Dec 22, 2013

Acknowledging Past Injustices: Mandela, Menelik and Bulcha - Yaye Abebe

We, Ethiopians, are greatly in need of Nelson Mandela’s wisdom. Our nation has predominantly young demographics: 65% of Ethiopians are under the age of 24 years old.1 The ‘65 percent’ generation needs to inherit a constructive political atmosphere and culture, and that is where Mandela’s future oriented wisdom can benefit us greatly.
Acknowledging Past Injustices: Mandela, Menelik and Bulcha

Nelson Mandela's strength and success may be attributed to the way he prioritized the challenges South Africans faced.  It is his focus on the future of all South Africans, black, brown and white, that brought forth the path of truth and reconciliation to South Africa. We can not forget past injustices, but we must acknowledge them to create a conducive political environment with the potential for building and modeling political consensus for the coming generation of Ethiopians, the 65 percent.

100th Anniversary

Two weeks ago Emperor Menelik's 100th death anniversary was observed by online medias and radio stations such as the Deutsche Welle Amharic service. Our past, like that of other nations, is controversial and contested, although, perhaps, what makes ours more painful and highly divisive is the denial, disregard and blatant condescending attitude demonstrated by those of us, who feel Emperor Menelik’s legacy is impeccable, towards Ethiopians who feel differently about Menelik.

Listening to the discussion2 on Deutsche Welle radio, I realized more the need for Ethiopians to learn from Mandela: Mandela did not ignore the concerns, fears and anger of  Afrikaners or white South Africans. Mandela would not have averted a civil war in South Africa had he only looked at the black and brown South African interest - that is the genius of Mandela.

Listening to the Deutsche Welle discussion, I was baffled by the two academicians who defended Menelik's legacy with religious fervor. Are some of us this much egotistical that we will not consider other Ethiopians' perspectives, like that of Bulcha Demeksa’s, without losing our composure and sanity? I think we can do better.

History as Absolute

History is neither closed nor absolute; there always is another side to historical claims and assertions documented by ruling elites. Every human history is a mixed bag, and this is due to the nature which we all humans share: we are imperfect and prone to err. Hence the attempt of white washing any historical figure is going against human nature and experience.

The underlying argument perpetuating the one sided historical claims of our historical figures may have to do with the belief that written historical account is complete and accurate, while all oral history is incomplete and unreliable.

This fallacious thinking and total reliance on written history alone creates a single sided, unbalanced, elite-favoring historical narrative. We need not forget that just because the ruling elite had access to written language does not mean what they documented is inerrant.

Instead of defending a one sided narrow, elitist and biased historical account, as the one and only authoritative account of a regime’s legacy, we need to question and broaden our assessment of historical events, processes and possibilities by also paying attention to oral narratives.

Reconciliation is Acknowledgment

The dismissiveness of previous regimes and their elites have directly and indirectly pushed our Eritrean brothers and sisters to their present predicament and suffering. It is time we Ethiopians learn from Mandela and not get blind sided by superiority complex and short sightedness that could possibly fragment and destroy our nation, but rather we need to listen to Ethiopians who look at Ethiopian history from different angles, with different emotions, feelings and assertions.

Reconciliation starts by acknowledging the other side's perceptions, emotions and feelings.

To Mr. Bulcha Demeksa and all other Ethiopians who feel differently about the legacy of the regime of Emperor Menelik II and other regimes in Ethiopia’s past, I have this to say:  I regret past injustices committed by the regimes of Emperor Menelik II and other rulers on Oromos and all exploited, oppressed and marginalized Ethiopians.

The coming generation, the 65%, of Ethiopians needs to witness political reconciliation and consensus in Ethiopia for the purpose of breaking the cycle of political violence, and passing on a culture of constructive politics.  The young generation needs to learn better conflict resolution skills than resorting to Kalashnikovs and violent uprisings.

If you share my vision of advocating and initiating political reconciliation and consensus among Ethiopians, please visit us on - Facebook, - Goolge+ or  and let us began the discussion of developing the frame work for political reconciliation and consensus among Ethiopians.

1. CIA World Factbook, accessed on October 11, 2013


Yaye Abebe is founder of which advocates for political reconciliation and consensus among Ethiopians.

Dec 3, 2013

የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ጥያቄና ፈተናዎቹ በኢትዮጵያ (ክፍል 2) – በዳዊት ተሾመ

4. የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ፈተናዎችና የመፍትሄ አቅጣጫዎች

በኢትዮጵያ የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ፈተናዎች የሚመነጩት ስለ ብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ባለን ግንዛቤና እኛ ከለንበት ተጨባጭ ሁኔታ አንጻር ለመቃኘት በምናደረገው ጥረት ውስጥ ነው:: በኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ ስለ ብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ሲነሳ እንድ ዋነኛ መነጻጸሪያ ሁኖ የሚቀርበው በደቡብ አፍሪካ ውስጥ የተካሄደውን ብሔራዊ ዕርቅን ነው:: በአብዛኛው የኢትዮጵያ የፖለቲካ ኃይሎች የሚታሰበው የደቡብ አፍሪካ ዕርቅ ምንም እንከን እንደሌለውና በኢትዮጵያ ነባራዊ ሁኔታም አንጻር ሊደገም እንደሚችል ነው:: ነገር ግን፣ የደቡብ አፍሪካ ብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ሂደት የራሱ የሆኑ ጉድለቶች ያሉበት ከመሆኑም በላይ ከኢትዮጵያ ተጨባጭ ነባራዊ ሁኔታ አንጻርም ብዙ ልዩነቶች አሉት:: ስለዚህም፣ በኢትዮጵያ የሚያስፈልገው ብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ያለንበትን ነባራዊ ሁኔታ የሚመጥን መሆን አለበት:: ከዚህ አንጻር በኢትዮጵያ የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ፈተናዎችንና የመፍትሄ አቅጣጫዎች እንደሚከተለው ቀርቧል::

ሀ) እውቅና ስለመስጠትና የብሔራዊ ዕርቁ አካሄድ ላይ ያሉ ፈተናዎችና የመፍትሄ ሃሳቦች ላለፉት ታሪካዊ ኢ-ፍትሃዊነቶችና በደሎች እውቅና መስጠት ላይ የሚታዩት ችግሮች ሁለት አይነት ናቸው:: አንደኛው ችግር ያለፉትን በደሎች እውቅና መስጠት በኢትዮጵያ ታሪክ ላይ ጥያቄ የሚያስነሳ መሆኑ ነው:: ይኸ ማለት ላለፉት በደሎች እውቅና መስጠት ማለት በደሎችን የፈጸሙ ኃይሎች ለፈጸሙት በደሎች ተጠያቂነት ስለሚያመጠና በደሉን ፈጽመዋል የሚባሉት ደግም እንደ <ሀገር-መስራች፣ ስልጣኔ አስተዋዋቂና ሰለምና ብልጽግና አምጪ> በሚል በተለምዷዊው የኢትዮጵያ ታሪክ (meanistream Ethiopian history) ተክለ-ሰውነታቸው ስለተሳለ ነው:: ሁለተኛው ችግር ያለፉት በደሎች ዕውቅና ቢሰጥ ቀጥሎ ሊመጣ የሚችለው ነገር ላይ ብዥታ መኖሩ ነው:: ይህም ማለት ዕውቅና ቢሰጥ ተበድለናል የሚሉ የፖለቲካ ኃይሎች ለራሳቸው ፖለቲካዊ ጥቅም ሊያውሉት ይችላሉ የሚል ፍራቻ መኖሩ ነው:: እነዚህ ዕውቅና በመስጠት ላይ ያሉ ተግዳሮቶች በምንም መልኩ በደሎችን በመካድ ሊፈቱ አይችሉም:: እንደ አቅጣጫ መወሰድ ያለበት አካሄድ ያለፉትን በደሎች አለመካድና በድጋሚ እንዳይፈጸሙ ማድረግን ነው::

በሌላ በኩል ደግሞ፣ በደሎቹ የተፈጸሙበት ወቅት ያለውን የአስተሳሰብ ደረጃና የአገዛዛ ባህሪ ከጭፍን ስሜታዊነት ውጭ መመልከት ተገቢ ነው:: ታሪክ ለፖለቲካዊ ግብ መምቻ ብቻ ከመጠቀም ወጥተን ታሪክን ለታሪክ ተመራማሪዎች መተውን መልመድ መቻል አለብን:: በሀገራችን ሊኖረን የሚገባው ፖለቲካ ትላንትን መሰረት ያደረገ ሳይሆን በነገው ብሩህ ቀንና አብሮነታችን ላይ የተመሰረተ መሆን ይገባዋል:: ይህ ማለት፣ ሙሉ ለሙሉ ታሪክን ከፖለቲካ መነጥል ይቻላል ማለት አይደለም:: ይልቁኑም ፖለቲካችን በባለፈው ታሪካችንና በነገው አብሮነታችን እና ፍትሃዊ ተጠቃሚነታችን ላይ ያለውን ሚዛን ማስተካከል ቁልፍ መሳሪያ መሆን ይገባዋል::

