|
Belated
Yet Very Important Revisiting the Question of Nationalism to
Critique Siye Abraha and Tedros Kiros (PhD)
Adal
Isaw adalisaw@yahoo.co
March
18, 2008
At least for now, nationalism is the front
and center primary dossier that holds all of the Ethiopian political
questions into a single modes operandi. In other words, nationalism is a
political, sociological, and philosophical concept that which strings
ideas of freedom, independence, dignified sense of self and belonging, and
all of the emotions and practices that the greater aspect of sovereignty
brings forth.
In the lexicon of political terminology and
the English language dictionary, nationalism is a derivative of nation- a
word often confused to mean state as often as state is confused to mean
nation likewise. States and nations make up our contemporary political
world. And by definition, a state consists of an area of territory which
is under the single rule of a government, and nation is a hard to define
sociological, political, and philosophical concept often loosely and
incorrectly used to mean ‘state.’
Oromos, Basques, Amharas, Scots, Tigreans,
Catalans, Ukraine, and Hungarians are nations, but of these, only the
Ukrains and Hungarians have states where most of the citizens are members
of the nation; the other six, that is, Tigreans, Catalans, Oromos,
Basques, Amharas, and the Scots nations are citizens of states which
contain members of other nations. The implication of this definition is
far greater than you might have imagined it to be, and here is the reason
why.
As Ethiopians, we have argued passionately
and to no avail so far, as to what it means to be an Ethiopian. At times,
the question of who is Ethiopian is foretold for others by those who know
little about whom they ask a pledge from. Even those Ethiopian PhD holders
of social science discipline, have erroneously define what it means to be
an Ethiopian, mistaking state for nation and nation for state in a spiral
unenlightened diatribe to the abyss.
Tedros kiros (PhD), paraphrasing and
accepting Siyes argument in his article on January 7, 2008, wrote, the
"New Thinking seeks to draw from the values of classical Ethiopian
personality: respect for tradition, tenacity, resistance and cultural
pride."1 As fairly educated
Ethiopian, I cannot still fathom the fact that this aforementioned
presumption came from a PhD holder. The presupposition is fraught with so
many idiotic hidden assumptions and conclusions that there is no need to a
course in logic for any interested person to bring those to light.
The "New Thinking," according to
Siye and Kiros, " seeks to draw the value of classical Ethiopian
personality," as if the contemporary values of Ethiopia are failing
us. What is classical and what isn’t is being tacitly spoken here. It’s
the unstated assumption that tells and considers all the contemporary
value holder Ethiopians to nock-off what they think and do, and replace it
with a millenial old tenacious cultural pride of an Ethiopian part and
parcel. Dangerously and idiotically, I should add, it is this kind of
presupposition, and an assertion of jingoistic nationalist fervor that
makes the Somali, Sidama, Sidamo, Welayita, Oromia, and the many nations
that compose the contemporary Ethiopian state tick for a good reason. All
these nations that make the Ethiopian state are endowed with their own
unique and beautiful culture that neither Kiros nor Siye has ever been
able to experience let alone live it.
We have just started to appreciate the many
beautiful diverse nations that we have had for years, which we
nevertheless managed to ignore and ridicule for a long depriving time. Are
we to succumb to that old prevalent tradition of lifting up the concept
and perceptions of one nation to the zenith while depressing another to
the bottom of the pit? We cannot possibly adhere and give prevalence and
dominance to one and only one part of our history, to mold the rest of
nations and peoples of the Ethiopian state into what Siye and kiros are
constructing- the "classical Ethiopian personality." It’s this
thinking and the failure to see nations as nations rather than nations as
states or as nation-states that woke me up in the middle of the night to
write and critique those who would other wise hamper the state of affairs
of Ethiopia.
A nation-sate is a state where the majority
of the members are from one nation. Iceland is the quintessential example
of a nation-state, and Japan qualifies as one among the major states of
our world. Not surprisingly, cohesiveness among people who stand to
compose a nation-state is stronger than in a state where many nations
stand to create it. Because, in a state of many nations, a nation may rise
to dominate other nations by disadvantaging them politically,
economically, and socially. The greater number of countries in the world
are states composed of many nations, and this includes our country
Ethiopia. As it is evident in our own history, a nation in our country had
risen to dominate other nations by way of tradition, culture, and language
to create an un even political, economic, and social power structures. To
correct this injustice, we have made most of the necessary changes. The
new Ethiopian state has been born, where all of the nations of the state
stand equally at the same pedestal of political, social, and economic
power.
The kind of Ethiopia that Kiros and Siye
are willing to construct in their newly found "New Thinking" is
similar ( not exactly the same) to the impossible task that America is
undertaking to create a nation-state out of the diverse immigrant groups
of the world. The United States, which was built on an immigrant culture
of people from many nations, explicitly promotes the idea that immigrants
become American, that is, become members of the nation, so that a
nation-state with Anglo-Saxon deeply held values, culture, and language
becomes the end result. In fact, Kiros and Siye are going further than
what America is hoping to create. Siye and Kiros are asking all the
nations that compose the state of Ethiopia to transform themselves into
what Siye and Kiros are very familiar with -"the classical Ethiopian
personality"
What is perceived by both Kiros and Siye as
"classical Ethiopian personality" is not something that is made
out of the culture, tradition, and language of the many nations that stand
to make up the state of Ethiopia. Instead, it’s what has been acquired
from the historical, cultural, and traditional perspective of part and
parcel of a region of Ethiopia.
Revisiting the question of nationalism can
be a salve to the fulfillment
of all Ethiopia’s endeavor by correcting false premises that would
otherwise have the potential to pit one nation with another. As nations
who compose the state of Ethiopia, we cannot afford to continue acting as
a group of quarrelsome people. When ever there is a discord about pivotal
issues, the source of the disagreement should be explored to comprehend
the real nature of the problem rather than stretching it to mean love of a
country or lack there of. This approach might lead us to find a resolution
faster in time and may give us a wider understanding of the issues that
Siye and Kiros are failing to show us thus far.
|
