Question: Let me put you through a vocabulary; I have been talking to some people about the importance of the words and what they imply. Is it “pardon”, a “clemency” or “amnesty” that is granted to the CUD leaders and their members sentenced to life in prison? I was told that each word has its own relevance in the political life of these people after they were released?

Prime Minister Meles Zenawi: The wording is precise in Amharic; we have a law which provides pardon to people who have been sentenced in court. The pardon can be partial, conditional or unconditional. The pardon is total when the persons concerned are involved and they will be free with their constitutional rights restored. The pardon is conditional, which means that government expects them to stick to their promises and adhere to the promise they made in their appeal for pardon which respects of the rule of law. Stick to the constitution and stick to constitutionally mandated institutions; so long as they do that they will be free. 

Do you expect them to continue with public political life?

That is up to them, they can do what they wish.

Was there any external pressure on the government to release leaders of the opposition?

There used to be. Two years ago when these leaders were initially detained, a number of countries and their representatives here issued statements that I have characterised as shameful; a number of countries delayed or reduced their development assistance, but that was two years ago. We had difficult and trying moments. We have passed beyond that now.

The rest of the international community, I believe, is aware that this is a legal process that has been consummated in a constitutional manner. This is an internal affair for Ethiopia to sort out in its own way. The process was subdued with an internal process initiated by prominent Ethiopian elders. 

Some claim that the judicial process involving the CUD leaders will reverse the democratic process in Ethiopia.

I do not see how this could be an impediment to the democratic process and development in our country. The rule of law has been respected and seen to be respected by everyone. That is the necessary minimum condition for any process of civilised political contest in the country. There has not been any compromise on the rule of law.

I recognise that they made the mistake while they were trying to change the constitutionally mandated institutions by force. They had committed themselves to unconstitutional means and if they respect and abide by the constitutionally mandated institutional governance and play by the rules of the game, it simply reinforces the process of democratic development in this country. I do not share the view that it would be a step backward from the process of democratisation in Ethiopia. 

What kind of message do you think this sends to the Ethiopian people regarding the integrity of the judiciary process?

The concerned body up to this day, the court, had its own final say; once the court had its final say, according to the laws of this country, the government does have its own powers to pardon specific individuals under certain conditions. The process of pardoning these individuals was carried out meticulously according to the letter and spirit of the law. Both the trial and the pardon processes have been carried out strictly according to the laws of the land. I think it shows a lot of credit to the judicial process and the rule of law.

The message that I hope this will convey to the Ethiopian people is that this saga of the ‘orange revolution’ is now fully behind us and is dead and buried. It is a new chapter for everyone. I hope it also conveys no sense of vengeance and revenge on the part of the government. In spite of the damaging mistakes they might have made in the past, I hope this conveys a message that people are given a second chance so long as they seek it in earnest.

According to the letter we saw on Ethiopian Television (ETV), total responsibility was taken by the CUD leaders with whatever happened during the election. Does the government share part of the responsibility, for some of the opposition leaders claim that government too should accept its part of the mistake?

The people that we are talking about have refused to defend themselves in a court of law. In the absence of that, why would the government claim that it has proven these people have tried to change the government through an unconstitutional manner? When we look at what they finally wrote to the government, it was as good as pleading guilt. Why did they wait until they were sentenced by the Court? Why did they not choose to do so when the Court originally gave them the opportunity to plead guilty or not?

The persons concerned had rights to defend themselves in a court of law and had every right to do so. The Court had to make its determination on the basis of the evidence presented to it. And given the extraordinary amount of evidence that was presented to the Court; it had no apparent doubt on the attempt by these individuals to overthrow the constitutional order.
 

We believe that the case has been fully proven in a court of law and the fact that these particular individuals have admitted their guilt simply reinforces the findings of the Court. I do not think there is any room for doubt.

Why they chose this time to admit guilt, I cannot say, for I have not talked to them. And I do not understand why they did not defend themselves when they were supposed to do so and when they had the opportunity, when others who had been part of their attempt chose to use the opportunity given to them like everyone else and close the chapter and move on.

Do you hope the decision to grant amnesty to these people and release help your government put aside a bill at the United States (US) Congress that have been going around since May 2005? Will it bring a final result to those congressmen who were pushing for it to finally abandon their positions as a result of this action? 

