HISTORICAL EXPLANATION OF HOW ETHNIC LAND NARRATIVES EMERGED IN ETHIOPIA
With Integration of ANU Policy
By Dr. Aregawi Mebrahtu
Agaezi National Union (ANU)
- Land Before “Ethnicity”: The Aksumite–Agaezian Order (Pre-20th Century)
For thousands of years, the northern highlands of Geezawit Ethiopia and the wider Agaezi world (Aksumite civilization, Ge’ez-speaking peoples, Red Sea trade networks, Greater Horn of Africa) operated under a unitary civilizational logic, not an ethnic one.
Land belonged to:
- communities,
- kinship structures,
- spiritual institutions,
- local administrations,
- and the Aksumite / Ethiopian monarchy as the sovereign custodian.
There was no political ethnicity in the modern sense.
Identity categories such as Agame, Enderta, Tembien, Shire, Hamasen, Gondar, Gojjam, Shewa, Harar, etc., were local-historical identities, not ethnic nationalisms.
Key principle of the ancient order: Land = communal resource, protected by moral and customary law.
The notion that land belongs to a specific ethnic group did not exist. Instead, land was nested inside a civilizational system (Agaezawnet), not inside ethno-politics.
- 20th-Century Shifts: Imperial Reforms and the Seeds of Identity Politics
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, centralization increased under Emperors Menelik II and Haile Selassie. Land began to shift:
- from collective/communal
- toward state-supervised and elite-held forms.
However, ethnicity still was not used as a basis for land ownership.
What happened instead was:
- administrative provinces (not ethnic regions),
- taxation changes,
- modernization pressures,
- and the beginning of ideological contestations.
Still, land was not tied to an ethnic homeland. The idea of “Oromo land,” “Amhara land,” “Tigray land,” etc., did not exist politically.
- The Marxist–Leninist Derg (1974–1991): Land Taken by the State
With the Derg revolution: 1975 — “Land to the Tiller” proclamation…This radically changed the system:
- All land became state property.
- Private ownership was abolished.
- Peasant associations managed use rights.
- The state held absolute power.
This period produced bitterness, displacement, and centralization, but still…
👉 Ethnic land ownership remained legally impossible.
👉 No Ethiopian ethnic group owned land; the state owned everything.
However, ethnic rebels began to weaponize “land” as identity during the civil wars, especially EPLF, OLF, and later TPLF, all installed to disintegrate and fragment the Greater Geez Nation, Geezawit Ethiopia with its Red Sea into pieces.
This leads us to the decisive turning point.
- Ethnic Federalism (1991–present): Birth of “Ethnic Land Narratives”
The ethnic-land narrative was invented by the TPLF/EPRDF system (influenced by Soviet ethno-national policy and Yugoslav constitutional models).
1995 Constitution — Article 39 (“Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples”)
Granted:
- self-determination up to secession,
- ethnic regional boundaries,
- ethno-linguistic administrations.
Even though Article 40 still declares ALL land belongs to the state and peoples of Ethiopia, the political messaging created a contradiction:
Legal truth:
Land = State + Peoples of Ethiopia collectively
(not ethnic groups)
Political rhetoric:
Each ethnic group has its “homeland.”
This rhetorical/political fiction produced:
- “Oromia belongs to the Oromo”
- “Amhara land belongs to the Amhara”
- “Tigray belongs to the Tigrinya”
- “Somali belongs to Somalis”
But constitutionally, none of these claims are valid.
These narratives emerged because:
- TPLF leaders sought legitimacy by awarding ethnic elites “territories.”
- OLF intellectuals imported colonial narratives of “Oromo country.”
- Ethnic federalism recreated tribal borders and revived animosities.
- Political elites used land to mobilize fear, grievance, and ethnic loyalty.
- Regions were named after identities, creating the illusion of ownership.
Thus, the ethnic-land narrative is: not historical, not legal, not civilizational but a notoriously treasonous political creation of the last 30 years.
- 1. What the Ethiopian TPLF/EPRDF Constitution Actually Says About Land
Under the 1995 FDRE Constitution:
- All land is owned by the State and the People of Ethiopia collectively — not by any ethnic group.
- This is stated in Article 40(3):
“The right to ownership of rural and urban land… is exclusively vested in the State and the Peoples of Ethiopia.”
This means:
✔ There is no private land ownership (only use-rights).
✔ No ethnic group (Oromo, Amhara, Tigray, Somali, etc.) can legally “own” land as a collective ethnic property.
✔ Land cannot be sold or transferred as private or ethnic property.
So, constitutionally, there is no such thing as “Oromo land,” “Amhara land,” “Tigray land,” or any ethnic-owned land.
