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.
