Mereja Forum

[Abere]

በዓለም ላይ ካሉ 195 አገራት ውስጥ 170 ወይም 87% የሚሆኑት አሃዳዊ ( መሆናቸወን ያውቃሉ? ቀሪዎቹ 13% ደግሞ ፌደራሊዝም።፡ የ3ኛ እና 4ኛ ክፍል ትምህርት ለበጠሱት የወያኔ እና ኦነግ ምሁራን ግን አሃዳዊ ማለት ስድብ ነው። ብዙሃኑን የአሃዳዊ ስርዐት ርዕዮት ያላቸውን እንደ ማሸማቀቂያ ይጠቀሙበታል። ስለ አሃዳዊ የሚሰጡት ትንታኔም ፍጹም አሃዳዊ ስርዐት ከሚከተላቸው መርሆች ውጭ እና ተጻራሪ ናቸው። አሃዳዊ ስርዐት በዲሞክራቲክ አዕማድ ላይ የተመሰረተ እና አስተማማኝ መረጋጋት እንድሁም የግለሰቦች ይሁን የቡድን መብት የተሻለ የሚያረጋግጥ ነው።

[Axumezana]

Talk is cheap!
Come up with a recommended structure for the diversified Ethiopia.

[Abere]

Well, TPLF/OLF's an only weird tribal federation (people's slaughter house) shall be towed away, first. Everyone will feel safe without it.

Talk is cheap!
Come up with a recommended structure for the diversified Ethiopia.

[sarcasm]

Most countries in the world are very small and have very small population. For example, small countries like Eritrea and Djibouti could find federalism more expensive than unitary systems. But most big counties with big populations (except China) are federalist. Although 13% countries are federalist, they actually hold 40% of the world population! If China has federal system like the rest of big countries, the world population in federalist countries would have been 58%. Federalism is a must to modern countries with big population.

The heading "170 countries or 87% countries are unitary" has to be put in perspective. 91 Countries out of 195, that is a whopping 47% countries in the world have populations less that Tigray's 7 million population! It is a sensible choice for them to remain unitary as their populations are very small and unitary sytem is relatively cheaper to run.


A Historical Perspective​


The United States is considered to be the world's oldest and longest enduring federal country. During the 20th century, the world experienced what federalism scholar Daniel J. Elazar has described as an ongoing "federalist revolution" where countries embroiled in internal conflict turn to federal arrangements as a potential alternative to fragmentation, violence, and centralized force. Today more than 40% of the world's population live in a country with at least some federal arrangement.

​

Why have so many countries turned to federalism? One possible explanation for the widespread re-appraisal of federal systems is because it "places a premium on negotiation and bargaining." Countries or nations that choose to adopt a federal system often do so not only because it is convenient, but because it offers a unique solution to the problem of sharing power, while also respecting the integrity and autonomy of the partners or sub-units.

​

The map below presents a historical progression of the development of federalism around the world. In 1900, only nine countries could be described as "federal," according to their own written constitutions. As of 2021 there are 27 countries with attributes that might be considered fully federal (these include a written constitution, which guarantees a division of power between central and regional governments; a bicameral legislature, which balances regional and demographic interests; and a certain degree of decentralized government):

Federal Countries around 1900
https://public.tableau.com/views/histor ... share_link


Map of Unitary vs. Federal Countries (Current System)

https://public.tableau.com/views/Unitar ... share_link

[Abere]

Most countries follow a unitary system of governance. Most countries in Africa except Nigeria in the West coast are unitray governments. I do not consider those in East Africa ( Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan), because these are textbook examples of failed states and their federal system is undefined or non-applicable - does not meet the conventional definition of Federal.

https://www.governmentvs.com/en/unitary ... odel-101-4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state

[sarcasm]

Most countries follow a unitary system of governance.

That is because most countries in the world have small population, and unitary systems are cheaper to run. 91 Countries out of 195, that is a whopping 47% countries in the world have populations less that Tigray's 7 million population! It is a sensible choice for them to remain unitary.


