Initially, we in the UNITED ETHIOPIAN DEMOCRATIC FORCES (�UEDF�) would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere and profound appreciation of the efforts and initiatives of the Government of the United States to resolve the latest political crisis in Ethiopia. We welcome your active involvement in seeking to promote peace and democracy in our country, and to help the opposition parties and the ETHIOPIAN PEOPLES REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRATIC FRONT (�EPRDF�), the ruling party in Ethiopia, reach an amicable settlement of the their political differences. We also applaud your efforts to usher in our country an era of responsible, transparent and stable governance where the will of the people is respected and the responsibility to govern the country is transferred peacefully from one group to another in accordance with the wishes of the people as expressed in genuinely democratic elections.

Ethiopia is once again at a crossroads and the future political direction of the country remains uncertain. There is a clear and distinct danger that the country may return to the dark days of the Derg regime where the use of force becomes the chosen means of suppressing political dissent or expressing political opposition. Alternatively, opportunities exist for deepening and extending the democratic opening made possible by the election of May 15, 2005. Seizing these opportunities, however, requires that all parties � local contestants and international mediators alike- show commitment to avoid further violence and bloodshed and to resolve political differences in good faith and with a spirit of evenhandedness and accommodation. Seriously taking into account the wishes of the people as expressed in the May election as well as the interest of every major political group should figure prominently in the quest for a workable political solution. In our view, the future government of the country should be defined by the principle of inclusiveness and should result from a process that aims at creating a framework for negotiation, compromise and trust building among all stakeholders. A winner- takes-all approach where the means for determining the winner has been marred by massive fraud and irregularities is uniquely ill-suited to for ensuring peace and stability in the country.

A brief background to the current crisis in our country is in order here. The background serves as an underpinning for our proposal. It highlights the challenges and opportunities the country faces, and provides a needed perspective by which a repetition of past mistakes may be avoided.

First. It is absolutely essential to be clear about the fundamental wishes of the Ethiopian people. They want and demand change. This has been amply demonstrated by the May 15 national election. As widely reported by all international election observers, the May elections were the most free and competitive to date in the country. These observers have also accurately reported the unprecedented level of voter turnout (even by Western standards) as well as the patience and discipline of the voters who waited in line for as many as 15 hours to cast their ballots. These attributes have given the May election a new meaning to the notion of �self-determination�, and a clear signal that the Ethiopian

people are ready for a change of government.
Against this background, the ruling party�s manouvers and attempts to nullify the democratically expressed will of the people for self-determination court the danger of throwing the country into chaos. Popular despair and dissatisfaction abound throughout the country. People everywhere are raising fundamental questions about the value and, indeed, the feasibility of democratic elections under the current regime. Regrettably, implicit in these questions is the danger that when avenues for peaceful political change are closed, non-peaceful means of self-determination become inevitable. Nowhere has this essential truth been better captured than in the words of the American Declaration of Independence: � [Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of [their unalienable rights], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.�

Second. The arrogant and cavalier attitude of the EPRDF toward the voters and the opposition, far from helping to mitigate the current crisis, is a constant source of political aggravation and instability. Unable to reconcile itself to the reality that the vast majority of the Ethiopian electorate are united to reject its rule, the EPRDF is busily engaged to reverse this result using all sorts of foul and high-handed means. The May elections were a form of referendum in which the EPRDF, despite the vast resources at its disposal and its control of the state machinery, was unable to convince the judgment of the people to gain their support. Which is why soon thereafter it began to use violent methods to overbear the will of the people.

Despite being defeated at the polls, the EPRDF continues to wallow in the illusion that the people owe it a duty to obey. It believes that it is entitled to rule because fourteen years ago it helped to remove from power one of the most hated regimes in Ethiopian history. The EPRDF flaunts its government as an improvement over the brutal dictatorship that preceded it. In so doing, however, it ignores the fact that the human rights situation of the country remains no less appalling. In any case, having suffered the iniquities of both regimes, the Ethiopian people have a right to demand a political system that satisfies their yearning to be ruled by leaders that enjoy their support and trust. The leadership of EPRDF comes nowhere close to the mark. Regrettably, the international community itself has unwittingly condoned a race to the bottom by suggesting that Meles is an improvement over his predecessor and by portraying him as one of the �new breed� of African democratic leaders. Many in the international community have mistaken his public posturing about democratic governance for the genuine article. The May elections should lay to rest Meles Zenawi�s democratic pretensions: His numerous nefarious tactics to win the election and to stay in power at any cost are sufficient to prove that his rule does not enjoy the slightest basis in democratic legitimacy. Under these circumstances, Meles has neither the right to rule the Ethiopian people nor do they have a duty to obey his rule.

