One Response to the ODF's “Our Common Future: A Proposal”

2009/2/17 (Ethiopian calendar)

2016/10/27 (European calendar)

(pdf)

[Note: An Amharic version of this post will appear sometime!]

It was with great pleasure that I read the Oromo Democratic Front's (ODF) discussion paper “Our Common Future: A Proposal.” It has been a long time since I read a constructive and inviting paper from an Ethiopian political party, a paper inviting us to do work rather than mire ourselves in sloganeering and pity. I commend the ODF for their initiative, and my aim here is to answer their invitation for a response to their proposal. I am but an individual commentator, a mere layman representing no one but myself, but I hope that my comments do the proposal some justice. I shall make my comments on the ideas in the proposal based on the order they were presented in the paper.

I fully agree with the ODF that a “country-wide consensus” on Ethiopia is indeed urgently required, but it has been urgently required for 22 years. The last 'consensus', the 1994 FDRE constitution was in my opinion too radical and not consultative enough, and so we've been waiting for a better one ever since. However, such consensuses are not created overnight, or in a conference or two. It takes years of discussion and deliberation to develop positions, let alone agreements on such a complicated matter as a country's political structure. It is remarkable that the Ethiopian opposition in all its forms has for 25 years hardly made any progress in this matter. We seem to be discussing the same issues over and over again, with the same confrontational zero-sum mindset as in the past. So we would all do well to heed what the ODF recommends and begin work immediately on this “country-wide consensus”.

Next, the proposal frames the current political problem as one between two opposing sides – the current regime as one side and those wanting a “unitary nation” as the other. It implies that “core Oromo demands” have been “sidestepped” or ignored in this debate. This framing is, to put it bluntly, wholly inaccurate. First, though I'm sure there are many that wish for a unitary nation, that is no federal system whatsoever, they form a small minority. To illustrate this, consider the official position of Kinijit and its successor parties in this regard, which was to maintain the current (federal) constitution as it is for the foreseeable future, and past that, amend it as per its own provisions! What kind of amendment it would be was not decided, but there were many proposals, ranging from language-based federalism, which would be almost the same as the current arrangement but simply replacing the concept of ethnicity with language, to federalism with states with redrawn boundaries removing ethnicity entirely. None of this makes for a centralized “unitary nation” -- it is at the very least federalism of some sort. Given Kinijit's large constituency as shown by its electoral victory, this is the majority position, not that of a “unitary nation”.

Second, unless I am mistaken, the main “core Oromo demand” is that the current constitution actually be respected rather than the EPRDF and TPLF in particular using its extrajudicial power to exercise undue influence. This demand is not sidestepped and has not been sidestepped in the debate in any way since all sides that have significant constituencies affirm the current constitution as a political reality, whether they like it or not. I would like to note here that if anything is being sidestepped it is the core demands of the Ethiopian nationalists, since the status quo already fulfils a large portion of the “Oromo demands”, which is a multinational state! The status quo has already brought Ethiopia, constitutionally speaking, from one extreme to the other extreme. There is no possible going further! Thus Oromo demands in this regard have been exceedingly fulfilled, save for the actual implementation portion.

Other demands, such as Oromiffa becoming an official federal language are also supported by all major constituencies. All this to say that talk about the “unitary nation” constituency is a red herring, and therefore presenting the current regime and the “unitary nation” constituency as the poles in the debate is incorrect.

Instead, the debate is multipolar, perhaps too multipolar. If we consider Oromia as one constituency, we have in Oromia a spectrum all the way from Ethiopian nationalists to soft Oromo nationalists to hardline Oromo nationalists. These factions themselves have a lot to sort out in terms of simply agreeing to disagree, let alone being able to unite into one constituency.

Then we have the Ethiopian nationalist constituency, which includes perhaps most of Amhara region, but also that large disenfranchised group of non-Amhara Ethiopians and mixed Ethiopians who consider themselves not to be ethnic nationalists. This constituency is the one that voted for Kinijit, and since its diversity means that it does not have ethnicity as a binding material, so to speak, it is an extremely fractious constituency. The inability of this constituency to “avoid the hair-splitting type of exchanges” and other dysfunctional traits in order to reach a basic consensus has, in my opinion, been the main reason for Ethiopia's current troubles and will end up being the ruin of the nation(s).

