Ethnic Federalism and Internal Minorities: The Legal Protection of Internal Minorities in Ethiopia (original) (raw)
Related papers
Addis Ababa University, 2020
Abstract The international practice has revealed that individuals belonging to different minorities are often not able to enjoy their human rights because of the discrimination they face. The same holds true in Ethiopia since the long centralist history triggered ethnic inequalities. Fortunately, following the system change, the FDRE Constitution was adopted and declared ethnic federalism, inter alia, to guarantee the rights of ethnic minorities. The thesis, however, argues that the existing ethnic-based territorial autonomy has again failed to accommodate internal minorities. Therefore, it first scrutinizes the inadequacy of protection given to these groups of people under the existing legal and institutional frameworks. Then, it recommends two constitutional solutions. First, the existing ethnic-based territorial autonomy federal system has to be kept intact with giving sufficient protection for the indigenous minorities. Second, non-territorial autonomy as a complementary constitutional arrangement has to be adopted to protect non-indigenous minorities.
ETHIOPIA: CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF ETHNIC MINORITIES AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL
It is argued that in order to evaluate the capacity of the Ethiopian federal structure to accommodate ethnic diversity and to regulate ethnic conflicts, the research cannot be limited to an analysis of the constitutional mechanisms at the federal level. One of the crucial features of the Ethiopian federal structure is that it provides its nine regions with the power to enact their internal constitutions. This implies that each and every region has the power to develop its own internal state structure, within a minimum federal framework. From here it follows that the federal structure to have the potential to lay the foundations for a viable Ethiopian state, it is essential that not only the federal but also the regional constitutional mechanisms have the capacity to realize unity in diversity. As is explained in this article, not a single Ethiopian region is ethnically homogeneous. The ethnic 105 diversity which characterizes the federal level is therefore also present at the regional level. Therefore, when evaluating the capacity of the Ethiopian state structure to accomplish unity in diversity one also has to include an analysis of the regional mechanisms. The latter analysis is the core objective of this article.
Intra-Unit Minorities in the Context of Ethno-National Federation in Ethiopia
Utrecht law review, 2017
marginalized intra-state minorities. Through an analysis of the constitution, relevant laws, field work and relevant comparative literature, this article aims to shed light on the nature and source of such conflicts and offers institutional and policy options to address them. Various studies have examined the rights and status of intra-unit minorities (minorities in the states) in Ethiopia 6 yet their focus has been mainly on language and cultural rights as well as on the political opportunities that the ethno-national federation and ethnic local governments provide to the titular ethnonational groups. The studies offer little detail on the rights of dispersed intra-unit minorities, particularly power sharing which is a focus of this article. This article has four sections. The present Section 1 has provided some general background. The next section deals with the pillars of the federal system and also describes its impact on intra-unit minorities. Section 3 examines the status of these minorities and demonstrates the variations among the regional states in terms of responding to their demands. Section 4 outlines the institutional and policy options that are available to address the rights of intra-unit minorities. The last section provides the conclusion. 2. Key features of the federal system: Empowering titular ethno-national groups As previously mentioned, marginalized ethno-national groups challenged the centrist state and brought an end to it in 1991 after years of civil war. The post-1991 federal arrangement was spearheaded by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), 7 which overthrew the military junta in 1991. As the main architect of the transition (1991-1994) and of the 1995 constitution it long advocated 'nationalities' right to self-determination up to and including secession'. It claims that the key source of political crisis in Ethiopia is ethnic domination, with a ruling elite controlling power, resources and narrowly defining the values and institutions of the state (such as language-Amharic remained a national language until 1991-and religion-the Orthodox Christian belief remained the state religion until 1974) as its main cause. As a result, the key features of the federal constitution are heavily influenced by the idea of the right of 'nations, nationalities and peoples' to self-determination and the right to self-rule as a solution to the 'question of nationalities'. Former Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, the chief architect, is quoted to have said: 'The Nile/Abay river has no life without its tributaries, Ethiopia also makes little sense without its diversity.' 8 6 There are many MA and LLM case studies on minority rights in the states but published works are rare. Christophe Van der Beken is the only exception who has come close to the issue. See C.
Federalism and Ethnic Minorities in Ethiopia: Ideology, Territoriality, Human Rights, Policy
In 1994 Ethiopia has adopted a new constitution, considered one of the most advanced in terms of provisions for human rights. The progressive ratification of several international treaties on minority rights had already begun in 1991, immediately after the fall of the Derg regime. This progress has brought Ethiopia into the UN monitoring system, but the review of the official UN documents reveals the mismatch between the mentioned constitutional and international steps and the on-ground situation. This article considers two possible causes of this gap. The first is the particular form of ethnic federalism, first introduced with the Charter of the Transitional Government of Ethiopia and later developed in the new constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). The second is the contradiction between the constitutional theory based on the fundamental political freedoms, and the political practice of the ruling party, grounded in revolutionary democracy, a post-Marxist ideology based on the Leninist democratic centralism and on some of the principles of the developmental state. In this article the problems identified by a UN independent expert on minority issues have been reconsidered with reference to the Ethiopian pastoral minorities. Special attention is paid to the controversy on the construction of the Gibe 3 dam along the course of the Omo River. This article claims that minority and indigenous rights are compatible with ethnic federalism as defined in the FDRE constitution, but are in conflict with the praxis inspired by the working ideology of the ruling party.
