Facing
the Challenge of Extreme Nationalism in Ethiopia

Abay Beneberu Qeneni

March
2002

PART I

Slogans of Two Eras:

Dergue – “Revolutionary Ethiopia or Death!”… an Ethiopia where
we must be above the law

Woyané [TPLF] – “Freedom up to and including
secession or…” a country where we must be above

the law and where the choicest goes to
the region of Tigray.

——– “Independent Oromia or …” even for a single
day so far as we alone can be at the helm.

——– “Ethiopian Unity or …” exclusively centred on our
vision.

We
know from experience that a slogan is an instrument in a struggle. It is
a concise means of articulating the grievances or desires of a people or
a group in a manner that galvanizes them. The shape and content of the
slogan are indicators of the depth or shallowness as well as of the
longevity or brevity of the struggle. ”Land to the Tiller” was a
lead slogan of Ethiopian students during the reign of Emperor
Haileselassie, ”Ethiopia First without Bloodshed” in the first years
of the Dergue and ”Today Germany Tomorrow the World” in Nazi Germany
had similar roles.

As
relates to Ethiopia, while the students’ slogan has since been a
popular demand that still awaits satisfactory resolution, the progress
of Ethiopia without bloodletting has remained utopia. Blood streamed
like a river and the country fell deeper into underdevelopment. It is
not for us, therefore, to discuss what has become of the Dergue and its
slogan, borrowed from Mussolini and exclaiming inevitable death. To our
dismay, we are today confronted with slogans of the Woyané
that are embarrassing and unworthy of a quote. Protestations to the
contrary aside and though they claim to have differences in goal, we
know from the slogans of these extremist nationalists, that they are traveling
along the fatal road traversed by the Dergue.

What
concern us most are the consequences of their policies and actions to
innocent citizens, the dangers facing the very existence of our country
and the continued prolongation of the suffering of our people. It is,
therefore, appropriate to exchange views and also redouble our efforts
in search of a way out, in a manner that takes into account our
capabilities and limitations.

It
is my belief that the Amharic and Oromifa speaking sections of our
society can, for various reasons, have a larger share in shaping the
future of Ethiopia better and at a faster pace, providing mutual trust
and political tolerance between themselves. In so doing, I do not mean
to underestimate the role and contributions of the other sections of our
society; I am rather focusing on the softest spot/ weakest link in our
problems, hoping that it would help us in the search for common
solutions before it is too late. With this urgency in mind and
considering the fact that efforts at individual and group levels to make
the struggles conducted in the names of the Amhara and Oromo mutually
reinforcing have not yet borne fruit, it is high time that the positions
of different sides be discussed in depth and openly, without any game of
hide and seek. In this connection, I propose for public discussion:

1)
five points with regard to secession and

2)
six other points concerning the benefits of give and take, all of
which are based on my own
experiences and on discussions with friends for whom the plight of their
country is of the utmost concern.

The
biggest and urgent task in this connection is the need for us to draw a
strategy, based on our experiences, for strengthening the unity of our
people. The unity of the people in itself is not enough. Political work
can barely lead to results without organizational work. And hollow organization
is futile and can only delude us. Only co-ordination
between the two (strategy & organization) can help us achieve the
desired results. We have wasted years blaming the inability of
opposition movements to emerge united and strong. How on earth can the
movements emerge strong and united without their source of unity and
strength, the people, showing mutual political trust and closeness as in
the realm of social interactions? Can one harvest what one has not sown?
Here one may wonder as to which of the two should come first, strategy
or organization, but we should have no problem accepting the fact that
the two are inseparable.

By
relying on our positive experiences so far, by correcting our
weaknesses, and modifying our tactics, we can, on the one hand, build
bridges among our people by removing the hurdles. Simultaneously, on the
other hand, we have to forge ahead by educating the extremist
nationalists about our long-term goal and by strengthening the existing
civic and political organizations or even by establishing new ones, if
need be.