በአገራችን የነበሩ አገዛዞች ምንም እንኳን ማህበረሰባዊ መሰረታቸውን በስነ-ልቦና ደረጃ ተጠቃሚ ያደረጉ ቢመስልም፣ በሁሉም በኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ ያሉ ህዝቦች በባለፉት አገዛዞች ተበዳዮች ናቸው፤ የበደላቸው መጠንና የበደላቸው አይነት ምንም እንኳን ቢለያዩም:: ያለፉት አገዛዞችም ሆነ አሁን በስልጣን ላይ ያለው ፓርቲ የጠቀሙት ጥቂት ከስርአቱ ጋር ቅርበት ያላቸው ልሂቃንን እንጂ በአጠቃላይ ልሂቃኑ የወጡበትን ወይም እንወክለዋለን የሚሉትን ማህበረሰብ አይደለም:: ስዚህም፣ ያለፉትን በደሎች ዕውቅና መስጠት ማለት ይህ ህዝብ በዚህ ህዝብ ተበድሏል፤ እከሌ የሚባል ህዝብ በዳይ እከሌ የሚባል ህዝብ ተጎጂ በሚል መንፈስ መሆን የለበትም:: ሁሉም ታሪካዊ ኢ-ፍትሃዊነቶችም ሆነ በደሎች መታየት ያለባቸው በደሎቹን የፈጸሙት አገዛዞች ከተመሰረቱበት ፓለቲካዊ፣ ማህበራዊና ኢኮኖሚያዊ መሰረቶች የመነጩ መሆናቸውን ነው::

ይህ አካሄድ አንድ በኩል በህዝቦች መካከል ሊፈጠር የሚችለውን በቂም በቀል የታጀለ ማህበረሰባዊ ግንኙነት መሰረት እንዳይዝ ሲያረግ፤ በሌላ በኩል ደግሞ ከባለፈው ታሪካችን ተምረን የተሻለ ነገን ለመፍጠር ለምናደርገው ሂደት ማህበረሰባዊ መነቃቃትን ይፈጥርልናል:: ስለዚህም፣ በዚህ አካሄድ ላለፉት በደሎች ዕውቅና በመስጠት ሊከሰት የሚችለው የፖለቲካ ኃይሎች ያለፉትን በደሎች ፖለቲካዊ ትርጉም በመስጠት ለፖለቲካ ጥቅም የሚያውሉበትን እድል ማጥበብ ይቻላል:: በመሆኑም፣ የብሄራዊ እርቅ ጉዳይ መታየት ያለበት የባለፈውን ጠበሳ በመነካከት ቅራኔን በማባባስ ፖለቲካዊ ትርፍ ለማስገኘት ሳይሆን ከባለፈው ታሪክ በመማርና ታሪካዊ ኢ-ፍትሃዊነትን በማረም የተሻለ ነገንና ብሩህ-ተስፋን ከመፍጠር አንጻር መሆን ይገባዋል::

ለ) የተፈጸሙትን በደሎች ያስከተሉት ውጤቶች ላይ፣ ተጎጂዎች የከፈሉት መስዋትነት እና እንድምታ ላይ ስምምነት መድረስን (Consensus building) በተመለከተ ያሉ ችግሮችና የመፍትሄ አቅጣጫዎች በኢትዮጵያ ተጨባጭ ሁኔታ አንጻር <ብሔራዊ ዕርቅ የሚያስፈልገው ለየትኛው ታሪካዊ በደል ነው> የሚለው ጥያቄ በተፈጸሙ በደሎች ላይ ስምምነት ለመድረስ ወሳኝ ጥያቄ ነው:: ኢትዮጵያ የአሁኗን ቅርጽ እንድትይዝ ካደረጋት የሀገር ግንባታ ሂደት አንስቶ አሁን እስከምንገኝበት ዘመን ውስጥ የተፈጠሩትን ታሪካዊ ኢ-ፍትሃዊነትና በደሎችን ማካተት አለበት:: እነዚህን ሁሉ በደሎች አንድ ሰው ወይም አንድ አገዛዝ ሳይሆነ የፈጸመው፣ በየወቅቱ በሀገራችን የሰፈኑት አገዛዛችና አገዛዛቹን የመሰረቱት እና ተጠቃሚ በሆኑት ለአገዛዛቹ ቅርበት ባላቸው ጥቂት ልሂቃን ነው:: ስለዚህም፣ ታሪካዊ ኢ-ፍትሃዊነት የጎደላቸው ነገሮች ተደግረዋል፤ ሁሉም ኢትዮጵያዊ በአገዛዛቹ ተበድለዋል፤ የበደሉ አይነትና መጠን ቢለያይም:: ስለዚህም የተፈጸሙት በደሎች ያስከተሏቸው ውጤቶች በደንብ ተመርምረው ለታሪክ መማሪያነት መቀመጥ አለባቸው:: እንደ ሁሉም ሀገር፣ ሀገራችን ኢትዮጵያም ያላት ታሪክ <ጥሩም መጥፎ> ነው:: ከ<ጥሩ> ታሪካችን አንድነታችንን የበለጠ በማጠናከር <ከመጥፎው> ታሪካችን ደግሞ በመማር ማህበራዊ ግንኙነታችንን ይበልጥ በመተማመንና በመከባበር ላይ የተመሰረት ማድረግ እንችላለን:: ስለዚህም፣ የተፈጸሙት በደሎች ያስከተሉት ውጤቶችና ተጎጂዎች የከፈሉት መስዋትነትና እንድምታ እንደ ኢትዮጵያ ታሪክ ተመዝግቦ መያዝ ይገባዋል::

ለዚህም አላማ ሲባል ሊደረጉ የሚችሉ ተግባራት የሚከተሉት ሊሆኑ ይችላሉ:: አንደኛ፣ የኢትዮጵያን ታሪክ፣ በማህበረሰቡ ውስጥ የነበሩና ያሉ ግንኙነቶች፣ የኢትዮጵያ ፖለቲካዊ፣ ማህበራዊና ኢኮኖሚያዊ እንቅስቃሴዎች በአግባቡ ሳይንሳዊ መሆነ መንገድ ተጠንተው እንዲቀመጡ በየዩኒቨርስቲዎቻችንና መንግስታዊ በሆኑ የምርምር ተቋማት ውስጥ እንደ አንድ ፕሮግራም ተቀርጾ ሊዘረጋ ይችላል:: በዚህም ሂደት የብሔራዊ ዕርቁን ተቋማዊ ገጽታ ማላበስ ይቻላል:: ሁለተኛ፣ ብሄራዊ ዕርቁን የሚመለከት መታሰቢያ ብሄራዊ ቀን ቢመረጥና በየዓመቱ የምርምር ስራዎች የሚቀርቡበት፣ ዲሞክራሲያዊት ኢትዮጵያን ለመፍጠር፣ በመከባበርና ፍትሃዊነት ላይ የተመሰረተ ግንኙነት በማህበረሰባችን ውስጥ ሊመጡ በሚችሉ ተግባራት ታስቢ እንዲውል ማድረግ ይቻላል:: ሶስተኛ፣ በአንድም ሆነ በሌላ መልኩ በታሪካዊ በደሎች ምክንያት ውድ ህይወታቸውን ላጡ፣ ከመኖሪያቸውና ከአካባቢያቸው ለተፈናቀሉ እና የተለያዩ መሰዋትነት የከፈሉትን ሰዎች ለማስታወስ ሃውልት እንዲቆም ማድረግ የሚቻል ነው::

ሐ) የተፈጸሙት በደሎች በድጋሚ እንዳይፈጸሙና የተገለሉ የማህበረሰብ ክፍሎች ፍላጎትና ደህንነት የሚያረግገጥ ስርአት ለመፍጠር መዋቅራዊ ለውጦችን ማምጣትና የፖለቲካ ውህደትን ማሳለጥን (Structural changes and institutionalization of the process of political integration)፣ ብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ማህበራዊ ለውጥን ለማማጣትና ዴሞክራሲያዊ ስርአት ለመገንባት እንደ ወሳኝ ግብአት የምንጠቀምበት ከሆነ፤ ብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ሂደት በራሱ ፖለቲካዊ ይዘት ያለው ነው:: ይህ ማለት የተፈጸሙት በደሎች በድጋሚ እንዳይፈጸሙና የተገለሉ የማህበረሰቦች ክፍሎች ፍላጎትና ደህንነት የሚያረጋግጥ ዴሞክራሲያዊ ስርአት መፈጠር አለበት:: ይህን ለማድረግም፣ የፖለቲካ ስርአቱ የሚመራበትን የጨዋታ ህግ ማውጣትና የጨዋታውን ህግ የሚመሩ ዴሞክራሲያዊ ተቋማትን መገንባት ይጠይቃል:: ይህም ማለት በማህበረሰባችን ውስጥ መዋቅራዊ ለውጦችን ማምጣትን የሚጠይቅ ነው:: የሁሉንም የማህበረሰብ ክፍሎች ፍላጎቶችና ደህንነት ለማስከበር የፖለቲካዊ ስርአቱ ውስጥ ሁሉንም ተሳታፊ ማድረግ ግድ ነው::

