The Habesha: Latest Ethiopian News, Analysis and Articles

Abiy Ahmed and Lemma Megersa, in November 2017. Wikicommons/Odaw. Some rights reserved.According to the dominant assessment, the crisis in Ethiopia reflects the absolute antagonism between two well-defined blocks. A fight between “Ethiopia’s political and business elites (that) have decided to make their last stand to protect their wealth and power by using a military” apparatus, and “a revolution from below based on the political activism of millions of people who are determined to deploy nonviolent methods to overthrow a tyrannical totalitarian regime.”

In this view, the first block is clinging to the status quo. “Take their power away, they will become nobody overnight.” Its centre of gravity is “the” Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), perceived as a homogeneous and unified force. While Tigrayans account for only 6% of the population, the Front maintains its pre-eminence in the leadership of the military and security forces answerable to federal authority. It is a very big player in the “modern” – i.e. non-agricultural – economy, through its control over public and para-public companies. It has long been the dominant component of the four ethnic parties in the ruling coalition, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF).

This ascendancy was clear with respect to the Southern Ethiopian People’s Democratic Movement (SEPDM), but in decline for the Amhara National Democratic Movement (ANDM) and even more so for the Oromo Peoples’ Democratic Organisation (OPDO). It also attracts apparatchiks from all over, including ANDM and OPDO. Without saying it overtly, they too have an interest in the maintenance of the status quo, even when this runs counter to some of their party’s positions.Nevertheless, this block has made – or at least offered – gestures of opening up that were unthinkable a few months ago, and promises more.

Nevertheless, this block has made – or at least offered – gestures of opening up that were unthinkable a few months ago, and promises more. It has released more than 6000 political prisoners, including key leaders of the legal opposition. OPDO has “invited opposition party members based in Ethiopia and overseas to work together with the goal of realizing a democratic system,” i.e. even the most radical fringe of the diaspora. ANDM has made a similar gesture. Never before have the official news channels of Oromia and of the Amhara region, as well as the private media, enjoyed such a degree of freedom of expression.

For its detractors, however, the proclamation of a second state of emergency, on February 16, is evidence that this block still favours force as the tool of getting its way. In response to mass protest, they say, it has simply yielded some tactical ground, which it will subsequently recover, while ultimately keeping hold of the essential.

How the opposing camp is seen

The opposing camp is seen as the proponent of radical change. Its strike force is the street and the sequence of demonstrations that have been under way for almost four years, even more in Oromia than in the Amhara region, headed by the “Qeerroo”, a term that means “unmarried young male” in the Oromo language. Parts of OPDO and of ANDM have joined forces with this current, under pressure from the unprecedented movement of mass protest. One of the rising stars, the President of Oromia, Lemma Megersa, has gone so far as to declare that “if we failed to deliver using existing legal and institutional mechanisms, I and all of us here will join you in the protests.” Another player, of course, is the legal opposition, but its leaders are ageing and worn out by decades of futile struggle. It is also weakened by its fragmentation, disorganization, woolliness, and disunity over objectives.

This camp is unanimous in its pursuit of one primary, specific and concrete goal: to put an end to “Tigrayan hegemony”, summed up in its battle cry of: “down Woyane!”, in reference to the Tigrayan elite. However, it is much less explicit and clear about what to put in their place. In fact, like the ruling power itself, this opposition is enamoured of catchall slogans: “reforms”, “opening up”, “democratisation”, “transparency”, “accountability”, to which everyone can attach their own content. Like the ruling power itself, this opposition is enamoured of catchall slogans: “reforms”, “opening up”, “democratisation”, “transparency”, “accountability”, to which everyone can attach their own content.

This assessment is too simplistic to reflect the complexity and indeterminacy of the situation. In fact, there are two crises, not just one. Obviously interconnected, their origins, the players involved, and the objectives sought, are different: one crisis intrinsic to the ruling power, illustrated by the storm whirling around the apex of the leading coalition; and one crisis arising from external opposition to the broader system of power by some of those excluded from it, spearheaded by the Qeerroo.

Elitist conceptions of power

Underpinning everything is the elitist conception and practice of power. It is encoded in the genes of Ethiopian policy and Ethiopian culture alike, at least in the country’s Abyssinian cradle.

Under the influence of the radical student movement, the revolution of 1974 that led to the fall of the Emperor simply modified its expression, but not its essence. Social organization, in which imperial absolutism and its successive hierarchized variants, right down to the individual level, ultimately derived from divine will, gave way to an organization dominated by a new elite whose legitimacy was rooted in knowledge.

Theocracy, the landed aristocracy and the clergy were succeeded by a sort of “aristocracy of the knowledgeable”, which could be described as an “intellocracy”. Hence “the normative union of knowledge with power”, whose role it is “to rescue the society from barbarism and ignorance”: “power must become tutorship.”[1]

In this fundamentally undemocratic conception, “the people” is reified. Because of its “backwardness”, it is destined to be an object rather than a subject of history. “Due to poor education and illiteracy the Ethiopian public is too underdeveloped to make a well reasoned, informed decision, and so Revolutionary Democracy[2] is the political bridge by which the ‘enlightened leaders’” can lead the people to democracy,” explained the recently resigned Prime Minister, Hailemariam Dessalegn.A fundamental postulate is that the absolute nature of power at its apex is immanent and intangible.

But well beyond the circles of government, the vast majority of Ethiopian elites, be they political, economic, social, or cultural, subscribe to the same vision. Even a new opposition figurehead, the recently amnestied Oromo Bekele Gerba, whose democratic refinement and convictions are recognized by all, seems to subscribe to this conception when he promises that the future lies in the hands of the Qeerroo but, he specifies, “the good Qeerroo, the educated one.”

