by Tesfaye Habisso January 22 , 2010
Introductory Remarks
A few weeks ago, I wrote an article entitled, "Free Elections for Democracy or Creating Client
Regimes?," that was published in a certain website. The article made a modest attempt to
tackle the problematic of holding free, peaceful and credible elections in newly democratising
Third World countries because of, not only the authoritarian political culture and the democratic
deficit prevailing for so long in these states further exacerbated by lack of strong and
functioning democratic institutions, some Western imperial powers meddling in the domestic
affairs of these countries by trying to make or break the domestic policies that may not
serve their imperial ambitions and national interests and to influence the outcomes of periodic
elections with their now declared aims of creating pliant regimes amenable to their selfish
ends or whims. This paper was clearly and unambiguously informed by the historical
experience of many Latin American countries under the grip of imperial America and
also the recent events which have unfolded in many former member republics of the now defunct
USSR club such as Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhistan, Kyrgystan as well as Serbia, Bosnia,
Yugoslavia, Lebanon, etc. and the so-called 'colour-coded' revolutions that were stage-managed
by the same Western powers in these countries in close collaboration with the pro-West
domestic opposition forces and foreign-funded NGOs and other organizations in the payroll
of and sponsored by the same powers. The main theme of the article was aimed at
exposing the bankruptcy of 'exporting' democracy at gunpoint or trying to impose such
a form of government via regime change and coups, without ascertaining or insuring
whether or not the local ingredients and conditions necessary for such a political system to take
root are conducive and are ready to fully embrace it. The main concern was that such unilateral
measures and immoral tactics have never succeeded in producing any semblance of democracy
in all those countries that served as 'guinea-pigs' for the imperial West. Worse still, the negative
costs on human lives, property and the incipient democratisation process itself have been quite
enormous and staggering. So, the gist of my paper was, "why waste so much money, energy and
time on a futile and fruitless exercise of 'regime change' when we damn well know from
empirical evidence on the ground that it has never succeeded in implanting the much
desired democratic political system that we all yearn to witness throughout the world?" We all
ardently seek to enjoy human rights, political freedoms and civil liberties.. We all want to enjoy
the fruits of freedom and democracy. We all want to enjoy social and economic rights. We do not
want to suffer under tyranny and dictatorship. But can we secure such ideals through 'regime
change', or 'colour-coded revolutions', as the West wants us to pass through?
It was this deep concern of many in the developing world that I sought to vividly
portray in the aforementioned article of mine. The purpose of my article was not, and is not,
"...to discredit the efforts of international players in seeking to promote a free and fair
electoral process", as alleged by our renowned scholar from the USA. I fully well know that
international players can promote or frustrate not only the electoral process but the whole
national efforts to boost and accelerate social, economic and political development. No developing
country wants this to happen to it. We all want genuine partnership from the developed and
democratic world; we cannot create our own islands and ghettos and talk about development
in any areas of human pursuit. We cannot do it. And this is what we are demanding from our
development partners: constructive and meaningful assistance in all sectors but not destructive
and futile experiments upon the 'hopeless' and 'helpless' nations of the developing world.
But what has transpired as a rebuttal to my article by my good friend Donald Levine
("Selective Acceptance of Foreign Influence", FORTUNE, January 17, 2009) seems to have strayed
away from the main theme of the debate, as clearly explained here above. It looks as if we are
talking at cross purposes. I never argued that foreign assistance in general and in particular,
genuine foreign assistance without any strings attached to it, especially technical and
emergency humanitarian assistance, is bad. The issues of ODA and FDI have not been
mentioned in my paper, as they were not the themes of my arguments. I never
raised about the outrageous allegations of " western borderlands ceded to the Sudan and the initial
acquiescence in the cession of Assab to Eritrea", or "the recent leases of expanses of land to Saudi
Arabia, India and Egypt..." by the EPRDF regime. These are perhaps topical issues that call for
research-based sound and palatable arguments on their own merit sometime in the future,
but not relevant at all to the current issue, that is , not constructively assisting the
fragile democratisation processes in emerging democracies by the major powers of the Western
world who sometimes fret to impose democracy by immoral tactics and unconstitutional means,
that is, through coups and mere regime change exercises orchestrated and sponsored by them in
close collaboration with domestic opposition forces--political parties, NGos, civil society groups, etc..
