The real challenge is not to destroy knjit and create ethnic parties or parties with narrow social bases. The real challenge is to create a post knjit political development to create a national party that is capable of effectively competing with the ruling coalition party. The creation of two national parties is the missing link to practise democratic choice and solve the following problems: a) bring transition from one party to another, 2) create separation of powers juridical and factually where the executive executes policy, the legislators legislate independently, and the judiciary judges without looking for executive license. 3) create freedom to express and freedom to associate with a vibrant promotion of civil society, 4) where minority right to dissent is protected by law, 5) rule of law, 6) build strong social capital, 7) fight corruption by a system where no official can stay in one position or one place more than 5 years without rotation and re-deployment to serve the public, 8) accountability so that never can governing be a means to accumulate economic power.
The creation of two functioning, competing parties that also enter into consultative processes by sharing a national direction together will be the best outcome that we hope will emerge in the post-knjit period. Ethiopia cannot afford many parties nor many ethnic- based parties. This will not bring freedom or development contrary to such claims. Democracy does not mean freedom or development. They are separate concepts. A democratic election can bring forces that do not believe in the freedom of citizens.
What Ethiopia and indeed much of Africa need is not to get many parties scrambling, scheming and fighting. What Africa needs is a few main political parties that can talk with each other, consult each other even when they compete and present their programmes and get elected on a platform that the electorate will hold them to account. All smaller parties can exist but the two main parties must be institutionalised and the people must get used to them.
9. Some Proposals to establish a framework for a workable political system
In 2008 the time should be used to create a broad consultative process to form unity and shared approach on how to prepare a fair and free election where two main strong national parties can be locked in a political dynamics to compete and consult, compete to consult and consult to compete. Whichever party comes will confront formidable challenges and it is not clear how much difference the parties can make. The most important value is to create a political system that creates predictable and sustainable ideological and political stability that all those who have differences agree to construct because this is what the country needs most as a public good to forge ahead and work well.
1. In principle all the political forces from those that rule currently and those that fight with arms should be encouraged to enter into a national conversation. All those that are fighting must be invited to join broad national consultation and encouraged to join nation wide parties or remain as minority parties with the opportunity to ally with at least two chosen national parties that can evolve through a deliberative participatory and patient process.
2. It will help hugely if the ruling party coalition can evolve into a national party and work to engage in consultation with all the parties to assist them to come up with a plan to form an opposition that is based on national citizen- based membership. If the ruling party invites and prepares the ground for a national consultative process and gives amnesty to all those that are currently pursuing their plans with violence against it, an important milestone would have been open. The broad framework must be consultation to create the terms and conditions for creating a national space for legitimate competition to circulate the persons and parties that can govern for a specified time.
3. The opposition parties should call congresses both at home and abroad to bring as many of the forces as possible to come under one minimum programme and form a broad people- based opposition party. Instead of engaging in the destructive response to mutual provocations, it is better to aim higher and look at the needs of the country and try to bring about how all engaged can contribute to the creation of a viable system.
4. There is a big role for civil society sand think tanks that should present programmes for uniting the fragmented opposition to present their recommendation to the parties and on that basis congresses should be held to chart the way forward and avoid risks and peacefully try to bring change. The political parties should seek independent advice from the country’s home grown thinking forces and should not fear independent advice.
5. If the political opposition cannot meet and organise conference, civil society groups and support groups should form pre- congress caucuses and plans to encourage the parties to do that which will stimulate the creation of a political system of competition based on consultation and not adversarial and brutal attacks against one another. They should reach out to as many of the forces as possible to bring them and hear their grievances and plans for shaping a future.
6. The message that was endorsed by 2005 election in supporting Knjit should be revived by a post knjit social movement to create a political system that promotes strong social capital and create a new political culture aimed at creating real participation by the people and accountability by making sure that two major parties function with the dialectical logic of consultation to compete, and compete to promote consultation to expand freedom and development for all in the country.
7. Appeal to all the political forces to realise the value of prioritising the people of Ethiopia, preventing to put their destiny away from harm’s way and enter into a broad concept where they learn to identify the common challenges and opportunities, interrogate their current actions that is bringing violence rather than an intelligent commerce with policies, internalise new values to be broad minded and begin a national conversation and institutionalise a system that can deliver freedom and development…
One thought on “The challenge of shaping Ethiopia’s sustainable future”
Better equip ourselves with WEAPON CAPITAL than SOCIAL CAPITAL.
We have been for centuries practicing trust, religion, friendship, norms, rules, and procedures, which are the fundamental tenets of social capital in this long and very informative article, and yet we have failed to feed our people, to produce tangible results, and to govern ourselves effectively. Who is responsible for the mess, the present or the past generation, the kings or the princes, Mengistu Haile Mariam or Meles Zenawi?
It has always been the norm for the present generation to blame the old generation that is not here with us today. I’m, however, on the side of the old generation against the present lousy generation. In consent with the writers of the article, Ethiopia is an old country; no one knows how old it is, and no one knows when it will die if it is not already dead.
There is a saying in Ethiopia: “When a lion gets old, it becomes a playground for the flies.” The old lion here represents the old Ethiopia, and the flies represent us, the new generation. Ethiopia as old as it is today must be commended for passing not the unfinished, but the finished work of its glorious history, a history of expansion, growth, success and victory to the present ungrateful generation. Ethiopia has been undivided country geographically, historically, culturally, and politically until the fall of Emperor Haile Selassie. Ethiopia’s old age has not been the problem for many Ethiopians; it is the young Ethiopians, the immature young and selfish Ethiopian politicians who have become big burdens and severe headaches to this ailing old Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian old history should not be considered a problem, a burden to the new generation; rather it should be regarded as a pride and glory, so it is very important to “invoke the long gone past….” The Ethiopian old history does not impose tyranny on the Ethiopian people; it rather empowers the Ethiopian people to fight against tyranny, to live together peacefully, and to protect its territories, its seaports and never to split them. The Ethiopian past history has been a history of freedom from Mussolini, Ahmad Gragn, and from many other foreign intruders, like Egypt, Sudan, and Turkey. The Ethiopian history has been full of justice and fairness, a history that respects the rule of law and justice.
