Introduction
Ethiopia’s quest for national unity and identity has been shaped by a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and political factors, leading to diverse and often conflicting narratives. Central to this discourse is the theoretical framework of nationalism, which offers insights into how collective identity is constructed and maintained (Smith 2010). The historical background of Ethiopia’s state-building efforts highlights the evolution of its political landscape, characterized by various regimes implementing assimilation policies aimed at fostering a cohesive national identity through the promotion of Amharic language, Orthodox Christianity, and the centralization of power (Kumsa, 2014).
However, the legacy of these assimilation initiatives has produced significant tensions, particularly as the Ethiopian state navigated the dynamics of cultural diversity and regional disparities (Shebeshir, 2023). The role of the Orthodox Church as a fundamental institution in shaping notions of national identity merits particular attention, as its influence has historically intertwined with state policies, reinforcing both unity and divisions among different ethnic groups (Helsing 2018).
Moreover, governmental strategies of divide-and-rule have further complicated efforts towards a unified state, often exacerbating ethnic tensions and societal fragmentation (Abbink 2012). Balancing progress with accountability is essential for addressing historical grievances that continue to resonate within marginalized communities. Understanding the challenges posed by historical distortions and misleading narratives is crucial for shaping a more inclusive national identity (Keller 2018).
In response to these complexities, federalism emerges as a potential strategy for embracing unity in diversity, aiming to accommodate the multifaceted nature of Ethiopian society while promoting equitable representation (Aalen 2006). The Ethiopian federal constitution stands as a legal framework intended to facilitate nation-state development by recognizing the rights and identities of various ethnic groups (Vaughan 2011).
This study aims to identify critical measures essential for fostering stability and resilience in Ethiopia, yielding insights that can inform future initiatives aimed at creating a more inclusive and harmonious nation-state. Through a thorough examination of state-building processes and the assimilation policies implemented by various regimes, the research delves into the complex factors and diverse perspectives that shape these dynamics, highlighting the challenges inherent in state-building. The findings provide important insights into both the ongoing challenges and opportunities for promoting national unity while also honoring and preserving Ethiopia’s rich cultural diversity. These insights are intended to serve as a valuable resource for scholars, policymakers, and citizens, guiding their efforts and actions as they work toward a more cohesive future.
Research Methods
An in-depth review of existing literature was undertaken to delve into both the historical and contemporary dimensions of Ethiopia’s political landscape. This review encompassed academic journals, books, and policy papers, all of which shed light on crucial themes and ongoing debates. Additionally, the viewpoints of various stakeholders, including political analysts, activists, and opposition groups, were critically evaluated. This involved synthesizing diverse perspectives to create a well-rounded understanding of the political climate.
Information was also gathered from a variety of media sources, ranging from traditional news outlets to social media platforms. This analysis aimed to capture public sentiment and attitudes toward political events, policies, and figures. Social media proved especially valuable for assessing real-time reactions and grassroots opinions. Furthermore, observational data was collected through direct engagement with Ethiopia’s political environment. This qualitative approach enriched the analysis by providing contextual insights and firsthand experiences that might not be reflected in secondary sources. Through this comprehensive methodology, the research aimed to present a nuanced analysis of the political dynamics in Ethiopia, enhancing the understanding of the challenges and opportunities that the country faces.
1. Theoretical Perspective: Constructivist Theory of Nationalism
The Constructivist Theory of Nationalism, largely shaped by sociologist Benedict Anderson in his seminal work “Imagined Communities” published in 1983, presents a framework for understanding how national identities are socially constructed. Anderson argues that nations are not natural entities but “imagined communities” formed by individuals who perceive themselves as part of a collective. Key elements in shaping these identities include language, print capitalism, and cultural narratives. While Anderson is central to this theory, other scholars, such as Ernest Gellner and Anthony Smith, have also contributed to our understanding of nationalism from different perspectives.
According to Smith (2001), this theory highlights that national identities are continually reshaped through historical narratives, cultural practices, and political discourse. Rather than being inherent traits of specific groups, nationalism emerges from collective social interactions and the meanings attributed to shared experiences, symbols, and memories. This dynamic perspective sees national identity as fluid, influenced by ethnicity, language, and geography, and underscores the significant role of political leaders and institutions in crafting narratives that foster a sense of belonging.
In the context of Ethiopia, the Constructivist Theory of Nationalism is particularly relevant due to the country’s rich ethnic diversity and complex historical legacies. The intricate interplay of historical events, assimilation policies, and religious influences illustrates how national identity has transformed through the actions of various actors, including political regimes and religious institutions. Ethiopia’s journey toward state-building is marked by experiences of colonialism and imperial ambitions, leading to the emergence of a unique Ethiopian nationalist identity. Notably, victories against colonial domination, such as the Battle of Adwa, cultivated a profound sense of national pride among Ethiopians (Tareke 2009).
The ambitions of successive Ethiopian leaders, such as Menelik II, further shaped the state-building process by striving to unify diverse regional kingdoms. This era of military conquests and demographic changes was crucial in constructing a shared national identity, integrating various ethnic groups into what was envisioned as a cohesive Ethiopian whole. Through this constructivist lens, state-building in Ethiopia appears as a complex process influenced by historical struggles, leadership dynamics, and the ongoing tension between national unity and ethnic diversity (Zewde 2001).
Historically, the government’s assimilation strategies have oscillated between inclusivity and dominance. Efforts to forge a national identity have often relied on narratives positing an unbroken Ethiopian civilization, which at times have marginalized distinct ethnic identities, particularly of groups like the Oromo. Under the Derg regime (1974-1991), aggressive policies aimed at promoting a singular national narrative often suppressed ethnic expressions, suggesting that the push for national solidarity can provoke resistance from marginalized groups asserting their distinct identities (Abbink 1997).
With the establishment of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) in 1991, a federal structure was introduced to recognize ethnic identities while promoting national unity. Despite these intentions, federalism has sometimes resulted in conflicts over resources and power, revealing the complexities and contradictions of identity politics (Woldemichael 2018). The resurgence of ethnic nationalism, particularly in regions such as Oromia and Amhara, underscores the dangers of an imposed homogenized national identity that risks deepening divisions instead of fostering unity (Assefa, 2020).
Religion has also played a significant role in shaping Ethiopian national identity, particularly through the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (EOTC). Historically aligned with ruling elites, the church has advocated for a singular Ethiopian identity, often neglecting the aspirations of various ethnic and religious groups. This advocacy has, at times, contributed to societal tensions by failing to recognize the complexities of Ethiopia’s diverse society (Alemayehu 2020).
In his work “Ethnic Federalism and the Challenge of National Unity in Ethiopia” (2015) Young emphasized that governmental tactics of division and rule have further fragmented societal cohesion, leading to competing narratives that challenge the notion of national unity. Discriminatory historical practices that favored certain ethnic groups have complicated efforts to establish a shared sense of belonging, escalating inter-ethnic competition and conflict.
The interplay of progress and accountability is essential for fostering national cohesion. Acknowledging historical injustices is vital for healing and reconciliation, validating the grievances of marginalized groups. However, careful balance is required; excessive focus on past grievances may hinder progress and exacerbate societal divisions. Thus, constructivist perspectives advocate for a nuanced approach that recognizes historic injustices while promoting a forward-looking vision for unity (Yemane 2021).
In his publication “EPRDF’s Governance Crisis in Ethiopia: Implications for Federalism and Ethnic Relations” (Tronvoll, 2020), asserted that historical memory is crucial for national identity formation, as distorted narratives can entrench divisions among ethnic groups. In Ethiopia, selective historical accounts may elevate certain ethnic histories while marginalizing others, creating polarized memories that obstruct reconciliation. Addressing these distortions is vital for developing an accurate historical consciousness that fosters inclusivity.
Federalism emerges as an essential strategy to promote unity in diversity within Ethiopia’s complex societal landscape, where multiple ethnic identities coexist. This framework allows for local autonomy and self-governance, enabling distinct identities to be expressed while maintaining a larger national community. As noted by Stepan (1999), federalism facilitates dialogues among diverse groups, encouraging negotiations of identities and interests within a unified political system.
The legal framework established by Ethiopia’s federal constitution acknowledges diverse identities and legitimizes the aspirations of various ethnic communities. This constitution serves as a social contract, embodying values of inclusivity and equality while establishing mechanisms for participatory governance that empower diverse groups in decision-making processes (Taye 2019).
To navigate its intricate socio-political landscape, Ethiopia must prioritize strategies that cultivate stability and unity within its nation-state framework. A constructive reinterpretation of national identity promoting inclusivity and reconciliation can help forge a robust national narrative that resonates with the country’s diverse ethnic and cultural groups. Acknowledging historical grievances and cultural uniqueness is essential in this process. As Vaughan (2011) suggests, adopting an inclusive narrative that honors multiple identities can transform potential sources of conflict into opportunities for collaborative engagement, fostering ownership and belonging among all citizens in Ethiopia.
