Fikre Tolossa
July 1992

Ethnic pluralism, if handled in the right way, is an asset to the well-being of a nation. Each ethnic group has its own unique features rooted in its language, culture, rituals and value systems. Ethnicity provides a basis for great diversity in society.

Why are European and American scholars interested in studying Ethiopia? One major reason is that Ethiopia is a multi-ethnic nation which has unique cultural, sociological, racial, linguistic and historical features. Foreign scholars study Ethiopia because it is a laboratory of which they lack in their own societies.

Ethiopia has the most vital ingredients necessary for nation-building and in a peaceful political climate Ethiopia could attain rapid progress. However, if the ethnic question is not handled correctly, it will result in great suffering and violence.

Question Of Nationalities
The controversy over nationalities in Ethiopia began in the student movement in the 1960’s. While studying Marxist literature, student movement leaders like Berhanemeskel Reda came across the writings of Lenin, Rosa Luxumberg and Joseph Stalin on the question of nationalities. The work of Stalin, which some say was drafted by L. Trotsky, appealed to the Ethiopian student leaders. According to Stalin, if a people share the same language, culture, psychological make-up, geographical territory, and economic system, then they qualify to be a nation capable of self-determination. Driven by revolutionary fervor and rejection of Emperor Haile Selassie’s government, the Ethiopian student leaders adopted Stalin’s thesis without realizing its negative implications for Ethiopia. In the
case of the Soviet Union, each Soviet republic which qualified as a nation, had the right to determine whether it would stay as part of the Union. This was abstract theory. In practice, Stalin clutched all the republics in an iron fist.

Berhanemeskel Reda and his colleagues realized how dangerous and premature it was to focus on the question of nationalities in Ethiopia and they did not force the issue for public discussion. However, their junior, Walelign Mekonnen, following in the footsteps of Stalin, wrote an essay on the question of nationalities in Ethiopia, and read it to the student body at Haile Selassie I University in 1967/68. Shortly after that, the question of nationalities spread like wild-fire in the student movement, and it was discussed in Ethiopia, Europe and the United States. The “old guards” in Europe and the U.S. such as Haile Fida (even though he promoted Oromo ethnicity after he joined the Derg in 1974), Negede Gobeze, Endreas Eshete, Alem Habtu and others were very cautious when they discussed the issue of nationalities. They preferred to use the terms “region” and “regionalism,” instead of “nation” and “nationalism.” I recall a report I read then, in which Berhanemeskel in an address to an annual congress of Ethiopian students union in Europe in 1971, severely criticized the “old-guards” for their failure to deal with the nationalities question. He even wrote a paper on the topic later from Algeria after hijacking an Ethiopian jet together with other fellow revolutionaries. In this paper, written under the pen name of Tilahun Walelegn, he echoed Stalin’s thesis on nationalities.

Legesse (now Meles) Zenawi, and other younger students who struggled against Emperor Haile Selassie’ regime in the early 1970’s also picked up the idea of the right of nations and nationalities upto self-determination. When Legesse Zenawi was a member of the EPRP, there is no doubt that he read Stalin’s thesis on the question of nationalities.

Theories of struggle
Two basic theories of struggle were advanced to defeating Emperor Haile Selassie’s regime, and later the Derg. One was by means of class struggle, i.e., by the revolt of all the oppressed classes of Ethiopia, regardless of their ethnic origin. The other advocates the mobilization of the ethnic groups or nationalities to liberate their own nations or ethnic regions first and meet in Addis Abeba later to form a coalition government in which the representatives of each nationality or ethnic group would have an equal say. Those who refused to join the coalition were free to do so, if this was the wish of their people proved in a referendum. However, before they held a referendum, there would be open debate on unity, self-determination and secession.

EPRP decided to follow the first line, i.e., the liberation of Ethiopia by the armed insurrection of all the oppressed classes of Ethiopia, irrespective of their ethnic backgrounds. That was why Ethiopians of all ethnic origins joined it until the time of its division. Even though it advocated the right of nations and nationalities for self-determination in principle, gradually it stood for a genuine unity and regional autonomy. In spite of the fact that it supported the struggle of the Eritrean people, and even though its young members shed their blood demonstrating boldly against the Derg’s repression in Eritrea, the EPLF discredited EPRP for refusing to accept the Eritrean question as a colonial one.

Meles Zenawi obviously chose to pursue and to be loyal to the second theory of liberation in which every ethnic group or nationality should wage an ethnic-based struggle against the central government to liberate itself first, and then meet the other victorious ethnic groups in Addis Abeba to form a coalition government. Accordingly, he joined the Tigrai Liberation Front, and ultimately became one of the founders of the Tigrai People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). This way he gave priority to the liberation of Tigrai, his own ethnic group or nationality.

In order to weaken the Derg, the TPLF made alliances with the Ethiopian People’s Democratic Movement, a group which split from the EPRP, for a while. Shortly before the fall of Mengistu, the two fronts added (created as some observes say) some more `fronts’ to their ranks. For instance, the Oromo People’s Democratic Organization (OPDO) made up of some Oromo intellectuals as well as ex-Derg officers and soldiers joined the TPLF to form Ethiopian People’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF).

