By Addissu Admas
More than fifty years have passed since the start of the Ethiopian Revolution that ended imperial autocracy. Yet, we have now lived through five decades trading one form of autocracy for another, which are all at their core not much different from the imperial autocracy.
Under Atse Haile Selassie I, there were no official political parties. For that matter, not even political factions. To be exact there were pro-modernization side vs traditionalists. However, none of them fancied changing the status quo. Overall, the imperial project was to lay down the rudimentary structures of modernity initiated by Atse Theodros II and Atse Menelik II. Modern Ethiopian intellectuals have been, in my opinion, rather ungenerous and unfair in their appraisal of these monarchs. Their criticisms have often been anachronistic, and never took into account the background of these monarchs, the mentality of their powerful subordinates and the general historical circumstances of the people. If these emperors were unapologetic autocrats, it is primarily because they were profoundly convinced that there could be no other way of governing, and because their way was, as they saw it, the natural and God-willed way. This is not far removed, as one may be tempted to believe, from how King Charles of Britain sees his position: his coronation did not take place in parliament or on the town square, but in Church! Even though his powers have been diminished greatly since medieval times, and he cannot be considered an autocrat in any meaningful way, he nevertheless continues to enjoy certain powers and privileges that find some justification in religion. In effect, British monarchy is precisely at this point in history because of the constant evolution of its institutions. The Ethiopian monarchy never had the chance to evolve as the British or Japanese. The point I insist on making here is that a more balanced assessment of Atse Haile Selassie’s reign might be in order.
However, no such revision should be granted to those who followed Atse Haile Selassie I. All three of them, namely Mengistu Haile-Mariam, Meles Zenawi and Abiy Ahmed, are all liable to be judged harshly by history, as they should since they have done little to nothing to enhance, promote and solidify the vital institutions of the Ethiopian state. By these I mean the legislative, the judiciary and the press being among the most essential. Their only consuming concern has been and remains the maintenance and expansion of their individual powers.
What defines a statesman is not the foundation of a party, the creation of a formidable defense force, the maintenance of the status quo in the name of peace and giving while semblance of good governance, embellishing the cities, etc.…The real mark of a statesmanship is wherein the leader is intent at re-enforcing, solidifying and empowering the institutions of the state. In other words, the foundational elements that will allow the country to stabilize, develop and thrive through good and bad times.
To be sure, what has been holding Ethiopia together has not been “our strongmen”, but the will of the people. When the day comes – and it is approaching fast – that such a will is eroded to the point of no return, Ethiopia as we know her today, will cease to exist. What can and will preserve the bond of our coexistence can no longer be our sentimental appeal to Ethiopiawinet. Nor a supremely powerful strongman. This idea or sentiment may have had currency at one point or another, but it holds none today and is therefore insufficient to weather the present crisis.
The notion that another strongman (or woman) with a vast defense force should be able to keep the country together is not only a deranged idea, but one that can turn the country into a failed state. We need to get rid of the conscious or unconscious idea that Ethiopia needs a messianic figure to pull us out of our present predicament as futile and misguided. This messianism should be as good as dead!
What Ethiopia needs above all other things is a thoroughly revised or newly written constitution that will truly guarantee the power and independence of the legislative and judiciary branches of government. As everyone is aware, what we have had so far are a bicameral parliament and a judiciary completely at the mercy of the executive, more precisely the head of state, in the case of Mengistu H. Mariam, or the prime minister, in the case of Meles Zenawi and Abiy Ahmed. What the legislative and judiciary have done so far is to simply submit to the will of the chief executive power and rubber stamp all his decisions or the laws emanating from his office. Throughout these fifty years the independence of these two branches have only existed on paper, and the powers of the supposedly elected officials and judges have been vacuous.
The true reason why Ethiopia is so divided today is not solely because of tribalism, which is unfortunately real, persistent and painful, but most importantly it is because of our inability to rid ourselves of an inveterate autocracy, autocratic mentality, and the powerlessness of the other branches of government. Power is so concentrated in the center, that all the powers inscribed in the constitution for the other components of government are essentially dead letters. I am convinced that the more power is distributed proportionally among the various branches of government, and essential institutions of the state, and between the federal and regional powers, the more stability, i.e. the very condition for peace and a chance for development will arise.
When Ethiopians of all ethnicities become convinced that the institutions of the state not only respect their rights, but deliberately work towards the common good, they will also lose all rationale to go their lonely way.
What Ethiopia needs, contrary to what some continue to maintain, is not more centralization, but actually real and effective decentralization. Decisions coming more from the periphery to the center, rather than the other way around. Rather than heading towards a tight federation, Ethiopia must move towards a looser confederation. This means granting a more robust sovereignty and independence to regional states than what the current constitution and practice permit. The objective should not be to divide up the country as such, but to instill the sentiment that Ethiopians choose unity willingly and not by force.
The solution to Ethiopia’ s present disarray does not come from a world historical figure, as we consciously or unconsciously have been hoping for a very long time. If indeed such a person should arise, our hope should only be that he or she has the foresight not to concentrate power into his/her own hand, but to empower the other branches of government and the various institutions of the state. And to make them so impervious to all human and nature made crises, that Ethiopia can survive and thrive for the foreseeable future.
Editor’s note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
__
Support Borkena : https://borkena.com/2025/01/09/support-borkena-platform/
Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena
Like borkena on Facebook
Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory
Join the conversation. Follow us on X (Formerly Twitter) @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian News updates regularly. Subscribe to YouTube channel To share information or for submission, send e-mail to info@borkena.com