August 25,2005

On the eve of the 1996 elections in Bosnia, the architect of the Dayton peace accords, American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, fretted: "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and re-integration]. That is the dilemma." [Newsweek, October 1997]. Indeed it is, not only in the former Yugoslavia, Algeria, Rwanda, Afghanistan and Iraq but increasingly around the world, including Ethiopia today. I don't really know what would have occurred, for example, if those who were unabatedly sowing the seeds of discord and ethnic hatred during the public debates in the run-up to the third national elections in Ethiopia had secured a landslide victory at the national and regional parliamentary elections and thus gained widespread acceptance and following among the Ethiopian masses who are already ethnically divided and politicised along ethno-linguistic lines and also adhering to various religious affiliations or denominations. I indeed shudder to imagine what would have ensued in Ethiopia if those who were whipping up ethnic hatred and making hate speech and the sinister call of " chasing away the Woyanes (TPLF members) back to where they came from---" had gained the upperhand in the current Ethiopian politics and among the population at large. It is sad that visionary political leadership, civility in public debates and tolerant political culture are still scarce commodities among the political elites in Ethiopia today.

I strongly believe and argue that we need stringent and severe laws against hate speech, and if we already have them and I know we have, then, we must strictly and urgently enforce them. Even one of the oldest democracies in the world, the United Kingdom (UK), for example, has such laws. In the UK, hate speech has been banned under the Public Order Act since 1986. In it, a person is guilty of an offence, and can be arrested on the spot, if he/she "uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" thereby. Nobody likes to hear hate speech, and hence it must absolutely be banned by law.

It is a well recognized principle, for instance, that one of the most important conditions for the existence and sustainability of a democratic society is respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and among these freedoms, freedom of expression is considered the most precious and, indeed, the very foundation of such a society. But in newly democratizing societies, media manipulation often plays a central role in promoting nationalist and ethnic conflict, and thus, promoting unconditional freedom of speech and public debate in such societies is, in many circumstances, likely to make the problem worse. Historically and today, from the French Revolution to Rwanda, sudden liberalizations of press freedom have been associated with bloody outbursts of popular nationalism. As Vera points out, the most dangerous situation is precisely when the government's press monopoly begins to break down [Van Evera, " Hypotheses, "p.33; Human Rights Watch, Playing the " Communal Card", p. VIII ]. "During incipient democratization, when civil society is burgeoning but democratic institutions are not fully entrenched, the state and other elites are forced to engage in public debate in order to compete for mass allies in the struggle for power" [Van Evera, "Hypotheses," p.33]. Under those circumstances, governments and their opponents often have the motive and the opportunity to play the nationalist/ethnic card.

When this occurs, unconditional freedom of public debate or free speech is a dubious remedy. Just as economic competition produces socially beneficial results only in a well-institutionalized market-place, where monopolies and false advertising are counteracted, so too increased debate in the political marketplace leads to better outcomes only when there are mechanisms to correct market imperfections[ R.H. Coase, "The Market for Goods and the Market for Ideas," American Economic Review, Vol. 64, No. 2, May 1974, p.p. 384-391]. Many newly democratizing states such as Ethiopia lack institutions to break up governmental and non-governmental information monopolies, to professionalize journalism, and to create common public forums where diverse ideas engage each other under conditions in which erroneous arguments will be challenged. In the absence of these institutions, an increase in the freedom of speech and unconditional public debate can create an opening for ethnic demagogues and nationalist mythmakers to hijack public discourse. This was in fact what we sadly witnessed in Ethiopia during the run-up to the recent national elections, which subsequently plunged the nation into unnecessary and regrettable bloodletting and chaos in Addis Ababa on June 8,2005.

One of the most critical problems in many new democracies around the world today is the absence of an independent and responsible media that enjoys reasonable financial and political independence. Another problem is that journalists who once had to toe the single-party line equate independence with opposition. Because they speak out against the government, they say they are independent and fail to realize that they have just traded one affiliation for another. There is little room for untarnished truth in a partisan press. Of utmost necessity, therefore, is that objectivity is not at all a luxury in societies that have only recently begun to enjoy the freedom to voice their opinions, although journalists in emerging democracies are constrained by lack of professionalism and financial resources. There is a need today__perhaps more than ever__for true journalists to identify sense amidst the nonsense, to sift the important from the trivial, 'the grain from the chaff', as they say, and yes, for telling the truth. Those goals still continue to remain the best mandate for free press and independent mass media in a democracy worthy of the name.

When talking about truth the question that arises sometimes is whether the truth always serves the public. At times, the truth can do harm. If the truthful report of a small communal conflict in, say, Gambella, leads to more civil unrest throughout the region, is the public really being served? The journalistic purists__often those sitting in comfortable chairs far away from conflict__say it is not their job to "play God" in such matters, and that one should not "shoot the messenger for the message."

If, however, one takes the rigid view that freedom and the truth always need to be controlled__or Lenin's dictum that " freedom is so precious that it must be rationed," or that truth is partisan__the door is wide open for enormous abuse, as history has demonstrated time and again. Hence, truth in the service of the public is unquestionable and unchallengeable. It will be the duty of true journalists to weigh all the possible outcomes of their journalistic products and use their judgment to produce credible press output or piece of news in order to serve the public good. Hence, self-censorship becomes the ultimate tool and wisdom for a true, professional journalist especially in newly democratizing nations or states.

