The regime in Ethiopia and the opposition in the
Diaspora and at home appear to live in totally different ‘worlds’. Each is a
typical alien to the other. The governing party sees the opposition as
powerless, incompetent, disorganized, delusional, visionless, and remnants of
the past regime. The opposition, on the other hand, tend to characterize the
reign of the current regime as a complete failure. Metaphorically speaking, the
gap between the opposition and the regime is, with no exaggeration, as deep and
long as the Great East African rift valley which dissects Ethiopia into two.
This political rift must be one of the major obstacles that stands on our way
to genuine or adequate democracy.
In his papers entitled “Breaking Political Barriers and Political Taboos” and “Better to Light a
Candle than Curse the Darkness» (both published
in different times at EthioMedia), Professor
Tecola Hagos (henceforth
Tecola, just for simplicity) makes a passionate call to all
interested to enter into some sort of discourse on several seminal issues
related to Ethiopian politics. The themes raised are comprehensive,
significant, and timely. The overall message of the papers that the
opposition/Diaspora and the regime in power should enter into discourse seems theoretically
intelligible and appealing to everybody concerned about politics in Ethiopia.
To me,
the call is extremely important and significant, as I believe in the potential
power of civilized discourse to turn around life and living in Ethiopia for the
good. I believe that through discourses, we could be able to narrow down the
rift created between the regime and the opposition if each one of us believes
in reason, logic, and evidence, and if we hold ourselves accountable to what we
are doing. Obviously, discourses could and might not make everybody turn in
easily. But if they are made in a systematic and sustained way, many could
carve out a common ground from where to fight for democratic governance. The
top EPRDF leadership or some groups of the opposition may not have the interest
and readiness to converse or to change in certain ways after discourses. Through
rationale discourses, we could for sure positively influence ordinary EPRDF
supporters and members, middle and lower-level officials and most importantly the
general public.
I am not
arguing that Tecola’s call is typically original though. In fact, media used to
and still do arrange conversations between government-affiliated and opposition
experts. The VOA Amharic service, for instance, did and does host expert-level
discussions where both government and opposition people were/are involved. The
ESAT is also doing a bit of this type of dicussions (albeit in a one-on-one
basis), of which the latest one was the extremely critical and realistic
discussions held by Sisay Agena of ESAT and Abba Mella of Ethio-Civility
discussion forum. Although some sort of discourse has been conducted by such broadcast
media, the topic Tecola raised is, however, more explicit and direct.
I,
however, have several difficulties in relation to the content and methods of
Tecola’s papers. Evenif one could argue that call papers themselves need not be
criticized, I see several inadequacies in logic, evidence, and conclusions thereof.
My take is that initial discussion ideas must be provided in a more compelling,
consistent, reflective, and unbiased way. Otherwise, if things are exaggerated,
misrepresented, or overlooked from the very start, many would have difficulty
seeing the real motive behind the call.
In this
paper, I raised key issues which appear to me inadequately or misleadingly
discussed in Tecola’s papers. This commentary in no way belittles or dismisses
Tecola’s noble idea/call; it is rather intended to ‘break the ice’ by
highlighting my take of the issues raised, with a goal of contributing my part to
creating fruitful discussions and then bringing common basis of understanding
about Ethiopian politics. Major issues selected for my commentary include the trajectory
the Hailemariam administration is taking, the Abay dam project, human rights,
and Diaspora politics. To completely understand my ideas, readers are
encouraged to read Tecola’s papers first.
Profoundly changed circumstance?
Tecola’s
papers conclude that Ethiopia under PM Hailemariam is taking the right
socio-economic and political trajectory. To describe the extent of changes
taking place, the writer used such beguiling expressions as “Qualitatively new
political brew”, “Profoundly changed circumstances”, “Very serious and quite impressive events”, and “Excellent
indicators of a solid starting point”. These expressions raise eyebrows of an
average reader. They incorrectly send a signal/message that Ethiopia is really
changing for the better. The sorts of changes mentioned in the papers are not
actually changes at all; they are, I could argue, mere articulations and
re-articulations of the status quo. Moreover, the changes the writer refers to
have little or no significance when it comes to socio-economic development and
protection of human rights in Ethiopia. They are too tiny to be felt. Let us
see some of the arguments and evidences provided by the writer (Tecola) to
support his conclusion: encouraging change is taking place in Ethiopia.
