Article 39

The most controversial item in the Ethiopian constitution is definitely article 39. For some it is the most sacred piece in the whole constitution, yet others vow to give their precious lives so that that article is taken out. I say it is NEITHER.

Let's first clear some common misunderstandings. Eritrea's independence (or separation from Ethiopia – whichever way you would like to look at it) has absolutely nothing to do with article 39. The Eritrean independence came after 30 years of bitter fighting. Eritrea was virtually a free country in 1991 – right after the fall of Dergue, and well before the the referendum in 1993. But the Ethiopian constitution was adopted in near the end of 1994.

On the other hand, the primary statement of article 39 reads

Every nation, nationality or people in Ethiopia shall have the unrestricted right to self determination up to secession.

Eritrea is not a country of a single nation or nationality – it is not a nation of Tigrinya speakers only. Therefore, the applicability of article 39 to the Eritrean case is also inherently questionable.

In the international scale too, the right to self determination is controversial if not well ever sidelined by many governments. It should be cautiously approached as it is tightly coupled with the notions of ethnic nationalism,whose disastrous side effects have been witnessed. History also shows that communists have always been friendlier to self determination in theory, though it has never been applied either in the former USSR or other socialist countries. Different international laws and the UN endorse this right, although the application has been restricted to widely accepted cases like decolonization.

Interestingly, many Ethiopian young scholars of the Dergue-EPRP era supported this idea, though they disapprove of it vehemently at the present time. We can not deny the right of people to decide their future. Just as much as respecting one's right to use their language, respecting their wish to self determination or eventual independence is vital in today's Ethiopia. But then, similar to the rest of the world, the issue should be approached with utmost care.

It is clear that the inclusion of this article in the constitution may encourage different ethnic groups to seek independence. In general, it is difficult to accept this as a positive trend in any country's history. On the other hand, now that it has been there on our country's constitution for more than a decade, the consequences are much worse if we do take that article out. Many nations and nationalities see it as a guarantee that they can decide to follow another path if things are not going along with their interests and wishes. This could, in fact, be the guarantee which could keep Ethiopia united. Of course, the proper respect for group rights plays a far more positive role in keeping everyone satisfied in being a part of the country.

Another point to that should be mentioned is whether the provision of such articles in a country's constitution does really matter when there is already a dissatisfied ethnic group fighting for either independence or more voice. Whether the Turkish parliament decides to include an 'article 39' in the Turkish constitution or not, the Kurdish people won't stop demanding more rights. In Ethiopia too, the questions asked by the Oromos, the Somalis, the Wolayitas and the others won't vanish along with the removal of article 39 from the constitution.

In conclusion, article 39 is an important part of Ethiopia's constitution, but it is neither the source of our problems nor the immediate solution. Our problems rather stem from our stubbornness not listen to feel the pain of our Ethiopian brothers and sisters, and the hate of dialogue instilled in our bloods. However, article 39 can be one of the first steps in bringing marginalized citizens nearer to the country.