Diversity is not the root causes of conflicts

February15, 2016 (GSN) - Despite some very simplistic analyses from political commentators diversity is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for conflict. The sole fact that a country has diverse ethnic, collective, religious, and national groups doesn't make conflicts and clashes certain.

Realistic evidence shows that disunion and conflict are not reliant on the degree of diversity as some of the most diverse countries, (e.g. Switzerland, Belgium, Malaysia and Tanzania) enjoy relative peace and stability while some less diverse countries are the most unstable, (e.g. Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi and, Sri Lanka). It all depends on how the state manages the circumstances, and the extent to which diversity is politicized

The phenomenon of ethnicity has been used to cover many of types of political conflict that are distinguished not merely by the changing aspects of competition between competing groups but also by the very importance of ethnicity itself. In reality, the same label is used as an umbrella for several types of conflict.

Resource conflicts

Competition for resources had shown itself primarily in the form of pastoralist conflicts and clashes over scarce resources of land. Pastoralist conflicts have a lengthy history and occurred in the lowland areas of the country mostly in the Afar, Oromia, and Somalia regions.

For example between Sidama and Guji, in the south Omo between Ari and lowland pastoralists, in the east and center between Kereyu and Afar pastoralists and Oromo and Amhara peasants. Amhara-Afar resource centered conflicts are also prevalent in the western and southwestern parts. The Amhara-Afar conflicts are generally triggered by the gradual expansion of Amhara farmers into Afar territories. It was indicated by Afar elders at Daleti and Harihammo that conflicts usually break at places called Horoyti, Beteskan, and Da’oda where the nearby Afar clans claim ownership. Frequent clashes are witnessed during the main cropping season (meher), when every piece of land is covered by crop, as the Amhara farmers try to move into Afar grazing areas. Furthermore, conflicts are common during drought years when each group wants to be careful of its grazing resources.

The Afar-Issa conflict is age-old and has been persistent through generations. Originally, the conflict was marked by recurrent minor clashes among sub-clans competing for pasture and water. Later, particularly during the post-Italian aggression, the conflict evolved to armed clashes among clan members. Similar conflicts had persisted between both ethnic groups during the Imperial and Derg regimes. At present, competition for resources intersects with disputes over borders and markets. Clashes between the Garre Somalis and the Borana Oromos were often caused by deep competition over resources such as grazing area and water that have become more and more scarce due to demographic pressures and environmental dilapidation.

There had been similar encounters in South Omo and Bench-Maji Zones of the SNNPRS. The conflicts in these areas were caused by seasonal confrontations over grazing land and cattle raids that provoke further attacks and counter attacks. Environmental degradation and its consequential impact of recurent droughts as well as scarcity of water and pasture are the major causes behind the conflicts in these areas. On top of these, cultural factors such as the hero cult and blood feuds contribute to escalation of conflicts. These are similar conflicts between zones and weredas of the SNNPRS such as those between Sidama and Borena, Borena and Hamer.

Conflicts caused by competition over resources have also occurred between two or more clans of the same ethnic group. For example, in the Somali Region, inter-clan rivalry often entails violent clashes and cattle raids. This usually results in homicides which in turn give rise to blood feuds. Food aid, as a major resource, is also emerging as a new factor in aggravating inter-clan conflicts in the region. Clan members live on permanent settlements which have access to food aid, and that leads to conflict with those who claim the new settlement areas as their resource base. Competition over new development establishments, like water dams, is also becoming new causes of conflicts. The Daror conflict which escalated in February 2007 and led to the death of about 200 people was caused by a dispute over where to construct the Hafir Dam.

Fiscal Imbalance

Poverty has been the major challenge facing the Ethiopian state in the last millennium. Moreover, unequal development in terms of natural resources, skilled manpower, high-tech level, physical infrastructures, capability to provide basic services, percapita income, and fiscal imbalances among the regions of the country have re-reinforced the poverty of the country’s various ethnic groups. Regions including Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambella, Somali, Afar, and the lowland areas of Oromia did not benefit from the economic development during the previous regimes. The four regional states of Afar, Somali, Benishangul-Gumuz, and Gambella continue to be regarded as marginalized and ‘emergent’ in view of their relatively low levels of capacity, stability, resources, and physical infrastructure and basic public utilities. The acute historical marginalization of these regions is greatly reduced under a federal arrangement designed to undo the ill effects of the past.

