By Messay Kebede
The problem with Jawar’s latest response, “Misunderstanding Nationalism: Rejoinder to Professor Messay Kebede’s Responses,” is that it moves further away from the main reason for our online debate, namely, the piece he wrote about the OLF in which he declares the organization “damaged beyond repair” and repeatedly speaks of its “demise.” His thesis is that inefficient leadership is responsible for this demise. My point was to ask him to look further or deeper, as ideological inappropriateness could also cause inefficiency. It is not clear to me why Jawar absolutely refuses to acknowledge that the ideology of an organization can impact on its efficiency.
My suspicious is that Jawar is now under enormous pressure from other Oromo nationalists. As a result, he effects a reversal: I become an enemy of the OLF while he himself rediscovers terms highly appreciative of the achievements of the organization. This does not come as a surprise since the absolute primacy of group solidarity characteristic of ethnic politics always ends up by silencing critical stands, even if they are legitimate.
That said, I agree with the last paragraph of Jawar’s reply in which he asks us to deal properly with Oromo identity and interest, provided that he tells us how the one-sided affirmation of a particular identity can agree with the need to promote pan-Ethiopian characteristics, without which there is no national unity. My quarrel is never against the affirmation of a particular identity; it is against those who at the same time do not see the need to develop pan-Ethiopian characteristics, not to mention those that are openly secessionists. I invite Jawar to read some of the many articles I wrote in which I promote the notion of a rainbow-nation, that is, a political and cultural solution crowing ethnic claims with a transcendent identity.
As to a detailed assessment of his reply, I make the following remarks:
I. Jawar writes: Messay “refuses to accept that organizational efficiency is primarily a result of strategy and committed leadership.” My reply: how is one to assess the efficiency, strategy, and the level of commitment of an organization without involving its ideology? No need here to come up with a sophisticated definition of ideology: one online dictionary defines ideology as “a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions.” Is it logical to argue that what defines goals, expectations, and actions has nothing to do with efficiency, all the more so as Jawar tells us that “an organization should be evaluated based on stated objectives?” Clearly, wrong objectives can make an organization inefficient.
2. Jawar complains about my “lack of objectivity”; that is why I (and people like me) “underestimate, misunderstand and mishandle nationalist movements.” This appeal to objectivity is baffling when we all know that politics is the clash of different interests. The ideal way of dealing with political conflicts is not by asking the one party to be objective. Not only does this approach forget that politics is the art of concession, but it also creates an imbalance. While the one opponent has the right to be subjective by speaking of the nation he wants to bring to existence, I am asked to silence my feelings about the nation that I want to defend. Rather than objectivity, the right attitude here is the effort to reach mutual accommodation.
3. According to Jawar, “had the OLF ideology failed, there would not exist a land known as Oromia in [the] country.” Maybe I am referring to an imaginary history, but recent events ascertain that Oromia was a gift of the TPLF, which represents another nation. Credit should be given where credit is due, even if it is for a sinister project. At any rate, Oromia was not established by indigenous victorious forces. And if Oromo are invited to be grateful to Tigrean conquerors for the creation of Oromia, I wonder why recognition is not extended to the primary benefactor, who is none other than Emperor Menilik. The latter should be praised for uniting the Oromo under the Ethiopian state, thereby saving them from utter dispersion under different colonial rulers, all the more so as this time Oromo were full participants in the conquest, as witnessed by Ras Gobena’s epic.
4. When Jawar accuses me of underestimating the force of Oromo nationalism, I respond that he has misread my previous article in which I state the following: “if the Oromo had really wanted to separate from the rest of the country, no force on earth could have stopped them.” Obviously, the problem is elsewhere. Jawar reminds me of the sacrifices that Oromo are paying for Oromia. He forgets one important thing, to wit, that more Oromo have died for the integrity of Ethiopia than for Oromia. A superficial look at the ethnic composition of the Derg’s army is enough to evince the enormity of Oromo sacrifices. Instead of one-sided affirmation, let us talk of dual commitment, that is, of ethnic self-assertion but also of common aspiration with other ethnic groups toward a nation based on citizenship or territory.
5. Speaking of Medrek, Jawar says: those who created the organization “have made a U-turn by embracing the reality as it is shown with their swift acceptance of Afaan Oromo as a national language.” Jawar fails to mention that this acceptance was made possible by the unconditional commitment to Ethiopia’s integrity, forcefully expressed through the rejection of secession. In my previous article, I have argued that the ground for mutual concessions is commitment to unity, which I portrayed as the building of a common house. What secessionists refuse to understand is that the so-called right to self-determination up to secession creates a dissimilarity that hinders democratic decisions, as it allows one group to practice political blackmail through the threat of secession unless it obtains all what it wants.
