Why early election is important

Over two years ago,in the middle of a daunting crisis in Ethiopian politics, I thought, if the unrest continued, conducting early election and abandoning the parliament would be one of the solutions for transforming and stabilizing the unrest. Things turned out to be different in what seemed to be a 360 degree turn of events. However, the level of conversation I had with one of a few who showed interest to read my article, still proves to be relevant. Read on...

This is the opinion I came up after realizing the current situation in Ethiopia is creating a negative progress in terms of human development that the country is in a dire need. The government admits its various shortcomings in resolving the problems of the youth (which are at least half of the population), the deterioration of corruption, and the lack of timely response for all identity questions. In other more relevant democratic systems, this is equivalent to lack of confidence in the ruling party, which can immediately lead to an early election.

In today's historic speech made by the president in the opening ceremony of the parliament, the remedy for the current unrest in the country was proposed. The measures that will be taken, if done correctly,  are very promising. The 10 billion Bir for rehabilitating the youth, and the steps that need  to be taken to create an inclusive government with more vibrant and participating opposition parties in the parliament are some of the major policy changes that the government looks persuaded to take. Whether it is out of concern for the uncertainty of the future or to be ahead of the game early enough, is yet to be seen.

The media has also changed its usual way of doing things by exposing the rather unwelcoming rhetorical opposition leaders as the instigators of the violence, in a bold attempt to put all the eggs for the people to judge, by openly transmitting the war mongering leaders' instructions given to their followers through the social media. The very vocal social media records that clearly identified the  true nature of the diaspora leaders, who openly condone violence, are put for the people to see where the evil is coming from. These can be damaging to the power seeker's agenda, no matter what the results may be.

Although these major steps to change course show how quick the government is to understand and correct its weaknesses, it's yet to be seen whether it will bring calm and get people to rally to the government's side.

The whole scenario we are witnessing these days could have been easy to predict, if one has read thoroughly in my booklet, "Horn of Africa beyond Borders", published while this regime was at its inception. It brought up the major opportune moments the then TPLF ignored, where there could have been challenging, but interesting form of government that would sustain, or in some cases get admiration to have contained the otherwise provocative opposition. That way, its my guess that there wouldn't be accumulated frustrations that violently surface like the one we see now in a form of unrest. If the violence was unavoidable, then, it wouldn't be as intense; again my belief.

If the unrest continues, or in some cases, it escalates, the clear sign of the message would be lack of confidence on the government. This is when the leadership, including the parliament should be  dissolved and start over with a true election that will be cautious of not using 100% again, all in the name of halting further stupidity of the opposition to resort to destruction.

The following is the conversation I had after posting the above article on Facebook on October 10, 2016:

• Eyob Solomon Interesting! But ... Hmmm, how about starts by forming the transitional government together and which can only serve 1-2 terms until... 1- The oppositions in freehand establishing themselves, their's eventual party programs. 2- Reaching out to the public freely and fairly so that the public can be able to judge and choose? For instance I am completely in favor of Pr Mesfin's preposition for the getting around the unfathomable and terrifying scenarios seem to lie ahead. For me, too often feels parties and the public has never been given a fair chance to listen to one another which results citizens have never had the power over their voting rights or the power over the true sense of rights to choose. I know democracy and the right to choose is a process and therefore I'm convinced this process has to start somewhere, where the publics and the available political parties meets without anyone's interference!

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 2y
• 

  Et Tune Thank you for reading through my piece. I did listen to prof. Mesfin's proposal. It's an extensive analysis and solution for transitioning the country to the next stage. However, with all due respect for the professor and his intellectually interwoven experience, it all comes to one man's opinion. Ethiopia is bigger than all of us and so is made up of ideas from all angles. So is the Horn of Africa, which I engage my focus, even bigger. My opinion is based on the fact that using the election as a window of opportunity, where the parliament and the opposition can participate, will bring back the 1997 opportune moments as better than a failed memory. This time though, it should be about continuing with whatever victories are gained and make an extraordinary effort to widen the window, with a priority given to conducting all in a civilized manner without forgetting every significant entity has a stake in the country's affairs, and no one should be stained with hate. This said, as usual, it is only my opinion, and the key is not to have a closed mind.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 2y
• 

  Eyob Solomon Yes dear having open mind is the key! Regarding the proposal I mentioned earlier, of course it can and should be debated, reshapes, reformulates, etc. But at least it is the proposal available and based on the exploration of the reality as whole on theground!! And if it applies can serve all without exception!! We all see and recognize the situation in Ethiopia on our own terms. The reality, however, seems to have reached the point where there is no return. To propose the re-election, betting millions for job creation ... etc are not near to the recognising nor addressing the root cause of the uprising!! The whole uprising from north to south, east to west, is unanimous and no matter how we look at it, citizens are saying enough to the existing regime, period! And everyday citizens are paying the ultimate price for their demands!! The proposals given to lead the country to a peaceful transition without really recognize and embrace the people's frustration and demand, is for me, either is in serious denial or for some reason is an able to see the true nature of the whole situation. There is a huge gaps between the regime and citizens and that gap did not came through the night... it came from a developing mistrust over the years!!

