The opposition's rejection of the official results and vows to challenge them in court and possibly through protests, strikes and a campaign of civil disobedience must not and ought not to be interpreted as 'declaring war on the Constitution.'

The press releases, coming out of the government upon the announcement by the NEBE of EPRDF's victory, seems to have one overarching goal, that is, to deny the people to exercise their human rights, rights that existed notwithstanding the Constitution. In fact, a Constitution primary goal is but guaranteeing such rights.

Thomas Paine, in his RIGHTS OF MAN (Book 2, Chapter 4 - �Of Constitutions�), defined what a constitution is and what is does. I think it is still a valid definition of the concept.

A Constitution exists to ensure that a government operates for the mutual benefit of all its members, a document is drawn to categorically state what will �constitute� the government � what its powers will be; what it can do; and what it cannot do. This document is called a Constitution. �A constitution is not the act of government, but of a people constituting a government�. He went on to state that the government itself was not a party in this compact, but the results of it: �To suppose that any government can be a party in a compact with the whole people, is to suppose it to have existence before it can have a right to exist.� This is why the People have an avenue in amending the Constitution without the aid of Congress/Parliament."

Therefore, a constitution is the property of a nation, and not of those who exercise the government. The citizens are the mutual owners of the Constitution. They elect representatives to govern the society according to constitutional principles. They as owners of the document have the responsibility to ensure that the representatives abide by its principles. If the representatives are not adhering to the Constitution, it is the citizens' fault for allowing them to do so. They must be allowed to use legal means to rectify the situation. Bad leaders count on the silence of the People.

This is the problem with Ethiopian politics. Governments shamelessly use the Constitution to protect their power. The government does not need to forewarn its opponents not to protest an election result they deem unjust. They should be allowed to pursue all legal means with a view to getting justice. If they believe they are not satisfied with the decision of the legal system, they have the right to stage a peaceful protest to let the government and the world know that justice was not done. It is the government's responsibility to see to it that justice is done.

Ethiopia expects wise and selfless leadership from all parties. Self serving action of any party is a recipe for destruction. All Parties, the EPRDF, and the opposition, must first place the interest of the country and its people ahead of their parties interest. The current situation is a unique one. Many mistakes have been committed before and after the election.

The government if acted in good faith could have dissipated with a stroke of a pen any appearance of a fraudulent election by just re constituting the National elections board notwithstanding the legality of its continued existence. This would have been a good gesture and a forceful show of good faith and commitment to a fair and just election. The opposition must have persisted in demanding that a new national elections board be established. They did demand. They should have galvanized the public with peaceful protests, strikes and the like for the establishment of such a board. They have not done so and now they and the people find themselves in this impasse.

Let us give the opposition the benefit of the doubt and say they hoped against hope that the post election investigation might turn out to be a fair process. I don't have all the facts to state that the process was not fair simply because the Board declared EPRDF the winner and that the Board was established by EPRDF. The process might have been fair. The burden of proof lies on the opposition to show it was unfair. They must gather their evidences and proof and show to the Courts it was unfair. Moreover, they must show it to the Ethiopian people and the world as well.

The government must refrain from threatening the opposition for not accepting the result of an election they believe is fraudulent. That is what democracy is all about. The opposition's rejection of the result of the election must not be seen as a rejection of the democratic process as some would have us believe. So long as the opposition parties avoid any violent means of struggle and engage in a peaceful way to demand fair and just process of investigation, they must not be put down by force or the threat of force. In the case of Ethiopia, the opposition, I argue, must not be forced to accept even the decision of the Court which is to be presided over by the Chairman of the same Board the opposition is accusing of being partial. The government must put itself in the shoes of the opposition to see their mistrust. It should do whatever it could to build trust. It could have done this in the past and it could do it now. It only requires a willingness to see the country and its people move forward.

The opposition parties have called for the formation of a National Unity and Reconciliation Transitional government as a way out of the present political impasse. In the opinion of this writer, such a call is unwise.

If they believe the establishment of such a government is a panacea for Ethiopia's political problem, they should have struggled for such an outcome all along and should not even have entertained the idea of competing in an election. After having gone through the process, whether fair or unfair, to now call for such a new arrangement in the wake of 'losing' an election makes them unwise. See it this way. Let us assume the Board just declared the opposition parties the winner of the election, will the opposition parties still call for a formation of a National Unity and Reconciliation Transitional government? Was it for such a government that they have competed in the election? If so, they have not told the Ethiopian people. Is it only when the opposition is declared a winner that the election will have to be said free and fair? I don't think this has any validity as a reasonable argument. It has never been seen in history where a winning party abandoned its victory and formed a coalition government with the losing party or even worse to abandon its right to form a government and agree to form a Transitional government. This is laughable. EPRDF's rejection of such a call I think is right.

Yet, I don't deny the situation of Ethiopia is so precarious that the government, the parties, and the people should strive to come up with an innovative solution. This writer humbly submits the following as a possible approach to resolve the impasse.

Hold a re election on all the contested areas. The election must be run and monitored by a new Board which all the parties deem impartial. Will such action contravene the existing law? Sure it does. But all must note that Ethiopia is in the arduous process of building up a democratic process and amending an existing law to chart a path that would stand the test of time as fair and just is worth undertaking. In so doing, EPRDF will prove to all who want to see that it stands for fairness, justice and democracy. Will they see it as going unwarranted extra mile? They sure do particularly those who might fear losing power. But I think the people might see such an honest act of sacrifice as noble and might even reward them with a huge mandate.

Hold fund raising campaign from within and without. Let all Ethiopian specially those living abroad fasten their belt and commit themselves to underwrite the entire cost of holding the election. It can be done. Let Ethiopians abroad shoulder the entire cost of fielding the polling stations with international observers.

Work on short time frame to hold the election.

The acceptability of such a proposal is very unlikely in the camp of EPRDF. Yet remember even PM Meles thought the idea of holding another election is a good idea. In any case, however, the government must cease from warning the opposition not to violate the constitution. I don't think they need to be reminded of the fact that there is a struggle that is unacceptable and there is a struggle that is acceptable. In as much as they remain within the existing legal framework and wage their struggle, the government in fact must give protection to such a struggle. After all, that is what a government of the people, by the people, for the people, is supposed to do.