Category Archives: Federalism

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin on Saturday accused the BJP-led government at the Centre of posing a threat to federalism by thrusting its agenda upon the nation and the latest being the one-nation-one-registration initiative.

Opposing the Centres One-nation-one-registration initiative announced by Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, recently, the CM said this latest move, like the new education policy and slogans like one-nation-one-country is nothing but an attempt to turn the country into a unitary state.

This will not benefit the people. That is why we are advocating state autonomy for India to flourish, he said and reiterated the DMKs catchphrase autonomy for the state and federalism at the Centre (maanila suyatchi, mathiyil koottatchi).

Addressing a virtual election rally at Tiruppur from here, Stalin said he would make this slogan on state autonomy and federalism at the Centre heard all over India.

Social justice and state autonomy are the great ideologies that the Dravidian movement gave to this country. I have committed myself to the task of ensuring social justice bloom throughout the country (through the All India Social Justice Federation, which he proposed to launch soon), he said.

He had already written to over 50 leaders to be part of the federation and several political parties including the Congress and many state organisations have expressed willingness to participate in the initiative, he said.

The next phase of action would begin once the election in the five states get over, Stalin said.

He said the Union Government must act in accordance with the federal spirit of the nation and empower states. But federalism is under threat today as the BJP-led government is creating an environment divesting all powers of the states, he alleged.

This, he claimed, is evident by the enactment of Citizenship Amendment Act and several anti-people policies.

Go here to read the rest:

Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin opposes one nation one registration, says BJP posing threat to federalism - The Indian Express

(17) The greatest disservice of military regimes in Nigeria was the mindless and criminal centralization of government by the government led by General Aguiyi Ironsi. On assumption of power in January 1966, the military junta killed the soul of a virile, stable and progressive Nigerian nation by abolishing federalism and instituting a system of government that was meant to promote sectional interest. The promulgation of Decree No. 34 of 1966, the military arrested the countrys progress towards unity in diversity. It has been said that General Ironsi was pursuing an Igbo agenda when he failed to respond appropriately to the putsch that disproportionally massacred top politicians from the Northern and Western regions, when he proscribed all ethnic and cultural associations, dissolved representative assemblies, ignored the moratorium on promotion in the military and surrounded himself, exclusively, with advisers from his own Igbo ethnic group. The coup detat that ousted him was justified as a revenge strike to compensate for the human tragedies of the January coup.

(18) Despite the attempts to restore federalism in Nigeria by the succeeding regime led by General Yakubu Gowon, the deadly blows left on Nigerias national consciousness and identity by the coups, the pogrom against the Igbo in the Northern region and the needless civil war which lasted about 30 months were difficult to heal or remove. The introduction of constitutional and institutional modalities to heal the would were grossly inadequate and often times misapplied. The return to federalism and subsequent creation of states from twelve to thirty-six, introduction of military inspired constitutions and conduct of popular general elections created their own contradictions and challenges which were decisive enough to frustrate every effort to develop Nigeria into a flourishing nation state.

(19) Some policies that were put in place to address the problem of alienation of sections of the country and inequitable distribution of national resources miscarried and became counterproductive. For instance, the pursuit of federalism through atomization of constituent parts has produced insatiable demand for state creation even when they were frivolous and non-sustainable. The systems of federal character and quota system when they were introduced were meant to ensure national spread in the distribution of national resources. Unfortunately, these affirmative attentions were poorly conceived and they have turned out to be major sources of injustice in the allocation of resources. They have been interpreted as attempts to hold a section of the country down for the other to catch up and even surpass them. This allegation is most evident in admission policies into federal government institutions which have sacrificed merit and fairness on the platter of sectional consideration. The system of revenue allocation is equally a major source of friction among the constituent units of the Nigerian Federation. The principle of derivation which was adopted during the first republic federal system has since been abandoned as the present system is fraught with lapsed and slippages that question the good intention of government.

(20) In all progressive federal systems, equity, fairness and justice form the bedrock of relations among the constituent units. The electoral system in Nigeria is already compromised as the political class is more involved in the manipulation of the selection process and the prevention of the emergence of credible candidates. On 28th August, 2007, the President set-up a 22-member Electoral Reform Committee to examine the entire electoral process with a view to ensuring that we raise the quality and standard of our general elections and thereby deepen our democracy. After an exhaustive and comprehensive review of the electoral history of Nigeria spanning about 85 years, the panel observed a progressive degeneration of outcomes of sections conducted in the country, with the 2007 elections coming up at the worst since the first elections held in 1922. It further observed that elections conducted by the military tended to be more credible than those conducted by civilian authorities because of the political practice of winner takes all and therefore the need by politicians to perpetuate their hold on power at all cost. Over the years, the politicians have become more desperate and daring in taking and retaining political power; more reckless and greedy in their use and abuse of power; and more intolerant of opposition, criticism and efforts at replacing them. The electorate, seeing their hopes dashes with each set of elections, have come to believe that politicians lack the will to use state power to transform the lives of ordinary citizens. This loss of confidence in governments by the electorate constitutes a major threat to the democratic project in Nigeria.

(21) Another study on the electoral process and democratic consolidation in Nigeria found that defective electoral processes have resulted in the impositions of corrupt and illegitimate leaders who have no regard for the principles of democracy, good governance, rule of law, constitutionalism and fundamental human rights. It is however painful that in spite of the promise contained in the recommendations of the Uwais Panel on Electoral Reform, the 2010 Electoral Act with its amendments fell short of reasonable expectations. The gross inability of the Act to redress the imperfections and inadequacies of earlier electoral laws would confirm its uselessness as a tool for the transformation of Nigeria. Arguably, the average Nigeria is not only smart, but enterprising, making it possible for him to justify self-help and impunity. The electoral process must therefore be designed to produce readers who will be a couple of times smarter than the average Nigerian. A more secure future lies in an electoral system that could ensure the emergence of leaders who possess requisite intellectual and democratic credentials to rule. Products of this process must be allowed to accede to power irrespective of social, religious, ethnic or gender background.

(22) Leadership should not be determined on the basis of zoning, quota system or federal character, formulae that have all outlived their usefulness as power sharing paradigms. Such dubious affirmative actions have had the undeserved consequences of frustrating prospective and potential state and nation builders; making it totally impossible for persons of character and virtue to aspire to political offices. The obnoxious zoning formula smacks of unfairness in its application and would forever perpetuate unequal of differing access-to power within the context of politics in Nigeria.

