The Case for a Federal Republic of Zimbabwe: Why Zimbabwe Should be a Federal Republic

This is Chapter One of my next book, The Case for a Federal Republic of Zimbabwe: A Manifesto for the Liberation of a Great People with a Proud History Part II

The case for the Federal Republic of Zimbabgwe, what? Federalism divides nations! Zimbabgwe is too small for being a Federation! No, it will lead to secession and disintegration of the country! We have too small a population for Federalism! It will never see the light of day in this country! We are a unitary state, and that unites us, we cannot afford the problems brought about by Federalism!

Such are the comments one often meets in the Zimbabgwean political discourse whenever the subject of federalism is raised. From online chatrooms to Facebook groups to some political commentators and political elites, one hears the rallying cry that federalism, or even devolution of power, is a bad idea for Zimbabgwe. But well, the good thing is that such voices are a very small minority in the country. We know from the Copac outreach program for the country's latest constitution-making process that the majority of Zimbabgweans, an average of 62.5% in such provinces as Matebeleland[1], Midlands, Manicaland and Maswingo, are in favor of some kind of federalism. The present talk is about devolution of power and not full-blown federalism, though we know in all truth that devolution of power is in itself a kind of limited federalism. For some strange reason few are willing to admit that we are actually talking of limited federalism when we talk devolution of power. In this book, I want to go beyond the devolution talk and make what I believe will be strong case for the establishment of Zimbabgwe as a full-blown Federal Republic - the Federal Republic of Zimbabgwe.         

But, what is Federalism? Let me give a definition of the concept from the definition supplied by the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. It states that: Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists."

Federalism usually happens in three major ways, and according to Forumfed.org, federations come into being as follows:

v In some cases, coming together was central to the emergency of a new, federal country. Previously separate units - independent states or colonies - concluded that they had enough common interest and shared identity to join together in a federal arrangement. The federal structure was preferred because it permitted each unit to preserve some of its autonomy while pulling other aspects in the new community.

v In other cases, the country may have originally been created with a unitary or highly centralized (often authoritarian and undemocratic) structure. The eventual choice of federalism was in response to democratic political pressures for devolution because of the country's multiple languages, religions or ethnicities, and perhaps major economic differences between regions. In some countries, the regions pressing for autonomy may have been distinct political entities in the past.  

v In yet other cases, these two processes combined. Canada emerged from the creation of Ontario and Quebec out of a previously unitary regime and from the addition of new provinces. India too combined these two processes.             

A look at the three origins of federalism presented above shows that the second one fits the Zimbabgwean situation hand-in-glove. This second reason for federations coming into being and the definition of federalism alone should be enough to make Zimbabgweans of every creed, color, ethnicity and political persuasion to rally around the rebuilding of Zimbabgwe as a federal republic. But alas, there are amongst us, as in any given human society, those unitarists who believe that federalism is the second most evil thing in the cosmos after Satan himself. For the sake of such we shall have to spend acres of space building a case for federalism in Zimbabgwe. Before going into details about the specific type of federalism proposed in this book, that is, Ethnolinguistic Federalism, let us begin by laying out the benefits and advantages of Federalism in general as a system or organization of government. These are as follows:

1.     Federalism enables States or peoples who differ a good deal from one another or have different backgrounds to join together for common benefits, without some of the States or groups being required to obey unquestionably whatever the largest state or population group orders. In this sense, federalism protects minority rights - the rights of communities or whole regions to maintain their customs, their diversity and individuality, their self-rule. Federalism enables communities with diverse cultures, languages and interests to cooperate on many matters, without having to resort to forcing everyone to look or behave the same way. Federalism, then, is associated with "States' Rights" and is an important means for the preservation of local self-government. It is in a sense a protection against the "tyranny of the majority".[2]

       

2.     Federalism offers representation to different populations. Citizens of various states may have different aspirations, ethnicity and follow different cultures. The central government can sometimes overlook these differences and adopt policies which cater to the majority as has been happening in Zimbabgwe over the last thirty years. This is where the regional or state governments step in. While formulating policies, local needs, tastes and opinions are given due consideration by the state governments. Rights of the minorities are protected too. For example, in Bukalanga, the so-called Matebeleland, where there is diversity of languages and cultures, the State government will have the freedom to adopt policies which may not be followed nationally or by any other state. For example, there is no need to introduce policies aimed at alleviating the plight of and solving the problems faced by the San community in Manicaland because there is no such community there, as opposed to Bukalanga. Also, central government might just not be responsive to the plight of that community at all, as the last thirty years have amply showed.                                 

