On political taboos and woos

The regime in Ethiopia and the opposition in the Diaspora and at home appear to live in
totally different ‘worlds’. Each is a typical alien to the other. The governing party sees the
opposition as powerless, incompetent, disorganized, delusional, visionless, and remnants of
the past regime. The opposition, on the other hand, tend to characterize the reign of the
current regime as a complete failure. Metaphorically speaking, the gap between the
opposition and the regime is, with no exaggeration, as deep and long as the Great East
African rift valley which dissects Ethiopia into two. This political rift must be one of the major
obstacles that stands on our way to genuine or adequate democracy.

To me, the call is extremely important and significant, as I believe in the potential power of
civilized discourse to turn around life and living in Ethiopia for the good. I believe that
through discourses, we could be able to narrow down the rift created between the regime and
the opposition if each one of us believes in reason, logic, and evidence, and if we hold
ourselves accountable to what we are doing. Obviously, discourses could and might not make
everybody turn in easily. But if they are made in a systematic and sustained way, many could
carve out a common ground from where to fight for democratic governance. The top EPRDF
leadership or some groups of the opposition may not have the interest and readiness to
converse or to change in certain ways after discourses. Through rationale discourses, we
could for sure positively influence ordinary EPRDF supporters and members, middle and
lower-level officials and most importantly the general public.

I am not arguing that Tecola’s call is typically original though. In fact, media used to and still
do arrange conversations between government-affiliated and opposition experts. The VOA
Amharic service, for instance, did and does host expert-level discussions where both
government and opposition people were/are involved. The ESAT is also doing a bit of this
type of dicussions (albeit in a one-on-one basis), of which the latest one was the extremely
critical and realistic discussions held by Sisay Agena of ESAT and Abba Mella of Ethio-
Civility discussion forum. Although some sort of discourse has been conducted by such
broadcast media, the topic Tecola raised is, however, more explicit and direct.

I, however, have several difficulties in relation to the content and methods of Tecola’s papers.
Evenif one could argue that call papers themselves need not be criticized, I see several
inadequacies in logic, evidence, and conclusions thereof. My take is that initial discussion
ideas must be provided in a more compelling, consistent, reflective, and unbiased way.
Otherwise, if things are exaggerated, misrepresented, or overlooked from the very start, many
would have difficulty seeing the real motive behind the call.

In this paper, I raised key issues which appear to me inadequately or misleadingly discussed
in Tecola’s papers. This commentary in no way belittles or dismisses Tecola’s noble idea/call;
it is rather intended to ‘break the ice’ by highlighting my take of the issues raised, with a goal
of contributing my part to creating fruitful discussions and then bringing common basis of
understanding about Ethiopian politics. Major issues selected for my commentary include
the trajectory the Hailemariam administration is taking, the Abay dam project, human rights,
and Diaspora politics. To completely understand my ideas, readers are encouraged to read
Tecola’s papers first.

Profoundly changed circumstance?

Tecola’s papers conclude that Ethiopia under PM Hailemariam is taking the right socio-
economic and political trajectory. To describe the extent of changes taking place, the writer
used such beguiling expressions as “Qualitatively new political brew”, “Profoundly changed
circumstances”, “Very serious and quite impressive events”, and “Excellent indicators of a
solid starting point”. These expressions raise eyebrows of an average reader. They incorrectly
send a signal/message that Ethiopia is really changing for the better. The sorts of changes
mentioned in the papers are not actually changes at all; they are, I could argue, mere
articulations and re-articulations of the status quo. Moreover, the changes the writer refers to
have little or no significance when it comes to socio-economic development and protection of
human rights in Ethiopia. They are too tiny to be felt. Let us see some of the arguments and
evidences provided by the writer (Tecola) to support his conclusion: encouraging change is
taking place in Ethiopia.

Constitutional right versus party might

According to Tecola, a change of policy relating to regional governance model is taking place.
The writer is fascinated by ETV’s report of how PM Hailemariam Dessalegn and Redwan
Hussein responded to questions related to the inhuman eviction of the Amharas from
Benishangul. Both officials explained that some “antipeople” officials forcefully evicted
citizens and that is against the victims’ Constitutional right to work and live anywhere in
Ethiopia. To Tecola, “What Hailemariam stated was a direct repudiation of Meles Zenawi’s
core policy and work of twenty years of ethnic cleansing and Killilization (bantustanization)
of Ethiopia”. This conclusion is hardly grounded and does not consider pre-Hailemariam
state of affairs.

The late Meles used to talk the same talk, oftentimes by reverting to the Constitution. He, I
perfectly recall, once talked that everyone has that right to work anywhere as long as they are
registered by local governments. He, of course, contrary to reality, claimed that some people
were evicted because of their mistreatment of the environment and because they were not
legally registered residents. And he made it clear that those officials who displaced legal
residents could be held accountable. Although his reason for their eviction was out of touch
with reality, the basic principle that people could live anywhere was repeatedly talked about
by him. If so, what new ground/s does Hailemariam break? Or, is Hailemariam’s reference to
the Constitution considered a big deal?

