|
An embattled group of politicians holding a disputed
key to the name CUD plans to call a general assembly
today, November 11, at the municipal hall in order
to elect its leadership. The man behind this scheme
is Ayele Chamiso, CUD member once elected to the
city government before his organisation's leadership
refused to take over the city administration.
"Every member of the CUD family is invited," he told
Fortune.
He claims this includes members of the upper council
(both not-jailed and freed) and a group of
parliamentarians representing the CUD spearheaded by
Temesgen Zewdie.
Interestingly, the two politicians and their
respective followers have been locked in caustic
political infighting fuelled by mutual disdain and
equally unaccommodating relationships. The National
Electoral Board, however, wants them to get together
and conduct a general assembly to elect the party's
leaders before it issues certification for
registration.
The latest developments last week made it clear that
it is unlikely for Temesgen’s group to attend,
while there is no confirmation that anyone from the
party’s upper council has an interest to appear.
Temesgen & Co. were successful in introducing a
suspension on Friday afternoon from the Federal High
Court that will block the National Electoral Board
from validating the results of today’s meeting until
a pending appeal filed by Temesegen and his
supporters is settled.
Temesegen and his group are already battling in
court to receive recognition from the National
Election Board as the legitimate leaders of the CUD.
The suspension means that the National Election
Board cannot issue another certificate in the CUD’s
name until that dispute is resolved.
Temesegen’s group first filed suit in October 2007
against the National Election Board, which had ruled
that a general assembly convened by Temesegen was
invalid since it did not include participation from
Ayele’s faction. The board has given two temporary
permits to operate the CUD, one to Temesgen’s group
and one to Ayele’s, and insists that any legitimate
elections must include the holders of both permits.
The National Electoral Board wrote a letter to both
factions stating this in September 2007.
Temesgen & Co. feel that this is a direct
interference in their party’s internal affair and a
violation of their right for association. They
appealed to the court for a ruling that forces the
electoral watchdog to accept the result of their
general assembly and to issue a party certificate.
They also asked the court to suspend Ayele’s group
from calling its own version of general assembly in
the meantime. A ruling on these issues is still
pending.
The latest suspension against the National Election
Board issued by the Federal High Court, however,
does not prohibit Ayele’s group from hosting the
meeting, Ayele said. Ayele’s adversaries believe it
is nonetheless a major set back to him, though Ayele
points out the suspension only affects the board
actions, not the group. The gathering will be
hosted at the Addis Abeba’s administration’s meeting
hall, which was offered free of charge to the group.
Behind this court wrangling is the prize to posses
the name CUD, a political brand born out of the
electoral tragedy during the run-up and in the
aftermath of the 2005 election. Both camps have
entered into a bitter fight since the name
represents a historical legacy among millions of
Ethiopians, particularly across the country’s urban
centres.
Legally, either one or both groups have the key to
the treasured name, but both are challenged on their
legitimacy in the eyes of the vast CUD supporters,
for both politicians have found themselves where
they are today due to sheer coincidence of events.
In a court of public opinion, they are simply
leaders by accident, who managed to prevail on the
political landscape due to the detention of the
party’s legitimate leaders. Mutual dislike aside,
there is little evidence of ideological differences
between Temesegen’s and Ayele’s groups, which
separated a few months after they were registered by
electoral officials under the CUD, and following the
mass detention of several member of the party’s
upper council, back in 2005.
Not surprisingly, both groups have tried to draw
credibility by declaring allegiance to and
associating themselves with the CUD leaders that
were released. The first move was taken by
Temesgen’s group, which hosted a welcoming lunch at
Ras Amba Hotel for the recently released politicians
his group described as “our leaders”. Birtukan
Mideksa, first deputy president of the CUD, and
Yakob W. Mariam, member of the party’s upper
council, were among the released leaders that have
shown their appearances.
Ayele and his supporters are now trying hard to
bring onboard some of the released CUD leaders to
attend the general assembly he called for today.
Sources disclosed to Fortune that there were
active discussions last week between his group and
the CUD faction run by Abayneh Brehanu in order for
the latter to participate in the assembly. No
agreement has been reached until our press time,
though.
If agreed, this will have an interesting implication
to the CUD leadership that claims to have a right to
the name. The crises has created as many as four
groups claiming stake to the once popular electoral
coalition.
