(Befekadu Hailu)
Can Addis Ababa city be entitled to self-identification and self-determination? It seems an easy question until you delve deeper into the political discourse surrounding the city, i.e., the tension between Addis Ababa's cosmopolitan reality and the ethnically defined structure of the Ethiopian federation. I am writing this essay with the belief that resolving the Addis Ababa puzzle will open the way to a solution for Ethiopia’s challenge of building a civic polity.
Adanch Abebe, the Mayor of Addis Ababa, has convened a consultation with Addis Ababa residents on contemporary issues on June 11, 2025. The youth in the meeting were compartmentalized by ethnicity, each with their associated attire; some of these attires reflected religious identity. The fact that the youth are dressed in ethnic uniforms made the consultation meeting more like a pre-planned stunt show rather than a genuine and spontaneous consultation meeting between the city’s administration and its residents. However, what attracted me the most is the fact that these groupings reveal how the government perceives the residents of Addis Ababa. Yes, Addis Ababa is home to a diverse range of groups. Still, the regime prefers to view them in divided ethnic groups, as if the rules of ethnicity in homogeneous settlements can also apply to diverse and urban settings.
In this piece, I will explain why both the EPRDF and the Prosperity Party are not able to resolve the issues of Addis Ababa residents unless they understand them as they are.
The FDRE constitution and the charter of Addis Ababa both claim to enshrine self-governing rights of the city’s residents. Unfortunately, the political rhetoric is at odds with the actual practice. In reality, Addis Ababa is a city administered by the protectorate party. Addis Ababa, as much as it is privileged with its status as a capital or, as some call, a “crown city,” is a victim of over-ethnicized ideologies. In Ethiopia’s ethnic federation, regional states, special zones, and special woredas are demarcated along ethnic lines. Addis Ababa, a diverse urban settlement for over a century, has been denied its cosmopolitan identity and was forced to adhere to ethnic and linguistic rules.
Unlike rural settlements, urban settlements are naturally heterogeneous. The ancestral origins of its residents are typically diverse, both ethnically and geographically. People with different religious views coexist side by side. Therefore, the rules that govern citizens of cities must always be civic and secular; the ethnolinguistic or cultural virtues that vary across communities cannot be used to rule cities harmoniously. However, this is especially true for all, especially in city politics, that political participation should not be limited by narrow principles of belonging to an ethnic group or a birthplace. This has resulted in two main challenges that I will explore further later: denial of self-identification and denial of self-determination.
Addis Ababa is not only the capital city of Ethiopia but also its economic and political hub. This means, on the surface, that the city residents have higher access to resources and power. As a result of this, I might sound like a hypocrite when I write that Addis Ababa is a marginalized center. However, my argument centers on the fact that the political rules that govern Addis Ababa are alienating its permanent residents.
Multiple lines of division oddly characterize Ethiopian politics. Ethnic and regional divides prevail over others, but some geographical and religious divides transcend even ethnic divisions. There are also divides between the poor and the rich, women and men, the majority and the minority, the center and the periphery. The latter, a center-to-periphery divide, is the worst in terms of economic privileges, probably next to the gender divide at every rank. Addis Ababa, despite being the center of centers in Ethiopia, has unfortunately marginalized its long-term residents, who have a deep connection to the city.
The Denial of Self-Identification
Addis Ababa was founded in the 1880s during the reign of Menelik II. During its foundation, the city was inhabited by Oromo farmers. The Emperor's encampment in the small villages of the current Addis Ababa drew diverse members of society. Soldiers, priests, servants, professionals, merchants, and others from diverse sections of Ethiopia settled alongside the royalty. People started migrating from all corners of the country and continued to make Addis Ababa their home. The reign of Hailesilasie I and the occupation by Fascist Italy continued to contribute to the trend, which made the city a melting pot of diverse identities sheltered by the common dream of urban life. This is why no city in Ethiopia is as diverse as Addis Ababa today.
The names of the neighborhoods in Addis Ababa are a testament to the city's rich diversity. Some are named after nobles who reside there (such as Ras Kassa sefer (village/settlement), Ras Seyoum sefer, Ras Mulugeta sefer, Shegole (Shek Hojele) sefer), others reflect the legacies of Italian occupation (such as Piazza, Kazanchis, Merkato), some remember the ethnic groups that once concentrated in a particular neighborhood (such as Geja sefer, Ghimira sefer, Wollo sefer), some are named after churches or mosques, some are named after the occupational services provided there, and others maintained their old names (such as Bole, Gullele). These neighbourhoods have, over time, blended diverse societies and left no legacy other than their names. For generations, Addis Ababa has been a melting pot of various Ethiopian identities, and a unique cosmopolitan society has emerged. Now, long-term residents and second or third-generation residents of Addis Ababa have little attachment to the pre-defined ethnic groups in the primordial understanding of them.
