MEDREK or the End of a Political Masquerade? By Prof. Messay Kebede


Messay Kebede

It is now abundantly clear that the project of creating a strong multiparty opposition by uniting unitary parties and ethnic parties is anything but feasible. The inability of MEDREK to achieve unity despite numerous attempts as well as Dr. Negaso Gidada’s––who stepped down from the chairmanship of the strongest unitary party, namely, UDJ––recent convoluted declaration in which he said, “I oppose secession but support the right to secession,” seal the definitive collapse of the project. The sticking point, if one can decipher it in the maze of attacks and counterattacks, is the irreconcilable position of ethnic and unitary parties on the right to self-determination up to secession of the various ethnic groups composing Ethiopia. Another sticking point deriving from the right to self-determination is that parties have no right to campaign for political support or vote in regions that they do not represent ethnically. While the right to self-determination up to secession keeps Ethiopian unity in life support, the implication that regions are reserved for ethnic politics only does no more than remove the very purpose of unitary parties. Under these conditions, it is no surprise if the project of unity could not but fail completely.

I was among the many Ethiopians who hailed the formation of MEDREK as a new and very promising beginning reconciling the imperative need for national unity with the legitimate demands for ethnic recognition and equality. What the inability to achieve unity clearly demonstrates is the persistent prevalence of ethnic nationalism over the demand for equality. Sadly, ethnic parties in Ethiopia seem to be stuck in the Stalinist dogma of self-determination up to secession as the only path to achieving equality. It never crosses their mind that there are more than one ways of rectifying past injustices without jeopardizing the unity of the country. The reason for this predilection for self-determination is not so much the commitment to democracy as the pursuit of narrow elitist interests.

No sooner did I come to this conclusion than it dawned on me that the ethnic parties are actually no different from the EPRDF. They share the same premises ideologically and politically, the only difference being that they are not part of the ruling elites. Not only these so-called opposition parties have no alternative politics to the EPRDF, but they also view the ethnic partition of Ethiopia as the formation of legitimate reserved territories for ethnicized elites. Accordingly, their aspiration is to accede to the ethnic power system by preventing unitary elites from competing. In thus defending the ascriptive right to the status of being the sole representatives of their ethnic groups, they are but saying that the groups are not Ethiopian and that they must not have the choice between alternative proposals on Ethiopian unity and ethnic diversity. People are essentially defined by their ethnic belonging: they form homogeneous and exclusive groups and, as such, have no individuality and rights transcending the groups to which they belong.

Both the defense of reserved ethnic territories and the refusal to compete in a non-ethnic field testify that ethnic opposition parties are committed to a version of politics that is utterly undemocratic and ascriptive. It is hardly consistent to speak of democracy and exclude people from competing on the basis of ethnic belonging. Our spontaneous belief is that individuals become politically active and create political parties to correct injustice and defend freedom. In reality, what Ethiopia’s modern history has invariably staged is the struggle of disgruntled elites for the control of power in the name of the working people or ethnic groups. That is why the political system they generate, when some of them succeed in prevailing, is invariably undemocratic. It is never about empowering the people; it is about seizing power in their name so as to advance sectarian interests.

The inevitable conclusion is that unitary parties must no longer waste their time, energy, and credibility in trying to form an inclusive party with ethnicized elites. My suspicion is that ethnic parties brandish unification with unitary parties just for the sake of gaining time to firmly plant the seeds of ethnonationalism in their respective regions by providing it with the aura of opposition to a failing government. Unless ethnic parties officially and without ambiguity drop the right to self-determination up to secession, they are no more no less than the Trojan horses of the EPRDF deceptively disguised as opposition parties. Instead of courting them into unification, unitary parties must focus on the task of gathering and organizing national forces and presenting their own alternative policy and vision. In addition to recognizing the equality of all ethnic and religious groups, the policy must lay out the conditions for its effective realization in harmony with the unconditional unity of Ethiopia. Where ethnic parties advocate division and exclusive enclaves, unitary parties must promote unity and equality through the democratic empowerment of the people. The motto must be: democratic unity versus sectarian politics.

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.

Share Button
Disclaimer: We are not responsible for any losses or damages that may have caused by using our services. EMF declines all responsibility for the contents of the materials stored by users. Each and every user is solely responsible for the posts.
Posted by on April 8, 2014. Filed under NEWS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

3 Responses to MEDREK or the End of a Political Masquerade? By Prof. Messay Kebede

  1. Freedom Lover

    April 8, 2014 at 5:18 PM

    There are no ‘unitary parties’. But, there are collections of few desperate and selfish debteras.

  2. ሳተናው

    April 8, 2014 at 10:30 PM

    ፕሮፌሰር መሳይ

    እጅግ በጣም አመሰግናለሁ:: መስቀልኛ መንገድ ላይ ግራ ተጋብቼ ስዋልል ነው ይህን ሲሳይ የጻፉት::

    እኔም እንደርስዎ ቀንደኛ የመድረክ ደጋፊ ነበርኩ::ነገሩን ሳየው የመድረክ አደረጃጀትና አካሄድ ከኢህኣደግ ቡዙም እንደማይለይና አገሪቱን ወደ ሌላ የጎሳ አዙሪት ውስጥ እንደሚጨምራት አያጠራጥርም:: በተለይ ዶክተር ነጋሶ ጊዳዳ ከግርማ ካሳ ጋር ያደረጉት ቃለ ምልልስ በጣም የሚገርም ነው:: የአንድነት ፓርቲ ሊቀመንበር የነበሩ ሰው እንደዚህ ሲጽፉ አንብቤ ገረመኝ:: እኔ ለዶክተር ነጋሶ ፕሬዚደንት ከነበሩበት ጊዜ ጀምሮ አክብሮት ነበረኝ:: አሁን ግን ሁለተኛው አባ መላ እንዳይሆኑ አሰጉኝ:: ምናልባት ያለባቸው የገንዘብና የኑሮ ችግር የፈጠረባቸው ጫና ይሆን ወይ ብዬ ጠርጥሬአለሁ:: እንደገና ለኢሕኣደግ ማመልከቻ ማግባታቸው ይሆን እንዴ?

    ፕሮፌሰር የጻፉት አርቲክል በማስረጃ የተደገፈና ሁኔታዎችን በተጨባጭ ከማጤን የመነጨ እንደርስዎ አልጸፈው እንጂ በእኔም ውስጥ በትንሹ ለሁለት ዓመታት ሲብላላ የነበረ ሃሳብ ነው::

    በጣም በጣም አመሰግናለሁ::

  3. Goh Taye

    April 22, 2014 at 2:29 AM

    The professor’s assessment of the existence of different schools of thought on the nature of post Weyene Ethiopia is correct, i.e unitary and ethnic federalism.I think both sides seem to stick to their guns.The alternative that the author offers will , I am afraid ,further polarize the already polarized political landscape.A better approach is to advise and show the parties all options open to them to reach a compromise agreement at least on a minimum position acceptable to all sides. The philosophy of my way is the highway does not lead us any where. Weyane will be the only beneficiary . Let us look at our history as well as our current situation.We are where we are today because of our love for narrow cultural and linguistic monopoly of power. People need structural guarantee ,not promises of equality and democracy as has been heather to.Let us be open to see the others point of view and solve our common problem as a united country where the fears,apprehensions and concerns of all are equally addressed.