For anyone who has been watching the Ethio-Eritrea political events closely, the opinion one would have about the recent war is as the beginning of the end. Beginning because the problems that led the people to this war are still there. And the problems are neither economic nor history (although they too have some role) but the EPRDF and EPLF who are ignorant of all these. Their great desire to power, money and fame has ruined the people and consequently the country. Fate has given the Amhara extremists their due. Their machinery is now broken with no prospect of repair. The EPLF too is swallowing the bitter pill. Only EPRDF is remaining. Yet, its demise too is approaching because, its bad policy aside, it is allergic to criticism. One needs not conduct a detailed research. EPRDF's reaction against Dagmawi's criticism proves how serious its allergy is.

What was it that Dagmawi said that irritated the EPRDF camp? His claim that the alliance EPRDF had in the past with the EPLF, the absence if internal harmony and Meles's recent unholy proposal of direct talks as bad signs is the main (see July 15, 00 article). Dagmawi may have raised these issues first but that by no means implies the concern is exclusively his. They are all Ethiopians' concern too. Even if not, had this complaint come from a genuine representative government, there is some kind of justification to it. But this is EPRDF, who sold us in the past by secretly dealing with the EPLF, an EPRDF who also pushed us back to a state where we cannot avoid alienation, hardship and war. How come we do not have concern? How come we cannot become skeptics? Concern for one's country is a given (with the exception of those traitors). Acting as such is then not our problem but EPRDF's, who set double standards to begin with.

Dagmawi and co. could be one of the die-hard politicians. They could be extremists, who want not only the TPLF's but also the Tigreans' demise. Regardless of their view, however, Dagmawi and others too have sided with the EPRDF in the war it waged against EPLF. They may have done this because they want and assume that both will perish in the war and create a power gap they are obsessed with. Even then, they are better than those (Netsanet Radio and EPRP are what I have in mind) who sided with the EPLF wishing our total collapse. At least their approach is different-they have put first enemy first. I am not citing this to win Dagmawi and other critics a prize. That is not my purpose. All what I want to say is that they deserve a fair treatment, an explanation. Implied is thus the EPRDF begins accepting criticism.

The question then is not why people like Dagmawi ask but rather why the EPRDF is indifferent to accept criticism and provide explanations consequently. What they say is be open, being a government, on what you do regarding the border demarcation and I don't think this is a crime. When it comes to openness, some may argue no one is more open than the EPRDF because it has told us (through the mouth of the Prime Minister) that we have nothing to ask from the EPLF. Perhaps this is true. But there is more to the border than the Prime Minister's answer. It determines our future. We have to know what the government's intention is in this regard. Thus, we have to make sure which direction EPRDF is taking us. However, unfortunate that we are neither our Prime Minister nor the government has such a habit. Both are quick to disparage not to listen. They are allergic to and adamant about criticism. Hence, they see every critic as a ghost in the attic.

It is good we have peace because it is in the best interest of all the Ethiopian people. But what kind of peace is that we need when we have a thorny partner like Esayas? Unequivocal, to use precise term. This type of peace, however, is not a match for the EPLF. It is mad about war, chauvinism and absurdity from top to bottom. Furthermore, EPLF is a chameleon organization that cannot win the confidence of the people. Any decision one arrives with it is thus uncertain. Bearing this in mind, what the government needs to do is then let the people know and decide their affairs. Only if they know what is decided will they honor the agreement as binding. We know that the Ethiopians and Eritreans are bonded by blood. People know this fact long before EPRDF became its apostle. However, when the EPLF side denies this, we have to accept the difference, even if it means for the time being, and straighten the record. We do not need theirs nor do we have to give them ours whether this is Badme or Assab. We have to have our own. They have to have theirs. Doing this helps us not only prevent another war, another disaster but also shape our future path until, of course, the people themselves find the medicine.

To ask for clarity is not to ask for a war, as the supporters would have us believe. To insist on clarification is not to insist for difference. It is to ask for a lasting peace. And this is not a crime because we have witnessed war, long before EPRDF's rhetoric is forgotten, taking its toll. We have to ask because we have seen the leadership, the supposed to be champion of peace, involving us in another war even before the people, who Meles told to go on marching, reach the battlefield. We have, thanks to the Ethiopian army's relentless efforts, won the EPLF's army but not the battle. The reason being that the EPLF is still intact and EPRDF does not seem to have a clear idea on how to settle the issue because EPRDF is still wavering here and there, like a back stricken snake, gravitating to its old habit.

