Ever since 1991, Ethiopia has departed from the old unitary form of state and has been implementing language based federalism. According to Articles 1 and 47 of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the country is a federation of nine ethno-linguistically divided regional states.
Equally important, Ethiopian ethno-linguistic federalism is calculated to deal with the national question (a well-advocated name for the 1960s Addis Ababa University struggle against ethno-linguistic domination) that prevailed for centuries and oppressed the identities, languages and cultural heritages of the various Nations, Nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia.
The famous Walleligne Mekonnen from the Addis Ababa University was considered to be one of the architects of the “national question” with the pioneers like Tilahun Gizaw back in 1960s against the imperial regime. He used to advocate that the only medicine to save Ethiopia from breakdown is addressing the nation question and create Ethiopia where all nations’, nationalities’ and peoples’ identity, language and culture could be equally respected.
Rightly, the current EPRDF can be said that it is the product of the 1960 Addis Ababa University based popular struggle against all forms of national oppression. In this regard, I do not see any meaningful differences between Walleligne Mekonnen and the current federal system arrangement. Had Walleligne been alive by now, he would have been pleased.
Hence, the current federal system was introduced as a result of the ethnic right struggle which toppled the highly centralized regimes prevailed for centuries.
The general concept of Federal system
Federal form of state contrary to unitary form of state sharply, in general, is a system of governance with diverse features of state power-sharing. The most globally notable characteristic of federalism is that power is not given to regional states from the center, as in the case of a unitary system. Rather, the central government is delegated by, and gains its power from the regions.
In federalism, the federal government is not the creator of its own power, for the decisive power rests in the constituent unities – in our case, the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples. Federal system is decentralized -the opposite of unitary system which is centralized one.
Logically speaking, in federal system, all nations and nationalities have fair and equal rights in the decision making process of the country. No ethnic group is superior or inferior in the system. These are the typical features of federal system globally and the system is considered as better form of government for ethnically diverse countries like ours.
Expectedly, 45% of the world populations live under federal states including the hugely diverse countries like USA, India, Brazil, Canada, Nigeria and Ethiopia etc. It is commonly understood that countries under federal system are relatively peaceful and democratic.
What is more unique in the Ethiopian federal case is that article 39 of the constitution which grants any nations the right to establish independent state. Of course, secession could only be exercised through long and stringent procedural requirements and if nations are guaranteed constitutionally, there is no will to go away.
The Ethiopian federalism: realities and perceptions
As is discussed above, the current federals system has the existing stable political progress, fast economic and social advancement. However, with all the current major achievements combined, there are serious limitations.
And, even if Ethiopia was left without a single choice other than introducing the current federal system; it did not escape of both negative and positive criticisms.
There, thus, two strong opposing views regarding the federal state: The pro-unitary state and the other being pro-the current federal arrangement. Precisely, the pro-federal systems are of the opinion that the Federal Constitution is not being put into action entirely.
The proponents of pro-unitary system are of the opinion that the current federal system which gives equal footing to all ethnic groups constitutionally is against the unity of the country.
Thus, some scholars and opposing politicians have stated that the authorization of federalism was a “historical mistake” because it is intended to threaten “unity” and will “totally divide” the country.
These are the very people who favor unitary form of state and suspect the federal system as mechanisms conspired to undo the assimilation policies massively realized by the prior regimes. However, many Ethiopians suspect them of intending to carry on an ethnic-domination over the rest in the name of unity. But, it will be wrong to completely ignore their concern of unity and label them as pro-prior regimes.
Other than criticizing the system, they could not, however, provide better and convincing alternatives. Thus, they are simply fault finder scholars. They, I believe, might have positive advises on the issue of unity and letting them be heard is the best option.
It should be known that 99% of the Ethiopian nations and nationalities believe that the current federalism is the sole assurance of the state and tend to fight anything which attempts to restore the past unitary form of state. Therefore, the two opposing views in this country are extremely antagonistic in nature.
The pro-unitary state assumes that the Ethno-linguistic federalism is destructive and is against the unity of the country. However, there is no historical record in theory or in action that the system by itself is naturally against unity.
Contrary to their assumptions, rather is believed globally as better system to unify a diverse country based on will and trust. Federalism does not inevitably cause ethnic conflict. Well, if it is not handled well, however, it can cause disintegrations.
A number of scholars also have explained concerns that the implementation of federalism was aimed at marking ethno-linguistic identity and cause splits. In Ethiopia, however, ethno linguistic identities were already deeply imprinted before the adoption of ethno-linguistic federalism in 1994, as a result of the ethno-linguistic domination that had existed for so long.
Hence, the argument that the introduction of the federalism system created new ethnic based conflicts in Ethiopia does not hold water. Since, there were more than 17 ethnic based armed forces fighting against domination even before the adaptation of the current system.
Rightly, the current system was adapted to address the century old national questions.
If federalism based on language was against unity or a system that causes conflicts, Switzerland, Belgium and Canada would have not been excellent examples of the system. Therefore, they are in sharp contrast to the real world.
And, more importantly, realties on the ground speak loudly that Ethiopians are more unified (regardless of shortcomings here and there) than before thanks to the federal system.
The pro-federal disagree with the pro-unitary system providing that, by legitimizing ethnicity as the only valid marker for membership of a homeland regional state, the only way out to see peaceful Ethiopia. “Politicized ethno-cultural communities are not new products of Ethiopian ethno-linguistic federalism. Rather, ethno-linguistic federalism is an outcome of the old mobilization and struggles of politicized ethno-cultural communities”, argues Dr. Mahari Tadele while responding to those who say that federalism is producing localized conflicts.
This politicization of ethno-linguistic groups, or the ethnicisation of Ethiopian politics, he adds, is not a one-day event due to promulgation of the Federal Constitution; it is, instead, a product of Ethiopia’s long political history.
Nonetheless, what is new is that now ethnically-based political mobilization and power-sharing is constitutionally legitimized. Linguistic communities, but also are entities bearing sovereignty with constitutional standing. In a nutshell, Ethiopian ethno-linguistic federalism is a response to the “unfavorable conditions” that prevailed in a unitary system, he concludes.
The, the pro-federal, outlooks ethnic based federalism as a means to intensification unity, and they support diversity for the sake of unity. Dr. Mahari may call them calculative federalists.
The unitarists see the federal system against the assimilation policy that they believe is good to the unity of the country. This line of thought is similar to the theory of cultural assimilation, which encourages the absorption of minorities into the dominant culture.
It is contrary to the principle of multiculturalism which treats all to be equally flourished. Each of these positions has legitimate concerns that demand serious consideration – but not equally.
The strong position held by the unitarists is even dangerous to unity. They wrongly want us believe them that only a unitary system will guarantee the unity of the country. But such position has led countries to fall apart.
This wicked view could lead to policy of forced assimilation –could cause total disrespect to democratic rights, group injustice and huge human rights violation, including ethnic cleansing and genocide which eventually heralds the end of the country as it was about to happen during the Derg regime.
History has convinced us that federal system, if wisely handled, is possibly the finest of all the alternatives for unity with peace and equality. Federalism, as an instrument for conflict management – a political solution to a political concern – and as a tool to contain disintegrative forces and to create a balance between the forces of unity and of diversity is tested globally practically.
The special advantage of the Ethiopian federalism
What is more unique to the Ethiopian federalism is that the (phrase/article 39) right to self-determination up to secession, serves as a brake on any form of attempts of a unitarist regime towards the tyrannical and discriminatory treatment of nationalities. It is aimed at making sure that no government will be able to create one ethnic-domination over others as before.
Any regime who aspires to restore unitary type of system to undo the current article would be politically costly. More dangerously is that any attempt to undo the stated article would put the unity of the country at threat which can eventually lead the threatened nationalities could be forced to use their constitutional right to secession.
Expectedly, the various Ethiopian nationalities are guaranteed under the federal system and it could be said that the current Ethiopia is based on the spirit of all Ethiopians. This is called unity based on will.
Limitations of the federal arrangement
Other limitations, talked about over, are attributable to the childishness of the federal system. The main troubles can, however, best be illustrated as ones of execution, understanding, legal interpretation and shortcomings. The inherently undemocratic culture and submissive behavior of the people inherited from past autocratic regimes could also be major obstacles.
Nonetheless, it will be a misleading approach the democratizing of the culture of all parties– especially that of the ruling EPRDF – is essential if the federal arrangement is to work out healthy. The father of the federal system, EPRDF itself – has been one of the obstacles knowingly or not.
The organizational culture of the very party – democratic centralism and centralised party structure- undermined the federal system. Dr. Mahari rightly stated that the political constitution of EPRDF effectively antagonizes the federal system it has built.
In short, “democratic centralism is an antithesis of federalism”. For instance, regional state presidents are more accountable to the party than to their election constituents or parliaments. These practices are virtually seen in the last 25 years negatively contributing to the functioning of the federal arrangement.
The gradual consequence, however, can be shocking for the unity of the country when such strong party control weakens the federal government. As a result, some regional states may fall into the hands of extreme nationalist officials, distinguished scholars warned.
Scholars of federal system and concerned politicians should conduct extensive debates on the current realities on open Medias. Thus, the public would be well aware of the system governing them.
Hence, the scholars, opposing politicians and the public at large should play very vital role in strengthening the federal based statehood process. The government officials must understand the shortcomings pointed out during the debate and they should lean to correct them. Hence, Medias in deepening the federal system is indeed vital in this country.
Recommendations
I, hereby, recommend academicians, political parties and officials should openly debate on Media regarding the disadvantage and advantage of the current federal system by taking lessons from other federal states so that they could be able to correct shortcomings and deepen good practices.
Extensive trainings on the conduct and behavior of federal system should be offered to higher and middle officials so that they can rightly commit to implement it. I can see officials lacking the knowledge of federalism.
While addressing historical grievances due to previous exclusionist regimes and rejecting any new political tendencies to bring back the old regimes of discrimination and exclusion, much has to be done in championing commonly appreciated and accepted legacies. In this regard, a deliberate policy of promoting consensus and unity in diversity around positive historic legacies has to be designed and implemented.
The victory of Adwa, Ethiopia’s tolerance and historical acceptance of all major religions, etc. could serve as unifying historical symbols for Ethiopia. The acknowledgement of the iconic leaders and emperors of Ethiopia would contribute much to a unifying project.
**************
Leave a Comment