Geographic Federalism Versus Ethical Federalism Debates in Ethiopia

Introduction

The Ethics based federal system is a new phenomenon in the Ethiopia political scenario it starts after the down full of Dreg regime and the coming of EPDRF in 1994. Article 39 of the constitution of Ethiopia grants nations, nationalities, and peoples to have an unrestricted right to self- determination up to secession these is dialog among many Ethiopian scholars. This current political system recognized the presence of multiplicity of ethnic identity and taken it as a main political value for the present Ethiopia. But in contrast, there are writers who argue in favor of ethnic federalism and its importance in accommodation of diversity in a country where there are highly divided societies. Hence, the Ethics based federal system brought a self-effacing peace and stability so that the economy of the state arguably registered a double digit growth for the last two decades. As time goes, for the past two decades, however, unmanageable problem has been emerged throughout the country. A continuous claim for recognition of new identity, high potential for secessionist demand, problem of democratization on of internal territory between ethno-nationalist region, and the issue of irredentism, and indigenous-settler dichotomy brought all-encompassing and stretched conflict between different ethnic groups which become the cause for the causality of human life and destruction of resources. This article therefore tries to assess geographical federalism versus Ethics debates on Ethiopian scenario by showing the weakness of ethic federalism in Ethiopia in decentralization, national unity and socio Economic developmental factor in Ethiopian scenario and compare with geographical settlement political scenario of Ethiopia in the previous history. This argumentative essay organized as introduction, body and conclusion. The data used is secondary data like journal, book and previous research, observation of the real situation, use constitution and other legal document as reference.

Background of Federalism

Johannes Althusius, the father of modern federalism, thought autonomy of his city Emden and create the first thinking about federalism and he has enjoyed the good fortune in recent times of frequent notice in political, theological, sociological, and historical writings. He wrote a book on politics. Several other jurist consults opposed him, because he argued that the sovereignty of the state belonged to the people. According to Eliza (1987), the term “Federalism” originated from the Latin term “Foedus”, meaning “Covenant”. For Börzel, federalism “refers to a spatial or territorial division of power between two or more levels of government in a given political System. Beside him, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1863) defended federalism as the best way he to retain individual liberty within natural communities such as families and guilds who enter pacts among themselves for necessary and specific purposes. Federalism involves a territorial division of power between constituent units sometimes called provinces, cantons, regions, possibly cities and states, and the central government (Watts, 2000). Duchacek (1977) claimed that “democracy and federalism are always found together and that federalism is a territorial dimension of democracy. According to Hagmann and Abbink, 2011, every federation is unique and federalism is not always the best way forward. Furthermore, there is no best version of federalism and no formula for it to succeed.

Geographical (Territorial Federalism)

We now proceed to discuss what may be called the 'geography of federalism'. Although most political geographers now regard federalism as the most geographically expressive of all political systems, so far little attention has been given by geographers (or anyone else) to explain the geographical basis of the federalism. In fact, the concept of federalism as a polity based essentially on regionally grouped diversities, and to whose writings much of the recent interest in federalism by geographers is due, himself described the concept as sociological rather than geographical. The result is that students of federalism in general have wondered whether, indeed, provided us with a useful tool for analysis. (Hugo Preuss, 1889) There are two reasons why federalism is considered as the most geographically expressive of all forms of government. First, it is based on the existence of regional differences or a sense of locality, 'the belief that the area in which one lives is different from other areas, even though, contiguity with them may provide many interests in common'. Federalism has been described as the process by which a widening sense of social and political solidarity is reconciled with the attachment for local identity, through the provision of dual political organization. (D. G. Karve, 1932) Secondly, because of a sort of 'dual' political organization and the grant of substantial regional autonomy the regions in a federal State remain highly articulate. This means that spatial interactions in a federal State, unlike in other forms of government, are most clearly and easily recognized.

Now because of federalism starts with a tacit recognition of the immutability of regional personalities, and because of spatial interactions in the political life of federal States are most clearly recognized, federalism becomes a suitable. (HugoPress, 1889) The basic geographical premise of federalism is the existence of regionally grouped diversities; no government has ever been called federal that has been organized on any other but regional basis. 'Federalism becomes nothing if it is held to embrace diversities that are not territorially grouped'. (E. L.Ullman, 1953) It is also true that regional differences, or strong sense of locality may sometimes exist even in States that are not organized on federal basis. But the main fact to be remembered is that only when the sociological unit of the region is powerful enough to demand and receive social accounts does federalism become inevitable. Once very diverse regions with very strong regional identities may be found joined together under a single unitary State where even though regional identities continue to be present, through a long process of adjustment the cultural or sociological unit of the region has ceased to demand accounts. This happens when the regions concerned were brought together by imperial conquest and the region or the regions in question were not in a position to assert the recognition of their special position.

