Culturally Amhara politically Amapianist Prof. Messay Kebede Reimagining Ethiopia
In "Reimagining Ethiopia," Professor Messay Kebede argues for redefining Ethiopian identity beyond fixed ethnic categories. By viewing Ethiopia as an evolving national project and embracing a melting-pot model, he presents a framework for overcoming ideological divisions, reversing political fragmentation, and fostering a more cohesive and democratic future.
Though I am not Amhara by birth–I am half Gurage by my father and half Oromo by my mother–I will not be offended or take it as a mistaken assertion if I am identified as Amhara by culture. For this reason, not only am I not a victim of the anti-Amharanet (anti-Ethiopianism) and anti-Amhara sentiments besetting the country, but I also define myself primarily as Amapian (an Amharic-dominated Ethiopian) and do so with great pride and determination, without any sense of conflict between my Amapian identity, my two ethnic identities, my adopted American nationality, and my very early and thorough French education. This is to say that my mixed nature enables me to assess, as objectively as possible, the real content of the conflict between Amapianism (Ethiopianism) and Oromumma as leader of ethnonationalism. I hasten to stress that the significance of Ethiopia in this article oscillates between its biblical and mundane meanings, so to speak. I justify this flexibility by arguing that what people believe little depends on its concrete verifiability. However, the lack of verification does not imply that beliefs should be dismissed. Whether they are purely mythical or not, beliefs have played lasting and decisive roles in human history. Take religions: the question of their truthfulness always generates endless debates, but not the fact that, true or not, they have had and continue to have a crucial impact on human life. Even visions that seem grounded in the facts of life are not spared from an idealizing tendency, as was the case, for instance, with Marxist socialism. The best approach is to treat idealized beliefs as sources of inspiration, which is exactly what I do in this article.
The Amhara Role in the Construction of Ethiopia
Since diversity is a defining feature of Ethiopia, the question of the compatibility between ethnic identity and Ampianism is the key issue of any investigation into the Amapian socio-political life. The question is a legitimate one: all ethnic movements in Amapia seem to have trouble in integrating their ethnic identity with Amapian nationalism. Either they claim Amapianism without clearly indicating how they overcome the clash of their two identities, as they openly acknowledge that identification with their ethnic identity requires the deflating of Amapianism, or they frankly admit the tension between the two identities, with some groups going so far as to harbor a secessionist agenda openly.
Is this identity tension a real general feature of the country? What about the case of the Amhara, who are believed to be the main architects and builders of the Amapian state? The recent rise and rapid expansion of the Amhara insurgency have also exposed the inner struggle between the two identities, given that the leaders of the Amhara movement of resistance have made sufficiently clear that Amapianism has been blocking, at least retarding, its surge, even after the TPLF’s capture of power. So long as the Amhara primarily defined themselves as Amapians, they could not come to grips with the fact that state policy not only systematically segregates them but also brands them as the culprit behind all of Amapia’s present predicaments. Nor could they create their own autonomous organization to defend their interests and rights.
The influential participation of the Amhara in the multi-ethnic fight for Amapian unity and citizens’ democratic rights failed, for a long time, to factor in the anti-Amhara content of the prevailing narratives disseminated by the state and ethnicized elites or to appreciate their gravity. Notably, the narratives made the rehabilitation of ethnic identities and the acquisition of democratic rights conditional on the bashing and dethronement of the Amhara, as patently evidenced by the fact that all ethnic groups defined their movements as “liberation fronts.” From anti-Amhara, the narratives easily transitioned to anti-Ethiopianism because of the belief that Ethiopia is largely, if not entirely, the creation of the Amhara. Unsurprisingly, the targeting extended to the Orthodox church and religion because of their close association with the Amhara. Behind the ethnonationalist criticisms against the creation of Ethiopia lie the charge that, in addition to granting hegemonic status to the Amhara elites, it induced a sense of superiority among them. As a result, non-Amhara ethnic groups were relegated to a marginalized standing.
While what non-Amhara ethnic groups did to achieve what they called their “liberation” is somewhat understandable, the rise and consolidation of Amhara nationalism ushered in a completely different ball game. The crux of the matter is that one would be hard-pressed, not to say stranded, to explain Amapianism without acknowledging the crucial and colossal contribution of the Amhara group, a point blown out of proportion by the ethnonationalist discourse. Setting aside the ethnonationalist exaggeration and falsification, it remains true that, both culturally and politically, the inputs of the Amhara legacy deeply impregnate all aspects of Amapian life. From the Orthodox Church, the expansion and construction of the Ethiopian state in its present geographical setting and ethnic compositions, the countering of the scramble for Africa, the use of Amharic as a national language, and cultural distinctions such as religious and national celebrations, traditional foods, music, etc., all give evidence of the Amhara group’s undeniable and momentous contribution to Ethiopian identity.