As
we know from the experiences of the developed democratic countries, it
is such civic, professional and employee organizations that emerge from
societies (peoples) intertwined with mutual national concerns and
respect for differences, that serve as corner-stones for democratic
systems where respect for human rights prevails. It is from such a sea
of people that respects mutual differences and provides the foundation
for support that political organizations emerge with trust for each
other and for the people, with respect for the people as a source of
power and the ability to lead the country. We are today witnessing that
individuals and groups that are unable or unwilling to accept this
reality are impeding our people, in no less measure than the Woyané
themselves, from coming together and resolving their problems. It is
such people and organizations that I call extremists in this article.
Our people know who is who and what action to take, though stifled by
powerful forces. They have both the power and the ability, providing
that they embark on the right track. We have already witnessed excessive
mutual denials of existing problems, evasions and self-righteousness
about one’s views/political stance. We have to realize and then put
into practice the fact that reinstating or partaking through mutual
agreement of the usurped wealth and rights of others and retrieving what
was once lost are marks of civilized peoples. I do not believe that we
should doubt that this is decisive in shaping the long-term peace and
development of our society.

In
this regard, we dare find the answer to as to why the Amhara and Oromo
played less prominent roles in their country’s affairs and in those of
their own than expected of them, particularly in the last decade. Other
issues aside, we have not seen from these giant sections of our society
any thing comparable to the history that has been in the making in the
last three years by our brothers and sisters in southern Ethiopia.
Rather than being aggrieved with the fascistic deeds of the Woyané and show any meaningful solidarity with our southern kin,
against whom the Woyané have
dispatched their regular troops, they are absorbed in mutual
hate-mongering, which is destroying the basis for coexistence. I presume
that many observers agree the weakness emanates from the lack of (an)
organization (s) with leadership qualities. There is no doubt in my mind
that the divisive views and the helpless roles played by extremists from
the two respective groups are also the causes for the weaknesses of
existing organizations. It is safe to assume that about 90 per cent of
these extremists are entrenched and camouflaged within the Oromo
Liberation Front (OLF) and the All Amhara People’s Organization (AAPO).
One has to respect the formation of associations meant to defend mutual
interests and rights. By the same token, the associations /organizations
have the obligation to respect the basic human rights of others in the
process of fulfilling their mission. One has to respect the rights of
nations, nationalities, multinational societies, believers, village
communities/ self-help associations, irrespective of their size, and
even of individuals, to be part of the decision-making process in the
administration of their country and in the mutual determination of how
the latter’s resources are used. It is only a matter of time before
the sun sets on any movement that fails to accept this principle.

History
is proof to the fact that national unity founded on respect for
individual rights and responsive to group demands, as well as on mutual
interests and historical and social bonds is of decisive importance to
achieving the desires of people for peace, development and respect. In
countries like Ethiopia, where ethnic groups, nations, nationalities and
communities have such diverse cultural, religious and linguistic values
and happen to share, by mere fact of history, common citizenship,
political organizations at the helm need either to be multinational or
work closely with multinational forces. Neither theoretically nor in
practice is it acceptable for one to emerge from one particular social
base and genuinely claim to be or represent every one else.

The
question is: what is the position of our extremists on these points? We
have reached a point where we can no longer eschew the matter but have
to openly and critically take stock of it and draw lessons thereof.

While
admiring the call by EDP (Ethiopian Democratic Party) for national
reconciliation and coexistence with a view to fulfilling the unanswered
demand of putting an urgent end to the misery of our people, I believe
that a reply is expected of those who claim to represent the masses of
Oromo and Amhara. I know that civic, professional and workers’ organizations
that have relative organizational freedom can play a
prominent role in realizing this goal of national reconciliation. I also
believe that these organizations are fully aware that their members’
problems will be resolved and their professions respected only when the
country’s problems are resolved and a political system based on the
will of the people established. The sacrifices they have been paying in
the preparations to reach that goal are by no means lost on the people
of Ethiopia. However, national problems cannot be resolved by the
efforts of certain groups alone, which is why every one has to
contribute their share.

