Beyond Derailment and Canonization: Assessing Meles’s Rule By Messay Kebede

October 31st, 2012 Print Print Email Email

Scholars loyal to the Woyanne regime, often for the sake of ethnic solidarity, but with some scruples left for the objectivity of scholarly studies engage in a risky project when they undertake the assessment of Meles’s rule of Ethiopia. While their main intention is to bring out and defend what they consider to be undeniable achievements, their scholarly bent prevents them from simply overlooking or painting in rosy terms his obvious shortcomings and failures. So they adopt an approach that presents the good and the bad sides of Meles with the hope that the positive aspect will significantly outweigh the negative one. Unfortunately for them, even their modicum objectivity ends up by sneaking drawbacks so toxic that the general picture becomes that of a colossal fiasco.

A case in point is Medhane Tadesse’s paper titled “Meles Zenawi and the Ethiopian State,” recently posted, to my surprise, on Aiga website. The paper is a commendable attempt at an objective assessment of Meles’s accomplishments. Medhane first explains the rise of Meles through the defeat of all his opponents, which rise he attributes to his personal qualities, such as quick intelligence, communication skills, impressive erudition, and remarkable aptitudes in political maneuvering. In view of these qualities, his rivals, who often had impressive military records, could do little to stop his rise to absolute power, which became effective in 2001 when he defeated an influential splinter group within the TPLF.

Medhane does not hesitate to say that Meles’s victory was a “serious blow to democratic centralism and collective leadership” and that the consolidation of his absolute power was done at the expense of the TPLF as a ruling party. He rightly argues that Meles marginalized the TPLF by centralizing all power, notably by uniting state power and party leadership in his person, thereby creating a power base independent of the TPLF. Clearly, the assessment is moving decisively toward a critical appraisal of Meles’s rule, and so is in line with the view of the splinter group ascribing the numerous problems that Ethiopia faces today to the missteps of a dictatorial deviation.

With great pain, Medhane manages to find the positive side in the alleged economic success of Meles’s policy. Even so, his assessment falls short of being affirmative: he does speak of the theory of developmental state as a promising orientation, but nowhere indicates that it produced notable results. Instead, his skepticism transpires when he writes: Meles “attempted to reorient Ethiopia’s political economy by carrying out far-reaching reforms, and in particular introducing the fundamentals, for what it’s worth, of an Ethiopian version of a developmental state.” Not only do we not feel any enthusiasm for the “far-reaching reforms,” but also the whole economic orientation of the country is greeted with a marked skeptical tone.

By contrast, Medhane underlines the democratic shortcomings of Meles’s regime and its “wholesale offensive against any form of independent centers of power such as free media, free organization, free business, persecution of critical journalists and enactment of repressive laws.” Thus, if on top of stifling democratic changes in the county, Meles did not score any appreciable gains in the economic field, what is left to say except that his 20 years rule was a total failure? Hence my puzzlement as to the reason why the pro-Meles Aiga website posted the article. Is it because Aiga people did not understand the content of the article? Or is it the beginning of a critical look at Meles’s alleged achievements, especially now that it becomes clear that he left the TPLF in disarray?
But no sooner did I hope for such an evolution than I noticed that the article was removed from the website. Instead, a new paper of 20 pages criticizing the analysis of Medhane was posted, as though Aiga was correcting its mistake and forcefully reaffirming its pro-Meles stand. Written by Habtamu Alebachew and titled “Tadese Madhane and his ‘Post-Meles Reform Agenda’: Quest for Logic and Relevance,” the paper reasserts the customary position of Meles’s supporters. The paper rambles through 20 pages about political reforms and the developmental state with the clear purpose of metamorphosing preconceived ideological positions into serious theoretical insights. It denounces contradictions in Medhane’s article and is completely devoid of any critical appraisal of Meles.

It is really not necessary to go into Habtamu’s arguments because they provide nothing more than a smoke screen destined to confuse readers by tired rhetoric and laudatory exaggerations. To give you an idea, we find such laughable statements as “in clearest terms, Meles Zenawi is both a regime breaker and a regime founder as much prominent as Moa and Lenin were.” Habtamu qualifies the post-2010 government of Meles as “a dynamic and functioning regime or the developmental state in action probably as exactly intended and designed.” He defines the government as a “success story” and entirely dismisses its so-called democratic shortcomings.

