Whenever I listen to alternative approaches by political intellectuals about the application of democratic ideals in differing demographics, it makes me think but not to the extent of persuading me into believing it works. When a prominent politician takes the podium and makes his/her rhetoric somehow convincing to the audience, I always wonder how far the message can resonate with the wide specter of the population to draw their ultimate attention for popular support. Sometimes the rhetoric won't go beyond the personal view of an individual who has succeeded in influencing his/her likes. For keeping a social status alive, this may be necessary for one's accomplishment in life, but we must ask if it is enough to propagate a sensational message to the people it targets for change. If the idea is not showing convincing tendencies of fruitfulness several decades of its movement, it may be because it doesn't hold water. So, what is the alternative for such a far pronged approach to the otherwise urgent situation where the people are in a constant search for a system that encourages free thinking and life full of purposes?
When we investigate Ethiopia's case as an example, there are so many unanswered questions that always come to mind. If we look back at the last two decades of the EPRDF rule, especially the causes of its establishment just after the end of the cold war, it was more like the sudden dire situation of the country was shaping the politics than a well-organized and purposefully oriented national force replacing the then Dergue regime. It is like there was some sort of disorientation and confusion that could have brought turmoil, which may have resulted in a civil war that could match several that already occurred in Africa during those times. One may well have expected the weakened Ethiopian-ism could have resurfaced in no time to rescue the people that have been facing an 'ethnic division' and a country that is being indoctrinated by a sole path of choosing one dominant party. To the surprise of many, it didn't happen. While it is time to ask why, it is also a legitimate approach to investigate the causes and change the course, if necessary, as it looks increasingly crucial for the continuation of the status quo where the country can have a freely thinking society.
How is it possible?
The question of building freedom of speech and freedom to think persuades a population to pose a counter appeal as to what it means and how it is possible to tell when it is the right time to do so. A free society strives when an idea is not necessarily predetermined by a leadership as counterproductive and as a result, blocked, but when it is offered to the people concerned to judge. This kind of gesture requires a regime that accepts a contending power to be chosen by the majority. There is a thin line that intrigues me as it may have instigated many other curiosities to ask whether a government blocks ideas out of fear or because it may not be timely? Does timeliness mean anything to an established society? How can one determine what is timely or not?
When I see a country where there is a peaceful coexistence no matter what one thinks, except of course, it is not detrimental to society, I see the full purpose of life and a legitimate system of organization whose downfall may not mean its elimination from the system, a power that continues as a backbone of the system. To establish a system that conforms with the upcoming challenges, one must be a visionary, or else, go the routine paths of 'dismantle obstacles as you go' mentality. Can somebody tell me with confidence if that is what is going on in Ethiopia right now?
The opposition in Ethiopia has found itself between a rock and hard place. The ruling party has played democracy in its own peculiar way. The doors are closed for those who question the constitution and the legitimacy of the EPRDF. EPRDF has a stringent policy of recruiting members in the party. It also never believes in forming coalitions with other parties, especially the opposition. The reason officially given by the prime minister was that "The difference between us is irreconcilable" (quote mine). In other words, the opposition can either win the election or stay subordinate to the regime. It is understood the Ethiopian system of democracy is designed to play a two faceted role. Doing what other democracies do and setting up legitimate elections via electoral procedures of involving the opposition parties to debate in the public media. After letting the people know who in the political arena is, secure the level of understanding of the people about how advanced and ahead of the game the process of democratizing the country is getting by putting them in the position of believing there is no alternative to the current way of doing things. The opposition, on the other hand, has been proving to the people its incompetence by choosing dramatic designs and tactics to discredit the regime in what so far has accomplished disappointing results.
When we investigate Ethiopia's case as an example, there are so many unanswered questions that always come to mind. If we look back at the last two decades of the EPRDF rule, especially the causes of its establishment just after the end of the cold war, it was more like the sudden dire situation of the country was shaping the politics than a well-organized and purposefully oriented national force replacing the then Dergue regime. It is like there was some sort of disorientation and confusion that could have brought turmoil, which may have resulted in a civil war that could match several that already occurred in Africa during those times. One may well have expected the weakened Ethiopian-ism could have resurfaced in no time to rescue the people that have been facing an 'ethnic division' and a country that is being indoctrinated by a sole path of choosing one dominant party. To the surprise of many, it didn't happen. While it is time to ask why, it is also a legitimate approach to investigate the causes and change the course, if necessary, as it looks increasingly crucial for the continuation of the status quo where the country can have a freely thinking society.
How is it possible?
