THE NEED TO FORGE BONDS IN DIASPORA COMMUNITY

I had always believed – as I had been taught – with great conviction, though perhaps foolishly, that Ethiopians were kind and generous to one another and even to foreign visitors. I certainly never, even in my wildest dreams, thought that Ethiopians could also be so hostile, so outrageously cruel and so humiliating to one another. Yes, even though I was one who occasionally accused Ethiopian political leaders and activists of recklessness and of leading weakly organized and dysfunctional organizations housed in shaky buildings constructed from cane and bamboo, with supporters who are lawless, scary militants, blindly following in the footsteps of their political leaders and of activists those who are not in peace with themselves and with each other, much to my astonishment and naïveté, however, I never envisioned that the sudden waves of optimism that came to light in 2005 might be replaced by additional shackles of hatred.

I honestly did not know that we Ethiopians could be so inhuman and so ready to obliterate those who refuse to be blind followers, who disagree with our self-centred and hidden ends and our feeble, vague organizations or political parties – political parties that have little or none of the necessary fundamental political structures, strategies, political maps and legal foundations. Nor did I know that we Ethiopians could be so terribly stubborn and jealous - unashamed liars who appear determined to trash and eliminate our own compatriots – not to maintain the territorial integrity of our country, to realize carefully planned socio-political and economic transformation, or to help educate Ethiopians about the terribly necessary modern political culture (a political culture that is entirely absent in the land we call Ethiopia and among the Ethiopian Diaspora community) or about the meaning and significance of democracy and accountability. Instead we do this for the most hazardous and frightening reasons – to support personal, family and group status and interests.

Isn’t this extremely frightening and depressing? What is most disturbing is that these cruel and shameless individuals call themselves “the gallant and true children of Ethiopia,” and do everything to convince us that they behave the way they do – engaging day in and day out in character assassination and false charges against known and unknown innocent individuals – because, they argue, they love their country, Ethiopia, enormously – more than anyone else. They also continue to insist that they are the ones who are capable of scaring Meles Zenawi’s regime, preventing them from handing over Ethiopia’s fertile land to Sudan and continuing the repression of our people at home. Maybe some of us just missed our old seat and want to regain it by complaining to the brink of self destruction.

More importantly and depressingly, however, the political events of May 2005 have magnified the long existing unhealed wounds and darkened the prospects for positive, relatively civil and respectful communication within the Ethiopian Diaspora community and Ethiopian society at large. Yes, even though most Ethiopian political activists and the unorganized interest groups would prefer to tell us otherwise – saying that the May 2005 election helped to expose the repressive nature of Meles Zenawi’s regime and weakened its political and economic position, both nationally and internationally – in fact in concrete terms, for the majority of Ethiopians both at home and abroad, the direct and indirect repercussions of the May 2005 election and the subsequent turmoil of the past four years have been costly, dreadful, tragic and full of disappointment and embarrassment.



Many in the Ethiopian Diaspora community came to regard it as either a leisure time activity or as a pastime of “see-ra-fe-to-ch/ bo-ze-ne-wo-ch,” those who have little or nothing else to do.
the reputation of being nothing more than “barking dogs that are unable to bite.” the most important factors and actors that have persistently, perhaps even permanently, prevented the Ethiopian Diaspora community from becoming a collective, harmonious force with a single face, a community that is both respected and proud of itself and its activities, and has kept it from playing a meaningful role that contributes to mending bridges among community members and to alleviating Ethiopia’s multiple, prolonged suffering.

We attempt to imitate the systems, political and democratic models of other nations, to implement them in our own land and incorporate them into our minds, but we fail to first understand and deal with the cardinal foundations and requirements of the many-sided components of democracy and democratic patterns and principles, and to consider and study their appropriateness to our situation, the openness of our culture and our socio-culturally molded attitudes and mindsets.

Not just to initiate new discourses and educate ourselves, but first of all to stress the urgent need to think and look critically, either individually or collectively, at the historical components that have shaped Ethiopian culture and molded our uncompromising, irreconcilable and sometimes vindictive attitudes and uncaring behaviours.

Through such engagement, after addressing the root causes of our inabilities to forge bonds, live and work together and find the remedies we need, and after inculcating concepts of respect, trust, confidence, accountability and shared responsibility for each other – combined with a mindset among the members of our society that includes a sense of belonging, a feeling of nationhood – we can achieve a basis for democracy and democratic systems to gradually take root in the land of Ethiopia.

There is an increasing difference within the community in terms of educational background and the extent of involvement in Ethiopian Diaspora politics. A more crucial element in relation to Diaspora politics, which I would like to see taken under consideration by the Ethiopian Diaspora community – especially if we are willing to make a serious attempt to forge bonds among ourselves, become a socially and politically influential community and play a meaningful role in helping ourselves and possibly also our country – is to issue calls underlining the urgent need for the establishment of a common, single House for the Ethiopian Diaspora, a professional institution, free from any direct or indirect influence from any political party, with visions and strategies, systems and rules – systems and rules that reward and obligate its members to serve, provide support and comply.

This would be an institution within which we can all educate ourselves; provide the means and the required material and educational tools to help in the development and expansion of civil society in our country; rebuild the badly needed trust, confidence and accountability among ourselves; engage in positive and constructive discourse and research about the many sided positive and negative cultural elements of our society; redress previous wrongdoing; and fashion new and helpful tools and strategies that will help to heal wounds, whether long existing or freshly inflicted, upon particular sections and generations of Ethiopian society.

