By Ephrem Madebo
"We are getting out of the whole process. The whole process is an illegal process," Honorable Beyene Petros "
We did not want to be the cause of any crisis. But when the government shows no willingness to cooperate, and wants to be the only party which governs Ethiopia, then we have no hope. We cannot work with this kind of party. We have to quit and show the world we are not able to work with them." Honorable Bulcha Demeksa
"Election results will be quicker than in Zimbabwe" Bereket Semon, Chief of the Political Bureau of the EPRDF
I guess Mr. Bereket is right, and in deed election results are much quicker in Ethiopia than in Zimbabwe because Bereket’s party new super-computer has the capability to accurately forecast election results weeks ahead of the election. This past Sunday Ethiopia held a National Intra-TPLF party election to once more bless the ruling minority party with an end-less and limit-less power. Unlike the May 2005 election, the elections of April 13 and April 20, 2008 were carefully designed and allowed to take place after avoiding the non-TPLF cloned opposition parties, and after making sure that each and every vote goes to the TPLF ballot box. Sunday’s National election was a mock election where the Ethiopian people were denied to make a choice. Form start-to-finish, the organizers, the candidates, the monitors, the ballot inspectors, and of course the winners of the politically homogeneous election were the TPLF agents.
If there is any opposition political leader that knows the "anatomy" of Meles, it must be none other than "Microbiologist" professor Beyene Petros. So why did a person who knows the in-and-out of PM Zenawi for the last 16 years decide to boycott the election at the 11th hour? To boycott an election one should first agree in the existence of a legitimate election where all parties play by agreed common rules. In Ethiopia, there are no rules or policies that favor an all inclusive participatory election. So why did Beyene Petros and Bulcha Demeksa enter the election in the first place? Professor Beyene has alternately lead the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF) since its inception in 2003, is he still the leader of UEDF, specially after he dismissed UEDF’s majority decision in 2005 and joined the Parliament?
On April 10, 2008 just three days before Sunday’s election, Professor Beyene’s party boycotted the election citing the illegality of the election process. The boycotting drama continued after Sunday’s election and OFDM boycotted the election alluding to the unwillingness of the ruling party to honestly include other parties in the election process. Thanks to God, finally, after three years of dancing with the wrong partner, the willfully sleeping giants have awakened. However, only time will tell if this is a change of heart, or a habitual change of gesture!
A political election is a mechanism by which modern democracies fill offices in the executive, legislature, and sometimes in the judiciary. It is a decision making process where citizens are provided with a choice of individuals to choose from for a public office. The election process may differ from country to country, but the fundamental rules and pre-conditions are the same. The electorates must be given a clear choice and must be left free to vote for a candidate of their choice. There must be an independent election institution that examines and arbitrates election disagreements. These three pre-conditions are non-existent in Ethiopia. TPLF is the lone player in the campaign trail and the Ethiopian Election Board officials are hand picked by PM Meles Zenawi.
In 2005, when TPLF followed a relatively liberal election policy, it was Professor Beyene who repeatedly vowed to boycott the election. Surprisingly, it was the Professor himself that gave legitimacy to the 2005 sham election by blaming the pro-democracy demonstrators as rock throwing thugs. During the fruit less negotiations of 2005, it was again Professor Beyene who gave Meles the moral justification to imprison high level CUDP leaders by calling off the "Stay home" strikes and by joining the parliament against the decision of his own party. Between November 2005 and August 2007 when millions of Ethiopians and the international community cried for the release of CUDP leaders, Professor Beyene was quietly making non-reciprocal concessions with Meles. As a leader of one of the oldest opposition coalition [SEPDC], Professor Beyene did not publicly denounce the imprisonment of his fellow opposition leaders, nor did he congratulate them when they were released. In the absence of the CUDP leaders, the honorable Beyene Petros, a man whom the Associated Press called "leader of the largest opposition" in Ethiopia, was working hard to inherit Lieutenant Girma’s worthless chair to serve a party and a man he opposed throughout his entire public life.
Until the day he unilaterally joined the parliament, Professor Beyene was the leader of UEDF, but he was stripped off his leadership role when he broke the very decision that he was entrusted to execute. Professor Beyene can not be the leader of an organization that he does not belong to unless UEDF is a house hold item of the Professor, or the name UEDF is synonymous with SEPDC. I hope the true UEDF will give us a better clarification and defend the indivisibility of its leadership.
In the 1990s Professor Beyene was the emblem of non-violent political struggle in Ethiopia. He was also a man who organized one of the strongest coalitions in the political history of Southern Ethiopia. He and his fellow parliamentarian, the honorable Bulcha Demeksa have had some symbolic moments in the parliament. However, in politics, all the good stuff that politicians did in the past is an archived history. What really matters is their position of today and their vision for tomorrow. Even the charismatic and the well articulated Tony Blair who scored many political & economic victories could not survive Political mistakes. In the past 16 years, professor Beyene has made numerous strategic mistakes. Yes, he has stood with the Ethiopian masses, but his grave mistake is that he displayed loyalty to Meles in those critical moments that counted the most. I usually tolerate those who make mistakes while serving the public. Every body including those whom I trusted the most have made a heart breaking mistake, but kneeling down for a pat from Meles and making repeated mistakes on the interest of the people is unacceptable, inexplicable, and intolerable.
I applaud the non-violent struggle of the honorable Beyene Petros & Bulcha Demeksa, but I also want to let them know that there is a significant difference between "loyal opposition" and loyalty to Meles. All parties and individuals (including SEPDC and OFDM) that follow the non-violent path of struggle are parts and parcels of the loyal opposition. But, make no mistake, your loyalty is not to Meles, or to any specific policies of the government. Your loyalty is to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process. When your loyalty is to the state, irregularities will be administered by the law of the land; but when your loyalty is to Meles who bends the law, you will always end up being betrayed as he constantly twists the law to suit his agenda. In the past three years, both Honorable Bulcha and Beyene Petros have aided the ruling party by jointly drafting rules and procedures that undermined the entire opposition camp [does not include parliamentary bills]. They have entertained the international media by sponsoring a joint communiqué with the ruling party, providing a badly needed legitimacy to a naked regime. In spite of the bullying, the harassment, targeted imprisonment, and cancellation of their candidates, these two veteran politicians entered the 2008 election clearly knowing their zero chance of winning a consequential amount of seats.
The validity of a democratic process in any society depends on the existence of a legitimate government. I believe, even the TPLF thugs agree, at least nominally, that political elections are the corner stones of any democratic process. Jumping in to an election in the total absence of common rules and a legitimate government is tantamount to selling the trust of the electorate to a bunch of traitors that deserve no trust. More than boycotting the election, the two veteran leaders including other puppets of the regime must understand that the TPLF model of the "false diversity" type of pompous election is a sham process that appears to be a genuine electoral contest, in order to present the façade of popular consent and support. Yes, EPRDF has several registered parties [TPLF, OPDO, ANDM etc) and several candidates (close to 4 million), but all of them have the same face and support the status quo.
Though they have publicly stated obvious reasons, I don’t really know why the two parliamentarians boycotted the election. The Ethiopian electorate, including the very people that the honorable Beyene Petros and Bulcha Demeksa represent in the National Parliament knew the true nature of TPLF and its election methodology in the early morning hours of May 16, 2005. I don’t understand why these two giant leaders of the opposition waited for so long, specially, the OFDM leaders who have to wait three more days [After Prof. Beyene] to taste an election so sour to swallow. Unless it is a sign of an honest strategic shift, the recent election boycott of Professor Beyene and Ato Bulcha Demeksa is meaningless because it came too late after the political damage has already been done.
If the boycott is accompanied by a strong verbal and written public condemnation of the TPLF regime, and joining the alliance of the progressive forces of Ethiopia; the far-sighted people of Ethiopia will forgive Professor Beyene for there is no future without forgiveness! Otherwise Ethiopians are sick and tired of politicians whose skin color changes to satisfy the indefinite taste of Meles Zenawi.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Touched by an “Angel”, the Fairy Tale of Washera_2000
By Ephrem Madebo
I was born and raised in south Ethiopia where most of the people have less or no knowledge of monasteries, or monastic life. However, the famous Waldiba monastery in Gondar where monks are believed to be jamming once in a blue moon [Andeande Waldibam…] and the exclusive “qene” school of Washera- Mariam in Gojam have been part of my memory since I was 13 years old. Today, I’m not here to tell you about Washera-Mariam, yet line after line of this article deals with “Washera”. Confused? Please don’t. I promise, I will never live you in the dark. When you’re done with this article, you will definitely be aware of the difference between Washera-Mariam and “Washera- Washo”.
As there are many hoi polloi supporters of the TPLF gangs, obviously, there are some zealous and irrefutably articulated defenders of the TPLF regime whose articles are worth reading to gauge the strength of the forces of tyranny. One of these fanaticals is a person who writes by a pen name of Washera_2000. Please read Washera’s article before you start reading this article.
Last week I visited aigaforum.com and read Washera’s latest piece on the “intelligence” of PM Meles Zenawi. This is what I read at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph: “It has been a while since I concluded that the PM is a hard working and very intelligent individual”. At the first glance, I thought “Washera” was applying the lessons he learned in Washera Mariam; and I started looking for the hidden word until I realized that the trans-Atlantic “biographer” was trying to immortalize a desecrated person. What I actually read was not even a biography; it was a “White Paper” on the intelligence of Ethiopian leaders. I applauded his “noble” start and top-down analysis, but condemned his motive and dissipated intellectual paralysis. I’m one of the most animated opponent of Meles, but I’ve never questioned his intelligence because Zenawi’s problem is not his intelligence; it’s his arrogance and his atrocious attitude to those who oppose him.
Josef Mengele is a person that I believe is more intelligent than Meles, but he is also a person who engineered a methodology to wipe out non- Germans. Is Mengel intelligent? Yes, he is, but despite his intelligence; today the world calls him “Angel of Death” Is Meles intelligent? Well, let me say yes, but our children and grand children will remember him for his nonsensical street killing, not for his intelligence.
Here is another excerpt : “He [Meles] refers to this as a Democratic Developmentalist Paradigm and backs it up with an impressive argument for the establishment of a dynamic agrarian democracy; much like the one advocated by Thomas Jefferson” Mr. Washera, I live in Virginia where memories of Thomas Jefferson are still alive in places like the University of Virginia and Monticello. I don’t think Meles should be mentioned in the same page with Thomas Jefferson, not even in the same book. Meles, who once was a drifter in Tirana, still carries Enver Hoja’s blue print of communist land policy. Thomas Jefferson is a person who idealized private ownership of farmland as a prototype of republican virtues in America. How dare do you put the name of this great state man along side a person who confuses a nation with a locality, and history with a fairy tale?
As your own subliminal phrases indicate, Meles’s land policy is highly influenced by the now defunct communist ideology. Jefferson is a person who believed and stood for private ownership of property. Zenawi’s place in history has yet to be determined, but I can sense it is closer to Chauchesco than it is to Thomas Jefferson. For Meles, there is TPLF ownership, public ownership, and private ownership of property. Had they lived together, I don’t think Meles would have qualified to carry Jefferson's manuscripts of the declaration of independence.
Washera said: “For PM Meles, that coalition building starts with the rural agriculture-dependent population which will be responsible for much of the work of accelerated growth. Whether through his socialist leanings....” (Italics and line by me). Washera, I believe you live in the US and you know how this great nation transformed its agricultural sector. If your prodigy is brave enough to put his money where his mouth is, why doesn’t he start a real agrarian transformation by distributing land to farmers? If his priority is the rural farmer, then the rural farmer has no other priority, but land. There is no economy in the world that fully transformed its agricultural sector without privatizing farm land. The policy of Public ownership of land was a complete fiasco in the former USSR and its satellite states of East Europe. Do you think a student from Albania [Comrade Meles] will succeed in an endeavour where Lenin, Stalin, Chauchisco, and Mao failed? If you do, you’re like a man who snobbishly keeps on ditching a ditch with a scoop when everybody else puts the earth back to your ditch.
Ethiopia’s agricultural sector makes up for about 85% of the country’s population. This sector must supply labor, capital, and raw material to the industrial sector, but due to Zenwi’s ill-advised land policy, Ethiopia’s agricultural sector can’t even feed it self. Zenawi wants the peasantry to remain in rural areas dependent upon the state for its basic needs. Farmers who don’t own their own piece of land can not borrow capital and have little or no incentive to improve a government owned land. All in all, the invisible hand is non-existent in rural Ethiopia. Yes, there is abundant supply of labor in the agricultural sector, but capital and land, the two indispensable factors of production are absent. Such an absence is the biggest obstacle to the development of agriculture and industry. Washera, I’m sure you might have bought a residential place here in America, if you didn’t, so many of us have. Look Washera, our fathers, mothers, and brothers do not have the same right that you and me enjoy here on a foreign land. Yet, you are proud of man who is the corner stone of a failed agricultural policy. To me, you sound like a good Christian who denies the death and resurrection of Christ.
Did I hear you saying that Ethiopia is in the right direction with Zenawi behind the wheel? Washera, this is a shame of all shames that lingers over to posterity. You have the right to be proud of Meles, you can even worship him, but I can assure you Meles is not the right direction to heaven. Ato “Washera”, I think articulating the truth is more of a “Latin” to you than economic terminologies are to average readers. By the way, why did you choose the word Latin? Your choice could have been French, or even Navajo. Anyways, Latin, French, or Navajo; the average Ethiopian farmer needs his own share of private farm land, not Meles’s doctoral dissertation, or your doodles on his intelligence.
Washera said: “It behooves Ethiopian political opposition groups to understand this man very clearly and articulate an alternative vision for the country if they disagree with him, or stop wringing their fingers and join his efforts in tandem” Oh my God! You’re making me sick to my bone. Did you say join Meles? What a ridiculously ludicrous call ! Are you re-writing Malthusian theory of population? If so, please reverse your call. The mission of the opposition is to save Ethiopia from Meles, and most importantly; Meles doesn’t need the help of the opposition to kill more, he knows how. Your pseudo name insinuates that you’re from Washera-Mariam, and we all know your prodigy is from “Dedebit”. So which school is the opposition supposed to go to understand Meles? Do you jointly own a school with Meles? Please say no, I don’t want to know what a joint school of Washera-Mariam and “Dedebit” looks like.
You also talked about a zero-sum politics of the opposition. Washera, how can the opposition reach to a win-win situation when Meles is the rule maker, the player, the official, and the spectator of the game? I don’t know about your math skill, but I thought you were good in “addition”. In Ethiopia, there is only negative-sum politics (Loss-Loss). By the way, thank you for positioning the opposition in the middle of the number line. Washera, you can write about Meles, but please don’t magnify what ever he spits, let the dust take care of that.
You said: “His [Meles's] own personal experience and dedication to see the establishment of a healthy democratic pluralism of a broadly based agrarian democracy that is capable of evolving into a mature urban-based democracy is to be applauded” Washera, when I read this statement, I stood still like the late comedian Redd Fox [Sanford & Son], and started calling my version of “Elizabeth”. Is this a go-and tell them urban legend from 4 Kilo? Washera, I have seen so many fools, but I haven't seen, or heard of a fool that applauds when he is cloned to produce another fool like him. The Meles way of democratic pluralism is to make sure that every party in the country is genetically tied to his TPLF party (clone of TPLF), anything else is doomed to be suffocated to death. The truth is that Meles fights pluralism by far more than he fought the fascist regime of Colonel Mengistu.
You said you’re proud to know that Meles is at the helm of the Ethiopian state steering it in the right direction. If you think Meles is steering the nation in the right direction, I believe you need a powerful GPS device to augment your lost sense of direction. Washera, I am not worried for Meles, I am worried for you. Meles is a totally lost person, he doesn’t need GPS; he needs a new direction, or a new beginning. GPS is for people like you who know where they are going but don’t know how. The choice between hell and heaven might be a Devine choice for the people of faith, but the choice between right and wrong is a choice for humanity; and no human being should be proud of her/his bad choice knowing that he/she is wrong.
Washera, what else are you proud of? Are you proud of a land locked Ethiopia? Are you proud of a young boy whose mother was killed in front of him? Are you proud of the mass killings on the streets of Addis, Awassa, and Ambo? Are you proud of millions of poor land less farmers ? Are you proud of thousands of Ethiopians who died defending Bademe in vain? Eight years ago the Ethiopian heroes decisively crushed the Eritrean invaders. Today, Eritreans are considered winners of the 1999-2000 war. Well, we won the military phase of the war, but thanks to Meles, we lost the political cause of the war when he negotiated on the blood of thousands of Ethiopians. Is this the man whom you said you’re proud of? “Kezihis Sewerign” Washera, it’s much better to admit shame with dignity than to be proud of your own nudity.
You also talked about Pareto Efficiency. Well, since I am one of those average readers, It took me a while to understand the concept. As you correctly summarized it, Pareto Efficiency, or Pareto Optimal is a condition where given alternative allocations of income for a set of individuals, a movement from one allocation to another that can make at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off.
The economic divide between the rich and the poor has polarized our nation, living the majority of Ethiopians in abject poverty. Today, poor land policy, uneven economic development, and lack of political stability in the Horn of Africa coupled with international economic crisis have pushed millions of Ethiopians far below the poverty line. The IMF and World Bank Annual Reports show some economic progress in Ethiopia, but the beneficiaries of this trumpeted economic progress are those who are closely associated to the ruling TPLF elite. A variety of economic indicators show that the economic development in Ethiopia has not trickled down to the poor. What we see in Ethiopia is the making of “Brazil” in Africa. Is this what you call Pareto Optimal? Signor Vilfredo Pareto might have been dead for decades, but he will definitely look down at you and cry – “Oh mio Dio… Non è questo che mi hai insegnato”. [Oh my God, this is not what I taught you ]
By the way, did you hear that the Ethiopian army and Police forces are on a stand-by to fight Inflation? I think we need to tell this to Jay Leno so that America giggles for a week. Washera, aren’t you ashamed when a man to whom you proudly tip your hat off acts like a mad-cow and uses force to solve every problem including Inflation? Yes, you heard me right; Inflation! This reminds me one of Megistu’s slogans – “Eyetewagan Enamertalen”. Well, no wander, Mengistu and Meles are heads of different evil regimes planted by bayonets. Capitalism is the best alternative for development that the world has seen so far. However, we all know that without any kind of over site, capitalism could be a cancerous cell that feeds on itself. Inflation, recession, stagflation, and uneven distribution of income are some of the down sides of capitalism, however, none of these shortcoming of capitalism are corrected by using force like Zenawi. If guns were solutions for inflation, the Federal Reserve (Fed) would have controlled military contractors, not the money supply.
Washera,our country Ethiopia finds itself in one of the most defining moment in its long history. I’m not sure why you support the minority TPLF regime, as to me, I am with the opposition because the choice given by Meles is between bad and worse. If we choose bad, we will be headed to the worst. If we chose worse, we all are domed to die. My fellow country man Washera, If we want to survive as a nation and make Ethiopia a better place to live, what better alterative do we have other than the opposition? I am not talking about this or that party, I’m talking about a much better alterative to Meles. Washera, you may dislike some opposition parties, so do I. The opposition is a large puzzle while any single party is part of the puzzle, so why dislike the whole puzzle? To you, to me, and to millions of Ethiopians, Ethiopia must come before Meles and before any one in the opposition. If you agree with this, then your shame should be my shame and my pride should be your pride. May God bless Ethiopia.
I was born and raised in south Ethiopia where most of the people have less or no knowledge of monasteries, or monastic life. However, the famous Waldiba monastery in Gondar where monks are believed to be jamming once in a blue moon [Andeande Waldibam…] and the exclusive “qene” school of Washera- Mariam in Gojam have been part of my memory since I was 13 years old. Today, I’m not here to tell you about Washera-Mariam, yet line after line of this article deals with “Washera”. Confused? Please don’t. I promise, I will never live you in the dark. When you’re done with this article, you will definitely be aware of the difference between Washera-Mariam and “Washera- Washo”.
As there are many hoi polloi supporters of the TPLF gangs, obviously, there are some zealous and irrefutably articulated defenders of the TPLF regime whose articles are worth reading to gauge the strength of the forces of tyranny. One of these fanaticals is a person who writes by a pen name of Washera_2000. Please read Washera’s article before you start reading this article.
Last week I visited aigaforum.com and read Washera’s latest piece on the “intelligence” of PM Meles Zenawi. This is what I read at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph: “It has been a while since I concluded that the PM is a hard working and very intelligent individual”. At the first glance, I thought “Washera” was applying the lessons he learned in Washera Mariam; and I started looking for the hidden word until I realized that the trans-Atlantic “biographer” was trying to immortalize a desecrated person. What I actually read was not even a biography; it was a “White Paper” on the intelligence of Ethiopian leaders. I applauded his “noble” start and top-down analysis, but condemned his motive and dissipated intellectual paralysis. I’m one of the most animated opponent of Meles, but I’ve never questioned his intelligence because Zenawi’s problem is not his intelligence; it’s his arrogance and his atrocious attitude to those who oppose him.
Josef Mengele is a person that I believe is more intelligent than Meles, but he is also a person who engineered a methodology to wipe out non- Germans. Is Mengel intelligent? Yes, he is, but despite his intelligence; today the world calls him “Angel of Death” Is Meles intelligent? Well, let me say yes, but our children and grand children will remember him for his nonsensical street killing, not for his intelligence.
Here is another excerpt : “He [Meles] refers to this as a Democratic Developmentalist Paradigm and backs it up with an impressive argument for the establishment of a dynamic agrarian democracy; much like the one advocated by Thomas Jefferson” Mr. Washera, I live in Virginia where memories of Thomas Jefferson are still alive in places like the University of Virginia and Monticello. I don’t think Meles should be mentioned in the same page with Thomas Jefferson, not even in the same book. Meles, who once was a drifter in Tirana, still carries Enver Hoja’s blue print of communist land policy. Thomas Jefferson is a person who idealized private ownership of farmland as a prototype of republican virtues in America. How dare do you put the name of this great state man along side a person who confuses a nation with a locality, and history with a fairy tale?
As your own subliminal phrases indicate, Meles’s land policy is highly influenced by the now defunct communist ideology. Jefferson is a person who believed and stood for private ownership of property. Zenawi’s place in history has yet to be determined, but I can sense it is closer to Chauchesco than it is to Thomas Jefferson. For Meles, there is TPLF ownership, public ownership, and private ownership of property. Had they lived together, I don’t think Meles would have qualified to carry Jefferson's manuscripts of the declaration of independence.
Washera said: “For PM Meles, that coalition building starts with the rural agriculture-dependent population which will be responsible for much of the work of accelerated growth. Whether through his socialist leanings....” (Italics and line by me). Washera, I believe you live in the US and you know how this great nation transformed its agricultural sector. If your prodigy is brave enough to put his money where his mouth is, why doesn’t he start a real agrarian transformation by distributing land to farmers? If his priority is the rural farmer, then the rural farmer has no other priority, but land. There is no economy in the world that fully transformed its agricultural sector without privatizing farm land. The policy of Public ownership of land was a complete fiasco in the former USSR and its satellite states of East Europe. Do you think a student from Albania [Comrade Meles] will succeed in an endeavour where Lenin, Stalin, Chauchisco, and Mao failed? If you do, you’re like a man who snobbishly keeps on ditching a ditch with a scoop when everybody else puts the earth back to your ditch.
Ethiopia’s agricultural sector makes up for about 85% of the country’s population. This sector must supply labor, capital, and raw material to the industrial sector, but due to Zenwi’s ill-advised land policy, Ethiopia’s agricultural sector can’t even feed it self. Zenawi wants the peasantry to remain in rural areas dependent upon the state for its basic needs. Farmers who don’t own their own piece of land can not borrow capital and have little or no incentive to improve a government owned land. All in all, the invisible hand is non-existent in rural Ethiopia. Yes, there is abundant supply of labor in the agricultural sector, but capital and land, the two indispensable factors of production are absent. Such an absence is the biggest obstacle to the development of agriculture and industry. Washera, I’m sure you might have bought a residential place here in America, if you didn’t, so many of us have. Look Washera, our fathers, mothers, and brothers do not have the same right that you and me enjoy here on a foreign land. Yet, you are proud of man who is the corner stone of a failed agricultural policy. To me, you sound like a good Christian who denies the death and resurrection of Christ.
Did I hear you saying that Ethiopia is in the right direction with Zenawi behind the wheel? Washera, this is a shame of all shames that lingers over to posterity. You have the right to be proud of Meles, you can even worship him, but I can assure you Meles is not the right direction to heaven. Ato “Washera”, I think articulating the truth is more of a “Latin” to you than economic terminologies are to average readers. By the way, why did you choose the word Latin? Your choice could have been French, or even Navajo. Anyways, Latin, French, or Navajo; the average Ethiopian farmer needs his own share of private farm land, not Meles’s doctoral dissertation, or your doodles on his intelligence.
Washera said: “It behooves Ethiopian political opposition groups to understand this man very clearly and articulate an alternative vision for the country if they disagree with him, or stop wringing their fingers and join his efforts in tandem” Oh my God! You’re making me sick to my bone. Did you say join Meles? What a ridiculously ludicrous call ! Are you re-writing Malthusian theory of population? If so, please reverse your call. The mission of the opposition is to save Ethiopia from Meles, and most importantly; Meles doesn’t need the help of the opposition to kill more, he knows how. Your pseudo name insinuates that you’re from Washera-Mariam, and we all know your prodigy is from “Dedebit”. So which school is the opposition supposed to go to understand Meles? Do you jointly own a school with Meles? Please say no, I don’t want to know what a joint school of Washera-Mariam and “Dedebit” looks like.
You also talked about a zero-sum politics of the opposition. Washera, how can the opposition reach to a win-win situation when Meles is the rule maker, the player, the official, and the spectator of the game? I don’t know about your math skill, but I thought you were good in “addition”. In Ethiopia, there is only negative-sum politics (Loss-Loss). By the way, thank you for positioning the opposition in the middle of the number line. Washera, you can write about Meles, but please don’t magnify what ever he spits, let the dust take care of that.
You said: “His [Meles's] own personal experience and dedication to see the establishment of a healthy democratic pluralism of a broadly based agrarian democracy that is capable of evolving into a mature urban-based democracy is to be applauded” Washera, when I read this statement, I stood still like the late comedian Redd Fox [Sanford & Son], and started calling my version of “Elizabeth”. Is this a go-and tell them urban legend from 4 Kilo? Washera, I have seen so many fools, but I haven't seen, or heard of a fool that applauds when he is cloned to produce another fool like him. The Meles way of democratic pluralism is to make sure that every party in the country is genetically tied to his TPLF party (clone of TPLF), anything else is doomed to be suffocated to death. The truth is that Meles fights pluralism by far more than he fought the fascist regime of Colonel Mengistu.
You said you’re proud to know that Meles is at the helm of the Ethiopian state steering it in the right direction. If you think Meles is steering the nation in the right direction, I believe you need a powerful GPS device to augment your lost sense of direction. Washera, I am not worried for Meles, I am worried for you. Meles is a totally lost person, he doesn’t need GPS; he needs a new direction, or a new beginning. GPS is for people like you who know where they are going but don’t know how. The choice between hell and heaven might be a Devine choice for the people of faith, but the choice between right and wrong is a choice for humanity; and no human being should be proud of her/his bad choice knowing that he/she is wrong.
Washera, what else are you proud of? Are you proud of a land locked Ethiopia? Are you proud of a young boy whose mother was killed in front of him? Are you proud of the mass killings on the streets of Addis, Awassa, and Ambo? Are you proud of millions of poor land less farmers ? Are you proud of thousands of Ethiopians who died defending Bademe in vain? Eight years ago the Ethiopian heroes decisively crushed the Eritrean invaders. Today, Eritreans are considered winners of the 1999-2000 war. Well, we won the military phase of the war, but thanks to Meles, we lost the political cause of the war when he negotiated on the blood of thousands of Ethiopians. Is this the man whom you said you’re proud of? “Kezihis Sewerign” Washera, it’s much better to admit shame with dignity than to be proud of your own nudity.
You also talked about Pareto Efficiency. Well, since I am one of those average readers, It took me a while to understand the concept. As you correctly summarized it, Pareto Efficiency, or Pareto Optimal is a condition where given alternative allocations of income for a set of individuals, a movement from one allocation to another that can make at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off.
The economic divide between the rich and the poor has polarized our nation, living the majority of Ethiopians in abject poverty. Today, poor land policy, uneven economic development, and lack of political stability in the Horn of Africa coupled with international economic crisis have pushed millions of Ethiopians far below the poverty line. The IMF and World Bank Annual Reports show some economic progress in Ethiopia, but the beneficiaries of this trumpeted economic progress are those who are closely associated to the ruling TPLF elite. A variety of economic indicators show that the economic development in Ethiopia has not trickled down to the poor. What we see in Ethiopia is the making of “Brazil” in Africa. Is this what you call Pareto Optimal? Signor Vilfredo Pareto might have been dead for decades, but he will definitely look down at you and cry – “Oh mio Dio… Non è questo che mi hai insegnato”. [Oh my God, this is not what I taught you ]
By the way, did you hear that the Ethiopian army and Police forces are on a stand-by to fight Inflation? I think we need to tell this to Jay Leno so that America giggles for a week. Washera, aren’t you ashamed when a man to whom you proudly tip your hat off acts like a mad-cow and uses force to solve every problem including Inflation? Yes, you heard me right; Inflation! This reminds me one of Megistu’s slogans – “Eyetewagan Enamertalen”. Well, no wander, Mengistu and Meles are heads of different evil regimes planted by bayonets. Capitalism is the best alternative for development that the world has seen so far. However, we all know that without any kind of over site, capitalism could be a cancerous cell that feeds on itself. Inflation, recession, stagflation, and uneven distribution of income are some of the down sides of capitalism, however, none of these shortcoming of capitalism are corrected by using force like Zenawi. If guns were solutions for inflation, the Federal Reserve (Fed) would have controlled military contractors, not the money supply.
