By T, Staffer of De Birhan Media
18-11-201
I
read Dr. Aklog Birara’s five-part article entitled “Why Ethiopians must unite?” with profound interest. A good friend sent me an SMS text to read it last week while I was rambling in Paris. So I spent a week reading it. The most monotonously used cliché in the
Ethiopian opposition discourse, unity, has been hard to establish in the past
20 years. Some of the majorly pointed
causes for the absence of a political u-turn in Ethiopia are lack of unity
between pro democracy forces, lack of capable and committed leadership, fear,
and selfishness of the population. Unity stands aloud among them. This was what
one of Ethiopia’s best sons, scholar, and a veteran of World Bank, Dr.
Aklog dwelt on in the past few weeks. Highly investigated and written, the
article also had many repeated sentences and ideas in each of the parts. Here I
write my short rejoinder to his article in the company of my tiny knowledge. The
article appeared on most of Ethiopian pro democracy online media, may you want to read refer most Ethiopian sites like Ethiopian Review, Abugidainfo and the like. Although the
last part that is part five of the series is not yet published, I wanted to
write this rejoinder with the hope that it may poke the writer to include few strategic
and analytical points that have been missing in the previous parts. Dr. Aklog
states that the last part of the series will be focusing on the implications of
land grab. As I would argue in my critique section later, he should include
some strategic and analytical recommendations and advice on how, with whom
unity can come about.
In
his first piece, Akolog attested the history of Ethiopia and the role that
unity played in the preservation of our history and heritage. He then discusses
about the formation of nations throughout the world saying that none were
formed via olive branches but through bloody wars, which shall not be a source
of fracture but unity.
He
then goes to make a comparative analysis of the use natural resources and developing
one’s nation fast using Korea and Ethiopia as cases. Then he goes to explain
the social, unemployment, agricultural, education, and similar problems that
have been dragging Ethiopia’s development and extremely neglected by the
current regime. Agriculture and the land give away is one that could keep the
country in desperate conditions. “Ethiopia deserves a
smallholder farming revolution.” Dr. Aklog says.
In
his second part, he discussed on the reasons why people revolt, the present socioeconomic
situation of the country and similar problems. He
also sternly speaks of the negligence of Ethiopian smallholders and other
domestic entrepreneurs by the Ethiopian government and concludes that the
governing party’s strategy will not improve the poor farmers and self-sufficiency
attempts. “Rather, it was to control the ‘peasantry’ and to make the rural
population dependent and an appendage. A pro poor economic and social policy
would have resulted in a smallholder Green Revolution in Ethiopia.” He says.
Part
three of his series highlighted the dangers that emanate from massive transfers
of water basins and farmlands and other pillars of the economy to foreign
governments and businesses. In his articles he tried to embolden that unity of
purpose and action is critical, urgent and everyone’s business. In this part,
he made a comparison of China and Ethiopia in terms of population, and sees the
beneficial aspects of population growth. Quoting his new book also, Akolog says
giving land away is giving water away, natural resources that he equates to
minerals and fuel.
“Poor and
repressive political and socioeconomic governance censures or restricts freedom
and empowerment regardless of geographical location, ethnicity, religion or
demography.” He says.
In
part four (a) of five of his series, Aklog presented global
measurements and annual reports that describe the severirty of poverty and bad
governance within Ethiopia. The reports he used ragne from Mo Ibrahim to Legatum
Prosperity Index.
To
him one of the major reasons why the civil and political forces of Ethiopia do
not unite is because they cannot focus on the needs of Ethiopia and the
population. However, in his Part four article he said “More than any
single factor, it is their quarrelsome behaviours and actions and their
divisions that prolong the agony of the Ethiopian people”.
In this
same part, he advises political elites and the populous that the moral way of dismantling
the ruling parties “divide and rule” strategy is unity. Down the page he adds
this argumentative sentence “Only empowered Ethiopians can improve their lives and
the status of the country.”
He states some
of the factors that make Ethiopia still poor in the world. Citing cases from
India mainly, he argues, “Smallholder farms are more productive than large-scale
commercial farm”. He often uses “hungriest and unhealthiest countries in
the world” to describe today’s Ethiopia. To say ‘The hungriest’ is in fact
correct in the economics sense of it but politically incorrect way of
describing a nation and people - as far as I remember it was first out in
writing in the Economist magazine two
years ago.
