Do we need Democracy in Ethiopia?
Despite the occasional outcries for democracy or it being tagged in the acronyms of the incumbent and opposition parties; democracy does not have a central place in Ethiopia’s political discourse. From the early 70s on, the Ethiopian student movement introduced two major political questions around which the entire political discourse of the country revolved; the land question and the national question….
These days America is awash with elections. Over the last two weeks, local elections for county council seats, mayoral, attorney general, governor and lieutenant governor positions are being held in many of the states. Even more, the primaries for the November congressional election have already started. Election ads, posters, placards, souvenirs, fundraising events, TV debates are being held for the thousands of local, state level and Federal level government positions. If America is a democracy, elections are the pulse beats of that democracy. Of course, comparing Ethiopia with America requires a stretch of imagination. But for once, compare these with the five year national elections we conduct- ‘elections’ in Ethiopia (for that matter most of Africa) are nerve wrecking, violent, marred and always controversial. Nevertheless, they are becoming regular affairs in our political life. Are elections worthy? To be blunter, do we need democracy in Ethiopia?
Readers would obviously think that these are questions with foregone conclusions. I disagree. Despite the occasional outcries for democracy or it being tagged in the acronyms of the incumbent and opposition parties; democracy does not have a central place in Ethiopia’s political discourse. From the early 70s on, the Ethiopian student movement introduced two major political questions around which the entire political discourse of the country revolved; the land question and the national question. Pressured by the student movement, to gain popular legitimacy or somewhat inspired by the tenets of socialism, the Dergue endorsed the Rural Lands Proclamation on March 4 1975. The edict abolished the infamous ‘gabar’ tenure system, nationalizing all rural land and redistributing it to the tillers. The consequences of this radical reform, its virtues and flaws are still a subject of hot intellectual and political discussion in Ethiopia. The issue is such a flogged horse but still alive and kicking. A victim of its own success, however, the land question is now relegated to a secondary position outflanked by the ‘national question’ in Ethiopia.
The ‘national question’ is a meta-problem with auxiliary questions like: how did Ethiopia emerge as a modern nation-state? What forms of economic, political and cultural injustices prevailed in this state formation process? What could possibly be done to redress past grievances both in the state architecture of the country and its socio-cultural affairs as a nation? Here again, democracy was not a central agendum of Ethiopia’s political discourse up until the 1990s. Consider the names of major political actors: TPLF, OLF, ONLF (post facto; let us exempt the EPLF from being considered as an ‘Ethiopian’ insurgent group). The raison de etre of these organizations was ‘liberation’ that entails self determination up to and including secession. Democratization has never been the main stay of these organizations. It is ironic that TPLF still retains its title of ‘liberation’ after being in power for nearly two decades! I guess the task of ‘liberating’ others is so arduous that you just can’t finish it. You need all the time in the world. Reciting all versions of ‘liberation theology’, the ‘national question’ has now succeeded to single handedly determine Ethiopia’s political spectrum. On one extreme are the Ethiopian nationalists and we have ethno-nationalists on the other.
In fact, history tells us of bad blood between nationalism/s and democracy. Nationalism in pre-WWII Europe, and post independence Africa brought regimes which ended up muffling dissent, furnishing autocracies and fueling violent conflicts, state-sponsored or otherwise. Closer to home, the blues of nationalism in post-independence Eritrea reinforce my case. Even more, turning “liberation fronts” (e.g. TPLF, EPLF) and “national congresses” (e.g. KANU, ZANU, ANC) into democratic parties is proving to be an uphill struggle. Upon incumbency, many of these nationalist parties deferred the people’s dream for freedom. The price they pay for ‘liberation’ ends up becoming the bride price for domination. As such, the people of Africa are undertaking a second generation struggle for democratization against their own ‘liberation and nationalist fronts’. Ethiopia is no exception.
Given this background, I argue that the case for democracy would and should be the next important question in Ethiopia’s politics. Let me explain the “would” part before concluding this first section of the article. In my opinion, the May 2005 election was more than an election. The regime took the election outcome not as opposition wins but as ‘protest votes’. The logic of this argument is flimsy. Of course, the opposition wins when there is disenchantment against the incumbent. Others took the unprecedented wins of CUD- a pan Ethiopian coalition- as the demise of ethno-nationalism and the victory of Ethiopian nationalism. One wonders what the outcomes of that election would be if all entities that have exited (notably the OLF) were fielding candidates. Hence, one should take the earlier argument with a pinch of salt. For me, the May 2005 election was a referendum! It was a referendum for democracy! It was democracy that won its lot in Ethiopia that very day.