I think there are a number of points that have to be stressed here. It is a number of individual congressmen who are involved rather than the US Congress as a whole. I think it is appropriate to state that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and these specific individuals that you are talking about have a particular point of view. While they are entitled to their own opinion, and we respect their rights to hold them, this government and this country are incapable, unwilling and unable to be run like some banana republic from Capitol Hill. It is very worrisome that some of these individuals appear to have entertained such views. Therefore, from time to time, we will have to remind such individuals that this country will not respond to this.

Those who are outraged because the ‘orange revolution’ has come to an end are not likely to change their mind on whatever decision we make. Those who have a neo-colonialism predilection of running African countries from a distance are unlikely to change their minds. But those who have partnership with countries such as Ethiopia would likely recognise that Ethiopia is very serious in respecting the rules of law and providing adequate space for political dissent.

In a statement you made before and even repeated today in equating Western embassies’ actions to a “shameful” act, you seem to put all Western embassies together. The general understanding is that your government has an excellent relationship with the US government and that it did not try to put any condition on aid upon the release of these people. Do you think what you said would disappoint diplomats at the US Embassy? Is it true that you have provided a private explanation qualifying your statement that you made before Parliament?

I was talking about a specifically issued statement made by a number of ambassadors here in Ethiopia sometime in November 2005 which characterises individual members as “political prisoners” and demanded their unconditional and immediate release. The statement was clearly wrong as a matter of fact, because the court of law has now proved that they were not political prisoners as they were proven to be in breach of the constitutional order, as they have admitted themselves.

For them to go around and pick evidence to prove that these people were political prisoners and demanding that they be released unconditionally was interfering in internal affairs of a sovereign country; it was totally unbecoming behaviour.

That does not mean our relationship with these specific countries would not improve. Our relationship with these countries that issued statements did not stop their development assistance to Ethiopia as our relationship is much bigger. The US is not the only development partner with our country that never stopped development assistance. Some did stop their assistance and some delayed the release of their funds.

My statement about their statements was not a total evaluation of our relationship with those countries. It was an evaluation of a specific event at a specific time.

Some of the CUD members who were released from jail were elected to Parliament. Would they be allowed to reclaim their seats in Parliament? Are they free to lead their life like everyone else? 

Their constitutional rights are to be restored. That means they are free to participate in political activities henceforth. They have now boycotted Parliament for close to two years; it is too late to reclaim their seats.

There are those people who have declined to request pardon. 

There are those who feel not guilty and want to defend themselves in a court of law. That stance will be fully respected and we will have to wait and see what the court would say about them.

What impact will this action of the government have on the next election because people are frustrated by the political situation after the May 2005 election? What would be the impact of the appeal for pardon made by the CUD leaders on those who opposed your government from exile?

We are going to have local elections sometime early next year. These individuals will be free to contest both elections, including the bi-election to fill the vacant seats in Parliament. My hope and expectation is that everybody will learn the lessons; and this particular election will be peaceful and civilized. As to what the impact of this would be on the elements of the Diaspora who have been vociferously in the campaign to vie with this government, I cannot say what it means to them. Hopefully, as many of these people as possible will see the light of day.

I want to pickup on your reflection of the relevance and importance of this incident on the whole Ethiopian political discourse now and in the future. Your party represents a political force that tries to redraw Ethiopia’s political map in devolving political power from the centre to the regions. That is what the EPRDF has been trying to achieve ever since it took over political power in Ethiopia. On the other hand, the political force that is represented by CUD leaders represents a national political movement that tries to advocate unitary political structure.

Following the apology made by CUD leaders, do you think there is anymore an opportunity for the national political discourse to revive, ever again? Do you think that EPRDF is consolidating power in trying to reverse Ethiopian politics once and for all in its bid to make the regions centres of political power? I am trying to find out whether political parties or groups who seek to have a different political life in Ethiopia will have space.

Two main political trends in Ethiopia are centred on the definition and concept of Ethiopianess. On the one hand you have the definition of Ethiopia that the EPRDF adheres to: a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and diverse country. Diversity is not a sickness and it could on the contrary be a source of strength. Any democratic process in Ethiopia has to start by celebrating and embracing diversity, including the institutions of federalism.

