This essay will examine the nature of political leadership and legitimate power in Ethiopia in conjunction with the parliamentary elections that has now become a bone of contention between the ruling and the opposition parties, and while we explore the vicissitudes in the Ethiopian political landscape, we have come to testify that the art of government is no longer a monopoly of the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Party (EPRDF). In fact, if the current trend continues, it looks that governance in Ethiopia would require coalition and cooperation among the various branches of government and definitely a functioning parliament and not a rubber stamp one. It also looks that future governments in Ethiopia would be more responsible, accountable, and transparent. Given this rosy scenario, Ethiopia could find itself taking off in development and shine as a beacon at least in north east Africa, if not the entire continent.

There is no doubt that the present political climate in Ethiopia is promising, although we cannot for sure affirm that Ethiopia is on the threshold of a full-fledged democratic system. If at all, the popular elections manifest a fledgling and not a robust democratic system, and with respect to the latter we are toddlers at best and infants at worst. However, we must not fail to recognize the positive contributions of the current elections irrespective of the impetus (domestic and international) behind it. We should also not fail to admire the civility of the Ethiopian people demonstrated throughout the pre-election debates, the election and post-election period. The gathering of two million Ethiopians at Meskel Square and returning home without any incident, let alone a violent clash, is quite astounding and historic.

On the other hand, we Ethiopian intellectuals and/or scholars, as well as professionals, including those of us who have a modicum of education, must admit that in some respects we are lagging behind the momentous massive Ethiopian undertaking. While history is in the making in Ethiopia, a significant number in the Diaspora is still engaged in ethnic bickering that could damage the fabric of Ethiopian unity. So, we must refrain from condescending and pontificating thoughts such as “it is alarming to see Ethiopians pouring to the polling station without resorting to violence.” Yes, the elections are nascent experiments for the Ethiopian people, but the civility of the people should not be alarming unless deep down (or unwittingly perhaps) we underestimate the potential of the people and fail to recognize the long history of civilization of Ethiopia. As I have reiterated in my previous writings, Ya Ethiopia Hizb Chewanet is the foundation for their amazing patience during the entire election process. In fact, any people, including Ethiopians, with rich history and culture, can perform miracles especially if they enjoy a political leadership with legitimate power that genuinely governs on behalf of the people and the nation.

We have to wait and see whether the democratic process in Ethiopia will firmly anchor on a solid foundation, but if all goes well, and whoever stays in or comes to power, we will be compelled to critically examine the political leadership and legitimate power in Ethiopia, and for a better understanding of the legitimacy of power, we shall now turn to the attributes of political leadership that can either preclude or promote Ethiopia’s transformation for the better.

Lets first examine the typology of power. A decade ago, following Etzioni, I discussed three types of power, namely coercive, remunerative, and normative in my book Ethiopia: The Political Economy of Transition. In turn, physical force, rewards, and manipulation, respectively, are the component parts of the above types of power. For our present discussion and following Stephen R. Covey, author of Principle-Centered Leadership, we shall discuss coercive, utility, and legitimate powers.

Coercive power is a manifestation of the psychology of fear on the part of the leadership/leader and the frightened masses. The former, due to lack of confidence in itself and in the people, unleashes psychological terror and when necessary the ‘big stick.’ Its motto is the old Ethiopian adage, Betre Yase’ne’e Haile Mengist (the stick solidifies the power of government). However, the people know that coercive power is based on deceit and dishonesty, but they have no choice and they pretend to recognize the status quo, although deep down they resent it and they understand that their acquiescence and the stick are temporary. Coercive power is engaged in counter-culture sabotage; it is also vicious and uses physical force as a form of control but it eventually collapses in the face of massive people’s upsurge.

Utility power: unlike coercive power, this one is based on influence through exemplary roles/deeds or charisma. Utility power does not utilize physical force and rather earns support from the people via rewards and fringe benefits. It permits some dialogue between the people and the political leadership but it is neither thorough nor sustained. Utility power, in essence, is remunerative power based on control of material resources, in which the leaders and people apparently benefit. Both coercive and utility power, though antidotes in many respects, do share a common denominator of reactive politics, and while coercive power exhibits ‘iron-fist’ dictatorship, that of utility power could feature ‘benevolent dictatorship.’

Legitimate power is based on trust and respect for the people. Unlike the two powers discussed above, legitimate power does not depend on fear and material reward, and rather anchors itself on the faith of the people, and the people reciprocate by supporting the powers that be without fear or intimidation. In this positive and symbiotic relationship the leaders enjoy mass base, which is the source of their legitimacy. Leaders with legitimate power, therefore, have confidence in themselves and in the people by whom they were entrusted to wield power. As Covey succinctly puts it, leaders with legitimate power “are trusted, respected, honored…And they are followed because others want to follow them, want to believe in them and their cause, want to do what the leader wants. This is not blind faith, mindless obedience, or robotic servitude; this is knowledgeable, wholehearted, uninhabited commitment. This is legitimate power.”

Proactive leaders who exercise legitimate power don’t squander the national budget in building wasteful and unproductive government agencies such as the secret service. They don’t need it. Their protection comes from the people, not from an alienated and despised personal bodyguards and secret agents that we normally encounter in coercive power.

