 |
|
|
Ethiopia: Why Can't We Just Get Along?
By Alemayehu G. Mariam
A Comedy of Errors: (Act I)
Rodney King's videotaped brutal beating by members of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) eventually triggered the L.A. riots of 1992. Rodney made a public appearance on the third day of the anarchy and pleaded in his inimitable style:
People, I just want to say, can we all get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids? It's just not right.... Let's try to work it out.
I never thought I would appeal to Rodney King for political wisdom and insight in seeking an end to the internecine warfare in the Ethiopian opposition and plead for reconciliation, understanding and common sense. True, Rodney King is no Martin King, but in this instance I am going to invoke Rodney while pleading Martin to get Ethiopia's opposition leaders to re-think and re-examine their strategy of mutual assured destruction (MAD).
It was amusing to read this past week a story about criminal charges filed against one faction of the Unity and Democracy Party [UDJ] (Andenet) by another faction of the same party in Ethiopia. Charged with disturbing the peace this past April are some of the prominent leaders and members of the UDJ. It is alleged that the defendants threw rocks at the party office and created disturbances while party members worked inside. Several witnesses testified for the prosecution at a hearing and the matter was continued to a later date.
There had been prior confrontations between UDJ members. In late 2009 when UDJ held its Extraordinary Congress at the Imperial Hotel, it was alleged that certain "expelled" members had attempted to disrupt the meetings. The police were reportedly called to intervene, but failed to show up. The meeting was cancelled and there were no prosecutions. But state-controlled television was on hand to record the bizarre spectacle for broadcast.
I am sure the whole zany rock-throwing affair gave dictator-in-chief Meles Zenawi and his crew much needed comic relief in the weeks before the May 2010 "election". Today, Zenawi watches a command performance opera buffa of some of the champions of the Ethiopian opposition duking it out in kangaroo court. It is humiliating and embarrassing for many of us to see some of the giants of the opposition who have sacrificed so much of themselves pointing accusatory fingers at each other in the Zenawi's Halls of Injustice. Of course, one would have expected all opposition leaders to get the message after the "election" and get their acts together. After all, Zenawi won by 99.6 percent, and they "lost" by 100 percent. But that is another matter. I only wish the accusers and the accused could see themselves from the outside as they spar in the three-ring circus of Zenawi's kangaroo court.
Master Stroke of Public Relations (Act II)
The timing of the UDJ "prosecution" is curious, to say the least. The final report of the European Union Election Observation Mission Team [EU EOM] is expected to be released sometime in September. Staging a three-ring kangaroo circus over a rock-throwing incident to coincide with the release of the EU EOM report is a master stroke of public relations. It provides a nice distraction to the findings and conclusions of the forthcoming report. The criminal case will be dragged out to coincide with the release of the report and cushion the hard landing Zenawi is going to have in the report. We already know from the from the preliminary statements of EU EOM that the May 2010 "election" "failed to provide a level playing field". Major donor governments have declared the election "does not meet international standards". That is just diplomatic-speak for a stolen election. Regardless of what the final report will document, the incontrovertible fact is that an "election" that gave Zenawi a victory of 99.6 percent is not an election; it is a travesty of election.
But the sting of the EU EOM report could be lessened and world attention distracted by depicting opposition leaders as a bunch of bumbling and bungling lightweights (or worse) who are not only incapable of leading the country but are spending their time like children throwing rocks at each other. It is a brilliant public relations move by Zenawi to make a complete laughing stock out of some of the most respected leaders of the opposition. Let us just watch Zenawi showcasing the "rock throwers" freak show in his kangaroo court circus as the release date for the EU EOM report draws near: "Come one, come all to the greatest show in Ethiopia! Marvel and thrill at the rock-throwing Ethiopian opposition leaders! Stare in awe... Do you want these guys to run the country!?" Barnum and Bailey never had so much fun!
Justice in Kangaroo Court? (Act III)
Time was that opposition leaders were dragged in chains into kangaroo court to become victims of injustice. Some of the UDJ members in this criminal case were sentenced together to long prison terms in kangaroo court not long ago and served nearly two years before being "pardoned". It is an eerie feeling to see them now standing on their hind legs pointing accusatory fingers at each other. UDJ members going to kangaroo court to seek justice is like Rodney King going before LAPD's Internal Affairs to press charges against the cops who beat him to a pulp. It just makes no sense. I am dismayed and embarrassed by the sight of UDJ members brawling in a kangaroo cage match as Zenawi calls the count. What a low-down dirty shame for all who are toiling for democracy, human rights and justice in Ethiopia to view this spectacle. What comic relief for Zenawi and his crew. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
I want to laugh too, but it hurts to laugh. In fact, I would like to cry at the sight of these distinguished members of the opposition wagging fingers and exchanging verbal missiles in kangaroo court. What were they thinking?
