutionary democracy is a ‘‘bricolage’’ (hodgepodge) of “Leninism, Marxism, Maoism, and also liberalism” concocted by a “small group of party ideologists around Meles, and a few agencies.” As an ideology, “revolutionary democracy”  “provides justification for fusing political and economic power in the party-state run by EPRDF.” A critical “review of party pamphlets and official party/state discourses reveals the degree to which revolutionary democracy has become an ambiguous doctrine vis-a`-vis ‘liberalism’” and “remains a powerful fighting tool to exclude internal and external ‘enemies’.”  One commentator recently likened revolutionary democracy to communism and fascism.  Revolutionary democracy is responsible for delivering a 99.6 percent parliamentary victory to Meles’ party in 2010. A legacy of rigged and stolen elections and bad governance?

Melesismo: Meles’ Greatest Legacy

Meles’ singular legacy is Melesismo, a political legacy I foretold in my December 2009 commentary entitled “The Raw Machismo of Power”. Meles perfected Melesismo– the political art of  “My way, the highway, no way… or jail!” Melesismo reaffirms the ignoble principle that might makes right.

Meles’ worshippers proclaim they are marching in his footsteps with the same reverence of those who claim to walk in the footsteps of the  Man of Galilee. They ostentatiously display raw machismo invoking the divine power Meles. How little things have changed? From a legacy of the divine right of kings to a legacy of the divine rule of a lesser god!

Meles’ worshippers seek to mythologize, canonize and idolize him. But they cannot reincarnate Meles as the “Messiah”. Even the great Nelson Mandela is undeserving of “eternal glory”. He said so himself, “I am not a saint, unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying.” Neither saints nor demons deserve “eternal glory”. Meles will eventually be consigned to the dustbin of history as nothing more than another  petty African tyrant.

Meles’ greatest legacy would have been what he said his legacy would be. In 2007, Meles said his “hope is 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.”  Without radical democratic improvements by Meles’ worshippers, Meles will be remembered in history as a reactionary petty African tyrant.

Is it possible for Meleismo to hold the center after Meles? Will Melesismo survive Meles?

My friend Eskinder Nega, the personification of press freedom in Ethiopia today, who was jailed by Meles, was likely right in foretelling the inevitable implosion of the “EPDRF”. Eskinder wrote, “Scratch beyond the surface and the EPRDF is really not the monolithic dinosaur as it is most commonly stereotyped. [It has become] a coalition of four distinct phenomenon: the increasing confusion of the dominant TPLF [Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front], the acute cynicism of the ANDM [Amhara National Democratic Movement], the desperate nihilism of the OPDO [Oromo People’s Democratic Organization] and the inevitable irrelevance of the incongruent SEPM [South Ethiopian People’s Movement] (a grab bag of some 40 ethnic groups from the southern part of the country).”

Meles was a man with a mission who confused mission with vision. He has completed his mission. History will record his legacy to be human rights violation, press suppression, ethnic division, endemic corruption,  obsessive secrecy and a political culture whose lifeblood is impunity, lack of accountability and transparency. Shakespeare wrote, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones…” Scripture teaches that “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.”  Meles and his worshippers have profoundly troubled the Ethiopian house and they shall inherit the wind!

Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense lawyer.

Previous commentaries by the author are available at:

http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/

www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/

Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:

http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic

http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24

Ethiopia: Rise of the Chee-Hippo Generation

Posted on by Alemayehu G. Mariam

The Silent World of Hippos on Planet Cheetah

In my first weekly commentary of the new year, I “proclaimed” 2013 “Year of Ethiopia’s Cheetah Generation” (young people). I also promised to reach, teach and preach to Ethiopia’s youth this year and exhorted members of the Ethiopian intellectual class (particularly the privileged “professorati”) to do the same. I have also been pleading with (some say badgering) the wider Ethiopian Hippo Generation (the lost generation) to find itself, get in gear and help the youth.

The SOS I put out in June 2012 (Where have Ethiopia’s Intellectuals Gone?) and now (The Irresponsibility of the Privileged) has been unwelcomed by tone deaf and deaf mute “Hippogenarians”. My plea for standing up and with the victims of tyranny and human rights abuses has been received with stony and deafening silence. I have gathered anecdotally that some Hippos are offended by what they perceive to be my self-righteous and holier-than-thou finger wagging and audacious, “J’accuse!”.  Some have claimed that I am sitting atop my high horse crusading, pontificating, showboating, grandstanding and self-promoting.