2. The Historical Background and Evolution of Ethiopia’s Nation Building
The creation of Ethiopia as a state is deeply rooted in its northern region, historically known as Abyssinia. Edward Ullendorff, in “A History of Ethiopia: From the Earliest Times to the Present”, emphasizes the significant historical role of Abyssinia, pointing to its longevity as a state and its interactions with surrounding cultures (Ullendorff 1964). He notes that the term “Ityopis” reflects the early Greek attempts to categorize and understand the diverse peoples they encountered in Africa, particularly those located along the southern flows of the Nile.
Salim (1998), further discusses the evolution of the term “Ityopis,” highlighting that it gradually came to embody not only a geographical region but also a cultural and national identity for the Abyssinians. Salim argues that this transition was crucial in forming a national consciousness that redefined territorial claims and fostered certain mythologies regarding the historical extent of their kingdom.
Historian Richard Pankhurst expands on this by illustrating how the modern usage of “Ethiopia” has been infused with nationalistic sentiments. He notes that this has led to claims of historical greatness and exaggerated narratives about Ethiopia’s territorial expanse, including assertions that it once stretched as far as Madagascar. Pankhurst emphasizes that such claims often serve to boost national pride but may also distort the historical realities of the region’s geographical and political boundaries (Pankhurst 1998).
Moreover, the numerous references to Ethiopia in the Bible have been used by Ethiopianists to claim a divinely favored status for their land. In his work “Ethiopia and the Bible”, Charles B. Trumbull examines this connection, pointing out that the repeated biblical mentions of Ethiopia are often viewed as evidence of a unique relationship between God and the Ethiopian people. This has further solidified the perception of Ethiopia as a sacred land blessed by divine favor (Trumbull 1917). Consequently, the transition from “Ityopis” to “Ethiopia” illustrates a complex interplay of cultural identity and politics, shaping narratives that influence not only national identity but also perceptions of historical geography.
Conversely, Ethiopian rulers, especially those from the Solomonic dynasty, asserted their lineage from the biblical figures of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba a narrative deeply rooted in Ethiopian tradition. This assertion has been viewed as a strategy to associate themselves with the historical and religious importance of these figures, which are typically linked to Mediterranean and Near Eastern contexts rather than a purely African identity. As Edward Ullendorff (1964) discusses that the Ethiopian monarchs highlighted these connections to these ancient figures to reinforce their legitimacy and divine right to rule.
According to Emanuele Fantini (2007), the process of state building and the assimilation of diverse ethnic groups into a unified, socially cohesive entity identified as Ethiopian was initiated in the north, fueled by a series of historical events anchored on three key pillars. These pillars include: the claim of descent from Solomonic lineage through blood ties, baptism into the Orthodox Christian faith, and proficiency in the Amharic language. The intention of the ruling elites was to gradually assimilate all people in the Ethiopian territory with different languages and traditions into Amharic speakers and worshippers of the Orthodox Christianity that eventually identified as Ethiopia leaving its own language, tradition and belief.
The initial phases of assimilation in this context appeared to be characterized by a degree of relatively peaceful integration, particularly in the northern regions. Here, cultural and linguistic shifts seemed to be negotiated through persuasion rather than coercion, allowing individuals from diverse backgrounds to adopt the dominant Amharic language and Christian faith while retaining their economic livelihoods, such as land ownership. For instance, in the areas inhabited by the Agew and Kimant people, the assimilation process was largely characterized by relatively peaceful persuasion facilitated by cultural, religious, and linguistic integration into a dominant Amhara identity. This often occurred through marriage, trade, and social exchanges, with the spread of the Amharic language and the Orthodox Christian faith playing pivotal roles. The result was a gradual loss of distinct languages and cultural practices for such ethnic groups.
Emanuele Fantini further observed that the attempt to supplant the native cultures, languages, and traditions of diverse groups with Amharic norms encountered significant resistance. Indigenous peoples, who held a deep attachment to their identities, vigorously defended their distinctiveness against what they perceived as a cultural invasion. This strong connection to cultural heritage prompted a backlash within communities deeply rooted in their own traditions and ways of life. As a result, movements emerged to preserve native languages, customs, and practices, as communities sought to assert their identities in the face of encroaching homogenization. This resistance underscored the complexities of cultural transformation, illustrating that identity is not easily relinquished but is fiercely protected.
In contrast, the assimilation experienced by the Oromo and other groups in the southern regions was far more violent and coercive. This often involved land dispossession, militarized occupation, and the imposition of a new socio-political order that marginalized indigenous languages, cultures, and belief systems. The Oromo, for example, were not merely assimilated but faced systemic dispossession and subordination, rendering them serfs in their own lands.
Within his study “The Conflict Between the Ethiopian State and the Oromo People” (2014), Alemayehu Kumsa (2014) asserted that the Abyssinian invaders, who had initially pursued a policy of assimilation and unification, underwent a significant shift in their approach as they expanded into the middle and southern regions. Lured by the region’s wealth and natural resources, they abandoned their assimilation efforts in favor of annexation and colonization. He further noted that this marked a dramatic departure from their earlier goals, as they began to aggressively take control of the native land, enslaving and selling many of the inhabitants on the slave markets. Others were eventually reduced to servitude, becoming serfs to the new settlers, the monarch, and the Orthodox Church.
Historical records from that era, including writings by Ethiopian historians and travelers, frequently detail the expansion of Abyssinian influence into southern and central Ethiopia. These chronicles document a range of activities, including military campaigns, treaties, and interactions with local communities. For example, Richard Pankhurst (1997) points out that these records emphasize the techniques and repercussions of Abyssinian expansion, frequently depicting a story of conquest and assimilation. Evidence such as land grants and the establishment of estates by nobility, the monarchy, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church illustrates a systematic approach to land annexation, revealing how land was appropriated from indigenous groups and subsequently redistributed to settlers (Henze 2000; Teshale 2012). Such practices not only facilitated the consolidation of power by the ruling elites but also had long-lasting effects on the demographics and socio-political landscape of the region.
Additionally, the governance of newly annexed territories was characterized by documentation that reveals a transition from initial integration efforts to control and exploitation. Teshale further noted that these records typically include tax collection, land registration, and administrative directives aimed at quelling resistance from local populations. Moreover, historical documents and market reports provide insights into the slave trade practices that arose from colonization, detailing the sale of African slaves in markets, alongside accounts of their origins and the circumstances surrounding their capture, which further supports the assertion about the treatment of indigenous peoples.
3. Analysis of the Dynamics of Ethiopia’s Nation-Building
Ethiopia’s journey of state-building has undergone profound transformations, shaped by evolving political leadership, ideological frameworks, and social dynamics. These shifts have complex implications for the country’s unity and division. Before the 20th century, the Ethiopian state was characterized by a rich tapestry of ethnicities and languages, where traditional governance structures, especially the feudal system, favored the dominant Amhara ethnic group. This led to a gradual integration of various regions into what became the Ethiopian empire, achieved through both military conquests and strategic alliances. Assimilation during this period often meant the imposition of the Amharic language and culture (Kapteijns 2017).
The era of Emperor Haile Selassie witnessed significant efforts to cultivate a unified Ethiopian identity, albeit often at the expense of the nation’s diverse ethnic groups. Centralizing power within the Amhara elite and positioning Amharic as the national language were pivotal strategies in this endeavor. Nonetheless, such policies fostered tensions among diverse ethnic communities, many of whom felt sidelined and underrepresented in the overarching narrative of Ethiopian history (Bereketeab 2015). The prioritization of Amharic in education and administration discouraged numerous ethnic groups from nurturing their languages and cultures, undermining their histories and identities. Consequently, alienation and resentment grew among non-Amhara populations, culminating in increased demands for autonomy and recognition of ethnic rights by the latter years of Haile Selassie’s reign (Y. Taddesse 2016).
The policies instituted during this imperial phase set the groundwork for future conflicts, particularly as various ethnic groups began to organize and assert their rights. Numerous accounts chronicle indigenous resistance to Abyssinian territorial expansion, including notable revolts in southern regions, which illustrate widespread dissatisfaction with land annexation and colonization efforts. Following the overthrow of Haile Selassie in 1974, these underlying issues escalated, ultimately triggering the civil conflicts and political struggles that would dominate Ethiopia’s subsequent history. The ramifications of this era remain visible today, as political dynamics and ethnic relations continue to reflect the complexities of national identity in a multi-ethnic society.
