The last hurrah - a storm in a tea cup!

By Metahara Akafete “It now seems to me beyond any plausible likelihood that the EPRDF government can re-establish its position as an acceptable public authority – entirely regardless of whether that authority be democratic or not. On the contrary, it has now reached the point, reached by the imperial and Derg regimes before it, at which its authority has withered away, and cannot be recovered. It has lost ‘the mandate of heaven’, and in these circumstances, only three possible outcomes remain: The EPRDF government might leave power peacefully. This is obviously the best outcome, even though there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the government would be prepared to accept it….Now that Meles Zenawi has effectively burnt any bridges that he might have opened with the opposition, it is clearly in the broader interests both of Ethiopia and of the international community that he should be persuaded to go. The government might leave power violently. There is a very strong possibility that continuing and escalating conflict in the towns might either spread to the countryside...or be reflected in the armed forces’ unwillingness to persist with further repression. Indeed, some kind of forcible showdown seems to me to be the most likely outcome, however horrifying it might be. The government might succeed in retaining its hold on power, in the process converting itself into an overtly repressive regime…..The attempt to do so would be counterproductive!….and would only eventually result in its overthrow by progressively more violent means…In short, the transition in Ethiopia is already under way, and the concern both of Ethiopians and of the international community should be to do whatever they can to make it as quick and as peaceful as possible.” These are not prophesies etched on granite! They are excerpts from the 14th November, 2005 “Comments on the Ethiopian Crisis” by Prof. Christopher Clapham, Center of African Studies, University of Cambridge. If you will, they are the apocalyptic prophesy of one who has been closer to home given his one time association with “realities” in Ethiopia. But, unbecoming of a seasoned intellectual, he threw his lot with the vested interest of reactionaries as their apologist and now plays to their tune. Thus, with the magic touch of his baffling charade, he currently strives to legitimize stereotypes with academic wand without a shred of factual evidence. A diametrically different dimension is the position of Prof. Paul B. Henz who in the 14th November, 2005 "COMMENTS ON COMMENTS upheld that: "I consider Christopher Clapham's judgment of the current Ethiopian post-electoral crisis too categorical, too negative a review of EPRDF history and performance, and too charitable in its assessment of opposition motivation and behavior. The fact the EPRDF has been 14 years in power does not justify an attempt to replace it by resort to extra-legal methods or incitement to violence.” But, in spite of such forewarning, his ‘profound’ Comment appeared with a splash! The simple logic is that while governments come and go, violence nor dictatorship could be options when there is the mass base of the once oppressed and the exploited people that have waged bitter struggle to come up on top over both archaic and fascist regimes. Now, they are bent on the consolidation of their empowerment and not send down the drain the democratic gains attained so far. Accordingly, they are fortified by the incumbent government, the EPRDF, and other democratic organizations to safeguard their rights enshrined in the Constitution. Against this background and long after the election was over or notwithstanding the fact that there is now a dully constituted government in place, he adamantly persisted at the attack on the government, the leadership and the people with vehemence. The intention can be nothing but the entrenchment of reaction with residues of past regimes and remnants of the Derg in the frontline or the continuation of the "struggle" - die-hard reactionaries style. It is, however, difficult to even contemplate that he is oblivious of these forces that have long suffered from grandeur complex of a sort with what is a romanticized but convoluted so-called history. Therefore, given their lopsided nostalgia for the defunct past, they made it their sworn singular duty and ultimate aim to shred the Constitution. Then came along his kind of apologists, albeit the ephemeral and belated attempt to create the smoke screen to rationalize and legitimize sedition. Therefore, the disruption of peace as a prelude to illegal seizure of power and establishment of a monolithic Ethiopia was accordingly lauded. Conversely, the occasion at the time certainly demanded the concerted effort of all to calm the troubled waters of Ethiopian politics. It, therefore, follows that a more sober look at the whole paraphernalia of Ethiopian political landscape should have been sought. This is specially the case when focused attention is given to make up for lost time through increased momentum in development. Yet, with rhythmic sympathy, and that to post-mortem, as though nothing has happened or by turning the hand of time with some magical incantation, he tells us, in so many words, the strategic options that the opposition has that: “The resort to peaceful demonstrations and