January 20^th, 2004

The ‘Feud’ over Addis: Prospecting ‘Ethnic Politics’?

Is it an omen for the start of the germination of the seeds of ethno-national rivalries?

Part One

By Fitsum Getachew

In the past weeks, there has been a big controversy (specially in the private media) concerning the ‘transfer’ of the seat of the Oromia Regional Council from Addis Ababa (Finfinne, in Oromo language ) to Nazareth, (Adama). The issue is not entirely ‘new’, as it was dominating the media some years back, (raised, discussed and decided by the Oromia Regional Council in July 1992 E.C. ). It appears the ‘implementation’ of such decision was ‘postponed’ waiting for certain pre-conditions to be fulfilled, enabling Adama receive the new guests and adapt to its new status. About three thousand civil servants, mostly with their families, might need to move to the new premises. However, even then, the discussions seemed very ‘partisan’ and ‘polarized’ giving the impression that it was not only ‘logistics’ that was at stake, but also matters with far reaching political, social and economic implications.

Personally, I remember asking then one of my friends working in the Oromia Council what he made out of the ‘decision’. What he emphatically (and without reflecting a moment!) responded was a blunt no! They would not move an inch from Addis! He exclaimed, “where shall I go from ‘my city’? Evidently, the issue is not that simplistic and could involve various public discussions and probes in the short and long term implications.

The point then raised was, ‘where shall the head quarters of the Oromia Regional Council be formed, as an alternative to Addis, (given Addis could not be the ideal nurturing ground of Oromo interests of all sorts)’? It is difficult to assign the role of expanding the Oromo nationality culture, language, tradition and history to Addis Ababa, without impacting negatively on the independence of the city, as the Federal capital, where Amharic and English are to be used as official means of managing business, (and this due to irrefutable historical facts and coincidences pertaining to the history of ‘entity Ethiopia’). Hence, the evident need for a new capital for Oromia region, fulfilling the conditions of being a boost to the region’s future development plans as a distinct entity. Addis, becoming increasingly an international metropolis serving also the interests of the African Union, (beyond being the Federal Capital,) did not exactly fit into a predominantly Oromo reality, despite its foundation in the heartland of Oromo region. The Federal Constitution had already ordained Addis as the Federal Capital and could not be otherwise, considering Addis as the sum total of all Ethiopian elements and parts. No one in their right minds can dispute such reality. Besides, it is being prospected as home to others who come from various African countries, in its capacity as the AU centre. The Constitution unequivocally establishes it, not only as the Federal Capital but also as a Chartered city, with a special status, and accountable directly to the Federal Government. Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of Addis as the Oromia regional capital, or any other region for that matter, even admitting that its being placed in the midst of Oromia has given it the admitted right to claim ‘special interests’. But the point is that this was to be the homework of the House of Peoples Representatives, some time in future. There are many similar clauses contained in the Constitution asking for more time and future deliberations, while putting the general and basic principles in black and white right away.

The current ‘controversy’ has erupted, perhaps owing to such legal lacuna generating such interpretations such as, ‘they are trying to evict us (Oromos) from our land etc’, as some ‘nationalistic’ elements were heard denouncing, rather than perhaps handling it with due care and diligence. Pushing the issue to a point of no return, basing it on merely immediate political expediency, could result in irreconcilable stands and intransigency that can only breed further partisanship and factionalism. Complicating the issue more than it already is would not serve any one. Various discrepant opinions and statements have been forwarded on it (there are a number of interests, public and private, in such a major ‘political’ decision!) but polarizing the issue on only certain grounds, mostly haphazard, not well studied and emotionally loaded, could be vain.

In so doing, there is a serious risk of undermining certain legal provisions on which the whole body politic has had a certain consensus. Pondering carefully, we can figure out that emotional statements risk to undermine or sideline the laws, and can be no logical and useful premise for a solution. The solution acceptable to all stakeholders cannot be handed over by a few ‘activists’/ ‘cadres’ from any ‘side’, be it political animals, civic associations, development activists, human rights militants, you name it. The issue should not be hardened to the level of ‘to be or not to be’. We have seen the results of such intransigence, and being categoric, for instance, looking at the Ethio-Eritrean border dispute! It is just a mess from which everyone of us would like to come out clean, but, we appear entangled in a labyrinth......

