The Center and the Periphery in Ethiopia: The Evolution of Today’s Federal State
A primary focus of the new government was economic integration and equitable development. As Meles Zenawi, President of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, declared in 1997, “It is only through fast economic growth that is broadly shared by the population that we can hope for sustainable peace. And, therefore, one of the most important pillars of our program is fast economic growth that is equitable and broadly shared among the population” (Meles 1997). The government adopted a policy of affirmative action toward historically disadvantaged regions, whereby Beneshangul-Gemuz, Gambella, Afar, and Somali would receive preferential treatment in budget allocations and enrollment in higher education. Centralization’s legacy is that developing regions are not yet fully integrated into the economy of the Ethiopian state, and few of their residents participate in running the regional administrative structures. The gradual emergence of local administrative officials in the regions, establishment of a more equitable base for development, and better investment in education, health, social and physical infrastructure, and other areas all attest to the positive outcomes of Ethiopia’s federalization and affirmative action policy (Adegehe 2009).
The Modern Ethiopian Federal State Decentralization of political, administrative, and fiscal authority to regional and local governments has been fundamental to the affirmative action strategy. The Government of Ethiopia’s strong commitment to decentralization and building a federal state is enshrined in the 1995 Federal Constitution. Decentralization should be seen as a work in progress, in which the underlying institutional arrangements for success are evolving and continue to require focused support. The first wave of decentralization occurred during the transitional period (1991–94) as state powers devolved to geographically defined ethno-linguistic groups and legislation was passed to create regional and woreda (district) councils. As needed, regions could establish zones as intermediaries between regional and district administrations. In addition to gaining the right to self-determination, the new regional units assumed a range of executive, legislative, and judicial powers. Within their borders, they exercised jurisdiction over social and economic development as well as basic service delivery. Regions were mandated to create the internal institutional arrangements to perform those functions, including a council, executive committee, judicial administration office, public prosecution office, audit office, police and security office, and service and development committee. Proclamation No. 7/1992 stipulated the sources of revenue for regional governing units, which included tax revenues derived within their jurisdictions, fiscal transfers from the central government, domestic borrowing, and others. The latter category was specified in Proclamation No. 33/1992. Capacity constraints prevented regional governments from performing their revenue-collecting assignments, however, and they remained highly dependent on central government grants to meet their new spending obligations in the social sectors. Despite these rather elaborate governing arrangements, the new regional governments remained subordinate to the central government. The regional councils Improving Basic Services for the Bottom Forty Percent • http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0331-4
57