Generally speaking one needs to be cautious of certain fundamental points on the merits of asking parties to unite. While I see the newly found concerted push effort as a positive development, I see the danger in ‘coercing’ the political groups to form unity at all costs. The existence of diverse parties with different political platform is crucial for any democracy. When we call for a united action by opposition forces, it should be understood to mean unity on common values, questions of national interest and sovereignty of the country.
Last week I came across an article/ a declaration/ prepared by the EEDN (Ethiopian Electronic Discussion Network). This article is full of constructive ideas and suggestions that not only the opposition parties but the current government of Ethiopia should review carefully. Discussion groups, political parties and publications in the Diaspora, especially in North America were not always helpful in uniting the Ethiopian community. In fact, for some time, they were acting as if the division of the community was to their self-interest. As a result the Ethiopian Diaspora abandoned all politically inclined groups and watched them suspiciously from a distance. Thus, this general aura of change for the positive is encouraging and very much welcomed.
My purpose here is to comment on few fundamental points to the suggestions put by EEDN, and build on the general call for a change to democratise the system, modernize the country and assist the Ethiopian people eradicate famine- a recurring curse that is shaming Ethiopia with increasing frequencies. These are crucial points that merit our attention.
But first, I would like to commend the EEDN group for initiating this important dialogue. As stated in the document, the culture of appreciating the usefulness of a constructive engagement has eluded us for many years. In fact, the mix of feudal environment and westernised modern education has produced an elite class that is shallow in substance and rich in polemics. I would like to think that things are changing and people want to engage in substantive dialogue. Hence, my token contribution to this important topic.
Let me start small and do away with the short form of the pledge of allegiance recommended by EEDN. It states “We pledge allegiance to the Ethiopian flag, and the history and ideals for which it stands: one indivisible nation under God, and with equality and freedom for all.” These words are similar to what the fathers of the American federation stated in their formative years. Ethiopia is a country of many religions: Christian and Muslim of various sects, Judaism, and natural/cultural beliefs. I, therefore suggest that the reference to one God be taken out from the document. I anticipate no major resistance to this simple recommendation.
Here are my brief comments. EEDN writes the following:
” A transitional government shall be established with the participation all political parties and notable civic organizations and with a firm timetable for national elections.”
The most important point of difference that I hold relates to the proposition to form a provisional government. The call for a formation of a transitional/provisional government is not new in the history of the Ethiopian revolution. In fact, one of the reasons that divided the student movement into two camps that resulted in the creation of two antagonistic parties – MEISON and EPRP was this same question (‘giziawi hzbawi mengst’). Then, it has never been clear who would have formed the transitional government. Compared to some 28 years ago, one may conclude that the existence of so many parties has created the opportunity to form such government.
However, I am not sure if this proposal accommodates the needs of the current regime that has a firm grip on power. When I comment on these issues, I force to dissociate myself from the bad feelings I have towards the EPRDF regime. A pragmatic proposal has to address the issues, fears, gains and losses that accompany the outcome of any negotiation. A win-lose outcome is not usually a result of a negotiated agreement; it is mostly a product of a will imposed on the losing parties by a victor. That is precisely what we have in Ethiopia, and, it seems to me, the EEDN declaration does not guide us to avoid the venue of the win-lose strategic game.
Political parties may advance the idea of provisional government as a pressure tactic to force the government to the table and negotiate on some fundamental issues. Hence, this part of document maybe useful in that sense. However, as a concerned pragmatic Ethiopian, I would like to suggest actionable items that are beneficial to the Ethiopian people, and all political parties that aspire for power and the current regime of Meles Zenawi as well.
In the first place the facts on the ground makes this suggestion implausible. However much hated the current regime is, pragmatism dictates that an agreeable solution, a negotiated agreement should be struck with it. We simply can’t wish it away. Obviously my argument is based on the assumption that opposition forces choice of struggle is a peaceful legal struggle.
The propositions enumerated in the ‘C’ section of the declaration relating to the formation of a transitional government are simply unrealistic. We have to realize that this government is not going to be removed by force. At present no such force exists. Even if it does, one does not wish the Ethiopian people to go through other wars and destructions. Then, under such conditions at hand, what are the alternatives that we have? Will the entrenched regime agree to literally move itself from power without compromises, negotiations and deals? I do not believe it will.
Under these circumstances, the realistic goals of the oppositions should be to force the regime to:
1) If possible, agree on a power sharing mechanism that will prepare the way for a free and fair elections.
2) And/or to negotiate with the government to cease its activities that are detrimental to the national interest of Ethiopia. The agreements among others may include a framework on creating working groups or commissions on the constitution, economic policy, national security and federal administration. These bodies, which are to be composed of experts, representatives of political parties and civic organizations will be tasked with creation of policy papers that are broadly acceptable to all parties.
3) Form an independent commission that is tasked with creating a favourable condition for the upcoming national election.
4) In particular, until the parties agree and come to a broad consensus, the government should cease from performing certain activities and getting into long-term treaties that may compromise the long-term interest of the nation.
I agree with many of the points such as independent election commission, freedom of the press listed in the EEDN paper, but there are also some suggestions that may not be constructive in creating a peaceful conciliatory atmosphere. In order to create a reconciliatory atmosphere I ask the authors to examine the following statement.
“9. The ruling party’s odious cadres who are currently planted in government offices and civic organizations shall be summarily dismissed.”
We have to realize that this government is not as weak as we would like to think. Fairness also dictates us to acknowledge the things that this government is doing right. Many categorize its fast response to the famine situation and some of its economic policies as fair. Blanket condemnation does not allow us to find a common ground for reconciliation and atonement. What has been quoted above is what the Meles regime did to the Derg cadres. A call for summary action does not forebode well with creating a peaceful environment.
