Too cheap to kill in Ethiopia?

By Teklu Abate; February 14, 2013

Mainly
because of the obsession and compulsion with the everyday political situation
back home, issues related to the future of Ethiopia are least discussed.
Analysis after analysis following the occurrence of a problem might not have
practical, if not political, relevance. Making analyses or predictions related
to socio-economic and political issues is vital to take proactive measures.

In this
paper, I would like to highlight issues related to Ethiopia’s peace condition
in the future based on literature and my own views. First, I succinctly present
a study on future peace condition in Ethiopia and internationally. Second, some
of the conditions that could aggravate conflict, or conditions that do not
sustain peace, are elaborated. Third, other conditions that are thought to have
a moderating role are identified. And lastly, implications that the government,
the opposition, the media, and the entire peace-loving people should be aware
of are highlighted.

Will
Ethiopia be more or less peaceful?

Implicitly
or explicitly, reports from international organizations seem to hold the
conclusion that Ethiopia has a high risk of being in conflicts in the future.
For this paper, a study conducted by the University of Oslo in cooperation with
the Oslo Peace Research Institute is considered for its recency
and its theoretical and methodological rigor in the collection and analysis of
data at the global level. To have a complete understanding and judgment of the
findings, it is useful to first say some about the study itself.

The
Oslo study

This study
is conducted by Professor Håvard Hegre
of the Department of Political Science at the University of Oslo in cooperation
with the Peace Institute. The paper is being published in a scientific journal
but the summary of the study appears in Apollo, University of Oslo’s research
magazine. The goal of the study is to simulate extent of peace and conflict
internationally until 2050. The model used for simulation is developed based on
the last 40 years’ history of conflicts in all countries and their neighbors,
oil resources, ethnicity, infant mortality, education, and youth population.
The focus of the study is internal armed conflict between governments and
organized groups such as political parties and/or ethnic groups. According to
the study, “A conflict is defined as a conflict between governments and
political organizations that use

violence and in which at least 25 people die”.
Before drawing conclusions and for statistical reasons, the programme/software
is run 18,000 times.

The
sensational conflict simulations indicated that the world will be a more
peaceful place to live in the future. Except for sub-Saharan Africa, all
continents are expected to have a decline in the risk of conflict.
Surprisingly, the decrease in conflict is found to be greatest in the Middle
East. The study does not explain why conflict is decreasing in those and other
countries but it is indicated that education and economic development are the
key factors. The researchers indicated that in most parts of the world, it is
too expensive to kill in the decades to come.

Unfortunately,
there are several spots in the world where it is and will be too cheap to kill.
Ethiopia has the greatest risk of conflict in the next four decades.
According to the study, “In 5 years the risk of conflict will be greatest
in India, Ethiopia, the Philippines, Uganda and Burma. In 40 years the risk
will be greatest in India, Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia and Tanzania. Those
countries in which the risk of conflict will sink most in the next 40 years are
Algeria, Colombia, Turkey and Thailand” (Apollon,
2012). These countries are simulated to have high risks of conflicts for nearly
four decades.

At the
global level, the findings of the study seem to promise a safer future. For
Sub-Saharan Africa, the study provided a disturbing signal. Still, one could
raise the question: to what extent the findings are valid to the region and to
Ethiopia particularly? I argue that there are several
conflict aggravating and moderating conditions as far as Ethiopia is concerned.
In general, I could say we happen to have much more powerful aggravating
conditions than moderating ones. That means, if appropriate measures are not
taken in good time and to the right degree, we could witness conflict after
conflict in the years to come. It could continue to be too cheap to kill in
Ethiopia.

Conflict
aggravating conditions

It is
painful to simulate conflict for any country, let alone ones
own. But reality must be faced and dealt with in good time. I could argue that
the Oslo study summarized above is a bit relaxed in its consideration of
factors but finally gets it right in the conclusions. The conclusion that
Ethiopia will have the greatest risk of conflict seems warranted for a number
of reasons.