On the one hand, our people in Eritrea are suffering as usual and the negotiation is stalled with no sign of progress. On the other, the EPRDF is telling us that the peacekeepers will be deployed soon. What fate is ours in all of this? We do not know. We don't know which direction is EPRDF taking us. Should we be fooled blindfolded? We don't have to because EPRDF no longer represents our interest. We should not trust it on issues crucial such as this. We have to question every EPRDF's move. The burden of proof, then, lies with EPRDF not with critics. Of course, history has it that the EPRDF is obviously allergic to criticism, history and pride. Arrogance, absurdity I may say, however, did not pay back. Absurdity because it is, it will not pay back either. Hence, the EPRDF must go public, a remote possibility however it may look, learn from past mistakes and follow a new direction, one that welcomes criticism. One falls down not by appointment and hence, the know-it-all government needs to embrace criticism (democracy), in whose name it treads, before it is too late.

However, the EPRDF and its supporters, Getahun, Aynalem and co., do not commit themselves to this practice. They do not expose themselves to criticism. They are quick to deny of any wrongdoing. They are always the fountains of wisdom, Zeus of the Greek, who always speak and decide truth. All mistakes, by contrast, belong to the critics. One confirms this by seeing how Aynalem and co. stand up firm in denying the relation EPRDF had with EPLF was a mistake. A case example is Aynalem's July 26, 00 article. He tells us the relation EPRDF had with EPLF as innocent through mouth of Professor Young like this: "By defining its relationship as tactical, the TPLF was making it clear that the only thing it had in common with the Eritrean movement was a shared commitment to overthrowing the Derg". Put in a nutshell, what he claims is that the EPRDF's relation with EPLF was tactical and hence, it was not a sell out as the critics say.

Quoting an outside source to substantiate one's position is not uncommon. Many scholars practice it. With Aynalem (and EPRDF), however, this takes a dramatic turn-secondary source becomes primary. What is more, it is used not to substantiate truth but lie. This we may forget and concentrate on the issue. What kind of relation has EPRDF had with the EPLF, then? We can say tactical, theoretically speaking, after 1977 Ethiopian calendar. But this by no means tells the whole story Aynalem wants to display. Any relation the TPLF had before this year was strategic. Whether this was economic or security, it does not matter. However, the relation was not, no doubt, tactical. We do not need to go to lengths to prove this. We simply can learn from the EPRDF members who have been there since its inception. If their testimonies (because they are primary sources) are valid (which I think they are), then Aynalem and co. must have either half understood or half deleted the facts.

The fact that the relation was strategic does not imply that TPLF (which is a member of the EPRDF) had a secret deal to form a greater Tigray. The organization no doubt was narrow-minded. Narrow-minded because it was (and is), it even had attempted to declare independence at some point. But this does not amount to, although we could not rule out, a deal to form a greater Tigray. Assuming otherwise indicates only a witch-hunt, a red herring, one finds only in the extremists' camp. This is not because the union was a bad idea but because the logic does not stand in the face of the Tigray people. Regardless what the extremists say, Ethiopia is their history and tradition (a case OLF and Eritreans fail to understand), their blood and soul.

This being the fact, why is the TPLF, as an Ethiopian, less concerned with Ethiopia's well-being? one may ask. This is a legitimate concern, something we can answer by seeing how the TPLF subjects the Tigray people to hardship and misery. Let me begin with TPLF's army. Once the EPRDF controlled power, all it did was downsize thousands of those who fought, by its side, for many years. Of those downsized, some were sent home with three thousand birr compensation. The rest were put in a camp they love to hate subject to daily ration. Most fighters who, regardless of their status, voiced their discontent have ended up suspended (ultimately becoming beggars), or jailed. The veterans who helped EPRDF march to victory are simply treated like worn out shoes. Added to this are many fighters who are killed by the leaders. No wonder, finding a happy pioneer fighter (who survived the death chamber) has become, thanks to TPLF, a rare experience.