The rise of the Derg regime post-1974 marked a significant pivot in Ethiopia’s handling of ethnic identities and governance. Initially, the Derg, guided by Marxist-Leninist ideals, acknowledged the necessity of addressing longstanding regional grievances and aspirations of various ethnic groups. Its rhetoric aimed to promote ethnic rights, resonating with marginalized communities seeking recognition and representation. However, this initial openness rapidly devolved into a more authoritarian stance. The Derg’s commitment to a unitary socialist ideology sought to forge a homogenized Ethiopian identity, often at the detriment of ethnic diversity. The regime viewed distinct ethnic identities as threats to national unity, endeavoring to suppress them under the guise of “scientific socialism” (Rothchild and Lindholm 1986).
The Derg’s repressive tactics included violent crackdowns on dissent and the persecution of ethnic groups perceived as threats to the state. Events came to a head in regions like Eritrea and Tigray, where opposition movements emerged in reaction to the Derg’s oppressive policies. Violence and the denial of ethnic rights intensified grievances, deepening societal divisions. This approach culminated in widespread turmoil and civil war throughout the 1980s, with the regime’s failure to accommodate Ethiopia’s ethnic diversity and acknowledge legitimate aspirations contributing to its eventual downfall in 1991 (Laitin 1999).
The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) assumed power in 1991, heralding a paradigm shift in ethnic governance through the implementation of a policy of multination federalism. This system was devised to acknowledge Ethiopia’s ethnic diversity, granting regional autonomy and self-determination to various ethnic groups. In its early stages, this policy appeared to enhance political inclusion and cultural expression for many previously marginalized communities (Braukhaus 2012). Ethnic identity emerged as a central theme in political discourse, allowing various groups to assert rights and engage actively in governance.
However, the unintended consequences of this policy became apparent over time as the autonomy granted to ethnic regions intensified ethnic nationalism, often leading to inter-ethnic competition for resources and political power. This fray was compounded when perceptions emerged sometimes justifiably that the central government favored certain ethnic groups over others, fueling widespread resentment. Most notably, during the period in which the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) held predominant power within the EPRDF, accusations of ethnic favoritism exacerbated feelings of marginalization across various communities. In his research “Ethiopian Federalism: An Analytical Assessment” (Abbink, J. 2006), highlighted that the centralized implementation of the federal constitution, alongside political suppression, further entangled the various ethnic groups in fierce competition for limited resources (Abbink, 2006).
The political landscape remained explosive in the latter years of the EPRDF’s rule, giving way to widespread dissatisfaction and protests that culminated in the resignation of Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn in 2018, paving the way for the ascendance of Abiy Ahmed. Under his administration, there has been a noteworthy pivot towards promoting a more unified Ethiopian identity known as “Ethiopiawinet.” Efforts to weave a national narrative aim to reconcile and embrace the country’s ethnic diversity, but long-standing tensions from historical rivalries persist, presenting ongoing challenges. Achieving a balance between respecting ethnic diversity and fostering national unity remains a critical issue for Ethiopia’s future.
The legacy of past assimilation policies, particularly impactful in areas like Oromia and the southern regions, serves as a stark reminder of the state’s historical miscalculations in pursue unity and identity. Initially portrayed as instruments to foster social cohesion through the promotion of the Amharic language, Amhara culture, and Orthodox Christianity, these policies often revealed themselves to be mechanisms for control and exploitation rather than genuine cultural engagement (Laitin 1999). This exploitative stance marginalized the contributions and voices of local populations, transforming them into subordinates within a nation building agenda that largely excluded their narratives.
To navigate the complexities of its present and future, Ethiopia must engage in a thorough reassessment of its historical trajectories a process requiring the acknowledgment of all people’s narratives. Validating the experiences of marginalized communities can become a transformative step toward healing and social equity. This endeavor necessitates a challenge to entrenched power structures and the cultivation of a pluralistic narrative that celebrates Ethiopia’s rich diverse identities and histories.
4. The Influence of the Orthodox Church on National Identity Formation
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (EOTC) has played a complex role in the formation and development of the Ethiopian state, serving as both a stabilizing influence for national identity and unity, while also contributing to social divisions and conflicts. The Church’s impact on Ethiopia’s national identity is a nuanced phenomenon that includes both positive and negative dimensions (Bissar 2012; Melaku 2020). On one hand, the EOTC plays a vital role in fostering a sense of community and continuity among its adherents. As a unifying institution, it promotes shared values, traditions, and a rich cultural heritage, particularly highlighted during critical historical events like the Italian invasion. In this regard, the Church not only provided spiritual support to the Ethiopian people but also emerged as a symbol of resistance against foreign oppression, reinforcing its position as a cornerstone of national identity. In addition, the church has historically served as a refuge during times of conflict and instability. It played a crucial role in providing social services, including healthcare, pastoral care, and charitable activities, contributing to societal stability (M. Taddesse 2014).
On the other hand, this influence is not without its drawbacks. Scholars Abbink (2011) and Vaughan (2011) highlight concerns regarding the Church’s potential to foster religious exclusivity and ethnic sectarianism. Its predominant position within Ethiopia’s socio-political sphere may marginalize non-Orthodox communities, thereby heightening ethnic tensions. Historically, the EOTC has aligned itself closely with the Amhara ethnic group, leading to feelings of alienation among other groups, notably the Oromos. Such alignments can exacerbate inter-ethnic conflicts, contributing to social fragmentation instead of fostering a sense of unity. Furthermore, the Church’s influence can result in a homogenized national identity that overlooks Ethiopia’s inherent pluralism.
The intricate relationship between the state and the Church has further complicated these dynamics. Throughout various imperial regimes, the EOTC has been utilized as a tool to legitimize state authority, which has, in turn, weakened its moral standing and sparked resistance from different segments of society. This complex interplay of religion, ethnicity, and national identity underscores the necessity for a nuanced examination of the Church’s dual role in both promoting cohesion and fostering division within Ethiopian society (Hodge 2011).
According to Hodge, the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the ruling elites has had profound implications for the social, economic, and political landscape, especially regarding marginalized communities like the Oromo. This alliance enabled the Church to gain considerable benefits, including vast land holdings, much of which was seized from the Oromo people. This seizure of land amounting to a significant portion of what the Oromo once occupied has had long-lasting effects on the community’s ability to sustain itself culturally, economically, and socially.
The Church’s acquisition of land not only solidified its economic power but also deepened its ties to the ruling class. This wealth allowed the Church to exert greater influence within society and maintain a lavish establishment, thus prioritizing its interests over the spiritual needs of its followers, particularly those from marginalized groups. By aligning itself with the ruling elites, the Orthodox Church gained political leverage, often receiving privileges and protections in return for its support of the status quo. This relationship allowed the Church to play a crucial role in governance, often participating in decision-making processes that affected the entire nation, thereby sidelining the voices of marginalized populations (Hagmann and DeMaria 2015).
Hagmann and DeMaria argue that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has been instrumental in shaping both Abyssinian and Ethiopian identity, largely influenced by elites from a single ethnic group specifically for the period prior to 1974, when Orthodox Christianity was considered as the Ethiopian state religion. The political motives included promoting Christianity to foster a common religious identity that could unify diverse groups and legitimize the ruler’s authority, often depicting the ruler as the divinely ordained leader of a Christian nation. Even during the EPRDF’s rule from 1974 to 2018, the relationship between the state and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church was intricate and multifaceted. Although Ethiopia’s federal constitution is secular, the EPRDF frequently leveraged religious institutions for political endorsement and legitimacy, exerting considerable influence over the church. The government aimed to maintain authority across various societal domains, including religion, by ensuring that church leaders were aligned with its interests.
This strategy was designed to mobilize the church’s extensive followers to support government policies and actions. To achieve this, the regime favored leaders who were sympathetic to its agenda while suppressing dissenting or opposing voices. Consequently, this governance approach resulted in a significant intertwining of state and religious affairs, with church leaders often caught in a challenging position between their spiritual responsibilities and the political pressures imposed by the government. Thus, despite the constitutional mandate for the separation of church and state, in reality, the relationship was marked by substantial state control over church matters.
Tony Karbo (2013) emphasized that the Orthodox Church, by promoting narratives that align with the interests of the ruling elites, becomes complicit in the propagation of falsehoods. This complicity often stems from a pragmatic desire to preserve their own influence and power within the societal hierarchy. Instead of challenging the status quo, some clergy members may opt to align themselves with those in authority, thereby reinforcing narratives that misrepresent marginalized groups, such as the Oromo. This not only distorts public perception but also legitimizes the discrimination and marginalization these groups endure.
