• 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.

My take

 

In the above picture is the only outspoken opposition MP whose motion is supported by no other candidate but himself. By all votes, his motions were flanked by the majority of the MPs. My reason for stressing on this aspect of the parliamentary theatre is not to put blame or criticize the obviously strange look of the procession on one party. It is my understanding that whatever I observe in the current development of the Ethiopian economy, politics, infrastructure, and cultural activities, however one chooses to look at it, there are undeniable progresses being made. It is hard to tell the leadership is not trying to contribute to the country's welfare in its capacity. There can be problems here and there, some potentially unavoidable, others man made. Unless the country is being secretly run by a North Korea style totalitarian regime, I don't believe it is possible to have such a majority of support in the parliament without the regime doing something good for the people. But seeing Mr. Girma, the poor opposition MP who happens to be the only member to vote for his motion, it makes me think either the opposition is paying for its previous miscalculations, or the leading party has given developmental state priorities extremely high importance to the extent of blatantly avoiding gambling on building a more sustainable system, a vibrant democracy based on diverse views, mainly due to waste of the desperately needed time, or the unexpected security risks that inherently come with it. It is my sincere hope the next election will not produce a parliament that looks this odd. Something I don’t deny is that the orderly and organized meeting looks extremely different from most parliaments I know of. The questions posed by the MPs are reasonably critical and cover diverse areas, other than questioning the politically charged and sensitive questions of the life span of the EPRDF as a government, which in my opinion shows a striking difference from the times of Meles.

Expect the unexpected

The recent developments in Ukraine and Crimea have their own root causes. Whenever a determined people movement is displayed with an outpouring anger, there must have been some fundamental cause gone wrong. It was agreed by both sides; the orange movement and the Russian Federation that the level of corruption was cruel, given the worsening economic situation there. I am still having a challenging time understanding this kind of recklessness from the authorities who were "democratically" elected to serve their people not only for being unfair to their people but also in terms of lack of anticipating the outcome due to the already sensitive situation in the region after the wake of the cold war era. While the level of corruption is the main cause of the people's outburst, there could have been an alternative solution for what I regard a newly developing internal problem of Ukraine. It was best for all detractors to stay away from the conflict until things settle and the people sort out their future. As it looks, the geopolitical interest of the west and the east clashed again, interfering in the decision-making ability of the people of Ukraine to shape their future. What came about is the worsening of the east - west relation with the proclaimed 93% of Crimean's voting to secede from Ukraine. We are yet to see which way this goes.

We don't have to forget the current turmoil is happening next door to the 21st century Russia, Ukraine. The west never forgot its indulgence of eliminating communism to the last man, so it looks, however the former Soviet Union deflated to its present size. It is still a big territory and globally influential with a new drive to restore what was once known to be the Russian significance in the world politics. As one can witness, they have come a long way, but until lately they realized, when what they had been suspecting came to be heavily true; the west never slept. The west as Putin put it, know what they want and work for it persistently. It is against what most of the world population would choose - forget the cold war era and continue with the new world order of building a dynamic world community where the ideologies are never about being dominated by a single interest but rather a combination and most importantly of new but unifying world principle that doesn't necessarily reflect the emergence of a single victor. Can the west make the world a better place to live by dominating the new world order or by facilitating the diversity of the people and inventing a way to make it work for all? I think the final goal should be about establishing a unified but diverse world community rather than instigating a dominance, as the world is too big to look in a totalitarian sense. When one is equipped with these principles, one can always be prepared to lead the world with the ability and wisdom to adopt a sophisticated system where anything that is not a destabilizing factor, but a creative alternative is always a welcome gesture.

 

Does Ukraine ring the bell?

It is not my intention to stir the already troubled waters in select areas of the world, but things that unfold as time unveils itself not only draw my attention to ask what is to be expected in the near or long term in our planet that is filled with turmoil, but what to expect tomorrow.

The trending developments are extremely troubling to the extent that even the wisest and most foresighted individuals may have a hard time grasping the role the future plays on its own leaving every one else powerless to foresee the outcome.

The reason for my concern is not based on unfounded and or misguided assumptions about the welfare of our world. It is the result of being stricken not only once, twice or three times, but more often than not, by surprises that show the down grading of  the human spirit, and in some instances, cruelty of disproportionate dimensions.

