Ethiopia: How many more killings will it take to make a ruler a dictator?

After what happened in Ethiopia last week, I would be surprised if anyone had difficulty in understanding the true nature of the ruling party and its leadership. Is it surprising that the security forces of the Ethiopian Prime Minister, who was appointed to the Commission for Africa by the UK, and is viewed by the US as a key ally in combating terrorism and a stabilizing force in the strategic Horn of Africa, killed over 40 innocent civilians, arrested thousands, instigated violence and hatred in the country? Is it surprising that in spite of these acts, the ruling party perceives itself as not guilty? Is it surprising that the Prime Minister extended the ban on peaceful demonstrations by another month despite protests that this edict was entirely unconstitutional and illegal? Is it surprising that his security forces killed opposition party members outside the capital two days after signing the European Union-brokered peace pact on June 10 to peacefully resolve election-related disputes? None of these is surprising to Ethiopians who endured 14 long years of similar persecutions, economic hardships and man-made disasters under a deceptive, incompetent and clearly authoritarian leadership. This was not the first time that the ruling party killed peaceful demonstrators. For instance, in 1992 and 2001, security forces opened fire on Addis Ababa University students who peacefully demonstrated against the ruling party's failed policies, killing more than 35, wounding over 400, and arresting and torturing hundreds of students, while 22 university professors were sacked. In 2002, security forces shot protestors in Southern Ethiopia, killing over 35 people. While these are examples from urban areas only, it should not be difficult to imagine the situation of dissidents in remote areas where little is known due to lack of communication and the absence of human rights activists. In spite of all these, the ruling party never admitted its mistakes apart from giving shamefully lame excuses for its irresponsible and barbaric acts. For example, in 1992 its excuse was that its riot police did not have the right equipment to disperse peaceful demonstrators. However shocking such an irresponsible statement seemed to many families who lost their loved ones, the ruling party could simply get away with it without any form of accountability. Just last week, another round of killings claimed the lives of over 40 civilians. Appallingly, the ruling party labeled these civilian victims as 'unemployed hooligans', as if to imply that their lives were worth nothing. Despite the rhetoric that Ethiopia is 'democratic', persistent abuses of civil and political rights, and lack of an inclusive and responsive political system characterizes the current regime. In fact, the regime is typified by what Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way (2002, pp. 51-65)[1] describe as 'Competitive Authoritarianism', which is a hybrid regime where formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority. However, the incumbents violate those rules so often and to such an extent that the regime fails to meet conventional minimum standards for democracy. Although the Ethiopian regime may have appeared to be an economic and political reformer in the past, a closer review of its policies reveals otherwise. Notwithstanding its rhetoric about liberal economic policies and privatization, the ruling party and its benefactors control key economic sectors. In fact, strategic control of the economy is one of the tactics that the ruling party employed to manipulate the political process in the country. For instance, state-owned land was viewed as a key instrument to control the political opinions of eighty-five percent of rural Ethiopians who are entirely dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods. There were reports from many rural constituencies that prior to the recent elections, cadres of the ruling party were threatening to deny those who voted for the opposition parties access to land. The ruling party's false confidence in winning the elections in most rural areas was thus prompted by this unlawful act. Nevertheless, none of these threats made sense to millions of desperate farmers who hardly benefit from their 'less-than-a-hectare' land and whose lives are largely sustained by relief rosters year in and year out. On the contrary, most people viewed the election as an opportunity for ensuring a productive life whereby responsible citizens could earn a living and lead a dignified life. The ruling party was blind to this reality owing to its gross underestimation of the intellect and pride of the rural people. Ironically, it is also this grave miscalculation of the ruling party that provided the platform for the participation of opposition parties in the recent elections. However, the fact that opposition parties were able to mobilize millions of supporters within a short period of election campaigning, despite massive harassment and intimidation, sent an important warning signal to the ruling party. Hence, it immediately got busy retracting its seemingly democratic gestures. It did not stop there. Terrified by the stiff resistance from the people who are determined to decide their future, its true nature became self-evident. In effect, it was forced to reveal its real identity to the world that it only managed to appear democratic aided by a situation in which it could control the playing field by selecting its own team, the referees and even the spectators. In the absence of any or all of these, it had to resort to the original tactics of any dictatorship, which is typified by mass killing, arrests, torture and so on. In fact, the ruling party was panic- stricken that it started to take any measure that appeared to support its desire to salvage its greed for power. It was interesting to see how in the course of last week, it even targeted every possible means of effective communication including disrupting cellular phone services. Toward the end of the week, the state-controlled telecom agency announced that due to technical problems it was no longer able to provide SMS (text messaging) services. It is to be noted that, in the absence of other media, Ethiopians were exchanging information of a political nature through text messaging. It is apparent that the current situation in Ethiopia is extremely tense. Given its repeated records of violent confrontation, the ruling party will not refrain from engaging in more brutal and barbaric acts to suppress dissenting voices and the people's struggle for political and economic freedom. The question remains, how many more killings will it take to make a ruler a dictator? How many more millions of people have to starve in Ethiopia before the world realizes that the root causes of the problem is not lack of rains but failed economic policies that are making people more vulnerable?