The New Trajectory of Totalitarian Thinking
by Muktar M. Omer, 17 January 2013
muktaromer@ymail.com
The tyranny of Ideology
In an absorbing book “The Devil in History” Romanian-American political scientist Vladimir Ismaneau embarks on a comparative analysis of two seemingly contradictory ideologies of the 20th
century – Communism (far left) and Fascism (far right) – and finds
striking similarity between these systems of political totalitarianism.
With
polymathic virtuosity, Ismaneau illuminates communism’s close affinity
with fascism by examining the “intellectual origins, political passions,
radicalism, utopian ideals, and the visions of salvation and
revolution” these two radical movements espoused and pursued.
Communism
and fascism share a dogmatic vision of social re-engineering to be
achieved through a “scientific” political formula. Communism’s ultimate
destiny was the attainment of the dictatorship of the proletariat which
supposedly emancipates mankind from all forms of exploitation. Fascism
envisioned an epoch of racial purity (Hitler) or national splendor
(Mussolini). Both ideologies dehumanized their adversaries. Both are
founded on the premise that certain groups or ideas must be deservedly
excluded or obliterated. In Bolshevik Russia, functionaries of the
Tsarist regime, the clergy and rich people were categorized as “byvshie liudi”
(the former people) and were excluded from the “new” Socialist order.
Stalin killed 20 million people in the name of Communism. Nazi Germany
systematically slaughtered or deported Jews and other “subhuman” races.
These two most conspicuous totalitarian philosophies of the 20th
century had lots of similarities but also differences. For instance,
while in Communism, the dictatorship of the party is enthroned through
revolution, in Fascism, a “charismatic and visionary leader” who is
elected by voting consensus is the source of all ideas and guidance.
Ismaneau
scrutinizes the two systems’ “absolute commitment to ideology” and
illustrates how the pursuit of a draconian political formula – which
would take mankind to a promised land of justice and purity – paved the
way for all forms of totalitarian thinking in the 20th
century; how it led to “a frenzy of genocide, thought control and a
complete annihilation of the concept of the individual”; and how it
justified the orgy of violence that resulted in the deaths of millions
of human beings. The author denounces the “nihilistic principles of
human subjugation and conditioning” pursued by communists and fascists
in the name of attaining “presumably pure and purifying goals”, and
concludes with a poignant refrain: “no ideological commitment, no matter
how absorbing, should ever prevail over the sanctity of human life”.
Ismaneau
did not extend his analysis to the mayhem Capitalism which sired
imperialism, colonialism and militarism inflicted on humanity for two
millennia. After all, foisting evil on humankind in the ostensible
pursuit of good and promotion of higher ideals is not exclusive to
fascism or communism. Throughout the history of mankind, mindless
tyrants, self-styled revolutionaries, and religious and political
zealots used myriad of ideologies and belief systems as vindicating
motifs and mobilizing planks to unleash wars, to rob, to pillage, to
enslave, to oppress, to exterminate real or perceived adversaries.
Predatory Capitalism actuated slavery. Colonialism underwrote French
genocide against Algerians and the dehumanization of indigenous
populations in conquered lands. Colossal crimes against humanity were
committed in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Africa – to name
but few – in the last fifty years alone by presumably redemptive
ideologies.
Utopia – the dangerous ingredient
Vaclav
Havel defined ideology as something that offers human beings “the
illusion of identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier
for them to part with them.” Ideologies have potent hypnotizing power.
Ideologues therefore are invariably astigmatic – which means they have a
distorted vision of reality.
All Ideologies
also have the propensity to turn deadly, but as Steven Pinker argues in
the “Better Angels of Our Nature” some are more predisposed to generate
violence and misery than others. One of the things that make ideologies
dangerous is the “prospect of utopia”. Ideologies that propagate
visions of pleasure and plenty can be described as messianic ideologies.
“Since utopias are infinitely good” Pinker denotes, they sanction
the-end-justifies-the-means mentality. For the utopia of these messianic
doctrines to be attained, all obstacles must be eliminated at all cost.