Unsurprisingly, in light of the undeniable success of Meles, Habtamu concludes that any talk of reform must assume one direction, which is that it must be “a reform proposal within an undergoing and unfinished reform project.” In other words, reform must deepen and perfect Meles’s project; it cannot be an advocacy of a different path or a return to a previous model of economic and political development. Here the author cannot refrain from sharing his major worry about possible reversals when he writes: “I have every reason to get alarmed about the possible abortion of this reform.”
When one contrasts the two assessments, despite obvious differences, one finds an underlying common belief. Indeed, Medhane’s criticisms presuppose the belief that Meles had a genuine desire to develop Ethiopia but failed. To validate this assumption, Medhane portrays Meles as a leader fascinated by the economic development of East Asian countries and suggests that “the main objective” of his conversion to the ideology of the developmental state “was to secure regional prominence as a stabilizing force, raise the status of the country, and increase its relevance which will in turn would attract international finances.” Thus, to make sense of Medhane’s paper, we have to keep in mind the underlying assumption, to wit, that Meles had the good intention of developing Ethiopia and that his good intention was derailed by a mistaken ideological belief in the phenomenal potential of the developmental state.

For Habtamu, the so-called derailment is actually a prerequisite for the realization of the developmental state so that what is required is not to change course but to relentless pursue the same path until all the fruits materialize, one of which being the progressive democratization of the country. Simply put, Meles had to suspend democratization in order to create the condition of democracy, especially in view of the fact that reactionary forces almost gained political prominence in the 2005 election.
Clearly, the two approaches agree on the good intention of Meles: the one maintains that it was derailed, the other claims that it was unfinished, but both agree in saying that Meles wanted the economic and democratic blossoming of Ethiopia. The fact that they share a basic principle (good intention) and yet end up in conflicting analyses questions nothing less than the feasibility of the basic agreement. Their divergent evaluations indicate that their point of departure is untenable and hence invite a different thesis. Since the truthfulness of the different thesis solely lies in its ability to explain the conflicting interpretations, it distinguishes itself by its coherence, which is the mark of a sound theoretical approach.

Medhane denounces the gap between theory and practice, that is, between the good intention and the actual outcomes. Habtamu retorts by saying that there is no gap; there is simply a misunderstanding of the theory, notably of its requirements. The truth is that, every time that there is a conflict between practice and theory, we should suspect the presence of what Karl Marx diagnosed as false consciousness. Far from theory guiding practice, the reverse works for false conscience in that practice guides theory but in such a way that the gap between the two is legitimized, excused, or masked.

Thus, Medhane posits good intention and interprets the gap of practice as derailment. But what if said derailment is in reality the realization of an intention that was not originally blameless? This means that Meles opted for the developmental state because it enabled him to justify a dictatorial rule, which is then the original intention. Accordingly, Meles was consistent all along: he wanted dictatorship, which he however masked by the discourse on developmental state. In justifying dictatorship as necessary to bring about development, the discourse effected a transmutation, for what serves a good cause can no longer be characterized as evil.

This is exactly how Habtamu argues: he metamorphoses the shortcomings of Meles into prerequisites for the implementation of a good cause. Consequently, there are no shortcomings or deviations since they are necessary steps in the actualization of the project. Above all, there is no dictatorship because it is the progressive actualization of a benevolent cause. The road ahead, it follows, must be the continuation of an unfinished project, and not its criticism in the name of immature concern.

Clearly, only the replacement of the good intention by a malicious one can correct the contradiction between the two approaches. The substitution explains the option for the developmental state and portrays the shortcoming, not as postponed future benefits, but as inherent outcomes of a dictatorial goal. Meles neither missed nor paced an alleged initial good intention: he implemented what he originally wanted, namely, absolute power and control.

In this regard, Meles did not see the 2005 electoral defeat of his party as “a pointless disruption,” as Medhane claims. Nor did he perceive it as a setback caused by “internal failures” and an occasion to deepen “aggressively . . . the reform,” as Habtamu puts it. Rather, he reached the realization that his dictatorial project could not go hand in hand with democratic opening, however small the opening may be. The point is that Meles’s dictatorial project, essentially driven by his narcissistic personality, craved for popular approval, obvious as it is that his hunger for personal grandeur needed popular confirmation through regular democratic elections.

