Social stratification in Ethiopia from ancient to present: historical perspective

Abstract

The objective of the study was to reconstruct the cause, phenomenon, and consequences of social stratification in Ethiopia from prehistoric times to the present. The researcher employed document analysis to collect the data and a qualitative content analysis method to analyze this research. The results showed that social stratification had existed in Ethiopia since antiquity, which was caused by ethnicity, economy, religion, power, prestige, education, and gender differences. The social stratification in Ethiopia is created inequality, limited social mobility, marginalization, political and social unrest, the creation of dominance and subordinate groups, and the reinforcement of social norms. Social inequalities have been addressed in recent years by the implementation of programs that prioritize poverty alleviation, health, and education. However, social stratification still exists. To create a more equitable society, it is necessary to address issues like poverty, geographical differences, and unequal access to resources and opportunities.

Keywords:

• Social
• stratification
• Ethiopia

Reviewing Editor:

• Samuel Adu-Gyamfi, History and Political Studies, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology College of Arts and Social Science, Kumasi, Ghana

Subjects:

• History
• Classical Studies
• Cultural Studies

1. Introduction

The hierarchical division of people or groups into several social classes or strata within a society is referred to as social stratification. It is a trait shared by practically all human societies, and it is useful in understanding how opportunities, resources, and power are distributed in society (Desta & Arega, 2006). Social stratification takes on diverse forms in various nations and civilizations, but in general, it entails classifying people according to their social rank, income, occupation, and level of education (Gray, 1986; Hoffmann, 1996). These divisions create separate social classes, with those in higher classes having access to more resources, privileges, and authority, while those in lower classes have less access to these advantages. However, accomplished traits like education and career can also have an impact. Social stratification is frequently based on inherited or ascribed features like family history and social standing at birth (Kebede, 1996).

It may be formal and based on collective views and interactions, or it may be more informal and based on social structures, laws, and cultural norms. Social stratification is characterized by patterns of mobility or transition between social classes (Mehary & Moges, 2014). Social mobility is the ability for people to move up or down the social ladder based on their accomplishments or efforts. In contrast, social stratification can be more rigid and resistant to change in some civilizations.

Ethiopia has a long history of having a complicated hierarchical social structure, with geography, class, ethnicity, and religion all playing a role in the stratification. Despite the fact that social stratification has always been a part of Ethiopian society, nothing is known about the historical background of the phenomenon or the circumstances that led to its growth (Gray, 1986; Hoffmann, 1996; Wondwosen, 2013). Our understanding of the dynamics, patterns, and implications of socioeconomic stratification in Ethiopian society is hampered by this knowledge gap. To understand the causes and consequences of social stratification in Ethiopia, it is necessary to investigate it from the prehistoric era to the present.

2. Literature review

2.1. Essence of social stratification

Sociologists have long examined and hypothesized about the complicated subject of the causes of social stratification (Bourdieu, 1984; Collins, 1986). There are different factors for social stratification. Economic disparity is one of the main causes of social stratification. Different social classes or strata may be the result of disparities in wealth, income, and access to resources. Higher social classes tend to have greater influence, status, and opportunities than lower social classes do (Davis & Moore, 1945; Grusky, 2017).

Social status and prestige have an impact on social stratification as well. Higher social standing and privileges may be granted to people who have certain roles, titles, or memberships in social groupings like the aristocracy or higher social circles (Grusky, 2017; Lenski, 1966).

Gender and ethnicity are also taken as the other dimension for social stratification. These two factors might exacerbate social stratification. In the past, women and minority groups have experienced institutionalized discrimination and been denied access to opportunities, resources, and social standing (Parkin, 1971; Piketty, 2014). Furthermore, socio-political factors, such as rules, policies, and political structures, can either strengthen or weaken social stratification. For instance, legislation that favors equal opportunities, social assistance programs, and affirmative action can all help reduce social disparity (Collins, 1986; Weber, 1946). Remembering that social stratification is a dynamic process with numerous dimensions is essential. It might vary throughout a wide range of societies, cultures, and historical periods. Social stratification can combine with other forms of inequality, such as those based on race, ethnicity, gender, and age, to create a complex web of privilege and disadvantage.

2.2. Social class

In a society, people are arranged in a hierarchy according to their economic, social, and educational positions. This arrangement is referred to as social class (Peter, & Thomas, 1966; Reinhard, & Seymour, 1966). Sociologists frequently divide society into social classes based on criteria like wealth, occupation, and income.

The upper Class is the first division. This is the highest social class in society, made up of the richest and most privileged members. They frequently hold high positions in politics, business, or entertainment, have great fortune, and frequently inherit enterprises or properties (David, 2002; Joseph, 2012). They can make use of the best education, prestigious networks, and opulent lifestyles. Second, the middle class is a broad group that includes a variety of people and families with a moderate amount of income and a comfortable standard of living. They typically work in white-collar positions like those of teachers, secretaries, and small-business owners (Anthony, 1973; David, 2002). The middle class frequently has access to a good education, a stable job, and some degree of financial security.

