Institute of Development and Education for Africa (IDEA)

webmaster@africanidea.org

The Medrek Genius: The Metaphors of the Mule, the Surrogate Mother, and the Hut

April 21, 2010 Ghelawdewos Araia

The Medrek conference held in Washington DC on April 18, 2010 was a huge success, to say the least. But it would be only appropriate to begin with the turn out, the enthusiasm, and the high moral of Ethiopians who gathered on that day to witness for themselves the indomitable spirit of their forefathers. The venue of the conference, the Sheraton hotel, was filled to capacity with well over 800 people and quite clearly the gathering exhibited exuberance beyond mere enthusiasm and it all altogether fostered a festive mood in the Hall.

I for one joined the festive mood, and by sitting at the very first row, I was able to capture the high moral of the audience, which can easily be interpreted as the promise and pride of Ethiopia. This is all before the Medrek leaders came to the Hall. Then at about 3 pm, the Medrek leaders, namely Engineer Gizachew Shiferaw, Dr. Negasso Gidada, Ato Gebru Asrat, and Ato Siye Abraha walked into the Hall only to be received by a standing ovation and accompanied by an appropriate music.

Once the Medrek leaders took their seats on the stage, the MC, Ato Yilma Adamu, made a brief remark on the proceedings of the conference and introduced the guest panel. The speakers were Ato Gebru Asrat and Engineer Gizachew Shiferaw only, but all four leaders participated in responding to the questions forwarded by the audience.

Ato Gebru presented issues pertaining to current Ethiopian politics and his party�s political program in fairly clear terms. He highlighted the component parts of the Medrek party program (which is composed of 35 articles in 65 pages) and underscored the questions of democracy in the context of peace and prosperity for Ethiopia. He bluntly told the audience that the politics of the governing party is a manifestation of a choking system; that freedom of the press is non-existent; and that EPRDF�s so-called �revolutionary democracy� guiding principle and policy has only resulted in a foe-friend continuum and divided the Ethiopian people. The foe apparently is the opposition parties and according to Ato Gebru, the government intends to incarcerate what it calls the �spearhead leaders�.

Contrary to �revolutionary democracy�, Gebru said, �Medrek embraces liberal democracy�. He reiterated that his party rejects the Algiers Agreement of 2000 between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Moreover, he stated that Asseb should be the port outlet for Ethiopia; that land belongs to the Ethiopian farmer and not the government. �For the EPRDF,� Gebru contends, �land is ideological while for Medrek it is political� and that is why the government says �over my dead body� whenever the transference of land ownership to the people is raised.

The most interesting part of Gebru�s speech, and I might add profoundly philosophical, was the metaphor of the Mule. He depicted Ethiopia as a mule because this animal of burden, like Ethiopia of today, is a byproduct of two animals (the male donkey and the female horse) that could hardly claim a definite identity; worst of all, the mule is barren; it can�t procreate, and that is the fate of Ethiopia under the EPRDF.

Engineer Gizachew opened his speech with Ethiopia�s glorious past (Aksum, Gondar, Lalibela, and the Harar and Jimma Abba Jiffar historic sites) and fired the already enthused audience. He posed a question to the audience, �why has Ethiopia slipped from its proud historic achievements to its present shameful situation?� Beyond his relatively rhetorical statements, however, Engineer Gizachew came up with concrete data that captivated the audience. The lack of democracy and good governance in the last seventy years, he said, have culminated in EPRDF�s rule where we still have 6-to14 million famine- stricken Ethiopians. He claimed that 90% of the people in Dega Damot (Gojjam) don�t have shoes. He also described quite vividly the contrast between the appalling and squalid condition of poor Ethiopians, who live in huts and skyscrapers of Addis Ababa. He expressed his disbelief that Ethiopians don�t have houses in the 21^st century. The hut that became center-stage in Gizachew�s speech, in fact figuratively symbolizes Ethiopian backwardness and the abject poverty of its people. The hut is a diminutive dwelling of poor Ethiopians along with their sheep, goats, and other animals. The hut, for all intents and purposes, defies the logic of decent standard of living; it neither has kitchen nor a latrine, nor does it provide the ambience of a home or a house.

