Badme and the dilemma of the Ethiopian government
By: Tsegay Gebriye
London, UK
It is a sad affair to see the Ethiopian government's attempt to conceal the truth from the Ethiopian public about the ownership of Badme. Telling the Ethiopian people the whole truth without delay would have earned the government some respect. After all, people understand that court decision can only go either way and it is impossible to equally satisfy both litigants. However, it is important to establish first whether the Ethiopian public view has been seen as paramount to the outcome of the EEBC decision.
In an attempt to tackle this issue, the first question that comes naturally is the degree of the Ethiopian peoples involvement in the decision that led to court. In other words, has the Ethiopian public been adequately informed and their judgement sought to establish the viable solution of the border dispute?
It is not often the case that a democratically elected government would need to directly request the consent of the public to decide on minor and major issues that affect its country in one way or another. In such cases, the government is elected to decide on behalf of its people. But, when the decision is of a magnitude that can irreversibly affect the country for generations to come; the government cannot have sole responsibility of determining the fate of the country.
This responsibility is too big for a government to shoulder on its own and the involvement of the public in decision-making is necessary. When a decision is reached with a full (majority) support of the public as to how the matter should be pursued; it would become the duty of the government of the day to carry it through to its natural conclusion.
Finally, when the outcome is revealed be it in court or by any other means, the government will have no difficulty communicating the result to the public. The public will then be obliged to honour the out come of its decision.
Nevertheless, when you have leaders who think they know what best suits the public more than what the public thinks suits it best, misinformation, cover up, claims and counter claims, pleading with the public, distortion of facts for a short term gain, accusation and counter accusation and any thing and everything but the truth are common place that are expected as natural consequences of the way the Ethiopian government has handled its border dispute with Eritrea.
[Opinions in this article are solely that of the writer.]