Third, there is the EPRDF, which though it has internal divisions is certainly the most united and coherent constituency. As the ODF proposal says, the EPRDF is convinced, or tries to convince itself, that there is no alternative to it. Well, we must admit that there is some truth in this, and the ODF proposal is proof of this in that it clearly outlines divisions in Ethiopian politics that have nothing to do with the EPRDF. We all know that were the EPRDF to vanish today, as the proposal implies, there is no consensus among the rest of us, so there would be anarchy. However, the lack of a consensus amongst the opposition has not stopped the EPRDF from the increasing “social rejection” that the proposal speaks of. Indeed, if we look to the past, both the Haile Selassie and Dergue regimes fell into some sort of anarchy, not into a ready opposition. So a weak opposition is no guarantee of long life for the EPRDF – it is only a guarantee of a hard fall. Thus the EPRDF had better start doing something to actually aid the opposition to develop rather than persecuting it.

Next, I would like to comment on the ODF conviction that the current constitution – Ethiopia as a multinational state – was “unavoidable”, implying that it is Ethiopia's destiny and natural state. Of course, it is the conviction of us Ethiopian nationalists (non ethnic nationalists) that Ethiopia as a multinational state, let alone being its natural state, is an unstable state ripe for conflict. Here we agree to disagree, but as I stated above, as was Kinijit's official position, most Ethiopian nationalists accept political reality and work within the current constitution. I would just like to add that talk of inevitability of the multinational state completely ignores other factors in Ethiopia's recent political past, including pseudo-feudalism, communism, and the Cold War, all of which are not ethnicity and yet have played a significant role in forming today's political reality. Ignoring these factors is I think a misreading of history that affects our perception of current political reality.

Now on to the numbered sections of the ODF proposal. The first, about the benefits of non-violent versus armed struggle is a case well made and there is little to argue about here. We agree to disagree with those who favour armed struggle! I would just like to add a point about 'democracy' however, as the document states that one thing all Ethiopian movements agree on is the goal of democracy. What we laymen think of us democracy is one man one vote, which immediately excludes group rights, especially huge group rights such as ethnic rights. Our problem is precisely that we do not agree with what democracy means and we cannot agree until we come to a general consensus about what our country should look like – in other words its constitution not only as it is formally written, but its spirit. So the term democracy becomes, I believe, a distraction as we work on the “country wide consensus” that this proposal advocates for. If we keep talking about democracy, we'll end up with the same problem as the Egyptian Arab Spring movement, which upon realizing that what it thought was democracy ended up empowering the Muslim Brotherhood a little too much decided it didn't want democracy after all.

The second section, on the divisive role of Ethiopian history, is excellent. I completely agree that short of some sort of miracle, we are going to have to learn to agree to disagree about Ethiopian history. I actually think that reasonable people can agree on a set of unbiased facts about Ethiopian history – that's not the main problem. The problem is that we all interpret these facts with our own political lens. Let's take the simple example of the concept of the Oromo nation. The Oromo in Ethiopia have at various times in history formed various nations, perhaps even a single nation, been an integral part as an ethnic group, not a nation, of the Ethiopian nation as we know it, assimilated into and assimilated other groups, invaded and have been invaded, terrorized and have been terrorized, etc. Most reasonable people would agree on this set of facts. I interpret this history as the Oromo being one of the ethnic groups in Ethiopia while others interpret this as the Oromo nation being distinct from what it calls Ethiopia, as having had various interactions with Ethiopia, but as a nation unto itself. Same facts, different interpretations, but these differences have major implications on building the “country-wide consensus”.

The good thing is that if we “can agree to disagree with different readings” of Ethiopian history, then we can take history out of the Ethiopian nationalism vs ethnic nationalism debate, and this would greatly help unfog the debate. The debate then will simply be about political position rather than history, grievance, etc. This kind of development is would not be new – the example of Canada and Quebec is a case in point. The history of Canada is simple and well-documented – there's not much to argue about its contents. Quebec nationalists interpret the history as that of a Quebec nation invaded and with a right to independence, while others view the history as a competition between two North American colonialists which one party won and is a fait accompli. Same facts, different interpretations. But the only important fact here is that Quebec nationalists want independence today, regardless of history, and the opposite side wants a single Canada, regardless of history. It is current political competition that drives the debate.

The third section on self-determination is also excellent in that it nicely breaks down a large idea – ethnic self determination in the context of Ethiopia – into smaller principles that are much easier to discuss and come to agreement on. I agree with all the premises as they apply in this context. (I disagree with “being an Oromo was officially portrayed as antithetical to being an Ethiopian”, but that's not one of the principles, just an aside.) However, there is more to go – it is a bare minimum, not surprisingly, as this is proposal is just a starting point. One can agree with all the premises, as I do, yet disagree on their political interpretation, as I do with the interpretation of the ODF.

Finally, the fourth and fifth sections dealing with the zero sum attitudes in Ethiopian politics, particularly as it relates to demonizing opponents and lacking empathy. The proposal makes it clear that in order to properly learn from the past, we have to empathize not only with current opponents but with past actors and understand why they did what they did. If we do so, we will realize that there was and in the case of the EPRDF there is some good that they have done, and these should be built upon, rather than everything having to be torn down and built up again.

