The Potential of Democratization in Ethiopia: The Welkait Question as a Litmus Test

Sonja John First Published  August 2, 2021 Research Article

Abstract

Abiy Ahmed was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019 for his role in initiating peace talks in the Horn of Africa and his attempts to reform the Ethiopian democracy. Under the slogan medemer, he promised he would do everything possible to unite the multi-ethnic country, reconcile conflicts and bring brotherly peace to the country. This article treats the Welkait question as a litmus test to determine the potential of democratization in Ethiopia. The identity question of the indigenous Welkait Amhara was raised and suppressed since 1991. In April 2018, the then newly elected Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed met with members of the Welkait Amhara Identity Question Committee and promised that this case would be solved within the federal system and in accordance with the constitution. Within the struggle for recognition paradigm, this article asks if government responses follow the medemer approach of reconciliation, cooperation, rule of law and democracy.

Introduction

Two weeks after Abiy Ahmed was appointed Prime Minister of Ethiopia in April 2018,2 he held a meeting with the recently released political prisoners from the Welkait Amhara Identity Question Committee3 in Gondar. After the meeting, all attendees were hopeful that the Welkait4 issue could be solved peacefully. They agreed that the government institutions would abstain from arrest and torture but use a peaceful and democratic approach in line with the constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) and, in return, the Welkait Committee would keep the population calm (Atalay, 2020; Demeke, 2019). In 2016, the Welkait Committee members had been arrested and tortured for petitioning for identity recognition of the Welkait Amhara population (Keasegid, 2019; Teshager, 2018).

Abiy Ahmed won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019 for his approach to resolving some conflicts in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa. He had declared on numerous occasions that under his administration, the country would be united, democratized, and governed by rule of law (Abiy, 2018, 2019a, 2019b).5 This article uses the Welkait case as a litmus test to determine the potential of democratization under Ethiopia’s current governance. The fundamental question that this article wants to answer to assess possibilities of democratization in Ethiopia is: Are the constitution as well as democratic institutions and processes respected?

In the 1990s, the ruling party drew regional borders without consulting or obtaining the consent of the population concerned. Throughout Ethiopian history, allotment of land has always been an instrument for control—an instrument that was applied by force. Thus, attempts to allot land without consultation were oftentimes met with resistance (Bahru, 2017: 76, 90, 191, 212, 217). The Welkait question is not unique; similar land and identity conflicts exist throughout the country. Hence, how the Welkait case is handled signals nationwide the likeliness of policy change, the achievement of internal peace and reconciliation promised by Abiy Ahmed.

The clamor for recognition has emerged as a powerful paradigm. The theme of struggle for recognition is widely associated with the works of Axel Honneth and Nancy Fraser. According to Honneth (1995: 127), at the core of any public sphere lies a struggle for recognition. Fraser (2009: 101f.) applies a recognition theoretical turn to describe the tendency to tackle many pressing real-life issues. Classic examples of issues that are tackled by applying a recognition theoretical turn include discrimination, exclusion, social justice, political or gender equality. The core of the struggle for recognition paradigm consists of questions regarding identity formation, self-realization and subjectification. Normally, those who are actively involved in a struggle for recognition make deliberate efforts to eliminate institutionalized patterns that sustain and reinforce various mechanisms of exclusion. They are also struggling against those institutionalized patterns of value because they strip them of their dignity and subordinate them out of existence. Therefore, struggles for recognition seek to redress injustices as much as to step out of invisibility and end the violation of fundamental rights. The struggle for recognition may take different forms, which can be classified into two categories: argumentation or violence. Some struggles for recognition seek reconciliation and a viable consensus, while others may refuse the idea of consensus and seek instead to perpetuate an agnostic confrontation. Some struggles for recognition are both argumentative and violent, while others may transform from argumentative to violent modes. This article hypothesizes that applying constitutional procedures to the Welkait case builds public trust in the institutions and helps consolidate democracy in Ethiopia. In turn, refusing democratic processes to legal political claims will most likely transform an argumentative recognition claim into a violent one and counteract the democratization process.