ከዴሞክራሲያዊ ስርአት ውጪ በሀገራችን ያለውን ብዝሃነት ሊያስተናግድ የሚችል ስርአት የለም:: ዴሞክራሲያዊ ስርአት ግንባታ በመሰረቱ ሁለት ግቦች ላይ ማነጣጠር አለበት:: አንደኛ፣ በዴሞክራሲያዊ ተቋማት ግንባታ ሂደት ውስጥ ተቋማት የሚወክሉት ግለሰቦችን አሊያም የተወሰኑ የልሂቃን ቡድኖችን አይሆንም:: ተቋማት የሚወክሉት ስምምነት የተደረሰባቸውን የጨዋታ ህጎችን ሲሆን እነዚህም ህጎች በልሂቃን ውስጥ የሚፈጠሩ የጥቅምና የፍላጎት ግጭቶችን ለመዳኘት ዋና መሳሪያ ይሆናሉ:: ስለዚህም፣ የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ሂደት ዴሞክራሲያዊ ተቋማትንና የጨዋታ ህጎችንና ደንቦችን ሁሉም የፖለቲካ ኃይሎች በሚስማሙበት መልኩ ለመቅረጽ የሚያስችል ሂደትን ይፈጥራል:: ይኸም ማለት ብሄራዊ ዕርቅ ከሚመጣባቸው ዋነኛ ሂደቶች መካከል የጨዋታ ህጎቹ የሚወጡበት አግባብና ሂደት ወሳኝ ነው:: ኢህአዴግ ብሔራዊ ዕርቅን የሚመለከትበት አግባብ ማለትም << ብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ማለት አሁን በለው ህገመንግስና ህገመንግስታዊ ስርአቱ ላይ መግባባት መፍጠር ነው::>> የራሱን ፖለቲካዊ የበላይነት ለማስጠበቅ ያለፈ ትርጉም አይኖረውም:: ምክንያትቱም የጨዋታ ህጎቹ የወጡበት አግባብና ሂደት ሌሎች የፖለቲካ ኃይሎችን ያገለለ ከመሆኑም በላይ ዋነኛ ተገዳዳሪ የሚባሉትን በተለይ ደግሞ ሀገር-አቀፍ ፖለቲካ የሚያራምዱትን ያላካተተ ነው::

ሁለተኛ ደግሞ በዴሞክራሲያዊ ስርአት የስልጣን ክፍፍልን ስለሚያመጣ፣ ተጠያቂነትን ስለሚያሰፍንና ፖለቲካዊ ስልጣን በጉልበት ሳይሆን በህዝብ ፍላጎት ላይ በተመሰረተ አካሄድ ስለሚያዝ አዲስ ፖለቲካዊ ባህልን በሃገራችን ውስጥ እንዲሰፍን ያደርጋል:: ስለዚህም፣ ፖለቲካዊና አስተዳደራዊ የስልጣን ክፍፍሎሽ ስለሚኖር በልሂቃኖች መካከል ሊኖር የሚችለው የስትራተጂና የታክቲክ ጉዳይ እንጂ ጫፍ የወጣ ፖለቲካዊ ልዩነት አይሆንም:: በመሆኑም የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ጥያቄ መዋቅራዊ ለውጥ ከማምጣትና ፖለቲካዊ ውህደትን ከማሳለጥ አንጻር መታየት ያለበት ነው:: ይኸም፣ ፖለቲካዊ ውህደት የጋራ ነገን ከመፍጠርና የጋራ ራዕይ እንዲኖረን እና አዲስ ሲቪክ ፖለቲካዊ ባህል እንዲገነባ ከማስቻሉም በላይ ለዴሞክራሲያዊ ስርአት ግንባታ መሰረት ይሆናል::

መ) ፈጣን ማህበራዊና ኢኮኖሚያዊ እድገት በማምጣት ኢኮኖሚያዊ ውህደትን ማረጋገጥ (enhancing socio-economic development and economic integration)

በታሪካችን እንደምንመለከተው ከሆነ በአብዛኛው በልሂቆቻችን መካከል የሚፈጠሩ ግጭቶች በፖለቲካ ሃሳቦች ልዩነት ላይ የተመሰረቱ ሳይሆን አንዱ አንዱን ጥሎ በማለፍ የፖለቲካ ስልጣን ለመቆጣጠር በሚደረጉ ግብግቦች ላይ የተመሰረቱ ናቸው:: የፖለቲካ ስልጣን ጥያቄ በዋናነት የሚያያዘው ደግሞ የሀገሪቱን ሀብት ከመቆጣጠር ጋር ነው:: በግልጽ ለማስቀመጥ ያክል የዘመናዊት ኢትዮጵያ ሀገር ምስረታ ሂደት ፖለቲካዊው እንድምታው ያልተማከለና በጣም ጠንካራ ማዕከላዊ መንግስት መመስረት ሲሆን፣ ኢኮኖሚያዊው እንድምታው ደግሞ በጦር አሸናፊ ሆነው የማዕከላዊ  መንግስት ምስረታን ሂደት የተቆጣጠሩትን ኃይሎች የኢኮኖሚ ጥቅሞችን የማስከበር ሂደት ነበር:: ይህ ሂደት በደርግ አገዛዛም ሆነ በኢህአዴግ አገዛዝ የተደገመ ነው:: በዘውዳዊው፣ በደርግም ሆነ በኢህአዴግ አገዛዞች የተዘረጉት ኢኮኖሚያዊ ስርአቶች የሰፊውን ህዝብ ተጠቃሚነት ያላረጋገጡና የአገዛዞቹን ቀጣይነት ብቻ ለማረጋገጥ ያለሙ ናቸው:: ይህም በመሆኑ የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ጥያቄ ኢኮኖሚያዊ ፍትሃዊነትንና የህዝብ ተጠቄሚነት ላይ ያነጣጠረ መሆን ይገባዋል::

እንደ ደቡብ አፍሪካ ፖለቲካዊ ስልጣን ላይ ብቻ የተመሰረት የብሄራዊ ዕርቅ ሂደት በኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ ረጅም ርቀት የማይወስድ ብቻ ሳይሆን ወደ በለጠ ማህበረሰባዊና ፖለቲካዊ ችግሮች የሚያጋልጥ ነው:: ስለዚህም የኢኮኖሚዊ ተጠቃሚነትን ማረጋገጥ አንዱ የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ዋና አላማ መሆን ይገባዋል:: በሌላ በኩል ደግሞ፣ የኢኮኖሚያዊ ተጠቃሚነትን ከማረጋገጥ ጎን ለጎን ፈጣን ማህበራዊና ኢኮኖሚያዊ ልማትን ማረጋገጥ እና በክልሎች መካከል ኢኮኖሚያዊ ግንኙነቶችን ማጠናከር እጅግ በጣም አስፈላጊ ነው:: ድህነት በራሱ ሰዎች በወደፊት ሕይወታቸው ላይ ተስፋ እንዲቆርጡ፣ ጨለምተኛ እንዲሆኑ ከማድረጉም በላይ ለዚህ ሁሉ ቀውስ ተጠያቂ የሚያረጉት አንድ ነገር ይፈልጋሉ፤እራስን ከጥፋተኝነት ነጻ ለማውጣት:: ስለዚህም ታሪካዊ ኢ-ፍትሃዊነቶችን ለዛሬው ውድቀት ብቸኛ ተጠያቂ እንደሆኑ ሲታሰብ፣ በተወሰኑ ልሂቃን ደግም ይህን ስሜት ለራሳቸው ፖለቲካዊ ጥቅም እንዲውል ያደርጋሉ፣ እያደረጉም ነው:: ስለዚህም፣ ፈጣን ማህበራዊና ኢኮኖሚያዊ ልማትን ማስፋን የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ውጤታማነትንና ዘላቂነትን ከማረጋገጥ አንጻር ወሳኝ ነው::

ከዚህ ጎን ለጎን፣ ሙስናን ማስወገድ የሚያስችሉ ተቋማዊ፣ ህጋዊ እና አስተዳደራዊ ሪፎርሞችን ማካሄድ ግድ የሚል ነው:: በአሁኑ ሰአት የኢትዮጵያን ኢኮኖሚ በቁጥጥር ስር ያዋሉት ሶስት ኢኮኖሚያዊ ሃይላት ናቸው:: እነርሱም፣ መንግስት በቀጥታም ሆነ በተዘዋዋሪ የሚቆጣጠራቸው ድርጅቶች፣ የሚድሮክ ድርጅቶች እና በኢፈርት ድርጅቶች ናቸው:: ይህም፣ የአሁን ኢኮኖሚ ስርአት በዋናነት የፖለቲካ ስልጣን የተቆጣጠሩት ጥቂት ልሂቃን የሀገሪቱን ኢኮኖሚ በቀጥታ የሚቆጣጠሩበትን አግባብ ተቋማዊ ገጽታ የሚያላብስ ነው:: ስለዚህም፣ ፈጣን ማህበራዊና ኢኮኖሚያዊ ልማትና ከዚህ ልማት እኩል ተጠቃሚነትን ከማስፈን አንጻር ሙስናን ማስወገድና ተወዳዳሪነትን የተላበሰ ኢኮኖሚያዊ ስርአት መዘርጋትን ግድ የሚል ነው:: በሌላም በኩል፣ በባለፉት የአገዛዝ ስርአቶች ከኢኮኖሚያዊና ማህበራዊ ልማት ትሩፋት የተገለሉ የማህበረሰብ ክፍሎች ይበልጥ ተጠቃሚ ማድረግ ይገባል:: ይኸም፣ በባለፉት አገዛዞች ተበድለናል የሚሉ የፖለቲካ ልሂቃን ጫፍ የወጣ የፖለቲካ አቋማቸውን እንዲያስተካክሉ የሚስገድዳቸው፣ የማያስተካክሉ ከሆነ የማህበረሰባዊ መሰረታቸው እንዲያጡ የሚያደርግ፣ ከተናጥል ጉዞ የአብሮነት ጉዞ እንደሚበልጥ ሰፊው ህዝብ እንዲረዳ የሚደርግ ነው:: በመሆኑም፣ ይህ ሁኔታ የብሄራዊ ዕርቅ ዘላቂነትን ከማረጋገጡም በላይ ለዴሞክራሲያዊ ስርአት ግንባታ ወሳኝ ነው::

