Part 1 Mathza_Haimanot

OPPOSITIONS DURING EPRDF ETHIOPIA

By Mathza, (Originally posted at Aiga, March 25, 2004)

PART I: POLITICS AND DEMOCRACY

A: Ethnic-based Federalism

The bogus statements that Ethiopians were always united, that they enjoyed harmonious co-existence, that they were happy under the previous governments, that all Ethiopians enjoyed equality, etc., are all lies. Why the proliferation of ethnic-based liberation fronts and movements if such was the case? The truth is the country was held together by force, not voluntarily, a situation which was likely to explode any time with dire consequences. It is apparent to those with open mind that federation based on nations and nationalities is an ingenious mechanism that saved the country from dismemberment. That this is so was confirmed by the May (2003) scholars National Conference on Federalism, Conflict and Peace Building. The German Ambassador to Ethiopia expressed the support of the federal system by the international community by saying: “inspite of the manifold challenges, Ethiopia's decision to embark on the road to federal democracy was a bold endeavor and admired by its friends and partners.” What is surprising and disgusting is the chauvinists and their supporters insisting on reverting to some sort of the older system of government knowing fully well and ignoring the fact that there is no turning back the clock.

Reversing the ethnic-based federal system is neither desirable nor possible. The nationalities and states have tasted the sweetness and advantages of the decentralized system, currently being extended to the woreda level. Decentralization has already taken place in 478 woredas where elections were held. How on earth will they give up the equality they enjoy and the freedom they never ever had or experienced to use and develop their languages, practice their customs, govern themselves all the way down to the qebele level, use the resources available to them according to the priorities determined by themselves, for themselves, etc.? They will not, period. Fantasizing to dismantle the ethnic-based federal system is tantamount to conspiring to create chaos in, dismember and jeopardize the very survival of the country. The Ethiopian people will hold the conspirators responsible for such heinous treachery.

On the contrary, the Ethiopian model of federalism is attracting the attention of neighboring countries. In Somalia, delegates currently negotiating the future of Somalia agreed on a federal system. This means a clan-based federal system. In Eritrea, according to the Eritrean Federal Democratic Movement (EFDR) “the Eritrean nationalities can rule themselves by themselves and evolve in their own cultural, political, economic and social options.” Details of the EFDR proposals, which EFDR considers most appropriate for Eritrea, show close resemblance to the Ethiopian federal system. The Eritrean Independent Democratic Movement’s (EIDM) concept for federal republican governance in Eritrea appears to be not very different from that of EFDR. The Kunama nationality want “Ethno-Federalism,” autonomy within the state of Eritrea. Outside Africa, ethnic federalism seems to be attracting attention. Afghanistan and Iraq are likely candidates. According to the Transitional Administrative Law, Iraq intends to opt for a federal arrangement.

The oppositions want to convince us that ethnic federalism is a monster that should be nipped in the bud. How honest are those who falsely accuse the government of purposely designing and implementing ethnic federalism in order to dismember the country? Have countries, such as Switzerland, India, Canada, Belgium and the United Kingdom experienced dismemberment because of their ethnic federalism? It does not take a genius to realize that Ethiopia would have been doomed to disintegration had not such a system been adopted, thanks to the current government. They tell us that the dangerous situation the country was in around the time of the fall of the Derg regime could have been averted. They even argue that, for Eritrea to gain its independence, a condition should have been imposed in regard to access to the sea, retaining Assab. This is purely hoodwinking the people that the EPLF would accede to such a demand. It would have meant resumption of war with Eritrea at a crucial time of uncertain and dangerous political transition. Continuing war with Eritrea would have emboldened ethnic-based liberation fronts to take advantage and intensify their military activities. EPRDF forces could not have contained the numerous conflicts that would have, surely, engulfed the country. The very existence of the nation was at stake. This would have, obviously, been the end of Ethiopia, There was the possibility of Ethiopia confronting the fate of the former Yugoslavia. Worse still, it could have been fragmented into a number of war-lords controlled areas, like those in Somalia. Many were foretelling doom and gloom and wishing and hopefully anticipating that this would happen. Total disintegration of the country would have been imminent had one or a group of the oppositions were in the place of EPRDF and introducing cosmetic changes in governance.