Ethiopian constitution calls for fair economic and wealth distribution between the regions and ethnic groups of the nation. The House of Federation has used a budget grant formula to allocate funds to regions using the considerations of population size (65%), expenditure needs (25%) and revenue raising capacity (10%) of the Regional States. Affirmative action's have been taken to support underdeveloped Regional States of the country. Consequently, peripheral regions were awarded five percent to the disparity in growth.

Local Administrations and Conflict Management

State and local governments have a major duty to manage conflicts through joint/inter-governmental collaborative mechanisms. While establishment of broad institutional mechanism of intergovernmental relationship is ongoing through the cooperation of all concerned, presently, there are several forums and councils by which regional states and the federal government encounter and resolve mutual problems. These include a Joint House Speakers Forum (for speakers of the federal houses and regional councils), Education Professionals Forum, the Forums of Dialogue between the House of Federation and each Regional State, Prosecutors’ Joint Forum, the Council of Judges, the Five Eastern Adjoining Regional States Joint Forum, the Oromia and Somali Regional States Joint Cooperation Forum, Afar and Tigray, and Afar and Amhara Cooperation Forums, Amhara and Benishangul Gumuz Joint Cooperation Forum, and the SNNPRS and Gambella Joint Forum. Besides, they have a duty to promote harmonious inter-cultural relationship.

The said federative standard, however, would not seem to have been fully valued by some, if not all, of the State and local government officials. The officials have not been in a position to develop a legal framework and provide institutional support in line with the Constitution which calls for ensuring smooth relationships between the peoples of the country and the free mobility of individuals from one State to another. One, they more often than not espouse parochial views and much more localized interests that can incite conflicts. For another, they have neither the capacity nor the awareness of conflict management mechanisms. Consequently, conflicts, in some of the State and local governments, tend to be reinforced rather than managed effectively. Recent measures taken by the Ministry of Federal Affairs with a view to building the conflict management capability of the State and local government executives are commendable, none the less.

Another reason is that those States that have a pull factor for more new settlements do not have clear guidelines on how to utilize the ample natural resources within their respective States. That’s why settlements on the assets of the indigenous community by new migrants always tend to breed new conflicts. The difficulty can be attributed to the State and local government authorities’ lack of consciousness of and commitment to rights of citizenship. It has also to do with their inability to draw up legal frameworks and guideline for the use of natural resources.

If State governments were to collaborate, violence could easily be halted with least human and material cost. A case in point is the Metekel zone of the Benishangul-Gumuz and the Awi zone of the Amhara States. There had been violent conflicts that led to many deaths and dislocations in both states in 1993 and 1994. These conflicts were started by lack of awareness of the newly introduced federal arrangement in the country and incitements of ethnic cleansing of the non-indigenous settlers in the Metekel zone by the indigenous community. There are still outstanding disputes of land ownership in the borders between both zones of the States. There are around 10,000 illegal migrants per annum crossing the borders of the Amhara State into the Metekel zone of the Benishangul-Gumuz State. Although the potential for conflict was there, no violent conflict break out between the two States so far owing to the manner they coped their relations.

Another area that demands cooperation among State governments in Ethiopia is the regulation of traffic in small arms. Illicit trade in small arms in the adjoining areas between Ethiopia and Somalia increased after the collapse of the Siad Barre regime in Somalia in 1991. This has posed a serious threat to the pastoralists of Ethiopia. The year 1991 also marked the downfall of the Derg regime in Ethiopia. The armed struggle against the Derg has also left in the hands of the most of the farmers and some of the urban dwellers a mountain of small arms to their disposal. Illicit arms trade from the Sudan through the common borders of the Benishangul-Gumuz and Amhara States have played a main role in the growing traffic in small arms, aggravating the outcomes of violent conflicts in the regions of Benishangul-Gumuz, Amhara, and Oromia.

According to Federal Police records, there were, between 1996 and 1998, a total of 15 incidents of cattle raids perpetrated by individuals carrying small arms. The Federal Police statistics for the year 2006 showed that 6,319,630 ETB was robbed by individuals armed with small weapons.130 The increased possession of small arms has aggravated resource- and power-based conflicts among such ethnic groups as between the Gumuz and Oromos, Afar and Issa, etc. Violent conflicts between ethnic groups have resulted in immense human and material cost.