Economic policy is one major issue that we need to put much thought into. The rural land system in particular should not be used as a tool for political differences. On the opposition side there is a demand that land be privatised; the EPRDF government on the other hand insists that this is not a negotiable issue. This matter is not going to be resolved by simple theoretical constructs entertained by the different camps. Professionals, development practitioners and the rural population in particular should deliberate on the issue exhaustively and come out with a binding recommendation. We have to plan to solve the land problem in Ethiopia to every farmer’s satisfaction.
“3. A Constituent Assembly shall be elected to revise the Constitution. We particularly draw attention to articles in the current constitution pertaining to ethnic-based killiloch (including the right to secede), and state ownership of land that should be stricken out unceremoniously. ”
The Ethiopian Constitution has been revised twice in the last twenty five years. Renewal of the constitution has so far been guided by the interest of those in power. The suggestion to guard the Ethiopian Constitution from being a subject of arbitrary tool is very timely. The creation of an independent body comprising of experts, eminent leaders, political parties and elders is a goal that all political organizations should seek and pursue. As concerned citizens and community groups of various orientations in thoughts, I would urge that we do not provide quick fix for a complex issue. There are many who still think that the constitution is fine but the implementation is bad. We have to allow everybody to put his or her preferred solutions to the table. This open and transparent process will allow Ethiopians to come to an accommodating conclusion. A good observer once said, ” for a complex problem there is a simple answer, and the answer is always wrong.”
We should be aware of the different opinions on the Unitary/Federal state models that are being entertained in the country. I neither have the expertise nor the knowledge to prescribe a defendable model of governance. Currently, there is a very good argument and a modest support to having a federal form of governance in the country. The fact that the current regime has a liking for an ethnic federation, and therefore the ethnic aspect of the administration is highlighted, does not necessarily mean that federal arrangement is bad. There is obviously a need to eradicate the barriers of ethnic walls. This, however, does not mean that Ethiopia has to go back to a unitary state model.
As I repeatedly said in the past, I am convinced that peace, security and stability can only come to our country when we all start thinking as Ethiopians. Exclusions of groups based on their past history or role is a recipe for disaster. That should be left for the democratic state to sort out. The moment one thinks as an Amhara or an Oromo, or a Tigrean, or a Kembatan, etc.., narrow and shallow interests gloss over the big picture. Primitive feelings take over the centre-stage. As a result, peace, security, and development become Ethiopians’ unfulfilled dreams.
This morning I read an interesting article at the Addis Tribune magazine. Frankly, the heading ( Pseudo-speciation) caught my attention for it was the first time I came across this conceptual phrase. I was disappointed when I saw the central message of the article. The concluding passage reads as follows:
” In light of this fundamental reality, the call for reconciliation and reapproachment by the opposition is a nonproductive and even dangerous route to political, economic and cultural struggle. A decade and half of ethnic dictatorship has further deepened the already wounded body politic of our unfortunate country and created a cultural chasm that cannot be bridged by a one-sided dialogue. Thus the effort of every Ethiopian should be to wage a continuous struggle for the establishment of a genuinely democratic political platform in which all Ethiopians can participate fairly without duress and discrimination. Cultural pseudo-speciation is a medieval concept and has no place in the 21st century. The sad examples of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia should have been enough to dispel any myth about the rationality of using ethnicity as a foundation for democratic governance.”
Ethiopians are aware of the menace of ethnic politics that the author roughly terms as ‘Cultural pseudo-speciation’. I am not impressed by the writer’s hidden message, which is to widen the ethnic/cultural divide. (Please read the whole article at Addis tribune.) The central message that I wanted to convey in this article was the importance of creating an atmosphere for reconciliation and atonement. A hawkish approach is not a solution to our problem.
Ethiopians have come a long way and have realized that any group that tries to divide them on ethnic basis is not their friend. It is therefore essential that we do not succumb to individuals and groups who try directly or indirectly spread the venom of ethnic politics. If we stand on guard and think Ethiopian the solution is in our own hands and within a quick reach. The alternative is disaster.
The many political parties at home and abroad must now realize the importance of reconciliation and face-to-face dialogue in order to address the cries of Ethiopians. For the time being, party interests should be at the back burner. Those interests can’t be addressed unless Ethiopia as a multi-national state is strengthened, protected and preserved. The many interest groups of Ethiopia must realize that they can’t get what they want until they take part in sharing the agony of the masses of Ethiopians they claim to represent.
It is easy to see how we have collectively failed to appreciate our country’s problem. There is a disconnect between the people of Ethiopia- the great masses of them who are being at this moment threatened by disease and hunger- and the political forces. The plight of the millions of rural Ethiopians does not usually enter into their equation. It is precisely because they did not to recognize the unknowns in the equation that they have so far failed to solve the problem. A bold move by the opposition parties and a recognition by the current regime that its path is path of destruction, suspicion and agony will make Ethiopia a winner. Unless our approach is people-centered, we will continue to fail Ethiopia.
Our problems are immense. When we think of the many things we need to do in order to make Ethiopia prosperous and peaceful, the enormity of the task even overwhelms the most optimists. ‘Abayn be chilfa’ most appropriately describes our task. But even if what we have is a spoon to take the Abay River to its destination, we have to be prepared to do it for a million spoons could do a miracle. Those of us who claim that we are doing to democratize Ethiopia should be prepared to change our mindset. Solutions can only come through a peaceful means in a round table. We will see the light at the end of the tunnel if all political forces realize the importance of constructive engagement and chart a new road for Ethiopia.
