Prof. Berhanu Nega: has been chairperson of Patriotic Ginbot 7 Movement for Unity and Democracy. The Ethiopian Herald’s Abdurezak Mohammed sat with him to discuss on issues ranging from identity politics, to on ways of mitigating conflicts and what politicians can do to deal with the fragmented politics in the countries, among others. Excerpts; Q:How will the fragmentation of parties harm democratization process?
Prof. Berhanu Nega: When we have fragmented political parties, it becomes very difficult to achieve a stable and democratic political order. The political life of the society is so fragmented. Unless and otherwise you have a set of clearly defined ideological lines,the public finds it hard to choose within certain framework. If you have political parties for every possible topic or issue,a democratic-political order cannot function. It really needs focused and clear ideological perspectives that allow the public to choose from these various options.
Q:So, you’re saying it harms the process.
Prof. Berhanu Nega: Well! When we look at democratic countries with multiple small parties, one of the problems facing them is that it is very difficult to govern on a stable way. And the population will split to these different parties. It makes it very difficult to form coalitions. It makes it very difficult to create stability in the political system. The experience of countries with multiple parties is continuous instability. That is the problem. That’s why it is better to have few parties. Each party should not be very rigid ideologically.The parties have to allow range of attitudes and political views. Within the parties, there needs to be continuous on various policy options. It is not necessary to reach an agreement on each and every possible policy issues.
Q: How could few but strong parties be created?
Prof. Berhanu Nega: Well! In the Ethiopian context, I think parties that have relatively close ideological perspectives and positions would start to come together. Individually the small parties are not strong enough to make any dent. But if they come together, then they will have a chance to win and a chance to be competitive in this political environment. So, my hope is that these parties would learn the use and the value and they would start to talk to each other and work together so that they could form larger, meaningful and stable political parties.
Q: You frequently say that Politics couldn’t be seen in the absence of citizenship, what do you mean?
Prof. Berhanu Nega: The idea of politics is about state power. State power is a power that represents the whole of population. You can’t form political organizations along smaller identities owing to the rules of the game is such that when the state implements a policy of the state promulgates law and applies to every citizen irrespective of other identifies.
You can’t have specific laws to specific communities or groups. So, by definition whatever the state does the policies, the rules and laws at the state comes up applies to everyone as the citizen of the country. You cannot have a particular law that applies not only to the Muslims or to the Christians. It applies to everyone. You cannot have a law that applies to particular ethnic groups or identities. By definition whatever the state comes up with applies to everyone. Even when a government is elected by majority, once the government is elected it is representative of all peoples. Each one of us has different identities; it can be identities in relation to our professions, identities in terms of linguistic groups, cultural groups. It could be identities on the basis of sport clubs that we support. These are multiple identities. There is no one that has only one identity. So, in an environment where each one of us has these identities, you cannot have politics that deals with only one particular identity. There is no one identity that is supreme in an environment of the state.
The state is an instrument representing everyone in that political community. Q: Do you think Ethiopian politicians are ready to promote citizenship politics?
Prof. Berhanu Nega: I hope so.
Q: What makes you say this?
Prof. Berhanu Nega :I hope that given the experience that we have both in our country in the last twenty seven years,where identity politics trapseverything else, or the experience of neighboring countries in Somalia and South Sudan or you cross ocean go to Yemen and Syria what they have learnt is, when you define politics on the basis identities, it is much more a recipe for conflict rather than a recipe for stability and prosperity.
The experience of countries around us and our experience in the last twenty seven years, all the conflicts that we see in different parts of the region is a clear indication that we cannot have a stable political system in the long run that is entirely based on identity politics. We need to have a politics of citizenship where the state represents all of us; and the state represents every citizen in that country and we relate to the state as a citizen not as a particular identity.
Q: Is the reality prevailing now allows you to take such path?
Prof. Berhanu Nega: If we accept everything that exists as permanent reality,then I don’t not understand why we seek change. Why do we have to implement policies that would allow us to change? If an economy based on smallholder agriculture is a permanent reality, then why do we implement agricultural policies to transform it?If what exists is what drives us,then the whole purpose of implementing policies to achieve change and bring about prosperity would be meaningless. So at any particular moment, strong feeling about something does not necessary mean it is permanent.
We want to have peace, stability and prosperity. Currently as it stands, we don’t have these things. The whole purpose of change is to achieve the things. The fact we are in is not something perpetual.
Q: So your take on this is that the people can alter their collective consciousness?
Prof. Berhanu Nega: My view is that the people had been exposed to the same kind of stories, lies, propaganda for the last 27 years and take this as reality that cannot change. Even in our history, over the last 40 years, we had three major revolutions because people sought change.The regimes considered themselves as permanent being, but they were not in reality. If I’m certain of anything, I certain that Ethiopians, like any other human being of the planet, need prosperity, they want good schools….And I don’t think Ethiopians would be against such a change, given that all sides of arguments can be presented to them in a peaceful and rational manner, the people choose the right one.