But to add humiliation to a crying shame, I agonize over the possible outcomes of the criminal case. If the UDJ defendants are convicted and sentenced to jail, who wins? Zenawi does. He will step up to the podium and announce to the world that his justice system worked "fairly" and the criminal wrongdoers were held to account. He can walk up to his Western donors (a/k/a partners-in-crime) and smugly say, "Behold my opposition (chuckle)! See real justice at work!"
Who loses if they are convicted? The opposition does. The people will shake their collective heads in dismay and disbelief and ask: "What were they thinking? Why can't they get along? If they can't get along out of power, how could they get along if they get into power?"
Who wins if the UDJ defendants are acquitted? Zenawi does. He can show the world that justice was served in his court with impartiality and the innocent set free. Who loses if they are acquitted? The opposition does. The people will scratch their collective heads and ask: "Why did they do it? Was it worth their humiliation in kangaroo court?" In short, the kangaroo court criminal case is a win-win for Zenawi, and a lose-lose for the opposition!
But there is a less obvious conclusion to be drawn to the credit of the UDJ members. In the heat of the moment, certain party members may or may not have thrown rocks or exchanged harsh words. But to their collective credit, there was no shooting or extreme violence, as it often happens among opposition elements in so many parts of Africa. The UDJ members did not take to street justice to resolve their disagreements; they went to court (admittedly the kangaroo variety). I applaud them for that. They had the right idea, but went to the wrong place. Courts of law (in contrast to kangaroo courts) are the proper and civilized place to bring disputes for resolution. Independent judges (in contrast to hacks wearing judicial robes) can properly administer justice impartially and neutrally.
But the proper place for resolution of political disputes among Ethiopia's opposition is never in kangaroo court, but in intra- and inter-organizational mediation and reconciliation processes or other civil society institutions. Throwing rocks or vilifying each other with abusive words is never justified. They do not need to beat each other up; they need to stand together and cover each other's back. They need to shield each other from the ceaseless barrages of the slings and arrows of an outrageous dictatorship.
So I am going to "sermonize" a little bit here. If the bickering, name calling, rock throwing and all the other silly stuff continues, the opposition will end up in mutual assured destruction as the dictators look on with glee. It is mad to follow the path of MAD. The opposition has far too many important tasks to accomplish. They have already lost precious time in internal strife and fragmentation; they need to be doing more by way of uniting, mobilizing, motivating and inspiring the people with their ideas and plans. The people want to hear messages of hope and redemption from opposition leaders, not accusations and recriminations. The people want to be assured that it is possible, with dedication and effort, to overcome the seemingly insurmountable mountain of dictatorship; that change, peaceful democratic change, is possible and the people themselves hold their destiny in their collective hands. The people want to be shown these possibilities through leadership examples of optimism, dedication, tolerance, tenacity and patriotic zeal. That is the way to do it!
The kind of legal warfare we see in kangaroo court with opposition leaders and members is demoralizing; it is not uplifting for the people. It robs the people of their faith in the future and saps their energy, enthusiasm and hopes for democracy. Opposition leaders should be less concerned about their partisan interests and more engaged in addressing the needs of the masses of unemployed youth, the urban poor that have little to eat; the poor farmers scratching the earth for seedlings; the masses of women who face domestic violence daily; the educated professionals who can barely eke out an existence on salaries that are gobbled up by stratospheric inflation and the state workers who are forced to supplement their incomes by payments under the table. These people are looking for visionary leadership. They want to see clear-thinking and dignified opposition leaders charting the course to a better future. They do not want to see opposition leaders brawling in freak shows in a kangaroo circus court. Stated simply, opposition leaders and parties need consolidation, not fragmentation; they need reconciliation not accusation and recrimination.
Can't We Just Get Along? (Act IV)
I see no need for opposition leaders to act in a vaudevillian comedy show directed by Zenawi. That is why I am asking them to develop and adopt a voluntary "code of conduct" to govern their relationships as they face a formidable common adversary. Such a code should address matters of civility, tolerance of dissent, non-use of inflammatory language, avoidance of personality clashes, constructive criticism of programs and policies, avoidance of personal attacks, establishment of formal and informal dispute resolution mechanisms, grievance complaint procedures and so on. Under no circumstances should they air their "dirty political laundry" in kangaroo court.
Political leaders and followers who are truly committed to democracy and human rights and work for the betterment of the Ethiopian people need to get along with each other and cooperate for a common purpose. They do not need to agree with each other on all issues or even the majority of issues. It is not even necessary for them to socialize and hang out together; but it is mandatory that they find effective ways of collaboration to advance their common causes of democracy, human rights, accountability, transparency and the rule of law.