People who work in manual or blue-collar jobs are considered to be members of the working class. They are labeled as the third group. Typically, they work in fields like manufacturing, construction, and services. People from the working class frequently have minimal finances, little job stability, and may find it difficult to make ends meet (Collins, 1986; Weber, 1946). They are more likely to endure financial insecurity and have less access to high-quality education. The most disadvantaged and outcast members of society are represented by the lower class. They frequently struggle with poverty, unemployment, and a lack of access to basic services. Many people live in poverty and are dependent on welfare or other government support programs. The lower classes typically have fewer options for education and employment (Peter, & Thomas, 1966; Reinhard, & Seymour, 1966). It is significant to remember that social class is influenced by a variety of cultural elements, including lifestyles, values, and social networks, in addition to characteristics like money and occupation. Furthermore, social class is not constant and is subject to change over time as a result of things like education, professional growth, or financial conditions (Parkin, 1971; Piketty, 2014).

2.3. Theoretical discussion

This section aims to delve into the theoretical perspectives surrounding the topic of social stratification, examine different schools of thought and their explanations, and highlight their relevance in understanding contemporary societies. For this study, the functionalism, conflict, and intersectionality theories are selected. These theories answered the cause and consequence of social stratification.

Functionalism views social stratification as a natural and necessary part of society. It suggests that inequality and the division of society into different social strata are functional for society’s overall functioning (Parsons, 2013). Each social stratum has specific roles, responsibilities, and levels of importance, contributing to the smooth functioning of society as a whole. Social stratification arises from the unequal distribution of attributes such as wealth, power, and prestige. These attributes are unequally distributed based on individuals’ positions within the social structure (Davis & Moore, 1945).

On the other hand, conflict theory of social stratification is an essential perspective within sociology that examines how societies are structured based on power dynamics and social inequalities among different social groups. It identifies the root cause of such societal divisions as the inherent competition for resources and the pursuit of self-interest by dominant groups (Dahrendorf, 2017). The essence of the conflict theory of social stratification lies in its assumption that society is not harmonious but rather characterized by constant conflict between different social classes or groups. It asserts that social stratification, i.e. the hierarchical division of society into distinct social layers or classes, is not merely the result of individual effort or abilities but rather a product of ongoing power struggles and the unequal distribution of resources (Collins, 2015).

The essence of conflict is attributed to the unequal distribution of wealth, power, and opportunities in society. The theory suggests that a dominant ruling class, often comprising wealthy individuals or elites, maintains their privileged position by exploiting and controlling the subordinate classes. These power imbalances lead to conflict as different social groups compete for limited resources and strive to protect their own interests. The consequences of the conflict theory of social stratification are twofold (Wright, 2008). Firstly, it highlights the perpetuation of social inequalities and the reproduction of the existing stratification system over generations. The dominant class maintains its power by institutionalizing social structures and norms that favor their interests, such as laws, policies, and cultural practices. Secondly, the theory emphasizes the potential for social change and transformation through collective action and conflict between social groups. It argues that the subordinate classes, when aware of their exploitation, can challenge the dominant class and strive to bring about more equitable social arrangements. This conflict can manifest through social movements, protests, or revolutions that aim to reshape the existing social order and create a more just society (Mills, 2012).

The third theory, intersectionality theory is rooted in the understanding that individuals can face multiple systems of oppression and privilege simultaneously, rather than experiencing them in isolation (Davis, 2010). It recognizes that social stratification is not solely based on one’s gender, class, race, or any single characteristic but rather on the intersection of various social categories. Intersectionality theory is a heightened understanding of the interconnectedness and interplay of various social dimensions, such as gender, race, class, sexuality, ability, and more. It challenges the notion that these categories are distinct and separate and instead emphasizes that they intersect and interact, resulting in unique experiences of privilege and oppression (Cho, 2013). By recognizing the complexity and intersectionality of social identities, intersectionality theory brings attention to the inequalities and power dynamics faced by individuals who inhabit multiple marginalized identities.

2.4. Materials and methods

Since the study is from a historical perspective, which covers the period from ancient times to the present, the researcher used the document analysis method to collect the required data. The researcher only relies on secondary sources because it is difficult to get the history of social stratification in Ethiopia in the given period through interviews or questionnaires. The researcher used documents like scholarly articles, books, government reports, and historical documents. To analyze these data, the researcher used the qualitative content analysis method in a narrative way. The researcher interconnects different textual data and interprets it based on the objective.