Messianic ideologies cannot function without “enemies”. Most often,
these ideologies identify the main source of societal ills as a
“definable group” or thought, which becomes the “enemy”.
The import of these points will become evident as we go into the thrust of this article.
Having
provided a general background on the dangers of messianic ideologies
and the commonalities in their foundational premises, modus operandi and
vision, this article will trace the origins of Revolutionary Democracy –
as practiced in present-day Ethiopia – to past totalitarian projects,
and argues that Revolutionary Democracy is not a new thinking but a
synthesis of old ideologies and systems – Marxism, Leninism, Maoism,
Capitalism, Liberalism, etc. – renovated and re-marketed to rationalize
flagrant totalitarianism. The article asserts that there is no logical
or empirical evidence to support the putative link between revolutionary
democracy and recent economic development in Ethiopia. It further
argues that the ongoing national debate on the type of ideology Ethiopia
should adopt is worthless and irrelevant and posits that the debate
should have been about values not nebulous ideologies.
The false national debate
In
the last two decades, the national debate in academic circles in
Ethiopia focused on the merits and demerits of Revolutionary Democracy –
espoused by the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic
Front (EPRDF) – and the globally hegemonic Liberal Democracy. The debate
replicates the partisan divide in the country and has rarely been
dispassionate.
Without extending the parameters of this debate any
further, it is useful to give a brief description of the core tenets of
revolutionary democracy and Liberal Democracy before delving into the
central theme of my argument.
Revolutionary Democracy prioritizes
group rights over individual rights, advocates for strong,
interventionist government and the presence of a dominant political
party that stays in power for a period long enough to facilitate
socio-economic transformation. The distinctive attributes of a Liberal
Democracy include free and fair elections, economic freedom, genuine
separation of the powers of the executive, the legislature and the
judiciary, human rights, a multiparty system, the rule of law, freedom
of speech, free trade and the protection of private property.
The
relevance of a particular ideology to a given country context and the
pros and cons of competing ideologies can be endlessly debated. However,
these debates often produce little more than scholastic perorations.
They rarely create consensus or yield outright winner. Each side argues
from a position of blind conviction and because there are enough
ambiguities and variations within each ideology, the argument becomes
circular, tedious, and messy. This makes debates on ideologies
pointless.
A more useful format could have been adopted. First, a
set of values that must guide the practical application of contending
ideologies would be agreed on. Next, the extent to which these mutually
agreed moral axioms are adhered to in the implementation of the relevant
ideological theories would be evaluated. For instance, freedom of
speech and thought, rule of law, respect for human rights and civil
liberties could have been identified as the guiding set of values. These
universal moral principles enhance the collective welfare of humanity.
Any ideology that upholds these ethical principles has a higher chance
of preventing violence. Conversely, any ideology that prevaricates on or
openly denigrates these values has a higher likelihood of leading to
violence. These guiding values and their practical implementation should
inform what is good for Ethiopia over and above feeble ideologies.
Therefore, firstly, the national debate ought to have been whether these ethical principles are respected in EPRDF’s Ethiopia.
Secondly,
the efficacy and primacy of revolutionary democracy doctrine must be
examined against its own practice, not against presumed failures and
shortcomings of liberal ideology or professed future returns of economic
development.
Thirdly, Ethiopia registered rapid economic growth
in the last ten years. The ruling party must be lauded and credited for
the effective utilization of foreign aid and for adopting sound economic
policies such as agricultural-development-led-industrialization (ADLI)
and state-sponsored micro-enterprise development initiatives.
Researching the causative or correlative relationship between
development and revolutionary democracy is beyond the purview of this
article. But the putative linkage between the two factors should have
been subjected to logical and empirical interrogation. It is a
causative fallacy to argue that because B follows A, A is the reason for
B. Sadly, proponents of revolutionary democracy in Ethiopia frequently
engage in this fallacy; and it seems they have been granted a free pass
for long.
It is logical to suggest that recent economic
development in Ethiopia has more to do with the injection of foreign aid
into the economy and less with revolutionary democracy sloganeering. For
example,without foreign aid, even such sensible economic policies as
ADLI, micro-enterprise development, and safety-net programmes that
address chronic food insecurity in Ethiopia, may not have amounted to
much. Economic ideas are fine, but to get to fruition, they need funds.
