The Invention of Ethnic Politics By Messay Kebede (PhD.)

Take a random group of Ethiopians as you find them in any public place. You will never hear them defining themselves by a single characteristic. If you ask one of them how a person is defined, he/she will say that a person is defined by age, gender, class, social role, religion, culture, ethnic background, etc. This same person is also Ethiopian, African, and human. This means that, outside a political realm, individuals see their personality as a heterogeneous unity, as the interactions, interpenetrations of multiple identities yielding a unified person, like different notes compose a musical piece. This heterogeneous self is the reality of all individuals, how they grasp their essence and existence. Be it noted that nothing is distinct or dominant in the claimed unity; rather, all the factors interpenetrate and constitute a changing and complex sense of oneself.

Let us follow these individuals in their place of work, worship, or hangouts. A slight change occurs: though they remain the same individuals, they alternatively assume distinct, dominant features. In their work place, they are teachers, soldiers, security officers, judges, etc.; in their worship place, they are Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Protestants, etc.; in their hangouts, they are friends or mates. And when they return home, they are fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, etc. In all these different places, one feature temporarily dominates all the rest.

Now let us go to a political meeting. Here profession and home personality subside into the background. Individuals are essentially labelled by their class, ethnic group, religion or gender, depending on the ideology of the group organizing the meeting. However, one difference springs up in the case of a meeting supporting an extremist agenda: not only are the leaders of the political meeting asking participants to subordinate all their person to one determination by which they demarcate themselves, but they also urge them to use the demarcation to oppose and exclude all those who do not belong to the same ethnic group, religion, or class. The intention is to obtain a high-powered mobilization by overvaluing one determination to the point of stirring up deep emotional forces, such as fear, resentment, and hatred, or superiority and domination.

The result of this one-sided conditioning is that individuals completely identify themselves with the overemphasized feature. Politicians promote this exclusory determination for two essential reasons. 1. It gives them complete control over the person: once they have induced a sectarian identity, they are in possession of a tool able to trigger at will all sorts of emotional responses from their followers. Evidently, the political elite cannot have absolute control over individuals if they retain many allegiances that involve them in different social milieus and entail different modes of association and behavior. 2. The overemphasized identity posits the exclusion of all who are not of the same religion, ethnic group, or class. This ordering crowns the excluders as the only legitimate representatives of the groups shaped by the segregating identities and, most importantly, repudiates all competing elites on the ground that they do not partake of the same identities.

A characteristic example of exclusion is the overdetermination of class in the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which Ethiopian educated elites adopted in the 60s and 70s. As many of you remember, everything was then subordinated to class belonging and everything was analyzed from the perspective of class interests. The outcome was a politics of hatred against feudal and bourgeois classes and against all those who refused Marxism for one reason or another. It enabled the mobilization of peasants, workers and self-righteous students and intellectuals, the very ones who claimed to have committed class-suicide. Most of all, it promoted power-hungry elites to the rank of political and ideological leadership on the strength of their lofty commitment to justice and freedom for the masses. However, disgruntled and ambitious members of the Ethiopian armed forces came out with a similar commitment, the outcome of which was the formation of the Derg. We know the rest, especially how the Derg turned the ideology of exclusion of students and intellectuals against themselves and assumed the sole leadership of the revolution.

Weakened by the lack of internal support, the Derg was defeated by another politics of exclusion, this time based on ethnicity. Ethnic politics has its roots in the Marxist-Leninist ideology: like the latter, it is a politics of polarization (otherwise known as dialectics) aiming at destroying those perceived as opponents. This common inspiration facilitated the rise of ethnic ideology because the priority given to class by Marxism-Leninism had undermined national cohesion by presenting the imperial regime and the Derg as the dominance of the Amhara ethnic elite. Very early, those who created the TPLF understood that class exclusion, as advocated by the Marxist ideology, was a deadlock for them in that they would never achieve prominence on the national scene so long as the Amhara supremacy was still in place. To undermine that dominance, they needed a sectarian ideolgy not only for themselves but also for all non-Amhara Ethiopians: only in a country fragmented along ethnic politics could an elite claiming to represent a minority group hope to conquer national prominence.

