ብራቮ ኤልቲቪ!

እንደዚህ ተቃራኒ አስተያየቶች አብሮ ማምጣት በጣም አስፈላጊ ነው። ነጣጥሎ ቃለ ምልልስ መስጠት ገንቢ አይደለም፤ ትችት እና እሮሮ ብቻ ነው የሚሆነው። አሁን ግን የሀገር ግንባታ ጊዜ በመሆኑ ሃሳብ በሰላሰል እና መፈጨት አለበት። ቀጥሉበት!

ታሪክን አንድገም፤ ሀገርን እንገንባ

አሳፋሪና አገር አፍራሽ ታሪካችንን እንዳንደግም ነው ይህን ጽሁፍ የምጽፈው። ታሪክ እንደመዘገበው ከኢህአዴግ ውጭ ያለነው ምሁራን፤ ፖለቲከኞችና ብዙሃን በፖለቲካ ረገድ ቁም ነገር ለማድረግ እድል ባጋጠመን ቁጥር እልዳችንን አበላሽተናል። በተደጋጋሚ ጊዜ ለአገራችን የፖለቲካ መስተካከል ከኢህአዴግም ይበልጥ እንቅፋት ሆነን ተገኝተናል።  ይህን ደፍሬ መናገር የምችል ይመስለኛል።

አንዱ የድክመታችን ምክንያት ተልዕኮአችንን አለማወቃችን ወይም መርሳታችን ነው። ተልዕኮአችን የአገር ፖለቲካ ግንባታ ነው እንጂ የፖለቲካ ውድድር አይደለም። የአገር ፖለቲካ ስርዓት ግንባታ ሲባል ሁላችንም ስለ ህገ መንግስትን ማርቀቅ ነው የምናስበው። ግን ከዚህ ህገ መንግስት ማርቀቅ ስራ በፊት  የልብ ለልብ መተዋወቅ፤ በተወሰነ ደረጃ መተማመን፤ መግባባትና መስማማት ያስፈልጋል። እነዚህ ለአገር ግንባታ የፖለቲካ ድርድር ቀድሞ ሁኔታዎች ናቸውና። አለነዚህ ማንኛውም በወረቀት ያለ ህግ፤ ምንም አይነት ወርቅ የሆነ ህግ ቢሆነም፤ በስራ ሊተገበር አይችልም።

ቀጥሎ በነዚህ ተመስርቶ ህገ መንግስትና ሌሎች የርዓይና የህግ ሰነዶች ይደነገጋሉ። ቅራኔ ወይም አለመግባባት ካለ በህግ መሰረት ይፈታል ህጉ ደግሞ በቂ ካልሆነ ያለው መተማንና ስምምነት ለፍትህ ይረዳል። የአገር የፖለቲካ ግንባታ ሂደት እንደዚህ ነው መሆን ያለበት።

የፖለቲካ ውድድር ደግሞ የሚጀምረው የፖለቲካ ስረዓቱ ከተዋቀረ በኋላ የሚመጣው የፖለቲከኞችና ሌሎች ለመሪነት እርስ በርስ በህጉ መሰረት መወዳደር ነው። በምእራብ «ዴሞክራሲዎች» እንደዚህ አይነቱ ውድድር በርካታ ክርክር፤ ክስ፤ ዘለፋም ወዘተ ያካትታል። የህጉን ገደብ ዳር ዳር እየነኩ ግን ሳያልፉ እነዚህን አይንቶች ባህሪዎችን ያንጸባርቃሉ። ይህ ስልጣን ለመያዝ ሊበጃቸው ይችላል ግን ምንም አይገነባም። እርግጥ መተማመንንና ውይይትን ይጎዳል ግን ከምርጫው በኋላ የደረሰውን ጉዳት ይጠግኑና የአገር ማስተዳደር ስረአቸውን ይጀምራሉ። ይህ ነው በተለምደው የምናውቀው የፖለቲካ ውድድር።

