Page 30 - World Heritage and Tourism Innovation

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

risdiction is the power of the States. The Proclamation political implications: it opens doors to delay conser-
does not expressly grant federal control over the right vation and restoration; it is fertile for individuals that
of preemption regarding the sale of cultural heritage, have a bias in giving attention to weathering of her-
as stated in this article. Therefore, the power to exer- itages; it gives a chance to erase nations’ memories;
cise this right belongs to the States. and provides loopholes for historical cleansing by sys-
Article 39(2) of the Constitution stipulates that tematic suppression of evidence of a people that do
every Nation, Nationality, and People in Ethiopia has not conform to the destroyer’s politically motivated
the right to promote and develop its culture and histo- perception of what is appropriate. Disremembering
ry. So, the federal government cannot deny this right. the unconstitutionality of the Proclamation and just
Fourth, according to Article 39(3) of the Constitution, focusing on pure logic, the panel interrogated, “Can
every nation, nationality, and people in Ethiopia has the federal Authority be fair enough to be concerned
the right to a full measure of self-government, includ- on the conservation, restoration and protection of the
ing the right to establish its government institutions heritage of all nations and nationalities given the com-
in the territory it inhabits. This argument supports peting and counterproductive historical narrations of
that the federal government cannot, in any case, be the country? Who is emotionally better connected to
supreme to Nations and Nationalities in all matters. the treasures of the nations: the nations themselves or
As such, heritage matters cannot be exceptional. An- the federal government? The panel has finally reached
other justification provided by the panel is that the a plateau conclusion that in a country where compet-
article’s overall substantive spirit and essence suffer ing historical narratives are rampant, it is natural and
from Unitarianism and Imperialism biases with the experienced that a battle is raging between those who
interest of political hegemony in the politics of her- want to destroy and those who try to restore national
itage and centralising power at the federal level. The treasures. This Proclamation, which gives loopholes
panel of Delphi provided the last justification, stating to the former, can be conclusively regarded as lacking
that the Proclamation of selling heritage is incor- logical and legal rationalities.
rect. The panel argues that this case involves heritage
and political and economic problems. Firstly, it goes Article 30 (1) on Permit Requirement of Exploration
against international declarations that we will discuss Article 30 (1) says, “No person may conduct explora-
in subsequent sections of this paper. Second, “Whose tion, discovery, and study of cultural heritage without
heritage is to be sold, by whom and to whom?” The obtaining a prior written permission from the federal
panel supports its claim that the article can also be the Authority.”
loophole for the illegal trafficking of many states’ his- The panel stated that the FDRE Constitution does
torical property. not expressly grant federal power the right to explore,
Article 19 (1) on Conservation and Restoration of discover, and study cultural heritage. Any power not
Cultural Heritages: Article 19(1) says, “Any conserva- explicitly assigned by the Constitution to federal ju-
tion and restoration work on Cultural Heritage must risdiction is the power of the States, Article 52(1). So,
have prior approval of the federal Authority”. This ar- the panel concluded that it is the state government’s
ticle was considered constitutionally impermissible by power, not the federal government’s. The Delphi
the panel because it is inconsistent with Article 39(2) discussants again emerged from the legal issue and
of the Constitution, which stipulates that every Na- concentrated on logical matters. According to the
tion, Nationality, and People in Ethiopia has the right summarised result, given the historical competition
to promote and develop its culture and to preserve its and cultural polarisation in the country, the federal
history. The panel says that the power is expressly giv- Authority has illogical empowerment to decide which
en to the country’s nations, nationalities, and peoples heritage shall be a matter of exploration, studying,
and not to the federal government. Again, the panel and discovery (striking the question of whose legacy
has reached a consensus plateau that it has dangerous will get the permission for exploration and study and

26 | Proceedings of the 7th UNESCO UNITWIN Conference