A worldwide boycott of Chinese products may need to be organized to let China know that it needs to stop helping brutal dictators in the third world silence independent media. The following is a press release from ESAT.
ESAT accuses China of complicity in jamming signals
The Ethiopian Satellite Television (ESAT), which resumed transmissions to Ethiopia last week after nearly two months of interruption, has urged the government of the People’s Republic of China to desist from providing technology, training and technical assistance to the regime in Ethiopia to enable it to jam shortwave radio and satellite transmissions to Ethiopia.
The Meles regime is currently blocking independent news websites and jamming the Amharic services of the Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, and the Ethiopian Satellite Television, among others, with the help of technology and technical assistance provided by the Chinese government.
Since its launch in April 2010, ESAT has faced intense and persistent signal interference that has disrupted its transmissions six times in its short span of life. ESAT’s management has investigated the matter thoroughly and confirmed from reliable sources inside Ethiopia that the government of China has been actively working with the Meles regime to jam ESAT’s transmissions.
Mr. Kilfe Mulat, the exiled President of the Ethiopian Free Press Journalists Association (EFPJA), has said that China’s complicity in stifling freedom of expression and undermining efforts to spread democratic values in Ethiopia is shameful and sets a bad precedence in the whole of Africa. “Ethiopia is not only the seat of the AU but also a historic symbol of freedom in Africa as the only African nation that has never been colonized. Aiding tyrants to stifle their people and block the free flow of information is tantamount to committing unwarranted crimes against the freedom-loving people of Africa that are making sacrifices to exercise their inalienable rights and free themselves from corrupt tyrants that are hampering progress in the continent.”
The President of EFPJA also urged organizations and nations promoting freedom and democracy to provide resources and support to the Ethiopian Satellite Television to overcome the China-backed jamming challenge that has seriously threatened the survival of ESAT, a grassroots media project totally funded by the Ethiopian Diaspora.
Mr. Mulat further noted that the government of China must realize the fact that collaborating with African tyrants and exporting tools of repressions to countries like Ethiopia is an inexcusable act that will further tarnish the image of China as a sponsor of tyranny and oppression.
ESAT, which was set up by a group of Ethiopian exiled journalists and pro-democracy activists to fend off Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s war against every avenue of freedom, has been facing attacks and interference by the Meles regime.
“In addition to building Internet firewalls for the regime, China has emerged as one of the most formidable enemies of freedom in Ethiopia and the entire continent of Africa. China should realize the fact that the Meles regime is violating its own constitution that guarantees freedom of expression to citizens. By assisting the Meles regime in jamming ESAT and other reputable broadcasters illegally, China can only earn the condemnation of freedom-loving Ethiopians who do not wish to see their liberty trampled upon by internal and external powers,” ESAT’s management said.
Article 29 of the current Ethiopian constitution stipulates: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression without any interference. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any media of his choice.” But the Meles regime is widely known for violating basic rights with impunity.
ESAT has been forced to change satellite service providers at least four times in the last one year. It started broadcasting its programs to Ethiopia on Arabsat but was forced off air due to intense signal interference and diplomatic pressure. Similarly, an effort to continue broadcasting on Thaicon was interrupted after a few months, once again, due to intense diplomatic pressure. But ESAT’s tenacious management team continued transmissions on Intelsat, an American satellite company. While a diplomatic effort to disrupt ESAT transmissions failed, the Meles regime managed to jam ESAT’s signals using the jamming equipment provided by the Chinese government.
ESAT, the first independent TV station viewed by millions of Ethiopians, has reiterated its commitment to making every effort to continue its transmissions and find ways of overcoming the Sino-Ethiopia jamming and censorship project.
ESAT, which has studios in Amsterdam, Washington DC and London, is currently transmitting 24/7 on ABS1 Satellite, C-Band at 75 East Downlink: 3.480 GHz Vertical (3480), Symbol: 1.852 Msps (1852), FEC 2/3. It has plans to transmit on a Ku-Band and shortwave radio with a view to reaching wider audience in Ethiopia. ESAT also webcasts its transmissions on www.ethsat.com.
