Bahru Zewde has penned some excellent books: The Challenge of Democracy from Below (2002), Pioneers of Change (2002) and The Quest for Socialist Utopia (2014). This post covers "A History of Modern Ethiopia 1855-1991" (originally published in 1991, second edition in 2001). Richard Pankhurst, one of the great historians for Ethiopia, described Bahru Zewde as a leading historian in reviewing this book. Undoubtedly his status has risen since, and may be Ethiopia's greatest living historian today. All of his works are highly recommended. Due to its general nature, this book has received the broadest readership. I do not attempt a summary – instead a few quotes that stood out, or are facts that seem to have fallen through the cracks and are worth highlighting.

The history of Ethiopia often focuses upon the highlands, and of Orthodox Christians. This partially as a result of more historical documentation to draw from. It also represents the ruling voice, at the expense of others. Bahru points this out, notable in 1991, when statements such as these were not commonly made: "Confused as it certainly was, his [Iyyasu] policy can be interpreted as one of trying to redress the injustices of the past, of making the Muslims feel at home in their own country. In this, he represented a revolutionary departure from the past. Tewodros, a man of wide vision in many respects, was bigoted when it came to Muslims, particularly the Muslims of Wallo. Yohannes, liberal and almost federal in his politics, was even more uncompromising on the question of Orthodoxy and Christianity. Menelik, builder of the largest empire Ethiopia has ever seen, did little to integrate the heterogeneous entity into one nation. Iyyasu's religious policy was the first major attempt to tackle the question of national integration, a question which has not been satisfactorily solved to this day." (p. 124)

It is often said that Ethiopia was never colonized and as a result has the opportunity to develop its own institutions, policies and laws. However, reading Bahru's description of the Italian occupation, one can't help but recognize its legacy: "Italian administration was characterized by a top-heavy bureaucracy and corruption. According to one writer, "Sixty percent of the bureaucratic machinery was working in AOI [Africa Orientale Italiana] to administer itself" (Sbacchi, 80). There was a mania for creating committees and commissions, largely so that the members might attempt to exonerate themselves from responsibility. A vast number of colonial officials were distinguished for their ineptitude and narrow-mindedness, as well as for their corruption. The Duke of Aosta is reputed to have characterized 50% of his officials inept and 25% as thieves. There was a veritable frenzy to get rich as quickly as possible. Badoglio himself reportedly pocked half of the 1,700,000 Maria Theresa thalers confiscated from the Bank of Ethiopia, in the immediate aftermath of the conquest." (p. 163)

There is also deeper legacy, consider this description of the Imperial government: "The composition of the parliament, which had two houses – a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies – emphasized the belief that the people were not yet ready for active participation in the political process… The property qualifications for a member of parliament excluded even rich merchants, let alone commoners" (p. 141). The language has changed, 'vanguard' being adopted by the military and current governments, but the sentiment of acting on behalf of the people has remained a core tenant of government.

Bahru Zewde has written an excellent book on the history of the student movement in Ethiopia, this book goes back further, to the late 1800s and early 1900s, exploring the activities and impact of the intellectuals of that time period. The book, "Pioneers of Change in Ethiopia: The Reformist Intellectuals of the Early Twentieth Century" (2002) by Bahru Zewde, is very well researched and is an excellent addition for anyone seeking to understand the historical roots of the modern Ethiopian state.

Bahru argues that "the Ethiopian educated elite have played a preponderant role in the political history of the country, a role clearly incommensurate with their number. It is thus difficult to understand the genesis and course of the 1974 revolution without a proper appraisal of the Ethiopian student movement, which could said to have started to follow a revolutionary course in the mid-1960s. In a number of ways, notably in the articulation and resolution of what has been characterized as 'the national question', the legacy of that movement is still with us. And yet the intellectual protagonists of the second half of the twentieth century had their predecessors in the first half. The revolutionary option was preceded by the reformist one" (p. xi). The means through which the educated elite engaged with each other and exerted influence was primary through newspaper articles (p. 188).

The book presents detailed histories of the individuals, I draw from the chapter that attempts to present commonalities, and readers with interest in specifics can turn to the text. Bahru writes that "there is no doubt that the intellectuals' interest in provincial and municipal administration and in fiscal centralization were secondary to their overriding concern for social justice, and particularly for the alleviation of the condition of the peasantry" (p. 120). But this is not an idealized call, for example, the "enormity of the institution of slavery and the slave trade was such that few of the educated elite could fail to be moved into strong denunciation of them. When it came to the less brazen form of oppression and exploitation of the southern peoples, however, many failed to overcome the dominant cultural milieu in which they had grown up" (p. 130).

One challenge faced by all contemporary governments in Ethiopia – including a pressing issue of the day – is that of how the nations within a nation come together. For many of the educate elite of the early 1990s, assimilation was the answer: "Coming to the practical ways by which the policy of assimilation could be implemented, Tedla points to education and the army as the two most important vehicles of assimilation. Tedla goes back to classical Rome to demonstrate how the army has always been a factor for assimilation, be it through the intermarriage of garrison troops with local women or the recruitment of subject peoples into the imperial army. Likewise, all other facets of government policy – administration, justice, economic organization – should be regulated by the policy of assimilation. Provincial boundaries need to be redrawn to facilitate the policy. Oromo numerical predominance in the southern provinces should be tempered by a policy of Amhara settlement" (p. 132-133). I will refrain from commentary, and leave this historical point of reference for discussion elsewhere.

A letter of 1887 advising governor Ras Alula, from an immigrant (Petros Giyorgis, or 'Petros the Ethiopian'), warns (in Amharic): "You may not have read history. But the faranj [i.e. European] are like an earworm. Earworm is the smallest of worms. But it will eat up and destroy the largest of trees. Likewise, the faranj first come in the name of trade; gradually, they end up taking over the country. So, hit them now, wipe them out, or else your country is lost… You can move a sapling with your toe; but once it is grown, it will require many axes and saws" (p. 18). Notably, in 1896 the Ethiopian army defeated the nearly 20,000-troop Italian army, attempting at colonizing the country. On this, Bahru argues that "Adwa set the modality for Ethiopia's modern relationship with Europe in particular and the West in general. Ethiopia joined the ranks of the handful of African and Asian countries which remained politically independent but were under the shadow of the overwhelming European presence that had engulfed the two continents" (p. 208-209).

Bahru concludes: "what a long way things appear to have come from the time in the early twentieth century, when intellectuals relied on gentle persuasion rather than violent confrontation, when they sought royal patronage rather than the overthrow of the monarchy, when they advocated gradual reform rather than the revolutionary transformation of society" (p. 211).