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!

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 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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Sound familiar?

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

Carol of the Bells arranged by Brian Brink



Requiem (Beethoven's Fifth) by Trans-Siberian Orchestra

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

This Music is Really Good for You - II

Somalia burns, Ethiopia simmers (it may soon explode) and America is yet again on the wrong side of history in Africa. So, what else is new? But life goes on, as it must, and thank God, beautiful music, which soothes our aching souls, continues to be made. In this edition of "This Music is Really Good for You", I would like to introduce you to an incredible Latin folk rock musical duo from Mexico City, Rodrigo y Gabriela, whose performance, I guarantee you, will leave you with your jaws wide open. Here are a couple of their tunes courtesy of YouTube: "Tamacun" (3:23) and "Diablo Rojo" (6:10). While I am at it, let me also recommend to you a favorite song of mine from the 80s, "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" by Tears For Fears. Enjoy!

Help Pass H.R. 2003 in the US Senate

Were you outraged by Senator Inhofe's remarks on the floor of the US Senate regarding HR 2003 last week as I was? If you were, as many Ethiopians were (Not in Her Name, Senator!, Senator, You Owe Us an Apology, Open Letter to Senator Inhofe, etc), then here is one easy thing you can do to help the US Senate take up H.R. 2003 for mark up and, hopefully, pass it.

The web page forms for contacting members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations are hyper linked to their names below. Please click on their names and take 30 minutes of your time to send them a letter urging them to support H.R. 2003, or you can use the letter I sent to the Senators (see below). If 1000 of the 1778 weekly visitors of this blog help with this effort, that would be a great!

I just found out that there is an easy way to do this. Please go to Just Foreign Policy -- it will allow you to do this tedious task in one fell swoop!

Joe Biden
Richard Lugar
Chris Dodd
Chuck Hagel
John Kerry
Norm Coleman
Russ Feingold
Bob Corker
Barbara Boxer
John Sununu
Bill Nelson
George Voinovich
Barack Obama
Lisa Murkowski
Robert Menendez
Jim DeMint
Bejamin Cardin
Johnny Isakson
Robert Casey Jr.
David Vitter
Jim Webb


Dear Senator X,

I am writing to urge you to support H.R. 2003, the Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007, which was recently passed by the US House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

H.R. 2003 is a bipartisan legislation that is designed to promote democratic reforms in Ethiopia and encourage the Ethiopian government to respect human rights. This legislation does not negatively affect counter terrorism cooperation with the Ethiopian government.

I would encourage you to view or listen (see link below) to the October 2, 2007 hearing on the State of Democracy in Ethiopia conducted by the House Subcommittee on Africa to learn more why this legislation is necessary.

Hearing link: http://international.edgeboss.net/real/international/af_10-2-07.smi

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
X X

He is Home, and He Isn't

Yacob Hailemariam has returned to his beloved family in Virginia Beach VA, reports The Virginian-Pilot.

Relaxed as he looked, joking or not, and home less than a day, Yacob Hailemariam talked only of returning home – to his homeland, Ethiopia. Permanently.

He said he plans to go back in two months to continue the “unfinished business” of peacefully instilling democracy. The 2010 elections are coming.

“There is a chance we could go back to prison, but what are you going to do?” he asked, smiling. “We have made promises to the people, and we can’t renege on those promises.”

To read the whole story and view a brief video clip of Yacob, go here.

One against all?

By Ephrem Madebo

Our country Ethiopia might be as old as the earth it self, and the Ethiopian state might be one of the oldest on earth, but despite this inspiring historical and political background, dualism and Party politics are new phenomena that have eluded generation of Ethiopian intellectuals who dreamed multi-party democracy for Ethiopia. One month ago, I vowed to not dip my hands in to the internal conflict of Kinjit, however, after a month of speculation and shuddering political roller costar, I decided to end the silence because without debate, or without criticism, no party, no government, and no country can succeed -- and no democracy can survive. In the last 40 years, the Ethiopian political spectrum has entertained a plethora of political parties and political alliances, but none of the parties has stood firm to celebrate its 10th birthday without dividing and sub-dividing like an amoeba. Sadly, this has been a shocking truth of the Ethiopian political parties from the infamous EPRP of the 1970s to the flamboyant CUDP of the new millennium.

Evidently, no political party has captivated the imagination of young Ethiopians like EPRP did in the 1970s. The Ethiopian youth of the late 1960s and early1970s (the golden generation), was more loyal and obedient to EPRP than to its parents. I remember, I had a distant cousin who used to carry a potassium cyanide capsule whenever he was out on the streets on a party mission. We had such a determined youth that preferred its death than compromising party secrets. Today, party confidential is compromised on VOA and other media outlets by those who are at the top of protecting it. In the middle of the 1970s, EPRP crumbled and so did the morale and fighting sprit of the Ethiopian youth. When EPRP ceased to exit as a viable political force, the Ethiopian youth saw no reason for everything it did in the past, and lost the courage to stand for the future. Therefore, the youth resorted to substance abuse, alcoholism, and jolly-jackism.

