LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS:

FEDERALISM AS A TOOL OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN

ETHIOPIA -- AN OVERVIEW

Tsegaye Regassa ♣
Abstract
This article explores the relationship between federalism and conflict in the
light of the experience of the federal experiment in contemporary Ethiopia. By
reinforcing the truism in federal studies that federalism is not a panacea to the
ailments of divided societies that are prone to conflict, it seeks to point out that
while federalism, as a reaction to some long-standing historic problems, helps
us deal with some conflicts, it also has the potential to generate some other
(new) ones. By assuming that conflict is primarily a relation of divergence of
interests among parties with diverging strategies and methods, the article
describes federalism in general and the federal experiment in Ethiopia and its
persistent attempts to deal with the old and new conflicts that emerged in/from
the past and are emerging day by day. Throughout, it is argued that we need to
understand federalism as a tool of governance that both solves and generates
different kinds of conflicts, and that we need to lessen our expectations of the
federal experiment (by remembering that it does not establish the ‘peaceable
kingdom’ that idealist philosophers long hoped for), and take the modest road
of learning to live with the conflicts.

Key Words:
Conflict, constitution, ethnic diversity, Ethiopia, federalism, states.

♣
(LL.B, LL.M, PhD Candidate), teaches at the Institute of Federalism and Legal
Studies (IFLS) of the Ethiopian Civil Service College (ECSC) and at the Law Faculty
and the Institute of Federal Studies (IFS) of the Addis Ababa University (AAU).
Currently, he is also a Visiting Professor of African Law and Legal Pluralism at the
Law Faculty of the University of Trento, Italy. He can be contacted at
[email protected]. The draft version of a part of this paper was presented at a
Training Workshop organized by the Council of Nationalities (CON) of the Southern
Nations Nationalities, and Peoples’ Regional State (SNNPRS) in July 2009, Hawassa.
I am indebted to the participants who, by giving me their insightful and empirically
informed comments, have enriched the piece in more ways than one. I am also
grateful to the two anonymous referees who through their helpful comments,
contributed to the betterment of this piece.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 53

Introduction
Ethiopia is a land of diverse peoples with divergent interests.1 The demographic
diversity is expressed in multiple ways such as ethno-national, cultural,
religious, economic way of life, and so on. Of late, diversity of the ethno-cultural
type has become salient in the public square.2 As a result, ethnicity is taken
seriously in the endeavor to reconstruct the state as a multi-national, multi-
cultural federal polity, de facto as of 1991 and de jure as of 1995.3 This salience
of ethnicity in public life is the result of a history of uneven and conflicted
relations among ethnic groups. Federalism was allegedly chosen to respond to
the challenge of ethno-national conflicts that beleaguered the old Ethiopian state
from the time it has been built into a multi-ethnic empire often seeking to build
one nation out of many.4 This has been taken to mean that federalism is opted
for in order to serve as a panacea for all the conflicts in Ethiopia.5 Needless to

1
This diversity has prompted the Italian historian, Carlo Conti-Rossini, reportedly to
have said the now almost proverbial saying that Ethiopia is “un museo di popoli” to
mean a museum of peoples. See, for example, Donald N. Levine (1974), Greater
Ethiopia: the Evolution of a Multi-ethnic Society. (Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press), pp. 19-20.
2
Bahru Zewde refers to this increasing salience of ethnicity as “the deification of
ethnicity”. See Bahru Zewde (2008), Society, State and History: Selected Essays.
Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press, p. 20.
3
Both the Transitional Charter of 1991 and the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia (FDRE) Constitution of 1995 stress the constitutive power (alias pouvoir
constituant) of “nations, nationalities, and peoples” although the wording in the
Preambles of the two constitutional documents differs slightly in the two cases. Thus
the Charter arrogates the constitutive power to “the Peace Loving and Democratic
Forces/Elements of Ethiopia,” (paragraph 4 of the preamble) whereas the Constitution
begins with “We, the Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples of Ethiopia.” See the
Transitional Period Charter of Ethiopia, Proclamation No. 1, Negarit Gazeta, 50th
Year, 22 July 1991 and Proclamation N0.1/1995, the Constitution of the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Federal Negarit Gazeta, 1st Year, No.1 (1995).
4
The old Ethiopian state had a varying territorial expanse over the centuries, its
peripheral boundaries bulging and shrinking, and bulging again, across time in history.
The idea of building one nation out of many evokes the thought of the E Pluribus
Unum (out of many, one) motto which is more benign than the assimilationist stance
of the old Ethiopian state, although this in itself is more integrationist than the plures
in uno (to mean many in one, or within one, many) motto that should be the hallmark
of a pluralist, multi-culturalist polity that tolerates, nurtures, and cherishes diversity.
5
This is what prompts many among the public to ask if the federal dispensation has
solved conflicts or has perpetuated and intensified the incidence of conflicts. One
quickly notes that this (at times misguided) question is often asked rhetorically only to
answer it by saying that it has actually triggered more conflicts than it has solved. But
in truth—and scholars of federalism agree here—federalism is not a panacea. As such,
54 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

say, facts emerging from the federal experiment for the last decade and a half did
not prove that it is a panacea. Indeed at times, it might have contributed to the
emergence of new--or the accentuation and multiplication of old—conflicts.6
This article aims at exploring the potential of the Ethiopian federalism as a
way of managing, or rather living with, conflicts. In order to do that, I address
myself to the following questions: Does federalism resolve or prevent conflicts
or does it cause, multiply, and perpetuate them? Was the Ethiopian federalism a
response to and a cause of conflicts? What conflicts did it respond to? How
effectively did it do so? What conflicts has it caused? How did it prepare for
them? How has it responded to conflicts that are its own creation? In other
words, has it given solution to pre-constitutional conflicts? Has it faced post-
constitutional conflicts? How did it respond to both? Is there any normative,
institutional, and procedural capability to effectively respond to and learn to live
with post-constitutional/federal conflicts? What were the old conflicts anyway?
How effective was our federalism in its response to it? What are the new
conflicts? How effective have we been in our response to them? What
challenges have been faced? How have they been overcome? Where did we fail,
and why?
In this article, I argue that conflicts are bound to be with us always. We
won’t “resolve” them. Nor can we eradicate them. We can prevent them. We can
handle or manage them when they do occur. We can transform them when we
are lucky. Federalism, with all its limitations, helps in this venture.
It is a truism to say that Ethiopia is riddled with conflicts. Class conflicts
and status conflicts predominated the political terrain of the 20th century.
Economic conflict and ethno-national conflicts were singled out as the

while it “dissolves” some conflicts, it might also, unwittingly, trigger or resuscitate

others. See, for example, Ronald Watts (2008), Comparing Federal Systems (2rd ed).
(Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press) and George Anderson
(2008), Federalism: An Introduction. (Oxford: Oxford University Press) both of
whom hold that federalism is far from being a panacea for all conflicts.
6
The many disputes that the state and federal institutions (such as the House of
Federation [HoF], Ministry of Federal Affairs, the Council of Nationalities of the
SNNPRS, etc) are seized with suggest that there is a notable incidence of conflicts in
many parts of the country. Such disputes that are presented to these institutions for
their legal/adjudicatory resolution include: the Silte quest for self-definition and
distinct recognition; the numerous border conflicts that often occur between the
Oromia region and the Somali, SNNPRS, Amhara, etc regions; conflicts over access
to power through election (between groups dubbed ‘highlanders’ and ‘natives’ in the
Benishangul/Gumuz region; conflict related to the quest for reassignment in one Zone
as opposed to another (e.g. Dalena Woreda of the Wolaita Zone); the quest for one’s
own Zone (e.g. Gofa) or Special Woreda status; etc.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 55

politically most important conflicts in Ethiopia’s political history.7 In recent

years, ethnic conflict gained salience. Resolution, management, and
transformation or responding to ethnic conflict has gained pre-eminence in the
political realm.8 Consequently, the quest for ethno-cultural justice, equality, and
self-determination is high on the priority agenda.9 Federalism is conceived as the
only effective, appropriate, and legitimate response to ethno-national conflicts.
Indeed, in the Ethiopian context, federalism was a response to old ethno-national
conflicts. As such, it blunted some demands.10 It responded to some demands.11
It led to looking at some questions squarely in the eye—taking the bull by the
horn.12 As a result, one can say that it helped pacify “the big house”. It devolved

7
The 1974 Revolution succeeded in making class conflicts (conflicts arising out of
economic hierarchy) as the most salient and the most pressing ones and, indeed, tried
to respond to the demands of the poor chiefly through land redistribution schemes.
Conflict of ethno-national type (conflicts arising out of status hierarchy) were
appreciated but subordinated to the economic conflicts. Edmond J. Keller (1995),
“The Ethnogenesis of the Oromo Nation and its Implications for Politics in Ethiopia,”
Journal of Modern African Studies, vol. 33, No.4, p. 623, refers to the 1974-1991
revolution as one of the two social revolutions of Ethiopia, the second being the one
that succeeded it since 1991 (“1991 onwards”). Following his track, one can thus
describe the 1974 revolution chiefly as a class revolution and the 1991 revolution
chiefly as a revolution for ethno-cultural justice.
8
One needs only making a cursory glance at the Transitional Charter of 1991,
Proclamation no 7/1992, the FDRE Constitution, and the nine State Constitutions to
confirm this pre-eminence of ethnicity.
9
One can say that these are the underlying values that shaped the making of the FDRE
Constitution. The Transitional Charter, negotiated among major ethno-nationalist
liberation fronts, was chiefly a truce document meant to confront ethno-nationalist
clashes by responding to the quest for ethno-cultural justice (demand for the exercise
and enjoyment of cultural, linguistic and religious rights, the demand for recognition
of one’s identity, the demand for participation in public decision-making, the demand
for autonomy, etc), equality, and self-determination (internal and external).
10
Such is the case, for example, with regard to the claim for autonomy, or linguistic
justice, cultural rights, etc. In some cases, even the claim for self-determination (e.g.
secession) has lost its sharp edge. The postponement of the Somali demand for
secession temporarily and the vacillation of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF)
between the choice of secession or of asserting equality and autonomy in a
democratic Ethiopia are examples of such blunted demands.
11
E.g. the right to equality and non-discrimination (art 25), political participation
through representation (arts 38 cum 54(2)), the right to use of language in education,
courts, civil service, and media (at least within one’s locality, with or without
translation), the right to enjoyment of culture (art 39(2)), the right to self-government
(art 39(3)), etc.
12
The secession clause in the now (in)famous art 39(1) of the constitution marks a bold
move with few, if any, precedents. By inscribing it in the constitution as a right,
56 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

conflicts to sub-national levels.13 It reduced national ailments to sub-national and

local levels. And that is as it should be.
Ethiopian federalism triggered other conflicts. One cannot gainsay that new
conflicts have emerged. The federalist project has two tasks to perform at a time:
1) that of responding to old conflicts, transforming them, answering old
questions, satisfying old demands; and 2) that of managing new conflicts, coping
with new challenges, investing in conflict transformative projects.
Detractors of Ethiopia’s federalism often ask simple questions that suggest
an oversimplification of the matter: has the federal arrangement solved or
exacerbated conflicts? This must have come from the misunderstanding that
federalism is a panacea. Federalism does not guarantee a “perpetual peace,”14or
“the peaceable kingdom.”15 Federalism is a compromise, a negotiated

Ethiopia went beyond the “kill the tribe to build the nation” motto of many an
African country. It reduced Ethiopia to a destructible union of (perhaps
indestructible) sovereign ethnic units (“nations, nationalities, and peoples”). This
clause originally meant to remove the military solution from the political equation—
to serve as the paradoxical case of the dividing that unites—served, rather strangely,
the purpose of preserving the unity while threatening it. Whatever its advantage, by
endorsing secession, Ethiopia took the bull by the horn and so far, the bull hasn’t
killed it. One can surmise—stretching the metaphor of the bull--that perhaps through
this clause, the bull finally might be domesticated.
13
Hence, the numerous local cases that are vying for attention at the regional level (e.g.,
in the Council of Nationalities of the SNNPRS) and at the Federal level (e.g. in the
House of Federation).
14
Immanuel Kant is said to have penned a book entitled Perpetual Peace but mainly
referring to peace among nations, in the realm of what today can be called Public
International Law. See Immanuel Kant (1795), Perpetual Peace: a Philosophical
Sketch, available in electronic version at
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm (accessed in June 2009).
15
The famous painting by Edward Hicks entitled The Peaceable Kingdom inspired by
the verses in Isaiah 11: 6-9 readily come to mind. The text of Isaiah 11:6-9 reads as
follows:
“The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf
and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow
will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat
straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young
child puts his hand into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all
my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the
waters cover the sea.”(See Holy Bible, NIV, 1978).
Will Kymlicka (1995) appropriately used the painting as the cover page for his book
Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Clarendon
Press).
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 57

settlement, a covenant, a human institution, an imperfect one at that, more a

project than a reality.16 Federalism is not a panacea. It does offer some solution.
But it also solves problems by diverting old conflicts, or creating (new), or
transforming all, conflicts. To put it more bluntly and directly: just as much as it
solves, it creates (and, at times, multiplies) conflict. Ethiopian federalism
preserved (partial) unity, brought about partial peace, established temporary
truce, attempted to guarantee ethno-national equality, and partially dispensed
ethno-cultural justice. But by doing so, out of the solutions for old problems, are
born new conflicts: conflicts for new power,17 new resources,18 and new
opportunities.19 As a result, there is now heightened awareness of the new self.
There are now new demands for a distinct identity,20 new demand for self-
governance and autonomy,21 new quest for local economic justice, new quest for
political empowerment and participation, new quest for statehood,22 new quest

16
As a compromise, it does not grant all the demands of all the parties involved.
Consequently, most parties will be half happy (or more or less) rather than fully
happy. As a project, an unfinished one at that, it invites experimentation, trial and
error, ups and downs, successes and setbacks.
17
New power spaces created as a consequence of devolution of power to local (State,
Zone, and Woreda) centers.
18
New resources include those that local authorities are entitled to use (e.g. economic
facilities such as land) but mainly budgetary resources that come to them in the form
of transfer (be it as a grant, subsidy, etc from the federal government) or revenue they
are entitled to raise at the sub-national level.
19
Opportunities that create access to social capital such as network, education, health,
and other economic facilities.
20
The case of the Silte, the Donga, the Zay, and a host of others exemplify this. The
Silte case for self-definition and local self rule has long been decided by the House of
Federation (HoF). The Donga and the Zay cases are yet to be decided.
21
The case of the Gofa exemplifies this kind of claim. The Gofa quest for a Zone status
separate from the Gamo-Gofa Zone has been presented to the HoF, the Office of the
Prime Minister, the Legislative Council of SNNPRS, Council of Nationalities of
SNNPRS, and the political parties of both the federal and the state offices of the
EPRDF in a letter dated 21/7/98 EC. The case has not yet been decided.
22
E.g. the case of the Gamo and the Sidama in SNNPRS. The Gamo quest for a
separate Statehood (from SNNPRS) has been formally presented to the Federal,
State, and Zonal authorities in a letter dated 10 Hamle 1997 EC. The Sidama quest
for statehood separate from the SNNPRS has been presented to the Council of
Nationalities (CON) of SNNPRS in an application/petition dated 02/01/98 EC. The
Sidama Zone has since dropped their request with a letter dated 26/8/98 EC
apparently after a long series of political negotiation.
58 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

for territory (hence border disputes).23 Some conflicts emerge out of the problem
of design, some out of the problem of practice.24
It is my key argument therefore that instead of expecting federalism to solve
all our conflicts, it is advisable to take the more modest road and learn to live
with conflicts. That is what federalism offers: to learn to live with conflicts. I
also argue, albeit only tangentially, that federalism is often the only, not
necessarily the best, choice countries have.
The overall goal is to contribute to the effort at clarification of thought and
visions regarding conflicts and federalism. If we have a clearer idea of what
conflicts are, how they are to be handled, what federalism is, how it is to be
framed and implemented, especially in diverse and divided societies, then we
will be better fortified to appreciate the predicaments we are in and to develop a
more systematic approach to conflicts that federalism is meant to manage or that
it has perhaps triggered. Thus, it will be in order to ask as many questions as
possible about conflicts and federalism and try to give an answer to these
questions. In order to do that, I will chiefly rely on survey of literature and
analysis of laws and policy documents.
Given the fact that conflict is a dynamic process rather than a static
incident,25 discussion on the Anatomy of Conflicts with a particular reference to
the meaning, phases and methods of their management would have been
necessary as a prelude to the theme of this article. However, the limited scope of
this article does not allow it, and I will address the theme in a forthcoming
article. This article is organized into three major sections (other than the
introduction and conclusion). In section one, I discuss ethno-national conflicts:
what they are, what they call for, how they are conceptualized, and how they are
approached for their resolution or management. In the second section, I discuss
the methods of living with conflicts through and/in federalism. Here, I try to
approach federalism both as a solution to and a ‘cause’ of conflicts at a time.