boycotts is an obvious compromise for it to follow, even though there is an evident danger that these may get out of hand, and result in looting or violence.” Sadly, it is looting and violence thas was witnessed recently in which the "protest vote" had little hand! It cannot be denied that frustrated by the limited employment opportunities and/or poor financial rewards by the dead-end jobs, some unemployed elements registered their dissent, no matter what the form. The hooligans, on the other hand, unleashed looting. They violently struck at anything that is imagined or real. This was accomplished in a classical display of anarchy that was orchestrated and fuelled by the incitation of the hard-liners. This was regardless of the restraint shown by the government. Ultimately, and on their account, came the disruption of peace, the loss of life, damage to property etc. Unless one seeks a replay of the unfortunate incidence oblivious of its consequences, it is revolting to note his observation and prescription that: “The opposition ….cannot simply accept election results that it has every reason to believe was fraudulent, and it must do what it can to meet the expectations or demands of supporters who are irretrievably alienated from the regime.” This, according to the incongruent argument of one who saw the future is because “the EPRDF has never been able to rid itself of the sense that this is essentially a Tigray government -- the core of the regime has always lain in the TPLF that created it.” Or, heed this for a more vivid descriptive view: “Indeed,…both Ethiopians and outsiders had every reason to be worried about a government of Marxist guerrillas…" Since silence might be misconstrued as consent when his kind assert themselves to re-write history with blatant racist overtone, or where they reach conclusions based on fiction and/or distortions of facts, it was felt necessary to expose the absurdity of what some might regard as the ‘danger’ posed by the views of the veteran professor. That was why an earlier piece: “Towards Settling Accounts with Lackeys of Reactionary Forces” was attempted with a great degree of generalization. In so many words, it underscored the immense sacrifices that the EPRDF and other compatriots have paid in the fight against oppression and exploitation. Those that are now vilified have also been at the forefront and played a decisive role to have a democratic Constitution enshrined under federalism. Regardless of the outright lies, ethno-centric slurs, racist propaganda and defamation, the incumbent government and the EPRDF have made relentless effort to provide attractive answers through multi-dimensional policies and strategies. This has assured increased streamlined integration of efforts for the transformation sought. By necessity, it has targeted increased momentum in holistic development without ever relaxing the push for peace, democracy and good governance. In the process, multi-party participation is welcome in the spirit of consolidating democracy. The piece also underlined the sworn duty of the incumbent government that is dully represented by the forward-looking EPRDF to work towards the emergence of a new democratic Ethiopia with socio-political and economic viability. Accordingly, political pluralism is encouraged to act as a springboard to the dynamism that is not just expected but which is a must. Since then, much has been accomplished to fulfil the needs of present generations without compromising the future. The facts speak for themselves since it is all there for all to see. If those in the camp of the opposition and their lackeys refused to recognize the coherence in the dynamism to build an egalitarian society in line with the Constitution, it is understandable since it is inimical to the hegemony that they seek to establish. It is with this recognition that the current piece goes beyond the earlier cursory treatment. It tries to weave together the “trinity” views of Prof. Christopher Clapham, (his 14th November, 2005 “Comments on the Ethiopian Crisis” and the 5th December 2005 reply to "State Minister Takeda Alemu"); Professor Paul B. Henz (the 14th November, 2005 “COMMENTS ON COMMENTS” and the 13 December, 2005 response to Prof. Clapham) and Dr. Tekeda Alemu (the 17th November, 2005 "Open Letter"). The intention is not to pit one against the other or offer interpretation on their reflections. Instead, it is hoped that the contrast of their essential ingredients could ‘speak’ for themselves when juxtaposed against the stark reality in Ethiopia. From both the positive and negative views expressed in such a debate, it is possible that some may eventually draw lessons to help further consolidate unity in diversity under peace, democracy and good governance. These hallmarks within the rights enshrined in the Constitution, can foster the synchronized fight against poverty and promote holistic development. The "Open Letter" of Dr. Tekeda in essence gave an insight into the broader picture with an apt characterization and vivid description of the august scholar as Professor Clapham I and Professor Clapham II. Accordingly, Professor Clapham I in the paper: "The Challenge of Democratization in Ethiopia." presented in April 2004 at Tswalu, South Africa, noted "The rapid expansion of the country's territory, especially in the late nineteenth century, that led to the incorporation (and in many places, the ruthless exploitation) of other peoples, who were generally regarded as inferior, and had very limited (if any) opportunity to participate in government." His conclusion was that: “Ethiopia was therefore dogged by a premise of inequality, in which full incorporation into the State required the abandonment of one's own indigenous culture and identity, and the assumption -- in terms of name, religion, food and dress, language --- of those historically associated with the state. Many individuals made this transition and rose to the highest position in government; but many more were alienated from and oppressed by the state in a way that would inevitably deeply affect political attitudes once they gained the democratic ability to express them.