Since the dawn of African independence from colonialism in the early 1960s, African liberation leaders and founding fathers qua dictators, military junta and “new breed” leaders have sought to justify the one-man, one-party state — and avoid genuine multiparty democracy — by fabricating a blend of self-serving arguments which converge on the notion that in Africa there is a democracy before democracy. The core argument can be restated in different ways: Before Africa can have political democracy, it must have economic democracy. Africans are more concerned about meeting their economic needs than having abstract political rights. Economic development necessarily requires sacrifices in political rights. African democracy is a different species of democracy which has roots in African culture and history. African societies are plagued by ethnic, tribal and religious conflicts which can be solved not by Western-style liberal democracy but within the framework of the traditional African institutions of consensus-building, elder mediation and conciliation. Western-style democracy is unworkable, alien and inappropriate to Africans because the necessary preconditions for such a system are not present. Widespread poverty, low per capita incomes, a tiny middle class and the absence of a democratic civic culture render such a system incongruous with African realities. Liberal democracy could come to Africa only after significant economic development has been achieved. Any premature introduction or misguided imposition of it by the West could actually harm Africans by destroying their budding faith in democracy itself.
Stripped of rhetorical flourish, such self-serving arguments exploit manifest contradictions and deficits in African societies for the purposes of justifying the consolidation and fortification of the powers of the one-man, one-party state, and preventing the institutionalization of a competitive multiparty democratic process with electoral and constitutional accountability. The claim of primacy of “economic democracy” is based on an impressionistic (not empirically substantiated) assumption that the masses of poor, illiterate, hungry and sick Africans are too dumb to appreciate “political democracy”. In other words, the African masses are interested in the politics of the belly and not the politics of democracy and political rights. Africans live for and by bread alone. Elections, legal rights and liberties are meaningless to the poor and hungry masses. This assumption is pure nonsense as various well designed and executed empirical studies of democratic attitudes in Africa have shown. The claim of ethnic conflict to justify the one-man, one-party system is internally self-contradictory. If indeed the communalism and the institutions of traditional, pre-colonial African societies are the most effective means for dispute resolution and consensus-building, it is illogical to insist on investing a single leader and his party with sweeping and expansive powers.
All the layered sophistry and paralogism of African dictators is intended to mask their insatiable hunger for power and produce one set of self-serving axiomatic conclusions: Africa is not yet ready for genuine multiparty democracy. The one-man, one-party system is the only means to save Africa from itself, and from complete social, economic and political implosion. The one-man, one-party system will evolve into a genuine multiparty democracy at some undetermined time in the future. In the meantime, the one-man, one-party show must go on.
Post-independence African history is instructive in understanding the scourge of the one-man, and the curse of one-party rule in Africa. Ghana’s independence from colonialism as the first sub-Saharan African country in 1957, and the role played by its first prime minister and later president Kwame Nkrumah is central to understanding the pervasive problem of civilian and military dictatorships in Africa. Ghana was undoubtedly the most economically and socially advanced country in sub-Saharan Africa with an advanced educational system and relatively well-developed infrastructures when it gained its independence. Nkrumah was a role model for the dozens of leaders of African countries that achieved independence in the 1960s and 1970s. Despite Nkruma’s status as the unrivalled champion of Pan-Africanism and strong advocacy for a united Africa, he was also the single individual most responsible for casting the mold for the one-man, one-party dictatorship in post-independence Africa. Barely a year into his administration, the once fiery anti-colonial advocate of political rights and democracy had transformed himself into a power-hungry despot. He enacted a law making labor strikes illegal. He declared it was unpatriotic to strike. Paranoid about his opposition, he enacted a preventive detention act which gave him sweeping powers to arrest and detain any person suspected of treason without due process of law. He even dismissed the chief justice of Ghanaian Supreme Court, Sir Arku Korsah, when a three-judge panel Korsah headed acquitted suspects accused of plotting a coup. Nkrumah amended the constitution making his party, the Convention People’s Party, the only legal party in the country. He capped his political career by having himself declared president-for-life.
Other African leaders followed in Nkrumah’s footsteps. Julius Nyrere became the first president of Tanganyka (Tanzania) in 1962 and announced his brand of African socialism built around rural folks and their traditional values in a ujamma (extended family) system. Millions of villagers were forced into collectivized agriculture. He modeled his constitution after Ghana’s and followed Nkruma’s script. Nyrere established a one-man, one-party state around his Tanganyika African National Union, outlawed strikes, nationalized private banks and industries, duplicated Nkruma’s preventive detention act to go after his opponents and greatly increased his personal power.
With the exception of a few countries, Africa had been incurably infected by Nkrumah’s one-man, one-party virus before the end of the 1960s. Most of the leaders of the newly independent African countries followed Nkrumaha’s political formula by declaring states of emergency, suspending their constitutions, conferring unlimited executive powers upon themselves, and enacting oppressive laws which enabled them to arrest, detain and persecute their rivals, dissenters, and others they considered threats at will.
