Democracy Requires Political Will and Visionary Leadership, Not Generational EvolutionDec 13, 2024By: Yemane HalefomThe argument that democracy is inherently a gradual process requiring generational evolution overlooks thecritical role of political will, visionary leadership, and early institutional frameworks. Furthermore, it has neithertheoretical justification nor empirical foundation. While it is true that certain democratic values, such as genderequality and the abolition of different forms of oppression and segregation, take time to mature, the foundationalframework of a democratic system is established early on by leaders who prioritize the long-term interests oftheir people. Historical examples from the United States, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, India, Kenya,and Botswana demonstrate that democracy is not merely a cultural or generational evolution but a deliberate actof leadership, even during times when democracy was not the global norm.The Foundational Framework of Democracy Starts Early Through Bold EffortsIn the United States, the establishment of democracy began with the bold actions of the Founding Fathers, whodrafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787. These documents laid thegroundwork for checks and balances, separation of powers, and a system designed to limit authoritarianism.Despite imperfections, such as the exclusion of women and African Americans from full participation, theseframeworks provided the structure upon which later democratic advancements were built. Notably, GeorgeWashington demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to democracy when he voluntarily stepped down aftertwo terms as president, facilitating the first peaceful transfer of power to John Adams in 1797. The most recentpeaceful transition occurred in 2021, from Donald Trump to Joe Biden, while the reverse is currently in progress.This underscores that the United States has maintained democracy for 247 years. This must not be confused withthe usual rhetoric that it took the U.S. more than 200 years to build democracy; no, the framework for democracywas built 247 years ago and is now maturing.Similarly, the Netherlands pioneered parliamentary democracy during the 17th century, a time dominated byabsolute monarchies. The Dutch Republic, established through political will and a commitment to republicangovernance, set a precedent for democratic systems in Europe. The first peaceful transfer of power occurred in1581, from Philip II of Spain to the States-General after independence. More recently, in 2022, Mark Rutteformed his fourth coalition government following parliamentary elections in 2021. This highlights that theNetherlands has had democracy for approximately 442 years.In the United Kingdom, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 marked a decisive moment in democratic history. Thepeaceful transfer of power from James II to William III and Mary II, enshrined by the Bill of Rights (1689),established parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of constitutional monarchy. William and Mary’swillingness to rule according to the will of Parliament demonstrated their commitment to democratic ideals andlaid the groundwork for future peaceful transitions of power, even in an era still dominated by monarchies andauthoritarian regimes.India’s democratic journey offers another compelling example. Emerging from colonial rule in 1947, India’sleaders, including Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar, took bold steps to draft a democratic constitution thatguaranteed universal suffrage, fundamental rights, and the separation of powers. Despite the immense challengesof poverty, illiteracy, and social stratification, India established a democratic framework that has endured as the1world’s largest democracy. The commitment of its early leaders to prioritize inclusive governance andinstitutional integrity demonstrates that democracy can take root in diverse and challenging contexts when thereis political will.Kenya’s experience with democracy also provides important lessons. Following independence from Britishcolonial rule in 1963, Kenya faced challenges in establishing stable democratic governance. The first peacefultransfer of power occurred in 2002, from Daniel Arap Moi to Mwai Kibaki, after decades of single-party rule.The most recent transition was in 2022, from Uhuru Kenyatta to William Ruto. Kenya has been a democracy for61 years. This is what we call a process.Botswana stands out as a model of democratic stability in Africa. Since gaining independence in 1966, Botswanahas maintained uninterrupted democratic elections. The first peaceful transfer of power occurred in 1980, fromSeretse Khama to Quett Masire. The most recent transition was in 2018, from Ian Khama to Mokgweetsi Masisi.Botswana has been a democracy for 58 years, showcasing the role of strong institutions and visionary leadershipin fostering stability and development.To this end, it is important to note that Tigray and Ethiopia aspire for democracy not merely as an end but alsoas a means to achieve political, economic, social, and technological progress. History demonstrates that nationsembracing democracy tend to thrive, fostering stability and development, whereas those under dictatorshipstagnate or deteriorate, often leading to disintegration and collapse, as exemplified by the current situation inTigray and Ethiopia. Thus, democracy is a necessity, not a luxury.The Role of Political Commitment in Contemporary DemocraciesThe early establishment of democratic frameworks by these nations occurred in a global context dominated byfeudalism, fascism, and monarchy. If democracy could emerge under such circumstances, the contemporarycontext, where democracy is widely recognized as a global ideal, offers even greater opportunities for itsimplementation. Leaders in Tigray and Ethiopia face fewer systemic barriers today compared to the 17th or 18thcenturies, yet their failure to establish democratic governance reflects a lack of political will rather than structuralimpossibility.The historical trajectory of democratic nations dismantles the notion that democracy is purely generational.Instead, it underscores the critical role of visionary leadership and the early establishment of resilient institutionsin ensuring democratic progress. The gradual extension of suffrage and civil rights in these countries evolvednaturally from the robust foundational frameworks laid at their inception. For those who can and are willing tolearn, the current political paralysis in Tigray offers a stark and invaluable lesson: democracy is not a luxury butan indispensable tool for addressing political, social, and economic challenges.Tigray and Ethiopia: The Need for Political WillThe challenges facing Tigray, including political instability and lack of governance, are significant but notinsurmountable. The assertion that democracy cannot be fast-tracked risks becoming an excuse for inaction. Thefailure to establish robust