By Galfato Wonago
No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite^1
——- Nelson Mandela
Since the principle of ethnonational self-determination (PENSD) was first endorsed by Woodrow Wilson as the organizing principle of the 1919 territorial settlement, ethnic cleansing has been an essential component of mono ethnocultural state(MECS) creation campaigns^2.
The PENSD is premised on the following two ideas:
- The world populations can, non-arbitrarily, be divided into discrete groups (homogeneous within and heterogeneous between the contrasting groups).
- Ethnic/racial homogeneity is a prerequisite for harmonious and democratic society.
The term homogeneous, as it is used by the proponents of PENSD, implies that the legitimacy of the modern state should depend on genetically homogeneous society and there is a causal link( a chain of biochemical and cellular events) between ethnic/racial homogeneity and harmonious society.
“Blood and Soil”, a nationalist slogan of Nazi Germany, ethnonationalists’ obsession with blood purity, and the centuries old “one-drop rule”, used in the U.S.A. to classify mixed race individuals, all point to the fact that it is genetic homogeneity that ethnonationalists seek. Furthermore, not surprisingly, the proponents of the principle of ethnonational self-determination promote anti-miscegenation laws, ethnicity/race based organizations, policies of separate development, and , ultimately, campaign for mono ethnocultural administrative units or states. In short, the ultimate goal of the principle of ethnonational self-determination is to unmix populations and maintain genetic homogeneity/blood purity.
That means, the principle of ethnonational self-determination (PENSD), the principle according to which each ethnic group has the right to form ethnically/racially homogeneous state is qualitatively different from the right of a people to self-determination (RPSD), where people refers to all the inhabitants of the territory in question, with no discrimination of any kind.
In “Ethnicity in Africa: Towards a positive approach”, Dr. Hameso rightly reminds us that there is no shame in being proud of one’s heritage. However, he devotes most of the article to blame the “artificial borders” of the African states that were legitimated by the decolonization process for ethnic violence and underdevelopment in Africa as they forced different ethnic groups to live together under single state ^3. It is important to note that what was rejected during the decolonization process was not the ethnic diversity itself but the idea of defining citizenship and sovereignty in ethnic terms. In other words, clear distinction was made between the principle of ethnonational self-determination and the right of a people to self-determination, the distinction Hameso fails to make. That is, he fails to recognize or fails to see the need to address the problem that arises when ” the love of one’s ethno-nation or being proud of one’s heritage” morphs into an urge to demonize and eliminate the “other” (ethnic cleansing), which is unavoidable part of implementation of the nationality principle.
The logical question one needs to ask is not who drew the existing political map of Africa but is there a natural map of Africa that would be more beneficial for Africa? After all, the injustices the people experience are not caused by where the lines are drawn but by how the governments differentially treat communities under their control. Furthermore, the central atom of the issue at hand is determining the right bearer of sovereignty, not determining the heterogeneity of the territorial administrative unit. For example, on April 1, 1999, the Nunavut Territory and government, the most recent member of Canadian federation, was proclaimed. 85% of the population of this territorial administrative unit are Inuit. However, it was created to be a non-ethnic public jurisdiction. That is, its legislative assembly legislates not only for Inuit but for all the inhabitants of the territory.
This is consistent with other provincial and territorial jurisdictions in Canada and is in accordance with Canadian constitution. Most importantly, 1) it creates a legal ground where all citizens of Nunavut are right-bearing equals, without discrimination of any kind; 2) it legitimates resistance against any form of tyranny, including ethnic/racial/religious othering; and 3) it fosters an environment where minorities can reasonably feel at home , make a living and a life for themselves. Does this mean, framing territorial administrative unit as a public jurisdiction, instead of ethnic based administrative unit, eliminate racism and tyranny? No. But it does create a solid legal ground to struggle against racism and tyranny in their myriad forms and that is the best starting point to create inclusive just society. That is also the central difference between PRSD and PENSD. The former opposes othering while the later promotes it.
