I never imagined that an Ethiopian ruler would come to
Washington and seek to discuss his government with American
Ethiopianists, but this was the message I received from the
Ethiopian Embassy in early October. I later learned that the
participants were to be Donald Levine of the University of Chicago,
John Harbeson of the City University of New York, James McCann
and Allan Hoben of Boston University, Theodore Vestal of
Oklahoma State University, Charles Schaefer of Valparaiso
University, Donald Crummey of the University of Illinois, Edmond
Keller of the University of California (Los Angeles), Marina
Ottaway of Georgetown University, Terrence Lyons of the
Brookings Institution, John Prendergast of the Center of Concern,
and Annette Scheckler of the Refugee Policy Group.
The event took place at 8:00 A.M. on 20 October, in a large,
room in the Ethiopian Embassy, where there was a breakfast buffet
of American and Ethiopian dishes and a number of well arranged
circular tables. We ferenji scholars occupied two of them, but there
were at least three other tables of Ethiopian officials and private
persons, none of whom was identified. We ate and chatted for about
half an hour, and then Meles rose and welcomed us as friends of
Ethiopia. He pointed out that there were many sides to the Ethiopian
story and that he was present to clarify the views of his government.
He thereupon called for questions.
I took copious notes, since I intended to write an article
about the event for H-Africa, Ethiolist, and *Ethiopian Review*.
Below, I have tried to replicate what I heard from Meles and his
interlocutors. Most of the questions and answers are, of course,
paraphrased, but there is some verbatim material.
I publish this piece in the hope that it might clarify Prime
Minister Meles's views for those of us who remain uncertain about
his thinking and the policies and intentions of his government. I am
experienced enough, however, to know that his statements will be
deconstructed and interpreted in a variety of ways. Still, I hope my
article serves as a piece of solid information in a world full of
hyperbole, invective, and rejectionism. While I have sought fully to
rehearse what I heard, other participants may remember the event
differently, and I urge them to offer corrections.
********************************************************
1- (Q) Theodore Vestal led off by citing democracy's need for a
vigorous multi-party system. In Ethiopia, he asserted, parties are so
harassed that they can not operate properly and are therefore unable
to participate in the democratic process. In the absence of functional
parties, how can there be the true competition that democracy
requires, he asked.
(A) Meles said he would not challenge Vestal's assertions
since the dialogue would get nowhere; instead he would deal with
the issue abstractly. He claimed that the Ethiopianists gathered
before him were in contact only with Ethiopia's best and brightest,
both in the United States and in Ethiopia, and not with the villagers,
as was his party and its supporting organizations. The best and the
brightest, he stressed, have to organize on the village level and not
only in Addis Abeba and Washington. His party had done so, even
in Oromia, where the transitional government had gambled on
arming the peasants.
The Oromo had proved as reliable as had the peasants of
Tigray and Shewa, whom the EPRDF had organized under
conditions of war. The opposition should be able to install itself in
the countryside now, since conditions there are much less dangerous
than during the Mengistu years. Meles reported that his government
is fairly weak on the ground compared to the dirg's administration.
He ended by suggesting that, in order to be successful, the
opposition must strive to work at the grassroots.
2- (Q) Terrence Lyons pointed out that there was a wide-spread
perception that the government had neutered the opposition. Since
it was good for democracy to have an opposition, what could the
Ethiopian government do to help its opponents?
(A) Meles answered that his government needs a vigorous
opposition to keep it honest and efficient, just as the dirg kept the
TPLF healthy and alert. Yet, the Ethiopian opposition remains
anarchic and has no real program. When the EPRDF proposed its
five-year plan, it was seriously critiqued only by foreigners and the
IMF, not the Ethiopian opposition. If things went on as they had
before, there would be no functional opposition for a long time. It
remains rejectionist, not constructive; rejection is not opposition.
He repeated that the opposition must root itself in the
countryside.
3- (Q) Paul Henze asked about IMF and World Bank views
regarding the government s financial policies.
(A) Meles stated that the relationships had evolved from
mutually suspicious beginnings. Whereas a *Policy Framework
Program* is usually worked out in Washington, Ethiopia's PFP was
designed in Addis Abeba, albeit in close consultation with the IMF
and WB. Since the two organizations now respected Ethiopia s
opinions, there are no serious differences, even if there are
divergences about pacing and timing. Meles stated that the IMF and
WB are willing to live with the government's land reform policies.
4- (Q) Jim McCann inquired about the role of the university in
Ethiopia s future.
