Bonne lecture! Enjoy the read!
Secular Federalism: Application for Ethiopia
A paper presented at Ethiopia Forum: Challenges and Prospects for a Constitutional Democracy in Ethiopia, Symposium and Panel Discussion African Studies Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing Michigan March 23-24, 2019.
The topic of this presentation “secular
federalism” was difficult to track down. Historically, the term as translated
from the German was used by Johannes Althusius (1557/1563(?)-1638) but was
thought to have “a somewhat peculiar status within the literature on
federalism” (Bettina Koch, “Johannes Althusius: Between Secular Federalism and
the Religious State,” The Ashgate Research Companion to Federalism, Ann
Ward and Lee Ward, eds., 2016: 75-90). The Calvinist jurist Althusius’
major work Politica (1603) defended “a system of medieval
constitutionalism” (local autonomies)
against the rise of territorial absolutism and proponents of the modern unitary
nation state. Thereafter, his idea of secular federalism enjoyed a 500 year sleep.
After consulting with a number of political
scientists and research librarians about the term and reading the literature
that comes up from standard computer searches (e.g., Baogang He, Laura Allison-Reumann, and Michael Breen, “The Politics of Secular Federalism and the Federal Governance of
Religious Diversity in Asia.” January 23, 2019, Research Article, https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X1804600406), I conclude that
“secular federalism” is a term of art that means a “non-religious division of
power.” Since no one to my knowledge is advocating a theocratic state for
Ethiopia, I suggest we proceed with no frills “federalism” in its traditional
sense as the focus of our discussion (for a definitive analysis of federalism,
see Max Frenkel, Federal Theory, Centre for Research on Federal
Financial Relations. The Australian National University, Canberra, Distributed by ANUTECH (1986): 215 pp.).
In exploring “the challenges and opportunities
to transition to constitutional democracy in Ethiopia,” it is important to
establish some semantic guidelines--to give definitions to significant words
and phrases used in the Ethiopian political lexicon. Throughout the reign of
the EPRDF, such terms as "democracy," "federalism,”
“sovereignty," "people(s)," and "the state" were
bandied about without giving them meaningful explanations, or at the best,
questionable interpretations. The papers presented in this Forum attempt to
correct this situation.
Frequently,
terminological distortions were deliberately fostered by government officials
with a view to deceiving their audience. It is even possible that EPRDF
spokesmen have been guilty of “conceptual
stretching” in their political rhetoric. In justifying or
criticizing events in Ethiopia, the EPRDF has been adapt in using what Giovanni
Sartori calls "confused democracy" (Giovanni Sartori 1970: 1034,
“Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics,” in American Political Science Review, LXIV(4): 1033-53.).
Almost anything--rules, laws, policies, and decisions--can be defined as, or
justified in the name of, democracy, or in the case of the Woyane,
"revolutionary democracy" (Giovanni Sartori, The Theory of Democracy Revisited, (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House,
1987: 6). Major actors in the politics of Ethiopia could be accused of
exploiting and manipulating language for their own selfish ends--of
"calling in ambiguity of language to promote confusion of thought" (A.E.
Housman, The Name and Nature of Poetry
(New York: Macmillan, 1939), 31).
I will use the terminology of contemporary
political science to bring a sharper, if not incisive, definition to key terms
and phrases needed to understand federalism. Political science is the study of
power relationships, so “power” will be the key term in this effort. For
instance, “democracy” is a political
system in which political power is widely shared in the sense that citizens
have ready access to positions of decision making. Such access has two
meanings: the citizen's ability to contact decision makers to attempt to
influence their decisions and the citizen's capability to stand for (compete
for in an election) decision-making positions. From this basic, no frills
beginning, further elaboration with nuanced ideas can and will be added (which
is the gleeful work of political scientists and economists), but in power
terms, the definition seems
technically accurate and complete.
While fully aware that definitions of
"federalism" and other important concepts are complex and contested,
an attempt at making more clear the meaning of the language used, at least in
the English discourse or translations, by EPRDF apologists and critics alike
will facilitate more astute analysis. Let us then investigate the terms
necessary for understanding federalism.
WHAT
IS SOVEREIGNTY?
