Three
things are happening after the May 2005 election.
The first is that EPRDF has won the election and this gives
the current government a mandate to govern the country for another
five years. The second is that opposition parties are in leadership
crises (and we know that some are laughing), but they won a moral
victory, especially after the arrest of CUD leaders and members. The
third is that the post-election issue has become more and more
focused on ensuring the survival of �infant democracy�; it is no
longer about increasing the number of parliamentary seats for the
opposition, or electing the opposition to power (which is a remote
chance). All this is what I mean by �post-mortem�. But I have
still a lot to say about these and other issues.
There is no doubt
that the heated debate on the election has polarized public opinion
in Ethiopia and abroad. Amid this situation, political observers and
intellectuals should have played a critical role in helping to
understand political issues and encouraging dialogue and
understanding of the pros and cons of the debate. It is unfortunate
that this does not happen, as the majority of outspoken observers
and intellectuals have taken political sides.
Last time I wrote (
, I commented on some of the issues that emerged during the 2005
election debate, such as: 1) the need to recognize the progresses
made under EPRDF political leadership; 2) ongoing governance
problems under EPRDF; 3) problematic nature of CUD�s
confrontational approach to solving the post-election crisis; and 4)
potential of the current federal structure to address fundamental
political questions related to regional autonomy and ethnic
identity. The piece that I write here also touches these and other
broad issue.
I always admit that
I am not a political scientist and so I will not have the level of
skill required to analyze political issues. But I would like to
share experiences, stories, examples, facts, etc, that reflect,
hopefully, a balanced perspective. Writing (in general) is also
about making one�s reading easy and interesting, and, in my case
here, the aim is to attract the interest of all political camps. I
imagine that some readers may read one or two paragraphs and get
turned off (because they do not like what I say), others may find
that the way I express my views is too direct (lacking intellectual
substance), still others continue to read simply because they want
to know what a disgruntled elite like me has to say about the
current political situation in Ethiopia. All this is fine, as long
as one doesn�t associate me with the pro-opposition �Ethiopian
scholars network� or pro-EPRDF �Ethiopian professionals
network�. Members of these two networks, and many other writers on
the election debate, rarely take time to think and come up with
their own ideas. They have become experts in criticizing others.
Their latest attack on Paul Henze (by opposition supporters) and
Christopher Clapham (by EPRDF side) is a good example. And I don�t
know why they made it a big deal when two outside observers
commented on the current political situation in Ethiopia.
It is important to
separate politics from development. Politics is about political
power and development about doing something that results in positive
social and economic changes. In this respect, I maintain that EPRDF
has managed to deliver education, health and other social services
to the neglected areas of the country, and initiated an ambitious
plan for building physical infrastructures. Today there is a
university in almost every region of the country, and colleges and
vocational training institutes in every zone (formerly called a
province) and sub-zone (sub-province). The rural food security
program - in spite of some criticism about its effectiveness -
ensures that children, women and men living in remote villages of
Ethiopia will not starve to death. Each morning, thousands of
extension workers trek to rural areas to promote agricultural,
health and sanitation education -
I personally congratulate YARA Foundation for giving Prime
Minister Meles Zenawi the 2005 award. Some months ago, Meles
announced that his government would invest US 40 million dollars to
connect every school in Ethiopia to the Internet. This will ensure
that children in other regions of the country will have the same
level of opportunities as those in Addis Ababa.
Let us not also forget that
EPRDF has taken measures to protect Ethiopia�s historical
heritage including bringing the Askum Obelisk home and supporting
major renovation works in Gondar, Lalibela and Harar sites.
Why am I saying all
this? There are two reasons. First, we cannot create a vision for
the development of Ethiopia unless we appreciate what the country
already has. Second, it is unfortunate that the majority from the
opposition side refuse to recognize the contribution of EPRDF to
Ethiopian development. The truth is also that previous ruling elites ignored the
national interest and chose to invest only in Addis Abbaba or send
their children overseas for education. Some of the criticisms on
EPRDF�s development policy (for example, the focus on rural areas)
come from greedy urban elites who never learned to share the
benefits of development with the Ethiopian people.
