This art icle was downloaded by: [ Universit eit Leiden / LUMC ] , [ Jon Abbink]
On: 22 February 2012, At : 02: 48
Publisher: Rout ledge
I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered
office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Eastern African Studies
Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and
subscript ion inf ormat ion:
ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ rj ea20
Ethnic-based federalism and ethnicity
in Ethiopia: reassessing the experiment
after 20 years
Jon Abbink
a
a
Af rican St udies Cent re, P. O. Box 9555, 2300, RB, Leiden, t he
Net herlands
Available online: 22 Feb 2012
To cite this article: Jon Abbink (2011): Et hnic-based f ederalism and et hnicit y in Et hiopia:
reassessing t he experiment af t er 20 years, Journal of East ern Af rican St udies, 5: 4, 596-618
To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17531055. 2011. 642516
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE
Full t erm s and condit ions of use: ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s- andcondit ions
This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any
subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing,
syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warrant y express or im plied or m ake any represent at ion
t hat t he cont ent s will be com plet e or accurat e or up t o dat e. The accuracy of any
inst ruct ions, form ulae, and drug doses should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, act ions, claim s, proceedings,
dem and, or cost s or dam ages what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or
indirect ly in connect ion wit h or arising out of t he use of t his m at erial.
Journal of Eastern African Studies
Vol. 5, No. 4, November 2011, 596618
Ethnic-based federalism and ethnicity in Ethiopia: reassessing the
experiment after 20 years
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
Jon Abbink*
African Studies Centre, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, the Netherlands
(Received 1 July 2011; final version received 20 August 2011)
One of the core principles instituted by the post-1991 government in Ethiopia that
took power after a successful armed struggle was ethnic-based federalism,
informed by a neo-Leninist political model called revolutionary democracy.
In this model, devised by the reigning Tigray People’s Liberation Front (later
EPRDF), ethnic identity was to be the basis of politics. Identities of previously
non-dominant groups were constitutionally recognized and the idea of panEthiopian identity de-emphasized. This article examines the general features and
effects of this new political model, often dubbed an ‘‘experiment’’, with regard to
ideas of federal democracy, socio-economic inclusiveness, and ethno-cultural and
political rights. After 20 years of TPLF/EPRDF rule, the dominant rhetorical
figure in Ethiopian politics is that of ethnicity, which has permeated daily life and
overtaken democratic decision-making and shared issue-politics. The federal
state, despite according nominal decentralized power to regional and local
authorities, is stronger than any previous Ethiopian state and has developed
structures of central control and top-down rule that preclude local initiative and
autonomy. Ethnic and cultural rights were indeed accorded, and a new economic
dynamics is visible. Political liberties, respect for human rights and economic
equality are however neglected, and ethnic divisions are on the increase, although
repressed. Ethiopia’s recent political record thus shows mixed results, with
positive elements but also an increasingly authoritarian governance model
recalling the features of the country’s traditional hierarchical and autocratic
political culture. This may produce more debate on the need for ‘‘adjusting the
experiment’’.
Keywords: ethnic federalism; Ethiopian politics; ethnicity and ‘‘revolutionary’’
democracy; ethnic conflict and mediation
In this article I discuss the general features of the post-1991 regime under the ruling
party (and former insurgent movement) Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF, with its core the Tigray People’s Liberation Front or TPLF)
and the effects and results of its policies toward ethnicity and ethnic relations in
Ethiopia in the past two decades. I here largely follow a growing scholarly consensus
on the political state of play regarding Ethiopia as an ethno-federal state, but my
approach is more anthropological, i.e., looking at politics and unfolding ethnic
relations as a social and cultural process with its own dynamics, though set in motion
by cumulative decisions in a political arena. The issue of ethnic federalism and its
impact has been studied extensively from the legal, sociological and political science
*Email: abbink@ascleiden.nl
ISSN 1753-1055 print/ISSN 1753-1063 online
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2011.642516
http://www.tandfonline.com
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
Journal of Eastern African Studies 597
angles. In a paper published two years ago (2009) I tried to inject a new element in
this debate by looking at the republican-democratic aspect of Ethiopia’s politics,
instead of predictably focusing on the ethnic-democratic element, but this was not to
deny that ethnic identity remained the defining feature of the country’s political
system.
In 1991 Ethiopia accommodated ethnicity as a formal political element in the
new state order. This makes the country relatively unique in Africa, where ethnic
relations may be an obvious factor in national politics but not in any recognized
form. If we look at Kenya, we see that every election is determined by a subtext of
ethnicity, locally called ‘‘tribalism’’, and that virtually all parties have an overwhelming although not exclusive ethnic basis, but formal ethnic parties are not
allowed. In Ethiopia they are the norm. Ethiopia’s adoption in 1991 of ethnolinguistic identity as the prescribed basis of politics in the new federal state is
explained by three factors: (a) the military victory in 1991 by an ethno-nationalist
movement the TPLF over centralized tyrannical military rule after a successful
ethno-regional mobilization of insurgence; (b) the ideological idiom of student
opposition movements and later of the armed opposition in the later years of the
imperial regime and the military Derg regime that saw ‘‘the national question’’ as the
main cause of Ethiopia’s problem, above all others; and (c) the need of the ethnoregional insurgent movements, present among an important number of Ethiopian
population groups in 1991, to come to a shared political agenda to address perceived
or real ‘‘ethnic grievances’’.
In 1991 the TPLF thus presided over the deconstruction of Ethiopia as a nationstate seen as dominated by one ethnic group and reconfigured it on the basis of a
model of an alleged ‘‘voluntary federation’’ of the 75 or so ethnic groups in the
country. This was a new model dictated partly by necessity how could an ethnoregional minority from Tigray suddenly rule a large, diverse country without secure
‘‘ethnic allies’’? and partly by an ideological programme aimed at reversing
‘‘ethnic’’ hierarchies, ousting the perceived elites in place, and impose a new political
dispensation. It was accompanied by a tortuous and to many people painful rhetoric
of ethnicization that declared Ethiopians first and foremost a member of ‘‘their
ethnic group’’ and only second as Ethiopian citizens. This model was held to liberate
groups and to defuse the ‘‘national question’’, as no group could be allowed to claim
political dominance except perhaps the one proclaiming an end to ethnic
dominance. In this sense, the EPRDF-TPLF replaced a perceived ‘‘Amhara/
highland’’-dominated ethnocratic state with a multi-ethnic state, but with one clear
leading core group.
This ethno-federal idea was elaborated in the Transitional Period Charter,
promulgated after a national conference in June 1991 and in the Federal
Constitution adopted in December 1994 and that came into effect on 21 August
1995.1
Twenty years later, ethnicity is the dominant rhetorical figure in political
discourse in Ethiopia and has permeated people’s identities and daily politics,
whether they like it or not. It has inspired the governance model, the division and
administration of the regional states, educational-linguistic policies and party
politics. My argument here will be that, while initially liberating and potentially
‘‘empowering’’ coming from a background of suppression and delegitimization
during the imperial and Derg eras ethnic discourse in Ethiopia in both its
ideological and practical-administrative forms, may have become somewhat of a
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
598 J. Abbink
constraining factor in the political, economic and social sense, and may need
amendment. This interpretation implies ‘‘benchmarks’’ to evaluate the post-1991
experience. These may be difficult to provide if a non-normative assessment is aimed
at, but one could propose a few key indicators in view of the stated aims of the
political transition in 1991: contribution to (ethnic/regional) self-determination;
ability to defuse/prevent ethnic-based conflict; exercise of ethno-cultural rights
(to use people’s language, develop their own culture, etc.); democratic-consultative
decision-making; an open economic arena and economic partnership; and nondiscriminatory, issue-based politics for the federation as a whole.2 I here start from
the metaphor of Ethiopia going through ‘‘an experiment’’ as its prime minister
once said, back in 19913 and if an experiment shows serious problems or
unexpected results one can amend it and change some of the conditions of the
experimenting. The ‘‘experiment’’ meant here is a political model adopted by the new
regime and implemented on the basis of ideology. In this sense it can be changed.
But the wider social and cultural effects it already has had may already be less
amenable to retrospective engineering: the (often unintended) consequences have
gone to reshape Ethiopian society from top to bottom. A case could be made for
amendments if we look at the ambivalent record: unintended forms of discrimination, non-federal elements, economic disparities, and (violent) conflicts that
reportedly still mar the federal system in practice.4
In assessing these ‘‘benchmarks’’ it is useful to recognize their variegated
expression in the phases that the Ethiopian 20-year federal experiment has gone
through. The period is not unitary, neither in its political emphases nor its economic
policies, and has seen various shifts in policy and practice, despite the fact that the
ideological and constitutional order has officially not changed much. One might
distinguish at least the following four phases of the Ethiopian ethno-federal model:
(1) transition and stabilization democratic opening, political self-definition, and
liberalization, 19912000; (2) nationalist reconfiguration and ruling party reaffirmation, resulting from the 19982000 Ethio-Eritrean war and the internal TPLF
division, 20002003;5 (3) broadening EPRDF party reach via incorporating and
creating (new) regional EPRDF party elites beyond the TPLF, 20032005;6
(4) building the ‘‘developmental state’’, since May 2005. This entailed a full
emphasis on nation-wide economic development, whereby ‘‘political’’ considerations
would be secondary and legitimacy would be sought in the economic growth
achievements (infrastructure, road building, hydropower mega-projects, ‘‘doubledigit’’ GDP growth, foreign investments, etc.). The powers of the central/federal
government were hereby reinforced, via new laws and executive organs. This
‘‘technocratic’’ approach was pursued after the shock 2005 elections, with a narrow
and controversial win for EPRDF, the killing of close to 200 people by security
forces, and a very bad press for Ethiopia and serious criticisms from donor
countries. This developmental state phase is still in full swing witness the huge
foreign land-lease deals, the emphasis on investments (any investments) and
growth figures, the mega-dam building, the road construction and has entirely
trumped the quest from democracy, civil society facilitation, and plurality in
domestic politics. Indeed, a spate of post-2005 laws (Press law, NGO law, AntiTerrorism law), with narrow and restrictive clauses, has thwarted the development of
civil society organizations and a concomitant democratic culture. The government’s
2010 Growth and Transformation Plan7 is the best indication of this fourth phase,
stressing economic growth and not much else.