———–
For further information on ESAT or this press release contact:
Abebe Gellaw, Washington DC, email: [email protected] , tel. +1 650 387 4940
Kinfu Asefa, Amsterdam, email: [email protected] , tel. +31 652006062
Abiye Teklemariam Megenta
Professor Messay Kebede’s challenging essay, “The fallacy of TPLF’s developmental state,” makes a lot of fresh arguments and suggestions. Some of them are deeply unsettling to many of us who consider ourselves to be part of a pro-democracy struggle in Ethiopia. To the extent that we believe Messay himself is a member of our community — a towering intellectual figure at that — it is hard to escape a sense of deep {www:disenchantment} with what appears to be his abandonment of our deepest convictions. But that is not a good enough reason to react negatively towards the article. I agree with American political philosopher Michael Walzer that the internal critics, the {www:incrementalist}s and foot-draggers, the prophets that are honoured in their own city, are better in achieving the goals of their criticism than the external hammer-on-the-skull critics. But the axe and the furious witnessing (to use Kafka’s phrase) are needed if communities are not to stagnate beyond {www:reprieve}, as ours seems to be heading towards. It is refreshing to see that Messay is willing to stick his neck out in service of reason and progress. But alas, most of his arguments, at least the arguments which matter, are far from persuasive.
The main point in Messay’s article is that it is not beyond Meles Zenawi to establish a developmental state provided that the present political structure is reformed in such a way that leaves, at least for some time, the ruling elite in power, but does not exclude the opposition from participating in the act of governing. This is an authoritarian scheme, insofar as its grounding is elite agreement, not voter choice. But Messay takes a hopeful, if not an overconfident, view that democratization is possible under the {www:tutelage} of these power sharing authoritarian elites.
The relevant literature in political science and political economy shows that this overconfidence is misplaced. There are diverse explanations of the democratization process, and Messay is on point to claim that elite-conceded or – to a lesser degree – elite-imposed democracy are not implausible. But there are few places where these democratization processes have started with power-sharing arrangements among competing political parties. As Harvard Political Scientist Pippa Norris argues, there is little evidence that power sharing “serves the long-term interests of democratic consolidation and durable conflict management”. As it turns out, the bulk of literature points to an opposite conclusion: that power sharing arrangements in full-scale authoritarian systems unravel quite quickly since the currency of trust and strength of agreement-enforcing political institutions on which the effectiveness of these arrangements rely are very low, or even worse, they lead to exclusionary bargaining systems and political culture that frustrate the emergence of democracy. It is good to note that in the very few cases where power sharing schemes have positive democratization effects, including some of the examples mentioned by Messay, the authoritarian states happened to have strong selectorate accountability, or they were less than full-scale authoritarianisms. In a simple language: the more the scale of authoritarianism, the less the actual democratization effect of power sharing arrangements. If what Messay says about the nature of Meles Zenawi’s rule is true, it makes his idea hopelessly mistimed.
It seems to me that what prompts Messay to consider this path to democratization is his enthusiasm for the developmental state. In a way, his aim is to kill two birds with one stone. But accepting elite authoritarian tutelage would not have been necessary had Messay been less dismissive of the concept of a democratic developmental state. Messay insists, plausibly enough, that the concept ignores the “defining characteristics of Asian Developmental States”. But that is not a good reason to reject altogether its realizability. Indeed, the histories of post-war Germany, Botswana, South Africa and many other countries suggest that a developmental state can be democratic. I do not know the “serious literature” on this issue to which Messay refers, but my understanding is that a good many developmental scholars agree that such states are possible, in both an ideal and non-ideal sense. If such agreement exists for political reasons as Messay contends – which I think is an implausibly strong claim – he fails to offer any evidence.
