• My take
• 
  
•                   The 2015 Election Debates
• It was interesting to watch the 2015 election debates on important and controversial topics chosen in advance. The participating party leaders were out to stress on their fundamental policy differences with the ruling party to the extent of deviating from the issues that the government wants to focus as tangible and convincing achievements of social and structural developments in various sectors in the last decades. One of them was about Ethiopia's choice to go federal. Based on what some of the candidates consider disconcerting, I have a good reason to believe in some cases people may end up getting confused. A good example is the debate on the pros and cons of implementing the federal system in Ethiopia. The name "The Federal Government of Ethiopia" was meant to imply the system has already been in practice since the inception of the EPRDF as a ruling party. However, the debates reflected the people may not be at ease with the system; namely the way the government may be imposing on the people instead of nurturing federalism from bottom up. In my view this may show the symptoms of imperfection of making the federal system work than the negative implications of a failed process. If this is the case, then it is a normal trend for any working system that has to be truly tested to sustain as a transition rather than an end in itself. The main factors that invigorate a system are the patterns it shows either as a conforming or a suppressing instrument in response to changing realities on the ground. The fact that it hasn't progressed into a hasty disintegration of the country itself is a good proof that the motive is not meant or did not succeed (if any) to cause polarizations among ethnic groups.
• 
  
• That said, all candidates displayed a commendable knowledge about what the global picture of introducing federalism to differing countries with different realities would be. They tried to get to the nitty gritty of how many countries followed the federal system and how many failed in doing so. But they fell short of scientifically(is there one yet?)approaching the reasons why federalism succeeded in some countries and failed in others. In some cases it seemed some candidates had an honest outlook of why federalism should work smoothly in Ethiopia or otherwise. The reason given by one of the EPRDF spokesmen, for instance was; as long as people have the basic freedoms, they won't have to stick to the divisive motto of cessation because there is no need for it. In other words, they won't secede just because the freedom to do so is mentioned in article 39 of the constitution. Although this has proven to be a working principle for cooling down tempers, it always depended on who says it. So many countries may have the same or similar articles in their constitutions but the outcome proved to be devastatingly negative in some countries. The main reason is usually the fact that the opposing groups can have the ability to magnify the slightest imperfections if they think they are not welcome in the system. So, the devil is in the details. The other factors are based on how well the economy performs and how strong the government functions in terms of containing conflicts and opposing views of these nature using effective political and security defensive mechanisms.
• 
  
• With that in mind, it looks like the notion that Ethiopia was never created without regional sense shows in the peoples' wisdom to focus their attentions on the substantial growth of the over all economy and hence the infrastructure of the country as the sole basis to prove federalism works on their behalf.
• 
  
• There were also other debates, namely one that caught my attention was the foreign policy relating to the competence of the regime in running an effective foreign policy with capable representatives that can defend the country's interest when needed. The main agenda, however delayed, was about the problems with the sea outlets and the opportunities missed during the boundary decisions made in Algiers that left the country landlocked. The other most current issue that depicts a failing foreign policy is the dire situation and fatalities involving those who chose to flee the country into worse and uninviting foreign lands.
• 
  
• Until history judges who is on the right side, the events that show desperation or on the other hand, the unsuspecting naivete of the citizens who choose to flee the system by all means are open for debate,

My take

                                Dictators Know no Bounds

Eye opening developments around the globe are reminding us the world is never asleep. People speak for their rights whenever and wherever there is descent, perjury and imbalance in taking control of their destiny. It is about time the leaderships around the world are ahead of the game by understanding the welfare of the populace is not for compromise. However, there is a wide specter of regimes around the world that choose to do things with the traditional ways of wait and see attitude, which inherently affects their decision making abilities to quickly developing trends. Situations may differ from country to country but the expected results of successful policies are always obvious. The extent of damages incurred by some erroneously calculating authorities whose negative accomplishments are usually widely disclosed, depends on how far they stretch the limit when testing the resiliences of the main stream economic and political driving factors of a particular country. We all know the honest and responsible way of dealing with the ever challenging and changing social structure is well proved to be the term limit of a government that is chosen to lead. It is a historically understood phenomenon that a leadership that stays for too long gradually loses its grip on the realities of the situation, repeatedly failing to respond to the changing people's needs and aspirations. It is by then that the futile struggle to prolong the inevitable, results in the accumulation of mistakes after mistakes. 

Image via Wikipedia

There are countries that understood this universal truth and made their ways to the top of the class of effective systems of government by building a relatively responsive system. No doubt, education is key to producing literate citizens, whereby the level of communication and efficiencies of management of any system is more dynamic. The question is; which comes first? Is it putting together a system that looks progressive or a system that accommodates in a delayed response by conforming itself accordingly? We all know a perfectionist policy never worked because it puts forward a formula that is not tested to falter. A delayed but timely response can be more effective in terms of satisfying the needs of the people. There are good examples that implement farsighted and relatively well equipped and working systems to learn from by not necessarily being their stooges. Why not follow them then? This is where the problem arises; depending on how well the tested systems are implemented, the opportunities given to a ruling party to lead responsibly can be transformed into a positive development in the over-all growth of the system or it can result in a backward move as in most cases witnessed so far. The details can be hard to explain but connecting the dots  will lead us to the fact that the success of a regime depends on how it came to power to begin with. If it is a group put together to lead in a haste to avoid more complications forthcoming in a country that may be engulfed in a sudden change of global or regional balance, not to mention its internal strife, then things depend on the understanding level of the regime to get back to the norm that the social status requires. Otherwise, it is easy to predict the outcome. The most recent change of leadership in Tunisia and the recent uprisings by the Egyptians and the current Libyan turmoil are very good samples for the people's reactions to prolonged dictatorial rules. 

Now, the story of change of regimes hasn't been as smooth as one may think. There are ample examples where a sudden change of regimes due to outpouring of uprisings resulted in more damaging confusions because there was no coherent movement that is ready to continue in a peaceful transition. This kind of regime change has brought countries to their knees making it very hard to recuperate by making the dreams of those who fought for change more difficult to materialize. The reason is simple. Out of frustration, the revolt usually has no clear vision about what needs to be done after the overthrow of the impending regime. Their focus is manly in overthrowing the current government, with the belief that there will be no problem what so ever in the aftermath. But the realities usually end up giving away the throne to a dictatorship that sometimes organizes within a short time to save the country from the anarchic and lawless situations. This is where planing effective transition is crucial for a revolt to be successful.

This has happened again and again in Africa. There is a generation of leaders that have led their countries for over two decades. Yet, it doesn't look they are ready to promote successive regimes that can take over without inciting power struggle that usually leads a country to a civil unrest, thus resulting in discontinuities of the direly needed economic, infrastructural and societal developments. It has already started in the north Libya Syria, and Yemen in the lead. The tendency of it moving in any direction is dependent upon the merits of the regimes on whether they want their country to start from scratch after their demise or prepare to promote a smooth transition to a higher level? From all the clues that are openly and clearly revealing in front of their eyes, it is high time dictators realize there is a limit for everything.