By Messay Kebede
I understand Fekade Shewakena’s impatience with my article urging for dialogue rather than mutual incrimination. I also understand his appeal to substitute outrage for dialogue so long as he really believes that the crisis within Kinijit is “anything but salvageable.” What is less intelligible to me is the benefit expected from a reaction controlled by outrage. Does it help advance the cause of unity and reconciliation even by one iota? Does it not, rather, solidify the split to the point of making it irreversible?
Indeed, outrage expresses itself in one single and definitive way: it condemns one faction and entirely exonerates the other faction. In so doing, it forces Ethiopians to take side, thereby turning them into prosecutors even as their status as citizens and voters require them to be the judge by considering all sides. Clearly, arbitration evades us when we judge without listening to all sides and this conforms more to the position of a partisan than to that of a person seeking the truth.
Yet the effort to know the truth is necessary more than ever before if only because an outright condemnation of one faction puts us in an incongruous situation. If Hailu Shawl is as evil and dictatorial as he is portrayed now by many people, we are faced with the question of knowing how he was able to fool so many people for so long? I remember hearing many people and readings numerous articles praising his leadership and his contributions, first in transforming the All Amhara People’s Organization into the multi-ethnic All Ethiopia Unity Party, and then in working for the generation of a united and democratic organization such as the CUD.
Far from me to condemn one faction in favor of the other faction: I don’t have enough information to make any categorical judgment, all the more so as I have now become very suspicious of the partisan discourses that are posted here and there. By contrast, I know that all the CUD leaders, without exception, are heroes. They have achieved a lot more than defying the TPLF regime, they have created a democratic hope; nay, they have shown us the readiness of the Ethiopian people for a democratic government. I will be eternally grateful for the images of the huge rally in favor of democracy that took place in Meskel Square.
That said, I urge some of my critics to reconsider the main message of my previous article. I asked to move our critical inquiry into the breakup from individuals to organizational issues because individuals make mistakes or are able to thwart expectations when structural fissures allow them to do so. My belief now is that the leadership crisis within Kinijit could have been predictable had we paid more attention to structural issues. Hence my appeal: we will never be able to reflect on organizational matters so long as we make one individual responsible for the whole debacle. It is one or the other: either Kinijit was not a democratic organization from the start, since one man can absolutely prevail, or the dissenting man represents a reaction of a disappointed party. In both cases, the crisis originates from a flaw in democratic form of organization.
From Haile Shawl’s declarations and the complaints of his supporters one gets the clear idea that the main problem emanates from the fact that his party, although otherwise the core organization in the alliance both in terms of popular mobilization and material assets, was yet overshadowed by individuals representing far less important organizations. This core organization especially attributes the victory of the May 2005 election to its mobilization of rural population to the great dismay of the ruling party which had wrongly counted on peasant support to retain its absolute majority.
Add to this frustration the unfortunate situation of the leader of the core party diminished by disease. Imagine the frustration that can arouse when at the very time the leader is incapacitated, top CUD leaders decide to travel to the US where they are enthusiastically welcomed and cheered by the Ethiopian diaspora and received by American Congress people as the representatives of the legitimate opposition. My question is: seeing the importance of the Ethiopian diaspora and American involvement in Ethiopia, was it wise to come to the US without the legitimate President of the movement? Was there any urgency that justified the decision, all the more so as Hailu Shawl––I heard him on the radio––expressed his opposition to the trip? I am not raising this issue to exonerate Hailu, but to point out that the attribution of the split to power conflict is not without foundation.
Let us go further: leadership split is by no means new in the political history of Ethiopia. Recall how the split between the EPRP and the MEISON laid the ground for the victory of the Derg. The split had no ideological cause, since both parties firmly espoused the Marxist-Leninist version of social change. Dig as deep as you want, you will only find the Ethiopian vision of political hegemony through the elimination of rival groups. The Derg, too, will soon be torn by bloody factional rivalries, even though all its members publicly adhered to the same ideology. More recently, the TPLF itself has become victim of exclusive rivalries.