Journal of Eastern African Studies 599
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
Shaping the experiment after the end of the war: the second phase of the Ethiopian
post-imperial revolution
Looking at the formal structure of post-1991 federalism, let us start with the
observation that when speaking with politicians, academics or students from other
African countries one usually hears: ‘‘We do not understand Ethiopian politics.
How can they go and institutionalize tribalism. This was the one country in African
with a non-colonial history, an indigenous state that had some unity and a centralist
tradition, and now they follow us and go back to fragmentation. Why?’’ True or not,
this very common remark might give us some food for thought.
Back in 1991 the TPLF-EPRDF ideology of ethnic federalism could have been
seen as ‘‘the best possible model’’ after the ravages of the civil war and a regime
marked by harsh centralist government suppression of ethno-regional sentiments
and interests, and a relentless war. Mobilization of rebellion against this Derg
government, led by lt.-col. Mengistu Haile-Mariam, had been successful on the basis
of an appeal to this ethno-regional or ethnic aspect in people’s identities, and it
found resonance among some other large ethnic communities or their elites. It was
also a convenient ideology of rule, which made sense to the new leaders back
in 1991.
Historically, the instituting of ethno-federalism was also the realization of the
second element of the programme of the revolutionary student movement in the
1960s70s: solving the ‘‘nationalities’’ question.8 The first phase of that revolutionary ferment in the 1970s had been the class-based ‘‘anti feudalist, anticapitalist revolution of the masses’’ against the imperial elites, and was adopted
and rhetorically expressed by the military Derg regime under the guise of centralist
revolutionary socialism (Marxism), globally in vogue at the time. When the Derg
refused to yield to a form of transitional or civilian government, ‘‘revolutionary
military socialism’’ became its dominant model of ideology and governance.
The state became a unitary one, entertaining the precepts of Marxist-Leninist
ideology also shared by the armed opposition fronts of the time, like the EPRP,
MEISON, OLF, TLPF, SLM, and others9 and did not recognize or respect
regionalist tendencies. One-party rule gradually took shape under a dictatorial
strongman.
It has to be noted that under the Derg the nationality discourse was first
introduced: following Stalinist theory and practice, popular among the student
movements, a new ‘‘Institute for the Study of Ethiopian Nationalities’’ (ISEN) was
set up to make an inventory of the Ethiopian nationalities and their territories. Maps
and ethnographic profiles were duly produced. Also literacy campaigns were started
in a number of indigenous languages next to Amharic.
When the TPLF-EPRDF assumed power after its military victory in May 1991,
it largely took over the ISEN maps and ethnic classifications and proceeded to work
out a new regional and district division of the country, closely following the ethnolinguistic lines put on paper by the ISEN experts. Later, the ISEN was turned into
the National Electoral Board (in the same building), as the electoral constituencies were based on ethno-linguistic districts. This minute ethnic cartography was
seen as needed to tune the emerging democratic structures to the new ‘‘ethnic party’’
structures: every ethnic group had to have its own political party, under the aegis of
the ruling EPRDF. These were of course the so-called PDOs ‘‘People’s Democratic Organizations’’ ethnic satellite parties among the various ethnic groups set up
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
600 J. Abbink
and controlled by EPRDF cadres, without much grass roots influence. In a later
phase several smaller and related groups were merged in one PDO party.
As a result of the classificatory work started under the Derg, the EPRDF
conception of ethnicity and politics provided space for the self-expression of specific
ethnic and language groups. It also led to a strong territorialization of ethnicity:
ethnicity was territory, with exclusivist tendencies, and forms of mixture did not
really fit the scheme, especially in the towns and cities, which were almost by
definition mixed and pluralist. But also in the countryside, there were some
problems, as rural districts were, contra reality, held to be the territory of one
‘‘original’’ ethnic group, and of one only. Here we see a perhaps well-intentioned
programme leading to essentialist group images and classifications of minorities or
migrants as ‘‘strangers’’ or ‘‘latecomers’’ that are difficult to accommodate. While the
legal basis for this perception may be absent, practice tends to confirm the picture,
especially in regard to members of minority groups or caste groups that are too
small to be recognized politically.10
The legal framework: progress on paper and a basis for development
The legal framework that underlies Ethiopian politics is an elaboration of the
political ideology of the party that won the civil war in 1991, the TPLF/EPRDF, and
has not changed much. While the 1991 Transitional Charter first indicated the strong
ethnic basis of the future political dispensation of post-conflict Ethiopia, the basic
document is obviously the Ethiopian Constitution, drawn up by a committee
appointed by the ruling party and ratified in the transitional parliament in December
1994. The two most salient and still much debated elements here are: (a) the
definition of ‘‘political sovereignty’’ this is vested in the ‘‘nations, nationalities, and
peoples’’ of the country (article 8); and (b) the secession clause in article 39 any
nation, nationality or people (ethnic group) that wished to secede from the
federation can do so after following the required three-step procedure. This most
unusual clause (only found in the old Soviet Union constitution) is a perennial bone
of contention and rightly so, because it reflects the underlying emphasis (or
dilemma) of the Constitution as a document emphasizing the differentiating instead
of unifying elements of the federation. On the basis of the documents, 64 NNPs
received the right to establish self-governments, as enumerated in Proclamation no. 7
of 1992.11 While it has created a legal and political reality, it was practically never
tried, and is unlikely to be allowed to be put into practice.
Many have commented of the strongly static, primordialist definition of ‘‘ethnic
groups’’ (i.e., of what in Ethiopian legal texts are called ‘‘nations, nationalities and
peoples’’, here abbreviated as NNPs). For example, in article 39(5) of the Ethiopian
constitution it says:
A ‘‘nation, nationality or people’’ for the purpose of this Constitution, is a group of
people who have or share a large measure of a common culture or similar customs,
mutual intelligibility of language, belief in a common or related identities, a common
psychological make-up, and who inhabit an identifiable, predominantly contiguous
territory.
This is still the official view on the NNPs in Ethiopia, although it does not cover all
groups. It assumes a certain static view of the groups and does not reflect the views of
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
Journal of Eastern African Studies 601
ethnicity as a social ‘‘part-identity’’, invoked situationally. Numerous critical
reflections have been offered in academic work and evaluative reports showing
that this view does not reflect reality and cannot work together with democracy.12
But it is maintained anyway because it is a convenient framework elaborated in
territories, electoral districts and control structures, e.g., via ethno-regional parties
linked to the ruling party. Next to the three categories mentioned, a fourth category
is added in another article of the Constitution (art. 53.2): the ‘‘minority nationality’’:
one that is too small to form a regional or district self-government or a voter district
of its own.13 Twenty-two such ‘‘minority nationalities’’ always receive one seat each
in the parliament, the House of People’s Representatives.
A federal institution worth mentioning is the second chamber, the House of the
Federation (HoF),14 which is largely a constitutional control chamber made up of
people from the Regions and has elected members from the regional state
parliaments. Here the ruling party EPRDF has also great influence. The HoF has
members from all the 74 recognized ethnic groups (NNPs) in the country. Its chief
role is to interpret the Constitution (at the exclusion of the Judiciary), to mediate in
disputes between zones or regional states (article 62.6) and to contribute to decisions
on formulas for regional state revenue sharing. In the past 20 years it often mediated
relatively successfully in ethnic group boundary disputes. Still, the HoF is not a very
active institution; perhaps understandable, because is has no legislative function.
There is also a Ministry of Federal Affairs, directly under the Prime Minister, that
is concerned with dispute resolution and ‘‘capacity building’’ of the regions. It has
been growing in importance in the past decade and has more impact than the HoF
because of its closeness to the Executive and its capacity to enforce its decisions.
The Ministry of Federal Affairs (issuing from the previous Regional State Issues
bureau in the PM’s office) also runs prisons and is in charge of security in the
peripheral, lowland regions. The existence of such a Ministry (at the federal level and
in a supposedly federal political system) indicates the continued objective of the
central government to manage the ethno-regions. This may produce contradictions
to the basic idea of federalism. At the same time, this Ministry has been able to help
defuse several ethnic group conflicts in the west, south-west and south of the
country.15
Part of the federal structure is the aim of decentralization and devolution of
power and decision-making to the ethno-regions: regarding budget, revenue
collection, self-administration, the judiciary, and local development planning. This
programme of decentralization has had limited results over the past two decades, but
it can be seen in the adoption of the locally dominant languages for administrative
purposes and the staffing of the new bureaucracy by ethnic locals. A great problem is
always said to be ‘‘the lack of capacity’’, but the more important one has been that of
corruption and nepotism.
