Federalism as state form to overcome violent conflict in Ethiopia

Abstract This article explores how federalism and conflict management are linked and the management of violent conflicts in Ethiopia. Drawing from literature reviews, reports, constitutions and other legal documents, the article argues that Ethiopia has experienced an outburst in violent conflicts over the past few years. An increase in radical, rival ethnic nationalisms in the situation of apparent brittleness of government structures created favorable environment for the violent conflicts in the country. Although federalism could help in managing conflict and protect minorities when supported by other power sharing arrangements, in Ethiopia it has not led to fair distribution of power and has not ended the past dominance of the center. Government and party brittleness have also resulted in a favorable environment to the spread of violent conflicts. In addition, opposing views of the ethno-nationalists and the Ethio-nationalists camps on the federal system the country should build also complicated the problem. This may hamper building democratic multinational federation. Thus, to manage the conflicts that erupt in the regions, building local institutions, proportional representations at different levels, and adequate representation of public interests in government policy making and the implementation process are crucial factors.


Introduction
The policies of states implemented to build national unity at the cost of ethnic diversity have rarely been fruitful.Such policies resulted in the concentration of authority and resources in dominant elites, who imposed their language and culture on ethnic minorities and relegated them from power and resources.The common reaction to such efforts in nation-state building was violent conflict (Fessha, 2010;Fiseha, 2019).Consequently, an institutional solution that recommends politics of acknowledgment and accommodation rather than the nation-state model is considered a hopeful decision.
There are numerous institutional strategies for accommodating minorities, including minorities inside subnational governments.The applicability of a particular approach is determined, among others, by the political and cultural demands of the community, the fervor with which it makes those demands, and the issue of whether the community is in a defined or recognizable territory.The institutional choices can largely be categorized into non-territorial and territorial ones.Non-territorial approaches are particularly helpful for integrating geographically scattered ethnic, cultural, or religious communities in diverse nations.These approaches range from what is referred to as "the individual approach" to giving a minority ethnic population complete cultural autonomy (Ayele & Addisu, 2023).
The individual approach does not necessarily accord particular recognition and status to the community as a whole, but rather employs human rights frameworks to ensure that specific members of a minority community enjoy equal social and economic prospects to the rest of the population.When the demands of members of a minority community are restricted to equal treatment and non-discrimination, this approach might be sufficient (Ayele & Addisu, 2023;Fiseha, 2017Fiseha, , 2019Fiseha, , 2022)).
In other situations, a minority group (including a minority within a regional state) may be politically organized to advocate for formal political recognition in the form of internal selfdetermination.The territorial choice becomes essential in these circumstances.Through the establishment of a local or regional government at the local or regional level where it comprises the majority, this initiative grants a national or sub-national minority group with territorial authority and some level of self-governance (Ayele & Addisu, 2023;Fiseha, 2017).
Federalism is an effective instrument for safeguarding locally concentrated minorities residing in multicultural states.Constitutionally entrenched territorial autonomy permits cultural, linguistic, or religious groups to make use of self-rule while living in a larger nation.Transforming national minorities into local majorities reconciles minorities with majority decision making (Fiseha, 2017(Fiseha, , 2019)).However, there is no single approach that all nations should follow to address the problems related to ethnic diversity.Some recommend secession, whereas others suggest that states hinge on universal human rights as a solution to the ethnic chaos that describes many of these countries.
Following the end of military rule in 1991, Ethiopia's new authorities designed a federal structure made up primarily of territorial entities based on ethnicity.The fundamental goal was to maintain Ethiopia's statehood as a political entity while achieving ethnic and regional autonomy.The original federalization process took four years to complete, and in 1995, a new constitution formally codified it.The 1995 Ethiopian Constitution accommodated marginalized groups as an official political element in the new government order.This makes the country unique in Africa, where ethnic relationships could be an apparent factor in state politics (Abbink, 2011;Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopian Constitution, 1995).When compared to other federal systems, Ethiopia's multiethnic federalism is notable since it allows for the secession of any ethnic territorial unit (Habtu, 2005).
The monarchy, the military (Derg) government, the ethnic federalism of the EPRDF, and the present political change under the Prosperity Party (PP) are the four political systems that Ethiopia has experienced recently (Feyissa, 2023).According to Gebeye (2022), federalism in Ethiopia has unitary, federal, confederal, and ethnocratic characters.According to the author, its unitary character delays the fulfilment of federal commitments while its confederal nature dominates the federal essence.Similar to this, its ethnocratic institutional structure pushes the general aim of establishing a federal democracy to the margins in addition to producing "citizens" and "subjects."Despite Ethiopia's attempts to develop into a multi-ethnic polity and its three historical stages of imperial, socialist, and federalism, involvement in countrywide political decisions typically required integration with northern Ethiopian cultural norms (Clapham, 2017;Kelecha, 2022;Markakis, 2011).This led to a wide range of divergent opinions, which now shape political interactions.Contradictory narratives permeate historical and political discourses in Ethiopia, which are common among academics, politicians, activists, and more recently the general public (Kelecha, 2022).These discourses reinforce numerous frameworks that idealize, clean, and disparage the state's past while eliminating or rationalizing human misery as a necessary cost of state-building.
The political scope for democratic contestation has shrunk, making the country's democratic essence difficult (Kefale, 2020).In fact, the ruling parties (EPRDF and its partners from 1995 to 2018) and the prosperity party since 2018 controlled all seats in the federal and regional councils in almost all elections in the life of the federation, turning the nation into a one-party state.
This study examined the management of violent ethnic conflicts and the contribution of federalism to conflict management in Ethiopia.Specifically, the research asks: In what ways does federalism in Ethiopia reduce ethnic conflicts, and how does it foster the peaceful coexistence of diverse societies in the country?The literature on federalism and conflict management is believed to offer a strong basis for this study, because it has been widely studied in the context of emerging federations.Analyzing Ethiopian federalism and the violent ethnic conflict in the country could contribute to the literature and provide insights into the challenges and opportunities facing other emerging federations.Examining the case of the Ethiopian federation provides insights into the specific challenges faced by multi-ethnic societies in managing violent conflicts, ensuring peace and security, and promoting democratic governance.The study analyzes Ethiopian federalism in light of accommodation of diversity and conflict management by considering some comparative lens of African and other multinational federations.
The article shows that although federalism is intended to accommodate diversity and manage conflicts, government and party flimsiness has created a favorable environment for the spread of violent conflicts.Moreover, the divergent views and contradictory narratives of ethno-nationalists and Ethiopian-nationalists also contributed for the ethnic conflicts in the country.The findings suggest that creating strong local institutions and adequate representation of public interests in government policy-making and the implementation process are crucial factors for minimizing conflict and building trust and support among diverse groups in the country.
Based on reviews of books, articles, constitutions, and different reports, this paper examines the theoretical and practical inter-linkages between federalism and conflict resolution, captures the theoretical understanding of the concepts, critically examines how the Ethiopian federal system operates and manages violent ethnic conflicts, and how balancing different competing interests, such as self-rule rights of ethnic groups and the rights of individuals, could contribute to the stability and peaceful coexistence of the diverse society in the country.
