|
Ethiopia
Should Allow Free Press and Legitimate Dissent to
Flourish
Ghelawdewos
Araia, PhD
March 16, 2015
This
article is intended to address the role of the
free press and legitimate dissent in the
enhancement and establishment of democracy in
Ethiopia. Ethiopia had missed a golden opportunity
in finding a democratic culture during the
formative period of the 1974 revolution. Soon
after the outbreak of the Ethiopian revolution, a
modicum of democracy was allowed by default when
the emerging Derg elements pretended as protectors
of the Revolution while Ethiopians staged massive
demonstrations freely. Moreover, the EPRP and
Meisone intellectuals conducted series of
ideological debates via their respective journals,
namely Goh and Tsedey, but all these semblance of
democracy were soon suppressed by the military
junta.
Again,
in 1991, when the EPRDF seized state power,
Ethiopians were poised to enjoy some democratic
rights including freedom of speech, demonstration,
and free press but they encountered contradictory
measures by the government, and as a result the
initial promises of installing democracy in
Ethiopia has delayed indefinitely. While the EPRDF
government successfully implemented the democratic
rights of nationalities and even established nine
regional states, but when it comes to free press
and legitimate dissent, it clearly exhibited major
weakness, and consequently in the last two decades
significant democratic institutions were not
established. For the democracy rationale in its
broader sense, it should be known at the outset,
that the people at large are held responsible for
its realization, but in its micro sense, it is the
government and the opposition parties that must be
held accountable. More than the opposition and the
people, including intellectuals not affiliated to
any political groupings, however, it is the
government that must lead the way to democratic
transformation and that must be accountable in
regards to its fruition.
What
is the significance of free press and legitimate
dissent in the founding of a democratic Ethiopia?
The answer, in brief, is enormous and crucial!
Before I elaborate and delve into the vital
role of free press and legitimate dissent (which
incidentally are preconditions to a genuine
democracy), however, I like to make clear what
democracy is all about.
A
fortnight ago, a debate on several issues
pertaining to contemporary Ethiopia was conducted
at Addis Ababa University. The panel of discussion
included Ato Abay Tsehaye of EPRDF; Dr. Chane
Kebede of EDP (Ethiopian Democratic Party); and
Professor Beyene Petros of Medrek or the Ethiopian
Democratic Forum Party. While Abay promoted his
thesis (or the policies of his party) in relation
to revolutionary democracy, Chana argued on behalf
of liberal democracy, and Beyene presented his
line of argument in light of social democracy. By
and large, the discussion was interesting, but it
seems to me the moderator Dr. Abdisa Zerai and the
three discussants have missed the opportunity to
address the nature and characteristics of
democracy. Instead of hammering, dissecting, and
expounding on how democracy could be installed in
Ethiopia, they focused on typologies of
democracies, and although the latter are
important, they would become meaningless
nonetheless unless a genuine democracy is rooted
in the larger Ethiopian society.
Going
back to my own thesis, thus, I can now discuss the
significance of free press and legitimate dissent,
without which we could not have democracy at all.
While elections are an aspect of democracy, we
have seen it time and again that electoral
politics could be easily manipulated in most
developing countries and even in some developed
democracies. We have also witnessed fraudulent
elections across nations, but these malfunctions
in the democratic process could be adjusted by
free press and legitimate dissent only, because
the latter two as staunch strongholds play a role
in not only counterchecking the conduct of the
governments but also in ensuring the practice of
true democracy.
A
long time ago, Thomas Jefferson, the third
president of the United States, said, “were it
left to me to decide whether we should have a
government without newspapers, or news press
without government, I should not hesitate a moment
to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every
man should receive those papers and be capable of
reading them.”1
In
a similar vein to that of Jefferson and following
the long democratic tradition in the US, the Miami
Herald comes up with a very interesting editorial
entitled Democracy
Depends on a Free Press, and it makes relevant
argument to my own thesis as follows: “For a
society to be responsible and powerful, it must be
informed. Our free press, protected by the first
constitutional amendment, plays a critical role in
ensuring that every American has constant access
to important and trustworthy news.”2
Also
similar to the Miami Herald quoted above, Sajid
Javid argues, “Britain’s news papers remain
the best in the world. A vital bulwark against
wrong doing. A voice of the voiceless, the very
foundation upon which our democracy stands.”3
It
is not without reason, thus, that the United
Nations designated May 3 to be the world press
freedom day or world press day. By virtue of this
declaration, the UN holds governments accountable
in regards to upholding free press and by default
respect freedom of expression that is enshrined in
the Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9. In
spite of the good intentions of the UN General
Assembly and its Declaration, however, far from
respecting free press, many countries have
violated and discarded the very essence of the
Declaration.
