| |
| Author |
Message |
|
| liben |
 Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 3:11 am |
 |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 40
Location: University of Chicago
|
Getz # 5: A SHIMAGLE REFLECTS ON May 15
Donald N. Levine (aka Liben Gebre Etyopiya)
May 15, 2005 was marked by an extraordinarily large voter turnout for an unprecedentedly open multi-party election. As we know, the sweetness of that event turned sour; a year later, we suffer from its traumatic aftermath. From the perspective of a caring observer, I propose to take stock of the situation, to ask all to acknowledge possible mistakes, to express appreciation for what has been done, and to begin a year of constructive efforts toward national development and further development.
Let me start with my own deeds and mistakes.
During visits to Ethiopia in January and February of this year, I was able to mediate some communication between the Kaliti prisoners and the Prime Minister; to help secure medical help for some of the prisoners; to discuss with the Prime Minister ideas for furthering democratization and economic development; and to help establish in Awassa a peace center for youth which MP/ Professor Beyene Petros described as offering a “novel approach to peace making in this troubled land.”
At the same time, I made a number of mistakes. I said things at various points that upset a number of Ethiopians whom I count as my friends. This led them to accuse me of being a stooge of the EPRDF, an enemy of Tigrayans, an ill-informed partisan of the opposition, and in one case even "the number one enemy of the Ethiopian people." If I had expressed myself more carefully, some if not all of those hurt reactions could have been avoided.
Let me now mention some achievements and mistakes made by the EPRDF regime, the opposition parties, and the EU observers.
In contrast to previous elections, the EPRDF regime made efforts to offer opposition parties access to the public media. They also took the initiative to invite a number of international observers to monitor the elections. Despite their perception that certain CUD leaders had conspired to change the government by unconstitutional means, the EPRDF leadership encouraged them to take their seats in Parliament and thereby secure immunity against charges. And when CUD electees failed to do what was necessary to take over the administration of Addis Ababa, they extended the deadline for such accession more than once.
On the other hand, the government sent away some of the legitimate election observers. They made a rash decision to impose martial law the very evening of Election Day. The provocative event at Addis Ababa University that led to the first violence in early June was not investigated. Their security forces reacted too extremely to post-Election protests, when government security forces killed or wounded a great number of innocent civilians. They escalated antagonism with dangerous statements likening the opposition to genocidal forces elsewhere in Africa.
In contrast to previous elections virtually all the opposition parties participated in the 2005 election. They thereby set a wonderful precedent for future engagement in the national political process. They also showed statesmanship in their decision not to make resolving the disputes over contested seats a precondition for their participation in the Parliament.
On the other hand, to the detriment of that process, some winning opposition candidates cut their participation short. They refused to take the seats in Parliament to which they had been duly elected, despite the unanimous judgment of two public meetings in July with the most educated and mature elements in their constituency that they should do so. They refused to assume their official responsibilities for governing the city of Addis Ababa. They called for protest actions in November that led to the deaths of several civilians and policemen.
Some of those who refused to take their seats in Parliament are now in prison. Insofar as anything they did was actually in violation of the law, I believe it important to respect the forms of a systematic, independent–and, we hope, speedy–judicial review of their deeds as a step toward advancing the role of an independent judiciary in this country. On the other hand, following the trial and its outcomes they should publicly and officially be encouraged to rejoin the national political process.
It is important, finally, to acknowledge the contributions of all those Ethiopians and foreign observers who undertook the arduous task of serving as observers in that historic election. To be sure, some members of the European Observers Election group erred by rushing to judgment prematurely and otherwise acting in an unprofessional way, committing violations of their code of conduct which officers of the EU subsequently acknowledged. Those actions had significant adverse consequences for the aftermath of the election, for which I believe Ethiopian citizens have had to pay an enormous price.
It is understandable that each of the parties holds on to the injuries suffered in this complicated historic episode. My recommendation would be to follow the example of forgiveness that Ethiopian leaders have traditionally shown to those who harmed them. All must forgive, because the nation must move on.
Ethiopians must work together to face their daunting challenges: poverty and unemployment; food insecurity and famines (see Getz #6); poor and insufficient education; distressingly inadequate medical care; inter-ethnic conflicts; environmental degradation; and cultural renewal. Ethiopia must strengthen her position as a voice for peace and stability in one of the most tragically conflicted regions of the globe. These great challenges require the collaboration of Ethiopians of every ethnic and religious background and every political persuasion, including numerous fellow citizens in the Diaspora.
