Transforming Ethiopia’s Exclusionary Constitution into an Inclusive One

Before introducing my proposal, I would like to explain my motivation for writing this now.

One of the outcomes of the National Dialogue of Ethiopia scheduled for July is constitutional revision; the National Dialogue Commission will hand over the recommendations "agreed upon" by the participants to the government. Then, the two houses (the House of Peoples' Representatives (HoPR) and the House of Federation (HoF)) are expected to approve the necessary constitutional amendments in a joint session by a two-thirds majority vote (FDRE Constitution 105/3).

In the recent seventh national elections, the Prosperity Party won 438 seats in the HoPR (80% of the total 547), more than 2/3 of the parliamentary seats. Additionally, it won all the regional councils, which represent members of the HoF. Technically, it is in a position to adopt a constitutional amendment that requires approval from 2/3 of the joint meeting of the HoF and the HoPR and from 2/3 of the regional councils. The only exception is Chapter 3 (on Human Rights) of the Constitution (FDRE 105/1/a), which requires majority approval from all regional councils, and it is good that these provisions are strongly protected. And PP seems determined to do it.

In the language of realpolitik, all of Ethiopia's previous constitutions were approved by governments rather than by majority consent. When the current constitution was ratified, although a constitutional drafting assembly drafted it and public discussions were held, it did not include or satisfy all parties, nor did it gain immediate legitimacy or the consent of the majority. However, the source of legitimacy for Ethiopian governments has not been majority legitimacy and consent, but rather total military dominance. When they appear to lose that dominance, they are pushed out and fall.

Regardless, the constitutions have always added more value to our political system. The FDRE Constitution also protected several rights that should be protected. However, there are certain controversial articles and some that need replacement.

Despite the impression created by proponents of the current constitutional order, constitutions are not holy books; they are subject to revision and amendment. Within 10 years of its ratification, the U.S. Constitution underwent 10 revisions; it has now reached its 27th amendment. The Ethiopian Constitution must also be amended. It would have been ideal if it had been revised through a participatory process that secured majority consent, but that does not seem to be happening.

In any case, whether there is meaningful participation by the public and stakeholders or not, the government seems headed toward amending it. As with the current constitution, which has gained significant legitimacy among certain sections of society over the past 30 years, the upcoming constitutional amendment will inevitably be implemented and will have its share of supporters and critics.

For my part, I have spoken, written, and engaged with the commissioners on every opportunity to highlight that the National Dialogue’s process lacks transparency and inclusivity. In fact, I believe that a "political reconciliation of elites" must precede a national dialogue.

My view was that it would be better for a national dialogue to be led by a commission appointed by, and accountable to, a council established by the politicians involved in political reconciliation. Even though I was given the opportunity to participate in the dialogue, I declined because I believe the process lacks meaningful participation of key stakeholders and popular legitimacy. That, however, doesn’t mean I want the process to go wrong. I always prefer the better evil to win in every negotiation between power and society in Ethiopia. And that is why I write my proposal to promote the ideal of an inclusive constitution.

I was deeply shocked and alarmed by the Commission's list of agenda items for dialogue. I found it a red flag that the three-year agenda-gathering process ended up with the least articulated, vaguest agenda items.

However, as I emphasized above, things will inevitably go the way the government wants. Therefore, I will forward my proposal to whoever may listen.

If you, the participants of the dialogue, come across my ideas and like them, advocate for them. If the rest of you support them, echo them; if you dislike them, challenge me so that we can conduct our own mini-national dialogue.

My wish is that if the Ethiopian Constitution is to be revised, it should be revised in this manner. I want all other articles I haven't commented on to remain as they are, meaning that even if I might want to see them amended, I won't lose sleep over them.

Without further ado, I would like to present my recommendations for an "Inclusive Constitution."

1. Inclusivity over Exclusion

The preamble of the FDRE Constitution does not recognize Ethiopian citizenship and promotes exclusion rather than inclusion. It views all of us as members of ethnic or tribal groups and regards us as having mutually exclusive histories, identities, and interests.

Because of this, it seems as though our existence depends on our ethnicity rather than the other way around. I understand the need to protect some group rights, but there must be a correction and a rewrite to balance individual and group rights. The preamble needs to acknowledge and establish that the relationship among Ethiopia’s nationalities is one of cooperation, not merely competition.

When group rights are granted, the constitution should recognize that citizens possess other group identities beyond ethnic identity, and that deciding which to prioritize should be a matter of citizens’ choice, not the constitution's.

Most importantly, the constitution should have a vision for building an inclusive state and society that welcomes all citizens, grounded in a civilized society (a civil society guided by scientific discoveries) rather than in ethnicity (bloodline and ancestry).

Another issue is nomenclature. Even if the Ethiopian system continues to maintain the current federal arrangement (or not), the name of the states forming the federal government should not be "Region" (Kilil). The word "Region" was adopted from the Soviet Union; it gives the impression of confining an ethnic group to a specific territory, and, when combined with the right to secession, it risks leading the federation to the same fate as the Soviet Union: disintegration.