Working together requires creating a harmonious working relationship founded on mutual respect, tolerance and understanding. If there are differences on issues, as there should be, all effort must be exerted to discuss and resolve them without degenerating into personal attacks. If issues cannot be resolved, it is best to agree to disagree and move on with other issues.
Teamwork and collegiality among opposition leaders are essential if dictatorship is to be defeated and real democracy established in Ethiopia. When opposition leaders attack and disrespect each other, they not only make themselves laughing stocks for the dictator and his crew but also look silly in the eyes of the public and set a bad example. The kind of dysfunctionality that is visible in the opposition today is not only pathetic but also harmful to the prospects of democracy in the future. Opposition leaders need to answer a simple question: How can they expect to work collaboratively in the interests of the country and fight dictatorship when they have hardened partisan politics among themselves so much? The road of hardened partisan politics leads to MAD. They may have been in separate boats before the May "election", but now they are all in the same boat cruising up that famous creek without a paddle.
It is time now to transition to the politics of multi-partisanship, cooperation and collaboration. Practically, this means advancing the interests of the people over partisan politics or advancement of one's agenda, status, career or ambitions. It means showing the people that the opposition is NOT the flip side of the ruling dictatorship. Stated simply, the people need to be reassured that in the opposition they are not swapping Tweedledee for Tweedledum. Democracy and dictatorship are not interchangeable. The most effective way of getting the trust and support fo the people is by proving to them what it means to work together harmoniously while opposition leaders and parties are on the outside, and before they have tasted the sweet intoxicating nectar of power.
That's why I pose some simple questions to Ethiopia's opposition leaders: "Why can't you all just get along? Can you stop making it horrible for the older people and the kids? It's just not right.... Why can't you try to work it out?"
As the old saying goes, "Yesterday is gone and tomorrow is not ours, what we have is today." Can we all begin to mend fences today and come together not only to oppose and defeat an ephemeral dictatorship, but most importantly, to put our collective shoulders to the grind wheel and work for democracy, justice and human rights in Ethiopia? Can we all get along!
FREE BIRTUKAN MIDEKSSA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA.
Ethiopia - Washington Update
By Mesfin Mekonen
Great news for all Ethiopians and Ethiopian-Americans! Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) has introduced legislation, S. 3557 entitled “Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2010”.
In this new piece of legislation, which has been cosponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Feingold summarizes the ongoing crises in Ethiopia. He goes on to focus on the deplorable state of Human Rights in the country.
Please find below the actual text of the bill. It speaks directly to the great issues that we face. We must organize and mobilize to see that this bill is enacted into law by both houses of Congress and signed by President Obama.
S. 3557 reads:
It is the policy of the United States—
(1) to support and encourage efforts by the people and Government of
Seye Abraha and the Ethiopia-Eritrea War
By Eskinder Nega | August 27, 2010
“I never thought that the war (the Ethiopia-Eritrea war) would lead me to permanent fallout with my lifelong friends,” ponders Seye Abraha of his lost camaraderie with Meles Zenawi and his allies in a book that was released in Addis on Tuesday. “But so apprehensive was I to become of the ideas they promoted, I lost hope in them in due course.”
“Liberty and the dispensation of justice in Ethiopia” is a 440-page book that Seye wrote after his release from seven years of imprisonment, accused of corruption during his four years stint as Defense Minister in the '90s. This is his shot at absolution, the silver bullet that is meant to clear his name once and for all. He has magnanimously donated the proceeds from the book to his party, UDJ. Mercifully, the book has been skillfully edited for syntax, punctuation and clarity, a norm in most parts of the world, but which is mysteriously (and annoyingly) absent from most Amharic books. At least the copies that I and friends bought are US prints, the quality of the cover and inside pages, much to our delight, far superior to the local norm. We gladly paid the asking price: 70 birr.
As Seye tells it, the crack in the fêted harmony that long prevailed between TPLF leaders first occurred immediately after the outbreak of the Ethio-Eritrean war. “But it was strictly between Meles and the rest of us,” recounts Seye. Two months after the Eritreans occupied Badme, the unlikely epicenter of the dispute, leaders of the TPLF sulkily acknowledged the inevitability of war the nation was ill-prepared for. The Eritreans were clearly the dominant military power in the horn. “They were vying for political, economic and diplomatic concessions from their neighbors,” observes Seye. The imperative to regain Ethiopia’s military preeminence, a dominant heritage of the region, was quickly agreed upon by all the leaders of the TPLF---save one. “Only Meles took exception to defining our (the nation's) purpose as that of totally crushing Shabiya’s (the ruling party in Eritrea) military prowess,” writes Seye. The plan, in other words, was for regime change. (Some had even grandeur ambitions in private.) But Meles worried about Eritrea’s independence, then only five years old, and the diplomatic fallout from occupying a sovereign nation partially or fully. “We went to great length to convince him, and he finally relented,’ narrates Seye. The hard part being over, the next step was merely routine: rubber-stamping the decision by the broader EPRDF leadership.
