|
May 07, 2007
In
Defense of Peaceful Struggle
by Tesfaye Habisso
"...An armed resistance movement takes shape in the womb
of oppression. Its seeds are to be found in the eternal quest for equality and freedom. But though born of natural parents it is at
birth illegitimate--because it breaches the existing legal frame, andseeks to supplant it. And that simple fact has much to do with its
subsequent development and growth. An armed resistance movement acquires legitimacy and becomes 'lawful' through its growth
and success--not simply because the ends it seeks to achieve are
just---The metamorphosis from 'unlawful' to 'lawful' is gradual (and
many layered) and is related not only to their justice of the ends it
seeks to achieve and the legality of the means it employs but also
the extent to which a guerrilla movement is able to secure and maintain permanent control of territory. It is not a case of one or
the other, but a case of all three." [N. S., 22 Oct. 1998]
Modern Ethiopia is the product of many millenia of interaction among many peoples of diverse origins, cultures, customs, beliefs, religions and language groups that have inhabited the Horn of Africa from time immemorial. Many dynastic regimes claiming descent from these diverse nationalities and linguistic groups--Cushitic, Semitic, etc.-- have alternated in lording over these peoples in a loosely confederated polity for many centuries. In this regard, no other groups have equally played such a decisive role in molding and shaping today's Ethiopia as the Oromos, the Agaws, the Amharas, the Tigreans, the Afars and the Somali, the major cultural-linguistic communities amongst the more than 70 or so such communities that played a dominant role in the making of the Ethiopian nation. This is what many historians call the "mosaic of nationalities" in Ethiopia. And this is what many of us proudly claim our " beauty in diversity". There have never been any alien colonizers ruling over any of the aforementioned ethnic groups or nationalities in Ethiopia as some dissident groups today
unashamedly fret to portray to the world. If by colonization we mean the absolute occupation of peoples and their lands and obliterating the cultures, languages, religions and identities of the conquered peoples through forceful assimilation by other more organized and more powerful peoples, it had been the Oromos, the Amharas, the Tigreans, the Afars and the Somali that played a considerable role in Ethiopia's history, though the political significance of some of these groups was drastically reduced since the coming to state power of the Shoan Amhara elites under Emperor Haile Sellassie I around the beginning of the 20th century and the subsequent centralization of the empire-state under his imperial regime up until the demise of the monarchy in 1974. This is what written historical accounts of ancient and modern Ethiopia clearly attest to and yet it is an irony that most of the so-called separatist movements proclaiming the banner of 'liberation' come from amongst the very groups that molded and shaped the historical setting and the cultural/religious make-up of modern Ethiopia and not from the southern peoples that were incorporated into the empire-state by Emperor
Menilik II in the 19th century. What an irony, indeed.
Whatever the case, over the past several years, many liberation fronts and armed resistance movements have been formed by different political and social forces with the declared aim of not only 'liberating' their particular cultural-linguistic communities from state-sponsored terrorism,
colonization, oppression and tyranny but some of them even to break up this ancient and common country of diverse peoples in the name of national self-determination (secession) and create their own independent mini-states. The main reason for the proliferation of such movements outside of the nation's political arena is, allegedly, historical injustices and the persistent suppression and oppression of their peoples by the central government in Addis Abeba composed mainly of ruling elites from the north ( dominantly, formerly of Amhara and now of Tigrai Abyssinian extraction) ; others accusing the incumbent regime of discriminatory policies that marginalize their respective ethnic groups in state, legislative and judicial power sharing and denial of their constitutional right to self-rule and fully fledged regional/ethnic autonomy; persecution of opposition political groups, lack of rule of law, curtailment of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, and intolerance for dissent, and the absence of an open political space and a conducive political environment at home. The number of such movements has in fact grown over the past few years and months, with AFD joining their ranks just recently, again, accusing the incumbent party and regime of denying them the necessary political space in
the nation's political arena. In this regard, three movements are worth noting--the EPRP, the OLF and the ONLF. The EPRP, the OLF and the ONLF have been pursuing armed struggle since 1973, 1974 and 1984 respectively, persistently and unabatedly but without any tangible successes so far, except making successive regimes jittery and causing considerable damage to human life and property. Their relentless efforts have not paid off to the chagrin and disaffection of many erstwhile supporters at home and abroad. They have been wasting huge resources and losing many hundreds of precious lives for such a long time in vain. Their sacrifices will not pay off even now and in the future for a number of credible reasons. This is not only because times have changed but because they are out of touch with the basic principles which bring about a fundamental political change. First of all, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) Constitution of 1994 has fully addressed the age-long aspirations of the various ethnic nationalities by guaranteeing the inalienable right of each ethnic nationality to
practice self-rule in its own historical territory and shared rule at the regional and federal government levels, in brief, their full right to national self-determination up to and including secession. This is fully entrenched in the FDRE Constitution of 1994 and being gradually implemented in all the ethnic territories and regions as well as at the federal state level since 1991, though a lot remains to be desired as to its quality and depth of implementation.