Neither did a rally called in Washington D.C. two
weeks ago - meant to wind up a North American 50-day
tour by a group that claims to have democratic
credential within the CUD factions - reveal any sign
of consolidation or reconciliation. Instead, it
exposed, glaringly, the swapping on aisle by several
opposition politicians here and in the Diaspora. No
one represents this shift of allegiance better than
Aklog Lemeneh, a young activist originally from
Harar, but served as a point man of Hailu Shawel’s
All Ethiopian Unity Party (AEUP) in Boston,
Massachusetts, in the United States.
At an October 28th rally, held inside the Grand
Hyatt Hotel - located few meters across another
hotel where Hailu Shawel had met supporters two
weeks earlier - Aklog took centre stage and in
self-proclaimed “straight talk” warned a long list
of groups and people (including the leaderships of
Kinijit International Council, the EPRP and the
EPRDF) to keep their hands off of the CUD. By that,
he meant the faction that is led by a group now
known as Group of Five (G5): Brehanu Nega (PhD),
Hailu Araya (PhD), Birtukan Mideksa, Gizachew
Shiferaw, and Biruk Kebede.
But he is not alone; Gizachew Shiferaw too was a
member of AEUP. On the contrary Bedru Adem and
Nigist G. Hiwot, once members of Brehanu’s Rainbow
for Justice and Democracy, have stood alongside
Hailu Shawel at a rally held inside Renaissance
Hotel, openly denouncing their former ally for
displaying bullying behaviour in conducting the
party’s business.
Unlike its rival, however, the G5 has proven that it
is a formidable power that draws the biggest support
in the epicentre of the Ethiopian Diaspora in North
America, Washington D.C. The hall in the basement of
Grand Hyatt was full long before the five opposition
leaders appeared to address the crowd. In sharp
contrast to the half-full hall at the Renaissance
Hotel two weeks earlier, several people were seen
standing alongside the walls for the 1,080 seats
were all occupied by supporters, mainly representing
the youth. In both occasions though, supporters were
charged 30 dollars entrance fee, a form of fund
raising to the respective factions.
The crowd was entertained by a live performance of
Shambel Belayneh, who played his song “Let History
Judge Me”; ironically, it was his CD that played the
same song two weeks earlier at a rally called by
Hailu’s supporters, revealing to whose side the
singer himself stood by. Unlike an Ethiopian
Orthodox Bishop from California and influential
Ethiopian businessman in North America, Solomon
Bekele, it is entertainment celebrities such as
Tamagne Beyene and Abebe Belew as well as self
exiled businessman Brehane Mewa that have made their
debut at the Grand Hyatt rally.
“Kinijit is the way,” declared a blue letter slogan
put in white banner, visible on the wall behind the
podium. It is markedly different from the theme of a
slogan articulated by Hailu’s supporters that
emphasised the struggle for freedom from tyranny,
and declared Hailu as “Our Leader!”.
“We hate nobody,” said Fekade Shewakena, one of the
organizers of the rally held in Grand Hyatt,
representing the Washington chapter of Kinjit
International Leadership (KIL). He told the crowd
that his group’s efforts to ensure Hailu would
attend the rally failed to no avail. “We love the
CUD more and the spirit it saw.”
It is a spirit of democracy, justice and a nation
full of promises that captured the imaginations of
Ethiopians, Birtukan told the crowd, in what was
described by her supporters as one of her
outstanding public addresses. But she sees the CUD
at a crossroad, faced with internal and external
challenges. The road ahead demands “patience, wisdom
and sacrifices,” she told the crowd, which cheered
and applauded with at least as much enthusiasm as
greeted Hailu Shawel a couple of weeks ago.
Nonetheless, it was clear from her address that G5
tried hard not only in challenging the democratic
credentials of Hailu Shawel but also in setting a
different pitch on the political struggle waged
against the party that holds power in Ethiopia. The
enemy, according to Birtukan, is not the EPRDF,
“neither is CUD’s objective to remove it [the EPRDF]
from power.” She characterized the struggle against
a “dictatorial” system, whether is it practised by a
governing power or within her own party.
