Jawar Mohammed, the Politics of Power and the Betrayal of Ethiopia’s Shared Future
by Shanko Dache
Introduction: When Ethnic Politics Becomes an Instrument of the Powerful
The tragedy of Ethiopia’s politics is not that society is split between different interpretations of history, geography, and the allocation of political power. Instead, it is a tragedy that political elites have used these differences to enhance their narrow interests.
Ordinary Ethiopians have paid a high price for the ethnic politicization of the country. Shared economic interests, citizenship, and the desire for peace and stability have been sacrificed on the altar of competing ethnic groups. Political elites have profited from the ethnic sentiments of the masses.
Jawar Mohammed serves as a reminder of this central problem of Ethiopian politics. His ambiguous position on the rise of a new anti-government coalition, his ambiguous rhetoric around the current regime, and his problematic position as an Oromo nationalist who refuses to endorse a new opposition force pose troubling questions about his commitment to peace and stability.
The central issue is whether the competition between Ethiopia’s ethnic political options is designed to liberate the masses from the domination of others or whether it serves to advance the interests of one ethnic group over another.
Jawar Mohammed’s conduct makes him a useful case study in the politics of Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism.
1. Ethnic Federalism: A Framework for Exploitation and Advancement
Ethnic federalism was supposed to be a response to Ethiopia’s history of marginalization of its ethnic groups. It was designed to end decades of oppression and facilitate the sharing of political power among Ethiopia’s many ethnicities.
The desire to correct past injustices is reasonable enough. So too is the desire to see Ethiopia develop a political system that respects the diversity of its peoples and allows them to develop their unique languages, cultures, and traditions. However, it is impossible to separate identity based on ethnicity from competition for power and privilege.
When ethnicity defines political power, control over capital, and territorial integrity, citizenship turns into a zero-sum game. The competition between ethnic groups for dominance takes center stage. Other critical issues such as jobs, education, and freedom of expression take a backseat.
Under ethnic federalism, politicians use the ethnic sentiments of the masses to consolidate their power. They benefit immensely from the distrust and resentment between Ethiopia’s ethnic groups. They perpetuate divisions and advance their narrow interests under the cover of advancing their ethnic group’s interests.
The grievances of ethnic groups may very well be legitimate, but so are the grievances of the victimized groups who have suffered under ethnic federalism.
Prominent politicians who advance the narrative of ethnic victimization benefit greatly from the resulting ethnic tensions. They profit from keeping their own ethnic group under their control and advance their interests at the expense of others.
Ordinary Ethiopians have few options when it comes to advancing their socio-economic interests. They must rely on politicized ethnic groups to advance their interests. These groups, in turn, advance their own interests by convincing the masses that they are the best possible option.
Ethnic federalism does not necessarily lead to such an outcome, but it certainly makes it easier.
2. The Politics of Oromo Supremacy: Why Some Ethiopians Want to Make Others Suffer
The Oromo people are the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia. Consequently, they have significant political clout. This is hardly surprising given the huge body of historical evidence showing that minority ethnic groups in Ethiopia have suffered disproportionately from the country’s politics.
As Ethiopia transitions to democracy, all Ethiopians must embrace democratic values, respect the rule of law, and acknowledge the sovereignty of Ethiopia’s territorial integrity.
However, this does not mean that any ethnic group has an absolute right to dominate the system and establish hegemony over other ethnic groups.
Some politicians will benefit immensely from ensuring that Ethiopia continues to be dominated by one ethnic group. Ethnic federalism allows these politicians to continue to dominate the system and advance their narrow interests under the cover of ethnic victimization.
For example:
• Many ethnic-based politicians have extensive financial and institutional resources at their disposal.
• They will benefit disproportionately from retaining their dominant position.
• A large ethnic group like the Oromo has more options when it comes to distributing these rewards.
• They can employ ethnic loyalty as a mechanism for shielding themselves from scrutiny.
• Using ethnic loyalty as a tool for suppressing dissent helps them to retain power.
• Ethnic loyalty discourages competition from other ethnic groups.
• Ethnic tension distracts ordinary citizens from pressing politicians to deliver on critical issues such as jobs and education.
• Ethnic tension encourages ordinary Ethiopians to see matters from the perspective of one ethnic group and advance its interests at the expense of all Ethiopians.