Considering the issues emphasized above, the themes in this study were organized into four parts.The first part introduces the study and its objectives.The second section explains the conceptual understanding of federalism, conflict resolution, and their linkages.The third part deals with conflict management practices in the Ethiopian federation.Finally, section four provides conclusion and recommendations of the paper.

Historical development of federalism in Ethiopia
Ethiopia is a long-established nation that has been sovereign for almost three millennia.After Emperor Menelik II (1889II ( -1913) ) undertook an administrative expansion, contemporary Ethiopia developed at the start of the 20 th century with its current borders and ethnic composition.The centralization and modernization of the Ethiopian state had begun in 1855 by Emperor Menelik (Kefale, 2020).Ethiopia was a highly decentralized state till the 2 nd half of the 19 th century though the centralization of power started slowly around 1855.The decentralized system was eliminated by the centralized modern state in the last quarter of the 19 th century, primarily by forcibly incorporating the quasi-autonomous kingdoms (Fiseha, 2016(Fiseha, , 2019)).
The emperor, also named King of Kings, represented the center whereas the regional lords enjoyed some degree of autonomy given that they accepted the power of the emperor at the center (Ayele, 2011;Fiseha, 2006;Gebru, 1991).A typical "nation state," the contemporary state made an effort to integrate its various groups under the guiding principle of "one language and one religion" (Fiseha, 2016).The struggle to establish the nation-state with similar national identity has been a defining feature of its recent past (Kelecha, 2022).The mechanism of political and cultural formation is thus the fundamental issue of political battles in a dramatically shifting national and regional political scene.
Ethiopia's battle for centralization started with consolidation efforts in the 1850s and 1860s, and far ahead violently attained during Menelik II.The process of centralization was deepened during the rule of Emperor Haile Selassie (Bahru, 2002;Teshale, 1995) that created a highly centralized unitary state.The centralization effort was enhanced through the modernization of state (Mulugeta, 2005:76).The country has been under emperor rulers up until the initial years of the 1970s.It was a monarchy, governed by consecutive unbeatable and "God-given" kings who did feel that they drew their political power from God rather than the public.Consequently, the country had become highly centralized unitary state by the second half of the 20 th century, typically through absorbing the semi-independent empires using force (Ayele, 2011(Ayele, , 2021;;Fiseha, 2016).
The longstanding brutal and unshakable Emperor Haile Selassie's government was violently removed from its long-engrained political power as a result of the extensive revolution that took place and destabilized the country in 1970s.Then, the military Derg treaded into seizing the public revolts of the mass where the mass surrender was clutched and hijacked by the self-declared military elites.The unitary Derg government was also marked by 17 years of civil war in the country.At the beginning of 1990s, a joint popular resistance led by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) came to power by overthrowing the military Derg government.This escorted in a significant departure from former political systems, from a strong centralization and unitary government to the devolution of power.Following the change of governance style, several important political reforms have also been taken.

Theoretical framework of federalism and conflict management
Federalism is a constitutional mechanism for sharing competencies among government echelons, wherein the tasks of the government are shared between states and a federal government, and both have certain tasks to perform (Elazar, 1987;Feeley & Rubin, 2008).Federalism is the most conspicuous alternative to respond to demands for self-government from geographically concentrated culturally separated groups (Martinez-Herrera, 2010) because it combines unity and diversity to accommodate, protect, and promote the unique identities of different groups in a larger political system (Watts, 2008).
Federalism is commonly viewed as a mode of governance that is appropriate for states with significant diversity, mainly territorially based diversity (Kincaid, 2011).Hence, it is about the territorial dispersal of authority and an allocation of the nation's policy-making competences among levels of government (Dosenrode, 2007:7; see also Elazar, 1987, p. 1).Federalism is the foundation for the organization of multi-ethnic societies and the right to govern their own matters in which the community is permitted to apply some kind of political and regional self-rule and be represented in national institutions (Fessha, 2010).The autonomy of the states is also guaranteed by a constitution that the federal government cannot change alone, as opposed to organizations that practice delegated authority in decentralized systems where their authorities can be altered by the central government using regular legislative procedures (Choudhry & Hume, 2011).
Federalism gives a territorially concerted nationality or ethnicity with political and administrative resources that can be used to promote self-determination, as the exigencies of self-governance by different ethnic groups are growing.The diversity of cultures offers a basis for conflicting ethnic identification and politicization.Several multi-ethnic nations face ethnic conflicts amid their subjects because of the dissemination of nationalism as an ideal for cultural groups (Martinez-Herrera, 2010).Various battles in different areas, such as Eritrea from the mid-1970s, the Kurdistan region of Iraq after 1974, and the Basque area of Spain under Franco, responded to the centralizing efforts of the dominant groups (McGarry & O'Leary, 2009).
Hence, federalism promotes multi-level governance by linking the basics of self-rule and sharedrule, and maintains both union and non-centralization.Federalism helps to accommodate the demands of diverse ethnic societies that are protected within the limits of a country.A proper dispersal of power is likely to contribute to lasting conflict resolution in a meaningful way in divided societies, as minorities struggle for more autonomy and legislative competence.
The objective of federalism in emerging federations is to resolve internal conflict by circumventing civil war and secession, and enhancing peace and national unity (Choudhry and Hume (2011)."One of the best ways to prevent wars is to have democratic self-government in civil society" (Elazar, 1994, p. 2).Elazar believes that in a situation where all groups in a country genuinely and proportionally share powers of federal governance and properly exercise it, they do not have reason to go to war.In highly diverse nations, federalism is mainly considered as a possible instrument to maintain national unity while also accommodating minority ambitions (Elazar, 1994;Männle, 2017;Siegner, 2017) as "it diffuses power to multiple points" (McGarry & O'Leary, 2009, p. 15).Federalism provides selfgovernment and alleviates most of the harm caused by ethnic and minority nationalist battles (Martinez-Herrera, 2010).A considerable share of their desires can be achieved as self-governance allows locally intense ethnic groups to maintain and enhance their own cultures and values, enabling them to embrace and close to the major political community among ethnic groups.
The remedy to the pressures faced by diverse multi-ethnic nations can be guaranteed by embracing accommodative institutions and policies, while also considering the necessity of maintaining inter-ethnic solidarity, rather than suppressing and denying ethnic diversity (Fessha, 2010).Federalism theory and federation provide a means to bring conflicting parties together and offer frameworks for collaboration and shared power (Keil, 2019).Hence, suitable institutional structures that offer ethnic groups the chance to partake in and improve their needs in the political decisionmaking process need to be devised.
Federations may be designed partially to avoid ethnic minorities from becoming territorial majorities by weakening competing nationalisms or secessionist incentives on the "balance of power" principles, pushing the points of power away from one main center, promoting intra-ethnic partitions, and making inter-ethnic collaboration based on non-ethnic interests (Horowitz, 1985 andElazar, 1994) cited in McGarry and O'Leary (2009).Post-conflict federalism recognizes that the polity comprises beyond one ethnic group and organizes its institutions for the groups to be acknowledged and authorized (Kymlicka, 1998cited in Choudhry & Hume, 2011).Kymlicka supports multinational federalism and challenges perfect congruence between the nation and the state.Hence, post-conflict federalism pleases the demand for autonomy with self-government competences that fall short of sovereign statehood.As a mechanism of institutional recognition of ethnic diversity, federalism acknowledges diversity and upholds state unity without changing itself to a nation state.Many countries in the developing world, including Ethiopia, Iraq, Nigeria, and Sudan, have frequently implemented federal solutions to manage ethnic conflict as part of a wider package of post-conflict constitutional improvements.