There seems to be palpable consternation and anxiety among some (perhaps many) Hippos over the fact that I dared to betray them in a public campaign of name and shame and called unwelcome attention to their self-inflicted paralysis and faintheartedness. Some have even suggested that by using the seductively oversimplified metaphor of cheetahs and hippos, I have invented a new and dangerous division in society between the young and old in a land already fractured and fragmented by ethnic, religious and regional divisions. “Methinks they doth protest too much”, to invoke Shakespeare.

My concern and mission is to lift the veil that shrouds a pernicious culture and conspiracy of silence in the face of evil. My sole objective is to speak truth not only to power but also to those who have calculatedly chosen to disempower themselves by self-imposed silence. I unapologetically insist that silently tolerating wrong over right is dead wrong. Silently conceding the triumph of evil over good is itself evil. Silently watching atrocity is unmitigated moral depravity. Complicity with the champions of hate is partnership with haters.

The maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent” (qui tacet consentiret). Silence is complicity.  Silence for the sake of insincere and hollow social harmony (yilugnta) is tantamount to dousing water on the quiet riot that rages in the hearts and minds of the oppressed. Leonardo da Vinci said, “Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence.” I say nothing strengthens tyranny as much as silence —  the silence of the privileged, the silence of those who could speak up but choose to take a vow of silence.  One cannot speak to tyrants in the language of silence; one must speak to tyrants in the language of defiant truth. Silence must never be allowed to become the last refuge of the hypocritical scoundrel.

There have been encouraging developments over the past week in the crescendo of voices speaking truth to power. Several enlightening contributions that shed light on the life and times of tyranny in Ethiopia have been made in “Ethiopian cyber hager”, to borrow Prof. Donald Levine’s metaphor. A couple of insightful analysis readily come to mind. Muktar Omer offered a devastating critique of the bogus theory of “revolutionary democracy.” He argued convincingly  “that recent economic development in Ethiopia has more to do with the injection of foreign aid into the economy and less with revolutionary democracy sloganeering.” He demonstrated the core ideological nexus between fascism, communism and revolutionary democracy. Muktar concluded, “Intellectuals who are enamored with the ‘good intellect and intentions’ of Meles Zenawi and rationalize his appalling human rights records are guilty of either willful ignorance or disagree with Professor John Gray’s dauntingly erudite reminder: ‘radical evil can come from the pursuit of progress’”. My view is that revolutionary democracy is to democracy as ethic federalism is to federalism. Both are figments of a warped and twisted imagination.

An Amharic piece by Kinfu Asefa (managing editor of ethioforum.org) entitled “Development Thieves” made a compelling case demonstrating the futility and duplicity of the so-called “Renaissance Bond” calculated to raise billions of dollars to dam the Blue Nile. Kinfu argued persuasively that there could be no development dam when the people themselves are damned by the damned dam developers.

I am told by those much wiser than myself that I am pursuing a futile course trying to coax Hippos to renounce their vows of silence and speak up. I am told it would be easier for me to squeeze blood out of turnip than to expect broad-gauged political activism and engaged advocacy from the members of Ethiopia’s inert Hippo Generation. The wise ones tell me I should write off (and not write about) the Hippos living on Planet Cheetah. I should stop pestering them and leave them alone in their blissful world where they see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil!

Should I?

Restoring Faith With the Cheetahs

We have a problem! A big one. “We” are both Cheetahs and Hippos. Truth must be told: Hippos have broken faith with Cheetahs. Cheetahs feel betrayed by Hippos. Cheetahs feel marginalized and sidelined. Cheetahs say their loyalty and dedication has been countered by the treachery and underhandedness of Hippos. The respect and obedience Cheetahs have shown Hippos have been greeted with  disdain and effrontery. Cheetahs say Hippos have misconstrued their humility as servility; their flexibility and adaptability have been countered by rigidity and their humanity abused by cruel indignity.  Cheetahs feel double-crossed, jilted, tricked, lied to, bamboozled, used and abused by Hippos. Cheetahs say they have been demonized for questioning Hippos and for demanding accountability. For expressing themselves freely, Cheetahs have been sentenced to hard labor in silence. Cheetahs have been silenced by silent Hippos! Cheetahs have lost faith in Hippos. Such is the compendium of complaints I hear from many Ethiopian Cheetahs. Are the Cheetahs right in their perceptions and feelings? Are they justified in their accusations? Are Hippos behaving so badly?

A word or two about the youths’ loss of faith in their elders before talking about restoring faith with them.  Ethiopia’s youth live in a world where they are forced to hear every day the litany that their innate value is determined not by the content of their character, individuality or humanity but the random chance of their ethnicity. They have no personality, nationality or humanity, only ethnicity. They are no more than the expression of their ethnic identity.

