Search

The Horn of Africa is the most conflict-ridden region in the African continent. Both inter-and intra-state conflicts have dominated the region. In a bid to check intra-state conflicts and accommodate ethno-national and religious diversity, federal or federal like models of governance have been proposed, discussed, and, in some cases, adopted across the region. Focusing on Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan, this article discusses the origin, reasons, and prospects of the federal idea in the Horn. The article argues that the major rationale for the federal idea in the Horn is the containment of communal tensions. Yet, the track record of federalism in alleviating communal tensions has not been encouraging. This is partly related to design issues that have undermined the efforts to use federalism to address communal tensions. More importantly, however, the commitment to genuinely implement the federal idea has largely been absent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethiopia's ethnic federalism manages the diversity problem by giving ethnic territorial homelands to the constituent ethnic groups. This, in ethnically diverse regions, has meant the establishment of ethnically defined local governments. However, as the clear mismatch between available local governments and the number of constituent ethnic communities demonstrate, many are left without a local government of their own – resulting in rife inter-communal tensions. This has also proved to be a fertile ground for competing ethnic nationalisms to flourish and proliferate at sub-regional levels. As a result, some local governments were broken apart after their establishment to arrest ethnic conflicts that followed while others were amalgamated to maintain regional territorial integrity. By using the SNNP region as a case study, this article argues that the political atmosphere, propelled by political exigencies, dictates the establishment, breakup, and amalgamation of ethnically defined local governments, while constitutional principles are side-lined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The South African Constitution contains an extensive list of rights, several of which are relevant, directly or indirectly, to accommodate the needs of persons that belong to a religious minority group in South Africa. This article examines the extent to which these protections are utilized by individuals and courts and explores the interplay between these various sources of protection that religious minority groups and their members can rely on. It will examine the courts' case law on freedom of religion to determine whether the courts have relied on one or all of the rights offered by the Constitution when dealing with claims made by persons belonging to a religious minority group. The reasons for and impacts of the choices that the courts have made will also be investigated. Equally important are the choices made by persons belonging to a religious minority group when approaching courts to vindicate their rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]