The Role of Religious Education and Cultural Background in Shaping Democratic Engagement: A Comparative Study of Kenya and Ethiopia

The Role of Religious Education and Cultural Background in Shaping Democratic Engagement: A Comparative Study of Kenya and Ethiopia

Recent events in Kenya have showcased the power of civil protest, as public dissent led President William Ruto to retract proposed tax increments. In stark contrast, Ethiopian protests often meet with severe repression and achieve minimal governmental responsiveness. To understand these differing outcomes, it is imperative to analyze the role of religious education and cultural background in shaping democratic practices and civic engagement in these nations.

 Kenya's Protestant Heritage and Democratic Engagement

Kenya predominantly follows Protestant Christianity, which historically fosters a culture of individualism, critical thinking, and civic participation. Protestant communities often emphasize the importance of personal responsibility and the right to challenge authority. This religious backdrop contributes to a populace that is well-versed in democratic principles and unafraid to exercise their right to protest. The Protestant tradition's focus on open dialogue and reform has evidently translated into political behavior, where citizens actively engage with and influence their governance structures.

Ethiopia's Orthodox Christian Tradition and Societal Conformity

Conversely, Ethiopia’s longstanding Ethiopian Orthodox Christian tradition ingrains a deep respect for authority and upholds societal hierarchies. This religious framework cultivates a culture of conformity and deference, discouraging public dissent and prioritizing communal harmony over individual expression. Consequently, Ethiopian protesters often face significant barriers when attempting to mobilize against authoritarian governance, as their cultural upbringing does not inherently encourage open resistance to established power structures.

Comparative Analysis

The contrasting outcomes in Kenya and Ethiopia underline the significant role that religious education and cultural upbringing play in shaping political engagement and democratic values. Kenyan citizens, emboldened by a Protestant heritage that values critique and reform, demonstrate higher levels of civic engagement and resilience in the face of authoritative measures. In contrast, Ethiopians, influenced by a tradition that esteems obedience and reverence for authority, experience greater challenges in mounting effective opposition to government actions.

 Conclusion

Understanding the profound impact of religious education and cultural contexts is crucial for addressing the dynamics of political participation and democratic development. By fostering environments that encourage critical thinking, open debate, and the right to protest, societies can nurture more robust and responsive democratic systems. Moving forward, it is essential for policymakers and educators in both nations to critically evaluate how cultural and religious teachings shape civic behaviors and to seek ways to promote democratic engagement that respects and leverages these unique cultural heritages.

በካርድ ሆስፒታል እንጂ ቤተመንግሥት አይገባም!የኦህዴድ ምስረታና ከህወሓት ጋር የተደረገ ስምምነት፤

በካርድ ሆስፒታል እንጂ ቤተመንግሥት አይገባም!

የኦህዴድ ምስረታና ከህወሓት ጋር የተደረገ ስምምነት፤

በ ሀብታሙ አሰፋ

በ1981 ዓ.ም በሕወሓትና በኢህዴን ጥምረት ኢህአዴግ ከመመስረቱ በፊት ኦነግን ግንባሩን ተቀላቅሎ ደርግን በጋራ ለመዋጋትና ከድል በኃላ ለኦሮሞም ሆነ ለሌሎችም ብሄር ብሄረሰቦች ሪፈረንደም ተሰጥቶ ህዝቡ ኦነግ እንደሚመኘዉ ነፃ የኦሮሚያ ሪፐብሊክ መንግስትን የመመስረት ወይም ኢህአዴግ እንደሚፈልገዉ በኢትዮጵያ አንድነት ጥላ ስር የኦሮሞ ህዝብ የራሱን እድል በራሱ የመወሰን ዲሞክራሲያዊ መብቱ እንዲጠበቅለት ከሚሉት አማራጮች አንዱን በካርዱ ይመርጣል፤ ህዝብ በሚወስነዉ ጉዳይ ኦነግና ኢህአዴግ ጫካ ዉስጥ በሀሳብ መለያየቱ ትርጉም ስለሌለዉ አንድ ግንባር ሆነን ደርግን እንዋጋ የሚል ጥያቄ የኢህዴን ከፍተኛ አመራር በነበሩት በእነ ኢብራሂም መልካ በኩል ከ1981 በፊት የኦነግ ፅ/ቤት ወዳለበት ሱዳን ድረስ እየሄዱ ኦነግን ለማግባባት ጥረት አድርገዋል፡፡ኦነግ የሚመሰረተዉን የኢህአዴግ ግንባር ላለመቀላቀል የሚያቀርባቸዉ ምክንያቶች ሁለት ነበሩ፡፡ አንደኛዉ ኦሮምያን ከደርግ አገዛዝ በራሴ ሰራዊት ተዋግቼ ነፃ አወጣለሁ፤ የሰሜኖች ድጋፍ አያስፈልገኝም ሲሆን፤ሁለተኛዉ ደግሞ የኢትዮጵያ ገዢ መደቦች ምንጫቸዉ ከሰሜን ስለሆነ ከገዢዎች ጋር ግንባር መፍጠር አንፈልግም የሚል ነዉ፡፡እንደዉም ግንባር እንፍጠር የሚሏቸዉ እነ ኢብራሂም መልካ ኦሮሞዎች ስለሆኑ ለምን ኦነግን ተቀላቅላችሁ አብረን አንታገልም የሚል ጥያቄ እንደቀልድ ጣል ያደርጉ ነበር፡፡

እናም ኦነግ ግንባሩን አልቀላቀልም ማለቱ ቁርጥ ሲሆን በ1981 ዓ.ም በሕወሓትና በኢህዴን ጥምረት ኢህአዴግ ተመሰረተ፡፡በኢህዴን ዉስጥ ደርግን ሲታገሉ የነበሩ የኦሮሞ ታጋዮች እነ ኢብራሂም መልካ፤ጀነራል ባጫ ደበሌ፤አባዱላ ገመዳ፤ኩማ ደመቅሳ፤ጌታቸዉ በዳኔ (badhane)፤ ዮናታን ዲቢሳ (dhiphisa)፣ በቀለ Badhaadha፣ዲማ ጉርሜሣ እና ሌሎችም ከኢህአዴግ ምስረታ በኃላ የኦህዴድን ፕሮግራም ረቂቅ አዘጋጅተዉ ትግራይ አዴት ሄደዉ ሲወያዩበት ከቆዩ በኃላ መጋቢት ወር 1982 ዓ.ም ኦህዴድ በይፋ ተመሰረተ፤ የኢህአዴግም አባል ሆነ፡፡ለኦሮሞ ሕዝብ አማራጭ የሚሆን ፕሮግራም አቀረበ፤ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ ቋንቋዉ ባህሉና ማንነቱ ተከብሮ የራሱን ጉዳይ በራሱ እያስተዳደረ ከሌሎች ብሔር ብሄረሰቦች ጋር ተከባብሮና ተዋዶ በኢትዮጵያ አንድነት ጥላ ስር አብሮ ቢኖር አንድነቱ ከሚፈጥረዉ ሰፊ ገበያ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ ተጠቃሚ ይሆናል ብሎ ያምናል ኦህዴድ፡፡

