Why is Ethiopia in perpetual conflict with itself? Lecture 4: Conclusion
Lecture 4 is the final lecture of the series, in it, I aim to achieve two broad objectives;
Objective 1: Recap the previous three lectures to refresh our memories
Objective 2: To attempt to provide an answer to the key question posed at the beginning of lecture one.
Object 1: Recap of lectures
In lecture1, I have introduced a new conceptual framework to help us understand the subject matter better. I called the conceptual framework the theory of ‘thinking disparity’.
The lecture also revisited the ancient history of Ethiopia, concentrating on the arrival of Christianity and the influence of the Byzantine Empire.
In lecture 2: I Looked at the progeny of the Aksumite Kingdom- the Solomonic Dynasty, which ruled Ethiopia for 7 centuries. The lecture also introduced the concept of ‘ Abyssinian thinking’
In lecture 3: I have introduced the concept of ‘non-Abyssinian thinking’, which is born out of 7 centuries of brutalities meted out to non-Abyssinians.
Object 2: Why Ethiopia is in perpetual conflict with itself?
To answer this question, we need to draw on the two concepts introduced in lecture two and three. These are;
‘Abyssinian thinking’ Born out of unique survivalist instincts, and based on two key beliefs;
Belief 1: They have to economically survive through expansion and conquests of surrounding territories and their inhabitants
Belief 2: Their existence depends on defending Christianity against the rise of Islam, and the proselytisation of followers of Pagan religions in the region.
‘Non-Abyssinian thinking’ born out Menelik’s brutality and territorial conquests between 1889–1913 and based on two internalised beliefs
- Ethiopia is political geography created to serve Christian Abyssinian ethnic groups while marginalising the rest.
- Non-Abyssinian ethnic groups are part of modern Ethiopia through conquests and subjugation rather than through their own accord.
Based on the above thinking disparities fuelled by murky history, Ethiopia is not at peace with itself and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. In other words, it is the Abyssinian history and how its current empire is built, which are the ingredients of its perennial conflicts.
John Markakis in his latest publication- ‘Ethiopia: The Last Two Frontiers’ developed similar disparities, which he argues keep Ethiopia socially and politically divided. He has the ‘centre’, which is where the power has historically resided. In my conceptualisation, this is the ‘Abyssinians thinking’. He also included in his classification what he calls the ‘Highland-periphery and lowland- periphery’, both to denote ‘non-Abyssinian groups’, although he is slightly nuanced.
Finally, the question one has to ask is, is Ethiopia condemned to be in perpetual conflict with itself? I will argue no- it doesn’t have to be that way, provided the current thinking disparities are bridged in a way that recognises the history of the empire and how Ethiopia of today come about.
The current generations of Abyssinians must realise that their forefathers had invaded, conquered, subjugated, and forcefully annexed the territories of non-Abyssinians for centuries. Similarly, the current generation of non-Abyssinians must realise that no one can change history, hence they must strive to make Ethiopia a country that works for all, rather than to tear it apart.