Having witnessed those live and engaging debates between parties; attending gatherings and rallies; hoping for some peaceful and democratic transition in the country; Ethiopians have reached the verdict. Gone are the days where politicians want to rule by the muzzle of the gun and impose their will on people!! The election made one simple, powerful but understated point- democracy is the only way through which the right of people to self-determination is actualized! Why should the quest for democracy take the front seat in Ethiopia’s political discourse? I have a proposition- Only democracy guarantees an everyday form of self-determination for the people and by the people. The next part of my article will grapple this proposition in more detail exploring the link between self-determination (my proxy for the national question) and the apparent need for democratization….I have a proposition- Only democracy guarantees an everyday form of self-determination for the people and by the people.
Thanks Dere,
Let God help you.
Nigussie,
Is that all you have in your mind on democracy? Safuu isiniif!
Many thanks, just a few ‘outfashioned but real concerns:
What is your definition of democracy? Is it just an elite rule by compromise,( I know you did not say that, but look by who, how and for whom it is being propagated, and you don’t seem to question that). Don’t you think we should start from what it means before claiming that it ‘would and should’ be a solution. I don’t mean democracy is bad, nor do I say it is good. But systems should be rooted in what people believe is right. Here, the how question is not easy, but at least from a 4 decade history we should know that the easy but futile answer is importing it from outside. So? Shouldn’t it be our task to look inside? Take most election debates, have you seen any party that did not justify its program based on foreign ideology? I think, maybe we should challenge ourselves to abandon our untested views and start to question how we could know what it is that should be called a democracy.
I have just had a chance to look at this blog and I found it very interesting. Let me start by stating that I am comforted by the thought that AAU is still capable of producing people like Derese. Having had a look at the quality of under and post graduate students in many of the government universities, I have almost given up on them but people like Deresse shows that all is not lost yet. In fact sometimes I feel whether there isn’t a hidden agenda behind the poor state of our education system. What better way to kill a country than killing the education system?
In any case what I want to comment today is not on the education but the topic at hand – whether we need democracy or not?
Deresse is not alone in raising the question whether we really need democracy or not. In fact the main proponents of the current system in Ethiopia, those in the government as well as some in the international community give us two justifications or explanations on why the kind of ‘democracy’ we now have in Ethiopia is best for the country. The first argument which is the favorite of the governing party is that of the developmental state. The often mentioned examples to justify the benefit of such a system are either Japan or China depending on the time and the audience. China is usually presented as a model of developmental state for Ethiopian audience who are told what kind of growth that country is witnessing and compare it with the double digit ‘progress’ we observe in Ethiopia. The Japan model is usually presented to external audience trying to convince them that like Japan Ethiopia needs EPRDF to stay in power for several decades to continue the economic growth and consolidate the gains made so far (unfortunately the opposition finally took power in Japan during the last election, disproving that there is no resemblance between the two systems).
On the other hand the international academic discourse around democracy, particularity by those working with or for the big bilateral and multilateral agencies such as the UN, DFID, GTZ, USAID etc, makes a distinction between what they call ‘democratic governance’ and ‘good governance’. They argue that although some countries have not instituted democratic governance they have ensured ‘good governance’ meaning that there are no serious human rights violations and the justice system functions well (though not independently). However, they say that these countries may or may not have adapted ‘democratic governance’ since this mainly is expressed by change of government through a free and fair election. This line of thinking is developed mainly to appease and accommodate clearly undemocratic leaders like Meles, Musevini and Kagame. We are told these ‘young’ African leaders have achieved a lot in the last two decades and need to be given a chance (meaning they should stay in power until they die of old age or leave on account of senility).
Yet, both these arguments cannot be further from the truth. We need democracy because it is a means and an end by itself. We cannot be told that democracy is a process that takes decades and generations. No, it only takes the recognition that all human beings are equal and by virtue of being human they should enjoy equal rights. The government cadres tell us that it has taken the United States to achieve democracy more two hundred years. No it didn’t. The basic tenets of democracy were enshrined in the declaration of independence and the American Constitution. It might have taken Americans a hundred years to build the democratic institutions and it is possible to argue that we should take time to build such institutions in Ethiopia. But such institutions can grow only under a democratic system. Democracy is a prerequisite for existence of democratic institutions. It is not a result. That is why we need democracy and we need it now.
