The Conceptual Drought of Ethiopian Politics: The Pathetic State of the Opposition

Politics is the most absorbing game that human kind has ever developed, more complex than chess, more competitive and brutal than sport and more significant than any other human activity.

            Consequently, it is an instrument of both evils and saints.  It could be manipulated to unite people, forge peace among nations, spread love and harmony among individuals; it could also cause local strife and global Armageddon.  Politics evolved by groups as a way of appealing to the interests and passions of their members.  As groups develop from clans to tribes to bigger groupings and so started the process of state building.  The state in so far, is the last stage of social units.  With the emergence of the nation-state come the complexity and proliferation of political systems.  The transition of individual’s personal sovereignty to a sovereign of authority over a defined territory was a key element in the development of the state.  No other social unit acquires political legitimacy as the state does.

            If the nation state is such an important unit, why is it so susceptible to influences by few at the expense of many.  In an ideal world, rulers of the state would defend both their frontiers and citizens.  In the real world, far more people have been killed by their own state than by foreign armies.  In its strive to address the legitimate roles of the state humanity have tried different political systems.  Although none of the ideologies in the political spectrum is found to be ideal, one scores above the rest.  Humankind has figured out that the only real protection for life comes from delivering and injecting people with political empowerment and voice, which are the building blocks of sensible decision-making, prosperity, stability and security.  Of all the political ideologies democracy has been found to be the one that promotes the above principles. 

The Concept of Democracy: 

To quote Churchill, to the effect that “democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others”.  But to this day it is the only system that challenges the state’s absolute power and authority by stressing the right of the individual.  In other words the energy of democracy springs from the willingness of its citizen to speak and think in his or her own voices.  In a democracy, one has the right to be truly informed about what is being said in every political, social and cultural realm even when the ideas are vicious, offensive, ugly and vile.  We would do well to remember that the fundamental principle of a free society is that freely held thoughts could be freely expressed.

            Indeed the concept of democracy is the most elastic, the most accommodating and, therefore, the most enduring.  Part of the legitimacy of democracy has been its openness and ability to flourish whenever the institutions of civil society, law and governing take hold.  And therefore, democracy is ascendant – because nothing else has worked out well.

Universality of Democracy:

            It used to be said that only rich nations could afford democracy; impoverished countries require discipline, not freedom.  In fact, the most deprived nations have a special and entirely practical need for democracy.  As Amartya Sea the 1998 Nobel Prize winner for economics argued, “democracy is not a luxury that can await the arrival of prosperity”.  In recent times, arguments against democracy have withered.  A few people still campaign, often for selfish reasons, that freedom remains a uniquely western idea; not transferable to other ways of life.  That the balance between the right of individual and those of the larger community vary from society to society.  But these notions have turned out to be provincial and wrong and they now seem as antique as the once popular theory that democracy needs a background of Protestantism.

            Today humanity has slowly come to regard democracy as the notion and with good reason.  Such profound changes in the international view have deprived dictatorship as legitimate form of governing.  And politicians are responding to the trend.  According to a report by Freedom House, 121 of 193 states are practicing some form of democracy.

The Philosophy of Dissent:

            The energy of democracy springs from the willingness of its citizens to speak and think in their own voice.

“The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the heard and thinks for himself.”

Democracy depends less on the size of its army than on the capacity of its individual citizens to rely, if only momentarily, on the strength of their own thought.  Dissent is what rescues democracy from slow death behind close doors.  Every society can always count on parties of reaction crying up the wish to make time stand still, seeking to protect themselves against the storm of the state apparatus.  Democracy proceeds from a more adventurous premise, its structure akin to suspension bridge than to the Great Wall of China, its strength depends upon the complexity of its citizens in a shared work of political imagination.  The enterprise collapses into either anarchy or tyranny unless the countervailing stresses oppose one another with equal weight, unless enough people posses courage to sustain the dialect between government and the governed.  Defined as a ceaseless process of change, democracy assumes the pain of contradiction and new discovery not only as normal but also as a necessary condition of its existence.

The Process Democratization in Ethiopia”

            Today Ethiopia is one of those aspiring democracies in Africa, with constitutional government firmly entrenched and a human right apparatus that rears into action when called for.  This is more than can be said about other governing system in the region, where political choice is limited and expression of dissent are quickly silenced.  And it provides reassuring testimony to those who argue as I do, that the more democracy the better chance for peace and prosperity.  The advance of democratic institutions in Ethiopia is setting an example that others, in the region would be wise to follow.  But we have a long way to go before we could realize a truly free society.  This is evident in the heart of the battle to define the political character of contemporary Ethiopia.  It is visible in the issues that are being tackled.  The monitoring of elections – the status of minorities, the freedom of independent civil society organizations to operate without being hindered by governments.  These are urgent public issues for us all Ethiopians and their exploration should be promoted not suppressed.

Where Have all the Ideologues Gone:

            The conducive environment for democracy that prevails in our country today is as a result of years of struggle by idealist compatriots.  During the previous two regimes Members of the Ethiopian Student Movement paid a steep price for their determination to build strong, free, tolerant and pluralist civil political culture in the country.  They have laid the foundation of a free society.  It is up to this and the next generation to build on it.  Its realization is going to need a cumulative effort from every member of the society specially civil or political organization outside government.  Naturally government is pro-status quo, because it benefits its members, it is the force outside the government which push for change and progress.  Ironically in today’s Ethiopia it is the government, which is advocating change.  The opposition camp has failed miserably in influencing the path of progress.

            The Ethiopian people’s response to the fall of the Derg regime was not an ideological shift to the right or left but, more pragmatically and simply to conclude the old rules don’t work.  Today, the people know what kind of society they want but seem to stop asking for it.  In direct parallel, they’ve concluded that the opposition is unable or unwilling to produce the alternative ideas anyway.              This analysis leads to a disturbing conclusion, that the people believe what the opposition does has little bearing on their lives.  When this occurs people cease to make demands on government to address even the problems they clearly recognize.  If this trend continues, we are a small step away until we stop asking what kind of society we want and value.  In the end we cascade toward a society of meaningless.

            Such public perception of the opposition is not without merit.  We live in interesting times, as the old Chinese curse has it – and the Ethiopian opposition has nothing to say.  In the midst of political drama in our country, it is still doing VAUDEVILIAN knock about.  On all important issues, it is profoundly unserious.  It is in state of Political Paranoia, blinded and devoid of vision, betting on dooms day scenario in our country’s future.  Sometimes it looks like the cunning predator in a loony tune campaign, standing charred and bewildered having mistaken its tail for the dynamite fuse. The opposition has failed to realize that the onus is not on the EPRDF to expose it’s political deficiency.  The onus is on the opposition to prove otherwise.  The conventional wisdom these days is that Ethiopia will have an EPRDF (Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front) government for the foreseeable future.  Is this a good thing?  And if not, from whence do we get balancing forces to our own one-party state?  The co-operation among the various opposition groups as a counter force – just might be our salvation.  Because when those in power see government as a solution to every problem, every injustice, every sparrow that falls, then with the best will in the world government grows – and grows – and grows.

            But government is not the best solution to every problem.  At the bottom, government is based on coercion. Someone else rules your life by regulation.  Moreover, government of any size even headed by a saint needs an opposition.  Failing to observe their own law is, of course, common among governments, even democracies.  The temptation to bend the broadly accepted rules of fair play is great.  And laws are vaguely worded and can be interpreted by state appointed judges that they are designed to maintain control over political activism.  That is precisely why we need a balancing force for scrupulous observation of government policies.  Are we likely to see any?  Where can Ethiopians look for a powerful, independent, well researched check and balance to the one party government?  The unity of the opposition parties would be one of the natural solutions.

            Unfortunately, the problem always has been that the opposition groups have seldom been able to agree on the time of day even with only one clock in the room,  and over the years it have been unable to remain steadfast on anything of importance vis-à-vis, the government.  The opposition’s futile attempt to philosophize divisive theories has led many intellectuals to retreat from activism and adopt spectatorial approach to the problems of our country.  Such disengagement from participation has produced theoretical hallucination about impertinent issues.  Competition and democratic risk are at the core of what keeps government, honest, creates the conducive environment for new ideas and policy courage, and attract the best people in to political life. Let’s try to make it a reality.

            The current chats about Ethiopia becoming a one party state are credible observation.  But it is also safe to conclude that the EPRDF has not seized power, the other parties have ceded to it.  In the land of incrementalism Ethiopians tend to prefer “known devil” to uncertainty.  Nevertheless, for the EPRDF supporters, they should temper any triumphalism with certainty and take the people for granted.  Their party is not immune to policy failures that plague the opposition.

II.          The Status of the Political Actors.

            A great nation is a collective expression usually built on a strong moral base influenced by individual.  Whether they shine from the shadows or thrive under the sun’s glare, leadership, stewardship and citizenship are the elements of successful democracy.

