The people's responsibility

With the first paragraph omitted, under the title "Freedom without responsibility is dangerous" (chosen by an editor), this piece was printed in The Ethiopian Herald on January 07, 2020.

[To many concerned citizens and observers, the recent unrest in the Amhara region, the loss of lives, and the torching of mosques and churches, alas, did not come as a surprise. Quite the contrary. Those familiar with the sociopolitical climate in the country may well sadly observe that such violence is merely the continuation of the dangerous, unstable, uncertain situation society has found itself in.

Now, to many, this may seem a very local issue. But, as will become clear, some general observations can be made that apply, no matter the country or the region of the world.]

Here in Ethiopia, the election campaign is now in full swing. As the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) is being replaced by the newly formed Prosperity Party (PP) - and its anti-neoliberal approach and its program of 'Revolutionary Democracy' and 'developmental state' by the concepts of 'Synergy' and 'home grown economic agenda' - let us take this opportunity to reflect. 

Social, political and economic change has come to Ethiopia. And, as is always the case in such times of profound change, some in-depth reflection and analysis is certainly in order.

At this crucial juncture, it is clear that, in light of these repeated outbreaks of religious and ethnic-based violence so close to the election, surely, something has to be done! We cannot just sadly stand by, as lives are lost or endangered! We cannot just passively watch, as aggressive, rampaging youths wreak havoc on our society!

That is easily said, though. But what, really, can be done? Or, more to the point, by whom? Who is responsible for these repeated outbreaks of violence, and who for calming the situation, and prevent such violence from reoccurring? The government? Religious institutions? Journalists? Opposition politicians or 'activists'? The local population? Civil society?

To determine this, let us consider who is actually involved in the situation.

On closer examination, it turns out that, in fact, all of the parties mentioned above are, to a lesser or greater extent, involved. So, the question arises: Who bears the main responsibility?

Now, some may question why, at 'this time of unprecedented freedom' in Ethiopia, it should be necessary to focus on collective or individual responsibility.

However, at this critical time in the country's history, it is worth making a wider point, and observe that, as has often been said, 'freedom' must be, as it were, 'accompanied by responsibility'.

Some will be reminded of the famous psychotherapist Viktor E. Frankl's words. For he, arguably, expressed it best, when he humorously remarked that the Americans should complement their 'Statue of Liberty' by adding a 'Statue of Responsibility'.

This image is a stark reminder: As important as 'freedom' may seem to some, it must always go hand in hand with responsibility.

Conversely, it can be argued that freedom without responsibility is a danger for every society.

This brings us back to the question of responsibility in the current sociopolitical context of Ethiopia.

Certainly, the 'typical' instigators, inciters, and destabilizers, that is, irresponsible journalists, opposition politicians, and activists, self-styled or otherwise, have doubtless been responsible for inciting and emotionalizing young people, by spreading false information, or appealing to ethno-nationalist sentiments. Without a doubt, these dangerous agitators must be held responsible. And it is without question that it is within their power to contribute to the escalation, as well as the deescalation and prevention, of violence.

Religious institutions, including, but certainly not limited to, the Orthodox Church and Islamic Council, undeniably must do their part. 

At all times, and in particular in times of instability, it is nothing less than their duty to the faithful to be a force for good in society. Whatever influence they have, they must use it to contribute to peace, stability and security. It can be argued that this is not only their religious duty, it is also their patriotic duty, their duty to the believers, and to society.

The security forces, that is, the police and the military, are, obviously, crucial. And, at this juncture, it is of the essence to stress their positive role, and point out the extent of their contribution to peace and stability. This becomes even clearer when we consider what a difficult job the men and women in uniform have. They are confronted with hoards of extremely aggressive young people who are ready for violence. Often, they have been intent on provoking the security forces, soldiers in particular.

This leads us to the question of to what extent the local population, including young people and civil society, can be said to bear responsibility.

As essential the security forces are for peace and stability, it would not be logical to disregard the role of the local population, and its contribution - or lack thereof - to security.

'Journalists', 'activists', and religious institutions, all have the responsibility to act as a force for good, to calm and pacify, to contribute to the positive relationship of civilians and security forces, to encourage constructive criticism, rather than violent revenge - each of them in their sphere of influence, and in the way that is appropriate for them.

However, it is the people themselves, particularly the youths, those who actually commit the violence, who decide to set fire to mosques and churches, who destroy property, endanger the lives of others, and harm their own society, who are, ultimately, responsible. 

It falls to them to decide whether or not to act on what the instigators advocate, or whether or not to provoke soldiers. It is them who choose to either ignore what they see on social media, or to be emotionalized by it. They can either reject nationalist sentiments as dangerous propaganda, or blindly agree with the propagators.

It is up to them. They can choose to allow themselves to be incited, emotionalized, and to commit violence, or they can decide to ignore the instigators and agitators, and be a force for good in their society.

Ultimately, it is them who need to be held responsible.

In fact, it must be stated categorically at this point:

No matter what the election is about, or the sociopolitical context, or the electoral system, elections are never just about 'the people's choice', or 'the people's freedom'. They are, perhaps even more so, about 'the people's responsibility'. 

For just as we must analyze and investigate carefully, and act responsibly, in the interest of society, at all times, so must we vote responsibly!

And that, we must conclude, applies, whether we live in Ethiopia, or anywhere else in the world.