Who shall write the history of TPLF? Everyone who can.

From my understanding Mr. Zeru and Co. are of the opinion that if history of the TPLF is written by ex- TPLF members, that history won’t be any good because first, the writers are quitters and do not have the moral right to write about the cause they deserted, and second, these quitters are angry ones that anything they write will be biased to mention the least. If the two are not good then one might add a third one, that these quitters do not have know how and therefore cannot write good and good about history. The declarations is therefore history shall be written only and only by the still members of the TPLF in power and their followers.

In fairness one can grant Mr. Zeru and Co. the benefit of doubt that their concern is to protect the history of the TPLF. The aim is to write this history properly because if not written as such from the start, it will lose its meaning and value. It therefore will not carry much importance to future generations. And one way to prevent this will be to prevent angry men from writing because, overwhelmed by their anger, the so called quitters cannot write a true account of the history of the TPLF. The angry writers will be swayed more by emotion rather than by facts and where the facts are missing, misrepresented or distorted, not matter how great history they write, it is going to be upside down, A ground of truth seems at work here that can be used in Mr. Zeru‘s favor because when angry one loses sight of reason. But the question is how true the claim is?

However sounds the claim may be the problem with this approach is it is biased or sectarian right from the start. Sectarian in a sense, it labels and denounces the ex-TPLF members regardless who they are and what cause they had to leave the organization. All the contribution they made is null and voided. All the blood they spilled, the wound they sustain, and the youth they wasted to champion the struggle is thrown in to a garbage bin. The fact that they quit has put these ex-members at the mercy of Mr. Zeru’s assault. One would imagine Mr. Zeru and Co are fighters in motion but even with that their assertion seems more motivated by blind worship than by being Trojans themselves. .

The other problem I see with Mr. Zeru and Co assertion is that they do not see that these people have right to choose. From their perspective one leaves the organization because one is angry, which is true but failed to understand whether an angry person has the right to withdraw or join. What they saw is whether one is angry but not whether that person is justified to be angry. The core cause of anger is omitted here but not the manifestation, the anger. Whether they are treated unfairly by the organization does not come to the minds of Mr. Zeru and Co. all they think about is leaving the organization for whatever reason is worth condemnation.

Based on what I tried to point, one wonders whether Mr. Zeru and Co. have the hint of democracy as well. They are supporting the regime because they consider it democratic. Whether it is or not I am not to argue about it here, for now. But I can grant the very reason Mr. Zeru and Co.’s complain is because they consider the ex-members as obstacle to the democratic endeavor by the regime. But all they forgot is this: as much as one has the right to join so does he/she have the right to quit because that is right. There is nothing strange there. But the strange thing is to observe those who claim to live in Western world with all the talks of democracy, are still short of this understanding. They have lived in it, they have studied it in school and they tell us as if they are its champions but still they don’t get it. A wasted mind or a mind wasted I don’t know but something is not right here.

From what is said one would not be mistaken to infer that for Mr. Zeru and Co. anyone who is in power no matter what and with what means is one who is sober and who history should be written about. History shall be told about him and no one else. During and after 1969 E. C it was Aregawi the progressive and the fighters who flee summary persecution, quitters. After 1977 E.C. Aregawi the progressive became the pariah and Meles, Seye and Co. the progressives. Following the split the progressives like Seye turned reactionaries and Meles and Co. progressives. For these people, one who holds might is right, not once but always. If something happens to Meles tomorrow, I am sure the same people will also be the ones’ who will pick their pens to blame. They do not have standard. All they adore is not virtue but power.

As we all know TPLF is also full of too many negatives. Any history written without these negatives therefore cannot be the history of TPLF. Moreover the history of the TPLF is more of an international struggle of diverging views with the focus to liberate the Tigrean people and Ethiopia consequently. Many from different regions, race and color have joined the cause and contributed to its success as much as there were hindrances. The duration is different, the involvement is different, the dedication is different but whoever supported or opposed the cause under the umbrella of the struggle has pushed the struggle one step forward and made it successful eventually. The so called quitters are also part of this. One should not be martyred or in power to be respected. We have to respect these veterans not for what they choose because they have to but for what they contributed to this success.

The history of the TPLF need to be written and shall be written because it is history made history. As to who shall write this history, my answer will be everyone with knowledge of that history or who can research and put the true account of that history. But whoever writes that history better include those negatives also whether they came from within or from the quitters. . Whether it is the liking of Mr. Zeru and Co. it does not matter but that history definitely needs to reflect the shortcomings of the organization as experienced by anyone including the quitters. However short or long their stay with the organization is, there, “quitters”, role in that struggle is crucial than what these critics want us to believe. They fought for a cause and they are still fighting for a cause. Whether that cause is right or wrong or to Mr. Zeru‘s liking is something else. But whatever the conclusion one arrives, that should not make them the pawn of worshippers for a living. I don’t think they will become also. After all they were fighters.


 Thank you

Godofai Tgiorgis