However, I happen to be very
optimistic about the potential and will power of our youth of today to live up to its history and
surpass most expectations. For some of us who are old enough to recall the state of our youth as
late as only a year or two prior to the 1974 revolution, we know how, with the right leadership
and inspiration, selfless, dedicated and determined a young generation can become in short order
when the time is right. And from all indicators, this is one of those times.
The on-going popular uprisings in North Africa and the greater Middle-East have inspired and
will continue to inspire all subjugated and oppressed people everywhere and will encourage them
to seek change through unified peaceful struggle. However, despite similarities in demography,
the dictatorial nature of the governments, the grievances of the populations emanating from
deprivation and untold suffering, total rejection of the status quo by the ruled and the prevalence
of a fertile and conducive overall environment for change, etc., objective realities and situations
particular to each country will determine the instigation, success and fruition of any popular
uprising. North Koreans, Zimbabweans, Iranians, Burmese, etc. continue to suffer under
dictatorships not because they do not want to be free or are less courageous. The people in these
countries will not be exceptions and remain under dictatorial rules forever. Neither will they be
expected to rise up tomorrow.
This Arab Youth phenomenon has changed the world in more than one ways. Although some
had to tiptoe and had shown reluctance to quickly and unequivocally embrace the change the
people of the region have sought and so heroically fought for, world powers are now compelled
to side with the people, and have started to send strong signals to dictators everywhere. The UN
Security Council’s unanimous decision to freeze the assets of Libyan dictator Gadaffi, his family
and close associates is quite a significant and encouraging move. Whether people rise up today or
tomorrow, bloody dictators who oppress their people and suck the wealth of their nations now
have twice to think about their actions. They may have nowhere to hide or no chance to use the
loot they so greedily have snatched from the mouths of their starving populations.
Nonetheless, some quarters argue that, because Ethiopians were able to undo the regimes of
Atse Haile-Selassie and Colonel Mengistu, young Ethiopians of today can also do the same.
There is no question that they can, and the Ethiopian youths now, at least on the individual level,
are no less aggrieved, less courageous or have less aspirations and ambitions. But, the counter
argument by many in the democratic and unity circles is that, as we all know, and as it stands
now, Ethiopia today, in many respects, is not that of the 1974. There are hurdles that require
closer scrutiny and other factors that need to be seriously weighed prior to embracing that kind of
wholesale assumption. However, these potential adversities could be totally avoided or curbed if
there is consensus on the validity of their serious nature, and if thorough precautionary, concrete
and tangible collective measures are taken to counter them. I will propose possible measures
Democratic and Unity Forces and Ethiopian patriots could take to counter and circumvent such
hurdles and make any popular uprising or peaceful popular movement (struggle) sustainable and
successful.
I would argue that the prospect of any popular uprising in Ethiopia poses a greater challenge to
Democratic and Unity Forces more that it does even to the ruling clique. That is precisely the
reason why these forces have to be very seriously concerned, rethink their alignment and
redouble their efforts at carefully deliberating and coordinating their actions. In the eyes of many
among Ethiopian democrats and unity forces, the purpose of any popular uprising in Ethiopia
should have the ultimate concurrent, interrelated and inseparable goals of removing
tyranny, assuring the peace and unity of the country and the establishment of a just,
representative, democratic constitutional order. For them, any uprising short of these goals
and aimed at only removing Meles is not only simplistic but also naive and dangerous. The
reasons for their call for caution, especially in view of equating the current situation with that of
1974 or even that of 2005, and the argument about the need for a careful and thorough scrutiny
when contemplating any meaningful and successful popular uprising are given as follows:
First, there can be no denying that the youths of today can be as militant, as dedicated and as
willing to rise up and fight for what they believe in if and when they are inspired. It is especially
true that today’s youths have fewer opportunities, have less prospect and hope for a better future
than my generation was. Equally true is the fact that today’s youths have easier access to modern
technology that they can make proper use of to widely communicate with one another and almost
instantaneously coordinate their plans and actions. Although that kind of independent
maneuvering has its own drawbacks, especially in as far as sustainability of a widespread popular
movement and consistency of objectives and their articulation are concerned, it nonetheless
allows them to use the full potential of their creativity and gives them the flexibility and
adaptability to circumstances without having the need for a formally structured organizational
framework. But the sustainability and success of such uprisings depend on unity of purpose on a
national level and organizational ability and support. What is in contention or the argument here,
therefore, is not whether the youths of Ethiopia today can live up to expectations or act in the best
tradition of the militant youth of yesterday’s Ethiopia. The question is whether that militancy
can be expressed uniformly and in unison across the country under the same unifying
slogans and the same unifying objectives far beyond the quest for the removal of Meles and
his regime, or if that is going to be fragmented and for differing, disjointed and even
antagonistic goals and objectives altogether. As we all know, the youth then (1974) was not
divided on ethnic lines and was able to act as Ethiopians first, as an entity. Whatever came from
Addis Abeba University was seen and accepted as a common cause and followed by students in
every learning institution in every part of the country more or less uniformly.
