Developing a Political Culture of Tolerance:

The Key for Sustainable Democratisation in Ethiopia

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

Part II

The importance of political tolerance cannot be overstated. In the first part of this series the writer concluded by outlining what democratization means.
This week we are invited to review the background of political intolerance in Ethiopia, the challenges faced on all sides of the divide and strategies toward building a tolerant political system.

What do we understand by Political Tolerance?
Definitions on political tolerance differ. Generally, it implies a level of fairness or equal application of rules or norms of conduct and an allowance of individual freedom. It means that those who are unlike us or who we oppose have the opportunity to express their ideas or activities in freedom. In Sullivan et.al. (1985:5) in conception of political tolerance, an important factor is opposition. They argue that the issue of tolerance or intolerance does not come into play unless one holds negative beliefs or evaluations about the group or doctrine in question.
Furthermore, political tolerance means that every citizen should have a right to join a political party of his/her choice, or not to join it, without being intimidated. This recognition and acceptance does allow for free political activity. People should learn to be tolerant of other people’s point of view even if they are different from their own. Tolerance applies not only to respecting and appreciating our social and cultural differences but equally the differences in our affiliations to political parties.
Theories of Political Tolerance
Sullivan et. al. (1982:5) identified three major theories that explain political tolerance, viz. the liberal theory, the conservative democratic theory and the federalist theory. Each of these theories will be discussed in turn, here below.
In the liberal view, tolerance is extended toward any type of expression as long as it does not harm others. The individual is largely autonomous, and tolerance towards unpopular views is a necessary ingredient at all levels. Civil liberties are protected because only harmful expressions are punished or prohibited.
The conservative democratic theory is not premised on high levels of tolerance in the mass public. It argues that democracy can survive without high level of tolerance among the masses or even among the majority of the governing elite. As long as a sizeable dissenting elite is loyal to democratic ideals and tolerance, they have the ability and duty to protect civil liberties.
Under the federalist theory, it is not required that either the masses or the elites have high tolerance. Instead, diversity, decentralisation and constitutional checks and balances will provide for the protection of civil rights and liberties. Groups will compete with each other, and as long as groups have access to the process, civil liberties will be protected.
The social theorists argue that the liberal theory seems to be capable of advancing the principles of political tolerance. Hence, in a situation where certain areas are declared “no-go areas” (areas that are considered as political strongholds of certain political parties and unsafe if you are not from the same political party) for some people, tolerance is not likely to exist.

