Tag Archives authoritarian

Silencing Minds, Starving Bodies: Authoritarian Epistemicide in Ethiopia  

By Posted on 1897 views

In this blog, Siyum Adugna Mamo and Ayehu Bacha Teso look at political developments within Ethiopia in the last decade, and their effects on freedom of academic work and thought as well as on material conditions within the country. They find that by deliberately weakening intellectuals both morally and economically, forcing them into dire living conditions, and suppressing dissenting voices, the authoritarian regime in Ethiopia has engaged in epistemicide. This has demoralized intellectuals, stifled knowledge production, and eroded the coming generation’s hope for learning.

Flag of Ethiopia: Source WikiCommons

The regime that came to power in Ethiopia in 2018, led by the Prosperity Party of Prime Minister (PM) Abiy Ahmed, didn’t take long before it turned authoritarian. Persecuting dissenting views, jailing journalists, members of parliament, and intellectuals critical of the regime quickly became the new normal in Ethiopia. Whilst civil servants in the country have also faced unprecedented challenges following the transition to the current government, this paper focuses on the challenges faced by intellectuals — academic and research staff, in public Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Using the concept of  epistemicide to refer to violence against knowledge and the intellectuals that produce it in the context of Ethiopia, this blog considers  how the Ethiopian government has engaged in ‘epistemicide’. By deliberately subjecting the country’s intellectuals to  dire living conditions to weaken them both morally and economically, the regime has not only heavily damaged current intellectual conditions within the country, but also eroded the hope for the pursuit of knowledge among  future generations.

 

From thought leaders to outcasts: the marginalization of intellectuals

Since 2018, the Ethiopian government has expressed hostility toward intellectuals and has deliberately distanced them from the political arena. The aim is seemingly to weaken the opposition base by weakening the intellectuals morally and economically in the country. Several government policies have driven intellectuals into dire living conditions with meagre monthly salaries that barely cover their basic needs, the regime has successfully weakened them economically. It has also worked to demoralize intellectuals by alienating them from the nation and framing them as instigators of violent incidents and crises in the country. This deliberate effort aims to render intellectuals powerless and unrecognized by society at large. This has been carried out in tandem with silencing dissenting voices—including imprisoning academics, journalists, political activists, members of parliament, and opposition political party members critical of its policies.

 

From Lecture Halls to Breadlines: Ethiopian academics now earn less than casual workers 

Intellectuals are being forced into dire living conditions where they cannot cover their basic needs with their monthly wage. A full professor earns a gross monthly salary of $ 158, an associate professor earns $ 146, an assistant professor receives $ 134, and a lecturer receives $ 94 in gross monthly salary (see the graph below). This amount is significantly lower than the income of casual and low-skilled workers, for example a shoeshine who polishes shoes on the streets of Addis Ababa. The monthly salaries of academic staff in HEIs are almost negligible in a country where the cost of living is soaring, and inflation is skyrocketing.

Professors, who spend years and years reaching the highest level of the intellectual ladder, earns a salary that cannot even cover their basic monthly expenses. Such unfair treatment is demoralizing for intellectuals, making it difficult not only to feed themselves but also to support their families. It also discourages them from maintaining motivation for their work, ultimately stifling innovation and knowledge production. This is reflected in the regime’s deliberate efforts to impoverish the educated elites in the country. This economic suffocation of intellectuals is a calculated move. When brilliant minds are forced to focus on mere survival—scrambling to put food on the table or looking for other options—they cannot contribute to the nation’s intellectual or political development.

 

Graph 1. gross monthly salary of the academic staffs in HEIs in Ethiopia (based on google conversion rate, May 23, 2025). The net monthly salary will be a 35% reduction of the figure due to wage taxes.

At the same time as academic staff at traditional HEI’s in Ethiopia suffer there is a growing trend of plagiarism and acquiring illegitimate degrees largely by the cadres of the regime. This extends from low level administrators  who easily buy certificates to the PM who has been heavily criticized for plagiarizing a significant portion his PhD dissertation.

Eroding the hopes of the coming generation

With such a system that actively works to weaken the intellectuals both morally and economically, the coming generation are likely to grow up hopeless about learning and knowledge. Witnessing the struggle of intellectuals who are unable to cover their basic needs, it is likely that a career as an academic will become less and less attractive to young people and graduates: even senior Professors are now unable to feed themselves, support their families, or pay for their children’s school fees. How can young people develop a commitment to learning when their teachers, many with advanced degrees,  are starving, unable to change their clothes, and unable to pay rent and sleeping in their offices? Schools and universities, once seen as gateways to opportunity, are now viewed with skepticism and despair. The regime is undermining innovation and the drive to produce knowledge not only among its current intellectuals but also within future generations eroding their hope for learning. This has severe implications for the country’s socio-economic and political development.