ሠ) ለብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ምቹ ሁኔታን ስለመፍጠርና አማራጭ መፍትሄዎች

እስካሁን ድረስ ብሔራዊ ዕርቅን ለማሳካት ምቹ ሁኔታን አልተፈጠረም:: ይህ ምቹ ሁኔታ አለመኖር የሚመነጨው ከገዢው ፓርቲ ከፋፍሎ የመገዛዝ ባህል እና በተቃዋሚ ፓርቲዎች ውስጣዊ ደካማነትና የጋራ አላማ መፍጠር አለመቻላቸው ነው:: ብሔራዊ ዕርቅ እንዲሳካ ስልጣን ላይ ያሉ ገዢዎችን የሚያስገድድና የሚገዳደር ተቃዋሚ ኃይል መኖርን ግድ የሚል ነው:: ካለ ጠንካራ ተቃዋሚ ኃይል የሚገኝ ብሔራዊ ዕርቅ፣ ዕርቅ ሊባል የሚቻል አይደለም:: ምክንያቱም የዕርቅ ሂደቱ ስልጣን ላይ ያሉ ልሂቃንን ጥቅም የሚያስጠብቅ ነው፤ ሁሉን የፖለቲካና ማህበረሰባዊ ኃይላትን የሚያካትት አይደለም:: ከዚህ ቀደም በወጡ ጹሁፎቼ እንዳመለከትኩት፣ የኢትዮጵያ የተቃውሞ ኃይሎች በሀገር ቤትም ሆነ በውጭ ሀገር ያሉት በብዙ ችግሮች የተተበተቡ ናቸው:: የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ጥያቄ ግማሹ ምላሽ በተቃውሞ ኃይላት ጥንካሬ ላይ የሚመሰረት ነው:: አንድነት ጥንካሬ፣ መከፋፈል ድክመትን እንደሚያመጣ ከባለፈው ታሪካችን በተሻለ ሁኔታ ልንማርበት የምንችልበት መድረክ የለም:: ስለዚህም፣ በተቋማዊ ብቃት፣ በስትራተጂ፣ በታክቲክ እና አባላትን በማፍራት ተቃዋሚ ሃይላት ከገዢው ፓርቲ ጋር ተገዳዳሪ መሆን አለባቸው::

አብዛኞቹ የሀገራችን የተቃውሞ ፖለቲካ ፓርቲዎች ልዩነታቸው ርዕዮተ አለማዊ፣ ስትራተጂያዊ ወይም ፖሊሲ ላይ የተመሰረተ ሳይሆን በግለሰቦች ቁርሾ ላይ የተመሰረተ ነው:: ስለዚህም፣ ግለሰባዊ ቁርሾዎችን ከብሔራዊ ፖለቲካ ጥያቄ መለየት መቻል አለብን:: በሌላም በኩል፣ አሁን የሚታየው የፖለቲካ ኃይሎች መሰባሰብ ይበል የሚያስብል ሲሆን፣ እዚያው ሳለም ሁሉን ማህበረሰብ የሚያቅፍና የሚያንቀሳቅስ አጀንዳ መቅረጽ ይጠበቅባቸዋል:: ተቃዋሚ ኃይላት ማህበረሰባዊ መሰረታቸውን መስፋትና ሁሉን የማህበረሰብ ክፍል (cross-cutting social cleavages) ማቀፍና ማንቀሳቀስ መቻል አለባቸው:: ይህን በማድረጋቸው፣ ገዢው ፓርቲ ስልጣን ላይ ብቻውን ለመቀመጥ የሚከፍለው መሰዋትነት በዕርቅ ሂደት ውስጥ በመሳተፍና ፖለቲካዊ ስርአት ለውጥ በመምጣቱ ከሚያጣው ጥቅም ጋር ሲነጻጸር ከፍተኛ እንዲሆን ያደርገዋል:: ይኸም፣ ለዘብተኛ የአገዛዙን ልሂቃን ወደ ብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ጥያቄን እንዲያራምዱ ሲያስችላቸው፣ አክራሪ ልሂቃንን ደግሞ የበለጠ ደካማ ያረጋቸዋል::

በሌላ በኩል ደግሞ፣ የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ስትራተጂያዊ ውጤቶችና ዴሞክራሲያዊ ስርአት ግንባት ሂደት ተጠቃሚዎች ጥቂት ልሂቃን መሆን የለባቸውም:: በብሔራዊ ዕርቁ ሂደት ማንም የፖለቲካ ኃይል ሳይሆን አሸናፊ የሚሆነው የኢትዮጵያ ህዝብ ፍላጎት፣ አንድነት እና ሉአላዊነት ነው:: ስለሆነም፣ የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ሂደት ማነጣጠር ያለበት ማን ስልጣን ላይ ወጣ የሚለው ሳይሆን ዴሞክራሲያዊ የጨዋታ ህጎች ማውጣት እና ዴሞክራሲያዊ ተቋማትን መገንባት ላይ ነው:: ይኸም፣ የብሄራዊ ዕርቁ ስተራተጂያዊ ውጤቶች (ዴሞክራሲያዊ ስርአት፣ ፍትሃዊ ተጠቃሚነትና ሀገራዊ መግባባት) እና ታክቲካዊ ግቦች መካከል አንድነትንና ሚዛንን የሚያስጠብቅ ይሆናል:: በመሆኑም፣ እነዚህ ከላይ የተጠቀሱት ነጥቦች ለብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ምቹ ሁኔታን ከመፍጠሩም በላይ ለዴሞክራሲያዊ ስርአት ግንባታ ወሳኝ ግብአት ነው::

5. ማጠቃለያ

ሀገራችን ኢትዮጵያ በብዙ ውስብስብ ታሪካዊ ሂደት ያለፈች ሀገር እንደመሆኗ መጠን፣ ያሉብን ችግሮች መጠነ ሰፊና ውስብስብ ናቸው:: እስካሁን ድርስ ጉልበት ላይ የተመሰረተ ልዩነቶችን የመፍታት ሂደቶች የበለጥ ልዩነቶችን ውስብስብ እንዲያደርግና ጥላቻ ላይ የተመሰረተ ፖለቲካ ስር እንዲሰድ ሆኗል:: ምንም እንኳን ከደርግ ወታደራዊ አገዛዝ ውድቀት በኋላ የተለያዩ የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ አስተሳሰቦች በሙሁሯንና በፖለቲካ ኃይላት ቢራመዱም፣ የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ጥያቄን የፖለቲካ ኃይላት የፖለቲካ ፍላጎታቸውን ማሳኪያ መሳሪያ ያደረጉበት አረዳድ እንደሰፈነ መረዳት አያዳግትም:: የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ሂደት ውስብስብ ችግሮችን የምንፈታበት ሂደት እንደመሆኑ መጠን በእንዳንዱ ጥቃቅን በደሎች ላይ የምናተኩርበት፣ ፖለቲካዊ ትርፍ የምናሰላበት፣ አግላይ ስርአት የሚመሰረትበት ሂደት ሳይሆን የተሻለች ኢትዮጵያንና ብሩህ ቀን የመፍጠር ሂደት አካል መሆን ይገባዋል::

በዳዊት ተሾመ (


Nov 24, 2013

የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ጥያቄና ፈተናዎቹ በኢትዮጵያ (ክፍል 1) - በዳዊት ተሾመ

ከደርግ የ17 አመታት የአገዛዝ ውደቀት በኋላ በኢትዮጵያ የፖለቲካ ኃይሎች በስፋት ሲንጸባረቁ ከነበሩ ጥያቄዎች መካከል የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ጥያቄ ዋነኛው ነው::

በዚህ ወቅት ውስጥ ለብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ጥያቄ በፖለቲካ ኃይሎች የቀረቡት የመፍትሔ ሃሳቦች የተለያዩ ቢሆንም የመፍትሔ ሃሳቦቹ የሚመነጩት ግን በዋናነት ከሁለት ተገዳዳሪ አስተሳሰቦች ነው:: አንደኛው አስተሳሰብ የሚያጠነጥነው የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ጥያቄው የሚካትተው ከኢትዮጵያ ዘመናዊ የሃገር ግንባታ ጋር ተያይዞ የተፈፀሙ ታሪካዊ ኢ-ፍትሃዊነትንና በደሎችን እንዲሁም በያ ትውልድ ውስጥ የተፈፀሙ መጠፋፋትን አካቶ ሁሉን-አካታች መድረክ በማዘጋጀት ያለፈውን በደሎች ዕውቅና በመስጠት በፖለቲካ ሊህቃን መካከል መግባባትን ማስፈንን ነው:: ሁለተኛው አስተሳሰብ የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ጥያቄን የሚመለከተው ኢትዮጵያን እንደ ሀገር በአዲስ መሰረት ላይ የመገንባት ሂደት አድርጎ ነው:: ይህም ማለት የብሔራዊ ዕርቅ ጥያቄ የሚያቅፈው ሁሉንም አይነት ማለትም ብሔር፣ ሃይማኖት እንዲሁም መደብ ላይ መሰረት ያደረገ ኢ-ፍትሃዊነትና መገለልን ከኢትዮጵያ ዘመናዊ የሃገር ግንባታ ጀምሮ የኢህአዴግን የአገዛዝንም የሚያካትት ነው። ተጨማሪ ያንብቡ

