ECADF Ethiopian News

Is ethnic federalism a viable alliance to democracy and pluralism?–the context in Ethiopia

EPRDF led government has embarked federalism in the last twenty years. So far some applaud it that it gives chance for the expression of multiculturalism. Other condemns it as an ultimate destiny for the disintegration of the nation. The federal system has not been tested in plural political setting. So far the system in the last twenty years is led by centralized and dominant party system, which is the salient feature of the Ethiopian federal system.

This article tries to discuss whether ethnic federalism as it is in the context in Ethiopia could viably match with pluralism and democracy. To discuss the above issue the feature of ethnic federalism would be touched. Federalism as a political system organizes state in to a center and a region. In ethnic federalism the litmus test to organize in this line is ethnicity. In Ethiopia ethnicity has been defined in terms of language collectively. Federalism as a political system has a centrifugal tendency.  From which angel it is possible to see the nature of the alliance between ethnic federalism and pluralism in Ethiopian context.

Federalism is a system in which state and government are organized. Democracy is a system of rule where public rule is institutionalized and diversity of opinion is surfaced and respected. Federalism as a means of organization; and democracy as a system of rule are intimately related.

Twenty years has been elapsed since ethnic federalism is a form of government organization and state in Ethiopia. Federalism is different in type. Ethnic federal system also differs. The “X” Soviet Union and “X“ Yugoslavia are ethnic federal state as well India and Nigeria are a big federal state. Switzerland is also ethnic federal state. Ethiopia Federal state shares many features of “X” soviet and “X” Yugoslavia ethnic federal state. The salient feature which it shares being this, the sole criteria to define ethnicity in these “X” federal state was language. One large language group sharing territory will have a state; the state related with the language group inhabited could be large or small. In Ethiopia for instance there is large state Oromiya and small state Harari. The regional state in Ethiopia are only nine where as in the “X” Yugoslavia there were six in X Soviet Union there were 13.

The case in India and Nigeria is different. The criteria to define ethnicity are fluid and based on multiple criteria like regionalism, localism, religion as well as language. So that ethnicity is fragmented and defused. This nature does not result in the formation of big mini state within a state. The regional state are many and diversified, in such case there is no single sided political mobilization and orchestration of interest.

The “X” Soviet Union and the “X” Yugoslavia Federal state had not been tested with multiparty system. The federal states were led by communist party. After long years of centralized rule starting attempts to institutionalize political pluralism and democracy coincides with the start of strife and divisive political conflict which led to disintegration.  In these “X” states different ethnic language group has a communist party coinciding with their language and territory where they inhabit. These parties were considered the representatives of their respective ethnic group; in turn these parties are organized in one patterned system of rule through central democratic principle. This principle erects a distinct type of rule where one or a few individuals left to be a decision maker. This is exactly true so far in Ethiopia real politics.

The start of breakdown of the two “X” federal states squarely coincides in their attempt to a transition to pluralism and multiparty democracy. If one learns from history what will be the lesson Ethiopian to take from the breakdown and the consequent atrocities in Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

Democracy as a system of rule is a tool of political mobilization and regulation. It is an instrument to rule internally by mobilizing different interest with different issue which needs to be diffused. This is the practical requirement and the case in developed democracies.

In ethnic Federalism like Ethiopia, the transition to political pluralism would be complicated. The federal organization is exclusively based on language distinction. Ethnicity is defined only in terms of language like that of the “X” states. This nature of Ethiopian ethnic federalism would give space to sole ethnic political mobilization and orchestration of political interests. The political mobilization would be merely based on ethnicity being propelled by ethnic parties.  During the transition to democracy where democracy needs diffusion of interests and grounds of political mobilization; the grounds would be taken by ethnic factor as a mobilization with the ready-made mini state institutions. These mini state institutions would substitute the fading centralized party system. This is a mechanical control of the political dynamics in ethnic federal system. It is mechanical because, the federal institutions are structured without taking into consideration how could political factors run smoothly with changing political dynamics. The federal systems are designed in a way taking the centralized party system as a lasting factor determining the ethnic federal system continuation and stability. This is a feature of unbargained federal system.