Membership of this intellocracy confers a social legitimacy so great that anyone aspiring to the highest positions must get their hands on a PhD, however dubious its source, and celebrate the accomplishment with much pomp and circumstance. How many countries are there where the name of a political figure is generally preceded or followed in the press with the abbreviation (Dr.) or (PhD), where applicable? Or where, just after the appointment of the new Oromo Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, the press and national media began by highlighting his myriad qualifications, and the extent to which “he is devoted and committed to education”? Conversely, to point out a political figure’s lack of qualifications, to describe them as a “drop out” from education, is the ultimate denigration.

At the other end of the social scale, this segregation is widely internalized. For the vast majority of the population, 80% small farmers, society can only work if it is governed by an unshakeable hierarchy. So a fundamental postulate is that the absolute nature of power at its apex is immanent and intangible. This is the only way that it can play its fundamental role: to maintain the peace of the realm and law and order, the primary condition of peasant survival.

Oligarchy ‘deep renewal’

The current ruling system continues to operate within this elitist mould, headed by what elsewhere would be called a “caste” or “the establishment”. It was totalitarian in the etymological sense, in that it extended well beyond the political sphere alone. In particular, there was no boundary between institutional position, family position, and business position: the ruling class also became an oligarchic class.

Meles Zenawi pushed this to the extreme, becoming an unchallenged embodiment of personal power. With his sudden death, the elitist structure he had established has collapsed. If it has been done chaotically, that structure nevertheless had no choice but to seek to rebuild itself. Otherwise the group of leaders/oligarchs knew that it would entirely lose its position and, in consequence, its assets.

In recent months, this attempt at reconstruction has entered a phase of acute crisis. The leadership tried to respond to its failure of legitimacy by launching a “deep renewal”. A succession of meetings was held by the four ethnic components of the governing coalition with the official aim of examining the progress and results of this process. The meetings were longer lasting – more than a year – and more bitter than ever before, so were expected to yield a roadmap out of the crisis.They churned out the same leitmotif: each of these meetings brought greater “consensus”, but its content hasn’t been disclosed.

However, nothing in the official releases suggested a meaningful inflection in the main components of the political line. They churned out the same leitmotif: each of these meetings brought greater “consensus”, but its content hasn’t been disclosed. In particular, there is nothing to suggest that “revolutionary democracy”, “democratic centralism” and the “developmental state”, the three pillars of the elitist – hence authoritarian – exercise of power, have even been questioned. And recently, the old line that the cause of the crisis is foreign conspiracy has been wheeled out, both “Arab”, hatched by Egypt with Eritrea as its proxy, and Western, led by “neoliberal” forces seeking to force Ethiopia to de-nationalize its economy.

Power struggle

Ultimately, therefore, all the available information points to the fact that the main cause of the breakdown in the governing coalition is a power struggle. The leaderships have been heavily criticized, have performed their acts of contrition and undergone purges and promotions, culminating in a big first: the election of a new EPRDF Chairman and Prime Minister, the young and ambitious Abiy Ahmed. The major feature of this event, stressed by all observers and greeted in some places with popular jubilation, is that he is Oromo.

What is mainly at stake in the crisis at the top is a new redistribution of powers and resources within the coalition and along ethnic lines: the ethnic elites that see themselves as disadvantaged in relation to the Tigrayan elite have fought to establish a more equitable sharing of the political and economic cake.Does the election of Abiy Ahmed mark the beginning of the end of this leadership crisis, the start of a return to working order?

Does the election of Abiy Ahmed mark the beginning of the end of this leadership crisis, the start of a return to working order? The battle has been interminable, long in the balance, riddled with byzantine manoeuvres. It would seem that the TPLF fought to the bitter end to stop Abiy winning. One reliable observer of the political scene, close to TPLF, sums up the process in three stark words: “it was chaos.”

All the pundits were predicting that TPLF would once again be the “kingmaker” in this election, which opposed four parties of equal size. The TPLF put forward no candidate, so would hold the casting vote for one of the three candidates, each of whom was assumed to have the support of his respective party. In a clear sign of its political decline, the TPLF failed. This election confirms a fundamental turning point in the regime. The pattern in the EPRDF leadership has changed dramatically, with an alliance between OPDO and ANDM gaining the upper hand over the TPLF, though no one can predict the strength of this alliance or how long it is likely to last.

In addition, the TPLF is facing increased defiance in Tigray itself, on the part of the population in general, intellectuals, and even its own officials. They accuse their leadership of being unable to push through the kind of development in Tigray that has been enjoyed by other regions like Oromia or Amhara, and at the same time of being riddled with corruption.

The other parties come out of it no better. The SEPDM vote was split between its own chairman and OPDO’s. Some ANDM votes probably went to the SEPDM candidate. The inner divisions inside these parties have become deeper. More and more ordinary members, but also mid-level officials, turned a blind eye to or even supported the popular protests, even within the administration and the regional security forces.

Second state of emergency

The circumstances of the proclamation of the second state of emergency are symptomatic of these dissensions. Even though the conditions under which it has been decided remain obscure and disputed, it would seem to have been approved by the EPRDF Executive Committee, then by the Council of Ministers, where ANDM and OPDO are strongly represented.

If Defense Minister Siraj Fegessa is to be believed, “the (ruling EPRDF coalition’s) committee were unanimous in their decision.” ANDM then remained silent. Kassahun Gofi, head of publicity for OPDO, declared that “as a party, we support the State of Emergency.”[3] Attempting to keep everyone happy, Abiy Ahmed abstained in Parliament. Dozens of OPDO and ANDM parliamentarians simply refrained from voting, while 88 – essentially from OPDO – voted against.

