Ethiopian Opposition: A Plea for Honest Dialogue

By Messay Kebede

December 19, 2007 — The current leadership split within the CUD has become the object of an intensive and partisan quarrel among the supporters of each faction. The divided Ethiopian diaspora wallows in the exercise of one-sidedly blaming one faction for the split, while little effort is made to know its real cause. As is usual among Ethiopian political activists, what prevails is not the need to get correct information before taking side, but rather the propensity to support one side to the discredit of the other. Unfortunately, such an approach neither brings about reconciliation nor gathers momentum for the prevalence of one faction. On the contrary, it simply widens the split with further misunderstandings and confusions. Yet owing to its remoteness from the actual battle field, the Ethiopian diaspora should have refrained from taking side so as to emerge as a force of reconciliation.

In view of the fact that the split seriously undermines the effort to bring positive change in Ethiopia, all the more distressingly since the outcomes of the last national election seemed to show the end of the tunnel, I have painstakingly endeavored to understand the real causes of the split. This explains my silence in the face of the debacle of the great hope that the Kinijit movement had generated. Despite my sustained effort to understand by extensively reading whatever is posted on the web regarding the split as well as talking to influential people, I am little advanced. Where I long for reasons and analyses, I find venomous attacks, name callings, character assassinations in the outdated style of Leninist political discourse.

Yet only three months ago, most activists and observers had just praises and concern for the jailed leaders of the CUD without any distinction. How could one smear so vehemently what one had admired recently without a moment of pause to allow reflection and critical assessment to take place? Worse yet, I read here and there complaints of individuals blaming some websites for refusing to post their articles. Nothing is more distressing than to see the ugly face of censorship reappearing at the very time when we need information and open debate. Crises do not disappear because we silence people; instead, animosity and biased outlooks grow and spread.

Several people have suggested that the deep cause of the split is power conflict among the top leadership of the movement. I don’t rule out the explanation, even though I don’t understand how leaders would go to the extent of wrecking a movement that they have worked so hard to create even as the violent reaction of the present regime shows clearly that victory will require more sacrifices and greater unity and mobilization. The only way the suggested explanation makes sense is through the assumption that one faction considers the other faction as a weak partner. In thus thinking that it can go on without the other party, the major party can opt for the breakup, especially if the partnership only results in the marginalization of its leaders.

We need to understand this concern and especially refrain from alluding to a concealed dictatorial tendency. What the crisis shows is that the CUD has a structural problem that must be resolved. We need to find a democratic framework for reconciliation based on a fair assessment of the respective strength of each partner while carrying a provision for the protection of the rights of minority parties. But it serves no purpose other than division to ignore the forces in presence in the name of an abstract and, for that matter, illusory unity, just as it is useless to call for a return to unity so long as the problems persist. Needless to say, the concern should also include Lidetu and his faction, since his volte-face was actually the first expression of a burgeoning crisis.

That is why I place this plea for an honest and instructive debate. I ask all those who have first-hand information or knowledge about the crisis to speak up, not for the sake of blaming one faction, but for the sake of informing us. I implore that those who write cease to assign a hidden intention to this or that leader so as to reflect on the structural issues with an eye to proposing solutions. I invite those who run the popular websites to open a chapter for this kind of assessment. My belief is that if we do this review well, that is, if the diaspora conducts an honest and fair analysis of the crisis, the exchange could result in a rapprochement, perhaps even recommend an inclusive conference with the promise that the correct appraisal of problems could turn the diaspora into a force of reconciliation. The correct approach is not to blame individuals, but to alter the structural conditions that created the crisis in the first place.

* Messay Kebede, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Dayton (Ohio). He can be reached at [email protected]