It took 30 years to see another party that fascinated the Ethiopian youth and heaved it out of three decades of political retirement. This party is Kinjit. Though Kinjit has its own problem from its inception, many Ethiopians gave it the benefit of the doubt to be the party that gathers the momentum lost decades ago. As a result, many young people gave their life, savagely beaten, went to jail, and persecuted believing that the “sprit” of Kinjit shall muster them to realize their life long dream of freedom and justice. Any political miscalculation, sabotage, or mistake that creates any life threatening damage on Kinjit tears apart not only Kinjit as a party, it also obliterates the sprit of Kinjit from the minds of millions of Ethiopians. There is no doubt that our country Ethiopia is a very old country, but its population is comprised of a higher proportion of young people. We can not afford any EPRP like mistake of the 1970s that discourages our youth and alienates it from the political affairs of its nation.

Unfortunately, today, a paternal figure of the opposition camp is playing the most dangerous game of his political life. Engineer Hailu Shawel, the very person entrusted for his patriotic leadership of Kinjit, is on the verge of reducing Kinjit in to useless factions that will easily melt in the blistering heat of the TPLF political furnace. Engineer Hailu’s awkwardly designed moves and acts seem to constantly oppose his public words. The Engineer has repeatedly been heard saying “Kinjit shall never be divided”, but his acts and strange behaviors ever since he arrived to North America have jeopardized the life of Kinjit as a political entity. Should we beg Engineer Hailu to keep himself away from the riff-raffs of history that surrounded him and put his money where his mouth is? If that helps, I will definitely beg!

Ethiopians have unequivocally said no to dictatorial rule and supremacy of any kind. The following is what I heard from an extreme right wing radio station here in Washington, DC: “Kinjit as a party must implement the decisions of its chairman” (Dr. XX). If this is what the doctor is dreaming to Ethiopia, and if this is the kind of leadership Engineer Hailu insists to impose on Kinjit; I guess, both Ato Hailu and the doctor have few countries left in the world (China, Cuba). This is nothing, but the Nicolae Ceausescu type of party leadership. Engineer Hailu, or any leader of Kinjit has the responsibility of executing the majority decision of Kinjit regardless of which side of the decision the leader stands. In a recent Washington DC meeting, Engineer Hailu suggested that he would replace the “renegades” by others willing to work under his leadership. What is a party to Engineer Hailu? Isn’t a party a place where people of dissenting ideas work together? I’m sure it’s not a place where one exchanges an orange for another orange and end-up with the same orange. In a party one exchanges ideas and end-up with more ideas. I wonder if the Engineer thinks that his mere existence makes his side a majority regardless of the number of people in the other side.

Engineer Hailu’s inability to respect those who disagree with him is a sign of a quick descend from cynicism in to dogmatism. Don’t call me rude, for I am a true believer of reason. If Ato Hailu’s stand was honest, but erroneous, I would have stood with him and used reason to correct his error. This is not peculiar to me; most of us would tolerate error of opinion if reason is left free to combat it. But, the Engineer who himself was a hostage of tyranny a few months ago is holding ‘reason’ hostage, and making a nonsensical argument that would make Plato puke from the heavens.

Leaders unite people of different ideas, not create a rift. Leaders motivate people, not discourage them. Leaders rally followers around a common objective, not diminish the hope of people. Ato Hailu Shawel, the long time paternal figure of Kinjit has denied fatherhood to his political sons and daughters by reducing himself from a graceful leader of Kinjit to a discourteous leader of “petty politics”. The Renaissance Hotel meeting where Ato Hailu unveiled his degenerative vision was chaired by Dr. Taye Woldesemayat. My pen has written much about Dr. Taye when he was important to our struggle; I will not spoil that same pen by writing about this person whose public misdeed increases in direct proportion to his age.

The existence of Kinjit as a political entity benefits all Ethiopians regardless of party affiliation. I am not a kinjit member, I haven’t been, but I fight for its existence for I do believe that Kinjit and the political organization that I associate myself exist in the context of each other. The failed political parties of yesterday are campaigning day-in and day-out to justify their failure and attract others to their side. I’m afraid Ato Hailu seems to be the latest victim of these political rattle snakes. The unprecedented Public gratitude to Kinjit leaders in Washington DC, Dallas, Los Angles, Seattle, Boston, New York, and Atlanta must have sent an ambiguous message to Engineer Hailu and the handful of cacophonous singers around him.

If the beauty of democracy that Ato Hailu fought for years means anything at all, it means the undisputed right of party members to disagree with him, and his moral duty to execute the decision that he disagreed with. Just two months ago, Engineer Hailu was a person we all depended on to change the political landscape of Ethiopia. I want to say it loud and clear to the Engineer that no progress is possible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything. No matter how patriotic and how anti-TPLF one is, acting against the fundamental principle of democracy is not a virtue, it’s a vice! Viva to the majority of Kinjit leaders who are fighting to keep the party in-tact. I salute your unwavering stand for the truth, and I applaud your initiative to include the many forgotten voices in Kinjit. I want to remind you that the truth you stand for might be ridiculed, or even violently opposed; but at the end of the day, it shall be accepted as self-evident. Trust me, one against all shall never win! Do not be anxious for the loafers, stand above all conditions, rise to every occasion, and most importantly stand for what is right. If you do, you will transcend the current party shortcomings, and lead us in to the promise land like Moses, not to the other side of the Red Sea, not far from it either, but within and to itself. May God bless our Ethiopia!