“ On “the merit of the new system introduced by the EPRDF in 1991,” Dr. Tekeda points out that Prof. Clapham has gone to the extent of stating that: “[I]t has sought to tackle explicitly the underlying assumption of hegemony on which the Ethiopian State has historically been built, and in the process to lay the foundation for an Ethiopia constructed on the basis of equality between social groups and cultures, not merely between individuals..” that “At the same time, there are also elements in the Ethiopian experience, notably since 1991, that have greatly improved the prospects for democracy, and are bringing about important and very largely positive changes in the way in which Ethiopia is governed”…[that]… “[T]he period since 1991 has seen a burgeoning of independent organizations, …Ethiopia, in short, has developed a level of pluralism that extends well beyond the state's capacity to control.” However, in his 5th December, 2005 reply to "State Minister Takeda Alemu" he indicated that while there may be a difference in tone there is not basic argument between the South African and his current presentations. The striking difference, however, is that it is not the earlier positive assertiveness of Prof. Clapham I but the later antagonism of Prof. Clapham II that is clearly visible. Instead, he claims that at that time his "misgivings…about some of the developments in Ethiopia were couched in a coded with which Ethiopians are perfectly familiar, and which Ato Meles would undoubtedly have decoded and taken up" This is supposed to be the double-speak label ascribed to Ethiopians in "Wax and Gold" of Levine. (Incidentally, he regards Levine as an authentic source and witness of the election "fraud'" that was committed in Ethiopia. I guess, 'birds of the same feather fly together' would sum it all.) However, Prof. Clapham fast attempted to fit a square peg into a round hole, so to speak, and this is elaborated in the 13 December, 2005 succinct view of Prof. Paul Henze that: " It is a tour de force, for you go a long way toward reconciling your Tswalu presentation with your present critique". Otherwise, some of us must have been too dumb to grasp the prophetic message that was there for all to see. And so his mixed bag hindsight assessment continues that "….The most important of those subsequent developments is of course the May 2005 elections in Ethiopia and their repercussions. Sadly, some of my misgivings have now been realised." Amusingly, he also calls on a “qualified Oromo commentator…[for] a considered analysis of recent developments” if only to verify his kind of ethno-centric or sectarian truth. Anything outside that realm seems to be the views of compromised or co-opted Oromos. Therefore, it is unacceptable and release the hounds on them! That is why he regrets because he has “not yet seen one.” While he has all along sprinkled in his “Comment” what he called the Marxist-Leninst ideology of the EPRDF, he incorrigibly reaffirms with bravado and hollow defiance this misconstrued view in his 5th December, 2005 reply to "State Minister Takeda Alemu with the words: "I likewise make no apology for referring at a number of points to the distinctively Marxist intellectual frame of reference of the leading members of the present government, and to its influence on many of their attitudes and policies." He goes on to elaborate that "For many of those who remained in Derg-controlled Ethiopia, Marxism lost its allure as a result of the brutality and appallingly mistaken policies committed in its name. But for those like Ato Meles and his colleagues, who adapted it as an ideology of insurgent warfare, their deeply held Marxist precepts could only be reinforced by their eventual triumph. Despite their evident success in adapting to the changed global situation since the end of the Cold War, these precepts continue in my view to inform their behaviour, across a range of policies from land tenure to their own conception of their right to rule, and the ‘democratic centralist’ organisation of the EPRDF itself. " If only to dispel any residue of scepticism, it is with the diagnosis of key issues that appropriate policies, strategies and people-centred action plans were developed by the incumbent government. These are being implemented under participatory arrangement. Emanating from the prioritization of issues and the synergistic harmonization of efforts, they have tried to ensure the provision of help to those who can use it, and encouragement to those who are reluctant and fearful to abandon old ways. All this was performed under democracy and the unravelling