By Getachew Melkie
The debate over the issue of dialogue and outrage caught my attention so much so that I decided to contribute one of my own. I disagree with Dr Messay, but I do so with all due respect. All the individuals who contributed to the debate are thoughtful and have taken their time to share their views and concerns with the internet audience. They deserve respect and nothing else. But I am certainly disappointed with Drs. Messay and Maimire Mennasemay for not expressing outrage against Ato Hailu and his unreasonable friends.
The two gentlemen should be the last ones to show indifference to the cause of justice and freedom. It is not about the person, Ato Hailu, per se. It is about his actions that wrecked the organization for which many paid the ultimate sacrifices with their lives.
How is it possible to be a neutral arbiter in the face of glaring facts pointing in the direction of Ato Hailu as the person responsible for the current stalemate within Kinjit?
Dr Messay’s plea for dialogue would make sense if repeated attempts were not made to resolve the issue peacefully and amicably. But his argument that he lacked “enough information to make any categorical judgment,” is rather disingenuous. Ato Fekade, in his latest response (posted on Jan 8), has articulated with eloquence, clarity, and precision the cultural underpinnings and norms that govern our decisions, actions, motivations, and behaviors as Ethiopians. I couldn’t agree more with Ato Fekade, provided that I understood him correctly. However, I like to add a few facts here.
Dr Messay ignores the fact that many people, including the delegation headed by Birtukan, have tried to resolve the impasse between the two groups.
• Wizt. Birtukan Medeksa, at a public forum in Boston, made an impassioned appeal to Ato Hailu to lead the delegation as chairman of Kinjit.
• Again, Birtukan and two other members of the delegation went to his hospital bed in Minnesota, wished him speedy recovery, and extended an olive branch to resolve the problems that engulfed the organization. It did not stop there.
• The delegation headed by Wizt. Birtukan made every effort to mend differences until the time of their departure for Ethiopia. That wasn’t the last attempt either.
• Dr Yacob Hailemariam was authorized to continue the effort to resolve the disputes between the two groups. In a recent interview, Dr. Yacob expressed his frustration about the intransigence of Ato Hailu and Co.
There are many examples to cite how the other side, not only through intermediaries but also directly, attempted to persuade Ato Hailu to come to his senses. Even to arrange a meeting with Ato Hailu has been a daunting task. According to people I talked to, Emperor Haile-Sellassie would not have been that difficult to access. By the way, how did I come to know about all theses efforts? I don’t have a special communication line. I use the same public media that is available to every one including Dr. Messay. Of course, I also make the extra effort to get accurate information from both sides. I am not and have never been a member of any support committees of Kinjit, and for this reason I am not suffering from partisan diatribe. But I cast the issue in terms of justice and injustice. I ask myself, given the information I have, where do I stand? Who is right or wrong? Am I on the side of justice or injustice? Is it morally acceptable to stand on the sideline and say “it is their problem?” Taking a stand on the issue does not necessarily preclude support for engaging in dialogue. In fact, knowing the facts will enhance our ability to apply more pressures at the group that is found to be culpable in the public eyes.
So, my question is what else can be done other than expressing outrage? Dr. Messay argued that there is nothing to be gained from outrage other than “solidifying the split.” But I ask, what is there to be gained by prostrating in front of a stubborn man? Outrage is an expression of our inner feelings against injustice. A leader who has the interest of his people at heart would reconsider his position in response to the overtly expressed outrage of the people. We are not showing our outrage. In fact we are trying to appease and please him. I believe that is absolutely wrong.
Does any one other than the core group of his inner circle know what exactly Ato Hailu wants? Does he have ideological or political differences? If so why can’t he tell us? By the way, Dr Messay made a factual error in what he said about EPRP and Meison. They have never been one party. They were two distinct parties, but I agree that they both claimed to have espoused Marxist ideology. Now coming back to the issue of Ato Hailu, what really does he want? Dr Messay seems to have a clue about the problem within Kinijit. He writes: From Haile Shawl’s declarations and the complaints of his supporters one gets the clear idea that the main problem emanates from the fact that his party, although otherwise the core organization in the alliance both in terms of popular mobilization and material assets, was yet overshadowed by individuals representing far less important organizations. This core organization especially attributes the victory of the May 2005 election to its mobilization of rural population to the great dismay of the ruling party which had wrongly counted on peasant support to retain its absolute majority.
For the moment let me accept the above assertion for the sake of discussion. If, indeed, the source of the problem is what is quoted above, then why doesn’t he come out in the open and say it so? This would have been a good case to make if that is the real problem. Why would he refuse to meet with the KIL group? Why would he refuse to attend the public forum in Crystal City where thousands of people were eagerly awaiting his arrival? Why didn’t he go to the meeting as the leader of the delegation and chairman of Kinjit and make his case in front of that large gathering? What have the people done to deserve his contempt? If he felt that the other group was trying to undermine his authority, why didn’t he assert his leadership by appearing at the public forums organized by Kinjit support committees throughout United Sates? Why would he surrender his responsibilities as chairman of the organizations without a fight from within? Million more questions can be asked, but I don’t think Ato Hailu would come up with plausible explanations. Besides, he is debilitated by disease, a frequent excuse for his unpredictable disposition, and he should have resigned as chairman of the party.