In such federations, inner borders are drawn to safeguard that locally concerted national minorities establish regional majorities so that national minorities participate in decision-making (Choudhry & Hume, 2011) when such provisions are constitutionally embedded and enforced by independent courts.Federalism or regional autonomy is frequently applied to grant regional selfrule power to marginalized ethno-cultural groups (Ayele & Addisu, 2023).India's experiences can be drawn as lessons for transition economies and young democracies, since its federalism works properly due to its empowerment of diverse actors, reasonable resource distribution based on political negotiation, attention given to local governments, and robust monitoring systems (Heinemann-Grüder et al., 2017).Federalism helped India build helpful relationships and operative statehood (Keil, 2019).
On the other hand, federalism cannot resolve conflicts in some cases.For instance, in Iraq, federal governance stayed for a short time and a new war erupted, while in countries such as Myanmar/Burma, Pakistan, and Malaysia, such arrangements led to political instability and autocracies.Federalism did not protect Sudan and Serbia-Montenegro from disintegration (Keil, 2019).In addition, there is a view that federalism promotes the readiness of ethno-nationalists for conflict as it offers them with resources related to government institutions that enable them to arrange big insurgence (Martinez-Herrera, 2010).
Federal solutions for ethnic conflict cannot be assured, as they tend to stimulate secession (Maynes (1993) cited in Simeon and Murray (2001).Federalism can destroy national unity, a sense of shared political purpose, and national identity, stimulate ethnic resentment or inter-group rivalry, and intensify ethnic tensions (Fessha, 2010;Haysom, 2003) cited in Fessha (2010).When the dominant group and the ethnic minority perceive federalism as the possession of a region, it typically leads to conflict (Palermo, 2017).Thus, federalism itself could be a problem rather than a solution.
While territorial autonomy is believed to reply to the demands of ethnic societies for selfgoverning in diverse societies, there is, however, a feeling among authorized ethnic groups that strangers who are not indigenous to the areas could threaten their self-rule rights, even if the latter shares a similar nationwide nationality with them.As a result, multinational federations adopt a system that offers superior rights to the ethnic group, which historically considers the land's ethnic home (Dessalegn & Tsegawe, 2020).However, safeguarding the rights of minority groups via such differential treatments may lead to risk discrimination instead of the assurance of parity.In addition, the efficacy of federalism in accommodating diversity and advancing selfgovernance differs from federation to federation.It enabled industrialized states, such as Canada and Switzerland, to be united and democratic, despite their diversity.Moreover, their subnational governments also enjoy substantial power, while the latter lack the power to implement their legitimate rights in less-developed countries (Yimenu, 2022).
Classifying citizens into ethnic groups and labeling them to explicit autonomous national homelands as fitting specific nations encourages attitudinal nationalism.Decentralized organizations controlled by minority nationalist groups empower groups to indoctrinate the public with pro-selfrule opinions and ideals via the influential communicative method of the government.In addition, by familiarizing new grounds for electoral competition, federalism establishes an arrangement of political opportunities to get positions easier than in unitary governments (Martinez-Herrera, 2010).
Hence, federalism itself is not the only solution for peaceful coexistence when minorities are extensively dispersed throughout the majority of the population (Choudhry & Hume, 2011;Männle, 2017).It is not adequate to safeguard accommodation and self-governance, although it seems to aid in the management of ethnic diversity to a certain level.Federalism alone would not hold opposing groups together, but it could be only one way of accommodating diversity (Simeon & Conway, 2001) and cannot end every conflict, but offer an institutional device to address conflict successfully and nonviolently (Männle, 2017) by balancing the forces of separation and complete assimilation (Simeon & Conway, 2001).Theories of federalism also uphold the idea that constitutionalism and democratic systems are required for stable multinational federations, as federalism alone is not adequate for reducing ethnic clashes.Hence, federalism should be strengthened by institutional and societal factors (Aalen, 2006).
The absence of self-rule and shred-rule, undermining constitutional power sharing and rule of law, democratic deficit and underrepresentation, single party dominance, and lack of genuine negotiation among different actors resulted in the collapse of federations in Eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union.Efforts by some groups to centralize federations have resulted in weak or no overarching identities, secession, and disputes in the region of several failed federations (McGarry & O'Leary, 2009).According to the authors, corruption and the abuse of power adversely affected federalism in Nigeria.From this perspective, federalism may increase the refutation of the general political community among the marginal populace and escalate conflict.Federal design alone cannot guarantee unity and diversity in an all-embracing multi-ethnic society.
On balance, there is undeniably a link between federalism and conflict management when correctly guided by the correct mechanisms delivered by the constitution and complemented by other power-sharing arrangements such as non-territorial autonomy and consociation.Federalism could help end conflict and serve as a tool for good governance in post-conflict situations."The more efficient overall governance is, the less likely it is that minority rights are neglected and that minority issues develop into conflicts" (Palermo, 2017, p. 13).The competence of the government is vital for creating suitable situations and recognizing minority rights.The achievement of the ability in federalism to reply to the challenges of multi-cultural federation relies on how the core institutional standards of autonomy and cooperation are changed into institutional reality.The effectiveness of federalism in multinational societies must be seen in terms of exploring the interaction between institutions and societies in which they are embedded.For federalism to effectively manage conflict, cooperation among various institutions and multi-level governments is necessary.
Promoting self-governance and co-management, empowering marginalized communities, encouraging constitutional power sharing, democratic representation, rule of law, opening space for multi-party systems, and genuine negotiation among different actors are essential for the effectiveness of federalism (Palermo, 2017).Thus, federalism is a better response to the demands of various ethnic groups and may respond to concurrent pressures for the manifestation of identity to sustain the territorial integrity of a country.This makes it a favorable choice for an ethnically plural society that wants to build a common country.
Switzerland is considered as a successful case of nonviolent coexistence of diverse ethnic groups, and is a test to models of further exclusive ethno-cultural nation-states.The Swiss federation is also characterized by consociational and direct democracy which permit diverse ethnic and religious minorities to be proportionally represented in the federal institutions.Its federal system which offers a substantial level of policy power to the units has confirmed the peaceful co-existence of both main religions (protestant and Catholic), and four authorized languages (German, French, Italian and Romansh).This helps for compromise among political forces beyond simple majorities.It thrived mainly through the institutions of federalism and managed to accommodate its cultural and religious diversity (D'Amato, 2010).The federalized system of Switzerland allows both federal and regional institutions a high level of administrative and political autonomy.The new policies also made to pass through both Nationalrat, lower house) and the Stiinderat Regional Council (upper house) since both councils have equal legislative powers.Thus, Switzerland is a characteristic feature of a "multinational federation" (Elazar, 1991, p. 252).
