Unity Vs Diversity, Delusion Vs Reality? The Ethiopian Scenario
Side Goodo
November 21, 2007
1. Introduction
For the good part of the twentieth century, the country was under two totalitarian political systems. These were the archaic feudal monarchy and the diehard socialist-cum-military dictatorship of the 1970s and 1980s. The current regime is awashed with rhetoric of democracy, press freedom, political pluralism, ethnic rights which are all illusive. The objective is to appease the west and most importantly to ensure continued inflows of aid.
The current regime neither tolerates genuine political opposition nor promotes genuine ethnic freedom. The ethnic based liberation movements such as OLF, and the Sidama Liberation Movement, which were part of the transitional government led by EPRDF were purged out from the government with in one year of its inception. A weak political opposition was tolerated as a showcase to the west. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s four or five opposition members of parliament were elected into an EPRDF dominated parliament of over 540 members. Prominent among these handful MPs were individuals such as Dr. Beyene Petros and one or two others. Both the 1995 and 2000 elections in the country were neither free nor fair by any standard.
However, the preparation for the May 2005 elections saw a little relaxation of EPRDF restrictions on the opposition movements. This miscalculation by the party that became overconfident after successfully rigging two successive elections later threatened its very existence.
The front runner opposition parties for the 2005 elections were Coalition for Unity and Democracy (known as Kinijit in Amharic), the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF) led by Dr. Beyene Petros and Dr. Merara Gudina, the Oromo Federalist Party and the Sidama Liberation Movement, among others. Although the opposition posed a major threat to the ruling party for the first time in the history of the country, it was unable to change the course of the country’s political history. There are two fundamental causes fore this failure. First, there has never been any level playing field in the country’s political system. Second and equally important is the credibility of the political opposition itself. For a political opposition to enjoy unreserved support of the electorate, it must prove to the people that it is credible in terms of believability, authenticity, genuineness and legitimacy. For most Ethiopians, the current ruling party is not a credible political organization because it seriously lacks authenticity, believability and genuineness among others. The main reason for the credibility crisis of the ruling party is its fundamental belief in delusive unity while at the same time playing the ethnic card of diversity. The majority of the Ethiopian peoples cannot believe the main opposition either because; its diehard political stance of unity is delusive.
2. Unity, Diversity and the Credibility of the Ethiopian Political Opposition
As we stated earlier, the Ethiopian political opposition which took shape few months before the 2005 elections does not enjoy much credibility either. In particular, the major opposition party CUD (Kinijit) is viewed by many Ethiopians with a serious suspicion because of the past political history of the country. The basic political premise of CUD, i.e. unity is not a mere political ploy but is a reflection of deep rooted belief to restore the old political order in the country. Many non Amhara Ethiopians view unity as synonymous with the Amhara rule and as such as a serious threat to their aspiration for greater freedom, democracy and greater political autonomy. Can democracy be achieved only under unity? Is unitary government the best form of government for a country as diverse as Ethiopia? What is behind the concept of unity? Any group of people has full right to establish a political organization of its choosing. I am not questioning the right of the Amhara people to establish a political organization with a goal of unity. But what I am questioning is whether the rest of the Ethiopian peoples view this type of political organization as believable, dependable and trustworthy. According to the facts on the ground, they do not.
Ethiopia is an amalgamation of over 80 nations or ethnic groups which can be classified into peoples of 4 major ethnic origins. These are: (a) Kushitic peoples: Sidama, Oromo, Afar, Somalis, Hadiya, Alaba, Xambaro, Kambata, etc. (b) Semitic peoples: Amhara and Tigray, (c) Omotic and/or Bantu peoples: Wolayita, Gamo, Gofa, Dawro, Kulo Konta, etc. and (d) the Nilotic peoples: Anuak, Nuer, Gumuz, etc. The Kushitic group is the majority group in Ethiopia. According to the 2005 Central Statistical Authority’s population figures, the Kushitic group comprises of 51.3% of the 78 million total population of the country while the Semitic group comprises of 30%. The remaining 18.7% is constituted by the Omotic, Nilotic and other smaller groups.