In case of Nigeria and India attempts has been done to diffuse the base of political mobilization and regulation by diversifying the bases of ethnic definition. It has resulted in organic political control because it has taken different political dynamics such as the nature and type of party system; the defining factor for ethnicity; the base of political mobilization and regulation in multiparty context, and pluralism and how they configure in the way the political dynamics dictates playing role to the stability and continuity of the federal system.

The disintegrative tendency of ethnic federalism in Ethiopia as the case in the X Yugoslavia and Soviet Union has been tamed by imposition of centralized party system which mechanically regulates the separatist force as per their goals and aims. In case where the party system fails and when federal institutions, among others independent ethnic parties, political elites, become a prime political force in plural political setting language based ethnicity with ready-made mini state institution become base of political mobilization. Pluralism would create political arena for the expression of different political views. With pluralism and democracy the intensity of political dynamics and political mobilization would increase. Ethnic based mobilization would be a grand form of mobilization. It is all encompassing and surpassing other bases of mobilization. It has less tendency to diffuse with other interests, which could be a basis of mobilization. Ethnicity as basis of political mobilization requires deliberate manipulations and proper political institutions and structures. Less it becomes antithesis to pluralism and democracy. There are different types of political mobilizations such as economic interest, gender, current political view, the first being the grand form of mobilization, the subsequent are lesser and diffusing bases of political mobilization.

For the disintegration of Yugoslavia and Soviet Union the then existing type of ethnic federalism which defines ethnicity in terms of language only and the mechanical control imposed by the centralized party has been considered to be a major factor. In addition to this, within this political context attempts of institutionalizing pluralism has resulted intense ethnic based political mobilization by independent ethnic parties with their elites using the mini institution of state for their purpose has accounted for the disintegration of these states. In fact this would be a political dynamics that would exactly occur in Ethiopia, when attempt is made to move to pluralism, multipart system and democracy in the context of the existing only language based ethnic federal system as well as the centralized and dominant party system.

In political terms for the past twenty years Ethiopia is living with ethnic federalism. There are around nine ethnic based states where the basis of the definition of ethnicity is only language. These regional states have been led by their respective ethnic parties. These parties have a one way decision making channel through the principle of central democratic principle which is typical nature of a socialist party system. The federal system has not been tested with multiparty system. Opposition political parties have not seized political power. Strong election observers have testified repeatedly election has been conducted in the ground which is not leveled.  The ethnic federal system so far is held stably through mechanical control using the centralized dominant party as an instrument.

With a genuine attempts to institutionalize pluralism or with the fading of the centralized party system, as any political party system could fail, ethnicity which is solely defined by language terms and institutionalized vis-à-vis a readymade ethnic state would be a basis for political mobilization which is not diffused and fragmented.  In such political scenarios the then existing political institutions would not be able to accommodate the smooth running of federalism and multiparty system.

Many scholars and citizens are sensing the disintegration of Ethiopia polity internally thinking on this line, among other factors. Astute EPRDF political architect which are in fact the designer of the ethnic federal state tells us in their ideological writing the end of EPRDF party system is the end of Ethiopia polity. The medicine they subscribe is a hegemonic rule of EPRDF. Is that possible? For how long? Is subscribing this a political remedy is a sanity? Why not they let the Ethiopian people to come up with a bargained political system which could accommodate multiparty system and democracy? EPRDF must let the people have a nation which is not dependent on one party system.

By Dereje Tesfaye

Comments can be forwarded to email address abilakew@gmail.com

Ephrem Madebo

Just days after the ground invasion of Iraq, 90% Americans approved President Herbert Bush’s job performance. In just a little over a year, President Bush’s job performance rating was 29%; and he eventually lost his re-election bid to Bill Clinton. Why?  It’s the economy, stupid.  President Barak Obama enjoyed 69% job approval rating in 2009, in August 2010; his approval rating was 42%. Why? Well, the jobless economic recovery may not be stupid, but it’s not astute either. In Ethiopia, the economy has been dormant for 12 of the past 19 years, but the man and party responsible for the dormancy are guaranteed to stay in power at least until 2015.  In the last seven years, larger amounts of foreign aid and loan have over heated the Ethiopian economy. However, the heat of the economy gave more heat for less than 5% Ethiopians and left 95% of the population in the cold. If this is what Zenawi’s regime tells us- “economic development” It’s not only the development that is stupid – It’s the regime, Stupid!

