By Seman Fereja
Four articles — Andargatchew, Daniel, Girma and Bertukan. Andargatchew advocates for a violent form of struggle while Bertukan stands diametrically opposed to the thesis. Daniel supports a form of struggle similar to that of ANC; but he is doubtful whether Andargatchew’s definition of violence matches his understanding of ANC’s form of struggle.
I don’t see any conflict between Andargatchew’s and Daniel’s articles, at least up to this moment, as Andargatchew hasn’t yet clarified the specific forms this ‘violence’ will be taking. In fact, leaving his supposition about the definition of Andargatchew’s term ‘Amets’, the positive contribution of Daniel’s article to the discussion is with regard to giving definitive forms to Andargatchew’s reference to Amets.
Girma Kassa’s is a bit difficult to follow. On the one hand, he lauds Tegbar League’s actions and yet denounces violence. In fact, he advocates even wider and coordinated simultaneous sets of actions similar to those of Tegbar League’s, which would cover the country so as to make governance by TPLF impossible. Here is where I lose Girma. Is this not what in simple language called insurrection? What would happen when the uprising in a certain woreda amasses the capability to kick out the agents of the state, but the agents become unwilling to relinquish their position and start shooting at the crowd? Will you be using violence to smoke them out or retreat in observance of Bertukan’s oath to Ephrem Yitshak? If you are supporting the throwing of stones at city buses, what on earth can be wrong about blowing a T-45 that comes to demolish whole villages? Or, to be prepared to stop Agazi killers from marching on school children?
I find Girma’s position logically untenable. If he is to be consistent, he should subscribe to either Daniel’s or Bertukan’s line. Mixing the two doesn’t help to clarify the situation. If he is saying that he stands against protracted warfare, it is understandable on the merits of the multitude of views of the commentators on EMF’s website. But, this immediately reduces Girma to Daniel’s view — protracted armed struggle is not a viable option. Apart from these, the remaining choice becomes only that of Bertukan’s line — the irreversible marriage to the peaceful struggle, presumably meaning also avoidance of any actions that lead to loss of life and hence confrontation with the state.
Girma’s questioning the morality of supporting violence from diaspora is also unclear. I cannot understand what makes his support for Tegbar League morally justifiable in contradistinction to Andargatchew’s advocacy for uprising. I don’t think Girma was standing at the head of the school children who were throwing stones at city buses when he lauded Tegbar League’s actions.
When Girma attempts to elevate the discussion to theoretical generalisation, he starkly commits the sins he was trying to accuse Andargatchew about. After misreading Andargatchew to have said that democracy is required in order to conduct peaceful struggle, he continues to tell us that no pre-condition is required to conduct peaceful struggle. Regrettably, I would like to refer him back to paragraph 3 under section 5 on page 18. According to my reading of Andargatchew’s article, I cannot find any place where he put the institutionalisation of a democratic system as a pre-condition for peaceful struggle. He has explicitly stated for this not to be the case when he wrote:
When we look at democratic systems from this angle, we find them to be the best and most capable of all currently existing systems with respect to accommodation and management of differences. Even though a given system may not be democratic, it can be capable of accommodating political difference. But, for this to happen certain conditions like…
This for me says only one thing: the best system that manages political conflicts is a democratic system. No more! In fact, when Andargatchew cites the need for the prevalence of those things like law, morality, monarchy, God etc… poised higher in a society than the conflicting parties, it is a clear indication of his endeavour to find preconditions that clearly fall far short of the scale of institutionalisation of a democratic system.
If Girma truly wants to engage in constructive discussions along these lines, what he should answer primarily is whether peaceful struggle could have been possible in Hitler’s Germany or Idi Amin’s Uganda or for that matter in Mengistu’s Ethiopia? If he is to answer ‘yes’ to the above question, I rest my case and am willing to sit and learn ‘how’. But, if he may answer in the negative, he should also make efforts to find out what conditions should have been in place there for peaceful forms of struggle to have been possible? By asserting his statement about the redundancy of pre-conditions for peaceful struggle on the basis of mis-quotes from Andargatchew, Girma can only be seen as having constructed suitable premises which make his pre-held conclusions plausible.