On the other hand, there is a political trend which I suspect is uncomfortable with diversity and that might consider diversity as a source of weakness. This politics is underestimating diversity, if not a homogenising tendency that a repeat of the previous Imperial era adhered in this country.

These are the two major political trends with variations. These trends will continue to be there; so long as they express their views peacefully, the political process reinforces the culture of democracy. The problem is not that there are two trends and one has to definitely overcome the other. The problem is rather these trends need to express themselves peacefully and through constitutionally mandated institutions.

There is a sense of humiliation felt by followers of the CUD leaders, who have voted in millions during the last election, because their leaders were made to sign an appeal and ask for amnesty in words such as printed in state media. How does your party relate to these feelings of disappointment by their constituencies?

There are two or three points I wish to make clear. I think when people have this interpretation of the fact that many people voted for this group, a sober assessment or the voting trend would seem to indicate that many of those voted for them actually voted against the EPRDF. It was largely protest votes, which do not have to be ideologically allied with groups that it are voted for. It simply has to reject the other side for some reason or another. It is a mistake that some of these leaders misunderstood the nature of the vote that they got. As I understood, the protest vote was taken as insurrection move by the people, but when push came to shove, they recognised that the protest vote was not around to see them through their insurrection.

The protest vote has to be dealt with separately; they have no reason to be humiliated nor defeated. They have voted in most a civilized fashion to convey the very simple message to the EPRDF that it failed to live up to their expectations; that was the end of the message. We have very carefully listened to them; and from day one responded to their very clear message with respect and admiration. We acted immediately to redress some of the concerns they raised, with utmost care and full respect that continues to be the case now.

When it comes to the hardcore of the opposition that went beyond protest and were trying to change the whole constitutional order in a manner beyond what is legally acceptable, that group has no reason to feel humiliated either.

At this stage, the rule of law is the uncontested winner out of this process. This people have said now that they would respect the rule of law and therefore to the extent that they are now part of the constituency that is loyal to the rule of law they too are winners. This is something that has the potential for a win-win situation. Nobody needs to be humiliated. They admitted they made a mistake; as far as the EPRDF is concerned, that is a sign of maturity. EPRDF has always been engaged in criticism and self-criticism involving mistakes. From time to time, we say we have made mistakes; for us, such a scenario is the sign of maturity, and not weakness or a reason for humiliation.

I want to ask you a personal question. Your public addresses used to be considered by a great deal of people as sort of combative and provocative. Lately though, I see there is a change of tone, for instance, when you addressed Parliament a couple of weeks ago, but more importantly the statement you made in the town of Harar, preaching peace, harmony and understanding. Even now, you seem to say let bygones be bygones and “let us put the past behind and open a new chapter”. Is this a tone of change by your party or a real change in substance that your party is willing to build a nation with understanding based on consensus and reconciliation?     

I am not sure what you really mean by change of substance. My party has always felt the need to build national consensus around a number of fundamental issues. In principle, I have always shared those views. I may personally have expressed them differently in the past with some people considering me to be combative. And that combative tone may have changed. I am not sure, but if it has changed it probably has more to do with age than anything else.

Would you believe that your current challenge, particularly in Addis Abeba, is to restore confidence among ordinary people that it is still alright to speak openly against the government? That it is still fine for people to protest against government policies? It seems to me that what happened after May 2005 has brought a climate of fear and environment that created in people this perception that it is not okay to oppose your government because the result will be retaliation. Do you think that the challenge is to restore that confidence?

I do not share that view for the simple reason that every time we have meetings with the residents of Addis Abeba, we get more than an earful of criticism. There are many complaints about this government, though a significant part of it is completely unfounded. The most recent such encounter was three months ago when senior government officials had meetings all over Addis Abeba. They heard criticisms and complaints and in some instances, denouncement, including a few individuals who were saying that these people should be released immediately.

The traumatic events we had two years ago needed to be taken into consideration in assessing peoples’ mood. People did die here. There may be some inhibition in public demonstrations. It may take time [for people] to distinguish riots from demonstrations. They had huge demonstration here in Addis during the election. We did not have any problem.

Will there be compensation for those people who were caught in the crossfire during the violence?

 We have not considered the issue of compensation so far.