Ethiopia is a country in the African continent with a population of 77 million (July 01, 2007 est.) and a total area of 1.1 million sq km. The country has nine ethno-linguistically based states and two self governing city administrations. By area the largest state (unit) is Oromia (284,537.84 sq km) and the smallest is Harari (333.94 sq.km). Similarly the largest state in terms of population is also Oromia with 29 million while Harari has the smallest population of 198,980.
An article by Merera Gudina titled Contradictory Interpretations of Ethiopian History: The Need for New Consensus,” published in David Turton edited book “Ethnic Federalism”, seems very relevant to present Nepal. In the article the author describes contradictory interpretations of competing ethnic elites and their implications for the democratization of the Ethiopian state and for the future of Ethiopia’s experiment in ethnic federalism.
The author identifies three contradictory historical perspectives of the competing elites: the “nation-building perspective”, the “national oppression perspective” and the “colonization perspective”. The difference among the three lies in the way each interprets historical events that gave birth to modern Ethiopia. The differences in the characterization of historical process range from ‘reunification and unification’ to ‘expansion’ to ‘colonization’. Those who see little injustice in the actions of the ‘empire-builders’ term ‘empire building’ as ‘reunification’. The ‘expansion’ perspective is generally held by the left-oriented Marxist intelligentsia. They recognize the injustices done to many ethnic-linguistic groups during expansion but want to find solutions within Ethiopia.
But those who hold ‘colonial thesis’ argue for a ‘separatist political agenda’ as the only solution to the political problem.
The ‘nation-building’ or ‘empire building’ or ‘reunification or unification’ was begun in 1850’s by force and was completed by the end of the century, under Menelek II. The result was a multi-ethnic Ethiopian polity. But this came at the cost of deepened ethnic and religious inequalities. The politico-economic and socio-cultural domination by one group was portrayed as the authentic history of the whole country. They believed that the present day Ethiopia would have been unthinkable without the imposition of cultural, linguistic and religious values of one ethnic group over all others. This was made possible under Menelek II. They thought of themselves as authentic representatives of indivisible Ethiopian ‘nation’. It is even considered ‘un-Ethiopian’ to argue for the recognition of the rights of marginalized ethnic groups.
Although supporters of nation-building thesis do not come from a single ethnic group, the Amahara elites are dominant amongst them. The ‘expansion’ or ‘national oppression’ thesis visualizes one oppressor nation and several oppressed nations and nationalities. The Amahara nation was identified as the oppressor and other nations, nationalities and ethno-linguistic groups as politically and economically marginalized and culturally and linguistically dominated.
Those who held the oppression thesis expressed their feeling very strongly, shocking the majority brought up with the idea of ‘one Ethiopia one destiny’. One of the student leaders would write in a local article: “To be a genuine Ethiopian, one has to speak Amharic, to listen to Amharic music, to accept Amharic-Tigray religion……., and to wear Amhara-Tigre shamma in international conference. In some cases, to be an ‘Ethiopian’, you will even have to change your name. In short, to be an Ethiopian, you will have to wear an Amharic mask”. From this point on recognition of the right of Ethiopian nations and nationalities to self determination (including and up to secession) became a vogue among political activists.
Eritrea nationalist had consistently argued that the Ethiopian rule over it was colonial. Pan-Ethiopians regarded Eritrea as part of historical Ethiopia and justified reunification of Eritrea with the ‘mother land’. The issue was settled in May 1991 after a long and bloody 30 years of war. It was then that Eritrea finally seceded.
Two other important groups, part of the Oromolite as well as the Ethiopian Somalis of Ogaden in the south had advanced colonial thesis; but a new force among them has also adopted the ‘national oppression’ thesis. Contradictory perspectives among Oromo elites will probably be finally settled on the democratization of Ethiopian polity.
The contradictory historical perspectives of the competing elites have, according to the author, hindered the emergence of consensus, have sapped their political will for consensus and have pitted one ethnic group against another.
The elites, according to the author, “have suffered from blurred vision regarding larger societal goals, have sought hegemonic control of the polity and, above all, have failed to learn from the past mistakes.” The author argues that the need is for behavioral change on the part of today’s political elites and serious soul-searching. To emerge from the present impasse the author suggests abandoning the hegemonic aspirations of the ruling elites and right of secession by certain other elites.
At present, the subscribers to the nation-building thesis are no longer dominant in the country. This was the reason that Ethiopia in 1995 decided to adopt a federal model with the aim of creating a country of equal ‘nations, nationalities, and peoples’, and to put to an end the authoritarian rule by democratizing the Ethiopian state and society.
The author is a member of the CA Committee on State Restructuring
Related story
Trapped in silence: Nepal’s deaf community struggles without in...
