Genet Mersha - TPLF (EPRDF) - HARDLY GOOD MIDWIFE FOR THE FUTURE...

PART II
TPLF (EPRDF)—HARDLY GOOD MIDWIFE FOR
THE FUTURE DEMOCRATIC ETHIOPIA

By Genet Mersha | 30 March, 2010

At the end of Part I of my

article, The People vs. TPLF—

Tigrai…Addis Ababa Scale up

Defiance of March 23, I closed

with an idea from democratic

law and legal precedents that

voting is a form of free speech.

This second part would pick up

from there to state my reasons

for denying my approval and

support for the TPLF (EPRDF). Already the election environment is strained
by shenanigans, widespread fears and undue pressure on voters by unfair and
illegal vote canvassing. Widespread are ill-treatments, harassment and
imprisonment of opposition candidates, party members and their supporters,
so report news sources.

Inducing the governing party to such actions is the fact of the challenges to its
nearly-year old power is becoming stiffer by the day. Interestingly, other than
the above responses, I also see several amateurish efforts to score
propaganda point. Last weekend, I read story that was terribly mangled,
moving under different titles such as “Stable Ethiopia needs int’l, regional
support, European Parliament Foreign Affairs Spokesman” (ENA);
“Stable Ethiopia now needs international and local support” (aiga),
“Expect stability if Meles holds on Power” (Ethiopia-news.com), a late
coming government-sponsored web page. Zealots have recycled it with their
vision.

For instance, that latter web site cut and pasted a copy of that article with the
following quote above the title: “If Meles holds on power in the
parliamentary elections due this May, the world should expect the
stability that he has brought to take deeper root”, European
Parliament Foreign Affairs Spokesman.” This gives the impression that
the European Parliament either is endorsing or campaigning on behalf of the
prime minister. What Ethiopia-news.com suppressed is a qualifier that states
“That is why, regardless of the electoral result, Ethiopia needs international
backing.” Speaking of the government as a body, the parliamentarian Charles
Tannock concludes, “Ethiopia’s leadership throughout the Horn of Africa
could bring change in a part of the world that has largely been written off. It is
time to give Ethiopia the diplomatic tools it needs.” While the article may have
tried to cut on both sides, undoubtedly it has suffered the misfortune of being
used for propaganda purposes in two ways.

First, true that Charles Tannock is spokesperson for the Parliament’s foreign
affairs committee. However, in his article that reflects his personal opinion as
an activist in the European Conservative Reformist (ECR) movement, a tiny
minority group within the Parliament, he was speaking neither on behalf of the
foreign affairs committee, nor the Parliament to which he has no mandate. By
the way, his extended article entitled The Ethiopia Card first appeared on
Project Syndicate on 26 March, its reprint appearing on newscotsman.com on
March 29. His view rightly reflects growing concern over stability in the Horn
owing to tensions in Kenya, dictatorships in the Sudan, and Uganda and rising
terrorist danger in death-land, anarchic Somalia, contributing to human
insecurity globally.

If indeed latest testimony by Al Qaeda suspect in Saudi Arabia is reliable
(World Net Daily, March 28), Ethiopia has already tasted the stings of death
in cruel ways in recent blow up of its national carrier over Lebanon and the
murder of its innocent citizens. All the more reason for the regime not to seek
electoral gains through distortion of such an article, as if it were intended to
give endorsement of TPLF (EPRDF)’s candidate, and despite the fact that the
article clearly states “regardless of the electoral result.” Surely, Mr.
Tannock can hardly escape blame for entertaining the notion that democracy
is luxury for Ethiopians. To that effect he wrote, “Who can blame Ethiopians,
surrounded by potential enemies, for giving priority to stability and order over
Western-style democratic development?” Putting it mildly, not only is this
heartlessly insensitive to Ethiopian aspirations for genuine democracy and
freedom. It is also an insult.