A further reason why even very clearly identifiable regions in a unitary State are not able to demand social accounts in the manner that regions in a federal country are that while in a federal State regional identities are respected and protected by the Constitution which guarantees the claim of each component unit of the State to perpetuate its identity, in a unitary system, to the contrary, these differences and diversities are large. in modern federalism it is essentially a form of government appropriate to new lands with vast area and thin population, is valid in the sense that every new political and administrative experiment has a better chance of success in new and relatively empty lands where people do not have a long history to remember, and where strong and conflicting cultural identities in the component. All modern federations were, at their inception, political unions covering unprecedentedly huge areas with scattered centers of population and comparatively underdeveloped communications and federalism seemed the necessary form of government primarily for this reason. (R.S.Parker, 1949)

Therefore, territorial federalism is mimicking the Federal-State Relationship. That is formally reaching only the relationship between the federal government and the states. For decades, a largely overlooked form of federalism has had a significant influence on the political lives of millions citizens and nationals as the federal government with Congress at the helm and the territories have moved toward mimicking the federal-state relationship to varying degrees and in varying ways. Such mimicry, a product of the devolution of power to the territorial capitals, has created a form of functional territorial federalism that has flourished outside the traditional mold’s formal legal limits. This article therefore tries to assess geographical federalism versus Ethics debates on Ethiopian scenario by showing the weakness of ethic federalism in Ethiopia in decentralization, national unity and socio Economic developmental factor in Ethiopian scenario and compare with geographical settlement political scenario of Ethiopia in the previous history.

History of Geographical (Territorial) Federalism In Ethiopia

Ethiopia is one of the ancient countries of the world with a long history of independent State hood. Conventionally, the historical foundation of the Ethiopian state goes back at least three thousand years. The mythology begins in the days of the Old Testament, and the reign of King Solomon of Israel and Queen of Sheba of Ethiopia in the tenth century B.C. According to this legend the Queen while paying a visit to the King of Israel conceived a baby who latter become a King. This legend has in fact been propagated by church and state and served as a powerful source of legitimization by the subsequent Ethiopian monarchs. In spite of Ethiopia’s recognition as written history for three thousand years the current geographical boundary is a recent phenomenon. The modern Ethiopian state emerged at the second half of the 19th century with the ascension of Tewodros (1855-1868). This heralded the emergence of the country out of two centuries of decline and endless squabble between provisional rulers (Bahru, 1991: 11; Teshale 1995:30). Tewodros initiated the while twin imperial policies of modernisation and centralization (Teshale 1995). After him Menelik (1889-1913) who managed to control the imperial throne after Yohannes’s death at the battle of Metema in 1889.Followed the twin imperial policies of modernisation and centralisation. He in particular undertook a series of military conquests expanding the frontiers of the country to the south, west and east (Bahru 1991: 60). Indeed, his lasting Legacy has been the emergence of Ethiopia with its present geographic shape, capital and ethnic makeup. The battle of Adwa (1896) in which Ethiopian forces defeated the Italians led to international recognition of the boundaries of the country (Ibid). Amid the intensification of the emperor’s resolve for centralisation of power, Eritrea joined with Ethiopia in 1952 under a United Nations (UN) sanctioned federal arrangement. The Ethio-Eritrea federation (1952-1962) was more of an autonomous arrangement than a federation, as Eritrea that had a liberal constitution that recognized limited rights of freedom of association and speech became part of a highly centralized state with guarantees of self-rule. In the end, the constitutional asymmetry between the two contributed to the demise of the federation in 1962 (Markakis 1974: 362).

Ethical Federalism and The Weakness Of Ethnicity In Ethiopia

As indicated in the introduction part the Ethics based federal system is a new phenomenon in the Ethiopia political scenario it starts after the down full of Dreg regime and the coming of EPDRF in 1994. The 1994 constitution states that the federal and regional governments are required to respect the power of one another (Art. 50(8)). It establishes a federal state structure composed of two distinct entities, the federal state and the regional entities. Both the federal and regional states establish their own institutional organs, legislative, executive and judicial bodies and exercise autonomous power within their sphere of influence. It recognizes nine regional states and two city administrations. These include Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Oromia, Somali, Benishangul-Gumuz, Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples, Gambela and Harari, and Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa city administrations. Regional states are divided hierarchically into zones, woredas, special-woredas and kebeles. However, the interference of the federal government on the regional states, and the interference of state organs especially the executive in other organs at both regional and federal state level are tacitly established in the federal constitution and observed in the practical implementation of the ruling government.

