By Berhanu Mengistu (2014)

Mediation or Shemeglena, the Amharic translation, is a common intervention method of peacemaking in the Ethiopian tradition. Judged by its modern equivalent of the mediation process, however, Shemeglena lacks some basic factors such as impartiality, neutrality and a modern version of ethical conduct necessary to be considered equivalent to a modern version of alternative dispute resolution. And yet, since the Shemeglena system has been part of the fabric of the society since time immemorial, the basic factors lacking can be easily remediated in workshops facilitated by a trained mediator to make the system very viable in addressing the complicated and complex political situations in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian political system is complicated both as framed by the constitution (Alemante G. Selassie, emeritus professor of college of William and Mary, 2003) and as practiced in the governing process. Even though detailed discussion of the Ethiopian governance system is not the purpose of this paper, it is imperative to note that a clear understanding of both the complications and complexities of the political-economy of present Ethiopia by the would-be mediators/shemageles is one of the fundamental prerequisites for pursuing a potentially successful mediation work for the creation of a political space by the ruling party of Ethiopia to the opposition parties. 

By:
Berhanu Mengistu
Old Dominion University, bmengist@odu.edu
Elizabeth Vogel
Old Dominion University, evogel@odu.edu

Introduction
Throughout history, the creative nature of mankind has generated an array of political systems derived from just a few foundational political structures. As early as 350 BC Aristotle identified four fundamental political structures in the governments of societies: tyranny, fascism, democracy and oligarchy. Modern day ideologies, including the various types of socialism, communism, and capitalism are political economy interpretations of these same themes. Historical underpinnings, especially religious ones, can also provide contextual differences for these political economy structures. Regardless of the ideological orientation, however, all governing structures share a central operating element that conditions the successful implementation of policy and continuity of governance, namely bureaucracy. Repeated efforts to operationalize the term bureaucracy have been made by social theorists from John Stuart Mill, Weber, Marx, Lenin, and Michels, through modern day public administration theorists. In spite of the claim that Weber was the first to popularize the concept of bureaucracy, the idea is at least as old as the biblical account of the division of labor by Moses based on the counsel of his father-in-law, suggesting that the idea of division of labor is a prerequisite to the efficient implementation of a task. In current management literature the multisided meanings of bureaucracy embrace administrative personnel, organizational types, and negative and polemic meanings of current trends in modern government such as red tape, redundancy, and decision-making gridlock. (Abrahamsson, 1979).