To ensure the
rule of law, freedom, and democratic governance in Ethiopia, the opposition mainly
use two modes of struggle. What appears to be the dominant modus operandi is peaceful
struggle, to which all the political parties operating in Ethiopia are required
to subscribe. Armed struggle is preferred by other opposition parties/groups,
whose scale of operation seems unclear to date. A limited number of groups
claim to be eclectic in their approaches, vowing to use any means available to
bring genuine change. The government of Ethiopia dubbed those groups that use the
last two approaches as “terrorists” and hence, their physical presence is limited
to the jungles and foreign capitals.
The relative
effectiveness of each approach could not for sure be objectively judged. Nor is
their extent of embrace by the Ethiopian people clear. Generally, one could
argue that none of the approaches is effective in ushering real change. Two decades
lapsed without any measurable change in the political milieu. Causes and
reasons for the failure could of course transcend the boundaries of opposition
parties; the ruling party, the Ethiopian people (both the Diaspora and those at
home), and international pressures and maneuverings could be held accountable. In
my previous paper entitled “Who retards political change in Ethiopia?”
(available at http://tekluabate.blogspot.no/2012/11/who-retards-political-change-in-ethiopia.html), I tried to explain how and to what extent each entity unfavorably
affected politics in Ethiopia during the last two decades.
One thing needs
to be made clear. That the opposition are so far ineffective not simply because
of the nature of the methods they used but mainly because of the extent of their
(peaceful and armed) struggles. Struggles were not in match with the level of
injustices made by the ruling party. Considering this state of affairs, we could
not be able to see any meaningful changes in the times to come. And we are not going to see meaningful changes
from the government either. The best one
could do to avoid this ugly scenario might be to think what appears to be the unthinkable: to
bring the polarized views of the government and the opposition to open, genuine,
and rigorous self-scrutiny.
In this paper, it
is argued that inclusive discourse, a systematic and sustained discussion of varying
and contrasting ideologies, values, and/or opinions, could be entrusted to initiate,
bring, and sustain real change in the way Ethiopia is being governed. This with
a final goal of compromise, mutual understanding and then reconciliation. Although
it is not new at the global level, it seems untried within the Ethiopian
context. All the political changes that took place hitherto were either brought
about by armed struggle (e.g. the collapse of the military rule), or by popular
revolt (e.g. the demise of the imperial rule). Compared to other tried and tired
approaches of the government and that of the opposition, inclusive discourse seems much more appealing to bring future peace
and cohesion.
Discourse vs other approaches
Although one
could use either peaceful or armed approach to bring change this time around,
too, systematic, discourse-driven struggle is presumably far better or more
effective for various reasons. One, discourse brings together contrasting views
and encourages participants to finally make compromises. This would serve the
interests of all parties and hence it liberates both the oppressed and the
oppressors. Two, because oppressors will be equally liberated, they take part
in nation re-building. Three, the possibility of future conflict and war could be
none or little as all would consider the new system their own craft. Four,
discourse damages neither human lives nor infrastructure. Five, because discourse
formation has national, international, and global acceptance, the possibility
of getting immense support in the process seems very high. Six, because of
these five and other advantages, discourse could result in enhanced and
sustained socio-economic and political transformations that could benefit all
Ethiopians.
Stakeholders
Who will take
part in discourse formation? One could be tempted to mention the government and
opposition parties. I argue that all the contours of Ethiopian society should
be adequately and fairly represented during the process. It is only this way
that one could establish a system accepted by all all the times. We witness that
trusting elites only to bring change does not work. To me, meaningful discourse should be
conducted by the following entities.
- The government and the ruling party (although they are one and the same in Ethiopia)
- Opposition parties (at home and in the Diaspora that use peaceful as well as armed approaches)
- Representatives of all religions
- The youth
- NGOs
- Professional associations
- The Diaspora
- The media (both print and electronic as well as online)
- The intellectuals
- The elderly, and
- All political prisoners
- Moreover, regional and international organizations (e.g. the AU, the EU), foreign governments, and donors could be invited to witness and support the process.
