Insecure State

By: Behailu Shiferaw

Sometimes things stir you up to write even when you need to forget everything as if it never happened. Like hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Christians in Addis Abeba, I was one of the humble spectators of the Demera ritual held annually at Meskal Square to commemorate the Founding of The True Cross.

 

Let me say, at the cost of being prohibited to enjoy it next year, I enjoyed the ceremony at the comfort of my office’s building which is high enough for my eyes to frame almost everything that went on there. And at times, I used my video camera to zoom in whatever I wanted until day became night.

 

Generally speaking the ritual was good and well organized. It was plain that there was some ‘support’ from trained state security people. Though I cannot pass without mentioning the local, cultural color that was lost in the event, and not comparing it with that of the previous years’, the fireworks has made it up to people who endured the cold breeze for as long as about three hours. It was technically good.

 

The driving force of this piece of writing is that I just could not understand the fear either the pope himself or his (government) security people developed over the past few years. It is just that I do not quite understand what he has to run away from? It is just that I could not understand what is that he has different to those of other religious leaders in the country that puts him at an increased risk? This, I believe is self-stigmatization. This pretty much shows his own understanding of his place in the hearts of the society.

 

Were we lucky, even the political leaders should not be running away from us. But for a religious father, whom thousands of people were waiting to get his blessing and healing words, to show up with a series of security cars beefed up in front of and behind him, does not make any sense.

 

A flock of cars stretchered him to his seat, he said a very long teaching and prayers which kept the people waiting as late as 7 o’clock to see the fire and fireworks glittering. There was a time when I heard the people booing him they way they did to a despised football player in the stadium.

 

The pope walked down and entered his car to lit up the Demera and as he approached the Meskal Square road, the security strategies took over. They started the fireworks and the sky went crazy with the scene driving the attention away from the insecure ‘religious person’ onto the sparkling pieces of light in the air. A minute later, when the people looked down from the fireworks, the Demera was already lit up and the pope was leaving the area in his car. He was a Bush-in-Iran.

 

I wonder if he really enjoyed the ceremony. For the government, it was merely an event like international soccer game where there is an official who calls for tighter security.

 

Ethiopia’s peace and security is not kept by the strength of the security officials the government farms out everyday but by the gentleness of its people. Of course Addis Ababa is one of the world’s capitals where a lot of police force is exhibited to the people everyday, God knows why. Mind you, I did not say that the government is trying to show off its arm should the people need to have any riot. No, I did not say that.

 

But for the pope, beyond his own personal insecurity and self-understanding, there is something called faith that the post requires of him and which he should have manifested at least in such public events. I barely know any Orthodox Christian who is proud of having him as a religious father and on that occasion I saw that it was pretty much why.

 

Here though, I am not ignorant of the fact that lack of ‘qualified’ leader is not a problem for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church only, it is just that they are less obvious.

 

See him next year at Meskal Square, if the name of the square continues to be so and if the ritual continues to exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RED MISTAKE

Review: By Olurotimi Akanbi

If Theodros Teshome’s Red Mistake has anything on its side, it has time. In the recent trial and conviction of former Dergue members, only three weeks ago, Red Mistake acts as a reminder of that bloody period and the countless lives that were lost.

 

The film begins with a very detailed prologue on the historical-political background of the film, concerning the ruling Dergue Party and the Ethiopian People Revolutionary Part (EPRP). In fact, it may be one of the most extensive prologues in film history. This gives way to archival footage of Dergue members in a public rally. This footage is effective in connecting the historical reality with the fictional story that follows.

 

The film begins with a bang as director, Theodros, does not waste any time in depicting the violent atmosphere under the Dergue’s reign. Incidents, such as an EPRP supporter cutting the throats of Dergue soldiers as well as a powerful scene where a Dergue solider shoots and kills young men who are supporting EPRP, only to discover one boy is his own son, are rapidly shown.

 

Theodros creates the world by illustrating several incidents that demonstrate the violent, turbulent country. The film then takes us inside a Dergue meeting led by Dergue member Legesse (Fikadu T. Mariam). Legesse privately meets with his brother after the meeting and instructs him to keep watch and enforce the Dergue’s control in town.

 

We are then introduced to Tamiru (played by Theodros) as a young man with a wife and baby boy. His wife is worried over the continuous violence as they hear gunshots outside their home, but eventually rests her assurance in Tamiru. Tamiru’s brother is a fierce supporter of EPRP with lines such as, “My death will help my cause.”  It is while Tamiru is attempting to persuade his brother of the danger that exists that they are both arrested by the Dergue military.

 

The films then jumps seven years forward where we find Tamiru in Bonga raising his son, Bisrat, alone. Tamiru is extremely protective of Bisrat (who is played very well by the young actor) as he has acquired the name ‘Bisrat’s mom.’ When Bisrat injures his foot, his father rushes him to the town hospital as if Bisrat was dying, rushing pass other waiting patients. The woman, who is simply referred to as the Doctor, befriends Tamiru and their friendship heads toward romance until Tamiru relates to her the events that occurred in Jimma; these same events would return to threaten both Tamriu and the thing he loves most: his son.

 

The dark subject of the film does have humour. In fact, Theodros creates an almost stark contrast between the world of Jimma and Bonga. Jimma is a place where horrible things have happened. The true darkness of the film is felt while in Jimma. When the film moves to Bonga so does its mood. The story becomes lighter and Theodros is not afraid to employ comical moments and character such as Shimeles (Shewaferaw Desalegn) in an otherwise sombre story. Shimeles (the English spelling closely resembles the word shameless, which is an accurate description of him) is the town clown whose attraction to the Doctor brings several amusing scenes.

