Some thoughts on Understanding What Lies Ahead for Ethiopia

By Wardoffa Benti (from Germany) 

This short essay is intended to examine on how the diverse views of people scatter unevenly throughout the spectrum of Ethiopia's complex society, to deliberate on the underlying intentions of people and their political leaders, and to scrutinize for participatory action. What are the driving forces of the societies? How could we resolve the diverse outlooks of people and their leaders in developing a middle ground for establishing a political forum on surer ground? When Isayas Afeworki (the author of TPLF's fear of the Amhara and suspicion of others) said that Ethiopians are given a hundred years assignment to solve their ethnic problems, was he right looking at the disarray of the politicians who are unable to forge a middle ground amongst the people? When Meles Zenawi proudly called the historical face-off between the Oromo and the Amhara as a "unique historical advantage for the TPLF" to perpetuate its rule, or when he said (named) the dialogue within the AFD as a marriage between "fire and straw" [Esatina Chiid], was he right? Could we all cave into our holes and comfort zones, singing the same old songs and regurgitating racial slurs and "jokes" while the political rulers are doing their homework? When is this playing games with the futures of the peoples' of Ethiopia coming to an end whilst the current rulers are abusing it for their narrow and arrogant purposes? Why are we transferring these problems to the next generation whilst we could make a difference if we all did our small parts? Why do we falsely believe that a government that is afraid of differing views and the opposition as being "strong"? Why don't we converge on the idea that there is more to politics than brooding, lacking communication, believing that there is only one means or way for all the problems?

The title chosen for this short abstract of a bigger idea is daunting and beyond the reach of the intelligence and capacity of this author. The idea is to tip a discussion on the manner of political discourse in the political community for scrutinizing the real issues on political transformation of stakeholders. When people come into some kind of union (unitary, federal, confederate or other forms of governmental structure), the basic notion is that these peoples have agreed to forge a formula where they would strike concessions and compromises that would be fair and workable for the groups and classes of people to be bound by that structure. Thus a Constitution of a country, which in essence means a tool where the various constituencies of people who are living in a relatively coherent and adjacent geographical entity, agree to come under some form of union after by a majority (super-majority) of their people or their elected representatives. The process of forming the nation is as important as the manner of forming that union. This notion centers on the idea that once a union if formed, it would take very stringent procedures to leave the union or re-negotiate its terms and conditions. It would be a natural phenomenon that people who live in different constituencies have various levels of development, resource, population, historical and traditional differences. However, the major point in bringing these disparate and similar constituencies is that some form of union is better that disjoined and impotent entities. But how does this union come to life? There are countless concessions and compromises that the various entities have to agree about. A union formed based on the aspirations or fears of a particular constituency or group of entities would be bound to be infested by tensions, rebellion, lack of freedom, repression, use of force to hold the union together. A union that is based on the assumptions and historical probabilities or fears of certain groups is not strong enough a ground to form a "perfect union" as much as a union that is formed without the significant volition or consent of other groups or classes. However, the majority of those constituencies shall have agreed to the union and the formula on which it is to be functioning.

How was the Ethiopian Constitution in this regards? Is Ethiopia a country where all the stakeholder constituencies of ethnicities, classes etc. agreed to form the union based on compromises and concessions struck by those groups? What is clear is that we cannot stop at an idea however, it seems out of class by dismissing it as un-Ethiopian or inappropriate. What is against the good of the people is not an idea, but the fear to think, discuss, and resolve those ideas and their consequences. We shall move away from the notion of being blankly dismissive of ideas! We shall be open to discuss any form of idea and come up with our opinions as covering up ideas or running away from them would leave us in the dark and incapacitated. For instance, regardless of the unpractical or non-conducive situation of the time, how have we been feeling about Eritrea? How many of us have been thinking, "what if Eritrea separates from Ethiopia? Have any of us though "what if" and tried to consider the different scenarios or did we become the slaves of reality, unprepared for the change that overwhelmed us? What sin is there in thinking, evaluating different scenarios and coming up with points to tackle those ideas? Most dictatorships do not want their people to "think" and come over the agenda these dictators set for them. Dictators play with our fears and desire to keep us in the dark so that we would not face them with reality and disarm them from the myth of fear and havoc they profess.