In this article, a descriptive research approach is applied by comparing the calls for the democratic procedure by the Prime Minister with the actual steps taken to solve the Welkait issue. First, the article lays out what the Welkait question is, how it was raised, and how the Ethiopian institutions reacted before Abiy Ahmed’s term of office. To a large extent, this part relies on oral history recorded through expert interviews and on formal letters by the Welkait Committee written to respective regional, state and federal offices, petitions, and signature lists.6 The interviews with Committee members were conducted before their arrests in 2016 and after their release in 2018. Follow-up interviews were conducted between September 2018 and February 2020.7 Field notes and observations were collected from 2015 to 2020. The Welkait issue has not yet been investigated by scholars inside of Ethiopia due to restrictions in academic freedom and remains a mere side note in the literature on Ethiopian contemporary history and politics (Muluken, 2018: 12).8 Ethiopians in the Diaspora have assembled a comprehensive body of literature, most prominently Prof. Asrat Woldeyes and other members of the All Amhara People’s Organization (Achamyeleh, 2016: 4ff., 2020; Muluken, 2018: 317ff.).

Additionally, this article delves deeper in describing the context in which this conflict is addressed, and the political system Abiy Ahmed set out to reform. Subsequently, the article lays out Abiy Ahmed’s understanding of democracy expressed in his inauguration speech as Prime Minister, in his book Medemer, and in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize (Abiy, 2018, 2019a, 2019b). This is followed by a reconstruction of recent developments through expert interviews (Atalay, 2020; Awol, 2019; Demeke, 2019). Finally, applying the basic principle of rule of law and the recognition paradigm as a framework, it will be possible to conclusively state whether Abiy Ahmed’s administration applied democratic procedures in addressing the question of the Welkait Committee.

Welkait

Welkait is an area located in the northwestern part of Ethiopia, at the border between the Amhara and Tigray regions (see Figure 1). The area borders Kafta Humera to the north and Tegede to the south. Today, Welkait is officially part of the Tigray region. However, as the Welkait Committee claims and documents, when the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) gained control of the country in 1991 and restructured the regions under the TPLF-led party-coalition Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), the indigenous, geographically and culturally Amhara territories of Welkait, Tegede, Tilimt, Humera and Raya were demarcated as part of the Tigray region. During the previous socialist Derg regime, Welkait was part of Semien Wogera Woraja, with its capital Dabat, in Amhara. Prior to the Derg, under the reconstituted Italian colonial empire, Welkait was within Begimder province (hence, within Amhara region), one of the six major regional divisions, with the city of Gondar as its capital (Achamyeleh, 2016, 2020; Keasegid, 2019: 2f., 58ff.; Muluken, 2018: 232ff.; Bahru, 2017: 162). The Tekeze River was recognized as a natural border between Tigray and Amhara. The river is considered one of the country’s four major river systems, flowing westwards into the Nile (Achamyeleh, 2016: 6; Human Rights Council , 2016: 3ff.; Bahru, 2017: 2). Achamyeleh (2016) collected geographical and anthropological evidence from European scholars studying Abyssinia in the 19th and early 20th centuries characterizing Amhara and Tigray as historically separate kingdoms, differing in language, dress and customs, and separated by the Tekeze River.

Figure 1. Map of Tigray region and contested areas.
Copyright: Danial E.

This article restricts its scope to the case of the Welkait Committee only. The first section is divided into three subsections. It presents the nature of the question, how it was raised by the Welkait Committee, and how state institutions responded.

What is the Welkait question?

The Welkait Amhara Identity Question Committee (የወልቃይት የአማራ ማንነት ጥያቄ ኮሚቴ) requested state institutions to recognize the identity of indigenous9 Amhara people from Welkait as Amhara. They claim that when the government demarcated the regional borders and placed Welkait within the Tigray region, they violated the FDRE’s article 46 (2) of the Constitution: “States shall be delimited on the basis of the settlement patterns, language, identity and consent of the peoples concerned.” This request was written in a letter and sent via fax and delivered in person to all relevant zonal, regional and federal offices of the government, ministries and EPRDF party bureaus on 17 December 2015.10 The request was printed on the letterhead of the Welkait Committee, and received and numbered by the receiving institutions (i.e. Office of the Prime Minister no. 034440).

