With the end of the Cold War and disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, there was hope internationally that in a new global era democracy would flourish.
An era dominated by democratic governance, limited government, and regimes respectful of human rights, would replace the belligerence of the Cold War.
The Cold War was an era that had been characterised by a bipolar proxy war between states. However, in the post-Cold War scenario, the converse became true.
Over the past 30 years since the end of the Cold War in Africa, wars between states (inter-state wars), which had been the norm of the Cold War era, mortified into wars within states or (intra-state wars/civil wars). The current civil war in Ethiopia is a classic case in point on why democracy is a dangerous concept.
Ethiopia’s national compromise between the victors of the factions that toppled the Marxist-Leninist regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam in 1991 was to let the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front, secede from Ethiopia and form Eritrea.
The Tigray People’s Liberation and Oromo People’s Liberation Front, and the Amhara factions supporting them, opted to form a coalition government based on an ethno-federalist model dominated by the Tigray faction.
However, this domination of the new democratic dispensation soon faced serious tests as the Oromia and Amharic factions — that were the majority in the government — felt sidelined by the minority Tigray in the post-Mengistu coalition.
Riots and demonstrations in 2018 led to a collapse of the Tigray stronghold on power. The reins of government were transferred to Ahmed Abiy, who represented a compromise between the Oromia and Amhara factions.
Why is democracy a dangerous concept in Ethiopia?
Because the devolved ethno-regional nations in Tigray and Oromia did not see the need to return to the era of marginalisation from the central government. An era when Addis dictated to the regions how they would govern their people.
Why did the ethno-federalist model of national democratic governance fail in Ethiopia?
It failed because it is based on devolved units shaped by the ethnic makeup of Ethiopia. This entrenched ethnic cleavages. It reinforced the differences in political identities between the over 100 million people of Ethiopia.
While the genius of the ethno-federalist model of government in 1991 was to devolve government to the regions, decentralise governance and allow the diverse regions to become semi-autonomous, the opposite became true.
The ethno-federal model entrenched ethnic identities such as Tigray, Oromia, Somali, Amhara over the national identity of Ethiopia. The result is what exists today.
The conflict in Ethiopia is shaping up to be long, inconclusive, and bloody. A brutal war between the federal government in Addis and the regional government of Tigray supported by the majority Oromia region.
In the Ethiopian context, the democracy shaped in the ethno-federalist model, enfranchised the regions, but also made them more independent of the national government in Addis Ababa.
Once the regions had tasted the liberating zeal of devolved governance, they were unwilling to accept a recentralisation of power Prime Minister Abiy was attempting through his Prosperity Party. This has resulted in the vicious civil war that engulfs Ethiopia.
Is democracy dead in Ethiopia?
For the short term, it appears so. Democracy is a dangerous concept in Ethiopia because, the more space the regions such as Tigray and Oromia are given to espouse their democratic rights, the more they will demand for secession and full statehood apart from Ethiopia.
On the battlefield, democracy is also dead.
The mountainous terrain of Tigray and surrounding regions make it a perfect environment for a prolonged guerilla campaign against Abiy’s government, leading to a potentially long and brutal civil war.
On its part, the government in Addis is keen to press forward with its diplomacy through war as it fears a breakaway Tigray will lead to a breakaway of the Oromia, the Somali-dominated Ogaden region and the eventual collapse of Ethiopia.
At this point, it appears there is little the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development or the United Nations can do because the Abiy Administration insists the civil war is an internal policing matter that should be left to the Ethiopian state.
Even if the international community were to intervene, it would still be faced with the multiple dilemmas that come with intervention and the resultant demands of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration. This is not a menu the international community is ready to sign up for.
Therefore, as it stands, democracy will remain a dangerous concept in Ethiopia as Abiy doubles down on authoritarian tactics to save Ethiopia from collapse.
Prof Monda teaches political science, international relations, and American government at the City University of New York (York College)
@dmonda1