It is undeniable fact that Ethiopia took its current shape only after the imperial expansion of the 1880s and 1890s by king Minelik. If any Ethiopian historian or politician believes that most peoples in the south, east and west were part of the current Ethiopia before 1880s and 1890s, he/she must be either hallucinating or in perpetual denial of the reality. Many peoples such as Sidama were never part of the Semitic “assimilation/domination” in the northern part of the country before this particular expansion. However, the main problem this article tries to address is not when and how the peoples of the south, the west and the east became part of the current Ethiopia. The main concern of this article is whether the current political system in the country provides any hope for the future peaceful and harmonious coexistence of various peoples of this country or it is bound to disintegrate it for ever.
The Oromo people, which form the majority ethnic group in the country, have started an organised struggle for freedom, democracy and total liberation from Ethiopia four decades ago. The Sidama people have been engaged in an organized liberation struggle since the early 1970s. Currently, an intensified campaign is under way in the Ogaden region by ethnic Somalis who seek greater political autonomy and or independence from Ethiopia. Thus, the facts on the ground clearly indicate that Ethiopia is not a nation state and a unitary form of government is not a feasible alternative for the country.
3. Ethiopia is a Multinational State
Ethiopia is not a nation state. Ethiopia is a multinational state with various nations that have successfully preserved their language, culture and distinct socio-economic setting. The failure by the Amhara rulers to build an empire state led to a failure in nation building. Due to lack of education, industrialization, urbanization and broader economic development, the majority of the peoples of the country continued to live primitive life style in rural areas with little or no interaction and integration with the rest of the peoples in the country and the rest of the world. Over 80% of the country’s population belongs to subsistence peasant households in rural areas of the country. Many areas are still today inaccessible by any means. These peoples have maintained their distinct socio-cultural and socio-economic set up for centuries albeit serious disruptions by the feudal system in the south, east and west. These peoples strive to maintain and promote their distinct culture, language and social settings. To achieve these, their basic demands are freedom, democracy and above all greater political autonomy.
The advocates of unity in Ethiopia presume that these ethnic and national diversities do not exist and Ethiopia is a country of “one people, one nation and one language”. There is a blatant misrepresentation of the reality. Denial of diversity and wishing away ethnic differences has not come out of genuine love for the rest of the peoples but out of utter lack of respect and out right contempt. By implication, wishing away ethnic diversities in Ethiopia means that the 70% of the non Amhara and non Tigray population of the country are considered to be immaterial, negligible, marginal and even nonexistent. Let me provide an example. It was after the 1991 political change in the country. One morning, an Amhara friend of mine came to the office very angry and frustrated. I asked what had happened to my good old co-worker. I was shocked to hear his response. He told me that the Tigrians (the ethnic group of the people who took power in 1991) were promoting tribalism in the country by allowing the Oromo language to be broadcast on the Ethiopian television. I asked him whether he believed that the Oromos were Ethiopians. He replied that he did but continued that all of us should speak one language, Amharic and lamented further that allowing the Oromo language to be broadcast on TV was promoting tribalism. He was implying that speaking the language of his Amhara tribe would not imply tribalism. But the moment other languages were spoken that would reflect tribalism, what ever that meant.
I learned one important lesson from my good old Amhara friend. There is a serious attitude problem particularly among the educated Amharas. They believe that the Amharas are superior to others in the country, the feeling that was echoed in some writings of their intellectuals. That is the biggest mistake of today’s Amhara elites and the biggest mistake of their political opposition.
I later told my good old Amhara friend that if Ethiopia is to stay together, the Oromo language must be made the second official and working language in the country, if Oromos agree to settle for it, let alone showcasing it on TV for 30 odd minutes. I regret for not being able to learn the Oromo language in schools in Ethiopia. I told my friend that in Canada, the Quebec region speaks French and the rest of the country speaks English. They have two official languages. Both the French speakers and English speakers respect each other as human beings and live in peace and harmony. They developed their country to one of the 7 most industrialised countries in the world. Here are we busy undermining each other and at the bottom of every single country in the world. At the bottom of GDP per capita, at the bottom of human resources development index, at the bottom of trade and industry development index, and most crucially at the bottom of food self sufficiency.
Against this backdrop we hear a constant preaching for unity. Unity for what? Unity for poverty, unity for hunger, unity for underdevelopment. The premise of unity by the aforementioned political opposition is based on the denial of the facts on the ground; the fact that Ethiopia is a multinational state and not a nation state.
