Democracy or Election

                                 Liberal Form vs. Revolutionary Process

Mehretab Assefa  Oct 14, 2009

If there was a point of agreement between Liberal and Revolutionary Democrats, it would be that an election will be held in Ethiopia in May 2010. Both also agree that the election ought to be a contest between different political programs represented by different political parties. The mutual consensus ends here; everything else is locked in sharp disagreement. The root of the discord is that whereas Liberal Democracy is devoted to Form, its Revolutionary opponent is dedicated to Process. Committed to form, the Liberal democrat warns that the electoral process is so delicate the slightest meddling defeats its purpose. Given the unequivocal endorsement of its efficacy and the unambiguous recognition of its fragility, safeguarding the form of the election is presumed to be an effective means to realize democratic end. Hence, all possible efforts should be invested to keep the election free from corruption so that it remains fair for optimal result. Any type of interference in a free and fair election should be exposed with resolve and condemned with fervor. Failure to do so is not only a simple matter of irresponsibility restricting the will of the people, but a grave act of heresy selling-out the very soul of the people. Viewed from such an absolute perspective, which in point of fact replaces the electoral process with the form of election, the upcoming election in Ethiopia is denounced before it even starts. What chance does the electoral process has when forced to be filtered through the funnel of “flawless form” of election? The whole thing is so absurd it confers boundless moral authority and political mandate to all sorts of reckless grouping. It is not by accident that unsavory critics, both domestic and foreign, are predicting with self-assured conviction not only imminent electoral irregularities compromising the peoples’ choice, but also terrifying sequels in the country’s disintegration.  

Apparently, as the adage, perfection is the enemy of the good reminds us; the election in Ethiopia is suspect not so much because of electoral process, but because of unrealistic election benchmarks. It is the unattainable standards that produce the apocalyptic prophecies of the so-called experts.  The outlandish blueprints that Ethiopia is expected to put up with are based not on factual grounds but rather on fictitious presuppositions. That is because the liberal doctrine, which sanctions the application of textbook form of election, gives only lip service to electoral process thereby brushing under the carpet the specific state of affairs in Ethiopia.

LIBERAL DEMOCACY

To begin with Liberal democracy is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Liberal doctrine is first and foremost the antithesis of democracy. It is predicated in excluding rather than including the people within its fold. The entire history of Liberalism is the segregation of some of the people through systematic manipulation the nationality and the citizenship. Its democratic façade is preserved by turning democratic processes into discourse. Consequently, democratic processes are pigeonholed into fixed ideological categories of conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. Throughout the 19^th and 20^th centuries the Liberal reasoning and its ideological expressions have successfully circumscribed all possible social movements by ideological labeling. Under the Liberal auspice every ideology, without exception, openly claims its allegiance to the people (society) and equally condemns the state. By setting society against the state Liberalism fooled the world in the previous centuries. By giving lip service to society, which is an abstract concept to begin with, Liberal ideologies tirelessly toiled to hold on to state power, which is a concrete institution.

 Ideologies are known to fight viciously over the definition of society not so much over the state. That is because according to them it is society that gives meaning to the state. They reason the right social recipe necessarily makes the state a friendly giant. Conversely, the wrong social formula turns the state into an evil monster. In the process, because the notion of society is tenuous, Liberalism has tacitly made the state synonymous with society. It is in light of this rationale that Liberal democracy has magnified the election as society’s vehicle to attain state power. Liberal notion of formal election has inadvertently promoted the state to eclipse the peoples. Obviously, the logic of overshadowing necessitates the object to be covered. It is in this contest that the modern state has invented a single notion of “Etyopiawinet” that is pure in essence and primordial in existence.

The Liberal invention of a singular nation not only made it possible for society to be an appendage of the state, but also constructed democracy as a symbolic spectacle of election. Making the state the embodiment of the nation led to the consecration of election as the spirit of democracy. Needless to say, ritualizing election is nothing but the sanctification of the state. Once the state is approved to be the essence of the singular nation, election turns out to be synonymous with democracy. Such arrangement effectively externalizes democracy by making it the concern of foreign election observers. The externalization of election reincarnates the white man’s burden of previous epochs, whose prime interest is to coerce the state to their benefit. By ritualizing election the West is enabled to save democracy not only from the inept state but also from the dysfunctional nation. An ingenious formula employed either to endorse or blackmail the state depending on its behavior towards Western interests. It is also an immoral scheme subjecting the nation to unimaginable privation because it is inseparable from the state. It is not a fact that collective punishment in the name of democracy and other noble ideals a recurrent theme in current political landscape?