Constitutional right versus party might
According
to Tecola, a change of policy relating to regional governance model is taking
place. The writer is fascinated by ETV’s report of how PM Hailemariam Dessalegn
and Redwan Hussein responded to questions related to the inhuman eviction of
the Amharas from Benishangul. Both officials explained that some “antipeople”
officials forcefully evicted citizens and that is against the victims’
Constitutional right to work and live anywhere in Ethiopia. To Tecola, “What
Hailemariam stated was a direct repudiation of Meles Zenawi’s core policy and
work of twenty years of ethnic cleansing and Killilization (bantustanization)
of Ethiopia”. This conclusion is hardly grounded and does not consider
pre-Hailemariam state of affairs.
The
late Meles used to talk the same talk, oftentimes by reverting to the
Constitution. He, I perfectly recall, once talked that everyone has that right
to work anywhere as long as they are registered by local governments. He, of
course, contrary to reality, claimed that some people were evicted because of
their mistreatment of the environment and because they were not legally
registered residents. And he made it clear that those officials who displaced
legal residents could be held accountable. Although his reason for their
eviction was out of touch with reality, the basic principle that people could
live anywhere was repeatedly talked about by him. If so, what new ground/s does
Hailemariam break? Or, is Hailemariam’s reference to the Constitution
considered a big deal?
Moreover,
talk alone does not solve real social problems. People are still being
displaced, killed, and persecuted. If Hailemariam were true to his words and to
the Constitution, he could have ensured the effective and safe re-settlement of
thousands of evictees. Rather, the poor are dying of hunger, disease, and
systematic attacks on a daily basis. The might of the ruling party overweighs
the ideals of the Constitution: cold-blooded cadres and officials are playing
with the lives of thousands while Hailemariam is talking rhetoric and defending
the status quo.
Hailemariam and SEPDM as game changers?
To
Tecola, Hailemariam and his party, the SEPDM, are the game changers in today’s
Ethiopian politics. According to Tecola, the party has a multiethnic
composition and that their ‘clean’ past gives them a competitive edge. That
they are so far able to peacefully lead the many ethnic groups is testimony to
the good performance of its leadership, argued Tecola. In fact, the writer
dubbed Hailemariam and Redwan as “Very different personalities” and “Intelligent”.
And “That they “survived the untamed power and antiques of Meles Zenawi and his
entourage… is no small fete”.
Several
counter-arguments could be made based on these quotations. One, the ethnic groups who are supposed to
associate themselves with the SEPDM are not led in a democratic way. In fact,
we used to witness conflicts after conflicts for several years. Several ethic
groups wanted to have a different kind of administration, which the SEPDM could
not allow. They are put at gun point anytime they start rioting. Two, yes,
Hailemariam and his likes are for sure very different personalities. This is
what we learn from psychology- everyone is unique. But leaving the implicit
assumption that these folks are real good when it comes to leading a country is
misleading. That they did not have a Banda background does not mean they could play
politics well.
Three,
Hailemariam and et al. might be intelligent, at least in their own professions.
I have no doubt the PM was academically competitive but that is not our point.
An accomplished engineer might not turn to be an accomplished leader. I do not
see the intelligence of Hailemariam when it comes to leading us. An average
person could easily talk his talks if given the opportunity. His speeches made so
far appeared too referential, conformist, tiresome, and predictable. Four that
Hailemariam escapes Meles’ sticks and tricks does not necessarily indicate his
intelligence. In fact, those who talked their minds are killed, persecuted,
jailed, and/or demoted. Those who echoed Meles’ words and actions further climbed
the power ladders. Hailemariam made it to the premiership not because of his
intelligence but because of his gullible acceptance of authority above him. In
sum, the new premier does not show us that he is a real game changer. What he
clearly and repeatedly told us is that he will implement the visions of the
“great leader” with no editions/changes.
Five,
considering individuals as units of analysis is itself misleading and limiting.
Meles is gone and Hailemariam comes in. And he will for sure go some day.
Analysis and discourse need to consider drawing the big picture: characterizing
EPRDF as a governing party and conquering new grounds.
On corruption and state-level visits
Another
indicator of “profound” changes in Ethiopia is, according to Tecola, the arrest
of high-level officials and businessmen on corruption charges. Other indicators
include “the visit of high level delegation from wealthy Arab
States, the trade delegation from Egypt of industrialists, Hailemariam’s State
visit to Kuwait, the business tours of World Bank and African Development Bank
executives to Addis Ababa”.
To me, these are again bad
indicators of change. One, the anti-corruption commission is established by
Meles and he oversaw the prosecution and persecution of several people with
whom he has a political feud. Until some weeks prior to his death, he talked
about the scale of corruption in government and how much effort needs to be put
to contain it. To the extent of giving ultimatums: cutting fingers and tongues.