በሌላዉ ተቃራኒ ጫፍ የቆመዉ ኦነግ ደግሞ ኦሮሞ ከኢትዮጵያ ተገንትሎ ነፃ የኦሮሚያ ሪፐብሊክ መንግስትን የመመስረት አማራጭ ለኦሮሞ ህዝብ አቅርቧል፡፡ኦነግ ግን ልክ እንደ ቁማርተኛ ጎፈርም ዘዉድም ብሎ ቁማሩን ለመቆመርና ለማሸነፍ ፈለገ፤ለኦሮሞ ህዝብ ሪፈረንደም ተሰጥቶ ነፃ የኦሮሚያ ሪፐብሊክ መንግስትን መመስረት ከወሰነ ኦነግ የኦሮሞ ነፃ መንግስትን ሊመራ፤በተቃራኒዉ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ ኢትዮጵያ ዉስጥ ካሉ ብሄር ብሄረሰቦች ጋር በአንድነት መኖርን ከመረጠ ኦነግ ኢትዮጵያን በበላይነት ለመምራት ቋመጠና የምታገለዉ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ ሪፈረንደም ተሰጥቶት የራሱን እድል በራሱ እንዲወስን ለማስቻል ነዉ አለ፡፡ሪፈረንደሙ ይሰጥ እንጂ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ ነፃ መንግስት ወይም አንድነት ቢወስን ለኦነግ የአንድ ሳንቲም ሁለት ገፅታዎች ሆኑ፡፡በሰኔ ወር 1984 ዓ.ም ምርጫ ከመካሄዱ በፊት "ፎረም 84" የሚባል ተቋም የፖለቲካ ፓርቲዎችን በሙሉ እየሰበሰበ ለሕዝብ ፕሮግራማቸውን የሚያስተዋውቁበት መድረክ አመቻችቶ ነበር። በዚህ መድረክ ላይ ኢህአዴግን ጨምሮ በወቅቱ የነበሩ ሁሉም ፓርቲዎች እየተገኙ ፕሮግራማቸውን ያስተዋውቁ ነበር።በመድረኩ ላይ የኦሮሞ እስላማዊ ነፃነት ግንባር (IFLO) የፖለቲካ ፕሮግራሜ "በእስላማዊ ሸሪዓ ሕግ የምትመራ ነፃ የኦሮሚያ መንግስት መመስረት" መሆኑን ገለፀ ፣ኦህዴድ "በኢትዮጵያ አንድነት ጥላ ስር የኦሮሞን የራስን እድል በራስ የመወሰን መብት ማስከበር" መሆኑን ገለፀ፣ኦነግ ደግሞ የምታገለው "የኦሮሞ ሕዝብን የራስን እድል በራስ የመወሰን መብት ለማስከበር ነው" አለ።እንደ IFLO በግልፅ "በእስላማዊ ሸሪዓ ሕግ የምትመራ ነፃ የኦሮሚያ መንግስት መመስረት" ነው ወይም እንደ ኦህዴድ "የኦሮሞ ሕዝብ ዲሞክራሲያዊ መብቱ ተከብሮ ከሌሎች ብሔር ብሔረሰቦች ጋር በኢትዮጵያ ጥላ ስር በአንድነት መኖር ነው " አላለም።የራስን እድል በራስ የመወሰን መብት የመገንጠል እና የአንድነት ፅንሰ ሀሣብ በውስጡ ስለያዘ ኦነግ መገንጠል ወይም አንድነት እንደሚፈልግ በፕሮግራሙ በግልፅ ስላላስቀመጠ በወቅቱ በፎረም 84 መድረክ ላይ የኦነግ የፖለቲካ ፕሮግራም ግልፅ አይደለም መባሉን አስታውሳለሁ ።

ኦህዴድ ደግሞ ግልፅ የሆነ የፖለቲካ አቋም ይዞ የኦሮሞ ህዝብም ሆነ የሌሎች ብሄር ብሄረሰቦች ጥያቄ በሪፈረንደም መፈታት ቢኖርበትም ለኦሮሞ ህዝብ የሚጠቅመዉ ከኢትዮጵያ መገንጠል ሳይሆን መብቱ ተከብሮ ከሌሎች ብሄር ብሄረሰቦች ጋር በአንድነት በመኖር የበለጠ ተጠቃሚ የሚያደርገዉ ቢሆንም አንድነቱም ቢሆን ኦህዴድ-ኢህአዴግ ስለፈለጉ በሀይል ሊጫንበት ስለማይገባ የሚፈልገዉን በሪፈረንደም ይወስን የሚል አቋም ተያዘ፡፡      

ኦህዴድ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ ነፃ መንግስት መመስረት ወይም አንድነትን መፈለጉ የሚረጋገጠዉ በህዝበ ዉሳኔ ወይም በሪፈረንደም ስለሆነ ከምርጫ 84 በፊት ጉዳዩን በኦህዴድ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ ደረጃ ተወያይቶ ከኤርትራ ሪፈረንደም ጋር ተያይዞ የኦሮሞ ህዝብም የሚፈልገዉን ለመለየት በኦሮምያ ክልል ዉይይት ከህዝቡ ጋር እንዲካሄድ ተወስኖ ሰፊ ዉይይት ተካሂዶ እኔም የድሬዳዋን ከ24 የከተማ ቀበሌዎች የተወከሉ ኦሮሞዎችን አወያይቼ ነበር፡፡ በዉይይቱ የተካፈሉ የድሬዳዋም ሆነ የኦሮምያ ክልል የከተማ ነዋሪ ኦሮሞዎች አስተያየቶች ለኦህዴድ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ ሪፖርት ቀረበ፤በሪፖርቱ ዉጤት መሰረት የኦሮሞ ህዝብ ሪፈረንደም ተሰቶት ነፃ የኦሮምያ መንግስት መመስረትም ይሁን በኢትዮጵያ አንድነት ጥላ ስር ለመቀጠል መወሰን እንደሚፈልግ ተረጋገጠ፡፡

ይሁን እንጂ የኦህዴድ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ በሪፖርቱ ዉጤት ላይ ባደረገዉ ዉይይት የኦህዴድ ከፍተኛና መካከለኛ ካድሬ ያወያየዉ የየከተማዉን ተወካይ ስለሆነና የየከተማዉ ኦሮሞ ደግሞ የኦነግ ደጋፊ በመሆኑና ኦህዴድ በአብዮታዊ ዲሞክራሲ መርህ መሰረት ወገንተኛነቱ ለገጠሩ አርሶ አደር ስለሆነና ሰፊዉ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ አርሶ አደር ስለሆነ በድጋሚ ገጠር ያለዉን የኦሮሞ አርሶአደር አወያዩ የሚል ተልዕኮ ወረደ፤በወቅቱ ይህንን ሀሳብ ከሚያራምዱት የኦህዴድ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ አባላት ዉስጥ ዶክተር ነጋሶ ጊዳዳ ተጠቃሽ ናቸዉ፡፡ 