The leaderships of these two parties have an ambivalent and divided attitude to the popular protest movement. Nobody controls it, certainly not they. Its target is the positions and advantages unfairly acquired by the establishment, and OPDO has certainly not been a back marker in this race for illicit privileges. To take just two recent examples, the “home strike” at the end of February led to “hundreds of arrests” in Gondar, where the mayor declared that the state of emergency demanded “zero tolerance”.[4] Following the demonstrations in Nekemte, in Oromia, Addisu Arega, head of the Oromia communication bureau, “urged the youth to refrain from violence and listen to elders to keep the peace in the city.”[5] Moreover, there is always the risk that demonstrations might degenerate into ethnic clashes.

In addition to the divisions between the four components of the governing coalition, there are varying degrees of dissension within each of them. And finally, nothing is known about the remote periphery’s involvement in these crises, the lowlands of Afar, Somali, Beni Shangul, Gambella, although they account for around 10% of the population.

Abiy Ahmed

As well as the explosions of joy in Oromia in particular, congratulations and promises of support have come from all quarters, including websites close to the TPLF. “The Ethiopian people are largely happy with the results as the major changes they expect from their leaders could finally come true through Dr. Abiy Ahmed.”

Regardless of the sincerity of Abiy’s reformist statements, however, he primarily owes his mandate to the leadership of the EPRDF, and is therefore in a sense its representative. Some therefore say that he is obliged to keep faith with the Front’s political line. “Abiy Ahmed wants to continue on the successful development this government has embarked upon” and only “to address the shortfalls we have faced all along.” “The new Prime Minister will execute the agenda of the Party… He is an embodiment of the principles” of the Party, recalled Getachew Reda, a member of the TPLF politburo.

But there is nothing to say that this agenda has been settled on, let alone that it would be “reformist” in the sense understood by the opposition and the protesters.

The EPRDF’s endless communiqué about the last parliamentary session remains verbose and vague, with no specific information on the key points around which opposition has crystallized, such as the state of emergency, the abolition of the most repressive laws, the release of all political prisoners, the return of the military to their barracks. Yet OPDO supported the communiqué.

Similarly, while Abiy’s coronation speech was well-received, while it was more personal and emotional than usual, while the opposition figure Merera Gudina judged it “much more civilized” than those of his predecessors, while it placed greater emphasis on the “unity” of Ethiopia, it remained fundamentally rhetorical and in continuity with the existing political line. To sum up, “we have laid the foundations for a durable and all-inclusive constitutional order” or built “a new democratic order”, and the goal is now to “speed up the work we have begun” in order to make this order “mature”, by “filling the gaps” and “tackling the deficiencies” and “shortcomings”.

On the points that have attracted the most interest, Abiy Ahmed simply reaffirmsmore vigorously positions that have already been presented. Towards the diaspora, in general very hostile to the regime: “we will welcome with open arms… those who want to bring your knowledge and experiences”. Towards the opposition: “to allow opposition parties to operate freely and create a conducive and fair and level playing field”. Finally, “the government needs to respect the law. It is also its obligation to ensure that the law is respected.” An allusion – the only one – to the burning question of the state of emergency?

All these ambiguities obviously affect how much room for manoeuver Abiy has. Rather than enjoying a clear mandate that would give him a strong political footing, he is likely to have to play things by ear, handicapped by the recurrent conflicts between the different factions that could continue to divide the leadership, including determined opponents who have no intention of burying the hatchet.

Rather than possessing a roadmap corresponding to the intentions that he affirms – or are expected from him – there are significant forces which would rather see continuity take precedence over profound changes, let alone those the legal opposition is clamouring for, and in particular the Qeerroo.

The Qeerroo

So who are the Qeerroo? In the absence of field research, the answers are hypothetical and contradictory. According to some, they are a new social group, of a kind never seen before, the product of downward social mobility associated with urbanisation.The emerging middle class… seems to be holding back … It is probably afraid that major disorder may deprive it of the small gains it has achieved.

Essentially, inhabitants of cities and towns (the urban population has quadrupled in 30 years), who have broken from the peasant economy and the traditional values of the previous generation, largely undereducated (though secondary school enrolment has also quadrupled over the same period, the quality of education has not kept pace) and therefore underemployed and frustrated, and, by contrast with the parochialism of the previous generation, open to ideas and images of the world thanks to their mobile phones and increasingly the web.

They are the ones igniting the street, whereas the emerging middle class – usually at the forefront in democratisation movements – seems to be holding back, especially in Addis Ababa, where it is the most concentrated. It is probably afraid that major disorder may deprive it of the small gains it has achieved and result in confrontations as bloody as under the Derg dictatorship. According to others, the Qeerroo’s social base is much broader. They represent the whole of the younger generation, urban and rural, educated and uneducated, working and unemployed. In this view, their cohesion and motivation are also explained by the persistence of the traditional Oromo system of governance, the Gadaa, which assigns a fundamental role to consensus and free and open debate in decision-making, in other words the opposite of the country’s dominant mode of governance.

Whichever is the case, the authoritarianism and condescension of the regime, and their own professional exclusion, have left the Qeerroo angry and with a sense of being harassed, despised and ignored.In any case, their target is the very core of the age-old system of power: its elitism, its tutorship, its hierarchical structure.

