Did Ethnic Federalism Save Ethiopia?

By: Samuel M. Gebru

February 16, 2011

1991 is an important year in modern Ethiopian history. The year served as a monumental change for Ethiopia, from military rule to a transitional government that pledged to bring about social democracy. What saved Ethiopia in 1991 was ethnic federalism. But is it helping Ethiopia today? What lessons can our African neighbors learn from our experience? Can Ethiopia improve its federal framework?

Ethiopia is largely regarded to as an influential state actor in regional and continental politics. With Addis Ababa serving as host of the African Union and one of the top diplomatic capitals of the world, Ethiopia yields influence beyond its borders and the African continent. After almost two decades of a brutal military rule, Ethiopia reopened its borders when Colonel Mengistu Hailemariam’s government crumbled down in 1991.

By mid-1991, transitional President and leader of the northern rebels that toppled the military government, Meles Zenawi, promised sweeping reforms geared at keeping Ethiopia intact. Despite its shortcomings, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) did achieve some degree of representation from various ethnic, political and intellectual movements.

During this tense year, warring ethnic groups began voicing strong calls for secession from the Ethiopian union. Interestingly, Ethiopia remains one of the oldest polities in the world. The new political arrangement that the TFG adopted in its 1995 Constitution under the “Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia” was a parliamentary republic based on ethnic federalism. New borders were drawn up, dividing Ethiopia into nine states and two federally chartered cities. The TFG’s reasoning in choosing nine states was based off their method of figuring out what ethno-linguistic group could be grouped with others. The grouping took the term of “nations, nationalities and peoples.”

In a January 7, 2011 Reuters article, “Federalism in Ethiopia helps maintain unity,” by Aaron Maasho, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who has been leading the government since 1995 as Prime Minister and since 1991 as transitional President, stated that Ethiopia’s “balkanization” was avoided by ethnic federalism. The Prime Minister is correct in stating that Ethiopia was saved through ethnic federalism, granting autonomy to the “nations, nationalities and peoples.”

However, to what extent Ethiopia was “saved” remains the question. Critics would argue that the right to secession as provided in Article 39 Section 1 does more harm than good. The line reads: “Every Nation, Nationality and People in Ethiopia has an unconditional right to self-determination, including the right to secession.” Critics also argue that while the ethnic federalism framework in theory would greatly benefit Ethiopia, it is misused often by the authoritarian nature of the Ethiopian government. The most interesting claim is that the ruling party, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), purposefully included Section 1 of Article 39 to ensure Eritrea’s legal secession in 1993. This claim is practically, and perhaps even correctly, viewed as an open secret.

Ethnic federalism has indeed saved Ethiopia from destruction particularly as the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) both continue to wage an armed secessionist movement in southern and southeastern Ethiopia. It allows previously marginalized societies the right to self-determination and self-governance; to speak their own language, to learn their own ethnic and cultural history.

For ethnic federalism to continue in Ethiopia today, political, social, economic and intellectual leaders need to come together and engage in conversations with both each other and the Ethiopian citizenry as to how to go about devising a new strategy forward. Conversations about ethnicity, identity, nationality and patriotism also need to be held in the villages of Ethiopia’s rural regions, where 85% of the population resides; in the public and private institutions of higher learning, students must be challenged to confront the issues facing their society daily, from poverty to democracy. If the current system continues, it won’t be surprising to see stronger opposition against Article 39 and perhaps the reinforcement of existing secessionist groups.

Allowing the “nations, nationalities and peoples” their rights to self-determination will continue to help Ethiopia move forward so as long as the practice of ethnic federalism is kept in line with its original intentions of promoting democracy and not nepotism or confusion over secession. Ethiopia’s neighbors, perhaps most prominently the Republic of Sudan, could and can still learn from its experiment with ethnic federalism. Had the Arab-dominated government of Sudan respected the ethnic identity and political, economic and social rights of the people of Southern Sudan, the world could have seen very different results from the recently held referendum.

Improving Ethiopia’s federal framework will undoubtedly take time before all sides of the political and social discourse can be “convinced” of mature and thoughtful dialogue for the country’s long-term development. It is evident that having comprehensive dialogues should be in the best interest of both the ruling party and the opposition parties. Ultimately, the growth of democracy, the promotion of education and equitable and sustainable economic development is what will continue to “save” Ethiopia.

History has shown that when Ethiopians view each other as partners, they are able to achieve wonders. As the Ethiopian proverb goes, “A partner in the business will not put an obstacle to it.”