Introduction
For decades, Ethiopia has been at the centre of intense political debates regarding its governance structure, national identity, and the nature of its federal system. While some critics argue that the country’s constitution, particularly the recognition of ethnic federalism and the right to self-determination, is the root of Ethiopia’s instability, a closer analysis suggests otherwise. Ethiopia’s core problem is not its constitution, but rather the chronic failure to implement it faithfully and the lack of genuine political will to abide by its enshrined principles. This essay explores why Ethiopia’s constitutional framework is not inherently defective but suffers from deliberate neglect, manipulation, and selective enforcement.
The Strength of the Ethiopian Constitution
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) Constitution of 1995 is one of the most progressive documents in Africa. It recognises:
The equality of all nations, nationalities, and peoples.
The right to self-determination up to secession (Article 39).
Linguistic and cultural rights.
Decentralised governance through federalism.
Protection of individual and collective freedoms.
Establishment of independent institutions like the judiciary, the electoral board, and the human rights commission.
These constitutional provisions addressed Ethiopia’s long history of centralised, imperial, and oppressive governance, offering a framework that could foster pluralism, self-rule, and coexistence.
The Gap Between Law and Practice
Despite the constitution’s theoretical strengths, the problem has always been political behaviour, not legal design.
1. Selective Application of the Law:
Successive Ethiopian governments have often treated the constitution as a political tool rather than a binding social contract. Rights and freedoms guaranteed in the constitution are routinely ignored when they contradict the interests of those in power.
2. Authoritarian Governance:
Ethiopia’s ruling elites have historically preferred authoritarian control under the guise of constitutionalism. Even when multiparty elections are held, they are often manipulated to maintain the ruling party’s dominance, undermining the constitution’s democratic spirit.
3. Suppression of Federal Autonomy:
Although the constitution allows for regional autonomy, the federal government has frequently interfered in the internal affairs of the regions, particularly when local demands challenge central authority. This has led to deep mistrust and political fragmentation.
4. Weak Institutions:
Independent institutions that should enforce constitutional principles are often underfunded, politically captured, or lack the authority to hold the government accountable. The judiciary is not independent, and the electoral board has repeatedly failed to ensure free and fair elections.
The Lack of Political Will
The absence of constitutional governance in Ethiopia is ultimately rooted in the lack of political will.
Political elites routinely violate constitutional provisions when they are inconvenient.
National elections are often treated as formalities rather than genuine expressions of the people's will.
Opposition groups and activists who advocate for constitutional rights are frequently criminalised, imprisoned, or exiled.
Even when popular movements call for constitutional reforms, the government’s response is usually either co-optation or violent suppression, showing that those in power are unwilling to be constrained by constitutional order.
Misplaced Blame on the Constitution
Some argue that Ethiopia’s constitution, especially Article 39, is the cause of the country's instability. However, blaming the constitution is both superficial and misleading. The problem is not the right to self-determination or ethnic federalism itself, but the consistent failure to engage with political grievances in a democratic, lawful, and inclusive manner.
In fact:
Regions have pursued autonomy not simply because the constitution allows it, but because they have felt systematically marginalised and ignored.
When the constitution is respected, it provides a peaceful mechanism for addressing identity-based demands.
Ignoring or attempting to forcibly override the constitution only deepens the cycle of resistance and state collapse.
The Path Forward: Constitutional Fidelity
The solution to Ethiopia’s crisis is not to scrap the constitution but to fully implement it.
Respect Regional Autonomy: The federal government must uphold regional states' rights to self-governance.
Strengthen Institutions: An independent judiciary, electoral commission, and human rights bodies are essential to protect constitutional integrity.
Build Political Consensus: National dialogue and inclusive political settlements can help bridge divisions and ensure all stakeholders are committed to constitutional governance.
Promote Constitutional Literacy: Civic education empowers citizens to demand accountability and defend their constitutional rights.
Conclusion
Ethiopia’s constitutional crisis is not a failure of its written laws but a failure of political culture, leadership, and institutional integrity. The country does not suffer from a constitutional defect; it suffers from a deficit of constitutionalism. The solution lies in cultivating genuine political will, respecting the rule of law, and nurturing democratic institutions. Ethiopia’s future stability depends on whether its leaders and citizens can embrace the constitution not as a weapon of convenience, but as a shared framework for peaceful coexistence and national unity.
No comments:
Post a Comment