Federalism in Africa is associated with the colonial enterprise of divide and rule. The British tried to introduce federalism in some of their colonies in Africa. Perceiving it as the furtherance of ‘divide and rule’ in another form, however, anti-colonial leaders strongly resisted this British attempt. This propelled important personalities of the anti-colonial struggle, such as Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, to campaign against federalism. After independence, the new African rulers opted for unitary systems of government.
In the African context, Osaghae, E (2006) contends that federalism is still necessary to “manage the problems emanating from diversity such as inequitable social and political relations, and unequal development of groups”. Substantiating Osaghae’s point, Kimenyi, M (1998) states that “Since ethnic groups associate with particular territories, African States are naturally suited for the establishment of federal systems of government”. In the same vein, Horowitz, D. (1997) considers federalism as an indispensable device to accommodate the difference in multicultural states. Unfortunately, as Agbu, O. (2004) points out, despite the need for federalism in Africa, “federalism has had a poor run in countries where it has been applied”.
Most countries in contemporary Africa are unitarist with “political power vested in the central government” and “their political leaders are not willing to entertain federalism fearing that federalism reinforces tribalism”. The new rulers of post-colonial Africa considered federalism as “a crisis escalator rather than a crisis damper”. Several African countries employed a federal system for a short period of time and then removed it; these countries are Congo (1960–1965), Kenya (1963–1965), Uganda (1962–1966), Mali (1959), and Cameroon (1961–1972). The main reason for the removal of federalism was instability and secession for most of the sub-Saharan African states.
A number of African countries ignored a federal structure, because, like Berman, B. (2010), contends, the socio-cultural ecology in many states of Africa is highly intermingled in terms of identity, language, and religion. The most striking feature of African identities and communities is their fluidity, heterogeneity, and hybridity; a social world of multiple, overlapping and alternate identities with significant movement of people, an intermingling of communities and cultural and linguistic borrowing.
Nevertheless, a few countries in Africa, such as Ethiopia, South Africa, and Nigeria have experience with a federal structure to accommodate ethnic diversity. How these federal systems operated shows significant degrees of difference, for example, Alemayehu, G. (2015) equates the Ethiopian case with the Bantustans of Apartheid South Africa.
Competing Views on Ethiopia’s Ethnic Federalism
Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism has garnered much academic attention since its commencement with the current EPRDF regime in 1991. It caused polarizing debates among scholars. Ethiopia’s peculiar nature of federalism is praised and condemned.
Advocators argue that execution of ethnic federalism in Ethiopia is the only viable option for the integrity of the Ethiopian state and society. It is further celebrated by some as the panacea for holding multi-ethnic Ethiopia together. The ethno-federal arrangement is considered to maintain the unity of the Ethiopian nations, nationalities, and peoples on one hand and the territorial integrity of the state on the other. It is claimed to render stability and provide each region the opportunity to develop, promote, and preserve its language and culture.
The federal system some would argue, not only fosters deliberation and political participation but also enhances citizens’ capacity to empathize with one another more readily than in a heterogeneous setting. The advocators argue that Ethiopian federalism can be a mechanism to end protracted and brutal inter-ethnic conflicts that existed before its commencement. They also acknowledge it as being successful in averting the risk of the dismemberment of ethnic groups from Ethiopia which would otherwise have been or will cause the disintegration of the state like that of the USSR or Yugoslavia.
Others, on the contrary, posit ethnic federalism as a curse that encourages the country’s disintegration. Exacerbates and ignites identity politics, hence, would lead to further disintegration comparing with the failed federal states in the fall of the 1990s.
The critics also argue that the federal experiment has been rather provocative and causes new bloody conflicts between ethnic groups over different interrelated factors, such as over new linguistic-territorial claims, competition over political power, border claims, and deprivation of rights and opportunities for minorities living in regional states that are ‘owned’ by certain ethnic groups. There is a fear that it invites ethnic conflict and risks of state disintegration. Ethiopia could face the same fate as the USSR and Yugoslavia.
No matter how controversial it may be, what plays a great deal in the success or failure of a federal arrangement is not its framework per se, but how it is implemented. Cognizant of the ‘nationalities question’ remained raison d’etre that triggered the 1974 Ethiopian revolution, granting those ethnic groups self-rule, presumably obtains a potential in curbing problems.
