Developing a Political Culture of Tolerance:

The Key for Sustainable Democratisation in Ethiopia

By Tesfaye Habisso
e-mail: habisso@yahoo.co.uk

Democracy and more exactly its absence is a fundamental issue which determines socio-economic development and peaceful co-existence. True democracy can be achieved only when incumbents and opposition parties can first respect one another and avoid the rhetoric currently manifest.
The following article is a three part series which exhaustively deals with the complexities of Ethiopian politics and suggests ways of fostering tolerance in politics.
The contributor is formerly the Ambassador of Ethiopia to South Africa and Uganda. He is currently retired after a long and distinguished career in international relations.
Since the demise of the military junta and the assumption of state power by the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) in 1991, a wide array of socio-political and economic reforms have been undertaken by the incumbent regime aimed at doing away with authoritarian and repressive rule of the past and instituting a democratic political system in its place, on the one hand, and reversing the previous state-dominated command economy and introducing a market-led economy in its place, on the other. Although it is easier said than to effect such fundamental changes successfully within a period of just sixteen years, noteworthy achievements have been recorded in a number of areas, particularly in the areas of infrastructure, education, health, energy, telecommunication services, gender equality, food security and in devolving power to and strengthening local governments of the various ethnic nationalities, etc. Revolutionary changes have also been executed in the reconfiguration of the state along a multi-nation federal structure, acknowledging human, group, political, social and economic rights of the citizens and the equality of all nations and nationalities, including their inalienable right of self-determination, and all these were entrenched in a constitution that has been widely acclaimed by many pundits and scholars as a truly democratic and liberal constitution.
Be this as it may, there are still formidable economic, political and social challenges facing the nation today. There are grave concerns in the area of political liberalisation particularly in enforcing the golden rules/principles of human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law. As we give credit to the many achievements of the incumbent party and government, we should not also fail or condone to pinpoint, criticise and disapprove these deficiencies of the regime in place. Having been in the service of this regime as a civil servant, parliamentarian and ambassador for fifteen years or so, I do feel elated by its achievements and miserably disappointed by its failures and hence my responsibility and obligation to pinpoint the failures and weaknesses and suggest ways and means of rectifying them. I do not want this government to be overwhelmed by failures and eventually crumble like its predecessors. I sincerely yearn that this regime leaves a long-lasting and enviable legacy for generations to come. I give my support to this government, criticising its mistakes and praising its successes and, in my humble capacity, sharing equally the blames and accolades heaped upon the incumbent regime because it is and has been my government. In this regard, I want to discuss one persisting malady that has remained as one of the most serious stumbling blocks for the respect of human rights, the rule of law and the ongoing democratisation process in the country. This vexing problem, I may dare say, is lack of tolerance from the incumbent regime in its methods of dealing with its opponents in general and the absence of such a culture of tolerance amongst all our political organisations that have been circulating in the political market place and competing to assume local, regional or federal state power in the country through regularly held elections since 1992. The aim of this paper is to discuss this persistent and mind-numbing malady that has been afflicting the political society for so long and to offer some views on the way forward in order to realise a smooth and well-functioning multi-party politics in Ethiopia.
Introduction
It is indisputable to state that political relations for a democratic and pluralistic dispensation need to be guided by a culture of dialogue, negotiation, compromise, tolerance and the rule of law. When such a political culture is lacking in the fabric of a society, a smooth and successful transition to a democratic way of life and system of rule is bound to be very difficult, if not impossible. Thus the need to learn and develop a political culture of tolerance and magnanimity and to learn to disagree without being disagreeable and becoming permanent enemies is absolutely imperative.

