nazret.com Merkato Blog

The missing 8.6 million Ethiopians, where art thou? By yilma bekele

I couldn’t sleep all night. I kept turning and tossing to no avail. What was bothering me was what I heard on VOA yesterday afternoon. VOA is Voice of America for those of you not in the know. I found out I can listen to VOA on my smart phone and things haven’t been the same. My phone has become my best friend. I can surf the web, send email, watch You Tube, shoot a video, listen to the radio and oh yes talk too. My phone has become indispensable. Back to my story.

Dispersed among the many important stories of the day I heard the announcer discussing food, rather the lack of food in East Africa. Looks like the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) was passing out the plate to collect donations to feed poor Africans and the pledge from the Europeans fell short and the director and African delegates were crying about the indifference of the rich countries. This is what you call aggressive begging. It takes balls to sit on such virgin land and blame others for your own stupidity so I didn’t pay that much attention to the story.

What came next was what piqued my interest. UNFPA (UN population fund) was discussing the state of human population growth. According to them there are eighty-two and half million Ethiopians. Plenty of us if you ask me. On the other hand the Ethiopian government count shows seventy-three point nine million Ethiopians. Quiet a discrepancy wouldn’t you say. We are talking about eight point six million Abeshas an accounted for. Now you know why I couldn’t sleep.

I don’t mind if we are missing a few thousand of us. You know how African borders are. It is possible the day or week of the count some have ventured far following rich grazing grounds or even gone to the market in a neighboring country. It is also possible so many are escaping and temporarily situated in Sudan, Kenya, Somalia, Eritrea or Djibouti. I doubt if they will stop for the census bureau to be counted. Believe me eight point six million is not a small number. For crying out loud it is larger than a whole bunch of countries entire population.

Staying up all night has its rewards. As the sun was rising over the rolling hills of East bay, the birds chirping signaling a new day the answer came to me, we Ethiopians have a problem with numbers! We just don’t know how to count. That is not idle talk my friend, I got proof.

Let us just start with famine. According to the UN, US Aid, Oxfam and other professionals who do this sort of stuff for a living there are over ten million Ethiopians in need of food. According to the Meles regime the number is less than four million. It sort of bizarre to haggle over the number of your own people condemned to die of hunger but that is what has become of our country. Why this obsession with numbers you might ask. It is because the TPLF regime is always interested in the degrees of suffering of our people.

They start with the great famine of 1973 and compare that with the famine of 1983 and arrive at the startling conclusion that says less are dying thus we are doing better. With TPLF the question is not how to avoid famine but how to manage famine. Thus they spend time, energy and try our patience playing with numbers.

How about the much heralded 12% growth. Again it is a number TPLF throws with abandon gets quoted by Reuter or Bloomberg ergo it becomes a fact. The question is does reality on the ground jive with fantasy in the collective brain of TPLF cadres? I am afraid not. Putting up some concrete structures using Diaspora money, paving roads with IMF and Chinese loans is not an example of sustainable growth. It is just feel good economics or voodoo economics. The numbers are repeated again and again purposely to etch them in our mind.

Even the so-called Federal budget is not immune to this number challenge we face. After the 2005 elections the TPLF regime was printing money as if it was going out of style. The money was used to bribe the different EPDRF minions and buy their temporary loyalty. When the Federal Audit Report showed the truth about the minority regimes borrowing of billions of Bir the Prime Minster was not amused. Our fearless leader called the report a ‘junior accountants error’ and rejected the findings. His handpicked teams of investigators were able to shift a few zeros and bring the report in line with his wishes.

The mother of all ‘number challenged’ problems was the 2005 general elections. It was a situation where electorate and the ballot were in complete and total dis-harmony. It took more than six months of the best TPLF cadre’s brain to reconcile what really happened with what was supposed to happen. Even our favorite Woyane Bereket Semeon’s Wollo constituency was in disarray. The second balloting ordered by TPLF showed more people than what turned out to vote during the first free and euphoric election. Go figure that out!

Numbers and facts came to clash during the recent ‘Tekeze dam’ inaugaration. The prime Minster was proud and precise when he said Tekeze was built by "berasachin genzeb" Again does this jive with reality or does it leave many un answered questions. According to some knowledgeable sources ‘The Tekeze Dam Project financing is by China National Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Company (CWHEC), 49pc, and China Gezhouba Water and Power (group) Ltd, 30pc, and Sur Construction, subsidiary company of EFFORT, 21pc. (TPLF) So what is it? Does it belong to us or the bond holders? Is this a new formula of financing? Questions, questions.

