Dr. Beyene: It is true that there have been several attempts to form coalitions and united fronts of opposition political parties operating in and outside of Ethiopia. However, as you know, the task of such an opposition grouping to impact on the political life of the country has not been finalized. So we felt all those efforts have been trying to find the correct formula or the chemistry of such a united front or coalition to engage in a political movement that would make a difference. But that has not been possible; and the reasons have been that most of those coalitions have been formed in haste, enough leap time has not been given before the formulation of such coalitions and united fronts and the moving force behind them was simply that it is the call of the day to form coalition of opposition parties and that’s also what the Ethiopian population wants to see. These have been really the driving forces that prompted premature formation of such coalitions. So prior preparations, adequate discussion on these common tasks of these diverse political parties have not been exhausted.

This time round we took more than two years in the preparation of it, and we did identify the agenda items precisely. These include trying to get at a common understanding on how we view the era of TPLF/EPRDF in Ethiopia or Ethiopia under TPLF/EPRDF governance, whether we can agree on the major characteristics of this era. That was one agenda item. And there was a document, a working paper prepared on that issue which was circulated to all the prospective parties that took part in that all party conference. Another subject was reviewing the earlier efforts of opposition parties to form coalitions: what has been achieved and what have been the problems that must not be repeated or avoided. And there was another paper on that too. And then we had another serious agenda, which relates to what it to be done next. What should we done on the vision? So there was a vision document on how to address all these outstanding issues, that of coalition formation and also of bringing about a major change on the political environment of this country. Now this then led us to the formation or rather adoption of the minimum political program of this united front or what you call the Minimum Agreed Principles by all parties. And then we went ahead and discussed the modality of implementation of this program. And, incidentally, this is the first time that we held a week-long conference and earlier coalitions were really simply based on a one-day or two-day meetings, with the agenda just crafted there, people talk and then, “Oh! This is what the Ethiopian people want, to see a united front or a coalition of parties.” So that’s why they did not last long. And the necessary preparations and care were missing in the earlier attempts. But this time I think we have done every preparation that is humanly possible, and that’s why we think it’s different. This is more serious than the earlier attempts.

So you don’t think that this is yet another front - as in a shop front - for those parties which are not allowed to operate in Ethiopia to start to do so?

Well, I mean this is a sort of coordinated movement of all consenting parties. Whether these parties have established a legal base here in the country or not, that was not an issue. The issue is: are these parties significantly involved in the political discourse? Or do they have constituencies? Have they been in Ethiopia attempting to address the outstanding political, economic and social problems in this country? So whether the member of this united front has a legal base here in Ethiopia or is still working to have a legal base in Ethiopia, that was not a dividing element. This is just one front created, and it’s going to operate from a singe center which is going to be here. That’s where the leadership is. And, of course, we can open branch offices wherever we feel that we have a constituency we need to operate from. For example, we have an office already formed in Washington D.C. because we have a significant constituency there. There’s a huge Ethiopian population there, which is politically involved and engaged. If what you are trying to imply is that we are being used, then no, this is going to be one movement, and the leadership is here in Ethiopia. And we are taking charge of this movement, and every party will contribute to the movement wherever it is and wherever it feels comfortable about contributing to the whole cause.

How are you planning to go about legalizing these banned parties in Ethiopia? For instance, the Election Board has just said that it does not recognize this united front? What are you planning to do to make it recognize this front?

Well, the thing is, you know, we have not yet even approached the National Electoral Board for recognition. So, I don’t think it’s proper for them to just go ahead and answer an unasked question which is not yet addressed to them. Anyway, I’m just surprised why they should even talk about a United Front. I mean, we have never introduced it to them. We do that whenever we think we are prepared and the time is right.

What are you doing in the meantime?

Well, there are tasks to be done. You know, we need to make the necessary preparations in terms of documentation, in terms of identifying the proper elements that we need for the involvement of this movement. So even if it is a question of legally approaching the National Electoral Board, we know what it takes. You see, we have been leading parties that have been registered either as coalitions or even as single parties. We know what it takes. So, without making the necessary preparations, we just don’t go there, you see. So I’m just surprised why they should take it up as an issue. Any-way, I consider that as a sort of premature statement on their side because we have not even gone and introduced the United Front.