Before I close I want to say a few words about the different propositions given by commentators on what kind of state we should ‘create’. Some have proposed what they claim to be a middle ground between two extremes. For ease of reference we may call these the separatists and the unionists. However, the issue is not as simple and straight forward as reaching a middle ground. It is about agreeing on the ultimate result that we want to achieve. What do the people who propose this middle ground want? What are the questions they want answered? Aren’t some of these questions, such as the land issue, already answered? Couldn’t some other questions such as language be answered in a democratic system? Why do they insist in first breaking up the union and then fixing it? Be true to yourself. If what you want is an independent Oromia or Ogadenia you have to stick to that and fight for it. If, on the other hand, what you are after is the respect of human rights for all Ethiopians irrespective of ethnic or other differences then there is no justification to call for the breakup of the union. This is something that we are quite capable of achieving without needing the kind of middle ground you propose.
Mesfin,
don’t try to change the structure of the political spectrum of the opposition. The two extremes are the left radical unionist liberation fronts whose goal is a UNION of free nations in the Horn, having EU as their role model and the right radical unitarist patriotic forces (whom you wanted to paint as unionists) praying the mantra of ONE Ethiopia with one culture and one language, having USA as their role model. The middle ground is neither EU or US way, but the TRUE ethnic federation (just changing the present fake one under Weyane to the lively and truely functioning federation). So I and my likes are true to our selves. The minimum compromise solution to be accepted by Oromo, Ogadeni and other opressed nations is the true language-based federation and the optimal solution is of course a UNION of Independent nations in the horn.
Galatoomi.
Thanks Walfidaa for your comment. However I still beg to differ. My point is that while the present system of Federation has its flaws and those flaws need to be addressed this is the maximum compromise we can reach short of breaking up the country. Mind you, I am not saying people should not adapt independence as their objective. That is perfectly within their right. However, I don’t believe that is the right answer to the question. As to language based federation i don’t see how you can make that practical in a country having more than seventy languages. There are however a number of alternatives. We can propose to have two official languages i.e. Oromiffa and Amharic while continuing to encourage and support other people to use their languages in their localities. We can also adapt English as the working language (though this will take a lot of investment and time it will eventually benefit all). These are, of course, things that should be discussed and presented to the people. Once again, however, I don’t see the creation of seventy independent states and bringing them to some sort of loose federation as a practical solution. In my opinion people propose the break up of the country mainly due to hate politics instead of pragmatic reasoning. If we were driven by reason instead of emotions I am sure we could have found a perfectly workable solution.
Mesfin,
thanks for the well reflected reply. The whole conflict of the politics in the empire is to be summarized as the conflict between the pro-Oromia Unionist Killil Federalists (the UKF) and the anti-Oromia Unitarist Xeqilaigizat Federalisits (the UXF). The UKFs are the Oromo, Somali, Afar, Benishangul-gumuz, Gambella, all Southern nations and some genuine federalist Tigreans. The UXFs are the Amhara and the few mentaly Amharanized others from all other nations.
The ruling Hegemonist Looting Front (HLF) aka Weyane is living by balancing its power through using this conflict between the UKF and the UXF.
In the time between 1992 and 2005 as Weyane was challenged by UKFs, particularly by the OLF and ONLF, it used the UXFs in order to fight against the UKFs. During the election 2005 and until few months after that, Weyane applied to the cause of UKFs, called for unconditional negotiation with OLF and fought against the challenging UXFs in the form of CUD. Even many OLF supporters joined OPDO, which they hated till then just to protect Oromia from the anti-Oromia CUD.
It was the formation of AFD, which brought the UKFs like OLF and the UXFs like CUD to come together in order to fight against Weyane. This trend continued under MEDREK, where the UKFs like OFC are trying to work with the UXFs like UDJ. This is a good trend. I think they reached a consensus on a future possible referendum on the type of federation to be suitable.
But I think and you also agree that Killil-federation is the best compromise solution. Every language group will have its autonomous national areas at the level of Qebele or Wereda or Zone or State as it is now formally done under Weyane rule. We need only to transforum the present fake Killil federal structure to the TRUE functioning Killil fedration.
It is opposing this compromise solution which tends to lead the UKFs, particularly the OLF, for the extereme solution like demanding Oromian Independence. So the ball is at the field of UXFs, who need to give up their mantra of Unitary Ethiopia and accept Oromian autonomy in the Ethiopian Union in a form of TRUE Killil federation.
Galatoomi.
Walfidaa,
well said! If the UXFs want OLF to give up its project of Oromian Independence, they should be ready to give up their project of Unitary Ethiopia. The compromise solution is the Oromian Autonomy within Ethiopian Union of autonomous nations!
The time when the three opposition camps, i.e the ULFs (Unionist Liberation Fronts) like OLF, the UKFs (Unionist Killil Federalists) like OFC and the UXFs (Unitarist Xeqilaigizat Federalists) like UDJ agree on this compromise solution will be the sign for the end of the Weyane rule. Otherwise we ALL need to be ready to be looted, ruled and lorded by Tigrean hegemonists for the coming one century!