3.     Federalism provides that States or regions can manage their own affairs rather than being directed by a central autocracy or bureaucracy. A federal structure is particularly important in modern representative democracy. For unless there are political units on a humane scale that are not too big for citizens to understand or share in, "democracy" becomes a mere phrase. Genuine democracy requires that a good many people should participate in public concerns and be governed by representatives chosen from and accountable to the local community. People enjoy a sense of personal safety and security when they are governed by representatives drawn from their own community, who share their values, customs and mores, and are accessible for consultation, advice and assistance. It is easier to control a native son, living in the community, than a stranger residing in a distant city. In a unitary government set-up, all the decisions are made in the capital, which is more of an imperial center and it is impossible for many citizens to take any part in public affairs and it is difficult for public officials to understand local needs or to be restrained by the local population. Such a system is what may be termed a plebiscitary democracy, that is, rule by a single man or a narrow clique of administrators, endorsed perhaps by a national ballot at intervals, yet allowing the public no share in decisions beyond the opportunity to vote "yes" or "no" against the dominant regime. (And often, as has been our experience for the last thirty years in Zimbabgwe, the voter is discouraged from voting anything but "yes.") To put it all in another way, a federal structure provides means for representative democracy to operate in both regional (State) and national affairs. For this reason, federalism is an important feature of political liberty.

4.     In his famous work, On Liberty, the nineteenth-century English political philosopher John Stuart Mill presented a powerful argument against centralized bureaucratic government that illustrates the advantages of federalism from another perspective. Federalism, he observed, encourages independence and self-reliance. Using America as an example,  he noted that Americans are in every kind of civil business; let them be left without a government, every body of Americans is able to improvise one, and to carry on that or any other public business with a sufficient amount of intelligence, order and decision. This is what every free people ought to be; and a people capable of this is certain to be free; it will never let itself be enslaved by any man or body of men because these are able to seize and pull the reins of the central administration. No bureaucracy can hope to make such a people as this do or undergo anything that they do not like. But where everything is done through bureaucracy, nothing to which the bureaucracy is really adverse can be done at all. No less significant, he concluded, is the fact that decentralized government releases the creative force and genius of a free people. The absorption of all the nation's energy and ability into the central authority, said Mill, "is fatal, sooner or later, to the mental activity and progressiveness of the body itself." Government must aid and stimulate individual exertion and development or it will stultify and retard a society. "No great thing can really be accomplished" if there is a monolithic government which "substitutes its own activity for theirs; when, instead of informing, advising, and upon occasion, denouncing, it makes them work in fetters or bids them stand aside and does their work instead of them. The worth of a state, in the long run, is the individual worth of the individuals composing it." He who doubts this advantage must just take a look at the most inventive and creative countries of the world. They are free countries, and federalism is a great way of entrenching that freedom. The United States, Canada, South Africa, India, Switzerland, and others come to one's mind in this regard.                                      

5.     Federalism makes it difficult for an unjust dictator or fanatical political party to seize power nationally and rule the whole country arbitrarily, having first taken the national capital (a process which has occurred repeatedly in centralized countries). With a federal political structure, obedience to all orders from a national capital is not automatic, and State or regional leaders can resist political revolutions or coups d'état through political means, or perhaps through State militia if need be. To gain dictatorial control over Germany in the 1930s, the dictator Adolf Hitler had first to destroy the federal structure of the Weimar Republic. Totalitarianism cannot succeed where federalism thrives. We in Zimbabgwe know very well what a unitary system can do to a country, and that could easily be solved through federalism.

6.     Federalism allows States, regions, and localities to undertake reforms and experiments in political, economic, and social concerns without involving the whole country and all its resources in some project that, after all, may turn out unsatisfactorily. If it is true that "variety is the spice of life," surely a nation is interesting and lively when it has some diversity and freedom of choice in its political methods. For example, in a federal set-up, one State can plan some particular educational reform, another State can take a different approach to improving schools; and results can be compared and discussed. Or, different projects of unemployment relief, or experiments in making tax assessment more just, can be carried on in several States simultaneously and States can compete with one another in healthy fashion. In a unitary political structure, no place exists for innovation or experiment except the bureaucratic central administration, which administration is commonly complacent about its own policies.

