Developing a Political Culture of Tolerance:

The Key for Sustainable Democratisation in Ethiopia

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

Final Part

Having reviewed the background of political intolerance in Ethiopia in the second part, this final installment of the series illuminates the essence of democratic plurality and the ways of achieving a sustainable peace.

In most African countries generally and Ethiopia in particular, the process of creating and sustaining democratic structures and practices has often been a chequered one. It still is work in progress, to use the words of Sachikonye as mentioned here above. The history of democratisation in the last forty or so years in post-independence Africa demonstrates how fragile the democratisation process has been right from the outset, riddled with fits and starts. By and large, most of the regimes have been characterised by undemocratic systems and dictatorial tendencies. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a democratic wave swept across the continent due to domestic forces (“democratisation from within”) and broader external developments (“democratisation from without”) which marked the end of the Cold War and the ideological rivalry that went with it (see Wiseman , !995, 1996:1-2).

Manifestations of Political Intolerance in Ethiopia

Several impediments interfere with the prospects for building political tolerance in Ethiopia. Some of these impediments are more severe than others. Collectively however, they have produced adverse effects on the democratisation process in the country. I now discuss some of the glaring manifestations of political intolerance in Ethiopia.
The first manifestation, that seems to have dwindled in recent times but which spurts now and then on different occasions, is what is frequently referred to as the “we fought” syndrome, prevalent in the history of all liberation movements in the Third World. What this syndrome simply means is that those who use it (i.e. the incumbent regime and its former fighters) against their political opponents contend that since they came to the helm of power by the barrel of the gun, they and the military or the army that they are in-charge of will not allow those who were not within them during the struggle to take over the highest political leadership of the land, even if the opposition party/parties wins/win at the ballot box. True enough, the security forces have interfered with impunity with the electoral law and process in the recent past. Thus, because of the fears of state functionaries to account for their actions to the populace, militarisation of politics takes a centre stage. Consequently, the voices of the people and civil society organisations (CSOs) end up being silenced or murdered through the coercive arm of the state. Ultimately, the state’s political support base is derived, not from the people (although the ‘people’ are usually invoked as the basis of the regime’s ascendance to and sustenance of power) but from the militarised arm of the state. Any individual or group of individuals who raise dissenting voice against such undemocratic behaviour will likely be treated extremely harshly as a conscious attempt to silence them and make them conform to the wishes and aspirations of the incumbent leadership.
The second manifestation of intolerance in Ethiopia’s politics arises from the incessant desire by leaders to overstay in power for reasons best known only to themselves.Through political and constitutional machinations and the use of Machiavellian tactics and, if these do not succeed, by applying brutal force, leaders ensure that they have perpetual access to political power. This holds true for most of the opposition leaders also, who have stayed at the leadership posts for more than a decade without holding any elections within their respective political organisations for such a long period of time. These leaders think they are indispensable and irreplaceable. The end result is that they antagonise those who wish to replace them. Similarly, ideological differences cause politicians in Third World countries not to tolerate their adversaries. It is usually their own ideology that must prevail in all circumstances. A clash in ideologies and eventual conflict become inevitable.
Third, lack of respect for the constitution and constitutionalism is another manifestation of intolerance in Ethiopia. The constitution may be used for purposes other than as a restraint upon government but in the interests of the ruling elite. The constitution may not impose upon the regime in power restraints but instead enforce or legitimise dictatorial powers on the executive arm of the government. In the end, the culture of constitutionalism fails to be engrained in the entire political system. Hence, political intolerance becomes the order of the day
Fourth, lack of a system of mediation of political and social conflicts by existing rules of the game leads to a culture of intolerance. Hence, the persistent violent spurts and intolerance in the country’s internal politics. This problem is further enhanced by a clear absence of ‘free market place of ideas’. The political system is structured in such a way that a handful of individuals have a monopoly of ideas at the expense of the majority.
The fifth manifestation is that the kind of language used in the political discourse is one that espouses political intolerance at its worst. Bad language that leads to egocentrism, provocation, and individualism have greatly caused political intolerance in the country at the expense of nurturing durable political harmony and consensus building. Obviously, the use of abusive language by one group against another is not conducive to cementing effective working relationships between political groups that espouse different political agendas and ideologies. Ethiopia’s political history is riddled with several tendencies where some political forces are seen as permanently incapable of providing political leadership and direction.

