|
The Futility of Trying to Implant Democracy
By Force or Through Arm-Twisting Tactics
by Tesfaye Habisso August 11, 2007
habisso@yahoo.co.uk
For over a century or so, the United States has not restrained itself from using brute military force and other
unscrupulous methods to 'export' democracy to unstable and troubled so-called Third World countries. "The first effort, in this regard, was the intervention in Cuba in 1898. Having won the Spanish-American War quite successfully and chasing out the Spanish, the U.S. occupied and administered Cuba for four years, turning power over to an elected Cuban president in 1902. A violent revolution forced the elected president from office, and U.S. troops came back in 1906. After more reforms and new elections, the U.S. government again turned power over to the Cubans in 1909. More instability ensued, including another violent revolt. U.S. marines came back yet a third time in 1917, restored order, set up another constitutional regime, and withdrew in 1922." What happened in Cuba since then is not only for historians to tell us but it is clearly not a democratic political system by Western standards and yet one of the most stable and just societies on earth in terms of social cohesion, the distribution of wealth, in the provision of health care, education and other services, and envied by many nations of the world today. In spite of economic blockade and immense political pressure from the U.S. government and the CIA, Cuba under the wise and strong leadership of the world renowned great leader, Fidel Castro, and the Communist Party of Cuba has achieved spectacular economic and social development that many Third World nations have not yet accomplished after many decades of hardship and toil in spite of the economic advice and huge amounts of development and humanitarian assistance from the developed world.. Yes, despite the relentless efforts made by the Americans and the immense sacrifices made by both sides, Western liberal democracy could not be implanted in Cuba; it could not take root in the Cuban soil as it was not suitable for it. But the Cubans have developed their own brand of democracy that works well for them and that insures them basic social services, welfare, equality and justice--"a prosperous democracy as a measure of a fairer, more equal society: not only one man, one vote, but a chicken in the pot for everybody", as Dennis Austin succinctly puts it. [Dennis Austin, Liberal Democracy in Non-Western States, 1995, p. xii]. What is the worth of any democracy if it cannot guarantee its citizens a modicum of safety and security, and if it cannot provide the basic necessities of life--shelter, clothing, food, healthcare, education, etc,-- employment and freedom? Cuban democracy has achieved most of these objectives, which are admired even by many American leaders and scholars on the other side of the ocean.
Recent as well as the ongoing 'democracy exporting' efforts by the U.S. government-- in Haiti, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in many Latin American countries which were naive enough to go to the extent of copying the U.S. Constitution itself in the hope of possibly establishing stable governments at home by adopting this paper document--seem to indicate that the U.S. government's understanding has not progressed since the days of the Cuban
intervention. For more details, see "DEMOCRACY FOR Everyone?" by James L. Payne, 2005]. This reminiscing about the past is necessitated by the recent barrages of Congressional Bills authored by some influential Congressmen and aimed at 'establishing a stable, law-abiding and democratic government in Ethiopia'. In this regard, Christopher Smith and the Coalition of like-minded Congressmen and Congresswomen who authored H.R. 4423 (Ethiopia Consolidation Act of 2005) and H. R. 2003 (Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007) are worth mentioning. Their main objective/aim, akin to their forebears, is indeed noble and praise- worthy, that is, establishing a stable and democratic government in Ethiopia, but their politically incorrect stance that unless Ethiopia bends to their demands as articulated in H. R. 2003 fully, all U.S. aid will be suspended and Ethiopia will stop receiving any aid from the U.S. government is nothing but a tactic that smacks of political pressure and is tantamount to blackmail. How on earth can democracy take root and flourish in Ethiopia because of this Congressional bill authored in the U.S. without any constructive engagement, dialogue and consultations with the Ethiopian people and Ethiopian government officials? As Christopher Smith and the Coalition for H.R. 2003 have enumerated time and again, the principle aim of H.R. 2003 in Ethiopia is to:
1) facilitate the unconditional release of ALL political prisoners of conscience;
2) institute democratic reforms and accountability;
3) help restore the democratic rights of the people;
4) strengthen human rights and civic society organizations;
5)establish permanent human rights monitoring and reporting processes;
6) increase the independence of the judiciary;
7) create and support a judicial monitoring process, with special focus on unwarranted government intervention in strictly judicial matters;
8) prosecute human rights abusers, torturers and murderers, and bring to justice the killers of 193 innocent men, women and children and those who wounded 763 others in the post-2005 election period;
9)improve election procedures and insuring fraud-free elections;
10) remove press censorship and ensure full freedom of the press;
11) repeal specific restrictive press laws;
12) establish a program to strengthen private media in Ethiopia;
13) offer training programs for democratic participation;
14) limit the use of U.S. security assistance to peace-keeping and counter-terrorism and NOT against the civilian population;
15) foster economic development;
16) help establish a program to provide legal support for political prisoners and prisoners of conscience;
17)provide assistance to strengthen local, regional, and national parliaments and governments, political parties, and civil society groups;
18) strengthen training for political parties in the areas of organization building and campaign management;
19) provide training for civil society groups in election monitoring;
20) promote dispute resolution by means of dialogue, negotiations and compromise;
21) professionalize the National Elections Board to help it address certain issues, e.g., issues of delimitation of constituencies, voter and candidate registration, political party registration, voting irregularities and challenges,
etc. [As quoted by Alemayehu G. Mariam, "Of Lies, Promised Joy, 'Shimagles', Pardons and Bananas", Human Rights: <humanrightsin2007@gmail.com, August 06, 2007].