A Central Command was set up----ostensibly entrusted with the responsibility of co-ordinating the war effort but in reality to monitor Meles. Seye Abraha, Tewelde Welde-Mariam (both form the party), Tefera Walewa (Defense Minister), Tsadkan Welde-Tensay (Chief of Staff), Abadula Gemeda (Chief of the Army), Abebe Tekle-Haymanot(Chief of the Air force) and Meles Zenawi became members of the Command. In time, the Command was to become more prestigious and powerful than Meles; who, as PM,was the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
But Meles was not really convinced. As Seye sees it, he had only chosen to play the part of saboteur from inside. And he details how the purchase of Suk-27 planes, which were to play a crucial part in the war, was almost derailed by a stonewalling Meles. “ First, he said there was no money (to buy the planes.) When it was ascertained otherwise, it was untouchable because the IMF said so,” writes Seye with apparent exasperation. The relationship that was once strained, but which improved markedly when Meles gave in, was now visibly poisoned. “It undermined our trust in each other,” maintains Seye. But a showdown was not in the cards. “We slowly swayed Meles in favor of the purchase. Tewelde did most of the convincing,’ says Seye. ( Tewelde was Meles’ deputy in the TPLF.)
The war went splendidly. What the Americans said was impossible, the dislodging of the well dug-in Eritreans by military means form Badme, was accomplished with lightening speed and limited casualty to the Ethiopian side. The army was on a roll, highly motivated for more success on the Central and Eastern fronts.
And this is where, for Seye, the straw that was to break the camel's back surfaced: the Algiers Technical Arrangement.
“The Technical Arrangement did not only fail to meet our demand for a return to status-quo-ante, but accorded partial recognition to the Ertirean’s claim over Badme, the very area we had just liberated by force of arms,” relates Seye. But Meles, much to the fury of Seye, was in favor of accepting it. He warned of devastating sanctions contemplated by the international community. When that failed to make an impression, “he brought up Lenin, Tewedros and Menelik.”
The socialist revolution was possible in Russia because Lenin had the foresight to accept the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, argued Meles. (Russia had to surrender land to the Germans.) Eritrea is no Germany, nor is Ethiopia Russia, retorted his opponents. But citing Ethiopia’s past, he persisted. “Tewedros blundered when he fought the super power of his time, the British, and he paid with his life. Menelik, on the other hand, had the wisdom to concede part of his country ( Eritrea) to save the far larger part(what is Ethiopia minus Eritrea),” argued Meles. We should learn from history, he insisted.
But none in his party, the TPLF, and only one from the coalition, Kassu Ilala, an MD turned politician, was to be swayed by the power of his argument. It was a devastating blow for him, the clear low point of his political career. He was ready to leave, but his opponents opted(fatefully) to wait for the end of the war. On a personal level, Seye and Meles could barely tolerate each other anymore. “This is when we stopped greeting each other,” discloses Seye. It was open war in all but name. “The climax of our differences had to await the finality of the war. In context of a nation mobilized for war, publicizing our disagreements would have been disastrous,” writes Seye. “But while we were fully engaged in the war effort, he (Meles)was plotting our downfall,” concludes Seye bitterly.
And there is no better way to neutralize your opponents than to accuse them of corruption, asserts Seye. “ This is the genesis of the corruption charges against me,” says Seye.
Rumors of corruption exasperate the division within the TPLF leadership. Absurdly, and perhaps as a sign of its politicization, it abruptly dominates the internal debate only within the TPLF. The other EPRDF organizations remain totally immune to the allegations and counter-allegations of corruption that wreaks the TPLF. Upping the challenge, Meles’ opponents propose the establishment of a committee to investigate. “ We proposed that our personal assets and that of our immediate relatives be registered and their origins investigated,” says Seye. The response of Meles is bizarre: “We reject your proposal because we believe in fighting corruption not by trivializing it to police work and investigations but at the level of the perception that enables it.”
The preposterousness and obvious implication of this response will haunt not only Meles’ legacy but also all those who had sided with him.
The Ethiopian Economy: Big Numbers and Empty Bellies
By Fekade Shewakena
Poverty is Ethiopia’s persistent reality and has long been the country’s definer. The country’s mainstay, agriculture, is predominantly subsistence and is still only one drought season away from a multimillion killer famine unless we beg in time. Meles Zenawi often talks of poverty as being the number one problem of the country. I have yet to meet any Ethiopian who disagrees with this. But there are disagreements on the kinds of approaches, economic and political governance and accountability and the kind of policy tools we must use to fight poverty. Had we been a lucky, vibrant and freely debating country, these disagreements and debates should have been considered healthy and encouraged.
