Article 39: Our Shield, Not Our Sword – Why Minorities Must Champion Self-Determination
(By KG)
=========
Article 39 is not a concession; it is the very bedrock upon which the modern Ethiopian republic sought to transcend its imperial past of imposed unity. It is the constitutional recognition that Ethiopia's strength lies not in forced assimilation, but in the voluntary association of its diverse nations and nationalities, each holding the ultimate right to chart its own destiny.
Let us be unequivocally clear: while the principle of self-determination enshrined in Article 39 is universal, its existential significance is disproportionately weighted towards minority nations and nationalities. Historically vulnerable to marginalization and cultural erasure, these communities find in Article 39 their ultimate constitutional safeguard – a non-negotiable shield against the homogenizing pressures of centralized power and the potential tyranny of the majority.
The notion, sometimes echoed even within educated minority circles, that Article 39 is a divisive force or an impediment to national unity is a profound strategic miscalculation. True and lasting unity cannot be forged through coercion or the denial of distinct identities. Instead, it flourishes through consent. Article 39 provides the framework for this consensual unity, assuring minorities that their distinctiveness is respected and their future is, ultimately, in their own hands. It is the guarantee that prevents simmering grievances from escalating into existential threats to the Ethiopian state itself.
Therefore, it is a grave strategic error for minority elites to align themselves with narratives that seek to weaken or abolish Article 39. To do so is to dismantle the very constitutional architecture designed to protect them from the historical vulnerabilities of centralized rule. In a political landscape often shaped by numerical dominance, the abandonment of self-determination leaves minorities exposed to the whims and potential assimilationist agendas of larger groups.
The imperative is clear: political elites, intellectuals, and young professionals from minority nations must become the vanguards and unwavering defenders of Article 39. This is not merely a matter of constitutional principle; it is a fundamental act of democratic survival and self-preservation. It is about safeguarding our distinct identities, ensuring our voices are heard, and guaranteeing our right to determine our own future within the Ethiopian state.
Finally, let us acknowledge a crucial reality: the historical support of the Oromo majority for Article 39 has been a significant, and perhaps precarious, advantage for minority nations. Should the Oromo, for any reason, ever abandon their commitment to this foundational principle, the consequences for Ethiopia's minorities would be nothing short of catastrophic. The removal of this constitutional pillar, especially without the support of the largest nation, would usher in an era of unprecedented vulnerability and significantly heighten the risks of centralized homogenization and the erosion of minority rights.
Article 39 is not a seed of division; it is the guarantor of a voluntary and ultimately stronger Ethiopian republic, where the rights and self-determination of all its diverse peoples are sacrosanct. For minorities, its defense is not a political choice, but a strategic imperative for our collective future.