When it comes to the people, too, all what we witness is suppression. No democratic rights are in force. Recently we have heard that some prominent power holders at the national level are chosen again by the people of Tigray. The truth is, however, different. Their victory is autonomous. Autonomous because some electives who people refused to vote for were declared winners because the TPLF holds the bullets and controls the ballots. What matters has become not who votes but who counts the votes, as Stalin used to say. The kind of democracy EPRDF wants us share is then this type. An insult to injury, one would say.

Many people do not think that there is such kind of hardship in Tigray. For some skeptics this may indeed sound a fairytale. All that they know is Tigray inching one centimeter down everyday because of the economic boom. I will have a reply to this next time. Meanwhile, I have to say this: Addis need not be overcrowded, though leaving it behind is equally wrong, with factories for any government to look Ethiopian. Ethiopia too has other regions (Tigray being one) which deserve a legitimate share. With this in mind, the answer as to why the EPRDF is less caring to Ethiopia is then because EPRDF only cares for its power and not for its people (region or nation wise). Nothing more nothing less.

Leaving this fact aside, Ethiopia is now at crossroads because the EPRDF is back with nostalgia for EPLF, with double standards. Double standard I say because in public, EPRDF condemns EPLF. In private, it is aiming to cut a deal, which the people have no knowledge of. What is more, in public it appears as if it hates the Eritreans. In private, it is hiring them as public officials. In short, EPRDF is tacitly mending its relation with EPLF and the Eritrean people. And it does this at the expense of widening contradictions among the two people. I am not saying the EPRDF remain at odds all the times. We all wish a warm relation, a reunion if possible. All what I say is that make an open and honest deal that can bring us together or give us a peace that lasts while on our own.

Moreover, we have another reason why we ask for an open-air discussion. Whenever these two organizations cut a deal, they do it at the expense of exterminating Ethiopia and Eritrea's opposition parties. Take the agreement the two parties made after victory, for example. The deal was sealed by swiping opposition parties, ELF for the EPLF, OLF, (and others such as EPRP) for the EPRDF. Faith, trust, and principle do not count as far as the two organizations are concerned. As a habit, the EPRDF and EPLF use the opposition as shield when they are in trouble. But when their (opposition parties) bargain promises security, they (EPRDF and EPLF) swipe them. They kill them using snipers. They jail them using kidnapers. Only the lucky ones get the chance to flee to another country. This deal is then something we cannot be pleased with. Thus, we have a legitimate reason to ask the government to go public when it makes such deal because we do not want it repeat past mistakes again. We have to have a concern; we have to demand that this agreement become public because in the politics of the hyenas, the carnivores that always lust for flesh and blood, we, the people, are the donkeys.

The government may deal directly or through mediators. It does not matter. However, the government should not hold the negotiation secret. It should make it public. The out come of any agreement reached without the participation of the people would only be a secret treaty that benefits the two parties as Dagmawi, although from a different angle, said. Cutting a deal cutting out the people from the peace process suggests a plot, a Machiavellian tactic, intended to benefit only the two (EPRDF and EPLF) carnivore parties. In order for the peace to be a peace of the people, the people's participation is a must that the EPRDF government should consider. Commonsense tells us that the government, as much as it called them for war, should also include them in making peace.

The message to EPRDF is, therefore, come to terms, accept criticism and become democratic. Furthermore, respect critics whether or not they are old guards. Critics deserve fair treatment because what they tell is the mistake government makes. The government does not have to expect them to say Amen like the supporters who wait for a left over or are trapped by it. The government has to know that the critics too can think equally important thoughts like its leaders who consider themselves Oracles. It does not have to disparage critics. After all, what they (with the exception of the extremists) say is people don't have to pay more sacrifice, that the hardship we had over twenty years is enough. And I do not think this makes them look like the "Trojan horses".

Summed up, since what the critics point out are mistakes that government makes, the government should welcome them and provide an appropriate explanation. Opening the closets it hid from the public to the public is a choice that has no substitute and a measure many wise leaders use. The EPRDF has to admit that it is prone to making mistakes. Hence, it has to open itself to comments of the public. It has to become democratic. It has to acknowledge critics. EPRDF has to acknowledge the birth right of the people to have a say in their country's future. However bitter this may taste, democracy (not the fake one) is something that it has to allow. The reason being that the more the government becomes good the more, as the country progresses, it helps it stay in power. So, please wake up (a message equally important to the supporters) from the slumber and smell the coffee!

Live in Capitol