CUD is Spirit, So is OLF !!!

When I first heard the phrase 'Kinijit is spirit', I was not impressed at all. I took it to be a strategic catch phrase to remain in peoples' heart, if not self promotion. It took me months to realize Kinijit is indeed spirit. For different people, this spirit means different things. Without being very judgmental or controversial, let me try characterize this spirit.

The Kinjit spirit has won the hearts of millions of Ethiopians in build up for Election May 2005. It was a symbol of democracy, accountability, prosperity, victory, unity .... Above all it symbolized hope and renaissance for many, after years of disappointment. In a very short period of time, it achieved what can only be described as a 'political miracle'. It has inspired and moved even those who equated 'politics with electricity'. How much of the votes really went to Kinijit being a separate issue, the number seats in the regional and national parliaments attributed to Kinijit by the election commission could only be taken as an astounding victory.

What made Kinijit so successful would lead us to endless debates. Here are some of the points for me, in decreasing order of significance

1 - The attitude of many towards ethnic politics
2 - The failings of EPRDF (both real and perceived)
3 - The eloquence of some of its leaders (specifically Dr. Birahanu Nega and Lidetu Ayalew)
4 - The short time span between the establishment of Kinijit and the election date (I saw this only in hindsight)

I have consciously avoided the idea of this spirit representing or being supported by all Ethiopians. The election results clearly show that the support came from regions where people tend to support 'homogeneous Ethiopia' as opposed to regions where people would rather enjoy their own autonomous rule or even secede. That would roughly amount to half of the population. Kinjit was a 'spirit' for these people, rather than a political entity. Whoever carries this Kinijit torch would surely have a big negotiating power; that is exactly what is going to keep the 'kinijit spirit' alive for a long time to come. Any individual / group would be fool to disassociate themselves from this 'high valued political brand'.

Let's take the two biggest regions of Ethiopia - Amhara and Oromia. While Kinijit 'won' the election in the former, EPRDF 'won' in the latter. Many in the Kinijit camp conveniently avoid to explain why this came about. Do people in Amhara region have more resentment towards EPRDF - I hardly think so. The actual reason behind is simply the conditions in Oromia did not allow a viable opposition to form or to operate in the region. This is by no means belittling the works of ONC and OFDM; I actually appreciate and respect the people behind these organizations very much. Beside the conditions not allowing them to be as successful, they were and and will continue to be shadows of the equivalent of the 'kinijit spirit' in Oromia. This spirit is called OLF. The 'OLF spirit' represents all the good values the Kinijit spirit represents; though for its followers - in my humble opinion - the big majority of Oromos.

As much as the Kinijit spirit is not one and the same as CUD, the OLF spirit is also not necessarily the political party (liberation front) OLF. I could say the same thing about the 'somali spirit' in Ogaden or other regions in the country. As size always matters, the Kinijit and OLF spirits would always continue to be at the fore front of political discussions in our Ethiopia. It is in fact a pity that the OLF spirit does not enjoy as much coverage as it deserves. That can also be seen as a strategic failure of its leaders.

I see the basis for the formation of democratic and stable Ethiopian only when all all stakeholders representing different people (and ideologies) sit together and start talking about what is best for the people they claim to represent. The population dynamics dictates that these two spirits are the ones to contend with. Efforts like AFD and commendable only in the sense that people with such contrasting agendas sat together. Otherwise, the principle upon which they are formed (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), does not take anyone anywhere.

As an Ethiopian caring for his / her country, I would not like these two big spirits fall on to the wrong hands. While it is difficult to define what 'wrong' is, I pray that the leadership struggle in these movements produce reasonable leaders who are at least willing to acknowledge the overwhelming existence of the other. To be fair, this is more of a problem in the Kinijit spirit.

As the Kinijit spirit is the one in a bigger trouble right now, I would try to post a few more words about its leadership crisis soon. Whenever I think of the historic responsibility the leaders of this movement carry, I wonder how they manage to be willing to carry so much burden. I could not formulate it in better words than what Dr. Birhanu said about him being taken to jail.

Though they may have not realized it at that time, the CUD leaders were indeed right to say that 'Kinijit is spirit'. Well I say, so is OLF !

Somalia Once Again

It seems that the Somalian crisis is gradually fading in our memories even though the situation on the ground has not improved much. I sincerely hope that Somalians finally agree to form a democratic government; and finally work together for their common livelihood.