I completely agree with these thoughts. The zero sum mentality means for a complete absence of introspection, which in turn means continual conflict. With a little bit of empathy and introspection, much of the current conflict would be easily transformed. I think Ethiopians have to start giving the saying 'a people get the government they deserve' much more weight than we currently do. As I am fond of saying, much of the reason Ethiopia today has an ethnic-based constitution that Ethiopian nationalists do not like (but accept!) is because Ethiopian nationalists committed political suicide over the two decades before the new constitution was formed, so that they were unable to be at the table. Yet we Ethiopian nationalists continue to blame the EPRDF for it, as if the EPRDF could suddenly reverse its cherished ideology and take a huge political risk once in power! Unfortunately, it is this focus on continually blaming the EPRDF for everything that has kept us unable to fix our own problems and therefore kept us weak and inept.

In conclusion, I think the ODF proposal is an excellent document that all stakeholders in Ethiopian politics should read, discuss, and build upon. However, let us reflect on why previous such attempts, such as Medrek, for example, have stuttered and failed, and learn from those mistakes. Also, let us ask ourselves where the other stakeholders are while the grassroots, leaderless, is up in arms. 

ያልተጠበቀው ህዝባዊ ዐመፅ የት ይደርስ ይሆን?

2009/2/16 ዓ.ም. (2016/10/26)

(pdf)

ላለፉት የተወሰኑ ወራት የተካሄደው የህዝባዊ ዐመፅ እንደሚከሰት አውቅ ነበር የሚል ካለ ቀልደኛ ነው። መንግስት አልጠበቀውም፤ ተቃዋሚዎች አልጠበቁትም፤ ሚዲያውም የፖለቲካ ተንታኞችም አልጠበቁትም። እኔም ጭራሽ አልጠበኩትም።

እርግጥ የኢህአዴግን መርህዎች ለሀገሪቷ አደገኛ ናቸው ብለን የምናምነው ሁልጊዜ ችግር ይመጣል ብለን እንዘፍናለን። እንደዚህ ሊቀጥል አይችልም፤ የሰውዉ ብሶት አንድ ቀን ይፈነዳል እንል ነበር... ለ25 ዓመት። ግን አሁን ይህ ዐመፅ ይነሳል ብለን አልጠበቅንም።

ዐመፁ አንዴ ከተነሳ በኋላ ትልቅ ችግር መኖሩን የሚያሳዩ ምልክቶች እንደነበሩ ማየት እንችላለን። ባለፉት ሁለት ዓመታት ጠቅላይ ሚኒስቴሩ ሙስናን ለመቆጣጠር የነበራቸው ጠንካራ ፍላጎት፤ ይህ ባለመሆኑ ብስጭታቸውን በአደባባይ እስከ መግለጽ ያደረጋቸው ሙስናና አድሎ ምን ያህል ያሳሰባቸው እንደነበረ ያሳያል። ህብረተሰብ ውስጥም ስለ ሙስናና በተለይ አድሎ የነበረው ማግሮምሮም በየዓመቱ እጅግ እያየለ እንደሆነ ይታወሳል። ስለ አዲስ አበባ «ማስተር ፕላን» የነበረው አቤቱታ ትልቅ ምልከትም ነበር። ግን ማንም ይህ አይነት ዐመፅ ይከተላል ብሎ የገመተ የለም።

እኔ ያልገመትኩበት ምክንያት እኛ ኢትዮጵያኖች የኢህአዴግን የመንግስት ስረዓት ተቀብለነዋል ብዬ ገምቼ ስለነበር ነው። ይህ እጅግ ያሳዝነኝ ነበር። ልክ እንደ የቻይና ህዝብ ለ «ልማት» (ገንዘብ) ብሎ ለገዥ ፓርቲው ክብሩንና መብቱን እንደሸጠ የኛም ህዝብ ለገንዘብ፤ ለኮንዶሚኒየም፤ ለስራ እድል፤ ልድጎማ፤ ለሞቢለ ስልክ፤ ወዘተ የ«ልማት» ውጤቶች ብሎ ማንነቱን ክብሩንና መብቱን ለኢህአዴግ ሽቷል ብዬ ገምቼ ነበር።