23
The case of the Yem, the case of Dale Woreda between the Sidama and Wolayta
Zone of the SNNPRS, the case of the Guji Oromo in the Sidama Zone, the border
dispute between the Somali and Oromia Regions, are only examples of these
conflicts.
24
See Tsegaye Regassa (ed) (2009), Issues of Federalism in Ethiopia: Towards an
Inventory (Constitutional Law Series, No.2). (Addis Ababa: AAU Press), for an
elaborate discussion of the issues of Ethiopian federalism in three categories, namely
that of Design, Practice, and Culture.
25
See Medhane Tadesse (2006), The Quest for Conflict Settlement in Ethiopia’s
Periphery. (Addis Ababa: Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung (FES)), for example, on the
dynamic and processual nature of conflicts. “Conflicts are historical processes, not
static facts” p. 6.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 59

In section three, I discuss federalism and conflicts in the context of

Ethiopia. Ethiopia, being a country of many—and at times conflicting—images,
heritages, or personalities, it is imperative that we discuss issues related to
‘images’ and perception of its problems and solutions. The contending ethnic
demands and the federal response thereof are also considered. Federalism and its
place in Ethiopia’s past and present are discussed relatively extensively. Issues
related to the design and the practice of the federal dispensation are identified.
Some of the challenges and the limits of the federal dispensation in the face of
increasing tensions and competitions among groups at the local and sub-national
levels is also sketchily presented by referring to examples of recent cases that
emerged from the states. The section is brought to an end through a tentative
description of the prospect as we look ahead into the years to come.

1. Ethno-National Conflicts and their (Ir)resolution

1.1- What are they?
What are ethno-national conflicts? In simple terms, ethno-national conflicts can
be viewed as conflicts between and/or among ethnic or national groups that are
in relationships. But not much clarity is obtained from such a definition. There is
undertheorization of the nature of ethnic conflicts. As a consequence, both the
definition of, and the theories that explain, ethnic conflict do not command
consensus among scholars. Donald Horowitz, in his magisterial work on ethnic
conflicts (entitled Ethnic Groups in Conflict) suggests that ethnic conflict is “the
struggle for mutually exclusive rewards or the use of incompatible means to a
goal.”26 By alluding to Lewis Coser’s definition, Horowitz goes on to adopt a
definition which views ethnic conflict as “a struggle in which the aim is to gain
objectives and simultaneously to neutralize, injure, or eliminate rivals.”27In
Horowitz’s definition, conflict--posed as a struggle, strife or collision--is
distinguished from competitition.28
Clearly, this definition assumes diversity/plurality and relations among
diverse groups. It also implies a divergence of pursuits of benefits and
incompatibility of means used to attain a goal. Ethno-national conflicts thus can
be viewed as a struggle between and/or among diverse groups who, having
(perceived) incompatible goals, use incompatible means to achieve their goals.
This definition however assumes clarity as to what we mean by ethnicity or
nation. Adrian Hastings makes a helpful distinction between ethnicity and nation
by stipulating that while ethnic groups are peoples tied to one another chiefly

26
Donald Horowitz (1985), Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of
California Press), p. 95.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
60 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

through a shared spoken language, a nation is a group tied to each other through
a written vernacular.29

1.2- What Causes Ethnic Conflicts?

There are a number of theories forwarded to explain the nature and causes of
ethnic conflicts. Donald Horowitz, for example, identifies three major categories
of theories of ethnic conflicts, namely modernization theory, class theories, and
cultural difference theories.30 According to modernization theories, ethnic
conflicts, as a “mere relic of an outmoded traditionalism”31, will go away if
modernization penetrates the domain of ethnic existence. Ethnic conflict is also
viewed as an obstruction to the inexorable progress toward modernity,32 and as
such may result in the inevitable tension between tradition and modernity which
in turn causes some conflict. The competition among groups for the fruits of
modernity (infrastructural, educational, new wealth, etc) might also cause
conflict.33
Class theories of ethnicity hold that belief in a particular ethnic identity is
part of an ideology that “masks class interests and diverts the working class from
pursuing their interests.”34 As such it is malleable to elite manipulation and
instrumental utilization for the elite’s own pursuit of class and political interests.
Cultural difference theories such as the one promoted by Furnivall maintain that
conflict among ethnic groups arises out of incompatibilities among their
cultures. It is an attempt at explaining many an ethnic conflict on the basis of
cultural differences. It holds that plural societies are “defined by dissensus and
pregnant with conflicts.”35
According to Will Kymlicka,36 a proponent of liberal multiculturalism,
liberalism’s blindness to groups rights, and the consequent insensitivities to
minority claims lead to ethnic tensions in a polity. The quest for freedom (of a
group) from ‘external domination’ and (of an individual) from ‘internal
restrictions’ thus justify the quest for ethno-cultural justice. The denial of justice

29
Adrian Hastings (1997), The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion, and
Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 1-35, but especially pp.
3, 11-12.
30
See generally Donald Horowitz, supra note 26.
31
Ibid , p 96.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid, p. 102.
34
Ibid, p. 106.
35
J.S. Furnivall (1954), “Some Problem of Tropical Economy” in Rita Hinden, ed.,
Fabian Colonial Essays (London: Allen & Unwin), (as quoted in D. Horowitz, Ibid,
p.136).
36
See generally Will Kymlicka, supra note 15.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 61

often leads to conflicts and tensions. Misrecognition causes tensions and

conflicts. Similarly, Iris Marion Young characterizes most ethnic demands as
part of the response and resistance to different classes of oppression, namely
exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, violence, and cultural
imperialism.37
John Markakis, a long-time scholar on Ethiopia, suggests that causes of
ethnic conflicts are mostly competition for resources and power although in what
looks like a lapse in thought he also seems to endorse the cultural difference
theory when he tried to explain the Issa-Afar conflict in the light of
historical/traditional enmity between the two groups.38 Merera Gudina39
attributes ethnic conflicts in Ethiopia to, among other things, contending
nationalisms that have emerged and evolved over time in Ethiopia. He also
deplores the incomplete transition to democracy as a result of which we continue
to have political instability that is rooted in ethnicity.40
In a similar vein, Lovise Aalen41 alludes to the democratic deficit, human
rights deficit, and the one party dominance in Ethiopia as the cause of many an
ethnic discord. Likewise, Assefa Fiseha42 makes the observation that poor
political culture and poor federal culture continue to serve as the hotbed for
ethno-national contentions in Ethiopia. In the context of Ethiopia, one can fairly
say that the sources of ethnic conflict have often revolved around the
competition for resources, power, and opportunities.

37
See generally Iris M. Young (2000), Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford
University Press). See also I. M. Young (1990), Justice and the Politics of Difference.
(Princeton: Princeton University Press).
38
John Markakis (1998), Resource Conflict in the Horn of Africa (London: Sage
Publications). See also his (1987) National and Class Conflict in the Horn of Africa.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). See also Edmond J. Keller (1981),
“Ethiopia: Revolution, Class, and the National Question,” African Affairs, vol 80, No.
321, pp. 519-549, for a summary of the various explanations of ethnic conflicts in
Africa in general and in Ethiopia in particular.
39
See generally Merera Gudina (2003), Ethiopia: Competing Ethnic Nationalisms and
the Quest for Democracy, 1960-2000 (Addis Ababa: N.P Shaker Publishing).
40
Ibid, e.g. pp. 160-161.
41
See generally Lovise Aalen (2000), Ethnic Federalism in a Dominant party State:
The Ethiopian Experience, 1991-2000. (Bergen: Christian Michelsen Institute). See
also her (2008), Institutionalizing the Politics of Ethnicity: Actors, Power, and
Mobilization in Southern Ethiopia under Ethnic Federalism. (Oslo: PhD Dissertation
(submitted to the Department of Political Science of the University of Oslo).
42
Assefa Fiseha (2005/2006), Federalism and the Accommodation of Diversity in
Ethiopia: A Comparative Study (Nijmegen: Wolf Publishers), pp. 432-433, for
example.
62 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

1.3- Modes of Responding to Ethno-national Conflicts

Anyone dealing with the problems of ethno-national diversity has a number of
options to choose from in order to deal with them. But mostly, the responses
depend on the nature and types of claims put forward by the different groups
within a polity. Some groups, considering their numerical smallness, might just
want security of survival. They thus claim recognition and security of existence,
equality and non-discrimination, identity, enjoyment of cultural and linguistic
rights, the right to a homeland, representation and participation in the politics of
the encompassing polity, and autonomy. In extreme cases, they might demand
self-determination.43
The responses to these diverse demands differ from country to country and
from time to time. The approaches often taken in response to the demands of
diversity and difference historically took the form of extermination (genocide),
assimilation, misrecognition, marginalization, exclusion, domination, and
recognition.44 A positive response took the form of tolerance, equalization,
affirmative action, power-sharing, and accommodation treading the
multiculturalism road.45 Federalism is also a mode of positively responding to
the challenge of diversity. (But in most divided societies concerned with the task

43
Note that these are more or less the kind of rights minorities can claim in multi-
ethnic, multi-linguistic, and multi-cultural/religious communities. For a
comprehensive list and rigorous legal analysis of the rights of minorities, see Patrick
Thornberry (1991), International Law and the Rights of Minorities. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press).
44
Thornberry, supra note 89, identifies a spectrum of responses to demands by
minorities by specially noting those that range in between assimilation and
integration including fusion and segregation (p.3). In relation to genocide as a
response, he says “regrettably, crude attempts at physical destruction of groups are
still made by states, even if not admitted to be such: no state proclaims genocide as a
policy.” (p.4). For the many and varied responses to the demands of diversity, see
also the two oeuvres by Iris Marion Young, supra note 83. For incisive analyses of
the two most prominent forms of negative reaction to the demands of diversity,
namely exclusion and domination, see Melissa S. Williams and Stephen Macedo
(eds) (2005), Political Exclusion and Domination. (New York and London: New
York University Press).
45
The responses offered by voices of multiculturalism such as Charles Taylor (1994),
“The Politics of Recognition” Multiculturalism (Amy Gutmann, ed). (Princeton:
Princeton University Press); Will Kymlicka (1995), (chiefly in his) Multicultural
Citizenship, supra note 15. James Tully (1995), Strange Multiplicity:
Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press);
and Alain-G Gagnon and James Tully (eds) (2001), Multinational Democracies.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 63

of nation-building, positive responses were hard to come by, the most extreme
form of which propagated the slogan ‘kill the tribe to build the nation.’46)
1.4. Federalism as one among Many Responses to Ethno-national
Conflicts
Federalism is often used as a tool of accommodating diversity. Daniel Elazar,
one of the leading proponents of the expansion of the federal idea in modern
times, and who is otherwise very skeptical about the success of ethnic
federalism, says that “Federalism has become a very popular “solution” for
problems of ethnic conflict in public discourse.”47 But owing to the fact that the
American model is often taken as the prototypical model of federalism, a federal
type that takes ethnicity into account in the process of carving its constituent
units is viewed as rather unconventional. They also observe that:
[E]thnic federations are among the most difficult of all to sustain and are least
likely to survive because constituent units based on ethnic nationalisms
normally do not want to merge into the kind of tight-knit units necessary for
federation. It may be that confederations of ethnic states have a better chance
of success. Ethnic federations run the risk of civil war, while ethnic
confederations run the risk of secession. The management of ethnic nationalism
is both the most common and the most difficult reasons for federalism
today.48(Italics added.)
Indeed most scholars consider ethnic federalism with a degree of suspicion
because to base a federal arrangement on such an inflexible trait such as
ethnicity is to freeze the compromise and negotiation inherent and necessary for
an operational federal system.49 Nonetheless, trends in recent years suggest that
perhaps ethnic federalism must be given a chance because it has two major

46
This was the expression frequently used in post-colonial countries that not only took
nation-building seriously but sought to do it even at the expense of internal
diversities. See the phrase used in Will Kymlicka (2007), “The Global Diffusion of
Multiculturalism” in Governing Diversity: Democratic Solutions in Multicultural
Societies (Razmik Panosian, Bruce Berman, and Anne Linscott, eds).
(Montreal/Kingston: Rights & Democracy/EDG (Ethnicity and Democratic
Governance)). Here, Kymlicka says: “‘kill the tribe to build the nation’ was a popular
expression in many post-colonial African countries.” p. 11.
47
Daniel Elazar (1994), Federalism and the Way to Peace. (Kingston/Queen: Institute
of Intergovernmental Relations), p. 167.
48
Ibid, pp.167-168.
49
Daniel Elazar, who says, “ethnic nationalism tends to subordinate all free government
to its uncompromising position. Federalism is a democratic middle way requiring
negotiation and compromise. All aspects of society fostering uncompromising
positions make federalism more difficult, if not impossible” in Ibid, p. 168, is only an
example.
64 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

advantages: a) it brings about peace and stability in conflicted societies; and b) it

entrenches and institutionalizes ethno-cultural justice. In countries such as that
of the horn –which share common peoples, cultures, fears, and vulnerabilities—
ethnic federalism with the secession clause might even help for regional
integration.50 It is important, however, that for ethnic federalism to effectively
respond to the challenge of diversity, it needs to be augmented by an electoral
and political system that provides for power-sharing, equal representation, veto
power on select matters, etc. It should also be working under the provenance of a
legitimate, supreme, and rigid constitution that can be interpreted impartially and
neutrally (or evenly). It should also be supported by a robust minority rights
regime that can protect new minorities or minorities within minorities.