7.     Division of work between the central and State governments leads to optimum utilization of resources. The central government can concentrate more on international affairs and defense of the country, while the state governments cater for local needs. As will be seen later, I shall be pointing out to the areas that the national or federal government will have to concentrate on in an era of the Federal Republic of Zimbabgwe.  

 

Such are the many advantages of Federalism compared to the unitary system that has been in place in Zimbabgwe for the last thirty years. None but the diehard unitarists can find much fault with Federalism. But still, like any man-made system, questions have been raised about it by some political scientists and politicians. They point out to certain disadvantages such as follows:

1.     Sometimes there can be overlapping of work and subsequent confusion regarding who is responsible for what. For example, when a natural disaster strikes in a state, there may be delays if it is not quickly decided and cleared as to who is responsible for the disaster management work - the State government or the Federal government. But where there is proper planning and coordination of activity between the State and Federal government, this disadvantage can be easily overcome.

2.     Federalism can be a bit more expensive as more people are elected to office, both at the state and the center, than necessary. Too many elected representatives with overlapping roles can also lead to corruption. In Zimbabgwe we cannot complain about this since the new Copac Draft Constitution has proposed a bloated parliamentary structure of 400 MPs in a country of twelve million people, though I firmly believe that number has to be reduced. This is just a question of good planning and management, and a commitment to rooting out corruption. Where there is good planning and management federalism does wonders to a nation. After all, a unitary structure fares no better at all when it comes to corruption. If anything it is worse off as it provides little room for public officials to be held accountable for their deeds as all power is centralized in the hands of a few people.  

3.     Federalism sometimes leads to unhealthy competition between different regions. There can be rebellion by a regional government against the national government too. Both scenarios pose a threat to a country's integrity. It promotes regional inequalities. Natural resources, industries, employment opportunities differ from one region to another. Hence earnings and wealth are sometimes unevenly distributed. Rich states offer more opportunities and benefits to its citizens than poor states. Thus the gap between the rich and poor states widens. It can make State governments selfish and only concerned about their own regions. They can formulate policies which might be detrimental to other regions. For example, pollution from a state which is promoting industrialization in a big way can affect another region which depends solely on agriculture and cause crop damage.

From debates that I have held with many people on Facebook and from the position of unitarist Shona political elites, especially in Mashonaland who are opposed to Federalism, it seems this disadvantage is their main rallying point. They look at the resources of Bukalanga and think that once they allow for federalism, then they will lose out. This is a very greedy and selfish way of looking at things. Mashonaland itself is a bastion of agriculture in this country, and come whatever may, there will always been need for food. Not only is that the case, they already have a strong industrial base in Harare, not to mention the largest platinum mines in the country and tourists resources in Kariba and Chinhoyi. The same applies to Manicaland which sits on an estimated $800 billion dollars of diamond wealth. How on earth can such a region ever go broke? All we need is good planning and management on how to share resources and see to it that no region is left behind. This will also ensure even development in the country, instead of skyscrapers rising daily in Harare when all other regions have small towns that were built by the colonial regime!

There seems to be also fear of secession, something which has not been helped by the noises of the Mthwakazi movements. But this can simply be avoided by affording all communities their rights as well as maintaining a strong national defense force, which itself must reflect the country's diversity, as well as setting out very stringent rules if and whenever there is real need for any of the states to set up for themselves. Therefore, this supposed disadvantage has holes in it. Even a unitary system promotes regional inequalities as the last thirty years have amply showed us! The disparity in terms of national development between Harare and say Bulawayo, Mutare, Gweru and Maswingo are just evidence enough. A unitary to government fares no better at all when it comes to equitable national development.               

4.     Federalism does not eliminate poverty. The reason for this may be that during policy framing, it is the intellectuals and not the masses who are invited by the local government. The intellectuals may not understand the local needs properly, and thus policies might not yield good results. But again, this is a question of good governance and management versus bad governance and bad management. Any policy maker worthy his or her salt will ensure that in formulating policy, they reach out to all segments of society, instead of just the intellectuals or elites. And in any case, unitary government fares worse that federalism in this regard. If unitary government ended poverty, then Zimbabgwe should have been very rich.

