Dear Dilwenberu,

The views I expressed on this topic was just a casual expression of what I truly feel.  I posed questions as to whether you were on the same page with the EPRDF leadership when it comes to what is desirable regarding how to deal with Medrek. I regret any mis-characterization whatsoever, I never intended to.

I tried to put my views strictly within the context of strategic objectives of the EPRDF. I do believe that we do not have any disagreement regarding what this objective is. Then, the point is this. As  John Nash (the beautiful mind)  concluded in 1958, there is no single strategy to achieve the sought outcomes - there is no convention whatsoever in strategic games that lead to the objectives.  One might require a mixture of different strategies in order to achieve an objective.  Hence, your recommendation of  "sticking to the gun," which I interpreted as sticking to a single strategy may not necessarily be what is desirable when it comes to achieving the strategic goals.  The main goal for EPRDF, as I stated in my comment, is to establish a vibrant democratic system and run a freely contested election. Then, how does taking extra miles to engage a party that has the potential for competing in several weredas that are not reachable by the Amhara parties (the ex-youth league of AAPO now EDP; and the rebranded AAPO aka AEUO) be considered unimportant given the strategic goals? 

For me, the birth of MEDREK is an outcome of EPRDF's determination in fighting both blind secessionists and those who consider nations and nationalities' rights as anti-unity.  In the past, we were scared that either of these two extremists would take power and either dismantle the country or undo all the positive progresses that were introduced by EPRDF.  Now, Ethiopian politics is one step ahead. Those extremists have now given up and compromised on their positions to form Medrek. Of all the parties out there, only MEDREK has come forward with a political program that ensures continuity in the sense that the federal structure and the constitution are fully endorsed as opposed to those who are hell-bent upon undoing whatever EPRDF did. This alone can be sufficient reason for the EPRDF to engage Medrek. Of course, I understand that the party has leadership problems but that is not our business. It will be up to them to clean themselves from gaffe-ridden leadership or else will not be able to pass the litmus test.

When I suggested or argued in favor of engaging MEDREK, by going extra miles, it was not because I disregarded the MEDREK's refusal in the past, nor was it due to my ignorance of all the media blitz they are engaged in. I have full information about it.  But, to be frank, I defined the outcome of the party negotiations in its narrowest possible sense. Look, we have election board; constitutions; and other codes.  There was no need to have a different framework. But, our political discourse is riddled with problems. For this, it was important for the parties to sit down and talk. It was important for them to sit down and learn to disagree without being disagreeable. For me, the biggest achievement from the signing of the agreement was the handshakes; the understandings; the trusts; the respect that the parties pledged to each other.  At the core of the dialogue is that not everybody's interests were fulfilled but they decided to give and take. Lack of such spirit was the root cause of the turmoil in 2005.

Now, MEDREK wanted to discuss with EPRDF separately. What if the EPRDF gives in to this demand given the bigger objective or strategic goals? Mind that engaging does not mean giving in to all the demands but at the end of the dialogue, we might end up seeing some historic handshakes! Who, do you think, is the beneficiary?  I do agree with your statement that "MEDREK’s unflinching desire to talk solely with EPDRF is to raise matters which are tangential to the elections." But, it will not be necessary to entertain all their requests but the very willingness of the EPRDF to separate meetings or responding positively to the "shumagles" will send positive messages about EPRDF.

You have also mentioned "it is MEDREK which is publicly promoting the need to have a Kenyan/Zimbabwean style of government of national unity before we have even started election campaign." The way I see this is that MEDREK has already admitted its defeat but trying to use allegations of repressions for its defeat. You know, this tendency or behaviour makes it important to engage them - dealing with them with a carrot and steak! This way, you can take away their playbook; deprive them of a chance to use that pretext; and block their move to tarnish the legitimacy of the whole process. 

I didn't call for the EPRDF to act according the biblical principle of "giving your other cheek to those who slap your right cheek ."   I am rather advocating for being "meek like a dove and wise like a snake." Politics in a democratic system is all about strategic games and each tries to maximize its own objectives under all circumstances. You have got to be both meek and wise!

As supporters, therefore, what is expected of us is to calculate the pros and cons of such difficult decisions and figure out which possible course of actions are likely to maximize the chance that EPRDF achieves its goals. Asking to be rigid or "sticking to the gun" may not be advisable always!


Thank you !

Gurummsea Gurum

 

===============================================

A short response to Gurummesa Gurum,

 

Ato Gurummesa Gurum is trying to paint EPRDF supporters as the wrong doers in Medrek’s ego driven walkouts from the many multilateral talks on the next election. EPRDF has never said it doesn’t want to talk to Medrek. What it is saying is there is already a venue for the discussion. There is absolutely no reason for EPRDF to start bilateral talks with Medrek when there exists a forum to have discussions on any subject. What Medrek is seeking is a special privilege to have a one-on-one talk with EPRDF so as  to discredit the other opposition parties as well as EPRDF. I know there is pressure from some Medrek friendly quarters to force EPRDF to succumb to its demands, but I urge EPRDF to stay steady in its stance that any and every discussion regarding the next election should be held in the existing setting where all the parties are present. Any concession from EPRDF will be met with further demands from MEDREK and the other parties that will lead to the undermining of our constitution, which is exactly what MEDREK is striving for.