2. Learning to Live with Conflicts through Federalism:

Federalism as a Solution and as a Cause of Conflicts
As has been hinted at earlier on, federalism is not a panacea to all ailments. It is
not an insurance against conflicts. It is therefore imperative that a society learns
to live with conflicts in and through a federation by preparing for conflicts that
might be triggered by the adoption and operation of a federal structure.51 Such a
preparation requires the institutional and procedural readiness and readiness in
terms of putting in place a systematic set of policies, strategies, and methods for
handling conflicts. But before we delve into the discussion of how we live with
conflicts, it is important to discuss the features, variants, types, and modes of
operation of federalism.
2.1. Federalism in General
2.1.1. What is Federalism?
The conventional view with regard to federalism is that it is a form of non-
centralized mode of organizing a polity.52 Thus it is said that “federal polities are

50
See Tsegaye Regassa, “Federalism in Ethiopia and its Relevance to other Multi-ethnic
Polities of Africa” (Unpublished paper presented in the Law Faculty of the University
of Trento, Italy, May 2009, forthcoming in Bahir Dar University Law Journal, 2010)
for a discussion of its transplantability elsewhere and its use as a tool of
(re)integration of the countries of the Horn of Africa.
51
Conflicts that might be triggered by a federal arrangement are those that result from
the units’ and sub-units’ heightened self-awareness and increased awareness of their
rights and powers to be claimed both vertically from the federal government and
horizontally from each other. Such conflicts include, but are not limited to,
competition over (newly discovered) power, resources, and opportunities.
52
See Daniel Elazar (1985), “The Role of Federalism in Political Integration” in
Federalism and Political Integration (Daniel Elazar, ed). (Lanham, MD: Jerusalem
Center for Public Affairs/ University Press of America), pp. 13-16.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 65

characteristically non-centralized.”53 It refers to a "union of separate states in

which power is divided and shared between a strong union government and
strong state governments."54 Inherent in the federal idea is thus the idea of
"shared rule and self-rule."55 Moreover, federalism presumes the existence of at
least two layers (tiers) of government in a polity, namely, that of the Federal
(General, also Union) government and of the State (Local, also Provincial, or
even Cantonal-- in the case of Switzerland) governments.
The idea of shared rule and self rule in federalism is advantageous in many
respects. Kincaid argues that federalism, as it is practised in the United States,
has "solved the fundamental problem of human governance and liberty." He
goes on to state that federalism aspires to “maximize the democratic and
economic advantages of both small and large republics by minimizing the
anarchistic temptations of small republics to fight each other and the
monopolistic temptations of large republics to become tyrannical.”56
Thus it is evident that federalism intensifies democracy by creating an
atmosphere of popular participation at, at least, two levels. Further, federalism
helps preserve the particularities of smaller republics in a big polity by first
protecting them from potential degeneration into non-existence and by,
secondly, breaking the imperialistic hegemony of larger republics. (Whether this
value of federalism can still be maintained in a post-cold war era where there is a
resurgence of politics of identity is extensively debated relatively recently in
Graham Smith's work.57) But the potential for pluralism, and better local liberty
and consequent better legal and even political penetration in federalism can

53
Ibid p. 14. Here, Elazar rightly insists on the distinction between non-cetralization
and decentralization by saying, “Non-centralization is not the same as
decentralization, though the latter term is frequently—and erroneously—used in its
place to describe federal systems. Decentralization implies the existence of a central
authority, a central government that can decentralize or recentralize as it desires. In
decentralized systems, the diffusion of power is actually a matter of grace, not right;
in the long run, it is usually treated as such.”
54
John Kincaid (1995), “Foreword” Federalism: What is it? Where Might it take us?,
(Law Related Education), Vol 19, No.3.. (Chicago: American Bar Association), p.1.
55
Ronald Watts, supra note 5, p. 7. See also Daniel Elazar, supra note 92, pp.5-16. See
also the centrality of this idea in other works such as Michael Burgess (2006),
Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice. (London/New York: Routledge),
pp.11-49 (which analyzes the conceptual roots of federalism, federations, and federal
political systems); and Daniel Elazar (1996), “Federalism, Diversity, and Rights” in
Federalism and Rights (Ellis Katz and G. Alan Tarr, eds). (Lanham, MD/London:
Rowman and Littlefield), p.2.; George Anderson, supra note 5, ch. 2.
56
Kincaid, supra note 54, p.2.
57
Graham Smith(ed) (1995), Federalism: The Multi-ethnic Challenge. (London:
Longman).
66 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

hardly be denied. It is important to note at this juncture that while federalism is

an important instrument to accommodate local differences and the quest for
local/provincial autonomy in a large polity, it is not only large polities that need
it. Small nations, too, might want to adopt federal arrangements for various
reasons one among which is diffusion of power across the land so that central
tyranny is avoided.58

2.1.2- Variants
Etymologically the word ‘federalism’ comes from the Latin, foedus, meaning
"covenant".59 Hence, the covenantal roots of American federalism60 which is
considered an example of a prototype of federations.61 Traditionally therefore,
federalism, being essentially a covenant or a treaty, is a solemn agreement
among smaller polities to form a larger perpetual polity. It is from this
covenantal idea intrinsic to federalism that Daniel Elazar develops his thesis of
various forms of organizing governments on the federal line. He thus identifies
four major forms of state organization that could roughly be called "federal",
namely: a) Federation; b) confederation; c) federacy; and d) associated
statehood.62 A brief explanation of each is in order.
Federation, for Elazar, is a kind of government which "establishes a
common general government in which to form a polity, and constituent units
which both govern themselves and share a common constitutional government
of the whole."63 It is the form of government in which "powers are delegated to
[the general government] by the people of all the units. Its dissolution can only
come about through the consent of all or a majority of its constituent units."64 It
is a system in which "the general government has direct access to every citizen
and supremacy in those areas in which it is granted authority."65
Moreover, for Elazar, Federation, which is the prototype of a federal
political system, "is the form of government invented by the founding fathers of

58
Anderson, supra note 5.
59
Kincaid supra note 54. But see also Daniel Elazar and John Kincaid (1984), The
Covenant Connection: Federal Theology and the Origins of Modern Politics.
(Lanham, MD: Center for the Study of Federalism and University Press of America)
for a more comprehensive treatment of the federal idea as essentially covenantal.
60
Donald Lutz (1988), The Origins of American Constitutionalism. (Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press).
61
Elazar supra note 47.
62
Ibid, pp. 159-160
63
Ibid, p. 159.
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 67

the United States in the constitution of 1789."66 Archetypal examples of modern

federations are the US, Switzerland and Canada. In his opinion therefore
prototype federations are those which are formed through aggregation rather
than devolution. Consent of the unit is also inherent to (convenantal) federation.
This notion of federation can be more clearly understood when it is contrasted to
the other forms of organizing states on the federal line such as confederation and
federacy.
Confederation is a system in which "the constituent units form a union but
retain most sovereign and constituent powers."67 Thus in a confederation the
constituent units "establish and maintain continuous control over the general
government which must work through them to reach the citizenry."68 Moreover,
"the secession of individual units may be possible by prior constitutional
agreement without general consent."69 As can be noted from the foregoing, while
the general government has direct power over citizens of the states in a
federation, such is not the case in a confederation. In the latter case, the
constituent unit's government serves as a medium between the citizens and the
general government. In addition, in a confederation, the units have a pre-
arranged right of secession preserved for them from the very beginning. Thus,
in confederation, unilateral withdrawal from the "Union" is possible. This is
perhaps because in confederations, the units preserve their sovereignty. The
Greek Achean League, and the United provinces of the Netherlands are
mentioned as classic examples of confederations, while the European Union is
taken as the best modern example.70 It is important to note here that
confederations, to the extent they allow secession, mark less permanent
commitment to form a "more perfect union" which is the essence of covenantal
federalism.
Federacy is "an asymmetrical relationship between a federated state and a
large federate power, providing for potential union on the basis of the federated
state maintaining greater internal autonomy by foregoing certain forms of
participation in the governance of the federate power."71 It is thus a transitional
step to union. Notable also is the imbalance between the units, i.e., between "the
federated state" (which usually might not have had a prior experience as a viable
state) and the (larger) "federate power". While federacy is similar to federations
in the sense that both have potential for subsequent unity, it does not seek to

66
Ibid.
67
Ibid, p. 160.
68
Ibid.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid.
71
Ibid.
68 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

preserve the identity of the constituent units, thereby always leaving sufficient
space for self-rule-which is the essence of federations. It is significant to note
that while federations might facilitate homogeneity among the citizens in the
constituent units, it does not necessarily and usually lead to a unity that
obliterates the constituent units. Federacy, however, might lead to subsequent
obliteration of the autonomy of the federated state. Elazar 72 and Friedrich73
mention Puerto Rico as a federacy (to the US), although it is noted that the term
frequently used for this kind of arrangement in the US is "commonwealth."
Associated statehood is also an asymmetrical relationship in which the
"federated state is less bound to the federate power, and the constitution which
binds them usually has provisions for the severance of ties between the two
under certain specified conditions."74This arrangement "is similar to federation."
That is to say, just in the same way confederation differs from federation
because it allows secession from the union, associated statehood differs from
federacy because it allows breaking of ties from the federate power. Thus, one
can say that associated statehood is a loose a federacy as confederation is a loose
federation.
The foregoing are the four major forms of organizing polities on a federal
basis, but other quasi-federal arrangements also exist. Unions (like the UK);
leagues, condominiums (Andorra with France and Spain); constitutional
regionalization (e.g. Italy); and constitutional home rule (like Japan) are
mentioned by Elazar as forms of quasi-federal arrangements.75

2.1.3- Federalism as a Mode of Organizing a Polity

From among the three basic ways of the emergence of polities, namely conquest
(or force), organic development (or accidental evolution), and covenant (or
reflection and choice), federalism is akin to covenant (or reflection).76 That is to
say, federalism is different from a form of government established by use of
force which usually culminates in "hierarchically organized regimes ruled in an
authoritarian manner."77 It is thus different from a system in which there is a
"power pyramid" in which "the conqueror (is) on top, his agents in the middle,

72
Elazar (1987), Exploring Federalism. (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama
Press); See also Elazar, supra note 47.
73
Carl J. Friedrich (1968), Trends of Federalism in Theory and Practice (New York:
Praeger).
74
Elazar, supra note 47, p. 160.
75
Ibid.
76
Ibid, pp. 18-19 citing Madison in Federalist 1. Also, see Elazar supra note 72.
77
Ibid, p. 18
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 69

and the people underneath the entire structure."78 As such, federalism seems to
be at odds with centralist authoritarianism.
Federalism is also seen as distinct from organic evolution which:
involves the development of political life from its beginning in families, tribes,
and villages to large polities in such a way that institutions, constitutional
relationships, and power alignments emerge in response to the interaction
between past precedent and changing circumstances with a minimum of
deliberate constitutional choice.79
Being largely a product of historical accidents, organic evolution results in
oligarchic regimes with a predilection to be on the top of the power pyramid or
at the center.80 It thus might create a center-periphery tension with the regime
ending to be at the center and at the top. Interestingly, in similitude to conquest,
this form of state "creation,” also tends to be hierarchical which is not
necessarily the case in federalism. Federalism, being a product of "reflection and
choice" (in the words of The Federalists81), is unlike conquest and evolution.
Elazar states that "polities whose origins are covenantal reflect the exercise of
constitutional choice and broad-based participation in constitutional design."82
Such polities are "essentially federal in character"- in spite of their structure-i.e.,
"each polity in a matrix compounded of equal confederates who come together
freely and retain their respective integrities even as they are bound in a common
whole."83 Moreover, "such polities are republican by definition."84
Most, characteristically, federalism is a system in which decisions are made
after deliberate negotiation.85 It is the element of negotiation inherent in
federalism that attracts societies that even "ail" from "natural" diversities such as
culture religion, ethnicity, etc, to federalism. Such societies that are divided on
"transgenerational religious, cultural, ethnic, or ideological" lines (also called
consociational polities) venture to adopt non-territorial federations which are
jointly governed by coalitions of the leaders of each group.86 Such trends
leaning towards non-territorial federations which is necessitated by "re-
assertions of ethnic and regional identities, now worldwide in scope," have given

78
Ibid.
79
Ibid, p. 19
80
Ibid.
81
The Federalist Papers (1969/1999), (Charles R. Kesler and Clinton Rossiter, eds).
(New York: Mentor), p 1.
82
Elazar, supra note 47, p.20.
83
Ibid.
84
Ibid.
85
Ibid, p.71.
86
Ibid, p.22.
70 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

rise to various paces of federalism, while also ushering in what is called "the
federalist revolution."87 A post-modern federalism, "a federalism that is not
simply based upon territorial boundaries but recognizes the existence of long
enduring peoples as well,"88 is suggested for the purpose of handling pluralism
of recent years.
That federalism is congenial to pluralism is too obvious to argue. That
pluralism safeguards liberty is the basic federal argument.89 But the manner of
institutionalizing pluralism constitutionally determines the durability of federal
arrangements. Thus, pluralism rooted in individual liberty and choice is more
convenient to sustain in federal arrangements than those rooted in primordial
ties.90 The latter forms of pluralism sustain themselves by making it difficult for
integration to happen. In the context of such rigid form of pluralism (such as the
ones evoked by multi-ethnicity), federal principles are said to work if they can
"combine kinship (the basis of ethnicity), and consent (the basis of democratic
government) into politically viable, constitutionally protected, arrangements
involving territorial and non-territorial polities."91 In such circumstances,
federalism both maintains and contains pluralism." “The virtue of federalism,"
Elazar asserted, "not only lies in its utility in maintaining pluralism but also in
simultaneously containing it."92
Comparative studies of federalism indicate that federalism can best be
maintained in societies where: a) there are strong civil societies that help limit
government; b) sovereignty is broken thereby allowing for division and sharing
of powers between the general (federal) government and local (state)
governments, also leaving room for continuous vibrant intergovernmental
relations; c) territoriality is the basis of state formation, although at times it
might need to be "augmented by ... consociationalism or … other forms of non-
territorial power sharing"93; d) there is a total or uniform federalism that is
evenly spread over the entire polity created by the federalism thereby
disallowing different patterns of behavior to be displayed by the federal
government vis-à-vis the different constituent units. (In other words, there
should be no special empowerment of some constituent units as against others or
no special restriction of the power of one as against the other.); e) there is a