3. Result

3.1. Case study: Ethiopia

3.1.1. Cause of social stratification and formation of class

In Ethiopian history, from ancient times to the present, Ethiopia has experienced social stratification. The social stratification in the country had different causes, and it facilitated the formation of social classes. The cause and the type of social class in each period are illustrated in the following sections.

3.1.2. Ancient to 1150

From pre-Aksumite periods until 1150 CE, social stratification in Ethiopia has changed over a period of thousands of years. An outline of the main socioeconomic groups and structures that prevailed at the time is provided below (Donald, 1974; Phillipson, 1993):

The area that is now Ethiopia was populated by numerous tribes and clans as early as 1000 BCE. Social stratification at this time was based on things like wealth, occupation, and ancestry (Phillipson, 2003; Sergio, 2007). Some tribes may have had kings or chiefs who ruled over their people politically and socially.

The Aksumite Empire (first century BCE to the tenth century CE), which was peaked in the fourth century CE, brought about a more centralized system of government and social structure. The Aksumite kings and nobility, who held supreme power, made up the governing class (Marcus, 1975; Phillipson, 1998). They were followed by a middle class made up of affluent businessmen, landowners, and powerful government figures. In Aksumite Ethiopia, the vast majority of people were peasants who worked in agriculture and animal husbandry (Marcus, 1975; Phillipson, 1993). They mostly farmed and paid taxes to the governing elite. Peasants frequently held ties to the land they farmed and had little social mobility. In addition, slavery was a reality in Ethiopia at different times, notably the Aksumite Period. Typically, slaves were either bought from neighboring countries or seized during war (Donald, 1974; Phillipson, 1998). They worked in homes, fields, or as servants to the aristocracy. Slaves were treated as property and had few to no rights. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church rose to prominence after Christianity was made the official state religion in the fourth century CE (Marcus, 1975; Sergio, 2007). The clergy was a unique social class that had a significant impact on society. Bishops and priests were at the pinnacle of the church hierarchy, which held a lot of authority and influence.

From the 10th century on, Ethiopia experienced a surge in this system of government. Feudal lords, also known as nafxanyas, rose to prominence as strong landowners and military commanders with considerable power. Peasants were frequently forced to work on their farms and were under their authority (Donald, 1974; Phillipson, 1998). The fact that these social stratifications and systems have changed somewhat over time in response to diverse political, economic, and social changes must be noted. Ethiopia had undergone substantial sociopolitical changes by the year 1150, including the fall of the Aksumite Empire and the rise of new regional powers (Phillipson, 1998). In the centuries that followed, these modifications would continue to influence Ethiopia’s social stratification.

3.2. Medieval (1150–1855)

From the Zagwe Dynasty (1137–1270) to 1855, Ethiopia experienced social stratification that was characterized by a hierarchical framework that put the ruling elites, specifically the kings and aristocracy, at the top of the social ladder (Donald, 1974; Seid, 2001) There was little mobility between social strata, and the stratification was essentially established by birth and genetic descent. During this time, Ethiopia was ruled by the Zagwe Dynasty, who took over from the Aksumite Empire. The highest social class, referred to as the royal nobility, was made up of the kings and their immediate relatives (Baynes, 2017; Zewde, 2001). They preserved their power by employing a system of regional administrators and titleholders to oversee the various parts of the kingdom.

The nobility and aristocracy were powerful social elite that existed beneath the kings (Akashoro, 2001; Pankhurst, 1997). These people were frequently the ruler’s relatives, vassals, or trustworthy allies, and in exchange for their devotion, they were given land and privileges. Their position was largely based on their proximity to the royal court, and they played important roles in administrative, military, and judicial issues. In addition, during this time, the majority of Ethiopia’s population was made up of commoners and free peasants who were landowners and engaged in agriculture. Even though they had some restricted freedoms and were allowed to possess land, they still didn’t have the same social standing as the aristocracy (David, 1978; Donald, 1997). Subsistence farming was a widespread activity among commoners, and they frequently relied on the protection and goodwill of local lords to support themselves.

Bonded to the land and under the control of the nobles, serfs were at the bottom of the social scale. Serfs were effectively enslaved workers who toiled on the aristocrats’ estates and were unable to possess property or move about at will. They were the most oppressed group, undergoing various forms of exploitation and a lack of individual liberties (Donald, 1974; Seid, 2001). It is important to recognize that throughout this time, social stratification was also influenced by elements such as religion, particularly the Christian Orthodox Church, which possessed significant authority and influence. Through its educational system and the position of clergy in society, the church controlled huge amounts of land and affected social mobility (David, 1978; Donald, 1997). From the Zagwe Dynasty through 1855, Ethiopia’s social stratification was largely based on inherited advantages and the concentration of power within the ruling class. There was little social mobility; people often stayed in the same social class throughout their lifetimes, based on their birth and connections.