As we can see above, the disadvantages of Federalism are nothing more than mere challenges that can always be overcome. The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Hence, Federalism is one of the most highly praised forms of government. Apart from John Stuart Mill referred to above; one commentator on American type federalism was Alexis de Tocqueville, an astute French observer visiting the United States in the early 1830s. He considered the American system of federalism unique and the greatest achievement of the Constitution of that country. Yet he was a citizen of France, one of the most highly centralized countries in Europe. In his celebrated study of American government and society entitled Democracy in America (1832), Tocqueville came to the conclusion that the federal arrangement was "the most favorable" form of government ever created to promote the "peace and freedom of man."

Half a century later, the distinguished British statesman and legal scholar James Bryce (the Lord Bryce we mentioned in The Rebirth as encouraging the missionary Henry Junod to undertake research on the culture and customs of the Tsonga) published The American Commonwealth (1888), a profound, comprehensive, and sympathetic analysis of American institutions that ranks with Tocqueville's work as one of the great classics of the American political system. Like Tocqueville, Lord Bryce was favorably impressed by American federalism, not withstanding his personal allegiance to the unitary system of Great Britain. He found federalism particularly well adapted to American soil because it united the States without extinguishing their governments and local traditions, and also supplied "the best means of developing a new and vast country." Moreover, he thought that the American system stimulated interest in local affairs, encouraged constructive experimentation in legislation and administration, and "relieved the national legislature of a part of that mass of functions which might otherwise prove too heavy for it." Echoing Tocqueville, Bryce equated federalism with freedom and surmised that it had made a valuable contribution to the welfare of the American people by preventing the rise of "despotic central government" in the United States.

To the durability of American federalism Lord Bryce attributed the fact that it tends to promote political stability. In framing a federal system, the architects of the Constitution faced an eternal dilemma: how to balance power between the central and state governments; or as he put it colorfully in an astronomical metaphor: how "to keep the centrifugal and centripetal forces in equilibrium, so that neither the planet states shall fly off into space, nor the sun of the central government draw them into its consuming fires." The advantage of the constitutional edifice built by the Framers is that it solved the problem by giving the national government a direct authority over all citizens, irrespective of the state governments, thereby safely leaving broad powers in the hands of State authorities. "And by placing the Constitution above both the national and State governments," observed Bryce, "it has referred the arbitrament of disputes between them and an independent body [i.e., the Supreme Court, for us the favored one being a Constitutional Court independent from the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal], charged with interpretation of the Constitution, a body which is to be deemed not so much as a third authority in the government as a living voice of the Constitution, the unfolder of the mind of the people whose will stands expressed in that supreme instrument."[3] 

And now to Ethnolinguistic Federalism

Like any human-made system in the world, federalism has various forms, and is adopted in order to solve different problems unique to each individual country. After studying a number of federal systems of a few federal countries in the world, I decided that the Ethiopian model (in many ways similar to the Swiss, Canadian, South African and Indian models) is the best model of federalism as far as addressing the problems of our country is concerned. This type of federalism is called Ethnolinguistic Federalism, and is no doubt the most suited to dealing with Zimbabgwean problems of tyranny, tribal domination and discrimination, unequal development, insecurity as a result of calls for secession, imperial rule over the rest of the country from once center in the capital, etc.

To help us understand what kind of Federalism this is and how it works, I have attached below an article on the ethnolinguistic federal Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. This is a fine article that was written by Mehari T. Maru, to whom all credit is due for the reproduction of excerpts in this book. Maru is Programme Coordinator at the African Union Commission and Executive Director of the African Rally for Peace and Development. I firmly believe that the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia’s Constitution is perhaps one of the best in the world when it comes to the organization of multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic and multi-cultural societies such as we have in Zimbabgwe. Here are the excerpts from Maru's paper:

************

At just over 77 million, Ethiopia is the third-most populous country in Africa. Since 1991, Ethiopia has been implementing an ethno-linguistic federal politico-legal arrangement. As per Articles 1 and 47 of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the country is a federation of nine ethno-linguistically divided regional states. These can be classified into three groups, based on (i) their population numbers, as minority or majority in the federation; (ii) ethno-linguistic diversity, as multi-ethnic or homogeneous; and (iii) way of life, as settled or pastoralist. The Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Oromia and Somali regional states (taking the name of their majority inhabitants) are more or less ethnically homogeneous, with a dominant ethno-linguistic community at regional level.