(A) When the EPDRF first arrived in Addis Abeba, he
asked two senior AAU scholars to help formulate the economic
program of the transitional government. One assisted but, when
subsequently offered a high governmental post, decided to stay in
the university; whereas the other remained aloof from the beginning.
Meles respected their decisions, and they were not among those who
were fired.
He stated that the latter had completely compromised their
integrity, especially the ex-president, who had signed kebele death
warrants during the Red Terror. Others had neglected their academic
tasks in favor of using their podiums to disseminate political
propaganda.
Meles claimed that he had no trouble with political people,
such as Beyene Petros, who taught their subjects. The situation at
the university is better now: people are much more serious about
doing their jobs properly, even though there remains much
opposition to the government. Many professors have become
government consultants, and their expertise is much appreciated.
Finally, Meles affirmed that Addis Abeba University would remain
the country s leading institution of higher education.
5- (Q) Donald Crummey offered that AAU was a sullen place now
and that the government had not followed due process; indeed it
seemed intent upon destroying the university's integrity as an
(A) Meles replied that, during the last two years of the
dirg, all contracts at the university had run out, so the TGE had a
legal right to keep whom it wished and not to renew the others. He
understood that the process was flawed, but the rules then in place
did not allow for due process.
6- (Q) Harold Marcus intervened and stated that Meles's answer
offered no explanation at all.
(A) Meles responded by declaring that the university that
most of us had known had ceased its existence in 1976. He claimed
that his government was seeking to implement a program of
university autonomy and helping to develop a set of by-laws
securing its rights and responsibilities.
7- (Q) Annette Scheckler inquired about the ideological basis of
Ethiopia's ethnic federation.
(A) Meles clarified that the ethnic basis of Ethiopia's democracy
stemmed from the government s fight against poverty and the need
for an equitable distribution of the nation's wealth: peasants must be
enabled to make their own decisions in terms of their own culture.
Power must be devolved to them in ways that they understand, and
they understand ethnicity. Meles added that he believes that
ethnicity will become less an issue as the economy grows and
Ethiopia's process of assimilation does its job.
8- (Q) John Harbeson followed up by stating that he saw a
contradiction between the government's stated goal of ethnic
autonomy and its retention of resources for dispersal to the
periphery.
(A) Meles agreed, since the bulk of resources currently came
from import duties. When, however, the economy developed, the
regions would have their own resources derived from income,
agricultural, and mineral taxes. He maintained that, contrary to
rumors and innuendo, the government was not favoring Tigray,
since all revenue allocations were matters of public information. He
invited his critics to study budget and finance figures.
9- (Q) Marina Ottaway and Allan Hoben asked about the
government s land policies.
(A) The prime minister clarified that the constitution sets
the scene by guaranteeing that peasants have access to the land.
Land not in use may be leased, but its purchase and sale is
prohibited. Land, he explained, is the only social security the
peasants have. Since the FRE does not expect to create lots of
urban jobs, it must improve the peoples lot by increasing
agricultural productivity. The government's policies in this regard
respect the peasants collective memory of the land evictions of the
1960s, the rapacious land tenure policies of the Haile Sellassie
regime, and the dirg's exploitation of peasants associations. Meles
repeated that, except for the buying and selling of land, peasants can
do what they want with their holdings.
10- (Q) Edmond Keller asked how the government expected to
build up trust among the people? How will it distribute its budget?
(A) Meles pointed out that there are constitutional
restraints on his government's ability to provide largesse: the
Federation Council has the responsibility of working out a formula
for distribution, and it well represents the south as well as the
north. He continued that the FC and the structure and tone of
the FRE unites Ethiopia. He commented that the EPRDF could
have dismantled Ethiopia in 1991, but did not because of the party's
belief that unity was economically beneficial for the people. The
FRE provides a way for Ethiopia's ethnic groups to cooperate
peacefully and to develop together. Other approaches to development
had been hegemonic and exploitative and had led to internecine strife
and civil war. His government well understood this fact. We are not
as stupid and suicidal as some think.
In Meles's opinion, the EPRDF could not have defeated the
dirg without the support of the Amhara peasantry. There is unity
between the Amhara and the Tigray cultivators, and the southern
peasants have to learn to be as demanding as their northern brothers.
Only a political idiot would ignore the peasants and their needs.
11- (Q) Donald Levine generalized that Ethiopian critics are not
only rejectionist but also fragmented. He wanted Ethiopians to be
able to mobilize politically, and he looked forward to a process of
healing. He asked Meles what he might do to sponsor detente and
help the opposition to abjure rejectionism.