The swift military victory of Ethiopian forces against the UIC has surprised every body – a casual observer like me, „western military analysts“, or even Ethiopian authorities. I bet every one of us felt a little proud of our brave soldiers. I only wish that we feel half as delighted when the IMF applauds our economic achievements.

On the positive side, the Somalian intervention has steered probably the most mature dialogue in contemporary Ethiopian politics. As some fanatic opposition leaders failed once again to differentiate between Ethiopian interests and EPRDF / Meles. For some, whatever comes out of Meles’ leadership is evil even when the fact basically is what they would have been more aggressive done if they were in his shoes. On the other side of the camp, many tried to equate whoever opposed to the aggression (or call it „invited intervention“) is the enemy of Ethiopia. I still salute those opposition politicians who eloquently expressed their opposition to the operation.

I don’t feel any less Ethiopian when I expressed my doubts about

- the long term impact of the military intervention with respect to our relation with the Somalians and the Arab and Muslim world in general.

- the fact that the government has (at least for the local press) made it clear that they were aiming at two birds – the terrorist UIC and Ethiopian opposition fronts (OLF and ONLF).

- the direct economic burden to support a military operation in such a big country like Somalia as well as the indirect effects on our economy (tourism and repulsion of investment)

- whether a military victory solves the Ogaden Issue

I don’t want to write poems or sing tunes about those brave soldiers who paid in their precious lives in the interests of our Ethiopia when I very well know that the closet I can get to the war is seeing graphic pictures on my screen. I am not a pacifist, nor am I the type who offers the left chick when slapped on the right. The world has not reached to the level of solving their differences around the table either. But let’s for once not expect poor boys who have no other choices to go out and die for our comfort. Do you remember „kemayireba shiro yishalal shiraro“? Anyway that is hardly an Ethiopian phenomenon.

Though a few Ugandan soldiers have already arrived in Somalia, there is a long way to go. I believe that the Ethiopian government has been doing a lot of good foot work in the African diplomatic circle. Not surprisingly, our brave soldiers – those unfortunate brothers and sisters of ours – have to face the hardship longer than they ever imagined. I seriouly doubt if the African Union will ever be able to successfully mount any peace keeping operation by all by itself given its dire financial resources.

Let’s Not Rush into War

Let me start by thanking Ethiopia First for giving the current issue of Ethiopia vs Mogadishu Jihadists the appropriate emphasis. It is also very encouraging to see that the distinction between party politics and issues of national interest getting clearly outlined. I will try to raise some points which, I think, were overlooked while most of us were busy showing our proud culture of rallying together against external aggressors.

The leaders of UIC in Mogadishu have made their intention about Ethiopian Somali areas crystal clear from the beginning. But so is their intention towards Somalis in Kenya. I have not heard much about their stand about Djibouti, even though half of that country is ethnic Somalis and they are represented by one of points of 5 edges on the star in Greater Somalia’s flag. I have no reason to believe that south eastern Ethiopia means more than north eastern Kenya to a Somali nationalist. Yet the tension with Kenya is surprisingly lower than that of with Ethiopia. We have to ask ourselves if the way we (or the Ethiopian government) have been dealing with situation has something to do with the whole drama. Let’s ask ourselves what the Kenyans have done so that they are not as threatened as we are. Besides, Puntland and Somaliland would be the first obvious targets for a Somali nationalist starting from Mogadishu unless otherwise we polarize them by declaring our readiness for war every now and then.

EPRDF, in particular Meles, is trying to exploit this unholy confrontation with Somali Jihadists in more ways than one. It is unfortunate that they are putting the interests of the country that they are leading well after their party’s and personal ambitions to stay in power or to have the backing of the West as anti-terror champions. The west has time and again shown that they want to paint the conflict merely as a battle ground for Ethiopia and Eritrea while secretly hoping that Ethiopia fights their war against any advances by Muslim extremists in the horn of Africa. I doubt if Ethiopia can cleverly manipulate the West, like Pakistan is doing, so that the country benefits economically by being an ally for the “war on terror”. Contrary to what we would like to believe, we are not that strategically important for the USA.

It seems that the threat of war brings many Ethiopians of differing opinions together better than anything else. I can only hope that this readiness to defend our motherland moves on to our other enemies like poverty, AIDS … In all the opinions I have heard or read, not a single person is unaware of the cruel casualties that could follow. Our fathers have bravely fended off different aggressions with far superior ammunition. That does not mean that bravery is enough to go through a devastating war in these modern days. It is now all about economy! I don’t have to say a thing about how good our economy is to finance the smallest of wars. Let’s not also forget who could be behind the UIC – it will not be Eritrea alone. It is not only the question of how many years of economic development we will waste; I don’t see why we are certain of a victory at the end should a war break out.