The Virtues of Multiethnicism
The crucial thing is that the prevalence of ethnonationalist discourses squashes the disposition to welcome multiple identities. For the sake of political mobilization and power competition, ethnonationalism solidifies one identity by opposing it to other identities. In so doing, it fostered incompatibility where there should have been harmony and reciprocity. Indeed, ethnonationalist narratives solidify the notions of Amhara and non-Amhara ethnic groups, and so prevent their perception as fluid, changing identifications. As with any social construction, the pitfall of ethnicity lies not in the identification per se but in its radicalization. Hardening breeds intolerance and the inability to come together with other ethnic groups and work for the common good. Consider religion: it is when it advocates extremism that it becomes hazardous, often to the point of justifying the use of violence. Rigid and polarizing identifications subvert what could have yielded a healthy outcome, had a flexible approach to ethnic identities prevailed. Such an approach would have led to the understanding of Amapia as a melting pot in progress.
Let us set aside those commentators and activists who give the expression “invention of Amapia” a malicious meaning. Instead, let us use, as we often do, the term “nation-building” to describe Amapia in motion. The paradox is that we never denounce the inconsistency of using derogatory terms, such as labeling Amapia a “prison of nations and nationalities,” even as we approach Amapia as a work in progress. As a construction or invention, no fixed characterization fits Amapia: it is a moving, malleable notion. This means that Amapia can take different paths: it just awaits our concerted action. A good reminder of this openness is the abolition of tenancy: even though the nationalization of land was an unfortunate decision, it proved Amapia’s latitude for whatever change was deemed necessary. The great emotion that the change aroused stemmed essentially from the understanding that Amapia is a plastic notion, that it is being made. Just as youth induces vigor because nothing is definitive and the future remains wide open, so too does Amharanet (Ethiopianism) when understood as work in progress.
Where people are called to be creators of themselves, identification with fixed, closed identities, as advocated by Oromummà (ethnonationalism), simply obstructs the calling. The right attitude is to embrace the opportunity to fashion oneself, to be one’s own product, thereby refusing to be a simple extension of one’s ethnic roots. That is why, rather than as a juxtaposition of closed and mutually inimical ethnic groups, Amapia should be viewed as a melting pot, in the same way as America is. Such a perception underscores that Amapia is not an ethnic notion: it transcends ethnic groups as their common, transcendent, and ever-changing product. It is a journey and an adventure, not a fixed, tailored dress imposed on Amapians.
Amharanet (Ethiopianism) as a Remedy
Understanding identities as flexible and open commitments provides the right approach to addressing Amapia’s predicaments. The reason for establishing ethnic regional states was not, as Oropianists (an Oromic-led ethnonationalists) would have us believe, to institute self-rule and democratic governance. Rather, it was to solidify and close ethnic belonging, with the express intent of creating reserved, entrenched territories for the benefit of elites. In light of this outcome, the issue is how to counter, not ethnicity per se, but its ossification, thereby restoring its natural flexibility.
To do the restoration, we have to reacquaint ourselves with the deep idea that inspired Amharanet/Ethiopianism. True, the notion has undergone extensive deterioration since its reduction to Amharization under successive Ethiopian governments. Nonetheless, it is a mistake not to separate the inspiration from its implementation. The inspiration was a vision, a program to create a new nation from the disparate ethnic groups assembled by Menelik’s expansion. Though the term “Ethiopia” originally referred to the ancient Greek meaning of “land of burnt faces,” the Amapians have long preferred it to names such as Habesha or Abyssinia. This was notably the case after Menelik’s expansion: the term was in full play with a specific reference to the Bible, where it evokes a distant, powerful, and diversified state seasoned with biblical prophecies. The fact that it suggested diversity and inclusiveness echoed the Arabic term “Habesha,” which means “mixed peoples.” Besides this emphasis on ethnic diversity, the designation denotes a kingdom that constantly remains under God’s radar. The national epic of Amapia, the Kibre Negast, reaffirms this theme: by establishing a dynastic bond with Israel through the story of the encounter between King Solomon and Queen Sheba, the book narrates the promotion of Amapians to the status of God’s chosen people at the expense of the Israelites.