Also, Messay makes two rather common errors – both of the conflating sort – when he constructs his argument. First, he takes it for granted that neo-liberalism = liberalism. I think it is fair to say that this is a troublesome position. Philosopher John Holbo rightly calls the general tendency to conflate the two as “strawman-ing liberalism”. Some of the most vociferous critics of neo-liberalism – an economic philosophy that is best represented by the ”Washington consensus” – including Joseph Stiglitz, Meles Zenawi’s unabashed champion, are self-proclaimed liberals. The dominant thought in liberalism qua philosophy (to which such egalitarian stalwarts as Ronald Dworkin, Richard Arneson and John Rawls belong) doesn’t {www:prima facie} reject a developmental role for the state since the {www:underpinning}s of this thought are not property rights. Second, Messay seems to think that democracies are ipso facto liberal. I am sympathetic to the view that no democracy can be illiberal. This is not, however, similar to saying that no democracy can be non-liberal. Certainly, in Messay’s exalted field (political philosophy) there is a rich scholarly work on normative non-liberal democratic theories. The institutional implications of these theories have also been a subject of serious discussion by political scientists. It is not my aim to nitpick Messay for trivial purposes. It is to show that once one escapes such confusions, one can imagine the possibility of a democratic developmental state, and, dare I say, a liberal democratic developmental state.
Messay has much else to say, not least in his kicking of opposition parties in the shin for failing to grasp that Meles Zenawi had no intention to “go back to the situation of 2005”. This is an odd claim. My impression before the 2010 election was that if there was any single point that Ethiopian opposition groups agreed on, it was that Ethiopia was backsliding towards absolute authoritarianism. Am I missing something here? Some believed that their only way of connecting to Ethiopians was to use whatever political space the system provided them; some decided that this was a naïve view and chose a different path; there was a minority who continued to participate in the process with the hope that Meles Zenawi would come to see the follies of his ways. If members of this latter group committed any offence, it is in their anti-determinism, a view with which Professor Messay openly associates. I do not see how a person who advises Meles to make concessions can hold it against the opposition for acting on a similar belief unless the advice is intended to be no more than gestural.
I believe that Messay’s attempt to reflect on the matter of development and democracy in a decently {www:nuanced} manner is commendable. The Ethiopian opposition seems unwilling to give up the tiresome but emphatically false argument that democracy is a precondition for economic development. Democracy needs a better and a more convincing defence than one that tastes as a picked cherry or is based on {www:dogmatic} assertions that fly in the face of well-grounded knowledge. I can’t emphasise enough how emancipatory Messay’s article is. But its emancipatory value is in the freshness of its approach, not the force of its reason.
(The writer can be reached at [email protected])
U.S. Department of State is financing efforts by activists to {www:circumvent} Internet blockade by dictators such as Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, according to a New York Times report:
By JAMES GLANZ and JOHN MARKOFF | The New York Times
The Obama administration is leading a global effort to deploy “shadow” Internet and mobile phone systems that dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by censoring or shutting down telecommunications networks.
The effort includes secretive projects to create independent cellphone networks inside foreign countries, as well as one operation out of a spy novel in a fifth-floor shop on L Street in Washington, where a group of young entrepreneurs who look as if they could be in a garage band are fitting deceptively innocent-looking hardware into a {www:prototype} “Internet in a suitcase.”
Financed with a $2 million State Department grant, the suitcase could be secreted across a border and quickly set up to allow wireless communication over a wide area with a link to the global Internet.
The American effort, revealed in dozens of interviews, planning documents and classified diplomatic cables obtained by The New York Times, ranges in scale, cost and sophistication.
Some projects involve technology that the United States is developing; others pull together tools that have already been created by hackers in a so-called liberation-technology movement sweeping the globe.
The State Department, for example, is financing the creation of {www:stealth} wireless networks that would enable activists to communicate outside the reach of governments in countries like Iran, Syria and Libya, according to participants in the projects.
In one of the most ambitious efforts, United States officials say, the State Department and Pentagon have spent at least $50 million to create an independent cellphone network in Afghanistan using towers on protected military bases inside the country. It is intended to offset the Taliban’s ability to shut down the official Afghan services, seemingly at will.
The effort has picked up momentum since the government of President Hosni Mubarak shut down the Egyptian Internet in the last days of his rule. In recent days, the Syrian government also temporarily disabled much of that country’s Internet, which had helped protesters mobilize.
The Obama administration’s initiative is in one sense a new front in a longstanding diplomatic push to defend free speech and nurture democracy. For decades, the United States has sent radio broadcasts into autocratic countries through Voice of America and other means. More recently, Washington has supported the development of software that preserves the anonymity of users in places like China, and training for citizens who want to pass information along the government-owned Internet without getting caught.