Washera,our country Ethiopia finds itself in one of the most defining moment in its long history. I’m not sure why you support the minority TPLF regime, as to me, I am with the opposition because the choice given by Meles is between bad and worse. If we choose bad, we will be headed to the worst. If we chose worse, we all are domed to die. My fellow country man Washera, If we want to survive as a nation and make Ethiopia a better place to live, what better alterative do we have other than the opposition? I am not talking about this or that party, I’m talking about a much better alterative to Meles. Washera, you may dislike some opposition parties, so do I. The opposition is a large puzzle while any single party is part of the puzzle, so why dislike the whole puzzle? To you, to me, and to millions of Ethiopians, Ethiopia must come before Meles and before any one in the opposition. If you agree with this, then your shame should be my shame and my pride should be your pride. May God bless Ethiopia.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
A Lesson from Nairobi
By Ephrem Madebo
Through out history, Ethiopia’s determination to stay as a free country and the willingness of its heroes to die for the territorial integrity of the nation has put Ethiopia in a unique group of nations that have been independent since the time of Adam and Eve. The prominent saying “We are the only non-colonized black nation” has always been the trade mark of Ethiopians around the world. Whether it is at a local bar when we get tipsy, or in discussions with people of other countries, Ethiopia’s perpetual independence has always been the source of pride for its people. Indeed, we Ethiopians are not strangers to political independence, the only thing that eluded us for many years is liberty and justice that people in many democratic countries take for granted. Many generations of Ethiopians have been pitiless fighters against foreigners who tried to snatch their freedom. However, for Ethiopians and the rest of the world, it has always been perplexing why we Ethiopians quietly allow our own country men to steal our freedom and treat us inhumanly. As a nation, if there is one thing that we repeatedly failed, it should be our inability to rise as a single entity and declare victory over dictators.
In May 1963, when the OAU was established in Addis Ababa, billboards all over the city read – “a country with 3000 years of history” while Kenya was still a British colony. In fact, Kenya’s independence didn’t come until December 12 of the same year. However, today; the question is not what Kenyans can learn from the long history of Ethiopia, it is what Ethiopia can learn from Kenya’s steadfastness for freedom and liberty. In 1991, the writer of this article was a refugee living in a place not far from the infamous township of Kibera where ethnic Kikuyus were battered by the Luos in the aftermath of Kenya’s descend into violence following the December 2007 presidential election. In my brief stay in Kenya, I witnessed the birth of multi-party politics which was architected by Martin Shikuku, Michael Kijana, Kenneth Matiba, and the late Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, the father of the current opposition leader Raila Odinga.
For many Kenyans, the early years of the 1990s were times of great hope and excitement. Towards the end of 1991, Kenyans optimistically saw the resurgence of democracy as they forced the then-President Daniel Arap Moi to legalize multi-party politics. As democratic competitions increased and grass root movements flourished throughout the nation, Kenyans were unwillingly stumbled with a danger that eventually wiped out the short lived euphoria of progressive Kenyans. The Forum for the Restoration of Democracy (FORD), responsible for most political victories, split and re-split until it no more stood as a formidable force in the face of Kenyan African National Union (KANU) party. As a result, in 1992 and 1997, the incumbent Moi was re-elected with a relatively small minority of the vote. In 1992 and 1997, KANU won with 36.3% and 40.12% of the vote while the fragmented opposition shared 63.7% and 59.88% of the vote. In 2002, Kenyans learned from past mistakes and they stood together. After two consecutive heart breaking losses, finally, Mwai Kibaki kicked Moi out of office by winning 62.2% of the vote. In 2002, Kenya reached a huge political milestone in just 39 years what Ethiopia couldn’t in 3000 years.
In 2008, when Mwai Kibaki attempted to apply the bad lessons he learned from his northern border, Kenyans said no. They just didn’t say no, they made Kenya ungovernable. The entire world condemned the killings in Kenya and stood with the Kenyan opposition. Last week (February 28, 2008) Mwai Kibaki and Ralila Odinga agreed to share power and opened a new era in Kenyan politics. When Kenya was in political turmoil, unlike Ethiopia, the whole world looked at Kenya, not because the world loved Kenya more than Ethiopia. To be honest, it was the Kenyan opposition specially the determination and resolution of the Kenyan people that forced the world to look at them. In Kenya, just like in Ethiopia, ethnic identity has been manipulated by some self-serving political elites, but make no mistake, Kenya’s political disorder after the election has nothing to do with ethnicity, it was all about the rule of law and respect to the will of the people.
In 2005, when the then loose alliance of CUD and UEDF called the “stay home” strike, the so called western ambassadors tried to bring Meles and the opposition to the negotiation table. Both Meles and the opposition agreed. However, Meles walked out victorious as the western ambassadors doubted the will and unity of the opposition when CUD and UEDF called off the strike and made different decisions on how to continue the struggle. During the negotiation, Meles, who in advance knew the consequences of the strikes and the demonstration, did not want to see both before the opening of the parliament. He managed to avoid both by begging western diplomats to exert pressure on the opposition. The naive opposition called off the strikes and helped Meles to cool off the people’s wrath, the only power that could have brought his totalitarian regime to an end. The opposition failed to use its ultimate power, the people’s power.
Today, three years after the May 2005 election, the Ethiopian opposition is in total disarray. Instead of asking what went wrong, the opposition is busy making mistakes after mistakes to the extent of killing itself. In my opinion, the greatest thing that the Ethiopian opposition should learn from history is that it has never learned from history. The Kenyan opposition learned from its 1992 and 1997 mistakes, and in 2002, opposition parties in Kenya unseated KANU for the first time since independence. The Ethiopian opposition (especially CUDP), instead of learning from mistakes, it repeated the 1992 and 1997 mistakes of Kenya. It will be a long time before we know what in the hell [sorry for my French] the CUDP leaders were thinking when they reduced the party that petrified Meles in to numerous feeble factions. Will CUDP redeem itself by learning from the 2008 success story of Kenya?
In the last 8 years, elections results were manipulated in many unsteady democratic countries including Ethiopia (2005), Serbia (2000), Ukraine (2004), Nepal (2006), and Kenya (2008). Except in Ethiopia, in all of the above countries, opposition parties led a successful popular movement that restored the democratic process and forced dictators to give up power. Just like Serbians and Ukrainians, in 2005, the Ethiopian people were ready to do what ever it takes, but they did not have a seasoned party to guide them and a motivating leader to lead them.
Evidently, progressive sentiment in Ethiopia is very strong, but progressive institutions (political parties) are not. Leaders of opposition political parties are blown like dry leaves by the forces of egoism and strong ambition to power. The inability to distinguish between the burning needs of their nation and their political greed is one of the undesirable weaknesses of our political leaders. Today, the Ethiopian opposition is divided more than ever, and it is weaker to the extent of not being able to defend its own existence. The Ethiopian opposition camp has one common enemy that makes use of its weaknesses. The weak appearance of the opposition is a moral boost to the enemy. All in all, the failure of the opposition to stand undivided is a gratuitous reassurance to those who continue to rule us by force.
Ethiopians have started every decade with elevated hope and ended with startling despondency. They gave their money, time, and most importantly their life to create a prosperous society where liberty and justice are treasured above everything and more than anything. Every new coming regime promised a bright new era, but from Emperor Haile Selassie to Colonel Mengistu and from Mengistu to Meles Zenawi, Ethiopians were repeatedly betrayed as dictators succeeded authoritarians. The Ethiopian people feel a sense of vulnerability; they feel pain and hurt because their liberty, freedom, and peace have been snatched from them.
In the last 25 years a myriad of political parties and alliances have come and gone. We have seen countless faces, names, and name changes. The only thing we never saw is a tangible political victory attributed to these parties, or political alliances. I strongly believe that the “golden generation” that dominated the Ethiopian political landscape for the last four decades has failed individually, organizationally, and as a generation in bringing any landmark democratic transformation. Don’t take me wrong, this generation is credited for many positive changes, but it is so entangled with the past and with itself, therefore, I don’t think it has any gas left in its tank to complete the change it started decades ago. To satisfy the democratic appetite of Ethiopians, the “golden generation” unavoidably needs the help and participation of the younger generation.
Young people make up more than half of Ethiopia’s population. Today, in many places of the country and here in the US, young Ethiopians are speaking out and taking active leadership roles throughout the society to ensure that the youth plays a vital role in building a nation that truly fits the future generation. Many young Ethiopians are key community activists making differences in their communities. They are representing the concerns and views of their peers in different forums and are actively engaging in ‘inter-generational dialogues’ with adults in key decision-making positions.
The “golden generation” of Ethiopia has wisdom, but no tolerance for dissent. It has a great deal of knowledge and experience, but it is un-compromising like the mountains that protected the nation from invaders; it is also immeasurably patriotic, but appallingly self-centered. It is about time that this generation opens the door for young leaders, accepts new ideas, and invites unheard voices to the Ethiopian political forum. After all, Ethiopia is predominantly a country of the young. We need young leaders who can communicate vertically and horizontally.
Through out history, Ethiopia’s determination to stay as a free country and the willingness of its heroes to die for the territorial integrity of the nation has put Ethiopia in a unique group of nations that have been independent since the time of Adam and Eve. The prominent saying “We are the only non-colonized black nation” has always been the trade mark of Ethiopians around the world. Whether it is at a local bar when we get tipsy, or in discussions with people of other countries, Ethiopia’s perpetual independence has always been the source of pride for its people. Indeed, we Ethiopians are not strangers to political independence, the only thing that eluded us for many years is liberty and justice that people in many democratic countries take for granted. Many generations of Ethiopians have been pitiless fighters against foreigners who tried to snatch their freedom. However, for Ethiopians and the rest of the world, it has always been perplexing why we Ethiopians quietly allow our own country men to steal our freedom and treat us inhumanly. As a nation, if there is one thing that we repeatedly failed, it should be our inability to rise as a single entity and declare victory over dictators.
In May 1963, when the OAU was established in Addis Ababa, billboards all over the city read – “a country with 3000 years of history” while Kenya was still a British colony. In fact, Kenya’s independence didn’t come until December 12 of the same year. However, today; the question is not what Kenyans can learn from the long history of Ethiopia, it is what Ethiopia can learn from Kenya’s steadfastness for freedom and liberty. In 1991, the writer of this article was a refugee living in a place not far from the infamous township of Kibera where ethnic Kikuyus were battered by the Luos in the aftermath of Kenya’s descend into violence following the December 2007 presidential election. In my brief stay in Kenya, I witnessed the birth of multi-party politics which was architected by Martin Shikuku, Michael Kijana, Kenneth Matiba, and the late Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, the father of the current opposition leader Raila Odinga.
For many Kenyans, the early years of the 1990s were times of great hope and excitement. Towards the end of 1991, Kenyans optimistically saw the resurgence of democracy as they forced the then-President Daniel Arap Moi to legalize multi-party politics. As democratic competitions increased and grass root movements flourished throughout the nation, Kenyans were unwillingly stumbled with a danger that eventually wiped out the short lived euphoria of progressive Kenyans. The Forum for the Restoration of Democracy (FORD), responsible for most political victories, split and re-split until it no more stood as a formidable force in the face of Kenyan African National Union (KANU) party. As a result, in 1992 and 1997, the incumbent Moi was re-elected with a relatively small minority of the vote. In 1992 and 1997, KANU won with 36.3% and 40.12% of the vote while the fragmented opposition shared 63.7% and 59.88% of the vote. In 2002, Kenyans learned from past mistakes and they stood together. After two consecutive heart breaking losses, finally, Mwai Kibaki kicked Moi out of office by winning 62.2% of the vote. In 2002, Kenya reached a huge political milestone in just 39 years what Ethiopia couldn’t in 3000 years.
In 2008, when Mwai Kibaki attempted to apply the bad lessons he learned from his northern border, Kenyans said no. They just didn’t say no, they made Kenya ungovernable. The entire world condemned the killings in Kenya and stood with the Kenyan opposition. Last week (February 28, 2008) Mwai Kibaki and Ralila Odinga agreed to share power and opened a new era in Kenyan politics. When Kenya was in political turmoil, unlike Ethiopia, the whole world looked at Kenya, not because the world loved Kenya more than Ethiopia. To be honest, it was the Kenyan opposition specially the determination and resolution of the Kenyan people that forced the world to look at them. In Kenya, just like in Ethiopia, ethnic identity has been manipulated by some self-serving political elites, but make no mistake, Kenya’s political disorder after the election has nothing to do with ethnicity, it was all about the rule of law and respect to the will of the people.
In 2005, when the then loose alliance of CUD and UEDF called the “stay home” strike, the so called western ambassadors tried to bring Meles and the opposition to the negotiation table. Both Meles and the opposition agreed. However, Meles walked out victorious as the western ambassadors doubted the will and unity of the opposition when CUD and UEDF called off the strike and made different decisions on how to continue the struggle. During the negotiation, Meles, who in advance knew the consequences of the strikes and the demonstration, did not want to see both before the opening of the parliament. He managed to avoid both by begging western diplomats to exert pressure on the opposition. The naive opposition called off the strikes and helped Meles to cool off the people’s wrath, the only power that could have brought his totalitarian regime to an end. The opposition failed to use its ultimate power, the people’s power.
Today, three years after the May 2005 election, the Ethiopian opposition is in total disarray. Instead of asking what went wrong, the opposition is busy making mistakes after mistakes to the extent of killing itself. In my opinion, the greatest thing that the Ethiopian opposition should learn from history is that it has never learned from history. The Kenyan opposition learned from its 1992 and 1997 mistakes, and in 2002, opposition parties in Kenya unseated KANU for the first time since independence. The Ethiopian opposition (especially CUDP), instead of learning from mistakes, it repeated the 1992 and 1997 mistakes of Kenya. It will be a long time before we know what in the hell [sorry for my French] the CUDP leaders were thinking when they reduced the party that petrified Meles in to numerous feeble factions. Will CUDP redeem itself by learning from the 2008 success story of Kenya?
In the last 8 years, elections results were manipulated in many unsteady democratic countries including Ethiopia (2005), Serbia (2000), Ukraine (2004), Nepal (2006), and Kenya (2008). Except in Ethiopia, in all of the above countries, opposition parties led a successful popular movement that restored the democratic process and forced dictators to give up power. Just like Serbians and Ukrainians, in 2005, the Ethiopian people were ready to do what ever it takes, but they did not have a seasoned party to guide them and a motivating leader to lead them.
Evidently, progressive sentiment in Ethiopia is very strong, but progressive institutions (political parties) are not. Leaders of opposition political parties are blown like dry leaves by the forces of egoism and strong ambition to power. The inability to distinguish between the burning needs of their nation and their political greed is one of the undesirable weaknesses of our political leaders. Today, the Ethiopian opposition is divided more than ever, and it is weaker to the extent of not being able to defend its own existence. The Ethiopian opposition camp has one common enemy that makes use of its weaknesses. The weak appearance of the opposition is a moral boost to the enemy. All in all, the failure of the opposition to stand undivided is a gratuitous reassurance to those who continue to rule us by force.
Ethiopians have started every decade with elevated hope and ended with startling despondency. They gave their money, time, and most importantly their life to create a prosperous society where liberty and justice are treasured above everything and more than anything. Every new coming regime promised a bright new era, but from Emperor Haile Selassie to Colonel Mengistu and from Mengistu to Meles Zenawi, Ethiopians were repeatedly betrayed as dictators succeeded authoritarians. The Ethiopian people feel a sense of vulnerability; they feel pain and hurt because their liberty, freedom, and peace have been snatched from them.
