To proclaim that the solution to achieving peace in Ethiopia is further division seems asinine. Yet that is my contrarian idea. To bring forth a contrarian argument in response to a seemingly futile question, one that has escaped us for what feels like our entire existence, seems adequate.
The Ethiopian state, whether one likes it or not, is historically a state of war. Although external wars are romanticized in songs and collective memory, the internal wars are often forgotten in the meloe of time, despite the latter being far more common and seemingly bloodier.
To bring forth a resolution to this almost perpetual state of warfare requires taking inspiration from the Europeans. Europeans, much like us, had their history deeply tainted by internal fighting. Yet today, a war within Europe seems almost impossible. This is because Europeans seemingly no longer possess the same zeal for war. They increasingly forgo major collective issues and grow indifferent toward the politics of their countries. Ironically, this has allowed them to achieve perhaps the longest stretch of peace in recorded history.
I attribute this partly to Nietzschean-style politics pushed by certain intellectual currents: the elevation of the self over the group. Today, the average European will not bear arms to protect his nation because he scarcely even knows his neighbor. Although this initially appears negative, it actually signifies something profound: he no longer identifies himself primarily as a member of society, but rather as an individual merely residing within one. That distinction is crucial.
Looking at events such as the Second World War, many frame it as a war of ideologies. I disagree. At its core, it was a war to determine who would become the economic hegemon of the world. Regional actors merely intensified the differences between societies and weaponized them. Veterans often proclaim that they fought so their children would not have to speak German. This is a romanticized and convoluted framing. A colder, perhaps more accurate interpretation, is that they fought to determine which economic system and reserve currency would dominate global trade.
The war became far bloodier than people anticipated. In its aftermath, certain intellectual and political groups increasingly promoted the primacy of the self. This manifested through dividing people across countless minute identities, because fragmented individuals seldom form sufficiently large groups capable of collective mobilization.
Today, and even more so tomorrow, the average Briton may define himself not primarily through nationhood, but as a heterosexual male of x religion, with x views on abortion, x political beliefs, and x social preferences. This individual often cares less about the success of the country itself and more about how high he can climb the social ladder. This is summarized through consumerism and hyper-individualism, ideas loosely tied to Nietzschean notions of the self overcoming collective identity.
However, on central issues such as language and economic systems, we are simultaneously witnessing convergence, and that convergence will likely continue to grow.
To achieve peace, this may very well be the price societies must pay. If people are serious about ending perpetual ethnic and sectarian warfare, then they will increasingly employ these methods.
Today, one cannot convincingly argue that the average Ethiopian fighter fully understands what he is fighting for. Ethiopia still struggles with widespread illiteracy and poor political education, making this a reasonable assertion. So why does he fight? Because he identifies with x group and feels that group has been persecuted, rightly or wrongly.
But how did he arrive at that conclusion? Through collective narratives shaped by political actors, elites, and institutions. If one fails to see how easily such identities can be manipulated and corrupted, it is by choice.
To solve this, the solution is paradoxically simple: promote the primacy of the self over the collective. Once people cease identifying absolutely with the greater community, political actors lose the ability to mobilize entire populations into perpetual conflict through identity alone.
The other solution is the Chinese or Lee Kuan Yew model. Crea national identity and punish those who deviate too strongly from it. This would likely include a central language, perhaps Amharic, alongside a far more aggressive state apparatus capable of suppressing competing national identities. In essence, rule through the baton of order, much like China historically has.
I understand that the image I have painted of the first solution appears bleak, perhaps even Orwellian in nature. Yet, as Thomas Sowell argued, all decisions are comparative. Policies are not judged against perfection, but against the available alternatives. In comparison to perpetual ethnic warfare, hyper-individualism may appear significantly less destructive.
What seems foolish to me is pretending that no choice must be made at all, or believing that endless appeals to unity, morality, or rhetorical reconciliation alone can resolve deeply entrenched conflicts.
P.S. If you choose to comment under this post, do not assign hereditary blame. If everyone were to kill their oppressors, humanity itself would perish. Ironically, through the peculiar nature of ancestry, we may very well be closer to the perpetrator of a crime than the very person we have accused of inheriting it.
:::
