Though statehood nature traced back to ancient times, modern Ethiopia came into being in the second half of the nineteenth century under the military expansion of King Menelik II. Since then subsequent political systems in the country have failed to recognise and accommodate the country’s ethnolinguistic diversity. However, in 1991 the new government constitutionally recognised and institutionally accommodated the country’s diversity. While solving old problems of ethnic inequality and injustice, ethnic federalism has created new problems of ethnic tensions and conflict across Ethiopia. The article aims at investigating how and why ethnic federalism ended up being a source of ethnic conflicts in Ethiopia and suggests the way out. The article employed a qualitative research design and methods of data analysis and interpretation. The finding of the study shows the notion and implementation of federalism has to be blamed, which left unclear administration boundary, overlooked cross-cutting variables, Majority versus minority and Titular versus Settler problem, politicised ethnicity by transformed cultural communities into political communities, produced mega ethnic syndrome within the Ethiopian society, for the country’s ethnic troubles and conflicts. Reforming the federal system and its constitutions is the way forwarded to reduce ethnic tensions and create an inclusive society in Ethiopia.

Adopted in 1991, ethnic federalism indeed paved the way for the recognition, accommodation, and institutionalization of ethnocultural diversity for the first time in the country’s history since its modern existence. What is equally important is, the practice of ethnic federalism complicated state-society and inter-group relationships creating a favorable environment for ethnic confrontation and conflict to take place in the country threatening national unity, eroded century-old values of coexistence, a hard ethnic boundary where administrative boundaries are served as political and ethnic differentiators like the Oromo and Somali conflict over contested boundaries. Territorial recognition, and institutionalization of ethnicity gave room for the emergence of ‘ethnic like and ethnic others’ thinking,  made minorities in different regions victims of politics and failed to provide sound accommodation mechanisms from them, severely restricted people’s constitutional rights including the right to mobility and right to work, created room for the re-emergence of secessionist tendency. Hence, ethnic federalism while solving old problems of ethnic inequality and injustice; has created new problems of ethnic tensions and conflict across Ethiopia. It is the purpose of this study to investigate how and why federalism is being considered as the source of ethnic conflicts in the Ethiopian context. The study adopted a qualitative comparative approach while FGDs and key informant interviews were used to gather data. The finding of the study shows that though multinational federation plays an irreplaceable role to accommodate and institutionalize ethnocultural diversity, the notion and implementation of federalism instigate ethnic conflict in the Ethiopian context.

No abstract

Ethiopia People Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRD) is a political party in charge of government power since 1991. EPRDF is established in 1989 out of Rebel group to party transformation with the view to oust the military government called Derg. It is a coalition of four parties political organization i.e. Tigray People Liberation Front (TPLF)- which is an architect of EPRDF, Amhara National Democratic Movements (ANDM) in 1980,  Oromo People Liberation Organization (OPDO ) and Southern Ethiopian People Democratic Movement ( SEPDM)  However, in spite of the nominally coalition structure of the EPRDF, from the beginning the TPLF provided the leadership and ideological direction to other members of the coalition. To maintain the dominant position within the coalition the TPLF has transferred its rebel time internal governance network  that focuses on traditional Marxist Leninist organizational lines, with an emphasis on “democratic centralism”; and a tradition of hierarchically organizational structure to the newly established political organization i.e. EPRDF. Consequently, the EPRDF intraparty network and governance system is dominated by the use of ML (Marxist-Leninist) authoritarian methods and hegemonic control, rigid hierarchical leadership; Democratic centralism, the dominance of the party apparatus behind the façade of regional and local autonomy, an extensive patron-client mechanisms;  the use of force to silence opposition within and outside the party; intertwined State institutions and the party system and excessive reliance on party entity instead of state administration units; and gim gema (self-evaluation)  are worth mentioning. These intraparty network and governance system have severely limited genuine democratization within the party as well as hampered the democratization process in the country.  The party is facing increasing pressure and challenge from within the party and the public at large demanding equal status and fair political economic representation. In effect, EPRDF is in deep crisis shattered by internal divisions, crises as well as external public pressure forcing the party to entertain democratic principles and culture. Hence, it is recommended that the organizational structure and the values and principles governing the organization should be revisited within the framework of democracy which allows adaptability and flexibility given the various change agents in the socio-cultural, economic, political environment.

No abstract