Uncategorized - Hager Wodad Los Angeles

Political Rhetoric…..

Political Rhetoric in Ethiopia: The Allure of Bullshit?

Political Rhetoric in Ethiopia: The Allure of Bullshit?

Embracing Unity & Progress: Drawing Lessons from Adwa’s Legacy in Ethiopia

March 10,2024 Ethiopia, a nation steeped in a rich history and diverse cultural tapestry, has navigated periods of political turbulence, with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) significantly influencing its trajectory. Reflecting on the TPLF’s governance provides valuable insights, highlighting the imperative need for a national agenda that embodies the true essence of Ethiopia. This perspective emphasizes the importance of unity, stability, and sustainable development as foundational pillars for the nation’s progress. The recent era marked by TPLF’s rule witnessed a reliance on ethnic-based politics, resulting in deep-seated divisions among ethnic groups. This approach, centered on ethnicity as a primary identifier, cultivated mistrust, animosity, and conflicts, eroding the social fabric of Ethiopian society. Acknowledging the mistakes of this past period is crucial to pave the way for a more inclusive and unifying political landscape. Central to our vision is the core value of unity in diversity. Ethiopia’s strength lies in its diversity, encompassing myriad ethnic groups, languages, and cultures. Rather than exploiting these differences for political gain, a national agenda should prioritize unity. Political parties must recognize that Ethiopia’s greatness emanates from the collective contributions of all citizens, irrespective of their ethnic backgrounds. Sustainable economic development and stability hinge on a national agenda that transcends ethnic boundaries. Fostering unity and cooperation allows parties to concentrate on policies promoting economic growth, infrastructure development, and poverty alleviation. Divisive ethnic politics only serve as distractions, impeding the nation’s progress on these critical fronts. The promotion of social cohesion and harmony takes precedence. Ethnic-based politics often marginalize specific groups, fostering resentment and social unrest. A national agenda emphasizing inclusivity and equal opportunities contributes to social cohesion. Building a society where every Ethiopian feels valued and included is indispensable for fostering a sense of belonging and national pride. Preserving and promoting Ethiopia’s rich cultural heritage is facilitated by a national agenda that transcends ethnic lines. Political parties can work towards an educational curriculum that highlights the diverse history, traditions, and customs of all ethnic groups, reinforcing national identity and fostering mutual respect among communities. Ethiopia’s international standing is intricately linked to its internal stability and unity. Embracing a national agenda sends a powerful message globally, signaling Ethiopia’s commitment to inclusive governance and peace. This commitment enhances diplomatic relations, attracts foreign investments, and fosters international cooperation for mutual benefits. The lessons gleaned from TPLF’s rule underscore the critical need to embrace a national agenda that transcends ethnic divisions. Prioritizing unity, economic development, social cohesion, cultural preservation, and international cooperation allows political parties to chart a course towards a more prosperous and harmonious Ethiopia. The country’s strength lies in its diversity, and it is through a shared national vision that Ethiopians can build a future that reflects the true spirit of their nation.

The Need for Transparency

By Samuel Wolde-Yohannes December 16,,2022

Secretiveness, and that is the tendency of withholding information that could be useful or otherwise, is a particularly dominant cultural trait in our country. Most Ethiopians’ propensity, is to never engage in self-revelation, or in talking about other people’s business. One of the most demeaning insult that one can hurl at another person is to call him or her a woreña, i.e. a gossiper. Whatever one heard about another person’s “business” is shared only among a very close circle of friends, with the implicit proviso that it should never leave that circle. This is a code of conduct one must learn quickly if one desires to live in harmony in the Ethiopian society. One may perceive this as the very essence of discretion and genteelness. However, regardless of the high value place on secretiveness, our society has never been less gossipy and indiscreet than any other. It is only its mode, timing and the circumstance that differ.

Secretiveness cannot and should not be held as a positive trait without qualification just as unlimited openness is not. In fact, both require careful qualifications to be of any good use to society. Just as there is a necessary withholding of information, there must be a necessary limit to openness. Today, we are completely inundated by the ubiquitous social media that set no bound to our self-expression. All done in the name of transparency. But is it? In my view, transparency is much too valuable a word and too charged with positive moral connotation to be used indiscriminately for all forms of “revelations”. For our purpose here, we need to distinguish between transparency as understood in the socio-political realm from what goes on in a free-for-all way in cyber space, and in the so-called free-societies. Before I elaborate on the former, let me address first the latter. What goes overwhelmingly in the social media today in the name of transparency is, in reality, far from being one. What goes on in the social media overwhelmingly is a form of exhibitionism; not seldom in the original sense of the word. Exhibitionism, as is known, is an unhealthy tendency to unnecessary and self-indulgent self-revelation intended to satisfy primarily one’s psychological need or narcissism. It lives and thrives thanks to the vast reservoir of prurience in all societies. It is indeed as useless and unproductive as any form of gossip.

Transparency, properly understood, is not an exercise in self-revelation. It concerns the regulated flow of information expected in well-governed democratic societies. It responds to what citizens require and expect to know, as a right, from their government, in their governance, in their economic transactions, in their education, social affairs, in matters of public health, etc…However, this does not mean that all information, including secrets of the state be shared among all citizens. To reiterate this point, it must be delimited to information that would benefit the citizen in all his or her endeavors, but not to simply fulfill the right of the citizen to know for the sake of fulfilling some “presumed democratic right”. It must be information that would measurably enhance the quality of life of the citizen and his or her well-being in the state.

The notion that all information must be available at a “push of a button” is not only impractical, but could very well unsettle the very architecture of present day states and world order. It may perhaps be realizable in a utopian future!

In closed states, where every information is released or transferred on as need basis, there cannot exist transparency. In fact, one of the crucial differences between open and closed societies is how information is used and shared with the citizens of the state. In an open and democratic state, ideally only information that can jeopardize or endanger the security and well-being of the citizenry and the state is withheld from the public. In closed totalitarian states, all information is withheld unless deemed harmless enough to be shared with citizens. It is for this reason that closed states place higher premium on information than open states!

The objective of withholding information from ordinary citizens in closed states is obvious. It is the primary tool of controlling every aspect of citizens’ lives. The less the people know the better they are controlled. Indeed, the opacity of the workings of the government and its tight hold on information sources keeps the citizenry in check and thus easily manipulable. The whole project of closed states is to deprive the individual citizen of his or her sense of autonomy by depriving him or her access to all other sources of information, except for those officially sanctioned.

Democratic states are usually called open primarily because there is a free flow of information. Sometimes, admittedly, too much as we have come to realize in this age of the Internet. However, there could be serious repercussions if genuinely democratic states were to try to enact laws to restrict the free exchange of information in society except those deemed “too sensitive” for the security and well-being of the state.

Not only transparency is one of the core defining characteristics of democratic states, but it is also at the source of many of its advantages and qualities. It is the source of trust not only between the government and the governed, but also between citizens in the state. The more a government is transparent, within reasonable boundaries, the more it will capture the trust of citizens, and garner, consequently, their cooperation. If citizens sense that their leaders are not being transparent and truthful, but suspect that they are driven by their own hidden agenda or ulterior motives, they will not only withhold their cooperation, but will eventually work actively for their removal. The primary tool through which a government can gain the trust of citizens is by being above all transparent with them.

Transparency has also an indispensable function horizontally, and that is between the governed, i.e. civil society. It not only is equally at the source of trust in society, but also brings with it the necessary conditions for it to be stable, prosperous and peaceful.

In most societies, conflicts arise often because of lack of transparency in the communal, economic and political relations. Since democratic states are grounded on transparency, they consistently create transparent civil societies and cultures. When citizens become cognizant of their rights in all their transactions, they are rarely fearful or reluctant to ask that their rights and prerogatives be respected. Conversely, those in positions of power, or those providing them with all kinds of public and private services, will be aware that they cannot abuse their powers or withhold services without incurring serious penalties. In a sense, transparency in government often translates in transparency in civil society with optimal results.

A system of government that consistently and invariably withholds information from citizens, not only deprives them of some of their rights, but ends up treating them like children unworthy or incapable in dealing with facts and truths. It is by sharing or giving access to information that governments show respect to their citizens. And it is by withholding information that they maintain citizens under constant tutelage. Thus, the act of sharing information in the state is not only a democratic gesture, but also an emancipating one: the citizen is rendered a full participant in his or her own governance.

When governments engage in withholding, obscuring and obfuscating relevant information, their civil societies will be deprived of conditions for genuine dialogue. Indeed, it is the existence of transparency in the state that allows engagement in serious and productive dialogues aimed at resolving many of society’s problems. Where there is no transparency, there can only be empty chatter, done more out of frustration than with a concerted effort to change the status quo.

When governments opt secrecy in all things over necessary transparency, the result is often a society that thrives on speculations and suppositions. Citizens will tend to be swayed by unfounded rumors, hearsay and talk of the town to satisfy their innate desire to “make sense” of things, since those who have knowledge of the facts and truths are unwilling, for reasons that are rarely justifiable, to communicate openly with the public. In this kind of environment, even an eager and persistent press finds itself incapable on its own to extract the truth. I am not speaking here, of course, about legitimate state secrets that must remain so to protect the nation, but of those that can be communicated without adverse consequences, avoiding thus unnecessary speculations in the public.

Finally, to allow genuine transparency within the state is to prepare the ground for a mature, engaged and productive political dialogue for the citizenry. A fact that is at the heart of a more permanent, stable, democratic and peaceful state.

The Illogic and Inconsistency of Killil Creation

by Addisu Admas December 16, 2022

In the very preamble of the current constitution, we read the words “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples” with no clause or codicil defining what these words mean, or what they stand for. It is left to the reader to interpret these words as he or she thinks fit. By what criteria is a group of people belonging to an ethnicity is determined to be a nation, nationality or people? Is it by its population size, land area, or any combination of these? It does not appear to be so since it would be incongruent with the current subdivision of Ethiopia into Killils. The constitution affirms also in Chapter 4 article 47-2, that there are “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples within the states [i.e. Killils]” implying within each state or Killil. Thus, clearly, a Killil by definition is not an expression of self-determination, but an administrative division of convenience. Had the constitution aimed at a logical, though not convenient nor easy outcome, the following points would have been considered or implemented.

The assignment of only one common term, i.e. either nation, nationality, or people (and not all three of them), or, for that matter, any other appellation that seems adequate to every ethnic group that self-defines as such, regardless of its population size or geographic area. Doing so is not only fair, but also eliminates confusion.
The word State and the word Killil – this latter, I should add, is not only inadequate, but is charged with questionable connotation – are not only not equivalent, but would appear to confuse the issues. Ethiopia is a State composed of 11 States (and two chartered cities) within which, or at least from some of which, other states can be formed! [Cfr. Article 47-2: “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples within the States enumerated in sub-Article 1 of this article have the right to establish, at any time, their own States”. A simple straightforward solution would have been to assign “Statehood” to each one of the ethnic groups within Ethiopia. Nevertheless, if the current trend of demanding statehood (or Killil-hood) continues unabated, we will be witnessing this very same outcome. And, despite the federal government’s resistance, nothing can be done because it is enshrined in the constitution!
If the above came to pass, Ethiopia will become a country divided into some 80 states ranging in population from a few thousand to tens of millions, and from territories of a few thousand acres to hundreds of thousands of square kilometers.
De facto, the federal government, including the House of Federation, the House of Peoples’ representatives, and the judiciary would have no right or reason to delay, impede or prohibit self-defined ethnicities from seeking Killil-hood as per article 46-2. The absurdity of the recent measure taken by the head of the SNNP is a clear violation of this article and in fact should be investigated by the House of Federation.

Clearly, the constitution designed by avowed self-determination advocates has created a constitution that is not only incoherent, but defeats the very purpose for which it was framed in the first place, i.e., to create a peaceful, stable, well-governed and hopefully prosperous country.

There is also another major issue that the constitution has not addressed. Even though it clearly states the requirements of Ethiopian citizenship, and speaks of the rights of nationality [article 33], it leaves to the Killils to determine several issues that needed to be at least addressed if not codified in the constitution itself. For example, one of the main reason that we are observing the rise of secessionist groups like OLA (aka Shene) and other lesser-known ones is because the constitution has given the impression that Killils constitute separate and autonomous states free to enact laws that are not necessarily prohibited by the federal constitution, but only presumed to be prohibited. More specifically, being an Ethiopian citizen, for example, should clearly give one the right to reside, work, own property or conduct financial transaction in any Killil of one’s choosing, regardless of one’s ethnic or Killil origin. Yet the perception of many radical advocates of Killil-hood is that there is not only Ethiopian citizenship, but also “undeclared and unsanctioned” citizenship of a Killil! Often the latter taking precedence over the former. Even though this may not have been the objective of the framers of the constitution, by their omission or oversight that is where we are today.

Being of a certain Killil, whether this is based on ethnicity or by some other criterion, should not preclude an Ethiopian citizen, or for that matter any other citizen of the world, to be able to reside, work, do business in any part of the country as long as he or she fulfills the requirements of the law. Yet, by not spelling out clearly the rights of citizenship within the framework of “Killil federalism”, the constitution has essentially and de facto created multiple citizenships within the Ethiopian State. This will remain a source of contention, if not of outright hostilities, for generations to come.

As long as the fundamental rights of every ethnic group in Ethiopia are respected, as stated, for example, in article 39-2 [“Every Nation, Nationality and People of Ethiopia has the right to speak, to write and to develop its own language; to express, to develop and to promote its culture; and to preserve its history”], there is no good reason for multiplying the Killils. There is no reason to have a Killil system if the objective is to provide all ethnicities in the realm the kind of rights described in article 39-2. However, the constitution makes it appear that the only way to achieve the objectives of this article is to follow up with a Killil system. This is where the constitution fails. In fact, Ethiopia has more to gain by restructuring her territory in a manner that not only eliminates the misunderstanding and confusion inherent to the Killil system, but to avoid all possible conflicts, confusion and inconsistencies that the system is bound to lead her into.

One way of doing this is to acknowledge in the constitution itself all the existing ethnicities constituting the Ethiopian State. A statement that will, once and forever, affirm that in one nation there can be many ethnicities as the history of most nations can attest. Whereas in the past, there has been a clear tendency, one would even say forceful program, to homogenize Ethiopia by imposing a language and certain cultural norms, Ethiopia has come to appreciate today her rich ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious variety and a willingness to preserve them. This, however, must not be translated into a system of government that aims, or at least tends to isolate each group within its territorial enclaves in the name of self-determination. As history has also clearly shown, self-determination has produced more poor and unstable states than prosperous and stable ones.

Ethiopia will benefit economically, culturally and most of all politically if the current ongoing subdivision into ever smaller Killils is given up for a more rational and efficient one. This would be a subdivision that while preserving, nurturing and protecting the cultural, linguistic and religious heritage, opts for a more operative and equitable administrative scheme.

The present Killil arrangement has also the tendency of penalizing certain ethnic enclaves that by accident of history, religion or politics are relegated to unfavorable geographic zones. It precludes them from seeking relief in other areas, because venturing outside their Killil would be perceived as encroaching on the “presumed or real” property of other “nations, nationalities and peoples”. The irony of the recent war in Ethiopia is a glaring example why the Killil system is fraught with complications and dead ends. For generations, tens of thousands of Tigreans were able, unhindered and unmolested, to work and live in the fertile lands of Wolkait (what Westerners refer erroneously as western Tigray). It is precisely because of the architecture of the Killil system that the TPLF, perceiving the restrictive prescriptions it inserted in the constitution, began to expand its territory to the west while in power, since it did not want to be confined by its original territory, which could have never sustained the population of its Killil. Some have seen this as a first step towards the creation of the much talked about Greater Tigray ideology. However, evidence indicates that it was likely to circumvent the restrictions of the Killil system that the TPLF engaged in systematic annexations of Wolkait and other areas west of Tigray.

What Ethiopia needs is not a rigidly divided country into Killils, but one where all Ethiopians are free to move, reside, work and vacation without restrictions nor fear. This, as we know, does not only benefit the economy, but will draw ever closer the multitude of Ethiopia’s ethnicities and learn to live peaceably with each other. This reality can never be fulfilled by the present constitution. As many have indicated, there are better ways to configure Ethiopia’s vast and rich land and peoples. It is time to recast or overhaul the constitution of Ethiopia.

Category: Uncategorized

Political Rhetoric…..

Political Rhetoric in Ethiopia: The Allure of Bullshit?

Suggested links to read below..

1)PERFECT

2)PERSPECTIVE

3)Power, Conflict and Identity in Welkait and Raya….See Comments on power Conflict and Identity in Welkait and Raya below….

Embracing Unity & Progress: Drawing Lessons from Adwa’s Legacy in Ethiopia

Embracing Unity & Progress: Drawing Lessons from Adwa’s Legacy in Ethiopia

The Need for Transparency

The Need for Transparency

The Illogic and Inconsistency of Killil Creation

The Illogic and Inconsistency of Killil Creation