The scope of economic development includes the process and policies by which a nation improves the economic, political, and social well-being of its people. In the last five years, the news from Addis Ababa has been all about “economic development”. I do value development, and nothing puts smile on my face than the news of economic development in my native country, Ethiopia. But, I also believe in the value of evidence and I am deeply cynical of anything contrary to reason or lacking evidence. I believe in having an open mind – ready to contemplate new ideas backed by persuasive evidence – but not an empty one. I am not ready to accept Zenawi’s development news that has neither sense, nor evidence.

The United Kingdom, a country that provides huge capital to Zenawi’s regime is the founding member of the UN; and it has one of the finest research universities in the world [Oxford]. According to the most recent poverty study carried by Oxford University and the UN, Ethiopia is the second poorest nation in the world. I’m sure Zenawi has been telling his UK counterpart about seven years of double-digit economic growth. Well, Zenawi tells anything anyone as long as he is getting dollar or pound. The question is why does the UK believe him? Who does PM David Cameron trust, the UN, an organization founded by his country? Oxford University (BNC, his alma mater)? Or, he just trusts Meles Zenawi, a person that has no acquaintance with the truth?  I’m sure my inquiry gets a prompt reply from the British Primer, otherwise; he must know that the cruelest lies are often told in silence. As to Mr. Zenawi, his lies may take care of the present, but not the future.

Ethiopia has an adult population of about 43.6 million. Forty six percent or about 20 million of Ethiopia’s adult population wants to leave the country due to acute poverty, political repression, human right abuse and lack of educational opportunities. Imagine 46% of the work force wants to get out of a fast democratizing country whose economy is growing in double-digit numbers. What a Joke! Other than Egypt, no other African nation receives financial aid in excess of $3 billion per annum, and no country in Africa boasts double-digit economic growth like Ethiopia. Paradoxically, no country in Africa has poor economic, social or political performance like Ethiopia. Let’s closely look at the following table.

For a long time Ethiopia’s nickname was the “infant death trap” of Africa. After 20 years of Zenawis’ rule, 8% new born Ethiopians do not live to see their first birth day; and Ethiopia is still Africa’s infant death trap. With most Africans living on $2 a day or less, no one expected Africa to do well in the cell phone market. But, things changed when African nations began to privatize their telephone monopolies in the mid-1990. Today, cell phones are catapulting rural Africa to the 21st century. Thanks to Ethiopia’s Mr. “Double-digit” growth man, Ethiopia is the only country that resisted privatization; and as a result, only one in 27 Ethiopians has a cell phone while one in 11 Africans is a mobile subscriber.  In Kenya, just south of the boarder, 16.3 million Kenyans [42%] enjoy the use of mobile technology, in Ethiopia; only 3.2 million Ethiopians [3.7%] have access to mobile technology.

Seventy two million [85%] Ethiopians are farmers, but they cannot feed themselves, and as a result 16 million Ethiopians face starvation.  Thirteen million Ghanaians [56%] are farmers. Today, Ghana is a leading exporter of farm products, and three meals a day is the norm in Ghana, not the exception. Both Ghana and Ethiopia were dogged by dictatorship, poverty & instability. Today, Ghana is a vibrant democracy in Africa and the future of Ghana is at the good hand of Ghanaians. Ethiopia is the symbol of ethnic dictatorship where 90% of its population lives in acute poverty, and the future of Ethiopians is darker than the darkest night.

Kenya, with a population of 39 million and a total land area of 580,367 sq km has 160, 856 kilometers of roadway while Ethiopia with more than twice the population of Kenya and a total land area of 1,104,300 sq km has only 36, 469 kilometers of roadway. Unlike Ghana, Kenya is not the beacon of democracy in Africa, but still Kenyans enjoy a much better freedom of speech, freedom of press and independent judiciary than Ethiopians. Just last week Kenya ratified a new constitution while its northern border is stuck with a constitution even the authors themselves don’t respect. The above table shows that the three countries are much better than Ethiopia in almost all of the economic indicators, but none of the leaders of those nations brags double-digit economic growth. Ghana, Uganda and Kenya in aggregate received less financial assistance than Ethiopia in the last five years.

