Dr.MEHRETAB ASSEFA
Oct 07 2007
I
The current political dynamics can simply be seen as a contest between two unprecedented notions of “Ethiopiawinet”. Each identity form is progressively crystallizing in its respective locus; the one in Ethiopia proper the other in the Diaspora. Technically, because the two identities are responsive to two different conditions, there should not warrant any conflict between them. Unfortunately, however, the exact opposite is actually taking place. The custodians of both political venues, the government in Ethiopia and the self-proclaimed leadership in the Diaspora, are at a loggerhead. As far as one can see, reason is off the political radar and the storm of ultimate conflagration is gathering in the horizon. The deadlock warrants a new type of mutual assured destruction. So it seems!
As much as it is clear that the two parties are locked in bitter rivalry, it is not that apparent as to what they are fighting over. The question is: why do two different identity forms that are articulated in disparate regions of the world engage in deadly struggle? Well the simplistic answer would be to reduce the whole thing into a struggle between pro-and anti-democratic forces. Such crude argument is so prejudiced from the get go, it gives unwarranted advantage to those who do not have the responsibility of governing. The line of reasoning makes the Diaspora leadership to be the sine-qua-non of democratic standards. By virtue of residing in the West and by walking the streets of Washington DC, the Diaspora leadership purports to have been infected by the virus of democracy. Once the democratic microorganism controls its nest, in this case the body of every immigrant, the Diaspora leadership broadcasts itself to preside over a multitude of democratic specimen. So it claims!
In a political contest in which the standard of measurement of democracy has already been decided in favor of the Diaspora, what chance does the Ethiopian government has? Well the answer is none. As far as the leadership in the Diaspora is concerned, it has won the political contest fair and square. It has therefore the moral authority and if need be the political clout to force the government in Ethiopia out of the public domain. If indeed the latter accepts the verdict thereby relinquishes political power, the next logical step on its part would be to disappear from the political scene with indignity. It means, the social-political discourse that is being articulated in Ethiopia is forfeited and emasculated by that of the Diaspora. In the process Ethiopia is transformed into a cyber-space and its peoples are transmogrified into microchips. Apparently, this is exactly what the leadership of the Diaspora is asking for. So it dreams!
Despite all of the deafening fanfare about lack of democracy and human-right in Ethiopia, we all know that the very terms of criticism are intellectually untenable and politically defunct. After leaving in America for decades and experiencing few elections, many of us have come to learn that liberal democracy is inherently oxymoronic. Are we not all aware of the vicious disagreements surrounding the liberal dogmas of the solipsistic individual, the egalitarian society, and the untainted nation? Who among the self proclaimed high priests of liberal democracy deny the fact that their racial, ethnic, gender, etc. social makeup are indeed salient factors defining their social existence in the Democratic West? It is not only ridiculous and laughable it is also a sign of deep seated ignorance to deny the intrinsic contradiction between the exclusionary propensity of liberalism and the all inclusive ideal of democracy. We don’t have to look far to make our point. If liberal democracy is meant to be an inclusive formula, why does the US political system counterbalance popular suffrage with that of Electoral College? For a cogent explanation, it is enough to read; (Slavery and the Founders by Finkelman). In the same vein, every so-called democratic polity has institutionalized liberal mechanisms not only to control, but also to stifle popular democratic surges. Accordingly, it would not be farfetched to underscore the fact that the leadership in the Diaspora is the Ethiopian equivalent of the Electoral College. It claims to know not only what the people of Ethiopia want, but also engages in prescribing what they should desire. In short the leadership in the Diaspora is not and has no intention of advancing democracy. It is the embodiment of liberalism therefore an elitist assemblage to undercut the democratic movement in the country. So it is exposed!