Nov 4, 2013

በህወሃት ውስጥ የዕርቅ ሃሳብ መነሳቱ ተሰማ - ጎልጉል

በህወሃት ውስጥ የዕርቅ ሃሳብ መነሳቱ ተሰማ

"የኢህአዴግ የአፈና ገመድ ነትቧል፣ ድርጅቱ ተናግቷል"

ኢትዮጵያ ግራ በሚያጋባና ሊተነበይ በማይችል የፖለቲካ ቀውስ ውስጥ መገኘቷን ያመኑ የህወሃት ሰዎች መካካል የእርቅ ሃሳብ ላይ ለማተኮር እቅድ እንዲያዝ ሃሳብ ማንሳታቸው ተሰማ። ኢህአዴግ የቀድሞው የአፈና ገመዱ መንተቡን የሚያሳዩ ምልክቶች መታየታቸውና አለመተማመን መንገሱ ተጠቆመ።

ጎልጉል መረጃ በመስጠት የሚታወቁ የኢህአዴግ ከፍተኛ አመራርና ዲፕሎማት እንዳሉት ህወሃት ውስጥ “እርቅ አስፈላጊ ነው” በሚል እቅድ እንዲያዝና እንዲሰራበት ሃሳብ ቀርቧል። በድርጅቱ ውስጥ በተፈጠረ አለመተማመን ሳቢያ ስጋት የገባቸው የህወሃት ሰዎች የእርቅ ሃሳብ እንዲሰራበት ያቀረቡት ሃሳብ ግን በመደበኛ ስብሰባ አይደለም። ተጨማሪ ያንብቡ


Oct 31, 2013

የብሄራዊ እርቅ ጊዜ አሁን ነው (PDF) - ገለታው ዘለቀ

ባለፉት ጥቂት ተከታታይ ጽሁፎች ላይ እንደተወያየነው በስምምነት ላይ የተመሰረተ ባህላዊ ውህደት ውስጥ መግባት ኢትዮጵያን እንደገና ለማነጽ ኣማራጭ መፍትሄ ይሆናል። ታዲያ በስምምነት ላይ የተመሰረተ ባህላዊ ውህደት ላሉብን ውስብስብ ሁለንተናዊ
ችግሮች ሁሉ መፍትሄ ይሆናል ማለት ሳይሆን ቅድሚያ ተሰጥቷቸው ሊፈቱ የሚገባቸውን ባህላዊ ማህበራዊ ችግሮች መስመር በማስያዝ በሂደት እየተፈቱ እንዲሄዱ ከማድረጉም በላይ ሌሎች ችግሮችን ለመፍታት ደግሞ ቀጥተኛ ያልሆነ ኣስተዋጾ ስላለው
ነው። በችግር ኣፈታት ጊዜ ከሚመጡት መፍትሄዎች መካከል የትኛውን ብናስቀድም ነው ሌላውን ችግርም ኣብሮ ሊፈታልን የሚችለው ብለንም እንጠይቃለንና በዚህ ረገድ በስምምነት ላይ የተመሰረተ ባህላዊ ውህደት ውስጥ መግባት ሌሎች መጋቢና
ተለጣጣቂ ችግሮችን ለመፍታት ይጠቅማል ከሚል ነው። ተጨማሪ ያንብቡ


Oct 23, 2013

Ethiopia: The 65 Percent and Political Consensus - Yaye Abebe

Ethiopia’s population is predominantly young. This is according to the United States Central Intelligence Agency July 2013 estimate of Ethiopia’s population: 0-14 years olds are 44.4% of population, while the 15-24 age group is 19.9% of the population.

The sum of the under 24 year old demographics is 65% of Ethiopia’s population, which amounts to more than 60 million people. (The 44.4% is more than 41 million, the 19.9% a little under 20 million).

Our country’s young population is coming of age within a decade, but is our nation’s politics ready for such huge demographic shift? What are the political challenges that we need to address to create a conducive political culture for our youth to live in a peaceful, stable and prosperous Ethiopia?

The 65% Factor

A young population has a great potential for economic, social and spiritual growth, but it is only a potential. Like all other untapped resources, if our young population is not understood, managed and utilized ethically and morally, the danger for misuse and mismanagement is immense.

In the past 40 years our nation has gone through incalculable suffering in all layers of our shared reality. Most tragedies, in my humble opinion, could have been averted given the right state of mind, preparation and leadership.

The 65% factor is a responsibility, for those of us who anticipate a tsunami of a major demographic shift in the horizon, to take a proactive and influential role in paving a new path of constructive political culture.

The 65% Opportunity

The 2012 US re-election of President Barack Obama is mainly attributed to the demographic shift in the American political landscape. It was a major shift but the Republicans either didn’t anticipate it or felt deluded in their desire to ‘take back’ America. The demographic shifts of the Arab world are also, to a large extent, credited for the emergence of Arab Spring (Hoffman, 2012).

Ethiopia will also, in the next decade, have a major part of its adult population dominated by young adults, the 20 to 30 age group, resulting in a major demographic shift. Psychologists stress the crucial importance of the formative years of a young person on self perception, worldview and major life decisions (Lerner).

It is this psychological reality that makes me believe the 1960s Ethiopian youth experienced a political upheaval that stunted and deformed its potential for the emergence of a new, normalized political discourse in Ethiopia. The 60s generation went through the traumatic experience of the Red Terror and other political conflicts which have contributed deeply to its self-preservative, vegetative state of continually concocting political strategies and tactics with major militant undercurrent.

After having learned from their traumatic experience, my father’s generation, who, by the way, was political prisoner of the Derg for 8 years, needs to wake up and realize that its political culture should not be inherited by the 65% for the very fact that the 60s political culture is a culture deformed by traumatic political violence and the absence of a fall back culture of political consensus.

Now, the 65% young population is the sole opportunity for the Student Movement generation and my post-revolution generation to realize that we can neither follow the lose-lose path of civil war nor the gamblers road to popular uprising. Both paths have resulted in self-inflicted, four decades long, dysfunctional and futile political culture.

The 65% Path

The 60 million Ethiopians, under the age of 24, need to see a role model to follow on how to resolve political differences, tensions and crisis. If those of us who are propagating the lose-lose path of civil war have our way, the 65% will learn hostility, violence and war.

On the other hand, if those of us salivating for a Libyan, Egyptian or even Syrian type of uprising get our way, we will be gambling with the potential of the 65%. And unless we are willingly forgetting what has happened in the abovementioned nations, we should also remember our own nation’s 1974 uprising and the catastrophic outcome. Revolution is a gamble.

The need for a paradigm shift in our violence-or-gambling mode of political thinking is the very reason I decided to advocate for the 65% Ethiopians. As a nation we are at a point where we must grow up and mature; we must abandon the politics of trauma and the failed violence-or-gambling paths and turn our focus towards exploring the underutilized and ignored path of initiating dialogue among the ruling party and legal opposition parties to create a much needed political consensus in Ethiopia.

Political Consensus

After having talked to 18 Ethiopians in Paltalk political discussion forums, both pro and against the ruling party, I have realized that the idea of political consensus (Poletikawi Megbabat) is under-explored and under-developed within our community's context.

The 65% need to witness political consensus in action in Ethiopia for the very fundamental purpose of shaping and building a constructive political culture during their formative and young-adult years.

Here is what I am proposing: The exploration and development of the idea of political consensus, on both conceptual and practical levels, to normalize the political discourse in Ethiopia. If you believe in this path, please let us raise awareness about the need for political consensus by exploring, writing, speaking, and advocating about political consensus as the superior solution for our nation’s political predicament.

The writer, Yaye Abebe, can be reached at

- Lerner, Jacqueline V. (2001). Adolesscence in America : an encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. 577

- CIA World Factbook,, accessed on October 11, 2013

- (Amharic only) Abebe, Yaye (2013). Pooletikawi Megbabat Ena 18 Ye Paltalk Tadamiwoch – Tiyaqena Mels,, accessed on October 15, 2013

- Hoffman, Michael (2012). The Youth and thhe Arab Spring: Cohort Differences and Similarities Princeton University, accessed on October 16, 2013 

Aug 31, 2013

የእርቅ ማኒፌስቶ፦ ወደ ዲሞክራሲ የሚያደርስ አማራጭ መንገድ (ዶ/ር ዘለዓለም እሸቴ ይመር)

ያለፉት 23 አመታት በመንግስትና ተቃዋሚ መካከል ያለው ቅራኔ መፍትኤ አላመጣም። በጦርነት ስልጣን የያዘ መንግስት ዲሞክራሲ ይኸሁላችው ብሎ ይሰጥ ዘንድ አይቻለውም። በጦርነት መንግስት ለመቀየር የሚታገለውም ስልጣኑን ሲይዝ ከዚህ የተለየ አያደርግም። ኢትዮጵያ መውጫ ቀዳዳ ያጣች ትመስላለች። እሺ ብንል እርቅና መግባባት ዲሞክራሲን ለመውለድ ብቸኛ መንገድ ነው። እንዴት ማለት ጥሩ ነው። ሁላችንም የምንጠለልባት፦ በፍቅር ተሳስረን የምንኖርባትን ቤተ ኢትዮጵያን እንዴት እንገንባት?

