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
By Yilma Bekele
I am not making this up You can follow the link below and watch the four part video of the leader for life meeting with Ethiopian business leaders. It is a very interesting video. The video is edited and posted on You Tube by Ethiopian TV. I am very grateful. They should be commended for spending all the time and effort to inform the Diaspora. It is true due to censorship, lack of broadband capability, absence of electricity, and computer the Ethiopian people will not be able to access and watch this revealing video anytime they like. I have taken the time and effort and watched it twice.
I wanted to make sure that I stay true to the discussion. Based on that video it is not correct to call it a discussion. It is more like a monologue. It is presented in four parts. Each part is fourteen minutes for a total of fifty-three minutes and fifty-four seconds. In part one a questioner took five minutes and three seconds and a second one was done in one minute and thirty-six seconds. Forty-seven minutes and fifteen seconds are the musings of the great leader for life.
The meeting was a perfect example of what is wrong with our country. It is a big mirror held in front of us so we can really see ourselves. They say ‘you deserve the leaders you get’. That statement is a poster child for Ethiopia. Our tolerance of injustice has bestowed on us a very unjust situation. What happened in that video is acceptable in a Monarchy. It is the rule under Communism. It is normal in a military dictatorship. Ethiopia is none of those. It is billed as a Federal Democratic Republic. The leaders are elected to serve the people. They serve at the will of the people. The question is why is the Ethiopian leader threatening, scolding and demeaning the people he serves?
That is Ethiopia in a nutshell. We got rid of a Monarchy to replace it with a brutal military dictatorship. After considerable loss of life the military Junta was replaced by the victors organized under TPLF. We were told a new era begun. The democratic way was ushered with much fanfare. That was twenty years ago. That video makes it clear that there was a peaceful transition from Mengistu to Meles. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Ato Meles spoke a lot in that meeting. He revealed to us how his brain is wired. He wanted to make it clear to the merchants and thru that meeting to all Ethiopians that not accepting the decree of the great leader for life have consequences. He expressed it beautifully in Amharic. (Beklo maserewan qoretch bilu, lerasua asterech). He actually said that. We are the Beklo and he is the one with the leash or lasso. A very interesting mind set.
I found it very difficult to decide where to start. You see the one-hour video is mostly lies, misinformation and full of distortions. It is not difficult to refute. Thanks to Google you can search any assertion if true or false. Democratic Ethiopia is built on false premises. It is a house built on sand. This time for added measure he brought out two cadres to set the stage for his conclusion. Both made wrong misinformed statements as a foundation and he built his house of cards on that unstable footing.
The first questioner was a perfect specimen of a self-loathing; clueless and void of self esteem Ethiopian. He spoke good Amharic, was dressed perfectly with his matching suit and ties and can BS like no one. He started by insulting our past sprinkling his language with English words for added measure. Unfortunately a lie is a lie uttered in Amharic or English. After degrading our past he concluded by saying the concept of modernism (zemenawi) and free enterprise came with TPLF. He looks like he is in his thirties so he must be a product of the Derg era and came into maturity with the reign of Emperor Meles. He is excused for his ignorance regarding the history of his country and proud ancestors.
To set the record straight free enterprise means the existence of the freedom of private businesses to operate competitively for profit with minimal government regulation. During the Emperors reign I witnessed the practice of incipient free enterprise system in our country. There was a problem of fair distribution of resources but I assure you land was private, supply and demand were at work and the government generally followed hands off approach. The questioner’s Ethiopia is different. The current TPLF regime is the main engine of the economic system. The regime owns all land and leases it to the citizen, controls all major industries outright or using proxies such as EFFORT and is the biggest and baddest employer in the land.
Our questioner is also fond of misinformation knowing that the citizens have no way of verifying his distortion. He said he belongs to the camp that advocates the government’s intervention in price control for basic items such as oil, sugar, soap etc. and mentioned Thailand as an example of a country with such practice. So I Googled Thailand and price control to check his assertion. He did not disappoint me. He was following the good old Ethiopian habit of concluding without facts and using a broad brush to justify saying anything.