The letter starts with a written authorization of the delegates to represent the Welkait Committee and the Welkait Amhara people. The centrality of the message in the letter is the “Welkait Amhara National Identity Question.” Further, the letter enumerates the key contributions of Welkait citizens to the culture and history of Ethiopia. It states that apart from their ancestors cultivating the Amhara identity, their land and property were acknowledged and respected. Welkait citizens were proud of their Ethiopian and their Amharic identities (Welkait Committee, 2016: 1). Oppression, violations of the law and other “unpleasant incidents” have forced them to justify their Amhara identity claim. The letter testifies that Welkait is geographically located in Amhara territory, that it has been administered by Amhara offices—within North Gondar (Auraja) under the administration of Wogera region—prior to the restructuring in the 1990s, and that cultural expressions through music, dance, ceremonies and language are distinctively Amharic. It is mentioned that many people also speak Arabic and Tigrinia due to the proximity to Sudan, Eritrea and Tigray. The letter attests to the national contributions of Welkait people through their cultivation of export products including sesame, cotton and millet (3). It also stresses that Welkait people have contributed politically to the country as patriots who fought the Derg regime, resisting the TPLF narrative that all Amhara were Derg supporters (4). The letter stresses that the question is not new but that it has been raised since 1991 based on the constitutional rights expressed in article 39, paragraphs 2 and 5, which suggests that the government, over the decades, repeatedly promised to answer this question democratically but failed to do so (4). Worse, Welkait people who kept their Amhara identity were harassed, dispossessed, killed, arrested, kidnapped and deported, and many are still missing to this day. In Ethiopia, it is a constitutional right for anyone to demand acknowledgment of identity, but the government breaks its laws (5).11 The letter goes further to mention oppression and discrimination. As described in the letter, oppression and discrimination are manifested through the tendency of denying children the right to learn the Amharic language. Children are forced to speak Tigrinia in school even though this is in total contravention of the constitution. Officials in state institutions speak Tigrinia only. Names of places, rivers, lakes, mountains, springs, cities and regions have been changed from Amharic to different Tigrean names. The discrimination becomes evident when 95% of government jobs are given to Tigreans and only 5% to Amhara. Amhara girls and women were abducted and raped; Amhara students were raped by Tigrean teachers (5). The letter mentions and lists Welkait Amhara people who were dispossessed for refusing to convert their Amhara identity to Tigrean. The dispossession involved confiscation of their land and belongings which were given to Tigreans (5). “Under the previous regimes, people lived peacefully in the area but the current government treats Welkait Amhara people like war enemies despite living under the same democratic constitution” (6). Every year new proclamations are passed that dispossess Amhara. More specifically, while Amhara people used to receive two hectares of land per household, Tigreans now receive 50–100 hectares that are taken from dispossessed and displaced Amhara (7). The letter ends with the request to be protected by the constitution while they politely, democratically and peacefully want to engage with the public and the institutions to finally get an answer to this question without being harmed in person or losing property (8). “We ask this because we have the experience of our people being abducted, killed and disappearing simply for asking this question” (8). The appendix to the letter provides a list of 116 names of Welkait Amhara people who have suffered this fate for raising this question. The attachment also lists some dispossessed and rape victims (8–11).