 

But the story as a whole is about Tamiru, his son and the backdrop of the Dergue regime. Typically films that attempt to deal with historical periods tend to treat history superficially or oversimplify the events. The Red Mistake, in ways, avoids this by showing sympathetic Dergue soldiers who do not simply follow commands, but do what they feel is right. We do not have a simple black and white, good versus evil story. And Theodros does not pull any punches or hold back in any way in depicting the brutality and violence of the Dergue’s power.

 

Yet the historical period in Ethiopia had a widespread affect on the entire country and the Red Mistake begins with this type of wide-scope, vast storytelling, but when the story moves to Bonga that scope is lost and the film focuses solely on Tamiru’s story. And the world created by Theodros in the opening moments does not carry through to the rest of the film.

 

While the Red Mistake does hold the attention of the viewers, the story does not sustain the power it began with, because the scope becomes limited to Tamiru and that multi-layered, epic narrative in the beginning becomes a simple, straight forward story. It is only because the historical reality had such vast effects, on the entire population, that a film depicting that period can only represent that reality by being as vast and wide in its own perspective.

Source: Fortune

YEWONDOCH GUDAY

The latest movie craze seems to be focusing on the romantic comedy, Yewondoch Guday. Directed by Henok Ayele and produced by Arkey Sera Productions, the movie has received large viewing audiences in all the cinemas that it has been playing at since its opening on February 17, 2007.

 

Starring Admassu Kebede as Aimro, and Rekik Teshome as Helina, the title characters in the film, the movie focuses on a young carpenter who has his heart broken by his long time girlfriend and decides that there are no women in town that are worth his love and respect.

 

At the beginning of the film, Aimro is sent a wedding invitation for the marriage of the girl that he has been seeing for some time. When he asks that they meet up for some sort of an explanation, she shows up with her latest fiancé, and explains to him that she is not marrying the new man because she does not love Aimro, but rather, he as a carpenter cannot give her the life that she had hoped for and wanted.

 

Her latest catch is an Ethiopian in the Diaspora who has apparently made a fortune for himself abroad and is determined to give her that life that many local girls covet so badly. This is the major underlying theme for the movie, young women who would go to whatever extremes to find men that are living abroad or men that have money.

 

Aimro, heartbroken and sick with envy is bedridden with his overwhelming emotions, when his co-workers, who are also his best friends, decide to form a group called Yewondowch Guday (literally men’s business) in order to avenge all the men that have been done wrong by women who chose rich successful men that they did not love. The group decides that women are just supposed to be used and abused because there really is nothing worthy about them.

 

With the group going strong, Aimro and his five friends played by Tewdros Seyoum as his namesake, Elizabeth (Mandela) Getachew as Ketcho (literally skinny), Mesfin Haileyesus as Mesfin, and Serihum Asmamaw as his namesake; standing by his side, Aimro gets up enough courage to go to the dreaded wedding.

 

The comedic elements in the movie are very well manifested in the wedding sequence, where all but Aimro were crashing and had to come up with clever and amusing ways to get into the invitation only event. The lengths that the young men and not so small woman would go to, to stand by their friend in that, his time of need, was past the point of endearing to almost being a tear-jerker. Had it not been a romantic comedy, this is probably one of the scenes in the movie that would have had the ladies in the cinema pulling out their tissues and subtly wiping their eyes.

 

It was at this wedding that Aimro met and caught an interest in Helina, the main female character in the plot. Watching his girlfriend getting married coupled all the pain that he was feeling at the time, and his latest membership in his new group caused him to lie to Helina, claiming that he was from the US and had come to Addis to do research on different kinds of wood in the country. This is another one of the comedic twists in the movie.

 

Helina’s best friend, confidant and advisor, Martha, played by Shewit Kebede, is eager for her friend to get involved with Aimro thinking that he is well off and would be able to take care of her. Martha’s character development and the calibre of the acting by Shewit are spectacular. The manner in which the she manifests the gold digging personality is so believable that you just want to jump into the screen and choke her.

 

As hard as she pushes for the relationship, it was Martha that accidentally found out about the real Amiro and what his intentions were. Up to that point, he had been taking Helina to nice places, by borrowing from the group, or winning the monthly pot locally known as an Ekub.

 

Once his secret has been found out, the two female friends decide that it is best if they were to play the same cruel game on Amiro that he played on them. So, Helina begins to act like the spoiled brat, she destroys public property that he is forced to pay for, but throughout all her actions, she gives him opportunity after opportunity to reveal to her the truth that he is hiding. He of course never takes those outs.

 

The affection that grows between the two is more than obvious, but both are constrained by the secrets that they are forced to keep. When the situation finally comes to a head, with the very forceful influence of Martha, of course, they are separated and Helina, feeling the victim, refuses any sort of contact with Aimro.

 

But as is the case with most romantic comedies, there is the happy ending that you hope for as you sit and watch the movie. Aimro finally gets the opportunity to explain the reasons why he was acting the way that he was, and managed to convince a very passionate Helina that she just could not live without him. The rest is for your viewing pleasure.

 

The script is very well written, using common and natural language and making the characters extremely believable. The conversations are fast, funny and honest, with the cast playing their individual roles well. For a moviegoer that is familiar with the average blue collared Ethiopian crowd, there is authenticity in the manner of speaking and the phrases that are used. The conversations are not forces, and the cast seemed to have what appeared to be a natural chemistry on screen.

 

Although there are many positive attributes to this film, the lighting and the sound were wanting in some respects. Many of the scenes are set in the wood workshop where the infamous six work, and they wear coveralls that are the same shade as the wood and the background. The glare of the lighting is clearly seen in these scenes, only lessened by the conversations that take place.

 

The issue of sound is also one that needs to be mentioned here, during the viewings done by Fortune, there were some instances when entire sentences of the film could not be heard because of the poor nature of sound recording. There were some sounds that were muffled and blurred for what appeared to be the same reasons.

