Manufactured Crises: An International Perspective

Yimer Ayele

One thing that the current TPLF old guard has mastered is how to manufacture a crisis. The storm that they are trying to stir up due to the cancellation of the party’s registration by the National Elections Board is a good example of the bluff of this group. After the Pretoria Agreement – which does not address the issue of registration – was signed, the Electoral Board rejected TPLF’s request to be

reinstated

as a political party without any registration process. The Board decided that the TPLF must re-register using the regular registration process, just like any other newly formed party. The TPLF complained against this decision and claimed that as an old party with a long history, it should not be required to register through the regular procedure. The Federal Government made an effort to work with the Board to see if there was any way in which the request of the TPLF could be accommodated under the pertinent law. However, this effort was unsuccessful, as the Board determined that the matter fell outside its mandate. Hence, the Federal Government respected the decision of the Board as an independent democratic constitutional organ.

In an effort to navigate this deadlock and promote peace, the Federal Government introduced a legal modification allowing the TPLF to register via a specific, streamlined, and uncomplicated process. This was designed to preserve its status as a longstanding political entity. Under this new law, the usual prerequisites for forming a fresh political party were set aside. Consequently, the TPLF could officially re-register using its current platform, leadership structure, and constitution without being subjected to the complex procedures typically associated with establishing a new political organization.

Under this legislation, the TPLF successfully obtained certification and regained its standing as a legitimate political party within Ethiopia’s legal framework. Nevertheless, following receipt of the registration certificate, the TPLF expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which it had been registered and began advocating for “reinstatement.”

The certification it obtained along with its registration via a specific process provided it with all the advantages, immunities, and rights associated with being a political party. However, the TPLF maintained that this remained insufficient despite lacking justifiable reasons for their discontent. This was an arbitrary grievance that failed to alter the reality that the TPLF had successfully reinstated its lawful standing as a properly accredited political entity.

Adding complexity to the situation, the TPLF held a general assembly to select new leaders without informing the National Electoral Board beforehand, which is mandated by legal standards. According to regulations, any political party planning to organize such an assembly must initially alert the Board and carry out the process with their oversight.

Nevertheless, the TPLF held an assembly without complying with these statutory requirements. The Board noted this violation of the political parties’ proclamation but gave the TPLF ample chance and warning to rectify the infraction and comply with the law.

The Board further directed the TPLF to convene an assembly under its oversight and set a deadline for completing this task. After the TPLF did not adhere to these stipulations during the initial six-month timeframe mandated by the legislation, the Board extended another three months for adherence. Despite this extension, the TPLF chose to disregard the directives from the Board, understanding full well that such non-compliance could lead to the revocation of their registration.

The TPLF had nine months to hold a general assembly and meet the requirements of the Board. It deliberately failed to do so. This was a conscious effort intended to generate a crisis. After the Board inevitably cancelled its registration due to its own calculated intransigence and deliberate failure to comply with the law of the land, TPLF is now complaining about the cancellation of its registration.

This is at best misleading. The TPLF deliberately caused the cancellation via its intentional lack of compliance, disregarding a straightforward and fair legal obligation to conduct a general party meeting. They now assert that canceling could lead to “unrest and impromptu violence.” However, nothing about this situation is impulsive. This predicament has been meticulously engineered by the war hawks inside the TPLF along with their key allies up north.

This strategy should not deceive the global community. The masterminds behind this scenario are members of the TPLF’s radical wing, who were dissatisfied with the agreement reached in Pretoria. Their intense discontent is evident from the circumstances faced by the chief negotiators of the peace deal; both individuals had to escape from the Tigray area due to life-threatening concerns.

The TPLF likely wouldn’t have driven away those involved in negotiating the peace deal if it truly upheld peace. The genuineness of the TPLF’s dedication to the Pretoria accord is undermined by its persistent urge to create crises. This rationale also clarifies why they keep internally displaced persons as pawns to sustain their narrative and list of complaints.

The global community has no authority to intervene in the process of registering a political party, as this falls under domestic administrative and regulatory jurisdiction. Should the TPLF disagree with the Election Commission’s ruling, they have the option to seek redress through the judicial system. It would be counterproductive for the TPLF to gain undesired leverage by leveraging the ongoing turmoil solely to achieve international recognition.

Anyone truly concerned about the well-being of the Tigray region and its inhabitants should prioritize issues related to governance, rehabilitation, and rebuilding. However, the present leaders of the TPLF appear more inclined towards maintaining fruitless dialogues with diplomats and international bodies, merely repeating their standard rhetoric.

This obsession with the pomp and ceremony surrounding diplomatic interactions ought not to be encouraged. Unilaterally breaking and revising the Pretoria Agreement needs to be recognized as a perilous misconception. It is crucial to clearly discourage such thinking within the TPLF ranks.

There won’t be a follow-up to Pretoria! It’s time for everyone, including those unhappy with this Agreement, to accept this fact and concentrate on implementing it rather than seeking its revision.