ጎረቤቱ ቤቱንንና መረቱን መንግስት ነጥቆት ከከተመ ውጭ ባዶ መሬት ላይ ሲወረወር መልካም እድል ብሎ ምንም ሳይረዳውም የሚሸኘው አይነት ህዝብ ነው የተገነዘብኩት። በሙስና ምክንያት ፍርድ ሜቱ ለባለንጀራው ትክክለኛ ፍትህ ሲያጎልበት ከማጽናናት ፋንታ ዞር ብሎ የማይጠይቀው ህዝብ። የቀበሌ ሹሞች ለልማት የመጣውን ገንዘብ ሲሰርቁ ለኔም ትንሽ ባካፈሉኝ የሚል ህዝብ። እንደዚህ አይነት ኢሰባዊ ድርጊቶች ቅርም የማይለው ህዝብ። ሙስና ምንም የማይመስለው ህዝብ። እርስ በርስ መተሳሰብ የጠፋበት ህዝብ። እንደ ጥሩ ምሳሌ የሆኑት መሪዎቹ ለገንዘብ ብሎ ምንም የሚያደርግ፤ የገዛ ወንድሙን ጎረቤቱን ዘመዱን የሚሸጥ። ልጁን ለገንዘብ ብሎ እየማቀቀች «ዶላር» እንድትልክ አረብ ሀገር የሚልክ ህዝብ። ስለ እድር የሚያግሮምርም የመሃበራዊ ኑሮ ጥቅም የጠፋበት ህዝብ። ማንነቱን ለማጥፋት የቸኮለ ህዝብ፤ ለፈረንጅ የሚሰግድ፤ ልጁን ወደ ውጭ ሀገር ለመላክ የፈለገውን የሚያደርግ፤ ቤት ቁች ብሎ የፈረንጅ ቅኝ ግዛት ማስፈጸምያ የቴሌቪዥን «ድራማ» ሲከታተል የሚውል የደነዘዘ ህዝብ። ወጣቶቹ ስለአርሴናል የሚገዳደሉ ህዝብ። ቤተ ክርስቲያኑ በሙስና የተሞላች፤ መስጊዷ የተከፋፈለች ህዝብ። የኢትዮጵያ ህዝብ በዚህ ሁኔታ ናትና በቅርቡ ምንም አይነት ፖለቲካዊ ለውጥ አይመጣም ብዬ ደምድሜ ነበር።

ግን ይሄው ዐመፅ ተጀመረ። ሆኖም የሚዘልቅ አይመስልም። ይህን የምለው ለመተንበይ አይደለም፤ ትንቢቴ ዋጋ እንደሌለው ታይቷል። ዐመፁ ይቀሽፋል የምለው ዐመፁ ወደ ጥሩ ነገር እንዲመራ፤ ፍሬአማ እንዲሆን ብዙሃኑም የፖለቲካ መሪዎችም በቂ ስራ እንዳልሰሩ ለማሳየት ያህል ብዬ ነው። እስካሁን ማንም የህዝቡን ጥያቄና ፍላጎት በተገቢው ደረጃ ያሰባሰበና ለውይይት ያቀረበ የለም። እስካሁን ብሶትና እሮሮ ብቻ ነው የሚሰማው። ብዙሃኑ ብሶቱንና እሮሮውን መግለጹ ተገቢ ነው ግን ከፖለቲካ መሪዎቹ ማቀናበርና ማወሃድ ከሌለ የትም አይደረስም።

በኔ እምነት ዐመፁን ያስነሳው የመጀመሪያ ደረጃ ምክንያት አድሎ ነው፤ በተለይ በዘር የተመሰረተ አድሎ። ህብረተሰብ ውስጥ ተቀላቅሎ አስተውሎ ለሚመለከት ይህ ሊያመልጠው አይችልም፤ የአብዛኛው ህዝብ እሮሮ ከአድሎና ሙስና ጋር የተያያዘ ነው። የፍትህ ጉድለት፤ የዴሞክራሲ ጉድለት፤ የጎሳ አስተዳደር፤ ወዘተ ሁለተኛ ደረጃ ምክንያቶች ነበሩ። ግን መፍትሄ ከተፈለገ እነዚህ፤ ፍትህ፤ ዴሞክራሲ ወይም ተጠሪነት፤ እኩልነት፤ ናቸው መሰረታዊ ጉዳዮቹ! ሙስናና አድሎ የኔዚህ ርዥራዦች ናቸው። ስለዚህ የህዝቡም የፖለቲካ መሪዎችም የምሁራንም ቱክረት እነዚህ ጉዳዮች ላይ ካልሆነ ትክክለኛ ለውጥ ሊመጣ አይችልም።

ዐመፁ እንደምጠብቀው ከበረደ ቀጥሎ ምን ይደረግ? ከዚህ በፊት እንደጻፍኩት መልካም አስተዳደርና መልካም ህብረተሰብ እንዲሆንልን የምንፈልገው በየ ጎራችን፤ ከምነግስት አስተዳደር ውስጥ ቢሆንም፤ በበኩላችን መልካም ስራ መስራትና ጥሩ ዜጋና ምሳሌ መሆን ነው ማድረግ ያለምን። ለውጥ የምንፈልገው አብዛኛ ከሆንን ሁላችንም ይህን ካረግን የምንፈልገው ህብረተሰባዊና መንግስታዊ ለውጥ ይመጣል።

