A Call to Nonviolence

By Fikru Helebo

I wrote an article back in December 1994 with the same title as the title of this posting that was published by Ethiopian Review magazine. The political climate in Ethiopia that led me to write that article is essentially the same today as it was back then and, unfortunately, in some ways it is worse now than it was back then. I am pleased that the idea which I attempted to advocate over a decade ago is being taken seriously by most of the political players in Ethiopia today. But there is still a lot of skepticism about the applicability of a nonviolent strategy of bringing about change in Ethiopia. So, I think it is worth sharing it again since the message that I was attempting to communicate in the article is still useful today. Since much has changed in Ethiopia since I wrote the article, it is appropriate that I clarify a couple of the points that I had made in the article.

1. I picked the names of two individuals who, I thought, at the time I wrote the article, were an embodiment of the nonviolent movement in Ethiopia. One of the individuals I mentioned was Prof. Beyene Petros. I mentioned him because he was the leader of the SEPDC, the only major party in Ethiopia at that time which explicitly chose a nonviolent form of struggle and made it its signature issue by refering to it in its political program. However, after Beyene's betrayal of the CUD leaders in November last year, who were thrown in jail because they called for a nonviolent civil disobedience campaign to protest the disputed May 2005 elections, I don't consider Beyene Petros to be an advocate of a nonviolent movement in Ethiopia any longer.

2. If I knew then what I know now about former US President Jimmy Carter's ties with the Woyane leaders who rule Ethiopia with iron fist, I would not have written positively about the initiative of the Carter Center to mediate between the Woyane government and the opposition groups in that article. However, knowing the nature of some of the less accommodating sections of the opposition, I do believe that they would have tried to derail any attempt by any other group to find common ground among Ethiopian political groups.

Enjoy the unedited article in its entirety!

A Call to Nonviolence

The current political impasse between the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE) and its opponents should be a cause for great concern to all peace-loving Ethiopians, but especially to those of us who are committed to a nonviolent form of struggle to bring about change in Ethiopia. It was not too long ago when the mere sight of a nonviolence advocate would have been an aberration in the dogmatic world of Ethiopian politics. Not anymore! In the last couple of years, the principles of a nonviolent struggle, which Mahatma Gandhi called Satyagraha (truth-force), have gained much support among members of the enlightened intelligentsia and significant portions of the opposition movements. The emergence of academics such as Dr. Beyene Petros and Prof. Mesfin Wolde Mariam, among many others, in today's Ethiopian politics confirms the growing acceptance of this idea whose time has finally come.

This movement of nonviolence was elevated to a higher level of national importance as a result of the successful completion of the December 1993 Peace and Reconciliation Conference in Addis Ababa. The resolutions adopted at the conclusion of this conference were unequivocal in calling for the escalation of the peaceful struggle to bring peace and democracy to Ethiopia. Although each and every participant at that conference did not take a vow not to ever raise arms again to settle political disputes, it was abundantly clear that the conferees had concluded that a nonviolent means to find solutions to our problems must be given the utmost priority, and this had to be exhausted fully before resorting to any sort of armed struggle.

However, events of the past year have proven that this emerging movement of a nonviolent form of struggle has two bitter enemies who are both determined to prevent it from gaining ground in the Ethiopian political arena. These enemies of peaceful struggle are the TGE and the extremist opposition groups, who both mainly draw their strength from the polarization of the Ethiopian polity along ethnic lines and need each other for their very existence.

For its part, when first confronted by a peaceful movement of a higher moral authority, the TGE was confused and did not know how to react to it. Its decision to renege on its promise to participate at the peace talks sponsored by the Carter Center last February was a good indicator of this confusion and it revealed the TGE's lack of interest in engaging in a peaceful dialogue with the opposition. This decision, which really amounted to a vote of no-confidence on the peace process, exposed the TGE's utter hypocrisy in advancing the cause of peace and its insincerity in dealing with the opposition. But when the TGE finally realized that this peaceful movement was, indeed, a force to be reckoned with and that it is able and prepared to deliver to the Ethiopian people an alternative concept of governance, it then began thwarting all efforts made to bring it to the negotiation table.

This ill-advised decision on the part of the TGE has since fostered a political environment in which it has become more difficult to sell the ideals of a nonviolent movement. On the other hand, this polarized atmosphere has become a godsend to those voices of extremism who preach armed struggle as the only way of forcing the TGE to negotiate, and this, in turn, has encouraged some Ethiopians to sympathize with their divisive message of intolerance. This has played right into the hands of the TGE masterminds who have all along been looking for a pretext to unleash their provocative terror campaigns to silence and discredit the opposition, including the advocates of nonviolence.

For their part, those extremist elements in the opposition camp, who, by the way, do not hide their disdain for the idea of a nonviolent struggle and view it as just an exercise in futility, also did their very best to undermine the development of a positive and constructive political dialogue among Ethiopians. The disinformation campaign these extremist groups waged against the Carter Center initiative was one prime example why these groups are not at all interested in a peaceful process that will inevitably lead to a compromise solution which will not fully please everybody. Their rush to declare the peaceful struggle dead on arrival, as evidenced by their statements made before the December 1993 Peace and Reconciliation Conference, is a clear testament to how little they value the peace process.

These extremists have also been trying in vain to portray the proponents of nonviolence as an out-of-the-mainstream intellectuals who do not understand the mind-set of the Tigrean ruling elite, who themselves had gotten to this point by usurping power from the Derg regime through violent means and has since shown little inclination to share this power with other Ethiopians. Some of them have even gone further than this and have accused us of complicity and conspiring, along with the TGE, to temper their determination to oust the Tigrean "occupying army."

So, it is not then surprising that. this budding nonviolent movement is facing a stiff resistance from all corners of a traditional society such as ours, one that puts a lofty premium on vices like vindictiveness and pride much more than it does on the virtues of peacemaking and humility.

As we debate the future course of the struggle for peace and democracy in our troubled motherland, I would like for us to consider the following hard truths. First, we in the opposition are up against an opponent which is armed from top to toe and is more than willing to flex its muscle anytime and anywhere it is confronted by force. Second, we Ethiopians have already paid dearly in terms of precious human life and limited material resources because of the intransigence of the combatant parties in the protracted civil wars of the last three decades. Third, the state of ethnic relations in Ethiopia at the moment is at its worst, at least since the turn of this century, and, therefore, it is not farfetched to suggest that any future military conflict in Ethiopia is sure to have a decidedly ethnic dimension. The dire consequences of such a conflict are not hard to imagine; it only suffices to look at the carnage in Rwanda, Somalia and Bosnia. Fourth, we Ethiopians are among the poorest inhabitants of this planet Earth, with an annual per capita income of around $110, a life expectancy of only 47 years, and more than half of our population still living in abject poverty. These are only a few of the long list of depressing statistics about our country that most of us do not like to be reminded of. So, may I ask, is it fair to live off the back of our people, and on top of that, still continue to ask them to sacrifice their meager resources to fund military causes that have gotten us into this dungeon in the first place? Need I say more to discourage these extremist groups and the TGE from pursuing their fatalistic adventures?

The extremists would have us believe that conditions in Ethiopia are so intolerable, say, as compared to five or fifteen years ago, that only force will reverse this trend. The arguments advanced by the more sophisticated among them are subtler and even seem to be logical to some extent. For instance, they suggest that some violent actions are required now if we are to avoid a greater destruction later. It's immoral not to fight back against cancer in its earliest stages, so goes their argument. It is the right thing to do to attack it before it spreads around and become incurable, they assert. But this is an age old argument that is designed to appeal to one's emotion, and not to reason, in the context of the Ethiopian political dilemma. For one thing, these warmongers are part of the cancer that is eating away at the fabric of our society. For another, they are the least qualified, of all people, to administer the cure, for the cure they prescribe has proven to be a total bust in the past. Also, these people hopelessly advocate their hollow doctrine of a carrot and stick approach towards the TGE, but, they know it and the Ethiopian people also know that, they do not have the kind of support they need to deliver neither the carrots nor the sticks. This extremist's infatuation with the outmoded Machiavellian tactics of yesteryear confirms more than ever that their primary goal is the usurpation of political power and not the provision of real solutions to the urgent problems that our people face everyday.

Providing real solutions for our people means devising ways in which they will be self-sufficient in feeding themselves rather than begging for handouts on their behalf from the rich nations year after year. Real solutions for our people means investing in their education and health services, and it also means contributing constructively to the economic and socio-political development of our country. Friends, is the suffering of our people from recurring droughts and famines any of your concern? Is the explosion of AIDS cases in Ethiopia a cause for alarm to you? Do you really care about the future of the hundreds of thousands of our young people who are languishing in our cities without jobs or hope? What about our posterity? If your answer to these and other pertinent questions is in the affirmative, then let me humbly suggest to you that it is virtually impossible to direct our attention to addressing these urgent problems when we are devoting our resources to objectives that are inherently destructive. So, I am calling upon you all peace-loving Ethiopians to divest your resources and efforts from all violent methods of struggle and invest them into nonviolent ones.

