By Berhanu G. Balcha
The minority rule in Ethiopia has been greatly benefited from the paralyses to create effective and sustainable rapprochement between the Amharic speaking and Oromiffa speaking elites. Oromiffa and Amharic speaking people in Ethiopia account about 70 percent of the total population of the country, occupy about 50 percent of the landmass, with relatively better-educated manpower and resource availability. Neither the Amharic speaking, nor the Oromiffa speaking people lose in a genuine democratic transition, effective ethnic groups right or genuine federal arrangement in Ethiopia. These two language groups can constitute a Statsvolk or a core national people, as they are demographically and electorally dominant groups in Ethiopia to guarantee stability, rights and democracy in the country.
Recently, there are some encouraging initiatives. However, the initiatives have been compounded with confusions and difficulties. To start with, the minority regime in Ethiopia, which has worked very hard to exacerbate mistrusts and confusions between these dominant groups, is again restless in using various tactics to destroy the initiatives. Internally, the minority rule has advantages in commanding the national economy, national army and deceptive media, and externally, its opportunistic foreign policy has been pegged to the interest of a ‘neo-conservative’ interests of the super power that can guarantee material, moral and political support in order to countervail its weak internal legitimacy. These are the obvious behaviours of a minority rule: a total control of an economy, rely on a brutal army, utilising a deceptive media and act as a surrogate to external interest. It is logical and consistent that the minority regime in Ethiopia should do these in order to survive in power.
However, to emasculate the opportunistic and brutal tactics of the minority rule, the majority groups in Ethiopia must effectively do their homework with an effective, sustained and powerful popular resistance inside Ethiopia. The power of the ‘Statsvolk’, or the core and majoritarian national people would be the best way that could guarantee stability and democracy in Ethiopia. But not to install themselves as oppressive bi-ethnic hegemony over other groups, rather they can be protectors of rights of other minority groups. The people of the two language groups would certainly benefit more from a democratic political arrangement and respect of the rights of other groups in Ethiopia.
The Oromiffa speaking elite have to understand that firstly, the Amharic speaking people in Ethiopia have a considerable political power that cannot be easily undermined or disregarded. The unjustly and brutally imprisoned CUD’s leadership, for their considerable and crushing victory over the TPLF in May 2005 election, is a living and powerful example to get an important lesson. Secondly, there have been generational interconnections between these two larger groups; it has been both conflictual and harmonious, as it is the case of human interactions. The history of any human society, even a small homogeneous kin group, is full of past brutalities, killings and enmities. Self-readings of the past should not become an obstacle for current and future progresses. Thirdly, it is very difficult to find a peaceful way for the Oromiffa speaking people to get out of Ethiopia. It could be easier and possible to live together in peace, respect and democracy rather than to suffer or perish together simply to wish for break up. Political communities or human societies not necessarily need a peaceful past to live together; rather they need more peaceful present and common future: cultural identities and political identities can be reconciled or co-exist.
The Amharic speaking elite also have to understand that the struggle for ethnic rights or secession is not inherently undemocratic. In many democratic countries such as Belgium, Canada, France, Great Britain, India, Spain, USA the demands for ethnic rights or secession have been treated democratically. ‘Secessionists are on TV and in newspaper, and compete freely for elected office’. And secessionist political parties often get substantial support in elections- 40 percent in Quebec; 30 percent in Scotland; 15 percent in Flanders, the Basque country or Catalonia; and 5 percent in Puerto Rico’ (Will Kymlicka, ‘Emerging Western Models of Multinational Federalism: Are they Relevant for Africa?’, 2006:45). As, a distinguished scholar in the field of ethnonationalism, Walker Connor, indicates, that minority nationalism is a global phenomenon, it is:
“to be found in Africa (for example, Ethiopia), Asia (Sri Lanka), Eastern Europe (Romania), Western Europe (France), North America (Guatemala), South America (Guyana), and Oceania (New Zealand). The list includes countries that are old (United Kingdom), as well as new (Bangladesh), large (Indonesia), as well as small (Fiji), rich (Canada), as well as poor (Pakistan), authoritarian (Sudan) as well as democratic (Belgium), Marxist-Leninist (China) as well as militantly anti-Marxist (Turkey). The list also includes countries which are Buddhist (Burma), Christian (Spain), Moslem (Iran), Hindu (India) and Judaic (Israel)â€Â. (Walker Connor, ‘National Self-Determination and Tomorrow’s Political Map’ 1999: 163-4)
Thus, democracy may induce or reduce a demand for secession. If it creates an opportunity for fair representation and accommodation of politically significant groups, it may discourage a demand for secession, but there is no good evidence to claim that it would completely reduce or destroy ethnonational movements. Democracy would create an opportunity for all political groupings to compete for votes of the people. As a result, the ethnonational movements can also have a right to advance their political agenda in a democratic manner to attract the votes of their assumed constituency. Thus, democracy can create an opportunity or danger in multiethnic society in which separatist ethnonational movements are politically visible.
In connection to the situation in Ethiopia, it is obvious that ethnonational movements have been visible in country’s political arena since 1960s. No matter what we have labelled them, such as ‘narrow movements’ or ‘liberation movements’; ‘enemies of Ethiopia’ or ‘assets of Ethiopia’, ‘mercenaries’ or ‘genuine fighters’, the ethnonational movements have been a great irritation to the desire and project of a unified and melting-pot Ethiopia.
Nonetheless, separatist and regional movements are not unique phenomena that have happened only in Ethiopia; they are common political problems in state structuring processes everywhere in our planet. As we Ethiopians are part of this planet, ethnonational movements can also occur in our country. Therefore, it is important to consider the challenges rationally rather than to hide into some kind of a sacred or spiritual destiny that advocates the immunity of Ethiopia from ethnonationalist movements.
Ethnonationalist or liberation movements are part and parcel of the problems of politics in Ethiopia, as it has been the case in some other places; therefore they require a political solution. We may desire them to vanish or we may want them to be destroyed by force or by whatever metaphysical power, but the empirical evidences are trivial for success of such desires.
Consequently, if we assume that democracy will be a best option to tackle the major political problems in Ethiopia, thus the demands of the ethnonational or liberation movements would also be addressed in a democratic principle, in which the judge and jury would be the voices and votes of the Ethiopian people. Democracy is a system in which rival groups and hostile political philosophies and position would compete for the vote of the people in a peaceful manner. As a result, the ethnonational organisations such as ONC, OFDM, TAND, as well as the liberation or secession movements such as OLF, ONLF in Ethiopia can have a right to advocate their political programmes and compete for votes. In a democracy, any individual or political organisation has a right to advocate secession in a peaceful manner and to get elected, as it has been the case in many democratic countries such as Canada, Great Britain (Scotland), Spain, USA (Puerto Rico).
A democratic political system could bring an opportunity or danger for the unity of Ethiopia. If the ethnonational and liberation movements able to secure vast support and votes in a democratic election based on their appeal for separatism and exclusive group rights, we may be forced to accept the verdict of the people, as it is always very difficult to determine in advance the outcome of a democratic election. Are we envisioning such kind of democracy in Ethiopia? Or, are we envisioning a different model of democracy in Ethiopia that will put pre-conditions or restrictions on ethnonational and liberation movements? Although there may be different variants of democratic political systems, is there a consensus in Ethiopia among the major political groupings, civil society groups, ethnic communities and ordinary people regarding a democratic model that would be appropriate and acceptable to the Ethiopian people. The answer to this question has not been still determined and will not be also resolved so easily; it is an awesome political challenge that has been confronting the Ethiopian people.
The May 2005 election, however, signalled an important political direction in Ethiopia. Although many prominent political organisations like EPRP and OLF were excluded, the election reflected that a pan-Ethiopia and non-ethnonational political organization, CUD gained victory in major urban centers, including 100 percent victory in Addis Ababa, and overwhelming majority votes in the Amhara region and Gurage zone. Whereas, the ethnonational organizations within UEDF (such as ONC, HNDO and SEPDC), gained victory in Hadiya and western Shoa, and OFDM in Western Wellega area that reflect the ethnic background of the organizations. To be more specific regarding CUD, firstly, from the total of 140 national parliament seats of CUD’s ‘confirmed’ victory, 68 seats were in Amhara region (in towns and rural areas), 1 seat in Benishangul (urban area), 2 in Dire Dawa city, 1 in Harar city, 20 in Oromia (mainly in towns), and 25 seats in the SNNP (mainly in Gurage zone and in other towns) and 23 in Addis Ababa. Secondly, from the total of 139 electoral districts seats in which, CUD filed for irregularities, 53 are in Amhara region (in towns and rural areas), 33 in Oromia (mainly in towns), 43 in the SNNP (mainly in towns), 8 in Afar and 2 in Harar.
