By Abdikarim Buh

Ethiopia has embarked on what could become the most consequential constitutional debate since the country’s current federal system was established nearly three decades ago. More than 4,000 delegates representing Ethiopia’s regions and ethnic communities have gathered in Addis Ababa for a three-week national consultation that could fundamentally redefine the country’s political structure.

At the heart of the discussions is a proposal championed by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s ruling Prosperity Party to replace Ethiopia’s ethnic federal system with a stronger national framework centered on a unified Ethiopian identity.

If adopted, the reforms would represent a historic departure from the constitutional order introduced in 1995 following the collapse of the Derg regime. That constitution recognized Ethiopia’s “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples” as the foundation of the state and granted extensive regional autonomy, including the constitutional right of self-determination and, ultimately, secession.

The Prosperity Party now proposes replacing that language with a new constitutional preamble referring instead to “the united people of Ethiopia composed of diverse nations.” Supporters argue the change would strengthen national cohesion and reduce the ethnic polarization that has fueled recurring political crises and armed conflicts.

The proposed amendments reportedly extend well beyond symbolic language. They include discussions on restructuring Ethiopia’s regional system, reducing the powers of ethnically based regional administrations, expanding the authority of the federal government, revisiting the constitutional right of secession, and potentially redesigning regional boundaries around geography and economic integration rather than ethnicity.

Some proposals also envision changes to Ethiopia’s executive system, including a stronger presidency with a direct national mandate.

A Reform Amid Persistent Conflict

The scale of the proposed constitutional overhaul has surprised many observers because it comes at a time when Ethiopia continues to face serious internal security challenges.

Although the federal government maintains control over key national institutions, large parts of Amhara, Oromia, and Tigray have experienced prolonged armed conflict or significant security instability in recent years. Fighting involving federal forces, regional armed groups, and other actors has continued to undermine governance in several areas, limiting the state’s effective reach and complicating efforts to restore lasting stability.

Critics argue that attempting to fundamentally redesign Ethiopia’s constitutional order while major security challenges remain unresolved risks deepening political divisions rather than healing them.

They contend that constitutional reforms of this magnitude are more likely to succeed when they emerge from broad national consensus rather than from the initiative of a single governing party, particularly in a country as politically and ethnically diverse as Ethiopia.

The Case for Change

Supporters of the Prosperity Party’s proposals argue that Ethiopia’s ethnic federal system has outlived its original purpose. They say that while the 1995 constitution sought to protect ethnic identities and provide self-government, it has also institutionalized ethnic politics, intensified competition over territory and political power, and contributed to recurring intercommunal violence.

From this perspective, replacing ethnic federalism with a stronger national identity could encourage political competition based on policy rather than ethnicity and strengthen the country’s long-term unity.

The Risks

Opponents, however, see the reforms very differently. Many fear that weakening regional autonomy could erode constitutional protections that have allowed Ethiopia’s diverse communities to preserve their languages, cultures, and political representation. They also warn that removing or limiting the constitutional right of self-determination could provoke stronger resistance from communities that already distrust the federal government.

For many critics, the timing raises as many questions as the substance. They argue that constitutional legitimacy depends not only on the content of reforms but also on the breadth of participation in shaping them. In a country where political polarization remains high and several regions continue to face insecurity, some analysts question whether a constitutional redesign can command nationwide acceptance without broader dialogue involving opposition parties, regional governments, civil society, and other stakeholders.

A High-Stakes Political Experiment

Few dispute that Ethiopia’s constitutional order requires careful review after years of political upheaval and conflict. The central question is whether sweeping structural reforms can succeed without first addressing the country’s unresolved political and security crises.

History suggests that durable constitutional settlements are rarely built through legal changes alone. They depend on political consensus, trust among competing stakeholders, and institutions capable of implementing reforms fairly.

As Ethiopia debates replacing nearly three decades of ethnic federalism with a more centralized national model, the country stands at a defining crossroads. Whether these reforms become the foundation for a more unified and stable Ethiopia—or instead deepen existing fractures—may depend less on the constitutional text itself than on whether the process succeeds in winning the confidence of the country’s diverse political and regional constituencies.

With the consultations now underway, Ethiopia’s constitutional gamble is no longer a theoretical debate. It is becoming a test of whether one of Africa’s most diverse nations can reinvent its political system while still confronting multiple, unresolved internal conflicts.

Abdikarim Haji Abdi Buh
Email: abdikarimshak@gmail.com