Abbysinia/Ethiopia: State Formation and National State-Building Project Comparative Approach

Emperor Menelik of Abyssinia declared that he would not be an indifferent spectator as European powers divided up Africa among themselves. Hence, he saw himself as part and parcel of the scramble for Africa. All he needed to demonstrate was effective occupation set down by the Europeans at the Berlin Conference. He managed to create his empire by pitting European powers against each other, tapping their advisors, mercineries, technicians and arsenals. He posed himself as the restorer of Biblical Ethiopia allegedly extending as far north as Khartoum and as far south as Lake Nyasa (Malawi). He waged a war of attrition against the Oromo people reducing its population by a half through massacres and slave trade. He moved hundreds of thousand armed Abyssinians to the conquered areas and settled them in strategic location with primary purpose of exploiting the surrounding areas. In order to implement this he instituted the neftegna-gabar, Abyssinian unique feudal system. Therefore, Menelik never dreamt to build a viable national state after concluding his brutal war of conquest and pillage. Haile Selassie s primary agenda was maintaining the imperial system he inherited by instituting centralization. As the epitome center of the center, he was obsessive in centralizing all power unto himself. And the burden of maintaining this centralized order fell disproportionately on the Oromo and other conquered peoples. He pursued centralization without paying any attention to political development. As centralization gathered momentum, even sectors of Abyssinia repeatedly rose against his rule. The peoples of the periphery of the periphery, Oromos, Somalis, Sidamas, Eritreans, etc. never gave up their quest for freedom. This demonstrates that instead of engaging in bargaining that would have created a viable national state, he obstinately resorted to naked force. In this he tapped support of foreign powers with regards to favourable treaties, expertise, and provision of weapons. His reign was permanently characterized by exploitation, subordination, and alienation, which stiffened the resistance of its victims. The military junta exploited the revolutionary sentiment that brought down the imperial order for the single purpose of achieving even greater centralization by adopting the totalitarian system similar to what then prevailed in the Soviet bloc. The nationalization of land instead of implementing the popular Land to the Tiller slogan constituted the key feature of this abuse. Hence, the military regime adopted some changes in order to sustain the empire characterizing its reign with both change and continuity (Ethiopia Tikdem, Ethiopia First). The military regime came to power at a time when the struggles of oppressed peoples for their rights were entering a more coherent phase. Instead of trying to bargain with the struggling sectors of society he raised the size of the armed forces to unprecedented levels hoping to forcefully containing the aspiration of the concerned peoples. Even the windfall of armaments from the Soviet bloc failed to quash these struggles culminating in the defeat of the regime. The end of the military regime occasioned Eritrean independence and the take over of the rest of the empire by the TPLF. What happened at this historical juncture is a testimony to the failure of Abyssinian Amhara state formation and national state-building project. The TPLF took over an empire that was reduced in size after the separation of Eritrea. It also instituted some changes, like adopting a constitution , restructuring the empire as a federation , as a new policy to preserve the empire under its hegemony and benefit. The populations that came to rule were treated like hostages and exploited mercilessly through an apparently democratic, legal and liberal order. It does not uphold even its own constitution and does not hesitate to pass restrictive laws violating the letter and spirit of the constitution. Despite assuming a federal poise, what is practiced is highly centralized and abusive. It monopolized the heights of the economy through its companies, made the officer corps predominantly members of its constituency and other approaches. Similarly, the security apparatus is monopolized by members of its constituency. In short, it did not attempt any bargaining that would have culminated in the bringing about political development. Under Emperors Menelik and Haile, no attempt was made to differentiate the private domain of the rulers from that of the state. The practice of both Emperors attests to their conviction that they are the state just like Lewis XIV. The same failure to differentiate the domain of the rulers from that of the state persisted during the era of the military junta. The TPLF/EPRDF regime similarly merged the private party structure with that of the state. In the words of Markakis (2011: 247) the party-state merger functions here as well, turning this base unit of administration into an appendage of the ruling party. All these rulers did everything possible to make the life of the state coterminous with their own. Which meant that they treated any critisim levelled against as treason and running counter to national interest. Thus equating their security with that of the state, they harshly treated any perceived or imagined opposition. The conquered peoples, in particular, have and are treated like the property of whoever is in power