Though in many ways this article continues my previous article titled, “On Transitional Government and Ethnic Federalism”, logically speaking, it precedes it in that it provides the social dynamics behind Dr. Abiy’s vision of መደመር, which I translate by the English terms of “conjunction” or “convergence.” Both terms presuppose a prior movement of separation that is followed by an inverse movement of convergence or of coming together. To fully understand this tendency toward conjunction subsequent to a prior phase of separation, we must have in mind the various stages of nation-building in Ethiopia since the start of the modernization process.
As shown in the above diagram, following the southern expansion of the Ethiopian state under Emperor Menilik––which expansion made possible Ethiopia’s resistance against colonial onslaughts––a nation-building process was put in place that is best described as assimilationist. Notably, Emperor Haile Selassie and the ruling elite used the Amharic language, modern education, Orthodox Christianity, open intermarriage, and social mobility to unite the various ethnic groups through the forging of a common Ethiopian identity. However, the serious limitations of the imperial regime in terms of political opening and economic developments as well as the lack of recognition of religious and cultural diversities ignited a revolutionary process that terminated monarchical rule in Ethiopia.
The regime that replaced the imperial state, namely the Derg, pursued the same policy of assimilation but with different means. It acknowledged the cultural and religious diversity of the country, but also wanted to solidify national unity by adding to the already existing instruments of assimilation the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the common interests, beyond ethnic diversities, of the working masses. Again, the complete banning of political freedom, the use of military force to crush resistance against the tight control of the central government as well as the generalized incompetence of the military elite brought about serious military defeats against insurgent forces leading to the collapse of the regime.
The insurgent forces shared the common feature of using ethnicity as a mobilizing force against what they termed “Amhara hegemony” and advocated secession as the best solution to the plight of the ethnic groups they claimed to represent. The most important ones were the EPLF, the TPLF, and the OLF, respectively promoting the secession of Eritrea, Tigray, and Oromia. Their secessionist ideology can be construed as a logical and strategic reaction to the assimilationist and centralizing policy of the two previous regimes. The EPLF successfully accomplished its secessionist agenda by declaring the independence of Eritrea. The TPLF, which by then had become the ruling power in Ethiopia, recognized the Eritrean independence, but fell short of pursuing its original secessionist agenda. Instead, it came up with a vision of a federal system based on ethnic divisions. As to the OLF, it never succeeded in creating a vast movement, mainly because of its inability to convert most Oromo to the idea of secession from Ethiopia.
Ethnic clustering
With the TPLF at the head of the Ethiopian state, a new phase begins that I call the ethnic clustering of Ethiopia. Presumably, it is still a nation-building process but upheld by a Stalinist version, according to which semi-autonomous states are formed around linguistico-ethnic divisions headed by a federal government that is supposed to be representative of the groups. This political organization was intended to dismantle the Amhara dominance while providing the basis of self-rule for each ethnic group. One formidable stumbling-block of the whole system was the question of knowing what could possibly keep together the various ethnic clusters since the parliament and the prime minister had no any other legitimacy than the one granted by the ethnic groups themselves. The Soviet model of democratic centralism came in handy: power belongs, not to the peoples, but to the ethnic parties that control the states and compose the federal parliament. These political instances are, in turn, controlled by a centralized leadership in which the TPLF exerts absolute power thanks to its grip on the security apparatuses and the armed forces. The working method being that lower instances owe complete obedience to higher ones, the end game of this tight hierarchical structure is that it usually falls under the absolute control of one person (the chief of the dominant party) or a group of persons (usually called the politburo).
The sacrifice of democracy in favor of a centralized system
It is obvious that the downside of establishing ethnic clusters is none other than the sacrifice of democracy in favor of a centralized system, given that only authoritarianism can keep together disparate states. Unsurprisingly, this very stifling of democracy became the reason for the inability of the regime to deal with mounting protests arising from the clustered peoples against the hegemonic rule of the dominant ethnic party and its consequences, namely, regional inequalities, rampant maladministration, and gross abuses of human rights. The fact that the social protests took the form of ethnic demands represented a clear danger of disintegration of the country. At the same time, however, it was also an opportunity for a renewed commitment to unity, given that both the absence of democracy and the perception of a common obstacle to social progress gave way to a sentiment of solidarity among the discontented clustered groups. This situation of danger but also of opportunity brought about a reformist tendency within the EPRDF, the most consequential outcome being the rise to leadership of young and trans-ethnically minded leaders from the OPDO of the likes of Lemma Megersa and Abiy Ahmed.