(23) What is obvious and cannot be denied is the fact of mass frustration, if not despondency, at the nature, character and direction of the Nigerian Sate. The strident call for a discussion of the terms and conditions of Nigerias federalism can no longer be ignored or swept under the carpet as there are strong indications of general restiveness of the constituent units of the federal system. It is equally true that given the state of leadership and lts helplessness in the face of threats to the corporate existence of the country, the times are not auspicious for the convocation of a sovereign national conference with wide powers to re-position the country for development and progress.

(24) It would however seem that the proponents of a sovereign national conference might have lost sight of the calculations and interests of international capitalism. With a history of one whole century of being together as a country, the average Nigerians have established inter penetrating social, cultural religious and economic relations that the balkanization of the country would be as unprogressive as unrealistic. Nigerias high selling point or bargaining strength at the international level is its enormous human and material resources which are globally recognized.

(25) What is needed is a leadership that will maximize these potentials and add value for the transformation of the country. It may not be too farfetched to suggest an international gang up against Nigeria in all previous efforts at producing a leader with national-clout and impeccable credentials for leadership. We have alluded to one such instance above on the authority of Harold Smith who was a key actor in the unfortunate scheme. In 1975, International capitalism conspired to rob Nigeria of pragmatic leadership of General Muritala Mohammed and in 1998 Chief MKO Abiola the winner of the freest election in Nigeria was served tea and died at the hour of victory in the cold hands of agents of international conspiracy against the unity and progress of Nigeria.

(26) The Nigerian emancipation project that will deliver a more secure future should be anchored on a sovereign national conference that will have just one agenda; the formulation of a transformative electoral process. If elected or nominated representatives of all the ethnic nations in Nigeria will converge at a conference at which a new electoral process will be developed and a referendum in carried out for its adoption as the basis for all elections, the contentious issue of how leaders emerge would have been addressed. In recapturing Archimedes give me a place to stand and I will move the whole earth, Robert F. Kennedy said.

A young monk began the Protestant Reformation; a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the new World, and the thirty-two-year-old

Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal.

Kennedy then stated: These (persons) moved the world, and so can we all.

Today and louder than Endsars, young Nigerians should cry out; give us a credible and transparent electoral reform produced by a sovereign national conference and we will have the Nigeria of our dreams. Herein is our collective destiny, where our collective aspirations could be safely delivered and when we can begin to aspire to global reckoning.

Considering the nature, character and historical trajectory of the Nigerian state and inter-ethnic relationships, federalism remains the most viable model for the emancipation and rapid transformation of Nigeria from a mere agglomeration of states to a prosperous peaceful; and united nation state.

CONCLUDED

Originally posted here:

Federalism and the Nigeria of our dreams (III) - NIGERIAN TRIBUNE

Tribune News Service

Aparna BanerjiJalandhar, February 14

Prime Minister Narendra Modi pitched the National Democratic Alliance on Monday as the only option that could help shut down mafias and resolve the states drug crisis.

Modi, who was addressing his first rally in Punjab this election season at Jalandhars PAP grounds, spoke fondly of his long association with Captain Amarinder Singh.

This is the first time in 25 years that Modis Bharatiya Janata Party will contest the election without their old ally, the Shiromani Akali Dal. This is also the first time in 24 years that Captain Amarinder Singh will fight an election without his former party, the Congress.

On Monday, Modis particularly acerbic swipes were reserved for rival Congress, in particular, for the Gandhi family. He accused the Congress of kicking out Captain Amarinder Singh because he upheld federalism and claimed the Gandhis ran the state government through remote control and as long as the family was in control, the party wont work for the states betterment.

Why did they remove Capt Sahib? Theyve themselves said at that time they didnt run the Punjab governmentthe central government was running it, he said.

That means all Congress governments are run by remote control. A family from Delhi runs them. The state governments dont work as per the constitution. If Capt Sahib worked on the principle of federalism with the state government and if the central government worked with the state government, wasnt it according to the constitution?

Congress leaders say Capt Sahib didnt listen to us. He put obstructions. And in the end, it rose so much that they ousted him. If a family runs the government by remote control and doesnt bother about the constitution then it will cause tensions in the country. Thats what this family is doing.

The Congress, he said, was carrying out an old vendetta against Punjab, Modi said invoking the anti-Sikh riots of 1984.

The family controls Punjab and has old enmities with the state. Its settling an old score.

The NDA, he said, was the correct choice.

The BJP wont allow the control of mafia on trade and business. Under the BJP government traders and residents will operate without any fear, he said.

He also took a jibe at rivals AAP, although he did it without directly mentioning them, in addition to the Congress.

Those without work talk about rooting out Punjabs drug problem. These people are experts at opening up alcohol shops on the streets and Mohallas. Punjab should be wary of such people. They want to hand over the state to drug mafias, he said. These are the same people who demanded proof that our military had conducted surgical strikes. And singing dancing to Pakistans tunes.

His appeal then went to women: Of what use is your gaadi and bungalow if your sons fall prey to the scourge of drugs?

His next jibe was for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, whom he referred to as yuvraaj (crowned prince). He accused Gandhi of misusing the state machinery in 2014 while he was still a Member of Parliament.

During the 2014 elections, I had to come to Pathankot and had to go to Himachal Pradesh via helicopter. You will be surprised, Congress ke namdaar, unke yuvraaj vo simply ek party ke MP the. (Congresss Prince was simply a party MP then), he said.

He also had an event near Amritsar. My helicopter wasnt allowed to fly. I reached Pathankot late. My helicopter wasnt allowed to fly. Why? Because their yuvraaj was supposed to come to another part of the state. I was stopped. Thats how they misused power. I had to cancel two Himachal programmes.

The Congress, he said, was a party riven with infighting.

Today Congress own party is splitting. Congress leaders are opening up secrets of the party. I ask you, can those fighting amongst themselves can they give a stable government? Can they develop Punjab?

'Denied temple visit'

He accused the local administration of not clearing his visit to the Shakti Peeth of Devi Talab on Monday.