Arguably, one of the harshest critics of the African state and a strong proponent of redrawing the map of Africa along ethnic lines is Dr. Makua wa Mutua. Here is how Mutua invokes the principle of ethnonational self-determination:
-
Severe cleavage, those which have been a major source of the persistent problems of the African state, are the direct result of the imposition of colonial rule and the moderate state. Ethnic rivalries have arisen because previously independent and self-governing ethno-political nations, characterized in almost all cases by cultural, linguistic, and ethnic homogeneity, have been coerced to live together under single state ^4.
-
I contend that foreign imposition of artificial states and their continued entrapment within the concepts of statehood and sovereignty are sure to occasion the extinction of Africa unless those sacred cows are set aside for now to disassemble African states and reconfigure them. I propose that pre-colonial entities within the post-colonial order be allowed to exercise their right to self-determination^5.
In a nutshell, Mutua unequivocally rejects the decolonization process carried out in Africa, India, and South-East Asia after WWII, the process that is generally accepted as the modern example of the right of a people to self-determination, and endorses the principle of ethnonational self-determination.
Mutua’s article covers the core elements of unthinking acceptance of the idea that redrawing the political map of Africa is an ultimate solution to all the problems associated with inter group conflicts in the continent. In his view, Africa is doomed unless African states are disassembled and precolonial entities, which almost all, according to him, were ethnically homogeneous, are allowed to exercise their right to self-determination.
Mutua talks about Africa as if the continent contains a fixed number of discrete groups that can be shuffled and reshuffled until precolonial settlement patterns and mono ethnocultural states(units) are restored. Furthermore, he implies that there were no ethnic rivalries in precolonial Africa and tends to equate diversity with danger while promoting ethnic homogeneity as source of harmony and prosperity. Of course, stating that ethnic/racial homogeneity leads to harmony and prosperity is not sufficient. You need to show that there is a causal link between homogeneity and a specific behavior. However, Mutua does not address that issue at all. Furthermore, Mutua does not tell us how the precolonial boundaries between different entities can be determined and who would have the power and resources to oversee the process of disassembling and reassembling African states or how the “self” in the self-determination is determined .
There are two points worth remembering. First, there is no single valid point of entry into the past to change undesirable event(s) or a single valid point of exit from the complications of the past actions. Second, as I stated earlier, the logical question one needs to ask is not who drew the existing political map of Africa but is there a natural map of Africa that would, in itself, be more beneficial for Africa?
However, Mutua is not alone in promoting ethnic/racial homogeneity or warning about the danger of diversity. As it was stated earlier, Woodrow Wilson, the president of U.S. A. at the time, and the victors of WWI endorsed the idea of redrawing European borders along ethnic lines. That means, the allies gave green light to the ethnonationalist leaders of the successor states that emerged following the collapse of German, Russia, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, to create ethnically homogeneous states of their own. However, in spite of redrawing of borders and massive ethnic cleansing campaigns (they called it population transfer at that time), none of the successor states were ethnically homogeneous states, contrary to what allies and ethnonationalists were hoping for.
One of the successor states was Yugoslavia and here is the Corfu Declaration, the agreement that initiated the creation of First Yugoslavia says about the constituent units that made up the new state: ” the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were the same by blood, by language, by the feeling of their unity, by the continuity and integrity of the territory which they inhabit undividedly, and by the common vital interests of their national survival and manifold development of their moral and material life.”(as cited in Pavlovic, 2016, p. 16)^6. Except, as we all now know, the larger entity (the kingdom of Serbians, Croatians and Slovenians(1918-1929), the kingdom of Yugoslavia(1929-1941), Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia(1945-1992) was divided into its constituent sub-units(independent successor states) by another generation of ethno-nationalists who invoked the same principle(the principle of ethnonational self-determination) that was used to create it about seven decades ago.
As the history of Yugoslavia illustrates, the principle of ethnonational self-determination may be invoked in the name of unifying the people of the same or similar ethnic origin or to disassemble one ethnic group into its constituent sub-units in the name of bloodline purity. Another example of invoking the principle of ethnonational self-determination, in the name of unifying multiple communities under one state, is Hitler’s expansionist campaign to unify all Germans in a greater Germany ,the campaign that triggered WWII^7. The following three of the 25 points of Hitler’s Nazi party manifesto fully captures the core thesis of the principle:
- Point 1: ” We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.”
- Point 4: ” Only those who are fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen.”
