Transforming to What?

Desta Berhe

05/02/2008

A comment by AIGA Forum editors in response to this article reads:

There is a disconnection when Almoudi declares he will sacrifice himself for EPRDF. That is the sort of silliness you get when you have an organization that is communistic in structure and plays in a democratic space without transforming itself. You get an organization that lets its billionaire supporter(s) to act as cadre(s) instead of them being a showcase of a party that can attract every constituency including the rich and powerful. The zero sum game organizations like EPRP may still dream of wreaking havoc in Ethiopia by piggybacking on the back of another legacy party leader Hailu Shawel but sooner than later the legacy parties will give way to the Belto Megegnet (the let us beat them in their game) parties of tomorrow. Whether the PM leaves after the current term or not he would not have finished his job if he does not see the transformation of his party to match the transformation of the country unfolding!

The central message of this comment is: “EPRDF’s failure to transform itself from communistic nature to play in a democratic space”, or “the attempt of EPRDF to play in a democratic space without being democratic [because it is communistic in structure]”. I will start my reaction by first praying to God to protect me from people who equate communism with lack of democracy.

The most troubling issues about our politics are the: (a) failure of many political elites to see the Ethiopian Peoples as a complex political entity, and (b) inability of those same political elites to understand the political history of the societies they praise. These two realities make them to prescribe something they don’t understand to fix something else they don’t understand. We all observe how democracy is practiced in Western societies. The simple democratic practices we observe, however, never developed out of simple historical phenomena. Up on the advancement of the societies, some democratic practices become part of the culture of the society, thus won’t be political issues anymore.

The survival of political elites or their ideas depend on their abilities to secure the support of the majority of the Peoples. Such a support is secured based on the principle of “Give and Take”. Nonetheless, the “Give and Take” can be: (a) give more and take less, (b) give fairly and take fairly, and (c) give less and take more. Thus, political elites who prescribe some sort of democracy would be obliged to show what could they give to the Ethiopian Peoples to secure the support, to help them move towards securing the political power. This principle, however, has a negative consequence: the elites would opt to run the political process in a very simplistic way (limit themselves from getting into complex economic and sociopolitical issues). Obviously, the simpler the political discourse, the easier would be for the elites to run their business. This simplistic approach, in turn, leads the elites to measure democracy based on simple characteristics that can be ticked off as “Yes” or “No”. They drag the masses to focus on simple, trivial issues that have little bearing on their lives.

In emerging democracies, the process of “Give and Take” should essentially lead to the Empowerment of the Peoples, where the balance leans towards the Peoples. Since the Peoples have less economic and political power, the will of the political elites to work genuinely for the empowerment of the Peoples is very important. Political elites committed to realize the empowerment of the masses would address all economic and sociopolitical issues that have bearings on the lives of the masses.

In mature democracies, we have two possibilities. In the first possibility, political elites secure the trust of the Peoples for their will and capacity to safeguard the economic interest and political power of the Peoples. In this case, the Peoples are politically conscious to shake up the political elites for any slight abuse of power and failure to honor commitment, as is currently evident in Western Europe. Note that the development of conscious polity in Western Europe took several centuries. The semblance of socialism in Western Europe is the result of an empowered polity where the fate of the political elites can only be guaranteed by the masses. We see that the balance leans towards the Peoples. We also see that it is the power of the Peoples, not the will of the elites that make the balance lean towards the Peoples.

In the second possibility, the political elites secure the trust of economic elites (bourgeoisie) for their will and capacity to safeguard the economic interest and political power of the bourgeoisie. In this case, the Peoples (broad masses) are disempowered. The broad masses are denied to have an empowering political consciousness, thus lack political power to secure their rights and challenge the interest of the bourgeoisie class. This is what is apparent in the US, where the balance leans towards the elites (political and economic).

When we come to EPRDF, it strives to empower the Peoples both economically and politically. The need for economic and political empowerment is not a simple exercise of semblance to other societies. It is a necessity for the survival of the Ethiopian State (as a State of Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples). Thus, any sort of transformation of EPRDF has to be to facilitating the economic and political empowerment of the Peoples. I am assuming that the Editors at AIGA are calling for the transformation of EPRDF to be eligible to play in Western style political business, thus democratization. Unfortunately, it unwise to see Western style democracy as practiced in Western Europe and the USA through the same spectacle. Thus, when we look into the issue, we will be obliged to ask for a choice: Western European style or American style democracy?

It will be helpful to see how the fundamental foundations were put in place in each case. European courtiers (the traditionally Western bloc) came to the present level of mature democracy through a long political and economic process. Once established as sovereign states, they empowered themselves economically through industrial revolution and colonialism. Then, the masses got empowered politically through embracing revolutionary ideals. In this case, we see the transformation of the Peoples, not the transformation on the political elites only. Thus, if we are seeking for the transformation of EPRDF following the path of the nations in Western Europe, we see no parallel. If we are asking EPRDF to be a genuine agent of economic and political empowerment of the Peoples, in fact, it is working for the realization of that within a short span of time in humane and democratic means [unlike what has happened in Western Europe over a long span of time through barbaric means].

Similarly, development of democracy in the US took over two dozen decades. Once establish as a nation out of the colonies, the US empowered economically through free/cheap slave labor and industrial revolution. Unlike in the W. European societies, the economic elites (bourgeoisie) managed to thwart the political empowerment of the masses. Thus, the economic elites secured the political power. The bourgeoisie class trickles political power downwards without jeopardizing its own power. No one would expect the bourgeoisie class to let the political consciousness of the masses be empowered. But, no one should also expect the bourgeoisie class to be reckless enough to deny the masses some basic human rights as far as they live up to the demands of the tenants. Thus, if we are calling the EPRDFites to transform their political style into the style of the American bourgeoisie, they have to do what the American bourgeoisie have done. It is not time yet for such sort of transformation.