6. For Jawar, the nationalist awakening of the Oromo is a major transformational force, for “without the awakening of the giant, oppressed minorities of the South would still be called “bariya,” “Shanqilla,” “Walamo.” I do not deny that the pressure of Oromo identity constitutes a major force in the Ethiopian politics. However, I ask one more time that credit be given where credit is due. The terms “galla”, “wollamo,” etc., were banned, not by an ethnic political party, but by the Ethiopian student movement and the Derg, which both had multiethnic views. You do not have to be a member of an ethnic party to fight for the equal treatment of peoples’ culture and beliefs. There are no ethnic parties in the US, and yet people are protected in their diversity. As to the main inspiration behind ethnic politics, it is not justice and the equal treatment of peoples; rather, it is the control of state power by elites vying to monopolize scarce resources.
7. I agree with Jawar when he says that “Ethiopia is an unfinished project.” I will even go further by stating that it is a failed project. The reasons for the failure need not preoccupy us here. Even so, I find it hard to believe that ethnonationalist discourse of the kind I am hearing is liable to resume the project. When the whole issue is to marry a native attachment with a transcendent identity, the affirmation of an exclusive form of nationalism is not to finish the project; it is to sabotage it.
8. To underscore the force of nationalism, Jawar asks: “Why did “ethnic” movements outlive class struggle?” In other words, why in Ethiopia did the ethnic movements of the TPLF and EPLF defeat the defenders of socialist revolution? The notion that blood is thicker than interest is precisely the manipulative argumentation that elites use to mobilize the people. I say “manipulative” because it taps natural sentiments associated with relatedness but for the purpose of empowering elites. Both the failures of Leninist socialism and fascist regimes teach us that giving more power to states and elites, whatever their declared aims are—class interest or kinship––is not the road to liberation; the latter occurs through the containment of power. Political liberation is not a family affair. People become free when they limit and divide state power, not when they let it become boundless under the pretext of achieving a cherished goal. What is true of ethics is also true of politics: the end never justifies the means.
9. That is why we should establish political systems in which the primacy of individual and universal rights overtops the criteria of blood, class interest, religion, etc. Unlike the other criteria, individual and universal rights work toward the containment of state power by protecting the individual against unfriendly and seemingly friendly forces. Despite talks of liberation, neither the TPLF nor the EPLF has provided their respective ethnic groups with anything resembling democratic governance. Most disconcerting here is Jawar’s inconsistencies: he speaks of the TPLF and EPLF as models of liberation movements while perfectly knowing their failure, which has only exacerbated Oromo frustration. I conjure Jawar to read Dr. Negasso Gidada’s article portraying the functioning of a Stalinist political system in Wallaga. The spectacle of Oromo elites suppressing the Oromo people in the name of liberation forcefully shows the danger of ethnic politics and the need to place individual rights at the center of the struggle. What the people of Wallega needs is a federal protection of their individual rights. The height of the paradox is that, no less than the Oromo and other ethnic groups, the Tigrean people too need to be rescued by a trans-ethnic state. This is to say that Ethiopian nationalism is none other than the preeminence of individual rights over ethnic states effected through the erection of a trans-ethnic or national federal power.
10. To the question why ethnic movements outlived class struggle, the ultimate answer is that Ethiopian nationalism has been seriously undermined by the failures of socialist ideology. What explains the defeat is not the strength of the ethnic movements, but, as the great Ethiopian historian, Gebru Tareke, puts it in his recently published momentous book, “the revolutionary government ultimately lost because it failed to deliver on its big promises: freedom, equality, and prosperity” (The Ethiopian Revolution: War in the Horn of Africa, p. 2). Indeed the dictatorial method, the divisive goals, and the economic failures of the Derg combined to shatter the efficiency of the armed forces. Contrary to Jawar’s claims, here is a pertinent case of nationalist defeat that was caused by a dissolving ideology. Jawar should have seen the pertinence of the case since he maintains that the Eritrean issue could have been solved if the Derg had “negotiated for ‘Federation.’” Precisely, the inability to negotiate was how Ethiopian nationalism was made inefficient by a totalitarian ideology.
