Ethiopia Needs a Confederal Arrangement (Addissu Admas)

By Addissu Admas

Before I briefly state the essential differences between the federal and confederal systems of government, I must, as a matter of course, provide the reasons why Ethiopia needs to change her current ethnic federalism. 

The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (from here forward CFDRE), which has been adopted since 1995, was designed to end the political injustices, tensions, rebellions, and secessionist wars. Yet, thirty years on, it is far from having achieved any of these. One may reasonably argue that this is due to the poor implementation of its laws, and that none of the parties which have been in power so far have had the slightest inclination to follow them. In the opinion of most, if all three branches of government had committed to its faithful implementation, all the problems it was designed to address would have been resolved by now. Not only that, but it would have also prevented other problems from arising. 

I contend that rather than lack of faithful adherence to the letter and spirit of the federal constitution as the primary reason for Ethiopia’s return to her usual problems, i.e. autocratic rule, secessionist rebellions, political dysfunction, etc.…. It is the inherent limitations and incongruities of ethnic federalism that are the root causes of its failures. 

To begin with, the CFDRE was primarily drafted to address the issue of self-determination of what it lists as “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia”. Which one of these terms applies to which particular ethnic group it does not state. However, leaving this aside, the CFDRE has not provided these groupings with the kind of self-determination that they were promised. Even though on paper sovereignty resides in them (See Chp. 2, Art.8), the actual practice of the federal government has been to consistently override them. A good example is the disarmament of militias (See art. 52.2.g). In this and other regards, more and more the Killils are resembling the imperial Teklay Gizat. 

Rather than decentralization in the past thirty years, we have only witnessed the opposite. Rather than pursuing and implementing their own political, economic and social agenda, the Killils have been more often than not instigated to “participate” in the political objectives of the center, specifically of the autocrats occupying the prime minister’s office. A dispassionate review of the two past and current prime ministers’ modus operandi can hardly be considered substantially different from the one we experienced during the Derg, or for that matter, under the imperial regime. We Ethiopians are still conditioned into thinking that power should be vested in one person. Rather than striving to create government institutions with real power to change our polity, we continue to hope for the coming of an enlightened autocrat to transform the nation. The CFDRE rather than eradicating this illusion, seems to leave it dormant. 

The ethnic federalism promoted by the CFDRE rather than toning down the ethnic animus that has always lain under the surface, has brought it out with all its ugliness. This has been compounded by social media, which has become today the primary instrument for sowing hatred and discord among the peoples of Ethiopia. Moreover, rather than thinking of Ethiopia as a nation shared by a multitude of ethnicities supposedly governing themselves, what has emerged quite visibly is the uncodified but real belief that Ethiopia is really meant to be the “possession” of one ethnic group to be ruled, used and abused until it is unseated by another by ruse or force (Teregnanet).

Rather than prevent ethnic wars, the CFDRE has in effect given impetus to the revival and even growth of ethnic rebel groups. It was a matter of time that a system designed by the TPLF could have only ended with ethnic cleansing wars. The only way that the TPLF knew how to govern was primarily by dividing the Amhara and Oromo, which rather than denouncing its machinations to sow hostilities between them, appear to have fallen for it. 

Finally, the CFDRE, though not entirely designed to centralize all powers, it has not made sufficiently evident the permissibility and possibility of inter-Killil relations. As far as we can observe, most if not all inter-Killil relations, whether legal, political, economic or cultural, require the mediation of the federal government. In other words, rather than working on or from the principle of art. 8.1 of the CFDRE, which states that “All sovereign power resides in the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia”, the federal government is acting as if “all sovereign power” resides in it, or perhaps more precisely in the person of the prime minister! This, rather than enforcing the devolution of power to the federated states, it has turned them into extensions of the federal sovereign power. 

