An Explanation to Inter-Ethnic Conflict in Metekel Zone, North Western Ethiopia, Since 1991

Vol.9(1), pp. 1-14, March 2018 DOI: 10.5897/IJPDS2017.0315 Article Number: B8F01D156646 International Journal of Peace and Development ISSN 2141–6621 Copyright © 2018 Studies Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/IJPDS Full Length Research Paper Relative deprivation: An explanation to inter-ethnic conflict in Metekel Zone, North Western Ethiopia, since 1991 Dagnachew Ayenew Department of Peace and Development Studies, Wollo University, Ethiopia. Recieved 12 November, 2017; Accepted 4 January, 2018 This study explains chief causes of covert and overt conflict between indigenous and non-indigenous ethnic groups of Metekel zone, since 1991. For the sake of convenience, however, particular emphasis is given to the conflict between Agew and Gumuz. The study employs relational ethnography research design. The data collected through in-depth interview, observation, informal conversation, and review of available documents is analysed thematically. The conflict between the two ethnic groups in the period is explained based on the assumption of horizontal and longitudinal deprivation. The paper demonstrates that coincidence of relative deprivation with ethnic line is creating favourable conditions for violent conflicts in the study area. In the period, Agews felt deprived of political resources in contrast to their history and Gumuz. On the other hand, though Gumuz are politically empowered, the socio-economic status of the people is hardly comparable with the Agew and other non-indigenous ethnic groups. The salience of ethnicity in the period has also been providing opportunity for elites to mobilize the mass for violence. But, the study argues the transformation of dormant conflicts into violence is determined by cost and benefit analysis of the action rather than by a mere mobilization of elites. Accordingly, in the period instigating violence seems persuasive for Gumuz than Agew. The finding implies that when the underlying conditions of relative deprivation are eliminated, the motive to use violence as a political instrument can also be minimized. Key words: Ethnicity, ethnic conflict, relative deprivation, ethnic federalism, indigenous ethnic groups, non- indigenous ethnic groups. INTRODUCTION In contrast to others, most scholars attributed problems of the elites as backwardness and source of conflict instability in Africa to ethnic diversity (Abbink, 1997: 159). (Neuberger, 1994). For example, Uganda disallows As such, states adopt different approaches regarding it. ethnic based parties – it champions de-ethnicized central At one extreme, it is officially discouraged (Endrias, 2003: state (Alem, 2003: 5). At the other end lies Ethiopia‟s 2). In the majority of African states, ethnicity is refuted by formula for managing ethnic diversity – ethnic federalism. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: +251 919 854 919. Authors agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License 2 Int. J. Peace and Dev. Stud. Thus, Tronvol (2003:50) argued that “in the plural states characterized by dichotomization than integration (Teferi, of Africa, ethnicity has been blamed as the cause of 2014: 17). The pattern of interactions particularly in the conflicts in one context, and in another cited as the study area (Metekel) had been patron – client that was remedy to solve them.” comparable with Hutu – Tutsi relationships (Taddesse, Regarding Ethiopia, it is evident that its past history of 1988a: 14 and Tsega, 2006: 105). ethnicity, ethnic relations and evolution of the state by During the imperial regime, local Agew chiefs were itself is subject to polarized debates. When someone empowered by the central government of Ethiopia for observes everyday political discourses in the country, intimate supervision of the resource and people of contentions revolve around the following questions Gumuz, with the title of Agew Azaz (Teferi, 2014: 8). For (Endrias, 2003: 3). Is Ethiopia three thousand years old example, Agew governor, Zeleqe Liqu (1905-1935) was or only one hundred? Have the Oromo and the Southern assigned by Ras Haylu of Gojjam (son of Tekle Peoples always been members of Ethiopian society or Haymanot) to monitor areas of Tumha, Balaya and were they joined to Ethiopia through invasion and Dangur until Italian invasion (Tsega, 2006: 84). It also conquest in the nineteenth century? Nevertheless, seems that in the post liberation period the active role of everyone agrees that Ethiopia hosts a plurality of ethnic local Agew chiefs is almost unchanged until the recent groups. Thus, disagreement is over whether or not ethnic political developments of the country. differences and relations had been problematic in However, the studies indicate that though Agew chiefs Ethiopian history that seeks a new political order were hostile to Gumuz, ordinary people had friendly relations (Endrias, 2003: 3). for long periods of time. The Gumuz speak Agewigna, To this end, with the coming of Ethiopian People business transactions were carried out in Agewgna, and Democratic Front (EPRDF) to political power in 1991, they were sharing the same forest for hunting (Ruibal et ethnic federalism becomes the principal institutional al., 2006). The resettlement program of the past regimes mechanism of Ethiopia to accommodate the aspiration of further consolidated their relations1. For instance, Teferi ethnic groups and as a panacea to past intra state (2014: 22-23) indicated that Gumuz were sided with conflicts. So as to accomplish this, the country is divided Agew during violent conflicts between Agew and Wolloye into nine ethnic based regional states. Possible claims of Amhara settlers. ethnic groups are further reinforced by the constitution But, with the new government‟s concession of full through guarantying them „unconditional right‟ for autonomy to Gumuz, things have begun to take another secession (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia direction. The Gumuz makes no distinction between Agew (FDRE), 1995: 39). Ethiopia has thus embarked upon and Amhara, and Agews are mistreated in land and other unprecedented experiment to the problems of ethnic political rights. Grievances from both groups lead to heterogeneity (Abbink, 1997; Alemante, 2003; Endrias, violent personal and group conflicts. Among others, a 2003). long term structural conflict around Manjari can be However, prominent scholars on the subject argue that mentioned (Ruibal et al., 2006). Therefore, the underlying despite such a strange marriage of ethnicity and factors behind these changes shall be investigated. federalism for the above reasons, inter-ethnic conflicts Above all, in most studies, Agews of Metekel are have become more frequent since then than before (e.g treated either as Amhara or highlanders due to cultural Tronvol, 2003; Wondwosen and Zahorik, 2008; Asnake, and religious similarities. However, it is misleading; for 2013). Asnake (2013: 7) noted, “the federal restructuring example, while Alemayehu (2015) claimed that since of Ethiopia, even if it was aimed at finding a „resolution‟ to 1975 the relation shifted from conflict to peaceful co - ethnic conflicts, led to the changing arenas of conflicts by existence, Asnake (2013: 220) mentioned violent conflicts decentralising them and also generated new localised of Mentawuha in the immediate years of federalization. interethnic conflicts”. Empirically, many Agews have also been expelled from Thus, through an interdisciplinary approach this study the region and mistreated by Gumuz in 2012/13. explores the discouraging outcomes of ethnic federalism Furthermore, conflict with settler Amhara is attributable on interethnic relations, taking Agew and Gumuz in to resource competition and cultural reasons beginning Metekel Zone as cases of the study. With ethnic from the time of their first arrival. In the past, these are federalism as state policy, and relative deprivation as too far to explain the case of Agews and Gumuz. As explanation of ethnic disputes, the paper investigates Dessalegn (1988: 131) notes, “for a generation or more dynamics of inter-ethnic conflicts in Metekel Zone. the Begga [Gumuz] had amicable or at least tolerant Agew and Gumuz are neighbouring ethnic groups relations with Agau [Agew] who live on the higher inhabiting north-western Ethiopia (the former Agew midir attitudes and with whom they trade....” Thus, if resource and Metekel Awrajas of Gojjam province). The two has been the case, the question is why it appeared being groups have long history of interaction characterized by an issue only in post federal period. So, to understand both hostility and friendship. Their interaction traced back dynamics of ethnic conflicts in Metekel, the case of Agew to time of antiquity (Teferi, 2014: 8). Nevertheless, the history of relations between the two groups was 1 Forced by the 1985 drought and famine in northern Ethiopia, large number of people from Tigray and Wollo had resettled to Metekel area. Ayenew 3 and Gumuz deserves a separate study. study such as qey and tikur3, nebar (early inhabitant) and In other studies, Agews in Metekel are misleadingly mete (recent migrant), highlanders and lowlanders, yekilil treated together with Agews in Awi zone (e.g. Desalegn, balebet (son of soil) and leloch hizboch (non titular). In 2009). But, it is problematic because particularly in the this study, however special emphasis is given for Gumuz post 1991 period the two sub groups of Agew exist in and Agew. different

Load more