A view on what the debate is being pushed to achieve

The five rounds of debates between the political parties have shown the ruling
party’s audacity insinuating that a single party rule is necessity for Ethiopia, an
idea that seems to gain currency from unlikely sources, as the latest The
Economist seemed to show. Recall that it started the first debate complaining
it has no partner in the opposition to build democracy in Ethiopia, imported
language that Israel uses against the Palestinian Authority. While the interest of
the regime in ensuring five more years in power has come with all sorts of
flavours and intrigues, its efforts to stop genuine competition has been
unmistakable, inter alia, by portraying the opposition as guilty in every way
possible, as unelectable and unqualified to govern Ethiopia. We heard in the
debates to the point of nausea ጥላሸት መቀባት (smear campaign) and their
portrayal as fronts for terrorist and foreign agents.

This has not succeeded in disguising the fact that Ethiopia is not where it
should have been. As in the past, there are immense sufferings, fear and
insecurity; the much-vaunted economic growth and development cannot be
substitute for the loss of dignity or recompense for the pains of mistreatment.
Ethiopia could have done much better; it should have run faster and further
away from its past. It has not happened; TPLF has squandered so many good
prospects and opportunities.

In spite of two decades of focus on agriculture, the country is hardly capable
of feeding itself. Nearly a quarter of its population is dependent on food aid. In
a country where ADLI is supposed to accelerate agricultural development and
industry, 15 years later there scarcely is meaningful linkage between the two,
or has paved ways and means to overcome problems of investment (domestic
and foreign) to allow industries to grow and expand. For instance, in the past
11 years industry has been in a state of stagnation, according to MOFED’s
latest macroeconomic report. This is no denial that Ethiopia is relatively better
off today than in 1991, 2000 or 2005; its capital assets have increased and
GDP growth has been good during the past six years.

Nonetheless, this has not

stopped a significant

number of the population

from slipping into the

wide cracks of poverty.

Schools have expanded,

but the quality of

education is miserably

poor at both grades level

and in institutions of

higher learning, one of

the causes being the

unresolved political

problem and the

consequent tension between teachers and government. Yes, there is now
improved pace in the health sector, however, what are reported as success do
not sufficiently differentiate between plan and achievement, thus, reflecting
significant variances with international data, especially in maternal mortality,
tuberculosis and other transmissible diseases. During its review of health care
under MDG, UN recently placed Chad and Ethiopia as worst performers in
health, on account of the huge gaps that exist in society. Moreover, the need
for thought control has placed Ethiopia at tails end of ICT development in Sub-
Saharan Africa.

Hear me out; I am not stating this to belittle the important achievements to
date in infrastructure building and education expansion. The point I am driving
home is Ethiopia could have done better in these twenty years, a season of
favourable international resource transfers to the country, a situation without
parallel in Ethiopian history. This failure is consequence of TPLF spending 12
out of 19 years in power in its internal struggles; its skidding at every turn over
different policy and strategy experiments in search of what suits better its
political objectives of single party control and permanence in power.

In terms of attitude, TPLF considers whatever is achieved under its rule as
unique and debt to society. It demands public praise and loyalty as a matter of
right and reward, oblivious that such is government duty and responsibility, not
a favour to citizens. It demands votes by threatening communities to withhold
their sustenance. Examine its policies, they are fool of holes; they are driven by
its hunger for legitimacy, although it deeply resents and frustrates free and fair
competition. Its top down approach hinders public participation in decision-
making, including on matters affecting the lives of communities, future of their
children; evidence of that is the handing over of fertile lands to foreign
companies on 90-year leases, without consulting the rural population, which it
considers its base.

This election is time to end such arrogant practices. There is need to strike the
right balance between state powers on one hand, and the laws and needs of
society, its growth and development and human needs for freedom and dignity
on the other. The past two decades have shown that the country has not
moved qualitatively in terms of its defence of citizens’ human rights, civil
liberties and the dignity of the individual as a citizen with inherent rights. For
me, the issue is not supporting this party or that, as some allege. In the
debates, the TPLF could have done better, if only it read correctly public
sentiments and presented genuine proposals for reform of its governance
policies and practices with strong commitment to the rule of law, genuine
pluralism of ideas and organisations, tolerance, and mutual respect and ensure
the country’s longstanding interests. It did not happen; it has not happened; it
cannot happen.