The recent crisis in the main opposition party CUD is a reflection of fundamental problem, i.e. wrong political premise of the organization than a mere power struggle.
4. The Current Crisis in the Opposition
The political goal of CUD is de-ethnicisation of the current Ethiopian politic in the sense of undermining the rights and the powers of national groups such as the Oromos, Sidamas and so on. As we have reiterated earlier, the party advocates for unity that does not recognise the diversity of the country’s populations. Their political agenda is based on myth of one nation, one language, and one country rather than the reality of many nations and many languages in one country. The recent rift between some diehard leadership of CUD and two or three a little moderate non Amhara leadership of the organization clearly indicates that there is a conflict between the goals and the structure of the organization.
If the members of the various political organisations that formed CUD were genuine advocates of freedom and democracy and the rule of law in the country, why did they purge out the renowned Kushitic intellectuals and veteran opposition leaders such as Dr. Beyene Petros and Dr. Merara Gudina from their coalition and form an almost exclusively Semitic-cum-Amhara coalition (Kinijit)? Again I am not questioning the right of the people to form any party. However, the political parties should clearly understand the political boundaries they are setting themselves when they decide to limit the participation of other peoples in their organisations.
Worse still, the top leadership of the party has recently indicated that it would not tolerate any remaining non Amhara voice in its leadership. The current crisis of CUD not only made it a mockery of the ruling EPRDF but also stripped it of any credibility what so ever.
Another serious credibility crisis of CUD is its attempt to forge unholy alliance with certain political organisations that stand in stark contradiction to its principles of unity. This refers to the alliance with OLF, SLF, and other more pro-independence political organisations after the 2005 elections. Are these organisations more compatible with the objectives of unity than United Ethiopian Democratic Forces? Can we believe that this alliance is genuine?
The fundamental solution to the Ethiopian political crisis can not be found by political organisation that play hide and seek games. Call a spade a spade. Stop ostentatious and excessive preoccupation with delusive unity. Work for a realistic and long-lasting political solution if the country is to stay united.
.
5. The Best Solution for the Ethiopian Political Crisis is Strong Federalism
Advocating unitary and centralist political system for a country like Ethiopia where the majority of the population is already seeking greater autonomy and/or total independence from the country, is totally unrealistic. Nor is the current weak and pseudo-federal arrangement of EPRDF a viable solution for the crisis facing the country.
The only sustainable solution for the Ethiopian political crisis is a strong federal system where various ethnic groups enjoy full political autonomy to fully decide on their internal affairs. In this , the role of the central government should be limited to international relations, defense and implementation of certain supranational projects. One may ask how it can be possible to create viable ethnic based federal entities in Ethiopia with over 80 ethnic groups. This is a legitimate question. It is neither feasible nor viable to create over 80 ethnic based federal regions in Ethiopia. The federal arrangement should be based on a combination of various objective criteria such as ethnic background, population size, economic potential, geographical proximity and socioeconomic similarities between the peoples in question.
It is a mockery to organize 45 different nations in the south under one pseudo-federal region called SNNPR. The 45 different ethnic groups belong to four major ethnic origins mentioned earlier. The fifth largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, Sidama, is forcefully held in the ghetto of the SNNPR. Sidama qualifies for its own federal state by any standard, be it population size, economic potential, socio-cultural and socio-economic unity of the people, if the Sidama people agree to settle for it. The SNNPR can be appropriately restructured in to 8-10 federal states. The rest of the country can be reorganized accordingly into similar federal systems which will yield no more than 20 strong federal states in the country in total.
To ensure real and sustainable as opposed to delusive unity in Ethiopia, the only alternative is to grant greater political autonomy to the majority of the population by creating strong federal system of government. Even more advanced countries in Western Europe such as Germany, Switzerland, and Austria as well as the emerging market economies in Latin America such as Brazil and Argentina exercise strong federal system, where sub-national states have more power than the national government. And yet they have not disintegrated.
Thus, a credible political opposition in Ethiopia is not the one that wishes away ethnic and cultural diversities and advocates for unrealistic unity in the country nor is it a political organization that uses ethnic cards to score local and global political goals with out genuine recognition of democratic and ethnic rights of the peoples concerned.