In the view of some well-informed observers, without being explicitly stated, the real novelty of their movement is that “their goal is not simply political. […] They want to create a new social, economic and moral universe.”[6] For others, they are pragmatic in their demands, which can be summed up in a simple slogan: full respect for the constitution.[7] In any case, their target is the very core of the age-old system of power: its elitism, its tutorship, its hierarchical structure.

Yet a large proportion of the legal opposition’s leaders and mid-level officials believe that these latter characteristics are essential to the effectiveness of the ruling system Ethiopia needs. Their aim is more to force the gates of a previously closed elite, than to promote the real equality between citizens laid down in the constitution. For the Qeerroo, therefore, this part of the legal opposition belongs to the rival camp.

For them, entire sections of OPDO fall within this category, especially as they are seen as equally authoritarian and equally mired in corruption.

Qeerroo demands

The Qeerroo thus responded cautiously to Abiy Ahmed’s election. They are prepared to give him a chance for the moment, basically because he has the backing of Lemma Megerssa, the only leader they fully trust.

The goal of the popular protests that led to the 1974 revolution, similar in scale to those of today, was to demolish the “feudal regime” and to replace it with a very vague “socialism”. However, they were motivated by two flagship measures: “land to the tillers!” and the settlement of the “question of nationalities”.

The Qeerroo are first of all demanding authentic self-rule for their region, i.e. a more equitable federalism. Because of this, they influence the power struggles within the governing elite and therefore interact with the crisis it is experiencing. Beyond this, however, they are not known to have a developed political program, in particular with regard to the “democratic” form that they would like to see this self-rule take.

Moreover, while it is credible that their movement has been able to develop some kind of network structure of local nodes, as an underground force its organization and cohesion are necessarily limited.

Finally, no one today is able to measure the level of support it receives from older generations, which in any case undoubtedly varies from one region to another, and according to age, social status, etc. Is it an avant-garde very much ahead of the curve of the broad movement of popular demands, or it is a faithful expression of that movement?Is it an avant-garde very much ahead of the curve of the broad movement of popular demands, or it is a faithful expression of that movement?

Even overwrought, embryonic, sketchy, unstructured, this mass movement provides the legal opposition with a providential opportunity to break out of its marginal role. It is making every effort to channel and structure it. If it succeeded, the political landscape would be totally changed.

However, for the whole establishment, both majority and opposition, the Qeerroo also represent an unpredictable threat, because no one knows where and how far it could lead.

No one knows

We do not know whether, in their most recent meetings, the leadership structures of the EPRDF were able to set a political course out of the crisis. Apart from its numerical weakness and its disorganization, the legal opposition is divided on the two key issues: greater or less federalism; economic liberalization, including land privatization, or the maintenance, even reinforcement, of statist development. No one knows the precise goals or the level of organization of the Qeerroo and therefore whether they would be able to form a representative entity with clear objectives.

The most radical opposition forces argue that, although Abiy’s election is a step in the right direction, the way out of the crisis demands rapid fundamental change. An “all-inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders” would trigger, structure and usher in a “democratic transition”. In particular, it would end the state of emergency, abolish the main repressive laws and send the military back to their barracks.[8]

These demands seem unrealistic given the current balance of power relations. Firstly, nothing in the EPRDF’s official positions, including those of OPDO and ANDM, suggested that it would sign up to these demands. Secondly, the general context is too fluid and chaotic, the respective strengths and objectives of the different political forces too uncertain, to construct a reform process on solid and consensual foundations.

In particular, like it or not, there is no force currently able to replace the EPRDF at the heart of the political process. The restoration of order within the EPRDF is therefore a prerequisite for any significant movement. There is no quick, black-and-white way out of the crisis, but only different shades of grey and step-by-step tweaks and adjustments.

Shades of grey

Although the legal opposition has adopted radical postures, in the short term it probably expects no more of Abiy Ahmed than a series of gestures that indicate that he is moving in the direction it would like.

The closure of the notorious Maekelawi prison, the restoration of the Internet, the re-release of notorious activists after their recent release and then re-arrest, are symptomatic of this approach.

It will maintain the popular hope that his election has aroused. However, the disregard of the institutions as defined in the constitution is at the heart of the crisis. Ultimately, the only route to its successful end is regulation through institutional mechanisms, which means that the only real possibility is elections, whether early or within the normal electoral cycle.[9]However, the disregard of the institutions as defined in the constitution is at the heart of the crisis.

Their first effect would be to structure the political space by forcing all the players to clearly define their goals for change in three key domains: federalism, economic development strategy, establishment of the rule of law. It would then be down to the electorate to decide on the respective strength of the different actors.

The outcome would be unchallengeable, because measured and legitimized by the ballot box. It would be reflected in pluralism within a new parliament, which would cease to be a rubberstamp for decisions reached by a quasi-single party executive, and would finally take on the primary role assigned to it in the constitution. Together, Oromia and the Amhara Region would have a majority of MPs. The changes for which the voters cast their ballots could be democratically decided here.

This scenario can only bear fruit if the elections take place on a political playing field that is at least more level, even if full “free and fair” elections are as yet too much to hope for. This will require an overhaul of the National Election Board to guarantee its independence and its authority to ensure equal opportunities for all the competitors, as well as the introduction of a good dose of proportional representation.

Letting time do its work

It is because an “all inclusive dialogue” would be limited to this handful of measures that it could be successful. After all, the electoral campaign of 2005 was actually “free and fair” until a few weeks before the vote. Yet the regime was already significantly authoritarian and had not undertaken the slightest legislative reform or an overhaul of the security services. The rules were not changed, but applied strictly or, if necessary, tacitly suspended.

