READ THIS ARTICLE IN PDF HERE.
Two party states are common in the world, including the US and UK, although such politics is being highly criticized and challenged by populist movements. It is an arrangement where two main parties alternate, democratically through free, fair and competitive elections to form governments. Some believe it symbolizes procession and maturity of democracy in many countries. In Europe, the emergence and evolution of two party system, almost in all cases, is a result of an economic and class struggle. An empirical conservative bourgeois upper class was challenged by working middle class often with socialist or liberal ideology.
African countries, including Ethiopia, are growing much faster than in the past. Some of them are supporting a bustling manufacturing industries with rapid urbanization in progress. This has helped bulge the middle class and could empower political participation on the continent. The struggle between socialism and liberal democracy in Ghana during country’s rapid urbanization and industrialization, for example, has produced a two party system where NDC [National Democratic Congress] and NPP [New Patriotic Party] alternatively form governments since late 80s. NPP has an Ashanti [Akan] support base while NDC enjoys support from Ewe and other many smaller minorities. Although some call it ‘’tribalism’’, this is a better example where politics still works even with an ethnic dimension  and support base. In other democratic countries such as South Africa, the formation of two party system has failed and ANC remains by far the largest party in the country mainly because of fresh apartheid legacy and the prominent role it played. The emergence of Economic Freedom Fighter (EFF) party led by Julius Malema, the momentum in Democratic Alliance (DA) party will likely weaken ANC and inevitably transform the country to multi-party or two party state.
In Ethiopia, authoritarianism has become the norm over the last decade. Democracy is effectively absent. Opposition politics is almost non-existent. The country ranks bottom in every human rights, democracy and good governance indexes. It, nevertheless, continues to grow economically. Construction and urbanization is booming, small to medium scale manufacturing sector is growing. Over the last few years, however, contradictions and shift in policy is brewing trouble within the ruling party coalition.
 Everyone in EPRDF agrees and accepts dictatorship to sustain economic growth. Their legitimacy in fact is solely driven from economic success. Over the last three years, the economic model crafted by the late PM Meles that was based on rural small holding farmers [rural to urban model] has been annulled and a new kind of model [urban to rural] where development is being aggressively pursued as urbanization, urban capital expenses, and industrialization is being implemented. This is not popular among all member parties in the coalition because it runs against the core interest of the vast majority of rural people. In case of Oromia for example, most urban localities are the relics of imperial settlements and Oromos are minorities in some of them including Addis Ababa. Any development that directly pumps capital in these towns further alienates and impoverishes the surrounding Oromo community.
 The correct way, experts argue, is to create a trickle-down effect where, for example in Jimma, coffee farmers would be the source of capital flow, and the town must bear their visible and prominent signature, such as their properties and values dominate. This requires a controlled economic policy geared to achieve such outcome. And the current urban-rural economic model goes directly against an Oromo interest.
 Related but beyond the economy, there is a political overriding factor: identity.
Ethiopia has been and is effectively an ethnic state. It was moulded from the very beginning not based on differences of classes, per se, although hierarchy existed within the ruling ethnic Amharas-for example between serfs and lords, but based on the differences of culture, language and religion. And this is still the case, with different rulers today: Tigreans and their systematic regime of oppression with an economic hegemony at its core.
 While Europeans built their two party states based on economic arguments, in Ethiopia, although the economy can be important, such system is fundamentally driven by identity politics. I argue political conditions and realities in Ethiopia allow a successful two party system based on identity and its underlying economic, social and cultural implications.
 This is how it works.
 As the country grows, urbanization expands, the educated middle class bulges, and political participation improves paving the way for competitive elections. Political change could happen very rapidly if aggressive reform by the governing party EPRDF is pursued. As a condition, TPLF must voluntarily resign from its unfairly dominant role or must be forced to do so. This probably will split EPRDF into two or even more, with clear federalist and antifederalist elements.
 The split of EPRDF into two parties on equal footing demonstrates not only a south-north divide, it will be a democrat-conservative divide, left-right and federalist-unitary divide. In light of an immense shared economic interest in the south, the ANDM [Amhara] and TPLF [Tigray] will find a common ground at least to safeguard and, if possible, to extend their influence and resource control. And that will not be unnoticed by OPDO [Oromo] and SPDM [Southern people] and in the presence of an effective democracy and control over economic policies, it might only leave TPLF as ‘’the third’’ party that swings between federalist south and anti-federalist north. This is a soft approach that could probably work if the military is neutral which is highly unlikely.