You see Thailand used price control on basic items like sugar, rice and oil. That much is true. That is the only thing common with our country. The control in Thailand is to set the price of sugar below international prices. Thailand is the second largest exporter of sugar in the world after Brazil. The government has a quota for internal consumption and export. The problem faced by the Thais is that some exporters cheat and export sugar allocated for the domestic market thus creating shortage. Now the problem faced with our country is a little different. There is no sugar, oil, and wheat because there is not enough internal production. Also we do not have enough foreign reserve to supply the population to meet its basic needs. Furthermore the TPLF regime is using this opportunity to break the back of the small merchants in its attempt to control the market from above. When he waded into pointing out the futility of the regimes attempt to set artificial prices he was cut off.
The second questioner is a rare breed. I have no idea what he was doing there passing himself as a businessman. He is a typical Woyane sitting as a civilian. But he was there and he asked a question. A little bizarre if you ask me. He was asking his boss to please do something because some merchants are insisting on making a maximum profit. Here is what he said:
We fully support the government’s action regarding wheat this past week. The idea that the government is going to distribute 450 thousand quintal of wheat at $490bir per quintal to us and set the price we sell it to the consumer, I am sure will stabilize the price of flour from today on. I guarantee that. What I would like to tell the government is I am sure many of the mills were hording wheat and some who bought it at $400bir are waiting to sell when it hits $900bir and some even stock it for six seven months and we appeal to the government to create a central trading like ECX (commodity exchange) for wheat …… I am sure there is over a million quintal in stock horded by the Flour mills etc…
There you have it the private entrepreneur begging the state to put him on a leash. Only in Revolutionary Democracy Ethiopia can such a theatre take place. And where he got that million quintal only God knows. It is also possible it is a veiled threat to remind them the calamity that has befallen coffee merchants. All this excitement and it is only six minutes into a one-hour presentation.
As I said before The Leader spoke forty-seven minutes and fifteen seconds, at least according to this edited presentation. I believe it will be fair to divide it into two sections and learn from it. The first part will be where The Leader speaks about the failure of the Ethiopian people to grow the economy. The second part will be where he explains the further fine-tuning of the Capitalist system being built by the Government of Ethiopia. This is definitely a first. All eyes are on Ethiopia and The Leader.
I noticed that he speaks very slow and deliberate. Either he wants to make it very clear or he has a very low opinion of his listeners. That is the way most people speak to two year olds. The tone shows that it was more like a lecture than a discussion. It was an upside down situation in that room. They pay his salary and he is threatening them. You would think that he would be nice to them since he wants to be re-elected. He wants their support and cooperation doesn’t he? That is the way it should work in a Democratic setting. You know like employer and employee. If the employee does not like the employer the only option is quitting. On the other hand if the employer does not like the employee firing is best for everybody. In Ethiopia the employee is firing the employer. Go figure that.
Here is Ato Meles in his own words:
The Government is concerned because beyond loss of income it has further meaning. If looked from tax income perspective collected into the National treasury Ethiopia is ranked with Somalia, one cannot compare us with any African country Kenya collects 25% whereas we are less than 10% (pause) under this circumstances the government can only live on alms (pause) this is a big disadvantage (long pause) on the other hand if the issue was just about collecting tax personally I wouldn’t have gotten into this hassle (neterek) I would have no problem in accepting being compared to Somalia. Beyond loss of revenue this has two major consequences. First it negatively affects capital allocation. There are ways of getting out of paying taxes. Manufacturing is one activity where avoiding paying tax is difficult. Even our blind and toothless system will find it by feel. On the other hand businesses like services and construction where taxpaying is lax capital will flow to that. Not getting revenue is a burden we can carry but capital is flowing no growth-oriented direction. Look at Addis. Due to the many buildings people are partying and dancing, they think that is growth and progress on the other hand if only one third has gone to manufacturing it is not difficult to imagine the effect on the country’s growth. Only the Indians, Chinese and Turks are involved in manufacturing. We cannot count on borrowed capital outside capital is not substitute. Unless the pillar of our economy is not ours we will end up being outsiders in our own country. If