With the help of the Stalinist version of Marxism, the founders of the TPLF reworked their socialist commitment in such a way that polarization moved from class to ethnicity. As a result, ethnic groups were baptized dominated nations, with the consequence that they gained the right to secede from Ethiopia if they so wish. With ethnicity, the leaders of the TPLF had thus created an exclusive entitlement to represent the Tigrean people, since unlike class or religion, the ethnic criterion excludes non-Tigrean from power competition. In addition, the fragmentation of Ethiopia gave them a hegemonic position as the only group commanding a viable armed force following the dissolution of the national army. To crown it all, the portrayal of the Amhara as the sole culprit for Tigrean marginalization and the so-called “ferocious colonial” conquest and mistreat of the Oromo and Southern peoples became the dominant discourse of ethnic federalism. The purpose of this exaggerated and one-sided portrayal is to harness powerful sentiments of resentment and hatred to the politics of exclusion whose sole goal is the empowerment of a Tigrean elite.

Now contrast identity politics with the democratic ideal. Obviously, of all the forms of mobilization, the one that brings into play what individuals have in common rather than what separates them is none other than the democratic principle. It is inspired by the politics of human rights and expressly states that all individuals, regardless of age, gender, class, ethnicity, religion, etc., have equal rights. This form of mobilization comes close to the reality of the human person as a unity of heterogeneous commitments and is eminently refractory to the politics of exclusion. Its essence is to allow individuals to form free associations in accordance with their heterogeneous and varying interests and preoccupations.

To highlight the difference, take an Oromo for instance: besides being Oromo, he/she belongs to a class to which Amara and Tigreans belong as well; he/she is Christian or Muslim like Amhara and Gurage are Christian or Muslim; he/she is Ethiopian, then African, just like any other ethnic groups in Ethiopia. For an approach promoting human rights, the various identities of a person, far from being mutually exclusive, become complementary, thereby actualizing the reality of the human person as a unity of diversity.

Not so for ethnic politics: it reduces the human to one dimensionality and so is repressive, being but the manner people are shaped to empower a sectarian elite. It results in a closed society whose irony is that it must revive the diversity that it refuses in the name of ethnic purity in order to evolve into a democratic society. Indeed, in closing on itself, the ethnic community cannot but take note of its own internal divisions promoted by different class interests, diverse religious commitments, unequal regional and local statuses, etc. The way this diversity is recognized, better still allowed freedom of expression and organization decides its democratic future.

If diversity is a requirement of democratic organization, why then reject it in the greater union only to reestablish it in a smaller unit? Why not struggle here and now to organize the already given diversity into a democratic society? All the more reason for opting for the great union is that the postponement of democracy in the name of ethnicity could have the adverse effect of consecrating the model of a uniform society, which constitutes the stuff of all one-party systems, presidents for life, fundamentalist states, in short of dictatorial regimes. What political systems pursuing the socialist ideology, identifying state and religion, or enforcing ethnic hegemony or purity, have in common is the practice of exclusion and the attendant totalitarian rule. To say so is to understand that polarizing politics, whatever its claim, is never about democracy. It is about empowering elites whose exclusiveness requires nothing short of totalitarian rule.

The belief that identity politics is the path to democracy ignores at its own perils the lessons of its application in Ethiopia. Not only are other ethnic groups suffering under the yoke of the hegemony of one sectarian elite claiming to represent the interests of an ethnic group, but also those who are supposed to be represented are made powerless against their own representatives. Indeed, to politically challenge the Tigrean ruling elite, Tigreans need to associate with other ethnic groups and they cannot do so without going against identity politics and establishing associations with other people based on class, professional, religious, etc., interests. But in so doing, they are certain to provoke the repressive power of the elite representing them, which power is no longer dependent on Tigray because it controls the national state of Ethiopia. In sum, all those who expect democracy through the ethnic path should pause for one moment and ponder over the saying: “የቆጡን አወርድ ብላ የብብቷን ጣለች.”

–

Messay Kebede is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Dayton in Ohio. He taught philosophy at Addis Ababa University from 1976 to 1993. He also served as chair of the department of philosophy from 1980 to 1991.

Ethiopia: The great media crackdown

Why this affects all Africans?

Johannesburg (South Africa) – Ahead of elections this year, the Ethiopian government is cracking down hard on any kind of free press – shutting down publications, jailing journalists and harassing their families. This is not just Ethiopia’s problem, however. As the home of the African Union, and as an oft-punted role model for African development, Ethiopia’s censorship problem is Africa’s too.