This long list of do's and don'ts--rules that Ethiopia should follow-- unilaterally dictated and imposed by the U.S. Congress (if so decided) can only generate unnecessary misunderstanding and endanger the smooth diplomatic and friendly relations that both regimes have enjoyed for quite a long time. Above all, no sovereign nation worthy of the name would bend to such one-sided imposition from a foreign government, least of all the Ethiopian State which has safeguarded its national pride and sovereignty for over many centuries, long before the invention of America itself. Be this as it may, most of the do's and don'ts mentioned under the aforementioned Congressional bills are an absolute imperative for the Ethiopian government to tackle them fully to the satisfaction of the majority of its citizens at home and abroad; they cannot be overlooked or sidelined at all--democratic reforms must continue unabated, democratic accountability should be insured, democratic rights of the people must be restored and safeguarded, rule of law must prevail, independence of the judiciary must be real and not nominal, security of citizens must be protected, human rights violators must be brought to justice, periodic elections must be fair, free and credible, etc, etc.
The U.S. government and many other governments, NGOs, international organizations can assist the Ethiopian government and people in this regard by offering them genuine material and technical assistance and training programs in various socio-economic and political areas based on the spirit of development partnership, a partnership of equals. Whatever the case, the aforementioned civil and political liberties as well as the right to development as a component of human rights have to be demanded by the citizenry who should have the gut and courage to stand up for their rights and freedoms and courageously refuse to be oppressed and suppressed by any dictatorial regime, or live under such autocratic rule, now or in the future. Such a political and social environment can only be created by the concerted struggle of the Ethiopian people; it cannot be imposed or forced upon any people who are not ready to adopt such a political system. Coming back to the stance of Congressman Christopher Smith and his Coalition, it is not easy to convince anyone how democracy can be implanted in Ethiopia via the aforementioned 'twenty commandments' given from Capitol Hill when earlier and recent direct interventions and attempts of tutelage in Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq,
etc., have not succeeded in achieving the desired result: implanting liberal democracy. It is sad that these Congressmen and Congresswomen have short memories. Their major shortcomings arise from the fact that they are adamantly opposed to the solemn advice of their intellectual leaders and scholars, without having any coherent theory of assisting nation-building efforts in foreign lands, as elaborated here below.
While the world would undoubtedly be more stable and more peaceful, as it is believed, if all states became more mature democracies, the problem of getting from here to there, that is, making a successful transition from a backward authoritarian system of rule to a democratic political system and consolidating the latter, is easier said than done. And thus the process of becoming a democracy is most often fraught with more dangers than is usually acknowledged. In poor multi-ethnic and divided societies, transitions to democracy have proved to be mostly rocky and violent, and this often gives rise to warlike nationalism and violent ethnic conflicts. In such societies, a peaceful transition to democracy is exceptional, and the certainty that democracy will prevail is in question. As Donald L. Horowitz puts it: "...Democracy is exceptional in severely divided societies, and the claim has repeatedly been advanced that democracy cannot survive in the face of serious ethnic divisions. At least since John Stuart Mill pronounced in Representative Government that democracy is "next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities," a respectable body of opinion has subordinated to such
views." Donald L. Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict, University of California Press, 1985, p.681]. Another American scholar, Francis Fukuyama, in his seminal work, The End of History and the Last Man, forcefully argues that:
"...Democracy is not likely to emerge in a country where the nationalism or ethnicity
of its constituent groups is so highly developed that they do not share a sense of nation or accept one another's rights. A strong sense of national unity is therefore necessary prior to the emergence of stable democracy, just as it preceded the emergence of democracy in countries such as Britain, the United States, France, Italy and Germany. The absence of such a sense of unity in the Soviet Union was one of the reasons why stable democracy could not emerge prior to that country's break-up into smaller national units."[F. Fukuyama, Ibid, The Free Press, New York, 1992, p. 216]
Democratic movement in the first place was born out of a unique set of conditions prevalent in the Western world. Some of the ingredients necessary for the evolutionary birth of a democratic order are believed to be: (a) industrialization; (b) rise in literacy levels; (c) abundance of resources; (d) isolation from negative outside influences and, (e) political theoreticians whose vision spans the past, present and future and who have a grasp of the physical disciplines required in that particular age [http:
//www.hujra.com/democracy_not_work. hym].