I will leave you with one number problem we encountered a while back as told by our own Tamagne Beyene. He tells it a whole lot better but I will do my best. The TPLF radio, yes they used to have a radio station during their armed struggle for the liberation of Tigrai, in its reports of their heroism was throwing increasable numbers regarding the number of Derg solders they have killed. Unfortunately when the numbers were added up at the end of the day they showed that they have killed more solders than all the Derg military combined.

The question for us is shall we get out of this numbers business? Shall we bring in outsiders to do any and all counting business in our country? Can Ethiopians be trusted with numbers or is it a localized TPLF problem? No matter it still leaves us with eight point six million Ethiopians out there with no one to claim them. Misplacing that many Abeshas is nothing to sniff at, I want my people accounted for.

Ethiopia - Five Days, Five Months and Five Years (555) !!!!

By Tedla Asfaw

The number 555 is a number which has to be seen closely after Eng. Hailu Shawel's now famous handshake with the tyrant of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi about which many things have been said including the angle of bow. However, President Obama might have beaten Eng. Hailu on that battle on his famous handshake with the Japanese Royal by few degrees angle of bow.

When it comes to the substance of the handshake that cemented the " Code of Conduct" for the coming "election"let me say that only the gesture by Meles Zenawi for his hated adversary has changed our politics for good or bad back home and here in the diaspora.

Moreover, the battle in the diaspora that was sparked by this famous handshake is now raging on Internet and pal talk rooms. Ethiopian websites and pal talks are now the battleground pitting former friends against each other added with die hard TPLF worshippers who seem elated beyond control. One thing for sure is that forgetting the angle of bow the picture of Meles with Hailu handshaking has changed our politics here dramatically.

On this battle, all the combatants wanted to score a point. The now famous, "it is 5/five days noise" by Eng. Hailu is quoted widely as a rallying cry to separate him and his party from his diaspora supporters. TPLF or Woyane supporters publicly are rooting for Eng. Hailu's led party, AEUP as they were rooting for Lidetu's party after he surrendered on the crackdown of May 2005 to save his life and enter parliament, finishing his term for being a polite listener on most of Meles Zenawi's lectures for the last five years..

The next Five Months/5 is going to be critical for the coming "election" if AEUP can reach to its constituencies freely as was promised on the agreement with TPLF. As we heard on the weekend on AEUP radio, its organizers from Tigray, Illubabor, Afar are ready to establish the broken contact with their constituencies using the handshake as a cover. If that succeeded, the five months window of opportunity will change the political landscape of Ethiopia for the next Five Years/5 and maybe as a milestone for Ethiopian politics to be remembered for future..

The Medrek party leaders back home will also be on the bandwagon very soon if outsiders/Fernjis help them find face saving formula. Some of their leaders in North America are fund raising, of course ,to participate on the" election "as they have done for the last two decades. The current stalemate with the ruling party is not about substance but positioning and selling themselves as better and strong party to "challenge" TPLF for public.

TPLF knows and worked with most of the current leaders of Medrek. The separate negotiation they requested after it was rejected by TPLF, their supporters in the diaspora,however, have found a new enemy called "Enjerawe Hailu" and the insult and vilification is now at full speed and asking many of us what could be the motive behind all this ?

In any case if Medrek follows its "supporters" call here and go on attacking AEUP and its leaders as sell out, the first question they will get from the public is where they have been for the last nineteen years ? Were not they working for the same policy of TPLF they seem now new and why do the Ethiopian people believe them that they are different than Meles Zenawi's TPLF led EPRDF ?

It is also true most of noise against Eng. Hailu's AEUP is coming from Ginbot7supporters even if their leaders do not attack AEUP and its leader directly. They know that is not going to help them here in the diaspora because Ginbot7 is not believing TPLF will give power peacefully except armed rebellion then they should not make alliance of any kind with Medrek, the born again peaceful movement that will give excuse for TPLF to lock them up.

The victory news which Ginbot7 promised are now heard from east, the ONLF scoring victory over TPLF/Ethiopian soldiers and EPPF fighters annihilation of TPLF on the northern front. No doubt, this kind of real or make believe battle will be with us for the coming five months and Gibot7 has to focus participating, than reporting, on the joint military attack with OLF, ONLF, EPPF and guaranteeing another liberation, similar to the TPLF victory in 1991.

What our people can not and should not do is to be bystanders and let armed rulers or oppositions decide their future. The May 2005 verdict is still fresh in our peoples mind that people power can defeat armed thugs. The power of people is still a force that will send shiver to TPLF and all armed groups who care less for public opinion and in fact afraid of it very much.

The choice our people have is from two devils, the known armed tyrants and the future liberators. AEUP has chosen to play with the known. Ethiopians know from the recent local election experience that the ruling party is not only with guns but also with sacks of money to buy and coerce voters. Farmers are under the mercy of TPLF cadres so do workers.

