The EPRP: Should We Keep It?
By Zenaye Tadesse
Ethiopian Review, August 1996
There are few issues in Ethiopian body-politics that generate so much heat when raised, and fewer still, that call into play intense emotions, as does the EPRP issue. The sensitivities of many are disturbed deeply, when mention is made of the EPRP. It is usually preferred left alone. Unique among us in this respect are those EPRP loyalists, who always seem to wear their hearts on their sleeves, that are easily excitable by outside interference. But one is actually baffled by what usually comes through as blind devotion to the cause of a political party. It puts into question what it was that party members wished to accomplish by their organizing into an EPRP. That is, whether the members, and the party itself, see the ascension to power of the EPRP in Ethiopia as a political imperative and an end in itself, regardless of its changing hues.
In the majority of cases, especially among the current membership of the EPRP, what inspires such passionate defensiveness seems to be a rather juvenile appreciation of kinship and group loyalty. Once an EPRP, many seem to think, always an EPRP. Perhaps one does not expect of a political body of people to be so emotionally crippled that they should need their organization for a crutch. But to many, their past association with the EPRP appears to help them define their self-worth. More than an instrument for effecting a preferred political goal, the EPRP provides for its members the added benefit of an exclusive arena wherein they all fortify each other’s egos and their collective sense of belonging. The EPRP seems to have acquired the characters of a social gathering, one that offers to its believers a distinct identity that differentiates them from others. The resulting degree of isolation has been such that people within the party feel most comfortable only among their own. In their political conduct as well, they consider issues of popular interest as a group first, before individually adopting the “party-line” as their own view. This is not to say that there aren’t differences of opinion within the EPRP. Some occasionally do surface, frequently producing clashes between blocks and factions that center around one or another among the leadership. That is besides the fact that the EPRP has always remained a cesspool for degenerative internal-politicking. But all seem to agree that it is the world against their EPRP, whenever criticism is directed at the EPRP by those from the outside. The EPRP, they believe, has a right to evaluate and pass judgement on others, but others can not touch the EPRP.
This reluctance to knock the “homeboys” poorly conceals an undercurrent of guilt and confusion that gnaw at the conscience of all that were active within the EPRP. As much as they would like to be considered the force behind social change in Ethiopia, this dubious honor they seek comes in a kind of a mixed bag. While many in the EPRP once thought they, and only they, had THE answer, what has transpired a quarter-century later appears to have proven them wrong. During all those times that they were wrong, though they have caused the death and disillusionment of a generation of Ethiopian youth. And that is hardly an achievement to take pride in, and very difficult to live with.
There is no question in my mind that the youth of the EPRP of past have been used and abused, and that may even include some of those in positions of leadership. I dare say, it wasn’t our chestnut in the fire to begin with. We were duped into fighting other people’s battles. While it would be unrealistic for others to require omniscience of political leadership, the EPRP of past pretended that it had all the marbles and conducted business on that basis. Needless to say, however, it was simply impossible for the functionaries of the then EPRP to have known everything there was to know at those tender ages that they were.
In these days of revision and recovery, however, much of what motivated the EPRP in the past is selectively forgotten. The Ethiopia envisioned in the minds of countless Ethiopian youth who were members and operatives of the EPRP was one from which all should run. To our horror, as if enough damage has not been done to the character and well being of Ethiopia due to such self-depreciation in the past, it nonetheless has carried over to the present. One only needs to have a short discussion with them for this and it is very frightening to find that so many who were with the EPRP are still unchanged in their views, even in the face of the calamity before us.
Our understanding of the classical history of Ethiopia was slanted at best. If we knew anything about it at all, we had very little use for it. We already had a scientific version if it in “Historical Materialism.” And accordingly, the history of Ethiopia before our time, we determined, was only a sinister rendition by the nobility and their storytellers, of the glory of royalty. We were uniquely called upon, therefore, to re-write Ethiopian history from the view point of those that Ethiopia held in bondage and utter “backwardness.” Indeed, everyone in Ethiopia was “oppressed” in some manner or another. Except its name, perhaps, there was nothing good we were to retain about Ethiopia that we knew. Everything about it was to change.
This we assumed to be true because our party, the EPRP, was the party of the “mehur.” By virtue of our relatively enlightened status, we presumed we could see the Ethiopia that was wrong, and others could not. It had never occurred to us that we could err, nor did we stop to consider the possibly dire consequences of our viewpoint that defiled the very soul of Ethiopia and the subsequent actions we took to effect our vision for Ethiopians. Our only concern was that we knew we were the “real” socialists, compared even to the Russians, and what we wanted must have been what everybody else wanted.