Unfortunately, however, the attempt has been harbored with the vanguard former EPRDF that makes sure the federal structure not to surpass the rhetoric. Moreover, the authoritarian nature of the government and the Leninist vanguardism inclination that the party displayed coupled again with an inextricable overlapping of party and government, hampered the federalism it introduced from shining.
This being the case, however, it is important to consider whether the architects of the Ethiopian federation, with all the limitations and drawbacks mentioned above, had other viable options in designing the internal boundaries of the state, such as, a federal design that responds to ethnic concerns without privileging ethnic identities above other non-ethnic identities, and that would have helped to circumvent the dilemma of ethnically defined states. In due course, federalism of an ethnic kind undeniably essentializes ethnic identities and can cause ethnic conflict.
Ethnic Conflict
The introduction of ethnic federalism has resulted in a number of ethnic conflicts in Ethiopia. Studies show that there has been an upsurge of ethnic conflicts and the sharpening of boundaries among the different ethnic groups. Ethnicity has become an instrument of political mobilization which further perpetuates violence, dissension and a growing sense of separatism in Ethiopia.
The fact that ethnicity dominates over other notions of state organization, political representation, and resource entitlement as well directed to the constitution of institutions that validate and sketched boundaries among the different ethnic groups. This later became a formidable challenge and often led to the eruption of many conflicts among and within regional states.
Thus, one can rightly argue that such trends that made ethnic identity above all other forms of mobilization discourages shared bonds and increases tensions between clans of similar ethnolinguistic groups. This can further “erode the age-old networks and trust among people that form their social capital which is imperative for economic growth”
The restructuring of the state into a federal system required the drawing of boundaries which at least in theory, corresponds with ethnicity. However, this process was uneven as there is no pure overlap between ethnicity and territories due to a prodigious degree of mobility of ethnic groups in all directions.
As a result, this generated a number of conflicts among ethnic groups that live in the same or neighboring regions, for example, the conflict between the Guji and the Gedeo in southern Ethiopia that used to make up the former Sidamo Province before the introduction of ethnic federalism.
The government policy that gave prime legitimacy for ethnic identity and ethnic rights, and the increasing ethnic self-consciousness, has changed inter-ethnic relations in most parts of the country. In line with the principles of ethnic regionalization, the Guji who belong to the Oromo ethnic group became part of the Oromia region, while the Gedeo became part of the Southern region under the new arrangement.
In fact, a chief cause of the conflict is the geographic boundaries of the regional states are not only occupied by homogenous people; since the majority of the cases show that ethnicity surpasses geographic boundaries. Consequently, each regional state has a minority ethnic group, which has endured the influence of the majority for years.
The “Guji in Gedeo zone and the Gedeo in Borana zone are minorities” in this specific case. The fact that the federal model is based primarily on ethnicity which in the process enables every nation, nationality, and people to establish its regional government and administer its area, use its language, promote its culture, and preserve its history.
This created tension among minorities and triggers conflict. The Gedeo and Guji conflict cannot be an exception in this regard. In a very recent scenario, in 2018 significant numbers of people were displaced due to the ‘conflict resulting in the largest number of internally displaced persons in the country.
Ethnic-based federalism created an asymmetrical federal structure in which larger ethnic groups as in the case of the Oromia and Amhara… regional states were given their own ethnic regions and the smaller ethnic groups as observed in the Southern Nation, Nationalities, and People, Gambella and Benishangul-Gumuz regional states were put together to establish multi-ethnic regions.
Inter-ethnic conflicts, in those three aforementioned heterogeneous regions, become rampant triggered by disputes over the sharing of political power and resources.
Conclusion
Though ideological orientation and political landscape necessitate ethnic federalism, it accentuates conflict of an ethnic kind. Though ethnic federalism in Ethiopia presumably believed to answer the historic ‘nationalities question’, it is not helping in reducing ethnic tensions and conflicts. In fact, conflict is intensifying due to the ethnic heterogeneity of the regional states and the resource-boundary sharing between different groups. Conflicts are rather intensifying and becoming decentralized which may challenge the argument that takes ethnic federalism as a typical strategy for avoiding conflict in the multi-ethnic setting as that of Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian Herald December13, 2019
BY BIRUK SHEWADEG
