September 22, 2013
When
I wrote a commentary on the plight of the imprisoned 32-year old
Ethiopian journalist Reeyot Alemu last April, I titled it “
The Audacity of Evil in Ethiopia.”
At the time, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) had sent a
letter to the “Minister of Justice” of the ruling regime in Ethiopia
pleading medical care for Reeyot and urging them to spare her from a
threatened solitary confinement. In that commentary, I explained why I
was compelled to “stray from my professional fields of law and politics”
to moral philosophy.
In
this commentary, I am again compelled to indulge in philosophical
musings on the hubris of evil. I am prompted once again by a
statement of the Committee to Protect Journalists issued
last week protesting the decision by the ruling regime to impose severe
visitor restrictions on Reeyot. CPJ “called upon the Ethiopian
authorities to lift these latest restrictions and allow Reeyot Alemu to
receive all visitors… She is a journalist, not a criminal, and should
not be behind bars.”
Reeyot began a hunger strike to protest an
order by regime officials to pre-clear a list of her prison visitors.
“In retaliation for the hunger strike, authorities forbade her from
having any visitors excluding her parents and priest.” She was
subsequently told that “she could receive any visitors except for her
younger sister and her fiancé, journalist Sileshi Hagos [who had spoken
publicly about the visitor exclusion order]… Sileshi was detained for
four hours at the prison later that day when he attempted to visit
Reeyot.”
On a number of occasions, I have written about Reeyot’s
plight, courage and fearless advocacy of press independence and public
accountability in Ethiopia. In the last two years, she has become a
heroine of press freedom not only in Ethiopia and Africa but the world.
The prestigious international press awards she has received speak
volumes on her ferocious defense of press freedom in Ethiopia. Reeyot
was the recipient of the International Women’s Media Foundation 2012
Courage in Journalism Award for “her refusal to self-censor in a place
where that practice is standard, and her unwillingness to apologize for
truth-telling, even though contrition could win her freedom.” She
received the 2012 Hellman/Hammett award administered by Human Rights
Watch “in recognition of her efforts to promote free expression in
Ethiopia.” She also received the 2013 World Press Freedom Prize awarded
by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) for “exceptional courage, resistance and commitment to freedom
of expression”. She and co-political prisoner Eskinder Nega are two of
seven journalists and human rights activists nominated for the European
Parliament’s
2013 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.
Virtually
every major international human rights and press organization has come
to Reeyot’s defense since her arrest in 2011. Human Rights Watch
challenged the legal validity of the “terrorism” allegations against her
and noted that “the descriptions of the charges [against Reeyot] in the
initial charge sheet did not contain even the basic elements of the
crimes of which the defendants are accused….”Amnesty International
declared that “There is no evidence that [Reeyot and the other
independent journalists] are guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. We
believe that they are prisoners of conscience, prosecuted because of
their legitimate criticism of the government. They must be released
immediately and unconditionally.” PEN American Center “protested the
harsh punishment handed down to” Reeyot and fellow political prisoner
Woubshet Taye and demanded their “immediate and unconditional release.”
The International Women’s Media Foundation saw Reeyot’s “trial” as an
intimidation tactic against all independent women journalists: “The fact
that the Ethiopian Government pursues and persecutes courageous, brave
and professional women journalists does not bode well particularly for
young women who may be interested in journalism. As a result, women’s
voices (as reporters, editors, journalists, decision-making chambers)
are rarely heard and women’s issues are often relegated to secondary
position.” CPJ demanded, “Writing critical columns about the government
is not a criminal offense and is certainly not a terrorist act–Reeyot
should be released immediately.” Many other organizations including
Reporters Without Borders have expressed similar views and made demands
for her immediate release.
Hubris of evil
When I wrote about the
audacity of evil last April,
I was philosophically concerned about the evils of ordinary human
wickedness and bestial human behavior. I was concerned about gratuitous
evil (pointless evil from which no greater good can be derived)
committed by ordinary and sub-ordinary wicked people whose intellect is
corrupted and are bereft of moral discernment and judgment. Here I write
about the hubris of evil. In ancient Greece, hubris was the most
heinous of crimes. Aristotle described hubris as an abusive act intended
to shame and humiliate the victim, not because of anything the victim
has done or might do but merely for the gratification and pleasure of
the abuser. He wrote that the insolently hubristic “man thinks himself
greatly superior to others when ill-treating them. That is why youths
and rich men are insolent; they think themselves superior when they show
insolence” (Rhetoric 1378b).
