While urging civility, there are things we need to watch
(A response to “Minteyzo Guzo…”)
By Getachew Reda (San Jose, CA)
Sept 8, 2004

---

Before expressing my views against Asegedech Mekonnen’s Min Teyzo Guzo…, let me say that I am very disappointed what I read in an Amharic news report posted on ENH, regarding the opposition’s decision to share power with the “mercenaries in power”. If the report turns out true, my support to the opposition stops right then.

The reason for my disappointment is also on par with the comments by the author of Min Teyzo Guzo, who two years ago on the Ethiopian Internet Forum known as EEDN, had said “the opposition must be naïve to take power if the opposition is demanding power without sharing power with the ruling party EPRDF”. As soon as I read her comment, I posted my rejection on EEDN, stressing Asegedech’s comments are discouraging and the opposition parties’ goal must focus on removing the regime. Now it seems Asegedech has proven right, and I say congratulations to her (if still the story is proved true).

In her recent Min Teyzo Guzo comment, Asegedech has used phrases like “shiftnet-mentality, zeraf-mentality,” a reference to any group that is bent on regime change by peaceful means and otherwise. I’d like to remind readers that ‘shiftnet’ is related to banditry, and how is a group whose sole aim is to win a political power through armed struggle to be derided as ‘shifta’? Were all these armed groups who were struggling to overthrow the Derg shifta? Was their occupation to intimidate and steal from peasants, and run from the law all their life as fugitives? Where did Asegedech get this ‘new wisdom’? Or it is a new strategy of defending the regime in Addis Ababa?

The history of change teaches us there are two major classes of struggle: The Mahatma Ghandi’s Peaceful Doctrine and those who mix peaceful and violent means of struggle – like the Malcolm Doctrine. Though they may bear different names, different struggles in our country have also been waged in either form of struggle. Then why is it now a ‘naive’ idea when it comes to parties that realized the ruling party is faking democracy or elections, and would not step down by peaceful means? Clearly, a non-peaceful struggle is employed as a last resort when the ruling regime denies the people’s call for a change by peaceful means.

The author of Mintezzo Guzo (continuing the dialogue on the 2005 elections) in her recent commentary on Ethiomedia urges Ethiopian discussants and commentators to push UEDF to open a constructive dialogue with EPRDF, and show ‘civility to each other.’ The author warns UEDF to be cautious of those of us with ‘zeraf-mentality,’ calling us groups who want to achieve short-term benefits than long-term interests of the country, groups who would like to boycott the 2005 elections, groups who promote armed struggle against EPRDF.

The regime in Ethiopia is not only tyrannical. It is worse than that. It is a “wolf in a sheep skin;” in other words, it is ‘mercenary.’ To open a dialog with a mercenary, there should be preconditions that should be met by the mercenary. Such as all political prisoners must be released, those who disappeared in the hands of the security forces of the regime must be accounted for, and above all, assurances should be made in the presence of international or national observers that the law would be respected whenever opposition parties try to promote their programs in the country. Without the realization of these and other instruments of change, jumping into the “elections” would only work toward the interest of the regime which has never tired of telling the international community that it is democratically elected from an election where several opposition parties took part. If the last election has to remind us of any lesson, it is just how the regime which used violence to intimidate the electorate to vote for EPRDF, used the “elections” as a means to promote its life for five more years. What guarantee do we have now that the same mistake on our part is not repeated?

When are we to press the regime to correct its mistakes if not today when the international community is petitioning letters to the Prime Minister to take a series of corrective measures toward a democratic governance. Just recently, member of the Californian Democrat Congress, the Honorable Michael Honda and a dozen members of Congress urged Meles Zenawi to ease the repression against the private press. Of course, nothing has changed so far. In fact, for the press, things have rolled back to square one: censorship! We have to ask and examine ourselves seriously with whom we are dealing?

The second avenue of struggle (part of the first strategy but still another second tactical choice) is the following “while still showing interest for peaceful dialogue and to participate in the upcoming election” there are still groups such as Arduf, Gambella, Kunama and many other Ethiopian rebel groups who are fighting by “all means necessary” because they had no choice but to rise in arms to defend basic human rights?

I think there is a serious drawback on those who knowingly or unknowingly propagate as “shiftnet” the cut-throat struggle of the Afars (ARDUF) and others (unnecessary to mention them here), are forced to go the bitter way. Groups such as Arduf are Ethiopians whose demand is that their Ethiopian identity be respected. Unlike secessionist Eritrea for whom the TPLF sacrificed so many lives, groups like Arduf are fighting because they could not accept Meles Zenawi’s order that they break away as Eritreans. Such groups do have any little room to maneuver on a peaceful agenda with the regime. That is why the regime is silently targetting the Afars and others militarily. How is such struggle for national identity and respect being referred to as “shiftnet”? Can anyone but a Meles cadre have the audacity to call these people for fighting against a Banda?

As to Asegedech’s civility, well, civility prevails when the rule of law prevail. Civility within the opposition is not a problem. I don’t know if it is news to Asegedech, but the so-called prime minister is nationally seen with contempt when it comes to civility. How many times have Ethiopians dropped their jaws whenever the prime minister went on TV and threw up obscenities? Many Ethiopian commentators have expressed their disgust in clear Amharic as to Meles’ vulgar language: “Ke-And Meri YemayTebek AsNeWaRi Ena TseYaF Kalatoch…” As far as civility is concerned, let Asegedech worry how to heal the incurable disease of the “leader” than to lecture on the moral side of the opposition.

In the end, I’d like to remind Asegedech about two things: let those who believe in peaceful change conduct their programs in whatever they believe is workable, doable or functional. As Asegedech has the right to express her views, she has also the duty to respect the right of others who are struggling to bring change for the better by any means possible, as long as the end justifies the Ethiopian people’s genuine quest for peace and justice, democracy and social development!