No one can argue that a democratic environment existed in Addis Abeba before 2005. Yet, the city was burdened with the misjudgment of its political culture. Every outcome of this misjudgment, either negative or positive, was the result of the clash of democratic and undemocratic cultures.
For instance, if same-sex practices were to be legalised in Ethiopia, one can easily predict the chaos that would ensue within society. Likewise, democracy cannot be attained just because it is imposed on a society with little or no experience. The clash of an imposed culture with a pre-existing one, will only produce an unpredictable scenario.
Currently, one can easily observe the impact of the shortsighted opposition campaigns from 2005. They left the electorate with the impression that all opposition politicians are insincere.
This time around, the electorate is indifferent to the election processes and their results; largely due to the past misdeeds of opposition politicians. They must have known that what they were doing, inconsiderately and mercilessly, would end up affecting them in the long-term. They are now victims of their own democratic immaturity.
Neither elections nor democracy are about overthrowing a ruling party, but the opposition appears to think it is exactly that. This is the legacy that they have left.
They do not consider the difficult job that awaits them in the aftermath. Once again, thanks to their flawed understanding of democracy, two decades after transitioning to a democratic system, Ethiopians are still debating the very meaning of the concept.
Even though the majority of opposition party leaders, in the last 20 years, have been highly educated individuals with glamorous profiles, they have often taken the wrong direction towards democracy.
They failed to show how leadership could place opposition politics in line with the demands of the national interest. It is a mystery how they managed to gain such popularity. Their prominence came about without any meaningful contribution.
Apparently, a giant pragmatic incumbent meets only a limited number of idealist oppositions during local elections. I expect that the national elections, to be held in the near future, will more or less be the same.
The realist nature of the Revolutionary Democrats can be traced back to the trials that they underwent during the armed struggle that led to the democratic transition in 1991. This experience helped them to gain knowledge about the problems being faced by Ethiopian citizens in practical terms.
On the other hand, the opposition, predominantly, has not had such an opportunity with which to acclimatise itself with the demanding problems of the nation.
A point worth mentioning here is that, during the 2005 campaigns, there were promises to return properties expropriated by the Dergue regime. There was no feasible way that this could have been accomplished. Nonetheless, it propelled the popularity of the opposition parties, albeit only for a short time.
So why are the opposition parties failing to deliver on their promises?
One possibility is that they are not pragmatist, forward-looking, anti-traditionalist and anti-essentialist. The decisive test of their argument must be based in political problem-solving. It is only then that they can move on towards solving economic and societal issues.
Unlike the opposition figures, most of the officials within the incumbent party seem to care more about solving real problems, than protecting their philosophical turf. They seem to know that the most substantive human differences, with respect to; morality, religion and metaphysics, must not be allowed to enter into the evolution of democratic theory, as such influences will only produce intolerance and oppression. They know that the proper approach is to admit elements, which are substantive only in a realist sense.
Freedom of mind is not something that spontaneously happens. It is not achieved by the mere absence of obvious restraints.
It is a product of a constant, unremitting nurturing of the proper habits; of observation and reflection. Without a pragmatic approach; prejudice, emotional fervor, nonsense and sensationalism will weigh as heavily as fact and knowledge. As a result, intellectual confusion will reign, overshadowing the national interest.
So far, the idealist philosophy of democracy, which has been advocated by the opposition, has not gained strength or popular support. Old habits die hard. But, unless the Ethiopian opposition becomes pragmatic, it can’t contribute well to the national effort of building democracy.
There are millions of factors, that contribute to why mere ideologies cannot solve problems. From the outset, most of them have been developed in countries whose reality is very different from the one here, in Ethiopia.
It does not mean that they have no relevance to our lives, but rather that they need to be employed with precaution. They need to be customised to suit the reality on the ground.
What should always matter is responding to the demands on the ground, even when they contradict values and principles. Of course, they should not put the national interest at peril either. Otherwise, unresolved problems will pile up and reverse the nation’s forward progress.
Leave a Reply