Sovereignty is an indivisible concept. It
refers to the final and absolute source of political authority underlying a
society, which alone is capable of arbitrating and giving definitive resolution
to all internal disputes. Sovereignty in modern democratic societies resides in
the political community or body politic. Sovereignty is not found in
governments, nor in the constitutions lying behind governments, but in the peoples
lying behind constitutions. There can be no ulterior source of political
authority lying behind the people (Charles Merriam,
1900: 179-80. History of the Theory of
Sovereignty since Rousseau, Columbia University Press, New York.).
German sociologist Max Weber
proposed that sovereignty is a community's monopoly on the legitimate use of
force. Thus any group claiming the same right must either be brought under the
yoke of the sovereign, proven illegitimate, or otherwise contested and defeated
for sovereignty to be genuine. Or as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, in his inimitable style, declared “The concept of sovereignty is an absolute
right of a nation to do as it pleases.”
From
another perspective, the national government can keep a state from doing what
it otherwise might wish to do. This would be abetted by an independent
judiciary acting as an umpire when conflicts arise between the general
government and regional governments. For instance, the right of secession, the formal
legal right of a state to assert independence unilaterally, is the acid test of
final authority, and hence sovereignty and statehood, for any political
community embedded in a wider political order. The absence of this right in the
final analysis establishes the territorial integrity of the wider order, the
existence of a single political community and thus the presence of sovereignty
and statehood in the wider entity.
Having
established some guidelines for the meaning of sovereignty, let us turn to
other terms that have been significant in describing Ethiopian governance.
A
republic is a form of government in which the people,
or some significant portion of them, retain sovereignty over the government and
where offices of state are not granted through heritage. A common modern
definition of a republic is a government having a head of state
who is not a monarch.
A state is a political
organization with a centralized government
that maintains a monopoly by use of force
within a certain geographical territory.
A people
is a plurality of persons considered as a
whole, as is the case with an ethnic group
or nation,
but that is distinct from a nation which is more abstract, and more overtly
political. Under successful arrangements of federalism, a legal definition of “people”
is not qualified by place of birth, ethnicity, or religion. Hyphenated
designations of people, such as African-American, are verboten before the
law.
Citizenship
is the status of a person recognized under the custom
or law
as being a legal member of a sovereign state
or belonging to a nation. It usually signifies membership in a
political body. When there are many different groups within a nation,
citizenship may be the only real bond which unites everybody as equals without
discrimination—it is a "broad bond" linking "a person with the
state" and gives people a universal identity as a legal member of a
specific nation. An individual’s place of birth (national origin), ethnicity,
religion, or any personal attributes, have no role in charactering the legal
definition of citizenship or the geographic delineations of the state or
region.
WHAT
IS FEDERALISM?
Federalism is a form of government in which there
is a
division of powers between two levels of government of equal status (John Law, “How Can We Define Federalism?” Perspectives
on Federalism, Vol.
5, issue 3, 2013: E100).
Daniel Elazar in his book Exploring Federalism postulates that “Federalism involves the
linking of individuals, groups and polities in lasting but limited union in
such a way as to provide for the energetic pursuit of common ends while
maintaining the respective integrities of all the parties” (Daniel Elazar, 1987: 5, Exploring Federalism, University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa). Elazar was augmenting
Kenneth Wheare’s definition
published fifty-five years earlier: “By the federal principle I mean the method
of dividing
powers so that the general and regional governments are each, within a
sphere, co-ordinate and independent” (Kenneth Wheare, 1946: 11, Federal Government, Oxford University
Press, London). Each
level of government would have a direct relationship with the people. In such
an arrangement, each level of government could have some issues on which it
makes final decisions provided that there is a high federal court to adjudicate
disputes.
The sovereignty of the general and regional
governments is significant. Does sovereignty (conceived in its core meaning of ultimate
authority) reside in the general government or the whole (in one people) or in
the regional parts (in many peoples)? This is determined by a formal allocation of
competences among the two governing levels on a permanent basis under a
constitution or a common basic code. Each level is thought to be “sovereign”
within its allocated sphere, with the final say (Martin
Diamond, 1961: 21-64, “The Federalist’s View of Federalism,” in George Benson,
ed., Essays in Federalism, Institute
for Studies in Federalism, Claremont, CA). Sovereignty is therefore
generally believed today to inhere in neither level exclusively under
federalism, but to be the property, in part, of both ((John Law 2012: 550,
“Sense on Federalism,” Political
Quarterly, LXXXIII(3): 541-50.). A caveat, however: the laws of a regional
state with its powers limited by the federal constitution, cannot invalidate a
federal law. Thus, states cannot enforce local laws or covenants against
any national citizen if such local laws invalidate citizenship rights under the
federal constitution.