Is
the main cause of the present economic growth and infrastructural
development in Ethiopia foreign aid or ideology? Would social, economic
and infrastructural transformation have been achieved without the
massive foreign development assistance that averaged between USD 2 to 3
billion annually in the last decade? Would the “mixed economy” model –
which is paraphrased to “Developmental State paradigm” in EPRDF
political grammar – have brought about meaningful economic returns
without sustained Western funding?
Only a proper research could
establish the existence or absence of a relationship between
revolutionary democracy and economic development in Ethiopia, but these
questions must be asked.
Parenthetically, the EPRDF regime which
owes its survival to the billions of dollars of aid it gets from the
West ironically accuses opposition parties as lackeys of the West. It
attacks liberalism day and night but beseeches liberal economies for
more aid. How and why it gets away with all these contradictions should
have been probed.
Perhaps most crucially, why a supposedly
superior and rescuing doctrine as revolutionary democracy mortally
fears, criminalizes, harasses and banishes contending ideas should have
been at the heart of the national debate.
Revolutionary Democracy: the Utopia and Dogma
There
is more to the prefix “revolutionary” in Revolutionary Democracy than a
mere appellation. It is the strand that ties revolutionary democracy to
Communism and in some ways to Fascism. Deflected by miasmic comparisons
of the scale of the damages caused by these ideologies, we should not
exonerate revolutionary democracy simply because it has not inflicted as
much pain as the two other totalitarian ideas. We need to look at the
utopia and the dogma inherent in revolutionary democracy, which makes it
as dangerous as any other messianic ideology.
The vision of
EPRDF’s revolutionary democracy is a “new and prosperous Ethiopia” where
the rights of nations and nationalities are “fully respected”. Granted,
some visions are benign and more realistic than others. Granted, it is
unfair to equate the achievable vision of an economically better-off
and politically inclusive Ethiopia to communism’s romantic pursuit of a
proletarian dictatorship and Fascism’s search for racial purity and
ultranationalist grandeur. Yet, Communism, Fascism and Revolutionary
Democracy all have one thing in common: “absolute commitment to
ideology”.
The similarity becomes clearer when dogma creeps into
this commitment. EPRDF believes that it is the sole owner of the ideas
that can steer Ethiopia towards the nirvana of an inclusive, prosperous
and peaceful country. It is not this absolute belief in the
righteousness of its own doctrine that makes EPRDF and revolutionary
democracy dangerous. It is its stubborn resolve to destroy rival ideas
by all means possible that makes it as dangerous as the systems that
pursue seemingly more sinister utopias. John Gray – Emeritus Professor
at the London School of Economics – says that “in politics, the other
face of radical evil is an inhuman vision of radical goodness”.
Revolutionary Democracy personified by EPRDF arrests and executes
political opponents, harasses dissenting ideas, strips Ethiopians of all
political rights and civil liberties for the good vision of “a
prosperous Ethiopia”. At best, it is a vision of radical goodness which
becomes an inhuman vision because it justifies the evil of oppression.
Revolutionary Democracy at work
Ernest
W. Lefever contends that the defeat of Communism and Fascism has not
eliminated the return of totalitarian thinking and temptations. He was
remarkably prescient when he warned that “out of the rubble of failed
systems, the chaos of defeat, and the agony of alienated peoples, a new
totalitarian savior could again arise proclaiming a new utopia”.
In
the foregoing sections, we have seen how totalitarian ideologies crave
adversaries and feed on scapegoats. Examples from recent Ethiopian
political history would help to crystallize this notion.
In 1974,
Emperor Haile-Selassie’s 44 years reign ended. Revolutionary Ethiopians
rocked the foundations of the monarchy but the coup de grace was served
by a military junta led by Colonel Mengistu Haile-Mariam. The junta
ordained a Marixist ideology – the precursor to today’s “revolutionary
democracy”. In fact, “revolution” and “democracy” became the junta’s
catchwords. The DERG – as the junta would later call itself – terrorized
the Ethiopian people for 17 years, unleashing waves of violence under
different pretexts.