However, the implementation of Ethnic-based federalism for the last two decades in Ethiopia has produced polarizing debates among scholars and practitioners. Some of the scholar supports the fact and some other does not. For example, Erk and Anderson (2009) mention the advantage of ethnic federalism as they said the long-term effects of self-administration in promoting ethnic consciousness that strengthens distinctiveness, feelings of in-group and out group and providing institutional backup for competing nationalists to eventual secession. In spite of the rationality of the federal administration in managing the complex ethno-linguistic diversity of the country and reducing conflicts; ethnic competition and conflicts are still critical challenges in the country. Ethic federal structure is responsible for many communal and identity conflicts. These conflicts are associated with issues related to self-determination/secession, the politics of resource sharing, political power, representation, identity, citizenship, ethnic and regional boundaries and others.

According to Abbink, 2011, ethnically defined administrations violate political liberties, human rights and economic equality and Federalism Based on ethnicity has been a failure and federalism has kept the poor in poverty, denied Ethiopians liberty rights and good governance and has planted mistrust between ethnic groups. And these circumstances stop the different ethnic groups from organizing themselves and pose any challenge to the ruling party and also critically examine this question by considering the potential benefits and pitfalls of using ethnicity as a basis for defining political subdivisions in a Federal system. (He said that Granting self-administration to dominant ethnic groups thus created new minorities.) This has been particularly acute for Amharas and Gurages, who live in cities and across the country. Because ethnically defined administrations violate political liberties, human rights and economic equality. he also said that ethnicity has squeezed out Ethiopianism, focuses too much on group rights and neglects individual liberty Rights such as respect for ethnic groups, culture, language and gender equality are given due consideration while individuals are harassed, intimidated, detained, imprisoned, exiled and killed. What should be underlined in this regard is that, as can be seen from the lessons in the past and the present political impasse, marginalizing a majority and hoping to democratize and decentralize at the same time is a contradiction.

Furthermore, according to political analyst Teshome and Záhorík, 'Zenawism' contradicts the political philosophy behind the African Union, in that every African nation agreed to keep the colonial boundaries after independence despite multiple tribes being placed together within national borders. In contrast, Zenawism is accused of promoting separatism and irredentism and may encourage African tribes to aim for their own independent states. The narrowed regional and local citizenship to the level of primordial ethnicity frequently led to conflict between the titular and the non-titular groups (Abbink, 2011). The risk of discrimination among regional states with one big majority (Somali, Oromiya, Tigray, Amhara and Afar) and regional states lacking such an ethnic majority (Benishangul-Gumuz, the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State) and regional states of titular minority (Harari) is highly critical. The political rights of those non-indigenous people are undermined and overridden by group rights (Gebremichael, 2012).

Following the introduction of ethno-federalism and political manipulation of ethnic identity by local cadres, the relationship among those ethnic groups exposed to confrontation and violence. The involvement of local politicians has been visible after the 2005 national elections in Gida-Kiramu woreda in Wollega, where a few thousand Amhara farmers were chased, their land was confiscated and they were forced to take refuge elsewhere (Abbink, 2006). Similarly, the Amhara ethnic group has been evacuated from Guraferda Woreda with the ethnic based self-administration as per the contradicting principles of Ethiopian constitution. Many of the Oromo, Amhara, Tigray and other outsiders have been intimidated and forcefully displaced from Benishangul Gumuz and Gmabela regional states as per the principle of self-determination recognized by the EPRDF constitution (Adimassu, 2013). These forced migrations of non-residents and subsequent violence of basic human and democratic rights, death, and confiscation of property were often caused by ethnic competition and confrontation over local resources and political positions. Adimassu underlined that this political action violates the right to freedom of movement and residence including the right to freedom from forced displacement and evictions mentioned in the EPRDF constitution and civil code, criminal code, and immigration law of Ethiopia.

In addition to these cases some scholars (e.g. Teshome and Záhorík, 2008), said that ethnic federalism accentuates ethnic conflicts, facilitates secession, and eventually leads to the disintegration of countries. It could overemphasize centrifugal forces at the expense of centripetal ones as shown practically in the Soviet Union (1991), Yugoslavia (1991) and Czechoslovakia (1993) where federalism failed to prevent countries from disintegration.

