Features of Ethiopian Federalism

<div>
This Chapter examines the defining features of Ethiopia’s post-1995 federal order and situates them within debates on state design, nationalism, and constitutionalism. The chapter identifies a set of distinguishing characteristics—radical recognition of national self-determination, ethnicized territorial governance, group-prioritised constitutional rights, and a hybrid federal–confederal political architecture—and explains how these emerged from Ethiopia’s attempt to manage national diversity after regime collapse. It analyzes the political rationality behind using nationality as the primary unit of state formation and shows how this choice has institutionalized nationalism, reshaped citizenship, and produced a federal system that is politically symmetrical yet administratively and socio-economically asymmetrical. Attention is given to institutional design, including non-judicial constitutional interpretation by the House of Federation, parliamentary government with presidential-level executive powers, uneven population–seat representation in the lower house, party-structured federal–state relations, and two modes of local government formation (self-determination–driven and administratively devolved). The chapter argues that these features have generated a centralised party-state alongside a formally decentralised constitutional order, creating persistent tensions between the rights-based logic of multinational federalism and the control-based logic of dominant-party governance. <span>The chapter concludes that Ethiopian federalism remains a project in motion: it has expanded political participation for nations, nationalities, and peoples, yet it has also produced suspended territorial conflicts, managed self-determination claims, and a fragile equilibrium between secession-enabled constitutional design and unity-oriented state practice. The core scholarly contribution is the demonstration that Ethiopia’s federal experiment cannot be understood through existing models; it represents a distinctive case of federal formation through recognition, in which nationalism is both the problem to be governed and the instrument through which governance occurs.</span>
</div>