Amhara-Tigray busing the border dispute: Can it be resolved within the existing constitutional framework?

The ethnic-based Regional State formation in Ethiopia is cemented with the promulgation of the 1995 FDRE Constitution and along with it, the delineation of internal boundaries of Regions that replaced previous administrative provinces. Though still cause for continued conflict among Regional States and different ethnic groups- with the conflict in the Amahra Region ranking the most severe in terms of consequences, most argue that the formation of these States is legitimate as it is demarcated on the basis of “settlement patterns, language, identity and consent” of the people. (Art 46(2) of 1995 FDRE Constitution).

The cultural and demographic criteria for border demarcation is however, not without criticism.
Particularly as it relates to Wolkait and Raya- the areas of land known to be the source of intense dispute
between the Amhara and Tigray Region, the delineation is contested on grounds of ill consideration of
two key factors- territorial claims based on ancestral Amhara land occupation during the times of princes; and historical ‘assimilation’ of people in the contested border areas as “Amharas” even though they do not belong to the particular ethnic group. Amhara elites also argue that the original settlers in the disputed areas were Amharas only and that they were forcibly expelled from the land by the then TPLF led (Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front) government. The Tigray elites however, uphold the inclusion of the disputed areas in the state of Tigray as legitimate on the basis that the areas have long been inhabited by ethnic Tigrayans.

The legality of the constitutional demarcation is further contested on grounds of absence of adequate representation of Amhara ethnic groups during the drafting process of the FDRE Constitution and is thereby claimed to be not reflective of the interests of the Amhara people. The Tigrayan political elites strongly dismiss these claims stating that the constitution-making process was all inclusive. Nonetheless, the underrepresentation argument has a spill-over effect on the legitimate citation of constitutional provisions pertaining to the land disputes rendering it as nonbinding among the Amhara political elites. In the alternative, resort to historical records has proved to be even more controversial given the unequivocal variation on both sides on the recount and accuracy of historical narratives pertaining to the disputed lands -opening more doors for unresolved issues.