Ethiopia has a long governmental and administrative history. In leadership, it has been associated with a more central governmental system and has been recorded in ancient, medieval, and modern times.
Despite those ancient kingdoms’ being central administrative systems, they cannot blamed for their expansionist policy. It is not also fair to blame those ancient imperials for the synthesis of nation-state building.
In the 13th century, during the early Solomonic period, Ethiopia underwent military reforms and imperial expansion that allowed it to dominate the Horn of Africa.
During this age or before, Ethiopia has been comparably building a strong central government when the rest of the world was under tribalism; even most of the current-acme-civilized countries did not crop up from the very first.
So, Ethiopia is an African paradigm in the building of self-government systems, though it has been tended with many attempts at worse examinations. Its central autonomous government has been faced with more internal or external warriors in different ages of alternative series.
Historically, regional war lords, colonial powers, and neighboring animosities have been trying to destabilize Ethiopia’s central administrative system. However, colonial grievances and our neighbors’ rages have flared up, capturing their occult trap to diminish our integrity once more. The plot of those external animosities and internal renegades has rekindled the revival of regionalism, which had been stifled in order to see the glow of development.
During the princes’ era, Ethiopia was better unified; our national fraternities grew. However, the colonials’ view was concealed simultaneously in the consequent stream to snag our unison. Despite civilian and scholar deaths, there is no doubt about patriotism, loyalty, and a sense of nationalism even during military service.
After the military regime collapsed, the worst ever misfortune happened again, with ethnic federalism eventually becoming the rule of the country. This clan-based Federalism is still venturesome for Ethiopian integration.
In an article titled “Ethiopian Ethnic Federalism,” John M. Cohen writes that a number of political leaders, aid agency professionals, and academics are examining the utility of administrative decentralization reforms as a strategy for responding to ethnic, religious, and regional separatists in countries as diverse as Sri Lanka, Somalia, and Mexico.
Their discussion of federal, confederal, and devolved unitary models of administrative decentralization is informed by a few case studies explicitly focused on the administrative and financial issues faced by war-torn states seeking to use decentralization as a strategy for reconstruction.
Aid agencies were also involved in the constitutional dialogue but intentionally excluded some communities.
You know what the so-called aid agencies’ “behind the curtain” mission is for? This generation has witnessed such double-faced aid agencies conspiring behind the scenes in Ethiopia, as war logistics, weapon support, or as arbitrators in the North War; such intrigue has occurred concerning the so-called aid messengers.
So, undeniably, the skullduggery of those submissive colonial grievances particularly would have been behind the curtain of Ethiopian ethnic federalism decreed accordingly, writes John M. Cohen in his article.
Take heed over the intriguing data-Article 39 “self-administration until secession” has been set as the means of responding to the questions being raised from different perspectives, especially for regional separatists, as John M. Cohen puts it.
“… that even if the 1994 Constitution labels the new country as a federal state, it is in fact based on a constitutional system more akin to ‘confederation,’ an innovative form that looks like federalism but appears closer to an international treaty among ethnic groups having the power to secede.”
This data demonstrates that Ethiopia’s federalism is not a true federalism but a novel one more akin to a confederation. Or like an international treaty that stipulates that each ethnic state has the right to secede from the union.
Further, article 39 is a constitutional druse by which some regional separatists get a privilege for segregation while at inconvenience, especially for the former ruling party, by setting this aperture for segregation like what has been happening this time in the north of Ethiopia. Thus, article 39 is an aperture devised deliberately by those reneged groups that conspired together with the colonial grievances to disintegrate Ethiopia.
Overall, this ethnic-based constitution is a tunnel built by the former ruling party to meet its own separation plan, which is still supported by the American Senate’s conspiracy to vandalize Ethiopia.
Furthermore, it is clear that the constitution would have been substantial on ethnic and linguistic grounds as a result of the ruling party synthesis in order to extinguish a sense of nationalism and integrity.
Or it would have been the colonial view to splash Ethiopia, still privileged in pure culture and celibate in resources ; or even this seemingly federalism, as John M. Cohen, also tried to deal with those terminological conflicts like “ethnic and nation”.
Four terminological issues complicate a review of Ethiopia’s recent experience.
First, the Western term “ethnic” is used here even though in Amharic, officials use the term “nation” or “nationality.” Second, the term “federal” is used even though some knowledgeable observers argue, as demonstrated shortly, that even if the 1994 Constitution labels the new country as a federal state, it is in fact based on a constitutional system more akin to “confederation,” an innovative form that looks like federalism but appears closer to an international treaty among ethnic groups having the power to secede.
[The author’s opinions and views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of The Reporter.]
Contributor by Pilo Permuda