Moreover, talk alone does not solve real social problems. People are still being displaced,
killed, and persecuted. If Hailemariam were true to his words and to the Constitution, he
could have ensured the effective and safe re-settlement of thousands of evictees. Rather, the
poor are dying of hunger, disease, and systematic attacks on a daily basis. The might of the
ruling party overweighs the ideals of the Constitution: cold-blooded cadres and officials are
playing with the lives of thousands while Hailemariam is talking rhetoric and defending the
status quo.

Hailemariam and SEPDM as game changers?

To Tecola, Hailemariam and his party, the SEPDM, are the game changers in today’s
Ethiopian politics. According to Tecola, the party has a multiethnic composition and that
their ‘clean’ past gives them a competitive edge. That they are so far able to peacefully lead
the many ethnic groups is testimony to the good performance of its leadership, argued
Tecola. In fact, the writer dubbed Hailemariam and Redwan as “Very different personalities”
and “Intelligent”. And “That they “survived the untamed power and antiques of Meles Zenawi
and his entourage… is no small fete”.

Several counter-arguments could be made based on these quotations. One, the ethnic groups
who are supposed to associate themselves with the SEPDM are not led in a democratic way.
In fact, we used to witness conflicts after conflicts for several years. Several ethic groups
wanted to have a different kind of administration, which the SEPDM could not allow. They
are put at gun point anytime they start rioting. Two, yes, Hailemariam and his likes are for
sure very different personalities. This is what we learn from psychology- everyone is unique.
But leaving the implicit assumption that these folks are real good when it comes to leading a
country is misleading. That they did not have a Banda background does not mean they could
play politics well.

Three, Hailemariam and et al. might be intelligent, at least in their own professions. I have no
doubt the PM was academically competitive but that is not our point. An accomplished
engineer might not turn to be an accomplished leader. I do not see the intelligence of
Hailemariam when it comes to leading us. An average person could easily talk his talks if
given the opportunity. His speeches made so far appeared too referential, conformist,
tiresome, and predictable. Four that Hailemariam escapes Meles’ sticks and tricks does not
necessarily indicate his intelligence. In fact, those who talked their minds are killed,
persecuted, jailed, and/or demoted. Those who echoed Meles’ words and actions further
climbed the power ladders. Hailemariam made it to the premiership not because of his
intelligence but because of his gullible acceptance of authority above him. In sum, the new
premier does not show us that he is a real game changer. What he clearly and repeatedly told
us is that he will implement the visions of the “great leader” with no editions/changes.

Five, considering individuals as units of analysis is itself misleading and limiting. Meles is
gone and Hailemariam comes in. And he will for sure go some day. Analysis and discourse
need to consider drawing the big picture: characterizing EPRDF as a governing party and
conquering new grounds.

On corruption and state-level visits

Another indicator of “profound” changes in Ethiopia is, according to Tecola, the arrest of
high-level officials and businessmen on corruption charges. Other indicators include “the
visit of high level delegation from wealthy Arab States, the trade delegation from Egypt of
industrialists, Hailemariam’s State visit to Kuwait, the business tours of World Bank and
African Development Bank executives to Addis Ababa”.

To me, these are again bad indicators of change. One, the anti-corruption commission is
established by Meles and he oversaw the prosecution and persecution of several people with
whom he has a political feud. Until some weeks prior to his death, he talked about the scale of
corruption in government and how much effort needs to be put to contain it. To the extent of
giving ultimatums: cutting fingers and tongues. This time around, EPRDF arrests some
officials and businessmen. If the move is genuine, to fight corruption, it should keep an eye
on the top leadership who took part in giving corruption its structural existence. A study
conducted by a fellow at Addis Ababa University revealed that the anti-corruption
commission is afraid of the top corrupts. And the study was presented at a forum arranged by
the commission itself. My take is that the arrests are not any new new thing at all. But am not
rejecting the move of the commission to arrest corrupts, am just trying to add a grain of salt
to it.

Two the number of high-level visits does not indicate change either. If one has to count on
visits, who in Africa traveled the world the way Meles did? Meles attended countless
international/prestigious meetings including those of the G-8, G-20, the EU, UN high-level
meetings and etc. In fact, Meles was like a modern-day ‘explorer’ of the world. And countless
number of international diplomats, experts, businessmen, and rights groups visited Addis
while Meles was behind the wheel. However, all these show ups and gesturings could not add
something concrete to the poor, say democratic governance. The same things happen now:
Hailemariam’s travels and visits do not indicate change of governance style but a mere
orchestration of diplomatic routines. The terrible human right record is testimony to this my
conclusion.

Human rights record

Tecola speaks loudest when it comes to human rights in Ethiopia. He recalled how the Meles
administration abused Ethiopians and how that ‘legacy’ is being continued by the
Hailemariam administration. Both administrations commit “horrendous violation of the
human rights”. The writer emphasized that “The immediate release of all political prisoners
especially Eskinder, Andualem et cetera is most urgent”. I concur with all these, that the
government and the county would benefit a lot if ALL political prisoners are released without
preconditions.