This time around, EPRDF arrests some officials and businessmen. If the move is
genuine, to fight corruption, it should keep an eye on the top leadership who took
part in giving corruption its structural existence. A study conducted by a
fellow at Addis Ababa University revealed that the anti-corruption commission
is afraid of the top corrupts. And the study was presented at a forum arranged
by the commission itself. My take is that the arrests are not any new new thing
at all. But am not rejecting the move of the commission to arrest corrupts, am
just trying to add a grain of salt to it.
Two the number of
high-level visits does not indicate change either. If one has to count on
visits, who in Africa traveled the world the way Meles did? Meles attended countless
international/prestigious meetings including those of the G-8, G-20, the EU, UN
high-level meetings and etc. In fact, Meles was like a modern-day ‘explorer’ of
the world. And countless number of international diplomats, experts,
businessmen, and rights groups visited Addis while Meles was behind the wheel.
However, all these show ups and gesturings could not add something concrete to
the poor, say democratic governance. The same things happen now: Hailemariam’s
travels and visits do not indicate change of governance style but a mere
orchestration of diplomatic routines. The terrible human right record is
testimony to this my conclusion.
Human rights record
Tecola
speaks loudest when it comes to human rights in Ethiopia. He recalled how the
Meles administration abused Ethiopians and how that ‘legacy’ is being continued
by the Hailemariam administration. Both administrations commit “horrendous
violation of the human rights”. The writer emphasized that “The immediate
release of all political prisoners especially Eskinder, Andualem et cetera is
most urgent”. I concur with all these, that the government and the county would
benefit a lot if ALL political prisoners are released without preconditions.
In
his latest paper, Tecola argues that releasing political prisoners and then
pushing them to leave for other countries could be an option if the government
is afraid of their impact at home. This is a strange recommendation, which
could not solve the problem but could give a new face to it. If illegally jailing
people is to be condemned, pushing them to leave their country is equally evil.
One, this sort of measure would violate the rights of people to reside in their
own country. Two, chasing out activists, and other experts would in the end
hurt the national economy.
Three, it disrupts families as moving to a new land
at a late age is frustrating, psychologically and economically. Four, this sort
of measure encourages dictators to reign for years and years. Giving up a
certain part of our natural and constitutional right in order to get another is
not fulfilling at all. Any struggle and recommendation must call for the
enactment of human rights as a package, with no resort to bits and pieces of
it. We have to be completely free human beings.
The Abay dam project
Tecola
intends to argue that several in the Diaspora should relate the significance of
the Abay dam project to national “sovereignty on our natural resources
including our rivers”. And the writer tempted to believe that people oppose the
project because they associate it with Meles: “Whether the project is started
by Meles Zenawi is irrelevant, he could not role up any of the other
constructions either and take them with him. … Let us not forget the cardinal
truth that almost all technological advancement is tainted with unethical or
immoral activities.”
I
also believe that constructing dams on our rivers should be our business. All Ethiopians
do not miss this point, I believe. The point the opposition are making against
the dam project is not related to Meles as the initiator. Ethiopians knew the
presence of such attempts during the imperial and Derg regimes. Meles just
picked the agenda again and tried to claim originality. Even worse, he and his
party attached to it a huge political face, which started to scare the public.
Much of the opposition/disagreement is related to these and other
considerations. The opposition want to ensure that the government has neat and
clean hands to collect and manage resources for the construction of the dam.
Plus, the government must practice the Constitution it drafted years ago;
freedom of all sorts must be guaranteed before damming Abay.
Politically-motivated arrests, killings, and persecutions must be dammed first.
In sum, the Abay project turns to be a controversy because of the lack of
democratic governance at all levels of government and not it is because Meles
started it. We need our government to understand that we are much more precious
species than mega-hydroelectric dams. If injustices of all sorts are dammed
first, we all Ethiopians would join hands and embark on incredible projects.
The Ethiopian Diaspora is I believe a sleeping giant who could turn around
things easily and voluntarily if democratic governance is realized back
home.
Unrealistic Diaspora politics?
Tecola blatantly opposes
how the Ethiopian Diaspora do politics. In fact, the writer argues that several
in the Diaspora “have been entertaining unrealistic political ambition that
they could effect political change by debating in hotel halls and demonstrating
in major western capitals. At times I find positions of some of the leaders of
such political organizations quite childish, for they aspire to overthrow the
Ethiopian Government through mass organization conducted from foreign capitals.
This type of thinking is absurd and stupid, for it has not worked at anytime in
our recent history”.