Most interesting is Bertukan’s — not least because of her position as a leader of a movement. Firstly, I am astounded by the speed at which she sprung for the rebuttal. This, from a movement whose best achievement during the last 8 months since its leaders were released from prison is only tearing itself into shreds over matters matured children even would contemptuously ignore. Regrettably, this can only be seen as a testimony to our worst fears about the capability of Kinijit’s leaders to live up to the trust invested in them by their followers and supporters.
Why hasn’t she released press releases in all these times against the machinations of Woyane and its electoral board when her movement’s ‘V’ sign and organisation name is snatched away from her? Why hasn’t she requested for the resignation of the Government of the day when the bullions in the national bank turned ‘Ballestra’? Or, denounced the sky rocketing life expenses for the ordinary Ethiopian, which even Lidetu had something to say about? Bertukan’s priorities are at best misplaced.
The following line from Bertukan’s letter is also significant on the merits of its undertones:
Based on the pretext of Kinijit leaders prolonged incarceration and EPRDF’s anti-democratic stance, a few supporters of Kinijit in the diaspora are raising questions against the peaceful form of struggle.
I think this is a complete miss of the cause that gave Kinijit’s leaders the prominence they have enjoyed for far too long: Ethiopians want change and Kinijit leaders put themselves forward as viable agents. Nothing more! The Kinijit leaders will enjoy their prominence so long as they can be seen to deliver. The interest of the need for change on the part those Ethiopians supporting Kinijit is paramount. It is not the other way round. The trust given to Kinijit’s leaders can be prolonged only so far as they are advancing the paramount interest of the followers’ need for change. This trust is a contract not a fief for life.
It would have been more appropriate for Kinijit’s leaders to start from true reflection on their past experiences. I believe such a reflection would convince Bertukan about the lack or failure of leadership on Kinijit’s part to be the cause for Andargatchew’s proposal for another option. The direction her movement is trudging on at the moment wouldn’t put her politically on any elevated platform than those of Lidetu or Beyene or Bulcha. Attainment of such a position requires much more than past glory. At least, Bertukan needs to tell us in what ways her form of struggle may be different from the parliamentarian opposition’s.
In my view, her reaction to Andargatchew’s article has put Bertukan on an inferior platform than Beyene and Bulcha albeit rhetorically. To the credit of the two parliamentarians, unlike Bertukan, I haven’t seen them missing opportunities to point their fingers at Woyane’s repression as the main culprit for encouraging violence in the country, rather than attacking their potential allies or second level differences, under similar circumstances.
If I recall correctly, one of the eight negotiation points Kinijit proposed as a way forward back in 2005 included the independence of the Ethiopian defence and security forces from the tutelage of EPRDF. Wouldn’t it be most appropriate for a leader of a movement to reiterate one of its cardinal points whenever the opportunities arise, as the reason to write the letter may be, well before making calls to armed opposition movements to lay their arms and join the “peaceful struggle”?
The interest of the movement would have advanced if Bertukan used her three pages letter to tell us about what the leadership has mapped out for the furtherance of the peaceful struggle. Are they planning to continue the struggle through their representatives in the parliament? Or are they entertaining calls for defiance actions that may lead to confrontation with the security forces? What will they do when the state bans them from exercising their constitutional rights to peacefully demonstrate in public or organise? Will they stand up to the security forces even if that may lead to violent confrontations or retreat? Or enter a plea to Ephrem Yishak or that woman in US state department? How are they organising the movement — publicly and openly or clandestinely? These are questions which Kinijit’s leaders should have answered to, well over eight months ago, on the day of their release from prison. This shouldn’t have waited for a solemn request from Kinijit’s believers or provocation from radical rebels.
Let us not forget that this is a cause for which hundred died, tens (if not hundreds) of thousands languished in Woyane’s prisons or lost their living or were exiled, another thousands were expropriated unlawfully and families separated. For a leader of a movement this should be much burden that wouldn’t allow a day’s peaceful sleep, let alone allow the squandering of such a length of precious time as eight months are.
I can’t therefore help raising an eyebrow while reading references to moral superiority interspersed in various places in Bertukan’s letter. In my view, Andargatchew can be seen here to have a higher moral stance than Bertukan and co., because of his endeavour to keep the movement going by looking at other options at the time when Bertukan’s “marriage with the peaceful struggle” was seen to be vacuous.
The three summarised points given as reasons for denouncing armed struggle are also vacuous. For the sake of completeness, I summarise and translate the core points as follows:
1. armed struggle doesn’t result in anything other than hatred, poverty and sufferings;
2. the use of arms is incompatible with the empowerment of citizens to freedom and integrity;
3. the use of force against oppressors is not morally superior to use of force for oppression.
