University of Gonder

UNIVERSITY OF GONDER

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL STUDIES

THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SITUATIONS OF SOCIALLY EXCLUDED MINORITIES IN OROMIA REGION: A CASE STUDY ON THE FUGA MINORITY OF TOKE KUTAYE WEREDA, WEST SHEWA ZONE.

BY: TESFAYE MULUGETA TAKELE

SEPTEMBER, 2020 GONDAR, ETHIOPIA THESIS SUBMITTED TO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT OF CIVICS AND ETHICAL STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR REQUIREMENTS OF MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN CIVICS AND ETHICAL STUDIES

BY: TESFAYE MULUGETA TAKELE

SEPTEMBER, 2020 GONDAR, ETHIOPIA

viii

Thesis Approval

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “The socio-economic Situations of socially excluded minorities in Oromia region: A Case Study on the ‘Fuga’ minority of Toke Kutayewereda, West Shewa Zone.” by Tesfaye Mulugeta is approved for the degree of Master of Arts in civics and ethical Studies, complies with regulation of the university and meets the accepted standard with respect to originality and quality.

By: Tesfaye Mulugeta Takele

Approved by the Board of Examiners

______

Advisor Signature Date

______

External Examiner Signature Date

______

Internal Examiner Signature Date

Declaration

I declare that this project is a product of my own independent research work and the thesis entitled “The socio-economic situations of socially excluded minorities in Oromia region: A Case Study on the ‘Fuga’ minority of Toke Kutaye wereda, West Shewa Zone.” is my original work and has not been presented for a degree, diploma or fellowship to any other university and I further maintain that all the sources of materials referenced, information derived, cited used for the thesis have been given the appropriate acknowledgement

Tesfaye Mulugeta Takele

Signature: ______

Date: ______

Dedication

This research project is dedicated to my family who cultivates and supports me with love, encouraged me to register for my master’s degree and gave me all the encouragement and support to complete the course and their understanding and patience during the time I was undertaking my studies.

Certification

This is to certify that this thesis entitled “The socio-economic situations of socially excluded minorities in Oromia region: A Case Study on the ‘Fuga’ minority of Toke Kutaye wereda, West Shewa Zone.” Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of MA, in college of Social Science and Humanities Department of the civics and Ethical Studies, University of Gondar, done by Mr. TesfayeMulugeta, ID, No,GUS/75305/09 is carried out by him under our guidance.

Principal Advisor:

M/r Ketemaw Muluye

Signature: ______

Date: ______

xii

Acknowledgement

First of all, I would like to offer my great thanks to God, for giving me this opportunity and helping me go throughout all my life. It is my pleasure to express my heartfelt thanks to a number of people and institutions for their help and support in the process and success of producing this thesis.

Then after, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and heartfelt thanks to my thesis advisor, M/r Ketemaw Muluye, for his constructive comments, criticisms, advice, encouragement and corrections on the draft versions of the thesis. His timely and scholarly contributions in providing related reference books and papers that would essentially help in shaping the research in such a beautiful manner.

My special gratitude goes to my parents who supported me in life and encouraging me to complete the research even through the times I have faced difficulties without the massive efforts of him to organize the informants. I would not have come this far without your support and good will. I am indeed grateful.

My deepest gratitude also goes to my dear family, who believing in me and helped me keep fighting for my dreams and for their continuous support and prayer during this work. I also owe special thanks to my beloved brother and sister for their astonishing support and encouragement throughout my study and for their strong support in providing valuable data.

I would also like to acknowledge my all friends and relatives, for their extraordinary help and support during my study and for their support and encouragement throughout my graduate studies. It would be unwise not to mention the contribution of key informants, then I would like to extend great indebtedness to all my informants who unreservedly provided me with valuable inputs, willing and gave information for this thesis, without whom this thesis would not be accomplished.

