I think this is a paper of seriously questionable quality because it glossed

over Ethiopias complex and deep rooted political problems.

Why do I say this? It begins with a political persuation and its resulting
behaviour of a given Ethiopian generation at a given time and and closes
with a projection that the present political environment in the country as an
outcome of persuation and behaviour of the said generation.
It does not give even a brief reference to foreign experience with a backing
of somekind of theory about this outlandish claim of succession of political
persuation and behaviour.
The assertion of the writer seems political perspectives of the 1960s and
1970s that relied on class analysis, class contradictions, class struggle and
the defeat of one class by another as its desired outcome is the cause and
effect of polarized politics in the country today.
If the above presents the writers idea, the issue of foreign experience and
backing of known theory aside, the question is is there really polarized
poltics in the country? If it exists, between (or among) whom? How does the
said polarization relate to the politics of the 1960s and 1970s?
As to me, the writer simply assumes that the country is undergoing
polarized politcs without answering some or all of the above questions. He
just assumes and wants everybody to assume the same like him. I find his
assumption simplistic without an iota of effort to substantiate it. MAybe
another paper is in order.
I know from the writers previous writnings and speeches that he resents the
persistence of elites of certain nations in their push for the respect of the
collective rights. His presnt writing suggests that if they hold a different
opinion from his on the national question, their position is polarizing.
According to him, since the eleties belong to the 1960s and 70s generation
they are Marxist Leninists . So, it goes without saying, they must have been
infected with conflic theory from which they have not extricated themselves
to this day. They are thinking in terms of us and them. Downright silly.
If 1960s and 70s generation is still infected with conflict theory of which
Marxism Leninism is the dominat one, how come the writer who was a
follower of it (even teaching it and practically living it) liberated himself from
it while others failed to do so? Is self aggrandizement the attempt here by
calling others unreformable conflictualists?
My understanding is that though Marxists Leninists wrote, talked and tried
to put it into practice, nationalism has nothing to do with their main political
tenet based on class analysis, class contradictions, class struggle and the
defeat of one class by another. In fact, the accusation thats leveled against
nationalismis its failure to take class seriously.
Superficially, conflic theory and nationalism show similarities in the sense
that the two see relations in terms of us and them, but to characterize
them as one or even successor of one another appears over simplification of
the issue. In fact, the theoretical framework of nationalismis the opposite of
conflict theory which is structural functionalism. The latter addresses society
as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements such as
customs, traditions, and institutions and norms. It advances consensus than
conflict.
I think there is sternly plain difference of approaches and views among
Ethiopians on certain issues (such as national question) but I dont see
polarization. To this extent, Ethiopian politics is no different from politics
elsewhere in the world.
The bad thing about characterizing Ethiopian politics as polarization is to
suggest that it can only be solved by defeating one by the other. Think of
national question with this polarizing view in mind. I think it shouldt be seen
the way the writer puts it forward.
Differences in approaches and views on a certain political issue can be
discussed and if the underlying interest is to address a particular problem
(including national question) in good faith to mend fence, it is not
insurmontable.