The fact that is now doesn’t mean what it should be forever. It should measure what you do in relation to your objective. The objective is to create semblance of prosperity and getting rid of poverty, illiteracy, ignorance and what have you. Any society that doesn’t seek change, and try to improve itself is stagnant society and it cannot continue and becomes breeding ground for stability. And the purpose of civilizationis to get rid of these things. If we accept the reality as is, like poverty is a reality here, then why should we talk about change?
Q: Are there studies or assessments that show public inclination toward citizenship politics?
Prof. BerhanuNega: I haven’t seen any polls that address what you are talking about. I don’t think we have the experience of polling and achieving what people may decide in the future.
The best indicator of what the public wants—at the end of the day— especially in a kind of politics that we seek to achieve, which is democratic politics,is based on the presentation of the various ideas, and the people’s choices prove which one go in favor of them.
Thus, it is really election that would tell us what the public really wants. But for understanding what the public wants, for getting the indicator on what really the public wants, the first thing that is to happen is to have a chance to get this different views peacefully, and the ideas have to be transmitted to the public without violence, without intimidation and the like so that people would be able to choose,at the end of the day, freely and based on their own interests. But if you have a politics of intimidation;if there are politics that these particular areas are places that X, Y or Z cannot present their ideas, the public would not really choose because it did not get the alternatives that are consistent with their interests. The first thing is to create the environment that the ideas could be transmitted freely and peacefully.
Q: How could the kind of politics you promote, citizenship politics, get foothold in the country?
Prof. Berhanu Nega: I think an open public debate is what is important. In so far has the public has a chance to listen to the various views, alternatives, without any intimidation, in every part of the country, without any exception, where different view can be advocated and organized freely according to their views, then you would have a chance for the public to hear what the different options are and can make a rational choice at the election.
That is the way for a meaningful democracy. Democratic politics by its very nature is peaceful, by its nature is rational in the sense that people are given the option of listening to the various options-the various policy options that improves their lives
Q: Let’s move to related but a bit different topic, conflicts are seen here and there currently, how do you think will it be contained?
Prof. Berhanu Nega: Well, my view is, these conflicts are …almost invariably all have something to do with the identity issues that were implanted in the society for the last 27 years. We know that this change has triggered more because people feel that they can achieve whatever these objective is interms of their identity through this transition period.
I think, what needs to happen isthat the government is now announced a Commission that studies these issues such as identity and boundary. You cannot solve it in the old way because the old way is what created the problems.
The cause is the way we thought about identity in the past. If we’re going to approach it in a more comprehensive manner, I think the way the government approached it right— i.e., fully by non-partisan commission has now been established. And it will look at the various conflicts and see on how to come up with regional boundaries and what have you, and the issues would be presented to the public and when the public can have rational discussion on it, it becomes the solution therefore.
Q: Often, government blames as few ill-intent groups are behind the conflicts, at least in fanning the fire?
Prof. Berhanu Nega: Yes, somebody must have organized it.
The conflicts don’t happen out of the blue. A number of the conflicts that we hear relate to identity and boundries issues, there must be some guys behind the conflicts.
These people are trying to create havoc in the change so that they would achieve the old kind of regime where they have been squandering public resources[…]and there might be people who try to benefit out of this. Whether it is the groups, or it is the ethnic elites-the latter for material benefits-we can see that somebody is pushing for the conflict.
Whether it is organized or not, I do not have detailed information, what I can say is that there are people behind who either benefited out of the previous system or people who think some form of ethnic-based regional administration would benefit them. But I really believe that this is not the interest of the public. In the presence of open, peaceful options, I do not think they would get the significant portion of people to rally behind. For now, it is period of transition, and in such tumultuous period, there might be elites that aspires to benefit out of it.
Q: Who do you think is the source of finance for them?
Prof. Berhanu Nega: I don’t know. If you have to bet, the financers have money somewhere. And this money is ill gotten. But at the end of the day, the thing is all about educating the people. This is not the way stable politics could be put in place. In the short run you might vent your emotional anger, but that is not the way a stable political entity is established. We have to be rational, we have to be reasonable,and we have to consider ourselves as people of the same political arrangement. At the end of the day, our fate is intertwined. We have to sit and think about it seriously
. Q: What should the government do to arrest conflicts in sustainable way? Prof.
Berhanu Nega: My view is the Commission [Administrative Boundaries and Identity Issues] has been formed. The thing is to freeze all issues relating to identity and boundary until the Commission carries out studies and come up with reports.And at the end of the day, it is government’s responsibility to make sure peace prevails in this country.
Q: Some armed groups claim the status quo of being armed ought to continue, what is your take on this?
Prof. BerhanuNega: There should not be any armed group in the country other than government army and its security apparatus. Government by definition is a legitimate institution that is allowed to have force and use force to protect the law and citizen. There cannot be any group, particularly those that wants to participate in the political process by accepting the rule of the game.
Q: As you mentioned it earlier, some groups may have ill gained money, how could government work to confiscate such illegal wealth, including those looted and outflowed to foreign countries?
Prof. Berhanu Nega :That is a very complex question. It is clear that quite a lot of resource is looted in the past twenty years and taken abroad. The first thing is to make analysis and to get the facts. Once you have the facts, then those looted and found within in the country could be dealt according to existing laws. Regarding the asset or money abroad, government can deal with other governments and international institutions.
Herald December 28/2018