Let us now talk
about the politics of EPRDF. And I would like to repeat what I wrote
last time: having observed the behavior of local EPRDF cadres, I
always wonder whether many of the EPRDF officials are ready to give
up state power. My own theory is that many of them believe that they
had fought guerilla war for 15 years and so they would be entitled
to the benefits of the Ethiopian state. One understands that this is
true. They were fighting to overthrow a brutal regime while many
Ethiopians were competing to get access to opportunities for
personal growth. But certainly EPRDF fighters should have been
informed a long time ago that the Ethiopian state would not exist to
serve their interests and that the onus would be on EPRDF (and quite
frankly, on any government) to create social and economic safety
nets for them. At present, the confrontational approach adapted by
some CUD members might have also created a perception among them
that the only good thing to do would be to hang on to state power.
How about high
ranking EPRDF officials including the Prime Minister? Obviously,
their situation is very different from least educated, low-rank
cadres. For example, they can pass laws to fix good pensions, find
lucrative employment in EPRDF-owned companies, or, in case of bright
people like Meles, teach in universities or colleges. Yet, would
they have left office if the opposition had won a clear majority?
God knows. One certain thing is that the transition of power would
not have been easy.
Although EPRDF got
the mandate to govern the country for another five years, the
party�s reputation has been tarnished and the commitment of
leaders to promoting political pluralism and democracy seriously
questioned. For example, shortly after learning that the opposition
has made significant political gains, the EPRDF-dominated parliament
rushed to introduce parliamentary procedures intended to limit the
role of opposition politicians in the next parliament. Then came the
results of the re-run of elections which showed that EPRDF had won
most (?) of the seats in the contested electoral areas. This outcome
raised a suspicion that the process had not been fair and
transparent. Many CUD members have been arrested and the leaders
charged with treason. All these undemocratic practices will have
serious consequences both for EPRDF and Ethiopian society.
All this said, if
you are one of us who have many relatives living in rural areas, you
would be careful on how you criticize EPRDF. Previous ruling elites
did nothing except going around hotel, bars, and restaurants in
Addis Ababa to boast about the �great civilization 3,000 years
ago�. I wish those elites had known that ancient Ethiopians had to
work hard to build that civilization. EPRDF officials work hard and
they have shown us that development is possible. By the way, this is
also what Meles and the rest of EPRDF leadership want to hear, that
is, Ethiopians saying to them �we are grateful�.
Of course, I would be grateful, but I am also aware that, if
EPRDF leaders stay in power for too long, they will be so corrupt
(maybe some already are) that the issue of political and economic
governance will fade away from the party�s platform.
We all were shocked
by the loss of more innocent lives during the recent protests in
Addis Ababa and other cities. Who is to blame? CUD blames EPRDF.
EPRDF blames CUD. International public opinion is divided with the
US blaming CUD for inciting violence. Ethiopians are also divided
with mass protests taking place in Western cities against EPRDF and
a section of the public in Addis Ababa and other cities unhappy
about the way the protests were organized and led (mainly due to
death and damage to property).
Many of us wonder
why CUD leaders called mass protests twice (in June and November),
and then distanced themselves from taking responsibilities for the
outcomes. Was it because the CUD leadership did not expect such
outcomes (death and destruction of property) or it was just the
Ethiopian style of politics (talk today, deny tomorrow)?
We know that irresponsible Diaspora groups were clearly using
the language of violence. I
remember reading something at the Ethiopian Review web site which
said that the people of Gondar and Gojam had risen up to destroy the
�Agazi army� (my younger brother is in the army and I find this
statement disgusting). Getachew Haile also recently wrote
�blood or no blood, TPLF will go sooner than later� (this
is also disgusting and embarrassing). US State Department briefing staff and diplomats read
statements like these and assume, if not conclude, that CUD is
inciting violence. Last time I wrote, I advised CUD leaders to
control the behavior of their cadres in the Diaspora.
Nevertheless,
reasonable people like us are expected to be fair and transparent in
directing any criticism towards CUD, especially at a time when the
party is experiencing leadership crisis.