Whatever the case, the FDRE is a union forged on the basic principle of the voluntary unity of all its diverse peoples, nations and nationalities and this unambiguous will was expressly pronounced in the Preamble of the FDRE 1994 Constitution which was the outcome of the deliberations and consequent ratification of the draft constitution by the Constituent Assembly composed of the democratically elected representatives of the more than eighty nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia, and the Union is not like a taxi where every ethnic nationality can jump in and out at any time, as some misguided ethnic elites fret to convince their innocent followers. The constitutional right of secession is deemed to serve as a guarantee for the territorial integrity of the Ethiopian State and the respect of the peoples rights to national self-determination and surely not a
license for the dissolution of the state or the creation of new states excised from the Ethiopian state.
In today's Ethiopia, there is no ground-swell support for any separatist and secessionist causes/demands among the respective linguistic-cultural communities that the so-called liberation fronts/movements claim to be representing. Given the prevailing situation in Ethiopia and informed by the ghastly events witnessed during the disintegration of the former U.S.S.R and the Republic of Yugoslavia in 1989, Ethiopians throughout the nation are well aware that secession could lead to even greater and unimaginable hardships for the respective ethnic nationality in particular and the whole people in general, exacerbating the old problems and even creating new ones. As bitterly observed, "both in the former Soviet Union and especially in ex-Yugoslavia, secession and the drawing up of new borders has been accompanied by massive acts of so-called ethnic cleansing [Bennet 1995]. There is no guarantee that such ethnic cleansing, maybe worse, would not occur in Ethiopia if any secessionist
groups) succeeds in achieving its objective.
The creation of new states in any region in Africa could indeed lead to even higher levels of human suffering than those suffered by many nations in the former U.S.S.R or Yugoslavia during the last decade or so. "...the logic of secession works against seceding states, threatening an infinite regress of
self-determination" [Zartman 1995: 268].
Secondly, whatever cause any one of these groups seek to pursue, people in all regions are fully aware that there is clearly the peaceful option of struggle and the political space is quite open for competitive struggle to advance and push their objectives, as long as they are willing to abide by the laws of the country and to accept the constitutional order in place. All ethnic groups in Ethiopia are aware of this reality: their right to self-rule and shared rule can be realized in a common country and under a common Ethiopian citizenship through peaceful and democratic struggle, not by creating many new mini-states out of this great and ancient country of fabulous history. Most of all, of course, in this era of globalization, using the peaceful option of one man, one vote to influence political decisions is the only civilized and acceptable method of political participation and most successful in shaping or charting the future of any nation. In today's world, raising the slogan of national self-determination to achieve one's secessionist goal does not enjoy any sympathy from any country or international organization and any act of physical force which threatens the lives of innocent people, and which constitutes the basis of terrorism, is mostly counter-productive.
Today, the slogan has become the tool of the weak and no longer palatable
to the ears of the strong, the shakers and movers of the politics of the
fast-global zing world. Be this as it may, whatever cause we seek to pursue we must at all times seek the support of the ordinary people, for it is them and them alone we seek to serve or to liberate. This was indeed the secret behind the successes of the EPLF and the TPLF forces after three and two decades respectively of armed struggle supported by their ethnic groups or peoples. In today's Ethiopia, the struggle for national self-determination in the form of self-rule and full autonomy under a common
democratized state and a common Ethiopian citizenship, the struggle for freedom from oppression and tyranny is a justified, justifiable and noble cause. But such a struggle should never target innocent civilians to be massacred like cattle, akin to the extermination of 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany or the Rwanda genocide of 1994 where more than a million Tutsis were massacred by the dominant Hutu regime. It must be understood that the struggle for freedom and self-determination does not at all mean 'other extermination' or 'ethnic cleansing' as perpetrated in different parts of Ethiopia by the OLF and ONLF forces over the last several years. Ethnic cleansing, mass killings and the maiming and torturing of innocent citizens cannot be supported by the people and the international community at large. Without their support the liberation movements cannot succeed and anything that does not warrant that support is negative and self-defeating.
Furthermore, unlike the natural sciences, in the social sciences under which falls the realm of politics, experiments cannot be replicated to produce a similar outcome. This is an established law.
In the 'laboratory' of politics, the ingredients or variables used in political experiments are in a constant change, making reproduction of a previous combination impossible.
Internationally renowned revolutionary Che Guevara tried to reproduce the Cuban revolution in
Bolivia: It end was absolute disaster. Che and his men were rounded up and massacred. The Americans tried to reproduce the Entebbe successful raid by the Israelis in Entebbe (Uganda), in Tehran (Iran) in 1979 and the outcome was, again, a complete disaster; it ended in the death and capture of many American soldiers. Recent spectacular cases were all pitiable
failures. Rwanda's attempt to reproduce the 1997 Mobutu's ousting in Congo in August 1998 and South African white
mercenaries' attempt to overthrow the government of Guinea in 2006 were utter failures.
We have witnessed how leaders of the OLF, EPRP, AESM (MEISON), MEDHIN, ONLF, ENPF, ARDUF and many other armed resistance movements have tried to reproduce the EPLF's and the TPLF's successful political experiments. The copy-cats have failed so miserably that they cannot even live in their own country of birth. Imitation appears to be a national malady in Ethiopia. Someone starts a restaurant, a shop or a beauty saloon and everyone else with some idle or even borrowed money rushes to replicate the same business, most often, just beside the first one or in the same
vicinity/neighborhood. Isaias Afewerki (EPLF) and Meles Zenawi (TPLF) go to the bush and twenty-seven and sixteen years later become President and Prime Minister of Eritrea and
Ethiopia respectively, and every leader of a liberation movement/front gets ideas that he/she can do the same. That is a fallacy. The global situation has fundamentally changed for so-called liberation movements since the end of the Cold War era. It does not
favor the success of any armed struggles against nation-states or multi-nation states in this era of fast
global zing world. Anyway, what does this say about our national character? It shows that we are not a creative people, a people who cannot produce and execute new ideas, whether in business, politics, or whatever field of human
endeavor. At one point, former Kenyan president, Daniel Arap Moi and his KANU party were thought unmovable and unshakable. Then Raila Odinga tried out a new idea by joining KANU. His friends in the opposition called him a traitor. Moi probably thought this was a big catch, but an idea that would bring a political change in Kenya had been set in motion.
The ideas of Isaias Afewerki and Meles Zenawi of starting a protracted people's war with a few committed comrades-in-arms in the deserts of Eritrea and Tigrai in 1965 and 1975 respectively sounded like a big joke that sent many of the heavy-weights in the regimes of the day laughing in the beginning. They were labeled as
'sneaky bandits' (woor woor yemilu shiftoch, in Amharic). However, the heavy-weights were not laughing by 1990/1991. Why? Because the geo-political landscape of the 1980s and 1990s was quite conducive for armed nationalist struggles to succeed, further augmented by the rivalries of the West and the East in the then prevailing Cold War era. But not since the crumbling of the U.S.S.R, the demise of the Cold War era, and the incredible weakening of the Socialist camp in 1991. It should dawn on all Ethiopian dissidents at home and abroad that neither
Isayas nor Meles's formulae and fortunes can be reproduced and reaped by them in today's world. Even
Isaias and Meles themselves cannot do it again.
Many of our dissidents at home and abroad should come up with fresh ideas on political change in Ethiopia, a non-violent one, most preferably. We live in a uni-polar world, dictated and controlled by the national interests of the sole superpower: the USA. We live in a time when armed resistance movements and the so-called liberation movements, except perhaps the Palestinians, the Chechens, the Tamil Tigers and the
Kashmir's, are fortunately or unfortunately treated as terrorists with no reliable source of support for their cause. This precarious situation must be properly understood and a different and viable strategy adopted. An understanding of the strengths, weaknesses and compatibility of political variables and their likely reactions when combined will be the next movers and shakers in Ethiopian politics. All those groups that use guns, explosives and terrorist attacks and mass killings do huge political damage to their cause even if "their declared ends to achieve may be just".
Today, the nation's political arena is relatively
liberalized and all those who accept and respect the constitutional order in place and abide by the laws of the country can operate without much difficulty. Such an environment is there; it cannot be denied. The spectacular successes of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) in the national elections of May 15, 2005 are a glaring example of what a committed and peaceful struggle can bring forth. Though the CUD failed to make use of this golden opportunity based on spectacular election results that it unexpectedly secured at the national elections and to turn them into parliamentary seats and the full control of the Addis Abeba city council, the fact stares in the face of all opposition parties that peaceful struggle will produce the desired results in the present political environment in Ethiopia. Therefore, pursuing all legal and peaceful avenues of resolving conflicts through respectful dialogue, compromise and negotiations and, if these fail, adopting non-violent methods such as civil disobedience, strikes, sit-ins,
boycotts, etc, if competitive politics degenerates into undesired and undesirable situations could produce much better results and much sooner than confrontational politics or armed struggles which are by their very nature vindictive and violent, with no 'green light at the end of the tunnel', so to speak. Non-violent methods and tactics as used by
Mahatma Ghandi against British rule in India, by Martin Luther King, Jr, in his fight for civil rights for blacks in the U.S. and by Nelson Mandela in his struggle against apartheid rule in South Africa are noteworthy historical examples of peaceful struggles that achieved the desired victories for their peoples. Can't we learn lessons from these spectacular achievements of peaceful struggle? Furthermore, there is no guarantee that any liberation front/movement that may oust the present regime by violence will be any better than the current one--more democratic, more peaceful and better law-abiding and better responsive to the needs and aspirations of our people. That is simply not true but an illusion and a pipe-dream, so to speak.
Finally, let all leaders of armed resistance/liberation movements try to re-examine and reflect upon and properly understand the political variables of their times. That is what can make them achieve what they want to achieve, if their causes are legitimate and just. As it is said, the only force that can overcome an idea and a faith is another better idea and faith whose time has come, and such noble ideas are conceived under conditions of peace, tranquility, and stability, not under chaotic and violent conditions, conditions shaped by the spirit of hatred, vengeance and violence. There is no certainty that we may not be hurled into a blood-curdling catastrophe, and a situation that may be like being thrown "from a burning fire to a frying pan". Who wants that to happen? Nobody. Therefore, let us search for peaceful, pragmatic and people-friendly ideas instead of being squelched in self- destructive and violent armed struggles. All those who come to power through violence will rule by violence and will be removed from power through violent methods. How long do we want to repeat such costly and unreliable methods of struggle? Isn't our bitter experience of the past three decades or so enough to reject all attempts of coming to the helm of state power through the barrel of the gun? Let us struggle to attain a win-win situation for all of us: political parties, religious and ethnic groups and not a winner-takes-all approach, akin to the so-called 'knock-out system' applied in soccer competition. Lasting peace and stability can only be attained through responsible, persistent and peaceful struggles and not via violent means. Peaceful struggle is the only way forward so long as the political space is not closed for such peaceful competition to power. Armed resistance against oppression and tyranny is necessitated as a last resort when all avenues for peaceful struggle are completely closed. Otherwise, it is bloody, long-drawn out strife and very costly, without any reliable outcome or success. Violence and bloodshed will beget more violence and more bloodshed and not peace and prosperity. The only practical and reliable way forward for all of us Ethiopians, the liberators and those to be liberated, is the path of peaceful struggle. All other options have failed so far and are destined to fail even in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