How was the question raised in 2016

Displaced Welkait Amhara discussed their concern in Gondar and formed a group to debate among the Welkait Amhara community if there was any justifiable reason to pursue the identity question and demand their civil rights. On 23 August 2015,12 they had convened their first meeting and formed the Welkait Amhara Identity Question Committee. On 19 September 2015,13 they conducted an inaugural conference at the Landmark Hotel in Gondar with approximately 450 Welkait Amhara in attendance (Keasegid, 2019; Muluken, 2018: 214f.). At this conference, a committee was formed with 20 members, including Colonel Demeke Zewdu as head of mobilization and Teshager Woldemicael as secretary. One of the resolutions of the meeting was that “From that day onward, we have contacted the Federation to regain our identity as Amhara,” said Teshager (2018). They have collected approximately 25,000 signatures of Welkait people who identify as Amhara and authorized the Committee to speak on their behalf.14

When members of the Welkait Committee started to petition and tried to deliver their request to the responsible government offices, they were denied and threatened. Demeke (2018) recalls:

First we applied to Tigray region and they rejected it; they said we were given Tigrean identity and do not need any other. They said: “You must stop this now. Otherwise we can take measures over you.” We answered that we asked legally according to the constitution. Then we went to the regional government but the same answer was given to us by Mrs. Kidusan Nega, the spokeswoman of the regional council. And then we went to Abay Woldo, president of the Tigray regional government. He announced on TV that we must return to our area, that we are “Enemies of Tigreans” who miss the old days. But nobody gave us their answers in writing.15

After the offices in Tigray region refused to accept and process the petition, on 3 February 2016,16 the Welkait Committee sent The Request for the Declaration of Welkait People of their Amharan Identity as per the Constitution to the House of Federations (HoF) for an appropriate remedy. Simultaneously, copies were sent via fax to the offices of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Council of Ministers, Ministry of Justice, EPRDF, Federal Police Commission, the Tigray Regional State President, the Federal Human Rights Commission, the Federal Office of Ombudsman, and the Tigray region’s TPLF. The HoF claimed that it was not responsible and referred the case back to the Tigray regional council (Atalay, 2018; Demeke, 2018). The Tigray regional council gave them an oral directive to present their case to the Western Zonal administration of the Tigray region. But the zonal and district (woreda) administrations were not willing to hear the question. Hence, the Committee approached the regional council again, to no avail. The district, zonal, regional and federal offices gave the Welkait Committee a run-around, each refusing to hear the case, claiming not to be responsible. Some argued that it is a matter of identity, others that it pertains to borders. The former should have been dealt with on the state or zonal level, the latter on the federal. Clearly, there was a lack of political will to hear the claim and address it.

Over these months, the Welkait Committee held regular meetings and consultations with the population in Gondar, Bahir Dar, Welkait, and other places with displaced Welkait Amhara people, to which everybody was invited to participate and the intentions and demands of the initiative were made public and transparent. In sum, the Welkait Amhara Identity Question was brought forward by the appointed committee in a peaceful, democratic and lawful way, based on the laws of the country. How did the government agencies react?

Government’s answer: Arrests, torture and killings

Months passed and no office reacted to the petition. On 28 January 2016,17 a delegation of 81 Welkait Amhara people traveled to Addis Ababa with the intention to submit their letter personally to the HoF. When they reached Entoto, the outskirt of the capital, federal police stopped them. They interrogated the Committee in Tigrinia, refusing to speak Amharic, the national working language of Ethiopia (Demeke, 2018). They told them to stop raising this question, denied them entrance into Addis Ababa and deported them to Chancho in Oromia region, 300 km from Entoto. The Committee informed the Oromia regional government about the incident and received their support in return. Two days later, they split up and went to Addis Ababa in different groups. On 3 February 2016,18 19 delegates reached the HoF, and four entered the office to make an appointment. However, when they left, they were taken into custody and treated like criminals—interrogated, intimidated, photos and fingerprints taken—at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Atalay, 2020; Demeke, 2018; Keasegid, 2019; Teshager, 2018). The following day, 4 February 2016,19 the delegation was held at HoF and given a letter to the Tigray region, stating that to raise the Welkait question is a constitutional right and that it has to be treated by the regional legal bodies properly.

Half a year later, the Tigray region still refused to deal with the question but sent the military to arrest all committee members.
https://zehabesha.com/the-potential-of-democratization-in-ethiopia-the-welkait-question-as-a-litmus-test/