Another recent expression of the inability to accommodate political rivalry is found in the events that led to the imprisonment of the CUD leaders and the massacre of peaceful demonstrators. Instead of leading to the recognition of the CUD as a political force, the electoral outcome advised the ruling party to opt for a policy of repression of the opposition. Yet, nothing was against a political accommodation, even a government of national unity except the propensity of seeing politics as a zero sum game.
The ethnicization of Ethiopian politics is itself rooted in the inability to compromise between rising elites. Already, Haile Selassie regime had expressed its utter incapacity to accommodate the Eritrean elite by dismantling the federal structure. To the extent that the federal arrangement allowed autonomy to local elites, the interpretation of politics as a game of exclusion could not rest until it converted autonomy into subordination. The marginalization of the Tigrean elite under Haile Selassie largely explains the radicalization of Tigrean intellectuals and students and their subsequent conversion to ethnonationalism. Likewise, elite exclusion is responsible for the shift of Oromo intellectuals and students to ethnonationalist forms of struggle.
When one problem repeats itself with such determination and damaging implications, it loudly asks us to go beyond the easy game of blaming individuals. One must look for deeper causes, both structural and cultural. What individuals do is nothing but the expression of a deeper flaw that we need to identify and eliminate. That is why I called for dialogue rather than incrimination. The betrayal of individuals is just a symptom of a sickness that requires critical awareness and far more elaborate measures than the blaming of individuals. By the way, I ask the reader to glance at Genet Mersha’s interesting article titled “Plea for Common Sense & Decorum.” It refers, among other things, to a cultural explanation of the Ethiopian bent to political intolerance. See
Democracy is the institutional ability to accommodate disparate, even antagonistic interests through compromises and give-and-take arrangements. It does not operate with unanimity; instead, it recognizes discordant interests, thereby expressly rejecting the recourse to subordination or elimination. If the CUD leadership is unable to solve this crisis democratically, that is, through the method of achieving compromises by surpassing the old practice of demanding subordination under pain of elimination, then its democratic nomenclature is nothing but a fraud. What is more, if the leadership fails to operate a democratic reorganization, I do not see how it could promote a democratic order as a government. This perception is most damaging since the only way by which we can ideologically and practically curb the separatist tendency of the various ethnonationalist parties in Ethiopia is through the assurance of a democratic order that accommodates their concern and legitimate interests.
To sum up, the leadership crisis within the CUD is a challenge testing its ability to resolve conflicts democratically. The failure to resolve this crisis democratically either by returning to pre-unity formations or by creating new parties simply testifies to its inherent lack of democratic spirit from the start. If the CUD is not able to act democratically while in opposition, one cannot help but wonder about what would have happened if the May election had led to its enthronement as a ruling party. Would we have seen one faction throwing the dissident faction in jail? What a scary thought! Indeed, what fill my mind is not outrage, but dismay and apprehension.
_____________________
Dr Messay Kebede can be reached at [email protected]
You don’t have to travel regularly to have a reason to go on vacations. All you need is information regarding hotels or if you are looking for an affordable deal, cheap apartments.
26 thoughts on “Dialogue or Outrage? – Messay Kebede”
Selam Dr Mesay:
You wrote :” I don’t have enough information to make any categorical judgment, all the more so as I have now become very suspicious of the partisan discourses that are posted here and there.”
Please gather enough information first and talk to us. Many of us knows what we know. Do not preach us here about Ato Hailu for he is no better than Ato Meles.
I could not agree more with Professor Messay Kebede.
I believe it is up to the members on both sides to demand for the unity of their party without delay.
sisay
Dr. Messay,
I can share only one important thing from the points you made, i.e. the issue of structural problems. The leadership crises going on within CUDP are clear indicators of how weak CUDP is in terms of its organization. In fact, this should not be a surprise. It should be expected given the time CUDP was formed and the need to rush for election campaign. If we analyse the situation in Ethiopia at the time of election we understand that CUDP’s success in the election was not due to its organizational strength. What CUDP has been known for is its vision and mission and what contributed to its success was only the election campaign. That is all. Otherwise, structural issues remain to be key factors to be addressed for CUDP to emerge with sustainable organizational unity and strength.
