BY MULUGETA GUDETA
It took more than half a century for the Colombians and their government to bring the FARC armed opposition movement in Colombia from the bush to the talking table. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people, mostly innocent farmers, lost their lives to the insurgency and the counter insurgency that was involved in pacifying the country and securing peace. This may be one historic example of reconciliation that was made possible through patience, political realism and the quest for peace.
There are also examples of armed insurgencies that were popular in their early stages and then degenerated into a uncompromising war to the finish. This is the tragic example of Sri Lanka with its Tamil Tigers otherwise known as Tamil Elam movement that refused to talk to the government, continued on the war path until then end and then found themselves totally decimated by the superior firepower of the army. A once potent movement is now eradicated even from the memories of the people of Sri Lanka. A brutal political culture of intransigence and zero sum game have forced countries to descend into tragic finales.
The choice is now clear. The Cold War that fed insurgent movements from the Left or the Right with cash, arms and ideology is long gone. Pragmatism has replaced ideology that was the birthplace of politicians who were determined to impose their will on people by force of arms. The world is now more pragmatic and less ideological and the political culture is making a U-turn in favor of dialogue, democracy and reconciliation.
South Africa under Nelson Mandela has already shown the way. Others are following that example although slowly and cautiously. The democratic experiment in Africa is facing many challenges mainly coming from extremist politicians. The global political culture is changing by making baby steps that have the promise of growing into giant strides as people everywhere have started to look back and reexamine their political cultures.
Political culture is generally defined as including, “the widely shared beliefs, values and norms that citizens share about their government, a distinctive and patterned way of thinking about how political and economic life ought to be carried out” Countries or peoples have shard beliefs or values about their government and its functions that may be shaping the way people think about it. As such governments and the peoples’ values are interconnected and mutually influential, the one defining the other.
There are different ways of defining political culture as a category of political culture. According to Wikipedia Gabriel Arnold, an American political scientist who wrote a great deal about comparative politics, political development and political culture, defines political culture, as “the particular patterns of orientations towards political actions in which every political action is embedded.”
Western political culture is “characterized by three achievements and ideas such as the limitation of government or the rule of law, some institutional separation of the economy and of science from government and democracy.” Some political scientist for instance divide American political culture into three categories as individualistic, moralistic and traditionalistic.
The definition of Ethiopia’s political culture is as diverse and as complex as other definitions of other countries’ political cultures. The definition of political culture is often subjective, particularly when it concerns African countries because the definitions emanate from Western academic writers who are often biased and ill-informed about Africa in general. African intellectuals who write about African political cultures too are often influenced by Western views of African political cultures, reflecting the views of their governments whose policies are based on what they call “national interest” which is not a scientific category.
Regarding Ethiopia’s political culture, one of the Western views says that, the current political structure of Ethiopia was formed in the last two decades. Adding that, “general election was held in June 1994 and Ethiopia has maintained a multiparty political environment…” This may be an instance of gross misunderstanding of Ethiopian political culture which is not formed in matters of years or decades but centuries because it is formed through a long process and historical events that stretch back to many centuries.
An online publication of the Africa Study Centre (ASC), a non-governmental research center, contradicts the above assertions by saying that, in Ethiopia, controversial elections were held in 1992, 1995, 2000 and 2005 but, “No negotiated settlement or restructuring of the authoritarian political arena in Ethiopia has been successful. Ethnic divisiveness, is a tendency that is seemingly built into the system. Ethiopia’s politics are complex and highly controversial with few possibilities for reasoned compromise or issue directed policies…”
An attempt to explore the history of Ethiopia’s pre-1991 authoritarian political culture would take volumes although the common denominators are one party, on-man rule, absence of basic democratic freedoms and human rights protection, among other parameters. So, Western views of Ethiopia’s political culture is highly biased in favor of the regime that was friendly to the West. The ongoing meddling in Ethiopia’s internal affairs is therefore a continuation of the same Western national interest.
The political process in Ethiopia has relatively changed since 2018 when the reformist government came to power. Although still carrying with it some aspects of the post-1991 political culture, the new government is still trying make rectifications and initiate dialogues with political parties that do not share its views. The 2020 national election, which was conducted with relative freedom, is considered a clear demarcation for the beginning of a democratic process in the country, if properly pursued is likely to mark the beginning of a new political culture in Ethiopia. This does not however mean that the process will be completely free from inconsistencies or serious challenges as the government is currently trying to extinguish the fires of ethnic conflicts.
What is now on the Ethiopian agenda is the need for political compromise through all-inclusive dialogue whereby no one would by marginalized, ignored or left behind. To this end the government has helped create a national, neutral and independent national political reconciliation body that is deeply involved in tasks that, if successful will definitely change the country’s political environment if not political culture to the better. That would indeed be the real beginning for a genuine political reconciliation, peace and stability for the first time in modern Ethiopia’s political history.
In a report by the United States Institute of Peace written by Solomon Ayele Deresso under the headline, Ethiopia’s Experiment in Reconciliation, it is stated that. “Numerous social and conflicts and a history of human rights violations remain causes of polarization and violence in Ethiopia. The reconciliation commission could be a mechanism for nation-building and the formation of popular consensus and political transition.” The author went to say that, “As the enabling proclamation states, one of the powers of the commission is to codify “shared and principles and values which will be the base for national reconciliation by making discussions with groups of society which have different views.
According to another view, “Reconciliation fosters mutual respects and can also foster forgiveness, mercy compassion, a shared vision of society mutual healing and harmony among parties formerly in conflict.” National reconciliation is not an experience unique to Ethiopia. Many divided societies and communities had tried and achieved national reconciliation with varying degrees of success. There are reconciliation process that have succeeded and other that have failed for many reasons. The experiences from countries with diverse political cultures tell us different stories.
The national reconciliation process can face challenges at every stage but with determination, commitment, honesty and vision such a process is bound to succeed provided that all the parties and the people involved in the conflict take part in the dialogues for national reconciliation and at every stage of the process. Openness, participation and consensus are keys to the success of any national reconciliation or dialogue initiative.
Ethiopia is among the African countries that have opted for peace, democracy, reconciliation and lasting peace without which there is no economic development. It is therefore time for extremist politicians to abandon their beaten track and embrace what the world is increasingly perceiving as the only reasonable alternative to chaos and poverty. This is also why the African Union and its senior politicians are involved in the search for reconciliation in Ethiopia. This is a sign that Africa’s political culture is also evolving in the right direction.
The Ethiopian Herald November 6/2022
