(OPINION) Forces in Ethiopia and abroad are currently capitalizing on the appalling murder of the musician and political activist Hachalu Hundessa, which led to violent ethnic-based clashes that killed nearly 200 people this month, wounded hundreds and destroyed more than 1,000 homes, according to government estimates. Political groups in Africa’s second-most-populous country have consistently paraded distorted and, at times, wholly inaccurate narratives about the democratic values Hundessa stood for.

Hundessa was shot dead by unknown gunmen on June 29. His murder intensified ethnic divisions at a fragile time for Ethiopia. Fall elections could transition Ethiopia to a stronger democracy. It’s the first multi-party campaign season after Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, a Nobel prize winner, lifted a ban on opposition parties, a major win for free speech. Widespread political violence would threaten that progress. Some watchdog organizations, like the Minority Rights International Group, say the recent violence has hallmark signs of ethnic cleansing.

Prior to Hundessa’s tragic death, many of those who eulogize him now actually viewed him as their ideological nemesis.

The Oromo separatists, represented by the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), did not like him when he was alive, because he advocated the narrative that Oromos are part of greater Ethiopia, made up of more than 80 people groups. Oromos are the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia but have felt politically and economically sidelined. Hundessa was a proud Oromo, who sang in Affaan Oromo and campaigned against the injustices perpetrated by the EPRDF regime, which had incarcerated him for five years. 

Extremist ethno-nationalist elements within the Oromo Federalist Congress party and other Oromo political groups were not happy with Hundessa, because his view diverged from their interpretation of Ethiopian history and quasi-separatist ideology. He did not advocate the notion of abandoning the past and publicly expressed his pride for the role of gallant Oromos during the Adwa victory against the Italians. 

Extremist ethno-nationalist elements within the Tigrean People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) did not like him, because it was their political system that dominated for nearly three decades and led to the injustice and suffering Hundessa and his people experienced. That suffering is what led him to produce his political music. Hundessa continued to speak of TPLF as a defeated force until recently, as became clear from his interview with the Oromo Media Network television a few weeks before his death. All these forces and their supporters within and outside Ethiopia are now trying to capitalize on his tragic killing for their own political benefits. It is preposterous.

Hundessa was an Oromo, but he did not live only for the Oromos, as claimed by some in different media outlets, including Al Jazeera. He believed that no people group in Ethiopia, including the Oromos, should be marginalized and deprived of justice, freedom and democracy. He was a patriot who invested in the national honor and cared about his country’s policies and actions. He combined respect for the Oromo culture and language with a respect for others’ culture and language. He sought to form relations around his Oromo origins, but he did that with a relaxed sense that included others who did not necessarily share a common ancestry or language with him. For example, he did not fully agree with the musician and political activist Teddy Afro’s assessment of Ethiopian history, but he listened to Teddy Afro’s music and shared a platform with him on several occasions. Those who eulogize him and use him as a political pawn in his death must have been uncomfortable with all this while he was alive.

His killing was a heinous crime, which left his wife and children without a husband and father. It was a crime that tragically cut short the life of an individual with a beautiful personality, humane values, undoubted musical brilliance, and a very bright future. But those who sought to capitalize on Hundessa’s death were so focused on their political goals that they committed another crime by using his dead body as a political football.

From all the interviews his father and his brother gave to the media, it is absolutely clear to me that the family wanted Hundessa’s funeral to take place in Ambo, his birthplace. The family were on their way to Ambo when Jawar Mohammed (founder of the Oromia Media Network and a U.S. citizen and activist who returned to Ethiopia and joined the OFC) and Bekele Gerba (one of the leaders of the OFC), along with their supporters, forced the hearse to return to Addis Ababa. They probably believed that the funeral of such a beloved musical talent and political activist would be politically beneficial for them if held in in Addis Ababa. By hijacking the body, they dishonored Hundessa and showed utter and complete disregard for the family’s wish to bury their son, brother and husband in the place of their choosing. This was an atrocious act, a cultural crime.    

This appalling act, which resulted in chaos, confusion and incalculable loss of lives and properties, is not the focus of many of the narratives in relation to Hundessa’s death. Instead, the narratives seek to portray Hundessa as the symbol of the Oromo struggle for freedom and speak of the Oromos as the most oppressed, marginalized and dispossessed people within Ethiopia. They claim that the Oromos suffered in the hands of the Amharas and Tigreans. The reality is that the Oromos have been part of the socio-political fabric of Ethiopia since the 17th century AD and that they are not the only or the most oppressed people group in the history of Ethiopia. Since the country’s creation, all people groups in Ethiopia have both suffered oppression and injustice and perpetrated oppression and injustice, including not just the Amharas and Tigreans, but also the Oromos. 

Nowadays, it has become fashionable amongst the Oromos in particular to refer to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed as naftagna (gun bearer), but those of us who come from the southern part of the country know that neftagnas in the South were not only Amharas or Tigreans but also Oromos. A narrative that presents the Oromos as the sole victim of systemic injustice and oppression under neftegnas is not only simplistic and inaccurate but also dangerous. Hundessa knew this. Many Amharas, Tigreans, Wolaytas, Hadiyas, Guraghes, etc. have been victims of oppression and dispossession during the Haile-Sellassie era; of killings and persecutions under the Military-Communist junta; and the state of fear, repression and injustice under the EPRDF regime. 