I understand that some
groups are poised to bring down the regime by some means. Tecolas’ papers
preach for and expect “baby-step” kind of moves/changes from the government and
curses those who struggle to bring significant change. I found this problematic
on several accounts. One, it undermines the power and readiness of the populace
to embrace democratic leadership and would have a frustrating effect. Two, it
assumes that the government is incompetent to bring meaningful changes anytime
soon. Three, if we allow the government to take baby-steps, we all would die
without seeing our government taking adult-steps.
Four, it sends to the
government a bad signal- they might get satisfied with their moves and would say
“Rome was never built over night” afterall. Five, Tecola’s papers are written
to stimulate inclusion and then discourse. But this point is missed the very
moment the writer sarcastically dismisses those who believe are contributing to
bring drastic changes in Ethiopia. Change through revolution or evolution
should rather have been part of the discourse which Tecola’s papers call for. Sixth,
that revolution did not bring change so far does not mean it could not bring
one now or in the future. Of course, it was through revolutions that both the
imperial and Derg regimes fell apart. Am not, however, arguing in favor of
either approach; am saying that one should not dismiss either approach if we
want to have inclusive and holistic discourses on Ethiopian politics.
Final notes
Professor
Tecola’s papers already raised several controversial but significant
socio-economic and political issues in Ethiopia. The idea of breaking political
taboos and engaging the current regime in civic political discourse seems interesting.
This is even more appealing to opposition parties and groups who tend to follow
the peaceful mode of political struggle. But the devil is always in the details.
How is it possible to start and sustain productive discussions between the
opposition and the ruling party while each seems to live in a different world?
The problem or the challenge is a lot practical as it is a lot rhetorical and
ideological.
Trying
to discuss how much the regime is governing democratically is a tried and tired
approach. We would rather benefit a lot if future discourses/discussions,
including those from Professor Tecola, focus on explaining 1) the modus
operandi (modi operandi) for bringing such discussion forums, and 2) possible
challenges in engaging in political discourse between the government in Ethiopia
and the opposition. Trying to touch what appears to be the untouchable,
political taboos in Tecola’s usage, should be encouraged by all concerned
stakeholders of Ethiopian politics. However, exaggerating minimal and
oftentimes irrelevant events (as cursors of improvement) in the process of making
discourse is nothing but making political woos which are as incapacitating as
political taboos.
Hello,teklu,
ReplyDeleteI couldnt believe that this shallow piece has been published bearing your name.You are lagging million miles behind.ere befetereh bisel enji.Are you honestly believing that you will contribute 'something' to your society by just vomiting what passes your nose?
Hi Teklu
ReplyDeleteI like to express my appreciation to the response you made to Pro Tecola. I would have thought the section in your article referring Abay would have been strengthened. I am a frequent visitor of Addis and have had ample chance to gauge people who are engaged in the delivery of the Abay Dam. Yes you are right the initiative to construct the Dam did not start with Meles although he has been made to be of its only champion by his cohorts.
To date not less that 15 billion has been pledged and secured. The amount that is secured is £7 billion. This is a fraction of what has been assumed to be the total budget of 90 billion. By the time of completion (taking into account the rampant inflation) it should be costing us more than 150 billion Birr. That is why it has always been a non starter and Meles knew perfectly well. Those who pledged have become reluctant to pay since his death and we know why.
My own observation
You do not initiate such a colossal project without any public debate that can possibly last more 5 years specially when we perfectly know that we were going to fund it. No way. What we haven’t got is not only the funding but also the expertise. At the time of building the Aswan Dam (less than half of the size of Abay) Egypt not only had the full Russian funding for it but also more than 26,000 hydraulic engineers of her own working on the Dam.. We can see the contrast.
More dubious and scandalous that I also observed was the fact the 7 billion worth of the contract were handed to Moseb Cement and Mesfin Engineering both EFFORT’s companies, the first on to provide cement while the latter is made to deliver metallurgical items for the construction. Both companies have been struggling and have been given a lease of life by Meles. This is not to mention the Selina Company that has been given the contract to build the Dam without any competition. This is what has been intimated to me by those working on the Dam.
I thought this could be included in any future debate and thought that I share it with you.
Fekade
Selam Teklu,
ReplyDeleteI read your article with great interest. I was hoping someone would respond to Tecola Hagos.
I am glad you answered him in the same manner he presented.
Tecola Hagos, has always tried to appear as reasonable as he could whenever Woyane is in dire situation. He is trying to appear like a good scholar would by appealing for release of Iskinder Nega, Andualem etc. At the same time, he makes an argument to allow Woyane to collect money rom diaspora in the name of building Abay Dam. I think the time has passed that he could change the course of Woyane after 22 years in power, particularly in light of the current situation. Does Tecola think that the rest of us would be bamboozled by this argument?