First, it declared a class war on
“Imperialists, the bourgeoisie and semi-bourgeoisie”. Next came the turn
of own ideological allies – The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party
(EPRP), All-Ethiopia Socialist Movement (alias MEISON) – who started to
embrace a different interpretation of Marxism. Then, Eritrean and
Tigrayan nationalists started an armed struggle against the DERG and the
junta morphed into a defender of “Ethiopian unity” and turned its gun
on Tigrayans and Eritreans.
In 1991, Mengistu’s regime collapsed.
The triumphant Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) arrived as the
“new savior”. Revolutionary Democracy quickly found its enemy. TPLF
picked Amharas – who immediately became Ethiopia’s “byvshie liudi”
(former people) – as its focal enemy. TPLF unleashed an unremitting
vitriolic propaganda against Amharas and Unionist Ethiopians. Adjectives
with accusatory undertones such as “chauvinists” and “Neftagna”
(armed settlers) permeated the new political vocabulary. Amhara’s were
summarily categorized as beneficiaries of the old systems. They were
identified as the source of all societal ills in Ethiopia. In Oromia –
Bedano (Harar) and Arbagugu (Arsi) – Amhara civilians were butchered.
TPLF did not commit these crimes; but the massacres were the macabre
fruits of sustained TPLF anti-Amhara propaganda.
The Amhara’s were
targeted mainly because they were the most vocal opponents of the
secession of Eritrea. There is another theory which paints the
witch-hunt against Amharas as a mere extension of historical power
struggle between the two Semitic nationalities in Northern Ethiopia. The
advent of ethnic-nationalism and TPLF’s iron hand dealt a decisive blow
to Amhara and centralist fight back.
The Amhara “threat” was
quickly neutralized, but the next enemy did not take long to emerge. The
Oromos – the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia – demanded their
“rightful place” in the new political arrangement. TPLF found its second
enemy, which it destroyed with astounding efficiency. Documentary
“evidences” showing “narrow” Oromo “extremists” slaughtering Amhara
settlers in Bedano, Arba-gugu and other areas started to surface.
Evidences, that never bothered TPLF before it fell out with the Oromo
Liberation Front (OLF)! The atrocities were real. Extremist Oromos
allegedly carried out the massacres. TPLF is culpable though, because it
was the main instigator of hate against Amharas.
The third enemy
of TPLF would turn out to be its alter ego Sha’bia (EPLF) – the ruling
party in Eritrea and TPLF’s erstwhile ally and mentor. The May 1998 to
June 2000 Ethio-Eritrean war was not a war of choice for TPLF. Eritrea
started the war. Nonetheless, the TPLF found yet another scapegoat to
continue internal political repression. The war also gave the TPLF a
breathing space as most Ethiopians postponed their anger against the
regime and stood by the TPLF-led government in a show of remarkable
patriotism.
In 2005, buoyed by the support it received from the
Ethiopian people during the war, TPLF/EPRDF opened up the political
arena and granted opposition parties some space for competition. It
would prove to be a turning point for democracy in Ethiopia. The
consensus is that the EPRDF lost that election to the opposition. The
biggest winner was the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) – alias Kinijit
in Amharic. The CUD competed on a political agenda that emphasized
“national unity” and opposed ethnic federalism. The success of the CUD
shocked EPRDF to the core.
To EPRDF, not only did the CUD triumph
represent the revival of the detested “Amharas”, it awakened it to the
grim reality that it can never win a free and fair elections. TPLF’s
coalition partners in the EPRDF – ANDM (Amhara), Oromo (OPDM), SEPDM
(Southern region) – were all routed in their respective regions because
the nations and nationalities they purported to represent veritably saw
them as veritable puppets of the TPLF.
