Ethiopian political culture is sometimes portrayed as a traditional system of relations of subjugation and submission between the rulers and the ruled – ordinary people and the ruling authorities, based on autocracy or the total absence of a democratic tradition. This relationship is defined by the total submission of the people to their rulers mostly out of fear and sometimes as sign of respect or blind devotion. The 20th century is generally considered a turning point in Ethiopia’s political history when some aspects of modernity sneaked into an otherwise traditional, and by present-day standards, quite archaic polity.
Like culture in general, political culture takes a long time to develop, enjoy acceptance and establish itself as part and parcel of the tangible and intangible features of a society. A brief definition of culture would suggest that, it relates to, “the patterns of behavior and thinking that people living in social groups learn, create, and share. Culture distinguishes one human group from others. It also distinguishes humans from other animals. A people’s culture includes their beliefs, rules of behavior, language, rituals, art, technology, styles of dress, ways of producing and cooking food, religion, and political and economic systems.”
Political culture may be seen as the established norms and practices regularly exercised by any society as defining its patterns of behavior during elections for instance or in normal everyday life. Every country has its own political culture that it develops through long historical gestations and crystallize is one of its defining features. Political culture is basically functional through political institutions such as political parties, parliaments, interest groups and the totality of the superstructure of a society that shape its thinking and practices.
National reconciliation, national dialogue or peace and reconciliation talks are not new to Africa. Traditional African societies were familiar with these notions although they practiced them at the village levels in order to bring peace and stability among warring tribes and families as well as in order to end conflicts before they engulfed tribes into cycles of vendettas.
Ethiopian writer Sahele Sellassie Berhane Mariam, author of books in English such as “Warrior King” and “Dinega’s Village”, has written a small novel on the subject entitled, “Afersata” (Investigation) about resolving a communal crisis through investigation of the true culprits so that the cycle of bloody revenges could be broken. In a way, national dialogue is therefore a modern term for describing traditional peace and reconciliation process that was practiced at the village and community level.
Africa is not always the land of poverty, terror, wars and military coup d’états that the Western media are fond of attributing to it, because most of them suffer from a deficit of understanding of African traditions and cultures. Some Western media’s perception of African countries seem to have been shaped by pro-colonial portraits painted by writers like Joseph Conrad in his book entitled “Heart of Darkness”, a story taking place on the Congo river. A relatively more objective and more empathic portrait of colonial societies emerged with George Orwell in the case of Burma and British India.
Contrary to the traditional Africa-bashers, the true image of Africa has only started to emerge recently as more and more African writers fought to challenge the old colonial or imperial stereotypes and defend their continent as a place with its own traditions, cultures, languages and philosophies that were born and grew up before the Western world was not even known. In fact and as historical records testify traditional African societies before the advent of colonialism were more ‘democratic’ or ‘liberal’ than autocratic.
Most communal or individual differences used to be addressed in small gatherings where the accused and the accusers both sit together and make their case while elders listened to them before they passed judgments. Elders set the rules for resolving differences in communities while youngsters respected them and abide by their judgments and differences often lead to mutual understanding and true community. This was not however in the modern sense but in the sense of community, morality and stability where the individual is subjected to the will of the community, i.e. the majority, and treated as an equal member of society. African traditional democracy is something that is grossly disregarded, or discouraged as an academic field of research, something that encouraged the survival of old stereotypes about the continent and its political traditions. This is was also helped and abated by some African elites who looked down at their own traditions and subscribed to the so-called modern post-colonial or neocolonial global environment. However, many centuries of abuses have passed before Africa’s positive values and assets could be exposed and embraced as anthropological and political researches in African traditional societies could no more ignore the hidden truths of Africa’s hidden social and political values.
The newly emerging African image is a relatively more positive one as the continent was recognized as the origin of humanity and the land of original civilizations that were long neglected, misunderstood or simply distorted. In a nutshell the motto “Land of Origins” which is now adopted by Ethiopia’s tourism establishment beautifully summarizes not only Ethiopia’s originality but also the many original discoveries Africa legitimately boasts of. The same can be said about Africa’s pre-colonial political history and culture that is not yet fully-studied or discovered, leading to many biases as if Africans had never had the remotest ideas about modern political ideas such as democracy.
