Facing
the Challenge of Extreme Nationalism in Ethiopia
Abay Beneberu Qeneni
March
2002
PART III
With regard to the AAPO and its members, I pay
tribute to those who sacrificed themselves and those who are still doing
so to defend the people of Amhara who have been stigmatised as Neftegna
and singled out for revenge by Woyané
and its cohorts. I do not blame them for advocating a centralised system
of government in contrast to my preference for federalism. One has to
accept a decision-making process where differences in opinion are
respected. However, my problem is the fact that they advocate a united
Ethiopia whose status quo is
retained or, even worse, their inclination for a particular brand of
unity that reflects only their views; it is particularly discomforting
that the extremists within them pay lip-service to unity but promote
disunity in their deeds, that they are out for achieving fame for
themselves or stand on the fringes sulking at what others do, nurturing
their self-inflated image, rather than working together for the good of
our society in a coordinated manner, some thing they are unwilling or
unable to do. It is as though- if my judgment is correct- they were
saying that the Amhara are capable of achieving anything, but that the
others need a guardian to accomplish a similar feat. From the outset,
the mere fact that others organise on ethnic lines is for them an
expression of narrowness and secessionism. When challenged on how they
have organised themselves, they argue that the Woyané
forced them to organise on ethnic lines though, they say, their aim is
one people, one country, one-nation.
These people cannot deny the mere fact that
they abandoned their goals, under Woyané
pressure, confirms that they lost the fight long before it began. This
means that they forfeited their role in politics a decade ago. How do
they fail to see the discrepancy between their desires and actions when
they embark on fighting racism by organising themselves on racist lines?
Woyané fears and is anathema to a weaker multiethnic organisation
more than it is to a strong ethnic based one. It has a good reason for
that; it knows that every ethnic based-organisation revolves around the
philosophical circle on which the Woyané
itself is founded and that about three-fourth of the benefits of the
actions of such organisations go to it. How then can one hope to achieve
one’s goal by giving away so much to one’s opponent? When advised to
ponder over this and at least change the name of their organisation, one
senior member retorted: “Who on earth are the Amhara inferior to not
to organise in their own name?” That
is why one dare argue that such people, who are in the twilight of their
political carreer, are lulling and impeding the people from taking
alternative routes. They pour cold water over the struggle by tiring the
people and leading them astray, thereby driving them from the arena of
struggle, which is why there is little to shaw by way of results. Some
say they chose to organise in the name of the Amhara ‘to be able to
respond to the initial attack/massacre against Amharic speakers’, but,
though this is plausible, they have had enough time to make changes.
They have not done it until now and there are no indications that they
will do it in the future. And the campaign against ‘the Amhara’ has
not been brought to an end, in fact it has continued, though
intermittently. The recent displacement in Wollega is a typical example.
As noted above, it is my opinion that every one has the right to
organise one self in a manner one sees fit, regardless of the benefits
or drawbacks thereof. Pretending to be what one is not or cannot be,
however, smacks of Woyané; as
such, one has to immediately abandon the mistake of perceiving
ethnic-based organisation in black and white, for that is one of the
weaknesses of the political struggle. If they mean to fight racism, they
have to make their organisation a multi-ethnic one. Another alternative
for them is to continue to speak for the Amhara while at the same time
accepting the rights of others to organise on ethnic lines. Which ever
form of organisation they choose, it is a must for them to make a
fundamental revision of their thinking on democratic lines – if they
mean to make constructive contributions – and stop acting guardians for
other ethnic groups, as that would in itself mean arrogance at best and
racism at worst. Otherwise, we have to challenge them to stop confusing
the people and retire from their futile political career of the last
decade.
There are other extremists on the fringes
among those who call themselves Amhara who complicate matters in a
manner worse than those I discussed above. Most of them live as refugees
outside Ethiopia and their thinking about their country is based on the
situation that existed when they left Ethiopia, not on the objective
situation obtaining today thereby confusing the two situations. Their
extremism, mixed with the sundry of views they have had about the Haile-Silassé,
Dergue/WPE and TPLF/EPRDF regimes, has led them to entrench racism in
the Ethiopian Diaspora in a manner no less damaging than the one
practiced at home. They feel like remote-controlling the forums beyond
their reach, not just the ones at which they participate. To them, any
activity that is undertaken without their blessing is aimed at winning
fame and power. They are extremely mistrustful and dream about the
positions of authority they hope to occupy after victory. They easily
take to condemning and sulking at any thing accomplished without their
sanction. Their fight is, therefore, not against the Woyané
but against popular forces. Another way they harm the struggle is by
resorting to spontaneous and irresponsible diatribe at whichever forum
they find themselves. They spread rumours without giving the slightest
thought to the implications and the beneficiaries of their actions. They
tend to preach the existence of a divine-imposed hierarchy among ethnic
groups. When counselled to desist from making remarks that hurt others,
firstly, they do not have the patience to listen but only to talk.