Finally, my heartfelt thanks also go to Toke Kutaye woreda Administrative for their genuine and sympathetic cooperation in the course of the data collection. I would like to further acknowledge the valuable assistance of the west shewa Zone all organizations and professionals, who willingly cooperate in responding the interviews and share ideas on research related issues during interviews. Last but not least, I would like to acknowledge the School of Graduate Program of University of Gondar, for the provision of partial financial support to carry out the study.

xiii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CESCR Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights CHR Commission on Human Rights COIC country of origin information center CSA Central Statics Agency FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ILF International Legal Foundation ILO International Labor Organization MoE Ministry of Education NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations UDHR ______Universal Declaration of Human Rights UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Program UNESCO United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural organization WHO World Health Organization

xiv

Abstract

This study was conducted to assess the socio-economic situations of minorities in Toke Kutaye Woreda in Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. To realize its objectives, the study employed a qualitative research approach and a case study research design. Relevant data were collected from both primary and secondary sources. The primary data were collected through in-depth interview, personal observation and document reviews. The interviews were conducted with 25 informants, which were selected from different section of the society. Moreover, observation and published and unpublished secondary data sources were used to collect pertinent data. The data were organized thematically and analyzed qualitatively. The findings revealed that the ‘Fuga’ minorities in Toke kutaye woreda are not treated equally. Due to social exclusion, the ‘Fuga’ minorities have been facing problems such as limited access to social services such as education and health services, low self-esteem, lack of genuine interaction with the rest of peoples of the study area, and low level of motivation to enhance their level of wellbeing. They are not recognized as distinct ethnic group, are not able to exercise the right to develop and promote their culture and they grouped with low social status. They are craft workers and have no access to lands to cultivate. Generally, they are socially and economically highly excluded minorities from any spheres of participation. From the findings, it is recommended that the government should introduce reforms to improve the disadvantages, continuous education and awareness raising program toward combating discriminatory attitudes toward ‘Fuga’ to teachers, students as well as the community through conferences and public meeting and community need to encourage ‘Fuga’ people interns of protecting and exercise effectively their right in social and economic right. Beside Professionals, academicians, the policy makers, and the public at large should not remain silent and let social injustice to remain unabated.

Key terms: Social exclusion, Socio-economic challenge, ‘Fuga minority, Oromiya, challenges of social exclusion

Table of contents

Contents page

Acknowledgement ...... xiii

Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... xiv

Abstract ...... xv

List of Figures ...... xix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Background of the study ...... 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem ...... 2

1.3. Objectives of the study ...... 5

1.3.1 General objectives: ...... 5

1.3.2. Specific objectives ...... 5

1.4. Basic research Questions ...... 5

1.5. Significance of the study ...... 5

1.6. The scope and limitation of the study ...... 6

1.6.1. The scope of the study ...... 6

1.6.2 Limitation of the study ...... 7

1.7. Operational Definitions of Terms ...... 7

1.8. Organization of the Paper ...... 7

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE...... 9

2.1 Definition and the Concept of Minorities at International Level ...... 9

2.1.1 Minority Rights ...... 9

xvi

2.1.2. Minority Group ...... 9

2.2. Social Exclusion ...... 11

2.3. Types of exclusion ...... 14

2.4. Indicators of social exclusion...... 14

2.5. Causes of social exclusion ...... 15

2.6. The social situation of socially excluded minority ...... 18

2.7. Challenges of social exclusion ...... 19

2.8. The Fuga Culture and Religion ...... 21

2.9. The social exclusion debate ...... 24

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 28

3.1. Description of the Study Area ...... 28

3.2. Research Approach ...... 30

3.3. Source and Type of Data ...... 30

3.3.1 Primary Data Sources ...... 30

3.3.2. Secondary Data Sources ...... 31

3.4. Target population and Sampling Techniques ...... 31

3.5. Data Collection Instruments ...... 32

3.6. Data Analysis methods and Processing ...... 32

3.7. Ethical Considerations ...... 33

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ...... 34

xvii

4.1 Who are ‘Fuga’? ...... 34

4.2 The right to Education...... 38

4.3. Economic right ...... 40

4.4 Social situation of ‘Fuga’people ...... 43

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 50

5.1. Conclusion ...... 50

5.2. Recommendations ...... 52

References ...... 54

Appendices I ...... 57

Appendix II ...... 58

List of tables ...... 59

xviii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Photos of informants during interview ...... 61 Figure 2: Map of west shoa zone (https://www.google.com) ...... 62 Figure 3: Map showing (a) Oromia region in Ethiopia, (b) west shoa zone, (c) Toke Kutaye district and (d) study area ...... 62

xix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with introduction part of the thesis that involves background of the study, statement of the problem, research question, objectives of the study (general and specific objectives), significance of the Study, scope and limitation of the paper and its organization.

