After Meles: Avoiding a Violent Transition
Ezekiel Gebissa|October 11. 2012
(The Gulele Post) – During his tenure in office, Meles Zenawi was surprisingly consistent in stating the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front’s (EPRDF) commitment to democratization, economic development, and sustained peace in Ethiopia as if these goals were not shared by any other political party. In fact, no Ethiopian disagrees that these are desirable goals for a country ravaged by bad governance, poverty, and civil war for decades. It is not just Ethiopians. People everywhere in the world aspire for the right to freely choose their government, participate in economic activities and exercise the right to be free from violence, coercion, and other deprivations. These are fundamental human rights that transcend cultural or national boundaries.
The problem with the late prime minister’s position is the gulf between rhetoric and reality. The democracy he championed excluded many from participation in politics and governance. Even so, he had no qualms justifying his party’s monopoly of the political space as a desirable and legitimate “dominant party democracy.” The aggregate economic growth that occurred on his watch produced a handful of fabulously wealthy plutocrats and a vast majority of destitute Ethiopians. But the increasing inequality and massive poverty did not prevent the prime minster from claiming “an economic miracle” and audaciously dismissing as infantile any talk that a strong middle class is essential for a flourishing democracy. The problem with his vision for Ethiopia is his inexplicable and indefensible insistence that his monopolization of the political space and concentration of ill-gained wealth would ultimately guarantee democracy, development and a stable peace.
We don’t have to guess at what will become of a system that fosters economic inequality and political alienation. All such social systems have ultimately been consigned to the dust bin of history by popular revolutions. InEthiopia, economic inequality and political alienation have invariably led to violent political transitions. In the early 1990s, many political groups concluded that the EPRDF regime was intent on establishing complete domination over the political space in Ethiopia and decided that armed struggle was the only recourse for effecting change. For Oromo nationalists, armed struggle once again became an unavoidable imperative to continue the Oromo struggle for identity and self-government. Perhaps no other conclusion could have been reached at the time, given the current circumstances and the history of Ethiopia’s violent political transitions. Much has changed since the 1990s and certainly in the last few months. At this juncture in history, Ethiopia has indeed come to a crossroads, where the available choice is between democratization and disintegration.
This time, disintegration is not just a theoretical possibility. The contours are clear. The political dynamic is not promising. The EPRDF is trying to justify its one-party dictatorship as “dominant party democracy,” a predatory economic system as “prosperity,” and popular apathy as “peace.” The opposition that refers to itself as “forces of unity” has shown its capacity for extra-constitutionality and disregard for inclusiveness with its temerity to form a government in exile and request governments to grant it recognition as an Ethiopian government. Political organizations that claim to represent the Oromo seem to be missing in action, both in and outside the country. All of these positions are untenable. But the very real prospect of disintegration and chaos should goad everyone to eschewing the “winner-take-all” political culture – an approach that has always led to a violent political transition – in favor of renegotiating a new Ethiopian social compact.
It should be clear to both the incumbent government and to the opposition that is shamelessly jockeying for power that there will be no democratic, prosperous, and stable Ethiopia without the genuine and full participation of the Oromo. None of the charades and schemes of the last two decades have captured the Oromo for either group. It should equally be clear to Oromo nationalists that the path of the last two decades is bereft of political realism. There are compelling reasons for Oromo nationalists to actively engage in shaping the future in Ethiopia. For one, the Oromo constitute half of Ethiopia and as such whatever affects Ethiopians inevitably affects Oromos. The effect of avoiding engagement in the task of remaking Ethiopia is ceding the field and watching from the sidelines while vital decisions are made on behalf of Oromos by actors who cannot represent genuine Oromo interests. For another, the Oromo have a rich heritage of indigenous knowledge and practices of democracy, development, and peacemaking that could gainfully be shared with other nations, nationalities, and peoples in Ethiopia. By being engaged, Oromo nationalists can help create a freer and better country for all its citizens. They should not shirk from their responsibility to be a positive agent for change and improved life conditions in the whole region. Enlightened self-interest in this case actually aligns well with the greater good.
–Full Article at The Gulele Post
Dr. Eskiel,
what a wonderful take! Thanks for puting it clear that no Oromo national is ready to move back to DJ (Djibouti = Amhara dominated unitary Ethiopia) and to live in AY (Ayisha = keep the status quo), but move forward to the achievable arrival at DD (Diredhawa = your position of realizing the true federation with Oromian autonomy) on the journey to AD (Adaama = indispensable Oromian independence, which currently got obstacles). You seem not to see only two political colours (black and white), and don’t have color blindness for the other political colours in a grey zone, as some of our Oromo intellectuals seem to be.