Belgium has also made Dutch and French official languages of government schools and further of wider public administration, and the party system is decentralized to the two linguistic groups (Swenden, 2006).Devolution of policy power to the regions helped Belgium to decrease tensions between the Flemish and the French communities and transformed policy-making and enhanced the efficacy of public policies (Wouters et al., 2014).The Belgian regions participate in the federal policy making since all federal policies need the implicit consensus of the Dutch-and Frenchspeaking groups and this fosters harmony between them.They involve in the federal policy making through various means.The center cannot decide when the consent of both groups is lacking.
Indian federalism has also made citizens direct participants in governance thereby nourishing state-society relations.In addition to administrative convenience, a number of states were created in north, south, and northeast India to safeguard the sociocultural and shared identity of their unique populations (Dodh, 2020).Thus, multicultural and individualistic attitudes are balanced.The country's territorial integrity has occasionally been threatened by regional aspirations, including the Khalistan's demand for exit for the Sikh community, rebellions in the Northeast, calls for separate states in the South based on linguistic identities, and Kashmir's pro-independence movement some of which still exist today.
The center has, however, managed the majority of problems through primarily using soft power and dispute resolution mechanisms, and hard power to contain extremism (Afroz, 2020).Despite the presence of numerous regional ethnicities with extensive roots throughout the huge country, India has grown into a powerful nation.Hence, India's experiences have taught the world-and particularly multicultural and multiethnic nations a lot on managing regional aspirations and accommodation of differences, popular participation in governance and empowering community at grass roots, building trust and strengthening the relations between state and society.
Similar to some federations in Asia such as India, Malaysia, Iraq, and Sri Lanka, the African federations' main justification was accommodation of diversity and conflict management although they followed different approaches (Bhattacharyya, 2019;Breen, 2017;Shakir, 2019).In some African federations, demand for territorial self-rule autonomy increased and secessionist movements were also diffused.However, federalism weakened the secessionist initiative of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) that struggles for the independence of Oromia and the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) which struggles for the independence of Tigray during the late 1980s in Ethiopia (Yimenu, 2023) and the Biafra secession drive during the 1960s in Nigeria (Suberu, 2009).
Federalism was also activated in South Africa to address the demand for self-rule autonomy of different groups (Simeon & Murray, 2001) while peace-making and rebuilding of government capacity were the focus in Somalia's and South Sudan's federalism and government reform.Similar to Belgium, India and Spain, African federations intended to accommodate diverse identities and local demands and build concord instead of uniting of previously independent states.Hence, the main drives of federalism in Africa are conflict management via accommodation of diversity and hence upholding territorial integrity instead of classic aims such as security and economic prosperity.
Almost all African states have avoided recognizing their ethnic plurality because they think that doing so would encourage divided loyalties and independence.Up until the 1990s, it was extremely rare for any state's constitution or laws to reflect its ethnic variety (Gebre-Selassie, 2003).
However, political violence has expanded over the past years in Nigeria, raising doubts on whether federalism really decreases war.Federalism in South Africa has significantly reduced political violence after federalism though the collapse of apartheid has also largely contributed in minimizing such violence (Yimenu, 2023).Though most African countries are multinational, federalism is not popular because of the burden of the despotic past in the continent.Lack of accommodative devices also intensified internal conflicts.In general, African federations are not effective in abolishing conflicts which are based on ethnic identity.

Materials and methods
This article aims to examine the theoretical and practical inter-linkages between federalism and conflict resolution and explain how the Ethiopian federation operates and manages violent ethnic conflicts.This objective was motivated by the violent ethnic conflict in contemporary Ethiopia, which is experiencing a serious crisis in the federation.This research is based on a review of literature from journals, books, and government reports associated with violent ethnic conflicts and the political challenges the country faced during Prime Minister Abiy's administration.The literature included journals, books, and different reports about federalism, ethnic violent conflicts, and challenges.
Meanwhile, the data used were secondary data from various relevant sources, both print and online, using numerous keywords, such as federalism, ethnic violent conflict, conflict management, and politics and policies of Ethiopian ethnic federalism.After reviewing the literature, the results were synthesized and evaluated based on the research objectives and main themes of the study.The literature was reviewed thematically, and content analysis was employed to identify current challenges.

Explaining the struggle between the ethnic and Ethiopian nationalists
An important historical question in Ethiopian politics is the skirmish between regional and central forces (Aalen, 2002).Starting from the time of the Ethiopian student movement (ESM) and the integration of Marxist-Leninist ideology into the political system, two contending camps (ethnonationalism and pan-Ethiopianism) dominated the country.The two political camps advanced their positions, and their rhetoric has developed more nuanced, though the basics continue over the years.The FDRE (1995) constitution advocated ethno-nationalism and institutionalized ethnicity.
However, both forces are internally diverse (Yusuf, 2020), andYusuf (2019), and advanced divergent views.They have also strongly and intermittently influenced each other for many years.Ethiopian nationalists opposed ethnic federalism because they believed it could result in the collapse of Ethiopia (Young, 2021).These centralists argue that ethnic-based groups are secessionists and could disintegrate the country, and the national integrity of the country should be assured.They also raised concerns about the EPRDF's ethnic-friendly expression and stressed its negative effects on national unity.Political parties that were organized to support this camp included the Ethiopian Democratic Party (EDP), Ethiopian Citizens for Social Justice (EZEMA), All Ethiopian Organization for Unity (AEOU), and Freedom and Equality Party (FEP).Such centralist groups do not accept the ideological basis of existing ethnic federalism.They believe that the federal system emanating from such an ideology should be redesigned.
Ethno-nationalist groups, on the other hand, consider Ethiopian nationalists as assimilationists who want to create the nation-state by developing their own culture, language, and religion at the national level (Fiseha, 2022).They criticize the central forces for controlling the state and marginalizing different ethnic groups from power and resources, but promoting, consolidating, and creating an advantaged situation regarding their identities and manifestations.As a result, various ethnically organized political parties, named after their ethnic groups, operate in different regions, such as the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC), Tigray Liberation Front (TPLF), Sidama Liberation Movement (SLM), Wolayta National Movement (WNM), and Afar People's Party (APP).Such political parties and some multi-ethnic parties such as the Freedom and Equality Party (FEP) accept the existing federal system with minor adjustments if they are democratized.Their trust is a democratized multinational federation that can create a long-lasting solution to different questions, resolve conflicts in the federation, and bring a strong unity (Yusuf, 2020).Yimenu (2023) identified that exclusion by social groups in Ethiopia is high regardless of implementation of federalism in the country that could be ascribed to TPLF's dominance in the country's political system till 2018.After 2018, such exclusion could be attributed to the Prosperity party.Historical and political debates are full of contradictory narratives and have long been extensive among political elites and lately among the public, which may negatively affect the state-building process (Kelecha, 2023).Hence, the federal system in Ethiopia has not resulted in equality in accessing government authority.Some of the root causes for this pathetic reality can be attributed to current events but many others go back to years and possibly centuries, having left traces in the nation's initial state formation (Woldemariam, 2022).Thus, it is clear from the above discussion that the two camps have opposing views on the federal system that the country should build, and on the way, ethnic conflict should be resolved.This also indicates the complexity of the outlooks on the current Ethiopian federal system.Political parties and groups with diverse and conflicting positions also recommend numerous and mostly opposing solutions for the problem.Their solutions could be supportive or refusing the existing federal system, combining elements from ethnic and geographic federalism, or sometimes other solutions beyond federalism.