The economic and political outcomes of the one-man, one-party dictatorships by the end of the 1960s were dismal. Nkrumah’s program of rapid industrialization by reducing Ghana’s dependence on foreign capital and imports had a devastating effect on its important cocoa export sector. Many of the socialist economic development projects he launched failed. By the time he was overthrown in a military coup in 1966, Ghana had fallen from one of the richest African countries to one of the poorest. Similarly, Tanzania nose-dived from the largest exporter of agricultural products in Africa to the largest importer of agricultural products. The one-man, one-party state also proved to be ineffective in reducing ethnic tensions and preventing conflict. Civil wars, genocides, low level ethnic conflicts and corruption spread throughout the continent like wildfire.
Waiting in the wings were Africa’s soldiers. Accusing the civilian governments of corruption, incompetence and mismanagement of the economy and claiming a patriotic duty to rescue their countries from collapse, military officers knocked off these governments one by one. Gen. Joseph Mobutu seized power in the Congo (Zaire) following a protracted political struggle between Patrice Lumumba and Joseph Kasavubu. Col. Houari Boumedienne overthrew Ahmed Ben Bella in Algeria. A group of army officers overthrew the monarchy in Brundi. In the Central African Republic, Col. Bokassa (later Emperor Jean Bedel Bokassa) overthrew David Dacko. Gen. Idi Amin overthrew Milton Obote in Uganda. Nigeria flipped two coups, one by Gen. Johnson Ironsi who was overthrown by Gen. Yakubu Gowon. Many other African countries suffered similar fates.
There is overwhelming evidence to show that the one-man, one-party state has been a total failure in Africa over the past one-half century. Under these dictatorships, African countries have faced civil and border wars and ethnic and religious strife. Famine, malnutrition and insufficient food production have caused the deaths of millions of Africans. The poverty and unemployment rates continue to rise despite billions in foreign aid and loans. Infant mortality is nearly 100 per thousand (compared to 5 in the United States). Africans have the lowest life expectancies in the world. After fifty years of independence per capita income in much of Africa had declined so much that President Obama had to artfully remind Africans in his speech in Ghana: “Countries like Kenya, which had a per capita economy larger than South Korea’s when I was born, have been badly outpaced.” Politically, the one-man, one-party dictatorships have brought neither ethnic harmony nor good governance; and they have failed to forge a common national identity for their people.
Today we still hear the same rubbish about a democracy before democracy recycled by a “new breed” of silver-tongued African leaders. Meles Zenawi, the chief architect of the one-man, one-party state in Ethiopia says:
Establishing democracy in Africa is bound to take a long time and that elections alone will not produce democracy and do not necessarily bring about democratic culture or guarantee a democratic exercise of rule. Creating a democracy in poverty-ridden and illiterate societies that have not yet fully embraced democratic values and are not yet familiar with democratic concepts, rules and procedures is bound to take a long time and to exact huge costs.
Similar arguments are made by Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Paul Kagame of Rwanda; and even the wily old coyote, Robert Mugabe, pulls the same stunt at age 85 to justify clinging to power.
The “new breed” dictators are trying to sell the same old snake oil in a new bottle to Africans. But no one is fooled by the sweet-talking, iron-fisted new breed dictators who try to put a kinder and gentler face on their dictatorship, brutality and corruption. They should spare us their empty promises and hypocritical moral pontifications. For one-half century, Africans have been told democracy requires sacrifices and pain; and they must look inwards to their village communities, traditional elders and consensus dialogue to find the answers. Africans don’t want to hear that “democracy” takes time and they must wait, and wait and wait as the new breed of dictators pick the continent clean right down to the bare bones. Africans want Africa to no longer be the world’s cesspool of corruption, criminality and cruelty.
The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as democracy before democracy. There could be either democracy or one-man, one-party dictatorships in Africa. We all know exactly what the latter means. The only question is how best to implement constitutional multiparty systems in Africa. On this question, there may be an ironic twist of history. As Ghana was the original model of the one-man, one-party state in Africa, Ghana today could be the model of constitutional multiparty democracy in Africa.
As I have argued previously argued[1], Ghana today has a functioning competitive multiparty political system guided by its Constitution. Article 55 guarantees “Every citizen of Ghana of voting age has the right to join a political party.” Political parties are free to organize and “disseminate information on political ideas, social and economic programmes of a national character.” BUT TRIBAL AND ETHNIC PARTIES ARE ILLEGAL IN GHANA under Article 55 (4). That is the key to Ghana’s political success. The Ghanaians also have an independent Electoral Commission which ensures the integrity of the electoral process, and under Article 46 is an institution “not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.” Ghanaians enjoy many a panoply of political civil, economic, social and cultural rights. In 2008, Ghana (population 23 million) ranked 31 out of 173 countries worldwide on World Press Freedom Index (Ethiopia- population 80 million ranked 142/173). There are more than 133 private newspapers, 110 FM radio stations and 2 state-owned dailies. Ghanaians express their opinions without fear of government retaliation. The rule of law is upheld and the government follows and respects the Constitution. Ghana has an independent judiciary which is vital to the observance of the rule of law and protection of civil liberties. Political leaders and public officials abide by the rulings and decisions of the courts and other fact-finding inquiry commissions. Ghana is certainly not a utopia, but it is proof positive that multiparty constitutional democracy can and will work in Africa.
