By Teshome Abebe
(PhD)
The following
text of the speech was presented at Vision Ethiopia Conference on March 27,
2016. Because of time limitations, some paragraphs may not have been presented.
I attended the conference as an academic only representing myself, and not as a
member of a political party or any other group. As a result, the views
expressed are mine alone. No financial support was requested or received from
any individual or group, and my assignment was to respond to the following
questions:
Quo Vadis? Where
Do We Go From Here? Who Should Do What to Guarantee Democracy, Transition, and
Unity in Post Conflict Ethiopia?
Background: Where We Have Been
There is no need
to dwell too long on this part of my presentations, as all of you know so well
where we have been over the past many decades. Suffice it to state that part of
the failures in our past have to do with the excessive need to maintain and
exercise power by the Atse Haile Selassie regime as well as by the Derg. In
both cases, we have witnessed that they stayed in power too long; refused to
listen to the citizenry; and never prepared the country for a peaceful
transition of power in any meaningful manner. The result has been very
familiar: assume power by force; get chased out of office by force. The price the nation has had to pay for this
state of affairs or dysfunction has been enormous. We have lost too many and
too much both in lives and treasury; we have lost enormously in opportunity
cost; and for all intents and purposes, the nation is still backward: we still
can’t feed ourselves; and we have taught the young an incredibly bad lesson:
that disordered force is the norm in Ethiopia. In my opinion, this is a truly
sad state of affairs. On this, I am certain that there is general agreement on
all sides.
Where We Are Now
As I leave where
we have been and transition to where we are now, I am afraid that I don’t have
too many things that are encouraging either.
Talking about where we are now requires one to take a sort of a survey –
kind of a meta-study of the events and then conditions in which we find our
country today. Let me first state that when we talk about the conditions in our
homeland, we are not waging a vendetta or a personal campaign against anyone;
rather it is simply an examination of the unflattering facts.
Though you are
all students of Ethiopian affairs, let me try to summarize the situation in the
following manner. This summary is based on the review of the literature of
important studies; a thorough reading of the opinions and positions of people
in academics, the professions, and most of all, of people in government; and a
personal assessment of events and conditions on the ground in Ethiopia.
The African
Development Bank, in a report on economic outlook in Ethiopia, recently stated
that, “Ethnic Federalism has heightened and transformed historical territorial
conflicts into contemporary inter-regional boundary conflicts. Inter-clan
conflicts have begun to inform perceived or real disenfranchisement and
inequitable distributions of economic and/or political benefits. Radicalism has
also underlain sporadic religious clashes.”
Where we are
today, can charitably be described as, what Thomas Hobbes referred to as “the
chaos of competing enemies”. This chaos of the competing enemies afflicting the
country is a classic strategy manufactured to sow conflict. When resources are short (the resource here
could also be power), people divide, scapegoating one another. What ensues is
the turning of one region against another; one culture against another; older
people against younger ones; one political party against the others; leaders
against members; and one idea against another. Hobbes called this the
pre-social pre-political world. For the ruling party, chaos has become power,
and an opportunity to remake the world in their preferred configuration.
The ethnic
stratification we witness in Ethiopia today, is the result of several factors:
the introduction and implementation of the Killil system (a hammer blow to
Ethiopian unity) the appearance or perceived appearance of ethnocentrism; the
competition along ethnic lines for some common goal, such as power or
influence, or a material interest, such as wealth or territory; and the
emergence of deferential power. (See Donald Noel). To make matters worse, there is evidence that
the competition is driven by self-interest and hostility, and would result in
inevitable further stratification and conflict. (See Lawrence Bobo &
Vincent Hutchings). These conditions,
interwoven with what I will call the policy of ambitious domination, have the
potential to produce ethno-national conflict.
Where We Have Consensus
Asserting that
we have a general agreement on some things is a dangerous proposition among any
group much less among Ethiopians who are very passionate about politics, and
even more passionate about their country. Over the past quarter of century, we
have debated as well as grieved. People are sad about what has happened in
Ethiopia, and they have talked and written about all kinds of topics. I have to
admit that this ‘grieving’ process continues even today.
I can safely
state, however, that there is an amicable consensus on a number of fronts among
the commenting class, and those who are engaged with the issue. The debates we
have had over the past 25 years—and they were intensive debates–have rendered
some arguments moot, and yielded consensus on others. What are the areas in which
we have general consensus?