A final notable element of ethnic federalism is the public celebration of ethnic
diversity. The colourful folkloric aspects of this diversity are advertised on large
street posters, on national TV programmes on ethnic dance and song, on postage
stamps, via touristic products, and in cultural festivals such as the annual
‘‘Nationalities, Nations and Peoples’ Day’’, a national meeting day for representatives of the many peoples in the country. There is also a cultural policy document16
that in principle promises to enhance or preserve culture and heritage throughout the
country. In practice, however, such aims of preservation and respect of cultural
diversity are hemmed in and undermined by laws about ‘‘development’’ (to which
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
602 J. Abbink
everything should be subsumed), policies toward the abolition of ‘‘harmful
traditional practices’’ (controversial;17 determined by the federal government,
not the communities themselves), and by frequent statements by government
spokesmen and leaders that the livelihoods of such groups are not sustainable and
that they cannot be preserved like natural species or museum pieces.
The federal order is a very complex structure. This is evident from the
constitution, the many additional laws and proclamations issued since 1994, and
the institutional layers established top-down. It has in actual practice led to the
emphatic presence and interference of the federal government via the ruling party
and its officers/employees (cadres) to create an effective governance structure and
monitor or sanction ‘‘deviations’’. Recently one Ethiopian observer even said that
the federation does not show enough devolution of powers, and that ‘‘there is
absolutely no political freedom at the state level. Today . . . the government of
Ethiopia operates more like a unitary state’’.18
Ethnicity and the ideology of ‘‘revolutionary democracy’’
Many commentators have discussed the ideology that runs across the ethno-federal
constitutional structure: that of ‘‘revolutionary democracy’’. This is not the place to
elaborate on this19 but suffice it to say that this ideology of the ruling TPLF/EPRDF
party is a hybrid ruling ideology derived from Leninism, infused with some
democratic principles, and confronted with or applied to ethnic diversity in the
country. For our purposes here, I only note that ‘‘revolutionary democracy’’ was seen
by EPRDF in 1991 as the way to implement the ‘‘democratization’’ of Ethiopia by
way of according ethnic rights and exercising local, ethnicized power via derived,
satellite ethnic parties in the newly established ethnic districts and regions.20 In this
governance venture, the use of political advisers, i.e., the ruling party ‘‘cadres’’
as they are called, is vital. They are active across the country training and ‘‘guiding’’
local administrations. Inevitably, this phenomenon enhances the intertwining of
ruling party, government and state,21 and reflects the revolutionary-democratic party
ideal of so-called ‘‘democratic centralism’’. The democratic content of this formula
is, however, limited or let us say, peculiar.22
Ethiopia’s ethno-federal democracy is of course not a liberal parliamentary
democracy as commonly accepted.23 It is rather centralist and vanguardist, under a
ruling party. As said, it is a direct product from revolutionary Marxist-Leninist
thinking and does not entertain the possibility of a possible loss of power in elections,
although of course elections have been held. The EPRDF stance is that liberal
democracy cannot work in a developing country like Ethiopia and that the country
needs a dominant party (now called awra party in Amharic: the ‘‘dominant’’ party).
This was substantiated in all elections so far, where the EPRDF always came out as
the overwhelming winner. Interesting is that this idea of the impossibility or
‘‘undesirability’’ of liberal democracy was virtually refuted by the 2005 elections,
a remarkable phase of electoral performance in that the opposition parties of the
time gained a very large following and had been allowed to appear in state TV
debates and to campaign, etc. Here we saw a real dawn of political pluralism.
But only when it appeared that the opposition parties could win the vote and thus
jeopardize the entire revolutionary-democratic programme, the process was probably
interfered with and the ruling party still won in the end.24 But the point is: voters
(we will never know how many exactly) knew what to vote for and wanted in many
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
Journal of Eastern African Studies 603
districts to vote the EPRDF out of office. There are some data for various regions,25
suggesting that support for parties did not follow predictable ‘‘ethnic’’ or urban
rural lines. At the level of the National Electoral Board, however, votes disappeared
in a non-transparent counting exercise. When a coalition government would have
been formed in 2005, the Ethiopian political experiment would have entered a new
democratic phase, and the ideology of the ruling party would have to be modified
and adapted in political practice. To sum up, as the EPRDF won all elections on any
level since 1991, the revolutionary-democratic model, with its strongly centralist
approach, was retained, and the federal democratic model has not really been put to
the test.
Ethnic diversity and the ethnic regions
group relations
a new socio-political structure of
Numerous legal and logical analyses have been made of the nature and effects of the
federal structure of Ethiopia, and many reach similar conclusions. I will not repeat
them here. But to draw up the balance of the almost 20 years of ethno-federalism
one has to look at the facts of the ground: how has the model fared in reality. Only
a brief survey can be given here.
The innovative and encouraging aspect of Ethiopia’s ethno-linguistic based
federalism in the 1990s was that it initiated a liberating phase of ethnic and
linguistic self-expression. People used their freedom for ethnic, linguistic and
cultural expression. For instance, a whole series of new ethno-historical,
language and folkloric publications written by members of the groups
themselves was published, and still is. According to law, no ethnic group or
individual should be afraid or to be ashamed of performing his/her ethnicity.
Old denigrating categories, such as ‘‘Shanqila’’ used for the black, southwestern ethnic minorities, are forbidden by law and can lead to court cases for
group insult.26 Local administrations can pursue their affairs and meetings in
the dominant local languages, such as Sidama or Wolaitta or Gamo or Afar.
All this does not preclude the continued existence of prejudice and of
denigration of certain groups by others. Nor did these rhetorical acts construe
equality between the groups: ethnic ranking and hierarchy, e.g. of highland
groups towards lowland groups, continues.27
Specific local cultural policies according to the ethnic make-up of a region or
zone or district can be developed and pursued. Research on local languages
and folklores is facilitated more.
There has been decentralization and devolution of powers, at least in outward
from and appearance. Much of it is, however, more akin to deconcentration.
More funds have been flowing to regional authorities, and some regional state
can act autonomously in securing external (even foreign) project aid.
New institutions for conflict mediation were instituted through state organs
like the HoF, the Ministry of Federal Affairs, district or regional courts and
the ruling party branches. Also some recognition was given to the role of local
community elders and religious authorities (i.e., if they are not serious matters
like assault, highway robbery, homicide or specified ‘‘political crimes’’
as defined by the government), although ruling party/government officials
usually kept control of the proceedings.
604 J. Abbink
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
There has been a resurgence of sub-national and ethnic identities, sometimes
with political overtones. One example was the fight over ‘‘WoGaGoDa’’ in the
Wolaitta area in 19992000, discussed below. This has an economic dimension
in that new ethnic entrepreneurs seek to foster specific types of ethnic
belonging for instrumental reasons: a rational response to an institutional
system that puts a premium on ethnic group rights.
Local border and identity conflicts, often incorrectly dubbed ‘‘ethnic’’
conflicts, have however increased. A fair number of newly emphasized
ethnic groups pleaded for their own separate administrative division. Often
they got a special district (liyyu woreda). Some of these border disputes
became very lethal. All this has resulted in more local intolerance and
exclusivist claim-making. People may have the right, and may feel happy, in
asserting a newly found identity, but mostly the process seems to be shaped by
a political economy of claim making for local power, jobs as well as federal
budgets.
Territories have become mono-ethnic, even if they were not so historically;
they cannot be shared by two or more groups. Acrimonious conflicts and
personal drama have often been the result. One case was the repeated
expulsion of northern (re)settlers of ‘‘Amhara’’ origin from Wälläga in 200028
(and later in 2005), which reportedly happened with the connivance of the
local authorities. It is to be recalled also that various Regional State
constitutions carry the clause that the ‘‘sovereignty’’ in the Region resides in
the majority ethnic group or people, thus excluding the other inhabitants.
Especially pastoralist groups have become more vulnerable as the state and the
regional authorities want them to ‘‘settle’’ and suspect them of fomenting
instability and over-exploitation of the environment.29
The actual power and interference of the federal government in regional and
local affairs has become stronger than under any previous regime.
There is strong normative social and cultural pressure on minority ethnic
groups to conform to highland society lifestyles and to abandon traditional
livelihoods and so-called ‘‘harmful traditional practices’’.
The federal structure is undermined, and thwarted at times, by the political
ideology of the government (ruling party), i.e., revolutionary democracy,
as the party retained all real power at the centre and has not sufficiently
‘‘democratized’’ the federal structure: the say of the regions and the zones on
any policies is very limited.
Conflict and mediation
some examples
Conflict in the federation has not been scarce. On the national level there are two
ethno-regional movements that offer armed resistance: the Oromo Liberation Front
for Oromo autonomy rights in various parts of Ethiopia, and the Ogaden
National Liberation Front for autonomy or independence of the Somali in Eastern
Ethiopia (Region 5). Granted that these two movements are violent, have in the
recent past made several incomprehensible decisions and killed scores of innocent
civilians and bystanders, there is also a historical basis for their grievances, which
were not yet handled adequately by the state. I will not discuss the movements
here, but it seems that in itself article 39 of the Constitution has allowed or
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
Journal of Eastern African Studies 605
encouraged some ethnic-based organizations in the country from historically
underprivileged groups to develop secessionist programmes. Obviously, ethnoregional insurgent movements existed before the promulgation of the 1994
Constitution, but article 39 has given their cause a legal basis, and both movements
mentioned have appealed to it. But any stirring in these respective regions to start a
process towards more autonomy or secession was suppressed and institutionally
thwarted; and no region will, despite the right to do so, ever have the practical
possibility to secede from Ethiopia. So the principle of conceding secession seems
vacuous in the face of the very strong federal state and its Executive. It serves as a
rhetoric device in back gear, the constitution drafters assuming that because of its
formal presence and enticement value it will never be resorted to. This has,
however, undermined the sincerity of the federal idea.
