My first commentary on Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's forthcoming book recapitulated the history of the process that led him and his TPLF/EPRDF to embrace and start practicing the so-called dominant party version of democracy. My second installment discussed a few of the implications of practicing this ironically named version of democracy. In this and final contribution I wish to suggest a more promising way forward.

Recommending a more promising way forward entails exposing the fallacious nature of the fundamental premises on which the so-called dominant party democracy draws. The first and most important premise on which this version of politics draws is the presumption that a single person or group holds the key to the nirvana of economic development. In the Ethiopian context, this translates into presuming that only the TPLF/EPRDF has the motivation, capability and commitment to perform the miracle of ending Ethiopia's decades-old steady descent into abject poverty.

And this presumption draws on another one, that the TPLF/EPRDF has a uniquely empathetic relationship with the country's largest social sector, the peasantry. There is no evidence whatsoever to support these interdependent presumptions. Only by submitting itself to an electoral process that is moderately free and fair would the TPLF/EPRDF demonstrate whether it enjoys this special relationship with the country's entire peasantry or not. Alas, events surrounding some of the contested elections of the past appear to indicate the direct opposite. Tension seems to mark the TPLF/EPRDF's relations with the peasantry more than empathy. Incidentally, this may very well apply even to the Tigrean peasantry with which the TPLF leaders have had the longest and supposedly coziest and beneficial relationship.

The presumption that a party can indefinitely and democratically rule a country is even more manifestly wrong and indisputably untenable. The aspiration to rule any country by undemocratic means has routinely ended in failure as has happened time and again in Ethiopia's history. Aspiring to rule any country both democratically and indefinitely is nothing else but a contradiction in terms. Societies would like to use elections as an opportunity to change their rulers if for nothing else but out of boredom at seeing the same faces around. And what purpose would elections serve if not enabling the populace to periodically change those ordering it around? Regimes that refuse to submit themselves to the possibility of peacefully handing over power to the winners of elections would definitely be unseated sooner or later although this may entail avoidable violence and destruction. Ethiopia has had enough of these violent changes of regimes, hence requiring of us the courage and wisdom to seek an alternative process.

Successive rulers of Ethiopia have repeatedly failed to heed the writing on the wall that their time is up. The failed coup of 1960 was such a moment for Emperor Haile-Selassie. Instead of instituting the necessary reforms to salvage his legacy, however, he stubbornly stuck to his belief that staging pageantry at home and going on foreign trips would suffice to indefinitely legitimate his rule. Its battlefield losses outside Afabet in March 1988 marked one of many such moments for the Derg regime. Had it offered to revive Eritrea's federation and also allowed other societies to enjoy some form of self-rule as late as that time, the Derg would have possibly averted the break-up of the country. Historians may some day look back and identify the May 2005 elections as such a critical turning point for the TPLF/EPRDF regime. Instead of rethinking their strategy with the view to salvaging the gains they have amassed during the last sixteen years, TPLF leaders are now informing us of their determination to indefinitely remain in power by winning elections by whatever means necessary. This comes through quite clearly in the extracts of Prime Minister Meles's forthcoming book.

In his extracts, the Prime Minister considers and dismisses an alternative way forward, which I believe is more promising. He mentions the possibility of forging consensus among politicians and the population at large on fundamental policy as a possible alternative to a single party acting as the sole engine of development. He dismisses this alternative by arguing that, by confining politics to dealing with trivialities and personalities, it would easily fan patronage. In reality, the contrary is more likely. The dominant party that lacks popular mandate through credibly verifiable electoral processes would be even more likely to practice patronage. The potential popular reprimand periodically delivered at the ballot box is actually a better guard against patronage than appropriating for oneself the role of the dominant party shouldering the responsibility of single-handedly delivering development.