It is worth noting what Mahatma Gandhi once said to the British viceroy in India at the peak of his peaceful struggle to end British colonial rule in India. He said: "My ambition is no less to convert the British people through nonviolence, and thus make them see the wrong they have done to India. I do not seek to harm your people, I want to serve them even as I want to serve my own..." If Gandhi can bring himself to say this to his colonial rulers, to those who treated him as a second class citizen in his own country, why shouldn't we Ethiopians be able to say the same to each other? Our country's very survival depends on our willingness to find a common ground within our differences.

Gandhi's glorious experiments with a nonviolent struggle have since then been refined and successfully implemented in many countries around the world, most notably in the United States by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. So, I say, if nonviolence has worked in India, South Africa and the United States, why not try it in Ethiopia? I fervently believe that a militant nonviolent movement is what is needed at this juncture to force the TGE to compromise and join hands with us in rebuilding Ethiopia. I also believe that, given the chance, Ethiopians will choose to solve their problems through peaceful means, and they deserve to have our full support to make it happen. In this process of peaceful struggle we will have learned a lot about ourselves and, hopefully, we could also be role models to others who find themselves in similar predicament.

In parting, I would like to warn the nonchalant and the procrastinators amongst us to recognize that Ethiopia can not be saved from her current slide into mayhem by the efforts of a few individual activists only or by the generosity of her rulers. This can only be accomplished by the full engagement of all Ethiopians in the peaceful struggle and our determination to persist in it till the end.

May-to-May, the Political Saga of Ethiopia

By Ephrem Madebo

In the last twelve months, the journey of the Ethiopian people towards justice and democracy has been wearisome, disappointing, and daunting. Unlike any other time in our entire history, in the last twelve months, we Ethiopians saw the sparks of a democratic process, yet as we started participating in the process, we found ourselves far-flung from democracy. Between May 2005 and May 2006, the Ethiopian people dangled between hope and despair, between power and helplessness and between joy and sorrow. This agonizing emotional rollercoaster has obligated many Ethiopians to re-examine the past and look for alternative ways of solving the seemingly intractable dilemma of our nation. From May 2005 to November 2005, the Deddesa valley and the city of Kaliti were turned in to a makeshift concentration camp for elected MPs, the streets of Addis Ababa were washed with the blood of innocent citizens, teenagers who mourned the death of their friends were charged for genocide, and mothers who protested the arrest of their spouses were shoot on the head. Just like the other eleven months, there are only thirty days in May (Eth.Calendar), but what happened in May 2005 is a haunting iniquity that hangs around to posterity. Evidently, to the citizens of Ethiopia, the May-to-May period is characterized by hope and despondency, by elevation and degradation, and by agony and short lived ecstasy. Everyday, the conscious mind of parents [parents whose children paid the ultimate sacrifice] tussles with the memory of their massacred children, and it takes an instant break each May as it fails to reason out the heartrending loss of life.

The post election drama of Meles started just a day after the election when PM Meles took the role of the legislative body and issued an emergency condition decree. PM Meles who has the “skill” and the “wisdom” to do everything, hurried to write a new law to enable his hardhearted Agazi squad to kill peaceful demonstrators. The PM was conscious of his unconstitutional move, and he also knew the Ethiopian people would disagree with him; however, he made himself the supreme commander of Addis Ababa to kill demonstrators, disregarding the constitution he wrote. In October 2005, Meles Zenawi, the same dictator who wrote the law to confine and/or kill demonstrators, ordered his rubber-stump parliament to remove parliamentary immunity from elected MPs to throw opposition leaders to jail and be a lone player in the Ethiopian political landscape.

Between July 2005 and October 2005, the opposition parties and the EPRDF regime were occupied with the issue of joining the parliament. Why? - Meles’s existence as a “democratic” leader depends on the transparency of the EPRDF system; moreover, Prime Minister Meles knows his survival as a leader depends on the legitimacy of his actions and how donor countries trust him as a lawful leader. Therefore, no matter how disgracefully he put himself back in power; he still wants to give legitimacy to his rubber-stamp parliament by imploring the opposition to join the parliament. On the other side, the opposition rejected the idea of joining an “executive branch” parliament that stripped immunity from its own members to serve the interest of a dictator. The decision of the opposition [CUD, UEDF] to boycott the parliament is crystal clear; it is to deny legitimacy to the Meles parliament. In my opinion, the decision of UEDF and CUD not to join the parliament was not even a boycott, it was a well-timed decision not to join the assemblage of people who lost the election, but found their way to the parliament through political appointment.

The May-to-May transgressions of the EPRDF regime are innumerable; some are daily emerging new tribulations, and yet some are sins accumulated for years. One of the most detestable and enigmatic actions of Meles is his justification for the 1998-2000 war against Eritrea, and his sightless acceptance of the Algiers accord that eventually gave Bademe to Eritrea. Only months after brave Ethiopians disillusioned the speculative ambition of EPLF and freed the area of Bademe; Meles Zenawi, the 21st century Sultan Ibrahim, put the fate of the freed people of Bademe back on the negotiation table. For the first time in the history of mankind a country that lost the war won the very motive of the war. The chameleon PM of Ethiopia, who has an Eritrean face at dawn and who pretends to be an Ethiopian at dusk, ratified a resolution that transferred Ethiopian territory to Eritrea for the second time in fifteen years. Today, Meles is on the verge of handing over Bademe, the Akeldama of Ethiopia, to Eritrea. If Meles is allowed to stay in power for another five years, I believe he will be job less as there will be no part of Ethiopia left to be conveyed to another country. Mournfully, to Ethiopians this can be the beginning of the end, to Meles it is mission accomplished.

In the months of March and April 2006, Meles Zenawi unleashed his retaliatory punch in areas where most people voted for the opposition. According to reliable sources, in rural areas where TPLF lost the election badly, the ruling party cadres and district officials are intimidating and harassing farmers. The implementation of Planned Development projects is being transferred from areas of opposition supporters to areas of EPRDF supporters. Agricultural credit extension services and the distribution of fertilizers are used as weapons to punish farmer who voted for the opposition. Towards the end of March and at the beginning of April 2006, Meles’s killing squad left Addis Ababa and roved the calm squares of Awassa, Leku and Dilla killing the most vulnerable citizens of society, students and teachers. In Gedeo, the ruling party poured its poison among the Gedeo and Gurgahe nationalities causing a confrontation that claimed the life of innocent people.

In the last six months a series of unexplained explosions have been rocking the city of Addis Ababa. Though EPRDF is still trying to fabricate evidence that links opposition parties to the explosions, so far, neither the Ethiopian government nor opposition parties have come forward with a full explanation of the bombings; moreover, none of the home-grown armed groups have claimed responsibility for the bombings. Some Political Analysts who profoundly understand the anatomy of TPLF blame the ruling party for the explosions. In deed, the TPLF regime that went to war for no apparent reason can easily do such cheap blackmailing bits and pieces to blame opposition parties and distract the attention of Ethiopians and the international community.

After May 2005, the political reality of Ethiopia changes daily and takes an indeterminate path. In this sometimes theatrical and sometime callous reality show where victory recedes as one gets closer to it, there are three groups of actors that collide with each other.
In one group there are the Ethiopian people who are determined to talk-the-talk and walk-the-walk, on the second group we have a divided opposition that failed to provide a unified leadership to the popular movement; and on the third group, we have an enemy who is determined to harm our country. Today, many opposition party leaders who defied the titular parliament are jailed. Other opposition parties who preferred the parliamentary path of fighting for justice have joined the parliament. Yet there are some others who started playing a safe game. There is no doubt that there is a slim possibility of exposing TPLF’s empty promise by categorically challenging and opposing every bill that comes to the floor of the House of Representatives, however, one should bear in mind that joining the parliament legitimizes an illegitimate institution that serves the interest of a tyrant. Finally, I have the following advice for the safe players: In the face of the current political reality of Ethiopia, playing safe is the same as playing for the wrong team.

In Ethiopia, the gleaming pre–election democratic process and the election itself were the outcomes of a consistent and bitter struggle of all Ethiopians. Obviously, the popular movement was facilitated by a myriad of political parties and civic organizations that were less coordinated. In fact, lack of coordination and trust between the different political parties has adversely affected the journey of the Ethiopian people towards democracy. From the Paris conference to the Rockville forum of unity and from the nomenclature change of AAPO [AAPO to AEUP] to the formation of CUD; In the last 15 years, the sons and daughters of Ethiopia have tried to forge a united political party, but the much awaited unity eluded Ethiopians as the different parties and groups firmly stood for their minuscule agenda at the cost of the superior national agenda. In my opinion, in the last twelve months, the failure of UEDF and CUD to work together was the worst political debacle that gave life to the otherwise dying regime of TPLF. Between the months of May and September 2005, the heart of Ethiopians was so big and many Ethiopians were ready to bump into their enemy. In September 2005, when the informal alliance of CUD and UEDF called the stay home labor strike, Meles and company were disarrayed and taken aback, however, the shrewd leader of TPLF knew how to pour water on the fire ignited by the opposition, where as the naive and irresolute alliance of CUD and UEDF listened to the Western powers and dropped its ball to negotiate with Meles. The inexperienced opposition gave Meles ample time to cool off the people’s wrath, the only force that could have brought his totalitarian regime to an end. The opposition failed to use its only power, the people’s power. All in all, the net out come of the negotiation was that Meles successfully defused the grenade that would have destroyed him.