Further, I cannot not make head or tail why my good friend and 'mentor' has to go the extra
mile to accuse the Ethiopian government of undermining the territorial integrity and sovereignty
of the country by ceding Ethiopian lands to the Sudan or the Assab Port to Eritrea. Again,
I do not comprehend why Levine has to go back to the long bygone days and mention
about the Portuguese coming to the rescue of Ethiopia in the 16th century or how The League of
Nations was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in Ethiopia.
These uncalled for references remind me of that thrilling song of the world renowned artist, Tina
Turner, "What has love got to do with it?" Be this as it may, why has Donald Levine failed to
mention about the historical truth that the Portuguese came to assist Christian Ethiopia
against the Muslims on the condition that Ethiopia would convert to Catholicism and thus fall
under the religious and spiritual suzerainty of Rome, and that slavery was abolished not only
because of the League of Nations' altruistic gestures towards Ethiopia but because of the strong
moral and religious outrages of the time as well as technological innovations that emerged as better substitutes to slave labour?. Yes, slavery was outlawed and gradually abolished because
maintaining slaves became so costly to the slave-masters economically; yes, it was economics,
stupid! Furthermore, Donald Levine should not have sidelined the unforgettable tragic failure
of the League of Nations to stand for Ethiopia's sovereignty as a fully-fledged member of the
League in time of her utter need in 1935 when Fascist Italy invaded her: The League of Nations
imposed an embargo of arms on Ethiopia. These historical reminiscences should be cited properly
and in a balanced way. No half-truths, no double standards.
Suffice it to say that, I will go back to my previous arguments and emphasize on some of the major
points of the debate.
Can Liberal Democracy Be Exported?
The most widely upheld and near-unanimous prevailing contention amongst social theorists
today is that, democratic institutions cannot be set up easily; they are likely to emerge only
when certain social and cultural conditions exist. Francis Fukuyama reminds us in STATE
BUILDING, the "experience of the 1990s in Somalia, Haiti, Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo and
East Timor should be very chastening". Historian Jaques Barzan, in his article IS DEMOCRATIC
THEORY FOR EXPORT, is sceptical that such knowledge can be transferred. People
change only gradually and it is the norms of culture or society that determine behaviour
most of the time, not the sanctions of the state. In his REFLECTIONS on the French
Revolution, Burke famously wrote, "To love the little platoon we belong in society is the first
principle (the germ as it were) of public affections", and by loving our families, our
neighbourhoods, our churchs, etc. gradually we build competence. Generations build on
generations so that society is "a partnership not only between those who are living but
between those who are dead, and those who are to be born." Since it is local tradition that
determines what de Tocqueville called "the habits of the heart," Barzun is sceptical about
international attempts to transfer knowledge in the absence of a domestic demand for them.
Institutions long depend on habits long ingrained and the habits of the heart cannot
easily be transported to another. Barzun concludes: "The parts of the machine are not detachable."
In his work THE FOLLIES OF DEMOCRATIC IMPERIALISM, Encarnacion claims that what
these advocates of 'democratic export' fail to realize is the fact that it was the
Japanese and German peoples' desire for democracy, strong national identity and economic
strength, rather than America's manifest destiny that enabled these nations to adopt
democracy. One must realize that democracy cannot be seeded indiscriminately in any
country and expect to bear fruit. Burke and Barzun also warn us that democracy cannot
be exported holus-bolus; rather, people have to come gradually to the idea.