Examples can be numerous. Every day we hear horror stories be it the cause of natural disaster, individuals taking the law in their hands, wars of no nonsense that turned to killing sprees by those who submit to shortfalls of anger management, and so on.

As big as this world of ours is, it is imperative to expect its intricacies can, as a result, grow exponentially. There is a tendency for the regional entities that encompass groups of countries that otherwise should have common strategies and interests for mutual development may well be the stooges of bigger influences that can instigate bigger frictions among powers whose grips on their life stream interests cannot be loosened without devastating consequences.

These are the main reasons why the world body has to create an effective system of a world government that lays ways to tackle emerging problems, some of which can get out of control, specially when least expected. If there is no predefined method of prevention against such misfortune, the only way out is getting the answer the days or years after a fierce war among the powers of interest. Historically, the two world wars so far had been the result of seeking the answer to resolve the undefined state the world once was. If this kind of price has to be paid to resolve complex world problems as a natural rule that can't be avoided, then there is nothing that can stop another one from coming, hopefully, after which a very important scientific theory may be in the coming.

The other half

It has been a while since I posted on my blog. The reason is simple. The areas of my interest, the Ethiopian politics has been murky and confused to the extent that it is below my level of expectation. The first mishap was the unexpected passing away of the legendary prime minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi. It has generated a new chapter in the history of the country. There have been so many speculations about what will happen in the country after Meles. So far it is Meles after Meles, with few new developing trends in the opposition sector, the Muslim community, and the enthusiastic movement of the Blue Party. They have been forcefully demanding the right to demonstrate freely. The trend looks unforgivably controversial in that the government is adamantly insistent on applying the rule of law. It has been a challenging development for the

Meles Zenawi's Fate

He will be missed. He worked hard to transform himself and his cohorts from an ethnocentric background to a Pan African symbol. He also set priorities for the country fighting many controversial hurdles. History will be remembered by those who carefully weigh the balance between his positive vs. negative contributions.
On the eve of the final day of the person whose history had been in the making for the last 20 years, things I have been hearing about his tireless works and contributions for the transformation of not only Ethiopia but also on matters concerning Africa, I am increasingly convinced that, in spite of those whose understandings of how a populace change can show in tangible evidences is terribly deficient, the man has been a figure that twenty first century needs to remember as its own becoming in the wake of the dire needs of bringing about equitable treatment and growth environment for the countries that are left behind.
It is easy to focus on a particular mishap repeatedly to convey a message. But when one looks at the big picture, although there can be groups who can be dissatisfied due to the manners in which they were treated, denial tactic can sometimes weaken their cause. One thing to remember is, one can't blindly compare Meles Zenawi to Bin-laden who showed his bitter intent to destroy his enemies. One can understand if people showed relief on Binladen's death, but those who act in an analogous way for the PM's passing, are either blind folded or live in a confined environment where they listen only to themselves. With this kind of uncultivated behavior, it is easy to predict their negativity will always be their hurdle if they don't start leading a true life of changing with the ever-changing world of ours. Otherwise, I can sure guess they will lag far behind the scenes of the progressive world.
I am not saying this because I am inclined to supporting one group or the other for some mutually identifiable reasons - the way I see ideologies are oriented in the Ethiopian political arena these days. I am doing this as an observer and a responsible well-wisher for the stability of the unquestionable regional power in the Horn of Africa. It is not my intention to establish a utopian state where there are no opposing views. I am of the belief that diverse views shouldn't necessarily base their policies out of hate by assuming their side is the only choice as the right vision for the country. This kind of belief is where everything goes wrong by shutting off all the possible routes for the developing and sustained progress in the transformation of the country.

From the Editor.