The Futility of Trying to Implant Democracy By Force or Through Arm-Twisting Tactics
by Tesfaye Habisso August 11, 2007
(a) extensive competition by contestants including individuals, groups or parties for government;
(b) political participation that provides the choice for the electorate to select candidates in free and fair elections; and
(c) civil and political liberties that enable citizens to express themselves without fear of punishment [Robert Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989, p.221].
Two other scholars claim that democracy rests on seven basic beliefs, including "respect for individual personality", "belief in rationality," and "equality of opportunity." [J.A. Corry and Henry Abraham, Elements of Democratic Government, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 29,33,35]. Further, political theories suggest that it is especially difficult to sustain a democracy in a society where political parties, interest groups, media of communication, schools and voluntary associations are determined along " religious, ideological, linguistic, regional, cultural, racial or ethnic lines. [Alan M. Wachman, Taiwan: National Identity and Democratization, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1994, p.31]. In a similar vein, but a little more precisely, Smooha has argued that for non-democratic states in societies that are deeply divided along ethnic lines, "the transition from a non-democracy [to a full-fledged mature democracy] is too big a jump." As a result, these states, he argues, might opt for the model termed "ethnic democracy." [Sammy Smooha, " The Model of Ethnic Democracy: Characterization, Cases and Comparisons," a paper delivered at the Multiculturalism and Democracy in Divided Societies conference, Haifa University, 1998, p.43]. In his evaluation of the "third wave of democratization" of the seventies and eighties, the American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington concludes that states become particularly susceptible to democratization when they have reached a certain minimal level of social and economic development. [Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman, 1991, p. 59ff]. If these democratic conditions have not been fulfilled, he argues, the onus lies on the local ruling classes to behave in a very responsible way and in a manner supportive of the democratization process in the respective countries. In short, "democracy has never been a transferable blueprint for political control but simply the name given to a style and form of government evolved out of experience." [Dennis Austin,
Liberal Democracy in Non-Western States, Professors World Peace Academy, 1995]
Most often, democracy has come to be equated with mere superficial and easily recognizable mechanical processes, the most recognized of which being regular elections. Elections indeed are a necessary but by no means a sufficient condition for the completion of a democratic transition. The mere casting of a vote does not make a democracy even when the elections are indeed free and fair. It is believed that a country has completed the transition to democracy when "the government resulting from election--- [has] the de jure as well as the de facto power to determine policy in many significant areas." [Linz and Stepan, "Toward Consolidated Democracies," pp.14-33]. Be this as it may, a democratic transition is a long and difficult process that may take many, many years to complete. But even if a country has transitioned to a democratic system, the journey towards democracy is not completed.
Then, at what moment does a successfully democratizing state become a mature democracy? When can its democracy be termed consolidated? Some scholars use the "two turnover rule" to define democratic consolidation: that is, a democracy is considered consolidated when power has changed hands twice as a result of free and fair elections. Others say that democracy is considered consolidated when it is " the only game in town:" that is, when no significant political party or group seeks to come to power by means other than winning a free and fair election. Others measure the degree to which the country has achieved the institutional and legal characteristics of a mature democracy, using indicators such as competitive politics, regular elections, broad participation, constraints on arbitrary use of executive power, free speech, and respect for civil liberties, including minority rights. Once a country has completed a democratic transition, it is left for that democracy to be consolidated, a necessary condition for a lasting democratic regime.
According to Linz and Stepan, a "consolidated" democracy is a "political regime in which democracy as a complex system of institutions, rules, and patterned incentives and disincentives has become, in a phrase, the only game in town." Haggard and Kaufman state, "a democratic consolidation is a process through which acceptance of a given set of constitutional rules becomes less directly contingent on immediate rewards and sanctions and increasingly widespread and routinized." Consolidation is essentially a more important process than transition. A government may be able to transition to democracy, but if it does not consolidate said democracy, it may relapse into authoritarianism or other non-democratic forms of government.
