3-Regarding KILís-origin

 

Section-2: The evolution of the KIl, and theKIL as the nemesis of Kinijit.

 

As described in Section 1 the leadership of Kinijit-USA included individuals (Type A) that claimed to have been seconded by the component parties of Kinijit.They fight for turf in the area of giving recognition to support Chapter members; that is to say an EDP-Medhin former supporter should be accepted as chairman of Kinijit support Chapter in place X, while an AEUP party support chapter member should be leader in place Y, etc. This very divisive method of organizing the executive and its supporters has nothing to recommend it. Prior to attending the January First Kinijit-USA Conference, I had suggested that the executive should be elected by conference participants and that only one person from the executive ought to be a liaison officer with Kinijit-Ethiopia. That was not supported largely because the conference had not understood let alone comprehended the meaning and significance of the suggestion.We pushed to give weight to Type B individuals that worked with the Type A.Apparently, that did not suit the hunger for power of some type A individuals. Presumably, they could not dictate the workings of the executive of Kinijit-USA.Some common practice of Kinijit-USA captured the fancy of some power-hungry Type A members, and they tried to exploit it for their edification. That practice, which they wished to exploit, involved the habit of the Kiniji-USA giving recognition to Kinijt supporters in the Diaspora, even to some outside of the USA.This practice was done without too much fan fare.Alas, some of the power-hungry Type A individuals wanted to use this ability of Kinijit-USA to empower themselves to Leadership. Then on May 14, 2006, a strange e-mail appeared indicating that Kinijit Ethiopia has abdicated its powers and has delegated some six individuals to the status of international leadership of Kinijit.By such means some power-hungry Type A individuals sought that they had gained grand stature, and they helped create an office called Kinijit Internation Leadership (KIL).

 

Some Kinijitians expressed their doubt at the veracity of the abdication of the Kinijit leaders in Ethiopia and the delegation of power to six individually (Type D) that included some power-hungry Type A individuals.That was quickly responded to by allegedly acquiring yet another document from Ethiopia that adjusted the nature of the KIL to make it appear more palatable. Clearly, some of the Type A individuals had ways of getting e-mail and letters from Ethiopia that suits their desires.††

 

As with the case of Type A, the method of empowerment of Type D individuals have problems because their powers are not derived by democratic means and also because they are linked to the components of the parties that united to form Kinijit, instead of being Kinijit representatives, with all the divisive infighting that such condition entails. As I have repeatedly suggested, here again the solution to the KIL problem is to insist that Kinijit is a democratic institution in which the leaders are elected by individual members.The Kinijit ĖUSA was doing the Diaspora coordination any way, and without fan fare.If needed the various support chapters should elect an over-arching Kinijit-Diaspora support executive committee.There is absolutely no democratic foundation that supports the formation of the KIL to lords over Kinijitians in the Diaspora and in Ethiopia.The KIL is the greatest affront to the claim that Kinijit is a democratic institution. The KIL is the very nemesis of Kinijit in that way.The KIL should be rejected by the rank and file of Kinijitians and by all democrats across Ethiopia.

 

Until the KIL is rejected some power-hungry individuals within it are trying to erect new leadership structures and offices. The tone and content of their press releases as discussed below begins to sound like vintage TPLF/EPRDF propaganda, providing a set of assertions and beliefs without substantiating them by evidence.††

 

 

HG : 7/3/06.