After all, there are also other equally important freedoms, just as press and mass media freedom, that call for prudential judgment and the act of balancing between compelling and competing interests for the sake of the public good and the nation's security and welfare. The question of national security and safety, for example, is one such concern that cannot be overlooked or compromised for the sake of press and media freedom. Restrictions provided for by law, in particular those enacted in the interest of health, ethics and the rights and freedoms of others, cannot be infringed upon in the name of media freedom, or on any other pretext.

Whatever the reason behind the transition, the earliest phases of democratization since the French Revolution have triggered some of the world's bloodiest nationalist struggles. Indeed, the road to democratic transition and consolidation has always been tortuous and windy. Developing appropriate institutions, techniques and mechanisms to manage these problems is among the most important challenges facing policymakers in particular and the political society in general in emerging democracies today. Without due consideration of these critical problems, naively pressuring poor and ethnically divided authoritarian states, especially nations such as ours where the transition of power has historically taken place at the point of the gun, to hold instant elections and to become mature democracies overnight can lead to disastrous consequences. Whether we like it or not it is not going to happen instantly. Creating a democracy in poverty-ridden and illiterate societies__societies that have not yet fully embraced democratic values and are not yet familiar with democratic concepts, rules, procedures and ways of life__is bound to take a long time and to exact huge costs. The most critical factor for a democracy to succeed under these circumstances is undoubtedly a restraint in the use of violence in domestic affairs, respect for the rule of law, and civility and utmost tolerance in our political culture and our everyday life. It is now abundantly clear that democracy cannot thrive in a highly violent society. This must be our democracy's minimum requirement if we indeed have a deep and unflinching commitment towards the rule of law and a democratic transition and consolidation, and to become mature democracies in the end. There is no other way. Neither 'popular revolution' nor 'rose revolution', as currently being advanced by the UEDF/CUD coalition of opposition parties in Ethiopia will ever succeed to bring about a peaceful and democratic political system. The road of violence will only succeed in tearing down the social fabric of the nation, and ultimately the nation itself, nothing more. Above all, "the success of democracy and democratic institutions has been organic and not mechanical. They work only if they can live and grow in the common acceptance and rooted affection of the community from which they take their form". Which means, though democracy embodies universal human values of freedom and liberty, we have to recreate our democratic models based on our cultures, values, norms, and traditions instead of making futile and costly attempts to copy Western models of democracy. Homegrown democracies based on our values and traditions (values and traditions of consensus building through dialogue and communal life) are the only variants that can insure a free society and guarantee our civil and political liberties, and that can also be sustainable. We indeed need to move away from democratic models that have been imported from outside and models of government that are introduced by the political elite. They will not work for us.

Then there is the frequently touted argument that we should adopt the so-called " development-first, democracy-later" strategy. This is absolutely erroneous and untenable. Contrary to the highly influential argument by many scholars that poor countries must develop economically before they can democratize, historical data have convincingly proved otherwise. There is now abundant evidence that poor democracies have grown at least as fast as poor autocracies and have significantly outperformed the latter on most indicators of social well-being. They have also done much better at avoiding catastrophes. Dispelling the "development-first, democracy-later" argument is critical not only because it is wrong but also because it has led to atrocious policies__indeed, policies that have undermined [national] and international efforts to improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the developing world. Those who believe that democracy can take hold only once a state has developed economically preach a go-slow approach to promoting democracy. But many who believe that countries often remain poor because they retain autocratic political structures believe that a development-first strategy perpetuates a deadly cycle of poverty, conflict and oppression [Joseph T. Siegle, Micheal M. Weinstein, and Morton H. Halpern, "Why Democracies Excel," The New York Times, Sept./Oct. 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs, p.1].

Moreover, we must be cognizant of the glaring fact that democracy is a learned and not an inherited system. It can be learnt if we all want to learn it. It can neither be imposed nor imported. It is measured over time, it is not acquired overnight or in a short period of time. This indeed requires building and strengthening democratic institutions as well as assuming a great responsibility, promoting an active and constructive participation, cooperation, patience, tolerance and civility amongst all society members, especially the political elites in the democratization struggle, if democracy is to take hold and blossom in newly transitioning nations.

Finally, we must all recognize democracy as the shared value of our peoples. And as the shared value of our peoples, we must be able to embrace, nurture, guard and protect it for it is now clear that if we fail to practice and promote democracy as the common value of our peoples and if we fail to protect it, we will revert to a situation where conflicts are resolved by the use of force, which means reversion to the primitive procedure of self-help and back to the state of nature. And in the present era, returning to the state of nature, may, at worst, lead to the total liquidation of a people, a nation or a state; or it may, at best, lead to the imposition by force of the rule of dictatorship. Assumption of power by force and the rule of dictatorship can never lead to the prevalence of peace and security. Power assumed by force can only be sustained by force, and groups or factions which gather sufficient counter-force can sooner or later claim it. Seizure of political power by force and attempts to seize power by force are, therefore, the major symptoms of endless social and political upheavals, intractable strifes and conflicts. This procedure of assuming power must be brought to an end by the concerted efforts of all peoples of the newly emerging democracies and the international community. It is only promoting and sustaining the democratic procedure of assuming power from the ballot box through free, fair and credible periodic elections and of arriving at decisions affecting peoples through respectful and all-inclusive dialogue that can pave the way for a successful democratic transition and a mature democracy in the end. All other options are destined to fail. As Edmund Burke correctly observed:

"The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered." [Edmund Burke, "The Thirteen Resolutions," Second Speech on Conciliation with America].

Email: habisso@yahoo.co.uk