Coming to the question of practicing democracy within CUDP, what I understand from all the information disseminated from both sides and the course of events is that the party has been democratic only on paper. To begin with the party has bylaw and written guidelines reflecting democratic principles. I think the most important next step would be to organize the day to day activities of the party in a manner that supports clearly shared responsibilities and delegation of authorities. This could include the management of finances and properties that appeared to be the root of all the problems. Individuals who wanted to manipulate financial matters jumped to block any move towards assessing the internal organizational strength at any cost, even at the expense of the party’s existence. In the contrary, those who remained dedicated to democratic principles have no option but to think about appropriate actions that can be supported by the party’s bylaw; and they are trying to establish democratic order.
So, it is up to Ato Hailu to understand and respect the bylaw of his party and properly present his case for discussion. Whatever his track record is, he can not be treated differently and can not be considered as if he is above the law. I think the public has enough information from both sides to make a balanced judgement. The issues related to his trip and the trip of the five members team visit in the US, as presented by Hailu and supporters, are childish and have nothing to do with the practice of democracy. It is only the behaviour of Hailu that gave CUDP a non democratic appearance. I can not see any reason to talk about negotiation. Whom do you expect to negotiate with Hailu? On what points? He is the one who failed to carry on his leadership role as he attempted to provide a cover to alleged corruption. What has been required is for Hailu to respect the bylaw of his party, which is not negotiable. Hailu & co. has the ball on their hand. If you are considering ‘Shemglina’ I think it is too late. Hailu has already done everything he could do against the rule of law.
Your description of Hailu as a leader of the core party in CUDP is offensive and an attempt to give legitimacy to his possible sliding back to his Melaw Amara or Melaw Ethiopia party, which was dissolved during the formation of CUDP. We know CUDP as one party; not in terms of different components. We can not go back and talk about Melaw Amara (Ethiopia) and Kestedemena we know only ‘Kinijit’ and its bylaw. Therefore, the issue of Hailu should be dealt with based on the bay law of ‘Kinijit’.
I think u were in comma for the last four months,sorry happey new year Dr Messay Kebede.
I am very perplexed by the good professor’s article. The struggle Kinijit and the Ethiopian democratic forces are faced with is not acadamic. It cannot be put on hold until we convene a tribunal to examine what is going on with one faction or the other. The point Fekade Shewakena made in his article is clear. We have heard enough and we have seen enough for close to 4 months. Dragging the families of the martyrs of June and October 2005 to this political game is the ugliest of all. So, he is outraged, I am outraged and I am sure there are several others who find this distasteful. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to express our disgust to leaders who condon or resort to this kind of political game. It is also perfectly alright to expose the elementary and self-contradictory nature of the accusations being leveled by the Hailu Shawel camp. In short, we should express our outrage, disgust and contempt for the banter being peddled as factionalism or a coup-de-etat of sorts. It only magnifies the insecurity of an individual.
As for the point Dr. Mesay seems to have focused on – AEUP being the bigger partner in Kinijit – one can say a lot but let me limit myself to the following:
1. Which AEUP assembly or conference raised this issue? If it did, why is it being pushed to the fore now?
2. Before being part of Kinijit, where was AEUP going? What was its political stature in the Ethiopian body politics?
3. Why are other AEUP members (including Eng. Gizachew and Ato Biruk) embracing Kinijit if there is such a dissatisfaction among former AEUP members?
I know Dr. Mesay means well but I think we should move beyond this distraction. All good “shimagles” should continue their effort to salvage what is salvagable. If unity and reconciliation are possible, please work hard to achieve these quitely. However, let’s avoid re-enacting the scanalous banter of the last 4 months on Ethiopian pro-democracy websites.
I am very confused with the response of the good Dr. Mesay to Ato Fekade Shewakena. What more information and proof does one need to know where the problem of Kinijit lies. There are a great deal of numbers of audio files and pdf documents all over the internet for one to listen and read, if the interest is there and if they know how to surf the internet. We have heard what the defunct Eng. Hailu had to say. Whenever he had opend his mouth, there was nothing that shows he is telling the truth. Every thing what he said about the other leaders is inconsistent, contadictory and dregatory. He has exposed himself to be dull and uncommunicative and very low in standard while choosing his words to explain things. I had not seen an iota of signature that indicaties he is capeable of any leadership. I can say he is worse phatalogical lier than Meles himself.
