By Israel Fayisa*
The issue of identity has always been part of the human socio-political evolution. Ancient history tells us nothing but how people of a common ancestry lived together and how these people fought with others for greed or grievance. Slavery started and ended with identity at its core. Industrial revolution gave birth to the expansion of trade with people from different backgrounds. Obviously, imperialism is based on the expansion of the territory of some people at the expense of others of different cultures. Today, democracies are struggling with how to address identity questions to bring sustainable peace.
Identity is one of the most relevant political forces shaping our lives in many aspects. Everywhere where elites have tried to deny the relevance of identity, it has emerged as a stronger force to topple the very ideology that had ignored it in the first place. Typical stance is what had happened to communism in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) of the Russian Federation. It refused to deal with ethnic question with the rationalization that, elimination of class would ultimately answer this primordial human nature labelled as ‘false consciousnesses.’ But this was disproved by the end of the Cold War era when tyrants lost control of volatile ethnic relationships. Identity is not a mere primordial issue. There are complex socio-political and economic issues involved in identity discourses.
A writer emphasises the importance of ethnic identity as ‘If ethnic conflict, whether broadly or narrowly defined, is an increasingly phenomenon in the world today, especially after the Cold War, and if governance is about conflict management , then managing or resolving identity conflicts must be high on the agenda of responsible sovereignty’ Francis M. Deng (1996: 61). The resolution of identity related conflicts should address the idea of identity properly.
The Case of Ethiopia
Oromo and Amhara are the two the major identity groups making more than 70% of the population and are the major players in making peace and conflicts in Ethiopia.
Oromo and Amhara are the two the major identity groups making more than 70% of the population and are the major players in making peace and conflicts in Ethiopia.
Oromo’s identity claims in terms of language, culture and territory cannot be ignored. It is the principal turbine in the process of searching for sustainable peace in the Horn of African region. At the same time, Amhara elites’ concern about the integrity of the country needs serious treatment. However, it is almost everybody’s question why these two groups are not able to work together to impact the future of the country in the positive direction. Is there no middle road?
Let us start from the idea of identity itself. Identity, both at personal and collective levels, is flexible and fluid. It reacts to internal and external conditions. Identity shapes and re-shapes itself. Oromo and Amhara self-perceptions and perceptions towards each other have changed over time due to socio-political developments around them. Their identities have continuously modified themsleves by historical, cultural, and political developments that have taken place in the country. Current conditions and aspirations for the future will continue to drive the changes.
These two major groups passed through different developments – apparently in the opposite direction. The extreme positions they have held in relation to their identities look irreconcilable. Amharas are hidden behind the Ethiopian identity. They equate their Amhara identity with Ethiopiawinet. On the contrary, Oromos have disassociated from Ethiopiawinet for so long that Ethiopiawinet has become a strange topic to discuss. Both developments have their own patterns that need a detail analysis.
Elites from the Amhara ethnic group do not want to disassociate their identity from the broader Ethiopiawinet identity because the Ethiopian identity has been constructed on the basis of their self-perception. Ethiopian identity and Amhara identity are deliberately intermarried, overlapping and fused together. The Ethiopian pride is built in the Amhara shape. The Amhara fathers pioneered the country, and today’s Amhara are proud of their ancestor’s legacy. Part and parcel of being an Amhara has been being an Ethiopian.
The Amhara have built the state and history that dictate that they are braves and patriots among their neighbours. Their rulers had deliberately designed every value the country is known for in the image of their group. Ethiopia has long been the image of the Amhara. Ethiopiawinet has been ethnicized from the very inception. If the Amhara identity is separated from the Ethiopian identity, the people will lose the bigger image they had built under the name Ethiopia. When the Ethiopian shell is removed from their back, they become a small fish in the bigger sea of diverse identities. Their share of the country-wide cake will be reduced. They will lose the ‘one language, one flag, one religion’ motto.
Ethiopia was built by not just by Abyssinians while the rest were asleep. Other people of Ethiopia, who paid ultimate prices fighting white colonizers, are denied recognition. They are deliberately excluded from the written history and cultural heritage. Heroes and heroines of other people are hidden. In a way, the Amharas usurped the common history of the diverse country.