የፖለቲካ ውድድር ደግሞ የፖለቲካ ስርዓቱ ከተዋቀረ በኋላ የሚከተለው የፖለቲከኞችና ሌሎች ለመሪነት እርስ በርስ በህጉ መሰረት መወዳደር ነው። በምእራብ «ዴሞክራሲዎች» እንደዚህ አይነቱ ውድድር በርካታ ክርክር፤ ክስ፤ ዘለፋ ወዘተ ያካትታል። የህጉን ገደብ ዳር ዳር እየነኩ ግን ሳያልፉ እነዚህን አይንቶች ባህሪዎችን እያንጸባርቁ ይወዳደራሉ። ይህ ስልጣን ለመያዝ ሊበጃቸው ይችል ይሆናል ግን አገርን አይገነባም ይጎዳልም። ሰልዚህም ነው ውድድሩ ምርጫው ካለፈ አሸናፊዎቹ ውድድሩ ያደረሰውን ንዴት፤ ቂምና ጉዳት ይጠግን ዘንድ ትሸናፊዎቹንም መላው የአገሪቷን ህዝብ አንድ የሚያረግ እርቃዊ ንግግርና ተግባር የሚአደርጉት። ይህ ነው በተለምዶ የምናውቀው የፖለቲካ ውድድር።

ስለዚህ አገርን መገንባትና የፖለቲካ ውድድር የተለያዩ ባህሪያት፤ ተግባራትና ልምድ ያስፈልጋቸዋል። የአገር ግንባታ ሂደት እንደ መተማመን፤ ስምምነት፤ አንድነት፤ መግባባት፤ ህብረት፤ ቅራኔን መፍታት፤ ውይይት ወዘተ አይነቱ ባህሪያትና ልምዶች ያስፈልጉታል። የፖለቲካ ውድድር ግን ክርክር፤ ውድድር፤ ፉክክር፤ መካሰስ፤ ህግና ስረዓትን ዳር ዳሩን መጣስ፤ ወዘተ አይነቱን ልምዶች ያካትታል። በአገር ግንባታ ሂደት መካከል እነዚህን የፖለቲካ ውድድር ባህሪያትና ልምዶች ይዘን ከገባን አገርን መገንባት ሳይሆን ማፍረ ነው የምናደርገው።

ለዚህ ደግሞ በርካታ ታሪካዊ ምሳሌዎች አሉን። እስቲ ወደ 15 ዓመታት ወደ ኋላ ተመልሰን የ«ተቃዋሚ» ምሁራን፤ ጋዜጠኛና ፖለቲከኞች እያደረጉ፤ እየተናገሩ፤ እየጻፉ ምን እንደነበር እናስታውስ። ስራቸውን ባጭሩ ለመግለጽ «እርስ በርስ መበላላት» ማለት ይቻላል! ተቃዋሚዎች ኢህአዴግ ከሚተቹት ይበልጥ እርስ በርስ ነበር የሚፋጁት። ጋዜጣ ላይ ቁም ነገር ሳይሆን ስድብና የመንደር ወሬ ነበር የሰፈነው። ከሞላ ጎደል ስራቸው 90% አፍራሽ 10% ገምቢ ነበር። ስለዚህም ነው ተቃዋሚው ጎራ ምርጫ '97 በግንቦት ሆኖ እሰከ የካቲት አካባቢ የትብብር መዋቅሮች ያላደራጀው! ለዚህም ነው ከምርጫው በኋላ ተቃዋሚዎች በቀላሉ የተበታተኑት። በበፊቱ ዓመታት እዱሉ እያለን ቅስ ብለን በትብብር ጉዳይ ተወያይቶ ትብብርን ከመፈጸምና ጠንካራ መሰረት የሆነ መዋቅርን ከመገንበት እንደ ምርጫ ተዋዳዳሪዎች እየተሰዳደብን ዋልን። ችግር ሲመጣ ለመቋቋም አቅሙ አልነበረንም። እርስ በርስ ተፋጅተን አለቅን። የግንባታ ስራ ያልተሰራባቸው ቅንጅትና ህብረት በቀላሉ ፈረሱ። የፖለቲካ መዋቅር ግንባታንና የፖለቲካ ውድድርን መለየት ያልቻሉትም ከፖለቲካ ወጡ። የህዝብም ትዝብት አደረባቸው።