…Article 39 (3 and 5) of the Federal Constitution assumes that every ethno-cultural community has its own territory, and confers the right to “a full measure of self-government which includes the right to establish institutions of government in the territory that it inhabits”. It also defines ethno-cultural communities as “Nation, Nationality or People…as a group of people who have or share a large measure of a common culture or similar customs, mutual intelligibility of language, belief in a common or related identities, a common psychological make-up, and who inhabit an identifiable, predominantly contiguous territory”. The Federal Constitution not only recognizes ethno-linguistic identity, but it also establishes regional states based on such identity.

The Federal Constitution has many striking features, one of which is the right of ethno-cultural communities to self-determination, including the right to establish a regional state or independent state. This makes the Ethiopian Constitution unique. Pursuant to the Preamble and Articles 1, 8, 39 and 40 (4) of the Constitution, Ethiopia’s ethno-linguistic federalism is such that the ethno-cultural communities as a group - not Ethiopian nationals - are sovereign, and are the building blocks of the federation. Constitutionally speaking, the constituent units of the Ethiopian federation are neither Ethiopian nationals nor the regional states, but rather the ethno-cultural communities. A combined meaning of Articles 9, 39 and 47 (2) of the Federal Constitution makes this point very clear. Moreover, the preamble to the Federal Constitution, which reflects the object and purpose of the Federal Constitution and the legislative intention of the framers, begins by saying:

We, the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia: strongly committed, on full and free exercise of our right to self-determination, to building a political community founded on the rule of law and capable of ensuring a lasting peace, bringing a democratic order and advancing our economic and social development can be fulfilled if only…individual and people’s fundamental freedoms and rights, to live together on the basis of equality and without any sexual, religious or cultural discrimination.

Taking the purposive interpretation approach (the spirit and legislative intention) of the Federal Constitution, group/collective rights of ethno-cultural communities are given an equal constitutional footing. Moreover, as stipulated in Articles 5, 8, 39 and 47, “all sovereign power resides in” the ethno-cultural communities, and they are entitled to self-determination and self-rule, and their right to establish regional or independent states of their own. The Constitution also confers on all ethno-cultural communities an internal authority in their affairs and empowers them to exercise and promote their culture, language and historical heritage through self-government. A conjoined reading of Articles 51 and 52 of the Constitution reveals that the regional states enjoy wide-ranging executive and judicial, but limited legislative, powers. The Federal Constitution, though mostly de jure [according to law], has reduced the federal executive branch of the government to a weaker status than ever before in the history of Ethiopia. However, there are serious disparities between de jure constitutional power granted to regional states, and the de facto [that which is in practice] power exercised by regional states.

Under Article 39 (4), the Federal Constitution has conferred to ethno-cultural communities not only the right of self-determination but also the right to secede and establish an independent state of their own. Of course, secession could only be exercised through long and stringent procedural requirements, such as: (i) the demand is supported by a two-thirds majority vote of the regional state legislature in which the ethno-cultural community is found; (ii) the federal government organizes a referendum for the ethno-community requesting such referendum within three years of that vote by the regional legislature; and (iii) the referendum is supported by a majority vote of the same ethno-cultural community. Similarly, the respective regional states are expected - as some already have - to grant special administrative status to ethno-cultural communities within a regional state with a dominant ethno-linguistic community. These administrative units are carved-out territories constituted as special zones (Leyu Zone) or special districts (Leyu Woreda). This indigenization of political power and self-administration at the lowest administrative levels - i.e., the Woreda has empowered indigenous people to take their destiny in their hands, as well as to reinstate their culture, language, historical symbols and other traditional institutions, including conflict-resolving mechanisms.

Another important power of ethno-cultural communities is their collective ownership of land and its resources. The special right of pastoralist peoples to land for grazing and protection from displacement is also granted under Article 40 of the Federal Constitution. Such a priority to the collective rights of ethno-cultural communities is not without reason, but a response to the past historical legacy of ethno-linguistic domination that prevailed for so long in Ethiopia. These constitutional provisions are the product of compromises by the ethno-linguistic based liberation forces that toppled the former military regime in Ethiopia. The Federal Constitution is one under which ethno-cultural communities are: first, the ultimate sovereign entities, where constitutional power of both the federal and regional states rests. Second, they are constitutionally entitled to establish regional states, or their own states, independent from Ethiopia. In short, under the Ethiopian federal system, ethno-linguistic communities constitute the federation. 