 

Overall the humour in the film makes it worthy of a repeat, which may be something that you would have to do soon because the movie is going to be in theatres until the upcoming Ethiopian Millennium.

Source: Fortune

Consequences of Bipolar Attitudes to the Ethiopian Democratization Process

By: Behailu Shiferaw

Faculty of Journalism and Communication

Addis Ababa University

June, 2008

 

Chapter One

Ethiopian politics has long been characterized by the bipolar attitudes. It has always had the dichotomy of them and us. Whoever needs to stand in judgment of others, crafts two tubes or boxes and pours/staffs whoever he needs into either of the two. For the ones who are bipolar in thinking, there is no grey between the Black and White.

Although it is a topic which seems to have the least literature on, at least at local level, the writer believes living in Ethiopia, where bipolarity contributes a large part to the complications Ethiopian democratization has faced, is literature enough. The country’s politics, since as far back as we remember, has been haunted by this ideology. Regional lords and loyals around the court had to either support the king in all aspects or oppose in all aspects and be put behind the bars for treason.

Due to lack of sufficient literature, the area has not been researched to the required level, if it has been researched at all. But one believes that literature begins with writing, otherwise the topic might never be written about.

Above all, since there is no literature on the issue of consequences of bipolarity in Ethiopian democratization process, this paper will be used as stepping stone for future researchers who need to look into the matter in better depth. This paper gives a perspective to those who need to research the area of bipolarity and its adverse consequences in the Ethiopian context.

This paper strives to see how bipolar attitudes disadvantaged Ethiopian democratization process. Furthermore, it aims to stir up other students to research the area in better depth. This thesis will also be used as a stepping stone for the MA thesis the writer contemplates to work on.

Ethiopia has paid as a result of bipolar attitudes which seem to have been the fabric of what the whole nation is made of. This attitude has stopped Ethiopia from using the talents of her children since it made the nation resistant to irreplaceable technological advancements. 

Chapter Two

2 Discussions

2.1 Intellectuals 

We remember the way Kentiba(Mayor) Gebru Desta with experiences from Alexandria, Jerusalem and Switzerland was treated during Minilik’s reign. We have seen Hakim Worqneh Eshete facing similar fate after he tried to introduce his experiences and modernizing thoughts he had gathered from India, Scotland and Burma. Though short lived Negadras Gebrehiwot Baykedagn also faced the same tragic trends from the Minilik’s regime be it directly from the emperor himself or from the queen. Once we raise the issue of the impact of Empress Taytu, it is not a distant history that the Emperor did have to send such scholars as Afeworq Gebre’eyesus, Lij Gugsa Darge and Lij Qitaw Zeamanuel to Switzerland simply to remove them from the fury of the empress. These scholars later on became traitors with the Italians during the battle of Adwa were thus blamed for being traitors and one of them was charged with treason.

Sometimes it is as if Ethiopia is supposed to be hell for citizens with differing attitudes. Even Hailesillasie, who was believed to be a big instrument of change, and hence was recommended for the position of heir by the likes of Gebrehiwot Baykedagn and his fellow Teklehawaryat Teklemaryam, was not one who accepted intellectuals without doubt. There is literature that states Teklehawaryat’s assignment to Chercher as a way of removing him from around the court.  By the way, here, we must give credit to Hailesilassie I for forgiving Afeworq after taking power even though he was again found collaborating with the fascist and was charged with treason after the emperor’s homecoming.

Mengistu Hailemariam kept on with the tradition murdering many scholars and his own generals who recommended fairly democratic ways of leading a country. Here the incident of 1974 constitution which writer Donald Levine mentions as one of the five missed opportunities for Ethiopia could be an example. But adding injury to the wound, and to the disgust of many who eyed revolutionary change in Ethiopia after the fall of the Derg regime, EPRDF fired 40 university professors for not being ready to work with it claiming, though not explicitly, that they were perpetrators of the university protests against the then new government.

Ethiopians have been all over the world since a long time and some of them came back with different experiences which they believed would transform their country. But they were not welcomed, if not considered enemies. Even today’s foreign educated Ethiopians, like the first generation intellectuals of Ethiopia, were jailed for their opposing ideas, few losing their lives from complications they developed while in prison. Professor Asrat Woldeyes – veteran surgeon, who pioneered medical education in his country as former dean of faculty of medicine at the Addis Ababa University (AAU), and president of AAPO (Prisoner of Conscience since 1992 until severe health complications that led him to death) could be cited as examples.  Just to mention few recent highly educated Prisoners of Conscience who suffered in the prisons the incumbent regime include:

• Professor Asrat Woldeyes – veteran surgeon, former dean of faculty of medicine at the Addis Ababa University (AAU), and president of AAPO
• Professor Alemayehu Teffera - civil engineering professor, president of Addis Ababa University (AAU), dean of faculty of technology & UNESCO board member
• Dr. Taye W/Semayat - assistant political science professor at AAU, president of Ethiopian Teachers Association
• Dr. Mohammed Abdu Tuko – assistant electrical engineering professor at AAU, member of Islamic council
• Professor Mesfin Woldemariam a peace activist, founding member of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council (EHRC), and later founder of Rainbow Ethiopia: Movement for Democracy and Social Justice.
• Dr. Berhanu Nega, President of the Ethiopian Economic Association, head of the Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute, consultant for United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), founder of the Rainbow Ethiopia: Movement for Democracy and Social Justice etc.

A university journalism instructor believes that bipolarity “results in resistance to even important technologies and people from which the nation would benefit. The bipolarity of leaders in seeing the likes of Engineer Kitaw Ejigu as a totally opposing and hence unnecessary citizens have cost Ethiopia what the nation would have gained from their expertise. The Ethiopian elites never forget the way the Prime Minister addressed the case of intellectuals in Diaspora saying, “Homecoming of a nuclear/space scientist is wastage.”  Indeed, there were many who considered this address as one that is directed to Dr. Eng. Kitaw.

