| |
| Author |
Message |
|
| admin |
 Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:53 pm |
 |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 40
Location: Heart and Mind
|
Getz # 3: Two Tales of One City
Liben Gebre Etyopiya (Donald Levine)
Commenting on the current political state of affairs, a knowledgeable journalist said to me in Addis: "People here have been attacking one another all year. But they never talk about things they are really mad about." His comment rang a bell. Don't we all know family members who quarrel about things that substitute for what they are really feeling hurt and angry about?
Time and again in October, Government and Opposition were on the verge of coming to an agreement that would have prevented the November violence and subsequent imprisonments. For a moment, if possible, let us set aside the question of who is to blame. Let us entertain the hypothesis that whatever the unprovoked harassment of CUD leaders by Government security personnel and whatever perceptions the Government had about insurrectionary ambitions of the opposition, there was something in the air that enabled the talks–for which the Prime Minister had at one point given assurance that everything was on the table–to break down. The parties had been talking about Parliamentary procedures, access to the Press, and the like. But what were the two sides really mad about?
Ever since the Derg was overthrown fifteen years ago, I have heard Ethiopians of different positions hurl insults at one another, accuse one another of the basest motives, and dig ever deeper the moats that distance them from one another. For fifteen years, I have wondered when the time would come that the underlying issues of their discontent might be addressed and resolved. Perhaps it took the killings and imprisonments of 2005 to force the issue, to get good Ethiopians of different persuasions to thinking in and about a new way.
That will take effort. To get beyond feeling aggrieved and injured, although grief and injury are abundant all around. To get beyond pouring blame on one another, although there are many things to blame. Perhaps the effort may involve realizing that what has been at stake all along has been two seemingly incompatible narratives about their country's history.
Narrative One:
1. Modern Ethiopia is an empire created by a hegemonic Amhara elite under Emperor Menilek II who conquered and dominated all of the historically separate and independent ethnic groups in the area.
2. It was dominated by a ruling class that had to be overthrown and prevented from regaining power or control of the land of peasants in the conquered territories.
3. The Derg was a ruthless, centrist regime that survived by terrorizing Ethiopian citizens.
4. TPLF troops, supported by EPLF, were the only viable opposition force to rebel against the Derg. For some seventeen years, they struggled as guerilla fighters and, after enormous sacrifice and suffering, succeeded in defeating the Derg and forcing its much-hated leader to flee.
5. Although they fought during those years under the banner of the Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray, they abandoned communist ideology as the Cold War came to an end and formally embraced liberal democracy.
6. They felt badly treated, after all that sacrifice and suffering, when their victorious entrance into the capital was met with hostility by those who sat out the Derg years in relative comfort.
7. Once in power, they proceeded to create a novel system of ethnic federalism to ensure dignity for all of Ethiopia’s peoples, and to prevent a resurgence of private plutocracy through continued state ownership of land and many industries.
8. To ensure the success of their program, they had to spread a network of EPRDF cadres across the country.
Narrative Two:
1. Modern Ethiopia is the outgrowth of a two-thousand-year-old polity rooted in Aksum. It became unified and remained independent thanks to the leadership of Emperors Tewodros II, Yohannes IV, and Menilek II.
2. It came to fruition under Emperor Haile Selassie I, who advanced national centralization, instituted ministries and standing armies and, though mostly Shoan Amhara and surrounded by Shoan nobility, included Eritrean, Tigrean, Oromo, and others in the national elite he fostered.
3. The Derg was a ruthless communist regime that survived by terrorizing Ethiopian citizens.
4. TPLF troops, supported by EPLF, became the only viable opposition force to rebel against the Derg, although EDU and EPRP had been forces to contend with at one time. For some seventeen years, they struggled as guerilla fighters and, after enormous sacrifice and suffering, succeeded in defeating the Derg and forcing its much-hated leader to flee.
5. Although the TPLF leadership abandoned communist ideology as the Cold War came to an end and formally embraced liberal democracy, they never truly embraced the principles of liberal democracy.
