Abyss blog
Background
In his latest paper entitled “Ethiopia: Where do we go (or not go) from here?”, Professor Alemayehu cogently discussed possible trajectories Ethiopia
would and should take in the years to come. He questioned how and to
what extent the opposition is doing their jobs compared to what people
in the governing party are doing. The implicit message of the paper is
that the opposition and all concerned Ethiopians must choose and drive
on the highway that leads to genuine democracy. I concur with his
passionate call and would like to contribute to the discussion from a
different perspective.
Mainly because of the obsession and compulsion with the everyday
political situation back home, issues related to the future of Ethiopia
are least discussed. Analysis after analysis following the occurrence of
a problem might not have practical, if not political, relevance. Making
analyses or predictions related to socio-economic and political issues
is vital to take proactive measures.
In this paper, I would like to highlight issues related to Ethiopia’s
peace condition in the future based on literature and my own views.
First, I succinctly present a study on future peace condition in
Ethiopia and internationally. Second, some of the conditions that could
aggravate conflict, or conditions that do not sustain peace, are
elaborated. Third, other conditions that are thought to have a
moderating role are identified. And lastly, implications that the
government, the opposition, the media, and the entire peace-loving
people should be aware of are highlighted.
Will Ethiopia be more or less peaceful?
Implicitly
or explicitly, reports from international organizations seem to hold
the conclusion that Ethiopia has a high risk of being in conflicts in
the future. For this paper, a study conducted by the University of Oslo
in cooperation with the Oslo Peace Research Institute is considered for
its recency and its theoretical and methodological rigor in the
collection and analysis of data at the global level. To have a complete
understanding and judgment of the findings, it is useful to first say
some about the study itself.
The Oslo study
This study is conducted by Professor Håvard Hegre of the Department
of Political Science at the University of Oslo in cooperation with the
Peace Institute. The paper is being published in a scientific journal
but the summary of the study appears in Apollo, University of Oslo’s
research magazine. The goal of the study is to simulate extent of peace
and conflict internationally until 2050. The model used for simulation
is developed based on the last 40 years’ history of conflicts in all
countries and their neighbors, oil resources, ethnicity, infant
mortality, education, and youth population. The focus of the study is
internal armed conflict between governments and organized groups such as
political parties and/or ethnic groups. According to the study, “A
conflict is defined as a conflict between governments and political
organizations that use violence and in which at least 25 people die”.
Before drawing conclusions and for statistical reasons, the
programme/software is run 18,000 times.
The sensational conflict simulations indicated that the world will be
a more peaceful place to live in the future. Except for sub-Saharan
Africa, all continents are expected to have a decline in the risk of
conflict. Surprisingly, the decrease in conflict is found to be greatest
in the Middle East. The study does not explain why conflict is
decreasing in those and other countries but it is indicated that
education and economic development are the key factors. The researchers
indicated that in most parts of the world, it is too expensive to kill
in the decades to come.
Unfortunately, there are several spots in the world where it is and
will be too cheap to kill. Ethiopia has the greatest risk of conflict in
the next four decades. According to the study, “In 5 years the risk of
conflict will be greatest in India, Ethiopia, the Philippines, Uganda
and Burma. In 40 years the risk will be greatest in India, Nigeria,
Sudan, Ethiopia and Tanzania. Those countries in which the risk of
conflict will sink most in the next 40 years are Algeria, Colombia,
Turkey and Thailand” (Apollon, 2012). These countries are simulated to
have high risks of conflicts for nearly four decades.
At the global level, the findings of the study seem to promise a
safer future. For Sub-Saharan Africa, the study provided a disturbing
signal. Still, one could raise the question: to what extent the findings
are valid to the region and to Ethiopia particularly? I argue that
there are several conflict aggravating and moderating conditions as far
as Ethiopia is concerned. In general, I could say we happen to have much
more powerful aggravating conditions than moderating ones. That means,
if appropriate measures are not taken in good time and to the right
degree, we could witness conflict after conflict in the years to come.
It could continue to be too cheap to kill in Ethiopia.
Conflict aggravating conditions
It is painful to simulate conflict for any country, let alone ones
own. But reality must be faced and dealt with in good time. I could
argue that the Oslo study summarized above is a bit relaxed in its
consideration of factors but finally gets it right in the conclusions.
The conclusion that Ethiopia will have the greatest risk of conflict
seems warranted for a number of reasons.
One, what is missing from the Oslo study is the consideration of the
existing political conditions within countries. The study does not
consider the governance style of the studied countries. One reason may
be that the researchers assume that current government commitment to
democratic principles does not have predictive power because governments
are supposed to function for one or maximum of two terms. This does not
apply to Africa and Ethiopia, where governments are as ‘eternal’ as
kings and queens. Our governments assume that their contract is
permanent. If the Oslo study were to consider this reality, Ethiopia
would perhaps be one of the three or so countries that has the highest
risk of conflict. That is why I argued above that the Oslo study is
relaxed methodologically.
The point is that the governing party is not in a position to serve
the public as promised. The government breaks the constitution in day
light. The justice system could not get the confidence of the public.
The military, the police, and the security apparatus do not have
friendly relationships with the majority. Merit-based employment and
investment is becoming a dream. The media are systematically made
paralyzed. Professional associations are incapacitated or, are replaced
by quasi ones that are sympathetic with the government. Websites and
broadcasts are blocked. These and other factors associated with
government mismanagement are recipes for future conflict.
Two, partly because of the extremely ugly and hostile political
climate back home, several groups are creating unions and fronts and are
already in the battlefields. Armed groups operate in the North, South,
East, and West part of the country. New forces are joining the momentum.
In fact, this is the strongest empirical evidence that warrants the
conclusion that future conflict is indeed a reality in Ethiopia.
Three, education and economic development are two key factors that
influence sustaining conflict and/or peace. If quality education is
offered to at least a sizeable portion of the youth, and if economic
development is equitable and sustainable, peace would reign and conflict
would be avoided. On the other hand, if education is limited or if it
is provided in poor quality, and if only a certain portion of the
population is enjoying the fruits of economic growth, conflict would be
the order of the day.
In Ethiopia, yes, education is massively expanded both at basic and
higher levels but its quality is extremely worrisome. International
education organizations and experts as well as the government are aware
of this fact. That means, poor quality education is technically equal to
absence of education when it comes to its contribution to development
and peace. Moreover, the Ethiopian economy is reportedly growing in
double-digits. But that level of growth could not be grounded. Either
statistics are engineered or only extremely limited number of people are
reaping all the benefits. Millions are still in food aid. The cost of
living is sky rocketing. In general, Ethiopia seems to have less
powerful education and economic bases to ensure peace for the years to
come.
Four, we, as any country else, tend to have a conflict-driven past.
Conflicts characterize, for instance, the period of Zemene Mesafint, the
Haile Selasse period, the Dergue times, and the EPRDF tenurship.
Although there are a number of countries who used to have devastating
conflicts but who are now peaceful and prosperous, there are several
other countries that tend to sustain their bad habits- conflict. That
means, there is some chance of considering wars and conflicts as
alternative means of solving problems. This makes even more sense if one
considers the nature of the governing party, EPRDF.
Five, there are strong indications that the military is not in good
shape as well. We have heard the clashes within the military that left
dozens dead and wounded. That again attests to the presence of a really
big structural problem with the system. Whatever group comes the
invincible in the end, the defeated would consider retreating to Asimba
or Dedebit again. The military is a microcosm of the power balance at
the top leadership.
Six, the EPRDF top leadership seems in disarray as well. Following
the death of the late Meles Zenawi, the entire system started to shake
up. Still, ‘tremors’ are being felt from a distant. In times of crisis,
Meles has had that tactical capability of maneuvering and taking
conditions to his and then his party advantage. That agility and
decisiveness in decision making is nowhere to be found in today’s top
leadership. We happen to hear inconsistencies in government
communications and it is pretty unclear who really makes decisions at
the top. The internal fight seems to continue until one group wins the
will of the top military officials, as AK47’s proved to be the panacea.
The power skirmishes indicate the probability of conflict in the near
future. Whoever will win, conflict is likely to take place for at least
sometime. It is however useful to consider into the analysis the
conditions that might have a moderating role.
Moderating factors
There are some conditions that seem to ensure relative peace in the
near future. Or at least, they could limit the scale of conflicts. The
problem is that these conditions, compared to the aforementioned
conflict-aggravating conditions, seem to have a much less power to
influence the overall equation- peace. They are yet worth mentioning.
The God factor
Ethiopia is a deeply religious country. Christians and Muslims daily
live their respective religions. There is a general tendency to leave
complex issues such as peace and conflict to God. Several as a result do
not take part in politics and consider themselves neutral. That is
partly why we do not see a single demonstration despite 1) we have had
over 30 inflation rate, 2) we see with our naked eyes the level of
corruption and nepotism, 3) miscarriage of justice, 4) our college
graduates are employed as stone cutters, 5) the police and the security
offices are terrorizing the public, and more. The average believer seems
to wait for God to intervene. This seems to demonstrate a false sense
of peace and security at the moment.
The fear factor
Again for many Ethiopians, conflicts are too expensive to be waged.
We have that fresh memory of the massacre of hundreds of thousands of
youngsters in the name of Red Terror. We vividly saw the cost of war
that was fought between the Dergue and the now EPRDF. We have a fresh
memory of the recent Ethio-Eritrean senseless war that claimed over 70,
000 innocent lives. We have that memory of the massacre of nearly 200
people in relation to post-election demonstrations. Generally, we have a
nasty pool of experience in wars and conflicts. All these might
discourage some or many or most of us from designing and orchestrating
conflicts of any sort in the future. Simply, we are afraid of deaths,
wounds, jails, and persecutions.
The diplomatic factor
International organizations such as the UN and the EU and powerful
countries such as the US could play a somehow mediating role in case of
accumulation of signs of eminent conflict. Although these organizations
and countries do not usually stop conflicts from happening, they try
hard to avoid them. Countries and/or groups that demonstratively believe
in and enact democracy might discourage undemocratic governances from
clinging to power through sustaining conflicts. Also, some indication is
present that economic aids and loans might be linked to democratic
governance.
Concluding remarks
Based on the Oslo study, conditions that aggravate conflict and that
sustain relative peace are highlighted in this paper. The analysis seems
to indicate that conflict would be on the horizon in the near future in
Ethiopia if appropriate measures are not taken. The most important
single factor that could ensure sustained peace is democratic
governance: governance which ensures the rule of law, transparency and
accountability. In order to avoid possible conflicts, the government in
Ethiopia must practice the constitution. The media must be allowed to
flourish again. The opposition must be allowed to convene, publish, open
offices, and call demonstrations. The public must be allowed to freely
assemble, associate, and get employed based on merit. Discrimination and
harassment of any sort at work and elsewhere must be stopped. All the
ethnic groups must be brought back to the unifying force: being
Ethiopian.
The opposition and the media (at home and abroad) must also make
peaceful co-existence their top agenda. They could develop and sustain
educative programmes tailored to accommodate differences. Political
parties need to organize themselves around nationalism and not around
ethnic lines. The media should initiate and maintain dialogues on unity
and peace issues. They should stop publishing papers that preach,
implicitly or explicitly, hate, ethnocentrism, and division. Criticisms
must differentiate people from ideas and people from their ethnic
identity.
Contributions from social scientists are seminal for understanding
and solving people’s grievances. Media should take initiatives to bring
together sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, political
scientists, lawyers and others for a nuanced discussion of pertinent
social issues. The discussions should aim at creating a common platform
or shared basis of understanding and action for a better future.
In sum, peace is maintained if and only if all the stakeholders take
supreme responsibility for their decisions and actions. If the public,
social scientists, the elderly, the media, the opposition, and the
government do their part of the job, there is no reason why Ethiopia
will be prone to decades of conflicts. The government is but the most
indispensable entity that could reconfigure the overall set up because
it is the government’s mismanagement that is pushing people to the
bushes. If they open the nearly closed political space and if they enact
the constitution and ensure accountability, conflict would be just
history. I strongly wish that, henceforth, it should be too expensive to
kill in Ethiopia!
No comments:
Post a Comment