Why was Meles Successful?
There are three factors that helped the Meles regime to slow down the popular movement.

Failure to forge a political alliance: In the May 2005 election EPRDF faced a divided and in many cases a competing opposition. In precincts where EPRDF faced a single opposition candidate, the opposition won, where as in places where EPRDF faced multiple opposition candidates it won. In Oromya and South Ethiopia, in some precincts, both UEDF and CUD had multiple candidates running against EPRDF and each other. After the May 2005, many Ethiopians were impatient to see CUD and UEDF work together. In deed, during the first two months after the election, the two parties responded positively. When the opposition negotiated with EPRDF, the two parties worked together, but when the negotiations failed and Meles showed the tendency of playing his preferred game [muscle game], the two opposition groups failed to work together. The failure of the opposition to deliver a unified leadership culminated to its worst level when CUD boycotted the parliament and the two UEDF member organizations, SEPDC and ONC, joined the parliament.

Indecisiveness of the opposition: When donor nations initiated negotiations failed, the opposition displayed its meagerness to decide on matters of national significance when it called off the first round of stay home labor strike. In my opinion, nothing relived the anxiety of Meles like the failure of the opposition to execute its own plan. When UEDF and CUD were making decision to join or not to join the parliament, they should have shared information and should have been matured enough to perceive the strategy of each other and their rival in order to play a win-win game. Over all, the indecisive opposition underestimated its internal forces and it expected much from external elements who repeatedly pushed the opposition to join the parliament.

Power struggle within the opposition: In the last ten years, power struggle within and between the opposition parties has created a favorable conditions for EPRDF. Meles’s swift and harsh crackdown of the CUD leadership was highly attributed to Lidetu Ayalew’s ambition for supremacy and his determination to achieve his objective at any cost. Before and after the election, instead of working with the how to get there strategy, the mind set of some opposition leaders was preoccupied with the idea of what happens after the demise of Meles. All in all, the relationship between the different opposition parties was full of distrust as the parties grappled and watched the movement of each other.

The success of a political party or any organization is highly dependent on the leadership style of the leader. Though leadership style is not the sole decisive factor for organizational success; organizations that have open, flexible, altruist and charismatic leaders usually meet planned objectives. In Ethiopia, the leadership style of some opposition leaders is not qualitatively different from the leadership style of the two consecutive dictators, Mengistu and Meles. Inflexibility, lack of tolerance, lack of compromise, individual ambition to power, and the attitude of “my way or the high way” are still rampant features among some Ethiopian political leaders. To be honest, it is the behind the scene power struggle and lack of constructive dialogue between the leaders of CUD and UEDF that avoided the much needed alliance of the two coalitions. Between 1999 and 2003, a possible political unity between AAPO, SEPDC, EDP and ONC was cut short by the self-seeking leaders of the four organizations. The recent descend of Lidetu from adored “Mandela-like” charismatic leader to the most distrusted and abhorrent political figure in just six months illustrates the unrestrained power monger behavior of our political leaders.

For many generations, lack of dualism was the main deficiency of the Ethiopian political structure, in fact; Ethiopia still lacks true political dualism. The beginning of Meles Zenawi’s regime was marked by the proliferation of parties and political organizations. Today, there are a large number of political parties and civic organizations; however, the Ethiopian political condition is deteriorating with the passage of every single day. The current political impasse of our country clearly indicates that it is about time to move to a qualitative concept of party organization. The existence of numerous parties dilutes the strength of the opposition; likewise, a zealous attempt to propel a single party to a national stage simply downplays the effort of many people whose aphorism is inclusiveness. Today, many opposition party leaders are in jail, regardless of our part affiliation, we all have the responsibility of fighting for their immediate release. During the Apartheid era, black South Africans utterly embraced the ANC which ultimately led them to victory. Our country Ethiopia lacks Mandela like leader and ANC like umbrella organization. In the last fifteen years, when every time our struggle conceived a promising leader, it was always aborted by TPLF; meanwhile the Ethiopian people have always been looking for a “Moses-like” charismatic leader who can lead them to the Promise Land. CUD has tried to lead us to victory in its own way, UEDF has rambled lonely, and OLF and some others have resorted to the use of force. It just didn’t work! Armed struggle or the use of gun might bring an end to the TPLF regime, but, in the first place, armed struggle is a very long process that consumes human life and countless amounts of material resources, secondly, it will never solve political differences except granting temporary political power yet for another dictator.

Currently, almost all of CUDs leaders are in jail, and UEDF is divided in to the domestic, and the exile UEDF. As the old saying “Divided we fall” goes, we are on the verge of failure. All in all, the two main opposition parties are in a mode of partial paralysis. The mission of TPLF is to be a sole actor in the Political scene of Ethiopia; we should never allow this dream of TPLF to materialize. Ethiopia is a combination of the people represented by CUD, UEDF, OLF, SEPDC, and other parties. It is imperative that these parties and other political and civic organizations start working together and bring the long awaited peace and democracy to Ethiopia. Remember, the love and dedication we have to our country is not measured by the quality or quantity of ideas we bring to the table, it is measured by our tolerance to gracefully acknowledge and treasure the idea of others. Each road that we build to walk alone, every dignified idea that we discard, and every progress that we obstruct will only prolong our pain and extend TPLF’s life.

Terrorism: the New Weapon Against Democracy in Ethiopia

By Fikru Helebo

Tsegaye Tadesse of Reuters "reports" on the latest of a series of "mysterious" explosions that have rocked the city of Addis Ababa. It seems to me that some one in Ethiopia is bent on using terror tactics to instill fear among Addis residents to further it goals.

Although no one should be naive enough to discount that these bombings could be the works of a desperate foreign government or a frustrated domestic group, my instinct tells me that these series of bombings have Meles written all over them. Having come under heavy international pressure to resolve the political impasse that is his own making since November 2005, Meles has every reason to portray the opposition as "terrorists" who are bent on creating chaos and instability in the country. For a person who has shown no hesitation whatsoever to give orders to shoot to kill defenseless pro-democracy protesters, to design and execute terrorist incidents like the recent bombings in an attempt to discredit the opposition camp in the eyes of Western donor nations and plant seeds of doubt among some Ethiopians does not require stretching one's imagination.

Ethiopians at home should be on high alert as they go about their daily business and try to do their part to catch and expose this latest Meles scheme for what it is: an abominable terroristic act. I urge them to arm themselves with cameras and practice citizen journalism. If practiced wisely and in a well coordinated manner, I am sure citizen journalism can play a constructive role in hastening the downfall of this terrorist regime. Is is very sad that the very government that is supposed to protect Ethiopians is now, in all likelihood, engaged in terroristic acts to prolong its stay in power.

Public Meeting Announcement

The North America SEPDC Renewal Committee cordially invites Ethiopians in the Washington, DC metro area for a public meeting on Sunday April, 2 2006 at Unification Church. Click here to see the flyer for the announcement in Amharic.

The North America SEPDC Renewal Committee was formed at the end of last month by four individuals from the SEPDC North America branch who disagree with the positions that Professor Beyene Petros has been taking after the May 2005 elections and have also expressed their objections to his undemocratic and divisive leadership style of the organizations that he leads.

YewusT Arawit (Beasts Within)

By Erango Kelbisow

Click on the image of the poem to enlarge it.

Rubber Stamp Parliament I

By Fikru Helebo

Three months ago today, in the aftermath of the November killings and arrests of opposition leaders and supporters through out Ethiopia, I wrote an article urging opposition parliamentarians who joined parliament to withdraw from parliament. I argued in that article that the only useful purpose the presence of oppositions MPs in parliament would serve is to give legitimacy to an illegitimate regime. I directed my call for withdrawal to those parliamentarians belonging to the Southern Ethiopia Peoples Democratic Coalition (SEPDC) because this is a group I had supported in the past. But my call could just as well have been directed at all opposition MPs. Sadly, the eleven SEPDC MPs as well as many MPs belonging to the other opposition parties have made an ill-advised decision to remain in that parliament.

It goes without saying that the opposition MPs are well within their right to join and remain in that parliament. After all, they were duly elected and they have a duty to represent the constituent that elected them. However, there is a higher duty that these opposition MPs were elected to uphold. These MPs were elected at a very critical time in the history of the nation and, as such, their main duty was to be a beacon of hope for a people that have been yearning for a representative form of government for more than three decades. They were elected to play a vanguard role in the budding movement for democracy, not to go through the motions of a rubberstamp parliament that has been tried in the previous parliament. The Ethiopian people deserve a much better representation from their elected representatives than what these MPs are willing to give it to them.