There are a number of people outside of the government, including myself, who doubt the double digit growth claim and the validity of the coming five year plan that promises ‘cows in the sky’. Many including non-Ethiopians believe it is exaggerated at best or fabricated at worst for political purposes. Obviously, the regime and its cronies have the motive of justifying their proposed authoritarian nanny-state solution, the so called developmental state, which is to be led by a vanguard party – the EPRDF with Mr. Zenawi at the helm. Mr. Zenawi’s recent argument against the neoliberal and market fundamentalist boogeyman which he created out of thin air may be laughable but indicates how much he failed to wrench himself off of his long held but debunked Marxian authoritarian methods. I haven’t heard any Ethiopian politician who argues the state should not intervene in the country’s economic development or anyone who argues to leave the economy to market forces. There may be argument in the level and kind of intervention. This has even ceased to be an argument in developed democracies anymore let alone in Ethiopia. But as increases in accusations about human rights violations and closure of democratic space become intensified, Mr. Zenawi, his officials and supporters seem to keep clinging to non existing challenges and phantom statistics as a means of offsetting that.
In my view, there is no more disgusting sin than playing politics with Ethiopia’s massive and obscene poverty. Ethiopia’s poverty is too grim, too widespread, too sad and tragic to play political propaganda games with it. The exaggeration and in many instances the fabrication of the growth statistics is not making any dent on the lives of the millions of Ethiopians - as much as 90% of them who are absolutely poor as some recent estimates put it. Nor is it creating any hope for the mass of young people who concluded that their best bets for improving their lives is to leave the country in droves by taking risky journeys to foreign lands. A recent survey by Gallup shows nearly half the adult population of Ethiopia wants to leave the country. This doesn’t sound like coming from a country that is growing at the rate claimed by the government, fool of hope and great promise. We have enough to suffer from real poverty, we will only add to our misery if we pile lies on to that.
There are some striking independent evaluations that shade light into the amount of data manipulation and exaggeration by the government. Some are expatriate independent scholars who cannot be accused of having any Ethiopian political axe to grind. If you want an illustration of how the Ethiopian authorities play games with statistics to create an illusion of stratospheric economic growth, read this study by experts Stefan Dercon and Ruth Vegas Hill from Oxford University who collaborated with DFID of the UK to evaluate the performance of Ethiopia’s agriculture and checked the official numbers. The experts who made the study concluded that:
“The scale of output expansion in Ethiopia in the last 10 years is unprecedented. According to the data, it involved dramatic increases in areas cultivated with cereals, up 44 percent in the last 10 years, without any clear record or reporting on the process by which more land was obtained. Yields increased by 40 percent in the same period, with most of this growth in the last 5 years, but without any sign of intensification via fertilizer, improved seeds or irrigation and limited increases in land under the extension program. As yield growth has fast outpaced the experience elsewhere in Africa or during the Green Revolution in Asia but without input intensification, the sources of yield growth should be understood to restore trust in the current data. In general, more effort should be expanded to ensure the auditing of these key data sources on the Ethiopian economy”.
One of the major recommendations of the authors of this study states, “New, targeted data collection, and independent verification and auditing procedures are required to allow the necessary confidence in the current data”. In fact, they sound even more puzzled as to how these exaggerations were made since the crop- cutting method using a statistical sampling design that often generate superior data to other methods was used. The ferenjis seem to have been so polite not to use the word lie.
Using the official data and comparing it to international experience, the authors have found out that the Ethiopian government claimed to achieve in 10 years far more than what countries in East Asia achieved in longer years of the Green Revolution. At the end of the Green Revolution in the case of the Asians, we know that they overcame their food insecurity and started to fund their industrialization. On the contrary in Ethiopia’s case, the number of people on food handouts has grown to one in ten, the number of the absolute poor has increased and the structure of the economy remains basically unchanged. No official or expert of the Ethiopian government has so far attempted to explain these discrepancies. As the authoritarians that they are, they have the luxury of unaccountability and never feel responsible to explain it. In tragic Ethiopia, often it is the critic that gets in trouble than those who do the blunder. When you catch them with their hands in the cookie jar, they get angry and accuse you of some malicious intent. Some years ago Meles promised that he will shortly create an economy where all Ethiopians will have three meals a day. He never told us why that prediction failed miserably. With this propensity for exaggeration and unaccountability, I am surprised why they promised us only a 15% GDP growth during the next five-year plan that they just announced.