Youvan Douglas (2023) stated that the harmful consequences of this complicity are significant. The narratives promoted by the church contribute to the erasure of the rights and identities of the Oromo people and other marginalized groups, perpetuating discrimination in critical areas such as education, employment, politics, and social services. Additionally, the reinforcement of negative stereotypes has sparked social unrest, as marginalized communities strive to reclaim their dignity and assert their rights against systemic oppression. The Church’s prioritization of its own interests over moral accountability highlights a significant dilemma within religious institutions. By compromising its ethical responsibilities, the Orthodox Church not only undermines its own spiritual authority but also becomes complicit in systemic oppression. This complicity represents a betrayal of the core principles of many religious teachings that advocate for justice, compassion, and the protection of the vulnerable. Youvan further elaborated that this complicity implies that it contributes to the normalization of injustice within society.
This approach often led various cultural groups to feel that their languages, traditions, and beliefs were devalued or silenced, fostering resentment and alienation. A recent social media post by His Eminence Abune Henok, the leader and Archbishop of the Addis Ababa Diocese of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, illustrates this dynamic. He criticized “Wakefenna” and the traditional Oromo celebration of ‘Irrecha,’ a long-standing event centered on thanksgiving that is an integral part of the Gada system. In his Amharic speech, which was translated into English, he described this significant cultural practice as harmful and malevolent as follows;
“…………Have you ever considered ‘Wakefenna’? It appears to embody a malevolent spirit that threatens to push our civilization back by millennia. Those who adhere to this harmful ideology aim to undermine Christianity, dragging our society into ignorance and darkness. Although it may be presented as tradition or ritual, a closer look reveals that it fundamentally contradicts our Christian teachings. Supporters of ‘Wakefenna’ and Irrecha create significant obstacles and actively oppose the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. It resembles a system that nullifies the transformative impact of Jesus. The Oromo people are treated as subjects of experimentation for this malevolent spirit. Numerous secretive and malevolent acts are carried out under the guise of Irrecha, which is masked as a cultural practice. Ultimately, this belief endangers the future of our generations, steering our civilization toward a dark age. Too few have shown the determination to speak this truth against generations led toward destruction. While I may feel powerless alone, together we can confront and change this dire situation…………”
Source: Youtube - https://youtu.be/8e4zFWacDQ8
The Archbishop’s statement, which characterizes “Wakefenna” and “Irrecha” as malevolent forces threatening Ethiopia’s Christian heritage, is deeply irresponsible. This framing risks inflaming societal divisions along religious and cultural lines, potentially hindering national unity and the formation of a cohesive nation-state. By demonizing these traditions, the Archbishop’s remarks discourage open dialogue, understanding, and respect for diverse perspectives qualities that are essential for a healthy, pluralistic society. Furthermore, the comments reflect a broader issue of cultural misunderstanding, raising concerns about the potential for increased polarization among Ethiopia’s diverse communities.
Additionally, by characterizing ‘Wakefenna’ and ‘Irrecha’ as “obstacles to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ,” he revealed a limited understanding of the coexistence of diverse belief systems in Ethiopia. Christianity and traditional practices can coexist harmoniously, often enriching each other rather than fostering a narrative of conflict. This viewpoint also reflects the broader historical marginalization of the Oromo people and their beliefs. When leading religious figures make such assertions, it can intensify tensions and sustain a cycle of disrespect and misunderstanding among different cultural groups.
In the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, many biblical canons printed in Ge’ez and Amharic serve as essential guides for daily prayer and spiritual practice. However, concerns have been raised that some of these texts may intentionally portray certain ethnic communities, including the Oromo, in negative light fostering narratives that depict them as antagonistic toward the Christian faith. Such interpretations can lead to division, hostility, and misunderstandings among different ethnic groups outcomes that conflict with Christianity’s fundamental teachings of love, unity, and reconciliation. While these canons and texts might be vital to the faith and provide spiritual guidance, it is important that their interpretation aligns with core Christian principles of compassion and harmony. When certain narratives are understood or presented in ways that implicitly demonize communities like the Oromo, they risk fueling discord rather than fostering the peace and unity that Christianity advocates. Ultimately, the aim should be to ensure that religious texts and practices promote healing and solidarity, serving as tools for reconciliation rather than sources of division.
The EOTC asserts that it has made an unparalleled contribution to the formation and development of the Ethiopian state. However, this claim is accompanied by uncertainties that compromise its core faith values and moral authority. In light of these issues, it is essential for the EOTC to reflect on its historical role and reassess its responsibilities toward marginalized communities. Promoting unity and cohesion among diverse ethnic groups is vital for achieving social harmony. Acknowledging and addressing past injustices, along with advocating for restorative justice, are crucial steps toward healing and reconciliation. These efforts not only enhance the well-being of individuals and communities but also foster national cohesion by cultivating an inclusive environment where all ethnicities feel valued and respected.
5. The Influence of Divide-and-Rule Strategies on Nation-State Formation
In various African nations, governmental divide-and-rule tactics have been strategically utilized as a means of maintaining authority over diverse populations. Such strategies, as highlighted by Felix S. Bethke (2012), often provoke ethnic violence by taking advantage of historical grievances stemming from colonial rule. These colonial powers typically favored certain ethnic groups, leading to lasting social divides that many leaders in the post-independence era have exploited to fortify their own positions. By continually reinforcing these divisions, African governments frequently channel state resources toward favored ethnic groups, neglecting others and fueling tensions that threaten national unity. The aftermath of these tactics manifests in violent conflicts that undermine the social fabric of numerous nations.
The implications of divide-and-rule tactics for nation-building are both profound and complex. Historically, these strategies have been instrumental not only in maintaining control over varied populations but also in suppressing dissent. This is particularly evident in Ethiopia, a nation characterized by its multitude of ethnic groups, where the consequences of such policies have significantly affected national identity, governance, social cohesion, and conflict dynamics. By fostering fragmentation among social, ethnic, and political factions, these tactics inhibit the formation of a unified opposition and aggravate existing divisions, whether they be ethnic, religious, or regional. Scholars like Armin von Bogdandy (2005) argue that the failure of governments to deliver key political goods like security, legal protection, and economic resources can undermine state legitimacy, diminishing its capacity to govern effectively. This erosion of legitimacy may weaken the state or even precipitate its collapse, making the pursuit of a cohesive nation remarkably challenging.
Furthermore, the inability of public institutions to provide essential services can critically undermine the legitimacy and efficacy of the state. Von Bogdandy et al. (2005) point out that nation failure occurs when the concept of nationhood ceases to support accepted authority. When the narrative of nationhood loses its significance particularly through a lack of consensus on shared customs and histories communities may gravitate toward localized identities, emphasizing ethnic or regional affiliations over a collective national identity. This fragmentation raises the potential for violent conflict, complicating the quest for a cohesive society.
Governments often manipulate historical and cultural narratives to favor specific groups, fostering an “us versus them” mentality that exacerbates societal divisions. As Bethke elucidates, preferential treatment intensifies tensions, ultimately leading to violent confrontations that fracture national unity. Government strategies may also involve deploying state resources such as military or police forces to control particular demographic segments, entrenching authoritarian governance where power is maintained through coercion rather than consensus. This dynamic encourages loyalty to ethnic identities over the state itself (Mole 2020).
The ramifications of divide-and-rule tactics extend beyond immediate violence; they fundamentally reshape the identity and stability of the nation-state. As social cohesion diminishes and groups become increasingly estranged, the capacity for collective action wanes, resulting in distorted political representation and increased competition for resources. This environment of mistrust further marginalizes excluded communities and compounds grievances that hinder unified governance efforts (Maduegbuna 2015). The historical context of Ethiopia serves as a poignant example, where unequal resource distribution and favored treatment have exacerbated tensions and economic disparities. Conflicting narratives about identity and history also detract from the development of a shared national narrative. In the absence of common ground for national belonging, initiatives aimed at fostering unity become increasingly untenable, heightening tensions among diverse communities and potentially igniting violent conflicts or civil unrest.
The historical trajectory of Ethiopia reveals the profound impact of governmental divide-and-rule tactics on the formation of a unified state. Since the imperial era through the Derg and EPRDF governments to contemporary challenges, these strategies have shaped ethnic identities, concentrated power, and complicated the pursuit of a cohesive national identity. Ethiopia’s rich history is characterized by a tapestry of ethnic groups, languages, and cultures, with divide-and-rule tactics underpinning various regimes’ attempts to exert control over this diversity. Emperor Menelik II’s expansion in the late 19th century illustrates early applications of such tactics, where alliances with certain ethnic groups were forged to consolidate power against others. As Richard Pankhurst notes in “History of Ethiopian Migration” (2013), Menelik’s policies often exacerbated ethnic divisions, paving the way for centralized control while intensifying ethnic tensions.