II
The two contending forms of identity, one potentially democratic and in Ethiopia, the other actually anti-democratic and liberal in the Diaspora announce the fact not only Ethiopia is indeed entering a new millennium, but also the alternative paths that the country is confronted with. And with that the very meaning of Ethiopia and the actual identity of the Ethiopian are forced to the limelight of critical scrutiny. If there was one thing that succinctly captures the symbolism of the Millennium and its implication to the state of affairs of the Diaspora/Homeland relationship, it would be the tragic-comic saga that was unfolding in the US Congress with regard to HR 2003. The comical aspect is exemplified by the unanimity of all the political factions in the Diaspora to rally behind the bill. Sworn enemies with opposing political agendas are crowding the halls of congress to see to it that this bill becomes law. This should not surprise us. After all, given the social-political landscape of the US power relation, the Ethiopian Diaspora is insignificant at best and non-existent at worst. Accordingly, it would not be hard to imagine the electrifying elation that the leadership feels for being in close proximity to power. All of a sudden the dark cloud which was hanging over the image of the lowly immigrant from Africa has cleared and been replaced by a bright sunny day shedding light on the prominent expatriate of a sovereign entity. Even thought the excitement is short-lived and the sensation is transient, it is nonetheless an intoxicating experience. So it is!
Although we do have serious reservations regarding the obsession of the Diaspora with short-term fix, we do not have any profound objection. After all, we see other Diaspora communities from different African countries concerns with and priority to their wellbeing in America. They are not obsessed with conditions in their countries of origin. Thus, it is possible to empathize with the whole event if the short-term ecstasy is a triumph over modern alienation and a contributing factor towards communal coexistence. We strongly object, however, to any scenario whereby strictly Diaspora-induced concerns spilling over and dictating terms in the Ethiopian state of affairs. The Diaspora’s need and main concerns are not congruent, let alone identical, with the aspirations and interests of the peoples in Ethiopia. The two issues are in fact inherently oppositional each governed by its respective imperative. It is therefore critical for the Ethiopian communities in the Diaspora to acknowledge not only the fundamental dissimilarities between their actual conditions and the conditions in the country they have left behind. Most importantly, if they choose to engage in matters concerning the welfare of the peoples in Ethiopia they should humble themselves to follow not lead the political dynamics in that country. Humility is the foundation of virtue!
Ironically, the leadership in the Diaspora knows very well without the endorsement of the opposition CUD leaders, it would be impossible to legitimize itself in the realm of public opinion. It is also very much aware that unless it controls the so-called leaders, things might get out of hand. To avert such scenario, the Diaspora leadership is actively engaged in authenticating the “true representative” of the Peoples in Ethiopia. The present factional feud within the CUD is induced, bankrolled, and perpetuated by different blocs in the Diaspora. When one observes the determination and seriousness in crisscrossing the width and breadth of continental US to meet with far flung Ethiopian communities, the whole thing looks like a mini US presidential campaign season. Unlike the US campaign though, there is no rule of engagement not points of contentions propelling the candidates to office. In the Diaspora realm, there is no candidate; there is anointed leader. Thus the issue is whose puppet is going to rule Ethiopia. The flag draped convoy of limousines, the symbolism attributed to welcoming the leader of one faction by the leaders of the other faction, the consternation associated with how many people attended and how much money raised in different conventions are indeed surreal bordering madness.
When bogus statesmanship and phony decorum are exhibited throughout prominent American cities, devout followers back home are perplexed by the fallout between the leaders in foreign lands. People in Ethiopia ask: why precipitating to go all the way to the US to exhibit their dirty laundry to the entire world? Why not appeal to their constituents back home? After all, whatever political capital they have incurred, it has been exacted in Ethiopia not abroad. The answer is simple, from the get go the leadership of the opposition did not have the interests of the peoples in Ethiopia. They have always been simple surrogates of the leadership in the Diaspora who holds the purse string; i.e., their political bloodline. It is therefore legitimate to come to the US and report to their benefactors and in the meantime get at each other’s throat despite their so-called collective hardship which was cemented by common prison experience. One would not be surprised to find out that their supporters in Ethiopia prefer them in jail than is liberty. At least, while in jail they inadvertently represent honorable political movement that is in tune with conditions in Ethiopia. Once in freedom they have unmistakably insulted the very people they claimed to represent by hurrying to the US only to accuse each other in the public opinion court of the Diaspora. What a shameful spectacle!