Hubris is a malignancy of the heart
and depravity of the mind. The hubristically evil have two basic
characteristics. First, they believe they are untouchable and
accountable to no one. They have a sociopathic personality which
prevents them from maintaining a sense of moral responsibility or social
conscience. For them, there is no law to curtail their excesses because
they believe their words and acts are ipso facto law. Feeding
at the trough of moral nihilism (whatever they say is right or wrong),
they are driven by a deep psychological need to degrade, humiliate,
demean, brutalize and dehumanize their victims as a means to
self-respect and personal empowerment. When they degrade and humiliate
their defenseless and helpless victims, the derive a perverse pleasure
of omnipotence, superiority and self-affirmation. For the hubristically
evil, indifference is their modus vivendi (way of life) and cruelty
their modus operandi (way of doing things).
Second, the
hubristically evil are incapable of admitting wrong or accepting
responsibility for their wrongful actions. Rather, they take cover in a
perverted morality of blaming the victim. Instead of atoning for their
misdeeds and accepting responsibility, they demand that the very victims
they have humiliated, brutalized and abused get on their knees
apologize to them and beg forgiveness. They have the brazen audacity to
insist that their victims must take full responsibility for the abuse
they have received from their abusers.
The political sadism of the regime in Ethiopia
As
I seek to understand the hubris of the ruling regime in Ethiopia, I ask
some simple questions. Why do those in power in Ethiopia want to
torment and humiliate Reeyot (and the other political prisoners)? Isn’t a
14 year sentence enough punishment for a young woman who committed NO
crime? Is the regime punishing her with solitary confinement, visitor
restrictions, denial of medical care and subjecting her to daily
degradation and humiliation because of her defiance and outright refusal
to beg for a pardon to get out of prison? Do they take her defiance as
her ultimate expression of contempt and lack of fear of them? What do
they gain by locking her up in solitary confinement, an administrative
action reserved only for the most violent inmates in any prison in the
world? Does the regime resent Reeyot (and the other high profile
political prisoners) because she is a shining star of press freedom not
only for Ethiopia but also for women journalists in Africa, Latin
America and Asia?
Those who insist on tormenting Reeyot, Eskinder,
Woubshet and the other high profile political prisoners do so to force
them to make a public confession of guilt for their “crimes” and beg for
a pardon. The “pardon” trick was “invented” by the late honcho of the
regime. After warehousing dozens of opposition leaders who won the May
2005 parliamentary election, the late regime leader set up an “elders
committee” to facilitate a pardon process for them. To get out of
prison, the opposition leaders had to sign a confession (“a pardon
application”) which stated: “We, leaders of CUD, have accepted our
mistake committed following the election disagreement of May 2005 in
which we tried to change unconstitutionally various bodies of the
government. We will take the responsibility in person and in group for
these mistakes.” They signed the “confession” and were pardoned and
released!
In December 2008, the late regime leader railroaded
opposition leader Birtukan Midekssa, the first female political party
leader in Ethiopian history, to prison on the bogus charge that she had
“denied receiving a pardon”. After spending months in solitary
confinement and suffering humiliation and degradation for nearly two
years, Bitrukan “confessed” and “submitted a second application for
pardon” stating: “I express my deep regret for deceiving the Ethiopian
people and government by denying my release on pardon. Pledging not to
ever resort to such fraudulent and deceptive acts I beg the Ethiopian
people and government to grant me pardon.” She was “pardoned” in October
2010 and released!
In October 2011, Swedish journalists Johan
Persson and Martin Schibbye were sentenced to eleven years as
“terrorists”. At the time,
I predicted that soon enough the late leader “will
grandstand and declare the two journalists have been pardoned and
released after they admitted guilt, expressed remorse and so on.” In
September 2012, the two journalists were released after they submitted
an “application for pardon”. The regime put the two journalists on
regime-owned television and forced them to confess that they “regretted
entering the country with armed separatists of the Ogaden National
Liberation Front (ONLF) and without documentation.”
This
is perhaps one of the most difficult questions a parent can face. As
any one of us who are parents would readily admit, there is an innate
biological chord that attaches us to our kids. We wish nothing but the
best for them. We try as much as humanly possible to keep them from
harm…. Whether or not to beg for clemency is her right and her decision.
I would honor and respect whatever decision she makes… To answer your
specific question regarding my position on the issue by the fact of
being her father, I would rather have her not plead for clemency, for
she has not committed any crime.
The same goes for Eskinder Nega and Woubshet Taye. They have done nothing wrong so they shall ask for no pardon!
On
another level, I also believe that the regime leaders deeply resent
Reeyot, Eskinder, Woubshet and the other high profile political
prisoners for the international attention and support they have been
able to command. In many ways, these “bothersome” journalists have
created a public relations nightmare for the regime. As I understand,
many of the regime leaders believe these journalists have not only
discredited them internationally but also taken the international
recognition they feel they deserve.