The repressive laws subsequently adopted (anti-terrorism, press, civil society) would lose their arbitrary character if they ceased to be employed against all forms of opposition by a legal system under government control. Ditto for the state of emergency: the new government could order the security forces to turn a blind eye to its most outrageous provisions, and to use force proportionately only if the “constitutional order” were genuinely under threat.

However, this scenario can only succeed provided that the main actors of the twofold crisis, beginning with EPRDF and the Qeerroo, agree that it should be decided through the ballot box. Institutional rules would take precedence over the rule of force, whether originating in the street or in the “deep state”.

The question remains whether the upholders of the status quo would ultimately be willing to allow this card to be played and whether the Qeerroo would agree to let time do its work.

The famous blogger and founder of the Oromia Media Network, Jawar Mohammed, believed to be very influential among the Qeerroo, wrote on March 28: “we congratulate Dr. Abiy for his appointment… The opportunity offers him a unique scenario to charter peaceful transition to democracy in Ethiopia.” Less than a fortnight later, he urged: “Qeerroo, time to fire up and get rid of this rotten mass killer regime!” Will they listen to him?

Ethiopian expats protest against their government which had declared on February 16, 2018 a six-month state of emergency,in front of the Chancellery in Berlin, Germany on February 22, 2018.NurPhoto/ Press Association. All rights reserved.

Notes and further references

[1] Messay Kebede: Marxism-Leninism and Ethnicity as the Two Stages of Ethiopian Elitism, October 2001; From Marxism-Leninism to Ethnicity: the Sideslips of Ethiopian Elitism, Western Michigan University, 2001; Radicalism and Cultural Dislocation in Ethiopia, 1960-1974, University of Rochester Press, 2008.

[2] “Revolutionary Democracy” is the regime’s official doctrine.

[3] AFP, Ethiopia ruling party to pick new PM next week, 24/02/2018

[4] Ethiopian Observer, Hundreds arrested in Gondar for taking part in “illegal strike”, 24/02/2018

[5] Africa News, Ethiopians warned against intimidating MPs to vote against state of emergency, 27/02/18

[6] Personal communication from a diaspora activist Oromo intellectual.

[7] Personal communication from a diaspora activist Oromo intellectual with close contacts with local Qeerroo leaders.

[8] See for example here or the communiqués of Ginbot7, Oromo Democratic Front or Medrek.

[9] Merera Gudina, President of the main opposition party, Medrek, advocates this solution here.

By Alemayehu G. Mariam

Author’s note: In my last “commentary” (My Personal Letter to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed), I promised to focus my future observations on issues and topics that will serve to promote peace, reconciliation, unity and the general well-being of the Ethiopian people. The time for recrimination, denunciation and diatribe is passed. The time now is to build up, to stand up and be counted, to give a hand up, to match up, to set up, to clean up, to let up, to link up, to shape up, to start up and to make up.

Back in my day, we used to sing, “Up, Up with People”.

I am old school. After all these years, I am still signing that same old song, with only a slight change to the lyrics:

“Up! Up with the Ethiopian people!
You meet ‘em wherever you go,
Up! Up with the Ethiopian People!
They’re the best kind of folks we know.

It is time to stand up with the Ethiopian people!

In his inaugural speech, PM Abiy invited Diaspora Ethiopians to join him in helping address the myriad social, political and economic problems Ethiopians face and make their rightful contributions in the struggle against poverty, disease and ignorance. That is a great challenge many of us in the Diaspora are willing to accept. We are willing, able and ready to walk the talk.

For the past nearly 13 years, my principal concerns and efforts have been directed at improving the general human rights conditions in Ethiopia, advocacy on behalf of Ethiopia’s youth, which represent at least 75 percent of the population, and promoting unity, peace and national reconciliation. We now have an opportunity for all of us to be on Team One Ethiopia.

As a political scientist, academic, lawyer, human rights advocate and even as a practitioner of the bureaucratic arts, I hope to share ideas in a variety of fields in my “Memoranda Series”. It is a professional hazard for professors to profess, teachers to teach and advocates to advocate. But my aim in the Series is not to lecture or be didactic. My aim is to provoke insightful, intelligent and critical discussions on a wide variety of subjects and topics relevant to the future of Ethiopia.

In Memorandum No. 1, I hope to spark thoughtful discussion and debate around the question, “What kind of leadership does Ethiopia need today?”

It is a timely topic because there are those who question PM Abiy’s competence, fitness and sincerity to serve in office.

Suffice it to invoke the Amharic saying, “It is a simple thing for some one sitting down to point at the sky” and declare it is easy to fly.

Leaders make a world – a country – of difference. For instance, as the 1994 election approached in South Africa, the country was at the crossroads. Its fate was a toss-up. White supremacists sought to spark a race war by engaging in terrorism and plunge South Africa into a destructive civil war. Ethnic factions were on the warpath. One man stood between civil war and civil peace. Nelson Mandela saved the day and peace and reconciliation reigned in South Africa. It is doubtful that any other person would have been able to do what Mandela managed to do.

Good leaders in Africa are as rare as hen’s teeth. They may come once in a few generation if a society is blessed enough to have one. Many African leaders begin by aspiring to be good, fair and just. But good leaders become bad after they get a taste of power and get intoxicated. Power becomes a drug to them and they become addicted. They will do anything to cling to power. As their addiction becomes terminal, they assert absolute power. That is how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In my study of leadership, I have learned that many new leaders begin with good intentions and in time get tunnel vision and lose sight of their original mission. They become complacent, arrogant, imperious and autocratic. The last 27 years are object lessons in this regard.

