To shed light on Ethiopian Politics one needs to ask easy questions and provide fairly simple answers.

Question Number One: Was the May 2005 election a legitimate election that was open and fair? By all accounts it was the most (if not the only) democratic election our country has witnessed in its history. Notwithstanding some logistical problems and isolated harassments and violations of rights, no one in his right mind would questions the legitimacy of the election. Nor one would question the fairness of the process.

Question Number Two: What made it so? PM Meles believed that his party would win by a land slide, bar some 50 or so vote that may change hands. This according to the plan would improve his international standing as the most democratic and pragmatic leader in Sub Saharan Africa, north of South Africa. Meles was in part a victim of his own rhetoric. Dictators almost always end up believing the very lies that their propaganda machines churn out. The international community was invited to come in flocks and witness the elevation of an Ethiopian Prime Minister to an African Renaissance Man. Meles yearned to stand head and shoulders above the crowd of African leaders. The world demanded a proof and Meles tried to deliver. In the process he got served! This is one side of the story. The other side is that Tony Blair was desperately looking for a success story to tout to the G8 leaders, with the aim of getting support to his grand international welfare initiative. The Americans also needed a wind of change to blow across Africa to give credibility to President Bush’s inaugural grand dream (you may call it illusion) to build democracy around the glob. Meles was the chosen poster child both for Blair’s Marshall Plan and Bush’s African democracy thing. In the process they insisted that Meles legitimize his position through a democratic process and got him served!

Question Number Three: Why Are The Americans Panicking?
In the theatre of third world politics the US plays a match making role. This, of course, depends on the strategic importance of the country in question. The power mating ceremony, and who sleeps with whom and for how long, is often authored by American operatives situated within the walls of the Department of States and CIA head quarters. The US policy has been driven and continues to be driven by a gradualist approach. The incumbent party, provided it is a friendly government, is supported to stay in power over 30 or 40 years while allowing the opposition to garnish incremental gains overtime. This is supposed to maintain stability and slowly infuse democratic impulse into the body politics of African countries. The Americans call it the Mexican model.

Question Number Four: The Equation Has Been Perturbed. Then what?
Meles has by now torn his inaugural speech and flushed it down the toilet. Blair and Bush have seen their poster child morph from “a pragmatic *** progressive African Renaissance Man” into a typical African dictator in the mold of Mengistu, Amin and Bokassa. Meles unleashed a reign of terror that has stunned even his closets allies. All the Americans and the Brits muster to say is that “we are concerned and both the government and the opposition need to restrain themselves from violent actions.” Translation in layman language: The government must stop state sponsored violence and the opposition must immediately cease asking for its democratic right by calling a peaceful protest. As it is the situation is getting out of hand and Blair’s international welfare and Bush’s global democracy thing are at risk. Understandably the match makers need time to take a breath and reassess the situation.

Question Number Five: What Is the Global Match Makers Going to Do?
The Global Match makers, particularly US and UK, would do every thing in their power to salvage their poster child. There are two reasons: First is to save the dream thing and the Marshal Plan described above from being declared DOA. Second, and most importantly, they are concerned that the opposition may destabilize the relative stability Meles has established over the last decade and a half. Meles has been a loyal friend. He has proven to be a “yes-man,” to use the language of the vocal opposition in Washington and Europe. The opposition, by contrast has shown a moronic tendency to maintain its independence and there are enough indications that it is bent on reforming the constitution. Given the opposition’s campaign rhetoric on the issues of Article 39 of the constitution and the Assab port that is under the control of Eritrea, the US and UK are understandably nervous that the opposition may complicate a delicate situation in the horn of Africa. It is a valid concern every which way you see it. From the US and UK’s interest point of view, the dictator that they control is preferable to a democratic government that shrugs its shoulders to their interest and/or undermines their match making roles.

Question Number Six: What should the opposition do?
Only a novice political observer would fail to see that the opposition is overtaken by events. Anybody who has read enough in management would understand that in time of change sober thinking with an open mind, quick action, and flexibility are paramount. When the world around you is changing at a rapid pace, sticking to your original plan and limiting the scope of your political variables to domestic factors is the last thing you should do. Flexibility is the grease that allows the wheal to turn.

True the opposition has shown some flexibility. For example its decision to sign the peace agreement without any precondition was a very smart move. The government did every thing in its power to discourage them from coming to the table. They came to the table without any precondition. This has won them badly needed points on the international arena, without costing them much at the national front. It was a net gain.