We remember also the TPLF "supporters" rally on the eve of the May 2005 election. The thousands they come out coerced as supporters of TPLF/EPRDF in fact voted for Kinijit and no buying of vote will make our people vote for the current regime this time too in a fair and free election because the majority of our people lives have getting much worst than it was five years ago.

Will TPLF cheat the voting ? Surely, Will it win ? Not in a free and fair election ? Can we be idle ? Hell no !!! That is the message of Five Days, Five Months and Five Years, 555, Give me Five !!!

Ethiopia - Election 2010 Who Would Win Politics or The People?

By Genet Mersha

Posted on November 18, 2009

It is several months now since Medrek, the Forum for Democracy and Dialogue (FDD) (Political party in Ethiopia), has made public its minimum programme (MP), which this writer got hold of on tecolahagos.com. I had hoped to comment on their MP, which to my mind has many strong positions, much as many weaknesses, especially with respect to the rule of law, its advocacy of a role for parliament no different form the present, balance of powers issues and some of its proposals pertaining to the economic sector.

In an unfortunate turn of events, however, news sources reported early on not only about Medrek’s refusal to join the four-party negotiations, but also its subsequent dissociation from the code of conduct for the 2010 election, signed early this month between the ruling party and three others. As it appears now, Medrek is the only political party that is puzzled by the agreement. It rejects it as sneaky and prepared by the ruling party in collusion with parties whose leaders it sees as associates of its primary opponent.

The problem with this position is that it has denied Medrek possibilities to make its mark on the code of conduct, which it may be compelled to accept eventually once it becomes part of the laws of the land, unless it boycotts the election altogether, or alternative solution is arrived at. Boycotting the election is not a good prospect for a free and fair election. Nor would the people of Ethiopia be served well by an outcome such as that limiting their choices, not to speak of the disenfranchisement that may entail to those behind Medrek.

Early wind of election related crisis

At the time of writing of this article, the impasse between Medrek and the four signatories has remained unresolved. At least by insinuation, the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) has not been spared of accusations of taking sides, or for ceding its authority to the four parties. That charge springs from the Board having to invite all legally recognized political parties in the country for discussion on the code of conduct. At the meeting, Medrek strenuously objected the convening of the parties for that purpose, on a document for which the NEBE is not its author. The chairperson of NEBE rejected the allegations of impropriety on the part of the NEBE claiming that nothing in existing laws prevents it from advancing the objectives of parliamentary parties (Walta, 4 Nov). It is to be seen how tenable this position would be, in the event the problems gets out of hand and disagreements deepen.

Since the signing of the agreement, Medrek claims the media has turned against it with full-blown attacks portraying it as an obstacle to a peaceful election. Medrek also accuses the ruling party of having imprisoned 450 of its members and candidates “to stop them [from] running as candidates in national elections” (Reuter, Nov 3). In his October 29 press conference, Government Head of Information Bereket Simon had responded to similar allegation stating that those imprisoned were criminals and rapists.

Furthermore, on 11 Nov. quoting Ato Gebru Asrat of the coalition, Reuter reported opposition members and supporters were refused food aid to force them to join the ruling party before the coming national election. Ato Gebru Asrat emphasized, “Only ruling party members can now join the programme [food-for-work], so it forces desperate people to leave the opposition.” Similarly, Eng. Hailu also speaks of about mistreatment of his members, despite them being members of the new alliance, which he said were being handled with the ruling party in a quiet way (The Reporter, 8 Nov).

Even then, nothing irks Eng. Hailu Shawl as much as Medrek’s complaints about the imprisonment of its members. His advice to Medrek is not to waste its breath (The Reporter, 8 Nov), as his party also continues to suffer similar fate. He says, “We do not cry loud. We follow up with letters. Sometimes we get positive responses, sometimes not. They [the EPRDF] do not like it when one is loud about such things.”

The latest response by government and party officials is either to dismiss such allegations of harassments or invite the complainers to a ‘discussion.’ Ato Hailemariam Dessalegn, EPRDF negotiator, used the opportunity to invite Medrek to return to the negotiating table. "We were asking them [Medrek] several times to come to the negotiation table they are always boycotting—not once - four or five times. I think the problem is just allegation… They haven't brought to EPRDF issues with evidence. And we still urge them and beg them to come into the discussion. And whatever problem they have, we are ready to discuss with them" (VOA 11 Nov.)