To enforce this wicked ideology, Apartheid-style homelands have been created in the name of “ethnic federalism”. The youth have come to realize that their station in life is determined not by the power of their intellect but by the power of those who lack intellect. They are shown by example that how high they rise in society depends upon how low they can bring themselves on the yardstick of self-dignity and how deeply they can wallow in the sewage of the politics of identity and ethnicity. They live in a world where they are taught the things that make them different from their compatriots are more than the things they have in common with them. Against this inexorable message of dehumanization, they hear only the sound of silence from those quietly professing allegiance to freedom, democracy and human rights. To restore faith with Ethiopia’s youth, we must trade silence with the joyful noise of protest; we must unmute ourselves and stand resolute against tyranny. We must cast off the silence of quiet desperation.

But before we restore faith with the young people, we must restore faith with ourselves. In other words, we must save ourselves before we save our young people. To restore faith with ourselves, we must learn to forgive ourselves for our sins of commission and omission. We must believe in ourselves and the righteousness of our cause. Before we urge the youth to be courageous, we must first shed our own timidity and fearfulness. Before we teach young people to love each other as children of Mother Ethiopia, we must unlearn to hate each other because we belong to different ethnic groups or worship the same God with different names. To restore faith with ourselves, we must be willing to step out of our comfort zones, comfort groups, comfort communities and comfort ethnicities and muster the courage to say and do things we know are right. We should say and do things because they are right and true, and not because we seek approval or fear disapproval from anyone or group. George Orwell said, “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.”  We live in times of national deceit and must become revolutionaries by speaking  truth to abusers of power, to the powerless, to the self-disempowered and to each other.

To be fair to my fellow Hippos, they defend their silence on the grounds that speaking up will not make a difference to tyrants. They say speaking truth to tyranny is a waste of time, an exercise in futility.  Some even say that it is impossible to communicate with the tyrants in power with reasoned words because these tyrants only understand the language of crashing guns, rattling musketry and booming artillery.

I take exception to this view. I believe at the heart of the struggle for freedom, democracy and human rights in Ethiopia is an unending battle for the hearts and minds of the people. In the battlefield of hearts and minds, guns, tanks and warplanes are useless. History bears witness. The US lost the war in Vietnam not because it lacked firepower, airpower, nuclear power, financial power, scientific or technical power.  The U.S. lost the war because it lacked the power to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese and American peoples.

Words are the most potent weapon in the battle for hearts and minds. Words can enlighten the benighted, open closed eyes, sealed mouths and plugged ears. Words can awaken consciences. Words can inspire, inform, stimulate and animate. Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the greatest military leaders in history, feared words more than arms. That is why he said, “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.”  That why I insist my fellow privileged intellectuals and all who claim or aspire to be supporters of democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law to speak up and speak out and not hide behind a shield of silence. I say speak truth to tyranny. Preach faith in the divinity of humanity and against the bigotry of the politics of identity and ethnicity; champion loudly the causes of unity in diversity and practice the virtues of civility, accountability, amity and cordiality. Never stand silent in the face of atrocity, criminality, contrived ethnic animosity and the immorality of those who abuse of power.

It is necessary to restore faith with the Cheetahs. The gap between Cheetahs and Hippos is not generational. There is a trust gap, not generational gap. There is a credibility gap. There is an expectation gap, an understanding gap and a compassion gap. Many bridges need to be built to close the gaps that divide the Cheetah and Hippo Generations.

Rise of the Chee-Hippo Generation

There is a need to “invent” a new generation, the Chee-Hippo Generation. A Chee-Hippo is a hippo who thinks, behaves and acts like a Cheetah.  A Chee-Hippo is also a cheetah who understands the limitations of Hippos yet is willing to work with them in common cause for a common purpose.

Chee-Hippos are bridge builders. They build strong intergenerational bridges that connect the young with the old. They build bridges to connect people seeking democracy, freedom and human rights. They build bridges across ethnic canyons and connect people stranded on islands of homelands. They bridge the gulf of language, religion and region. They build bridges to link up the rich with the poor. They build bridges of national unity to harmonize diversity. They build bridges to connect the youth at home with the youth in the Diaspora. Chee-Hippos build social and political networks to empower youth.

Are You a Chee-Hippo or a Hippo?

You are a Chee-Hippo if you believe

young people are the future of the country and the older people are the country’s past.

the future is infinitely more important than the past.

a person’s value is determined not by the collection of degrees listed after his/her name but by the   person’s commitment and stand on the protection of the basic human rights of a fellow human being.

and practice the virtues of tolerance, civility, civic duty, cooperation, empathy, forgiveness, honesty, honor, idealism, inclusivity and openness.