87
Ibid, pp. 21-23.
88
Daniel Elazar (ed) (1991), Federal systems of the World: A Hand book of Federal,
Confederal, and Autonomy Arrangements. (London: Longman Group), P. 2-3.
89
Elazar, supra note 47, p. 25.
90
Ibid.
91
Ibid, pp.23-24.
92
Ibid, p.31.
93
Ibid, p. 164.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 71

political culture that is supportive of, or congenial to, federalism; f) a will to

federate exists; g) there is a broad-based consent obtained usually through
negotiations, renegotiations and compromises; h) there is "balance between
cooperation and competition" in intergovernmental relations, i.e., where there is
a degree of cooperation that engenders dual and cooperative federalism, and yet
sufficient room is left for the states to make their own decisions and exercise
their "freedom to say "no" to the federal government decisions94; and i) where
there is an efficient system of separation of powers among the organs of the
federal government.95 In sum, therefore, civil societies, broken sovereignty,
territoriality, uniformity, supportive political culture, the will to federate, mass
consent, balanced intergovernmental cooperation and competition, and a system
of separation of powers can be viewed as factors that make management of
federalism easy in a polity.
Nonetheless, federalism is not universally accepted without any opposition.
There are oppositions that come from two directions. According to Daniel
Elazar,96 the forces that oppose federalism are forces of centralization and of
fragmentation. Those who oppose federalism on behalf of centralization tend to
be totalitarian with consolidationist trends while those who oppose it on behalf
of fragmentation are ethno-nationalist movements seeking secession. From
among the two, "ethnic nationalism is probably the strongest force against
federalism."97 Yet contemporary problems of ethnic conflict seem to have
brought about a drift into ethnic federations as a situation. But can ethnic
nationalism be handled through a federation? The answer from commentators is
often skeptical, as we have noted earlier on.98. Being egocentric, Elazar
maintains, ethnic nationalism is at odds with the principle of federalism. In
federalism, consent is the basis of division and sharing of power, not "language,
religion, national myths," as is the case in ethnic nationalism.99 As the elements
emphasized in ethnic nationalism are those which breed cleavages among
people, a multiethnic federal system (Elazar seems to suggest), can succeed only
if the basis of state formation is anything other than ethnicity. Thus, ethnic
configurations and state borders should not be coterminous if ethnic federalism

94
Ibid, p. 166.
95
Ibid, p.177. These factors are identified as important elements of a workable federal
arrangement in the works of various scholars of federalism such as Alan Seligman
(1992), The Idea of a Civil Society. (New York: Free Press); Daniel Elazar, supra
note 72; and Ivo Duchacek (1987), Comparative Federalism: The Territorial
Dimension of Politics. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America).
96
Elazar, supra note 47, p.167.
97
Ibid.
98
Ibid, p. 93.
99
Ibid, p. 168.
72 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

is to succeed. Federalism, for Elazar, is "formulated through covenanting or

consent of publics of individuals," and in contrast, "ethnic nationalism tends to
subordinate all free government to its uncompromising position."100
Furthermore, federalism is "a democratic middle way requiring negotiation and
compromise. All aspects of society fostering uncompromising positions [such as
ethnic nationalism's] make federalism more difficult, if not impossible."101
Nonetheless, one can hardly fail to notice the following features of
federalism (which have all been hinted at directly or indirectly in the discussion
above): allocation of power between federal and state governments;
representation at the center; and territoriality.102 Other commentators see yet
other features of federalism such as its importance "as a form of empowerment",
i.e., its capability to create "opportunities for regional voices to be heard; and to
create regional political elites where they previously did not exist," and to
"establish more civil service jobs for local regional groupings."103 Thus,
federalism, being a form of empowerment, creates "more opportunities for
negotiating the territorial distribution of power and more representative
institutions.104 Smith further notes that innovation is also an aspect of
federalism.105 This means that federalism lets the states exercise creative politics
in meeting local needs thereby serving, in a sense, as "a social laboratory."106 As
such, federalism might be a helpful tool to be used against legitimacy crisis. To
this list, one can add the following features as basic to one’s description of
federalism, namely, the existence of: at least two orders (tiers, or spheres) of
government; a written constitution which is legitimate, supreme, rigid, and
adjudicable by an impartial body; allocation of legislative powers to states with

100
Ibid.
101
Ibid. But See also Andrea Eschet-Shwartz (1991), "Can the Swiss Federal
Experience Serve as a Model of Federal Integration," in Daniel Elazar, (ed)
Constitutional Design and Powersharing in the Post-Modern Epoch. (Lanham,
MD: Univ. Press of America); Fried Sterbauer, Guy Heraud, and Peter Pernthales
(eds,) (1977), Foderalismus. (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumuller); Geofferey Sawer
(1977), "Constitutional Issues in Australian Federalism," Publius 7 No. 3; Anup
Chand Kapur(1970), Constitutional History of India: 1765-1970. (New Delhi: Niraj
Prakashar); Ronald Watts (1989), Executive Federalism: A Comparative Analysis.
(Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations).
102
Preston King (1993), “Federation and Representation” in Michael Burgess and
Alain-G Gagnon (eds), Comparative Federalism and Federation: Competing
Traditions and Future Directions. (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf).
103
Graham Smith, supra note 57, p.16.
104
Ibid.
105
Ibid, p. 17.
106
Alain-G Gagnon (1993), “The Political uses of Federalism and Federations,” in
Burgess and Gangnon, supra note 102, p. 37.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 73

some genuine autonomy for each order; equal or equitable representation of the
constituent units at the center often in an upper house; an umpire and/or
procedure ( e.g. courts, referendum, or upper house) to rule on constitutional
disputes between governments; and a set of processes and institutions for
facilitating or conducting relations between governments.107
The above mentioned features of federalism also imply some of the values
inherent in federalism such as lessening tyranny especially of the executive,
being responsive to local public needs, and encouraging innovation. These
values of federalism however should not blind one to some of its drawbacks,
among which are: complexity and overlapping of state structures, redundancy,
potential of local tyranny, and its potential as incentive for secessionist
movements.108
Federalism not only has drawbacks but also involves ever changing
challenges that it has to deal with. Post-cold war times, for example, have
presented federalism with three major challenges to confront, namely: a) the
challenge of majoritarianism in multi-ethnic societies, b) the challenge of
globalization; and c) the challenge of sub-state nationalism.109 In other words,
federalism, being a territorial and non-majoritarian mode of organizing a polity,
is exposed to the criticism of majoritarian democracy especially in ethnically
pluralized societies.
Moreover, because of globalization i.e., "the internationalization of capital,
the greater mobility of labor, the growth of continental trading blocs,"110 has
made the role of the national (and even local) governments grow less and less in
intensity or importance. Further, because of contemporary reemergence of local
(or sub-state) nationalism, federalism, as a consensual mode of organizing a
polity, is facing the challenge of identifying a workable basis of state formation.
It is important to recall from our earlier discussion that ethnic nationalism is one
of the movements against federalism. So far, federalism's meaning, aspects,
values, factors for and against and the challenges posed to it are discussed. This
discussion is hoped to have a bearing on the analysis of federalism in Ethiopia
later.

2.1.4- Origins and Waves

Depending on how they came to be, federations are often classified into two
major categories and a third which is a hybrid of those. These are: (a) coming-
together (or better known as those formed through aggregation or integration of

107
See Anderson supra note 5 on these features.
108
Smith, supra note 57, pp. 2-4.
109
Ibid.
110
Ibid.
74 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

pre-existing states); (b) holding-together (or famously known as those formed

through devolution of a previously centralized system of power in a unitary
country); or (c) a combination of these two (in case where polities are
reconstituted through a double - flanked process of devolving an old centralized
polity while being re-associated with another polity—which used to be a
separate polity-- or a unit that went to a temporary independence from the old
unitary polity at the beginning of the devolutionary process.) George Anderson
identifies some six “waves” of federation namely: (1) classical federations (18th
and 19th century federations such as USA, Switzerland); (2) post-colonial
federations (e.g. India, Nigeria, etc); (3) post-communist federations; 4) post-
conflict federations (e.g. Iraq); (5) new federations (e.g. Belgium, Spain, etc);
and 6) transnational federations (e.g. EU).111

2.1.5- Types: A Taxonomy of Federations?

Federations can also be viewed as falling in one or the other of the following
categories either: a. based on origin: Aggregative, Devolutionary; Coming
together, Holding together112; b. based on operation: dual or cooperative
(integrated or interlocked); or parallel or administrative/executive; c. based on
the mode of state formation: territorial/personal; administrative/ethno-linguistic
(or multi-national). In practice, federal systems’ operational success depends on
the kind of inter-governmental relations that exists in a polity. Thus a federation
may be characterized as: (a) dual/co-operative; (b) legislative/executive; (c)
parallel/integrated.

2.1.6- Division of Powers in Federations: Approaches

Division of powers between the federal, the state, and local governments is the
hallmark of federal systems. Dispersion of power territorially is (by setting up at
least two tiers of government and dividing, often, the legislative but also the
judicial and executive powers between them) is one of the key features of
federalism. Powers can be allocated to each tier as follows: Federal Powers,
State Powers, and Concurrent (alias joint, or shared) powers. The constitutional
method used to divide the powers might follow one of the following techniques,
namely:
a) Explicitly enumerate distinctly federal, state, and concurrent powers and
leave the rest (i.e., the residual powers) to the states—as it is the case, for
instance, in the USA; or

111
Ibid. Note that Anderson, supra note 5, does not use the term “transnational
federations”.
112
Alfred C. Stepan (1999) uses this distinction between coming-together and holding-
together types of federations in “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the Us Model”
Journal of Democracy, Vol.10, No.4, pp. 19-34
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 75

b) Explicitly enumerate state powers (without enumerating the federal powers)

and reserve the rest (i.e., the residual powers) to the federal government—as
it is the case for example in Canada.
When enumerating some powers as either “federal” or “state” and grant it to
them explicitly, we also grant them other powers which are either implicit in, or
necessary to exercise, the explicitly granted powers. Implicit and necessary
powers come to be visible in the process of exercising the explicitly granted
powers.
2.2 Federalism as a Peace-making Tool
As has been hinted at repeatedly in earlier sections, federalism may serve as a
tool of peace-making. Such is the case in conflicted and post-conflict societies.
The fact that it is a mode of molding a polity through reflection and choice and
the consequent fact that central to its formation is consent (agreement, or treaty)
makes it a veritable tool of peace. If a polity has been beleaguered by tensions
and wars that are fought for the sake of better recognition of diversity,
accommodation of difference, equal or fair participation in the political life of a
nation, or/and autonomy to govern oneself and one’s resources in one’s chosen
way, federalism can be a way out of the political quagmire. If the wars are
fought for the sake of ensuring protection of particular identities within an
encompassing bigger polity, then federalism can afford that protection, and it
can interest groups to come to negotiation. If the wars are fought to preserve
national unity in the face of fragmenting local nationalisms, then federal
diversity in unity can offer a solution to the concern of both “national” and local
nationalisms. (Often “national” patriotism/nationalism is haunted by fear of
disintegration; particular/local nationalists are haunted by fear of oppression.113
But federalism offers that golden mean sought to keep both fears at bay.)
In such scenarios, federalism can be an incentive for peace. However, it can
do so only if both/all groups are willing to compromise having realized that the

113
By “national” nationalism I mean that expressed by proponents of the bigger
encompassing polity often propagated through the instrumentality of the “central” or
“national” state (hence, state nationalism). The emphasis of such a nationalism is the
“sovereignty and territorial integrity” of the country. The metaphor for the country is
often “the Motherland, or the Fatherland”. The fear of dismemberment haunts such
nationalism whenever the idea of granting greater autonomy to the constituent units
is discussed. By “particular/local nationalism” I mean that which is expressed among
proponents of greater autonomy for the constituent units often in the name of
equality, justice, and freedom to govern oneself. The fear that haunts such
nationalism is the fear of oppression. The two nationalisms manifest the tensions
between two legitimate political ideals, namely unity (of the larger polity) and
equality (of the units).
76 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

military option is not viable any more. It is important that the warring groups,
especially the “center”, are all exhausted. The guarantee of self-rule at the sub-
national level, the security that there will be a meaningful fair participation in
decision-making at the “center” (shared rule), the preservation of the bigger
encompassing polity, the guarantee against the danger of centralization, etc
appetize ‘stakeholders’ to put their arms down and seek a political/diplomatic
solution to their stalemates. Hence, the significance of federalism as a peace-
making tool.

2.3. Federalism as a Peace-keeping, Peace-building and Conflict

Transformation Tool
In post-conflict societies, where there is a rift and tension among centripetal and
centrifugal forces, federalism might serve as a peace-keeping and peace-building
tool. The terms of the federal covenant help regulate the relationship
between/among the various groups that negotiated the federal dispensation. Old
rivalries and competitions which used to have a violent (military) expression will
now take a constitutional-legal mode. The legal battle—supported and
reinforced by the political (.e.g., electoral) battle—replaces the military strife,
and as such help to build and reinforce peace culture.
Conflicts evolve. Their dynamic nature warrants their evolution. A creative
use can transform them. Federalism has the potential of transforming conflicts to
make them take a trajectory that helps build a nation in a new direction.
Articulation of old incompatible interests helps to gather ideas based on which to
reconstruct a polity and reconstruct the state in a way that is agreeable to all
groups. The transformation of the conflicts might happen by changing the rules
of the game, or the field at which to fight them out, or the form they take.
National conflicts might be devolved to sub-national and local levels. Tensions
between two major groups in a predominantly bi-polar polity might be
multiplied to take a multi-polar format so that there will be numerous horizontal
conflicts that help keep the equilibrium at the national level. What used to be
competition for the “national” cake (of resources, power, and opportunities)
becomes a competition for a sub-national one. In this way, by multiplying and
fragmenting conflicts, federalism transforms conflicts and makes them available
for political maneuvers. One needs to note however that this process needs a
strong vibrant legal and political culture infused with hope and optimism rather
than frustration and cynicism.
2.4 Enhancing the Lesson: Learning to Live with Conflicts
In transforming conflicts, federalism simply makes us prepare for an important
lesson: that a mature polity learns to live with conflicts rather than trying--rather
naively—to resolve them mostly by wishing them away. By providing for a
normative, institutional, and procedural framework for an effective and efficient
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 77