A picture showing a Wollo University staff, who is also a PhD candidate at Addis Ababa University in Ethiopia, begging on the street of Addis Ababa.

Conclusion

The fight against epistemicide and anti-intellectualism in Ethiopia is not just a fight for intellectuals; it is a fight for the soul of the nation. It is a fight to reclaim the hope of future generations, to restore the value of knowledge, and to ensure that critical thinking and innovation can flourish once again. The regime in Ethiopia has engaged in deliberate epistemicide, weakening intellectuals both morally and economically, and placing them in dire living conditions. This reality underscores the importance of advocating for change by pushing the regime to value knowledge, restore the livelihoods of intellectuals, and rekindle hope for future generations. Both intellectuals and the knowledge they produce are not only crucial for the country’s development but also essential in shaping the future of upcoming generations. A movement is therefore necessary to compel the regime to grant intellectuals and their knowledge a proper social standing. Both intellectuals and the knowledge they produce are not only crucial for the country’s development but also essential in shaping the future of the coming generations.

 

Opinions expressed in Bliss posts reflect solely the views of the author of the post in question.

About the Authors

Siyum Adugna Mamo

Siyum Adugna Mamo is a PhD fellow joining the Conflict Research Group at Ghent University in Belgium, and an academic staff at Jimma University, Ethiopia. He has a master’s degree in Development Studies (specializing in Conflict and Peace Studies) from the ISS, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Hague, The Netherlands; and another master’s in Philosophy from Addis Ababa University.

Ayehu Bacha Teso

Ayehu Bacha Teso is a PhD fellow at Ghent University, Belgium, affiliated with the Conflict Research Group. His research focuses on urbanization and ethnic contestations in Ethiopia. He is an academic staff member at Jimma University, Ethiopia, and holds a master’s degree in cultural studies.

 

Are you looking for more content about Global Development and Social Justice? Subscribe to Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies, and stay updated about interesting topics our researchers are working on.

COVID-19 | Another top priority in times of crisis: keep democratic life up and running by Isabelle Desportes

By Posted on 3686 views

The coronavirus crisis seems to have reduced societal functioning to the bare minimum as an increasing number of governments have limited freedom of movement in an attempt to halt the spread of the virus. The introduction of several such authoritative measures needs to be counterbalanced by active citizens who continue to uphold democratic life and question these measures themselves, argues Isabelle Desportes, who studies how humanitarian emergencies are handled in settings where this is not the case. ‘Authoritarian dangers’ are not only a concern for far-away countries long labelled as ‘hopeless pariah states’, as European attempts are showing us these very days.

It is inherent to times of crises: many decisions and emergency legislative mechanisms will be enforced in countries all over the world these coming days and weeks. While such centralistic measures are often necessary, they also bear the risk of infringing on an effective and socially just handling of the pandemic now, and will shape our societies on the long term.

My research on disaster responses in Myanmar, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe showed that while responses to the disasters (a flood in 2015 in Myanmar and crippling drought in 2016 in Ethiopia and Zimbabwe) were mostly coordinated and efficient, the political contexts in which the disaster occurred meant that discussions on disaster preparedness and the modalities of relief were ignored. Important dynamics were observed for the three contexts: as the disasters destroyed homes, disrupted livelihoods and uprooted communities, their intense impacts had to be handled in the midst of ongoing marginalization of certain population groups at the hands of other groups and/or the state. Disaster responders were highly mobilized, but with little space to openly debate the modalities of relief, to have full insight into the extent of needs, and to raise concerns.

Following the disasters, a number of longer-term changes could be observed, according to the 271 disasters responders that I interviewed and who were active in organizations ranging from community groups to United Nations bodies:

  1. The already marginalized were impacted most strongly by the disasters, being the most vulnerable to start with (with limited coping capacities and safety nets, fewer rights, a lack of voice and bargaining power);
  2. Disaster responses were not always carried out in the common interest of societies at large and in accordance with humanitarian principles, but could serve as a conduit for violence, and to further enforce the interests of a few[i];
  3. This was mostly achieved not via bold announcements and clear restrictions, but through everyday acts. This includes how data is collected, analysed and shared as part of disaster needs assessments, or which seemingly bureaucratic conditions are tied to response mechanisms. The manner in which certain topics are routinely framed in public discourse also bears importance. When certain issues are not discussed transparently or not discussed at all, they cannot be taken care of[ii].

Myanmar seems to have embarked on a dubious handling of the coronavirus crisis already, denying cases of COVID-19 infections so far. But, crucially, the above described is not only a matter of concern for faraway countries long labelled as ‘hopeless pariah states’. In a 2019 article, political scientist Marlies Glasius highlights how authoritarianism applies not to entire regimes in an ‘all or nothing’ fashion, but to patterns of action that sabotage accountability between the people and their political representatives “by means of secrecy, disinformation and disabling voice”. Such practices can be applied everywhere, including in democratic settings.

