Ethiopian News and Opinion Forum


Ethiopia: Ethnic Federalism and Its Discontents By ICG

Postby revelations » 04 Sep 2009, 16:32


Africa Report N°153
4 September 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), led by its chairman and prime minister, Meles Zenawi, has radically reformed Ethiopia’s political system. The regime transformed the hitherto centralised state into the Federal Democratic Republic and also redefined citizenship, politics and identity on ethnic grounds. The intent was to create a more prosperous, just and representative state for all its people. Yet, despite continued economic growth and promised democratisation, there is growing discontent with the EPRDF’s ethnically defined state and rigid grip on power and fears of continued inter-ethnic conflict. The international community should take Ethiopia’s governance problems much more seriously and adopt a more principled position towards the government. Without genuine multi-party democracy, the tensions and pressures in Ethiopia’s polities will only grow, greatly increasing the possibility of a violent eruption that would destabilise the country and region.

The endeavour to transform Ethiopia into a federal state is led by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which has dominated the coalition of ethno-nationalist parties that is the EPRDF since the removal in 1991 of the Derg, the security services committee that overthrew Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974. The EPRDF quickly institutionalised the TPLF’s policy of people’s rights to self-determination and self-rule. The federal constitution ratified in 1994 defined the country’s structure as a multicultural federation based on ethno-national representation.

The government has created nine ethnic-based regional states and two federally administered city-states. The result is an asymmetrical federation that combines populous regional states like Oromiya and Amhara in the central highlands with sparsely populated and underdeveloped ones like Gambella and Somali. Although the constitution vests all powers not attributed to the federal government in them, the regional states are in fact weak.

The constitution was applauded for its commitment to liberal democracy and respect for political freedoms and human rights. But while the EPRDF promises democracy, it has not accepted that the opposition is qualified to take power via the ballot box and tends to regard the expression of differing views and interests as a form of betrayal. Before 2005, its electoral superiority was ensured by the limited national appeal and outreach of the predominantly ethnically based opposition parties. Divided and disorganised, the reach of those parties rarely went beyond Addis Ababa. When the opposition was able to challenge at local, regional or federal levels, it faced threats, harassment and arrest. With the opportunity in 2005 to take over the Addis Ababa city council in what would have been the first democratic change of a major administration in the country’s history, the opposition withdrew from the political process to protest flaws in the overall election.

The EPRDF did not feel threatened until the 2005 federal and regional elections. The crackdown that year on the opposition demonstrated the extent to which the regime is willing to ignore popular protest and foreign criticism to hold on to power. The 2008 local and by-elections went much more smoothly, in large part because the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) was absorbed with internal and legal squabbles, and several other parties withdrew after their candidates experienced severe registration problems. The next federal and regional elections, scheduled for June 2010, most probably will be much more contentious, as numerous opposition parties are preparing to challenge the EPRDF, which is likely to continue to use its political machine to retain its position.

Despite the EPRDF’s authoritarianism and reluctance to accept genuine multi-party competition, political positions and parties have proliferated in recent years. This process, however, is not driven by democratisation or the inclusion of opposition parties in representative institutions. Rather it is the result of a continuous polarisation of national politics that has sharpened tensions between and within parties and ethnic groups since the mid-1990s. The EPRDF’s ethnic federalism has not dampened conflict, but rather increased competition among groups that vie over land and natural resources, as well as administrative boundaries and government budgets.

Furthermore, ethnic federalism has failed to resolve the “national question”. The EPRDF’s ethnic policy has empowered some groups but has not been accompanied by dialogue and reconciliation. For Amhara and national elites, ethnic federalism impedes a strong, unitary nation-state. For ethno-national rebel groups like the ONLF (Ogaden National Liberation Front; Somalis in the Oga­den) and OLF (Oromo Liberation Front; the Oromo), ethnic federalism remains artificial. While the concept has failed to accommodate grievances, it has powerfully promoted ethnic self-awareness among all groups. The international community has ignored or downplayed all these problems. Some donors appear to consider food security more important than democracy in Ethiopia, but they neglect the increased ethnic awareness and tensions created by the regionalisation policy and their potentially explosive consequences.