Nonetheless,
despite the unfortunate attack on free press, the
present century warrants the adoption, if not
implementation, of democracy by nations all over
the world and luckily there are advocates of free
press still around. It is the combination of the
general trend of history (or the Third
Wave as Samuel Huntington calls it) toward
realizing democracy and the role of activists that
would pressure governments to allow free press in
their respective countries. Hilary Clinton, the
former Secretary of State, for instance, has
reminded us that “we live in a world where free
flow of information and ideas is a powerful force
of progress. Independent print, broadcast, and
online media outlets are more than sources of news
and opinion. They also fight abuse of power, fight
corruption, challenge assumptions, and provide
constructive outlets for new ideas and dissent.”4
If
Ethiopia follows Madam Clinton’s advice, it will
not only celebrate ‘free flow of information and
ideas’ but it will also effectively fight the
endemic corruption that is virtually bleeding the
nation now. One of the Ethiopian Broadcasting
Corporation (EBC) dramas by the name Dana, for
example, comes very close to exposing corruption
amongst high ranking officials of Ethiopia, but it
looks that the Drama is now reaching a vanishing
point following episode 78. Dramas like Dana,
media outlets, newspapers, scholarly journals etc
could greatly contribute to fighting corruption
and in formulating strategies for development in
Ethiopia by critically examining the policies of
the government, but only if they allowed to freely
express themselves.
The
danger of not allowing free press is also
underscored by Secretary Clinton, and this is how
she puts it: “Wherever media freedom is in
jeopardy, all other human rights are also under
threat. A free media is essential to democracy and
it fosters transparency and accountability both of
which are prerequisites for sustained economic
development.”5
As
has been pointed out above, the freedom of the
press in the United States is guaranteed by the
First Amendment to the US Constitution and this
means “the right of the press to gather,
publish, and distribute information and ideas
without government restrictions; this right
encompasses freedom from Prior Restraints on
publications and freedom of censorship.”6
How
about Ethiopia with respect to freedom of the
press? Does the Ethiopian Constitution guarantee
freedom of the press? Indeed! Part Two, Article
29, of the constitution clearly states that
1.
Everyone has the right to hold opinions
without interference.
2.
Everyone has the right to freedom of
expression without any interference. This right
shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form
of art, through any media of his choice.
3.
Freedom of the press and mass media and
freedom of artistic creativity is guaranteed.
Freedom of the press shall specifically include
the following elements: (a) Prohibition of any
form of censorship; (b) access to information of
public interest.
4.
In the interest of the free flow of
information, ideas and opinions which are
essential to the functioning of a democratic
order, the press shall, as an institution, enjoy
legal protection to ensure its operational
independence and its capacity to entertain diverse
opinions.7
What
is stipulated in the Ethiopian constitution,
however, is not necessarily practically observed
or respected, and unless freedom of press
transcends its paper form and is actually
translated into action, no matter how bright and
shining in its content, its promise could be
easily stifled. One could also ask, if Article 29
of the Ethiopian constitution is intended to
guarantee freedom of opinion, ideas, and
expression, why is that journalists jailed and
thrown behind bars?
If
the EPRDF Government really wants to honor Article
29 of the constitution, it should tolerate
journalists and media outlets to freely entertain
ideas, including criticizing the policies and
style of governance of the EPRDF. On the other
hand, if the EPRDF is intolerant to the press, it
would strangle the free flow of ideas, let alone
observe and monitor the ‘prohibition of any form
of censorship’ against the press as stated in
the Constitution.