(Martin Diamond, 1961: 21-64,
“The Federalist’s View of Federalism,” in George Benson, ed., Essays in Federalism, Institute for
Studies in Federalism, Claremont, CA). “Moreover, governmental, civil societal,
education and cultural institutions must cooperate in building a sense of
national identity, upon which national integration can be advanced while
increasing national awareness about minority identities” (AhmedT. El-Gaili
2004: 503, “Federalism and the Tyranny of Religious Majorities: Challenges to
Islamic Federalism in Sudan” in 45 Harv. Int’l L.J.).
Carl Friedrich put forward a theory of “federalism
as process,” in which he argued that it was possible to define federalism and
federal relations “in dynamic terms.” In this approach, the concept would not
be seen “only as a static pattern or design, characterized by a particular and
precisely fixed division of powers between governmental levels;” instead it
would be conceived as “the process of federalizing a political community” (Carl Friedrich 1968: 7, Trends of Federalism in Theory and Practice, Pall Mall, London). Such
federalizing of political communities in a geographic area of the state
can be based on historical, geographic, or even artificial factors.
Having set down guideposts of widely accepted
definitions of terms pertinent to understanding federalism, let us proceed on
the winding road of analysis of the record of the EPRDF comparing
empirically-grounded knowledge (what is) with normative theories (what ought to
be) to evaluate the EPRDF and its legacy.
SOME OF THE PROBLEMS OF EPRDF
ETHNIC FEDERALISM
Since the FDRE officially came into being on
21 August 1995, the EPRDF has operated under a system called “Ethnic
Federalism.” The parameters of the system are laid out in the constitution of
the FDRE. To take a few examples:
Article
39, Rights of Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples
1.
Every Nation, Nationality and People in Ethiopia has an unconditional right to
self-determination, including the right to secession.
So much for the acid test of authority; see “sovereignty” above.
So much for the acid test of authority; see “sovereignty” above.
Article 46,
States of the Federation
1. The Federal
Democratic Republic shall comprise of States.
2. States shall
be delimited on the basis of the settlement patterns, language, identity and
consent of the peoples concerned.
Many Ethiopians believe this to be dangerous
and divisive for the country. Many ask, why not go back to the old pre-Derg
state configurations?
Article
47, Member States of the Federal Democratic Republic
4.
Member States of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia shall have equal
rights and powers.
A good normative statement. The
reality may be somewhat different.
The EPRDF's ethnic federalism emphasizing
rights of "nations, nationalities, and peoples" is diametrically
opposed to the ideology of nationalism and a "Greater
Ethiopia." In the FDRE, ethnic groups are
identified, territorially fixed and "killilized," and are handed over
to ethnic parties. Unions and professional associations also are forced to
organize on an ethnic basis. This is in contrast to
democratic countries where the free play of
class, gender, ethnic and other interests, all are subordinated to the respect
of the universal and inclusive attributes of citizenship.
THE FEDERAL REGIONS
The federal regions, organized along ethnic
lines, purportedly enjoyed increased autonomy, with greater local control over
fiscal and political issues. In keeping with EPRDF strategy, ethnicity became
the foci of regional government and party activity with basic services and
social organization based on tribal affiliations. In truth, however, the Front
imposed a monolithic pattern on the political life of the regions. In every
regional government, a shadow party organization operated as a disciplined
phalanx to carry out the will of the EPRDF leadership.
An example of this is evident in the security
apparatus of each killil. In theory, security in the regions is in the hands of
local militia who act in tandem with military detachments, but ostensibly under
local political control. In reality, security committees, consisting of local
officials, political cadres of the EPRDF or its affiliates, and army officers,
control these "peasant militias." The committee
system makes the militia an integral part of
the national political structure and places them under the control of the
central government through the ruling party apparatus. They provide the
interface between local authorities, the militia, the army, and the ruling
party, in practice subordinating local security structures to the central
authorities.
The federal regions also provided the central
government with a subterfuge for refusing to take action on matters petitioned
for by citizens. Petitioners, such as farmers from the Amhara Region
complaining about new land tenure policies,
found themselves in a political no man's land
with neither the central nor the regional government responding to their
appeals ("Farmers from Gojjam Flock to Addis Ababa to Lodge Protest,"
Ethiopian Register 4 (April 1997):
6-8; see generally, Stephen Buckley, "Ethiopia Takes New Ethnic Tack: Deliberately
Divisive," Washington Post, 18
June 1995, A21). When circumstances require it, the government can dodge
difficult questions by localizing conflicts or take on the ones they want by
nationalizing them.
Critics of "decentralizing" power to
the killils believe that the federal policy has more to do with divide-and-rule
tactics and the allocation of national resources, than justice for the regions.
Some liken it to the former Soviet Communist party, which retained tight control
over its regions through local parties. Apparent devolution, while real power
is retained at the center and used repressively, has increased rather than
lessened the disharmony of Ethiopia's ethnic groups ("Ethiopia, Federal
Sham," The Economist, 16 August 1997,
36; see also, John Young, "Ethnicity and Power in Ethiopia," Review of African Political Economy 23
(December 1996): 531-42). At its worst, ethnic federalism has loosed the dark side of Ethiopians’ psyche: their
capacity for tribalism, violence, selfishness and cruelty.
Ethnic Federalism
has failed to nurture tolerance among the country's various ethnic groups. The
current system is accentuating conflicts between ethnic groups and heightening
polarization instead of promoting values of coexistence, unity, and solidarity.
The regional constitutions also are part of the problem (Yohannes Gedamu, 14 Aug 2018, “What Ethiopia Needs is a New Federal Arrangement”).
Democracy in Ethiopia will require
institutions and laws, but it also will depend on what might be called
democratic dispositions. These include a preparedness to work with others
different from oneself toward shared goals; a combination of strong convictions
with a readiness to compromise in the recognition that one cannot always get
everything one wants; and "a sense of individuality and a
commitment to civic goods that are not the
possession of one person or of one small group alone." Ethiopians should also develop a political culture that promotes the
institution of the family, fosters the organization of civil society, and
upholds democratic values (Gabriel Almond Sidney VerbaThe Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Center for International Studies, Princeton
University) Princeton University
Press (April 19, 2016: 576 pp.)
Ethiopia, then, must liberate itself from the
stifling past and enter into a new era with an interweaving of separate ethnic
strands into a new national design. To secure the public good and private
rights against the danger of ethnic factions, and at the same time to create a
truly democratic government, is the great object to which freedom-loving
Ethiopians should direct their thoughts and their individual actions.
By letting the people decide for themselves
what governing arrangements they want, there is hope for a well-ordered
Ethiopian society. Then Ethiopia can get on with fulfilling its destiny as the
jewel in the crown of Africa. Then there will be a better chance for the
government to provide economic security for the people and alleviate the
suffering caused by poverty and disease. Then at last the nation can put away
its enduring image as a famine-wracked land and become the breadbasket of
Africa that it is capable of being (Theodore M. Vestal, Ethiopia: A Post-Cold War African State, Westport, CT: Praeger.
1999: 207).
The people planning this democratic
transformation will need wisdom, ability, and vision to create such a society.
They also must be carefully prepared and imminently resourceful. Changing the
nation's political culture will not be easy. The hard road ahead to democracy
will traverse conflict, bargaining and compromise, reverses, new attempts at
reform, and possibly violence (Marina Ottaway, "From Political Opening to
Democratization?" in Marina Ottaway, ed., Democracy in Africa: the Hard Road Ahead (Boulder, CO: L. Rienner,
1997: 2).
But a critical mass of Ethiopians share a
sacred hunger for democracy. They tire of a leavening of malice in their daily
bread. With opposition at home and abroad finally organized, pressures for
democratic change will mount on the government (Vestal, Ibid.) A
democratic federal system upheld by a nationally enforceable bill of rights, is
the country’s most viable path forward. May the path be traversed soon and in
quick time.