you ask why more capital is invested in services and construction it is because land is held using bribes and illegal means. If you have enough land you can be very rich if you have buildings you don’t pay rent. If you rent it to the foreigners including Embassy’s you can collect rent outside. Ethiopians hold over $2billion dollars in foreign banks. The burden we can not carry is we are losing the future economic power because our capital is flowing not into growth oriented but to areas that can help avoid paying taxes and the important economy branches are taken over by foreign capitalist. To hide your wealth you involve in high consumption activities Ethiopian Easter, vast amounts spent in big hotels, Ethiopian weddings, Ethiopian memorial services Ethiopian tidbits is comparable to highly developed countries. To save and invest it one thing but money hidden from paying taxes is like gambling money. We are not using our wealth to bring growth. The second thing we are worried about is you can operate like this in the forest. One cannot steal in broad daylight. When there is a forest you not only find Rats and Snakes all kinds of creatures in the forest including Elephants can hide. The forest is black hole to hide wealth. It is difficult to know ownership. Some officials’ steal and when confronted claim the money came from their aunt’s son in America. If we know each individuals income we can get rid of the forest. You can tell who is snake and who is human. In the old system individuals posses more than one business license. Some even register their dogs. Due to these revenue-hiding schemes our corrupt officials were hiding in this big forest thus we cannot cleanse ourselves. If this continues it is only a matter of time before we turn on each other. Where authority is the only means to be wealthy there will no be lasting peace. We can only get rid of corruption when we know each individuals income. The thief will be left naked for all to see. We do not want to involve in search and destroy. Knowing everyone’s income is a solution. Concerning taxes it is a rare exception where correct invoices are submitted. The receipts you submit are automatically suspect. You bring us proof on CD’s. Everybody knows that you can never avoid mistakes when you create CD. No matter how diligent. Our people have a saying. If the Mule cuts off its lasso, it only shortened it for it self. Your cutting the lasso made it shorter for you. We are all hurting.
Let us get something straight before anything is said. The speaker Ato Meles Zenawi has been in charge of the country since 1992. He has never allowed or tolerated any outside party other than TPLF and its creation EPDRF. It has been Ato Meles and his TPLF partners that have been making all major and minor decisions in the name of Ethiopia. Since the split in TPLF after the war with their Eritrean partners Ato Meles was able to vanquish his opponents and enter the one-man rule era. For all practical purposes Ato Meles is Ethiopia and Ethiopia is Ato Meles. The Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet is known to have said “Not a leaf moves in Chile if I don’t know about it” You can say the same thing about Ato Meles and Ethiopia.
The question I have is why is The Leader singing the blues now after he has been the main architect of this 12% growth we have been hearing about for the last few years? He was the first to take credit when the news was all about this unheard of growth and peace under his able and smart stewardship. Why talk about the impending loss of sovereignty and specter of disintegration now?
He started by moaning the problem of raising revenues and compared our country to Somalia and Kenya. I have no idea where he got his facts regarding a non-country like Somalia. But his take on Kenya is definitely wrong. Kenya has a highly developed economy than ours. Look at the chart.
Country Population GDP/Capita Budget
Ethiopia 90.8 900 4.3billion
Kenya 41.0 1600 7.01billion
Looks like the only place where we are ahead is in procreating. Is it possible Ethiopia collects less because our people live on subsistence level? The comparison is invalid and misleading.
I am surprised to hear the head of the government saying that it is ok with him if people do not pay their fare share of break the law of the land. I did not know obeying the law was an option. It is a very curious statement to say the least.
Ato Meles seems to have a different understanding of the workings of a free enterprise system. I fail to understand where the confusion is if capital moves where more money is to be made. It is every capitalist’s interest to find a legal way to reduce his/her tax burden. Like any human enterprise there are a few that will find a way to avoid paying their share. His government followed on the footsteps of the Derg and kept all land in the hands of the government. He has been selling it to the highest bidder since coming to power. His family and friends are the premier owners of choice property. His government has been working overtime in the Diaspora arranging land sale gatherings. Constructing what is commonly referred to as ground plus condominiums and office space has been the talk of all Ethiopia. There is not a town not affected by this national madness of concrete and glass in the middle of nowhere.