If Dr. Mesay is waiting to hear something sensible from Eng. Hailu he is out of luck. Dr. Messay please wake up and open your ears and eyes. I believe you are a respected intellectual and have a higher caliber to analyize what the situation is. Good luck
I think Dr. Messay is one of the Ethiopian intellectuals who uses his intellectual caliber to try to look in the right direction. His weakness, in my opinion, is that often times, he fails to see far enough, including in this case. I don’t believe any intellectual worthy of its name would dismiss Dr. Messay’s analysis.
I am disappointed by Hailu’s leadership but have bright perspective for the party to rise again.
Leadership is the ability to endorse his position of understanding into the hearts and minds of his supporters in order to acquire the most acceptances from them. A good leadership often displays a passionate devotion as well as strong conviction for what he regards as the moral correctness of his vision. Surprisingly, our leader fail to exhibit that quality of leadership instead molested his power by imposing a satisfied group in the environment A and surprised yet disillusioned in the environment B. If the leadership implies power by imposition or influence rather than through persuasions then clearly this is not a democratic leadership but primitive autocratic rule on the making. Is this the mission of our leader? You duel on it.
The initial purpose of the leader is to avert the unpleasant environment between A and B (even though he himself created) through the advantages of his age reverence and the wisdom he accumulates by guiding others with in the frame works of his authority exclusive of siding with A/B to elude polarizing environment. Although it is in human nature to fundamentally differ in thinking or perceptions, on the issues that matters to us the most, the leader should have nonetheless an apex point where he believes to find a common ground that narrows if not abolishes the polarizing arguments A and B pursue, and direct them to the point where all feel satisfied. Subsequently, he will be able to bail out the entity he represents or leads from the sense of indignation that may occur. Frankly, a leader that lacks the expertise and skill to rise above the time of crisis so as to accommodate political differences within let alone being the cause of it, is disappointing and condemned to failure.
Sadly, the leader that had emerged as a promising start, slowly but surely fades away by disappointing those who invested their time and trust upon him. Above all who thwarted the most are those martyrs who dearly paid the ultimate sacrifices for the party they believed and felt that it will lead them to the destiny we all benefit and aspire. However, Kinijit can only rise up as a strong and dynamic entity for simple fact that it is people’s party and it is within every body’s heart and mind. Its idea has gone beyond any individual may claim the tenure as private entity. More over, any future leader must be morally purposeful who can engages his supporters with the principles and values of the entity he leads; above all, his effectiveness should be measured not only by the magnitude of his supporters but also by the manner he persuades others to strive willingly for the objectives of the party to fulfil.
Besides that, the future leaders must comprehend the expectation of eminent accomplishment from their supporters and should always possess strong confidence in undertaking the fundamental objectives of the party as well as the ability to achieve the high expectations (certainly lead to victory) that the people of Ethiopia failed to achieve for the last generation.
Nevertheless, the nation has endowed on the paradigm of Kinijit, which is the underlining cause for the party to function under repulsive environment and I have no iota of doubt the party will rise up again to accomplish the mission it started and deliver the much needed triumph.
Dear professor,
I am really impressed in your article of the need for compromise despite the fact that whether the issue is individual or organizational. You are right in assuming that Hailu’s worry emanates from his personal importance in the party and the role he played in the movement, and this issue has to be addressed seriously. You mentioned a crisis between EPRP and MEISON, which was not “ideological”, has cost millions of lives and favoured a ground for forces of reaction.
I now realize and share your opinion of the need to show concern and sympathy for the fear he has-being placed second place in the party he contributed a lion’s share; though I don’t support the path he followed.
Good article worth reading and must be circulated for discussion to change our attitude of ignoring any concern however minute it may be and we must stop the culture of demonizing our heroes.
All are our heroes!!!
DR.Messay please wake up and come onboard other wise you will be the last to be fooled.Do not let your emotion control your mind,let your mind control your emotion.It is the greatest thing to over come your fear.
When dialogue brings no result, then what?