Nairobi/Brussels, 4 September 2009

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6300&l=1




Re: Ethiopia: Ethnic Federalism and Its Discontents By ICG

Postby revelations » 05 Sep 2009, 12:54


Comment: The ICG article is not really an in-depth exploration of ethnic federalism in Ethiopia, but rather a summary of recent political trends. An in-depth evaluation of ethnic federalism is needed. The TPLF has applied Soviet nationality theory to Ethiopia to create the new federation. Several problems with this are apparent:

The Soviets followed a policy of "nationalist in form, but socialist in substance." In other words, states were to be organized on an ethno-national basis, but the governance of each "nation-state" was to be based on Marxist principles. These principles focused on class struggle and the solidarity of working class people all over the world. The Marxists were expecting all states in the world to disappear within a matter of decades.

Form - The TPLF copied the definition of a nation from an essay that Stalin wrote in 1913. You can still find it on the Marxists.org website: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... 913/03.htm. Compare it to the definition in the last paragraph of Article 39 of the Ethiopian constitution.

The problem here is that our understanding of ethnicity and ethnic nations has expanded greatly since 1913. Nationalism had only emerged as a force in the mid 1800s. The notion that state boundaries should be congruent with ethnic nations began in Western Europe where populations were comparatively [deleted] (though still diverse). Attempts to apply the concept to Eastern Europe foundered as the area was ethnically heterogenous. Large-scale ethnic cleansing resulted (e.g. Greece-Turkey at the turn of the century, World War II, and the Yugoslav conflict). Applying this concept to heterogenous areas of Ethiopia where the moderating influence of cross-cultural civil society groups is repressed by the state, could set the stage for interminable ethnic conflicts.

Early scholars viewed the nation as a fixed, "primordial" group. Today most scholars take the "constructivist" view, stressing that individuals hold multiple identities, and that these identities change over time, and the nation itself changes. Yet in Article 8, the Ehiopian constitution assigns sovereignty not to the individual Ethiopian, but to these assumed ethnic nations. Thus the fate of individual Ethiopians was fixed once the TPLF drew up the list of ethnic nations and their territories in 1994. This inflexible arrangement violates the basic concept of individual sovereignty, is inconsistent with the modern world, and limits the ability of Ethiopians to adapt their society to changing circumstances.

Substance - The Soviet era ended at the same time the TPLF took power. But Meles and his group had no other basis of knowledge. They replicated the Soviet format, but what was to be the governing substance now that Marxism was obsolete? The TPLF has failed to articulate why the nations, nationalities and peoples should stick together. On the contrary, it has stressed the negative history of Ethiopia, and created mechanisms to drive the people apart.

The TPLF applied ethnic federalism in an inconsistent manner. Three of the nine federal states are officially multi-ethnic (although internally they are ethnically divided). Another state - Harar - has a population of less than 200,000 - smaller than most "nations nationalities, and peoples" that were not granted full federal status. The constitution states that every nation (as defined by TPLF/Stalin) has the right to its own state. Thus one can expect a future filled with long battles as each of Ethiopia's approx 80 "nations, nationalities, and peoples" tries to exercise its full rights. This struggle wiil not be peaceful.

The secession of Eritrea blatantly contradicts the spirit of the constitution. Why did the TPLF not assert its right to speak for Tigrinya speakers in Eritrea? Regional identity? If the TPLF recognized a regional identity in the Eritrean case why not in Ethiopia. Similarly in Somalia, the TPLF has supported a regional building blocks approach to reconstructing the Somali state. But within Ethiopia, this approach is not recognized and all Somali's are ethnically - and hence politically - pre-defined as belonging to a single nation. Finally, if regional identities that supercede ethnic identites are found in neighboring countries, presumably they exist in areas of Ethiopia too. Dont these identities have a right to recognition in the Ethiopian constitution?

CONCLUSION - We need a practical federation, not an incoherent ethnic federation. Under a practical federation, some states could be ethnic, some could be regional (multi-ethnic). They could be based on historical entites. But most importantly they should be based on the sovereign will of the individual citizen. Pragmatism should govern the constitution, not outdated grand theories of human social organization.

http://www.geocities.com/~dagmawi/Zebenya/Zebenya.html



Return to Ethiopian News & Opinion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Ego, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, haileteka, MSNbot Media, norge, taciturn, Yahoo [Bot]