So much has changed since, including our understanding of reason and emotion, albeit in a compartmentalize ways, yet so much has stayed the same. If any proof is needed, we need look no further than the way we relate to each other as a group or individuals or the passion we profess for our country and the ideals we hold true, and the contrasting reality of our commitment.
Take for example the recent rapprochement of the opposition parties (OLF, Ginbot 7, ONLF, etc.) to forge an alliance in the struggle to bring about change in Ethiopia. Given the pressing need for unity, one could be forgiven for assuming that this will result in groundswell support among the Diaspora community. Instead it has been a source of commotion and fierce discussion. The cause of this unwarranted overreaction, to say the least, was because it included OLF and ONLF. Two organisations long considered separatist, hence supposedly against Ethiopia’s unity.
Aside from the obvious advantage of having a united front, the need for early engagement among various groups, especially those aligned along ethnic lines, can not be understated. Even if we accept that some of these groups harbour separatist tendencies, it would be presumptuous to suggest that in today’s rapidly changing environment, that any organisation holds such deeply entrenched views that it is unable to evolve. In fact, we live in a time where even the dimensions of our individual identities let alone group identity are being challenged and redefined.
Then why the commotion and the alarmist tone? The reaction is baffling only insofar as we ignore the emotional element at play and its impact on identity politics
The economist-philosopher Amartya Sen (1998 Nobel Prize winner) in his book, “Identity and Violence”, reminds us that each person is indeed a composite of many affiliations. None of us have a single identity, but many. Depending how much importance we attach to our various affiliations we can be defined by our profession, family, ethnicity, religion, etc. Only when we allow one of our identities to take excessive precedence over the other, and we therefore identify ourselves mainly with it, that we start to exclude ourselves and others who don’t belong to our chosen identity, even though we may share several identities with them.
Similarly, externally imposed “singular affiliation” is an affront to our intrinsic right to choose who we are, therefore the freedom to choose how much importance to attach to a particular affiliation. The most insidious aspect of the TPLF’s “Bantustan” policy is the imposition of “singular identity”. Where we are forced to identify ourselves based on arbitrary and flimsy notions of identity such one’s surname or linguistic heritage. It’s a deliberate and irresponsible policy to appeal to our tribal membership, hence to divide and rule.
The genius of Sen’s idea of Identity as multidimensional concept lies not only in its elegant simplicity (which is quite a feat in itself, given the complexity of the subject-matter), but rather in its power to debunk the deterministic notion of identity or what the author calls the “Illusion of destiny’.
Some identity can be enduring than others, but they are nonetheless a choice not a destiny. It’s very unsettling indeed to think that a great deal of suffering happened and still happening based on the fallacy of singular identity.
Who we are should not be defined by anyone but us. It’s up to us to reject the TPLF imposed identity politics and the monolithic system of category, and instead rely on our shared value and reason. Being an Ethiopian is a claim to our composite identity. We are Gurage, Oromo, Amhara, Tigre, Gambela, etc, all at the same time; or, if we wish, quite simply an “ethnic Ethiopian”.
The “reductionist” us-versus-them outlook ignores the composite nature of our identity and serves only to heighten our emotion. Unchecked emotions and irrational passion will only lead us from one disaster to another. Only through engagement, as free and equal partners, especially with those that hold different views from us, can we hope to promote understanding and democracy.
We should let our feeling be governed by our reason and shared humanity. Promoting, practicing, and defending democracy requires the primacy of reason over emotion; only then we can embrace the flickers of unity, and hope it will ignite into a movement for change that will usher in a just society.