There are several discernible leadership characteristics between ‘coercive’ and ‘legitimate’ powers. The leaders in legitimate power, almost always, exhibit tolerance to ideas directly opposed to them; they listen more and talk less; they love dialogue and constantly engage themselves in continuing education; they are open and candid in their communication and accept humility; they inspire their followers with positive energy; they are opposed to negative labeling of their opponents; they are in full accord with unifying and harmonizing forces in society; they are opposed to all sorts of vindictive politics; they forgive and forget and they are peacemakers; they are synergistic and they are not simply satisfied with compromise but they are not stubborn; they are rather flexible; they employ profound solutions to complex problems; they are visionaries, intelligent, creative, and endowed with the highest sense of sacrifice for their people and their beloved country; they are selfless, altruistic and commit suicide rather than engage themselves in treason and betrayal; they consider power as responsibility and accountability, hence a mission and not a bureaucratic career; they are, above all, humane.

By contrast, leaders in coercive power, almost always, exhibit intolerance to ideas of their opponents, and because they are paranoid they don’t make distinction of ideas and/or proposals coming from foe and friend alike. They have no capacity to listen and they talk (in most cases, they are talkative) incessantly; they hate dialogue, but because they are hypocrites they sometimes preside over some “cultured” debates; they are introvert and don’t encourage straight forward and honest discussion as in legitimate power; almost always, they influence their audience with negative energy accompanied, for the most part, by intimidation; they are not peacemakers and unifiers, nor do they encourage harmony; they sustain grudge and foment vindictive politics; they don’t forgive and forget; they are far from being synergistic; they sometimes compromise but they don’t hesitate to dominate when the propitious moment arrives; they are manipulative, jealous, and envious; they are stubborn and rigid; they could be smart (clever) but they are neither creative nor have vision that could merit them to be political leaders; they are self-centered and opportunistic and they could careless of treason and betrayal; they may have values but they don’t have principles; they love to recruit and appoint “ ‘apes’ who think with their stomach” in order to advance their interests; they employ quick-fix techniques or Band-Aid adhesives to solve problems; they are megalomaniac and they equate power with ruling and exploiting the masses, and don’t view it as a responsibility and accountability; power for them is political career; they are, above all, human-beasts.

Classifying regimes into the various power nexuses, however, is not as simple as it sounds. Our best bet is to use a continuum as a yardstick and evaluate regimes based on how much of the discerning characteristics are present in the corpus of the government structures that they build. For instance, Haile Selassie’s government could have featured authoritarian and patriarchal systems with some utility and remunerative powers. If the regime was 50% of each, then it falls in the middle of the continuum. On the other hand, depending on our perspective or empirical findings, the regime could show proclivity toward coercive or utility powers. Some paradigmatic analyses (in this context, typology of powers) apply to the Derg of Mengistu Hailemariam and the EPRDF of Meles Zenawi.

Our challenge, at present, is to evaluate the Ethiopian opposition in general and the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) and the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF). Because of their present advocacy for the welfare of the Ethiopian people and the many attributes of legitimate power that could be accorded to them, we could say they are the best Ethiopia ever had. They could be, but given the complexity of politics and the psychology of power, it is a daunting task to evaluate political parties that have yet to wield political power and find congruence between their promises and actual agenda that guarantees the peoples’ say in the political process. On top of this, if indeed we follow the political leadership in legitimate power, one of the most important principles is not to indulge in prejudgment. Therefore, we cannot judge or evaluate the CUD/UEDF coalition “regime” yet.

There is no doubt that Ethiopia will be better off under a new regime that has the backing and full support of the people, but the new political regime, as a matter of course, should demonstrate legitimate power and feature most of the latter’s component parts. Moreover it should be proactive and involve the people in the political process and make sure the decision-making process is not the monopoly of few elites or the executive branch of government.

If, on the other hand, the new regime, upon assumption of power, began to tilt toward coercive or a hybrid of utility and legitimate power, the people will soon realize that it is time for regime change again. This time the people will not only have regrets and melancholy as in Gulicha Biqeyar Wat Aytafitim (Amharic), or Wecho Tegelbetkayo Wecho (Tigrigna). They will demand for regime change in a peaceful and democratic way; they will have the power to recall their representatives in parliament.

Ethiopia, since 1974 is a republic and is not ruled by dynastic regimes, and it goes without saying that regimes must come and go in a parliamentary democracy. This is not going to be easy in the case of Ethiopia for we are novice to such a tradition, but we should start at one point. If the EPRDF is defeated, it should simply concede to the victor party/parties and cooperate in the formal transference of power and accept its minority status in parliament. And if the CUD/UEDF wins, they should immediately form a coalition government of the people and deal with the urgent political and economic agendas that could uplift Ethiopia from a backward and impoverished developing country to a middle-level and newly industrialized nation. The potential of Ethiopian intellectuals and professionals, that were hitherto alienated, is tremendous and the new regime, as part of its top priority agenda, must come up with an inclusive program and invite Ethiopians who could chip-in in the development march.

If, on the other hand, the EPRDF wins the majority of votes it will stay in power and will face a formidable opposition, unlike any other, in the parliament and will find itself cornered in the legislative process. Above all, it will not dictate Ethiopian politics as it did in the past fourteen years and declare policies surreptitiously and behind doors. It will in fact be obliged to be more accountable, responsible and transparent. It will also be compelled to rethink its former disastrous policies and yield for reform and change, including nullifying domestic laws and abrogating international treaties. It will have an opportunity to see the light of the day and appreciate what it means to govern a proud nation with legitimate power, thanks to the opposition and the Ethiopian people.

My hope is that the opposition will take over and form a coalition government in the interest of time. Time is of the essence in the development agenda of a nation, and Ethiopia has missed golden opportunities in the combined years of the Derg and the EPRDF. Again, if all goes well, the new Ethiopian government should immediately create ways and means for the Ethiopian Diaspora to repatriate and the latter should get ready to seize the moment and reconnect itself with its people back home.

All the Best for Ethiopia!