By Nama Nekemto
The notion that a peaceful transfer of power inherently guarantees the establishment of a democratic system is often an oversimplification that fails to account for the intricate foundational elements necessary for genuine democratic governance.
A prevailing skepticism often suggests that armed struggles, even those who managed to triumph successfully dismantling oppressive regimes, are inherently incapable of ushering in truly democratic systems. This perspective, I contend, fails to fully account for the complex interplay of historical forces and political realities that shape such transitions.
While historical precedents in Ethiopia indeed include instances where armed liberation movements regrettably paved the way for new forms of authoritarianism, attributing this outcome as an unavoidable destiny, intrinsic to the nature of armed struggle itself, is an oversimplification.
I would like to point out an important historical event that seems to be deliberately disregarded by Abel Eshetu. Ethiopia’s recent transition of political power, from EPRDF to PP, which could serve as a compelling illustration of this complexity. While the aforementioned transition of power was characterized by its peaceful nature, subsequent developments have resulted into a one man dictatorship that was rarely recorded in Ethiopia before. Similarly, the majority of peaceful color revolutions that also occurred recently, never transformed into a democratic governance in the respective countries, Egypt is a prime example.
In the above mentioned instances, over time, there has been a noticeable decline in active citizen participation in civic and political processes, a gradual weakening of democratic institutions designed to provide checks and balances, and an increasing concentration of power within a circumscribed circle of influence, in worse case scenario, in Ethiopia, the country has fallen into a one man dictatorship.
These observations underscore a critical point: true democracy demands significantly more than merely a change in leadership, even if conducted peacefully. It necessitates the deliberate and sustained construction of robust, independent institutions, unwavering adherence to the rule of law, transparent governance, and, crucially, the consistent and meaningful engagement of its citizenry across all levels of society.
Without these fundamental pillars, the aspirations for a vibrant and sustainable democracy remain susceptible to erosion, despite any initial peaceful shifts in authority.
The ultimate trajectory of a post-conflict society—whether towards genuine democratic governance or renewed repression—is fundamentally shaped not by the mere act of taking up arms, but by the core principles, guiding vision, and internal architecture of the forces spearheading the struggle. Such a movement doesn’t merely aim to replace one form of power with another; it seeks to fundamentally transform the very basis of governance towards popular sovereignty, accountability, and the equitable distribution of power.
History shows that nations can successfully transition from autocratic rule to strong democratic systems through a vibrant armed struggle. The United States and France offer prime examples. Their histories involved intense social upheaval and sustained popular armed movements, which were vital in dismantling deeply unjust, oppressive regimes. Ultimately, they forged new governments founded on liberty, equality, and popular will. These cases powerfully affirm humanity’s enduring quest for self-governance and society’s capacity for more just, inclusive representation.
Conversely, if the struggle is driven primarily by narrow factional interests, if its leadership lacks a genuine and demonstrable commitment to democratic principles, or if its internal operational structure mirrors the very authoritarianism it purports to oppose, then it is highly probable that the new dispensation will either replicate the oppressive system it overthrew or, in worst-case scenarios, descend into an even more severe form of tyranny.
Therefore, the critical determinant for a nation’s post-liberation destiny lies not solely in the methodology of resistance, but profoundly in the inherent character, aspirations, and governing philosophy of the liberation forces themselves.
Furthermore, to unilaterally dismiss the legitimacy of armed struggle as a viable recourse—particularly when confronting a regime impervious to peaceful dialogue and systematically stifling all avenues for non-violent political expression—is, in my view, a position that inadvertently acquiesces to perpetual subjugation and denies a people the full spectrum of their inherent right to self-determination and freedom.
Such a pronouncement not only superficially dismisses the profound efforts of the peaceful movement tried, but also carries the insidious implication of trivializing the critical existential and justifiable issues confronting the Ethiopian people.
It is imperative to recognize that communities resort to armed resistance only when all perceived avenues for peaceful resolution have been exhaustively pursued or rendered demonstrably infeasible within the existing political framework.
If genuine viable pathways for peaceful struggle truly existed in Ethiopia, it is highly improbable that millions of citizens would willingly endure unimaginable hardships, to engage in armed conflict.
To dismiss armed struggle as unreliable for a democratic change under these circumstances, not only profoundly misunderstands the critical gravity of the situation and the immense sacrifices made by ordinary citizens but also inflicts further psychological and emotional wounds upon an already desperate and beleaguered populace struggling for its very survival and fundamental rights.
while the principle of peaceful struggle is undeniably preferable and universally advocated by many, a pragmatic assessment of the current realities in the Ethiopia, such as in Amhara, Oromia and other regions reveals that this ideal often clashes severely with facts on the ground. Genuine viable pathways for peaceful struggle, does not existed in present Ethiopia.
In conclusion, peaceful struggle or armed struggle, when a movement’s, foundational ideology is deeply rooted in democratic tenets, exhibits a steadfast commitment to universal human rights, and maintains an unwavering respect for the rule of law, and crucially, when it fosters broad-based popular participation and cultivates internal democratic practices throughout its arduous journey, then the prospects for establishing a truly democratic order post-victory are significantly enhanced.