By Alemayehu G. Mariam

Seeking Paths to Ethiopian Diaspora Dialogue and Consultations (wu-yi-yit and me me-ka-ker)

At the beginning of the year, we pledged to help initiate and sustain an Ethiopian Diaspora dialogue and consultation process with the aim of building broad consensus for collective action. We expressed our hope that with the proper groundwork it is possible to clearly identifying a set of issues over which pro-democracy Diaspora Ethiopians could take a unified position and speak in one thundering voice. We boldly proclaimed the inspirational theme, “Ethiopian united can never be defeated!”

For the past several weeks, we have been hard at work seeking ways of wiring Ethiopian Diaspora worldwide through dialogue and consultations. Our preliminary efforts to this end have involved exploratory dialogues and consultations with numerous progressive and forward thinking Ethiopians who are not only committed to creating a just and humane society in Ethiopia, but are also keenly aware that the most effective method to bring that outcome is to broadly engage in dialogue and consultations groups and individuals from diverse backgrounds who are equally committed to the survival and progress of the Ethiopian nation and people.

What We Mean by Civic Dialogue and Consultation (wu-yi-yit and me me-ka-ker)

We define Diaspora civic dialogue and consultation as a creative process of communication and exchange of ideas for the purpose of enhanced understanding of issues of common with the view to taking coordinated collective action. We regard dialogue and consultations as the methodology of the oppressed who seek to develop a common language of struggle for their ultimate liberation. In dialogue and consultations, we aim to learn to reason and think together and harness our collective intelligence for the good of the motherland.

Our conception of civic dialogue and consultation (wu-yi-yit and me me-ka-ker) among pro-democracy Diaspora Ethiopians is based on four simple ideas: 1) Ordinary Diaspora Ethiopians can be effective agents of change in their motherland if they share a common understanding of the problems and challenges, and collaboratively and decisively act to address them. 2) To be effective agents of social change, Diaspora Ethiopians need to unlearn ingrained habits of debate and argumentation and re-learn skills of civic dialogue and consultation. 3) The dialogic and consultative processes require openness to perspectives and views that are very different from our own; and stakeholders must make a commitment to respectfully and genuinely engage others with different ideas, backgrounds and communication styles. 4) The outcome of Ethiopian Diaspora dialogue and consultations depends on building trust, dispelling stereotypes, and the creation of an environment of teamwork and partnership founded on fairness, candor and honesty.

The Year of Dialogue, Consultations and Action

We believe most ordinary pro-democracy Diaspora Ethiopians have come to realize that they can play a direct role in helping to bring about major changes in Ethiopia. Many Diaspora Ethiopians seem to agree with the inspirational words of Marian Wright Edelman, president and founder of the Children’s Defense Fund: “You just need to be a flea against injustice. Enough committed fleas biting strategically can make even the biggest dog uncomfortable and transform even the biggest nation.” We believe that in 2009 there are enough committed ordinary Diaspora Ethiopians who are willing to “bite” strategically to bring about substantial improvements in Ethiopia by working to prevent human rights violations and bringing to justice those responsible for past violations; by mobilizing resources to secure the release of hundreds of thousands of political prisoners currently held throughout the country; by working together with pro-democracy elements in Ethiopia to re-establish democratic rights and facilitate the free operation of the independent media and civic society institutions; by promoting free political competition and helping to ensure free and fair elections are held; and by exposing corruption and exploring legal mechanisms to bring to justice those who have violated international law. In the past, we believe, Diaspora Ethiopians have lacked the dialogic and consultative mechanisms to achieve these values through collective action.

Today, many in the pro-democracy sectors of the Ethiopian Diaspora have come to appreciate the futility of rancorous debate with each other, and have chosen the path of dialogue and consultation. They are willing to transcend the “culture of argumentation” of the past in which we have engaged in political and social discourse principally to prove the legitimacy or correctness of one viewpoint over others, or to use strategic verbal encounters to outwit and belittle our “opponents”. Polarized debates and personal attacks have rendered pro-democracy Diaspora Ethiopians weak, divided and ineffective; and we must grudgingly admit that we have made ourselves the laughing stock of dictators. In our dialogue and consultations, we aim to change the terms of Diaspora engagement from debate to dialogue, from competition to cooperation, from criticism to appreciation, from secrecy to openness and from distrust to collaboration. We have chosen the path of dialogue and consultations because the motherland is crying for her children to work together to deliver her from evil.