Enccarnacion also claims that in order for democracy to take root, certain preconditions
such as an appropriate cultural environment, a suitable political system and other such
structural and cultural requirements are highly essential. According to Ronald Inglehart and
Christian Welzel, "economic development and modernization push those conditions in
the right direction and make democracy increasingly likely" ("How Development Leads to
Democracy", March/April 2009, p.1).
Today, the United States in collaboration with the European Union, in yet another demonstration
of its democratic imperialism, is in the throes of birthing Iraq as an exemplary for
freedom by reinventing Iraq as a democratic nation. However in its short sightedness and
impulsive grasp for guts and glory, the Bush Administration forgot to take the initiative of
exploring the possibilities of survival of democracy in an ethnically and religiously diverse and
divergent country such as Iraq. America's past mistakes such as President Woodrow Wilson's
experiences in Latin America have strongly indicated that democracy is not a political system
that can be imposed on others to best serve America's own purposes. This agrees
with the widely held expert view of theorists that democracy must evolve from within and cannot
be enforced by illegitimate and immoral tactics. It was this undeniable and empirically proved
thesis that I sought to share with fellow Ethiopians at home and abroad, when I wrote an article,
entitled "FREE ELECTIONS FOR DEMOCRACY OR CREATING CLIENT REGIMES", an article that
earned me the wrath of an American professor of high academic standing and a long time
friend of the Ethiopians, Donald Levine, and which appeared on the FORTUNE weekly newspaper
("SELECTIVE ACCEPTANCE OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE", January 17, 2010). Was my article reflective
of a "rejectionist sentiment", as described by Donald Levine? I don't think so. Was it a sentiment
based on mere personal emotions and non-factual assertions, as alleged by Levine? Again, I don't
think so. Is it a point of view based on historical and empirical evidence? I leave the judgment
to the independent and objective analysis of informed readers of both views regarding the
issue in question. As to the evidence regarding the dirty tricks and tactics of some Western
quarters during the May 2005 national elections, I can bring forth all the evidence, circumstantial
and substantive, that Professor Donald Levine wants, if he can provide me with the evidence
that the current regime has ceded sovereign Ethiopian territory to the Sudan, and that Assab
has existed as an independent entity outside of Eritrea or that it has always been part of Ethiopia.
On the other hand, regarding 'selective acceptance of foreign influence', one thing that cannot be
denied however is that I categorically and vehemently object to any wholesale importation of
foreign values by Ethiopians now or in the future because it is neither practical nor beneficial
to our country. I strongly believe in selectively importing and adapting only those values
which are feasible and beneficial to the survival of Ethiopia as a proud nation and
helpful for the socio-economic and political development objectives of our country.
There is no solid and justifiable ground, therefore, to accuse Ethiopia for "selective acceptance of
foreign influence" over the past decades, as argued by Donald Levine. It does not make sense at all.
In fact, I add, Ethiopia and the Ethiopians have no regrets by rejecting the wholesale importation of
alien values over the past several centuries. If such a bold statement has 'scratched where it itches'
in some quarters, I say, so be it. Every patriotic citizen, I believe, must fight for the national
interest of his/her country and the nation's sovereignty and pride, and not serve the interests of
foreign powers. Donald Levine has stated in his article that Ethiopia "cannot hide behind the walls' of
national sovereignty in order to defend practices that do not hold up to standards that were....
Western in origin but have now become universal...codes that respect human rights". Who would
argue against such noble ideals or Levine's well said statements? Ethiopia fully respects and safe-
guards all codes on human rights, social and economic rights, as well as political freedoms and
civil liberties. These are all entrenched in the FDRE Constitution, even though the full
implementation of these rights still leaves a lot to be desired owing to numerous endemic and
external impediments and challenges. But what Donald Levine stated subsequently is indeed
unpalatable to any patriotic Ethiopian or any Ethiopian worth his/her salt: " Ethiopia should
support those rights and ensure just democratic procedures just as it welcomes food from western
quarters to help feed those in need." Ethiopia does not, I repeat, does not support 'those rights'
because Western quarters dole out food assistance now and then, in times of emergencies and to
please these self-declared 'donors' but because it strongly upholds and safeguards these human
rights codes for the well-being and dignity of its people. I can assure my good friend Donald Levine
that Ethiopians in the government and Ethiopians elsewhere do not like the tone of his above
statement at all. It is only well-fed dogs which wag their tails for their benevolent masters.