To remedy this, better terminology must instead be used; my proposal is "Autonomous Administration." The names of the administrations, zones, or districts should never carry an ethnic name. It is preferable that the name be based on geographic direction, a river, or another feature that represents the area, rather than on the name of any ethnic group or community in the area.

Finally, while autonomous administrations or autonomous zones may have a preferred working language, they must not possess an official ethnicity. It is necessary to champion a political philosophy that ensures that anyone with a legal residency ID has equal rights and opportunities within the administration. By doing so, autonomous administrations can be made inclusive of all people.

2. A Semi-Presidential Form of Government

The current parliamentary system encourages an authoritarian political party system. The parliamentary system, even though it does not function effectively in Ethiopia, helps prevent populism. Presidential systems are, on the other hand, more vulnerable to sudden electoral defeats than parliamentary systems, and presidents typically have limited terms of office.

የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትር ዐቢይ አሕመድ ስምንት ዓመታት በሥልጣን ማማ ላይ

(በበፍቃዱ ዘ. ኃይሉ)

ዐቢይ አሕመድ ተቃዋሚ መስለው፣ ተቃዋሚ ለብሰው ሥልጣን ከተቆናጠጡ እነኾ ዛሬ ድፍን ስምንት ዓመታቸው።

ዐቢይ አሕመድ ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትር ከሆኑ ወዲህ በየሁለት ዓመቱ አስተዳደራቸውን የሚገመግም መጣጥፍ እየጻፍኩ ነው። ዘንድሮም ባሕሉን ለማስቀጠል ይህንን መጣጥፍ እነኾ ብያለሁ። በቅድሚያ የቀደምት ጽሑፎቼን ዐውድና ምላሽ በጨረፍታ ላስታውሳችሁ።

ዐቢይ አሕመድ በሥልጣን ጎዳና ሁለት ዓመት ሲሞላቸው በጻፍኩት ጽሑፍ  ሃይማኖታዊ ሰበካን ከአነቃቂ ንግግር ጋር በሚቀይጥ የንግግር ዘይቤያቸው አታላይ አንደበት አባታዊ (paternalistic) አገዛዝ ስርዓት እንደገነቡ ለመከራከር ሞክሬ ነበር፤ ክርክሬ መንግሥታቸው እኛን ዜጎቹን ልክ በራሳቸው መወሰን የማይችሉ ሕፃናት ይመለከተናል የሚል ነበር። ይህንን ጽሑፍ በጻፍኩበት ወቅት ዐቢይ አሕመድ በመሐል አገር ከፍተኛ ድጋፍ ስለነበራቸው፣ ምንም እንኳን ትችቴ የመረረ ሊባል የሚችል ዓይነት ባይሆንም እንዲህ ያለ ትችት ከመሐል አገር ሰው ጭራሹኑ አልተለመደም ነበርና ከአንዳንድ ወዳጆቼም ሳይቀር ብዙ ነቀፌታዎችን አስከትሎብኝ ነበር። 

አራት ዓመት ሲሞላቸው የጻፍኩት ግን በተቃራኒው የመረረ ትችት ሊባል የሚችል ነበር። “ከድጡ ወደ ማጡ” የሚል ርዕስ የሰጠኹት ሲሆን፣ መጀመሪያ በፍትሕ መጽሔት ላይ የሽፋን ገጽ ታሪክ (cover-story) ሆኖ ታትሟል። ከዚያም በብዙ ዩቱብ ገጾች ተባዝቷል። በወቅቱ ኢትዮጵያ ከፍተኛ ፈተና ውስጥ የገባችበት ነበር። የእርሳቸውን አራት ዓመታት ስገመግመው፣ ዐቢይ አሕመድ የብልፅግና ፓርቲ ብቸኛ ሰው መኾንን “ፓርቲው ራሳችው ናቸው” በሚል በመግለጽ - ወደ ፈላጭ ቆራጭነት ማደጋቸውን፣ ትግራይ ከኢትዮጵያ ወደ መሰናበት እያመራች መሆኗን፣ ኦሮሚያ አኬልዳማ ሊያስብላት የሚያስችል በታጣቂዎችና መንግሥት መሐል የተያዘ ሕዝብ መኖሩን፣ እና የሕግ የበላይነት መንኳሰስ እና የነውጠኝነትን መንሰራፋት (እንዲሁም  የእርሳቸውን አመራር “የነውጥ ቀዛፊነት” በሚል) ጠቅሼ - ለዚህ ሁሉ ዋናው ተጠያቂው እርሳቸው መሆናቸውን ደምድሜ ጻፍኩ። ይህን ጊዜ ብዙ ወዳጆቼ “ክክፉ ይጠብቅህ” ከማለት በቀር ከድምዳሜዬ እምብዛም የተለየ ድምዳሜ አልነበራቸውም። 

