I am fortunate to have acquired a somewhat intimate knowledge of Canadian politics and have found that, unlike US politics for example, Canadian politics holds wonderful parallels and lessons for Ethiopia in the area of federalism and ethnic federalism. So in this article I will briefly describe the history and nature of Canadian politics and how it can help us understand the Ethiopian political reality today, especially concerning ethnic federalism.
Here’s the (very) brief history… Canada was settled by English and French colonists beginning in the 1600’s. Soonafter, the English and French began warring for control of Canada (and North America as a whole), and around 1770, the English won decisively. However, in order to avoid problems with the large French population that had already settled in what is today known as the province of Quebec, the English government allowed the French to use their own language, worship in their own religion (Catholic), and to keep their own system of law (civil law). Over the following decades and centuries, the English continued to grant Quebec various such levels of autonomy and self-governance, both official and unofficial. For example, Quebec had its own legislature and French and both provincial and federal government services were provided in French and English. Unofficially, almost every second Canadian Prime Minister from 1867 (the official formation of Canada) onwards was French.
Nevertheless, despite such increasing levels of autonomy and recognition of language rights (note that it was always refered to as ‘language’, not ‘ethnic’ rights), ethnic nationalism in the French province of Quebec did not go away. The idea that Quebec was different from the rest of Canada, to the extent that it should secede and be a different country, actually grew over the decades despite increasing political and economic fortunes. So much so that in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, there was a small armed resistance advocating for the separation of Quebec. This was followed by increasing support for even more autonomy and even secession among both the Quebec population and its French elite.
This resulted in two referendums on secession. In the first referendum of 1980, the ‘yes’ side – the secession side - lost by a significant margin. But, the fact that it was held at all and that it gained 40% support scared enough people that the federal government took even further steps to give Quebec more autonomy, to increase the prominence of French throughout the country, and to unofficially increase the amount of money Quebec got from the federal government. Yet, despite this, a second referendum was held 1995, strategically at a time when the economy was in recession and people were angry. This referendum was again won by the ‘no’ side, but by only one percentage point 50.5% to 49.5%! Significantly, 60% of native French speakers voted for secession, but almost 100% of English and other language speakers voted against secession. Thus, despite being a small minority, non-French speakers were the decisive voters in the referendum.
Today, there is little interest in secession in Quebec – or to put it more accurately, it seems impossible for the 40% of Quebec who still support secession to get enough support from the rest of the population to win a referendum.
What are the lessons to learn from this Canadian example for Ethiopia?
Modernization, rather than reducing ethnic nationalism, can actually increase it. As Quebec modernized, became less religious, more affluent, etc. support for ethnic nationalism, manifested in reduction in English and other (non-French) language rights, secession from Canada, etc. actually increased! Modernization and increased ethnic nationalism go hand in hand.
Canada over the centuries embarked on various policies aimed at accommodating and satisfying the demands of French Quebecers such as the granting of extensive language rights, allowing the suppression of English and other languages in Quebec, making French an official language of the entire country despite only a tiny French population outside Quebec, transfering large amounts of federal money to Quebec despite the wealth of Quebec, etc. The political calculation was that if the demands of French Quebecers were met, they would be less likely to manifest their ethnic nationalism in ways that would cause dramatic damage the rest of Canada, such as secession. This shows that ethnic nationalism cannot be defeated by a stick – it requires plenty of carrot.
However, all over the above policies may have slowed the pace of increasing ethnic nationalism, but did not stop it. The results of the 1995 referendum, which almost initiated a process of secession or at least more separated federal arrangement, shows that accommodating ethnic nationalism, though helpful for some time, will not at the end stop the movement.
Ethnic nationalism does not fundamentally mean secession. It is the desire of a certain group for special rights above the rights of the rest of the population, in recognition that this group is a nation, or a pseudo-nation. For hardline ethnic nationalists, this recognition can only be realized within a politically separate nation. For ‘softer’ nationalists, having asymmetric rights within one nation is enough. Having more autonomy than other provinces, having a French-only province, having the federal language use French equal to English, etc. is enough for them to express their nationhood. The common theme however is that it has to have special rights as a group, even though these rights impinge upon the rights of other citizens.
An immigrant to Quebec cannot send his child to English school. English has not official status as a language in Quebec. Anyone in Quebec who does not speak French is de facto a second class citizen. More so than someone who does not speak English and lives in the English parts of Canada. ‘Native’ Quebecers – those who trace their ancestry to the original French Quebecers – are a privileged class in Quebec, even more so that ‘native’ English are in the rest of Canada. These are the practical consequences of ethnic nationalism – asymmetric rights and privilege that impinge on others’ rights.
Quebec nationalists go out of their way to emphasize that theirs is not an ‘ethnic’ nationalism, but a geographic (Quebec) or language-based (French) nationalism. The reason is that ethnic nationalism is seen within Canadian politics as a whole as primitive and potentially discriminatory. Thus when after the failed 1995 referendum one of the leaders of the Quebec separatist movement (truthfully) said that they lost the vote because of English speakers and immigrants, he was roundly denounced by his own side. What he said was true but not the perception of Quebec separatism that separatists wanted to portray. They wanted to portray their side as open to all, especially immigrants, with the common goal of having an independent Quebec. Ethnic nationalism is in a mature political arena seen as too divisive and dangerous by all sides.
Ethnic nationalism is politically costly. Since its inception, Canada has an extraordinary amount of its political energy on this issue. This energy could have been better spend on the myriad of other matters, such as the economy, trade, government organization, etc. that are everyday political issues in any other nation. The cost has been not only to Canada as a whole, but particularly to Quebec. In Quebec, most issues are sign primarily or at least secondarily through ethnic nationalist implications. Even political parties are organized around this issue, instead of around other ideology or interest groups.
Ethnic nationalist is economically costly. Canada spends significant amounts of money implementing the asymmetrical rights and privileges to Quebec that I mentioned above. The Quebec economy, too, has long been held hostage to the ethnic nationalist movement’s desire to use the economy first and foremost as a tool to promote its ethnic nationalist agenda.
Ethnic nationalism can only be significantly weaked through demographics, including integration and assimilation with the rest of the population. As I said above, though accommodation is often necessary and helpful, at the end of the day, it will only slow the tide of ethnic nationalism, not stop it. If it were not for the changing demographics in Quebec resulting from increasing numbers of immigrants, today Quebec might be a separate country or a very separate province in Canada. Immigrants and their children have increased the population of those whose mother tongue is not French to over 20%, and This group is not only not part of Quebec nationalism, but against it. Whereas accommodation could not defeat ethnic nationalism, demographics has done the job. For now.
These lessons are, as far as I am concerned, very much applicable to today’s Ethiopia. For me, Quebec mirrors Oromia. Oromia, notwithstanding the policies of the EPRDF, is today the one and major Ethiopian state where ethnic nationalism has a significant political impact. Yes, there is ethnic nationalism in other states, but where it is strongest and has to be dealt with ‘specially’ is in Oromia. Oromia, because of history and EPRDF policies, is Ethiopia’s asymmetric state – the one that requires special political attention, the one that is most costly, and the one for whom policies of accommodation, but more importantly integration and assimilation have to be especially targeted. I will address how I think this should be done in another article.
No comments:
Post a Comment
ለሀሳብዎ አመሰግናለሁ!