Ali Belew
Part 1
“It is too late for anyone to deny that most of the nations in Africa have made the decision to liberate themselves from the confines of the Ethiopian empire.”
“The assimilated like me have taken longer to see this since we had an important role to play as glue that holds the empire together.”
“The Amharas should organize themselves. They can organize themselves as Ethiopians if they want, but they must realize the others are not Ethiopians. Hordofa Loltu, 1983”
“I want Tagaru youth not to say I want to die for my country; what is wrong with saying, I want to live for my country. Getachew Reda. 2025”
“It is time to have a paradigm shift on our political thought process. Politics in Ethiopia has to start with the recognition of national interest, sovereignty and territorial integrity. These are non-negotiable issues. Politics have to focus on achieving political power for the purpose of advancing the general interest of the country. Berhanu Nega – 2025”
I selected the three quotes for a reason. They are a distillation of the phases of national liberation movement politics. Hordofa Lotu articulates the origin of the national liberation politics in Ethiopia. Ethiopia was a colonial state like England, France, and Belgium. The Ethiopian state conquered “nations and nationalities” as it expanded south in the 19th century and incorporated other people. Like Kenya, Nigeria and Ghana, the “nations” in Ethiopia wanted independence. To achieve this goal, they started national liberation struggles which continue unabated to this day. Monarchy or republic, Ethiopia is an empire.
The Ethiopian Student Movement adopted this proposition without much deliberation. True, there was vigorous intellectual debate among a small cadre of foreign educated scholars, but in Ethiopia itself, most of the intellectual class subscribed to the proposition without a discussion appropriate to such a strategic issue. Those who adopted it, were not so much concerned about the factual basis of the proposition, but of its political value to bring about a democratic socialist change in Ethiopia.
The ESM saw the national question as part of the democratic question of the “Ethiopian peoples’ struggle.” By combining the national question with a struggle to overthrow the imperial regime, the ESM sought to use the national question’s mobilizing power while controlling the impulse to break up the Ethiopian State into different nations and nationalities. It understood that the breakup of Ethiopia was not a desirable outcome. What it wanted to do was transform this proposition into one that is based on class struggle. This gives the different nations more power to get rid of the imperial state. The ESM accepted that the Ethiopian state was dominated by the “Amhara nation.” The Oromo, the Tigray, the Afar, the Somali, etc. deserve to be equal to the Amhara. But, at the end of the day, the Ethiopian State will remain a nation made of nations with the constituent parts exercising their language and expressing their culture. While they theoretically accepted the right of nations to secede if they wanted, they did not anticipate the nations would exercise this right when the value of cooperative nations under Ethiopia was more beneficial than what each could achieve independent of each other. Secession’s practicality in a country made of 80 different ethnic groups that have culturally and by blood intermixed over hundreds of years of migration into different areas of the country, was in doubt. Separation would create insurmountable problems. The idea of a nation of nations and secession was the domain of elites. Fo the people in general, and peasants in particular, separate states or independence made no sense. They could not see it as affecting their lives in any manner or shape. For the cosmopolitan left who saw themselves as internationalists, the risk of internecine war that could follow was more dangerous.
Getachew Reda’s statement comes from his lived experience as the younger leader of the Tigray national liberation movement. He lived the full cycle of national liberation politics and came to the realization that continuous conflict waged on behalf of one nation or another is a futile exercise. The Tigray people have lived in Ethiopia as subjects of the Monarchy (like the rest); they have waged a war to “liberate” themselves and others and have come to power and wielded it for 30 years. The common refrain was that their national liberation movement – the most successful of all – had liberated not only Tigray, but other nations in Ethiopia for which the others should be grateful. Instead, the other nations saw Tigray as an oppressor nation and revolted, ushering in a dangerous political period for Tigray and Ethiopia. The movement led by its vanguard leadership party struck back when it lost power. The result was one of the deadliest civil wars in Ethiopia’s history. The Ethiopian people suffered, but the suffering of Tigary was on a different order of magnitude. For what? TPLF is now struggling to explain this to the people, but the average Tegaru is not buying it. Getachew Reda has the courage to admit what happened during the two years of war served no one, least of all the people of Tigray. He wanted to change the mentality of the fighters who see war as something of a virtue separate from the interest of the people. He questions the ethos of the entire national liberation enterprise. What is wrong with people wanting to live in a peaceful Ethiopia where the Tegaru is equal to others, can travel, and trade freely and marry as they had done from time immemorial. No wonder, there is growing nostalgia for Ethiopia under Haile Selassie, even among the people of the “oppressed.”
