The ever-elusive all-inclusive national conference

By Daniel Assefa
June 4, 2006

This is a shift from CUDs earlier approach. CUDs strategy in my judgment has been to use the opening that has been created by years of struggle, operate with in the provisions of the current constitution and then beat the ruling party at its own game. And it nearly did. It was CUD’s intention to work for the liberalization of the political atmosphere and enable all stake holders to participate, after the transition of power to a democratically elected government. As declared, one of the main objectives of the AFD is to work towards convening an all-inclusive conference. It seems that the alliance considers the conference to be pivotal to subsequent political transformation and that it is a prerequisite to an establishment of a democratic order.

The idea which sounds quite attractive when voiced may be difficult to attain. Such conferences are often advocated as a primary strategy by groups that are not strong and have little hope of furthering their ideals by electoral competition. This is also the only practical avenue that is available for groups that conduct their struggle by proxy and those that do not have meaningful political assets on-site. But for a groups that enjoy a large support this is not the only option. Some of the issues involved in convening a national conference are the following.

1. The government in power is one of the principal partners in such undertaking. History shows the government in such situations does not come to the table for a reconciliatory and “problem solving” conference, unless forced by huge political pressure. A ruling government comes to the table only when ruling becomes otherwise impossible. In most instances when a government finally decides to come to the table, it comes at the very last possible moment, at a time when its participation had already become irrelevant. Examples in this regard are the attempts of Mengistu H/mariam to deal with Woyane in the final hours of his reign, and the conclusion of the Vietnam War. The current power balance in Ethiopia is a far cry from this situation and Woyane and EPRDF have no incentive whatsoever to engage in such exercise except by their own terms; terms which EPRDF is still voicing.
2. A transitional (caretaker) government or a power broker is the usual proposal that comes out of such large all inclusive conference an issue that is more than the eight point proposal of CUD. That is eventually what all the “stakeholders” end up demanding. Such approach becomes a practical alternative in a country that is highly unstable and where the oppositions are evenly matched. In such situation, the overriding factor that brings them together is the realization by the involved parties that, a compromise is better than a mutually assured annihilation. Demonstrative examples include our neighbor the Sudan and Mozambique. The situation in Ethiopia is very different. Ethiopia is relatively stable country and has a constitution that is functional though unpopular. It was after conceding this fact that CUD and friends nearly wrestled power away from the government. In addition, many opposition groups are not in a position to demand a “rightful” place since there is a marked disparity between groups in terms of support, membership or military capability. In situation like this, a transitional government is seen as destabilizing move and is not always popular as it is a way of giving “ye mariam menged” to groups that do not have a mass base and could not have a any significant political impact otherwise.
3. Democracy is won and not given or awarded. Democratic systems are established by parties who earned the right of being a partner in the establishment of a democratic order through their struggle and representation. One can not invite an obscure “political party or social grouping” to a convention and expect to build a democracy. The various political grouping which number close to 100 have very diverse agendas. Some have active membership of 30 people and others declare of having more than a million. Some claim to be exclusive representatives of one region or ethnic group. On the other hand, some ethnic groups are represented by multiple parties. Some are organized by disgruntled criminals and others have sincere patriots. So who is to be included and who is be excluded? And who should decide on who is who? To complicate matters, all the major civic organizations are double headed. Two teachers union, two workers union etc.
4. There have been numerous attempts in Ethiopia to convene such all-inclusive conference to solve the Ethiopian problem in the absence of a strong elected political organization. The formation of the Coordinating Committee of the Armed Forces, Police, and Territorial Army which morphed in to the Derg was one of the earlier attempts. Since then the formation of “Hizb dirigit/Provisional Office for Mass Organizational Affairs (POMOA)” and “ye Ethiopia sertoaderoch party aderag commission” were subsequent attempts. Later on, the call by Prof. Mesfin on the eve of “Woyane’s victory” passed as a missed opportunity. I distinctly remember the frantic telephone and fax exchanges between various Europe and US based political grouping trying to break a deal with Woyne when it was at the gates of Addis. Finally Woyane has also made similar gestures in its early days. The defining character of all is that the conferences were convened on the terms of a non-democratic ruling body in the absence of a strong political opposition. The current situation in Ethiopia is the same. More recently repeated calls and attempts by the main opposition groups including CUD largely remained unheeded.
5. It is theoretically possible to bring a government to a negotiating the table by applying military pressure as some of the members of the Alliance seem to advocate. There are two critical problems with this. The first one is in the post-cold war area and in the absence of significant financial assets like the diamond mines of Angola (UNITA) or an all out commitment of a hostile neighbor like in Congo (AFDL) or the Poppy fields of Colombia (FARC), a rebel movement has a little chance of overwhelming an incumbent government. The best that they can settle for is a prolonged and intractable war (Kashmir, Tamil tigers, LRA, IRA, ETA). The second and a more critical problem is as history has shown repeatedly with very few questionable exceptions, a sustainable democracy is not realized in a battle field especially in a land with a complex history and ethnography like Ethiopia. So this approach is unlikely to bring the government to a discussion.
6. The international community. As we all know by now the standards by which the international community measures the performance of a government is less stringent that what opposition groups would like. The best that we can hope for from this is the initiation of dialogue on the government’s term.

A popular response for these and other anticipated concerns is “we will cross the river when we reach it”. My view is if we can fly over it why bother wetting our feet? So is there an alternative? It is my contention that even though CUD was not able to wrestle power out of the EPRDF, its struggle has been very successful. The awareness, support and political capital it has gained gives it a huge advantage over its nearest rivals including the incumbent government. It has tested and verified that the strategy of involving it self directly in the operating political system of the country actually works. It has also shown the people that it is flexible enough to forge alliances by bridging a huge gap. There for it should also start looking in other direction too. Particularly in the direction of political groupings operating within the country. Yes the EPRDF and its cohorts will continue harassing, shutting down offices, and imprisoning members and even stealing its name. This should not be an indication of a failure of method but rather an affirmation of the fact that we are on the right track. Hey! after all that is why it is called a struggle! And a struggle is exactly what the word means! Sooner or later the ruling party will reach a point where it can no more get away with it. As most of us have reached a consensus and are convinced that an armed struggle is not an option, we have to exhaust all avenues of barging our way back into the country political arena and prepare for the coming rounds of elections rather before putting all our hopes in the Ever-Elusive, all Inclusive, National Conference.

-------------
The writer can be contacted for comments at assefade@slu.edu