በርካታዎቻችን በምዕራብ የሚዲያ ዜና፤ ትምህርትና ፕሮፓጋንዳ ስላደግን የነዚህ አገራት ፖለቲካ ስናይ ፖለቲካ እንደዛ መሆን እንዳለበት ይመስለናል። የናየው ደግሞ የፖለቲካ ውድድራቸውን ነው። ክርክሩን፤ ዘለፋውን፤ ስድቡን፤ ሴራውን ወዘተ። እኛም እንደነሱ ማድረግ እንወዳለን መሰለኝ። ግን ኢትዮጵያ ያለችበት ቦት፤ ለረዥም ዓመታት ያለችበት ቦታ፤ ገና የአገር ፖለቲካ ግንባታ ላይ ናት። ብዙሃኑም ልሂቃኑም የፖለቲካ መደቦቻችን እስካሁን በእምነት የተመሰረተ አገራቷን ምን መምሰል አለበት የሚል ሰፊ ስምምነት ላይ አልደረስንም። አሁንም ያለው ዋና ስራችን የህ ነው። አዎን ህገ መንግስት አለን ግን ሰፊው ርአይና ስምምነት የለንም። ነገ ኢህአዴግ ከስልጣን ቢወርድም ይህ ስምምነቱ ስለሌለ ሁከትና አብዮት ይከተላል።

በዚህ ምክንያት ሁላችንም፤ ምሁራን፤ ብዙሃን፤ ፖለቲከኛ፤ የመንግስት ሰራተኛ፤ ወዘተ ትኩረታችን ወደ አገር ግንባታ መቀየር አለበት። ይህ ማለት ከታች የተጠቀሱትን ለአገር ግንባታ አስፈላጊ የሆኑትን ብሃሪያት፤ ተግባሮችና ልምዶች ከራሳችን ጋር መዋሃድና በዚህ አስተሳሰብ ወደ ፊት መራመድ።

ስምምነት፤ አንድነት፤ መግባባት፤ ህብረት፤ መተማመን፤ በስነ ስረዓት መነጋገር፤ ውይይት፤ ቅራኔን መፍታት።

የሚቀጥለው ጊዜ አንድ ሰውን ወይም ቡድንን መዝለፍ ወይም መስደብ ካሰኘን ቆመን እናስብ። የፖለቲካ ውድድር ውስጥ አይደለንም። እንደዚህ አይነቱ ባህሪያት ታሪካችን እንደሚያረጋግጠው ሁላችንንም ጠርጎ ገደል ውስጥ ያስገባል አገራችንን ያፈርሳል። በሰላም እየተከባበርን እየተማመንን ነው መወያየት ያለብን። ይህ የሁላችንንም ጥቅም ያስከብራልና። ይህንን ብቻ ተግባራዊ ካደረግን አለ ምንም ጥርጣሬ ታላቅ አገር እንገነባለን ጠላት የምንላቸውም ምንም ሊጎዱንም አይችሉም።

Freeing Political Prisoners

Undoubtedly most of you have heard that the Ethiopian government is going to free all political prisoners, or pardon those who have broken laws concerning treason and terrorism, or some such thing. Anyway, it appears that many of the known political prisoners will be freed.

This is a great measure. I don't think anyone could say otherwise. A lot of these folks have been suffering cruelties at the hands of the security apparatus, cruelties unbecoming Ethiopia. The Ethiopian tradition is, as practiced in the past, honour and civility and magnanimity. Political prisoners, even those who were a grave threat to the ruling monarch, were imprisoned, preferably far away, on Mount Wehni for example, but given a comfortable imprisonment, if there is such a thing. Modern torture, or ancient torture for that matter, was unthinkable. If anyone even happened to hear of such a thing, they would have immediately thought it dishonourable and dismissed it out of hand.

So, this is a step that shows magnanimity, honour, and civility, it's good for the country, but most of all, it is good for the prisoners, who have been bearing on their shoulders the guilt of all of us Ethiopians.