To me, none of the above three make any sense at all, if they mean what they say—general truths. I am completely at a loss how resistance could be equated to oppression? By what reason or logic could one put Ethiopia’s patriotic fighters resistance on the same moral footing with the Italian fascist occupiers; or ANC’s resistance with apartheid rule? Hasn’t ANC’s resistance delivered equality to the black majority of South Africa; or our patriotic forbears’ resistance freedom to Ethiopians from racist fascist rule? The history of anti-colonial struggles during the second half of the last century is full of examples where armed resistance delivered freedom, prosperity, social justice and restored human integrity.
Needless to say, the horrors of war should be avoided as much as possible. If there are other means leading to the desired goals, no sane person, let alone, those claiming to champion the betterment of peoples’ living conditions, would opt for it. But modern day political reality is a bit convoluted to be captured by Aristotelian reasoning only.
People may be thrown into situations whereby they will be confronted with uncomfortable choices only — living under unacceptable suffering or take up arms with full responsibility for the consequences of there actions. Under such circumstances, it can’t be anyone’s prerogative to moralise against the person’s choice to take up arms unless you are to deliver him from his sufferings. The fact that the terms of the suffering may be acceptable for you cannot be an argument against the other party’s choice for raising arms. The reference to the latter’s choice as backward and uncivilised would also be at best unjustified and unfair. Sadly, the rhetoric is indicative of the chronic malaise that caused the cannibalisation of Kinijit.
————————-
The writer of this article can be reached through [email protected]
25 thoughts on “Is peaceful struggle against Hitler or Idi Amin possible?”
Any way we look at it, peacefully struggle has a lot of advantage over armed struggle. The price you pay could be comparable resulting in imprisonment, torture, hunger, eve death. The determination and heroism of the participants is also the same. In both forms of struggles, you have to be armed with the necessary organizational discipline and meticulous planning in every step you take. Both forms of struggles also will be faced with setbacks and disappointments. The tremendous advantage peaceful struggle has is, it can open the door to millions of citizens to participate in the struggle and every citizen can claim the victory as his/her own. It also will bring lasting assured victory over undemocratic rule.
As Malkolm X said, “by any meanse necessary!”
http://oromantic.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/siinqee-power/
By the ballot or the bullet.
Great analysis
Thanks,
For sure peaceful struggle with massive public movement is superior, but the question is can the Ethiopian people do it? I don’t think so. The people seem passive and not active in this regard. Different ways should be devised to mobilize the people, with different and continuous tactics. Again how to communicate and from where to start? Awareness creation among the public not to retreat fromo the sacrifice it costs is very important and should be started soon.
Bla Bla, do nothing but bla bla. I hate myself as being part of u as an Ethiopian. And yet I am proud to be Ethiopian becuase there are so many Ethiopians alover that are relentlessly working hard to free Ethiopia from an ethnocenteric dectatorial regime in Addis. Learn from EPRP and act like one if not get the hell out of politics. Ignorance is what you are suffering from so be aware of it
Gudue Kassa
No question any method opposed by Weyane works against its hegemony well. Weyane is now a days worried about armed struggle, not about “peacefull” way. You can be eternal loyal opposition, but never take power from Weyane. No way is evil if it is used against EVIL/DEVIL. Just as Hitler, Id-Amin or Peter Bootha of South Africa never could have been removed by only peacefull way, our Hitler Aite Meles Zerawi and his “Nazi” supporters can never be removed by just talking peacefull! If armed struggle is taken as a SIN by Weyane, it is the very HOLY thing we can do for Ethiopia!!!
i am an independent ethiopian thinker and thus i am not supporter of any political party. however, some of the comments i read in here seem to be beyond my expectation.aren’t we tired of this backward methodology to believe that bringing right by force is the correct course of action? force doesn’t bring right and surrndering to force is not a will,but a necessary action. why have some ppl obsessed in war? fellows, war is hell and nothing good comes out of it,but distraction and death.when we say by peacful means doesn’t mean that we should be polite..no no no…my country men. it means in my understanding let us be reasonable and objective in our course of action and let us convience our rulers how wrong they are in their governing not by violance ,but by using both practical application and theoritical explanation.we need to learn how to be tolerant and patient in midest of difficult situation. let us learn from past legends like mrtin luter king, gandi and mandella .i know that power in the hand of ignorants is far more dangerous than atomic bomb,but we the ppl particularly leaders have to be above their level.finally, after all this drama who is going to believe kinijit leadership again? what have been done to those families who gave their sons and daughters precious lives on the street of addis and other regions?