 The hard approach is to completely dismantle the TPLF dominated EPRDF regime using force and pray an inflamed and volatile opposition work together in transition. An important fact to recognize, whether it comes from within ERPDF or from the opposition, the two party system is primarily the reflection of the Oromo-Amhara divide.  The Oromo-Amhara divide is already a dominant discourse within the educated middle class as evidenced on social media.
 This divide is healthy, and should be healthy. Politics is about differences, disagreements and choices. If not, there is no such thing. The divide is not just social and cultural, there is concrete economic policy differences between south and north. For example, on the issue of land policy. And this divide must be celebrated, embraced and it has to be a progressive idea of the new order of Ethiopia, a fundamental change where the interest of the two largest communities in the country dominate the politics while all minorities are protected.
 It is true that If not handled with utmost care, such differences could escalate tensions risking fallout, a threat to the integrity of the country. Building such relationship based on trust and respect is key.
 Trust and respect is nurtured through consensus. Consensus on basic rules of political game. A prime example of such attempt is a platform prepared by Vision Ethiopia where scholars and political leaders with radical differences found grounds to sit and talk and reflect on such basic rules of a fair and just political system.
 For the Oromos and the vast south, the question of self-determination, autonomy and devolution remain overriding. In case of Oromia, this includes to accept the autonomy of Oromia, handing of power to the Oromo people and the principle of non-interference in the development of Oromo culture and language [Oromummaa]. Likewise, the northern people, Amharas to be specific, want to see a united Ethiopia, which nobody really opposes except some fringe groups, but the kind of unity the Amhara elites envisage often goes against the principle of federalism where the role of the central government or federal authority is very limited. In any case, the level of power the federal government exercises might slightly change, without compromising the constitution, based on who has won election and form the government.
 Although I will not say the south (Oromos and co.) are the antithesis of the north (Amharas and co.), or vise-versa, it is clear that stark differences exist. In fact, in expense of being experimental, inspired by an article I red some time ago, through further reading and deliberation, I have come up with the kind of two party state the country can withstand without breaking apart. I call the southern alliance (GADA): Grand Association of Democratic Alliance and the northern political alliance (JUDA): Joint Union of Democratic Alliance.
 The following table summarises the major policy differences between the two. These are outlined within and outside of the current constitutional limits, and hence some of them require constitutional amendments to be implemented. I’m federalist myself (GADA), but for the rest, I have consulted a good friend of mine who lean towards conservatism (JUDA).
        GADA          JUDA
EconomyPlanned economy (socialism)Market economy (capitalism)
Government SystemLeader elected directly (federal, presidential)Leader elected by parliament (federal, parliamentary)
EducationFree in all levelsFree only in primary and secondary levels
Health careFree/highly subsidisedNot free, small subsidies
Language and artAll are national languages. English, Oromo, Amharic, Somali and Tigrinya working languages of federal government. Developing languages and art is the sole responsibility of states.All are national languages. English, Oromo, Amharic, Somali and Tigrinya working languages of federal government. Federal government allocates resources to develop languages and art.
Foreign policyMember of federation (states) can form relation with foreign entity directlyForeign policy is conducted solely by federal government
MilitaryA joint force formed from contribution of each state based on quota, deployed under central commandA force recruitment and trained by the federal government under central command
Housing and UrbanizationCommunal housing programs, affordable housing, social housing, de-centralized urbanization policy away from the capital cityReal estates, centralized urbanization policy, dominant capital city
Culture and diversitySalad bowl, integration of distinct cultural groups to preserve diversityMelting pot, integration to reduce degree of diversity and create uniform society
Media and communicationConcentration of regional medias, minimum to no federal media (the Switzerland model)Few regional media, much bigger role of federal media, centralized communication work
Agriculture and land policyLand is a public property, not to be sold; small scale farming based on sustainability and food security, crop corridorsLand is private property, subject to market; large scale farming to boost productivity and market
Taxation and SpendingMore taxes, more spending, more borrowing, nationalized rail, tele etcTax reliefs, open market, privatized tele, rail etc
Table 1: the divide
Has something alarmed you beyond disagreeing from the table above? Most probably not; even if you say yes, it can’t be on the level that will invite violence. Regardless of in which group you find yourself, this very civilized recognition of our difference reflected in policies outlined will greatly help you decide who should rule the country. It prepares you to accept a majority vote in elections, and makes you pressure your party to reform or shift its policies, to find more allies and friends, and plan early on to win the next election.
 In practice, in country where differences have been used to oppress people, this is going to be very difficult especially where the elite lacks restraints and political sensitivity. So it is just an idea for now, an overly optimistic one. However, this is the most feasible way to accommodate our diverse opinions in the country as concise, manageable and democratic as possible.