A Reply to Gen. Tsadkan’s Reply: Narrowing the Gap

Mesay Kebede
Mesay Kebede

Messay Kebede
Dear Lt. General Tsadkan Gebre Tensay:
I thank you for sending me your reactions to my review of your article on the political difficulties of Ethiopia and of the solution you suggest to overcome them. Your response constitutes a very welcome clarification, not only for me, but also for the many more readers who have questions about your article. I have received many emails from various circles. Some of them agree with my assessment of your article; others reflect the opinion that my review was unnecessarily harsh and missed the core of your argument, which is the necessity of taking the constitution as a framework of a broad agreement to avoid chaos and conflicts. Still others consider your article as a misleading attempt to prolong the life of the existing ruling clique.
Tsadkan Gebretnesae
Let me affirm from the outset and in the most categorical terms that I do not share the view of those who maintain that your article is an exercise of deception. Your article reflects a genuine concern for the future of Ethiopia and suggests solutions that appeared to you most realistic and feasible. As to the view of those who accuse me of missing the main point of your argumentation, my reply is that I did not miss it. On the contrary, as I will try to show, my criticism was setting the conditions for the constitution to become a framework for all parties concerned to work together.
Your clarification begins by stating the basic agreement that I share with you, namely, that Ethiopia is going through a deep crisis that threatens its very existence and that the only way to counter the danger is by implementing democracy. There is no other solution than the democratic one, given that the use of force will only aggravate the crisis to the point of making it unsolvable through peaceful means. Where we disagree is that the implementation of democracy means for you the unrestricted application of the constitution.
Here I need to specify what I mean by “disagreement.” For me, the problem pertains not so much to the core features of the constitution as the people who are supposed to implement it. If the present ruling clique is the implementer, 25 years of experience tell me that it is not going to happen. Those who are ruling the country went to the extent of claiming a parliamentary electoral score of 100 percent even as deep frustration was looming everywhere and flared up in Oromia after only a few months. I have used the term “naivety” to express this reality. Yes, our solution must be realistic, but equally realistic must be the possibility of implementing it.
What does “realistic” mean? No more no less than the imperative necessity of cleansing the ruling clique of all those elements opposing the implementation of democratic principles. Without this prior measure, no rapprochement between the government and the opposition is thinkable. In particular, your call for a “structure where all political forces and the populace at large through various forms of organization, shall participate and reach consensus on the way forward including revising some of the laws and reorganize some of the institutions, especially those related to elections,” cannot see the light of day unless the TPLF undertakes the purge of die-hard ethnicists and anti-democratic forces from its ranks. In addition to an internal reshuffling, measures to build up confidence must be taken, like the unconditional release of all political prisoners, the lifting of the ban on demonstrations, free speech, etc., as well as the unambiguous abrogation of the infamous anti-terrorist law.
My understanding is that the cleansing of the EPRDF can be undertaken legally if enough members wish to do so. Be that as it may and whatever means are used, there is no possibility to organize fair elections so long as the present ruling clique remains in power. Better yet, things would move decidedly in the right direction if a transitional government of national reconciliation in which all parties, community leaders, and important civic organizations would participate, is established. This would dismiss the present parliament, a move that simply acknowledges that the total electoral victory of the EPRDF was illegal because it was obtained by undemocratic means.
At this stage, I would like to deal with your major argument, which is the necessity of taking the constitution as a basic framework if the country is to change peacefully. I have already acknowledged that you do not reject the alteration of the constitution provided that it is supported by the majority of the Ethiopian people. I agree with you on both accounts. However, given the undemocratic nature of the EPRDF government since it came to power, it is untenable to state that the constitution was approved by the Ethiopian people. It is not an exaggeration to say that the constitution was fundamentally the work of the TPLF and OLF. This is so true that many groups were deliberately excluded and, most of all, there was no open, public debates on the spirit and content of the constitution. Without open debates, there is no democracy. Rather than being democratically established, the constitution was an imposition by the victors on the vanquished.
How can this breach be corrected? The agreement to take the constitution as a framework, a point of departure must be accompanied by the understanding that one of the major tasks of the transitional government or the forum, as you suggest, is to organize official and public discussions on the constitution and gather suggestions and amendments, be they structural or functional. The second step is to put the suggestions and amendments to the test of popular verdict. If a majority of the Ethiopian people decides that the major provisions of the constitution as they are now are acceptable, then this ends the debate once and for all. However, if the majority decides to include amendments, the amended constitution will be the final one.
A crucially important note is that the main condition for this kind of open debate and democratic procedure is the removal of article 39. The threat of secession will polarize and radicalize various groups, thereby preventing any move toward mutual concessions. For pro-unity forces, article 39 amounts to negotiating with a gun to one’s head. By contrast, my belief is that a clear majority will support the principle of decentralization and self-rule if the threat of secession is removed. The deletion of the article will also open the possibility of changing the structure of the government so that any hegemony of one ethnic group over other groups is definitively excluded. Moreover, alongside the fortification of self-rule, measures that integrate all ethnic groups into a national unity could be designed and given the necessary political tools.
These amendments should facilitate mutual concessions and the formation of a representative government. If both national unity and self-rule are protected, only extremists on both sides will find a reason to oppose the proposal. In a democratic system, one cannot eliminate by force extremist positions, but precisely the effectiveness of a true democracy is to isolate them and turn them into a negligible minority.
I hear you when you argue that perfect democracy cannot be established given the conditions of our country. I also admit that the TPLF’s option of armed struggle against the Derg was not conducive for the development of democratic culture and methods of work. My issue is not TPLF’s inability to establish a perfect democracy, but its abysmal failure to put democracy, however limited it may have been, on the path of growth and expansion. Worse yet, it rolled back on its declared democratic intent by effectively moving toward a dictatorial system of government.
The failure and the betrayal are no accidents. You recognize it, the TPLF has followed Leninist principles from its inception. Allow me to add that it never got rid of those principles. Leninism is an anti-democracy ideology based on the goal of establishing a hegemonic party in all political, ideological, and economic spheres of social life. A party cannot be governed by Leninist principles and be as the same time democratic, any more than a square can be a circle at the same time. I really have trouble agreeing with you when, after admitting that the TPLF was a Leninist party, you write: “This is why I say the TPLF was democratic and revolutionary. But it was not without defects and challenges.” The essence of Leninism is not to limit democracy; it is to exclude it by the practice of “democratic centralism,” the addition of “democratic” being nothing more than a deceptive adjustment. The truth is that the TPLF must be demystified for Ethiopia to advance in light of the fact that it rejected the content of Leninism but retained its spirit. My criticism was a call for self-criticism, which is the primary condition for renewal. Needless to say, renewal is also highly dependent on a complete critical assessment of Meles’s rise, methods of government, and actual outcomes.
I welcome your clarification about the issue of developmental state versus liberalism. You bring out the “dilemma” between restricting freedom and leaving the whole economy to the forces of the free market. I applaud that you reject the use of coercive methods while not turning a blind eye to the danger inherent in the principles of the free market when they are applied to an undeveloped economy. Agreed, the debate is raging and the final truth on the question of knowing which one is best for developing countries is not yet in sight. However, it is clear that Ethiopia under Meles has taken the path of the developmental state. The intention of my criticism was not to take side for or against developmental state: I was merely pointing out that Meles used the ideology partially, that is, to justify authoritarian methods while ruling out and neglecting the other conditions, without which the model of development cannot work. Hence my suspicion that he did not choose the path to accelerate development, but to justify authoritarianism. In the end, Ethiopia ended up with nothing, that is, with neither development nor freedom.
Wishing you success in your endeavors
Yours truly
Messay Kebede