Secondly, they continue to commit more blunders in their attempts to
convince their interlocutors, rather than genuinely considering the
counsel. Such infantile behaviour has enabled the Woyané
to kill two birds with one stone and helped it reinforce the loyalty of
its kin. This is a red light Woyané
is using to warn ordinary Tigrés saying: ‘this is what awaits you if
you do not help me stay in power’. Therefore, Woyané
will be able to continue to have a reserve of marionettes and keep the
people divided. The despondent cannot see any light at the end of the
tunnel and the opportunist avails himself or herself of a pretext either
to abandon the struggle or to continue to shamelessly cling to their
master. The secessionist èlites, too, continue to exploit the
infantilism of the Amhara extremists to pursue their campaign with
vigour. Members of the Diaspora including the intellectuals, the elderly
and those who toil in factories for meager wages begin to dance to the
tune of secessionism assuming infantilism to be normal behaviour. By so
identifying with the Oromo they try to pass as devotees to the cause of
the struggle. The prolongation of the problem at home also provides them
with the time and pretext to bring relatives from Ethiopia in the name
of family reunion. The unfortunate citizens back home can continue to
suffer blaming their stars for their bad fortune!
When voices of reason tell them that their
ways are destructive, that we should distinguish between people and
organisations, that we should not interpret history out of context, that
we have to consider the truth and weigh it against the implications,
that our efforts are futile unless founded on popular support and
organisation and that we should in a maturely considered manner chart
the future together, the extremists in both camps refuse to listen. They
rather come up with insinuations of cowardice, opportunism, treason, and
accuse others of being a mixed race, Neftegna
henchmen, an EPRP/MEISON or student movement old-timer of the leftist
school, an Ethiopian nationalist of the Dergue/WPE type, etc. Folks, the
major problem in the first problem is that these extremists do not know
about organisation and neither do they have desire nor respect for
organised work. As I noted in my introduction, they do not even know the
different roles of civic organisations and political parties. They end
up failing to tell the head from the tail even when they think they have
given their best shot for the struggle. They do not even grasp the goals
and programmes of the organisations they claim to support and fail to
see the importance of respecting organisational discipline. In this
regard, especially most of those who claim to speak for the Amhara
(including the inactive ones) have very similar positions, judging
directly or indirectly from their actions. Today, they regret the
participation as sympathisers or members in other organisations, of
which they were once proud. They fuss over trifles in matters relating
to the AAPO, their pawn, and indulge in hair splitting with regard to
the Southern Ethiopia Peoples Organisation and the Oromo Peoples
Congress (OPC). Pertaining to the new comer Ethiopian Democratic Party (EDP),
they talk about the futility of its peaceful struggle against the Woyané.
When asked as to what their role would be in the event of an armed
struggle, they say they will make material & financial
contributions; but when it comes to the question of manpower for the
armed struggle, they begin to scratch their heads. And at the mention of
EPRP, they are seized by aversion more than the Woyané. When asked for alternative solutions, they come up with
such excuses that they are stigmatised by the Woyané, or that they do not want to endanger their business plans
and, hence, can only do what they can as individuals not through
organisations, or that they are no more interested in politics or that
there are no dependable people to work with. Their ultimate answer for
the political crisis that is victimising our people is to hasten to
quote the title of the book: ‘The
Beautiful Ones are Not Yet Born’.
In this book, the author (Armah)
has made the wife of the main character (the Man) to call him Choochoo
Dodo. Choochoo Dodo is a handsome and proud bird that deeply dislikes
all animal products, especially dung. He eats mangoes and nests in a
mango tree. Choochoo Dodo is unthinkable without the mango tree. But a
mango tree grows best on soil enriched with manure. When using the
analogy of ‘The Beautiful Ones
are not Yet Born’, those extremists, who would like us to call
them Amhara, tend to view politics and organisation in a superficial
manner similar to how the wife views Choochoo Dodo’s love and hate
towards the mango tree and the manure. The Woyané
have failed to prevent the people from organising freely and
participating in the politics of their country even after investing all
the resources at their disposal, but these extremists are helping them
achieve those very goals at a lower cost. When they fall short of
realising their goals as a result of such weaknesses, confusion and
internecine squabbles, they end up resorting to the audacious and
recurrent effort of condemning earlier student movements, organisations,
opposition movements and individuals. But such behaviour gets one
nowhere and brings one nothing. Some how we have to have the courage to
put an end to this destructive chaos. One has to realise that one falls
into more insignificance than the extremists themselves if one assumes,
on the basis of the negatives the extremists say and write, that there
is a fundamental, an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of
the Oromo and Amhara and /or that there is mutual disdain between the
two communities and hence remove oneself from taking part in the
struggle. We have to tell them to listen to advice and correct their
mistakes or to desist from their actions or else to retire from
politics. One cannot be excessively concerned with public opinion when
it comes to defending one’s national interests. Every one has to
discharge their share of national responsibilities; it is meaningless to
talk in terms of persuaders and objects of persuasion. Every one has to
be aware of their rights and duties and work towards respect for those
rights and discharge their duties.