            Leaders show up not only in the morning paper and on the evening news.  But during the hours in between.  They are the ones with unusual presence and the ability to frame problems and solutions in workable, understandable terms.  They inspire our trust, and the best of them keep it.  Leaders get started because they are able to form and articulate a vision.  They need stamina to keep it up. But often the way they make a difference is by persuading us to do thing we wouldn’t ordinarily do.  But public figures must be judged by more than their ability to inspire.  History is full of leaders who drew their followers in to blind alleys, or used their gift to wreck as much as build.

            Stewardship is the ability to receive something as a matter of trust, improve it where you can and pass it on to a new custodian.

            Citizenship is a sense of solidarity that goes beyond compassion.  It is a keen feeling for the appropriate balance of rights and obligations.

            Evidently, when we fail to see government actions as either good or bad, we no longer give any consideration to how society might be and, instead come to accept society simply as it is.  The absence of moral discourse or ethical considerations as a central part of governing leaves both citizens and government without a compass or creed that defines a nation.  Without a sense that government actions will produce “right” or “wrong” consequences, the fabric of society begins to unravel.  Identity with larger community of which we are part of is overtaken by regional, religious, or ethnic loyalties.  Notions of the public good are sublimated to the pursuit of self-interest.  That is why, nowadays policies originate not in ideology but in real-world observations about what works; and so should be flexible, and be synchronized to make them relevant to the society they are addressed to.

            When examining the foundation for success of the EPRDF (governing party of Ethiopia) over the years provide a clue to the reasons why it will likely govern Ethiopia for at least one more mandate.  It’s astonishing ability to retain power is because of pragmatism, combined with political savory and unrivalled effectiveness in using organizational tools available to modern political navigators.  The recipe for its success is clear and plain!  Never let ideology, coherence, a big idea, or the cult of personality, get in the way of the long term goal of sustaining the success of the organization.  It is a simple formula that no other party – and certainly not the opposition have been able to utilize.

            Many decry the inevitability of EPRDF rule, for the obvious reason that when one party so dominates the political stage that nearly all the political talent of the nation gravitates to it, that by itself is a source of concern.  But at the same time the EPRDF has historically taken very seriously the concomitant challenge to renew itself, by changing policy.  The most dramatic evidence of the uncanny ability of the EPRDF to renew itself happened a couple of years ago.  Then the EPRDF was suffering from self-induced wounds. They come from two critical sources: the arrogance of too many years of uncontested power, and the simmering rivalries of ideas within the organization.

            The arrogance of power manifests itself in various ways.  In a defacto one-party state, the party in power gets careless.  Uncontested power invites those who hold it to prefer doing things in the shade.  The opposition parties divided and largely ineffective are dismissed.  This is what can happen when a government has been around too long and is not threatened by serious external opposition.  The politics of clashing ambitions, not over policies or ideas but personalities, grows inside the governing party where it becomes infectiously nasty.

The dilemma of one party democracy.

            In one party state (in the World of totalitarian right and left), the key elements are repression, a muzzled press, laws against democratic organizations and constraints of freedom of speech, organization and associations.  None of these conditions apply to Ethiopia.  Constitutionally Ethiopia happens to be an open parliamentary democracy.  What is one party democracy?  Some elements of one party democracy are disturbingly familiar; a single all encompassing party with massive national membership, the inability of smaller opposition parties to get anything like proper recognition.  Public service shaped more in the image of the ruling party.  A business community with little interest in supporting any but the one governing party.  None of these is a problem when a country experiences regular change of government.  The well of legitimacy from which a democratic government takes its measure springs from many elements: democratic risk, Voters participation, debate! conflicting agendas, philosophies and ideas; interest group dynamics etc. Block those elements by series of omission or commission and sooner or later, the well can no longer quench the thirst for legitimacy.  Because the lack of the above elements (actors) dilutes any prospect of democratic risk.  The absence of democratic risk makes internal party debate superficious.

            Foxy leader or one who roars?

            Whether we fully realize it or not, Ethiopians are experiencing one of the greatest periods of leadership choices in our political history.  There is now the opportunity for fresh voice to be heard and ideas to be debated.  Unfortunately only one side of the political stage (governing party) has mobilized its forces and seized the moment.  The other side (the opposition) in under siege from a stew of tired politicians who seem determined to chart a regressive path for the rest of us.  The contending leaders should learn from Machiavelli's old wisdom.  His basic precept for leaders is that "it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves."  As Ethiopian's would be leaders consider how best to promote themselves and their parties, what lessons from political history are the most relevant?  How should they be foxes?  When should they be lions?

            Machiavelli favoured cunning over bravery.  "He who has known best how to employ the fox"  he writes "has succeeded best."  Two classic strategies of the fox are: to disarm your opposition either by stealing their ideas or by dividing their strength.

            For most leaders, the art of politics is the craft of the fox - assessing the state of public opinion and trimming one's sails to catch the wind.  But occasionally there are leaders who set their own course and educate the public to come to them.  Meles Zenawi (the Prime Minister) is such a politician.  He is a great political master of his generation ---- He realized he had to change his organization before the country would entrust it to govern.  He then transformed the front and by so doing proved his bona fides as a leader.   The Lion in Meles is still evident as he continues to challenge his front's orthodoxy over many issues and convince it to adapt to new realities.  As a result, of the process of reform and renewal he has a secured political base within his organization and a renewed mandate that freed him from the political constraints that plagued the government and enable him to act more independently.  His front, which was plagued by dissent and division, has now reunited, its moral restored under the sophisticated, eloquent, steady and prudent chairman.

            Reform and renewal are inherent aspects of any political party's willingness to be receptive to the spirit of its event - to meet the multi-layered challenge of liberalism and democracy.  EPRDF and its manifestations (Revolutionary democracy) not only survived but also come out, as a result of this process, renewed, strengthened, and its ideas more brightly restored, more widely spread and more deeply sown.  Having made it through the political minefield of 2000 in one piece, the EPRDF and its members are in to the friendly confines of conceptual politics.

The Opposition Camp:

            Meanwhile the opposition fragmented and delusional keeps failing, not just in its ability to choose an effective leadership, but also in its ability to reshape itself into a more effective and credible political vehicle.  It continues to look inward and is becoming more invisible in domestic politics.  Meanwhile, whole new generations of left and right wonder the political wilderness, because for them the opposition holds no relevance!

 The opposition camp has four characteristics:

1.                 Sclerotic monarchists whose idea is an aging failure, regressive rather than progressive

2.                 Reactionaries (relics of the old wreckage) intent on rolling back the freedom and tolerance of multicultural Ethiopia.

3.                 Chauvinists under the cover of nationalism who prefer assimilation against pluralism

4.                 Narrow nationalist who seem to be stuck in patterns of self-pity

5.                 Special interest groups or individuals, who dislike the government on isolated issue.  For example, the government's policy on Eritrea.

Interestingly apart from their mutual antipathy to the government, these groups loathe each other.

 When the Derg regime was removed in 1991, Ethiopia was at a crossroads. Never have there been the possibilities both for honor and hope been more extreme, and never, therefore, has the scope for effective choice been wider.  The environment was ripe for forceful political challenges.  There were acres of political room on the political spectrum.  The challenge facing both the EPRDF (then new regime) and the opposition was to convert the political potential in to concrete political progress.

            Politics is about principles and always should be.  In 1991 the Ethiopian people were looking for principle parties fully committed to grassroots democracy.  But the opposition partied looked and sounded, (as it is the case to this day) like traditional parties of opportunism and brokerage politics.  It's leaders action revealed the opposition's camp for what it was, a tired shell obsessed with an increasingly marginal politics.

            Most of the opposition groups are not newly (after 1991) surfaced parties.  The majority of them were founded during the Derg era.  Some of them fought the Derg regime, for hijacking the popular revolution.  Some of them, initially joined the military junta, but later turned against it after it (the junta) began a campaign to liquidate their leaders and some of them who betrayed the regime when it's demise become evident.  So when the EPRDF assumed power, it invited all of those opposition parties that were not part of its coalition, to join in the transitional government and in drafting the new constitution.  Some accepted the offer and joined in the provisional government but the others for reason that still puzzles Ethiopians chose to stay away from participatory politics, and instead remained to be movements of protest.  As time went by they began suffering from political paranoia that undermined legitimate politics issues.  Consequently, thanks to the inept and disunited opposition the EPRDF's hold on power has turned into a hammerlock.

There are many difficulties that inherit to the opposition parties - The most obvious one being whether the route to power lies in being more like the EPRDF or in offering the public a clear choice.  They (the opposition) suffer from an acute version of this condrum.  And so they began fighting yesterday's battles with antique rhetorical weaponry.  This has given the governing party a huge lead in the battle of ideas.  It has marshaled statistics and impressive arguments while the oppositions have marshaled little a part from sentiment.  As they say; on the progressive side of the aisle, the opposition has slept at the wheel.  The politics and cultural realm they inhabit belong to another age, and incongruent with the requirements of our time.  To this day the opposition remains too self-conscientiously pious to bother with tactical and strategic matters and thus is likely to continue in its long-standing battle with irrelevance.  Consequently, millions of voters have grown to adulthood never considering the opposition’s serious competitive political force.