Despite the upsurge of ethnic politics in the past generation, it is abundantly clear that the bonds of Etyopiyawinet are alive and well. Indeed, they may in many quarters be stronger than ever. I salute the people of Ethiopia for maintaining those bonds and for carrying on with their traditional attachment to justice, their cheerfulness in adversity, and their determination to carry on. I say with all my heart: Idme le-hulatchu, idme le-Etyopiya!!
D. |
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| Costantinos |
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 3:10 pm |
|
|
|
Visitor
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 12
Location: Addis Ababa
|
Dear Liben Gebre Etyiopia
This is a trend-setter article as it comes with a sense of self critisism and a balaced approach to political discourse. I iwll start from your conclusion "despite the upsurge of ethnic politics in the past generation, it is abundantly clear that the bonds of Etyopiyawinet are alive and well. Indeed, they may in many quarters be stronger than ever. I salute the people of Ethiopia for maintaining those bonds and for carrying on with their traditional attachment to justice, their cheerfulness in adversity, and their determination to carry on"
As political parties and groups reject our cultural tradition of live and let live in favour of a form of contemporary nationalism based on the global themes of ‘liberation’, ‘self determination’, ‘revolutionary democracy’ and ‘socialism’; shouldn’t ordinary citizens fear that, in this light, the issues of democratisation that the nation poses and seeks to settle may be seen more as a feature of a pre-cooked ideology than a feature of Ethiopia. When all that is constitutive of its historic identity and unity is subject to rejection and deconstruction, how does Ethiopia become a subject of democratic change, people ask?
This claim of reductionism in approach to our national tradition along with the naivë rationalist criticism that goes with it; is predicated on the polarity that it draws between historically cemented and sedimented values, sentiments and symbols of the tradition, on the one hand, and contemporary ideas and projects of national self determination, on the other. It is based on a dualism of living history and avant-garde revolutionary ideology. This polarisation is indefensible in its assumption that the two forms of our national experience are mutually exclusive. We shall inquire into this more deeply
The problem with the portrayal of the our tradition as a problem for democratic change, then, is that certain processes, implicitly or explicitly, prevent the tradition from entering into meaningful ‘dialogue’ with contemporary politics. But Ethiopia has folklore, legends and narratives through which its people invest in our history with meaning and value. Some feel that they have been subjected to ‘materialist’ criticism from the perspective of ‘scientific’ standards of historical knowledge and truth as if they were simply epistemological categories. On the other end of the historical-ideological polarity between nationalism in Ethiopia, the politics in currency both at home and among the Diaspora is where heavy emphasis is placed on the differences of ethnic communities rather than what they share in common and our unifying edifices. This emphasis or over-emphasis really, is the other side of the equally exaggerated, overly-politicised identification of our tradition with oppression of nationalities, in the phrase used by the student movement, with ‘a prison of nations’ -- hence, the avant-garde demand that Ethiopia be ‘born again’, and ‘born different’.
It would be a mistake, however, to suggest that this demand, along with the highly negative and overly politicised view of the historical process of nation-state formation on which it is based, constitutes the spontaneous response of ethnic communities in Ethiopia to their incorporation into a 'single' national polity. There is no documented evidence that no one entire ethnic community or nationality in Ethiopia has ever been locked in combat with another or with the state in an all out struggle for ‘liberation’. The demand can more accurately be seen as a form of ‘elite advocacy’: a making out of a case by limited groups within different ethnic communities for the radical transformation of the state. It represents political projects undertaken by particular organised movements in the on behalf of entire ‘nations’ and ‘peoples’ – as much of the discussion and debate around the demand was generated by leftist, specifically Leninist discourse. This is not to argue simply that the problem of nationalities in Ethiopia was ‘created’ by the Ethiopian Left. The ‘problem’ existed long before leftist movements and organisations appeared on the Ethiopian political scene. Rather, it is to make the point, often overlooked, that the problem arose in the specific form it did within a particular tradition of political thought, discourse and struggle -- characteristic of the Ethiopian Left, a tradition that was inherited by present day politicians.