- Point 5: ” Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.”
It is important to note that when Nazis say people, they are referring to those who have German blood.
The terms people and nation are used interchangeably in Ethiopian political discussion, unfortunately, that invariably causes confusion and participants end up talking past each other. In this article, unless it is stated otherwise, the term people refers to all inhabitants in a given territorial administrative unit, without discrimination of any kind, while ethno-nation is the one in which citizenship is recognized on the basis of common ancestry/ common bloodline.
The fourth example worth remembering is the separate development policy argument advanced by the architects of apartheid system in South Africa: ” South Africa does not consist of one nation with a common citizenship and rights but of nations…each of which wants (or should want) to retain its identity and determine its future. The best hope for harmony does not lie in forcibly mixing up these peoples( who differ in colour and culture) but in allocating to each its own state, or homeland, and the freedom to develop along its own lines.” ^8.
The fifth element on this list is the 1994 constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia(FDRE). This constitution is based on the principle of ethno-national self-determination (PENSD) and it 1) defines “Nation, Nationality or People”(NNP), a triad it uses to refer to ethnic groups, as primordial entities (Article 39(5)); 2) states that all sovereign power resides in the NNP of Ethiopia(Article 8(1)); 3) grants, every NNP in Ethiopia, unconditional corporate right to self- determination, up to and including the right to secession (Article 39(1)); 4) enumerates four straightforward steps any ethnic group may follow to secede from the Ethiopian state and become an independent state(Article 39(4)); 5)grants common land ownership to the NNPs (Article 40(3)); 6) unequivocally states that any NNP has the right to establish, at any time, regional state of its own (Article 47(2)); and 7) grants every regional state the right to a) enact and execute the state constitution and other laws, and b) establish and administer a state police force(Article 52(2b)(2g)).
These constitutional provisions apply to any entity that fulfills the definition of NNP given at article 39(4)–” a group of people who have or share large measure of a common culture or similar customs, mutual intelligibility of language, belief in a common psychological make up, and who inhabit an identifiable, predominately contiguous territory.” It is very important to note that this definition does not set upper or lower limits to the size of an entity that can invoke the rights enumerated above. For example , all clans or sub-clans of more than 80 currently known ethnic groups in Ethiopia fulfill the definition and it is impossible to predict the size of the smallest group or the total number of entities who could potentially invoke constitutional rights of the NNPs in Ethiopia. That means, ethno-nationalists could, arbitrarily, scale their respective group size up or down and claim common bloodline—the group in question could be a small face-to-face group, members of which are generally known to all other members or a large group made up of millions of members who live hundreds of miles apart.
As stated earlier, the constitution grants, every NNP in Ethiopia, unconditional corporate right to self-determination, up to and including the right to secession and these rights are grounded in independent moral standing that supposedly arise from “nationhood”, not from the status of humanity or personhood. That means, in the event where the NNP and individual rights are in conflict, the former prevails over the latter. More importantly, in the event where any ethnic group asserts its corporate right to a territory, it may start a campaign to create ethnically/racially homogeneous territorial administrative unit (zone, regional state, or an independent state) of its own, which invariably requires ethnic cleansing (a crime against humanity according to article 7(d) of the Rome Statute).
The campaign to redraw European borders along ethnic lines following the end of WWI; Hitler’s expansionist campaign to unify all Germans in a Great Germany; the separate development policy of South Africa’s apartheid regimes that produced a number of Bantustans; the campaigns of ethno-nationalists of former Yugoslavia that led to the disintegration of the state; and the 1994 constitution of Ethiopia that led to the current political crisis in the country, all are experiments to implement the principle of ethno-national self-determination. As we now know, the first 4 of the above experiments have failed to achieve their intended goal of creating ethnically/racially homogeneous states, in spite of redrawing borders and extensive , multidimensional ethnic cleansing campaigns, that costed tens of millions of lives. As to the fifth experiment that is under way in Ethiopia, it has not reached its end-point yet, although we have started to witness the displacement of tens of thousands of Ethiopians from every corner of the country.
