Unpacking the complex web of the Tigray conflict
October 19, 2023
In Remembrance of Lives Lost in the Tigray Conflict
Introduction
The human toll of the Tigray conflict is beyond numerical estimation, a tragedy deeply felt in the tears of Tigrayan mothers grieving their lost children. This gruesome crisis did not emerge overnight; it was the culmination of years of insidious planning and veiled motives. Who initiated this horrific campaign? Who are the culprits behind the designs that appear to have genocidal intentions against the Tigrayan population? What are their underlying motives?
To explore these questions, we need to grapple with the multifaceted and intricate drivers of the conflict. Numerous actors with varied interests have engaged in this war, committing unspeakable atrocities against the people of Tigray. Their unifying objective is the wholesale destruction of Tigray’s socio-economic landscape, aiming to erase the Tigrayan community from positions of influence in politics, economy, and society.
This article aims to provide a thorough analysis rooted in the evidence at hand, but it also recognizes the potential for oversimplification due to the intricate web of factors contributing to the conflict. While the author has made a concerted effort to maintain impartiality and concentrate on factual information, the complex emotional and social dynamics involved make it challenging to assert complete objectivity, especially in relation to the community that is directly impacted.
Internal Dimensions
Historical Background
Understanding the Tigray conflict requires diving into its rich historical backdrop, involving elements such as ethnic and political dynamics, historic grievances, and legacies of past conflicts.
Ethnic and Political Landscape
To fully grasp the intricacies of ethnic politics in Ethiopia, it’s crucial to trace the nation’s history back to the time of its kings and the early phases of its formation. Historical records show that during the “Zemene Mesafint,” or the Age of the Princes, ethnic divisions were heightened. Regional rulers sought to strengthen their grip on power by rallying support specifically from their own ethnic communities.
Furthermore, religious institutions, especially the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, played a pivotal role in this socio-political landscape. They served to legitimize the agendas of the ruling kings and were instrumental in mobilizing the masses to rally behind these causes. By sanctifying the political objectives, the church became an indispensable tool for rulers to both consolidate their power and maintain ethnic divisions.
However, the landscape began to shift in the late 18th century with the introduction of formal, Western education in Ethiopia. This new educational paradigm exposed Ethiopians, especially students, to a variety of global perspectives and ideologies. These academic exposures fostered a climate of intellectual curiosity and critical thinking, leading many to question long-standing societal norms, including the church’s teachings about divine anointment of kings.
The newfound skepticism towards traditional doctrines and the questioning of the status quo were particularly influential among student populations. These young intellectuals became increasingly critical of the entrenched systems of power and the role that religious institutions played in maintaining them. Over time, this sentiment laid the groundwork for various reform movements and even revolutionary ideologies, challenging not only pre-existing social norms but also the ethnic and social hierarchies that had long been part of Ethiopia’s complex history.
The Role of Student Movements
During the late 1960s and 1970s, Ethiopia saw a burgeoning student movement fueled by widespread dissatisfaction with Emperor Haile Selassie’s feudal regime. These movements were influenced by global political ideologies like Marxism-Leninism. Students were not just disenchanted with the socio-economic conditions, but also with issues of national identity, cultural representation, and equality among Ethiopia’s diverse ethnic communities.
The student movements popularized the discourse around “nationalities” and their right to self-determination. They argued that each ethnic group within Ethiopia had the right to govern itself and maintain its language and culture. The students’ intellectual debates laid the ideological groundwork for what would later become Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism.
TPLF and EPRDF’s Adoption of Ethnic Federalism
In 1974, the Derg regime rose to power with the initial backing of student activists. However, the government soon strayed from the principles that these students had championed, particularly in areas like democracy, ethnic pluralism, and self-governance. This ideological rift gave rise to various ethno-nationalist movements for liberation, among which was the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF).
The TPLF played a prominent role in challenging the military dictatorship of the Derg regime. As part of a broader coalition, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), the TPLF eventually came to power in 1991, toppling the Derg regime.
The EPRDF implemented a system of ethnic federalism, in large part an acknowledgment of the country’s ethnic diversity and in an attempt to address longstanding grievances. The federal structure divided Ethiopia into regions largely based on ethnicity, granting each region a degree of autonomy and the right to speak their language and practice their culture. The constitution, ratified in 1994, provided for each ethnic group’s “unconditional right to self-determination, including the right to secession.”