So the main point here is to open up our minds, discuss, and think beyond the agenda set for us by others. How would the people take the idea of nation building in Ethiopia? Why should the constitution, supposedly the law written by the people to guide the government and the rights and duties of its citizens, being used as a taboo in Ethiopia where its authors are denied to scrutinize and reevaluate what they themselves wrote. In a nation, no group or individual has a special right to be owner of the constitution as much as any other individual or citizen of that union. I could be able to argue or campaign to change the constitution since it is a book that I myself wrote so that I would regulate the behavior of the government I employ to serve me.

1. What is the constitution and what are the means intended in forming a nation? What is the mechanism between state formation and nation building? What is the idea behind the Ethiopian polity in state formation and nation building? Some countries have shared values of history of war, myth, disasters, liberation movements, etc. that binds the threads for their formation. Others have shared values of civil and political rights from which they spring from their nations (e.g. the United States, though it has a short history of colonialism or war of independence, its basis for building the nation was embedded on the citizen's aspiration and dream of the respecting "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".) This idea of what ties a nation together is the Ethiopian recent history seems to be largely based on the formation of a nation based on the autonomy of its component ethnicities with little or no regard to what could have been the shared common history of the citizens' history or a myth or myths that could be told of uniting its people. So how much of common history and geographical proximity had formed traditions and cultures that binds the peoples together? Is the EPRDF's idea of a nation that is embedded on past historical grievances a valid and forward-looking basis for nation building? Or should dwell on its past and forget what would inspire the people for the future strength of the union? 

Is the idea of ethnic federalism or the rights of the ethnicities an inward looking idea that draws the attention of its people and the nation to a static point transfixed on its past or is it a greater idea to forge an outward looking thrust that brings about a union to rise up to its future? What is wrong in recognizing the historical past of a nation if it is intended to redress it and devised to form a more perfect union? Is it the idea of recognizing it (as long as based on factual basis) or is it covering it up that would best serve a nation? How do we make best use of past grievances to avoid similar inequities and oppressions in the future? Why did not past unions fail or emerged to the satisfaction of some or most groups inside the union? Why are some or most unions dissatisfied in present unions? Have we come up from our past in such a way that would resolve our grievances or are we going through a revolving door of only replacing the roles of past oppressors and the oppressed of the past? Is the system engineered towards ensuring that no group or groups are being voiceless and unhindered by the status quo? Is the status quo convenient and acceptable by all? Could we have better dialogue in order to have all voices heard and represented?

2. A political system in a nation should be accountable and transparent for its citizens to comment on it, to form whatever opinion they shall espouse, challengeable as its resilience is tested by its capacity of answering the questions its citizens might have. No one person or group or groups have better or superior right or ownership to the constitution, if that constitution or union is supposedly formed on the consent and participation of all or significant portion sectors of the union. In a nation where the idea
of scrutinizing or challenging the constitution is a taboo or results in adverse consequences, then there is an underlying problem in the constitutionality or legitimacy of that document or the union itself. Therefore, citizens shall have, without fear of any reprisal or feeling intimidated, the right to challenge and question the constitution that they supposedly had written for themselves. How do we challenge the union and how far could we go in doing so? Is a mere discussion wrong or causes punishment? Is opposing the constitution or challenging the legitimacy of perceived as being wrong? A constitution is supposed to be written in such a way as to endure future generations, but not completely shutting out any change or criticism or amendments. How could political forces and groups challenge the constitution?