Africa’s and Ethiopia’s future in the 21st Brave New Globalized Century lie in genuine multiparty democracy, not in recycled one-man, one-party, pie-in-the-sky-promising dictatorships. Poverty, ethnic conflict, illiteracy and all of the other social ills will continue to haunt Africa for decades to come. Dealing effectively with these issues can not be left to failed-beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt, one-man, one-party dictatorships. If Africa is to be saved from total collapse, its ordinary people must be fully empowered in an open, pluralistic and competitive multiparty political process. For those who have any doubts about Ethiopia’s readiness for genuine multiparty democracy, let them look at the facts of the 2005 election: 26 million eligible Ethiopians were registered to vote in that election out of a population of 74 million.A stunning 90 percent of the 26 million actually voted. NO MORE ONE-MAN, ONE-PARTY DICTATORSHIPS IN AFRICA. GENUINE MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY, NOW!
[1] http://www.ethiopianreview.com/content/10396
Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.
Google is at war with the Peoples Republic of China. Google is a worthy adversary. If I was a betting person I will put all my money on Google. There is no question Google will win. The Peoples Republic is playing the old game of bullying. Too bad for the Chinese those days are gone. It is a new age, a new game and winning comes from using your smarts not your brute force.
Google choose ‘Don’t be evil’ as the company motto. It looks like Google measured the company’s venture in China and the scale tipped towards evil. Google decided evil is not the way forward.
Google is an Internet search company located a few miles from where I live. It has been named as the best place to work in Fortune magazines survey. It is a forward-looking progressive company mindful of its social responsibility. There are plenty of smart Ethiopians working for Google. In fact my friend Tesh might join Google the next few days. We are all happy and proud.
Google entered the Chinese market in 2006. Google.cn agreed to purge its search results of banned topics such as Tiananmen, Tibet and other issues deemed sensitive by the communist government. Most civil right activists were not happy. Google felt having some access was better than no access. What Google CEO Eric Schmidt said was very memorable ‘we actually did an evil scale and decided not to serve at all was worse evil’ he opined.
As is the case with most incompatible marriages the Google –China union is showing cracks. Google is not happy with the sophisticated cyber attacks that are originating from China. The hackers are trying to penetrate computer security systems and steal corporate data and software source codes. Google is forced to revise its earlier decision to play dead and accommodate a repressive system.
According to David Drummond, chief legal officer of Google ‘we have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.
What lesson can we learn from Google’s encounter with an evil system and its response to stop such abuse? I believe Google is following the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Google is practicing the art of peaceful resistance to challenge a formidable looking but at the same time a weak opponent. A paper tiger; to borrow Mao’s phrase. Google can still serve its Chinese customers from outside. Software sophistication has come a long way. The average Chinese can use proxy servers and virtual networks to go around the ‘great Chinese firewall’. Google built its reputation by the quality of its superior search engine. Uncensored Google can beat any competition suffering under the yoke of state supervision. Thus Google felt evil cannot be accommodated. Google tried but found out compromise with dictatorship was a dead end street. Google choose not to participate in a rigged game.
We in Ethiopia are faced with the same situation. We have an opponent that is not willing to practice the art of give and take. Compromise is foreign to our TPLF bosses. Contempt to all others has become second nature to the tribal regime. Just as Google tried with China, the Ethiopian people have tried to accommodate the fears and worries of the minority based government. Time and time again the hand stretched palms up for peace and harmony have been chopped off. Peace is preferable to war, negotiation is superior to confrontation and compromise is more civilized than take it or leave attitude but all are a two way street. It takes the goodwill of both parties in a conflict to come to an understanding.
Google decided playing by the Communist party’s rule is more ruinous than not playing. We in Ethiopia should sit down and weigh the cost of further humiliation at the hands of a few delusional cadres as opposed to saying enough and charting a new path. The harm to our country and to ourselves is greater in the long run than the make believe peace we have conjured up in our head.
Google could have waited out the Chinese politburo. Google could have said ‘we will take this little compromise and hope for more.’ Google knew the longer its patience the more belligerent the demands get. Google said enough is enough. ጉግል በቃ አለ፣እርሶስ ምን ይላሉ?
There are some in Ethiopia that are trying to outlive evil. They talk about the high cost of confrontation. They preach about the virtue of patience. Then they try to raise alarm about the weakness of the opposition. They totally agree about the unfairness of the system but qualify their response by the impossibility of victory. It is true that no one goes to war to lose, but on the other hand when a war is declared by an enemy the only option is to do ones best to win. Rolling over dead is not a winning strategy.