It is not by accident that no one among the special detective units of manifold international observers investigating electoral misconducts or among the elite squads of fortune-tellers such as the International Crisis Group foreseeing post-election disorder spells out the probable causes which led to their respective presupposition. Why would they? After all, they seem to have the magic wand of foresight in their possession. But in Ethiopia it is understood that what they possess is neither a crystal-ball predicting nor a talisman averting bad omens. Like an old wine in a new bottle, the whole thing is an old fashion power play. Rating elections with fanatical zeal has nothing to do with the status of democracy in Ethiopia. To the contrary, it has everything to do in holding democracy hostage by means of electoral machination sugarcoated with superficial ethical benchmarks. Election is tantamount to a soccer game. The contenders are the opposing teams, Ethiopia is the soccer field, the peoples are the spectators, and the observers are the referees. Obviously, under such logic, the latter have the final say in the outcome of the game.   

By designating selected symbols as the litmus test for democracy, the globe-trotting agents of election rate the success or failure of democracy. The chosen norms of electoral conduct succeeded in becoming universal ideal-type of democracy. Even though election is suppose to be a means serving democratic ends, liberalism and its ideological branches have turned it into an anti-democratic stratagem stifling the flowering of democracy everywhere. Universalizing election as an end in itself immunized it from historical, cultural, and political exigencies and outfitted with supernatural paraphernalia. As a result, Liberalism has snatched the electoral process from the actual electorates and effectively handed it over to global missionaries of democracy. Election is openly and totally falls under the control of observers, while democracy is tacitly demoted an irrelevant means legitimating election ends. Is it not true that so-called observers representing disparate governmental or non-governmental organs alike are busy policing elections to their fancy? Is it not also true that the fate of democracy hang on their endorsement or censure of election?

Apparently, the custodians of democracy who dispatch electoral police officers to far-flung corners of the world do not believe an iota in the electoral ideals that they purport to hold dear. They are liberal or pragmatic first and election to them is a political tool. That is, when necessary they unapologetically put election ideal in the backburner. Is it not a fact that the West categorizes states such as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia permanent exceptions not to be bothered by electoral criteria? Is it not true that the West characterizes electoral irregularities such as the 2000 US election a peculiar incident that should not happened in the first place, therefore not warranting foul play? Is it not also true that the West considers the vast majority of countries in the Global South to be democratically challenged therefore in dire need of electoral policing? Whether a particular state is thought to be totally resistant, naturally prone, or chronically deficient of democracy is a political decision. The states that suffer from chronic democratic deficiency and in need of electoral booster are the contemporary guinea pigs in global power politics. They are basically manipulated to galvanize the declining hegemony of the West in the face of Asian rivalry. If there was a believer in the democratic mission, it would be the overzealous police on the beat such as Ana Gomez and her ilk. Whether unassumingly captivated by the romanticism of electoral salvation or arrogantly irritated by the insolence of an unruly state, the diehard enforcer takes the calling to heart.  

REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRACY

How is it possible then to invigorate democracy in the face of overstated or inflated election? Is it possible for democracy to reclaim its preeminence over election? Is the solution to expunge election from the political arena altogether? Or is it to renegotiate their relationship afresh? As much as the dilemma seems to be overwhelming, the first thing to do is not to pit election with democracy, which also entails not to contradict the state and people. That is precisely why the whole issue has become catch-22. Instead of wasting time in resolving the vicious circle between election and democracy, and state and society, it is much more beneficial to exonerate democracy from liberalism and delink state from people.