Life in rural areas or small towns is living in a homogeneous society. These societies often have neighbours with the same religious views and ethnic origins, and usually similar occupations. In Addis Ababa, it is quite the opposite. One must live with neighbors who hold other religious views and ethnic origins. Families are mixed, so are schools and workplaces. The common ground is co-existence in tolerance. The lingua franca is an economic success. This is not to say that Addis Ababa is safe and convenient for all; it is not. It must work harder and develop its civic virtues to treat everyone equally and create an equitable living space. Due to historical factors, the city's official language is Amharic, and the majority of its residents are Orthodox Christians. This has made it easier (or more difficult) for some rural-urban migrants to blend into the city's life. It should also have policies that welcome migrants from all regions of Ethiopia and devise a mechanism to have a healthy relationship with the semi-urban neighbouring city of Shaggar.
In any case, the 137-year journey of Addis Ababa has given the city its unique identity. Its residents, however diverse in their ethnic origins and religious views, have common memories and identities. Unfortunately, this has been structurally suppressed, so under the current constitutional philosophy, Addis Ababa residents are not recognized to identify themselves in the way they might want to. Addis Abebé, as some of us would like to identify ourselves as one of our many identities, has not been recognized by the political structure. To make matters worse, our political identity can only take hold if we belong to or are identified as one of the recognized homogeneous ethnic groups. This is particularly challenging for individuals born to parents of different ethnicities, as well as for those who, by mere accident of being raised in the city, lack any cultural or emotional connections to the distinct ethnocultural groups promoted by the Ethiopian constitution.
In a country where identity is the primary means of accessing power and resources, Addis Ababa residents are a politically marginalized group unless they choose to associate with one of the prominent ethnic groups. They are forced to align with a narrow identification based on primordial ethnic origins, primarily on paternal ancestral lines. The denial of self-identification and forced grouping has suppressed post-ethnic cosmopolitan identity, consequently restricting the development of civic virtues as a means of people-to-people as well as people-to-government relations.
It is hardly common for an urban resident to respond with their ethnic identity when asked about “what they are.” To the best, urbanites respond with their professional titles. That is, however, not recognized by the political system.
The Denial of Self-determination
While self-determination is a fundamental principle enshrined in Ethiopia's constitution, its application has been primarily limited to monoethnic communities residing in specific territories. Addis Ababa, as a diverse and cosmopolitan city, has faced unique challenges in asserting its self-determination, often finding its interests subordinated to broader competing ethnonational concerns or the interests of those in power.
During the Sidama Referendum on regional-statehood, Jawar Mohammed argued that “It is 'nation, nationality and people’,” NOT all of the residents who have the right to participate in votes to “determine statehood”. He opposed the participation of non-Sidama-ethnic permanent residents of the Sidama zone in the referendum. In the Ethiopian constitutional context, “nations, nationalities, and people (NNP)” vaguely represent ethnolinguistic groups. According to article 39/4 of Ethiopia’s constitution, NNP is defined as “a group of people who have or share large measure of a common culture or similar customs, mutual intelligiblity of language, belief in a common or related identities, a common psychological make-up, and who inhabit an identifiable, predominantly contiguous territory.” This definition was pretty much a copy-paste from Joseph Stalin’s “Marxism and the National Question.”
Similarly, Jawar’s political comrade and the then deputy chairperson of the Oromo Federalist Congress, Bekele Gerba, participated in a televised debate on the issues of self-determination and the status of Addis Ababa. In this debate, Bekele openly argued that “Addis Ababa cannot be entitled to self-determination because it is not a nation;” by the notion of Ethiopia’s constitution, a “nation” refers to a mono-ethnic, exclusivist community.
Article 49 of the Constitution has contributed to a vague understanding and denial of self-determination among residents of Addis Ababa. It claims that city residents “shall have a full measure of self-government” and that the government is accountable to “the federal government.” Additionally, Oromia is entitled to a “special interest” in the services it provides to Addis Ababa. Unlike regional states, special zones, and woredas, Addis Ababa is not entitled to self-determination rights “because it is not a nation,” but rather a residence of a mixed society. Consequently, under the first-past-the-post electoral system, the incumbent appoints the mayor of the city, and the mayor composes the city's cabinet. In the past few years, since the constitution was adopted in 1994, the vast majority of mayors of the city have not been raised or lived as ordinary residents in the city, nor have they been well integrated into the urban lifestyle. This would have been an exciting story if it were not at the expense of the city's long-term residents and if it had occurred with a direct vote or popular consent, but it has not.
