Addis Abeba — Ethiopia's political extremes in the context of this article represent the federalists who favor autonomy for national groups and the unionists who favor Ethiopian nationalism. In Ethiopia these political divides have two main narratives they seriously disagree with - historical and political narratives.
The historical narrative is mostly, if not exclusively, about unanswered identity questions and past discrimination, while the political narrative reflects the historical narrative and a quest for its answers. The federalists push for increased regional autonomy and argue that national group identity questions and adequate political representations can only be addressed through greater self-determination and the right to self-administration. The federalists base their hypothesis on painful scars of the past, including political under-representation and discrimination against different national groups in the country. Most federalists also believe that centralization of the state is the beginning of the loss of unique identities, lack of representation, and the right to self-determination that would bring a memory of past regimes that were inhospitable to diversity and group rights.
On the other hand, the unionists advocate for a more centralized, unified state that downplays or overlooks national group distinctions in favor of a cohesive Ethiopian identity. The unionists also believe a strong central government can foster national unity, streamline economic development, and efficiently administer national policies. They tend to favor a sense of Ethiopian identity that promotes a narrative of unity and shared history that transcends the distinctions between diverse national identities.
The federalists view Ethiopia through the lens of historical injustices and advocate for political solutions that reflect and acknowledge the past and prevent its recurrence. The unionists want to see Ethiopia as a nation with a history of great pride and victory and a political solution that strengthens Ethiopia's nationalism and builds on a shared Ethiopian identity.
In so doing both miss the big picture of building a nation through compromise, forgiveness, and shared values while genuinely addressing the differences through dialogue. The federalists tend to politicize identity, while the unionists believe that identity-based politics or 'ethnic politics', as they refer to it, is the root cause of all the problems in today's Ethiopia. Often times, these political extremes are unwilling to solve the difference between these two narratives.
What is the common value that unites a nation? Is it building a common economic community? Is it a national flag and anthem that all Ethiopians stand for and agree with? Is it protecting democratic values?
Despite being overwhelmed by these two mainstream political views, the political center in Ethiopia is the one that recognizes diversity and proposes a common ground that heals past injustices and builds a future based on common principles and values. It represents a political perspective that questions the politicization of identity on the one hand and a patriotic approach toward forced Ethiopian nationalism on the other hand. The political center is conscious of the diversity in Ethiopia and the need to address historical scars. It is also aware of the need to unite communities and different national groups in Ethiopia around common values.
The Ethiopian political center therefore poses questions in its attempt to find a common ground for the two extreme views to come together without animosity and suspicion to each other. How can trust be built among the diverse national groups in Ethiopia and past scars be healed? What is the common value that unites a nation? Is it building a common economic community? Is it a national flag and anthem that all Ethiopians stand for and agree with? Is it protecting democratic values? Is it protecting the Constitution or finding common history? Or is it a combination of these and other values?
The answers to these questions are not simple and they are usually subjective depending on the political atmospheres of the two extremes in Ethiopia. The federalists and the unionists do not agree on all of the above questions. The Ethiopian center, on the other hand, is so weak that no one feels there is something to stand for together. Even the constitutional promise of creating a common economic community has failed.
The centrists may have a middle ground but are denied the opportunity to capture the mainstream narrative. The most frequent way of discouraging the centrists in Ethiopia is launching attack campaigns to make it seem like their ideas are irrelevant. Shaming and framing of the political center has become the norm for two extremes even as the center continues proposing a sound way out of the political crises the country is facing today, forcing those who hold centrist views into silence.
Ethiopia has many unanswered questions; sometimes, people wonder if they could ever be answered. Historically, the nationalities question and the need for recognition in Ethiopia date back to the Ethiopian Student Movement (ESM) of the mid-60s and early-70s against the monarchical regime. The military regime of Derg that replaced the monarchy could not answer it either as the central questions of the students were hijacked by the military junta.
The EPRDF government tried to address this issue by adopting a multinational constitution and a federal system that tried to address the national question through the exercise of the right to self-administration. Whereas this has brought a successful experiment, overall the system failed substantively as the ruling EPRDF prioritizes a one-party, centralized system that consistently undermined the principles of the right to self-administration on which the concepts of multinational federalism and multiparty political orders are founded.
The current administration under the Prosperity Party (PP) is overwhelmingly unpredictable to put it on the right or left of the two mainstream extremes in Ethiopia's political discourse. During the start of the administration in 2018, public opinion hugely supported the perceived 'reform process', which at times looked like it advocated the ideals of the centrist outlook. The hoped reform to bring the country together with dialogue and political reconciliation however failed shortly after.
