There are international outroars about the general injustice against the masses. Stifled with an international system that primarily works for the rich at the expense of the poor and political elites at national, regional and international levels who work to exacerbate the problem, the people of the world have a strong longing for change.
Clashes between government forces and the people have, thus, become a permanent item of the international news bulletin. The message at the centre of the anger against governments is mainly a change of some sort. When calls for change gain momentum, the natural impulse from governments seems to be quashing them as soon as possible. Governments of authoritarian to democratic, developed to least developed countries use violence to suppress organized calls for change.
Despite the enthusiasm for change, there are only a few instances where expected changes are realized. The quest to make things better and easier for humans has been going at alarming rate in the 21 century. It takes a few months these days for a product that has just come out to be replaced by a superior version. Largely supported by advancements in technology, the rate of change around us has generally picked up speed. Keeping up with all the changes has, thus, become a nearly impossible feat for the average individual.
The preoccupation with change does not, however, stop at individual problems. Societal problems are also heavily associated with sizeable changes. Corruption, poverty, authoritarianism, high cost of living, unemployment, inequitable distribution of wealth and the compilation of people’s grievances and failed expectations are all causes for change of regime.
Especially people of the least developed world seem to have been very agitated and fed up with the ‘slow pace of change’ in their countries over the past decade or two. We have witnessed the people of numerous LDCs go out to the streets in demand of regime change in the states that came into being following the disintegration of the Soviet Union and in the Middle East and North Africa. The popular call for change that ended up overthrowing President Al Bashir of the Sudan is the most recent for Ethiopians both in terms of time and geography.
Despite the frequent international flirtation with political change, however, real change seems to have evaded almost all. Most of the popular regime changes have failed to bring the people their wishes. Calls for democracy and rule of law have largely been shunned as popular demands have been hijacked by strong local and international political interests. In the best of such cases, elections have been held following which long time politicians who do not offer anything radically different from the previous regime have come to the fore.
Tunisia, the onset of the ‘Arab Spring’ provides a good example for this. Although they managed to overthrow their authoritarian leader Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, they only managed to replace him with his colleagues. Despite such realities, the Tunisian ‘revolution’ is widely regarded as successful.
In other cases, states have gone out of statehood altogether following popular regime changes. Libya and Yemen are just two of the examples in this category. Therefore, the popular call for change is a very risky endeavour that might lead to the total annihilation of the state at worse and a very narrow chance for a not so radical governmental change that still falls short of achieving intended goals.
A year has gone by since Ethiopia set itself on the track of change. As expected, that ride has been a roller-coaster ride. Even the honeymoon period between the leaders of the change and the people proved tough as inter-ethnic conflicts and mass displacement of people were encountered. Ethno-centric political alignments and interpretation of historical facts have moved to the centre of social discourse.
The will and capacity of the leadership to ensure security throughout the country has been questioned repeatedly by opposition politicians and the people alike.
On the other hand, the fact that the Abiy Ahmed (Ph.D.) led government chose not to exercise lethal power might have discouraged armed engagements with government forces and among different groups. The fact that all notable opposition armed groups with bases in neighbouring countries have put their arms down and joined the peaceful political track is also a considerable achievement.
At least now opposition parties do not have a readymade army on standby to try to enforce their will. Ethiopian politicians on the extreme ends of the political spectrum only have the chance to argue their lungs out and bicker among themselves. Their go-to impulse to raise their arms has been immensely reduced over the time. That leaves them to scream, point fingers and exchange blames a significant improvement at a crucial time of change.
In assessing the transitional activities of Tunisia, the only push for change among the Arab Spring countries that can be deemed successful, I have come across some points that could be taken as important lessons for Ethiopia. The first of these is that politicians with vastly different agendas managed to come together to approve a new constitution, with 200 out of 216 votes. An article by Yasmine Ryan entitled “How one country emerged from the Arab Spring with a democratic state” states:
The new Constitution is not secularist, but neither does it impose an Islamist state. It combines many of the progressive values of the previous regime with more democratic rights and freedoms. The right to free healthcare and free education is guaranteed. Equality between the sexes is preserved; the legal system will not be derived from Sharia; torture is outlawed; and there’s a greater separation of powers than in the past. As far as religion is concerned, the Constitution remains ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations, but that was the price of consensus. Many battles have been left to fight another day.
Developing the guts to let things slide for now and raise them when the situation allows it is probably one skill Ethiopian politicians need to learn. Developing the negotiation skills of politicians and keeping their interests on the common national goal of unity and statehood is an important task that should be owned by the government and the politicians themselves.
Another point I want to raise has to do with the fact that transition periods are known for their level of political and even military tension. Tunisians also had these moments. There was considerable tension between Islamists and secularists; protests were violently suppressed and leaders of the uprising against Ben Ali were assassinated. These things spread uncertainty and insecurity among Tunisians.
However, their politicians managed to pull their efforts together to Tunisia’s better future. A coalition party that was formed during the transition period saw two secularist parties merge with the Islamist Ennahda party. The move was met with strong opposition from members and supports of all parties involved but the fact that they joined their efforts for the common good of the country eventually led to victory and success.
Ethiopian politicians have a lot to learn from such moves of solidarity among competing parties. The mergers we are witnessing between Ethiopian opposition political parties need to be strong enough internally for them to be considered as viable options against the ruling party.
The Ethiopian Herald August 30, 2019
BY TEWEDAGE SINTAYEHU