            I don't think the opposition is hopeless, but I don't think they know where they fit in the modern Ethiopian political reality. As we can see most of the wounds in the opposition camp are self-inflicted.  And it is time the oppositions start asking 'what have we done to ourselves”?  We live in a time of relative prosperity of dynamic, economic, technological and social change, and above all in a time when the vast majority of us express confidence in ourselves and in our future.  Yet the opposition wallows in the message of negativity and disenchantment.  Much though I disagree with their principles, I believe the country would be better of were the opposition is competent enough to compete for votes.  But so long as they ignore the realities of modern Ethiopian politics, they will remain political bystanders.  The events that have transpired over the past few months are encouraging though.

Score one for the Opposition

            If you missed the news more than 15 groups claim to have forged an Alliance to cooperate... But like a late-night movie seen many times before, we know all the lines of this one, none of them memorable. What they did was interesting.  What they didn't say was more interesting.  And yet they deserve acclaim for trying to stitch together a coalition, and maybe walk away with some credibility.  And maybe they are on the right track to building a winning coalition.  Still unknown to the people, they figure they have ample time to rebuild.  But before it can even begin to dream of governing, it is going to have to come to grips with the bigger question of what it wants to be if it can grow up. 

Do any of the 15 or so members of the Alliance really have the staff to appeal to a broad cross-section of the Ethiopian public?

            The very fact that the opposition are discussing elections, campaigns, "peaceful struggle to unseat" the government should prove beneficial to the country.  Having abandoned any hopes of undermining the government, through destabilization, the opposition is trying to occupy itself with issues that could produce a stronger and more efficient Ethiopia.  Idle hands, for once, should find useful work.

III.        The Government vs. The Opposition - on Critical issues

            One of this century's principle political issues in the world is the continuing struggle of pluralism versus the alternative forms of social organization.  It is no longer about right vs. left.  The real divide is pluralistic societies versus others.  Pluralism says the Oxford dictionary means a society " in which the members of minority groups maintain their independent cultural traditions and the toleration or acceptance of a diversity of opinions, values, theories, etc.":  The alternatives to pluralism are varied but such societies are characterized by hostility toward outsiders or critics.  Pluralism is the goal to which the world should aspire.  Learning to get along how to agree and to disagree is not something that comes naturally.  We all should work to create a society that is strong, sober and sufficiently free of illusions about the goodness of man to fight totalitarian enemies of liberal democracy.  The open debate and plurality of ideas that buffers all genuine democracies and the respect for human right and sanctity of life, that are the shared values of all free societies are a permanent antidote to the poison that enemies of peace seek to inject.

A.  Political

            The past 12 years has been the consolidation of Ethiopia's democracy, which is firmly anchored in shared principle and values.  One of the main objectives of the new constitutional order is to accommodate nationalities claims and integrate them in to the new plural and democratic Ethiopia.  The main source of resentment and instability during the previous administrations has been the issue of nationalities.  Sine the 60's Ethiopia's students relentlessly tried to force those regimes to address this issue to no avail.  But the question of nation's and nationalities grew bigger and bigger and reached a critical stage which threatened the prevalence of the country.  The current Ethiopian leaders were members of that student movement which sacrificed everything in the name of Pluralist Ethiopia.  It is that pluralist’s belief, which propelled the governing party (EPRDF) to power.  It is that principle which defeated the mighty military of the Dergue regime.  So it was imperative for the EPRDF to give it priority along with the question of individual rights.  A decade ago EPRDF and other non-EPRDF member parties drafted a constitution that addressed the above issues as its pillars.  The Charter has been a success, exceeding our expectations in expanding fundamental and minority rights and forging a new national identity.  During the Dreg regime there were over 20-armed political movements representing different nationalities who had crystal clear demands.  Member organizations of the ruling party were among those groups.  In 1991, most Ethiopians have come to realize that the country was at a crossroad.  It was obvious unless some fundamental structural adjustments are implemented the few strings left holding the country will start breaking one by one.  It was then the EPRDF as a major partner of the transitional government came with the idea of re-arranging the political structure of the country by introducing an Ethno-regional republicanization.  This prompt and unequivocal endorsement of self-determination has averted bloodshed all together.

            New structure paired with the introduction of individual democratic rights gave the nation's unity a fresh blood that revived its veins.  The above rights were enshrined in the constitution that keeps evolving with time.  Clause 39 of the Constitution has succeeded what half a million strong army of the Derg failed i.e. silence the guns of nationalist’s movements.  Clause 39 explicitly states that any nation or nationalities of the Ethiopian political entity have the right to self determination within the Union and to secede from the Union should the residents of a particular nation or nationality proved it to be their choice through a democratic referendum.

            One of the remarkable achievement of Ethiopia's decade old experiment with ethno-regional democracy is that, over the past decade, previously neglected nationalities have entered the world of electoral politics, regional parties have proliferated and are challenging the position of the traditional power houses (Amhara-Tigrean).  Yet even as this unique political arrangement is being implemented, some groups wanted to impose their own will through violence.  Members of such groups have been taking advantage of the benefits of democracy to carry out undemocratic activities - based on exclusion, fear and extortion.  That is they had aimed to destroy democracy, using democracy's own basic principles.  But democracy had another tool, which also stems from political consensus: the law.  The law on political parties does not condemn ideologies. it condemns violent actions.  This is proven by the fact that the law has not been invoked against opposition political parties (some of them with parliamentary representation) who promote the independence of specific region or the end of the current government through peaceful and democratic means.

            On the other hand there are those within the opposition camp who are in principle revivalists who campaign against the country's pluralistic image.  The clash is between two ways of envisioning Ethiopia.  One idea of Ethiopia that finds strength in the country's profound diversities, and that has tried, in a striking and original experiment, to invest ways that allow those to cohabit within a single political frame: and set against this, the dream of a nation of Ethiopia that is homogenous through assimilation undermining the cultural self-confidence of other nationalities. It is an act of provocation and stupidity to have nostalgia for a time when both the right and left were not allowed to express themselves freely.  But instead of energetic policies some of the opposition groups get by with nostalgic sentiments, which hold up little importance.  In an attempt to revive tribalist mythology over reality and law, some narrow nationalists and ultra nationalists continue to maintain unrealistic principles.            Nevertheless the people have effectively resisted the chauvinists and narrow nationalists' duopoly.

Free Speech

Free speech, expression and debate are crucial values in a society presumed to be democratic    

            The current Ethiopian Constitutional Law resembles the European and American version, not primarily because of Western influence, but because the same liberal intelligentsia dominates the jurisprudence of both.

            When it comes to free speech, the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, belief, opinion and expression. But the right of freedom of speech is not absolute.  When false accusation are used to incite hatred, the right of free speech is rightfully superceded by the right to personal and collective security.  There is a Criminal Code that prohibits the willful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups.  Such actions are prosecutable in all democracies, and most of Ethiopia's so called "political prisoners" fall into this category.  The naive notion that, if all ideas are allowed in the market place, the best ones will ultimately and inevitably prevail is refuted by history, including the history of democracies.  Although human beings are frequently rational, there are, often enough, sufficiently irrational to contradict the enlightment notion of Jhon Stuart Mill.  Abuse of our freedom of expression --- can tear a society apart, brutalize its dominant elements and persecute even to exterminate, its minorities.  As they say political campaigns are aimed at seducing the  "dumbest audiences".

            Don't get me wrong. My general bias is for a society where government or the opposition knows its place and errs on the side of modesty, a society where most of the driving forces for progress and change come from, peasants, workers, business, family, colleges and benevolent groups of all faiths.  But the vision of a society where the role of government or opposition is reduced to the role of self-interested bystander does not attract me.  it is, in fact, a recipe for deeper fragmentation not only for our politics, but of our society over all.

B.        History - Nationalism

REVOLUTION vs. RESTORATION

            History is one of the few things the opposition talks about passionately.  They use it to discredit the government, to incite ultra nationalism and justify their self-centered analysis of events.  The opposition's history enthusiasts are guilty of historical cherry picking.  They take the part they like and reject the rest.  And the parts they like do little but add to an accelerating ethnic narcissism.  They accuse the government of being unpatriotic because according to the opposition it blemished the country's history.  The opposition sees the current political structure of the country (federalism) as a prelude to balkanization.  They oppose the current constitution, which recognizes the independent and viability of customs and languages of all the nations and nationalities as a threat to the 3000 years “united Ethiopia."

 I agree, the desire to commune with our past is the most natural of human impulses.  We all want to know where we cam from and how our society come to be as it is.  When we are not thought these things, we consciously seek remedy for that deficiency.  Every nation is defined by its heritage, generally operates through customs that have developed over centuries.  We are trapped by our past only if we ignore it.  If we attend to it and respect it, we can use it to secure our future.  Unfortunately the opposition’s injection of history into contemporary politics seems to create another wrong and perpetuate our division.

