Is Dr Negede Gobeze's Book,"Constitutions..." 'Subversive'?

By Fitsum G.

November 14, 2005

To many Ethiopians above forty, the name 'Negede Gobeze' may already be a household name, given his prominent role at the Meison Party, along with the likes of Haile Fida. Meison or Movement of All Ethiopian Socialists, was one of the most active parties in the seventies, under the Derg. It is natural that whoever was involved in Derg politics continues to be a source of controversy even now, as there are still some scores to settle, and the story is not archived yet, nor put in oblivion. Questions still arise as to whose side one exactly was, what misdeeds one committed; was one involved in Red Terror/White Terror atrocities etc? It is in this context that the name Negede Gobeze has been frequently discussed by many lately. But this should not be our concern, for the moment. Our point of interest now is rather the fact that the same Dr Negede has come up with a sort of 'treatise', a 'critique' if you like, on recent Ethiopian constitutional development, and has attracted our interest for this specific fact. Still living in exile in Europe, Dr Negede is seen intensely active and well informed as an Ethiopian political observer, continuing to head his old party. In fact, Meison happens to be one of the 'diaspora parties' constituting the umbrella opposition alliance in Ethiopia called UEDF (Union of Ethiopian Democratic Forces), which contested the recent elections along with the other strong assembly, Coalition for Unity and Democracy, CUD.

This article does not intend to write about the life history or achievements of Dr Negede, nor of Mieson, for that matter. It intends only to be a quick ‘overview’ of the main theme of his book. What is interesting to note is that Dr Negede’s popularity was probably involuntarily launched by the very person who ardently opposes and condemns his ideas: the Ethiopian Minister of Information. When within the framework of the open public electoral campaign, live debates were conducted, the then Minister of Information Bereket Simon (also Chair of the EPRDF re-election campaign) called to the fray the newly published book, waving it high up, showing to the public as the document that the opposition used as ‘guideline and strategy of election’. He said it was promoting and inciting only the ‘subversion of the constitution’ through violence! The book immediately caught the undivided curiosity of millions, if not favour. What on earth was so explosive in it? people wondered. Dr Negede should hence thank the minister for the involuntary contribution to the ‘popularity’ and sale of the book. Soon it was to be an unprecedented best seller at the counter! Those who actually had some clue about politics, or knew of Dr Negede's past, or were actively involved in the ongoing political campaigns, may have been already familiar with the book. But all the rest would probably have had no interest that would push them to buy it. Book sellers say it must have resulted to be one of the best-sellers of 1997 (competing with Andargachew Tsegue’s political thesis "Liberators who know little about liberty", a book critical of the role of the country’s leadership elite). No wonder, given the current political climate in the country, ‘political books’ or those somehow inspired by such themes would result best sellers. 'Elections 1997' by Eskinder Nega (owner of Askual, Menelik and Satenaw, three popular tabloids) is another ‘political book’ in Amharic that joined the duo.

Frankly, Dr Negede’s book is not very simple to fully grasp, on a first reading. For those who care little about laws and provisions, it could even risk to be monotonous. But I am inclined to believe that with many Ethiopians now having had to catch up with various legal and political concepts such as 'constitutions', 'laws', 'enactments', 'proclamations', 'decrees' etc and becoming increasingly ‘legal minded’ or 'legal conscious (thanks to debates/discussions, written material of various sorts that they have been exposed to, beginning from the days of Haile Selassie to the Derg, and now the EPRDF), the book could not result too difficult to understand. In three regime changes, many people have heard a lot about 'supreme laws', 'charters', 'conventions' and the like. Moreover, nowadays, with the help of a lot of private newspapers and magazines, the average reader can be considered as one capable of understanding the principal features of a constitution, perhaps rendering superfluous a course on Constitutional Law, and would appreciate Dr Negede’s thesis. Incidentally, the language is so clear with a logical flow, that it can hardly constitute an obstacle for easy readership, although it could beg for pondered meditation on the issues raised.