ተልዕኮዉ የተሰጠን የኦህዴድ ከፍተኛኛ መካከለኛ ካድሬዎች የገጠሩንም አርሶ አደር አወያየን፤ዉጤቱ የከተማዉም ሆነ የገጠሩ የኦሮሞ አርሶ አደር ሪፈረንደም እንደሚፈልግ በድጋሚ አረጋገጠ፡፡

ከዚህ በኃላ የኦህዴድ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ ልክ እንደ ኤርትራ ህዝብ ሪፈረንደም እንደሚፈልግ ወስኖ አጀንዳዉ ለኢህአዴግ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ ቀርቦ ዉሳኔ እንዲያገኝ ስምምነት ላይ ተደረሰ፡፡የኢህአዴግ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ እንደ ነገ ሊሰበሰብ እንደዛሬ አንድ አስገራሚ ክስተት ተፈጠረ፤ጉዳዩን ለኢህአዴግ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ ማቅረብ ያለበት የወቅቱ የኦህዴድ ሊቀመንበር የነበረዉ አቶ ኩማ ደመቅሳ በሀሳቡ ላይ ብስማማም እኔ አላቀርብም አለ፤እናም የወቅቱ የኦህዴድ ፀሐፊ የነበሩት አቶ ኢብራሂም መልካ እንዲያቀርቡ ተወስኖ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ የሪፈረንደም ጥያቄ ለኢህአዴግ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ ቀረበ፡፡የኦሮሞ ጥያቄ በሪፈረንደም መፈታት እንዳለበት ኢህአዴግ ገና ደርግ ሳይወድቅ ጫካ በነበረበት ጊዜ የወሰነዉ ጉዳይ ነዉ አሁን ለአፈፃፀም ቀረበ እንጂ ጥያቄዉ አዲስና ዱብዕዳ አልነበረም፡፡ ሕወሃትም ከደርግ ጋር የታገለው የትግራይን ሕዝብ የራስን እድል በራስ የመወሰን መብቱን ለማስከበር ነበር፣ነገርግን ጫካ የተወሰነን ዉሳኔ ዛሬ የሚኒሊክ ቤተመንግስት ዉስጥ ተገብቶ ለማፅናት ጉሮሮ ዉስጥ እንደተሰነቀረ አጥንት አስቸጋሪ ሆነ፡፡ሕወሃት ስልጣን ላይ ለመቆየት ሲል የራስን እድል በራስ ከመወሰን መብት ሣይንሳዊ አፈታት ጋር በተቃርኖ ቆመ።

የኢህአዴጉ ሊቀመንበር መለስ በተካነበት የመከፋፈል ጥበብ “በኢብራሂም መልካ ሀሳብ ላይ ሌሎቻችሁ የኦህዴድ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ አባላት ያላችሁን ሀሳብ መስማት እንፈልጋለን አለ”፡፡

የኢህአዴጉ ሊቀመንበር መለስ በተካነበት የመከፋፈል ጥበብ “በኢብራሂም መልካ ሀሳብ ላይ የኦህዴድ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ አባላት ያላችሁን ሀሳብ መስማት እንፈልጋለን አለ”፡፡ብለን 

ዶክተር ነጋሶ እጁን አወጣ፤“አንተ ድሮም የኦነግ አባል መሆንህን እያወቅን ነዉ የኦህዴድ አባል ያደረግንህና አመለካከትህን ስለምናዉቀዉ የመናገር እድሉን አልሰጥህም” አለ መለስ፡፡

ቀጥሎ ሀሰን አሊ እና ኩማ ደመቅሳ በየተራ እጅ አዉጥተዉ ከሞላ ጎደል የሚከተለውን ተመሳሳይ ሀሳብ ተናገሩ ፣“በኦሮሚያ ወታደራዊ አገዛዝ ስለሰፈነ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ እየታሰረ ስለሆነ ይህ ችግር እንዲፈታልን“ ብለዉ የኦህዴድ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ በቃለ ጉባኤ ተፈራርሞ የወሰነዉን የኦሮሞ ህዝብ የሪፈረንደም ጥያቄ አዉርደዉ ከኦሮሞ መታሰር ጋር ለመያያዝ ሞከሩ፡፡ችግሩ የተፈጠረዉ ኩማ ደመቅሳ እኔ አላቀርብም ባለ ጊዜ ነበረ፡፡

የኢህአዴግ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴም ኦህዴድ ኢብራሂም መልካን እንዲገመግም ብሎ ስብሰባዉን አጠናቀቀ፤በዚያዉ ሰሞን መለስ ኢብራሂም መልካን ቤተመንግስት አስጠራና “ኦነግ የመገንጠል አቋሙን ካልቀየረ ከሽግግር መንግስቱ ልናባርረዉ ወስነናል” ይለዋል፡፡የመለስ አነጋገር በተዘዋዋሪ መንገድ ለኦሮሞ ህዝብ ሪፈረንደም አንሰጥም ማለቱ ነበር፡፡ የመለስ አሽሙር የገባዉ ኢብራሂም መልካም “የኦሮሞ ህዝብ ጥያቄ ካልተፈታ አሁን ላይ ሆኜ መቼ ኢህአዴግ እንደሚወድቅ መገመት ቢያስቸግረኝም መዉደቃችሁ ግን አይቀርም” ብሎ እንቅጩን ነግሮት ተለያዩ፡፡ኢብራሂም መልካም ከ1986 ዓ.ም ጀምሮ ከኦህዴድ-ኢህአዴግ አባልነት እራሱን አገለለ፡፡ ሕወሃት በመሳሪያ ያገኘሁትን ስልጣን በሕዝበ ዉሳኔና በምርጫ አላስረክብም ብሎ ከደርግ ዉድቀት በኃላ በኢትዮጵያ ሕግ የሚገዛዉ ዲሞክራሲያዊ መንግስትና ሀገር የመገንባት እድልን አመከነ፡፡      

መጋቢት ወር 1984 ዓ.ም በሰኔ ወር ሊካሔድ በተወሰነው ሀገራዊ ምርጫና ዲሞክራሲን በኢትዮጵያ ለመገንባትና በሰላም ጉዳዮች ላይ ለመወያየት የኢህአዴግ እና የኦነግ ካድሬዎች አዲስአበባ ተሰብስበን ነበር።መድረኩን የሚመሩት በኢህአዴግ በኩል የሕወሓት ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ አባል የነበሩት አቶ ተወልደ ሲሆኑ፣በኦነግ በኩል አቶ ሌንጮ ለታ ነበሩ ።በሀገሪቱ ሰላምና ዲሞክራሲን ማስፈን እንዳለብንና በሰኔ ወር የሚካሄደው ሀገራዊ ምርጫ በተሳካ ሁኔታ እንዲካሄድ ሁለቱ ፓርቲዎች የበኩላቸውን አስተዋጽኦ እንዲያበረክቱ ተስማምተን ስብሰባው ተጠናቀቀ ።