Consequently, it has now become clear the wind of election-related political crisis has begun to blow much too early, even before the start of the official campaign season. Unfortunately, ruling party officials, their supporters, and junior members of the new alliance appear to be carried away by a sense of euphoria that the agreement has imbued them. An evidence of this is the speed with which the code of conduct was whisked to approval by all the regional parties and readied to be made into law by parliament. What is missing here is the realization that that courts disaster, by not being a sufficiently solid foundation for a transparent, free and fair election, wherein a strong party with a likely strong public support is objecting its manner of adoption. So far, there has not been much too obvious by way of rejecting the substance.

Has the agreement put the EPRDF in a bind?

In elections, the contenders compete for power and ultimate control over everything in society—state institutions and their powers of coercion—and through them a country’s resources and shaping national policies in the direction of their preferences. That is why in all elections political tensions are far too common, exacerbated by emotions running high, exchange of unkind words with unfounded charges and perceptions of ill-gotten gains. Mostly, the fierceness of such struggles is more evident in our region with so many countries at low levels of development, where governance is centred on the interests of strongmen.

As is often the case in those situations, the rule of law is absent; institutions are fragile and toothless, hijacking of electoral processes endemic, the outcome of all these is rigged elections and political violence. Election usually provides a forum for open and covert display of repressed tensions and resentments within society (the case of Kenya), such as the lack of or limited exercise of power by the broader society (Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, etc.), access to opportunities and resources, ethnic inequalities and religious problems (prevalent in a number of countries). Not long ago, our country had passed though a tragic path that ever since has negatively changed its otherwise huge potentials for improved life with good reforms.

This time while Ethiopia is preparing for a new round of election, what is apparent is a false sense of triumphalism within the four-party alliance on one hand, which seems to countenance the idea of isolating and stifling Medrek’s eight-party strong coalition, seemingly as if that is the end of the road. On the other, Medrek has not been any different in over-estimating early on its combined strength that its opponents have also read into too much. Thus, it has been enticed into seeing itself on a higher pedestal than the other parties could claim in that respect. Its ‘holier than thou’ attitude seems to have made it believe itself as the sole advocate of democracy and human rights in Ethiopia.

Individually, the three members of the alliance believe they have better chance of competing against Medrek because of the agreement —but not out of a matter of trust in their strength, the law, principles, or the institutions. They seem encouraged that the EPRDF has picked up some costly lessons from election 2005. In its latest editorial, Addis Fortune has captured well their sense of comfort and what has given these parties confidence. It states, “Abrogating on these deals [the new agreement] would embarrass the EPRDF leadership worse than any of the opposition parties. The incumbent would loose legitimacy to rule should it win the coming national elections in another round of electoral debacles after making such agreements.”

While on the surface the alliance claims to have fostered new possibilities, not all is swell from within. For them, they acknowledge [especially Eng. Hailu] theirs is a status clearly defined and understood as junior partners. Their only insurance policy of sorts is their success in locking the ruling party into a binding agreement, as Eng. Hailu has acknowledged (The Reporter, 8 Nov). They feel not only the EPRDF would not accommodate Medrek at their expense, but also believe its freedom of choice and action is limited. Because of that, they are comforted that the ruling party would not risk breaking its agreement, at least, so long as it serves its interests, against Medrek, not theirs.

In recognizing that, Eng. Hailu was quick to point out that the agreement can no longer be re-opened hereafter, although Medrek is welcome to be a part of it anytime. He told The Reporter, “Any new negotiations and changes in it can no longer happen; it is not acceptable at all.” Asked whether he trusts the EPRDF to implement fully the agreement, as he sees it, his response was brief, “ask me in six months time.” However, he was open to acknowledge his party has numerous outstanding issues with the EPRDF.

In contrast, the other two parties seem content with participation and in increasing the number of their seats in parliament. To that effect, Ato Lidetu Ayalew of EDP on 14 November told The Reporter, “However narrow or wide the political space is, whatever the final outcomes will be of the ongoing dialogue between political parties, EDP will not give any excuses not to participate. Instead, it is confident that it will win significant votes in the coming elections and is currently recruiting its candidates.”
Where does Ethiopia go from here?

On one side, the issue at hand is that the ruling party is working hard to remain in power, while its opponents are desirous, at best of unseating it, or increasing their parliamentary seats. This is in the nature of elections and a good political tradition, where knowing ones strength is strength by itself. That is what Ethiopian politics terribly lacks and proved incapable of acquiring.

At this point, it is important to recognize that millions of Ethiopians must have been on a diet of faint hope for some time as regards the forthcoming election because of negative experiences. On the other hand, they must long for an energetic political competition amongst the parties, in the light of Medrek’s success in pulling itself together as a coalition and a strong challenger to the ruling party, a difficult but an important political evolution. Clearly, Medrek will have to prove its cohesiveness as the electoral phase changes fast, that it is capable of participating with a single voice and a single objective in mind.