I have also learned that new leaders experience self-inflicted and external pressures and expectations. I believe such pressures are more intense on younger leaders. I do not believe 41-year old PM Abiy will be spared such pressures. Performing under pressure and conflicting expectations often results in mistakes, frustrations and even demoralization ultimately resulting in failure.

In offering my answer to the foregoing leadership question, I touch upon various issues, particularly those that I believe are likely to impact new leaders.

I am hopeful others will also address this question and share their views in the market place of ideas.

My blueprint for leadership in Ethiopia: The Mandela Model

As I ponder over the types of leaders Ethiopia has had in the past, I cannot help but be distressed.

Historically, Ethiopian kings have assumed leadership by divine authority. They proclaimed they are subject to no earthly power nor will submit to any man-made rule of law because they were accountable only to divine will. They considered themselves the supreme earthly lawgivers. The common Ethiopian saying was, “one cannot accuse a king or plough the sky” (negus aykeses, semay aytares).

In recent history, military officers assumed leadership proclaiming “dictatorship of the proletariat” guided by the gospel and dogmas of the unholy trinity – Marx, Lenin and Engels – plunged the country into civil war and secession.

For the past 27 years, those in power have been preaching a sermon of leadership based “nation, nationalities and peoples” and used a strategy of divide and rule to cling to power. They have practiced the maxim, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” They declared, “No one will take away the power we got shedding our blood in the bush by dropping a ballot in an election box.”

Now, we have a chance to have young leaders in Ethiopia who can break the old mold and make a new one forged out of a simple principle:

Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world.

Yes, Ethiopia is blessed today to have young Nelson Mandela clones everywhere peacefully asserting their rights. They are using civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance to demand their rights and hold those in power accountable.

I believe PM Abiy Ahmed and Lemma Megerssa are Mandela-clones as is the million-man/woman army of nonviolent revolutionaries.

My dream and wish for the past 13 years has been to see Ethiopia awash with Mandela-clones. Today, I see and hear them everywhere signing patriotic songs of Ethiopiawinet and preaching unity, peace, reconciliation, equality and justice for all.

My love and admiration for Nelson Mandela, the “saint who was a sinner” is boundless.

Mandela born in 1918 spent the best years of his life (1964-1990) in prison. He was in prison until he was 72 years old, when most people fade out into their golden years. Mandela never lost hope. He led South Africa to freedom, peace and democracy while he was in his 70 and 80s. It is true that age is nothing but a number.

Mandela had a wicked sense of humor getting his message across: “I went for a long holiday for 27 years” he said talking about his prison days. “It was a time to stand away from myself and to look at our work although it was a tragic experience. But it was very helpful because we were able to greatly reassess our work and the mistakes that we have made, and our achievements and we came out better prepared.…”

Mandela prepared South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy while he was in prison.

I wish I had a chance to meet Nelson Mandela. I had so many questions to ask him, particularly about the poverty and bankruptcy of political leadership in Africa.

I “actually” met Nelson Mandela and interviewed him.

It was, unfortunately, in an imaginary conversation I had with him on May 11, 2011.

That was a conversation entirely about leadership and why Africa is cursed with dictators, autocrats and despots.

When Mandela passed away in December 2013, I cried my eyes out.

I reached deep into my soul to express what he meant to me personally as a role model for a civic warrior and what he represented to Africa’s youth in my “Farewell, My African Prince”:

Nelson Mandela was a bridge builder. He built bridges across racial, ethnic and class divides. Nelson Mandela was a fireman. He saved the South African house by dousing the smoldering embers of racial and ethnic strife with truth and reconciliation. Nelson Mandela was a pathfinder. He built two roads named Goodness and Reconciliation for the long walk to freedom, and walked the talk. Nelson Mandela was an architect. He built a magnificent tower of multiracial democracy on the ashes of apartheid. Nelson Mandela was a magician. He pulled a white and a black dove out of a hat at once and let them fly free. Nelson Mandela was the greatest alchemist who ever lived. He transformed hate into love, fear into courage; doubt into faith; intolerance into compassion; anger into understanding, discord into harmony and shame into dignity.

As always, I frame my questions with what has become my obsession, Ethiopia’s youth in particular and Africa’s youth in general. “What would the wise Lion of Africa say to the restless young Cheetahs of Ethiopia?”, I asked myself.

I believed his message to the young people would be dare to be great. Change yourselves first before you change society. Keep trying and never, never give up on the promise of creating a brave new Ethiopia. Come together. Be virtuous. Be patriotic. Be courageous. Dream big. Lead from behind. Expect trials and tribulations. Make peace with your enemy. Fight poverty. Never compromise on principles. Be optimistic and determined. Mandela would tell Africa’s youth to be optimistic because Africa’s best days are yet to come. Learn and educate the people. Never be indifferent. No easy walk to freedom, democracy, human rights. Always try to do good, to forgive, to reconcile…

I believe the gold standard for leadership in Africa is Nelson Mandela.

PM Abiy and Ethiopia’s Abo Shemanes: What is your blueprint for leadership?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in an inspirational speech entitled, “What Is Your Life’s Blueprint?” (excerpted audio here) to high school students in Philadelphia in 1967 said:

If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.

Be a bush if you can’t be a tree. If you can’t be a highway, just be a trail. If you can’t be a sun, be a star. For it isn’t by size that you win or fail. Be the best of whatever you are.

So, the question for PM Abiy Ahmed and Ethiopia’s Cheetahs is, “What should be the blueprint for leadership for a man called to be a prime minister? What should be the blueprint for leadership for Ethiopia’s Abo Shemanes?”