6. The Possible Way Ahead for the Opposition
Political opposition that can pose a serious and credible challenge to the current EPRDRF rule in the country must address the following fundamental issuers:
First, work for genuine and strong federal arrangement in the country. Various Ethiopian peoples have already been demanding a greater political autonomy or independence for decades. If any political organisation is concerned with the rights of the majority of the Ethiopian peoples which it strives to rule or lead, it must be able to address their concerns. If any political party tries to dictate what is better for the majority of the population it is bound to fail.
Second, accept openly and honestly that Ethiopia is a multination state. It is not a nation state. The right of various ethnic groups to promote their language and culture must be accepted unequivocally.
Third, a country wide political party should include key leadership members of major ethnic groups: Oromo, Amhara, Tigray, Ogadenis, Sidama, Hadiya, Wolayita, Afar Gumuz and so on. This is the case in many politically stable and democratic countries of the world. One or two leadership members for a political party dominated by one ethnic group will not make it different from an ethnic liberation organisation. Otherwise, such political parties will end up as a minority ethnic and regional parties which will never pose a serious and credible threat to EPRDF. In the meantime regions such as Oganden may split up from the country paving the way for further disintegration of the country.
Finally, appreciate EPRDF’s strengths. EPRDF is a much clever political party compared to CUD and UEDF. EPRDF at least pays leap services to ethnic rights and ethnic diversities in the country. It does not openly advocate the delusive concept of one nation, one language and one country, although it believes in it. A political organisation that strives to take the majority of the Ethiopian peoples an inch backward from what they have achieved under EPRDF will never be able to enjoy popular support and will never be able to rule the country peacefully. Remember that EPRDF was able to fabricate its own surrogate representatives of the entire ethnic groups in the country. These surrogates honestly believe that the demands of their peoples have fully been answered by EPRDF. Therefore, they are bound to fully back the party in its future elections. This is not a myth. It is a reality. Thus, given the current crisis of credibility by the major political opposition and the utter weaknesses of other opposition parties, EPRDF would easily outmanoeuvre the opposition and will win so many elections to come. I do not believe that HR2003 alone would bring a miracle! As it stands at present, there is no credible political alternative to a noncredible ruling party in Ethiopia.
Side Goodo
November 21, 2007
1. Introduction
For the good part of the twentieth century, the country was under two totalitarian political systems. These were the archaic feudal monarchy and the diehard socialist-cum-military dictatorship of the 1970s and 1980s. The current regime is awashed with rhetoric of democracy, press freedom, political pluralism, ethnic rights which are all illusive. The objective is to appease the west and most importantly to ensure continued inflows of aid.
The current regime neither tolerates genuine political opposition nor promotes genuine ethnic freedom. The ethnic based liberation movements such as OLF, and the Sidama Liberation Movement, which were part of the transitional government led by EPRDF were purged out from the government with in one year of its inception. A weak political opposition was tolerated as a showcase to the west. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s four or five opposition members of parliament were elected into an EPRDF dominated parliament of over 540 members. Prominent among these handful MPs were individuals such as Dr. Beyene Petros and one or two others. Both the 1995 and 2000 elections in the country were neither free nor fair by any standard.
However, the preparation for the May 2005 elections saw a little relaxation of EPRDF restrictions on the opposition movements. This miscalculation by the party that became overconfident after successfully rigging two successive elections later threatened its very existence.
The front runner opposition parties for the 2005 elections were Coalition for Unity and Democracy (known as Kinijit in Amharic), the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF) led by Dr. Beyene Petros and Dr. Merara Gudina, the Oromo Federalist Party and the Sidama Liberation Movement, among others. Although the opposition posed a major threat to the ruling party for the first time in the history of the country, it was unable to change the course of the country’s political history. There are two fundamental causes fore this failure. First, there has never been any level playing field in the country’s political system. Second and equally important is the credibility of the political opposition itself. For a political opposition to enjoy unreserved support of the electorate, it must prove to the people that it is credible in terms of believability, authenticity, genuineness and legitimacy. For most Ethiopians, the current ruling party is not a credible political organization because it seriously lacks authenticity, believability and genuineness among others. The main reason for the credibility crisis of the ruling party is its fundamental belief in delusive unity while at the same time playing the ethnic card of diversity. The majority of the Ethiopian peoples cannot believe the main opposition either because; its diehard political stance of unity is delusive.