Ethiopia is one of the world's 11 most populous countries. And 9 out of worlds most populous 11 countries have federal system! Therefore, federalism should be seen a norm for Ethiopia, rather than what you depicting to show - an exception. Do you see your heading is misleading now?

Most countries in Africa except Nigeria in the West coast are unitray governments.

And what is the governance of most of African counties like? Terrible, really really terrible. Could the unitary system be one of the main reasons why Africans are suffering under brutal systems? It is a good topic to research if one is planning a PhD study.

[Abere]

sarcasm,
You are making the most ridiculous and silly argument by injecting population headcount into it. Neither population headcount nor geographic size matter in the choice of the system of government. The choice of government structure is quite qualitative and is not a per head per capita – there is no such a thing called per capita democracy or per capita democracy consumption. If geographic and population size are the single most useful criteria of choice of superior government system, why would not China be federal which accounted nearly 20% of the world population?

Please also know most of Africa’s problems are due to external hands not because of the choice of governance structure. Much of Africa’s painful conflict are endemic to in the West in Nigeria and East Africa (Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia – textbook examples of Failed states).
For the record, I am not saying one is superior over another, but most countries chose a unitary system while a few chose a federal system. However, regardless of the system of the government they both embody democracy in their own context. We observe that Federal states act in reality as unitary system and function as an organic whole. Likewise, Unitary system too work in reality as what federalist tout about.

But I want to also note that Ethiopia is neither Federal nor unitary system. It has undefined or inapplicable systems. If you really think TPLF’s/OLF’s tribal system is federal, you must cheat yourself. And you will pay more price down the road than what you already paid – by that I mean for those voiceless people of Tigray which you think your speaking on their behalf. TPLF’s system is documented in literature the peer system of the historic South African Apartheid. You are not talking neither of the valid government system functioning in the universe now, you are talking about ethnic apartheid. Please stop comparing apples with oranges. Lame excuse does not justify universal truth.

[sarcasm]

I agree with you that neither system is superior to the another. I also agree with you that both systems can embody democracy.

There is no reason for all countries of the world to have a federal form of government. It is suitable for some countries, but not for others. Countries that have found it preferable fall into five main categories, with some overlap :(Ethiopia ticks the top 3 criteria for choosing federal system.


(1) Countries that are geographically large : Russia, Canada, USA, Brazil, Australia, India, Argentina — that’s 7 of the world’s 8 largest nations geographically; only China is not officially a federation, and, in my opinion, would be a lot better off if it were to become one. Russia’s status is questionable : its Constitution defines it as one, but in practice, that appears to be pretty much a legal fiction.


(2) Countries that have a large population — i.e. >80 million : India, USA, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Russia, Mexico, Ethiopia, Germany. That’s 9 of the 16 with over 80 million — a figure I chose because it’s about 1% of the world’s population. Countries that are not federations : China, Indonesia, Japan, Bangladesh, Philippines, Egypt, Vietnam. Indonesia was a federation in the 1950s but changed to a unitary system. Politicians in Japan have been discussing the idea of changing to a federal system. As I mentioned under the first point, Russia’s inclusion is something of a legal fiction.


(3) Countries that are ethnically diverse, with ethnic boundaries largely corresponding to geographical boundaries : Russia, India, Iraq, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Nepal, Belgium, Bosnia, Switzerland. Of these, only Russia’s status is problematic. Former federations like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, which dissolved after the Cold War, were also in this category.


(4) Islands differentiated by distinct character : Federated States of Micronesia, St Kitts and Nevis, Comoros. The former Federation of the West Indies (1958–1962), which Britain tried to implement among its then-colonies in the Caribbean, was also in this category.


