By Harego Bensa (haregobensa@yahoo.com)
July 31 2009
A father and son, who were set on a long journey, had to rely on their lone mule as a means of transportation. They started their journey first by both riding the mule. They didn’t go far when they were met by a group of people, among whom one vocal person said (as if to his colleagues) that it is cruel to see two people sitting on the back of a single mule. So, the father advised the boy to go on foot while he kept riding slowly to keep him in pace.
On their way, they met again another group of passers-by, one of whom expressed his repulsion by the “cruelty of a father who forced his little boy to toil up and down the rough road on foot.” The remark was made so loud that both had noticed it. Thus, the father said, “I think the man is right. You have to take over the mule so that I will be walking instead.”
With the new change, they appeared to be happy until they met another group of people. One of the persons shouted, “How on earth a father walks while his little boy is made to ride?” Thus, the father took the moment to request his boy to accompany him in walking and relieve the beast from any of its burden. The plan was actually meant to deter any possible criticism by other travelers. To their disappointment, however, they soon found out that their optimism was short-lived as they had to have the harshest criticism of all from another group they met on their way. “It is really foolish of them for not riding the mule at their disposal on this difficult road,” one of the men said while his companions laughed. The father, who was apparently upset by the latest remark, asked his boy what to do then. The boy said “no idea”. So the father had to produce yet a fresh idea acceptable to all.
“In that case, I propose we should carry the mule. Because, that is the only thing we haven’t tried so far,” he said. Noticing the perplexity on the little face of the boy, the father comforted him when he told him he was just kidding. But he also added, “You see my boy; this is the kind of world we are living in. As you witnessed, we have tried everything we could in order to avoid criticisms coming from other people but in vain. If we insist on doing we were doing, what we would have to do next was carrying the beast. In fact, that will not be easy for us. But that is not why we shouldn’t do that. It is rather because there will always be one or two people who oppose our idea. So, as a growing man: if you try to guide your work by what a few individuals react to it, you will end-up doing what you shouldn’t do or will do nothing at all. So, please try to do what you and most of the people think right.”
This is the kind of politics we have in Ethiopia at present. Oppositions in the main stream politics are telling the public and the international community that the political space has been shrinking ever since the 3rd national elections in 2005. The ruling party, for its part, defends that the political space has instead been expanding even since then. Though there is an insignificant number which stood on the middle ground, the political view is generally regarded as highly polarized.
Frankly speaking, however, the political debate held recently by major political parties on the Ethiopian Radio and Television has invaluably clarified three major points that were obscure to some of us in the public.
The first point is the fact that the political space has never been narrowing; it has rather been expanding. This was best substantiated by much of the points raised in the debate in which the oppositions had failed to produce sound arguments. They were not able to defend well the strong arguments raised by the ruling party. While the ruling party was comfortably asserting that the political space has been expanding even since 2005 with strong evidences such as the introduction of the parliamentary procedural law, the press law and electoral law, almost all of the political leaders in the opposition camp were awkwardly trying to defend with their outdated argument. Their argument was the same that they had been echoing right from the first national elections in 1995, it appeared that they have lost their initial argument that the political space has been narrowing down as of 2005.
The second point that the debate shaded light on was the fact that the political space has been expanding only for peaceful political parties as it has simultaneously been closing down for illegal operatives. In other words, the expansion of the political space for the peaceful political parties has automatically been closing down the space for illegal political parties. This is an important point that should have been appreciated by the oppositions themselves, had they been genuinely peaceful champions of democracy. Or else, they have to be pretty much sure that the space was narrowing down for them also, if they are determined to set on both legal and illegal means to take power, as was their case in the past. This time, they have to make sure that things will never be the same again after what happened in the aftermath of Elections 2005. Because, if the political space is left wide open for illegal political parties or for those that employ both the lawful and unlawful means, what this nation will have at the end of the day is nothing but anarchy and violence that may lead to its own destruction.
The third important point manifested itself in the political debate is the fact that the oppositions are not playing constructive role that is expected from opposition parties anywhere in the world in building democracy. They are not even ready for that. For one thing, they have not been able to exploit the political space created so far. It is only one opposition party, for instance, that has tried to exploit plenty of new opportunities offered by the parliamentary procedural law and exercised more rights to be heard as a minority group in the parliament. So if that was the case, one may wonder as to why the great majority of them talked about political space. Because, the question as to which of them has really made use of the existing political space so far stands more relevant than whether the political space is widening or narrowing in the country.
But, ordinary citizens may still find it difficult to get a simple answer as to what the opposition officials really want. The opposition parties that were lamenting five years ago that the nomination of the electoral board be changed in a manner that it gives them chance in nominating electoral board members have projected themselves as unhappy with the new changes made in line with their own demands. The opposition parties that were lamenting that their voices were not heard as a minority group in the parliament are not happy with the new changes that gave them more chance to be heard. The opposition parties that were lamenting that they had no equal financial footage to compete with the ruling party in elections are expressing their dissatisfaction to the new rule that compels the government to offer them financial and material support from its coffer. The opposition parties that were lamenting that the government was highly secretive to the public are not happy with the new changes that resulted in the flooding of private and public media with state information, including works it accomplished over the week and what it has in agenda over the coming week through its weekly briefings. In view of all these changes, all of which were certainly made since 2005, an ordinary citizen will find it difficult to know as to what the opposition leaders really like. Do they really want the government or the peoples of Ethiopia do what they should not do or leave the democratization process altogether as was mentioned in the anecdote of this article?
Though the political debate transmitted on TV and radio broadcasts has clarified a lot of confusion created by intensive propaganda campaigns of undemocratic forces heavily fortified by some local newspapers, it is only critical observation to the matter that can trace down the hidden agenda of the opposition leaders.
