The two concepts, civility and political discourse, may appear to be oxymoron when applied in the Ethiopian context where inter and intra party conflicts and animosity shun any kind of discourse, let alone a civil one.
Ethiopian political landscape is littered with the carcasses of divided political parties from OLF, TLF, EPRP, EDU, to CUDP and others. .
.
The question is then, why have the leaders of the political parties in the last thirty years not been able to settle their differences amicably and ensure their continuity?
The reason for such intransigence which often resulted in self destruction may be traced back to the background which informed political upbringing of the leaders .
The majority of us who are now mired in political quagmire in Ethiopia cut our political teeth on Marxism-Leninism, for TPLF– the extremist Albanian variety. It is well known that Marxism-Leninism is alien or has little tolerance for civility and compromise. Being civil is a bourgeois nonsense which seeks to blur the real issues and blunt the sharp edges of class conflict thus inhibiting decisive class struggle. It is enough to recall Lenin’s reference to his opponents as scoundrels and vermin to know that Marxists do not mince their words when they deal with their adversaries. Since old habits do not die easily this modus operandi unfortunately informs political discourse in Ethiopia today both on the side of the opposition and more so with the ruling party even after the demise of Marxism-Leninism.
We embraced this ideology in the 60’s and early 70’s with the good intention of extricating our country quickly from abject poverty and atavistic feudal system. Our struggle was not devoid of some successes such as “land to the tiller” which the successive ruling parties have subverted turning the peasantry into tenants of the state.
Political parties in Ethiopia, especially the Ruling Party would not be satisfied with any game other than zero sum, in the best tradition of Marxism and Leninism where winner takes all. It is a case of slash and burn just as the battle field, which the members of the ruling party are quite adept at. Compromise is regarded as defeatism and weakness. This was clearly seen in the post 2005 election where, with a little give and take here and there on the neutrality of the National Board, or equitable sharing of the national media, or power sharing could have averted the catastrophe which will live in the Ethiopian history as an “ infamy “ along side some of the episodes of the infamous Red Terror.
During the negotiations following the 2005 elections for the elected members of Parliament to take their seats, intransigence was the order of the day. By the way the ruling party negotiated it looked, that it never really intended to negotiate in good faith. All suggestions were shot down with no explanations of justifications. Eventually some among us dubbed the EPRDF negotiator “Mr. Nyeit” (Russian for NO”), because everything he said amounted to a single word “no”. “Let us add some items to the agenda you have presented” “ No”. “O.K. then let us discuss the independence and neutrality of the National Elections Board” “.No.”. Fine then let us now talk about power sharing” No. Everything dwindled to a two letter word ”No.” A European intermediary Mr. Tim Clark who was absolutely neutral and an honest broker totally exacerbated by the intransigence of the Ruling Party, asked “Is there a word for “compromise “in your language?
There are lots of unsettled issues in the national account. To mention just a few, the demons of the Red Terror will really not be exorcised until Mengistu Haile-Mariam is brought to book at the International Criminal Court at the Hague or at an independent Ethiopian Court subject only to the law with due regard to all his due process rights. National reconciliation still cries out for implementation. Democracy, respect for human rights and rule of law are still outside the grasp of the Ethiopian people. To implement these and undertake national reconciliation we need young and courageous leaders who are not being weighed down by the vestiges of Marxism Leninism and or feudalism.
It seems the time has come to change the old guards in the leadership of all the Parties, more importantly at the EPRDF. I am not at all saying that the oldsters should be put out to pasture. On the contrary, they can still be useful to give advise and guidance where necessary and when asked. Times have changed for the better or for worse. Septuagenarian and octogenarian Chinese or Soviet leaders are gone and replaced by youthful Medved and Putin and the same goes for the octogenarian Chinese fossils. The only dinosaur in the world political scene and formerly progressive countries today is Raul Castro. He soon will have to kick the bucket by the virtue of his age.
.
The younger people have demonstrated both at the UDJ and CUDP that they are ready and able to carry the mantle of leadership. One cannot cite a better example than Ms. Bertukan Mideksa who was leading a strong party with distinction until, in flagrant violation of the law and the condition of her pardon, was thrown in jail, not to mention other young dynamic people at the CUDP.
After close two years “sojourn” in Kalit some of the leaders of the CUDP had scattered to Europe and the US to thank compatriots for their relentless campaign to secure our release. In each of the nine countries we visited in Europe I was struck by the youthfulness (some of them barely in their thirties) of the leaders of some of the great European political Parties we were invited to visit.
We cannot gloss over the fact that our society at home and the world at large has changed and the leadership of the Parties must also change. The final fate of many sport stars and politicians has often been tragic because they failed to know that optimum time to quit.