የአንድ ዲያስፖራ ኑዛዜ

2009/2/15 ዓ.ም. (2016/10/25)

በአንድ ዲያስፖራ የተጻፈ…

ችግርን ለመፍታት በመጀመሪያ የችግሩ ዋና ምክንያቶች በትክክሉ መገኘት አለባቸው። እነዚህ ምክንያቶች ተገኝተው ሲፈቱ ነው ዋናው ችግር የሚፈታው። የችግሩ ምክንያቶች ወይም ምንጮች በትክክሉ ካልተገኙ ችግሩ መቼም አይፈታም። ይህን ሁላችንም የምናውቀው እውነታን በመጀመርያ የምጠቅሰው እኔ ከሀገሬ ኢትዮጵያ የፖለቲካና መሃበረሰባዊ ችግሮች ምክንያቶች አንዱ ነኝ ብዬ ስለማምን ነው።

ከማልፈልገው መንግስት ለመሸሽ «ኑሮ ለማሸነፍ» ብዬ ያሳደገችኝን ሀገሬ ኢትዮጵያን ትችያት ወጣሁኝ። በምሳሌ ደረጃ ቤቴን ትቼ ወጣሁኝ ማለት ይቻላል፤ በጣም በመቸኮሌም የቤቴን ቁልፍ ለማንም በአደራነት አልተውኩም። ባዶና አለ ጠባቂ የተውኩትን ቤት ሌላ ሰው ገብቶ ማስተዳደር ጀመረ። የቤቱን እቃ በሚፈልገው መልክ አሸጋሸገ፤ የማይፈልገውን እቃ ሸጠ ወይም ጣለ፤ የሚፈልገውን አዲስ እቃ ደግሞ ገዛና አስገባ። እኔ ከሩቅ ከዲያስፖራ ሆኜ እመለከተለሁ አዝናለው እናደዳለው እጮሃለውም። ቤቴን በመጀመሪያው ባልተውኩኝ ኖሮ።

በርካታ የትምህርት ጓደኞቼ እንደኔ ውጭ ሀገር ናቸው። አቃቸዋለሁ፤ ጥሩ ችሎታ ያላቸው ደህና ሰዎች ናቸው። ዩኒቨርሲቲ ለመግባት የበቁ የሀገራችን ምርጥ ተማሪዎች ነበሩ፤ ሀገሪቷን በደምብ ማገልገል የሚችሉ። ግን ዛሬ ሀገራቸውን ለቀው ውጭ ናቸው፤ አሜሪካንን ያገለግላሉ፤ ወይ ስዊድንን ያገለገላሉ። ታድያ እነዚህ ሁሉ ከሀገር ወጥተው ማን ነው የቀረው? እኔ ከሀገራችንን ከሚመሩት የተሻልኩኝ፤ እንደነሱ ክፉ ያልሆንኩኝ፤ ሀገር ወዳድ ነኝ ብዬ የማምን ከሆነ ከሀገሬ መውጣቴ ምን ይባላል። እራሴን አውጥቼ ሀገሬን ለክፉ ናቸው የምላቸው ሰዎች ትችያታለሁ ማለት ነው። ትልቅ ጥፋት አለብን።

አንድ አስተማሪ የቤተ ክርስትያን ተረት ልንገራችሁ… በአንድ ወክት የቤተ ክርስትያን አመራርና ካህናት በከባድ የመንፈሳዊ ፈተና ተይዘው ነበር። በካህናቱ መካከል የእምነት ጉድለት፤ የስነ መግባር ጉድለት፤ የሙስና ብዛት፤ ወዘተ ይታይ ነበር። እጅግ ከባድ ዘመን ነበር። በዚህ ጊዜ አንድ ደህና ኑሮ ያላት ሴት ወይዘሮ ወደ አንድ የታወቁ መንፈሳዊ አባት ለራስዋ ጉዳዮች ምክር ለማግኘትና ንስሀ ለመግባት ትሄዳለች። ከኚህ አባት ጋር ቁጭ ብላ መወያየት ስትጀምር ግን ዋና ጉዳይዋን ትታ ስለ ቤተ ክርስቲያን አመራሮችና ካህናት ችግር ብቻ ታወራለች ታጉረመርማለችም። የምታማክራቸው አባት በትዕግስት አቤቱታዋንና ወሬዋን እስክትጨርስ ድረስ አዳመጧት። ሁሉንም ተችታና ኮንና ጨረሰች። ቀጥሎ እኚህ ታላቅ አባት ልጆች እንዳሏት ጠየቋት። አዎን ሁለት ሴቶችና ሁለት ወንዶች አሉኝ አለች። ከነዚህ ወንድ ልጆችሽ አንዱ ቄስ ቢሆንስ ብለው ጠየቋት። በፍጹም፤ እንዴት ይሆናል ብላ ተቆጣች። እንዴት ለልጀ ገንዘብም እውቀጥም የሌለውን ስራ እመኝለታለሁ አለች! ታድያ የራስሽ ልጆች ካህን እንዲሆኑ ካልፈለግሽ ማን ነሽ በፈቃዳቸው ካህን እንሆናለን ያሉትን የምትኮንኙ ብለው ታላቁ አባት ወቀሷት አስተማሯትም።