There are only regional administrative units that are ethnically named, but not ethnically owned. Here a critical Ethiopian like the Agaezi National Union-ANU members should ask why there is civil war in the name of Welqayt-Raya among the Greater Geez Nation, Ethiopia communities while the TPLF/EPRDF constitution underlines there is no Tigray nor Amhara land at all? Why the TPLF/EPRDF and its allies desired to rupture the strong bond among the Agaezi Ethiopian communities such as Tigray and Amhara, while creating another hegemony of latinization Oromia?
- 2. So Why Do People Speak of “Oromo land”?
Even though the law prohibits ethnic land ownership, the political system created a cultural and psychological perception of ethnic land due to:
- a) Ethnic federalism
Regions are named after ethnic groups:
- Oromia
- Amhara
- Tigray
- Somali
- Afar
- Benishangul-Gumuz
- etc.
This creates the illusion that regions belong to the ethnic group they are named after.
But legally, these regions are administrative boundaries, not ethnic ownership.
- b) Ethnic parties claim “homeland” ownership
Under the EPRDF/PP system, regional ruling parties often speak as if:
- “Oromia belongs to the Oromo”
- “Amhara region belongs to the Amhara”
- Tigray region belongs to the Tigreans etc.
But this is political rhetoric, not constitutional law.
- c) Cultural and historical narratives
Every group sees itself as indigenous to its region. This creates emotional, historical claims that do not match the legal framework.
- 3. Does the Constitution Allow “Special Ownership” by an Ethnic Group? The bold answer is No. The Constitution grants:
- Cultural self-rule,
- Language rights,
- Political rights,
…but not legal land ownership by any ethnic group.
Land remains: “Property of the state and the peoples of Ethiopia” —not property of Oromo, Amhara, Tigrayans, etc.
4.4. Conclusion: Constitutional vs. Political Reality
Constitutional reality
- NO ethnic land ownership
- Land = state + people of Ethiopia collectively
- Regions = administrative, not ethnic property
Political reality
- Ethnic federalism creates a perception of ownership
- Ethnic elites claim “homeland rights”
- Conflicts arise due to mismatch between law and political identity narratives.
4.5. The Modern Crisis: Ethnic Land = Conflict, Fragmentation, and War
Linking land to ethnicity has produced:
- border wars between regions
- displacement of minorities
- ethnic cleansing in many areas
- destruction of historical cohesion
- hatred and revenge politics
- competition for “homeland purity”
- Corruption and exploitation in collaboration with foreign corporations
- Public property robbery and land grabbing
Land became a weapon of political identity, instead of:
- a resource,
- a communal good,
- a basis for sovereignty.
This is where the Agaezi National Union (ANU) offers a radically different and deeper civilizational solution.
- ANU POLICY POSITION: “LAND FOR THE PEOPLE — NOT FOR THE STATE, NOT FOR ANY ETHNIC GROUP”
The Agaezi National Union (ANU) rejects both: the Derg’s “land as state property,” and the EPRDF/PP “land as ethnic homeland” fiction. ANU returns to the Aksumite–Agaezi civilizational principle: Land belongs to the people who live on it — not to the government, not to an ethnic elite, not to the state. The ANU position is built on four pillars:
Pillar 1: Land as an Inalienable Human Right
Land is a human right and a community right, not a tool of:
- political elites
- state monopolies
- ethnic authorities
- oligarchs
- cleptocrat
- corruption and exploitation in collaboration with foreign corporations.
ANU affirms: People must have secure, individual + communal land rights.
Pillar 2: Land Decentralized to Local Communities
ANU supports a system where:
- communities govern their land
- local councils manage land use
- farmers and pastoralists are protected
- no region can expel minorities
- land management reflects ancient Agaezi moral custom
Pillar 3: No Ethnic Land Ownership
ANU rejects the ethnic-federal myth:
“Oromo land,” “Amhara land,” “Tigray land,” etc., do NOT exist historically OR constitutionally. Land belongs to citizens, not ethnicities.
Pillar 4: Ge’ez Civilizational Continuity
ANU restores the ancient Agaezi principle: Land is a sacred trust, held by the people across generations.
It is neither: a resource for government exploitation, nor a trophy for ethnic elites.
This reflects the moral logic of Aksum, Agame, Enderta, Hamasien, Gonder, Gojjam, Shewa, and the larger Ge’ez world within the Greater Horn of Africa.
- Final Synthesis: How Ethnic Land Narratives Emerged — and Why ANU Rejects Them
Ethnic land narratives are a recent political invention (1991–present).
They emerged from:
- guerrilla movements, mainly TPLF anti-Geezawit Ethiopia with its Red Sea.
- Soviet-inspired ethnic federalism,
- elite competition,
- and post-1991 power politics.
They are: historically false, constitutionally unsupported, socially destructive, geopolitically dangerous and incompatible with Ge’ez/Agaezi values.
ANU restores the older and deeper truth: Land belongs to the People — the living communities — not the State and not any ethnic group. This principle is the foundation of:
- justice,
- stability,
- national unity,
- and Agaezi sovereignty.