handling of conflicts, federalism makes its peace with conflicts. The normative
framework is an assemblage of laws, policies, strategies and plans for
prevention, management, settlement, and transformation of conflicts. This in
turn refers to a body of rules beginning from the constitution to other primary
and subordinate laws that help handle incompatibility of interests of the diverse
actors in the matrix of actors in a federal arrangement. Once the routes that
political and legal actions take are predicted or made fairly predictable, then the
escalation and violence of conflicts are avoided. All actors will know the legal
and political resources they can mobilize within the ambits of the constitutional
framework. The normative framework also provides for an elaborate legislative
frame which grants specific guidelines on a peaceful settlement of disputes
whenever they arise. It will also provide for a rational conflict policy that
systematically responds to conflicts. Institutions in charge of handling diverse
constitutional disputes emanating from federalism also come up with a conflict
strategy that is directed, intentional, methodical, rational, effective and efficient
in its response to conflicts (overt or covert, latent or manifest).
The institutional framework outlines the legal, political, and diplomatic
institutions that help the country constructively engage with conflicts. By legal
institutions we mainly mean the judicial organs and their accompaniments (often
known as the law-enforcement agents). Adjudicatory bodies with judicial and/or
quasi-judicial authorities are all included. In the context of Ethiopia, institutions
such as the ordinary Courts, the House of Federation (HOF), the Council of
Constitutional Inquiry (CCI), the National Electoral Board, the Institution of the
Ombudsman, or the Human Rights Commission fall within the category of legal
institutions. By political institutions we mean the legislative bodies such as the
House of Peoples’ Representatives (HPR), its Committees, the Council of
Ministers and Ministries (e.g. the Ministry of Federal Affairs) which, with or
without delegation, make serious policy decisions on important matters that
concern diverse actors in the federal matrix. Other Executive bodies and political
parties that make political decisions or even lobbyists that influence the political
parties within or outside of government form a part of the institutional frame. By
diplomatic institutions we mean institutions that tend to offer good offices
mainly by virtue of the moral (and at times political) influences that they
command over the political and legal institutions. The Office of the President of
the Republic--being beyond and above the heat of politics--can mediate between
conflicting groups/actors and act as one example of such diplomatic institutions
which work from the position of moral influence rather than of political or
military power. The HoF, too, can have this role in its effort to find amicable
solutions to various misunderstandings between/among ethnic groups, regional
78 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

states, various organs of government, or dominant political parties.114Religious

leaders, elders and traditional leaders of diverse communities in society, civic
society organizations, and others might also play a positive role in this
diplomatic venture. These and other institutions can form part of the institutional
infrastructure for handling conflicts and peace building in societies.
The procedural framework for handling conflict is often rooted in the legal
framework but it is primarily about the process that the conflict handling
endeavors take to prevent, arrest, manage, settle, and transform conflicts. Rules
relating the modus operandi of courts, the HOF, CCI, the HPR, COM, Ministry
of Federal Affairs (MoFA), etc are the major rules that from part of the
procedural frame. Specific guidelines laid down by the HOF for, say,
referendum on border disputes or identity or other forms of self-determination
are examples of such procedural rules.115 Specific guidelines used by the MoFA,
or Regional Security Bureaus, or specific conflict strategies and policies devised
by the powers that be, all form part of the procedural infrastructure for handling
conflicts.
More importantly, it is imperative that we constantly remind ourselves of
the fact that federalism is not a panacea for conflicts. We need to remind
ourselves that while federalism solves some kinds of conflicts, it might induce
the emergence of other kinds of conflicts. It is therefore important to prepare the
federal arrangement for a new breed of conflicts that might arise with the advent
of federalism. This helps us enhance our lesson that in federal systems, we learn
more how to live with conflicts than how to do away with them.

3. Federalism and Conflicts in Ethiopia: Prospects and

Challenges
3.1- Ethiopia: Personalities, Images, Conceptions of Problems
Ethiopia is one of oldest countries in the world, and definitely oldest in sub-
Saharan Africa.116 It is also one of the most actively engaged ones in the politics

114
Art 62(6) of the Constitution maintains that one of the responsibilities of the HoF is
to offer a diplomatic solution to at least inter-state conflicts. It says that the HoF
“shall strive to find solutions to disputes or misunderstandings that may arise
between states.” It is easy to note that the diplomatic solution is given a chance
alongside the legal (adjudicatory) solution.
115
Such rules are particularly elaborated in Proclamation 251/2001 and Proclamation
250/2001.
116
See Ali Mazrui (1994), “Ethnicity in Bondage” (Keynote address to the
UNRISD/UNDP International Seminar on Ethnic Diversity and Public Policies,
NewYork,17-19August,1994, available at:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/mazrui.htm last accessed in July 2009.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 79

and security of/in the African continent and the East African sub-region.117 As a
polity, it is a country with “multiple personalities.”118 Depending on the
historiographic paradigms that project Ethiopia’s image, one can have at least
six personalities in Ethiopia. Thus, according to Teshale Tibebu, a social
historian of Ethiopia, Ethiopia can mean one or more of the following things:
a. Christian Ethiopia. This image is projected by the Aksumite paradigm of
Ethiopian historiography. In this paradigm, Ethiopia is “a Christian island
surrounded by a heathen sea.”
b. Semitic Ethiopia. This image is projected by the Orientalist/Semiticist
paradigm. Ethiopia, or more narrowly Abyssinia, is a black-Caucasian,
Semitic-Christian nation. It is “the living land of the Bible”, a black
Canaan.
c. The authentic African Ethiopia. This image is projected by the pan-
Africanist paradigm which views Ethiopia as “the spark of African political
freedom,” the ‘rock of black resistance against white invasion”, “symbol
and incarnation of independence”, the “pride of Africans and negroes”
everywhere, the “metaphor for Africa wronged by the West”, the
“concentrated expression of Africa”, the “hope and pride of Africa”.
d. The Black Colonial Power Ethiopia. This is the image projected by the
ethno-nationalist paradigm of Ethiopian history which postulates that
Ethiopia was “the only Black African power that participated in the
European Scramble for Africa” by taking control of many peoples of the
wider south Ethiopia such as the Somalis, the Oromos, and the other
Cushitic, Omotic, and Nilotic peoples of the far flung southern parts of
Ethiopia and, in the post WWII times, (re)annexing Eritrea. This paradigm,
otherwise known as the colonial thesis119, contends that Eritrea, Oromia,
Ogadenia (another name for the ethnic Somalis of Ethiopia who live in

117
The fact that it played a role in the formation of the Organization of the African
Unity in 1963, steered towards the completion of the decolonization process.(e.g,
pushing for liberation of Zimbabwe, Mozambique, etc), the fact that it contributed to
the peace keeping efforts of the UN at times in Africa (e.g. Congo), and the more
sub-regional engagement in war (with Somalia and Eritrea) and peace (Rwanda,
Djibouti, and through IGAD) can be mentioned as evidence of this.
118
Teshale Tibebu (1995), The Making of Modern Ethiopia, 1855-1974.
(Lawrenceville, NJ: Red Sea Press). See also Teshale Tibebu (1996) “Ethiopia: The
“Anomaly” and “Paradox” of Africa,” Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 26, No.4.
119
Merera Gudina, supra note 39, 2002 argues that there are three major theses on
Ethiopia’s historiography, namely the colonial thesis, the national oppression thesis,
the nation-building or the national (re)unification thesis the unleashing of which
partly contributed to the affairs of competing nationalisms in contemporary Ethiopia.
80 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

Ogaden), and other subject peoples of Ethiopia (e.g. the Sidama) are
colonized as a consequence of which they deserve to exercise their right to
self-determination to stay with or separate from Ethiopia. Self-
determination is invoked as a tool of decolonization, and Ethiopia is
projected as a colonial power.
e. Ethiopia with its own Triple Heritage. This image is projected in the
heritages’ paradigm of Ali Mazrui who says that Ethiopia, too, has its own
triple heritage within Africa, namely, indigenous, Semitic, and Greco-
Roman.120
f. Feudal Ethiopia. This is an image projected by a Marxist and/or Modernist
paradigm which argues that Ethiopia is a feudal or feudal-like state akin to
those in medieval Europe which needs to experience a series of social
revolutions in order to fully partake in progress.
It is important to note that the move to a decentralized federal system was
motivated by the impulse to overcome the deficits of equality, justice, and
democracy that was the hallmark of “feudal”, autocratic, and oppressive
(“colonial” or otherwise) Ethiopia.121

120
Ali Mazrui argues that sub-Saharan Africa has a triple heritage, namely: indigenous,
Islamic, and Christian. Ethiopia has its own triple heritage: indigenous, Semitic, and
Greco-Roman. Mazrui (1993), The Africans: a Triple Heritage (Documentary), in
Teshale Tibebu, supra note 118. Mazrui says that Africa has the indigenous, the
Islamic, and the Christian heritages. Hence, the “triple heritage”.
121
Scholars who stress the “feudal” personality of Ethiopia insist that there was a
national oppression in Ethiopia but it was not in any way one that we can
characterize as ‘colonial’. These recognize the fairness of the quest for ethnic
equality and internal self-determination (i.e. autonomy) but stop short of justifying
secession. On the other hand, there are those who, viewing, Ethiopia as but a black,
poor, dependent colonial power, justify the use of self-determination (including
secession) as a tool of decolonization in Ethiopia. Secessionist movements such as
EPLF [Eritrean People’s Liberation front], ELF [Eritrean Liberation Front], OLF
[Oromo Liberation Front], SLM [Sidama Liberation Movement], ONLF [Ogaden
National Liberation Front], are the political parties that are taken to have generally
subscribed to the latter view. See Merera Gudina, supra note 85 on the distinction
between the national (re)unification thesis, the national oppression thesis, and the
colonial thesis in Ethiopia’s historiography. See also Assefa Jalata (2005), Oromia
and Ethiopia (2nd ed). (Laurenceville: The Red Sea Press), for an extended
elaboration of the colonial thesis.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 81

3.2- Federalism in Ethiopia: Past

The historic Ethiopian state was a unitarist state making the least effort to
institutionalize federalism or other forms of decentralization. The commitment
to the ideal of a strong unitary state had anathematized federalism as a step to
the dismemberment of the country. The country was seen as too united or too
delicate to accommodate such an arrangement.
The Ethiopian state constituting the territories that comprise today's
Ethiopia was largely a creation of a century ago. The 1931 Constitution, the first
written constitution which was promulgated only decades after the completion of
the process of Empire-building, did not make any reference to federalism. True
to its goal of unification and modernization of the country under an Emperor, it
could envisage only a unitary state. The Italian occupation of 1935-41 disrupted
the constitutional development.
In 1952, Eritrea was federated to Ethiopia by a Federal Act of the United
Nations122. Two traits most describe the Ethio-Eritrean Federation: 1) that it was
more of an international compromise than an internal 'convenant'; and 2) that it
is, as most commentators called it, a marriage between unequals. Bairu Tafla123
put his finger on this point when he said that the Federation had "two inherent
problems" that led to its subsequent failure:
[I]t was imposed from outside and was tolerated by both Eritrea and Ethiopia
on the basis that ‘half a loaf is better than nothing’. It was also a marriage
between two incompatible beings-the giant and the dwarf, the strong and the
weak, the rich and the poor, the autocratic and the democratic.124
So delicately constructed was the Ethio-Eritrean federation that it could lapse
only for about a decade. The Ethiopian political tradition of the time, being
autocratic and centralist, was not accommodative of the pluralism inherent in
federalism. Indeed, in Ethiopia "[t]he rulers obviously confused administrative
plurality with disintegration and anarchy."125 Unity was equated with uniformity.
Centralism was reinvigorated in the guise of unity and perfected by Emperor
Haileselassie I.126 The trend to centralism was perhaps the cause of
mismanagement of the federalism which was subsequently liquidated in favor of
unity in 1962.

122
United Nations General Assembly Resolution No 390 (V)/1952.
123
Bairu Tafla (1994), “The Ethio-Eritrean Federation in Retrospect” in Conflict and
the Federal Alternatives in the Horn (Woodman and Forsyth, eds). (Longman:
London), p.7.
124
Ibid.
125
Ibid, p.6.
126
Ibid.
82 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

The Eritrean Constitution and the Federal Act, which was passed on 10 July
1952 and came to force as Proc. no 124 of 11 September 1952 (Negarit Gazeta),
federated Eritrea as an "autonomous unit" of Ethiopia (Art. 3) "under the
sovereignty of the Ethiopian crown." The Government of Eritrea had its own
legislative assembly representing the people (Art. 39). It had a government with
legislative, administrative and judicial powers (Art. 4). The legislature had
legislative competence over virtually everything in Eritrea, from criminal law to
laws on education and resources, etc (Art. 5). Eritrea had a strong autonomy,
with a rather ceremonial Imperial presence represented by his representative
(Arts. 10 and 11). This representative of the Emperor formally introduces the
Chief Executive after the latter is elected by the Parliament (Art. 12), opens and
closes the Parliament's sessions with an address from the throne; and
promulgates Eritrean laws passed by the Parliament (Art. 15 and 18). The
Eritrean government had also judicial and executive powers to exercise. The
executive is composed of the Chief Executive and his "Executive Secretaries" (a
term preferred to "Ministers" for obvious reasons) (Art. 68). An Advisory
Council, entrusted with economic planning and the drafting of statutes, was
established (Art. 84).
Judicial independence was guaranteed (Art. 86). The Supreme Court and
other courts as may be formed were vested with the judicial power (Art. 85).
The court applies all the laws of Eritrea. Whether it also applies federal laws
was not clear. The judges are nominated by the Chief Executive based on the
recommendation of the President of the Parliament which in turn is supported by
a commission's report (Art. 87). The Supreme Court, in addition to being the
highest court of appeal, checks constitutionality of laws issued by the
Parliament, decides on conflict between the Eritrean government and other
organs and can impeach the Chief Executive (Art. 90).
Membership to the Parliament comes through elections, but as there were
no strong political parties, the campaigns were not as strong as one would expect
them to be today. The absence of many civic societies is also notable. The
relative awareness of the mass was an asset, although to most of them federalism
was a queer form of governmental arrangement. Thus there was a clear lack of
federal culture as most highlanders sought total unity with Ethiopia while others
(most of the lowlanders) sought total independence from Ethiopia or the powers
that be.127

127
See Zewdie Retta (2000), The Eritrean Affair (Ye Eritrea Guday, in Amharic),
(Addis Ababa: Mega) for a meticulous presentation of the details of the process that
led to the federal compromise first and to the dissolution of the federation later. The
book is full of extracts from minutes, exchanges, and letters from and to imminent
political actors of the day.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 83

Moreover, the relatively liberal constitution envisaged a democratic system

of government which notionally challenged the autocratic Imperial rule in the
other parts of the country. The practice in Eritrea was seen as a threat to the
legitimacy of the Ethiopian regime. The 1955 Revised constitution was in a
sense an attempt to catch up with the development in Eritrea. The 1955
constitution made no reference to the federalism, though. It established the
supremacy of the constitution and by implication of federal laws. But it did not
spell out the federal powers and state powers as such. This silence created a
room for an unnecessary involvement of the imperial representatives in the
affairs of Eritrean government which ultimately led to the dissolution of the
Federation.
Eritrea became a state forming the federation not because it fit any mode of
state formation, but rather because it outlived the Italian colonialism under
which it was ruled since the 1880's to 1941 when the Allied Forces (chiefly the
British) ousted the Italians and took over the Eritrean territory. After a lengthy
debate in the UN on how to dispose of former Italian colonies in Africa, a
compromise was reached in 1952 to federate it with Ethiopia. It is plain
therefore that because it was an arrangement by the international actors, the
Ethio-Eritrean federation defies both categorizations of federalism (i.e. of
territorial or ethnic or personal). It was neither territorial nor personal. The
boundaries of Eritrea were of colonial making and were as such arbitrary.
Because there are the same people groups on both sides of the Ethio-Eritrean
border, one cannot say this is an ethnic (=by extension, personal) federalism.
Because the Eritrean territory was cut-off from the hinterland Ethiopia since the
1880's, it was not the reordering of the Ethiopian land-mass for the sake of
federalizing the country that resulted in an Eritrean and an Ethiopian state. It
tends to be an aggregative type of federalism in a sense. It is a queer association
of a former colony (Eritrea) with a sovereign state (Ethiopia) who claimed that
the colony was part of itself before it was forcefully alienated from it.128 But the
association had similarity to what Daniel Elazar calls federacy.129
What was the consequence of this? The major consequence was that the
Ethiopian leaders failed to take the federalism seriously. This was manifest in
their excessive involvement in the affairs of Eritrea, at times even contrary to the
Eritrean constitution.130 The eagerness to bring Eritrea to complete unity with

