With regard to Ethiopia's path to development, would you say that China is a good model for Ethiopia? What exactly does the concept of developmental state mean? Can development be achieved by compromising democracy?

A country can achieve development without necessarily being politically democratic. However, in the long run, it is best to have a developmental society as well as a democratic state.

Certain cultures can simply be developmental in a sense that the economy grows without necessarily being democratic. Examples are China, South Korea, and Singapore. However, these countries are ethnically homogenous, so they can't really be a model for Ethiopia. This is because they have a certain culture based on the teachings of Confucius.

Probably for Ethiopia, the best model can be a country like India. India is a developmental state but it is also democratic. It is the largest democratic state. Meaningful lessons can be learned from India on how to organize federalism in a sustainable way.

The issues of federalism need to be discussed carefully and openly among Ethiopians, including the experience of other countries and the type of federalism that Ethiopia chose to pursue, which is based on ethnicity. It didn't have to be this way. Ethiopia could have federalized by retaining the previous provinces which are historical and cultural bases. But, for some reason the leaders that came to power wanted to federalize the country along ethnic lines, remapping Ethiopia into nine "kilils" [regions].

The question of identity and nationalities was one of the issues that triggered  the student movement in the 1960s. So what is the problem with organizing Ethiopia along ethnic and linguistic lines as a response to that historical quest?

That is right. But it was not discussed. Yes, it was a national question . . .
Language is a critical issue, it created conflicts in countries like Nigeria and India.  

Because it is an issue of conflict, especially in a country like Ethiopia having over 80 languages, what are you going to do? Are you going to spend time on developing over 80 languages?

So what kind of language policy are you suggesting for Ethiopia?  

Ethiopia has several languages, at least three of those widely spoken need to be taught to the future generation. Children can learn Amharic, Oromiffaa, Tigrigna and probably other major languages equally. Ethiopia should not undermine its languages. For example, Amharic was spoken for many years. You don't have to reverse that, you rather improve that. You protect the rights of people to speak their language but you don't undermine what you have already achieved. So, you have to ask yourself what the impact of forcing someone to learn in their mother tongue could be in some of the regions where educational materials are scarce. Unintentionally we are creating a generation of Ethiopians who can not communicate with their fellow Ethiopians. Some countries like Nigeria and Kenya, because of language problems, are using English as the default language.  

I think English should be taught in Ethiopia starting at elementary schools. Communities should be given the choice to be taught in multiple languages, two or three at least, which are historically important. For example, probably in terms of numbers I think people should be allowed to speak three official languages - Amharic, Tigrigna, and Oromiffaa. In Oromia region right now, it's Oromiffaa that is officially used. However, you should not also deny Oromos the right to speak Amharic or Tigrigna, or even Somali. So there should be a dialogue among experts. All I am saying is that we can hold an honest dialogue.  

Ethiopian communities are really in many ways united through traditional institutions like edir, mahiber, etc. These are successful collective social instruments that the country possesses. So we should learn from that when organizing politically and make a start from bottom up.

The challenge really lies in how to manage and transform potential conflicts. The question that should be asked is who will do that. One option is that the government currently in power can take charge and initiate a dialogue towards reform. If we fail to do that history will repeat itself.

What is your fear when you say history will repeat itself?

What I am afraid of is a rebellion. If that happens it would be difficult to manage.

You are arguing that ethnic party politics is not good for the country. But is it not the case that it is the right of citizens and nationalities to choose whether ethnicity or any other criteria be the basis for organization of the political and federal system?    

Yes. This is citizens' right. Good politics makes it possible to have collectively improved things. This means we need to have certain basic things that connect us.  You need, for example, to have a loyal opposition. When we say loyalty it is not to one's own party or ethnic group. Rather it is to the people and the country at large. We have to have an honest forum where people can express their choices and citizens could participate in the political process. The government is a rule by the people, and if the people don't want you, you willingly transfer power. Such is what you call a civic and transparent society. You see, there is a government and there are citizens. There is also a civil society group. Civil society, as long as it is independently organized (I mean civil society groups not affiliated to any one), can be fully independent.

For example, do we have an independent peasantry? These are very important because we are an agrarian country and we need to have independent farmers' organizations which focus on production, marketing, productivity and the like. The government should simply and genuinely administer the country and let the people be creative. However, we can't deny that the people need support. For instance, farmers need subsidized fertilizers, agricultural credit and so on.

In the paper you presented you dealt with the free movement of labour in relation to the ethnic federalism and said that the current federal system discourages the free movement of labour and that this has a serious consequence for the country's development. Could you explain this point?

It is a very important issue! What is important is to determine the exact impact of federalism on economic growth. Now, learning from the Indian experience in federalism, if we depend on linguistics, or rigid ethnicity, it might slow down the mobility of not only labour force but also capital from region to region. Under such condition, someone in one of the ethnic regions might say that you can't invest there since you are not a member of the enthic group or you don't speak the group's particular language. The movement of resources in a market economy such as the mobility of human resources in search of opportunity, regardless of their background, is a vital character.  

Do you think there is a structural problem with the constitution in this regard?

No! There is nothing in the constitution that say one can't move freely. But local elites may manipulate the situation by raising the cost of transaction for people to move. This is an issue of high-level leadership; we need reconciliation. Many leaders, including Obama himself, are talking about reconciliation. That should be our task.   

What do you think of the upcoming national elections in Ethiopia?

My view is that Ethiopia should not certainly repeat the violence that marred the last elections. The code of conduct signed between political parties is important. There are parties like Forum which didn't sign the code of conduct.  People say Forum has a potential to challenge the EPRDF. But I don’t see any clear policy difference they have presented.  

There are those who say that as Fprum is a coalition of parties which draw their members from all over the country, that makes it a serious contender. What is your view?

I don't know about that. Where are its policies?  What is it saying? Is it offering alternatives to what the EPRDF is doing? All it is doing is make noise. That is not important.

It's important to address issues like land tenure and federalism. What alternatives does it have on the issues? How is it going to improve the existing system? What is it saying about the constitution?

Do you see people freely expressing their views, freely opposing, debating for the May elections, especially when compared to that of 2005?

I have seen people debating. It is ok. But there seem to be some setbacks. It is my view that one problem observed during the 2005 elections was that the CUD was formed in haste. They (its leaders) were not ready to govern even if they had won. But one important thing was that Ethiopia had the largest opposition party. As such what they should have done was join parliament.
That was truly a missed opportunity for the Ethiopian democratic process. Regardless of that, I think it is very important for people to vote. My concern is that based on the experience of the last election people might not vote in droves as they did the last time.