Therefore, my rationale for not supporting TPLF (EPRDF) is premised on
holistic criteria, which have convinced me of its unsuitability to be good
midwife for the future democratic Ethiopia. Ethiopia’s future lies with
accountable and transparent system of governance that would enable its
individual citizens and its diverse ethnic groups to live in peace, freedom and
equality, with the rule of law as society’s anchor, what we surely know to be,
TPLF’s incurable Achilles heel. I make the case, as follows:

TPLF (EPRDF) displays features of multi-party democracy,
but in practice it runs dictatorship of single party

Freedom of organisation: By law, in Ethiopia political parties can be
formed. Nevertheless, no sooner than it came into force in 1995 that
constitutional provision has been replaced by TPLF’s whims and secret
practices. The first reason for that is TPLF sees power as its reward for
overthrowing the military regime. Experience has shown that it is
vehemently opposed to the existence of other political parties or mass
organisations outside its umbrella. When these democratic requirements
are forced upon it by internal or external pressures, as is the case
today, it operates either stealthily to undermine every one or like a well-
forecasted tornado demolishes everything along its path.

Secondly, this is inherent characteristic of TPLF, reinforced at its core
by its unyielding loyalty to its Marxist roots as liberation movement,
whose guiding principle demands that decisions taken by a few
comrades (politburo) or a powerful boss at the top is passed down the
ladder to become the ruling idea of society. In the past nearly twenty
years, TPLF leaders have been exercising ill-gained veto power over
the voice, interests and resources of the Ethiopian people, the apparent
motive of which is their permanent control of society. In government
this has been reinforced by chapter VIII of the constitution,
empowering the prime minister as “…the Chief Executive, the
Chairman of the Council of Ministers, and the Commander-in-Chief of
the national armed forces”, with unlimited powers and terms of office.

Nine months before the 2005 election, the United Nations convened a
panel of experts to determine the state and future of democracy in
Ethiopia. The findings of the panel proved accurate then, as evidenced
by events of the 2005 election and its aftermath, as now by negative
development in the run up to the May 23rd national election. Based on
information by the expert panel, the report concluded,

“Ethiopia consists of a multiparty democracy whereby the ruling

party allows other parties to register, but it does not allow them

to compete freely for political power.” It also added, “The

regional and local governments of Ethiopia are constituted under

a one-party system where voters are assisted by the

Government-managed electoral authority to support the election

of the ruling party.”

Governance Profile of Ethiopia, United Nations,

2004

Recall from the first debate between political parties at the end of
February that all opposition members disagreed with the governing
party that there is genuine devolution of power in Ethiopia. In summing
that consensus, the representative of EDP said:

“Opposition parties have 165 (?) seats in parliament, each of

them having won their woredas (districts) throughout the

country. However, not a single opposition party has a woreda or

a region to administer; or even kebele to run, let alone seat in

cabinet—the unmistakable evidence that Ethiopia is a one party

state”

[writer’s translation].

From time to time, TPLF uses well-calibrated shock therapy to
reinforce existing fear within society. One such latest ‘treatment’ is the
bombshell the prime minister dropped in his oral response to questions
by parliamentarians on 18 March, where he said opposition parties that
smear the name of his party would be liable to court cases. This is the
clearest and most dangerous warning yet to date, aimed at pre-empting
any expectations among candidates and citizens that the election would
be free and fair and that they could exercise their right of free speech to
make their case against the ruling party.

Another telling example of how TPLF strengthens its hold on power
can be demonstrated by using as an example the ongoing dispute
between the regime and members of the original Ethiopian Teachers
Association (ETA). Clearly, since 2008 what we know is that their
association has been officially replaced by the government-sponsored
Ethiopian Teachers Association. As a union matter, the case continues
to be topic of discussion at the International Labour Organisation
(ILO). It is known as case No 2516, involving anti-union activities by
the government that is under consideration. Right at this moment, the
ILO is waiting for information from government on its implementation of
its numerous recommendations.

Recall that, in resisting TPLF’s attempts to hijack their association from
1992 – 2008, ETA’s leaders were forced to spend their time between
prison and court until 2008, when finally the court decided against
them. Therefore, after that decision, the government-sponsored ETA
has been allowed to stand in their stead, appropriating their name, bank
accounts and properties, although it has barely succeeded in
supplanting them. That is why there is continuing tension between
government and teachers in Ethiopia.