To further complicate the issue, Addis Ababa is also the Oromia region’s capital city. Therefore, both the Federal and Oromia governments have jurisdiction over Addis Ababa. Oromia refers to it as Finfinne, while the Federal government calls it Addis Ababa. Oromia has long claimed ownership of the city, and many Oromo nationalists' position is that the city should be treated as just another city within Oromia, accountable to the Oromia government. This gives the region the authority to appoint mayors. This proposal is also submitted as an agenda to the national dialogue by Oromo participants. In either case, the city’s self-governance is very limited.
My Proposal: Civic Reforms
To be blunt about it, Ethnic federalism is incompatible with cosmopolitan and diverse settlements, nor is it in the promotion of civic political culture in largely homogenous settlements for the protection of minorities. The marginalization of Addis Ababa’s long-term residents stems from the country's constitutional philosophy. The infamous preamble of the Ethiopian Constitution commences with a preamble that foregrounds the concept of NNPs. “We the NNPs” framework has been interpreted as establishing ethnic identity as a primary basis for citizenship. This perspective aligns Ethiopia with a view of the state as a collection of distinct "nations" rooted in a definition derived from Stalinist thought. Consequently, Addis Ababa, as a demonstrably heterogeneous urban center, does not readily fit within this paradigm of ethnic categorization, which may hinder its eligibility for unique autonomous arrangements within the federal structure. Therefore, a foundational step towards addressing the specific governance needs of Addis Ababa involves revisiting the FDRE Constitution.
To better reflect the diverse realities of the Ethiopian populace, particularly in urban centers like Addis Ababa, an initial reform should focus on revising the preamble. A potential amendment could rephrase the opening to "We the People of Ethiopia [and member states of the federation]..." This revised phrasing aims to encompass individual citizens whose primary identity may not be defined by ethnicity, whether by personal choice or social circumstances. Furthermore, it necessitates a re-evaluation of the criteria for self-identification and self-determination to extend beyond strict and static ethnic parameters.
The constitutional amendment in this regard should also include Article 39, which enshrines the right to self-determination of NNPs. The revision should update Article 39 (1) from “Every NNPs Ethiopia has to an unconditional right to self-determination...” to incorporate, if not replaced by “The right to self-determination shall be vested in all inhabitants who are contiguous within identifiable territories and who collectively express a desire to be recognized and legally constituted as self-governing autonomous entities.”
The second step is to reform the electoral system so that mayors are elected directly rather than appointed by the incumbent party. This gives the people of Addis Ababa the right to directly elect their leaders while also establishing a structure with built-in checks and balances. Addis Ababa is also a place where opposition parties have relatively better votes compared to what they have in other autonomous entities. However, those votes have not been able to gain them representation in the city’s council or the House of People’s Representatives because the electoral system is first-past-the-post (FPTP). Reforming the electoral system to proportional representation resolves this challenge. In addition to improving the opposition's representation on the city’s council, it also serves as a check and balance to the directly elected mayor.
Concurrently, the Ethiopian Constitution shall be amended to recognize Addis Ababa as a “State” or "Special City-State" formally within the federation, delineating its distinct rights, responsibilities, and unique status. Subsequently, the residents of Addis Ababa shall be empowered to draft and adopt their own City Constitution, outlining the structure of their local government and enshrining the fundamental rights and responsibilities of its citizenry, all within the overarching framework of the Federal Constitution.
Finally, the progression towards enhanced self-determination necessitates the establishment of a clear and mutually agreed-upon framework for the relationship between Addis Ababa and the Oromia Regional State, as Addis Ababa is also the seat of the Oromia region and is territorially squeezed in its territory. The alternative framework shall address matters of shared resources, infrastructure development, and the constitutional “special interest” of Oromia (which might be updated to something like “special interest of Shaggar city,” as it is the territory that is might be both positively and negatively affected by the political, cultural and economic expansion of the city, potentially through the formation of joint committees that legitimately represent the interests of Addis Ababa and Shaggar city, or a dedicated intergovernmental body for regular consultation and coordinated action.
No comments:
Post a Comment