Ethiopia currently faced rising polarization intensified by political power skirmishes among political elites, which became an obstacle to a smooth transition.The country has experienced both rapid political liberalization and an outburst in violent conflicts over the past six years.The upsurge in violence is mainly due to an increase in radical, rival ethnic nationalism in the situation of apparent brittleness of government and political party organizations (Yusuf, 2019(Yusuf, , 2020)).Hence, Ethiopia struggles with the two-fold challenge of accommodating an ethnically diverse society while enhancing democracy.
Polarization is also undergirded by contradictory intellectual traditions concerning Ethiopia's past, present, and future of Ethiopia (Yusuf, 2020).After the legal introduction of a decentralized government structure along ethnic lines in 1992 and the implementation of an ethnic-based federal system in 1995, academic and political debates became widespread in the country.Such highly polarized debates have mainly focused on the virtues and problems of using ethnic identity as a base for the Ethiopian state territorial structure.Some writers extolled the merits of ethnicbased territorial federalism as the best device to redress historical forms of cultural, social, economic, and political sidelining and to set new foundations for an all-encompassing and stable country, while others decried its polarizing and fragmenting impacts (Van der Beken and Dessalegn, 2020; Fiseha, 2019.Contradictory narratives also had a significant impact on historical and political discourses because they are widely prevalent among historians, politicians, activists, and most recently, the general people (Kelecha, 2023).Lack of trust between the government and society has also hindered conflict management process and resulted in ineffective governance in Ethiopia's federal system.Hence, the federal system appears to play limited role in improving relationships between ethnic groups given the present strong tensions between them.
Ethiopian ethnic federalism has also become a subject of strong discussion, and it was found that a majority of people in Ethiopia support federalism, but they are divided on the type of federalism, ethnic or geographic federalism to be implemented (Blanchard, 2021).Thus, the federal project has been highly tested since 2018 because of the confrontation between the two camps.The outcome has been a growth in incidents of violence and violations committed by civilians on other civilians, grave, and consistent human rights abuses by warring parties.The nation's limited economic resources are used for fighting.The war and its successive advances have worsened ethnic-nationalist rivalry, which could cause federal authorities to lose power and cause many conflicts like the former Yugoslavia.The political reform introduced by the Prosperity Party undermined the basics of unity by reawakening old hostilities (Donelli, 2022).
The 1995 FDRE Constitution acknowledges the rights of ethnic communities to promote their own languages and cultures and is intended to manage ethnic diversity (FDRE Constitution, 1995).Federalism in Ethiopia has allowed various ethnic communities to advance their culture, develop their languages, and apply self-governance in their region (Yimenu, 2021).Ethiopian government is based on ethnic federalism, which uses ethnic societies as elements of self-rule.It empowers politically organized ethno-national groups by allowing territorial and political autonomy.
As a result, it provides for ethnic-federal government the basic institutional mechanism for accommodating political, cultural, and linguistic demands of ethnic communities in the country (Fiseha, 2017;Gebre-Selassie, 2003).The Constitution promoted the ethnic group's right to self-determination, claiming that several groups were marginalized in Ethiopia.Hence, the Ethiopian federal arrangement accommodates and empowers marginalized groups mainly by providing territorial and political autonomy to geographically concentrated ethnic communities (Yusuf, 2020;Fiseha, 2017;FDRE Constitution, 1995, Article 46(2)).Its three decades of federal experimentation can also be a lesson for other federations since there are supporters, critics, and those with views in the middle.
The Ethiopian federal structure has created ethnicity-based regional states and two autonomous cities.The House of Federation recognized 76 ethno-national groups, but until now, only 12 regional states have been established.Internal diversity and extreme asymmetry of ethnicity, development, economic structure, territory, and population size characterize Ethiopian regions.The level of discrepancy also varied from region to region.However, their constitutional status and power are equal regardless of de facto asymmetry.Ethnic federalism is said to be important for accommodating diverse societies, because it empowers ethnic groups for self-rule.Self-rule lessens conflict by encouraging integration, allowing groups to live cooperatively, and defining a shared public space (Ghai, 2000: 524).Some writers also consider ethnic federalism deficient since the institution discriminately authorizes some groups that could lead to conflicts and crises in the country, irrespective of the situation (Roeder, 2009:204 in Yimenu, 2022).However, whether the federation is ethnic or non-ethnic, its success can be based on various factors.For federations to be successful, their public and leaders should be committed to and hold federal principles as the utmost vital political worth and life (Elazar, 1987;Yimenu, 2022).They should also be led by democratic leaders and parties to avoid secessionist tendencies and civil war, which were observed in the former Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.Moreover, "thinking federal," which signifies addressing the problem of forming political relations from a federalist perspective instead of a centralist one, can result in federal success.The political situation and process are vital, in addition to the organizational and constitutional features of federal systems (Watts, 2015, Rodden, 2004, Bermeo, 2002and Hicks, 1978in Elazar, 1987;Yimenu, 2022).
The high ethnic diversity of regional states is reflected in the heterogeneous Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Regional State, with more than 50 ethnic groups (Fiseha, 2017).Various ethnic communities in Ethiopia (particularly in this region) also seek more power for selfgovernance, even after many years of federal experimentation (Fiseha, 2017).The demands for additional autonomy among the diverse zonal and woreda administrations of the region are currently rising, causing violent conflicts to erupt in different zones, such as Sidama (before achieving its statehood), Wolita, and Guraghe.In addition, the decision of the government is not consistent because Sidama is allowed regional government status (though after many struggles and loss of lives), while other ethnic groups such as Wolaita and Guraghe are denied.Hence, the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People's Regional State are on the verge of fragmentation.
Almost all states are concerned with creating the main vehicle for grouping and articulating the political, cultural, and linguistic identities of the nation's main ethnic groups (Fessha, 2008).Thus, the motivating idea behind ethnic federalism appears to be the need to stand in and nurture ethnic groups as unique people with unique political, geographical, social, and language components.Tensions between ethnic groups and their political institutions that want to solely regulate regions and minorities in the regions have led to deadly conflicts in Ethiopia.This has chiefly been severe for minority groups in the regions because their ethnic relatives may have a basic unit of their own, but a portion of the ethno-national group is found as an intra-unit minority in another regional state because it is incorrectly adjacent to the boundary (Fiseha, 2017).