Between 1150 and 1270, Ethiopia had significant social stratification, with a number of variables influencing the population’s hierarchy and distinction. These elements include the influence of religion, economic inequality, and political power. A monarchy presided over Ethiopia’s ruling class during this time, with the Zagwe dynasty initially in charge until the Solomonic dynasty rose to prominence. The rulers erected an aristocracy made up of privileged families and nobles with considerable power and luxury (Akashoro, 2001; Pankhurst, 1997). They frequently held landownership ties and exercised authority over resources, which gave them social rank and dominance.

The feudal system, which split society into distinct classes based on land ownership, was a key factor in social stratification. Large tracts of land were given by the kings to nobles, who then gave sections to smaller landowners (David, 1978; Donald, 1997). Peasants, however, who were seen as belonging to the lowest class, made up the majority of the population. They frequently had ties to the land and labored in agriculture under difficult economic conditions.

Between 1270 and 1636, Ethiopia’s feudal system, which was then in place, was the main basis for social stratification. The nation was ruled by numerous distinct empires, each with its own form of social structure (Seid, 2001). Emperors and their families, as well as the nobility and aristocracy, made comprised the governing class during this time. These people were in charge of running the kingdom and had the most riches and power in society (Donald, 1997). They were able to keep their position by maintaining control over the land, the resources, and the political power. A middle class existed beneath the ruling class, primarily made up of businesspeople, traders, and skilled workers. Compared to the lower classes, this group enjoyed greater economic opportunity and social mobility and frequently amassed money through trade and entrepreneurship (David, 1978).

The majority of the population, the peasants and serfs, were at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They worked as agricultural laborers and were tethered to the land, supplying food and resources to the upper and middle classes. Peasants frequently paid high taxes and had few liberties and privileges (Pankhurst, 1997). During this time, slavery had a crucial role in societal stratification. Typically, slaves were either born into slavery or were taken prisoner during military operations (Akashoro, 2001). They worked as household servants, farm laborers, and occasionally even as soldiers. Slaves had extremely few rights, and slavery was mostly based on hereditary rank.

Between 1636 and 1779, Ethiopia had significant social stratification, with a rigid hierarchical structure that was mostly dependent on hereditary factors like birth and descent. Ethiopian society was divided into various social classes, each with their own privileges, obligations, and rights (Baynes, 2017). The emperor, also referred to as the Negus or the King of Kings, and the royal family made up the ruling classes, which stood at the pinnacle of the social structure. The emperor exercised ultimate power, was revered as divine, and was in charge of both the state and religion. The royal family enjoyed wealth, land, and a prominent social position (Zewde, 2001). The Ras and the Fitawrari, members of the nobility who held important posts in the armed forces and government, were subordinate to the ruling classes.

They received huge land grants and were allowed to levy taxes and tribute on the peasants. They were able to amass wealth and have a big impact on the empire because of this (David, 1978). The clergy and people who lived in cities, such as business owners, artisans, and government workers, made up the middle class. The clergy, primarily the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, possessed a great deal of wealth and power, owned enormous land holdings, and had a significant impact on society. On the other hand, the wealth and social standing of city people varied according to their line of work and trade.

The peasant class was the largest and least privileged group in Ethiopian society at the time (Donald, 1997). Subsistence farming was the main occupation of peasants, who also paid taxes and tribute to the nobles. They had little freedom of movement and little prospects for social advancement because they were bound to the land. During this time, slavery had a crucial role in societal stratification. Nebad, the term for slaves, were typically taken during battle, raids, or through family inheritance (Pankhurst, 1997). They were regarded as property and lacked any social or legal standing. Slaves worked as domestic servants, laborers, and soldiers for the aristocracy and nobility.

Ethiopia saw severe socioeconomic stratification from 1779 and 1855, particularly during the period of Zemene Mesafint period (Akashoro, 2001). The majority of Ethiopian society was structured according to a feudal system, with a small number of aristocracy and land-owning aristocrats holding much of the authority and money (Pankhurst, 1997). These feudal lords had considerable power over the land, the resources, and the labor of the peasants.

During this time, Ethiopia’s social system was characterized by pronounced class differences (Baynes, 2017). The governing class, which included members of the monarchy, the aristocracy, and senior church leaders, was at the top. These people had special access to riches, resources, and educational opportunities. In addition, societal stratification was significantly influenced by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Priests and monks enjoyed a prestigious status in society and frequently exercised substantial influence over their communities (Donald, 1974; Seid, 2001). Through church endowments and tithes, they were able to acquire riches and property.

In the social structure, the military also held an important place. Soldiers had certain rights and had the opportunity to amass riches and land through conquest and pillage, especially those who fought in the Emperor’s forces or were a part of local feudal troops (Baynes, 2017; Zewde, 2001). The vast majority of people in Ethiopia were peasants, who endured difficult living conditions and few prospects for social mobility. They typically had ties to the land and owed labor and tribute to the church or the feudal lords (Donald, 1974; Seid, 2001).