The rise and popularity of Kinijit made him realize that the quest for a democratic approval was no longer achievable. The 2005 election result was therefore an awakening from his illusion about his popularity and underestimation of the opposition. Predictably, profoundly humiliated by the electoral success of the opposition, he reacted violently and since then opted for an attenuated version of the North Korean type of dictatorship in which he would obtain the popularity that he wants by silencing the opposition and subjecting the people to brainwashing and personality cult.

I thus agree with Medhane when he says that the reversal of democratic opening in 2005 was a strategy to “change the national mood and turn the opposition into a fringe movement and the margins of society.” Where I differ is when Medhane assumes that he planned to obtain the change by developing the country economically so that ordinary people will support him as they see improvements in their conditions of life. To say so goes against the general consensus describing Meles as well-read and smart. I do not deny that he had such qualities, but I also raise the question of knowing how a well-read and smart person launches a developmental state while perfectly knowing that he has none of the necessary political conditions, not to mention the fact that he surrounded himself by corrupt and incompetent people (on this issue, see my article Meles Zenawi’s Political Dilemma and the Developmental State: Dead-Ends and Exit,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58593218/Debate-on-Developmental-State-Ethiopian-Scholars).
Again, what Meles liked in the developmental state is not the economic prospects but the dictatorial aspect, that is, the centralization of all power in the name of economic development. Otherwise, he would have tried to create the necessary preconditions which, as indicated in the above cited article, include a turn toward a genuine nationalist policy and the championing of leadership competence and integrity in all decision-making apparatuses. The truth is that Meles’s grandiosity could not be content with a petty dictatorship; it needed the appearance of serving a noble cause. Since the decline of the socialist ideology and the prevalence of liberalism, what else is left of forms of dictatorial rule with some usable prestige but the developmental state?

This is so true that his successors, aware of the hollowness of Mele’s legacy, cannot see any other way of protecting their status and interests than by glorifying to the point of ridicule his person and “achievements” and vowing to continue his policy in the hope of acquiring some legitimacy. This is exactly the message of Habtamu’s article: let us not undermine by critical appraisal the form of dictatorship guaranteeing the protection of our positions and interests. The only way forward for us is to canonize Meles and to present ourselves as the disciples eager to continue the crusade for the developmental state.

To sum up, the only consistent evaluation of Meles’s rule is the one centered on his fundamental goal of absolute power. Nothing of what Meles has done is intelligible unless we relate it to absolute power as his driving ethos. Any other working thesis lands nowhere but in the contradictory idea of derailment or the abuse of mystification. It is high time to call a spade a spade, especially for those who are beginning to wake up from the illusions of ethnonationalist discourses.

  1. Alem
    | #1

    To understand how dishonest and self-aggrandizing ethnic scholars could be you need to read articles by compatriots GHELAWDEWOS["Meles Zenawi may also be remembered for his failures, which is only human. Failures and successes are organic attributes to humans; we are genetically engineered to make mistakes and learn from them, while other animals cannot do that. Animals cannot afford to fail; if they do they simply die. Therefore, one’s failures should not be exaggerated vis-à-vis the successes."]; TEODROS KIROS ["The recent death of Meles Zenawi, the architect of Ethiopian modernity has sent tremors of moral shock to the Ethiopian state and other African states, engaged in the murky business of capitalist modernity."]; ASAYEHGN DESTA[“Meles was a gifted and empowering moderator, he was loved, trusted and respected by the members of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front which then unanimously recommended to Ethiopian Parliament that he should be the Prime Minister of Ethiopia… In quantitative terms, it is remarkable to notice that Ethiopia has almost achieved universal primary education in line with the “International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights,” (Article 13.2a). Based on the lessons learned from the 1995 Agricultural Development-Led Strategy, the 2002/03 to 2004/05, Sustainable Development and to End Poverty (PASDEP), Ethiopia launched the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) for the period 2010/11 to 2014/15, which is expected help Ethiopia achieve not only the Millennium Development Goals but also make it as one of the middle income countries by 2020-2023″; GORFU [“We see how messy democracy can be when we watch the political process in America where it had been exercised for over two centuries, and yet we see them pass regulations to Gerrymander and re-district some areas, or to demand an ID at the voting booth, thereby discouraging and preventing some minorities from voting, or by the outright rigging of the elections as was done in Bush’s time. Is that democracy?…for the first time in the history of Ethiopia, the common peasant has become the owner of his land, the owner of his produce, and in control of his own destiny. This is the fact…PM Meles Zenawi did the right thing to throw these couple dozen of political pundits and would be journalists into prison and focus on the real work of taking care of the masses. The need of the majority trumps up everything, every time. That is not dictatorial, that is the true meaning of democracy!”; etc.
    Note: If you want to get a better picture of what was going on go back 10, 15 years and read articles by these same scholars. Save anything you read immediately you see them posted; I have observed articles pulled down, altered or revised. Another time for showing evidence of tampering with first time articles.