The Ethiopian approach of putting larger ethnic groups in one region is also criticized for creating a danger to the national integrity of the country (Fessha, 2008).The tendency to be involved in battles is great when each unit government is recognized as the sole ethnic group.This could lead to authoritarian cultural prejudice and secessionism.The growth of ethnic entrepreneurship based on language has become common, as ethnicity has become the main source of power.The design of the states and local governments in the country creates a motherland/titular ethno-national group for a particular population by linking the specific ethno-national group and the area over which political authority is exercised, allowing the group to control regional and local political institutions (Fiseha, 2017;Kelecha, 2022).Unrestricted ethnic nationalism aiming at forming subnational identity at the cost of overarching signs of the nation and shared nationality cultivated in many years causes a weak "we belong" feeling and creates a favorable condition for skirmish and disintegration (Fiseha, 2019).
Ethiopia was in a civil war since 2020 due to the outburst of conflict in many parts of the country.Free mobility of labor and capital was also hindered in the country.Raleigh (2022) indicated that the conflict resulted in numerous high fatality occurrences of violence against civilians, displacement of thousands of civilians and destruction of civil infrastructure in Tigray, Amhara and Afar regions.Raleigh also states that Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLEDP) documented 3,200 losses of life in Afar and Amhara regional states during the latter six months of 2021, over 680 fatalities in Oromia region and over 270 deaths of civilians in the same year.
Thus, the Ethiopian federal system empowers politically organized ethno-national groups by allowing territorial and political autonomy.It created a favorable environment and basic institutional mechanism for accommodating the political, cultural, and linguistic demands of ethnic communities in the country.In Ethiopia, federalism offered different ethnic groups the opportunity to develop their cultures, their languages, and their systems of local self-government (Kefale, 2020).Many ethnic groups are empowered to establish regional self-rule institutions, practiced and fostered their culture, and developed and applied their languages at regional bureaus in Ethiopia as a result of federal experiment in the country.More than 50 languages are used in the education system of the country compared to only a single language, Amharic, before implementation of federal system (Yimenu, 2022(Yimenu, , 2023)).The core institutional framework for meeting the political, cultural, and linguistic aspirations of the nation's ethnic communities was thus provided for by the ethnic-federal government (Van der Beken and Dessalegn, 2020;Fiseha, 2019).The ruling elites also favored integrating peripheral regions into the central state through building infrastructure (Abbink, 2000).Federalism has also contributed to the regionalization and localization of public administration since it brought administrative practices to the grass roots level.However, the system has been extremely challenged since 2018 as a result of the confrontation between the two camps, which has caused many incidents of ethnic violence.The war and its successive advances have worsened ethnic-nationalist rivalry, which could cause additional violent conflicts and lead to the disintegration of the country like the former Yugoslavia.Furthermore, Ethiopian ethnic federalism became a subject of strong discussion and a majority of Ethiopians supported federalism, but the disagreement was on the type of federalism, on ethnic or geographic federalism to be implemented, the Ethiopian nationalists favoring geographic federalism, and the ethno-nationalists supporting ethnic federalism.

The state and party structures and ethnic conflicts in Ethiopian federation
Despite the broad constitutional devolution of authority to ethnic groups in the country, the Ethiopian federal system has been highly controlled by the dominant party (EPRDF) and its partners, which ran governments at federal and regional state levels (during the EPRDF era), and now by the Prosperity Party (PP).The Ethiopian federation ran desperately, similar to a centralized, unitary government, with utmost authority existing in the federal government (Yusuf, 2020)."The elite in the center continue [d] to rule; the elite in the periphery continue [d] to administer" (Markakis, 2011, pp. 281-282).The vanguard party, which has led the nation's change to a federal government and the preparation of the current constitution, has amazingly dominated the existing seats of at all levels of government for the last many years.
The governing party firmly gripped political matters in the State.Hence, federalism in Ethiopia has not led to a fair distribution of power and has not ended the dominance of the center in the past, which remains an obstacle to building a democratic, multinational system.This also requires that the genuine interests of diverse groups be sufficiently represented and reflected in government policymaking and the implementation process for sustainable and lasting peace.Addressing the representation issue in a fruitful mechanism at the helm of power is essential for bringing about ethnic satisfaction in different regions, and therefore, peaceful coexistence and stability.
Subnational autonomy is undermined, and opposition party actions are strictly limited as a result of the centralized party structure of the ruling party (the former EPRDF and the present PP).Ethiopia also followed a developmental state model during the EPRDF period, which strongly favors centralized decision-making, devotion to development and poverty elimination, huge investment, and an independent and proficient civil service for rapid economic development and transformation (Mkandawire, 2001).Failure to properly align federalism and developmental state orientation on the part of the government led to a political crisis, as the latter was the dominant ideology (Fiseha, 2019).Dictatorship is a feature in which the Ethiopian developmental state is shared with East Asian developmental states (Kelecha, 2022).
However, following the 2018 political developments, the Ethiopian government appeared to have shifted to the West, which shows that leaving East Asia imitated the governing ideology formerly accepted by the EPRDF.Too much emphasis on development at the expense of federalism and democracy gave rise to unparalleled political crises and public protests from 2014 to 2018.The development approach is based on a policy of transferring many hectares of land to investors without adequate compensation for farmers (Kelecha, 2022).This, in turn, resulted in extensive land grabs, expulsions, and violations of human rights that contributed to political instability in the country.With a score of 3.42, Ethiopia stood 129th out of 167 nations and labeled an oppressive one dominant party system (Freedom House, 2018).This weakened institutions and self-governance, relegated opposition parties, and encouraged despots, leading to political instability.Hence, Ethiopia can obviously be categorized as an authoritarian country since the government, while making efforts to accommodate its diverse ethnic groups, failed to democratize the system, and the central government controlled all political spaces and affairs through a centralized party structure, which is the behavior of authoritarian states.According to the FDRE Constitution (Article 52), regional states have their own legislative, executive, and judicial power.
The constitution reserved residual competencies for the regions.The regional councils chosen for the five-year term of office are the highest legislative bodies in the states.They also selected the executive body among their members.Article 47 (2) of the constitution promises the prerogatives of minorities living in majority regional states and ethnic groups in various regions to create their own separate states.The constitution (Article 39) also recognized the rights of secession to create an independent state and separation to form a separate autonomous state (FDRE Constitution, 1995).
Article 39 empowers ethnic communities to establish autonomous regional governments in the area where they reside and fair representation in the region and the center.Hence, ethnic groups can establish regional governments by withdrawing from their current regions.On the other hand, non-territorial groups dispersed in the country can barely enjoy the right to self-administer, since establishing an autonomous regional government institution is restricted to an ethnic group that makes a majority in a certain region.However, the right to self-rule includes matters beyond creating self-government, such as the right to participate in federal and regional councils.Nonterritorial groups have the chance to participate in federal and unit governments even though they cannot establish a regional majority in a specific region.
The article also specifies that representation ought to be fair, indicating the condition of devices to safeguard the representation of all groups of the public in decision-making.The secession article and the idea of ethnic identity as a foundation for the Ethiopian federation are influenced by the Marxist-Leninist thought of ethnicity as innate, yet can be mobilized and shaped by the vanguard party (Vaughan, 2003, pp. 170-71).The EPRDF avowed that self-determination would defuse ethno-nationalism sentiment and promote unity since it guarantees the Ethiopian union's voluntary nature.The leaders of the EPRDF believed that secession and ethnicity could be regulated by the political party and that they could not cause any peril to the unity of a federation (Yimenu, 2022).Such ideas about ethnicity and the vanguard party's capability to regulate and mobilize ethnicity means that the federation runs based on the party edifice.