The
concern of the lack thereof of free press and by
extension democracy in Ethiopia is the concern of
all Ethiopians who genuinely aspire to witness the
establishment of a democratic culture in their
country. The question pertaining to free press is
not forwarded by me alone; a lot of Ethiopians,
including Tewodros Abebe, have raised it. In a
recent opinion posted in the Washington Post,
Tewodros argues, “If the government of Ethiopia
is concerned for its citizens, as a spokesman
asserted in a February 13 letter [“The Ethiopian
government’s duty is to protect all of its
citizens”], it should respect the rights and
views of journalists and civilians who oppose its
policies. It is repressive to block popular web
sites and broadcasts such as the Voice of America
that provide an alternative to
government-controlled media…
All jailed journalists - and bloggers and
many others who are incarcerated for speaking
against repression and injustice in Ethiopia –
should be freed. It will be one small step on
along democratic journey.”8 A little
earlier, the Ethiopian Reporter contributed a
relevant and interesting editorial entitled “In
Vigilant Defense of Press Freedom” and I would
highly recommend readers to read it.8A
As
has been argued earlier, the government must
shoulder responsibility in guaranteeing free
press, but the public and in particular
journalists also must be held accountable for a
responsible reporting as well as expression of
thought that could benefit the larger society or,
on the contrary, reporting that could foment
unnecessary violence. In other words, while
journalists should not be intimidated and harassed
by the government, they too should not resort to
polemics, political diatribe, and innuendo that
misinform the public, or in its extreme version
engage in any activity that could create havoc to
the safety and security of the Ethiopian people.
The
concern of public security is the concern of all
countries, including the Western nations with
broader democracies. For instance, in the United
States, speeches and/or newspaper reporting that
utilize slander and obscenity and encourage
lawless actions are prohibited by law. The 113th
Congress of the United States, for example,
introduced the Free Flow of Information Act that
“prohibits a federal entity…in any matter
arising under federal law from compelling a
concerned person to testify or produce any
document related to information obtained or
created as part of engaging in journalism unless a
court makes specified determination by a
preponderance that ‘disclosure information
source’s identity is necessary to prevent an act
of terrorism, harm to national security, imminent
death, significant bodily harm or to identify a
person who has disclosed
a trade secret, individually identifiable
to health information or certain non-public
personal information.”9
I
have no serious disagreement or violent objection
to the limits of free speech or free press in the
context of adverse situations that may negatively
affect the larger society, but I have a serious
concern with the fact that governments can abuse
the delicate balance of the rule of law in regards
to any action taken by journalists who happen to
be critical (sometimes, overcritical) of the
government. More specifically, governments could
manipulate the elusive term of “terrorism” and
label opposition groups and journalists as
terrorists and justify their actions of
incarcerating the free press promoters.
It
is the abuse of power by governments that prompted
me to discuss ‘legitimate dissent’ in
conjunction with ‘free press.’ What is
legitimate dissent? In a nutshell, it is the one
face of criticism in a single but dual platform
that is entertained in the context of legal
framework. Although I believe that dissent must be
legitimate and must operate within the framework
of the law, I am of the opinion that the law
(however it is defined) should not emasculate or
stifle dissent. The latter is too important and it
should not be subjected to unnecessary scrutiny or
systematically relegated to the backburner.
Ronal
K. L. Rollins and David M. Skover, by making
reference to the Oxford English dictionary in
defining dissent as “synonymous with
‘opposition’, ‘disagreement’ or ‘a
difference of opinion’, further argue, “Such
adverse perspective, while in deed of elaboration,
is obvious to the meaning of dissent. For, to
remove adversity from the concept of dissent would
be to defang it.”10 Put otherwise,
dissent cannot be imagined without opposing ideas
and at times it may even involve confrontation.
Catherine
Mackinnon says, “The essence of dissent is about
standing up to, confronting power. Dissent carries
with it a critical stance toward existing
structures of domination.”11 Criticism
is embedded in dissent and because it is part and
parcel of it, some scholars like Steven Green
offer us a very persuasive analysis of the:
“Criticism is the heart of what dissent is all
about. You can’t be in agreement with something
you disagree with. There can be degrees of
agreement. But there needs to be a critique of
what you find offensive or wrong doing as
essential to dissent.”12
Legitimate
dissent, of course, should not be the province of
few vigilantes and disgruntled elements. On the
contrary, it should be the political tool of well
meaning opposition leaders in constructively
engaging the government via criticism and
confrontation, and the powers that be should view
dissent as positive energy for the establishment
of democracy and should not view it as a
countervailing and/or counterproductive force.
Most
importantly, dissent is meant to mobilize the
people in order to forge a critical mass that in
turn fosters a sufficient momentum against the
status quo that is the target of criticism, and by
doing so it creates an alternative platform in the
democratic process. Dissent, thus, is performed in
an open public square because its ultimate
objective is to create a relatively transparent
and accountable political system. “To have any
political or social valence,” say Collins and
Skover, “dissent requires some public exposure;
otherwise there is no real potential to convey
opposition to power structures or to facilitate
social or cultural change.”13
It
is only through free press and legitimate dissent
that we can really establish a relatively stable
democratic society. Therefore, if Ethiopia allows
free press and dissent, it will enjoy peace and
stability and it will also realize a more
confident and productive citizenry. Interestingly,
it is this kind of citizenry that would have faith
in its government and can embrace and respect its
elected officials at all levels. Short of this
minimum requirement in the making of democracy, it
would be simply impossible to witness a sane
society and it would not be surprising to witness
if people resort to violence and confrontation.
Violence
and confrontation should not be the alternative
strategies of struggle for the opposition, for
they could be counterproductive not only to the
tactical objectives of the opposition but it could
also negatively affect the democratic process. To
the extent possible, the opposition should seek a
peaceful engagement within the framework of the
law but it should be emphatic on the significance
of free press and legitimate dissent. The March 13th
and 14th televised debate between the
EPRDF representatives (Asmelash Woldeselassie and
Redone Mahdi) and the opposition, namely New
Generation Party (Asfaw Getachew), Medrek (Merara
Gudina), Blue Party (Yilikal Getnet), and Andinet
or Unity Party (Te’egist Awelu) was very
interesting, but none of them was talking about
‘legitimate dissent’ although some of them
raised the issue surrounding freedom of the press.
Given
the above rationale, thus, the Ethiopian
Government should tolerate legitimate dissent and
allow a broader freedom of the press. If the
Ethiopian Government is really ready to buy my
ideas and agrees with the overall analysis in the
present article, it should allow Ethiopian
journalists to freely express themselves and the
opposition groups to engage in dissent, if they
choose to do so.
Moreover,
if the Ethiopian Government endorses the ideas
incorporated in this article, it should then
release all journalists and bloggers from prison.
When I mean all journalists, I mean all without
exception unless there are some amongst the
journalists that were involved in egregious
actions that undermines the sovereignty of
Ethiopia. The former journalist of Addis
Neger, Tesalem Woldeselassie, for instance,
defended himself by saying, “I am just a
journalist and journalism is not a crime.”
Tesalem and his colleagues could have been
critical of the government but they are
journalists and they should be judged by the
parameters set forth in Article 29 of the
constitution and they should be freed and allowed
to enjoy free press.
That
will be the day when free press and legitimate
dissent will be officially sanctioned in Ethiopia
and establish a genuine democracy, or a government
of the people, by the people, and for the people
as Abraham Lincoln so aptly put it in the
Gettysburg Address.
Notes
1.
Thomas Jefferson was known for his
advocacy of democracy, but he, in turn, was
influenced by George Mason and other prior
democratic practices in the United States.
2.
Democracy Depends on a Free Press, Speak
Up, Miami
Herald, 9/16/2013
3.
Sajid Javid, “A free press is vital to
local democracy,” News England, BBC, 13 Nov 2014
4.
Dipnote, “In recognition of world press
freedom day,” May 4, 2009
5.
Ibid
6.
The Freedom Dictionary
7.
Constitution of the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia
8.
The Washington Post, February 20, 2015
(letters to the Editor) – Source: Diretube,
February 21, 2015. 8A The Ethiopian Reporter http://www.thereporterethiopia.com/index.php/editorial/item/1513
9.
H. R. 1962 – 113 Congress (2013-2014),
Introduced in House on 05/14/2013
10.
Ronal K. L. Collins and David M. Skover, ON
DISSENT: Its Meaning in America, Cambridge
University Press, 2013, p. 12
11.
Catherine McKinnon in Collins and Skover,
ibid, p. 13
12.
Steven Green, in Collins and Skover, Ibid,
p. 13
13.
Collins and Skover, Ibid, p. 21
All
Rights Reserved. Copyright © Institute of
Development and Education for Africa (IDEA) 2015.
Dr. Ghelawdewos Araia can be contacted for
educational and constructive feedback via dr.garaia@africanidea.org
|