All these showcase a certain mentality that has prevailed in the country for as long as the country itself.

2.2 Information communications

Communications history of the country also provides for the prevalence of this closed mentality. Even up to date, free flow of information has remained dream. While the regime of Minilik II could not have done any better than Aémro, with the little technological advancements available at the moment, Hailesilassie I could have done a lot better than just starting regular dailies. In most cases, although scholars like Hakim Worqineh Eshete and a certain lady, hopefully W/ro Sinidu who later became directress of Menen Girls’ School, wrote their opinions opposing the government wrongdoings and teaching-learning process at times, most publications did not enjoy the freedom of expression. However that could not be taken as a very bad matter provided the fact that the freedom of expression has not been entertained even at international level by then. Note that the UN Declaration of Human Rights came into being only in 1948.

And during the reign of Mengistu Hailemariam, though the freedom of expression was one of the questions of the various movements prevailing at the moment, the administration chose to enact censorship which was a backward slip to the Ethiopian media industry.

And the incumbent regime, which lifted the censorship upon taking over the country, has not, though there are relatively great strides taken, proved efficient in handling the case. Though it is constitutionally granted that there is freedom to have and impart information free of fear, there is yet no sign of readiness from the government to let go of the media.

Most of the newspapers have been banned and put out of market in different instances. And the various multimedia channels which resorted to internet communications to escape the government stick have been banned from entering the country. Websites and blogs, which are mentioned in appendix 1, could not be accessed from Ethiopia because the government stopped them from being viewed from Ethiopia.

All the above examples show very limited readiness from across the administrators to allow opposing ideas. We have not witnessed much when winners of elections and losers work together for the good of the country. They merely attack each other with languages that create public disbelief and less cooperation with executives. And it is pretty clear that executives with out public cooperation and trust would not do much alone.

2.3 Media Industry

Bipolarity, for an interviewee, editor in chief of a magazine, results from the culture of appreciating or attacking parties or their leaders rather than the things they do. He says, “If we appreciate specific actions, policies or strategies, and not the doer or the drafter of the strategies, then we criticize and appreciate actions or processes regardless of who actually is involved in them. That makes us support and criticize a certain thing depending on evidences and not mere hatred or emotion or our prior view of the individual party or person.” He continues, “In Ethiopian politics, the government is always right. The public (state) media were hailing the ruling party for its consistency just days before the party itself admitted decadence and splitting rooted with in the party.”

A working journalist and student of Faculty of Journalism and Communications, asked for his opinion about bipolar attitude, said, “I think that the existence of bipolarity thinking in the country makes the room for working together narrow and challenging. Let me put this with an example: If you take journalists, as professionals they must be free from partisan thinking. But the bipolarity thinking forces them to stand with the government or with the oppositions’ side. There is no room to go away from the two sides. If one journalist working in government media hesitates to show sympathy for the government he/she is immediately labeled as supporter of the opposition group. The vice versa holds true around the private press.”

This journalist, in deed, has a point to make. The writer remembers time when the general public was not happy to rent house for journalists working in state media. The state media journalists lost friends just because they worked for the government mouthpiece media. People left cafeterias, photo studios, restaurants when the renowned state media journalists Haileraguel Tadesse and Haileeyesus Worqu entered. 

There is also another point which needs to be clear for the media professionals, especially those private media who claim to be freer than their counterparts in public media. For many journalists in the private press, neutrality is not to side with the government. Siding with the opposition and publishing nonsense against the ruling party and the government is neutrality.

The following websites and blogs most of which are blocked in Ethiopia (another example of intolerance for differing ideas) have at times been publishing what is far from truth.

Recent Examples:

• Everyone’s starving’ in Ethiopia, aid worker says
• Woyanne increases military budget by 800% days after US and UK pledge famine relief

Such news arises from the low respect the media have to their audience. While the government has made it public that the defense budget has increased from 3.5 (2000 EC) to 4 billion ETB (2001EC), they have said that it was 800% bigger than that of last years. And while the government and the international donor agencies have made it public that the people who are at risk of starvation are no more than six million, the website said that everybody is starving in the country which is totally hyperbolic and hence unethical.

Leaving the media industry alone, even the public has been a victim of this bipolar attitude. An editor in the Ethiopian radio looks back at the May 2005 election and rues the throwing away of the then mayor Arkebe Ouqbay. The editor says, “He was doing great at the moment of election but his party (EPRDF) was reason enough to be beaten by someone the majority of voters have not heard of at all.”  The interviewee believes that the bipolar attitude the voters developed about ruling party has cost Addis Ababa such a good mayor who could have contributed a great deal.

2.4 Politics

The polarized handling of the case of the opposition did not benefit the country in terms of international image building either. The image of the nation was damaged as such international human rights advocates as the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were propagating the case of the prisoners of conscience even in the recent election that ended up sending 80 members and leaders of the CUD to jail.

“These people are prisoners of conscience, imprisoned solely on account of their non-violent opinions and activities,” said Kolawole Olaniyan, Director of Amnesty International’s Africa Programme before the release of the prisoners. He was also quoted as saying, “It is unacceptable that they are now facing serious criminal charges that could lead to death sentences and possible execution.”

Adding support to the fact that these prisoners were prisoners of conscience, most of these intellectuals were given prior warnings. Dr. Berehanu Nega has written about PM Meles’ warnings before ‘he’ put them in jail. Birihanu said that the PM was “kind enough” to give them choices which almost all prisoners ‘failed’ to take. Berihanu quoted Meles as saying, “There are some feudal ideologies that I have not shaken off me yet. I can not stab people from the back. I tell you what we will do. You have got three choices. One, you respect the constitution and those institutions founded by the constitution. Two, you throw the constitution aside and go out to the jungles and do what we did. Three you leave the country. You cannot fight with one of your legs inside the fence and the other hanging outside.”

