Kinijit Diaspora structural problem and the case of the AFD.


Two issues tear at the heart of Kinijit Diaspora.  These problems are the KIL (Kinijit International Leadership) and the AFD (Alliance for Freedom and Democracy). As indicated in the 7/28/06 piece (, the structure of KNA-KIL Diaspora was and is fraught with the problem which spawns trouble. The resolution to the structural problem which I provided then is still valid now.  It is high time that we implement them so that the Diaspora Kinijit support body may work in harmony. Let me remind us of the following precepts before I restate the structural problem and proposed solution to the Kinijit Diaspora problem.


A. When reporting about any document please read the document carefully and share the story contained in the document by correctly quoting from it. 


B. You have a right to propose your idea about a document. However, please do not share your idea as an alternative to what is given in a document before you have carefully read the document and have understood its contents.  The document as told to you by Mr. X may be different from that as told by Mr. Y.  If your views are not based on reading a document, please make sure and tell your audience that your idea about a certain document is based on what Mr.__ has told you and is not based on your firsthand reading of the document.


C. If you do not have a direct (firsthand) knowledge of what the leaders in Kaliti have said or done, do not pass your statement as though you had firsthand (direct) knowledge. You can say that you have direct knowledge when you have heard for example Ato Hailu speak about  the pertinent issue, or that you have seen him write a piece of document that you ascribe to him.  If you do not have a direct knowledge of events, please recognize that your information is based on hearsay.


D. Be mindful of the context and the philosophical thinking behind a statement made by an authority.   Since every one has ideas of God, it might be profitable to use stories about God to make the point that many authorities represent an idea in widely separate ways. Taking the concept of God as an example, the follower of one faith strongly feels that the followers of the other faiths are thoroughly wrong.  But, as Philosopher Zera Yacob has put it well, “the truth is one.”  And how might we arrive at the truth? The truth is revealed to “reason” or “the light of our hearts”.  Let us see how some humans expressed their understanding of God.

     D1. Philosopher Zera Yacob (1599-1692) reasoned that God is good, creates good things and does not curse his creation, nor does he need any miracles made by man or on man to show his presence.  Any religion that speaks of curses or burning done by God on His creation could not be talking about God as Zera Yacob perceives Him.

     D2. Scientist George Washington Carver (1864-1943) saw God as wanting to do good to all humanity and that the purpose of humans is to serve as vessels for God to do His goodness to all.

    D3. A Bahamian priest was impressed by how the inhabitants of that British Colony lost their African languages and learned to speak English, how they lost their culture and acquired British ones, and how they were told to keep their quarters clean for a whole year in case the British monarch might decide to visit any home at the year that the monarch might have said it will visit the Bahamas, but for a date not specified before hand to the Bahamians.   The priest shared further that though the Bahamians may not have gone to Britain they knew of Britain and British ways; their efforts were to do in the Bahamas similar to how things were done in Britain. Such efforts were assured by the British governor of the Bahamas .  The priest expressed how the Bahamian colonies were conditioned to live the British ways without ever having gone to Britain.  He then said before Christ came from heaven, he awaited the expansion of the Roman Empire to different colonies including to Israel so that people can better grasp the Christian story. In this story heaven is analogous to colonial Rome or Britain, while earth is analogous to the colonies of Israel or the Bahamas.  He then said Christ did not come to establish religion.  He came from heaven to claim his colony, the earth, and to rule over it as a way of uplifting the ways of its inhabitants as it is in heaven. Christ gave guidance or “constitution,  His stories in the Bible for the inhabitants to follow.  I heard this story on TV last week and I was simply astounded.   Different people can spin this story in different ways. However, it more clearly shares the Christian story.


After this long foray on pleading to the reader to distinguish between first hand information and interpretations, and that interpretations must be guided by “reason,” I wish to now return to the two issues that afflicted the Kinijit Diaspora.


Regarding the Kinijit Diaspora structural arrangement I had proposed the following on 7/28/06 (

1) Avoid antagonizing the KIL or the former Kinijit-USA Executive.


2) Cause Chapter chairpersons to form a council, from which a chairperson, a treasurer and a PR person should be elected as the executive branch of the support unit. That is all the bylaws you need initially.  NB. If for some reason the representatives of Chapter chairpersons decides to elect an individual other than a support-chairperson  to serve in the executive committee, that person must understand that she/he derive their power only from the council of representatives and hence are answerable to the council.


3) Accept the existent chairperson of KIL Major Yoseph Yazew as a member of the new executive and as chairman of the Liaison office of the new Kinijit-USA Executive.  The new Kinijit USA executive chairperson should work closely with Major Yazew, who is also the chairman of the office of the Liaison with Kinijit Ethiopia.


4) Do not use a quota system or any manner that will recognize the component parties (AEUP, EDP-Medhin, or Kesta Demena, et cetera) in the selection of the Kinijit Executive. Work for a Kinijit Party.