Second, Ethiopian unity was not as much questioned and political ethnicity was not the
administrative structure of the country, and Ethiopians saw themselves as Ethiopians first and
were ready to fight in unison for a better collective future. In contrast, Ethiopians in the last two
decades under TPLF/EPRDF rule are (with the exception of Addis) segregated into ethnic
enclaves and forced to grow apart, have the disposition to “region/ethnic-first” thinking; causing
a coordinated movement on the national level for similar goals and objectives difficult, making
further division and ethnic strife a possibility and leaving the people vulnerable to the regime’s
continued and reinvigorated sophisticated divisive schemes to keep unified action at bay.
Third, despite the undemocratic nature of government of Atse Haile Selassie and the brutal
and barbaric nature of Mengistu’s dictatorial regime, both stood fast for the country’s unity and
territorial integrity, and there was no doubting that they would knowingly compromise Ethiopian
sovereignty. But, knowing too well the fact that the clique currently in power values its monopoly
of power more than anything else, including the unity of the country and wellbeing and safety of
the people, not only its leaders will not fight for the country’s unity when or if their grip on power
is in the balance. The regime’s leaders have told us, the Ethiopian people that they would be
diligently working at its dissolution if they feel the heat and their hold on power is definitely
threatened and compromised. Although their primary effort at staying in power would be to
continue with their divisive policies in combination with the use of intimidation and brute force,
they would embark on new maneuverings around the opposition by luring some to their side
through different bogus schemes and empty promises, superficially relaxing some restrictive
laws, introducing some cosmetic “reforms”, etc. However, in a desperate act of a last resort and as
a last ditch effort to stay in power, the top echelon of the ruling clique will resort to doing
anything and everything imaginable to fragment and weaken opposition and prolong their rule. It
would be naive not to take into account the possibility of a coordinated and systematic instigation
of ethnic and religion-based strife by them, including allowing certain sectors to use Article 39 to
foment and encourage secession. Given the viciousness and sickening track record of the current
rulers at the top that is rife with irresponsible and treasonous acts, this should not be doubted nor
should it be taken lightly.
Fourth, although there were no nationally recognized, known and widely accepted political
parties of significance in the country in 1974, there were national institutions spanning the
breadth and width of the country that stood guard for the peace, stability and unity of the nation.
Beside the presence of traditional national institutions, the youth was nationally galvanized not
only as a formidable and viable force for change but also as a unified and unifying entity.
As is the case with any dictatorial rule, the Meles regime has made denying our people real
national alternative one of its top priorities. The regime has effectively crushed civil society of
national relevance and left the country without dependable national alternative with any sound
credibility. There are no known countrywide unions of teachers, students, workers, etc. that can
speak in one voice and act in unison at the national level. Moreover, despite repeated past and on-
going efforts, currently there is no single party that has a nationwide acceptance with tangible
organizational structure, credibility or organizational capacity to assume the daunting task and
responsibility of assuring stability, peace and unity of the country.