I heard from one vetrinary doctor, that dogs do have such a picture of only black and white regarding their environment for their visual capacity is not developed to the level of humans in order to discern the whole spectrum of colors. I wish those with the color blindness better differentiate genuine Oromo nationalists in different organizations, having different approach regarding the liberation movement. Otherwise we all fall into the trap of Woyane foot soldiers, who are busy dividng the Oromo freedom fighters as “criminal pro-Ethiopian democratization” VS “self righteous pro-Oromian liberation”. Particularly you and the other smart Oromo scholarsa differ from the others for you seem to see at least four political blocs in that empire: unitarist Amhara elites to dismantle Oromia, hegemonist Tigrai elites to dominate Oromia, federalist Southern elites to recognize bilisummaa Oromia and liberator Oromo nationalists to achieve walabummaa Oromia.
From the liberator Oromo nationals, there are some like you, who do accept the position of the federalists as a transitional solution on the way to an independent Oromia. You seem to believe that in a genuinely federated NEW Ethiopia, there will be a realized bilisummaa Oromia (Biyya-Oromo free from any alien rule), which is a very good prelude to the walabummaa Oromia we all strive for. But some people being either DiGa (Diina Gamna) or FiGo (Fira Gowwaa), do fight in cyber world against such noble Oromo freedom fighters, who do have a smart way of struggle towards the same kayyoo of bilisummaa and walabummaa. I wish that the FiGo develop their political out look from the level of seeing only black and white to the level of having an inclusive look to the whole spectrum.
Otherwise, no question that the liberation of Oromia is taking place step by step as shown below:
- the time from 1889 to 1991 was the phase of ‘Oromia dhabamte’ which is the same to life in DJ (Djibouti) = compelte grbummaa under Amhara rule; it took the baabura bilisummaa many years to reach the border town Ayisha.
- since 1991, we do live in AY (Ayisha), the symbol for ‘Oromia qabamte’ = Oromia with a limited cultural autonomy under Tigire hegemony; now, it seems the baabura bilisummaa started to move forward and the Tigre hegomony already started to shake.
- In the year X, in the near future, we will reach at DD (Diredawa), the phase of ‘Oromia bilisa’, the land which is free from any alien force.
- In the year Y, in the middle future, the babura bilisummaa will arive at AD (Adaama) = Oromia walaba with our flag in UN.
- In the year Z, in the far future , we will achieve the unification of Oromia in the Horn of Africa including all areas, where the Oromo people do live, equivalent to the final journey to FF (Finfinne).
Of course, despite your optimism regarding the permanent democratization of that area, Ethiopia and Oromia are diametrically exclusive to each other; the crescendo of Oromia’s liberation is tantamount to a decrescendo of Ethiopia. In Short: – Ethiopia of Amhara = Oromia dhabamte ….. Ethipia of Tigree = Oromia qabamte ….. Ethiopia haaraa = Oromia bilisoomte ….. Ethiopia diigamte = Oromia walaboomte…..Ethiopia dhabamte = Oromia tokkoomte!
Which way you like to go? Choose one. The time is working against you as you are meddling to reconcile the wolf with the sheep.Be either to the side of the wolf or to the side of the sheep.
First on Obbo Galataa’s comment, it appears to be more of a delusional than it is an intellectual and reality based anaysis of Ethio-Oromian politics. It is more of confused approach and understanding of informing the mainstream society. I mean if the goal of the comment is to reachout to the base.
Then, Dr. Gabbisa’s article makes meaning in a sense that it relies upon scholarly assessment and explanations for existing ideologies and political cultures operating in Ethiopian and where they turn out to be in binary opposition to each other. My catch from the many positive evidence-based presentation is that the Oromos spent or waited decades=a century to see and practice peoples’ governance,democracy and respect for Humanity. The Oromoo have been and are even sacrificing their own and their people’s lives and resources to maintain Ethiopia and remain Ethiopian. But the Outcome remained the same as the Core Value and Ideology upon which Ethiopia was formed after 1900 remained the same up until today. The winner takes all, Si shoom yaalballaa si shaar yiqocewal, and so on.
Another significant disparity and major challenge for the Oromo people and their nationalists including the PanOromo organizations is the difficulty of reconciling a nondemocratic system and worldview with that of the Oromo oriented by What Dr. Gabbisa himself identified, viz, “The rich heritage of indigenous knowledge and practices of democracy, development, and Peace-making” and I add, the concept and practice of safuu namaa and nature.
These are the fundamentals in Oromo and Ethiopian politices, and even among the Oromo organizations that want to remake the society using modern knowledge and concepts.
In any case the Oromos will thrive.
Thx.