It’s not easy being a journalist in Ethiopia. In fact, it is nearly impossible, according to a new Human Rights Watch report that documents the scale of the state’s censorship apparatus. As journalists ourselves, it makes for highly disturbing reading (and once again highlights why the South African media fraternity’s fight against the proposed secrecy bill is so important – the distance between that and the Ethiopian situation is not so far as one might think).

“Ethiopia’s government has systematically assaulted the country’s independent voices, treating the media as a threat rather than a valued source of information and analysis,” said Leslie Lefkow, deputy Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “Ethiopia’s media should be playing a crucial role in the May elections, but instead many journalists fear that their next article could get them thrown in jail.”

The authors of the report spoke to 70 Ethiopian journalists, many in exile, who painted a dismal picture of the state of Ethiopian media. The government exerts control in many different ways – some subtle, some quite the opposite.

According to the report, “Most print publications in Ethiopia are closely affiliated with the government and rarely stray from government perspectives on critical issues. Private print publications face numerous regulatory challenges and regular harassment from security personnel. Publications critical of government are regularly shut down, and printers and distributors of critical publications are closed. Journalists critical of government policies and their families live in constant fear of harassment, arrest, and losing their livelihoods. The state controls most of the media, and the few surviving private media self-censor their coverage of politically sensitive issues for fear of being shut down.”

This is bad news for Ethiopia, of course. It is rarely a good sign when a government attacks the press – as South Africans in particular we can appreciate the dangers of a single, state-sponsored narrative.

But it is also bad news for the continent as a whole.

The Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa is home to the African Union, the continental body tasked with driving African development and righting the continent’s many wrongs. This makes it the de facto African capital, a hub of diplomatic intrigue; a place where important people meet to exchange secrets and conclude deals; and the centre around which so much of Africa’s politics revolves.

If we want to know what’s happening in Africa, we need to know what’s happening in Addis Ababa. Without a free press, we can’t. How else are we going to figure out what exactly our leaders are up to? They are certainly not going to tell us themselves.

It’s not just media, either. Ethiopia keeps a close eye on NGOs and think tanks working in the country too, even those with continental mandates, and has the power to grant or deny access to the African Union by manipulating visas – if you don’t get a visa for Ethiopia, you don’t get to visit the AU. This makes researchers and advocacy organisations very wary of being too critical of the current Ethiopian administration, even when they shout loudly about the failings of other African governments.

This means, ultimately, that we are getting a distorted picture of the Ethiopian story – and the Ethiopian story is a vital one in the context of African development. Ethiopia, along with Rwanda, is advocating a very specific developmental model, one that prioritises economic growth and socio-economic rights ahead of liberal luxuries such as democracy, participation and human rights. The theory is that it’s ok to silence opposition and crack down on media as long as the government is improving employment, education, health, etc.

The figures suggest that this model might just be working. Ethiopia’s GDP is growing at about 10.4% while over the past decade, the country has registered statistically significant growth in the welfare, education and health categories of the Ibrahim Index of African Governance. But can we trust these figures?

A recent example from Rwanda, where free press is also non-existent, is instructive. On 15 January, David Himbara, a former economic adviser to President Paul Kagame, explained in an op-ed on Quartz why he quit his job. “I resigned not only because he was tyrannizing the nation, but also because he asked me to tamper with the truth about the economy,” he said.

Himbara argues that the apparent successes of Rwanda’s model for economic growth are illusory, and based on poor or deliberately misleading data. But in the absence of a free press, or a free civil society, this data goes unchallenged, and the Rwandan model is hailed as a success and eyed by other African leaders (especially those with an authoritarian streak) as a role model for their own countries.

So too with Ethiopia: without anyone to tell us otherwise, Ethiopia’s development approach looks like it is working, even if it’s not (this is not to judge this approach one way or the other, just to observe that in the absence of any kind of independent information we cannot gauge its effectiveness).

So that’s why the absence of independent media in Ethiopia affects us all. Without the beady eye of a free press observing the diplomatic shenanigans in Addis Ababa, we really have no idea what deals our leaders are making at the AU or why they are making them; and we run the real risk that the Ethiopian story will become the African story, without any real idea if that story is fact or fiction.