Federalism and Ethnic Tensions
The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) implemented a system of ethnic federalism in Ethiopia with the aim of promoting cultural diversity. However, the absence of robust institutions to effectively carry out this objective resulted in unintended consequences, primarily exacerbating ethnic divisions. Additionally, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), as a powerful component within the EPRDF, was perceived as exercising disproportionate influence, thereby stoking feelings of animosity and resentment among other ethnic groups.
The introduction of ethnic federalism in Ethiopia by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) was both groundbreaking and fraught with challenges. In theory, the move was intended to accommodate the country’s rich ethnic diversity by granting a considerable degree of autonomy to different ethnic groups in their respective regions. In practice, however, this policy has had a mixed legacy, particularly in terms of fostering ethnic tensions.
Intended Goals of Ethnic Federalism
The intention behind implementing ethnic federalism was laudable. The goal was to break away from the past centralized systems that marginalized various ethnic communities. By granting each ethnic group a degree of autonomy—including the right to use its language, promote its culture, and administer its own local government—ethnic federalism aimed to foster a sense of inclusivity and representation. It was thought that by empowering local communities, long-standing grievances could be addressed, thereby promoting unity in a diverse nation.
However, the road to realizing this vision has been bumpy. One of the most pronounced criticisms is that ethnic federalism has, paradoxically, fostered divisions among ethnic groups rather than unity. Before ethnic federalism, many regions had ethnically mixed populations. The federal restructuring based on ethnicity led to questions about ownership, representation, and power within these regions. This setup sometimes made minority communities within each ethnic region vulnerable and led to an increase in localized conflicts over resources, territory, and political representation.
Role of TPLF and Perception of Tigrayan Hegemony
The Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), a key player in overthrowing the Derg regime and in establishing the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), initially held a dominant position within the governing coalition. This concentration of power contributed to a widespread perception that Tigrayans were disproportionately influential in Ethiopian politics, particularly in the early years of the EPRDF administration. This notion was further underscored by the frequent appointment of Tigrayans to high-level military and governmental roles, even though they constituted a small percentage of Ethiopia’s overall population. While there was some shift over time towards a more ethnically balanced representation in these roles, the narrative of Tigrayan dominance remained ingrained.
This enduring perception engendered resentment among other ethnic communities, especially the Amhara and the Oromo, who felt that they were sidelined in a political framework that was ostensibly designed to be inclusive and empowering for all ethnic groups. This discontent gave impetus to various political movements and parties that emerged to challenge what they viewed as a system skewed in favor of Tigrayans.
Role of Amhara elites and the narratives fueling tension between the Amhara’s and Tigrain’s
The belief in Tigrayan dominance became a rallying point, particularly for Amhara elites who had previously enjoyed disproportionate benefits under the regimes of Haile Selassie and the Derg. This perception was a significant factor in the eventual dissolution of the EPRDF and the subsequent conflict in Tigray.
The influence wielded by Amhara elites in the perpetuation of ongoing frictions between the Tigray and Amhara communities is a crucial element that demands in-depth scrutiny. These elites have a notable impact on shaping public perceptions and policy decisions, given their prominent roles in the political landscape, the media, and societal structures. Here’s a look at how their narratives have intensified ethnic discord between the two groups:
Historical Revisionism
Amhara elites often espouse a version of Ethiopian history that centers Amhara culture, language, and contributions to Ethiopian statehood. While Amhara contributions to Ethiopian history are undoubtedly significant, this perspective can sometimes undermine or negate the contributions and historical significances of other ethnic groups, including the Tigrayans. This narrative can marginalize non-Amhara groups and exacerbate tensions.
Territorial Claims
Amhara elites have been vocal proponents of the idea that territories like Wolkait, which was historically part of Tigray but incorporated into Amhara during the Haileselassie and Derg regime, rightfully belong to the Amhara region. These claims are often framed as a correction of historical injustices and have been used to rally nationalist sentiment among the Amhara populace. This has made the territorial dispute more intractable and has contributed to fueling tensions between the two states.