The above are just a few of the main problems that the CFDRE has not only not solved but has in some ways exacerbated. If these are let to continue without serious changes to the CFDRE, or better yet its profound reworking, there is a real chance that Ethiopia will end up becoming a cluster of failed states. The best chance for Ethiopia’s survival as a country is to move away from ethnic federalism and adopt a form of confederalism that provides genuine sovereignty to each of Ethiopia’s peoples. 

The general view is that confederalism is a form of government that precedes federalism proper. It is viewed as standing between a unitary form of state and federal arrangement. However, one might very well argue the opposite, i.e. that the federal arrangement could be viewed as a transitional condition towards a confederal arrangement. But this is besides the point. Before defending my reasons why Ethiopia Should adopt a confederal form of government, I need to specify how it is different from a federal arrangement. 

What is most evident in confederal arrangements is that the main components of the state, by whatever name they may be called, have much looser connection with the central confederal government. Sovereignty resides definitively in the components of the state. The confederal government is given only the most essential and indispensable powers and responsibilities. It relies on the contributions of the member components for its operations. It is clear to anyone with some knowledge of the Ethiopian constitution that none of these key features are present in it. It is because of the lack of these features that Ethiopia is governed by laws that consistently appear to contradict federal principles. 

Had Ethiopia been ethnically and religiously homogeneous, the simple solution would have been of course to adopt a unitary state arrangement, like France or Japan. However, she is a nation of more than 80 ethnicities, each having its own language, and differing by population and land size, religion, culture, etc.….Thus, the unitary form of state, although it has been tried during the imperial and the Derg regimes, has proven to be unsuccessful; and has in fact led to our present state of near permanent civil war. 

I believe that instead of wasting our energy and mental resources to make our ethno-federalism “work somehow”, which I am convinced we will never succeed to do, we need to give the confederal form of state arrangement a chance before the country disintegrates before our eyes. 

What then Ethiopia’s confederal arrangement would look like? The subdivision of the country (Hager) would remain largely the same, with some modifications that should reflect more her newly designed confederal arrangement, but also her history. First, it would be appropriate to get rid of the term Killil, which simply means boundary (for anything), to refer to the regions and instead adopt the term Gezat, meaning territory. This term renders better the idea of an administrative unit than the former. The number of Gezat could be increased as per the request of the peoples of the country (Hager), and not the central government! A Gezat would have the characteristics of self-governing states with minimal intervention from the confederal government. 

If an ethnic group is too small to function as a Gezat, it can freely associate itself with contiguous small ethnic groups to form a Gezat. However, if it is geographically isolated from other small ethnic groups, it can declare itself a self-governing Awrajja (i.e. province) within a Gizat. A cluster of very small ethnic groups, each not extending beyond a Kebele (commune) can again ally among themselves to form an autonomous Woreda (district). The idea is that from the smallest unit (Kebele) to the largest (Gezat), there will be levels and types of sovereignty and autonomy needing clear codification in a federal constitution. 

What can one expect realistically from such reconstitution of Ethiopia on these confederal lines? I expect that a properly designed and faithfully implemented confederal system, by delimiting the power of the center, would radically diminish the possibility for any would-be autocrat to emerge. As we all know but too well, autocracy of whatever ideology has been a constant in Ethiopia’s political history. It could have been overcome probably if the institutions of the current government were given real power. However, this has never occurred because there have always emerged individuals who, by either intimidation or ruse, have succeeded in usurping the institutional powers of the other branches of government. The confederal arrangement will pre-empt this kind of usurpation because the head of the confederal government has inherently very limited powers and none to spare.

Secondly, the CFDRE was primarily designed to address the much debated, speculated over and fought upon issue of self-determination. It was intended to end once and for all any form of armed struggle having for primary reason the self-determination of a people. It is in fact for this particular reason that the CFDRE was centered around the notion of “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples”. However, because of the preponderance of the federal government’s power, and particularly of its head, genuine self-determination has never had a chance to be implemented to any degree. Self-determination does not only mean the right to one’s identity and language, ability to establish self-governance of a sort, but it means above all having sovereignty, i.e. authority over one’s rule and destiny.  The CFDRE gives only nominal sovereignty to the “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples” since, as we have seen clearly over these past three decades, Ethiopia’s regions have been treated as imperial provinces (Teklay Gezat). The discrepancy between the letter and spirit of the self-determination clause in the CFDRE state and the reality on the ground is the very reason that we must adopt a confederal arrangement to deliver on the promises of self-determination. 