of the obvious has not sought the intellectual capacity of a genius. The broad masses that lived in quagmire and carried the brunt end of underdevelopment were on the front line since they have long thirsted for basic human right and the fruits of democracy. Hence, the government cannot shy away from its pursuit of democracy or be frustrated for fear of labels or of being ‘vulnerable’ to absurd condemnation. Rather, in its quest for sustainable development, it will resolutely wean the public from what is basically a subsistence economy for peace, democracy and good governance. In line with this, it is not that ''rigid Marxist ideology prevented any policy debate over the privatisation of land'' but, that the privatisation of land is in total antagonism to the intimate relation, if you will, the organic linkage that exists between the land question and the national question. Among others, it is in pursuit of its resolution that nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia waged bitter struggle long before the EPRDF came on the scene. They subsequently fought alongside the EPRDF and other democratic forces for the attainment of these intimately linked questions democratically. Now that they have been answered with the ratification of the Constitution, they have opted to live under federalism. In contrast, what is advocated by the die-hard opposition and their apologists is land robbery in the name of land privatization under the cloak of democratization. In another note, neither the government nor the EPRDF ever sought to be extolled. Interestingly though, they are condemned since “By introducing ethnic federalism,--- Ethiopian nationalists (by no means restricted to Amharas) were deeply concerned at what looked like an attempt to replicate the failed nationality policies of the USSR, and was often regarded as a divide-and-rule policy to the advantage of Tigray; --” Again, a similar view is reflected in his December 5th , 2005 reply to Dr.Takeda where we are told of "The …imaginative policy for resolving the age-old problem of ‘nationalities’ in Ethiopia, through the recognition of the right to autonomy and (in extreme cases) secession … certainly carried considerable dangers, and would inevitably be subject to criticism, whether on the one hand for destroying the unity of the Ethiopian state and nation, or on the other for serving as a cover for continuing highland (and in this case notably Tigrayan) rule; but there was a clearly articulated rationale for it, for which the government deserves credit." This is paraded by the very same person, who not so long ago, asserted his support to the just struggle of the people from the 'pulpit' in South Africa. Its absurdity is striking when viewed in contrast with the current fight of the people against reactionary forces. These have strove to return the people to a feudal, oligarchic and tyrannical past. What is equally amusing is when a man of his stature depicts “The extreme narrowness of the regime’s domestic base” though even a casual observer can glean that the people alongside the government and the EPRDF have, with creativity and imagination, continued, as has been repeatedly witnessed, to work for democratic transformation and equitably share the benefits thereof. Then, however much his kind may wish otherwise, the people have cherished the coming into age of regional governments. Adamantly and even fervently they have entrenched the devolution of power that allows for the increased democratic cross-fertilization of people with profound respect to their diversity. This could not sublime into thin air! Instead, it has offered lessons for peaceful co-existence, strengthened democracy and promoted rapid but sustained development to assure a meaningful healthy life under federalism. This brings to mind the obsession of the esteemed professor with Prime Minister Meles given his negative focus with such brash assertion from a man of his stature that “In a newly democratic Africa, Meles’ tenure is now exceeded or equaled by a very small number of very doubtful democratic leaders ---” and many more. The view may be current in the camp of reaction. But, whichever way one looks at it, this cheap populist overture uncritically unleashed in the style of the vitriolic and vociferous elements of the opposition does not provide the lens through which one can view the road ahead. One expects a critical analysis from a respected scholar on the way forward and on the necessary adjustments that must be sustained to meet the aspiration of the people. Instead, what we have is such concern as voiced by Prof. Henze on 13 December, 2005 that "…I still have reservations about some of the points you make. The enthusiasm with which many opponents of the present government in Ethiopia have received your observations does not, in many cases I fear, spring from a desire to see welcome efforts at considered judgment of the factors involved, but from mere joy at seeing the EPRDF government denigrated and embarrassed by an erstwhile supporter..." Nevertheless, the issue is not that such leaders be given undeserved top honours. At least, they should not be dragged into mud. On this question, this writer believes that like most visionaries Prime Minister Meles with his brilliance (even his enemies accede to that!) risks the tool of the trade. Some three hundred years back, the