But the latest initiative depends on creating entirely separate pathways for communication. It has brought together an {www:improbable} alliance of diplomats and military engineers, young programmers and dissidents from at least a dozen countries, many of whom variously describe the new approach as more audacious and clever and, yes, cooler.
Sometimes the State Department is simply taking advantage of enterprising dissidents who have found ways to get around government censorship. American diplomats are meeting with operatives who have been burying Chinese cellphones in the hills near the border with North Korea, where they can be dug up and used to make furtive calls, according to interviews and the diplomatic cables.
The new initiatives have found a champion in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose department is spearheading the American effort. “We see more and more people around the globe using the Internet, mobile phones and other technologies to make their voices heard as they protest against injustice and seek to realize their aspirations,” Mrs. Clinton said in an e-mail response to a query on the topic. “There is a historic opportunity to effect positive change, change America supports,” she said. “So we’re focused on helping them do that, on helping them talk to each other, to their communities, to their governments and to the world.”
Developers caution that independent networks come with downsides: repressive governments could use surveillance to pinpoint and arrest activists who use the technology or simply catch them bringing hardware across the border. But others believe that the risks are outweighed by the potential impact. “We’re going to build a separate infrastructure where the technology is nearly impossible to shut down, to control, to surveil,” said Sascha Meinrath, who is leading the “Internet in a suitcase” project as director of the Open Technology Initiative at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan research group.
“The implication is that this disempowers central authorities from infringing on people’s fundamental human right to communicate,” Mr. Meinrath added.
The Invisible Web
In an anonymous office building on L Street in Washington, four unlikely State Department contractors sat around a table. Josh King, sporting multiple ear piercings and a studded leather wristband, taught himself programming while working as a barista. Thomas Gideon was an accomplished hacker. Dan Meredith, a bicycle polo enthusiast, helped companies protect their digital secrets.
Then there was Mr. Meinrath, wearing a tie as the dean of the group at age 37. He has a master’s degree in psychology and helped set up wireless networks in underserved communities in Detroit and Philadelphia.
The group’s suitcase project will rely on a version of “mesh network” technology, which can transform devices like cellphones or personal computers to create an invisible wireless web without a centralized hub. In other words, a voice, picture or e-mail message could hop directly between the modified wireless devices — each one acting as a mini cell “tower” and phone — and bypass the official network.
Mr. Meinrath said that the suitcase would include small wireless antennas, which could increase the area of coverage; a laptop to administer the system; thumb drives and CDs to spread the software to more devices and encrypt the communications; and other components like Ethernet cables.
The project will also rely on the innovations of independent Internet and telecommunications developers.
“The cool thing in this political context is that you cannot easily control it,” said Aaron Kaplan, an Austrian cybersecurity expert whose work will be used in the suitcase project. Mr. Kaplan has set up a functioning mesh network in Vienna and says related systems have operated in Venezuela, Indonesia and elsewhere.
Mr. Meinrath said his team was focused on fitting the system into the bland-looking suitcase and making it simple to implement — by, say, using “pictograms” in the how-to manual.
In addition to the Obama administration’s initiatives, there are almost a dozen independent ventures that also aim to make it possible for unskilled users to employ existing devices like laptops or smartphones to build a wireless network. One mesh network was created around Jalalabad, Afghanistan, as early as five years ago, using technology developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Creating simple lines of communication outside official ones is crucial, said Collin Anderson, a 26-year-old liberation-technology researcher from North Dakota who specializes in Iran, where the government all but shut down the Internet during protests in 2009. The slowdown made most “circumvention” technologies — the software legerdemain that helps dissidents sneak data along the state-controlled networks — nearly useless, he said.
“No matter how much circumvention the protesters use, if the government slows the network down to a crawl, you can’t upload YouTube videos or Facebook postings,” Mr. Anderson said. “They need alternative ways of sharing information or alternative ways of getting it out of the country.”
That need is so urgent, citizens are finding their own ways to set up rudimentary networks. Mehdi Yahyanejad, an Iranian expatriate and technology developer who co-founded a popular Persian-language Web site, estimates that nearly half the people who visit the site from inside Iran share files using Bluetooth — which is best known in the West for running wireless headsets and the like. In more closed societies, however, Bluetooth is used to discreetly beam information — a video, an electronic business card — directly from one cellphone to another.