You are a Chee-Hippo if you are

open-minded, flexible, and humble.

open to new ideas and ways of communicating with people across age groups, ethnic, religious, gender and linguistic lines.

unafraid to step out of your comfort zone into the zone of hard moral choices.

courageous enough to mean what you say and say what you mean instead of wasting your time  babbling in ambiguity and double-talk.

prepared to act now instead of tomorrow (eshi nege or yes, tomorrow).

prepared to blame yourself first for your own deficits before blaming the youth or others for theirs.

eager to learn new things today and unlearn the bad lessons of the past.

committed to finding opportunity than complaining about the lack of one.

able to develop attitudes and beliefs that reflect what is possible and not wallow in self-pity about what is impossible.

fully aware that the world is in constant and rapid change and by not changing you have no one to blame for the consequences except yourself.

Any Hippo can be reinvented into a Chee-Hippo. Ultimately, being a Chee-Hippo is a state of mind. One need only think, behave and act like Cheetahs. The credo of a true Chee-Hippo living on Planet Cheetah is, “We must not give only what we have; we must give what we are.”

Damn proud to be a Chee-Hippo!

Professor Alemayehu G. Mariam teaches political science at California State University, San Bernardino and is a practicing defense lawyer.

Previous commentaries by the author are available at:

http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/

www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/

Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:

http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic

http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24

 

Ethiopia: On the Road to Constitutional Democracy

Posted on by Alemayehu G. Mariam

Alemayehu G Mariam

roadOver the past few months, I have been penning occasional commentaries in a series I called  “Ethiopia’s transition from dictatorship and democracy”. In my last such commentary, I argued that “on the bridge to democracy, there is often a collision between individuals and groups doggedly pursuing power, the common people tired of those who abuse and misuse power and the dictators who want to cling to power.  The chaos that occurs on the transitional bridge from dictatorship to democracy creates the ideal conditions for the hijacking of political power, theft of democracy and the reinstitution of dictatorship in the name of democracy.” In this commentary, I focus on the need for constitutional “pre-dialogue” (preparatory conversations) in anticipation of some potential roadblocks on Ethiopia’s inexorable march to a constitutional democracy.

Roadblocks to Democracy

Most societies that have sought to make a transition from tyranny and dictatorship to democracy have faced challenging and complex roadblocks. After the Americans effectively ended Britain’s tyrannical rule in 1776, the 13 colonies experimented on their own until 1781 when they signed articles of confederation creating a loose political association and a national government. That effort failed because the states had reserved important powers over commerce, foreign trade and affairs to themselves and denied the national government the power to tax, raise an army or regulate trade.  They overcame these and other major problems when they adopted their current constitution in 1787.

More recent history shows the extraordinary difficulties countries face in transitioning from dictatorship to democracy.  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of communist regimes behind the Iron Curtain, the transition democracy has been difficult and incomplete. The wave of democratization in the Eastern Bloc countries and the former Soviet states in the 1990s lifted only a few of them into the ranks of liberal democracies with free elections, multiparty democracy, independent media and judiciary and so on. Various explanations have been offered for the stillbirth of democracy in these countries. One persuasive explanation suggests that in those countries where democracy succeeded, there were strong democratic forces with sufficient power to  impose hegemony on supporters of the moribund communist dictatorships. Dictatorships reinvented themselves and reemerged in new configurations where supporters of the previous dictatorship maintained a decisive power advantage.

The “Arab Spring” that signaled the dawn of democracy in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and other Middle Eastern countries today faces formidable challenges. In Egypt, the “interim” military government runs the transition to constitutional civilian rule. The sly military fox is guarding the henhouse of democracy in Egypt. Many Egyptians openly question whether the military is window dressing democracy to whisk Egypt back to the old Mubarak-style dictatorship with a democratic façade. The fact that Mubarak’s last prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq, is a leading candidate (and widely perceived as shoo-in) in the presidential race in mid-June lends support to the cynical view that the more things change in Egypt, the more they remain the same. But more alarming is the fact that since the onset of the revolution in Tahrir Square in January 2011, there have been more than 12,000 Egyptians arrested and many brought to trial before military courts on a variety of questionable charges. Many respected human rights organizations have been subjected to harassment and investigation for “treason” by the state security prosecutor’s office. Is Egypt skating on the slippery slope of dictatorship?

