Hawassa Is Not the Problem: Why Federal City Status Is a Misdiagnosis, Not a Solution

 

The article “Awassa at a Crossroads: Federal City Status as a Path to Economic Revival, Accountability and National Balance” presents federal city status as a cure-all for Hawassa’s alleged decline. However, the argument rests on historical inaccuracies, selective interpretations of governance challenges, and a questionable political agenda that fails to withstand critical scrutiny. Rather than addressing real structural and national problems, the article redirects blame toward Sidama administration and proposes federal takeover as an unjustified and impractical solution.

Historical and Administrative Misrepresentation

First, the article repeatedly refers to the city as “Awassa,” ignoring the correct and official name Hawassa. This is not a minor semantic issue; it reflects a deeper disregard for the city’s historical and administrative reality. Hawassa has always been administered by Sidama, long before and after its role as the capital of the former SNNPR. Portraying Sidama regional administration as an external or recent imposition is historically inaccurate and politically misleading.

More importantly, blaming Sidama for an alleged “eight years of systemic decline” is analytically weak. Urban challenges such as unemployment, informal settlements, infrastructure strain, and corruption are nationwide phenomena in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Dire Dawa, Bahir Dar, Mekelle, and Adama face similar or worse issues—yet no one seriously argues that their regional administrations are inherently illegitimate or that federal takeover is the only remedy.

The Myth of Insecurity and Social Breakdown

The article claims that Hawassa lost its tourism appeal due to “political unrest,” “insecurity,” and an “unwelcoming” environment. This assertion is contradicted by observable reality. Hawassa is consistently regarded as one of the safest cities in Ethiopia, and the Sidama Region more broadly has remained among the most stable regions in the country during periods of national turmoil.

If insecurity is indeed the concern, the article fails to specify what incidents, what time period, and compared to which cities Hawassa is unsafe. Vague references to fear and perception are insufficient grounds for redefining a city’s constitutional status. Tourism fluctuations in Ethiopia are overwhelmingly driven by national-level instability, global travel shocks, and macroeconomic challenges, not by Sidama’s local governance.

Similarly, the claim of declining social cohesion is overstated and selectively framed. Hawassa is not unique in hosting Ethiopians from diverse nations and nationalities; this is true for nearly all major Ethiopian cities. If diversity alone justifies federal city status, then the argument logically collapses into suggesting that most Ethiopian cities should be federally administered, which is neither realistic nor constitutionally coherent.

Federal City Status: Accountability or Power Centralization?

The article assumes—without evidence—that federal administration is inherently more professional, less corrupt, and more accountable than regional governance. Ethiopian experience suggests otherwise. Federal institutions themselves struggle with corruption, inefficiency, and politicization. Transferring authority from one level of government to another does not magically create meritocracy.

What is notably absent from the article is a clear explanation of how federal city status would concretely improve governance, or why reforms cannot occur within the existing constitutional framework. Urban governance failures demand institutional reform, capacity building, and rule of law, not territorial reclassification.

More critically, the article never clarifies who benefits from federal city status. Is it the residents of Hawassa? Sidama taxpayers? Or political actors seeking administrative control over a strategic and economically valuable city? The framing suggests less concern for residents’ self-governance and more interest in redistributing power upward.

“Relieving Pressure on Addis Ababa”: A Geographical Fallacy

The argument that Hawassa would relieve pressure on Addis Ababa is among the weakest claims in the article. Hawassa is over 270 kilometers away from Addis Ababa. Urban migration patterns are influenced by proximity, connectivity, labor markets, and cost—not symbolic federal status.

If relieving Addis Ababa were the true objective, cities such as Bishoftu, Adama, Burayu, Sebeta, or Holeta would be far more logical candidates for development and expansion. Suggesting Hawassa as an alternative reveals either a misunderstanding of urban economics or a deliberate attempt to justify a predetermined political conclusion.

Infrastructure Without Context, Airports Without Demand

The proposal to expand Hawassa Airport and introduce international flights is presented as inevitable proof of revival. Yet airport expansion requires sustained demand, airline interest, and regional integration, not merely federal designation. Ethiopia already struggles to optimally utilize several regional airports.

Moreover, tourism recovery depends on national peace, macroeconomic stability, and international perception, none of which are solved by changing Hawassa’s administrative status. The same is true for corridor development projects: infrastructure alone does not fail because of regional governance, but because of poverty, unemployment, and unequal economic opportunity—issues that demand inclusive development, not administrative displacement.

Conclusion: A Solution in Search of a Problem

Hawassa is not a “ghost city,” nor is it collapsing due to Sidama administration. It is a growing Ethiopian city navigating the same economic and institutional challenges affecting the entire country. Federal city status is neither necessary nor sufficient to address these challenges. Instead, it risks undermining constitutional order, local self-rule, and inter-regional trust.

The real path forward lies in strengthening institutions, improving accountability, investing in human capital, and pursuing equitable economic policies—within the existing federal framework. Reframing Hawassa’s challenges as a failure of Sidama governance and using that narrative to justify federal control is not reform; it is political opportunism disguised as urban policy.

Hawassa does not need to be taken away from its people to thrive. It needs honest diagnosis, inclusive governance, and national stability—nothing more, and nothing less.