A limited number of the oppositions reject outright the ‘first ethnicity/second Ethopianess’ concept. One writer contrasted this concept to that expressed by a Kurdistani opposition party spokesman who declared “First I am an Iraqi citizen, then a Kurdistani.” Which one is natural and appealing to the people, the EPRDF’s or the Kurdistani’s who apparently did not represent the sentiment of his people as current circumstances show? The natural evolution route to state formation could be roughly depicted by family-village-clan-tribe-nation-state/country or equivalent terms, the nation being a homogeneous (ethnic) society with a territory and common history, culture, language, etc. With few exceptions, such as Somalia where the natural evolution has regressed to the clan level, the citizenry of most countries comprise more than one nation (ethnic groups). Whether one admits it or not it is natural for persons to identify themselves with the homogeneous group they belong to. To impose the ‘first Ethiopianess’ approach, which a few of the oppositions want cannot work any more, because it is against nature and is a fait accompli. The most sensible thing to do is to facilitate for nations to unite voluntarily as is being done by the present government. In this 21st century, short of this means inviting trouble and break up of the country. In view of this reality how can one advocate reverting to the ‘first Ethiopianess’ approach knowing fully well it will be vehemently opposed and therefore will not work unless one has a hidden sinister agenda to dismantle the country?

With respect to the right to self-determination, including the right to secession (Article 39 of the constitution), they claim that the Ethiopians have rejected it. When did this happen? What means was used, polling, referendum? This is a typical example of sweeping generalizations out of the blue which is ubiquitous in the writings and speeches of the oppositions. There is no reason for any nation and nationality to demand for secession as long as the federal system works without interfering in state and local affairs. With devolution of power to the qebele level, the peoples’ fears and suspicions of and objections to the former domineering, demeaning, discriminatory and exploitative systems have evaporated and are no longer valid. Besides, meeting the elaborate conditions for secession, a complex process requiring a three-year period, would not be easy. By the way, the possibility for secession serves as both deterrent and incentive to the federal government not to intervene (except for peace and security related situations, as is the case in the United States) in the internal affairs of the states, thereby ensuring their genuine autonomy.

So far, there has never been any indication for secession, except by those losing separatists, the-so-called liberation fronts. These are the few (among many of the fronts) who continued to pursue their separatist objectives after the present government took over. It is mind-boggling to understand their insisting on secession when all their complaints are no longer valid and when the trend in the twenty-first century world is clearly toward countries forming unions and political and economic blocks to ensure first their survivals and second their development. Take the OLF, for instance. According to a summary of a book by Gadaa Melbaa, the OLF “seeks equality, human dignity, democracy, freedom and peace.” Are not these among those that the incumbent government has been doing and continues to do? Any way, as the oppositions ceaselessly assert that the people are against ethnic-based federation, why not find out if this is the case. A referendum could be conducted. It could be done with marginal cost to the tax payer if carried out at the next election. It is very unlikely that this would be palatable to the oppositions.

The unity of the country is being threatened not by the present government but by the oppositions themselves. They spread endless venomous Ethno-phobia aimed at inciting violence and creating conflicts. They are biased and do and say things designed to incite people to create chaos. They use individuals and groups to do the dirty work for them. The recent student unrest in Addis Ababa University and Oromia State is a case in point. Some of them even sympathize with and some times defend separatists, thereby encouraging the latter to continue their belligerency. They do the same thing with the external enemies of the country. They accuse the government of pitching one ethnic group against another. Their agenda is to destabilize and bring about confusion in the country and in the process take over the power they covet so much. They do not care about the consequences as long as there is a glimmer of hope, a chance in a million, to seize power.