0 Comments

  1. Dear Prof Messay:
    I have great appreciation for your prompt response to General Tsadikan’s call for peacfull resolution to the ethiopian problem and your civil and patriotiic approach to such a call from the other side.
    I would suggest that the General be called to the vision ethiopia group so that more people, particularly the academics, could participate in the discussion. I believe Visision Ethiopia would involve more knowledgable , concerned and patriotic ethiopians to tackle the problem.
    Kidane Afeworki
    [email protected]

  2. In addition to an internal reshuffling, measures to build up confidence must be taken, like the unconditional release of all political prisoners, the lifting of the ban on demonstrations, free speech, etc., as well as the unambiguous abrogation of the infamous anti-terrorist law.
    Thanks I give you ten on this.
    I have withdrawn my comment on your previous.

  3. It is very difficult to have confidence in and to think of peace/democracy if TPLF/its actors are in the picture.
    TPLF = Genocide + KILLING + traitorship
    = incurable!!!

  4. This stupid, bigoted traitor who has been and still is part and parcel of the Woyane invasion force responsible for Ethiopia’s partition, gruesome acts of genocide involving Amaras, Oromos, Gambellans, Ogadenis etc has nothing to do with maligned Ethiopians who seek nothing but justice.
    He and his invading tribesmen as well as their lackeys will be charged with the multiple sets of crimes including treason sooner or later.
    Woyanes trial will be no less than what Nazi war criminals faced in Nuremberg. Like this faggot, who unabashedly calls himself a ‘general’, the Nazis rightly faced the gallows!! Ato Tsadqan, your fate will be no different. Your occupation force still murders children and women in Harar for protesting against your apartheid regime. Your sadistic, inferior disposition seems to draw a perverse delight from incarcerating our country’s conscientious patriots in dungeons that are only fit for Woyane Tigres and their lackeys.
    Your fate is sealed. Tsadqan, this is by the way how you should write name. The name that aptly describes you and your kind is Irkash-Kehadi-Diabilos