(5) Federated monarchies (allowing each federal unit to retain its own monarchy) : Malaysia, United Arab Emirates. In the latter case, the federation is, in practice, asymmetrical : Dubai and Abu Dhabi dominate the federation, with the remaining states having little say over federal affairs. The former German Empire (1871–1918) was in this category, too : most of its constituent states were monarchies which retained considerable local autonomy, but the federal government was, in practice, an extension of the government of just one state : Prussia.




https://www.quora.com/What-factors-dete ... ent-system

[Abere]

--- I am saying this again, population size is not a deterministic factor. There are small countries yet with diverse population groups – higher density of ethnic diversity within smaller geographic areas. And these countries necessarily do not pursue federalism. Similarly, there are racially more [deleted] group , but over vast territory they either follow federalism or unitary that suit to efficiency of administration and equity in resource mobilization. For instance, U.S. has vast territory with Black, Hispanic, etc. accounting for only smaller percentage and White accounting for the most across all states. And the U.S. federal system, as far as I can say is NOT based race or ethnicity it is based on geographical conveniency of administration and resource mobilization. Look, Ethiopia has almost an equivalent size of Texas, which is 1 out of the 50 states.

---- The most logical explanation why almost all European countries are unitary and most countries in the world are unitary too is: Most countries in the world were colonized by Europe and these independent countries kept continuing that legacy - as unitary system happened to be durable and stable governance structure - symbol of national sovereignty. Whereas a few of the colonies adopted the federal system. In this case, Ethiopia does not belong to either of these groups as it has never been colonized.

----- Anyway, what is important to Ethiopia is not the academic discussion of Federalism vs. Unitary or the political rhetoric about these concepts at this stage. We already saw the anomalous ""ethnic" federalism" has not worked for Ethiopia. No one can deny this fact. Even if TPLF and OLF insisted on it ,almost 100% of Amhara people rejected ethnic federalism. It is impossible for Ethiopia to move on while the largest population of the country rejecting. It is unacceptable to continue fighting indefinitely. After 50 years, we saw what happened to Tigray and the larger Ethiopia. So, what should be the solution? I believe the Tigray people did not ask TPLF to represent them (it has always been top bottom imposition). Now, we all see the real movement the bottom-up, Amhara revolution that wanted to demolish TPLF/OLF imposition which explicitly promulgated in their only two illegal document targeting Amhara.

[sarcasm]

Ethiopia is one of the world's 11 most populous countries. And 9 out of worlds most populous 11 countries have federal system! Therefore, federalism should be seen a norm for Ethiopia, rather than what you depicting to show - an exception. Do you see your heading is misleading now?

Another reason why federalism is natural for Ethiopia is historical. ኢትዮጵያ ከጥንቱ የታነጸችው በፌደራሊዝም ነበር ስሙ የንጉሠ ነገሥት ስርዓት አሉት እንጂ።

The Neguse Negest system is an organic federalist system devised by Ancient Tigrayans in Axum. The core foundations of the system are: respect for autonomy, respect for self-rule and respect for differences. Hence, the Abyssinia / Ethiopian Empire has always been a federalist arrangement.

The Neguse Negest system is a federalist system where the Neguses have autonomy on their territories and pay taxes to the Neguse Negest (federal government). The Neguse Negest looks after common defense and international relations. Actually, it looks like it was HSI who ended the federalist system when he fired the Neguses but still kept the Neguse Negest title. He introduced a centralized state system into a country that has always been a federalist structure. Mengistu continued the madness of unitary state which resulted in Eritrea's independence.

If Emperor Haileselassie had listened to Aklilu Habte-Wold's advice and extended federalism to the rest of Ethiopia in the 1950s; or Mengistu had listened to Gen. Aman Andom advice to reinstate federal relationship with Eritrea, the past 60 years of wars might have been avoided. But that is another topic.

The Isaias, Abiy & Amhara Elite / fake 'Ethiopianist' alliance have plunged the country into another bloody war after 30 years in order to re-install a centralized / unitary state system and end the existing Constitutional Federalism. Tigray has single-handedly defeated the Alliance and forced PM Abiy & his PP to commit to keep Constitutional Federalism.[/b