Our Fierce Urgency of Now: Preliminary Step 1 – Dialogue and Consultation to Consensus Building

We regard ourselves as one of many facilitators in the ongoing Diaspora consensus-building process. “We” are the face of Diaspora Ethiopians from all backgrounds: academics, professionals in a variety of fields, business entrepreneurs, members of political parties, community and civic society leaders, political and social activists, journalists, students, women’s group members, service workers, retired public servants, senior citizens and ordinary concerned Ethiopians who wish only the best for their country and people. For the past several weeks, we have actively engaged a broad cross-section of the Ethiopian Diaspora activist community and others to identify potential stakeholders to engage in dialogue and consultations for the purpose of consensus-building and collective action. We have had numerous brainstorming sessions. We have held small group discussions using available internet technology, and we have done myriad one-on-one interactions.

From our preliminary efforts to date, we have ascertained two basic facts which we would like to share with all Ethiopian pro-democracy elements. First, we have detected an overwhelming sense of “fierce urgency” to undertake broad dialogue and consultations now, and devise and implement a step-wise plan of Diaspora action to produce positive change in Ethiopia. This sense of urgency, we believe, is supported by substantial anecdotal evidence:

1. There is widely shared belief that divergent elements in the Ethiopian Diaspora can begin to work together immediately on a common purpose despite their differences. For instance, improving human rights in Ethiopia is one of several issues for which there is broad Diaspora consensus as an action item.

2. There is evidence which suggests that Diaspora Ethiopians are thinking less in terms of narrow constituencies or group interests, and are embracing the totality of Ethiopians society as their constituency. For instance, there is a clear tendency among members of diverse groups to look beyond special group grievances and injustices to strong support of human rights protections for all and opposition against government wrongs towards any.

3. There is broad agreement that it is not necessary to wait for the development of a perfect Diaspora political program before taking action. There is a sense of urgency to put values into action (praxis), and a belief that both dialogue and action can be works in progress. For instance, many believe global advocacy efforts can be undertaken in host countries in the short-term while cooperation and collaboration on other issues can be built over time.

4. There are few issues of importance to the Diaspora that need “redefinition or reframing”, paving the way for broad-based collaboration and development of a tentative action plan. There is manifest complementarity of interests, positions, values on the important issues of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

5. There is substantial evidence of a general Diaspora readiness to work together on a common purpose and in the process build trust across political, ideological and ethnic lines. We believe pro-democracy Diaspora Ethiopians want “win-win” solutions not for themselves or their special groups or parties, but for the glory of Ethiopia and progress of all Ethiopians. For instance, we are inspired to hear representatives of groups who have long perceived themselves as competitors and rivals resonating agreement on core issues that are vital to the motherland.

Second, we have also come to appreciate in our preliminary efforts that there may be many challenges to overcome: Could we build the necessary collaborative trust, understanding and momentum to begin acting on core issues of common concern in the short-term? Is a centralized coordinating body for Diaspora efforts the most efficient and effective method to proceed? How can we best engage the “silently concerned” Diaspora Ethiopians in the dialogic and consultative process? How do we accommodate stakeholders that are not ready to participate in the dialogic and consultative process? How can we maximize engagement of the of the Ethiopian Diaspora community given traditional barriers of ethnicity, religion, gender, age, class, education, language and other factors? How can we neutralize and marginalize those elements who will spare no efforts to drive multiple wedges among pro-democracy Diaspora elements and work furiously to ensure our dialogue and consultations process will fail? We are confident all of these issues will be adequately addressed in the give-and-take process of dialogue and consultations.