2. Unity, Diversity and the Credibility of the Ethiopian Political Opposition
As we stated earlier, the Ethiopian political opposition which took shape few months before the 2005 elections does not enjoy much credibility either. In particular, the major opposition party CUD (Kinijit) is viewed by many Ethiopians with a serious suspicion because of the past political history of the country. The basic political premise of CUD, i.e. unity is not a mere political ploy but is a reflection of deep rooted belief to restore the old political order in the country. Many non Amhara Ethiopians view unity as synonymous with the Amhara rule and as such as a serious threat to their aspiration for greater freedom, democracy and greater political autonomy. Can democracy be achieved only under unity? Is unitary government the best form of government for a country as diverse as Ethiopia? What is behind the concept of unity? Any group of people has full right to establish a political organization of its choosing. I am not questioning the right of the Amhara people to establish a political organization with a goal of unity. But what I am questioning is whether the rest of the Ethiopian peoples view this type of political organization as believable, dependable and trustworthy. According to the facts on the ground, they do not.
Ethiopia is an amalgamation of over 80 nations or ethnic groups which can be classified into peoples of 4 major ethnic origins. These are: (a) Kushitic peoples: Sidama, Oromo, Afar, Somalis, Hadiya, Alaba, Xambaro, Kambata, etc. (b) Semitic peoples: Amhara and Tigray, (c) Omotic and/or Bantu peoples: Wolayita, Gamo, Gofa, Dawro, Kulo Konta, etc. and (d) the Nilotic peoples: Anuak, Nuer, Gumuz, etc. The Kushitic group is the majority group in Ethiopia. According to the 2005 Central Statistical Authority’s population figures, the Kushitic group comprises of 51.3% of the 78 million total population of the country while the Semitic group comprises of 30%. The remaining 18.7% is constituted by the Omotic, Nilotic and other smaller groups.
It is undeniable fact that Ethiopia took its current shape only after the imperial expansion of the 1880s and 1890s by king Minelik. If any Ethiopian historian or politician believes that most peoples in the south, east and west were part of the current Ethiopia before 1880s and 1890s, he/she must be either hallucinating or in perpetual denial of the reality. Many peoples such as Sidama were never part of the Semitic “assimilation/domination” in the northern part of the country before this particular expansion. However, the main problem this article tries to address is not when and how the peoples of the south, the west and the east became part of the current Ethiopia. The main concern of this article is whether the current political system in the country provides any hope for the future peaceful and harmonious coexistence of various peoples of this country or it is bound to disintegrate it for ever.
The Oromo people, which form the majority ethnic group in the country, have started an organised struggle for freedom, democracy and total liberation from Ethiopia four decades ago. The Sidama people have been engaged in an organized liberation struggle since the early 1970s. Currently, an intensified campaign is under way in the Ogaden region by ethnic Somalis who seek greater political autonomy and or independence from Ethiopia. Thus, the facts on the ground clearly indicate that Ethiopia is not a nation state and a unitary form of government is not a feasible alternative for the country.
3. Ethiopia is a Multinational State
Ethiopia is not a nation state. Ethiopia is a multinational state with various nations that have successfully preserved their language, culture and distinct socio-economic setting. The failure by the Amhara rulers to build an empire state led to a failure in nation building. Due to lack of education, industrialization, urbanization and broader economic development, the majority of the peoples of the country continued to live primitive life style in rural areas with little or no interaction and integration with the rest of the peoples in the country and the rest of the world. Over 80% of the country’s population belongs to subsistence peasant households in rural areas of the country. Many areas are still today inaccessible by any means. These peoples have maintained their distinct socio-cultural and socio-economic set up for centuries albeit serious disruptions by the feudal system in the south, east and west. These peoples strive to maintain and promote their distinct culture, language and social settings. To achieve these, their basic demands are freedom, democracy and above all greater political autonomy.