ስድስት ዓመት ሲሞላቸው “እየሰጡ መንሳት” የዐቢይ አሕመድ የአመራር ዘይቤ ነው የሚል ትንታኔ ጻፍኩ። በስድስት ዓመታት አስተውሎቴ፣ ዐቢይ አሕመድ በፖለቲካ አመለካከታቸው እና እንቅስቃሴያቸው የታሰሩ ሰዎችን ሲፈቱ አይተናል፤ መልሰው ደግሞ የርሳቸውን ፖለቲካ የሚቃወሙ ሰዎችን በየሰበብ አስባቡ በመንግሥታቸው ሲያሳስሩ አይተናል። ብዙኃንን ያስፈነደቁ የሰላም ስምምነቶች ውስጥ ሲገቡ አይተናል (ኤርትራ፣ ትግራይ)፤ እነዚያ የሰላም ሥምምነቶች መልሰው ውኃ ሲበላቸው አይተናል። እነዚህ እና መሰል የአመራር ዘዬአቸው መገለጫ  - እየሰጡ መንሳት - ሊባል እንደሚገባ ትንታኔዬን አቅርቤያለሁ። ይሄም ጽሑፍ በመጠኑ አንባቢ አግኝቷል። ተባዝቷልም።  

ዐቢይ አሕመድ አሁንም ገና እየተገለጡ ነው።  ትንታኔያችንም ይቀጥላል።

“Lost in Transition” ባሰኘሁት መጽሓፌ ውስጥም የዐቢይ አሕመድ አነሳስ (The Rise of Abiy Ahmed) በሚል ርዕስ የ18 ገጽ ትንታኔ አስቀምጫለሁ። በዚህ ትንታኔዬ ዐቢይ በምን ዓይነት ውስጣዊ እና ውጪያዊ ትግሎች ወደ ከፍተኛው የሥልጣን ማማ እንደተወጣጡ ለመተንተን ሞክሬያለሁ። ዐቢይ አሕመድ በብዕር ሥም ያሳተሙትን “እርካብና መንበር” አንብቤያለሁ። በሥማቸው ያሳተሟቸውን “የመደመር” ተከታታይ መጽሓፎችንም አንብቤያለሁ። ቶም ጋርድነር “The Abiy Project” በሚል ርዕስ የጻፈውን ባለ ትልቅ ጥራዝ መጽሓፍም አንብቤያለሁ። የተለያዩ የኅብረተሰብ ክፍሎችን እየሰበሰቡ የሚያደርጓቸውን ንግግሮችም እያሳደድኩ፣ ጊዜ በፈቀደልኝ ቁጥር ላደምጣቸው ሞክሬያለሁ። በነዚህ ሁሉ ንባቦቼ የተረዳሁት ዐቢይ አሕመድ የፈለጉትን ከማድረግ ምንም የማያስቆማቸው ሰው መሆናቸውን ነው ማለት እችላለሁ። ከዚህ በታች የምጽፈው እና ከዚህ ውጪም የምሰጣቸው አስተያየቶች በነዚህ ጥረቶቼ የወሰድኳቸው ግምገማዎቼ መሆናቸውን ቀድሜ ለማሳወቅ እወዳለሁ። 

ከ“ቲም ለማ” ወደ “መጋቢታውያን”

ለውጡን ስታስቡ ከ"ቲም ለማ" ውጪ ማሰብ ትችላላችሁ? ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትር ዐቢይ አሕመድ ግን ይችላሉ። “የመደመር መንገድ” የሚለው መጽሐፋቸው ስለለውጡ አመጣጥ የሚተነትን ነው። ዐቢይ ለውጡን ለማምጣት የዐሥር ዓመት ሴራ እንደተሠራ ይናገራሉ። አምናቸዋለሁ። ከባድ ሚዛን “የሸዋ ፖለቲካ” ተጫዋች ናቸው። በአንድ እግራቸው ከገዢው ፓርቲ መንደር፣ በሌላ እግራቸው ከተቃዋሚዎች መንደር ቆመው ነው ጨዋታውን የተጫወቱት፤ ለዚህ ነው መግቢያዬ ላይ “ተቃዋሚ መስለው፣ ተቃዋሚ ለብሰው” የሚል ገለጻ የተጠቀምኩት። እንደ እርሳቸው አባባል እኛ “አሮማራ” የምንለው ሕወሓትን ለመገርሰስ የተፀነሰው ትብብር በምክትል ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትር ደመቀ መኮንን የተመራው ልዑክ ራሺያ ሲጓዝ በዐቢይ እና ደመቀ የተጠነሰሰ ሴራ ነው። ስለዚህ ለለውጡ፣ የለማ መገርሳ ሚና እምብዛም እንዳልነበር እንደዋዛ ታልፏል። የመደመር መንገድ መጽሐፍ የለማን ስም አንድ ሁለቴ እንደዋዛ (anecdote) አንስቶ ነው የሚያልፈው። ይልቁንም መጽሓፉ ላይ ደመቀ መኮንን የተሻለ ተጠቅሰዋል። ዐቢይ፣ በዚህ መጽሐፍ ላይ “ቲም ለማ” የሚለውን የለውጥ ቡድን መጠሪያ ስም፥ “መጋቢታውያን” በሚል ሊተኩት ሞክረዋል። መጋቢት፣ እርሳቸው የተመረጡበት ወር ነው። በርግጥ ደመቀ መኮንን ከእጩነት ራሳቸውን ባልተጠበቀ መንገድ ባያገልሉ ኖሮ፣ ዐቢይ አሕመድ በሰፋ የድምፅ ብልጫ የማሸነፍ ዕድላቸው አጠያያቂ ይሆን ነበር፤ ስለዚህ የደመቀ መኮንንም መጠቀስ ትርጉም ይሰጣል። የለማ መገርሳ ግን እንደዋዛ ከታሪኩ መፋቅ በጣም አስገርሞኛል። ዐቢይ "ቲም ለማ" ከሚለው ይልቅ "መጋቢታውያን" የሚለውን መጠሪያ የወደዱት በለማ ስም መጠራቱ የእርሳችውን ሚና የሚያሳንስ ስለመሰላቸው ወይስ ከለማ መገርሳ ጋር መንገዳቸው ስለተለያየ?