When dialogue fails to solve the problem, split comes, followed by denigrating each organization’s name including its leader’s name. No doubt in my mind that the denigration of an individual’s name or an organization comes out of outrage or frustration as we always get angry when we failed to accomplish anything good, and instead of blaming ourselves we blame the other person. So what does an organization do when dialogue brings no result? Dissolve the organization or change the leadership? Dissolving the organization defeats the original purpose of the organization – to give the country democratically elected political leaders. Changing the leadership may not be as hard as dismantling the organization if the organization per see is democratically established – an organization that includes all ethnic groups. Before it changes its old leadership and brings a new leadership, it has to thoroughly discuss the main factors why it is changing its old leadership without antagonizing the person responsible for running the organization.
I wish all the CUD leaders, as Mr. Messay Kebede asserts, were indeed heroes, including Mr. Shawel and the others, but how can we be sure that all of them are indeed indisputable heroes? Can you mention a single achievement these heroes of ours have made so far except they have come to North America to collect money, which is by itself not a bad idea? How many times the vice President of Kinijit has to postpone a meeting because most of the so called leaders don’t show up for the meeting? The time that I will call them heroes is, however, when they have demolished the Woyanne regime and replaced it by democratically elected leaders. Right now, we are not even sure whether “dialogue” or “outrage” will solve the leadership crisis Kinijit is facing.
If we have a big problem in Kinijit leadership and have failed to solve the problem either by dialogue or by outrage, without avoiding the issue, how are we going to solve the bigger problem when we take the place of Meles Zenawi when we assume the power? Do we have a person in mind who will be the prime minister or the president of Ethiopia? When that time comes, we will be in a bigger turmoil than we are now. I know some people will say the voters will determine whom they want to lead them. I wish this were true with the voters; however, the voters never have had a chance to have a democratically elected leader whom they want. The voters are always cheated by their political leaders. Therefore, are we prepared to present to the Ethiopian people good political leaders from whom they could choose? If we avoid selfishness driven by ethnicity, it is possible we can present the Ethiopian people excellent prospective leaders ahead of time.
Another problematic issue is how to select such prospective leaders among the educated Ethiopians. Will experience, education, age, personality, ethnicity, wealth, and ethics be the criteria to select our future leaders? We have to discuss about all these issues ahead of time before the election.
Mr. Messay suggests that we should discuss about the organization rather than about the individual, which means we should not make the individual responsible for the mistakes done within the organization. Yes, I agree with Mr. Messay that individuals make mistakes, but the leader that leads the individuals is more responsible than the groups. For example, who is responsible for Iraq war? The President is responsible. Who is responsible for the May 2005 massacre in Addis Ababa? Meles Zenawi is more accountable than his police gangs.
Mr. Shawel is the president of the greater party – Kinijit; in this case I don’t see the other individual parties, as Mr. Messay thinks, are overshadowing Mr. Shawl’s Party – Kinijit. It was Mr. Shawl’s party that came to North America. It did not come to North America under another president’s name. Its president was still Mr. Shawel even though he was in a hospital. If Mr. Shawel was opposed to Kinijit’s coming to North America, as a president of Kinijit, why didn’t he write the vice president a letter explaining his disapproval to Kinijit’s long journey.
Leadership split sometimes helps the message to spread to the other parts of the world as it happened to the Christian Church during the 4th and the 16th centuries. The more the Church split, the more the Gospel spread all over the world. So is it with most organizations.
Under Haile Selassie, as Mr. Messay attests, it was not just the Tigrean elite that had been marginalized; the Amhara elite had been marginalized; the Oromo and the other regions elite had been marginalized like the Tigrean elite. So marginalization is not the only factor that created ethnonationalism that has existed before and after Emperor Haile Selassie.
I agree with Mr. Messay that whenever an organization faces a problem, we should not rush to blame the individual rather than to try to solve the problem in a dialogue form without first blaming the individual.
I do not know what the deeper causes that brought “structural and cultural problems” to the organization as Mr. Messay points out without telling us the answers; however, I don’t think most of us are unaware of the leadership crisis Kinijit has had. We just do not know how to solve it, and I’m sure we will solve it without hurting the person who created it.
The problem with democracy in Ethiopia is that every Ethiopian ethnic group assumes that it has lost the election because it is from Oromo or from the Amhara or from the other ethnic group. Until we eliminate such ethnical divisions through dialogue and persuasion, we will never have a true democracy in our country.
