Yosef Tadesse

Fellowship: Ezera Research for African Students
Fellowship Year: 2025
Project Theme/Title: Who Governs Who?: The Effect of Administrative Jurisdictional Change on Citizens' Political Behavior
Abstract: The contested history of land ownership and the legitimacy of Addis Ababa's status as a federal administrative capital enclosed within the state of Oromia has long been a central political issue in Ethiopia. The enactment of the Ethiopian Constitution in 1995 institutionalized a system of ethnic federalism, aiming to establish autonomous homelands for each major ethnic group, reflecting the ideological commitment to self-determination that underpinned the 1991 regime change. The ensuing geographical reconfigurations led to Addis Ababa becoming entirely encircled by the newly established State of Oromia—the designated ethnic homeland of the Oromo people—who assert historical claims over the territories that now constitute the nation's capital (Fessha 2020). Recognizing the special relationship between the capital and the state of Oromia, stemming from their geographical proximity and historical linkages, the constitution incorporated a special interest clause2 that acknowledges the special interests of the Oromo people and the State of Oromia over the capital (ibid). The clause—whose specific application remained vague and undefined by law—constituted merely a minor concession to the demands of Oromo nationalists for full incorporation of the capital into Oromia. This ambiguity generated significant friction between the State of Oromia and the Addis Ababa city administration, particularly concerning the issue of border demarcation. Disagreements emerged not only over how to demarcate the border but also over whether it should be demarcated at all, given the ongoing contention surrounding the special interest clause and historical claims of land ownership.3 Consequently, the precise border demarcation has remained unclear for many years.
I link jurisdictional changes resulting from the border demarcation to a transformation of the nature of ethnic governance in affected neighborhoods. Specifically, these changes recalibrate individuals' relational status to ethnic governance—that is, they determine whether the jurisdictional shift renders individuals part of an ethnic minority or majority relative to society and government. I posit that it is this relational status to ethnic governance that shapes perceptions of bias associated to ethnic governance, influencing how individuals perceive and experience bias in political representation along ethnic lines. I elaborate on the core components of the theoretical framework in the subsequent sections.