
By Beneal Walker
Addis Abeba – Throughout political and modern history, there have always been, at large and to some varying degree, two specific forces that have constantly been at odds with one another. Two elements that stem from completely polar opposite sides that determine the landscape for either a populous’ development or a populous’ maneuver towards fundamental change. It is only when these two opposite elements are aligned that a populous can peacefully develop and mindfully grow.
Nature’s own relationship with itself provides us insight on this relationship. Every political transition and/or armed conflict, no matter how little or large the turbulence, has occurred when traditionalism and innovation are at complete odds with one another.
No nation within the past century epitomizes this pull-tug relationship with traditionalism and innovation more than our beloved Ethiopia, and no single tangible canon embodies it more than our very own constitution of 1995 and those of the past.
As such, the principalities of delta stem from traditionalism serving its main functions of preserving its respective culture, tradition, stability, ways and means, populous hegemony, and identity, all a while ignoring innovation, headed by politically dominated cultures and trade and or vice versa.
Both traditionalism and innovation must be handled cautiously, serving as a bridge on both ends rather than a polarizing force aiming to wipe, neglect, and/or dismiss the other element from its existence. Generally, this is what fuels political turmoil, armed conflict, and eras of transitory political regimes.
Society’s Philosophical Battle
The analysis between traditionalism and innovation within a society has been a long-disputed philosophical tool; it is nothing that is groundbreaking nor astonishing but remains critical nonetheless in assessing the evolution of a society.
Traditionalism inherently values stability, continuity, and the wisdom embedded in historical practices and customs; it is essentially a natural evolution withstanding the tests and tribulations of time—often providing a sense of identity, belonging, and moral guidance.
It can be seen as a response to rapid change, hence innovation, emphasizing the need for stabilization or a slow-down approach from the dangers of something disruptive, like an invading force.
Innovation, on the polarity, holds emphasis on the need for progress, adaptation, and embracing new ideas and technologies. It is simply the philosophical approach that society must evolve to meet the demands of a changing world. It is often seen as essential for maximizing economic growth, enhancing social mobility, and addressing contemporary challenges like food shortages.
Traditionalists may see the erosion of cultural identity through globalization and the spread of new technologies as a threat to local traditions. Innovators, on the other hand, may argue that cultural exchange and global collaboration foster new opportunities and growth.
Traditionalism may emphasize caution, preferring the known and tested over the unknown, while innovation often requires taking risks in order to discover new possibilities.
Historically, Ethiopia has played both traditionalism and innovation to its own benefit. One example is when Emperor Menelik II handled the influx of foreign intervention at his doorstep with political strategy. While pitting one European power over another in exchange for gunnery and cash, Emperor Menelik II defended Ethiopia’s sovereignty from Italian threat, French threat, Arab threat, and from his main gunnery supplier, the British. As a result, Ethiopia’s weaponry modernized, the first railroad line was constructed from Djibouti, the first automotive vehicle was imported, and Ethiopia’s cultural and traditional ways and means resumed.
In more recent times, Derg’s accession to power was evidence of the withdrawal of traditionalism, favoring innovation. The extreme imbalance proved disastrous on every front. Nonetheless, the main point remains: traditionalism and innovation must be an attached relationship for Ethiopia. We must bridge the two if we can learn anything from history.
The Roaring 30s
Ethiopia’s successful application in attempting to bridge traditionalism and innovation can be best demonstrated through Emperor Haile Selassie I, when his governance first attempted to codify a legal canon for his people. Ahead of his time, the realization and action in doing so, by Emperor Haile Selassie I, represented innovation in and of itself and Ethiopia’s direction in slowly modernizing. Albeit influenced and pressurized by Western power. Haile Selassie’s first Ethiopian constitution of 1931 did reveal Ethiopia’s heavy traditionalist influence of the time but immensely transformed, as well as advanced, Ethiopia by codifying the rights of the Ethiopian people.
Some may argue that these rights were limited, but nonetheless, it was the right step towards the right direction for the nation at the time. Haile Selassie’s abolition of slavery in the 1940s is just another example of such “innovation” that went against traditionalist norms.
The critical aspects of Ethiopia’s 1931 Constitution highlight Haile Selassie’s absolute monarchical power grip, an introduction to a bicameral legislature structure, a coded judicial system, rights to the people, and the code in representing the diverse ethnic makeup of Ethiopia.
Although under absolute authority of the emperor and restricted suffrage, the constitution personifies traditionalism and innovation – maybe the 1931 constitution personifies traditionalism too much, maybe it reveals innovation too little. Nonetheless, we can agree that its makeup was needed. The constitution’s policy formally ended after the Italian occupation.
Amid Chaos, Opportunity Arises
Following the defeat of the Italian Occupation in Ethiopia by the Argenboch Patriots, Ethiopian martyrs and Shifta groups throughout Ethiopia, as well as anti-fascist Eritreans in the highlands of Eritrea, adopted the 1955 revised constitution. This constitution was simply an extension of what once was prior to the five years of occupation and an attempt to quickly establish a coded means of rule after a hiatus of disastrous, in-humane, illegal, and brutal fascism from Mussolini’s attempt in re-creating the Roman Empire in East Africa.