In Ethiopia the difference between the nation and the state is clearly acknowledged so that they are not used interchangeably. It is the reconsideration of this relationship which for lack of a better term is called Revolutionary democracy. Rather than being oscillated ad infinitum between the nation and the state, revolutionary democracy from the get go accepts their difference therefore is freed from the Liberal dilemma. Because the two dimensions are dissimilar, revolutionary democracy is not hard pressed to present them either as indivisible or mutually exclusive. Instead it is positioned to reconstitute their relationship without being burdened by worn out liberal premise. Unlike political operatives who adhere to liberalism, Revolutionary Democrats distinguished between election and democracy. The fact of conceiving democracy as a process necessarily makes election a course of action that should be kept unhindered by Liberal restrictions. Far from unconditionally subscribing to the sanctity of election as a generic embodiment of democracy, this time around the very character of the election is interrogated. It is only in this fashion that the power of external domination is reduced, the status of the state is absolved from external blackmail and manipulation, the peoples are enabled to reclaim the state so that they have a fighting chance in charting their future, and the seed of democracy is allowed to take root and grow with relative certainty. Unfortunately however, assisted by well entrenched dogma, Liberal Democracy through its political operatives never ceased to strangle the modest but significant gains achieved by its Revolutionary Democracy nemesis.  

In Ethiopia, ever since EPDRF came to power Revolutionary Democracy has been under Liberal Democracy’s multipronged assault. From the very start EPDRF has found itself pulled apart towards two opposite poles. On the hand it is accused of fragmenting the territorial integrity of the primordial Ethiopian state and of undermining the social harmony of the proverbial Ethiopian nation. On the other hand it is blamed for carrying out the same old Ethiopian imperial policies of occupying sovereign non-Ethiopian territories and of dominating autonomous non-Ethiopian societies. The two poles are diametrical in opposition no degree of critical reasoning and no amount of political goodwill can reconcile their discord. No wonder prevailing notions of Liberal orthodoxy’s ideological proceedings are locked in a vicious circle. Hence, political groups of different stripes find themselves being bounced back and forth between the two extremities.         

     Given the futility of trying to harmonize the two extreme poles, the only decent thing to do is to reject the idea wholesale and opt for a different approach; otherwise known as revolutionary Democracy. In point of fact, the mutual antagonism between unifiers and splinters is not because they are unattached, but because they are indivisible. They exist in relation to each other because they simultaneously come into being in perpetual antagonism. Liberalism rationalizes their antagonistic coexistence as in a winner-take-all frenzy whereby the triumph of one calls for nothing short of the annihilation of the other. Accordingly, the main thrust of Ethiopian electoral discourse is being dominated by the two extremes, which are substantively tied by common relational device of anti Revolutionary Democracy. Hence it is time to call a spade a spade and change perspective instead of investing intellectual energy and political capital in a self-reinforcing zero-sum game plan with no end in sight. Would it not be beneficial to expose the absurdity of the discourse by exposing the mutual affinity between the two poles instead of being manipulated by their purported antagonism?    

The first myth that is dispelled by Revolutionary Democracy is the one which depicts Ethiopia either as an immaculate conception or as a vile abortion. Ethiopia is neither a perfect and timeless life form nor a flawed and accidental body form. Imagining Ethiopia to be innately eternal or virtually accidental is essentially the same thing. Either way Ethiopia is conceived as a supernatural product rather than a historical construct. And the supernatural imagination has two overlapping conclusions. It either idealizes Ethiopia as absolutely blameless forbidding any effort of its growth or transmogrifies it as absolutely wicked disallowing any attempt of its renewal. Between them two diametrically opposed positions monopolize political discourse and as a result legitimize a bizarre political reality. Those who adhere to the inviolability of Ethiopia see everything else as tantamount to dismembering a loving and nurturing mother. And those who believe in the congenital wickedness of Ethiopia judge all other possibilities as efforts to breathe life into a mother eating evil monster. When things are subsumed in a choice between two irreconcilable figures of around motherhood, the alternative is nothing but to kill someone else’s mother.