Don't ever expect such doggish behaviour from Ethiopians. Let me, for instance, cite the
indomitable words of the Transitional Period President of Ethiopia (now Prime Minister), who at
one time confronted an arrogant Western official trying to dictate things upon him:
"I have received your letter.....I am surprised by the last sentence in your letter in which you
say 'I repeat my urgent request to set Dr. ......free without delay and to give him the permission
to leave the country'. As you should know, Ethiopia is an ancient and proud country.
It was an independent kingdom conducting extensive trade throughout the civilized world
when most people in Europe were hunter-gatherers. It accepted Christianity [and Islam] at a time
when most of Europe's inhabitants were pagans. It is a country where national pride and respect
for sovereignty are given the highest regard. At the moment, we Ethiopians may be begging
for alms, nonetheless, we remain Ethiopians with our self-respect, and proud of our history
of independence and the heroic struggle that our forefathers [and foremothers] have waged to
bequeath us this proud heritage. I am forced to remind you of these very well known facts
because of the tone and content of your letter...You have no right to request the government of
Ethiopia, what it should and should not do, in the country. We have our own laws and we act
accordingly....If you think that the humanitarian assistance you have provided Ethiopia
entitles you to the right to make and unmake decisions in this country, I can only remind
you that we are a people who know how to starve with dignity...."
If Donald Levine wants to avoid receiving such an embarrassing letter of the above kind, he should
stop fretting to cross the red line in his relations with Ethiopia and the Ethiopians. It is a
humble friendly advice. This also reminds me of the old Greek saying, "When the gods seek to
destroy a great man, they first make him mad." I hope, Donald Levine is not mad yet. I do hope that
he will always keep his sanity and sensibility.
The Folly and Futility of Exporting Democracy: An Historical Perspective
For over a century now, the United States has been sending troops into Third World countries
and trying to create pliant regimes and to 'establish stability' in these states. The
results of America's first effort, the 1898 intervention in Cuba, are typical. Following the
Spanish-American War, the U.S. administered Cuba for four years, turning power over to an
elected Cuban president in 1902. A violent revolution forced him from office, and U.S.
troops came back in 1906. After more reforms and new elections, America again turned power
over to the Cubans in 1909. More instability ensued, including another violent revolt. American
Marines came back yet a third time in 1917, restored order, set up another constitutional regime,
and withdrew in 1922. Cuba has since seen a succession of unstable and autocratic regimes, most
recently the totalitarian dictatorship of Fidel Castro. [James L. Payne, Democracy for Everyone?
....January 31, 2005]. Have the Americans learned any lessons from the Cuban futile attempt? Not
yet.
To export democracy is an American dream and it is a dream Americans provided to the European
people. Today, the United States and the European Union spend roughly $1.5 billion per
year on democracy promotion, via fair or foul means and tactics. Fair and constructive
methods or modalities of democracy promotion are, and must be, most welcome, but
foul and immoral tactics of 'democracy promotion' must be resisted with ferocity, as these
methods usually and mostly lead to anarchy and national disaster, and not to democracy.
Yes, exporting democracy has become part of an American's genetic code and a declared
goal of its foreign policy. Nether supporting dictatorial governments (like in Latin America
during the age of Henry Kissinger), nor conspiring against elected governments (like in Iran,
1953), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1955), Brazil (1960s), Chile (1973), and Nicaragua (1980s),
swept the idea from the average American's mind that his or her country is not only the
freest in the world, but it is also the best at bringing democracy to other countries.