There is general
consensus that we wish to see a Democratic Ethiopia. We have experimented
enough with other forms of government, and that the future for Ethiopia must
clearly, unambiguously and unalterably be Democratic. An Ethiopia in which democratic institutions
thrive; an Ethiopia whose leaders have an unflinching commitment to democratic
values; and a country whose leaders have purged themselves of all forms of
non-democratic impulses. Of this much, we agree.
There is
consensus that we wish to see a united Ethiopia. By this we also mean one
country, one people, with differentiated cultures but a common root. Diversity
with a common root!
There is
consensus that we wish to have an Ethiopia whose sovereignty is not questioned
(not left to interpretations): not questioned by outsiders; and certainly not
questioned by its children.
There is
consensus that we wish to have an Ethiopia whose integrity is not violated. By
this, we mean that the assurance of sovereignty is necessary but not sufficient:
it must also be respected.
There is
consensus that we wish to see a developed Ethiopia. What we wish to have is an
Ethiopia that is socially, economically, technologically and scientifically
developed.
There is no
consensus on the issue of how to deal with the ruling party—the TPLF/EPRDF. I
hold the very controversial view that when it comes to engaging the government;
we might do better to focus on replacing, reforming, influencing and/or
humanizing the TPLF/EPRDF rather than its complete eradication as some would
wish to have it. The realistic choice that I think we face isn’t really a
choice between an Ethiopia without TPLF/EPRDF and an Ethiopia with only
TPLF/EPRDF. The realistic choice we face is between an Ethiopia where
Democratic values, buttressed with democratic institutions, are supreme; where
human rights are respected and upheld; and where the development process is
all-inclusive versus an Ethiopia where these are lacking. Given that choice,
the former sounds more appealing to me regardless of who rules the country.
This, I believe, is an expansionist (as opposed to a reductionist) view that is
not only proper, but also consistent with the principles of inclusion as well
as that of true democracy.
Furthermore, I
hold the view that the more serious and long-term threats to Ethiopia are not
the TPLF/EPRDF or nationalist forces by themselves. Rather it is the coalescing
threat on the horizon, that which might emerge from the Arab World. The petro
dollar enabled alliance between Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Eritrea,
Somalia and Djibouti is likely to become an existential threat, with religion
as the driving force, but the desire to weaken Ethiopia as the primary thrust.
What is Lacking Or What Must Be Done?
For a variety of
reasons, Ethiopians have lacked unity in their responses to the ruling party’s
policy of ambitious domination. This has been true of all segments of society.
We espouse too many divisions; too many plans; too many groups; too much duplication
of effort; and too many personal agendas. It seems to be natural to us, that in
an instant, we fall back on an almost tribal urge to defend our side. And as
you know, sometimes, one choice precludes another. As a consequence, we are
ineffective in our efforts even if we were to come together temporarily. It seems to me that what it is called for
here is the Latin imploration ‘in things important, unity’. Remember our own
adage ‘Dirr Biabir, Anbesa Yasir’. Yet, it seems that when it comes to
meaningful action, the adage gets thrown out the window. There are economic and
non-economic explanations for that state of affairs. But regardless of the explanations, what is
undeniably true is that we remain intangible to those in power if we are not
united. We remain intangible to those that might wish to assist us if we are
not united; and we remain intangible to those that wish to dominate us if we
are not united. The first duty we should have to each other on the matter of
the motherland is unity! Unity based on ‘citizenship’ or some other
super-ordinate goal.
The second thing
we must have is reconciliation. One might ask, who is to be reconciled and with
whom? Well, there is plenty of reconciliation that must take place before we
unite for a purpose. To be sure, reconciliation is not just about receiving or
just about corrective action. It is about the future. It is a means of
addressing how we are going to live together; it is a means of taking
constructive action; it is a means of sorting through choices; and it is a
means through which we take responsibility for past mistakes, and pledge to
never ever repeat the offense again.
As such, we
should have true and genuine reconciliation between political parties. This
requires that the transgressions, real or imagined, of the past must be buried
for good, and new efforts must be made to start anew. And I am happy to report
that there are groups gearing up and ready to assist with this.We need
reconciliation between the governed and the governing. This is so because the
ruling party has so much to explain.