  2. Borsamo
    | #2

    The fascist and racist Meles Zenawi had an insatiable appetite for power and wealth. His ethnic supporters and admirers can not hide the fact that Zenawi ruled through creating and fanning ethnic hatred and animosities. Ethiopians as a whole are very ashamed and saddened by the Tigrayan intellectuals who place ethnicity and ethnic relations above everything. The racism of these Tigrayan intellectuals defies any imagination.

  3. The Eritrean one!
    | #3

    Messy Kebede: In my opinion Meles may have been on the right direction ruling Ethiopia until 2005. He imported western type of democracy to Ethiopians knowingly so he can be trusted by western nations, particularly the America, except he underestimated his unpopularity with in Ethiopia was beyond his believes and that’s why he ordered his agazy armed bandits to kill. Had he handed the election results as is I strongly believe he may have been remembered as a true Ethiopian who tranformed Ethiopians to a new era where others in the whole region of the horn of Africa can look-up to him; however, now no matter how much his aiga beneficiaries of weyanes finances report of Meles, they can not twist reality of Meles: 1- he was so obsessed with himself, 2- he only trusted none Ethiopians, 3- he used his leadership to serve western interests in Ethiopia and the whole region, 4- he ignited so many wars with-in the boundaries of Ethiopia which continues to cause so much blood shed, 5- he sold Ethiopia for Susan Rice and Ethiopians to the arab world and other western paedophiles, 6- under his leadership Tigryans are accused of stealing billions of dollars deposited in many parts of the world, 7- he refused to abide by the courts of law be it in Ethiopia or the EBBC verdict in the hague, and 8- Ethiopians continues to become the joke of all jokes in the entire world with their so called economic progress. If aiga weyane reporter wants to persuade that Meles was a great leader that Ethiopia’s ever had then he must wait until every victim of Meles and his agazis victims forgive and forgets all the weyanes maffia families all over the world.

  4. Sam
    | #4

    Messay qouted Habtamu who wrote “Meles had to suspend democratization in order to create the condition of democracy, especially in view of the fact that reactionary forces almost gained political prominence in the 2005 election.” The longer you live, the more you learn, don’t you think? I did not know that Meles suspended democratization. As far as I remember, he is talking how Ethiopia is becoming democratic untill his passing away. In fact, the new Prime Minister said to the nation that he will follow Meles’s vision, which is creating a democratic Ethiopia which happened for the last twenty-one years, and continue to be. Now we are told by Habtamu democracy in Ethiopia is in suspension after all. When politicians do not know what they are really doing, they talk on both sides of an issue. When the Meles regime sent journalists to prison the Prime Minister did not warn them guys we already suspended democracy, and you better not be critical of my adminstration. No, he accused of them being terrorists. Meaning democracy is functioning in Ethiopia,according to Meles, but the journalists suddenly turned out to be terrorists. He could not tolerate that. But I give credit to Habtamu for making me knowing that democracy in Ethiopia is in suspension. The regime supporters here in North America are talking and writing how Ethiopia is becoming democratic, may be they agree with Habtamu. He is in the same political sphere as they after all. As for “reactionary forces” almost gaining political prominence in the 2005 election, I ask Habtamu who really decide a political party is reactionary or not in Ethiopa? The people or EPDRF. I know the answer, and more importantly, Habtamu knows that I know the answer.

  5. selamta
    | #5

    WITH all due respect sir………YOU are an educated charlatan that is full of envy of the man called MELES what a shame
    cheers

  6. Dawi
    | #6

    [[..In this regard, Meles did not see the 2005 electoral defeat of his party as “a pointless disruption,” as Medhane claims...]]

    For me the 2005 election being “a pointless disruption” is clearly prov-en by the Hodge-podge coalition (Kenijit) ending up in disarray to thin air afterwords. Many of the Kinijit leaders today don’t even see each other eye to eye let alone lead a country with complex problems to some predictable destination. Meles saw who he was dealing with and rightly corrected the setback and steer it to a correct path by playing the historical role of a dictator because he knew Kinijit would have taken the country backwards possibly to disintegration by their endless squabbles with no model or definite vision known except the kind where Yugoslavia and Russia’s Gorbachev ended up arriving at the end.

