The so-called negotiated agreement does not, by any means, read as one but rather as dictation. Dictated by those who were on the ropes and looking for divine intervention. They got it. The document solely reflects the interest of the politically battered and internationally condemned government. Among those paragraphs that were agreed upon, one reads “….The signatories of the declaration re-assert their condemnation of acts of violence or incitement to violence and agree to make all possible efforts to prevent such violence or incitement to violence, to exercise restraint, and seek resolution of all issues through legal and peaceful means only.” What necessitated the inclusion of this paragraph into the agreement? To which of two parties to the agreement is this paragraph directed ? It is obvious that this paragraph was necessitated by the demonstration that took place right after the EPRDF declared that it had won most of the seats and therefore could establish a government. A demonstrating student is quoted by BBC as having said that “….We are demonstrating because EPRDF is making a fraud, misleading the whole international community saying they have won.” The underlying assumption of this paragraph is that the demonstration was illegal and the opposition was responsible for it. The government had on many occasions accused the opposition was responsible for it. The government had on many occasions accused the opposition of inciting the students. It seems to me that the opposition by accepting the inclusion of this paragraph has implicitly accepted responsibility for the violence and massacre that took place.

Another paragraph reads “…the parties to the declaration accept the legal authority of the National Election Board of Ethiopia and the courts in those procedures and commit to abide by the decisions they make on the basis of authority invested in them by the laws of the country and refrain from all acts intended to subvert such decisions, without prejudice to their constitutional rights.” Here again whose interest is protected by this paragraph? How would the opposition express its trust and confidence to a board which it had been accusing of partiality and favoring the government? Isn’t it the same Board from which the European Union and the Carter Center declared their intention to disassociate themselves from and is it not the same Board the EU criticized by saying “…the national Electoral Board does not seem to be in control of the counting operation by the constituency electoral committees and limits itself to passively receive the reports from a limited number of constituencies?”

Why wasn’t there a paragraph that protects the life, security and right of the opposition politicians? Why should newly elected parliamentarians be murdered without any reason whatsoever? Human Rights Watch has reported of “…mass arrest in at least nine cities outside of Addis Ababa since last Monday, June 20, 2005, it continued to say …security forces have also continued to arrest large numbers of CUD supporters in the capital over the course of the past several days.” CUD leaders themselves have said that up to 120 of their staff throughout the country had been jailed. Expressing his frustration, Berhanu Nega, Vice Chairman of the CUD, is quoted as having said “…its supporters must be released if continued peace talks with the ruling party to bear fruit.” Shouldn’t this have been negotiated? Twelve days after the agreement was signed, June 22, 2005, Getahun Among, spokesman for the infamous Ethiopia’s Electoral Board, said: “…it would investigate allegations of vote rigging in 135 constituencies of the 299 where complaints were lodged following parliamentary elections of 15 May.” It was learnt that until 22 June EPRDF has won 302 seats, its allies 26, and the opposition group has won 194 seats. As the EPRDF has the most seat to date, the continuation of counting of the contested ballots becomes academic they are not likely to change the outcome.”

Hasn’t this come around to haunt the CUDP leadership? Hasn’t it been an albatross around their collective neck? Hasn’t my analysis and conclusions come to be proven right? How many of us questioned this ill-advised decision to enter into compact with the government? It is a government that has no compunction or scruples about the legality or morality of its actions. It is a government whose sole objective is to weather any storm that comes its way and cling to power by all means. If it has to lie, it will and does. If it has to coax, cajole and coerce, it will and does. Let us face it, this is the worst kind of Machiavellian government Ethiopia has faced in many, many, many years. With due respect to Mr. Madebo, I read neither from him from others any constructive criticism about this mind boggling agreement that the CUDP leaders entered into with the government. There are times when you have your enemy by the balls, you shouldn’t let go until you get what you want.

Coming back to my article, Mr. Madebo wants to attribute Mr. Mandela’s decision to reject Botha’s offer to “ the objective condition of South Africa and the organization of ANC…” He wrote “based on the then objective condition of South Africa and the organizational strength of the ANC party, in the 1970/80s, Mandela made the right choice when he rejected Peter Botha’s offer of nominal freedom. It was wise and matured decision in the South Africa of the 1970/80s…”