In October 2008, Meles told his parliament that the global Financial Crisis will have little effect on Ethiopia.  He said:   “our financial structure is not as liberalized as those of affected countries and the economy is not intertwined to Western economies to face a crisis” But, according to the World Bank, Ethiopia is among the most vulnerable group of countries with high exposure to the Financial Crisis. This view is shared by Sukwinder Singh, IMF Resident Representative in Ethiopia who said: “Ethiopia’s economy was seriously affected by the financial crisis”.  At the end of 2009 the IMF provided Ethiopia with $420 million loan to cope with the financial crisis, a crisis that Zenawi wrongly believed will have no effect on his aid sensitive economy.   To substantiate his baseless claim, Meles Zenawi estimated a 2009 GDP growth of 11.2%, however, his overestimates were latter revised to 7.5% (IMF, 2009b) and 6% (World Bank, 2009). This simply shows us that unless the IMF and the World Bank cross check and validate Zenawi’s cooked economic numbers, Zenawi is the best “cook” that the West has never seen.

Ethiopia is quickly becoming a strange place in which beneficiaries of the regime and the West seem able to doubt almost everything (such as the certainty of the fall of tyranny and the inevitable victory of freedom) and yet these same people are willing to believe almost anything (such as poverty and the economy growing at the same rate) with little or no regard for rationality or evidence. Ethiopia is an extremely poor country where effects of economic growth are hard to miss.  In a country where people live on fewer than two dollars a day, the slightest change in income will easily be felt throughout the nation, let alone 7 years of double-digit economic growth. But, a nation as a whole can never prosper when every government contract and sub-contract is awarded to ethnically managed parastatals. Poor Ethiopians will not benefit from construction projects when construction firms, suppliers and movers of building material, and the buildings built are owned by the same group of ethnically associated people.

The Ethiopian economy performed very poor in the last decade of the 20^th century. The average GDP growth rate from 1990 to 2001 was – 0.9%. The annual GDP per capita growth was estimated at -2.6% and the average GDP per capita was estimated at $106 (Anders et al, 2000). The poor performance of the economy during the decade is attributed to the 1998-2000 war, negligible foreign aid and TPLF’s concentration on how to penetrate and control all sectors of the nation’s economy than showing any effort on economic growth.

After the dubious privatization that literally transferred Ethiopia’s sate owned enterprises from public domain to the TPLF party parastatals, the IMF, the World Bank and donor nations started pumping capital to the Ethiopian regime. The heavy dose of foreign fund eventually resuscitated the otherwise dying economy. Ever since, the Ethiopian economy has displayed some signs of GDP growth, but the Population, hunger, and poverty grew at a much faster rate than the GDP because the lion’s share of the nation’s industrial, agricultural, financial, transport and construction institutions were owned and operated by the TPLF party (EFFORT) and by the party heavy weights who benefited from the GDP growth and got richer and richer while Ethiopia as a nation maintained its last spot on the global poverty list. Besides, Ethiopia has one of the most regressive land policies in Africa which is designed to give the government more controlling power over the rural population. Ethiopia’s land policy has impeded development within the agricultural and several other key sectors. If we divide the last 15 years [since privatization] income of Ethiopia into thirds, we find that the top ten percent received half, the next 10 percent received  a fifth, and the bottom eighty percent claimed the rest. The US, UK, the EU, the World Bank and the IMF must understand that unless this lop-sided and ethnic oriented growth is checked in any way possible, Ethiopia’s so called double-digit economic growth means nothing more than double-digit poverty growth.

I believe, it is also the belief of the Ethiopian people that such words as improvement, growth, achievement and success have no meaning without actual progress and change in the day-to-day life of people. The principle of economic development lies in the human choice, and the Ethiopian people did not choose the economic system or the regime that runs the system.

ebini23@yahoo.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Meles Zenawi is the Prime Enemy of the People of Africa (ecadforum.com)
• Ethiopia: India’s massive land grabs in Gambela (ecadforum.com)
• Oh! Ethiopia – 10% Growth and 90% Poverty (ecadforum.com)
• Ethiopia: Is Zenawi a source of stability? (ecadforum.com)
• The Ethiopian Economy: Big Numbers and Empty Bellies (ecadforum.com)
• Ethiopia: Flag Raising Ceremony in San Jose (ecadforum.com)
• Ethiopia: “Sophisticated Begging” – Meles Zenawi and Aigaforum Style (ecadforum.com)
• China: Stop Supporting State Sponsored-Terrorism in Ethiopia (ecadforum.com)