institutions, enforce the rule of law, and create mechanisms for accountability is lessabout societal readiness and more about political leaders prioritizing their power over their people’s future. Inthe absence of political will, democracy becomes an unfulfilled promise.2Leaders in Tigray and Ethiopia have the advantage of drawing from global lessons on democratization. In aworld where the principles of checks and balances, free elections, and human rights are well-established, theargument that democracy is a generational journey lacks validity. Almost everything we have failed toaccomplish falls within the realm of “known knowns.” We have yet to reach a stage where we can innovate toexplore the “known unknowns,” let alone begin addressing the “unknown unknowns” of our peoples’ collectiveaspirations. What is required is leadership that demonstrates courage, commitment, and a vision for the collectivegood, aligning with universally accepted standards and practices. Tigray and Ethiopia need to establish afoundational framework of democracy, not a mature one. It is not even on the right track, due to the absence ofpolitical will. Thus, it doesn’t make sense to argue that democracy is a process when it has not yet started.The failure to initiate democratization in Tigray and Ethiopia stems from a leadership culture dominated byfamilial dynasties with no vision for national interests. For example, consider the composition of top TPLFpolitical leadership at one time in the past: Meles Zenawi and his wife Azeb Mesfin; Ambassador Tewelde andhis wife Roman; Tsegay Berhe and his wife Kidisan Nega; Abay Woldu and his wife Tirfu; Gobezay and hiswife Kiros; Abay Tsehaye and his former wife Monjorno. Arkebe’s wife was also the sister of another centralcommittee member, Berhane G/Kristos. These familial networks functioned more like a patron-client systemthan a representative political body. This is only to mention family and blood ties, without discussing the narrowand backward network within TPLF based on provincialism and parochialism. The current illegal faction of theTPLF leadership is fighting to perpetuate this dynasty at any cost. This lack of inclusivity and the perpetuationof dynastic rule lie at the core of Tigray and Ethiopia’s democratization challenges. Instead of focusing onnational progress, such leadership structures prioritized personal and familial interests over the collectiveaspirations of the people.Further compounding this issue is the TPLF’s prioritization of Eritrea over Tigray’s interests. As noted byAsgede Gebre-Selassie, a founding member of the TPLF, the Sebhat dynasty has consistently aligned itself withShaEbia (EPLF) rather than Tigray. Only to mention a few, the TPLF’s bylaws once required accepting Eritreanindependence (it didn’t say the acceptance of the right to secession for any nation/nationality) as a membershipcriterion, a stipulation that undermined Tigray’s interests. Moreover, while leading Tigray’s struggle, MelesZenawi wrote extensively about Eritrean independence but scarcely about Tigray’s aspirations. During the Ethio-Eritrea war, the then Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Mr. Meles Zenawi, halted the war while ShaEbia was losing,committing treason. As a result, the ShaEbia forces perpetrated untold atrocities against our people during theTigray genocide. This misplaced priority reflects a deep-seated issue within the TPLF that continues to hinderTigray’s democratic development, leading to the crisis that we are in today.ConclusionDemocracy requires time to mature but not to begin. The foundational framework of democracy is built throughbold and deliberate action, not passive cultural evolution. The examples of the United States, the Netherlands,the United Kingdom, India, Kenya, and Botswana show that democracy emerges when leaders prioritizesystemic integrity and the welfare of their people over personal ambition. Leaders like George Washington,Johan de Witt, William and Mary, Jawaharlal Nehru, Kenya’s reformers during the 1990s and 2010s, andBotswana’s visionary founders made the deliberate choice to establish democratic frameworks and facilitatepeaceful transitions of power, even in challenging contexts.In the case of Tigray and Ethiopia, the failure to establish democracy stems not from societal unpreparednessbut from a lack of political will and vision. To everyone’s recollection, the people of Tigray and Ethiopia havebeen fighting and sacrificing tremendously to bring about democracy and the rule of law, despite repeated3betrayals by their leaders and the elite. The argument is that even though democracy is a process, in the contextof Tigray and Ethiopia, it has not even started, and the trajectory is fundamentally flawed. No political will orvisionary leadership is prioritizing the country’s future over personal ambitions. This is the crude reality. Nojustification, whatever form it may take, can obscure this truth. These historical lessons serve as a powerfulreminder that democracy is not only possible but achievable when leaders act with courage, foresight, and acommitment to the well-being of their people. Tigray and Ethiopia stand at a crossroads; the right trajectoryrequires bold leadership that embraces the potential for swift and decisive democratization. Democracy demandsaction, not excuses, to pave the way for a stable and inclusive future.Some argue that democracy is a luxury, but the experiences of other nations and our current paralysisdemonstrate that democratic governance is not merely desirable—it is essential. Democracy serves as thefoundation for unifying a nation, fostering mutual understanding, and addressing critical challenges, includingexistential crises. Without democratic governance, misunderstandings and conflicts arise, leaving societies withillegitimate governments incapable of effectively addressing the pressing needs of their people. Democracy isnot a luxury; it is a prerequisite for stability, legitimacy, and progress.Finally, the fact that some countries have tried, failed, and eventually succeeded in building democracy cannotbe used to justify that democracy is generational or requires prolonged societal learning. Rather, it highlightsthat democracy is not a one-time achievement but an ongoing process of germination, cultivation, preservation,and innovation. The successes and failures of these nations often stem from the clarity, dedication, or lack thereofamong leaders to uphold democratic principles. Ultimately, it is leadership—not inherent societal readiness—that determines whether democracy takes root and thrives. If democracy were inherently a gradual processrequiring generational evolution, we would not witness countries with similar economic potential andtechnological advancements, such as the United States and Russia, diverging so starkly in their democratictrajectories. This contrast underscores that democracy is a deliberate choice, shaped by leadership and politicalwill, rather than an inevitable dialectical process.References