Lessons in Dialogue and Consultations

In the past few weeks, we have learned first hand important lessons in dialogue and consultations. Though none of us are professionals in the field of dialogue facilitation, we have experience in a wide range of professional and human relations areas. Most importantly, we value the life experiences of our many colleagues who have suffered grievously under the current brutal dictatorship. We have learned that dialogue and consultations are two faces of the same coin. Dialogue is a process of understanding and learning from each other. Dialogue becomes silky smooth when we listen to each other respectfully and offer our views with sincerity and civility. We have developed sensitivity to each other’s feelings, hopes, and dreams and have become less judgmental and argumentative and more willing to walk in the shoes of those who may not agree with us. We have come to learn that we have a lot in common, and few differences of great magnitude. We have become more open-minded, and willingly acknowledge that we could be wrong about our long held beliefs. We have also learned about the gravitational power of truth to keep us all grounded in common sense and reality.

Reaching the “Tipping Point” for a Sea-Change

Doing little things over time can make a big difference. Our preliminary survey of the Diaspora activist community suggests that a “tipping point” (or critical mass) has now been reached to bring about a sea-change (massive transformation) in the way Diaspora Ethiopians can work together for the good of Ethiopia and the Ethiopian people. There is a pervasive can-do spirit that is palpable; and there is self-confidence that nothing is beyond our means if we tenaciously pursue our common goals with a clear mind and a clean heart. We have much to be optimistic about the motherland in 2009 and beyond; but nothing will come easy on our long walk to freedom. We should be inspired by President John Kennedy who said, “We will go to the moon. We will go to the moon and do other things, NOT because they are easy but because they are HARD.” And so we will dialogue and consult with each other without end to help our motherland not because it is easy but because it is very, very hard. But none of us should doubt that we are assured of victory in the end if each one of us becomes “a flea against injustice.” And if enough of us “fleas” bite strategically, we have the awesome power to make the meanest, nastiest and most vicious junkyard dog uncomfortable, and transform the Ethiopian nation. Wu-yi-yit and Me me-ka-ker Yasteseryal!
________________
The writer, Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles.

By Yilma Bekele

Most of you know that Ato Meles Zenawi has recently granted two interviews. We have all read the twenty-second sound bites offered by the media. In the interest of fairness to the interviewee and his subjects, I thought it would be better for all of us to look at it closely and peer into that murky brain of his. The first one lasting almost two hours (110 minutes) was with Ethiopian reporters (most of whom are his cronies probably wearing diapers scared of wetting themselves by asking the wrong question). The second interview was with the ferenjis, and lasted an hour and half (85 minutes).

Given the length of the interviews my analysis will be done in more than one article. This is the first installment.

I hope most of you agree that two hours is a long time for an interview. It becomes specially long when the interviewee, the fearless one, if not an eloquent leader who repeats himself ad nauseam without even changing his wording. For him, twenty minutes should have been more than adequate. In addition, he is constantly looking to his right as if he has a little monitor that he is reading from or as if someone is feeding him talking points. If they were, it was an absolute waste because they were not telling him anything different or worthwhile.

He is not comfortable looking directly at the questioner or at the camera to reach his audience. His eyes are either down cast, moving around, or looking towards his desk on his right. His responses were longwinded and the ideas clashed constantly. If you remember Sarah Plain’s interview with Katie Couric, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txfqWzGMgmY) you will get my point. After reading one of her interviews, Dick Cavett wrote on the New York Times “It’s admittedly a rare gift to produce a paragraph in which whole clumps of words could be removed without noticeably affecting the sense, if any.” Due to the length of the responses the listener can forget the question. It is difficult to defend what is universally agreed to be a fiasco and a monumental failure in the annals of the history of intervention.

In his interview with the local reporters he reinterprets the questions, demands more explanations in an attempt to intimidate the individual reporter. Follow up questions are not allowed, which allows him to get away by not answering the original questions.

On both interviews, he was unwilling to refer to Judge Bertukan by her name and referred to her as ‘the individual’ in English or ‘gelesbua’ in Amharic. I assume it is his way of trying to dehumanize her. I find it very disrespectful to refer to the leader of the largest opposition party, and a potential future Prime Minster of Ethiopia, in such way. Thus, to give him back his own medicine, I will refer to Ato Meles as ‘the individual’ in this article. I believe the correct way to address him will be Don Meles since he is the head of the TPLF crime family and I believe that this is the way that they the refer to each other in the syndicate.