The Chinese Government gave Google the license to operate. But it was a qualified license. Google tried its best to serve its customers with all the restrictions placed on it. It tried to make the best of a difficult situation. Facilitating the open exchange of information is Google’s business. The Chinese government was trying to muzzle that. Google found out you can’t serve two masters at the same time. It is either the Chinese people or the Chinese government.
It sounds like a familiar situation for us Ethiopians. The tribal regime allows formation of political party’s. It sets date and time for elections. Unfortunately there is a big but. You can register your party but you can’t campaign. You can stand for elections but your leaders will be jailed. You can sit and talk in a closed room but you cannot be quoted. It is ok to have election supervisors but they will be appointed by the regime. It is like entering a boxing ring with both hands tied behind your back and the referee is the mother of your opponent.
So Google is in the process of redefining its business contract with the Chinese government. It is willing to abandon working within the system and try its chances from outside China. It looks like Google made the change of course decision without looking at the other actors on the Chinese stage. Yahoo is still there. MSN is staying put. It really don’t matter. Google’s stand is based on its corporate principle of ‘Don’t do evil.’
We Ethiopians always fret about the opinion and stand of others. We shift responsibility and accountability unto others. We avoid answering to our conscience and try to find excuse for our deliberately vague outlook. The minority regime is beating the drums of elections. All the preparations for coronations are in place. The press has been muzzled, opposition leaders are put in jail, exiled, killed or co-opted, the law has been amended to TPLF’s specifications, the country is flooded with cadres bullying the population and the foreign Diplomats are stepping over each other preaching the wonderful art of compromise. The ducks are all lined up!
Be like Google and say no to unfair competition. Dare to say no to humiliation.
Voting will end tomorrow, Sunday. Please vote now.
Listed alphabetically:
Loading ...
Ethiopian Review has been collecting suggestions on potential candidates for the next president of Ethiopia, if there is a free and fair election, and system is presidential, and not the current fake parliamentary. The response has been massive. Within the past 3 days we have received over 170 suggestions, out of which we have prepared a list of 15 candidates. Please vote above by clicking in the small box next to the name of the candidates you prefer. Vote for two candidates: President and Vice-President
As the numerous suggestions prove, Ethiopia is rich with able individuals who are well qualified to govern the country better than the current genocidal murderer in power. Meles Zenawi and gang are not governing the country. They are destroying Ethiopia piece by piece.
The candidates are from divers background — age, gender, ethnic, education, and profession wise. We would have liked to see more women in the list.
After you vote, please explain in the comment box below your reasons for the choice you made — campaign for your candidate.
Criminals such as Meles Zenawi and traitors such as Hailu Shawel have been disqualified from the list.
President Isaias Afwerki’s name came up several times. We could not include him in the list for the obvious reason. Let him confederate Ethiopia and Eritrea and he will be every one’s first choice. It’s within his power to do it.
Dear President Obama: I am writing this to you on behalf of the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia (SMNE), a grassroots social justice movement whose mission is to mobilize Ethiopians in the Diaspora and within Ethiopia to unite across ethnic, regional, political and religious lines to confront the current system of injustice, repression and human rights abuses being carried out by the dictatorial regime of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and to bring about a more open, free and reconciled society in Ethiopia.
Our foundational principles are “putting humanity before ethnicity,” or any other distinctions– valuing all humankind—and standing up for the universal values of freedom, justice and respect for the human rights of others for “no one will be free until all are free.”
The looming crisis in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa can no longer be ignored or addressed through “behind-closed-doors” quiet diplomacy. Such diplomacy has essentially covered up the evil actions of one of the most repressive and brutal regimes in Africa. Peace and stability in the Horn will be impossible while he is in power even while millions are spent in its pursuit.
Meles is an “African strongman” and deserves, at least, the same approach as Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. The preferential treatment being given to this dictator, while condemning others for doing the same thing, is wrong. It will only further alienate the Ethiopian people and become a repeat of the mistakes of the past administrations.
The “dreams of our fathers” were for Africans to live in peace, harmony and with better opportunity; but unfortunately, American and Western foreign policies are now blocking Ethiopians from realizing these dreams by propping up this regime through huge amounts of financial and military aid as well as by protecting this regime’s “image” by not exposing their real nature. We do not expect your administration to do the work for us, but we do ask that free countries in the West stop being an obstacle to the democratic struggle of the people of Ethiopia.
Mr. President, you must choose between investing in the people or aligning with a so-called “US partner in our War on Terror” who is stirring up deep problems within Ethiopia. The damage being done by this regime within Ethiopia and the antagonism that most Ethiopians feel towards it and its supporters, may come back to undermine longer-term American national interests in the region.
Will your administration speak out loudly and clearly about the lack of democratic process in Ethiopia, about the pervasive politicization of justice and opportunity or about the gross violations of human rights that led to the referral of the case of Ethiopia to the International Criminal Court for investigation into multiple charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes? Will your administration call PM Meles Zenawi exactly what he is, a dictator who is terrorizing and repressing Ethiopia?