Though it is gratifying to observe such a democratic culture gradually developing among the political forces since recent times (for instance, reaching a consensus on the parliamentary rules of procedure by the parties in parliament a few months ago and the ongoing peaceful negotiations on the nature and composition of the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia and the Electoral Law, the Press Law, the provision of offices and other facilities to major opposition parties inside the premises of the parliament building, etc. are indeed some encouraging signs of such a tolerant political culture of mutual respect, understanding and accommodation in the making), our political history of the past several decades, for the most part, has been characterised by inter- and intra-political bickering, hostility, enmity, intolerance and factional infighting amongst political forces/groups, widespread suppressions of free political thought, expression and involvement, and gross human rights violations that included indiscriminate arrests, incarceration, tortures and physical liquidation. All these behavioural traits have resulted in serious political repercussions for the country’s stability and socio-economic development prospects. This has happened in a country which by any world standards is richly endowed with both natural resources and human resource potential.
The political struggles between the different political forces have mainly revolved around and focussed on the capture of political power and its effective/exclusive control from any other contending political groups in the country. Thus, whenever one political group is in power, then it ensures that the ‘others’ are systematically sidelined through brutal force and legal-cum constitutional means. The ‘others’ also resort to any available avenues to dislodge the political group/party that is in power. Unfortunately, these political struggles are mainly executed violently and through unconstitutional means, often resulting in the death of many innocent citizens and the destruction of large private and public property.
At the centre of the alienation of one group by another is the yawning deficiency in establishing minimum standards of tolerance. The level of animosity, incivility, anger, hatred , enmity and the unwillingness to compromise and understand one another amongst political groups in Ethiopia has been phenomenal. Individuals, whether on the side of the incumbent regime or on the opposite camp, see politics as an end in itself and as a source of reliable employment and income. Hence, they utilize all their tactics and organizational skills as well as resources at their disposal to cling onto power by hook or by crook, though they often do not hesitate to talk about their altruistic motives of serving the poor masses. Some individuals on both sides of the political divide behave insensitively on what they say or do to individuals or groups who do not belong to their side. In effect, political power becomes a property of the incumbent regime and its coterie of supporters. Whoever opposes the incumbent political leadership in any form is summarily labeled as an enemy of the state and must be dealt with harshly through various ways—imprisonment on flimsy grounds, threats to injury and, sometimes, even physical elimination.
Hence, going by Ethiopia’s political experience, those in power always hold the strong conviction that it is only them who have the country at heart and do possess the monopoly of knowledge and the magic key that is the ultimate solution/elixir to the country’s endemic socio-political and economic malaise. Because no one out there knows better than they do, they are not only willing but unprepared to hand over political power to people whom they believe will only mess up the country’s affairs and the strategies they have designed and the programmes they have initiated.
Thus, given such intolerant positions, those who see no hope in capturing state power in order to put their own programmes in place choose other unconventional and ugly means to capture state power. Obviously, such diametrically opposed stances of the incumbent regime and the opposition political forces do not augur well for political democratisation and socio-economic development. Instead, such dug-in stances are bound to create, as they have done before and seem likely to do in the near future, serious political ruptures in the polity to the detriment of the country’s prospects for greater democratisation, peace and stability.
As Ethiopia heads for the year 2010 when elections are expected to be held for the fourth time under a multi-party political arrangement, tolerance among and within the respective political organisations becomes an essential imperative for sustainable democratisation, peace and stability. Indeed, political tolerance should form the political bedrock upon which the different political forces should develop and build consensually the minimum political programme for action—a programme necessary for the creation of a commonwealth and for extricating the nation from the scourges of abject poverty and underdevelopment, instead of fighting solely over the sharing of state power and the ever shrinking national cake. Short of this consideration (the ongoing talks between the incumbent party and the other parliamentary political parties ought to be guided by this premise), the country is bound to enter 2010 ( a very short period to go) when the political organizations are still seeing each other antagonistically and as ‘blood enemies’ rather than as responsible political actors and worthy partners in nation building who have equal rights to govern the country without any encumbrance from anybody or any organization. The consequence that will result from political intolerance is anyone’s guess, an unmanaged transition from a dominant one-party system to a multi-party political system with all the attendant volcanic-like political instability that will accompany it or total apathy because of what harsh measures the incumbent regime can take if violent public disturbances occur again. The bitter experience of the public in the aftermath of the May 2005 national elections is still fresh in the people’s memory.
However, political tolerance should not be applied in politics only when individuals and groups of opposing political organizations act in conformity with the wishes of the incumbent leadership. Political tolerance should be pragmatically observed through recognition and acceptance that individuals and groups are free and at liberty to practice their fundamental human rights to think, to protest and organize, to have free flow of information, to have wider deliberation and debate, to criticise the government, to act and behave differently from their own, without infringing on the rights of others. Indeed, intolerance goes against the political dictum that postulates that no individual or group of individuals have the right to usurp the fundamental human rights of an individual or group of individuals in order to add them onto their own.

(The second installment to continue next week)