Additional factors must be in place if a democracy is to be considered "consolidated." First, the conditions must exist for the development of a free and lively civil society. Second, there must be a relatively autonomous political society. Third, throughout the territory of the state all major political actors, especially the government and the state apparatus, must be effectively subjected to a rule of law that protects individual freedoms and associational life. Fourth, there must be a state bureaucracy that is usable by the new democratic government. Fifth, there must be an institutionalized economic society [Haggard and Kaufman, The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995, p.15].
Though we most often argue and subscribe to glowing statements about the virtues of a democratic political system, democracy can be quite destructive in many least-developed and ethnically divided transition societies. In Sri Lanka in the 1950s, as Yugoslavia and the Caucasus in the 1980s, political elites pandered to ethnic nationalism of the dominant group to bolster their electoral prospects. Eventually, the antagonisms they had aroused or evoked between the majority and minority became uncontrollable and their countries collapsed in ethnic violence and civil war. In these cases, democracy was not a panacea but a disaster. This is why the democracy we see around the world today often has a distinctly ugly face.
On the eve of the 1996 elections in Bosnia, the architect of the Dayton peace accords, American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, fretted: "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and re-integration]. That is the dilemma." [Newsweek, October 1997]. Indeed it is, not only in the former Yugoslavia, Algeria, Rwanda, Afghanistan and Iraq but increasingly around the world, including Ethiopia today. I don't really know what would have occurred, for example, if those who were unabatedly sowing the seeds of discord and ethnic hatred during the public debates in the run-up to the third national elections or those separatist 'liberation fronts such as the OLF and the ONLF which are bent on perpetrating ethnic cleansing and mass killings in the name of national self-determination and secession from Ethiopia had participated and secured a landslide victory at the national and regional parliamentary elections and thus gained widespread acceptance and following among their respective constituencies who are already ethnically divided and
politicized along ethno-linguistic lines and also adhering to various religious affiliations or denominations. I indeed shudder to imagine what would have ensued in Ethiopia if those who were whipping up ethnic hatred and making hate speech and the sinister call of " chasing away the Woyanes (TPLF members) back to where they came from' or those who massacred innocent civilians at Bedeno, Arba Guugu, Assosa, Abule, etc. like cattle had gained the
upper hand in the current Ethiopian politics and among the population at large. It is sad that there are some political groups that seek to destroy the Ethiopian State, akin to the self-destruction of the former Yugoslavia by its own power-hungry political leaders and warring ethnic groups, and create their independent states through bloodshed and violence. It is sad that visionary political leadership, civility in public debates and tolerant political culture are still scarce commodities among the political elites in Ethiopia today.
As one critical observer of the crumbling of the former U.S.S.R and Yugoslavia lamented, "blind nationalism most often blinds one's intelligence.
I strongly believe and argue that we need stringent and severe laws against hate speech and against perpetrators of wanton massacres. Those who propagate and preach such hate politics and wreak untold suffering and death upon innocent people must not at all be allowed to function or operate as legal opposition parties in the country's political arena. They must be dealt with once and for all: They must be part of the ongoing peaceful democratization process in the country or become terrorists and outlaws, and treated as such. No democratic country on earth can tolerate such barbaric groups. Those who deny the liberty of others can never, ever have the moral authority to preach about liberation and they do not deserve liberty for themselves. Never. Above all , hate speech and ethnic hatred must never enjoy the freedom of expression. After all, freedom is not absolute and never a license to spread terror and hatred amongst our diverse ethnic and religious communities. We urgently need such laws, and if we already have them and I know we have, then, we must strictly and urgently enforce them. Even one of the oldest democracies in the world, the United Kingdom (UK), for example, has such laws. In the UK, hate speech has been banned under the Public Order Act since 1986. In it, a person is guilty of an offence, and can be arrested on the spot, if he/she "uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or
behavior, or disorderly behavior, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" thereby. Nobody likes to hear hate speech, and hence it must absolutely be banned by law.