Constitutional Conflict Management Mechanisms

The FDRE Constitution bestows sovereign powers with the nations, nationalities, and peoples of the country. All nations, nationalities, and peoples have fair representation in the House of Federation (HoF), which is vested with the ultimate power to interpret the constitution. The House of Federation, as a representative of the country’s diverse ethnic groups, will act in the best interest of the nations, nationalities, and peoples in discharging its duties as the final arbiter of constitutionality.

The HoF presently has 112 members drawn from 69 nations, nationalities and peoples across the country represented in the 9 state councils. It is the most important and relevant constitutional organ for conflict management. The Federal House was created to maintain and develop the cooperation, partnership and consensual relationships of Ethiopia’s ethnic communities on the basis of equality and respect for their diversity while realizing their commitment to uphold the constitution. The competences of the House are, therefore, directly linked with the need to maintain and promote the constitutional compact of Ethiopia’s ethnic communities.

The HoF has the power to investigate and order Federal intervention in the Regional States provided that it has reason to believe that the constitutional order has been endangered and that peaceful means to avoid the danger has been left out by virtue of Articles 13 and 14 of Proclamation No.359/2003.

The Federal legislature has also directly participated in conflict management through investigations conducted by the Human Rights Commission and by sending MPs to the conflict zones. The Federal government intervenes in the internal affairs of the States under a variety of circumstances to give effective protection and remedies to victims of human rights violations. Upon request by a regional state council or the highest executive organ to the Prime Minister through the Ministry of Federal Affairs, the Federal Government intervenes where grave and deteriorating security conditions in Regional States occur. The Federal Police or National Defense Forces intervenes to assist regional law enforcement organs to maintain law and order through the use of appropriate measures proportionate to the circumstances.

The Ministry of Federal Affairs in collaboration with the House of Federation plays an important role in maintaining peace and order in the Regional States. For instance, in situations where the constitutional order of a Regional State is jeopardized, the Ministry has the power to give recommendations to the Prime Minister as to whether to assign temporarily the Federal Government personnel for the resumption of regular activities of the region where the capacity of the executive organ of the Region is impaired by the measures taken against officials of the Regional government pursuant to Article 14(3) (a) of Proclamation No 359/2003. Morover, the Ministry has the competence to receive requests for Federal intervention from the Regional States where any Region faces a deteriorating security situation and unable to arrest it on its own.

Public discussions including heads of regional states are held at various levels to prevent the occurrence of and/or provide lasting remedies to ethnic conflicts, at regional states, zonal, and other lower administrative levels. The conferences are organized by governmental and non-governmental organizations. These conferences and discussions help eliminate misconceptions among ethnic groups and contribute towards building lasting peace.

Diversity as a Solution

Many spectators, both Ethiopian and foreign, predicted, at the time of its adoption, that the country’s experiment with ethnic-federalism would be a failure. Its critics argued that politics would become increasingly ethnicized, as long as administrative boundaries and representation in the federal parliament were determined on the basis of ethnicity, and the extreme emphasis on the principle of national self-determination would lead to fractionalization and possibly state failure. This pessimism was to be expected at the time, particularly given that two of the only federal systems to ever grant constituent units the formal right of secession—Yugoslavia and the USSR—had both dissolved in recent years, with the bloody process in the former continuing as Ethiopians proceeded to draw up their new constitution.

However, nearly two decades after introduction of ethnic-federalism, not even a single ethnic group has invoked the constitutionally protected right of secession and, even though ethnic-based opposition activities and complaints of systematic discrimination continue, the country has avoided the level of extensive, brutal inter-ethnic conflict and anarchic central collapse that has plagued two of its neighbors—the Sudan and Somalia, respectively. Specific minority ethnic groups, once dominated by the ethnic group associated with the imperial monarchy, now have greater opportunity to educate children in indigenous languages, run local bureaucracies, and make more decisions about their own economic and social affairs. In these senses, Ethiopian ethnic-federalism can be considered a triumph.

What makes the answers presented by multi-national federalism pertinent to Ethiopia is the long-standing demands for managing the problems originating from diversity in Ethiopia— problems of uneven development of groups and inequitable social and political relations. Viewed from this angle, multi-national federalism is the only way to peace and development in Ethiopia. It is the only way to manage the Ethiopian ethnic diversity peacefully and democratically.

 

 

 

Connect with us