In his more than two decades of autocratic rule, the late Meles Zenawi has, by ruse or force or often both, prevented Ethiopia from plunging into a civil war. His preferred method of governing, as everyone knows, was “divide and rule”. With the connivance of his party and many collaborationists from other ethnic groups, he invigorated the ethnic animus existing specially between the two major ethnic groups in Ethiopia, the Oromo and Amhara, to avoid major conflicts in the country. The minor ethnic groups he was able to “deal” with through direct intervention. As long as the political alliances held, Ethiopia was able to live in relative stability. Once this collapsed following the resignation of Haile-Mariam Dessalegn, the whole governmental edifice built by the TPLF threatened to collapse under the constant protest of Ethiopia’s youth. It was a last-minute horse trading behind the scenes that ultimately allowed the emergence of Abiy Ahmed and saved the day. Now seven years on, we are just beginning to relive another crisis that will most likely lead for another autocrat to emerge. As long as our brand of ethno-federalism is maintained this cycle of crises will very likely be our constant mode of existence.

A confederal arrangement would prevent Ethiopia from undergoing through cycles of crises that appear to never resolve to anyone’s satisfaction. Once Ethiopia’s constituent territorial components are clearly and definitively established, and sovereign power is vested upon each one of them according to a precisely written constitution, it will be clear which power is held by whom and will never become a question of debate. Thus, rather than a power from the top down, it will be from the bottom up. This model of government has not only proven to be efficient but has also been the most enduring. A model example remains of course Switzerland which has been a confederal state since the late 13^th century and has enjoyed more peace, stability and prosperity than most countries in the world. 

When momentous decisions are made through the participation of various levels of assemblies rather than by an individual or a small group of individuals, the outcome is almost invariably well-thought out and beneficial. The chances, therefore, of initiating wars, adopting harmful ideologies, economic programs, social changes, etc.…. will be very limited. 

Since sovereignty resides in member components of the states at various levels and to varying degrees, what powers and functions would the confederal government have? The simple answer is whatever the constituent members of the confederation (Gezat) relinquish to it. If we were to model our confederal arrangement on Switzerland’s, Ethiopia would allow her confederal government to have only the following powers and functions: 1. The management of international affairs, diplomacy and treaties 2. The organization and coordination of the existing militias of the Gizat for national defense 3. The determination and conferral of citizenship 4. Codifications of monetary and banking policies and their enforcement 5. Oversight of the educational, professional and health standards 6. The construction and maintenance of national transportation and communications networks… Just to list the main ones. 

As far as the branches of the confederal government are concerned, the current set up can be maintained with the necessary modifications. What would need to change mainly are the kind of powers and functions they would be given under the confederal arrangement. 

The major changes need to take place, of course, in the Gezat (or Killil). These would become far more autonomous than under the CFDRE. They will very much operate like small nations as they are meant to do by the principle of self-determination. They will therefore set-up their own forms of governments, laws, militia, etc.… What need to be uniform for all Gizat and their various subdivisions are the laws governing their exact powers vis a vis the confederal government and its various branches. The objective is to eliminate the possibility of a too powerful center tending always to overwhelm the will of the peoples of Ethiopia and to return instead sovereignty to the people to govern themselves. This, seems to me, the only way out of the morass created by our ill-designed ethnic-federalism. 

Editor’s Note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com      

  __

Subscribe  : https://borkena.com/subscribe-borkena/ 

Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena

Like borkena on Facebook

Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory  Business Listing Toronto 

Join the conversation. Follow us on X (Formerly Twitter)  @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian News updates regularly.  Subscribe to YouTube channel To share information or for submission, send e-mail to info@borkena.com