But the truth was, as collegians and high-school students, we had a very superficial social standing. If we thought of ourselves as part of the many class and/or ethnic constituencies into which we dared pigeonhole Ethiopian society by birth, we also believed we were above such distinctions. We could speak for all of these groups, however, not only because it was our “birthright” to do so, but more because we felt the pains of Ethiopians and we had the “left” solutions. A rather confusing self-imposed duality in our nature, somehow made sense within the socialistic mind-framethat we could claim to be of the society that produced us and at the same time be separate from it. Perhaps this is what is often referred to as “elitism.” We spoke of the innumerable troubles of the oppressed classes/ethnicities, but we had yet to live their pains.
It is inescapably evident, however, that the present was born out of our most recent past. For instance, many within the EPRP these days wonder why a lot of their former compatriots have reduced themselves into ethnic-fanatics. But that should not have come as a surprise, since it was this very ideology that was boldly, and rather recklessly, emphasized within the “student movement.” The EPLF, TPLF and to some extent the OLF as well, were offshoots of this same movement. What the naive multi-national and multi-cultural within the EPRP counted on was that illusive “balance” they wished to strike between the ethnic and class interests. As it happened, when the class component of the cause of oppressed Ethiopians was no longer factored in, obviously, the ethnic aspects of it gained prominence instead. But those who always were in the know took the “struggle” for what it was. There was no “balance” to be struckthere was only political power to be gained from it.
The powers that be within the EPRP, themselves seeking power, were not as fortunate. They find themselves totally unprepared to face the consequences of their politics. While the EPRP condemned the oppressive Ethiopia along the same lines as others did, it could not reconcile now the need for a “united” Ethiopia to continue, with the envisaged demise of the “prison for the oppressed,” without handily superimposing the superiority of class struggle over “national liberation struggle.” But the appropriate ideology no longer impresses anyone, not even the EPRP itself. The others, however, who remained true to their convictions as national liberators have managed to usurp power and are taking it for all that it offers in their quest for governance over their respective “national” boundaries. It was, after all, their prerogative to seek separation, as was provided by the guiding principles of “national struggle.” They were not required to first create a “democratic atmosphere” within Ethiopia as they did not need the approval of others, of their emancipation. None of these “national liberators,” by the way, considered the EPRP as their beacon of hope in its stature as the communist party, even when they spoke of class-struggle themselves. It was only those within the EPRP that flirted with such illusions.
The situation in Ethiopia now speaks quite loudly of the morbid futility of the left’s view of Ethiopia, as merely the sum total of its distinct component parts: Ethiopia, a ghastly historical accident, that was constructed through sheer coercion by the “feudal lords,” that desperately needed to be re-constructed through willful cooperation. This ill-conceived mechanistic notion, however, does not leave room for those who are given the option of separation to consider unity, as it begins by assuming that there was no unity in Ethiopia in the first place. There really was no compelling reason for those that were “forcibly” incorporated within the “empire-state” Ethiopia to even begin considering “unity” then, other than “all workers of the world had to unite.”
This time around, the feeble attempt to persuade Ethiopians to seek unity mostly builds its case on the possible economic benefits of unity. Curiously enough, this seems to be just an extension of the old “class-kinship” argument. It is so dry and devoid of cultural and emotional appeal, it strikes one as an initial pitch for “a confederation of East African states,” or something of that nature. But the supposed economic viability of a united Ethiopia that is expected to benefit all that agree to be included within it cannot be guaranteed that it would be any better or different from the ones that could be gained in disunity. So it doesn’t offer firm and lasting grounds for unity, as much as it helps create basis for rather vicious territorial interests.
It is very interesting, to watch those that used to be the “left,” including the EPRP, gradually pushing historical justifications for the existence of Ethiopia these days something they shunned and derided in their earlier maneuvers. The ironic thing is that they still ridicule as “extremists” those to whose views they seem to be approaching, albeit hesitantly. There is no doubt that it pays to project one’s group as nationalistic in the politics of Ethiopia today. But Ethiopian nationalism is nothing if not the acknowledgment of Ethiopia for what it wasits historical past in all its imperfections. In more human terms, it is the recognition of the cultural intermixture between the various peoples of Ethiopia and the conceptual invalidity, if not the practical impossibility, of drawing arbitrary lines to separate them, be it class or ethnic. Naturally, an Ethiopian who finds it more comfortable to identify him/herself as Ethiopian, as opposed to a given fraction of his/her in terms ethnicity, would be opting to view Ethiopia in its holistic form. Evidently then, the average Ethiopian would be a hopeless “extremist” as he/she would prefer an Ethiopia in its cultural entirety.