            Let's see the claim of 3000 years of Ethiopian history.  Yes we have a proud history of over 3000 years, a history that has a special place in the history of the Pharaohs of Egypt, in the Old Testament, in Greek Mythology, New Testament, the Quoran.  But today's political entity little resemble the ancient Ethiopia (Abyssinia).  Today's Ethiopia was born as a marriage of reason between the two Semitic (Tigrean-Amhara) ethnic groups.  And the rest of them have been forced into a shotgun marriage in the late 1880's.  And so when the opposition talks of 3000 years of history, they are talking about the history of the Tigrean-Ambare groups who constitute no more than 30% of the Ethiopian people.   A history that considers Ethiopia “the Island of Christianity,” whereas half of the population is Muslim.  A history that ignores Ethiopians contribution to the prevalence of Islam.  As I said earlier not only Ethiopians but every black person in the world should feel proud of what the Ancient Ethiopian's history has achieved and contributed.  But it will also be unfair to the 70% of Ethiopians whose history is getting less or no attention at all; to accept the Semitic ethnic version of history as the only Ethiopian's history.  Evidently, that history has vividly documented that Ancient Ethiopia outward expansion as far as Yemen and Egypt while it showed no interest southward expansion beyond its historical borders.  Only and only after we have researched and compiled the history of all Ethiopian nation and nationalities and blend it with the already existing known ones (a unifying narrative of our history) would proudly call a truly Ethiopian history, a certifying narrative of our history; A history that will be relevant to modern Ethiopia.  That is moderate, modern, a happy blend of yesterday and tomorrow. In approaching the past we should judge it on its own time.  Besides "Good doesn't equal "old" and the opposition's political goals can be advanced without tortured historical claims.

            I had always believed that moving forward to the past was something that happened only in the movies.  But a society starting over needs to know the past is gone and the future has began.  And the debate must begin from historical knowledge, not to imprison it within the past but to free the discussion to meet the challenges of the present.  Patriotism is to love the land we inhibit or the customs by which we live.  But our ability to love inclines most naturally to persons --- we can invest all those fractured loves that make up patriotic love, love of a country, love of a culture, love of the land all combined and channeled through concentrated beam of affection to one another.  Patriotism is a measure pride in the values, achievements and aspirations of a culture and society.  Seems to me a positive thing.  But I am no friend of exclusivist mentality, nor the kind of nationalistic fervor that can all too easily tinged with jingoism and xenophobia.  Ethiopia has to emerge from the close-mindedness of its past history into the open mindedness of its modern reality.

            Surely it is more important to focus on what is good about history rather than saw hatred by dwelling on our differences.  We have a common history of our nation, which binds our people into stronger, more tightly woven web of integration.

C.            Economic

            In 1991 the Dreg left the country's economy crumbling to an extent where the new regime (EPRDF) was considered as bankruptcy trustee. Today the Ethiopian economy is fundamentally healthy and has made tremendous progress during the past decade.  And in spite of natural disasters, drought, AIDS ... growth in picking up with inflation relatively under control.  Ethiopia's economic structure is now hardly recognizable from the one that collapsed during the previous regime.  It has become one of the great success stories of Africa.  The country has achieved and maintained impressive growth as a result of mixed economic policy.  Ethiopia is one of the few countries, which is on course to achieve the international development target known as the "millennium development goals" i.e. to half the proportion of poverty by 2015.  To progress toward those goals, it will require rapid economic growth, a substantial increase in foreign aid and more effective use of all resources.  The government's official economic policy is mainly based on local free-enterprise and liberal and free trade policy with others with aim of being fully integrated in the world economy by joining the World Trade Organization (W.T.O.) The government is concentrating on pushing ahead its social policy agenda of poverty reduction.  Another major accomplishment that will expedite the above policy would be a reform of the public service.  Ethiopian's are happy with the government's effort to pare back the bloated and intrusive bureaucracy, which has lead to corruption Unfortunately, the opposition besides expressing pessimism based on gross generalization that ignores the basic parameters and on incorrect interpretation of recent economic trends - it has very little to say about what kind economic policy the country should adopt.

D.  ERITREA

            Another favourite issue the opposition is not willing to let die is Eritrea’s self-determination.  They obsessively question, Eritrean independence.  What is the basic reason for their hard line stand on this question?  Is it political expediency to attract the ultra nationalists of one segment of our community, and do they have a point?  Whatever their motives might be their principle is dangerous to say the least.  It is the same principle, which led us to 30 years of bloodshed, which ended 1991.

            The opposition accuses the EPRDF government as "unpatriotic" for "letting Eritreans go"; breaking the country apart.  First of all the opposition should stop misleading the public by such false allegations.  The opposition knows the Eritrean people were pushed out by the policies of the previous regimes.  When the EPRDF assumed power one of the most urgent issues it had to address was the question of people's collective rights that included the issue of Eritrea.  There were three possible options available to the government concerning Eritrea  1) Follow the policies of their predecessors, ignore the issue and continue the conflict;  2) Recognize of Eritrea’s independence right away which by then was wholly controlled by Eritreans; 3) Recognize the needs and aspirations of the Eritrean people by granting their rights for self-determination through referendum.

Option 1 has been found to be a failure and a road to disaster Ville.  Not only economically costly, but it is morally wrong and legally unjustifiable to deny people's choice, of individual or collective rights.  Option No. 2 is equally dangerous, because outright recognition would only transfer power from one elite to another and doesn't necessarily satisfy the needs of the people.  When we say we recognize the people's rights for self-determination we have to make sure that it is the wishes of the people not the wishes of the political group or groups who claim to represent them.  And so option 3, which was the one chosen by the EPRDF, seems to be the logical and right choice.  30 years of war and destruction ought to return everyone to the realities! So the best solution has to be the one that doesn't involve the indefinite sacrifices on both sides in a mutually reinforcing death cult.  Based on the above analysis and its principle towards nations and nationalities, which is enshrined in to the new constitution, the EPRDF let the people of Eritrea choose their own fate.  In 1993, a referendum was held in Eritrea and, no matter how flowed and undemocratic one might think through that referendum the people made an overwhelming choice to be "free" and separate from the union.  The opposition raises some reasonable question about the process and execution of the referendum.  They claim that it was more of a vote for consensus than a vote for a choice.  That may be so but in 1993 under any circumstances the majority’s choice would have been the same.

            There are three points the opposition used in defending their case against the independence of Eritrea.

            1) Historical - The opposition claims Eritrea has been part and parcel of Ethiopia, since the down of Abyssinian state-hood.

            Well that is being a historical fact, why stop in Eritrea.  If we have to claim land based on our past so to satisfy our passive political indulgence why stop in Eritrea; why not claim Yemen, which on many occasion had been part of the Ancient Abyssinian Empire.

            But folks, it is not a question of territory; it is about people’s right.  In this case the Eritreans.  Whatever it’s merits are or our political sentiments, priority should be given to the inhabitants of the land we claim to be ours.   If we are adherent to the principle of choice, we should respect the wishes of the Eritrean people.

            2) The opposition argues that an independent or "separate" Eritrea would be a threat to Ethiopia national security.  To the contrary history has thought us that a disgruntled Ethiopian province of Eritrea posed more threat than an Eritrean nation.  The opposition would like us to believe that the current Ethio-Eritrean conflict justifies their claim.  But I say look again, the current conflict was brought to manageable level in two years, while the previous episode lasted 30 years.

            3) Another claim, and perhaps more credible than the rest, is the issue of Ethiopian's access to the sea.  The opposition points out that the Red Sea is as an Ethiopian as the rive Nile is.  And so it (Ethiopia)) has an inherent right to part of the sea.  They support they claim by using history as reference, in addition, say the opposition there is no justification what is so over for a "breakaway" province of 4 million to have all of Coastal line at the expense of 70 million strong nation.

            First of all, I don't think there is a person of reasonable intellect, who denies the historical attachment of Ethiopia to the Red Sea.  The greatest symbol of this fact can be found in the name of the capital of Ancient Ethiopia (Aksum). AK means Water (sea) Sum means administrator or ruler.  Therefore, rulers of ancient Ethiopia were defacto rulers of the sea.  There are volume and volumes of historical documents that would rectify this fact.  But like anywhere else in Africa, Eropeans have changed the course of our history.  They curved part of our country named it Eritrea and ruled it for 60 years.  Today's territorial

boundary of Eritrea is the same as it was 100 years ago.  Even after it was made to join Ethiopia, the emperor while he re-arranged the boundaries of many provinces to punish his adversaries or to reward loyalists;  Eritrea was spared of such a policy. The Dergue regime has plans to curve Eritrea's territory, naming the Port of Asab a special administrative zone. The final stage of the plan of that zone was to incorporate all of the afar region.

            Nevertheless, the Eritrea the EPRDF inherited was the same Eritrea that was founded by the Italians a century ago with almost identical territorial boundary; recognizing Eritrean's right for self-determination means the rights of citizens who inhabit with in the defined boundary of Eritrea.  The opposition then argues, fine Eritreans could go their own way, but it is unfair and unjust to sacrifice the interest of 70 million people for the sake of 4 million by depriving the prior of their legitimate need of access to the sea.   Our fundamental goal should be say the opposition,” to gain access to a territory, to sea coast, to a port, over which we will have useful sovereignty and which will be territorially contiguous with our country”.  Therefore Ethiopia should have unilateral or joint jurisdiction over part of the sea, and they accuse the EPRDF government for failing to secure these rights before they granted Eritrea its independence.