The Boycott of Parliament and the Future of Kinijit

By Fikru Helebo

Two years ago this week I was furious at the combined Ethiopian opposition (CUD, UEDF, OFDM). Why? Because, just a few months after beating the EPRDF regime in the 2005 elections with all odds stacked against them, they blinked and failed to stand together in the decision about joining or boycotting parliament, thereby giving Meles Zenawi what he wanted: a divided opposition. In the debate about joining or boycotting parliament in 2005, although I leaned towards those who advocated joining parliament, I thought that it was very important for the opposition to have a single strategy regarding the issue of joining or boycotting parliament.

Now, two years later, I think it is safe to say that the opposition's inability to adopt a single strategy on joining or boycotting parliament did not serve them well. If the opposition had adopted a single strategy, join or boycott, most Ethiopians who voted for the opposition would have supported them. If they were united either way, I do believe that the political landscape of Ethiopia would have changed for the better. Unfortunately, it did not turn out that way and the rest is history.

The verdict on those parties who joined parliament under the highly charged atmosphere of 2005 is clear. But it is not quite as clear for the party that put preconditions on joining parliament, the CUD (Kinijit). Those who joined parliament have proven nothing by joining parliament. In fact, by staying in parliament after hundreds of innocent civilians were gunned down and thousands imprisoned by the Meles regime, they have discredited themselves as an opposition and, in the process, they have become a pariah among supporters of the opposition. The party which boycotted parliament, Kinijit, is also not served well by its decision to boycott parliament, at least from the results that we have witnessed so far. The decision to boycott may not have served Kinijit well in the short term, but it certainly has made Kinijit more popular among Ethiopians and it may help it in the long term. That, however, depends on many variables going Kinijit's way.

In as much as the decision to boycott parliament two years ago may have made Kinijit very popular, it is probable that the process Kinijit went through in reaching that decision may be the culprit for the current internal crisis that Kinijit finds itself in. It should be recalled that Hailu Shawel, the president of Kinijit, made quite a stir when he announced in Washington, DC three weeks before parliament opened on October 10, 2005 that Kinijit has decided not to enter parliament. Hailu Shawel's declaration was refuted a couple of days later by a press release which appeared on Keste-Demena's now defunct web site, Keste-Demena being one of Kinijit's member parties and one which was led by Berhanu Nega (kestedemena.org served as a de facto Kinijit web site at that time). I liked the statement on Keste-Demena's web site; it sounded mature and responsible. That statement combined with a joint statement by CUD and UEDF a few days later raised my hope that the opposition may be pursuing a united strategy regarding the issue of joining or not joining parliament. Unfortunately, everything unraveled a few days later after CUD and UEDF officials met with Meles Zenawi.

This episode revealed that there were serious disagreements within Kinijit regarding the issue of joining or boycotting parliament. Disagreements within a political organization are natural, but this disagreement highlighted the existence of a deeper disagreement within Kinijit on its vision and its strategy for dealing with its opponents. Fast forward to October 2007 and, it seems to me, Kinijit is still stuck in the disagreements that arose during the decision process about joining or boycotting parliament in 2005. Most had hoped that the release of Kinijit's leadership from jail last July would re-energize the opposition. One faction of Kinijit is actually trying its best to reinvigorate the opposition camp. Unfortunately, another faction seems more interested in winning the turf battle within Kinijit than wining the hearts and minds of Ethiopians across the ethnic, religious and geographical spectrum.

As I have attempted to discuss in an article titled "The Battleground Region" last year, the Ethiopian South is where the next election will be won, if free and fair elections are to take place. At this point in the evolution of Kinijit as a party one can not deny that the base of the party is in the Amhara region. Nothing wrong with that per se. But, for Kinijit to be a majority party in Ethiopia, it will have to reach out to people in the South and Oromia regions. The faction of Kinijit that is linked to Hailu Shawel is quickly proving to be a liability for Kinijit in its effort to broaden its support base in other regions of the country. The Amhara base of Kinijit is a very important constituency for Kinijit and it looks like this is the card that Hailu Shawel is playing to keep Kinijit under his firm grip. But with Hailu Shawel's dictatorial tendencies, which can easily be detected in the interviews he has been giving since he arrived in the US, and his inherent inability to inspire, it is highly unlikely that Kinijit can make further inroads into the South and Oromia regions.

Who is the Terrorist?

"The war on terrorism is very important, we all know that. But no regime that terrorizes its own citizens can be a reliable ally in the war on terror. Terrorism isn't just a military issue, it is also a human rights issue." -- Representative Christopher Smith as quoted by VOA News on July 18, 2007