A History of Modern Ethiopia 1855-1974 (review)

182 Book Reviews The authors believe that "Ethiopia's socialism has important achievements to its credit (literacy campaign, land reform, bureaucratic reorganization , etc.) and will be a viable system if the government creates a popular foundation for institutional change, removes fear and repression , resolves the question of nationalities, creates a genuine representative government and raises the standard of living of the people." However, the authors fail to see that these reform proposals are modernization imperatives with which socialism or a socialist government is incompatible. In general, the book is a welcome addition to survey books on Ethiopia . It can be a valuable source of information for students of Ethiopia and others who are interested in Ethiopia. Daniel Teferra Ferris State University A History ofModern Ethiopia 1855-1974 Bahru Zewde London, Athens and Addis Ababa: James Currey, Ohio University Press and Addis Ababa University Press, 1991. 244 pp. + ? This book serves its purpose well for its intended audience—university undergraduates and generalists. It is an excellent synthesis of the scholarly work that has been produced over the last 30 years, not all of it published. Primarily a political history, it does drift off occasionally to tie in social and economic events. Not unexpectedly, Bahru draws heavily on the works of Sven Rubenson (to whom he extends greatest gratitude ), Zewde Gabre Sellassie, and Harold Marcus (all of whom have produced major political and/or biographical works on the period) in addition to a broad array of lesser known scholars and students, some curiously unacknowledged. Bahru brings them all together into a broadsweeping , well-focused, and readable work, one which the field has greatly needed. For Bahru, modern Ethiopia is defined as the time period from Emperor Tewodros II on. He chooses to stop with the deposition of Haile Sellassie I in 1974, and thus his work becomes a study of leadership in Book Reviews 183 Ethiopia from the time of monarchy's revival after the decentralized and chaotic period known as the Zamanamesafint to the abolition of monarchy as a consequence of the Ethiopian Revolution. Bahru is interested in the leadership style of each emperor and, in particular, in their various approaches to nation-building. For him, Tewodros was the intractable centralist, struggling after the Zamanamesafint to reunify the state and strengthen the power of the monarchy, opposition be damned. Yohannis IV was the federalist, open-minded in his support for local autonomy , although uncompromising in matters of religion. Menilek was the practical eclectic who dramatically expanded the empire into areas never before controlled by the Ethiopian state. In some fields like revenue collection and communication, he furthered the process of centralization while recognizing that indirect rule in many conquered areas was the most efficient and inexpensive way of administration. Haile Sellassie I was the most successful centralist and modernizer that Ethiopia had known, but unfortunately his vision of the modern state was limited and he endeavored instead to centralize Ethiopia's tradition of feudalism. Each approach seemed to have had its deficiency, which may have lain in the unique leadership style of the particular emperor or in the times in which they ruled. Bahru unfortunately does not bother to assess this. Bahru reserves the highest praise for Iyasu, who, among modern emperors , had the shortest reign. Maybe he was the Ethiopian Kennedy, a young man of broad vision, who did not have the religious or ethnic hang-ups of the others, and who held the greatest potential for "fashioning " modern Ethiopia had he not been deposed by his detractors. To paraphrase Bahru, Iyasu had great ability to make Ethiopia's diverse peoples feel at home in their own nation, something other emperors had not. Scholars might wonder where Ethiopia might be today had Iyasu been allowed to rule unhindered. Bahru develops his arguments in generally convincing fashion, although it is hard to refute generalizations. It is also evident that there is little here that is dramatically new. The reader may be a bit disappointed that Bahru chooses to examine this time period in isolation. Readers deserve to have the main themes, as defined by Bahru, set into some historical context. Even more disappointing is the fact that Bahru fails utterly to...