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 2y
• 

  Et Tune Yes you're right about mistrust developing over years. There's no country on earth whose government can rule comfortably without mistrust developing from some or all angles, depending on how spread it can be. The level of mistrust that caused the recent unrest, can be interpreted in various ways. In my article, I tried to present it as a lack of confidence on the government, if the unruliness intensifies. If this was the case, sooner or later the emergency measure will not stop people's will. What you said can be tested by the upcoming events, on whether the violence is based on people's will or not. Until then, it's hard to jump into any conclusion. What I meant to say is, as large as Ethiopia is, and with rapidly evolving dynamics, we need to be careful not to sensationalize personal or group opinions, although they seem to have considerable number of supporters. It can be a tasty move to misinterpret the validity of ones agenda as if it is broadly accepted, and bet all one has on it, especially when and where it may not seem applicable to the reality on the grounds that have already come a long way, whether we like it or not. It's all about accepting things with open mind and adopt any analysis as one of many possible solutions, and not as the only remedy that has to be universally accepted. The damage this kind of thought can bring is incalculable. Another way to think about the recent events may be to try to suspect if the violence hasn't served the purpose due to the damaging and at times frightening situation many haven't called for. Imagine how many would want this to repeat. The way to success that would attract the overwhelming majority would be to have a situation where a popular movement would prevail from coast to coast. That only happens naturally, without us stirring it badly.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 2y
• 

  Eyob Solomon I just wonder why this term "some" sounds so familiar ?? In any case, I do not have much objection to your words or opinions. On the contrary! However your opinions based on your analysis of the existing situation/the conflict of interest between the ruling regime and the citizens, and given solutions to it, could have applied sort of likely 10 or 15 years ago! I say this with the risk of being labelled for exaggerating/sensationalised for personal or groups of anti of someone or something agenda. It is OK!! There is no government or policy that can benefit everyone! Even with policy enforcement which in fact went through referendum is that the majority oppresses the minority! But if the regime's policy is based on or a means to establish the specific ethnic group's superiority over the other stakeholders and the superior's interest in the priority?? Yes, the result is what we are witnessing in our own home and the more uglier and bloody yet to becoming! Yes that's right, Ethiopia is a large nation with its enormous complexity, and therefore the TPLF regime is not suitable to rule this huge nation! The tone of the uprising, the fearlessness towards the ultimate price (which unfortunately can only be demonstrates out of, when have nothing to lose) and the measures being taken by demonstrators is the solid prove! I say it again whether we hear it or not the voice is unanimous and calling out loud "ENOUGH to EPRDF Tplf". Me as individual or any of these opposition's inside the country and abroad role is irrelevant or insignificant in this existing coast to coast uprising.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 2y
• 

  Et Tune Agreed. It has been the ultimate goal of most of us for quite a while. EPRDF is behind in its promise to involve the main stream Ethiopians in power sharing and economic balance. I can write the cause for this delay in many ways. What we need to stress on, however, is pushing ever harder to that goal in as many working ways as possible, and we can't be definite in perusing the one that is the most effective. We need to treat any form of struggle we choose as a process instead of making it an end in itself. There is no such thing in my vocabulary. That's why I hear the same thing from each quarter of the major driving forces of the country to the extent it gets boring because they all talk from their quarters point of view, and stick to it no matter what. Each group wants to paint the other as a demagogue, that is bent to destroy the country. If I ever get the time to listen to some of those rhetoric, sometimes I feel it is the end of the world. Things shouldn't be that way.

My take

                          Let's face it

The way to approach the current situation in Ethiopia is to closely study the development so far and look for where and how the current unrest surfaced. With a population of 90 million and growing with tens of ethnic groups here and there, it shouldn't be a surprise if things somewhere, somehow get out of control. The most important thing to do, as a capable government is to weigh and react to the depth of  the cause accordingly. This is very important in case the government loses grasp of the changing situations.