Wasn’t it true that the construction outfits and banks organized around EFFORT were the number one beneficiary of the Diaspora’s investment in the 12% growth we have been hearing about? Today The Leader tells us that is the wrong road. Did he apologize for this royal screw up? No sir, he is blaming the investor. His theory is that folks are attracted to housing investment to avoid paying taxes. It is a very difficult to understand his assertion. I believe a vast majority invest in building housing because they believe the will come out ahead. It is normally a good investment. Most in the Diaspora invest in Ethiopia for various reasons. Some invest to have a place for retirement, a few to make money and others because it is cheaper and easier than in most foreign lands. I have not met anyone investing large amounts to avoid Ethiopian taxes. Ato Meles mocks people’s patriotism. He even blames people for enjoying their money on lavish weddings and hotel expenses. I thought under capitalism one is free to do what he wants with his earned income.
His preference seems to be manufacturing. He wants Ethiopians to put their money into the manufacturing industry. Again it is a very curious statement coming from the head of the state. There is no need to wish it or complain about its absence. It is in his power to gear the economy towards the direction he wants. From what I understand Governments use various incentives to direct the orientation of the economy where it is most beneficial to the country. Tax incentives, land give a ways; subsidies are but a few methods. Before such methods are tried there is usually groundwork to be done. A few question a capitalist interested in setting up a manufacturing enterprise will ask will go something like is there infrastructure to support the enterprise? This will include things like roads, power and communication. Having an educated work force is plus. So before the invitation is printed is Ethiopia ready to welcome investors? The answer is no. Power is in short supply and the education level is below par. His condemnation of the hand that feeds him is rude and unacceptable.
The talk about the forest Rats, Snakes and Elephants is where he lost me. This is where his imagination kicked in and the talk regarding snakes and humans started to cloud the monologue. I have no idea why he conjured up all these animals when the point he wanted to make was he wants to have a record of every Ethiopian income. It is a very interesting situation we got here. One of the poorest countries wants to invest in building a sophisticated database on it citizens. A country that is looking at over seven million people in a state of famine wants to spend billions on book keeping. It was very interesting to see The Leader telling his tax paying citizen that they are not trust worthy and that they are guilty until proven innocent.
I believe he should be man enough to accept his mistakes. The polices he is putting down and making fun of are none other than his very own. He is the owner the current economic and political policy in place. Starting with his back door deal with Eritrea, the land as government property, the division of our country on ethnic lines, the war with Somalia, the lack of healthy political environment, the suffocating security setup is all the work of Ato Meles and his TPLF partners. Real men accept responsibility for their deeds. The Ethiopian people cannot take the blame for decision they were not consulted or agreed upon. Even as parents we make sure our children understand the value of ‘thank you’ and ‘I am sorry’ early in their developmental stage.
I fully understand The Leader is under tremendous strain. The people’s uprising in the neighborhood is freaking out his outfit. They are coming out with different approaches to bully, frighten and intimidate the population. The fate of Ato Meles is similar to that of Mubarak, Gaddafi, Saleh and Assad. There is no easy way out. So much crime has been done there is no way of whitewashing and going back to the beginning. There is no reset button on governance. Ato Meles and the Ethiopian people are dancing around each other waiting to see who is going to fall first. This sort of situation does not favor tyrants. They are edgy and prone to make irrational and sudden moves that jar the equilibrium. Everyday sees the advent of a new crisis. If it is not inflation it is Kilil revolt. If it is not scarcity of basic items it is fire in Gondar or transformer blow up in Arsi.
It is a shame to see a leader bully his people and distributes the video to show his shameful behavior. Even after editing it does not present a smart picture. Those in the room were grown up people trying to survive in such an environment unsure of what tomorrow will bring. It is a sad scene. The second part will be on the wonderful explanation of how the Ethiopian Government is reinventing itself as Wall Mart, wholesale distributor of oil, bread and sugar. It did not work for Mengistu, no reason to think it will work this time around. Pray for Ethiopia.