Though I had asked Kinijit supporters to pay attention to the four points given above, they did not implement them and the Kinijit Diaspora split into three groups. One of this is the original Kinijit Diaspora group, the second is the KIL-Andargatchew- Berhanu group, and the third is a group that seeks reunion or has become despondent.  None of these heeded to the necessary structural adjustment that I proposed about six months ago as restated above.  All forget the important structural elements of  a support unit. The essential component parts of a support unit are, the elected leaders in Ethiopia, the elected leaders in the Diaspora, and the connecting links (the liaison office) between the elected leaders of Ethiopia with those in the Diaspora. Let me treat each of these groups separately. 


I- The original Kinijit Diaspora Group, which is headed by Shaleqa Yoseph then as it is now, has the same structural problem that I tried to address in my proposal of six months ago. The liaison office chairman is identified as the chairman of the Diaspora Kinijit. What is in error here is that the structure does not allow the Kinijit Diaspora to elect its own chairman.  The problem is not merely a matter of adjustment of people.  The structure as it is now breeds inefficiency and is debilitating to the Kinijit Movement in the Diaspora.  It has to change.


II- The KIL-Andargatchew-Berhanu Group. This has serious structural problems. One good thing about this group is that it allowed KIL followers in the Diaspora to elect their Diaspora leader. However, the Kinijit International Leadership is not an elected body and cannot claim the right and the name or power of Kinijit Ethiopia.  It pursues Dictatorial Democratism ( as it attempts to move the Kinijit leadership from Ethiopia to the Diaspora.   It is seriously flawed on the question of liaising between the Diaspora and the elected leaders in Ethiopia . Many people can produce emails and letters as though they came from the Kinijit leaders at Kaliti, and many of us do not have a firsthand (direct) knowledge of the authenticity of the claims.  However, there are things that we know fore sure. Before Ato Hailu Showel returned to Ethiopia, and was months later placed in jail, Shaleqa Yoseph had “ewqinna” to represent Kinijti in the Diaspora. Subsequently, when e-mails and letters were banded about as having come form Kaliti, Shaleqa Yoseph was also recognized in them.  Shaleqa Yoseph had never reneged on his “ewqinna”. Except for Shaleqa Yoseph none can claim continuity of “ewqinna” over the Diaspora, and without shirking or reneging on the awesome duty bestowed on him (


III- The reconciliation, or stay indifferent group. This has serious structural problem. It wishes to reconcile structurally flawed entities into one. This group has not showed that the parts that should be reconciled are complementary.


Proposed solution for Diaspora Kinijit structural problem.

It is clear from the above discussion that many more in the Diaspora would reinvigorate the Diaspora Kinijit movement if the structure is adjusted so that, 1) those in the Diaspora elected their leader, 2) the Kinijit liaison office is headed by Shaleqa as the “ewqinna” is his, and the he is placed as part of the Diaspora Executive body - the liaison chairman should be accorded the right to dismiss an elected Diaspora chairperson if such a person veers from the principles of Kinijit, with the elected vice chairperson taking the leadership until new elections are held, - it must be recognized that the democratic effort of the Kinijit support is only for the purpose of supporting the Kinijit movement, and 3) the Diaspora Kinijit recognizes that the elected leaders now in Kaliti are the national and  international leaders of the Kinijit movement.


I now return to the case of the AFD.   At one point I had asked how the OLF-led AFD is different from the TPLF-led EPRDF ( as a way unearthing any flows that might be contained in the AFD. I and several others have shown that the AFD document (MOU and Statutes) are flawed.  I have made the point that the majority of the May 15, 2005 voters preferred a pan-Ethiopia party (  They rejected ethnic-based politics. One of the problems regarding the AFD is the claim that the Kinijit leaders at Kaliti have wanted it. Even if that were true did the Kaliti leaders agree to the AFD Documents? Do they even have the right to agree to some of the points that currently are in the AFD documents? That Oromia is an invention of Mr. Zenawi and Ato Afeworki is a historical fact.  Yet, if what a friend told me is correct, as recently as the Martin Luther King birthday festivities of January 2007, OLF operatives continuously feed the notion that the Amahara and Tigrai colonizing Oromia (a territory that was not called or grouped in the way Zeanawi and Afewroki designated it after 1991). Why would not the Kinijit Diaspora publicly require that OLF explain its misinformation of the history of Ethiopia?  What is the alliance for? That the Oromo Ethiopian works for the good of Ethiopia is not to be questioned. It is the OLF party operatives who have to be introduced to realities about Ethiopia.  The struggle of the Oromo Ethiopians is not a colonial question. The issues are of a cultural type that would be resolved by democratic process of Kinijit. The alliance if done well would be a win-win situation. As I had indicated elsewhere (,"On the positive side, since many do not read the content of the alliance, all that they perceive out of the alliance would be that the Amhara and the Oromo are now working together.  That will send chills down the cursed spines of the Woyane and bring joy to all Ethiopians." However, the Alliance documents (MOU and Statutes) should be rejected. Also, people must make sure that they can differentiate between firsthand information and hearsay so that they do not confuse themselves or mislead others.


HG: 1/28/07