The opposition of many people of Oromo descent may be based on the conviction that the decision of the Oromia Regional Council does not exactly reflect the beliefs and interests of the majority (as it by its very constitution and essence does not represent the interests of the Oromo). They assert, it rather represents the few elites, conveniently and selfishly adhering to OPDO/EPRDF party politics. These assert that Addis is the only and right choice for being the capital of Oromia, and not Adama, or any other city for that matter! The Regional Council however asserts that it has the legal mandate and responsibility (the Federal constitution hands it over to it) to decide on this matter, and it has made its choice, having considered a number of options, Bishoftu, Ambo, Nekemte, Jimma and Zewai, among others.

Nevertheless, beyond the pure factionalism and party politics, it would be good to consider certain facts. Firstly, to affirm that Addis Ababa is situated or founded on Oromo land is quite different from arguing that it has been built by the ‘sweat and blood of the Oromo people’. Secondly, to identify the official transfer of the regional capital of Oromia from Addis (which incidentally was in the first place fixed by the regional constitution) to Adama, with the ‘eviction’ of the Oromo people from Addis, is another dangerous and reckless conclusion! Thirdly, to deny that the Regional Council has the mandate and prerogative to consider all the options and decide on a regional capital is yet another facet in the matter. Fourthly, to ask for the respect of the constitutional provision that enshrines the ‘special interests’ of Oromia on Addis, is again another factor to carefully handle (as it is legitimate). Last but not least, to blindly foment ethnic and nationality discrepancies in the whole exercise, and make out of it an issue of ‘national survival’ needs to be considered with at least ‘political intelligence’, on a short and long term basis. Party politics may not always be harmoniously conducted but to encourage certain animosities in search of immediate political benefits contains the seeds of prejudice, and in the long run not the right way to tackle the thorny issue.

Among prominent Oromo leaders, who have reportedly chosen to openly come up with a loud objection on the ordainment of Adama as the regional capital, can be cited popular and active former head of state Negasso Gidada. His arguments are that the provisions of the Constitution (in whose formative deliberations and promulgation he was a participant) are being violated as the ‘special interest’ that Oromia should obtain from the fact that Addis is founded on Oromo territory, should be considered and established by detailed law, first and foremost, before moving the offices. He says ‘the horse is being placed before the cart’. Such affirmation of Dr Negasso has been widely reported on the private media, creating heated debates on his motives. Presumably, his status would not allow him to take sides or be involved in partisan politics, but his response is that as an active and well informed citizen, no one would deprive him of his basic rights of civic activism. But questions have been raised whether he could still remain entitled to the benefits as retired head of state.

Other politically active people as well have expressed their opinions, stands of their parties on this issue. One of the most controversial has been that of the Oromo National Congress, ONC, whose leader Dr Merrera has openly defied the Council’s decision. His arguments are that the Council is not an independent and legal representative of the people but ‘a bunch of TPLF cadres’ and thus their decision is for him ‘null and void’. Leader of the All Ethiopian Unity Party, Engineer Hailu Shawel on the other hand, has reportedly made contradictory assertions, first stating that Addis cannot be the Oromia regional capital, given its totally Ethiopian, national status, where as subsequent statements given by him have been indicative of only the fact that the issue itself was not so urgent, and the country had other headaches to resolve, before tabling such a debate. And here, the recently formed Union of Ethiopian Democratic Forces may risk faltering, perhaps to the delight of its denigrators. Lidetu Ayalew of Ethiopian Democratic Party as well has made statements objecting to the idea that Addis should be a ‘regional capital’.

Another group that has been very assertive on this issue has been the ‘Mecha Tulema Oromo Development Association’, reportedly attributing itself with the right to represent the interests of the Oromo. Its leader was reportedly detained for having called for a public rally that was not allowed by the authorities.

A point that needs to be cleared right away is that we should learn from the experience of other nations, where tendency to restrict citizens from one area, or limiting their lives to a certain locality, has dangerously drifted to a sort of “ethnic cleansing” with massacre, havoc and destruction, as in the former Yugoslavia. Moreover, we should not discount easily the recent clashes in our own Gambella (that have shown us the dangers of ethnic rivalry over what ever matter, be it land, power, control over a certain property etc.) There have been other reports of similar episodes around Miesso, a cross road town on the way to Dire Dawa, between Afar, Oromo and other nationalities. In Dire Dawa itself there are reported cases of ethnic discrepancy over land rights. All these could risk to be exaggerated and manipulated and this by itself could constitute a concrete danger. The basic point however is that such tendencies need to be nipped in the bud, before it gets too late or we won’t have time to regret!