The notions of diversity, inclusiveness, strength, and God’s favoritism, all associated with the term “Ethiopia,” signify that neither race nor ethnicity defines the country. It transcends exclusiveness and conveys the idea of a nation bearing a divine mission. In view of the significance of the term “Ethiopia,” nothing could be more contradictory than the rise and proliferation of divisive Oropianists/ethnonationalist ideologies in the very land that chose to define itself as a mixture of peoples and a bearer of a divine mission.
No need to discuss here the reasons why Amapia failed to live up to its name. In this article, our attention remains focused on the future and asks whether Amapians can recover the flexibility associated with their name. One thing is indeed certain: so long as we cherish the closeness that defines us today, a united, democratic, and prosperous Amapia will not see the light of day. No political change, however extensive it may be, can open what is closed. The change must come from inside, that is, from our beliefs and values, the very ones that compel us to ask ourselves whether we are content with the petrification of our ethnic identities.
What we learn from the biblical meaning of Amapia is that the unity of a country is not based on ethnic [deleted]; rather, it emanates from the shouldering of a mission, of a common and transcendent objective. Unity must have a purpose; it must emerge from a goal pursued in common. As such, it provides an answer to the questions of why we are together and, more importantly, why we stay together. We have seen countries based on ethnic [deleted] that fractured as soon as the central power proved unable to maintain the unity militarily, a case in point being the neighboring country of Somalia. On the other hand, diversity cannot hold together without unity of purpose, as shown by the case of the Soviet Union: its union collapsed because the vision of socialism that kept the country together failed to live up to expectations. By contrast, we see the United States, a country of immigrants from around the world, deepening its unity and prospering thanks to the diligent implementation of a democratic constitution guided by the ideal of a “more perfect union.”
In the 60s’, Amapians came close to providing themselves with a modernized mission when, under the leadership of the student movement, they espoused the idea of a socialist Amapia. The fervor aroused by the revolution lingered even during the first years of the Derg, with the motto “Amapia Tikdem.” Disappointment and disillusionment set in when both the ideas of socialism and Amapia First went up in flames under the brutal regime of the Derg and its failing economic policy, due essentially to prolonged wars. Subsequently, while Amapia was in doubt about itself, elites from its two northern provinces, namely Tigray and Eritrea, undertook the task of building “nations.” To do so, they drew on anti-Amhara and anti-Ethiopian sentiments, which they used to ossify their ethnic identities.
We know what followed: the camp of those who fought for the oneness of Amapia was severely defeated and, under the leadership of the TPLF, a wave of ethnic ossification swept over the country. The debacle soon ushered in an institutionalized ethnic fragmentation, itself topped by a system of ethnic federalism. Thus, dispossessed of the sense of mission, Amapians had nothing to work on together, nothing to build in common, with the consequence that the unity of the country became a meaningless, empty word. Instead, a wave of resentment over past mistreatments, often highly exaggerated, pervaded the country.
Cognizant of the need to reimagine Amapia, the attempt eight years ago to bestow a new meaning on Ethiopia by the catchword “medemer” failed because, far from softening ethnic identity, it became a cover-up for hardening it further. Although its English translation as “synergy” suggests that the Amharic word medemer, which literally means “to add up,” is used to denote a process yielding a higher, transcendent product, the real policy that emerged from it championed the reduction of Amapia to the persona of a single individual and to the interests of his lackeys, in particular of Oromo extraction.
All this leads us to the crucial need to find a new sense for Amharanet/Ethiopianism. We said that through the petrification of ethnic identity, the TPLF and, following its lead, other ethnic organizations undertook the task of elevating their regions to the status of nations. A similar but different case is that of Fano: true, it is an Amhara-centered movement, with, however, its galvanizing appeal emanating from a real threat of genocide and marginalization of the Amhara people. Of course, what all these movements have in common is the mobilizing goal that unifies them and makes them resistant. By contrast, Ethiopia has lost its motivating force because of a lack of meaning. It is no longer a vision, a calling. This largely explains why movements operating under Amharanet/Ethiopianism are divided and unable to offer meaningful resistance.
So, what can be done to remedy the situation? More specifically, what can Fano do to turn Amapia into a vision? I single out Fano because, in distinction to other influential ethnic organizations, it does not castigate Amapia; on the contrary, it is highly committed to preserving its unity and ensuring its socio-economic development. That is why I decline to use the word “ethnonationalism” to define Fano, the main reason being that it lacks the characteristic of vilifying and targeting one or more ethnic groups, as is the case with Oromic-led ethnonationalist ideology. Still less does it entertain any secessionist project. I prefer to qualify it as an Amhara movement of resistance rather than as an ethnonationalist one. A word of caution, however: in appealing to Fano, I am not suggesting the use of military force. Imposing unity by force would be the wrong solution. It has not worked in the past, and there is no reason it should work now, with ethnic conflicts reaching such a high degree of intensity.