An Ethiopian economist who lives in Ethiopia whose comments I often value told me recently that anyone who would come up with a finding of 9.9% growth would be in trouble in Ethiopia today. It has to be double digit to sound mouthful and of propaganda value for the donors to like it. Most objective experts I talked to say the growth is anywhere near five or six percent which, of course, doesn’t mean it is not remarkable. I am sure any World Bank and IMF expert will not give you more than a 6% rate, if they talk to you in private and promise them you will not disclose their name. (By the way the IMF and the World Bank do not collect their own data or replicate the official survey, but Meles keeps claiming they agree with him). It is simply a pity.
The truth of the matter is that Ethiopia is still a predominantly subsistence farming agricultural country that depends heavily on rainfall. Good old coffee and other agricultural products are still the products that fetch hard currency as they did during the Emperor’s time. Thanks to our dispersal around the world we in the Diaspora send a lot of money home every year. Yes, a lot construction of roads and buildings has taken place and a few people have stricken it filthy rich in the service and construction sectors. Most of them, we are told, are the well connected and the powerful. Yet, we have more poor people than at any time in our history. Little of this growth is trickling down to the tragically destitute.
Meaningful economic development and ending or reducing poverty requires looking at and affecting a web of interacting variables and factors. It is not as easy as making some linear extrapolation. True, there has been growth in the economy over the past several years. But we also know that this growth has made little dent on the lives of the mass of the suffering people. We also know that none of this increase is due to any innovative work or advance in technology or structural changes in the economy as the government wants us to blindly believe. We know exactly which sectors of the economy have shown growth and why. It is also important to note that Ethiopia is not the only country in Africa that has achieved considerable increase in GDP. Many African countries, most of our neighbors to the south and west, recorded considerable growth numbers during the same period. It is a result of part good weather, part foreign aid, part local effort. You can apply enough chemical fertilizer and grow the yield per unit area if the rains are good. Or you can play nice with donors and be their darling and get billions of dollars in aid, as the Ethiopian authorities successfully did, and can register considerable quantitative increase in GDP. But then again this is not a sustainable way of fighting endemic poverty or basing your future forecasts on.
The only way out of Ethiopia’s poverty is the prevalence of the rule of law and democracy. It is the making of a confident people in the institutions of the country and the accountability of the government. There is no country that has prospered without resolving outstanding political and other conflicts within themselves through a democratic and lawful way. The models Meles often loves to cite have done that. They have reduced their conflicts to manageable levels through tolerance and the rule of law and not by trying to crush them through the use of force. Even China couldn’t have done it without allowing a level of diversity of views and dissent inside the communist party. All emerging economies are those that have liberalized themselves and achieved at least a patriotic unity of their people.
Some supporter of the government recently told me boastfully that the number of universities in the country has grown more than ten times. I asked him if he knows that the research output from these universities is less than when we had only two, and if he knows more than 50% of the instructors are first degree holders and in some cases undergraduate senior students and asked him to define a university for me. My friend, who was happy to play the numbers game could not say a word about any of the substance.
Let me leave you with an example of how people play games with numbers and statistics that my Indian professor once told me. He told me about a 100 people who were trying to cross a river. They all couldn’t swim and were afraid of drowning as they did not know the depth of the river. Finally there was some mathematically endowed person among them who set out to measure the depth of the river and the height of all hundred of them. He made the necessary calculations and found that the average height of the people was above the river’s depth. He then told all of them that everybody can cross on the average. Unfortunately the 25 of them who were very tall have influenced the average. Seventy five of them drowned. There wasn’t even a mistake on the mathematical computation. It was a failure of thinking.
Ethiopia has a herculean challenge of getting out of poverty. Its rapidly growing population, the environmental degradation, and the challenges of plugging in to a globalized world, to mention just a few, are not easy. Yes, poverty is the number one problem of the country that all of us seem to agree on. But you cannot solve a number one problem by making it secondary to absolute political control. Those who tried that it in the past have failed miserably. I pray for my country and for wisdom.
A Brand Spanking New Constitution
By Alemayehu G. Mariam
In February 2008, following the ethnically-driven post-election violence in Kenya, I wrote an editorial commentary entitled "The Ethiopianization of Kenya":
After a half century of national existence, democratic experimentation and stability, Kenya has degenerated into a tribal/ethnic basket case beset by violence, fear and loathing... Kenya could have easily avoided this calamity. It had all of the tools at its disposal -- a functioning and well-oiled electoral process, a civically engaged population, a democratic political culture enriched by prior voting experiences, an active and independent press, and a reasonably professional and independent judiciary, among others. It could have peacefully and amicably resolved the persisting questions of land ownership and redistribution, democratic power sharing, and grievances over issues of ethnic domination... Kibaki understood the implications of the theft of the presidential election for Kenyan national politics. He was fully aware of the potential for ethnic upheavals and widespread violence. He thought he could handle it by replicating the lessons of Kenya's neighbor to the north, and perpetuate himself in power by introducing the discredited politics of "ethnic federalism."[1]
The post-election bloodbath in Kenya ended after 1,500 innocent people were killed and 300,000 internally displaced, and Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga agreed to share power and hold a referendum on a new Constitution, which earlier this month was approved by 67 percent of the voters.