Federalism, in general, is a system of governance of great variance, depending on the problem(s) it is supposed to solve. It is better understood as a system with diverse features of state power-sharing. However, all federalist systems share some common broad characteristics - albeit with some varieties. The most important characteristic is that, in federalism, power is not delegated to regional states from the centre, as in the case of a unitary system. Rather, the central government is delegated by, and obtains its power from, the regions. In federalism, the central (federal) government is not the author of its own power, for the ultimate power rests in the constituent unities - in the Ethiopian case, the ethno-cultural communities.[4] However, no single federal system is universally superior. Any constitution, as a political and legal institution, has to reflect the political history and principal social structure of the society it serves. In the drafting of the Ethiopian Constitution, Samuel Huntington pointed out:

A Constitution has to reflect the history, culture of the society, its level of economic development and social structure, ethno-linguistic composition, and most importantly the goals of its leaders. Political parties reflect the principal social identities and cleavages within society. In Ethiopia the principal cleavage appears to be ethno-linguistic…and regional [cleavages].

Huntington goes on to argue that the Constitution, as a political and legal institution, reflects the political history and principal social structures of Ethiopian society. Most importantly, he suggests it has attempted a consociational accommodation of the principal forces of political mobilization - ethnic-based parties. Taking these historical facts and the nature of the political parties into consideration in the Ethiopia of the 1990s, majoritarian democracy would have furthered ethno-linguistic domination and disintegration, while a simple unitary system would have allowed the majority ethno-cultural group (in number or in power) to remain permanently in power, leaving other principal forces of political mobilization and minorities in opposition or at the benign concessions of power. What is more, since most of the political forces that toppled the former Ethiopian military regime were mobilized along ethno-linguistic lines, suppressing political mobilization based on ethnicity would have been a recipe for the further disintegration of Ethiopia. Huntington made a similar point, noting that a “straight plurality system would lead to some ethno-linguistic groups being a permanent minority in their district and having no [meaningful] representation”.

Constitutionally speaking, Ethiopian ethno-linguistic federalism can be taken as consociational in nature for two reasons. One, the Federal Constitution lays down the institutional arrangement for ethno-cultural communities to be meaningfully represented in all government institutions. Second, it has granted a sort of veto power through the right to unilateral secession against ethno-linguistic domination or tyranny from the centre. Consequently, the Ethiopian federal system is designed to serve as a consociational institution where ethno-cultural communities “negotiate and compromise” for unified political and economic space.

Public Reaction to Ethno-linguistic Federalism

At a public level, the political reaction to the ethno-linguistic federalist arrangement in Ethiopia can be summarized in three views: first, those who support ethno-linguistic federalism as a matter of the human rights of ethno-linguistic communities to self-determination, including the right to secession. These are forces of diversity and freedom. They support federalism even at the cost of unity, and they believe that federalism is the only means to promote freedom and check tyranny. This strand of thinking is similar to the theory of multiculturalism, which recognizes distinct groups within a society and allows them some space of public expression. Second, there are those who believe that ethno-linguistic federalism, while regrettable, is the only way to keep the country unified and prevent its disintegration. This is a calculated version of unity. They view ethno-linguistic federalism as a means to strengthening unity, and they support diversity for the sake of unity. We may call them calculative federalists: inherently, they are opposed to secession. A third view is totally opposed to ethno-linguistic federalism. It seeks to do away with it and seeks another form of federalism, or a unitary system. Unitarist in approach, they look at the federal system as an instrument to undo the assimilation efforts of previous regimes, particularly that of emperors Menelik and Haile Selassie. This line of thought is similar to the theory of cultural assimilation, which encourages the absorption of minorities into the dominant culture. It is contrary to the principle of multiculturalism.