Many have found it convenient to impute such ‘tendencies’ to the ethnically inspired federal arrangement of the current government, coupled with the economic deterioration of peoples plight, social injustice, (problems with the equal division of resources of the nation). True, poverty remains our enemy number one, but the scarcity of justice, and the lack of a confidence-inspiring popular government, could be even worse than any sort of material deprivation or destitution per se. To many therefore, the figuring and categorization of Ethiopians in terms of nationality, language, regional parameters as the basic principle of government, (no matter how many strong sides it may have), has not served any good purpose, except the risk of being breeding ground of an erroneous appreciation and interpretation of the issue, and then manipulation of people without scruples (certain political beasts) towards instigation of narrow nationalism, parochialism, chauvinism.

Admitted that the ruling party may not have invented the reality of ethnic variety or division in Ethiopia, nevertheless, making it the ‘raison d’etre’ of a system could exacerbate the differences, potentially resulting dangerous, even for a traditionally ‘tolerant’ people like Ethiopians. And there is no mystery to the assertion of this government adopting a philosophy that the country needs to be principally demarcated along ethnic-nationality lines, (the famous ‘kilils’/regions) in order for it to be able to develop! They call it ‘ethnic federalism’. A theory that has found more opposition than support.

In a nation of a multiplicity of ethnic groups, dividing them on purely such parameters for establishing governing councils has often resulted to encouraging ‘natives’ to push around ‘others’ from the concerned regional administration, hailing from other localities. From here to ‘ethnic cleansing’, to chauvinism, the distance is negligible! The solution often suggested is therefore to avoid the ‘creeping time bomb’ making for more realistic, pragmatic and reconciliation-oriented policies. The rhetoric of certain ideologies have often found in the past difficult ground for implementation.

Add to this the established fact that Ethiopians have been freely mingling amongst each other for years, and it is almost impossible to find families that have not got intermarried, intermingled within a different ethnic identity, other than the original nationality from which their family hails. For instance, in the central part of the country, few families have not been married between Amhara, Oromo, Tigray, Gurage and others. To try to find a pure ethnic affiliation or unit among the various nationalities, specially in the urban areas is arduous, (unless one has decided to betray a part of their family lineage). The mixture has been even more than we can find out from a simple research. It cannot be completed on the basis of the knowledge of recent family ties only. There have been ‘movements of populations’ for the past hundreds of years, owing to wars, needs of grazing land, searching for a better habitat etc, and independently of who actually exerted power, there have been mixtures all along! And to try to ‘cleanse’ one’s origin by calling it this or that nationality, is like denying the basic reality of being Ethiopian.

One beauty of Ethiopians has been the diversity of cultures, beliefs and traditions, and the acceptance of one for what he or she was. We have never thought that we should be all the same or alike. But each needs to accept the identity of the other for what it is, and not degrade or denigrate it. It is clear that as it happens in every other country, naturally, economic interests could usher to disputes and the point of sharing equitably the resources of the nation amongst the various nations and nationalities becomes crucial.

Part Two

Economists have established that in the past decade, there has not been any significant improvement in the lives of Ethiopians. Rather, things have progressively worsened. Decentralisation is a naturally good system of approaching the public from very near, and trying to tackle problems locally. But decentralising on purely ethnic or nationality-religion grounds has not been taken as positive development. Prejudice breeding animosity can creep, division of families, and the creation of new/artificial feelings, amongst hitherto pacific ethnic and regional groups. Instead of insisting on the things that rather characterize and unite us, that call us for concerted action. This should be one of the basic responsibilities of any government worth its name, i.e. leading its people towards purposeful unity and not irreconcilable divisions.

The past errors inherited from history should be used as a lesson, not as something that should haunt us and block us from moving ahead with the times. Divisions along ethnic and nationality lines are getting really outdated, as globalization claims the millennium. Thinking in such narrow terms is losing credit. We need a new outlook even without discarding our distinctive identities, enriching our local culture and history. Unity in diversity should not be seen as impossible.