In this spirit and with a view to learning
from one another about the people being a source of power, avoiding
becoming an impediment to unity and for long-lasting peace and mutual
benefit, I propose to outline below six
points which I believe will contribute to peaceful co-existence
– in a spirit of give and take with the Amhara and Oromo extremists –
who are the main focus of this article.
First,
we have over 80 indigenous languages in Ethiopia, classified into four
categories:
i) Kushitic (Oromifa, Somali, Sidama, Kembata, Beja, Bilen,
etc.,
ii) Semitic (Ge’ez, Tigre, Tigringa, Amharic, Guragigna, Argoba,
Harari, Gafat);
iii) Omotic (Keffa, Wolayta, Majji, Gamo, Konta, Gofa,
etc.,
iv) Nilotic (Mezhenger, Gumuz, Kunama, Anuak, etc.).
Of these
Gafat is a dead language and Ge’ez is limited to use in the church.
Most of the languages have not had the opportunity to develop. Amharic
is, however, better developed for historical reasons and aided by the
fact that it has been a written language; it has therefore been the
voice of government and a working language for centuries. We take pride
in it as it is the only African language, other than Arabic, with an
indigenous alphabet. Because most city and town dwellers use it as a
medium of communication, Amharic has developed, especially since the 19th
century, into the lingua franca of the region. As such, other than the
traits it shares with other languages, it has to be seen as a mere
medium of communication, and, it is the users who have to choose the
medium of communication. One may offer recommendations but cannot force
one to use a particular language. But situations can compel one; a case
in point is that the Woyané
used to refer to Amharic as the language of ‘donkeys’ at the time
when they were preaching the establishment of a Tigray Republic, but
then as they began to dream of a presentment of something bigger from
their guerrilla strongholds, they had to use Amharic for propaganda
purposes and as they entered Menelik’s Palace, they realised that
their existence depended on it. The OLF would hardly have behaved any
differently if it were to seize power other than declaring Oromifa a
second working language, for reasons of keeping its word and due to the
fact that it is the largest (in terms of the number of speakers) and
better developed language next to Amharic and Tigringa. If the OLF were
confident of victory and if it knew what it was doing, it had to try to
raise the Amharic proficiency of its top cadres to whom it would assign
key positions and display that proficiency at every forum where issues
Ethiopian were discussed. I know it will not have immediate problems,
but it should consider the harm it will do to the country and to young
followers of the OLF if it continues to prevent the latter from learning
what it calls is the language of the Neftegna: it is preventing these youngsters, who could assume the
future leadership of the country, from effectively exercising their
rights as citizens and the country from tapping into their talents. We
have witnessed the extent to which the Woyané
have exploited, though temporarily, their Oromifa and Amharic-speaking
henchmen by tagging pseudo-names on to them (calling Tayé Kuma, Minassé
Aba Dulla, etc.).
We have to realise that while they are telling the
rest of Ethiopians that learning the Neftegna’s
Amharic and Oromifa, too, is a matter of choice for them, they are in
the mean time diligently teaching both languages to their kith and kin,
not for reasons of inheriting heaven but rather to prepare their cadres
for leadership roles and the rear guard for the opportunity to take
advantage of wider Ethiopia. If we accept this argument, we have to do
all in our power to develop the languages of nations/nationalities while
at the same time paying the necessary attention to our lingua franca.
