Is Ethiopian History a Colonial Construct or an Outcome of Internal Social Dynamics?
By Tsegaye Tegenu
Ethiopian Review, February 1997
In the recent past, particu-larly with the upsurge of what I call ethnic nationalism, Ethiopian history has been subjected to a concerted revision. Increasing number of articles and books are being published with an intent to project Ethiopian history as a “colonial construction.” Most of the publications are produced by intellectuals (particularly in the anthropological field) and ethnic politicians. This is not surprising. Some anthropologists who are not historically minded could entertain the thesis of colonial construction by virtue of their field of interest: they are mainly concerned in studying present-day local communities, in drawing cultural differences and delimiting cultural boundaries. The “colonial construction thesis” could easily appeal to them and may be used to inquire and explain the background of the community they study. To the politicians, propagating the colonial thesis has objectives and steps of applications: they begin through a discovery of the ethnic past, and the construction of myth. They then move to the spreading and agitation of this myth to create mass movements. Through these steps, they acquire finally a moral legitimacy and demand an independent statehood which they wish to rule. No wonder then that the propagation and intense publications on colonial construction of history continues. This is a dangerous trend if left unchallenged, and indeed the “colonial construction thesis” has already given acceptance and practical benefits to its protagonists.
What is exactly contained in the thesis of “colonial construction history”? To begin with there is no serious work which articulates the view, and reading the literature we find different shades of meanings for the term. The bulk of the material is produced for propaganda consumption; in such literature one finds the term colonialism literally throughout the passages, thus losing its intended meaning. In some literature, colonialism is presented as if it is an individual or a group of people and one feels that he/she encounters them somewhere along the road. Those who tried to explain colonialism as a system (not as an individual), have problem of conceptualizing the term. Their definition of colonialism as product of industrial capitalism does not correspond to the stages and development of the Ethiopian society, and the term is not applicable to analyze the political and economic reality of Ethiopia. Ethiopia was a pre-industrial society, and a concept used to explain the stages of and changes in the structure of capitalist economic system is not applicable in the investigation of a feudal society. There is thus no clarity and consistency in the use of the term colonialism and consequently one cannot expect any scientific explanation and understanding of the historical process.
For the purpose of our own clarity, we have to find out the realities and historical process which they describe using the different senses and definition of colonialism?
One finds three strands of historical themes explained as colonialism: the history of population migration and settlement, the centralization and expansion of state power particularly during the second half of the 19th century, and Ethiopia’s integration into the capitalist world economy and an international state system. Hoping that the later event is un-problematic to most readers, I will confine myself to the first two phenomenon.
The ethnic perspective interprets internal population migration and settlement as colonialism. As historical records show, this was not a unique or a particular event; the internal history of the country was marked by interregional population migrations and settlements. Some migrations were spontaneous and others were impelled by conquest and reconquest. This phenomena existed throughout history and it is problematic to take and argue population migration as colonization. For instance, those who have read scientific works on Semitic language could come up with an argument that Semitic speakers had moved to central and southern Ethiopia in the 330s AD. Those who have read old Geez manuscripts could sight evidence that the Agews had moved to some places during the reign of Gudit in the 10th century. Still those who read royal chronicles produce an evidence about the migration of central Amhara and Gurages during the time of Amde-Tsion by the end of the 13th century. Those exposed to Arabic sources, royal chronicles and church manuscripts could recount the movements of population from Harer during the wars of Ahmed Gragn in the early 16th century. Through a reference to the works of monk Bahrey one could account the migration of Oromos starting from their original place in central Bali. Those who read the Italian anthropologist, Perini, could bring evidence on the settlement of Oromos in the Eritrean highlands. One also could come up with evidence on Tigrean settlements on Afar regions during Yohannes, Shewan settlements in the south during Menelik. Who is going to be now accused as the colonizer? Counting examples of population migration leads to endless arguments and counter arguments by searching for documents which shows still another migration. In the midst of controversies, one loses sight of the qualitative impacts of population migration and settlement in Ethiopian history.
For a better understanding of the past the focus and analysis should be instead on the study of the background and consequence of these internal migrations. What caused these movements? How was population migration and settlement related to conditions of cultivation, property ownership rights, agrarian technology, demographic situations, agrarian class structure, burden of taxation, structure and organization of power, etc. Indeed, there is limitation of source material for the investigation of these condensed themes, particularly there is a lack of demographic source material. However, it is possible to write the internal dynamics with available internal source materials. This has been demonstrated in my recent book titled: The Evolution of Ethiopian Absolutism: The Genesis and the Making of the Fiscal Military State, 1696-1913 (hereafter referred as “Evolution of Ethiopian Absolutism”). In part two of this book, for instance, the long term consequences of the 16th century population migration is extensively analyzed. The study shows that as consequence of this phenomena, there were changes in property right systems both in north and south Ethiopia. In the north, in addition to the commonly known Rist Gult system, we see the establishment of a new type of fiscal system called “Amisho Rim” since the end of the 16th century. In southern Ethiopia, we see the development of private land ownership and a system of tenancy at least since the middle of the 17th century. Both in the north and in the south we see the emergence of regional princely powers. In the north there was particular militarization of court and regional administration.