Ethiopia, as it is well-known and firmly-established by now, is a country with an ancient culture and civilization and a political survival stretching too many centuries and a functioning state with long and tortuous history. It is also true that Ethiopia was once a powerful political entity with an original culture and civilization that was the envy of the rest of the world and the object of admiration. For our purpose here, it would be pertinent to concentrate on the evolution of Ethiopian political culture and polity starting from the turn of the 20th century.
Ethiopian historian Paulos Milkias, in his book entitled ‘Ethiopia’ defines 20th century Ethiopian politics as dominated by the person of the emperor and the absolute submission of the people to his authority that was said to be derived from no one else but God himself. “For Haile Selassie, who ruled Ethiopia from the time he was regent in 1916 to his overthrow as emperor in 1974, political authority was prescriptive and divine; it was based on inheritance, which was construed as a historical mission of governance.
“The emperor, who was instrumental in promulgating the first Ethiopian constitution of 1931, claimed to have “given” to the Constitution to his own people “of his own free will.” Nevertheless, lest someone miss how far he was willing to go, he did not forget to add, “By virtue of His Imperial Blood, as well as by the anointing which He has received, the person of the Emperor is sacred, His dignity is inviolable and His Powers indisputable.”
African historian Saheed A. Adejumobi in his book, The History of Ethiopia” endorses this view by saying that, “The twenty-first-century narrative history of modern Ethiopia traces the major events of an ancient African civilization in engagement with the global community in which powerful cultural, political, and religious forces helped shape the evolution of a very significant and viable nation state, one primed to face equally significant problems associated with the modern era. The modern reader’s conception of Ethiopia has no doubt been shaped by stories of wars and natural disasters including the latter-day famine crisis. In fact, Ethiopia’s history stretches back to antiquity, with references to Ethiopia in the Bible and classical Greek literature…”
In the last 50 years or so since the end of the monarchy, Ethiopian political culture has undergone many stresses and strains. The political culture shifted from one of unquestioned submission to autocracy to one of rebellion against it. Politically taboo subjects started to be talked about. And a period of relative liberalization followed the 1974 Revolution that was however brief and succeeded by another period of authoritarian politics.
While modern political parties emerged in the process, they lacked the experience and attitude of a democratic culture. Thus they succumbed to autocratic impulses and became prisoners of their own imaginations. The country suffered a great deal and there was no way to bring the difference tendencies to the round table talks. The last 50 years more or less witnessed the flourishing of a political culture of hate-mongering, hostility and mutual destruction instead of reconciliation talks or compromise. The few political parties that existed then emerged and tried to function within a political culture that was alien to the principles of give and take, transparency and trust as a result of which the country suffered a great deal.
Ethiopia is now undertaking a process of national dialogue that is expected to bring old problems to light and possibly bring about a national reconciliation or national consensus that would propel the country forward by leaving behind or by overcoming all the unresolved problems in Ethiopia’s recent political history. Most of the damage to Ethiopia’s body politic was however incurred in the last 30 years or so as alien ideologies dictated the political process and parties to the conflicts often denied that there was no need for reconciliation as the people were not fighting against one another. However, national dialogue was on the agenda because the political elites were not on speaking terms and there was no opportunity to put the agendas on the table for discussion. In developing African countries, political elites play an oversize role in shaping the political destinies of their countries. Conflicts among the political elites as articulated by the parties they lead needed to be sorted out in time before they consolidate into irreconcilable positions that often lead to violence and bloodshed. This was not however the case in most African countries including Ethiopia as a result of which the people who may not really be involved in the conflicts are forced to pay a high price.
This is basically why a process of national dialogue should involve not only the political elites and their parties but also the people at grassroots levels who may not be the cause of the political conflicts but are those who have been suffering the most as a result of the conflicts. This is one other reason to involve both the parties and the people they lead into an open, constructive, frank and fruitful process of dialogue that would hopefully bring all parties together and break the historic cycles of conflicts and bloodsheds. Fortunately for Ethiopia, this process is being launched at a time when old and die hard attitudes are mellowing and politicians have learnt bitter lessons from their past experiences. This bode well both for the country and its long-suffering people who now need to leave in peace and rebuild their lives together.
BY MULUGETA GUDETA
THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD THURSDAY 17 MARCH 2022