Thus, from the total of 279 electoral seats in which CUD would have won (which could have made him a winning party at the federal government level, but not necessarily in most of the regional states’ governments level) 121 seats would be from Amhara region (which was 87 percent of the regional state’s seats for the national parliament), 53 in Oromia (which was only 19 percent of the region’s seats for the national parliament), and 78 seats in the SNNP (which was 60 percent of the region’s seat in the national parliament). This could have made CUD a ruling party in the federal government, Addis Ababa administration, Amhara regional states and Gurage zone in the SNNP region, but very tiny minority party in the Oromia region and other regional states as well. Thus, it would have been indispensable to seek an effective participation of the larger regional state like Oromia to create a stable and effective governance system in Ethiopia following the May 2005 Election.
An effective alliance between the Oromiffa speaking and Amharic speaking people is a crucial condition, either to establish a democratic governance arrangement in Ethiopia or to accelerate the struggle against the tyranny of the minority TPLF rule. It is an essential task to aim in producing a just and viable political order that will protect individual and group rights, which are anchored on principles of human rights and democracy within the context of an integrated Ethiopia. It is essential to nurture a united Ethiopia that aims to suppress hubris and uphold humility, promote respect and trust while dissuading vengeances and pomposity, to produce a more accurate, sensitive and all-encompassing national history. Neither a tiny minority rule, a return to the past, secession, nor closed ethnic homelands would be alternative arrangements for Ethiopia.
Berhanu G. Balcha is the Vice-Chairman of the Network of Ethiopian Scholars (NES)-Scandinavian Chapter.
This writing does not necessarily reflect the views of NES-Scandinavian Chapter.
The author may be contacted at: [email protected]
12 thoughts on “Stability and Democracy in Ethiopian greatly rely upon Amharic-speaking and Oromiffa-speaking people of Ethiopia”
Thank you Obbo Berhanu for your enlightening article. In my opinion, you have tried to be as fair as possible to promote harmony among the vaious language groups in Ethiopia. Everybody concerned needs to speak out the truth in order to resolve the intractable political problems befelling our country. Ethiopia’s problem needs the right diagnosis to prescribe the right solutions. The first bold step is to acknowledge what the problem is without worrying what the solutons might be if we acknowledge the right problem. The solution to a problem lies in the right diagnosis of the problem itself. For that to happen, everybody needs to think outside the box and try to be as creative as possible and come up with a reasonable suggestions. The path we have been on thus far, be it hundred or three thousand years- has never worked. We are still at the bottom rung of the ladder of development in the entire world. What is most humiliating is we even cannot feed ourselves let alone talking of development.
Belete
I totally agree with your analysis and our country’s future depends on bringing movements like OLF and ONLF who want freedom and equality without preconditions in the democratic process.
Based on this premise, I supported when AFD was formed few months ago and however since its inception the so called Unity forces mainly the Hibret led by EPRP started attacking this formation and accused it as Shabya’s creation and demonized OLF as slaves of Eritrea.
I was against such characterization of nationalist movements and I believe like you our future depends working with OLF and the other alternative is the path currently taken by the minority racist regime of Melese Zenawi.
Melese Zenawi on his parliament declared that being a member of OLF and ONLF is punishable by death and I wonder the hate many Diaspora Hibret supporters have for OLF and ONLF would have been matched with Melese if they had been in power.
The Oromo question will surely be addressed in a one man one vote and as you clearly summarized by comparing the results of election 2005, CUD’s win did not change the fact that in Oromo’s region the Oromo affiliated movements had won.
To form a government without winning in Oromia region is difficult and that is why the major actors in a free and Democratic election in Ethiopia in the future have to take seriously the OLF.
Demonizing OLF will destroy your chance of getting a single vote in the Oromo region and if we wish our country to avoid armed rebellion we have to accept this fact.
Replacing the current racist minority with others who claim to be more Ethiopian than other will not bring peace or democracy and the basics of democracy is to accept others even if we do not like their ideas.
Regards,
Tedla
Selam Berhanu,
You got me confused totally Dear. You say, “Stability and Democracy in Ethiopian greatly rely upon Amharic-speaking and Oromiffa-speaking people of Ethiopia.” Then you go, “Oromiffa and Amharic speaking people in Ethiopia account about 70 percent of the total population of the country, ….”