11. Jawar makes me say that “leftist ideology is responsible for growth of ‘ethnic’ nationalism, secessionist demand, and armed struggle” and then contests my alleged statement by citing liberation movements that are not leftist. Yet, my reference to leftist ideology was only echoing his own analysis of the legacy hampering the OLF. To quote him, “OLF is a foster child of the student movement that brought the revolution; as such it shares some common organizational behaviors and characteristics with all other organizations that came out that era, such as the EPRP, TPLF and EPLF”; “the political forces that emerged from the student movement were led by individuals who worshiped Mao Zedong and Stalin, so they embraced such undemocratic, rigid and control freak organizational model.” True, there are non-leftist nationalist movements, but in the particular case of Ethiopia, ethnonationalist movements have originated from a split of the student movement with which they share extremism and a vision of political struggle modeled on a zero-sum game. All the events and tragedies that occurred since 1974 are various manifestations of the rise of elites with ideologies advocating the exclusive control of state power as a means of appropriation of scarce resources. Secessionism or ethnonationalism is one of such manifestations, since it is how elites take up the cause of cultural particularism (language, religion, common descent, etc.) and argue for the natural correspondence between state and culture. In this way, they exclude their rivals as aliens and establish an exclusive entitlement to power.
(The writer can be reached at [email protected])
14 thoughts on “On OLF leadership: Dropping the Substance for the Shadow?”
I do not think this guy, Messay, understand anything what is happing in Ethiopia since 1991. Thanks God he lives in USA where he does not needs to see what Ethiopian going through in terms ever changing political environment. This is the type of people who bent to destroy anything new that try to build unconditional Ethiopia. Messay is clear enemy of Ethiopia and I believe this kind of mentality will die soon….yes I pray this guy will die soon mentality so that the new way of building will flourish
Any rightful intellectual would not call ‘narrow nationalism’ an ideology in his/her right mind. This is an organization concocted together by a ‘bunch’ of imbecile pseudo-intellectuals’ with a hideous scheme to carve out a territory and become its presidents. vice presidents, ministers and felach korachs. Their assumed ideology was a brew of lies and innuendos laced with partial facts. When they managed to muster substantial following, that is where their true level of commitment and competence came to bear. When it was time to face the reality of bitter stance, they cut the rope and ran to their real fathers and mothers in St. Paul. Remember St. Paul is an icon and a martyr who did not flinch in the face of torture and death and he won’t have any of it. Standing on a soapbox and screaming bloody murder about other fraternal nationalities will not cut the mustard. They and everyone else should be wise enough to understand that ‘narrow nationalism’ is not an ideology but rather a sickness that afflicts (afflicted) those who crawled out of Deddebit and those who now reside in and around OLF. You are talking about affliction worse than the Swine Flu. That is why the grandson of my role model Aba Biya of Jiren got the hell out there, even though he may have gone the wrong direction.
In the meanwhile, I commend these two children of ours for having an on-going civil discussion about this terrible affliction of stinking narrow nationalism.
In paragraph 2,
Say “My suspicion…” not “My suspicious…”
Englizgna mechawcha aydelem.
One of the most interesting articles I have read about Ethiopian political movements.
I enjoyed a lot.
I would love to read more of this writer.
Dan
what bdo you mean elite? you are an elite too.
what do you mean elite? you are an elite too. Politics is usually the arena of the elite. I mean it is sort of nomal.
what a wonderful piece of writing which is based on logical reasoning and matured thinking!
what ethnonationalists, like jawhar, need to understand that emotional reasoning is a mark of a lack of maturity and arrogance in the face of truth and foresight.
Thank you Dr. messay!keep it up!
Moges
The OLF as a movement failed because of luck of good leadership. The OLFleadership failed because of ideological difference. The ideology of ethnic group can be how it relate to others and how clans relate to each other. The role of religion and region must notbe underestimated either. Ideology is for the few elite. The mass follows leadership regardless of what the ideology of the leadership is. The communist revolution in Russia succeeded due to the determination of Lenin and few individuals.The Chines Peasants who took arms and joined Mao were not university graduates who read Marxism. They followed determined few leaders who had common ideology. This is true with TPLF.The Tigires liked the idea of being free and joined the movement. The complicated political ideology is not for the mass to deal with. The ideology that is supported by the strongest man will be wining ideology to which every one must prescribe to. When Liberating Tigiray by itself was not easy, the top leadership of TPLF decided to to shift to Ethiopian front for democracy. Still the people joined it. At the top we find few determined leadership that pull others to reach their goals. Without good leadership there will be no political success. Dergue failed when the leadership failed to lead. CUD passed to history when its leaders were divided. There is no question leadership is the most important part in any political movement. OLF never failed because of ideological problem. Most Oromos who joined OLF just loved the idea of having free Oromiya. The ideology that back this freedom may be wrong but millions liked it. This is true with Tigiray Liberation. Deep inside every one (at least those who understand the ideology behind liberating a nation)that Tigiray is poor and may not sustain itself as a free country. Yet, the people loved it and died and killed for it due to the determination of the few at the top. I think ethnic politics need no ideology as such. It is us against them. In Ethiopia this led to the creation of LFs.