  5. To be frank with everybody, I am not impressed by Dr. Mesay’s response to Gen. Tsadkan’s explanation. Compared to Dr. Mesay’s, Gen. Tsadkan’s points appear well thought out and difficult to refute. My conclusion from their discussion is that Dr. Mesay is anchored in a political position he held for décades and is not ready for new views and approach to address problems back home. He is not the only one in this; many in the diaspora are also anchored in the same political position not to budge.
    Dr. Mesay’s criticism is on the suggestion that ” . . . the constitution . . . become a framework for all parties concerned to work together.” To exclude the constitution from this role, he argues that ” the government in power will not allow its implementation; it has been seen in the last 25 years.” He appears not to have realized the past year or so has brought in new political actors (the people of Oromia, Amhara and many others) that demand new a political order. Given what we are witnessing right now, wasting time in talking about what happened in tha past 25 years will not help. The speed with which things are changing in the country are almost maknig the past 25 years history. Now, what can be achieved and how with least human and material cost are the questions for all of to struggle with.
    I feel that General Tsadkan has rightly identified a document – the constitution – on which Ethiopians – irrespective of their ethnicity and political leanings – can work on together to address political and other complex problems the country is facing. There is no other political document of concensus we know of. There is no other cultural, religious or national political norm or principle that can be invoke. Or even a general understandig ( written or unwritten) on which there is a reasonable degree of agreement.
    Unless the government, representatives of the people in the uprising and other stakeholders in the political game come together to draw a new document which seems unlkely as things stand now, the constitution provides a way out to the impasse. The government, the people and the opposition (including the armed and violent ones) invoke some important articles of the constitution when it serves their purpose. That is to say – article related to law and order by the government and democratic and human rights by the people and the opposition. As General Tsadkan suggested, respect of the constitution and rights enshrined in it will surely change the situation in Ethiopia.
    One worrying point in Dr. Mesay’s reply is reducing the the uprising in the country to a problem of “rapprochement (or lack thereof) between the government and the opposition.” For this to happen, he argues “the government should clense itself from anti-democratic elements from its ranks.” I do not oppose to this idea, but question the place Dr. Mesay gives to the opposition. I feel that it is irrelevant if the opposition in and out of the country rejects the constitution as a working document since it is not leading the people or even make part of the struggle of the people itself. Whenever the opposition see the people confront the government on a certain issue it makes statements (typical to the OLF and Arb-Gen 7) as if they are leading the people in the struggle. In fact, let alone lead they have not shown that they are following what’s going on. This confirms the observation that over the past fifty years organized opposition politics in the country (from Meison to Eprp to Seded, etc.) have miserably failed to lead. They are after power and never got it.
    One other confirmation that the opposition has no role in what is going on right now is the uprisings in Oromia, Amara and elsewhere are by the people themselves and never recognized local or diaspora organizations as their leaders. The diaspora media might confuse the situation by giving the impression that the opposition is on top of the uprisings in the country, but the reality is they have nothing to do with it. Furthermore, the people in uprisings have not called for the governments (federal and local) to leave office. Simply put, the confrontation is between the people and the governments which makes it easy to address issues whithout much chaos.
    One justification for the relevance of the constitution is that a sizable portion of the population in the regions supports the constitution because of article 39. From his writings and speeches, one can easily understand that Dr. Mesay is opposed to Article 39. It is sad that he wanted to make Article 39 an issue before democracy since democracy might make the implementation of Article 39 irrelevant. Dr. Mesay will be shocked if he knows firsthand how people feel about ethnicity in the country and oppose people who want to reduce it to simple self-rule and language issues. The other point is only the constitution restrics the army from contention for power and ensures its peaceful transfer from one party to another. Should one oppose this? Not in his right mind. To help you make an informed choice on accepting the constitution as working document, we suggest that you read it cover to cover. Most people in the opposition have not done that; they have heard only about article 39 which they abhor.