The advocates of unity in Ethiopia presume that these ethnic and national diversities do not exist and Ethiopia is a country of “one people, one nation and one language”. There is a blatant misrepresentation of the reality. Denial of diversity and wishing away ethnic differences has not come out of genuine love for the rest of the peoples but out of utter lack of respect and out right contempt. By implication, wishing away ethnic diversities in Ethiopia means that the 70% of the non Amhara and non Tigray population of the country are considered to be immaterial, negligible, marginal and even nonexistent. Let me provide an example. It was after the 1991 political change in the country. One morning, an Amhara friend of mine came to the office very angry and frustrated. I asked what had happened to my good old co-worker. I was shocked to hear his response. He told me that the Tigrians (the ethnic group of the people who took power in 1991) were promoting tribalism in the country by allowing the Oromo language to be broadcast on the Ethiopian television. I asked him whether he believed that the Oromos were Ethiopians. He replied that he did but continued that all of us should speak one language, Amharic and lamented further that allowing the Oromo language to be broadcast on TV was promoting tribalism. He was implying that speaking the language of his Amhara tribe would not imply tribalism. But the moment other languages were spoken that would reflect tribalism, what ever that meant.
I learned one important lesson from my good old Amhara friend. There is a serious attitude problem particularly among the educated Amharas. They believe that the Amharas are superior to others in the country, the feeling that was echoed in some writings of their intellectuals. That is the biggest mistake of today’s Amhara elites and the biggest mistake of their political opposition.
I later told my good old Amhara friend that if Ethiopia is to stay together, the Oromo language must be made the second official and working language in the country, if Oromos agree to settle for it, let alone showcasing it on TV for 30 odd minutes. I regret for not being able to learn the Oromo language in schools in Ethiopia. I told my friend that in Canada, the Quebec region speaks French and the rest of the country speaks English. They have two official languages. Both the French speakers and English speakers respect each other as human beings and live in peace and harmony. They developed their country to one of the 7 most industrialised countries in the world. Here are we busy undermining each other and at the bottom of every single country in the world. At the bottom of GDP per capita, at the bottom of human resources development index, at the bottom of trade and industry development index, and most crucially at the bottom of food self sufficiency.
Against this backdrop we hear a constant preaching for unity. Unity for what? Unity for poverty, unity for hunger, unity for underdevelopment. The premise of unity by the aforementioned political opposition is based on the denial of the facts on the ground; the fact that Ethiopia is a multinational state and not a nation state.
The recent crisis in the main opposition party CUD is a reflection of fundamental problem, i.e. wrong political premise of the organization than a mere power struggle.
4. The Current Crisis in the Opposition
The political goal of CUD is de-ethnicisation of the current Ethiopian politic in the sense of undermining the rights and the powers of national groups such as the Oromos, Sidamas and so on. As we have reiterated earlier, the party advocates for unity that does not recognise the diversity of the country’s populations. Their political agenda is based on myth of one nation, one language, and one country rather than the reality of many nations and many languages in one country. The recent rift between some diehard leadership of CUD and two or three a little moderate non Amhara leadership of the organization clearly indicates that there is a conflict between the goals and the structure of the organization.
If the members of the various political organisations that formed CUD were genuine advocates of freedom and democracy and the rule of law in the country, why did they purge out the renowned Kushitic intellectuals and veteran opposition leaders such as Dr. Beyene Petros and Dr. Merara Gudina from their coalition and form an almost exclusively Semitic-cum-Amhara coalition (Kinijit)? Again I am not questioning the right of the people to form any party. However, the political parties should clearly understand the political boundaries they are setting themselves when they decide to limit the participation of other peoples in their organisations.
Worse still, the top leadership of the party has recently indicated that it would not tolerate any remaining non Amhara voice in its leadership. The current crisis of CUD not only made it a mockery of the ruling EPRDF but also stripped it of any credibility what so ever.
Another serious credibility crisis of CUD is its attempt to forge unholy alliance with certain political organisations that stand in stark contradiction to its principles of unity. This refers to the alliance with OLF, SLF, and other more pro-independence political organisations after the 2005 elections. Are these organisations more compatible with the objectives of unity than United Ethiopian Democratic Forces? Can we believe that this alliance is genuine?
The fundamental solution to the Ethiopian political crisis can not be found by political organisation that play hide and seek games. Call a spade a spade. Stop ostentatious and excessive preoccupation with delusive unity. Work for a realistic and long-lasting political solution if the country is to stay united.
.