If
we on our part succeed in the work of promoting the cause of national
reconciliation, I do not doubt for a moment that the Woyané,
brought up on a diet of stolen slogans, will change their tune
accordingly. We know the Woyané
deceive and brag saying ”there cannot be reconciliation where there is
no conflict. Are they asking us to make peace with red terror
veterans?” But we also know that they can continue to deceive and brag
so long as they are certain that we remain divided by the intrigues of
extremists. They will certainly do every thing in their power to prevent
us from coming together, and they are already doing that, with a view to
not sharing with others the power and national wealth that is not
proportionate to their real size. It does not take a genius to see that Woyané’s
twisted objectives will be defeated and its racist rule ended if the
rest of us stand united. If, for instance, the people choose to unite at
a national level and decide not to avail themselves of the services of Woyané
businesses created through unscrupulous pillage and deceit, the Woyané
will become toothless (in that area of their operations). But it is the
extremists that have become the nemesis to this kind of unity.

These
extremists are so worried that their existence and influence would be no more
unless the people are at each other’s throats. There is no denying the
fact that there are people, ranging from sympathizers and ordinary
members to those in leadership positions, who are serving with genuineness
and honesty in both camps (Oromos and Amharas) that I have chosen for
discussion in this article. Unfortunately, their influence so far is
limited. They are troubled by the fact that leadership is exercised in a
manner that is too general and not detached from emotions. It is
essential that these friends of the people be assisted and respected.

The
aim of this article is to try and convince the extremists by pointing
out to them their weaknesses, encourage them to make amends and/or to
force the reluctant ones to retire from the game. Further more, the
central points of this article are the exposition to the extremists
themselves of the harmfulness of the views and actions with which they
confuse the people and, to tear down the curtain behind which they are
hiding if they refuse to change their old ways. This can in no way be
harmful. What feat have we achieved so far by mutual hatred, gossiping,
or by sulking at each other or cajolery? If any thing we brought
humiliation on ourselves, suffering for our people, longevity for the Woyané
and derision in the eyes of foreigners. That is why we will have to rise
up to the challenge of dealing with the extremists amongst us with a
view to resolving our urgent national problems.

First
and foremost, I would like Amhara and Oromo extremists to realize that
the Woyané are using them in
no less measure than they are using their regular army, Tigringa
speaking spies and their satellite organizations, to prolong their stay
in power. Note that the Woyané
pay these servants of theirs for the services they provide!
They have to feed, train and arm them from the resources they are
controlling as a government or they pillaged. For the extremists,
though, they do not need to do more than facilitating conditions, at
their own expense, in which they continue to ’live’ in limbo-
between life and death. Woyané
has repeatedly made a lot out of the punitive and experimental measures
its forces are taking against individuals it wants for incarceration or
execution; these individuals are suspected of taking part in the
movements conducted in the name of the people the extremists say they
represent. The latter are fulfilling what is required of them by the Woyané
without pay or gratitude! They cannot deny that Woyané shades crocodile tears citing the extremists’
irresponsible deeds as cogent evidence. To the Oromo it says: ”The
Oromo are finished without me (Woyané);
the Neftegna are trying to dominate you as in the past; you won’t be
able to benefit from the self-determination bestowed upon you by
federalism; your children won’t be able to learn in their mother
tongue and the dream of the Oromo remains just that- a dream.” To the
Amhara, it exclaims: “Alas Amharas! Remember the massacre at Bedeno,
Arba Gugu, etc; your children will be able neither to go to school nor
to get employment; you have no country; Ethiopia is no more!”

Because
the extremists are persisting in sawing discord among the people with
their empty words and intangible hopes, the people have difficulty
totally discarding Woyané
threats, even though paying heed to the latter’s threats is in itself
distasteful to them. They have become stumbling blocs preventing the
people from coming closer to resolve their national problems.
Protestations aside, you reinforce the Woyané
by preventing the people from coming to each other’s aid in their
struggle. While practically aiding the Woyané
in every respect the extremists have failed to promote the interests of
the people, whose cause they claim to have at heart. It is questionable
whether they have the capability let alone the genuineness to achieve
these claims. Unless they correct their weaknesses, it does not take a
genius to know that the current misery of our people will haunt them
tomorrow, as they will have to answer for it.

