Back in the year 2000, when the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) was going through one of its most trying times since its establishment in the early 1970s, Siye Abraha, rather well-known for his military credentials during the armed struggle against the Derg, led a rebellion against the group that finally retained power within the ruling EPRDF. Many observers of Ethiopian politics attributed his group's eventual purge from the ruling party to his, and couple of his comrades', walkout during a crucial meeting held in Mekelle between the leadership and an army of TPLF cadres.
 

His walkout, allegedly over emotionally disturbed cadres, forced them prostrate, pleading in the name of TPLF martyrs, and was considered as good a political suicide as it could have possibly been. Whether or not things would have turned out differently, had the dissidents within the TPLF leadership stayed in, is hard to contemplate now.
 

Nevertheless, this has not deterred Siye from making a stunning comeback to the political landscape. This time around, he architected a grand opposition coalition of eight parties that finally formed the Forum for Democracy and Dialogue (FDD). He should be credited for persuading leaders of these parties - from Beyene Petros (Prof), a veteran in opposition coalition politicking, to Merera Gudina (PhD) and from Bulcha Demeksa to Gebru Asrat, the latter a dissident-in-arms in the TPLF - to accept a minimum programme on core political issues.
 

Now Siye is trying to steer the way in order to make the FDD the largest opposition force challenging the incumbent around the bloc. It would indeed take a political maverick to navigate in a complex set of opposition politics in order to achieve this goal. Above all, though, the art of engagement and compromise would be the essence that ought to be defining the electoral politics ahead.
 

It is interesting to see the Revolutionary Democrats claim to have fallen in love with the politics of engagement lately. They have laid out the rules of this engagement in such a way that they would not accept anything that would harm their interests. But on the other hand, they swear not to want to shove any agenda that is clear to damage the position of opposition parties negotiating with themdown the throat of their opponents down the throat of their opponents. However, so long as it does not affect their interests and has no particular use to them, they would be ready to compromise should their opponents see that the issues advance their cause.
 

It is this "politics of a search for the possible" that finally led them to sign an electoral code of conduct and its modality with three opposition parties, including Hailu Shawel's All Ethiopian Unity Party (AEUP). The highly publicised handshake that followed - between Meles Zenawi and Hailu - was, thus, a powerful reminder of this changing climate among political parties contesting for state power that would give the winner access to the nation's resources and the ability to take the country in any chosen direction.
 

Although this is in no way an easy exercise, the images of the two gentlemen shaking hands splashed on the pages of newspapers and screens of TV sets and computers has a lot more to tell in its form than it does in its substantive content. Never was there a period, in the history of this country, where political leaders from across the political divide, with mutual abhorrence to one another, have ever made the painful compromises that would have allowed them to meet halfway, as the signatories of the code of conduct have recently done.
 

Alas, they are now collecting their dividends from their respective supporters and constituencies as much as they sustain losses from those who disagree with the leadership heads who are party to the deal.
 

Subject to rather fierce criticisms and angry reactions, as a result of this deal, is AEUP's Hailu, for he was the least expected to have cut a deal with the leaders of a political party that imprisoned him for almost two years. One of his top leaders has recently left the party in protest, signalling the threat of a mass exodus from AEUP.
 

In a way, Hailu, to a large extent, and the other signatories, to a certain degree, have become victims of the politics of rejection that appears to have overwhelmed the political culture in Ethiopia for far too long now.
 

The politics of rejection is more than just avoiding friendly handshakes between heads of opposing political parties. It is the idea that the opposing party is wrong no matter what stance it takes, and that the opposition is there just to reject the ruling party's policies simply because it comes from the incumbent. If either party does not hold to this type of politics, they risk rejection by their respective members who may hold very firmly to this type of politics.
 

Such politics unavoidably descends into labelling, prejudice, ignoring, judging and generalities. And these are hallmarks of the politics in this country. Even those who claim to have grown out of this culture are deeply sunk in it when referring to their most loathed opponents.
 

This is true of Ethiopia's political history. Ethiopia went from one extreme to the other, avoiding the middle ground where dialogues and discussions have room to grow. The Emperor was so paranoid about dissension that he had bribed his administrators with land, wealth and titles. This was understandably so, given the slowly changing and unresponsive nature of a monarchy where anything less than loyalty to the Emperor was nothing but treason.
 

It would take a treasonous revolution, no matter how slowly it crept, to change the status quo.

But the junior military officers were no less suffocating. Unlike the pillow that was allegedly used on His Majesty, the suffocation of public opinion was often bloody. Again, there was no room for the development of political discourse; and subsequent decades of political numbness went by.

Although a changing global order imposed the realities of multiparty politics and pluralism with the advent of the Revolutionary Democrats in the early 1990s, it hardly went beyond rhetoric; for all could see, that the EPRDF had been as confrontationist in the field of electoral politics as it had been combative in the battlefields.
 

Now that it has taken the initiative to engage with its political rivals on issues of electoral importance, it deserves appreciation. It would help the political process move better, should members of the opposition respond in kind. To their credit some have. Others, prominently the coalition engineered by Siye, however, opted not to be a party to the code of conduct. It is regrettable, but not surprising. The Forum may want to define its place in the Ethiopian polity as a "genuine opposition force" with an uncompromising overture.
 

Unfortunately, the Forum's decision to walk out of the talks on the code of conduct shows that there will hardly be a complete riddance of the politics of rejection, for there are constituencies to whom rejecting whatever comes from the powers that be, has strong appeal. Ironically, the Forum finds itself on the frontline of the rejection politics, walking out of negotiating rooms on a couple of occasions during the preceding two-month-long period of engagement between Ethiopia's political parties.
 

The Forum's original demand was to have a bilateral talk with the incumbent; it said that it had specific issues not shared with the others. Later on, it said it would be interested in talking about broader issues that affect the conduct of free and fair elections not limited to the code of conduct.

These issues could be valid and crucial to the legitimacy of the electoral process. It ought to be unsurprising if raised by any party, for that matter. Nonetheless, engagement politics is all about the art of the possible, and reaching the middle ground. It would demand concessions and compromises made by the respective negotiating parties that may turn out to be very unpopular by members and supporters.
 

However, as long as it serves in bringing quality to the process and maintains long-term currency in improving the political landscape, leaders will be called upon to demonstrate such political courage. Hailu has certainly lived up to this expectation of compromise, despite the risk of losing support.
 

So far, seen shunning away from inking a deal with the incumbent, and perhaps claiming a place among the opponents of the EPRDF as an uncompromising and formidable opposition force, it is hard to see the game plan crafted by the leaders of the Forum. It appears inevitable for them to take part in the upcoming national election. It may not sound fair, but it is equally inevitable for the signatories of the code of conduct to pass their document through Parliament into law, which would then require the Forum to adhere to its precepts.
 

It would help the Forum and opponents of the incumbent little to pursue the politics of rejection, when they seem to wield hardly any power to stop the others from legislating their document into a binding law. They could have chosen to put their marks on it, for they were able to engage and prepared to compromise, however painful some of the concessions they might have had to make.

Nevertheless, it may not be too late for them to be part of engagement politics seen practiced by others which could dispel the culture of politics of rejection from the landscape. Such an outdated culture does not pay political dividends to any of them.