Added to this, the public pledge into which the ruling party has been pulled into to abide by international principles governing the conduct of free, fair and transparent election should be encouraging millions of voters. Compared to election 2005 and the tragedies surrounding the post-election phase, this is an improvement in many respects, so long as solution is found to the present political difficulties, the lack of which may force Medrek to boycott, as it has repeatedly indicated.

This time around, the international community has also become more involved in helping in the preparation of the country presumably to organize free, fair and transparent election. Furthermore, this writer views the invitation by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin to Washington D.C., this month as part of those processes. It may be the much-talked sign of President Obama’s quiet diplomacy to declare his administration’s expectations of greater transparency and respect for democratic principles in the forthcoming election, not much of its feel seems apparent on the ground though. Thus, clearly international efforts in helping address the current political crisis judiciously seem woefully inadequate or constrained.

Perhaps this is because of the dictates of their interests and concerns in the Horn of Africa, thanks to Somalia, Africa’s troubled child. This reminds me of Alexander Hamilton’s opinion piece of July 10, 1793 under the pseudonym Pacificus that states, “It may be affirmed as a general principle that the predominant motive of good offices from one nation to another is the interest or advantage of the nation which performs them.” This should impress on political parties and citizens, primarily it is their duty to safeguard the national interest, including the ardent search for political solutions, without forgetting such involvement in our country may be indispensable at this stage.

The state of affairs & election politics

Clearly, if indeed Medrek changes its mind and opts to stay out, not only would that make the prospects perhaps of a strong opposition in the country (even by EPRDF’s assessment) bleak, but also casts dark shadows on the conduct of the election itself. If it so happens, neither the coalition nor the ruling party should expect to walk away freely and point fingers at anybody other than themselves. This is because, first, chances of good competition and as many choices to the electorate would be lost. Secondly, this would entail the disenfranchisement of an unknown size of Medrek supporters, perhaps including those that have been disillusioned with government policies.

Whereas Medrek is now in a seemingly disadvantageous position, all the same the ruling party has greater stake in a successful election. Without it, it cannot glide safe to the world of legitimacy and credibility that has eluded it this long. The forgotten lesson still is that neither force nor ‘smart moves’ could be a midwife for that. The good midwife avails herself primarily when there is genuine interest in addressing all allegations of impropriety by the Electoral Board without equivocation or delay. Otherwise, the Electoral Board would stand to be accused of not being faithful to its obligations and responsibilities under the law.

There is no doubt that the challenge for the ruling party is enormous. For a reason of its own, it would not view Medrek’s participation with the ease and glee it exhibited at the beginning of this month at the signing of the code of conduct for the election. Nevertheless, it cannot escape from its freely and officially expressed commitment to be governed by internationally accepted rules and standards for a free and fair election. Adherence to it is the only strength to the ruling party. That is why, as its formidable challenger, signing by Medrek of the code of conduct, if at all it does, has become worrisome to it. It has necessitated on its part to make extra precaution through the creation of the alliance of the four with possibilities for the establishment of a parties’ council. If that proceeds as is, it would be the first to look into complaints, instead of the NEBE.

Therefore, if that is the case, as it stands now, it is hardly likely that existing electoral mechanisms would work transparently to prevent any presumption of or acts of unfairness that subsequently might lead to torrents of complaints during the election phase or tragic consequences in the post election stage. That is why the ruling party and its allies need to open their minds’ eye and envision what lies ahead.

Risks to the conduct of free and fair election

There are two challenges that would endanger prospects of a free and fair election. First, if the current process is allowed to continue without satisfactory settlement of the obstacles flagged by Medrek, the election faces serious challenges, irrespective of how many have signed on the code of conduct, whether or not parliament approves it, when even one of the registered parties is compelled to withdraw. Why is this? Unless the code of conduct authorized by parliament is consistent with internationally accepted principles, it would face problems of conflict with the principles of free and fair election to which the international community cannot close its eyes.

In the event that squabbling extends into pre-election phase in early December, the dilemma it poses to observers in certifying the election later as free and fair should not be underestimated. At the same time, this does not mean the trouble would be over with Medrek participating or boycotting altogether. What is material here is whether the alleged obstacles are the cause and that they negate the conduct of free and fair election, according to acceptable international standards on elections. In this case, the question of what the role of the NEBE should be needs to be clarified once again, especially vis-à-vis the role of the party’s council. Otherwise, when complaints are submitted to the NEBE, it cannot tell the complainers that it should go to the parties’ council, a situation that makes the Board redundant.

