Report Originally posted on February 20, 2010
By Ginbot 7 Research Team
Introduction
A few months ago, Ginbot 7’s research team presented an extensive list of the top military commanders of the Woyane regime including their names, their position in the military and their ethnic background. That meticulously researched study showed how the current military of Meles Zenawi’s regime is totally dominated by one ethnic group where by some 95% of the top brass of the military emanate from the Tigrian ethnic group representing about 6% of the population. While this was a shocking revelation to Ethiopians and foreign observers alike, some apologists of the Woyane regime, presented this as a natural development similar to the dominance of the Shewa Amharas during the imperial regime and the broader ethnic Amharas that supposedly dominated the Derg regime. We felt at the time that this argument was problematic for two reasons. First, the nature of ethnic dominance that is observed during the Woyane period seemed to be more purposeful, calculated and certainly more excessive than any of the regimes in the past. Second, even if there was systematic ethnic dominance in the past, it surely does not justify the perpetuation of dominance by a new group, which would only increase ethnic animosity and destabilize the society further.
While the second point is self evident, our first point needed some investigation to present a solid proof for our contention. At the time, we promised to do a detailed study of the military command and personnel of the earlier two regimes for comparison with our study of the Woyane period. The first portion of that study is now complete. We will briefly summarize the main findings below, and present two tables for the reader to go through the detailed observation. A note on the data is also available to make it easier for the reader to follow the information on the tables.
This study has been conducted with the help of a large number of people mainly involving former military officers who know the institution well and the people involved. We have involved a significant number of people to verify the accuracy of our description of the people involved and their role in the military. We are very thankful for their assistance and we hope their cooperation will continue as we do the second phase of the study involving the lower ranking officers at the Birgadier General level. We also thank some family members of these officers who helped us in cross checking the ethnic identities.
Main findings:
Contrary to the long held claim of the Woyane propagandists, this careful study reveals that the top military brass of the Ethiopian state, although not directly proportional, was much more broadly representative of the country’s ethnic configuration than is commonly claimed. When seen along with our earlier study of the top military brass of the Woyane regime, both the Derg and the imperial periods showed a much more representative picture of the country’s ethnic mixture in the military leadership. As can be seen, persons of various ethnic groups successfully made it to the highest positions such as Chief of Staff and Commanders of Armies (Serawit/Hayiel), Command (Eze), Core (Kore), and Division (Kifle Tore).
With one notable exception, we took officers over and above the Major General level for this study because of the significant actual power they hold in the military rank at their time of service. There was a very close correlation between military rank and actual power at the time.
A cursory look at the data shows that broadly speaking the Amharas dominated the imperial army top brass holding 55.5% of the top positions, while the Shewa Amharas, who supposedly were in control of the state represent only 20% of the military leadership during the imperial period. The second largest representation was that of people with mixed heritage with 15.5%, followed by Oromos with 13.3%. Eritreans and Tigreans with 11.1% and Gurages at 4.4%. The Derg period brought a significant improvement from the imperial period not only by including hitherto unrepresented groups to the top brass (Wolayita and Harari) but also by spreading the representation relatively more evenly. Accordingly, the Amhara representation, although still high compared with the size of its population, was decreased to 45%, of which the Shewa Amhara representation decreased further to 17.5%. On the other hand, Oromo representation increased to 25% bringing it closer to its proportional size to the population. Indicative of the increasing inter marriage between ethnic communities, those with mixed heritage account for 17.5% of the top military brass during the Derge period followed by Gurage (5%), Tigray/Eritrea, Wolayita and Harari each with 2.5% representation. We encourage the reader to look at these figures along with the ethnic distribution among the whole population. We also wish to direct the reader to read this numbers with the earlier study of power distribution in the current Woyane military.
We have presented the detailed table below for the reader to check the veracity of this study and reach his/her own conclusion about the nature of ethnocentric distribution of power during the two regimes. We wish to note here that our aim in doing this and the earlier study on the composition of the Woyane military brass, is not to argue that ethnic identity and proportional representation along ethnic lines should be the basis for appointing career military officers. Far from it. We actually would like to see an Ethiopia where the capability of citizens shall be the most important criteria for appointing public officials in so far as the process is fair, equitable and transparent. We also note that before Woyane’s usurpation of power in Ethiopia, previous regimes never openly and officially used ethnicity as the criteria for government appointment. It is Woyane who brought the issue to the fore, claimed to bring ethnic equality in the country and shamelessly made ethnicity the quintessential criteria for defining one’s identity. Woyane insisted on being measured by the criteria of equitable ethnic distribution of power as a justification for its rule.
Our aim is therefore to show the hypocrisy of this ethnocentric mafia group that claims to bring ethnic calculus as the sole criteria for distribution of power in the country while allocating the lion’s share of power to the benefit of its own minority ethnic group. What is amazing about this group is its audacity. A group that represents 6% of the population claims 95% of the top military brass in the country, and blames previous regimes for playing it unfair. It is this same group that purportedly fought for 17 years against the Derg regime in the name of bringing ethnic equality. It is now clear what it really wishes to achieve. To use ethnicity to divide the nation and maintain its hold on power, while using this power to bleed the country dry for the benefit of the small group of bandits that are shamelessly stealing the resources of some 80 million poor souls. This simply cannot, and should not stand.
Finally, It is also our aim to show the slippery nature of ethnic based politics and the danger it poses to our collective survival as a free and stable multi ethnic society. Surely we should all be sensitive to issues of equity and social justice. We should always be ready to lift those that have been left behind because of the trajectories of our history. We should commit ourselves to justice and the equality of all citizens of our country. But, we should also know that it is only when we are united as citizens of a free country whose rights are respected and who are ruled by people of our own choosing that we have a chance to achieve these lofty objectives. We should have little room for those who appeal to our basest instincts for the purpose of dividing us and subjecting us to live under the yoke of intolerable tyranny.