Third. Compounding the problem of governance in Ethiopia is the dire nature of the economic and social crisis the country faces. While the crisis is not entirely attributable to the government, much of the blame must be laid at its doorstep. For fourteen years EPRDF has pursued a number of misguided and divisive social and economic policies that have deepened the crisis.
The following conditions are sufficient to highlight Meles Zenawi�s miserable record of governance:

Tackling these and similar problems requires a settled political atmosphere, an accountable government and popular belief in the rightfulness of the government that demands their obedience. The leaders of the G-8 countries, at their meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, have recently made clear the urgency of promoting democratic and legitimate governance in Africa if the problems of underdevelopment and poverty in the continent are to be seriously tackled. Nowhere is this need more urgent and compelling than in Ethiopia where the poverty level has reached alarming proportions. As Prime Minister Blair stated in Gleneagles, � In the end it is only vibrant African leadership, capable of giving good governance to its people, that will ultimately make the difference.� Can Meles be trusted to provide the kind of good governance that is needed to tackle the massive economic and social problems besetting the country? The vast majority of the Ethiopian people decided that question with a resounding �No� on May 15, 2005. A fourteen- year record of governmental corruption and economic mismanagement by unselected elites proved more than enough on May 15 to convince the people that it was time for a change of the country�s leadership. Given this judgment, it stands to reason that the international community should put its money where its mouth is: Do no harm to the Ethiopian people by continuing to treat the government of Prime Minister Meles as legitimate and democratic even after the people have expressed their vote of no confidence in his government. What more does the donor community need to know that international aid is unlikely to �make a difference�, to use Mr. Blair�s expression, for the common man, except to enrich Meles and his cronies?

Fourth. We expect Meles to persist in refusing to acknowledge his defeat at the polls. Unless pressured by the international community, he is unlikely to be willing to engage in serious negotiations to resolve the current impasse. He has shown his intransigent and uncompromising attitude on numerous occasions in the past. To cite but a few examples, we may mention his government�s refusal to participate in the Addis Abeba Peace and Reconciliation Conference called by the opposition parties in 1993, its refusal to negotiate in good faith with the opposition parties in Peace Talks arranged by the Congress of the United States and the US Government, and its arrogant behavior in scuttling the Carter Center Talks called by President Carter. Similarly, it has rebuffed numerous calls by opposition parties to hold direct talks aimed at resolving outstanding political issues dividing the parties.

Fifth. Why is Meles unwilling to compromise? In our view, there are three reasons for this. One is the self-serving belief that significant role his party played in the military defeat of the Derg regime entitles his party to rule the country indefinitely. This feeling of entitlement has a long pedigree and a deep resonance in the political tradition of the country. He seems to entertain the view that the sacrifices of his fighters to �liberate� the country from the Derg regime justify his continued rule. Needless to say, such a view is clearly at loggerheads with the notion of a democratic election and the paradigm shift the May election represents.

Meles also takes comfort in the belief that, no matter how he misgoverns the country, at the end of the day the international community will continue to support his government. According to reputable media sources, the United States views Meles as an important ally in the war against jihadist terrorism and as a force for stability in the Horn. Such a view, if true, is flawed both in terms of principle and as a practical matter. As a matter of principle, the very international community which did right by the people of Ukraine and Georgia during their recent elections, should do the same by the people of Ethiopia as well. The results of democratic elections should be upheld everywhere - not just in Europe. Neither should international ire be directed at Zimbabwe alone. And as a practical matter, it is highly doubtful whether a leader who lacks domestic support and plays the ethnic card and brutal repression as the only means for staying in power, can be relied upon to fight Islamic terrorism. It is equally doubtful whether such a leader can successfully maintain political stability in the country at the same time as he fosters ethnic division and defies the people and their democratically elected representatives.

Monopoly over the security forces of the country provides the final explanation for Meles Zenawi�s intransigence. As we witnessed most recently in the wake of the May election, Meles uses state-sponsored violence to terrorize the populace and keep it at bay. Faint cries of foul have been heard in the West recently to protest his crackdown of the opposition, but in the end considerations of realpolitik and short-term national self-interest may divert the West�s focus and actions. This would be unfortunate. When the West settles for doing business as usual, trumping demands for justice and democratic governance, it tends to embolden dictators and helps bring into disrepute and cynicism the very norms and standards of democratic governance it purports to promote.

