The Illogic and Inconsistency of Killil Creation

by Addisu Admas   December 16, 2022

In the very preamble of the current constitution, we read the words “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples” with no clause or codicil defining what these words mean, or what they stand for. It is left to the reader to interpret these words as he or she thinks fit. By what criteria is a group of people belonging to an ethnicity is determined to be a nation, nationality or people? Is it by its population size, land area, or any combination of these? It does not appear to be so since it would be incongruent with the current subdivision of Ethiopia into Killils. The constitution affirms also in Chapter 4 article 47-2, that there are “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples within the states [i.e. Killils]” implying within each state or Killil. Thus, clearly, a Killil by definition is not an expression of self-determination, but an administrative division of convenience. Had the constitution aimed at a logical, though not convenient nor easy outcome, the following points would have been considered or implemented.

• The assignment of only one common term, i.e. either nation, nationality, or people (and not all three of them), or, for that matter, any other appellation that seems adequate to every ethnic group that self-defines as such, regardless of its population size or geographic area. Doing so is not only fair, but also eliminates confusion.
• The word State and the word Killil – this latter, I should add, is not only inadequate, but is charged with questionable connotation – are not only not equivalent, but would appear to confuse the issues. Ethiopia is a State composed of 11 States (and two chartered cities) within which, or at least from some of which, other states can be formed! [Cfr. Article 47-2: “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples within the States enumerated in sub-Article 1 of this article have the right to establish, at any time, their own States”. A simple straightforward solution would have been to assign “Statehood” to each one of the ethnic groups within Ethiopia. Nevertheless, if the current trend of demanding statehood (or Killil-hood) continues unabated, we will be witnessing this very same outcome. And, despite the federal government’s resistance, nothing can be done because it is enshrined in the constitution!
• If the above came to pass, Ethiopia will become a country divided into some 80 states ranging in population from a few thousand to tens of millions, and from territories of a few thousand acres to hundreds of thousands of square kilometers. 
• De facto, the federal government, including the House of Federation, the House of Peoples’ representatives, and the judiciary would have no right or reason to delay, impede or prohibit self-defined ethnicities from seeking Killil-hood as per article 46-2. The absurdity of the recent measure taken by the head of the SNNP is a clear violation of this article and in fact should be investigated by the House of Federation.

 

Clearly, the constitution designed by avowed self-determination advocates has created a constitution that is not only incoherent, but defeats the very purpose for which it was framed in the first place, i.e., to create a peaceful, stable, well-governed and hopefully prosperous country. 

There is also another major issue that the constitution has not addressed. Even though it clearly states the requirements of Ethiopian citizenship, and speaks of the rights of nationality [article 33], it leaves to the Killils to determine several issues that needed to be at least addressed if not codified in the constitution itself.  For example, one of the main reason that we are observing the rise of secessionist groups like OLA (aka Shene) and other lesser-known ones is because the constitution has given the impression that Killils constitute separate and autonomous states free to enact laws that are not necessarily prohibited by the federal constitution, but only presumed to be prohibited. More specifically, being an Ethiopian citizen, for example, should clearly give one the right to reside, work, own property or conduct financial transaction in any Killil of one’s choosing, regardless of one’s ethnic or Killil origin. Yet the perception of many radical advocates of Killil-hood is that there is not only Ethiopian citizenship, but also “undeclared and unsanctioned” citizenship of a Killil! Often the latter taking precedence over the former. Even though this may not have been the objective of the framers of the constitution, by their omission or oversight that is where we are today. 

Being of a certain Killil, whether this is based on ethnicity or by some other criterion, should not preclude an Ethiopian citizen, or for that matter any other citizen of the world, to be able to reside, work, do business in any part of the country as long as he or she fulfills the requirements of the law. Yet, by not spelling out clearly the rights of citizenship within the framework of “Killil federalism”, the constitution has essentially and de facto created multiple citizenships within the Ethiopian State. This will remain a source of contention, if not of outright hostilities, for generations to come.

As long as the fundamental rights of every ethnic group in Ethiopia are respected, as stated, for example, in article 39-2 [“Every Nation, Nationality and People of Ethiopia has the right to speak, to write and to develop its own language; to express, to develop and to promote its culture; and to preserve its history”], there is no good reason for multiplying the Killils. There is no reason to have a Killil system if the objective is to provide all ethnicities in the realm the kind of rights described in article 39-2. However, the constitution makes it appear that the only way to achieve the objectives of this article is to follow up with a Killil system. This is where the constitution fails.  In fact, Ethiopia has more to gain by restructuring her territory in a manner that not only eliminates the misunderstanding and confusion inherent to the Killil system, but to avoid all possible conflicts, confusion and inconsistencies that the system is bound to lead her into. 