What information you are left with, Dr. Messay? A court and Judges established by Ato Hailu that passes life term imprisonment and death penalty on CUD leaders? That is the most democratic practice which is difficult to expect from Ato Hailu. You want to hear (yefiyel wotete), the death action taken by his squads? Ok, you can wait. What intellectual?
Messay Kebede’s denigration of ethno-nationalism is truly misguided. I think he needs to do a lot of reading before he pretends to understand the concept. As a starting point, he should look into professor Asefa Jalata’s works.
I’m deeply ashamed:
A number of commentators above have shared their views, like many other countless times, about the article by Prof. Messay Kebede. It’s good to voice our disagreements with views when we’ve actual disagreements with the writer. However, there are better and right and acceptable ways of expressing our disagreements than some of the ones we’ve seen above.
For example, I don’t understand what it means to address a writer of when the writer happens to be a Dr. or a Prof, when some say “a good Dr” or “a good Prof.” so and so just before expressing their disagreements. It seems to me that someone said that in some contxt and many might unconsciously be copying whatever that person might have meant to communicate with it. I don’t see anything good in such addresses other than being cynical. I felt ashamed whenever I saw such expressions.
The worst thing I’ve noticed above is simply attacking the writer by calling him all kinds of things when a real and respectful ways of expressing our disagreements should have been by refuting the writers arguments where one sees them to be wrong. It’s a shame to see such sickening habits being repeated among fellow Ethiopians and I can’t tell how many times in one day I feel ashamed of being part of those who do such things in the name of the Ethiopian people.
By doing such things none of those who wrote shameful comments have advanced anything positive to anything. Neither have they refuted the view with which they meant to disagree with. Please come back and refute the ideas in the article and the writer, I think, will be grateful to you for showing him where he’s gone wrong. That is a civilized act and an opportunity to be growing together.
Yes, it’s none of my business to defend Prof. Messay who does not need my defence any way but the point I just wanted to make is this: when are we, Ethiopians, so many of us who persistently practice such embarrassing habits of showing off our ignorance to learn and grow and become mature adults? Can’t we learn from other humans beings please, if we can’t learn from one another as it seems to be the case? How are we going to remain at such juvenile and illiterate states while pretending we’re knowledgeable and advanced while our individual and collective ignorance is a poof that we’re far behind by centuries, if not by millenia?
Please, fellow Ethiopians, let’s be mature human beings and think and act with dignity and respect and civility and learn attacking views rather than the person. Please let’s learn even a little bit worth of an elementary level education’s skill in communicating with fellow human beings.
Yes, I’m endlessly ashamed of you, fellow Ethiopians because of what so many of you do on the web sites simply because you can construct some English sentences and you’ve an access to the computer. Such human beings and their actions are sources of endless shame for generations to come. With such sickening and destructive habits we’re going to remain a society that is nowhere civilized and a source of shame for the rest of the world. I can imagine the degree of shame others who happen to visit our web sites would feel when they read what many of us proudly write. This is contributing a history of shame in the name of pride to our children and their children.
Deeply ashamed by my own people.
Anon
I agree completely with the previous writer. What is hard is that, educated and experienced people with handles difference of ideas as war. Differences of ideas are opportunities for growth and further development. Luckly,the Ethiopian people are not measured by people like us. They are respectful of themselves and others. I have no doubt that they would express themselves with dignity. In all the Ethiopian traditions there is a conflict resolution system. Let us learn from our of culture and tradition. With respect.
No need for dialgoue now, Hailu Shawel should be fired ASAP. It is amazing there are people who think Kinijit is a personal property of Hailu Shawel. Shame on you guys. Kinijit belongs to the people not to Hailu Shawel or Birtukan Medikessa. Hailu Shawl was given more than enough opportunites to stop his action to distroy Kinijit and join his coleagus instead he chose to do otherwise. Now the poeple are saying enoguh and fire this good for nothing leader ASAP. So Dr. Messay Kebede, please you need to go back and analyize what has happend in the last 4 month. You should have voiced your opnion 3, 4 month ago, it seems to me it is now a little too late. HAILU MUST GO. As far as I am concerned, Lidetu and Hailu Shawel are one and the same. Actually Hailu is even worse.
