We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter 6 chronicles the fragmentation of the four sets of post-liberation elites, and the purging of many established veterans between the late 1990s and ca. 2006. The chapter shows how each movement during these years was shaken to its foundations by internal criticism and major splits which pitted the leadership and a new, younger generation of loyalists against many senior liberation war cadres. Though these splits were notionally focused around questions of movement governance and leadership they were provoked by regional security crises. Indeed, in all four cases, debates on loyalty, ideological purity and movement integrity were laid on top of more long-standing disagreements on each movement’s relationship with its struggle-era regional ally. In mapping these splits and the removal of a significant part of the founding post-liberation elite from the policy arena, this chapter demonstrates how fundamentally inter-linked regional and domestic politics have been in these four states, at least with regard to relations with states governed by a one-time liberation war partner. It also underscores the degree to which gaining and maintaining office can be intrinsically destabilising – even destructive – for militarised, revolutionary movements such as those examined in this study.
This chapter explores how the four East African liberation movements transitioned into governments and begun to negotiate their place within the region. The central argument of this chapter is that the early regional relationships of EPRDF, EPLF and NRM post-liberation elites were dominated by pragmatic, domestic preoccupations, and managing tensions with, and the distrust of, regional counterparts. Revolutionary change, at least at the regional level, was therefore far from being a lodestar. Diplomatically isolated for much of its first decade in power, NRM Uganda found itself in an instantly antagonistic set of relationships with its conservative neighbours, who feared it would seek to replicate its revolution in their own territories. Seeking to allay these concerns, Kampala promoted itself as a regional conflict mediator in Somalia and vacillated in its support for the RPF, which launched its first invasion of Rwanda from Uganda in 1990. In the Horn, EPRDF and EPLF elites focused mainly on settling the question of Eritrean independence and the shape of post-liberation Ethiopia’s political and constitutional order. The elites of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda first came together in the early 1990s around shared security concerns – the perceived threat from Omar al-Bashir’s Islamist Sudan – rather than ideological agendas.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.