From theory to practice
As there were no other major groups fighting the Derg, apart from the EPRDF and the OLF, and the EPRP which was confined to Gonder, the EPRDF marched by itself into Addis Abeba after Mengistu fled the country and the “London peace talks” failed. The EPRDF then called a conference inviting all political and ethnic groups except, the Coalition Of Ethiopian Democratic Forces (COEDF) which included EPRP, to form an interim government. Since the EPRDF believed that Ethiopia’s main problem was ethnicity, it had to “create” and encourage different ethnic groups to participate in the interim government. Ethiopia was divided into twelve ethnically autonomous regions. The EPRDF contended that if regional autonomy is granted to the twelve ethnic regions, which will also be represented in central government, Ethiopia will enjoy peace and stability and conflicts based on ethnicity will disappear. If this approach did not resolve the ethnic problem, the EPRDF believed that Ethiopia will always have a great problem. As Ato Meles Zenawi said in the Conference, “If you don’t open the doors and windows of a house, the people confined in the house will brake the doors and walls and run out in search of fresh air. So, leave the doors and windows open for the people to feel free and relax inside the house.”

Political debate
Critics of the EPRDF argued that self-determination is a scheme designed to tear Ethiopian apart and that ethnicity is not Ethiopia’s most acute problem. If you flung open all doors and windows, the different ethnic groups will surely be tempted to exit and never come back. As a result, Ethiopia will turn into another bloodbath, disintegrate as a nation and disappear as a geopolitical entity. The critics also argued that Ethiopia’s main enemy was the dictatorial Marxist regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam. Now that his government is gone, all Ethiopians of all ethnic groups should unite under a central government on an equal basis with mutual respect and recognition of each other’s languages, cultures, civil rights and with regional, local application of genuine democracy, equality, market economy and privatization of the economy.

The Eritrean question remains critical as ever for EPRDF’s critics. They argue that there is no colonial question involved. Ethiopia’s history is not just sixty years old. The Red Sea, including the port of Adulis, has been Ethiopia’s territory from time immemorial. They blame the EPRDF for encouraging and supporting the separation of Eritrea from Ethiopia. If there is no other alternative than a referendum for Eritrean secession, then the referendum should be held immediately since Ethiopia cannot afford to feed, equip and finance Eritrea
for two good years and thus facilitate a smooth path for Eritrea’s independence at the expense of Ethiopia. They further argue that referendum should be genuine allowing others to present the advantages of unity to the Eritrean people. In order to make the referendum fair and just, unity advocates should be given the opportunity to explain to the Eritrean people the importance of unity on an equal footing within democratic Ethiopia. In addition, Eritrean ethnic groups such as the Afar and the Kunama, must have the right to secede from the Eritrea of the EPLF if EPLF is granted the right to separate Eritrea from Ethiopia. Critics also charge that the interim EPRDF-led government is being manipulated by the EPLF which is glad to see Ethiopia plunged into ethnic wars so that it can achieve its independence without any resistance. Once Ethiopia is destroyed, it is said, the leaders of the TPLF will escape to Eritrea.

EPRDF leaders deny these allegations stating than any other resolution short of a referendum for Eritrea will involve Ethiopia in another war with Eritrea, which Ethiopia cannot afford to wage anyway. They argue that Eritreans have been severely affected by the policy of both Haile Selassie and Mengistu and must at least be able to hold a referendum to determine what the Eritrean people wish to do. In the mean time, it is said, we must show friendship and brotherhood to Eritreans and win their hearts so that they can vote in favor of unity during the referendum.

The supporters of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) (which left the Transitional
Government in protest of the lack of fairness of the June regional election) are raising the question of self-determination including secession for “Oromia.” The EPRDF advocates the right of self-determination up to secession for ethnic groups. Oromia nationalists in the OLF want to practice their “right for self-determination up to secession.” They demand that the Tigrean led EPRDF army should leave all of Oromia including “Finfine” (Addis Abeba). They argue that as there are no Oromo troops in Tigrai, there should not be Tigrean troops in Oromia.

Supporters of the EPRDF argue that Addis Abeba is the capital of all Ethiopians and Oromia does not belong to the Oromos of OLF. They also say OLF has signed the Transitional Government Charter which gives the EPRDF forces the authority and responsibility for maintaining peace and order throughout Ethiopia.

The OLF has its own problems. It has disagreements with Oromo People’s Democratic Organization (OPDO) and the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Oromia (IFLO). According to the OLF, OPDO members are neo- Gobenists (a derivation from Ras Gobena, Emperor Menelik’s top military leader who helped bring southern Ethiopia under Menelik’s control). The OLF accuse OPDO as puppets of the Tigreans and claim that OPDO does not represent the Oromo people’s true aspirations. IFLO’s religious agenda is incompatible with the Christian members of OLF.

The OPDO accuses the OLF of creating chaos and killing innocent people and destroying bridges and roads. The OPDO says that it is for unity based on genuine equality in every aspect, contrary to the OLF.

The All-Amhara People’s Organization (AAPO) has accused the OPDO and EPRDF of mass killings of Amharas living in Oromo regions in an act of genocide.

All these problems put the EPRDF’s position on a shaky ground. If the EPRDF wants to remain in Ethiopian politics in the future, it should bring genuine democracy to Ethiopia, allow opposition groups to freely participate in politics, solve the Eritrean problem to the satisfaction of the Ethiopian people, resolve the ethnic conflicts immediately, reform the economy to encourage investment, and maintain law and order through a professional police force that respects the human and civil rights of all people in the country.
____________________
Fikre Tolossa, Ph.D., is Assistant Dean of Faculty at Columbia Pacific University in San Rafael, California.