1ኛ/ ሰላምን ብቻ መምረጥ ላይ መድረስ፦ የቤተ ኢትዮጵያ መሰረት።

የስላሙን ትግል ከትግሎች ውስጥ እንደ አንዱ ሳይሆን እንደ ብቸኛ አማራጭ መውሰድ ይገባል። ኢትዮጵያ ለዚህ አይነት ሰላም ራሳቸውን የሰጡ ሰላማዊ ተቃዋሚ ልጆች አላት። ሰላምን ብቻ መምረጥ ወደ ዲሞክራሲ የሚያደርሰው የእርቅና መግባባት አስተሳሰብ መሰረት ነው። ያለዚህ የመጀመሪያ እርምጃ ንቅንቅ ማለት አይቻልም። በሌላው በኩል ይህ ብቻ በራሱ ዋጋ የለውም። በዚህ መሰረት ላይ መሰራት ያለበት ምሶሶ ያስፈልጋል። ያም ምሶሶ መተማመን ነው።

2ኛ/ መተማመን ላይ መድረስ፦ የቤተ ኢትዮጵያ ምሶሶ።

መንግስት ለሰላም ትግል ነፃነት ሰጥቻለሁ ማለት ብቻ በራሱ ዋጋ የለውም። ተቃዋሚ የሰላም ትግል አካሄዳለው ማለቱ ብቻ በራሱ ትርጉም የለውም። መተማመን ላይ እስካልተደረሰ ድረስ ሁለቱም ውጤት አያመጡም። ለመተማመን ደግሞ ቃል በስራ መተርጎም አለበት። ለምሳሌ መንግስት የሕዝብን ሚዲያዎች በሙሉ ለራሱ መገልገያ ማዋል ብቻ ሳይሆን ለሰላማዊ ተቃዋሚ መድረኩን መክፈት ይጠበቅበታል። ያለበለዚያ እግርን ጥፍር አድርጎ አስሮ ሲያበቃ ለመሮጥ ነፃነት ሰጥቻለሁ እንደማለት ይቆጠራል። በሌላ በኩል ደግሞ ተቃዋሚው የሰላም ትግልን ከመረጠ የመንግስት ተቃዋሚ ብቻ ሳይሆን የትጥቅ ትግል የመረጡትንም ጭምር መቃወም ይጠበቅበታል። ያለበለዚያ በሁለት ቢላዋ ለመብላት እንደ መሞከር ይቆጠራል።

3ኛ/ መደማመጥ ላይ መድረስ፦ የቤተ ኢትዮጵያ ግድግዳ።

መተማመን ከተጀመረ መደማመጥ መከተል ያስፈልገዋል። ያለበለዚያ ምሶሶ ብቻ ታቅፎ ቤት አለን አይባልም። አንዱ ሌላኛውን ከጨዋታ አውጥቶ ሙሉ በሙሉ መቆጣጠር ከመፈለግ ይልቅ በእርቅና በመግባባት የኢትዮጵያን ችግር አብሮ ለመቅረፍ መጣር ያስፈልጋል። ሰላማዊ ተቃዋሚ መሆን ጥቅሙ በጉልህ ይታይ። መንግስት ከሰላማዊው ተቃዋሚ ጋር በመጎራበት ሲሰራ ያየ ሁሉ የትጥቅ ትግል ጊዜ ያለፈበት ያረጀና ያከተመለት መሆኑን በሚገባ ይረዳል። ቤተ ኢትዮጵያም መልክ እየያዘ ይመጣል። ግን ጉዞው ገና ነው። ቤቱ መጠለያ ለመሆን ጣሪያ ያስፈልገዋል።

4ኛ/ ዲሞክራሲን ማዳበር ላይ መድረስ፦ የቤተ ኢትዮጵያ ጣሪያ።

ምሶሶና ግድግዳ ሳይቆም ጣሪያ መስራት እንደማይቻል ሁሉ፤ ዲሞክራሲን ለማዳበር ከዚህ በፊት የተዘረዘሩትን ከቁም ነገር ማስገባትና በስራ መተግበር ያስፈልጋል። መንግስትና ሰላማዊ ተቃዋሚዎች በመጎራበት ሲሰሩ፦ መንግስትና የትጥቅ ታጋዮች ጡንቻቸውን መጠቀም ሲተው ያኔ ዲሞክራሲ ለማደግ ፋታ ያገኛል። ይህ አማራጭ መንገድ የኛው በኛው ለኛው የሆነ የእርቅና መግባባት ስሌት ነው። ከሌላ ኮርጀን የምናመጣው አይደለም። እንግዲህ መንግስትና ተቃዋሚ አንዱ ያለሌላኛው ለኢትዮጵያ ዜሮ መሆኑን ይረዳ። መንግስትም ንቀቱን ይተው። ተቃዋሚም ጥላቻውን ይተው። ሁለቱም በእርቅና በመግባባት የኢትዮጵያን ውስብስብ ችግር ዲሞክራሲን በማዳበር ለመፍታት ይጣሩ። አዲስ አቅጣጫ ያስፈልገናል። ያለበለዚያ ያንኑ ያረጀ አካሄድ ይዘን አዲስ ምዕራፍ መሻገር አይቻልም። ኢትዮጵያ እንዲታደጓት የምትጠራው ሁለቱም ጎራ ውስጥ ያሉትን ልጆቿን ነው። የእናት ኢትዮጵያን ድምፅ የሚሰማ ይታጣ?

እባክዎን ስለ ብሔራዊ እርቅና መግባባት የተዘጋጀውን የሃሳብ ዳሰሳ (survey)፤ ለዚሁ አገልግሎት ወደ ተዘጋጀው ድህረ ገፅ በመሄድ ድምፅዎን ያሰሙ (እዚህ ላይ ይጫኑ)። ለሌሎችም ይሞሉ ዘንድ ያሳስቡ። አዲሱ አመት የእርቅና የመግባባት ዘመን ይሁንልን። የኢትዮጵያ ጉዳይ ግራ የገባው ሁሉ እጁን ወደ እግዚአብሔር ይዘርጋ፦ ብቻውን ተአምራትን የሚያደርግ እርሱ ፈጣሪያችን ኢትዮጵያን ይታደጋት!አይዞን እግዚአብሔር አለ።

Aug 24, 2013

“አገራችንን በእርቅ እንታደጋት” - ዶ/ር ተጋ ለንዳዶ

ዶ/ር ተጋ ለንዳዶ
የኢህአዴግ ባለስልጣኖችና ደጋፊዎች ከየትኛውም ዜጋ በላይ ዋስትና እንደሚፈልጉ በመግለጽ ዶ/ር ተጋ ለንዳዶ ለጎልጉል፡ የድረገጽ ጋዜጣ ተናገሩ። በአገራቸው ጉዳይ ላይ በተለይም በዕርቅ ዙሪያ በርካታ ጽሁፎችን ሲያቀርቡና ሲንቀሳቀሱ የቆዩት ዶ/ር ተጋ ለንዳዶ በኢትዮጵያ የአካባቢ ጥበቃ ዙሪያ በኃላፊነት ሲሰሩ የቆዩ ሲሆን ከአገራቸው ውጪም በኬንያ፣ በሞዛምቢክ፣ በስዊትዘርላንድና በተለያዩ የአሜሪካ ግዛቶች በከፍተና ኃላፊነት ሲሰሩ ቆይተዋል፡፡

 በተለይም በዎርልድ ቪዥን፣ በተባበሩት መንግሥታ፣ በዓለምአቀፍ አብያተክርስቲያናት ካውንስል፣ … የሰጡት የዓመታት አገልግሎት ተጠቃሽ ነው፡፡ በአገር ውስጥና በውጪ አገራት የተለያዩ ዩኒቨርሲቲዎች ከፍተኛ ትምህርታቸውን የተከታተሉት ዶ/ር ተጋ በደቡብ አፍሪካ በተካሄደው የዕርቅ፣ የሰላምና የፍትሕ ሒደት ውስጥ የተጫወቱት መጠነኛ ሚና በአገራቸው ተግባራዊ ሆኖ ለማየት የሚመኙና ለዚያም የሚቻላቸውን ጥረት ሁሉ ሲያደርጉ መቆየታቸው እስካሁን የሠሩት ሥራ ምስክር ነው፡፡ ከዚህም ሌላ ዶ/ር ተጋ ለንዳዶ የአገር ውስጥና የውጭ ስድስት ቋንቋዎችን አቀላጥፈው የሚናገሩ ናቸው፡፡ ተጨማሪ ያንብቡ


Jul 31, 2013

Inclusive Discourse: A Prelude to National Reconciliation - By Teklu Abate, PhD

Teklu Abate, PhD
To ensure the rule of law, freedom, and democratic governance in Ethiopia, the opposition mainly use two modes of struggle. What appears to be the dominant modus operandi is peaceful struggle, to which all the political parties operating in Ethiopia are required to subscribe. Armed struggle is preferred by other opposition parties/groups, whose scale of operation seems unclear to date. A limited number of groups claim to be eclectic in their approaches, vowing to use any means available to bring genuine change. The government of Ethiopia dubbed those groups that use the last two approaches as “terrorists” and hence, their physical presence is limited to the jungles and foreign capitals.