1.1 Background of the study

Ethiopia is the home of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples who have their own language, history culture and ways of life (MoE, 2002). Ethiopia, which had been a unitary state for long, was restructured as ethnic federal state in 1991 by “accommodating ethnicity as a formal political element” (Assefa, 2012, p. 597). Ethnic federalism was preferred to address the ‘perceived’ grievances of different ethnic groups who were rallying behind the “nationalities question” (Abera, 2008).

In particular, the principle allows a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development (1995 FDRE constitution).In Ethiopia, the situation of marginalized minorities was complex. Groups that can be categorized under this label are many and the degree of segregation varies. Among them, the ‘Fuga’ marginalized minorities are craft workers such as potters, tanners, smiths, wood working and formerly hunters. The ancestors of the ‘Fuga’outcaste occupational groups were believed to have initially come from north western Ethiopia some times in the early medieval period Tecle Haimant , 2000 as cited in Girmaye, 2016. They migrated to south central Ethiopia like Hadiya, Kambata and Gurage. There was strong belief that they were branch of Wayto of Lake Tana Region. In south central Ethiopia the ‘Fuga’ intermarried with primitive hunters who also practiced occupations such as pottery and tannery. The ‘Fuga’ migrated to some parts of Oromia region as they were subjected to economic poverty, harsh social oppression and labor exploitation (Ibid).

Ethiopia not only contains ethnic minority groups but there was also occupational minorities consisting of hunters and craft workers, including the “Fuga” in Hadiya of SNNPR, the Waata among the Oromo, the Manjo among the Kafa, and so on (Ethiopian Human Rights Council, 2009). These types of occupational marginalization are emanated from societal stratifications and exclusions. Social exclusion was a process in which individuals or people are systematically blocked from (or denied full access to) various rights, opportunities and resources that was normally available to

1 members of a different group, and which was fundamental to social integration and observance of human rights. Because social exclusion locks people out of the benefits of development, denying them opportunities, choices and a voice to claim their rights. People Social discriminates highly focus on housing, employment, healthcare, civic engagement, democratic participation and this results low educational attainment, lack of skills, homelessness, crime, and drug and alcohol problems that causes unemployment (Netherlands Institute for Social Research, 2017).

Social exclusion is a form of discrimination. It occurs when person was wholly or partially excluded from participating in the economic, social and political life of their community, based on their belonging to a certain social class, category or group. Social exclusion occurs on the basis of identities including caste, ethnicity, religion, gender and disability. “Social exclusion is a complex and multidimensional process. It involves the lack of denial of resources, rights, goods and services, and the inability to participate in the normal relationships and activities, available to the majority of people in a society, whether in economic, social, cultural or political arenas. Social exclusion affects both quality of life of an individual and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole (Levitas, 2007 as cited in Mathieson et al (.n.d)

Social exclusion in principle defines boundaries between groups, locates the different groups in a hierarchy and regulates and guides their interaction. The attitude of discrimination was passed from society to individual and in due course the individual passes it back to the society as well (Mohanty, 2014 as cited in Tamiru, 2017).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

According to my long year’s observation, there is no participation of ‘Fuga’ people in decision making in community level, in social cohesion like funeral, wedding, Iddir and Ikub. They are economically poor, socially and culturally more disadvantaged section of the people in compared with other non- ‘Fuga’ people of the study area. The ‘Fuga’ community claimed that they are highly marginalized and socially excluded to the extent of inability to exercise some of their constitutionally guaranteed rights to them. ‘Fuga’ claim that they have worse access to education and worse health services. The ‘Fuga’ community claimed that they are highly limited economic power which contributes to lower productivity and incomes and reinforces their inability to reduce any of these

2 deprivations. They had their own identity markers such as language, culture, religion and other issue that express them, they also speak Afan Oromo fluently but they are stigmatized people from the community in Toke kutaye woreda. Their history, culture, costume, tradition and also their identity were undermined by rest of people in the study area.”

Ethiopia is one of the examples of heterogeneous state in Africa. Many sources reveal that there are more than 80 ethnic groups in the country. According to Article 46 (2) of FDRE constitution, regional states were delimited on the bases of settlement patterns, language, identity and consent of the people concerned. It was known that in almost all regional states there were ethnic minorities as far as the conventional conception of minority was concerned. Like ethno-linguistic minorities, there are also socially excluded minorities. Socio-economic minorities have been facing several aspects of social exclusion because of who they are and what they do in the society. Likewise, ‘Fuga’ in Toke kutaye kebele have been encountering different aspects of social exclusion and they are called ‘Fuga’ by the rest of peoples.