Nevertheless, a note of caution. Remember what happened that last time several high-profile political prisoners were released. The opposition descended into a downward spiral from which it has not recovered to this day. And yes, I am not forgetting the release of Birtukan Mideksa, but I shudder to recall it and what she went through in the prison. All I can say is, may God bless her and keep her and may God forgive us for what we have done to her and all the unknown Birtukans out there.

I humbly urge all of us Ethiopians to keep in mind today that Rome was not built in a day, and when the EPRDF deigns to do something good and noble is not the time to shout and scream for it to step down from power. There is nobody to replace the EPRDF. Our past 50 years of history, including our elite's long suicide from 1960 to 1991 as well as the EPRDF's monopoly on power has made sure that the protests of the grassroots have no viable elite to lead them. Today is the time to renew our efforts to work on feasible, yes, feasible, politically realistic projects to improve our political and social environment. In our little small circles. We're not all kings and we're not meant to be. A good deed is worth a thousand good words. The line between good and evil cuts through all our hearts. Let's point our fingers at ourselves, particularly those of us in the diaspora who have betrayed our country by leaving it, and see how we can fix ourselves and our surroundings. Maybe then we can build a solid grassroots capable of growing and nurturing a political elite that is a viable foil and partner for the EPRDF.

Some Basics on Interacting with Ethnic Nationalism

2009/2/24 (Ethiopian calendar)

2016/11/3 (European calendar)

(pdf)

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

In his recent interview with ESAT, Ato Abebe Bogale presents us with a text book lesson on how to interact with ethnic nationalism, specifically Oromo nationalism. In this article, I attempt to expand on some of the principles and lessons he presented.

The subject of the interview was a recent conference on Oromo nationalism in London, during which one speaker strongly advocated for the break up of Ethiopia in the name of freeing the imprisoned Oromo nation from Ethiopia. This speech raised a lot of hackle in the media and among Ethiopian nationalists, even though it was just a repetition of a decades old position of not only Oromo nationalists but all those Ethiopians who starting in the 1960's, imbibed with socialist theories, think of Ethiopia as a prison of nationalities which needed to be freed. Somehow this repetition of a well known political position appeared to create panic in a number of people.

This leads me to the first and most important lesson we can learn from Ato Abebe, which is to remain calm and avoid at all costs projecting any kind of fear or panic about ethnic nationalism. When ethnic nationalists, including moderates, perceive the other side as being hysterical, they tend to become offended and are pushed to take a more defensive and radical position. Why are our heartfelt ideas raising such emotion – why don't they even try to understand us – we just can't relate to them – these are the questions and sentiments raised. In the end, this ends up increasing the support for ethnic nationalism, making non-nationalists moderate nationalists and moderates into hardliners.

Every politician in every country that has had to deal with ethnic politics knows this. I will given an example: During the Quebec referendum, when the province of Quebec was voting on the question of seceding from Canada, one of the Quebec nationalist tactics in their campaign was to provoke anti-secessionists in the rest of Canada into saying something insulting about Quebecers. They would then use these incidents and have their media broadcast them repeatedly in order to fan ethnic sentiment and promote their agenda. Knowing this, most Canadian politicians would be very careful to prevent such incidents. Instead, they would organize various events to promote 'friendship propaganda'. One such event was sending via bus, train, and plane hundreds of thousands of Canadians to Quebec to hold a demonstration whose motto was to show how much Canadians love Quebec! This is the politics of dealing with ethnic nationalism.

Ethiopian nationalists must practice the same type of politics. We must avoid not only inflammatory statements, including equating ethnic nationalism with tribalism and other similar sentiments that could be interpreted as derogatory, but also statements that question people's right to choose their identity and deny the existence any sort of ethnic rights. All such statements and positions only serve to actually promote the desires ethnic nationalists, especially hardcore nationalists.