Such a situation unless corrected in time, what is worrisome is that the party’s council may be usurping the powers of the NEBE. Should this situation continue, it would be another complication to the competing parties as well as the work of international observers. The ruling party seems to have recognized that, if this situation lingers on, it would not be a good start for the electoral process itself. Complaints would keep on pouring going forward. That is why it is bent on pressuring Medrek in every conceivable way to get it sign the agreement. Already, the signing of the agreement and recognition of the coalition’s legal status seems to have been linked (technically, if not legally), as a means of not only pressuring Medrek but also whether it should have voice at all on how the election is run or complaints are treated.

Secondly, even if those problems were addressed sufficiently, it is less likely for the ruling party to be able to exercise full control over its cadres and supporters throughout the country that through the years have been fed and bred on the notion that they are free to do anything against the opposition for the good of their party. During the past two decades, the opposition has been seen not as people with legitimate cause and the right to contend for power, but no differently from enemies of the nation.

In its latest editorial, Addis Fortune writes of this as follows, “For the EPRDF…the few MPs in parliament were hardly politicians with a proper mandate from their respective constituencies deserving of acknowledgement and respect. Unfortunately, all the leaders of the opposition, including those in parliament, were summarily branded "anti-peace, anti-democracy and anti-development" forces. It ought to humble Meles now to know that he just shook hands with the very same people he once would have minced in public statements - even from the parliamentary platform - through the forceful employment of the above terms.”

As a sign of the brewing trouble, members of the ruling party have even been unable to avoid official inconsistencies, betraying motives or issues they deny on the media. For instance, on 29 October, at his ‘regular’ press conference to the foreign press, Ato Bereket emphasized, "Signing is not a precondition for registering.” Nonetheless, since then every effort has been exerted to isolate and discredit Medrek. Not long after, Ato Sekuture Getachew of the EPRDF advised those who claim allegation of mistreatment to take their cases to the parties’ council, for that matter even before it has become legally and officially functional.

Opposition forces in Ethiopia are at a severe disadvantage. Even then, the experiences of our country during the last five years have shown that there would be little advantage to be had by boycotting election. In reality, not the election mechanism or the courts are free to exercise their judgements. Boycott would only leave the political field wide open to the ruling party and its allies that are in an embrace mode now. They would seize the opportunity to fill up parliament with their supporters and adopt any laws, irrespective of their consequences to the rights and dignities of citizens or the interest of the country.
The past has also shown Ethiopian opposition groups have gained little by their refusal to join parliament after the last election, especially after tragic and costly sacrifices have been paid in lives and human sufferings that continue to be felt to this day throughout the country.

Parliamentary democracy as a path toward societal democratization

All politicians love a short cut to power, although the rewards of the extra miles are more rewarding. There is no exception to that. Nonetheless, given today’s reality of a single party dominance in Ethiopia, as these past two decades have shown, the only practical option at this moment for the country is to focus on means of reducing the power of the ruling party with a view to strengthening parliamentary oversight. This goal can be attained through:

(a) participation of all opposition parties in the 2010 election, with a view to joining parliament; and,

(b) fostering parliamentary democracy that would enable especially the maintenance of checks and balances between parliament and the powers of the executive that has straddled all over, and thus the reason for its excesses so far.

It should be stated that, in offering such a political opinion it might be in order to give indication of from which angle this writer is coming. That would help avoid needless speculations. Therefore, the purpose of this article is simple and straightforward; it is to help galvanize opinions and facilitate their crystallization. Overtime this may lead to actions in support of sensible political direction as part of the process to foster responsible governance anchored in democratic principles. In putting these ideas forward, it is essential to make it clear that the writer is not beholden to any political party, nor has affiliation with any organization, at home or abroad. These are the personal views of a concerned citizen about the direction of the country’s politics and its economic future. It is of vital importance that Ethiopians begin to see openings through parliamentary democracy, without excluding other realistic and peaceful alternative avenues.

I was recently taken aback by the review of a well-written book by Gail Collins of the New York Times, titled When Everything Changed: the Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present. In introducing her work, the author cogently highlighted that women’s equality in America is not simply a matter of protests by suffragists or feminists, or men’s goodwill. She observed that, among the favourably advancing factors were also societal forces and developments that moved in tandem. In that connection, she listed education, the expanding economy requiring more workers, day care, birth control pills, the civil rights movement, new home appliances, women’s rising incomes meeting men’s on their way down in times of a series of economic downturns. Thus, after the 1960s, within a short decade, American women began to see real changes one after the other, today where they are half of the labour force.

This is one demonstration of the fact that how major achievements are not merely the outcome of huge bangs or legislations, occasional protests or someone’s goodwill, or mere solidarity with other groups, but a combination of favourable factors moving together to facilitate opening of great possibilities for realization of civil and equal rights. In Ethiopia, today political power has in reality become the dominion of those who wield power, instead of influence. The former comes from the barrel of a gun, the latter from the people. The former has kept them in power. However, it did not get them the peace of mind or enjoyment of public support of the majority of citizens. It is a hard lesson that since 2005 has made government aware of its shortcomings.