ሰኔ 14 ቀን 1984 ዓ.ም ሊካሔድ የታቀደው ሀገራዊ ምርጫ 10 ቀናቶች ብቻ ሲቀረው ደግሞ በኮሚኒኬሽን ዘርፍ የሚሰሩ ከፍተኛ የኢህአዴግ ካድሬዎች የሕወሓት ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ በነበሩት በአቶ አለምሰገድ ገብረአምላክ ሰብሳቢነት ተሰበሰቡና አቶ አለምሰገድ "በደም ያገኘነውን ስልጣን በካርድ አናስረክብም"፣"በኦሮሚያ በቂ ዝግጅት አላደረግንም ፣ኦህዴድ መላውን የኦሮሞን ሕዝብ ከጎኑ ለማሰለፍ በቂ ጊዜ አላገኘም ፣በምርጫ ስም ኦሮሚያን ለኦነግ አናስረክብም፣ስለዚህ ኦነግ ከምርጫው እራሱን ማግለል አለበት ካልሆነ ኦነግ የሚያሸንፍበት ምርጫ ይሰረዛል " በማለት "ስልጣን ከመሣሪያ አፈሙዝ እንጂ ከምርጫ ኮሮጆ ወይም ሣጥን እንደማይወጣ ኢህአዴግ በማያሻማ ቋንቋ አረጋገጠ።

በወቅቱ ኢህአዴግ በተለይ ደግሞ የኢህአዴግ ቀላሽ የሆነው ሕወሓት ኦነግን በተመለከተ በሁለት ፅንፍ በወጡ መንታ መንገዶች ወይም አማራጮች ላይ ተከፈሉ።

የእነ መለስ ቡድን ኦነግን ማታለልና የኢህአዴግ አባል ማድረግና ኦህዴድን ማፍረስ ሲሆን፣ የእነ ተወልደና አለምሰገድ ቡድን ኦነግን በሀይል ከቻርተሩ ማስወጣት የሚለው ነው ።

በመለስ የሚመራው የመለስ ቡድን ኦነግን ለማታለል ከኦነግ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ ሣይሆን አቶ ሌንጮ ለታን ለብቻው ቤተመንግስት እየጠራ ኦነግን ከኢህአዴግ ጋር ለማቀራረብ ተደጋጋሚ ውይይት አድርጓል ።

በሌላ በኩል በአንድ የኢህአዴግ ስብሰባ ላይ አለምሰገድ “ኦህዴድ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ ድጋፍ ስለሌለዉ ከኢህአዴግ ይዉጣ” ይላል፤ ኢብራሂም መልካ “አሁኑኑ አድርጉት፤ እንደዉም ከናንተ መገላገል ለኦሮሞ ህዝብ ጥያቄ መመለስ መልካም አጋጣሚ ይፈጥራል” ይለዋል፡፡ አባዱላ ገመዳ ይከተልና አለምሰገድን “አንተ ማን ቀጣሪና አባራሪ አደረገህ? ያለአቅምህ አትንጠራራ” ብሎት ነበር፡፡

በእነ ተወልደ የሚመራው ቡድን ደግሞ "ውፃእ አይትበሎ፣ ከምዝወፅእ ግበሮ"--"ውጣ አትበለው ፣እንዲወጣ አድርገው" በሚለው መርሀቸው መሠረት የኦነግ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ አባላትን ትቶ በታችኛው እርከን ያሉ የኦነግ ከፍተኛና መካከለኛ ካድሬዎችን መግደል፣በኦሮሚያ ውስጥ በፊንፊኔ ጉለሌ ከሚገኘው የኦነግ ፅ/ቤት በስተቀር ሌሎቹን መዝጋት ጀምሮ ነበር።

የመለስና የእነ ተወልደ ቡድን በአቋም የተለያዩ ይምሰሉ እንጂ ውስጥ ለውስጥ ተስማምተው የማታለሉንም የማባረሩንም ዘመቻ በተናበበ መልኩ ኦነግ ላይ ከፍተውት ነበረ።

በመጨረሻም የማታለልና የማባረር ዘመቻው ተሣክቶ ኦነግ ከምርጫ 84 እራሱን ማግለሉን በተታለለው በኦነግ ዋና ፀሐፊ በአቶ ሌንጮ ለታ በኩል መግለጫ ተሰጠ። መግለጫው በኢህአዴግ መንደር እፎይታና ደስታ ሲፈጥር ከኦነግ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ በስተቀር በኦነግ ከፍተኛ ፣ መካከለኛ ፣ ጀማሪ ካድሬዎች እና በተራው የኦነግ ደጋፊ ኦሮሞዎች ላይ ሰቆቃ፣እስራትና ስደትን ፈጠረ።

ኢህአዴግ አዲስአበባን ከመያዙ አንድ ወር በፊት በሚያዝያ ወር 1983 ዓ.ም በጫካ ውስጥ በተደረገ ስብሰባ የመድብለ ፓርቲ ዲሞክራሲን በመርህ ደረጃ ለመቀበል ወስኖ ደርግ ከወደቀ በኃላ የኢህአዴግን የፖለቲካ፣የኢኮኖሚ እና የማህበራዊ ፕሮግራም ከ1984 ዓ.ም ጀምሮ እስከ 1987 ዓ.ም ሁሉም የኢህአዴግ አባል ታጠቅ በሚባለው የደርግ ወታደራዊ ማሰልጠኛ ካምፕ ለሶስት ወር በሚቆይ የተለያየ ዙር ስልጠና የኢህአዴግ የፖለቲካ ፕሮግራም መድብለ ፓርቲን እንደሚቀበልና የኢኮኖሚ ፕሮግራሙ ደግሞ ነፃ ገበያ እንደሆነና የማህበራዊ ዘርፍ ፕሮግራሙ ለአርሶ አደሩ እንደሚያደላ በግልፅ ወሰነ።

ነገር ግን እኔም ከጥቅምት እስከ ታህሳስ ወር 1986 ዓ.ም በተሣተፍኩበት የታጠቅ ስልጠና "ብንሸነፍ ስልጣን እናስረክባለን ወይ?"የሚል ጥያቄ በየቡድኑ እንድንወያይ ቀርቦ ነበር ።በወቅቱ እኔ ጨለንቆ የሚባል ቡድን ፀሐፊ ስሆን ቡድኗ የድሬዳዋ ፣የሐረር ፣የምስራቅ እና ምዕራብ ሐረርጌ የኦህዴድ ካድሬዎችና አስተዳዳሪዎችን የያዘች ቡድን ናት።በዋናው መድረክ ጥያቄው "ብንሸነፍ ስልጣን እናስረክባለን ወይ?ለውይይት ሲቀርብ መድብለ ፓርቲን ተቀብለን ስናበቃ በዚህ ጥያቄ ላይ መወያየቱ ለምን አስፈለገ ብዬ የሞገትኩት እኔ ነበርኩ።ይሁን እንጂ ለውይይት የሚቀርቡ ጥያቄዎች የሚላኩት ከኢህአዴግ ስለሆነ የስልጠና ካምፑ አስተባባሪዎች እንደወረደ ለሰልጣኙ ማቅረብ እንጂ መለወጥ ስለማይችሉ ሁሉም ሰልጣኝ ለሊቱን በጥያቄው ላይ ተወያይቶ በየቡድኑ ፀሐፊዎች ጠዋት ለዋናው መድረክ ሪፖርት ይቀርባል።በአጋጣሚ ሁሉም ቡድን "ብንሸነፍ ስልጣን እናስረክባለን"ብሎ ወሰነ።ለዚህና ለሌሎችም ጥያቄዎች ቅዳሜና እሁድ ታጠቅ እየመጡ ማብራሪያ የሚሰጡት የኢህአዴግ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ አባላት መካከል ለዚህና ለሌሎችም ጥያቄዎች ማብራሪያ ሊሰጡ የመጡት የሕወሓት ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ አባልና የውጭ ጉዳይ ሚኒስቴር ሚኒስትር የነበሩት አቶ ስዩም መስፍን "ለመሆኑ ማስረከብ ሲባል ትርጉሙ ገብቷችኋል ወይ?ብለው በጥያቄ ጀምረው "ከተሸነፍን ስልጣን የምናስረክበው ከመለስ ጀምሮ እኛ ሚኒስትሮቹ ብቻ እንዳይመስላችሁ፣ እስከ ቀበሌ ድረስ ያለው የኢህአዴግ ካድሬና ሹመኛ ሁሉ ስልጣን ለተመረጠው ተቃዋሚ ፓርቲ ያስረክባል ፣ስልጣን ካስረከብን በኋላ ለናንተ ካድሬዎች እና ሹመኞች ኢህአዴግ የሚከፍለው ደመወዝ የለውም"ብለው አባሉን በሆዱ ለመግዛት ሲያስቡ ኢህአዴግ እና ዲሞክራሲ የማይገናኙ የሁለት አለም ሰዎች መሆናቸውን አስረግጠው ነገሩን ።

