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

“Ethnic federalism is only serving the interests of the TPLF”
Despite the opposition’s different views on federalism generally, both the anti-
federal and the pro-federal parties share the opinion that the current Ethiopian
federal system is designed to serve the interests of the ruling coalition in general
and the TPLF in particular. Article 39 of the Constitution, which asserts the
right of nations, nationalities and peoples to self-determination, up to and
including secession, is also rejected by the opposition currently active in
conventional Ethiopian politics.
13
Due to the fact that the TPLF never clarified
whether they wanted independence or regional autonomy for Tigray before the
transition, the opposition parties have little trust in the TPLF’s commitment to
the building of a unified Ethiopia. The AAPO’s statement illustrates the
opposition’s lack of trust in the ruling coalition:
“EPRDF is a nominal party. The power and all the go-ahead orders are in
the hands of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front. It is the TPLF that rules
the country. According to the manifesto of TPLF, the party’s aim is to free
Tigray region and its people from the colonial rule of Ethiopia. Keeping
this in mind, the so-called EPRDF’s motivation for introducing a system
of ethnic federalism is not for the sake of Ethiopia and Ethiopians, but for
the well-being of the TPLF-group. The system is to disintegrate Ethiopia
into pieces, abolishing the long existing unity of the people and retarding
the development and growth of Ethiopia. On the other hand, it was to
build Tigray to a greater, prosperous and wealthy nation and the Tigray
people to a first class people in every aspect in the Horn of Africa.”
(AAPO’s written response to questions that I submitted to the vice-
chairman Ali Idris, Addis Ababa May 2000)
The opposition generally disregards the ideological and democratic
commitment of the ruling party, and claims that the current federal system was
introduced only for pragmatic reasons. They share the view that the policy of
ethnic federalisation is a political tool for the TPLF to stay in power. As a party
representing a minority of the Ethiopian population, the TPLF needed an
instrument to ensure that it maintained the control of the country. The EDP has
expressed this view in the following way:
13
This does not include the OLF, which is an illegal political party in Ethiopia today. This
party supports the principle of national self-determination, but rejects the legitimacy of the
EPRDF government and the new constitution.

---

C M I
46
When they [the EPRDF] came to power, the Derg and the Amhara were
the declared enemies. They declared the right to self-determination in
order to achieve popular support in the regions. This is a sort of divide
and rule, a method of a minority governing a majority. In a democracy,
this is impossible. Article 39 of the Constitution does not benefit the
people, but was created to serve certain political aims.” (Interview Lidetu
Ayalew, Secretary General EDP, Addis Ababa June 2000)
Several of the opposition parties stress that there is a discrepancy between the
federal provisions written in the transitional charter and the new constitution
and the practice of the EPRDF government. They state that although the
provisions might have been a basis for empowering the regions, the practice of
the EPRDF work against this. Although the majority of the opposition parties
opposes the EPRDF’s federal model per se, there are some exceptions. Merera
Gudina’s argument, for example, does not discredit what is “on paper” – the
Ethiopian constitution and the federal model. His critique is basically of the
fact that the EPRDF is not following what is has written on the paper:
“This new system satisfied neither the historically marginalised nor the
historically privileged. All it has done is to create a new elite and new
authoritarianism. […] On paper there is a federal system, but in practice
the system is still very centralised. This is done through the PDO system,
People’s Democratic Organisations, EPRDF affiliates in all regions of the
country. The decision making is done through the principle of democratic
centralism, controlled and decided upon by the politbureau of the TPLF.
It is in the latter group that the decisions are taken. The adoption of both
the so-called democracy and the federal system is done to serve the
hegemonic interests of the Tigrayan elite.” (Interview Merera Gudina,
Chairman ONC, Addis Ababa May 2000)
The opposition’s critique of the EPRDF’s federal project shows a general lack
of trust in the party in power. This lack of trust indicates that all kinds of
political reforms, not only ethnic federalism, would have been met by hostility
from the opposition parties. This hostility has to be understood as a result of
the experience of ethnic antagonism during the previous regimes, but also by
the way the current regime has handled the opposition. As we have seen above,
the EPRDF has excluded the opposition from taking part in the “federal
bargain” and the federal system has become exclusively “the EPRDF’s federal
project” instead of inclusively “Ethiopia’s federal project”.