As many scholars argues, the exclusion of certain section of society from being involved in social, cultural, economic and political systems of the society and state have been considered as wrong and violation of legal and moral values and principles. It has become doubtless fact that there are so many justifications which have been given by many scholars about why social exclusion is wrong. Social exclusion among others involves prejudice, stereotypes, marginalization, discrimination and violation of human and democratic rights. Due to the aforementioned stated features of social exclusion, the excluded have been left at a disadvantageous position in the society and have been suffering a lot of social, cultural, economic and political problems. Poverty has been found to be one of the effects of social exclusion. The dimensions of poverty that the excluded sections of societies have been experiencing seem quite nuanced and complicated. It has become crystal clear fact that the excluded suffer a lot of miseries more than the perpetuators of the social exclusion (Demireva, (2017).

These days the content of the equality and minority right is incorporated in civics and ethics education curriculum in general primary, secondary and preparatory and also tertiary level of Ethiopia education policy. Therefore, everyone learns about equality, common social values and self-esteem from their life experience and community based learning. It is also recalled that in Ethiopia, citizens have bold recognized rights such as equal access to public health and education, free from any religious and

3 political influence and cultural prejudice, equitable distribution of wealth, right to engage freely in any economic activities, right to choose their occupation and profession and right to live in a clean and healthy environment. However, it is claimed that the ‘Fuga’ community of Toke kutaye woreda are highly marginalized and socially excluded to the extent of inability to exercise some of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. This condition leads them to some irregularities in their activity among themselves and the neighboring community reporting the minorities are not benefited but challenged by different factors.

It was clear that socially marginalized minorities, such as ‘Fuga’, have different socio-economic and political rights recognized by the constitution in line with another section of the society. They were endowed with constitutional rights such as the right to equal access to social survival (Art. 41/3), right to marry (Art. 34/1-2), right to work (Art.42), right to rest (Art.19), right to get free education, and right to have access to health care and right to a fair trial (FDRE constitution, 1995) in similar to the mainstream community. However, it is common to hear a claim about the difficulty of the socially excluded minorities of Oromia region to enjoy these constitutional rights. Thus, the purpose of this research was to explore the socio-economic situations of socially excluded minorities in Oromia region based on the experience of the’ Fuga’ minority inToke Kutaye wereda of West Shewa Zone

In Guder secondary School I have been teaching social science for a couple of years. In my stay in this school critically observe a serious of individual, social, political, economic and cultural challenges of ‘Fuga’ on different dimensions. As ‘Fuga’ claim that in Toke kutaye, they have worse access to education, poorer land, worse sanitation and health services, which contributes to lower productivity and incomes and reinforces their inability to reduce any of these deprivations, while highly limited economic power means that they are unable to use the system to improve their position. Moreover, because of their weak economic and educational position, they are not in a position on their own organization effectively to overcome their socio-economic deprivations. It is observed that there are some forms of exclusion of the ‘Fuga’ by the surrounding of non-‘Fuga’community and it pose a challenge to exercise their right. Therefore the general purpose of this study is to assess socio- economic situations of socially excluded minorities in Oromia region by focusing on selected socio- economic situations reality about ‘Fuga’ people found in west Shewa Zone of Toke kutaye in all aspects.

1.3. Objectives of the study

The research has the following general and specific objectives:

1.3.1 General objectives:

The main objective of this research is to investigate the socio- economic situations of the ‘Fuga’ minority in Oromia region Toke kutaye woreda.

1.3.2. Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this research are;  To assess the situations of the’ Fuga’ minority in exercising their education rights.  To assess the situation in exercising their right to work.  To assess the participation of ‘Fuga’ minority in the social events.  To identify the contribution of socially excluded minority rights to social cohesion.

1.4. Basic research Questions

The Main research questions that answered in this study are;

● What looks like the situations of the ‘Fuga’ minority in exercising their education rights?

● What looks like their situations in exercising their right to work?

● What looks like their participation in social events?

● What is the contribution of protecting socially excluded minority rights to social cohesion?

1.5. Significance of the study

This study is primarily believed that it is beneficial for ‘Fuga’ peoples who are culturally and economically deprived by identifying their challenges and assess the existed support system through this study. It was significant to create awareness about the socio- economic challenges of the ‘Fuga’ minority. This was benefit both the majority communities and the ‘Fuga’ minority. A study on assessing socio- economic challenges of ‘Fuga’ minority group is one important area of development research.