በ1985 ዓ.ም ኦህዴድ ከኢህአዴግ ይዉጣ በተባለ ሰሞን የኦህዴድ ማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴ ተሰብስቦ በሀሳቡ ዙሪያ ተወያየ “አሁን ያለዉ የኦሮሞ ምሁር፤ባለሀብት፤ቄስና ሼክ የኦነግ አባልና ደጋፊ ነዉ ፤ኦህዴድ የአሁኑ ያረጀ ያፈጀ ትዉልድ ፓርቲ ሳይሆን የመጪዉ ወይም የነገዉ ዘመን ትዉልድ ፓርቲ (The new generation party) ነዉ” የሚል አቋም ተይዞ በወቅቱ ኦህዴድን ይከተሉ የነበሩት ታዳጊ ወጣቶች ላይ ለመስራት ተወሰነ፡፡ በታጠቅና በሁርሶ ወታደራዊ ማሰልጠኛዎች በአስር ሺዎች የሚቆጠሩ ወጣቶችን በማሰልጠን ግማሹን ወደ መከላከያ የተቀረዉን ወደ ኦህዴድ ካድሬነት በመመደብ በኦሮሚያ ከፍተኛ ለዉጥ እንዲመጣ ተደርጓል፡፡ መጪዉ አዲሱ ትዉልድ በኦሮሞ መብቶችና ጥቅሞች ላይ ከአሁኑ ወይም ከአሮጌዉ ትዉልድ በላይ አምርሮ እንደሚታገል ተገምቶ ኦህዴድ በወጣቱ ላይ ሰርቶ ዛሬ ቄሮና ቀሬን አስተምሮ በሀገራችን ለመጣዉ ለዉጥ ከፍተኛዉን ሚና ተጫዉቶ ሕወሃትን መቀሌ አስገብቷል፡፡ ኦህዴድ ከኢህአዴግ ይዉጣ ሲል የነበረዉን ሕወሃት እራሱን ከኢህአዴግ አስወጥቶ መቀሌ ያስገባዉ በኦህዴድ የተመራዉ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ አመፅ ነዉ፡፡ ሕወሃት ከጫካ ጀምሮ ስልጣን ይዞ ለ27 አመታት ሀገር ሲያስዳድር አንድም ጊዜ ተሳስቶ ዲሞክራሲያዊ ሆኖ አያዉቅም፤የኢትዮጵያ ህዝብ በአገዛዙ ተማሮ ባዶ እጁን አደባባይ ወጥቶ ተቃዉሞ ሲያሰማ “በደም ያገኘነዉን ስልጣን በመንገድ ላይ አመፅ አናስረክብም” በማለት በስልጣኑ ላይ ለመቆየት ሲል በሺዎች የሚቆጠሩ ወጣቶችን በጥይት ደብድቦ ገድሏል፤የህዝብ ተቃዉሞ እየጠነከረበት ሲሄድ ደግሞ ስልጣኑን ለቆ ወደ መቀሌ ከሸሸም በኃላ እንደገና ወደ ስልጣን ለመመለስ የትግራይን ወጣቶች ለጦርነት አዘጋጅቶ እራሱ በከፈተዉ ጦርነት ለሚሊዮኖች እልቂትና መፈናቀል ምክንያት ሆኗል፡፡

ማጠቃለያ ፦

ይህ ከክፍል 1 እስከ 3 የቀረበው ፅሁፍ አላማ የሚከተሉትን ጭብጦች ለአንባቢያን ግልፅ ለማድረግ ነው ።

1/ኢህአዴግ በተለይም ሕወሃት ለይስሙላ የመድበለ ፓርቲ ዲሞክራሲን እቀበላለሁ ቢልም በተግባር ግን "በደም ያገኘነውን ስልጣን በምርጫ ካርድ አናስረክብም፣በምርጫ ከተሸነፍን ስልጣን ለአሸናፊው ተቃዋሚ ፓርቲ አናስረክብም " የሚል የዲሞክራሲ ፀር የሆነ ግንባር ነው ። የንጉሱ፣የደርግና የኢህአዴግ ስርአቶች ለኢትዮጵያ ሕዝብ የዲሞክራሲ ጥያቄውን አልመለሱለትም።በመሆኑም የብልፅግና ፓርቲ የሕዝቡን የዲሞክራሲ ጥያቄ ለመመለስ ተስፋ ሰጪ ጥረቶችን እያደረገ መሆኑን መገንዘብ ያስፈልጋል ።

2/ ኦህዴድ ከተመሰረተበት ከመጋቢት ወር 1982 ዓ.ም ጀምሮ የኦሮሞ ሕዝብን ጥያቄዎች ለመመለስ ያደረገውን ትግልና ያስመዘገባቸውን ድሎች እውቅና መስጠት ይገባል።