Now let me turn to the unsubstantiated claim that his party played a pivotal role in the 2005 election. So what? Is that a good and logical reason to destroy the organization now? First of all, the people voted for Kinjit as one entity and not for individual parties. There is no way to know how the people would have voted had Kinjit not been created. The creation of Kinjit created the synergy that allowed effective mobilization of the Ethiopian people in the entire country. It is unlikely that AEUP could have done the job alone. The Ethiopian people including those of us in the Diaspora were demanding united action instead of going it alone. I remember that “ተባበሩ ወይም ተሰባበሩ”, roughly translated as “unite or breakup”, was the motto. In the Washington area, where I resided for a long time, AEUP, in five or so years, never managed to get the support of even one-tenth of what Kinjit did in less than six months. Of course, I arrived at this conclusion based on my own estimation and not based on any statistics. I don’t think the situation was any different in Ethiopia. To attribute “the victory of the May 2005 election to [AEUP’s] mobilization of rural population” is, in my judgment, pure sophistry and an attempt to mask the real problem that besets the organization.
I am, by no means, trying to belittle AEUP’s contributions to the mobilization effort. In fact, I have heard that Ato Hailu had traveled several times to the rural areas to educate and mobilize the rural community in the Amhara region. I certainly commend him for that. However, the mystery to me is that why would he now resort to a strategy that is likely to destroy the very organization that he labored hard to build? If he strongly feels that his former organization is marginalized, and he thinks that it deserves a prominent role within Kinjit, why doesn’t he fight for it without breaking Kinjit? Do all the members of former AEUP feel the same way as he does? My information is that the vast majority of former AEUP members are against him.
Moreover, why would Ato Hailu care so much about his group if his declared goal is to create a democratic order in Ethiopia based on the principle of one person one vote? Doesn’t he subscribe to the idea of creating a democratic Ethiopia where the equality of all the people is guaranteed? Does he have misgivings or a second thought about creating a system where individual freedom, justice, equality, the rule of law, and the respect for human rights are guaranteed? I need the answers from him, but I am sure I never will. But I know one thing for sure; the Ethiopian people will never tolerate a system of inequalities. That is why they are fighting the current regime and they will continue to do so against any future regime that promotes inequalities in any shape or form. Unlike AEUP, which is predominantly a party of one ethnic, Kinjit is a national party, and members of other ethnic groups are represented in the top leadership of the party; that is how it ought to be, and should continue to be that way in the future. If Ato Hailu and his cohorts are unhappy about it, so be it. The Ethiopian people will continue the struggle with or without them. But, I would add that if he is fighting for the dominance of his group in the future political establishment, we might as well start fighting back now by engaging in a public debate in a civilized, reasoned, and logical manner. If we don’t, our struggle against EPRDF would be morally unacceptable. I am not, however, convinced that Mr. Hailu is adamantly concerned about AEUP.
My hunch is that the collusion between the two groups emanated perhaps from mistrusting each other and from having conflicting misperceptions about each other’s motives; otherwise genuine differences could have been resolved amicably through dialogue. Nevertheless, Ato Hailu Shawl’s intransigence demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the wrong man was charged with the daunting task of leading the democratic struggle. One of the characteristic traits of great leaders is the ability to maintain party unity and integrity under the most extraordinarily difficult circumstances; on the contrary, Ato Hailu created the problem and undermined his own organization; he never uttered differences of a substantive nature other than regurgitating and prating absurdities with the greatest seriousness. His sycophant and egotistic collaborators blinded with a primitive drive for future power exasperated the problem making it difficult for reconsideration and reconciliation. A leader with courage and vision would rise above the fray and manage the conflict in a manner that would allow the integrity and continuity of the organization he is leading. Ideas bent on destroying the organization should not have been allowed to float let alone accepted. On this count, too, Ato Hailu has failed terribly. Imagine what could have happened to the country if a stubborn Hailu assisted by selfish fawners had taken the helm of state power? Even today the trend of the dispute is scary. Recently I heard, as Fekade also noted, that a group of youngsters from the Hailu camp were bullying and shoving Dr Hailu Araya and other Kinjit executive members outside the office that rightfully belongs to Kinjit. If Dr. Hailu and friends had made the wrong move or put the slightest resistance, it was possible that the confrontation would have turned violent. The executive members of Kinjit made a wise decision to leave the area, but there is no reason to believe that the internecine fighting we witnessed in the 1970s will not be repeated this time again. I am concerned that the situation does not bode well for the future of our country. It is, therefore, imperative that we express outrage not appeasement.
____________________
The writer can be reached at [email protected]