    If one still questions that “Meles had the good intention of developing Ethiopia” after not only putting out economic model that will take the country out of poverty consequently fulfilling the requirement for any democracy to work?? And still talking of Woyane? when the man groomed or surrounded himself with not only his ethnic affiliate but the brightest individuals the country have around as his replacements to lead the country to the future – setting the standard to a merit based not pedigree……I say one has to be blind not to see all such things he did. There is no way in the world it happened by coincidence.

    What is a mystery is why Meles’s equals who are foreign such as Dr. Susan Rice see his qualities clearly but his own folks seem to have some difficulties???

  7. Confused
    | #7

    I have some points to say.

    1)Theory is so many times formulated by crafty elites so that it becomes conspiracy theory in order to preach, confuse, abuse and enslave the docile submissive mass under the disguise of this theory so that the naïve and gullible mass is consistently trapped by being loyal to this intact and unchecked theory.
    So we better forget some confusing smokescreen theory and focus mainly on “Good/Bad Intention” and “Emotional Drives” related to evolutionary survival. Time to say NO for those who clandestinely obscure their evil motive under the pretext of advancing ideology. We are human beings endowed with hardwired firmware where we are programmed to identify good from bad. This is the divine works of God well immune to fiasco ideological barriers. Meles persistently dehumanizes tortures, kills and abuses we Ethiopians so that it is such a mandatory prerequisite for us to develop economically? He has made us landlocked, sells off our fertile arable land to foreigners while to the contrary dislocates and deports native inhabitants so that it is such a mandatory prerequisite for us to develop economically? Yes he is doing these all things so that his closest ethnic domain (Tigray and Eritrea) develop economically and that is the irony behind the hyped economic development.

    2) For what motive and intention do we want Absolute Power? No one is simply in love with Absolute power. This is the very decisive issue Messay is still subtly trying to obscure it knowingly or knowingly.
    Dear Messay please do not unnecessarily theorize and complicate some simple facts that only need just audacious confrontation only. Meles has been just a well suited and designed stooge client-regime of Global Capitalisms Neo-Liberal and Neo-Colonialism Imperialistic Projects. This is the main big-picture clandestine main-product project insidiously lurking in the background even if there are other smokescreen intermediate by-products projects subordinate to this main project. Meles gradually evolved to acquire absolute Power. Yes indeed. But why? Because this is the modus-operandi way how Global Capitalism’s Neo-Liberal and Neo-Colonialism Imperialistic Projects are implemented through Client-Regimes like Meles and TPLF.Yes he has absolute power not just because he advances Revolutionary-Democracy. In order to clearly figure out and understand the system being advanced in reality just look at the economic system forgetting the bogus electoral democracy being hyped. Just look how things are working related to incestuous symbiotic relationships among the ethnically established EFFORT, Alamudin and the persistent unfair sell-off and Privatization of common-goods like public and governmental economic sectors. Basically we are advancing Chronic Global Capitalism in its neo-liberal and neo-colonialism imperialistic forms. In a real democracy then there is no Chronic Global Capitalism.
    So Meles achieved absolute power in order to advance this evil system. Yes system of the affluent few minority groups. The hyped and inculcated Ethnicity and the ascendance of minority Ethnic groups to power, based on divide and rule, is one of the clandestine and insidious inner workings of Global Capitalism’s neo-liberal and neo-colonialism imperialistic projects. Meles is not only mere dictator like Menigistu or Ghadafi who are so nationalist and pro-mass. Unlike Mengistu or Ghadafi, Meles is rather so anti-Ethiopia, anti-Ethiopiawinet and anti-Ethiopians who does not have the required love, respect and loyalty for this historical nation. And hence Meles is not as such the new architect of what is hyped as Developmental-State or Revolutionary-Democracy or ……… but rather in a meaningful way that makes sense then he has been the new clandestine architect of Global Capitalism’s neo-liberal and neo-colonialism imperialistic projects serving as a crafty stooge client-regime. So to sum it up we need to ask one very important question. Who/What has been behind Meles? Absolute Power and lust for absolute power only, as you simply depict it? Not at all.What has he been doing with his absolute power for the last 21 years? Good intention? Not at all.

