By Nama Nekemto
For an extended period our collective efforts have rightly involved deep intellectual discourse and rigorous debates surrounding the optimal theoretical pathways to achieving fundamental democratic change in Ethiopia. These conversations have undeniably served a crucial purpose, shaping our understanding and refining our aspirations. However, the prevailing conditions within Ethiopia now compel us to recognize a critical juncture: the need to decisively shift our focus from abstract theoretical frameworks to the tangible realities unfolding on the ground.
In response to this complex and unresolved situation, a significant discourse shift is becoming increasingly evident. Supporters of the current administration, alongside independent observers and analysts, are actively advocating for a pivot towards unrealistic peaceful political engagement and structured dialogue as the primary path forward. Their efforts often involve critically assessing the effectiveness and long-term implications of armed confrontation, frequently underscoring its inherent limitations in bringing about democratic governance and the imperative for alternative strategies.
Ethiopia currently finds itself at a pivotal juncture, navigating a period characterized by profound national challenges and intricate complexities. It is an undeniable reality that the nation is contending with internal strife, marked by ongoing engagements between the government army and various organized anti government armed entities, many of which are perceived as representing segments of their respective populace.
This prevailing situation has regrettably cast a considerable impediment over essential national conversations concerning the most effective pathways for a resolution, particularly regarding the enduring discourse between peaceful political engagement and armed confrontation. At this critical moment, prolonged deliberation on the merits of one approach over the other risks diverting crucial attention from the immediate urgency and deep-seated nature of the existing problems. The current landscape unequivocally demonstrates that multiple factions are engaged in, no return point armed activities, each striving to achieve its distinct objectives.
Consequently, it appears that it is more constructive and beneficial to shift our collective focus from abstract discussions on methods of struggle towards fundamental inquiries: What are the underlying catalysts that precipitated the current armed conflict? And, more importantly, how can sustainable and enduring solutions be effectively formulated and implemented?
When a tyrannical system relentlessly crushes the spirit of a community, eroding its fundamental rights and imperiling its very existence, an inevitable breaking point is approached. After enduring relentless oppression and exhausting every conceivable peaceful avenue for dialogue, redress, and resolution—each attempt met with further suppression and indifference—the collective spirit finds itself at a precipice. When all hopes for a non-violent path to liberation are extinguished, and the people are left with no choice but to confront the existential threat to their survival and dignity, their subsequent uprising, born of sheer desperation and an unyielding will to reclaim their humanity, becomes an unstoppable force.
In situations where all avenues for peaceful resolution and constructive dialogue have been unequivocally shut down, a profoundly troubling paradox emerges. We observe a prevailing sentiment that self-preservation and the defense of one’s community – encompassing grassroots mobilization, organized resistance, and when pushed to the absolute brink, taking up arms against an oppressive regime – are deemed unlawful acts.
For over five years now, Ethiopia has experienced persistent armed conflicts by various groups against the dictatorial government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. These protracted engagements have yet to yield a sustainable resolution, contributing to ongoing instability within the nation.
In light of the prevailing political and social dynamics within the entire country, current observations suggest that the armed struggle appears to be in a period of, no return, intensified activity. It demonstrates notable advancement and seems to be approaching a critical juncture in its progression.
In stark contrast, the peaceful struggle remains largely dormant, exhibiting a disconcerting lack of tangible progress or active engagement. This apparent stagnation is a source of considerable apprehension, particularly given its potential ramifications for the nation’s stability and future direction.
The pronounced disparity between the momentum of the armed resistance and the dormancy of peaceful advocacy is unequivocally shaping the current political landscape. Furthermore, this divergence holds significant implications, potentially impacting the opportunities for fostering national consensus and facilitating a stable, peaceful transition in the future.
At this critical juncture, it is incumbent upon all prominent figures and leaders across the social and political landscape to strategically support and direct the current momentum of the armed resistance. This ongoing armed struggle, characterized by its growing intensity, must be carefully navigated to yield positive and lasting results for the nation.
In conclusion, at this critical juncture, an exclusive emphasis on peaceful resistance risks inadvertently bolstering the very authoritarian regime we seek to overcome. Such a stance could grant the one man dictatorship in Ethiopia an undeserved respite, allowing him valuable time to fortify his grip and further entrench his power. More concerningly, it could fracture the collective resolve and dilute the urgency required for decisive action, thereby weakening the pursuit of authentic change.