Kenya's new 206-page constitution[2] replaces the original one engineered by the colonial masters in 1963. It includes a comprehensive Bill of Rights (which encompasses economic, social, and cultural rights). It transfers certain powers to local governments consisting of 47 newly-minted counties, each of which will have a governor and are specially represented in a newly-established Senate. Limits on presidential powers are imposed by requiring parliamentary confirmation of appointees and ending the practice of presidential appointment of judges, among others. The powers of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are more clearly delineated, and citizen participation in the political process is promoted. The Constitution authorizes the establishment of a new Land Commission with the power to re-possess illegally-occupied public lands. It guarantees women the right to inherit land. Muslim family (kadhis') courts are given jurisdiction over matters "relating to personal status, marriage, divorce or inheritance" for Kenya's Muslim minority.
Supporters of the new Constitution argued that these and other changes will usher in a new era of rights for Kenyans (guaranteeing clean water, decent housing, sanitation, and an adequate supply and quality of food and economic rights of inheritance for women), and ensure official transparency, accountability and clean government. According to one recent poll, 91 percent of Kenyans support the new Constitution. President Mwai Kibaki euphorically declared that the new Constitution will be "our shield and defender as we strive to conquer poverty, disease and ignorance." President Obama praised it as "a significant step forward for Kenya's democracy". Opponents campaigned against the new Constitution because it "allows abortion on demand," and recognizes a non-secular (khadis') court system. The stronghold of opposition is said to be in western Kenya. Some have suggested that opposition to the new Constitution is stoked by politicians who are likely to lose their political and economic grip in the western region under the new Constitution.
Kenya's voluminous new constitution and its ambitious scope of coverage of rights is long on promises not unlike most African constitutions which offer a cornucopia of rights and accountability provisions. The real question is whether Kenya's new Constitution will continue the long unbroken tradition of dictatorship of Big Men in Africa or become a real instrument for the creation of a government of laws for the Kenyan people.
Government of Laws, Not of Men
Constitutional government is fundamentally about the rule of law. Organic rules are established to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive exercise of government power, and ensure leaders and institutions are held accountable under the "supreme law of the land". Stated simply, in a government of laws, "no man or woman is above the law." But much of Africa has suffered under the government of men - autocrats, civilian dictators, military juntas, hybrid civilian-military dictators - who have pillaged the continent to line their pockets and oppress the people for nearly one-half century. For instance, Ethiopia for centuries remained under the rule of monarchs who believed they were "elect of God" and operated under the principle that they "can do no wrong" or be held accountable under the law. The maxim which conceptualized the monarch as the supreme law of the land holds, "it is impossible to sue the king or plough the sky." (Negus aykeses, semay aytares.) The "divine rule of kings" in Ethiopia gave way to an inhuman military dictatorship, followed by a brutal full-fledged kleptocracy.
The modern idea of legal accountability to check the abuse of political power dates back to the English Magna Carta (1215). The Great Charter was imposed on a reluctant king to safeguard against his arbitrary personal rule and to hold him accountable under the "laws of the land". By the same token, modern constitutions are intended to be a bulwark against dictatorship and tyranny by requiring of leaders and institutions observance of the principle of the rule of law. But that has not happened in Africa. African dictators have sought to create the illusion of constitutional democracy while practicing constitutional dictatorship. They sneer at the very thought of being held accountable when they exceed, abuse or misuse their powers. Far from imposing limitations on power, constitutions in Africa have served to expand and maximize the powers of dictators who have used them as "trump cards" to suit their needs. Many African dictators have used their constitutions as "meal tickets". Western donors often refuse to extortion money unless they see the dictators wrapped around a nice liberal-sounding constitution. Domestically, these dictators have used their constitutions to legitimize their dictatorships, provide a "legal" cover for their klepto-oligarchic state, and to protect and preserve their privileges. As offensive weapons, they have use them to sledgehammer the opposition. For instance, in 2005 after Zenawi was defeated in the polls, he wiped out the opposition by charging them with five counts of violations of the Constitution. After he declared victory in the May 2010 election which he "won" by 99.6 percent, he made two public offers to opposition parties and leaders that he would sit and negotiate with them (lol) provided they "respect the will of the people and accept the country's Constitution and constitutional process."[3]
Kibaki told a teeming crowd of thousands in Nairobi that the new Constitution will be "our shield and defender as we strive to conquer poverty, disease and ignorance." We wish the Kenyans the best of luck; but the fact is that in very few places in Africa have constitutions ever been used as shields. They have been used as spears and swords against individuals and as barrages of arrows against dissident groups in society. Kenya's choices are clear: She can take Ghana's path and launch a constitutional democracy, or imitate its northern neighbor and be swallowed up in the quicksand of constitutional dictatorship. The Ghanaian path is the more difficult one to take because it requires translating constitutional rules into daily practice. It requires nurturing a democratic culture complete with all the expressive freedoms. This means going beyond babbling rapturous constitutional rhetoric about a "reborn" Kenya, "shields" and "defensive" armor against poverty and so on. To ensure constitutional success, ordinary Kenyans must take full ownership of their Constitution or it will be swiftly hijacked by the wily and corrupt politicians. Kenyans civil society institutions and intellectuals must take the lead in educating the masses about their new Constitution and help develop structures for popular participation. If Kenyans fail to maintain "eternal vigilance" over the corrupt crooks skulking in the halls of power, they will soon find that the constitution they were told was their shield will have been transformed into spears and arrows of dictatorship, garrotes to choke their civil society institutions and cudgels to trash their human rights. If they need proof of that ugly future, let them calmly gaze northward.