Note how Ato Abebe was careful in this regard during the interview. While the interviewer tried to impress upon him the impending danger of secession, Ato Abebe completely avoided saying anything inflammatory or anything that could be interpreted as being offensive to Oromo nationalism. Instead, he calmly explained that Oromo secession is not a new position at all. Further, he explained that today, even among Oromo nationalists, and even among those who in previous years advocated secession, secession is now the position of a small minority. This is a fact, and though it is a fact, many Ethiopian nationalists tend to forget it, become hysterical, and unintentionally promote the cause of radical ethnic nationalists.

The second, related, lesson is that there is a diversity of opinions on ethnic nationalism in Oromo politics, all the way from Ethiopian nationalism to soft Oromo nationalism to hardline Oromo nationalism. The fact there are multiple Oromo political organizations and that, even in today's charged political atmosphere, these organizations are holding several conferences to reach some kind of consensus shows that they are far from reaching consensus. They are even far from agreeing to disagree, from agreeing to tolerate each others' views. (Doesn't this remind us of Ethiopian nationalist politics!) This is another reason for Ethiopian nationalists to keep our reaction to ethnic politics proportional to its dangers.

Third, Ato Abebe shows us that we have to look all of reality in the face all the time instead of being distracted by the winds of the day. He reminds us that the Ethiopian constitution today supports the idea of secession! Have we forgotten this? It is a radical ethnic nationalist constitution, the most radical in the world, an 'experiment' according to the EPRDF. (Imagine conducting such an experiment in one of the poorest and at risk countries in the world!). This is the reality we have to deal with. Given that this is what we are living with every day, why do the comments of a single Oromo secessionist at a conference take so much of our time? Rather, Ethiopian nationalists should be focusing on getting their own house in order to as to be able to harness the power blunt the edge of this constitution, a constitution which is everyday proving to be more and more dangerous for the country.

The fourth point that Ato Abebe beautifully explains is that despite the constitution, despite the government putting up fences, so to speak, around the ethnic regions so as to minimize integration and assimilation, which is the key to creating any kind of shared destiny, Ethiopia remains to this day. This is perhaps the strongest testimony against the theory of Ethiopia as a prison of nations. Ethiopia is a country, a nation, where significant integration and assimilation has taken place in the past, and a significant portion of the population, from all ethnic groups, is Ethiopian nationalist.

I remind you that in 1991, the only forces with power (guns) in Ethiopia were ethnic liberation forces. The Ethiopian nationalist elite along was completely absent. The ethnic nationalists – EPLF, TPLF, OLF, etc – could have easily carved up the country in pieces, as per their ideologies. Eritrea seceded, but apart from that, the rest found that they could not, collectively, that is, disintegrate the country. Further, as the years went by, the EPRDF found itself discovering more and more the dangers of ethnic nationalism. TPLF members who in the 1990's would insist they were Tigrean first then Ethiopian today claim to be most 'Ethiopian' of all, much more Ethiopian than their 'anti-Ethiopian' opposition! As Ato Abebe pointed out in his interview, Prime Minister Meles, who would never miss an opportunity to belittle Ethiopian nationalism and who once called the Ethiopian flag but a rag, eventually ended up establishing a national holiday commemorating the flag! Thus, despite the decades long failings of the Ethiopian nationalist elite, the country has managed to remain alive. Ailing, but alive.

The final principle that Ato Abebe brought up and that I would like to emphasize is that healthy politics should always be related to reality on the ground, not ideology or fantasy. An example of this was, during the 2005 elections, Kinijit's position regarding the constitution, which was to accept it and if necessary change it only according to its provisions. This was an acknowledgement of changes in Ethiopia's political landscape with regard to ethnic nationalism, especially in Oromia. Kinijit did not adopt an ethnic nationalist position, but rather proposed to promote its Ethiopian nationalism agenda in another way, working within the constitution that many ethnic nationalists loved. This was very much a feasible proposition. Politics is the art of the possible, after all.

In conclusion, I do hope that we Ethiopian nationalists generally learn to become more nuanced in dealing with ethnic nationalism. We are a large constituency, the largest in Ethiopia, and we have a big responsibility to fix our failures over five decades. One of the ways of fixing our failures is to find the right way to interact with a major reality in today's Ethiopia, ethnic nationalism.

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.