I want you to know that sitting through the two interviews was one of the ugliest jobs that I have ever performed. As an immigrant, I have done plenty of ugly jobs that I would not want to repeat. But as one of my bosses used to say, “It is a dirty job, and some one has to do it.” In the interest of informing my fellow Ethiopians, I sacrificed myself. His accent is atrocious, his grammar non-existent and he likes simple clichés and saying to show his mastery of the language. I also want you know that by the time I was done with listening to the interview my brain was a basket case, confused, angry and very sad for my country. So without further ado here is ‘the individual’ dispensing his ideology, world-view and clarification to the outside world regarding his misconceptions, ill conceptions and outright lies.

On the invasion of Somalia

Question #1 ferenji Reporter:
“The Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a statement have described the intervention in Somalia as successful, I want you to elaborate more about that given that that Sheik Ahmed is now the President of the Transitional Government and was declared two years ago as a Jihad in Ethiopia and radical Islamists are in control of much of Southern Somalia. So has the Ethiopia’s intervention positively affected things on the ground there for Ethiopia and second could you define more clearly the cost to Ethiopia that the intervention. I know that Ethiopia has a highly developed statistical agency and if you go to the agency that they will give you the result of the harvest down to single last quintal so I was wondering if you could tell us how many causalities the Ethiopian forces suffered there both in death and injuries and the cost in dollars?”

Answer ‘the individual’:
“Our operation in Somalia has been highly successful for two reasons. 1st we made that clear when the intervention was initiated. We did not think that Al Shahab offensive…would be an isolated act. We indicated that there are three important forces involved. 1st the Eritreans government as the organizer of what we call ‘front of destabilization’ in the Horn of Africa. 2nd. The Jihadists in Somalia at that time who were with their victories achieved and appear to believe that nothing and nobody could stop them anywhere and 3rd it was those Ethiopian groups in Ethiopia armed groups who are supported, trained, equipped by Eritrea. The idea and strategy was that the Shehab will be the tip of the spear and some armed Ethiopian elements will join it this will be combined with the activities of the so called civil disobedience in Ethiopia and you have to remember it was a few months after the civil disobedience program in Ethiopia had subsided. This is happening nine months after that and it was hoped that this pressure begins to weaken the resolve of the government the final blow will come from Eritrea…I think two years after we can confidently say that the conspiracy has been successfully foiled…elements of destabilization inside the country…the Jihadists…and the Eritrean government are weaker than two years ago….let us leave the statistics to the statisticians….”
After this he goes on for another 15 minutes to talk about mounting and dismounting horses and the usual diatribe against terrorism.

That is his story and he is sticking by it. Unfortunately it does not jibe with reality. The whole theory and explanation is based on ideas that reveal themselves during deep hallucinations that can be a byproduct of chewing Kat. ‘The individual’ and his friends have conjured up an alternate reality. It is wrong on every count and there is no data that will support such a claim. The listener is forced to assume that the interviewee needs help. To say delusional is an understatement. It is a sure sign of paranoid personality disorder.

Ethiopia and Somalia’s enmity goes way back in history. Somalia gained its independence in 1960. Border disputes erupted into war in 1964 with the Imperial regime. Another war between the two countries was fought in 1977. It was a war that involved the two super powers toying with these two Stone Age nations. It was fought with Soviet and American weapons of destruction. Tanks and Soviet Migs were the preferred weapon of these two poor nations who cannot even feed themselves. The Cubans were thrown in to spice up the confrontation. Breznev flexed his muscle and Carter blinked. We were royally screwed. In 1977 the dictator Siad Barre died and Somalia started its downward spiral. It has never been the same.

