BLOGGER
Ethiopia: Lessons on organisation from Woyane When it comes to organisational strength and efficiency, Woyane may not be on a par with world-class examples such as Microsoft, the CIA, the Mafia and the Vatican. But it must arguably have enough lessons on matters of organisation for fledgling Ethiopian opposition parties to draw from. After all, isn’t the proof of the pudding in the eating? Woyane seems to have survived crisis after crisis and recently, when everyone thought it was end game for Woyane, it appears that Woyane doesn’t even need to be in the game anymore: the opposition crowd is fighting it out among themselves leaving Woyane to be a cheerful spectator. People might say, well that is just for the moment. But, as Keynes remarked, in the long-run we are all dead.
It was with such a view on my side that I read the recent web-posting of Ato Andargachew Tsige on the challenge of transforming CUD to a resilient democratic party. A pundit on Ethiopian politics, Ato Andargachew writes with style,
high Amharic, and perhaps sophistication as well but I don’t claim to comprehend all of what he has to say. Nonetheless, I intend to rant today that I find he has not done enough justice to what his party/ CUD could learn from Woyane.
He correctly predicts that most of us (who are addicted to reading a page or two ‘emotional’ pieces on the web) wouldn’t have the stomach to read his lengthy and elaborate treatise on the challenge of building an effective political organisation. I congratulated myself (or him?) for getting through the 15 page piece that includes a prelude discussing recent events and a sort of synopsis of the main piece. (I promise to read the full 60 page document sometime). But I suspect that most of my fellow cyber readers wouldn’t even go as far as a I got, so let me try to enumerate here some of the highlights from the 15 pages, and move on to my query on the lesson to be learnt from Woyane.
Ato Andargachew emphasises that the main problem facing CUD is to do with obstacles engendered by Woyane, and not the split within the leadership. One example of obstacles here would be that CUD’s claim that its 8 conditions for joining the parliament would still be valid. On the other hand Ato Meles has made it clear that parliament is no longer an option for CUD. Ato Andargachew further reckons that the current crisis within CUD leadership isn’t to do with the delegation in North America undertaking coup d'état but it has to do with the other group defying party rules, which is a symptom of CUD’s birth defect: a rather hastily transition to integration of the CUD (from a coalition of four individual parties), which was dealt with by merely focusing on technicalities while ignoring the necessity of sharing a common organisational philosophy. He contends that a type of integration based on the principle of ‘one member on vote’ would have resulted in a monolithic organisation where members and leaders alike have commonalty in their view on the nature and modes-operandi of their organisation.
He also tells us that Woyane and parts of EPRP are enjoying this scene and tend to favour this defiant group that espouses lawlessness because, then there wouldn’t be any democratic political party that their hapless members might be tempted to look up as a model organisation, thereby sustaining their dictatorial style of party politics. The short-term solution for the problem within CUD he prescribes is to take the case to the council and for CUD members to side with those who play by the democratic rules of the party and to make it clear to the disobedient elements that
anarchism isn’t part of the game. For the medium and long term, Ato Andargachew’s recommendation is to come up with a harmonised view on organisation and a determination to implement it. He warns that any cosmetic solution by merely trying to pacify the contending parties within the CUD without due regard to the necessity of a consensus view on organisation, would only bring unsustainable peace, harmony and unity.
I think these points raised by Ato Andargachew seem fairly plausible, but who am I to think about such points seriously anyway. I have already admitted above that I am likely to miss a lot when politics is discussed as a serious science. Instead, my aim here is to raise my query on party organisation à la pedestrian politics.
Aren’t there any lessons on organisation from Woyane? Ato Andargachew’s analysis doesn’t seem to say much on this. Having witnessed the recent crisis in the leadership of CUD and EPRP and the ensuing venomous bickering among former buddies and comrades, respectively I couldn’t help being impressed by Woyane. Do you remember that it was Ato Aregawi Berhe who was the chief of Woyane right before they came to power – that he would have now been sitting where Ato Meles is sitting? He was kicked out and went into exile and is now a respectable member of the Diaspora politics. I haven’t read anything that he wrote or heard him say anything that denounces Woyane in any fundamental manner. The same with the first spy chief of Woyane, Ato Bisrat Amare now in exile in the US who has remained silent since his fallout with Woyane except for a moment after the momentous split within Woyane in 1998 when he criticised Meles individually (on Howarya, the Amharic monthly from Toronto). Or consider Ato Siye Abraha who, having been at the top of the helm during the initial years of Woyane, just released after spending, together with his siblings, six years in Woyane’s jail. I listened to his two or three recent interviews posted on the web. Yes, he said a lot of sensible things such as the necessity of access to the sea for Ethiopia. But there was none of those hysterical and resentful remarks about his former fellow liberators.
To me this is a clear example of a resilient organisation where individuals come and go, and they may make some noises but they don’t mess with the fundamentals of the organisation – that is sacred. That I think is something to marvel about when pondering on how to build a strong and effective organisation. This argument is likely to be brushed aside by arguing that Woyane can’t be a model because it is undemocratic that is incapable of bringing democracy to Ethiopia, which is our scared goal. Well, CUD’s agenda of peaceful struggle under Woyane’s constitution must be assuming that Woyane has a serious intent for democracy and somehow sometime would be willing to give up power to a democratically elected opposition. So while it would be wise for an organisation to harbour good intentions and affirm democratic credentials from its infancy, it is just as wise to focus on effective organisation and good strategies on how to get to power.
-------------------------------------------------------------------The blogger can be reached by crailo@ onetel.com -------------------------------------------------------------------
The views expressed in this blog do not represent the views of Jimma Times or its staff. The views are solely the blogger's. To become a blogger for Jimma Times, contact us for full details.