The study, therefore, the study could render the following advantages to the study area and other areas with similar problems. Introduce better perspectives about the socio-economic situation of the ‘Fuga’ minority for social and economic development. It is tries to come up with the reasons for social exclusion of the ‘Fuga’ as distinct people and to use the rights guaranteed in the Federal constitution. It also suggests solutions and exposes the problems to concerned regional and federal bodies to take appropriate measures before violation of minority rights gets worse and leads to instability. Finally, it may inspire other researchers for further research activities over crucial factors focused on the study in relation to socio- economic status of minority groups in other areas and NGO, s who are interested to undertake further study and work in the area.

1.6. The scope and limitation of the study

1.6.1. The scope of the study

The scope of this study is to assess socio-economic situations of socially excluded minority in Oromia region, the case of the’ Fuga’ minority on the socio- economic situation of Toke kotaye. This is because ‘Fuga’ is the smallest in terms of human population. Besides, Toke kutaye is the hub of economic activities being the location of the productive land. In achieving the goal, the education, right to work, and societal institutions such as Idir, Iqub, and funerals were examined. In achieving this goal, the demographic characteristics such as age, gender, number of children were examined. The study also examined the socio-economic determinants of respondents such as income, level of education, religion, occupation etc. Heads of households in the study area were interviewed.

The study entirely focuses on the socio-economic situations of minorities that covers education, right to work, and societal institutions such as Idir, Iqub, funerals. The study limited to one woreda only, findings of this study could not represent or correspond to other areas/woreda of the region. The study entirely focuses on the socio-economic situations of minorities that covers education, right to work, and societal institutions such as Idir, Iqub, funerals.

The study limited to one woreda only, findings of this study could not represent or correspond to other areas/woreda of the region. This study discusses issues about only ‘Fuga’ minority found in Oromia region of West Shewa Zone in Toke kutaye Woreda. Although the ‘Fuga’ people are available in different Woreda of West Shewa Zone like Ambo, Toke Kutaye, Waliso and Amaya woreda, the study is exclusively concerned about ‘Fuga’ minority of Toke kutaye Woreda. My study only based 6 on ‘Fuga’ minority in Toke kutaye Woreda due to the ‘Fuga’ in this Woreda have been highly marginalized and not tolerated for their differences in relative to the rest Woreda of West Shewa. The main points of discussion are the matter of socio-economic exclusion to accept the ‘Fuga’ people, and about language, religion and culture of ‘Fuga’ people. It does not mean that other issue did not be dealt with but, it was discussed as found necessary to elaborate the above mentioned minority issue.

1.6.2 Limitation of the study

Toke kutaye woreda is more of a kola in its atmospheric condition and far from the zone town. As a result, the researcher faces problems to get appropriate data from the concerned bodies. At work, social organizations were having a modern database to organize their data. As a result, there may be problems getting appropriate secondary data from the concerned offices. The researcher was facing a great problem because of Covid-19, to ask and talk deeply about the socio-economic challenges from my informants. To solve this problem the researcher was work cooperatively with the concerned body in analyzing documents, by keeping physical distancing and collect data from the target group in the field.

1.7. Operational Definitions of Terms

● Minority group refers to a category of people who experience relative disadvantages as compared to members of a dominant social group. ● “Fuga” refers to a minority group of people who live in the west shewa of toke kutaye woreda compared to the non-‘Fuga’ society and disadvantageous culturally and socially. ● Problem- solving is a more ambitious undertaking in which parties are invited to re-conceptualize the conflict with a view to finding creative, win– win outcomes.

1.8. Organization of the Paper

The paper was organized in to five chapters. Chapter one introduces the study by describing the background, statement of the problem, objectives and significance of the study. The second chapter covers literature review dealing with definition and concepts of Social exclusion, challenges of social exclusion, socio-economic challenges and weaknesses of social solidarity.

The third chapter incorporates design and methodology of the study including description of the sources of data, data collection and data analysis. The fourth chapter incorporates analysis and an 7 interpretation of data includes the results and discussion of the study. The fifth chapter includes summery, conclusions and recommendation of the study.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The purpose of this chapter is to assess and clarify definitions of terms and concepts which are related to this thesis. It is consisted of concepts and definition of concept, definitions, types and sources of social exclusion and minority. It also discussed challenges, impacts and implications of social exclusion for the community. Under this chapter, “Socio-economic situation of the minority” are assessing as the major concern.

