First hated the minority, and next hated the majority፡ what is it they love?
Dr. Yohannes Aberra Ayele 3-5-19
The most written and the most spoken about figure in the recent history of Ethiopia had been "6%". This was the calculated percentage of the share of the people of Tigrai out of the total population of Ethiopia. No matter the government be an angel or devil it was considered to be a criminal act on its own to be 6% and be a government in Ethiopia. The issue of corruption in the TPLF is more of an agenda in the last eight months than it was before. Even when some of the economic accomplishments of the TPLF are mentioned many preferred to say “that is not the issue; whatever they do they are still the minority”. This implied that even if you shower diamonds on the streets for everyone to pick up and get rich no one will be grateful because it is coming from a 6%. Ethiopia has a long history of minority rules. All the monarchs, that are blessed and praised by the same people who curse the 6%, have originated from relatively small communities. Very clearly there are double standards. It is ok everyone can live with that and the 6% is now out.
Politicians from the majorities felt that their numbers not their deeds give them the birth-right to be at the helm of political power in Ethiopia. The key criterion that delegitimized the TPLF is expected to be consistently applied. However, the talk of the "crime" of being 6% has almost totally disappeared from the media. TPLF is no more being blamed as a minority rule. It is being condemned for maladministration. If the criterion has changed from percentage to management after TPLF is removed on the basis of the former criterion, then the application of this new criterion should be consistent. TPLF goes so must ADP, ODP, and SPDM. The latest criterion- good governance, which in good faith should have been the key criterion for evaluating parties in power, must also be applied to the other parties equally notorious for bad governance.
The criteria confusion notwithstanding, if we stick to the opportunistic criterion of the might of percentages which was used to oust TPLF, we expect the majority to rule. In the Ethiopia's context, which seems to be tacitly agreed, by majority I mean (we all mean) not leaders elected by the majority of voters although they may have originated from minority ethnic group, but those originating from the majority ethnic group not necessarily elected by the majority of voters. In this case it is unquestionable that the throne goes to the Oromos. The TPLF was condemned and ousted not because it did not have a majority vote but because it did not come from a majority ethnic group. If eligibility to the throne is based not on the number of votes but in the numbers at origin, then Oromos come to the top of the list of eligibility.
I had no doubts left in my mind that everyone, especially, those politicians and activists that were drumming loudly for the end of minority rule of the TPLF will happily endorse majority rule of the Oromos. Any trace of doubt I entertained about their love for majority rule was eliminated when the Amhara youth and political parties were glued to the Oromo youth and parties. I thought it was the hate for the minority rule and the love for a majority rule that forged the seemingly formidable "Oromara block".
To my utter surprise, I saw cracks in the Oromara edifice a few days after the Oromo-based Chief Executive appointed Oromos to the key government posts. The grievances have been growing lauder and lauder to the extent that those who helped him to power and idolized him have turned against him in a much greater fury than the ousted TPLF did or is doing.
When 6% was in power, 40% was considered to be eligible. When 40% came to power it was not acceptable! What is acceptable then? I think it was not about percentages from the outset; it must be about being "born to rule".