The Ethnic Minority Right Protection and Its Political Representation in Ethiopia
Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, 2019
Scholarly interest in Ethiopia's ethnic federalism and political representation of minorities has frequently been on ethno-territorial organization, constitutional design, power-sharing arrangements, but the rights of minority under majority and their decision making power are often left out from analyses. In the current politics of Ethiopia Minorities are not supported well, but they are also sometimes bothered and ignored. These unequal policies have resulted in discrimination of different rights in society. The Constitution of Ethiopia off course provided equality before the law for all citizens regardless of their religion, race, language or gender. At the same time, it declared the value of cultural diversity. However minorities did not have a chance to win in an election since the system of election in Ethiopia is a simple majority, when there is no one particular group which holds numerical dominance, simple majoritarianism can work against the rights of minorities unless...
The practice of federalism in Ethiopia, which is exclusively dependent on the idea of granting territorial autonomy to select ethnolinguistic groups, has now prevailed a little over two decades. As has been witnessed over the years, this approach to devolving autonomy risks excluding minorities in the country's subnational units from adequate representation and from having the decision-making powers required to promote their particular needs. Despite the clear advantages of granting territorial autonomy to territorially concentrated and homogenous groups found within a certain geographical unit, in countries like Ethio-pia-where subnational heterogeneity surpasses homogeneity-such an approach should not be relied on as the only method for fostering ethnolinguistic diversity. This article argues that non-territorial arrangements, like cultural autonomy and "consocia-tionalism," should be utilized in addition to other legal, institutional and cultural processes for sharing power in Ethiopian sub-national units.
Constitutional and Institutional Protection of Minorities in Ethiopia
Addis Ababa University , 2020
This article investigates minority rights protection under the Ethiopian federal state structure envisaged in its legal instruments and institutional setups. Ethiopia is a land of diverse society in terms of religion, ethnicity, culture, language, and socio-economic activities. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) Constitution gives the right to each nation, nationality and people, among other, to preserve its identity, administer its own affairs, and get fair representation. However, the Ethiopian federal system, structured based on ethnolinguistic criteria, apportion the country into ten (including Sidama) regional states, subsuming the rest within them. The interests of minorities, who are lumped with relatively dominant ethnic groups, are not addressed and have not been given self-determination, nor are they recognized as a distinct ethnic group of the country. Recognition of minority groups is not only determined by the Constitution and other legal frameworks but also based on political expediency, which can be unconstitutional. The possible solutions include adopting proportional representation system, enforcement of basic human rights of citizens and consideration of mechanisms of non-territorial autonomy.
Comment on Ethnic Minority Rights under the Ethiopian Federal Structure
2012
Ethiopia is a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic and multi-cultural country with diverse ethnic, linguistic and religious groups. In this sense, the country can appropriately be described as a mosaic of different cultures and ethno-linguistic groups, although this was not legally and politically recognized until recently. The 1995 Ethiopian Constitution expressly recognizes the ethnic diversity of the population. This was initiated in 1991 under the Transitional Charter of Ethiopia, 1 and it was a departure from the unitary state paradigm in nation-state building policies of former regimes. The Ethiopian government now accepts the notion of ethnic diversity and aspires to build the nation by using ethnicity as a starting point. This approach was further institutionalized in the current Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) Constitution. 2 The various units of the Federation, i.e. the regional states are carved out along ethno-linguistic lines. As a result, some writers regard Ethiopia's federation as an 'ethnic Federation'. 3 One of the consequences of the definition of the federation on the basis of ethnicity is the creation of regional states dominated by particular ethnic groups. The creation of such ethnic based regional states holds serious dangers for the position of ethnic minority groups; groups which differ from the regionally dominant ethnic majority. The danger exists that the members of the regionally dominant ethnic group which consider the region as their exclusive dominion threaten both the universal and group specific rights of ethnic minorities within the region. This would not have been a
Challenges of Constitutional Protection of Ethnic Groups of the Southern Regional State of Ethiopia
Abstract This study explored the ethnic quest for self-governance in the Ethiopian federal system focusing on experience from the Southern Regional State. The FDRE Constitution has created a positive interrelationship between practicing the right to self-governance and ethnic identity thereby recognizing it to ethnically defined groups. Therefore, it is justifiable and legitimate for all ethnically defined groups to claim the right to self-governance. The main objective of this study was to examine the ethnic claims for self-governance in multi-ethnic Southern Regional State within the context of Ethiopian ethnic federal system. This study was based on qualitative method approach and the study employed a number of data collection methods such as data from primary and archival sources and secondary literature.The findings of the study revealed that by merging very diverse ethno-linguistic groups into one federated unit, the Southern Nation Nationalities and Peoples Regional State, the existing political system has created minority-within-minority. As a result, those ethnic groups, who have been given their own sub-regional administrative units, have acquired political majority over the subsumed ethnic groups. This has created a feeling of being dominated and marginalized by the subsumed ethnic groups such as Oyda, Goffa, Danta, Tembaro and so on. This is the basic cause for continuing dynamics of ethnic claims for self-governance at Regional, Zonal and Woreda status in this Regional State.The study recommended two policy options: one is to restructure the Southern Regional State and, the other, easiest remedy, is to organize additional Sub-Regional Units for some of the subsumed ethnically defined groups.