            I must admit, this is very compelling and pragmatic argument.  Politically expedient too.  This is one of the issues that are helping the opposition attract some followers. To some extend, I myself subscribe to such ideas. But what the opposition fails to mention is that there was general agreement between Ethiopian and Eritrean governments concerning this issue.  But it failed because  (1) it was vague and general agreement without adequate mechanism of implementation 2) The people of the two countries were never informed about even the presence of such an agreement.  We only found out about it later after the eruption of the conflict.

3) It failed because it didn't take into consideration situation between the parties, such as the current crisis.

            Nobody is shedding tears for the death of above treaty between the two governments, mainly because nobody was aware of its existence.  But now that we know, we can use it as a precedent and come with a better and comprehensive agreement on mutually beneficial terms.  What the last 5 years taught us (the people of Ethiopia and Eritrea) is that we shouldn't take each other for granted, that except for few disoriented extremists on both sides, we realize we need each other; Eritrea's well being (not survival) is best served by gaining access to Ethiopian markets and raw materials.  Ethiopia needs a safer and shorter proximity ports, which Eritrea has.  Such advantages for both peoples can only be secured by entering into a concentual and friendly agreement that would stand the distorted temptation of politicians.

IV.        THE ETHIO-ERITREAN CONFLICT:  The role of the Opposition

A.        Early Stages of the Conflict:

            When the conflict between Ethiopia and flared up. We (Ethiopians and Eritreans) were in the middle of daydreaming imagining peace and prosperity blossoming across our region.  Evidently the reaction of both citizens of two nations was stunned, shock and denial.  But while we Ethiopian have remained numb and confused for a while it didn’t take time for our Eritreans friends in Diaspora to make up their mind on what role to play.  The reason, because the regime in Eritrea was successful in communicating with its citizens in diaspora.  With in days of making the situation public it sends high-level officials armed with all kinds of documents especially video’s to explain the situation.  As a result with in days of hostility about 80% of Eritreans lined up to lend their support to their government.

            The commitment shown by Eritreans in Diaspora was unprecedented.  One can’t help, but ask the question “where were they when Eritrea

needed them the most” i.e. during the struggle for independence.  In those days, the Liberation Movement never enjoyed this kind of support from Eritreans abroad.  So how do we then explain the recent demonstration of nationalism among Diaspora Eritreans?  The answer can be found by looking at their motives for their actions.

            1) The largest block of supporters of the regime was, Eritreans who have played no or little role during the liberation struggle.  After independence these people felt guilty and “inadequate” so they thought that (the Conflict) would be a good opportunity to assert their Eritrean nationalism.  I call them Born Again Eritreans.

            2) The second group comprises, Eritreans who were members of EPLF

( Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front) mass organizations and EPLF sympathizers.  Although EPLF and its affiliated civic associations were dismantled, the leaders of the ruling party, the PFDJ (Peoples Front For Democracy and Justice) were all members of the Front.

            3) The third category included ex-members of E.L.F. ( Eritrean Liberation Front) and other organizations, which were not in good terms with the regime.  By supporting the regime in its conflict with Ethiopia these group considered it as a ticket for reconciliation.

            4) Another group of Eritreans, were those who felt ambivalent about the conflict, but gave the regime the benefit of the doubt.

            As we can see, the conflict was used as an instrument of opportunism.  But as time went by our Eritrean friends’ behaviour started to become rather irresponsible by scratching our wounds raw and ensuring they never heal.  Instead of critically examine events; they retreated in to neurotic fantasies and conspiracy theories.

            In the meantime for quite sometime we (Ethiopian in Diaspora) were in the dark.  Our government was too slow in communicating with us and if it does it was usually by delegating some general statements rather than detailed facts.  We were so desperate for information and in the quest of balanced opinions we began visiting and listening to Eritrean media outlets and website.  We were shocked and awakened to the anti-Ethiopian vitriol in the state-controlled media in Eritrea and unrelenting campaign of anti-Ethiopia vilification was being carried out by every organ of Eritreans web pages, a hatred that sounded like it has been quietly incubating for years and this happened during the most accommodating, most conciliatory, most dovish, understanding and sympathetic,  Ethiopian government towards Eritrea by this time we, Ethiopians become angry at our government for not preparing us for that, for failing to inform us about the deteriorating relationship between the two governments; and we got mad at the Eritrean regime for beating the war drum that early in the conflict.  Meanwhile, as the war of words escalated there was also a positive development of an attempt of diffusion of the situation by mediators.  But as time went by both sides continue to ratchet up the rhetoric that led to the what we Ethiopians call the Eureka Moment.  That was the bombing of Ayder Children School in Mekelle.

            The deliberate bombing of the school galvanized populist patriotism, which found its multi-party appeal and emotions, began running dangerously high on both sides.

            Meanwhile months of attempted reconciliation had objectively failed.  The U.S. Rwanda mediators, the OAU and the U.N. Security Council, consecutively shuttled to and from the two capitals and made a relentless effort to bring the situation to a peaceful settlement but neither succeeded.  All mediation teams passed more or less similar resolutions.  They both recommended 1) the axis of the dispute (border) to be settled peacefully through mediation and negotiation and 2) peaceful resolution should be preceded by returning the situation to the status-quo ante i.e. both parties withdraw their forces to the positions they held before May 8, 1998.  They explicitly told Eritrea to remove its forces from Bademe, Zalembese, Bure, etc…  I am quite sure the reader is aware of what the president of Eritrea had to say when told to withdraw his troops from Bademe.  By simply withdrawing he could’ve reserved his military strength, claim a moral victory and establish himself as credible.  Unfortunately, Isayas seems to have his own idiosyncratic views about even what is good for him.

            Wouldn’t anybody in his right mind rather avoid wars than fight them, and solve problems through persuasion and negotiation rather than through violence?  Through dangling the carrot rather than applying the stick?  Absolutely, so when baseball players are negotiating with the owners, much better they trot out lawyers than that they show up with their bats.  The problem is that you can’t negotiate with implacable enemy.  I was and still am convinced the war could’ve been avoided. But, history is also loitered with cases of in action that led to a very grave consequence.  As they say, “If you are powerless, you invite destruction.  If you have power, you invite discussion.”

B.        Phase Two of the Conflicts

            Through their resolutions the mediators didn’t say which area belongs to whom, but they’ve made it clear that Eritrea was the instigator of the conflict in other words the aggressor.  Once it has been make clear that Ethiopia was the victim, for Ethiopians the issue become a matter national pride and all political arguments temporarily stopped at the water’s edge.  Ethiopian’s stood up shoulder to should with the government and the brave defense forces that defend our national integrity.

            Any state, if attacked, retains the inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.  Resolutions by regional, continental or international organization have no force unless they are imposed.  In this case the U.N. didn’t show interest in backing up its resolution with some kind of enforcement.  If we believe international law and multilateralism, we have to support efforts to make resolutions by such bodies are not just passed, but obeyed and complied with.  You can’t believe in multilateralism, international law unless you are prepared also to believe that occasionally you have to step up to the plate and defend it.  So I am as multilateralist and Pacifist as anyone could be, but you can’t talk the talk unless you are also prepared to walk the walk, it seems dishonest to pretend otherwise.

            Not only all the resolution has been ignored by the regime in Eritrea, but, far worse was all the excessive rhetoric played by its supporters.  They have been boring the parts of us with a lot of whining, and all sorts of doomsday scenario for Ethiopia.  They go on and go on like a broken record – until the needle of was jerked of in Feb. 1999.

            While all that drama was being performed, what were the Ethiopian oppositions doing.  Unlike in other issues, the opposition had more or less a united stand on that one.  Almost all of them supported the conflict hoping it might bring the downfall of both governments.  But their actions were more against the Ethiopian government.  While Eritrea’s of all political persuasion were temporarily united, in the “defense of the nation”, inviting officials of the government and treating them to a ceremonious galas, working day and night to solicit material and diplomatic support to the government,  Ethiopian oppositions were busy hackling government officials and trying to impede other Ethiopians effort to support their country.  A concerted effort was being mounted by the opposition to savage the reputation of Ethiopian officials.  They issued hysterical report after hysterical report falsely blasting the government of Ethiopia.  Some of them even went to Asmara and performed failed political fornication.  It was disgraceful for them to take advantage of the situation to the extent they did.  To be silent is one thing, but to support a regime who threatened your country baffles explanation.  Those people would be found in the dustbin of Ethiopian history.  But most of the foreign affairs neophytes with little interest in and less knowledge about the world beyond D.C. have failed to show up when the country needed them.  One way or the other it wouldn’t have mad much difference to the outcome of the conflict, but it would’ve been a right time for political redemption and maybe to walk away with some credibility. 