ኦህዴድ በእሣት ውስጥ ያለፈ ድርጅት ነው ።በአንድ በኩል በሽግግር መንግስቱ ዘመን ኦነግ በከፈተበት የፕሮፓጋንዳ ዘመቻ "ኦህዴድ የሕወሃት ተላላኪ ነው "ሲባል፣በሌላ በኩል ደግሞ "ኦህዴድ የኦሮሞ ህዝብ ድጋፍ ስለሌለው ከኢህአዴግ አባልነት ይውጣ "ሲል የነበረውን ሕወሃት እየታገለ "የነገው ዘመን ድርጅት" መሆኑን አምኖ በአስር ሺዎች የሚቆጠሩ የኦሮሞ ወጣቶችን መልምሎ ወታደራዊና ፓለቲካዊ ስልጠና በመስጠት እራሱን ካጠናከረ በኋላ "ኦህዴድ ከኢህአዴግ ይውጣ ሲል የነበረውን ሕወሃት እራሱን ከቤተመንግስት አስወጥቶ የብልፅግና የለውጥ መንግስት እንዲመሰረት ከፍተኛውን አስተዋጽኦ ማድረጉ መዘንጋት የለበትም።ለኦሮሞ ሕዝብ መብት መከበር በትጥቅና በሰላማዊ መንገድ እንታገላለን ካሉት ከእነ ኦነግ፣ኦእነግ(ጃራ)፣ከኦፌኮና ከመሳሰሉት በላቀ ሁኔታ የኦሮሞን ሕዝብ መብት ያስከበረ ድርጅት ኦህዴድ ነው ።ቀሪ የኦሮሞን ሕዝብ መብትም የሚያስከብረው እራሱ የኦሮሞ ሕዝብና እና የኦሮሚያ ብልፅግና ፓርቲ በሚያደርጉት የተቀናጀ ትግል መሆኑ መታወቅ አለበት ።

3/የብሔር ብሔረሰቦች የራስን እድል በራስ የመወሰን መብትን ለማስከበር የተዋቀረው ፌዴራሊዝም ዲሞክራሲያዊ ሆኖ መቀጠል አለበት።

4/ ሕወሃት ”በደም ያገኘሁትን ስልጣን በምርጫ ካርድ አላስረክብም“ የሚለዉን ኢዲሞክራሲያዊ አቋሙን ለዉጦ በትግራይ ክልል የዲሞክራሲ ባህልን ገንብቶ ”ስልጣን ከመሳሪያ አፈሙዝ ሳይሆን ከምርጫ ኮሮጆ ወይም ሳጥን“ እንዲወጣ ያድርግ፡፡ካልሆነ ድርጅቱ እንደበፊቱ የሰዉ አንገት እየቀላ ለመኖር ከወሰነ ህልዉናዉ ከታሪክ መዝገብ ይሰረዛል፡፡

Vietnam's Economic Approach: Echoing the 'Asian Tigers'

Vietnam's Economic Approach: Echoing the 'Asian Tigers'

Vietnam is emulating the successful "developmental state" governance model reminiscent of the prosperous "Asian tigers" — Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. This approach, characterized by five distinct features, is propelling Vietnam toward rapid economic growth and structural transformation.

1. Determined Elite

At the core of Vietnam’s economic strategy is its determined elite. Like the leaderships of the Asian tigers in their developmental phases, Vietnam’s leaders exhibit a strong commitment to economic modernization and industrialization. The country’s leadership has consistently articulated clear visions for long-term growth and is focused on implementing policies that drive economic progress.

2. Powerful, Competent Economic Bureaucracy

A hallmark of the developmental state model is a powerful and competent economic bureaucracy, and Vietnam is no exception. The country's economic agencies are staffed with skilled technocrats dedicated to efficient policy implementation. This bureaucracy plays a vital role in designing and executing economic strategies, ensuring policies are well-targeted and effectively managed.

3. Effective Management of Private Sector Interests

Vietnam’s government excels in managing private sector interests, creating a conducive environment for business and investment. By maintaining a strategic partnership with private enterprises, the state not only facilitates entrepreneurial activities but also guides them in line with national development goals. This symbiosis helps in achieving high economic growth while ensuring private sector dynamism.

4. Weak Civil Society

While this model enables economic advances, it often coincides with a weaker civil society. In Vietnam, the scope of civil society organizations is limited, with the state exerting significant control over social, political, and economic discourse. This concentration of power can streamline decision-making processes but also raises concerns about civic freedoms and democratic governance.

5. Authoritarian State

An authoritarian state underpins Vietnam’s developmental approach, allowing for decisive actions and policy longevity. Authority is central to maintaining the cohesive vision necessary for large-scale economic interventions. However, this aspect also brings forth challenges related to human rights and transparency, which are critical areas of concern for international observers.

Conclusion

Vietnam's adoption of the developmental state model mirrors the successful pathways of the Asian tigers, contributing to its impressive economic trajectory. However, this model’s associated social and political dimensions necessitate a balanced consideration of economic success and broader societal impacts. As Vietnam continues to evolve, it remains to be seen how it navigates these complexities while striving for sustained economic prosperity.

Milorad Dodik is a prominent Bosnian Serb politician, primarily known as the President of Republika Srpska, an autonomous entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Milorad Dodik is a prominent Bosnian Serb politician, primarily known as the President of Republika Srpska, an autonomous entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina. Over his career, Dodik has been a significant and sometimes controversial figure in the region's political landscape.

Background and Political Career

Birth and Early Life: 

Dodik was born on March 12, 1959, in Banja Luka, which was then part of Yugoslavia.

- Education: He studied at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Political Sciences.

- Early Political Career:

 In the 1990s, during the Bosnian War, Dodik began his political career. Initially, he was seen as a moderate, advocating for peace and reform.

 Shift to Nationalism

Dodik's political stance shifted over time from moderate to nationalist. By the 2000s, he had adopted a more assertive brand of Bosnian Serb nationalism, focusing on the autonomy and interests of Republika Srpska.

 Positions Held

-Prime Minister of Republika Srpska:

 Dodik held the office of Prime Minister twice, first from 1998 to 2001 and again from 2006 to 2010.

- **President of Republika Srpska:** Serving multiple terms, he has been the president since 2010, re-elected in subsequent terms, with his leadership characterized by a strong push for the autonomy of Republika Srpska.

 Key Policies and Controversies:

- Autonomy Advocacy: Dodik has been a vocal advocate for the secession of Republika Srpska from Bosnia and Herzegovina. His rhetoric often emphasizes greater autonomy or independence for the entity.

-Relations with Sarajevo:

 His stance has frequently led to tensions with the central government in Sarajevo and has been seen as a challenge to the unity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

- **International Relations:** Dodik has maintained close ties with Serbia and Russia, while often being critical of Western influences and the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

- **Legal Issues:** Dodik has faced various legal challenges, including sanctions from the United States for obstructing the Dayton Accords, which ended the Bosnian War and outlined the constitutional framework of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 Personality and Leadership Style;

Dodik is known for his assertive, often confrontational style. His leadership is marked by strong nationalist rhetoric, fostering a sense of identity and autonomy among the Bosnian Serbs while raising significant international and domestic concerns about regional stability and unity.

Through his policies and public statements, Milorad Dodik remains a pivotal and contentious figure in the politics of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Saudi-Emirati Rivalry Stokes Conflict In Sudan.

      

File photo of a gunman in Darfur, Sudan. Photo Credit: Albert González Farran / UNAMID

Saudi-Emirati Rivalry Stokes Conflict In Sudan

 June 17, 2024 0 Comments

By Africa Defense Forum

Two Gulf countries are playing an outsized role in Sudan’s civil war as they compete for diplomatic and military influence.

Rivals Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been accused of making Sudan’s conflict more intractable by taking opposing sides.

Despite its denials, the UAE reportedly is giving military support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) headed by Mohammed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo. Saudi Arabia is closely aligned with Egypt, which supports the Sudanese Armed Forces, and has tried to cast itself in the role of mediator.