128
Ibid.
129
See, for example, Elazar, supra note 47, for an elaborate distinction between
Federations, Federacies, Confederations, Associated Statehoods, and other
variants/species of the federal mode of ordering government. See also his other work
supra note 72 for a more extended discussion of the variants of federalism.
130
Bairu Tafla, supra note 123, p. 7.
84 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

Ethiopia led to the revocation of the constitution early in the 1960's by an order
of the Emperor. Those who sought independence from the beginning protested
against the abolition of the federalism with armed violence. Legal solution to
the crisis was not at hand--and was not even sought. The abysmal failure of the
federalism left us with hardly any lesson to draw from the experience. Yet in
retrospect, one cannot fail to see the fact that the imposed nature of the
federalism, the absence of a federal culture, and the absence of civil societies,
and excessive emphasis on unity as uniformity, have played a role in leading to
its failure.
Since the failure of the Ethiopia-Eritrean federalism, no effort was made to
restore it in the subsequent years. A nationalist war started in Eritrea. In the
1960s and 1970's a student movement leaning progressively to the left arrived on
the scene. At the same time, centralism continued to be the creed of the system.
The Eritrean liberationist movement inspired other ethno-nationalist movements
in other parts of the country. An inarticulate Oromo nationalist movement
started to be in the subtext of Ethiopian politics. The student movement started
to discuss the "National Question" in Ethiopia. The Somalis of the Ogaden were
also part of the discussion of the time. Later, the Tigrean Liberationists, inspired
by the Eritrean movement joined the league of those who challenged the
Ethiopian centralism that was moving on in total ignorance of the self-defining
pluralism. Conflated with the issue of class (mainly the farmers' quest for land),
ethnic and religious questions came out to demand a benign response.131 The
1955 Revised Constitution was not of course capable of handling this move.
Intensified by other political factors, a popular revolution ensued. The
revolution changed the regime. But centralism continued to be the norm.
"Ethiopia First" became the motto. Ethno-nationalism was perceived to be a
threat to national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ethiopia. It was even
considered counter-revolutionary and reactionary.
The provisional government (the PMAC or the Dergue as it is popularly
known) did not opt for federalism. On the contrary, it exerted the maximum
effort to intensify rigorous centralism. Although it made a concession to the

131
See Kiflu Tadesse (1993), The GenerationThe History of the Ethiopian People’s
Revolutionary Party, (parts I and II). (Trenton, NJ: Red Sea Press). See also the
Amharic version of the same work entitled That Generation (Ya Tiwlid, Amharic).
(Addis Ababa: Shama) for the details on the key issues that exercised the
imagination of the left leaning student revolutionaries of the 1960s and 1970s. Their
response to the challenge of ethnic diversity was complex. To some, ethnicity was
secondary and subordinate to the class question. To others, it was primary and
superior. To yet others, it was only an instrument of mobilization against the
imperial order.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 85

question of "nationalities" as it recognized the equality of "nationalities" and

their languages and while it could admit the fact of diversity, the government did
not even change the number and powers of the provinces (except in name, as
they were changed from teklay gezat to kiflate hager). That is to say, there were
14 teklay gezats which became the 14 kiflate hager, with no substantive
devolution of power. The time from 1974 to 1987 was a time during which
Ethiopia did not have any formally written (comprehensive, “codified”)
constitution. When in 1987, the PDRE was established the centralism was
maintained except that there were now about 24 provinces and 5 autonomous
administrative regions. The recognition of some regions as autonomous was an
effort to diffuse the mounting pressure by opposition fighters in what was
otherwise a centralist state with "democratic centralism" as its motto.
In reaction to the grip of tough centralism, ethno-nationalist groups
mounted opposition against the PDRE regime until it collapsed in 1991 leaving
the political space for ethno-nationalist groups who, for a while, appeared to take
decentralization seriously. The Transitional Charter was the first legal document
to institutionalize decentralization. Being a product of compromise among
ethno-nationalist movements, it emphasized "nations, nationalities, and peoples"
(roughly ethnic groups) as the units serving as the basis for decentralization.
Proclamation no. 7/1992 made this ethnic-based decentralization more articulate
and real. The 14 self-governing regions were mainly ethnic in their making
although almost none were entirely homogenous. Based on this proclamation,
National, Regional (then the equivalents of what are now called States) and
Local Governments were formed and an incipient form of self-government was
made apparent. Nonetheless, it was only after the promulgation of the FDRE
Constitution that federalism as such was formally institutionalized in Ethiopia.

3.3. Ethiopian Federalism: Present

3.3.1-Origins
The origins of the current federal option are in the ethno-nationalist liberationist
rhetoric of the post-1991 era of Ethiopian history. Led by the Ethiopian Peoples’
Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), a number of ethno-nationalist
liberationist fronts came together in a National Peace Conference that led to a
Transitional Charter (TC) that served as the interim constitution from 1991 to
1995. It is in the negotiations that led to the TC that for the first time in
Ethiopia’s history ethnic groups’ rights as such are guaranteed a formal legal
recognition. Ethnicity was at last “free from bondage”132 in the oldest of sub-

132
Ali Mazrui, supra note 116 observes that in Ethiopia and South Africa, the oldest
and the newest, respectively, of black African nations, ethnicity is free from bondage
but asks the questions rhetorically if its freedom is rather premature.
86 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

Saharan African countries. Along with this also came the introduction of what
was the nucleus of the contemporary federalism. The TC recognized the right of
“nations, nationalities, and peoples” to self-determination up to and including
secession.133 A subsequent proclamation, Proclamation No.7/1992 established 14
self-governing regions.134 It also reinforced the recognition extended to the right
to self-determination by the Charter.
In complete departure from the unitary past, the Charter and the
Proclamation devolved power from the center to the self-governing regions and
signaled the beginning of a ‘holding together’ federalism.135 In 1995, this move
to a federal system through ‘scaling down’136 was perfected when the explicitly
federal (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia’s [FDRE] Constitution came
into force. While diverse and divergent perspectives have emerged on the merit
or wisdom of the federal option in Ethiopia137, one cannot genuinely gainsay that

133
See the Preamble and article 2 of the Transitional Charter.
134
See Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE), Proclamation to Proclaim the
Establishment of National Regional Self-Governments, Negarit Gazeta, Proc. No.
7/1992
135
Alfred Stepan, supra note 112, makes a distinction between ‘coming together’ and
‘holding together’ federalisms by looking at their origin.
136
I am indebted to Donald Horowitz (2007), “The Many Uses of Federalism” Drake
Law Review, Vol. 55, pp. 101-113, for this term.
137
One quickly notes that the literature so far can be summarized as projecting three
contending views. There are thus those who support the federal restructuring of
Ethiopia considering it as an innovation to address age-old grievances of the
marginalized ethnic groups of the country. Alemseged Abay (2004), ‘Diversity and
State Building in Ethiopia,’ African Affairs, Vol. 103, No. 413; Andreas Eshete
(2003), ‘Ethnic Federalism: New Frontiers in Ethiopian Politics’ in MOFA and
GTZ, supra note, 26; Kidane Mengisteab (1997), ‘New Approaches to State building
in Africa: The case of Ethiopia’s ethnic-based federalism’, African Studies Review,
Vol. 40 No.3; and John Young (1998), ‘Regionalism and Democracy in Ethiopia,’
Third World Quarterly, Vol 19, No. 2; are only examples. There are also the
sceptics who are uncomfortable with the ‘heavy’ accent on ethnicity. This includes:
Lovise Aalen (2006), ‘Ethnic Federalism and Self-determination for nationalities in
a Semi-authoritarian State: The Case of Ethiopia’ International Journal on Minority
and Group Rights, vol 13; Jon Abbink (1997), ‘Ethnicity and Constitutionalism in
Contemporary Ethiopia,’ Journal of African Law, Vol 41; Bahru Zewde (1994),
‘Historical Legacy and Democratization Process in Ethiopia’ (paper presented on the
Workshop on Historical Legacy and the Democratization Process in Africa, 26-29
April 1994, Bamako, Mali); and Terrence Lyons (1996), ‘Closing the Transition:
The May 1995 Elections in Ethiopia,’ The Journal of Modern African Studies, vol.
34, No.1. There are yet others who, while agreeing with the federalist project, are
critical of the lack of political will on the part of the dominant party (EPRDF) to
implement the promises of the constitutional federalist commitment. Asafa Jalata
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 87

the federal option was a reaction to what was thought to be an oppressive unitary
past, a reaction to a state nationalism that sought to unite the country through,
among others, involuntary assimilation and homogenization. One can also say
that the federal option was taken due to the exhaustion of centralization and
unitary system of government. It came when the long suffering nation-building
project (which has been on the political scene from 1855 to 1991) has
spectacularly failed. The centralist and unitarist model has little resources with
which to flexibly respond to the strains imposed on the state by ethno-national
diversity.

3.3.2- The Federal Compact: Negotiating the Federal Idea

Federalism was formally ushered in by the 1995 Constitution. The Constitution
constituted the federation and continues to be its compact. Preeminent in the
negotiation of the Constitution were ethno-nationalist forces, principally a
coalition of ethno-nationalist fronts and movements called collectively the
Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). The Constitution
was drafted by a Drafting Commission duly established by law.138 The
Commission engaged in teaching the public about constitutions, democracy,
human rights, civic participation, etc with a view to raising the constitutional
consciousness of the public. After preparing a preliminary draft which it
submitted to the Legislature of the Transitional Government (the Council of
Representatives), they also organized several events at several levels all over the
country on which the draft text of the Constitution was discussed. Although the
turnout was low and the level of engagement was modest, there were discussions
in which the issue of self-determination, especially secession, and federalism
were hotly debated. In the Transitional Legislature, it was very hotly debated
even though the single most dominant party in there was the EPRDF. After this
rather sporadic and in many ways inconsequential deliberation, the draft was
submitted to the Constitutional Assembly in 1994 for further deliberation upon it
and for adoption. The Constitutional Assembly was an assembly that was
popularly elected in 1994, an election the fairness and free-ness of which was
contested by the parties opposed to EPRDF. Even in the EPRDF dominated
Constitutional Assembly, the points that were very much at issue were the issue
of the federal choice, the mode of state formation, the issue of languages,
national symbols (flag and emblem), etc.139

(1993), ‘Ethiopia and Ethnic Politics: The Case of Oromo Nationalism,’ Dialectical
Anthropology, Vol. 18, falls in this last category.
138
TGE, Constitutional Commission Establishment Proclamation, Negarit Gazeta,
Proclamation No. 24/1992.
139
See the Minutes of the Meetings of Constitutional Assembly now compiled into six
volumes (in Amharic). See also the Minutes of the deliberations of the Transitional
88 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

Consequently, the federal option, its bases for carving out the constituent
units, the constitutional recognition of the unconditional right to secession were
among the most contested points as a result of which federalism remains to be a
controversial subject in Ethiopia to date. But what does the federal constitution,
Ethiopia’s federal compact, offer? I now turn to a brief description of the federal
constitution.
The Federal Constitution is a compact document made up of a total of 106
articles divided into 11 chapters. As a legal document, it is a well organized
document with an enviable degree of simplicity and clarity. It is the legal
document that constituted the federation. From its preamble, we note that it is a
compact agreed upon among the “nations, nationalities, and peoples” of
Ethiopia. It is thus a solemn contract, treaty, even a vow, among these groups
who reconstituted Ethiopia into a federation of disparate ethno-linguistic groups
that aspire to build “one economic community” based on a “common destiny”
born out of a shared past.140
From the preambles, one can glean such principles with far reaching
consequences as the principle of the salience of self-determination, the sanctity
of human rights, the sacredness of the principle of inter-personal and inter-group
equality, and the primacy of the need to build a democratic order based on the
principle of the rule of law for the sake of a sustainable peace. Apart from these,
the constitution postulates five basic principles as ‘fundamental’ pillars of the
constitutional order. These principles are that of sovereignty of ‘nations,
nationalities, and peoples’, constitutional supremacy and constitutionalism,
sanctity of human rights, secularism, and of transparency and accountability of
government.141
In its chapter three142, the Constitution provides for a catalogue of
fundamental rights and freedoms. About 31 “kinds” of rights are recognized and
granted a constitutional guarantee. The provisions of this chapter are entrenched,
i.e., they are protected from easy (and often unilateral) tinkering by making the
amendment procedure rather rigid.143 Nevertheless, the absence of an