My quick answer is PM Abiy should be a transformational leader. Just like Nelson Mandela. The world today proclaims Mandela was the best moral and political leader just like MKL’s humble street sweeper. Mandela too was a street sweeper. He swept the streets of South Africa of the curse of apartheid, racialism, discrimination and injustice. In my view, Mandela was the best street sweeper Africa ever had.

Let me briefly digress. If I were to answer my own question from a purely personal point of view, I would give the same answer Henry David Thoreau gave in “Civil Disobedience”. “That government [leader] is best which governs [leads] least.”

Thoreau distrusted government and had strong views on the moral obligations of the individual to determine right from wrong. He wrote, “The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.”

I believe the character inherent in the Ethiopian people — their ethos, values, beliefs and practices — has done all that has been accomplished over millennia. They would have been able to accomplish so much more but for their leaders who have abused and oppressed them invoking divine right, ideological right or right by military conquest.

Like Thoreau, I am not for “no government” or no leaders, but for “a better government [and better leaders]. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.”

Just as Thoreau believed that the best government is one which governs least, I believe the best leader for Ethiopia is one who commands the respect of the people and leads the least. Just like Nelson Mandela who let the people lead from the front while he followed them from the rear. He said, “It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership.”

I believe the best leader for Ethiopia is one who lets the young people lead in the front as s/he follows them from the rear.

As to governments and leaders who do not fear their people and command their respect, I, like Thoreau, would urge civil disobedience as I have done for the past nearly 13 years.

So much for my personal preferences about governments and leaders.

The question is what kind of leadership and government could command the respect of the people of Ethiopia and earn their trust and confidence today?

Those of us whose professional occupation is to study government, politics and leaders know leaders come in different packages and follow different principles.

Nicolo Machiavelli, “the father of modern political science”, argued (The Prince, Ch. 17) that “it is better for leaders to be feared than loved.” He believed the love of power was more powerful than the power of love. He believed the Prince had only two choices, benevolence and destruction. He believed the power of destruction was more powerful in maintain the state than the power of love.

Gandhi had an answer to Machiavelli. “Remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible. But in the end, they always fall. Always.”

In our time, we know the opposite is true. The power of love trumps the love of power. MLK and Mandela have proven the truth of that statement.

For that matter, so has Teodros (Teddy Afro) Kassahun, the musical evangelist of “love conquers all”in Ethiopia.

There are many leadership models from which PM Abiy and Ethiopia’s Abo Shemanes can choose. After all, it is their time to take control of their destiny and the destiny of their country. They are free to choose.

For the past 27 years, they have been forced to suffer under authoritarian rule and dictatorship. They don’t like leaders who rule by brute force and fear and with little governance skills. They could cultivate motivational leaders who inspire, excite and galvanize public opinion. They can choose technocratic leaders with expertise in different fields. They are free to choose because it is their lives, their futures and their destiny.

A true leader rises when people choose to follow : Nelson Mandela as the archetypal leader for Ethiopia and Africa

I believe Nelson Mandela should be the model of leadership, the gold standard, for Ethiopia.

Mandela was a transformational leader. His leadership style and purpose was to transform not only South Africa as a nation but also black and white South Africans through personal example for generations to come.

Mandela worked against impossible odds. All the prophets of doom and gloom predicted a blood bath in South Africa.

How did Mandela beat the impossible odds? He overcame by practicing certain principles, cherishing certain beliefs and maintaining certain attitudes.

Mandela practiced inclusiveness. He overcame the dead weight of apartheid by including everyone in his vision of one South Africa. Zelda la Grange, a young white woman raised in the bosom of apartheid, was Mandela’s personal assistant, and confidant, not only during his presidency but after he left office. She said, “He wanted to show the world that all people in South Africa would have a future. It helps show the world we’re one people.”

Mandela respected the people. He understood the people collectively are far wiser than he alone or his leadership collectively could ever be. That is why he said lead the people from behind.

Mandela had dreams beyond a vision of good governance. His greatest was a“dream of an Africa which is in peace with itself.”

Mandela believed in the power of knowledge. He said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”

Mandela had the courage of his convictions. “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.”

Mandela practiced forgiveness: He held no grudges. “I am working now with the same people who threw me into jail, persecuted my wife, hounded my children from one school to the other… and I am one of those who are saying: Let us forget the past, and think of the present.”

Mandela believed in truth and reconciliation: One of his major preoccupations after he was released from prison was to launch an effort promoting national healing through truth telling. South Africa’s model of truth and reconciliation has been copied all over the world.

Mandela believed in democracy: “It is not our diversity which divides us; it is not our ethnicity, or religion or culture that divides us. Since we have achieved our freedom, there can only be one division amongst us: between those who cherish democracy and those who do not.”

Mandela believed in fairness and equity: He said, “I detest racialism, because I regard it as a barbaric thing, whether it comes from a black man or a white man.”

Mandela believed in the power of love but he had no power of love as he quit after one term. “No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

Mandela had high “emotional intelligence”. He was at peace with himself and others. He had empathy. He had risen above his ethnicity and cherished his humanity. He had overcome the powerful emotion of hate: “As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn’t leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison.”

Mandela was a listener. He listened to all and was never quick to judge. He was a humble man.

Mandela was a critical thinker: He was able to examine problems many perspectives. He coudl see both the small and big picture.

Mandela was a man of conviction. He walked the talk. “During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

Mandela was a master communicator. He said, “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.”

Mandela never lost hope in humanity: He said, “There were many dark moments when my faith in humanity was sorely tested, but I would not and could not give myself up to despair. That way lays defeat and death.”