The official language being Amharic had given Amhara kids the superior status in school; they took the upper-hand in churches, workplaces, in social lives, political stages, economic systems, etc. Ethiopia’s laws and history were written and read attaching its history to the Amhara warriors. Their culture became the official culture. Their dressing styles, their dances and other social values were elevated to a higher position over others. They privatized the state that was supposed to represent and serve all of its constituents. Now, they are frustrated to become one among equals.
The Ethiopian identity is maliciously equated with the identity of Abyssinians. Even if they have a lion’s share in the making of the country, creating a dogmatic state of hegemony at the expense of most of the constituent people is not justifiable by any standard. Retention of this kind of ethnic hegemony sustains the claims of people to go away with their portion of the land. The Ethiopian identity has become to be equal to theHabesha identity because of this type of ethnicization process.
Coming back to Oromo, the Oromo independence movement, which has embarked on for over forty years, has taken significant steps in demarcating Oromo and Ethiopian identities. This project is justified based on the historical facts the people had faced at the time. But, there were choices between disassociating the Oromo from Ethiopia and de-ethnicization of the country to create a new multinational state. The struggle was dominated by demeaning of the Ethiopian state in response to the demeaning of the Oromo identity by the rulers.
We have spent time and energy capitalizing on a unique Oromo identity ready for divorce from Ethiopia while paying less or no attention to divorcing Amhara/Tigrayan ethnicity from Ethiopia. Because victory is calculated in terms of total independence, the leaders have failed to see an alternative to the Republic of Oromia. This political process resulted in the current differences we observe in the Oromo political camps about the Oromo-Ethiopia relationship. Lack of consensus about this relationship will significantly impact the struggle of the Oromo people even in the future.
As far as the issue of identity involves politics, it should be put on the table for negotiation. The identity at stake in this context is a political agenda. This identity in issue is not a question of genealogy. Politics is not genetic science. Our political destiny has to always be re-examined. The Tigrayan people had had ‘Tigray Republic’ as their destiny yesterday, and ‘Federated Ethiopia’ today. Our political identification is subject to change all the time. Tigrayans’ attitude has changed from demising Ethiopia to possessing it.
No Oromo individual is required to be less proud in their Oromummaa in order to become a citizen of a new Ethiopia. Under the current system, OPDO cannot make any meaningful political decision by its own without the direct or indirect approval from TPLF underground personalities. TPLF assigns who should lead OPDO. This denigrates the Oromo. Any OPDO who becomes popular among its constituent people would be considered a threat to TPLF and dealt with accordingly. This kind of strategy works against positive socio-political developments and flourishes mistrust. No Oromo nationalist agrees to OPDO-like negotiation that erodesOromummaa.
Taking political power in the newly designed Ethiopia does not compromiseOromummaa. Becoming an Ethiopian cannot include dropping the Oromo identity. Once people are required to deny their identity, dangerous psychological crises will creep into their lives and their relationships with others. In the past, the Oromo were required to drop their identity, get baptized and take new names to become good Ethiopians. That history has left us the wrong legacy we are stranded in today. These people cannot become anything before they are recognized as Oromo first. Where Oromo identity is denied, there is no negotiation, but only surrender to become a subordinate.
The Oromo cannot become Habesha like the Afar cannot become Walayita. The name Habesha refers to the residents of ancient Abyssinia. Abyssinia refers to the old land of the Amhara and Tigrayans who made successful commercial and political relationships with the Arab and the Western world that had got them access to weapons used to conquer their neighbours. The land is Abyssinia, and the people are Habesha. Even though the Habesha has created dominance over the Oromo and southern Ethiopian people, this cannot make the conquered people becomeHabesha. Habesha still live in Oromo land, and they have the right to as far as Ethiopia becomes a common homeland. But living as settler colonizers is unthinkable.
Contrary to the concern of some Oromo individuals about becoming Ethiopians, I have never heard an Amhara concerned about Ethiopia becoming Oromonized. No Amhara is worried about becoming Oromo as a result of Oromo claiming the central political stage in Ethiopia. The Amhara had controlled the center of Ethiopia for so long, and they feel that it belongs to them. They do not take for serious when some Oromo nationalists come up with the idea of co-ownership. They either do not believe Ethiopia can exist under the Oromo leadership or they believe in keeping the Oromo at bay.