Amharic managed to develop by borrowing words, proverbs, idioms, etc.,
from such foreign languages as English, Latin, Greek, Arabic,
Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, French, Russian and such domestic
languages as Ge’ez, which is its foundation, Tigringna, Agew, Oromifa,
Afar, Sidamo, Somali, Guraginga, etc. In linguistics, the word and the
object or the concept have no relations. What some thing or some one is
named is governed by the choice of the users. Every language can
adequately express its own culture and is therefore self-sufficent. When
stretched beyond its bounds, it makes up for the deficiency either by
borrowing from or adapting to a foreign language. English, which is a
widely spoken language around the world with rich literature, is
developed by such a process of borrowing and adaptation vis-à-vis not
just such European languages as Latin, Greek, Dutch, French, Russian,
Italian but also other languages in former British colonies. It
surprises me to see our Oromo extremists trying to avoid borrowing words
from Amharic because they are either blinded by hatred or are so
backward in their awareness about languages; it saddens me to see them
mock the users of the language, not to mention their poor command of the
language itself. What would Amharic gain and what would Oromifa lose,
other than enrichment, if Oromifa borrowed from Amharic just like the
latter did from other languages, including Oromifa itself? Certain words
that Amharic today uses as its own were borrowed both from home and
abroad: science, programme, mezmur,
tassa, shemiz, verandah, villa, adungna, geleta, qotcho,
etc., are some examples. In this regard Amharic has a big role to play
in contributing to the development of the other Ethiopian languages.
This is the reality and danger of the misconception of extremists of
both communities regarding languages and their getting at each other’s
throats could be harmful in the long-term. If we continue on the wrong
track we may even face problems in developing the other languages.
Language is a medium of communication and it should not be an
instrument, as used by the Woyané,
to divide us.
While striving to enable
children get at least their primary education in their mother tongue and
according to the choice of their parents, we have to devote the
necessary attention to our lingua franca, too. At least one national
working language is necessary for any country. Our social interactions
and development will unquestionably suffer if we deny our working
language the status it deserves. We have not witnessed any harm done by
a single language, English, being the working language in the United
States, where speakers of most languages of the world live. If we do not
come to our senses and do some thing about it, it will not be long
before we need interpreters as we move between regions. In Sierra Leone,
for instance, there are ethnic groups speaking 40-50 languages. There
was a time when they could not communicate with one another without the
medium of the colonial language, English. This problem was partially
solved with Mende in the south and Temne in the north developed into
main regional vernaculars and Krio, English-based Creole, gradually
developing into a national language. If we continue along the present
lines, our children may not be able to communicate with one another
after thirty years, and it will be then when our miserable failure will
be confirmed as such. No one will benefit from such a development,
except Ethiopia’s traditional enemies who are thriving on the
destitution and failure of the people of Ethiopia. We should give due
consideration to the gravity of the situation both for our own sakes
and, especially, for the welfare of future generations.
Second,
the choice of alphabet, just like the choice of language, has to be
determined by the user. This is without excluding the important role of
professionals’ views on such matters as choosing the most appropriate
alphabet and modification work. But the extremists who do not accept
this create further problems by mixing the role of professionals with
their own political interests. In Oromifa, for instance, a spoken word
can have different meanings depending on where the accent falls or on
the length of the word. An alphabetic system of writing, where every
symbol represents a single sound and where vowels and consonants are
written separately is useful for this. Latin characters (Quubé
in Oromifa) enable one to variegate the sound of a word by
shortening/lengthening a written word by the number of vowel-consonant
combinations. Since the Ge’ez-based Amharic is syllabic, each
character can represent two or more sounds (word). Note that
representing a word and representing a sound are two different things in
linguistics. It is therefore difficult at the moment to show, using
Amharic characters, the difference in meaning that can be brought about
by shifting the accent or shortening or lengthening sounds. The Amharic
characters, which serve to write such Semitic languages as Amharic and
Tigringa without problems, are not yet fully developed for use with the
other languages. It is hence a mistake to regard those sections of the
society who have chosen to use Latin characters as anti-Amharic or even
anti-Ethiopian. We know from experience that there are groups who have
political motives, however, the right thing to do is to respect their
choice. In this connection, it is appropriate to develop Amharic
characters in such a way as to be used for all the other languages by,
as suggested by author Hadis Alemayehu, reducing the number of
characters that have identical appellation and introducing new symbols
to represent such characters as the English ‘V’ and the Oromifa
sound ‘D’. Those who have chosen Latin characters will have to
make sure, by consulting professionals, that their choice is implemented
in a manner that will not be an impediment both for students and
teachers. Education is a means to solving problems of society and should
not be an instrument for fulfilling the sinister desires of particular
individuals and groups. If the teaching-learning process in our country
continues arbitrarily on current lines for short-term political gains,
it will mean confusion not education; one has to realize that it means
risking the future of coming generations. And mixing such issues, which
can be settled by professionals, with other major national issues of
common interest, can only be regarded as poverty of ideas and an excuse
for generating conflict.
Comments to A.
B. Qeneni