In the last 25 years a myriad of political parties and alliances have come and gone. We have seen countless faces, names, and name changes. The only thing we never saw is a tangible political victory attributed to these parties, or political alliances. I strongly believe that the “golden generation” that dominated the Ethiopian political landscape for the last four decades has failed individually, organizationally, and as a generation in bringing any landmark democratic transformation. Don’t take me wrong, this generation is credited for many positive changes, but it is so entangled with the past and with itself, therefore, I don’t think it has any gas left in its tank to complete the change it started decades ago. To satisfy the democratic appetite of Ethiopians, the “golden generation” unavoidably needs the help and participation of the younger generation.
Young people make up more than half of Ethiopia’s population. Today, in many places of the country and here in the US, young Ethiopians are speaking out and taking active leadership roles throughout the society to ensure that the youth plays a vital role in building a nation that truly fits the future generation. Many young Ethiopians are key community activists making differences in their communities. They are representing the concerns and views of their peers in different forums and are actively engaging in ‘inter-generational dialogues’ with adults in key decision-making positions.
The “golden generation” of Ethiopia has wisdom, but no tolerance for dissent. It has a great deal of knowledge and experience, but it is un-compromising like the mountains that protected the nation from invaders; it is also immeasurably patriotic, but appallingly self-centered. It is about time that this generation opens the door for young leaders, accepts new ideas, and invites unheard voices to the Ethiopian political forum. After all, Ethiopia is predominantly a country of the young. We need young leaders who can communicate vertically and horizontally.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Pre-conditions of Liberal Democracy
By Ephrem Madebo
Outside the academic world and the network of the few enlightened, to many Ethiopians, the word “Liberal Democracy” is a new buzz word; and to those of us who live in the Western world, especially in the US, the word “liberal” is one of the most confounding word. Is Liberal democracy good for Ethiopia? What is liberal democracy? What does the word liberal mean? Liberal democracy is a form of government in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law and moderated by a constitution. In Liberal democracy, the constitution gives emphasis to the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities. Liberal democracy may take the form of constitutional republic (USA), or constitutional monarchy (England). The objective of the article is not to define “Liberal democracy”; it is to provoke public discussion on the specific democratic practice that our country should adopt. I beg my readers to patiently read this relatively long article.
In the US, the words “liberal” and “conservative” are used interchangeably with the word “Democrat” and “Republican”. Though the extent of liberalism differs within the Democratic Party, democrats are usually considered to be liberals. In America, liberals endorse regulation for business, a limited social welfare, and support broad racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious tolerance. Often, but not always, liberals are tolerant of change and are not bounded by tradition. The term “liberal” in “liberal democracy” does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that liberal democracies feature constitutional protections of individual rights from government power. Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas, ideologies, philosophical views, and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Today in the world there are numerous different political ideologies that support liberal democracy (Christian Democracy, Social Democracy, and different forms of Socialist parties).
From the above statement, it goes without saying that liberalism is the philosophical foundation of Liberal Democracy. The ideology of liberalism is highly individualistic and concerns itself with limiting the power of the state over the individual. In contrast, democracy is concerned with empowering the masses. Competitive elections are among the common features of democracy that require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the rule of law. It is important to notice that there are non-democratic governments that follow the principles of liberalism [liberal autocracies]. For example, Hong Kong had never held a meaningful election (until 1997), but its government epitomized constitutional liberalism protecting its citizens basic rights and administering a fair court system and bureaucracy.
Liberalism is a very wide concept, but for the purpose of this article, liberalism is a philosophical thinking that dominated the Western world for over two centuries, in which individual rights are protected and governments are limited. I hope I’ve introduced you to “liberalism” and “liberal democracy”, however, such an introduction will be limited if I fail to mention the moral principles of liberalism. In fact, the most important aspect of this article is to look deeply at the moral principles of liberalism and figure out how to adopt these principles and make them flourish in our cultural setting. The moral principles of liberalism are formed on two seemingly conflicting behavioral postulates. First, there is a general postulate that rational self-interest motivates all human actions. Second, there is also recognition that rational self-interest does not characterize human motivation always; instead, people are often driven by passions and irrational emotions. These two behavioral postulates form the four moral foundations of liberalism.
The universal self-interest postulate and the limited rationality postulate underlie several important moral principles of liberalism. The first moral principle is that everyone should be a judge of his or her own interest and welfare (principle of autonomy) The second is that different persons' interests are morally equal, i.e. no person, or no one class of persons, can claim its interest is nobler, or morally more superior, than any other persons or classes of persons (Principle of equality) The principle of equality implies that everyone's interest should receive equal consideration from a social perspective, and that every human being has the same intrinsic worth. The third moral principle is that everyone should be free to pursue his or her own interest and choice, subject to the "harm principle", i.e., in pursuit of his or her own interest, he or she cannot harm another person's legitimate interests. (Principle of freedom).The fourth and final principle is that everyone should bear the consequences resulting from his or her actions in pursuit of individual interests (principle of responsibility).
In this article the focus will be on the moral principles of liberalism because I do believe the lack of these moral principles is one of the factors that holds back the political process in our country. Other than the moral principles, in Ethiopia, the adoption of liberal democracy presupposes other preconditions. The formation of a significant middle class and a flourishing civil society are often seen as pre-conditions for liberal democracy. As is the case in Ethiopia, the introduction of free elections alone has rarely been sufficient to achieve a transition from dictatorship to democracy. A much wider shift in the political culture and a gradual formation of the institutions of democratic government are badly needed (Free press, transparent judiciary, and a politically independent military).
Instead of considering the above four moral principles, I want to make a head start with the two behavioral postulates which are the foundations for the four moral principles. The first postulate, universal self-interest, has important implications for our political way of thinking. It is absolutely true that every one of us is self-interested, so isn’t it true that our rulers are self-interested too? Isn’t it also true that they need to be ruled? Or, don’t political leaders need a constitutional brake? Yes they need,otherwise, the political system will be turned into a self-serving machine of politicians. In fact, the fundamental liberal claim of universal self-interest is the basic assumption behind the vital liberal political theory of separation of power, checks and balances, and limited government. Without separation of power and checks and balances, self-interested politicians will use their power for their own advantages, often at the expenses of the public good.
Like the assumption of universal self-interest, limited rationality and irrationality have important implications for liberal political thinking. First, limited rationality means that one goal of political institutions should be to enhance the cognitive intelligence of public decision-making. Second, limited rationality or irrationality implies that concentration of power can be very harmful or even disastrous. Separation of power as well as checks and balances are necessary, not only to prevent abuses of power due to the calculating self-interest of power holders, but also to make sure that the process of public decision-making is not seriously corrupted by decision makers' irrational passions and limited foresight.
We live in a society where politicians do everything to glorify themselves. As egoists as politicians are, they want to be the “bride” in a weeding, and the “coffin” in a funeral. However, this attitude of self-centeredness has nothing to do with the concept of “self-interest” in this article. Self-interest is a dominant moral principle, not only because of its egalitarian and democratic implications, but also because the rational pursuit of self-interest is a better alternative to the violent passion for glory. People may not always be rational in politics, but they are self-interested. There is no insinuation whatsoever that the self-interested behavior of politicians is always harmless; the truth is that it is far less dangerous than their violent and burning passion for power.
So what is the good of all these to our country? Well, first of all, knowing and fully understanding the moral and ideological foundations of liberal democracy helps us to make an informed decision if “liberal democracy” is among the alternatives that we prescribe for mama Ethiopia. Secondly, we know that liberal democracy and its moral foundations have their roots in the 18th century Europe. Obviously, we don’t have to adopt it in its entirety. Third, there is one very important thing that we should always bear in mind; democracy in our country must be implemented largely as a response to domestic out cry for liberty and democracy. They can definitely help us, but neither the US nor the Eu can give us the blueprint of democracy. Imposed, or induced democratization might not work in our country like it did in Post war Germany and Japan because Ethiopia does not have the domestic traditions and institutions that these two countries had.
Is liberal democracy good for Ethiopia?
Yes, liberal democracy is undisputedly good for Ethiopia, but if and only if its adoption is initiated by Ethiopians, and if it is adopted with the right dosage to fit the Ethiopian way of life. In Europe, the birth place of liberalism, no two democracies are identical, and in the US, the grand son of UK, liberal democracy is implemented differently. Liberal democracy as a political culture needs a fitting atmosphere for its endorsement, it cannot be imposed and expected to produce favorable political result. Any attempt to impose a western type of democracy without either the domestic resources or the political traditions is a recipe for illusion. Most Ethiopians view democracy as a system where people participate in vital decisions that affect their lives. But, when powerful countries like the US and UK impose their democracy and their values on our society, then we start loosing parts of the meaning of democracy as it becomes an imposed rule on us.
The cultural setting of our nation is dominated by traditional life style where the communal way of life dominates individual life style. Therefore, the emphasis of liberalism on the individual and individual rights may conflict with the community ethos of the Ethiopian society. In the US and Western Europe where the state is strong enough to protect collective rights, I think it is appropriate to focus on the protection of the rights of individuals. In Ethiopia, where we don’t have such a state, the level of individualization called by liberal democracy has a tendency to contribute to a rapid weakening of families and communities. Therefore, the transition to liberal democracy must be gradual and at the pace of our society without creating a cultural shock that may have a ripple effect on many aspects of our national life.
Evidently, democracy is a sought-after mode of political interaction, but in our case, problems may arise when we decide which specific democratic practice is more suitable for our social system to adopt. As far as multiparty politics is concerned, in ethnically divided societies such as ours, majority rule might drive the society in to a problem because it has a tendency to allow perpetual majority domination. In this case, ethnic minority groups may fear the tyranny of the majority whereas majorities constantly resent a minority rule. (In this article, ethnic majority or minority is strictly numeric).
Belgium is one of the ethnically divided countries of Western Europe which can be a good model to our country. In Belgium, political parties represent the political and linguistic interests of the communities, i.e. the parties are organized along community lines; especially for the two main communities, French speaking Walloons and Dutch speaking Flanders. Today, the core difference between the main ethnic groups of Belgium is not very much ethnic; their major disparity is based on political and demographic issues. The trade mark of the Belgian national politics is the highly federal nature of decision-making process. In the Belgian parliament, important decisions require 2/3 majority and the majority of the two main language groups (Flanders, Walloons). This by no means is a call for ethnic parties in Ethiopia, but just a reminder to stress that in a democracy there are non-ethnic solutions for ethnic problems. Fifty eight percent of Belgians are Flanders, but Flanders as a majority can not impose their will on the Walloons and the Cantons, not because they are saints, but the way the Belgian parliament is instituted.
The moral principles of liberalism and our political elites
The culture of democracy (tolerance of dissent, representation, and consensus) needs to develop from the very bottom of the society to the top. In our country, the negative political culture of the elite is characterized by intolerance, egotism, discrimination and contempt for a common person (particularly for “unlettered” rural residents). One of the moral principles of liberalism states that everyone should be free to pursue his or her own interest and choice without causing harm to others. This principle must be the credo of all Ethiopians and must be practiced by political leaders, intellectuals, professionals, students, business people, and common people. We, the Ethiopian elite must acknowledge that when we oppose the incumbent government, there are others who support [oppose us], therefore, we must pursue our own interest respectfully letting others who oppose us peruse theirs. If we believe and act as if our interest is nobler, or morally superior; we will be not only irrationals, but also self- centered bigots. With such an attitude, we cannot lead a household of two, leave alone a nation!
One of the key aspects of a democratic culture that the Ethiopian elite utterly lacks is the concept of a “loyal opposition”. In places like Ethiopia where transitions to power have often taken place through violence; the concept of loyal opposition is unthinkable to almost all of us. For example, parties within the opposition camp (CUDP, UEDF) have constantly been seen sticking stick on each others throat. UEDF, CUDP, or any other party may disagree on issues, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge the important roles that each play. We as a society must establish ground rules that encourage respect, tolerance, and civility in public debate. Losers of a public debate must be ready to accept the judgment of the voters when elections are over, and allow for the “handshake” transfer of power. The losers must feel safe that they will neither lose their lives nor their liberty, and will continue to participate in public life. The losers of an election are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself.
The principle of responsibility implies that everyone should bear the consequences resulting from his or her actions in pursuit of individual interests. In the last thirty years, neither those in power nor those in the opposition were hold accountable for their actions. Colonel Mengistu killed countless Ethiopians, today, he lives peacefully in Zimbabwe. Meles Zenawi killed peaceful demonstrators in a broad day light, today; he is still in power to kill more. Through out the years, the Ethiopian opposition killed the hope of millions of Ethiopians, today; many of those same faces are running to forge yet another party. This is a very sad tradition that must be reversed as soon as possible. A nation that does not hold its leaders accountable for their action is a hot breeding place for political criminals.
In Ethiopia, elections have repeatedly failed to bring about radical changes to the leadership, to the political institutions, or to the polity. For example, in the last election when changes seemed eminent, the TPLF narcissists refused to accept the outcome as fair. Hence, instead of progressing, the country switched to political turmoil shortly after multiparty elections that were supervised by international observers. Almost three years after the May 2005 election, the TPLF regime is still unaccounted for the pitiful consequences that resulted from its in-humane actions.
The healthy growth of Liberal democracy in our nation depends on the earnestness and perseverance of those who plant democracy, and the readiness and fertility of the soil on which liberal democracy is planted. Yes, we can import the seeds of liberal democracy to our country, but we must genetically re-engineer the seed to make it grow in the Ethiopian atmosphere. Liberal democracy comes with rules and responsibilities. These rules and responsibilities must mean the same to all of us, and should be respected by all of us regardless of sex, ethnic background, level of education, and political power. As free as individuals are to pursue their own interest and choice, they should also be willing and ready to bear the consequences resulting from their actions. In Ethiopia that we dream, no person should be impeded from making choices, and no person should be left unaccounted for the consequences resulting from his/her choice. Are we ready to practice what we preach? Are we ready to agree to disagree? If yes, so help us God!
Outside the academic world and the network of the few enlightened, to many Ethiopians, the word “Liberal Democracy” is a new buzz word; and to those of us who live in the Western world, especially in the US, the word “liberal” is one of the most confounding word. Is Liberal democracy good for Ethiopia? What is liberal democracy? What does the word liberal mean? Liberal democracy is a form of government in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law and moderated by a constitution. In Liberal democracy, the constitution gives emphasis to the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities. Liberal democracy may take the form of constitutional republic (USA), or constitutional monarchy (England). The objective of the article is not to define “Liberal democracy”; it is to provoke public discussion on the specific democratic practice that our country should adopt. I beg my readers to patiently read this relatively long article.
In the US, the words “liberal” and “conservative” are used interchangeably with the word “Democrat” and “Republican”. Though the extent of liberalism differs within the Democratic Party, democrats are usually considered to be liberals. In America, liberals endorse regulation for business, a limited social welfare, and support broad racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious tolerance. Often, but not always, liberals are tolerant of change and are not bounded by tradition. The term “liberal” in “liberal democracy” does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that liberal democracies feature constitutional protections of individual rights from government power. Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas, ideologies, philosophical views, and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Today in the world there are numerous different political ideologies that support liberal democracy (Christian Democracy, Social Democracy, and different forms of Socialist parties).