The question of building freedom of speech and freedom to think persuades a population to pose a counter appeal as to what it means and how it is possible to tell when it is the right time to do so. A free society strives when an idea is not necessarily predetermined by a leadership as counterproductive and as a result, blocked, but when it is offered to the people concerned to judge. This kind of gesture requires a regime that accepts a contending power to be chosen by the majority. There is a thin line that intrigues me as it may have instigated many other curiosities to ask whether a government blocks ideas out of fear or because it may not be timely? Does timeliness mean anything to an established society? How can one determine what is timely or not?
When I see a country where there is a peaceful coexistence no matter what one thinks, except of course, it is not detrimental to society, I see the full purpose of life and a legitimate system of organization whose downfall may not mean its elimination from the system, a power that continues as a backbone of the system. To establish a system that conforms with the upcoming challenges, one must be a visionary, or else, go the routine paths of 'dismantle obstacles as you go' mentality. Can somebody tell me with confidence if that is what is going on in Ethiopia right now?
The opposition in Ethiopia has found itself between a rock and hard place. The ruling party has played democracy in its own peculiar way. The doors are closed for those who question the constitution and the legitimacy of the EPRDF. EPRDF has a stringent policy of recruiting members in the party. It also never believes in forming coalitions with other parties, especially the opposition. The reason officially given by the prime minister was that "The difference between us is irreconcilable" (quote mine). In other words, the opposition can either win the election or stay subordinate to the regime. It is understood the Ethiopian system of democracy is designed to play a two faceted role. Doing what other democracies do and setting up legitimate elections via electoral procedures of involving the opposition parties to debate in the public media. After letting the people know who in the political arena is, secure the level of understanding of the people about how advanced and ahead of the game the process of democratizing the country is getting by putting them in the position of believing there is no alternative to the current way of doing things. The opposition, on the other hand, has been proving to the people its incompetence by choosing dramatic designs and tactics to discredit the regime in what so far has accomplished disappointing results.
1. The old imperial regime deserters that make up the majority of the first generation of the diaspora are the well-known members of an aging group who have accumulated ample experiences in playing a role of modernizing the initial infrastructures of the country. They are known for their ultra-obedience for the then constitutional monarchy of the Emperor Haile Selassie rule. What brought down the west's most friendly regime in Africa was believed to be the unsustainable nature of the feudal system regarding modernity, thus, creating a continuous flow of newly emerging problems that were not met by innovative governance because of the lack of budget and knowledge of spreading modern education and effective planning for the growing generations. During those days, it was evident things were getting worse for the middle- and lower-class citizens, the result of which was the eruption of the grand revolution. The problem with this generation is they barely understand the newly developing social and political trends in the country, thereby contributing no innovative ideas other than cherishing the old habits and wishing to bring back the previous regime.
2. These are the groups that are young and are the product of the 1974 revolution, specifically, the active members of the then popular party, known as EPRP. They fled the country via the bordering nations, chased by the Dergue (military Junta) that took power in the wake of the overthrow of the monarchy. Members of the EPRP and the current ruling EPRDF party had a lot in common before they departed their own ways, due to the conflicting Eritrean issues. To the dissatisfaction of many, this group has embraced the comfort of living in the diaspora, with little or no intention to aggressively participate in the country's political activity, other than issuing press releases and creating insignificant and indirect skirmishes here and there.
3. The final groups are the ones formed before and during the current regime's establishment as a government, enthused by its ethnic based policy. As we recall, the foundation of the EPRDF is formed by its ethnic based 'kilils'. Ethnic liberation fronts were the major constituents of the regime right until its arrival to Addis. Some of them, namely OLF and ONLF, were strained for their stubborn policies of stressing on the "autonomy up to secession" article in the constitution. They are still the break-away organizations whose weakened but still in-obedient nature of their strife is taking longer to re-conciliate with the current upheaval of the country's democratization.
So far, I may not have said anything new other than recap the history of political reshaping of the country. As you have been making your own observation, the problem lies on how to unite these groups to create a viable opposition that can work in unison for the common goal. So far, this crucial element, necessary for the revival of a healthy system of government, hasn't materialized. Rather, the argument that it is hard to tell which kind of democracy is right for a certain situation is winning the outlook. This belief, however, shouldn't mean that we are happily married to the current tendency of rule, where the other half of the nation's strength is away from home, not being able to support the backbone of a truly vibrant democracy where there can always be an alternative, challenging view for any issue. Unless there is a contending group of party conglomeration where there is an equal and opposing force of thought for any of the regime's policies in a legitimately accepted system of government, its destiny will always be like a glass half full. For this not to continue, the EPRDF ruling party must overhaul itself and review its policies of using all the tools of indoctrinating the otherwise dynamic strength of the people's natural will to participate in a carefully designed, responsive and compromising system of government.
From the editor's desk.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment