The Hidden Costs of Ethnic Empowerment: A Comparative Analysis of Slobodan Milošević and Abiy Ahmed.

November 29, 2024
By Caleb T (Dr.) 

Abstract

Ethnic empowerment, while often framed as a strategy for uplifting marginalized groups, can also be used by political leaders to consolidate power and deepen divisions within society. This paper presents a comparative analysis of two prominent leaders—Slobodan Milošević of Yugoslavia and Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia—who strategically employed ethnic identity to achieve political objectives. Although both leaders championed the empowerment of specific ethnic groups (Serbs in Milošević’s case and Oromos in Abiy’s case), their actions led to significant instability, ethnic violence, and political centralization. Milošević’s nationalism precipitated the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia, while Abiy’s focus on Oromo identity masked efforts to consolidate power within his own political faction, leading to increased ethnic tensions in Ethiopia. This analysis highlights the hidden costs of using ethnic identity as a political tool, underscoring the potential dangers of such strategies in contemporary political contexts.

Introduction

Ethnic identity has often been invoked by political leaders as a powerful tool for galvanizing support, unifying a population, or justifying political reforms. However, when ethnic empowerment is employed for strategic purposes, it can lead to the opposite of unity—exacerbating divisions, triggering violence, and destabilizing nations. This paper explores the use of ethnic identity by two political leaders—Slobodan Milošević of Yugoslavia and Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia—who utilized ethnic narratives to consolidate political power, often under the guise of promoting empowerment for marginalized groups. By analyzing their strategies and outcomes, this comparative study illustrates the hidden costs of ethnic empowerment, particularly when it is harnessed for political gain.

 

Slobodan Milošević and the Ethnic Nationalism of the Serbs

 

Slobodan Milošević, the former president of Serbia, was a key architect of the ethnic nationalism that played a central role in the violent fragmentation of Yugoslavia during the 1990s. Milošević’s rise to power was predicated on appealing to the ethnic Serbian population, particularly their historical grievances and perceived victimhood. He capitalized on the memory of the atrocities committed against Serbs during World War II and used these narratives to incite nationalist fervor. Milošević’s rhetoric portrayed Serbs as victims who needed protection from the Croats and Muslims, which resonated deeply with the population’s collective memories of past traumas (Ramet, 2006).

Milošević’s strategic use of ethnic identity in the 1980s and 1990s allowed him to centralize his political power. His manipulation of Serbian nationalism was not just about empowering the Serbian people but also about securing political control through the formation of a “Greater Serbia” (Judah, 2000). The promise of ethnic unity masked his ultimate goal of territorial expansion, which contributed to the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia. The conflicts that followed, including the Bosnian War and the Croatian War of Independence, were rooted in the divisive nationalism stoked by Milošević’s leadership. The result was ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and the fragmentation of the Yugoslav state.

The hidden cost of Milošević’s ethnic empowerment was the violence and territorial destruction that ensued. While he portrayed himself as the defender of the Serbian people, his actions led to widespread suffering, the dissolution of the state, and the destabilization of the Balkan region (Judah, 2000). The use of ethnic identity in this case was a political tool that served to entrench Milošević’s power but ultimately resulted in the breakdown of social and national unity.

 

Abiy Ahmed and the Ethnic Politics of Ethiopia

 

Abiy Ahmed’s rise to power in Ethiopia in 2018 was initially celebrated as a hopeful moment of reconciliation for a country long divided by ethnic federalism. Abiy, an Oromo, was the first person from the Oromo ethnic group to hold the office of prime minister, which was seen as a significant step toward addressing the historic marginalization of the Oromo people. His rhetoric emphasized ethnic empowerment and the promotion of the Oromo language and culture, framing his leadership as a victory for the Oromo, Ethiopia’s largest ethnic group (Kebbede, 2021).

Abiy’s reforms included dismantling the ethnic federalism system that had been in place since the 1990s, which had granted significant autonomy to Ethiopia’s ethnic regions. He presented these changes as necessary steps to unify the country and create a stronger national identity that transcended ethnic divisions (Tadesse, 2021). While Abiy’s rhetoric of unity resonated with many, particularly Oromos, the reality on the ground revealed a more complicated agenda. Critics argue that Abiy’s reforms were ultimately designed to consolidate power within his own political faction, the Oromo Prosperity Party (OPP), at the expense of rival ethnic groups, particularly the Tigrayans and Amharas, who had previously held significant power (Kebbede, 2021).

The political centralization that Abiy implemented, under the guise of unity, led to the marginalization of other ethnic groups and the intensification of ethnic tensions. Abiy’s government has been accused of using the rhetoric of ethnic empowerment to suppress dissent, especially from groups that oppose his political agenda. Despite promises of peace and national healing, Ethiopia has seen a surge in ethnic violence, forced displacements, and widespread human rights violations. This has led to the suffering of not only the Oromo but also the Amhara, Tigrayans, and other groups (Tadesse, 2021). The hidden cost of Abiy’s ethnic empowerment is the deepening ethnic conflict and the consolidation of power within his party, which has destabilized Ethiopia’s political landscape.

 

Abiy Ahmed’s Hidden Agenda Behind the Oromo Identity Narrative

Abiy Ahmed’s strategic use of ethnic identity in his public discourse, particularly the emphasis on the Oromo language and culture, was designed to project an image of inclusivity and empowerment for the Oromo people, while simultaneously securing his own political agenda. By highlighting the significance of Oromo identity in Ethiopia’s national discourse, Abiy framed his leadership as a turning point for the Oromo ethnic group. He often used phrases such as “Now is our time,” signaling to the Oromo population that they were at the forefront of political change (Kebbede, 2021). In doing so, he sought to create a strong sense of ownership and pride among the Oromo people, positioning himself as their champion in the Ethiopian political landscape.

Abiy’s speeches frequently invoked Oromo culture and language to connect with the Oromo people, presenting his administration as a government that was finally reflecting their interests and responding to their historical grievances. His narrative suggested that under his leadership, the government had become a victory for Oromo’s political agency, casting his political reforms—particularly the dismantling of Ethiopia’s system of ethnic federalism—as necessary steps toward national unity (Tadesse, 2021). The concept of unity, as articulated by Abiy, centered on the idea of transcending the ethnic divisions that had long structured Ethiopian politics. He presented this new pan-Ethiopian identity as an opportunity to heal past wounds and create a more harmonious national community (Kebbede, 2020).

However, the reality of Abiy’s political maneuvering reveals a deeper, more complex agenda. Critics argue that while Abiy presented his reforms as a means to move beyond ethnic divisions, his actions were in fact designed to consolidate power within his own political faction, the Oromo Prosperity Party (OPP), and to secure the dominance of the Oromo ethnic elite (Kebbede, 2021). Abiy’s centralization of power, embodied in the dismantling of the ethnic federalism system, aimed at reducing the influence of other ethnic groups, especially the Tigrayans and Amharas, who had previously held significant power in Ethiopia’s federal structure. Far from benefiting all Oromos, these moves empowered Abiy’s political faction, providing it with greater control over the state apparatus while weakening the political influence of rival groups (Tadesse, 2021).

This hidden agenda was particularly evident in Abiy’s strategic use of Oromo language and culture, which, while publicly appearing as a tool for ethnic empowerment, was actually a calculated move to consolidate his own political base. By promoting the Oromo language in the public sphere and framing the government’s narrative as one that prioritized Oromo identity, Abiy succeeded in rallying support from the Oromo population, creating a strong connection between his leadership and the ethnic group’s aspirations. However, this rhetoric of unity was in many ways a mask for his true intentions of centralizing political control and reinforcing the authority of the Oromo political elite, particularly those within the OPP.

As Abiy’s political reforms progressed, ethnic tensions in Ethiopia began to escalate, revealing the contradictions between his public calls for unity and the underlying political calculations that fueled his centralization efforts. The violence that erupted, particularly between the Oromo and other ethnic groups such as the Amhara and Tigrayans, exposed the challenges of attempting to reconcile ethnic diversity with the centralization of power. Abiy’s efforts to create a unified national identity ultimately served to marginalize those ethnic groups that had historically held power and influence, exacerbating ethnic tensions and contributing to the instability in Ethiopia (Kebbede, 2021).

Comparative Analysis: Hidden Costs of Ethnic Empowerment

Both Milošević and Abiy Ahmed used ethnic identity to consolidate political power under the guise of ethnic empowerment. Milošević’s promotion of Serbian nationalism and the idea of a “Greater Serbia” led to the violent fragmentation of Yugoslavia, while Abiy Ahmed’s emphasis on Oromo identity was a strategy to centralize power in Ethiopia. In both cases, ethnic empowerment was not truly about the well-being of the ethnic groups in question but about securing control for the leaders and their political factions.

The consequences of these strategies were similar in that they both exacerbated ethnic tensions and led to significant violence. Milošević’s actions resulted in the violent breakup of Yugoslavia and the loss of thousands of lives, while Abiy’s political moves have contributed to ongoing ethnic violence and human rights abuses within Ethiopia. In both cases, the hidden agendas behind the rhetoric of ethnic empowerment ultimately undermined national unity, leading to further division and instability.