Instead, the opposition MPs have allowed themselves to be used by a regime that wants to force its fraudulent win in the May 2005 election on Ethiopians through terror and bribery. These MPs have chosen expediency over principle at a time when it is obvious that principle should rule the day. They have abandoned the awesome responsibility of doing what is right and what is in the best interest of Ethiopians that came with their election at this historic time. To put it bluntly, they have chosen to pursue their own personal interests rather than that of the public's interest. Ultimately though, it is up to the Ethiopian people to pass judgment on these opposition MPs, and the day of reckoning for them will be here before we know it. In the mean time, however, we need to keep tabs on how these MPs are doing in parliament and assess their performance or lack thereof from time to time. I will attempt to do this from the perspective of the SEPDC MPs in my next article.

Recommendations to the SEPDC Leadership

By Concerned Members and Supporters

For Immediate Release

[Amharic Version]

February 22, 2006

A seriously concerned group consisting of members and supporters of the Southern Ethiopia People's Democratic Coalition (SEPDC), residing in North America, advanced a series of recommendations to the SEPDC leadership in the wake of the ongoing political crisis in Ethiopia. The group is deeply concerned about the integrity of the Southern Ethiopia movement and the organization that currently represents it, in view of the recent behavior of the leaders, particularly the non-transparent and divisive manner in which they joined the parliament.

The group believes that the Southern movement is guided by the need for equitable and full participation of the peoples of the South in Ethiopian politics and its fair contribution to the social and economic development of the country. As such, the movement should be aligned with the popular struggle in Ethiopia that is currently under way. In this spirit, the group convened a couple of telephonic meetings in November and conveyed the following to the SEPDC leadership:

• Immediate and unconditional release of all prisoners arrested in connection with the May 2005 election controversy and recent protest by the opposition.
• 
  
Immediate and unconditional cease of persecution of opposition leaders, members and supporters by the government.
• 
  
Immediate and unconditional reversal of the resolution that removed political immunity of the elected parliamentarians.
• 
  
Immediate and unconditional return of the government and opposition to the negotiation table to discuss items presented by the opposition groups.
• 
  
If the government refuses to respond to these items or wants to delay it by more than seven days, withdraw from the parliament and join the Ethiopian people outside the parliament.

The SEPDC leadership responded to our letter on time, but the group found it entirely unsatisfactory. Consequently, a follow-up and extended telephonic meeting was held in December. After a lengthy discussion, a decision was taken to send a follow-up letter [see below] detailing the group's reasons for finding the response unsatisfactory and then asking the SEPDC leadership to reconsider its position. There were 15 individuals from various states in the US whose names were appended to the letter as signatories. The group consisted of long-term members and supporters of SEPDC, including some members of the organization's central committee, who are now residing in the United States.

The group has particularly been known for its continuing support of the SEPDC under the leadership of Dr. Beyene Petros and his colleagues. However, Dr. Beyene and the other members of the executive committee kept the letter hostage on procedural grounds, and the letter was not even presented to the SEPDC leadership (Central Committee). We are deeply disappointed that the letter continues to be held hostage, and at this stage we have no choice but to go public with our collective effort to salvage the Southern Ethiopian movement in the face of the misguided approach that the SEPDC leadership has adopted. Hereby we are releasing our second letter in its entirety. We wish to emphasize that we are forever committed to the advancement of the peoples of Southern Ethiopia and will continue to support their rightful participation in the struggle for democracy, justice and the rule of law.

Follow-up Letter:

December 15, 2005
The Central Committee of the Southern Ethiopia People's Democratic Coalition (SEPDC)
C/O Dr. Beyene Petros
P.O.Box 30751
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Dear Committee Members,

Pursuant to your response to our recommendations, we have held two telephone conferences. The final telephone conference (TC) group attracted twenty-four individuals and it involved two hours of heated exchange. The TC group came to the following conclusions and action items.

1. The TC group appreciated the manner in which the CC took our recommendations seriously and discussed them in full faith.

2. The essence of our letter to you was to urge the SEPDC leadership and the MPs to fully participate in the popular struggle for democracy in Ethiopia and to withdraw from the parliament if certain minimum conditions were not met. The TC group concluded that the SEPDC CC rejected our recommendations. Further, the group observed that the CC's meeting to reaffirm the decision of the Executive Committee to remain in the parliament was convened despite and after the TC group submitted a set of recommendations to the organization.

3. The group is dissatisfied with the reasons adopted for rejecting our recommendations. While the group understands that the SEPDC leadership is in a better position to know the exact details of the challenges and the opportunities the organization and the people are facing, there are facts and developments that are readily available to all of us regarding the current political situation in the country, the government's anti-democratic actions, and popular response against them.

4. On your decision to remain in the parliament, you wish to base it on the future events that may affect the extent to which you will be productive in your struggle. You may then consider leaving it altogether if you find it hard to function through the parliament. The group, however, seriously doubts if anything of a measurable value can be achieved in a parliament where a new regulation requires 51% of the house to put an item on the agenda. In fact, the mere presence of an opposition in a parliament deemed unlawful by the people can only be considered as passive acquiescence with the actions of the regime that has resorted to repression and force to stay in power.

5. SEPDC is a democratic organization that advocates democracy and practices democracy in its decision-making processes. It is the belief of the TC group that the way the executive committee of the SEPDC decided to join the parliament was not transparent and was divisive.

6. The SEPDC leadership considers joining the parliament a mature tactical political move, but the TC group is yet to see any accomplishments thus far, particularly in reversing the procedural rules of the parliament that was decreed by the retiring MPs and in securing promises from the regime to release political prisoners jailed during the most recent popular uprising. In fact, SEPDC must establish a working relationship with CUDP to assist them secure release of their leaders and advancement of the demands of the opposition, including the establishment of a government of national unity and an independent election board.

7. The TC group initiated these discussions to address SEPDC related issues as they relate to the political situation in the country and government actions against the people's movement for democracy and rule of law. The outstanding issues within the UEDF did not and do not constitute the core of our communications. The TC group is constituted by individuals that have supported the SEPDC and the people of the south for years, and have the knowledge of the intricate relationships within the Ethiopian opposition. Thus, we reject any suggestion that the TC group may be acting as a conduit for political interests of other groups outside the Southern movement.

8. It should be recognized that the role of members and supporters of the SEPDC and the Southern movement is not limited to financial resources, but it should also include input to tactical and strategic issues facing the organization and the movement. The TC group strongly believes that the Southern movement should be completely aligned with the popular Ethiopian movement, including with those civic organizations that promote democratization, at this critical juncture in the country's history.

9. As a result of our recommendations being rejected by the SEPDC leadership and our dissatisfaction with the reasons given to us, we are asking again the leadership to reconsider its position and accept our recommendations, the essence of which is stated in item #2 above. We would appreciate your response to this letter by January 8, 2006. If you continue to stay in the parliament, we believe you should initiate a public debate with the people that you represent on the benefits and adverse consequences of your actions.

10. We sincerely hope that the leadership will reverse its approach. Otherwise, we think this misguided approach carries the danger of derailing the southern movement that has been nurtured over a decade, while misaligning the struggle of the Southern Ethiopian Peoples with the rest of the Ethiopian movement at this critical juncture. At this stage, we (TC group) have no choice but disassociate ourselves from the leadership's misguided approach. We will, however, continue to support the struggle of the Southern Ethiopian peoples and quest for democratization in Ethiopia.

Sincerely,

Concerned Members and Supporters (list of names of individuals included in the original letter)

The Long Journey of Beyene Petros

By Bizu Banti

This article, written in Amharic, is a PDF file and it was inspired by Professor Beyene Petros' recent election to lead yet another party, the ESDFP, now renamed ESDP. The names of the authors of all the articles that appear here on Enset blog are all real names and we discourage anonymity. But we had to make an exception for this article since the author resides in Ethiopia and would like to remain anonymous. Under the totalitarian atmosphere that prevails in Ethiopia today, anonymity for such an author is totally understandable. Enjoy!

Melkam Amerar (Good leadership)

By Erango Kelbisow

Oh! Ethiopia

By Ephrem Madebo

Ethiopia is a country where Political, social, and economic inequality are century old trends that resurface as one dictator is replaced by another. In the last four decades Ethiopia has politically been unstable, its economy in shambles, and the country has socially been higgledy-piggledy. Ethiopia, the second most populace black nation on the planet, has always been crammed with poverty, starvation, and social injustice. The principal problem of Ethiopia has always been the existence of Ethno-nationalist groups who make use of governmental power to create and enforce public policies that advance ethno-nationalist objectives. In almost all cases, ethno-nationalist polices undermine the rule of law; and most awfully, constitutional laws are neither enforced nor drafted with equal protection in mind.