The trivializing of the Ethiopian situation seems to know no bounds though. Just as it is generally presumed that “unity” is yet to be introduced to Ethiopians, much “pro-unity” politicking is done by groups who profess and promise to be “multi-national.” It is, of course, very sad to see that at a time when Ethiopians seek solitude in their enduring collective identity, those who promise them the world have yet to create an Ethiopia for them. This particular approach to Ethiopianism only perpetuates the problems of division amongst Ethiopians. It is rather, precisely because there was an Ethiopia that was “united” that the E/TPLF found it necessary to create division among Ethiopians. The breaking apart of Ethiopia is a very serious business, but it has proven to be a very difficult one as well. Who would have expected Meles Zenawi, who once shamed the flag of Ethiopia as only a symbol of subjugation and colonialism, to now adorn his surroundings with the same colors?
It is quite deceitful of the EPRP especially, and others in general, that they should dangle in our faces the “multi-national” card. A large majority of us are of mixed ethnic ancestry, and it is nothing new for us to be “multi-national.” That certainly has not changed since the E/TPLF occupation of Ethiopia, and there is no reason for us to re-learn what already describes us. Multi-nationalism, or as it fashionably referred to nowadayspan-Ethiopianismis not something we have yet to achieve. Nor could it be presented as just another point in a political program.
Coming back to the EPRP, I find it quite incomprehensible that there even could be people who profess loyalty to an EPRP. Because there is really very little about the EPRP of today that is recognizable from the EPRP of decades past, except maybe some of its leadership. If it were the “hard and fast” ideals of the party, the truth is there is no continuity traceable in the policies of the EPRP. Very much aware of its past blunders, but nevertheless oblivious in attitude, all the party could point to in this regard is its steadfast adherence to its tired sloganeering for “popular government” and “unbridled democratic rights.” As for that “unbridled” democracy, it was to be of the proletarian type. In contrast, now the EPRP seems to want a people’s government and democracy based on the principles of multi-partyism. But, aside from the serious difference between the two political views, there really is no possible way the EPRP could transpose itself to one from the other, and still remain the same. Now, if people are pleased with the change and are just hung-up on the name “EPRP,” our past should provide us with adequate warning that no ideology is to be swallowed whole. And that hang-ups certainly are not the symptoms for healthy politicking.
If it were on sentimental attachments we are basing our loyalty to the EPRP, “fallen comrades, etc…,” EPRP is no place in which to worship our dead. It is good to remember that those people died for a cause that the EPRP itself no longer considers valid. Above all, we can not escape the fact that by virtue of our participation in the politics of Ethiopia, we have helped steer Ethiopia to shame. That is nothing to be proud of, but something we should regret. As for every effort, the ultimate measure of its worth is the final result. Appropriately then, we should compare what we started with and what we have managed to accomplish through the “struggle.” This delusion about a “protracted struggle,” it is just that, a mere illusion in our minds. Besides the fact that the EPRP has remained virtually dead for most of the decade of the 1980s, what it is striving for in ideological terms has changed drastically although it still wants power.
Relief from overwhelming guilt comes not from denial. Rather, we may find it in the acceptance of our limitations as human beings. We should come to terms with our past in the realization that we could not have known all there was to know then. There is no shame in humility, only greatness in character.
The newest attempt to again use and abuse the same people is underway. If we have not noticed it, the current leadership of the EPRP, those of the old like Kiflu Tadesse and the politically obscure like Tekola Hagos, are pulling on the former EPRP people, each from their side to their respective corners. For once in our lives we should ask “why?” this time. The very attempt to regroup old-EPRP people away from and out of general circulation strikes me as most sinister. All of us were born Ethiopians, and not party members. Therefore, it is only natural that we join other Ethiopians and collectively search for a way out of the national crisis at hand. Neither its past conduct nor its current performance deserves the EPRP continuity. Its existence now only serves as one more reason for division among Ethiopians who would otherwise be working together. Let’s put the EPRP to rest, once and for all.
________________________________________
Zenaye Tadesse resides in Los Angeles.
A news and opinion journal on Ethiopia
HOME PUBLISHER ER FORUM NEWS TIPS JOIN E-MAIL LIST SUPPORT ER