Article 3 of the 1955 Constitution reaffirmed the Emperor’s position as the head of state, as well as the head of government. The Emperor’s divine right to rule remained the key central figure in the political structure, like centuries before. In addition, the emperor had the power to amend the constitution through imperial decree, which gave him immense authority to shape the nation’s future without much need for popular approval.
Furthermore, the social hierarchy system of nobility and the influence of aristocratic families continued to play a dominant role in everyday political life. The Crown Council (a group of senior nobles from different ethnic groups, contrary to mainstream political belief) and various feudal lords (like the Ras and Dejazmach) had substantial influence in Ethiopian political life, maintaining a feudal structure with strong ties to the imperial family. Despite some reforms, the land-owning aristocracy continued to hold much political influence. Undoubtedly reaffirming traditionalism in all senses.
On the contrary, however, one of the key innovations of the 1955 constitution was the establishment of a bicameral parliament, composed of the House of Nobles (senate) and the Chamber of Deputies. This represented a shift towards a more modern parliamentary system. The House of Nobles consisted of appointed members, including nobility, clergy, and the emperor’s appointees. This body, however, still had a distinctly aristocratic nature, with little public representation. The Chamber of Deputies, on the other hand, was to be elected by the public.
The 1955 constitution was written by three American advisors to the Imperial Family, Ras Kasa’s conservativeness almost always downed the advisor’s request to certain elements. Thus, encouraging Emperor Haile Selassie I to effectively use his executive orders to override certain provisions, proving just how critical the balancing act between traditionalism and innovation is.
The 1955 Constitution included provisions that acknowledged property rights, marking a departure from Ethiopia’s traditional system, where land was owned by the state and granted to nobles. It also introduced the concept of political parties and allowed for the formation of organizations that could represent different societal interests, though these were tightly controlled and limited under the emperor’s supervision.
Critical, the idea of a civil service based on merit, rather than just aristocratic privilege, was formally coded in 1955. A move towards a more modern governance and political system and professionalism within the state apparatus that was unprecedented.
Emperor Haile Selassie’s evolution, evident with his two constitutions and their revisions, demonstrates not only the Western influence at play during his reign but also the innovative and moderate direction that he was willing to adopt in order to better position Ethiopia domestically and within the international scene. Emperor Haile Selassie I finished what Emperor Tewodros II had initiated, the completion of the nation-state of modern Ethiopia.
During his reign of modernization efforts, Emperor Haile Selassie may have indirectly contributed to his downfall, but we will save that conversation for another time. Nonetheless, Haile Selassie’s efforts in balancing traditionalism and innovation were truly the last time Ethiopia may have done so efficiently and the last time in which gradual stability may have been within reach.
Era of Transgression
After the coup of the Emperor Haile Selassie I, the 1974 Constitution of Ethiopia, led by Mengistu Hailemariam, levied favorably towards innovation rather than traditionalism. Again, that does not go to say that all innovation is good. It goes to state the contrary in that it is a withdrawal from traditionalism. It might be fair to conclude that the only traditionalist element of the 1974 work was the remnant of their being a centralist power at the core of political activity.
Summarizing just how drastic the 1974 constitution pivoted away from traditionalism. Ethiopia, being one of the most religious centers of the world and one of the oldest Christian nations in the world, took on state atheism as a primary characteristic of governance, completely abandoning its soul.
In 1974, the government established provisions for land reform, nationalization of industries, and the creation of a planned economy, which represented a radical departure from the agrarian feudalism that had characterized the imperial regime of the past. This drastic, pivotal, and polar move to committing entirely towards innovation, in our lens, without regard nor taking into account traditionalist elements, is attributed to the massacres and numerous wars that Mengistu Hailemariam participated in. He had no strategy, only an ideology. Catapulting the nation towards regression rather than development. His ideology of innovation consequently gave up use for traditionalism. Ethiopia at this point in time had no soul because of it.
Charting a Solution for Constitutional Reforms
The 1994 Constitution was Ethiopia’s attempt at still further innovating but taking a back step towards traditionalism to regain the nation’s soul that was lost during Derg. By institutionalizing democracy, decentralization, and ethnic federalism, the 1994 Constitution innovated both the structure and the legal framework of governance while still drawing on Ethiopia’s diverse historical traditions of ethnic recognition and local autonomy.
Innovative, undoubtedly. Costly, it has proven. By drawing state lines based on ethnicity, the Ethiopian constitution of 1994 has indirectly encouraged ethnic tensions that have perpetually put Ethiopia at war with itself for the past three decades. The balancing of traditionalism and innovation in the 1994 Constitution is out of balance; it leans heavily towards innovation. Just as how the previous constitution of 1971 leant, despite the 1994 constitution attempting to rebalance its balance beam.
Ethiopia’s first two constitutions leaned towards traditionalist standards while gradually innovating in certain principles. The last two constitutions have leaned favorably towards innovation but with little traditionalist means. The two couplets do not cancel each other out; Ethiopia still has a long way to go. Dissolving ethnic-federalism while also incorporating judicial principles at the political helm and a check of balances in code are just two of the many critical life-saving medications that will serve dividends to Ethiopians and correct the flawed 1994 constitution. AS
Beneal Walker is a technological revolutionist and economist.