Question Number Seven: What should the motto of the Opposition be?
In 1992, Clinton won the white house using one captivating phrase: It is the Economy, Stupid! If I were asked to coin a phrase for the opposition it would be: “It is delinking Article 39 and the Assab question from the next five years agenda, Stupid!” The opposition needs to assure the national and international public it would not revise the constitution in the next five years. It should assure the national and international public that changing or amending the constitution will only be considered, if needed, after the political situation has stabilized and after an open and all inclusive national debate is undertaken. This should include the land tenure system. Delinking such hot potato items from the opposition’s agenda for the next five years would be a strike of genius that seems to be eluding the opposition. Anyone who has lived in a democratic culture would know that political parties do not always adhere to their campaign platform. Here is where flexibility would allow the wheel to turn without necessarily derailing the train off of its truck.

Question Number Eight: Is this a tactical move or a strategic capitulation?
It is a tactical move and it is a **** smart move at that. For example, there is no need to rush Article 39 through a constitutional amendment mills. There are many reasons for this. First, the article that allows nationalities to secede is literally dead and buried in the very pages of the constitution it is encrypted on. There is not even a remote chance that a nationality would mount a successful run for succession. Nor is there any appetite for succession on the international arena.

It is obvious that Article 39 has introduced stumbling blocks for economic development. But all these issues are administrative rather than constitutional in their nature. The administrative issues are now easier to deal with as most of their sponsors have been defeated and kicked out of office. Some of the old guards of the tribal politics that return to the office would find it in their best interest to reconsider their positions, lest they will be out of the office, come 2010. There is no imminent threat from Article 39 at this time. For all practical purposes it is dead and likely to drop out of the pages of the constitution once democratic culture takes roots in the country.

Question Number Nine: What other benefits are there other than appeasing the US?
Shelving Article 39 denies Meles a political agenda to rally behind. Why give Meles ammunitions to galvanize political support. Remember Article 39 is the very article that may prove to be the Achilles’ Hills that would dissolve the coalition between CUD and EUDF. It is only CUD that sees Article 39 as an imminent threat for Ethiopia.

CUD needs to remember two critical points for its own good. First, even if the opposition takes power a potential realignment of coalition can tilt the balance back to the coalition of a reformed EPRDF and EUDF. Meles can give in to some of the demands of EUDF and strike a balance that would legally and democratically throw CUD to the back seat. That is what I would call big screw up on the part of CUD. Meles’s political machinery has been working over time to break the coalition of CUD and EUDF. This is why it has been accusing only CUD for “inciting violence during the demonstration”. Let us look at the flip side of the equation. If the opposition assures both the local and international public that it would not put Article 39 on its agenda for the next five years (until after the next election) it would dissolves the single most important agenda that ties the likes of TPLF and OPDO. Delinking the opposition agenda from Article 39 will introduce a dynamic that can potentially destabilize the ruling coalition. If you cannot see this you have no business to be in politics.

Question Number Ten: Why Should CUD fear to use the political capital it has won?
First, regardless of the political capital it has won, there is no gain by provoking patrician vitriol. Remember in the best case scenario 25% of the people did not vote for the opposition. In the worst case scenario close to 50% of the people voted for the incumbents. CU needs to understand the concern all people, not only those who voted for you. CUD needs to assure them that it is not going to shove its campaign agenda down their throats. Do not also forget that some of the votes CUD garnished are protest votes and not necessarily endorsement of its agenda.

Question Number Eleven: Why Should the Opposition Succumb to US’s Influence?
The answer is simple. There is no point in denying that the US is the sole super power that has influence across the globe. Accepting this fact of life is critical to take power. More importantly it is critical to stay in power. Remember Prime Minister Hailu Shaul or Prime Minsiter Marara Gudina is going to need tons of US dollars both in grant and in loan. In a world where even the leaders of Russia, Germany and France take US’s policy and interest in their political equations, it would be comical, if not out right stupid, for the Ethiopian opposition to ignore (or even not to actively promote) the US interest.


Question Number Tweleve: Is there a substantive reason to delink Article 39 and the Eritrean issues form the sort term agenda other than one centered on political expediency? One of the problems in Africa is that those who come to power either democratically or otherwise usher in a new constitution or revise substantially the existing constitution to remake national institutions in their own images. This is what Meles did and this is what Mengistu did. This is bad politics from the long term point of view.

Ankasa Doro aka
Mamo Qilo