One, what
is missing from the Oslo study is the consideration of the existing political
conditions within countries. The study does not consider the governance style
of the studied countries. One reason may be that the researchers assume that
current government commitment to democratic principles does not have predictive
power because governments are supposed to function for one or maximum of two
terms. This does not apply to Africa and Ethiopia, where governments are as
‘eternal’ as kings and queens. Our governments assume that their contract is
permanent. If the Oslo study were to consider this reality, Ethiopia would
perhaps be one of the three or so countries that has
the highest risk of conflict. That is why I argued above that the Oslo study is
relaxed methodologically.

The point
is that the governing party is not in a position to serve the public as
promised. The government breaks the constitution in day light. The justice
system could not get

the confidence of the public. The
military, the police, and the security apparatus do not have friendly relationships
with the majority. Merit-based employment and investment is becoming a dream.
The media are systematically made paralyzed. Professional associations are
incapacitated or, are replaced by quasi ones that are sympathetic with the
government. Websites and broadcasts are blocked. These and other factors
associated with government mismanagement are recipes for future conflict.

Two,
partly because of the extremely ugly and hostile political climate back home, several groups are creating unions and fronts and are
already in the battlefields. Armed groups operate in the North, South, East,
and West part of the country. New forces are joining the momentum. In fact,
this is the strongest empirical evidence that warrants the conclusion that
future conflict is indeed a reality in Ethiopia.

Three,
education and economic development are two key factors that influence
sustaining conflict and/or peace. If quality education is offered to at least a
sizeable portion of the youth, and if economic development is equitable and
sustainable, peace would reign and conflict would be avoided. On the other
hand, if education is limited or if it is provided in poor quality, and if only
a certain portion of the population is enjoying the fruits of economic growth,
conflict would be the order of the day.

In
Ethiopia, yes, education is massively expanded both at basic and higher levels
but its quality is extremely worrisome. International education organizations
and experts as well as the government are aware of this fact. That means, poor quality education is technically equal to absence of
education when it comes to its contribution to development and peace. Moreover,
the Ethiopian economy is reportedly growing in double-digits. But that level of
growth could not be grounded. Either statistics are engineered or only
extremely limited number of people are reaping all the benefits. Millions are
still in food aid. The cost of living is sky rocketing. In general, Ethiopia
seems to have less powerful education and economic bases to ensure peace for
the years to come.

Four, we,
as any country else, tend to have a conflict-driven past. Conflicts
characterize, for instance, the period of Zemene Mesafint, the Haile Selasse
period, the Dergue times, and the EPRDF tenurship. Although there are a number of countries who
used to have devastating conflicts but who are now peaceful and prosperous,
there are several other countries that tend to sustain their bad habits-
conflict. That means, there is some chance of
considering wars and conflicts as alternative means of solving problems. This
makes even more sense if one considers the nature of the governing party,
EPRDF.

Five,
there are strong indications that the military is not in good shape as well. We
have heard the clashes within the military that left dozens dead and wounded.
That again attests to the presence of a really big structural problem with the
system. Whatever group comes the invincible in the end, the defeated would
consider retreating to Asimba or Dedebit
again. The military is a microcosm of the power balance at the top leadership.

Six, the
EPRDF top leadership seems in disarray as well. Following the death of the late
Meles Zenawi, the entire
system started to shake up. Still, ‘tremors’ are being felt from a distant. In
times of crisis, Meles has had that tactical
capability of maneuvering and taking conditions to his and then his party
advantage. That agility and decisiveness in

decision making is nowhere to be found in
today’s top leadership. We happen to hear inconsistencies in government
communications and it is pretty unclear who really makes decisions at the top.
The internal fight seems to continue until one group wins the will of the top
military officials, as AK47’s proved to be the panacea. The power skirmishes
indicate the probability of conflict in the near future. Whoever will win,
conflict is likely to take place for at least sometime. It is however useful to
consider into the analysis the conditions that might have a moderating role.

Moderating
factors

There are
some conditions that seem to ensure relative peace in the near future. Or at
least, they could limit the scale of conflicts. The problem is that these
conditions, compared to the aforementioned conflict-aggravating conditions,
seem to have a much less power to influence the overall equation- peace. They
are yet worth mentioning.

The God
factor

Ethiopia
is a deeply religious country. Christians and Muslims daily live their
respective religions. There is a general tendency to leave complex issues such
as peace and conflict to God. Several as a result do not take part in politics
and consider themselves neutral. That is partly why we
do not see a single demonstration despite 1) we have had over 30 inflation
rate, 2) we see with our naked eyes the level of corruption and nepotism, 3)
miscarriage of justice, 4) our college graduates are employed as stone cutters,
5) the police and the security offices are terrorizing the public, and more.
The average believer seems to wait for God to intervene. This seems to
demonstrate a false sense of peace and security at the moment.

The
fear factor

Again for
many Ethiopians, conflicts are too expensive to be waged. We have that fresh
memory of the massacre of hundreds of thousands of youngsters in the name of
Red Terror. We vividly saw the cost of war that was fought between the Dergue and the now EPRDF. We have a fresh memory of the
recent Ethio-Eritrean senseless war that claimed over
70, 000 innocent lives. We have that memory of the massacre of nearly 200
people in relation to post-election demonstrations. Generally, we have a nasty
pool of experience in wars and conflicts. All these might discourage some or
many or most of us from designing and orchestrating conflicts of any sort in
the future. Simply, we are afraid of deaths, wounds, jails, and persecutions.

The
diplomatic factor

International
organizations such as the UN and the EU and powerful countries such as the US
could play a somehow mediating role in case of accumulation of signs of eminent
conflict. Although these organizations and countries do not usually stop
conflicts from happening, they try hard to avoid them. Countries and/or groups
that demonstratively believe in and enact democracy might discourage
undemocratic governances from clinging to power through sustaining conflicts.
Also, some indication is present that economic aids and loans might be linked
to democratic governance.

Concluding
remarks

Based on
the Oslo study, conditions that aggravate conflict and that sustain relative
peace are highlighted in this paper. The analysis seems to indicate that
conflict would be on the horizon in the near future in Ethiopia if appropriate
measures are not taken. The most important single factor that could ensure
sustained peace is democratic governance: governance which ensures the rule of
law, transparency and accountability. In order to avoid possible conflicts, the
government in Ethiopia must practice the constitution. The media must be
allowed to flourish again. The opposition must be allowed to convene, publish,
open offices, and call demonstrations. The public must be allowed to freely
assemble, associate, and get employed based on merit. Discrimination and
harassment of any sort at work and elsewhere must be stopped. All the ethnic
groups must be brought back to the unifying force: being Ethiopian.

The
opposition and the media (at home and abroad) must also make peaceful
co-existence their top agenda. They could develop and sustain educative programmes tailored to accommodate differences. Political
parties need to organize themselves around nationalism and not around ethnic
lines. The media should initiate and maintain dialogues on unity and peace
issues. They should stop publishing papers that preach, implicitly or
explicitly, hate, ethnocentrism, and division. Criticisms must differentiate
people from ideas and people from their ethnic identity.

Contributions
from social scientists are seminal for understanding and solving people’s
grievances. Media should take initiatives to bring together sociologists,
anthropologists, psychologists, political scientists, lawyers and others for a
nuanced discussion of pertinent social issues. The discussions should aim at
creating a common platform or shared basis of understanding and action for a
better future.

In sum,
peace is maintained if and only if all the stakeholders take supreme
responsibility for their decisions and actions. If the public, social
scientists, the elderly, the media, the opposition, and the government do their
part of the job, there is no reason why Ethiopia will be prone to decades of
conflicts. The government is but the most indispensable entity that could
reconfigure the overall set up because it is the government’s mismanagement
that is pushing people to the bushes. If they open the nearly
closed political space and if they enact the constitution and ensure
accountability, conflict would be just history. I strongly wish that,
henceforth, it should be too expensive to kill in Ethiopia!

—

The writer could be reached at [email protected] and also blogs at http://tekluabate.blogspot.no/