There is a short window of opportunity where such open support would make a dramatic difference to future relationships with the people of Ethiopia and that is now, within the next five months leading up to the Ethiopian National election. This is an opportunity to avert a possible crisis in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa by taking concrete steps to support the spread of freedom in the Horn of Africa, one of the most conflicted regions of the world. A free Ethiopia will make as much difference in bringing peace to this inter-related region as a brutal and conniving dictator has brought unrest to the region through fomenting division, conflict, violence and the radicalization of future terrorists.
Thus far, your administration’s policies, the same as during the Bush administration, have not shown support to this democratic movement of the Ethiopian people; nor has it helped to build democratic institutions like done in Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia and other places where the US empowered and funded them in the past. Even funding decisions made by the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington DC, which are influenced by the US State Department, along with other funders of democracy building, have either ignored Ethiopia or have given their funds to mostly Meles controlled look-alike organizations rather than to genuine democracy building non-governmental organizations and institutions who are truly committed to democratic principles. At the same time, many in the West have justified their alliance with a dictator as resulting from the lack of any other more viable alternative; however, Meles is determined to destroy any such alternatives and the West is unwilling to either condemn him for doing it or to invest in building up any such alternatives.
Instead, we only see a passive approach by your administration and this is the reason we are sending this letter to you. We know you must represent American national interests, but is it not possible to establish a relationship based on mutual respect that does not exploit the freedom, assets or lives of the other? We care about the future of Ethiopian citizens just like you care about the national interests of Americans. Can there not be some kind of mutually beneficial partnerships?
If US support of this TPLF regime is about AFRICOM being built in Ethiopia, the people of Ethiopia need to know. If your administration does this behind the backs of the people and the people are suffering as a result, the foundation will be on sand. If your administration is supporting Meles to root out terrorists while we are victims of internal terrorism, you are in the wrong and such a policy will eventually backfire. You should instead engage the people in this struggle; for we also yearn for peace in Ethiopia and in the Horn of Africa. It is our home and it matters more to us than to anyone that terrorism be stopped.
How can you hope that the Ethiopian regime you are supporting can actually bring about peace to America and the West through someone like Meles? Is Somalia or the Ogaden in southeastern Ethiopia going to be more free of terrorists or will it end up becoming more radicalized because of the tactics used—the alleged killing of some 20,000 or more civilians, the widespread starvation and displacement of the people, the burning of homes and crops, the widespread rape of women, the killing of livestock and the poisoning of their wells?
How does this build a better future for any of us? Meles’ actions, were they to occur here in the United States, could even radicalize farmers in Bismarck, North Dakota, teachers in Chicago, business owners in Dallas, scientists in Nebraska and stay- at- home moms in Oregon.
Your foreign policies in Ethiopia do not reflect the values of most Americans who may end up experiencing more anti-west sentiment because of them; however, few know the real story about what is going on because the press has been mostly silent. Why? Will your administration make a change we can believe in?
The Horn is full of life and people who are extending their hands to you and your administration. Will you reach outward to clasp their hands in yours? If your administration really wants an alliance with partners who can work with you for the improvement of sustainable peace in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa, it has to be with the people.
We are speaking as Ethiopian Americans, who desire the same kinds of values, democracy, freedom and rule of law in Ethiopia that many of us have sought by coming to America and other western countries. We want to find peace, safety and security like anyone else and want to be part of the solution of ending terrorism in Ethiopia and the Horn. Most of us want this through peaceful means; using the ballot rather than the bullet; however, our efforts are being sabotaged.
In May of 2005, over a million Ethiopians came out in Addis Ababa to rally for “this change they could believe in.” It was one of the most peaceful rallies in Africa; no one was killed and no windows were broken. When the election took place, 26 millions came out to vote, but the election was stolen by Meles. When the people protested for their God-given rights and universal principles of justice, Meles’ security forces shot and killed 193 unarmed protesters. Over 50,000 protesters were arrested and detained. Opposition leaders were later imprisoned. All of this hardly made the news in America and the previous administration failed to make any public statement condemning the government’s actions. The silence acted as an endorsement, legitimizing and strengthening the unelected prime minister and his TPLF party.
Right now, the first woman to lead a major Ethiopian political party and also one of the most popular opposition leaders in Ethiopia, Ms. Birtukan Mideksa, is a prisoner of conscience. Other opposition leaders are being intimidated and harassed and the media is totally closed to anyone but the government. No one expects this coming election to be free and fair; yet, if Ethiopians are faced with another five years of tyranny, the already simmering anger and tensions may erupt into widespread violence, destabilizing Ethiopia and possibly the entire Horn.
Will your administration or others in the West support a democratic movement in Ethiopia or not? Truthfully, we are not hopeful, as history shows that the strongest countries of this world have repeatedly abused Africa; where they have economically flourished by working through African dictators to secure African resources even if it means trampling on the rights or selling out on the lives and futures of Africans. Some, who believe in the God-given inherent worth of all people, including Africans, have stood against the slavery of the past, but how about new variations of the same?
