This piece builds on the short piece that I wrote last year on
democracy (http://aigaforum.com/articles/Democracy_020809.htm).The folks at the Journal of Democracy, housed within the
US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, have lately been gravely
concerned with the current state of liberal democracy. If you are a reader of
this publication, by now you might have been familiar with phrases like
“democracy backslide”, “democracy recession”, “democracy reversal”, “democracy
back push” and so on. The Third Wave that gave rise to neo-liberalism in the
1980s has now lost its momentum, they say.
The ideas of democracy have actually spread
quickly across the globe, thanks to the new information and communication
technologies (ITCs). In fact, Larry Diamond, one of the editor and frequent
contributors of the Journal of Democracy, wrote (in July 2010 edition) an
interesting article that shows how ITCs have
opened up and expanded public spheres, and in doing so, have strengthened the
political forces of democracy. The proliferation of blog sites, online chat
room, online media and other online resources have allowed hundreds of millions
of people world wide to share ideas, knowledge and
resources. In Ethiopia, you will find people eating breakfast in cafeterias
while watching BBC or CNN news analyses of political issues, thank to satellite
dishes. I was in Gondar the night Obama got elected. People (young and old)
stayed until 2:00 am following the election telecast on CNN. What all this does is end the monopoly of
information by the middle class and intellectual elites and increase awareness by
citizens of the standards of democracy and democratic practices.
So, what is causing or seems to cause a
concern that the global spread of democracy is backsliding? Despite well staged
elections in many countries, both political elites and state institutions remain
authoritarian, oppressive and exploitive. Populist leaders who once struggled for liberal
democracy may now be looking to East, such as China, to find governance models
that speed up economic growth and poverty alleviation. In fact, two recent papers by UK Department
for International Development (DFID) argue that developing countries need viable
governments and governance systems that put the needs of citizens first, not the
rights of elites.
The second problem is lack of experience in democracy and absence
of strong institutions to protect democratic rights. Democracy is about majority
rule and so Aristotle’s fear of tyranny of the majority remains true to this
day. Majorities seize power. Minorities feel marginalized and rise up to defend
their rights, throwing societies into deeper political crises. The Sunnis in Iraq
rose to fight not only because of the American presence, but because they were
terrified of the domination of Shiites. Eritrea can also provide an example here.
In the early 1990s, many of our “intellectuals” complained that Issayas Afewerki had deliberately
encouraged EPRDF to craft an ethnic-based federalism while creating his own
unitary state in Asmara. Today Eritrea is one of the countries at risk
of total collapse with dire consequences of ethnic cleansing if marginalized
lowlander Muslims continue to talk about jihad against highlander Christians. Countries
like India, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Canada, Switzerland and other nations have tried
to accommodate diversity by crafting inclusive federal systems which ensure the
equal distribution of opportunities in society.
Finally, the way progress towards democratization is
measured remains problematic, in a sense that outsiders like the folks at
Journal of democracy are misled to reach at misleading conclusions. Too often three
factors are considered in the measurement of whether or not democracy in
country X is working: civil society,
media, and multi-party elections.
·
If you have less civil
society complaints, this means that things are ok. If you have too many civil
society complaints, the government is not democratic. The reality, at least in the
African context, could be that civil society is dominated by former state and
political elites. So, whether or not civil society grieves against a government
may depend on how government policies and practices have affected the particular
class interests of civil society elites.
The Ethiopian government charity legislation was accepted by indigenous
NGOs and government bureaucrats, who were actually happy that the government finally
went after highly paid NGO elites. Yet, the charity legislation became an
international issue and is still referred to as one of the factors narrowing
democratic space in the country.
·
The media is supposed to
analyze and report issues affecting public interests. In reality, there is no
media outside of the capital cities, and according to one World Bank study in
Africa, this will remain so as long as there is poverty, meaning that only
elites can afford to buy newspapers and those elites live in capital cities.
So, you can forget about the idea of media representing public interests or as
a measure of progress in democratization.
·
Multiparty national
elections are supposed to create competition among political parties to give
people a chance to choose parliamentarians that best defend and promote their
interests. Yet, the world now has too many examples of opposition parties
rejecting election results, at times this leading to violence and
bloodshed. The BBC online edition on Africa a few months ago
asked why opposition parties in Africa cry foul and call for re-elections: “is
this becoming their role or are elections genuinely not working across the
continent?” The responses from the audience suggest that democracy can work for
Africa if politicians exercise responsibility. In fact, Africans have seen opposition elites riding to power using elections
only to perform no better than previous ruling elites. Ethiopia is an example
of a country where you have political and intellectual elites clinging to old
tradition of political rhetoric and manipulation. Some of these elites are so
frustrated that they equate Ethiopia’s progress with the legitimization of
EPRDF; they remain preoccupied with discrediting the development process.
In short, then, the fact is that democracy works and its ideals
are spreading fast. It is just that managing the democratization process
remains challenging.
In a society that has a growing young population with a modern
zeal, political triumph (e.g., winning elections) will be a function of
political ingenuity. For the Ethiopian opposition, it means building organizational
resources including recruiting
and training members and creating party discipline and unity. It also means moving away
from international lobbying (please have a little bit self-respect) to getting
down to the basics of popular politics with starts by reaching out to the
toiling Ethiopian masses. For EPRDF, the young generation expects flexibility
and adaptability in the application of the winner-takes-all rule of
parliamentary democracy which is not even Ethiopia’s own political tradition.
EPRDF should allow genuine opposition parties to have seats in parliamentary
committees or should create opposition cabinet portfolios. Otherwise who would ask
questions on policy and legislation proposals?
As a final note, the introduction of another US Senate bill, called Support for
Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2010, may yet frustrate frontline Ethiopian
and US diplomats. The US State Department folks will no doubt advise against
this bill, for the obvious reason that Ethiopia is one of the nations providing
help to America’s regional security initiatives. All this messing around of
Ethiopian internal affairs by American legislators is also the result of continued
work of vocal Diaspora groups that still hope to ride to power with the help of
domestic opposition and Western powers. Good luck!
Getachew Mequanent
Ottawa, Canada
September 2010