Actions that have never been tolerated at home, such as human rights violations, indiscriminate
attacks on civilian populations, and even torture, are accepted as inevitable means to
achieve the ultimate end: the reign of freedom and democracy.
With what means and with what efficacy has democracy been successfully exported? Unfortunately,
the oft claimed successes achieved in building democracy in Germany, Japan, and Italy after the
Second World War by the USA cannot be defended with forceful argument and strong evidence;
it cannot also be generalized. Trusting in the data collected in a study by the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, the United States has usually failed in its main objective when it has tried
to export democracy using military means. In the first half of the twentieth century, these failures
have concerned neighbouring, and apparently, easily controlled countries, such as Panama
(1903-1936), Nicaragua (1903-1933), Haiti (1915-1934), the Dominican Republic (1916-1924) and
Cuba (1898-1902, 1906-1909, and 1917-1922).
Analogous failures came about in other parts of the world. In South Korea, a huge U.S. military
presence did not generate a democratic government for at least three decades. In South
Vietnam and Cambodia, the U.S. did not even make an attempt to combat communism through
elected governments.. Not even in Haiti, after the end of the Cold War, has success been achieved
by the American administration. After the Second World War, they could only count Panama
(1989) and Grenada (1983), two tiny states, both heavily connected economically and socially
to the United States, as democratic successes. Not even the military interventions in Bosnia and
Kosovo under the NATO umbrella, with close military and political collaboration
between European states and the U.S., have left behind a clear democratic legacy. Thus,
the current lack of success, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, builds on numerous historical
precedents. Altogether, the American obsession with exporting democracy via its army has
brought about more failures than successes.
Wanting to impose democracy against the will of the people is simply nonsense. Most of all, it is
difficult to explain why the people of a democratic country should risk their lives to introduce
democracies in dictatorial countries when the people of the latter are not willing to risk their
lives for the same purpose, or, even more, have not expressed an explicit interest in such a
form of government. It is not even enough for a regime to have an internal opposition; it is also
necessary to have a strong indigenous desire to institute a democratic regime and competent
elites to represent them. If internal oppositions are not committed to the rules of
democracy, an external intervention is likely to lead to a regime where an authoritarian
regime is replaced by a similar regime or, even worse, by a civil war. This is why I vehemently
object the futile attempt of exporting democracy via regime change by unconstitutional means. If
Professor Donald Levine has any sensible rebuttal to this firm exposition of mine, let him come
out to do it, and let the debate continue.
Lastly, the idea of exporting democracy has a very patronizing tone when it is
carried out unilaterally. The international system is based upon the principle
of equality among states. If a state decides unilaterally that another state requires
a regime change, it is violating the principle of equality and it is opening the way
for any sort of self-interested interferences. If a national government will be given
the faculty to decide which government is legitimate and which is not, we will go back
to the bellum omnium contra omnes ("the war of all against all").
The rubric of "exporting democracy" may lead to the justification of any war,
and to the dishonourable demise of international law.
By way of conclusion, let this be said boldly and unambiguously: Many great empires
have crumbled in human history because of their power-mongering adventures
and sheer arrogance. John Perkins, in his recent book CONFESSIONS OF AN
ECONOMIC HIT MAN, succinctly put it:
“…History tells us that unless we modify this story, it is guaranteed to end tragically.
Empires never last. Every one of them has failed terribly. They destroy many cultures
as they race toward greater domination, and then they themselves fall. No
country or combination of countries can thrive in the long term by exploiting others.” [John [Perkins, 2005, p. xiii].
As the old adage goes, "pride always precedes failure". I wish the Americans could
learn some lessons from world history of the past and rectify their misguided foreign
policies in time for their own good and for the greater good of the whole world.
“Time and tide wait for no one”, as they say.