Don’t get me wrong; I am not saying they should’ve support the government blindly.  Have they been opposed to the Conflict in principle I would’ve respect that; Anti-war feeling is an admirable emotion, shared by most decent human being.  It should be balanced by rational calculations of cost and benefit, in addition to legal and moral justifications.  But the opposition’s stand was far from such noble idea.  On the contrary their propaganda was like adding butane gas to a forest fire.  Of course most of the attacks were primarily targeted at the Ethiopian government, accusing the government of crimes against the country by letting the Eritreans squander Ethiopians goodwill and wealth; That it kept Eritrean's employed in sensitive government positions while Ethiopian professionals were forced to leave the country looking for jobs.  They added, the EPRDF, is to be blamed for making the country defenseless by keeping a mere 50,000 weak army and made it a convenience target of aggression.  All of the above led to familiar mambo jumbo of  “selling out the countries interest by allowing Eritrea to secede” with venomous campaign.

            It is one thing to believe, and believe fervently that someone has got something wrong; it is quite another to believe that someone you think to be wrong is by virtue of that “error” unpatriotic, devoted to lies and downright evil.

C. Cessation of Hostility

            When Ethiopia abruptly stopped the war in May 2000 as Afeworki’ teetered, majority of Ethiopian questioned that action although the reason for that decision is still debated, for the opposition it become fashionable to criticize the government (1) “for not going all the way to Asmara to “finish the regime off”  (2) for failing to consider and act on the idea of grabbing the Port of Asab (3) for signing the Alger’s accord.  In fact the oppositions platform for the coming election is full of promises and pledges to “correct” what it calls the EPRDF’s “betrayal II”.  “Betrayal I” being EPRDF's recognition of sovereign in Eritrea in 1993.

            The above arguments reveal how the opposition is devoid of credible ideas.  They should know that it is not up to Ethiopia to choose ’Eritrea’s future.  It was tried in 1961 and we know where it led us.  If there has to be change in Eritrea, it has to come from within.  As for the questions of Asab, they are using it as the main campaign projectile because it is politically expedient.  In fact they have managed to make it the center of discussion among ordinary Ethiopians, because they know the government is vulnerable on this issue.  Nevertheless, sometimes popular ideas do not commensurate with legal ethical ones.  And this is one of them.

The Alger’s Peace Accord:

            The opposition is very loud in its opposition to the Alger’s agreement and so do the majority of Ethiopians.  The reason is that it has failed to resolve the problem and it has itself become a problem.  Initially I was an advocate of the accord because there was a clause, which I considered to be the most important of them all.  Which I though will address the issue of accountability.  The accord stipulates that it will form a commission whose task will be to identify the instigator of the conflict.  This issue is fundamental, much more important than who gets what in the form of territory.  By identifying the guilty party our two people would’ve started the healing process.  Unfortunately, so far that didn’t materialize.  The already functioning commission of the Alger's Agreement (the border commission) didn't fare well.  First of all the commission's 2002 delimitation ruling like so many diplomatic texts, turned out to have enough ambiguities in it to mean all things to both sides.  Second, in 2002 it failed to vividly locate the contested areas like Bademe.  I have the opportunity to examine the evidences presented by both parties in support of each other's claim and I invite the reader to take sometime and review them.  Bademe may very well be an Eritrean but one can't tell by the evidence and arguments submitted by the Eritrean regime.  On the other hand arguments and documents presented by Ethiopia is overwhelming.  And yet after a year of castigations and admittance of some irregularity in other parts of the border area the commission awarded the village of Bademe to Eritrean.  For the Eritrean regime that after the delimitation report, when it looked like it might lose the village, called it “an insignificant dusty village of few huts”, the ruling was a diplomatic victory.  For the Ethiopian who were so confident that not only Badame but also they might get the Yerga Triangle, the ruling was a travesty.  The Eritreans are right when sticking to the binding nature of the ruling.  On the other hand, the Ethiopians are also right in raising their grievances and demanding re-examination of the issue.  In other words the Ethiopian government has made it clear it is not going to accept the Commission's ruling as it is.  So what is the way out of this impasse?

            Multilateral bodies or Commissions who try to solve problems arising between nations can succeed only if the quarrelling parties agree to abdicate their power of influence on behalf of mediation.  In the absence of such understanding no issue has ever been solved by bodies even such as the U.N. Security Council.  In other words the feuding parties should genuinely be willing to solve the problem. As you may well know, recently Nigeria and Cameron had the same problem. Although the world court (which is a permanent body formed by U.N. member nations, unlike the Ethio-Eritrean border commission which was set up by the two parties) awarded the disputed land to Cameron.  Initially Nigeria rejected the ruling but both parties left their doors open for an alternative settlement, and after months of bilateral talks they were able to resolve the problem in a mutually beneficial way.  Another example, perhaps one of the most significant events that are about to unfold is the re-rapprochement of India and Pakistan.  After almost 50 years of animosity, three wars and fruitless efforts but by the international community, India and Pakistan seem to be ready to make peace.  Why the change of heart on both sides?) A couple of years ago these two countries were days off from obliterating each other.  Once that hostility was defused thanks to Colin Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State, reasonable Indians and Pakistanis just wake up from a nightmare.  They realized just wake up from a nightmare.  They realized war would only create other problems in addition to exacerbating the existing ones.   2) The absence of super power polarity has also helped.  You see if countries are allowed themselves to be influenced only by their constituents and not by outside forces chances are they will re-visit different mechanism of resolving conflicts.  And so if they mean it, and I hope they do, we will be witnessing a very important event that will change the Geo-politics of not only South Asia but also the world in general.  Don't be surprised in 2-5 years if you see Indo-Pakistan representing that part of the world in permanent U.N. Security Council.  I hope our leaders could learn a thing or two from this.

            To the contrary the opposition has different idea.  They say the government should drop altogether the Alger’s Agreement, which they consider it to be a sellout. In fact, they go a bit further; That Ethiopia, consider all agreement made in the last 100 years with the Italians or the British to be null and void.  Their argument, all the treaties are made under European coercion and most of the agreements have preceded a violent conflict between Italy and Ethiopia so the treaties are not binding.

            In addition the opposition is claiming to have discovered a smoking gun that might "change the geo-politics of the region" The so-called smoking gun goes like this:  Eritrea is a creation of colonialism, so when Italy curved an Ethiopian territory and created Eritrea that colony included the highlands of today’s Eritrea and the Coastal lands North of Masawa.  Congruently there was another territory, south of Masawa, called Dominio Dankalia. According to the opposition’s claim the Domino Dankalia was later annexed by Eritrea in the same manner Ethiopia annexed Eritrea after the termination of federation.  And so the opposition argue, the inhabitants of Domino Dankalia (today's Eritrean Afars should be accorded the right to determine their own fate, as did the Eritreans in 1993.  Well, I must say it is a very compelling and interesting argument and we will see how far they are willing to take it.  In the meantime let me diagrace to the real world and stick to the current Ethio-Eritrean crisis.

As we are finding out, the war of 1998-2000 did more to restore the status quo than manifestly change it and any attempt to solve the impasse through violence would not lead to a solution.  Putting the agenda of international bodies ahead of reconciliation in the conflict, will only help extremists acquire great influence.  For people who share a lot like Ethiopian and Eritreans border demarcation has less relevance.  Obviously our politicians would like us to believe otherwise, but we say it is time for them to enter into a composite dialogue to resolve the issues.

Civilian Expulsion:

            Another topic, the opposition used so effectively to attack the government credibility is the issue of civilian expulsions.  In between 1991-1994, the opposition claims about 100,000 Ethiopians were forcefully expelled from Eritrea.  And yet during those times, the Ethiopians government ignored the issue deliberately and there are even claims when pressed to address the problem with their Eritrean counterparts, some Ethiopian officials made unflattering remarks about it. 

            After the conflict flare-up and when the Ethiopian government began expelling Eritreans, some of the opposition not only supported it but they wanted the government to go further and expel all Eritrean' to "reserve jobs for Ethiopians."  They consider the policy being justifiable as a reciprocal measure to the actions of the Eritrean regime.  Over all about 70,000 Eritreans have been expelled from Ethiopia, on the other hand since 1991 over 200,000 Ethiopians have been expelled from Eritrea.

            In my view this is the most devastating collateral damage of the conflict.  The regime in Eritrea’s crime against the Ethiopians people is countless.  Although we can scrutinize the Eritrean regime with a moral microscope, we shouldn't also put on a blindfold before turning to our government.  And I personally think the expulsion of  Eritreans was morally wrong and legally unjustifiable. It is a great injustice that Eritreans have had to pay for their regimes crimes.  There is no question there may have been Eritrean's who could be considered a threat to national security and so who should've been expelled or quarantined; but it is wise to observe the distinction between what is objectively a threat to the state and what is felt subjectively a pain in the ass (where most of the expelled Eritreans fall).  Even if the former might be worthy of harsh measure, the latter is not.  Are we not obliged, for everyone's sake, to extend to them (Eritreans) the same legal considerations we would demand for our kins?  Besides, we have no quarrel with the Eritrean people, who have suffered for too long --- liberty for the Eritrean people was and still is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal.