In 1990, when ‘Woyane’ changed its name from TPLF to EPRDF and got closer to Addis Ababa, its primary catchphrase was freedom and equality. Today, fifteen years later, TPLF builds University College in Mekele and kills University students in Addis Ababa. TPLF brazenly channels international aid funds and other resources from the other parts of Ethiopia to its own power base. For example, in Tigray zone, there is one hospital for every 286,143 people, where as in Amahara and Debub zone, there is one hospital for every 1,011,452 people (Source: http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/battling_hiv-aids_ethiopia.pdf). In today’s Ethiopia, the majority of the larger economic firms are either entirely or partially owned by the TPLF elites. TPLF is a ruling party, a trading corporation, and a legislative and a judicial body.

Ethiopia is a country of many nationalities where the unequal distribution of power and wealth is rampant and seemingly interminable. From Emperor Menelik, the architect of modern Ethiopia, to Meles Zenawi, the disintegrating agent of Ethiopia; every Ethiopian regime has used the resources of the south to benefit the few, keeping the South in an invariable state of melancholy and teeth gnashing. In the last one hundred years, the role of the South in the national decision making process was next to nothing. In 1974 and 1991 when those on power were dazed, and when a short time governmental power vacuum was created; the South has never been close to filling the vacuum. Today, the Ethiopian political spectrum is jam-packed by self-acclaimed, elegant, and devious groups who promise true democracy for Ethiopians. In a land where promises are never kept, the South should never be swindled again.

Most political parties of the last four decades failed to succeed because they overlooked the political history of Ethiopia. Main stream Ethiopians usually dismiss the existence of a century old power struggle between the politically dominant North and the dominated South. Even toady, in the era of information technology, when Southerners articulate the Ethiopian problem from the Southern perspective, their ideas are mocked and domed as divisive and untimely, furthermore, the comprehensive ideas of Southern intellectuals are reduced to ethnic issues. In the contrary, remnants of the old system praise the wickedness of the feudal system as a blessed act of nation building. For example, a recent article on ethiomedia web site (http://ethiomedia.com/courier/proud_neftegna.html), compared the Lewis & Clark continental expedition with Emperor Menelik’s expansion to South Ethiopia. This is what the writer said:

“Neftegnoch’ are respected, and names of great Neftegnoch such as Lewis & Clark are made immortal. Lewis & Clark extended the frontiers of America from coast to coast in the same way the Ethiopian pioneers once did to Africa. But, for reasons unknown, the ancient ‘Neftegnoch’ failed to create the Continent of Ethiopia and Africa is today what we believe it should not be”.

The writer failed to let us know what happened to millions of Native Americans after the Lewis & Clark expedition, and he disregarded the history of how the so called pioneer ‘Neftegnoch’ treated the people of the South for almost a century. The writer not only fails to tell us the truth, but he also tried to justify the system that reduced Southerners to sub humans by calling the builders of the system “Pioneers”. Such neglect, failure, and disregard to spell out the truth should not be attributed to being naïve or lack of knowledge because it is an out-and-out denial of history.

Why did some intellectuals, groups, and political parties of the last four decades fail to see the root cause of Ethiopia’s problem? What is Ethiopia’s root problem? As I tried to mention above, Ethno-nationalist groups who make use of governmental power to create and enforce public policies that advance ethno-nationalist objectives are the root causes of all of Ethiopia’s problems. Most Ethiopians thought all problems associated with land ownership were resolved by the 1975 rural land proclamation, yet today 31 years after the landmark proclamation, the land tenure system is a major problem in Ethiopia. Today, many Ethiopians inside and outside Ethiopia are fighting hard to bring an end to the TPLF regime; but will replacing TPLF by it self really solve Ethiopia’s problem? If the answer is yes, in the last 30 years Ethiopia has seen three different governments come and go, but none of them solved the root problem of Ethiopia. In my opinion, most Ethiopians agree on the issue of purging TPLF, the problem comes on the question of the replacement. In fact, the fundamental point of departure between the different opposition groups lies on who should replace the TPLF regime.

The main stream Ethiopian political pitch is composed of individuals, groups, and political parties who exhibit one of the following characteristics:

• Deny the existence of problems: These are people who deny or question the history of the North-South domination in Ethiopia. To these people, modern Ethiopia was formed by the good will of individuals, groups, and nationalities that co-existed harmoniously.
• Muffle Problems: These are people who clearly understand the political history of Ethiopia, but muffle the root problems in search of short cut to political power.
• Run from problems: These are people who acknowledge the existence of problems, but they try to solve the problems by just running away from them. The creed of this class of people is: ‘Let us forget the past’ and be united to fight TPLF.

If one denies the existence of problems, it will absolutely be impossible to solve them; the TPLF regime can certainly be avoided, but the struggle continues unless problems are exhaustively discussed and the body that replaces TPLF is put together with a mutual consensus of all Ethiopians. One can muffle problems for a little while, but eventually the muffled problems will explode and create more damage. Finally, no matter how far one runs away from problems, the problems will always follow him/her. Obviously, one can not solve problems by dwelling in the past; likewise, no problem can be solved without knowing its root and uprooting it.

To establish a united Ethiopia, the people of Ethiopia should enter in to a social contract with each other. The most important precondition for a social contract is a lasting trust among the different nationalities that constitute the nation of Ethiopia. No trust can develop between people when one group denies, muffles, or runs away from a problem that the other group acknowledges and works hard to resolve. In all political settings, where trust or contracts are the vital issues, different groups and political parties have repeatedly been observed reducing themselves from the national agenda to egoistic group or individual agenda. This infectious disease is not limited to individuals; it is widespread among influential political parties that are expected to lead the country. ONC, SEPDC, and the trendy CUD are not free from such a syndrome. In fact, the inability of UEDF and CUD to work together as political allies is mainly characterized by the dread of who controls power. Immediately and following the May 2005 election, the focus of CUD and UEDF was not fully centered on EPRDF, they were rather infatuated with a personal agenda of putting their own person in the most powerful spot. Had UEDF and CUD worked together before and after the election, they could have put the first legal resident in Ethiopia’s executive mansion. The imprudent political and economic relations of the past hundred years have drained the trust that one group has for the other. In 1991, OLF was part of the transition government, however, it pulled itself out of the TG because the TPLF gang wanted a total control of the country by itself; ever since, the political relationship between OLF and other opposition groups was exemplified by lack of trust. Ethiopia needs a vanguard party that establishes trust, harmony, and an all rounded equal relationship between Ethiopians of different background.

Currently, the Ethiopian people are determined to get rid of the TPLF gangs, what they lack is a vanguard party that leads them to victory. I do believe we still don’t have a single trusted party which is strong enough to lead Ethiopians to victory. In the May 2005 election, ONC and other Oromo groups won few parliamentary seats in the Oromya zone; but, OLF, arguably the greatest name among the Oromos was not even in the picture. In the South, the bungled SEPDC failed to extrapolate its landmark victory of five years earlier. If one goes back and assesses the May 2005 election, the Oromya and the Southern zones were the two main places where EPRDF had relatively strong footing compared to UEDF and CUD. With the exception of the three densely populated localities of Wolayta, Kembata, and Hadya, the South was plagued by a political vacuum. Poor leadership and lack of democratic culture made the Southern Ethiopian People Democratic Coalition (SEPDC) a bystander on its own turf. Obviously, CUD made unmatched attempt to reach the people of the South, but its appeal to the Southern voters was optimistically answered only in few urban centers like Awassa. The Oromos are disgruntled with TPLF the same way the Amaharas are, but why did CUD fail to secure comparable number of votes in Oromya zone as it did in the Amahara zone? All in all, why is CUD less popular among the Oromos?

Trust is a vital component in the creation of a true democratic Ethiopia, when a true democratic Ethiopia is formed with the unconditioned free will of all Ethiopians, and when the constitutional separation of power is properly enforced; legal and democratic institutions will flourish in all parts of the country paving the way for the restoration of political equilibrium between the different regions of the country. In a true democracy, most people conduct themselves rationally; no individual, group, or region will have a reason to change its behavior given the choices of all other individuals, groups, or regions. In a true democratic Ethiopia, the existence of a transparent judicial system and the prevalence of checks and balances between the different branches of the government will deter people from resorting to violence to resolve political differences.

