Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali’s political discourse often centres around the idea of "Ethiopianism," which he equates directly with “national interest.” This definition is not merely rhetorical; it reflects a deliberate ideological framing with far-reaching political, historical, and practical implications. In equating Ethiopianism with national interest, Abiy Ahmed seeks to reconstruct a unified political identity and centralise authority in a multi-ethnic federal state that has long been shaped by competing historical narratives, ethnic aspirations, and regional autonomies.
I. The Meaning Behind the Equation
By defining Ethiopianism = National Interest, Abiy Ahmed is attempting to:
Centralise Identity: Promote a singular, supra-ethnic national identity that transcends regional and ethnic divisions.
Dissolve Competing Loyalties: Challenge the legitimacy of sub-national identities such as Oromummaa, Sidama nationalism, or Tigrayanism, which have demanded autonomy or outright separation.
Conflate State Power with Patriotism: Suggest that loyalty to his administration or the federal government is equivalent to loyalty to the nation.
This equation argues that anything done in the name of "Ethiopia"—as interpreted by the federal government—is by default in the national interest and thus legitimate.
II. Historical Context of Ethiopianism
Ethiopianism has historically been a contested and politically loaded term:
Imperial Ethiopia: Under Menelik II and Haile Selassie, Ethiopianism was equated with empire, Orthodox Christianity, Amharic language, and highland culture. This vision excluded or marginalised many non-Amhara groups.
Derg Regime: Socialist nationalism attempted to erase ethnic distinctions but often reproduced centralist authoritarianism.
EPRDF Era: Introduced ethnic federalism and the right to self-determination, even secession (Article 39), in reaction to previous assimilative nationalism.
Abiy’s Ethiopianism represents an attempt to move away from ethnic federalism and resurrect a form of civic nationalism—but with imperial overtones and under a centralising political structure.
III. The Problematic Aspects
1. Ambiguity and Co-optation: Abiy never defines "national interest." Is it economic development? Territorial integrity? Political unity? This ambiguity allows him to define opposition, dissent, or ethnic claims as against the national interest—hence, anti-Ethiopian.
2. Suppression of Pluralism: Equating Ethiopianism with national interest delegitimises Ethiopia's nations and nationalities' diverse historical narratives, languages, and political aspirations. For instance, calls for cultural rights or political autonomy in Oromia or Tigray are dismissed as fragmentationist or treasonous.
3. Moral Absolutism: The equation fosters an environment where government policy is presented as beyond criticism—because challenging it would mean challenging "Ethiopia" itself.
4. Strategic Utility: This equation is valid for consolidating power during a crisis—armed insurgency, civil war, economic collapse—by wrapping political survival in the flag of patriotism.
IV. A National Interest for Whom?
There is no single national interest in a multi-ethnic federation unless it is negotiated through democratic consensus. What might be in the federal government's interest (e.g., military centralisation) may not align with regional priorities (e.g., linguistic rights, land use, local governance).
Abiy’s version of national interest appears to prioritise:
Territorial integrity over self-determination
Economic liberalisation over social justice
CCentralisedmilitary control over decentralised governance
This is not a neutral formulation of the "national interest"— but a political choice that reflects a specific ideological and strategic agenda.
V. Conclusion
Abiy Ahmed Ali’s definition of Ethiopianism = National Interest is not a simple patriotic statement—it is a profoundly political formula aimed at reshaping the Ethiopian state and its identity. While it appeals to unity and national pride, it also threatens to erase the multiplicity of modern Ethiopia's identities and histories. A more inclusive and sustainable approach would require redefining national interest through dialogue, respect for federalism, and the genuine participation of all Ethiopia’s peoples in the nation-building process. Otherwise, Ethiopianism risks becoming a mask for authoritarian nationalism rather than a vision of shared belonging.
No comments:
Post a Comment