Ethiopian ethnic politics was introduced with the noble goal of redressing historical inequalities and granting self-determination to diverse communities. Yet, three decades of experience reveal a troubling reality: by anchoring politics, resource allocation, and administrative power almost exclusively to ethnic identity, the system has deepened marginalized internal connections and elevated tribal allegiance over merit. The very idea of ethnic regional territories brings risks to free investment in shared national resources.
Such ethnic politics has made ethnic identity the main axis of politics, encouraging tribal preference for priority and deepening mistrust and differences between social groups. Regions are treated as ethnically “owned” territories, which marginalizes internal minorities and non-indigenous tribal communities, creating suspicion and “kin-based” administration.
The implementation of Ethiopian ethnic politics in 1995 has demonstrably positioned ethnic identity as the central tenet of political discourse, frequently elevating group-specific demands above considerations of merit or collective national interests. This system designates regions as ethnically homogeneous territories, while minorities and non-indigenous residents coexist, being sidelined internally, with exclusion in power and administration irrespective of quality. Knowledge and special skill contributions transcend ethnicity, as seen in cross-regional collaborations that could benefit all Ethiopians but are hindered by kin-based administration.
This has elevated ethnic identity above other affiliations, fostering tribal preferences in resource allocation, public sector jobs, and political power, while deepening inter-group mistrust. But skill, talent, and qualities useful to society are not bound by ethnic identity. A talented man from one region can be useful to another and other societies, and vice versa. We cannot limit skills to tribal language alone. Tsegaye Gebremedhin is from Ambo, but he wrote the shining Tsegaye Bet in Amharic.
Tsegaye Gebremedhin, a native of Ambo in the Oromia region, demonstrates that exceptional talent transcends ethnic boundaries; he authored more than 30 plays, predominantly in Amharic, significantly advancing Amharic literature on a national scale. His contributions, encompassing translations of Shakespeare and Molière, underscore the significance of international knowledge and advocate for the dissemination of cultural, historical, and ethical insights across diverse communities, illustrating how individual excellence transcends tribal and geographical constraints, even when expressed in foreign languages. He held a leadership position among his colleagues within his professional environment.
As Tsegaye Gebremedhin demonstrates, skills and merit transcend ethnic boundaries. These cross-ethnic contributions underscore how restricting opportunities based on tribal language contradicts the “medemer” (synergy) principle of unity through diversity. Consequently, limiting all endeavors to a single ethnic group impedes collective progress.
A tribal framework, characterized by the prioritization of narrow ethnic or clan loyalties, undermines the fundamental social fabric. It deepens mistrust by weaponizing identity in politics, thereby eroding inter-ethnic ties and the philosophy of Medemer, where historically long-held intermarriage, which over time develops useful cultural flavor in social life, is valued. It incentivizes tribal patronage over meritocracy, contributing to insecurity.
Reforms balancing local autonomy with national merit standards could bridge these divides. The ethnic system prioritizes bloodlines in all regional jobs, resources, and power, eroding justified merit-based competition, weakening historical intermarriages, and trustful cross-relations among different groups. This patronage over meritocracy has intensified differences and social fragmentation, as ethnic identity trumps competence, skill, and talent in administration and other important portfolios.
While this bias may have originated with the laudable goal of fostering balance, equilibrium, and equity among various social groups, our accumulated experience now reveals its inherent shortcomings. Thus, a collaborative effort, or “medemer,” to implement improvements is needed.
Furthermore, humanity is inherently social, possessing a vast accumulated knowledge base and practical experience in fostering coexistence and resource sharing, extending beyond tribal, regional, or national boundaries to encompass diverse global communities. The fundamental truth is that talent, skill, and capacity transcend ethnic distinctions, making pervasive contributions to society.
Therefore, Ethiopia cannot sustain an extended period under the detrimental influence of ethnic politics. Irrespective of the terminology, be it “medemer” or “unity,” the current imperative is to foster social unity to leverage collective strengths and cross-regional collaborations, rather than exacerbating ethnic divisions. This approach cultivates a society where individual contributions benefit all, thereby bridging ethnic disparities and ensuring enduring stability. The ethnically-based political divisions impede cross-regional collaboration, diminish meritocratic principles, and undermine the social cohesion that has historically unified Ethiopians.
To mitigate the shortcomings of ethnic politics within our societal framework, it is imperative that we develop bridging reforms. We require inter-ethnic integration mechanisms, such as student scholarships, professional rotations, and joint cultural festivals, to facilitate cross-regional exchanges and re-establish trust that has been eroded. Furthermore, we must revitalize cultural intermarriages through family support policies and civic education that emphasizes a shared Ethiopian identity amidst diversity. Our diversity should be perceived as a valuable spectrum of color and beauty, rather than a catalyst for conflict.