The long term impact of the 16th century migration phenomena was the genesis of the Fiscal Military State which came to constitute the form and characteristic of the Ethiopian state during the second half of the 19th century and early 20th century. (For further explanation read Evolution of Ethiopian Absolutism, pp. 64-100). Ethiopian history, both in the south and the north, was thus full of internal dynamism governed out of the synthesis of migrations, demographic consequences and changes in the structure of power.
Another theme which ethnic nationalist historians describe as colonialism is the phenomenon of the centralization and expansion of state power in the 2nd half of the 19th century during the reign of Tewodros, Yohannes, and Menelik. In such discussions, colonialism is used not in a sense of a system but as an individual/group. Their studies focus on the motives and actions of these kings and their writings depict efforts of kings as colonial construction. To begin with, this type of argument has methodological limit: it is entirely focused on the motives and actions of the kings, not the internal dynamics that has come out as a result of the structural transformation of the Ethiopian society. Below, I will extensively quote from the book to summarize the historical essence and reality of the period:
The motive behind Tewodros’ campaigns in north and central Ethiopia, and Menelik’s power expansion to southern Ethiopia, were not to extend an ethnic domination. The campaigns were launched for the purpose of centralizing the distribution and use of resource systems. When looked at from the traditional agricultural policy of the Ethiopian state, the phenomenon was not unique to the period. For instance, throughout its history, the state had encouraged settlement and cultivation of new areas (called Hager Maqnat) since any one who cultivated land had the obligation to pay tax. Increase in revenue depended on the given size of available land and the labor force. This interest and agricultural reforms of the Ethiopian state continued during the times of Tewodros, Yohannes and Menelik.
What gave the period its particular characteristic was the concerted effort of the kings to take responsibility for the remuneration of troops and to secure an independent provisioning system for the army. They wanted the logistic basis to be under the expense of the state. This required increasing the fiscal capacity of the state. In an agrarian economy this could be nothing other than controlling the system of direct taxation. Change in the system of taxation was effected by all possible means. Kings introduced major reforms both at the institutional level (administration of tax) and in the structure of the direct taxes themselves (tax-technical measures) to enhance the financing capacity of the state. Among the different tax-technical measures, are found such devices as fixing the rate of land tax payment, standardizing land tax payment, individual registration of land tax payment, merging of land tax payment obligations, introducing tithe as regular and universal payment and/or base-broadening as done during the time of Menelik. Standardization and uniformity introduced in the system of taxation and military organization are wrongly conceived as colonization by the proponents of the ethnic domination view.
Centralization was an attack on political and economic particul-arization and was effected through standardization and uniformity. Politically, centralization broke the military power of the princes by way of creating a centrally controlled standing army; economically, by changing the systems of direct and indirect taxation. Centralization, defined as standardization and uniformity of a system, is mistakenly understood to mean colonization of an ethnic group.
The historical process and social transformation of the Ethiopian society during the second half of the 19th century is given a scientific name called “Fiscal Military State & Society,” a particular period belonging to the last stage of Ethiopian feudalism. We have, therefore, an alternative understanding of the period not as a colonial construct but as an internal dynamics and socio-economic transformation governed by rules of internal relations.
Controversies should, therefore, focus on the understanding of the process of power centralization and its socio-economic consequences. Did the reforms of the fiscal military state lay the groundwork for a developing economy? How was revenue allocation used in the society? Did the allocation favor promotion of the benefits of the nobility, the peasants or the merchants? Was there money available for encouragement of agricultural production? Did peasants receive material incentive to produce more? (see
Part V of Evolution of Ethiopian Absolutism, pp. 197-267).
As I have explained above, the effort to interpret Ethiopian history as a colonial construct has conceptual problems and methodological limits. The use of the term colonialism in the Ethiopian context is irrelevant not only on the grounds of definition of the term, but also on its basic political and economic assumptions about the Ethiopian reality. In its method the colonial thesis searches for only appearances such as migrations and wars and recount them as conflicts between groups of people. This method focuses on results/effects of the phenomena not on the internal dynamics that precipitated the historical events. For instance, why was there population migration and internal wars? Was it related to demographic and/or internal resource acquisition and distribution problems? This requires a historical analysis based on demographic and resource use system models. Focus on appearances ignores the internal dynamics, which by themselves were causes of the phenomenon, and which as a law governed the historic relationship among peoples. Colonial construction thesis selects events arbitrarily to justify current political position and ideology, not scientific explanation and interpretation of the past. So much so that debates are charged with emotions, and in some cases invite physical confrontations.
Indeed, there could be a genuine concern to explain cultural domination and control in the Ethiopian society. In that case, one raises the following questions: What is the definition of culture? What is meant by domination? Who is saying domination? Where are the evidences? Was there “cultural” difference consciousness? Was this consciousness permanent or was it the result of politicization of certain differences? If it was a political/ideological creation, when and how did it start?
One can find answers to these questions through an open discussion, in clarity of concepts, and presentation of well documented arguments. Adding the adjective colonialism to any of these analytical categories and inquires leads to sterile discussion. We have to keep the discussion not on what we feel but on what we think.
_____________________________________
Tsegaye Tegenu, Ph.D., is a Historian at the Department of History, Uppsala University, Uppsala Sweden.