Democracy Requires Political Will and Visionary Leadership, Not Generational Evolution

Democracy Requires Political Will and Visionary Leadership, Not Generational Evolution

Dec 18, 2024

By: Yemane Halefom

The argument that democracy is inherently a gradual process requiring generational evolution overlooks the critical role of political will, visionary leadership, and early institutional frameworks. Furthermore, it has neither theoretical justification nor empirical foundation. While it is true that certain democratic values, such as gender equality and the abolition of different forms of oppression and segregation, take time to mature, the foundational framework of a democratic system is established early on by leaders who prioritize the long-term interests of their 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 act of leadership, even during times when democracy was not the global norm.

The Foundational Framework of Democracy Starts Early Through Bold Efforts

In the United States, the establishment of democracy began with the bold actions of the Founding Fathers, who drafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787. These documents laid the groundwork 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, these frameworks provided the structure upon which later democratic advancements were built. Notably, George Washington demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to democracy when he voluntarily stepped down after two terms as president, facilitating the first peaceful transfer of power to John Adams in 1797. The most recent peaceful 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 with the usual rhetoric that it took the U.S. more than 200 years to build democracy; no, the framework for democracy was built 247 years ago and is now maturing.

Similarly, the Netherlands pioneered parliamentary democracy during the 17th century, a time dominated by absolute monarchies. The Dutch Republic, established through political will and a commitment to republican governance, set a precedent for democratic systems in Europe. The first peaceful transfer of power occurred in 1581, from Philip II of Spain to the States-General after independence. More recently, in 2022, Mark Rutte formed his fourth coalition government following parliamentary elections in 2021. This highlights that the Netherlands has had democracy for approximately 442 years.

In the United Kingdom, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 marked a decisive moment in democratic history. The peaceful 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’s willingness to rule according to the will of Parliament demonstrated their commitment to democratic ideals and laid the groundwork for future peaceful transitions of power, even in an era still dominated by monarchies and authoritarian regimes.

India’s democratic journey offers another compelling example. Emerging from colonial rule in 1947, India’s leaders, including Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar, took bold steps to draft a democratic constitution that guaranteed universal suffrage, fundamental rights, and the separation of powers. Despite the immense challenges of poverty, illiteracy, and social stratification, India established a democratic framework that has endured as the world’s largest democracy. The commitment of its early leaders to prioritize inclusive governance and institutional integrity demonstrates that democracy can take root in diverse and challenging contexts when there is political will.

Kenya’s experience with democracy also provides important lessons. Following independence from British colonial rule in 1963, Kenya faced challenges in establishing stable democratic governance. The first peaceful transfer 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 for 61 years. This is what we call a process.

Botswana stands out as a model of democratic stability in Africa. Since gaining independence in 1966, Botswana has maintained uninterrupted democratic elections. The first peaceful transfer of power occurred in 1980, from Seretse 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 leadership in 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 also as a means to achieve political, economic, social, and technological progress. History demonstrates that nations embracing democracy tend to thrive, fostering stability and development, whereas those under dictatorship stagnate or deteriorate, often leading to disintegration and collapse, as exemplified by the current situation in Tigray and Ethiopia. Thus, democracy is a necessity, not a luxury.

The Role of Political Commitment in Contemporary Democracies

The early establishment of democratic frameworks by these nations occurred in a global context dominated by feudalism, fascism, and monarchy. If democracy could emerge under such circumstances, the contemporary context, where democracy is widely recognized as a global ideal, offers even greater opportunities for its implementation. Leaders in Tigray and Ethiopia face fewer systemic barriers today compared to the 17th or 18th centuries, yet their failure to establish democratic governance reflects a lack of political will rather than structural impossibility.

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 institutions in ensuring democratic progress. The gradual extension of suffrage and civil rights in these countries evolved naturally from the robust foundational frameworks laid at their inception. For those who can and are willing to learn, the current political paralysis in Tigray offers a stark and invaluable lesson: democracy is not a luxury but an indispensable tool for addressing political, social, and economic challenges.

Tigray and Ethiopia: The Need for Political Will

The challenges facing Tigray, including political instability and lack of governance, are significant but not insurmountable. The assertion that democracy cannot be fast-tracked risks becoming an excuse for inaction. The failure to establish robust institutions, enforce the rule of law, and create mechanisms for accountability is less about societal readiness and more about political leaders prioritizing their power over their people’s future. In the absence of political will, democracy becomes an unfulfilled promise.