During the imperial era under Haile Selassie’s rule (1930–1974), the use of divide-and-rule tactics evolved as the state sought to manage and counteract regional and ethnic identities. Donald N. Levine (2000) emphasizes how the central government manipulated ethnic loyalties for political advantage, fostering competition and mistrust among Ethiopia’s diverse groups. This strategy served to weaken nationalist sentiments and complicated efforts to forge a cohesive Ethiopian identity. The imperial administration often reinforced existing regional and ethnic loyalties to maintain control, relying on the feudal structure that prioritized central authority while also depending on regional aristocrats and traditional elites. Colonial influences and the Addis Ababa regime subtly exploited ethnic identities by favoring certain groups most notably the Amhara in administrative appointments, education, and military recruitment, thereby reinforcing divisions. The reliance on Amhara elites in the central government created disparities with other ethnic groups and fostered grievances, as policies of “Amhara dominance” marginalized non-Amhara populations. These policies and practices contributed to ethnic tensions that persisted beyond the imperial period (Bahru Zewde 2011; Harold G. Marcus 2002).
The Derg regime (1974–1991) initially aimed to centralize authority but eventually adopted ethnic federalism in response to both internal and external pressures. Scholars such as Assefa Bekele (2008) interpret this shift as a divide-and-rule strategy, whereby the government granted semi-autonomy to various ethnic groups to manage their aspirations while deliberately undermining efforts toward genuine national unity. The establishment of ethnic-based political entities deepened existing divisions, complicating the development of a cohesive Ethiopian identity. Although the Derg, a Marxist-Leninist military junta, sought to unite Ethiopia’s diverse populations under socialist ideals, it also employed divide-and-rule tactics to weaken traditional power structures. Ethnic identities were deliberately manipulated or suppressed to reinforce control, with ethnic federalism serving as a key tool in this strategy. During the Red Terror (1977–1978), the regime’s targeted repression of specific ethnic groups perceived as counter-revolutionaries further intensified ethnic divisions and conflicts (Abdullhi, 2003).
Under the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), established in 1991, ethnic federalism was institutionalized as a key policy to manage Ethiopia’s diverse population. Scholars like Merera Gudina (2014), in “Ethiopia: A Political History Since 1974,” argue that equating ethnic identity with political representation fostered increased ethnic nationalism and conflict. While this approach aimed to empower ethnic groups and promote regional self-governance, critics contend it also deepened divisions and hindered national unity. The EPRDF organized Ethiopia into ethnically based regions, ostensibly to accommodate diversity, but in practice, regional autonomy was often exploited to consolidate political power. The leadership, predominantly Tigrayan, frequently favored certain groups particularly Tigrayans in key positions, marginalizing others such as Oromos and Amharas. This sometimes involved divide-and-rule tactics, including manipulating regional boundaries and resource control to secure loyalty and suppress dissent. Such policies and practices heightened regional and ethnic tensions, perpetuating divisions rather than fostering lasting cohesion (Markakis 2011; Young 1997).
The rise of ethnic-based conflict in recent years emphasizes the limitations and consequences of divide-and-rule tactics. Christopher Clapham (2017) underscores how the legacy of ethnic divisions has ignited unrest, complicating efforts to build a unified Ethiopian state amid rising political fragmentation. Continuing conflicts across the nation have revealed how past policies have entrenched divisions that threaten the social fabric of Ethiopia.
The Prosperity Party, led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, claims to champion national unity; however, critics contend that the persistence of ethnic federalism and regional loyalties continues to be exploited for political advantage. Accusations have been made that the government leverages ethnic identity as a tool to mobilize support, which in turn has often intensified ethnic conflicts, especially in Oromia, Amhara, and Tigray. The ongoing conflict in Tigray (2020–2022) and persistent regional tensions exemplify how divisions are manipulated to serve political ends. Furthermore, the government’s narrative frequently emphasizes ethnic identity to legitimize its policies, a strategy critics argue worsens societal divisions rather than bridging them (Clapham 2020).
In conclusion, the divisive strategies of divide and rule strategies employed by the Ethiopian governments significantly hinder social cohesion and obstruct the establishment of a unified state. Fragmented communities encounter increasing difficulties in achieving collective action, as movements aimed at uniting diverse groups struggle to gain traction. This fragmentation compromises civil society and poses enduring challenges for nation-building efforts. A divided society lacks the capacity to collaboratively address national issues, making the creation of a stable and functioning nation-state exceedingly complex. By exacerbating divisions and fostering mistrust, these tactics erode a collective identity and hinder cooperative governance, resulting in ongoing conflict and instability, as seen in Ethiopia. For genuine progress, governments must prioritize inclusivity, promote open dialogue, and encourage mutual recognition among disparate groups. Such an approach can help forge a stable and cohesive national identity, ultimately laying the groundwork for a more unified state.
6. Balancing Progress and Accountability: The Debate between Moving Forward and Addressing Historical Grievances
In Ethiopia, the nation-building process reflects a complex interplay between historical narratives that emphasize national achievements and those that confront historical grievances. A pivotal figure in this discourse is Menelik II, celebrated for his leadership during the Battle of Adwa in 1896, where Ethiopia successfully resisted Italian colonization. This victory has transcended its military significance, evolving into a cornerstone of national identity that fosters pride and unity among Ethiopians. As noted by Gebru Tareke (2009), commemorations of such historical figures cultivate a shared identity, particularly for those who relate to Menelik II’s legacy and the expansion of the Ethiopian Empire. Yet, the reverence for these figures complicates the Ethiopian narrative, revealing a need to reconcile pride in historical achievements with efforts towards reconciliation, inclusivity, and recognition of the diverse experiences of all Ethiopians.
A significant challenge arises in the tension between national unity and the acknowledgment of marginalized histories. Celebrating a singular national identity often sidelines the historical grievances of ethnic groups such as the Oromo, Sidama, and Somali, etc. who have historically faced systemic exclusion from political power and cultural recognition. The narratives endorsed by the central governments predominantly reflect an Amhara-centric perspective, thereby neglecting the contributions and suffering of other communities. Abdur Rahman R. Aydin (2020) points out that glorified national narratives significantly shape the public understanding of history, often glossing over the injustices experienced by minority groups. The resistance to acknowledge historical injustices, including land dispossession and cultural repression, arises from proponents of a singular narrative who worry that addressing these issues may undermine national cohesion and harmony. They advocate for a forward-looking approach, asserting that “the past should not anchor us, but rather serve as a cautionary tale as we move forward together” (Aydin 2020).
Moderate advocates including individuals, political parties, and social media influencers argue for prioritizing contemporary challenges over historical grievances for several reasons. First, they assert that the current generation should not bear the burdens of past injustices, as those responsible for such acts are no longer alive. This view prioritizes present and future development over revisiting old wounds, suggesting that dwelling on the past impedes social cohesion (Aydin 2020). Second, maintaining existing socio-political structures is seen as a pathway to stability, enabling societies to address immediate needs without the distraction of historical conflicts. This perspective emphasizes a shared national identity, which seeks to unite various ethnic groups under a common Ethiopian banner, and contends that invoking historical injustices may rekindle tensions and conflict.
Moreover, proponents of this moderate stance argue that a future-oriented perspective can spur development and progress. They warn that historical grievances can be politicized, creating increased polarization and ethnic divisions, which detract from collaborative efforts towards economic and social stability. They believe that avoiding discussions about past injustices may diffuse existing tensions and foster a peaceful atmosphere necessary for national development.
On the other hand, extremist and ethnocentric factions, particularly some proponents of the concept of “Ethiopiawinet,” claim that ethnic politics pose a significant threat to Ethiopian identity. This ideology asserts that Ethiopia’s creation is exclusively attributed to the Amhara people, effectively relegating other ethnic groups to inferior positions (ORA, 2024:320). Dawit Wolde Giorgis, a leading figure among these supporters, emphasizes that the Amharas are the sole architects of Ethiopia’s identity and civilization, advocating for their supremacy in political arenas, as he articulates:
“Ethiopia is fundamentally tied to the Amhara people; others cannot claim the identity of being Ethiopian. We have the determination to enter the 4 Kilo Palace and establish a new government and system. As we’ve witnessed today, when the Amhara people unite, others become fearful and seek reconciliation, creating a palpable tension in the atmosphere. Ethiopia is synonymous with Amhara, and it is the Amhara who have brought the nation to its current status and defined its identity. We introduced the concept of Ethiopianism to the world. Other groups, whether Tigray, Oromo, or Wata, cannot truly embody what it means to be Ethiopian; that notion is a fantasy. The culture and history of the Amhara have shaped Ethiopia’s journey, and we will not relinquish that legacy. Our rich culture and fighting spirit cannot be claimed by others; it is inconceivable. We will not allow Ethiopia to be divided or surrendered out of fear of Oromo dominance. Much of the land occupied by the Oromo historically belongs to the Amhara. We remember the territories Tigray has taken from us. Can we expect the Oromos to respect our boundaries? Can we trust the TPLF to leave us in peace? True peace can only be achieved by addressing the root of these threats. We must coexist as neighbors but should no longer accept intrusion into our land. Our safety can only be assured if the systemic threats are resolved, and we will take action to remove the Oromo presence from all Amhara territories”.