Messay,
Where is your position regarding the spectrum of the opposition in the empire. You have the choice to be one of the following five:
– pro AEUP and co
– pro UDJ and co
– pro Medrek and co
– pro AFD and co
– pro ULFO and co
Otherwise enjoy the following to know more about the spectrum of the opposition groups listed above:
“Rejection of Self-Determination is MEDREK’s Weak Point
MEDREK (The Forum for Democracy and Dialogue – FDD) is not bad compromise alliance for the involved political organizations representing most of the nations in the empire. It can be a good alternative to replace the Weyane regime. The only weak point, where the Weyane can capitalize on, is Medrek’s stand on the right of nations to self-determination. Ironically, Medrek has in the introductory part of its Mini-Political-Program (click here to get the Amharic version – Ethiomedia.com) that it strives to accept and respect all human rights, which are part and parcel of the UN Charter and have been ratified by the government of Ethiopia. But, why did it exclude this important right of nations?
It was always clear that all Abesha politicians, who do want to act as popes of democracy, keep silent when it comes to the right of nations to self-determination, which is part of the democracy they all talk about. Is there any half-baked democracy? Their version of democracy includes everything, which helps them to keep the empire intact, but not self-determination of nations and peoples.
Oromo Federalist Parties in Medrek Lost the Middle Position
So, if Medrek claims to accept and respect international law, which is ratified by Ethiopia and why, in this case of the right to self-determination, which has even been acknowledged by the Weyane regime, has Medrek opted to the rejection? Can this really bring the heartily support from the oppressed nations, such as Oromo and others, for Medrek? Maybe just the hatred against Weyane might persuade the people to vote for Medrek, but is that a long lasting support to its political programme?
Actually, self-determination is the middle position for both forces of unconditional unity and fronts of unconditional independence. It simply suggests: let the concerned public decide in referendum, instead of imposing the two extreme positions (’unconditional unity’ and ‘unconditional independence’) on the peoples. I think here Oromo freedom fighters have already done their homework in the last ten years by abandoning their far left position of demanding ‘unconditional independence’ and opting for the self-determination, whereas Amhara democratic forces still pray their far right mantra of ‘unconditional unity’.
In Medrek it should have been the Amhara democratic forces, such as UDJ, which should have moved from their far right position to the middle position of accepting a ‘union based on self-determination’. Paradoxically, it is the federalist Oromo parties that have abandoned the middle position that they should have insisted on, and now, they have moved to the far right position of Amharas. Is this good compromise? From Oromo point of view, it is just equal to a surrender, not an optimal compromise. In my last article, I just said Medrek was the hitherto good compromise solution, but not optimal. The optimal compromise solution is that which brings both sides of far positions (far right ‘unconditional unity’, and far left ‘unconditional independence’) to the middle position aka self-determination.
If we look at the politics of the empire very exactly, the main conflict areas are not on the issues, such as democracy, individual freedom, justice, equality, human right, peace, good governance, rule of law, development. The actual difference the Empire’s political elites do have is only on the following three issues:
– type of unity (’unconditional unity’ Vs ‘conditional union’)
– type of federation (kilil-federation Vs xeqilaigizat-federation)
– type of method to be used for the decision on the above two (force Vs consensus Vs referendum)!
Accordingly:
– the ruling party, Weyane/TPLF wants ‘unconditional unity’ with fake kilil-federation by force.
– the opposition parties can be devided in to the following five areas:
*Conservative Amharas like AEUP say ‘unconditional unity’ with xeqilaigizat-federation by all means.
*Liberal Amharas like UDJ try ‘unconditional unity’ with xeqilaigizat-federation per polity’s consensus.
*Medrek tries ‘unconditional unity’ with true kilil-federation per polity’s consensus aka per predetermination.
*AFD will try ‘conditional union’ (union based on free will) with true kilil-federation per public’s referendum aka per self-determination.
*ULFO member organizations want to achieve ‘unconditional independence’ of Oromia by all means.
