Social capital is different. It is built from such intangible matters as trust, norms, observance of rules and procedures in relationships following principles, submitting to institutional logic and not to personalised and egoistic pursuits. Each of these elements (e.g., rules, procedures etc..) in and of themselves may be practised in isolation but the human interaction, networks and relationships to generate predictable, irreversible and sustainable solidarity, coordination and collective action is dependent on a combination of the intangible elements that constitute together social capital. When such social capital breaks down it is not easy to fix and reproduce.
When there is high social capital, the tendency for breakdown to undertake effective social action is very low. Conversely when there is low social capital, the tendency to quarrel over little irritating matters is very high. Thus the building and the existence of social capital is a necessary condition to undertake sustainable transformation and development in any environment, cultural and power context. All those that have developed have built over a course of time strong foundations, institutions, citizenship, trust, norms and rules whose interactions together result amongst members in organisations to undertake effective collective actions. They have internalised values of social capital that allows them to function with coordination and cooperation. They have built the culture and ability to deal with effectively against corrosive actions both internal and external that undermine social capital.
7. The Significance of Building Social Capital in Ethiopia
In Ethiopia, we have to learn to build and infuse society with social capital on all fronts. Instead what we seem to see is the opposite. The agenda that drives the country’s system- world (the public realm) and life-world of the citizen (the private realm) is the ethnic philosophy, agenda, policy, discourse and narrative. If the individuals’ existential life world is interpreted with the ethnic variable and the system of government and constitution is also based on vernacular and ethnic foundations, how can constructive social capital that composes, unites and creates solidarity amongst citizens grow? How can civic solidarity, civic expression and civic-based political, social, economic, scientific and cultural engagement be fostered and promoted? It is hard to see how Ethiopia’s social capital can be expected to be growing with the current ethnic dispensation.
If politics is parcelled along ethnic fault lines, how can people vote for citizens with the best ideas, best programmes, best policies and best strategies for delivering service? How can people vote for those that are ethically, intellectually and politically committed rather than those who may be ethnic entrepreneurs? How can norms of reciprocity and networking based on citizenship be fostered when ethnicism dominates and undermines politics based for citizens’ rights and development? How can social capital grow under such constraints? How can building social capital within the ethnic enclosure help the trans-ethnic social capital amongst the citizens?
One of the appealing consequences from the rise of knjit was the possibility of re-framing national politics on the foundation of citizenship and not ethnicity or vernacular specificity. Knjit appeared to promise the emergence of social capital based on a movement that involved citizens’ votes, expressions, voices. It created a new political space that fired the national imagination.
Kinjit and its ally Hibret to a large extent appeared to reverse the prevailing logic of current Ethiopian politics. The ruling idea says that ethnic and vernacular identity is the basis of politics. Knjit reversed this logic by appearing to say: Only on the basis of the foundational principle of free and unconstrained citizenship by vernacular and ethnic fences can the rights and freedom of ethnic nationalities and vernacular expressions find constructive manifestation without undermining social capital. The reverse logic of starting with the specificities of ethnicity and vernacular identity will not add up to the non ethnicised and non-vernacularized citizen for the promotion of social capital for creating a web of trust, norms, reciprocity, sympathy amongst the networks of relationships the people form in carrying out their economic, social, political, cultural and scientific pursuits…
One thought on “The challenge of shaping Ethiopia’s sustainable future”
Better equip ourselves with WEAPON CAPITAL than SOCIAL CAPITAL.
We have been for centuries practicing trust, religion, friendship, norms, rules, and procedures, which are the fundamental tenets of social capital in this long and very informative article, and yet we have failed to feed our people, to produce tangible results, and to govern ourselves effectively. Who is responsible for the mess, the present or the past generation, the kings or the princes, Mengistu Haile Mariam or Meles Zenawi?
It has always been the norm for the present generation to blame the old generation that is not here with us today. I’m, however, on the side of the old generation against the present lousy generation. In consent with the writers of the article, Ethiopia is an old country; no one knows how old it is, and no one knows when it will die if it is not already dead.
There is a saying in Ethiopia: “When a lion gets old, it becomes a playground for the flies.” The old lion here represents the old Ethiopia, and the flies represent us, the new generation. Ethiopia as old as it is today must be commended for passing not the unfinished, but the finished work of its glorious history, a history of expansion, growth, success and victory to the present ungrateful generation. Ethiopia has been undivided country geographically, historically, culturally, and politically until the fall of Emperor Haile Selassie. Ethiopia’s old age has not been the problem for many Ethiopians; it is the young Ethiopians, the immature young and selfish Ethiopian politicians who have become big burdens and severe headaches to this ailing old Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian old history should not be considered a problem, a burden to the new generation; rather it should be regarded as a pride and glory, so it is very important to “invoke the long gone past….” The Ethiopian old history does not impose tyranny on the Ethiopian people; it rather empowers the Ethiopian people to fight against tyranny, to live together peacefully, and to protect its territories, its seaports and never to split them. The Ethiopian past history has been a history of freedom from Mussolini, Ahmad Gragn, and from many other foreign intruders, like Egypt, Sudan, and Turkey. The Ethiopian history has been full of justice and fairness, a history that respects the rule of law and justice.