Sixth, and finally, it is important to disabuse some in the international community of the view that the opposition is incapable of governing the country. This view is seriously in error, and it is time to correct it. For one thing, it tends to echo Meles Zenawi's tongue-in-cheek ravings about the absence of a credible opposition to his government. Happily, the May election has exposed his dissembling, while at the same time demonstrating the strength and credibility of the opposition parties. Despite all the odds and running on a shoestring budget against a well-heeled authoritarian ruling party, the opposition parties did well at the polls. This is a feat that deserves recognition and respect by all. For another, casting doubt on the ability of the opposition to govern the country would be inconsistent with and otherwise hold for naught the judgment of the Ethiopian people who chose the opposition over the government. The election has shown that EPRDF has little or no remaining appeal, if it ever had one. The uprising in Addis Ababa and other cities when the ruling party sought to undo the result of the election is a clear harbinger of the dangers that lurk behind a decision by the ruling party to override the wishes of the people. Since the people have spoken, their wishes must be respected.

It has long been our view, dramatically confirmed by the willingness of the ruling party to use violence against unarmed demonstrators, that at the root of most, if not all, of the political problems of the country since 1991 has been the EPRDF�s desire to monopolize power. From the beginning, it alone controlled the process of the so-called transition process which allowed it to assume two incompatible roles simultaneously: as a player and as a referee. Appearances and pious protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the merger of these roles in the same party ended with an authoritarian political arrangement. Though it was touted by the international community as the second coming for democracy in Africa, boasting of ethnic and political diversity, the so-called transitional process had no sooner started than it fizzled out barely a year later. The departure of the Oromo Liberation Front and other parties in the middle of the transition process revealed its underlying flaws, and sealed its fate as a mockery of a genuinely democratic process. With the May election fourteen years later the government of Prime Minister is stands completely naked - devoid of any semblance of democratic legitimacy- like the emperor who has no clothes.

Against this backdrop, our fundamental objective is to resurrect the process of democratic transition that the EPRDF scuttled during the last fourteen years. We believe that the long-term stability of the country and its ability to make a credible and sustainable progress in democratic government can be placed on a secure footing only through an all-inclusive process which allows every credible political party, big or small, and civic organizations to participate in the political process without let or hindrance.
The political space created by the May election and the political maturity the Ethiopian people have attained over the last three decades combine to make the current period an auspicious moment to write a new chapter in our history. With this in mind, and to resolve our differences peacefully and a spirit of compromise and negotiation, we propose the following as a roadmap for the future.

Our proposal envisages four sequential steps to be undertaken in order to complete process of transition.

A. Step One

The first step in this process requires identifying the major players in the Ethiopian political scene and their respective interests. This is important because it determines the parties which have the right to participate in the institutions of governance in the transitional period. In light of the results of the May election, this should be no difficult task, unlike the political situation that prevailed in 1991 when the EPRDF presided over the so-called transition to democracy. Back then, the EPRDF, as the sole dominant party, arbitrarily picked and chose the participants of the transitional process, excluding those it considered a threat to its dominance. By contrast, the ballots cast at the May election have revealed the identity and competitive edge of the various political contestants aspiring to govern the country. Admittedly, given the irregularities and flaws observed in the May election, it is impossible to be too confident about the level of electoral support for each contestant. Nevertheless, the identity, profile and the overall electoral performance of the main political players should no longer be in doubt.

Thus, it is obvious beyond any reasonable argument that the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (�CUD�), EPRDF, and UEDF are the chief political forces in the country today. It is significant that each of these groups is structured as a coalition of parties. By and large, this means that each coalition claims or aspires to represent the interests of all Ethiopians, regardless of their ethnic, religious or regional differences. To that extent, these coalitions can be viewed as national in scope in the substance and style of their politics.

Despite these characteristics, however, the May election has shown that none of these coalitions can credibly claim that it has the unqualified blessing of the electorate to rule the country for the next five years.

EPRDF draws its support mostly from the Tigray region by totally monopolizing and denying the opposition access to the region's electorate and partly from the Oromo region. Significantly, it does not have much support in the Amhara , the SSNNP and other regions.