Birhanu’s statement points to a different direction of politics. This represents a significant departure from previous practices and establishes a new foundation for political contestation. It is true politics is, even when there is no kinetic action involved, a rough contact sport. As practiced in Ethiopia, it is full of deception, conspiracy, intrigue, insult, character assassination, etc. Politics in the era of social media is laden with conflict. Because of this, it attracts some of the worst of human beings: the self-centered, the megalomaniac, the attention seeker, the sociopath, the demagogue, etc. Even if you take out the deadly passion that goes with national liberation and ethnic politics, it still could be harmful and even occasionally violent. In this scenario, politics is much more productive than the sure outcome of endless conflict that follows national liberation politics. But, if politicians can be convinced to accept that Ethiopia has a national interest that can be debated, but its sovereignty and territorial integrity are not bargaining chips, as Berhanu envisions, it is a step forward. Politicians must avoid the maxim that the enemy of the government that I object to is my friend whether or not my country’s interest is served. The alternative is a slippery slope. Realistically, this does not happen in one or two election cycles; it takes hardwork and determination and a good faith effort on the part of the government to facilitate it. But there is no alternative to normalizing and civilizing our political contest. For us, Ethiopians, this is a new thinking that defies our historical and lived experience of the last 50 years. It is nothing short of revolutionary outlook, but political engagement that is recommended by Birhanu holds the future for us.
****
After 50 years of cyclical war over politics characterized by liberation movements, it is time to take stock of this form of politics that is unique to Ethiopia. “National Liberation” movements are unique to Ethiopia. Our neighbor, Kenya, consists of different tribes – in our political lexicon – ethnic groups, but never have their politics evolved into liberation movements. Neither the Kikuyu nor the Luhya have alleged national oppression and engaged in liberation politics. It is true that during election times, tribal violence flares up. Often many people die in clashes. But none of the groups have organized an armed movement to work toward secession. Sudan is now engulfed in a bitter civil war that may lead to the further breakup of the country, but the civil war started by armed groups that have sworn allegiance to two different men, is not a national movement struggle. Of course, South Sudan has broken away from Sudan, but that was as much the result of foreign interference as it was a fight by the political and military elite of the South who saw the benefit to be had by leading their own country. Now, there is a civil war within the tribes. South Sudan is a failed state. Independence has not been a panacea. Western interest in South Sudan that was high during the war has now ebbed. The country is left to its own devices to sort out its tribal mess. Even the independence of Eritrea is not a run-away success falling far short of the promise of independence that Eritreans fought for. Nowadays, nobody would deny that Eritreans enjoyed a privileged status in Ethiopia in terms of economic power, social status, but opted for independence anyway. Independence brought neither economic progress nor political freedom. Instead, it has resulted in the exodus of its industrious youth to the neighboring countries, the Middle East and the West. Today, Eritrea exists by remittances sent by its people who migrated outside. Eritrea has remained frozen in time. It is referred to as a hermit republic.
National liberation wars conducted to right the wrong that the “aggrieved nation” believes it has been subjected to, has a checkered history. Here we are using the term “nation” liberally. We can debate forever whether the Amhara, or the Oromo or even the Tigray are a nation, but such debate is an academic exercise. For the ethnic nationalists, the concept of Tigray, Oromo, Amhara, etc. nation is not up for debate. They have shaded precious blood to make it a reality and will not easily give it up.
All the movements see themselves as victims. Victimhood is the common trait. The Amhara nationalist brings up the victimhood of the Amhara people in the post Derg era. The Amhara people are victims of the constitution; of the redrawing of the federal ethnic map; denial of rights, etc. All look back to the past to reiterate their victimhood. Depending on the national movement, they go back to the 19th century to document the start of their victimhood. Now, the Amhara wants to go even further into history to document their victimhood status: The Oromo expansion to the center and North including the military conquest of Gragn Mohammed are cited as the beginning of the suffering of Amhara people. Suffering, unjust rules are the lot of Ethiopian peasantry regardless of their ethnic affiliation, but for the nationalists, their own suffering takes more precedence.