I just stated above that some CUD members have adapted
�confrontational approach� and this only denoted that some
members were not inclined to communicate with EPRDF. It is not the
same as saying that CUD leaders have encouraged �the violent take
over of government�. If I write �CUD incited violence�, I must
provide evidence. And I
do not have the evidence. As for the action of protesters (damage to
property), we know that young people all over the world throw
stones, burn cars, break windows, etc, all the time during public
demonstrations, even after night-long parties. Asked by journalists
why the police shot the protestors, Prime Minister Meles replied
that members of the security force were forced to fire after they
were attacked by grenades and bullets. This could have happened. It
could also be possible that the police first shot and killed
protesters, and few protestors were so angry that they went back
home, picked up arms and returned to confront the police. We saw
recently that no one died during weeks of protests in France. What
happened in Addis Ababa, Bahir Dar and other places were very
embarrassing for all Ethiopians.
The so called vocal
Diaspora groups -consisting of former Ethiopian government
bureaucrats, old-guard intellectuals and a section of the immigrant
population from Addis Ababa - may succeed in getting donors
attention. I recently
met my former Canadian classmate who worked for an international
NGO. When I told him that Diaspora groups were calling donor
countries to cut aid to Ethiopia, he shook his head. He might have
traveled to rural Ethiopia or Africa and saw the extent of poverty
and hunger. Our opposition politicians and their supporters rarely
go outside of Addis Ababa to see the reality of life in rural
Ethiopia. In fact, many have used the resources of the Ethiopian
state and liberal Western immigration systems to bring their
families to the West. Be that as it may, the question is whether the
impact of reduction in foreign aid will weaken the EPRDF government
or backfire to the opposition.
In my view, reduced foreign aid means reduced spending on
social programs and halting the building of roads, health centres,
schools, electricity grids, etc.
This provides EPRDF with an opportunity to launch an
effective propaganda campaign against the opposition. In particular,
CUD members in remote areas, especially in Gondar and Gojam, will be
harassed and humiliated so often that an association with CUD would
become undesirable. The influence of donor agencies also wanes away
with the reduction of foreign aid and this would be a set back for
opposition political movements which rely on foreign financial and
moral support. I strongly believe that the opposition parties and
their Diaspora supporters should not have called for cutting foreign
aid. We have seen election crises in many countries in recent years
and neither opposition groups nor their supporters in the Diaspora
consider this strategy; after all, the whole notion of economic
sanction as a way of inducing political change has been discredited
following the revelation of scandal in the UN �oil-for-food�
program in Iraq.
Perhaps some of you
may observe that I always refer to my field research experience in
Gondar. This is so because I continue to appreciate the moral
standard and values of Ethiopian society. I once got into a heated
debate with a group of peasants who had a positive view of Mengistu
Haile Mariam. I asked them why they thought Mengistu was a good man,
while knowing that he had massacred tens of thousands of people.
They replied �he did not massacre poor peasants�. The fact is
that Mengistu destroyed feudalism and created peasant associations
to govern themselves. People were also of the view that rural
administration under the Derg was more effective, because, peasant
associations were run by deg sewoch (matured people) who also
ensured that Derg�s radical policies were neutralized before their
application at the local level. I provide this example to indicate
two things: first, one cannot separate politics from class issues.
Hence, Mengistu had promoted, at least in the early days of the
�revolution�, the interest of the peasantry and we should not
expect Ethiopian peasants to join us in condemning him; and second,
the Ethiopian people are politically matured. Those peasants in
Gondar knew that Mengistu had made serious mistakes including
authorizing the use of red terror, but they refused to discredit his
good work.
In comparison, we
(the people of Diaspora) always like to entertain new political
parties. When CUD was formed, there was a sudden shift of optimism
and support for the party and their leaders - seasoned politicians
like Beyene Petros were forgotten. CUD people traveled to the West
and returned with sacs full of money. Soon critiques (no doubt EPRDF
supporters) began warning that CUD was being more and more directed
by the Diaspora. Recently, however, the Ethiopian media and other
observers have questioned the role of the Diaspora in the recent
election in Ethiopia. For example, the online edition of The
Reporter twice
stated that the Diaspora was disrupting the political process in
Ethiopia through promoting ethnic propaganda and pressuring
opposition parties to adapt policies that are less relevant to the
�objective reality� of the country. In its last days of online
edition, the Addis Tribune editorial wrote that the Ethiopian public
(at home) was interested in knowing why all the political
activities, demonstrations, lobbying, etc, were one-sided,
pro-opposition. I very much regret that those critiques did not know
that they were talking about Diaspora groups who represent the
minority of Ethiopian population abroad.