The Diaspora’s existential deprivations, which stem from identity crisis, should not translate to mean a recipe for liberation back home. The zeal to lead, which is facilitated by virtual mediums transpiring in imaginary power, is in fact inconsequential as far things in Ethiopia are concerned. However, the intense fervor to lead Ethiopia from faraway has become extremely noxious undercutting the very potential of the communities in the Diaspora. It is indeed a tragic state of affairs to witness the ripple effects that the lopsided priority has impressed in the communities across the world.
The tragedy is to recognize the extent of how low we have degenerated, how vile we have become, and how far we are willing to go in garnering cheap existential reward at the expense of unimaginable harm to ourselves and to our fellow expatriates alike. Diaspora politics have functionally and discursively degenerated into a putrid mess. Although, there seems to be a universal consensus around democratic ideals, the facts on the ground speak otherwise. In Diaspora discourse, democracy does not acknowledge the other, dissent is not tolerated, the motto is simply ‘my way or the highway’. Apparently, the inflexibility of the Diaspora politics is extremely nauseating nothing or no one is immune from verbal and occasional physical assault. In the name of democratic free-speech, sacred institutions such as the church and the patriarchate are vilified. The good names of descent personalities are dragged into the mud without remorse. Sometimes one wonders: where, how, and why did these types of despicable behavior come to permeate the very fabrics of the community? Is it something that is ingrained in the cultural chemistry of Ethiopia? Or is it something that has befallen us since we set foot in foreign lands? Obviously, the answer to these questions is not simple; it requires at least the appreciation of cultural aspects of conflict resolutions in the social-historical context of Ethiopia.
III
Since we are at the closing of the old and the opening of the new millennium, it would be fitting to look at the subject of conflict resolution in terms of long-drawn-out frame of reference. It allows us to appreciate the virtue of long-term historical perspective which brings to light the sophistication of the political cultures of Ethiopia in matters of conflict resolution.
A thousand year ago, the existential epicenter of Ethiopia was Lasta/Lalibela under the stewardship of the Zagwe Dynasty. Although, the center of government of the previous millennium, which had been centered in the Axum-Adulis axis, came to an end, the country did not lose its soul. The political center had not been transplanted in foreign lands, nor had the political discourse been appropriated by alien norms. For all practical purpose, it would have been much easier to migrate somewhere in the Middle East rather than engage in the Herculean task of creating New-Jerusalem in the Ethiopian massifs. The innovative magnificence of the churches of Lalibela is a leaving testament of the perseverance and determination of the peoples in Ethiopia is turning stones into gold. The occasion also allows us to appreciate the transfer of political power to a new dynasty without destroying the very foundation of the country.
A half-millennium ago, after the religious war came to a close; it did not take long for the antagonists to pursue peaceful coexistence between their adherents. The most conspicuous example is the abdication of Emperor Susenyos and the ascendancy of Emperor Fassil. The event is important because it announced the expulsion of fanatical Portuguese that were the main obstacle to the inter-religious rapprochement between Muslim and Christian Ethiopians. On the Muslim side, things were also progressing positively. Instead of pledging unconditional allegiance to their Ottoman Turkish allies, the Somali people created the Ajuuran Confederacy. A loosely knit political entity that had instituted a complex trading networks extending from the Southern Highlands all the way to the Indian Ocean. In short, despite their occupational, climatic, and religious differences, the two religious protagonists succeeded in forming a coherent and interdependent culture zone. The entire episode is hard to fathom because modern/liberal frame of mind exaggerates differences first and compromise second. Traditional Ethiopian political wisdom on the other hand prioritizes relational harmony instead of categorical antinomy.
