This short
article represents neither an exhaustive nor definitive view of the notion of
“self-determination” as it relates to Ethiopian politics. It does,
however, represent a call to fellow Ethiopians –especially those bought
the idea as a sacred political creed – to question its relevance. I argue that the notion of
“self-determination” is over-politicized at the expense of social and
cultural interaction that shaped collective identity. Yet, identity, to a great
extent, is supposed to be a social construction, in my view, –not an
offshoot of politicization of inapplicable exotic political concepts. The conception
of “self” is taken in its absolutist and reductionist form. Embedded
in the notion of “self-determination” is exclusive justice. And
that is neither desirable nor possible.
Why I am questioning the notion of “Self- determination”:
In one of my
undergraduate courses, “Global South”, the professor questioned “ Is international law is an instrument of
domination?”The question was
so interesting to me so much so that I asked the professor if I can write one
of my research papers for the course on that same question –not that I
had good understanding and previous reading on the topic. It was out of mere curiosity
to challenge my speculative “yes” answer and have a closer look,
and to understand the intuitive critical and negative attitude I developed
towards the “international community” on grounds of the way the “international
community” handles and behaves on different matters. For some reason Ibelieved that “international law” is as mediocre
as the “international community” and this was informed by the political
experience of my people. Then, I approached the professor’s question with
my own question: “what was the origin of international law?”
The preliminary
readings which I did for the paper were not that useful and most of the
materials I consulted were of Eurocentric origin. Consequently most of the
literatures tend to have a deferential view of “international law.” They sounded to me apologetic in
nature and not explanatory enough of the question I was interested in. You will
know why shortly.
I discovered
crucial clue related to my question in the work of Karl Polanyi’s –
“Great Transformation.” At one point his writing seems to suggest
that the origin of “international law” was the international system.
The International system was entirely a European enterprise and it was meant to
maintain a balance of power between European powers by way of averting and
handling possible conflicts. Even North America was not part of the system.
Of course, my
next question was whether the international law was relevant vis-à-vis defending
the rights of nations and peoples at the time they were subject to colonial
wars of occupation and treaties of treachery. From the outset, I happened to
learn that the contribution of African and other third world scholars to
international law was nil in its formative stage. Contribution from TWAIL
scholars is a post-colonial phenomenon. On the other hand, I am aware that a
body of law is supposed to reflect the moral codes, norms and views of the society
for which it is intended. In that sense international law was not international
enough. Far from providing legal protection to peoples in Africa and elsewhere,
international law provided legitimacy and justification for colonial powers in
their occupations territories in Africa. The existence of legal principles in
“international law” that sound like tools of domination and
oppression seen from the trajectory of African countries is another reason to
doubt “international law”. Concepts like “Terra nullius,” and the notion of
“positivism and positivist interpretation” could be cited as an
example. Although I did not conduct a research – I assume that the
partition of Africa by European powers under the motive of “civilizing
mission” was endorsed by “International law” at least by
omission.
All is not
history though. There is a subtle continuity. Although it is difficult to make
categorical assertion on that, even neo-positivism is not immune from bias of
the powerful countries. Neo-liberalism is composing a song that
“sovereignty” – which was once a cardinal concept in relation
to the independence of peoples and nations in international law–is a
thing of the past. Obviously, the intention is to facilitate mobility and
expansion of capital and exploitation in a more subtle way- unlike the era of
colonization which was through wars of conquest.My point is not about neo-liberalism. I
am trying to substantiate the point that international law simply served a interpretive
frame work to justify domination in colonial era and the world is not immune
from new forms exploitation and domination that could appear under the guise of
“international law.” The
notion of “self-determination” which is now part of the
international law could serve that purpose.
Rethinking the notion of
“self-determination”
The principle
of “self-determination” was introduced to international law during
decolonization era. It appears the case that the genesis of concept has a root
from leftist political thinking. Probably the principle initially came to be
part of international law partly due to the ideological war between the East
and the west blocs, and partly due to the appeal of concept for colonized
peoples. Whatever the case is, in light of the struggle against colonialism,
and in light of the fact that the struggle was between powerful colonizing
countries of Europe on the one hand, and the colonized people of Africa who
were subjected to exploitation and inhuman treatment* in their own country on
the other – I would say the notion of
“self-determination” was relevant back then. In this case the
concept “self” is not suffering from absolutist and reductionist
view. Because in concept “self” the embedded “other” is
clear. And the other is entirely different from “self.”
The principle
tends to take an absolutist turn when it is applied within a country-
especially in Africa. Unfortunately, the principle got strong political
currency in Ethiopia immediately before and after the 1974 revolution. The
political movement of the 70’s in Ethiopia was influenced not only by
leftist thinking but also the anti-colonial struggles in Africa in the
60’s and 70’s. Scholarship students from African countries at AAU
are said to have their own role in shaping the political conscious of Ethiopian
students, a political force which was to emerge as a modern political activist.** however, the formed consciousness is only apparent, not
real. Clearly, there was some unconsciousness within the new political
consciousness. The notion of “self-determination” is a good example
to demonstrate that. Yet, it was not political
unconsciousness per se that made the notion of “self-determination”
a strong political currency in the politics of the 70’s. Even a fairly
little exposure to the political writings of the 70’s in Ethiopia seems
to suggest that the youth was highly politicized – and political
mobilization was highly competitive. Based on circumstantial evidence, I tend
to think that the notion of “self-determination” provided mobilization
convenience for young political activists. Apparently, the mobilization
convenience provided by the “notion of self-determination” made
political activists forget the fact that oppression and exploitation was not
exclusive in feudal Ethiopia. It was rather a shared experience.
In addition
to political unconsciousness and the political convenience, the notion of
“self-determination” proved to have ideological and political value
in the eyes of external forces- forces which have the aspiration to destabilize
and weaken Ethiopia for Ideological reason and/or historical reasons. Some Arab
nations which envisaged interest in a destabilized Ethiopia provided
diplomatic, financial and military support for the “liberation
fronts” which were waging a guerrilla war against the provisional military
government. Western countries in their own right have a feud with the military
government due to its ideological orientation and opted for supporting
“liberation fronts.” Technically that was like recognizing the principle of
“self-determination” in the Ethiopian situations. Some
“scholars” like David Basilson went to
the extent of openly portraying Ethiopia as a colonial power. Apparently, the
liberation front’s endorsement of colonial thesis was informed by
readings from the writings and commentaries of David Basilson.
So apart from mobilization convenience at home, the politics of
“self-determination” helped gain acceptance and legitimacy by
foreign powers.
But the
colonial thesis was utterly nonsense. In connection with this, the problem related to
“self-determination” in Ethiopia primarily emanated from mistaking power
struggle between local feudal lords with colonial wars of conquest. There was,
so to speak, no such thing as election campaign and election in feudal
Ethiopia. The way to assume power –like any feudal societies in Europe
and the rest of pre-colonial Africa– was through feudal war. On top of that
Ethiopia itself survived a colonial war of conquest –and that was
achieved with the participation of all the contending feudal lords and their
armies. On the contrary, the colonial wars of conquest were essentially
capitalistic enterprises. The wars were about expanding capital by way of creating
a resource market. There was imperialistic tendency too. Resources were looted
from Africa and transferred to the metropolitan. Africans lost dignity- in
their own country. The economic, social and cultural policies that colonial
powers pursued in colonized African countries were devastating to the Africans.
So the champions of “self-determination” in Ethiopia clearly
mistook the latter for the former. This is one of the unconsciousness.
The notion of
“self” was taken in its reductionist sense. And the notion of
“self” runs a linguistic line more than anything else. But clearly
“self” is more than language. “Self” is a product of
cultural and social interactions too. Cultural assertions are problematic for
the simple reason that there have been multi-directional cultural assimilations.
These assimilations and intermarriages could not be discounted in when defining
“self.” All the “cultures” in Ethiopia are collective
in nature. Something had been given and something had been taken. This is
indicative of the fact that “the notion of
“self-determination” is a social construction as much as it is a
political one, if not more. However, this reality was not given a room.
Political
activists who picked up the notion of “self-determination” for
mobilization convenience purpose simply mined a justification for the absolutist,
reductionist and exclusive notion of “self” in the politics of
feudal Ethiopia. They failed to see that the colonial type of social and
cultural interaction was entirely different. The Zimbabweans were segregated in
their own country- and there was a legal and institutional frame work to undertake
segregation by the white minority rule from Europe- the “other”.
South Africans have a similar, perhaps worse by any measure, experience.Although a little off topic, the
experiences of blacks in North America – in an allegedly liberal and free
society- could offer another comparative framework. Yes, the North American
case was not a purely colonial enterprise. Yet, the experiences of blacks are
comparable to the experiences of Africans under the rule of the
“other” – colonial powers. Bob’s “Stolen from
Africa” song comes to mind here. “Slaves” from Africa were
made to entirely forget their cultural values- and they were made to live under
institutionalized racial segregation. The dream of Martin Luther king
was-literally-the end of racial segregation.I am not sure if Martin Luther King
envisaged of more.
In light of
these experiences what happened in feudal Ethiopia represent nothing other than
the low political stage of development of the feudalism. And all parts of
Ethiopia experienced feudal rule under their respective feudal lords. I am of
the view that the feudal experience should not be an excuse to entrench an
absolutist view of “self.” It is also logically wrong to entrench
exclusivity in a collective society. The notion of “self-determination” , as advocated by Ethiopian politicians, is about
excluding perceived “other” rather than bringing about justice that
serves a collective purpose.
Besides, no
society lived harmoniously and without conflict throughout history. Because
conflict is an integral part of human life and it exists at different levels.
In that case, even the politics of “self-determination” is not a
guarantee for a just and harmonious society. The guarantee for a relatively
just society is the creation of a strong and inclusive notion of justice by way
of transcending an incomplete and wrong conception of “self.” All the components of “self” matter.Language is just one component.I strongly believe that the notion of
“self-determination” is neither desirable nor possible. It just
represents unnecessary challenge. It’s a challenge not just for
Ethiopia– but for Africa as well.
The irony is
that while political activists in a country like Ethiopia –and all over
Africa- take an absolutist view of “self” and a component of
“self” as the “other”, the real “other”
– the historical “other” unveiled itself in a more
sophisticated form and is working in multifarious ways to demolish collectivist
cultures in Africa so as to create a consumer and a resource market. And the
contemporary ruling class in Africa is connecting with them and introducing
their values. Globalization is a manifestation of that project. It represent a clear threat to the real “self.” It
is not the component of “self” that represents danger to
“self.” It is the “other.” It is high time to give the
notion of “self-determination” a second thought.
** Among others, Literatures like Andargachew Asegid’s “Bachir Yetekeche Rezim Guzo” and “Yidres le bale Tariku” are essential to analyze the politics of the ’70s in Ethiopia.