Source: Daily Maverick (South Africa)

CPJ, rights groups slam Dawit Kebede over allegations

NED cancelled Awramba Times funding over concerns

by Tamru Ayele

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Oakland Institute (OI) and Survival International (SI) have strongly rejected and condemned Dawit Kebede’s recent allegations against several global advocacy groups.  The groups said such an irresponsible and unsubstantiated allegation that has no factual basis is not expected of someone who claims to a journalist committed to informing others.

Dawit Kebede, who was one of the four recipients of CPJ’s International Press Freedom Award in 2010, recently appeared on the state-run ETV and accused CPJ, Oakland Institute , Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International Rivers, Survival International and the International Crisis Group of being tools of imposing Western hegemony. “These organizations are part of an overall allegiance to control the world under one single ideology,” he had asserted.

Sue Valentine, CPJ Africa Program Coordinator,said in a statement that CPJ was very disappointed with Kebede’s unwarranted attacks. “We were hurt and disappointed when we read articles summarizing a television interview with Dawit in which he was critical of CPJ.”

Sue Valentine, CPJ Africa Program Coordinator

Valentine indicated that CPJ had requested Kebede to clarify his allegations, but blamed it on inaccurate translation. CPJ had the 28-minute long interview translated and verified that the former press freedom hero had indeed tried to defame the reputable defender of press freedom with allegations that are contrary to the missions of the organization. CPJ also campaigned for the release of Kebede when he was unjustly incarcerated in 2005.

“CPJ honored Dawit Kebede based on his journalistic work prior to 2010,” Valentine noted. “Based on his recent TV interview, he appeared to have changed his views. We do not know why, but he is obviously entitled to his opinion. However, CPJ strongly rejects any suggestion that we seek to impose a ‘Western hegemony’ on other countries and continents. CPJ’s sole mandate is to defend the right of all journalist to express their views and to report the news freely,” she added.

According to Valentine, CPJ’s Africa Program defends the right of all journalists working on the continent to report news and opinion freely and independently, without pressure from governments, big business or any other interest groups.

Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute, said on her part that making unsubstantiated allegations without substantiating them with facts is not expected of a journalist. “My advice, despite all obstacles and human rights abuses in a repressive regime, stay true to your profession of journalism.  Like the Oakland Institute, whose mission is to increase public participation and promote fair debate on critical social, economic and environmental issues, do not take things for granted. Research objectively and independently, questioning the official discourse of both governments and NGOs, but seek the truth for yourself,” she advised.

Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute

“If we were controlled by Western governments, our work would not have exposed and challenged the support of the USAID and Dfid of Ethiopia’s “development” strategy and ignoring of human rights abuse. Our work and methodology speaks for itself and we cannot take seriously every allegation made by a journalist who has now made up with a regime that abuses its own citizens. Let us not forget that according to the CPJ 17 journalists are still languishing in the jails while hundreds fled and now live in exile,” she added.

Mittal pointed out that unlike Kedebe’s allegations, all of OI’s reports clearly mention the methodology used and evidence provided to substantiate the allegations of human rights abuses, forced displacement that are being carried out in Ethiopia. “This work has been carried out through extensive field work in the communities impacted, often at great risk to the researchers.  We have also provided documentation such as the recordings and transcripts from investigations carried out by the donors. So this is not about our word against Mr. Kedebe’s words. This is about who has the proof,” Mittal said.

With regard to accusations that organisations like OI are attempting to impede development in Ethiopia, she said that forced displacement of communities from their lands and livelihoods cannot be justified as development. “Ethiopia’s food security is based on food aid and other development aid while it gives away its resources to foreign investors. You don’t need a rocket scientist that this is not development, but a destructive policy in action that will make the country dependent on foreign aid, destroy local communities and their livelihoods and food security, and usher in insecurity and conflicts,” the OI chief noted.

Alice Bayer, Press Officer at Survival International, explained that Survival is an international organization with supporters in about 80 countries around the world, including Ethiopia and China, and defends the rights of  tribal peoples that have developed ways of life that are largely self-sufficient and extraordinary diverse. “Our only goal is for these ways of life to be respected. Of course, this means that we stand for many different ideologies, and tribal peoples’ right to live by them. The Ethiopian government  stands guilty of imposing its aggressive ideology, on the tribes of the Omo Valley, who merely wish to be allowed to live their lives as they choose and not have ‘development’ projects violently forced upon them,” she said.

Funded by their supporters and independent funding sources, the advocacy groups never accept any funding from government agencies.

Meanwhile, the National Endowment for Democracy, which supports democratic institutions around the world, has disclosed that it discontinued funding Awramba Times due to concerns after supporting it between 2011 to 2014.

Jane Jacobsen, NED’s Senior Director, Public Affairs said that the Endowment funded Awramba Times to produce and disseminate content that promotes good governance, transparency, rule of law, human rights and the importance of democratic institutions. “In light of concerns that Awramba Times was not meeting the above project objectives NED discontinued its funding in January 2014.”

According to its annual report, NED’s funding beneficiaries in Ethiopia include Center for International Private Enterprise ($527,008), Debebe and Temesgen Law Office ($72,000), Forum for Social Studies, Peace and Development Center (?) , and Vision Ethiopian Congress for Democracy ($34,992).

The TPLF-led regime has repeatedly accused NED of funding groups and individuals bent on overthrowing the government. Ironically, Mimi Sebhatu, a vocal defender of tyranny in Ethiopia, was one of the recipients of NED’s money. In 2011 Kebede had fled Ethiopia and told CPJ that he had been targeted by pro-government media outlets and Mimi Sebhat, whom he accused of attacking him on her station, Zami FM Radio.

A few years ago, Mimi Sebhatu received $26,740 from NED while Kebede received $36,000 annually from 2011-2014, according to public records. In an ironic twist, both Mimi and Dawit are now attacking individuals and organizations, including CPJ and NED, that expose gross human rights violations in Ethiopia. They are currently funded by  the TPLF-led tyrannical regime, reliable sources say.

————–

Ethiopian Government Intensifies Crackdown on Dissent

(Human Rights Watch, Nairobi) – The Ethiopian government during 2014 intensified its campaign of arrests, prosecutions, and unlawful force to silence criticism, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2015. The government responded to peaceful protests with harassment, threats, and arbitrary detention, and used draconian laws to further repress journalists, opposition activists, and critics.

“The Ethiopian government fell back on tried and true measures to muzzle any perceived dissent in 2014,” said Leslie Lefkow, deputy Africa director. “Journalists and dissenters suffered most, snuffing out any hope that the government would widen political space ahead of the May 2015 elections.”

In the 656-page world report, its 25th edition, Human Rights Watch reviews human rights practices in more than 90 countries. In his introductory essay, Executive Director Kenneth Roth urges governments to recognize that human rights offer an effective moral guide in turbulent times, and that violating rights can spark or aggravate serious security challenges. The short-term gains of undermining core values of freedom and non-discrimination are rarely worth the long-term price.

Ethiopia’s dismal rights record faced little criticism from donor countries in 2014. Throughout the year, state security forces harassed and detained leaders and supporters of Ethiopian opposition parties. Security personnel responded to protests in Oromia in April and May with excessive force, resulting in the deaths of at least several dozen people, and the arrests of hundreds more. The authorities regularly blocked the Semawayi (Blue) Party’s attempts to hold protests.

Media remain under a government stranglehold, with many journalists having to choose between self-censorship, harassment and arrest, and exile. In 2014, dozens of journalists fled the country following threats. In July, the government charged seven bloggers known as Zone 9 and three journalists under the abusive Anti-Terrorism Proclamation. In August, the owners of six private publications were charged under the criminal code following threats against their publications. The government blocks websites and blogs and regularly monitors and records telephone calls.

The authorities have been displacing indigenous populations without appropriate consultation or compensation in the lower Omo Valley to make way for the development of sugar plantations. Villagers and activists who have questioned the development plans face arrest and harassment.

The government showed no willingness to amend the Anti-Terrorism Law or the Charities and Societies Proclamation, despite increasing condemnation of these laws for violating basic rights. Authorities more rigorously enforced the Charities and Societies Proclamation, which bars organizations from working on human rights, good governance, conflict resolution, and advocacy on the rights of women, children, and people with disabilities if the organizations receive more than 10 percent of their funds from foreign sources.

“The government’s crackdown on free expression in 2014 is a bad sign for elections in 2015,” Lefkow said.