Dr. Merera Gudina, Chairperson of Oromo National Congress, MP, and instructor of Political Science at AAU, says, “That polarization disadvantages the nation is not a question. Such polarities create an environment where neither the opposition nor the ruling party listens to the other. You can fight in ideas in as many aspects as possible. But there are times when we need national consensus. Here the government polarizes all opposition parties and those who are not members of its party that there are not enough people to implement its policies effectively.”

 

According to Dr. Merera, the country is not benefiting from its intellectuals to the extent it could have benefited. “The intellectuals,” he says, “are in the ‘buffer zone’. They do not contribute their professional share working with the government in fear of the public stigma and nor do they do anything with the opposition because they will soon suffer the government labeling and reprisal. So they sit with out doing anything. That is the only safe zone in the country.”

 

Here is one interesting point in what the above speaker says; labeling. Every opinion people hold on to is soon interrelated with their race, religion, political affiliation etc. It is as if individuals cannot hold personal opinions.

 

The writer of this paper once wrote:

 

“‘He/she is pushing the agenda of Amharas, Oromos or Tigres and/or Christians or Muslims and/or males or females and/or the youth or the elderly’ etc is a label any opinion leader expects when he ventures to champion any opinion. Where there is not evidence linking them to such labeling locally, they are given names imported from other countries. We remember when a senior government official labeled an opposition party to be advocate of interhamwe a militia group involved during the genocide in Rwanda while in truth one of the leaders of the labeled party was an attorney of the UN against such genocide offenders on international trials.”

Behailu, Public Opinion, Public Opinion Leaders and Grouping in Ethiopia: Special Focus on Ethio-Somalian War and The May 2005 Election

And the 2005 election has added fuel to the fire already left lit by history. David Levine a historian from the University of Chicago and well known for his books, “Greater Ethiopia” and “Wax and Gold” on Ethiopia, also shares this idea. When the Reporter newspaper interviewed him about his recommendations for Ethiopia, he said, “It is important to overcome the polarization that came after the May 2005 elections. I’m trying to find ways that people, both in the government and the opposition, can draw on some aspects of Ethiopian culture and say goodbye to other aspects.”

Levine also goes onto pointing out five opportunities that Ethiopia wasted over the last five decades to bring all stakeholders onboard, i.e. the December 1960 coup d’etal attempt, the 1974 draft constitution that was set aside, 1991 when EPRDF took over power, the 1998 war with Eritrea and the 2005 election.”

After agreeing with Levine, the writer would like to add one more, The Ethiopian Millennium. Both the ruling party and the opposition should have made use of the millennium to bring about national consensus on things they share. The writer does not understand why people who cooperated with the Ethiopian Millennium Festival National Council in planting trees for the two trees for 2000 campaign were considered ruling party members or associates. Why did not the opposition parties endorse the tree planting campaign? What is that the ruling party would benefit out of the tree planting campaign and that the oppositions would lose? So the writer would say the people in politics, especially the opposition side grew increasingly unaware of the difference between country and ruling party. May be the ruling party, too, failed in drawing a line between ruling party and government and that has contributed to the polarization, self-polarization at times, of the opposition.

 

Instead of pulling together of all the stakeholders at least in areas where there is such common goals to be achieved as environmental protection and festive millennium celebration, the government(ruling party) is seen trying to feature the opposition as a group of people having nothing to offer to their country but opposing ideas.

2.5 Religion

Ethiopian politics, and the country at large, does not seem open to changes. Picking the challenges the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (EOC) posed while Emperor Minilik II imported the first car and the first telephone into consideration, many social scientists attribute this stubborn mentality to the influence of the EOC since 4 AD (with some irregularities, of course, as in the era of King Susenyos, somehow during Lij Eyasu, and of course after the downfall of the last emperor).

 

A university instructor, interviewed for this paper, believes it is not safe to be multi-polar in our society. According to him, the religious dogma, ‘do not be critique of your God and His lessons,’ has influenced the overall thinking. He asserts, “I am against bi-polarity, but not every time. In a society where many live by bi-polar perceptions, it is very difficult to be multi-polar.” But his friend, an entertainment journalist at the Ethiopian Radio, says this ideology is, “cumulative result of other social, religious and cultural beliefs. Ethiopians often time tend to live between the two extremes; good or bad, success or failure, black or white, divine or evil. This means, we like or dislike, support or oppose. There is no room for those who need to stay in between. That is our configuration.”

But almost all agree on one point. Polarity, nowadays, is destructing the social and economic integration of the country, especially when we come to ethnic and religious grounds. One student said, “Religious tolerance was one value we have always been proud to have since King Armah accepted the early Muslims who sought asylum in Axum. But look at what happened in Jimma a couple of years ago and you will see where it is going.”

Many interviewees agree with his view. However there are some who claim that we have better religious tolerance now which they say is ‘based on equality and not fear.’

For an information bureau expert from the Amhara information bureau, too, Ethiopian religion contributes a lot to the overall bi-polar thinking.

Bipolar mentality, according to the information expert, is problem for all the learned, educated and the uneducated. He says, “They give a name for a person who thinks differently from the dominant thinking. This is also a mechanism of silencing the people since no one wants to be alienated or discriminated. He believes that critical thinking is not promoted by our culture of submissiveness. Democratization process needs an open mind for discussion and tolerance towards differences in opinion, attitudes, views, thought, comments and criticisms.