So renewed, unity is no longer due to the centralized force that keeps people together; it is rather a goal, a program that all concerned groups forge as their common good.
That ethnic clustering gives birth to leaders promoting convergence ceases to be a paradox as soon as we understand that, short of secession, which any way is a human failure in the same way as divorce is, democratic spirit and methods alone can make it work properly. When the democratic spirit extends to other ethnic groups, it turns ipso facto into a cross-ethnic attitude for the obvious reason that it cannot overcome its own closed nature and exclusiveness without seeing the other, not so much as a member of a different group, but rather primarily and simply as a human being endowed with universal rights, that is, with rights equally shared by members and non-members of one’s ethnic group. After all, what else is democracy but openness? In other words, as when lane markings end, the lanes naturally merge into a single roadway, so too ethnic clusters converge toward unity as soon as the hegemonic rule that feeds on divisions is replaced by the democratic spirit. So renewed, unity is no longer due to the centralized force that keeps people together; it is rather a goal, a program that all concerned groups forge as their common good.
From state sponsored unity to unity as common good
This movement from state sponsored unity to unity as the common doing of mutually respectful peoples seems to be the new path in which Ethiopia is engaged under the leadership of Prime Minister Abiy. Such a path is no doubt extremely difficult and sown with numerous and knotty obstacles. Failure is not to be excluded any more than success, provided that Ethiopians reconnect with the inspiration that enabled them to be the holder of the longest unbroken surviving polity in the world.
Main Image: Ethiopian flag waving photo credit Philippe Compain
This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. Please cite Ethiopia Observer prominently and link clearly to the original article if you republish. If you have any queries, please contact us at ethiopiaobserver@protonmail.com. Check individual images for licensing details.
Dear Dr. Messay,
Thanks for succinctly summarizing the history of nation-building.
Few observations:
1/ Tigray Front set itself as the core party in the 4-ethnic party coalition in the late-1980s and in so doing exchanged what it termed “Amhara hegemony” with Tigrayan hegemony. Its propagation of “revolutionary democracy” or “developmental state” was simply an extension of Derg-era Marxist-Stalinist ideology. Remember how quickly Tigray Front leader Meles went back on “multi-partyism” following his “dominant” party handily losing to a hastily organized “opposition” in election 2005 and the millions that flooded Masqal Square in protest for being cheated out of their votes. Awareness that public sentiment has gone against Tigray Front hit home 13 years ago. What followed was a strategy to enroll youth let down by Dr. Birhanu’s leadership into Meles’s party and centralize power (against the notion of “federalism” Meles had touted) and break-up all opposition using a quickie anti- terrorism (to appease Americans). It seemed to work though discontent spread wide especially because of establishment of a security apparatus to eavesdrop and report (intensifying distrust) on citizenry.
2/ Meles’s consolidating power in his hands (thus weakening his own party) and later handpicking a servile Hailemariam from the weakest Southern coalition member followed by his death created a gap and a chaotic situation in the country. That led to Tigray Front dividing up among its members power invested in Prime Minister Hailemariam leaving the latter a mere symbol. In the absence a clear leader emerging (rather a confusion on what a “collective” leadership meant or how it played out).
3/ In the early 1990s Tigray Front had no choice but to facilitate the wishes of its senior partner Eritrean Front to declare itself an independent country (now wishing to return to the union!). Tigray Front could not have pursued its own plan of forming a Tigray Republic at the time for several reasons, a/ Eritrean Front discouraged it b/ majority Tigrayans simply rejected it out of hand (many in the militia had to be wiped out in their hundreds for showing resistance to the idea) c/ Tigray had no resources and would have ended up in a permanent junior status to neighbor Eritrea.
4/ The past 25 years saw among many a near-total bankruptcy in leadership by the intelligentsia. Intellectuals, if there are any left, were seen promoting ethnic agenda rather than educate the public of its past and provide a vision of the future and the long term consequences of present-day politics. (I would identify Professor Messay as an exception for his consistency and his provoking articles.) So we ended up having Oromo, Amhara, Tigray intellectuals some with questionable academic credentials. Since we are here dealing with Tigray hegemony (or attempt at a failed hegemony) let me quote several Tigrayan scholars who have been spearheading the charge; Here are two quotes from Ghelawdewos Araia,
“Nearly five months after a change in power in Ethiopia, the country is witnessing an outbreak of deadly communal violence in several regions. The surge in conflict has come after many years of political stability in the Horn of Africa nation, stirring fears that the country may be facing widespread chaos and even break-up. There have also been other deadly clashes in southern, central and western regions. Notably, the sparse Western media coverage tends to depict the violence as occurring in spite of “reformist” Abiy Ahmed. Whereas, more accurately, the surge in violence appears to be the responsibility of the new ruling faction around the prime minister.”
ANY ONE WHO HAS OBSERVED ETHIOPIAN AFFAIRS WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT CLASHES WERE WORSE IN THE YEARS PRECEDING DR. ABIY’S TAKING OVER THE LEADERSHIP! MELES TENURE WAS NOTHING BUT A PERMANENT AGITATION AND CRACKDOWN. HAVING CONTROL OF ALL MEDIA AND CLAMP ON PRIVATE PRESS MEANT NEWS WAS FILTERED TO PAINT PEACE AND PROSPERITY AND CHECK ON TERRORISTS! TIGRAY FRONT IS IN FACT LEADING THE WAY IN A TOTAL DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN TO CONVINCE THE WEST ITS WORST FEARS ARE ABOUT TO HAPPEN UNLESS TIGRAY FRONT IS BACK IN THE SADDLE! IN OTHER WORDS GHELAWDEWOS IS DISHONEST IN HIS ASSESSMENT WANTING TO RESURRECT “TIGRAY ONLY” NARRATIVE!
“What the Prime Minster should do in order to promote Ethiopian national interests is act like primus inter pares (first among equals) with his cabinet ministers when it comes to framing and implementing policies. As I see it now, the newly appointed ministers are either inactive or eclipsed by the compelling (perhaps domineering as well) personality of Dr. Abiye. If the Prime Minister indeed is in favor of collective leadership, he should give a chance to his Ministers and other authorities at a higher level to actively participate in the decision making process; Dr. Abiye should not act as a dominant (gargantuan) actor or a soliloquy leader. It is contradiction in terms if collective leadership is not applied and the Prime Minister (PM) continues to lecture all by himself. This does not mean that Dr. Abiye should quit his educating endeavor, which, I think, are good for general knowledge and constructive engagements. But, what it means is, while the PM, for instance lectures on information technology (IT), the Minister of Agriculture should educate Ethiopian farmers, and the Minster of Defense should approach the military, particularly the high ranking officials of the armed forces. I found it ironic and contraire (SIC) that Dr. Abiye lectures the top Ethiopian generals on military science. ”
GHELAWDEWOS FAILS THE READER BY NOT MENTIONING MELES ZENAWI’S TOTAL DIKTAT AND UNCIVIL LANGUAGE (THINK TRUMP) IN PARLIAMENT FILLED BY COMPLIANT AND WEAK MEMBERS! HE IS SO CAUGHT UP IN DEFENDING HIS TURF HE WAS UNABLE TO RECOGNIZE A CLEAR DIFFERENCE AND RELIEF DR. AHMED’S COMING HAS BROUGHT THE NATION! HE COMES ACROSS AS UNHAPPY THAT DR. ABIY COULD BRING RAPID RESOLUTION TO TRAGIC AND PAINFUL ISSUES THAT MELES’ LEADERSHIP HAS BROUGHT ON THE NATION AND THOSE MELES PREVARICATED ABOUT AND/OR SHOWED INCOMPETENCE IN FOR TWO DECADES! NOR COULD HE ACKNOWLEDGE ABIY WAS A LT. COLONEL IN THE INTELLIGENCE AND BETTER EDUCATED THAN MOST OF THE “TOP GENERALS.” see https://bit.ly/2nZ3CVj
Tigrayan scholar, Tecola Hagos, has gone on to advocate for a “third woyane rebellion.” Tecola has distinguished himself over the years as advocating a Tigrayan-only leadership! Astounding statement considering Tecola often writes in international human rights issues!!
Another Tigrayan scholar, Tedros Kiros, put is this way,
“Our prime minister, himself, in his capacity as a political educator, is a purveyor of this misunderstanding, who unnecessarily burdened himself with undisciplined agenda and put too much on the grill,(Badme, Indiscriminate and untimely,release of prisoners, Pardoning the unpardonable, reconciling religious leaders), none of which is being cooked well. He is now standing out as the one, in the helm of power, who is a symbol of misunderstanding, and through him the misunderstanding is filtering down to the youth, and the hostile media in the diaspora.”
The last quote is from Alex de Waal at Tuft’s Peace Foundation and a close friend of Meles Zenawi. Alex sounded nostalgic and defensive; “In my case, one prism through which I interpret Ethiopian developments is the analysis derived from numerous discussions that I had with Meles Zenawi between 1988 and 2012.” see https://bit.ly/2MpFXMp
THE UNDERLYING STATEMENT IN THOSE QUOTED ABOVE IS A CAMPAIGN OF GREAT URGENCY TO RESURRECT AND REPACKAGE MELES ZENAWI IN THE HOPE OF BELITTLING DR. ABIY AND HIS EFFORTS. THIS ETHNIC PROJECT IS IN DENIAL OF THE FACT THAT MAJORITY ETHIOPIANS HAVE A GROWING DISDAIN FOR MELES ZENAWI AND TIGRAY FRONT; THAT IN THE CLOSED MEETING OF THE FOUR ETHIC COALITION PARTY FEW MONTHS BACK DR. ABIY GARNERED 108 VOTES OF 180 WHILE TIGRAY FRONT CANDIDATE DEBRETSION ONLY MANAGED TWO (0NE OF WHICH WAS CAST BY HIMSELF)! THE ETHNIC PROJECT ALSO HAS AN EYE ON BUYING BACK THE FAVOR OF ITS WESTERN BACKERS WHO BELATEDLY HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR A RIDE BY MELES AND TIGRAY FRONT ON THE EXCUSE OF FIGHTING TERRORISM AT THE SAME TIME ENGAGING IN STEALING AID MONEY, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AS IN RUNNING MAEKEWAI, JAIL OGADEN, AND SECRET RESIDENCES FOR TORTURE CHAMBER! ONE FACT OUGHT TO BE UNDERLINED. AND THAT IS, THE OLD ORDER OF A TINY ETHNIC ELITE RULING THE MAJORITY IS OVER. HUNDREDS HAVE PAID WITH THEIR BLOOD. ENORMOUS CORRUPTION AND SAVAGERY INFLICTED ON ETHIOPIANS BY MELES REGIME IS FAST BECOMING PUBLIC. ETHIOPIA BELONG TO ALL ETHIOPIANS. ALL ETHIOPIANS HAVE STAKE IN THEIR COUNTRY’S WELFARE AND FUTURE. TIGRAYANS ARE A SIGNIFICANT MINORITY WITH ENORMOUS HISTORICAL CONTRIBUTION. PAST CONTRIBUTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT BE AN EXCUSE FOR DISPROPORTIONATE CONTROL AND/OR UNACCOUNTABLE BEHAVIOR. QUALIFIED ETHIOPIANS SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PASS ETHNIC TEST OR BE MEMBERS OF ANY PARTY. WE HAVE SUFFERED THROUGH 27 YEARS OF A CRUEL REGIME. WE SHOULD NOT BE COMPLAINING ABOUT A LEADER THAT HAS BROUGHT ENORMOUS RESPITE IN JUST FOUR MONTHS; WE SHOULD BE PATIENT AND WILLING TO JOIN TO HELP THE PROGRESS.
Interesting attempt to rationally explain Ethiopia political history until the present turmoil. Although non exhaustive account but rather a quick overview.
As a Somali ethnic born in Djibouti with ancestral roots spreading between the present day Ethiopia to Somalia, I could feel again being completely ignored by the author.
The author mentions mentionned all ethnic based movements except the Somalis. Has the author never heard the historical ONLF?
Or more recently the IGLF (ISSA GURGURA LIBERATION FRONT) which resisted the TPLF in early 1990’s?
Is this omission by the author consistenting with this skewed historical view that non Oromo/Amhara or Tigray are not part of this conceptual entity called Ethiopia ?
Or this convergence is only Amhara/Tigray and now conveniently Oromo affair ?
Somalis had their share of plight in Ethiopia history since the Imperial Tyranny and again if this PR charged « reform »is conducted without them they should think for themselves and make their voice heard!
It is possible to build a true model of democracy based on respect of all entities but seeing already a Philosophy professor completely sidelining a major component such as the Somalis and reducing the whole « convergence » to 3 groups is not encouraging signal !