In a comedic way, the regime
leaders in Ethiopia remind me of the American comedian and actor, Rodney
Dangerfield, known for the catchphrase “I don’t get no respect!”
Regardless of what they do, they “don’t get no respect.” They sought
world recognition for their single minded determination to build the
“largest dam in Africa”, the so-called Renaissance Dam. That fantasy dam
has become a potential
casus belli (war justification) for Egypt.
I called it dam of the damned.
The regime trumpeted its 11 percent annual economic growth for the past
decade, a canard mindlessly bandied about by many of the world’s
respected news organizations and even U.S. Secretary of State John
Kerry. I totally debunked that bold-faced lie in my commentary “
Kerry-ing on With African Dictators”.
For two decades, the regime proclaimed a warped doctrine of ethnic
federalism as a political panacea for Ethiopia, but it was shown to
be nothing more than a kinder and gentler form of Bantustans (kilils) under Apartheid South Africa.
The regime and its late honcho sought domestic and international
respectability for their “historic” and “monumental” achievements.
Regardless of what they did or said, like Rodney Dangerfield, they just
“don’t get no respect.”
A win-win proposal for the release of Reeyot, Eskinder, Woubshet and other political prisoners
I believe there is a legal way out of the “pardon” dilemma. Let’s be perfectly honest! We all know what the problem is: The regime needs to save face
for imprisoning Reeyot, Eskinder, Woubshet and the other political
prisoners without just cause. Their signature way of saving face —
namely having the victims confess their guilt in public and apply for a
pardon — is not a workable political solution with these young
journalists. But a legal solution is what is needed; and the dispositive
question is whether the approval of Reeyot, Eskinder, Woubshet and the
other political prisoners is a necessary legal precondition for
granting them pardon. It is not!
The regime can legally pardon the imprisoned journalists and others
suo motu (a fancy legal word which means an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party). Article 11 of
Proclamation No. 395/2004 (“A Proclamation to Provide for the Procedure of Granting Pardon”)
provides, “The main purpose of granting pardon is to ensure the welfare
and interest of the public.” Article 12 provides that “… the Ministry
of Justice and the Federal prison commission may apply for pardon for
persons entitled to it. Where the offices (sic) decides to apply for
pardon, it shall deliver a copy of the application letter to the person
in whose favour it is to be made.” The “person in whose favour a
petition for pardon has been submitted pursuant to Sub-Article 2 of this
Article declines it, he shall notify, the same to the Board in writing
within fifteen consecutive working days.” Unless the prospective
recipient of a pardon expressly refuses the pardon, “the acceptance of
the pardon shall be presumed.”
Simply stated, the regime can
declare that it has granted pardon and released Reeyot, Eskinder,
Woubshet and the other political prisoners “to ensure the welfare and
interest of the public” and in proper exercise of its prerogative under
the Proclamation. I cannot imagine any reasonable person challenging or
criticizing the regime for exercising its discretionary legal pardon
authority on its own. The simple fact is that the regime does not need
the request or approval of Reeyot, Eskinder, Woubshet and the other
political prisoners to grant them pardon. The regim can simply issue the
pardon and tell them they are free to go. No “muss, no fuss”!
My
own studies of pardon powers in other societies have led me to the
conclusion that pardon is a prerogative of mercy exercised by state
authorities to mitigate the severity of the law. It is a discretionary
power that can be exercised at any time to temper retribution with
mercy, correct a miscarriage of justice or reconcile the ends of
justice with compelling social and political needs. U.S. presidents have
granted amnesties after the Civil War to the Southern rebels and to
those who avoided the draft during the Vietnam War. President Bill
Clinton granted pardon to Patricia Hearst who committed
horrendous “terrorist acts” as a member of the Symbionese Liberation
Army.
I harbor no illusions that the regime will pay any attention
to my “win-win” proposal for the release of Reeyot, Eskinder, Woubshet
and the other political prisoners. How could they possibly even consider
a proposal from their severest and most relentless critic? They will no
doubt dismiss anything I have to say because they probably believe I am
proposing it to make them look bad or inflexible or show them to be
obdurate. But this is not about my personal feelings or attitudes
towards them or their governance style. It is all about their own pardon law and what they can do legally, immune from criticism or condemnation by anyone.
All
I am proposing is use of the regime’s own pardon law to face a critical
human rights problem in such a way that they will not lose face or face
criticism; and in fact by courageously facing the issue, they can gain
universal approbation and admiration. The power of “pardon” is not in
the hands of Reeyot, Eskinder, Woubshet and the other political
prisoners. It is totally in the hands of the regime; and it can be
exercised at will and at any time. Why not right a wrong when one has
the unquestioned legal power to right a wrong and do the right thing?
“I believe that I must contribute something to bring a better future in Ethiopia.” Reeyot Alemu
