E.P.R.D.F ain’t a "Raj"

__________________________________

Paulos Yrgaw
Feb 25, 2006

The fourth President of the United States, James Madison, once wrote, "All governments rest on opinion." Mahatma Gandhi, the brain father of "Satyagraha" centered his political crucible in the premises that, the central role of consent in all government meant that non-cooperation--the withdrawal of consent--is something more than a morally satisfying activity where it is a seismic tool in the political world.

To that effect, in a bid to shake the very foundation of the British "Raj", he stated that, "I believe and everybody must grant that no Government can exist for a single moment without the cooperation of the people, willing or forced, and if people withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the Government will come to a stand still."

Ironically, Gandhi launched his non-violent ingenuity while he was a resident of South-Africa, however, with the contortion of historical events, South-Africans, in their perennial struggle against Apartheid resorted into violence to free themselves from the ramshackle of bigotry.

As it found its monumental place in the annals of history, and later on to be emulated by other social upheavals, Gandhi’s "Satyagraha" was designed to function effectively and exclusively against a torque of an exotic "genetic pool" where the British "Raj" was a case study with in social activists, academics and historians alike. To utilize, Gandhi’s "Satyagraha" in a different political dynamism and milieu as an elixir to a perceived political anomalies is not only a blunder of a historical proportion, it is also a show-case of political perfidy to one’s own integrity.

C.U.D’s kaleidoscopic mantra in an attempt to mobilize the Ethiopian people to stand against the incumbent government at times through un-Constitutional means and other times through ostracization of certain segment of the society is a glaring mishap and a despondence of political acumen in its part. Of course, power is not vested on governments, rather it is concentrated on the people.

As Gandhi brilliantly put it, should the people pull their trust from the rug of the government, the government becomes hanged in a standstill. Savvy governments recognize the imperatives of this reality and throw the crucible to render their political plat-form more inclusive designed to stand for the interest of the people. The entire people. And this is exactly the brains behind E.P.R.D.F is.

To perceive those who voted for E.P.R.D.F as non-Ethiopians and consequently to wage a social isolation to de-capacitate a certain ethnic group is not only a disservice to the noble cause of "Satyagraha", it is also a tragically misplaced political strategy which renders the leadership of C.U.D a laughing stock of the highest order.

The question that baffles many of sound synaptic clefts is that, why is it incredibly difficult to fathom the rules of engagements where the Constitution is the spinning wheel to throw a bait on. Why is it difficult for the leaders of C.U.D to challenge the incumbent government with in the structure of the system, in other means, with in the edifice of the Constitution? Those who are bright enough recognized the take of the day and opted to walk through the gates of the parliament and take their seats and bring their convictions in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution.

First of all, what the Opposition are re-missing time and time again is that, E.P.R.D.F is not a foreign power and adopting as a strategic tool a social isolation against those who adhere to the political plat-form of E.P.R.D.F or declaring a moot any State institution renders the leadership of C.U.D anarchists at best and bigots at worst.

The recent dramatic gesture by the leadership of C.U.D to nullify the institution of Court of Law is a non-issue strategy where it makes foreign observers in general and the democracies around the world in particular to augment a doubting eye on their take about the Opposition. Democracies have pledged an allegiance amongst themselves to have a lasting respect to the foundations of their respective Institutions.

This is the new wind of the emerging order from NEPAD in our continent to the other international political organizations. With in this premises, how do the leaders of the Opposition expect the leaders of democratic countries to have a "sympathy" toward them when they display a hubric contempt towards the Institution of the State?

The Ethiopian Constitution is designed in such a way that, not a single ethnic group can assume power. One does not have to have a super cerebrum to understand this card with in the shuffle. This article of the Constitution reflects the need for diversity in order to assume a political power and to share power with in the spirit of equity as well.

With in this modus operandi, how does the C.U.D possibly think that, it can assume power at the expense of other ethnic groups? If it is not an inclusive political party of other ethnic groups in a larger scale, how is this to be consistent with the zeitgeist of Ethiopia where the equal rights of every ethnic group is the pride of the new emerging Ethiopia?

To find a feasible answer to this otherwise daunting questions, the C.U.D if it is ever to survive as a political party, it needs to come out from its parochial box and assess its political threads not only to be taken serious but also to help the fledging democracy resume its vitality with an Opposition party whose very fabric is with in the tenets of the Constitution.

Comments: asimov107@yahoo.ca

Paulos Yrgaw
Ottawa, Canada.

home