Oromo-Ethioipan Political analyst and researcher Jawar Mohammed commented on the current hot topic surrounding recent statements made by the former OLF leader Leenco Lata. According to Leenco, different aspects of the Ethiopian society view the state in distinct ways. Some see the country as a unitary state, while others see it as a federal state and other communities see it as an empire (colonial) state. As the result, He said the basic precondition for electoral democracy does not exist in Ethiopia and it is impossible to have a successful election while many people of Ethiopia doubt the legitimacy of the Ethiopian state itself. He believes there should be a national dialogue on the future of the Ethiopian state to reach a compromise on a national constitution before elections occur.
Giving examples from Europe and America,Mr. leenco also said the core constitution should not be decided by political parties and the foundational constitution of any country is not supposed to be radically changed every time new party/group comes to power in Ethiopia. He gave an example of what Amharic speaking Ethiopian groups (like UDJ, AEUP) wish to do to re-organize the country's administrative structure in contrast to what Oromo speaking Ethiopian groups (like OPC, OFDM) want to do.
Below is Jimma Times's brief Q& A with Jawar Mohammed.
Q: Do you agree with Mr. Leenco's views?
Jawar: Political consensus among all Ethiopian political elites, elders and leaders is certainly indispensable to create a shared vision for the future of the country. I also concur with his advice that elections, even for that matter regime changes, without sorting out the contested issues before hand cannot lead to stable and sustainable political development, or what is sometimes called constitutionalism. However, that sort of political development could be wrought only by engaging the national politics on the ground. Elections and other forms of contest can avail opportunities to reach that consensus. But they are episodic. Without sustained and active engagements, it is difficult to attain consensus simply because; (a) the incumbent needs to be rationally compelled to choose the consensus; (b) direct engagement triggers public demand for justice that could compel the incumbent to negotiate; (c) without direct pressure through organized political contest on the ground, the ruling elites have little incentive to change their current monopolistic course.
Q: Do a majority of Ethiopians have real doubts on the legitimacy of Ethiopian state that we need to organize a new forum to discuss this matter?
A: I do think you are asking about empirical data about the legitimacy of the current government. Legitimacy is one of those highly contested notion; there are several ways of looking at legitimacy. Who after all can claim absolute acceptance except maybe the delusional monarchies whose political authority supposedly descended from heaven. To be sure any state led by an authoritarian government lacks legitimacy, let alone such governments. The same is true with totalitarian regimes. Their legitimacy effect spills over to the state. Similarly, a state that discriminates amongst its people also lacks legitimacy. Also, a state whose foundation was skewed towards one group tends to be legitimacy-deficient. Since the modern Ethiopia was founded through conquest, and the trauma of that process still remains fresh; the resulting imbalance and disparity have not been carefully corrected, and even today’s Ethiopia not free of partisanship; the allegation of lack of legitimacy could be true.
Q: Or do you think those people who question or doubt the legitimacy of the Ethiopian state are a small minority?
A: The majority/minority dichotomy does not work here. It’s obvious those significant portions of the people contest the legitimacy and continued existence of the Ethiopia state. The situation is even graver on the side of some particular ethnic groups than others. Integration into the national socio-political structure taints one’s judgment, I think. Look some groups are now becoming more Ethiopian than others, identifying themselves with the national identity and sometime posturing as the guardians of the rest. Every group that assumes power in that country tends to identify the country with itself and leads the state to a bankruptcy of legitimacy. From another side, our politics is dominated by a current of altra right wing conservatives contesting the legitimacy of the existing structure. They seem to want to return the country to the old order. Those who contest the legitimacy of the Ethiopian state cannot be simply dismissed as a small minority. They are not minority, both numerically and morally. Lencoo’s suggestion of renegotiated politics is plausible.
Q: If you agree with Mr. Leenco's viewpoint, then where and how should such a nationwide forum/conference be organized and who should participate?
A: Conferences and forums are good ways of brainstorming and searching for common ground among the elites of different groups. We break the existing barriers and open up the field for dialog so that we can understand the different viewpoints. Only in that way can we start to understand the pain and perspective of those we do not associate with. But such top down approaches are not sufficient to bring about sustainable shared vision. We need bottom up pressure through civil society and active ordinary citizens. Its only through such push can we create enough pressure and incentive for elites to develop an acceptable formula for moving forward. I mean, we need to mobilize the mass.
Q: Considering the current realities of EPRDF's strong fist rule in Ethiopia and the powerless dissident activity, what are the chances that such a dialogue/conference would be successful, inclusive and democratic?
A: You cannot have incumbents settle for dialogue without you having a negotiation chip. They are rational and if you just call for negotiation without any tangible engagement, you are simply making noise. They wouldn’t have to have dialogue with anyone. But if you mobilize the mass and prove the alternative is worse, everyone would agree. Unless of course they greedy enough to send the nation to its dooms day. The process of resisting dictatorship should therefore be the way to open the dialogue. Everyone agrees that only through unified resistance can we overthrow tyrants. I mean mass resistance to injustice, inequality, and discrimination. The culprit may not necessarily be the incumbent alone; such mass resistance allows us to weed away authoritarians and totalitarians even from within the so called oppositions. The necessity of collective engagement should not be limited to fighting a mutual enemy. It should be a mechanism in which we can chart a new chapter for our collective existence; a way to forge some sort of common denominator. Time to enter into a lasting partnership rather than short term tactical alliances; elites should transcend transient interests. Developing such lasting partnership requires negotiating differences, reconciling historical animosities and building trust. The process of fighting collectively necessitates certain moderation, but such moderation should not be left at superficial level. I think the opposition in Ethiopia has begun such process and if they continue on such path, we can succeed in bridging gaps and develop shared vision.
