|
I
firmly believe that people or things do not
fundamentally change. I do believe there is room for
improvement, for wisdom and perhaps even for putting
a new face forward; but, the basic value system and
central foundational core of a thing remains the
same for as long as it is in existence.
The grand question in life, then, is how to appear
progressive in our thinking and person as the times
and the things of the day change around us. This is
what keeps things going. Families, institutions,
countries, political parties, movements, and causes
have all found a way to repackage themselves, put a
new smile on a new ad campaign and put their best
face forward into the new world.
This is how history progresses through time. This is
the ultimate lesson in immortality.
As
simple a lesson as that might seem, it does not seem
to be one that we have picked up on all too well in
this fair yet archaic nation of ours. That
generalisation can apply to just about any aspect of
the Ethiopian existence. Although this may appear to
be a universal truth, I want to focus on a
particular application of this idea, with emphasis
on the trends that political parties in the country
have thus far shown us in modern Ethiopian history.
With the forthcoming national elections just two
months away, this is a vital time for Ethiopian
politics. This would have been even truer had the
election in 2005 gone a bit better than it had. We
have to admit that there is a great deal of
disillusionment and disenchantment with the overall
political process that is a direct result of the
outcome of 2005.
The fact remains that there is going to be a general
election, that there are several political parties
that are going to participate in the process, and
that there are several prominent Ethiopian political
figures that still remain at the centre of the
political tornado.
There are the prominent Revolutionary Democrats and
a number of opposition parties represented by the
face of a single leader. There is Meles Zenawi,
Beyene Petros (Prof), Merera Gudina (PhD), Bulcha
Demekssa, Lidetu Ayalew and Hailu Shawel.
As
members of the voting public, we are more inclined
to know the words and actions of the leader and not
of the party. We are not fully aware of the visions,
missions and intentions of the parties that these
people represent. We are not sure how exactly they
would be better leaders or what they would do
differently in the country. We are not informed on
their policy intentions. Basically, we know the
leaders and not the foundations from which they
come.
All this is telling me is that there is no
foundation on which these political groupings are
based. If there was a strong and solid base which
all could swarm towards, then it would be possible
to rotate leaders.
We
would have seen several leaders in the Revolutionary
Democratic camp, each progressing with the times and
making the philosophy behind the politics more
acceptable to the next generation of the voting
public. We would have seen a new leader for any one
of the opposition parties that are represented and
recognised purely by the personality and character
of the leaders that they have chosen. We would have
been able to get some sort of progressive change
without having to eliminate all political ideologies
that were not deemed to be in the interest of the
country.
Since things do not fundamentally change, it holds
true that the political ideologies of the various
political parties will not change either. What is
most painful, though, is the lack of any form of
effort to make those ideologies more pertinent to
the current voting public which is dealing with
different issues than existed at the time that these
political parties were created. Instead, what we
have is simply a push forward with faces and ways of
old.
But, it can be argued that if the faces are not able
to change, then the entire political setup is based
on the ideas and thoughts of a single leader, which
makes it a whim and not a political institution.
When that leader is no longer able to govern the
party, then that party ceases to exist. A case and
point is the Coalition for Unity and Democracy
(CUD).
If
political parties rest on the existence of a single
person and if those parties makeup Parliament, then
we are essentially being governed by the will of
certain individuals and not on ideas of parties and
their political philosophies.
This screams of tyrannical rule to a mind such as
mine, but then of course I can be a little radical
in what I read into things.
If
the ideologies that these different parties
represent are indeed solid and worth pursuing, then
this is the time to put a new face on the campaign
and push things forward without trying to force the
same bitter issues down the voting public's throats.
If repackaging is not an option, then it is time
that political leaders and the parties they lead to
be honest with the public and with themselves and
admit that they stand on a single crutch which is
their leader. |