A Sovereign State: Is it the Means or the End?

(Befekadu Hailu) 

The journey of Somaliland toward sovereign statehood is dividing observers of Horn Africa's regional politics into two camps. The debate is mostly framed from the perspective of the political interest of the countries or the politicians involved. For the dreamers of a "Greater Somalia," this is bad news; for the citizens and friends of Somaliland, however, it is a celebration.

​Somaliland has managed to lead a stable country for nearly three decades. Its leaders have been voted in and out of office, peacefully. Unlike the rest of the region, they have been peaceful. Therefore, sovereignty would merely be a certificate for the world to accept them as sovereign; it adds little to their own daily lives, as they have already secured their peace.

​The struggle of Somaliland politicians for the formation of a republic is a "process" that has proven itself by establishing stable political system. In contrast, Eritrean politicians waged a 30-year war to secede from Ethiopia. South Sudanese political leaders fought for nearly sixty years. The sad reality is that whether South Sudanese or Eritreans, they achieved sovereignty but failed to establish a peaceful and a stable political system. On the days of their official sovereignty, both celebrated the freedom; some could probably have said, "The long war was worth it."

​Political philosophers have argued at length regarding the Means and Ends.

​The first group are those who say, "The end justifies the means." These are the proponents of Consequentialism, including figures like Niccolò Machiavelli and Leon Trotsky. They argue that an action should be weighed by its outcome, not by the path taken to achieve it. Therefore, they contend that deceit, killing, or massacres are of no concern as long as they bring about the desired result. They risk too much suffering for unpredictable outcome. 

​To their contrast stood the likes of Immanuel Kant and Mahatma Gandhi. These believe "The means justifies the end." These proponents of Deontology argue that separating the means from the end is misleading. They hold the position that one cannot arrive at a destination of prosperity by following a road of destruction. 

​Back to the question of sovereign statehood, we ask: "Is a sovereign country a means or an end?"

​If we view a country as a "goal/end," we consider waging war a proper "means" to achieve that goal. But if we think of a country as a "means/tool" created for human safety and well-being, it makes no sense to destroy the beneficiary, the human being, in war just to craft the tool.

​Personally, I align with the second group. I wish we would pause and think when politicians tell us to wage war "for the sake of our country" or "to become a separate sovereign country."

​Statehood is a very short-lived phenomenon relative to the age of the human race. Most of the generations of humans had passed without having so called countries. Humans can exist without a country; a country, however, cannot exist without humans. The state is one of the institutions humans created as they became civilized. Yes, countries became essential for peace, stability, economic growth, and the general positive cooperation of mankind. The world "prospered" only after humans created their countries.

​But as generations passed and were replaced, people forgot that countries were created for the sake of a better life for humans. The Country became an "Idol," and the Human became the "Sacrifice." This is why wars that wipe out populations are justified in the name of creating a sovereign country or protecting sovereignty. Even now, Somalia may wage war against Somaliland. But peaceful neighboring countries are more indebted to the human race than a Somalia unity maintained by war.

We would have been luckier as a human race if the sovereignty of a country or disintegration of it into smaller sovereign pieces were based on their benefit to their inhabitants. The Horn of Africa is a region that is reproducing new States separating from others, unlike any other region on our continent. But neither the mother countries nor the separatists have been able to give peace and stability to their citizens so far. This is because their "Means" was all the same, war and oppression. Unlike Somaliland, none have proven themselves by refining the "Means" to establish social stability led by popular consent.

​Good luck to Somaliland! 

በልማት ተነሺዎቹ ዓይን የኮሪደር ልማቱ ያበለፅጋል ወይስ ያደኸያል?

“እኔ የምሞተው ዛሬ ማታ፣ እህሌ የሚደርሰው ለፍልሰታ”

(በፍቃዱ ኃይሉ) 

For English, click here.