Definetly the crysis should not last forever. There should be an end. What Fekade Shewakena tries to explain was that the time to solve the problem through dialog is up and now we have to take our side. As to the leadership of Ato Hailu, yes there are a lot of writings about his goodness but there are also hesitations. As to my understanding the challenge of the abilities of opposition party leaders was tested during the 2005 election, especially after the election. Those who feel that Melese is unbeatable go to Parlama those who feel this is the start of the strugle go to prison.
Then comes the unwise and unhealth decisions of the chairman.
Yes it is good if the crisis is resolved through dialog. But it shouldn’t take much time. Just like Fekade Shewakena I think it is time to choose our side. What if they act as two parties?
Anon, please,be ashamed for yourself
Even though I am expecting this kind of silly article from some people, you are deliberately writing to annoy/confuse people. As you know actively the direction from your home to work/ school, most Ethiopian know good article by reading a few paragraph, you don’t have to be a scientist to clearly distinguish the color b/n black and white, unless you are blind. Also you will hear when your friend sneezing when eating lunch with him unless you are deaf. Don’t make it complicated, as simple like this clear the CUD problem. Unless you are blind/ deaf, you can easily understand it by now, other wise you are already inclined to the negative, b/c some times it is hard to accept the truth especially the consequence affecting directly/ indirectly to us. Again don’t make it complicated, no need arguments for nothing unless to confused if you get a chance.
Happy New Year
Commentator #18:
It’s not clear who you were responding to from your apparently angry post above. The writer of the article, Prof. Messay and the commentator above, # 14, who’s ashamed of fellow Ethiopians like you are two different individuals. No relation between the two at all.
Whose article is silly? Isn’t an example of what Anon #14 was trying to address? Don’t call an article silly, please show what is silly about it. That brings a difference between an ignorant and angry comment and a balanced and mature and civilized comment. Choose whichever is good for you. I know which you will choose for habit is a second nature, as they say.
If you were referring to me: I never said that the problem within Kinjit is difficult to see. All your examples about blind/deaf are irrelevant. By the way, please don’t use such examples inappropriately since your examples simply tell your low opinion of fellow human being who happen to be blind/dead but who can be much more brilliant than you and me. What your being sighted added here? Bad examples.
I myself disagree with Prof. Messay’s conclusion about the current crisis in Kinjit but I realize his arguments are valid points he shared here to help us do more rational dialogues and the way to show his arguments are wrong is by directly addressing, point by point, this is why the conclusion is wrong. Name the weaknesses in his paper instead of calling it silly, if you’re referring to his article; since I did not write an article I took you meant to refer to his. No blind/deaf analogy is relevant here again. If you’re an honest and reasonable person take your time and show problems with the views. No personal attack please which is uncivilized and a source shame for many. No more shame.
I’m again ashamed of another fellow Ethiopian.
Anon
Very funny. The real outrage is some people are having a dialogue over a dead horse. What is wrong with you guys? It is a new year, come up with new ideas. Eamil each other if you want to talk about the past. Don’t waste our time. Nobody want to hear same old story.
Here are some reasons why dialogue with Ato Hailu Shawel will not be successful:
1. He does not know the Kinijit manifesto;
2. He does not know the Kinijit bylaw;
3. He does not know dialogue
4. He is born to “boycot” anything he does not like
Happy New Year!
I have read both articles of Dr. Messay and Mr. Fekade Shewakena. Both are good Ethiopians who could share their academic experiences to the much younger generation. Of course both have taken sides and tried to launch their arguments in a plebian manner. This is also most welcome. However, one could also tell that they are shying away from the most burning issue.