I now turn to some elements of conflict perception, amongst which are the
following. As noted above, the classification of Ethiopia’s citizens primarily in
terms of their ethnicity as well as the strong territorialization of groups has been
accompanied by and perhaps been a casual factor in, numerous new local-level
conflicts about who is what, and to heavy pressure on people to ‘‘come out’’ for
one ethnicity (e.g., of the father) and not the other.30 Also conflicts erupt frequently about the right to have a job in the local ethnicized administration, about
voting or candidature rights, and especially of course about borders. Borders
between regions, zones and districts have been the recurring issue of dozens of
conflicts, many of them violent and with numerous casualties (I counted
c.50006000 people killed over the past 20 years in such ‘‘ethnic’’ and ‘‘border’’
conflicts). This however is not to say that all resulted from state-induced border
arrangements.
There is also minority discrimination and ethnic inequality. While some authors
claim31 that ethnic conflicts do not really occur in Ethiopia because the new regions
and districts are staffed and led by members of the locally dominant ethnic group
and thus cannot suppress their ‘‘own people’’, reality is different. We have seen
conflict and repression of people by the local administration or security forces from
nominally their own ethnic community, examples of armed clashes and expulsions of
people of a certain ethnic group from certain areas, and the barring of qualified
locals for jobs in the local administration or school system because of their preferring
another political party.
Solutions have to be found here for the practical consequences and the
mechanisms of ‘‘enemy making’’ on the local level that produce this. While the
formal ethno-political structure as such cannot always be held responsible for violent
abuse, it may by its rhetorical construction and governance practices stimulate
difference and antagonism.
One would say that this aspect of conflict production in the federal political
experiment needs amendment or at least elaboration, optimizing the use of available
procedures for conflict prevention and resolution given by the Constitution and by
additional laws, e.g. on ‘‘alternative conflict resolution mechanisms’’ (as announced
by the government in 2006 and tried several times, e.g. in 2007 in the Ethiopian
Southwest, when a settlement between several warring pastoral ethnic groups was
reached).
Some well-known examples of conflict and mediation of recent years, closely
related to the ethno-federal political framework, follow below.
606 J. Abbink
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
Wogagoda
Wogagoda was the name of a composite Omotic language in which the federal
government wanted to conduct local administration and the education system, in
order to save costs and ‘‘unite’’ four groups: the Wolaitta, Gamo, Gofa and Dawro,
all speaking closely related languages.32 But the groups resisted; notably the
dominant Wolaitta, who feared being overruled by others and rejected culturallinguistic ‘‘colonization’’. Protests erupted in November 1999 in which c.12 people
were killed and millions worth of school books and property were destroyed. In the
Wolaitta capital Soddo, local people turned on members of other groups, e.g., Gamo
people who were in the police force, to vent their anger. An initial federal government clamp-down was followed by negotiations and abandonment of the language
plans. The problem was thus ‘‘solved’’ on the federal, not on the regional, state level.
Wolaitta as a result was also granted a new status as a separate Zone and was
detached from the larger North Omo Zone. Proper consultation in advance to these
perhaps well-intentioned language plans could have prevented the casualties.
Anywa Nuer relations
In Gambella regional state there has been perennial competition and conflict
between the indigenous sedentary Anywa people and the agro-pastoral Nuer, many
of whom have since 1991 migrated in large numbers into Gambella, and since more
than 15 years appear to form the numerical majority. The EPRDF initially supported
an Anywa-dominated local administration, but later shifted towards support of the
Nuer. Other local minorities as well as ‘‘highlanders’’ (Amhara, Gurage, Oromo,
Tigray) were left out of the local administration, not being ‘‘indigenous’’.
The features of this conflict have been repeated clashes, persistent border disputes,
and rounds of killings, the worst one in 2003 when dozens of people died in
Gambella town. The federal government contained the problem but has not been
able to find a durable solution for the division of power.33 It was also accused of
sometimes fanning the conflict.34
Benishangul-Gumuz regional state
In this small and rather marginal regional state (0.5 million people) a conflict erupted
in the mid-1990s between the various population groups, indigenous Berta, Gumuz
and descendants of later immigrant groups like the Oromo, the Amhara and other
‘‘highlanders’’, about political representation, ethnic districts, and the regional presidency. As the groups did not differ much in population size and as there
was no majority ethnic group, fierce competition started among the two indigenous
groups for the leadership and for resources via claims for new ethnic district units.
Under the federal system’s rules, the highlanders (counting c. 35% but not being
‘‘indigenous’’) were excluded from the leading positions: they were so-called ‘‘nontitular’’ groups. After inter-group rioting (Gumuz vs. Berta and Berta vs. Amhara/
highlanders) and boycotts of the regional government by either the Gumuz or the
Berta representatives, a commission of the House of the Federation could
successfully intervene by negotiating a complicated compromise formula with ethnic
quota, formation of a new ‘‘special woreda’’ for the Amhara resettler population,
new councils, and a structure of alternate power holding. Peace in the region is
Journal of Eastern African Studies 607
maintained due to federal control and intricately balancing the ethnic interests,
although at the exclusion of the largest group, the highlanders. Stability does not
seem durable.
Somali Oromo relations
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
In the vast border area of the Oromo and Somali regions in southeast Ethiopia there
are ongoing disputes about land, border and identities. First of all, there have been
frequent disputes between the Boran-Oromo and Somali clans since 1991. Secondly,
Somali and Oromo identities are not unambiguous; some groups claim to be both
Somali and Oromo, like the Garre, Garrimarro, or Gabbra, and what they emphasize
may depend on wider perceptions of their interests and access to power and
resources. Even the ‘‘ownership’’ of the regional town of Moyale (on the Kenyan
border) was contested by the local ethnic/clan groups. In 200304 there were
disturbances in the area on regional borders, along a new fault line of Gerri
(originally Darod Somali) and Jarso (who are Somalized Oromo). Interestingly the
two groups previously had an alliance of more than a hundred years. Their being
imbricated in local ethnic politics and claims of local ethnic parties made them drift
apart and emphasize a more separate identity,35 and conflict erupted. The federal
government then organized a referendum in October 2004 to settle the emerging
boundary dispute between the Oromia and Somali regional states. As a result, more
than 35 GerriJarso kebeles were transferred to the Oromia region,36 others
remained in Somali Region 5. Again the federal government was instrumental in
negotiating a deal by confirming an ethnic ‘‘separation’’.37
So in most of the cases above solutions were found, be it often tardy and
haphazard. Issues of population balance (no one group being overwhelmingly
dominant), local leadership, as well as government promises may have been
conducive here. But the point is that disputes keep (re)surfacing, and separation
and containment seem to be pursued as solutions. This is evident, for instance, in the
large number (13 at present) of ‘‘special woredas’’ or districts within a zone or
between zones that have more autonomy than others.
Ethio-democracy and ethnic-based federalism: inherent tensions?
So we have seen ‘‘revolutionary democracy’’ and territorialized ethno-linguistic
federalism in the past two decades, and in view of the facts on the ground the many
reports in the Ethiopian press about clashes and land disputes there are tensions.
Why? Because Ethiopian ethno-federalism is a ‘‘container federalism’’, based on
fixed ethnic entities. The federal structure is precariously democratic and generates
competition between the NNPs (or ethnic groups), specifically their aspiring elites,
about ‘‘resources’’ land, water, minerals, federal funds and about communal or
religious identity. In other words, they have a political interest to take position
against each other.38
The social facts of ethnic identity and local group relations show that ethnicity is
fluid, ambivalent and negotiated. An ethno-federal system needs to be legally and
institutionally capable of recognizing and pragmatically handling these dynamic
aspects, which result in opportunistic behaviour, group-based claim making, and
shifts in (ethnic) self-identity. There is ambiguous evidence that the Ethiopian
federal state has furthered such pragmatic solutions in the field as in the
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
608 J. Abbink
Benishangul-Gumuz region, in the South, or on the AmharaAfar border. But the
legal framework per se (the Constitution and the other laws) as well as the
governance practices, e.g. of the strongly centre-dominated Ministry of Federal
Affairs, may paradoxically hinder this pragmatism.
Furthermore, there is tension in the federal system due to: (a) strong
administrative control from the centre, with capillary dual control structures into
all regions; (b) economic and budgetary dependency of ethno-regions on the federal
centre; (c) insufficient decentralization in administrative and economic practice;
(d) a clever district voting system tied to the national ruling party and its allies where
the ‘‘first past the post’’ system guarantees that a local ethnic majority represented by
a party linked to the ruling party EPRDF always wins the vote and rules the region.39
Critics say that a recurrent problem of the federation is the unchanged one-party
dominance based on the old Marxist ‘‘democratic-centralist’’ thinking: top-down
policies by the vanguard party.40 The latter indeed may often ‘‘know best’’ and they
have a clear programme, but this works against political pluralism and grass roots
initiatives, and does not allow us to gauge the extent of consent of ethnic elites
towards the current political federation. There is a tendency to rule by coercion and
by imposed ‘‘solutions’’. At the same time there is a reluctance or fear to use local
initiatives and customary mediation mechanisms in times of conflict. Perhaps the
Ogaden situation is the best example of this. Here we see a major problem where the
government and the population are not able to work out a solution.41 The regional
government in the Ogaden (Region 5) is not performing well and, supported by
federal security, responds with strong armed force to suppress the rebel movement
ONLF as well as civilians suspected of assisting them. An emergency law situation
is in place and the humanitarian and food situation remains dramatic.
A general basis for tension in the federation may also be that the current nine
large ethno-regions make often little economic and geographic-ecological sense:
widely disparate parts of various language communities, e.g., of Amhara and Oromo,
were lumped together in a region. But the ethno-linguistic units were (and are) not
economic or political units. Parts of these regions were or are economically more
related to neighbouring regions outside the regional state and with those inside it.
For instance, Wollega Oromo with Gumuz (in another state), Gojjam Amhara with
Wollega Oromo, or Afar with Somali and Tigrayans. Even enmity between various
parts of allegedly the ‘‘same people’’ has been regularly recorded on the basis of
different beliefs, values and livelihoods (clashes between Guji vs. Boran, both
Oromo-speaking). Also annexations of areas belonging historically to other ethnicnational groups were recorded, based not on ethno-linguistic but on profitable
economic criteria, e.g. the large Humera sesame-producing areas to Tigray while it
was historically part of Amhara (Gondar/Begemdir). Asymmetry is found in any
kind of federation, but the territorial, economic and demographic imbalances in the
Ethiopian one are created on presumed ethno-linguistic grounds and ideologically
enforced unity, and have introduced a new hierarchy that will remain a bone of
contention.
One of the underlying aims of a federation is to further stability, via the
recognition of autonomy and self-determination claims, the application of rule-oflaw principles in political practice, and the mediation of conflicts. I will not discuss
the evidence about recent conflicts regarding politics proper, e.g., the national
elections (2005, 2010), the government/party attitude towards opposition parties, the
precarious existence of the independent press, of NGOs, of independent labour
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
Journal of Eastern African Studies 609
unions, of public dissent, and the ongoing rebellion and counter-insurgency in
Somali Region 5. But I note that in the domain of ethnic relations many observers
have doubted whether stability and consensus seeking were decisively enhanced by
the current political model, which has politicized ethnicity. Although there are good
examples of successful mediation and solution of certain problems via the House of
the Federation or the Ministry of Federal Affairs, the fact that so-called ethnic
conflicts are produced time and again on the local level is a moot point. As noted,
an inventory of ‘‘ethnicbased’’ incidents and conflicts mentioned in the press and in
various human rights reports over the past years has revealed dozens of cases and
with a disturbing number of fatalities.
The new dynamics
New economic developments and the growing role of the federal Executive in recent
years may mark a departure from the ethno-federal model as we know it. The recent
emphasis on, if not obsession with, ‘‘development’’, in the sense of grand
infrastructure investments (hydropower schemes) and commercial agriculture
ventures by foreign investors being given large tracts of land, has increased the
grip of the federal government, bypassing the regional states and the local
populations. Land is state property and can be easily expropriated and used for
state or foreign investment.42
While the debates on the benefits and pitfalls of ethno-federalism will go on,
there is therefore a possibility that they will become secondary of even fairly
irrelevant in the face of the economic changes and the general development of
Ethiopian society. The massive infrastructure works, new economic ventures, large
resettlement projects in the South, hydro-power dam schemes, land investments, etc.,
may engender a new nation-wide dynamic that rekindles ‘‘assimilation’’ processes or
socio-economic mobility across the (ethnic) regions. This is indeed to be expected,
and indeed the Ethiopian federal government does everything to deflect attention
from existing problems of group tensions, democratic deficit43 and conflict. But these
processes of ‘‘assimilation’’ and growing trans-group contracts will not occur without
legal and political changes. The Ethiopian government/ruling party aims to keep full
control of the process and, according to critics, appears to run the economy as a
party-co-opted venture.
A brief analysis of the recently started Ghibe-3 dam venture and of the alienation
of large tracts of land from pastoral and agrarian peoples in the south and west of
the country makes these control structures clear.44
The Ghibe-3 dam in the Lower Omo River
The federal project since 2006 to build a third large dam in the Omo River aims to
generate a huge reservoir for electricity production, also for export. The interruption
of the flow of the Omo River will have a serious impact on the livelihoods of
c.200,000 people downstream up to Kenya, impeding their flood bank cultivation
systems, fishery, and availability of pasture. Most of these people happen to be
smaller agro-pastoral ethnic groups. The local people were not seriously involved in
consultations and their customary land rights not recognized, because this dam was
defined as a matter of overriding national concern. The environmental and social
impact assessment report was weak and late. Serious compensations were not on
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
610 J. Abbink
offer except vague promises of schools, clinics, or roads. Sedentary cultivators may
indeed receive some compensation and low-paid job offers, but the needs and rights
of pastoral (mobile) groups are more difficult to meet. Local objections towards the
building of this dam in the manner proposed have been quelled and can even land
people in prison.45 Here we see that ethnic minorities have little possibility to defend
themselves against federal development plans and are left to their own devices; they
simply must submit and share in the ‘‘development’’ to come. Here the federal
structures could have performed much better but did not feel any need to do so.
According to local people and observers this contradicts the letter and spirit of the
federation.
Large-scale land investments by foreigners
A new phenomenon since c.2006 is that of the federal and regional governments
handing out huge tracts of land for commercial agrarian investment, mostly to
foreigners, against lease fees and easy conditions. Most of the land is said to be
unproductive and empty terrain, fit for cultivation. Partly this is true. But a large
portion of these lands is also used in a low intensity manner by local groups as
essential livelihood supplement (livestock pasture, forest product gathering, beekeeping, shifting cultivation, water supply). The figures are staggering,46 and the
land being formally state property is easily alienated from local people and then
fenced off. In many cases, proper socio-ecological assessment studies have not been
carried out, and the idea of serious dialogue about the plans is absent. Again ethnic
minorities although not the only ones affected47 are extra vulnerable because they
cannot defend their rights (small numbers, lack of language knowledge and regional
connections). The options for local people are to move out and migrate to other
areas,48 or to become (low-paid) labourers on the newly established mega-farms,
taken out of their social fabric and networks. Alternative areas or facilities are not
prepared for them and many are lost and become destitute.49
This process is very recent and its full effects are not yet known. The social and
ecological impacts may be different from what the federal government expects.
The hope is that these large agro-firms will have a positive effect on food security in
Ethiopia50 as well as an economic and technological-managerial spill-over effect on
Ethiopian agriculture, but this is not guaranteed unless the federal government
imposes stricter conditions, demands training for Ethiopians and provides proper
compensation for locals.
These massive processes of socio-economic engineering and change which call
to mind the state schemes described in James Scott’s famous study Seeing like a
State51 do radically impinge on local peoples and undermine their rights as local
cultivators or as minority ethnic groups vis-à-vis the central state and dominant
groups, and thus seem to endanger their ethnic rights in their own homeland areas.
The state projects mentioned represent (in Scott’s terms) a ‘‘high-modernist’’
development ideology that is not interested in local knowledge and people: local
people were only nominally consulted and are not in effect seen as stake-holders,
and in no case of the proposed schemes has any serious alteration been made.52 Here
a seamless continuity can be found with the large ‘‘Socialist’’ schemes of resettlement,
villagization and collective agriculture that were tried under the Derg regime,53
although the ideological justification is now democratic-centralist developmentalism.
As noted above, neither were commensurate compensations offered, and it is unclear
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
Journal of Eastern African Studies 611
if they will materialize. The problem is not that development on a large scale is
started in Ethiopia this can have benefits. The problem is that the regional states
and lower authorities have no power or inclination to consider or to protect minority
ethnic groups from adverse effects contained in certain federal policies. This, I think,
reveals a weakness of the ethno-federal order and its democratic content.54
The ruling government, or party (the same), is adamant about these large
development schemes and about its vanguard ideology of ‘‘revolutionary democracy’’, but the latter seems to subvert essential elements of the federal order and the
rights to culture and livelihood of the various ethnic groups. It is to be asked whether
in some respects the revolutionary democracy ideology has perhaps not outlived the
conditions of the early 1990s, when the new regime was faced with the task of
‘‘holding together’’ a diverse and complex country in a post-war situation. Even
apart from the contentious electoralpolitical processes of recent years and its need
of constant and costly monitoring (via omnipresent cadres), the ideology may
contradict some of the demands of the formal ethno-federal order. In the case of the
two big schemes mentioned above, it can be contended that local peoples simply have
to adapt to the new national development schemes, but if that is enforced without
involving them and by asking them to utterly change their livelihoods and ethnocultural profile55 which they have the constitutional right to keep and preserve it
is unclear what the meaning of ethno-federalism is.
To come back to the general point of the possible impact of the overall economic
changes and the general development of Ethiopian society, there is no doubt that
social frameworks and ethnic relations will change in their wake. But this change will
not materialize if some legal and institutional facilitation is not provided. E.g., rural
land is not owned by people and cannot be sold (FDRE 2005), ethnicity is still the
defining basis of territorial-administrative units, and so-called illegal migrants from
poorer areas and with another ethnicity have a tenuous status are regularly chased
out by local authorities (from another ethnic group) from the areas where they
migrate to. The emergence of a more diffuse, dynamic category or middle class of
trans-regional people is thus inhibited and the economic dynamics hindered. While
even the aforementioned position of economic growth and development as most
important national challenge may eventually carry the day, it cannot succeed when
the political model and its legal constraints are not adapted to these processes. It
remains to be seen if the current party in power is able or willing to make any
adaptations, but one might hope so.
Conclusion: a mixed picture
Ethiopia in the past 20 years has rhetorically liberated ethnic relations, accorded
many ethnic rights, and enhanced local self-administration, as evident from the
relevant legal texts and the regional-zonal division of the country. Ethnic groups
in their guises of ‘‘nations, nationalities and peoples’’, from the c.28 mln Oromo to
the c.70 Ongota (Birale) are formally recognized and have been exercising rights of
political representation and cultural and language development over the past
20 years. But how these are to be reconciled and what scope they can have still
remains unclear, especially within the new economic dynamics. Economic upsurge is
in full swing and has seen successes. But these do neither ‘‘compensate’’ for the sociopolitical problems nor guarantee stability. At present there still are constraints and
dilemmas in the field of ethnicity and citizenship.
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
612 J. Abbink
Ethnicity, in the form of ethnic self-determination claims, is well-developed in
political rhetoric but seen as expendable when great national development ventures
(dams, resettlement, foreign land acquisitions/plantations) are undertaken. Common
citizenship is still underdeveloped, because it is not the basis of constitutional
sovereignty and rights as ethnicity is the prime basis of people’s identity: for voting
in elections, for party membership, and for identifying yourself when you come to a
police station to report a stolen object. Ethnic federalism as an institutional set-up
privileges ethnicity as one marker of identity over many others (economic, citizenship,
occupation, religion, class, or gender) and, in a sense, freezes this one marker of
identity, or rather encourages people to identify in ethnic terms. But in many contexts
the other ways of identifying are as important, and sometimes more so. Inclusive
national discourse, as a result, has suffered and is nowadays constructed primarily in
terms of ‘‘development’’ in the classic economic sense (i.e., GDP growth), and not in
those of well-being, or democratic performance, or human rights respect, or the
Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), or the Human Development Index measurement.56 This despite the renewed rhetorical emphasis on ‘‘national unity’’ celebrated
in numerous seminars and public statements. The EPRDF version of panEthiopianist national discourse, developed notably after the Ethio-Eritrean war,
and is also seen in occasional symbolic celebrations of ‘‘unity in diversity’’ such as
Flag Day (since 2008)57 and Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Day (since 2006,
an annual celebration of the ethnic group traditions of Ethiopia). But it has not been
able to redefine the basis and hierarchy of the ethno-federal system in place. Ethiopian
citizenship is still overlaid by cultivated ethno-regional identity, put above democracy.
In addition, in daily life ethnic identities are now ‘‘internalized’’ by people to a
significant extent. This may enhance more mutual prejudice and stereotyping.
All in all, when considering Ethiopia’s ethnic-based federalism one can speak of
a mixed picture, with achievements but also threats. A social science perspective on
Ethiopia is not out to make normative judgements but describe and explain
observable facts and societal trends. One can easily discern both momentous changes
and remarkable continuities over the last 20 years in the patterns of governance and
in ethnic tensions. The first the changes are a testimony to the things achieved
and the tasks ahead; the second the continuities are indicative of the unresolved
problems and the unfulfilled promises that the country has yet to deal with. It is here
that the ‘‘benchmarks’’ to assess the ethno-federal model (see introduction)
contribution to (ethnic/regional) self-determination; ability to defuse/prevent ethnic-based conflict; democratic-consultative decision-making; exercise of ethnocultural rights; an open, trans-ethnic economic arena and partnership; and nondiscriminatory, issue-based politics for the federation as a whole are probably not
yet met. These problems would require additional political-legal engineering that
could more engage Ethiopia’s citizens, depoliticize ethnic identity, and reduce the
politics of top-down rule, distrust and threat, indicative of a strongly authoritarian
political culture lingering from the past. The French intellectual Alain Finkielkraut
once said58 that recognizing the fundamental unity and solidarity of all humans
across ethnic and political lines requires imagination and active work. In analogy,
one could say that recognizing the fundamental unity, rights and solidarity of all
Ethiopians across such lines requires a similarly positive, constructive attitude.
On this account the past 20 years of ethno-federalism have shown a neglect of
opportunities,59 and has yielded an unexpected hardening of political attitudes on
the side of the EPRDF government, notably since 2005.60 It is somewhat of a
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
Journal of Eastern African Studies 613
mystery why a party and government that came to power in 1991 with a groundswell
of support and even goodwill after the demise of the Derg regime has seen fit to
taint its historical record by stifling dissent and blocking the emergence of a mature
democracy.61 The ideal of a more representative parliamentary democracy, with
political and media freedoms and a reliable, independent justice system, is however a
global cause that is unlikely to be abandoned. In Ethiopia, economic resurgence is
indeed in progress, with new infrastructure works expanding, investments proceeding, production growing, and several Millennium Development Goals appearing
within reach.62 But perhaps the real work of building an inclusive, democratic and
more just society that puts ethnicity in its place and builds on addressing shared
challenges and problems has only just begun. Constructive work on commonalities between population groups rather than using difference and division is needed
i.e., a new psychology of trust and cooperation to maximize the potential and fulfil
the ultimate aims of the federation. Thus the traditional might be harmonized with
the new. Continued field research on Ethiopia’s ethnic groups and peoples, both by
government bodies and independent scholars, can contribute to the further understanding of the ‘‘experiment’’.
Notes
1. Vaughan, Addis Ababa Transitional Conference; Abbink, ‘‘Breaking and Making the
State’’; Micheau, ‘‘The 1991 Transitional Charter.’’
2. This paper offers a tentative assessment of such ‘‘benchmarks’’. A first sketch of this text
was presented at the symposium ‘‘Twenty Years since the Change of Government in
Ethiopia Twenty Years since Operation Solomon,’’ at the Truman Institute for the
Advancement of Peace, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, May 17, 2011. I am grateful to
various members of the audience, including Ethiopian Ambassador to Israel, H.E. Ato
Helawe Yosef, for their questions and comments.
3. Asked in 1995 whether he thought the new federal system would work, he answered:
‘‘I don’t know, but we have tried everything else, and that didn’t work,’’ cited in Clapham,
‘‘Nationalism, Nationality and Regionalism.’’
4. See Maimire, ‘‘Federalism, Ethnicity, and the Transition to Democracy’’; Alem,
‘‘Ethnic Pluralism as an Organizing Principle’’; Aalen, ‘‘Ethnic Federalism and Selfdetermination’’; Aalen, ‘‘Institutionalising the Politics of Ethnicity’’; Abbink, ‘‘Ethnicity
and Conflict Generation in Ethiopia’’; Asebe, ‘‘Ethnicity and Inter-Ethnic Relations’’;
Emebet, ‘‘Federalism and the Accommodation of Ethnic Diversity’’; Hagmann and
Mulugeta, ‘‘Pastoral Conflicts and State-Building’’; ICG, Ethiopia: Ethnic Federalism and
its Discontents; Kalkidan, ‘‘Nonfederal Features’’; Asnake, ‘‘Federal Restructuring in
Ethiopia’’; Tronvoll, ‘‘Interpreting Human Rights Violations,’’ Tronvoll, ‘‘Briefing: The
Ethiopian 2010 Federal and Regional Elections.’’
5. See PM Meles Zenawi’s ideological party texts Perspectives on Bonapartism and Again on
Bonapartism, and the EPRDF, The Development Lines. For the 2001 crisis, see Paulos,
‘The Great Purge’.
6. In this phase, a notable increase of accusations of ‘narrow nationalism’ or ‘tribalism’ was
seen in the government’s public statements and in the official media.
7. MoFED, Growth and Transformation.
8. Cf. Messay, ‘‘From Marxism-Leninism to Ethnicity.’’
9. Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Party, All-Ethiopia Socialist Movement, Oromo
Liberation Front, Tigray People’s Liberation Front, Sidama Liiberation Front.
10. See Tronvoll, ‘‘Interpreting Human Rights Violations.’’
11. See Negarit Gazeta ‘‘A Proclamation,’’ 78.
12. Aalen, ‘‘Institutionalising the Politics of Ethnicity’’; ICG, Ethiopia: Ethnic Federalism and
its Discontents; Merera, ‘‘Ethnicity, Democratisation and Decentralization’’; Teshome,
614 J. Abbink
13.
14.
15.
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
‘‘Conflict of Ethnic Identity and the Language of Education Policy’’; Tronvoll,
‘‘Interpreting Human Rights Violations.’’
See Tronvoll, ‘‘Interpreting Human Rights Violations.’’
The HoF and its role are described in the Ethiopian Constitution, articles 618.
In Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State, in Bench-Maji Zone, in South Omo Zone, in
SomaliOromo border areas, a.o.
FDRE, Cultural Policy.
There is even a semi-official list of 138 of such practices: see the curious book by the
National Committee on Traditional Harmful Practices of Ethiopia, Old beyond
Imaginings, 28590, a work co-financed by Norway’s NORAD.
See Kalkidan, ‘‘Nonfederal Features,’’ 11.
See Bassi, ‘‘Ethnic federalism and minority rights’’; Bach, ‘‘Abyotawi Democracy,’’ and
Merera, ‘‘Elections and Democratization’’ in this issue.
For some important programmatic documents, see: Anon., ‘‘TPLF/EPRDF’s Strategies’’;
Anon., ‘‘EPRDF’s Organizational Structure,’’ 1619; Anon., ‘‘EPRDF’s Organizational
Structure and Operation,’’ 1822; Anon., ‘‘EPRDF’s Organizational Structure and
Operation: Lessons for the Opposition (III)’’ 1821; Anon., ‘‘EPRDF’s Organizational
Structure and Operation: Lessons for the Opposition (IV),’’ 227; Anon., ‘‘EPRDF’s
Organizational Structure and Operation: Lessons for the Opposition (V),’’ 2024. See
also the more recent EPRDF, The Development Lines.
Emmenegger, Sibilo and Hagmann, ‘‘Decentralization to the Household’’ (this issue).