The monarchical regime of Emperor Haile Selassie was characterized by a rigid concentration of power within the hands of the monarch and the nobility. The regime demonstrated a strong reluctance to cede significant authority from the sovereign. However, the established criteria for appointments, coupled with the historical experience of monarchical and aristocratic dominance, did allow for certain portfolios to be entrusted to distinguished individuals who had demonstrated significant patriotic contributions during World War II.
While these concessions acknowledged patriotic contributions, they did not adequately establish a meritocratic civil service. The system failed to appropriately prioritize the value of experienced personnel, emphasizing eminence or proficiency within the civil service. Leadership positions were predominantly determined by lineage, although loyalty and demonstrable quality outputs occasionally played a role. For example, the constitutions of 1931 and 1955 established parliamentary structures, yet ultimate authority remained vested in the Crown. Prominent wartime figures such as Abebe Aregai and Mulugeta Bulli were appointed to governorships or cabinet positions, which constituted patronage rather than a merit-based professional bureaucracy.
The absence of merit-based promotion within the civil service perpetuated a patrimonial system. Even highly educated individuals frequently attained their positions through imperial favor or aristocratic connections. Technocrats, despite demonstrating exceptional quality in their work, such as Aklilu Habte-Wold, who advanced due to their capabilities, still operated under the monarch’s ultimate authority. The concentration of control over key levers of modernization consequently constrained growth. This period saw the presence of foreign-educated technocrats (many from the US or Europe) and loyal Mekwanint who, while not military heroes, served as trusted bureaucrats. Ultimately, modernization initiatives were unable to surmount the entrenched feudal patronage, a factor contributing to the 1974 revolution.
The Derg regime asserted a radical departure from the feudal “constitutionalism” of Haile Selassie, yet it perpetuated—and in certain aspects exacerbated—the issue of prioritizing loyalty over demonstrated proficiency. In contrast to the prior monarchical system, the criteria for assignment and experience for higher leadership positions within the Ethiopian civil service during this period favored the appointment of mid-ranking military officials.
The civilian population experienced limited inclusion, primarily through the co-optation of a small number of technocrats or leftist intellectuals who held restricted authority. The assertion of a “democratic government” and a new constitution (the 1987 Constitution of the People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia) was, in reality, a one-party state under the Workers’ Party of Ethiopia, with the Derg’s chairman, Mengistu, serving as president. This represented a dictatorial military leadership operating under the guise of a democratic government and a newly established constitution.
The land reform and nationalization initiatives encompassing land, urban properties, banks, and industries, were intended to dismantle feudal and capitalist structures. However, these actions ultimately led to a state-controlled economic collapse, despite the aim of achieving economic equality and suppressing opposition. While the Derg regime was revolutionary-military in nature, it did not succeed in establishing a true meritocracy or democracy. In contrast to the previous regime’s emphasis on lineage and aristocracy, the Derg prioritized military power and party affiliation. Individuals without relevant agricultural expertise were appointed to lead rural development programs, and sergeants were tasked with district administration. The command structure often exhibited arbitrary and harsh directives. The Military Council remained under the control of the same officers, and civilians lacked oversight of security and critical economic sectors. The one-party rule, exercised by the Workers’ Party of Ethiopia, effectively represented the Derg in a civilian guise.
The parliamentary body convened primarily to ratify predetermined decisions, and the purported democratic governance served as a mere facade, designed to secure aid from the Soviet bloc and establish diplomatic legitimacy. This mirrors the function of Haile Selassie’s 1955 constitution, which was crafted for Western perception. The abolition of feudal tenancy and land redistribution to peasants, without private ownership, led to a significant decline in agricultural productivity due to the loss of tenure security and investment incentives. This culminated in a devastating famine between 1984 and 1985, resulting in hundreds of thousands of fatalities. The Derg regime subsequently replaced the existing feudal hierarchy with a military-bureaucratic structure.
While the constitutional framework aimed to empower various ethnic groups through self-determination, the EPRDF’s implementation inadvertently perpetuated a system where political loyalty superseded merit, reminiscent of the challenges faced by both Haile Selassie’s monarchy and the Derg.
During the EPRDF regime, assignments to higher-leadership, managerial, and top positions in the Ethiopian civil service were frequently based on ethnic balance and favorable political alignment with the ruling party, EPRDF, where TPLF cadres dominated critical nodes of power. Proficiency and quality were secondary considerations, treated as supplements to the formal assignment rulebook. The bicameral parliament, with a House of Federation representing ethnic groups across nine regional states, was framed as a de facto ethnic-balancing unit, where “representation” of a group’s allegiance to EPRDF often overrode qualifications, experience, and performance criteria.
Regional leadership appointments frequently necessitated TPLF endorsement, with a “political evaluation” prioritizing loyalty and party affiliation over technical proficiency. Consequently, prior administrations did not consistently implement a civil service or political system where competence, skill, and demonstrated performance were the principal criteria for assuming responsibility. This observation does not negate their accomplishments but rather highlights systemic deficiencies that arose despite noble aspirations for unity, leading to an uneven practical reality.
(Opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the stance of The Reporter)
Contributed by Gzachew Wolde