The Gulf states had been allies for decades, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud and Emirati President Mohammed bin Zayed has deteriorated.

“Observers and political insiders have in recent weeks speculated that differences between Abu Dhabi and Riyadh have reached a point where the Saudi crown prince and the Emirati president are no longer on speaking terms,” Amwaj news website reported in a May 27 article.

The two countries began developing different relationships with Sudan in the final years of Omar al-Bashir’s regime. Bashir supplied RSF fighters to the Saudi-Emirati intervention in Yemen’s civil war.

In the wake of Bashir’s ouster in 2019, Saudi Arabia and the UAE aligned in Sudan, as both played roles in the country’s brief democratic transition. Since then, however, the two states have grown apart, both in their objectives in Yemen and Sudan.

Sudan’s military coup in 2021 set the stage for today’s civil war between the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.

“As emerging Middle East hegemons, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are now at odds — each seeking to control Sudan’s resources, energy, and logistics gateways by aligning with Burhan and Hemedti, respectively,” Middle East scholar Talal Mohammad wrote in a 2023 article for Foreign Policy magazine.

An independent consultant in government affairs, geopolitics and strategic intelligence, Mohammad feels both countries are using Sudan in a geopolitical tug-of-war.

“For Saudi Arabia, controlling Sudan could enhance its stature as a regional leader and strengthen its influence in the Arab and Islamic worlds,” Mohammad told The Africa Report magazine. “On the other hand, the UAE sees Sudan as a means to weaken Riyadh’s dominance in the region and expand its power.

“For the Saudis, food security and the Red Sea security are paramount. For the UAE, gold, mineral resources and a presence on the Red Sea and, therefore, influence over the commercial routes between the Suez Canal and the Bab el-Mandeb strait are very important.”

The UAE is aligned with Russia in supporting the RSF, as Hemedti is a key partner in the Emirati gold industry that has helped mitigate the impact on Russia of international sanctions for its war on Ukraine.

The UAE increasingly has taken a military role in its African affairs. It reportedly established a military base in Amdjarass, Chad, where it facilitates military support to Hemedti — an allegation deemed “credible” by the United Nations but denied by Abu Dhabi.

“The UAE controls the entire illegal arms trade into Sudan that is benefitting the RSF through Uganda and Chad,” Associate Professor at Kings College London Andreas Krieg told The New Arab website for a May 14 article. “This is all part of the UAE’s quest for relevance, becoming a key broker and interlocutor between non-state actors it controls and great powers.”

The U.N. has estimated the Sudanese war’s death toll at 15,000 and said nearly 9 million have fled their homes. Analysts say the U.N.’s death toll likely is grossly underestimated, as the country is too dangerous for observers.

With their complex webs of supporters, the SAF and RSF have fought to something of a stalemate. Experts widely believe that neither side is capable of outright victory, leaving Saudi Arabia and the UAE in a state of simmering rivalry in East Africa.

“The fall of Sudan under the control of either Burhan or Hemedti — and thereby either the Saudi or Emirati sphere of influence — would shift the balance of power in the Gulf and escalate tensions between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi,” Mohammad wrote. “But it is unlikely that the outcome of the war will be this clear-cut: Similar to Libya, Sudan is likely to fracture even further, perhaps along ethnic and tribal lines.”

War correspondent Lindsey Hilsum echoed those concerns in her May 2024 reporting for Independent Television News.

“If the parties aren’t forced to negotiate, what will be left of Sudan?” she asked. “Nothing that can be reassembled, but a failed state in a forever war, its people dispersed and destitute.”

Africa Defense Forum

The Africa Defense Forum (ADF) magazine is a security affairs journal that focuses on all issues affecting peace, stability, and good governance in Africa. ADF is published by the U.S. Africa Command.

Overlooking Systemic Structures: A Critical Analysis of Ethiopian Governance

Overlooking Systemic Structures: A Critical Analysis of Ethiopian Governance

In Ethiopia, there is a pronounced tendency among the populace to overlook the impact of systemic structures on their lives and destinies. Instead, there is an extensive focus on evaluating the character of individuals, categorizing them as either good or bad. This inclination is especially prevalent when considering governance. Ethiopians often direct their attention towards assessing the virtues or flaws of administrators. However, effective governance transcends the simplistic dichotomy of good or bad administrators. It fundamentally involves the establishment of systems that integrate the necessary elements within public institutions to ensure the proper delivery of public services.

One of the primary issues with focusing solely on individual character is that it can lead to a shortsighted understanding of broader systemic problems. For instance, an administrator might be perceived as benevolent and competent, yet if the institutional frameworks they operate within are flawed, their ability to bring about meaningful change will be severely hampered. Conversely, an administrator deemed less virtuous but who works within a robust and efficient system may achieve better outcomes.

The emphasis on individual morality over structural integrity can also perpetuate a cycle of ineffective governance. When public discourse centers around whether a leader is “good” or “bad,” it diverts attention from the necessity of developing and implementing strong institutional frameworks. Public institutions need to be designed in a way that they can function effectively regardless of the personal attributes of those in power. This entails creating transparent processes, enforcing accountability, and ensuring that there is a separation of powers that prevents the concentration of authority in the hands of a few.

Effective governance requires more than just virtuous leaders; it demands the establishment of a system that supports continued improvement and adaptation. Systemic structures should be put in place to facilitate proper planning, budgeting, monitoring, and evaluation of public services. For example, the health sector needs reliable supply chains, trained health workers, and sufficient funding, all overseen by an accountable and transparent system. The education sector similarly requires well-constructed systems for curriculum development, teacher training, and student assessment.

Moreover, the focus on individual character can lead to unrealistic expectations and subsequent disillusionment. When people place too much faith in the goodness or perceived infallibility of a leader, they might be less critical of systemic flaws until it is too late. This can result in a cycle where leaders are repeatedly blamed for failures that are actually rooted in structural deficiencies. Thus, the public may become disillusioned with leadership altogether, fostering cynicism and disengagement.

A deeper understanding of the importance of systemic structures encourages a more informed and active citizenry. When the public recognizes the necessity of robust institutions, they are more likely to demand systemic reforms and hold leaders accountable for maintaining and improving these structures. This shift in perspective can lead to a more sustainable and equitable form of governance.

In conclusion, while the character of administrators undeniably plays a role in governance, it is imperative to focus on the establishment and maintenance of strong systemic structures. Effective governance is less about having good or bad administrators and more about creating institutions that function independently of individual virtues or flaws. By recognizing and addressing the importance of systemic structures, Ethiopians can work towards a more resilient and effective governance model, ultimately improving public service delivery and, in turn, enhancing the quality of life for all citizens.

Humanity and Accountability: A Call for Empathy in Ethiopia

 

Humanity and Accountability: A Call for Empathy in Ethiopia

In a world that increasingly prioritizes individual success and material gain, it is easy to forget the essence of our shared humanity. What is humanity, a reasonable person might ask, if we do not feel the death, suffering, and hunger pains of our fellow human beings? This question is not merely philosophical; it speaks to the very core of what it means to be a member of a society. When we lose touch with the suffering of others, we diminish our own humanity. This issue seems particularly pertinent in the context of Ethiopia today.