Regarding
the OLF and its sympathizers, I respect those who sacrificed themselves
and those who are still dying to win justice for the Oromo, aggrieved by
the fact that Oromo culture and language were not promoted, and
determined to give the Oromo power and influence commensurate with the
size of their population and resources, unseen in the history of modern
Ethiopia (I believe since the end of the Era of the Princes) and hence
determined to create a forum for correcting those injustices, thereby
discharging their share of national responsibilities. My opposition is
to those extremists who insist on negotiating the Ethiopianness of the
Oromo and go so far as making secession a life and death issue. One may
not have the capacity to take precautions or the wisdom to learn from
the mistakes committed by others, but how can one fail to learn from
one’s own mistakes and the dangers one has been exposed to as a
result?

How
can one endlessly persevere with trying to sell goods for which there is
no demand at all in the market? When presented with the question, on the
one hand, of preference between a democratic system in which the Oromo
achieve influence that matches their number and wealth and where they
live together with their Ethiopian brethren and secession, on the other,
you confide in whom you claim to be close friends saying that you would
not share your abundant wealth with other Ethiopians of meager resources. For public relations purposes, though, you argue for the
Oromo to choose in a referendum between unity with Ethiopia and an
independent Oromia. Take a pause and think: What answers do you expect
for your question where the meanings of abundant wealth and meager resources are not clear? Is there any use trying to convince each other-
for even so there is no common ground- for every one is after their own
interests? From where in the first place, does such power of
accreditation emanate? I would not want to go into details for I know as
to which side benefits from it. Suffice it to state that you need to be
open, for your ’good will’ cannot be regarded as favour.

Regarding
secession, the fatherly words of a Metcha-Tulema gentleman are a good
piece of advice: ”Who does Ethiopia belong to in the first place for you to talk of the
Oromo seceding from Ethiopia?” I remember the shameful affront to
which extremists subjected the gentleman. Do you realize that you are
staining the history of the Oromo and violating their identity and
integrity by questioning their Ethiopianness? To me, such an attempt is,
on the one hand, an effrontery aimed at making the Oromo a people
without history by blemishing those renowned Oromo heroes who sacrificed
themselves for the sake of their country and an act, on the other, of
treason comparable to a child’s betrayal in time of need of its mother
on whose breasts it grew up feeding. If your problem has to do with the
term ’Ethiopia’, that is another matter. How can one who claims to
be a politician otherwise fail to identify one’s identity and
capability and weave them together with past experiences and future
plans by taking into account the situation obtaining in the world? When
you are challenged from within to review this slogan of yours, you cling
to the excuse that you have been fighting for the last thirty years and
wonder as to what people would think of you if you did so. Some innocent
individuals try to soothe you saying that you cannot make a drastic
break with your old ways and that you should do it piece mill. Aren’t
twenty, thirty years long enough to make corrections? How many have lost
their lives, got maimed and saw the destruction of their families, etc.,
in the last decade alone fighting under this misguided slogan? Is it
humiliating to lower a burden before it breaks one’s back?
Should one allow the suffering to continue just because of a lack
of a face-saving formula and due to self-aggrandizement? Why should one
try to preach utopia to one’s brethren? What is the weakness in that
the 30 million people (according to your estimates) you claim to
represent suffer under the complete control of the Woyané
who claim to represent 3 million people? Why are the majority forced to
seek refuge leaving the country in the hands of a minority? Let us
discuss these questions in an open-minded manner. Let us not hide our
taboos and walk with them to our inevitable graves. Let us not let down
our people and prolong their misery. Let us not destroy the future of
the coming generation by fanning hatred and imposing on our selves
identity crisis for which we have no place. We are running out of time,
so let us not go around the bush and, instead, go straight to the point.