Reconciliation
between the government and the opposition parties is also critical if the
country is to deploy all available talent to overcome the multitude of
challenges.
Reconciliation
between Ethiopians and their history is another must. Though this requires time
as well as patience, there is a general feeling that many in Ethiopia and some
outside of it are revising the country’s history to fit current needs. It may
be possible to embellish history, but unnatural to edit it without molesting
the truth. As a consequence, our historians have their work cut out for them in
this regard.
We also need
reconciliation on the issue of ‘ethnic federalism’. There are essentially two
recognized methods of dealing with this important issue.
The first method
is for the government not to acknowledge ethnic, national or social identities
but rather instead enforce political and legal equality of all individuals.
(See Jurgen Habermas & Bruce Barry).
It appears to me
that this might be unworkable at the moment.
For one thing, the current generation and the one just before it
primarily see themselves as belonging to an ethnic group first, and the
prominence of ‘citizenship’ is not as strong as we might wish to see it. I have
to concede here that while I can only judge my contemporaries, I can only make
educated guesses about those before or after me.
Second, ethnic
groups in general and ethnic cultures in Ethiopia in particular, have moved up
and down the ethnic ‘diacritic’ overtime. And which ‘diacritic’ of ethnicity is
salient depends on whether people are scaling ethnic boundaries up or down, and
whether they are scaling them up or down depends generally on the political
situation. (See Ronald Cohen & Joan Vincent). Furthermore, ethnicity
emerges when it is relevant as a means of furthering emergent collective
interests and changes according to political changes in the society. (See Barth
& Seidner for more on this). Unless the political system changes, people
will cling to what appears to them to be safe, comfortable, or even expected.
The second
method is for the government to recognize ethnic identities and develop a
process through which the particular needs of ethnic groups can be accommodated
within the boundaries and/or sovereignty of the country. ( See Charles Taylor
& Will Kymlicka). The Ethiopian government attempted to do the later but
with provisions that have had disastrous consequences. These two points of view
must be reconciled, and, I believe it is possible to do so.
The third thing
that must be done is to provide a unified response to the three questions of:
Land Ownership; Religion; and Ethnic Federalism.
Before the TPLF
ascended to power and thereafter, it identified these three factors as wounds
of the Ethiopian polity, and decided to turn them into weapons. Initially, the
three issues resonated with the general population that had already been
emotionally decimated by the Derg. While there will be disagreements on the
efficacy, policy wise, of the particular factor, it is safe to say that the
ruling party has used these three factors as a wedge issue between and among
the populous. It is also safe to state that the initial euphoria generated
among the population may have started to ebb as the public began to weigh and
assess the benefits and costs associated with the particular issue. I am going
out on a limb and suggest that the Ethiopian people have not embraced the
‘ethnic’ issue in a way that could make the ruling party claim success. In fact
the opposite might just be true as Ethiopians began to view the ‘ethnicity’
issues as very divisive and threatening national unity and security. Indeed, an honest and correct assessment of
the issue, notwithstanding what the high priests of ‘ethnic federation’ might
think, would lead us to conclude that the ‘ethnic cleansing’ that took place in
parts of the country had repulsed Ethiopians and offended their senses.
In all cases,
however, there have not yet been clearly articulated positions or alternatives
provided by either opposition political parties or academe to the vexing issues
of land ownership (as you know, ownership is the prerogative to control); the
role of religion, if any; and viable alternatives to ethnic federalism
acceptable to all.
The fourth thing
that must be done is an identification of a new form of ambition. Simply
stated, we need to formulate a new agenda, if you will. The ruling party had
promised Ethiopians the freedom from hunger. That concept has sold well
overseas where outsiders, having tired of watching little hungry kids on their
television sets, had given the government the benefit of doubt. Now that we
know the result of that promise, I will refrain from restating it here again.
But I think that Ethiopians—both inside and outside of the country—wish to
articulate a new form of freedom: the freedom not to have to consider ethnicity
in their daily lives. Simply stated, we need to have a new ambition. Because
all ambitions require forward thrust, perhaps, this will provide the forward
momentum that we desperately lacked.
Finally, we must
establish a post-conflict organization to instigate economic, political,
social, technological as well as scientific reform, and to make sure that the
gains achieved are maintained and advanced; to advance a genuine inclusion
agenda that incorporates actors from all stakeholders, and assure that there is
no backsliding; and to sustain a conflict containment agenda that is proactive
to make sure that the economic costs of violence are contained and managed.
How Would We Accomplish These?
In two recent
articles, I have argued that we must have conversation. The conversation we are
going to have should be about the solutions to the problems the country faces,
and would include conversations about politics, power, authoritarianism and
hegemony. If we agree that it is time for solutions, we must also agree that
such solutions must be based on a transparent and realistic account of what
caused the problems in the first place. Here, I don’t mean to overburden our
conversations with a chronology of what took place and when because that won’t
help explain it. What we need to do is examine the motivation for the actions
taken, and on what basis those actions were taken. In trying to do so, all
sides must understand that while the regime in Ethiopia faces considerable
opposition, it also enjoys internal support. Most importantly, the government
also has powerful allies, notably the U.S and the U.K. just to mention two.
Having framed
the issue in this manner, a message has to be framed and delivered, and that
message has to be effective. For a
message to be effective, first, it must come from a unified group—a united
opposition (just remember that no one in their right mind would wish to bargain
with an intangible entity that cannot deliver); and second, it must reach and
influence those in control—whether they are elected officials, dictators,
regulators, or private actors. That means, therefore, the communication would
ultimately have to be with the ruling party. This is crucial. Take for instance
women’s issues: to bring about change regarding women’s issues, it is not
enough to talk to women alone. The conversation has to include men as well.
Similarly, if we wish to bring about change in power and hegemony, the
conversation would have to be with those that wield it. Peaceful change will
only take place in Ethiopia with the positive involvement of the ruling party.
So what will we
be the modality of the conversation with the ruling party? The Constitution, of
course. I have written before that if there is ever anything we ought to talk
about, it is the constitution. Why the constitution? Because, like it or not,
accept it or not, the current government of Ethiopia is a ‘lawful’ regime and
not an ‘unlawful’ one. It may be unlawful in many of its governing practices,
but is recognized as a lawful regime by every country in the world. Hence, the
focus on the constitution. It should be the center of our effort, the focus of
our energies, and the roadmap to any peaceful change that is likely to bring
about solutions to the problems Ethiopia faces to day. I have never advocated
throwing away the current constitution in its entirety. I hold the opinion that
the current constitution is one of the most liberally worded constitutions out
there—it even allows for ethnic groups to cede from the motherland! How more
liberal can you get? But like everything else, the devil is in the details.
While there are elements of the document that might be useful to retain, there
are also elements of the document that could produce disastrous consequences, and
are damaging to the country.
Although not
directly echoing my call for a constitutional reform, even the Chair of the
Constitutional Assembly, Negaso Gidada, has given recent testimony that the
drafting, approval and implementation of the constitution was fraught with many
errors and problems, and expressed regret at the end product. Of the stunning
admissions is his regret that the people of Ethiopia had no say in the final
document. (See Teshome Abebe; & Negaso Gidada Interview).
Concluding Remarks
Let me summarize
these comments as follows: Our country is distressed, and it needs our
attention. Each person has an opportunity to contribute their talents and
unleash some of their potential (ሀብት ያለው በሀብቱ፣ ጉልበት ያለው በጉልበቱ፣ እወቅት ያለው በእውቀቱ).
The ruling party
borrowed strength from the position it held; and from the emotions created by
using ethnicity, the issue of land ownership and religion as weapons. We now
know the consequences of this ploy. But like all borrowed assets, borrowed
strength eventually diminishes as one loses influence with those that they wish
to impress, and the strength turns into weakness. It is at this juncture that
we must ask, “What does the situation demand? What strength, what skill, what
knowledge, and what attitude?”
To me, the
situation demands that there must be unity: unity in goals, unity in purpose,
unity in effort, and unity in principles.
The situation
demands the strength of empathy: empathy to seek to understand, and then to be
understood.
The situation
demands the skills to build relationships and build them with consistency and
sincerity, based on national imperatives and not personal agendas.
The situation
further demands the knowledge to be able to teach, to explain, to organize and
to execute.
And finally, the
situation demands an attitude of reconciliation, inclusiveness, democratic
values, and of a new ambition to a new kind of freedom for Ethiopians: the
freedom not to have to consider ethnicity in their daily lives!
Thank you
No comments:
Post a Comment