The debate on whether political parties should be based on ethnicity or not is critical to the democratic transition taking place in Ethiopia, but the opponents of ethnic-based parties have improperly framed the discussion. Some argue that political parties should be based on ideas, not on ethnicity, implying that ethnic political parties lack ideas. That’s is not true. They have ideas, some of which may in fact be harmful to democracy, individual rights, and national unity. Let’s take the three extremist ethnic-based parties. The NAMA advocates ethnic homelands, the OLF espouses separatism, and the TPLF has fostered ethnic conflict throughout Ethiopia for the last forty-four years.
Their political views aside, ethnic parties are inherently divisive. Creating political parties along ethnic lines is indeed segregating the Ethiopian people along ethnic lines. Take the Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray. One may accept or reject its political philosophy, yet as an ethnic-based political party it was exclusionary. Even moderate ethnic parties that are explicitly committed to national unity, in fact weaken it because their political contest, competition, and struggle with the other parties, especially with the other ethnic parties, eventually deteriorates into ethnic strife, friction, or even conflict.
Other opponents of ethnic-based parties contend that political parties should be founded on citizenship, but this proposition is untenable since there is only one citizenship in a country. You are either an Ethiopian or you’re not, as defined by law. Even if one supports dual citizenship, there is little room for discussion. The dearth of views on what constitutes citizenship disqualifies it from becoming the underpinning of political parties. Consequently, proponents of citizenship as the basis for political parties ultimately settle for ideology as the only organizing principle for parties, but this argument too incorrectly suggests that ethnic-based political parties lack ideologies.
As stated above, ethnic-based parties subscribe to ideas, ideologies. The debate is therefore on whether parties should be ethnically inclusive and ideologically democratic or not. Ideally, the preference is for all-inclusive democratic parties. Although there are strong arguments against ethnically exclusionary, authoritarian parties, the article focuses on how the unstated ideology of ethnic parties—ethnicism—impairs national unity, violates individual rights, and undermines democracy.
Still, there is a major conundrum: what is ideology? Scholars who study ideology don’t agree on a universally acceptable definition of the term. It means different things to different people, but for the purposes of this article, I will concentrate on three definitions of ideology. First, broadly speaking, ideology is defined as a world outlook, the lens through which individuals see, interpret, and navigate the world. This definition suggests that a group of people who share similar social conditions ascribe to similar points of view. This means, teachers, soldiers, doctors, and individuals that belong to different religious, ethnic, and other groups hold different ideologies.
Since one’s social identity is contextually defined, this definition of ideology as a world view suggests that individuals entertain different points of view depending on the social circumstances in which they find themselves. Their outlooks often vary, frequently reinforce, and are at times contradictory depending on the social, political, and economic issue they are addressing. This definition of ideology, despite its insight into how people’s background influences their outlooks, is so broad that it has limited political relevance.
Second, ideology is presented as a distorted perception, false consciousness, that promotes, serves, and protects the interests of the ruling elite. When defending the elites’ interests, ideology misinforms, confuses, and misleads the public. This conception of ideology as the dominant ideas of the ruling elite highlights the reasons that ordinary people may accept the existing political order as natural, universal, and unchangeable. It also denies the possibility of those who are struggling against the system adopting their own ideologies to fight against the inequities of the system.
Third, ideology is seen as a set of attitudes, values, norms, and beliefs about a political system. This can be called political ideology. Political ideology is as much descriptive as it is prescriptive. It endorses, defends, and promotes a particular economic and political order. If some people consider the current system to be deficient, they strive to transform it by adopting an ideology and forming or joining a political party. They rely on their ideology to highlight the defects of the system, to organize the population, and to charter future possibilities. Supporters, members, and leaders of a political party believe that their ideology is the only ideology that can resolve systemic problems.
Contrary to what they may claim publicly, all ethnic-based parties follow the ideology of ethnicism, some more overtly than others. Underneath the veneer of their official ideology, whether it is “revolutionary democracy” of the TPLF or “moderate liberalism” of NAMA, lies ethnicism. Ethnic parties are restrictive in the cause they advance, if not in their membership. The membership may be nominally open to all who accept the political objective of an ethnic parity, but the narrowness of the objective confines its membership to a particular ethnic group. How many Oromos, Gurages, or Sidamas are members of the TPLF? The restrictiveness ethnic parties, irrespective of what ideology the party may officially claim to follow, derives from ethnicism.
Ethnicism can be defined in the three different ways discussed above, except it is grounded in ethnicity. As a vital element of one’s world outlook, it provides the ethnic lens through which an individual sees the world. Ethnicism divides the socioeconomic world into two groups: the world inhabited by members of the ethnic out-group and the world inhabited by members of the ethnic in-group, just as the Killils divide Ethiopians into ethnic homelands.
Ethnicism, like any other ideology, comprises micro and macro dimensions. At the micro level, when addressing human nature, it assigns negative attributes to individuals belonging to the ethnic out-group and positive attributes to individuals belonging to the ethnic in-group. It perceives differentiated individuals inside its ethnic group but envisions homogenized individuals outside its ethnic group. This bifurcation results in treating members of one’s ethnic group favourably and discriminating against members of the ethnic other.
At the macro level, when addressing the ideal political system, ethnicism advocates an ethnic-based political system that is controlled, dominated, and ruled by members of the ethnic in-group. It also scapegoats ethnic out-groups for systemic problems. (In this article, the definition of ethnicism as a political ideology is emphasized).
Ethnicism, like all political ideologies, fulfills important functions for political actors. For politicians, it may provide the relatively easy route to power. For ordinary members of the in group, it partially satisfies their aspirational, emotional, relational, epistemic, and existential (security) needs along ethnic lines. The public is more predisposed to accept ethnicism than any other ideology because of its personal, social, and psychological proximity to them.
Today, in large measure, due to the preeminence of ethnicism over the last 27 years, people are more likely to accept politicians who are members of their ethnic groups than politicians that are outside their ethnic groups. While it is true that the appeal of some politicians like Dr. Abiy and Abo Lemma transcends their ethnicity because of their charismatic personalities, leadership qualities, and firm commitment to national unity, the ethnicity of politicians is generally more attractive than their non-ethnicist ideologies to the populous.
Along with the cultural, relational, and emotional attractiveness of ethnicism, its light cognitive load also renders it more accessible to the public than other ideologies. For ordinary people, the simple but divisive view of “them” and “us” is easier to accept than the nuanced ideologies of liberalism, conservatism, or socialism. The appeal of ethnicism makes it relatively easy to organize ethnic political parties and to engage in ethnic politics.
Ethnic politics is easy but divisive. To politically categorize Ethiopians into ethnic groups is to divide Ethiopians into contending ethnic political camps. Once the opposing camps have been established, it’s much easier to mobilize the population by appealing to one’s ethnic loyalty, by dwelling on past ethnic injustices, real or imagined; by peddling conspiracy theories on the impending ethnic genocide, by sermonizing the ethnic glorious past, by fabricating the imminent existential threat, or by harping on the “expropriation” of ancestral homelands, rather than by exhorting the intricacies of freedom, liberty, equality, or justice; concepts that have a heavier cognitive load for the masses.
The result is short-term gains for political parties but long-term losses for national unity. The appeal of ethnicism explains to some extent the success of the TPLF and the failure of the EDU and the EPRP in Tigray in the late 1980s. But the easy road to power that is paved with ethnic animus destroys the high road to democracy that can only be built by pan-ethnic solidarity.
Ethnicism’s Tendency to Authoritarianism
Ethnicism fosters authoritarianism. First, ethnic nationalism, an essential element of ethnicism, with its emphasis on the collective rights of ethnicity, tramples on the rights of individuals and minority groups. Effectively, ethnic nationalism is anti-democratic. History shows, given the right set of circumstances, ethnic nationalism violates individual and minority rights, including ethnic cleansing and genocide as in Bosnia and Rwanda, for the “common good”. Ethnic nationalism also explains the millions of Ethiopians that have been internally displaced over the last twenty-seven years, more so in the last two years.
Second, ethnicism’s rejection of universal political core values, such as individual and minority rights and the other democratic principles, requires the leaders of ethnic parties to become authoritarian. The organizational strength of a political party hinges on its members’ commitment to core values. In the absence of core political values in ethnicism, leaders rely on family members, regional supporters, and draconian administrative measures to maintain unity inside the party and to achieve their political objectives. To further their agenda, many resort to threats, violence, fear mongering, ethnic hatred, and in extreme cases, genocide. This is particularly true of parties that have engaged in armed struggle.
Using ethnicism as their ideology, extremist ethnic parties claim to advance the interests of their respective ethnic groups, but they only further the political interests of a small number of individuals. Amharas, Oromos, Tigryans, and members of the other ethnic groups should realize that ethnic divisiveness hinders their struggle to overcome their common enemies of poverty, illiteracy, and disease. The announcement by Dr. Abiy on February 24 that the ruling EPRPF, the coalition of three ethnic parties and one regional party, will be dissolved and replaced by an all-inclusive multi-ethnic party is a watershed decision, in form and in substance. Ethiopians should follow his lead in rejecting parochial ethnic parties and embracing all-inclusive multi-ethnic parties of their choice.
Worku Aberra (PhD) is a professor of Economics at Dawson College, Montreal, Canada