ሀገር ችግር ላይ በሆነበት ጊዜ መሸሽ ክህደት ነው ማለት ይቻላል። እኔ ሀገሬን ከድጂያታለሁ ለማለት ወደኋላ አልልም። ጥፋትንና ድክመትን ማመን የመጀመሪያ የችግርን መፍታት እርምጃ ነው። አንድ ሰው ቤተሰብ ውስጥ ችግር ካለ ቤተሰብነቱን ክዶ ሸሽቶ አይሄድም። ልጀ ካስቸገረኝ ልጄ አይደለህም ብዬ አላባርረውም። ካባረርኩት ካድኩት ማለት ነው። ሀገርም እንደዚህ ነው። ሀገር ወዳድ ነኝ ማለትና ሀገር ችግር ላይ ስትወድቅ መሸሽ ተጻራሪ ናቸው!

እውነት ነው፤ አንዳንዴ ሽሽት ግድ ነው። ድንግል ማርያም ልጇን ክርስቶስን ይዛ ሸሽታለች። ግን ሽሽቱ አላማን ለማሳካት ነው እንጂ ለመሸሽ አይደለም። እውነቱን ለመናገር እኔ ግን ወደ ዲያስፖራ የመጣሁት ለመሸሽና የሀገሬን ችግር ለሌሎች ለመተው ነው። ለሀገሬ አላማ ኖሮኝ አይደለም። ኢትዮጵያ ያሉት ታግለውልኝ ደህና መንግስት ሲያመጡ እመለሳለሁ ብዬ ነው። ግን ያም ቢሆን የምመለስ ይመስላችኋልን? ከሃዲ ነኝ፤ እውነት ነው፤ ጥፋቴን አምናለሁ።

ግን ሀገሬን እውዳለሁ፤ ፖለቲካዋ እንደዚህ ወይም እንደዛ መሆን አለበት፤ መሃበረሰቧም እንደዚህ ወይም እንደዛ መምሰል አለበት፤ ህዝቡ መሰልጠን አለበት፤ መንግስትም አሰራሩ እንደዚህ መሆን አለበት ብዬ አስባለሁ እለፈልፋለውም። ሀሳብና ወሬ ብቻ ሀገር ወዳድ የሚያደርግ ይመስለኛል።

ሀገር ወዳድ ሆኜ ግን እንዴት ነው ተግባሬ ያንን የሀገር ፍቅርን ሊያንጸባርቅ የሚችለው? ልጆቼን እንኳን ቋንቋቸውን አላስተማርኳቸውም። ሀገረ ወዳድነት ይህ ነው? ያውም «አላስተማርኳቸውም» የሚለው ቃል በቂ አይገልጸውም፤ አላስተማርኳቸውም ሳይሆን እንዳይማሩ ከልኪያቸዋለሁ። ሌላው ሁሉ መጤ፤ ሂስፓኒኩ፤ ቻይናው፤ ሶማሌው፤ ጣሊያኑ፤ ወዘተ ቋንቋውን ከቤት እየተናገረ ልጆቻቸው በተዘዋዋሪ ቋንቋቸውን ይችላሉ። እኔ ግን ከቤቴ በደምብ የማልችለውን እንግሊዘኛ (ወይም ጀርመን ስዊድኛ ወዘተ) እየተናገርኩኝ ልጆቼ ቋንቋቸውን እንዳይችሉ አረጋለሁ። ባህላቸውን ወጋቸውንም ላይላዩን ብቻ ነው የማስተምራቸው። እውነቱን ለመናገር ልጆቼን ፈረንጅ እንዲሆኑ አድርግያለሁ። ኢትዮጵያዊ ትውልድ በኔ ቆሟል። ታድያ ምን አይነት ሀገር ወዳድ ነኝ?