As far as the above three very important criteria are concerned, UDJ is not yet true part of Medrek! Both of them are on the same page regarding the type of unity and the type of method, but they do differ in the type of federation. So, it is right to classify UDJ separately as done above. Then, the question to be answered is: which one is the legitimate regarding the interest of the public at large? I think firstly AFD’s position as an optimal compromise solution, and secondly, Medrek’s as an unfair compromise solution!
If AFD’s optimal position is hard to swallow for Abeshas at the moment, Medrek is the good compromise they can live with and for Oromos, of course, Medrek’s position is the minimum we can accept. Let’s now live with it temporarily since Amhara’s wish of ‘Ethiopian unity’ and Amharinya as the federal language as well as Oromo’s desire of Oromian autonomy and Afaan Oromo as the federal language are accepted and respected. It is actually good for uniting most of the opposition groups at home to forge an alliance against Weyane. For Oromo parties, it can be a good tactical move, but not a lasting strategical solution for the complex problem of the empire. The main political conflict at home seems now to be consolidating into a struggle between kilil-federalists and xeqilaigizat-federalists; it is good news to hear/read that both federalists in the opposition have started to work together like in Medrek against the fascist Weyane. So, Medrek is a good start for coming together of the opposition, but for the optimal solution to be realized the lasting common denominator of the opposition must be self-determination of nations. Otherwise, it will be seen in the near future that Weyane will start to capitalize on this weak point of Medrek and will try to rally oppressed nations, including Oromo, behind its puppet organizations like OPDO!”
An article full of bias and hatred to the largest tribe in the country. What a shame for the country!
I read threads by these two scholars carefully, and find they both don’t realize how much they’ve ideals in common.
I’m amazed how far Professor have come to acknowledge the sacrifices Oromos have paid to keep the empire that kept the Oromo populace in the darks.
He/ the good professor acknowledges Oromos being colonized by King minelik which was just not too long ago, historically speaking.
I feel, professor, is very polished intellectual, who have come to terms, with the realities on the ground than rehtoric /myth that was embeded in Ethiopian politics that glemourization of those who had nominal in put in shaping up the giant current Ethiopia, that have tied our hand back as largest prison waiting to to see internal mutiney.
Professor, if you can come this far,.. you can go a distance to admit our homeland of Galan and Abitchu was chnged to a foreign fancy name you call Addis ABABA around this time. Would you say a thing or two? Would it be a crime of a decade if we speak our Afaan Oromo, and pay tribute to Atete, go to Erecha every Oromo thanks giving each september?
Last, but not least, has your hero, menilek, or other abyssinians leaders committed genocides against Oromo women and children?
Then true healings requires some sorts of remedies to the injustices, do decendants/ or beneficiaries of those diabolical regimes have nice words to heal the millions their parents killed?
Just wondering!
As he mentioned the good professor have the right to defend his views and believes but ironically he fights not for the mass of Ethiopian populace who have been deprived their universal rights (economical, cultural, political and human dignity) for over century long. OLF is the product of Oromo nationalism not vise-versa. Some old elites and their advocates are crying loud about Ethiopian unity (territorial integrity by any means) not about people’s grievance and demand. In reality these elites are not the uniter as they have nothing to present or address the real problem and solutions to unite the people. They don’t care about propels but the land, the wealth, the lost political power and their cultural and linguistic superiority. The political movement that shaking the country since pre revolution to date (in the form of leftist or nationalism) it is not about secessionism or unity but it is about political, economical and cultural interest; the minority still want to keep the majority under their oppressive rule and the majority want to liberate themselves in any way possible. The problem of OLF haters are not about political or ideological difference but about the Oromo people demand. We like it or not OLF is a vanguard of Oromo freedom movement and those of us who are pro unity need to embrace the leadership instead of considering them as enemy. Let’s change ourselves before we demand changes from others.
Those who are crying about other’s political ideology are those who are looking to gain benefit at the expense of oppressed people.
So oromo libretion front,OGADEN AND SLF have the right for selfdetrmination.
The Apartheid of south Africa, the Serbs supermacy over the ex-Jugoslavia and many other conservatives and dictators have not died out voluntarly, but it is due to the process of history and human civilization. So prof. Messay is strugling to hinder such a natural process by force of hatre and attack. In general, whether it is by OLF or others Oromo organizations, the Oromos strugle for self-determination is the natural process which forces cannot hinder. What the prof. have not understand as a prof. is, that the LOVE is steel-strong than the force. Hidding behind our pc and attacking each others does not bring any solution for our country and people than bringing a volcanic explosion which will saffocate the whole country.