2.1 Definition and the Concept of Minorities at International Level

“Minority” literally means little sum and a small amount and idiomatically refers to a group of people in a country or city that is distinguished from the mainstream in terms of religion or race (Ariamanesh, 2011).

A minority is a group that is not involved in governing the country and its number is smaller than the other part of the country population and its members, despite being the subjects of the government, have ethnic, religious, or lingual properties different from the rest of the country and have some sort of feeling of unity to maintain their culture, ceremonies, religion, or language (Ibid). A minority is a group of country’s subjects that constitute a small proportion of population and do not participate in the country’s government and have ethnic, religious, or lingual properties different from the majority of the society and there is some sort of feeling of unity that results from collective will for survival and they intend to achieve real and legal equality with the majority of people (Ibid).

2.1.1 Minority Rights

Minority rights are the normal individual rights as applied to members of racial, ethnic, class, religious, linguistic or sexual minorities; and also the collective rights accorded to minority groups. Minority rights may also apply simply to individual rights of anyone who is not part of a majority decision (Smihula, 2008, p. 51 – 81.)

2.1.2. Minority Group

Minority group is a term referring to a group of people differentiated from the social majority, i.e., those who hold the majority of positions of social power in a society, and may be defined by law.

Rather than a relational "social group", as the term would point out, “minority group" refers to the above -described. The differentiation can be based on one or more observable human characteristics, including: ethnicity, race, religion, caste, gender, wealth, health or sexual orientation. Practice of the term is applied to various situations and civilizations within history, despite its popular mis association with a statistical, numerical minority (Barzilai, 2010).

Unfortunately, there is no generally accepted definition on the group of people who belong to minorities in spite of so many attempts by scholars to put a clear definition for long. The lack of a definition of the term “minority” has been troubling the international community for a very long time. In spite of all the efforts made, there is today still no accepted general, common or regional, definition of the term Akermark, 1997 11. Minority group refers to a category of people who experience relative disadvantages as compared to members of a dominant social group. In this case ‘Fuga’ are minority group who live sparsely in the woreda of Toke Kutaye and people who are few in numbers. They are socially, economically, culturally and politically marginalized section of the people when we compared with other non-‘Fuga’ people of the Toke Kutaye woreda.

According to Capotorti,( 1997:670) define the term minority in Art 27 of ICCPR), there are five criteria to be met by a group to be a minority. First, they should be group of persons whose distinctions are based on ethnic, linguistic or religious backgrounds in a state in which they comprise a minority. Secondly, the group should be in a place of non-dominance. Thirdly, their number should be less than the rest of the population of a state. Fourthly, they should be nationals of a state, as opposed to non-nationals, say immigrants and refugees. Lastly, there should be solidarity among the group in preserving their distinction (Capotorti, 1997 as cited in Girmaye ,2017). Based on the above concept the’ Fuga’ failed to full fill the requirement of being minority in line with international norms because only number four full fill the criteria. Because ‘Fuga’ people were migrated to south central Ethiopia like Hadiya, Kambata and Gurage.

2.2. Social Exclusion

The concept of ‘social exclusion’ is highly contested, and has multiple meanings. These meanings are being continually redefined over time, and have different policy implications as well. The term ‘social exclusion’ has been used to describe: groups at risk of exclusion; what people are excluded from; the states associated with exclusion; the processes involved and levels at which they operate; and the actors involved (Mathieson et al., 2008, as cited in Tamiru, 2017).

Measuring social exclusion was challenging due to its multidimensional nature and the lack of standard data sources across countries and for all social groups at highest risk of being left behind. Due to limitations, the existing data allow for a meaningful analysis of key aspects of exclusion. The report was presented these data while illustrating data gaps. Social exclusion was a multidimensional phenomenon not limited to material scarcity; poverty is an important dimension of exclusion, albeit only one dimension. Accordingly, social inclusion processes involve more than improving access to economic resources (Fesseha, 2008).

Social exclusion as a paradigm, a blueprint and a political discourse has been dispersed throughout Europe and beyond. This diffusion process began in the mid-1980s, when Jacques Delors, then president of the European Commission, stressed the need for a strong ‘social dimension’ to the European project. From this perspective, the fight against social exclusion gradually became a European policy model and justification discourse. Following this logic, during the 1990s, ‘the third EU “poverty program” was gradually transformed into a fight against social exclusion’ (Silver and Miller, 2003 as cited in Tamiru, 2017).