Each of these positions has legitimate concerns that demand serious consideration - but not equally. The third position wrongly believes that only a unitary system will ensure the unity of the country. But this position could lead to policy of forced assimilation - and worse, blind nationalism. It could cause a total disregard to democratic rights, group injustice and probably massive human rights violation, including ethnic cleansing and genocide. If such a view was to be implemented by force again, it could return the country to bloody civil war and gross violations of human rights. Moreover, it could lead, ultimately, to the disintegration of Ethiopia - the very situation the holders of this view abhor.

To put it in a historical perspective, the framers of the Federal Constitution had five choices. The first was a blanket denial of the existence of diversity and its political expression. The second was to promote Ethiopian nationality as an overarching ideology, thereby denying the existence of ethno-linguistic communities. The third was to promote Ethiopian nationality as an overarching ideology while recognizing ethno-linguistic communities, but disallowing any political expression and space for them. The fourth was to promote the right to self-determination as overarching, regardless of the implications for Ethiopian unity. Finally, there was the option to promote Ethiopian nationalism while also recognizing and allowing political expression and territorial self rule for ethno-linguistic communities. This last option is perhaps the best of all the options for unity with peace and equality. It looks at federalism as an instrument for conflict management - a political solution to a political concern - and as a tool to contain disintegrative forces and to create a balance between the forces of unity and of diversity. It also addresses the concerns of the forces of diversity, and averts the secession inclinations. For this reason, it is predictable that there will always be strong resistance to any hasty change of the existing arrangement.

Conclusions and Implications

In comparison to previous regimes in Ethiopia, the federal system has empowered ethno-cultural communities in many areas of cultural, linguistic, social and political life, and has thereby, to some degree, offset the historical legacy of ethno-linguistic domination. It has also concretized the rights of minority and indigenous communities. However, even if the de jure equality of ethno-linguistic communities has been constitutionally ensured, much remains to be done to ensure de facto equality in many areas where marginalized ethno-cultural communities have had a limited capacity to make use of these constitutional rights. What is particular to Ethiopian federalism is that the right to self-determination, including that of secession, acts as a brake on any desire of a central government towards the tyrannical and discriminatory treatment of ethno-cultural communities. A reversal of the constitutional rights of ethno-linguistic communities, by either the central or a state government, would be politically costly. Any attempt at discrimination among ethno-cultural communities, or the domination of one ethno-linguistic community by another, or the unconstitutional seizure of political power at the centre, would put the unity of the country at risk - as then ethno-linguistic communities could attempt their constitutional right to secession (Maru 2010, Online).

**********

Indeed, what a beautiful arrangement for a multicultural community! Yes, like any man-made system it has its flaws, but no one except the diehard unitarist opposed to multicultural pluralism can deny the apparent benefits of Ethnolinguistic Federalism, especially to a country like Zimbabgwe which has suffered from a divisive and failed politics of ethnolinguistic domination, tyranny, marginalization and discrimination for the last three decades. Perhaps let us just transplant a few points from the preceding article to remind ourselves why Ethnolinguistic Federalism is a superior form of governance than both a unitarist approach and devolution of power. This is again a return to the advantages of Federalism; though in this case the focus is specifically on Ethnolinguistic Federalism:

1.     People traditionally sharing a common culture, language, customs and geographical territory are grouped into a state of their own as a “Nation, Nationality or People” and these are “a group of people who have or share a large measure of a common culture or similar customs, mutual intelligibility of language, belief in a common or related identities, a common psychological make-up, and who inhabit an identifiable, predominantly contiguous territory.” Five such broad regions can be easily identified as the five states mentioned in the preface, detail of which shall follow in the next chapter.

2.     In Ethnolinguistic Federalism, “all sovereign power resides in the ethno-cultural communities, and they are entitled to self- determination and self-rule, and their right to establish regional or independent states of their own. The Constitution also confers on all ethno-cultural communities an internal authority in their affairs and empowers them to exercise and promote their culture, language and historical heritage through self-government.” The only one who can be opposed to this arrangement is the diehard, unjust and selfish unitarist who believes in assimilation of other groups into the so-called majorities. Such are not driven by any sense of justice by a type of thinking that says their language and their culture are somehow superior to that of others, which is, of course, nonsense!  