One way of doing this is to acknowledge in the constitution itself all the existing ethnicities constituting the Ethiopian State. A statement that will, once and forever, affirm that in one nation there can be many ethnicities as the history of most nations can attest. Whereas in the past, there has been a clear tendency, one would even say forceful program, to homogenize Ethiopia by imposing a language and certain cultural norms, Ethiopia has come to appreciate today her rich ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious variety and a willingness to preserve them. This, however, must not be translated into a system of government that aims, or at least tends to isolate each group within its territorial enclaves in the name of self-determination. As history has also clearly shown, self-determination has produced more poor and unstable states than prosperous and stable ones.

Ethiopia will benefit economically, culturally and most of all politically if the current ongoing subdivision into ever smaller Killils is given up for a more rational and efficient one. This would be a subdivision that while preserving, nurturing and protecting the cultural, linguistic and religious heritage, opts for a more operative and equitable administrative scheme. 

The present Killil arrangement has also the tendency of penalizing certain ethnic enclaves that by accident of history, religion or politics are relegated to unfavorable geographic zones. It precludes them from seeking relief in other areas, because venturing outside their Killil would be perceived as encroaching on the “presumed or real” property of other “nations, nationalities and peoples”. The irony of the recent war in Ethiopia is a glaring example why the Killil system is fraught with complications and dead ends. For generations, tens of thousands of Tigreans were able, unhindered and unmolested, to work and live in the fertile lands of Wolkait (what Westerners refer erroneously as western Tigray). It is precisely because of the architecture of the Killil system that the TPLF, perceiving the restrictive prescriptions it inserted in the constitution, began to expand its territory to the west while in power, since it did not want to be confined by its original territory, which could have never sustained the population of its Killil. Some have seen this as a first step towards the creation of the much talked about Greater Tigray ideology. However, evidence indicates that it was likely to circumvent the restrictions of the Killil system that the TPLF engaged in systematic annexations of Wolkait and other areas west of Tigray. 

What Ethiopia needs is not a rigidly divided country into Killils, but one where all Ethiopians are free to move, reside, work and vacation without restrictions nor fear. This, as we know, does not only benefit the economy, but will draw ever closer the multitude of Ethiopia’s ethnicities and learn to live peaceably with each other. This reality can never be fulfilled by the present constitution. As many have indicated, there are better ways to configure Ethiopia’s vast and rich land and peoples. It is time to recast or overhaul the constitution of Ethiopia.

 

“WE HAVE STABBED A FELLOW DEMOCRACY IN THE BACK” 

Rasmus Sonderriis

 

My speech about the war in northern Ethiopia delivered at a public meeting at IDA (Danish Society of Engineers), Copenhagen, March 22, 2022.

Following an introduction by moderator Adam Moe Fejerskov and 10-minute talks by EU representative Kristin Fedeler and Danish ambassador to Ethiopia Kira Smith Sindbjerg. Followed by journalist Knud Vilby and a Q&A session.

Thanks a lot for inviting me here tonight.

It’s encouraging that the EU diplomat and the Danish diplomat have spoken, diplomatically, about carrying on development cooperation with Ethiopia. By contrast, the EU and Denmark have zero moral credit left on the account to lecture Ethiopians on how to go about their horrible war. The Ethiopians have just been through a traumatic near-death experience, in which their new-born democracy and their fragile unitary state fought for survival against the dictatorial old guard. Ethiopians who share our ideals of human rights and ethnic coexistence were expecting our support. But what did we do, us good people in the rich and powerful part of the world? We stabbed them in the back! It seems like Kristin and Kira realize how deeply unpopular Denmark and the EU have become in Ethiopia.

Why exactly? Well, let’s turn back time to the near-death experience at the beginning of November. The media continue to refer to it as ‘the Tigray War’, although by now four months have passed without any fighting in Tigray. Instead hell has moved to the Afar and Amhara states, where about 15 million people live under TPLF occupation. All equipment in hospitals, clinics, labs, schools, universities, offices, factories, yes, even waterworks, is being plundered and, if it can’t be transported to Tigray, it’s destroyed. Rapes and executions are the order of the day.