That brings me to the implications of this conflict. The cause is clearly a border conflict between two neighboring countries that happen to have people speaking the same language on both sides of the border. But that unfortunately is only the tip of the iceberg. We have historically been seen as the Christian enemy of Somalia even though only about 10% of Kenyans are Muslim, where as the percentage is 5 times more in Ethiopia. So there is no way that we could avoid the involvement of Islamic powers (both moderate and extremist), if indeed the conflict escalates. Seeing that the West with all its resources have failed in such a situation, we can only ill afford to risk that. Being a half Muslim country, it is not the wisest thing to rush into a confrontation which can easily be, and is already, painted with religious colours.

I am not saying that there is no threat posed from UIC, I am only afraid that we are making this threat even more real and eminent by declaring our preparedness for war if need be. The instant reaction to Prime Minster Meles’ speech on the streets of Mogadishu testifies to that. Let’s debate the issue and see it from differing perspectives before we rush to show our “bravery and readiness to defend our mother land”.

Politics of Directions

I have always wanted to write about ideological differences in Ethipian politics. Recent editorials of my favourite Ethiopian paper, Addis Fortune, especially the one on Aug. 20th edition (Volume 7, Number 229) initiated this article.

The editorial eloquently summarizes the leftist ideology that has dominated Ethiopian politics from the old days of the popular student movement, which gave rise to most of the current prominent voices in the country. The media loves to associate political views with directions – left, center-left, ceter-right, right, ultra-right and what have you. I remember Addis fortune referring to the CUD as the social democrats and the EPRDF as the revolutionary democrats consistently.

Though I am not denying that there are some differences in the political views of the parties mentioned above and other prominent opposition leaders has elements of ‘being left and right’, that never really was the real difference between the parties. Let me give two examples.

We all know, at least seem to know, OLF and what the organization struggles for- do we? Is it for the independence of Oromia, or is it for the right for self-determination, or is it for the establishment of a federal system in Ethiopia? I am not trying to anylyse the stands of OLF. I just wanted to ask both the genuine supporters of OLF, and those opposing it, whether they really know anything about the economic policies the party. In fact, does it really matter whether OLF is friendly to the private sector or not. I bet, even the hard core supporters, and hard core opposition politicians alike, don’t have a clue.

Another case in point is, whether the amazing number of votes won by the opposition in the last election is really due to being on the right side of the political scale when compared to EPRDF. I seriously don’t think so. Another editorial from Addis fortune (Vol 7, Number 230) testifies to that. The editorial shows how the views of Birhanu Nega, Meles Zenawi, and Beyene Petros are not very different about the “developmental democratic state”.

Long before the election, I remember debates between the opposition about and the governing party about “Agriculture-led” and “Industry-led” development paradigms. I never really saw the real ideological difference between the debaters except the mottos. Every body was just emphasizing how important agro-industry to our economy is.

I find the association of political and/or economic ideologies with directions interesting and convenient. But being left, right or center, does not really characterize our politicians. The biggest conflicting ideology is actually the how group rights are viewed. That is the real issue that identifies our prominent players in the political arena. Those who are fond of the old Abyssinia (northern Ethiopia) argue that individual right are the key to a vibrant and successful society. Those who see the Abyssinian domination more as colonization see group rights as the absolute starting point before we talk about prosperity.

In order to keep the tradition of referring to political beliefs in easier directional terms, I would rather use the terms north and south, and as well center. Obviously, the north-most politicians are those who don’t even acknowledge that there have been tribal problems in our society. And the furthest south represents those who believe nothing other than independence cures hundred and plus years of wrong doing. I can only hope that we come to a certain understanding in this north-south division and I live to see people voting along left-right division. Let’s have fun in putting our politicians in the north-south scale for a change.

An Unfortunate Country of Extremists

I don't believe any one (or group) admits being extreme. While people from an opposing camp are always quick to label their opponents extremists. But who is extreme and who is not ? Is being extremist wrong ? Should extremists be tolerated ? What should one to prevent growing extremism ? These and other similar issues can be analysed in different ways under different settings.