E.        NEW RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

            The Ethio-Entrean conflict has no doubt left a scar that won’t stop itching.  And extremists on both sides (a loud and minority movement) but beyond the mainstream are precipitating the crisis.  But I am not worried because such individuals are endangered species. Folks!  There is a line somewhere between healthy pride in one’s country and the more dangerous forces of nationalism. Therefore, we should refuse to yield to the temptation of intolerance and demagogy and should remain vigilant.  Our minds should be ventilating, cleaning up bad thoughts about each other.  Remember HATE IS THE MANIFESTATION OF INSECURITY.

            At the moment the Ethio-Eritrean relationship is on the wrong track.  The relationship obviously needs new ideas and renewed commitment for expansive partnership founded on common values, to respond to contemporary challenges and opportunities. There should be a genuine will on both sides to end the crisis.  But a great deal of confidence building and reasonable period of calm are needed before a will to peace can manifest itself once again.  But as the Oscar winning actor Richard Dreyfuss recently said, “Peace is far too serious to be left exclusively to politicians.”

Pearls of Wisdom:  The primal forces of hatred and good will exist simultaneously.  But this paradoxical reality is also an opportunity.  And so I realize that theoretical analysis alone cannot touch the heart of the matter in any conflict.  The deeper dynamics is found in the human drama.  I believe, that even dauntless political leadership does not suffice to resolve complex conflicts.  Courageous citizens inspired by vision and bolstered by faith and tenacity can often sow the seeds of profound change than politicians.

            To assure that the evil of war doesn’t re-emerge again, we must not merely uproot war mongering, but also plant the seed of reconciliation among our two people.  Both people can consciously place more value on invigorating our relationships vitality.  Let us accept our differences, but spend our time working to further our common principles, values and aspirations.  Friendship requires nurturing, support and mutual respect.  Why not set a confident agenda together for a model of collaboration, which should be the envy of the world, where our people work together as best friends, for better or worse?

            Recently the forces of peace and reconciliation on both sides have begun to gain momentum.  Among notable Eritreans individuals who called for re-rapprochement between the citizens of two countries is Saleh Younis (the founder of Awete website).  Predictably, Saleh’s call for an honest dialogue and facilitate open discussion was scorned by handful extremists of both sides. But his call for  “Moderates of the horn” is accepted by an overwhelming but silent majority…  Some of my compatriots have questioned his sincerity.  After all they say, during the 1998-2000 conflict he was the most lethal mouthpiece of the Eritrean regime.  Maybe so; But that doesn’t make him anti-Ethiopian. As it is possible to criticize the Eritrean regime and not be anti-Eritrean.  As for his role during the conflict understandably, we all are guilty of emotional over-reaction.  But criticism is acceptable as long as it is not from habit or ideological reflex.  Because then it becomes remarkably similar to ancient pernicious prejudice.  And I have no reason to believe Saleh Younis has such a view towards Ethiopian people.

What is important now is that his call for an honest dialogue can encourage people to have the will to take measures to break down walls of hatred and preserve principles and practices we rightly value and he should be commended for it.

There are two ways to go hear people. Two roads from which to choose.  We could go down the path of antagonism and friction, a path that leads to where we are now.  But I suggest we take the other path.  The path that leads to harmony and understanding.  Therefore from here on out, everything our Politicians say will have to be processed through a filter of scrupulous caution. The current furies of nihilism it seems, did not appear after someone rubbed a magic lamp.  They were born and nurtured by cumulative consequences of bad policies pursued by policy makers who determine our fate.  We have suffered faulty policies primarily because policy makers are rarely held accountable to our wishes.  The peace of the region must never be again destroyed by the will and wickedness of politicians.  We should dedicate ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Gandhi reminded his followers that “we must be the change we wish to see.”  His words echo the wildly cited Quoranic verse; “God changes not what is in people until they change what is in themselves.”

V.        THE OPPOSITION MEDIA DRAINING DECENCY OF POLITICS

            Most of the opposition groups in diaspora are virtually unknown inside Ethiopia.  Their websites and radio stations and newsprints at home for obvious reasons tend to exaggerate the size of their audience and impact of their message.

            We live in a historical times, in which the lines between pop culture and objective reality have blurred to the point of disappearing.  Our minds are the product of total immersion in our daily experience saturated with fabrication to a degree unprecedented in human history.  It is obvious that all the content of our information platform converges on the above theme.  There is no important difference between fabrication and reality.

A.        The Opposition’s Media’s Bias

            Bias is partiality or partisanship.  It is generally opposed to accuracy and objectivity.  It is usually used to deliberately distort events.  Diversity of opinions lead to fair and balance report.  And interests of balance are better serve by openly partisan commentary than by traditional objective reporting.  An aggressive media, fuelled by greater emphasis on investigative journalism, can play a very positive role by exposing the shortcomings foibles and missteps of political leaders.  Unfortunately the opposition media are playing a negative role in Ethiopian politics.  Their radio stations outside Ethiopia are not widely listened and do not carry much clout, but to those who listen to them their innuendo makes it difficult to distinguish genuine criticism from hatred masked in criticism as they usually step beyond the bounds of acceptable journalistic language.  The hyperbolic statement and poison spewing from many of those so called community radio stations in North American provide more of a comic relief instead of credible information.

            I understand free speech does apply to a form of speech that one finds loathsome, otherwise there is no point to having it all.  But the opposition, media is more than a free medium.  They are conveying mega dose of intolerant messages towards the government.  That is, a degree of loathing and contempt of willful misinterpretation of events, which you would normally associate with propaganda about an enemy in wartime.  Through their websites, using metaphors and cryptic language, they communicate one message an “esoteric” one, for an elite of wise readers, “esoteric” one, for the unsophisticated general population.  Their radio stations count on an audience that thinks politics as trivial entertainment.  If we are to allow our political arguments to degenerate into mindless catch phrases and fifteen second sound bites how can we not expect the government to think in the same language?  The opposition media’s chronic practices of exaggerating problems the country faces is motivated by the principle” if enough mud is thrown some will stick”. 

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying the government is immune to mal-administration.  In an organization, that rules as big a country as Ethiopia, mistakes are made everyday.  But government should be judged not on whether mistakes are made, but on how problems and mistakes are identified and how they are connected.  After all, integrity and public trust are the foundations of democratic system.

2.         V.O.A. -  Weapon of Mass Deception

            Among the opposition media outlets, one stands out above all, that is,  the voice of America’s Amharic program. Unlike the other media platform, the V.O.A. is financed by the government of the United States to relay information and of course serve the interest of the host country.  It is taxpayer’s – funded medium that is supposed to represent the views of all Ethiopians.  But its employees are using it to promote their own political agenda.  The employees of the V.O.A. have never tried to hide their views towards the current Ethiopian government; to be frank they can’t stand it.  Although their rights not to like any government is well respected.  Using a radio station financed by the American taxpayers to relay propaganda against an elected government of Ethiopia, lacks journalistic ethics.  The V.O.A. newsreaders have cast aside any pretense of journalistic objectivity.  Their report is biased and lack accuracy and objectivity. What we expect from this station is to become an instrument of diversity of opinions.  But their reports and analysis are full of deliberate distortion exploited in a selectively self-serving way and stepping beyond the bounds of acceptable journalistic language. 

People demand accountability from governments and they expect the media to help hold politicians to their promises.  So I clearly understand the critical role media players in providing a window on government decision.  But the role being played by the likes of the V.O.A. is far from genuine journalism in every sense.  Its biased against Ethiopia in general and the government in particular, one reason audiences are turned off. 

            The V.O.A. has an implicit anti-Ethiopian slant in its coverage.  For example:

1.      the appearance of economic, political “quagmire” is reconstructed by their Dergophile V.O.A. journalists’ everyday.

2.      during the Ethio-Entrean conflict V.O.A. reporters were glorified stenographers of the regime in Entrea rather than critical journalist. When reporting about Entrea, all they do is repeat sometimes word by word what a spokesperson of the regime has to say.  When conducting an interview with Entrean officials, it is usually with care, not to offend the interviewee and hardcore, credible and legitimate questions are not the norm.   On the other hand, when reporting about Ethiopia, it is quite the opposite of the above. Government officials statements are rarely reported.  In fact, during the Ethio-Eritrean conflict, the V.O.A. deserves an award for best supporting actor (to the Eritrean government media). It displayed unprecedented cheerleading.

3.      It seldom raises or discusses important or credible issues but when it does, its panelists never include Ethiopian government officials or other individuals who would present arguments of the government side. When reporting about events in the country they are always searching for microscopic negatives.  When interviewing Ethiopian officials, it always sounds like an interrogation.

One would think, the V.O.A. reporters would learn the basic rules of balance journalism from other media outlets.  Well, I guess it is true what they say, “you can’t teach old dogs new tricks”.  Apparently, the V.O.A. reporters would rather spend their time searching for microscopic negatives about the country than develop some journalistic skills.  Their conveniently selected guests rather than debating governments policies; they spend their airtime to launch a rhetorical cream pie at this or that government officials.