In Tunisia, the Constitutional Assembly elected last October to draft a new Constitution within one year seems to show some hopeful signs. The most encouraging sign comes from the fact that the constitutional drafters do not seems  preoccupied with time consuming divisive political issue but instead are focusing their efforts on establishing a robust constitutional structure that addresses potential abuses of power and prevent the future rise of a dictatorship. Using different “commissions”, the drafters are discussing the suitability of parliamentary or presidential systems, the structural controls needed to  maintain the balance of power in the branches of government and institutionalizing  legislative oversight of the executive branch, the need for a constitutional court, decentralization of power and other issues.

Libya’s progress on the road to democracy is not very encouraging. In August 2011, an anonymously  published “Draft Constitutional Charter for the Transitional Stage” of Libya was circulated widely. It seemed to be a cut-and-paste job festooned with the buzzwords of Western liberal democracies about the rule of law, personal freedoms of speech and religion, multiparty democracy and so on. Other drafts are also in circulation. This past March a 60-person constitution drafting committee was appointed  equally representing Libya’s three main regions. But it seems the Libyans have more urgent problems of stability and security. In the absence of an effective national army, the ragtag army of revolutionary fighters and militiamen who overthrew Gadhafi continue to clash with each other and operate in their respective areas with impunity. The silver lining in the dark constitutional cloud over Libya appears to be the existence of independent groups of Libyan lawyers, jurists, scholars, intellectuals and others hard at work preparing draft constitutions. Though such disparate efforts could contribute to the existing constitutional chaos and confusion, it could ultimately contribute to broader public awareness and participation in the constitution-making process in Libya.

Roadblocks to Constitutional Democracy in Ethiopia?

Not unlike the “Arab Spring” countries, Ethiopia will likely face the critical question of what to do with the current constitution after the fall of the ruling dictatorship. One could reasonably expect vociferous calls for the adoption of an interim constitution (assuming the military will not make a naked power grab) and establish a transitional government.  The Ethiopian Constitution was originally engineered by one-man to divide, rule and control and for one party to exert total domination. Its general application has been minimal. Its provisions are systematically and routinely ignored, avoided and overlooked by the ruling dictatorship (see reference below to the recent U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Ethiopia). There is widespread dissatisfaction about its uses, misuses and abuses by the ruling party and its iron-fisted leader; and there are compelling reasons for dissatisfaction. In 2009,the International Crises Group, a highly respected non-partisan and independent organization which gives advice on the prevention and resolution of deadly conflict to the United Nations, European Union and World Bank, pinpointed one of the most contentious issues that has caused wide dissatisfaction:

The EPRDF’s ethnic federalism has not dampened conflict, but rather increased competition among groups that vie over land and natural resources, as well as administrative boundaries and government budgets. Furthermore, ethnic federalism has failed to resolve the “national question”. The EPRDF’s ethnic policy has empowered some groups but has not been accompanied by dialogue and reconciliation. For Amhara and national elites, ethnic federalism impedes a strong, unitary nation-state. For ethno-national rebel groups like the ONLF (Ogaden National Liberation Front; Somalis in the Ogaden) and OLF (Oromo Liberation Front; the Oromo), ethnic federalism remains artificial.

Accountability for abuses of power, human rights violations and corruption are equally likely to be compelling reasons for an interim constitution. This is evident in the findings of the recently issued U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011:

Membership in the EPRDF [the ruling party] conferred advantages upon its members; the party directly owned many businesses and was broadly perceived to award jobs and business contracts to loyal supporters. The opposition reported that in many instances local authorities told its members to renounce their party membership and join the EPRDF if they wanted access to subsidized seeds and fertilizer; food relief; civil service job assignment, promotion, or retention; student university assignment and postgraduate employment; and other benefits controlled by the government… Some government officials appeared to manipulate the privatization process, and state- and party-owned businesses received preferential access to land leases and credit…

The law requires authorities to obtain judicial warrants to search private property; however, in practice police often ignored the law… The government reportedly used a widespread system of paid informants to report on the activities of particular individuals… Security forces continued to detain family members of persons sought for questioning by the government…The national government and regional governments continued to put in place “villagization” plans in the Gambella, Benishangul-Gumuz, and Somali regions… According to the [Human Rights Watch] report, security forces beat (sometimes leading to death), threatened, arrested without charge, and detained persons who were critical of planned villagization of their communities, and this caused persons to fear speaking out against the process… While the constitution and law provide for freedom of speech and press, the government did not respect these rights in practice… The government continued to arrest, harass, and prosecute journalists, publishers, and editors… Students in schools and universities were indoctrinated in the core precepts of the ruling EPDRF party’s concept of ‘revolutionary democracy’…