The other issue is about those “illegal” parties you talked about that are not allowed to operate inside the country. I tell you that’s one of the tasks of the United Front, that is, to negotiate the “safe legal entry” of all of these parties. You know, nobody really can speak with authority that these parties don’t have any presence here. I mean, they do have supporters. Otherwise, you can’t imagine how they can still claim that they are engaged in the struggle or what have you. The only really proper reference would be that they are not legally operating or they don’t have offices or legally recognized representatives here, but definitely as political movements they would be working within the population. So our task would be again to negotiate a safe entry of all of these parties. All that they need is just the security guarantees, and they would deserve that as long as they have accepted to peacefully operate and whatever political change they may want to see in this country would only be through peaceful electoral process, and that’s a very important decision on their part. And as far as we who are operating legally in this country are concerned, we feel that that is the biggest achievement of our efforts, that is, to bring all competent political parties to this peaceful, electoral discourse. That’s what we see as the best policy of solving the most outstanding problems in this country, that is, through peaceful democratic engagement. So we don’t see why the ruling party and the government simply stick to this “illegal, violent group” kind of thing, which is now a cliché as far as I’m concerned. They have been repeating it for the last twelve years, and we have not seen any of these parties, which decided to be members of this United Front over the last twelve or so years giving any credible proof against them to have been engaged in any armed conflict.

But still these are some of the parties which have been proclaiming at least in theory a war or armed struggle against this government. How can you ensure that they would not resort to that again and would be content with peaceful means?

By the fact that they signed this United Front’s method of struggle or political engagement, that is a peaceful, parliamentary and electoral approach. As far as we are concerned, that’s the end of it. And that’s the kind of people and organizations forming the United Front. So I don’t see why the ruling party and the government still stick to history. That’s history. We have nothing to do with that. We are not dealing with those kind of guys who may have been declaring wars 15 or 12 years ago. The fact is the people we are now dealing with at present are not engaged in any armed struggle to erase all the problems in this country.

And I think any responsible government and party which wants peace and stability in this country should not hang on to some of these clichés that are totally irrelevant. For me, the most responsible attitude should be for all parties to try to bring in and encourage all parties which may have some history or historical background of armed struggle or what have you, to try to wean them out of that. And this is the biggest sign that they have shown in years. I tell you even last year, when we interacted with the same group, their position was a sort of an all-inclusive method of struggle implying a combination of armed and peaceful struggle. Now, we have worked very hard, and we have also been exemplary in pursuing peaceful opposition. So both by setting both example and persuading these parties that we can win elections, they have come a long way on their part to disassociate themselves from that kind of thinking.

What’s more, it may be idealistic to talk about some kind of approach that would bring about a very drastic change. We have seen it. That has not been possible. The global condition is changing. And we need to really be realistic and work. And since these parties have been engaged in this pattern of thinking for years, I think they now must start talking about some practical, measurable output of the struggle. And I think one of the best things would be, “Well, how many seats have we won? How many constituencies have we won out of the grabs of the ruling party?” These are measurable. So that’s now the current thinking and, I think, the government, the ruling party should not miss this opportunity as far as bringing peace and stability in this country is concerned.

Let’s talk about the opposition as whole. Do you think there’s really an opposition worth its name in Ethiopia? Do you think there’s such an opposition? And do you feel that what you are doing here in your offices matter to Ethiopians throughout the country?

Well, tremendously so. In a way it’s a funny question because some of us even sit in parliament as members of the opposition. It’s not a matter of numbers, but at least the very presence of a bona fide opposition that has defied the rule and the dictates of the ruling party, struggled and paid so dearly in terms of the lives and all sorts of misery one can think of, you know, after bearing all these, we have won in the elections and we’re there. So when you ask me a question: is there opposition? Well, I wonder what I’m doing if it does not fit into any opposition definition? You see, if you are implying that you don’t see turmoils of movements that simply are intent on unseating this government by some kind of mass upheaval and so on, we don’t see it now. But it may simply be a matter of time. You see, there’s always a need for a momentum. You don’t simply get all the population out and start to defy the government. One has to work within the population. And we are working within the population. About some five or six years ago, the EPRDF and its allies, some in the press, some in the diplomatic community, and others in the government, they all have been asking us the same questions: Is there opposition? Are you opposing? What are you doing, you don’t have any support? Well, during the 2000 elections and thereabouts, we showed them that there is opposition, and that was the hour of truth. That was the time when the opposition was really expected to get out into the open and start challenging. That was the good reason why there’s an election, a contention. Now in the absence of such an immediate task, we just don’t go and start raising hell, if that’s what you are asking. You know, if it’s opposition that you want that will always be picketing, always demonstration etc, well, definitely we will get there. And that would very much depend on how this government and the ruling party is going to respond to our most reasonable and rational proposal, that is, to sit and negotiate the upcoming electoral process. Incidentally, that’s a package that’s being offered to the ruling party and the government. We are asking them to please sit down and negotiate the electoral process, and that electoral process should be all-inclusive, free and fair, and conducted on the basis of internationally agreed principles.