3.     Similarly, the respective regional states are expected to grant special administrative status to ethno-cultural communities within a regional state with a dominant ethno-linguistic community. These administrative units are carved-out territories constituted as special zones or special districts. This indigenization of political power and self-administration at the lowest administrative levels - i.e., the Woreda has empowered indigenous people to take their destiny in their hands, as well as to reinstate their culture, language, historical symbols and other traditional institutions, including conflict-resolving mechanisms. Again, the advantage of this system to this our country can never be overstated. For thirty years whole cultures and languages have been decimated to the point of extinction by those so-called majorities.

4.     The giving of such a priority to the collective rights of ethno-cultural communities is not without reason, but a response to the past historical legacy of ethno-linguistic domination that prevailed for so long in Ethiopia. This same type of domination is the order of the day in both Zimbabgwe and Botswana where the Shona and Tswana would not grant any other community their full rights to self-determination and promotion of their language, culture and identity as a people. One time I was attending a meeting with the Permanent Secretary of Education, Sports, Art and Culture in Harare as part of a ZILPA[5] delegation to lobby for the teaching of our languages in the schools, and I remember asking myself: Why in the world should descent, honest, law-abiding and tax-paying citizens of this country be begging the government to have their languages taught in the schools? It just does not make sense from whatever angle one tries to look at it!   

5.     What is particular to Ethiopian federalism is that the right to self-determination, including that of secession, acts as a brake on any desire of a central or federal government towards the tyrannical and discriminatory treatment of ethno-cultural communities. The last three decades of Zimbabgwe have been nothing but years of tyranny, and it is urgent that we all unite and stop that, for a failure to do so may lead to the disintegration of this great country that we all love!

   What, then, can be the reasons for rejecting the establishment of this great country called Zimbabgwe as a Federal Republic? Especially since it is apparent that the problems that we are currently facing - tyranny, tribal domination, unequal development, inefficient central bureaucracy, imperial rule from the capital, the threat of civil war as a result of the calls for secession and the threat of extinction of certain languages and cultures -  are the very ones that Federalism solves? The only reasons for rejecting the type of Federalism presented in this book will be nothing else but greed, aversion to democracy, and total disrespect and disregard for other ethnolinguistic communities. Only a desire to perpetuate injustice and marginalization would be the reason for such rejection. Surely, Ethnolinguistic Federalism is an undisputed golden rule and number one route to building a prosperous, united and peaceful Zimbabgwe that we all want!

But what manner of republic will that be? Let us see in the next chapter.   

---

[1] Herein generally referred to as Bukalanga, of which arguments see The Rebirth.

[2] I have heard it declared by some amongst us that since the Shona are supposedly a majority, their view is the more important one and they deserve a greater share of the national cake. This is a very selfish way of looking at nation-building. In any case, it is not as if the supposed minority are responsible for the large families of the Shona. The Shona have made a conscious choice to have large families, hence a large population, so that does not in any way therefore mean that they are entitled to anything more than the rest of the citizenry, neither does their view, as the supposed majority, have to be placed above the view of the so-called minority. Every part of the citizenry of this country has a right to be what it is and to have its views, interests, rights and freedoms respected, and federalism is a means to ensuring that. The tyranny of the majority is as much an evil to be guarded against as the tyranny of the state.

[3] The preceding information was sourced from http://www.buzzle.com, adapted from articels originally written by Aastha Dogra; and from the Online Library of Liberty at http://www.oll.libertyfund.org. This writer gives all the due credit to the original writers and copyright holders of the material

[4] These passages explain the difference between Devolution of Power and Federalism. In Devolution of Power, governmental power is still delegated top-down, as opposed to Federalism where there is an elelment of state sovereignty and power is delegated bottom-up by the states to the Federal Government. Federalism is also usually enshrined in the Constitution and the central government cannot take away the powers of the states, whereas in Devolution of Power the central government can reposses those powers at any time, at least in theory, since usually it cannot be repossesed without agreement by the lowers tiers of government. Federalism, therefore, empowers citizens far more than Devolution of Power, which some citizens of Zimbabgwe are presently calling for, can ever do. This is why I believe that Ethnolinguistic Federalism is a better option than Devolution, and it serves as a good compromise between Devolution and Secession, which, again, some sections of our society are calling for. Federalism will achieve far better results than Devolution and also quell calls for Secession, in the process ensuring the unity and indivisibility of the country provided that each state and tier of government sticks to its own affairs and exercises only those powers and competencies given to it by the Federal Constitution. 

[5] Zimbabwe Indigenous Languages Promotion Association