Page 22 - World Heritage and Tourism Innovation

Hiyab Gebretsadik Weldearegay Critics on Heritage Laws and Tourism Politics in Ethiopia

and it can govern heritage-related matters in Ethiopia. (Davis & Starn, 1989). They may reflect tyrannical his-
The Proclamation’s entire essence, from its Preamble tories of domination and demand for autonomy and
to its last section, is checked for its constitutionality, sovereignty. Therefore, given the fact that heritage oc-
permissibility in answering the national question, and cupies a discursive political space with vast sphere of
acceptability in light of international declarations on influence, so much is not in doubt that institutional
the rights of indigenous peoples regarding heritage racism characterised by wrongly structured heritage
self-determination. governance mechanisms may lead up to; identity
The dialect of this research epistemologically in- cleansing, in any appropriate sense of the term, (Hall
spired the works of Lenin (1914) and the idioms of and Jenkins, 1995; Mill and Morrison, 1985): opening
Walleligne (1969) on the issue of the national question doors to deliberate delay of conservation of treasure,
and class struggle. The second epistemic inspiration undermine or silence contestant’s treasures (Wallel-
is Jones’s (1984) propositions on policy development, igne, 1969); deconstruct, deny, or omit elements con-
which are the proponents of the pioneering ground- sidered unfit for specific purpose); memories of all
work of the current field of inquiry. So, we adopted nations may not be equally and sufficiently presented
Heritage and Tourism Politics dialects in this concep- to the deserved scope and scale of the reality as some
tual category. may be under-presented and others over emphasised
(Merryman, 1986; Walleligne, 1969; Wight & Lennon,
Statement of the Problem 2007; Biehl et al., 2015) which means the productivity
Merryman (1986) articulates two competing dimen- of meanings that construct counter-history where the
sions of the ownership ladder of cultural property: politicised ‘portion of truth’ is produced; Smuggling
one as the common culture of all humanity, impart- of heritage treasures (Casana & Panahipour, 2014;
ed in the 1954 Hague Convention, and the other as Al-Ansi et al., 2021); Biasedly selecting heritage as
belonging to specific nations, imparted in the 1970 national prestige (Walleligne, 1969; Wight & Lennon,
UNESCO Convention. However, there is a third way 2007); Selectively researching and publicising heritag-
to it (Lixinski, 2019), where the host community is es (Walleligne, 1969); and, Selectively proposing trea-
brought upfront from the back seat, and multi-lay- sures to be world heritages (Wight & Lennon, 2007;
ered sovereignty over heritages is shifted to the local Lixinski, 2011).
Authority with community control over the heritag- Another remote consequence of the politicisation
es (Al-Ansi et al., 2021; Lixinski, 2019). As heritage is of heritage governance is on the economics of heritage
the contemporary use of the past (Wight & Lennon, (Lixinski, 2019), which collided with the long-run in-
2007), there may be conflicting interests among own- terests of the economic remunerations in the tourism
ers (McCamley & Gilmore, 2017) and perhaps sev- industry (Richter, 1983; Jordan et al., 2007). Heritage
eral politically motivated layers of owners with their has four main significances (Lixinski, 2019): econom-
claim of sovereignty (Lixinski, 2011) and are prone to ic, social, political, and scientific. Out of these four,
be managed for a range of purposes defined by the the social and scientific significance-related discus-
needs and demands of the present societies (Wight & sions are beyond the scope of this study. At the same
Lennon, 2007) which ultimately make it cumbersome time, heritage politics and means of translating the
obstacle to protect cultural heritages (Lixinski, 2011). economics of heritage into benefits, such as the re-
Simone (2019) stated that the values of heritages are muneration from tourism, are the subjects of interest
not measured by what they overtly say or how they in this study. However, the above theses have many
are exposed to tourists now but by the meaning that academic limitations. First, all postulates remain par-
explains how the past happened and has the power tial regarding Dialectical mutual exclusiveness and
to influence generations on how they will memorise epistemic indicator measurability. It means the prop-
and analyse their history. They can act as sites of both ositions do not have an exhaustive set of robust indi-
memory (Al-Ansi et al., 2021) and counter-memory cators, and there are problems with the limited scope

18 | Proceedings of the 7th UNESCO UNITWIN Conference