የኮሪደር ልማቱ በተለይ የመሐል አዲስ አበባን ገጽታ እስከወዲያኛው እየቀየረው ነው። ለአቅመ ማስተዋል ከደረስኩበት ጊዜ ጀምሮ፣ አዲስ አበባ በግንባታ ላይ ነች፤ ሆኖም ከ2016 ጀምሮ እያስተናገደች ያለውን ያክል የነባር ሰፈሮች መፍረስ ግን አይቼ አላውቅም። የቀድሞዎቹ ፒያሳ እና ካዛንቺስ ተሰናብተዋል፤ አዲሶቹ ገና አልተወለዱም። በአዲስ አበባ ወንዞች ዳርቻ ይኖሩ የነበሩት ብዙ ሰፈሮች ፈርሰዋል፤ በምትካቸው ማራኪ ፓርኮች እየተገነቡ ነው። ያለ ጥርጥር መሐል አዲስ አበባ እያማረባት ነው፤ ቀድሞ መሐል ከተማ እናየው የነበረው ግርግር እና ማኅበራዊ ቫይብ ግን ከነዋሪዎቹ ጋር አብሮ ወደ ከተማዋ ዳርቻ ፈልሷል። የመሐል ከተማው የመንገድ ጥርጊያዎቹ፣ የእግረኛ መንሸራሸሪያዎቹ፣ መናፈሻ ፓርኮቹ፣ የመኪና ማቆሚያዎቹ፣ ወዘተ አስፈላጊም ውብም ናቸው ብዬ አምናለሁ። ይሁን እንጂ እነዚህ ሰፈሮች ውስጥ ለበርካታ ዐሥርት ዓመታት የኖሩ ቤተሰቦች አሁን ወደ ከተማው ዳርቻ ተገፍተው ለመናፈሻዎቹ ቦታ ለቀዋል። አሁን በፒያሳ እና ካዛንቺስ ትልልቅና ዘመናዊ አፓርታማዎች እየተገነቡ ነው። ይህ ክስተት፣ ድሆችን ከመሐል ከተማ ገፍቶ አስወጥቶ፣ በምትካቸው ዘመናዊ አፓርትመንቶችን መግዛት የሚችሉ ባለፀጋዎችን የሚስብ ("class replacement") እየመሰለ ነው። 

በዚህ መነሻ ይህንን ጽሑፍ ለመጻፍ ከፈለግኩ የቆየሁ ቢሆንም ስፈራ ስቸር ዘግይቻለሁ። ነገር ግን ቢያንስ መሠረታዊ፣ ሕጋዊና ሞራላዊ ጥያቄዎች የማንሳት መብታችን ይጠበቃል በሚል ተስፋ ከብዙ በጥቂቱ ለመጻፍ ተደፋፍሬያለሁ። ዓላማዬ የልማት ሥራውን ማጥላላት ወይም ማወደስ አይደለም። ይልቁንም ይህ የአዲስ አበባን መልክና ገጽታ፣ የነዋሪዎቹን ባሕልና አሰፋፈር ለዘለቄታው እየቀየረ ያለ እና ምናልባትም በከተማዪቱ ታሪክ ውስጥ እጅግ ጦሰኛ (consequential) ኹነት ለልማቱ ዋጋ በከፈሉት (የልማት ተነሺዎች) አንደበት ምን ዓይነት ዋጋ እንዳለው ለመጠየቅ ነው።

በግሌ ተወልጄ ያደግኩበት እና የቤተሰቦቼ እና የአብሮ አደጎቼ ቤተሰቦች መንደር በወንዝ ልማት ፕሮጀክት ሳቢያ ፈርሶብኛል፤ በምትኩ መናፈሻ ፓርክ እየተገነባ ነው። በጽሑፌ የእኛን ሰፈር ነዋሪዎች ተሞክሮ መነሻ በማድረግ ሌሎችንም ምሳሌዎች በማጣቀስ “በሒደቱ የልማት ተነሺዎቹ ሕይወት ይሻሻላል (ይበለፅጋል) ወይስ ይከፋል (ይደኸያሉ)?” የሚለውን ጥያቄ ለመመለስ እሞክራለሁ። 

የኮሪደር ልማቱ እና የወንዝ ዳር ልማት ፕሮጀክቱ ዘላቂ ኢኮኖሚያዊ ፋይዳ (macroeconomic implication) ምን እንደሚሆን፣ ከባለሙያዎች እንሰማለን ብዬ ተስፋ አደርጋለሁ። ለጊዜው ግን የኔ ዳሰሳ የልማት ተነሺዎቹን ሕይወት የሚመለከት ነው። 

መግባቢያ 

በዚህ ጽሑፍ የምዳስሰው የኮሪደር ልማት እና የወንዝ ዳርቻ ፕሮጀክት የሚባሉትን በተመለከተ ነው፤ የጫካ ፕሮጀክት የመሳሰሉ ግዙፍ እና ምሥጢራዊነት የሚበዛበቸውን ፕሮጀክቶች በተመለከተ ለጊዜው በዚህ ዳሰሳ አላካተትኳቸውም። በመርሕ ደረጃ በጽሑፌ የምዳስሳቸው ሁለቱ ፕሮጅከቶች አስፈላጊነት ላይ ብዙ ጥያቄ የለኝም፤ ያሉኝም ጥያቄዎች የዚህ መጣጥፍ ዓላማ አይደሉም።