Given the fact that 1) all the attempts to implement the principle of ethno-national self-determination have ended in failure and have led to tremendous loss of human lives and 2) there is no credible example that shows that ethnic/racial homogeneity, in itself, leads to sustainable peace and prosperity, why are ethno-nationalists obsessed with the creation of ethnically/racially homogeneous state? The short answer is they are terrified of difference, which is a text book definition of a racist. Let me explain using two known experiments: 1) Separate development model and 2) Nazism.
Separate development model
When Daniel Francois Malan’s Nationalist party of South Africa ascended to power in 1948 under an apartheid platform of separate development for the races, systematized racial discrimination had been in South Africa for more than 200 years. Although the whites controlled the state power, the blacks were in the majority and the ruling elites, including Malan, were acutely aware of the fact that, in a truly democratic society, the whites were on the losing end and they needed a plan to safeguard their interest.
However, the plan the architects of apartheid chose and the time and energy they were willing to spend to implement it illustrate more their fear of those who they consider to be different than their desire to safeguard the interest of the white people in South Africa. It is their determination to demonize and eliminate the “other” that defined them, not the normal desire to safeguard their self interest, as I will show shortly.
On the surface, when the proponents of apartheid say ” let each ethno-nation 1) retain its identity, 2) have ethnically homogeneous state of its own, 3) have the freedom to develop along its own line, or 4) have the control of its own homeland”, it appears that they are advocating for equal development, equal rights and freedoms for all. However, they are actually invoking the principle of ethnonational self-determination, the principle according to which each ethnic group has the right to create ethnically/racially homogeneous state of its own. Considering the implementation of this principle invariably requires extensive and ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign, it is anything but a model for equality of rights and freedoms for all.
Furthermore, the central thrust of both the concept of apartheid(separateness) and the principle of ethno-national self-determination is unmixing of the word population into discrete groups(homogeneous within and heterogeneous between groups). It is important to note that the second phase of unmixing of population is maintaining the homogeneity of the groups and that, in return, requires 1) creation of discrete territorial units( ethno-national homelands), 2) strictly controlling migration, and 3) strictly banning intimate /sexual relationships between individuals of different ethnicity/races, for example, enacting and enforcing anti-mixed marriage laws.
More importantly, once we commit to do the unmixing, once we define the world population in terms of bloodline/ common ancestry, we will be at the Centre of concentric circles of decreasing kinship or weakening social bond: first ourselves, then our immediate family, and so on such that those who we consider to be aliens would occupy the outermost circle. This effectively creates group hierarchy, which is the central feature of racism, and sets up grounds for ethnic/racial othering. That is exactly what Malan’s 1948 apartheid policy and the subsequent policies which flowed from it did to ensure white survival and white domination by systematically employing divide and rule strategy. Pernicious nature of racism notwithstanding, the ultimate danger of defining individuals and groups in terms of bloodline purity establishes bloodline purity as the most important value of a society that defines and validates every aspect of life, effectively creating a culture that uses ” one-drop rule” to ethnically/racially categorize individuals. This is the central atom of the principle of ethno-national self-determination and that is why a society built on this principle can easily unravel at the seams.
Returning to my main point, successive apartheid regimes 1) implemented segregated education system that prepared non-white students for subordinate position in the work place; 2) divided non-whites along ethnic lines, into small groups, to prevent a unified resistance movement; and 3) promoted ethnically defined Bantustans, to create geographical others for effective implementation of discrimination policies. It is important to note that the hate propaganda, the cowardly violence and brutality against non-white South Africans by apartheid agents, the amount of energy and resources the apartheid regimes were willing to spend to demonize non-whites, particularly blacks, and to impose racial segregation can only be explained by deep fear of the other.
Organism metaphor
The Nazis have made the most extensive use of the organism metaphor ( body-illness-parasite imagery) that draws on the conception of ethno-nation as a holistic biological organism that needs protection from infectious foreign agents (i.e. the out groups) in order to create a sense of belonging/ security for its members ^9. The more homogeneous the ethno-nation is the safer its members would feel , according to this view. That is why ethno-nationalists in Ethiopia, just like ethno-nationalists in every corner of the globe, advance the principle of ethno-national self-determination (unmixing of world population based on bloodline). That is also the reason why ethno-nationalists in Ethiopia are terrified of poly ethno-cultural organizations, the very existence of which disproves the ethno-nationalists’ core thesis/argument–diverse ethnic groups can not live together, peacefully.
During Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017, the two slogans the white ethno-nationalists were chanting repeatedly were 1) “Blood and soil” and 2) ” Jews will not replace us.” These slogans capture two central elements of ethno-nationalism: 1) the bonds that hold ethno-nationalists together (shared ethnicity/race and homeland) and 2) the ethno-nationalists’ worst fear (being replaced by the other).
The organism metaphor represented the core belief held by the Nazis. They viewed the Jews as disease agents that threatened the German national body’s health and applied body-illness-parasite imagery in a horrifically literal sense and carried out extensive campaign to annihilate the Jews( i.e. the Holocaust). Just like the interdependence and the importance of every part of a biological body are common knowledge, so are the danger of disease and the need for cure. It is no surprising that Nazis and racists of all times chose to employ that knowledge to denounce their enemies as an infectious disease.
One critical aspect of ethno-nationalism that is often overlooked is the fact that when ethno-nationalists advocate ethnic/racial homogeneity, they do not just fear/hate one specific group, although often it appears as if they do, they are afraid of all out-groups. Nazis wanted to get rid of anybody who is not of German blood. Therefore, the real issue is being different, not a particular attribute or action of an individual or a group. The driving force behind the cowardly violence of ethno-nationalists is the fear of the other, which is the central atom of racism just like Iron(Fe II) is to Hemoglobin and magnesium (Mg2+) to Chlorophyll.
Concluding remarks
Ethno-nationalism is an old cancerous world view driven by extreme fear of the other ( a learned response) and camouflaged by the right of self-determination. It was given a perfect mask(the principle of ethno-national self-determination) at 1919 Paris peace conference (also known as Versailles peace conference) by the victorious Allied powers of WWI, led by president Woodrow Wilson of the U.S.A. That is, redrawing the state borders along ethnic/racial line followed by population transfer( euphemism for ethnic cleansing) was endorsed as a legitimate blueprint for state formation.
Since 1919 Versailles peace conference, the principle of ethno-national self-determination (also known as the nationality principle) has been invoked by ethno-nationalists from every corner of the globe (Germany, Yugoslavia,South Africa, Somalia, Ethiopia,…) and the campaigns to implement this principle have destroyed tens of millions of lives through out the globe. As I have shown in this article, whether one looks at the ideology of the Nazis or separate development policies of apartheid regimes of South Africa, when ethno-nationalists invoke the principle of ethno-national self-determination, it gives them the cover of the democratic right of self-determination to hide behind. However, the central driving force behind their relentless quest for unmixing the world population into ethnically/racially pure groups is the extreme fear of the other/the fear of any group that is different. That is why it is important to underscore that ethno-nationalism is nothing but racism masquerading as the right of self-determination.
Notes
1.Mandela, N.(1994). Long Walk to Freedom
Retrieved from : https://abcnews.go.com/international/Nelson-mandelas-inspirational-quotes/story?id…
2.Preece, J.J. (2000, April). Ethnic cleansing and the normative transformation of international society. In conference paper in Failed States III: Globalization and the Failed State. Florence, Italy.
Retrieved from: http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/research/mstohl/failed states_/2000/papers/Jacksonpreece.html.
3. Hameso, S.Y. (1997). Ethnicity in Africa: Towards a Positive Approach. London, TSC Publications.
4&5. Wa Mutua, Makau.(1994). Why redraw the map of Africa: a moral and legal inquiry. Mich.J. Int’l L.,16, 1113.
6.Pavlovic, J. Power over justice: How to Try a Nation? International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the Tacit Approval of the international Community(Doctoral dissertation).
7.Hitler, A.(1920, February 24). NSDAP party program(1920).
Retrieved from: http://www.germanhistorydocs.ghi.-dc.org/pdf/eng/POL_NSDAP_ENG.pdf.
8. Lipton, M.(1972). Independent Bantustans?, International Affairs( Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 48, no.1(1972): 1-19.
9.Musolff, A. (2010). Metaphor, Nation and the holocaust: The concept of the body politic. Routledge.
North East Africa Research Group :The Way Forward. 