These are the greatest moral issues of our time. If we use the highest ideals in our rhetoric; yet, in the realpolitik of action, we betray the weaker in our global society simply because we are economically and militarily more powerful and can get away with it, history will judge us. In respect to Ethiopia, this has happened before.
In 1935, Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie appealed to the League of Nations to take mandated action against Mussolini’s Italy for military aggression carried out against Ethiopians in an obscure desert region of southeastern Ethiopia.
Ironically, both Ethiopia and Italy were members of the League, formed with the explicit mission of protecting its membership against such aggression; first with sanctions and then with military intervention; however, at the first challenge, the League caved in to its ideals, showing that the interests of the most powerful came first. [1]
Fearing they would antagonize the Italian dictator when they felt they needed his support against Hitler, they sacrificed Ethiopia; only making superficial and toothless attempts to stop Italy. Their betrayal of the League of Nation’s expressed ideals emboldened Hitler to advance against them.
While the international community lost their political will to intervene in Ethiopia, in a Times magazine article from July 22, 1935 [2], it was reported that many African-Americans joined in the fight against Mussolini; even boycotting Italian gin in the cities of America, connecting “…every shorty [nip] of gin bought from Italian saloon-keepers” with “bullets bought by Mussolini to slaughter our brothers in Africa!”As the League of Nations chose their own national interests over their commitment to collective security of each other, they lifted even the very weak sanctions from Italy.
In response to this betrayal, Emperor Haile Selassie spoke these words; “I pray to Almighty God that he shall spare to the nations the terrible sufferings that have just been inflicted on my people…It is international morality that is at stake…should it happen that a strong government finds that it may with impunity destroy a small people, then the hour strikes for that weak people to appeal to the League to give its judgment in all freedom. God and history will remember your judgment…I must still hold on until my tardy allies appear. If they never come, then I say prophetically and without bitterness: “the West will perish.”
Mr. President, the “fierce urgency of the now” is a moral crisis which will define the identity of who America is; not only in 2010, but in the future. Ethiopia is one of the arenas where this moral struggle is being played out. Will the US choose to follow the ideals upon which America and the West were founded or will America and the West desert its moral convictions, emboldening new terrorists as the entire world loses some of its strongest proponents for humankind? Weakened convictions make for weakened moral resolve and such resolve is the glue that holds in place a more secure global future.
The betrayal of Ethiopia in 1936 may not have seemed significant at the time, but it helped weaken the forces of good, forces that needed all their strength to face the onslaught of the coming years. Which side will your administration and others in the West choose—dictators or the people? What it at stake now may be more than we realize!
We look forward to your response and hope that we Ethiopians can build a true partnership based on mutual values, trust and respect.
Respectfully yours,
Obang Metho
Executive Director
Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia
PO Box 50561
Arlington, VA 22205
Phone: (202) 725-1616
Email: [email protected] www.solidaritymovement.org
This Letter has been CC to:
Vice President, Mr. Joseph Biden
Secretary Hilary Clinton, Department of State
Secretary Robert Gates, Department of Defense
General James Jones, National Security Advisor
Senator John Kerry, Chairman on Foreign Relations
Senator Richard G. Lugar, Ranking Member
House of Representatives, Donald Payne, Chairman on Africa
_______
[1] Information provided in the book, Why Europe Fights, by Walter Mills, 1940 (pages 124-152)
[2] Time magazine, International: Ethiopia’s Week, Monday, July 22, 1935
“Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive,” said Sir Walter Scott, the novelist and poet. Is there “famine” in Ethiopia, or not? Are large numbers of people “starving” there, or not? Is convulsive hunger a daily reality for the majority of Ethiopians, or not?
Ethiopian famine map
No one wants to use the “F” word to describe the millions of starving Ethiopians. In August 2008, the head of the dictatorship in Ethiopia flatly denied the existence of famine in a Time Magazine interview. Meles Zenawi explained, “Famine has wreaked havoc in Ethiopia for so long, it would be stupid not to be sensitive to the risk of such things occurring. But there has not been a famine on our watch – emergencies, but no famines.” Last week, the dictatorship’s “Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development”, Mitiku Kassa, reacting defensively to the latest Famine Early Warning System (FEWSNET) projections, was equally adamant: “In the Ethiopian context, there is no hunger, no famine… It is baseless [to claim famine], it is contrary to the situation on the ground. It is not evidence-based. The government is taking action to mitigate the problems.” This past October, Kassa claimed everything was under control because his government has launched a food security program to “enable chronic food insecure households attain sufficient assets and income level to get out of food insecurity and improve their resilience to shocks… and halve extreme poverty and hunger by 2015.”
But there is manifestly a “silent” famine and a “quiet” hunger haunting the land under Zenawi’s “watch.” In April, 2009, Zenawi gave an interview to David Frost of Al Jazeera in which he openly admitted that famine is rearing its ugly head once again in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. Frost asked: “Is there any danger that as a result of this [current] crises there could be famine like there was famine in 1984?” Zenawi responded:
Well, the famine of 1984 was precipitated by drought in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa in general. The famine that could emerge as a result of this [current] crises is likely to be silent across the continent in terms of not swaths of territory that are drought affected but people suffering hunger quietly across the continent. That is the most likely scenario as I see it.