Political Mobilization
Amhara elites have significant influence in Ethiopian politics and have used their positions to advance their ethnic and regional interests. In the era following the EPRDF’s decline, Amhara nationalism has gained a renewed focus as a political ideology. Amhara elites have capitalized on this sentiment to consolidate their power, often at the expense of Tigrayan interests, thereby widening the divide between the two groups.
Media Influence
Amhara-owned or affiliated media outlets have played a role in shaping the narrative surrounding the Tigray conflict. The media’s portrayal of Tigrayans, the conflict, and the historical issues at hand can sometimes be one-sided, contributing to the spread of misinformation and stereotypes. This can inflame already-existing prejudices and animosities between the two communities.
Ethnocentric Rhetoric
In some instances, rhetoric from Amhara elites has taken on an ethnocentric tone, emphasizing the distinctiveness and superiority of Amhara culture and identity. This fosters a form of ethnic exclusivism that exacerbates divisions between Amhara and Tigrayans and makes cooperative dialogue and conflict resolution more difficult.
The ascent of Abiy Ahmed’s Prosperity Party and the formation of the Amhara Fano militia can be viewed as modern-day outcomes of Ethiopia’s enduring misconceptions about Tigrayan dominance, especially those perpetuated by influential figures within the Amhara community.
These two entities—the Prosperity Party and the Amhara Fano—reflect broader social and political trends fueled by Amhara elites. The narratives propagated by these elites often focus on historical grievances, territorial claims, and perceived injustices, serving to deepen mistrust and animosity between the two communities. This has led to a highly charged environment where both sides are increasingly resorting to ethnic mobilization as a means to secure power and resources.
The Tigray conflict:
The Tigray conflict, therefore, can be viewed as an escalation of these longstanding tensions into open hostilities. It exposes the limitations of both the ethno-federalist model and the centralizing ambitions of the Prosperity Party in addressing the complex web of ethnic relations that have defined Ethiopia for centuries. As the conflict continues, it serves as a grim reminder of how deeply rooted these issues are, and how elite-driven narratives can be instrumental in igniting larger ethnic and regional conflicts.
The conflict in Tigray has indeed laid bare the fragility of Ethiopian unity, revealing how quickly the semblance of a cohesive nation can unravel into division and strife. While the principles of unity and nationhood may appear robust on paper or in political speeches, they are evidently susceptible to crumbling under the weight of longstanding ethnic tensions and competing regional interests.
The erosion of institutions meant to prevent such large-scale atrocities has been particularly disheartening. Trust in the rule of law, in governmental bodies, and even in international organizations has been severely undermined. Mechanisms that were designed to mediate conflicts, protect human rights, and uphold democratic values have shown their limitations. In some instances, these institutions have been accused of either ineffectiveness or, worse, complicity. This not only leaves the immediate situation unresolved but also erodes public trust for future endeavors at reconciliation or justice.
As for the legacy of this conflict, the aftermath has indeed left an indelible scar on the collective psyche of the Tigray people in particular and Ethiopia in general . It has severed friendships, divided families, and created a generational wound that will likely require considerable time and effort to heal. The destruction of infrastructure, loss of life, and emotional and psychological trauma will reverberate for years, if not decades, to come.
The narratives that fueled this conflict will also continue to persist if not properly addressed. As future generations inherit this legacy of division, there’s a real risk that the story of Tigray—and of broader ethnic tensions within Ethiopia—will continue to be told in a way that sows discord rather than promotes unity. In that sense, the scars are not merely physical or emotional but also narratological; they exist in the stories that Tigrayan’s tell about who they are, where they come from, and who they wish to be.
Hence, as Ethiopia navigates through this challenging phase, the learnings from the Tigray crisis should neither be overlooked nor downplayed. They must act as a glaring cautionary tale, emphasizing the immediate need to tackle the root causes of ethnic discord, regional imbalances, and issues of political representation. With the conflict now spilling into the Amhara region, a revised narrative of Oromo dominance is taking center stage to ignite the ongoing unrest in the area. The solution lies in revitalizing and fortifying impartial institutions that aim to mediate and reconcile differences before they escalate into full-blown conflicts, rather than serving as tools to validate authoritarian rule.
