BY STAFF REPORTER
Prof. Bahru Zewde is presently working as an Emeritus Professor of History at Addis Ababa University. He is also the founder and Deputy Chairman of the Ethiopian Science Academy. Apart from being a chairman of the History Department and Institute of Ethiopian Studies at Addis Ababa University, he is a member of the African Science Academy. He is also a Director of Forum for Social Studies.
He also served as Deputy Chairperson of the Africa History Professionals Association and South-East Africa Social Science Research Institute. Prof Bahru is also a board member of Social Study, Heritage Caretaker Association and Trust Africa based in Senegal.
In his extended academic life, he had been elected for various fellowships. To mention a few, British Academy, Japan Foundation, the Higher Institution in Berlin and Humboldt State University are some of them. He has published numerous articles and books.
Among his several publications, A history of Modern Ethiopia 1855-1991, Pioneers of Change in Ethiopia, Society and State in Ethiopian History, The quest for a socialist utopia are listed.
The Ethiopian Press Agency made a brief stay with Emeritus Prof. Bahru to discuss the current national affairs. Excerpts:
Even if Ethiopia is a country rich in history, we have observed a lot of deviation between the people. What do you think is the reason behind that?
History has different faces. It is classified sector by sector. There is a history of politics, military, economic and social affairs. But there is also a history that is elaborates about a professional’s footprint. There is also a history of nations and nationalities living in a given country. It studies where they came from, how they lived, etc. There is also the a general history of a country.
The problem here is we only focused on political history. Many of our discourses are centringcentering political history and it is connected with political controversy. But if the centrecenter of attention is social or economic history, there might not be a controversy between the people of the country who are from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
There are many sources of confusion in connection with history. The first one is the grievance of nations who believed that their history is not properly studied and documented. This is partially acceptable. “So, we write our history and make it known to the world,” they added. This grievance may be appropriate and legal. However, these people did not understand one thing. Before ethnic politics became widely accepted in Ethiopia, the history department made some activities to study the history of nationalities since the regime of Haile-Selassie I.
Instead of focusing on the northern part alone, there was an attempt to incorporate the history of the southern part too, by the initiative of instructors who returned from London, in a new way based on verbal documents since the end of the 1960s. Considering that it is possible to study history using verbal data, these professionals deployed students to realize their plan from 1968 to 1978. They tried to study the history of Oromo, Gurage, Sidama and others.
But the main problem was the study document has not been publicized. They were simply kept on the shelves. So the people concluded that the history of nations and nationalities has not been written. Yet, history was written following scientific methods and procedures. Unquestionably, the Verbal verbal data is equally important at times when a written document is not available. Now, some historians voluntarily took an initiative and tried to write the history of nations and nationalities without making a scientific assessment; this is one source of the problem.
The other problem is, these people used the study as an instrument of politics. When ethnic politics is being aggravated, they said,; “Our ethnic group is oppressed and this part of history should be highlighted.” Therefore, there was a tendency of presenting one’s history with exaggeration but insulting or disregarding the other side. Especially, ethnic-based political groups have followed such a tendency.
The third problem is, some people stand up to write the history of ethnic groups randomly. They tried to write history via watching a TV programme or reading some books alone. These people, who set out to write history with a sense of “I can do that” are not able to come up with relevant and valuable tasks.
The final and the great hurdle is the influence of EPRDF on Ethiopian history. Without exaggeration, the party was allergic to national history. The divide and rule strategy of the party served it as a guarantee to stay in power and it was successful for some years. During the regime, there was a covert and open campaign against national history. The history department and historians had been considered rabble-rousers.
Even the history course curriculum, which was being given for first-year university students, could explain nations’ and nationalities of Ethiopia having their independent and common history is replaced by the new one which does not provide due attention to people’s integrity but bound itself in nationalities alone.
Some think that the understanding and use of Ethiopian history has been falling into difficulties, holding nonscientific appearances especially by Ethiopian political forces. , would Would you comment on itthis?
I have repeatedly said it before. Ethnic based groups, for example, often criticize Emperor Menelik. When they condemn Menelik’s expansion, they tend to forget about the situation of the world at the that moment. At that time, no country was established in a referendum and power is a means of making a country. If Jote Tulu of Wollega or Kao Tona of Wolayita won the war against Menelik II, they had no better option than to expand their territory using power.
If you look at world history, German chancellor Chancellor Bismarck rose and said,: “I will unite Germany with iron and blood.” That’s why the nickname Iron Chancellor comes in. If you go to the United States or Australia, this reality is observed in their history. However, if you look at it with today’s eyeglass, you say that injustice has been done. However, it was right if you measured it by the then perception. Instead of blaming him for everything, there should be a price to be paid to Emperor Menelik II. His campaign had two options. One is the “pay tax peacefully” principle.
Peace-loving rulers, such as Jimma Abba Jiffar and Leka Lekemte, had been paying tax without engaging in war against Menelik II and their power and dominions were preserved. They became part of Menelik’s state, paying annual taxes and being given a high military rank called Dejazemach. At the time, there was a tragic campaign against those who refused the order. Therefore, we do not appreciate Menelik’s government as a democratic one, but it is good to consider the options offered by the king. At that time, it would be very difficult to think why a participatory, democratic country was not built as the world’s most popular ideology is military. It was a time when military supremacy was considered as an option to establish a given country. That is why the understanding of the people who raised the question “why?” can be called anachronistic. It is very difficult to judge the events of the 19th century through the lens of the 20th and 21st centuries. It is historically non-scientific.