Council of Representatives (CoR) (also in Amharic) for a more substantive debate

over these issues.
140
Paragraphs 3-5 of the preamble of the FDRE Constitution.
141
See arts 8-12 for these principles.
142
Chapter three, the chapter that can be taken as Ethiopia’s Bill of Rights chapter,
extends from art 13 to 44 in which all the traditional civil and political rights,
economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the rights to peace, development, and
environment are enshrined.
143
According to art 105(1) of the FDRE Constitution, chapter three can be amended
only through the consent of all the nine state legislatures and the 2/3rd majority vote
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 89

application clause (that indicates whether they have direct144 or indirect145

application), interpretation146 clause (that clearly indicates the principles,
methods, and steps to be used in the construction of human rights clauses),
limitation147 clause (that regulates the manner in which limitations are imposed
when necessary), and the ambiguity with regard to the role of courts to interpret
constitutional human rights clauses—owing to the bifurcated division of the

of the Federal Houses (i.e., the House of peoples’ Representatives and of the House
of the Federation).
144
Direct application relates to the situation whereby the provisions of chapter three are
invoked in the process of litigation to assert a particular claim hoping to obtain a
specific remedy emanating from the self-executing nature of the human rights
chapter. It is so invoked when the chapter is viewed as a special law directly applied
in the course of litigation to assure the plaintiff a special regime of remedy.
145
Indirect application is said to exist when the human rights chapter, by permeating
the system from behind, prompts all public decisions (be it in court or otherwise) to
be respectful of the rights and freedoms recognized therein. In these circumstances,
the human rights chapter serves more as a framework of understanding, a tool of
interpretation of other laws, than as a special regime of law applicable directly in its
own right. In indirect application, the human rights chapter of the constitution
“loses” itself into the other (ordinary) laws and disciplines them thereof. For an
elaborate discussion on direct/indirect application, see generally Johan De Waal, Iain
Currie, and Gerhard Erasmus (2001), The Bill of Rights Hand Book (4th ed).
(Lansdowne: Juta & Co. Ltd.).
146
An interpretation clause would clarify to us as to what modes, principles, and
techniques ought to be adopted in the course of constructing the provisions of
chapter three. In particular, it would clarify issues of procedure (jurisdiction,
standing, and justiciability), content (the scope and limitations of a particular right),
and remedies (as to the consequences of the decisions of the tribunal that is engaged
in the work of ‘making sense’ of the chapter). It would also hint at the steps and
principles (e.g. textual/literal, historical, purposive, etc) to be used in the actual task
of interpretation. The reason all these are not self-evident in the ‘normal’ judicial
process in Ethiopia is because, at least since 1991, the courts have had no experience
in the hermeneutics of human rights; it is also the result of the fact that the courts’
position vis-à-vis the Constitution is ambiguous. See Section 38 of the Constitution
of South Africa for how constitutions deal with interpretation of human rights
provisions.
147
The Constitution does not set aside a separate provision dealing with limitations to
be imposed on the exercise of human rights. But built into specific provisions are
some limitative phrases. But absent a general limitation clause, we hardly know how
to rule on the (im)propriety of a limitative legislation, decision, or any other
measure.
90 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

interpretive power between courts and the House of the Federation—have

played a role in the diminished implementation of human rights in Ethiopia.148
The Constitution establishes a parliamentary system of government with a
formally (weak) bicameral legislature at the federal level.149 The lower house is
the supreme legislator and the supreme political organ.150The upper house has
little legislative role; instead it has interpretive and adjudicatory powers.151It is a
house in which nations, nationalities and peoples (and, indirectly, states) are
represented in proportion to their numbers.152 The Constitution also establishes
an executive made of the Prime Minister, the Council of Ministers and the
Ministries.153It also provides for a ceremonial executive headed by a President
who serves as the non-partisan, non-political Head of State.154 Furthermore, it
provides for a three-tiered, parallel, court system of federal and state judiciary.155
A Constitutional Inquiry Council with an advisory power (to send
recommendations on constitutional interpretation) that assists the House of the
Federation is also provided for.156Moreover, the constitution lists down the
policy objectives and directive principles that guide government policies,
decisions, and activities in its chapter 10. Thus the directives that guide the
foreign affairs, defence, political, social, cultural, and environmental policies of
the country are specified therein.157

3.3.3- The States and the Federal Government

The Ethiopian federation is composed of nine constituent units carved on the
basis of “settlement patterns, language, identity, and consent of the people
concerned.”158 These nine states, officially called variously as “National

148
Art 13 is only partially about application and interpretation. Art 13(1) states that the
state—at all levels-- is the duty bearer of obligation emanating from chapter three.
Art 13(2) states that interpretation of chapter three must conform to international
human rights instruments, but says no more. Art 13(1) is thus about the reach of the
Human Rights Chapter.
149
Art 53 of the FDRE.
150
Arts 54-55 of the FDRE Constitution.
151
Art 62 of the FDRE Constitution
152
All nations, nationalities, and peoples are represented by one member having one
more additional member for every additional one million. See Art 61 of the FDRE
Constitution.
153
Art 72 of the FDRE Constitution
154
Art 69-71 of the FDRE Constitution
155
Arts 78-79 of the FDRE Constitution.
156
Arts 82-84 of the FDRE Constitution.
157
See Arts 85-92 for these policies.
158
Art 46(2) of the FDRE Constitution
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 91

Regional States”, “Regional States,” “Regions”, or simply “States”,159 are: Afar,

Amhara, Benishnagul-Gumuz, Gambella, Harari, Oromiya, Southern Nations,
Nationalities, and Peoples (SNNPRS), Somalia, and Tigray.160Most of these
states are ethnically heterogeneous although in most of them there are dominant
ethnic groups after whom the states are often named.161
The power of the states is provided for in Article 52 of the FDRE
Constitution as the “reserved” or ‘residual’ power that is “not given expressly to
the Federal Government alone, or concurrently to the Federal Government and
the States.”162 While the Constitution reserves the “plenary” powers to the
states, it also makes it clear that states, among other things, have the power to set
up their own administration “that best advances self-government, a democratic
order based on the rule of law; to protect and defend the federal constitution”, to
“enact and execute” their own state constitutions, and other laws, to administer
land within the framework legislations of the federal government, to levy and
collect state taxes on their own revenue sources, to establish and administer their

159
Throughout this paper, the term used will be “states” at times interchangeably with
sub-national entities. This is done only for reasons of convenience.
160
Art 47 (1) of the FDRE Constitution.
161
Hence, we have the states of Amhara, Oromia, Somali, Afar, and Tigray, in all of
whom we have diverse peoples other than the Amhara in Amhara state (such as the
Agaw, the Argoba, the Oromo, etc), other than the Tigrayans in Tigray (such as the
Erob and the Kunama), other than the Oromos in Oromia (such as the Zay, and
pockets of other peoples living mostly in urban centers all over the state), other than
the Afar in Afar State (the urban dwellers who have migrated into the region over
the years), the Somalis in the Somalia State (urban dwellers in the cities and towns).
The SNNPRS is demographically intensely diverse, and is obviously an exception in
this regard, i.e., in the sense that there is not one predominant group that can be
associated with the identity of the State. Harari state is composed predominantly of
the Oromos, the Harari, and many other people groups who live in the city of Harar.
Given the fact that the Harari are numerically small in the state, Harari, too, is an
exception in having a political predominance that lets the state be identified with it
while it is the smallest in terms of numbers. Harari is also unique in its adoption of a
mode of democracy that is more consociational than any of the states or even the
federal government can afford. Gambella is composed of the Anywaa, the Nuer, the
Mezenger, the Mao, and the Opo peoples but ‘Gambella’ does not signify a people
group. Likewise, Benishangul-Gumuz is composed of the Berta, the Gumuz, the
Shinasha, the Mao and Como peoples and the name hardly refers to anyone group in
the state. Interestingly, in these latter states of the Western periphery of Ethiopia,
there is a distinction made even in the constitutions between ‘indigenous nations,
nationalities’ [of, for example, Berta, Gumuz, Shinasha, Mao and Como in
Benishangul-Gumuz State] and ‘other peoples residing in the region’. (See for
instance Preamble, Paragraph. 3 and Article 2 of the Constitution.)
162
Art 52(1) of the FDRE Constitution.
92 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

own police force, etc.163 Obviously one can have a fuller picture of the ‘residual’
powers only after considering the list of federal powers in the preceding
provision164 which includes those powers traditionally known as federal powers
(such as foreign affairs, defense, interstate commerce, interstate relations,
currency, foreign trade, national security, transportation, postal services, and
telecommunication, some natural resources including land, etc). Because the list
of federal powers seems to be long, people often reasonably doubt if the residual
powers reserved to the states in Ethiopia are really significant. Nevertheless, it is
important to note at this juncture that state constitutions play an immense role in
articulating these ‘plenary’ powers so that they can be better exercised by the
states in consonance with the principle of self-rule that constitutes an aspect of
federalism.
It is interesting to observe that some of the state powers “enumerated” (by
way of example) in Art 52(2) (a-b) tend to impose an obligation on states. Thus,
to an extent, they seem to be determining the key elements of the state
constitutions. That is to say, a state constitution that does not recognize the pre-
eminence of the principles of self-government, democracy, and rule of law, and
is not poised toward protecting and defending the federal constitution cannot be
accepted as valid. It stands to reason, then, that all state constitutions, minimally,
need to abide by these principles.
In the Ethiopian federation, symmetry is the norm.165 Thus, states have
“equal rights and powers.”166 State legislatures command the supreme political
power and are accountable to the people(s) of the states.167States are obliged to
establish local governments at various administrative levels so that there are
possibilities for local people “to participate directly in the administration” of
these levels of governments.168 The state legislatures’ powers “to draft, enact,
and amend” the state constitutions is also recognized in the federal
constitution.169Its supreme legislative power is similarly recognized in the same
provision. The states’ executive and judicial powers—and by extension all the
powers that mark sovereignty at the local level—are also recognized in the

163
See Art 52(2) a-g of the FDRE Constitution.
164
Art 51 of the FDRE Constitution
165
It is true, though, that in multi-national polities, asymmetry is almost inevitable. See,
for instance, Rainer Bauböck (2001), Multinational Federations: Territorial or
Cultural Autonomy?. (Malmö: Malmo University (Willy Brandt Series of Working
Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations 2/01)). Bauböck says that
“Asymmetry is endemic to multinational federations....” (p.11).
166
Art 47(4) of the FDRE Constitution.
167
Art 50(3) of the FDRE Constitution.
168
Art 50(4) of the FDRE Constitution.
169
Art 50(5) of the FDRE Constitution.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 93

constitution170. Although the constitution does not explicitly stipulate the

existence of the principle of federal supremacy171 in the Ethiopian federation, it
holds, in consonance with the principle of federal comity, that “The states shall
respect the powers of the Federal Government and the Federal Government shall
likewise respect the powers of the States.”172 This provision is indicative, at least
in theory, of the dual nature of the Ethiopian federation.
The perusal of this provision in conjunction with the provisions that
indirectly (through nations, nationalities, and peoples) grant the right to self-
determination173 to the states, give the impression that the Ethiopian federal
system guarantees state sovereignty. As a result, it is incumbent upon the state
constitutions to articulate, elaborate, and give institutional expression to this
state sovereignty that seems to be regnant in the Constitution.

3.3.4- Ethiopian Federalism: Distinctives

The federation that was born out of the concern for ethno-nationalist groups’
right to self-determination (which in turn was a result of an age-old quest for
ethno-cultural justice174) manifested a number of unique features. The
recognition of the right of secession175, the use of ethno-linguistic criteria as a

170
Art 50(6-7) of the FDRE Constitution.
171
The principle of ‘federal supremacy’ or ‘federal paramountcy’ maintains that the
federal government, its laws, and institutions are supreme, i.e., superior to, and
override, the state laws and institutions.
172
Art 50 (8) of the FDRE Constitution.
173
Art 39 of the FDRE Constitution.
174
It is to be noted that the two most important questions that dominated the Ethiopian
political terrain since early 1960s, and indeed the predominant preoccupation of the
student movements of the age, were the question of land (typified by the slogan,
“Land to the Tiller”) and the “Question of Nationalities”. There is a huge body of
literature on this. Balsvik’s (1985), Haile Selassie’s Students: The Intellectual and
Social Background to Revolution, 1952-1977. (East Lansing: African Studies Center,
Michigan State University); Kiflu Tadesses’s, supra note 177; Edmond Keller, supra
note 84; Merera Gudina, supra note 85; Assefa Jalata supra note 167; Andargatchew
Tiruneh’s (1993), The Ethiopian Revolution, 1974-1987: A Transformation from an
Aristocratic to a Totalitarian Autocracy. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press),
are only a few notables among a morass of books and articles on the historic
questions of class and ethnicity in Ethiopia. The “question of nationalities” was
subordinated to the question of class in the course of the making of the 1974
revolution and its unfolding in the subsequent years, but since 1991 it seems that, on
the wake of the collapse of the Dergue, the former has triumphed as the preeminent
question that, if repressed, hardly dies out.
175
Art 39(1) recognizes the “unconditional right to self-determination, including the
right to secession” of every nation, nationality and people.
94 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

basis of state formation,176 the unconventional constitutional interpretation

through the upper house of the federal legislature177, the fact that states are not
directly represented in the upper house,178 the fact that the upper house has little,
if any, legislative role,179 etc, can be mentioned as evidence of its unique
features.)

3.4- Ethiopia: Pre-federal and Post-federal Conflicts

The quest for an anatomy of conflicts in pre- and post-federal Ethiopia leads one
to the nature of political relations in historic and contemporary Ethiopia. In pre-

176
See Art 46(2) which holds that states are formed “on the basis of settlement patterns,
language, identity and consent of the people concerned”.
177
The House of Federation poses formally as the upper house of the federal legislature.
See Art 53 which says that “There shall be two Federal Houses: the House of
Peoples’ Representatives and the House of the Federation.” This obviates the fact
that Ethiopia’s legislature is bicameral in form although it is unicameral in actual
operation. That aside, Art 62 cum 82-84 indicate that the House of the Federation
(with the support of the Council of Constitutional Inquiry) is the ultimate interpreter
of the constitution. Subsequent federal legislations, namely Proclamations No.
250/2001 and 251/2001 and confirm and elaborate on the interpretive powers of the
House of the Federation and of the Council of Constitutional Inquiry. This makes
Ethiopia’s system unique compared to other contemporaneous constitutions of its
time (such as that of South Africa, Namibia, etc).
178
The House of the Federation, the upper house of the Ethiopian parliament, is
“composed of representatives of Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples” (art 61(1)).
The House is thus a representative of the ethno-cultural groups rather than the states.
But the states may have their interests aired through the ethnic groups that come out
of them. Besides, the fact that the representatives are—in practice so far--selected by
the state legislatures (often from within the state legislatures), rather than by direct
popular vote, has created the impression that they represent the states. The state
legislatures are of course allowed to elect the representatives themselves or to “hold
elections to have the representatives elected by the people directly” (Art 61(3)).
179
In deed the House of Federation has little legislative role. This is evidenced by the
fact the list of powers and mandates under Article 62 refers only to two matters,
among a total of 11, as the ones relating to legislation. These matters are: a)
determination of “the division of revenues derived from joint Federal and State tax
sources and the subsidies that the Federal Government may provide to the States”
(Art 62(7)); and b) determination of “civil matters which require the enactment of
laws by the House of Peoples’ Representatives.” (Art 62(8)). One can quickly note
that even these are not legislative matters in stricto sensu; they are rather directions
on what to legislate upon, sort of a license for the HPR to legislate on the matters
indicated.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 95

federal Ethiopia, for the large part of the conflicted 20th century,180 two issues
dominated the agenda of those involved in conflicts, namely the issue of class
and the issue of ethnicity. The question of economic (class) and status (ethnic)
hierarchy were salient. The 1974 revolution dealt with the issue of class
hierarchy. The issue of status hierarchy still remained unattended to fully
because it was subordinated to and/or conflated with the issue of class hierarchy.
It was so subordinated perhaps because the issue posed a direct challenge to the
unity of the country by raising the difficult question of who the Ethiopian is,181
and what the terms of being “in” or “out” of Ethiopia are.
The proponents of the movements that led to the dethronement of
Haileselassie and the unleashing of the popular revolution took divergent
positions on the articulation of and the response to the “question of
nationalities.” The articulation endorsed divergent paradigms of Ethiopian
history (national reunification thesis, colonial thesis, national oppression thesis,
etc). Likewise, the responses took divergent forms (nation-building and/or
modernization, self-determination/decolonization, democratic equality and
equalization, etc). Multi-ethnic political groupings such as those within the
auspices of the Dergue seemed to endorse an amalgam of the national
unification and national oppression theses. The EPRP, in its earlier version,
argued for self-determination rights of Eritreans and Ogadenis but not the
remaining groups. The AESM (Meison in Amharic) endorsed the national
oppression thesis and argued for democratic equality and equalization of hitherto
oppressed groups. But the regime which came out victorious after a brief season
of confusing militant competition and strife, i.e. the Dergue, suppressed all
voices and imposed socialist style prioritization of class conflicts thereby
subordinating ethnic conflicts to the former. By conflating ethnic conflicts with
class conflicts, they sought to resolve the issue through addressing class conflicts

