For many Ethiopians the struggle for democracy and human rights was not improved upon by the overthrow of the pro-Soviet elements in the country. To the contrary, the new leadership that emerged in 1991 simply compounded the problem. The coming to power of Meles   Zinawi and his group was expected to ameliorate the situation and to lay the foundations for democracy and human rights. Although Meles’ government  introduced some political changes building upon the diverse ethnic and regional affiliations of the country, many of his compatriots are not fully convinced that power sharing is taking place and the political dissidents have either ended in jails or have voted with their feet to more life-saving and politically fertile grounds. For Meles and his group, the absence of democracy in Ethiopia was linked not only to the monarchical legacies of the Lion of Judah as Emperor Selassie used to be called in the heydays of his rule, but to the political tyranny of the subsequent pro-Soviet regime of Mengistu. In addition to these two obstacles to democratic change and human rights development, Ethiopia was effectively handicapped because of the cultural and ethnic tyranny of the Amhara. This charge against Amhara hegemony has always been a bone of contention in Ethiopia . 

   What have made this charge persistent and detrimental to the quest for greater unity among Ethiopian groups bent on planting the seeds of democracy and human rights is the political agitations of ethnic movements linked to the Oromos, the Somalis and others in the country. The Oromos, being the largest ethnic group in the country, found itself in a lamentable position. Many of its political activists in the West and inside the Ethiopian territories have either signed on with the ruling party in the hope of gaining some power or are resistant to the ruling order and are aligned with the opposition forces. This state of affairs has not changed and Oromos suffered from the lack of democracy and human rights just as the rest of the population. 

    But while making this case for the delay in the realization of democracy and human rights in Ethiopia , one must also acknowledge the challenges facing those leaders who genuinely wish to transform the society into a democracy. There are several factors to consider in this respect. There is the question of hunger and the politics of the belly. Much has been said and written about the lack of food security in Ethiopia . Vast amount of money is spent in feeding the large population through government sources and international food assistance. Indeed, any one who is seriously interested in monitoring the food clock as opposed to the democratic clock in Ethiopia would find to his or her dismay that food security is primary. This is not because people do not love and like democracy and human rights. Rather, their feelings and attitudes are invariably affected by a missing piece of bread here and a morsel of meat there. This politics of realism among the poor urban and rural Ethiopians must be taken into account when we trace the trail of democracy in this part of the African continent. In many respects, democracy is a hungry Ethiopian whose verbal skills are seriously affected by the lack of food and the unreality of political freedom in a land where a birr, the local currency is a distant neighbor that answers to a foreign last name. 

   One good index of the dialectics between the politics of the belly and the democratic process in Ethiopia is the tyranny of poverty and the manner in which it has planted greed in the hearts and minds of the powerful and fear and subservience in the personal behavior and life styles of the poor, helpless and the weak. In searching for democracy and human rights in Ethiopia, one must therefore admit the paralyzing grip of poverty and the  slow pace of political consciousness among the leaders and the led in that country. 

   Upon my return from Ethiopia I interviewed Ethiopian Embassy officials about my observations. In order to balance my perceptions with their own views of their country, I asked them a number of questions. In this follow-up to my narrative, I share with you the main points made in their statements to me.  Central to the discourse is their involvement with the war on international terrorism. They responded by saying that their country “is now deeply entangled with the US . The war against international terrorism has developed into the key point of contact between these two countries.  “First of all, the war on terrorism is not the mainstay of our relations with the US . We have a hundred year diplomatic relationship of political, economic and social nature. Of course the war against terror has recently got prominence in our relationship.” They contended that Ethiopia is located in a highly volatile region. And over the years it has became a target of terrorist groups with links to international terrorist organizations even long before September 2001. They maintained they had no options but to take strong counter- terrorism measures. To counter the threat from Al-Ittihad al-Islami (AIAI), Ethiopia “took increased military efforts to control its lengthy border with stateless Somalia . In 1997 Ethiopia government took military measures against Al-Ittihad al-Islami, chasing the terrorists into the territory of Somalia . At this brief military intervention hundreds of fighters from Pakistan , Afghanistan and other North African and Middle Eastern Countries were killed and a number of them were captured, brought to the court of justice.”  Relating their association and partner with the United States of America,  the argued that  “the United States, which came on board to the global war on terror in the Horn of Africa at a later stage following the international terrorist attacks of the World Trade Center, should recognize this principle between our two countries. Though groups with links to international terrorist organizations attacked the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and caused over 280 civilian deaths and damage to property the attention given to the problem in the Horn of Africa was not so visible until 11 September. Thus Ethiopia , a developing nation with limited resources was fighting international terrorism alone but since 11 September it has found a strong partner and better understanding from the international community”. 

      In addition, I asked what are the most significant domestic issues facing Prime Minister Meles   Zenawi , including the question of food security and the negative consequences of hunger? To these questions they asserted a particular tune of their national leader who has stated that “the most critical issue for the Government and people of Ethiopia is eradicating poverty from the country. In this regard we have gone a long way in dealing with this problem in the last few years as a result of sound development policies and strong political commitment from the leadership. As a first step the Government has adopted policies focused on changing the lives of the peasantry, which makes 85% of our population.” On the basis of agricultural development led by industrialization policy, “ Ethiopia has been implementing, different kinds of supports, such as credits, select seeds, technical assistance on modern ways of farming, market access information, fertilizer are provided to farmers. In every Kebele (the lowest administrative unit with 5000 habitants) three agricultural extension workers are assigned to provide technical supports to farmers.”  As part of their larger argument of organizing precisely the education of the people, they maintained that “works have been undertaken to expand education, bringing the coverage of primary education from 22% in 1991 to 90% 2007”. The coverage of secondary education has reached from under 20% in 1991 to 34% in 2006. According to them, Ethiopia moved from 2 Universities in 1991 to 23 universities in 2007.Also they are making significant progress in health and social services.

 In spite of their protestation against international terrorism, they were not very forth coming in providing information on human rights abuses in their country. Several questions on this matter were raised with them, but their responses were not satisfying. I was expecting a, more affirmative answer to the challenging human rights in Ethiopia which I did not get. 

  In conclusion, the struggle for democracy and human rights in Ethiopia emphasizes the persistence and relevance of three things for Ethiopians and those interested in this political phenomenon. The first is the dynamic relationship between poverty and social change in Africa . Here one must say that the Ethiopian leadership is not likely to succeed if its policies and programs of action are not evident in the decline of poverty in the country and in the greater self-appreciation of the average Ethiopian. Similarly, the leaders of Ethiopia cannot spread the seeds of democratic change and human rights if they stifle the right to be separate and distinct among its religious and ethnic groups. The regimentation of society through the imposition of certain notions, ideas and paradigms are unlikely to effect change. The history of the society under the Emperor who ruled for fifty years and under the pro-Soviet regime of Mengistu has made it categorically clear that democracy cannot be without food for the belly. And human rights can become a reality only when the Ethiopian is increasingly liberated from the negative consequences of food insecurity. Through a careful and well articulated policy of democratization, chances are the seeds of democracy will flourish. And it all depends on what the ruling order wants and what its vision for Ethiopia is in the long term.

Robot  Villager

# 1 In addition to this inherited system of governance, the rise and development of the ...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 04.08.2007 09:51