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

“Federalism, but not ethnically based”
The other major opposition parties, like the Oromo National Congress (ONC),
Council of Alternative Forces for Peace and Democracy/Southern Ethiopia
People’s Democratic Coalition (CAFPDE/SEPDC) and the Ethiopian
Democratic Party (EDP), favour a federal solution. But they are against
federalisation along ethnic lines and the way EPRDF has introduced and
implemented its federal policies. Political reconstruction is their aim, but they
are not willing to follow EPRDF’s recipe:

---

C M I
44
“We are not against a federal system, that is a good system of
governance for Ethiopia. The problem is the manner EPRDF is
approaching it. We do not agree with what AAPO says, that the federal
system is the main problem of the country. A unitary system is not a
solution – we struggle to dismantle the centralised system. Regional
autonomy is best expressed through a federal system.
Our difference with the ruling party is on the criteria they use for
defining the regions. Ethnicity and linguistics is not applicable for the
major parts of Ethiopia, maybe only for Tigray, Afar and Somali. Even
for these regions, the population is not homogenous. In Oromiya, the
majority of the urban population has a mixed origin. There is a
widespread population movement in parts of the country and in the
Amhara region there is a large area with Oromo. In the Southern region
there are around 45 different ethnic groups. To make a region for each
of these is not economically viable. In all regions the urban areas have a
large group of Amhara. They cannot simply be discounted. The
thoughts behind this model must be a reflection of only Tigrayan
wishes.” (Interview Beyene Pertros, Chairman of CAFPDE/SEPDC,
Addis Ababa June 2000)
The CAFPDE/SEPDC’s main argument against ethnic federalism is essentially
that this system is not a viable solution in a multiethnic Ethiopia because of the
heterogeneity of the population and the large number of ethnic groups. It seems
therefore that the arguments are more functionalistically and practically than
ideologically founded. The EDP follows the same argument, but does also try
to outline an alternative federal model:
Federalism is a good way of sharing power, it gives the people
opportunities to govern themselves and it could help to speed up the
developmental and administrative efforts.
Our argument is that ethnic federalism is not viable in a country with
more than 80 different ethnic groups – how could that many viable
regions be created? According to our programme – federalism should be
based on geography, historical and cultural ties, language and
management and developmental opportunities. If there are conflicts
between regions, these should be resolved by referendum among the
respective peoples. This is an important point. Solutions should not be
imposed from above like it is done today.” (Interview Lidetu Ayalew,
Secretary General EDP, Addis Ababa June 2000)
It remains unclear, however, what their alternative model of federalism is based
on. Lidetu Ayalew attempts to define the EDP’s federal model by mentioning a
range of different criteria for regional states to be established. Except the stress
on management and developmental opportunities, which are relatively vague
concepts, the other criteria are very similar to those of the EPRDF: language,
geography, and historical and cultural ties. If the two parties want to be seen as

---

C M I
45
a real alternative to the EPRDF and its federal policies, they need to develop
their alternative federalism further and express their political visions clearer.
The two parties’ failure to define a clear alternative might be seen as an
illustration of what many observers see as a typical trait in the current political
debate in Ethiopia: the opposition is basically focusing on the disadvantages of
the EPRDF policies instead of proposing new solutions.