Does that mean you’re putting a condition on your participation in the upcoming elections?

Yes, a very strong condition. I mean, otherwise, we’re not playing here. We’re sacrificing lives and wasting our time and energy. We are serious. We, the United Front, want to go into the election as a front and, before we do that, want to negotiate with this government and the ruling party on the electoral procedures, on the reformulation of the election law, on the reformation of the National Election Board which needs to be independent, representative and an institution that has confidence in all parties which want to compete in the election. Short of that, we don’t want to waste our time. We don’t want to be some kind of lackeys who want simply to accompany the ruling party to its power. So if they want to play that sort of game, they can play it alone this time.

Don’t you fear that this would be a self-defeatist move in a sense that if the ruling party refuses to countenance you, you will be condemned again to a virtual non-existence?

The ruling party is not something above everything. The ruling party must be willing to play a fair game. If they don’t want to play fair, they can play it alone. There’s nothing self-defeating about this. This is politics, and it’s the most reasonable and practical question. All that we are saying is let’s agree on the rules of the game. The rules of the game have not been fair. And nobody will tell me they are because I have seen them. Our population has seen them. This is not the first time that we are considering elections. This is definitely a third time as far as my party is concerned. So we know, and we don’t want to be part of that stupidity that raised havoc in the population in the name of election. We don’t want to subject our population to that kind of havoc that was really a war waged against a population at the time of the elections. We want this to be stopped. We want a guarantee that that thing is not going to happen again. Otherwise, we have no moral right whatsoever to go into our constituency and once again tell them to get ready for the elections. No, no, we want to have the rules in place first. We want to agree on the rules of the game. We want to make sure that this is played fair. And we are willing to accept defeat after playing a fair game. I mean we don’t have to respond to every stupid call for election. As we are in politics, we want to win. This is a question of power, and our population is sacrificing. If it does sacrifice, it must be for something. And I mean without that it’s simply stupidity for us to keep on going in where we know the consequence of it.

Is this a rigid position or are you prepared to talk about it with the government and other parties? I mean, for instance, the Donor Ambassadors’ Group has already established a specialized subgroup to prepare for the election. Do you think that by consulting with these kinds of third parties, you will be able to participate in the upcoming election?

Well, yes, we work with the Donors’ Group. We don’t feel the role of the donors is just simply to allocate some kind of finance and then to leave it alone. No, the donors should come in here. I mean, most of the donors are representing democratic countries. So they know what democratization is, what an internationally accepted electoral process is, they know all that. Now what we are saying is they must start to play the donors’ leverage here. So if EPRDF wants to repeat this well-known orchestration of election, which is no election, they should not allow that. They should not put even a single penny into that kind of activity. And it should concern them even more than it concerns us that the election that they are supporting is something that is not agreeable, acceptable to all parties that want to compete in the election. Now the donors, therefore, must work very hard and use their access to the government to advise them, to persuade them to accept or consider some of these most reasonable and rational proposals that we are presenting. We want to uproot EPRDF, if not, dilute their monopoly. I mean if we can not oust them, we want to dilute seriously their monopoly wherein that parliament would be a parliament of negotiation and not that of rubber stamping. That’s why we are wasting part of our prime lives where we should have been doing something else, or even making money or doing what so many other guys are doing. So we are seriously concerned about the election. We want the election, but that election has to be a real election. And we should not be expected to just be players in a losers’ game. When we go into election, we must be able to project an image of at least a viable opposition with a number of seats or voices. That’s what we are saying. You know our conditions are to negotiate. This is not a stubborn position. We want to explore possibilities, we want to engage in a give-and-take kind of process. And we want to initiate a dialogue in good time, not only at the eleventh hour. So that’s our approach.

There’s recently a move towards direct budget support by donors to the government. Do you think this should be pegged on the free and fair conduct of the upcoming elections?