One hundred and fifty years ago, to contain the natural effects of liberal disharmony, the then chancellor of Germany Bismarck, in order to avoid bloodshed and mayhem between the great powers of Europe, convened a meeting in Munich to divide the continent of Africa in “civilized” manner. Alas! As much as the civility envisioned by Bismarck was normatively in tune with Victorian chivalry, the actual rivalry between the protagonists could not be assuaged. Eventually, as we are all aware, it erupted in WWI. This proves the point that it is not the so-called uncivilized African who is unable to formulate peaceful coexistence. It is rather the prominent members of the exclusive club of civility who were engaged in an unprecedented carnage. In the same period of time, when the scramble for Africa was in full gear, Ethiopia under the overlordship of Emperor Yohanes and the generalship of Ras Alula was able to deter multiple attempts of colonization. It is important to note that European colonizers rationalized and justified their action in two ways. The first was to redress all of the hardship they had created during the slave trade. The second was to eradicate slavery from the continent which is perpetuated by indigenous rulers. This fact eerily resembles the current preoccupation by the West with democratic governance and human right. The West seems to be remorseful of the error it has committed during the cold war by supporting dictators. To amend its past misdeed, it is ardently pursuing democratic governance and put in notice states that are reneging from honoring human rights. Unfortunately however, both ideals are open-ended more intone with natural law rather than idiosyncrasies of social-historical dynamics.
A little over a century ago, when the political tension between Emperor Yohanes and Negus Menelik reached a boiling point, the latter broke the deadlock by supplicating and paying homage to the former. Was that a sign of weakness? Probably yes, but the question is irrelevant considering what’s at stake. Was it a mistake? I think not, by doing so Menelik proved that he is above and beyond the urge of compulsive ego trip. And Yohanes by accepting the apology demonstrated the magnanimity of his throne. This incident was very important because not long after at the battle of Adwa many of Yohanes’ loyal generals were fighting along side Menelik. The point is the long-term common interest of the country outweighs the narcissistic short-term predisposition of the leader.
Fifty years ago, the time tested conflict resolution culture of our forefathers and foremothers was ridiculed and supplanted by Western notion of antagonism. Whether predicated on social class or ethnicity this time around coexistence is conceptually unintelligible let alone realistically applicable. Categorical differences are overblown and invented to the point of making Ethiopia a land inhabited by intergalactic aliens each originating from different planets. The hey-day of the triumph of modernity spearheaded by the student movement, the Ethiopian intellectual scene was dominated by one size fits all imagery. Either we are congenitally dissimilar therefore incapable to coexist, or we are virtually assemblage of clones devoid of cultural plurality. The Derg had literally engaged effectuating the imagery into reality. In the process it turned the entire fabrics of the society up-side-down. We all know the price that the peoples of Ethiopia Have paid in forming a unitary entity. Now, Ethiopia is acknowledging its multicultural constitution without succumbing to dismemberment. To many this is a recipe for disaster defying logic. The reality on the ground attests otherwise. Ethiopia is enjoying unprecedented peace and engaged in remarkable development. The success is not surreal it is actually very real because it follows the trajectory of our history rather than a half-baked imported logical truism.
IV
At present we are leaving in a similar historical conjuncture whereby the scramble for Africa is undertaken with a new vigor. This time around the rivalry is not confined within European powers alone; it encompasses Europe, North America, and East Asia. Already we are witnessing dress rehearsals announcing what awaits us in the not so far future. We have also seen the two options that are in front of us. Unless the peoples of Africa in general and those in Ethiopia in particular wake up and prepare themselves, the disastrous scenario is not hard to visualize. It is unambiguously clear. If history is our reference, the nineteenth century scramble for Africa took place not because the world economy was strong, i.e., under the hegemonic auspices of Britain. It was rather a harbinger of the decline of British power and the rise of contending powers such as Germany and France. The scramble for Africa is closely linked with the decline in hegemony and the rise of rivalry. Even though the rival powers made every conscious effort to divide Africa peacefully, their intense competition could not be controlled.
Unlike the nineteenth century, this time around the structural conflict between the global north and global south is poised to take its own shape. Accordingly, the struggle is not going to be direct colonization, it is rather zeroed in shaping the very identity of the nation-state. Specifically, those who subscribe to a historically unqualified universally accepted truism of Ethiopiawinet are poised against those who are willing to forge a historically qualified idiosyncratically dynamic notion of Ethiopiawinet. While adherents to the universally discrete and authentically pure notion are first and foremost residents in the Diaspora, those who subscribe to the multidimensionality of identity reside in Ethiopia.