    3) Socialism was in decline but now it is in new fresh revival gaining new momentum. Socialism has been persistently demonized as undemocratic system by the clandestine brainwashing propaganda of the elites of Global Capitalism. And accordingly as usual so many brainwashed and paid Ethiopian intellectuals write hogwash about Socialism. However even in electoral democracy, the majority vote wins is the essence of Socialism because individual interest and right is subordinate to majority vote even though majority vote is being sabotaged and abused under global Capitalism wherein the elites and their lobbyists determine the inner workings of the capitalist system behind closed doors. So there is no rational reasoning wherein Socialism can not entertain and work with democracy. If we are refereeing about the majority mass and not about the few, even better than capitalism it is wise to know and admit that Socialism can work well with democracy.

    4)The very insidious clandestine motive behind hailing and advancing Meles’s legacy at this time is part of maintaining the status-quo of Global Capitalism as if it is such indispensable and viable system without proper scrutiny. Meles as such does not have his own legacy though it is hyped like that. The West supported TPLF and EPLF as part of the Cold-War and then they put Meles and TPLF at Menilik palace and Esayas and EPLF at Asmara so that they compliantly advance their Global Capitalism’s neo-liberal and neo-colonialism imperialistic projects serving as crafty stooge client-regimes. However unlike Meles Esayas seems a bit resistant overtly from becoming such a perfect servant so subordinate to the West’s order.So what is being done now, regarding the so called Meles’s legacy, is if possible hiding and if not possible then twisting truth and history in such unprecedented scale. One of the means is to theorize mere blatant facts as if there is a blessed mission behind the blatant crimes and betrayal committed in history. So one day we will be told that Meles willingly made us landlocked and pay more that 700 Millions USD annually and also gave our vast strip of fertile lands to Sudan and foreigners to the contrary dislocating native Ethiopians in thousands so that we develop economically. I think the biggest war now days is between falsehood and truth.

    5)Why West’s diplomats like Susan rice hails Meles as world class leader?Simply because he has been their loyal stooge servant as stooge client-regime. Meles has been judged not based on his merits/demerits for we Ethiopians but rather based on West’s own yardstick with regard to their own interest. For Susan rice Meles’s grandiose to label his Ethiopian rivals as Idiots is acceptable.
    As far as I understand we have been idiots for such a long period of time as long as we have been so naïve and gullible to hype West’ version of bogus democracy with out understanding the intricacy behind it. Yes the intricacy behind Global Capitalism’s neo-liberal and neo-colonialism imperialistic projects being served by crafty stooge client-regimes like Meles and TPLF. Yes Meles disdains Ethiopian oppositions and the likes like idiots because they are the one who simply naively and gullibly inculcate the fashionable Democracy with out having the required understanding behind the intricacy of Global Capitalism. While Meles has been talking us about bogus democracy till some point where the truth reveals itself like election 1997, well behind the curtain such Billion Dollar Economic Empire like EFFORT has been established to loot the nation. So we have to admit our being idiot if we are not to understand the true insidious nature of Meles and TPLF and also their backer (Global Capitalism).
    While we aspire for something we do not pretty well know and understand, like bogus democracy, then we are stolen so many things what we really have at hand. Meles disdains us as idiots because he time and again managed to cheat us like a child with the candy called democracy. So we better admit our naive and gullible nature especially Ethiopian intellectuals who simply inculcate the fashionable democracy at face value under the already established and pervasive paradigm setup of Global Capitalism. Because Global Capitalism and democracy (especially for 3rd world nations where the sovereignty of weak and non-compliant independent Nation-State is not respected by superpowers) does not go hand in hand.The very essence of Liberal-Democracy under the auspices of global capitalism wherein sovereignty of weak and non-compliant independent Nation-State is not respected by superpowers and the workings of Client-Regimes is the modus-operandi of our times is not a democracy in real sense. It is rather Global governance. It is well known that so many Ethiopian intellectuals inculcate Liberal-Democracy under the auspices of global capitalism while there is no democracy as a whole on the basis of collective security and common-goods as nation based on Nation-State Sovereignty. This is what makes us stupid or idiot regarding the issues of Democracy while we naively and gullibly inculcate the fashionable Liberal-Democracy while to the contrary there is UN endorsed R2P (Responsibility To Protect) in that we are a protectorate under the good will of Superpowers.
    What sense then the fashionable democracy makes under this already we established global paradigm setup that is well entrenched pervasively?

Comments are closed.