While both leaders claimed to be advocating for marginalized ethnic groups, the reality of their actions reveals the dangers of using ethnic identity as a political tool. Ethnic empowerment, when used strategically for personal or political gain, can lead to the fragmentation of societies and the perpetuation of conflict, as seen in the cases of Milošević and Abiy.

Abiy Ahmed’s strategic use of the Oromo language and culture was a powerful tool in rallying support for his leadership, positioning the government as finally representing the interests of the Oromo people. By centering the Oromo identity in his rhetoric, he projected an image of ethnic empowerment that suggested a long-overdue political victory for the marginalized group. Publicly, this narrative presented Abiy’s administration as one that understood and prioritized the grievances of the Oromo people, signaling a new era of political agency for them. However, this portrayal of unity and empowerment concealed a more calculated effort to consolidate power within his own political faction, the Oromo Prosperity Party (OPP), and further centralize control over Ethiopia’s political and state structures.

While Abiy’s rhetoric of unity and ethnic pride appeared to advocate for the well-being of all Ethiopians, it simultaneously enabled the consolidation of his political power and the marginalization of rival ethnic groups. His centralization of state power, which involved dismantling the federal system that recognized ethnic-based regions, was seen as an attempt to diminish the political influence of groups such as the Tigrayans, Amhara, and others, thus securing dominance for the Oromo elite. Through his policies, Abiy sought to weaken the influence of these groups, particularly those who had previously held power under Ethiopia’s system of ethnic federalism (Kebbede, 2021).

However, the reality on the ground for many Oromo people has been far from the empowerment promised in Abiy’s speeches. The same ethnic identity that he used to rally political support has also been a tool for suppressing dissent and reinforcing the control of his party over the state apparatus. Moreover, despite the rhetoric of lifting up the Oromo, the Ethiopian people as a whole, including the Oromos themselves, have faced severe hardships, particularly as Ethiopia descends further into internal conflict and ethnic violence under Abiy’s regime. The Oromo, along with Amhara, Tigrayans, Gurage, Sidama, and other groups, have been subjected to atrocities and violence, often at the hands of government forces or groups aligned with Abiy’s administration (Tadesse, 2021).

For many in Ethiopia, Abiy’s reforms and promises of unity have been overshadowed by ongoing human rights violations, including forced displacement, ethnic-based violence, and brutal crackdowns on dissent. The suffering of the Oromo people, as well as other ethnic groups, reflects a harsh irony: Abiy, who framed himself as a liberator of the Oromo, has presided over a period of increasing ethnic tensions and violence that has affected all communities in the country, regardless of ethnic affiliation. As such, the reality of Abiy’s government contradicts his public narrative of peace and unity, raising important questions about the true nature of his political agenda and its consequences for Ethiopian society as a whole.

Ultimately, Abiy’s public narrative of unity and empowerment for the Oromo hides a complex and deeply problematic reality. His focus on consolidating power under the OPP has led to instability, suffering, and violence across Ethiopia, making it clear that his use of ethnic identity for political gain has come at a high human cost.

Conclusion

The comparative analysis of Slobodan Milošević and Abiy Ahmed highlights the dangers of using ethnic identity as a political tool. Both leaders promoted ethnic empowerment—Milošević through Serbian nationalism to push for a “Greater Serbia,” and Abiy Ahmed by emphasizing Oromo identity to centralize power in Ethiopia. In both cases, ethnic empowerment was used not for the welfare of the ethnic groups but to solidify the leaders’ political control.

Milošević’s promotion of Serbian nationalism contributed to the violent breakup of Yugoslavia and significant loss of life, while Abiy’s emphasis on Oromo identity led to ongoing ethnic violence and human rights abuses in Ethiopia. Both leaders used ethnic identity to rally support, but their actions ultimately deepened ethnic tensions and fractured national unity.

Abiy’s use of Oromo identity was portrayed as a victory for the Oromo people, but it served to strengthen his own political faction, the Oromo Prosperity Party (OPP), and reduce the political power of rival groups like the Tigrayans and Amhara. His efforts to centralize power and dismantle Ethiopia’s federal system marginalized other ethnic groups and undermined the nation’s political stability.

Despite Abiy’s rhetoric of unity and empowerment, his policies led to internal conflict, ethnic violence, and human rights abuses that affected all ethnic groups in Ethiopia. His governance contradicted his public narrative of peace and unity, revealing the hidden costs of using ethnic identity for political gain.

Both Milošević and Abiy Ahmed exploited ethnic identity to consolidate power, but their strategies resulted in violence, division, and instability. This analysis underscores the dangers of manipulating ethnic narratives for political purposes not for the welfare of the ethnic groups, as such strategies can destabilize nations and harm social cohesion.