In his latest paper, Tecola argues that releasing political prisoners and then pushing them to
leave for other countries could be an option if the government is afraid of their impact at
home. This is a strange recommendation, which could not solve the problem but could give a
new face to it. If illegally jailing people is to be condemned, pushing them to leave their
country is equally evil. One, this sort of measure would violate the rights of people to reside in
their own country. Two, chasing out activists, and other experts would in the end hurt the
national economy. Three, it disrupts families as moving to a new land at a late age is
frustrating, psychologically and economically. Four, this sort of measure encourages dictators
to reign for years and years. Giving up a certain part of our natural and constitutional right in
order to get another is not fulfilling at all. Any struggle and recommendation must call for the
enactment of human rights as a package, with no resort to bits and pieces of it. We have to be
completely free human beings.

The Abay dam project

Tecola intends to argue that several in the Diaspora should relate the significance of the Abay
dam project to national “sovereignty on our natural resources including our rivers”. And the
writer tempted to believe that people oppose the project because they associate it with Meles:
“Whether the project is started by Meles Zenawi is irrelevant, he could not role up any of the
other constructions either and take them with him. … Let us not forget the cardinal truth that
almost all technological advancement is tainted with unethical or immoral activities.”

I also believe that constructing dams on our rivers should be our business. All Ethiopians do
not miss this point, I believe. The point the opposition are making against the dam project is
not related to Meles as the initiator. Ethiopians knew the presence of such attempts during
the imperial and Derg regimes. Meles just picked the agenda again and tried to claim
originality. Even worse, he and his party attached to it a huge political face, which started to
scare the public. Much of the opposition/disagreement is related to these and other
considerations. The opposition want to ensure that the government has neat and clean hands
to collect and manage resources for the construction of the dam. Plus, the government must
practice the Constitution it drafted years ago; freedom of all sorts must be guaranteed before
damming Abay. Politically-motivated arrests, killings, and persecutions must be dammed
first. In sum, the Abay project turns to be a controversy because of the lack of democratic
governance at all levels of government and not it is because Meles started it. We need our
government to understand that we are much more precious species than mega-hydroelectric
dams. If injustices of all sorts are dammed first, we all Ethiopians would join hands and
embark on incredible projects. The Ethiopian Diaspora is I believe a sleeping giant who could
turn around things easily and voluntarily if democratic governance is realized back home.

Unrealistic Diaspora politics?

Tecola blatantly opposes how the Ethiopian Diaspora do politics. In fact, the writer argues
that several in the Diaspora “have been entertaining unrealistic political ambition that they
could effect political change by debating in hotel halls and demonstrating in major western
capitals. At times I find positions of some of the leaders of such political organizations quite
childish, for they aspire to overthrow the Ethiopian Government through mass organization
conducted from foreign capitals. This type of thinking is absurd and stupid, for it has not
worked at anytime in our recent history”.

I understand that some groups are poised to bring down the regime by some means. Tecolas’
papers preach for and expect “baby-step” kind of moves/changes from the government and
curses those who struggle to bring significant change. I found this problematic on several
accounts. One, it undermines the power and readiness of the populace to embrace democratic
leadership and would have a frustrating effect. Two, it assumes that the government is
incompetent to bring meaningful changes anytime soon. Three, if we allow the government to
take baby-steps, we all would die without seeing our government taking adult-steps.

Four, it sends to the government a bad signal- they might get satisfied with their moves and
would say “Rome was never built over night” afterall. Five, Tecola’s papers are written to
stimulate inclusion and then discourse. But this point is missed the very moment the writer
sarcastically dismisses those who believe are contributing to bring drastic changes in
Ethiopia. Change through revolution or evolution should rather have been part of the
discourse which Tecola’s papers call for. Sixth, that revolution did not bring change so far
does not mean it could not bring one now or in the future. Of course, it was through
revolutions that both the imperial and Derg regimes fell apart. Am not, however, arguing in
favor of either approach; am saying that one should not dismiss either approach if we want to
have inclusive and holistic discourses on Ethiopian politics.

Final notes

Professor Tecola’s papers already raised several controversial but significant socio-economic
and political issues in Ethiopia. The idea of breaking political taboos and engaging the
current regime in civic political discourse seems interesting. This is even more appealing to
opposition parties and groups who tend to follow the peaceful mode of political struggle. But
the devil is always in the details. How is it possible to start and sustain productive discussions
between the opposition and the ruling party while each seems to live in a different world? The
problem or the challenge is a lot practical as it is a lot rhetorical and ideological.

Trying to discuss how much the regime is governing democratically is a tried and tired
approach. We would rather benefit a lot if future discourses/discussions, including those
from Professor Tecola, focus on explaining 1) the modus operandi (modi operandi) for
bringing such discussion forums, and 2) possible challenges in engaging in political discourse
between the government in Ethiopia and the opposition. Trying to touch what appears to be
the untouchable, political taboos in Tecola’s usage, should be encouraged by all concerned
stakeholders of Ethiopian politics. However, exaggerating minimal and oftentimes irrelevant
events (as cursors of improvement) in the process of making discourse is nothing but making
political woos which are as incapacitating as political taboos.

The writer could be reached at [email protected] and also blogs at
http://tekluabate.blogspot.no/.