Mr. Yahyanejad said he and his research colleagues were also slated to receive State Department financing for a project that would modify Bluetooth so that a file containing, say, a video of a protester being beaten, could automatically jump from phone to phone within a “trusted network” of citizens. The system would be more limited than the suitcase but would only require the software modification on ordinary phones.
By the end of 2011, the State Department will have spent some $70 million on circumvention efforts and related technologies, according to department figures.
Mrs. Clinton has made Internet freedom into a signature cause. But the State Department has carefully framed its support as promoting free speech and human rights for their own sake, not as a policy aimed at destabilizing autocratic governments.
That distinction is difficult to maintain, said Clay Shirky, an assistant professor at New York University who studies the Internet and social media. “You can’t say, ‘All we want is for people to speak their minds, not bring down autocratic regimes’ — they’re the same thing,” Mr. Shirky said.
He added that the United States could expose itself to charges of hypocrisy if the State Department maintained its support, tacit or otherwise, for autocratic governments running countries like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain while deploying technology that was likely to undermine them.
Shadow Cellphone System
In February 2009, Richard C. Holbrooke and Lt. Gen. John R. Allen were taking a helicopter tour over southern Afghanistan and getting a panoramic view of the cellphone towers dotting the remote countryside, according to two officials on the flight. By then, millions of Afghans were using cellphones, compared with a few thousand after the 2001 invasion. Towers built by private companies had sprung up across the country. The United States had promoted the network as a way to cultivate good will and encourage local businesses in a country that in other ways looked as if it had not changed much in centuries.
There was just one problem, General Allen told Mr. Holbrooke, who only weeks before had been appointed special envoy to the region. With a combination of threats to phone company officials and attacks on the towers, the Taliban was able to shut down the main network in the countryside virtually at will. Local residents report that the networks are often out from 6 p.m. until 6 a.m., presumably to enable the Taliban to carry out operations without being reported to security forces.
The Pentagon and State Department were soon collaborating on the project to build a “shadow” cellphone system in a country where repressive forces exert control over the official network.
Details of the network, which the military named the Palisades project, are scarce, but current and former military and civilian officials said it relied in part on cell towers placed on protected American bases. A large tower on the Kandahar air base serves as a base station or data collection point for the network, officials said.
A senior United States official said the towers were close to being up and running in the south and described the effort as a kind of 911 system that would be available to anyone with a cellphone.
By shutting down cellphone service, the Taliban had found a potent strategic tool in its asymmetric battle with American and Afghan security forces.
The United States is widely understood to use cellphone networks in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries for intelligence gathering. And the ability to silence the network was also a powerful reminder to the local populace that the Taliban retained control over some of the most vital organs of the nation.
When asked about the system, Lt. Col. John Dorrian, a spokesman for the American-led International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, would only confirm the existence of a project to create what he called an “expeditionary cellular communication service” in Afghanistan. He said the project was being carried out in collaboration with the Afghan government in order to “restore 24/7 cellular access.”
“As of yet the program is not fully operational, so it would be premature to go into details,” Colonel Dorrian said.
Colonel Dorrian declined to release cost figures. Estimates by United States military and civilian officials ranged widely, from $50 million to $250 million. A senior official said that Afghan officials, who anticipate taking over American bases when troops pull out, have insisted on an elaborate system. “The Afghans wanted the Cadillac plan, which is pretty expensive,” the official said.
Broad Subversive Effort
In May 2009, a North Korean defector named Kim met with officials at the American Consulate in Shenyang, a Chinese city about 120 miles from North Korea, according to a diplomatic cable. Officials wanted to know how Mr. Kim, who was active in smuggling others out of the country, communicated across the border. “Kim would not go into much detail,” the cable says, but did mention the burying of Chinese cellphones “on hillsides for people to dig up at night.” Mr. Kim said Dandong, China, and the surrounding Jilin Province “were natural gathering points for cross-border cellphone communication and for meeting sources.” The cellphones are able to pick up signals from towers in China, said Libby Liu, head of Radio Free Asia, the United States-financed broadcaster, who confirmed their existence and said her organization uses the calls to collect information for broadcasts as well.