About 12 years a go or so, Tecola wrote an article embellishing Siye Abraha. A friend of mine wrote him asking why Tecola considers Siye ( a person who participated in dismembering of Ethiopia, Asaba etc.) is a hero? Tecola replied, " even if that is the case, Siye defeated Derg" .
http://www.ethiomedia.com/abc_text/4129.html
Thank you very much.
Thank you Teklu. Very helpful. I am also thankful to Professor Tecola. Although I disagreed with his many arguments, he stimulated a useful discussion. Also I like to see the opposition and the government entering in to a modern dialogue. Professor Mesay Kebede's paper published at Awramba Times is extremely useful in this regard. In fact it is related to the discussions you and Tecola made. He should have clearly tied his analysis with yours.
ReplyDeletehello!,I love your writing very so much! proportion we communicate extra about your article on AOL?
ReplyDeleteI require an expert on this area to resolve my problem.
May be that is you! Taking a look ahead to peer you.
Feel free to surf to my web blog; click here
I got this web site from my buddy who told me about this web
ReplyDeletesite and now this time I am browsing this web page and reading very informative
posts at this time.
Visit my site cellulite treatment reviews
I am writing you because I read some of your articles and you seem to make sense to me. I would like to give you my opinion on what I think is going on and possible solutions.
ReplyDeleteI read both the government and opposition views whenever I get the chance. It is clear that the opposition is extremely dissatisfied with what is going on and want change. From the government sympathizers side, every thing is going well, the country is growing and the current system has to continue. They don't listen to each other and don't have any plan to do so. One thing is clear, after more than 20 years, there is no change. Change is also not visible in the near future. Which means, the current way of doing politics doesn't work.
I believe we need a change but we need a different approach. We need a government which will be perceived by almost all our people as "Our Government" . With the current way of doing politics, it doesn't seem achievable. New strategies have to be devised. The government may not change unless forced so. But the opposition should change. For the opposition to change, the first thing to be done would be to understand the current realities of the country. Those who know Ethiopia few years ago may not be able to devise a strategy for the current situation.
One of the main reason for failure of the opposition is they couldn't come out of the trap devised by the current political system. They all have been complaining about TPLF for the last 20years. When they target TPLF instead of targeting EPRDF, they make some if not many of the Tigray people to oppose them. Without the support of the Tigray people, change would not be easy. If the opposition chooses the current approach, it would need at least 3 steps to bring the desired change.
1. To be able to organize all the people of Ethiopia against TPLF
2. Fight with TPLF in whatsover way and win the battle
3. Lead the country peacefully defending from the remnants of TPLF
I strongly believe that TPLF with its all experience, would be able to mobilize its sympathizers and wouldn't be an easy task for the opposition to bring change and to be able to lead the country afterwards peacefully. I am not being pessimistic but I don't see it.
Considering these facts, here are some simple suggestions
1. The opposition should assess why all the fight for the last several years didn't work as much and assess if there is any hope in the near future.
2. Delete the word "TPLF" from the opposition dictionary and try to reach out to tigray people. The opposition should understand that many people in Tigray had family members who died fighting for TPLF.
3. The best way would be to work through the system. I know many would be skeptical after 2005 but that was a golden chance we lost. I still think that is the way which may bring a change if at all possible.
In conclusion, the opposition needs a strong leader with vision. The current vision is not working. One of the main reason is the focus on TPLF. I still believe a system that works through the system may give us the desired change if at all possible.
The wrіte-uρ offers ρгoνen beneficiаl tо mуself.
ReplyDeleteIt’ѕ quite helpful and yоu aгe obviously quite eхpеrienced in this region.
You have opened uρ my face to be ablе to variouѕ opinіon of thіs
specific toρic tοgether with іntеresting and sound content.
Youг сuггent reρort proѵiԁeѕ estаblished hеlpful to myѕelf. It’s гeally helpful and you're simply obviously very knowledgeable in this region. You have got exposed my eye to varying views on this particular subject along with intriguing, notable and sound articles.
ReplyDeleteAttгactive portion οf content. ӏ simply ѕtumbled upon yоur website and in accesѕion cаpitаl to assert that ӏ acquire in fact loved account your ωeblog poѕts. Any waу I'll be subscribing on your feeds or even I success you get entry to constantly quickly.
ReplyDeleteНeya і'm for the first time here. I found this board and I in finding It really useful & it helped me out a lot. I hope to give one thing again and help others such as you helped me.
ReplyDeleteMy page: reputation management