When the issue of Oromo is raised on the country’s stage, the common concern among the Amhara is expressed in terms of the country’s integrity. Amhara’s viability as a socio-political entity is tied to the idea of Ethiopian unity. They lament about it even in the absence of a threat. They have developed irrational fear about other’s identity questions. That is why some of their elites hate even OPDO, a satellite organization of the Tigrayans.
Although their concern is understandable – looking back the centripetal political tendencies of their adversaries, their major problem lays elsewhere. They believe they had formed Ethiopia, and it belongs to them. They assume they are the sole protectorate of unity emanating from their egoistic mentality. Their existence is attached to living at the expense of others in the name of Ethiopia. They do not want to let that privilege go even in the interest of sustainable Ethiopia. Monopolizing power has become their political destiny.
Almost no Amhara elite believed twenty years ago that the state of Ethiopia would exist on the map for this long after the fall of Mengistu’s dictatorial regime. Even with the change in the official anthem, the modification on the official flag, the change in the state structure and the let-go of Eritrea, Ethiopia is still there. After all the changes in these core values of the Amhara elites, Ethiopia is still there – even in a better shape.
Despite all the positive developments we observe even among the Amhara people, some of the elites still refuse to collaborate with the rest of the people to work for a better Ethiopia. They want to provoke war by appealing to the old dominant ego of their ethnic group instead of coming to a compromising ground. They are addicted to talking about lost false pride and self-image. Some of them are still singing about Red Sea merely because their fathers had once ruled that far.
Coming back to the Oromo, negotiating with Ethiopia should not be equated with negotiating with the Amhara or Tigrayans per se. It is a negotiation among all of the people from different backgrounds who are living on that land. The deal is about preserving our unique identities while wilfully joining a contract to create a common state that serves common interests. Habesha is just one among us. We negotiate for a separate political entity devoid of the ego of any identity group. It is about working to invent a de-ethnicized Ethiopian citizenship based on constitutional patriotism.
This is neither new nor a surprise to Oromo nationalists. After all, a prominent Oromo scholar Asafa Jalata (2007:14) stipulates the same point when he argues that the basis of Oromummaa must be built on overarching principles that are embedded within Oromo traditions and culture and, at the same time, have universal relevance for all oppressed peoples. He stipulated ‘Oromummaa as an egalitarian, democratic vision must create mutual solidarity and cooperation among all people who accept the principles of self-determination and multinational democracy in order to remain congruent with its underlying values’. ODF’s ideals are not different from this.
In general, Oromo elites should get rid of exclusivist attitude and start to claim a new all-inclusive Ethiopian identity. Amhara elites are expected to take equal step and engage in a new approach to the Ethiopian identity. No Amharanized or Oromonized Ethiopia is viable. These two major identity groups need to clear their paradoxical self-perceptions and perceptions about each other in order to overcome the current minority regime that lives on their contradictions.
If we remove the false image of Ethiopia that is equated with Habesha,most marginalized groups would love to willingly take up the Ethiopian identity. This is evidenced by the transitional period after Derg that attracted more belongingness to the state from pro-secessionist movements. Total de-ethnicization of the Ethiopian identity and building a new image that reflects every group’s heritage will guarantee sustainable relationship.
Some people think that there is no middle ground. True, it has not emerged yet. They say Amhara elites and Oromo freedom movement have irreconcilable differences. Yes, no imposed unity is sustainable. At the same time, disintegrating the country to create fragmented entities does not guarantee peaceful co-existence. The two positions can be reconciled when we focus on how to create a sustainable peaceful co-existence of the diverse identities.
The middle ground dictates that Ethiopia dominated by any one ethnic group is not viable. Remember we cannot ignore the force of identity. We cannot ban identity politics. But we can agree to ban imposing ethnic identity hegemony on the country. Only a neutral de-ethnicized Ethiopian identity that embraces all the diverse groups is viable.
No one can assume civic Ethiopian identity and summon others to join. Until a de-ethnicized Ethiopia is guaranteed, appeal to Ethiopiawinetremains a baseless political propaganda. A civic Ethiopian identity can be invented through conscious and common decision of its entire people. There is no pact reached to or no convention signed to create such a civic Ethiopian identity yet. ODF’s bold initiative to create such an Ethiopian identity should be encouraged.
* Israel Fayisa is a former Oromia Supreme Court judge living in exile. He can be reached at israelitansa@yahoo.com
=>gadaa