These statements jeopardize Ethiopia’s progress toward national unity by fueling ethnic conflicts and causing long-term harm to its social fabric. The language explicitly dehumanizes and delegitimizes other ethnic groups, by asserting that only the Amhara can claim Ethiopian identity and threatening to remove others presence. Such rhetoric dangerously incites violence, communal conflicts, undermining efforts for peaceful coexistence. Ethiopia is a diverse, multi-ethnic nation, and denying this reality by claiming that only one group defines Ethiopian identity undermines the very foundation of a cohesive, inclusive state. Promoting a narrow, ethnic-centric view risks further division and fragmentation, as it fosters ethnic nationalism and may increase separatist sentiments among other groups seeking recognition and rights within a united Ethiopia. Historically, such exclusionary narratives have led to cycles of retaliation, displacement, and violence, which devastate communities and hinder national development.
Furthermore, these remarks hinder dialogue, reconciliation, and the building of an inclusive democracy. By dismissing the legitimacy of other identities and histories, they marginalize non-Amhara groups, exacerbating inequality and resentment. Such racist and exclusionary rhetoric threaten the core goals of unity and national integration, risking increased polarization, threatening Ethiopia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and disrupting peace efforts. Achieving a cohesive nation requires recognizing Ethiopia’s diversity, fostering mutual respect, and practicing inclusive governance principles fundamentally at odds with the sentiments expressed in these remarks. Without embracing these values, Ethiopia risks deepening divisions and undermining its future stability and unity.
In contrast, proponents of acknowledging historical grievances emphasize the importance of recognizing the ongoing effects of past injustices. They argue that the legacies of previous leadership and colonial policies have contributed to persistent social and economic disparities that continue to disadvantage marginalized communities today. For example, the forced displacement of Oromo farmers during the EPRDF regime exemplifies how recent injustices can have lasting repercussions, disrupting livelihoods and eroding cultural heritages (Aydin 2020). These historical contexts highlight the necessity of addressing underlying inequalities to build a more equitable and just society.
Aydin emphasizes that recognizing cultural marginalization and economic exploitation is essential for fostering genuine reconciliation. Ignoring these historical injustices sidelines the voices of those affected, thereby perpetuating cycles of inequality that impede social cohesion (Gourevitch 2003). Acknowledging past grievances not only facilitates healing but also empowers marginalized communities, enabling them to participate meaningfully in the national narrative (United Nations, 2013).
South Africa’s transition from apartheid to a democratic society exemplifies this approach. The country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established under Nelson Mandela’s leadership, showed that addressing historical injustices through mechanisms such as reconciliation and forgiveness can promote social healing and nation-building (Tutu and Nelson 1999). Instead of denying or ignoring the legacy of apartheid, South Africa confronted its history directly, which helped to foster a more inclusive and stable society (Seekings and Nattrass 2005).
Similarly, countries like Australia and Canada have achieved prosperous democratic societies by confronting their historical injustices openly. Australia’s process of acknowledging the injustices faced by Indigenous peoples culminating in formal apologies and ongoing reconciliation efforts has been fundamental in fostering social cohesion (Australian Human Rights Commission 2017). Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which investigated the history of Indigenous residential schools, has played a crucial role in acknowledging historical wrongs and promoting healing and nation-wide reconciliation (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015).
These global experiences underscore the importance of confronting historical injustices as a pathway to sustainable peace and development. Ethiopian politicians should heed these lessons, recognizing that genuine reconciliation requires acknowledgment, dialogue, and justice elements vital for building an inclusive and resilient nation (Mlambo 2018).
The contrasting perspectives on how to approach Ethiopia’s historical narrative highlight a significant divide within society. A balanced approach may entail recognizing historical grievances while simultaneously fostering a vision for unity and progress. This balance can be achieved through open discussions about the past, coupled with action-oriented agendas aimed at addressing inequalities. Thoughtful discourse that integrates diverse viewpoints is crucial for navigating these complexities and fostering a shared destiny among all Ethiopians.
Ultimately, addressing Ethiopia’s historical grievances do not require an obsession with the past; instead, it can serve as a crucial step toward creating a more united and equitable nation. By incorporating diverse narratives into national celebrations, we can deepen our understanding of Ethiopian identity and highlight its rich diversity. The future lies in engaging in constructive dialogue that acknowledges pain and fosters understanding, thus closing divides and nurturing an inclusive society. Ignoring these historical grievances may deepen cycles of resentment and conflict. Instead, fostering inclusivity and mutual recognition can lay the foundation for a harmonious and united Ethiopia. A sincere commitment to exploring Ethiopia’s multifaceted history can lay a robust foundation for sustainable nation-building and social advancement.
7. The Challenges of Historical Distortion and Misleading Narratives in Shaping National Identity
In his work, “The Dynamics of Ethnic Conflict in Ethiopia: Reassessing Historical Grievances and State Response” (Assefa, 2020), asserted that historical distortion and misleading narratives pose profound challenges to the development of a cohesive and inclusive national identity. When history is selectively interpreted or manipulated, it can have far-reaching consequences that affect a nation’s psychological, cultural, economic, political, and social fabric. These distortions often serve to reinforce certain power structures while marginalizing others, thereby deepening divisions and obstructing efforts toward unity. This issue is particularly evident in diverse countries like Ethiopia, where misrepresentations of the Oromo people and others history by both past and present elites have historically fueled tensions and hindered the formation of a genuinely inclusive national identity (Asafa, 2020).
Ethiopia’s intricate history demonstrates how selective narratives and distortions shape national consciousness. The nation possesses a rich heritage that encompasses ancient civilizations, resistance to colonial invasions, and a diverse tapestry of cultural traditions. Nonetheless, different political regimes from the monarchy to the Derg military dictatorship and the current federal government have used particular historical narratives to legitimize their authority and forge a sense of national identity. For example, during the Derg period (1974–1991), Marxist-Leninist ideology led to reinterpretations of Ethiopia’s history, emphasizing themes of class struggle and revolutionary change, often at the expense of traditional monarchic and religious histories (Marcus 2002). Likewise, the Battle of Adwa in 1896, which stood as a symbol of resistance against Italian colonization, has been celebrated as a unifying national achievement. However, this narrative has sometimes been simplified to promote national cohesion, overlooking the country’s regional and ethnic diversities (Marcus 2002).
Ethiopia’s deep Christian heritage, including the mythologized Solomonic dynasty, plays a central role in shaping national identity. Nonetheless, some narratives romanticize or mythologize religious history, often overlooking regional and cultural diversities that define the country’s multi-ethnic landscape (Henze 2000). When historical accounts are manipulated to favor certain groups or regions, they risk exacerbating ethnic tensions and conflicts, as recent Ethiopian conflicts have demonstrated. Such distortions frequently involve the erasure or trivialization of certain groups’ contributions, struggles, and experiences, leading to a skewed understanding of the nation’s past. These narratives, often propagated through official channels or dominant cultural discourses, can foster feelings of exclusion and marginalization among communities whose histories are misrepresented, thereby breeding resentment, distrust, and conflict (Haddington 2017).
The repercussions of historical distortion extend beyond issues of accuracy. Misrepresented histories distort the understanding of national values and priorities, impeding the development of a common national project. When different groups interpret the past in conflicting ways, cooperation and consensus on future directions become more difficult, hampering economic development and social cohesion (Mersha 2021). Furthermore, manipulated narratives deepen societal divisions by reinforcing stereotypes and limiting opportunities for dialogue, understanding, and reconciliation. This polarization makes addressing pressing societal issues more challenging and can undermine efforts to build a shared future, as evidenced in Ethiopia’s ongoing political and social struggles.
The current political landscape in Ethiopia is complex and deeply influenced by historical narratives, identity politics, and shifting alliances. It is not uncommon for groups or elites who once supported a government to change their stance when their interests are perceived to be threatened or betrayed. In this context, some extremist groups are now propagating the narrative that the present government is solely an Oromo-oriented administration, advocating for the dismantling of the federal system and constitution they claim marginalizes other groups. This shift can be understood within a broader framework of political opportunism, identity assertion, and reactions to recent developments such as the Pretoria Agreement with the TPLF. These groups perceive the agreement as a betrayal of their previous support and view the federal system as a source of conflict or weakness, thus fueling their hostility and propaganda campaigns (ORA 2024).