The risk of this happening is especially high in situations of crisis, which, quite rightly so, call for urgent and extraordinary measures. Political leaders from France to Spain recently proclaimed that they were ‘waging wars’—rhetoric that bears the risk of stifling criticism and pluralistic views in the name of ‘national unity and security’. In academic jargon, such moves are termed ‘securitization’[iii]. In Israel, the transitional government just pushed through the use of mass surveillance techniques on civilians to ‘monitor the virus’. This move is not approved nor overseen by the Knesset, to the dismay of many lawyers and human rights organizations. The Hungarian parliament might have to enter a phase of imposed hibernation, and journalists could be fined for propagating ‘fake news’. In several European countries, governments are currently negotiating with telecommunication companies to track population movements. One of the advanced arguments? ‘This was effective in China’. Yet, these privacy-invading practices can also be difficult to unwind, and can set precedents.

A key democratic concern is not only how decisions are taken, but also whether they are taken in the common interest of societies at large. Our political representatives, the media, but also every one of us have a crucial role to play in this. Social and environmental issues must be kept central, not only serve as adjustment variables to the economic or political interests of a few. To take one example even closer to home: in the Netherlands, the government is currently likely to financially support airline company KLM, which would quickly go back to launching its climate-destroying 500,000 flights a year. If such an action really is in the collective long-term interest in our times of climate breakdown deserves to be discussed.

So yes: stay home, wash your hands. But also, depending on your possibilities and preferences, and picking your fights such as to not enter into senseless clicktivism: keep our democracies alive and ensure that institutions are held accountable for the decisions they take now. This crisis can be a political turning point, and it is for all of us to make that future a desirable one.

Follow parliamentary debates and news on government decisions, interact with your political representatives, check whether political and technical institutions act in line with their mandates, keep informed about social realities different from your own, send in reader letters and challenge the media to relay these different social realities and issues, financially support independent media and civil society advocacy groups, join ‘online demonstrations’ (see for instance the alternatives proposed for the Belgian march against racism last weekend), keep mobilized within your party, union or civil society collectives, or even create your own.  And any other basic to creative means you might come up with, and would like to share in the comments?

[i] In Myanmar for instance, the government has long aimed to homogenise its multi-ethnic and religious peoples into a unified Buddhist and Bamar entity. During the response to 2015 cyclone Komen, state aid was biased against religious and ethnic minority groups, and self-help and non-state aid initiatives to help those groups were grossly hampered. Muslim communities were forcibly relocated in military vehicles following the floods, state aid was distributed from monasteries not accessible to non-Buddhist groups, and the Rohingya minority was framed in public discourse as not worthy of support.
[ii] This is linked to self-censorship practices, which I discussed with colleague Roanne van Voorst in another blog.
[iii] The term is generally associated with the Copenhagen School.

This article is part of a series about the coronavirus crisis. Find more articles of this series here.

IsabelleAbout the author:

Isabelle Desportes is a PhD researcher involved in the research project ”When disaster meets conflict” at the ISS.

 

 

Confronting authoritarian populism: building collaborations for emancipatory rural resistance by Sergio Coronado

By Posted on 2517 views

Authoritarian populism is increasingly resisted across the world. Such contestations and expressions of resistance against oppressive authoritarian regimes are being understood as emancipatory rural politics. The Emancipatory Rural Politics Initiative (ERPI) through a conference hosted by ISS on 17 and 18 March 2018 sought to explore the dynamics of authoritarian populism and pathways of resistance.

 

The ERPI Conference: A meeting place for activists

The phrase ‘a new political momentum is underway’1 was embodied on 17 and 18 March 2018 when more than 250 scholars, activists, practitioners, and policymakers representing more than 60 countries gathered at the International Institute of Social Studies to discuss the rise and effects of authoritarian populism at the ERPI’s ‘Authoritarian Populism and the Rural World’ conference.

Authoritarian populism is a contested and highly debated concept. In a recent blog by Ian Scoones, it is described as follows: ‘In Gramscian terms, authoritarian populisms can emerge when the “balance of forces” changes, creating a new “political-ideological conjuncture”. Drawing on populist discontents, a transformist, authoritarian movement, often with a strong, figurehead leader, is launched, mobilising around “moral panics” and “authoritarian closure”, and being given, in Hall’s words, “the gloss of populist consent”.’

On the surface, it seems that academics, practitioners, and the media use this concept to broadly describe political circumstances within different countries. One of the primary expectations of the conference was to capture the attention of a wider community of scholars and activists to promote a collective reflection about the ongoing political momentum surrounding this topic, and mainly to figure out whether the proposed definition of authoritarian populism is useful to understand what is happening.