English poet John Donne has aptly noted "Great minds and madness are both alike. Only a thin line does their border divide." No wonder then if Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is portrayed as a heretic and the devil's tool given his lucid mind! This means that all too often when someone like him comes along with a profound new insight into the way of transforming Ethiopian society, that person could be viewed with apprehension by the uninitiated. Among others, the 'vulnerability' of the P.M. is his persistent pursuit for a paradigm shift to change the tone of our mind and our view in the scheme of things. The likes of Prof. Clapham with their current ethno-centric hate mongering agitation may also accentuate such a person negatively. It is of little concern if he is not accepted on his merit by those on the borderline and reactionaries. The other side of this particular coin, not surprisingly but unfortunately, is that he may not have been acknowledged sufficiently enough. Then, by any reckoning, one cannot but recognize with admiration his role in the process of building a new democratic order in Ethiopia. While he and others have helped make history depending on time, condition and place, however, in accordance with the tenets of the organization, it is through the collective will as represented by the EPRDF that many policies and strategies with great merits were masterminded to break inertia or resistance to change and work their way through to alter the Ethiopian landscape. As a corollary, it cannot be a crime, unless one has a convoluted mind, if the elaboration of several democratic agenda had the imprint of such a fertile mind as that of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. On occasions, the going could get rough, as is now being witnessed, when die-hard reactionary forces cry 'wolf' not to synthesis a healthy whole but to shred the Constitution. However, the character assassination of the leadership with fabrication does not pour oil on troubled water. Yet, the august professor who chose to ride a moral high horse against Prime Minister Meles seems not to feel a ting of fair play to even mildly ‘scold’ or timidly ‘chide’ those with ready-made prescription on how to overthrow the government and destroy the EPRDF. No mention is made of the born-again democrat and guru of the hard-liners, Dr. Negede Gobeze and his slick strategy. Prof. Clapham must have chosen to benignly dismiss and/or forget his 'pranks' or ‘flair’ for Holocaust – Ethiopian style. Had the scheme been carried through, it would have paled that of the Derg; which according to Prof. Clapham himself "sought to destroy all those who opposed it." However, with a complete face turn, he made unblinking fictitious assertions which we, the feeble mortals, are expected to unquestioningly believe the philosopher wolf that continues to cloak the current remnants of reactionary forces with superlatives. The one who told us that the Derg "sought to destroy all those who opposed it" goes on to preach against the weight of the evidence as though the die-hards did not engineer and execute overt and covert maneuvers that unleashed violence towards sedition with the words, that “The current CUD and UEDF, whose leaders know one another well, and which have developed side-by-side in opposition to both the Derg provide as good an opportunity of achieving the necessary historic compromise, as Ethiopia can plausibly expect.” (Emphasis added). Not long ago, some of these elements were the advocates of Ethiopianization, a "truth" that was subsumed under the rubrics of benevolence instituted by the feudal regime. Others were in the front line and committed heinous crimes, trivialized nations, nationalities and peoples under the "Ethiopia Tikdem" of the fascist military junta, the Derge. Again, it is not surprising if he camouflaged "Amhara chauvinists" with the garb of "Ethiopian nationalism ..… which is understandably strongest among Amharas" or made the statement that "I have been entirely unimpressed by attempts to demonise the opposition as Amhara chauvinists, covert Derg supporters, secessionists, Moslem fundamentalists, or whatever.” It seems that ‘politics makes strange bed fellows’ is an apt truism befitting the occasion. In another note, a sober assessment of the country reveals that it has come a long way when one notes the sorry state of affairs during the Derg regime. This cannot be swept under the rug! Then, the serious process to further consolidate the budding democracy, the first of its kind in Ethiopia, could have been undertaken with a sombre look. But, these elements are preoccupied with power manoeuvres at the top with intent to disregard much of what has been accomplished at the grass-roots level. Thus, Prof. Clapham as their apologists made the gullible (or comical?) assertion that the EPRDF “.... has had no place for compromise or power-sharing... even though this has been proposed by the opposition. It is certainly difficult to see how this could have been made to work, but a willingness to entertain the idea would at least have helped to tide over the difficult period after the elections, and send a reassuring signal to the outside world.” It is difficult to grasp the ‘intricacy’ of his reasoning. May be, what is being suggested is to window-dress the die-hard elements that have chosen not to recognize