ዓይን

በዳንኤል ክብረት


አንድ የአትክልት ቦታ የነበረው ሰው ነበረ፡፡ ሰውዬው የአትክልት ቦታው አስጠላውና ለመሸጥ ፈለገ፡፡ ከዚያም ወደ አንድ የታወቀ ባለ ቅኔ ዘንደ አመራ፡፡ «የአትክልት ቦታዬን መሸጥ እፈልጋለሁ፤ ገዥዎች እንዲመጡልኝ አንተ እባክህን ማስታወቂያውን ሥራልኝ፡፡ ነገር ግን እባክህ ያለውንም አታስቀር፣ የሌለውንም አትጨምር» ብሎ ጠየቀውና በዋጋ ተስማሙ፡፡ የአትክልት ቦታው ባለቤትም ለታወቀ ጋዜጣ የማስታወቂያውን ሂሳብ ከፍሎ ሄደ፡፡ ባለቅኔውም ወደ አትክልት ቦታው ሄዶ እየተዘዋወረ ሳይቀንስም፣ ሳይጨምርም አየው፡፡
በሳምንቱ ያንን የአትክልት ቦታ በተመለከተ ባለቅኔው ማስታወቂያውን ሠርቶ በተከፈለበት ጋዜጣ ላይ እንዲህ ሲል አወጣው፡፡
«ፀሐይ በምሥራቅ ስትወጣ ብርሃንዋን ያለ ሃሳብ የምታስተኛበት፣ ማታ በምዕራብ ስትገባ ደግሞ ጨረሮቿን የምትሰበስብበት፤ ከዳር ሆነው መስኩን ሲያዩት አዳም ጥሎት የወጣውን ገነት የሚያስታውስ፤ የነፋሱን ለስላሳ ሙዚቃ ተከትለው ዛፎቹ ከወገባቸው በላይ ሲዘናፈሉ በታወቀ የሙዚቃ ባለሞያ የሚሠለጥኑ ወጣት ሙዚቀኞችን የሚመስሉበት፤ ከቀኝ በኩል መንጭቶ ወደ ግራ የሚፈስሰው ምንጭ በቢራቢሮዎች እና በንቦች ሲታጀብ ከቃና ወይን ቤት የሚፈስስ የወይን ጅረት የሚመስልበት፤ በወንዙ ላይ የሚንፈላሰሱት ዳክዬዎች እና ፔሊካኖች ቡድን እየሠሩ የሚያደርጉት ዋና መላእክት በየነገዳቸው የወረዱ የሚመስሉበት አንድ የአትክልት ቦታ ለሽያጭ ቀርቧል፡፡ በሚከተለው አድራሻ ሄዳችሁ በማየት ግዙ፡፡»
ይህ ማስታወቂያ ከወጣ በኋላ ባለቤቱ ከተዋዋሉት በላይ ለባለቅኔው ብዙ ሺ ብሮች ላከለት፡፡ ባለቅኔውም በሰውዬው ደግነት ተገርሞ ተቀበለ፡፡
ከብዙ ወራት በኋላ ባለ ቅኔውና የአትክልት ቦታው ባለቤት ሻሂ ቤት ውስጥ ተገናኙ፡፡
«እንዴት ሆነልህ? የአትክልት ቦታህን ሸጥከው?» ብሎ ባለ ቅኔው ጠየቀው፡፡
«አልተሸጠም» አለና ባለቤቱ መለሰ፡፡
«መቼም ያንን የመሰለ ማስታወቂያ ሳልጨምርም ሳልቀንስም ሠርቼ ገዥዎችን መሳቡ የተረጋገጠ ነው» አለ ባለ ቅኔው፡፡
«ላለመሸጡ ዋናው ምክንያትኮ ማስታወቂያው ነው» አለው ባለቤቱ ሻሂውን ፉት ብሎ እየሳቀ፡፡
«እንዴት፤ እኮ እንዴት» ባለቅኔው እየጓጓም እየደገጠም የያዘውን የሻሂ ስኒ ቀስ ብሎ አስቀምጦ ወንበሩን ወደ ጠረጲዛው አስጠጋ፡፡
«በጋዜጣ ላይ የወጣውን ማስታወቂያ ሳየው የተጻፈው ስለ እኔ የአትክልት ቦታ መስሎ አልታየኝም፡፡ ያንን ማስታወቂያ ይዤ እንደ ገና ወደ አትክልቱ ቦታ ሄድኩ፡፡ እየተዘዋወርኩ አንተ በጻፍከው መሠረት አየሁት፡፡ እውነትክን ነው፡፡ ምንም ኩሸትም ሆነ ድቅሸት የለውም፡፡ ራሴን ወቀስኩት፡፡ እንዴት እስከዛሬ እንደዚህ አድርጌ አላየሁትም ? ብዬ ተናደድኩ፡፡ በመጨረሻም ይህንን ዓይን የሰጠኸኝን አንተን አመስግኜ ከውለታችን በላይ ብዙ ብር ከፈልኩህ፡፡ የአትክልት ቦታውን መሸጤንም ተውኩት፡፡ ይኼው ነው ምክንያቱ» አለው ባለቤቱ፡፡
የባለቅኔውም ፊቱ በደስታ ፈካ፡፡
«በአንተ እና በእኔ መካከል ያለውን ልዩነት ዐወቅከው? ልዩነቱ ያየነው የአትክልቱ ሥፍራ አይደለም፡፡ ሁለታችንም ያየነው አንድ ዓይነት ቦታ ነው፡፡ ሁለታችንን የለያየን ነገሮችን ያየንበት መንገድ ነው፡፡ አንተ በአትክልት ሥፍራው ውስጥ ለሚገኙት ደካማ ነገሮች ብቻ ትኩረት እየሰጠህ ነበር የምታየው፡፡ እኔ ደግሞ በአትክልት ሥፍራው ውስጥ ያለውን ውበት ነው ያየሁት፡፡» አለው ባለ ቅኔው፡፡
