Poetic Justice

__________________________________

Paulos Yrgaw
Jan 31, 2006

The man who epitomized diplomatic finesse (the art of the possible), and who united Germany in the 1870s with an impeccable political acumen, Otto von Bismarck is known in the annals of history inter alia by his notable maxim: "The problems of the day can not be solved by speech or by majority vote, but by blood and iron." Bismarck’s placid and unfettered political imposition to unite Germany was centered on "Realpolitik" where the inertia to undo his intention was at the centre stage with in the Conservatives in Prussia flanked by Tsarist Russia and the Habsburg dynasty from without.

The Iron-man as he was later known, transcended beyond his political predilection (a liberal-democrat) and impinged on the State to take matters on its own hand while his call stood in a sharp contrast to his convictions about liberalism.

The differences between democracy and liberalism as we came to understand their respective clout in the ceaseless political discourses is that, democracy deals with the freedom of the individual including his/her natural rights where as liberalism in its political realm as oppose to the economic dimension deals specifically with the limitation of the State power. In other word, if the power of the State is curtailed, the freedom of the individual crawls into more political space.

With in this context, Bismarck’s blunt action at least his rhetoric contraindicates his political ideals. If he is a seasoned liberal, why did he unleash the violent nature of the State to impinge upon the right of the individual? It is a conundrum. However, the conundrum is an ubiquitous. At one time or another, it puts virtually any aspiring liberal leader in a difficult spot.

The apparent predicament is circumvented however, in the role of the social-contract, the Constitution. The Constitution harmonizes the rights of the individual with the need of the State to materialise the security of the individual should his/her needs and rights are in jeopardy. But, when the individual or group of people for that matter, transgress the spirit of the Constitution, the State comes into the "event-horizon" and Bismarck’s dictum takes a full swing. The State as its mandate is to uphold the rule of law according to the article of the Constitution, its architecture is equally designed in a "Montesquieuian" model where the State power is divided equally into Executive, Judiciary and Legislative organs. Hence, those who violate the sacrosanct plane of the Constitution are subjected to prosecution while the Executive remains untangled for it is entirely the affairs of the Judiciary to take matters as they appear.

Through out her torrid and tumultuous history, Ethiopia has morphed herself from a Frontier, State-Nation, Nation-State and possibly into Market-State in the foreseeable future. To ascent into this remarkable political maturity however, Ethiopia has faced and still facing adversaries and bad wishers from with in and from with out as well. Perhaps, the enormous challenge has never been more vivid and tangible in a real space-time than the inception of the last election.

As Prime Minister Meles put it in one of his interviews, the decision to take the Opposition as a formidable block was a calculated risk. It was calculated because the pernicious and precarious nature of the Opposition is impulsive at best and it was a risk because dealing or playing the cards in partnership with the Opposition had a detrimental effect to the nation as a whole. In hindsight and as the sad and regrettable events unfold the remarks of the Prime Minister are indeed measured assessments and right on the mark.

When the whole world in general at least the democracies and Ethiopians in particular were elated by the facts that, Ethiopia was embarking into a democratic venue, those who were supposed to play a crucial role in fostering and moulding a progressive and democratic Ethiopia, turned themselves into opportunists whose issues are vagaries of personalities and their vision for the country is parochialism at worst. Instead of expressing their concerns by holding placards and lining themselves in the frontline of a demonstration, the leaders of C.U.D unleashed the unassuming youngsters in a looting spree of a hooligan caliber. When one of the leaders of C.U.D bragged of bringing the government down with the collateral damage of ten to fifteen thousand lives, the other leader in Addis dismisses the legitimacy of the court of law in a hubric arrogance.

The moral and intellectual poverty of the C.U.D is not only confined on the above cited transgressions, they are also lobbying in the Diaspora to forsake the Ethiopian people from getting the aid package they desperately need in their dire moments. What the leaders of C.U.D are terribly missing is however, as Paul Henze put it in his closing remarks in his rebuttal to Professor Clapham’s rather skewed assessment (more on that next time), the whole "game" is turned into the war of nerves and E.P.R.D.F is remained more determined and resolved to uphold the rule of law with in the parameters of the Constitution. As it was noted in other writings, E.P.R.D.F was not born in a religious convent, but rather in a lurid political milieu. Hence, the government fully understands the imperatives of Bismark’s dictum, but it is stretching its patience by hoping that the democracies around the world in general and the Ethiopian people in particular will grasp the fact that the purity of its intention is to create a sound, self-sustaining, progressive and democratic Ethiopia. In doing so however, the government does not expect itself to be taken for a ride, and it equally readjusts its line of thinking with in the parameters of "Realpolitik" as well, should the need for it arises to safeguard the interest of the nation.

Paulos Yrgaw

Ottawa, Canada.

home