The problems that emanate from the existence in one state of a multiplicity of ethnically different peoples is not typical to Ethiopia only. There are a number of countries in the world where a widely varied kind of peoples live together. The classical example could be India, where not only language and religion can be different, but the racial mix itself is surprising, (from the purely white Caucasian type to the purely Negroid African type!) But this has not prevented India from being all the same ‘one big country’. Nigeria is another example in Africa, South Africa is yet another one. Belonging to different language groups should not prevent a country from existing as one state, and reasoning with one major interest in focus, striving towards one objective, one goal.

That is why I was flabbergasted when I heard the statement that making Adama the regional capital of Oromia is tantamount to pushing Oromos from their city. Whether it be Adama or Nazareth or Addis Ababa or Finfine (and call it with which ever name you wish), they all belong to Ethiopians, and that is what we all know, and basically need to agree on. No one can push any one out of any city, it should be stressed. The tendency of considering a regional state as entirely belonging to only the ‘natives’ of that region, or to those who speak the language of that nationality, can be a dangerous state of affairs that could eventually drift to further irreconcilable divisions. Ethiopians have no interest to divide along any factors. What they need is rather to come together further, and on the basis of mutual respect and love build up a just and prosperous Ethiopia. We should be ready to fight such tendencies and those who want to fish in troubled waters! Beyond one Ethiopia, efforts are underway to forge a united Africa, and however paradoxical it may seem, the major promoter of African Union is Ethiopia.

The issue of Finfine or Adama as the regional capital should not be exacerbated to capitalize politically, neither by opposition elements nor by the incumbent government for that matter, therefore. People should be well informed, and possibly convinced why certain decisions are made. And these decisions should have plausible, studied, rational basis. People should also feel a sense of ‘being party’ to any crucial decision that can affect their lives. Decisions made after consulting the stake-holders of the same, and obtaining their consensus, are the basis for future growth and development. Decisions that are not representative of the majority can only sow discord and hostility between decision makers (usually government) and those affected by it (the people). This can be seen as the basic tenet of democracy, a word very easily abused in our day to day language.

If it is true that Addis Ababa is not the Finfine of more than a hundred years ago, it should also not be forgotten that what has been constitutionally established should not be discarded nor neglected. The socio-economic status of Addis Ababa now, and that of a hundred years ago, (and even that of the Haile Selassie epoch), is not identical. But the legitimate interests of the original people of the surrounding should also be duly considered and permanent and just solutions prospected. Similarly, the haphazard foundation of the offices of the regional administration of Oromia in Addis Ababa does not make it automatically the capital of Oromia, just as the sudden and not well studied transfer of all offices from Addis to Adama can have its own social and economic repercussions on the families of the employees of the council. If it is true that each regional state has a place where the representatives sit and decisions are adopted that eventually affect principally the inhabitants of that region, Oromia as well needs a regional capital that has the potential of serving its people in an effective manner. And this is the mandate of the Regional Administration that is supposed to serve the interests of the nationality. Oromo National Congress leader Dr Merrera Gudina would say the Council does not represent the majority of Oromo, rather it is a stooge of the ruling coalition! But that is the logic of opposition politics and no wonder. It remains to be seen if there is substance in such assertion, beyond any political rhetoric. That is in fact why we need genuine, free and fair elections. Such doubts would fade terminally.

Many would subscribe to the idea that claiming propriety over land, cities, towns, woredas or zones in the country to one or the other ethnic group, would not only undermine our unity, but could germinate the seeds of conflicts and disintegration. I don’t think there is any one, who considers themselves as a true Ethiopian, who longs for such destiny!

The basic problem of many African states, and the quest for the solution is the challenge of our times, (Ethiopia can be comfortably placed in that midst) is the problem of producing a just and representative government that has managed to acquire the full confidence of the majority. Once we manage to resolve such handicap, then more than half of our development issues and efforts would be blessed with success. We would not squander precious resources and time, battling amongst ourselves. Already, Africa has entertained too many disputes, (ethnic, religious, border, regional), and too much resources have been squandered. If we add further motives of intestinal disputes, such as clashes over land rights in our own midst, (instead of adopting the system of roundtable discussions, negotiations) then it would really be the end of everything! And we cannot afford that! Deputy Commissioner of AU Patrick Mazumhaka said at the recent meeting of African ministers of defence, that the continent has been scene of conflicts and instability for many years, and in the absence of peace it is impossible to bring about sustainable development and attract the flow of foreign capital.