«ልክ ነህ» አለ ባለ አትክልቱ፡፡ «እኔ ወንዙን አይቼዋለሁ፤ ነገር ግን የዳክዬዎቹን እና የፔሊካኖቹን ትርዒት አላየሁትም፡፡ ዛፎቹን አይቻቸዋለሁ፤ ከንፋሱ ጋር ተዋሕደው የፈጠሩትን ውዝዋዜ ግን አላየሁትም፡፡ ለብዙ ቀናት በአትክልት ቦታው ላይ ሆኜ ፀሐይ መቶኛል፡፡ ለመጠለል ዛፎቹ ሥር እገባ ነበር እንጂ እንደ አንተ ግን የጨረሩን አመጣጥ አላየሁትም፡፡ እኔ ያየሁት ለአትክልቱ የማወጣውን የጥበቃ፣ የአትክልተኛ እና የኪራይ ገንዘብ ብቻ ነው፡፡
«ለኔ ያ ቦታ የአትክልት ቦታ ብቻ ነበረ፡፡ ለአንተ ግን የሕይወት እና የውበት ቦታም ጭምር ሆነ፡፡ እኔ የወዳደቁትን የረገፉ ቅጠሎች ስመለከት አንተ ግን የተንሳፈፉትን ሕይወት ያላቸው ቅጠሎች አሳየኸኝ፡፡ እኔ በደረቁ ዛፎች ስበሳጭ፤ አንተ ግን ከደረቅ ዛፍ ላይ ውበት አመነጨኽ፡፡
«እኔ ወንዙ በአትክልት ቦታው መካከል ሲያልፍ ግራ ቀኝ የፈጠረውን ረግረግ እና ጭቃ እንጂ በአወራረዱ ላይ ያለውን ውበት ለማየት አልታደልኩም፡፡ እኔ በየጊዜው እያደገ ካላጨድከኝ የሚለው ሣር አስመረረኝ፡፡ አንተ ግን ሣሩ እንደ ደብተራ ጎንበስ ቀና እያለ ሲዘምም አየኸው፡፡ አዲስ ነገር አላመጣኸም፤ አዲስ ዓይን እንጂ፡፡» አለው ባለ አትክልቱ የሻሂውን ጭላጭ አንጠፋጥፎ ሌላ ለማዘዝ አሻግሮ እያየ፡፡
«ድሮምኮ በዓለም ላይ አዲስ ዓይን እንጂ አዲስ ነገር የለም» አለ ባለ ቅኔው በጣቱ ጠረጲዛው ላይ እየጻፈ፡፡
«ዓይን አይደል የለየን» ባለ አትክልቱ ሣቀ፡፡
«እርሱ ብቻ አይደለም» አለ ደግሞ ባለ ቅኔው በሁለት መዳፉ አገጩን ደግፎ፡«የቆምንበት ቦታም ይለያያል፡፡ ከሕይወት ላይ ቆመህ ሞትን ስታይ እና ከሞት ላይ ቆመህ ሕይወትን ስታይ ይለያያል፡፡ ለእውነት የሚሞቱ ሰማዕታት በሞታቸው ቀን ፊታቸው እንደፈካ፤ ገጻቸው እንዳበራ በደስታ የሞትን ጽዋዕ ለምን ይጎነጩታል? ምክንያቱም እነርሱ በሕይወት ላይ ሆነው ሞትን ስለሚያዩት የሞት መከራው ሳይሆን ውበቱ ይታያቸዋል፤ ሐሣሩ ሳይሆን ክብሩ ይታያቸዋል» አንገቱን ወደፊት ሠገግ አደረገ፡፡
«ይተንተንልኝ» አለ ባለ አትክልቱ ተጨማሪውን ሻሂ እያዘዘ፡፡ ባለ ቅኔውም ደገመ፡፡
«አንድን ነገር በፍቅር ላይ ሆነህ እና በጥላቻ ላይ ሆነህ፤ በደስታ ላይ ሆነህ እና በኀዘን ላይ ሆነህ፤ በብርሃን ላይ ቆመህ እና ጨለማ ላይ ቆመህ ስታየው የሚኖርህ ሥዕል ይለያያል፡፡ ውበት ያለውኮ በምታየው ነገር ላይ አይደለም፤ ዓይንህ ላይ ነው፡፡ ልቡናህ ውስጥ ነው፡፡»
«አንድ ነገር አስታወስከኝ» አለ ባለ አትክልቱ፡፡
«አንድ ወዳጅ አለኝ፡፡ እኔ ከሥራ ቦታዬ ወደ ቤቴ ስገባ እርሱን ወደ ውጭ ሲወጣ አገኘዋለሁ፡፡ ነገሩ ሲደጋገምብኝ ጊዜ አንድ ቀን ጠየቅኩት፡፡ ሁሌ ማታ ማታ ከሥራ ወደ ቤት ሳይሆን ከሥራ ወደ መሸታ ቤት ለምን ትሄዳለህ? አልኩት፡፡ ቤቴ አስጠላኝ አለኝ፡፡ በሦስተኛው ቀን አብረን ቤቱ ሄድን፡፡
«የወርቅ ፍልቃቂ የመሰሉ ልጆች አሉት፡፡ ባለቤቱ ትኁት እና ባለሞያ ናት፡፡ የቤት አያያዝዋ ቤቱን ቤተ መንግሥት አስመስሎታል፡፡ የዕቃዎቹ አደራደር ሊቃውንተ የተጠበቡበት እንጂ ብቻዋን ያደረገቸው አይመስልም፡፡ ያቀረበችልን ምግብ ሳትበላው በአቀራረቡ ብቻ ትጠግባለህ፡፡