During the promulgation process of the current constitution, I remember, many people used to watch ETV to follow who was saying what, while countless debates were broadcast. Most of the time, the discussions were led, not only by legal scholars, but also by politicians and political leaders (such as the PM himself) whom we saw emphatically defending the draft. Finally, the Constitutional Commission managed to produce a final draft which was presented for public comments and possible amendments to be eventually promulgated at a ceremony on December 8, 1994 (and went into vigour on 21 August, 1995). I remember the prominent role played by two individuals in those days: the late Kifle Wedajo and the former president and current independent MP Dr Negasso Gidada. That day was taken by many as the ‘official birthday’ of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, a Parliamentary Democracy. Festivities were held to herald the historic event. It was said, Ethiopia had adopted its 'most democratic' constitution ever: a constitution that upholds and respects the rights of nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia. However, that is exactly where Dr. Negede’s book does not quite agree. And this appears to be the raison d’ętre of the entire book, the key theme. And all the efforts and urgent appeals are made to underline the need for a brand new, and more democratic Ethiopian Constitution.

All past constitutions were an 'instrument of legitimisation' of the rule of the incumbent, upholding rather each its own specific concern and program, Negede argues. Each government designed its own convenient constitution, he continues, whereas the reverse should have been the case! For the 'devine' monarchy, succession to the throne was a key issue. For the Derg, the destiny of workers could only be safeguarded by the Workers Party of Ethiopia. For the EPRDF the pivotal assertion is the respect of the rights and equality of nations and nationalities.

The book considers each of the last three constitutions and looks at both their strong as well as weak sides. The Monarch's Constitution, it says, is based on a God-given power of the Emperor who then ‘magnanimously’ decided to share it with his ‘beloved subjects’. Talking about the ‘Derg’s constitution’, it compares the document with other similar socialist-inspired constitutions, calling it outright ‘Stalinist’. Describing the current 'EPRDF Constitution' (as the author prefers to call it), relatively more space and energy has been dedicated to it, while asserting that little difference could be envisaged from the Derg’s document. While Dr Negede is overtly critical of all previous constitutions, (no one acknowledged and respected sovereignty of the people) no wonder his major attention is more directed on the incumbent one. He sustains it should be scrapped away and be substituted by a new one. That is where he sounds like 'subverting the constitutional order' and does not spare any method to achieve it except armed struggle. He argues there can be no alternative to such need, such demand, and cannot be postponed any longer, if one wanted to radically and thoroughly address Ethiopia’s urgent problems. That should be the priority agenda of any freedom loving party, association, or group of people, he underlines. And this is what the current ruling party, the EPRDF, dreads and opposes by all means available. Negede says such constitution tends to perpetuate the undisputed control of power by anyone who happens to be lucky enough to sit on the driver’s seat. And this amounts to unfettered dictatorship, pure and simple.

The book, as Minister Bereket stated, may have been written with the intention of ‘guiding the campaign of the opposition alliance in view of the May elections’ but, it is undeniable that its impact could go even further, beyond raising heretofore sidelined issues, provided there is a willingness and climate of discussion whereby themes of this sort could be seen seriously and objectively, disregarding partisan animosities. In its comparative analysis of the current constitution, the book can be taken as a ‘pioneering academic work’. To my knowledge, we have not come across similar critical analysis or commentaries of the 1994 Constitution in the form of a book, in the last decade. There could be here and there some major research papers or thesis, written for under-graduate or even post-graduate studies, by students at local universities. But none has made any resonance or reached the general readers’ attention. Whatever the outcome, Dr Negede's attempt should be lauded to the extent that it has contributed to the ongoing debate on how to better democratize our system of government and institutions, and be less exposed to cycles of authoritarianism dictated by stereotyped constitutions, once and for all. The question remains: How could we attain the level of democratic maturity that Western democracies have managed to reach? These are serious issues to be addressed, whether Negede has raised them or not!

Dr Negede's book projects its outlook on the future, learning from past experiences. It tries to set a number of principles to be used in order to improve the current Supreme Law. In this sense, one can understand the concerns of the minister as the intention of the book jeopardizes or clashes with the idea of the legitimacy of the current constitution, dubbed as 'EPRDF-program'. For Negede the issue seems clear and plain. The document is simply not based on Ethiopian peoples' consensus! Meticulously dwelling on all presumed weaknesses starting with the drafting process up to the final stage of promulgation, he roughly calculates that some 14 million people, who should have been consulted, have in fact been left out! Many political forces, organised or not, have not been adequately consulted, whereas such legislation, being of the maximum importance to all, cannot afford to be exclusivist in any way. Day to day life, natural rights and civil liberties are all intimately linked to or affected by it, hence the urge for all to participate and decide.