UEDF�s electoral support in the May election came mainly from the Oromo region and the SNNP. Because it withdrew its candidates due to harassment and intimidation by the ruling party, it did not compete in Tigray. UEDF�s election performance, however, should be seen in a proper perspective. Although UEDF is a coalition of 14 parties hailing from all the regions of the country (with the exception of the Somali region) with much potential for electoral appeal, during most of the two years of its existence it was engaged exclusively in negotiations with EPRDF so as to make the election free and fair. It decided to participate in the election only in the last days before the deadline for registration. Most significantly, UEDF has not been as interested in winning parliamentary seats as in initiating a process of change that focuses on taking the country in a new direction on the basis of a national consensus. UEDF believes that such a consensus can only be achieved by first establishing a mechanism for ensuring freedom of activity for all political parties on an equal playing field.

We believe that, under the prevailing circumstances, neither CUD nor EPRDF alone has the mandate or credibility to govern the country.
EPRDF clearly and convincingly has been rejected by the electorate in the May election. An EPRDF-led government, therefore, risks alienating significant regions and constituencies of the country. Nor is a coalition government between the two forces, CUD and EPRDF, a viable option because such a government would leave out significant other parties, including the Oromo Liberation Front (�OLF�) and UEDF itself. The same would be true for a coalition government between EPRDF and UEDF or CUD and UEDF. Clearly this would be an undesirable result because it excludes significant political stakeholders from political participation and offers no incentives to certain parties, like the OLF to abandon non-peaceful means of achieving their political aims.

Instead of leaving the next government in the hands of the EPRDF, CUD, or the two in tandem, we propose next that a credible third party take the initiative to organize a conference of the three major stakeholders, as determined by the results of the May election, so that these parties may enter negotiations to resolve all their outstanding political differences. The conference should culminate in the formation of a Government of National Unity (�GNU�), of a transitional nature comprising these stakeholders. The GNU will take over the administration of the country for a period of, say, two years. We believe that the United States Government should take the initiative and leadership for bringing these parties to a conference, as it did in London in 1991. The European Union and the African Union could be tapped to provide assistance as well. Representatives of Ethiopian civic and professional groups should be present at the conference as observers.

We believe that our proposal is in the best long-term interests of all parties, including EPRDF. Initially, true to form, EPRDF may be reluctant go along with our proposal. A credible and neutral party like the US, however, could persuade the ruling party that it is in its self-interest to participate in a government of national unity. First, EPRDF should understand that staying in power by brute force alone is costly, short-lived and ultimately self-defeating. It neither confers governmental legitimacy nor political survivability, among the Ethiopian people and in the eyes of the international community. The fate of the Derg regime should be a poignant reminder of the costs and risks of governmental illegitimacy and reliance on force alone. The May election and its aftermath should underscore the probability that, unless the leadership of the ruling party is willing to accommodate its opposition and share power on an equitable and fair basis, the government Prime Minister Meles will share the Derg�s fate as will his party.

The leadership of EPRDF should also be made to understand that the task of eradicating poverty in the country which received significant attention at the G-8 meeting recently depends on international cooperation and support. As the G-8 countries have made clear, their cooperation and financial assistance is conditional on aid recipients� willingness to adhere to democratic norms and forms of governance. It behooves the government of Prime Minister Meles to come to terms with this injunction. Meles knows this. The only question is whether any recalcitrance or foot-dragging by him will be sanctioned by donor countries without any leniency or dilly-dallying.

C. Step Three

The next step in the process of forming the GNU is for the stakeholders to reach agreement on power sharing among themselves for the interim period. During the interim period, the institutions at the national level shall consist of:

The National Legislature shall comprise all those candidates of the three major parties constituting GNU and their allied parties whose election has not been contested by the other parties, in proportion to the votes received by each party at the May election.
To create an atmosphere of accommodation and to enable the democratic process to move forward, the votes, that the opposition would have won but that have been contaminated by fraud and other irregularities, shall be disregarded. In the interest of the principle of inclusiveness and promoting stability, the seats that remain unfilled shall be allocated to local elders, representatives of civil society, religious and national leaders, and leaders of political groups with significant following among the populace. The identity of these parties shall be determined by the agreement of the three major parties.

The National Legislature shall function both as an interim legislature as well as a Constituent Assembly. Its chief function shall be the adoption of a new constitution on the basis of a national referendum. To this end, the interim legislature shall set up a Representative Constitutional Review Commission to review the existing constitution and prepare within a specified period a new constitutional text for adoption by the interim legislature. The Constitutional Review Commission shall be comprised of EPRDF, CUD, UEDF and representatives of such other political parties and civil society as agreed by the three coalitions. The Commission shall be responsible for organizing an inclusive and participatory process of constitution-making, so that the country has the opportunity to discuss and debate the merits of such contentious issues as land ownership and the role of ethnic citizenship in structuring governmental institutions. Pending the adoption of a new constitution, the parties shall agree to respect and abide by the existing constitution except as otherwise modified by this proposal.