In the absence of other viable alternatives, parliamentary democracy better fosters and strengthens democracy within the broader society by empowering representatives of the people in parliament. If the ruling party counters that by unlawful means, it would only expose its last cover to national and international criticisms and condemnations. Thus, this path may have a lot to offer our nation towards a system of democratic governance, instead of sterile squabbling in the wilderness and vegetating under conditions of the past eighteen years where a single and unchallenged winner has kept on amassing it all.

It is important for Medrek to quiz itself now where it would be on the political map once the election is over without participation. This question was presented to Medrek’s Chairperson Dr. Mererea Gudina, who in the course of his US tour in early November, responded by saying, “The struggle would continue as in the past.” One would think Medrek would have a better plan; may be it does, but he did not say; nor is it evident at this fateful moment. This is not being thrown to prejudge Medrek’s strength or public sentiment toward it. It is only to stress people certainly want change—not for change’s sake—but an empowering change that for a long time has been lacking. Medrek has to show, if it has what it takes to deliver that.

Finally, this paper would not be complete without reminding everyone to press in every way possible for the release of all political prisoners. Most of all, the place of Judge Birtukan Mideksa at this time is not in a prison cell, but in the electoral fray along with her colleagues and with the Ethiopian people.

Ethiopia - The Donor Colony

Ginbot 7 Press Release

At present, donor countries give Ethiopia two billion dollars in development aid annually, amounting to nearly 60% of government expenditure. What does the ruling TPLF regime do with this largesse? As it has done all during its eighteen years in power, it diverts much of this donor largesse towards maintaining a tight grip on power through systematic repression, political imprisonment, and human rights abuses.

Among the thousands of political prisoners in TPLF jails is Ethiopia's first female political party leader, Birtukan Mideksa. She was imprisoned for life for simply questioning government propaganda regarding the conditions of an earlier jail sentence.

Much of the political responsibility for this and other TPLF human rights abuses lies in the hands of donor countries. As any government is accountable to its source of funds, the TPLF is accountable to donor countries. Donors, by giving the regime aid, have assumed de facto majority control of the Ethiopian polity, marginalizing the Ethiopian people and reducing their democratic rights. In effect, Ethiopia has become a donor colony.

As funders of the TPLF regime, donors must accept not only political responsibility, but more importantly moral responsibility, for the regime's abuses. They are morally responsible for all misdeeds and consequences of the TPLF dictatorship, including not only political oppression, but also economic mismanagement and the poverty and famine that continues to plague Ethiopia as a result.

There are only two ways for donor countries and their citizens to properly address this moral culpability. One is to find or negotiate a way of reaching directly the needy ones. The second solution is for donor governments to assert themselves fully, hold the TPLF regime accountable and force it to put an end to human rights abuses and move towards democratic governance.

To date, donors have done neither. In fact, they have not even been willing to subject the TPLF dictatorship to any significant public criticism of the type they regularly meet out to other dictatorships in Africa and elsewhere.

Instead, they seem to be working towards the further dilution of the democratic rights of the Ethiopian people. For example, they are currently engaged in an exercise of essentially strong-arming opposition parties to nominally participate in the TPLF's next show elections. (Apparently, donors were embarrassed by the optics of the TPLF winning last year's local elections by 99.9% and would like a slightly less Soviet-like number this time around.). Such cynical and unethical policies and practices on the part of donors is reminiscent of a bygone colonial era.

Ginbot 7 believes that there is no place for this sort of abrogation of moral responsibility in the modern world. Donors have made Ethiopia into a colony - it is time they ensure that the Ethiopian people enjoy the same rights and freedoms as their own citizens.

Ginbot 7 PR Office

Ethiopia -Witness for the future

By Alemayehu G. Mariam | November 16, 2009

In his book Night, Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor and the man the Nobel Committee called the “messenger to mankind” when it awarded him the peace prize in 1986, wrote:

For the survivor who chooses to testify, it is clear: his duty is to bear witness for the dead and the living. He has no right to deprive future generations of a past that belongs to our collective memory. To forget would be not only dangerous but offensive; to forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time. The witness has forced himself to testify. For the youth of today, for the children who will be born tomorrow. He does not want his past to become their future.”