ወደ ክህደቴ ልመለስና… እርግጥ እራሴን ለማጽናናት ያህል አንዳንድ ግዜ ለክህደቴ ስበቦችና አጉል ምክንያቶች እፈጥራለሁ። አንዱ «ከሀገሬ ብቆይ እታሰር ነበር» ነው። «ህሊናዬን ሽጥቼ ካልሆነ ሀገሬ መስራት አልችልም።» ታድያ ሀገር ቤት ያሉት ወገኖቼ በሙሉ ወይ ታስረዋል ወይ ህሊናቸውን የሸጡ አደርባዮች ሆኖዋል ማለት ነው? ወይ ፍርድ! በአንድ በኩል ገዥው መንግስት የአናሳ ህዝብ ነው እላለሁ። በሌላው በኩል ሁሉንም ይቆጣጠራሉ እላለሁ። እነዚህ የሚጻረሩ ሀሳቦች ናቸው! እውነቱ እንደዚህ ነው፤ አብዛኛው ህዝብ ክፉ ላለማድረግ ከወሰነ ከተባበረ በሀገሪቷ ያለውን ክፋት ይጠፋ ነበር። እራሴን እንደዚህ ማታለል አልችልም፤ ከሀገሬ ሆኜ ለሀገሬ በርካታ ጠቃሚ ነበር አፈራ ነበር።

አንዳንድ ጊዜ ደግሞ ክሀገሬ የሸሸሁት ኑሮ አሸንፌ ቤተሰቤን ለመርዳት ነው ብዬ እራሴን ማጽናናት እሞክራለሁ። ከቅዠቴ ስነቃ ግን ለዚህም አጉል ምክንያት መልስ አለኝ። ሀገር የሚያድገው ገንዘብ ሲያገኝ ነው ወይም ህዝቡ በእውቀትና ችሎታ ሲበለጽግ ነው? ጃፓን ምንም ተፈጥሮ ሃብት ሳይኖራት ህዝቧን በእውቀትና ችሎታ እንዲበለጽግ አድርጋ ነው ያደገችው። ሳውዲ ደግሞ በተፈጥሮ ሃብት ምክንያት በገንዘብ ሃብታም ሆና ግን በህዝብ ደሃ ናት። ገንዘብ ለቤተሰቤ መላክ ምን ያህል ሀገሪቷንም እነሱንም ይጠቅማል? እርገጥ አንዳንድ ቤተሰብ ገንዘቡን ለዘላቂ ነገር ለትምህርት ለንግድ ወዘተ ይጠቅምበታል። በርካታው ደግሞ ለለት ኑሮ ይጠቀምበታል። ምንም ቢሆን ገንዘቤ እኔን አይተካም ሊተካም አይችልም ይተካል የሚለው አስተሳሰብም ጎጂ ነው። ማንም በድጎማ አይበለጽግም። ይህ ከሀገር ለመሸሽ ምክንያቴ ሊሆነ አይገባም።

አዎን ለክህደቴ ምንም ስበብ የለም። አምኛለሁ። ንስሀ ገባለሁም። እግዚአብሔር ሀገር ቤት እንድመለስና ከወገኖቼ አብሬ ደስታቸውንም ችግራቸውንም እንድካፈል ብርታቱ ይስጠኝ። እራሴንም ማታለል እንዳቆም ይርዳኝ። አሜን።

An Exercise in Empathy

2009/2/15 (Ethiopian calendar)

2016/10/25 (European calendar)

(pdf)

[Note: An Amharic version of this post will appear sometime!]

In the next few posts, I will attempt, just attempt, an exercise in empathy. I will try and put myself in the shoes of Ethiopia's various political groups and constituencies and describe the truth about Ethiopian politics how they see it – from their perspective. I will start with either Oromo ethnic nationalists or the EPRDF, or maybe just the TPLF. And I'll keep going as much as I can.

Why this exercise? I'll first answer from within the 'conflict resolution' paradigm. Empathy – trying to grasp the point of view, the feelings, the thoughts, etc of others – is an important tool, perhaps the most important, in conflict resolution. The idea is that if you can empathize, you can communicate better, that is you can communicate in a way that your opponents can understand, and of course you can better envision solutions that your opponents can accept. Empathy also builds trust and understanding, which needless to say are important for living together peacefully.

Second, as this blog is written from an Orthodox Christian perspective, I'll explain from this point of view as well. Empathy is basic Christianity. Our fundamental belief is that Christ came and died for us out of compassion – to share our suffering and redeem it. This is similar to empathy, but greater, as it involves not only sharing the Other's experience, but doing so with the hope of bring about something better. Further, avoiding judgement is a basic teaching of the Church. “To judge sins is the business of one who is sinless, but who is sinless except God?... To judge a man who has gone astray is a sign of pride, and God resists the proud.” says St Dorotheus of Gaza. So, following Christ's example of compassion and his command not to judge, a Christian as a matter of course must try to be empathetic.

I hope my little exercise will help shed some light on solutions for Ethiopia's problems. So, I'll give it a try over my next few articles. Your feedback as always is much appreciated.