Conclusion

There is a high level of polarizing opposition parties from the government. However the opposition parties themselves have contributed by doing self-polarization even when the government (ruling party) showed green light to bring them onboard. The ruling party uses public media as if it is its own. And this gives an impression not only to the parties but to the whole public that Ethiopian government is all about EPRDF. Party membership and not capacity is requisite for government position. And that has created a different layer of citizenship. First class citizens who enjoy all the rights bestowed upon them by the constitution and the second class citizens who are supposed to know their duties better than their rights.

High level of vagueness between ruling party and government has also resulted in low level of corrective measures from the people. Most people, during the election period, used the expression mengistin lemet’al (to topple down the government) than to topple down the party. Misunderstanding from the opposition between ruling party, government and country made them see all in one eye. This has made them contribute less even on areas that benefit the whole country and not only the ruling party in particular.

Recommendation

Government should draw a clear line between party and government. It is also the duty of the government, academic institutions and the opposition parties to help people draw the same line. Opposition should distinguish between the nation and the ruling party so that the population would also know where to cooperate with the government for the good of their own nation.

There should be a grey area between the white and the black. People should be left to their choice. They should be allowed to support and criticize parts of something, and not the wholeness. And intellectuals should also be left free to do whatever they think helps assist the democratization process. The country should give a stop to the either-or relationship between knowledge and political post. As W/ro Solome Tadess, ex-director of Ethiopian Television and Radio Enterprise and spokesperson of the government, said it, mostly people are labeled illiterate only because they work with the government, no matter how literate and able they are.

 

Public Opinion, Public Opinion Leaders and Grouping in Ethiopia: Ethio-Somalian War and Special Focus on the May 2005 Election

Behailu Shiferaw

 

Many may have opinions;

 

But only few can get it across

 

Did Martin Luther King, Jr. create the idea of anti-racial segregation movement in the USA? Did Meles Zenawi create the notion of anti-military dictatorship in Tigray? Did Mengistu Hailemariam create “Land to the Tiller” movement? No, they took it up from the people and gave it a voice, I would argue.

Indeed, Public opinion leaders play a major role in defining popular issues and in influencing individual opinions regarding them. However, they still do not necessarily initiate the ideas. They, even in instances where they initiate their own opinion, need to foist it upon the people, usually by giving it some religious, ethnic etc. color to give it social base, hence making it public and not personal opinion.

There are several instances where some individuals joined movements in a very late stage and eventually became notable figures in them. As Dr. Mohammed explains, opinion leaders are not self-proclaimed leaders; it is the people that make them leaders. They just stand up for some opinion that is held up by a certain population group. And the way they handle the case and their ability to amplify the voice of the people in a convincing manner puts them on top of the mass. Then we call them public opinion leaders.

However there is that wrong perception of public opinion leaders as creators of the opinion; especially among the commoners. In most cases, mature and experienced public opinion leaders hold onto the truth that they are there only to amplify the public voice and they win a lasting trust among their followers. On the other hand, there are some who, after taking a certain opinion and popularizing it, claim to have originated it themselves. During such occasions, the opinion leaders suffer double damage. Firstly, they lose credibility among their supporters. And secondly, smart leaders of opponent opinion take advantage of it and quickly label it as “an individual’s agenda pushed in disguise of the public’s interest.” And such labels brought doom to several public opinions and their leaders in history.

Among the many ways in which people communicate through speech, public speaking—also called oratory— attracts more attention than any other. And public opinion leaders, in most cases, have this quality. We still remember the speech of Martin Luther Kind Jr.’s speech, “I Have a Dream.” We remember the oratory of Adolph Hitler, and how Mussolini’s speech at St. Peter square won him the support of his people in his way to invade Ethiopia.

In dictator regimes opinions are mostly formed around the palace and are injected down to the people because the people do not have enough space to come together and form a common thinking.

Contrarily, by its very nature, the democratic process encourages citizens to form opinions on a number of issues. Voters are called upon to choose candidates in elections, to consider constitutional amendments, and to approve or reject municipal taxes, environmental concerns, foreign policy and other legislative proposals. Almost any matter on which the executive or legislature has to decide may become a public issue if there is a democratic room for that. If we see the time when Ethiopia had to step into the war with Somalia, there was a real raise of opinion especially after the United Islamic Court (UIC) declared war on Ethiopia.  Unluckily the opinion was injected down to the people like the dictator system discussed above.

The Ethio-Somalian war is of dual importance for this paper because it helps us exemplify how both parties strived to win the public support. The UIC, after trying to attack Ethiopia in different other ways, tried to claim religious grounds for its attack on Ethiopia. It is what I referred to above as ‘foisting one’s idea by giving it a religious or ethnic color’.

Thus Sheikh Sharif Ahmed and his followers like Hassan Dahir Aweys claimed publicly that Ethiopia had crossed the border of Somalia and attacked the town of Bur Haqaba which lies on the road from the government base in Baidoa to the Islamist-held capital, Mogadishu. And thus the Sheikh quickly declared the war to be a Jihad- a holly war in which every Muslim should join. Sheikh Sharif also expressed his confidence that saying, “History shows that Somalis always win when they are attacked from outside.”

Here the need to take on Shieck Ahmed’s quote is not about who wins the war but about who is fighting who. The Sheikh deliberately used the word Somalis just to give the war a national patriotic tone. Somalia was already declared to have been represented by a Temporary Federal Government which was then based in Baidowa. So he used the word just to say that they were leaders of Somalia at the moment and any interference made without their go ahead is invasion on Somalia. Here we note how important language usage is in public opinion leadership even in unstable and dictator regimes like the then Somalia.

A short period of Cold War as it looked, an Ethiopian foreign ministry official quickly replied to the claim saying there were “no Ethiopian troops across the border. And the UIC are using Ethiopia as a pretext to hide their motives behind a curtain.”

