In Depth Ethnicity to Citizenship: The High-Stakes Gamble to Rewrite Ethiopia
June 7, 2025
Peaceful regime change through dialogue or credible democratic elections have rarely been recorded in Ethiopian history, if ever at all. The closest the country has ever come to a peaceful transition of power was during the political upheaval of 2018, which triggered a leadership transition within the ruling coalition itself, eventually transforming from the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) to the Prosperity Party.
That internal reconfiguration ignited a wave of political and literal conflicts that persist to this day.
In response to the mounting political crisis, Parliament voted in December 2021 to establish the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission. Mandated to foster national consensus, the Commission was introduced as an initiative to open dialogue on the country’s fundamental political questions.
Despite resistance from several opposition groups—many of whom question its legality and constitutionality—the Commission remains operational.
Last week, the Prosperity Party, along with various federal institutions and unaffiliated civic groups, submitted their agendas to the Commission. Documents obtained by The Reporter reveal the federal government is preparing a sweeping constitutional reform package that could redefine Ethiopia’s federal structure.
The preamble of the government’s 30-page submission to the Commission highlights the complex nature of constitutional reform.
“There are numerous articles, provisions, issues, and challenges in the Constitution that may require revision or amendment. These need to be addressed through broad dialogue, debate, and consensus. If the goal of an amendment is to benefit the people and citizens, then amending the Constitution may not be too difficult. However, due to the fact that the Constitution has not been genuinely sovereign or truly constitutional in practice—and has never been meaningfully tested—amending it could pose some challenges. In fact, amending such an untested law may even appear as though introducing an entirely new constitution,” it reads.
Many analysts and commentators have speculated from the outset that the dialogue would lead towards an attempt at constitutional reform. The latest developments have drawn the ire of senior political figures like Mulatu Gemechu, vice chairman of the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC), who argues that the amendment process lacks legitimacy.
“One cannot just pop out of a commission and decide to amend [the Constitution]. I was there when it was created. Every element of the Constitution was put in intentionally,” he told The Reporter.
His party has distanced itself from the Dialogue Commission, citing concerns over impartiality.
“The first thing we demanded was for it to be structured as an independent entity—not one that shields the interests of any group. It should have been free from the government and political parties and treated all participants equally. That didn’t happen,” said Mulatu.
He argues that his party’s quest for a transitional government was swiftly dismissed as a threat to national unity, despite a pledge from the Commission to include “any inquiry under the heavens” in its nationwide dialogue campaign.
“A commission that has never garnered a genuine people’s mandate cannot be trusted to oversee constitutional amendments,” said Mulatu.
Dejen Mezgebe (PhD), chairman of the Tigray Independence Party (TIP), believes the proposal for constitutional amendment reflects Ethiopia’s political complexity.
“The only way to amend the Constitution is through the procedures outlined in the Constitution itself,” he said.
Dejen described the two-thirds majority vote needed in the House of People’s Representatives to ratify a constitutional amendment as “the easy part.”
The real challenge, he notes, lies in changing Ethiopia’s federal structure from one based on ethnicity to one based on geography.
”Yes, countries like Australia are geographically federal. But does Ethiopia’s political reality truly allow for that?” asked Dejen.
The government insists that the ideas in its submission are intended for dialogue and research—not finalized policy.
Nevertheless, the document includes a number of controversial proposals. Among them are changing the national flag, amending Article 39, which enshrines the right to self-determination and secession, and replacing ethnicity-based regional boundaries with geography-based ones
A segment of the agenda document, titled ‘Constitution, Nation, Nationality, People, and Citizenship’, critiques the Constitution for failing to clearly distinguish between group and individual rights, identity and citizenship, and group autonomy versus individual equality.
It calls for “the supremacy of citizenship.”
”This is not only a central philosophical foundation of the Constitution but also a tool to determine sovereignty, fundamental principles (like autonomy), and administrative structures,” it reads.
”Citizenship must have a more defined presence in the Constitution. This includes: Establishing an independent institution to protect individual rights; recognizing citizenship in a manner that reflects all Ethiopians — without distinctions based on culture, identity, locality, population size, or history.”
Opposition figures view the rhetoric with suspicion.
“Yes, the Constitution should be amended—we support that. But the rights of nations, nationalities, and peoples must never be touched,” says Mulatu. “If we revert to geographic regional statehood, we’re undoing everything people fought for: respect for language, culture, and identity. That would be a return to a unitary system.”
OFC’s idea of a sound constitutional amendment would include expanding the list of official languages, and granting greater autonomy to regional states.
”The issue is not that we didn’t have a more federalist constitution, it is that we have never had a government that practices it entirely. Theoretically, we are a federal state but practically we have been with a government system where power moves from top to bottom. That is not how federalism works,” he said.
TIP’s Dejen echoes the concern.
“This amendment proposal is dangerous, especially for Tigray, which currently has no official or legal representation in federal institutions. Any amendment before Tigray returns to the constitutional order would create a generational crisis,” he warns.
The government’s document acknowledges that Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism—rooted in Article 39—grants extensive autonomy to regions defined by ethnolinguistic identity, including the right to secede.
Though the framework was apparently intended to protect minority, it has nevertheless been criticized for fueling ethnic divisions and border conflicts.
The document warns that this model could hypothetically create over 80 federal states. It also introduces conditions under which secession might be restricted. These include clear institutional and procedural guidelines, criteria such as population size, economic viability, and documented rights violations, supermajority thresholds during referenda, agreements with affected regions, protections for minorities and individuals who wish to retain former affiliations, and clear arrangements for property-sharing
The government argues that redrawing regional borders could enhance administrative efficiency and national cohesion.
Analysts interviewed by The Reporter acknowledge that shifting from ethnicity-based governance could reduce conflict and build unity. But critics warn that it could also erode hard-won rights and deepen longstanding grievances.
Likewise, public opinion is mixed.
A 2023 Afrobarometer survey found that 39 percent of Ethiopians support removing the emblem from the national flag, a similar percentage supports amending Article 39, while two-thirds want more federal working languages, and another 66 percent support imposing term limits on the prime ministership.
These results suggest a national appetite for reform—but not necessarily consensus on how.
Regional reactions are also mixed. Oromia and Somali regions favor preserving the current model, while Amhara and parts of the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region (SNNPR) show growing support for change.
Constitutional reform in Ethiopia requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament and ratification by a majority of state councils—a high bar given the divisive nature of the proposals.
Legal scholars caution that altering foundational provisions—particularly Article 39—without widespread support could destabilize the already fragile political order.
“The process must be transparent, inclusive, and participatory,” said one legal expert , speaking on condition of anonymity. “Without legitimacy, no reform can last.”
The proposed shift to geographic federalism represents the most significant transformation of Ethiopia’s political architecture since the fall of the Derg regime.
Proponents see it as a chance to heal ethnic divisions and foster national identity. Opponents fear it could marginalize minorities and reverse decades of hard-fought recognition.
As Ethiopia approaches this constitutional crossroads, the true test lies not just in what is proposed—but in who gets to participate, and whether every voice is heard.