Following the rift and political crisis within the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) and the subsequent restructuring of the Ethiopian Peoples Reovolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), the latter seems to have regurgitate the old slogan of 'revolutionary democracy', a concept that has literally vanished in the wane of the socialist model. The fact that the EPRDF wanted to lavishly taint 'democracy' with 'revolution/ary' is akin to a distant echo that has now, for all practical purposes, became defunct. It is also ironic that now, all of a sudden, as if awkened from its deep slumber, the EPRDF opted for a 'revolutionary democracy' instead simply for a democracy. As we know it, at least in the historical context, the democratic institutions and their attendant processes that emerged in the Western world were revolutionary. They radically altered and transformed the pre-existing feudal societies beyond recognition. Therefore, EPRDF's democracy cannot get any vigor by adding the colorful adjective, 'revolutionary', unless the ruling party is telling the world that its objective is to uphold diametrically opposite entities of 'capitalism' and 'democratic-centralism', or unless the EPRDF has regrets to Meles' label of 'moribund ideas' [Ye'bekete Aste'sa'seb] directed against his own comrades.

If the EPRDF really thinks it can advance 'democractic-centralism' or 'revolutionary-democracy' at this juncture, or it is simply using the concept to ward-off its enemies (foes who see the Meles regime as unpatriotic), then without doubt it is on the wrong track of history. There is nothing wrong in adopting the market economy as part of a government's economic policy, especially if implemented to benefit the nation and the people. In the final analysis, no somkescreens and bewildering signals can hide ones agenda. What is crucial and historically significant is the adoption and implementation of the principles of democracy, that can, in turn, enhance the fundamental rights of the Ethiopian people.

Sometime in 1993, in an effort to reinforce crtical discourse and dialogue as well as positively influence public policy, I wrote "Democracy in a Historical and Ethiopian Context," in the Ethiopian Commentator, and for the sake of our present discussion, I will reiterate some of the themes and underpinnings of my reflections I then scribbled.

I must confess that at one point I was an idealist and like most of my generation, I proudly carreid the badge of left sloganeering, but I must also caution the reader that my generation was genuinely geared toward finding a better society, at the minimum a democractic society. It was obvious, at least conceptually, that this "better society" was unthinkable without the institutions of democracy. In fact, in order for this society to enjoy democracy, the leadership [state, party or otherwise] must operate democratically within its own parameters. A leadership that is not democractic cannot possibly persue democractic processes in the larger society, and may even resort to banning some basic democractic rights such as freedom of speech and writing, freedom to demonstrate and assemble peaceably, and freedom of inclusion in the political and decision making process. If these fundamental rights are not enjoyed and practiced by the Ethiopian people, then there is no need of logical thinkering. That means, there is no democracy and that is very dangerous.

Some symptoms of lack of democracy are reflected not only in the absence of transparency and accountability, but also in the daily encounter of sending journalists behind bars, harrassing students and teachers, incarcerating political opponents etc. But these actions, anti-democractic as they are, in the final analysis create a monster and paranoid political regime which seeks to function with a mindset of phobia and mistrust of the people. At this stage, the regime or the political state (however tiny) is increasingly detached from the people at large and even its own constituency, because it has already been bewiched by ill-confidence.

A confident leadership or government that promotes democracy, on the other hand, will be fully connected with the people, will create a healthy political climate, will enjoy deferrence from the people, and its officials will walk on the streets without any security cautions. This type of government, unlike the paranoid one, will have an opportunity to commit itself to the development of Ethiopia and the welfare of Ethiopians, because there is no hurdle on its way that would impair the development package. But, a regime that has no confidence in its people has already distracted itself and cannot meaningfully implement development strategies. On the contrary, it will be preoccupied with the power nexus and will have other priorites rather.

Democracy also entails 'endurance' and should necessarily be sustainable. Once the foundations of democracy are establshed, they will enhance a self-propelling system that does not necessarily depend on political personas. A good example of this success are the checks and balances [separation of powers] and the constitution of the United States that have endured for over two centuries. I am not implying here that political personalities are irrelevant. Some individuals can have a tremendous clout and positive influence on society. My argument, if read contextually, is that a self-propelling democratic system is guarantee to the larger society that no leaders can easily abuse, and most importantly no dictators can emerge under this system, and of course no citizens will be arbitrarily arrested and denied of their basic human rights. Incidentally, this type of democracy does not only jealously guard people's interests, but also ensures the rights even of those leaders who were abusive and criminals. The benefit of this kind of system is incredibly fascinating. Even Mengistu Haile-Mariam would come before the courts and served justice without languishing in prison for too long. By extension what this means is, people like Siye and Bitew must not stay behind bars for almost two months before the police have found conclusive evidence on their "crime".

Furthermore, if by a twist of historical irony Meles faces the same fate like Siye and Company and is charged with corruption or treason, he should not be thrown into the dungeon. On the contrary, he, like other Ethiopian citizens, must enjoy justice too. As far as I am concerned, Meles is Ethiopian and those who constantly refer to him as Eritrean is unpalatable to me. He should be challenged on issues, policies, and what he does and does not to Ethiopian national interest, and not condemned because of his maternal ethnicity.

Some Ethiopian observers, including supporters of Meles, argue that some democracy prevailed in Ethiopia in the last ten years. I must confess again that I entertained a similar thesis in 1993 as I write in the Ethiopian Commentator: "In 1990 in my work 'The Politics of Famine and Strategies for Development in Ethiopia', I challenged the EPRDF and the EPLF whether they can consistently uphold democracy after they seize state power. Following Milovan Djilas and Robert Michels, I cautioned the two powerful organizations then fighting the Derg that they do not detach from the masses and gurantee democracy to the newly restructured larger society. The EPRDF came very close to the demands and democratic rights of the Ethiopian people." While my caution is predicatbly justified, my statement pertaining to EPRDF coming very close to ensuring the democratic rights of the Ethiopian people is utterly wrong and, in retrospect, misleading.

One final note on the question of democracy in Ethiopia that I like to propose is the necessity of organized, viable and pan-Ethiopian opposition that can play a significant role in the promotion of democracy. Without checks and balances and in the absence of a viable Ethiopian opposition within Ethiopia and if possible within the parliament, the powers that be can neither be accountable nor responsible, let alone enhance democracy as we have briefly examined in this article. In fact, by coincidence, some African leaders have seriously began to consider the importance of opposition parties and their role in building democracy. One such leader is the vice-president of Nigeria, Mr Atiku Abubaker. To his credit, Mr. Abubaker, in a speech he delvered before the August 9, 2001 conference on democracy in Abuja, said "the era of constructive disagreement had come to stay." Moreover, he insisted that the fragility of African democracies can be corrected by "robust opposition movements within the parlimentary system... which would promote greater ethnic and religious tolerance and help prevent dictatorships." I am in complete accord with Mr. Abubaker, and we Ethiopians must rally around such ideas and strategies to promote democracy in Ethiopia.