The Ethics based federal system brought a self-effacing peace and stability so that the economy of the state arguably registered a double digit growth for the last two decades. As time goes, for the past two decades, however, unmanageable problem has been emerged throughout the country. A continuous claim for recognition of new identity, high potential for secessionist demand, problem of democratization on of internal territory between ethno-nationalist region, and the issue of irredentism, and indigenous-settler dichotomy brought all-encompassing and stretched conflict between different ethnic groups which become the cause for the causality of human life and destruction of resources, leads to socioeconomic problem unity in many part of Ethiopia.

Importance and Pitfall of Decentralization in Ethic Federalism in Ethiopia

Ethiopian experience can be characterized as “decentralization within centralization”. In the emerging literature regarding the process of democratization and decentralization/federalism, there is a general agreement among Ethiopian scholars on the need to decentralize power in a manner that promotes efficiency, transparency, accountability and, above all, popular participation in governance at all levels of government structures. However, there is little or no unanimity regarding both the present state of affairs and the future direction of the experiment. The most serious pitfall in the decentralization/centralization initiative is that the power holders from minorities are trying to solve the problem of the majority’s share of power at their terms as well as in their interest, not at the terms and in interest of the majority. Meanwhile, decentralization means “devolution of power” to local level authorities or “sharing of power” with local authorities, serious discrepancies have continued to occur between theory and practice. The basic problem is here the contradiction that arises because of the hegemonic interest of the dominant forces that generally favour central control and the aspirations of the local population for real autonomy under a democratic government. Political decentralization, especially the election of local officials by citizens, when accompanied by a strong legal framework, can create local accountability and thereby foster officials’ legitimacy, bolstering citizen involvement and interest in politics, and deepening the democratic nature of institutions (Blair, 2000; Manor; 1999). Considerations of history and geography offer additional advantages over the monolithic approach advocated by ethnic fundamentalists.

First, restructuring a federal state along regional lines that have evolved historically and have received particular legitimacy by the passage of time upholds settled political expectations and administrative relationships, and, in turn, stands a better chance of gaining ready acceptance among the population. By contrast, breaking up old ties and creating new associations solely on the basis of ethnicity involve changes so radical that they may provoke unnecessary resistance. Taking geographical factors into account has the additional advantage of dividing the country into multiple areas of manageable size rather than a few large areas corresponding to the number of ethnic groups in the country. From the time of Montesquieu, commentators have stressed that smaller units are better able to encourage governmental responsiveness and citizen participation. (Alemante G. Selassie William, 2003)

Conclusion and Recommendations

Ethiopia is a separate geographically concentrated ethnic based federation in the last centuries of Ethiopian history start from king Tewoderos II that starts the unification of Ethiopia that end by mnillk II. Ethiopia centralized state and its own boundary during this time to reach this our leader and ancestor take many scarifications. The state of Ethiopian has neither disintegrated nor eradicated the perceived and actual conflicts between ethnic groups in the country. But what lesson we had from the federal system now is the development and consolidation of centralized dominant party rule. The paradox is emanated from the idea that centralized party rule and authentic federalism are incompatible as if powerful party manipulates ethnicity and undermines regional autonomy. This manipulation of ethnicity by the name of ethnic self-determination encourages the feeling of distinctiveness and gradually develops their own identities.

The newly emergency of multiplicity of identities and the quest for recognition of new ethnicity give way unmanageable tension and broke common values and other cross-cutting cleavages. This mislead manipulation create frustration, hostility and unpleasant relationship among ethnic groups. Hence, one ethnic group looking others as historic enemy of them as if told by political elites so that they take a revenge action over others. This brought an erosion of social cohesion among various ethnic groups and is an immediate cause for the outbreak for ethnic based conflicts in different parts of the countries. We are now an eye witness for the presence of ethnicity complex, violent conflicts and displacement of the nonindigenous people and confiscations of their properties, treating or considering non-indigenous people as secondary citizens, etc, are the results of tribal federation of Ethiopia.

All in all, though initially ethnic federalism solves the old problems of the county and awarding the right to self-determination including the right to secession of ethnic groups, but later it creates new problems. The writer accepts the idea of Teshome and Záhorík 2008 that argue ethnic federalism accentuates ethnic conflicts, facilitates secession, and eventually leads to the disintegration of countries. So my recommendations are that our government must take measure in regarding to using ethic federalism in proper manner to serve our people. And also balanced approach to ethnic accommodation should also consider historical and geographical factors. A common historical tradition is important in federal design, national looking about the country development and share in the economy and solve economic problem of the people equally, reduce corruption and problem of good governance, fosters shared history, sense of unity and consider geographical federalism as alternative means is the writer recommendation for the present Ethiopia problem and to reduce the danger of Ethiopian ethnic conflicts.