Learning From the Mistakes and Successes of Others: Pre-Dialogue for a Constitution-Making Process in Ethiopia

If the recent history of upheavals in North Africa offers a lesson to Ethiopia, it is the fact that it will likely necessary to establish a “caretaker government” to lead in the transitional period. Such a government could facilitate governance during the transitional period, expedite the drafting of a permanent constitution and address critical political and security issues that may arise until a democratically elected government is installed. Although one could endlessly speculate on alternative scenarios in the aftermath of the fall of dictatorship in Ethiopia (including direct military intervention, installation of  pre-arranged leaders by international interests, severe political strife, a “unity government”, etc.,), the important thing in my view is to start an informed constitutional conversation (a “pre-dialogue”) now, and not wait for  some some dramatic event to happen to begin discussion.

One of the important lessons of the “Arab Spring” is that those who led the struggle against dictatorship had failed to seriously consider the question of who should lead the constitutional review and drafting process in the transitional period. Western nations were too eager to bridge the gap by sending their  constitutional experts, specialists, scholars and tons of instructional materials on how to structure a robust democratic constitution. National stakeholders representing political parties and organizations were quickly organized as transitional governments and allowed to operate within the parameters set by the military backing them up. This approach to “democratization” has not been particularly conducive to giving voice and allowing meaningful participation by ordinary citizens, civic society and grassroots organizations. As a result, it appears the constitution-making efforts in those countries undergoing the proverbial “Spring” reflects the general desires and wishes of the elites much more than the ordinary citizens who do not have sufficient familiarity with the process or the substance of the draft constitutional provisions.

This underscores the importance of inclusiveness of all segments of society in any constitutional pre-dialogue (and dialogue) in Ethiopia and in the Ethiopian Diaspora. An elite and expert-driven dialogue which excludes or underrepresents grassroots and civil society organizations is likely to be an exercise in constitutional window-dressing. While expert and elite participation is necessary because of the technical skills required in drafting and compromises that need to be made by the major stakeholders, the debates and conflicts  between political parties, organizations and leaders should not and must not be allowed to dominate or overshadow the vital need for mass public participation in the constitutional dialogue. In the “Arab Spring”, civil society and grassroots organizations, women, the youth, and other underrepresented groups have not been adequately included in the formal dialogue and will likely not be involved in the final negotiations and drafting of a new constitution. Is it not ironic that the young Egyptians who sparked the revolution and sacrificed their lives in overthrowing Mubarak now have so little voice in the drafting of the new constitution?

There are other important lessons Ethiopians can learn from the general experience of the “Arab Spring”. Public civic education on a new constitution must be provided in the transitional period.  Ethiopian political parties, organizations, leaders, scholars, human rights advocates and others should undertake a systematic program of public education and mobilization for democratization and transition to a genuine constitutional democracy.  They must initiate and lead broad and ongoing dialogue on the current constitution, its advantages and disadvantages and present constitutional alternatives for a new and genuinely democratic Ethiopia.

Political polarization of society is a predictable outcome in a post-dictatorship period. To overcome conflict and effect a peaceful transition, competing factions must work together, which requires the development of consensus on core values. The “Arab Spring” experience shows the difficulty in developing consensus as they seem to be bogged down in all sorts of divisive issues rooted in religion, identity, ethnicity and so on.  What should be the core values of a new democratic Ethiopia? How does one transform subnational fragmentation and disintegration into national cohesion and integration?

To have a successful transition from dictatorship to constitutional democracy, Ethiopians need to practice the arts of civil discourse and negotiations. As difficult and embarrassing as it is to admit, many Ethiopian elites on all sides seem to suffer from a culture of inflexibility and zero sum gamesmanship. In other words, one has to win always, and the rest must always lose. We have seen absurd zero sum games played over the past 21 years. In May 2010, the ruling party claimed it had won 99.6 percent of the legislative seats!  In 2008, the same ruling party claimed that in the local and by-elections it had won all but four of 3.4 million contested seats! A clean break from such zero sum culture and zero sum mentality is needed. Such absurdity and rigidity is also the perfect breeding ground for the re-emergence of a new dictatorship. It must be replaced by a culture of tolerance, good will, civility and respect in national dialogue.

One of the criticism aimed at the interim and transitional governments in the “Arab Spring” countries is lack of transparency in the constitution-making process. In Egypt, it seems clear that regardless of any new constitution, the military is unlikely to give up its control to civilian supremacy and risk losing its massive economic holdings in real estate and the services sector. In a transitional period, the public is often left in the dark about the constitution drafting process process and transitional governments tend to be somewhat secretive about their activities. In Libya, political activists in major cities have held demonstrations demanding more transparency in the transitional council’s decision-making process.