Slavery was also widely used throughout this time, and regional kings and noble families were the main users. Warfare or territorial raids were common ways to obtain slaves. They were treated like property and had no legal protections, which made them a target of serious exploitation and abuse (David, 1978; Donald, 1997). It is significant to highlight that regional differences played a role in shaping these dynamics, as the Zemene Mesafint period saw a decline in the power of the central government, which exacerbated regional fragmentation and localized power struggles (Akashoro, 2001; Pankhurst, 1997)

3.3. Modern period (1855–2009)

Ethiopia saw severe social stratification between 1855 and 1906, with a distinct division between the governing class and the rest of society. Ethnic and religious considerations were the main influences on this social order (Donald, 2001). When Tewodros II became emperor in 1855, he made an effort to consolidate control in Ethiopia. He established himself as the nation’s ruler and ascended to the top of the social scale. The nobles and senior officials who made up his court enjoyed the perks and position that came with being close to the emperor (Donald, 1980).

The aristocracy, which included affluent landowners, respected elders, and nobility, stood below the governing class. These people had a lot of influence and power in their respective areas, and they frequently received societal benefits as a result. Throughout this time, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was extremely important to Ethiopian society (Donald, 1999). People in the church had a revered status and had a lot of power. High-ranking religious members frequently owned substantial amounts of land, which raised their socioeconomic standing.

The majority of Ethiopians, who made up the peasantry, worked in agriculture. The aristocracy and the governing class relied on the food and other resources that the peasants produced while working the land (John, 2002). They were frequently taken advantage of by landlords and had little social mobility. Numerous peasants also endured forced labor. There are many different ethnic groups in Ethiopia, and these distinctions frequently had an impact on social stratification. Some ethnic groups, including the Amhara and Tigray, possessed greater influence and authority, whilst the Oromo and other marginalized communities experienced prejudice and had a lesser social standing (Donald, 1991).

Ethiopia’s socioeconomic stratification saw considerable changes between 1906 and 1930. During this time, the following significant factors significantly influenced Ethiopia’s socioeconomic stratification: Ethiopia had a feudal regime and was mostly an agrarian society (Donald, 1992). The emperor, the nobility, and a select few landowners controlled much of the money and power. They controlled the labor force, which was made up of peasants and serfs who worked on their estates and possessed huge areas of land. Based on wealth, power, and occupation, the community was segmented into distinct classes. The emperor and the nobility made up the governing class, which had the highest social standing. They had access to resources, education, and advantages. Peasants and workers belonged to the lowest class and had little social mobility in the bulk of the population.

Between 1930 and 1974, Ethiopia’s social stratification was defined by a tight, hierarchical framework with significant divisions between the various social strata. Emperor Haile Sellassie controlled Ethiopia during this time, upholding traditional societal systems while maintaining a very authoritarian system of government. The nobles and aristocracy, who wielded enormous power and riches, stood at the top of the social structure. They held the top positions in the military and administration and possessed enormous areas of property. The pinnacle of this social structure was the emperor, who was revered as a celestial being. The affluent and powerful landowners with huge agricultural holdings were above the nobility. They were in charge of tax collection on behalf of the ruling elite and hired a sizable number of tenant farmers (Bekele, 1995).

Professionals, business people, and government employees made up the middle class. They had access to education and urban facilities, and they lived pretty comfortably. Their social standing was still inferior to that of the nobility and aristocracy (Clapham, 2014). The majority of the population was made up of peasants and agricultural laborers, who also occupied the lowest socioeconomic strata. They toiled on land owned by affluent and noble landowners and lived in rural locations. These peasants were forced to high taxes and frequently caught in a vicious cycle of destitution and debt. Social mobility was constrained within this system because birth and familial ties were major determinants of social status.

Mengistu Haile Mariam’s (1974–1991) who was in charge of implementing different policies and practices, contributed to societal divisions and inequality. The Derg put in place a program for agricultural land reform that transferred land from wealthy landowners to peasants. Although the goal of this program was to lessen inequality, it instead caused land fragmentation and had a detrimental impact on productivity. The gaps grew because new proprietors frequently lacked the tools and expertise necessary to manage the land well (Donald, 1999). A new class of beneficiaries who joined the newly forming elite was also created as a result of the transfer of land.

These people frequently had political ties to the Derg and its allies, which gave them access to the newly allotted land. As a result, a new social stratification developed, with this new elite enjoying advantages over the general populace in terms of politics and the economy. In addition, the land reform included taking land from powerful landowners including the church, the aristocracy, and feudal landlords (Donald, 1980). These people were evicted as a result, losing their status as members of the upper class and their privileges. There was a huge societal transformation as a result of this widespread displacement.