From the above statement, it goes without saying that liberalism is the philosophical foundation of Liberal Democracy. The ideology of liberalism is highly individualistic and concerns itself with limiting the power of the state over the individual. In contrast, democracy is concerned with empowering the masses. Competitive elections are among the common features of democracy that require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the rule of law. It is important to notice that there are non-democratic governments that follow the principles of liberalism [liberal autocracies]. For example, Hong Kong had never held a meaningful election (until 1997), but its government epitomized constitutional liberalism protecting its citizens basic rights and administering a fair court system and bureaucracy.
Liberalism is a very wide concept, but for the purpose of this article, liberalism is a philosophical thinking that dominated the Western world for over two centuries, in which individual rights are protected and governments are limited. I hope I’ve introduced you to “liberalism” and “liberal democracy”, however, such an introduction will be limited if I fail to mention the moral principles of liberalism. In fact, the most important aspect of this article is to look deeply at the moral principles of liberalism and figure out how to adopt these principles and make them flourish in our cultural setting. The moral principles of liberalism are formed on two seemingly conflicting behavioral postulates. First, there is a general postulate that rational self-interest motivates all human actions. Second, there is also recognition that rational self-interest does not characterize human motivation always; instead, people are often driven by passions and irrational emotions. These two behavioral postulates form the four moral foundations of liberalism.
The universal self-interest postulate and the limited rationality postulate underlie several important moral principles of liberalism. The first moral principle is that everyone should be a judge of his or her own interest and welfare (principle of autonomy) The second is that different persons' interests are morally equal, i.e. no person, or no one class of persons, can claim its interest is nobler, or morally more superior, than any other persons or classes of persons (Principle of equality) The principle of equality implies that everyone's interest should receive equal consideration from a social perspective, and that every human being has the same intrinsic worth. The third moral principle is that everyone should be free to pursue his or her own interest and choice, subject to the "harm principle", i.e., in pursuit of his or her own interest, he or she cannot harm another person's legitimate interests. (Principle of freedom).The fourth and final principle is that everyone should bear the consequences resulting from his or her actions in pursuit of individual interests (principle of responsibility).
In this article the focus will be on the moral principles of liberalism because I do believe the lack of these moral principles is one of the factors that holds back the political process in our country. Other than the moral principles, in Ethiopia, the adoption of liberal democracy presupposes other preconditions. The formation of a significant middle class and a flourishing civil society are often seen as pre-conditions for liberal democracy. As is the case in Ethiopia, the introduction of free elections alone has rarely been sufficient to achieve a transition from dictatorship to democracy. A much wider shift in the political culture and a gradual formation of the institutions of democratic government are badly needed (Free press, transparent judiciary, and a politically independent military).
Instead of considering the above four moral principles, I want to make a head start with the two behavioral postulates which are the foundations for the four moral principles. The first postulate, universal self-interest, has important implications for our political way of thinking. It is absolutely true that every one of us is self-interested, so isn’t it true that our rulers are self-interested too? Isn’t it also true that they need to be ruled? Or, don’t political leaders need a constitutional brake? Yes they need,otherwise, the political system will be turned into a self-serving machine of politicians. In fact, the fundamental liberal claim of universal self-interest is the basic assumption behind the vital liberal political theory of separation of power, checks and balances, and limited government. Without separation of power and checks and balances, self-interested politicians will use their power for their own advantages, often at the expenses of the public good.
Like the assumption of universal self-interest, limited rationality and irrationality have important implications for liberal political thinking. First, limited rationality means that one goal of political institutions should be to enhance the cognitive intelligence of public decision-making. Second, limited rationality or irrationality implies that concentration of power can be very harmful or even disastrous. Separation of power as well as checks and balances are necessary, not only to prevent abuses of power due to the calculating self-interest of power holders, but also to make sure that the process of public decision-making is not seriously corrupted by decision makers' irrational passions and limited foresight.
We live in a society where politicians do everything to glorify themselves. As egoists as politicians are, they want to be the “bride” in a weeding, and the “coffin” in a funeral. However, this attitude of self-centeredness has nothing to do with the concept of “self-interest” in this article. Self-interest is a dominant moral principle, not only because of its egalitarian and democratic implications, but also because the rational pursuit of self-interest is a better alternative to the violent passion for glory. People may not always be rational in politics, but they are self-interested. There is no insinuation whatsoever that the self-interested behavior of politicians is always harmless; the truth is that it is far less dangerous than their violent and burning passion for power.
So what is the good of all these to our country? Well, first of all, knowing and fully understanding the moral and ideological foundations of liberal democracy helps us to make an informed decision if “liberal democracy” is among the alternatives that we prescribe for mama Ethiopia. Secondly, we know that liberal democracy and its moral foundations have their roots in the 18th century Europe. Obviously, we don’t have to adopt it in its entirety. Third, there is one very important thing that we should always bear in mind; democracy in our country must be implemented largely as a response to domestic out cry for liberty and democracy. They can definitely help us, but neither the US nor the Eu can give us the blueprint of democracy. Imposed, or induced democratization might not work in our country like it did in Post war Germany and Japan because Ethiopia does not have the domestic traditions and institutions that these two countries had.
Is liberal democracy good for Ethiopia?
Yes, liberal democracy is undisputedly good for Ethiopia, but if and only if its adoption is initiated by Ethiopians, and if it is adopted with the right dosage to fit the Ethiopian way of life. In Europe, the birth place of liberalism, no two democracies are identical, and in the US, the grand son of UK, liberal democracy is implemented differently. Liberal democracy as a political culture needs a fitting atmosphere for its endorsement, it cannot be imposed and expected to produce favorable political result. Any attempt to impose a western type of democracy without either the domestic resources or the political traditions is a recipe for illusion. Most Ethiopians view democracy as a system where people participate in vital decisions that affect their lives. But, when powerful countries like the US and UK impose their democracy and their values on our society, then we start loosing parts of the meaning of democracy as it becomes an imposed rule on us.
The cultural setting of our nation is dominated by traditional life style where the communal way of life dominates individual life style. Therefore, the emphasis of liberalism on the individual and individual rights may conflict with the community ethos of the Ethiopian society. In the US and Western Europe where the state is strong enough to protect collective rights, I think it is appropriate to focus on the protection of the rights of individuals. In Ethiopia, where we don’t have such a state, the level of individualization called by liberal democracy has a tendency to contribute to a rapid weakening of families and communities. Therefore, the transition to liberal democracy must be gradual and at the pace of our society without creating a cultural shock that may have a ripple effect on many aspects of our national life.
Evidently, democracy is a sought-after mode of political interaction, but in our case, problems may arise when we decide which specific democratic practice is more suitable for our social system to adopt. As far as multiparty politics is concerned, in ethnically divided societies such as ours, majority rule might drive the society in to a problem because it has a tendency to allow perpetual majority domination. In this case, ethnic minority groups may fear the tyranny of the majority whereas majorities constantly resent a minority rule. (In this article, ethnic majority or minority is strictly numeric).
Belgium is one of the ethnically divided countries of Western Europe which can be a good model to our country. In Belgium, political parties represent the political and linguistic interests of the communities, i.e. the parties are organized along community lines; especially for the two main communities, French speaking Walloons and Dutch speaking Flanders. Today, the core difference between the main ethnic groups of Belgium is not very much ethnic; their major disparity is based on political and demographic issues. The trade mark of the Belgian national politics is the highly federal nature of decision-making process. In the Belgian parliament, important decisions require 2/3 majority and the majority of the two main language groups (Flanders, Walloons). This by no means is a call for ethnic parties in Ethiopia, but just a reminder to stress that in a democracy there are non-ethnic solutions for ethnic problems. Fifty eight percent of Belgians are Flanders, but Flanders as a majority can not impose their will on the Walloons and the Cantons, not because they are saints, but the way the Belgian parliament is instituted.
The moral principles of liberalism and our political elites
The culture of democracy (tolerance of dissent, representation, and consensus) needs to develop from the very bottom of the society to the top. In our country, the negative political culture of the elite is characterized by intolerance, egotism, discrimination and contempt for a common person (particularly for “unlettered” rural residents). One of the moral principles of liberalism states that everyone should be free to pursue his or her own interest and choice without causing harm to others. This principle must be the credo of all Ethiopians and must be practiced by political leaders, intellectuals, professionals, students, business people, and common people. We, the Ethiopian elite must acknowledge that when we oppose the incumbent government, there are others who support [oppose us], therefore, we must pursue our own interest respectfully letting others who oppose us peruse theirs. If we believe and act as if our interest is nobler, or morally superior; we will be not only irrationals, but also self- centered bigots. With such an attitude, we cannot lead a household of two, leave alone a nation!
One of the key aspects of a democratic culture that the Ethiopian elite utterly lacks is the concept of a “loyal opposition”. In places like Ethiopia where transitions to power have often taken place through violence; the concept of loyal opposition is unthinkable to almost all of us. For example, parties within the opposition camp (CUDP, UEDF) have constantly been seen sticking stick on each others throat. UEDF, CUDP, or any other party may disagree on issues, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge the important roles that each play. We as a society must establish ground rules that encourage respect, tolerance, and civility in public debate. Losers of a public debate must be ready to accept the judgment of the voters when elections are over, and allow for the “handshake” transfer of power. The losers must feel safe that they will neither lose their lives nor their liberty, and will continue to participate in public life. The losers of an election are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself.
The principle of responsibility implies that everyone should bear the consequences resulting from his or her actions in pursuit of individual interests. In the last thirty years, neither those in power nor those in the opposition were hold accountable for their actions. Colonel Mengistu killed countless Ethiopians, today, he lives peacefully in Zimbabwe. Meles Zenawi killed peaceful demonstrators in a broad day light, today; he is still in power to kill more. Through out the years, the Ethiopian opposition killed the hope of millions of Ethiopians, today; many of those same faces are running to forge yet another party. This is a very sad tradition that must be reversed as soon as possible. A nation that does not hold its leaders accountable for their action is a hot breeding place for political criminals.
In Ethiopia, elections have repeatedly failed to bring about radical changes to the leadership, to the political institutions, or to the polity. For example, in the last election when changes seemed eminent, the TPLF narcissists refused to accept the outcome as fair. Hence, instead of progressing, the country switched to political turmoil shortly after multiparty elections that were supervised by international observers. Almost three years after the May 2005 election, the TPLF regime is still unaccounted for the pitiful consequences that resulted from its in-humane actions.
The healthy growth of Liberal democracy in our nation depends on the earnestness and perseverance of those who plant democracy, and the readiness and fertility of the soil on which liberal democracy is planted. Yes, we can import the seeds of liberal democracy to our country, but we must genetically re-engineer the seed to make it grow in the Ethiopian atmosphere. Liberal democracy comes with rules and responsibilities. These rules and responsibilities must mean the same to all of us, and should be respected by all of us regardless of sex, ethnic background, level of education, and political power. As free as individuals are to pursue their own interest and choice, they should also be willing and ready to bear the consequences resulting from their actions. In Ethiopia that we dream, no person should be impeded from making choices, and no person should be left unaccounted for the consequences resulting from his/her choice. Are we ready to practice what we preach? Are we ready to agree to disagree? If yes, so help us God!
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The opposition should change to bring a change
By Ephrem Madebo
The inability of dictators to learn from their predecessors and their desire to sway the free will of society are some of the distinguishing features that identify dictators from rational leaders. Dictators always promise to attain the un-attainable and try to prevent the inevitable. As much as I detest dictators, they are not my interest in this article; I just wanted to use them as a steppingstone to point my gun at the Ethiopian opposition that never seems to be getting a lesson from its past failure. Opposition politics in Ethiopia may be as old as the Ethiopian state itself, however, organized party politics is a very new phenomenon. From the flamboyant EPRP of the 1970s to the adorable CUDP of the 21st century, all political organizations in Ethiopia came in to existence and melted away in a very similar fashion. I assume most of the parties were forged to solve national problems, but they died prematurely burned by their own internal problems. In fact, the life cycle of opposition parties in Ethiopia can be characterized by the following scheme: New party → Disagreement→ Faction→ Another new party.
I am not trying to preach a “No mistake” sermon, mistakes happen, and they are opportunities to learn something new. Columbus failed miserably on his goal to find a route to India. However, in failing he ran into a new opportunity. He reached to the new world. In the last 17 years, the Ethiopian opposition has faced as much opportunities as it has faced threats, but despite the immense popular support; the opposition neither seized the opportunities nor avoided the threats. No political party that I know resolved, or managed conflicts and continued to exit as a unified entity. In 2002, TPLF cracked internally; and Meles used the opportunity to eliminate his opponents. In December 2007, Kinjit’s chairman “fired” party executives who disagreed with him. This damaging trend confirms that the opposition seems to have no qualitative difference from what it claims to oppose.
Recently, some scholars have shed a new light on the political atmosphere of Ethiopia. A good number of scholars have written articles on the recent debacle of Kinjit, but I want to single out three scholars who suggested a scientific approach to the problem. The approach of these scholars is systemic, dynamic, and comprehensive. The three scholars are distinguished from the pack by their ability to see the bigger picture, and seek comprehensive solution to the whole system than treating parts of the system. The three scholars are Dr. Messay Kebede, Alethia, and Tefferi Mengistie.
Let me start with the “dialogue” vs “outrage” argument of Dr. Messay and Fekade Shewakena. As Maimire Mennasemay eloquently put it in one of his articles, “dialogue is the sanctuary of hope, and outrage is the sanctuary of principles. Democracy needs both”. The three scholars agree that the current political crisis of Kinjit is not an isolated phenomenon; it is a cascading problem that has cultural and moral background. It is a problem that dwarfs our political system, not just kinjit. As good as dialogues are, I don’t think they would solve the current crisis of Kinjit because the root cause of the crisis is explained by our negative culture of solving differences. There is a good chance of solving the current Kinjit crisis through dialogues, but there is equally a good chance that the problem would re-surface again, as long as the root cause of the problem is not dealt with.
Dialogue is a conscious act for a common good; outrage is a sudden reaction, or a powerful feeling of resentment aroused by a malevolence act. Outrage by itself does not solve conflict, but it forces perpetrators to accept the call for dialogs. The general public has two weapons to jolt politicians change their behavior; they are the ballot box and outrage. Dialogue is the rational choice for solving problems if and only if all parties in the dialogue recognize the rule of the game and are willing to accept the outcome of the game. The two warring factions of Kinjit may be familiar with the rules of the game, but I don’t think neither faction bothers to respect the rules if they don’t like the outcome. Surprisingly, these are the same people who wrote “Yeheg Yebelaynet Yikeber” as their mission statement.
In his initial article, Dr. Messay points at the structural problems of Kinjit that must be resolved. I don’t think any body will have a second thought on Dr. Messay’s proposal of structural change. The caveat is, large-scale structural change is limited, in part, because in the Kinjit case, the Diaspora elements and the domestic elite often seek out the most acceptable and efficient means of managing serious social conflicts rather than resolving them. When Dr. Messay proposed a structural change within Kinijit, this is what he said: “What the crisis shows is that the CUD has a structural problem that must be resolved. I implore that those who write cease to assign a hidden intention to this or that leader so as to reflect on the structural issues with an eye to proposing solutions” I don’t think Alethia has any objection to Dr. Messay’s notion of structural change, but his proposal of “root cause analysis” is not limited to Kinjit, he is eager to see structural changes deep in the moral fabric of the whole society.