Ethiopia has faced numerous challenges over the years, from political turbulence to economic struggles, and perhaps most heartwrenchingly, widespread suffering due to famine and conflict. A troubling observation has surfaced: there seems to be a disconnect between the suffering of the people and the accountability felt—or rather, not felt—by many Ethiopians, particularly those in positions of power.

 The Accountability Gap

One of the most glaring issues is the apparent lack of accountability and responsibility for wrongdoings and the consequences of actions. This isn't to paint an entire nation with a broad brush; indeed, many Ethiopians strive to make positive changes within their communities. However, the broader, systemic issue exists, perpetuated by a governance structure that too often prioritizes political maneuvering over genuine human welfare.

Accountability is not just about being answerable to the public or higher authorities. It is fundamentally about recognizing the impact of one's actions on others and taking steps to mitigate any harm caused. Unfortunately, this sense of responsibility can often be overshadowed by the urgency of political agendas and the drive for power.

 The Role of Empathy in Governance

Empathy—the ability to understand and share the feelings of another—is not just a moral virtue but a necessary attribute for effective leadership. When politicians and societal leaders operate without empathy, policies become detached from the realities of the people they serve. Decisions made in the corridors of power reverberate through the lives of ordinary citizens, often with devastating effects.

In Ethiopia, this means recognizing the full extent of what it means to govern a nation fraught with social and economic challenges. Politicians need to connect more deeply with the lived experiences of their constituents. They need to think beyond the immediate political calculus and consider long-term strategies for providing relief and fostering sustainable development.

A Collective Responsibility

While much of the responsibility lies with leaders, the broader society also plays a crucial role. Every individual has the capacity for empathy and can act in ways that contribute to a more compassionate society. Civil organizations, community groups, and even individual acts of kindness can help bridge the gap between those who suffer and those who have the power to alleviate that suffering.

Education and awareness are key tools in this endeavor. By fostering a culture that values empathy, responsibility, and accountability, we can begin to address some of the underlying issues that perpetuate suffering. Schools, universities, and media platforms all have roles to play in shaping a more humane society.

 The Path Forward

To move forward, Ethiopia must incorporate empathy into the fabric of its governance and social systems. Politicians need to engage genuinely with grassroots movements, listen to the concerns of the people, and implement policies that reflect a deep understanding of their needs. Any progress in this direction would not only lend credibility to the leadership but also provide tangible relief and hope to those who have long felt neglected.

In conclusion, the core of our humanity is tested by our response to the suffering of others. In Ethiopia, as in any nation, the path to a better future lies in the willingness to hold oneself accountable for the impact of one's actions and to act with compassion and empathy. Anything less diminishes us all.

Barking Up the Wrong Tree: A Shift in Ethiopian Political Ideology

Barking Up the Wrong Tree: A Shift in Ethiopian Political Ideology.

When the phrase "barking up the wrong tree" is used, it often implies someone is misdirecting their efforts or pursuing a misguided course of action. This idiom captures the essence of Ethiopia’s current political evolution and the significant ideological shift from the developmental state policies of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) to the new Prosperity Party (PP) and Bretton Woods prescription ideology.

Historically, the EPRDF fostered a developmental state model that aimed at rapid industrialization and economic growth via state intervention. This model, inspired by East Asian economies, emphasized infrastructure development, state-led industrial policy, and strict government control over major economic sectors. For years, Ethiopia saw impressive GDP growth rates, yet this came at the cost of political repression, limited democratic freedoms, and escalating internal conflicts.

In late 2019, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed spearheaded a political reorganization that dissolved the EPRDF, ushering in the Prosperity Party with promises of political reform and economic liberalization. The PP has since embraced the Bretton Woods prescription—a market-oriented approach often associated with policies prescribed by international financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

While the Bretton Woods ideology focuses on reducing state intervention, advocating for free markets, financial deregulation, and privatization, critics often argue that such policies can exacerbate inequality and undermine social cohesion if not carefully managed. 

Applying the idiom, one could argue that if the Prosperity Party fails to understand Ethiopia’s unique socio-economic and political fabric, they might be "barking up the wrong tree." The wholesale adoption of Barton Woods principles, without tailoring them to Ethiopia’s specific needs, risks destabilizing a nation already fraught with ethnic divides, poverty, and a budding yet fragile democratic process.

For Ethiopia, the challenge lies in balancing these new market-friendly reforms with the essential need for social stability and inclusive development. Rather than exclusively adhering to one ideological doctrine, a hybrid approach that incorporates successful elements from both developmental statism and free-market liberalism might better address the nation’s complexities. This tailored approach can mitigate the risks of pursuing ineffective solutions and ensure that the efforts to modernize and democratize do not inadvertently lead Ethiopia astray.

In essence, Ethiopia must be cautious in its ideological shift to ensure that it is not merely "barking up the wrong tree" but is instead forging a path that genuinely serves the aspirations and well-being of its diverse population.

*****

The Bretton Woods Institutions are the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). They were set up at a meeting of 43 countries in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the USA in July 1944. Their aims were to help rebuild the shattered postwar economy and to promote international economic cooperation.

The Relationship between USA and Russia

 The relationship between the USA and Russia is characterized by significant tension and complexity. Here are some key aspects shaping the dynamics:

1. Political Relations:

   -Sanctions: The USA has imposed numerous sanctions on Russia due to various issues, including election interference, cyberattacks, and the annexation of Crimea.

   Diplomatic Strains Diplomatic relations are strained, with expulsions of diplomats and closures of diplomatic properties on both sides.

2. Military Tensions

   -NATO and Ukraine The USA supports NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe and has provided military aid to Ukraine, opposing Russian actions in the region.

   - Arms Control: Treaties such as the New START Treaty (recently extended) aim to manage and limit the nuclear arsenals of both nations, though compliance and future agreements remain contentious.

3. Cybersecurity:

   - Both countries accuse each other of cyber espionage and hacks. High-profile incidents, like the SolarWinds hack, have further intensified accusations and countermeasures.

4. Economic Interactions:

   - Despite tensions, there are trade interactions, though not extensive. Sanctions significantly impact economic relations, limiting Russian access to certain markets and technologies.

5. International Influence:

   - Both nations are vying for influence in global hotspots such as Syria, Venezuela, and other regions, often backing opposing sides in conflicts.

6. Public Opinion

   - Public opinion in both countries is often colored by nationalistic rhetoric and historical legacies, influencing governmental policies and bilateral interactions.

7. Current Issues

   Ukraine Conflict Ongoing issues in Ukraine remain a flashpoint, with the USA supporting Ukrainian sovereignty and implementing sanctions against Russia.

   Energy 

Discussions around energy policies, including the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, also affect relations, focusing on European energy security and geopolitical leverage.

In summary, USA-Russia relations today are a tapestry of competition, strategic rivalry, and occasional cooperation amidst a backdrop of historical tensions. The future trajectory will depend on various geopolitical developments, diplomatic engagements, and domestic policies in both countries.