A proposal by the central committee of a major political party is calling for sweeping changes to Ethiopia’s federal structure, raising fundamental questions about the future of the nation’s governance.
The proposal, reportedly originating from a party’s central committee meeting in Adama, has sent shockwaves through Ethiopia’s political landscape. It outlines a series of far-reaching constitutional amendments that would fundamentally alter the nature of the federation, including proposals to:
The Four Pillars of Change
1. Redefining Regional Boundaries
The proposal calls for the scrapping of the current federal arrangement, suggesting that regions be reorganised based on geographic location and economic ties rather than ethnic identity. This would involve amending Article 39 of the constitution, which currently grants nations, nationalities, and peoples the right to self-determination up to and including secession.
2. Establishing New Regional Administrations
The plan proposes to establish “Dirre Dhawaa” (the area around Addis Ababa) and Finfinne (Addis Ababa) as separate regions with their own administrations. This would require amendments to Article 49, which currently designates Addis Ababa as the capital city and the seat of the federal government.
3. Rethinking Land Ownership
The proposal suggests that lands currently designated as belonging to “the state and the people” would be transferred to private ownership. This would require amending Article 40, which defines the land tenure system in Ethiopia.
4. Transitioning to a Semi-Presidential System
Perhaps the most significant change is the proposed shift from a parliamentary to a semi-presidential system. In this model, the Prime Minister would be replaced by a President elected by parliament, with the current role of the Prime Minister being abolished. The position of Prime Minister would be replaced by a President elected by parliament, marking a dramatic shift in the balance of executive power.
How the Changes Would Be Implemented
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the proposal is the mechanism for its implementation. The proposal suggests that the creation of new regions or the restructuring of existing ones would be decided not through a referendum, but through parliamentary vote and presidential approval. This bypasses the constitutional requirement for public consultation and presents a clear break from the principles of democratic decision-making.
This is not the first time such proposals have emerged. Discussions within the party regarding federalism and administrative restructuring have been ongoing, with some arguing that the current system has failed to deliver on its promises of equitable development and political representation. As one party member noted, “the foundation of federalism is not problematic, but the lack of proper implementation has led to significant shortcomings.”
The Broader Context: A History of Tension
The proposal emerges against a backdrop of simmering tensions over federalism in Ethiopia. Since the adoption of the 1995 constitution, ethnic federalism has been a contentious issue. Critics argue that it has fostered division and ethnic nationalism, while supporters maintain that it is essential for preserving the rights of Ethiopia’s diverse communities.
Some analysts have argued that the federal system “exists in name only,” and that a lack of genuine power-sharing has led to political instability. The current proposal, with its dramatic restructuring of the regional landscape, appears to be a response to these persistent tensions.
What’s at Stake: A Crossroads for Democracy
The proposal raises profound questions about the future of Ethiopia’s political system. Critics argue that the proposed changes would centralise power in the hands of the executive, undermine the rights of regions, and erode the constitutional safeguards that protect minority communities. The proposal to abolish the current federal structure and replace it with a semi-presidential system, in particular, has drawn sharp criticism from opposition groups, who see it as a power grab.
The proposal also comes at a time of heightened political instability. Several regions are embroiled in conflict, and the country is grappling with a severe humanitarian crisis. In this context, the proposal to implement such sweeping changes without a broader national consensus raises serious questions about the future of peace and democracy in Ethiopia.
The Way Forward
The debate over federalism is likely to intensify in the coming weeks and months. The proposal has already sparked debate among political elites and civil society, and it is expected to be a central issue in the upcoming national elections.
The question now is whether a national consensus can be reached on the path forward. Some have called for a national dialogue to address the underlying issues that have led to political instability, including the question of federalism itself. Others have argued that any changes to the constitution must be made through a democratic and transparent process, with the full participation of all stakeholders.
The future of Ethiopia’s federal structure is at a crossroads. The decisions made in the coming months will shape the nation for generations to come.
Oromedia 