Cp. Vaughan and Tronvoll, Culture of Power; Abbink, ‘‘The Ethiopian Second Republic’’;
Bassi, ‘‘Ethnic Federalism and Minority Rights.’’
Article 8.1 of the Constitution states that the sovereignty of the (Ethiopian) people lies not
in the individuals/citizens (as in a liberal democracy) but in the ‘‘nations, nationalities and
peoples,’’ i.e. in collectivities. (FDRE, ‘‘The Constitution,’’ 79).
EU, Ethiopia Legislative Elections 2005.
See Arriola, ‘‘Ethnicity, Economic Conditions, and Opposition Support.’’
Previously instituted under the Derg regime.
This is reflected in the policies towards pastoralists, usually seen as backward, uncivilized
and in need of change.
See Ethiopian Human Rights Council, Serious Destructions Resulting from Ethnic
Governance, 34th Special Report, Addis Ababa, September 21, 2000.
Which is rarely the case, except when boundaries are made and territories are marked
off or enclosed.
See Hagmann and Mulugeta, ‘‘Pastoral Conflicts and State-Building,’’ 2930; Schlee and
Shongolo, ‘‘Local War and its Impact,’’ 1112.
Cf. Getachew Assefa, ‘‘Human and Group Rights Issues.’’ He wrote: ‘‘there is no way for
ethnically- or racially-motivated violations to occur, especially for them to be perpetrated
by the federal government. In all cases, the day-to-day administrations in the individual
states are run by the institutions and personnel of the states themselves’’ (ibid., 251) a
puzzling and incorrect observation. See Tronvoll’s excellent reply, ‘‘Interpreting Human
Rights Violations.’’
Data, ‘‘Enduring Issues in StateSociety Relations.’’
Cf. Dereje, ‘‘The Experience of Gambella Regional State’’; Dereje, ‘‘Conflict and Identity
Politics.’’
HRW, Targeting the Anuak this report, however, should be read with caution because
the casualty figures cited were not independently verified.
Asnake, ‘‘Federal Restructuring in Ethiopia,’’ 626.
Ibid., 617.
See also Fekadu, ‘‘Overlapping Nationalist Projects.’’
Cf. Abbink, ‘‘Ethnicity and Conflict Generation in Ethiopia.’’
People can only vote for ethnic parties that are allowed in their region, not for others
present in other states or in urban areas; e.g., an ‘‘Oromo party’’ cannot campaign in
Tigray or Afar Region. A more nationally orientated party, the Coaliton for Unity and
Democracy (CUD), contested the 2005 elections.
Cf. ICG, Ethiopia: Ethnic Federalism and its Discontents, 15f.
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
Journal of Eastern African Studies 615
41. See Hagmann, ‘‘Beyond Clannishness and Colonialism’’; Hagmann and Korf, ‘‘Agamben
in the Ogaden.’’
42. FDRE, ‘‘The Constitution’’; Oakland Institute, Understanding Land Investment Deals in
Africa, 44; Lavers, The Role of Foreign Investment, 16.
43. Cf. Hunt, ‘‘Ethiopia’s Endangered Democracy.’’
44. See also Bassi, ‘‘Ethnic Federalism and Minority Rights.’’
45. Cf. ‘‘Ethiopia’s Controversial Dam Project,’’ in The Guardian, March 7, 2011, http://www.
guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/mar/07/ethiopia-controversialdam-criticism-communities (accessed May 2, 2011). See also Tohme, ‘‘Turkana under
Threat Due to Damming of Omo River in Ethiopia.’’
46. In 20072010 some 2.9 million acres (1.17 mln. ha.) of land was given out, mostly
to foreign investors, and in 2013 the total lease area will be 7.4 million acres by 2013
(31,000 km2). McConnell and Overdorff, ‘‘New Scramble for Africa’s Land.’’ One of the
largest concessions is that of Indian firm Karuturi, with 100,000 ha. and with an option of
200,000 ha. more (in Gambela).
47. Most large-scale land acquisitions have so far been in the Gambela, Southern Region,
Oromiya and Amhara areas.
48. There are also forms of ‘‘contract farming’’ and ‘‘outsourcing,’’ whereby local farmers
cultivate part of their land for agrarian investor firms.
49. Some adverse effects of this process are shown in the documentary ‘‘Food Crisis and the
Global Land Grab’’; see especially after 30.00 m., on the farmers in the Bako area.
50. This is uncertain, as the firms can export their harvest to their countries of origin
(Saudi Arabia, Korea, India, Malaysia, China, etc.) rather than bring it to the Ethiopian
market.
51. Scott, Seeing Like a State.
52. Cf. Bassi, ‘‘Ethnic Federalism and Minority Rights.’’
53. Scott, Seeing Like a State, 24753.
54. For a fuller elaboration of the details of the Gibe III project, see Anderson and Turton,
‘‘After the Flood.’’
55. This change was promulgated by the EPRDF in a 2003 document (FDRE, Rural
Development Policies, 58), and in a BBC news report of 15 December 2010, quoting
Ethiopian government official Abera Deressa as saying that rural life in the areas [of land
acquisition] must change, and that: ‘‘Pastoralists have enough land for their cattle, but at
the end of the day we are not really appreciating pastoralist remaining as they are . . .
Pastoralism, as it is, is not sustainable. We want to change the environment,’’ http://www.
bbc.co.uk/news/business-11991926 (accessed February 7, 2011). See also similar words in
Ethiopian PM Meles Zenawi’s speech in Jinka in December 2010, http://www.mursi.org/
pdf/Meles%20Jinka%20speech.pdf (accessed April 21, 2011).
56. See Epstein, ‘‘Cruel Ethiopia.’’ For the MPI, see Oxford Poverty and Human
Development Initiative, Country Briefing: Ethiopia.
57. See ‘‘Ethiopia to Mark Flag Day Colorfully,’’ Walta news message, 28 August 2010.
58. Finkielkraut, L’Humanité Perdue.
59. Cf. Levine, ‘‘Ethiopia’s Missed Chances, I’’; ‘‘Ethiopia’s Missed Chances, II.’’
60. Cf. Tronvoll, ‘‘Interpreting Human Rights Violations,’’ and ‘‘Briefing: The Ethiopian 2010
Federal and Regional Elections.’’
61. It is unlikely that the Ethiopian public would welcome an ‘‘Orwellian’’ form of
(revolutionary) democracy, as presented in the ‘‘Bonapartism’’ papers of 2001 (see cited
works in note 5 above).
62. This does not imply that the economic record of the government is universally positive;
there is still food insecurity, poor service delivery in some areas, high inflation, and
ecological-environmental problems.
References
Aalen, L. ‘‘Ethnic Federalism and Self-determination for Nationalities in a Non-democratic
State: The Case of Ethiopia.’’ International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 13 (2006):
24361.
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
616 J. Abbink
Aalen, L. ‘‘Institutionalising the Politics of Ethnicity: Actors, Power and Mobilisation in
Southern Ethiopia under Ethnic Federalism.’’ PhD diss., University of Oslo, Department of
Political Science, 2005.
Abbink, J. ‘‘Ethnicity and Conflict Generation in Ethiopia: Some Problems and Prospects
of Ethno-regional Federalism.’’ Journal of Contemporary African Studies 24 (2006):
389413.
Abbink, J. ‘‘Breaking and Making the State: The Dynamics of Ethnic Democracy in
Ethiopia.’’ Journal of Contemporary African Studies 13 (1995): 14965.
Abbink, J. ‘‘The Ethiopian Second Republic and the Fragile ‘Social Contract’.’’ Africa
Spectrum 44 (2009): 328.
Alem Habtu. ‘‘Ethnic Pluralism as an Organizing Principle of the Ethiopian Federation.’’
Dialectical Anthropology 28 (2004): 91123.
Anderson, David M., and David Turton. ‘‘After the Flood: Evaluating the Impact of the Gibe
III Dam on the Peoples of the Lower Omo’’ (forthcoming).
Anon. ‘‘EPRDF’s Organizational Structure and Operation: Lessons for the Opposition.’’
Ethiopian Register 4, no. 9 (1997): 169.
Anon. ‘‘EPRDF’s Organizational Structure and Operation: Lessons for the Opposition (II).’’
Ethiopian Register 4, no. 10 (1997): 1822.
Anon. ‘‘EPRDF’s Organizational Structure and Operation: Lessons for the Opposition (III).’’
Ethiopian Register 4, no. 11 (1997): 1821.
Anon. ‘‘EPRDF’s Organizational Structure and Operation: Lessons for the Opposition (IV).’’
Ethiopian Register 4, no. 12 (1997): 227.
Anon. ‘‘EPRDF’s Organizational Structure and Operation: Lessons for the Opposition (V).’’
Ethiopian Register 5(2), 1998: 204.
Anon. ‘‘TPLF/EPRDF’s Strategies for Establishing its Hegemony and Perpetuating its Rule.’’
Ethiopian Register 3, no. 6 (1996): 229.
Arriola, L.R. ‘‘Ethnicity, Economic Conditions, and Opposition Support: Evidence from
Ethiopia’s 2005 Elections.’’ Northeast African Studies 10 (2003): 11544. Published 2007.
Asebe Regassa. ‘‘Ethnicity and Inter-Ethnic Relations: the ‘Ethiopian Experiment’ and the
Case of the Guji and Gedeo.’’ MPhil. thesis, Social Sciences, University of Tromsø, 2006.
Asnake Kefale. ‘‘Federal Restructuring in Ethiopia: Renegotiating Identity and Borders along
the OromoSomali Ethnic Frontiers.’’ In Negotiating Statehood: Dynamics of Power and
Domination in Africa, ed. T. Hagmann and D. Péclard. Special issue, Development and
Change 41 (2011): 61535.