How is your thought process? Stability and Democracy greatly rely on the two languages-speaking people because they make up 70% of the total? Would you then equally argue that Stability and Democracy greatly rely on either of the said languages-speaking people (Amharic-speaking and Oromiffa-speaking)” plus the rest (30%), which roughly would add up to 60 to 70%? I guess you should agree because what seems to matter, according to you, is the percentage, right?
Do you feel like the 30% (Somali, Tigray, Afar, Gurage, Gambella, Wolaita…) has no chance of coming together to contribute to “Stability and Democracy?” Do you feel like the 30% has no chance of working with either the Amharic-speaking or Oromiffa-speaking people of Ethiopia, to follow you logic, to bring “Stability and Democracy?” What about the 30% working with both the “Amharic-speaking” or “Oromiffa-speaking” people of Ethiopia to bring “Stability and Democracy?” Do you feel that is an impossibility?
Would you equally say that stability and democracy in Ethiopia greatly depend on the south as opposed to the north? If not, why not?
I threw those question to see the internal consistency of your arguments, not because I found any validity in any of what you wrote. To put it bluntly, I found you article very childish. Since 85% of the people are muslims and christians, if they come together, that will stablize and democratize the nation. Isn’t that obvious?
Sir your analysis is timely and correct but short of the reality on the ground when you interoperate the result of the May 2005 election and what it means. To take the election result, contested by the opposition from the election board, which is set up and organized to make sure to guarantee the ruling party total victory is misleading and dilute your beautiful analysis of the situation in Ethiopia.
Second, demonizing those who look for democratic space for all Ethiopians as Unity force who want to swallow the whole does not vindicate the so called liberation fronts any thing but a potential tyrants like TPLF and EPLF not representative of “their†people.
I resent your characterization of Ethiopians as a pawn to one-liberation fronts or another but an independent entity of their own with their own group and individual interest and aspirations that is entwined with their long relationship with the rest of their fellow Ethiopians.
Given free space and absence of intimidation by any violent group who claim to liberate them or stood for their interest (that has been proven wrong over and over again to be a fallacy) Ethiopians will take the higher ground to choice what is best for their country, their community and most importantly for continuity of their tradition and culture that sustain a much difficult foes for centuries.
That is where CUD came in to prove some and all, Ethiopians are much more complex and beautiful than what one Junta or another liberation front give them credit for- given the opportunity we always choice the higher ground.
Your assessment made a good point but failed miserably in several points
· You assumed the election is in a level playing field until the counting began
· CUD or any other opposition campaign in what you call Amhara , Oromia region,etc is hospitable and went normal and took the result as given and extrapolate from that to give OLF the rest to fulfill your unexplained agenda of the viability of a liberation front.
· You conveniently accepted the EPRDF ethnocentric Killil policy (which, by the way was based on the fascist occupation instigated map to control Ethiopians) to analyze the election result and the future democratic Ethiopia and gave an impression that you are for an ethnic killil when it suite your agenda but against it when it is not.
· When you refer “minority rule†i.e. TPLF who rightly fought as Tigrian call itself Tigrian, and rule as Tigrian, you assumed the people of Tigri are represented by TPLF and gave TPLF more credit than it deserve. When in actuality, like any Ethiopians they are under the gun to do what they are told for what ever agenda the former Liberation front an ethnic group, now a government Ethiopia have in mind, further discounting their aspiration and assuming complicity in their part.
There is more to it than a spontaneous reaction from one person or group for events. First we should agree, no one, not liberation front, not a government want to be, and not a political party have a monopoly of any one group and individual with out a free consent of the group or individual. If that is the case, the only thing we can ask for and should agree with is to make institution of democracy free so that the government can be by the people, for the people and to the people.
The question is, why wouldn’t all the liberation fronts, ethnic parties, and the rest afraid of coming together and agreeing to let the people speak for themselves with out intimidation and treat like Kinjit did?
We can agree or disagree on issues but there is no single reason on earth we should disagree on the issue of allowing Ethiopians to have their repetitive with their free will.
There is no one party in history that made it possible until Kinjit came along. Neither political party nor a liberation front will ever be the same again. Let build on the little freedom Ethiopians gained than thwart it for the power mongers.