Labeling or framing specific campaigns as “Oromos turn” or locally provoked as “teregna” without solid justification can reinforce misunderstandings and intensify divisions. It is essential to acknowledge that leadership or ethnic background alone does not inherently dictate policies or their results. Throughout history, leaders from Oromo backgrounds, such as Mengistu Hailemariam and Emperor Haile Selassie, have held power without necessarily advancing the interests of their ethnic groups or addressing systemic oppression faced by others. Effective governance and social justice require policies rooted in fairness, inclusivity, and a genuine concern for all citizens, regardless of ethnicity. Simplistic narratives that attribute specific actions or campaigns solely to ethnic motives risk fueling division and undermine efforts toward national unity and equitable development.
At the same time, Oromumma serves as a unifying ideology among the Oromo community, highlighting shared language, cultural identity, and traditions rooted in early history. It champions values of equality and respect for human dignity, actively opposing cultural marginalization, political exclusion, and economic exploitation. However, some extremist groups have deliberately misrepresented Oromumma, twisting its meaning to depict it as a threat to national unity and as a tool to subjugate other Ethiopians, despite lacking concrete evidence to support these claims. This distortion aims to undermine the authentic principles of Oromomma and sow division within society (Aseffa 2008).
Recognizing the power of historical narratives in shaping national identity underscores the importance of critical engagement with the past. Promoting inclusive histories that incorporate diverse perspectives is essential for fostering a truly harmonious society. This process involves acknowledging past injustices and working towards a future where all voices are heard and respected. By confronting uncomfortable truths and embracing a multifaceted view of history, nations can cultivate a shared understanding that bridges divides, promotes reconciliation, and guides collective progress. Ultimately, constructing an inclusive and authentic national identity requires a deliberate effort to listen to marginalized voices and to challenge distortions, ensuring that history serves as a foundation for unity rather than division.
8. Federalism: A Strategy for Embracing Unity in Diversity in State Development
Federalism stands as a significant strategic framework for governing states marked by profound ethnic and cultural diversity. While acknowledging potential complexities like regional inequalities and ethnic tensions, this system fundamentally recognizes and respects the multifaceted nature of a society. By decentralizing power and promoting local governance, federalism creates space for diverse groups to manage their affairs, fostering a culture of dialogue and cooperation essential for national cohesion. As Lijphart (1999) aptly notes, federalism offers a valuable mechanism for bridging cultural, linguistic, and social divides, recognizing the limitations of a uniform governance model in diverse contexts.
Core strength of federalism lies in its formal recognition of diverse ethnic and cultural groups. By granting these groups autonomy at regional or local levels, federal systems celebrate diversity rather than imposing a singular national identity (Stepan 1999). This inherent adaptability empowers different regions to craft policies tailored to their specific cultural, social, and economic needs. Such localized governance is crucial for fostering a sense of belonging and mitigating feelings of alienation among minority populations (Tully 2000). It ensures that solutions reflect the unique circumstances of various communities, thereby enhancing overall stability within the polity.
Furthermore, federalism ensures the strategic sharing of power between a central authority and regional governments, facilitating more localized decision-making. This decentralization is vital for mitigating the risks associated with concentrated power, a frequent source of conflict in multi-ethnic societies (Scharpf 1999). By enabling ethnic minorities to exercise control over specific aspects of local governance, federalism empowers these groups and ensures their voices are integrated into political and social arenas. This empowerment is foundational for building trust and fostering cooperation among diverse ethnic communities, thereby alleviating tensions stemming from perceived inequalities.
A notable feature of federal systems is their embedded mechanisms for negotiation and collaboration between different levels of government. These mechanisms are indispensable for encouraging dialogue among diverse ethnic groups, providing peaceful avenues for conflict resolution (Brown 2006). When tensions inevitably arise, established legal and political processes within a federal framework can promote stability and social cohesion, significantly reducing the likelihood of violence and unrest.
Beyond facilitating inter-ethnic cooperation, federalism contributes to the formation of a shared national identity that respects individual differences (Smith 2013). This dynamic process enhances national unity while simultaneously accommodating the multifaceted nature of society. As various regions collaborate on issues such as economic development, security, and infrastructure, interdependence naturally fosters connections among different groups, cultivating a collective sense of belonging. Importantly, federal structures also ensure fair representation for ethnic groups within both regional and national legislatures, providing crucial channels for addressing grievances and integrating diverse voices into the political process (Reilly 2001). Such inclusive civic engagement is paramount for fostering an inclusive society and establishing a robust nation-state capable of effectively navigating the complexities of a multi-ethnic landscape.
Federalism also empowers regions to tailor economic policies to their specific needs, contributing to the reduction of disparities among ethnic groups and promoting more equitable national development (Wibbels 2006). By effectively managing local resources, regions can enhance their economic conditions and deliver tangible benefits to their communities, thereby bolstering overall national stability. Thus, federalism not only improves political representation but actively encourages economic collaboration and development, offering a pragmatic response to the inherent challenges of multi-ethnic societies.
In the specific context of Ethiopia, the debate over the most suitable form of federalism highlights the conflicting arguments between proponents of geographic federalism and ethnic federalism. These represent fundamentally different approaches to addressing the nation’s complex challenges, rooted in divergent interpretations of Ethiopia’s history, the root causes of its problems, and the optimal path toward a just and stable future.
Proponents of geographic federalism in Ethiopia propose this model as an alternative they believe can more effectively address the nation’s historical and structural governance challenges. They argue that shifting the administrative focus from ethnicity to geography could potentially foster greater national unity and mitigate ethnic tensions. Their critique of Ethiopia’s current ethnic federalism centers on the argument that it can incentivize political parties and leaders to primarily appeal to their own ethnic group for support (Assefa 2006). This, they contend, can lead to a heightened focus on ethnic identity over national unity, potentially creating divisions and exacerbating tensions between groups (Abbink, 2006; Vaughan and Tronvoll 2003). Furthermore, proponents of geographic federalism suggest that ruling elites can leverage these ethnic divisions to consolidate and maintain control by positioning themselves as the protectors of their own ethnic group’s interests, potentially undermining broader national cohesion and equitable governance (Abbink, 2006).
Conversely, proponents of ethnic federalism in Ethiopia often view geographic federalism with skepticism, perceiving it as a potential pathway to reintroducing a unitary or highly centralized model of governance under the guise of federalism. They contend that without explicitly recognizing and empowering ethnic groups, a geographic system would inevitably lead to the dominance of the most populous or politically powerful ethnic group in each region, or even at the national level. For ethnic federalists, Ethiopia’s core problems are not merely administrative or geographic; they are fundamentally rooted in historical ethnic marginalization, oppression, and exploitation (Aalen 2002). They argue that geographic federalism, by failing to directly address ethnicity, would consequently fail to rectify these historical injustices and power imbalances.
A major concern voiced by proponents of ethnic federalism is that a geographic system would lead to the cultural marginalization of smaller or less dominant ethnic groups within geographically defined regions, potentially suppressing or overshadowing their languages, cultures, and traditions by the dominant group in that area. Ethnic federalism, in contrast, aims to protect and promote the cultural rights of all ethnic groups through the establishment of ethnically defined regions and autonomous cultural institutions (Medhane 2002). Ethnic federalists further argue that in a geographic system, the resources of a region could be exploited by the dominant group within that region, or by the central government, without adequate benefit or control for the ethnic groups who historically inhabited and stewarded those resources. Geographic federalism, by not recognizing ethnic groups as the basis of regional governance, is seen as undermining this fundamental principle, effectively reducing ethnic groups to mere inhabitants of a geographic area without the collective rights and protections they deem necessary. They argue that the historical grievances of ethnic groups, stemming from centuries of oppression and inequality, cannot be resolved by simply redrawing maps based on geography (Aalen 2002).
The ethnic federalist critique of geographic federalism is deeply rooted in the belief that Ethiopia’s problems are fundamentally ethnic in nature and require an ethnic-based solution. They perceive geographic federalism as a superficial approach that disregards the historical context of marginalization and exploitation, and risks undermining the hard-won rights and autonomy of ethnic groups. For them, ethnic federalism, despite its inherent challenges, represents the most viable path towards a more just and equitable future for all of Ethiopia’s diverse peoples (Vaughan and Tronvoll 2003).
In summary, it is crucial to emphasize that while federalism provides a necessary framework for diverse societies; its effectiveness is contingent upon operating within a robust democratic system. This necessitates that governance at all levels federal and regional must be responsible and accountable to the people. Crucially, the argument for effective federalism places the blame for governance failures and the breakdown of the rule of law squarely on the government’s actions and inactions, not on the federal system itself. This distinction is vital: it separates the structure of governance (federalism) from the performance of those in power. It must be clear that federalism is not a panacea; it must be accompanied by a strong commitment to democracy, good governance, and accountability to be truly effective and sustainable (Tronvoll 2009).