The Oromo Nation – A Fait Accompli?

2009/2/20 (Ethiopian calendar)

2016/10/20 (European calendar)

[Note: An Amharic version of this post will appear sometime!]

(pdf)

I've just read Dr Ezekiel Gebissa's reply to Dr Tedla Woldeyohannes' questions about the upcoming Oromo Leadership Convention in Atlanta. While answering the questions, Dr Ezekiel gives us some idea of his vision of the relationship between the Oromo nation and Ethiopia. In this article I'll take what I consider to be the best parts of his article – two major points – and expand on them.

The first is that Ethiopian history, in other words the story of Ethiopia, can be interpreted in various ways. It can be made to fit a story of a single nation albeit with different ethnic groups, or a nation of nations, or even prison of nations.

For what it's worth, I too agree that history and ethnic and national identity are to a large extent matters of interpretation. No one interpretation is the Gospel Truth. We can argue all we want about these, as we have done for decades, as laymen, as academicians, as politicians, in various contexts and within different paradigms; some of us might even change our minds; but at the end of the day, if we want live together in peace, we have to be able to agree to disagree.

Note that I say this as an ardent Ethiopian nationalist who considers the synthesis story of one multiethnic nation as the true story. Further, I consider the ethnic nationalist story not only untrue but that if it goes too far, it does not bode well for the nation as a whole. The mere fact that arguments for this story are often buttressed by claims of victimhood obviously makes for tensions, acrimony, and negative competition between ethnic groups. I would like to note that such claims are not at all necessary to build the ethnic nationalist story – it can be constructed quite well without them – but the fact that they are often used illustrates the risks that come with ethnic nationalism.

But I digress... There are valid differing opinions and they have to co-exist. In order to co-exist, I believe that we Ethiopian nationalists have not only to strive to understand these opinions, but beyond understanding we must try to empathize. Look, Oromo ethnic nationalism is not the first ethnic nationalism in the world! Plenty of other multiethnic nations are having to deal with ethnic nationalisms of different types. This alone should give one pause. We are not alone. As such I believe that humility requires that we Ethiopian nationalists step back re-assess our understanding and response to ethnic nationalism. Yes, we are right to stand and argue against it, but our position should not be as in the past, where we fought against the very right of ethnic nationalism to be politically expressed and advocated repressing it by force. That was then and is now not only an unwise but also, dare I say, an immoral course.

The second point of Dr Ezekiel's that I wish to discuss is the following: that all the arguments have been made and done, and today the Oromo nation, as part of an Ethiopian nation of nations, is a fait accompli. Ethnicity is enshrined in the Ethiopian constitution and a generation of Oromos have been taught, exclusively, ethnic nationalism. Again, this is true. Sad, for us Ethiopian nationalists, but true! We have to not only accept this new political reality, but we have to learn from how it came about so that we can avoid making the same mistakes as the past.

So, how did it come about? We Ethiopian nationalists played a huge role by mismanaging the country, by neglecting to make necessary accommodations, and perhaps worst of all, by committing political fratricide over the past half century. We managed to convert Eritrea from a region eager to join Ethiopia to a nation willing to sacrifice thousands to leave it. We made Ethiopia such an inhospitable and repressive country that some relatively few ethnic nationalist elites were able to leverage this into a vast expansion of ethnic nationalism. After the EPRDF gained power, rather than doing the obvious – conducting a self-examination to see how we could go so wrong as to leave the hands of the country in the hands of self-proclaimed ethnic nationalists – we concentrated on blaming the EPRDF for happening to fill a vacuum we created! And we bickered... Even after the EPRDF instituted today's radical ethnic nationalist constitution, we continued, in absentia, to argue amongst ourselves while the roots of ethnic nationalism spread!

Yet, despite the failures of the elite, Ethiopian nationalism still remained strong among the masses. You will recall that even just eleven years ago Kinijit demonstrated an unexpected amount of nation-wide support for at least some degree of de-ethnicization. However, our Ethiopian nationalist elites managed to make a right mess of that as well. Even today, there is no significant Ethiopian nationalist political movement – Ethiopian nationalism, as a story remains only in the hearts of the masses.

Now, we have to face Dr Ezekiel's fait accompli, not with denial, not by blaming others, and not with nostalgia, but by accepting reality and responding with a constructive agenda. Given the huge rise in Oromo ethnic nationalism and the confused state of the EPRDF, the nation of Ethiopia needs a strong Ethiopian nationalist movement to act as a counter-balance – to bring about a less risky equilibrium to the country's politics. The impediment to this is not the EPRDF nor Oromo ethnic nationalism, but the Ethiopian nationalist elite. It is time we pull ourselves up with our bootstraps before it is too late.