6. Joy at the overthrow of the Derg was muted by apprehension about the revanchist tenor of TPLF anti-Amhara sentiments, their elevation of tribal ethnicity above Ethiopian nationhood, their Leninist political style, and their reluctance to de-collectivize land.
7. Once in power, EPRDF = TPLF excluded other ethnic groups from the center, imposed a system of ethnic federalism without broad national consensus, and continued state ownership of land and many industries. To defend these changes, they consistently harassed opposition parties, clamped down on a free press, and prevented an independent judiciary.
8. To ensure political control, they spread a network of EPRDF cadres across the country, who year after year abused the rights of civilians and did little to promote economic development.
These contrasting narratives bloomed fully in the months after May 1991. Beyond whatever strivings for power animated the leaders of the various parties in 2005, it was underlying antagonisms about these contrasting visions of the past and what they implied for Ethiopia's future that fueled an underground current of fire. The differences they embodied have never been addressed quietly and resolved amicably.
This way of framing the matter was suggested to me by a lecture given in Berlin by a seasoned scholar who discussed the essence of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He pointed out how chronic hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians flowed from contrasting narratives about their pasts. Jews live with a picture of their past that depicts them as perennial victims, deprived of their sacred land by ruthless Babylonian and Roman conquerors, abused by host societies for millennia thereafter, and subject to an effort at total annihilation so monstrous–ha-shoah, the Holocaust–that it gave rise to a new concept in human criminality, genocide. Palestinians live with a picture of their past that depicts them as resident in their land from time immemorial, proud caretakers of the holy places of Christianity and Islam, then confronted by a robust immigrant population that began with intrusive settlements and–through al nakbah, the Catastrophe–frightened many from their homes forever and eventually dominated them in their homeland territory. It would seem impossible for peoples with such incompatible stories ever to live together harmoniously–except, the lecturer pointed out, those narratives resembled the incompatible narratives that oriented France and Germany, now friendly neighbors, for a long time and impelled them into three horrible wars within one century.
To be sure, the centuries-old histories of Jews and Palestinians cannot really be said to have a counterpart in opposition between political parties who came into being les than two decades ago. And so, beyond the contrast of narratives, perhaps we must locate another factor. Perhaps it is what Dr. B. T. Constantinos, in a response to my Getz #2–“Ethiopians in Prison” (Currently not available, but will be posted soon), described suggestively by observing that
Quote: the Ethiopian political elite [has debated] problems of our democratisation . . . largely within a particular tradition of political thought, argument and struggle that has origins in the radical student movement; in ideas of "national liberation", "class struggle", "national democratic revolution" spawned by that movement; and in the Marxist-Leninist tradition of political thought, discourse and action that has been a decisive influence over the current political impasse. At a time when the tradition seems a spent force in much of the former second world, including post-Dergue Ethiopia, a toned-down and somewhat reconstructed version of it seems to have gained a new lease on life among Ethiopia’s political elite in the country and abroad.
Although Dr. Constantinos and I might disagree on details of that diagnosis, we probably agree on the hallmarks of that tradition: clever talk, arrogance, demonization of the other, presentation of preconditions in tight formulaic terms that are not amenable to alternative formulations and mediation (shimgilna), urbanite insurgency, and identification of one’s position with the good and the will of the “people.”
In this sense, then, the problem is not to move beyond Ethiopian traditions, but to restore the rich traditions of civility, forgiveness, neighborliness, and respect for one another that antedate the uncivility of the Marxist tradition. For this purpose, Ethiopians could scarcely do better, for example, than return to the political culture embodied in that remarkable Ethiopian tradition, the gumi gayo of the Boran and Guji peoples, which opens each parliamentary debate with a caution not to look for the worst in what others have said in order to undermine their position and win an argument, but to look for the best they have to offer so as to find a common ground: Dubbi qarumman dubbatani miti. Warri qaro qarumman laf keyyaddha.