I do not know what Mr. Madebo meant by organizational strength of the ANC party in the '70s and '80s, decades when the ANC was still banned in South Africa, some of its top leaders were in exile in the then called Frontline States. The1970s was the decade when the ideological and geo-political struggle between the two super-powers was at its height. It was a decade when Britain, West Germany, France, and the United States continued their engagement with apartheid South Africa as they continued to do until the middle of 1980s. It was a decade when direct investment having become costly these western countries resorted to indirect investment, continued this tactic and until the middle of the 1980s. In addition, the 1980s was the decade when the Reagan administration increased the misery of black South Africans with its so-called “ constructive engagement. Bishop Desmond Tutu labelled this policy “immoral, evil, and totally unchristian.” From 1979 to 1985 the Soviet Union not only was facing military defeat in Afghanistan but also instability as a result of its leaders Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko dying in 1982, 1984, and 1985 respectively. Hence it is safe to conclude by saying that both internal and external conditions were favoring the apartheid regime and not the ANC. Yes, there was the “divestment movement”. But that was not effectively implemented until after 1985. So I find it bizarre for Mr. Mdebo to conclude by saying that the objective condition of South Africa and the organizational strength of the ANC party allowed Mandela to make the right choice. No, Mr. Madebo you got it wrong. All wrong. What Mandela was saying then was that there was no right time, I repeat right time, to agree to Botha’s conditions if he is to come out in to the same apartheid system that has shackled him and banned his beloved ANC. He was saying explicitly, not implicitly, that it was a political, economic social and cultural system that did not treat the rest of South Africans---Africans, Indians, Coloureds, etc., etc.,---equal to whites. To him, the destruction of that horrendous and evil system is a precondition for his signature. The precondition, in this case, the destruction of the evil system, apartheid is the independent variable and the period, 1970/80, or the “time and space” as you would like to call it, is the dependent variable. This is how Mandela put it :

“ ….I am surprised at the conditions that the government wants to impose on me. I am not a violent man….It was only then, when all other forms of resistance were no longer open to us, that we turned to armed struggle. Let Botha show that he is different to Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd. Let him renounce violence. Let him say that he dismantle apartheid. Let him unban the people’s organization, the African National Congress. Let him free all who have been imprisoned, banished or exiled for their opposition to apartheid. Let him guarantee free political activity so that people may decide who will govern them.

I cherish my own freedom dearly, but I care even more for your freedom. Too many have died since I went to prison. Too many have suffered for the love of freedom. I owe it to their widows, to their orphans, to their mothers, and to their fathers who have grieved and wept for them….But I cannot sell my birthright, nor am I prepared to sell the birthright of the people to be free….What freedom am I being offered while the organization of the people remains banned? What freedom am I being offered when I may be arrested on a pass offense What freedom am I being to live my life as a family with my dear wife who remains in banishment in Brandfort? What freedom am I being offered when I must ask for permission to live in an urban area? What freedom am I being offered when my very South African citizenship is not respected?

Only freeman can negotiate. Prisoners cannot enter into contracts….I cannot and will not give any undertaking at a time when I and you, the people, are not free. Your freedom and mine cannot be separated. I will return… (Long Walk to Freedom, PP.522-23)

Don’t you think, Mr. Madebo, that Mandela would have made his release or signing of an agreement for his freedom contingent upon Meles’ respecting the voice of the people and handing over power to them? Remember, Mandela was imprisoned for having won the 2005 election and not for transgressing any law.

Mr. Madebo does not think we need to “… be consumed with a question that doesn’t solve our cause or purpose.” He asks “…. Why can’t we deal with a practical question that sheds light in our path?” Well I say the reason why we should be consumed by it is because it goes to the essence of why Mr. Mandela would take that uncompromising and principled stand. Isn’t this the issue at hand? It would have been good if we could read his mind. If we cannot, it does not mean we should throw our hands into the air and give up. We can, using inference, draw reasonable conclusions.

Mr. Madebo, after having agreed with me that prison did not deter the leaders of the ANC from discharging their historic responsibility says “…in the Ethiopian case, the prison not only deterred the free CUDP leaders but it also created multiple Kinijit factions that crippled the popular movement….” This, I am afraid, is a very defeatist position. If Mr. Madebo had not “skimmed” through my article and had read it with purpose he would have been informed of the fact that the ANC had also faced this similar position. How did it overcome it?

Mandela wrote:

“….The Indian campaign became a model for the type of protest that we in the Youth League were calling for. It instilled a spirit of defiance and radicalism among the people, broke the fear of prison….They reminded us that the freedom struggle was not merely a question of making speeches, holding meetings, passing resolutions, and sending deputations, but of meticulous organization, militant mass action, and, above all the willingness to suffer and sacrifice ,…”(my emphasis) (Long Walk to Freedom, P. 104)

As I had pointed out in my article, the one at issue here, Mandela had written on the beneficial working experience that the African National Congress had with the South African Indian Congress (SAIC). Mandela wrote:

“Prior to the campaign, the ANC was more talk than action. We had no paid organizers, no staff, and a membership that did little more than pay lip service to our cause. As a result of the campaign, our membership swelled to 100,000. The ANC emerged as a truly mass-based organization with an impressive corps of experienced activists who had braved the police, the courts, and the jails. The stigma usually associated with imprisonment had been removed. This was significant achievement, for fear of prison is a tremendous hindrance to a liberation struggle. From the Defiance Campaign onward, going to prison became a badge of honor among Africans.” ( my emphasis) (P. 139)

I would like to close by thanking Mr. Madebo for engaging me in this, what I consider, to be a very fruitful discussion. I hope the discussion has managed to shed light. I am of the opinion that constructive criticism of the actions, positions, decisions, tactics, strategies of those who are in a leadership position should be welcomed by them as acceptance of constructive criticism is the mark of great leaders. It should be encouraged not discouraged. If not now, when? If not us, who?

-------
Solomon Terfa is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Mississippi Valley State University. He can be reached for comments at st2151@bellsouth.net.