Mandela was inspired by the youth: “Young people are capable, when aroused, of bringing down the towers of oppression and raising the banners of freedom.” How true indeed!

Mandela was a man of action: He was a rebel, a warrior and a leader. After 27 years in prison, Mandela came out, saw and conquered apartheid.

Mandela had a can-do attitude and always remained hopeful and optimistic.

Mandela was a man of magnanimity: Incredibly, he invited the very prosecutor who sought a death penalty against him in 1964 at the Rivonia Trial and his jailer at Robben Island as his VIP guests during his inauguration as president as well as others who caused him so much suffering. He said, “As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn’t leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison.”

Mandela was a man of integrity: He advised, “Make sure people can trust you. Let them know that you care about them and that everything you do is based on integrity and concern for them. Build your team on a foundation of trust.”

Abiy Ahmed as a Mandela-clone?

There is and will always be one Nelson Mandela.

The rest of us can only aspire to follow in his footsteps, and if we are lucky, become his clones.

I see so many Mandela-esque qualities in PM Abiy.

I have seen him speak on video. I have had ample opportunity to evaluate him in his speeches and public appearances just as lawyers study and evaluate witnesses scheduled to testify at trial.

From what I have seen over the past two weeks, I see PM Abiy striving to be a bridge builder, a peacemaker, a facilitator across ethnic, religious, linguistic and regional lines. He seems even handed to me. He has the same message for all regardless of ethnicity or religion, unity, peace, freedom and democracy. We are one people. Our unity is not open to question. The problem-makers are the leaders in power. The solution is in the hands of the people. The destiny of Ethiopia is in the hands of the people of Ethiopia. If leaders do have the trust of the people, they deserve to be thrown out of power.

I like his straight talk. He cuts to the chase. I like a person who says what s/he means and means what s/he says.

I am supremely encouraged by what I have seen and heard.

In his recent discussion in Mekele, PM Abiy demonstrated Mandela-esque qualities.

He spoke truth to power, which is odd because he and his colleagues are in power.

He said the problem is not with the people of Ethiopia but with the leaders who pretend to be leaders of Ethiopia. “The problem is with the leaders in power who disregard their oath of office and are unable to lead without stealing, without stealing (double emphasis)”.

He said many in power are thieves. “If some people rob and get rich and others starve, there will be no peace in Ethiopia.” He explained, “the people who get rich by robbing the people are acquiring poison. It will destroy our children. To rob the poor and bring the money home is like feeding poison to our children.”

PM Abiy said job #1 is working together to build national unity. We “waste too much time on our identity instead of our unity”. It is “absolutely necessary to teach young people about Ethiopiawinet so we don’t look at each other as strangers [enemies].”

He said there are those who benefit financially from creating strife and conflict among the people. “There are those amongst us who trade and benefit from division and discord. That’s how they make their daily bread.”

He acknowledged the people of Ethiopia are the bosses. “If we don’t do our jobs right and just talk, they should throw us out and give it to others who will get the job done. There can’t be power by creating conflict and division among people. The people don’t want those who divide and create strife among them. They are the judges.”

He acknowledged the people are far wiser than those who claim to be leaders. “The people know their own problems. Farmers know the problems of other farmers. Poor people know the problems of poor people. But leaders have forgotten our role. It is our problem and our fault.”

He warned his own leadership, “The disease is with us (leaders). When we straighten out ourselves, the people will continue with their long-held traditions and solve their problems. The people have lived with each other. They are intermarried.”

He laid out his conviction without ambiguity. “The only way to govern Ethiopia is through peace and democracy because Ethiopians are loving people but also stubborn. If they are abused and oppressed, they will resist. They don’t like those who abuse them and steal from them.”

He said love conquers all. When the people overcome the division and hatred sown among them by those claiming leadership, they “will return to their tradition of respect for each other, hospitality and sharing. My fear is that we [leaders] will be in big trouble then. We will no longer be able to pull off our tricks.”

He invited Diaspora Ethiopians to come, visit and see for themselves. “The people need, schools, roads and clinics. People are in need. They need help.”

Gandhi taught, “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.”

I like PM Abiy’s beliefs because they mirror my own. I like his words because he talks like me, straight talk. I have no doubts that his words will be his actions because if they are not he will fail, and he knows failure is not an option for him or for us. I am confident that his values of Ethiopiawinet, unity, equality and justice for all, peace, reconciliation, human rights, rule of law and democracy will become his and our destiny.

A leader’s (thankless) work is never done…

Mandela is a global hero who has inspired millions.

Mandela said, “After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb.”

I am afraid at his most successful PM Abiy will find there are an infinite number of hills and mountains for him to climb and many more uncharted valleys and deserts to cross.

But that is his cross to bear. We have an obligation to help him bear his cross as he crosses the valleys and climbs the mountains.

Abiy has the distinct privilege and good fortune to become a true Ethiopian hero by following in Mandela’s footsteps. Better yet, an African hero.

But walking in Mandela’s footsteps will not be easy.

Walk he must. He has a long walk on the road to peace, democracy and freedom.

The only question is, “Will he walk those roads alone, with Ethiopia’s Cheetahs and the spirit of Mandela, the exiled Ethiopians in the Diaspora, the tired, the poor and the wretched huddled masses of Ethiopia yearning to breathe free or…?

ETHIOPIAWINET (One Ethiopia) TODAY,

ETHIOPIAWINET TOMMORROW,

ETHIOPIAWINET FOREVER.

The post Memorandum No. 1: To PM Abiy Ahmed and Ethiopia’s Cheetahs/Abo Shemanes (Youth) appeared first on Ethiopian News|Breaking News: Your right to know!.