We may say, as many people have said, that this is revenge for other atrocities in Tigray committed before that by soldiers from Ethiopia and Eritrea. But justice it is not. An attempt at justice is what’s going on in Ethiopian courtrooms, where Ethiopian soldiers, 60 so far, are being held to account by their own side for the first time in the country’s history. Of course, we should support that and, by the way, our press ought to cover it, which nobody has done yet.

Alright, now back to the near-death experience. This is when the TPLF leaders and supporters change their tune. They no longer go on about a ‘war on Tigray’, but about conquering strategic high ground deep into enemy territory, pointing their artillery at new enemy towns. And they talk especially about how they are marching towards the capital Addis Ababa.

The so-called Ethiopia experts in the media immediately sentence this march to be a walk in the park, following the recent playbook from Kabul. “The government is collapsing, it’s a question of weeks, if not days”, is the cliché used again and again. The Danish embassy chimes in with the choir of embassies calling for their nationals to be evacuated. On November 5th, CNN even reports that troops from Tigray stand on the outskirts of the city. Wow, that almost got me worried, but, phew, just CNN fake news.

On November 9th in Washington DC, a grand press conference is convened, featuring leaders from no less than nine rebel movements who are joining in the triumphal procession, ready to share power. Nobody in Ethiopia has ever heard about these nine rebel leaders, though they’re recognized as Uber drivers. Never mind, the world press, including newspapers here in Denmark, lap it up.

The fact that the United States lets these people declare publicly how they are going to shoot their way to regime change convinces the Ethiopians that the USA is participating in the coup attempt.

So Biden sends his diplomat Jeffrey Feltman to Addis Ababa to say four-five times in one press briefing that, no, no, no, no, the US is not taking sides, neither for the TPLF nor for the government. But at the same time, he acknowledges that Abiy Ahmed’s government has democratic legitimacy and that, if the TPLF were to enter the capital, it would be “a blood-bath situation”. Spine-chilling stuff, right? But that’s when it’s official. The USA does not side with a fellow democracy against those out to commit a bloodbath against it.

Those were the anxious times when I wrote the long-read report from Addis Ababa that earned me the invitation here tonight. I stuck my neck out by writing the opposite of everyone else, namely that the TPLF was still “unlikely” to reach the capital. Granted, I never saw it coming that I would one day support Ethiopia against my own country Denmark, indeed against the entire Western world, but this semi prediction that the war was about to turn, well, at least I can brag about that today.

What was it based on? That I saw firsthand how Ethiopians were setting aside their disagreements to unite against a common enemy.

The TPLF and its supporters are constantly fanning the flames of ethnic resentment. They generalize about the Amharas being the oppressors who need to have their power taken away by the Oromos. They omit to say that Abiy Ahmed is Oromo. And that his government is truly multi-ethnic, including a Tigrayan minister of defense.

And what happened when it came down to it in Ethiopia? Proud Oromos, such as the marathon runner Feyisa Lilesa, volunteered to the front to defend Amhara state. Amharas learned to greet in the Oromo language. There was urgent fraternization across ethnic and political divides, that is, the complete opposite of what the TPLF had pinned their hopes on.

Because, in the short run, the TPLF has the best generals and a vast stock of money and weapons. But in the long run, its economic base in Tigray is too small to win. Getachew Reda, who appears to be the TPLF’s second in command, made it clear in an interview on BBC Hardtalk that he would be perfectly comfortable with Ethiopia falling apart. In essence, the TPLF strategy is: “If they won’t let us rule the country, let there be no country to rule at all.”

So apart from the drones, it was the togetherness, the shared will to save the unity of Mother Ethiopia, that upset the TPLF’s calculations. And incidentally made a lot of ‘Ethiopia experts’ look very foolish.

It all bodes well for the future, although disagreements are bound to reappear as the external threat is diminished.

Anyway, throughout the period when Ethiopians were mobilizing for battle, it rang out like a mantra from Denmark, from the European Union, from Western-funded organizations and think tanks. “There is no military solution”. The truth is there is no solution without at least a military component. Unless the solution is to commit suicide that is. The West consistently pushed for passivity: “Don’t send your fighter jets, keep them grounded, don’t buy drones or weapons, don’t mobilize more soldiers, no stirring speeches, arghhh, it’s so bellicose, we don’t like that, blah blah blah.”