To
me, those who champion secessionism and those who insist on a version of
Ethiopian unity blessed by them are both pawns in the hands of the Woyané.
It appears to me that secessionism is being used as a scaring tactic. I
have no problem agreeing in principle with people whose main concern is
national unity for the benefit is mutual.
But I am not keen on their enthusiasm for the status
quo to continue and on their zeal to be first among equals when it
comes to advocating national interests. It saddens me to hear them
deplore others for being narrow nationalist and racist whereas they end
up doing practically the same thing. The efforts of both camps to me are
therefore futile. It has to be clear that there is Ethiopianness so long
as there is one who asserts to be Ethiopian and Ethiopia will continue
to exist so long as there is at least a community that claims to be
Ethiopian. This sense of belongingness can neither be given nor taken by
any one in this world. It may be challenged and we have seen it being
challenged. Territorial expansion or contraction, national strength or
weakness is a matter of time.

One
should pause and ask as to who secedes from whom and as to who goes and
who remains. The pains involved in the process of secession and whether
or not it is rewarding are worth considering. Do those of us who have
appointed ourselves as proponents of national unity, without taking into
account the grievances of others, have the ability and desire to
acknowledge the contradiction between our words and deeds? Holding
consultation with one another on the subject is one thing. Does any one
have the power and adequacy to be the sole advocate of national unity?
Can we show in advance the shape and content of the national unity we
advocate? By national unity, do we mean the geography of the country,
its boundary or the sum total of the people’s sense of belongingness
and their rights, including the territory they inhabit? These questions
aside, we know from experience that the things we underestimated had
turned out to have numerous ramifications, to which there are several
instances: Col. Mengistu fled leaving behind a modern army built over a
period of 50 years after having vowed to fight to the last man and the
pro-Albanian communist Woyané,
who at the outset were committed to establishing a Republic in Tigray
Region later entered Menelik II’s Palace in Addis by pretending to be
free market capitalists. Eritrea’s secession got UN backing under the
signature of an individual who claimed to be the president of Ethiopia; Woyané and Sha’abiya
[EPLF], once mirror images of each other, fought a bitter war with
devastating consequences to our people; now both Woyané
and Sha’abiya are absorbed
in bitter internal power struggles [and are again flirting with each
other]. Is it not surprising that problems that were of our own making
began to unite us from Asmara and Addis at a time when we were engaged
in mutual denial of our historical and blood ties? What was expected and
therefore not surprising was the fact that the Addis Ababa University,
which the Woyané were conniving to keep apolitical and ineffective by cruelly
expelling some of its best intellectuals and by keeping its students
divided on ethnic lines, broke the shackles and was soon followed by
Asmara University. However, the Woyané
and other extremists are still trying to resuscitate racism. The war
between the Woyané and Sha’abiya could break out any time amid talk of normalization.

Let
us assume for a moment that a second round of secession (the
independence of Oromia) is declared. But is there a reason why the
remaining part of the country cannot benefit, though the seceding entity
may not necessarily succeed? Are not the advantages and drawbacks
mutual? Is it really
sensible that one assumes the role of sole advocate for national unity?
Fleeting political intoxication aside, it is another matter to call for
thorough mutual consultations about the long-term goal. Isn’t there
any thing we can instead learn from Sha’abiya’s
referendum in which one could only choose either ’slavery or
freedom’, if we really care about the well-being and long term
interests of our people.

In
case our Oromo extremists still insist on making Sha’abiya
a shining example and a long-lasting ally, continue to regard them as
raw model heroes, and if there may also be others who have taken to
heart the principle of ’the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, I
advise them caution. Sha’abiya
was bragging of having nothing to do with Ethiopian affairs, but it soon
found itself under the feet of the Woyané,
an organization of its own creation. The Sha’abiya
have now learnt the extent to which a henchman can go when allowed the
freedom of building their power base. The Sha’abiya
have not got much time left, but even so, the Oromo extremists should
realise that their worth to the former is serving as a pawn against the Woyané.