The crack of the EPRDF and the successive rhetorical battle between Tigray region and the federal government, which intensified to a fatal war, proves how the Ethiopian federal system is connected to the party structure, although the ideological confrontation between the two parties (TPLF and PP) could be another reason.The TPLF was downgraded from the center to run the Tigray regional government as it was accused of being determined to be the guardian of the old system when the "reformists" named as "Team Lemma," appeared inside the bigger EPRDF as a result of the protests that took place in the major regions of the country from 2014 to 2018 (Fiseha, 2022), Yusuf (2019).The ruling party then changed its chairman to Dr. Abiy Ahmed Ali due to Hailemariam Desalegn's resignation in 2018, which led the reformist team to ascend to the top of the federal government power.
After controlling for central power, however, even the reformist group could not retain its inner unity.The partitions and differences are noticeable between the prosperity party representing the Amhara and Oromo communities, and even within each group (Yusuf, 2019).Yusuf further argues that the Amhara branch of the prosperity party allied itself further with Amhara nationalist rhetoric, whereas the Oromia branch of the party wavered amid "Oromo nationalism and supra-ethnic Ethiopian identity," and it is not cohesive on main political matters and ideology or policy.Hence, the ruling party has lost its capacity to handle stable political change in the country and itself has become a cause of conflict and contributed largely to the spread of violence in the country.
Moreover, the absence of unity within the ruling party has also complicated conflict resolution in the country in general, since the different branches of the prosperity party do not speak by one voice and do not have a similar stand on some national agendas, such as the federal system to be built in the country.The federation also faced the challenge of balancing the right to self-governance of ethnic groups and the obligation to safeguard minorities and encourage the free mobility of labor and capital.On one hand, assuring language rights and local self-governance contributed to a sense of satisfaction among certain historically relegated ethnic groups in the nation.
However, the arrangement of the federal system also gave rise to a sense of marginalization (Yusuf, 2019).The minorities living in different regions and local governments in Ethiopia are facing legal, political and administrative discriminations (Fiseha, 2017) which created natives and "newcomers" due to the possession of each federated unit by one ethnic group.Conflicts in the Amhara region between the regional special police forces and the Qimant society which is an internal minority ethnic group in the region, have resulted in hundreds of fatalities and about 50,000 internal evictions (Ayele & Addisu, 2023).
Concurrently, the ruling party brought the contemporary state into every region of the country, which it claimed for extraction into the international market.This resulted in painful incidents for various indigenous and minority communities who were offered the choice between cooperation and systematic violence such as war crimes and crimes against humankind (Ibrahim & Ali, 2022).As a result, minorities in the regions became victims in the hands of the dominant groups, resulting in divisive politics that separated the two groups.Thus, ethnic federalism empowers and disempowers diverse ethnic groups in Ethiopia.For instance, some regional constitutions 1 do not allow nonindigenous communities to participate in regional political and economic activities (Fiseha, 2017).Such constitutions empower some (indigenous) groups and make them politically dominant in the regions, and the rest are politically disempowered in the regions (Dessalegn & Tsegawe, 2020).This indicates that all ethnic groups within the region cannot exercise their self-governance, except those authorized by regional constitutions.This also results in violent conflicts between empowered regional majority ethnic groups and disempowered minority groups living in the same regions.
Hence, the effort to make a perfect match between ethnic groups and regional states may exacerbate conflict, as it does not recognize minorities in the states.The internal structure of a country has the possibility of freezing ethnicity and geographical borders.Such arrangements turned all conflicts into ethnic clashes.Ethnicity is also the only jargon in political analysis, and is a readily accessible tool for ethnic entrepreneurs.Currently, internal displacement occurs due to conflicts in various areas of Ethiopia.It is initiated mostly by ethnic tensions worsened by strong ruling parties' political control from the center and extensive resource scarcities in recurrently food insecure areas.The government's regionalization policy along ethnic lines, has also contributed to internal displacement (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre IDMC, 2006).
The continuing spread of violence, driven by hatred and tension to ethnic-based and gender-based violence, could lead to additional outrage criminalities against guiltless citizens, particularly women and children who are supposed to be further susceptible.The increase in conflict could also negatively influence the country's humanitarian situation in the country (United Nations UN Human Rights Council, 2022).The report also indicated that the lives of about 20 million people in the country are at risk due to drought and declining food aid in addition to conflict.The domestic civil war and the ethnic and religious violence occurring in the various areas of the country have greatly influenced all facets of human life.In the past five years alone, more than tens of thousands have been killed, millions have been displaced, the nation's international place is severely worsened, national security is vulnerable, the economy is in muddles, and social cohesion is at an all-time poor.It also led to a continuing humanitarian crisis in different regions of the state (Teferra, 2022).
Hence, political turmoil, violence, and tensions between the ethnic groups over the management of the area and involvement in the state, and mobilization arranged by local political elites in different regions, resulted in the loss of many lives, displacement of people, and damage to resources strained the country.
It is difficult to bring lasting political stability to the country, given that sizeable non-indigenous groups are marginalized from the political process.The federal system did not fully resolve resentment between ethnic groups; rather, it only pacified it tentatively.The war that began in November 2020 in the Tigray region affected the entire nation.The outbreak of the war in the northern part and conflicts in other parts of the country resulted in the rise in prices of essential goods, which has also worsened living situations in the country.The war also led to a continuing humanitarian crisis, including nearly six million people in Tigray and other people living in Amhara, Afar, Oromia, Benishangul-Gumuz, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People's Regions.This conflict has been fueled by the contradictory narratives and propaganda of political groups.One of the reasons for the conflicts in the country after 2018 was the alleged flimsiness of the government and party structure, which was partially due to years of discontent.The liberalization of the political space also allowed the development of confident and radical nationalist identities that confronted the existing state of affairs in the ruling party and government institutions.Furthermore, the increased participation of informal and occasionally secret ethno-cultural youth groups in rival actions has contributed to conflicts in different parts of the country (Yared, 2021).
The multi-ethnic government project of the EPRDF also contributed to the escalation of a range of pro-self-government enlistments, both in ethno-national and Ethiopian nationalist camps.Ethnic nationalism has matured in two ways.On the one hand, it nourished the chances given to it by the legal and political organizational contexts implemented to foster it.Elites worked hard to advance their cultures and languages and to tempt self-satisfaction in one's ethnicity by applying the organizations and media of the government.The organization of the country based on ethnic factors and recognition of the dominant groups in most regions has caused several new local-level conflicts and the displacement of people.Some ethnic groups, for instance, the Majang people in Gambella region faced unparalleled security challenges due to the introduction of mechanized commercial agriculture and the extensive migration of highlanders to the area who are users of the forestlands, which in turn led to the erratic conflicts happening in their locality (Mesfin, 2015).Conflicts also erupt repeatedly to get jobs in the local ethnic administration.Boundaries between regions, zones, and woredas have also been frequent causes of many conflicts in which many became victims (Abbink, 2011).Ethiopia's nationalities share executive power in a restricted way.The House of Federation has 153 members representing 76 nations indirectly chosen by the states and plays a key role in the distribution of grants for the regions and management of battles, although it is non-legislative and regional governments have no way to impact legislation at the center.Article 39 of the Constitution itself has stimulated some ethno-nationalist groups in the country to develop secessionist programs, although they existed before the endorsement of the 1994 Constitution (Abbink, 2011).