By then, one argues, even if the war was already imminent, leaders of the two parties were smart enough to try different ways to get the public backing. After the UIC declared the war to be a holy one, the government of Ethiopia had two different but hugely interrelated tasks to do. One was to ‘prepare’ the military for a defense. And secondly, it was to convince the Somalis in Ethiopia and other Ethiopian Muslim that there was not religious ground for the war that would call for a jihad and it was just a mask for other evil will.

The Ethiopian government’s strategy, put in a nut shell, was unveiling them as non-religious groups. One way to do it was that the PM himself used part of the Holy Koran that mentions exemption of Ethiopia from any kind of religious attack by the Islam world in the parliament. By doing so, the PM won the Muslim public support in two ways.

One, by mentioning and clearly explaining the Koran, he presented himself as someone who read their book and made the Muslims feel comfortable under Ethiopia which will anyway recognize their welfare.  The second line distortion was presenting the UIC as group of naïve insurgents who have either not understood or adhered to the orders of The Prophet, hence trespassing His words and declaring holy war on Ethiopia. By then, the Muslim population of Ethiopia took a deep breath because part of the population was already in national and religious dilemma.

The second strategy was using the media extensively to dehumanizing the Islamic Court. Especially, the government media widely propagated the fact that the UIC was getting support from notorious terrorist groups around the world. At some point, the PM himself came out on ETV and mentioned a couple of terrorist groups and citizenships of foreign mercenary terrorists captured during the war. The Muslim fellows, who have always hated being associated with terrorism, found it golden opportunity to prove themselves on the non-terrorist side. Then the government of Ethiopia had the support of both the Muslim and Christian public when marching against the fanatic insurgents.

It was recalled that the PM said, after the war, that Ethiopia entered hostilities because it faced a direct threat to its own borders. He said, “Ethiopian defense forces were forced to enter into war to protect the sovereignty of the nation. We are not trying to set up a government for Somalia, nor do we have an intention to meddle in Somalia’s internal affairs. We have only been forced by the circumstances.”

The example of the Prime Minister of Ethiopia shows us that the opinions held by any population are shaped and manipulated by several factors such as individual circumstances, the mass media, special-interest groups, and opinion leaders. But especially in countries like Ethiopia, where public opinion leaders are also the ones who shape the way the media function, the opinion leaders are the most important factors to deciding what the public opinion should be and what it leads to.

One can say that the war between Ethiopia and Somalia had more of political grounds than religious one. However, it was a war in which both sides recognized the significance of religion as a tool to strengthening public support. Ethiopia and such other African countries like Somalia have come to a sort of politics where everything is categorized in some form or another to a certain group, be it religious, gender, ethnic or age group. Whenever there is a certain public opinion, either the opinion itself or its proponents are quickly categorized into a group the belongingness of which they had probably never felt.

“He/she is pushing the agenda of Amharas, Oromos or Tigres and/or Christians or Muslims and/or males or females and/or the youth or the elderly” etc is a label any opinion leader expects when he ventures to lead any opinion. Where there is not evidence linking them to such labeling locally, they are given names used in other countries. We remember when a senior government official labeled an opposition party to be advocate of inter-hamwey a militia group involved during the genocide in Rwanda while in truth one of the leaders of the labeled party was an attorney of the UN against the Rwanda genocide offenders during the international trial.

Public opinion has, thus, been associated with grouping at least in recent history of Ethiopia.

Essay on the Critical Theories of Group Decision Making

Behailu Shiferaw

Many a time, two kinds of thoughts are observed when it comes to decision making. Some believe a head is never better than two and prefer group decision making while others contend too many cooks spoil the broth and oppose it. Even in our country, Ethiopia, these thoughts are reflected in our linguistics. Some say ‘kand birtu hulet dekama’ while others say, ‘set beza gomen teneza’.

 

Which ever way it is made, every decision has got its own process. And only the fact that two or more people are involved in the decision making process does not mean they have equally participated. Roger Hart argues that sometimes group members are manipulated; sometimes used as decoration and at other times tokenized.

                            

Group decision making is not a matter left only to high level management personnel. People make group decisions in their everyday lives. I, as a child more than a decade ago, discussed with my friends on which day we should play football after checking our academic schedule. I, as young person today, sat down with my girlfriend, discussed and decided whether to start pre-marital sex or to abstain until marriage after assessing our readiness to engage in the practice.  I remember my parents discussing to decide which school to send me, my brothers and sisters to or even whether to have another child or not after evaluating their economic state. Group decisions are made in several aspects of our lives every day, if not even more frequently.

 

Even if we are so inextricably linked with it, we are not yet aware of the process. Therefore, we shape the processes the way that benefits us.

 

Randi Hirokawa’s functional perspective on group decision making or Scott Pool’s Adaptive Structuration Theory agree on the fact that most of the time group decision makings do not follow the procedure they should have followed. Schwartz Andrew has thus come up with few basic mistakes commonly committed in group decision making processes all over the world. Some of them are usually observed in our country and are hence explained with specific and locally relevant examples down here.

 

Decision by lack of response is when someone suggests an idea and, before anyone has commented on it, someone else suggests another idea, until the group eventually finds one it will act on. This results in shooting down the original idea before it has really been considered. All the ideas that are bypassed have, in a sense, been rejected by the group. This kind of decision making process results in lesser involvement and thus poor contribution of the ignored participants.

 

We can see the case of the in-house consultation meetings on Ethiopian draft press law. Following the Ethiopian journalists’ proposal that they should comment on the new draft press law before its enactment, Pact, a US based international NGO, has brought together Ethiopian media people to comment on the Draft Press Law and Information Act. The media people happily participated in the consultation meetings and contributed their share to the betterment of the law. However, few months later, the consultation began to be spearheaded by some notable journalists. Many comments were bypassed until the notable ones spoke and the floor is open for discussion. Even if the idea of the notable journalists would not become the final decision, they were at least allowed time to convince others. And that has resulted in the majority feeling that their contributions will always not be given due attention. And the number of participants dropped hugely through time due to this discontentment.