Hi all,
In his book “Ye Netsanet Goh Siqed”,Dr Birhanu enumerates a number of obstacles to democracy in Ethiopia. In page 76 he talks about LAZY and CYNICAL intellectual culture as being one such factor. The so-called intellectuals do not produce enough literature or anything useful in their fields of study, he explains. Worse yet, they tend to be negative about everything others say and do always engaged in rumors and character assassinations. They seem to never expect anything positive believing anything will turn out negative in one way another.
This article seems to fall in the category I described above.
I am definitely support ato andargachew’s and ato daniel’s way of struggle. We , ethiopians should take a very serious action and one step forward . The only way to free ethiopia and it’s people from this anti ethiopia’s group is united and well coordinated form of armed struggle. They are rootless and issolated gangs. Our people are totally rejected them, the army and the police are looking for some force to free them from weyanes.once the war will break out the army will abandon them and will join the freedom fighters. BUT Ato NADARGACHEW AND OTHERS SHOULD THINK OVER THE NAME OF THE FRONT./ WEYANE GAVE KINIJIT TO TPLF’s agent, so the front should take it’s name like CUDF[ Coalition for unity and democracy front] and the symbole with” V” WITH IT’S STAMP, AND THEN we will WHETHER AYELE CHAMISSO WILL GO TOWEYANE’S COURT AGAINST US OR NOT.
Yes peaceful struggle would be a possibility against Hitler and Idi Amin, if the people of Germany and Uganda were willing and able to face the challenges of the day, look no further than the soviet union. the magnitude of Hitler or Idi Amin or weyane ruthlessness is no worse than what African Americans had to live through for hundreds of yrs and look no further than your life how a peaceful struggle change all that.
Dictators can’t simply exist in a vacuum ,only if we allow them.
In the contemporary Ethiopian geo/socio-political setting , the armed struggle not only usher the end of Weyane but will be the end of Ethiopia as we have known it for centuries.
Please get your facts right!
1. Hitler was not toppled by his own people. He was toppled by “invaders”.
2. Uganda. There have been at least three Coup de Etat after Amin. The current government led by museveni has been in power for 12 years, does not that remind you of a dictator? In addition, he runs a “partyless” system. Politica parties are restricted and are not allowed to open branch offics or lobby out side the capital.
DA
Compatriots, I think the forces of violence want us to believe that there is fascism in Ethiopia; I hope they are not equating Idi Amin with Hitler and one man rule with fascism- a system. This is wrong perception of reality.
The truth is that the system built by TPLF is crumbling at the seam. TPLF is divided into three groups. EPRDF is divided into four groups over revenue sharing, access to wealth and market along nationality lines. The parties of each nationality are feeling they do not have a fair share. That TPLF is taking the lion share. They are ready for change. But like Soviet Union, they do not know how. Melse is the only one holding the groups. But his power is dwindling and if he can find a way out he will leave them like Mengistu sooner than later.
The treasury is being emptied. Steel is becoming gold! The battle for the national market and access to credit and land have become par amount and a source of conflict ( see Kinijit video on Eritrean TV). All these groups are aware that the end of the system is coming. Like the last days of Dergue they are trying to accumulate as much wealth as they could!
The peasant is in trouble, unable to make ends meet enven its basic needs. The soldier is increasingly becoming weary of wars. There is no war or no peace situation on the Eritrea-Tigre border. Nearly 20% of the national budget is being spent in one province for the soldiers. This is fermenting frustration among civilians and soldiers alike. There is a war in Somalia!
The security is willing to switch side. Even those who made it during TPLF rule are happy if a smooth transition is achieved. So whom do we want to fight!
The call for violence is a relic of the 1970s which devour the best and the brightest. We need only to persist in an organized manner on the peaceful road. This is untimely issue to say the least.