The second myth that Revolutionary Democracy has dispelled is the one which presents “the fragmentation” and/or “the consolidation” of Ethiopia as definite eventualities. The ideas of impeding imperial restoration or prohibiting national fragmentation cannot be carried out unless Ethiopia is isolated first as a de facto island; in terms of both political autonomy and economic autarky. That is, in order to be preserved or destroyed, Ethiopia has to be imagined first as either good or evil in the pure sense of the term. Hence, once Ethiopia is presented in a discrete form, its preservation and/or annihilation becomes its raison d’être. Under such logic the actualization of political goals are possible only in the potential non-existence of Ethiopia. And its potential non-existence is possible only in actualizing its existence in a perverted pure form. Ironically, the quest for purity is an obsessive compulsive disorder deeply preoccupied with impurity. It is an acute form of paranoia bordering psychosis. However, when Ethiopia is conceived as a historical construction, its preservation or annihilation becomes less significant ceding priority to a sounder point of view. Accordingly, the specificity of Ethiopia is conceived in terms of Gender and Class relational processes, which are manifested in concrete forms of Ethnicity-Nationality, Rural-Urban, and Global North-Global South interactions. The most rewarding contribution of Revolutionary Democracy is to bring these salient dimensions to the fore front.

Revolutionary Democracy has discarded the authority of Liberal democracy through the implementation of Ethnic Federalism, in general, and ratification of Article 39 of the constitution, in particular. As far as conventional wisdom of Liberal Democracy goes, the political arrangement of the country along Ethnic lines and the constitutional provision which guarantees Ethnic nationalities self-determination including secession has caused all types of misgiving. To those who privilege the territorial integrity and national harmony of Ethiopia, the constitutional provision is fundamentally treasonous. As far as they are concerned, it is nothing but a dangerous ploy which effectively imperils the very survival of the nation. To those who advocate for unconditional ethno-national sovereignty, the constitutional proviso is patently deceitful. As far as they are concerned, it is nothing more than an underhanded subterfuge designed to preserve the pathetic imperial order. Although both positions appear to be distinctly separate, a closer look reveals that they are branches of a common ground.

Ethnic Federalism, which is concretized by Article 39, has nothing to do with the dismantling/ maintaining the territorial integrity or dividing/unifying the national unity of Ethiopia. Even though mainstream debate is locked in this never-ending vicious circle, the concrete texture of the constitution should be looked elsewhere. Basically, Ethnic Federalism and Article 39 is an epicenter whereby different social relations intersect. It is a medium that addresses globally induced but locally staged contradictions. By acknowledging the sovereignty of the state to be a function of global interstate governance system, Ethnic Federalism is approaching what can be accomplished in a realistic fashion. It is not obsessed in looking Ethiopia as a discrete entity. It is therefore able to concentrate in mitigating the power-relation of the interstate system so that it can shield the peoples from external manipulation. Conversely, by respecting the cultural and historical underpinnings of the peoples, it absolved the state from creating the imagined nation. The exoneration of the people from the national archetype with the introduction of Ethnicity and the recognition of the relative power of the state in the global arena, more than anything else, transpired in a new alliance between the peoples so that they have a fighting chance against the so-called forces of globalization. The decentralization of power made it possible to concentrate on common objective.  As a result, the state has been able to ward off pressures stemming from multi-national, parastatal, and non-governmental entities. The state under the auspices of Revolutionary Democracy, which is effectuated in Ethnic Federalism, is not totally at the mercy of the interstate system. Unlike its Liberal Democratic counterpart, it never claimed to be a one size fits all structure irrespective of historical, cultural, and political dissimilarities. It is by recognizing its social-historical make-up that the state in Ethiopia is being able to deter unwarranted meddling and poisonous vilifications, which are standard modus operandi of Liberalism.

CONCLUSION

The upcoming election is not and should not be seen as a race between contending parties adhering to a common philosophical doctrine, with a prearranged end. Even though the ultimate prize is state power which appears to be the finish line of the race, the contest is between two different visions of democracy articulated by Liberal and Revolutionary perspective respectively. It would be naïve to imagine let alone believe that the two ideals can coexist even in opposition. History shows that Liberal democracy and its ideological acolytes accept anything else except their own defunct worldview, which is inherently Eurocentric and irredeemably paternalistic. Its sole objective is the attainment of state power period the rest does not matter. Since its motto is the end justifies the means it has no sense of loyalty, standard of principle, and ethics of conduct. The peoples in Ethiopia cannot afford to be subjected to another atrocious form of social experiment. They are not guinea pigs to be wasted in the unattainable quest of a perfect nation only to be the eclipsed by the state.