This goes to show the importance of the narratives that we all carry inside our heads in order to simplify complex political conflicts. In that, I must include myself, of course. To me the narrative was: “A nascent, fragile, imperfect democracy defends itself bravely against a totalitarian enemy marching on its capital to commit a bloodbath”. Just like in Ukraine today. But the narrative that won the day was about a stereotypical, brutal African tribal war. Prime Minister Abiy’s speeches were labelled as war-mongering, but some of us found them inspiring, much like Zelensky’s rhetoric today.

Curiously, everyone in the West realized the danger of an “Ethioslavia”, of Ethiopia breaking up, followed by decades of civil war over the new borders, and 115 million refugees. But then, in the next breath, the reasoning would be, for instance in editorials in The Economist weekly and here in Denmark in Politiken Daily, that the West therefore had to push Abiy even harder to declare a ceasefire, that is, impose more sanctions on Ethiopia.

This is the equivalent of saying: “The patient is ill, but she is refusing our medicine, she says it’s going to kill her. So now we must beat her up, that’ll teach her to take the medicine that we tell her to take. Because we know what ails her much better than she does.”

Well, how we got that wrong! The patient survived, but only by ignoring our unfriendly advice. We owe the Ethiopians an apology, and that’s putting it mildly. Instead of analyzing the political context, instead of focusing on who is legitimate and who is not, we have been signaling our pacifist virtues, we have been arrogant and prejudiced.

What went wrong? Why did the narrative turn out so different from Ukraine? That’s a big question. Knud Vilby will talk about it after me, and we might discuss the various reasons here tonight, but the most important factor was probably the readiness to believe the TPLF’s s war propaganda about Abiy Ahmed supposedly being on an insane quest to starve and murder every single Tigrayan.

Yes, there are indeed genocidal potentials in Ethiopian politics today, and not just in Tigray. This is precisely why we need to strengthen the only realistic chance of democratic coexistence, which is the federal government! It has been militarily weak, so weak that it has, unfortunately, been forced to obtain help from the Eritrean dictatorship and from ethnic militias. Nevertheless, it’s not like there is a more moderate alternative to the current government.

And according to the UN “joint report” released on November 3rd, there is no evidence that Ethiopia has used starvation as a weapon, or that it has any kind of genocidal agenda.

I do not wish to play down the suffering in Tigray, but who is to blame? The TPLF has militarized society through and through. All resources from little Tigray are diverted to this big war, including over 1000 relief-aid trucks that have entered Tigray without coming back. The TPLF constantly attacks the same roads used by the aid convoys. Debretsion Gebremichael, TPLFs top leaders, has called it a “people’s war”, that is, what Goebbels called a “total war”. No wonder there is hardship in Tigray.

Helen Clark, who is a former Prime Minister of New Zealand and head of UNICEF, that is, she counts as one of the world’s great and good, wrote in the Guardian, in a piece full of misinformation about the war, that “to prevent genocide, we must sound the alarm before we arrive at certainty”.

But no, wild accusations without evidence don’t prevent anything, on the contrary, they pour more fuel on the fire. Helen Clark surely sees herself as an angel of peace, but she’s singing along to a militaristic refrain that tells ordinary Tigrayans they have the choice between killing and getting killed.

Yes, there has been a brutalization in Ethiopia, on both sides. Sadly, this is something we see in most wars, including in Ukraine. It’s all very well that we keep our heads cool and concern ourselves with the humanitarian aspect, including the civil rights of the vast number of Tigrayans who live outside of Tigray. But if we want Ethiopians to listen, we need to talk in a spirit of solidarity with their security challenges. Imagine, for instance, if we had given them the drones, instead of forcing them to buy from Turkey, then perhaps we could’ve asked for some favors in return.

My final point is remarkably simple: What is it that keeps the peace in our own highly successful countries? What is it? Is it power-sharing deals between the strongest warlords? Of course not, we have our democracy to distribute power. So, what is it? Is it pacifist sermons? No! So, what is it? This is no small matter. We’ve been told by the two diplomats here tonight that our development cooperation must not support a war economy. But how about supporting security? There is no development without security, without peace. And what keeps the peace in our own countries is the state’s monopoly on violence under democratic rule of law! This bears repeating. The state’s monopoly on violence under democratic rule of law! Good for us. Good for Ethiopia.