Admitting that the scope of such article does not permit us to go any deeper into the core of Dr Negede’s book, we can however recap some more of the principal features of the same. Dr Negede says the current constitution leaves a lot to be desired in many respects because one, whereas the main aim of a constitution should be the respect of the rights of the people and the limitation of the powers and authority of government, such issue has not been properly or adequately addressed by this constitution. Whereas a constitution should emerge from the ‘will of the people’, this constitution is simply the result of a party’s hierarchy preferences and ideas. Furthermore, while it should be limiting the powers of the executive, it has on the very contrary chosen to award ample (too much) power to the same, thus invading and depriving the other two branches of the constitutional order, the judiciary and the legislative body, from their independence and authority. He says this feature of the document could be attributed to the ‘Stalinist nature’ of the same that required power to concentrated in one body. The ruling party is thus conferred with too much power, masked as a majority in parliament, and such majority is then converted or delegated to the hands of a few individuals at the helm. Hence, indirectly, the real power of the people, the sovereign, results severely curtailed to meaningless levels. What is even worse is that there is no mechanism that can guarantee the avoiding or stopping of abuses/breaches. The obvious consequence is Negede maintains, that party executives can easily digress from them without being punished for it. This is a pivotal and blatant weakness of the document, according to Negede’s thought and should therefore be wiped out.

Negede continues, paradoxically, one of the supposedly key values on which the EPRDF constitution bases itself, i.e. the consecration of the rights of nations and nationalities, (Art 39) thus contributing to a more solid federation of nations aggregated on the basis of respect and equality, is not even guaranteed. On the contrary, it is divisive and dangerous, and can only lead to further disintegrative mood. Moreover, such constitution is so rigid that amendments or changes could only be a dream. To amend it, all regional states’ councils should give a two-thirds majority supported consent, awarding each of them with a sort of veto power. Even a tiny region such as the Harari Regional State could thus result a stumbling block to any legislative reform in this sense, if it so desired!

The doors to the widely aspired multi-party political system is hence closed by the 'hegemony of one party' which cannot allow free and fair, genuine competition amongst the various forces that may emerge in any given time. Hence, the author argues, the main priority and objective of any citizen, any patriot, any political party or force, should now be to 'remove' this constitution and replace it with one that emanates from the genuine free will of all the peoples of Ethiopia. The danger Negede sustains is not limited to the party actually on power, but to any one that may take its place, in any future. This constitution is simply a 'despotic document' that confers too much power on the executive, verging on dictatorship, Negede reiterates! That is why change becomes imperative.

In suggesting solutions, the book argues, the way to proceed could be elections, if free and fair, (but unlikely under current scenario) or huge mass protests, in the form of civil disobedience, demonstrations, strikes, stay-at-homes, boycotts etc. as peaceful means of challenging the system. Unlike certain optimistic forces, to think that we can change the system through only a gradual process of election results to be held every five years, would be a dangerous illusion, too hard to bear for our people, the book warns. It would take too long and the hopes and aspirations of people would be stifled. Dr Negede's book is certainly 'interesting' in its analytical approach and arguments, and would need further studies and elaboration on its assertions, both ways, for and against. Dismissing the whole subject summarily as ‘subversive’ (hence unworthy of consideration) would certainly not help any constructive dialogue. What would be ideal is to present an adequate and reasoned response to the thesis of Dr Negede. Ideas are there to be discussed and tested against experience and reality, against other ideas, and it would be interesting to see what contrary arguments, facts and figures one would have on Dr Negede’s assertions. After all, it is only the Bible or the Koran that would be exempted from such challenge. Political ideas or documents are, by their very essence, subject to debates. They are a human make and can thus be changed by humans. No mysteries or mystification. They should be open to continuous and frequent scrutiny and reconsideration, specially along with fast changing socio-economic, political realities. Constitutions cannot be considered as monolithic documents that should remain unchanged as Egyptian mummies, or the Axum Obelisk. Nor can constitutions be kept in a museum or an archive, and be frozen there as ‘Lucy’! They reflect contingent social realities, social dynamics, and as such should be susceptible to logical changes, flexibility, as needed. And this cannot be done by the whims and caprices of few individuals, but by a generality of all pertinent bodies, stake-holders, at least in a democracy. May be, in the heat and emotions of the electoral campaign, little inquisitive attention was afforded to the argumentation contained in Dr. Negede’s book. At closer and more appropriate look, and in good faith, when the dusts settle, however, it would be more useful to give it due time and meditation, and try to address the queries: ‘Is it only pure demagogy or a circumvented, substantiated, justifiable call for change? To what extent can it be rated ‘subversive’ and dismissed?’!