The next logical
question could be: who would coordinate the process? To me, both the government
and opposition parties should not be the facilitators, as they are the major rivals
in the political scene. A sort of an ad hoc committee membering noted and
respected Ethiopians could be entrusted to lead the process. In a way, the
committee could identify a) a complete list of participants, b) topics and
methods for discussion, c) rules of conduct, and, d) expected outputs and
outcomes. Their draft could be presented to all interested people for feedback
and improvement. Because of the complex nature of the job, committee members should
be self-less; mature emotionally, morally, and intellectually; free from past or present involvement
in injustices of any sorts, and well-connected locally and globally. However,
for members who would come from the peasantry and rural parts of Ethiopia, a
different set of criteria (e.g. experience in traditional arbitration) could be
used. As a group, the committee should be as agile, ambitious and perseverant as
possible.
Approaches
There is no a
single effective approach to the conduct of discourse. Depending on contextual
factors and conditions, specific steps and trajectories could be identified and
employed. To me, it could help to consider two stages of discourse. First,
stakeholders could debate on a whole array of socio-economic, cultural, and political
issues. Stakeholders at this stage are likely to 1) assume that only their
position is correct, 2) come to the discourse only to win, 3) be defensive, 4)
try to prove the other party wrong, 5) engage in finding flaws in the other
party, and 6) generally critique their competing partner. This should be
expected and tolerated and the committee should have strategies to prevent
communication breakdown.
After sometime
and using different techniques, it is crucial to advance to the next higher
level of discourse- to make dialogues. At this stage,
participants should a) assume that each party has his own version of life and
living in Ethiopia, b) listen to understand, c) be ready to explore common
grounds amidst differences, d) evaluate their own and others’ positions and
weigh their national versus party/group significance. The process is expected
to urge stakeholders to make compromises. These would in the end lead to common
understanding and then reconciliation at the national level.
Both print and
electronic as well as online media could play a central role at debate and
dialogue levels. Media, for instance, could invite people to participate in
panel discussions on carefully chosen topics. They could also initiate and coordinate
online discussions, by inviting writers/speakers from the opposition as well as
the government sides. It could be vital to garner huge participation from
Ethiopians living in different parts of the world. Following serious and series
of discussions on a given thematic area, patterns and trends could be
identified. As an example, the first round of discussions could focus on the
relevance and significance of this line of struggle and if deemed important,
how to proceed ahead. The selection of committee members and specific
topics/issues for discourse could only follow this. Obviously, the process is going
to be a hard ride.
Challenges
As solving grand
national problems through discourse is almost non-customary to Ethiopian
politics, trying to initiate one could face a multitude of challenges. Identifying
possible sources of challenges is the first step to devise coping mechanisms. The
following could be considered the major ones.
- The government might claim that it is already doing great job to the Ethiopian people (citing its statistics) and hence might not acknowledge the need for discourse
- The government might consider the effort as an ‘underground’ movement that aims to salvage the opposition by creating shortcuts to power
- The opposition might not have the readiness and interest to enter into discourse on account that the government does not understand this sort of language
- And/or the opposition, particularly those that take armed trajectory, might consider this proposal as a calculated covert move by pro-government entities to ‘soften’ opposition movement
- It might be a particular challenge to identify able and ready people who would facilitate/coordinate the process
- The general public might not take the issue seriously and might develop conspiracy theories to ‘explain’ it
- Some countries and groups that do not want to see strong Ethiopia might put hurdles on the way
Final remarks
The type of
discourse described above emanates from the fundamental assumption that the
general public is frustrated by the way the government and the opposition are
doing politics. Each holding its own discourse behind closed doors as if they
are talking about different countries. And hence inclusive discourse is
proposed to be an alternative to bring change to politics in Ethiopia. Or, it
could be used by parties and groups who already got their own mode of
operation.
If systematically
planned and conducted, inclusive discourse could bring sizable results. The least
one could expect from this endeavor is leaving behind the idea and significance
of holding arguments with people of diverse viewpoints and opinions. If this
happens, it can be considered one major indication of our entry into the 21st
Century.
No comments:
Post a Comment