The Executive of the GNU shall be structured in such a way that cabinet posts and portfolios are shared equitably and qualitatively among the three coalitions according to the proportion of the votes they received at the May election. The party which got the highest number of votes at the May election shall have the right to name its leader as the Prime Minister of the country. The second and third highest vote getters shall name the First and Second Deputy Prime Ministers respectively.

The Executive shall be responsible for the smooth administration and functioning of the State and the formulation and implementation of national policies in accordance with the existing constitution. The GNU shall implement an information and education campaign throughout the country in all national languages to popularize the agreement reached by the three parties, and to foster national unity, reconciliation and mutual understanding. The chief mandate and responsibility of the GNU is to facilitate and promote the preparation for and transition to a democratically elected government. Toward that end the GNU shall:

• maintain and ensure the peace and stability of the country;

• promote and protect the welfare, security, and human rights and fundamental rights of the people;

• ensure good governance, accountability, transparency and the rule of law at all levels of government;

• initiate a comprehensive process of national healing by establishing a National Reconciliation Commission whose forms and mechanisms shall be determined by the Legislatures part of the peace building process; and

•  release all political prisoners and other prisoners of conscience held for offenses committed or alleged to have been committed after 1991 , and expedite the disposition of those who are held for offenses that occurred or are alleged to have occurred prior to 1991.

• In particular, the GNU shall facilitate the transition to a democratic order by establishing a Democratization Commission which shall:

• create and promote a climate for free political participation by eliminating any impediments to legitimate political activities, and ensuring that all political parties are free to canvass support from and access to all voters on a level playing field;

• ensure that the GNU does not exercise its powers and perform its duties in a way that advantages or prejudices any political party;

• encourage all political contestants to renounce violence as a means of resolving political differences;

• study and make recommendations on ensuring the political neutrality of the security forces and the ethnic diversity of their composition;

• establish an Independent Media Commission and Independent National Election Board;

• organize and conduct a national election on the basis of which the GNU shall transfer power to the winning party or parties.

The final step is the formation of a new government on the basis of the new constitution and new elections held under the electoral laws to be enacted by the interim National Legislature.

Conclusion

The political crisis that unfolded in the wake of the May election has been in the making for fourteen years. The opposition has long warned of bad governance in the country. The fraudulent and high-handed behavior of the ruling party during the May election are symptomatic of the deep malaise that afflicts it. The May election brought the country almost to the brink; it is still reeling from the aftermath. On a number of occasions, we have called on the ruling party join us in serious negotiations to resolve our differences. So far it has been adamant in dismissing all of our peaceful overtures.

The current period may be an auspicious moment for a change of heart and for starting all over again in the search for a peaceful outcome by all sides. The challenges the country faces could be transformed into new opportunities. The international community can make a difference in this endeavor. We therefore ask that you do your part to bring pressure to bear on Meles to come to the peace table and to engage in serious negotiations with his opposition.

The US played a major role in the formation of the government of Prime Minister Meles in 1991. When it brokered the London Conference at that time, it thundered �No Democracy, No Aid.� We call upon the AU, UN, EU and US to live up to their moral responsibility for making things right again in Ethiopia, as we have done on many occasions in the past. Because our pleas were unheeded, many opportunities have been passed up, or not fully engaged. Even when some attention was given, it was either sporadic or marred by a tendency to look for quick fixes.

The political problems of Ethiopia are not amenable to quick solutions. That is why from the beginning we called for a fair and evenhanded transition process, not one that was orchestrated to anoint a predetermined winner simply because it wielded guns with which to muzzle the voices of the people. A democratic process requires inclusively and consensus. A process that is dominated by one party can never be democratic or legitimate. That is why the process that began in 1991 failed to achieve its aims. Now, after the May election, the country has a better chance to move the transition process on a more secure footing. The election has clearly revealed the parties that can legitimately speak for the people and enter into negotiations for the purpose of reaching durable agreements.

The main burden of our proposal is to suggest a way out of the current impasse. We believe that the way out is to hold a conference at which the major parties will hammer out their differences and set up a Government of National Unity. This should be followed up by an inclusive process of democratization, culminating in the establishment of a democratically elected government under a new constitution.

United Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF)

July, 2005