BY MULUGETA GUDETA
According to Wikipedia, Ethiopia’s constitutional development has so far witnessed four major periods. The first was the 1931 constitution of Ethiopia which is considered the first modern constitution. It replaced the Fitiha Negest which served as the supreme law of the land since the Middle Ages. The second and revised constitution came into being in November 1955. This was a historic event in particular because it ended the rule of the absolute monarch whose decisions were taken by the emperor and established a system of government whereby a parliament was tasked with ending the absolute monarchy and repacing it with parliamentary oversight although it was not so in practice.
The third constitution was called the constitution of the democratic republic of Ethiopia and came into effect in February 1987. The 1995 constitution of Ethiopia alls for it was the fourth constitution and was drawn by the constituent assembly in 1994. This constitution is still in force although there are calls for its revision in light of the historical changes that have taken place in the country in the last four or five years. This constitution is a very young one because it is barely 28 years old. Many countries have constitutions that date back to the 19th century. The American constitution was created in1789 and later on served as the basis for the separation of powers among the three branches of government. It has become the model of governance.
What makes the present Ethiopian constitution different from previous constitutions is the fact that it addresses not only the issues of governance but was also designed to create a decentralized system of government whereby the rights and freedoms of more than 87 ethnic groups would be recognized and protected. This constitution, although remarkable for taking into consideration the rights and freedoms all the peoples of Ethiopia, has, in the course of time, proved to need improvements or amendments as far as the continuation of the federation is concerned. Specific articles, like article 39, have proved controversial in protecting the contoured unity and territorial integrity of Ethiopia because the article deals with the infamous, “right of nations and nationalities to self-determination up to secession.
The federalist system of government, as embodied in the federal constitution, is briefly defined as “a system of government that establishes a constitutionally specified division of powers between different levels of government. There are usually two main levels, (a) a national, central or federal level, (b)a state, provincial or regional level.”
Americans call their constitution “the miracle that saved their nation. American historian Jay Cost says the following, “In Spring 1787 the American Revolution had been won but no one seemed to know how to govern the nation… The country was teetering on the edge of anarchy. Something had clearly to be done and quickly. What happened next was nothing short of a miracle. The Ethiopian constitution too came into being at a time when the country was facing many problems and the so-called national question was put on the agenda as an issue that needed urgent solution. Despite calls for amendments of the constitution, it has so far helped maintain the unity and territorial integrity of the country with all this shortcomings.
Many federal constitutions in the world are the products of either political crises, or revolutions, or governance vacuum. Like nature, politics too abhors vacuum. In the above case, there was no government no peace in the country when the constitution was being drafted in order to avoid the impending chaos. The history of the last 28 years of federalism in Ethiopia has proved that the constitution is basically sound although it might need some improvements in the future.
In the contemporary world there are many countries that have adopted the federal system of government. According to available information, many countries have adopted the system of federal organization of their constituent parts. Among them are, Argentina , Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Iraq, Malaysia, Mexico Micronesia, Nepal, Nigeria Pakistan, Russia Switzerland, UAE and United States. As we can see from the above information, geographically as well as demographically big as well as smaller countries have adopted the federal system and managed to build a harmonious, peaceful; and prosperous unity of the people that was non-existent under the so-called strong centralizing states.
This has proved that the system of unity in diversity, which federalism amounts to, is a relatively better alternative to administer both bigger and smaller national entities comprising many ethnic groups and people with different languages, cultures, traditions and economic and social life. This is also the framework within which the deferment ethnic groups can achieve recognition and growth of their cultures
This does not however mean all unitary states are failures. It rather depends on the specific historical, economic cultural and political realities prevailing in each country. All said and done any system of government should not put unilateral emphasis on national unity by disregarding the rights and freedoms of the various ethnic groups. The crisis of unitary systems of government has,
in many countries led to the collapse of centralizing authorities under which a single national entity or a small groups of officials managed the affairs of people in the name of national by disregarding the rights and freedoms of the people.
There are indeed many people in this country who doubt the merits of the federal system that celebrates unity of the nation with its complex diversity and the proliferation of new and old demands for self-administration. Cultural and traditional assets of here are also many people who think that the federal system has only led to the celebration of the cultural and traditional assets and resources of the diverse ethnic groups and peoples who, in the past were denied of these God-given rights.
Yes, the system of unity in diversity has indeed recognized the rights of people long forgotten to come forward and enjoy their inalienable rights to self-determination that includes the right to practice their cultures and traditions in ways only they believe is natural to them. However, the system of unity in diversity is not cultural self-determination alone. It goes beyond cultural determination and provides the means and mechanisms for different ethnic groups to ascertain their equality with the constituents parts of the greater unity of the people that forms a big nation known by the name Ethiopia.
The taste of the pudding is in its eating, says an old adage. It is not clear whether there is a corresponding saying in Amharic but we can perhaps translate this into Amharic by saying that the real nature of a thing can only be known when we put it into practice. It is now more than 20 years since the federal constitution is put in place in Ethiopia. The greatest merit of the federal system can be said to reside in the survival of the constitution in which it is enshrined despite the storms of criticism and calls for its removal or replacement of by another one. A constitutional laws are not like civil or criminal laws that can be changed, amended or revoked quite easily.
Constitutional laws are very complex and need long and complex processes of consultations, dialogues and debates for applying some kind of amendment. Whatever changes will be introduced should be based on objective research and scientific principles that have proved operational in other contexts or proved their worth. The same applies to Ethiopia which is also trying to reform some of the underlying principles and articles of the law that have proved less effective or became the sources of misunderstandings in the last 28 years or so. By pursuing this trajectory, Ethiopia is bound to learn from the experiences of other countries that have long established the federal system that has accelerated their economic development.
THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD 17 DECEMBER 2022