Bach, Jean-Nicolas. ‘‘Abyotawi Democracy: Neither Revolutionary nor Democratic, a Critical
Review of EPRDF’s Conception of Revolutionary Democracy in Post-1991 Ethiopia.’’
Journal of Eastern African Studies 5, no. 4 (2011): 64163.
Bassi, M., ‘‘Ethnic Federalism and Minority Rights in Ethiopia: Conflicting Models?’’ Journal
of Eastern African Studies, forthcoming paper, 2012.
Clapham, Christopher. ‘‘Nationalism, Nationality and Regionalism in Ethiopia.’’ Occasional
paper. Anglo-Ethiopian Society, November 1995.
Data Dea. ‘‘Enduring Issues in StateSociety Relations in Ethiopia: A Case Study of the
WoGaGoDa Conflict in Wolaita, Southern Ethiopia.’’ International Journal of Ethiopian
Studies 2 (2006).
Dereje Feyissa. ‘‘Conflict and Identity Politics: The Case of AnywaaNuer Relations in
Gambela, Western Ethiopia.’’ In Changing Identifications and Alliances in Northeast Africa,
Volume 1, Sudan, Uganda and the EthiopiaSudan Borderlands, ed. G. Schlee and
E.E. Watson, 181204. Oxford/New York: Berghahn Books, 2009.
Dereje Feyissa. ‘‘The Experience of Gambella Regional State.’’ In Ethnic Federalism: The
Ethiopian Experience in Comparative Perspective, ed. D. Turton, 20830. Oxford: James
Currey, 2006.
Emebet Mengesha H. ‘‘Federalism and the Accommodation of Ethnic Diversity in Africa:
The Ethiopian Experience.’’ In Ethnicity, Human Rights and Constitutionalism in Africa, ed.
G. Mukundi Wachira, 15780. Nairobi: Kenyan Section of the International Commission
of Jurists Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, 2008.
Emmenegger, Rony, Keno Sibilo, and Tobias Hagmann, ‘‘Decentralization to the Household:
Expansion and Limits of State Power in Rural Oromiya.’’ Journal of Eastern African Studies 5,
no. 4 (2011): 73354.
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
Journal of Eastern African Studies 617
Ethiopian Human Rights Council. Serious Destructions Resulting from Ethnic Governance,
34th Special Report. Addis Ababa, September 21, 2000.
EPRDF. The Development Lines of Revolutionary Democracy. Addis Ababa: EPRDF
Pamphlet, 2001.
Epstein, Helen. ‘‘Cruel Ethiopia.’’ New York Review of Books, May 13, 2010.
European Union (EU). Ethiopia Legislative Elections 2005 European Union Election
Observation Mission Final Report. Brussels: European Union, 2005.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). ‘‘The Constitution of the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.’’ Federal Negarit Gazeta 1, no. 1 (August 21, 1995).
Published December 16, 1996.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). Cultural Policy. Addis Ababa: Ministry of
Information and Culture, 1997.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). Rural Development Policies. Addis Ababa:
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, April 2003.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). ‘‘Rural Land Administration and Land
Use Proclamation.’’ Federal Negarit Gazeta 11, no. 44. Proclamation no. 456/2005. Addis
Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2005.
Fekadu Adugna ‘‘Overlapping nationalist projects and contested spaces: the case of the
Oromo-Somali borderlands in Southern Ethiopia.’’ Journal of Eastern African Studies 5, no.
4 (2011): 77387.
Finkielkraut, A. L’Humanité Perdue. Essay sur le XXe Siècle. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1996.
‘‘Food Crisis and the Global Land Grab.’’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v IU1PpxqeZc&featureplayer_embedded (accessed March 5, 2011).
Getachew Assefa. ‘‘Human and Group Rights Issues in Ethiopia: A Reply to Kjetil Tronvoll.’’
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 16 (2009): 24559.
Hagmann, T. ‘‘Beyond Clannishness and Colonialism: Understanding Political Disorder in
Ethiopia’s Somali Region, 19912004.’’ Journal of Modern African Studies 43 (2005):
50936.
Hagmann, T., and Alemmaya Mulugeta. ‘‘Pastoral Conflicts and State-Building in the
Ethiopian Lowlands.’’ Africa Spectrum 43 (2008): 1937.
Hagmann, T., and B. Korf. ‘‘Agamben in the Ogaden: Violence and Sovereignty in the
EthiopianSomali Frontier.’’ Political Geography. (under review).
Human Rights Watch (HRW). Targeting the Anuak: Human Rights Violations and Crimes
against Humanity in Ethiopia’s Gambella Region. New York: HRW, 2005.
Hunt, N. ‘‘Ethiopia’s Endangered Democracy.’’ New Internationalist, 431 (2010). www.newint.
org/features/special/2010/04/01/democracy-in-danger (accessed February 5, 2011).
International Crisis Group (ICG). Ethiopia: Ethnic Federalism and its Discontents. Africa
Report no. 153, September 4. Brussels: ICG, 2009.
Kalkidan Kassaye. ‘‘Nonfederal Features of the Ethiopian Ethnic-based Federal Experiment.’’ Paper presented at the 22nd Session of the Summer University Programme at the
Fribourg Institute of Federalism, Fribourg, August 2010.
Lavers, T. The Role of Foreign Investment in Ethiopia’s Smallholder-Focused Agricultural
Development Strategy. Cape Town: Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, 2010.
Levine, D.N. ‘‘Ethiopia’s Missed Chances 1960, 1974, 1911, 2005 and Now: I.’’ 2007.
http://www.ethiopianmillennium.com/dl001.html (accessed August 28, 2009).
Levine, D.N. ‘‘Ethiopia’s Missed Chances 1960, 1974, 1911, 2005 and Now: II.’’ 2007.
http://www.eineps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t746 (accessed August 28, 2009).
Maimire Mennasemay. ‘‘Federalism, Ethnicity, and the Transition to Democracy.’’ Horn of
Africa 21 (2003): 88114.
McConnell, T. and J. Overdorf. ‘‘New Scramble for Africa’s Land.’’ The Global Post 5,
October 2010.
Meles, Zenawi. Perspectives on Bonapartism. Addis Ababa: ERPDF pamphlet, 2000.
Meles, Zenawi. Again on Bonapartism. Addis Ababa: ERPDF pamphlet, 2000.
Merera Gudina. ‘‘Elections and Democratization in Ethiopia, 19912010.’’ Journal of Eastern
African Studies 5, no. 4 (2011): 66480.
Merera Gudina. ‘‘Ethnicity, Democratisation and Decentralization in Ethiopia: the Case of
Oromia.’’ Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review 23 (2007): 81106.
Downloaded by [Universiteit Leiden / LUMC ], [Jon Abbink] at 02:48 22 February 2012
618 J. Abbink
Messay, Kebede. ‘‘From Marxism-Leninism to Ethnicity: The Sideslips of Ethiopian Elitism.’’
In Challenges of building democratic institutions for governance and development in
Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa, ed. Sisay Asefa. Special issue Northeast African Studies
N.S10 (2003): 16588.
Micheau, A.P. ‘‘The 1991 Transitional Charter of Ethiopia: A New Application of the Selfdetermination Principle?’’ Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 28 (1996):
36779.
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED). Growth and Transformation Plan
(GTP). 2010/11 2014/15. Addis Ababa: MoFED, FDRE, 2010.
National Committee on Traditional Harmful Practices of Ethiopia. Old beyond Imaginings:
Ethiopia Harmful Traditional Practices. Addis Ababa: NCTPE, n.d.
Negarit Gazeta ‘‘A Proclamation to Provide for the Establishment of National/Regional SelfGovernments,’’ 51, no. 2 (January 14, 1992): 78.
Oakland Institute. Understanding Land Investment Deals in Africa. Country Report Ethiopia.
Oakland: The Oakland Institute, 2011.
Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative. Country Briefing: Ethiopia. http://www.
ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Ethiopia.pdf (accessed April 5, 2011).
Paulos Milkias. ‘‘The Great Purge and Ideological Paradox in Contemporary Ethiopian
Politics.’’ Horn of Africa 19 (2001): 199.
Schlee, G., and Abdullahi A. Shongolo. ‘‘Local War and its Impact on Ethnic and Religious
Identification in Southern Ethiopia.’’ GeoJournal 36 (1995): 717.
Scott, J.S. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have
Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998.
Teshome, Wagaw G. ‘‘Conflict of Ethnic Identity and the Language of Education Policy in
Contemporary Ethiopia.’’ Northeast African Studies 6 (1999) NS: 7588.
Tohme, D. ‘‘Turkana under Threat Due to Damming of Omo River in Ethiopia.’’
http://www.eturbonews.com/21315/turkana-under-threat-due-damming-river-omo-ethiopia
(accessed April 30, 2011).
Tronvoll, K. ‘‘Briefing: The Ethiopian 2010 Federal and Regional Elections: Re-establishing
the One-party State.’’ African Affairs 110 (2011): 12136.
Tronvoll, K. ‘‘Interpreting Human Rights Violations in Ethiopia: A Rejoinder to Getachew
Assefa.’’ International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 16 (2009): 4759.
Vaughan, S. The Addis Ababa Transitional Conference of July 1991: Its Origins, History and
Significance. Occasional Paper 51. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University, Centre of African
Studies, 1994.
Vaughan, S., and K. Tronvoll. The Culture of Power in Contemporary Ethiopian Political Life.
SIDA Studies no. 10. Stockholm: SIDA, 2003.