Protection of indigenous minority voting rights in the Ethiopian electoral system:
The case of Harari National Assembly
By Fathe Mahdi WOZIRaa† & Muluneh Kassa ERESSO b
4. The concept of indigenous and minority people
Indigenous and minority people have many similarities and share many common characteristics. For example, Shaheen & Javaid (2001: 7) noted in support of this argument that “from a substantive and practical standpoint, indigenous people tend to exemplify the minority syndrome‒historical records attest to systematic persecution, discrimination, and genocide suffered by minorities and indigenous peoples in tandem.” Furthermore, according to the report of Minority Rights Group International (1997), a number of minority groups, like the indigenous people, were exterminated, while the survivors were conquered or subjugated.
In fact, as for many other terminologies, there is no universally accepted identification criterion to determine which societies are indigenous and which are not in each state. Nonetheless, after Second World War, different countries used the terms in reference to human societies in their own unique local context. In western countries, the dividing line between indigenous peoples and others is not clear or precise. In some states, the extent to which a group has played a role in the process of state formation is an important distinguishing feature for determining whether certain people are indigenous or nonindigenous (Kymlicka in Kymlicka & He, 2005, 48). This criterion, however, is not universally applicable in all western countries.
The special UN rapporteur Mr. Martinez Cobo (1972) defined the term indigenous people as follow: “Indigenous populations are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them, by conquest, settlement or other means, reduced them to a non‒dominant or colonial condition; who today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form part, under a state structure which incorporates mainly national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant”.
The term indigenous is associated with colonialism in the context of international laws such as the ILO Convention, UDHR, ICESCR, ICCPR, and DRIP, particularly colonialism undertaken by external states while excluding domestic aspects of colonization. Hence, Kymlicka connected this view with the ‘saltwater thesis’ of European colonization of other states (Kymlicka in Kymlicka & He, 2005). Therefore, pertaining to the assumption, all Indian and white people residing in South Africa by colonial operation have been considered as nonindigenous people, while only the black South African people are indigenous people in the context of South Africa. Based on the above mentioned international laws, one can clearly claim that all Ethiopian nations, nationalities and peoples can be considered as indigenous people because Ethiopia is the only African state which was not colonized by an external body.
Others associate the term “indigenous people” with political exclusion, economic marginalization, cultural vulnerability, geographical isolation, and long‒standing settlement (Kingsbury 1995, 1999). To be precise, the basic criterion to define certain groups as indigenous and non‒indigenous is not uniform in all countries; the terminology has been used in different countries and enshrined in international laws. Recognition of the rights of indigenous people in international law is often framed as a condition of deepening democratic citizenship. Hence, some countries in the world accept the usefulness and validity of the term as others continue to resist it. “But the term punctuates the political landscape in developed and developing countries, in the east and in the west. Its politics revolves around four different types of claims: participation and representation; access to resources; autonomy and self‒government; and the protection of language and culture” (Jung, 2008, 184).
Despite numerous attempts to develop a definition of the term “minority”, no agreement has been reached on the definitional issue. The most recent and significant effort to define a “minority” was made by Special Rapporteur Francesco Capotorti. According to Capotorti, a minority is “a group numerically smaller than the rest of the population of the state to which it belongs and possessing cultural, physical, or historical characteristics, a religion, or a language different from the rest of the population” (Capotorti, 1978, 7). Therefore, according to Capotorti’s definition of minority, no single ethnic group constitutes a majority in Ethiopia. Beken (2010) also noted in this context that under Capotorti’s definition, all “nations, nationalities, and peoples” in Ethiopia can be considered ethnic minorities. At this point, we can also conclude that Ethiopia is a collection of ethnic minorities because no single ethnic group constitutes 50+1 percent of the country’s total population.
In contrast, according to Capotorti’s definition, a single ethnic group constitutes the majority in some Ethiopian regional states. For instance, Tigray is the majority in Tigray regional state, Amhara in Amhara regional state, Oromo in Oromia regional state, Afar in Afar regional state, Somali in Somali regional state, and Sidama in Sidama regional state. On the other hand, no single ethnic group constitutes a majority in the remaining four regional states (i.e. Benishangul Gumuz, Gamballa and Southern nation nationalities regional states), including Harari national regional state. As a result, in terms of the minority and majority scenarios, the Harari regional state is comprised of ethnic minorities.