Forging a consensus among Ethiopia's diverse political actors is imperative at this historical juncture for an even more pressing reason. Ethiopia's political actors have very divergent ideas about the nature and the very size of the Ethiopian state. Some of the country's political elites continue to entertain the aspiration of either partially or wholly regaining Eritrea. Some members of the same camp harbour the additional aspiration of reviving the agenda of forging Ethiopia into a single Amharic-speaking nation-state. Other sectors of the political elite consider this aspiration as a threat to their communities' survival and dignity and are hence considering separation in order to realize their own culturally homogeneous nation-state. The position of the rest of the country's political elite falls somewhere between these two extremes.

I believe these differences are not unbridgeable. Trends unfolding since the May 2005 elections demonstrate the willingness of Ethiopia's political groups to reach across deep political divisions. This new tendency appears to stem from the soul-searching that has led to rethinking of one's position, which was in turn driven by the surprising outcome of those elections. Hence, unlike the TPLF/EPRDF, some the country's political forces are pioneering the pooling of effort and influence to bring about change in a peaceful and planned manner. The formation of the Alliance for Freedom and Democracy (AFD) attests to the emergence of such a more promising tendency among Ethiopia's political organizations. The Alliance's call upon the EPRDF to join it in realizing an all-inclusive process of deliberation on Ethiopia's complex problems has few precedents in the country's history.

Inherent in the AFD's call for an all-inclusive process of deliberation is the belief that a more constructive process of change should include the ruling party if it chooses to respond positively. This vision of bringing about change in a peaceful and planned manner is much more promising than the Prime Minister's determination to stay the course at all costs. The Alliance also appears conscious of the close interconnections between Ethiopia's internal political strife and the inter-state tensions prevailing in the Horn of Africa region. Pooling perspectives and initiatives on how to systematically deal with this resonance of intra-state and inter-state conflicts requires courage, imagination, and modesty. We need to be modest and realize that none of us can single-handedly deal with these conflicts and other complex challenges facing Ethiopia and its populace.

My advise to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and the ruling party he is leading is "do not isolate yourself and your primary constituency, the Tigrean society." Instilling a mentality of siege in Tigrean society may serve the pragmatic purpose of sealing its allegiance to the TPLF, but it is pregnant with many dangers. The practice of trying to preserve Tigrean security by exacerbating the insecurity of other neighbouring societies is similarly ill-advised and could ultimately prove self-defeating. What is preferable is forging a countrywide consensus on a common political order that equally upholds the security of all individuals, parties and communities.

Forging such a non-partisan common political order demands bringing about change in a number of areas. First, it requires disentangling the ruling party and key state institutions such as the bureaucracy and the security and intelligence services. Second, agreeing on the mechanisms that enable the military and judicial system to earn the confidence of all the inhabitants is absolutely essential. Once these changes are put in place, the state becomes the neutral arbiter among competing political and communal groups. Transforming the Ethiopian state into such a neutral arbiter is the best guarantee for the permanent protection of minority groups, like Tigrean society, more than any other.

And conducting sustained deliberations at a multiplicity of venues and forums is absolutely essential to bring about this kind of change in a planned, peaceful and inclusive manner. It is the only way of ending the legacy in Ethiopia in which the exercise of political power is perceived to privilege a particular ethnic, religious or regional elite. Unless this perception is put to rest once and for all, the danger of rising violence will always hang over the societies of the country. We should organize and participate in forum after forum inside and outside the country to achieve this much needed transformation. And the Prime Minister and his TPLF/EPRDF should participate in these forums instead of staying aloof and trying to play the role of a spoiler. This is, I believe, a better way forward than his determination to stay the course.

My advise to the foreign fans of the Prime Minister and his government, particularly the United States, is "do not repeat the mistake you committed during the era of Emperor Haile-Selassie." By turning a blind eye to the Emperor's autocratic style of rule, they did him and the country a great disservice. Had they publicly and persistently pressured him to institute timely reforms, he, his family and the country at large would have been spared much suffering. By publicly and persistently pressuring former Kenyan President Daniel Arap Moi to institute reforms, they have made it possible for him to presently enjoy the status of an eminent former statesman. "Do the same in Ethiopia by publicly and persistently supporting the call for an all-inclusive process of deliberation," in my message.
Source: The Reporter (Ethiopia)