5. The Best Solution for the Ethiopian Political Crisis is Strong Federalism
Advocating unitary and centralist political system for a country like Ethiopia where the majority of the population is already seeking greater autonomy and/or total independence from the country, is totally unrealistic. Nor is the current weak and pseudo-federal arrangement of EPRDF a viable solution for the crisis facing the country.
The only sustainable solution for the Ethiopian political crisis is a strong federal system where various ethnic groups enjoy full political autonomy to fully decide on their internal affairs. In this , the role of the central government should be limited to international relations, defense and implementation of certain supranational projects. One may ask how it can be possible to create viable ethnic based federal entities in Ethiopia with over 80 ethnic groups. This is a legitimate question. It is neither feasible nor viable to create over 80 ethnic based federal regions in Ethiopia. The federal arrangement should be based on a combination of various objective criteria such as ethnic background, population size, economic potential, geographical proximity and socioeconomic similarities between the peoples in question.
It is a mockery to organize 45 different nations in the south under one pseudo-federal region called SNNPR. The 45 different ethnic groups belong to four major ethnic origins mentioned earlier. The fifth largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, Sidama, is forcefully held in the ghetto of the SNNPR. Sidama qualifies for its own federal state by any standard, be it population size, economic potential, socio-cultural and socio-economic unity of the people, if the Sidama people agree to settle for it. The SNNPR can be appropriately restructured in to 8-10 federal states. The rest of the country can be reorganized accordingly into similar federal systems which will yield no more than 20 strong federal states in the country in total.
To ensure real and sustainable as opposed to delusive unity in Ethiopia, the only alternative is to grant greater political autonomy to the majority of the population by creating strong federal system of government. Even more advanced countries in Western Europe such as Germany, Switzerland, and Austria as well as the emerging market economies in Latin America such as Brazil and Argentina exercise strong federal system, where sub-national states have more power than the national government. And yet they have not disintegrated.
Thus, a credible political opposition in Ethiopia is not the one that wishes away ethnic and cultural diversities and advocates for unrealistic unity in the country nor is it a political organization that uses ethnic cards to score local and global political goals with out genuine recognition of democratic and ethnic rights of the peoples concerned.
6. The Possible Way Ahead for the Opposition
Political opposition that can pose a serious and credible challenge to the current EPRDRF rule in the country must address the following fundamental issuers:
First, work for genuine and strong federal arrangement in the country. Various Ethiopian peoples have already been demanding a greater political autonomy or independence for decades. If any political organisation is concerned with the rights of the majority of the Ethiopian peoples which it strives to rule or lead, it must be able to address their concerns. If any political party tries to dictate what is better for the majority of the population it is bound to fail.
Second, accept openly and honestly that Ethiopia is a multination state. It is not a nation state. The right of various ethnic groups to promote their language and culture must be accepted unequivocally.
Third, a country wide political party should include key leadership members of major ethnic groups: Oromo, Amhara, Tigray, Ogadenis, Sidama, Hadiya, Wolayita, Afar Gumuz and so on. This is the case in many politically stable and democratic countries of the world. One or two leadership members for a political party dominated by one ethnic group will not make it different from an ethnic liberation organisation. Otherwise, such political parties will end up as a minority ethnic and regional parties which will never pose a serious and credible threat to EPRDF. In the meantime regions such as Oganden may split up from the country paving the way for further disintegration of the country.
Finally, appreciate EPRDF’s strengths. EPRDF is a much clever political party compared to CUD and UEDF. EPRDF at least pays leap services to ethnic rights and ethnic diversities in the country. It does not openly advocate the delusive concept of one nation, one language and one country, although it believes in it. A political organisation that strives to take the majority of the Ethiopian peoples an inch backward from what they have achieved under EPRDF will never be able to enjoy popular support and will never be able to rule the country peacefully. Remember that EPRDF was able to fabricate its own surrogate representatives of the entire ethnic groups in the country. These surrogates honestly believe that the demands of their peoples have fully been answered by EPRDF. Therefore, they are bound to fully back the party in its future elections. This is not a myth. It is a reality. Thus, given the current crisis of credibility by the major political opposition and the utter weaknesses of other opposition parties, EPRDF would easily outmanoeuvre the opposition and will win so many elections to come. I do not believe that HR2003 alone would bring a miracle! As it stands at present, there is no credible political alternative to a noncredible ruling party in Ethiopia.
No comments:
Post a Comment