It was interesting to watch the 2015 election debates on important and controversial topics chosen in advance. The participating party leaders were out to stress on their fundamental policy differences with the ruling party to the extent of deviating from the issues that the government wants to focus as tangible and convincing achievements of social and structural developments in various sectors in the last decades. One of them was about Ethiopia's choice to go federal. Based on what some of the candidates consider disconcerting, I have a good reason to believe in some cases people may end up getting confused. A good example is the debate on the pros and cons of implementing the federal system in Ethiopia. The name "The Federal Government of Ethiopia" was meant to imply the system has already been in practice since the inception of the EPRDF as a ruling party. However, the debates reflected the people may not be at ease with the system; namely the way the government may be imposing on the people instead of nurturing federalism from bottom up. In my view this may show the symptoms of imperfection of making the federal system work than the negative implications of a failed process. If this is the case, then it is a normal trend for any working system that has to be truly tested to sustain as a transition rather than an end in itself. The main factors that invigorate a system are the patterns it shows either as a conforming or a suppressing instrument in response to changing realities on the ground. The fact that it hasn't progressed into a hasty disintegration of the country itself is a good proof that the motive is not meant or did not succeed (if any) to cause polarizations among ethnic groups.
That said, all candidates displayed a commendable knowledge about what the global picture of introducing federalism to differing countries with different realities would be. They tried to get to the nitty gritty of how many countries followed the federal system and how many failed in doing so. But they fell short of scientifically(is there one yet?)approaching the reasons why federalism succeeded in some countries and failed in others. In some cases it seemed some candidates had an honest outlook of why federalism should work smoothly in Ethiopia or otherwise. The reason given by one of the EPRDF spokesmen, for instance was; as long as people have the basic freedoms, they won't have to stick to the divisive motto of cessation because there is no need for it. In other words, they won't secede just because the freedom to do so is mentioned in article 39 of the constitution. Although this has proven to be a working principle for cooling down tempers, it always depended on who says it. So many countries may have the same or similar articles in their constitutions but the outcome proved to be devastatingly negative in some countries. The main reason is usually the fact that the opposing groups can have the ability to magnify the slightest imperfections if they think they are not welcome in the system. So, the devil is in the details. The other factors are based on how well the economy performs and how strong the government functions in terms of containing conflicts and opposing views of these nature using effective political and security defensive mechanisms.
With that in mind, it looks like the notion that Ethiopia was never created without regional snse shows in the peoples' wisdom to focus their attentions on the substantial growth of the over all economy and hence the infrastructure of the country as the sole basis to prove federalism works on their behalf.
There were also other debates, namely one that caught my attention was the foreign policy relating to the competence of the regime in running an effective foreign policy with capable representatives that can defend the country's interest when needed. The main agenda, however delayed, was about the problems with the sea outlets and the opportunities missed during the boundary decisions made in Algiers that left the country landlocked. The other most current issue that depicts a failing foreign policy the dire situation and fatalities involving those who chose to flee the country into worse and uninviting foreign lands.
Until history judges who is on the right side, the events that show desperation or on the other hand, the unsuspecting naivete of the citizens who choose to flee the system by all means are open for debate,
That said, all candidates displayed a commendable knowledge about what the global picture of introducing federalism to differing countries with different realities would be. They tried to get to the nitty gritty of how many countries followed the federal system and how many failed in doing so. But they fell short of scientifically(is there one yet?)approaching the reasons why federalism succeeded in some countries and failed in others. In some cases it seemed some candidates had an honest outlook of why federalism should work smoothly in Ethiopia or otherwise. The reason given by one of the EPRDF spokesmen, for instance was; as long as people have the basic freedoms, they won't have to stick to the divisive motto of cessation because there is no need for it. In other words, they won't secede just because the freedom to do so is mentioned in article 39 of the constitution. Although this has proven to be a working principle for cooling down tempers, it always depended on who says it. So many countries may have the same or similar articles in their constitutions but the outcome proved to be devastatingly negative in some countries. The main reason is usually the fact that the opposing groups can have the ability to magnify the slightest imperfections if they think they are not welcome in the system. So, the devil is in the details. The other factors are based on how well the economy performs and how strong the government functions in terms of containing conflicts and opposing views of these nature using effective political and security defensive mechanisms.
With that in mind, it looks like the notion that Ethiopia was never created without regional snse shows in the peoples' wisdom to focus their attentions on the substantial growth of the over all economy and hence the infrastructure of the country as the sole basis to prove federalism works on their behalf.
There were also other debates, namely one that caught my attention was the foreign policy relating to the competence of the regime in running an effective foreign policy with capable representatives that can defend the country's interest when needed. The main agenda, however delayed, was about the problems with the sea outlets and the opportunities missed during the boundary decisions made in Algiers that left the country landlocked. The other most current issue that depicts a failing foreign policy the dire situation and fatalities involving those who chose to flee the country into worse and uninviting foreign lands.
Until history judges who is on the right side, the events that show desperation or on the other hand, the unsuspecting naivete of the citizens who choose to flee the system by all means are open for debate,
Posts