The Bush administration and the war against ‘terrorism’ again converged on the horn and the Ethiopian minority government was happy to exploit that.
Thus when the TPLF regime invaded Somalia there wasn’t an organized and able force to contend with. The US was broadening the war against al-Qaida and it assumed that Somalia, due to its failed state status, could be used as a base. According to the New York Times ‘the operation was likely discussed during the visit …of General John P. Abizaid, commander of the US Central Command (Centcom), to Ethiopia. According to the New York Times, Zenawi assured Abizaid that Ethiopia could cripple the Islamists forces “in one to two weeks ….Abizaid was well aware that an Ethiopian invasion would “create a humanitarian crisis across the Horn of Africa” according to Centcom officials. US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Frazer has also admitted that, “If this thing goes to a military fight, it’s a bloodbath.”
The US decided to do preventive action and fight al-Qaida away from its homeland, the Eritrean government wanted to give their cousins to the south a bloody nose and the Ethiopian regime leveraged its front line status and sacrifice to silence the talk of democracy and human right at home. The foreign policy was made to serve the needs of the Defense Department’s war on terror. Ordinary Somalis and Ethiopians were caught in this ugly web.
‘The Individual’ allowed general elections in Ethiopia and lost miserably. He was forced to declare a state of emergency and his special forces killed unarmed civilians protesting his broad day light thievery of the elections in both June and November of 2006. He jailed over forty thousand civilians all over the country, including all the leaders of the opposition party that won the parliamentary elections. He imprisoned freely elected representatives of the people.
Due to protest by the Diaspora, the European Union, the US Congress and the silent protest by the Ethiopian people the minority government was cornered. The invasion of Somalia was a godsend. When ‘the individual’ says that they bought time and space, he is correct. His TPLF party was running out of options, and the silence of his US and European benefactors allowed him to tighten the reigns around the neck of Democracy in Ethiopia. The interviews were directed at the party of the faithful and not to the rest of us.
TPLF forces intervened to install the so called ‘transitional’ government by destroying the emerging ‘Islamic Court’ movement that was brining peace and stability to a war weary population. The invasion turned out to have unimaginable consequences to both Somalis and Ethiopians. We were both victimized. Our Somali brothers and sisters were condemned to hell on earth. According to the international aid group Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), more than 10,000 people have died due to the invasion, and more than one million have been left homeless with over 3 million on the brink of famine. This is what the ‘individual’ calls a success story.
The TPLF army was forced to retreat back across the boarder with the Islamists at their heels. It was a very hasty departure with a lot of US surplus arms left behind. Woyane Generals were in Addis while their poor peasant southern army was left behind to fend for themselves.
If you notice the question regarding the loss of life and money was hush hushed. That is not important to our fearless leader. He has sacrificed thousands of Tigreans recruited to fight for Eritrea’s Independence, he is responsible for the death of over eighty thousand Ethiopians for a worthless conflict over Badme and now god knows how many of our people perished in the deserts of Somalia in the service of the US and TPLF mafia.
In an emerging democracy the people are not mature enough to be told how many of their brethren died in the service of their country or how much of their money was spent towards carrying out their will. The few that govern on their behalf will decide on such matters. It is very unnerving to watch ‘the individual’ smiling while dismissing such an important issue, as if it is incidental matter.
Today Sheikh Sharif, who is the founding member of Islamic Courts, is the new President of Somalia. The Eritrean government is still in power and the Ethiopian oppositions are still waging all sorts of struggles to get rid of the minority TPLF government. ‘The individual’ is wrong on all points!
In a real Democracy leaders that miscalculate and bring disaster onto their nation, either bow out gracefully or are unceremoniously kicked out of power. Those with an iota of conscience will beg for forgiveness from their people and spend the rest of their productive live making amends. In a few traditional cultures, they commit Hara Kiri, as in Japan, or suicide, as Emperor Tewodros did in Ethiopia to demonstrate enormous psychological courage, which is a way of winning back some measure of honor even in defeat.
Alas no such luck here. We are surrounded by paper tigers or wanna be dictators that present a fierce and brave image hiding behind their specially trained security forces, high walls and underground bunkers even in their lavish palaces. When the going gets tough, they fly the coop and leave their minions to face the music. I hope the minions are listening because there is no airplane big enough to haul your criminal behind out of Africa.
Resources used in preparing this article:
· http://www.hrw.org/home?t=africa&c=ethiophttp://www.hrw.org/home?t=africa&c=ethiop
· http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/
· http://www.nytimes.com/
· http://www.ethiomedia.com/abai/ethiopia_inquiry_commission.html
· http://www.oduu.com/news/index.php?news_id=1143

A Quieter Approach to Spreading Democracy Abroad?