This is not the place for clever talk. Clever people should leave their cleverness behind. For today’s political elite, that could mean listening to one another’s narratives and perhaps even learning something. |
Last edited by admin on Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:28 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| Dessalegn |
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:08 am |
|
|
|
Visitor
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 10
|
Dear Dr. Levine:
There would have been a big chasm in your series if you hadn’t brought up the ever-present issues of differing narratives!
Yes, there isn’t enough awareness of the subconscious reasons for mistrust among Ethiopians. There is probably going to be little convergence in these narratives - certainly not in the short term - and probably not in the long term. If Ethiopian development or democracy is precluded upon convergence of these narratives, then it seems a frightfully faraway prospect. Even after – if I may – we have passed the awareness and acceptance phases, we will still have to accommodate these different points of view. It seems to me that we must search for a way to accommodate these differences and learn to live together despite them.
I ask, how about looking at our inter-solitude problems as a larger manifestation of our intra-solitude problems? I propose that within groups of Ethiopians who hold to similar narratives and similar political backgrounds – Marxist or other – the interaction is just as dysfunctional.
Further, I would say that Marxist influence is but a minor contributor to this dysfunction. I would assert that it is a dysfunction based in Ethiopian traditions, perhaps worsened by Marxist thought, and magnified by modernity. Certainly clever talk, arrogance, parochialism, etc. are hallmarks of various Ethiopian traditions.
It seems to me then, that it is important to work towards empathy and understanding of the various narratives, because the differences will always exist in some way. But most importantly, we must become aware and accept the deficiencies of our traditions and promote the evolution of our traditions towards an appreciation for the values of empathy and pluralism.
Dessalegn
Pen-name |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| liben |
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:51 am |
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 40
Location: University of Chicago
|
Selam Ato Dessalegn!
Thank you so much for your close attention to my modest pages. I hope that all my readers will view your good responses. They deserve more than these few points in reply.
1."There is probably going to be little convergence in these narratives." For sure. I do not advocate convergence of narratives, two of my books in fact argue against that (Flight from Ambiguity, Visions of the Soc. Tradition.) Visions advocates "reciprocal priority," whereby diff. parties tkes turns listening to and being heard by one another. In some cases, their diff. narratives may be enveloped in a larger one, but that is not essential for working together on common problems. EVERYONE in Ethiopia can and should join in to fight poverty, disease, deforestation, early child-bearing, and the like.
2. "I would assert that it is a dysfunction based in Ethiopian traditions, perhaps worsened by Marxist thought, and magnified by modernity. Certainly clever talk, arrogance, parochialism, etc. are hallmarks of various Ethiopian traditions." Indeed. I could not have said it better. Glad that you brought out what I was ssaying poorly.
3. A close reading of Getz #4 would find it consistent with all you say about it. Sorry for my poor phrasing of the first point, but really! I don't see how anyone familiar, as you are, with anything I have written would think I believe that Ethiopia is a fully-realized democracy. Yet I think it is hard for those of us who have been outspokenly critical of the EPRDF regime for fifteen years to give the EPRDF regime credit for anything at all. A generous reading of my poor words might allow that meaning. That many readfers have gotten vitriocally angry, sent hate letters, etc. to a few words taken out of context remains part of the problem. It is not what they say against me that matters, it is what they do against one another.
I am glad you brought in additional points and sources about Ethiopia's poor economic development under EPRDF. Thanks again for your careful responses.
DL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dessalegn |
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:11 am |
|
|
|
Visitor
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 10
|
Dr. Levine,
I, for one, have problems with the current constitution and I also believe that it was not 'democratically' instituted. Nevertheless, I listen to those, EPRDF and not, who cherish it and are understandably apprehensive about having it exposed to democratic scrutiny. I've learned to empathize with their outlook and I've come to understand that I can't expect them to listen to me if I don't appreciate their deepest held convictions. For this reason, I agree entirely with Kinijit that it should fully accept the constitution, and in fact would have been quite disheartened if it did not. Would Kinijit's (and the other opposition parties who participated in the election) acceptance to be governed by the current constitution and to endeavour to change it only by its own terms, be an example of the manifestation of "reciprocal priority"?
