Writing at a time when
there was a lot of confusion about the health of PM Meles, I wrote the
following: -What I found really depressing
about our reaction to the situation is to know that how little trust we have in
our Constitution and in the system it created. A parliament of more than five
hundred representatives feels helpless when the Prime Minister is sick. People
make little reference for the Constitutional provisions which might have
implication in these circumstances. People don’t talk about the fact that our
Constitution is surprisingly silent as to what should happen when the PM gets
sick. Even lawyers don’t talk about what it means when the Constitution says
the Dupty Prime Minister acts on behalf of the Prime Minister in his
absence.
I generally like arguments based on (un)constitutionality. In a
blog post I never posted which I wrote approximately four months ago, I argued
that taking our constitution and its human rights provisions seriously might be
a very good solution for most of our problems. My argument goes like this: The
Ethiopian constitution has a very long list of human rights which in principle
should be interpreted based on international standards. Parliamentarians, judges, prosecutors, teachers, journalists, and any person who
has some kind of responsibility in the country should take the Constitution
very seriously. We should keep thinking, talking, teaching and writing about
it. We should keep supporting our arguments based on its provisions. The more
we do these things in a convincing manner, the lesser the chance will be for
the government to rely on unconvincing arguments and silly legal manipulations
to justify its acts.
Let me mention some
examples which I then called “encouraging signs at depressing times”. (Though they are my own words, I will put them in quotation.)
"Few months ago, there
was a lot of talk about forced displacement of some Ethiopian citizens from one
part of the country to another part of the country. It was depressing news for
many people. However, there were some encouraging signs at the same time. The
discussion basically revolved around the rights of those citizens to reside in
any part of the country. The advantage with these kinds of arguments which are
based on human rights is that they will substantially limit the possible
arguments of the other party, in this case, the government. At least the
government didn’t and couldn’t dare to say it is ok to displace people. It at least
contested the numbers and tried to justify its action.
Another example was the
discussion that followed after the Prime Minister(Meles) was challenged in the
Parliament on the basis that some programmes which were being transmitted on ETV
were against presumption of innocence of the accused persons. The Prime
Minister wrongly answered the question claiming “presumption of innocence of
the government”. Given the public discussion that followed, perhaps the legal advisors of the PM might have told him that, because of the Constitution the
arguments he can make are not unlimited.”(NB: this was drafted before the death
of Meles)
I can also mention more
examples. When the news about Andualem Arage being attacked in prison by a
convicted prisoner came out, the right of accused persons not to be imprisoned
together with convicted prisoners was found to be a very important argument
against which the government could not bring a legally acceptable counter argument.
I
found the role such arguments/possible arguments based on the Constitution and human
rights in shaping public discussions and limiting possible arguments very encouraging.
Despite the encouraging
efforts in using constitutional rights and provisions to support arguments in
our discussions, what is still a problem is the fact that the Courts(especially those entertaining anti-terrorism charges) do not
seem to be much influenced by such kinds of arguments. We recently heard that
the advocates for the Muslim leaders who are accused of terrorism raised a
challenge of constitutionality in the High court. That is encouraging too.(at this point some people will laugh at me saying it is the task of the HoF to interpret the Constitution. ) But I still think people should keep making well-articulated arguments based on the human rights provisions of the Constitution in Ethiopian courts to the extent that it would be
impossible to ignore them.
I am not claiming that
talking about them will go a long way in ensuring their enforcement. However,
we should also understand the power legal, constitutional and human rights arguments
have in shaping discussions and ultimately affecting behaviour. After all,
nobody is looking for a flawless system. We are rather looking for a system
which can correct its mistakes, a system which can respond fast when problems
occur and a system which can properly work. I believe the government, the
opposition, and the general public should give attention to the constitutional
provisions and their enforcement.
What generally
frustrates me the most is not the fact that we are not currently doing well in
terms of human rights and in terms of building a more democratic system. What
frustrates me the most is to know that we have uncertain future. What frustrates
me the most is to know that our fate as a country is more dependent on a party
called EPRDF than a constitution which we have lived with for about 17 years. Don’t
think that the uncertainty is in my imagination. I think in the few months
following the sickness and the death of PM Meles, that uncertainty was also clear
to those who are now in power. Some people
might think this frustration is a result of a hidden desire to impose my own
image of what Ethiopia should be like on others. No! It is not. That is exactly
why I like arguments based on the FDRE Constitution. That is a document which
was written and introduced by the current government. The government has the
duty to adhere to it. The commitment of the government to defend the Constitution should not be limited to those parts of the Constitution which the
government found favorable to its own agenda. Can we please keep talking about the Constitution with a hope that those discussions will affect the actions of the government in the future? You think that is not worth talking? You might be right. But, as you know, most of us are silent any way. And something is better than nothing.