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed's sentimental invocation of making Ethiopia great again and associating and mentioning some of the positive works from the past were jubilantly embraced by the unionist camp who took the public statement of the PM at face value whereas federalists were alarmed by the messages. This led to the breakup of the old party system after the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) refused to join the Prosperity Party. The TPLF maintained that the new party sought to bring a unitary system which is a threat to the multinational federal system that it had introduced along with others after the fall of the Derg in 1991.
Regional states have lost their constitutional sovereignty to the one-party system, and regional states' majority national groups were left with no guiding framework to protect members of minority communities
But soon, those who supported the formation of the new party also started to break with it as they were alarmed by the party's support for the current multinational constitution of 'ethnic federalism', as they often refer to it.
Ethiopia's multinational federalism and the center's perspective
The contested narrative on Ethiopia's multinational federalism is not with the constitution that recognizes the formation of regional states in line with the values and core principles of the Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples of Ethiopia. The problem is the substantive failure in the implementation process. Regional states have lost their constitutional sovereignty to the one-party system, and regional states' majority national groups were left with no guiding framework to protect members of minority communities. As a result, the regions became powerless in the face of a centralized one-party system, whereas minority communities in these regions became vulnerable to horizontal violence. This substantive failure led many to believe Ethiopia's multinational federalism is the root cause of violence and instability and should be abolished.
Addressing the substantive issue of regional states' need for constitutional sovereignty therefore allows regions to take proactive measures to protect minority groups in the respective regions, including the right to practice their culture, language, political participation, and most importantly, security. But when federalism becomes an entitlement to land and resources by the majority national group in a given regional state, it forces minority communities to be at the goodwill of the majority and creates an impression that the majority is the host and the minority is the guest.
What role does the political center play?
The simple answer is to bring calm to the tension between the edges of Ethiopia's political, social, and economic problems. The political center in Ethiopia aspires to build common values to strengthen unity and ensure nations' right to self-administration and autonomy free from the party system.
It is challenging to tell what formal and institutional values unite Ethiopia's diverse national groups for a common goal and make all feel a sense of belonging to the nation in the current state. Despite the challenges posed by the heightened political environment, however, the value of living together remains strong among Ethiopia's diverse communities.
The victory of Adwa is a powerful legacy of unity in diversity towards a common goal and continues to have a far-reaching positive influence in Ethiopia. However, decades of a hostile political environment and the absence of effective policies have not only challenged the fabric of unity but also created insecurity and distrust among national groups. Ethiopia can no longer depend solely on communities' wisdom of living together; it should devise policies to build a working common value and consensus. The political center can play an indispensable role in bringing about inclusive and serious national dialogues so that common values of democracy, a common economic community free from the burden of the party system, and a unified Ethiopian identity based on consensus can be achieved.
What happened to Tariku represented the most visible example of silencing the centrist, but there are many more that involve online and physical intimidation and threats that didn't make it to the mainstream narrative
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
This is not an easy task. If we look at the recent events in Ethiopia, it is evident that the centrists are purged and isolated from the political space. One of these moments was the devastating war in the Tigray region, which later on expanded to Amhara and Afar regions. The centrists who called for calm and rationality before and during the war were called out, many lost their jobs, were detained, discouraged, and even called a 'Junta' by the advocates of the war. The famous incident was when Tariku Gankisi/Dishta Gina called for peace and reconciliation during a live performance organized in support of the war; the push-back he faced was so aggressive that it forced him to apologize on a popular TV network and go into hiding.
What happened to Tariku represented the most visible example of silencing the centrist, but there are many more that involve online and physical intimidation and threats that didn't make it to the mainstream narrative. Previously, when the centrists questioned the TPLF's decision to make a unilateral election for the regional council shortly before the war broke out and the COVID pandemic, they were called out and labeled as Abiy loyalists. In the end, a costly peace agreement was signed after all the tragedy that would have been averted if the political extremes had listened to the centrists.
The center did not condemn TPLF categorically, nor did it say that the current administration is good for nothing. The center listened to OMN (federalist-leaning media) and ESAT (unionist-leaning media), and the centrist considered the outlook of both Jawar Mohammed and Eskinder Nega, prominent political leaders representing the left and the right, respectively.
The centrists see language as an opportunity to learn new cultures and wisdom instead of patronizing based on political lines. The centrists value the culture of all the people in Ethiopia, which is vital to building coexistence. The center believes in respecting and acknowledging the historical national question and does not make a person a threat to Ethiopia as much as questioning the politicization of identity politics.
The center aspires to see Ethiopia at peace with its people who stand together for common national principles and dreams while celebrating the colorful diversity. Despite being neglected, shamed, or framed the Ethiopian center has the key to most of the crises the country is facing today and deserves an adequate platform. AS
_____________________________________//_____________________________
Editor's Note: Enku Tensay is a PhD candidate in law at Sorbonne Paris Nord University/Paris, France. He can be reached at enkuwoldemaryam@gmail.com