I think most of the Ethiopian people have had enough time and reasons to know which language woyane can understand. Only the use of force can snatch the political power from woyane tooth and give it to the people. Woyane does not any more allow any opposition to maneuver freely as it did for some time just before the election. As “Melles” him self said, that was a calculated risk. You guys who denounce resistance, do you think that people are living in peaceful environment at this moment? People are dying from hunger, which is worse than dying in a war. The Ethiopian people have shown its intent of dealing with woyane just after the election. It fought the well-armed agazi force by stone. Peaceful struggle would have been the best choice if it were possible. However, it is impossible since woyne does not give a chance. Thus, armed struggle has become the only option in Ethiopia in this difficult time. I think it is the choice of most people.
It seems to me that this is a well argued, admirably articulate and impassioned plea for raising up arms as an alternative means of struggle given the current political reality in our country.
There is no denyng the fact that the regime’s response to the recent peaceful,democratic and internal challenge of the opposition has been more heightened repression.
Although the regime’s reaction is not totally unexpected,its feverish plunder of the country’s resources its desperate confrontation with Eritrea,its cavaliar attitude to the huge human suffering and ethnic tension caused by its invasion in Somalia makes it appear it is living on borrowed time.
One may speculate that such desperate behaviour and show of brute force may not be a sign of strength but rather weakness.
Actually, the situation needs more than speculation and all of us folks must closely follow the developments in our country and our region for our engagements to be more fruitful than they are now.
This means that we must have a bigger appetite for information;we must have the passion to learn; we must better sharpen our wits by the kinds of debates and arguments above while being open to the views of others.
I for one,for instance,still uphold the cause of non-violence as a viable means of struggle against the regime in power.I think that our creative and intellectual energies have not been exhaustively applied yet to the promises of such form of struggle.I suppose that the platitudes of ‘Satyagraha’need to leave room for a rigorous search for imaginative and practical means and ways of waging non-violent struggle according to the concrete situation prevailing in our country. I therefore don’t think it is wise to resort to a more costly and messier form of struggle which I suspect armed struggle is given our violent history and the current complex situation in our country and the region.
This does not however mean that my position is carved in stones. I am open therefore to an alternative view, respectfully consider it and am willing to be challenged by it.
To my mind,Seman Fereja’s piece, as it is cogently and powerfully argued is a challenging one. It makes me think. It urges me to weigh up the pros and cons. It motivates me to do more research, read and ask about the relevant issues. I am grateful for it.
Let us keep the flames of our engagement burning!
Those who advocate peaceful struggle should follow it in all of its effectiveness. Those who advocate armed stuggle should do the same. Not either or.
Victory in the historic election of 15 May 2005 was stolen by Zenawi and kept in his iron grip only because of the staunch support of the Bush administration. So peaceful struggle will work in the absence of outside interferrence by powers like the USA. The issue here is that the past successions to power by force culminated in replacing one ruthless dictator by another. Bertukan’s dedication to change by peaceful means is the only viable method of struggle in order to avoid unprecedented civil war resulting in stuggering blood shed, social chaos and massive loss of property from which Ethiopia may not recover for a long time.
Thanks to seman.freedom can not come on a silver plater.
those who are backing down from putting up armed resistance against the monster in the form of woyane should not try to stop those who are determind to do so.
woyane is fully resposible for this course of action by being adamamnt to the suffering of our people.
if woyane continues in its oppressive actions we are sorry the only alternative left is to rise up in arms against its actions.
peaceful struggle, yes. our people now are not yet in any position of armed struggle. as a thesis, it is nicely presented, but as a supporting document for Ethiopians no, it doesn’t have any substance message.
thank you
yigermal
03.19.2008.
For those of you saying peaceful struggle is the choice we must follow, please explain to me how? there is no way to contact the public, there is no way that the people can explain their feelings and willings, there is no way to march and protest on the streets of Ethiopia. In which way is then the peaceful struggle possible? explain it and take responsibility, do not just say it.
For those of you saying war is the answer, who is going to fight? are you ready to go yourself? Are you willing to hear your own brother joined the front? Or you are just trying to be free on othere’s sacrifies? Take time to think deep before decision.
I am seeing no responsibilities in the commenets above. If you think you have a solution, show that you are ready and part of it. Just telling others to do or to be, or being against is not the smartest thing to do.
I prefet not to commenet than say something nonsense. And I belive saying is not the biggest solution, but doing.
“I believe that bringing down Mr. Zenawi is the only way to bring democracy in Ethiopia; so how can we take him down? ” wrote to me a young student. It seems she may have concluded that with Mr. Zenawi and his party in power there cannot be democracy in Ethiopia.
