Collective memory can be hard to retain. Nevertheless, at this dramatic period in Ethiopia's political history, it is appropriate to remember the tone, much more than the substance, of the inter-party relationships that shaped politics during much of the 1990s.
 

Having no historical perspective carries the risk of underestimating the significance, in contemporary politics, of last week's deal cemented by the leaders of four major political parties.  These leaders include Meles Zenawi of the Ethiopian Peoples' Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), Hailu Shawel (Eng.) of the All Ethiopia Unity Party (AEUP), Lidetu Ayalew of the Ethiopian Democratic Party (EDP), and Ayele Chamiso of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD). With the possible exception of the latter, all the others are indeed veterans of that decade.

Although all these parties have had the right to exist, they have been mutually parsimonious in granting recognition to the rightful place each holds in Ethiopian society. Much of the talk about building a pluralistic multiparty political system was mere rhetoric, if not a post-cold war phenomenon that also engulfed many other parts of the world.

For the EPRDF, also known as the Revolutionary Democrats, the few MPs in parliament were hardly politicians with a proper mandate from their respective constituencies deserving of acknowledgement and respect. Unfortunately, all the leaders of the opposition, including those in parliament, were summarily branded "anti-peace, anti-democracy and antidevelopment" forces. It ought to humble Meles now to know that he just shook hands with the very same people he once would have minced in public statements - even from the parliamentary platform - through the forceful employment of the above terms.
 

It was clear that the very existence of the opposition parties and their leaders was believed to be a necessary evil among the leaders of the ruling party - more so than they believed in their right to exist or to represent any constituencies. Their orientation and worldview was that the opposition and any platform of dissent was an enemy of the state whose power they became custodians of. Thus, the opposition had to be eliminated or, at least, kept in a state of terminal paralysis.
 

What a departure it is from the days when even senior cadres of the EPRDF used to subscribe to the view that  their job was to weaken and eliminate dissent in society by whatever means necessary?
 

Equally, the opposition camp never credited the Revolutionary Democrats for upholding and enforcing policies for the greater good of Ethiopian society that were bold, if not near political suicide. In part, leaders of the opposition camp were voluntary victims of the propaganda unleashed by the former military government against the rebels now in government. Far beyond internal political squabbling, leaders of the ruling party were never considered by those in the opposition camps to be "real Ethiopians." They were accused of and labeled "traitors and sellouts of foreign powers and interests."
 

Hardly any other opposition leader symbolizes this view, however extreme, more than Hailu, a political leader credited among admirers for his formidable skills of organization. He too should experience humility in extending his hands to the person his movement once saw as everything but Ethiopian and who had locked him up behind bars for almost two years.

In between are figures such as Lidetu, who had been  young enough to be swayed by populist demands but maverick enough to have learnt from his past mistakes. His decision to part from the CUD's leadership early on, and his subsequent move to promote the politics of a "third way" never made him popular since then, though.

Ayele is indeed the most underrated of the politicians, but he has political experience dating back to the days of the military regime. When no one was up to the task during the debacle of the 2005 national election, he dared to raise the CUD flag and collect over 2,500 signatures to register the CUD and transform it from a loose electoral front to a legal political party.

He had to pay the price for his daring move, turning himself from a successful candidate under the CUD platform for the city council into a villain within few weeks. He was accused of being an instrument of the ruling party in its bid to weaken the already fragmented CUD. He also had to endure financial losses after selling his vehicle in order to raise enough funds to finance the activities of his followers who had to travel to several regions in their efforts to collect signatures. Little does this sacrifice seem to have helped him recover from the publicity bruises he came to suffer as a result.
 

All of these leaders have lately acted in a smart way that they deemed would serve their respective partisan interests best. The balance sheet may vary from one to the other, however.

For Meles and his party, the deal last week signifies a victory in the sense that the EPRDF is on a different track from where it was for many years. It indicates a realisation that a sheer show of force cannot fix everything, and that a display of power has its  limitations. Indeed, seeing any political force exercise untamed power sends a chill down one’s spine. Meles and company seem to have come to appreciate the wonders of soft power, which is all about bridging, dialogue, and understanding. Such is the lesson that even the United States, with all its power, seems to have learned from its adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To his credit, Meles has lately begun to gain the admiration and respect of the African elite, particularly the persistently skeptical editors across the continent. The reasons for this are twofold. For one, they are happy with him championing an African agenda in the international arena. After all, there are not that many African leaders having either the caliber or the interest to engage as intellectually as he does in these places. He has proven to be very articulate, and they are proud of him.

But more interestingly, they see a man who is gaining advances in the creation of a strong and effective state that is good at delivering one of the two public goods. He is building so much national infrastructure that past leaders just do not compare. Where he has been subjected to criticism, from the inside and out, is in his failure to deliver the other public good: accountability.

It seems that he has come around to learn that politics should not necessary be an art of confrontation. Electoral politics requires dialogue, discussion, concession and wining the minds, as well as the hearts, of the voters. What the ruling party has achieved by bringing one of the most formidable opposition parties on board is neutralizing the kind of politics overshadowed by hate and rejection during much of the past 17 years. This deserves praise.
 

The neutralization of the politics of rejection that defines the opposition camp has vindicated Lidetu and his EDP, so to say. Over the past five years, he has paid a political price for his decision to advocate what he describes as politics based on "reasons and rationality." That roughly means not practicing a blanket rejection of what the ruling party says, so long as some of its policies are working and make sense. He indeed voted in favour of the ruling party on several bills before parliament, most notable was the House's controversial resolution to send Ethiopian troops to Somalia.

His decision in distancing himself and the party he leads from adversarial engagement with the ruling party may have earned him the perception by many in the opposition camp and their supporters as a stooge of the EPRDF. However, Hailu's arrival on the scene ought to be a vindication for him that the days of a politics of desperation are indeed fading.
 

It takes courage and audacity for Hailu not to be swayed by populism and to be seen shaking hands with Meles, who symbolizes everything evil to the opposition camp, particularly that of the extreme group in the Diaspora. Indeed, the bloggers are all over Hailu, already calling him all kinds of names. One of his supporters-cum-critics described last week's deal as a "Mephistophelian bargain." He linked his signing of the deal with the name of a demon from Faust's legend.

It is certain that he will pay a price for some time to come. And he needs to make a lot of explanations to his supporters before recovering from the pubic relations bruises that Lidetu and his party continue to suffer.
 

Nevertheless, his was a decision that shows his party's coming of age - finally. It shows a departure from a sort of politics compounded with slogans. Beyond populist politics, this deal should work in his favour more than it does to the ruling party, for the burden of living up to the promises weighs on the Revolutionary Democrats and their overenthusiastic, if not undisciplined, cadres in the regions. The deal should give his operatives on the ground the opportunity to function with the protection of a binding commitment. In fact, no opposition could have it better than locking up the incumbent into a binding deal; it will give them the space to open their offices across the country, and legal protection for their operatives on the ground.

Abrogating on these deals would embarrass the EPRDF leadership worse than any of the opposition parties. The incumbent would loose legitimacy to rule should it win the coming national elections in another round of electoral debacles after making such agreements.