Ethiopia Must Look Forward No Matter What …
The current political wagon has veered dangerously close to recklessness. Serving Ethiopia takes precedence over promoting political figures, parties, and ideologies. If Ethiopia does not move to its tunes, the anti-Ethiopia alliance has shown its willingness to assist any external force. On every level, it has defied the imaginations of all peace-loving Ethiopians who deplore the pursuits of political objectives based on lies and fabrications.
One group desecrates the national flag and calls it a piece of rug. Others speak out against Ethiopia as a worthless country. Even other traitors have crossed the line and pledged to cooperate with Ethiopia’s long-standing foes, should their homeland not guarantee their perks. Others are fixated on the notion that Ethiopia is a failed state. These conflict-entrepreneurs would not project to see a stable and united Ethiopia that combines its historical capitals, natural resources, demographic assets, and current economic dynamics. But over 100 million people still have hope for the idea of Ethiopia.
The central puzzle involves either a norm or an aberration. What exactly is going on? For many of its inhabitants, Ethiopia is a motherland that inspires awe and wonder; on the other hand, this same country causes much bitterness and rage for those who want to see it destroyed.
The anti-Ethiopia project can take several forms, depending on whether Ethiopia is viewed positively or negatively. It has been widely disseminated for decades, with varying degrees of success in affecting the dynamics of Ethiopian national sentiment. The idealization of Ethiopia, like its disparagement, could be part of a covert destabilizing strategy. Those who have been unfairly critical of Ethiopia’s historical and symbolic legacies are engaged to diminish the country’s significance. They frequently engage in fiery discourses about Ethiopia to weaken the social fabric and undermine the political domain.
The historical enemies of Ethiopia regularly attempt to weaken the country’s essence during different political upheavals by amplifying their anti-Ethiopian rhetoric. Warnings about “disintegration” and “dismemberment” concealed ideas whose potential is worth consideration. This external paternalism aims to create mini, weak, and fractured political entities that can be patrolled whenever necessary.
Throughout history, countless Ethiopians have given their lives across the borders in defiance of external hubris that threatened their freedom. Patriotism thrives in Ethiopia during difficult times, particularly when the country is viewed as vulnerable or turbulent. Ethiopia’s history reveals a continued survival and perseverance in both the distant and recent pasts. A principal characteristic of Ethiopia’s geopolitical structure has been its defiance of exterior aggressors. External attempts to meddle in domestic affairs frequently led Ethiopians to regard foreigners with a mixture of contempt and distrust.
From time to time, Western countries assert their self-interests in international stages, where paternalism prowls behind humanitarian aids, human rights, and press freedom. Countries that rely on foreign assistance and lack other funding sources are more likely to comply with the demands of their Western benefactors. Led by the US administration, Western leaders have escalated their assaults and charges against Ethiopia, setting a precedent for a newly aggressive foreign policy.
In the local political climate, hostile language exemplifies how radicals disregard ethical and legal limits. It also reveals astounding obliviousness and strikes at the heart of the country’s legacy. Ethiopians share a core set of values about their country. At home and worldwide, they must seize the opportunity to mobilize resources and engage in political debates while advocating for their nation’s causes. Similarly, Ethiopia must rediscover its true self as its people become engulfed in ethnic conflicts that threaten its centuries-old history. As a country with many ethnic groups, certainty in its fate can only be achieved through a favorable disposition of solidarity. The state must work hard to create safe and inclusive spaces for Ethiopians of all backgrounds. To produce a robust national platform for public discourse, it must also engage in a fair and open-minded venture to form and develop a distilled narrative to address the diametric poles between the contesting parties. Any country must periodically examine itself from the ground up and refrain from censoring and silencing dissenting voices by establishing barriers to narratives that challenge the dominant narrative. It must investigate and assess the various accounts that revolve around its political essence.
Coercion of ideological adversaries would alienate more Ethiopians and threaten the national realm. The perception that the ‘other’ is a significant threat to political stability is also appalling. The climate of suspicion triggered by subsequent regime changes harmed the social fabric of Ethiopia, especially the concept of a unified Ethiopia. Ethiopia must extricate itself from the idea that whoever controls the government must also manage its history’s narrative and interpretation.
The new challenge would be to promote tolerance and understanding and deepen the definition of Ethiopian identity. A dialogue that demonstrates the critical intersections between past and present misunderstandings encourages Ethiopians to understand, at the very least, the true causes of their crises. Narratives that marginalize or denigrate other groups of people must be scrutinized in some way. Ethiopians must also critically examine external records about Ethiopia rather than embracing uncontested foreign interpretations or representations of their past, present, and future.
Ethiopia’s political landscape now has a strange dissonance because of social unrest. It redefines what constitutes an ethnic-based social configuration, opening the door to its most obtrusive modes. The fact that demagogues and instigators appear to be above the law fuels waves of rage among ordinary Ethiopians seeking political stability and security.
Ethiopians need engaging debates between the old and the new, the present and the future, the unionists and the ethnonationalists. Rhetoric and vitriol will not get us very far; however, a redemptive movement of national unity will. The approach to conveying ethnic discussions in the country must involve rectitude. The measure consists of asking questions about the essence of the nation. How far must Ethiopians look to the past to deal with the present and future? To Ethiopians, the threat of radical ethnonationalism is not an abstract concept. It is close and personal. Ethiopia’s very existence is at stake. It is also critical to ensure that Ethiopians understand what is at stake. Playing with Ethiopia must not be taken as a test game to be played at will and with ease. The ‘sovereignty’ red lines cannot be crossed over. Most importantly, Ethiopians would agree that development aid should not be used as a bargaining chip by donor countries to expect a servile disposition from recipient countries.