The relative effectiveness of each approach could not for sure be objectively judged. Nor is their extent of embrace by the Ethiopian people clear. Generally, one could argue that none of the approaches is effective in ushering real change. Two decades lapsed without any measurable change in the political milieu. Causes and reasons for the failure could of course transcend the boundaries of opposition parties; the ruling party, the Ethiopian people (both the Diaspora and those at home), and international pressures and maneuverings could be held accountable. In my previous paper entitled “Who retards political change in Ethiopia?” (available at, I tried to explain how and to what extent each entity unfavorably affected politics in Ethiopia during the last two decades.

One thing needs to be made clear. That the opposition are so far ineffective not simply because of the nature of the methods they used but mainly because of the extent of their (peaceful and armed) struggles. Struggles were not in match with the level of injustices made by the ruling party. Considering this state of affairs, we could not be able to see any meaningful changes in the times to come. And we are not going to see meaningful changes from the government either. The best one could do to avoid this ugly scenario might be to think what appears to be the unthinkable: to bring the polarized views of the government and the opposition to open, genuine, and rigorous self-scrutiny.
In this paper, it is argued that inclusive discourse, a systematic and sustained discussion of varying and contrasting ideologies, values, and/or opinions, could be entrusted to initiate, bring, and sustain real change in the way Ethiopia is being governed. This with a final goal of compromise, mutual understanding and then reconciliation. Although it is not new at the global level, it seems untried within the Ethiopian context. All the political changes that took place hitherto were either brought about by armed struggle (e.g. the collapse of the military rule), or by popular revolt (e.g. the demise of the imperial rule). Compared to other tried and tired approaches of the government and that of the opposition, inclusive discourse seems much more appealing to bring future peace and cohesion.

Discourse vs other approaches

Although one could use either peaceful or armed approach to bring change this time around, too, systematic, discourse-driven struggle is presumably far better or more effective for various reasons. One, discourse brings together contrasting views and encourages participants to finally make compromises. This would serve the interests of all parties and hence it liberates both the oppressed and the oppressors. Two, because oppressors will be equally liberated, they take part in nation re-building. Three, the possibility of future conflict and war could be none or little as all would consider the new system their own craft. Four, discourse damages neither human lives nor infrastructure. Five, because discourse formation has national, international, and global acceptance, the possibility of getting immense support in the process seems very high. Six, because of these five and other advantages, discourse could result in enhanced and sustained socio-economic and political transformations that could benefit all Ethiopians.


Who will take part in discourse formation? One could be tempted to mention the government and opposition parties. I argue that all the contours of Ethiopian society should be adequately and fairly represented during the process. It is only this way that one could establish a system accepted by all all the times. We witness that trusting elites only to bring change does not work. To me, meaningful discourse should be conducted by the following entities.

  • The government and the ruling party (although they are one and the same in Ethiopia)
  • Opposition parties (at home and in the Diaspora that use peaceful as well as armed approaches)
  • Representatives of all religions
  • The youth
  • NGOs
  • Professional associations
  • The Diaspora
  • The media (both print and electronic as well as online)
  • The intellectuals
  • The elderly, and
  • All political prisoners

Moreover, regional and international organizations (e.g. the AU, the EU), foreign governments, and donors could be invited to witness and support the process.

The next logical question could be: who would coordinate the process? To me, both the government and opposition parties should not be the facilitators, as they are the major rivals in the political scene. A sort of an ad hoc committee membering noted and respected Ethiopians could be entrusted to lead the process. In a way, the committee could identify a) a complete list of participants, b) topics and methods for discussion, c) rules of conduct, and, d) expected outputs and outcomes. Their draft could be presented to all interested people for feedback and improvement. Because of the complex nature of the job, committee members should be self-less; mature emotionally, morally, and intellectually; free from past or present involvement in injustices of any sorts, and well-connected locally and globally. However, for members who would come from the peasantry and rural parts of Ethiopia, a different set of criteria (e.g. experience in traditional arbitration) could be used. As a group, the committee should be as agile, ambitious and perseverant as possible.


There is no a single effective approach to the conduct of discourse. Depending on contextual factors and conditions, specific steps and trajectories could be identified and employed. To me, it could help to consider two stages of discourse. First, stakeholders could debate on a whole array of socio-economic, cultural, and political issues. Stakeholders at this stage are likely to 1) assume that only their position is correct, 2) come to the discourse only to win, 3) be defensive, 4) try to prove the other party wrong, 5) engage in finding flaws in the other party, and 6) generally critique their competing partner. This should be expected and tolerated and the committee should have strategies to prevent communication breakdown.

After sometime and using different techniques, it is crucial to advance to the next higher level of discourse- to make dialogues. At this stage, participants should a) assume that each party has his own version of life and living in Ethiopia, b) listen to understand, c) be ready to explore common grounds amidst differences, d) evaluate their own and others’ positions and weigh their national versus party/group significance. The process is expected to urge stakeholders to make
compromises. These would in the end lead to common understanding and then reconciliation at the national level.

Both print and electronic as well as online media could play a central role at debate and dialogue levels. Media, for instance, could invite people to participate in panel discussions on carefully chosen topics. They could also initiate and coordinate online discussions, by inviting writers/speakers from the opposition as well as the government sides. It could be vital to garner huge participation from Ethiopians living in different parts of the world. Following serious and series of discussions on a given thematic area, patterns and trends could be identified. As an example, the first round of discussions could focus on the relevance and significance of this line of struggle and if deemed important, how to proceed ahead. The selection of committee members and specific topics/issues for discourse could only follow this. Obviously, the process is going to be a hard ride.


As solving grand national problems through discourse is almost non-customary to Ethiopian politics, trying to initiate one could face a multitude of challenges. Identifying possible sources of challenges is the first step to devise coping mechanisms. The following could be considered the major ones.

  • The government might claim that it is already doing great job to the Ethiopian people (citing its statistics) and hence might not acknowledge the need for discourse
  • The government might consider the effort as an ‘underground’ movement that aims to salvage the opposition by creating shortcuts to power
  • The opposition might not have the readiness and interest to enter into discourse on account that the government does not understand this sort of language
  • And/or the opposition, particularly those that take armed trajectory, might consider this proposal as a calculated covert move by pro-government entities to ‘soften’ opposition movement
  • It might be a particular challenge to identify able and ready people who would facilitate/coordinate the process
  • The general public might not take the issue seriously and might develop conspiracy theories to ‘explain’ it
  • Some countries and groups that do not want to see strong Ethiopia might put hurdles on the way

Final remarks

The type of discourse described above emanates from the fundamental assumption that the general public is frustrated by the way the government and the opposition are doing politics. Each holding its own discourse behind closed doors as if they are talking about different countries. And hence inclusive discourse is proposed to be an alternative to bring change to politics in Ethiopia. Or, it could be used by parties and groups who already got their own mode of operation.

If systematically planned and conducted, inclusive discourse could bring sizable results. The least one could expect from this endeavor is leaving behind the idea and significance of holding arguments with people of diverse viewpoints and opinions. If this happens, it can be considered one major indication of our entry into the 21st Century.

The writer could be reached at and also blogs at -


May 21, 2013

Which Way Ethiopia: Revolution, Civil War, or National Reconciliation? By Messay Kebede, PhD

Messay Kebede, PhD
Since the death of Prime Minister Meles, the political situation of Ethiopia has entered a phase of uncertainty with no clear momentum toward stabilization. Despite predictions of the imminent collapse of the EPRDF, either under the pressure of a popular uprising or splits within its ranks, the political situation shows no sign of heightened challenge to the regime. In fact, it remains a mystery that no political upheavals of any importance occurred following the death of Meles, who was after all the center and the driving force of the whole system. On the other hand, however, notwithstanding an orderly succession, the uncertainty has not been removed and symptoms of unresolved internal conflicts transpire occasionally. Above all, the extent to which the new prime minister is really in charge being anything but assured, the vacillation of the system lingers, given that the entire government was designed to function under the leadership of a strong and unchallenged prime minister.

One thing is sure: the uncertainty cannot go on indefinitely and nothing can be done to improve the political climate and the economic conditions of the country without some reforms. This is to say that change is inevitable and that it will come sooner or later. The question is: which direction is the change likely to take? For my part, I have no desire to play the game of predictions. Instead, I want to present some possible scenarios and invite political leaders and activists who care about Ethiopia to reflect on them so as to be ready for various eventualities instead of being fixated on the outcome that they long for.

Given the amplifying state of frustration of the county, the only way of avoiding ominous developments is not only that the prime minister really exercises power, but that he uses this power to correct some of the glaring derailments of Meles, especially by easing the repressive policy adopted by him. Meles effected the reversal of democratization because he could count on the complete obedience of the repressive machine of the state. Haile Mariam does not have the same control and cannot have it without further empowering the very men who command the repressive apparatuses. In other words, failure to promote reform is for Haile Mariam to give more power to the TPLF instead of reducing it. By contrast, the political choice of easing repression, better still, of initiating reforms reduces the importance of the repressive forces and creates momentum toward the gathering of the popular support and legitimacy that Haile Mariam needs to prevail over Meles’s old clique.

The dilemma of the prime minister is thus clear enough: in order to assert himself, he has to correct Meles’s policy, but in so doing he runs the risk of antagonizing the TPLF and hence of losing his position altogether. Conversely, if he upholds the policy of his predecessor, he simply feeds on the image of a puppet of the TPLF, which image underlines his irrelevance, thereby instigating his removal. Surely, since the longer the policy of Meles continues, the more repressive the state must become, the TPLF will be better off to do the job on its own than to use the cumbersome mediation of a puppet. The dilemma shows that Haile Mariam’s best bet is to go in the direction of easing repression, which at least promises the prospect of him becoming his own man.