These tactics are not unique to the Oromo elites. Other ethnic elites also want to advance their interests by polarizing Ethiopia on ethnic lines.
Oromo politicians should acknowledge that their ethnic group does not have a permanent birthright to lead Ethiopia. They should recognize that Ethiopians from other ethnic groups are also committed to developing Ethiopia and advancing the interests of all Ethiopians.
It is entirely legitimate for the Oromo people to demand respect and due recognition. However, they must acknowledge that all Ethiopians, including members of other ethnic groups, have an equal right to self-determination and to pursue their interests through democratic process. It is entirely reasonable for members of all ethnic groups to demand that politicians representing other ethnic groups refrain from advancing their narrow interests.
The Oromo people are not a monolith. There are many different viewpoints within the Oromo community. Some advocate for Oromo nationalism while others espouse a more civic-minded view of Ethiopia. There are also those who believe that the Oromo should have a larger share of political power than stipulated in the current ethnic federalism framework.
Consequently, it is entirely hypocritical for any Oromo nationalist to assume that his or her ethnic group has an absolute birthright to dominate Ethiopia.
3. Jawar Mohammed and the Inconsistency of Opposition
Jawar Mohammed became a household name in the Oromo ethnic region after he played a leading role in mobilizing Oromo’s youth. He was a prominent Oromo nationalist and vocal critic of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front. He was also one of the most influential voices encouraging Oromos to oppose the country’s political establishment.
His position as a leading Oromo nationalist made him a natural choice to rally Oromo support when a new anti-government coalition was formed. However, he seemed particularly reluctant to endorse this coalition.
Questions are being asked about his position and whether it reflects a change in his political stance. Was his reluctance to endorse the new anti-government coalition a manifestation of disloyalty to the Oromo people?
It is entirely legitimate for politicians to review their positions and change their minds when circumstances change. Consequently, I am not suggesting that Jawar Mohammed’s criticism of the new anti-government coalition demonstrates any inherent inconsistency in his political philosophy.
I believe that criticism of the new anti-government coalition should be carefully considered in light of the following factors:
1. To what extent can the criticism be interpreted as an attempt to advance the interests of ordinary Ethiopians?
2. To what extent does criticism reflect a commitment to democratic values?
3. To what extent can the criticism be used to advance the interests of Jawar Mohammed’s political allies?
These issues are discussed in detail below.
Ethiopia’s political transition has been complicated by the fact that many political elites continue to pursue narrow self-interests. Consequently, every political action by any political figure must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether it serves the interests of ordinary Ethiopians.
Criticism of the new anti-government coalition should be considered in this context. For example, can it be used as an excuse to weaken the anti-government opposition? Does it provide an opportunity to advance the political interests of Jawar Mohammed’s allies?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then criticism of the new anti-government coalition is an irresponsible act that does not advance the interests of ordinary Ethiopians.
Jawar Mohammed has the right to oppose the new anti-government coalition if he believes it will not maximize Ethiopia’s national interests. However, he must be able to explain precisely what he means by his criticism. In other words, his arguments must be based on principles designed to advance the national interests of all Ethiopians. He must demonstrate that he understands why criticism of the new anti-government coalition will not advance Ethiopia’s interests.
4. The New Coalition and the Insecurity of Ethnic-Based Politicians
The rise of a new anti-government coalition has created conflicting insecurities for many politicians. Some members of political parties that are not represented in this coalition feel insecure because they believe they will be unable to exert sufficient influence on the upcoming political transition.
On the other hand, ethnic-based politicians feel insecure because a coalition that unites different ethnic groups under the banner of fighting the establishment threatens their dominance.
A new anti-establishment coalition can encourage unity among Ethiopia’s different ethnic groups. This can have a profoundly destabilizing effect on ethnic-based politicians who derive their power from exploiting ethnic divisions.
Ethnic-based politicians often advance their narrow interests at the expense of all Ethiopians. They benefit enormously from polarizing Ethiopia on ethnic lines. Consequently, uniting Ethiopia’s ethnic groups under one coalition threatens their existence.
This explains why ethnic-based politicians such as Jawar Mohammed are so threatened by the new anti-establishment coalition.