Fifth, the rulers have systematically dismantled the true national characters of national
institutions like the country’s Defense Forces and civil and professional institutions like Ethiopian
Teachers Association, Free Journalists Association, etc, as they have replaced them with the ones
that mirror their ethnocentric and divisive political philosophy. Although there had been efforts at
restructuring the Armed Forces to reflect the national character as an Ethiopian institution –
which it is – the rulers have exerted an extraordinary control to keep it fragile by instituting an
unprecedented ethnic dominance and control. Because of that calculated policy of the ruling
clique, there exists an unfortunate widespread suspicion and lack of trust in the country’s Armed
Forces that they are there to protect the regime more than the country and its people. Although
not entirely irreversible, this feeling is very damaging both to the image of the institution and
particularly to the future of the country vis-à-vis the success of a possible popular uprising.
Unlike Egypt or Tunisia, Ethiopia is systematically denied of a critically important institution in
the Armed Forces that is trusted, neutral and accountable only to the nation and its people.
Therefore, unlike 1974, there are no national institutions throughout the country to prevent
possible measures of ethnic cleansing by different armed groups including out of control ethno-
vigilantes and fringe radical elements and to curb preventable societal strife and safeguard the
peace, stability and unity of the country, in the event of disorder that can ensue any disjointed
popular uprising. In view of the possibility of restructuring the Armed Forces to reflect the ethnic
designs and evil aspirations of the rulers at the top to surreptitiously deny the opposition and the
country a national institution that is capable of carrying out its solemn duties and obligations of
keeping the unity, stability and peace of the nation, the specter of sectarian strife and foreign
involvement under different pretexts is real.
Sixth, unlike 1974, there are several anti-Ethiopian and secessionist armed groups salivating
over the opportunity disorder could present to them to advance their cause, are eagerly awaiting
to exploit such moments and are ready to step in and wreck havoc in their ‘respective’ areas as
soon as situations allow them.
Seventh, the region is rife with groups and governments that are keen and eager at instigating and
exploiting any vacuum or chaotic environment resulting from the absence of order to advance
their desire to fragment the country. This is more of a worry in the current environment where
there is no viable and credible national alternative in place that is able to muster enough force,
moral or otherwise, to circumvent such probability.
Eighth, although successive Ethiopia governments have shown vulnerability to foreign
influence and the current one is no exception or even more so, Ethiopia does not have any
friendly foreign power by its side that is committed to its unity and territorial integrity. I could be
wrong, but, given the foggy idea some powers have to redraw the internal map of Africa, I
strongly suspect that Ethiopian unity can be easily sacrificed by those foreign powers if they find
the country’s dissolution to be conducive to their notion of ‘regional stability’. We know, however,
such farfetched ideas could only be derived from an erroneous underestimation of Ethiopian
nationalism and a false and twisted sense of regional stability.
Nonetheless, these arguments and cautious notations do not advocate inaction, but are
presented to remind the obstacles we are bound to face and to ring a bell that there are areas of
serious concern that we need to work on in order to avert chaos, thwart any evil designs of either
the rulers or other elements to divide us and ultimately circumvent the aspiration of the Ethiopian
people to be free and live a dignified life. What is clear is that the Meles regime is not as
powerful as some may believe it to be. As it is a regime devoid of real and unshakable popular
support and one that depends on brute force and devious divisiveness alone to sustain its rule, it
cannot withstand any sustainable popular movement. As I argued elsewhere before, what sustains
the regime more than its means of suppression is the absence of a real and viable national
alternative and the divisive policies that denied Ethiopians the chance to act together as
Ethiopians first.
All democratic and unity forces should be concerned about and work towards is to have a
new alignment of forces in a clear and unambiguous manner, and with a clear national agenda. As
I have elaborated this aspect of my argument in the “What Next?” series, this requires a clear
departure from past useless and self-defeating organizing principles and practices.
What is evident is that the status quo is unsustainable and this regime, despite any concerted
efforts, could neither prevent seeping popular anger from exploding nor could it withstand it.
What should all bear in mind – be it the regime in power, opposition groups or foreign powers –
is that neither a call from afar alone, no matter how intense, could by itself ignite, nor the amount
and magnitude of repression by the ruling clique or any cosmetic measures could ever prevent a
popular uprising from taking place in Ethiopia. Once people determine that they cannot take
deprivation, dehumanization and humiliation anymore, there is no turning back without putting an
end to the status quo.
Part III, ‘What Are The Obstacles To Any Popular Uprising In Ethiopia?’ continues…
