On Tigray Heritage Self Determination; Clashes on Heritage Sovereignty between International Declarations and FDRE By laws
On Tigray Heritage Self Determination; Clashes on Heritage Sovereignty between International Declarations and FDRE By laws
Hiyab Gebretsadik
This research has analyzed the substantive essence of the constitution of Ethiopia on jurisdictions of heritage matters between Federal and State governments, and articulated the FDRE Proclamation No. 209/2000 on its constitutionality and against international declarations on the right of indigenous peoples on “heritage self-determination”, and “heritage sovereignty”. It has triangulated the Ethiopian heritage laws with four UN declarations. Accordingly, the substantive essence of the constitution on layers of powers of heritage matters between federal and state government is majorly found to be under state jurisdiction. However, it also partly suffers from imperialist syndrome on heritage ownership, which is a legacy of Unitarianism that dominated the political scene of Ethiopia. It puts multi-layered sovereignty on heritage, makes hybridization of responsibility, has a polyphony-monograph dilemma, and has constitutional silence on the schemata of exercises of its stipulations. These have dialectical problems of being rhetorical and lacking transcendence. On the other hand, the proclamation is found to be against international declarations on the right of indigenous peoples regarding heritage self-determination that put heritage sites as first and forever local places and as an intervention without or against these communities is illegal. The specific contents of the proclamation also fall under jurisdictions of state powers which make it unconstitutional. This failure of heritage federalism opens doors to deliberate delay of conservation of treasure, the productivity of meanings that construct counter-history where the politicized ‘portion of truth’ is produced, and biasedly publicizing certain heritages as “national” prestige. It has contents of domestic heritage colonization which opens to lootings, and smuggling by federal actors. So, the proclamation is not only unconstitutional but establishes a Neo-imperialist federal structure by suppressing the national question. At last, it is found that this hyper-centralization again harms states such as Tigray on heritage economics and fair remunerations from tourism as it can storyline, script, and mold public opinion on which tourist destination ought to be popular.