Fessha, Yonatan

<intR>²Dok

Voting for Internal SecessionYonatan Fessha 2019-11-28T22:02:4620 November 2019 might go down in history as one of the turning points forfederalism in Ethiopia. It was the day on which the unparalleled clause of theEthiopian Constitution, which provides ethnic communities with the right to establishtheir own state (i.e. subnational unit), was put into practice. Finally, after clamoringfor their own state for years, the Sidama, the fifth largest ethnic group in the country,were allowed to have their day in a referendum. On the morning of that historicday, there were already long queues of excited voters. According to the resultsannounced by the National Electoral Board, 98.5% voted for the creation of theSidama state. Referendum without genuine deliberationThe result demonstrates that there is a proven support for the establishment of theState of Sidama. The Constitution requires the demonstration of support in the formof a simple majority. The fact that the referendum has returned an overwhelmingmajority supporting the establishment of the State of Sidama means that there isa clear and very strong majority in favor of internal secession. Unfortunately, thecircumstances under which the referendum was conducted has left unnecessarystain on the results of the referendum. This was not a referendum that was precededby a process in which the public was given the chance to reflect on the merits of anew state.Even after a decision was made to conduct a referendum and the date of thereferendum was fixed, it is difficult to claim that there was a forum that allowed the‘leave’ and ‘remain’ camps to participate in a genuine deliberative process. TheEthiopian Human Rights Commission and a consortium of civil society organizationshave also expressed their reservations that this was a referendum without a propercampaign season. To be precise, there was a lot of campaigning, but it was one-sided. It was only the voice of those that clamored for the creation of the new statethat dominated the months leading to the event. Those that belonged in the ‘remain’camp did not or were not able to make their case.  The environment needed forvoters to receive information and reflect on that information was simply non-existent.That may not have significantly altered the results of the referendum, but it castsdoubt on whether the public was well informed on what it was asked to vote. Thathas reduced the referendum into a ceremonial act that is simply used to tick all theboxes of the constitutional requirement. This is unfortunate. After all, referendumsare not cheap, both politically and financially.- 1 -What is next?The favorable outcome for the creation of the State of Sidama paves the way for theinclusion of a 10th state to the Ethiopian federation. It is not clear, however, if thedemonstration of proven support in a form of a referendum is enough to completethe act of creating a new state.  Perhaps, the next stage is to amend the constitutionso that the latter features the State of Sidama among the list of the states that makeup the federation. It is not clear how the federal government intends to go about this.Would this be accomplished by a simple act of parliament? As I argued elsewhere,that would not be constitutionally proper.It would be difficult to consider the inclusion of a new state as nothing less than aconstitutional amendment. And if it is a constitutional amendment, it requires theblessing of not only the House of Peoples Representatives but also the House ofFederation, the other house of the federal parliament, as well as the support ofthe state parliaments. This might look like a constitutional hurdle that is difficultto overcome. But politically speaking, it is not. After all, Ethiopian is a dominant-party state, where the ruling party controls the federal government and all stategovernments. Even if the overreaching hand of the ruling party is not as strong asit used to be and democratic centralism has been dying slowly, one can confidentlypredict that the ruling party can get the state governments behind a constitutionalamendment that aims at the constitutional recognition of the new state.I would even be surprised if the State of Tigray, that is now increasingly andfrequently at loggerheads with the federal government, refuses to supporta constitutional amendment to that effect. Yet, it is possible that the federalgovernment may not be bothered about amending the Constitution and simply act asif the business of creating a new state is completed.  That would not look good for agovernment and a Nobel-prize winning Prime Minister that professes the dawning ofan era of constitutionalism and rule of law. The implications of a new stateThe creation of the Sidama state represents the introduction of one more ethnicallydefined state; a state that would be explicitly associated with a particular ethnicgroup.  