From the Misrule of Law to the Rule of Law
Is it not a tragic fact that for most of Africa dictatorship is the only game of politics? The real question to contemplate as Kenya begins political life under its new Constitution is whether it will ultimately become a constitutional democracy or constitutional dictatorship. Kibaki has been in the saddles of power since his days as minister of finance in 1969, and is Kenya's third president since 1963. The stench of corruption in high government places in Kenya reeks to the high heavens. In August 2006, Senator Barack Obama said, "Here in Kenya, there is a crisis [of corruption] -- a crisis that's robbing an honest people of the opportunities they fought for."
Having lofty-sounding and well-crafted constitutions will not guarantee the crooked politicians will conform their conduct to the supreme law of the land. If mere words in a constitution were proof of the existence and functioning of constitutional government, Ethiopia's would be second to none. Kenya now is at the fork in the constitutional road. Whichever road it takes will be fraught with danger. I am hopeful that Kenya will take the road less travelled -- Ghana's Way -- in the rest of Africa. But I have deep concerns over the challenges that lie ahead. Do the Kenyan masses understand their new Constitution? Better yet, do their leaders? I am doubtful that the vast majority of Kenyans have actually read and understand the 206-page Constitution (let alone engaged in vigorous debate over its provisions), despite that country's 80 percent literacy rate. Even a studious and learned constitutional lawyer will have difficulty penetrating the dense recesses of the new Constitution. The corrupt politicians thrive in a whirlpool of mass ignorance; and I have a gnawing suspicion that they will find a way to hijack the Constitution and continue to do business as usual. The silver lining in the cloud is the manifest popular excitement and enthusiasm for the new Constitution by ordinary citizens. Only they can save their country from the serrated teeth of the corrupt and voracious politicians.
Long-term political stability in Africa will be impossible without citizens and leaders believing that legitimate governance rests first and foremost on observance of an agreed upon set of ground rules that limit the power of leaders and institutions and guarantee the rights of citizens. The words of most African constitutions are dead letters. They mean nothing, except what the dictators want them to mean. They neither shield citizens from the slings and arrows of ruthless dictators nor guide the people out of the wilderness of failed "statedoms" and thiefdoms (kleptocracies). These so-called constitutions are "legal" documents but they are rarely legitimate instruments of governance. They disempower the ordinary people from becoming active participatory citizens and rarely serve as tools for greater official accountability, transparency, or protection of human rights. Africa's dilemma today is whether it will be democratized or continue to be "dictatorized".
If the recent polls are any indication, there seems to be a significant attitudinal shift among average Kenyan citizens and the elites that the new Constitution represents a change of power from a group of ethnically-entrenched demagogues to a set of supreme rules. That is a hopeful sign. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. Ultimately, the proof of Kenya's new Constitution will be in its application and dutiful observance by its leaders and citizens. If ordinary Kenyans resolve to defend their new Constitution against the hordes of thieving politicians and kleptocrats, the words written on that paper will be worth more than all the precious jewels in the world. In the meantime, Kenya's neighbors to the north will be scratching their heads wondering if their Constitution is worth the paper it is written on! North of the Kenyan border the motto is: "For our friends, everything; for strangers, nothing; and for our enemies, the law (constitution)!
:: Next Page >>
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of nazret.com. The views are solely that of the author. Become a blogger of nazret.com, the #1 Rated Ethiopian Website according to Alexa. Contact us for details
| Next >
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
XML Feeds