Alethia’s far-reaching remedy for the current Kinjit crisis seems to be the better of all the alternatives. He strongly argues for a root cause analysis and blames others - in his own words “I think all the solutions proposed by these three gentlemen fail to deliver the goods they recommend. Their responses fail because all three of them, like many others like theirs, are oblivious to the more fundamental root cause of the current Kinijit crisis”. Dr. Messay might not have mentioned the word “root cause analysis” in his article. However, if what I think is right, I don’t see much difference between the root cause analysis approach [Alethia] and the structural approach [Dr. Messay] in solving the moral and cultural problems associated with the Ethiopian way of problem solving. Given Kinjit’s current problem, one can not solve the root causes of the crisis independent of the structural problems.
A brief walk through the history of opposition politics in Ethiopia reveals a clear moral resemblance between opposition parties and the party in power, or to put it in a different way, TPLF and the opposition parties are instituted in a closely similar moral foundation. The on-going struggle between the incumbent and the opposition parties is not a genuine run for a radical change; it is a mere competition for power. I know we don’t expect freedom and justice from dictators; I wonder why we should expect them from those who are not morally deferent from them. A complete transformation of our country requires an irrevocable change in the moral foundation of our society, and the readiness of the society to accept this change. We should always be able to see our existence in the context of the person next to us. We all should firmly stand for the truth and denounce egotism, dishonesty, and obstinacy no matter who the perpetrator is.
As Alethia repeatedly reminded us, the root causes of our problems today ultimately have to do with the moral foundation of our society. We denounce violence, but violence is our preferred route of conflict resolution. We fight political oppression, but we support political icons whether they are dictators, liars, or crooks. There are many of us who eagerly accept our own freedom, but do not respect that of others. The history of our country has time and again showed us that freedom can not survive for long unless it is based on moral foundations. We must understand that Ethiopia is a perpetual entity while political parties and individuals are indispensable snapshots in this perpetuity. Therefore, in everything we do, we should always put Ethiopia first; and never consider parties above Ethiopia and individuals above party. We don’t have to chew up our political figures for every minor incident, but we should always have the courage to tell them “enough” when their accumulated mistakes take our nation to a hole.
So how should the leaders of Kinjit solve their current crisis and save the party from going down in history? In the short run, dialogue is a plausible means that could avoid the total fiasco of Kinjit and keep the hope alive. Dialogue is a practical means to not just bring the factions together, it could as well be a path to peacefully depart the party. I strongly believe in dialogues, but I don’t want a dialogue to be a ploy to keep together ideologically divergent individuals, or groups in a party. In the short run, the responsibility of avoiding the political collapse of Kinjit falls on the leaders of the two factions. The factions may disagree on a number of things, but they must agree on the fact that the survival of Kinjit is more important than their individual group. As numerous as Kinjit’s problems are, a single stroke may not avoid them, however, solving the deep-seated problem that got the party in the hole may enable the leaders to buy time and gather cohesiveness to solve other problems. The leaders of Kinjit have undisputedly failed in keeping the party together. Is this by itself a mortal problem? Well no, because the greatest triumph of political leaders is not in never falling, but rising from a fall. Will they rise?
In the long run, the responsibility of revolutionizing our method of conflict resolution falls on the back of scholars, civic organizations, opinion leaders, and of course the general public. We the “enlightened” must be vectors of change and appreciate conflicts as unavoidable episodes in the process of change. Democracy requires a clear-cut moral precondition. Those who are in the forefront of the fight for freedom must believe in the principles of democracy and respect its rules. Freedom of any kind must exist within the framework of law; otherwise, it means only freedom for the strong to oppress the weak. We must enrich the moral foundation of our society and make it compatible with democracy. In countries like Ethiopia, it is morally acceptable for leaders to think that they are above the law. In fact, this kind of “dysfunctional behavior” [Teferi Mengiste] of our political leaders has a lot to do with their social consciousness than their individual character. To be honest, it is this kind of moral maxim that Dr.Messay, Alethea, Teferi Mengiste and many others must fight boldly to ameliorate the current hurdles in the Ethiopian political arena.
In the past few years, many scholars, political figures, and blogers have extensively discussed liberal democracy and emphasized on its importance for Ethiopia. Liberalism has also been ubiquitous in both the academia and the public realm, so much so that it is often presented as the unsurpassed alternative. What is liberal democracy? Is Liberal democracy the right prescription for Ethiopia? Is the moral foundation of our country well-suited for liberalism? Are the moral principles of liberalism good enough to smooth and gradually do away with the “dysfunctional behavior” of our political elites? What are the moral principles of liberalism? By the way, it is important to understand that the moral foundations of society do not extend only to its political system; they must extend to its economic and social systems as well. This article will continue on these issues next week.
The inability of dictators to learn from their predecessors and their desire to sway the free will of society are some of the distinguishing features that identify dictators from rational leaders. Dictators always promise to attain the un-attainable and try to prevent the inevitable. As much as I detest dictators, they are not my interest in this article; I just wanted to use them as a steppingstone to point my gun at the Ethiopian opposition that never seems to be getting a lesson from its past failure. Opposition politics in Ethiopia may be as old as the Ethiopian state itself, however, organized party politics is a very new phenomenon. From the flamboyant EPRP of the 1970s to the adorable CUDP of the 21st century, all political organizations in Ethiopia came in to existence and melted away in a very similar fashion. I assume most of the parties were forged to solve national problems, but they died prematurely burned by their own internal problems. In fact, the life cycle of opposition parties in Ethiopia can be characterized by the following scheme: New party → Disagreement→ Faction→ Another new party.
I am not trying to preach a “No mistake” sermon, mistakes happen, and they are opportunities to learn something new. Columbus failed miserably on his goal to find a route to India. However, in failing he ran into a new opportunity. He reached to the new world. In the last 17 years, the Ethiopian opposition has faced as much opportunities as it has faced threats, but despite the immense popular support; the opposition neither seized the opportunities nor avoided the threats. No political party that I know resolved, or managed conflicts and continued to exit as a unified entity. In 2002, TPLF cracked internally; and Meles used the opportunity to eliminate his opponents. In December 2007, Kinjit’s chairman “fired” party executives who disagreed with him. This damaging trend confirms that the opposition seems to have no qualitative difference from what it claims to oppose.
Recently, some scholars have shed a new light on the political atmosphere of Ethiopia. A good number of scholars have written articles on the recent debacle of Kinjit, but I want to single out three scholars who suggested a scientific approach to the problem. The approach of these scholars is systemic, dynamic, and comprehensive. The three scholars are distinguished from the pack by their ability to see the bigger picture, and seek comprehensive solution to the whole system than treating parts of the system. The three scholars are Dr. Messay Kebede, Alethia, and Tefferi Mengistie.
Let me start with the “dialogue” vs “outrage” argument of Dr. Messay and Fekade Shewakena. As Maimire Mennasemay eloquently put it in one of his articles, “dialogue is the sanctuary of hope, and outrage is the sanctuary of principles. Democracy needs both”. The three scholars agree that the current political crisis of Kinjit is not an isolated phenomenon; it is a cascading problem that has cultural and moral background. It is a problem that dwarfs our political system, not just kinjit. As good as dialogues are, I don’t think they would solve the current crisis of Kinjit because the root cause of the crisis is explained by our negative culture of solving differences. There is a good chance of solving the current Kinjit crisis through dialogues, but there is equally a good chance that the problem would re-surface again, as long as the root cause of the problem is not dealt with.
Dialogue is a conscious act for a common good; outrage is a sudden reaction, or a powerful feeling of resentment aroused by a malevolence act. Outrage by itself does not solve conflict, but it forces perpetrators to accept the call for dialogs. The general public has two weapons to jolt politicians change their behavior; they are the ballot box and outrage. Dialogue is the rational choice for solving problems if and only if all parties in the dialogue recognize the rule of the game and are willing to accept the outcome of the game. The two warring factions of Kinjit may be familiar with the rules of the game, but I don’t think neither faction bothers to respect the rules if they don’t like the outcome. Surprisingly, these are the same people who wrote “Yeheg Yebelaynet Yikeber” as their mission statement.
In his initial article, Dr. Messay points at the structural problems of Kinjit that must be resolved. I don’t think any body will have a second thought on Dr. Messay’s proposal of structural change. The caveat is, large-scale structural change is limited, in part, because in the Kinjit case, the Diaspora elements and the domestic elite often seek out the most acceptable and efficient means of managing serious social conflicts rather than resolving them. When Dr. Messay proposed a structural change within Kinijit, this is what he said: “What the crisis shows is that the CUD has a structural problem that must be resolved. I implore that those who write cease to assign a hidden intention to this or that leader so as to reflect on the structural issues with an eye to proposing solutions” I don’t think Alethia has any objection to Dr. Messay’s notion of structural change, but his proposal of “root cause analysis” is not limited to Kinjit, he is eager to see structural changes deep in the moral fabric of the whole society.
Alethia’s far-reaching remedy for the current Kinjit crisis seems to be the better of all the alternatives. He strongly argues for a root cause analysis and blames others - in his own words “I think all the solutions proposed by these three gentlemen fail to deliver the goods they recommend. Their responses fail because all three of them, like many others like theirs, are oblivious to the more fundamental root cause of the current Kinijit crisis”. Dr. Messay might not have mentioned the word “root cause analysis” in his article. However, if what I think is right, I don’t see much difference between the root cause analysis approach [Alethia] and the structural approach [Dr. Messay] in solving the moral and cultural problems associated with the Ethiopian way of problem solving. Given Kinjit’s current problem, one can not solve the root causes of the crisis independent of the structural problems.
A brief walk through the history of opposition politics in Ethiopia reveals a clear moral resemblance between opposition parties and the party in power, or to put it in a different way, TPLF and the opposition parties are instituted in a closely similar moral foundation. The on-going struggle between the incumbent and the opposition parties is not a genuine run for a radical change; it is a mere competition for power. I know we don’t expect freedom and justice from dictators; I wonder why we should expect them from those who are not morally deferent from them. A complete transformation of our country requires an irrevocable change in the moral foundation of our society, and the readiness of the society to accept this change. We should always be able to see our existence in the context of the person next to us. We all should firmly stand for the truth and denounce egotism, dishonesty, and obstinacy no matter who the perpetrator is.
As Alethia repeatedly reminded us, the root causes of our problems today ultimately have to do with the moral foundation of our society. We denounce violence, but violence is our preferred route of conflict resolution. We fight political oppression, but we support political icons whether they are dictators, liars, or crooks. There are many of us who eagerly accept our own freedom, but do not respect that of others. The history of our country has time and again showed us that freedom can not survive for long unless it is based on moral foundations. We must understand that Ethiopia is a perpetual entity while political parties and individuals are indispensable snapshots in this perpetuity. Therefore, in everything we do, we should always put Ethiopia first; and never consider parties above Ethiopia and individuals above party. We don’t have to chew up our political figures for every minor incident, but we should always have the courage to tell them “enough” when their accumulated mistakes take our nation to a hole.
So how should the leaders of Kinjit solve their current crisis and save the party from going down in history? In the short run, dialogue is a plausible means that could avoid the total fiasco of Kinjit and keep the hope alive. Dialogue is a practical means to not just bring the factions together, it could as well be a path to peacefully depart the party. I strongly believe in dialogues, but I don’t want a dialogue to be a ploy to keep together ideologically divergent individuals, or groups in a party. In the short run, the responsibility of avoiding the political collapse of Kinjit falls on the leaders of the two factions. The factions may disagree on a number of things, but they must agree on the fact that the survival of Kinjit is more important than their individual group. As numerous as Kinjit’s problems are, a single stroke may not avoid them, however, solving the deep-seated problem that got the party in the hole may enable the leaders to buy time and gather cohesiveness to solve other problems. The leaders of Kinjit have undisputedly failed in keeping the party together. Is this by itself a mortal problem? Well no, because the greatest triumph of political leaders is not in never falling, but rising from a fall. Will they rise?
In the long run, the responsibility of revolutionizing our method of conflict resolution falls on the back of scholars, civic organizations, opinion leaders, and of course the general public. We the “enlightened” must be vectors of change and appreciate conflicts as unavoidable episodes in the process of change. Democracy requires a clear-cut moral precondition. Those who are in the forefront of the fight for freedom must believe in the principles of democracy and respect its rules. Freedom of any kind must exist within the framework of law; otherwise, it means only freedom for the strong to oppress the weak. We must enrich the moral foundation of our society and make it compatible with democracy. In countries like Ethiopia, it is morally acceptable for leaders to think that they are above the law. In fact, this kind of “dysfunctional behavior” [Teferi Mengiste] of our political leaders has a lot to do with their social consciousness than their individual character. To be honest, it is this kind of moral maxim that Dr.Messay, Alethea, Teferi Mengiste and many others must fight boldly to ameliorate the current hurdles in the Ethiopian political arena.
In the past few years, many scholars, political figures, and blogers have extensively discussed liberal democracy and emphasized on its importance for Ethiopia. Liberalism has also been ubiquitous in both the academia and the public realm, so much so that it is often presented as the unsurpassed alternative. What is liberal democracy? Is Liberal democracy the right prescription for Ethiopia? Is the moral foundation of our country well-suited for liberalism? Are the moral principles of liberalism good enough to smooth and gradually do away with the “dysfunctional behavior” of our political elites? What are the moral principles of liberalism? By the way, it is important to understand that the moral foundations of society do not extend only to its political system; they must extend to its economic and social systems as well. This article will continue on these issues next week.
Monday, January 21, 2008
The New Negro
This 1957 NBC television interview of Martin Luther King Jr. and J. Waties Waring, a former federal judge from South Carolina who played a key role in shaping Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court decision that ended legal segregation in the United States, is a good reminder of how far the United States has come in addressing the vestiges of slavery and racial inequality. You can view portions of the interview on YouTube here and here.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Mohammed Tawil
I ran into Mohammed Tawil, one of the great Ethiopian singers, at Washington Dulles airport today. I had been to one of his shows in 1993 and enjoyed his performance thoroughly. My wife recognized him first as he approached towards us. We said 'hello' and asked him if he was Mohammed Tawil. He acknowledged that he is and greeted us with 'kaiff'. We were surprised at how pleasant he was and we told him that we enjoy listening to his music. When I got home I searched if I could find clips of him on YouTube and I found the song below which is probably familiar to many of you (I am not sure if he is singing in Somali or Afan Oromo). Enjoy!
Thursday, January 03, 2008
The Economist on the Fraudulent Elections of Kenya
In an article that succinctly describes the post-election situation in Kenya, the Economist calls a spade a spade and urges friends of Kenyans to stand with them. Read on:
THE mayhem that killed hundreds of people following Kenya's election on December 27th completes a depressing cycle of democratic abuses in Africa's biggest countries. Nigeria held its own mockery of an election last April. Scores were killed and observers pronounced it the most fraudulent poll they had ever witnessed. Congo held a more or less peaceful election in October 2006, since when the main opposition leader has been hounded into exile. And the year before that, flawed elections in Ethiopia resulted in the deaths of 199 protesters. Needless to say, the incumbents all won.