 

Decision by Authority Rule: In this method, many groups start out with–or quickly set up–a power structure that makes it clear that the chairman (or someone else in authority) will make the ultimate decision. The group can generate ideas and hold free discussion, but at any time the chairman may say that, having heard the discussion (girana qegnun kedemete behuala), he or she has decided upon a given plan. In many cases that I have witnessed myself, the decisions are already made before the proposal is put forward for discussion. Therefore the discussion is just nominal to strengthen members’ confidence in their leaders’ democracy. Even where the decision is not pre-decided, whether this method is effective depends a great deal upon whether the chairman is a sufficiently good listener to have combined the right information on which to make the decision. Furthermore, if the group must also implement the decision, then the authority-rule method produces a bare minimum of involvement by the group (basically, they will do it because they have to, not necessarily because they want to). Hence it undermines the potential quality of implementation.

 

In the case of the Ethiopian parliament, where almost all members vote for what their party leaders support no matter which side they support in their mind, EPRDF always makes the ultimate decision no matter how open discussion is there. The Ethiopian government cabinet has also been severely criticized for having had such Authority Rule decision making procedure giving others except the prime minister just a rubber stamping role. However, the prime minister opposed this idea and said in an interview with Hardtalk, BBC, that he was in some instances, forced to implement things, for example the Ethio-Eritrean war, he did not believe in just because his ideas were voted out by the majority of the cabinet. And he presented it as one of the reasons he started thinking to leave his seat after the next term.

 

Decision by Minority Rule is when a single person can “enforce” a decision, particularly if he or she is in some kind of chairmanship role, by not giving opposition an opportunity to build up. A common form of minority rule is for two or more members to come to a quick and powerful agreement on a course of action, then challenge the group with a quick, “Does anyone object?,” and, if no one raises their voice within two seconds, they proceed with “Let’s go ahead then.” The trap is the assumption that silence means consent.

 

Decision by Majority Rule (Voting and Polling): It is more familiar decision-making procedures are often taken for granted as applying to any group situation because they reflect our political system. One simple version is to poll everyone’s opinion following some period of discussion. If the majority of participants feels the same way, it is often assumed that is the decision. The other method is the more formal one of stating a clear alternative and asking for votes in favor of it, votes against it, and abstentions. One tradition which the Ethiopian politics has recently picked up is polling the public opinion after giving a distorted option. We can site an example here: The secession of Eritrea through referendum.

 

During the secession of Eritrea, the Eritreans in Ethiopia and in Eritrea itself were given a chance whether to support the secession of Eritrea or not. But the problem lied within the question. When the people to turned out to vote, they were given two options something like Barinet woyis Netsanet to mean Slavery or Freedom. And Ethiopians who asked why, were answered, “We have gone to the jungle and liberated the country. So if you need to bring Eritrea back, then there is the gun for you. Struggle and bring it back.” Here we can imagine how ill the premise was, logically speaking. Therefore, we can say that the group decision making was not as sound as it was supposed to be considering the weight of the matter.

 

On the surface, this method seems completely sound, but surprisingly often it turns out that decisions made by this method are not well implemented, even by the group that made the decision. What is wrong? Typically, it turns out that two kinds of psychological barriers exist:

 

First, the minority members often feel there was an insufficient period of discussion for them to really get their point of view across; hence they feel misunderstood and sometimes resentful. Second, the minority members often feel that the voting has created two camps within the group and that these camps are now in a win-lose competition: The minority feels that their camp lost the first round, but that it is just a matter of time until it can regroup, pick up some support and win the next time a vote comes up.

 

In other words, voting creates coalitions, and the preoccupation of the losing coalition is not how to implement what the majority wants, but how to win the next battle. We remember what happened with in TPLF between Meles’ and Gebru’s group. And CUD’s split is also not a distant memory either.

 

What Are the Actual Steps in a Decision Made by a Group?

According to Randy Hirokawa’s Functional Perspective on Group Decision Making, we have got four steps that should be taken to come up with effective decision making.

The first, as Dr. Mohammed Hassan also agrees, is analysis of the problem. Dr. Mohammed says that identification of the problem is the first and crucial step toward solution.  Then we will have to set a goal and identify different alternatives. The advantage of identifying different alternatives is that if we do not see as many alternatives as is realistically possible, then relatively less number of alternative solutions could be introduced and the corresponding possibility of finding the acceptable answer will be low. This step calls for identifying as many solutions to the problem as possible before discussing the specific advantages and disadvantages of each. What happens frequently in problem-solving is that the first two or three suggested solutions are debated and discussed for the full time allowed for the entire problem-solving session. As a result, many worthwhile ideas are never identified or considered. By identifying many solutions, a superior idea often surfaces that reduces or even eliminates the need for discussing details of more debatable issues. Finally we have to plan the implementation and distribute responsibility explicitly stating who does what, when, how and where. However, for this to happen, the process should be as participatory and open as possible.

 

So What is the Better Way?

Whether people use Randi Hirokawa’s functional perspective on group decision making or Scott Pools Adaptive Structuration Theory, there should always be some consensus reached among as many of the group members as possible.  Unfortunately, reaching consensus is one of the most time-consuming techniques for group decision-making. It is also quite important to understand that consensus is not the same thing as unanimity. Rather, it is a state of affairs where communications have been sufficiently open (and the group climate has been sufficiently supportive) to make everyone in the group feel that they have had their fair chance to influence the decision.

 

If there is a consensus among as many of the group members as possible, then we can say there is a group agreement and hence a relatively better group decision making process.