    Honestly speaking, does it matter matter who drafted and adopted the constitution or what its weaknesses are at this juncture if it can be used as a workng document in the absence of any other? I don’t think so. Again, given the urgent situation we are in, discussion on these issues only opens old wounds and compound the pain. There is no need to open a constitutional debate which is a highly divisve issue in an already divided country at the verge of collapse. If such a debate is opened, we’re sure the kind of unitary state Dr. Mesay wants will not come into existence. His idea of a transitional government is equally unhelpful to deal with the urgent situation. The kind of transitional government we’ll have now will be the same (if not worse) to the one we had under the exisitng government. There will be a thousand or so ethnic organizations to muddy the political climate. So, why repeat the same thing. Instead, why not build on what we have right now?
    I agree that accepting the constitution as a working document presupposes certain things the opposition including Dr. Mesay might not like. If the constitution is upheld, the government stays because the constitution states power is not to be taken by a means other than election. Should this be an issue if democratic rights are respected? I don’t think so. And that’s what the General seems to have said. To me, his concern is that the risk to the country and its people is enormous if the government including regional governments fall. His concern is founded. He called the government to respect democratic rights including free and fair elections and live by its outcome which means orderly transfer of power without chaos.
    The way things go in the country right now might precipitate military takeover – invited by the government or without invitation. Given our history, military rule will not be a pleasant experience. The military is capable to stop mass uprisings anywhere in the country and rule by a decree for a decade or so without a risk of overthrow. If the government falls and military takeover is avoided miraculously, it is fair to assume the chaos in the country will only compare to that of Somalia. For someone with open eyes and ears, the recipe for mutual destruction is already in palce. The suggestion that the diaspora oppostion which has started talking to each other lately will reign on the chaos in the country is simply a hope that will never materlize. As I said above, the uprising in the country is a popular one without organized leadership on which the opposition has little or no leverage. Time might be the essence here. If the uprising drags for long, the opposition may enter through the cracks and force people to ask or do what they are not asking or doing now. And the result will be devastation of biblical proporstions.
    This is not fear mongering, but a call for the government to come to its senses, listen to the people and avoid an impending disaster. If the popular uprising is hijacked by the opposition particularly by the violent diaspora opposition, the disaster will be enormous. We pelead not to create and feed that situation. As the situation permits, change or reform yourselves as government, organizations and leaders and open the space for gradual and peaceful transfer of power by meeting the demands of the people.
    My understanding is the General called the government to respond to the demands of the people openly expressed in the recent uprisings and demands of other millions which have not taken it to the streets. He does not seem tobe worried about diaspora opposition or the weak opposition in the country; his concerns are lack of respect of democratic rights and free and fair elections. Would the government listen? Let’s cross our fingures.
    As to Dr. Mesay’s opinion, his criticism of the General’s essay is off the mark. He goes into what all of us have known for decades: what TPLF was and actually is, why the constitution was put in place and its shortcomings such as Article 39 and land issues, etc. If he disapproves the General’s suggestion that the government respects the constitution which means it also respects democratic rights including free and fair elections, it is fair to expect from him to put forward a better alternative. Did he suggest any alternative? No. Not at least openly on his present opinion. From his previous speeches and writings, it is clear that he is for toppling the government no matter what comes in the aftermath.

  6. Hanna, what Constitution are you talking about? If you are referring to the rubbish concocted by Eritreans and traitor Tigres in Eritrea as they invaded our country, it is not worth the paper it was scribbled on.
    Ethiopia’s constitution should be written by Ethiopians, no more no less.
    The document you are alluding to is designed by Ethiopia’s adversaries with the sole purpose of undoing one of the oldest nation states on earth.
    The Woyane general whose hands are drenched in the blood of hundreds of Ethiopians across the country, is better advised to pack up and escape the crime scene with a new identity.

  7. By the way, no individual or groups without the mandate of the occupied nation should discuss with our enemies, the Woyanes and their servile lackeys the affairs of the nation.
    Woyanes should never be allowed to escape justice as they have brought about unfathomable harm to Ethiopians for at least a quarter of a century.