Alemayehu G. Mariam

A Comedy of Errors: (Act I)

Rodney King’s videotaped brutal beating by members of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) eventually triggered the L.A. riots of 1992. Rodney made a public appearance on the third day of the anarchy and pleaded in his inimitable style:

People, I just want to say, can we all get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids? It’s just not right…. Let’s try to work it out.

I never thought I would appeal to Rodney King for political wisdom and insight in seeking an end to the internecine warfare in the Ethiopian opposition and plead for reconciliation, understanding and common sense. True, Rodney King is no Martin King, but in this instance I am going to invoke Rodney while pleading Martin to get Ethiopia’s opposition leaders to re-think and re-examine their strategy of mutual assured destruction (MAD).

It was amusing to read this past week a story about criminal charges filed against one faction of the Unity and Democracy Party [UDJ] (Andenet) by another faction of the same party in Ethiopia. Charged with disturbing the peace this past April are some of the prominent leaders and members of the UDJ. It is alleged that the defendants threw rocks at the party office and created disturbances while party members worked inside. Several witnesses testified for the prosecution at a hearing and the matter was continued to a later date.

There had been prior confrontations between UDJ members. In late 2009 when UDJ held its Extraordinary Congress at the Imperial Hotel, it was alleged that certain “expelled” members had attempted to disrupt the meetings. The police were reportedly called to intervene, but failed to show up. The meeting was cancelled and there were no prosecutions. But state-controlled television was on hand to record the bizarre spectacle for broadcast.

I am sure the whole zany rock-throwing affair gave dictator-in-chief Meles Zenawi and his crew much needed comic relief in the weeks before the May 2010 “election”. Today, Zenawi watches a command performance opera buffa of some of the champions of the Ethiopian opposition duking it out in kangaroo court. It is humiliating and embarrassing for many of us to see some of the giants of the opposition who have sacrificed so much of themselves pointing accusatory fingers at each other in the Zenawi’s Halls of Injustice. Of course, one would have expected all opposition leaders to get the message after the “election” and get their acts together. After all, Zenawi won by 99.6 percent, and they “lost” by 100 percent. But that is another matter. I only wish the accusers and the accused could see themselves from the outside as they spar in the three-ring circus of Zenawi’s kangaroo court.

Master Stroke of Public Relations (Act II)

The timing of the UDJ “prosecution” is curious, to say the least. The final report of the European Union Election Observation Mission Team [EU EOM] is expected to be released sometime in September. Staging a three-ring kangaroo circus over a rock-throwing incident to coincide with the release of the EU EOM report is a master stroke of public relations. It provides a nice distraction to the findings and conclusions of the forthcoming report. The criminal case will be dragged out to coincide with the release of the report and cushion the hard landing Zenawi is going to have in the report. We already know from the from the preliminary statements of EU EOM that the May 2010 “election” “failed to provide a level playing field”. Major donor governments have declared the election “does not meet international standards”. That is just diplomatic-speak for a stolen election. Regardless of what the final report will document, the incontrovertible fact is that an “election” that gave Zenawi a victory of 99.6 percent is not an election; it is a travesty of election.

But the sting of the EU EOM report could be lessened and world attention distracted by depicting opposition leaders as a bunch of bumbling and bungling lightweights (or worse) who are not only incapable of leading the country but are spending their time like children throwing rocks at each other. It is a brilliant public relations move by Zenawi to make a complete laughing stock out of some of the most respected leaders of the opposition. Let us just watch Zenawi showcasing the “rock throwers” freak show in his kangaroo court circus as the release date for the EU EOM report draws near: “Come one, come all to the greatest show in Ethiopia! Marvel and thrill at the rock-throwing Ethiopian opposition leaders! Stare in awe… Do you want these guys to run the country!?” Barnum and Bailey never had so much fun!