The first paragraph I got from the English Wikipedia is a reasonably broad definition of the word extremism.

Extremism is a pejorative term used to characterise the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups as irrational, counterproductive, unjustifiable, or otherwise unacceptable to a civil society. It is typically used in reference to political and social ideologies which are far away from the perceived political center of a society, or otherwise are claimed to violate common standards of ethics and reciprocity.

Since it is not that easy to agree on a political center of a society, not even a perceived one, the term is usually applied to groups which advocate or use methods of aggression or violence in the hope that such will catalyse a desired political or social change (or otherwise will serve as retribution). On the other hand, not every body who raises arms is an extremist. There have always been justified armed struggles against oppressors.

Let's limit ourselves to the political situation of Ethiopia. It gets even more complex as we have a highly divided country in terms of opinion, interests, ethnic background, language, religion and what have you. Nationalism is a closely related concept, especially in our case. Many Ethiopians who are behind the “One Ethiopia” motto see nationalists as the biggest problem of the country. But nationalism, in the sense of looking for one's roots, being proud of and developing one's culture and language should not be considered a threat at all. Nationalism has in deed dire consequences when it is “narrow”.

Narrow nationalists are those who believe their population is better than others or those who see all people with other ethnic backgrounds as the "the enemy". And we should try to do every thing possible so that many people don't join that camp for whatever reason. That is actually easier than most people think in the case of our country – all it takes in listening to problems of people from other ethnic groups with heart and feel their pain.

The other form of extremism in our country which is less visible, but more dangerous is the “Abyssinian extremism”. These group of people don't even want to publicly admit that there has been ethnic oppression. Obviously, cure will not drop from the heavens before the disease is identified. I find this position extremely wrong as I don't want to live in a house without a foundation. It is not only that, these groups label everyone with a different opinion as Ethiopia's enemy. A country of about 80 ethnic groups can not be immune from conflicting, competing and self-centered outlooks. This class of extremism is very dangerous as it is based on giving deaf ears to the voice of others. One can not simply ignore voices from with in the group they claim to represent.

The current trend is very worrying. I see the number of people joining the extremist camps growing everyday. We are pushing each other away. More and more liberal people who are willing to entertain opposing ideas should come to the political front. Since masses usually follow few individuals, I don't believe that we have a problem in the large, but unfortunately extremely poor, uneducated rural population, as long as we agree on the “right compromises”. This brings me to our “educated, but annoyingly polar elite”. I should come to that point of education vs staying reasonable in another article.

May God lead us to the path of liberalism, tolerance and understanding.

Article 39

The most controversial item in the Ethiopian constitution is definitely article 39. For some it is the most sacred piece in the whole constitution, yet others vow to give their precious lives so that that article is taken out. I say it is NEITHER.

Let's first clear some common misunderstandings. Eritrea's independence (or separation from Ethiopia – whichever way you would like to look at it) has absolutely nothing to do with article 39. The Eritrean independence came after 30 years of bitter fighting. Eritrea was virtually a free country in 1991 – right after the fall of Dergue, and well before the the referendum in 1993. But the Ethiopian constitution was adopted in near the end of 1994.

On the other hand, the primary statement of article 39 reads

Every nation, nationality or people in Ethiopia shall have the unrestricted right to self determination up to secession.

Eritrea is not a country of a single nation or nationality – it is not a nation of Tigrinya speakers only. Therefore, the applicability of article 39 to the Eritrean case is also inherently questionable.

In the international scale too, the right to self determination is controversial if not well ever sidelined by many governments. It should be cautiously approached as it is tightly coupled with the notions of ethnic nationalism,whose disastrous side effects have been witnessed. History also shows that communists have always been friendlier to self determination in theory, though it has never been applied either in the former USSR or other socialist countries. Different international laws and the UN endorse this right, although the application has been restricted to widely accepted cases like decolonization.

Interestingly, many Ethiopian young scholars of the Dergue-EPRP era supported this idea, though they disapprove of it vehemently at the present time. We can not deny the right of people to decide their future. Just as much as respecting one's right to use their language, respecting their wish to self determination or eventual independence is vital in today's Ethiopia. But then, similar to the rest of the world, the issue should be approached with utmost care.