Today, there are a large number of players in the political environment of Ethiopia; some are coalitions (CUD and UEDF), others are liberation fronts (OLF, ONLF, and TPLF), and yet some others are regional mass based political organizations (SEPDC, ONC and TAND). More or less, all of the above political players represent people; some are large stakeholders representing a larger section of the population. All of these political organizations have the responsibility of ensuring a lasting peace, freedom, and justice to the Ethiopian people and they are accountable for the actions they take and fail to take; but none of the political parties can claim to have a historical responsibility of single handedly carrying the yoke of the struggle. The group effort of CUD and UEDF shortly before and immediately after the May 2005 election was praised by many Ethiopians and friends of Ethiopians, but instead of expanding their popular base by inviting other stakeholders to the political forum, the group effort of CUD and UEDF diminished as one distrusted the other. It is absolutely important to acknowledge that neither CUD nor UEDF can successfully wage their struggle without entertaining the Oromo, the Ogaden, the Afar, the Benshangul etc questions at the national level. I do have respect to ONC and other Oromo parties, but at the mean time, I have trouble visualizing the future mode of being of the Oromo people in the absence of the biggest player, the OLF. The current leaders of CUD, UEDF and other opposition groups have the responsibility of bringing OLF to the national political forum. At the mean time, the OLF leaders should take their own initiative to solve the Ethiopian problem with their brothers. Disregarding dialogues and resorting to the use of gun might ensure a temporary political power like TPLF, but it will never solve political differences.

Over all, people have similar interests and wishes. The over all interest of the oppressed people of Ethiopia is similar; North or South, we are all Ethiopians and we live in the context of each other. Southerners have been Ethiopians for many years, but did not participate in the national decision making process. Obviously, as most Ethiopians understand, the Ethiopian South and North do not share identical historical background. The South was denied of political power, has a forgotten language and a neglected culture. Such differences and the hideous parts of our history should not be denied, it should be uncovered and discussed. The past should be used as a bridge to bring Ethiopians together. Those who rebuff the past are doing nothing, but building a wall that keeps people apart. History is a lesson that educates us to hold on to the beneficial occurrences of the past and avoid adverse experiences from unfolding again. We can’t simply leave the past to historians; we all should deal with it. Historical coincidence has placed us at a crucial time in our country’s history; we face a huge task of liberating our people from all kind of oppression once and for all. This overwhelming task needs the coordinated effort of all oppressed people. Let’s rise together and find solution for the deep-seated problem of Ethiopia. Let’s run to save our country from falling apart, not for power!

Nothing Is Evil, But Evil Itself

By Ephrem Madebo

I enjoyed reading Dr. Mogus Mochena’s latest article. As I understood his article, Dr. Mogus makes a call for the formation of a new Southern Ethiopia party. According to Dr. Mogus the struggle of Southern Ethiopians goes beyond just getting rid of Meles Zenawi’s dictatorial regime. The Ethiopian South is a place where imposed culture and language was/is a substitute for local culture and language. The resourceful South is also a place that is reduced to poverty by the deliberate actions of all past Ethiopian governments. This is evil. I don’t think Mr. Begashaw, who wrote a rather insipid comment on Dr. Mogus’s article, seems to understand this overarching evil and fails to get the gist of Dr. Mogus’s article.

The concept of the ‘South’ in Dr. Mogus's article is not only geographic; it is also a political concept. In Ethiopia, the concept of North and South represents the dominator and the dominated. This is a fact. Mr. Begashaw’s fear of division among the opposition based on Dr. Mogus’s article is an irrational one that does not reflect the political reality of Ethiopia. The CUD is primarily an urban party and the UEDF is an agglomeration of parties that are primarily based out side of Ethiopia. In the midst of such configuration of opposition parties, the stubborn leaders of the SEPDC, purportedly representing Southerners, are sitting like dummies in the illegitimate parliament. As a result of these factors, a political vacuum has been created in the South and it needs to be filled and Dr. Mogus’s article addresses this vacuum.

I also find Mr. Begashaw’s call for Ethiomedia web site not to post articles which he deems "divisive" to be very disturbing. There is a wide array of views among the Ethiopian opposition and Ethiomedia is well advised to continue to accommodate them. Mr. Begashaw should be ashamed of himself when he tells Ethiomedia to act like Ethiopian Radio and Television. I thought we were struggling to have a free press. I thought some of us left Ethiopia because we couldn’t freely express ourselves. The South fears attitudes like that of Mr. Begashaw’s and that is why most Southerners feel their interests are better served if they have their own party. It is high time that Mr. Begashaw and his ilk learn to appreciate the diversity of Ethiopia and respect the desire of Ethiopians to organize in any way they wish.

What is a specific current situation in Ethiopia that warrants us not to fill a political vacuum? When is the right time to form a party? I do believe Dr. Mogus’s article initiates a dialogue among Ethiopians and contributes positively to the formation of a true democratic Ethiopia. The effort to get rid of the Meles regime and form a government of national unity should be inclusive; no individual, group of individuals, or no single party is given a sole historical task of fighting for Ethiopia. Mr. Begashaw may not like the idea of new party in the South and he should be entitled to his point of view, but he should be mature enough to recognize that there may be many others who may like the idea and want the dialogue continue. At the end of the day, it is the majority of the people in Southern Ethiopia who will decide whether or not it is a good idea to start a new Southern party at this point in time.

High Time For A Strong New Party: The Southern Ethiopian Congress (SEC)

By Mogus Degoyae Mochena

As Ethiopia convulses in political violence, we face new challenges and problems. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States of America, “The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.”

In the wake of the political seismic wave of immense magnitude that ripped through Ethiopia, we, Southern Ethiopians, like other Ethiopians, have been shaken to our core. We are shocked and enraged by the scope of the brutality unleashed by Meles’ government. “A crackdown on this scale has not been seen in Africa for twenty years and the repression exceeds anything by President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe for the past decade at least. Apartheid-era South Africa's onslaught against the black townships in the 1980s provides the only recent comparison", writes David Blair of The Daily Telegraph.

How sad it is, at the dawn of the twenty first century, when the exercise of democracy is commonplace throughout the world, we are being brutalized by megalomaniac leaders. How sad it is to see our psychotic leaders drag all Ethiopians through so much pain and tribulation to stay in power at any cost.

More than any other country in the world, this ancient country of ours, saddled with the most abominable level of poverty, desperately needs a stable peaceful political environment to overcome the disgraceful misery almost all of our fellow citizens face every day. Instead of working out solutions through dialogue to form a unity government, to our dismay and heartburns, we are now forced to confront an intransigent evil. The situation is so depressing that it may seem the easy way out of this conundrum is just to give up and bury one’s head in the sand like an ostrich. But how could anyone with an ounce of morality abandon tens of thousands of young people in mosquito-infested barracks at the mercy of inhuman thugs? How could we turn our eyes away from our people as they are being terrorized and humiliated? We can’t just sit around; we cannot escape the moral obligation that confronts us. We can’t give up. We must fight tooth and nail against the monsters. History will judge us unfavorably if we fail to do so.

Unfortunately, there is no recipe or charted path to overcome evil. One thing is for sure, that it will take the combined efforts of all Ethiopians to withstand EPRDF’s bestiality. In light of this, our struggle should be dual in nature: fighting in tandem with all other freedom-loving Ethiopians the repression of Meles on one hand and putting our own house in order on the other.

Yes, our house in the South is in shambles and must be put together. As we struggle with the rest of Ethiopians, we must also examine ourselves, our political organizations and the interests and aspirations of our people very carefully. This was once the region where the ray of freedom that spread into the rest of Ethiopia emanated in the 2000 elections, but now no more. Our region was once the beacon of hope and our people were the ones who passed the torch of peaceful struggle to the rest of Ethiopia, but now no more. What went wrong?

Our brothers and sisters were brutally killed by EPRDF forces during the 2000 campaign. Many more were imprisoned, and thousands went into exile for standing up to EPRDF. Our people chanted slogans of freedom and even mocked the death of EPRDF. “Where are you going?”, said the first group while going to one of the 2000 campaign rallies. And the second group replied, “to Wachamo”. “To do what?”, asked the first group. “To EPRDF’s funeral”, chanted back the second group. Way back when, in 2000, our people wished the death of EPRDF. They rallied in large numbers against EPRDF’s rule of corruption and incompetence. Has all this sacrifice of theirs been in vain? Fourteen, long years of sticking out their neck, for
what?

Even if all else is not well in the South at present, at least the torch of peaceful struggle was successfully passed to the rest of Ethiopia; the rest of Ethiopia responded, followed suit our people and voted against EPRDF in 2005 elections. The struggle reached its crescendo. Sadly, those who were once the vanguards of opposition against EPRDF, the people of the South, are nowhere at this critical juncture as a result of absent leadership. The leadership and elected members of the Southern Ethiopian Democratic Coalition (SEPDC) have chosen to sit as pots of plants in a kangaroo parliament lending legitimacy to a brutal dictatorship. Do our people deserve better leadership and representation after all that sacrifice?

A Brand New Party, A New Beginning

Why a new party is necessary now? Is it not just enough to reform SEPDC? Or is it just enough to become part of a “pan”-Ethiopian party; after all, the South is not any different from other parts of Ethiopia? Is it not better to be part of UEDF or CUD?

These are serious questions that need serious answers. How we go about laying our foundation now will affect the course of future politics in the South for many years to come. In order to choose the correct path for the future, we must scrutinize the recent political developments especially those right before and after the May 2005 election. We must size up our political standing in the midst of other contending entities, recognize our weaknesses and strengthens so as to build on our strengths and avoid from repeating similar mistakes in the future.