Ethiopia’s long existence should not be called “vegetative existence” as the article attests emphatically. I hate the word “vegetative” the writers of the article used here to explain the living condition of Ethiopia. On the contrary, Ethiopia throughout its glorious history has been very active, vibrant, resilient, and proud of its accomplishments in art, in building towns, cities, churches, and in expanding church schools and at the same time fighting foreign invaders. So Ethiopia, in its long existence, has never had the mark of idleness and laziness. Each single day, each single year in Ethiopia has been a day and a year of progress and accomplishments. To name some, look the pyramid at Axum, look the rock hewn Church of Lalibela in Wollo, magnificent art of work! So to me it is not fair to call the old 3000 years of Ethiopian civilization years of vegetative existence.
The past generation had lived by solving its own problems, and it is the responsibility of the present generation to solve its own problem without blaming the other generation. In fact, it is this selfish generation that divided the country in two: Ethiopia and Eretria, and it is going to divide it further unless it stops its selfishness and political ambition based on ethnic lines. We should not attribute the current situations, the current divisions among the various political parties to Ethiopia’s magnificent past history. If Ethiopia had not struggled hard to keep all its territories together, you and I would not be here today. We are blaming the past history of Ethiopia based on material things, neglecting the spiritual dynamics Ethiopia has made through its long history: combining Judaism and Christianity and accommodating other religions and passing them to us is, in it self, a big achievement.
Ethiopia has never passed a deficit of problems to the present generation as the article suggests; it is in fact the present generation that created the deficit – the giving away of Eretria, the war with Somalia and Ogaden, the leadership crisis with Kinjit, and the division of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church: one in exile and one at home. It is my and your generation who created such huge deficit, not the Ethiopian Lucie generation. Ethiopia has never left unsolved problems to the current generation; even though it has ethnically and religiously diverse society, this society has lived comfortably for thousands of years harmoniously with each other. It is this generation that created Mengistu Haile Mariam and Meles Zenawi.
The writers of the article are absolutely right that it is the politicians (add “selfish”) – the selfish politicians – that bring “more new problems…,” but they are wrong in saying “…than in solving old and transmitting problems from earlier generations.” As I said before, the old generation had never passed its problem to me and you; we should not blame our ancestors for the current problems we have selfishly created. Let our ancestors rest in peace!
What makes you think “…had Ethiopia had turned into a republic after World War II… then the problems to solve today would have been different”? In what way would it have been different? Do you mean all republic countries are capable of solving their own problems? For example, among many other republic countries, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are republics. Have these countries been capable of solving their existing problems? I don’t think so. At this particular time, we cannot say this or that system of government would solve the Ethiopian existing problems. In my opinion it is our task to devise a new system of government that accommodates all ethnic groups – a government that does not exclude its political opponents from participating in politics with the governing party.
In 1974, the Emperor did not transfer his power to the military; the military took it by force, and that is why Ethiopia is facing today multitude of problems more than ever before. Had the transition of power been voluntarily and peacefully without humiliating the Emperor, we could have later avoided all the unnecessary bloodsheds by both Mengistu Haile Mariam and Meles Zenawi in the name of new revolution. Indeed, Ethiopia has never had such deep division in its entire history. So the pattern of problems can be traced to Mengistu and to Meles, not to the old generation because the old generation has nothing to do with our new problems.
The Ethiopian people at this time have no ways of measuring which politicians are capable of governing them democratically, ethically, and justly. I assume, at this time, the Ethiopian people are not yet ready to be governed by a democratically elected politician; I may be wrong. I think they need a thorough training about what a democratically elected government would offer them. Then they will have a yardstick to measure the diverse opinions of the politicians who run for the higher office.
Social capital cannot be achieved by only avoiding our dependence on our ethnicity; however, what are the substitutes for ethnicity in case people are willing to disregard their love affairs with their ethnicities? Are we ready to substitute ethnicity with something concrete that satisfies each group? For example, in the old days, some Ethiopians used to worship idols on the hills, on the mountains, and in the wooded areas. In order to prevent people from worshipping idols, the Church built beautiful churches on those hills, and on those mountains and in those wooded areas so that the people could worship God instead of idols. So how can we replace ethnicity by something good that unites the people rather than divides them?
Yes, Yohannes II helped General Napier to defeat Tewodros; yes, Menelik II let Yohannes be killed by the Sudan Muslims, and yes Teferi defeated Lij Iyasu because Iyasu was leaning to accepting Islam; however, internal conflicts of such kind are common every where in this world; it is not new. In those days people were not educated as most of us today. The question is how can we avoid such internal conflicts among us today? How can we run our organization free of foreign hands? It is an impossible task in this global age of ours. If avoiding foreign help is one of the requirements of social capital, then social capital is doom to fail because no government in this world is free of getting help from a foreign power.
We cannot avoid “fragmented opposition” if we believe in democracy; we should not oppress such opposing, fragmented political parties, and we should not limit the number of parties who want to work as independent political parties, but we can influence them to join our own political party. All political parties, in my opinion, must be institutionalized, and the party that wins the election will become the governing party.
Finally, after we have done every thing in our power to persuade Meles Zenawi to cooperate with us but failed to do so, then we must resort to arm struggle rather than to social capital and defeat our common enemy for the right cause – to liberate our people from tyranny.