A new anti-establishment coalition that unites Ethiopia’s ethnic groups is a good thing. It is normal for Ethiopians to want to protect their ethnic groups and advance their interests. However, this does not give ethnic-based politicians the right to use their ethnic groups as tools for advancing their narrow interests.
The interests of all Ethiopians must be advanced, not just those of one ethnic group. This is why it makes sense for Ethiopia’s ethnic groups to unite under one coalition in order to maximize their chances of achieving their collective goals.
5. Political Opportunism, Double Standards, and the Danger of Ethnic Nationalism
One of the most dangerous aspects of ethnic nationalism is that it allows politicians to engage in double-standard behavior. For example, the same politician who accuses the establishment of committing crimes may refuse to condemn similar – if not worse – crimes committed by his own allies. The same politician will demand accountability from the establishment but not from his own people.
A responsible politician cannot engage in such blatantly opportunistic behavior. He must apply consistent standards when judging the actions and intentions of his allies and opponents.
This is particularly important in Ethiopia, where there is a need for accountability for atrocities committed on all sides. There is no justification for refusing to condemn the killing of civilians, the bombing of villages, the targeting of religious sites, and the destruction of businesses merely because these acts were committed by politicians representing ethnic groups that support one’s own ethnic group.
A responsible politician must acknowledge that the suffering of civilians is the most important consideration in any political conflict. He must condemn all acts of violence and destruction committed on all sides.
It is entirely legitimate for ethnic-based politicians to condemn the politicization of Ethiopia on ethnic lines. However, they must apply consistent standards and hold all political actors – including their own allies – accountable for their actions.
6. The Cost: Ordinary Ethiopians Pay a Staggering Price
Ordinary Ethiopians pay the price for the incompetence and self-centeredness of Ethiopia’s political elites. Families are torn apart when entire communities are forced to relocate. Children cannot attend school when their lives are at risk. Businesses cannot operate normally when communities are forced to reside in designated areas. Ordinary Ethiopians cannot go about their daily lives without risking injury or death. They cannot pursue their ambitions and aspirations without coming into conflict with their neighbors.
The cost is also measured in Ethiopia’s huge economic losses. Political instability discourages economic investment and destroys livelihoods. Ordinary Ethiopians suffer the most when political elites prioritize their narrow interests over the well-being of all Ethiopians.
Ethnic-based politicians encourage ordinary Ethiopians to view their country through an ethnic lens. This fuels distrust between different ethnic groups and makes it extremely difficult to achieve political stability.
Ethiopians from different ethnic groups live side by side, work together, and interact with each other on a daily basis. Unfortunately, they are also prone to distrust and suspicion because distrust has been manufactured and promoted by political elites.
There is no benefit to ordinary Ethiopians deriving pleasure from the suffering of members of other ethnic groups. On the contrary, it is important for Ethiopians from all walks of life to acknowledge the suffering of all Ethiopians.
It is normal for Ethiopians to want to protect their ethnic groups and advance their interests. However, this does not give ethnic-based politicians the right to use ordinary Ethiopians as pawns in their power games.
Ordinary Ethiopians from all ethnic groups deserve an opportunity to lead. Ordinary Ethiopians from all ethnic groups are concerned about Ethiopia’s economic performance, unemployment, inflation, the provision of quality education and healthcare, and political instability.
Consequently, political elites who continue to pursue ethnic-based politics must answer the following questions:
1. What jobs have been created?
2. What economic opportunities have been opened up?
3. Are ordinary Ethiopians safer?
4. Are Ethiopians from all ethnic groups are free to pursue their ambitions?
5. Are ordinary Ethiopians able to live their lives without being harassed?
6. Can ordinary Ethiopians criticize government officials and hold them accountable?
7. Oromo Rights and Ethiopian Unity Are Not Mutually Exclusive
A serious discussion of Ethiopia’s future cannot take place without reference to the legitimate rights of the Oromo people. The Oromo people want their rights as a nationality to be respected.
However, it is important to acknowledge that these rights cannot be fulfilled within the framework of a system that promotes ethnic federalism based on the domination of other ethnic groups. Consequently, it is necessary to develop an appropriate legal and institutional framework that ensures Ethiopia’s territorial integrity while guaranteeing the rights of every ethnic group to develop its unique cultural identity.