Absolutely so. I mean the only way for Ethiopia to get out of the current mess it is in is only through only a democratic discourse. I mean there has to be confidence in the population about who’s governing this place, who’s responsible for this place and whether the population has a say on these people who are claiming to represent Ethiopia and who say, “We are the leaders”. Do these people have a mandate? I mean, that’s rather a very important question. So the donors or whoever can dump in a lot of support, unless this is in the right hands with the correct policies, that money would be wasted. This country is characterized by its wastage of funds. You know, we don’t have a problem of raising donors’ support in this country, but the problem is the donor support is wasted. And these elements which are on top of power who are wasting all these resources by their erroneous policies of various kinds can not take this country out of its current mess it’s in. After all all the donors want something for this country: elections and poverty reduction, improving the livelihood of this country, doing away with famine and starvation. All of these are interlinked, and I think the key element is proper elections, internationally monitored and that fulfils internationally criteria should be the prerequisite.

You are saying that the elections should be internationally monitored, can you elaborate on that? Are you envisaging a part to be played by the donors and international organizations in the elections?

Yes, that’s right. I mean there’s no pretence. I think the ruling party and the government has been getting away with all sorts of mystified utterances and positions. Like they say, “Oh, to invite some international observers and monitors would be impinging on the sovereignty of the country. This is an internal affair, and so on.” The outcome of that has be garbage. It’s rubbish. If elections in Zimbabwe, Mozambique or any part of the world are monitored or observed by international organizations and groups of people, why are not they in Ethiopia? We in the opposition say that we don’t trust these guys, we want some independent elements to observe the elections. What is the problem with the EPRDF? They have been resisting this. They must have something to hide. They want to cheat. They want to engage in all sorts of illegal practices. That may be the reason. We’re not afraid whoever wants to observe and watch as long as it does not cost this country because you can always raise support for this purpose. And this is a confidence-building measure, which is most important. We don’t want to complain later about the malpractices during the election. So we want the confidence-building measure to precede the election because then the outcomes would not be controversial. And avoiding controversy is one condition for us to really build this nation and start being more practical and proactive rather than waste our time in small skirmishes, one trying to tear down what the other has built and all that. And this has been happening to the whole nation. So, well, we need statesmanship in the camp of TPLF/EPRDF. I don’t see why such internationally renowned individuals are simply fixated on this mentality of trying to settle scores.

You said that you are trying to uproot the EPRDF or at least dent its majority hold on power. What’s the magic wand you have to effect this?

I mean the basis is an all-inclusive, free and fair elections.

And after that?

We have no question in our mind that at best the EPRDF would be a minority parliament. You know, we are the minority now in parliament. I think the role they would have in that parliament is a minority role if they played fair. Well, I’m not totally such an irrational person to claim that they will come out with a zero gain. Well, definitely, the best performance they can have is a minority in that parliament. So our only concern is: let’s play the game right. Let’s put all our political agenda, programs and what have you to the people freely and independently, and let the people decide.

Some people may tell you that by including people have partook in the mass murders of the 1970s, you are in a way undermining your own influence. Do you think the same?

No. Well, I don’t know who our accusers are. As far as we know, TPLF/EPRDF is extensively using even members of the Workers’ Party of Ethiopia (WPE) currently. I mean the majority of their high-ranking experts and what have you have that kind of background. So I don’t know why this is an issue. And I thought that has been settled after the constitution. Ok, that phase is settled, whoever is accused of any crime I think is behind bars. There are others still at large. So I don’t know why whoever is making that kind of statement wants to pull us into a totally irrelevant past.

Do you mean that the past is irrelevant in the sense that it will not impinge on the present?

No, no, no. What I mean is that as far as characterizing some of these guys or individuals or groups that may have caused a lot of damage and suffering to the Ethiopian population is concerned, the Federal Government or the EPRDF had been recruiting all sorts of people of that sort even within its own party. So it’s in that sense I’m saying that some of that history as far as what they are doing is concerned is really shelved. And I don’t know why we should be accused of that. Or even if some parties have dared to take up arms and fight the previous government and, in that process cause damage to the people, I think TPLF is no exception. So we’re not saying anything about their past either, Ok. Currently what we feel is the most relevant thing to use as a yardstick is: are all parties willing to peacefully and democratically engage to bring about change in Ethiopia? That’s it. Beyond that, I don’t think anybody has any right to pass any judgment and close doors when on some undesirable elements and picking the desirable ones. Who has the right? I mean most of these parties should be allowed to present their case in front of the Ethiopian population and get elected on that basis.