This case was brought against the government to the ILO by the
original ETA and Education International (EI), supported by the
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the
World Confederation of Labour (WCL). Their case was resubmitted
with additional information in 2009, to which the regime responded
denying charges of violating teachers’ rights, violating their human rights,
as follows,

“The lawful incarceration of some teachers has nothing to do with

the exercise of their rights as members of the ETA or their trade

union activities. In this respect, the Government refers to the

Committee’s findings in other cases and, in particular, its

observation that ‘participation in trade union activities cannot

serve as immunity against prosecution for breaches of ordinary

criminal laws’. Following street riots and criminal offences

perpetrated by extreme wings of opposition parties after the May

2005 elections, several individuals were charged and were brought

before courts of law for their direct participation in activities

which resulted in loss of lives and wanton destruction of public

property. Other individuals were also arrested and detained in

2006 and 2007 for their involvement in a clandestine operation

sponsored and run by illegal armed groups based in Eritrea with

the declared objective of the forcible overthrow of the

constitutional order in Ethiopia.”

(ILO Governing Body GB 304/6,

para. 987, March 2009)

Clearly, the above does not answer to what happened from 1992-
2005. In the views of the ILO’s tow committees looking into the
matter, case No 2516 is not over, especially as those resisting
government efforts to dismantle their organisation have re-established
themselves as the National Teachers Association (NTA). The regime
has refused them right of registration, and joining the Confederation of
Ethiopian Trade Unions (CETU). In June 2009, NTA representatives
attended meetings of ILO’s Committee on the Application of
Standards, where they were allowed to lodge their complaints, despite
government objection to their presence (ILO Provisional Record, 8th
Session, 2009 16 PART TWO (Rev.)).

In response, the Committee observed,

“With regard to the numerous cases of arrests and detention of the

original complainant, ETA, members, the Committee notes that

the Government reiterates its previous statement to the effect that

these arrests and detentions do not relate to their trade union

membership, but, rather, some were arrested and detained for

their involvement in criminal offences perpetrated by extreme

wings of opposition parties after the elections in May 2005, which

resulted in loss of life, and others were arrested and detained in

2006 and 2007 for their involvement in clandestine operations

sponsored and run by illegal armed groups based in Eritrea. The

Committee regrets that the Government’s replies amount to

general denial that the arrests and detentions were related to trade

union activities and are simply to the effect that the arrests were

made for subversive activities, based on ordinary criminal law.

The Committee has always followed the rule that, in such cases,

the governments concerned should submit further and as precise

information as possible in order to enable the Committee to

conclude that they are not related to the exercise of trade union

activities. The Committee expresses deep concern over the failure

of the Government to conduct a full and independent inquiry into

the allegations made relating to arrests and detention of trade

unionists, particularly in light of the long time that has elapsed

since their arrest without any court yet pronouncing itself on the

matters and given that those teachers previously arrested on

similar charges were finally released without charge by the

Federal High Court ruling that they had no case to answer.”

(ILO

Governing Body GB 304/6, para. 1001, March 2009)

Last June, when the Committee on the Application of Standards was
expecting official report on implementation of its recommendation,
government representative decried ILO’s insistence to discuss
violations of teachers’ rights. He portrayed the dispute as mere
squabble between groups, trivialising the issue with which the
Committee was seized with seriousness, as follows:

“[it is] A dispute between two groups of individuals, each

claiming to be the legitimate representative of the Ethiopian

Teachers Association (ETA), which had been in existence since

1949. This dispute was the subject of a long-standing legal battle

involving many judicial institutions, from the First Instance Court

to the Cassation Division of the Federal Supreme Court. A group

of former teachers, supported and financed by external actors, had

challenged the legal status of the then new leadership of the ETA.

This new leadership had been established following a change of

government in Ethiopia and the subsequent introduction of a

federal arrangement, under which teachers from all corners of the

country were represented. The group, led by some senior

supporters of the former military regime, was opposed to the ETA’

s reorganization due to a purely political aversion to the country’s

new political system. Whereas a diverse political opinion within an

organization was acceptable, and even supported, this group

rejected the legally constituted body and chose not to surrender

the ETA premises and property under its possession. A legal

process was thus triggered over the legality of representation, and

the handing over of premises and property.”

(PR No. 16B (Rev.)