To the loyal soldier of Diaspora politics devotion to “purity” is the ultimate measure of one’s Ethiopiawinet. Anyone who does not subscribe to this preordained notion of “purity” is condemned to eternal damnation. To be considered impure is tantamount to be a zombie, a walking dead. At least the dead, considering he/she is pure, can be rehabilitated in reputation and resurrected in spirit; he/she can live again. The impure on the other hand has no second chance. The banishment of the impure from the realms of the living and the dead is a fait accompli. The decree is final and binding. He/she has no recourse to appeal his/her circumstance; there is no purgatory for either expiatory purification or temporary punishment. The whole thing is fatalistic; the impure is congenitally polluted therefore existentially irredeemable in soul and in body. Accordingly, the “non-pure Ethiopian” is stained with an indelible marker of “The Other”. Like a cattle or a commodity he/she is permanently branded as the living testament of the “Negation of Ethiopiawinet”. Accordingly, article 39 of the Ethiopian constitution is not only a point of epistemological disagreement it is rather an ontological point of contention. As far as the Diaspora logic goes, article 39 underscores ones non-existence in the real sense of the term. It is indeed a frightful scenario!
As we can see, although the idea of “the pure Ethiopian” has a very strong religious overtone, it nonetheless transcends religion in its implication. It is a totalitarian creed that has no room for potential salvation let alone for actual dissent. Ones the “Pure Ethiopian” is conceived to be the antithesis of “The Other”, it can only be “The Same”; and this means that everything is identical in every sense of the term. But this logical reasoning is preposterous; it does not withstand the slightest scrutiny. Is it not true that the whole idea of Democracy inherently an acknowledgment of impurity of the social world, so to speak? If reality is pure, there is no need to institutionalize mechanisms that are primarily designed to deter potential schisms. Purity is more a religious pursuit than anything else. It is not only ridiculous, but idiotic to engage in such a venture.
The social agency that is obsessed with purity is a product of a social structure that warrants such nonsensical adventure. In the contemporary Ethiopian discourse, the advocate of purity is the Diaspora. And there is a reason for that. The apostles of purity in the Diaspora believe of their congenital impurity in the social milieu they reside. They are simply transferring their existential trepidation to the peoples in Ethiopia. In the end, to make Ethiopia pure they reduce the social space to cartographic territoriality, and the social time to one dimensional trajectory of imported stage or functionalist theories. When one is armed with the two pronged conceptual arsenal, one does become a zealot ready to slaughter anyone who deviates from the dogma.
The Diaspora has to follow the Peoples of Ethiopia. We have to respect the cultures and learn from the traditions of our communities. To that end, it is fitting to bring the role that the Elders Shimagelewotch played in the recent political impasse. The members are composed from dignitaries from both Ethiopia and the Diaspora. They have been able to accomplish what conventional diplomacy could not fathom. Their frame of reference and rule of engagement are not framed in any world-famous institutions of political philosophy they are directly harnessed from the rich arsenal of our traditions. It is not by accident that many so-called learned expatriates could not believe their eyes. To them Ethiopia and its traditions are backward worthy of only anthropological phenotype. How on earth they seem to argue a conflict that is inherently irresolvable but managed in perpetuity bear fruit. In the end, they either reject the whole thing as farce, or accept it as a short term tactical ploy. In either case, the winners are the peoples in Ethiopia. The deployment of traditional means of conflict resolution in Ethiopia, has transpired is all sorts of political mayhem in the Diaspora. And that is good news. For the first time in its recent history Ethiopia has seriously paid attention to its traditional institutions. The occasion should also signify the new millennium and our determination to deter any type of Imperial incursions. Whether it appears in white or black skin, or it mutates in the body of a foreigner or a member of the Diaspora, hegemonic ideals and their evil designs ought to be confronted and qualified with our rich traditional wherewithal.
MEHRETAB ASSEFA
Oct 07 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment