Oh, no, not again. Groans of anguish express the despair of many people as Ethiopia descends into war again. Ethiopia that has made remarkable economic growth in the past three decades; one of a few countries in Africa. And now the war between the federal government and the region of Tigray threatens to undo the achievements of that period. It is an all too familiar story of progress and reversal, of a country at war with itself. For the last twelve days, the federal government has been fighting the region of Tigray. This sort of conflict is not new, although it is the most serious and likely to have grave consequences for the whole country and even the region. Conflicts fuelled by ethnic identities occur quite frequently between the federal and regional governments, between regions, and within various regions that make up the federation. Conflicts of this nature were supposed to have ended, or at least kept at a minimum, by the political arrangement adopted after 1991. Ethiopia established a unique ethnic-based federal structure that created regional states on the basis of ethnicity (nationality) and language. They were granted a measure of autonomy, were allowed to keep militias, and had the right to secede. This arrangement was also meant to address historical discontent of the different nationalities against central authority both under Emperor Haile Selassie and then Mengistu Haile Mariam who overthrew the monarchy and ruled Ethiopia from 1974 to 1991. Many of them felt marginalised by a government they considered highly centralised and oppressive. It was also adopted as a response to threats of the disintegration of the state along ethnic lines. The war against Mengistu was organised along ethnic lines, with the different nationalities forming their own liberation fronts, such as the Tigray Liberation Front (TPLF), the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), and so on. However, this arrangement has been under severe strain for many years. With the current fighting between the federal government and Tigray, it is facing the severest test. The sense of separateness of the various nationalities which the architects of the federal arrangement recognised and sought to turn into building blocks of a united country seems to have grown stronger. The arrangement appears to have resulted in more competition and less cooperation. But perhaps this was to be expected, according to historians and political analysts. The germs of conflict, such as what is happening today, were present even as the federal arrangement was being made. First, the arrangement was really an agreement between the stronger liberation fronts fighting the Mengistu government, the TPLF and OLF. They appear to have dictated the terms to the rest. But they were also in competition for dominance. The TPLF eventually weakened the OLF and had most of the power. Political power was always built, and reflected, the military strength of respective political organisations. It is not surprising therefore that today’s contest for political control is being fought in military terms. Second, the fact that the TPLF and the Tigray region in general is at the centre of the current conflict reflects its historical role in the war against Mengistu. It was the strongest liberation force and led a coalition of others in that fight and since 1991 has been the dominant force in Ethiopian politics. Following Mengistu’s removal, the majority of senior military and government officials were understandably mainly Tigrayan. The other political organisations, especially the OLF, counting on their larger population have been pushing back against this dominance. Many reasons have been advanced for today’s escalation of the conflict. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed is asserting federal authority over a renegade region, it has been said. Or that this is a contest of wills between the prime minister and Tigrayan leaders. Or that the Tigrayans are reacting to loss of power and purges of their people from federal institutions. Whatever the reasons of today’s conflict, its roots are in the underlying instability and weaknesses of the federal arrangement and the relative strength of the politico-military strength of the different nationalities. It is doubtful whether weakening Tigray will create more stability and end demands of other groups for a bigger say in government. It may actually result in the domination of another nationality. The solution perhaps lies in renegotiating the federal arrangement, giving the smaller nationalities a more meaningful role in federal authority and greater power in their regions, and balancing the various forces. But before that happens, Ethiopia cannot be allowed to unravel. An unstable Ethiopia will have huge security and political impact on the entire eastern Africa region. The primary responsibility to stop this happening is with Ethiopians themselves. But neighbours and friends can and must help. There are leaders in this region who are close to the leaders of Ethiopia. They must take up the challenge.