Within such an institution we can produce acceptable, maturely written policies relevant to our contemporary political challenges and debates about the process of democratization, the development and role of civil society and the future face and direction of our country and its people, and we can rebuild the badly needed respect and love among ourselves. Such an institution is also needed to help maintain and expand our long-established positive cultural elements and use these to fashion a new political culture, extending our cultural patterns to include habits of working and living together with accountability and responsibility.

This will allow us not only to influence the forces and processes of future socio-economic and political changes in our country, both directly and indirectly, but to play an indispensable part, with a meaningful, positive, substantial role in helping and defending each member of our community in times of personal or collective difficulty, no matter how severe.

That’s the change we want!

PROPOSITION FOR ALL ETHIOPIAN OPPOSITION PARTIES

All opposition parties to, ideologically not politically, engage in a unified, peaceful, honest and transparent behaviour to reflect their philosophy of governance, to the people starting now and leading up to their nomination in the election process in order to create a sustainable government for Ethiopia without going at each others throat.

Whatever ethnic he might be that person will be the people’s choice, elected by the people, for the people and governs the people democratically until the next election. There will not be despotism and draconian style rule of business as usual, once elected continue to govern until forcefully evicted causing catastrophic atrocities.

Our main concern at present however is not about what we currently witness happening but rather what we failed to see happening. The single most important absence, at least to our knowledge, is the stepping up of mutual consultation and engagement among various opposition political forces. The fact that each strives to solely realize one’s own organizational objective without paying due attention to the larger governing possibility could only lead down the road to a chaotic situation and not to a viable political alternative. It is an objective fact that each has got its own perspective through the prism of which it is looking at the current situation in the country. Besides, be it big or small, each are presumed to have their own respective constituencies the interest of whose social segment they claim to be representing. At the same time, most of opposition political groups are believed to share a very strong anti-Woyanne stance that provides them with a solid common ground upon which they can build their shared strategy and tactics.

Holding serious negotiations among various opposition groups that aim at developing a joint political platform that reflects an optimum combination of those diverse interests, in our opinion, is long overdue. The ideal scenario at about this time should have been the clear articulation of a transition modality that is arrived at through a thoroughly conducted negotiation among various groups of opposition forces. As for us, we see no alternative to such a concerted move. Besides, we would still like to reiterate that unless we manage to establish such a nucleus within the soonest time possible, it is difficult to believe that opposition forces are seriously providing our people with any meaningful practical alternative. For the successful realization of such a lofty objective, some may be required to address in-house challenges first like the tendency towards fragmentation we regrettably witnessed around OLF and Kinjit. We see no reason why some may not be able to transcend the hitherto existing minor differences and come together especially in the face of the currently prevalent troubling situation in the country. In fact, they ought to have long understood that the petty differences they are obsessed with are so trivial to merit any attention this time let alone leading to the squandering of whatever political capital this organization has built over the course of so many years.

Our emphasis on such a collaborative effort however does not mean that we underestimate the significance of those familiar activities we mentioned herein before. In fact, remarkable achievements have already been scored through the medium of those engagements by a group of opposition leaders that operate inside the country. These leaders, during their engagement with the representatives of the Netherlands government, publicly humiliated and tossed out the representative of UEDP-Medhin, an organization everyone in the country knows to be an appendage of Woyanne, from among their rank as opposition group. This is truly a remarkable achievement that unbelievably has a long term impact on other subsequent manipulations intended to be staged by Woyanne.

UEDP-Medhin being measured to its proper size and texture publically henceforth has got only itself to fool around by impersonating opposition political forces. The place it belongs clearly designated now, it can freely proceed with its intended course of self-deception by continuing to preside over Woyanne organized public gatherings as its own. Like it is for every other stunt actors, this particular group of political stunts seems destined to shoulder all too demanding tasks on behalf of Woyanne. The only difference being, political stunts toil at the forefront for the ultimate benefit of the back stage manipulators while in the film industry they constitute an essential part of the whole.

If things go as planned, our sources indicate, UEDP-Medhin is poised to be declared as “opposition party” that scored a significant gain only next to Woyanne in the forthcoming election. Then, of course, updates on the negotiations to be held with this “opposition party” on the possibilities of forming a “coalition government” will be orchestrated and released in a carefully measured way.

We welcome and wholeheartedly support the holding or organizing of different discussion forums as we strongly believe that the kind of understanding we yearned for our politicians earlier could only be achieved through such engagement. Such discussion forums however in as much as they are expected to promote understanding, unless we handle them prudently, could also end up being the venue for sowing discord among people or derailing the issue from its proper track though the intention of the organizers at any rate may be far from that.

We consider such formulation of discussion topic like “How conducive is the political climate to hold a free and fair election in 2010?” to be more helpful and engaging than say such a formulation like “peaceful or armed struggle”. Our reason is plain and simple. The latter one derails the focus of political discourse by putting primacy on methods of struggle before we are able to clearly articulate the very cause we need to struggle for in the first place. The former approach encourages free and open discussions while the latter one deters people from freely expressing their views. Besides, the latter kind of issue formulation tends to wrongly associate or attach “peaceful” with the group in power while depicts the others as may be pondering over to opt for “armed struggle” thus blurring the real picture one could get if one focuses on the objective assessment of the current situation in the country. The objective assessment of the current situation in the country, unlike what such a formulation suggests, places those mentioned forces in a diametrically opposite domain. Most of our people have rightly started to wonder whether ascending to power through armed struggle makes one susceptible to try to govern the country through that very means. Hence, the question of “armed struggle” may pertain more to Woyanne at present than it is for any other group as it seems engaged in a kind of “permanent armed struggle”

ONE ETHIOPIA FOR ALL!