So, if the famine Horseman of the Apocalypse is haunting Ethiopia and the continent, “silently” and “quietly”, why are we not sounding the alarm, ringing the bells and hollering for bloody help? Why are we quiet about the “quiet” hunger and silent about the “silent” famine enveloping Ethiopia today? Why?
It is mind-boggling that no one is making a big deal about the fact that famine and hunger are back in the saddle once more in Ethiopia. Ethiopians need help, and they need a lot of it fast and now. Of course, nothing more depressing than the sight, smell and experience of famine and hunger. For the second part of the 20th Century, much of the world believed the words “Ethiopia” and “famine” were synonymous. But it is unconscionable and criminal for officials to avoid using the “F” word to describe the forebodingly bleak food situation in Ethiopia today because they are concerned it would cast a “negative image” on them. Even the international experts have joined the local officials in boycotting the use of the “F” word. Just last week, the U.S.-funded FEWSNET declared that the majority of Ethiopians will be facing “food insecurity” (not hunger, not starvation, not famine) in the next six months. According to FEWSNET, because of poor harvests from the summer rains in 2009
as well as poor water availability and pasture regeneration in northern pastoral zones” [and coupled]with two consecutive poor belg cropping seasons… high staple food prices, poor livestock production, and reduced agricultural wages, [there will be an] elevated food insecurity over the coming six months [particularly in the] eastern marginal cropping areas in Tigray, Amhara, and Oromia, pastoral areas of Afar and northern and southeastern Somali region, Gambella region, and most low-lying areas of southern and central SNNPR…. In most areas of the country, food insecurity during the first half of 2010 is projected to be significantly worse than during the same period in 2009… Food security in eastern marginal cropping areas will likely deteriorate even further between July and September 2010. Overall, humanitarian assistance needs are expected to be very high.
Is it not a low-down dirty shame for international organizations, political leaders, officials and bureaucrats to use euphemisms to hide the ugly truth about famines and mass-scale hunger? These heartless crooks have invented a lexicography, a complete dictionary of mumbo-jumbo words and phrases to conceal the public fact that large numbers of people in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa are dying simply because they have nothing or very little food to eat. They talk about “food insecurity ”, “food scarcity”, “food insufficiency”, “food deprivation”, “severe food shortages”, “chronic dietary deficiency”, “endemic malnutrition” and so on just to avoid using the “F” word. FEWSNET has invented a ridiculous system of neologism (new words) to describe hungry people. Accordingly, there are people who are generally food secure, moderately food insecure, highly food insecure, extremely food insecure and those facing famine (see map above). Translated into ordinary language, these nonsensical categories seem to equate those who eat once a day as generally food secure, followed by the moderately secure who eat one meal every other day, the highly insecure who eat once every three days, the extremely insecure who eat once a week, and those in famine who never eat and therefore die from lack of food.
For crying out loud, what is wrong with calling a spade a spade!? Why do officials and experts beat around the bush when it comes to talking about hunger as hunger, starvation as starvation and famine as famine? Do they think they can sugarcoat the piercing pangs of hunger, the relentless pain of starvation and the total devastation of famine with sweet bureaucratic words and phrases?
As officials and bureaucrats quibble over which fancy words and phrases best describe the dismal food situation, hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians are dying from plain, old fashioned hunger, starvation and famine. The point is there is famine in Ethiopia. One could disagree whether there are pockets of famine or large swaths of famine-stricken areas. One could argue whether 4.9, 6, 16 or 26 million people are affected by it. But there is no argument that there is famine; and this is not a matter for speculation, conjecture or exaggeration. It can be verified instantly. Let the international press go freely into the “drought affected” and “food insecure” areas and report what they find. For at least the past two years, they have been banned from entering these areas. Is there any doubt that they would reveal irrefutable evidence of famine on the scale of 1984-85 if they were allowed free access to these areas?
Obviously, it is embarrassing for a regime wafting on the euphoria of an “11 percent economic growth over the past 6 years” to admit famine. It is bad publicity for those claiming runaway economic growth to admit millions of their citizens are in the iron grip of a runaway famine. If the “F” word is used, then the donors would start asking questions, relief agencies would be scurrying to set up feeding stations, the international press would be demanding accountability and all hell could break loose. That is why the dictatorship in Ethiopia reacts reflexively and defensively whenever the “F” word is mentioned. They froth at the mouth condemning the international press for making “baseless” claims of famine, and castigate them for perpetuating “negative images” of the country merely because the international press insists on finding out verifiable facts about the food situation in the country. The fact of the matter is that unless action is not taken soon to openly and fully admit that large swaths of the Ethiopian countryside are in a state of famine, we should soon expect to see splattered across the globe’s newspapers pictures of Ethiopian infants with distended bellies, the skeletal figures of their nursing mothers and the sun-baked remains of the aged and the feeble on the parched land.