Part four (b)
- in this part he also referred to the impact of endowment companies such as
EFFORT and party owned companies in national economies. He stressed that he advocates for an “unconditional unity”. He then dwells of the
difference between growth and development taking the cases of the Ethiopian Diaspora
who are bewildered by the ‘growth’ they see and the agricultural sector which
as wrongly claimed by the government has been growing faster than the Ethiopian
population. Finally, he lists some seven hurdles that the Ethiopian economy suffers
from : hyperinflatoion, Legendry hunger, malnourishment and ill-health
in urban and rural areas, High unemployment among youth, Glaring
income inequality, Pervasive corruption, Illicit outflow of foreign exchange,
and the Single party, endowment and foreign dominance of the pillars of the
economy.
A tiny critique
As the
title of his write ups suggested, Dr. Aklog hugely focused on the ‘why’ of
Unity. With some repetitive points, he focused deeply on the hardships, destitutions
and anticipated obliterations that Ethiopia will face unless we unite. Dr.
Aklog however failed to clearly point out some strategic
and analytical recommendations on the methods, how, and with whom aspects of
bringing about unity. Regardless of the scope and objective of the thesis, answering
these extremely relevant and important issues is unexceptionable. This writer anticipates
that Dr. Aklog would take this comment on board and conclude his series by
providing answers and solutions to these critical issues instead of solely
focusing on the implications of the land grab, which is a very important issue
too.
Causes
Part four (b)
of his article he said “It is also their (opposition forces) lack of genuine commitment
in siding with the people who struggle within the country to unseat a
repressive regime peacefully, systematically and in sustainable ways” which perpetuates the division
or is the cause. More than this, I as a reader would have loved to read the theoretical
causes of division, disunity, and fragmentation within political parties and
opposition forces. In addition to this, plausibly explaining the causes of the
disunity among the Ethiopian opposition forces becomes essential. What divides
these people and groups that we are telling ought to be united? Is it as they rhetorically
say an external influence as they say, an uninvestigated internal cause, or
independent one? These should all be answered from both an analytical and strategic
insights.
Methods of forming the Unity of purpose and action
To answer
the Dr. Aklog’s “Why” question in a more succinct manner, finding few strategic
and practical methods of executing the envisaged unity is also another question
that should be answered in the next part of his article. He already stated that
he wants to see an “unconditional unity” among the forces. Nevertheless, how
can this unconditional unity be achieved? What has been highly used in most
countries and so far in Ethiopia is dialogue/ deliberation between the liberal
faction/units of the different forces at play. Dialogue and deliberation to
form unity are time consuming, expensive and arduous. However, they remain to
be one of the least contestable choices of forming unity of purpose and action
among groups and people at large. What other methods and models of forming
unity of purpose and action do we have in the plate? In addition, which one do
you think works best in Ethiopia and for Ethiopia? How this unity should be formed:
temporary or permanent? If as you premised, the propelling factors for unity were
our moral obligation of defeating the ruling party’s divisive policy and listening
to the call of the Ethiopian mass; how would we go about this fundamental question.
Who should unite?
You also
have briefly covered this issue in your thesis. As far as what I registered
from the thesis, you have no distinction of who should be part of the unity, as
some Parties would foolishly exclude parties and rebels that have been formed
along ethnic lines. Should this unity be regional? Meaning should we bring
neighbouring countries and powers at play in the Horn of Africa as the main players
and contributors of our unity?
Dr. Aklog did
not give sufficient answer or skipped the above points I reviewed him for. There
is one majorly important question that you have answered and that is the when.
That is now. All Ethiopians and politico-military forces have no time to spare.
They should unite now and now. Change is needed now and now. The thesis did
answer some of the questions indirectly although, they emerge to be the most
timely questions to be answered. There is no Ethiopian, I dare to say, who doesn't know “Why Ethiopians must unite?”
What most of us don’t know and want the scholarly insights of academics like you is
on the how we go about it part? The walking aspect, I would say. I am reading various books and case studies
to offer my own answer to these questions I posited for the Proff.
The case of Sudan
Sudan is a case no different from today’s
Ethiopia. It has an inflationary rate that is over 30%. Food prices as well
have sky rocketed that urban dwellers have found it barely possible to buy
their necessities. The opposition parties and rebels have been highly fragmented
alike. However, last week a news emerged that divergent opposition groupings have come together and formed a united force.