At least three academic debates captured the attention of the participants of the conference. First, some conference participants critiqued the use of the notion of authoritarian populism to describe the uprising of conservative politicians after the crisis induced by the undelivered promises of neoliberal governments. Trump, Duterte and other populists are seizing political power in their countries partly because of the failure of neoliberal regimes to successfully transform poverty and to deliver the fulfilment of social and economic rights for the vast majority of poor classes.

Second, the debates focused on the use of this concept to generalise uneven and even contradictory situations, particularly concerning matching, yet different kinds of political regimes regardless of their political orientation. Notably, in the Latin American context, there could be an apparent coexistence of left-wing and right-wing populist regimes with different goals and political dynamics that prevent them from being comparable in these specific terms.

Third, the debates reflected on the accuracy of the concept to understand the current political phenomenon. For instance, some argued that the conceptualisation of authoritarian populism by Stuart Hall is more nuanced and specific than that by the authors of the ERPI framing paper, but they argue that Hall’s definition does not necessarily inform the complex dynamics of the current rural world.

IMG_2903.JPG

The result of the conference was an endowment of the debate around this concept. Authoritarian populism has been challenged by scholars, activists, and scholar-activists participating in the conference. Different critiques of this mode of governance have enriched understandings of the concept in multiple, innovative and exciting ways. During the conference’s first working groups session, participants discussed the realities of authoritarian populism via the cases and contexts described in the 70+ conference working papers.

Despite the lack of consensus on the concept, significant commonalities were found: even though the contexts of countries such as Indonesia, Brazil and Turkey differ significantly, authoritarian modes of governance are recognisable in all of these contexts: the shift toward nationalism; the existence of iron-fist leaders concentrating political power; the legitimation of repressive policies by appealing to the presence of external threats; and increasing human rights violations committed against people demanding democracy. Therefore, although these are clearly different situations, the existence of standard features helps illuminate common ground for comparing, understanding and confronting this problematic.

Making alternative rural politics visible

Alternatives to authoritarian populism are also visible in the rural world. One of the most important political forces confronting the rise of conservative populism is agrarian social movements such as La Via Campesina—a paradox, because populists seek social legitimation by appealing to traditions deeply rooted in the countryside. This contradiction vividly illuminates how rapidly the rural world is transforming, not only because of the enlargement of large-scale capitalist agriculture and the dispossession of the rural poor, but also because of the emergence of alternatives to such developments, constructed by rural people and social movements.

In her recent blog on Open Democracy, Ruth Hall describes how in South Africa rural social movements, like the Alliance for Rural Democracy, are contesting the state, market and chiefly power through claims for the protection of communal rights over land. Particularly, such movements focus on the demands for the democratisation of customs that currently enable chiefs to subscribe to prejudicial agreements with private investors, affecting the rights to land of people that depend on its access for their subsistence.

Such contestations and expressions of resistance against oppressive authoritarian regimes are being understood as emancipatory rural politics. This conference explicitly aimed to bring together academics and activists, and discuss ways in which emerging emancipatory politics can be supported. However, a huge challenge remains of providing security to the people on the front lines of such struggles. A shocking amount of violence is exerted against movement leaders, and threats against their lives are increasing globally. Social movements have constructed innovative strategies for self-protection.

A way to promote and support alternatives to the effects of authoritarian populism on people living in the countryside is through facilitating a deeper understanding of the phenomenon and clarifying the nuances between different regions and countries. Resistance towards authoritarian populism has multiple expressions; although social mobilisation is the most prominent, other kinds of political activities are taking place everywhere.

IMG_2905.JPG

“Sin fiesta no hay revolución”

“Sin fiesta no hay revolución”: without a party, there is no revolution. After the conference, the ERPI collective aims to continue growing as an expanded community of activists and scholars, aiming to construct critical understandings of authoritarian populism and to critically engage with emancipatory politics emerging in the rural world. Artists like Boy Dominguez and Rakata Teatro are now part of this process of the enlargement of the ERPI community and show how to diversify ways of expressing resistance.

We hope to take this initiative even further: follow us on Twitter @TheErpi, and Facebook to become involved and stay updated.

 

1This expression opens the Emancipatory Rural Politics Initiative (ERPI) framing paper, published almost one year ago in the Journal of Peasant Studies. The article aims to raise awareness among a global community of academics and activists working in the rural world about the rise of populist politics around the globe and the agrarian origins and the impacts of these politics on rural lives.
Main picture: Populismo by Boy Dominguez, launched at the ERPI conference.

Also see: Confronting authoritarian populism: challenges for agrarian studies by Ian Scoones

IMG_0160 2About the author:

Sergio Coronado is a PhD researcher affiliated with both the Free University Berlin and the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS). Currently, he is writing his dissertation on peasant agency and institutional change in Colombia, and co-coordinates the Emancipatory Rural Politics Initiative (ERPI) secretariat. Email: sergio.coronado@fu-berlin.de.