Page 29 - World Heritage and Tourism Innovation

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

8 (1) of the FDRE Constitution) indicates the fact that in this document), the general substantive spirit and
the federal government cannot be sovereign to state essence of the Constitution of the FDRE has been seen
government in any matters, which of course heritage by the panels of experts of the Delphi to be predomi-
cannot be exceptional. Another article mentioned by nantly responding to the national question by giving
the experts of Delphi panels is Article 39(2), which powers to States in four critical articles. However, as
stipulates that every Nation, Nationality, and People in stated in four critical articles, one article has elements
Ethiopia has the right to promote and develop its cul- of Unitarianism bias. However, one article has ele-
ture and preserve its history. This article explicitly un- ments of Unitarianism bias.
covers the implicit essence of Article 8 (1) on matters
of sovereignty is said by the panels of experts of the Result and Discussion on Specific Objective 2
Delphi that this article is augmented by Article 39(3), The second specific objective of this research was to
which stipulates that States have the right to a full critically evaluate the Constitutional Permissibili-
measure of self-government which includes the right ty of FDRE Heritage Proclamation No. 209/2000. In
to establish its institutions of government in the terri- this regard, the panels of experts have made striking
tory that inhabits, that shall consist of institutions that epistemic theses and antitheses argued with iterations
govern matters of heritage treasures. One exception in until they reached the censuses plateau. Accordingly,
the Constitution about heritage is Article 51(3), which the following articles were listed to be impermissible;
stipulates that the federal government shall establish Article 23 (2) on “Transfer of Ownership of Cul-
and implement national standards and essential poli- tural Heritage” Article 23(2) of the FDRE Proclama-
cy criteria for protecting and preserving cultural and tion No 209/2000 states, “The Authority shall enjoy
historical legacies. These expressions, though they are a right of preemption over the sale of cultural herit-
post-structuralist ideas, are contrary to other articles age”. A right of “preemption” means, in law, the judi-
mentioned above and are opposed to the national cial principle asserting the supremacy of Federal over
question, as they somehow put multi-layered sover- State legislation on the same subject. Hence, it means
eignty on heritages or at least are characterised by the the Authority, a federal institution, has sovereignty
hybridisation of responsibility; this makes the Con- over the sale of cultural heritage. The panel conclud-
stitution somehow suffer the polyphony-monograph ed that this article is not constitutionally permissible,
dilemma. Besides this, there is constitutional silence saying the national Authority cannot get such su-
or at least vague expressions that amount to silence, premacy over nations and nationalities on the sales of
on the schemata of exercises of the above stipulations their treasured heritage. Here are the following justifi-
in the Constitution, which produced the epistemo- cations: The federal House of Peoples’ Representatives
logical and dialectical problems of being significantly (HPR) does not have the power to proclaim legisla-
rhetorical, lacking transcendence or going beyond its tion that declares a right of preemption (supremacy of
philosophical concept, into actualisation in answering the Federal Government) on the sales of heritages of
the national questions. Though the panel did not deny these nations and nationalities. Article 8, Sub-Article
that the structure of this article somehow suffers from 1 of the Constitution states that all sovereign power re-
Unitarianism bias, they saw it as an indication that the sides in Ethiopia’s countries, ethnicities, and peoples.
federal government has to establish just essential poli- So, according to Article 8, Sub-Article 1 of the Consti-
cy criteria. This comparison was made concerning the tution, the federal government cannot, in any case, be
Constitution’s general essence and substantive theme, supreme to Nations and Nationalities. According to
as put in other articles listed above, and not as an in- Article 55(1) of the federation’s Constitution, the fed-
dication of sovereignty over state matters of heritage. eral HPR cannot proclaim legislation in matters other
Generally, starting from Article 8 (1), Article 39(2), than those expressly assigned by the Constitution to
Article 39(3) and probing through Article 52(1) of the federal jurisdiction. Article 52(1) states that any power
Constitution (its stipulation will be found elsewhere not explicitly given by the Constitution to federal ju-

Proceedings of the 7th UNESCO UNITWIN Conference | 25