The News has it as follows:
Rebels in Sudan's Darfur region and southern Border States said on
Saturday(12 Nov. 2011) they had formed an alliance to topple the government of
President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, The alliance called "Sudanese
Revolutionary Front" is focused on "toppling the regime of the
(Sudan's ruling) National Congress Party with all possible means" and
replace it with a democratic system, the groups said in a joint statement sent
to Reuters on Saturday. Darfur's main rebel groups -- the Justice and Equality
Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) -- and the SPLM-N, which
fights the army in South Kordofan and Blue Nile, said they had formed a
political and military alliance. Analysts said the new alliance showed closer
coordination among various rebel groups left in Sudan after the South seceded
under the terms of a 2005 peace agreement.
On the other hand, just
today, while I was surfing on Facebook for the daily updates, I have come to
read a new proposal for a united army by an individual/group named Green
Ethiopia. The suggestion was endorsed by one of the strongest Ethiopian youth groups in
Facebook and internationally, the Ethiopian Youth Movement. This is how it
reads,
Free All Ethiopia Army(FAEA ). The future main
opposition army group in Ethiopia. The nature of TPLF doesn't allow for
peaceful demonstration. So the chance of peaceful demonstrations to be turned
to violent uprising is most likely high. Free All Ethiopia Army (FAEA ) is the
ultimate solution . It will be a composed of defected Ethiopian Armed Forces
personnel and volunteers from all regional states and ethnics, who can be
active enough during the upcoming Ethiopian uprising. The formation of the
opposition army group will be announced in websites and media by a group of
uniformed defectors from the regime military, who will call upon members of the
army to defect and join them. The Freedom fighter army will announce that the
FAEA will work with demonstrators to bring down the repressive system and
declare that all security forces attacking civilians will be justified targets.
Free All Ethiopia Army will not have any political goals or power ambition
except the liberation of Ethiopia and her people from Meles oppressive regime
and his henchmen, his allies and protecting the country from domestic and
foreign scavengers. The Group continues and outlines its Military tactics, leadership structure.
As the case of the Sudan
above, shows unless all forces both the political and military oppositions form
an alliance with a common denominator, their effectiveness, and existence will
not be of any use. Justice and Equality
Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) that have worked independently
for long have come to understand the need for unity of cause and action. The
new Free All Ethiopia Army (FAEA
) suggestion from Ethiopian youth and democratic opposition seems to be a bit
unhappy about the inconsolable attempts of Diaspora based political movements
to bring together divided armed groups together. These guys are suggesting the
creation of a new United force that is a product of the amalgamation of the
already existing liberation forces who seem very bashful to listen to the
advises given by the likes of Dr. Aklog. As a result, these young men came up
with the idea of the formation of a new liberation army that is
Composed of defected Ethiopian Armed Forces
personnel and volunteers from all regional states and ethnics, who can be
active enough during the upcoming Ethiopian uprising.
This suggestion informs us how desperate the society both inside and outside is for a solution. The attempts
of bringing fragmented political and military forces into one by movements and
elders have been so lengthy and definitively inconclusive. As the case of the
Sudanese opposition and rebel forces show, all parties political, religious, historical,
and economic differences had put aside their differences in order to form this
grand Unity force. This is has not happened among Ethiopian forces so far.
Conclusion
Last month when I was in
a week holiday in Amsterdam, I had a good chat with this compatriot of mine
about the bogeymen of Ethiopia. I said to him, both the political and military
forces within and without Ethiopia are not doing anything but serving as
bogeymen for the ruling party in order to imprison peaceful opposition activists
at home. I explained this case well giving a historical flashback since the
times of Professor Asrat Woledeys. The ruling party in Ethiopia in order to
arrest the Professor created its illegal own armed group as a bogeyman. Professor
Taye Woldesemayt was arrested by alleging that he formed, the spineless
Ethiopian People’s Patriotic Front (EPPF). EPPF still served as bogeyman for
arresting peaceful Ethiopians that dissented. I can cite a dozen of cases. The
latest is the arrest of members of the civil home based parties such as Unity
for Democracy and Justice, Oromo National Congress and journalists. The regime
to arrest these non-violent critics had to link them to armed or pro violence
groups that are mostly based in the Diaspora such as Oromo Liberation Front (OLF)
and Ginbot 7. These groups have caused no tangible threat in the regime so far
but continue to be used by the incumbent as bogeymen in order to arrest unarmed,
helpless strugglers at home.
In my opinion, if this does
not call for the formation of an immediate unity of purpose and action, what
will?