Thank you.

Rasmus Sonderriis

 

ሚያዝያ 6 2014.         April 14 2022

                            ይድረስ ለጠቅላይ ሚንስትር አብይ አህምድ ዶ/ር

 

ለክቡርነትዎ በዚህ አጭር ደብዳቤዬ ደጋፊዎ እንደመሆኔ መጠን አንድንድ በጣም የሚያሳስቡኝ ጉዳዮችን ለማንሳት እሞክራለሁ። ሀሳቦቼን ከመግለጼ በፊት እርሶም ሆነ ሌሎች ይኼንን ጽሑፍ የሚያነቡ ሰዎች እንዲያውቁልኝ የምፈልገው እንደግለሰብ እርሶዎ ወደሥልጣን ከመጡ ጊዜ ጀምሮ በኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ የተካሄዱትን ለውጦች በማድነቅ፡ አመራሮም በአሁኑ ጊዜ ለኢትዮጵያ አስፈላጊ እንደሆነም የምረዳ ግለሰብ ነኝ ። በየጊዜው በተለያዩ ጉዳዮች ላይ የሚሰጡት አስተያየቶች/ መመሪያዎች አመርቂና ደስ የሚሉ ራዕይ ያላቸው አገር ገንቢ መሆናቸውንም እገነዘባለሁ።

ስልጣን ላይ እንደመጡ .ማለትም ጠቅላይ ሚኒስተር ከሆኑበት ጊዜ አንስቶ  የገጠመዎት ችግሮች እርስዎ ለኢትዮጵያ ሕዝብ ከገለጹት በላይ የኢትዮጵያ ሁኔታ አስአቸጋሪ እንደነበረና እንደሆነም እረዳለሁ። በፅናቶም አደንቆታለሁ።።  የተካሄዱትን መዋቅራዊ ለውጦችን፤እንደመከላከያ፣ የደህንነት መዋቅር፣ የፍርድ ቤቶችና የማረሚያ ቤቶች ፣ የምርጫ ቦርድና የምርጫ ሕግ፣ የሚዲያ ተቋማትና የሚዲያ አካባቢ የተደረጉ ለውጦች አመርቂ ናቸው፡እላልለሁ።  አንዳንዶቹም ውጤት እያሳዩ ነው። በኔ ግምት እነዚህ መዋቅራዊ ለውጦች ቋሚ ሆነው የሚቀጥሉ ናቸው ብዬ ተስፋ አዴርጋለሁ።

 እርስዎ ይኼንን ውጤታማ ለውጥ ሲያካሂዱ/ሲመሩ ገና ከጅምሩ በአንፃሩ ለውጡ እዳይሳካ የተሰሰለፉ ኀይሎች እንደነበሩና አሁንም እንዳሉ እረዳለሁ። እነዚህ ኃይሎች በተለያየ ስም እራሳቸውን ቢጠሩም የእርስዎን መንግስት ገና ከጅምሩ ‘አሀዳዊ’ ነው ብለው በመፈረጅ አሁን ላለንበት ቀውስና ችግር አንዲሁም  ለገባንበት/ላለንበት  የጦርነት ሁኔታ አድርሰውናል።

አሁን ወደ ተነሳሁበት  ቁም ነገሮች ልመለስ። እንደሚከተለዉ አቀርበዋለሁ።

1. በየቦታው ክልሎች ውሰጥ በሚደርሱት መፈናቀሎች ግድያዎች አስተያየት ሳይሰጡ በዝምታ ማለፍዎ፤

2. ክልሎችን ማስፋፋትዎ፡

3. ክቡርነትዎ ወደ ሥልጣን እንደመጡ የኢትዮጵያ ሕዝብ በሙሉ ከዳር እስከዳር እግዚአብሔር ለእስራኤሎች ሙሴን እንደላከው ሁሉ የኢትዮጵያ ሕዝብ አምላክ እንደላኮት አድርጎ ነበር  የተቀበለዎት….  ወጣቱ፣ ሽማግሌው ፣ ሴት ወንዱም ፡የኢትዮጵያ እናቶችም  በዕንባ አምላክን በማመስገን እርስዎን ተቀበሉ፤ ፀለዩሎት። እርሶም አፀፋውን መለሱ። “ስንወለድ ኢትዮጵያዊያን ስንሞት ኢትዮጵያ” በማለቶዎም ጭምር። እንደቀድሞ የኢትዮጵያ  መሪዎች “አገሪቷን”  ከማለት ፈንታ ኢትዮጵያ እያሉ በስም መጥራት ስለጀመሩ።