The effort, in what is perhaps the world’s most closed nation, suggests just how many independent actors are involved in the subversive efforts. From the activist geeks on L Street in Washington to the military engineers in Afghanistan, the global appeal of the technology hints at the craving for open communication.
In a chat with a Times reporter via Facebook, Malik Ibrahim Sahad, the son of Libyan dissidents who largely grew up in suburban Virginia, said he was tapping into the Internet using a commercial satellite connection in Benghazi. “Internet is in dire need here. The people are cut off in that respect,” wrote Mr. Sahad, who had never been to Libya before the uprising and is now working in support of rebel authorities. Even so, he said, “I don’t think this revolution could have taken place without the existence of the World Wide Web.”
(Reporting was contributed by Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Andrew W. Lehren from New York, and Alissa J. Rubin and Sangar Rahimi from Kabul, Afghanistan.)
Alemayehu G. Mariam
George Ayittey, the distinguished Ghanaian economist, and arguably one of the “Top 100 Public Intellectuals” (a person of ideas who stands for things far larger than one’s academic discipline) worldwide who “are shaping the tenor of our time” has been at war with Africa’s tin pot dictators and their lackeys for at least two decades. In 1996, he told African intellectuals exactly what he thought of them: “Hordes of politicians, lecturers, professionals, lawyers, and doctors sell themselves off into prostitution and voluntary bondage to serve the dictates of military vagabonds with half their intelligence. And time and time again, after being raped, abused, and defiled, they are tossed out like rubbish — or worse. Yet more intellectual prostitutes stampede to take their places…”
No one tells the truth about Africa’s dictators or their Western sugar daddies better than Ayittey. Recently, he was in Oslo at the World Freedom Forum skewering African dictators and mapping out battle plans. He reminded his audience:
In the 1960s, we got rid of the white colonialists, but we did not dissemble the oppressive colonial state. We removed the white colonialist and replaced him by black neocolonialists, Swiss bank socialists, crocodile liberators, quack revolutionaries and briefcase bandits. Africans will tell you, we remove one cockroach and the next rat comes to do the same exact thing.
Africa’s “briefcase bandits” run full-fledged criminal enterprises. Sani Abacha of Nigeria amassed $5 billion, and the Swiss Supreme Court in 2005 declared the Abacha family a “criminal enterprise”. Omar al-Bashir of the Sudan has stashed away $7 billion while Hosni Mubarak is reputed to have piled a fortune of $40 billion. In comparison, Ayittey says, “The net worth of 43 U.S. presidents from Washington to Obama amounts to 2.5 billion.”
How Do You Fight and Win Against African Dictators?
Ayittey’s “law” of African dictatorship says African dictators cannot be defeated through “rah-rah street demonstrations alone.” To purge Africa from the scourge of dictatorships, Ayittey says three things are required:
First, it takes a coalition to organize and coordinate the activities of the various opposition groups. It is imperative that you have a small group of people– call them an elders’ council to coordinate the activities– [composed] of eminent and respectable personalities who have no political baggage. They must be able to reach out to all the opposition groups. We formed one in Ghana called the Alliance for Change… Second, you got to know the enemy, his modus operandi, his strengths and weaknesses… You find his weaknesses and exploit it…. All dictators [operate] by seiz[ing] the civil service, media, judiciary, security forces, election commission and control the bank. They pack these institutions with their cronies and subvert them to serve their interests. For a revolution to succeed, you have to wrest control of one of more of these institutions. Third, you have to get the sequence of reform correct…
Last year, there were ten elections in Africa. The dictators won all ten… Why? Because the opposition was divided. In Ethiopia, for example, there were 92 political parties running to challenge the dictator Meles Zenawi… It shouldn’t be this way. The council should bring all of the opposition into an alliance…
What Can Ethiopians Learn from Ayittey?
Is Ayittey right in his assertion that “dictator Meles Zenawi” keeps winning “elections” because the opposition is divided? Why is there not a “coalition to organize and coordinate the activities of the various Ethiopian opposition groups”? Is it possible to set up an “Ethiopian Alliance for Change”? What are the weaknesses of the dictator? These are questions that need to be discussed and debated by Ethiopians in Ethiopia and in the Diaspora.