180
This refers mainly to the time since the early 1960s when the legitimacy of the
regime of Emperor Haile Selassie I began to be questioned among the military and
the educated elite. Earlier to this, a peasant protest in Tigray (the First Woyane
movement) and the protest by the Bale Oromo/Somali (?) Nationalists reared their
head as a form of bottom up resistance but were suppressed. It is important to note
Haileselassie’s regime enjoyed the most peaceful season of Ethiopia’s history except
for the short-lived Italian occupation from 1936-1941. This peace begun to be
‘disrupted’ by the sign of dissonance expressed first among the army, then among
the students, and later among the general public, especially the farmers.
181
It comes as no surprise that one of the polemical pamphlets widely distributed
among student leaders was the one written by Wallelign Mekonnen entitled “On the
Question of Nationalities in Ethiopia” (1969).
96 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

head on while also recognizing the linguistic and cultural rights of ethnic groups
(at least partially).182
The subordination of ethnic demands led to a multiplication of groups that
are mobilized around the motto of self-determination for, and subsequent
liberation of, their particular groups. As a result, ethno-nationalist liberation
fronts proliferated in many parts of the country. These groups used the rhetoric
of colonialism (EPLF, ELF, OLF, WSLF, SLM, etc), national oppression (TPLF
and a host of other groups within the wider south of Ethiopia), and victimization
(via genocide, forced assimilation, cultural denigration, etc). Most of these also
used the rhetoric of self-determination as they articulated their demand for
justice, equality, and self-governance. After a protracted and long-suffering
armed struggle, they finally succeeded in forcing the military regime to implode
and collapse in 1991. The conflicts in these times were generally vertically
postured: the groups versus the state (at times characterized as primarily
Amhara). The conflicts looked like ones propelled by resistance to oppression,
quest for equality, dignity, cultural and linguistic justice, self-governance, and
independence.
These demands were captured in the Transitional Charter which, as an
interim constitution, quickly established a de facto federal or quasi-federal
system. The charter was a response mainly to the quest for ethno-cultural justice:
equality and non-discrimination on ethnic and religious basis, the right to one’s
identity, language, culture, and way of life, the right to one’s history (and one’s
narrative of history), the right to self-administration within one’s territory, the
right to self-determination including and up to (conditional) secession. Hidden
within this quest for ethno-cultural justice was also the general demand for a
democratic order which respects human rights under the rule of law. This accent

182
A quick glance at the PDRE Constitution (1987) and the National Democratic
Revolution (NDR) Program of the PMAC (of April 1976) make this clear. The
PDRE Constitution recognizes the rights of nationalities to equality (Art 2(1-2)),
equalization (Art 2(3)), autonomy (Art 2(4)), and language (Art 2(5)). But the
ultimate ‘owners’ of political power were the “working people” of Ethiopia” (Art 3).
The NDR Program reads in part:
“The right to self-determination of all nationalities will be recognized and fully
respected. No nationality will dominate another one since the history, culture,
language, and religion of each nationality will have equal recognition in
accordance with the spirit of socialism. …. Each nationality will have regional
autonomy to decide on matters concerning its internal affairs. Within its
environs, it has the right to determine the contents of its political, economic and
social life, use its own language and elect its own leader and administration to
head its own organs. This right of self-government of nationalities will be
implemented in accordance with all democratic procedure and principles.”
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 97

on ethno-cultural justice was the consequence of the identity of the negotiators

(chiefly ethno-nationalist liberation fronts). Moreover, the Charter, as is the
constitution that succeeded it, was an expression of the bitterness and sense of
resentment of oppressed ethnic groups. The charter as a legal document was also
a peace document, a pact among warring factions, who based on a document
with a thin content, agreed to a temporary arrangement that they hoped will
guarantee that all their fears (of oppression, ethno-cultural injustice, and
denigration) are prevented from happening again. One quickly notices how even
a tentative (quasi-)federal arrangement can be a tool of truce. One also should
note the fact that this was also possible mainly because the “center” (or forces of
centralism in general) was exhausted. The Charter, however, by endorsing self-
determination and secession, made unity and integrity of Ethiopia vulnerable to
the challenge of secession and fragmentation. As a result, there was a latent fear
and tension among some circles.
In 1995, with the adoption of the federal constitution, the quest for ethno-
cultural justice was elevated to a full-blown constitutional right. Built upon the
premise that the nation-building project via assimilation and homogenization has
failed, the constitution ventured to reconstruct the Ethiopian state as a multi-
cultural multi-national state. In a sense Ethiopia ennobled the ethnicity (‘tribe’)
that was supposed to be killed ‘to build the nation’. Hence, Mazrui’s comment
that, in the oldest nation in sub-Saharan Africa (whose boundaries are formed
less arbitrarily than other African nations that lived under colonialism), a
‘cultural federation’ was established and ethnicity at last was freed from
bondage.183
So federalism was put in place in 1995. Ethnic groups were made sovereign
(Art 8). They were the building blocks out of which we build multi-ethnic,
multi-national Ethiopia (preamble). They were granted the right to self-
determination including secession (Art 39(1)). The right to language, culture,
and history were guaranteed (Art 39(2)). The right to full measure of self-
governance at least at the local level was recognized (Art 39(3)). The right to fair
and equitable representation at the “center” (in the organs of the federal
government) was recognized. Thus an upper house in which each ethnic group is
represented, HOF, is established (Arts 61 et al). Territorially concentrated
groups were guaranteed the right to self-administration either within a
heterogeneous regional state or within one’s own separate state (Art 46). A
group’s right to statehood is also guaranteed (Art 47(3)). By doing so, the
constitution attempted to of transform an age-old conflict between the center and
peripheries of Ethiopia.

183
Ali Mazrui, supra note 116.
98 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

Nonetheless, at the foot heel of the federal dispensation were born new
conflicts, post-federal conflicts. The following is a brief list of such new
conflicts: a) an intensified quest for self-definition and distinct identity intent on
securing local self-rule to get more resources, power, and opportunities184; b)
border disputes between and within states; c) competition for federal grant and
subsidy; d) quest for having one’s language given a co-equal status as a federal
working language; e) competition for access to and authority over federal, state,
and local capital cities185; f) conflict over mistrust about one’s lot with/in a state
or in the country186; g) the quest for a more robust minority rights regime,
especially right to representation; etc.
Owing to the conversion of the old minorities (‘nations, nationalities, and
peoples’) to sovereign entities, there emerged ‘new’ minorities (minorities
within minorities, etc) who are now unattended to in the new federal
constitutional dispensation. One might wonder as to who these new minorities
are. One can roughly identify at least five categories of new minorities: 1)
scattered groups who are children of our legacy. In this category, there are: a)
children of empire builders; and b) children of villagization and (re)settlement
programs; 2) children of freedom of movement in the new constitutional
dispensation; 3) stranded groups, i.e., groups that are caught in between two or
more regions when the new mapping of the constituent units of the federation
was conducted (e.g. the Yem in SNNPRS and Oromia; the Mezenger in
SNNPRS and Gambella; the Argoba in Afar and Amhara; the Guji in Sidama
Zone of SNNPRS and Oromia; the Oromo in Gedio Zone of the SNNPRS; the
Agaw in Benishangul Gumuz; the Oromos in Benishangul Gumuz; the Opo in
Gambella and Benishangul Gumuz; the Oromos in Harari State; the Afar, the
Amhara, and the Oromo in Tigray; etc.); 4) Occupational caste groups (e.g., the
Fuga, the Enewari, the Hadicho, the Menja, and others); 5) Indigenous groups in
the hinterland of rural South Omo or Bench-Maji Zone of SNNPRS who could
not exercise their constitutional rights for reasons of historic marginalization. To
these, one can add the category of religious minorities, or of the minorities of
mixed ethnic origin, Ethiopians of Eritrean origin, etc.
The new minorities seek a diverse array of rights such as recognition;
identity; exercise and enjoyment of linguistic rights (in schools, administration,
courts, and media, etc); exercise and enjoyment of cultural rights; right to
representation in offices of local, sub-national, and national government;

184
E.g. the Silte case and myriads of similar others.
185
This is the case of the claim of the Oromos over Addis Ababa/Finfinne, the Sidamas
over Hawassa, the Guarge and Qabena over Walkite, etc.
186
E.g of Oromia, or Somali region vis-à-vis Ethiopia and Sidama or Gamo in the
SNNPRS, etc.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 99

participation in decision-making; self-rule; self-law; reassignment in what they

consider to be their “home region”; etc187.
In post-federal Ethiopia, apart from minority claims, there are a host of
claims that are mostly expressed in terms of competition for resources (natural
endowments as well budgetary resources coming to them in the form of fiscal
transfer, i.e., subsidies and grants), opportunities (jobs as well as education), and
power (at the local, sub-national, and national levels). Local elites tend to
contribute to the escalation of some kind of conflicts for the purpose of securing
a better access to coveted resources, opportunities, and powers. One notices that
the federal dispensation which was devised to respond to old conflicts which
arose out of the quest for ethno-cultural justice did address, more or less, these
conflicts. But it triggered a new sort of competition for resources, power and
opportunities. Consequently, the threat of fragmentation (of states) has become a
challenge. Lack of trust among diverse groups in constant interaction has
become another challenge.
In closing this section, it is to be underscored that federalism has the
potential to handle these new ethno-national conflicts. Some problems of design
(normative, institutional, and procedural) and some problems of practice (lack of
implementation of constitutional norms) should not distract us from pursuing the
ideal of federalist management of conflicts. A more systematic approach to
conflicts and a more robust redemptive constitutional practice should be worked
out in order to make us learn to live with conflicts.

3.5- Federalism and Conflicts in Ethiopia: Looking Ahead—

Challenges and Prospects
As has been repeatedly hinted at in these pages so far, federalism can be viewed
as a tool of handling conflict. There are a number of resources to utilize in order
to manage conflicts. Although the kind of conflicts that recur in a federal polity
are primarily those that relate to inter-state, inter-governmental, and inter-organ
relations, in a multi-ethnic federation, there are more conflicts that federalism
can help handle. Such are the ones relating to ethno-cultural justice, minority
rights, border disputes, identity-related disputes, disputes over local self-rule
(mainly for resources, opportunities, and for power) and others. In Ethiopia,
federalism has been opted for primarily to respond to the quest for ethno-cultural
justice. Old ethno-national conflicts have been addressed directly and frontally.
New conflicts are emerging. Federalism needs to be used more creatively than it
has so far been to handle the new conflicts more systematically and
institutionally. This requires, among other things, the need for a positive

187
For example, divergence of opinion over the symbols that signify united shared
national ethos (such as flags, emblem, and anthem) feed into other causes of tension.
100 MIZAN LAW REVIEW Vol. 4 No.1, March 2010

posturing of conflicts and viewing them as demanding a more deliberate,

intentional, directed effort that can prevent, manage, and transform them.
Federalism, if equipped with the necessary institutional, procedural, and
manpower infrastructure, can be part of the scheme to prevent, manage, and
transform conflicts.
As we look ahead, the challenge of more and more demands for better
recognition, local self-rule, sub-national autonomy, fair and equitable
representation in government at various levels, self-law, separate statehood, a
better regime of minority rights, reassignment in another state or Woreda/Zone,
etc might confront us. These challenges put a lot of demands and pressure on the
meager financial, institutional, infrastructural, and human resources of
government. But they need to be met. To meet these challenges, as we look
ahead into the future, it is imperative that we develop a full-blown policy and
strategy for conflict. We also need to work on the refinement of the norms,
institutions, and procedures pertaining to federalism and its experimentation.
Constitutional rethinking might be needed at some places (such as in the areas
governing the upper houses both at the federal and sub-national levels,
constitutional interpretation, mode of representation of ethno-national groups,
meeting and voting patterns, electoral systems, rules of power-sharing in the
executive, etc). It is also important that we make a more aggressive use of
resources that are hitherto underutilized such as the state constitutions. It is also
imperative that state constitutions are designed in such a way that they respond
to specific local demands and needs. Such responsiveness to realities and
diversifying institutional and procedural devices will indeed enrich the federal
experiment thereby making the states ‘laboratories of democracy’. At all levels,
the practice of redemptive constitutionalism (through constitutional fidelity,
constitutional reinvention via positive amendment and positive interpretation,
responsible legislation that serves as corrective to constitutional problems, and
responsible use of new constitutional moments) is imperative. All along, we
need to remember that through federalism, we learn to live with conflicts and
transform them in such a way that they outlive us into posterity.

Conclusions
In conclusion, let me try to reiterate some brief answers to the questions I set for
myself at the beginning of this paper. Conflict and federalism have an
interlocked relation as conflict of a specific type might necessitate a federal
mode of governance while federalism might also generate its own type of
conflicts in the wake of its adoption. The nature of conflict in a polity may color
the kind of federalism adopted. The nature of federalism in its turn might trigger
types of conflicts that are peculiar to the kind of federalism adopted. The nature
of the federal arrangement might also determine the kind of conflict
management strategy we seek to adopt.
4(1) Mizan Law Rev. LEARNING TO LIVE WITH CONFLICTS 101

A federal arrangement does help to prevent or handle some conflicts, but it

also generates others. At times, it even multiplies them. Such is more or less the
case in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian federalism was both a response to (old) and a
cause of (some new) conflicts. It responded chiefly to ethno-national conflicts
and the associated quest for ethno-cultural justice. But it failed to
comprehensively respond to the quest for a better regime of minority rights
protection. As a result, it showed itself to be ill-prepared for new conflicts
ignited by the new minorities. It also showed itself to be ill-equipped to respond
to conflicts caused by the (local elites’) competition for new resources (e.g. state
budget), opportunities (education, jobs, network, and other forms of social
capital, etc), power (political positions at the local, sub-national, and federal
levels).
Furthermore, in its practice so far, it seems to be unprepared for a new type
of demand for linguistic justice (e.g. the quest for a coequal status as a working
language at the federal, state, or local levels), competition for ownership over a
capital city (be it local, sub-national, or federal). All this reinforces the theme
that federalism is not a panacea to conflicts. The Ethiopian federal experiment
empirically informs the comparativists’ argument that federal arrangements do
not necessarily eradicate all conflicts. It is thus not proper to demand from
federalism—the Ethiopian or otherwise--what it does not promise and can not
possibly deliver. The more appropriate approach is to lower one’s expectation of
the potentials of federalism, to correct our (often negative) view of conflict, and
to try to make use of the potentials of both in transforming polities and conflicts
respectively. In sum, let it be said once again that we need to learn to live with
conflicts through and in federalism as we also seek and try to maximize the
potentials of federalism and its institutional and procedural resources for a better
handling of conflicts. ■