Justice in Kangaroo Court? (Act III)

Time was that opposition leaders were dragged in chains into kangaroo court to become victims of injustice. Some of the UDJ members in this criminal case were sentenced together to long prison terms in kangaroo court not long ago and served nearly two years before being “pardoned”. It is an eerie feeling to see them now standing on their hind legs pointing accusatory fingers at each other. UDJ members going to kangaroo court to seek justice is like Rodney King going before LAPD’s Internal Affairs to press charges against the cops who beat him to a pulp. It just makes no sense. I am dismayed and embarrassed by the sight of UDJ members brawling in a kangaroo cage match as Zenawi calls the count. What a low-down dirty shame for all who are toiling for democracy, human rights and justice in Ethiopia to view this spectacle. What comic relief for Zenawi and his crew. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

I want to laugh too, but it hurts to laugh. In fact, I would like to cry at the sight of these distinguished members of the opposition wagging fingers and exchanging verbal missiles in kangaroo court. What were they thinking?

But to add humiliation to a crying shame, I agonize over the possible outcomes of the criminal case. If the UDJ defendants are convicted and sentenced to jail, who wins? Zenawi does. He will step up to the podium and announce to the world that his justice system worked “fairly” and the criminal wrongdoers were held to account. He can walk up to his Western donors (a/k/a partners-in-crime) and smugly say, “Behold my opposition (chuckle)! See real justice at work!”

Who loses if they are convicted? The opposition does. The people will shake their collective heads in dismay and disbelief and ask: “What were they thinking? Why can’t they get along? If they can’t get along out of power, how could they get along if they get into power?”

Who wins if the UDJ defendants are acquitted? Zenawi does. He can show the world that justice was served in his court with impartiality and the innocent set free. Who loses if they are acquitted? The opposition does. The people will scratch their collective heads and ask: “Why did they do it? Was it worth their humiliation in kangaroo court?” In short, the kangaroo court criminal case is a win-win for Zenawi, and a lose-lose for the opposition!

But there is a less obvious conclusion to be drawn to the credit of the UDJ members. In the heat of the moment, certain party members may or may not have thrown rocks or exchanged harsh words. But to their collective credit, there was no shooting or extreme violence, as it often happens among opposition elements in so many parts of Africa. The UDJ members did not take to street justice to resolve their disagreements; they went to court (admittedly the kangaroo variety). I applaud them for that. They had the right idea, but went to the wrong place. Courts of law (in contrast to kangaroo courts) are the proper and civilized place to bring disputes for resolution. Independent judges (in contrast to hacks wearing judicial robes) can properly administer justice impartially and neutrally.

But the proper place for resolution of political disputes among Ethiopia’s opposition is never in kangaroo court, but in intra- and inter-organizational mediation and reconciliation processes or other civil society institutions. Throwing rocks or vilifying each other with abusive words is never justified. They do not need to beat each other up; they need to stand together and cover each other’s back. They need to shield each other from the ceaseless barrages of the slings and arrows of an outrageous dictatorship.

So I am going to “sermonize” a little bit here. If the bickering, name calling, rock throwing and all the other silly stuff continues, the opposition will end up in mutual assured destruction as the dictators look on with glee. It is mad to follow the path of MAD. The opposition has far too many important tasks to accomplish. They have already lost precious time in internal strife and fragmentation; they need to be doing more by way of uniting, mobilizing, motivating and inspiring the people with their ideas and plans. The people want to hear messages of hope and redemption from opposition leaders, not accusations and recriminations. The people want to be assured that it is possible, with dedication and effort, to overcome the seemingly insurmountable mountain of dictatorship; that change, peaceful democratic change, is possible and the people themselves hold their destiny in their collective hands. The people want to be shown these possibilities through leadership examples of optimism, dedication, tolerance, tenacity and patriotic zeal. That is the way to do it!

The kind of legal warfare we see in kangaroo court with opposition leaders and members is demoralizing; it is not uplifting for the people. It robs the people of their faith in the future and saps their energy, enthusiasm and hopes for democracy. Opposition leaders should be less concerned about their partisan interests and more engaged in addressing the needs of the masses of unemployed youth, the urban poor that have little to eat; the poor farmers scratching the earth for seedlings; the masses of women who face domestic violence daily; the educated professionals who can barely eke out an existence on salaries that are gobbled up by stratospheric inflation and the state workers who are forced to supplement their incomes by payments under the table. These people are looking for visionary leadership. They want to see clear-thinking and dignified opposition leaders charting the course to a better future. They do not want to see opposition leaders brawling in freak shows in a kangaroo circus court. Stated simply, opposition leaders and parties need consolidation, not fragmentation; they need reconciliation not accusation and recrimination.