He said: I wanted to visit the Shakti Peeth of Devi Talab after this event but the police and administration said they were helpless. They asked to stick to a helicopter visit. This is the state of the government, he said. But I will return to 'Maa'. I will bow my head to her.

Punjab will vote for the 117-member assembly on February 20. Votes will be counted on March 10.

#capt amarinder singh #narendra modi

Read the original here:

Only BJP can save Punjab from the scourge of drugs, says Prime Minister Narendra Modi - The Tribune India

When the 13 United States of America declared independence from the United Kingdom in 1776, the founders were attempting to break free from the tyranny of Britains top-down centralized government.

But the first constitution the founders created, the Articles of Confederation, vested almost all power in individual state legislatures and practically nothing in the national government. The resultpolitical chaos and crippling debtalmost sunk the fledgling nation before it left the harbor.

So the founders met again in Philadelphia in 1787 and drafted a new Constitution grounded in a novel separation of state and national powers known as federalism. While the word itself doesnt appear anywhere in the Constitution, federalism became the guiding principle to safeguard Americans against King George III-style tyranny while providing a check against rogue states.

READ MORE: How the United States Constitution Came to Be

The Articles of Confederation.

Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

The Articles of Confederation were written and ratified while the Revolutionary War was still raging. The document is less of a unifying constitution than a loose pact between 13 sovereign states intending to enter into a firm league of friendship. Absent from the Articles of Confederation were the Executive or Judicial branches, and the national congress had only the power to declare war and sign treaties, but no authority to directly levy taxes.

As a result, the newly independent United States was buried in debt by 1786 and unable to pay the long-overdue wages of Revolutionary soldiers. The U.S. economy sunk into a deep depression and struggling citizens lost their farms and homes. In Massachusetts, angry farmers joined Shays Rebellion to seize courthouses and block foreclosures, and a toothless congress was powerless to put it down.

George Washington, temporarily retired from government service, lamented to John Jay, What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal & fallacious!

Alexander Hamilton called for a new Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 where the Articles of Confederation were ultimately thrown out in favor of an entirely new form of government.

READ MORE: The Founding Fathers Feared Foreign InfluenceAnd Devised Protections Against It

When the United States cut ties with Britain, the founders wanted nothing to do with the British form of government known as unitary. Under a unitary regime, all power originates from a centralized national government (Parliament) and is delegated to local governments. Thats still the way the government operates in the UK.

Instead, the founders initially chose the opposite form of government, a confederation. In a confederation, all power originates at the local level in the individual states and is only delegated to a weak central government at the states discretion.

When the founders met in Philadelphia, it was clear that a confederation wasnt enough to hold the young nation together. States were scuffling over borders and minting their own money. Massachusetts had to hire its own army to put down Shays Rebellion.

The solution was to find a middle way, a blueprint of government in which the powers were shared and balanced between the states and national interests. That compromise, woven into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, became known as federalism.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights created two different kinds of separation of powers, both designed to act as critical checks and balances.

The first and best-known of the separation of powers is between the three branches of government: Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary. If the president acts against the best interests of the country, he or she can be impeached by Congress. If Congress passes an unjust law, the president can veto it. And if any law or public institution infringes on the constitutional rights of the people, the Supreme Court can remedy it.

READ MORE: How Many U.S. Presidents Have Faced Impeachment?

But the second type of separation of powers is equally important, the granting of separate powers to the federal and state governments. Under the Constitution, the state legislatures retain much of their sovereignty to pass laws as they see fit, but the federal government also has the power to intervene when it suits the national interest. And under the supremacy clause found in Article VI, federal laws and statutes supersede state law.

Federalism, or the separation of powers between the state and federal government, was entirely new when the founders baked it into the Constitution. And while it functions as an important check, its also been a continual source of contention between the two levels of government. In the final run-up to the Civil War, the Southern states seceded from the Union in part because of the federal government was unconstitutionally encroaching on their domestic institutions of slavery.

WATCH: The Legislative Branch

According to James Madison, a committed federalist, the Constitution maintains the sovereignty of states by enumerating very few express powers to the federal government, while [t]hose which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

Article I Section 8 contains a list of all of the enumerated powers that are exclusively delegated to the federal government. Those include the power to declare war, maintain armed forces, regulate commerce, coin money and establish a Post Office.

But that very same Section 8 also includes the so-called Elastic Clause that authorizes Congress to write and pass any laws that are necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers. These powers are known collectively as implied powers and have been used by Congress to create a national bank, to collect a federal income tax, to institute the draft, to pass gun control laws and to set a federal minimum wage, among others.

Other than that, the Constitution grants almost all other power and authority to the individual states, as Madison said. While the Constitution doesnt explicitly list the powers retained by the states, the founders included a catch-all in the 10th Amendment, ratified in 1791:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Those so-called reserved powers include all authority and functions of local and state governments, policing, education, the regulation of trade within a state, the running of elections and many more.

In the United States, federalism has proven a successful experiment in shared governance since 1787 and provided the model for similar federalist systems in Australia, Canada, India, Germany and several other nations.

See the rest here:

How Federalism Settled States vs Federal Rights - HISTORY

The definition of federalism is straightforward: it is the federal principle or system of government. Throughout history, it has been a political system where 2+ governments share authority over the same geographical area. Most of the democratic countries in the world today use this method of governing, including Australia, Canada, India, and the United States.

Even the European Union is an example of federalism.

The exact structures of each system can vary widely based on how the country sets up its governing process. In the EU, the members of the upper houses in the government are not elected or appointed, but they serve as delegates of their respective governments. For the United States, there are local, country, and state governing authorities which all have a unique set of laws and regulations for people to follow.

Some choose to use a central system of government that regulates the entire country. Others do not. Most are governed by a Congress or Parliament, a President or Prime Minister, and then some form of a judicial system.

There are several pros and cons of federalism to consider when looking at it as a political system.

1. Federalism provides a structure that diffuses governmental power.Many forms of federalism look to create checks and balances throughout society as a way to create an equal governing process. By diffusing power to multiple branches of office, like the U.S. does with the executive, legislative, and judicial segments, it becomes more challenging for one division to take over the country. When power is not centralized in a government, then there are fewer issues with individual corruption that can impact the entire nation.