In all of these deliberations certain self-evident truths must be taken into account. Some of the historical dirty linen must be washed clean to build a stronger South and, consequently, a stronger Ethiopia. Certain incontrovertible facts must be exposed in order to find the right cure for the disease that is afflicting Ethiopia. The prime culprit among the causes for most of the turmoil we are experiencing is the unequal distribution of power and the lack of check and balance that prevents one group from dominating over the other.

One could go back as far back as Emperor Menelik or Emperor Haile Selassie or The Derg or the beginning of TPLF rule in 1991. I will leave that to historians. For the purpose of this article and as we look forward the 2005 parliamentary elections could be taken as a watershed moment. After all, these elections were the first elections of their kind in which multi-party campaigns have taken place in this ancient country for the first time. And the results of the elections serve us as a yardstick to find out where we stand in the spectrum of the current Ethiopian politics.

The 2005 elections clearly exposed the Southern political landscape to all interested parties. Real numbers and actual results cannot be fudged, so we must analyze and understand them in order to learn from mistakes and plan for the future. The three major parties, CUD, EPRDF and UEDF garnered different degrees of support in the region. We have many questions to ask and also find answers for. Why did people in the towns mainly vote for CUD? Why did EPRDF succeed in zones like Woleyita and how is that related to its divide and rule strategy? Will Kaawo Tonna be proud of the Woleyitas who sold out to EPRDF? Why did SEPDC (UEDF) just win only in Hadiya and Kembatta? Why has SEPDC fared miserably after five years (since the 2000 triumph)?

The results clearly show a divide between towns and rural areas, and between different regions consisting of different ethnic groups. How could we then bridge these gaps between the different constituencies as we try to forge a strong NEW Southern Ethiopian Party? What kind of theme will galvanize the different components?

As things stand now, there is a big vacuum that has been created due to lack of a strong party. As a result, those with brutal force on one hand and others with better messages and stronger organization were able to sway votes in their favor. In the mean time, the lack of focused Southern leadership that could have organized its people contributed tremendously to the partitioning of the votes, eventually leading to a weak influence of the South on the national scene.

Setbacks are a way of life and are bound to happen from time to time. It is okay to fall down as long as one gets up. We may have received severe body blows, but we must rebound and reclaim what is our own. The South needs a very strong party, built on democratic principles, that appeals across the South. Right now there is no such party, it is time to form one. If you wander, if we have to do this from a scratch, my answer is not necessarily. We can patch up what is already present and build upon it. Existing parties are welcome if they want to join hands and form a stronger party. [For instance, The Southern Ethiopian Democratic Coalition (SEPDC) can undergo a major surgical procedure, transformed radically and can constitute a major wing in this NEW party. The New party will be much bigger than SEPDC with fundamentally different principles and will involve a much larger constituency. It will be a regional party in the strict sense of the word Southern and will be open to anyone residing in or affiliated with the South]. Even in the worst scenario, if we had to start from a scratch, we can learn a valuable lesson from an old Chinese saying : “A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.” We have to start somewhere and should not be afraid of starting what is timely. We cannot just sit around and not fill up the void created by lack of a strong party. I believe we can do it. Let us also remember the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, another great American President, “The only thing to fear is fear itself.”

Our goal is simple and straightforward. We want something that is lasting that belongs to the people of the region and not to individuals. We want a political institution that is based on democratic principles. We want something that grows and not something that dwindles as years go by. We want a dynamic party that engages its people in its decision making, envisions the future and inspires its people to ascend to greater heights. We want leadership that listens to the voices of its people and prepares younger generation for the challenges of future leadership. We want continuity and not faith in just one individual. We do not want to throw all of our eggs in one basket. We want leadership that consults with its people and finds out what they think. We want a truly democratic party that attracts all of the South because of its ideas and promises. We want a party that challenges its elite to get involved and lead. Above all we want a truly Southern party that represents the South on equal footing around a round table of Ethiopian politics. We want to lead ourselves within the bigger tent of Ethiopia and fight for political, economic and social interests of the region.

I believe we can rise up to the occasion. If we do not do it , who will do it? Let us be bold. Let us form The Southern Ethiopian Congress.

The author would like:
From a Southern vantage point, Northerners have dominated the Ethiopian political, economic as well as cultural landscapes for the past one hundred years since Emperor Menelik conquered the South. As a result, Southerners have been treated as second-class citizens. These ugly facts must be taken into account as we shape the future not only to be free from Meles’ dictatorship but from all forms of unequal relationships and dominations, and as we establish political alliances with others.

• to exchange ideas about getting this New Regional Party off the ground.
• to hear from Southerners from different regions of South.
• to scout for leaders in Ethiopia who will lead this New Party. The current environment is difficult, but the groundwork must be laid and struggle must continue.

The author can be reached at mmochena@yahoo.com.

No More Senseless War

By Fikru Helebo

Back in early 2000 some opponents of the Ethiopian regime, which I prefer to call appeaseniks, vigorously supported the regime’s military campaign to regain the territory that was lost to Eritrea in May of 1998. The appeaseniks reasoned that Eritrea’s invasion of the "disputed" stretches of land along the border area and the subsequent bombardment of civilian targets in Tigray region by Eritrean warplanes had taught the ruling TPLF party a lesson it won't forget: a politically divided Ethiopia that it helped to bring about is not in the interest of Tigray region.

The appeaseniks further argued that TPLF’s fallout with the Eritrean regime had left it with no choice but to pursue a policy that will put Ethiopia’s national interest ahead of Tigray’s parochial interest, and that the TPLF could eventually be persuaded to create a healthy political space for its domestic opponents as a derivative of this change of policy – the so-called peace dividend. The wishful thinking of the appeaseniks was understandable to some extent, but history teaches us that appeasement of dictatorial regimes and power-crazed militant groups has never worked and is invariably destined to fail.

It did not take very long for the TPLF to disappoint the appeaseniks as it signed the Algiers Peace Agreement without consulting them or the Ethiopian people who made the decisive victory on the battlefield possible in May and June of 2000. Alas, the TPLF’s primary interest did not match that of Ethiopia’s primary national interest once again! The Algiers agreement also demonstrated that, at its core, the TPLF is a group that is made up of an incorrigible bunch of power thirsty individuals who do not possess the wisdom that would enable them to share real political power with the vast majority of Ethiopians from other regions. And, just like that, the wishful thinking of the appeaseniks came to an abrupt end before it had a chance to be tested.

Now, five and a half years later, Ethiopia’s victory on the battlefield, which cost tens of thousands of lives, has become a distant memory and it is clear that the 1998-2000 Ethio-Eritrean war was fought on a false premise. Most Ethiopians believed that their army was fighting for the territorial integrity of their nation and to secure Ethiopia’s natural access to the sea. Sad, but true, we now know that the real reason for the conflict was the long standing rivalry and the resultant animosity between the leadership camps of the two parties that ruled the two countries, and not the border dispute as it was made out to be.

The belligerents who gave us that senseless war, a war that should never have taken place, are now back at it again beating the all too familiar drums of war and readying their poor soldiers to die for a totally unjustifiable reason. The border dispute that sparked the war in 1998 could have been resolved through negotiations, and it can and it should be solved through negotiations regardless of how long it takes to resolve it. The Jane's group recently summed up the state of tension between the terrorist regimes of the two countries in this way:

Ethiopia has not been inclined to accept the award of territory to Eritrea and has difficulty coming to terms with its loss of direct sea access. Eritrea, meanwhile, just seems bent on being difficult. Both also have internal political and security problems, making an external 'threat' a welcome distraction.

This, I think, is a pretty good short summary of the state of the stalemate between the two belligerent parties at this point in time. That said, my view, for what it's worth, is that there cannot be any real peace between the states of Ethiopia and Eritrea until both countries have representative governments that can negotiate a real peace agreement on behalf of their respective people. Furthermore, even if the belligerent parties somehow manage to avoid going to war this time around and settle their differences by ratifying the Algiers agreement and demarcating the border, any peace agreement that is reached by the current holders of state power in Addis Ababa and Asmara will not be considered complete by the Ethiopian people if the agreement fails to address Ethiopia’s unencumbered access to the sea through the port of Assab.

Helen Helebo, 1973-2005, R.I.P.

ሔለን ሔሌቦ

Helen was a person of faith and courage. Helen was dedicated to her family and friends and she lived her life as it should be lived: she had an abiding faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and she had an unflinching optimism and a great attitude that endeared her to all who knew her. Helen passed away a week ago today at a young age of 32 from bone cancer. Learning of Helen’s untimely death, a long time family friend, Shaun Tate, wrote the following: “Helen was, is a remarkable young lady, bringing sunshine into any room she entered. She seemed to be one of the most genuinely happy people I have ever met.” This past week has been a very sad one for me, my family and all who knew Helen. We will terribly miss her positive attitude in all things and her infectious smile. But life has to go on, as it must, and blogging on Enset will also continue. Helen would not have it any other way.

