Berhanu as an example. HG: Wishing all "melkam
tensae be al."
DISCLAIMER: Realizing that Berhanu was not even a member of the executive committee of Kinijit, one might ask why anyone should care what he says or does. My purpose in presenting the following is threefold. 1) To use Berhanu's assertions in a discussion on virtue, ethics, morality and wisdom that I have been conducting. 2) To use Berhanu's assertions in the discussion of “The Board” that is ongoing. 3) To show how a determined individual could go to all lengths to derail a movement.
APRIL 19, 2008- SPEECH BY DR. BERHANU NEGA IN TORONTO DELIVERED IN AMHARIC
The question of moral equivalencies and the problems associated of viewing them [morality and moral equivalency]: what part of it is a delusional step expressed to separate oneself from taking actions?
Below is a translation of Berhanu's speech given in Amharic. Berhanu was a member of the 60-member Kinijit Council. Berhanu is not a member of the executive council of Kinijit. He resigned a couple of days after his
[Raised issues of the follwing sort.
Each person wants to be rich.
Some steal, others cheat, others work hard to be rich. Do the processes have the same moral equivalency?
TPLF want to have power other use election to have power- are these morally equivalent?
Then he related a story of his friend before he addressed the issue of the leader of Kinijit.]
P.5. Concerning the problems of Ato Hailu and the others some feel requires that both sides made mistakes to weaken the movement, and they try to place a moral equivalency between the actions taken by Hailu and the others. The facts are clear to all.
1.The question of removing Ato Hailu from chairmanship had never been raised.
2. The delegation to come to
3. All decisions, as was the practice of kinijit, were made by full or majority vote.
4. Beginning from the prison house it was he and without consulting the other leaders who made determinations; this later, in an effort not to bring division among kinijit (not to annoy him), resulted in a determination to disband both Diaspora functions as a way of placating him.
5. He had also agreed.
6. Later, he wished to take only actions of his liking and he alone created conditions that were difficult for mediation by advisors and intermediaries alike and pursued his journey his way.
7. There was only one action that would resolve the problem arising from differences.
8. It was to leave the leadership of the organization to him and to obey him by saying "yes master" to his orders.
9. Why did you not do that was what the accusation was?
10. Would we have been considered morally correct had we, outside the bylaws of the organization, the dictates of democracy and the wishes of those who elected us, obeyed what he told us?
11. How is it that a person who violated the guidance and dictates of the bylaws including the practices and the fundamental spirit of the organization, and others who insisted that the guidance and dictates of the bylaws be respected and pursued, and that democratic procedures prevail are said to be equally "morally" wrong?
12. If a person came to the place where you are peacefully seated and beat you up and you defended by throwing a couple of punches would you because you were fighting accept a claim that you are guilty?
13. This kind of "justice and truth lacking" means of measurement, is it of morality?
14. Differences arise when people argue within an organization.
15. Attempts are made to narrow the differences and bring along everyone in the group.
16. If this is not possible then there are the written bylaws of the organization or acceptable organizational tradition.
17. But all should respect such ways.
18. If such ways do not work for a minority the organization fails to function as an organization.
19. If an individual or a few individuals do not agree with what the trajectory of an organization is or what the organizations wishes to act upon and they fail to change through discussion the ways of the organization their choices are either to respect the laws of the organization and through discussions try to change the views of the majority (and hence the position of the organization), or realizing that the organization has completely missed its trajectory and that they cannot march with organization they should leave the organization and create an organization that reflects their new thinking.
20. Leaders who are sure in the correctness of their new beliefs (how they differ from the organization) should present to the public with full confidence and bring the public and the members of the organization to their side.
21. If they do not have this then they did not have reasonable grounds for differing from the organization.
22. No, if what I said is not followed I will disturb the organization so that it will not serve others; saying that " I am the organization" and substituting my ways for that of the organization (weather its has acceptability or not), gathering well-known liars who have no iota of interest for the organization but for the purpose of insulting others (forgetting that such people would later inflict similar damage to their benefactor), an act that demeans the self, the organization and the movement is not only a shameless unbridled arrogance, but one that is suicidal in democratic politics by inadvertence or is the action of a disturbed person.
23. That is what Ato Hailu has done.*24. Those on the other side have repeatedly told him this.
25. Let us work collectively on the mission for which we were sent.
26. If there are differences that you do not agree to gather the relevant parts and try to change the issues.
27. Those who are elected with you are your equals (not in age), similar to yours there is a body which has elected us.
28. Our accountability is to the one who elected us.
29. If you have differences it is to that body that you can bring the matter to,
you cannot simply load us with your ideas (if your differences are in ideas) is what he was told.
28. Had we failed to do these and to please him or outside of guidance to obtain temporary agreement "let all you said be done" were what we said then we would have had no other aims, no beliefs other than seeking power like simple politicians. That would have been when we should have been morally answerable ("be moral melekia yemenTeyek').
30. However, this one shows that speech is unquestionably given to deficiency of thought.
Then he discussed in his third point on stragiet of struggle.
Described if violence is acceptable under any circumstances.]
The details of the
announcement of Meizia 16, 2000, relating to a new position taken by Dr. Berhanu Nega, and Messers Andargatchew Tsege, Chekole Getatchew , Mesfin Daniel and Daniel Asfaw is
given in http://www.abbaymedia.com
. Their new position is said to be different
from the positions of the new Unity party of W/o Bertukan and that of the Kinijit headed by President Hailu. A couple of days before on April
19 Dr. Berhanu Nega
had given a speech (on the question of moral equivalency... "ye moral ekulenet teyaqewotch...:) in
Though his speech of April 19 was delivered in Amharic, Berhanu did not use the Amharic term of "gebregeb" for the English word moral. Had he used the Amharic word he would have understood that morality ("gebregeb") is founded on virtue ('senemegebar - megbar malt bah'rey weyem Tebay new") and refers to the quality of the some of the "character traits" of an individual, and he likely would have spared his audience and reader from the irrationality and internally contradictory assertions that he made in attempting to explain the role taken by President Hailu, on pages 5 through 7 of the PDF document. "eyetemuletcheleche yastechegerign tsehuf" (a phrase used by Professor Getatchew to describe the first book of Andargatchew Tsege) comes to mind when reading the document. To understand what he was talking about I literally had to number and translate each of the 26 sentences of his second example (pages 5, 6 and 7) to English. Those sentences attest to the character traits of Dr. Berhanu and not that of President Hailu, whom he tried to vilify. The facts speak clearly that Hailu stayed with Kinijit and true to the nonviolent movement while Berhanu did not.
Remarkably, Dr. Berahnu and Andargatchew were removed or had fled from a battlefield while they were young and able to confront the TPLF. Now in their old ages and seated comfortably in Western countries they wish to whip up emotions, and commandeer funds and support from the Diaspora by means of their so-called "hulegeb" struggle. It is a cleaver move on their part to divide the Diaspora and keep it weak as they had done while they pretended to be members of the nonviolent movement.
A word about "hulegeb" struggle; because it also supports armed
struggle, those engaged in such struggle should have the moral fortitude and
honesty that theirs is an armed struggle. Only those who are engaged in a
credible armed struggle in