(A) Meles took the tack that Ethiopians do not need to submit
to the government; that Ethiopians are not submissive people; and
that they can and do fight for what they consider righteous. At this
time they are not fighting. He invited us to visit the countryside and
see developments on the ground.
He continued that his government was not brutal, and
competing parties need only to abide by the law to operate in
Ethiopia. Meles asserted that EPDRF strength lies in its flexibility
and its ability to accomodate Ethiopia s many needs. The EPDRF
focusses on essentials and allows regional organizations to shape
policies relevant to them and their constituents.
12- (Q) Donald Crummey disliked Meles's implication that we had
absorbed the prejudices of Addis Abeba against the government; and
that we uncritically accepted the hyperbole of the best and the
brightest emigres about Ethiopia. Speaking for himself and others,
Crummey said that he had travelled in the Ethiopian countryside and
had not found there the country described by Meles. He asked the
latter to describe his vision of Ethiopia and its national content.
(A) Meles answered that Ethiopia was primarily its peoples.
The content of Ethiopia is some people, who, through force of
history, have developed a common culture, a common identity, but
who, up to now, have not been able to relate democratically. It is
people [who are] proud of the gada, proud of the castles...[they]
prove that at one point we did it, were great, [and that] we can be
great again, an inspiration for the future...I am proud to be an
Ethiopian. I am proud to be a part of that history...
13- (Q) Charles Schaefer wondered from where the the country's
future greatness would derive, now that Ethiopia stressed ethnic
identities.
(A) Meles responded that Ethiopia s peoples had to sort out
their identities before mobilizing their energies to build a new
nationalism. He stressed that Ethiopia remained intact and was
peaceful, whereas other countries have dissolved or are fragmenting
through civil war. The government of the FRE believes that the
survival of Ethiopia as such, stems from its ethnic policies. He
continued that Ethiopia had been united through a glorious past,
[was experiencing] a difficult present, [but would have] a better
future. He pointed out that his government needed time to prove
out its social policy.
14- (Q) An unidentified Ethiopian woman asked Meles what drove
him to govern.
(A) Meles claimed that he was pushed by his long-time fight
against the poverty of the Ethiopian people and for their human
dignity and respect; and that he was pulled toward implementing the
EPDRF s program by his responsibility to those who had died
implementing his orders in the fight against the dirg. I have to
make good their sacrifice.
It was his duty to administer the government's good
economic plan and to improve Ethiopia's infrastructure. He
recognized that there were many bureaucratic impediments to
development, which he was seeking to eliminate.
He claimed that there two views about ethnicity: if you
think it is a threat, it will be; if you think it a benefit, then it
will be. He declared, Diversity can be a source of richness and
strength. You can not wish it away. He hinted that it would
disappear at the same rate as the economy grew, allowing more
profits to be obtained nationwide than regionally.
15- (Q) John Harbeson commented that the government was strong
enough to tolerate even immature, perhaps even irrational, political
parties.
(A) Meles maintained his earlier point that political parties
were subject to the rule of law, but that the government tolerated in
Addis Abeba semi-official representatives of the OLF, which every
week put out a communique describing the front s violence against
the FRE. A blind eye, he commented, might perhaps lead to
productive discussions or, at the least, maintain some contact with
the OLF leadership.
********************************************************
By this time, it was close to 11:00 A.M., and Meles had
cancelled two other meetings to stay with us. He had been engaging
and sincere in his well informed replies. He showed himself to be
highly intelligent, thoughtful, charming, and unflappable.
He stumbled only over the questions about the university and
opposition parties. He was defensive about the land issue, although
he explained his government s ideas on the subject very well. His
views on Ethiopian nationalism were from the heart, even if his
notions conflicted with the primacy of ethnicity now enshrined in
the FRE s Constitution. Although he never said so directly, one
might conclude that he foresaw the weakening of the ethnic
principle as the Ethiopian economy grew nationally. Finally, his
humility in face of his enormous responsibilities was obvious and
laudable.
As an exercise in propaganda, Meles's performance was
outstanding, and he clarified many of his government's actions and
ideas. Yet, I do not believe he changed many minds, although after
the meeting, we were better informed than we had been before. I
thank the prime minister for his unprecedented effort and hope that
the Ethiopian Embassy subsequently can maintain the flow of
information.
Return to the H-AFRICA Home Page.