During the infamous Villagization drive, the Derg forcibly transferred people from rural areas to urban centers, which contributed to the concentration of resources and opportunities in urban areas and exacerbated socioeconomic inequities (Donald, 1991). To maintain control over and to consolidate authority, the Derg leadership forcibly moved people from rural to urban regions. People from different social, economic, and cultural origins were thereby uprooted from their homes and thrown in strange urban settings (Wendy, 2003). Due to the concentration of various ethnic and racial groups in certain urban regions, social divisions and social inequality between urban and rural populations grew.

The Derg government’s forced urbanization of the Wollo ethnic group in Wellega might have contributed to social inequality at the time. A group’s current social structures may be thrown off when they are forcibly moved, and the new place may develop unequal power relations (Donald, 1990). The majority of the Wollo population was farmers in the countryside, therefore their forced urbanization in Wellega would have placed them in alien urban settings where they could have had trouble locating acceptable employment, housing, and social support networks. Due to possible marginalization and prejudice of the Wollo people in their new urban environment, this may have resulted in social inequality and stratification.

The Derg promoted a homogenized communist identity while repressing ethnic identities as part of its assimilation agenda. Due to this disdain for the country’s diversity of cultures, ethnic groups were marginalized and subjected to discrimination, especially those who resisted integration (Clapham, 2014). The Amhara ethnic minority accumulated a lot of political influence as a result of the derg’s strong support for them under the direction of Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam. As a result, the Derg oppressed and discriminated against Oromo and Tigray ethnic communities. Their lack of access to education, employment possibilities, and social mobility as a result of this prejudice and marginalization resulted in a clear stratification .

The Derg also nationalized industries, which resulted in a centralized and government-run economy. As a result, there was little room for economic progress and social mobility. Additionally, corruption and the governmental bureaucracy deepened inequality. The economy was governed by the state, which hampered free enterprise and entrepreneurship. The Derg restricted people’s ability to launch enterprises, which reduced the population’s access to economic prospects. Only those connected to or favored by the government could profit from the state-controlled economy, which further exacerbated the already-existing social stratification. Social mobility was thus limited as a result of state-controlled economic policies favoring particular people and regions. The already-existing social hierarchy was strengthened, making it challenging for those from lower social strata to advance. Social stratification was made worse by the fact that opportunities for upward social mobility were primarily contingent on one’s links to the ruling class (Gebre-Selassie, 2012).

Between 1991 and 2009, social stratification in Ethiopia was influenced by a number of variables, including political shifts, economic growth, and socio-cultural dynamics. The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) took control and toppled the Derg government (Jibat, 2014). Under the EPRDF, political clout and party membership have a significant impact on socioeconomic stratification. Those who support the ruling party frequently have easier access to resources, opportunities, and positions of power, especially at higher levels (Reta, 2019).

Since the 1990s, Ethiopia has undergone tremendous economic growth and transformation, which has altered the socioeconomic structure of the country. For certain people and communities, the growth of the agricultural, industrial, and service sectors has opened doors for upward mobility (Assefa, 2017). But there are still economic inequalities, and rural communities, particularly in the north, fall behind in terms of having access to resources, infrastructure, and social services (Tibebe, 2011).

In Ethiopia, socioeconomic stratification has a persistent urban-rural gap. An urban elite class with enormous economic and political clout has emerged as a result of the tremendous growth and investment attracted to metropolitan regions, particularly Addis Ababa. In contrast, rural communities frequently struggle with issues including poverty, poor access to healthcare and education, and poorer levels of living. Like most urban locations, Addis Ababa does experience some level of socioeconomic inequality. Social disparities in the city can be attributed to elements including money, education, occupation, and governmental positions (Bloomberg & Forsythe, 2017). However, it’s important to note that Ethiopia is actively working to encourage inclusive growth and lessen social stratification on a national level.

In Ethiopia, societal stratification has been greatly influenced by ethnicity. Due to the nation’s federal structure’s recognition of regional identities and autonomy granted to them, ethnic groups now have more authority. This encouraged cultural preservation and a sense of pride, but it calso lead to ethnic differences and conflicts (Fanta, 2012). As a result, it has both positive and bad effects. Ethnicity and regionalism were major factors in the development of socioeconomic stratification in Ethiopia under Meles Zenawi. Meles Zenawi served as Ethiopia’s prime minister from 1995 until his passing in 2009(Hassan & Ali, 2018). An ethnic federalist system was put in place by Meles Zenawi’s administration, which divided Ethiopians into various ethnic groups and assigned administrative areas based on these groups. This strategy intended to acknowledge the numerous ethnic groups and cultural traditions that exist in Ethiopia, but it also widened ethnic gaps and fueled regionalism (Kidane Mengisteab, 2010).