The absence of transparency diminishes public confidence and increases popular cynicism. Broad citizen engagement is one of the most effective ways of maximizing transparency. Ethiopian political parties and organizations, civic and grassroots organizations, advocacy groups and the independent press could play a decisive role in promoting and maintaining transparency in the constitutional dialogue and constitution making process. They could play important roles in educating and informing the public and by monitoring official activities to safeguard against manipulation and underhandedness by those entrusted with drafting the constitution.

Kenya’s Constitutional Model for Ethiopia?

Kenya’s constitutional reform in the aftermath of the crises in the 2007-07 presidential elections has been praised by various international organizations and governments. The Kenyans formed a “national unity” government before embarking on a constitutional drafting process. Most independent commentators have noted the inclusiveness and transparency of the constitution drafting process, the extensive consultations among stakeholders, the wide availability of constitutional civic education and the high level of civic engagement. The new constitution adopted in 2010 makes significant changes by imposing constitutional limits on executive power, replacement of powerful provincial governments with smaller counties, a citizens’ Bill of Rights and a landcommission to return stolen property and review past abuses, among others. The Constitution was approved by 70 percent of the Kenyan electorate.

The Search of a Democratic Constitution and a Constitutional Democracy in Ethiopia 

The search for a democratic constitution and the goal of a constitutional democracy in Ethiopia will be a circuitous, arduous and challenging task. But it can be done! My views on the subject are pretty straightforward: A constitution is the supreme law of the land, which simply means that it is the fountainhead of all laws and all other laws in the land are subordinate to it. A constitution is fundamentally a limitation on government (not an empowerment of government). I think of it as the people’s iron chain leash on the “government dog”. The shorter the leash, the better and safter it is for the dog’s masters. A constitution is also the sword that guarantees individual liberties and human rights against abuse by those exercising power. Only when those who are entrusted with the sacred duty of governance are put on a short leash and guarded by an independent judiciary wielding the sword of accountability will there be a true constitutional democracy in Ethiopia.

Amharic translations of recent commentaries by the author may be found at:

http://www.ecadforum.com/Amharic/archives/category/al-mariam-amharic

http://ethioforum.org/?cat=24

Previous commentaries by the author are available at:

http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/

www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/

 

Missing a “Large Chunk” of Ethiopian Territory?

Posted on , Updated on by Alemayehu G. Mariam

By Alemayehu G. Mariam

When the going gets tough…

When the going gets tough, the tough go looking for distractions and diversions.

The past few weeks have been tough going for dictator Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia. Secret cables released by Wikileaks provided stunning revelations on Zenawi’s secret world. The U.S. believes Zenawi’s security forces staged a bomb explosion in 2008 and blamed an opposition group for committing terrorism. Zenawi made a thinly-veiled {www:solicitation} to the Americans to “remove the Bashir regime” in the Sudan. The Americans knew Zenawi was cooking the economic numbers to show economic development unseen anywhere in the world. They called his claims “mythic economic growth”. Torture is routinely practiced in Zenawi’s prisons; and the list of horrors goes on and on. Famine is spreading throughout Ethiopia and the Horn according to the recent U.S. Senate testimony of one high level American official. The Ethiopian economy is in shambles, according to a secret International Monetary Fund report which Zenawi has requested not be made public. Inflation is no longer galloping; it is flying high in the Ethiopian {www:stratosphere}. Bad news for Zenawi all around.

When the going gets tough, Zenawi always finds something to distract the people’s attention and show that he is still in total control. Last week, he paraded out two Swedish journalists and charged them with terrorism. He also arrested dozens of imaginary opponents. To put icing on the cake, he even jailed Debebe Eshetu (first jailed after the 2005 elections), one of the greatest and much-loved Ethiopian stage and screen actors of all time. Nice try but…

What happened to a “large chunk” of Ethiopian territory” in 2008?

Some of my readers may recall that in July 2008 I gave a long speech challenging Zenawi’s factual basis and the legality of the secret giveaway of Ethiopian land to the Sudan. I argued: “Zenawi’s defiant refusal to be {www:transparent} and open in making public an ‘Agreement’ (treaty) that gives away a large chunk of Ethiopian territory to another country is a {www:monumental} breach of constitutional duty for which he should be held accountable.”

Wikileaks now provides confirmation to the widely-held belief that Zenawi had secretly handed over Ethiopian land to the Sudan. According to highly placed sources briefing American officials, in a move to deal with “on-going tensions between Ethiopia and Sudan”, Zenawi had turned over land to the Sudan “which has cost the Amhara region a large chunk of territory” and tried to “sweep the issue under the rug.”