Long live freedom
Hi Berhanu,
I think you made an examplary attempt to compile a cut-and-paste article to promote your party line. I am sure no right-minded person would spend time reading your shimsham, except yourself – if you understand it all. We, the minorites (30% according to your statisics) wish you good luck, as the two “core national people and dominant groups, guarantee us stability, rights and democracy.” I wonder why you stayed so long in the bush with this great idea that could change the face of our country for ever. woregna!
Nice article and even nicer comments. My take is patterns of voting are quite predicable in any one country due mainly to historical circumstances. That is why we label blue and red states in the USA, French and English speaking in canada…the list goes on.
The writer attempted to recognize these objective political realities and nothing more. That it could scare the daylight out of people is understandable as it did to me temporarily. The crux of his argument does not advacate for the two large groups to form unholly alliance against the smaller ones. On the contrary. On the large lies the responsibility of dispelling legitimate fears and insecurities of the smaller ones in order to create conditions of stability. I believe the writer is emphasizing a point, in that, the solution to our political crisis is to be found in building a democratic process that recognizes the individual as the be all and the end all of our political outlook.
Kuchiye
I like the article in the sense that it tried to accomadate the claims of parties that favour unity of the country and those that are nationalists.
But the writer has to know that lasting peace and prosperity can only be achieved as a result of sharing and shaping of values such as power,wealth and respect among all with out exception.The writer seems to be Benthamian in the sense that he is concerned for the great majority of people instead of being concerned with the interest of all.
I firmly believe that we have to strive to work towards establishing Ethiopia where human dignity is respected and every one(both individually and as a member of group)as access to power,wealth,respect,rectitude,affection,well-being,enlightnment,skill. these are identitied to be things human beings value by peple like Reisman and McDougal.
I refer you to read this material:
Harold D. Lasswell & Myres S. McDougal, Criteria For A Theory About Law, in Harold D. Lasswell & Myres S. McDougal, Jurisprudence For A Free Society: Studies in Law, Science, and Policy, 1992, 3.
Hi there,
It is shame to see that many educated Ethiopians, primarily in the diaspora, can not even understand the simple and obvious facts in our country a little better than an uneducated peasant in the remote parts of Ethiopia.
Would you agree if you were told that the Stability and Democracy in the US would greatly rely upon the White Majority?
Can you please tell me whether the African Americans accounting for 13 percent of the total US population have no role for the Stability and Democracy in America?
Those who still day-dream that the solution to the socio-political crisis in Ethiopia, is at the hands of the majority (70%), rather than All People of Ethiopia (100%), must be perfect enemies of Ethiopia.
Dear Danebo: 1) greatly means not totally 2)if
the majority works for democracy, what is the
problem for the minority. The minorities fear a
dictatorship of the majority, not a majority
committed for respect of their right and democracy.
Therefore the article asks the majority to work
together to bring democracy and respect for the
rights of other groups, not to impose dictatorship.
You said:
“If the majority works for democracy, what is the
problem for the minority.”
Well, the minority has no problem at all if the majority were capable of or strives to establish lasting peace and democracy for all people of Ethiopia. Unfortunately, this has never been the case in our country. The truth of the matter is that the majority is still selfish and unwilling to equally share power and wealth, and fails to respect the minority.
My question to you:
1) What is the problem for the majority to work together with the minority for democracy?
2) Why is the majority so desperate to delegate itself to work for the minority.
3) How can you bring lasting peace and democracy for other groups with out recognizing their contribution to the cause, and with out respecting their position in the Ethiopian politics?
To be honest, this article only serves to displays the writer’s lack of respect towards minorities, and I find it divisive, discriminatory, racial-motivated, and it should be subject for a closer look and possibly for removal from the web sites.
TO Danebo
Ethiopianreview is not aigaforum, that block or remove the opinion of an individual. Please, understand the principle of democracy. You can make opposing argument but you have no right to shut people’s mouth. We are living in a free world, not under a brutal oppressive minority rule.
That is your democracy.
Hi there,
The essence of democracy is respect for human rights, but not racism and discrimination. Yes, you are free to talk – even if it sounds rubbish – but you have no right to preach hate and violence at the expense of others.
Well, I leave you alone as it would easier to climb Himalaya rather than arguing with you. You do not get it! No wonder TPLF is dragging your narrow-minded brain-dead fellows to the hell. Stop day-dreaming!