June 18, 2009)

The Committee was not pleased, with that government response, which
did not include any actions to resolve the problem. Consequently, at its
meeting held on 19 June 2009, the Committee concluded,

“Recalling that the matters raised in this case concerned repeated

and grave violations of the Convention, the Committee urged the

Government to take all necessary measures to ensure the

registration of the National Teachers’ Association without delay so

that teachers were able to fully exercise their right to form

organizations for furthering and defending their occupational

interests. The Committee further expressed its deep concern at the

important and continuing allegations of grave violations of basic

civil liberties for which detailed information had yet to be

forthcoming from the Government. The Committee strongly urged

the Government to guarantee that these workers could exercise

their trade union rights in full security and expected that it would

carry out full and independent investigations without delay and

provide a detailed report to the supervisory bodies on the

outcome.”

(PR No. 16B (Rev.) June 18, 2009)

From the foregoing it is possible to conclude that what TPLF has been
doing all these years is not any different from the Dergue’s. It is
committed to single objective of using mass organisations as tools
toward its goal of permanent domination of society. In so doing, the
Dergue left the people without means to build civil society
organisations. This suited the TPLF, which found people without any
mechanism to defend their interests against its tyrannical onslaughts of
their freedoms and democratic rights.

Consequently, in furtherance of that, TPLF strategists as of January 2,
2010 have come with a new mechanism to ensure their continuity,
which would adversely affect integrity of the election. They have
successfully orchestrated formation of ‘coalition of civil society
organisations’, preparing to deploy 40,000 election observers
throughout the country. One such civil society organisation is ETA; it is
also secretary of the coalition. Therefore, a body whose integrity is
under questioning, at least, internationally for its usurpation of the rights
and properties of the original ETA, with the help of its sponsor, the
government, which is also accused of violating the right of assembly,
organisation and human rights of teachers under ILOcase No.2516.
Why should we be suspicious of the role of some of these ‘civil society
organisations’? We already know the coalition’s attitude, for instance,
regarding the presence during the election of foreign observers. Read
carefully and reflect on what Ato Kassahun Follo, vice president of the
new coalition and president of CETU, who told the Reporter: “ከውጭ
ታዛቢዎች በተሻለ ያገባናል የምንል እኛ ነን፤ ከእኛ በላይ
ምስክርነት ሊሰጡ አይችሉም፤ ተመሳሳይ ዓላማ ይኑረን እንጂ
በመታዘብ ላይ ከእነርሱ ጋር እኩል ሳይሆን ከእነርሱ በላይ
እንሠራለን፡፡ብቃቱም፣ ችሎታውም፣ ኃላፊነቱም አለን፡፡” (“We
say this task concerns us more than it does foreign observers. They
cannot be better observers than we are. Whereas we share with
them common objectives on this mission, not only would we do the
task of observing the election like them, but better than they do.
We have the skills, the capacity and the responsibility” (writer’s
translation).

The texture of this bristling language sounds familiar; as can be
expected, it is taken from one of TPLF’s instructional manuals on
election observation to local observers. For my solace, compare the
above with the statement of EPRDF’s spokesperson Sekou Ture
Getachew of March 21 to the Reporter and tell me I was overreacting.
He said, “ታዛቢዎች ከውስጥም፣ ከውጭም መኖራቸው ጥሩ ሆኖ፣
በዋነኝነት ግን የአገር ውስጥ ታዛቢ የራሱን ሥራ ስለሚገመግም፣
የእርሱ ትዝብት ወሳኝና ጠቃሚ ነው”. (“While the presence of local
and foreign observers may be good, on the main, however, the
presence of local observers is decisive and beneficial, as they
would be in a position to review their work constantly” (Reporter,
writer’s translation).

It is imperative that local observers are and under normal
circumstances, they are known to do marvellous jobs, as it is something
that would affect society as a whole and them individually. Nonetheless,
how free would government-sponsored civil societies be? Would they
give precedence to societal interests and their conscience over the
demands of their party for their loyalty, which is stern on such matters?
As the emergence of the government-sponsored ETA has shown, some
or most of them may become camouflage for the mass presence of
those with party missions as election observers, with instructions to
enable the party prevail over its opponents. For the ruling party, by
definition the opposition side is a front for subversive anti-Ethiopian
organisations, Derguists, anti-democracy elements, Eritrean agents and
representatives of foreign interests, bent on undermining Ethiopian
independence and its assertiveness! That is what the TPLF is banking
on at the moment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