On November 9-10, 1938, the Nazis destroyed thousands of Jewish homes, synagogues and businesses throughout Germany, killing nearly 100 and arresting and deporting some 30,000 to concentration camps. That was Krystallnacht (Night of Broken Glass), the forerunner to the Holocaust. On March 21, 1960, apartheid security forces in the township of Sharpeville, South Africa, fired 705 bullets in two minutes to disperse a crowd of protesting Africans. When the shooting spree stopped, 69 black Africans lay dead, shot in the back; and 186 suffered severe gunshot wounds.

Following the May, 2005 Ethiopian parliamentary elections, paramilitary forces under the direct command and control of regime leader Meles Zenawi massacred 193 innocent men, women and children and wounded 763 persons engaged in ordinary civil protest. Nearly all of the victims shot and killed died from injuries to their heads or upper torso, and there was evidence that sharpshooters were used in the indiscriminate and wanton attack on the protesters. On November 3, 2005, during an alleged disturbance at the infamous Kality prison near Addis Abeba, guards sprayed more than 1500 bullets into inmate cells in 15 minutes killing 17 and severely wounding 53. These facts were meticulously documented by a 10-member Inquiry Commission established by Zenawi himself after examining 16,990 documents, receiving testimony from 1,300 witnesses and undertaking months of investigation in the field.

Under constant threat by the regime and afraid to make these facts public in Ethiopia, the Commission’s chairman Judge Frehiwot Samuel, vice chair Woldemichael Meshesha, and member attorney Teshome Mitiku fled the country with the evidence. They made their findings public on November 16, 2006, before a committee of the U.S. Congress. Their report completely exonerated the protesters and pinned the blame for the massacres entirely on the regime and its security forces. No protesters possessed, used or attempted to use firearms, explosives or any other objects that could be used as a weapon. No protester set or attempted to set fire to public or private property, robbed or attempted to rob a bank.1

The victims of the post-election massacres were not faceless and nameless images in the crowd. They were individuals with identities. Among the victims were Tensae Zegeye, age 14; Habtamu Tola, age 16; Binyam Degefa, age 18; Behailu Tesfaye, age 20; Kasim Ali Rashid, age 21. Teodros Giday Hailu, age 23. Adissu Belachew, age 25; Milion Kebede Robi, age 32; Desta Umma Birru, age 37; Tiruwork G. Tsadik, age 41; Elfnesh Tekle, age 45. Abebeth Huletu, age 50; Regassa Feyessa, age 55; Teshome Addis Kidane, age 65; Victim No. 21762, age 75, female, and Victim No. 21760, male, age unknown and many dozens more.2

Ethiopians have a special duty to bear witness for these innocent victims who died as eye witnesses to the theft of an election and the mugging of democracy in Ethiopia in 2005. They went into the streets to peacefully defend their right to vote and have their votes count, and defend the first democratic election in Ethiopia’s 3,000-year history. We must force ourselves to testify for them not just as victims of monstrous crimes but also as true patriots. For they acted out of a sense of duty, honor, love of country and deep concern for the future of Ethiopia. They died so that 80 million Ethiopians could live free.

Ethiopia’s dictators would have the world believe that the victims of their carnage were nobodies who did not matter. It is true they were all ordinary people of the humblest origins. But we value them not for their wealth and social status but for their patriotism and sacrifices in the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights.

Elie Weisel is absolutely right. We have a duty to bear witness against those who commit crimes against humanity and for the innocent victims of tyranny and dictatorship. We have to “force” ourselves to testify not only for the dead but also “for the youth of today, for the children who will be born tomorrow.” We do not want the massacres of 2005 to become the future of Ethiopia.

When we bear witness for Ethiopia’s innocent victims, we bear witness for all victims of tyranny and dictatorships. For the cause of the innocent transcends race, ethnicity, religion, language, country or continent. It even transcends time and space because the innocent represent humanity’s infinite capacity for virtue as dictators and tyrants represent humanity’s dregs. When we bear witness for them, we also testify in our own behalf against that evil lurking secretly and deep in our souls and hearts. But by not forcing ourselves to testify against evil, we become an inseparable part of it. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.” That is also the essential message of Elie Weisel.

Let us bear witness now for Zenawi’s victims. Let us tell the world that they cry out for justice from the grave. Let us testify that they died on the bloody battlefield of dictatorship with nothing in their hands, but peace and love in their hearts, justice in their minds and passion for the cause of freedom and democracy in their spirits and bodies. Let us remember and honor them, not in sorrow, but in gratitude and eternal indebtedness. Let us make sure that their sacrifices will tell generations of Ethiopians to come stories of personal bravery and courage and an abiding and unflinching faith in democracy and the rule of law. And when we despair over what appears to be the victory of evil over good, let us be inspired by Gandhi’s words: “There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS.” Let us remind ourselves every day that “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men and women do nothing.”

Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on Pambazuka News and New American Media.