Strategies for Building Political Tolerance

Several strategies can be suggested to ensure that political tolerance takes root in the country. Some of these are discussed hereunder.
First, there is urgent need on the part of the incumbent regime and party to be genuinely accommodative of all opposition parties and divergent groups committed to the constitutional order in place and to nurture the concept of “loyal opposition” so as to ensure the smooth and peaceful functioning of a vibrant multi-party
political system in the country. To actualise this process would necessitate that every political force is treated on the basis of equality and by the rules of the game consensually agreed upon
in order to create a level playing field for competitive politics to be run smoothly and credibly. Hence, a multi-pronged approach where several actors, for example, Government, opposition parties, citizens, civil leaders, civil society organisations (CSOs), etc. join hands to enforce accountability and adherence to human rights and democratic/good governance.
Second, there is need to create or nurture durable institutions and structures that can foster greater democratisation away from the personality cult approach, which sees individuals as the embodiment of the party or the state. Positive discrimination of national minorities and their just representation in Parliament and government institutions should be encouraged/accelerated as this would enhance the process of democratisation.
Third, the creation and nurturing of appropriate institutions which make it possible to build the rule of law through which individuals will ultimately be subsumed is of utmost significance. Once the rule of law has been fostered, the political system will have the capacity to make individuals and organisations to abide by the rule of law and conform accordingly.
Fourth, there is need for a free and responsible media that is capable of articulating the interests of the people and the different interest groups. The media should be enabled and allowed to advance those philosophies through which democratic practices prevail and the national interest is safeguarded. The media should be capable of protecting the voices of the voiceless in an environment where the executive arm of government has excessive powers to suppress the views and interests of the poor masses.
Fifth, nation-wide mobilisation and awareness programmes should be conducted in which all interested parties can participate and do appreciate the views of others. No one individual or group of individuals have a monopoly of political and governance issues. Voter education and civic education particularly should be able to raise the critical consciousness of the citizens to enable them to tolerate one another. Advocacy strategies should breed and encourage tolerance by enabling groups to speak out vigorously for the protection of the people’s rights. This could be done at various institutional levels, including in the syllabus of schools .
Sixth, political leaders need to be educated that in matters of good, democratic governance, they need to accept and recognise electoral and political defeats and loss of power as proper attributes of democracy and constitutionalism. There is need to establish a system of governance that guarantees the protection of ousted leaders in a manner that will certainly discourage them from clinging onto power and becoming life-long presidents or prime ministers. Also, the concept of democracy needs to be balanced evenly with the people’s right to be governed well and peacefully.
Seventh, the national democratic ethos, socio-political culture and ideology should be developed further to enhance the process of greater democratisation. Every able-bodied individual should strive towards defending the freedoms and rights of the individual or group(s) against the oppression and injustice of public authorities. Individuals and groups should confront the malpractices of the executive while the legislature should avoid being partial, timid and inconsequential.
Eighth, there is need to address the vivid EPRDF dominance and the prevailing multi-party paralysis as the country heads for the year 2010. Unless some level of minimum political programme built on the basis of consensus is agreed upon and nurtured, conflict and intolerance are bound to be the end result. After all, the struggle for democracy is not conceived only in terms of a struggle for power sharing and the distribution of wealth or private accumulation but also forging cooperation and collaboration beyond ethnic, political, religious and other divides for the creation of a commonwealth, and building a strong economic and political community. The question of democracy cannot neglect issues of economic justice—basic needs such as access to food, shelter, clothing, medical care and housing. In the absence of equal opportunity for all citizens to these essentials for human existence, the equality being stressed in liberal democracy is defeated. Hence, unless a genuine attempt is made to reach a consensus on a minimum programme of action among our political parties and organisations in this regard, the end result is bound to be political instability.
Ninth, there is need for the democratisation process to be engineered from below. This approach can only be enhanced by the presence and pressure from organised civil society organisations (CSOs) on the state institutions. Political change can be effected when various CSOs construct a broad alliance capable of pushing an authoritarian state into making concessions and necessary reforms. Countries which have experienced such democratisation from below include Ghana and Zambia. In countries such as Ethiopia, Mozambique and Tanzania, the process was one of democratisation from above. In the latter countries, the confinement of organised support for multi-party political system within the state apparatus reflected the fact that virtually the only organised political forces in these polities were and are their governments.
Tenth, the demilitarisation of politics needs to be considered as paramount to institutionalise democratic governance. The military should not interfere in any elections supporting any political party or the incumbent regime; it must remain neutral in such elections. Civic culture and authority must be seen to prevail over and above the military institution. Short of this, the civilian constituency of the state will always behave at the whims of the military in which case democratisation will perpetually remain illusory.
Finally, the international community should be part and parcel of the democratisation process in the face of weak domestic pressure from fragile CSOs and fractured and weak opposition parties. Though sustainable democracy and development can take root and blossom in the country only if the society in question wants it and struggles for it, external pressure could play a positive role, and at the moment, external pressure remains perhaps the major, if not the only, effective tool to speed up the democratisation process. Indeed, with the force of globalisation and the universalization of the democratic creed, no country can any longer exist as an island. To join the international community of nations, African states must conform to basic democratic benchmarks.
 
Conclusion

Political tolerance is certainly central to democratisation in Ethiopia. With the observance of political tolerance and the eager embrace of all political parties committed to the constitutional order and the political process in the country as genuine partners in nation building, Ethiopia can easily become politically stable and continue on its path of greater democratization and socio-economic development. However, to achieve political tolerance implies that all parties should be in a position to appreciate the other’s way of thinking and to be guided by principled democratic politics. Ethiopians need constant reminders that they need to appreciate the virtues of others, irrespective of whether they are in agreement with them or not, for stability to be fostered. Political organisations and CSOs should be central in working towards the building of a tolerant society by including issues of tolerance to their long-term objectives. We should learn to disagree without being disagreeable and becoming permanent enemies. There should be no claims of some group(s) to be more patriotic than others on the basis of the divergent views they hold on the destiny of our nation and society. We need to maintain mutual respect among all political forces and all citizens.
Finally, democracy means tolerance and acceptance of differences. Be this as it may, promoting tolerance should be viewed as a long-term project. It requires an empirical evaluation of current situation, long-term strategies and availing human and institutional resources toward that end. As we struggle to emulate values of tolerance and conflict management, we always have to be aware that it is the duty of all of us to fight against poverty, the number one enemy in our midst by whatever means we have at our disposal. The two battles must therefore be fought hand in hand if final victory is to be achieved and Ethiopia becomes a prosperous, democratic and stable polity, a better livable place for all its citizens here and abroad.