Social exclusion refers to a situation where people suffer from the cumulative disadvantages of labor market marginalization, poverty, and social isolation. The different aspects of deprivation become mutually reinforcing over time, leading to a downward spiral in which the individual comes to have neither the economic nor the social resources needed to participate in their society or to retain a sense of social worth (Gallie and Paugam, 2000 as cited in Silver,2006).

Multidimensional concept due to the fact that it encompasses social, political, cultural and economic dimensions, and operates at different social levels; it is also dynamic and relational concept. As a dynamic concept, it has been impacting the excluded section of societies in different ways to differing degrees at different social levels over time. A relational perspective has two dimensions. On the one hand According to Mathieson et al. (2008) stated that there was some consensus that ‘social exclusion’ was focused on exclusion as the break of relationships between people and the society resulting in a lack of social contribution, social protection, social integration and power. Alternatively, a relational perspective points to exclusion as the product of unequal social relationships characterized by disparity power i.e. the product of the way societies are organized (Mathieson et al. 2008, as cited in Tamiru, 2017).

There is also a distinction between schools of thought that emphasize lack of involvement of individuals in society and those that recognize social exclusion as a lack of access to citizenship rights for members of particular group, community, society or country (Ibid). The three paradigms of social exclusion are: unity, area and monopoly, based on different notions of social addition, attribute exclusion to a different cause and are grounded in a different political philosophy, and provide an explanation of multiple forms of social disadvantage. Republican thought attributes exclusion to the breakdown of social harmony that is, the social bond between the individual and society. The cohesion model, with strong antecedents in Durkheim an sociology, views society as something external, moral and normative rather than grounded in individual, group or class interests and solidarity arising out of shared values and rights (Hillary, 1994 cited in Rawal, (.n.d) also cited in Tamiru ,2016).

According to the same author, the second paradigm which is the specialization paradigm argues that exclusion is a form of discrimination, which occurs when individuals are denied free movement and exchange between spheres, when rules inappropriate to a given sphere are enforced or when group boundaries impede individual freedom to participate in social exchanges (Ibid).

The third model, influential on the European Left, views exclusion as of the formation of group monopolies, with resources being controlled by hierarchical and exclusive networks. Drawing heavily on Weber, and to some extent Marx, it views the social order as coercive, forced through a set of hierarchical power relations. According to this paradigm, exclusion arises from the interplay of class, 12 status and political power and serves the interest of the included and the excluded are at the same time outsiders and dominated. In this case exclusion can be combated through citizenship and the extension of equal membership and full participation in the community (Hillary, 1994 cited in Rawal. (n.d) also cited in Tamiru, 2017).

The ways how the three paradigms had discussed the concept of social exclusion is quite imposing because of the fact that they addressed complementarily the centerpiece of the exclusion of ‘pot makers’ in the study area. In the study area, ‘Fuga’, instead of being included with ordinary groups were inactively left out of social, economic and political activities. As a result, there is no social bond that connects and ties the ‘Fuga’ with the rest of peoples of Toke kutaye Woreda).

If there are any bonds that connects the two sections of the society, when we see the ‘we feeling’ among the rest of the peoples of the study area and the ‘Fuga’ does not look like strong and well entrenched one. In this regards, in order to build strong bond of connection (solidarity) and enhance the level of solidarity within ourselves, revitalizing/renewing/redefining the norms and values that pacifies the move for genuine integration of ‘Fuga’ in study area is highly and urgently needed. Besides, as it was noted in specialization paradigm, the existing norms of the study area do not encourage genuine interaction between the ‘pot makers’ and the rest of peoples of the study area.

The interplay of class, status and political power, and also serves the interest of the included and the ‘Fuga’ of the study area are disadvantageous in all of the aforementioned issues. As far the issue of class and status is concerned, ‘Fuga’ of the study area are considered as socially undermined class and have a servant status in the study area. Group and place in a given society are seen as the main indicator of power relationships no matter what power it might be. In this regards, therefore, ‘pot makers’ are both powerless and voiceless. This is one of the main reasons why this topic was selected to uncover causes and effects of powerlessness and noiselessness of the ‘Fuga’ in the study area. As a result of all these disadvantages, the ‘Fuga’ of the study area are highly passively discriminated and dictated by the rest of peoples of Toke kutaye Woreda.