Each region had its own government and had some degree of autonomy over things like language, education, and certain legislative authority. Distribution of resources and access to government services were based on ethnicity. Inequitable wealth and opportunity distribution resulted from the ruling ethnic group’s regions frequently receiving greater resources and development initiatives (Lavers, 2013). This increased the persistence of ethnic-based social stratification and extended regional economic disparities. Political representation was also impacted by the ethnic federation system as political parties affiliated with particular ethnic groups rose to prominence and engaged in power struggles. As a result, ethnicity and regional identity were politicized, and political leaders frequently mobilized support based on ethnic affiliations (Mohammed, 2018). This method of political representation strengthened racial and ethnic differences throughout society and continued socioeconomic stratification.

Social stratification based on ethnicity was made worse by the marginalization, lack of resources, and political power of smaller ethnic groups (Negi, 2013). Inter-ethnic conflict was a result of the emphasis on ethnic identity and regional autonomy, particularly in areas where diverse ethnic groups coexisted. To safeguard their political interests and access to resources, ethnic groups frequently engaged in conflict and bloodshed, thus widening social gaps and stratification.

The ethnic federalism system put in place during the Meles Zenawi era had the intention of resolving old resentments and fostering inclusivity, but it also opened the door for social stratification based on ethnicity and regionalism (Rahmeto, 2020). Social inequality and ethnic tensions persisted during this time due to the distribution of resources, political representation, and interethnic conflict.

3.4. Discussion

The discussion is interconnected with theories. According to functionalist theory, social stratification and the resulting inequality of resources and opportunities are seen as necessary components of a functional society (Davis & Moore, 1945). Applying this perspective to the history of Ethiopia, we can observe instances where social stratification has led to disparities in resources and opportunities.

In ancient Ethiopian society, social stratification was evident in the hierarchical structure of the monarchy, where the ruling class had access to abundant resources and opportunities while the majority struggled with limited access (David, 1978; Donald, 1997). For example, during the reign of the powerful Aksumite Empire, the ruling elite controlled the lucrative trade routes, which provided them with substantial wealth, while commoners faced economic hardships. Throughout these periods, social stratification persisted, with certain groups enjoying advantages over others in terms of resources and opportunities. One specific example of social stratification in Ethiopia is access to education. Historically, education was predominantly accessible to the ruling class and elite families. This created a stark divide between those who had the means to access quality education and those who did not.

As a consequence, opportunities for upward social mobility were limited for the majority of the population. Additionally, the distribution of land and agricultural resources has been a key factor contributing to social stratification and inequality in Ethiopia. Large portions of fertile lands have often been owned and controlled by the few privileged landowners or the ruling class, while the majority of farmers had limited access to land, inhibiting their economic growth and perpetuating inequality.

Conflict theorists contend that social stratification makes it harder for people to move up or down the social ladder by erecting obstacles to social mobility (Dahrendorf, 2017). Due to Ethiopia’s well-ingrained social hierarchy, which prevents those in lower social positions from rising above structural barriers, there is very little opportunity for social mobility (Donald, 1974; Phillipson, 1998). During the time of Ethiopia’s feudalism, which was ruled by Emperor Haile Selassie, we might observe a limited degree of social mobility connected to social stratification. The main way to determine one’s social standing was through land ownership, and a small elite class made up primarily of nobles and high-ranking bureaucrats owned enormous tracts of property.

During this period, a dominant group comprising ruling elites and aristocrats held power, while subordinate groups, such as slaves and peasants, were exploited. The ruling elites used their position of power to maintain control over resources and labor, further enhancing their dominance. Another example is the reign of Emperor Haile Selassie in Ethiopia during the 20th century. Haile Selassie belonged to the dominant group and exercised authority over subordinate groups, such as peasants and workers. The landownership system contributed to the unequal distribution of resources, benefiting the dominant group while the subordinate groups faced economic hardships and inequalities. In both of these examples, the consequences of social stratification based on conflict theory can be observed. The dominant groups in these historical contexts maintained power and privilege by exploiting and suppressing subordinate groups. These power dynamics fuelled social unrest, economic disparities, and tensions among different social classes, often resulting in conflicts and uprisings.

Landlessness and low social mobility perpetuated a cycle of poverty for many Ethiopians. Additionally, during this period, access to education was highly limited, and the few opportunities available were often reserved for the elite class, further reinforcing social inequality. This pattern of limited social mobility and social stratification continued even after the downfall of Emperor Selassie’s regime. In more recent times, socioeconomic inequalities persist due to factors such as the unequal distribution of resources, political power imbalances, and ethnic divisions. These factors contribute to the concentration of wealth and opportunities among specific groups, further limiting social mobility for others.

Intersectionality theory highlights how different social categories, such as ethnicity and religion, interact and shape social stratification (Davis, 2010). In Ethiopia, certain marginalized groups, such as ethnic minorities and individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, face multiple layers of discrimination and exclusion, leading to their continued marginalization within society. Akashoro, 2001).