By PETER BAKER | The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Fresh from orchestrating a historic victory, President Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, headed to the remote seaside town of Baku for a lucrative speech. For Mr. Plouffe, it was a chance to pocket an easy $50,000. But for the authoritarian government of Azerbaijan, it was a chance to burnish the reputation of a harsh system headed by the son of a K.G.B. general.

An outcry forced Mr. Plouffe to donate the cash to pro-democracy groups in the former Soviet Union, but to some policy experts it spotlighted a shift in American attitudes toward advancing the cause of democracy abroad. Mr. Plouffe did not intend to give succor to a despot, friends said, but evidently did not think to determine whether the supposed civic group forking over the money had ties to an anti-democratic regime.

Four years after President George W. Bush declared it the mission of America to spread democracy with the goal of “ending tyranny in our world,” his successor’s team has not picked up the mantle. Since taking office, neither Mr. Obama nor his advisers have made much mention of democracy-building as a goal. While not directly repudiating Mr. Bush’s grand, even grandiose vision, Mr. Obama appears poised to return to a more traditional American policy of dealing with the world as it is rather than as it might be.

The shift has been met with relief in Washington and much of the world, which never grew comfortable with Mr. Bush’s missionary rhetoric, seeing it as alternately cynical or naïve. But it also underlines a sharp debate in Democratic circles about the future of Mr. Bush’s vision. Idealists, for lack of a better word, agree that democracy-building should be a core American value but pursued with more modesty, less volume and better understanding of the societies in question. The realists, on the other hand, are skeptical of assumptions that what works in America should necessarily be exported elsewhere, or that it should eclipse other American interests.

The essential tension for the Obama team is whether to let Mr. Bush’s strong association discredit the very idea of spreading democracy. “It’s sadly ironic that an administration that put democracy promotion at the forefront of its foreign policy has created such controversy about what has been a bipartisan ambition,” said Kenneth Wollack, president of the National Democratic Institute, a government-financed group, affiliated with the Democratic Party, that promotes democracy abroad.

Mr. Wollack noted that presidents of both parties embraced the idea of nurturing democracy overseas for decades before Mr. Bush came along, even if he made it more central to his mission statement. “Now the debate is where it ought to be on that agenda,” Mr. Wollack said.

To many Democrats, it ought to be lower on the agenda. America should not lecture others, if only because quiet diplomacy may work better, they argue. In this view, the whole focus on elections, particularly, is misplaced when so much of the world is suffering from poverty, hunger and disease. Mr. Obama seems to side with that point. During an interview with The Washington Post before his inauguration, he said he wanted to consider the promotion of democracy “through a lens that is actually delivering a better life for people on the ground and less obsessed with form, more concerned with substance.”

His Inaugural Address a few days later was a sharp contrast from Mr. Bush’s four years ago. Where Mr. Bush called the spread of freedom the central goal of American policy, Mr. Obama made just passing reference to those who silence dissent being on “the wrong side of history.” Indeed, his secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, outlined a policy of the “Three D’s” — defense, diplomacy and development. The fourth D, democracy, did not make the list.

And if that were not clear, during her trip to Asia last week, she said that human rights violations by China “can’t interfere” with cooperation between Washington and Beijing on other issues. That may simply be a more honest statement of longstanding reality in the Chinese-American relationship, but it still seemed jarring.

Moreover, Mr. Obama’s National Security Council has not duplicated the high-profile democracy post Mr. Bush had. Instead, Mr. Obama’s top democracy adviser during the campaign, Michael McFaul, was given the Russia portfolio. Coincidentally, this comes as the State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor is being relocated across the street from headquarters, although the assistant secretary in charge will remain on the executive floor. The move, instigated in the last days of the Bush administration, stems from renovation schedules, but proximity is power in government and advocates are worried.