So it is easy to be angry, as well as gloomy, about African leaders' continual betrayal of the democratic values they say they hold so dear. And all the more so in the case of Kenya, which has a strong tradition of holding elections, a vibrant political culture, a relatively free press and a sophisticated economy. Given all these advantages, as we wrote before the election, Kenya had an opportunity to “set an example” to Africa and hold free and fair elections. But the country blew it.
Or, more precisely, the political elite blew it. A small cabal of politicians almost certainly stole the result by fraud...
No time to be nice
Initially, America, which sees Kenya as a front-line ally in a war against Islamist militias in neighbouring Somalia, made the mistake of endorsing the president's re-election [shame on the State Department!]. Now Britain, America and the African Union are urging Mr Odinga and Mr Kibaki to talk in an effort to stop the bloodletting. That lets Mr Kibaki off the hook far too easily. All the violence should certainly be condemned, but most of the diplomatic pressure should be exerted on Mr Kibaki's supposed new government to annul the results and organise a recount—or a new vote.
If Mr Kibaki will not do this, the rest of the world should suspend direct aid to his regime and impose a travel ban on his officials. That is the least the wretched people of Kenya have a right to expect from their friends abroad.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Is Kenya Regressing to the Moi Era?
It seems last week's Kenya's elections have gone the way of Ethiopia's botched 2005 elections. The Economist has this to say about the election:
THE electoral commission of Kenya declared a winner in the country's bitterly fought presidential election on Sunday December 30th: the sitting president, Mwai Kibaki, was returned to power. The voting three days earlier had been impressively orderly and peaceful, raising hopes of a brighter future for Kenyan democracy. But the tallying process was a much darker story, with heavy suspicion of vote rigging and subsequent fears that serious violence could strike the country.Sound familiar?
No one disputes that the opposition Orange Democratic Movement swept aside government parties in the parliamentary vote. Most of the ministers in the cabinet of Mr Kibaki lost their seats to Oranges, including the vice-president, foreign minister, and defence minister, and a number of previously unassailable and wealthy MPs.
And yet the same disgruntled voters apparently gave 76-year-old Mr Kibaki strong support in the presidential vote. The final tally, according to the electoral commission, handed Mr Kibaki 4.58m voters to 4.35m for the firebrand opposition candidate, Raila Odinga. Mr Odinga's supporters had earlier stated that he had won, suggesting a lead of some 500,000 votes. He claimed that the electoral commission was “being forced to declare wrong results” and called on its leaders to resign rather than plunge the country into chaos. The consequence of failing to recognise a “fair result”, he threatened, could be civil war.
Polls had indicated that the presidential election was going to be close. It was the manner in which Mr Kibaki crept up on Mr Odinga's solid lead that raised suspicions. Why, for instance, were votes from the president's loyal Kikuyu highlands of central Kenya held back to the end of the counting? Why had so many returning officers there gone missing, along with their results? Mr Kibaki, himself a Kikuyu, was expected to have overwhelming support from his kinsmen, but 98% looked excessive.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
A thought before the new year…
By Ephrem Madebo
I read a wonderful article written by Dr. Messay Kebede (A plea for honest dialogue). As he always does, Dr. Messay tried to go deep in to the current crisis of Kinjit, and pointed his gun at those whom he thought are pouring gasoline on a fire hard to douse. In his article, Dr. Messay made a call for an honest dialogue.
I can buy Dr. Mesay's call for honest dialogue between the two factions of Kinjit. However, unlike Dr. Mesay, I will blame the Kinjit leadership (leaders of the two factions) for being too vague on the true cause of the split. We have heard a lot of highly worded verbal exchanges between the two groups, but neither the Kinjit leadership that toured North America, nor the other faction lead by Engineer Hailu had the courage to tell us the real cause of the split. Well, as Dr. Mesay and others have indicated, power struggle can be the cause of the split, and it shouldn’t surprise us. The real question is --Is this a personal power struggle between two persons, or ideological power struggle between two groups? In my opinion, the real cause of the split is the latter. There is a clear power struggle between those elements who believe in collective decision making and those who like the individual decision making process. One shouldn’t be a political analyst to sense the nature of the power struggle within Kinjit. As to me, not only the Diaspora, but all Ethiopians (even opponents of Kinjit) should by now be aware of this four months old problem and support what must be supported. Remember, one can support a process without being politically charged. In the current crisis of Kinjit; all we need to see is the process that the party is trying to build and the people behind such an effort. Those who stand for group decision making process need to be supported. Should our effort be to use the current split in the party as a learning process to reach to the next level, or to put together the two warring factions? Well, our effort must be a mix of the two, if there is a complete change of heart within the factions. Yes, in this case we should push the two groups for dialogue, but we shouldn’t try to put together two diametrically opposed ideology backers in the same party. What do U think?
I read a wonderful article written by Dr. Messay Kebede (A plea for honest dialogue). As he always does, Dr. Messay tried to go deep in to the current crisis of Kinjit, and pointed his gun at those whom he thought are pouring gasoline on a fire hard to douse. In his article, Dr. Messay made a call for an honest dialogue.
I can buy Dr. Mesay's call for honest dialogue between the two factions of Kinjit. However, unlike Dr. Mesay, I will blame the Kinjit leadership (leaders of the two factions) for being too vague on the true cause of the split. We have heard a lot of highly worded verbal exchanges between the two groups, but neither the Kinjit leadership that toured North America, nor the other faction lead by Engineer Hailu had the courage to tell us the real cause of the split. Well, as Dr. Mesay and others have indicated, power struggle can be the cause of the split, and it shouldn’t surprise us. The real question is --Is this a personal power struggle between two persons, or ideological power struggle between two groups? In my opinion, the real cause of the split is the latter. There is a clear power struggle between those elements who believe in collective decision making and those who like the individual decision making process. One shouldn’t be a political analyst to sense the nature of the power struggle within Kinjit. As to me, not only the Diaspora, but all Ethiopians (even opponents of Kinjit) should by now be aware of this four months old problem and support what must be supported. Remember, one can support a process without being politically charged. In the current crisis of Kinjit; all we need to see is the process that the party is trying to build and the people behind such an effort. Those who stand for group decision making process need to be supported. Should our effort be to use the current split in the party as a learning process to reach to the next level, or to put together the two warring factions? Well, our effort must be a mix of the two, if there is a complete change of heart within the factions. Yes, in this case we should push the two groups for dialogue, but we shouldn’t try to put together two diametrically opposed ideology backers in the same party. What do U think?
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Obama for Change
Earlier this year I opined about the wrong-headed approach the Bush administration has taken on the war against terrorism, particularly as it is being implemented in the Horn of Africa, and the need for the US to change its policy. By making its alliance with the tyrannical regime of Ethiopia the center piece of its policy of the war on terror in the Horn of Africa, the Bush administration has undermined America's long-term security interests in the region, and the administration's support for Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia and the calamity the Ethiopian occupation has caused is a prime example of the failure of the current US policy and a very good reason why it needs to change.
A change of administration in the White House will not guarantee a change of policy. However, the probability of a change from the simplistic policy of the Bush administration to a more holistic one is greater if a Democrat wins the 2008 presidential election, and it will be much greater if the Democrats nominate Barack Obama to represent them in the general election. Why Obama? Well, simply because he is the only major presidential candidate from both parties who is an agent of change and has the credibility to enact a change of policy if elected. Please read this compelling article about Obama by Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic Monthly and find out for yourself why Obama is an agent of change.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Time to Engage with American Foreign Policy Makers
By Fikru Helebo
There was an interesting article earlier this week on the Washington Post which quoted an unnamed Pentagon official who characterized the policy pursued by US Department of State towards Somalia as a failure. It was dispatched by a correspondent who was traveling with the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, on his visit to Djibouti and the Middle East. What made the article interesting was that it leveled a categorical criticism of US policy and it was made just a day before a visit to Ethiopia by Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State. The unnamed Pentagon official not only criticized the State Department's policy but also went on to suggest an alternative policy that will shift US support from the Mogadishu based Transitional Federal Government of Somalia to the Hargesa based Republic of Somaliland by giving recognition to the former British colony of Somaliland.
There is nothing new about a tug of war between the Pentagon and the State Department in setting US foreign policy. In fact, a struggle between the two Departments has been a defining feature of American foreign policy making since the end of World War II, but disagreements between the two Departments are rarely aired in public. This public criticism of the official policy of the State Department on a high profile issue such as this one by the Pentagon indicates to me that there is a serious split among American foreign policy makers on what US policy should be towards Somalia in particular and the volatile Horn of Africa region in general and a change of policy may not be that far off.
Although the suggested alternative solution in the article does not address the fundamental problem with Somali politics, which is clanism, I think this recognition of the US policy towards Somalia as being a failed policy should be welcomed by all who have a stake in American foreign policy towards the Horn of Africa region. Even if H.R. 2003 gets through the US Senate, it is not realistic to expect any changes in American foreign towards the Horn of Africa region before 2009, since 2008 is an election year, a year that will be overshadowed by the US Presidential election, and since the lame duck Bush Administration has unwisely invested too much of its political capital on the dictatorial Ethiopian regime and it has very little incentive to change its policy with only 13 months left in the White House.
The good news is that 2009 is not that far away and I believe there will be a change in American foreign policy towards the Horn of Africa region within the next two years regardless of which party takes the White House in the 2008 election. So, now is the time for those of us who want the US to adopt a policy that serves both American long-term security interests as well as the interests of the citizens of the Horn of Africa nations to double our efforts in lobbying US government officials and influential Americans to effect the right kind of changes in American foreign policy towards the Horn of Africa. H.R. 2003 is certainly a tool that can be used towards this objective, but it should not be seen as an end in itself.
There was an interesting article earlier this week on the Washington Post which quoted an unnamed Pentagon official who characterized the policy pursued by US Department of State towards Somalia as a failure. It was dispatched by a correspondent who was traveling with the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, on his visit to Djibouti and the Middle East. What made the article interesting was that it leveled a categorical criticism of US policy and it was made just a day before a visit to Ethiopia by Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State. The unnamed Pentagon official not only criticized the State Department's policy but also went on to suggest an alternative policy that will shift US support from the Mogadishu based Transitional Federal Government of Somalia to the Hargesa based Republic of Somaliland by giving recognition to the former British colony of Somaliland.
There is nothing new about a tug of war between the Pentagon and the State Department in setting US foreign policy. In fact, a struggle between the two Departments has been a defining feature of American foreign policy making since the end of World War II, but disagreements between the two Departments are rarely aired in public. This public criticism of the official policy of the State Department on a high profile issue such as this one by the Pentagon indicates to me that there is a serious split among American foreign policy makers on what US policy should be towards Somalia in particular and the volatile Horn of Africa region in general and a change of policy may not be that far off.
Although the suggested alternative solution in the article does not address the fundamental problem with Somali politics, which is clanism, I think this recognition of the US policy towards Somalia as being a failed policy should be welcomed by all who have a stake in American foreign policy towards the Horn of Africa region. Even if H.R. 2003 gets through the US Senate, it is not realistic to expect any changes in American foreign towards the Horn of Africa region before 2009, since 2008 is an election year, a year that will be overshadowed by the US Presidential election, and since the lame duck Bush Administration has unwisely invested too much of its political capital on the dictatorial Ethiopian regime and it has very little incentive to change its policy with only 13 months left in the White House.
The good news is that 2009 is not that far away and I believe there will be a change in American foreign policy towards the Horn of Africa region within the next two years regardless of which party takes the White House in the 2008 election. So, now is the time for those of us who want the US to adopt a policy that serves both American long-term security interests as well as the interests of the citizens of the Horn of Africa nations to double our efforts in lobbying US government officials and influential Americans to effect the right kind of changes in American foreign policy towards the Horn of Africa. H.R. 2003 is certainly a tool that can be used towards this objective, but it should not be seen as an end in itself.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Internet in Ethiopia
Dr. Samuel Kinde of MediaEthiopia has a well researched article on the state of Internet usage and connectivity in Ethiopia tiltled "Internet in Ethiopia - Is Ethiopia Off-line or Wired to the Rim?". Samuel reports that Ethiopia is lagging well behind virtually all African countries in Internet penetration rate (percent of population that uses the Internet), with a mere 0.25% of Ethiopia's population considered having access to the Internet. Not only the Internet penetration rate is embarrassingly low, Internet connectivity for those who are currently using it is a nightmare! Samuel puts the blame for this sad state of Internet usage and connectivity in Ethiopia squarely on the government's monopoly of the information and telecommunications infrastructure. As an antidote to this problem Samuel writes:
While there are a multitude of consequences of current Internet connectivity ownership, the remedy is very simple and straightforward. As experience everywhere in the world indicates, the only proven model is that of a free-market in the ISP space. This simple solution that has been argued in-favor of over the past several years is the sole solution that is on the table.
The reality is, of course, that proponents of government ownership have their reasons for continuing such a model. The arguments often cited are that Ethiopia's conditions are so unique that the farmers which form the majority of the country's population will be left out in a free ISP market. This argument assumes Ethiopia's conditions to be so different from any other country on the face of the earth that it almost places the country as something out of this natural world. Conditions on the ground show that this argument is, of course, outdated, inaccurate and ingenuine. The truth, as any independent observer could see, is that there is a mistrust and fear of wide Internet access that could allegedly be used for political agitation purposes. However, this fear - as shown in the rest of the world including even China - is unsubstantiated and almost paranoid. No government - as conditions on the ground testify - has ever lost power because Internet access is widespread.
In a nutshell, therefore, attitudes have to change - particularly at the government level - where access to Internet by the average citizen is considered something to be feared. If the history of the country itself and the rest of the world is any indication, limiting an access always results in more damage than in any good that may come out of it. Looking forward, the country needs to make a decision between following a path that has so far proved unsuccessful and unsustainable and a correction of path that enables the proliferation of a dynamic sector that could add 0.5-1% points to the country's GDP as demonstrated by other progressive countries around the globe.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Phil Keaggy
Today is Thanksgiving Day in the United States. It is my favorite American holiday. I would like to give thanks today to Phil Keaggy, probably one of the most accomplished guitarist alive in the whole wide world. I have enjoyed his music ever since I got introduced to his music in a dorm room 20 years ago, and I have been to his concerts four times and enjoyed his performances thoroughly. Phil Keaggy is one amazing guitarist and a wonderful human being! I can't wait to attend my fifth concert. Please find three live performances below. I hope you will enjoy them.
Salvation Army Band (short version)
Salvation Army Band (long version)
Shades of Green
Salvation Army Band (short version)
Salvation Army Band (long version)
Shades of Green
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
A Moment with Dr. Berhanu Nega
By Ephrem Madebo
He is a farsighted politician, an inexhaustible intellectual, a charismatic person, and a visionary leader who is entrusted to lead our nation to a new direction, ending fifty years of dancing in a political quagmire. Unlike the “My-way or no-way” politicians of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s; Dr. Berhanu is one of the few open-minded Ethiopian politicians who not only values the idea of others, but makes the most use out of it. His charisma, his love for others, his attentiveness, sense of humor, knowledge of politics, respect to dissent, and his consummate ability to deal with people of different attitude and political interest makes Dr. Berhanu Nega the most fulfilled Ethiopian politician of all time. To many who adore him without knowing him personally, he is a rock sold refuge of hope. To his close friends, he is an inspiration and a reason for optimism. To his party colleagues, he is a motivator. To the nation, he is a true vector of change with a solid, clear-cut, and steady trajectory.