ልማት ቁሳዊ ብቻ ሳይሆን ሰብዓዊም ነው። ለአንድ የመሠረተ ልማት ከአንድ አባቢ የተነሱ ሰዎች፣ በሌላ አካባቢ ሲሰፍሩ ፍላጎቶቻቸው ካልተሟሉላቸው ልማቱ ጎድሎ ይሆናል። ስለሆነም በዚህ ጽሑፍ መልስ የማፈላልግለት ጥያቄ ፕሮጀክቶቹ፣ በተለይ ለልማት ተነሺ ከሆኑት ነዋሪዎቹ የቀደመ እና አሁናዊ ኢኮኖሚያዊ ሁኔታ አንፃር “ወደ ብልፅግና ይመራሉ” ወይስ በተቃራኒው “ሊያደኸዩ ይችላሉ?” የሚል ነው። ጽሑፉን ለመጻፍ የግል ምስክርነቴን፣ የተወሰኑ የልማት ተነሺ ሰዎች ምስክርነት፣ የዜና ምንጮች፣ እና በጉዳዩ ላይ የምርምር ሥራ እየሠሩ ያሉ ሰዎች አስተያየት በግብዓትነት ተጠቅሜያለሁ። ሐተታዬ በአዲስ አበባ ስላሉት ሁለቱ ፕሮጀክቶች (የኮሪደር እና የወንዝ ዳር ልማት) እንጂ ከአዲስ አበባ ውጪ ያሉትን አይመለከትም። በአዲስ አበባ ውስጥም የልማት ተነሺ ንግድ ቤቶችን ሁኔታ አልዳሰስኩም። (የሆነ ሆኖ አንባቢዎች እንዲረዱልኝ የምፈልገው ይህ ጽሑፍ በምንም ዓይነት የክስተቱን ሙሉ ገጽታ ማሳየት እንደማይችል ነው።)

ጽሑፉን የቀድሞዎቹ ሠፈሮች አመሠራረት እና ዕድገትን በመተረክ እጀምርና፣ የአፈራረሱ ሒደት፣ ለተነሺ ነዋሪዎች የተሰጠውን ካሣ እና ምትክ በመዘርዘር፣ ሒደቱ በልማት ተነሺዎቹ ኢኮኖሚያዊ ዕጣ ፈንታ ላይ ያሳደረውን ተፅዕኖ በማሳየት ወደ መደምደሚያው እሸጋገራለሁ። 

The "Ethiopia Experts"

(The following is an excerpt from the book "Lost in Transition: Deceit and Conflict in Ethiopia (2014-2022)" published on 25 September 2025 by Befekadu Hailu.)

The Tigray war allowed many foreign "Ethiopia experts" to emerge and speak authoritatively on behalf of Ethiopians. Despite having published books or articles on Ethiopia and visited the country several times, these experts often lacked proficiency in local Ethiopian languages. As a result, they were usually blind to the nuances of some complex issues. Some were overtly partisan to one of the warring parties, while others maintained a veneer of impartiality. However, almost all of them displayed partiality towards one side or the other.

Fana Gebresenbet and Yonas Tariku, researchers at the Institute for Peace and Security Studies at Addis Ababa University, strongly criticized the role these experts played in spreading misinformation and disinformation about the Tigray war. They went so far as to name and shame some of these experts from Europe and North America, accusing them of a lack of professionalism. This sparked a debate and response from some of the accused.

Fana and Yonas observed that the tweets and opinion pieces of these experts “easily show whose side they are on and the extent to which they are willing to defend that side’s actions.” They added, “most scholars (both Ethiopians and foreigners) were reduced to mere activists rather than voices of reason and resolution.” However, considering the concerns that Ethiopia’s survival as a state was at stake, they said, “it is understandable that Ethiopian scholars inevitably had to choose a side.”^[1]

የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትር ዐቢይ አሕመድ መንገድ ጠራጊ ማናቸው?

(በፍቃዱ ኃይሉ)

ከቅርብ ጊዜ ወዲህ የዐቢይ አሕመድ እርካብና መንበር በአባዱላ ገመዳ የተቀየሰ ይመስለኝ ጀምሯል። ምክንያት አለኝ። አባዱላ በተቀናቃኞቹ ጃዋር መሐመድም፣ ዐቢይ አሕመድም አድናቆት የተቸራቸው ሰው ናቸው። 