As a thinking person, Hundessa would not have claimed that the government of Abiy Ahmed with its reform agenda was ushered in only through the struggle of the Oromo youth and diaspora activists who used media networks to instigate protests. There were public unrests at different levels in many regions, as the majority of Ethiopians were absolutely tired of EPRDF’s repressive and unfair system and its corrupt governance. In Gambela and Benshangul Gumuz, forcible dispossession of land rights had led to public opposition and consistent arrests of those who represented the public voice. In Oromia, expansion of Addis Ababa at the expense of the Oromo farmers became a rallying point and led to huge public protests. In Amhara, perceived political marginalization and a dispute over land between Amhara and Tigrean regional governments led to violent protests, whose epicenter was the town of Gondar. 

It was not only violent protests that brought about change in Ethiopia. Mounting political pressure forced the then Prime Minister Haile-Mariam Desalegn to launch the so-called “deep reform agenda” within EPRDF. But forces opposed to his reform agenda in his own party prevented him from succeeding. This deepened the political crisis, which was further exacerbated by a tactical alliance formed by the Oromo and Amhara groups within the party against TPLF. All this compelled Haile-Mariam to adopt a political strategy, whereby he resolved to work with individuals he believed would bring about real reform in the country. In February 2018, he resigned his position as Prime Minister and played a decisive role in having Abiy Ahmed elected as his successor. While the truth is that the change came through a collective effort of both the government and the people of Ethiopia, the narrative currently employed is that the change was ushered in by the Oromo youth and activists and that the enemies of the Oromo people are reversing the hard-won freedom by the Oromos for the Oromos. The chief of those enemies, in their view, is now Abiy Ahmed himself, who is not an Oromo. Outrageous though this claim may sound, my purpose is not to defend Abiy, but to appeal to those concerned about the situation in Ethiopia to discern the kind of narratives promoted through various media outlets.

This discernment must include a clear understanding of the current political fault lines in Ethiopia. First, there are separatist forces within Oromia, who don’t see themselves as Ethiopians and wish to create a separate state of Oromia. They now seem to have created political and paramilitary wings. The political wing claims that it has nothing to do with the paramilitary wing and vice versa (in the same way as Sinn Fein and Irish Republican Army used to do in Northern Ireland).

Second, there are federalist forces particularly within Tigray and Oromia, who wish to defend the current emphasis on ethnic-based administrative arrangements and maintain the existing constitutional provision, where regional states are sovereign and Ethiopia’s sovereignty depends on the will of those sovereign states.

Third, there are unionist forces, who wish to reverse that constitutional provision and advocate the principle of citizenship and national sovereignty as more suitable than ethno-federalism. 

And fourth, there are forces led by Abiy Ahmed and represented by some other political parties, who appear to seek to maintain the current political arrangements while putting a strong emphasis on the integrity of Ethiopia as a nation-state and the unity of its people.

Sadly, it now seems, Hundessa was sacrificed on the altar of extremist groups to satisfy their bloodthirsty lords. It is unlikely that Hundessa’s blood, the blood of close to 200 Ethiopian lives, and the destruction of countless properties will appease these lords. Their political approach is characterized by intolerance of rational argument, cynical rhetoric and reckless actions. Their political goal is at worst the death of the nation or at best tightening the current ethnocentric constitutional provisions. Freedom and peace, for them, are dependent on everyone accepting their absolute certainties about their ideological purity, notion of identity, constitutional understanding, and the political and economic direction of the country. They seek to keep Ethiopia hostage to their political goals. The narratives that eulogize Hundessa as a freedom fighter slain for the Oromo people cloud this dangerous reality. 

Exactly a year ago, in my article for Reporter Ethiopia, I expressed my fear that warlordism might become part of the socio-political culture of Ethiopia. That fear unfortunately was not completely unjustified. But Ethiopia is not a lost cause if the government of Abiy applies the rule of law appropriately. This means a number of things. First, it means the government taking a firm but fair action against individuals or groups who behave as if they are above the law. It also means the government coming up with a sustainable solution regarding the unconstitutional security forces, such as regional special armed forces. This means ensuring that the federal state and its constitutionally legitimate security structures exercise the monopoly of violence in the context of full accountability to Ethiopians. Finally and very importantly, it means the government taking seriously the principle of the subordination of freedom to the rule of law. The outcome of all this, I hope, would be that more activist celebrities like Hundessa will not be sacrificed, enabling cynical academics, journalists and activists to make political capital out of their deaths and ensuing tragedies.   

Dr. Desta Heliso is an Ethiopian living in London, with degrees from King’s College and the London School of Theology. He has worked at the Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology (EGST) since 2003, serving as lecturer, Dean of Studies, and Director. He is also the current Chair of the Association for Christian Theological Education in Africa (ACTEA).