«ምኑ ነው ቤትህ ያስጠላህ? አልኩት፡፡ ያየሁትን ነገር ስነግረው ስለ እርሱ ቤት የምነግረው አይመስለውም ነበር፡፡ እርሱ ቤቱን እንጂ የቤቱን ዝርዝር አይቶት አያውቅም፡፡ ምሳ መብላቱን እንጂ አቀራረቡን፣ አወጣጡን እና አዘገጃጀቱን አድንቆት አያውቅም፡፡ መጀመርያውኑ ቤቱ ያው ነው ብሎ አምኗል፡፡ ስለዚህም ምንም ነገር አይታየውም፡፡ ለማየት አልተዘጋጀማ፡፡» ባለ አትክልቱ ከሻሂው ተጎነጨለት፡፡
«ለዚህኮ ነው ነገሮችን እንድንጠላ፣ እንድንንቅ፣ እንድናማርር እና እንድንሰለች፣ ከሚያደርጉን ምክንያቶች አንዱ የምናይበት አተያይ ነው የሚባለው፡፡ እኛ የሰለቸንን፣ የምናማርረውን እና ያስጠላንን ቤት ሌሎች መጥተው ሲያዩት ሰፍ ይሉለታል፡፡ ይጓጉለታል፡፡ እኛ አቃቂር የምናወጣለትን እነርሱ ቅኔ ይቀኙለታል፡፡ እኛ የምናሾፍበትን እነርሱ ውዳሴ ያዘንቡለታል፡፡ እኛ ያቅለሸለሸንን እነርሱ ይቀኑበታል፡፡ ልዩነቱ ከአስተ ያያታችን ነው፡፡
«አያሌ ባለትዳሮች ትዳራቸው እና የትዳር አጋራቸው የሚሰለቻቸው በእውነቱ ነገሩ አሰልች በመሆኑ ብቻ ላይሆን ይችላል፡፡ የሚያዩበት ዓይን ጉዳይ ነው፡፡ በቤታቸው ውስጥ ምንድን ነው የሚያዩት? ነው ጥያቄው፡፡ በቤቱ ውስጥ ከሚያናድደው፣ ከሚያስጠላው እና ከሚያስመርረው ነገር ይልቅ የሚያስ ደስተውን፣ የሚያረካውን እና ነፍስን በሐሴት የሚሞላውን ነገር ማየት ለምን አይጀምሩም? ሚስቴ ያው ሚስቴ ናት፤ ባሌም ያው ባሌ ነው ብለውኮ ነው የሚያስቡት፡፡
«አንዳንዶቹማ እነርሱ ያላዩትን የትዳር አጋራቸውን ውበት ሌላው ያየውና መማለል ሲጀምር ነው ያልታያቸውን ውበት ማየት የሚጀምሩት፡፡ ለካ እንዲህ ነበረ ማለት የሚጀምሩት፡፡»
«ምን እርሱ ብቻ» አሉ ባለ አትክልቱ፡፡ «አሁን ሳስበውማ በሀገር ላይ ያለው ችግርም ይኼው ነው፡፡ ለመሆኑ የት ላይ ቆመህ ነው ባህልህን፣ እምነትህን፣ ቅርስህን፣ ማንነትህን፣ ታሪክህን የምታየው? ይኼኮ ወሳኝ ነው፡፡ እስኪ ተመልከት እኛ የምንንቃቸውን፤ አይተናቸው የማናውቃቸውን፤ ከቁም ነገር ያልቆጠርናቸውን ነገሮች ሌሎች ከሩቅ መጥተው መጽሐፍ ጽፈው፣ ፊልም ሠርተው፣ ዘገባ አዘጋጅተው በሚዲያ ሲያቀርቡት እንገረማለን፡፡ እኛ ያላየነውን እኛ እነርሱ ያዩልናል፡፡ የናቅነውን ያከብሩታል፡፡ የጣል ነውን ያነሡታል፡፡
«ችግሩ እንዳልከው የጉዳዩ መኖር አለመኖር አይደለም፤ አተያያችን ነው፡፡ የዓይን ጉዳይ ነው፡፡ እኛ ለታቦተ ጽዮን ከምንሰጠው ክብር በላይ እነርሱ ለአንድ የጥንት ብርጭቆ ይሰጣሉ፡፡ ለምን? እኛ ራሳችንን በንቀት አምባ ላይ ቆመን ነው የምናየው፤ እነርሱ ግን ራሳቸውን በክብር አምባ ላይ ቆመው ነው የሚያዩት፡

Democracy is an idea not a rule of thought

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.

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.

The stumbling opposition

Editor's Note: Since I wrote this piece, the opposition in exile, mainly G7, has emerged from its long awaited ceremonial reconciliation with the major archenemy of the current regime, the OLF, which also up until now, insisted in keeping the significantly dissociating gap with the rest of the opposition. It has officially denounced its separatist policy, which had been the stumbling block of any coalition with other pro unity parties, which encompasses almost all others.

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 think how far the message can resonate with the wide specter of the population to draw their ultimate attention for a popular support. Sometimes the rhetoric won't go beyond a 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 have to ask if it is enough to propagate a sensational message to the people it targets for change. In my opinion, if the idea is not showing convincing tendencies of fruitfulness in 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 look into 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, specially 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 look into the causes and change the course if need be, 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 a free thinking population may 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 thinking society strives when an idea is not necessarily predetermined by a leadership as bad and as a result, blocked, but when it is offered to the people to judge. This kind of gesture requires a regime that accepts a contending power to be, if chosen by the people. There is a thin line that intrigues me as it may have instigated many other curiosities to asking 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, rather a power that continues as a back bone of the system. To establish a system that conforms with the upcoming challenges, one has to 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?