ጃዋር መሐመድ፣ 'አልፀፀትም' በሚለው መጽሐፉ በጣም ጥቂት ሰዎችን ነው በአዎንታዊ ያነሳው። ከነዚህ ሰዎች መካከል አባዱላ ገመዳ አንዱ ናቸው። በዚህ መጽሐፉ ላይ ጃዋር እንደሚለው፣ አባ ዱላ "ኦሮሚያን ከጫፍ እስከ ጫፍ ስለሚያውቃት ስለመጣችሁበት ወረዳ ጉዳይ ቦታዎችን እና ሰዎችን በስም እየጠራ ያዋራችኋል። ይህ ሁኔታው ለሰውዬው ፖለቲካ ያላችሁን ጥላቻ ለጊዜውም ቢሆን ረስታችሁ እንድታዳምጡት ይጋብዛል። አሜሪካ ሳለሁ የሰላማዊ ትግል ስልቶችን ለመቀየሰ የአገዛዙን የውስጥ አሠራር እና አመለካከት ለመረዳት ከፍተኛ ጉጉት ስለነበረኝ ከአባዱላ እና ከሌሎች ባለሥልጣናት ጋር ያዳበርኩት ግንኙነት ጠቅሞኛል" ብሏል።  ጃዋር ከመንግሥት ለውጡ አስቀድሞ ክፍተቱን ለመሙላት የሚችል ፓርቲ እንዲያቋቁም አባ ዱላ ምክር ለግሰውት እንደነበርም ጽፏል። እሱም በበኩሉ ከኦሕዴድ መኮንኖች ጋር ሲነጋገር "ለውጡን ቢመሩ" ብሎ ከጠቆማቸው ሰዎች አንዱ አባዱላ ገመዳ ነበሩ። እርሳቸው ላይ የነበረው ብቸኛው ቅሬታ ፖለቲካው ውስጥ የቆዩ በመሆናቸው እንደ ለውጥ መሪ አይወሰዱም የሚለው ነበር። 

ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትር ዐቢይ አሕመድም የአባዱላን ሥም 'የመደመር መንገድ' በሚለው መጽሐፋቸው በአዎንታዊ መልኩ አንስተውታል። ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ በዚህ መጽሐፍ ለውጡ እንዴት እንደመጣ ያትታሉ። ሆኖም እኛ የምናውቀውን "ቲም ለማ" ጭራሹኑ አይጠቅሱትም። ይልቁንስ "መጋቢታውያን" እያሉ በሚጠሯቸው፣ በእርሳቸው እና ደመቀ መኮንን ተጠንስሶ ስለተከናወነው ለውጥ ይተርካሉ። እዚህ መጽሐፍ ላይ ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ከአባዱላ ገመዳ “የተለየ ቅርበትና ወዳጅነት” እንደነበራቸው ጽፈዋል። ሌላው ቀርቶ ጄነራል ከማል ገልቹ እና ኮሎኔል አበበ ገረሱ ሠራዊቱን ከድተው የኤርትራ አማፂያንን ሊቀላቀሉ ሲሄዱ እንዳነጋገሯቸውና፣ አባዱላና እሳቸው በችግሩ ቢግባቡም የትግል ስልቱ ከውስጥ መሆን አለበት ብለው እንደወሰኑ በመጥቀስ ፈረንጆቹ እንደሚሉት “partners in crime” (ለወንጀል የሚተማመኑ ወዳጆች) እንደነበሩ ፍንጭ ይሰጡናል።

ዛሬ የብልፅግና ቁንጮ ተፅዕኖ ፈጣሪ የሆኑ ሰዎች ወይ ኦሮሞ አልያም ፕሮቴስታንት ናቸው። ስለዚህ ሁኔታ ከአንድ እጅግ ተፅዕኖ ፈጣሪ የኦሮሞ ፖለቲከኛ ጋር ስናወራ የነገረኝም ነገር በዚህም የአባዱላን ተፅዕኖ ሊኖር እንደሚችል ይጠቁማል። 'አባዱላ፣ የኦሮሞ ብሔርተኝነት ከኢስላሚስት ንቅናቄ ጋር እየተጋባ ሲቸግራቸው፥ የኦሮሞ ብሔርተኝነት ከኦርቶዶክስ ክርስትና ጋር ተኳርፏል፣ ከኢስላሚስቶች ጋር መወዳጀቱ ደግሞ ዓለም ዐቀፍ ቅቡልነት ይነሳዋል፣ ስለዚህ ፕሮቴስታንት ኦሮሞዎች ቢመሩት ይሻላል ብለው በማሰብ እነ ዐቢይ አሕመድን ወደ ፊት አመጧቸው' ብሎኛል። 

ተርዬ ኧስተበ (Terje Østebø) ባለፈው ግንቦት ባሳተመው ጥናታዊ ጽሑፉ ላይ ይህንን  የሚያጠናክር ሐተታ "አባዱላ... ብዙ ክርስቲያኖችን ወደፊት በማምጣት በምዕራባውያን ዘንድ የኦሮሞ ፖለቲካ ልኂቃኖች የሙስሊሞች የበላይነት አለበት የሚለውን ገጽታ ለማስተካከል ሞክረዋል" በማለት ጽፏል። አባዱላ ወደ ፊት ካመጧቸው ፕሮቴስታንቶች  ውስጥ ለማ መገርሳ፣ ሽመልስ አብዲሳ፣ አዳነች አቤቤንና ራሳቸው ዐቢይ አሕመድን ጨምሮ ብዙዎቹ ፕሮቴስታንቶች ነበሩ ይላሉ ተመራማሪው። አባዱላም እኤአ በ2009 ከኦርቶዶክስ ወደ ፕሮቴስታንት መቀየራቸውን ጥናቱ ይጠቅሳል። 

