The latest conflict in CUDP is a perfect illustration. There is no real substance to the conflict. What we see is innuendo instead of direct, open, and honest communication, character assassination instead of empathy and giving each other the benefit of the doubt, and mutual distrust verging on dislike and even hate. In addition, we see parochialism manifesting itself with supporters of both sides quickly congregating by generation and previous party affiliation. All in all, conflict escalating behaviour seems to be rampant.

For example, consider Gizachew Shiferaw’s interview on September 7, before his departure to the U.S.A. It was, in my opinion, a good interview, save for the unnecessarily pointed emphasis that ‘CUDP cannot succumb to internal dictatorship’. Clearly anyone listening, especially those who already have an axe to grind, would think that he was talking about Hailu Shawel and insinuating that Hailu Shawel considers himself indispensable. Whether Ato Hailu does indeed consider himself indispensible is irrelevant; what is important is that this sort of accusatory communication by innuendo is obviously conflict escalating. And it has no benefit – if Ato Gizachew wanted to let people know that Ato Hailu was being dictatorial, he should have given clear examples with indisputable facts that are on the record instead of making insinuations. Or even better, it should have been dealt with behind closed doors. It should certainly not have escaped Ato Gizachew that his remarks would only inflame the situation.

For another example, consider Ato Hailu’s belittling of his fellow leaders with a barrage of inflammatory innuendo during his interview with Tensae radio on September 17th, implying, among other things, that his colleagues are attempting a coup of some sort. There was not a shred of conciliation during this interview – just retrenchment and escalation. Needless to say, it was remarkable to hear such comments about comrades who have suffered together in jail for the past year and a half.

Currently, stubbornness (getterenet) seems to be the prevailing sentiment. Consider the refusal of the North American delegation to welcome Ato Hailu to Washington, and Ato Hailu’s corresponding refusal to attend the meeting in Arlington . There seems to be a lot of retrenchment and little compromise. Of course, no Ethiopian will compromise without the opportunity to save face, and both sides are making it increasingly more difficult for the other to save face. Given these circumstances, conflict resolution will prove difficult.

What is the way forward? Ato Hailu implied in his interview that CUDP’s current problems are caused by just a few personalities. This is a classically superfluous explanation. Several personalities have fallen by the wayside over the years, but no peace has resulted. Even if tomorrow, all the CUDP leaders considered ‘disruptive’ by Ato Hailu resign, a few months from now, another intra-group conflict with other protagonists will occur. The problem is not a matter of personalities, procedures, or circumstances; it is a matter of attitude and culture – a culture which encourages non-cooperative behaviour. Cultural change is a must—as I wrote a year ago: “Doing away with dysfunctional behaviours and intra-group conflict is the only way to achieve democracy.” Make no mistake, the conflicts that continue to stifle democratic Ethiopian political institutions will continue until there is a concerted effort to address Ethiopian cultural impediments to democratic discourse.

It is important to emphasize that with this conflict there is no win-lose scenario. Reconciliation will result in a win-win situation, no reconciliation will be lose-lose, where Kinijit and the pro-democracy movement will return to the impotence of the past fifteen years. The results of the diaspora Kinijit feud should serve as a good example in this regard. Nobody won that war. Instead, it resulted in the alienation of the diaspora Ethiopian public and a virtual end to mobilization and fund-raising.

I close with a humble suggestion to the CUDP North American delegation: make the first move to resolve this conflict. Yes, such compromise will probably be interpreted as weakness and may even encourage further retrenchment, but there is no choice. We must unceasingly practice the principles of conflict resolution in order to ingrain them into our culture and make ourselves less susceptible to intra-group conflict. This is the only way to end the fratricide that is Ethiopian politics and indeed Ethiopian society.