I truly understand the frustration of this young Ethiopian for the regime has been the major obstacle for peace and democracy in Ethiopia. However, I would like to address the issue from a different perspective; a perspective that may get me the “weyane” label from among some elements of our communities.
Where do we want to reach? What do we want to see in Ethiopia? Do we want to “get rid” the weyanes? Or do we want to make them part of the solution and get reforms through and with them? What is our ultimate goal?
Once we have answered these questions then come the follow-ups. How do we achieve our goals? If we face a major obstacle in our path how do we deal with it? Which path shall we take and what would be our strategies to reach from where we are now to where we want to be?
I believe most of the time our disputes and quarrel emanates from not clearly defining first our goals. Lately an article of a former Kinijit/CUD leader triggered some intense discussion on the need of having a “violent/Amtse” struggle to deal with the reality in Ethiopia. I would like to take the debate away from the strategies and towards our goals, for unless we agree on what we want to accomplish we cannot agree on which strategy ought to be taken. To be a physician one would not apply to a law school.
Because of the collassal human right abuses of the EPRDF, many Ethiopians are filled with bitterness and anger towards Mr Zenawi and his comrades. Some are comparing the rulers in Arat Kilo as “Hitlers” and “Idi Amins”. I wouldn’t blame them. If you ask Ethiopians in Ogaden whose villages were burned down to the ground, students in Ginchi and Ambo who are regularly beaten up by security forces, Families of those who are massacred in plain day light in Gambella and those who have fallen on the streets of Addis Ababa shot on the head by American trained sharp shooters, friends and families of former TPLF fighters who were eliminated because they internally opposed the leadership … all will tell you one story: that the current rulers in Arat Kilo are soaked with the blood of our people and are taking our country to chaos.
I therefore understand if some groups are focused in waging a struggle to get rid the weyanes all together. I understand when they unequivocally declare the EPRDF as ENEMIES that must be destroyed. It is obvious these people will logically choose armed struggle as their strategy of struggle to achieve their goals for unless the EPRDF is militarily defeated it is impossible to destroy it. I understand and will no way condemn them.
However, I believe we ought to see matters from all angles. When we declare the EPRDF as our enemies we are basically saying we are the enemy of ourselves. The EPRDF are products of our society. They are “us”. We cannot destroy them unless we destroy ourselves. Therefore the goal to eliminate the EPRDF must not be the goal of Ethiopians.
Yes, many of us are angry and very bitter. But, I believe it is much preferable if our actions not be driven by our anger and bitterness but by our commitment not to repeat the atrocities that caused this very anger that we have. I believe somehow, somewhere we must break the pipeline through which the blood of our brothers and sisters flows. I believe our ultimate goal ought to be the establishment of a new United, democratic Ethiopia where the culture of violence will have no place and no-Ethiopian will be killed anymore because of his belief, ethnic group, class and gender.
All over Ethiopia there is a voice coming from the skeletons of our martyrs who had fallen, brutally killed by another Ethiopian. “Enough is enough! Do not use us as an excuse to kill another fellow Ethiopians. Let our sacrifices be a sacred symbol that sends message to everyone that by killing another fellow Ethiopia there cannot be any lasting solution”they are telling us from their resting place. I believe one way to honor Shibere Dessalegn and others, is by committing ourselves to change once and for all the culture of violence.
Some may characterize me as a coward. Make no mistake; I am not calling Ethiopians to be silent, accepting their right and dignity being violated. I am not advocating that we bow down under the feet of Arat Kilo officials. I am not relaying a message of fear nor am I trying to portray the regime as “big” and “powerful”.
To the contrary what I am stressing is that we do not go to a law school to be a physician. If we want to achieve our noble objective to see our new Ethiopia, the activism and contribution of each one of us is required. Judge Birtukan Mideksa, Dr Merrara Gudina and very few individuals alone cannot bring this new Ethiopia. Pushing aside and demonizing a section of our society will not bring this new Ethiopia. Day and night cursing the Mr. Zenawi does not bring this new Ethiopia.
What we need is to patiently engage those who are on the wrong side (the EPRDF members) by showing them that the new Ethiopia will not be an Ethiopia where they will be doomed but can be also part of; convince those who have lost hope and are engaged in armed struggle so that they can put down their weapon and come to the struggle of the 21st century; work hard to create the atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect. What we need is to believe in ourselves, stop relying on westerners and deal with our problems on our own, in a new civilized manner.
