|
Nation building strategy
privileging singular identity
By Fesseha Nair
The nation formation in the world was historically to
enhance political legitimacy through strategies of assimilation and
integration. Most political elites in Eritreea and other developing
countries assume that the recognition of the diversity can lead to
fragmentation/disunity and prevent the creation of harmonious society.
But , in contrary, it is the oppression of these diversity that create
conflict and wars.
The political elites from the minority serve the so
called mainstream to stay in power and make their group the victim. They
divide the complementary identities as nationals and sub-nationals. But
such arguments have no academic proofs and substances. Political elites
with such arguments are either prioritise their individual interests or
are not proud of their ethnic identity.
In short, the identity politics was considered a
threat to state unity. In addition, accommodating these differences is
politically challenging, therefore many states have resorted to either
suppress them or ignore them in political domain. This argument is
existing in our political leaders of this time and of the past. That
requires a new way of thinking to solve the problems we have created by
the old thinking. It is the old political thinking that prevents us not
to recognize our diversity or suppress it, but did we succeed by such
policies of assimilation.
Policies of assimilation are often involving outright
suppression of the identities of ethnic, religious or linguistic groups.
Policies of integration seek to assert a single national identity by
attempting to eliminate ethno –national and cultural differences from
the public and political arena, while allowing them in the private
domain, for example, the PFDJ policy in Eritrea. Both sets of policies
assume a singular national identity. In this article , I will briefly
analyse the strategies of nation/state building in Eritrea.
The issue of unity of the Eritrean people under
nation building strategy has never been discussed. The nation building
policy adopted by the existing regime in Eritrea, copied from the old
designs of nation building of single culture and ethnicity in Europe is
only privileging singular identity. Such policies failed in the post
–colonial African countries and other developing countries. The
formation of nation building of the 17th and 18th centuries with one
ethnocultural identity have been challenged by immigrants and nations
with one identity were enforced to change their policies of state
building and adopted multicultural policies recently, for example,
Sweden and the Netherlands.
The Eritrean political leaders fear from identity
politics and suppress it in order to secure their territories and
borders, expand their administration and acquire the loyalty and
obedience of the citizens through the policies of intimidation and
liquidation. It is just these policies of liquidation and assimilation
that prevents the diverse people of Eritrea to unite. In the Eritrean
context, the outdated and ceased strategy of nation building does not
function. In the Eritrean diversity, in addition to the national
identity, a nation building that does not promote their
community-ethnic, religious, linguistic and territory is not
sustainable.
Nation building strategies practised by the Eritrean
political leaders either they are the opposition or the ruling regime
trying to establish singular national identity through the following
interventions:
-
Centralization of political power,
eliminating forms of local sovereignty or autonomy historically enjoyed
by the minority group’s so that all important decisions are made in
forums where the dominant group constitutes a majority.
-
Construction of a unified legal and
judicial system, operating in the dominant
group’s language and using its legal traditions, and the abolition of
any pre-existing legal systems used by the minority groups.
-
Adoption of official language laws,
which define the dominant group’s language as the only national language
to be used in the bureaucracy, courts, public services, the army, higher
education and other official institutions.
-
Construction of a nationalized
system of compulsory education promoting
standardized curricula and teaching the dominant group’s language,
literature and history and defining them as “ national” language,
literature and history.
-
Diffusion of the dominant
group’s language and culture through national cultural institutions,
including state-run media public museums.
-
Adoption of state symbols
celebrating the dominant group’s history, heroes and culture, reflected
in such things as the choice national holidays or the naming of streets
building and geographic characteristics, for example by calling new
names of the areas the dominant group occupies ( Demographic changes)
-
Seizure of lands, forests and
fisheries from minority groups and
indigenous people and declaring their land as state property.
-
Adoption of immigration policies
that give preference to immigrants who share the same language, religion
or ethnicity as the dominant group.
These strategies of assimilations seems to ensure
peace and stability in Eritrea but they are not without risks, there are
today more than 12 political organizations struggling for their identity
that have been oppressed both by the existing regime and those who call
themselves democratic opposition. Assimilation policies were easier to
pursue in the past where the indigenous people were illiterate and
peasants but today at this age of information technology, and with rapid
spread of universal human rights, the Eritrean indigenous people are
very aware of this assimilation under the cover of national unity.
Efforts of assimilation policies have failed globally. There are many
academic evidences that national identity and the recognition of diverse
ethnic, religious and linguistic identities never contradict.
A short look around the globe shows that a national
identity need not imply a single homogeneous cultural identity. Efforts
to impose one can lead to social tension and conflict. ( See Edward
Saed’s and Professor Huntington contributions, “ the war of
civilisations”)
The state building in Eritrea must accommodate the
multi-ethnic, multilingual and multi religious identities. Bolstering
multiple and complementary identities can diminish polarization between
groups within the Eritrean society.
What is the solution?
The solution is to construct a viable multi-ethnic
society based on political, economic, social and cultural equality and
justice without discrimination and segregation. A constitution
guaranteeing such rights with institutions and policies for both
self-rule( sovereign states) that gives a sense of belonging and a
pride in one’s ethnic group and for shared rule( Federal) that
creates attachment to a set of common institutions and symbols should be
constituted.
Self-rule and shared rule have been headache for the
old dominant political leaders in Eritrea. An alternative to the old
formation of nation state is the “ state nation”where the diverse
identities coexist peacefully and cooperatively under a single polity.
Case studies and analyses demonstrate that enduring
democracies can be established in polities that are multicultural.
Even international public opinion allows and permits
the break of states on the grounds of ethnic and cultural differences.
Why not Eritrea? Efforts are required to end with the outdated policies
of centralization of power and dominant politics and build multiple and
complementary identities. Policies of multiple and complementary provide
incentives to build a feeling of unity- a “we” feeling. The Eritrean
indigenous can find institutional and political space to identify with
both their country and their other cultural identities, build their
trust in common institutions and participate in building state nation.
Today, as evident from different corners of the
Eritrean political arena, there is a conflict between those who want
impose a single identity privileging one dominant ethnic group and the
other indigenous committed to multiple and complementary identity
politics.
National unity does not require the imposition of
single identity and the denunciation of diversity. Successful strategies
to build” state –nation can do accommodate diversity constructively by
crafting responsive policies of cultural recognition. They are effective
solutions for ensuring the longer terms of objective political stability
and social harmony.
Today, indigenous people are increasingly assertive.
Globalization has made it easier for indigenous people to organize,
raise funds and network with other groups around the world, with greater
political reach and impact than before. Those dreaming the single
identity politics and oppress the others must learn from Ethiopia,
Sudan, Somalia. The outdated strategy of Haile Selassie, privileging
singular identity will not be repeated in Eritrea. The indigenous
Eritreans have never been ruled by centralized military governments but
are decentralized and with full autonomy.
References
-
Human rights report 2004
-
Ghai,Yash.1998. “ Decentralization and the accommodation of
ethnicity
-
Hannum, Hurst. 1996. Autonomy, Sovereignty, and self-determination:
the accommodation of conflicting rights
-
Lapidoth, Ruth. 1996. autonomy: flexible solutions to ethnic
conflicts.
|
