Much ado about very little

By W. Selameab
June 4, 2006

But the constant partisan hyping and hoopla of the proponents of the AFD are making is very difficult for ordinary Ethiopians to objectively evaluate the agreement on which the AFD is based on. In fact, a few respected intellectuals, instead of offering cool-headed reviews and critical analysis of the agreement, have limited themselves to cheerleading roles. This has emboldened the supporters of the ethnic parties that are committed to seceding from Ethiopia in search of independent, ethnically homogenous states to bill the AFD for much more than it really is. The actions of the latter are understandable since the ethnic parties stand to gain a lot from the agreement than their strength on the ground in Ethiopia appears to warrant. As usual, many pejorative labels are hurled at individuals raising critical questions about the agreement.

My problem is that the agreement upholds too many broad goals the secessionist parties hold dear. For instance, it binds the signatory parties to uphold the ethnic federalist constitution drafted and put in place by TPLF and OLF. One can presume the aim of this provision is to ensure, among other things, the preservation of the huge “Oromia” state that, as currently constituted, takes up nearly two-third of the most productive regions of Ethiopia. It is also to be remembered how “Oromia” was created by TPLF and OLF by unjustly snatching away areas from other regions without due regard for the rights and interests of other ethnic groups. Accordingly, if TPLF is removed through the efforts of the AFD, in post TPLF Ethiopia, OLF has the guarantee and commitment of the most important party, the CUDP, to inherit “Oromia” intact in its present form from the TPLF.

In order to make it palatable to Ethiopians, the agreement employs a double-talk strategy to confuse and obfuscate the principle of individual right and individual freedom. Article I (Sub 8) of the Agreement states that the aim of AFD is to “promote the core democratic values of the rule of law, equality before the law and liberty of the individual and collective freedoms…” In a democratic system, the individual is the unit of measure. Any system based on anything other than individual freedom and individual rights, is rarely democratic. In fact, the world had witnessed how oppressive it could be. The raison d’etre of ethnic parities is “collective freedom” and it is hard for them to let go of that principle. If they relinquish collective freedom, then, they would find it difficult to justify the whole idea of ethnic federalism.

What is more amazing and very blatant in my view is the commitment the parties made to “actively promote good relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea…” This is truly amazing. Such an emphatic commitment to the interest of another State in the very first agreement among Ethiopian opposition forces may provide potent proof to cynics that allege that the whole AFD project is Eritrea-inspired and perhaps Isayas-led. What is distressing to me, and perhaps to other Ethiopians, is the continued role Eritrea plays in Ethiopian politics. With their vote “against slavery” many Ethiopians were hopeful that Eritrea will cease to be the concerns of Ethiopians. The AFD agreement brings the failed State to be front and center of the concerns of Ethiopians.

As I stated earlier, the bringing together of the opposition foeces to form an alliance is a good thing. But, forming an alliance at any cost is not an end by itself. The problems I have with the agreement is that it enables secessionist groups to maintain their core principles while the multi-ethnic and truly representative party, the CUDP, had miserably failed to uphold its own core values. Though negotiation involves give-and-take, in this case, CUDP appears to have given up nearly all its core values and had gained nothing in return. I am sure those involved in the negotiation on behalf of the CUDP are genuine Ethiopians who may have been out-witted by the ethnic parties. The public pressure to form an anti-woyanne alliance among opposition groups may have also played a role in the minds of the CUDP negotiators.

It is hard to see how the current agreement would galvanize Ethiopians into action. I see a strong need to immediately renegotiate the agreement if AFD is to play a meaningful role in the anti-woyanne struggle. The allocation of offices in the Alliance’s Governing Council is also another critical area that needs to be looked at more carefully if the AFD is to enjoy broad public support.

The greater burden is on the CUDP. The Party has not shown a comparative advantage for an alliance with the groups in AFD. What has it gained? How are Ethiopians envisioned to be better off with CUDP’s alliance with the ethnic parties? If the CUDP accepts ethnic federalism as set forth in the woyanne constitution, why is it important to continue the struggle against woyanne? How is ethnic federalism AFD style, any different from the TPLF-inspired ethnic federalism? Why were all those sacrifices made in the last 17 years if, in the final analysis, ethnic federalism is perceived to be acceptable? How would the CUDP justify the meddling of Eritrea in Ethiopia’s internal affairs? As the most important, promising and broad-based party, the CUDP owes it to Ethiopians to acknowledge the blunder it had made and immediately take action to renegotiate the AFD agreement.

----------
The writer can be reached for comments at wselam@comcast.net