As an Emeritus Professor who studied Ethiopian history, what do you feel when you look at the current turmoil in Ethiopian politics?
We missed a lot of opportunities. We had historical opportunities to adjust our destiny. Because we did not take advantage of those opportunities, we are now in a dilemma. But I do not know where we are going. The first was the 1953 coup attempt. The point here is, whether the coup was a success or not? Was there a lesson learned from the coup? Because, after the coup attempt, the king’s officials including Hadis Alemayehu, Bitweded Zewde Gebre Hiwot, Asrate Kassa and Abiy Abebe had called for reform. It is good that the coup has failed. However, at various times, these people have expressed their concern that there is a problem, recognizing the old saying,; “No fire without smoke”. However, they recommended that power should be given to the Prime Minister and the king should be nominal. They wanted the country to be led by a constitutional monarchy. However, all the authorities gave deaf ears to them.
The situation then gradually made its way to the Revolution. If we are asked, was Ethiopia ready for a socialist system? or liberal democracy for the time being? Without any doubt, it was ready for liberal democracy. However, the student and the left-wing prepared for socialism. Because there was a high student movement, the political ideology was overemphasized; the Derg believed that it could not stay in power if it did not accept it. Sometimes when you think about it, if some time had been given to Endalkachew’s cabinet, things might have changed for the better. The constitution that was enacted at the time was liberal. The constitution was not enforced and time was not given to Endalkachew; instead, he was thrown to jail and assassinated.
Then, ethnic politics came in. As I wrote in the book named history of the student movement, there was no problem raising questions of identity. It had to be raised. There was cultural, political, and economic oppression, but denying this is ignorance of Ethiopian history. The mistake question is how to deal with it. When the EPRDF came to power, they followed Stalin’s canon and said, “Self-determination up to secession.” We can’t be a Marxist unless we emphasize “secession.” Woodrow Wilson talked about self –determination alone,” they told you but it is a problem until today. It was a highly debatable issue at the time.
There was also the idea that “if the regional government had autonomy, secession is not necessary. Such a stance failed due to various reasons. The dangerous thought overwhelmed me. Except for TPLF, the EPRP and MEISON parties initially rejected the idea realizing that it would not work. However, TPLF found it appropriate for its agenda. TPLF continued in it, as the ideology is useful to exaggerate itself by weakening others.
The way out of this situation is currently being debated by political forces. There is consensus among all forces on the need for federalism. What separates political parties is the way it is applied. I hope that we will find a way out of this dilemma.\
As to some professionals’ outlook “the history of countries such as ours is playing a destructive role rather than edifying people’s mind.” Thus, what is the significance of studying history? Do you think there is a possibility of researching our common history to educate posterity?
History will always exist. Indeed, Ethiopian history is going through great difficulty. I have not believed that this will continue forever, it may calm down. Now, we have seen various reforms. Taking its initiative, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, For for example, is making preparations to re-teach history education for first-year university students. Even though there was disagreement between scholars on the module, they agreed inat the end. We hope that the ministry will provide the course as of next year.
Another is the Ethiopian History Professionals Association, which has set up an ad-hoc executive committee and is has carried out some activities after it has got license and recognition from the Civil Society Agency. In this regard, we would like to thank the Ministry of Peace for the support it bestowed on the association.
The trade union, which consists of teachers and students, was formed during the regime of Haile Sellasie I. Later, when we marked the 30th anniversary of our department, it tried to revive; but due to the bureaucracy and the turmoil of the day, we were not able to operate legally. This is the third attempt. But we hope that it will succeed.
So, these conditions will make a difference. There is national history that can be written to make a difference. It is not so trivial. When I wrote my books, I tried to write the history of southern Ethiopia, I wrote the good and the bad side of history. Those who said “There was no oppression” are considered extremists. We have to accept the fact and try to be beyond that. It is very difficult for me to say, “There was no oppression. We should not focus on oppression throughout our life. We thought we would not erect a monument for that. History is history; but why erect statues? Is it to set people against each other? We have to do something more constructive. We have to start a new chapter. Ethiopia cannot be a country without history due to the problems we create. A country with a long history should be respected; it is possible to reconcile extremes and come up with a compelling story. The process by which the module is now taught is a good and instructive one. There was a lot of fighting. There were clashes here and there. Except for one or two phrases, things have finally been reconciled, and the controversies have finally been resolved in a meaningful way. This is a laboratory. We hope to continue to do so in the future.
As a scholar, do you have any message to convey to our readers?
My message goes to the Ethiopian people and political parties. After all, we are all in the same country. We need to stay as far away as possible from the way we think and act, we need to resolve the way that leads us to kill each other and search the path of coexistence. If there is no country, we will not be there. We need to pull the extremes, create consensus and build a nation. Our clear and present problem is the economy. We should have to march against poverty. Poverty is not choosing an ethnic group. Everyone is at least in trouble. We are the poorest people in the world. Let us focus on this. If we say this, language, culture, religion, etc. must be respected. The country should not end up squabbling over the political power and interests of a few political elites. The key is to believe that Ethiopia is our country.
Thank you so much for your time.
Professor Bahru: Thank you too.
THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD AUGUST 24/ 2021