It is imperative that the elite, like everywhere else in the world, effectively plan the vision for the country. It is also a necessary requirement to closely monitor the conditions of applications for any well studied plans on the ground. There can be various reasons a proposal that is meant for the good of the people can be misunderstood and rejected by some layers of the community. It can be a culprit for the watchdogs that yearn to spread their own agenda as a destabilizing confusion that can convince the unsuspecting and easy going section of the population. There shouldn't be a room given for granted for people's trust to work the system out. Instead, any viable cause that results in the uprooting of the otherwise traditionally accustomed way of life should be clearly negotiated to avoid unexpected developments.

There is also another vital area to assess when talking about dealing with a population that constitutes any country. Being secretive may be to the advantage of playing an effective leadership role as long as the outcomes prove to be ahead of the game and there is an overwhelming appreciation for the farsightedness of the idea. Otherwise, involving the individuals or groups that can play an inclusive role will save the ruling party from creating alienated and disgruntled citizens who will find it easy to feel they haven't got much to lose from the demise of the system. I say this because offering an inclusive system for those who would rather chose to be part of a national cause would be good for stability and a peaceful coexistence within a diverse society.

When I turn pages and pages of opinions which are sometimes believed to be the driving forces for some discord among significant groups (could be as large as the ethnic group such as Oromo initiatives), I am compelled to make my own conclusion about why some issues succeed in looking legitimate to the extent of being accepted by a reasonable majority in the group, but do not have the capacity to hold their influence nationally. The way to tackle those kinds of movements that tend to be narrow  minded, is by letting them vent their fury until they realize they are surrounded with a self serving and in most cases undemocratic agenda at its inception. Those groups are already proving to be inefficient by lacking a broad minded approach to those with differing opinions, including outright dismissal of their dogma by painting them with being the stooges of the enemy or the other side. When one thinks of what "the other side" means, it is nothing other than building fences so that constructive ideas and tolerance for other causes gets blocked, yielding no options for reconciliation, renegotiation, revision, and as a result formulate a reconstructed view to fit the will of the overwhelming majority, in  a way that makes a national sense.

This kind of behavior emanates from emotion rather than reason. One can realize this kind of compulsive attitude by reading through what they may address to their audiences. Coating the beginning of their statements with some realities they may find hard to ignore, it is in the main body of their message that one can learn what  they stand for. Most of their points are illusive, mainly filled with old time hatred than contemporary solutions for  contemporary problems, thus placing them as far behind in progress as possible.

My opinion thus far is not meant to appreciate one group and denigrate the other, as there can be no positive progress that way. As an observer from the side, I can easily tell what I see is not to the level of my expectation from all sides, hoping this will alert all stakeholders that failing to correct problems at their inception, no matter which group it may be, is a sign for a dark future in the making. 

My take

       Why it is important to analyze before critic

In this multifaceted and diverse world of ours, there are usually many ways of looking at any issue we are facing in our daily life. In some cases the issues may be too local to be complex enough to draw ones attention. More often than not, the issues are not as easy as adding one to one to get two. Issues involving the destiny of a significantly large area or population can be a daunting task to decipher, because as large as the size is, the complex nature of the situation compels one to look at the big picture in order to come to conclusions that demand oversight.

There are so many issues we need to resolve to improve the conditions of life in general. Global issues are actually the compilation of the local or regional realities that need equally important attention. Be it the climatic, poverty, leadership, or systemic issues, one has to approach them locally as well as globally to tackle them. All of them lead to political tensions if not dealt with appropriately by the concerned. That is the reason why everywhere we go we find those who lead and those who have to watch the appropriateness of the leaders.

As one goes to different places, one can easily observe the striking differences be it in  culture, literacy, scientific progress, landscape, natural resources, etc. But all of those differences are the constituents of the beauty of this world by making it ever diverse. Our planet is one, and can only be seen by a stranger (alien) as one. So, however diverse we are, the global outlook unites us whether we like it or not.

All those diversities mentioned above persuade us not to look at things at a face value. Things are deeper than some of us like to make them look. Those of us who like to simplify things and give a simpler answer, or pose simple questions to an otherwise complex situation, not only display ignorance, but also lack responsibility. As such, comments or critics that lack deep analysis about major issues that beg for answer always lead the observer to ask: Would they be capable enough to accomplish a better job if given chance, or are they just playing a destructive role because they may think they may not be affected by whatever consequence follows their immaturity. Or may be they are worried the analytic approach to mutual problems may either benefit their opponent or classify them as a proponent.

• 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.