C. What is left with of the Opposition Media filler?

Here is what went right and still going… the opposition media for obvious reasons focus too much on “what went wrong….”  their daily bread and butter. That is natural in a way.  Bad news is usually more interesting than good. Bad news can also yield good results.  If the media doesn’t exposed scandals, corruption would flourish etc… even so, our natural tendency to focus on what went wrong sometimes makes us ignore what went right.  Although the opposition media seldom talk about it, there is quite a lot of good news in Ethiopia.

            To begin with our country, has become steadily more democratic which enjoy electoral democracy and broad civil liberties.  For freedom to be effective of course, has to be accompanied by basic social safety net.  The country is advancing like gangbusters on many social issues.  According to a recent survey by UNICEF fewer and fewer children are dying in their earliest vulnerable years because of better health care.  The proportion of children going to school has increased from 34% in 1991 to over 61% in 2003.  Post secondary education enrolment has gone up by 400%.  The proportion of access to Clearwater has shown remarkable increase.  Major diseases such as small fox, polio, measles, etc. have been either vanquished or are being fought with effective health programs.

            Despite the scourge of HIV/AIDs and devastating drought the economy keeps chugging along at a respectable phase.  According to ECA annual survey, except for the last year, the country’s economy has been growing at an annual average rate of 6.8%.  Perhaps, the most proud moment of Ethiopian’s nowadays has been the people’s and the government’s response to natural disaster.  For example, in 1984 about 8 million of our people were affected by devastating drought and civil war.  Then over a million of our compatriots perished. Comparatively, in 2000 about 14 million of our people was in danger of starvation because of drought.  Despite the war with Eritrea, famine was averted.  Compared to 1984, in 2000 only 1681 died.  In 2003 and yet another drought put about 13 million of our people at risk of starvation. But the people and the government along with the international community have successfully tackled the problem.  According to NGOs this time about 720 died.  But even that was linked to logistic problems rather than negligence. In general, Ethiopians have never had it so good.   It is timely to remember our collective responsibilities to protect and promote the health of our democracy.  And the media should play its part by defending Ethiopians collective rights to know. 

The Koreans refer to the power of language: “A good word is analogous to a tree with firm roots on the ground spreading its branches to the heavens providing fruit and shelter to many.”  “A harmful word is akin to sticky plant with shallow roots, yielding bitter fruit.”   We can continue to use superficial, injurious terminology to the detriment of many or we can insist on using accurate language firmly rooted in universal concepts that nourish the desire for fair and frank debate.

VI.  Recognizing the Challenge

            We need to recognize that the relationship between us on one hand, and our leaders, on the other, is entirely symbiotic!  We provide these people with perk of authority and ego-gratification; they provide us with the illusion that somebody knows what goes on and we will be safe.  Bur our leaders can’t always fulfill their part of the bargain.  When this happens we have to extract ourselves from this false bargain and re-assert our responsibility to our own future.  In other words, if we can’t count on our leaders we have to get more involved in making critical decisions ourselves.  In order for this to happen we have to ensure the revitalization of our democratic institutions so that the average citizen can participate more efficiently in governance.  The realization of such politically active society requires among other things a strong opposition whose mission isn’t merely to win power, but also to give legs to new debate on important issues and building the capacity to challenge the government.

            Ethiopia is a quirky place where the past and the future co-habit.  But we don’t want our country to be the land of conformity; we want to be believers as well as skeptics.  We need a political culture that will assist us in the quest for truth, order and stability, respect for tradition and love of country.  But we shouldn’t be suspicious of innovation for the sake of novelty.  Our objective should be to strengthen the nation through democratization.  Bur we shouldn’t also expect democracy parachuting from the sky like a relief package.

A.   Building A Winning Coalition

            Ethiopian deserve a competitive political environment in which alternative political parties could flourish.  The current dialogue among the opposition is a positive step towards building that alternative should the Ethiopian people seek for it.  But for the opposition to succeed they must recognize the basic values and principles that reflect economic freedom, personal liberty and social responsibility.  They should be well-intentioned idealists in pursuit of noble principles.  They should enhance the struggle to balance the dual, existential imperatives of security and democracy.

            Here is the problem facing the opposition.  On the whole, Ethiopian are quite happy”  maybe they shouldn’t be.  Maybe they are too easily pleased, unaware of how much better life could be or may be they are in denial.  Nevertheless they pronounce themselves satisfied.  Among the predictors of such contendness are sense of social mobility and sense of being in control of ones own life.  People who, for one reason or another, feel they are masters of their own fate are likely to be happier than people who feel helpless to alter events.  The opposition need to recognize this reality and change its Orwellian attitude toward politics and embrace the concept of existential struggle.  It needs to de-theorize its politics and recognize the concept of political pluralism unless this done, the world of the opposition shall continue in its current state of denial that breed bigotry and ignorance.

            There has been much public discussion of late regarding the new opposition party that would result from coming together of many opposition groups.

            Now that there is a tentative agreement among the opposition parties promises a new and better era in Ethiopia’s political order.  The formation of such coalition comprising parties of all political spectrums will give a strong voice to those who hold views different than the government; who longed for a coherent national opposition to express their views and take on the EPRDF; to provide competent competition and choice.  It is something the opposition failed to understand until now.  In the short term the unity of parties might not make much difference.  But in the long-run it will re-engage the person, which has long been fed up with the opposition for failing to be a realistic alternative to the governing party.

            Ethiopians have been waiting more than a decade for a true national opposition party.  Yet it is unrealistic to think that this new coalition could defeat the EPRDF in the next election expected in May 2005, but it might set the stage for real competition for the election beyond 2005 with the possibility of unseating the governing party.  A choice between prospective governing parties is crucial to a healthy democracy.  And so the opposition is to be congratulated for getting this far.  But concerns are being expressed about policy and the direction the new entity will ultimately take.

            The opposition is right to observe there are problems with Ethiopia’s democratic system. But it also fails to realize the fact that Ethiopia of 2003 so little resembles the Ethiopia of 1991.  Back then a protest party made sense because it was a time of uncertainty.  Today’s reality is quite different.  And so pessimism is hopelessly out of fashion.  Even the persistent drought, AIDS and global economic slowdown proved in capable of generating a respectable level of gloom.

Building a winning Coalition

            Ethiopian’s by and large, are quite optimistic these days.  But the opposition still routinely decries a country that doesn’t measure up to.  Moreover, the opposition has never demonstrated a comfort level with the kind of issues that have to dominate the public agenda.  There in lies the real challenges for the newly formed Alliance leadership – how to fashion a positive appeal for more optimistic times while still differentiating themselves from the governing party.  They need to speak less about Ethiopia going to hell in a hand basket and more about how we can take the next step to greatness.

            Ethiopian’s would be better served by strong opposition using a clear voice to present a principled alternative should the public need it.  Although policies evolve over time, they must be led by the broader purpose of nation building.  The opportunity before the opposition is enormous and exciting.  Being innovative and adept in responding to the needs of the people will determine its success.  Ethiopians want moderate, tolerant and inclusive policies that reflect their values.

B.     The Coalition’s Long March

            Defining the policy direction and leadership of this new party will determine its fate.  A successful political party recognizes and acts upon the nation’s priorities with measured, costed policy initiatives that enjoy broad approval. But a party must also be able to lead.  It must attempt to forge a consensus where there is none, and balance interests and display intelligence and vision.  It must have solid defensible and pragmatic ideas.  Having a vision is not enough; you have to come up with the nuts and bolts.  Points of basic value that should be addressed by the Opposition:

a)                 Clear political mission.  The Ethiopian people need to know, smart concrete policies.  That can be advanced as part of long-run evolution toward a more balanced, democratic society.

b)                 An inspiring, unifying movement:  The opposition’ needs to win the active support of those who believe most passionately in a better and more just society.  Part of this involves rebuilding the opposition’s credibility on policy issues.

The opposition raison d’ ‘etre  is to search for constructive projects,

Such as: 

Individual freedom:  that is competent with safe and orderly society;

National security: Ethiopia must maintain sovereignty over her own affairs with a strong well-funded military.

Social responsibility  – Public service such as education and health care should be the main primary responsibility of the government.

Good governance -  The people should’ve the right to demand honesty, fairness, transparency and frugality from the government.

Federalism – We celebrate the diverse character of our country.  And so we should recognize the principle of equality of all regions and their autonomy within their constitutional jurisdiction, as fundamental characteristic of our federal structure.  Therefore hold the promise of improving, not destroying confederation.

Foreign Policy – We need an independent foreign policy guided by a desire to promote the country’s national interest.

Economic Policy – We should be concerned on to spur greater economic equity, reduce the level of object poverty and reverse the growing chasm between rich and poor.

It is time the opposition devote its energy to promote impartial excellence in the Ethiopian politics – tolerant pluralism in public policy, responsible freedom in civil society and just plain old-fashioned human decency.