Looking Through the Dictators’ Lenses
Ayittey is absolutely right in his prescriptions on how to remove dictators. In understanding the modus operandi of African dictators, one must necessarily go beyond an examination of the dictators’ actions, decision-making processes and command-and-control relationships and try to see the world through the dictators’ lenses. I believe it is equally important to have a sophisticated understanding of the mindset of African dictators, the motivations that drive them to commit unimaginable acts of cruelty, the perverted logic of their thought processes and why they cling to power when they are totally rejected by the people.
Analysis of the psychodynamics (mental, emotional, or motivational forces especially at the unconscious levels) of African dictators shows some act out of hate and others from greed and the need to dominate. Still others act from painful early childhood impressions which “tend to coalesce into a natural view of the world”. They spend the rest of their lives trying to get even against those who may have slighted them. All of Africa’s dictators are sociopaths. They have no empathy (no emotional capacity for the suffering of others) towards others. They are devoid of ethical and moral standards. For them it is normal to lie, steal, cheat, kill, torture and violate the rights of others. It is vitally important to have a clear and objective understanding of the mindset of African dictators to anticipate their likely responses in a variety of situations and their tactical adaptations to actions taken against them by their pro-democracy opponents.
My view is that “if you have seen one African dictator, you have seen them all”. African dictators manifest three basic traits: 1) denial of reality, 2) narcissism and 3) paranoia (fear). African dictators have difficulty accepting reality, that is, the world as it objectively manifests itself. They see only what they want to see; and to avoid what they don’t want to see, they manufacture their own convenient world of illusions out of the whole cloth of their personal beliefs, opinions and fantasies. When they win elections, they win by 99.6 percent. When unemployment and inflation are skyrocketing, they see annual economic growth of 15 percent. When people are starving, they see “pockets of severe malnutrition”. As they continue to abuse power without any legal restraints and convince themselves that they are above the law and accountable to no one but themselves, they transform their world of illusion into a world of delusion where they become both the “lone rangers” of the old American West and the sole custodians of the Holy Grail, with miraculous powers to save their nation.
African dictators are narcissistic. They believe they are the center of the universe and everything revolves around them. Because they are narcissistic, they are limited in their thinking, selective in their views, narrow in their vision, intolerant of dissent, solicitous of praise and adulation often surrounding themselves with yes-men, distrustful of everyone (except those in the small close group of people who feed them only the information they want to hear). They remain rigid and inflexible and their approach and attitude towards their opposition is never to compromise or negotiate. At best, they see their opposition as wayward children who need constant supervision, discipline and punishment to keep them in line. Their mantra is: “It’s my way which is the only way, or the highway, ain’t no way or you-are-on-your-way-to-jail!” To their way of thinking, conciliation and reconciliation with their opposition is humiliation, and a deep wound on their pride.
African dictators rule by fear, yet they and their henchmen and cronies live in a state of fear. It is true that those who are feared by the people in turn fear the people who fear them. They are afraid of their own shadows. They are afraid of criticism, and most of all they are afraid of the truth. They interact only with those in their inner circle (the “state within the state”, the “knights of the roundtable”). They often find out that their trusted and loyal lackeys have little real understanding of the outside world or the complex domestic issues and problems. Even when there are a few in the inner circle who might have some sophisticated understanding, they are often afraid to tell the dictators the truth.
Coalition Against African Dictatorships
Unless pro-democracy elements understand the psychodynamics of African dictators, they will likely remain on the defensive and inherently reactive mode. The fact of the matter is that African dictators study and know their opposition better than the opposition knows itself. They know how their opponents think, at what price they can be bought and sold and that many of them would rather join them to rip off the people than fight them. As Ayittey observed, they know even Africa’s best and brightest can be bought and sold like those in the world’s oldest profession. African dictators are always making psychological assessments of their opposition. They know what to do to exploit the smallest disagreements among their opposition. They know the leadership of their opposition is fixated on strategies that will bring quick results and avoid tactics that will work but take longer time to produce results. They know their opposition cannot prevail because they do not have the youth on their side, or have the willingness, readiness and capacity to mobilize and engage the youth. African dictators know the meaning of the statement made by their patron saint: “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.”