Why Political Tolerance is important?
There are a number of different theories as to why political tolerance is important, either on an individual level or as part of the general liberal democratic theory. The reasons are elucidated hereunder.
First, tolerance can help keep a society together, even in the face of intense conflict. If there is a general observance of rules of equality and tolerance, then the conflicts can be dealt with in a peaceful manner. If a large percentage of the populace
does not agree to tolerant principles, democracy may be in trouble. Indeed, tolerance should be seen as the central plank of democracy because society cannot be totally homogenous.
Second, tolerance is part of the civil rights that individuals can expect in a democracy. Individuals should be able to expect to live their lives without fear of physical violence. At the individual level, tolerance ensures that the expression of opinions can be made without fear of reprisal. Attitudes of tolerance also set the stage for actual behaviours that citizens have. Individuals with tolerant attitudes will tend to have tolerant behaviour.
Third, intolerance violates the liberty of individuals or citizens, as freedom and tolerance are intertwined.
Those who do not feel free to express themselves and to exercise their inalienable human rights fully are more likely to be intolerant of others, to have less heterogeneous peer groups, less tolerant spouses, and to live in less tolerant communities. Further, intolerance by some individuals may also serve as an example to others thus encouraging them to be intolerant as well.
However, it is important to note that universal tolerance is not required or even desired for the success of democratic theory. In fact, it can be argued that universal tolerance could even threaten or destroy democracy. This is what is called the “paradox of tolerance”. For example, a universally tolerant regime could end up being tolerant towards undemocratic groups who act within the legitimate or legal confines even if this could lead to the demise of democracy. Another example could be whether citizens of a democracy are obliged to tolerate those who, if they prevailed, would destroy the practice of tolerance, and even democracy itself.
Therefore, tolerance is one of many values that are essential to democracy. So there must exist a balance between tolerance and the other values such as justice, liberty, public security, peace, order and truth. In other words, it can never be always right to be tolerant. There are occasions in which we should be intolerant, especially when others are behaving in intolerant ways. Thus, intolerance in the name of tolerance can be legitimate. The major question however is how one judges that those who are intolerant are right in behaving intolerantly.
For example, when political demonstrations become violent and seriously threaten public security and order, it is not expected of the government in place to show tolerance at all, as these demonstrations lose their protection under the constitutional rights to “peaceably assemble”. They enter into a completely different category of political expression; they transform from non-violent political expression, akin to civil disobedience, to violent acts whose political message is obscured by the threat of injury and destruction of property. This is exactly what happened in the wake of the May 2005 national elections—violent and ghastly events that culminated in the demise of 199 citizens, the wounding of 763 innocent people and the destruction of public and private property worth many millions of birr. In such situations and instances there arises a tension between the government’s duty to provide security for the population and its duty to preserve liberty. When an assemblage becomes violent, it conflicts with natural rights to life and property. “ If protesters attempt….to interfere with programmes or to appropriate facilities for their own use” (J. W. Peltason, 1991:217), the state has the obligation to disperse the participants and arrest those involved in criminal activities, but not to apply lethal force. Deadly force must be used only to prevent extreme criminal activities that pose a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm, such as snipers or arsonists. Even in these cases, security forces must use discrimination to target only the sniper or the arsonist. As Barrye L. T. Price succinctly put it, “ The only genuine, long-range solution for what has happened however lies in an attack—mounted at every level—upon the conditions that breed despair and violence”.
When people who happen to live or work in the area where the protests are taking place are in danger of losing their lives or their property, the government is required to provide for their security. As John Stuart Mill recognised in On Liberty, “…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”. (John Stuart Mill, 1978:9). The only real limits to the exercise of liberty emerge when such exercise violates the rights of others.
According to social theorists, the primary reason people band together in civil society is their desire for security. Consequently, during instances of violent civil disturbance, protecting innocent people and their property becomes the primary duty of the government and takes precedence over the government’s duty to protect the protesters’ right to assemble. Those assembled relinquish their right to this particular form of political expression when they allow their means of address to become violent. When governmental authorities disperse a violent protest, the protesters’ rights are not being abrogated; instead, the rights of innocent bystanders are being enforced. The government’s primary intent in these instances is to protect people from violence. There will be ample, alternative channels of political expression to which the protesters may resort at some later juncture.
Coming to terms with democracy and democratization

Democracy
Democracy has been understood to mean a system or form of regime whose legitimacy derives from the principle of popular sovereignty. Even the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1994), under the section on “Political Objectives” recognizes the fact that “the government, guided by democratic principles, shall promote and support the people’s self-rule at all levels” [FDRE Constitution 1994, Art. 88]. In other words, the ordinary citizens of any state are equally endowed with the ability to govern themselves [Sachikonye, 2002:186].
In the liberal democratic sense, the basic attributes of democracy connote the right to vote, the right to belong to a political organization of one’s choice (i.e. freedom of association) and the right to freedom of expression and observance of human rights. In addition, the staging of regular free and fair elections is an indispensable ingredient of a democratic system ( see UNDP HDR, 2002: Chapter Two). However, on the question of free and fair elections, there is need for a wide consensus on the “rules of the game”, or a level playing field for political competition to take place and to ensure the legitimacy and credibility of elections.
Other critical facets of a democratic system are the existence of a system of “checks and balances” between the key institutions of the state—the Executive, Parliament and Judiciary—and the observance of the rule of law. Democracy therefore implies that the people are at the centre of the governance process and authority is derived solely from the consent of the governed—the people.
Quite clearly, these democratic benchmarks are flouted with impunity in many African countries. In this sense, apathy has reigned supreme in these polities.

Democratisation
The concept “democratisation” relates to the process of creating and sustaining the structures and processes of democracy in a particular society (see Sachikonye 2002:186-7). As Sachikonye (2002:186) argues, democratisation by its very nature is “work in progress” and no society can claim to be completely democratised
Democratisation should be distinguished from political liberalisation. It should encompass such basic processes as the construction of new political institutions, the nurturing of a democratic culture, the establishment of institutions to encourage or deepen political participation and the entrenchment of procedures of accountability (see Akopari, 2002:222).

(The third and final installment to continue next week)