Denial of famine by totalitarian and dictatorial regimes is nothing new. During 1959-61, nearly 30 million Chinese starved to death in Mao’s Great Leap Forward program which uprooted millions of Chinese from the countryside for industrial production. Mao never acknowledged the existence of famine, nor did he make a serious effort to secure foreign food aid. Ironically, the Chinese Revolution had promised the peasants an end to famine. The Soviet Famines of 1921 and 1932-3 are classic case studies in official failure to prevent famine.
Why is it so difficult for dictatorships and other non-democratic systems to admit famine, make it part of the public discussion and debate and unabashedly seek help? Part of it has to do with image maintenance. Official admission of famine is the ultimate proof of governmental ineptitude and depraved indifference to the suffering of the people. But there is a more compelling explanation for dictators not to admit famine conditions in their countries. It has to do with a fundamental disconnect between the dictators and their subjects. As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen argued,
The direct penalties of a famine are borne by one group of people and political decisions are taken by another. The rulers never starve. But when a government is accountable to the local populace it too has good reasons to do its best to eradicate famines. Democracy, via electoral politics, passes on the price of famines to the rulers as well.
An examination of the history of famine in Ethiopia lends support to Sen’s theory. Emperor Haile Selassie lost his crown and life over famine in the early 1970s. He said he was just not aware of it. The military junta’s (Derg) denied there was famine in 1984/85 while it waged war and experimented with the long-discredited practice of collectivized agriculture. That famine accelerated the downfall of the Derg. The current dictators have opted to remain willfully blind, deaf and mute to the “silent” famine and “quiet” hunger that are destroying the people.
The official response to famines in Ethiopia over the past four decades has followed a predictable pattern: Step 1: Never plan to prevent famine. Step 2: Deny there is famine when there is famine. Step 3: Condemn and vilify anyone who sounds the early alarm warning on famine. Step 4: Admit “severe food shortages” (not famine) and blame the weather, and God for not sending rain. Step 5: Make frantic international emergency calls and announce that hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians are dying from famine. Step 6: Guilt-trip Western donors into providing food aid. Step 7: Accuse and vilify Western donors for not providing sufficient food aid and blame them for a runaway famine. Step 8: Tell the world they knew nothing about a creeping famine until it suddenly hit them like a thunderbolt. Step 9: Put on an elaborate dog-and-pony show about their famine relief efforts. Step 10: Go back to step 1. This has been the recurrent pattern of famine response in Ethiopia: Always too little, too late.
The fact of the matter is that famines are entirely avoidable as Sen has argued with substantial empirical evidence.
Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence … they disappeared suddenly with the establishment of a multiparty democracy and … a free press and an active political opposition constitute the best early-warning system a country threaten by famines can have.
There is another question that needs to be answered in connection with the “severe food shortages” in Ethiopia. Why are millions of fertile hectares of land under “lease” or sold outright to foreigners to feed millions continents away when millions of Ethiopians are starving? To paraphrase Sen, such a thing would be unthinkable in a functioning multiparty democracy!
With no pun intended, the “breadcrumbs” of famine (or as they euphemistically call it the “early warning signs”) are plain to see. There have been successive crop failures and poor rainfall; water availability is limited and staple food prices are soaring; livestock production is poor as is pasture regeneration. Deforestation, land degradation, overpopulation, pestilence and disease are widespread in the land. If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and walks like a duck, it is famine!
If those whose duty is to sound the alarm and get help are not willing to do their part, it is the moral responsibility and duty of every Ethiopian and compassionate human being anywhere to create public awareness of Ethiopia’s creeping famine and call for HELP! HELP! HELP!
“There has never been a famine in a functioning multiparty democracy.” Amartya Sen
(Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.)
CAIRO (apa) — Egypt announced on Tuesday preparations to invest on 20,000 hectares of land in Ethiopia, with a multimillion-dollar investment.
The announcement was made by the visiting Egyptian Prime Minister, Dr.Ahmed Nazif who is on a working visit to Ethiopia starting on Tuesday.
The Egyptian delegation assured the Ethiopian officials that Egypt was keen to be involved in various investment opportunities in the country.
The Egyptian PM said that the National Bank of Egypt will initially develop 20,000 hectares of land of agricultural products as from 2010.
According to state media reports, Egypt will invest the undisclosed amount of agricultural investment in the Afar regional state of Ethiopia, known for its livestock resources.
The two countries prime ministers held talks late on Tuesday on how to boost their trade and investment cooperation, which in the past few years was poor.
The Egyptian delegation also showed interest to invest in other areas such as drug manufacturing.
It was also reported that Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan are expected to reach an agreement on installation of electricity connectivity in the near future to link the three countries with hydroelectric power supply from Ethiopia, which is currently undertaking a multi-billion investment on hydroelectric projects.
Ethiopian Prime Minister tribal dictator Meles Zenawi and his Egyptian counterpart Dr. Ahmed Nazif also expressed their commitment to work together in the efforts to ensure benefits for the peoples of the two countries.
Loading ...