BY WAY OF RESPONSE TO DILWENBERU NEGA et al

In his article “Genet Mersha’s bigotry is a photo negative of the late Kinijit’s
Tigreanophobia, 24th March, aigaforum.com, the above-mentioned gentleman
engaged in unnecessary vitriol, thus, misrepresenting the content and import of
my article, “THE PEOPLE vs. TPLF (EPRDF): TIGRAI, ADDIS
ABABA…SCALE UP DEFIANCE” of 23 March (nazret.com, tecolahagos.
com, ethiogauardian.com, ethioquest.com, abugida.com,
ethiopianmediaforum). The allegations are baseless, I must say, intended to
serve the pleasure of his gallery to which his very well attuned. What is
troubling is, as if possessed by some spirit, he spat fire all over, alleging that
“Genet swings from making a racist slur against Tigreans to making
unsubstantiated accusations on the continuing electoral process.” Even almost
invoking a Nazi era parallel, he went on to say, “Her perfervid anti-Tigreanism
pushes her so hard that she just stopped short from equating Tigreans with the
German Herrenvolk (‘master race’ or ‘aristocratic race’).”

Let me first of all say, how horrified I am by his ludicrous charge of racism,
and “perfervid anti-Tigreanism”. Notwithstanding his ignorance of the meaning
of ‘racism’, I would relate to him what someone told me some time ago about
similarities between TPLF and a whip. He said, they share common
characteristic: both of them habitually lash and feign being hurt. In case,
Dilwenberu could not understand the message of my article, despite his
ostentatious word-smithery and proclivity to linguistic pomposity, the article
right from its title is applauding the determination of the residents of Tigrai
(towns listed in its body) and Addis Ababa for exercising their right to choose
hoping to quench their thirst for genuine democracy and freedom. In terms of
substance, it states,

“Imagine for a moment, the people weathering off incessant threats on their
jobs and livelihoods, concerted and violent actions to stop them. They [the
residents of Mekelle, Tembein, Adowa, Axum, Addis Ababa…] came to the
meetings and opened up a window of opportunity to heal and renew the deep
and longstanding familial ties between Tigreans and other Ethiopians, which
TPLF’s self-serving ethnic politics has strained for some time now for its ends.
I do hope in earnest that March 14 has set in motion the process of its
renewal on a more firm course” (THE PEOPLE vs. TPLF (EPRDF):
TIGRAI, ADDIS ABABA…SCALE UP DEFIANCE).

What gives the gentleman stomach ache there? If racism could apply to
Tigreans, why has he not accused me of the same against Addis Ababans that
are referenced in the same article, the same line and in the same breath? Yes,
if he is bothered by the article making strong distinction between Tigreans and
TPLF, tough luck, it is a different story. Then he is right to react as such,
preferably without his ‘racism’ disgrace, since exercise by the people of their
freedom to choose and determine how and by whom they should be governed
affects his livelihood and future as TPLF’s paid stringer. In that case, sorry to
disappoint him, I cannot be of any help there. Now that he has falsely and
wrongly accused me of racism, what should he be? He is an authentic clone of
a crooked lawyer, who would get his criminal client off the hook by all means
under the sun, but legally and truthfully and on innocence criterion.

As to my alleged “unsubstantiated accusations on the continuing electoral
process,” I refer him to re-read what I wrote above. Not only Ethiopian
citizens have become wary and critical of TPLF, but also the regime’s
foremost backers. They are now upfront in their unsparing castigation of the
worsening harassment of the opposition, which is intensified as the rush to the
finish line has gained momentum. I say to my friend, “Forget about
democracy”, borrowing the title of The Economist of 25 March. It should
show him what the world thinks of the regime’s claim of commitment to free
and fair election and democracy-building.

That must also be racism, Dilwenberu, isn’t it? The people in power must be
panicking about the challengers they are facing in this election. They accuse
everyone left and right of conspiracy against mother Ethiopia at one time and
alleging campaign against TPLF’s pursuit of independent policies at another.
Sorry love! At least, for one, that is not the testimony of African attendees at
the Copenhagen Conference of last December! Shouldn’t they too be racists,
using your logic my dear Dilwenberu Nega?