Once again, Engineer Gizachew fired the audience when he brought up Birtukan Medeksa�s imprisonment. He told the conferees, �Birtukan is the political agenda of Ethiopia.� He then said, �the Ethiopian people are ready for change; Medrek is a party of cooperation and tolerance; Medrek will bring the national and nationality-focused agendas together; the vision of Medrek is the vision of the Ethiopian people.� Gizachew also criticized EPRDF�s �revolutionary democracy� and particularly hammered the wrong policy of �agriculture-led-industrial-development�. According to Gizachew agriculture could not play a central role in development. On the contrary, Medrek�s policy of an interdependent and diverse economy is the correct strategy in development. However, he emphasized the significance of justice and freedom as cornerstones in development. In concluding his speech, he quite humbly told the audience, �Medrek cannot operate all by itself; we need your support; the Ethiopian problem is solved by Ethiopians only, and we must create one Ethiopian community.�

Following the enlightening and sobering speechs of the two Medrek leaders, the MC asked members of the audience to shake hands, and that altogether brought a spirited atmosphere. Then followed the Q & A session. By and large, the following questions were asked:

Do you have a game changing strategy?
Why do we need ethnic [nationality] parties?
What kind of federalism are we going to have?
Aren�t individual rights and nationality rights contradictory?
How can you participate in [election] politics without the freedom of Birtukan?
How do you think you are going to tackle the elections?
How are you going to coordinate your political activity with other parties who also believe in liberal democracy?
Why did you show the propensity toward �self-determination�?

Ato Siye began addressing the questions by first reassuring the audience that the questions asked raise fundamental issues. Before addressing the questions, however, he uncovered EPRDF�s new inner-party gazette named Addis Ra�y or New Vision, whose main purpose is to update party members of confidential matters. The New Vision, Ato Siye states, admitted �the ruling party made a mistake in the 2005 election for imprisoning members of the opposition Unity for Democracy and Justice (UDJ) or Kinijit without exposing them in public,� �the EPRDF is not concerned for imprisoning the opposition; it is saying that it made a mistake in the way they were put to jail;� �Now, i.e. for the 2010 election, the government has a new strategy of �recording the activities of the opposition in audio and video and bring them to court.� This, says Siye, is �the highest form of psychological warfare, and after all the election administrators are government appointees.�

With respect to the game changing strategy question, Siye responded, �the best strategy is to stay in the game.� He underscored the sad experience of internecine wars among Ethiopian opposition in the past and suggested that we need to end the vicious circle of internal conflict. Most importantly, Siye added some flavor of humor to his answers when he uttered the Se�mna Wo�rk (wax and gold), �lets bring down the one that we have put up there.�

Dr. Negasso began addressing questions related to ethnicity and government affiliations in the past of some of the Medrek leaders, including himself who served as President of Ethiopia, Siye as Minister of Defense, and Gebru as Governor of Tigray. He puts it in the form of question, �how about those of you who were former members of MEISONE, EPRP, or OLF etc.� and there was an eerie silence in the Hall. �I am not trying to defend myself,� Negasso continues, �all I am saying is we should say how do we go about and solve problems as Medrek?� �The Ethiopian diversity is a blessing; in fact, we are fortunate enough,� Negasso added. Quite eloquently, he addressed problem-solving- mechanisms in Ethiopian politics. He said, �Different ideologies of different groups have risen in the past; now it is important to recognize the differences and allow them to create solutions. Every Ethiopian must have the right to organize irrespective of ideologies, but s/he must explain to the people.�

Dr. Negasso also addressed the question of federalism and in more general terms he defended the right of the people to use their language for public service, and in the federal structure the right of every Ethiopian, including members of the ruling EPRDF, should be respected.

Gebru Asrat addressed the questions forwarded to him and attempted to convey an important message on the difference between his party Arena and the TPLF by demonstrating the diametrically opposite stances in some crucial issues such as Ethiopia�s right to have outlet to the sea. He emphatically reiterated that Arena favors Ethiopian unity; advocates the right of Ethiopia to use Asseb as its port; and defends the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ethiopia. The TPLF/EPRDF, at the other end of the spectrum, is opposed to what Arena stands for.

The second part of the Q & A session involved the following questions from the audience and also live (via pal talk) from Canada:

What is your position on the land question? To rent, to buy, and to sell?
How about the new agribusinesses that are grabbing land in Ethiopia?
Are you going to stay the course or you are going to flee?
How about the Eritrean question? How are you going to solve it?
What are your efforts regarding organizing and mobilizing the youth and women?