4. በዚህ መሀል ቀስ በቀስ ገና ከጅምሩ በኦሮሚያ ክልል በምዕራብ ወለጋ ባንኮች ሲዘረፉ፣ ቀበሌዎች ሲያዙ፣ ሰዎች በዘራቸው ምክንያት ሲፈናቀሉ ሲገደሉ፡ ይኼ ሁኔታ የቀን ተቀን ዜና መሆን ጀመረ። የመፈናቀል የሞት ጥቃቶች ወደ ጉጂም ተዛመቱ። መንግሥትም ይኼንን የሚያደርገው የኦሮሞ ነፃ አውጪ ግንባር ነው ሲል ነበር።

5. የዛሬ ሦስት ዓመት ወይም ከዚያ በፊት ይኼ ሁኔታ በአባ ገዳዎችና በክልሉ መንግሥት እየተፈታ ነው፤ ሊፈታነው ወዘተ…  ቢባልም  የሰዎች በዘራቸው መፈናቀልና መሞት ቀጠለ። የነዚህ ጽንፈኛ ኃሎች መሪ አዲስ አበባ ውስጥ ቁጭ ብለው፡ የልብ ልብ ተሰምቶቿው “ማን ማንን ትጥቅ ያስፈታል” ብለው መፎከር ጀመሩ። ነፃ አውጪ ድርጅት ስሙን ቀይሮ ሸኔ ነኝ ሲል እኝሁ መሪ አላውቃቸውም አሉ። ነገሩ ዓናችሁን ጨፍኑ ላሞኛሁ ሆኖ ተገኘ ። አሁን በሁሉ ኦሮሚያ ተስፋፈተዋል። የኦሮሚያ መንግሥትም ሆነ የፈደራሉ መንግሥት መፍትሔ ማግኘት አልቻሉም።

6. ዓላማዬ በኢትዮጵያኖች ላይ የሚደርሰውን ሰቆቃ ለማተት ሳይሆን ይኼንን ሁኔታ በሚመለከት እርሰዎም ሆነ የክልሉ መንግሥት ዝምታ መምረጣችሁ ነው።

7. እነዚህ በዘር ተለይተው የሚፈናቀሉትን ሆነ  የሚሞቱትን  እርሶና የክልሉ ኣስትዳዳሪ የሚመሩት የሕዝብ አካል ናቸው። እኔ ደጋፊዎ እንደመሆኔ መጠን ሰዎች ለምን እነዚህ ሀላፊዎች ዝም ይላሉ ብለው ሲጠይቁኝ መልስ አጣለሁ። ምስጢሩ ምንድነው? የርስዎ መናገር ለተፈናቃዮችም ለሟቾችም ቤተሰብ ማጽናኛ ይሆናል የሚል እሳቤ ስላለኝ ነው።

8. እርስዎ ለሰዎች የርሂራሄ ገፅታ ያሎት መሆኖዎን በብዙ ድርጊትዎ አሳይተዋል። ጨካኝ ሰው አይመስሉኝም።

9. እንደ ደጋፊዎ የእርስዎ በዚህ ጉዳይ ላይ አለመናገርዎ ከባድ ዋጋ እያስከፈሎት ነው የሚል ግምት አለኝ። አንድ ነገር ያድርጉ።

10. እርስዎ ወደ ሥልጣን እንደመጡ በአዋሳ ንግግር ሲያደርጉ በንግግሮዎ መሀል ክልል የአስተዳደር ወሰን ነው በማለት ወደፊት እንደሚቀየር አቅጣጫ ያሳዩ መስሎኝ ነበር። ሆኖም ክልሎች በእርስዎ የሥስት ዓመት ዘመን በሁለት ጨምረዋል። ክልሎችን መቀነስ ሕገ መንግሰት ማሻሻል ስለሚጠይቅ መቀየር ወይም መቀነስ ይከብዳል። ማስፋፋት ለምን አስፈለገ? የሚምስለኝ በአገራችን ላይ ብዙ የስደት የሞት የጦርነት ቀጠና ያደረገን የክልል ጉዳይ ነው። መስፋፋት ያለበት አይመስለኝም።   

            የዳስፖራ ደጋፊዎ