It is a well recognized principle, for instance, that one of the most important conditions for the existence and sustainability of a democratic society is respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and among these freedoms, freedom of expression is considered the most precious and, indeed, the very foundation of such a society. But in newly democratizing societies, media manipulation often plays a central role in promoting nationalist and ethnic conflict, and thus, promoting unconditional freedom of speech and public debate in such societies is, in many circumstances, likely to make the problem worse. Historically and today, from the French Revolution to Rwanda, sudden liberalizations of press freedom have been associated with bloody outbursts of popular nationalism. As Vera points out, the most dangerous situation is precisely when the government's press monopoly begins to break down [Van Evera, " Hypotheses, "p.33; Human Rights Watch, Playing the " Communal Card", p. VIII ]. "During incipient democratization, when civil society is burgeoning but democratic institutions are not fully entrenched, the state and other elites are forced to engage in public debate in order to compete for mass allies in the struggle for power" [Van Evera, "Hypotheses," p.33]. Under those circumstances, governments and their opponents often have the motive and the opportunity to play the nationalist/ethnic card.
When this occurs, unconditional freedom of public debate or free speech is a dubious remedy. Just as economic competition produces socially beneficial results only in a well-institutionalized market-place, where monopolies and false advertising are counteracted, so too increased debate in the political marketplace leads to better outcomes only when there are mechanisms to correct market imperfections[ R.H. Coase, "The Market for Goods and the Market for Ideas," American Economic Review, Vol. 64, No. 2, May 1974, p.p. 384-391]. Many newly democratizing states such as Ethiopia lack institutions to break up governmental and non-governmental information monopolies, to professionalize journalism, and to create common public forums where diverse ideas engage each other under conditions in which erroneous arguments will be challenged. In the absence of these institutions, an increase in the freedom of speech and unconditional public debate can create an opening for ethnic demagogues and nationalist mythmakers to hijack public discourse. This was in fact what we sadly witnessed in Ethiopia during the run-up to the recent national elections, which subsequently plunged the nation into unnecessary and regrettable bloodletting and chaos in Addis Ababa in June and November 2005..
Whatever the reason's) behind a democratic transition, the earliest phases of democratization since the French Revolution have triggered some of the world's bloodiest nationalist struggles. Indeed, the road to democratic transition and consolidation has always been tortuous and windy. Developing appropriate institutions, techniques and mechanisms to manage these problems is among the most important challenges facing policymakers in particular and the political society in general in emerging democracies today. Without due consideration of these critical problems, naively pressuring poor and ethnically divided authoritarian states, especially nations such as ours where we have more than 83 different ethnic groups and where the assumption of political power has historically taken place at the point of the gun, to hold instant elections and to become mature democracies overnight can lead to disastrous consequences. Whether we like it or not it is not going to happen instantly. Creating a democracy in poverty-ridden and illiterate societies--societies that have not yet fully embraced democratic values and are not yet familiar with democratic concepts, rules, procedures and ways of life--is bound to take a long time and to exact huge costs.
The most critical factor for a democracy to succeed under these circumstances is undoubtedly a restraint in the use of violence in domestic affairs, respect for the rule of law, and civility and utmost tolerance in our political culture and our everyday life. It is now abundantly clear that democracy cannot thrive in a highly violent society. This must be our democracy's minimum requirement if we indeed have a deep and unflinching commitment towards the rule of law and a democratic transition and consolidation, and to become mature democracies in the end. There is no other way. Neither 'popular revolution' nor 'rose or orange revolution', as was being advanced by the UEDF/CUD coalition of opposition parties during the third national elections in Ethiopia will ever succeed to bring about a peaceful and democratic political system. If such a revolution ever succeeds it will surely bring forth a change of masters but definitely not a democratic political system and a stable government. Worse still, the road of violence will only succeed in tearing down the social fabric of the nation, and ultimately the nation itself, nothing more. Above all, "the success of democracy and democratic institutions has been organic and not mechanical. They work only if they can live and grow in the common acceptance and rooted affection of the community from which they take their form". Which means, though democracy embodies universal human values of freedom and liberty, we have to recreate our democratic models based on our cultures, values, norms, and traditions instead of making futile and costly attempts to copy Western models of democracy. Homegrown democracies based on our values and traditions (values and traditions of consensus building through dialogue and communal life)--consensus democracy-- are the only variants that can insure a free society and guarantee our civil and political liberties, and that can also be sustainable. We indeed need to move away from liberal democratic models that have been imported from outside and models of government that are introduced by the political elite. They will not work for us.
Moreover, we must be cognizant of the glaring fact that democracy is a learned and not an inherited system. It can be learnt if we all want to learn it. It can neither be imposed nor imported. It is measured over time, it is not acquired overnight or in a short period of time.