All the Kinijit leaders have taken a stride to challenge the dictatorial regime of the EPRDF and have payed huge sacrifices. That is what is expected from a political leadership and they have thus done their job. However, one should also ask some fundamental questions. For me Kinijit has not be a an organization which had the time neither the composition to exhaust the threads of forming a monolithic political party. All young and old, lefts and rightist, bureaucrats and academic elites sat togther at the final hour to gain a larger vote against the ruling party. There was nothing beyond that they were ready for. Once they were thrown into prison and witnessed the biting nature of the Woyanes, they all tried to desin strategies to come out of prison and rejoin the struggle. We all know that they did not do it together. The situation did not allow them and they also preferred to go back to their pre-election constituents and regroup. The biggest blunder for me was the signing of the pardon letter crafted by the Woyannes. That was the culmination of the peaceful struggle. Were they ready to stay longer in prison and expose the undemocratic Woyane? Obviously, they were not. Not because they lacked the strength individually but they were not psychologically ready and did not have the trust amongst themselves.
The fragile unity established on the eve of the election has obviously come to an end. We have now to focus more on the lessons learned rather than expecting leadership from this disorganized group. There are a lot of uncertainities with regards to the form of struggle as well. Some of them think that Woyane if invincible and thus the only was to continue the sturggle would be by joining the parliament, some of them do not want to say this in public but have started negotiating in the back door, some others are confused and do not not on how to continue the struggle, some are resigned and are inclined ot pursuing their private lives. The struggle for peace and democracy is on cross roads and should not be something to be left to Hailu Shawel or Berhanu Nega. All concerned Ethiopians would have to come to the rescue. Let’s stop name calling and have an open and candid dialogue. Let’s be forward looking and learn from the past.
All anti woyanne elements should come together and join hands in all forms of struggle. Time is of the essence. The Ethiopian people are ahead of the game and are awaiting for a determined and a pragmatic political leadership.
The political situation is still pregnant for change. We all want democracy and freedom to be delivered through our persisent struglle but not be aborted by back door negotiations and short cuts.
Paragraph 11: “When one problem repeats itself with such determination and damaging implications, it loudly asks us to go beyond the easy game of blaming individuals. One must look for deeper causes, both structural and cultural. What individuals do is nothing but the expression of a deeper flaw that we need to identify and eliminate. That is why I called for dialogue rather than incrimination.”
Paragraph 12: “Democracy is the institutional ability to accommodate disparate, even antagonistic interests through compromises and give-and-take arrangements. It does not operate with unanimity; instead, it recognizes discordant interests, thereby expressly rejecting the recourse to subordination or elimination.”
Dear Dr.Messay,
You wrote a rsourceful analysis and suggestion that would even help for future reference.
I join you in your appreciation of all CUD leaders.
At this juncture, the comment from #22 makes sense and also complements your analysis.
“The struggle for peace and democracy is on cross roads and should not be something to be left to Hailu Shawel or Berhanu Nega. All concerned Ethiopians would have to come to the rescue. Let’s stop name calling and have an open and candid dialogue. Let’s be forward looking and learn from the past.”
Dear Anon,
Whom are you referring to as concerned Ethiopians (mentioned in your last comment quoting #22), while you dare to tell us that you are ashamed of fellow Ethiopians? An expression a little bit better than Meles’s ‘Adegegna Bozena’. It was the citizens who were called ‘Adegegna Bozene’ who shouted ‘Adegegna Bozene Erasu Woyane!’ during the Ethiopian great run; and made all of us happy.
Who ever wants to be a leader of a party or who ever is talking or writing about Ethiopia, for that matter, should understand the constituency he/she is leading/addressing. Do you think that all concerned Ethiopians have the same understanding and skill of self expression? It would be appropriate for you and other well educated Ethiopians to ignore the weaknesses and draw a lesson. We can not achieve capacity building and attitude change by dealing with the problem (that offended you) in a manner you attempted.
What you see here is a human reaction of real Ethiopians for outrageous action against their interest. If some one is interested in looking for gentleman’s-door (Yewond Ber) for Hailu that is okay, but has also to find a mechanism to calm the anger of concerned Ethiopians.
Thanks
Hi Minale:
Anon #23 and the other Anon who expressed his view of shame are two different Anons. I’m the Anon who felt ashamed of fellow Ethiopians in the sense I expressed in my posts.
Just wanted to separate the two Anons.
Anon
Anon (#5)
Thank you for specifying.
————-
Minale (#24)
I did not think your esponse is to me, and I go by Anon…
To avoid confusion,with all these versions of Anons, I will go by Anon 8 from here on.