Can’t We Just Get Along? (Act IV)

I see no need for opposition leaders to act in a vaudevillian comedy show directed by Zenawi. That is why I am asking them to develop and adopt a voluntary “code of conduct” to govern their relationships as they face a formidable common adversary. Such a code should address matters of civility, tolerance of dissent, non-use of inflammatory language, avoidance of personality clashes, constructive criticism of programs and policies, avoidance of personal attacks, establishment of formal and informal dispute resolution mechanisms, grievance complaint procedures and so on. Under no circumstances should they air their “dirty political laundry” in kangaroo court.

Political leaders and followers who are truly committed to democracy and human rights and work for the betterment of the Ethiopian people need to get along with each other and cooperate for a common purpose. They do not need to agree with each other on all issues or even the majority of issues. It is not even necessary for them to socialize and hang out together; but it is mandatory that they find effective ways of collaboration to advance their common causes of democracy, human rights, accountability, transparency and the rule of law.

Working together requires creating a harmonious working relationship founded on mutual respect, tolerance and understanding. If there are differences on issues, as there should be, all effort must be exerted to discuss and resolve them without degenerating into personal attacks. If issues cannot be resolved, it is best to agree to disagree and move on with other issues.

Teamwork and collegiality among opposition leaders are essential if dictatorship is to be defeated and real democracy established in Ethiopia. When opposition leaders attack and disrespect each other, they not only make themselves laughing stocks for the dictator and his crew but also look silly in the eyes of the public and set a bad example. The kind of dysfunctionality that is visible in the opposition today is not only pathetic but also harmful to the prospects of democracy in the future. Opposition leaders need to answer a simple question: How can they expect to work collaboratively in the interests of the country and fight dictatorship when they have hardened partisan politics among themselves so much? The road of hardened partisan politics leads to MAD. They may have been in separate boats before the May “election”, but now they are all in the same boat cruising up that famous creek without a paddle.

It is time now to transition to the politics of multi-partisanship, cooperation and collaboration. Practically, this means advancing the interests of the people over partisan politics or advancement of one’s agenda, status, career or ambitions. It means showing the people that the opposition is NOT the flip side of the ruling dictatorship. Stated simply, the people need to be reassured that in the opposition they are not swapping Tweedledee for Tweedledum. Democracy and dictatorship are not interchangeable. The most effective way of getting the trust and support fo the people is by proving to them what it means to work together harmoniously while opposition leaders and parties are on the outside, and before they have tasted the sweet intoxicating nectar of power.

That’s why I pose some simple questions to Ethiopia’s opposition leaders: “Why can’t you all just get along? Can you stop making it horrible for the older people and the kids? It’s just not right…. Why can’t you try to work it out?”

As the old saying goes, “Yesterday is gone and tomorrow is not ours, what we have is today.” Can we all begin to mend fences today and come together not only to oppose and defeat an ephemeral dictatorship, but most importantly, to put our collective shoulders to the grind wheel and work for democracy, justice and human rights in Ethiopia? Can we all get along!

FREE BIRTUKAN MIDEKSSA AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ETHIOPIA.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Meles Zenawi is the Prime Enemy of the People of Africa (ecadforum.com)
• Election results in Ethiopia (ecadforum.com)
• Africa Must Reject the Fraudulent Election Result in Ethiopia! (ecadforum.com)
• Ethiopia: “Sophisticated Begging” – Meles Zenawi and Aigaforum Style (ecadforum.com)
• Ethiopia: Steel Vises, Clenched Fists and Closing Walls (Part I) (ecadforum.com)
• Ethiopia: Meles Zenawi`s political maneuver in the Nile waters (ecadforum.com)
• Ethiopia’s Embarrassing Elections (ecadforum.com)
• Ethiopia: Is Zenawi a source of stability? (ecadforum.com)