However, constitutionally engrained independence to the various groups of the country seems to have dropped short of the adequacy to achieve these objectives for the ruling party (Bihonegn, 2015).Resolving national inequalities, securing peace and democracy, and maintaining the territorial integrity of the state were the necessary drivers of the federalization process in the country.Proportional representation in various echelons could solve problems related to the release of different ethnic groups.In addition, it can serve the essential demands of particular ethnic groups or their elites.This can also contribute to the protection of minority rights in many regional and local governments.
In general, the Ethiopian ethnic federal system assured language rights and local selfgovernance, which contributed to a sense of satisfaction among certain historically relegated ethnic groups.On the other hand, the federal system's arrangement gave rise to a sense of marginalization.Minorities living in different regions and in local governments in Ethiopia face legal, political, and administrative discrimination.This conflict has been fueled by the contradictory narratives and propaganda of political groups.The Ethiopian federal system is highly linked to the party structure, and the centralized ruling party structure also undermined the actions of regional governments.In addition, the developmental state model of the EPRDF, which strongly favored centralized decision making and commitment to development and poverty elimination at the expense of federalism and democracy, gave rise to an unparalleled political crisis and public protests from 2014 to 2018.The crack of the EPRDF, the uninterrupted rhetorical battle, and the ideological confrontation between the TPLF and the PP intensified the conflict in the country.In addition, the effort of state-building via modernization and centralization was not effective in Ethiopia and has not brought the anticipated outcome.
In addition, the ruling (Prosperity Party) party has also lost its capacity to manage a stable political transition in the country, has become by itself a cause of conflict, and has contributed largely to the spread of violence in the country.Furthermore, the absence of unity within the ruling party complicates conflict resolution in the country.The federation also faced the challenge of balancing the right to self-governance of ethnic groups and the responsibility of protecting minorities and encouraging the free mobility of labor and capital.
Although federalism has made some contributions in certain policy areas such as local selfgovernance in Ethiopia, it has not improved governance in the country.Hence, the Ethiopian government is weak and is not effective due mainly to centralized party structure, failure of the government to ensure political stability and lack of trust between the government and society.Generally, federalism has not resulted in fair distribution of power at all levels and has not ended the historical dominance of the center.The Ethiopian federation serves as a real example for how intra-party politics takes priority over federal institutions.

Conclusion and recommendations
The study examined the management of violent ethnic conflicts and the contribution of federalism to conflict management in Ethiopia.Specifically, the research raised questions: In what ways does federalism in Ethiopia reduce ethnic conflicts, and how does it foster the peaceful coexistence of diverse societies in the country?
In Ethiopia, the two contending camps (ethno-nationalism and pan-Ethiopianism) dominated the political discourse in the country.Both forces are also internally varied and advanced divergent views, and their rhetoric has developed more nuanced, though the basics continue over the years.Historical and political discussions are also full of contradictory narratives which could negatively affect the state-building process.There are also complex views on the current Ethiopian federal system as political parties and groups with diverse and conflicting positions also endorse many and largely divergent solutions for the political problem.
The Ethiopian federation ran desperately, similar to a centralized unitary government, with utmost authority existing in the federal government.This also requires that the genuine interests of diverse groups be sufficiently represented and reflected in government policy making and the implementation process for sustainable and lasting peace.Since 2018, the Prosperity Party (PP) has controlled the center and the regions, which was controlled by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and its allies before that.As a result, violent ethnic conflicts shocked Ethiopia since 2018.The main cause of the conflict was confrontation and the sharp escalation of competing ethno-nationalism.Government and party brittleness have also resulted in a favorable environment for the spread of violent conflicts.Weak institutions for selfgovernance, marginalization of opposing parties, and centralization of power by the federal government also contributed for political instability in the country.Therefore, Ethiopia can be categorized as an authoritarian state since the central government continued controlling over all political arenas and affairs through a centralized party structure, which is the behaviour of authoritarian states, despite efforts to accommodate the country's numerous ethnic groups.
The breakup of the EPRDF and the subsequent rhetorical conflict between the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) and the federal government, which escalated into a deadly conflict, also demonstrate how the Ethiopian federal system is linked to the party structure.The federation also had to strike a balance between the ethnic groups' right to self-government, its responsibility to protect minorities, and its promotion of labour and capital mobility.Legal, political, and administrative discrimination is experienced on minorities groups residing in various local administrations and areas.Therefore, federalism in Ethiopia has not resulted in a fair distribution of power at all levels, and has not ended the historical dominance of the central government.
Thus, to manage the conflicts that erupt in the regions and local governments of Ethiopia, building local institutions to help them comply with the rights of non-indigenous groups is crucial.Law enforcement through institutional mechanisms, including strong courts, can also create strong institutional protection and ensure the rule of law.Proportional representation at different levels of government is also important to serve the vital demands of specific ethnic groups and to protect minority rights in many regional and local governments.
Moreover, adequate representation of the genuine interests of the public in government policymaking and the implementation process for sustainable and lasting peace is essential to end conflicts.There is a need to design an inclusive governance system that accommodates diverse ethnic groups in the federation by considering the heterogeneity of the inhabitants in the regions.Negotiation between different actors, balancing federalism and democracy with development, power sharing, and nonterritorial autonomy and encouraging a multi-party system and democratic culture are crucial issues.
Ethiopia should also learn from the federal countries of Switzerland, Belgium, and India with regard to living in peace and negotiation methods, establishing trust between the government and society, handling local desires and accommodating disparities, democratic decentralization, balancing individual and group rights, citizen engagement in governance and accountability, and empowering society at the local level.Ethiopia might also gain insight from India's steady transition from the hegemonic party system to a certain degree of party pluralism.
The consociational democracy practiced in Swiss and Belgian federations that enabled their regions and ethnic groups to be proportionally represented in their federal institutions, and to accommodate their cultural and religious diversity is also a good lesson for Ethiopia.Their second chambers also have policy making power as opposed to Ethiopian House of Federation (second chamber).Hence, Ethiopian house of federation needs to be reformed so as to serve the interests of the regions and ethnic groups in the country.The linguistic diversity practiced in Belgium and Switzerland which has contributed for the nonviolent coexistence of diverse linguistic groups, and that helped them to reduce tensions between the ethnic communities and fostered harmony between them.This could also be a good lesson for Ethiopian federation.Hence, Ethiopia, should formulate and implement a language policy that takes in to account the country's diverse societies and languages.The FDRE constitution also needs amendment to incorporate the changes.
The research has its own limitations that take an account of gaps of validity and reliability.The study could have become better if it included both quantitative and qualitative data.This might have affected the results of the research at some level.Therefore, other similar studies may fill the gap by widening the scope of the study ethnic groups of their respective regions as all of them clearly specified.