2. Federalism creates a protection against tyranny.This form of government will also make it challenging for a single branch of government to obtain complete control over the structure. There is no way to obtain runaway power in this structure unless voters approve of that process first. Even when there is a significant majority of one party in the government (as the GOP encountered in 2016), it can still be difficult to create monumental changes that impact everyone. This process is one of the primary reasons why democratic countries choose this form over the other governing options which are available.

3. Federalism is an efficient process.Because the U.S. provides some of the power to the states, it creates efficiencies in the governing system because delegation is possible. Local governments receive the right to begin solving some of their own problems. If this structure was not available, then you would get cookie-cutter regulations that may not apply to some geographical areas. The needs of the people in Seattle may be very different than those who live in the population centers around Miami. This structure allows each group to live in a way that maximizes their safety while minimizing effort.

4. Federalism increases the level of participation by individuals.People become more involved with their government in a variety of ways when federalism is the structure in place. Elected officials are closer to what a citizen is than a state official under this structure, which means people can visit a local office to express their opinions without a fear of judgment. When we have a chance to embrace diversity as a culture, then it is an opportunity to draw upon each of our strengths to create something amazing. Other forms of government do not offer such an opportunity.

5. Federalism encourages a system of cooperation. Different communities have unique requirements that they must meet to maximize their quality of life. Instead of mandating that everyone follows the same set of laws, this system allows each community to create a foundation that works the best for their needs. If you travel to almost any town, city, or village in the United States, then you will discover a different set of laws, rules, and regulations to follow. Many of them are similar, but there are also several which are not.

6. Federalism encourages innovation in governing.Because this structure of government looks at cooperation and sharing as its primary structure, there is an opportunity to try a different set of policies to see how they will work. This process can create positive or negative results. A recent example in the United States of this advantage is the requirement to drug test working adults who receive welfare benefits. Some governments are trying it, while others or not. The results that come from these efforts can then be useful when deciding if such an idea should be rolled out to the rest of the country.

7. Federalism allows the government to become more responsive to individual needs.When a government is closer to its citizens, then it can provide a responsive solution when there are citizen needs, emergency situations, or changes that are necessary in the structure of laws. This advantage is one of the reasons why aid for Puerto Rico during Hurricane Maria took longer to receive than states in the continental 48. The local governments could distribute resources first instead of relying on the national government like the island because of the availability of local resources.

1. Federalism often protects the will of the majority at any cost.Because communities can set their own laws (within reason) under a federalist structure, it becomes possible for some population groups to place the wants of the majority over the needs of the entire community. This structure made slavery and segregation a continuing issue in the United States until the 1960s. It was partially responsible for the division in the 1800s that eventually led to the Civil War. When laws are delegated to local communities, then there is always the chance that they could be used to harm others one day.

2. Federalism can encourage the passing of ridiculous laws.The structure of federalism encourages local communities to self-govern in the most efficient manner possible. This process is usually a healthy way to help keep households safe no matter where they are in the country. It can also be used as a way to pass ridiculous laws as a way to make a political statement, discourage tourism, or some other specific result. Here are just a few of the craziest laws you can find in the U.S. right now.

It is illegal in Arizona for a donkey to sleep in a bathtub. If you go to Colorado, then it is illegal to keep a couch on your porch. You are not allowed to sell the hair of a dog or cat in Delaware. Hawaii made it against the law to place a coin in your ear. You cannot drive a horse in Indiana above a set speed limit of 10mph.

3. Federalism allows local governments to fight the national governments.The local governments can decide to fight the existence of some specific national laws by going through the justice system of the country. This process involves filing a lawsuit to block the implementation of what the community feels is a potentially harmful requirement. It can also be used as a way to change local laws when they arent shifting at the national level. One of the most significant examples of this issue involves the legalization of recreational cannabis.

Thats not to say that all actions are a disadvantage. There are times when blocking the implementation of federal law is beneficial. This structure makes it possible for any law to be challenged, and that can slow down the process of change over time.

4. Federalism allows national governments to fight the local ones.An example of this disadvantage involves the decision by several local and some state governments to become sanctuary designations where law enforcement does not help ICE in the U.S. with immigration detainment. The U.S. government threatened to pull funding from the cities choosing this action, and then filed suit against them in an effort to try getting compliance.

The structure of this government can create inefficiencies in the system because the national government might not like the way the local officials choose to oversee their communities. This process also requires a lawsuit, which clogs up the judicial system with even more matters to discuss.

5. Federalism can create oppositional competition.Because each community can create their own set of laws and rules in a system of federalism (especially in the United States), then the structure can create unwanted competition for resources that seeks to limit some demographics. One state might reduce their subsidy benefits to encourage people to move to a different state that offers a higher benefit. Another government might offer a significant tax break to a company that encourages them to place offices in one location and not another.

6. Federalism can create uncertainty.Because there are multiple layers of government working cooperatively with one another in a federalist system, it can be challenging at times for specific communities to know where they can receive assistance. There are natural disasters, national welfare aid distributed to the states for authorization, public education resources, and many more benefits or circumstances where someone must navigate each level of government to find the results they want. Knowing who is responsible for specific issues can make it difficult for any aid to make it to its intended destination.

7. Federalism can be inefficient.There are efficiencies to consider with delegation that make this governing structure such an inviting option. Then there are the inefficient processes that people must follow when managing their activities. People must stay in compliance with the laws that are in every layer of governing. That means some people in the U.S. must follow four different sets of laws. Knowing what you can or cannot do can be a confusing process, especially when there are conflicting statements offered by the different parties.

8. Federalism can be structured to benefit only the rich.Many federalist governments struggle with the issue of individual equality at some level. For the United States, it is the wage and wealth gaps to consider. The top 1% of income earners own a majority of the wealth increases experienced since 2009. Many women only make 80% for doing the same job that men do when they look at their salary. These structures can be challenging to change when there are some many obstacles that are put in the way thanks to the checks and balances of this system.

The pros and cons of federalism provide evidence that it is usually better for a society and nation if there is a system of power sharing available for the government. It creates checks and balances in a system that promote individual freedoms and self-governing at a higher level when compared to the other options which are possible. Although there are challenges to face in any type of government, most people who live in a federalist system say that they wouldnt change the structure whatsoever.

Visit link:

15 Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism ConnectUS

Welcome to The India Fix by Shoaib Daniyal, a newsletter on Indian politics. To get it in your inbox every Monday, sign up here. Have feedback, interesting links or memes? Send them to shoaib@scroll.in.

