Conduct Unbecoming a Party Leader: Prof. Beyene’s Contempt for AU

Tesfaye Hailu, 20, Apr., 2010

It has only been a week since I wrote on the foot-in-mouth syndrome affecting the Ethiopian opposition camp. Unfortunately, it just seems to get worse perhaps now worth issuing election health warning. The latest victim/offender is Prof. Beyene Petros, the current chairperson of the coalition party Medrek, who is on record for saying that African Union election observers are in the country “... for the allowances they would receive rather than to ensure a free and fair election process.” Adding, “It’s a picnic for them, which is useless for us.”

I see at least four factors behind this blatant attack not just on the integrity of the African Union representatives, but Africans at large.

First is the age-old stereotype that Africans are so economically impoverished that they will go to any length and will do anything unethical for the money. The only surprise here is that it’s echoed by one of our own, and a high public figure at that. I mean, would the professor make money an issue in such a disdainful manner if the objects of his anger were European Union representatives as supposed to fellow Africans?

Such a self-depreciating comment is, in fact, something one would expect from two lunatic self-styled leaders – one a neighbor to our north with identity crisis and the other in the very north of our continent who carries a conditional identity card. This raises the question, is this the type of leadership and public statement we will have to live with if the professor and fellow candidates in the same camp are voted in to lead the country?

Second is the failure to resolve conflicts amicably. Justified or not, Professor Beyene and his fellow opposition party colleagues hold a grudge against the African Union for the latter’s role in the last election. Nonetheless, have they made any effort since to sit with African Union leaders; explain their discontentment and insist that the same mistake – if any – shouldn’t be repeated?

During the recent debate on foreign policy, it was interesting to watch how opposition party debaters made conflict management/resolution look a walk in the park. They went out of their way to blame the ruling party for everything that went wrong with Eritrea, and bragged that, if elected, they would do things differently to end the standoff. Well, funny things do happen on the way to an election, and making outlandish statements and promises is, indeed, one of them.

However, it’s not by what they say but, as the good book says, by their fruits that we know them. And Professor Beyene’s not-well-thought-out statement makes one think, if he and his colleagues cannot resolve their differences with the peaceable African Union, the pledge to end the conflict with war-prone Eritrea becomes nothing more than an election talk. Come to think of it, this is a group of individuals and parties that cannot even resolve their internal differences in a closed door and civilized manner.

Third, which is somewhat related to the second, is failure to build bridges and consolidate support. Bridge building is an important aspect of leadership. What have opposition party leaders done to reach out to their fellow African leaders in other countries? To my knowledge, no Ethiopian opposition party leader has made the effort to consult with any African leader. Instead, what we see – in fact, currently at play in various U.S. cities – is making endless trips to the United States and Europe. Should one perhaps feed right into the same stereotype then to allege that Ethiopian opposition parties travel only to where the money is?

Fourth is blame-shifting. It’s mind boggling how long opposition parties are going to blame external forces – the ruling party, the National Election Board, the African Union and what not? And when are they going to look into the mirror and see what wrong they possibly could be doing? To just use one recent example, the same Professor Beyene’s party – Medrek – can’t even entirely agree as to who leads the party to electoral success.

Politics is at times referred to as a game. And Medrek seems to treat its party politics as the game of volleyball, absurdly rotating its leadership role every four months. The number four is familiar in many countries’ electoral politics, but in terms of years, not months. Even board and community chairpersonship last at least a year. But four months, especially when an election is on the horizon, is not only unheard of, but a recipe for defeat. After all, if anything, it only proves that no leader is deserving of the vote of confidence and a meaningful mandate. And how could the heavy responsibility of leading a country fall on someone who is not fully trusted to even lead his own party?

So, although I – admittedly – am not a pollster, the good professor’s party of unwilling that is barely standing with the support of the enemy of my enemy pillar, not to mention the election blunders such as the unbecoming conduct discussed above, which is a punishable offence, indicate to me that there is a price be paid in the court of public opinion and at the ballot box. My only hope is that this ultimately paves the way for ending the culture of crying wolf and blaming it on external factors, and instead building the culture of looking inwards for meaningful change and better results.