This principle must apply to all Ethiopia’s ethnic groups. The Amhara people, for example, have the right to promote and protect their unique cultural identity. The same applies to the Tigrayan, Somali, Afar, Kembatta, and Gurage peoples.
It is entirely legitimate for members of all ethnic groups to pursue their political and economic interests. However, it is important for all Ethiopians to recognize that none of these interests can be advanced through ethnic polarization.
Ethiopia needs a political system in which every Ethiopian – regardless of ethnicity – has an equal opportunity to serve as head of state, take up a position in Parliament, or pursue a career in the civil service.
It is also necessary to develop a legal and institutional framework that enables Ethiopia to function as a cohesive union. This includes establishing independent judiciaries, professional and accountable security forces, and a comprehensive system of checks and balances that prevents any one ethnic group from dominating the system.
A responsible politician must understand that he cannot sacrifice Ethiopia’s territorial integrity for the sake of advancing the interests of one ethnic group. Likewise, he cannot sacrifice the economic well-being of all Ethiopians for the sake of maximizing the share of wealth that belongs to his own ethnic group.
He must also understand that criticism of his ethnic group is not an attack on the entire ethnic group.
7. Emotional Conduct, Political Judgment, and Personal Observations
In addition to Jawar Mohammed’s politics, I have certain concerns about his conduct, both in terms of being excessively emotional and not taking responsibility for potential consequences.
To me, this suggests that this man is not fit to carry the responsibility of leadership, as he cannot control some of his impulses and actions. To be able to lead the people, one has to be able to ignore criticism and accept consequences and responsibilities for their actions.
A politician must also be able to distinguish between their own feelings and what is best for the country. This means accepting mistakes and responding rationally, not impulsively, to criticism in order to conduct a proper reconsideration of their actions. My main issue with Mohammed’s public conduct stems from an apparent obsession with ethnic politics that does not seem to take the country’s unity and cohesion into account.
Like other Oromo ethnonationalists, Jawar Mohammed invests heavily into themes of victimization and attribution of problems to other people. At the same time, there is a distinct culture of unhealthy competition between various Oromo ethnic politicians, who are eager to announce themselves as louder, prouder, and more committed to advancing the Oromo cause than their rivals. Instead of focusing on the discussion of actual issues affecting the Oromo people and what can be done to address them, the competition between the various ethnonationalist politicians and activists tends to favor those that can present the shadiest positions and the most vitriolic tones. In my opinion, all this competition and unhealthy populism does not contribute to genuinely useful debate focused on finding viable solutions and instead positions the Oromo problem as a competition between self-seeking politicians.
I believe that this can be perceived as an irresponsible approach to state affairs and the position of the leader itself. The issues I have with Mohammed’s conduct go far beyond his image, and I do not think that his personality can be easily evaluated on the surface. However, his reported instability can be a valid reason for concern for many Ethiopian citizens.
People have been criticizing various aspects of Mohammed’s conduct. I believe one should treat allegations of this nature with extreme caution. Political conflicts should be resolved within the framework of political and legal norms. However, the public has every right to expect responsible actions from politicians and to hold them accountable for their decisions.
The concept of the “Dark Triad” of personality describes three traits commonly associated with anti-social personalities. These are narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. The main motivation for this line of research is to identify abnormal and unacceptable behavior patterns for general society.
By applying this approach to Mohammed, critics attempt to prove that the politician exhibits unacceptable levels of self-centeredness and manipulation to gain power and wealth at the expense of others. However, I do not find this analysis particularly useful in evaluating the situation with Mohammed. A more relevant approach to the situation with Jawar Mohammed would be to analyze his actions.
The more fruitful exercise is to discuss what particular political actions, statements, alliances, or decisions are. Does he admit his mistakes? Does he place the interests of ordinary citizens before his or her personal or political interests? Does he treat former allies justly when conflicts arise? Does he explain political reversals? Does he take into account the effects of his advocacy on communities in addition to his supporters? These are more relevant questions to ask about a politician and his or her activities than whether he has some mental illness. After all, political responsibility is a matter of actions, decisions, judgment, and accountability.
Editor’s Note: Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
__
Join our Telegram Channel: t.me/borkena
Like borkena on Facebook
To submit a press release, send the submission to info@borkena.com
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.