On Wednesday, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi made waves for a combative speech in Parliament during the debate on the motion of thanks to the Presidents address. While he criticised the Narendra Modi government and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, one bit especially stood out: his argument that India was a federation of its states and not a European-style unitary country.

India is not described as a nation [in the Constitution], it is described as a Union of States, Gandhi said, referring to Article 1 of the Indian Constitution: India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.

This argument led to an immediate response from the ruling BJP. Amit Malviya, head of the partys fearsome IT cell, said in a tweet that by characterising India as such, Gandhi was calling for the balkanisation of India.

The Congress is the countrys main opposition party, having garnered nearly 12 crore votes in the previous Lok Sabha election. That the ruling party could accuse it of wanting to break up India is a sign of the current dysfunction of Indian democracy. However, it was also an indication of how important the debate was for the BJP, both ideologically and electorally.

Well into the 1990s, secularism was a major ideological and rhetorical force in Indian politics, It was often used in speeches to attack the BJP. However, the past seven years has seen the near-complete decimation of secularism as an ideological issue in Indian politics.

The Samajwadi Party, which once fought elections on the plank that its government had even opened fire to protect the Babri Masjid, is today stepping gingerly to make sure it is not identified too strongly as a Muslim party in the upcoming Uttar Pradesh elections. It isnt the only one: from the Congress to the Trinamool, old-style Indian secularism is on its way out and there is an urgent rush to appear exclusively Hindu.

In this vacuum, the major ideological challenge to the BJP is increasingly becoming federalism and state identity.

The best example of this was, of course, in the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections. Before this, state identity was rarely used explicitly in the states politics. In fact, till 2011, Bengals two major poles, the CPI(M) and the Congress, were both national parties with high commands based in Delhi.

Although the Trinamool, which came to power in 2011, was based in West Bengal, it did not have any particular state-based identity either. In fact, Banerjees first decision as chief minister was to significantly expand the list of West Bengals official languages to add four more Punjabi, Nepali, Santhali, Oriya, Hindi and Urdu on top of English and Bengali. (Contrast this with long-standing identity politics in states such as Tamil Nadu.)

Yet, when faced with a fearsome BJP juggernaut and its aggressive Hindu nationalism, the Trinamool, with its back to the wall, reached for an obvious, ideological weapon: paint the BJP as an outsider to Bengal. The attacks on the saffron party were strong, even vicious. The Trinamool used words like outsider and even borgi, a reference to the brutal Maratha invasions Bengal suffered in the 18th century, to paint the BJP not only as a poor choice for voters but alien to the state.

The BJP was genuinely stumped by this new form of populism. It was used to the electorally favourable ideological contests of Hindutva versus secularism a binary that appeals greatly to worried Muslims but to which most voting Hindus were, at best, apathetic. Right till the end of the election, when it suffered a complete rout, the party had not thought of a response.

This wasnt the only instance. Through 2021, Punjabi farmers used an aggressive idiom of federalism in order to oppose the Modi governments three new farm laws. Like all good mass politics, the thrust was based on a constitutional element did the Union have a right to pass these laws? as well as an appeal to populist sentiment around Punjabi identity.

In the end, the Union government buckled, withdrawing the laws with Modi himself apologising for moving them. Moreover, the BJP is practically persona non grata now in Punjab. Even its oldest ally, the Akali Dal, broke ties with it.

Spurred on by these successes, more and more politicians are getting incentivised to adopt a federal idiom as a way to oppose the BJP. On February 1, the chief minister of Telangana complained about how the Union government has usurped state powers a problem he thought so grave that he floated the idea of drafting a new Constitution. Before this, Congress-ruled Karnataka had taken a leaf out of Tamil Nadus book and launched an anti-Hindi campaign (a politics that the BJP did not obviously continue when it came to power in 2019).

Curiously, even in states where there is no explicit federal politics, the BJP has a tough time in state elections. In fact, there is now a marked pattern of the BJP performing better in national elections than in state polls. In the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, for example, the BJP managed an incredible 58% of the vote in Haryana. Yet, in the state elections a few months later, its vote share crashed to only 37% .

While in most cases, the growth of state identity is bad news for a national party like the BJP, once the idea acquires enough momentum, it will itself have to adopt it given the pressures of an electoral system (similar to how almost every Opposition party now signals Hindu identity).

In Haryana, for example, the BJP-led government itself passed a jobs reservations law for state residents. In fact, there is now an emerging political consensus around state reservations, even though the consequences could be jarring for Indian federalism.

Of course, while increasing federalism is good news for the Opposition during state elections, the opposite is true during Lok Sabha polls, where there is no contest with the BJP and Narendra Modis popularity. If this Centre-state gulf keeps widening, the centralised federation envisaged by the Constitution might come under new, powerful strains. Signs of this, in fact, are already appearing.

Public debt usually gets a bad rap. But really, its critical to keep the wheels of governance running. So this new book might be an interesting read.

Remember the job riots in the previous India Fix over railway jobs? While we tackled the overall unemployment crisis in the country, one micro reason for that riot was that the Union government is drastically cutting back on railway jobs.

For the past few decades, Indians have been in a curious situation of their leaders telling them that they are right around the corner to great prosperity even as their present condition remains one of the worst in the world.

First there was #IndiaSuperpower2020, then came Acche Din and now we have the finance minsters idea of Amrit Kal, auspicious time.

All of which is a bit frustrating if youre a citizen. But makes for good material if youre a cartoonist.

Original post:

The India Fix: How big a force is federalism on the ground in Indian politics? - Scroll.in

This is the season of harvesting maze and paddy. Some could not harvest their paddy, and most of the IDPs did not have a chance to collect their corns, a woman in the IDP camp told SHAN.

The intense fight between one Shan armed group and northern alliance armed groups in Mong Kung township, Southern Shan State, has led to thousands of IDPs fleeing their homes in January 2022 according to the woman who was displaced.

Some residents also said that they had to run away because of the conflict between Restoration Council of Shan State (RCSS/SSA) and Shan State Progressive Party (SSPP/SSA) started in the second week of September 2021.

According to the data collected in January 2022, 798 households comprising 2,635 people have been displaced, Over thirty villages have been relocated, quoted by a person who is helping the IDPs around that area.

