This
article is a public reaction to a long email letter sent to me by an Oromo
interlocutor. The email states that unity between Amhara democratic forces
and Oromo freedom fighters is necessary both to defeat the undemocratic
Woyanne regime and initiate a promising future for Ethiopia. However, the
letter blames the lack of unity on the resistance of Amhara democratic
forces to concede the right to self-determination to the Oromo people. The
imposition of an unconditional unity prevents the Oromo freedom fighters
from effecting a serious move toward a rapprochement, while the refusal of
some Oromo fighters to even give a chance to unity deeply upsets Amhara
democratic forces. The letter suggests a middle ground based on a common
goal, namely, a union of independent nations that recognizes the
self-determination of each nation, and so provides the condition of a
voluntary union. In other words, the pledge to give a chance to the
integrity of Ethiopia should satisfy the Amhara democratic forces, just as
the recognition of the right to self-determination should suit the Oromo
by convincing them to enter into a free union with the Amhara and other
peoples.
Though the author claims
not to be a representative of the OLF, I am not convinced to what extent
his views differ from the official position of the organization. Also, my
purpose here is less to respond to my interlocutor than to propose some
general reflections concerning the right to self-determination as a
condition of union. Let me begin by what amazes most: the defenders of the
right to self-determination have rejected everything of Stalin (Lenin and
the Soviet Union), except his view of nations and nationalities. It is for
me next to impossible to understand how scholars and politicians stop
short of being critical of the Stalinist doctrine of self-determination
even as they know that Stalin has been entirely wrong in everything. What
are the chances for a doctrine whose inherent perversion led to such
disastrous consequences to be right on the crucial issue of
nation-building?
My contention is that, far
from promoting free union, the right to self-determination actually blocks
it. It is when union becomes unconditional that it forces peoples to find
a form of accommodation that suits them all. Here is an illustrative
analogy: if two competing individuals decide to build a house together,
their cooperation makes sense if the house becomes their common interest,
that is, if both intend to live in the same house. However, if one of the
partners is at the same time building another house, whatever partnership
they had becomes so suspicious that it comes to an end.
The right to
self-determination cannot provide the common goal for a lasting union.
Moreover, nobody is inclined to make serious concessions if the outcome is
so precarious. It is when we decide to live in the same house, no matter
what, that we would be inclined to better the house. While Stalin
recognizes the right to secede, Rousseau maintains that a nation means an
indivisible unity for only indivisibility creates a common goal.
Obviously, a conditional unity is hardly able to produce a serious
commitment to the idea of a lasting union.
The Stalinist approach has
no historical foundation as nations did not emerge as a result of peoples
exercising the right to self-determination. The politics of either lumping
people together or splitting them apart according as they want or do not
want to stay together is too artificial to be anything more than a
manipulation of political elites. Instead, modern nations have come into
being through inner movements smashing the oppressive structures of
conquests and empires. With the exception of overseas colonial empires��whose
difficulties to modernize relate to the absence of organized democratic
movements in the pre-independence phase��the resolution to build a
common house guaranteeing freedom and equality for all is the cornerstone
of modern nation, not the right to secession.
Those who truly care about
democracy and freedom must understand that the refusal of
self-determination alone can bring about the changes that they hope. What
the refusal means is that we make unity unconditional so that everything
else becomes negotiable. But if the union is conditional, the blackmail of
secession seriously jeopardizes the exercise of democratic rules. What is
more, a union is formed without the equal alienation of rights since one
of the partners reserves the right to secede. As Rousseau puts it, the
condition of modern democracy is �the total alienation of each
associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community; for, in
the first place, as each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the
same for all; and, this being so, no one has any interest in making them
burdensome to others� (The Social Contract).
It is clear that the act by
which a people join a political union is also the act by which it ceases
to consider itself as a nation. It becomes part of an organic whole and
its distinctive characteristics, such as language, religion, customs,
etc., become regional expressions of a larger union. How the specificities
integrate into the union is negotiable, and various forms of arrangement
can ensure their protection. By contrast, union defined as a collection of
autonomous nations is a Stalinist aberration and a contradiction in terms.
Let us listen to Stalin:
�The right of
self-determination means that a nation may arrange its life in the way it
wishes. It has the right to arrange its life on the basis of autonomy. It
has the right to enter into federal relations with other nations. It has
the right to complete secession. Nations are sovereign, and all nations
have equal rights� (Marxism and the National Question). What
Stalin says here applies to an entity like the United Nations rather than
to real existing nations whose characteristic is precisely to be sovereign
in an indivisible way.
What this shows is that
political unity among democratic forces has become impossible in Ethiopia
because we find ourselves in an ideological muddle inherited from the
Soviet Union. No more than Stalin could the Woyanne regime preserve the
unity of Ethiopia without the creation of a party based on the rigid and
oppressive principle of democratic centralism. The result is a tyrannical
government that keeps peoples together by force after telling them that
they are indeed nations and nationalities. On the other hand, opposition
forces cannot unite because they are faced with the impossible dilemma of
uniting elites who claim to represent nations.
It is high time that we
understand that the political failure of opposition forces emerge from the
fact that they want to solve a problem that is made unsolvable. The
divagations of a deranged man (Stalin) on the right to self-determination
has put Ethiopia in a political impasse, which if left as is, will lead to
a breakup with disastrous consequences for the whole region. The best
alternative is to renew the commitment to unconditional unity, thereby
creating the conditions of a satisfactory solution for all. If the union
is abiding, then serious talks can start on how to build the common house.
That is why I was more than
happy to read in the recently released political program of the
organization known as Medrek a strong reaffirmation of unity. The
program plainly states that members of the organization believe that any
challenges to the unity of Ethiopia must be dealt with on the basis of
unity and democratic progress, and not through recourse to secession (page
22). This rebuttal of article 39 of the Ethiopian Constitution allowing
the right to self-determination, including the right to secession, became
necessary as a condition of unity among opposition forces.
The rebuttal is indeed a
great step forward, even though it is not bold enough to reject the usage
of the terms �nations� and �nationalities.� This lack of boldness
exposes the program to the charge of being contradictory, since the term
�nation� implies, by definition, the right to self-determination. I
recommend the term �ethnic groups,� with the understanding that the
Amhara and the Tigreans are no less ethnic groups than the Oromo, the
Gurage, the Somali, etc. In so doing, we define Ethiopia as a
multicultural nation rather than as a multinational state, a feature that
requires a federal arrangement with large autonomy and self-rule. In this
way, we avoid the present impasse without, however, sacrificing those
rights necessary to realize the full equality of Ethiopia�s ethnic
groups.
Messay Kebede
August 19, 2009