Know Thyself, Not Just the Dictators
To defeat African dictators, pro-democracy forces must do a great deal of self-introspection. Why do many in the African opposition do things that will help dictators become stronger? Opposition infighting is the greatest source of strength to African dictators. Why can’t opposition leaders get along with each other if they are irrevocably committed to the causes of freedom, democracy and human rights? Often opposition leaders can’t see the forest for the trees. Why don’t opposition leaders actively work to build trust, cooperation and camaraderie across party, ideological, ethnic, religious lines? Perhaps a code of conduct for opposition groups is needed to promote a culture of truth-telling, fair and ethical dealing, tolerance and loyalty to principles and causes than individuals regardless of their leadership role.
A couple of years ago, I wrote a commentary complaining about the disarray in the Ethiopian opposition and pleading with opposition elements to put the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights above partisan or individual interests.
Those genuinely in the opposition must accept responsibility for their inability to come together and articulate a vision for the country. They deserve blame for squandering valuable opportunities to build organizational alliances, develop alternative policies and train young leaders… But that is no excuse for not closing ranks against dictatorship now, and presenting a united front in support of democracy, freedom and human rights.
When we understand the dictators and ourselves, we can devise strategies and tactics to replace the “vampire African states” that Ayittey often speaks about with democratic governments that operate under the rule of law and with the consent of the people. Ayittey said, “Africa is poor because she is not free.” I say Africa remains under the boots of ruthless dictators because her best and brightest children are the shoe-shiners of the dictators. It is time to close ranks against African dictators.
Previous commentaries by the author are available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/alemayehu-g-mariam/ and http://open.salon.com/blog/almariam/
By Joshua Norman | CBS
This is an installment in the CBS WorldWatch series, “The world’s enduring dictators,” inspired by events in Tunisia and Egypt, in which CBSNews.com takes a look at the men who continue to rule their lands unimpeded by law. See a complete explanation of the series and a list of others profiled here.
Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia
Length of rule: 16 years. Zenawi helped lead the rebel movement that overthrew a brutal military dictatorship in 1991, and in 1995 was elected prime minister, a post he still holds. After heavily disputed elections in 2005 that featured his ruling party announcing victory in a close election before the votes were counted, Zenawi’s Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front and a small coalition of affiliated parties won 99.6 percent of all parliamentary seats in May elections this year which “fell short of international commitments,” Amnesty International writes.
Feature page: The world’s enduring dictators
Most despotic acts: While Eritrea was officially blamed for starting its infamous war with Ethiopia from 1998 to 2000, Zenawi did little to prevent the escalation of what many described as a pointless conflict that left at least 70,000 dead on both sides and cost two of the world’s poorest countries hundreds of millions of dollars. Zenawi has centralized control of many state functions within his political party, and while that has led to impressive economic growth, it has also spawned numerous reports of politically motivated killings, mass repression of freedoms and torture by state security services, which is saying nothing of the exclusion of non-party members from government services. After the disputed 2005 elections, security forces killed 200 protesters. Many claimed there was a clear victory for opposition politicians in 2005, but the ruling party said it won before results were announced, and it has maintained power since.
Outlook for change: In 2009, Zenawi indicated he was ready to step down, but his party “convinced” him to stay on to ease any potential transition. As many as 200 people in the political opposition have been arrested in recent months, apparently in reaction to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. Zenawi has faced several insurrections and secessionist movements within Ethiopia in his time as ruler, but it is unclear whether he will step down willingly or be forced to step down any time soon. That said, dissatisfaction with the Zenawi regime must exist as, yet again, swaths of Ethiopia are facing a critical food shortage.
Ethiopia stats:
Population: 90,873,739; Oromo 34.5 percent, Amara 26.9 percent, Somalie 6.2 percent, Tigraway 6.1 percent, Sidama 4 percent, Guragie 2.5 percent, Welaita 2.3 percent, Hadiya 1.7 percent, Affar 1.7 percent, Gamo 1.5 percent, Gedeo 1.3 percent, other 11.3 percent; Median Age is 17.
Constitution and the Rule of Law: Federal republic; Everyday law based on civil law.
Economic Indicators: Overall GDP is $84 billion (world rank is 77); Per capita GDP is $1,000 (world rank is 214); unemployment rate is not available.
Press freedom index world rank: 139