3. With the complexity of the Ethiopian society and the variety of outlooks espoused by societies with the vast spectrum of interests, the Constitution is bound to face perceivable challenges from all corners. One thing evident about politics is that there are a myriad of views which could not be taken simply to have the panacea for settlement. Many countries accept a Constitution or inherited political systems to build on for the present and the futures. Others stricken with revolutionary and across the board upheavals start anew with shifting paradigms and societal calculus to form a nation. The most stable form of nation building has in large parts rested on smooth transformation of society with the maximum participation of the people. The recent Ethiopian experience, preceded by civil war and the re-organization of the form and substance of the nation (e.g. the breakaway of Eritrean, the redrawing of regions along ethnic/language lines, the change of tone and theme of the political direction, the setting of new policies on as-we-go basis�etc.), has radically changed the country making its subjects confused, disoriented and helpless as much as it kept its unchecked and unilateral political rulers to often resort to retreat from what they set on the Constitution (e.g. unable to implement the basic human rights principles, unable to implement the federal system as written in the constitution, coining principles for the implementation of the constitution on un-deliberated impulsive rules, crippling the autonomy and self-rule of people, constricting the powers of the Federation Council and the House of Representatives, interfering in the right of the people to organize often through violent means, etc. These and other assaults against the Constitution had robbed of the government its legitimacy which it tries to get through means that are not voluntary and participatory. 

As always, the regime has fallen in the Ethiopian's psyche as another extension of those who believed that rulers deserve all and know better than their functionally political illiterate subjects. To strike discussion on these issues, I believe we have to consider these questions: Is the constitution an agreeable document to the non-surrogate "elites" of all nations and nationalities. Is there a perception of "outsider-ness" to a significant number of the population in terms of their perception to the Constitution? Is there a way for all those with vested interests in the constitution to accept it as a working document to forge a consensus in nation building without having to do away with the present constitution? Could there be a way of working on the means and ways outlined by the constitution to work through differences or to use the constitution to be a ground for further discussion and deliberation in the society?

4. The manner of amending a constitution is a safeguard that would ensure popular participation in the affairs of the nation. The reasonableness and practicality of these principles of amendment, aimed at upholding the will of the significant majority, are the ultimate treasures of stability and continuity. A nation where the people feel helpless to change or transform their constitution is an abject tyranny by those who believe that they are the final gatekeepers of political power usurped by a few. How is the Federal Constitution amendable? Is it in a resilient way that maintains its popular mandate whilst at the same time flexible to face to changing realities and the needs of its citizens? Are citizens "hospitable" to the capacity of reviewing the Constitution in a manner that is acceptable to the significant majority of the populace? Or is it a locked out door that designed to consider the whims of those who framed it in their narrow/minority political interests? Have the commanding framers of the Constitution in the same mind set as they were in terms of their perception to their perceived enemies now that they are living amongst their imaginary enemies? How far have the framers of the Constitution fairly calculated the interests of all? Have the framers thought of being on the receiving side if and when they are out of power and unable to use the constitution for their legislative or nation building agendas?

I conclude these thought with what I began with. This piece of thoughts is intended, as mentioned above, to think on how the diverse views of people scatters unevenly throughout the spectrum of Ethiopia's complex society to deliberate on the underlying intentions of people and their political leaders to scrutiny for participatory action. What are the driving forces of the societies? How could we resolve the diverse outlooks of people and their leaders in developing a middle ground for establishing the political forum on surer ground? When Isayas Afeworki (the author who inculcated TPLF's fear of the Amhara and suspicion of others) said that Ethiopians are given a 100 years assignment to solve their ethnic problems, was he right looking at the disarray of the politicians who are unable to forge a middle ground amongst the people? When Meles Zenawi called the historical face-off between the Oromo and the Amhara as a "unique historical advantage for the TPLF" to perpetuate its rule, or when he said named the dialogue within the AFD as a marriage between "fire and straw" [Esatina Chiid], was he right? Could we all cave into our holes and comfort zones, singing the same old songs and regurgitating on racial slurs and "jokes" while the political rulers are doing their homework? Remember, rulers thrive in controversies and tensions to engage the attention of their subjects whilst they are embedding their wicked systems.

Wardoffa Benti from Germany
April 18, 2008

The writer can be reached @ [email protected]