It is difficult to imagine the survival of policies initiated by the ambitious but intolerant leader without his leadership
Ethiopia's state TV broke the news of the death of prime minister Meles Zenawi on Monday night. For weeks, little had been known not only of his health, but also of his whereabouts. Within a few hours world leaders publicly mourned the loss of a figure praised for his diplomatic skills and ability to mediate between competing interests in the region. For the African Union, headquartered in Addis Ababa, "the death of Prime Minister Meles has robbed Africa of one of its greatest sons".
Most articles in the international media strived to strike a difficult balance: on one hand, the notable skills of a premier who brought double-digit growth to one of the poorest countries on the continent, and on the other, a brutal ruler who ordered police and soldiers to fire on protesters in the aftermath of the contested 2005 elections.
Social media have, however, offered a more complex picture, signalling the problematic legacy of a figure who took Ethiopia in unprecedented directions – for instance, he recognised ethnic diversity as a building block of the nation while most post-colonial African states attempted to overcome it. But by doing so, he also polarised the political debate among his supporters and adversaries. On Facebook, the words "dictator", "saviour", "murderer" and "visionary" were blending on many a post reflecting on his death.
These mixed reactions indicate that Africa has lost one of its most notable contemporary ideologues. After the end of the cold war many African leaders progressively adhered, at least nominally, to a technocratic approach to governance and relinquished any ideologically charged language. On the contrary, during his 21 years in office, Meles continued to actively elaborate concepts negotiating his Marxist-Leninist training with a pragmatic approach to democracy, which the international community was advocating.
And while Meles has been hailed as an ally of the west in the volatile Horn of Africa, he leveraged the geopolitical weight obtained by providing a base to fight terrorism in the region to undertake paths that, at policy level, openly challenged the western doctrine. In recent years, he often claimed that the neo-liberal model of development had failed, and that a paradigm shift was needed. He expanded the role of the state when donors were asking to reduce it, and turned new media into supports for his centrally controlled state and nation-building project, against those who emphasised their importance as vehicles to promote open and unfettered debates.
This ideologue image progressively obtained a life of its own. Numerous texts officially published by the party were considered to be his, and he was believed to occasionally enjoy participating in "doctrinal" debates online under a pseudonym. A 51-page document Meles published as part of a conversation with development economists such as Joseph Stiglitz became a rallying point for academics and policymakers alike. Many African leaders looked up to Meles because, despite his young age – he died at 57 – he showed the traits that characterised key post-independence leaders, such as the willingness and ability to theorise and defend a path towards development that was distinctive for Africa. As a Ghanaian diplomat once told me, referring to a quarrel between Meles and Eritrea's president, Isaias Afewerki, during an African Union meeting, it was impressive how Meles was able to hold his ground during a doctrinal debate, while all the rest of the assembly was quietly listening.
Meles's role as an ideologue, however, came at a cost for the Ethiopian people. First, it made him uninterested and intolerant towards most forms of critique of his policies. Despite having a government that initially created a space for a free press, it consistently avoided engaging with the debates it had allowed to flourish. After 2005, this lack of engagement turned into active suppression, with many journalists imprisoned and access to opposition blogs blocked. Second, Meles's drive to implement his ambitious vision turned into a need to secure political hegemony for an extended period of time. The process of transforming Ethiopia into an ethnic federation through trial and errors led the political leadership to maintain control often through violence and repression.
Meles's passing leaves the country at a crossroads. Ethiopia's spokespeople have said that the new prime minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, will continue along the path ploughed by his predecessor. But it is difficult to imagine Meles's policies being brought to life without the ideological drive he was able to lead with. Such measures could facilitate an "opening of political space" as advocated by Human Rights Watch, but it could also lead to the crumbling of a project requiring strong leadership in the absence of a viable replacement.