The IDPs who are staying at a monastery compound, where seasonal festivals are usually celebrated in Mong Kung, cannot go back home yet because the armed groups are still positioning in their villages.

Those IDPs arrived at that monastery on 6 January 2022, and some has returned; however, some cannot return due to the armed groups are still in their villages. They are making a request to stop the fights and leave from their villages because the villagers need to harvest their crops.

They are also worried about their properties and livestock at home since they had to flee urgently when the fight broke out.

If we do not work for a day, we will not have enough for a week. If we do not work for a month, we will have difficulties for the whole year. I need to pick my green tea, and I need to get back to work, an internally displaced woman who lives in Huay Tuay village told SHAN.

The locals mentioned another pressing issue about the forced enlisting made by the ethnic armed groups in Shan State due to the severe fight between the groups.

The locals added that those ethnic armed groups have a policy to enlist new soldiers every year which made the young men in the village to run away during the enlisting season.

The common goal of these ethnic armed groups were to overthrow the military dictatorship and to establish a federal union or to gain self-determination.

However, it is questionable why these ethnics armed groups, which have the same common goal, are fighting one another.

According to the history, the 34 townships in Shan State, including Ko Kang region, were freely administered by their respective Sawbwar though it was a feudalism system.

Even though Myanmar was fallen under British colonization after the fall of Mandalay in 1885, the British colony only came to Shan State in 1886.

After that, Sawbwars still freely administered the 34 townships in Shan State along with British colony until Myanmars independence.

According to the Panglong agreement made on 12 February 1947, the Shan hills got independence with mainland Myanmar from the British. After that, Myanmar political issues started to influence into Shan State.

Because of the Kuomintang or Chinese Nationalist Party soldiers invaded into Shan State in 1952, the Myanmar central government spent three years fighting and chasing CNP soldiers out of Shan State.

During the warfare operation in Shan State, the central government announced the state of emergency in Shan State and oppressed Shan civilians, and the Sawbwars and Shan youth could not stand that. So, two dialogues were made, one in 1954 and the other in 1957, in Mong Yai to discuss about the Panglong agreement promises and whether to secede from the union of Myanmar after ten years from the signing agreement date.

After the central government could not decide on the seceding issue, military coup occurred. As a consequence, the military took over the power in 1962 and abolished the Sawbwars feudalism system, and it was the reason and the start of Shan armed revolution establishment.

It can be concluded that the establishment of Shan armed revolution was due to the abolishment of Sawbwars feudalism and Myanmar military oppression. The nowadays Shan ethnics armed groups conflict could be influenced by the idea of the revolution started in those days.

Today, the two Shan armed groups said they are opened to a political dialogue to solve the conflicts between them. However, the fight is still ongoing in Mong Kung township, Southern Shan State, and Kyuakme and Hsipaw township, Northern Shan State.

Because of the fight, thousands of people have to flee their homes and relocate to somewhere safe.

We always open the doors for a political dialogue. It is not just for RCSS, but also for the political parties, venerable monks groups, and peace building groups, we welcome them all for a political dialogue, SSPP/SSA spokesperson, Major Sai Phone Harn told SHAN.

RCSS/SSA spokesperson Major Kham Sam said that they are ready for a dialogue to find solutions regarding the conflicts with SSPP/SSA; however, it has not happened as Shan civilians expected so far.

We are always ready for a dialogue. We expressed this idea in the past, but it did not happen. Only more conflicts are escalating between us currently, the RCSS/SSA spokesperson quoted.

The two armed groups are accusing one another over the territorial issues, and the fights only led to thousands of people relocating again and again.

In order for the two Shan armed groups to reconcile, one of the most respected Shan political leaders U Khun Htun Oo used to be the middleman trying to solve the issues between them before his retirement. However, it was not a success.

He (U Khun Htun Oo) was very disappointed in them, a person who is closed to U Khun Htun Oo said.

Additionally, Committee for Shan State Unity (CSSU) has tried to reconcile the two groups and to stop the conflicts between them, and a statement was released on 1 January 2022; however, the fight is still ongoing in Shan State.

The current tension and fight in Mong Kung has led to thousands of locals to run and take refuge in the city of Mong Kung township, and nearby township like Laikha. Plus there are many IDPs in Northern Shan State because of the war in Kyaukme and Hsipaw township.

It is not that we want this battle to occur, we truly do not want this too because there are casualties on both sides and civilians. The question is who started this fight, and who is going to end this, SSPP/SSA spokesperson, Major Sai Phone Harn told SHAN.

We understand and feel the pain of our Shan civilians, we will redevelop and reconstruct the loss of the civilians Major Sai Phone Harn added.

Regarding the current tension, RCSS/SSA said that if the offensive fights are ended, there will not be any war, In order to stop the conflict, the other side must stop their offensive moves. It is all depending on their side, quoted by RCSS/SSA spokesperson Major Kham Sam.

One of the consequences of the conflict was that a woman who lives in Maung Leng village, Pan Kay Thu tract, Mong Kung township, has stepped on a land mine set up by the two armed groups and severely injured herself.

If RCSS/SSA will still be active in the areas where SSPP/SSA is controlling, the ongoing fight would spread into Nam Sang Kholam township warned by SSPP/SSA Lt. Col. Sai Su.

Additionally, on 11 January 2022, one humanitarian car was shot while it was going to the IDPs camp near the entry signboard of Mong Kung township to collect things from the camp.

Recently, fights broke out in Northern Shan State between Kyaukme and Hsipaw township along the Mandalay Muse highway. Because of that, the IDPs from Hsipaw township are relocated to Pawjo monastery, and the IDPs from Kyaukme township are taking refuge at Nam Sit Lin monastery in the city, and some are staying at their relatives house.

It is clearly indicated that local residents have long been the victims of the so called battle-cry to establish a federal union or to overthrow the military dictatorship of these Shan armed groups.

The civilians are interested to see how these ethnic armed groups, who claimed their common enemy is the Myanmar military junta, will get involved in the current nationwide armed revolution.

Currently, there are over 2,500 IDPs in the city of Mong Kung, over 800 in Laikha, Southern Shan State, and thousands have been displaced in Kyuakme township, Northern Shan State.