EPRDF firmly closed
whatever little political space that existed. So much so, that in the
2010 elections, it “won” all but one of the 547 seats in the House of
Representatives (the Parliament). Today, EPRDF members and supporters
control all State and religious institutions at the Federal level and in
Amhara, Oromia, Tigray, and Southern Nations, Nationalities and
Peoples’ (SNNP) region. The Judiciary, Security sector, and economy are
firmly in the hands of EPRDF. Satellite parties allied to EPRDF rule the
so-called “developing’ regions – Somali, Afar, Benishangul, Harari, and
Gambella.
More recently, “anti-terrorism” accorded EPRDF a new
scapegoat. Centralist political parties are branded relics of the past.
Ethno-nationalists who embraced ethnic federalism but advocate for a
genuine implementation of the project are labeled “terrorists” and are
outlawed. Serious opposition parties are banned from operating inside
the country and operate in exile. Opposition parties inside the country
can issue statements through foreign media or by organizing subdued
events but they cannot freely mobilize the grassroots. Elections are
meaningless because the National Election Board (NEBE) is a functionary
of the ruling party/government.
Revolutionary Democracy has a dual
attribute. Like Communism, EPRDF and its satellite parties control
government at federal and regional levels, which makes the party and the
government one and the same. Like Fascism, all ideas in revolutionary
democracy emanate from its “magnetic” leader Meles Zenawi. Up until and
even after his death, he was and continues to be credited as the
originator of all ideas that ERPDF implements; particularly, the ones
that worked.
This is the anatomy of a Revolutionary Democracy.
Conclusion
Debating
the goodness or badness of one or another ideology is pointless. No
ideology has a silver bullet that would take humanity to a worldly
paradise. There are enough ambiguities in the theories of every
ideology. Even if the theories of one ideology are found more relevant
to a given context, it means nothing unless the practice matches the
theory. Practice often deviates from theory in totalitarian ideologies.
But more importantly, arguing over ideologies is the thing of the past. If the 20th century was the era of ideology, the 21st
century is the age of values. Freedom and justice which are innate
human desires matter to humanity more than erratic ideologies, because
these enduring values are the only institutions can minimize the
occurrence of violence. Ideologies by their nature do not avert
violence, they fuel it.
If we have to embrace ideologies, we
should embrace only those that accept – in theory and practice – the
inviolability of the sanctity of human life. The quality and relevance
of a doctrine must be judged against this singular moral principle. An
ideology that stifles freedom of speech, suspends human rights and
imposes an arbitrary application of law is an anathema to human progress
and a recipe for violence.
Today, in Ethiopia, systematic and
gross violations of human rights are committed. There is no independent
judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The regime arbitrarily applies
rules of natural justice and the rule of law, thereby turning the avenue
of society into a scary chamber where injustice is domesticated.
Plighted by politically correct thinking, the EPRDF stifles freedom of
thought and freedom of expression. The regime is bent on crushing
individual thinking and browbeating the Ethiopian nation into accepting
that an idea could only be valid if it came from “the correct” group,
which in this case happens to be the top echelons of EPRDF.
EPRD’s
revolutionary democracy has all the hallmarks of a messianic ideology
with its utopia, dogma and concomitant violence. It is not a new
ideology by any stretch of imagination. It is a revised trajectory of
totalitarian thinking presented as a redeeming doctrine, and has a lot
in common with past totalitarian schemes. George Steiner’s decisive
contention in the “Grammars of Creation” comes to mind. “We have no more
beginnings”. How true!
Equally, Liberal Democracy is not a
perfect system. Some of its core postulates such as the relationship
between elections and citizen participation in resource allocation and
political decision-making and the validity of some of its core economic
propositions have been criticized since its earliest days by Marxists,
socialists, left-wing anarchists, empiricists, and proponents of
“direct” democracy. However, the consensus is that while not a perfect
system, Liberal Democracy reduces political uncertainty and instability
by providing the public with regular chances to change those in power
without changing the legal basis for government.
At any rate, the deficiencies of Liberalism cannot expiate the sins of revolutionary democracy.
Intellectuals
who are enamored with the “good intellect and intentions” of Meles
Zenawi and rationalize his appalling human rights records are guilty of
either willful ignorance or disagree with Professor John Gray’s
dauntingly erudite reminder: “radical evil can come from the pursuit of
progress”.
No comments:
Post a Comment