Ethiopia’s long existence should not be called “vegetative existence” as the article attests emphatically. I hate the word “vegetative” the writers of the article used here to explain the living condition of Ethiopia. On the contrary, Ethiopia throughout its glorious history has been very active, vibrant, resilient, and proud of its accomplishments in art, in building towns, cities, churches, and in expanding church schools and at the same time fighting foreign invaders. So Ethiopia, in its long existence, has never had the mark of idleness and laziness. Each single day, each single year in Ethiopia has been a day and a year of progress and accomplishments. To name some, look the pyramid at Axum, look the rock hewn Church of Lalibela in Wollo, magnificent art of work! So to me it is not fair to call the old 3000 years of Ethiopian civilization years of vegetative existence.
The past generation had lived by solving its own problems, and it is the responsibility of the present generation to solve its own problem without blaming the other generation. In fact, it is this selfish generation that divided the country in two: Ethiopia and Eretria, and it is going to divide it further unless it stops its selfishness and political ambition based on ethnic lines. We should not attribute the current situations, the current divisions among the various political parties to Ethiopia’s magnificent past history. If Ethiopia had not struggled hard to keep all its territories together, you and I would not be here today. We are blaming the past history of Ethiopia based on material things, neglecting the spiritual dynamics Ethiopia has made through its long history: combining Judaism and Christianity and accommodating other religions and passing them to us is, in it self, a big achievement.
Ethiopia has never passed a deficit of problems to the present generation as the article suggests; it is in fact the present generation that created the deficit – the giving away of Eretria, the war with Somalia and Ogaden, the leadership crisis with Kinjit, and the division of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church: one in exile and one at home. It is my and your generation who created such huge deficit, not the Ethiopian Lucie generation. Ethiopia has never left unsolved problems to the current generation; even though it has ethnically and religiously diverse society, this society has lived comfortably for thousands of years harmoniously with each other. It is this generation that created Mengistu Haile Mariam and Meles Zenawi.
The writers of the article are absolutely right that it is the politicians (add “selfish”) – the selfish politicians – that bring “more new problems…,” but they are wrong in saying “…than in solving old and transmitting problems from earlier generations.” As I said before, the old generation had never passed its problem to me and you; we should not blame our ancestors for the current problems we have selfishly created. Let our ancestors rest in peace!
What makes you think “…had Ethiopia had turned into a republic after World War II… then the problems to solve today would have been different”? In what way would it have been different? Do you mean all republic countries are capable of solving their own problems? For example, among many other republic countries, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran are republics. Have these countries been capable of solving their existing problems? I don’t think so. At this particular time, we cannot say this or that system of government would solve the Ethiopian existing problems. In my opinion it is our task to devise a new system of government that accommodates all ethnic groups – a government that does not exclude its political opponents from participating in politics with the governing party.
In 1974, the Emperor did not transfer his power to the military; the military took it by force, and that is why Ethiopia is facing today multitude of problems more than ever before. Had the transition of power been voluntarily and peacefully without humiliating the Emperor, we could have later avoided all the unnecessary bloodsheds by both Mengistu Haile Mariam and Meles Zenawi in the name of new revolution. Indeed, Ethiopia has never had such deep division in its entire history. So the pattern of problems can be traced to Mengistu and to Meles, not to the old generation because the old generation has nothing to do with our new problems.
The Ethiopian people at this time have no ways of measuring which politicians are capable of governing them democratically, ethically, and justly. I assume, at this time, the Ethiopian people are not yet ready to be governed by a democratically elected politician; I may be wrong. I think they need a thorough training about what a democratically elected government would offer them. Then they will have a yardstick to measure the diverse opinions of the politicians who run for the higher office.
Social capital cannot be achieved by only avoiding our dependence on our ethnicity; however, what are the substitutes for ethnicity in case people are willing to disregard their love affairs with their ethnicities? Are we ready to substitute ethnicity with something concrete that satisfies each group? For example, in the old days, some Ethiopians used to worship idols on the hills, on the mountains, and in the wooded areas. In order to prevent people from worshipping idols, the Church built beautiful churches on those hills, and on those mountains and in those wooded areas so that the people could worship God instead of idols. So how can we replace ethnicity by something good that unites the people rather than divides them?
Yes, Yohannes II helped General Napier to defeat Tewodros; yes, Menelik II let Yohannes be killed by the Sudan Muslims, and yes Teferi defeated Lij Iyasu because Iyasu was leaning to accepting Islam; however, internal conflicts of such kind are common every where in this world; it is not new. In those days people were not educated as most of us today. The question is how can we avoid such internal conflicts among us today? How can we run our organization free of foreign hands? It is an impossible task in this global age of ours. If avoiding foreign help is one of the requirements of social capital, then social capital is doom to fail because no government in this world is free of getting help from a foreign power.
We cannot avoid “fragmented opposition” if we believe in democracy; we should not oppress such opposing, fragmented political parties, and we should not limit the number of parties who want to work as independent political parties, but we can influence them to join our own political party. All political parties, in my opinion, must be institutionalized, and the party that wins the election will become the governing party.
Finally, after we have done every thing in our power to persuade Meles Zenawi to cooperate with us but failed to do so, then we must resort to arm struggle rather than to social capital and defeat our common enemy for the right cause – to liberate our people from tyranny.