In analyzing the matter, one has to ask first as to why the complaint is made at this time, when the nation is only months away to conduct its 4th National Elections. History is the best teacher. Similar complaints were used to be made in the past three elections. That was so because of the lack of gut on the part of many of the opposition parties to compete in the peaceful political struggle to secure state power. Experiences from the last elections testify that such complaints usually herald the ugly episode of rejecting the outcomes of the ballot-box and then inciting violence, which all save a very few hardliners does not want to see.
Thus, the prevailing situations testify that the same strategy worked out by a very few subversive politicians in the past is still on the table. The ultimate objective of the group is to take state power through unconstitutional means and then maneuver it to destroy the emerging democratic system in the country. Or else, if that is not the case, to lock the nation into stalemate in the name of improving political space or championing democracy. Since the big-wigs of several of the opposition political parties were full-timers of the last dictatorial regime, which was infamous for extra judiciary murder of almost a generation; one cannot rule out they might even have a hidden agenda beyond that or restoring the dictatorship so to speak.
Beyond speculations, certain things are very clear. These people have explicitly been expressing their disgust towards the prevailing federal structure and democratic system of this country. There is no secrecy about that. They have an electoral strategy document produced by Dr. Negede Gobezie, who is one of several politicians operating outside of the country for fear of reprisals from the families of victims at the height of the last military dictatorship. Dr. Negede’s preference to live in self-imposed exile and abstain from peaceful political struggle might be wise for obvious reasons. What is odd is the similar attitude adopted by the great majority of opposition political parties that are legally registered in the country with a promise to operate peacefully. Thanks to the plethora of democratic rights such as freedom of association, organization and expression, the undemocratic forces clocked in democracy are trying their best to execute their undemocratic goals. Their ultimate objective is to grab state power through unconstitutional means, which they think are the shortest possible way at the moment. That is because they knew it very well that they cannot win the peaceful political contests for various reasons.
As a prelude to their ugly drama, some of the oppositions have already begun launching pre-emptive attacks on the coming elections. This is being made deliberately to attain two different goals that can be expected independently or interchangeably. On the one hand, they are trying to disrupt the elections through whatever means they can, violence not excluded. That is why, they are cooking down the pretext that the political space is narrowing, with an underlined meaning that the elections will never be free and fair or there will be no need for them to contest in. This is one of the cards they want to display. If this is not possible, the second card is to force the incumbent government come to their crooked terms, which for that matter lead the nation to nowhere or zero-sum game. This is the kind of strategy which the oppositions had been trying to execute usually in the advent of national elections thinking that the pre-election event would serve them to reach the local and international community at large more than any other time.
They always demand that some revisions be made to the laws, including those they have previously agreed upon. The rationale behind this strategy is that they can blackmail the incumbent government to come to their terms lest they may boycott the elections or at best incite their followers to violence. This is the kind of irresponsibility that has manifested itself in the majority of the opposition parties. Had they been responsible, opposition parties who have seats in the parliament wouldn’t have demanded for revision of the electoral law, which they had intensively negotiated with the ruling party in a two-month long joint-forum.
Even if the electoral law had not been as such a negotiated one that democracy is built through peaceful dialogues. The language of politics in a democratic society is dialogue and not confrontation or violence. There is no other way round if they are really committed for democracy as they often claim. What the leading advocates of democracy in the world advise political parties is to contest within the existing legal framework.
But, the most important question is how many times they can negotiate? Is it possible to revise the existing laws every time election approaches? No! Their attempt, as has been proven by experience in the past is always to lock the government into an endless game of negotiation. Their negotiation without any positive goal is negative by its virtue no matter how it appears positive. It has to be stopped somewhere.
In general, the latest complaint made by some of the oppositions appears to inform the public that they are in a difficult situation to take part in the up-coming elections. The underlined meaning beneath the complaint, however, tells us that they are relaxing their muscles to ignite conflict. They preferred this option for nothing but critical deficiency of sound policy, strategy and program that a party should have to win the hearts and minds of the public and win elections peacefully. This was what we have been accustomed to since the first ever national elections of the country in 1995. There is nothing new about it...
The only difference this time around is the latest complaints have come after several changes were introduced in recent times through the active engagement and consent of the political parties in parliament to ever widen the political space in the country. In fact some of the changes were made in response to the demands persistently been made by the great majority of the opposition parties. No matter how the changes might have been introduced, the number of measures introduced in recent times is likely to transform Ethiopia’s political landscape further and lead the country’s democracy towards a full swing.
In this regard, the opposition parties have to stop employing the out-fashioned system of intimidating and blackmailing the government and commit themselves towards constructive engagement. “If you don’t bow to what I say, I will boycott the election” kind of argument is quite irresponsible and too childish, not expected from politicians who claim to have the potential to lead the nation towards democracy, peace and prosperity. Election is not as such a simple game they can maneuver it as they like. It is rather the noble right of the people to govern themselves and realize their ambitions. It is a noble right of the peoples to which they have paid huge sacrifice. Thus, opposition political parties who claim to be representative of groups of people should not act like a stubborn child who frequently asks his parents to buy him sweets or else cries or threatens to leave them. There is no such a thing in politics. Dialogue is the means to the end. Any government, no matter how devoted for democratic elections, cannot comply with such unproductive demands or say good-bye or cajole them in any way. Participating in the elections or not is the political parties’ own affairs.
The opposition parties should expect that a lot of discussion forums are yet to come in the future and be ready to engage the ruling party in the battle of ideas. And even for that they need to have tolerance, which they critically lack at the moment.□