  8. Hi Asrat,
    I think it is out of hatred to Eritreans and Tigres that you are referring to the constitution as rubbish. My view is that whoever drafterd it and ensured its entry into force, it is a useful document for peaceful and orderly tranfer of power in our country.
    It is a historical truism that Eritreans invaded Ethiopia twice backing Italians (in 1896 and 1935) and caused huge losses of lives and property, but that is essentially the doing of Italians. Both Eritreans and Italians were supposed to apologize and compensate victimes of the invasion which they have not done to this day.
    The separation war Eritreans wage for thirty years is understandable since it is waged against undemocratic feudal government with no respect to peoples rights.
    The 1998- 2000 was initiated by Eritrea for which the peoples of both countries are made to pay dearly to this day.
    The animocity which dragged for several decades was supposed to end in 1991 with Eritrea<s de facto independence. It did not happen.
    I do not believe the constitution was concocted Eritreans.
    Portraying Tigres as invaders of our country is wrong.
    When we come to the constitution, there is no doubt that Tigres were active in its drafting and making sure it entered into force. But, is there Eritrean connection to it? Definetly.
    I am not an expert in the constitution, but I have proof to my assertion.
    First, an interview Isaias A., the current Eritrean president gave to ESAT. The interview is still availablle on youtube. In that interview, ESAT asked Isaias about his role in the dragting of the constitution. In a round about way, he denied he had any part in it. (Click next to see the video clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARmzzJPKIE8 Time line: 47:25 ff).
    When Isaias elaborated the issue, he admitted that "he was given a draft of the constitution to see it." Though he did not give name as to who gave him the draft, based on information gathered from ESAT report on a closed door discussion ESAT guys had with the president, it was given by ex-PM Meles Z. Isaias remarking on the situation added: " I was not surprised by what they did (that they gave me the draft), but I did not like their courage to test my will." He said that happened in 1994 (before the entry into force of the constitution and the 1995 election in Ethiopia).
    The question is: why would Meles Z. give Isaias a draft of the constitution and ask him to look at it? Eritrea had already her referendum and opted to separate.
    From the way Isaias expressed his reaction to Meles Z's invitation to see the constitution, there was expectation on Meles side that Isaias will be happy with Article 39 of the constitution and bring Eritrea to the federation.
    Nobody knows if Isaias talked to Meles about the constitution, but it clear from his reaction that he had rejected it.
    For me, at least partly, Article 39 seems to have been included in the constitution to guarantee separation under Ethiopian federation for Eritrea<s sake. What happened after explains the result of the rejection. Eritrea wanted to remain separate political entity but keep economic and other ties with Ethiopia which did not go well apparently after the rejection.
    To this extent, Eritrea has messed up with the constitution and left Ethiopia with the infamous artcle 39.
    Second, here is another evidence to the above assertion. In a recent Vision Ethiopia/ESAT concerence, Ambassador David Shinn who served in Ethiopia from 1996 – 98 was heard saying :
    “I would point out one thing that was mentioned to me on several occasions on meeting that I had with Prime Minister Meles, which I always found fascinating and I was never able to sort of get from him why he made those statements. But on several occasions during the conflict the 1998 – 2000 conflict, he said “Mr Ambassador ONE OF THESE DAYS WE ARE GOING TO BE BACK TOGETHER AGAIN” and I would try to press on that to find out how is this going to happen? What’s the plan here? He gave no time frame at all and he did not imply it would happen in his life time, but he made that statement on several occasions to me and I found it intriguing but was never able to determine why he though that was going to happen? But I am convinced he BELIEVED IT VERY SINCERELY!”
    Source video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYxu7Lc0sK0
    Since the Ambassador served in Ethiopia after the 1993 Eritrean referendum and entry into force of the constitution in 1995, unless Meles was hopeful that the constitution (with its article 39) will bring Eritrea back under a federation, he would not have raised it at to him. Worth noting here is that Meles expressed his hope even after Isaias had rejected the call to discuss the constitution.
    From the video clip mentioned above relating to Isaias<s interview, it is clear that his prescription is something close to a unitary state which definetly will continue to cause havoc and instability.