ፋክት መጽሔት ላይ፣ ጋዜጠኛ ተመስገን ደሳለኝ ከለውጡ ዓመታት በፊት ዐቢይ አሕመድ የማዕከላዊ ኮሚቴን ተቀላቅለው የአባዱላን ውለታ ለመመለስ እየሠሩ ነው በሚል በጨረፍታ ይጠቅሳቸዋል። በወቅቱ የጋዜጠኛው ግምት አባዱላ በኢሕአዴግ የውስጥ ለውስጥ ሽኩቻ ዐቢይን እየተጠቀሙበት እንደሆነ ነበር። ሆኖም፣ እርሳቸው ዐቢይን ወደ ፊት እያመጡ፣ ወይም ዐቢይ ለራሳቸው መንገድ እየጠረጉ፣ ወይም እርስ በርስ እየተናበቡ እየሠሩ ይሁን አይሁን ለማረጋገጥ ይከብደናል። ነገር ግን በውጤቱ ስንመዝነው፣ በአንድም በሌላም መልኩ አባዱላ ለዐቢይ አሕመድ እርካቡ ነበሩ ማለት የምንችል ይመስለኛል።

The Return to Rule by Law: The Case of Draft CSO Law in Ethiopia

(Befekadu Hailu)

[The original version of this piece is written in Amharic; please read the Amharic version for accuracy.]

The Ministry of Justice in Ethiopia introduced a draft revision of the Civil Society Organizations Proclamation, which was adopted in 2019. This law, which was enacted in the wake of Ethiopia’s political transition, replaced the previous “repressive” proclamation. However, the gradual erosion of the rights granted in the Proclamation of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and other proclamations issued during the transition period has raised serious concerns. In this brief article, I will provide an overview of the journey of regression in legal reforms that we once cherished a few years ago. I will also present a comparison of the revised draft with the current and the repealed proclamations, allowing readers to make their judgments.

Introduction

The Advisory Council for Legal and Judiciary Reform, established in 2018, was tasked with reviewing dozens of repressive laws through a process that involved several task forces of experts, stakeholders’ consultations, and popular consent. The most significant achievement in the last political transition was the revision of these repressive laws. Among the laws reviewed by the council were the Proclamation on Civil Society Organizations, the Proclamation on Anti-Terrorism, the Proclamation on Media, and the Proclamation on Election and Political Parties. Indeed, the process was not without its flaws; the drafts prepared by the experts were first reviewed by the Attorney General, then by the Council of Ministers, with some of the original drafts of some provisions amended, and then by the House of People’s Representatives; on the other hand, drafts such as the “Freedom of Access to Information” bill were never approved at all. However, the laws that were drafted by the Council’s task forces and approved by the House had better public acceptance. It was believed that this period would replace the previous rule by law or legal repression with the rule of law.

Soon after (as the transitional government began to consolidate its power and engage in power struggles with its adversaries), it began to narrow the civil space that had started to improve under the law through illegal restrictions; we have seen the laws being violated on several occasions. For example, although the law specifies that the board members of the Ethiopian Media Authority should not be appointed from a political party, it was openly violated, and members of the Prosperity Party were appointed. Similarly, ACSO imposed a not-legally-sound suspension on five local CSOs. Now, the issue has further escalated, and the laws have been subjected to governmental scrutiny, without assessing their effectiveness on society and governance. The draft revision of the Media Law and the Civil Society Organizations Proclamation are examples of this regression. It has been previously reported that the revision of the Media Law extends the authority of the executive branch of the government and narrows the civic space.

The Repression of CSOs

The amendment of the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) law in 2019 was welcomed by almost all stakeholders. However, as conflicts proliferated across Ethiopia and as civil society members began to hold the government accountable, the government turned its back on them. Furthermore, CSOs were particularly targeted during the Tigray conflict. The crackdown on CSOs included international aid organizations. Three international organizations were suspended during the Tigray war, amid allegations of spreading disinformation. The local Peace and Development Center (PDC) was also suspended, and its leaders were briefly imprisoned.

Following the cessation of hostilities in the Tigray war through a peace agreement, and the subsequent escalation of the Amhara region conflict, ACSO suspended the registration of human rights organizations for several months without providing any specific reasons. In addition, existing organizations were subjected to bureaucratic pressure to change their objectives related to rights and democracy when they attempted to amend their bylaws. Individuals claiming to be members of the security forces have also begun to target and intimidate members and leaders of CSOs. As a result, many leaders and members of civil society organizations were forced into exile.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Abiy, in his July 2024 Q&A with the House of People’s Representatives, called for a review of the human rights proclamation, institutions, and practices. In his speech, he made a sweeping statement, saying, “I won’t tell you what will happen if we allow a force that we don’t pay salaries to, but other forces have, and that reports to other forces.” This speech sent a shock wave to CSO members. A few months after the Prime Minister made his allegation, the Authority of CSOs (ACSO) suspended five human rights organizations for about three to four months, citing political reasons. Although the suspension was lifted through the mediation of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, all CSOs have continued to experience the chilling effect and operate below their capacity.  

Eventually, the Ministry of Justice has finalized its preparations for revising the CSOs Proclamation and is facilitating consultation forums among selected groups. The revised draft, in addition to narrowing the civic space, is similar to the repealed law due to its repressive provisions. To illustrate the stark contrast, I have picked four examples and presented them for comparison as follows.