All four Medrek leaders tried to address the above questions, but Engineer Gizachew made a retrospective analysis of his experience with the UDJ. He said, �now, there are 92 parties; some of them represent individuals and they are political jokes; if true and honest parties emerge, however, Medrek will try to reach them out. The UDJ had namely two major problems: timing and lack of democratic operation within itself.� �Medrek,� says Gizachew, �must be democratic, must make history, but it has already learned tolerance�; �the choice is not fragmentation but consensus (give and take), but we have decided to first form a coalition and then forge unity.� �The best option is the peaceful and democratic paths because those who assumed power by the use of arms did not find democratic systems.�

Dr. Negasso supplemented Gizachew�s articulated answers and reassured the audience by saying, �we are a coalition now, but in a short while we believe we can realize a complete unity.� Negasso also addressed the current mind set (mood and psychological make up) of the Ethiopian people, and he said that the youth in places like Bahir Dar, Gondar, Mekelle, and Awassa are very much involved in politics. He also pleaded the audience, and especially those who question the Woyane factor, to make distinction between the three Woyanes: the first waged war against Haile Selassie�s rule; the second fought the Derg�s government; the third (Arena) is struggling [for the right of the people of Tigray and the unity of the Ethiopian people]. The latter is what Negasso implied and did not explicitly express.

Following Negasso, Ato Gebru openly declared, �Medrek is not a grouping of Angels, nor of devils.� He was obviously referring to the human capacity of Medrek and to the Party�s potential of excelling in many ways, but it can err in policy in many ways as well. In this context, thus, he told the audience that Medrek has already circulated a memo on the Ethiopian-Sudanese border.

Finally, Ato Siye, addressing the question of ethnic politics (associated with nationality organizations) emphasized the necessity of creating �the right political chemistry� and the mature methods in handling affairs. He captivated the audience when he said (with a wide smile on his face), �the people of Tigray were not pleased only because they saw Gebru and Siye; they were equally delighted when they saw Bulcha Demekesa, Engineer Gizachew, and Professor Beyene.� �We must be able to overcome fear by trusting each other.�

The climax of the day was the metaphor of the surrogate mother. Siye Abraha, in answering the question of land rented out to foreign agribusinesses likened it to what he calls the surrogate mother. In the most profound sense, he reinforced Gebru�s mule in relation to Ethiopia �s predicament, in which the foreign agribusinesses developed their modern farms (which Siye calls the God-blessed womb) in Ethiopia and feed their people, when in fact millions of Ethiopians starve and millions upon millions of them are relegated to the squalid hut of Gizachew Shiferaw.

I was overwhelmed not only by the sense of pride of Ethiopians and their love for their country, as witnessed on April 18 in Washington DC, but also by the crafty and sophisticated responses to various questions made by the Medrek leadership. I believe, Medrek, sooner or later will uplift Ethiopia especially if it enjoys the solid backing of Ethiopians. Ethiopia indeed is in good hands as the MC quite correctly puts it.

It may sound quixotic to expect Medrek�s triumph all over Ethiopia on May 23, 2010 and assume state power, but it is reasonable to conjecture that this coalition of eight parties can secure sizable seats in the parliament and become a viable and formidable opposition. Not withstanding Meles� annoying quirks and the misleading fiction of the EPRDF, the Ethiopian people are ready for change, as Gizachew aptly puts it, and they have made up their mind in supporting Medrek.

As most of the Medrek leaders put it, the impoverished environment in Ethiopia, the deeply authoritarian regime surrounded by a new class of nomenclatura capitalists (a new variety of bureaucratic capitalists who monopolize businesses and choke free enterprise), and an overall creative stagnation in higher education, is a discouraging prospect. However, Medrek has no choice but to keep going. Despite the manipulative and coercive apparatus, in light of the enduring strain of the Ethiopian tradition, Medrek must lead Ethiopians toward complete freedom and pave the way for the bright future of Ethiopia.

Finally, I like to make a moment�s reflection on the intricacy and complexity of politics that, in one form or another, evolves independent of our will. The Medrek coalition must seriously consider the possibility of shadowy figures that camouflage as friends but who could foster damage. These elements are a lot dangerous than the present government in power. They could be intellectually superior but they are morally retarded. Here, I am neither constructing a rational analysis nor providing a suggestive model to Medrek, but merely venting my concerns.