It is clear that the inclusion of this article in the constitution may encourage different ethnic groups to seek independence. In general, it is difficult to accept this as a positive trend in any country's history. On the other hand, now that it has been there on our country's constitution for more than a decade, the consequences are much worse if we do take that article out. Many nations and nationalities see it as a guarantee that they can decide to follow another path if things are not going along with their interests and wishes. This could, in fact, be the guarantee which could keep Ethiopia united. Of course, the proper respect for group rights plays a far more positive role in keeping everyone satisfied in being a part of the country.

Another point to that should be mentioned is whether the provision of such articles in a country's constitution does really matter when there is already a dissatisfied ethnic group fighting for either independence or more voice. Whether the Turkish parliament decides to include an 'article 39' in the Turkish constitution or not, the Kurdish people won't stop demanding more rights. In Ethiopia too, the questions asked by the Oromos, the Somalis, the Wolayitas and the others won't vanish along with the removal of article 39 from the constitution.

In conclusion, article 39 is an important part of Ethiopia's constitution, but it is neither the source of our problems nor the immediate solution. Our problems rather stem from our stubbornness not listen to feel the pain of our Ethiopian brothers and sisters, and the hate of dialogue instilled in our bloods. However, article 39 can be one of the first steps in bringing marginalized citizens nearer to the country.

Can Ethiopia be saved ?

Ethiopia has existed in its present form for about 120 years – a little less than 15 years to be more exact. For all practical purposes however, we can take the rise of Menelik II as the starting point the modern form of Ethiopia. A time of more than a century is not by any means small, especially in the African context, as today's African countries got their present form only after the colonial era.

The bitter reality is that we have not still found the working model of the country. We still have a big segment of the society - at least its supposed leaders, which refuse to understand the real composition of the country. And the other segments of the society are getting more fed up with the system every day and are increasingly looking for other alternatives, namely having their own independent country.

We are at a historical point, where the current generation faces tough challenges regarding the future of the country. We should listen to the voices from every corner of the country if we are to have a country with its current boundaries unaltered. Although it is getting difficult as every single day passes, I sill believe that there is sill a chance to save the country.

But why should the country be saved ? What is wrong with having 5 countries in what is today known as Ethiopia ? In principle, I don't see any problem at all. I am not of the opinion that this country is blessed or it's borders are drawn by the hands of angels. The only problem with the solution of separation is its feasibility. Here are some of the major difficulties.

Given the current reality it is not very easy to come up with divisions consisting groups of nations or nationalities who want to stay together. Even if that is achievable, the problem of people from other ethnic groups living in other parts of the country other than their own will still be a daunting homework.

The international community is not also ready to new borders drawn in one of the most volatile regions of the world – a case in point is Somaliland. The world would not accept more smaller and fighting nations in the horn of Africa.

So the only compelling reason to stay united is the difficulties associated with separation. But if we are to stay united, we should do it the right way – not the way it was done 100 years ago. No ethnic group should have an upper hand in the country. We have to come up with a system where every one, irrespective of their ethnic background, feel the country is theirs and should be given the chance to promote their culture and language.

Right now the biggest challenge is the fact that political power is in the hands of extremists. If only we have liberal people who are ready to listen to others and feel the pain of others to the political platform, the country can be saved. By the way, when I say saving the country, I don't mean at all protecting the 'God-given borders' or maintaining its present form. I mean saving the people in that land from fighting one other and hazards of nature. Nature has not been kind to us – the only way we overcome the recurring drought is through hard work. Unfortunately, we can't put our forces together and fight poverty and AIDS until we solve our organizational/political problems.

The way I see it, an Oromo very much passionate about the Gada system could be primarily regareded as an Oromo. By the same token, a Tigre/Amhara equally passionate about the Axum monument could primarily be considered as a Tigre/Amhara. But both can be Ethiopians with with different backgrounds. The key point here is, the Tigre/Amhara should talk about 'our Gada system', when he/she is talking to e.g. a European. I also expect the Oromo to say 'our Axum'. Of course, when it comes to details, they could talk about the fact that the Axum monument or the Gada system represent only parts of the country.

It is obvious that this is hardly enough. But it is a beginning – a sort of a small test of being Ethiopian, if you like. Only when everyone from that land believes that there is a future in that land, can Ethiopia be saved. We should be open to talk about the how we should achieve that goal. It is a process – it can not be achieved in a short time, but we should start laying the foundations. All level-minded individuals should discuss about it and see if it works. Right now, I believe that the path leading to one Ethiopia, but a new Ethiopia, is our best option. But if someone can convince me that separation is the way, I am read to listen. It is high time that we reject ideas only because they don't suit us.