Because they are trying to correct the wrongs of the past, there can’t be a common understanding of the alleged facts. What goes on for history is what was taught to their activists and fighters. The teaching was not a rational discourse, but slanted propaganda. The goal was not historical accuracy, but the motivation of their fighters and activists. Their national liberation was justified, self-righteous, and revengeful. Our differences, rather than the common traits among Ethiopians are emphasized with a view to showing that they are a different society, a distinct people, with their own unique culture and history. It would not serve their purpose to illuminate that the migration of people, the mixing of culture and blood through liberal intermarriage had strengthened our common humanity as Ethiopians. The emergence of common identity forged in the fight against Italian invasion are all inconvenient facts that will be a disservice to their sacred cause. Most people have no visible interest in these issues. They want to live, work, marry, worship and have a dignified burial.
When we say the ESM set the political agenda for the last half century, we also mean the national liberation politics is the product of ESM. It has been taken as an article of faith that the ESM is a positive force and its leaders are heroic figures. The leaders are often seen as mythological figures who shaded their interests to liberate their people. Ostensibly, the changes that have occurred to the country are seen as a positive movement of history. The ESM has since split into factions. The “national-question-is-the primary-issue- faction” has become the most consequential. The “class-issue-is- the primary-conflict” faction as advocated by the cosmopolitan left has been decisively defeated. Generally, there is an agreement that the land reform was both democratic and progressive and made economic sense. After that, the consensus breaks down. The Derg implemented the land reform, but because it did not liberate the “oppressed nations”, it is often seen as a retrogressive force. Its rule was marred by massive bloodshed – some of its own making. It also faced a reinvigorated national liberation force spearheaded by the Eritrean People’s Liberation front which formed an unholy alliance with TPLF and OLF. While the Derg saw itself as socialist and progressive aligned with the socialist bloc, its alliance did not bear fruit, nor did it save it from losing power with devastating consequences for Ethiopia. Eritrea became independent and Ethiopia lost its access to the sea.
The TPLF-led takeover of Ethiopia was the triumph of national liberation politics, but its downfall showed even success in “liberating oppressed nations” did not save its rule. TPLF was seen as representing an oppressive nation. “The Tigray nation replaced the Amhara nation as the oppressor” goes the conventional thinking of the ethnic nationalist. I repeat this profoundly flawed statement to show the absurdity of the national liberation movements. TPLF’s own politics was used against it to bring it down. What is clear now is that its rule bred resentment among others. Even worse is that the war that was unleashed to bring it back to power, resulted in one of the most destructive periods in Ethiopian history. The result was the suffering of Tigray people, who it can’t be said benefited from the political, military and economic domination of TPLF over Ethiopia. In Tigray, one could say that the national liberation politics failed spectacularly leaving the people worse off than they were before they undertook a “national liberation war.” The war brought enormous benefit to a class of Tegaru elite in and outside the country. But the majority of Tegaru live in the same grinding poverty that they lived under before TPLF. They bore the cost of the war in human terms, but they did not share in the benefit of TPLF dominance.
For the TPLF cadres, their position in Ethiopia after their party was sidelined in 2018 was unacceptable. If you have grown up believing that TPLF represents the gritty determination of Tigray youth that scaled the mountains of Ethiopia and took power, your situation in Ethiopia after 2018 becomes untenable. If you believe that you came to power having prevailed over Africa’s largest army, how can you then accept the loss of power through bureaucratic infighting? Your self-perception is reinforced by a cadre of leaders among all ethnic groups that have come to treat you as invincible. Therefore, your exile from the federal seat of power becomes hard to accept. It does not comport with your sense of heroism.
This is both the strength and weakness of ethnic nationalism. You entertain unshakable belief in your society’s superiority over others. Your ethnic nation is more resilient, more industrious, more intelligent, with superior organization of society. You believe that you are destined to rule. You believe that you saved Ethiopia from disintegration. You believed that you brought sustained double-digit growth of the economy that Ethiopia has never seen before. You believe your leadership is indispensable without which Ethiopia will not last. The Oromos are too disorganized and lacking in historical experience to take your place. The Amharas are too dysfunctional, the Somalis too suspect, the Afars too small, etc. Only Tigray has the human capacity to lead the country, so you tell yourself. Does it surprise us then that you will initiate the most destructive civil war in Ethiopia’s history. Your weakness is your blind faith in your own inviolability and your failure to accept that the other Ethiopians are as capable. Whatever strength you believe you have, exists in others. Had you recognized that you were not superior to others, you might have avoided creating the conditions that foster resentment among your peers.
This is the logical outcome of the national liberation movement; Victory elevates your sense of superiority and gives you a false sense of security.
To be continued…
Editor’s Note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
__
Subscribe : https://borkena.com/subscribe-borkena/
Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena
Like borkena on Facebook
Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory Business Listing Toronto
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