Certainly, this was a statement in sharp contrast to
what Hailu has promised to supporters in Washington
D.C. that “they shall all be free”, although he
could not tell them when.
Birtukan declared that
CUD has resolved never to “divorce from a peaceful
means of struggle”. It is a struggle that desires to
see liberty and justice practiced in Ethiopia; while
diversity is only a source of colour in a system
that respects individual rights, and the
independence of the judiciary is fully respected,
she declared.
“No one would call judges working in such system
‘heroes’,” Birtukan told her supporters.
Birtukan told her supporters that the vessel that
sails Ethiopians to this system is the CUD platform.
But she recognized that many wonder whether it will
navigate through what she described as a “journey of
democracy and justice”. The CUD needs to enter into
a new chapter to cleanse and reform itself,
according to Birtukan, who took a central stage at
the podium, with each of the other two men seated on
her opposite sides, perhaps signalling her
significant role within the CUD movement.
Nonetheless, she was observed to be less direct in
throwing her challenges in her quest for internal
reforms, although it was evident who she was
referring to. If there was anything clear emerging
from the rally in Grand Hyatt, Birtukan stood
alongside Brehanu et al in questioning the
absence of inter-party democracy within the CUD
leadership, and the resistance to commit to
collective decisions. It was Hailu accused by
Brehanu on several statements for being defiant to
collective leadership.
“CUD should practice within itself the rule of law
it preaches in public,” Birtukan demanded.
She said she would like to see her party apply
“political principles” instead of “political
conspiracies”, thereby echoing other critics of
Hailu’s group who point to alleged tendencies of
appointing party representatives through
“acquaintances and kinship”. Hers was a voice
reiterating what Hailu was criticized during the
meeting for practising “Chikashum”
leadership, an administrative concept once widely
practiced in feudal Ethiopia where local
administrators are not elected by their
constituencies but appointed by the power that be.
“Change your practice,” Birtukan called. “Or change
your name.”
That is not how some of her supporters see it.
“Hailu is like a rose whose stem is full of spines,”
side a supporter. “Should you fail to clean the stem
and get the man, you’re bound to fail.”
Ironically, the Grand Hyatt rally ended in the same
fashion as its predecessor held at the Renaissance
Hotel, postponing the solution on how to resolve the
crisis within the CUD leadership, when confronted by
curious supporters. In both occasions, CUD leaders
claimed it is a meeting to be held by members of the
upper council in Addis Abeba that will bring the
infighting to an end.
“Don’t ask us – for now,” Birtukan told a rather
bewildered crowd, who seemed to have been keen not
only in seeing how the two groups come to work
together again, but also unable to figure out what
caused their differences in the first place. If
there was anything both rallies share in common, it
was their failures to make clear to their rather
frustrated and confused supporters their point of
divergence in their respective ideological outlook
or policy subscription. There were, however,
repeated cries seen on both occasions in a bid for
the warring leaders to make their “true differences”
public, should there be any. Many were disappointed
this did not happen.
Short of this, Birtukan tried to frame what she
seems to think is the immediate priorities to the
party.
“The focus of the upcoming struggle is to
reinstitute [legally] the name of the CUD,” she told
the crowd. “CUD shall not dissolve, nor will it
disappear.”
This will, however, be determined so much by the
outcome of the legal battle the two groups are
waging on the home front and the things bureaucrats
at the electoral board are willing to do. Least of
all they are not willing to issue the original party
certification neither to any of the group that is
fighting either at a court of law or call a general
assembly, unilaterally.
In a three-page counter appeal its lawyers, Mebratu
Yohannes and Million Assefa, lodged on Friday to the
Federal High Court, the National Electoral Board
categorically denied interfering in the internal
businesses of the party and asked for the charges to
be dropped. The National Electoral Board also argued
that it only registered the formation of the CUD,
but declined to issue certificate before the 2,943
founding and the six steering committee members have
jointly conducted a general assembly to elect the
members of the upper council as well as leaders of
the executive committee.
Boycotted by at least three of the steering
committee members, today’s general assembly is yet
another repeat of the unilateral move by Ayele et
el, which is challenged at a court of law from
its start. This will very likely continue to
entangle the legality of the CUD from falling in the
hands of any group that claims ownership, whether or
not its legitimacy is scrutinized or granted by its
supporters.
|