9. Ethiopia’s Federal Constitution: A Legal Framework for Nation-State Development and its Challenges
Adopted in 1995, Ethiopia’s Federal Constitution stands as a pivotal framework for the development of a nation-state within a profoundly diverse society. This foundational document established a federal system designed to acknowledge and accommodate the country’s vast array of ethnic groups. By granting substantial autonomy to regional ethnic federal units, the Constitution empowers these groups to govern themselves and to preserve their languages, cultures, and traditions. This legal structure aimed not only to empower minority groups but also to mitigate ethnic tensions, fostering a more inclusive political environment (Aalen and Murrell 2009).
A particularly notable feature of the Constitution is Article 39, which enshrines the right of nations, nationalities, and peoples to self-determination, including the right to secession. This provision holds significant weight as it addresses historical grievances stemming from years of marginalization and oppression. By asserting these rights, the Constitution promotes a sense of ownership among diverse groups regarding their political and social structures, essential for cultivating a collective identity in a nation marked by ethnic plurality (Abbink, 2006).
Furthermore, Ethiopia’s federal structure delineates a clear distribution of powers between the federal government and regional states. This decentralization is intended to bring governance closer to the people, making political administration more representative and responsive to local needs (Tronvoll 2009). The Constitution establishes a framework for a parliamentary democracy, a system that includes crucial provisions for free and fair elections, a separation of powers, and adherence to the rule of law. Such elements are critical for fostering political pluralism and facilitating peaceful transitions of power, necessary for a stable and functioning democracy (Hassen 2015).
In conjunction with political representation, the Constitution features a comprehensive bill of rights that safeguards individual freedoms and rights, irrespective of ethnicity, gender, or religion. These legal protections are vital for enhancing social cohesion and fostering a sense of belonging among all Ethiopians (Käihkö 2011). By safeguarding the rights of individuals from diverse backgrounds, the Constitution establishes a legal environment conducive to national unity while preserving respect for diversity. The federal framework also introduces institutional mechanisms for resolving disputes among different ethnic and regional groups, which can help mitigate tensions and promote collaboration. Such mechanisms are particularly important in a nation where ethnic identities run deep, providing formal avenues to address grievances and foster dialogue (Young 2013).
Despite the Constitution’s significant potential, its effectiveness has been severely undermined by a lack of political will and a failure to consistently uphold its democratic principles. While the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) initially adopted federalism as a strategy to manage the country’s ethnic diversity, implementation has often been inconsistent and at times contradictory to the Constitution’s core tenets (Teferra 2018). This inconsistency has fueled accusations of authoritarianism and repression, with the EPRDF utilizing state mechanisms to stifle dissent and control political discourse (Befekadu 2019).
Critics argue that despite constitutional promises of self-determination and autonomy for ethnic groups, the central government has maintained a firm grip over regional states, often curtailing their powers when it suits the ruling party’s interests (Dersso 2017). This selective adherence to constitutional norms has resulted in growing discontent and disillusionment among Ethiopians, encompassing both government supporters and opponents. Many have expressed frustration over the widening gap between the Constitution’s democratic ideals and the realities of political practice in the country (Käihkö 2020).
Compounding these issues is the government’s reluctance to embrace genuine political pluralism and its tendency to label opposition as a threat to national unity. This approach has only fueled tensions, leading many ethnic groups to feel marginalized despite the constitutional framework intended to empower them, which, in turn, has triggered a resurgence of ethnic nationalism and unrest (Young, 2015). The promise of the Federal Constitution as a vehicle for peace and democracy has thus been jeopardized, creating a precarious situation that demands urgent attention and reform to restore trust and credibility in Ethiopia’s governing structures (Tronvoll, 2020).
Adding to the challenges, certain groups hold a deeply negative and absolutist view of the Ethiopian constitution, attributing its perceived failures directly to the current federal structure and rejecting the historical shifts it embodies. Their intense opposition is underscored by the use of strong, negative language, such as “law of the jungle,” and a desire for the constitution’s complete dismantling. This kind of rhetoric is inherently divisive, hindering efforts to build a more inclusive and harmonious society and posing a significant challenge to national unity and stability. When disagreements are framed in such absolute terms, they leave little room for compromise and can easily escalate tensions. While some criticisms of the constitution may stem from legitimate concerns, the manner in which these are expressed and the solutions proposed can either foster or undermine national unity.
Ultimately, Ethiopia’s Federal Constitution should be viewed as a potential tool for nation-building, encouraging a shared national identity while simultaneously allowing for the expression of distinct ethnic identities. Balancing these elements is crucial for the stability and unity of the state, as it seeks to harmonize the aspirations of various groups within the overarching goal of national cohesion (Mekonnen 2017). As Ethiopia continues to navigate its complex social landscape, the effective implementation of its Federal Constitution, coupled with a commitment to its democratic principles and inclusive dialogue, will remain central to the nation’s ongoing quest for peace, democracy, and development.
10. Critical Measures to Move Forward for Cohesive and Stable Nation Building: Conclusive Insights
In the quest for a stable nation building, particularly in contexts characterized by ethnic diversity and historical complexities, several critical measures emerge as essential for fostering unity, peace, and sustainable development. These strategic actions aim not only to address underlying grievances but also to promote inclusivity, ensuring that all citizens feel represented and valued within the national framework. The cornerstone of a stable nation-building lies in its political architecture. A genuine commitment to political reform is imperative, emphasizing democratic principles, transparency, and accountability. This includes the need to revisit and strengthen constitutional provisions, ensuring that power is distributed equitably across various levels of government. Additionally, creating mechanisms that facilitate the meaningful participation of all ethnic and regional groups in the political process is vital for fostering a sense of ownership and belonging among citizens.
Equally important are the institutions that uphold the rule of law and democratic values. Strengthening judicial independence, electoral bodies, and law enforcement agencies is crucial for building public trust in governance. These institutions must be equipped to address grievances in a systematic and fair manner, significantly reducing the likelihood of ethnic tensions escalating into conflict. When citizens believe in the impartiality and effectiveness of their institutions, it fosters a more stable societal environment.
Building open and inclusive dialogue platforms is another critical measure. Such platforms allow various stakeholders including ethnic groups, civil society organizations, and marginalized communities to voice their concerns and engage in collaborative problem-solving. It is imperative that national dialogue initiatives are structured to ensure no group feels excluded or sidelined, which in turn reinforces social cohesion and mutual understanding.
Addressing economic disparities is also essential in alleviating tensions within diverse societies. Implementing policies that promote equitable economic development and address regional imbalances significantly contributes to national stability. Investment in underdeveloped areas, along with ensuring that all communities have access to resources and opportunities, is pivotal in reducing feelings of marginalization and resentment, thus contributing to a more harmonious society.
Moreover, a steadfast commitment to protecting the human rights of all citizens is foundational for fostering a sense of belonging and trust in the state. Establishing comprehensive legal protections against discrimination and creating mechanisms for reporting and addressing human rights violations are essential. Such commitments help to cultivate a culture of respect and tolerance among different ethnic and social groups.
Education plays a vital role in shaping national identity and nurturing mutual respect among diverse populations. Incorporating curricula that promote the understanding of various cultures, histories, and languages can enhance social cohesion. Additionally, awareness campaigns that promote tolerance and celebrate diversity can play a vital role in mitigating stereotypes and prejudices that fuel division.
Robust conflict resolution mechanisms are critical for addressing disputes among ethnic and regional groups before they escalate into violence. The establishment of formal channels for negotiation, mediation, and reconciliation provides peaceful alternatives to conflict. Training local leaders in conflict resolution empowers communities to manage differences constructively. Prioritizing dialogue over violence is a crucial initial step, especially in halting ongoing clashes between various armed groups and the government. It is essential to recognize that military solutions cannot provide a sustainable path to resolving conflicts; true progress can only be achieved through peaceful dialogue. Transforming a “winner takes all” mentality into one that emphasizes collaborative solutions is key to paving the way for lasting peace and stability. To break free from the cycle of violence, initiating peace negotiations that recognize and respect the interests of all parties involved is vital.
Engagement with international partners and organizations can also augment these efforts by providing additional resources and expertise. Collaborative endeavors in peace building, economic development, and institutional strengthening can enhance the capabilities of national actors, creating a conducive environment for stability. Strategic partnerships should focus on shared goals of peace, security, and development, while respecting the sovereignty and unique characteristics of each nation.
In conclusion, building a stable nation in the context of ethnic diversity demands a multifaceted approach that addresses historical grievances, promotes inclusivity, and fosters a shared sense of identity. The comprehensive measures outlined above provide a framework for meaningful progress. By committing to these actions, Ethiopia can work towards a future characterized by unity, resilience, and sustainable development, ensuring that all citizens thrive within a cohesive and stable society.