5. Mechanisms of the protection of minority rights
Ethnic diversities are viewed as a burden in African countries. However, diversity as a social fact always existed in the world‒at‒large but it becomes a “problem” mainly when it exists within the territory of a state (Akhtar et al. in Watts & Chattopadhyay, 2008). There are two main reasons why ethno‒linguistic diversity within the state territory becomes a problem. One, when social, cultural, or racial differences become the basis of group inequality (Akhtar et al. in Watts & Chattopadhyay, 2008). Two, when different groups perceive one another as inferiors or superiors. Hence, in the current political dynamics, particularly since WWII, managing diversity has emerged as the foremost overarching and urgent issue in ethnically heterogeneous states. There are different mechanisms that can be used to protect the rights of ethnic minorities in plural states. For instance, recognition, representation, providing autonomy and power sharing.
In Ethiopia, ethnic–federalism has been opted as the institutional arrangement primarily to address the challenges of ethnic diversity. Regional states are also responsible in this context for recognizing and promoting existing diversity based on their own local context. When seeking better constitutional accommodation within a multinational state, the aspirations of sub‒state national societies touch upon both legal and political elements (Stephen, 2004). One example of the former is the amendment (or the re‒interpretation) of the formal constitution, whereas the political elements can be identified in the refinement of constitutional conventions, practices and principles, or the political culture and value system informing the given constitution (Stephen, 2004). There are various mechanisms that can be used to manage ethnic diversity. The major areas to which sub‒state national societies aspire regarding diversity management. Such as providing regional autonomy or constitutional devolution of power, constitutional recognition of diversity, power sharing or consociationalism, and representation or participation in various institutions.
5.1. Federalism or allowing territorial autonomy
With the exception of Canada and Switzerland, most of the early federations did not use federalism to address issues of ethnic diversity. However, after the cold war, many multinational states attempted to use federalism as a tool to manage ethno‒linguistic conflicts. Federalism as a political idea has become increasingly important as a way of peacefully reconciling the principles of unity and diversity usually in multi–national states. Actually, federalism is a very important state structure for achieving both unity and diversity by accommodating, preserving and promoting distinct identities within a larger political union (Elazar, 1987). In supporting this argument, as stated earlier, Anderson (2008: 12) also asserted that, “federalism seems suited to democracies with large populations or territories with highly diverse populations that are regionally concentrated”. Various scholars continuously claim that one of the most important and effective means to manage the ethnic conflicts in multinational societies is a federal system. Federalism is a constitutional device that could be used in managing ethnic diversity.
Naturally, federal solutions for managing ethno‒linguistic diversity are inextricably linked to territorial approaches to diversity management. It is a mechanism aimed at granting a certain level of territorial autonomy to a group that differs from the majority of the state’s population and though constitutes the majority in a specific region (Lapidoth, 1997). Accordingly, this mechanism includes the right for the population of the designated autonomous territory to elect its own legislature. It also gives them the authority to take charge of executive, judicial and administrative functions. Nevertheless, the applicability of a federal solution depends, therefore, on the degree to which ethnic diversity is geographically concentrated and so can be territorially demarcated (Watts, 2000).
According to Stephen (2004), sub‒state ethnic groups demand asymmetry, or self‒governing rights, in the context of autonomy. Autonomy in this context means that regional or sub‒national societies might seek additional or distinctive powers in comparison to the rest of the country, and these powers should be constitutionally entrenched. These powers usually allow regional societies to autonomously manage specific issues that are of particular interest to them and that are limited to domestic policy areas (from education to social policies, economic development and cultural aspects, etc. (Nicola & Lecours, 2008). In other words, these groups demand some form of political autonomy or territorial jurisdiction, so as to ensure the full and free development of their cultures and the best interest of their people (Kymlicka, 1995). Some scholars have talked in this regard of strengthening the minorities’ voice at the periphery (Nicola & Lecours, 2008) and this can be done through different tools, including devolutionof powers or a federal system (in cases where a federal structure is not yet in place) (Nicola & Lecours, 2008). In both cases, this solution might entail a significant change in the structure of the state (Nicola & Lecours, 2008).
There are a number of arguments that scholars usually advance to refute asymmetrical treatment for national societies (Stephen, 2004). According to the first theory or idea, a modern developed government should be more concerned with political efficiency rather than with cultural or national recognition (Stephen, 2004). The second argument resists asymmetry on the ground that it might endanger the mono‒national vision of the state; consequently, symmetrical solutions are encouraged so that sub‒state national societies are not perceived as distinctive (Stephen, 2004). Finally, according to the third idea, asymmetry should be discouraged since it might help promote secessionist tendencies inside the given territory, (Stephen, 2004) or create “first‒and second‒class citizens” (Kymlicka & Norman, 2000). Thus, asymmetrical solutions are not always easy to implement, and at times they might not be easily accepted by the rest of the country: In fact, one other problem that can emerge, in addition to the three described above, is that asymmetry might fuel sentiments of suspiciousness and hatred among those communities who do not belong to the regional state.