To the extent ethnic and cultural communities in the country have sought equality and freedom from forced unity by the state; they have not done so by invoking such global themes as ‘national self-determination’. These themes constitute a limited from of representation of concrete ethnic interests, concerns, grievances and aspirations through socialist ideological construction. However important these themes are, they do not have monolithic content or absolute form. They are a partial, variable and potentially negotiable political articulation produced by a particular organisation in a specific context of struggle. They need not and should not be invoked by anyone in non-negotiable terms. They represent a contingent, contestable closure on national identity and difference which should not be passed off as flat, indisputable necessity.
The lessening of the politicisation of ethnic identity and difference in Ethiopia, and the consequent lowering of the ideological-thematic noise level on the issue, may indeed create a more favourable condition for democratic thought, discourse and practice in the country. It may make possible consideration of alternative ways of fixing the content and form of national self-government in Ethiopia. The diverse ethnic communities do not necessarily agree within themselves on various social, economic political and cultural issues. Even if they agree on the definition of specific problems, like democratisation, their solutions or mode of concern about democracy will vary considerably. Which raises the questions: how and by whom are the issues of democratic politics framed and the boundaries of ethnic identities and differences set in Ethiopia? What effects have such revolutionised political ideologies and practice on indigenous communities and cultures? Are nationalities subsumed by the political parties and ethnics groups own agendas in the very act of ‘determining’ themselves?
Political issues of self-determination inevitably raise problems which cannot be neatly enslaved within either any one of these ethnic groups or contemporary ideology. While they constitute more or less distinct cultural area, one cannot conclude from this that our contemporary national aspirations can be seen in isolation from or in opposition to issues and problems of our historic tradition. They constitute broader national elements, intersections and consequences. The two forms of our national experience are not necessarily incompatible; nor need they be in conflict. Rather, they may be mutually complementary, as would two images of the same terrain portrayed from alternative perspectives. This means that our problems of democratisation need not be defined in terms of individual projects of self determination or the aggregate of such projects. They can be defined and addressed within a board-based multi-ethnic political process. The commitment of organisations to progressive ideas of democracy and ethnic quality does not compel them to use the categories of modern nationalism in a way that devalues and negates our own national tradition. Their commitment to democratic change does not necessarily entail a rejection of our ancestral national heritage. If our historic nationalism cannot be said to have a core tradition shared by all ethnic groups, neither can it be characterised as entirely lacking in elements and dimensions that cut across and connect diverse communities.
Keep up the debate
Costantinos |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| liben |
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:35 am |
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 40
Location: University of Chicago
|
Dear Dr. Constantinos:
I dearly hope that you are correct in suggesting that the "sense of self criticism and a balanced approach to political discourse" will become a trend.
The trend has yet to become evident. In nearly all the public and private responses to my Getz, respected intellectuals, not to mention old friends, have turned against me harshly for trying to be moderate. They fail to understand, as Julian Benda sagely wrote of intellectuals who become party partisans, that I would be betraying my calling for failing to state the truth as I see it.
To be sure, I caught of glimpse of hope when one self-critical Diasporan reader just wrote:
All variety of opposition supporters feel alienated by Getz #5 . . . As for the content of the articles, I think they're great, really. In that, I think they impart the message you want to the reader who is not interested in nitpicking every sentence. When I first read them, that was what I was doing. But as I read them again and again, I grew more content!
In any case, I particularly appreciate your encouragement to keep trying to sustain the dialogue. I'll do my best.
Meanwhile, let me hail your astute observation:
The lessening of the politicisation of ethnic identity and difference in Ethiopia, and the consequent lowering of the ideological-thematic noise level on the issue, may indeed create a more favourable condition for democratic thought, discourse and practice in the country. I know many will discredit me for saying this, but I do believe, despite the many terrible things that have happened under his watch, and his own contribution to the noisiness of Ethiopia's political discourse, that the current Prime Minsiter is coming to share that vision.
And I hope he and his colleagues will not be overly stressed when I stretch the perimeter of civil discourse in my Gertz #7!
Yennantew,
Liben |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Costantinos |
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:12 pm |
|
|
|
Visitor
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 12
Location: Addis Ababa
|
| Thanks Liben Gebre Etyiopia and look forward to see the "stretched the perimeter of civil discourse in my Gertz #7! " |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