Read the original post:

The Victims of The So Called Federalism Battle-cry - Burma News International

The State Administration Council (SAC) made an announcement on February 6 inviting all ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) to the grand ceremony of the Diamond Jubilee Union Day as well as the pre-coordination meeting on perpetual peace talks to build the Union based on democracy and federalism during the ceremony of the Diamond Jubilee Union Day, State-run newspapers reported.

The SAC has invited all the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) signatories and non-signatories, except those declared as terrorist groups.

The announcement says it is necessary to focus on the perpetual peace by seeking solution through negotiation in accord with the democratic practices in order to solve the political problems politically that have existed in successive eras as internal affairs of the country.

The SAC also urges the entire ethnic national people to negotiate all stakeholders to attend the free peace talks without preconditions and the Diamond Jubilee Union Day for restoration of the perpetual peace of the government.

The announcement points out that although Myanmar has regained its independence for 75 years, the strengthening of sovereignty and development of the nation do not have improvement as expected due to occurrences of internal armed conflicts and the country loses the strength and capabilities. It is necessary to restore the perpetual peace to apply these strength and capabilities for the State development at full capacity.

Restoration of the perpetual peace is very important for building the Union based on democracy and federalism.

The statement says the majority of political parties focused their discussions on construction of the Union based on democracy and federalism within five years.

See the original post:

All EAOs invited to Diamond Jubilee Union Day celebration, preliminary peace talks - Eleven Myanmar

Communities Secretary Michael Gove

MICHAEL Goves been writing love letters. Hes finally published the long-awaited Levelling Up White Paper, a Valentines card to Red Wall voters thats supposed to keep them feeling warm and fuzzy about the Tories.

Unfortunately, it felt like a love letter Boris Johnson had written full of gushing promises youd be very unwise to take on face value.

But it did have a certain significance for the union between Scotland and England. Amid all the breathless vision stuff about turning places like Sunderland and Bolton into the bestest places in the world to live ever, Mr Gove talked of greater devolution to the English regions and this matters. Why? Because it reflects a growing appetite in England for stronger regions. Stronger English regions make federalism a viable option for the UK, creating a potentially popular alternative to independence.

The problem is that baby steps towards greater autonomy for individual counties and cities, as Mr Gove is offering, will lead to a messy and incoherent whole, when whats needed is a proper reimagining of the way the UK is governed. That has to include the abolition of the woefully outdated House of Lords in favour of a Senate of the Nations and Regions, and directly elected and accountable assemblies for any region that wants one.

READ MORE REBECCA: Don't bet on Labour to win next election

That model would rebalance England to an unprecedented degree and change the game when it came to options for the UKs future.

The usual rejoinder to this is that English voters have to want it; you cant impose greater autonomy on the English regions. Well, its true that for a long time they didnt seem to want it but that is changing before our eyes. Andy Burnham, Steve Rotherham and others, as energetic advocates for their areas, have created mayor envy in other, undevolved parts of England. Momentum is building. And as we know in Scotland, once voters get a taste for more local decision-making, they tend to want more of it.

Story continues

The implications for the Scottish debate are obvious. If there is one thing that has become increasingly clear over the last eight years, its that the choice between independence and the status quo is a false dichotomy.

There is a great proliferation of constitutional options, even just under the broad heading of independence. Independence supporters themselves are split over how close relations should be with a post-Brexit Europe and a UK thats no longer in the EU, over currency, the monarchy and tackling debt. The constitutional options are on a continuum, with isolation at one end and total integration at the other. Independence and federalism come in a range of guises in between.

Politicians who insist on trying to force a binary choice onto the Scottish people are therefore distorting the debate. There is an alternative to independence in federalism, with more powerful English regions counterbalancing the might of London and a reformed UK parliament reflecting the concerns of the nations and regions. Radical federalism is not far removed from softer forms of independence.

The question is whether the UK government, with its past instinct for centralisation, is finally seeing the value in developing this third option.

The Levelling Up White Paper offers a nod in that direction, though it should be treated with caution. It notes, for instance, that the UK is highly centralised compared to other OECD countries and theres a need to widen, deepen and simplify devolution. Even in areas of England which have seen devolution local leaders have comparatively limited powers, it declares, with the mayors of New York and Paris having much greater clout as well as more revenue-raising powers.

READ MORE REBECCA: Scots Tories must go their own way

By 2030, every part of England that wants one will have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement, promises Mr Gove. With talk like that, hes in danger of sounding enthusiastic.

But his concrete offer is less ambitious than this makes it sound. What hes really talking about are more mayors for counties and cities.

That would be significant, but not a game-changer in itself. At the moment, mayors are directly elected but their teams are not. For instance, Andy Burnhams cabinet of 10 are the leaders of the 10 local councils in greater Manchester.

In London, by contrast, the 25 members of the London Assembly are directly elected. Are we on the cusp of seeing small, directly elected regional authorities spring up all over England? There is no indication of that.

And it would be surprising if we were. After all, as the Institute for Government notes in a paper this week, this is a government that has shown a willingness to override the devolved institutions in areas of their own responsibility a government, in other words, that likes to assert its primacy which seems to jar with ideas of muscular devolution for the English regions.

But thats whats needed. The constitutional monolith that is England does need to be broken up a bit, or inevitably, the London government will always dominate.

An English parliament would be sensible, but that would not solve the problem.

Decentralising power in England is key. Having regional assemblies with clout would be the best way to make UK federalism work.

The UK Government plans to let the English regions devolve at different speeds and in different ways, according to what local people want. That is the right thing to do, but you are left wondering if its also a convenient way for a government which likes to hoard power to avoid passing too much more of it down the chain too quickly.

There is a danger that all this talk of devolution within England is just a superficial sop to keep Red Wall voters onside, rather a sign of genuine commitment to change the way the UK is run.

It would be a lost opportunity if that were true.

The polls, for years now, have shown the Scottish population more or less evenly split over the independence question. This was confirmed by last Mays Scottish election and even by the latest two polls this month, which show a dead heat between Yes and No.

Scottish politics sometimes seems condemned to this attrition, but thats only true if the third way option continues to be ignored.

The Scottish Government frequently makes common cause with Wales; well in future it could find fresh allies in the north-east, north-west and midlands of England, assuming Scottish ministers did not consider it beneath them to parly with mere regions. The ongoing dominance of London and Whitehall is no longer a given.