Abdi…,
Let us not be bogged down (be stuck) by using political jargon, such as “Ethiopian Democratization.” Let us break it down and ask “What’s IN IT for the Oromo nation?” Mind you, my job is to find out what the Oromo nation gains from any power arrangement – along the lines of autonomy, sovereignty, and perhaps Union.
Therefore, let us ask ourselves – what’s in the political concept termed as the “Ethiopian Democratization” for the Oromo nation?
1) Does “Ethiopian Democratization” entail going back to the Xeqilaygizat colonial arrangement for the Oromo nation? – Then, NO, the Oromo nation will not be served by “Ethiopian Democratization.”
2) Does “Ethiopian Democratization” entail keeping the status quo of political slavery (colonization) for the Oromo nation? – Then, NO, the Oromo nation will not be served by “Ethiopian Democratization.”
3) Does “Ethiopian Democratization” entail moving Oromia into an autonomous status? – Then, YES – despite the struggle being the total liberation of the Oromo nation and Oromia, getting to an intermediary step of “autonomy” should not be opposed just like the 1975 land reform was not opposed by Oromo nationalists, and just like the 1991 realization of Oromia, Qubee and Afaan Oromo as the official language of Oromia is taken as a step in the right direction.
So, let’s not scare ourselves by “Ethiopian Democratization” unless it means the first two options I listed above. And, keep in mind about the Oromo liberation movement is capable of doing stepwise struggle (going from status quo to autonomy to sovereignty, then perhaps Union), and at the same time, driving the home run to sovereignty. The ‘paradigm shift’ I want to see is the Oromo liberation movement waging the struggle at the stepwise level as well as the ‘home run’ level. Actually, both of them MUST work hand in glove for the Oromo nation to be free.
The ‘paradigm shift’ I want to see is for us to stop confusing ourselves and others by using political jargon like “Ethiopian Democratization” — never, never look at the situation from nowhere, but Oromo’s perspective. Otherwise, it will confuse all of us.
I’m not saying let’s stop challenging those advocating the stepwise approach – actually, they need to be challenged since, the stepwise advocates are gradualists – they take some excruciating time to get to the next level on the way to the mountain top – so, the “big bang” group needs to constantly keep a check on the gradualists. So, again, the ‘paradigm shift’ I’m looking for is for the Oromo nationalists to work hand in glove, in a ’squeeze and grab’ fashion. That means, as we squeeze the enemy, someone should be able to grab the achievement right there and then.
Why?
The Oromo liberation movement, as we and everyone know it, is not militarily strong. Had it been a militarily strong movement, then it will launch a military campaign to seize a town in Oromia, then once it seizes that town, it slowly, but surely, advances to the next town, then again to the next town, and so on. Military campaigns are not launched to overrun the enemy overnight – they are done step by step, town by town. Unfortunately, over the last 20 years, no town is liberated from the enemy.
What can be done, then? Just like the military campaign, which the Oromo liberation movement is not particularly excellent at (by design or unforeseen circumstances), we need to think the “political campaigns” the Oromo liberation movement launches as stepwise – inch by inch – from status quo to autonomy to sovereignty, etc. If the “political campaign” can overrun the enemy overnight (”big bang” – revolution kind) to get us to the ’sovereignty’ step, then fine! – But, just like a military campaign is about seizing a town (not the entire Oromia overnight), we also need to launch the “political campaign” to get to the mountain top stepwise. This is a more realistic approach. Over the last 20 years, students rose up in uproar to change the status quo, but no “political town” was seized from those campaigns since, last I checked, OPDO slaves are still in charge in Oromia.
A. Gammada,
it is clear that Galata’s comment is confusing for those who look at the Oromo politics with the dogs’ eyes, which can see only black and white! Kkkkkk!!
Professor Ezekiel:
What institution are you talking about? If you are talking about the fake Abyssinian (Ethiopian) institution that was built on subjugation and genocidal wars,you don’t have to worry or waste your time because the Abyssinians are ready to defend the empire as much as they can.
But its your choice to “trust” Meles’ apartheid type institution that was trying to destroy the Oromo nation. Trying to convince the suffering people that the evil empire, will be futile because they already know the meaning of freedom and human dignity for which they are paying the price. It reminds us all of General Abebe’s “trust” in the imperial crown that cost him his life in vain. I don’t believe you will follow that road for the TPLF’s gang institution or “disintegration” of the empire, like General Abebe did.
I see your fear of the presumed “violence”. But what is taking place in Ethiopia now is violent repression and state terrorism against the people in the empire. It is much better to refrain from blaming the victims. The occupied people cannot stop demanding for their national rights, but one has to know what he/she is talking about.