No one has been nominated for that assistant secretary position yet. Many Democrats thought Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, would be a powerful choice, but he cannot take the job under Mr. Obama’s rules against lobbyists. Mr. Malinowski was registered as a lobbyist to advocate for victims of genocide, torture and oppression, rather than moneyed interests, but that has not earned him a waiver.

“As a Democrat, I am particularly troubled,” said Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, a group that promotes democracy and liberty abroad. “To see democracy promotion as particularly Republican or Bush policy is to misunderstand our country’s foreign policy history.”

After all, Democrats in Congress created the democracy and human rights bureau at the State Department in the 1970s, and Jimmy Carter embraced it as he made human rights a central tenet of his foreign policy. Ronald Reagan created the National Endowment for Democracy to encourage reform around the world. Bill Clinton made democracy promotion one of four pillars of the nation’s international development strategy.

Mr. Obama, Ms. Windsor said, should find his own way to advance the cause.

“The challenge for the Obama team is to find words and concepts that enable the administration to distinguish itself from the Bush administration, but not to downgrade support for democracy and civil and political rights,” she said. “So far, I haven’t seen them even try.”

Thomas Carothers, who oversees the democracy and rule of law program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, made the same point in a paper to be published next week. “Caution and moderation on democracy promotion are very much in order, including a careful post-Bush process of repair and recovery,” he wrote. “At the same time, however, President Obama and his foreign policy team should not, either explicitly or implicitly, embrace a broad realist corrective.”

Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy, said Mr. Obama should retool the agenda to make it more of a long-term goal instead of an immediate policy instrument. He argued “for lowering the profile of the issue without abandoning the commitment, especially in the Middle East, which is the toughest region, but where more progress was achieved in the last period than is generally recognized.”

The Middle East, of course, is what led Mr. Bush down this road in the first place. After the invasion of Iraq failed to turn up any weapons of mass destruction, he embraced the goal of building democracy there as an outpost for freedom in a repressive region. By the time his second inauguration came around, he decided to broaden the mandate around the world, seeing it as a more positive philosophical underpinning for the war on terror than simply hunting down evildoers.

It was a heady idea. Mr. Bush and his advisers took inspiration from popular revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and Lebanon that toppled entrenched governments. They were encouraged by the first purple-finger elections in Iraq. They were emboldened when Egypt released the imprisoned opposition leader, Ayman Nour, after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, canceled a trip to protest his arrest.

Yet the vision Mr. Bush articulated with passion and clarity was never translated consistently into policy. He launched the Millennium Challenge program to steer foreign aid to countries promoting freedom and developing rule of law. He met with the Dalai Lama, hosted Chinese and North Korean dissidents in the Oval Office and slapped sanctions on Burma. But he tempered criticism of allies and countries he needed for other priorities, like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kazakhstan.

His “freedom agenda” was undermined after his administration encouraged Palestinian authorities to proceed with elections that were ultimately won by Hamas, which the West considers a terrorist group. And much of the world saw democracy promotion through the lens of Iraq, viewing it not as a principled stance but as code for changing regimes that America did not like, even by force.

“For all the criticism of Bush, I certainly do think he believed his rhetoric and his agenda on freedom,” said David Kramer, who was Mr. Bush’s last assistant secretary of state for democracy. “He can be faulted on the implementation of it, but I don’t think he can be called hypocritical.”

William Inboden, a former strategic adviser at the National Security Council now at the Legatum Institute in London, said the brand suffered. “The word democracy itself is a little radioactive and unfortunately has gotten a bad name,” he said. “But when you talk about its meaning and the concepts behind it, just about everyone would say they want those things.”

Mr. Inboden said Mr. Obama has the chance to rebrand democracy. His own election generated enormous good will around the world, an “incredibly profound and incredibly potent” statement about American democracy, Mr. Inboden said. And so, he said, “There’s real opportunity there.”

Maybe others see it that way, too. Last week, in what some saw as a goodwill gesture toward Mr. Obama, Egypt released Mr. Nour again.