But the UK government cant just play at this. Do they want to reinvigorate the UK or dont they? Its time to decide.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.

Go here to see the original:

Rebecca McQuillan: The real threat to independence that could save the Union - Yahoo News UK

In early November 2021, the African Union envoy former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo stated that he saw a small window of opportunity to end the ongoing civil war in the Ethiopian Tigray region. However, that slim glimmer of hope now seems elusive, as panic has mounted due to rebel forces claiming more cities in the Amhara region and preparing to launch an assault on Addis Ababa, Ethiopias capital city. Abiy Ahmed, Ethiopian Prime Minister and Nobel laureate, responded by putting on a military uniform and calling for public rallies on Facebook, vowing to lead troops in the war against advancing Tigray rebels.

The conflict was sparked in November 2020 by clashes between the federal government of Abiy Ahmed and the Tigrayan Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF). The TPLF, representing the Tigrayan ethnic minority, ruled Ethiopia for nearly 27 years without political division. In 2018, the election of Abiy Ahmed and the establishment of an Ethiopian federal government of Oromo ethnic origin removed the TPLF from the government sphere. Accusing the Ethiopian government of marginalizing the Tigrayan ethnic group, the TPLF has sincestatedits objective: fighting against the centralized power handled by Abiy Ahmed in Ethiopia and freeing Tigray. The rebels armed themselves heavily, held independent legislative elections in 2020, and the war was officially started by theattackon a federal army barracks on the night of November 3. Ethiopia has now reached the heart of the conflict between the coalition of the TPLF rebel forces and the alliance of Oromo and Amhara militias, helped by the Eritrean army, which the Prime Minister allowed to intervene.

It is necessary to understand that the federal government and TPFL are not the only belligerents involved; the reality is a much more complex narrative. Ethnicity plays a crucial but not exclusive role in Ethiopian politics, as the country is home to more than 80 different ethnic groups. The ruling Prime Minister is part of the largest group, as the Oromo compose a third of the national population. Next comes the Amhara, representing a quarter of the Ethiopians. Finally, the Tigrean population, which resides mainly in the Tigray region, accounts for seven per cent of the Ethiopians.

However, presenting ethnic heterogeneity in the Ethiopian population is not sufficient to understand the causes of this complex crisis. An analysis of the regions history is also necessary to explain the embedded obstacles to peaceful settlements. Opposition between the central power and its peripheries has existed since the very formation of the Ethiopian state. This ancient Shoa dynasty, which ended under Menelik in the 19th century, was marked by regionalist insurgencies. In the 1970s, while Ethiopia was ruled by Emperor Haile Selassie I, socialist-influenced movements enabled the rise of a progressive popular revolution. In 1974, the Coordinating Committee of the Armed Forces (the Derg) joined the revolution and overthrew the emperor. Thereupon, a military dictatorship controlled the country between 1975 and 1991.

The Ethiopian military junta pursuedcentralized controlthat managed to wipe out all contending political opposition through widespread violence and repression against various communities. Thus, in the early 1980s, the TPLF gained strength and a broad base of popular support. It became a regional liberation movement for Tigray and, with its allies, fought the military equally to take power and to reinvent the conception of the Ethiopian state. Therefore, a coalition of other regional movements with the TPLF created the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), which overthrew the Derg in 1991 and reformed the country after numerous resurgences. The autonomist and regional parties in the coalition thus drafted the 1994 Ethiopian constitution.

Ethnic federalismis enshrined in Ethiopias 1994 Constitution, whichstatesthat every Nation, Nationality, and People in Ethiopia has a right to self-determination, including the right to secession. Although it is hard to achieve because of legal conditions, this embedded right to secession and federalist rhetoric left a lasting legacy on Ethiopian politics. Today, for Amhara and national elites, ethnic federalismimpedesthe creation of a strong, unitary nation-state that Abiy Ahmed has been seeking since 2018. Ethnic federalism is not enough of a compromise for ethnonational rebel groups; a peaceful ceasefire could still be an option and a highly desirable one in the eyes of the international community, but it seems unlikely considering the ongoing progress made by rebel groups.

One year later, the crisis has transformed into a disastrous humanitarian situation in the Horn of Africa region, emphasized by the recent escalations of violence. North of Ethiopia, 400,000 people in Tigray live in famine conditions. The Ethiopian governments efforts to constrict the flow of aid into a region controlled by Tigrayan rebel forces only reduce the likelihood of successful negotiations. Indeed, the government denying permission totrucks filled with food,medicine, and fuel to move from neighbouring regions to Tigray enhanced has only incentivized the TPFL to undertake an aggressive strategy for the TPLF.

In late October 2021, after the fall of two cities close to the capital, the Ethiopian government declareda state of emergency. In a Facebook post since deleted for accusations of hate, Abiy Ahmed called on citizens to arm themselves. Such a message was conveyed as the United Nations released a report on the region, which depicts the violence of the conflict as having forced more than1.2million Ethiopians to be displaced. Evidence is mounting of human rights violations by both sides, particularly reflecting numerous abuses against women. The conflict has resulted more broadly in violence against all civilians as thousands, whether Tigrayans considered traitors by the TPLF Amhara civilians or enemies of the central government military forces, have been killed.

Finally, in late December 2021, Ethiopia witnessed a new turnaround in the situation caused by an increase in the strength of the federal army. The governmentannouncedthe non-advancement of troops to Tigray, giving hope to the international community of open negotiations. However, the situation has recently fallen back into extreme violence.

The legacy of historical secessionist movements, the horrors committed since the beginning of the conflict, and a society based on ethnic federalism make the incentives for a diplomatic resolution extremely limited. Even worse, the latest government messages promoting violence to permanently destroy the TPLF justifiably worries experts about giving rise to the expansion of combat operations andintercommunal violence. The airstrikes witnessed in December 2021 correspond to more preemptive government military actions rather than negotiations. These attacks have left a bitter taste to Abiy Ahmeds Nobel Peace Prize, as the Prime Minister seems unable to resolve the Ethiopian civil war.

Featured image: Ville gens rue banniere by Brett Sayles is licensed under Pexels.

Edited by Joshua Poggianti

See the original post here:

The Extreme Difficulty of Diplomatically Resolving the Ethiopian War - The McGill International Review