From a safe distance (out of harms way) and comfortable living, those in the Diaspora have nothing to loss if civil war, which they wish for, breaks out in the country. They are blind and selfish; they are obsessed with grabbing power at any cost; they exemplify the donkey that declared ‘enie kemotku serdo aybqel’ (let no grass grow after I die). It is because of them that tiny Eritrea’s Isayas dared to invade territories administered by Ethiopia. He miscalculated that he cloud create instability leading to the dismemberment of Ethiopia knowing and depending on the blind ambitions of the oppositions. He did not realize that the oppositions did not have followers to do this and that the Ethiopian people would rally as usual to defeat an external invader. What is worrying is that each and every one of the oppositions’ leaderships, entertaining differing objectives and concepts of system of government, is obsessed and dreams of occupying the highest post in government. If the current government were to hand over power to them or if they come to power on their own, be they as single or a group, they would surely be at one others’ throats and plunge the country into chaos and disintegration. Some of them would surely try to revert to the old administrative system with some cosmetic changes. By the way, as most of the Diaspora members of the oppositions are citizens of their respective adapted countries, do they have the right to interfere in the political affairs of Ethiopia where dual citizenship is not allowed? Does the United States’ law, for example, allow its citizens to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries? Readers will, surely, be interested to read articles on this by persons with expertise in international law.

Let it be known that those who advocate to change the present system are the ones who are preparing the ground for dismantling the country and not those practicing the system which has the acceptance and support of the peoples and nationalities of Ethiopia as evidenced by two elections. Look at the reconciliation and maturity of different groups, the realignment and coalescing of parties and organizations that took place in the Afar, Somali, Benishangul-Gumuz, and Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples States (SNNPS) bringing more stability to their respective states. The latest is the reorientation of the 20 member political parties of the South Ethiopia Peoples' Democratic Front (SEPDF) to form the South Ethiopia Peoples Democratic Movement (SEPDM). The negative attitude (mainly instigated by separatists) of some officials and persons in some states that was apparent during the early formative years of the federal system are of less concern now. Such concerns (excluding some anomalies, such as those in Gambella State) are becoming increasingly insignificant over time with growing understanding of democracy and maturity and the understanding of the advantages derived from practicing the evolving democratic system.

The coming into existence of UEDF, the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces, should be welcomed. The need and significance of the word “forces” is, however, not clear as it connotes or is associated with military. UEDF is a marriage of convenience, a coalition comprising fifteen disparate political groups whose main and common goal is to oust the current government in the 2005 election. Its declared goal is to bring about a “democratic, just and united Ethiopia” as if the current government is not doing just that. Most of its eight cardinal principles, except that on replacing the present government, are the same as those of EPRDF; the rest are aimed at improving on and furthering what EPRDF itself has done, is doing and will, surely, continue to do. From this it follows that the UEDF does not seem to have policy alternates distinctly different from those of EPRDF except those referring to land tenure and ethnic-based federation. If the coalition pracices internal democracy and behaves and conducts itself in a peaceful and civilized manner and norms it could prove beneficial in contributing to furthering the process of democratization in Ethiopia. The Citizens League of Ethiopian-Americans (CLEA) protest over US Congress bill H.R. 2760 aimed at depriving Ethiopia of American development assistance is an exemplary concern of and support for the well-being of the Ethiopian people that the UEDF could and should emulate. If it follows the past and present path of its constituent parts (lies, omissions, exaggerations, public misinformation, etc., to score shortsighted political gains) and create obstacles to development, with the intent of snatching power, it will end up being a curse to the people and the country.

The May 2005 elections will show how much support the UEDF can garner, not outside but inside Ethiopia where the votes count. The over 67 parties already registered to take part in the elections will have access to financial resources and the media during the election campaigns. The big question is, with so many parties entertaining diametrically opposite political concepts, ideologies, policies, strategies and tactics, coupled with the obsession of each of the 15 leaders of UEDF to become the prime minister (power struggle), it is difficult to see how their government could survive, assuming they win the election. They will go their separate ways and undermine whoever takes the premiership as they do now with the current government. This is already happening as evidenced by the recent row between AEUO and UEDF.

One welcome byproduct of the formation of the UEDF is the renouncement of violence and armed struggle by some movements and fronts. The Afar Revolutionary Democratic Union Front (ARDUF) was the latest to do this.

(To be continued)