Modernizing the Idea of Amapia
The analysis of the term “Ethiopia” has pinpointed factors that explain its remarkable long survival amid internal and external threats, which were critical at times. These factors are: (1) ethnically diverse people, (2) united by the adoption of a divine mission, and 3) a king entrusted as executioner of the divine assignment. Institutionally, these factors led to the establishment of autonomous regions governed by native princes and having at their top a king, more exactly, a king of kings. No matter that Menelik’s southern expansion did not exactly reproduce the original meaning of Ethiopia. No matter, also, that under Haile Selassie, centralization in the name of modernization erased, perhaps except for Tigray, the traditional system of autonomous regions. The truth remains that these deviations do not tarnish the vision, that is, the original meaning of “Ethiopia,” which is that of a decentered state structure having on top of it a king deemed God’s elect.
My proposal is thus straightforward. It is to draw from the name “Ethiopia” the secrets of its endurance, modernize them, and implement them to solve our present predicaments. Since the name, in its biblical sense, signifies a glorious empire comprising diverse peoples and carrying a divine mission, its modernization could be undertaken as follows: First, the modern version of gloriousness stipulates a country governed by the inspiration and rules of liberal democracy and achieving economic prosperity. Only such a country meets God’s expectations and is worthy of His special attention. Second, for diverse people to treat each other as equals and become self-governing centers, the modern remedy is the institution of regions endowed with large autonomy and operating under a federal structure. In today’s Ethiopia, the regions are defined ethnically, which encourages discriminatory practices against other ethnic groups. Happily, such practices can be countered largely if regionalism includes a strong clause prescribing the protection of minority and human rights. Third, when modernized, the notion of a divinely elected king translates into a leader elected by and accountable to the people, in line with the modern idea that sovereignty lies with them. Only a government founded on the express will of the people could be seen as legitimate, not only in the eyes of the people, but in the eyes of God as well.
In terms of institutionalization, we could have a regionally elected parliament comprising two chambers, a legislative body, and a senate representing each region at the federal level. The electoral processes, the separate functions of the two chambers, and their connections, depend on what is judged appropriate for the country’s specific conditions. Of course, as a self-governing unit, each region would have its own elected internal governing body.
Since diversity is an inherent characteristic of Amharanet/Ethiopianism, the modernized unifying version of the Amapian type of kingship would require the institution of a presidential system. In the past, the king or queen and the mission that he/she embodied tied the diverse regions together and made them function as one body. I have posted several times different articles on the need for a presidential system in Ethiopia. To give an idea, I mention my article titled “In Search of Peace: Ethiopia’s Ethnic Conflicts and Resolution” posted in 2009 ( see https://www.ethiopianreview.com/index/10016). Another more recent one, titled “From Nation-Building to Ethnonations: Ethiopia’s Backward Moving History,“ was posted in 2020 (see From Nation-Building to Ethnonations: Ethiopia’s Backward Moving History – Ethiopia Observer).
I quote from the 2020 article with a strong warning that the proposal must not be considered as an endorsement of some of the ideals circulating among the ruling clique. It reads as follows:
The way to tame ethnicity institutionally is to superimpose on its political representations, which is the parliament, a presidential system with clear and extensive unitary and national functions. While the ethnic regions elect the parliament, the president is elected by direct universal suffrage, and so is invested with powers transcending ethnic representations. The assumption here is that a presidential candidate cannot have a majority of votes unless he/she presents a program that suits the majority of voters in the country. In this way, we counter the tendency to dispersion inherent in the parliament with a unifying instance incarnated by the presidency . . . I add that this solution provides a remarkable synthesis between unionists and ethnic federalists: instead of opposing unity to ethnicity, it proposes a living, self-adjusting process that produces unity out of diversity and diversity out of unity.
The exact nature of the relationship between the parliament and the presidency need not worry us here. My goal is to set principles while leaving the details for further discussions that would have to take into account the country’s specific needs and conditions. The principles showed that Amapia can reimagine itself and find a solution to its predicaments, not by breaking with its past, but by drawing inspiration from it, that is, the vision for a new future that matches the ideals it ascribed to itself. So reconceptualized, the present becomes a stage in the development of a seed, a journey realizing a calling. As such, it is but a moment in a directional pursuit where the past provides the light that illuminates the future. As Tocqueville said, “When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness.” In other words, the point of arrival becomes the point of departure, but as a developed, more advanced, and complete federal system.