This revelation is solid confirmation of the slow and {www:methodical} dismemberment of Ethiopia. First, the Port of Assab was given away in the mid-1990s; Ethiopia became a landlocked nation.  In 1998, Badme in northern Ethiopia was invaded; and after 80,000 Ethiopians sacrificed their lives and repelled the invaders, Zenawi delivered Badme to the same invaders in international arbitration.  In the last several years, Indian, Middle Eastern and other “investors” have been handed free land without even asking for it. Then there is the insidious “ethnic federalism” which has created the equivalent of Bantustans (ethnic homelands) for the Ethiopian people.

What really happened in Western Ethiopia in May, 2008?

On May 11, 2008, Zenawi issued a statement which categorically denied the transfer of any Ethiopian land to the Sudan. That statement accused the “media” and “irresponsible” elements outside the country for creating fear and alarm over something that did not happen. When Sudanese officials publicly announced acquisition of territory from Ethiopia in mid-May, Zenawi’s officials started backpedalling on the initial story. They said only preliminary work on border demarcation had been done, but nothing had been finalized. Within days, they changed the story once more and announced that they were merely “implementing prior agreements” concluded by the imperial/Derg regimes with the Sudan.

As the Ethio-Sudan Border Affairs Committee began to aggressively investigate what was really happening on the ground in the western border areas, Ethiopians victimized by land giveaway began giving interviews to the Voice of America and other international media outlets. They complained bitterly that they had been driven out of their ancestral lands by occupying Sudanese forces. Their farm machinery and tools had been confiscated and scores of Ethiopians had been arrested and detained in Sudanese jails. The victims also reported that they were attacked by helicopter gunships of Zenawi’s regime for defending their homes, farms and towns. At that point, Zenawi had no choice but to “fess” up; and on May 21, Zenawi publicly described his agreement with al-Bashir of the Sudan:

We, Ethiopia and Sudan, have signed an agreement not to displace any single individual from both sides to whom the demarcation benefits… We have given back this land, which was occupied in 1996. This land before 1996 belonged to Sudanese farmers. There is no single individual displaced at the border as it is being reported by some media.

Zenawi insisted on keeping the actual agreement secret, but his public statement provided important clues on the basic terms and nature of the secret agreement. Zenawi’s statement provided solid confirmation of the existence of an actual “Agreement” that has been “signed” either by Zenawi or someone authorized by him. While the detailed terms and conditions of the land giveaway remained secret,  Zenawi put on the record the nature of the subject matter in the Agreement which included: 1) the question of non-displacement of persons in the giveaway territories, 2) the preservation of benefits of all persons affected by border {www:demarcation}, 3) restoration of land rights to Sudanese farmers on land supposedly occupied illegally by Ethiopian farmers, and 4) cession of lands (“give back of land”) “occupied” by Ethiopia “in 1996” back to the Sudan.

It is important to underscore the fact that “The Agreement” Zenawi “signed” with al-Bashir, by his own description, has nothing to do with the so-called Gwen line (setting the “frontier between Ethiopia and Sudan”) of 1902. It also has nothing to do with any other agreements drafted or concluded by the imperial government prior to 1974, or the Derg between 1975 and 1991 for border demarcation or settlement. Zenawi’s agreement, by his own public statement, deals exclusively with border matters and related issues beginning in 1996, when presumably the alleged occupation of Sudanese land took place under his watch.

Where is the Agreement?

Why has Zenawi kept the actual text of “The Agreement” secret from the public and the “Council of Representatives” in violation of Art. 55 (12) of the Ethiopian Constitution?  Zenawi as a “public official” has an affirmative constitutional duty to perform his official responsibilities in an open and transparent manner. This duty is unambiguously mandated under Article 12 of the Ethiopian Constitution which provides, “The activities of government shall be undertaken in a manner which is open and transparent to the public… Any public official or elected representative shall be made accountable for breach of his official duties.” Article 12 applies to ALL “activities of government” and to ALL government officials. It makes no exceptions for secret deals by “prime ministers”. Transparency and openness in government is a mandatory constitutional duty of ALL public officials, not an optional or discretionary one. The refusal to make public an agreement that gives away a large chunk of Ethiopian territory to another country is a monumental breach and evasion of constitutional duty.

There is one question that needs to be answered now that the world knows the truth: Why does  Zenawi keep secret and refuse to make public an Agreement that gave a “large chunk” of Ethiopian territory to the Sudan?

Previous commentaries by the author are available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ and http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/