For many Ethiopian politicians (past and present), the whole idea of open mindedness has been a toss-up concept which could mean many things. Dr. Berhnau is one of the few public figures that seems to clearly understand that being open-minded has nothing to do with how one treats other people, but how one treats him/herself. Our mind is autonomous from the minds of others. As social elements, we may be influenced by others, but we make our individual decision. The core idea of open mindedness is to have the capacity to admit mistakes, and gulp down our arrogance and allow ourselves to be corrected by others. If one is arrogant, proud, and hostile then he/she cannot be open-minded because they don’t have the will to accept that they are wrong.
Dr. Berhanu Nega and his party colleagues are persons distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility, and strength. To put it differently, for this generation of Ethiopians, they are heroes. After closely following Dr. Berhanu for the last 50 days and after having a close encounter with him; I was morally and intellectually forced to cherish his balanced view on the following important features that single him out from the crowd.
Vision: A vision is a clear and compelling long-term goal of strategy that sets the overall direction for a country or an organization. It is a summary statement of what a country, or an organization ultimately intends to become five, 10 or even 15 years into the future. I read Dr. Berhanu’s 22 pages of immaculately written strategic speech, I heard most of his public speeches and interviews in North America, and most importantly I had the opportunity to be inches closer to him and to his collogues in their recent Washington DC public appearances. His rich, concise, and plainly stated vision is what forced me to devote my pen for this mastermind of contemporary Ethiopian politics. His vision is to establish a nation where all citizens are equal before the law. His vision is to see a politically free nation where all things are decided by the free will of the people. His vision is to build an economically powerful nation that produces most of its needs. This is as good as it gets!
Emphasis on the future: I’ve participated in countless Washington, DC “Unification Church” meetings, I’ve met a myriad of party leaders, and I have listened to many radio interviews and participated in paltalk discussions. Everything I heard until September 16, 2007 adds up to two highly charged political groups that kept the opposition camp divided for decades. In one corner, there are power monger people who seek to grab power at the cost of the nation itself. On the other side, there are victim-minded politicians who start everything by blaming others for the past, and end their day hating everybody outside their circle. Dr. Berhanu’s emphasis on our country’s future should be a bridge that curbs the gap between these polarized groups and pulls them to the pragmatic part of Ethiopian politics. This is what Dr. Berhanu said: “My emphasis on the past does not imply that we should set aside the past. The past is where we get our lesson for the future. We don’t dwell in the past; we plan everything for the future”. The future is daunting without hope, and there is no future without the past. To conquer the future and give hope to people, we should forget the burden of the past. A society that does not forgive shall not have a good future.
Ethnic Politics: Dr. Berhanu’s stand on ethnic politics is firm and straight forward. He has no taste for ethnic based politics, but he still has no intention of denying people their right of organizing in any form they want. His major departing point from ethnic politics is summarized in the following statement: “When one changes a decaying system, he/she should never burden the process of change. If one burdens change, he/she will fall altogether. The process of changing any society should be divided in to different stages. In our case, the first stage is to separate politics form ethnicity and set the tone for the principles of liberal democracy”. In a nation where the constitution protects the individual right of all citizens, there will be no loophole for ethnic oppression. The severance of politics and ethnicity is a major point of departure between Kinjit/Berhanu and TPLF/Meles.
Self Governance: He is an ardent proponent of local governance and self- reliance. Yes, he is also a strident advocate of liberal democracy, but trust me, though he is an accomplished economist (PHD), he does not buy the whole sale concept of political liberalism. He understands and believes in the architectural role of governments in guiding the development process of third world countries. According to Dr. Berhanu, local economic, political, and social affairs of people should be left alone to local people.
Political Alliance: As long as an alliance benefits his nation positively, he is open to work with any political group. The following is what Dr. Berhanu said on working with others: The fundamental legal and democratic principles that we [Kinjit] preach are not mere campaign slogans. They are the guiding principles of every movement in our party. According to Dr. Berhanu, there is no permanent political alliance as there is no lasting political animosity. Therefore, any group that wholeheartedly works for a strong Ethiopia, consents with the fundamental principles of equality before the law, and belives in the political freedom people is our political ally.
The importance of official language: Of all the things that Dr. Berhanu’s thinking stood clearly superior to mine is, his analysis of language in the Ethiopian society. Personally, he believes that having two official languages benefits Ethiopia. Most Ethiopians will benefit by learning the language of the Oromo people, the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia. If they become the dual official languages of Ethiopia, Amharic and Afaan Oromo will definitely benefit the nation as good unifying factors. Speaking multiple languages adds a positive tone to our diversity and eliminates artificial hurdles between people.
Political Campaign: A political campaign often refers to an organized effort of parties, or individuals to influence voters. Such influences could occur through media campaigns, town hall meetings, and Internet messages. Campaign politics is a new phenomenon to Ethiopia, and unquestionably, Dr. Berhanu Nega, campaign manager of CUDP [during the 2005 election], is the pioneer of media based campaign politics in Ethiopia. It was his ability to successfully disseminate his party’s message of hope alongside the soundbites of TPLF officials that dwarfed EPRDF in nationality televised debates. In 2005, Dr Berhanu effectively used the creative ability of the youth and the limited media slots to propagate the different identities of Kinjit such as “Kinjit is Fikir” “The Spirit of Kinjit” and the hard to forget symbol of Kinjit (V).
Sense of Humor: The social aspect of most of our political leaders is detached from the daily life and experience of the common people. To these isolated leaders, going to the places of ordinary people and addressing them using their own language/slung is a taboo. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Berhanu’s “The Quest for Democracy in Ethiopia” speech: We have a matured and a politically transformed youth. Today, the creed of our youth is: “Only the “Faras” [bumpkins] shun from political activism” Dr. Berhanu has a unique ability of wrapping his messages with giggling gags to take the full attention of his audience. When he switches gear away from burning issues, many people may pass Dr. Berhanu for a comedian.
As our society faces a rapid upswing in poverty, unemployment, and an ever worsening health and land tenure problems, we need leaders who will keep unemployment down and restore accountability to our government system. In my opinion, Dr. Berhanu is that leader. His noisy opponents try to align him with EPRDF. I guess, these barefaced “Talk-show” politicians either don’t know why they oppose EPRDF, or they are not good enough to distinguish good from bad. Dr. Berhanu might not be as good a leader to others as he is to me, but his ideology and his vision to Ethiopia are diametrically opposed to that of EPRDF. To me, TPLF and Dr. Berhanu don’t even seem to be working for the same country. I am not here to shield Dr. Berhanu; he has a much better weapon to do that. I’m here to defend the truth he stands for. Through the years, we have assassinated characters, dragged down promising leaders, and poured water on our hot issues. Let’s have a change of heart, to love others. No matte how polarized our ideas are, let’s change our attitude and listen to others. Let’s change our path and do things differently. Let’s embrace our heroes and help them realize their vision. May God be with all of us!
He is a farsighted politician, an inexhaustible intellectual, a charismatic person, and a visionary leader who is entrusted to lead our nation to a new direction, ending fifty years of dancing in a political quagmire. Unlike the “My-way or no-way” politicians of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s; Dr. Berhanu is one of the few open-minded Ethiopian politicians who not only values the idea of others, but makes the most use out of it. His charisma, his love for others, his attentiveness, sense of humor, knowledge of politics, respect to dissent, and his consummate ability to deal with people of different attitude and political interest makes Dr. Berhanu Nega the most fulfilled Ethiopian politician of all time. To many who adore him without knowing him personally, he is a rock sold refuge of hope. To his close friends, he is an inspiration and a reason for optimism. To his party colleagues, he is a motivator. To the nation, he is a true vector of change with a solid, clear-cut, and steady trajectory.
For many Ethiopian politicians (past and present), the whole idea of open mindedness has been a toss-up concept which could mean many things. Dr. Berhnau is one of the few public figures that seems to clearly understand that being open-minded has nothing to do with how one treats other people, but how one treats him/herself. Our mind is autonomous from the minds of others. As social elements, we may be influenced by others, but we make our individual decision. The core idea of open mindedness is to have the capacity to admit mistakes, and gulp down our arrogance and allow ourselves to be corrected by others. If one is arrogant, proud, and hostile then he/she cannot be open-minded because they don’t have the will to accept that they are wrong.
Dr. Berhanu Nega and his party colleagues are persons distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility, and strength. To put it differently, for this generation of Ethiopians, they are heroes. After closely following Dr. Berhanu for the last 50 days and after having a close encounter with him; I was morally and intellectually forced to cherish his balanced view on the following important features that single him out from the crowd.
Vision: A vision is a clear and compelling long-term goal of strategy that sets the overall direction for a country or an organization. It is a summary statement of what a country, or an organization ultimately intends to become five, 10 or even 15 years into the future. I read Dr. Berhanu’s 22 pages of immaculately written strategic speech, I heard most of his public speeches and interviews in North America, and most importantly I had the opportunity to be inches closer to him and to his collogues in their recent Washington DC public appearances. His rich, concise, and plainly stated vision is what forced me to devote my pen for this mastermind of contemporary Ethiopian politics. His vision is to establish a nation where all citizens are equal before the law. His vision is to see a politically free nation where all things are decided by the free will of the people. His vision is to build an economically powerful nation that produces most of its needs. This is as good as it gets!
Emphasis on the future: I’ve participated in countless Washington, DC “Unification Church” meetings, I’ve met a myriad of party leaders, and I have listened to many radio interviews and participated in paltalk discussions. Everything I heard until September 16, 2007 adds up to two highly charged political groups that kept the opposition camp divided for decades. In one corner, there are power monger people who seek to grab power at the cost of the nation itself. On the other side, there are victim-minded politicians who start everything by blaming others for the past, and end their day hating everybody outside their circle. Dr. Berhanu’s emphasis on our country’s future should be a bridge that curbs the gap between these polarized groups and pulls them to the pragmatic part of Ethiopian politics. This is what Dr. Berhanu said: “My emphasis on the past does not imply that we should set aside the past. The past is where we get our lesson for the future. We don’t dwell in the past; we plan everything for the future”. The future is daunting without hope, and there is no future without the past. To conquer the future and give hope to people, we should forget the burden of the past. A society that does not forgive shall not have a good future.
Ethnic Politics: Dr. Berhanu’s stand on ethnic politics is firm and straight forward. He has no taste for ethnic based politics, but he still has no intention of denying people their right of organizing in any form they want. His major departing point from ethnic politics is summarized in the following statement: “When one changes a decaying system, he/she should never burden the process of change. If one burdens change, he/she will fall altogether. The process of changing any society should be divided in to different stages. In our case, the first stage is to separate politics form ethnicity and set the tone for the principles of liberal democracy”. In a nation where the constitution protects the individual right of all citizens, there will be no loophole for ethnic oppression. The severance of politics and ethnicity is a major point of departure between Kinjit/Berhanu and TPLF/Meles.
Self Governance: He is an ardent proponent of local governance and self- reliance. Yes, he is also a strident advocate of liberal democracy, but trust me, though he is an accomplished economist (PHD), he does not buy the whole sale concept of political liberalism. He understands and believes in the architectural role of governments in guiding the development process of third world countries. According to Dr. Berhanu, local economic, political, and social affairs of people should be left alone to local people.
Political Alliance: As long as an alliance benefits his nation positively, he is open to work with any political group. The following is what Dr. Berhanu said on working with others: The fundamental legal and democratic principles that we [Kinjit] preach are not mere campaign slogans. They are the guiding principles of every movement in our party. According to Dr. Berhanu, there is no permanent political alliance as there is no lasting political animosity. Therefore, any group that wholeheartedly works for a strong Ethiopia, consents with the fundamental principles of equality before the law, and belives in the political freedom people is our political ally.
The importance of official language: Of all the things that Dr. Berhanu’s thinking stood clearly superior to mine is, his analysis of language in the Ethiopian society. Personally, he believes that having two official languages benefits Ethiopia. Most Ethiopians will benefit by learning the language of the Oromo people, the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia. If they become the dual official languages of Ethiopia, Amharic and Afaan Oromo will definitely benefit the nation as good unifying factors. Speaking multiple languages adds a positive tone to our diversity and eliminates artificial hurdles between people.
Political Campaign: A political campaign often refers to an organized effort of parties, or individuals to influence voters. Such influences could occur through media campaigns, town hall meetings, and Internet messages. Campaign politics is a new phenomenon to Ethiopia, and unquestionably, Dr. Berhanu Nega, campaign manager of CUDP [during the 2005 election], is the pioneer of media based campaign politics in Ethiopia. It was his ability to successfully disseminate his party’s message of hope alongside the soundbites of TPLF officials that dwarfed EPRDF in nationality televised debates. In 2005, Dr Berhanu effectively used the creative ability of the youth and the limited media slots to propagate the different identities of Kinjit such as “Kinjit is Fikir” “The Spirit of Kinjit” and the hard to forget symbol of Kinjit (V).
Sense of Humor: The social aspect of most of our political leaders is detached from the daily life and experience of the common people. To these isolated leaders, going to the places of ordinary people and addressing them using their own language/slung is a taboo. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Berhanu’s “The Quest for Democracy in Ethiopia” speech: We have a matured and a politically transformed youth. Today, the creed of our youth is: “Only the “Faras” [bumpkins] shun from political activism” Dr. Berhanu has a unique ability of wrapping his messages with giggling gags to take the full attention of his audience. When he switches gear away from burning issues, many people may pass Dr. Berhanu for a comedian.
As our society faces a rapid upswing in poverty, unemployment, and an ever worsening health and land tenure problems, we need leaders who will keep unemployment down and restore accountability to our government system. In my opinion, Dr. Berhanu is that leader. His noisy opponents try to align him with EPRDF. I guess, these barefaced “Talk-show” politicians either don’t know why they oppose EPRDF, or they are not good enough to distinguish good from bad. Dr. Berhanu might not be as good a leader to others as he is to me, but his ideology and his vision to Ethiopia are diametrically opposed to that of EPRDF. To me, TPLF and Dr. Berhanu don’t even seem to be working for the same country. I am not here to shield Dr. Berhanu; he has a much better weapon to do that. I’m here to defend the truth he stands for. Through the years, we have assassinated characters, dragged down promising leaders, and poured water on our hot issues. Let’s have a change of heart, to love others. No matte how polarized our ideas are, let’s change our attitude and listen to others. Let’s change our path and do things differently. Let’s embrace our heroes and help them realize their vision. May God be with all of us!
Jimma Times Interview with David Shinn
Jimma Times: Do you see the TFG and Ethiopia stabilizing Mogadishu anytime soon?
Dr. Shinn: No.
This is a must read interview with the former US Ambassador to Ethiopia. David Shinn is the fairest and most sensible commentator on Horn of Africa issues. Jendayi Frazer and Donald Yamamoto are well advised to listen to his views.
Dr. Shinn: No.
This is a must read interview with the former US Ambassador to Ethiopia. David Shinn is the fairest and most sensible commentator on Horn of Africa issues. Jendayi Frazer and Donald Yamamoto are well advised to listen to his views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)