On my comments on Getz #4, I actually did assume that you did not mean it quite the way it came off, so I wasn't going to respond. But, I knew you'd get a barrage of not very civil protest, and the more I thought about it, I figured I'd better get in there and prick the balloon before it got to large!
Dessalegn |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Costantinos |
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:17 pm |
|
|
|
Visitor
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 12
Location: Addis Ababa
|
Well once more, I must not resist appreciating Liben Gebre Etyopia’s Getz Sost; dealing with the mirror image perceptions of Ethiopian socio-political evolution. Congratulation once more not only for your insight but also for your bravery and honesty to even bring such an agenda to the table.
One of the most populace states in Africa, Ethiopia has large ethnic groups with vastly different political values and institutions. Unlike many colonised African countries, there is no political tradition common to these ethnic groups. The ‘northerners’ trace their roots to autocratic, hierarchical, feudal and centralised kingdoms. The Oromos and the Southern nationalities, organised themselves in a loose chiefdom and with features of egalitarianism, have vastly different values and institutions. On the flip side, we also need to be alive to the fact that ‘Ethiopia’ is not a newly coined lingo – it traces its history back more than three thousand years; though the territory and the ethnic groups it embraced have varied from time to time depending upon the outcome of battles fought among internal rivalry kingdoms and against external invaders. The modern state that emerged was a heterogeneous society comprising of major ethnic groups; with no meaningful efforts undertaken to integrate the southern indigenous populations into the expanded political system, (a black spot in our history that the Students’ movement of the 60’s and 70’s took so much pain to mend) other than to impose forcibly their culture upon them – through the policy of settling-in ‘Northerners’ by assigning government position and allocating fertile lands, as compensation for military and government service.
In response to this, the political experiment so far tried may have been seen to reinforce the ethnic division in the society. Because the idea of self-determination has radically transformed the old image of Ethiopia and replaced it with a completely ‘new’ vision of national unity, it may have raised worries and fears among certain social strata. Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka articulates this simple discovery of a minority, a minority of elite that have mouths wider than the majority of the oppressed; a minority that requires a specific distancing from the very vulnerable society for their own egoistic complication and safe livelihoods abroad and in country, a minority that requires the mystification, the dogmatic complication of the relationship of the individual to community, in order to magnify their own individual sense of being. In other words, the ruled, that is, the majority constantly find themselves confronted by the deliberate, purely opportunistic paradox of being castigated as victims of the very disease with which that power-hungry minority is incurably afflicted -- a heightened anti-social individualism, indeed, Solipsism. This exclusionary rule that alienated the South and polarised the country in a North-South divide, inhibited the development of an embodiment of a unique Ethiopian national identity among the various ethnic groups, which we have to fortunately or unfortunately face right now.
As Libe Gebre Etyopia articulated it well, a proper resolution through dialogue and education is not only decisive for deepening and broadening the democratic unity of Ethiopia; as there are too many instances in the history of the country which prove the transcendence of narrow affiliations. The true test of a nation’s unity is tested in time of adversity. To mention just few, our people have shown their resilience united under one national flag and symbol to fight back recent foreign invaders such as Mussolini and Said Barre. It is during these times that Ethiopians have shown their unique Ethiopianness despite linguistic and cultural differences. The Ethiopian people have also shown their sympathy and togetherness to the Northern populace during the Great African Famine of 1984/1985; it was the Arsi that first came to the rescue of the famine victims of Wollo, Shoa and Tigray. In addition, the now infamous resettlement scheme of the Dergue would have been more catastrophic without the generous guardianship of the Oromos to whole families of the Amhara and Tigrean forced re-settlers. Furthermore, until this day, we probably do not know and did not want to know the ethnic group of the Mengistu Haile Mariam. It was his authoritarian dictatorship and megalomaniac character, and not his ethnic, linguistic or religious affiliation, which brought his downfall. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