the Constitution. Then, it would be the height of folly to ‘placate’ these forces in a manner one cajoles a child with sweets. As it is, such an absurd overture, even if it were to be fleetingly contemplated as a passing whim, would be out of the question. It is contrary to the tenets of the Constitutional and requires no 'soul-searching' of a sort. Period! At the end of the day, the form of government and the type of government and the people who serve in that government is dependent on the will of the people of Ethiopia, both at home and abroad; and not on the émigré, the so-called Diaspora! Suffice to note the 13th December, 2005 reflection of Prof. Henz. In no uncertain terms, he cautioned Prof. Clapham against these elements and it seeks no further elaboration. "…You underestimate the pernicious role of the diaspora, … These people are not only, for the most part, strongly oriented toward traditional Amhara-Centrist concepts of Ethiopia; they are also heavily infiltrated by Derg elements. They are looking backward, not forward. They are engaging in scurrilous efforts to harass and denigrate all elements who do not agree with them--particularly Tigrayans, of course, but also others. Their behavior exacerbates the present situation and makes it extremely difficult to work toward a rational effort to mitigate strains and differences in Ethiopia itself." He further notes that "They are also taking advantage of the large component of Ethiopians who work in the World Bank (many of them former officials of the HSI government) to press for lessening of World Bank support for Ethiopia. Their efforts to boycott Ethiopian Airlines and discourage trade with Ethiopia will harm the Ethiopian population far more than they will harm the EPRDF. Efforts must be made to concentrate the focus of Ethiopian politics IN ETHIOPIA ITSELF rather in the diaspora." Whether push might come to shove or not, the incumbent and the EPRDF have to defend, without compromise, the Constitution against die hard reactionaries, their anti-thesis. They have to safeguard the inviolable rights of its mosaic people where the right of self-determination, including secession figure prominently. This unequivocal position of a sovereign country that does not have to look up to others is what some termed as the ‘ugly’ reality in and around the events that surrounded the May-2005 election. Since then, the overt and covert itching of the hard-line reactionaries that lurked around to bait the budding democracy and perpetuating violence with relish has been foiled. This means that their last hurrah is only a storm in a tea cup and their stunt would definitely have got a short shift with little collateral damage had it persisted longer. The fact of the matter is that however hard they try, past oppressive and exploitative systems will never return to haunt the people under the garb of democracy. Even then, a stop has to be made to the shifting machination with their vocal, print and physical incendiary that they throw. Fortunately, its glimpse has offered the contrast to EPRDF such that well meaning Ethiopians have shuddered at what the democratic perception of the hard-liners would have been had they assumed power to fulfill the frustrated dreams of their predecessors. For obvious reasons, the EPRDF and the government cannot follow on the footsteps of past oppressive regimes that cared little about the peoples of Ethiopia but ensure the dismemberment of their residues. As a testimony, witness what Prof. Henze noted in his 13th December, 2005 response to Prof, Clapham, "What the EPRDF has done for Ethiopia entitles it to play a role--not necessarily an exclusive role--on the Ethiopian political scene indefinitely into the future. The diaspora wants to see it destroyed. The same impression, unfortunately, is conveyed by many of the declarations of CUD leaders and their advocates. A zero-sum approach to Ethiopian politics can only have negative results". Therefore, this writer upholds that agents of positive change would have to provide the cutting edge for the continuation of the relentless struggle against hard-line reactionary forces and the myopia of the bigots, their apologists. This has to be pursued in the spirit of the parable that it is wise to purify the river from the source than its various sections. If the source is clear, the water from that source will be clear and usable. By the same token, the fight against forces of reaction seeks multi-dimensional actions that have to draw together the cumulative resourcefulness of the government, the people, the EPRDF, and other democrats, on a several space-time scales. In a positive note, it is encouraging to note that some of their misguided advocates have removed the "fog" of their negative pseudo-democratic masquerade. They have now seen the light and attained a certain insight for subscription to the framework of what are considered as the bounds of legitimate dissent in line with the Constitution. These and others seem to have obtained a degree of clarity since they have opted to join the parliament. One hopes that still others would recognize their subservience to the deep and fundamental principles of democracy to undertake peaceful political dissent that would embraces the broader picture of unity in diversity.

(c) Walta Information Center, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia