Either With Me or Against Me": The Erosion of Political Dialogue in Ethiopian Culture

---

  

"Either With Me or Against Me": The Erosion of Political Dialogue in Ethiopian Culture

The phrase “either with me or against me” epitomises a polarising mindset where neutral ground, compromise, or dissent is interpreted as betrayal. In many political settings, such an outlook breeds division stifles dialogue and weakens democratic culture. In the context of Ethiopian political culture, this binary thinking—rooted partially in historical, cultural, and social factors—has deeply influenced the behaviour of political elites and discouraged the development of constructive political dialogue.

Historical and Cultural Roots of Polarization

Ethiopian history is characterised by a long-standing tradition of centralised power and imperial rule. From the Solomonic dynasty to the Derg regime and beyond, loyalty to the ruler or the regime was often demanded in absolute terms. Opposition was not tolerated but punished. Over time, this cultivated a political culture where questioning authority or holding differing views could be interpreted as rebellion. This legacy still lingers in the political attitudes of elites who regard compromise or ideological diversity as weakness or disloyalty.

Moreover, Ethiopian cultures emphasise communal loyalty, collective identity, and respect for elders and authority figures. While these values have social benefits, they can also suppress individual expression and dissent. In the political realm, these values may lead to environments where political loyalty is expected without question and criticism—however constructive—is unwelcome.

The Suppression of Political Dialogue

In Ethiopia’s multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and religiously diverse society, political dialogue should ideally bridge differences. However, when elites adopt an “either with me or against me” posture, they undermine this potential. Political parties become echo chambers, suppressing internal debate and sidelining moderate voices. Negotiations across party lines become difficult or impossible because compromise is viewed as a betrayal.

This mentality has played a significant role in Ethiopia’s recurrent political instability. Whether in federal-regional conflicts, ethnic tensions, or disputes among political parties, the unwillingness to engage in honest dialogue has led to stalemates, violence, and mutual destruction. Political elites often treat each other not as rivals in a democratic contest but as existential threats. As a result, elections become zero-sum games, and political transitions are marked by mistrust, vengeance, and exclusion rather than reconciliation and cooperation.

Discouraging Dissent and Critical Thinking

Another consequence of this binary thinking is the erosion of political innovation. When dissent is not tolerated, new ideas struggle to emerge. Young leaders, intellectuals, and civil society voices are silenced or co-opted, hindering political dialogue and national progress.

In Ethiopia, political parties often discourage internal criticism, fearing it may weaken their image or unity. Yet, a healthy democratic culture depends on the ability to self-reflect, correct course, and adapt to new realities. A political environment that cannot tolerate critique or compromise is bound to stagnate or implode.

Toward a Culture of Dialogue

To move beyond this impasse, Ethiopian political culture must evolve. Several steps are necessary:

1. Civic Education: Citizens must be taught the value of pluralism, dialogue, and tolerance. A robust democratic culture begins with an informed populace.

2. Institutional Reforms: Political parties, parliament, and other institutions must be structured to encourage dialogue and inclusivity rather than adversarial domination.

3. Leadership Accountability: Political leaders must be accountable for inflammatory rhetoric promoting division. They must be encouraged—and if necessary, pressured—to adopt inclusive and dialogic approaches.

4. Cultural Reinterpretation: Traditional values such as respect, consensus (Araaraa), and community harmony (Nagaa) can be reinterpreted to support political dialogue rather than suppress it.

Conclusion

The “either with me or against me” mentality may offer short-term political gain but ultimately erodes trust, dialogue, and national unity. For Ethiopia to achieve lasting peace and democratic governance, its political elites must transcend this binary mindset. They must learn to engage with opponents as enemies and partners in a shared national project. Only then can Ethiopia fulfil its promise as a diverse yet united nation.

---