Leaders in Tigray and Ethiopia have the advantage of drawing from global lessons on democratization. In a world where the principles of checks and balances, free elections, and human rights are well-established, the argument that democracy is a generational journey lacks validity. Almost everything we have failed to accomplish falls within the realm of “known knowns.” We have yet to reach a stage where we can innovate to explore the “known unknowns,” let alone begin addressing the “unknown unknowns” of our peoples’ collective aspirations. What is required is leadership that demonstrates courage, commitment, and a vision for the collective good, aligning with universally accepted standards and practices. Tigray and Ethiopia need to establish a foundational framework of democracy, not a mature one. It is not even on the right track, due to the absence of political 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 by familial dynasties with no vision for national interests. For example, consider the composition of top TPLF political leadership at one time in the past: Meles Zenawi and his wife Azeb Mesfin; Ambassador Tewelde and his wife Roman; Tsegay Berhe and his wife Kidisan Nega; Abay Woldu and his wife Tirfu; Gobezay and his wife Kiros; Abay Tsehaye and his former wife Monjorno. Arkebe’s wife was also the sister of another central committee member, Berhane G/Kristos. These familial networks functioned more like a patron-client system than a representative political body. This is only to mention family and blood ties, without discussing the narrow and backward network within TPLF based on provincialism and parochialism. The current illegal faction of the TPLF leadership is fighting to perpetuate this dynasty at any cost. This lack of inclusivity and the perpetuation of dynastic rule lie at the core of Tigray and Ethiopia’s democratization challenges. Instead of focusing on national progress, such leadership structures prioritized personal and familial interests over the collective aspirations of the people.

Further compounding this issue is the TPLF’s prioritization of Eritrea over Tigray’s interests. As noted by Asgede Gebre-Selassie, a founding member of the TPLF, the Sebhat dynasty has consistently aligned itself with ShaEbia (EPLF) rather than Tigray. Only to mention a few, the TPLF’s bylaws once required accepting Eritrean independence (it didn’t say the acceptance of the right to secession for any nation/nationality) as a membership criterion, a stipulation that undermined Tigray’s interests. Moreover, while leading Tigray’s struggle, Meles Zenawi 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 the Tigray genocide. This misplaced priority reflects a deep-seated issue within the TPLF that continues to hinder Tigray’s democratic development, leading to the crisis that we are in today.

Conclusion

Democracy requires time to mature but not to begin. The foundational framework of democracy is built through bold 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 prioritize systemic 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, and Botswana’s visionary founders made the deliberate choice to establish democratic frameworks and facilitate peaceful transitions of power, even in challenging contexts.

In the case of Tigray and Ethiopia, the failure to establish democracy stems not from societal unpreparedness but from a lack of political will and vision. To everyone’s recollection, the people of Tigray and Ethiopia have been fighting and sacrificing tremendously to bring about democracy and the rule of law, despite repeated betrayals by their leaders and the elite. The argument is that even though democracy is a process, in the context of Tigray and Ethiopia, it has not even started, and the trajectory is fundamentally flawed. No political will or visionary leadership is prioritizing the country’s future over personal ambitions. This is the crude reality. No justification, whatever form it may take, can obscure this truth. These historical lessons serve as a powerful reminder that democracy is not only possible but achievable when leaders act with courage, foresight, and a commitment to the well-being of their people. Tigray and Ethiopia stand at a crossroads; the right trajectory requires bold leadership that embraces the potential for swift and decisive democratization. Democracy demands action, 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 paralysis demonstrate that democratic governance is not merely desirable—it is essential. Democracy serves as the foundation for unifying a nation, fostering mutual understanding, and addressing critical challenges, including existential crises. Without democratic governance, misunderstandings and conflicts arise, leaving societies with illegitimate governments incapable of effectively addressing the pressing needs of their people. Democracy is not 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 cannot be used to justify that democracy is generational or requires prolonged societal learning. Rather, it highlights that 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 thereof among 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 process requiring generational evolution, we would not witness countries with similar economic potential and technological advancements, such as the United States and Russia, diverging so starkly in their democratic trajectories. This contrast underscores that democracy is a deliberate choice, shaped by leadership and political will, rather than an inevitable dialectical process.

References

1. Ambedkar, B. R. (1949). Constituent Assembly debates. New Delhi: Government of India Press. Retrieved from https://www.constitutionofindia.net/
2. Bill of Rights. (1689). Retrieved from https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/billofrights/
3. Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis. (2018). Botswana’s political history and governance. Retrieved from https://www.bidpa.bw
4. Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review. (2010). The Constitution of Kenya. Retrieved from https://www.kenyalaw.org:8181/exist/kenyalex/actview.xql?actid=Const2010
5. National Democratic Institute. (2022). Kenya’s democratic progress and challenges. Retrieved from https://www.ndi.org
6. Indian Constitution. (1950). Retrieved from https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india
7. Locke, J. (1689). Two treatises of government. London: Awnsham Churchill.
8. U.S. Constitution. (1787). Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution
9. Zakaria, F. (2024). Age of Revolutions: Progress and Backlash from 1600 to the Present. W. W. Norton & Company.