The huge unknown is whether Haile Mariam has the right political ambition to want to stand by himself and the political skill to outmaneuver the TPLF and other challengers. I must admit that I have no a ready answer for this question. I also confess my pessimism, even though I recognize that more time is needed before one makes a final judgment. True, I am encouraged by his open condemnation of the displacement of the Amhara settlers, but remain skeptical because of the lack of any practical follow-up to correct the injustice. Moreover, the appalling dismissal of the appeals of Eskinder Nega, Andualem Arage, and other political prisoners by the higher court did nothing to reduce my skepticism. To sum up my position, in light of the time needed for consolidation, I say that Haile Mariam still deserves the benefit of the doubt even if the performances of his government are not, so far, promising.

In case Haile Mariam remains submerged by the TPLF, the scenario of an increasingly repressive government that could only further aggrieve the Ethiopian masses presents itself. My contention is that unless the TPLF takes the rightful place of being a party among others within the coalition of the EPRDF, it cannot maintain the hegemonic role it has played so far without pushing repression to a point far exceeding that of Meles. By force of habit and because of his political shrewdness, Meles was able to rise as the unquestioned leader of the EPRDF. After successive purges of all those who could threaten him, none among the remaining leaders of the TPLF has the stature or even the capacity to command the same authority. Various competitors both within the TPLF and the EPRDF are likely to emerge with the consequence that only through increased repression can one of them prevail.

Needless to say, the pursuit and continuation of the hegemony of the TPLF can only exasperate popular frustration and multiply opposition. Though arrogance inspires the TPLF to think that repression is enough to protect its supremacy, the history of all countries teaches us that a time comes when people rise and confront what repressive them, regardless of the apparent strength of the repressive state. Ethiopia is not going to be an exception to the rule. Hence, my belief that the continuation of the hegemony of the TPLF will inevitably lead to an uprising. The burning question is: will the uprising take the form of a revolution or of an outright civil war?

All those Ethiopians who still hope that Ethiopia will be galvanized by the Arab spring have in mind an uprising leading to revolution, which would essentially consist in the overthrow of the TPLF state and the dismantling of its repressive apparatuses. This outcome appears even more likely in light of the fact that Ethiopia has already gone through a similar process in 1974. For many activists, revolution is the best prospect for Ethiopia and its people, with the hope that this time the mistakes of the 70s will not be committed and the revolution will establish a democratic state.

Here I hasten to express my reservation, which originates from the simple observation that the situation in 1974 was quite different from what Ethiopia is facing today. Indeed, if a reference to the Arab spring is of some use, I will say that what lies ahead is a development that is similar neither to Egypt nor Tunisia. The model we should refer to is that of Libya or, even more correctly, that of Syria. In other words, the likely outcome of a total uprising in Ethiopia is civil war rather than revolution.

What this means is that conflicts and violent clashes will develop, not between a dictatorial state and everybody else, but between a majority and a dictatorial state identifying with the interests of a minority ethnic group. For one of the detrimental results of the ethnicization of the Ethiopian society and the creation of ethnic regions is the clear divide between ethnic groups and the subsequent subsumption of these groups to the privileges and special treatments of local elites. In a situation of wide uprising, the point is easily reached when it becomes difficult to distinguish between the elites and the ethnic groups, which is then a recipe for ethnic confrontations, that is, for civil war.

Though I never endorse the idea that similar conditions entail similar historical outcomes, it would be foolish to think that regularities in history do not operate in some degree. Among the Arab countries that went through a political turmoil, Syria is the one that comes close to the situation of Ethiopia under the TPLF. The bloody conflict in Syria is between the Alawi minority, which controls economic and military apparatuses, and a frustrated majority that is politically and economically marginalized by a dictatorial state serving the interests of the minority. The uprising against Assad and the state failed to be revolution and turned into a civil war because of the fear of the minority that the overthrow of Assad will mean the loss of its political and economic upper hand, not to mention the fear of physical victimization. Even if many in the minority resent the dictatorial rule of Assad, they prefer to stick with him to avoid the likelihood of revengeful treatments.

No one can honestly say that Ethiopia under the TPLF does not show a deepening rift between the majority and the minority ethnic group allegedly represented by the existing regime. Doubtless, some supporters of the regime will argue that the EPRDF is a coalition of different ethnic groups so that Ethiopia is not under a minority rule. But the image of the EPRDF as a coalition of equals fools no one anymore and members of the EPRDF know perfectly well that they are clients of the TPLF, not to say hired mercenaries. The TPLF federation is a smoke screen: not only the major economic assets and the governments of ethnic regions are controlled by the TPLF, but most importantly, the repressive apparatuses, including the higher echelons of the army, are entirely dominated by officers of Tigrean origin.

One condition for a popular uprising to avoid a descent into a civil war is when the army is either paralyzed by divisions or stays neutral. This precipitates the fall of the regime and hence precludes the transformation of revolution into civil war. This was clearly the case in Egypt and Tunisia. But when the army supports the regime against the people in order to perpetuate ethnic domination, the fight is prolonged with the risk of turning into a civil war. In the case of Ethiopia, to maintain that the army will remain neutral if an uprising occurs is little credible. In the 1974 revolution, the regime was overthrown easily because the army did not support it. It was a multiethnic army and as such was not committed to the defense of any particular ethnic group. What Ethiopia has now is not so much a national as an ethnic army, which is then most likely to defend the ruling ethnic elite, thereby pushing the uprising toward a civil war.

While agreeing that the worst outcome would be the beginning of a civil war, most Ethiopians comfort themselves by believing that it is very unlikely. But who said that the worst scenario is unlikely to happen? Accordingly, what we need is realism, that is, a clear and unbiased assessment of the situation so that we can work toward making the worst scenario improbable. Stated otherwise, we should develop a policy of prevention, which is none other than the framing of a government of national reconciliation. Such a government requires crucial concessions from those who control power as well as from those who oppose them. When a country is beset with political problems that are deep and potentially liable to degenerate into armed confrontations, the solution cannot come from the organization of democratic elections. The latter require some degree of consensus and a minimum of impartial arbitration that are inexistent in ethnically polarized countries.

As shown by elections since 2005, the minimum conditions for a democratically elected government do not exist in Ethiopia and are not likely to appear any time soon. The ruling party will do everything to win, including the use of violence and fraudulent manipulations of votes; the opposition will continue to complain without any notable change. Let us admit it, in countries deeply polarized by ethnic or religious issues, where therefore the rule of the minority abiding by the verdict of the majority is not recognized, elections are just powerless to bring about political change.

This does not mean that democratic elections should be abandoned altogether. It simply means that a transitional period, during which mutual confidence, consensus, and healing can be worked out, is necessary. The purpose of a government of national reconciliation is to create the conditions for the establishment of a political system emanating from democratic elections. As a precondition for democracy, such a government is not itself ruled by democratic principles. Rather, its ruling principle is pragmatism: it takes measures from the sole perspective of reconstructing national harmony and consensus, without being disturbed by questions of principles and morality. Its main goal is the provision of incentives for political opponents to come together and establish consensus on some basic issues.

Such reconciliation is based on the premise that a civil war would benefit nobody. From this shared agreement follows the need to take decisive actions to avoid what everybody wants to avoid, the whole purpose being to reach a working mechanism assuring a win-win solution for everybody. Concessions from all competing parties are the ingredients driving the whole process. As such, the process abhors extremisms of all kinds so as to bring about the rule of moderation. Just as the ruling party agrees to share power with the opponents, so too the opponents give up all political vendetta and victimization. This is an important provision: since what prevents members of the ruling party from playing by the rule of democracy is the fear of reprisal against their person and their economic assets, offering an amnesty and a guarantee against economic dispossession is alone liable to institute confidence and reciprocity. For those who argue, in the name of justice, that crimes must be exposed and punished, my answer is that forgiveness and amnesty are morally justified if they allow us to reach the greater good of reconciliation, national unity, and peace.

Some such process of transition could be undertaken under the leadership of Prime Minister Haile Mariam. His weak political position, combined with the lack of extremism and the fact that he represents a minority ethnic group that can serve as a buffer between larger competing groups, gives him a strategic political role. It is to this go-between role that he owes his position as prime minister. To complete his mediating role, which is then his calling, he must now call upon the opposition and place himself between the EPRDF and the opposition and promote the idea of a government of national reconciliation. In so doing, he turns his strategic importance into the legitimacy of a nation-builder.

May wisdom fall on all Ethiopians!


ተልዕኳችን | Our Mission

“65 ፐርሰንት” ትርጉም? የኢትዮጵያ ህዝብ 65 በመቶው እድሜያቸው ከ24 አመት በታች ነው። ተልዕኳችን ለመጪው ትውልድ የመግባባትን ፓለቲካ በአርአያነት ማውረስ ነው። ግባችን ለፓለቲካዊ እርቅና መግባባት መሟገትና ፋና ወጊ መሆን ነው።

What is “65 percent”? 65% of Ethiopia’s population is under 24 years old. Our mission is to model a culture of political concensus for the 65%. Our goal is to advocate for, and initiate reconciliation and consensus among Ethiopians.

Post Archive