This means that the ethnic basis of the Ethiopian federal system will befurther strengthened.That perhaps also explains the strong support that the movement for the creationof the Sidama state enjoyed from some of the movements that claim to representthe Oromo, the largest ethnic group in the country, that basically want to strengthensubnational citizenship based on the ethnic nature of the federal arrangement. Thismight be a blow to those that have always considered, and perhaps correctly so,the communities that make up the ,State of the Southern Nations, Nationalitiesand Peoples’, from which the Sidama have decided to break away, as one of thestrongholds of pan-Ethiopian conception of citizenship. The campaign that led to thecreation of the new state and the establishment of an ethnically defined state might- 2 -have dented the hope of those that were planning to use the Southern populationto challenge subnational citizenship and ethnic federalism. The offshoot, it seems,is the reinforcement of the federal design that attaches importance to ethnicity as aprimary political identity. The floodgate effect of the creation of the Sidama state was evident long before adecision was made to let the Sidama have their say on a referendum. Not less thanten other ethnic communities have demanded their own states.In fact, reports indicate that members of the Welayta ethnic group, the secondlargest ethnic group in the same beleaguered state, have started, like theirSidama counterparts, a countdown to the day on which they should be given anopportunity to vote on a referendum. It is not clear on what basis the federal andstate governments can reject the similar demands of the Welayta and others afterheeding to the requests of the Sidama, albeit grudgingly. But then again it is difficultto accept every request.I am not sure if the provision of territorial solution in the form of the creation of newstate is a viable and, and more importantly, sustainable solution to the concerns ofethnic communities. In a country where there are more than eighty ethnic groups, theterritorial solution is not a feasible solution. Not every ethnic group can have its ownstate. One can only go on dividing the country so far unless one wants 'each town tobecome a state'. This might also lead to the creation of micro-subnational units thatare not economically viable.  Adopting a response that is based on the provision of aterritorial solution, in the form of a new state, might also create perverted incentive.Given the fact that territorial entities are the sites of resource and patronage, thepolitical elite might demand the creation of new states simply to benefit from thedividends of controlling a new state.At the same time, the floodgate effect should not be a reason to outrightly dismissthe legitimate demands of ethnic communities. Ethiopia will not be the first federationto see the breakup of existing states and the creation of new ones. Nigeria startedas a federation of three states. It is now composed of 36 states. The story is thesame in India where 15 new states were carved out from 14 states between 1956and 2009. And both countries continue to entertain demands for the creation of newstates. Yet, neither of them is facing the imminent danger of disintegration.It is also important to remember that Ethiopia started the road to federalism with14 states before the current constitution and reduced it to 9 states and two self-governing cities. So, having more states is not necessarily a bad idea.  The breakingup of large states and the creation of smaller states might even be a blessing indisguise as it might have the effect of strengthening the federal government, animportant asset in in the context of a divided society that needs a glue to hold ittogether. Importantly, what is needed is a federal government that does not believethat the fate of the country is at stake whenever it is faced with a demand fornew state. The government must be flexible enough to accommodate reasonablerequests while at the same time nudging the demands for the creation of new statesto be an outcome of negotiations that increasingly look beyond ethnic homogeneityinto administrative convenience and economic viability. - 3 -As the case of Sidama has amply demonstrated, simply ignoring the concernsof those that clamor for their own state might cost the country dearly. More thantwo dozen of people lost their lives when the attempt of activists from the Sidamaethnic group to declare their own state did not materialize. The decision of AbiyAhmed’s government to reject the unilateral declaration of the creation of newstate and force the actors to follow the constitutional path towards the creation of anew state was appropriate. Yet, a proactive negotiation with all stakeholders and aquick deployment of security forces when violence broke out would have saved thenumerous lives that were lost unnecessarily in July 2019. - 4 -

Voting for Internal Secession

https://intr2dok.vifa-recht.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/mir_derivate_00007628/Voting_for_Internal_Secession.pdf

Voting for Internal Secession

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

<intR>²Dok