The salvation of Ethiopia starts with the salvation of each one of us. Ethiopian will be renewed when each one of us are internally renewed. We are “Ethiopia”.
Yes, I believe it is possible to change the EPRDF. Already sources close to the regime are saying that heavy internal discussions are taking place within the EPRDF for more democratic reforms and reconciliation. One key factor for securing the release of CUD leaders six month ago is the pressure from within the EPRDF itself. As we engage more the EPRDF, we are indirectly strengthening the good elements within the party. As Frederick De Clerk came out from the national party, a party that has been the architect of apartheid, good thing may come out from within the EPRDF itself. There are many high level officials who could be the De Clerk of Ethiopia.
I believe it is possible to convince cessationist groups that the united new Ethiopia is the best for all of us. Already the OLF and ONLF have shown some signals that they may be open to building an Ethiopia where all its citizens are treated as equal.
It may be hard to detach ourselves from the past and soften our heart to those whom we have been grinding our teeth. However that is the only way for the redemption and resurrection of our country. That is the only door. Unless we are willing to pass through that door, we cannot get out from our misery and desolation. Unless we are willing to forgive and embrace our brothers and sisters will surely remain being doomed forever. If we are not willing to take this basic step refraining down our pride, then WE CAN FORGET ABOUT A COUNTRY CALLED “ETHIOPIA”. The choice is ours.
Dr Martin Luther King once said:” we must learn to live one another; otherwise we will all perish together”.
May the Lord Open our heart to his Love and Our mind to His Understanding!
Peaceful struggle works against leaders who can “think and realize”. Armed struggle works only if there is equally powerful/resourceful opposition. I don’t think we have none of these. Our struggle for now should be “silent” struggle. Not to be part of this fony election process; Not to touche their media products; Not to participate in any meetings; etc. At least we can save our dignity by doing so.
Beware!
There is a saying “Those who do not learn from history are like to repeat it again”. In 1972, a group of EPLF inspired Ethiopians wanted to transform the Ethiopian Student movement in North America into their planned parties EPRP. They also wanted to take the student movement’s money for their planned party and to entertain Ali Saber and his group who were scheduled to come to Washington in the fall of that year. For a year prior to the LA annual Congress meeting, they agitated and try to blackmail the then President Senaye Leake, Just as the Brehanue group did this last year. They are still to present audited account of Kinijit money. Now they want us to start a gorilla movement, just as the former did. This time, I am encouraged to read in ER, that such a mistake may not be repeated. The only path is the path of constructive engagement, i.e. non-violent movement.
Either there are lot of Woyane agents replying to this article or the Ethiopian people surfing ER are incredibly naive.
You must be foolish if you think African Americans brought about social justice through the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King and the “civil rights” movement essential closed the chapter on blacks integrating into American society. That’s why white people love Dr. King. He said we are “free” and everyone looked around and said, “yeah, cool.” Look at how blacks in the country live today. Is there truly social justice? No way! Malcolm X was the real hero because he was also peaceful as well. The major difference was that, he was a realist and he understood that to claim your right as a human being you must do so BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. That’s why the US government hated him as well as the black panthers. None of these people/groups were “violent.” They just weren’t stupid.
If a man pulls a knife on you, do you just sit there and say “please give me justice”? No way! You try and solve the situation politely and then if he still as the knife on you, then you put up your fists up and fight.
Thomas Jefferson said, “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” I completely agree. Don’t be foolish and impractical.
Nothing in the world comes free–never forget that. I’m not saying resort to violence. I mean assess the situation and see how to pragmatically bring about social justice. It shouldn’t be a matter of peaceful vs. violent. That’s an unhealthy dichotomy. The question should be, “how can we BEST bring about social justice and democracy in such a way that reduces the amount of bloodshed and ensure a last united Ethiopian society?” Saying this versus that will only polarize and confuse people. Good luck.
Check out this speech by Malcolm X called the “The Ballot or the Bullet”:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CRNciryImqg&feature=related
Malcolm says, “I don’t believe in fighting on one front I believe in fighting on all fronts.” I agree, you need to come from different angles.
There is no other way out, Woyannie can only be removed by armed struggle. It came by force and it tried to hold on to power by force and it must be removed by force!