Ethnic Federalism in a Dominant Party State: The Ethiopian Experience 1991-2000 Lovise Aalen r 2002: 2

participation and the dominance of the EPRDF in the constitutional process
have a negative impact on the chances for a peaceful and constructive co-
existence between the contending political forces in Ethiopia in the time after
the transitional period. This was apparent during the last peace talks between
the government and the OLF that were held in Bonn, Germany, in 1999.
Although the OLF has changed its mind many times on the issues of unity and
secession, it still refused to renounce armed struggle, and rejected at the same
time the present Ethiopian constitution. Lencho Bati, the Washington-based
OLF spokesman, said the constitution was unacceptable, because the OLF had
not participated in the drafting of it (Irin News 30 August 2001).
Hostile or hesitant: the opposition’s view on EPRDF’s federal
project
The currently registered opposition parties in Ethiopia are all negative to the
EPRDF’s federal project – federalisation along ethnic lines finally formalised
through the Ethiopian constitution of 1994. Some parties prefer a unitary
government, while other parties go for federalism, but on other terms that
those defined by the EPRDF.
Parties favouring the restoration of the unitary state
The All Amhara People’s Organisation (AAPO) and the Ethiopian Democratic
Union Party (EDUP) are hostile to federalism in general, independently of how
it is introduced and implemented, and favour a unitary government. There are

---

C M I
43
particularly against article 39 of the constitution, which allows national groups
to secede:
“EDUP strongly opposes the “right of nations, nationalities and peoples
to self-determination including secession”. EDUP advocates that Ethiopia
should be a unitary state with a strong central government and that the
various nationalities should have representation at the centre. ”
(Interview, EDUP’s Guish Gebre Selassie, Mekelle May 2000)
“The All Amhara People’s Organisation does not accept the 1995
Ethiopian Constitution as a whole, and particularly not Article 39, sub-
article 1.[…] A weakness of the constitution, as legal and political experts
have commented on, is that a country must not include in its constitution
an article that instigates people to secede. Ethiopia is a nation of one
people of different ethnic groups. [The fact that] people [belong to]
different ethnicities does not mean that they are different countries. […]
So AAPO’s view on Article 39 is that it disintegrates the Ethiopian state
into different mini states and one people into many people.” (AAPO’s
written response to questions that I submitted to the vice-chairman Ali
Idris, Addis Ababa May 2000)
In order to understand these statements, it is important to take into account
that the AAPO and particularly the EDUP are supported by representatives of
the former Amhara elite and the old nobility. Both parties stress the idea of
Ethiopian unity and see Ethiopia as one nation, despite its various ethnic
groups. But despite the AAPO’s stress on “Ethiopianness”, people tend to see
the party as advocates of the Amhara group, and not of Ethiopians in general.
It is to be expected that these parties would be hostile to any kind of political
reconstruction, particularly a reconstruction which attempts to dismantle the
centralised state government, which has been the power base of these groups
for centuries. But this does not imply that the EDUP and the AAPO’s critique of
the EPRDF’s federal project should be disqualified. It indicates rather that it is
less likely to get constructive criticism from these parties. Since a large part of
the parties’ electorate have vested interest in maintaining the state as it was
before the regime change, they would defend the restoration of the centralised
state rather than suggest reform.