As a parliamentarian, do you feel elated to be a member of the present parliament?

Well, I mean my being in that parliament has a historical significance. We have achieved something which many thought is unachievable, and so we feel this is a hardly won, very dear to heart kind of achievement because it did involve a lot of sacrifices. It’s not something which EPRDF simply by some kind of machination just opened the door and some of us walked into the parliament. No, we had to sweat and our supporters have been sacrificed along the way. People who campaigned for me have been shot and killed. These are also my immediate family members. So I think this is rather a hardly won, rather a dear-to-heart achievement. And hence it’s important on that right.

And when it comes to what can I do in the parliament by sitting there, I can just speak for the record, be the conscience of the Ethiopian population. I can make statements that an ordinary citizen cannot make. So that’s the only advantage. I just speak for the record. We know, as a minority, we don’t have the votes. So EPRDF would keep on rubber stamping the things. But we register our objections and that’s going to be history.

Does the parliament deserve its name? Can we call it a parliament, democratically elected?

No, the parliament is not democratically elected. Some of us opposition members are just there as fighters. It’s a struggle. You know, tens of our supporters and militants have been losing their lives along the way. We went there as fighters and still remained to be fighters in that process of democratization. So it has this rather important implication and role, being the symbol of that in Ethiopia, a ruling group as mighty as EPRDF can be challenged by a determined group and can be defeated. That is symbolically very important, and that’s the reason, in fact that is the strongest card we played, to bring all these 15 parties together. You see, until then there was no practical example to prove that EPRDF can be defeated on the basis of its own laws, on the basis of its own terms. There was no proof. Now we said, “Look, we are the living witness. If we dare to struggle, willing to accept some level of sacrifices, we can win.” And that was the reason why we could really bring all these 15 parties together.

What do you think of EPRDF’s repeated moves to sideline the parliament, which is a representation of the whole population, and its recently found love for participatory democracy?

Well, the EPRDF has been playing with the parliamentary rules, rules of procedures even in the parliament. You see, all of this is a game. They just want to make sure nothing departs from what they think is the way to go. They don’t want to take any chances. I mean, an open minded, democratic movement should be open for some eventualities that you don’t really preconceive or somehow engineer so that it does not go out of hand. That’s what they call a democratic discourse. It’s a debate. A group with the most persuasive group or party wins.

You can only go into a meeting to explore, to debate just open-mindedly and not after finishing everything cut and dry and to play a game. At least during the earlier two years there was some kind of democracy. A ministry or whatever comes and reports to the parliament, to the full session and then the parliamentarians can simply raise questions, comments, critique, what have you impromptu. Ok, now EPRDF thought that that is unmanageable, too open, and so on. So now, what did they do? They just changed the rules and said, “Those reports can only be submitted to the standing committees,” committees of ten or eleven individuals, which are literally EPRDF guys. We are only in two committees. Otherwise, it’s the majority who are overwhelmingly EPRDF. And then after that committee looked at it and it will bring it to the House and say, “We have accepted the report of such and such ministry.” And then, that’s it. And when draft proclamations come, these are also referred to those ten or eleven member committees and then they do the same. And then that’s the end of it.

So they have frustrated a free, democratic discussion and debate in that House by manipulating the rules of procedures of the parliament itself. And then they have this kind of democracy which they call meeting the people. The parliament is here, they always engage in these months and weeks long town house kind of discussions where they talk about policies and whatever for hours on end. And people talk and talk and talk and talk. But by the end of the day, they literally pick nothing. I mean a lot of professionals, a lot of people may have been suggesting lots of things. But these guys simply speak, there’s no guarantee that the author of that discussion document, which is EPRDF, will pick any of those comments and remarks. There’s no procedure. I mean, this is just a town house discussion, everybody talks and goes home. If it was in parliament, then you can say, “Well, on this and other pages there were recommendations, you did not insert them. How come?” You see. Then that’s the kind of forum, parliament, where scrutiny, follow-up and then instructing the administrative wing would be sort of a feasible possibility.

But they don’t want to use that kind of forum, and they say, “Oh, we’re meeting the people.” That’s their “democracy” in a nutshell. So these are some of the unfortunate mechanisms that EPRDF is using to bypass the parliament as a decision-making body. So this really a reflection of the undemocratic contempt of TPLF/EPRDF, and that’s why unless their monopoly need to be at least diluted, if it can not be uprooted. Then they will start negotiating.