The existence of marginalization for marginalized groups due to social stratification in Ethiopia can be analyzed through the lens of intersectionality theory. This theory recognizes that people can experience multiple forms of marginalization based on their intersecting identities, such as race, ethnicity, class, religion, and so on. In the context of Ethiopia, a country with a long and complex history, we can observe instances of marginalized groups throughout different periods. In ancient Ethiopia, social stratification existed primarily through a hierarchical system, with the ruling class being dominated by the monarchy and nobility. People of lower social classes, such as peasants and slaves, were marginalized and had limited access to resources and decision-making power.

In the 20th century, Ethiopia experienced significant political shifts, including the rule of Emperor Haile Selassie, the Marxist regime under Mengistu Haile Mariam, and subsequent transitions because of social stratification. Throughout these periods, marginalized ethnic groups, such as the Oromo, Tigrayans, and others, faced discrimination, economic disadvantages, and limited political representation. This was further exacerbated by ethnic tensions and conflicts, perpetuating marginalization and social inequalities.

The outcome demonstrates Ethiopia’s social stratification’s potential for social and political upheaval. Protests, rallies, and even confrontations are the result of feelings of animosity and inequity experienced by vast segments of society when they feel left out and excluded. Tensions in society resulted from the unhappiness caused by the unequal distribution of riches and authority. The arrival of Christianity throughout the Middle Ages strengthened social inequality even more. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church rose to prominence as a powerful organization with enormous resources. Social discontent was exacerbated and social inequality was increased by the church’s resource concentration and the feudal system.

In more recent history, Ethiopia has experienced significant political and social turmoil. The period of Emperor Haile Selassie’s rule (1930–1974) saw a wide disparity between the ruling elite and the majority of the population, particularly the peasantry. This growing inequality led to resentment and eventually culminated in a widespread revolt against the monarchy, known as the Ethiopian Revolution. Under the military regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam (1974–1991), conflict intensified due to the Marxist-Leninist approach, which aimed to remove class distinctions. However, this attempt at social transformation exacerbated tensions between different social groups, leading to civil war and political unrest.

4. Conclusion

From ancient times to the present, social stratification in Ethiopia has seen both changes and continuities. Social classes have existed in Ethiopia throughout its history, with the ruling class having a disproportionate amount of power and privilege (Assefa, 2010; Berhanu, 2004). The details of these divisions, their makeup, and the foundations for social stratification have changed over time. Social stratification in ancient Ethiopia was primarily determined by hereditary elements like lineage and nobility (Bogale & Shimelis, 2011). Aristocratic families maintained sway over the ruling classes and had complete control over the land and resources. A rigorous social structure was fostered in this era. As the Aksumite Empire expanded and Christianity spread throughout Ethiopia, societal stratification shifted more toward a religious perspective.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church expanded its power significantly, and clergy people played a crucial role in the development of the ruling elite. Inequality was maintained because of how important access to education and religious affiliations became as indicators of social rank. The Solomonic dynasty came to power in the middle Ages (Haile, 2017; Levine, 1974). The majority of the population was made up of peasants and farmers, while the aristocracy was made up mostly of royal relatives and high-ranking officials who enjoyed privileges and money. Land ownership was crucial to stratification since the nobles had control over abundant resources and accumulated riches from land cultivation.

From 1974 to 1991, Ethiopia was governed by the Derg dictatorship, a Marxist-Leninist system (Tareke, 2002; Waal, 2010). Attempts were undertaken to eradicate social stratification during this time by dispersing money and land in an effort to establish a classless society. The results were uneven, as inequality continued as a result of corruption and the ruling class’s consolidation of power.

Social inequality still exists in Ethiopia today, albeit with different dynamics. With the increase in urbanization and market-oriented development, economic stratification has taken on more significance. There are now differences between the urban elite and rural communities due to the emergence of a capitalist economy. Social status and economic chances are now mostly determined by factors such as access to education, work in the formal economy, and contemporary infrastructure (Marcus, 1975; Mesfin, 2009).

Ethiopian society and its leaders must identify and deal with the enduring problem of socioeconomic stratification. Ethiopia may work toward establishing more inclusive policies, guaranteeing equal opportunity for all individuals, and encouraging communication among all ethnic and socioeconomic groups. The only way for this ancient nation to truly overcome the limitations of social stratification and create a more egalitarian future for all of its residents is through a communal commitment to social justice and resource redistribution.

Acknowledgment

I appreciate my Colleague that initiates me to write this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Getahun Worku Tadesse

Getahun Worku Tadesse is a senior lecturer at Werabe University in the department of history and heritage management. He had five years of teaching experience. He got his bachelor degree in history and heritage management and his Masters of Art in historic archaeology. His research areas of interest are art history, social history, social archaeology, and heritage studies.