This indeed requires building and strengthening democratic institutions as well as assuming a great responsibility, promoting an active and constructive participation, cooperation, patience, tolerance and civility amongst all society members, especially the political elites in the democratization struggle, if democracy is to take hold and blossom in newly transitioning nations.
If we take the case of Ethiopia, for instance, we have borne the yoke of brutal regimes for so many generations in the past, and embarked upon the process of democratization only 14 years ago. Our society as a whole is new to the new concept of democracy. As I have argued in one of my previous articles, "we are all learners in democracy. In this learning process, some learn fast; some take more time to learn; some simply do not want to learn. This naturally affects, to some degree, the smooth transition of our country and our peoples to fuller and functioning, participatory and [consocational] democracy. In time, however, we are all convinced that all will come to appreciate the fact that democracy can survive only if the duties and aspirations of living together in one human society are given proper consideration and respect, and on our genuine commitment to regular and respectful dialogue with all parties and interest groups. No democratic right is absolute, and one major limitation of such a right is respect for the rights of others. Ignorance or neglect of this interconnection between democratic rights and duties endangers the very basis of democracy." [Tesfaye Habisso, " From Adversarial Relationship to Respectful Dialogue: A Step in the Right Direction for Opposition Politics in Ethiopia," The Ethiopian Herald, Tuesday 01,February 2005, p.8]
Finally, we must all recognize democracy as the shared value of our peoples. And as the shared value of our peoples, we must be able to embrace, nurture, guard and protect it for it is now clear that if we fail to practice and promote democracy as the common value of our peoples and if we fail to protect it, we will revert to a situation where conflicts are resolved by the use of force, which means reversion to the primitive procedure of self-help and back to the state of nature. And in the present era, returning to the state of nature, may, at worst, lead to the total liquidation of a people, a nation or a state; or it may, at best, lead to the imposition by force of the rule of dictatorship. Assumption of power by force and the rule of dictatorship can never lead to the prevalence of peace and security. Power assumed by force can only be sustained by force, and groups or factions which gather sufficient counter-force can sooner or later claim it. Seizure of political power by force and attempts to seize power by force are, therefore, the major symptoms of endless social and political upheavals, intractable strifes and conflicts. This procedure of assuming power must be brought to an end by the concerted efforts of all peoples of the newly emerging democracies and the international community. It is only promoting and sustaining the democratic procedure of assuming power from the ballot box through free, fair and credible periodic elections and of arriving at decisions affecting peoples through respectful and all-inclusive dialogue that can pave the way for a successful democratic transition and a mature democracy in the end. All other options, including arm-chair solutions from Capitol Hill, are destined to fail. As Edmund Burke correctly observed:
"The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered." [Edmund Burke, "The Thirteen Resolutions," Second Speech on Conciliation with America].
In conclusion, I think, a few words must be said regarding Ethiopians in the Diaspora and the invaluable role that they play in contributing to the socio-economic and political development of their homeland. They play a tremendous role in assisting their homeland in the transfer of technology, know-how, technical and manager skills and remittances as well as in facilitating the inflow of foreign direct investment. The sad part is that despite their tremendous contributions to their homeland they have no role in making and unmaking the successive regimes that come and go from time to time in Ethiopia, and no channels for their political participation--a sort of 'taxation without representation,", so to speak. This undesirable situation has precipitated numerous undesirable consequences in their homeland's political arena. The third national elections of May 2005 is an illustrative example. Hence, winning over the hearts and minds of our compatriots in the Diaspora remains a project of absolute imperative. Ethiopians in the Diaspora have no way of freely creating their ruling regimes at home. They are born into them, literally kicking and screaming, akin to newly born infants. They enter a country formed by laws, arrangements, and institutions that were established by others, but which they have no real choice but to accept. They are also incapable, as long as they are outside of their country, of fully exercising the rights of citizens. And yet every decision made by the society will directly or indirectly affect them and those who follow them. So, how can we take into account the needs and rights of these citizens in foreign lands who are not there to consent to whatever decisions we make and whatever policies we design for the common homeland? How can we keep from treating them unjustly? How can we enable them to participate in our national politics? How can they enjoy their civil rights to vote or to assume public office in Ethiopia? These and similar concerns have to be addressed satisfactorily by the incumbent regime and party in the near future, as indispensable projects for stabilizing our national politics. No politically incorrect, divisive and destructive politicking and political views must henceforth target our countrymen and countrywomen in the Diaspora. These have to come to a full stop for the sake of our country and our nation. For God and our country!
|