The Lord is a mighty tower where His people can run for safety. Proverbs 18:10

IRIN's Interview with Berhanu Nega

"I deserve and Ethiopians deserve as much rights, as much democratic government as anyone else. In fact, we need it more for our development." - Berhanu Nega, Ethiopian Prisoner of Conscience.

On May 30, 2003 the Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) posted an interview it conducted with Berhanu Nega on its web site. I feel that this interview is a must read interview for any serious observer of Ethiopian politics and all who care about the well being of Ethiopia. I have posted below excerpts from the interview that dealt with democratic reforms. When you read it, please bear in mind that the interview was condcted more than two and a half years ago. The good news is, in the two and a half years since Berhanu refered to the attitudes of Ethiopians as "docile", Ethiopians have proven him wrong by exhibiting extreme courage in standing up for their God-given human rights. On the other hand, the bad news is the state terrorism perpertated on its own citizens by the regime in power has increased dramatically since Berhanu's interview. Hopefully, Ethiopians will once again prove Berhanu wrong by overcoming the reign of terror that is imposed on them by the Meles regime. Now to the interview...

IRIN: Donors argue that the country is democratic, or at least moving towards it?

BERHANU: What I have been hearing from donors when this is raised is that the country is moving in the right direction. They acknowledge there were irregularities here and there, but by and large for a country like this it should be acceptable. Then you find yourself in a difficult position, because you don’t know what a country like Ethiopia deserves, what is our package of democracy - 20 percent, 30 percent?

My assumption is, there is only one process: that the election is free or is not free. It doesn’t have to be perfect, but at least we shouldn’t see state functionaries making it difficult to have a free and fair election. Nobody in their right mind in Ethiopia can tell you that it is not perfect but not even acceptable when you have one party winning some 90, 95 percent of parliament. It just doesn’t happen. We should not fool ourselves.

IRIN: So you are saying the donors authorise the government rather than the people?

BERHANU: There is no mechanism for the actual population to give any approval. The dynamic link that ought to exist between state and citizens is broken, and in between are donors. We face a situation where the state is much more interested in pleasing donors and will tell them what they want to hear; and citizens, because they have no means of reaching their own government in an organic way, they put their complaints through donors.

At the end of the day, development is what individuals do, not what the state or donors do. It is what individuals do to improve their lives that will improve long-term development. The issue of freedom and democracy is important. It always amazes me that donors are not interested it that aspect.

IRIN: How responsible then are donors for undemocratic systems?

BERHANU: The general cliché is if there is going to be democracy it has to come from our own efforts. But if that is to mean - would donors have a contribution to democratisation, they certainly would. Are they effectively using their partnership with the state to pursue a clear democratic agenda - then they haven’t shown it unfortunately. That is why the pressure for a genuine democratisation process in this country doesn’t seem to come from anywhere.

Citizens are so docile and terrified that they wouldn’t do what is needed. Donors are not pressuring them to do it, because they have other interests: they are essentially comfortable with what is going on. If you want to be more radical, you can say to a certain degree they are racists, because they really don’t believe that Ethiopians deserve the kind of democracy they are enjoying in their own ountries. They think that countries like Ethiopia are so backward they only need a small amount [of democracy]...

I deserve and Ethiopians deserve as much rights, as much democratic government as anyone else. In fact, we need it more for our development. We need it desperately, because we need to liberate the individual, because the individual has to fight to improve his or her own lives. It is that feeling of freedom, to struggle to improve your own condition that is going to bring development in this world.

Withdraw from Meles's Parliament

By Fikru Helebo

In the wake of the stolen elections of May 15, 2005 and the subsequent brutal repression of any meaningful political dissent in Ethiopia, the sole useful purpose that the continued participation of members of the Southern Ethiopian Peoples Democratic Coalition (SEPDC) in Meles’s parliament serves is to provide an appearance of a continuation of a democratic process in Ethiopia for a totalitarian regime that desperately needs a semblance of it. Therefore, it is my considered view that the eleven members of the SEPDC who have joined Meles’s parliament should withdraw from an institution that has come to symbolize tyranny in today's Ethiopia while there is still time to do so.

The purpose of a political party is to bring together people who have common beliefs with the hope that they may pull their resources to putting their shared principles into practice. The folks who founded the SEPDC back in 1992, and those of us who later joined them, shared the core belief that there was, and there still is, a vital need to address the power imbalance that exists in Ethiopia - a power imbalance which has disenfranchised Southerners for more than a century. Unfortunately, it is now increasingly becoming more evident that the SEPDC is failing to be the party that can bring most Southerners together to the realization of this shared core belief.

In countries where multiparty politics is practiced, a political party will try to put its principles into practice by fielding candidates for political offices and winning a majority of the seats in legislatures. In Ethiopia, democracy and multiparty politics are fairly new concepts, and the country experienced its first genuinely contested elections only in the year 2000, albeit it was limited to the Hadiya, Kembatta and Tembarro regions in Southern Ethiopia and a few Woredas in Addis Ababa. The main opposition party contesting in the elections of 2000 in Southern Ethiopia, and for that matter in all of Ethiopia, was the SEPDC. Southerners, irrespective of their ethnic background, were filled with pride when the SEPDC registered a first in the history of modern Ethiopian politics when its candidates won 9 seats to the federal parliament, and by so doing the SEPDC proved to Ethiopians everywhere that it is, indeed, possible to achieve their political objectives by engaging in electoral politics, even under conditions that are not favorable to the opposition parties.

Unfortunately, the euphoria of election success in that small corner of Southern Ethiopia did not last long. The ruling party, the EPRDF, understood very well the significance of its defeat in Hadiya, Kembatta and Tembarro areas in 2000 and the implications of this defeat with regard to its monopoly of political power and, so, it set about to nip SEPDC's success in the bud by making Hossana, the capital of Hadiya region, a military garrison and a staging ground for persecuting SEPDC's supporters accross the region with impunity. This persecution caused more than a thousand young Hadiya, Kembatta and Tembarro supporters of the SEPDC to leave their homes and seek refuge in countries beyond Ethiopia’s borders. Having suppressed all opposition activities in Hadiya, Kembatta and Tembarro areas, the EPRDF then easily "won" the uncontested local elections of 2001 in textbook fashion.

EPRDF's severe clampdown on SEPDC's supporters in 2000 and 2001 had the effect of crippling SEPDC's activities in the Southern region as a whole. Leaders of the SEPDC at the grassroots level, who deserve most of the credit for the success of the SEPDC in the 2000 elections, understandably became demoralized. In early 2003 I had the opportunity to witness first-hand the demoralizing effect of EPRDF's repression on SEPDC's grassroots leaders on my visit to Hossana. The morale breakdown I witnessed did not surprise me since I had expected it. What surprised and baffled me, however, was the lack of support these grassroots SEPDC leaders were getting from SEPDC’s top leadership. It was apparent to me that the grassroots leaders throughout the South were left to fend for themselves by SEPDC’s national leadership and, by the time the 2005 elections approached, it was clear that the SEPDC grassroots leaders were a disorganized bunch. What was most disturbing to me in the period between 2001 and 2005 was the fact that the SEPDC's top leaders were busy building alliances with other parties, a number of which have had little or no appreciation for the very reason the SEPDC was established in the first place, while ignoring the needs and views of the SEPDC grassroots leaders that made the result of the 2000 elections possible. [I am all for building political alliances to achieve a certain common objective, the objective for the Ethiopian opposition being the defeat the EPRDF in an election. However, I do not believe abandoning one’s grassroots support base is the way to build alliances.]

The May 2005 elections are considered by many a watershed moment in the history of the country, and I do concur with this view. However, I would like to remind the reader that SEPDC’s performance in the 2000 elections was a precursor for the performance of the opposition in the 2005 elections. While I was disappointed that the political party I had supported for a long time and one that spearheaded the aspirations of millions of Southerners in the last decade failed to make gains in the 2005 elections, I was delighted to see other parties who are committed to democratic pluralism in Ethiopia do well. But, as a Southerner looking towards the future, I feel that SEPDC’s poor performance in the 2005 elections coupled with its leadership’s unwillingness to admit the mistakes of the past four years, which led to the poor performance, and the leadership’s lack of desire to make the necessary corrections that will enable the SEPDC to be a genuine voice for Southerners again, has put the shared core belief that gave birth to the SEPDC in 1992 in grave danger.

What is even more distressing to me is that this shared core belief, a cause for which many precious lives were lost and for which thousands suffered imprisonments and persecution, is currently being tainted by the continued participation of SEPDC members in Meles’s parliament. If the eleven SEPDC members continue their participation in this parliament without adequately addressing the desires of the overwhelming majority of the Southern electorate to stay out of it, I can predict with reasonable degree of certainty that the SEPDC will inevitably be considered by most Ethiopians to be an organization that is engaged in aiding and abetting the suffering of Ethiopians at the hands of a hated regime.