  9. Whenever I come across such back and forth exchange between well read individuals from that old country, it makes me very sad. Here we are witnessing that country going into a very dangerous situation and descending into a possible and irreversible civil strife but such very able intellectuals are seen busy splitting hair. I have been in touch with people I know very closely who are mainly small merchants and store keepers there to get the scoop from the source. They all do not like what is lately manifesting itself in Oromia. They also hear what has been going down with our Amhara brothers and sisters in their domicile region. They see the youth being in total trance when out demonstrating in the streets in many cases destroying properties such as transportation vehicles that belong to small business people who have nothing to do with the regime. One of them happens to be someone I myself helped acquire a medium size bus that serves a locality in Oromia. It was burnt down to ashes during one of the recent protests. I and everyone in our small circle of relatives chipped in to help him start a small business in transportation and when he thought things have started looking up for him and his family, now all he owns has gone in flames. Such destruction is not ethnic targeted. The youth was incited to rise up but no one is giving him/her the proper direction. Is that what is expected from all these intellectuals who are there in a jiffy inciting the youth to rebel and destroy everything in sight? I have now started mourning for that glorious and proud people without relenting on my daily prayers for the better. All of you lawyers and intellectuals!!! All of you pundits who publish about nothing but war and violence from your comfy homes here in the USA, Europe, Oceania, The Middle East and the stinking dump sites in Asmara, congratulations you are getting your wishes. The youth of that society, the product of the same harmonious people that also produced us is about to go at each other’s throat with impunity. Congratulations!!! You got your wishes!!! But I am not relenting on my prayers, not at all!! You see. Our Almighty The Creator works in mysterious ways and I pray to Him to show his miracles upon those harmonious people, those people who have been raising his name in glory since the antiquities. He will never forget the people who have submitted to Him in either two major creeds.

  10. Ittu Aba Farda,
    It’s good to pray and devine intervention to resque Ethiopia and its people is on the horizen. Addis Standard published a report nder the title “Ethiopia braces for massive protest rally called by online Oromo protest activists.” Though the paper carried nothing new as far as calls for démonstrations is concerned, it had a paragraph suggesting that the government is looking for a peaceful means to resolve the problem.
    The paragraph reads as follows:
    “In a related news, reliable sources told Addis Standard that the government in Ethiopia is planning to call a meeting at the end of this month with opposition party representatives “both inside and outside the county” to be held at the African Union (AU) aimed at discussing the political impasse the country seems to be in. Titled “Peace Building and National Consensus”, the meeting is requested by the government and is expected to be facilitated by the AU, Addis standard learned. However our attempts to get official confirmation were to no avail.”
    There seems to be a contradiction regarding sources to this information. The “reliable sources” are not mentioned and an “official confirmation” is not available. At least, AU could have have said a word or two on such major issue. The uprising which seems to have reached Addis Abeba, the seat of AU and many international organizations should be a concern for the AU itself and many others. It appears, the government is also losing face as a host of AU and many other organizations. In any case, if the news is not a wishful thing, it is a step in the right direction.
    (Click next to see the entire news: http://addisstandard.com/ethiopia-braces-massive-protest-rally-called-online-oromo-protest-activists/)
    But I wonder if the opposition both in and out of the country are the only and the right entities for the government to sit with and talk “peace and concensus”. Since the uprising is popular, some kind of direct representation of the people themselves in the talks might be necessary.
    Furthermore, the government should go public about its “peace and concensus” talks plan. It cannot release statments intended to trivialize and undermine the demands of the people and even attack and arrest them while it says it wants “peace and concensus” talks. As a good will gesture, it will have to reign on police and army actions. In the absence of such geste, the country is headed to collapse.
    Without some kind of direct representation of the people involved in the uprising, loss of lives and destruction of property is likely to continue. If one is mad at loss of lives and destruction of propery , he should mad be on the people who are doing it. Ir is true that the a lot of agitation to kill and destroy property comes from the diaspora activists. Reminding them to advise their followers to restrain from destruction is fair.
    On balance, the responsibility to create and nurture a climate of “peace and concensus” in the country falls on the government. If it is serious about it as the news above suggested, the country might be saved.
    Let’s pray and hope for the bast.

  11. Any thinking and honest Ethiopian would have no difficulty seeing Woyanes as anything but enemies. I wonder if the likes of Kuribachew do mean what they scribble. This woman must either be a ball-point mercenary or completely nuts.
    Let alone the so called constitution which the enemy Woyanes/Eritreans drafted for us, the authors of the document will be a thing of the past.
    The document will be gutted and the enemies given a marching order, that is if they survive the wrath of the angry nation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.