I just feel that
CUD advisors (Ph.Ds included) and their Diaspora supporters would
have provided CUD leaders with strategic advice, instead of knocking
the door of every Western politician to ask for economic sanctions
against Ethiopia, or writing propaganda and counter-propaganda
literature. I myself do not know what that advice should have been,
but I think CUD leaders should not have relied on pressures from
Western Ambassadors to force Meles to give in. If foreign aid is
cut, Meles would not even bother returning courtesy phone calls or
letters from Western officials.
As I write this
piece, I have on my desk the Winter 2005 publication of the
Association for Canadian Studies entitled Multicultural Futures:
International Approaches to Pluralism. It presents national
debates on cultural, ethnic and religious diversity
in 16 countries including India, Morocco, China, Canada,
Malaysia, Australia, South Africa and France. I get frustrated that
our politicians still refuse to employ the language of diversity in
their political language. If President Girma Wolde Giorgis speaks in
Oromigna during a televised New Year address, many from the
opposition side will take this as an example of EPRDF's ethnic
policy. Four years ago, I met a fresh Ethiopian defector who claimed
to be a development expert when I went to visit an ailing priest (he
later died) in Ottawa. I remember that he was telling the priest
that EPRDF was allowing the leader of Ethiopian Muslims to address
the nation on TV during the New Year ; in other words, a televised
New Year address should not have been directed at Muslims (50% of
the population). The priest was surprised by his sentiment and
looked away. It is this kind of backward and reactionary mehal
sefari (a social class known for political manipulation and
economic greed) politics that will be an obstacle to political
development in Ethiopia. Whether we like it or not, diversity issues
are central to Ethiopian political discourse and we must learn how
to deal with them in an open and a transparent manner.
After writing all
this, many of you will wonder where I stand with respect to the
future of Ethiopian politics. As I mentioned above, many of us are
careful not to criticize EPRDF too much, because its policies
benefit our communities. Months ago, my younger brother wrote to
tell me that his wife had been hospitalized because of complications
related to contraceptive use. This is why EPRDF has given priority
for training rural health, agricultural and education extension
workers. How would I know if political parties dominated by Addis
Ababa elites would pay attention to the plight of our rural sisters
and brothers? The fact is also that many EPRDF people have lost
relatives to poverty and they have a lot in common with us. This
said, it is also clear that the post-election issue is no longer
about the opposition parties winning enough seats to seize state
power. It is about ensuring that democracy is taking roots in the
Ethiopian political system. The opposition parties are now in
leadership crises and EPRDF has taken advantage of this situation to
attack and discredit their leaders including arresting and charging
them with treason. All this will certainly backfire as the
politically conscious Ethiopian people increasingly question the
commitment of EPRDF to
promoting political pluralism and democracy. So, what do I choose? I
am ready for taking the risk of change in government, even though I
do not have adequate confidence in current opposition parties.
There will be the
same or different political parities contesting for power during the
next election. Any opposition party can do well if it can build on
the experiences of the 2005 election to formulate clear policy and
good political marketing strategy. Three things are worthy of
considering. The first one is inclusion. Democracy is about
political participation and political parties should be broad-based
and be able to involve everyone in the process. Perhaps it is time
to consider regional-based leaders who better understand the
realities of Ethiopian society. It is easy for Addis Ababa elites to
get together, elect among themselves, and then reach out to the
country to solicit support. Once in power, however, they may not
have the level of knowledge and experience of complex systems of
geography, economy, politics, culture, etc, required to provide
political and policy leadership.
The second is
recognition of regional autonomy. Building on the current federal
structure, political parties must encourage debate on
decentralization and regional autonomy. The idea of going back to
Haile Sellassie or Derg�s era must be abandoned.
The last one is
creating and maintaining a good public image. Politics is a
profession. Talking and writing about politics should be left for
professionals. Christopher Clapham mentioned that, during the 2005
election, CUD had lined up candidates that commanded local respect
which might also have resulted in easy victories in some areas. This
is also what I am saying here: identify qualified people in the
Diaspora who know public relations work and build the political base
of opposition movements. Those who talk and write nonsense on behalf
of opposition parties should be told to behave properly.
Getachew Mequanent
Ottawa, Canada
|