What
do our extremists expect to achieve by employing the failed tricks used
by the hate-mongering and divisive philosophies of Meles Zenawi and
Isayas Afeworki who are not only kin but were also once so privy to each
other? When OLF cadres say
they do not bother about Ethiopian affairs, not only are they echoing Sha’abiya
but are also vowing to imitate the latter’s death. Do we all have to
die to really understand that death generally is not a good thing?
Can’t one imagine how more complex wrenching the centre can be than
breaking away the northern frontier? Does it mean that these extremist
nationalists will be the first to get their limbs severed if hobbling
becomes the vogue of the day?

I
often hear these people brag about the Gedda
system and their untapped wealth in trying to explain how better they
can be than Eritrea if and when they secede. Gedda
is a significant historical legacy. We take pride in it for it had
elements of democracy relative to those by-gone times. There are still
useful elements in it that we can adapt to our situations and times: the
requirement that one had to reach the age of forty, i.e., when one
becomes Berebaa/Dorri or when
one reaches the 4^th stage in the system before assuming a
position of responsibility and determining the period of tenure of
office by a council/Chefé are
two such examples. Relative to those times, that was remarkable.
Disagreements in Shewa and Arsi some time ago as relates to attempts to
commemorate the Gedda system, however, underlined the difficulty of
putting it into practice, in a manner relevant to our present situation,
without significant modification. The Gedda system is unthinkable today
considering the changes in religion, health issues, the current organization
of our society and the level of world civilization. An
attempt to revert to the past would make us look to suffer from
psychological deformity. We cannot live in the past and hence it is not
advisable.

With
regard to resources/wealth, that is only a minor consolation. It is
essential that one has peace and good health in order for one to consume
what at hand let alone exploit latent wealth. There is a lot that should
go into the reckoning. Who will take what with them when wrenching the center? What will become of those people who form the bridge of kinship
between the breakaway entity and the remaining one? How long do we
really expect to go on the basis of a ’philosophy’ that relies on
paternal blood ties alone? These are life and death questions that need
to be answered unequivocally from the outset.

Because
a question of survival is one that is a basic right, one has to give
thorough consideration to the implications

a) for the seceding entity,

b) the remaining part of Ethiopia and

c)
neighbors.

And take note, this
is not a choice but a duty / an obligation. What will be the final
outcome of a wave of secessionism considering the pulling together that
is likely to result from blood and historical ties as well as the strong
sense of community, on the one hand, and the internal friction that can
emerge due to religious, psychological and provincial differences with
the complicating role of out side interference (which is inevitable), on
the other? What is the likely source of reliable strength, peace,
development and respect: petty states or a bigger, stronger and
democratic political community?

Could
the sole super power of our time have dreamt, let alone achieved, the
economic prowess and status it is enjoying and the respect and /or fear
it is generating today, had it ended up split into 52 separate states
after the civil war? Immigrants from all the four corners of the world
have managed to establish today’s America in a matter of a few hundred
years by defeating the autochthones (the Red Indians). Our extremist
nationalists, by contrast, are trying to break a world record by
attempting to separate a people interwoven with centuries of blood ties,
historical links and belief systems to form petty beggar states that can
be no more than mere diplomatic fiction. There is no reason why a new
era of princes cannot start, if the extremists have their way, beginning
with Oromia, Ogaden versus Christiania and then culminating with a
Republic of Tigray, Kingdoms of Lekemt-Dembi Dollo, Wollega,
Gojjam-Felege Ghion, Dawaro, Enarya, Wolayta, Jimma, etc. Bear in mind
that this criticism does not apply to federative units that come under
the umbrella of a sovereign federal country.

Why
on earth did the Germans dismantle the Berlin Wall? Why is it that the
British care so much about the Common Wealth, Europeans about unity and
the Euro, Japan, America and China about a common market? Which doctor
prescribed disunity for us and togetherness for them? What do we learn
from the former Soviet Union and from today’s Russia? Ponder for a
moment over what is taking place in Eastern Europe. Consider, too, the
past, today’s realities and the future. In this connection, we have to
take into account at least the following five points in thinking
about an independent Oromia.

…../ to be continued.