In conclusion, in order to advance the level of we feeling, the causes and challenges of the exclusion of ‘Fuga’ has to be exhaustively figured out and addressed accordingly as soon as possible. To do this, either passively or actively discriminating the ‘Fuga’ trough controlling resources, power and myriads of opportunities in the study area should also be dealt well simultaneously.

2.3. Types of exclusion

The caste system was based on the division of people in to social groups in which civil, cultural and economic rights of each individual caste was predetermined or ascribed by birth and made hereditary. The assignment of civil, and economic rights is, unequal and hierarchical and the most important feature was it provides for regulatory mechanism to enforce social and economic organizations through the instruments of social ostracism and the caste system was reinforced further with justification and support from philosophical elements in the Hindu religion.(Ambedkar, 1936 as cited in Kadum,2014 ) caste at the top of the social order enjoys more rights at the expense of those located at the bottom of the caste hierarchy and have fewer economic and social rights.

Untouchable based social exclusion: the untouchables who are at the bottom of the caste hierarchy suffered the most from unequal assignments and entitlements of rights. The untouchables suffered from social exclusion and favoritism involving certain rights which include civil, cultural, religious and economic rights and mainly the notion of untouchable, which is unique to the untouchable caste only they are considered impure and polluting and unfit for social connection and inter relation with castes above (Ibid).

Political exclusion – this can involve the denial of citizenship rights, such as political participation, the rule of law, freedom of expression and equality of opportunity (Bhalla and Lapeyre, 1997).

Discrimination, based on gender, ethnicity, age and disability. This discrimination reduces the opportunity for these groups to access services and limits participation in the labour market (Stewart and Langer, 2007)

2.4. Indicators of social exclusion.

According to Kadum, (2014), stated indicators of social exclusion were: Social: the exclusion is based on caste untouchable such as the expelled member of a community do not have the right to entry a public places like temples, schools, hospitals, housings, etc. limit on entry of a variety of educational institution, imbalanced treatment in teaching. The untouchables was made to practice some particular cultural practices separate from the society such that they have their separate gods, marriage system, the crimination system and unusual food culture from the other people of the society.

Economic: denial of equal rights and opportunities to the low caste groups, assets like agricultural lands and non-land assets employments social needs like education, health, housing and others which lead to lower income and high poverty among the Dalits. In economical exclusion practice the Dalits or the members of excluded group are denied for jobs, and in agricultural through denial of purchase and sale, lower wages paid for Dalits, in credit markets were the Dalits has to pay high interest for the loans taken.

Education: discriminations in schools take the form of denial of access to education and the skill development among the Dalits children. This reduces the quality of human resources and reduces the employability for quality jobs and force them to fall back on low earning manual wage labor in farming and non-farming activities. Denial of education leads to high rate in illiteracy, low functionally literacy and high dropout ratesand limited skill development, discrimination in education may cause high representation in menial jobs, low wages, low income and ultimately high poverty (S.Thorat.et, 2005 as cited in Kadum, 2014).

Health:

Through denial of admission in the primary health center through discriminatory access to primary health centers and private health providers which may take following forms. rejection of visiting to Dalits home , denial of giving information about health facilities, , lack of care significant to situation of private medical consideration and loss of income, delay in complication delivery leading to private medical attention (S.Thorat.et ,2005 as cited in Kadum,2014).

2.5. Causes of social exclusion

This study discusses some of the causes due to which social exclusion perpetuated. From the existing dispersion result and suggestions about forms of social exclusion, some of the prominent dimensions of social exclusion are roughly discussed. With regard to the causes of social exclusion, the study discusses some of the factors, reasons and attributes that result in exclusion of individuals, communities and societies from engaging in social, economic and political systems. In this regards; race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion, caste, role, occupation, educational status, age, health condition, settlement pattern and so on are some of common grounds that are used to form human groupings.

Social exclusion due to one’s caste and ethnic identity that overrides other individual characteristics and experiences that influence one’s ability to participate in and to access social and economic capital through local collective action programs in poor communities ( Silver et al ,1995 as cited in Prodhan ,2011).

Lack of social mobility, means of communication, vital social systems, housing, public amenities, social security, health services, education services and social citizenship (Peace, 1999, also cited in Peace, 2001). Lack of fair recognition includes: negative image of the poor groups, social discrimination, cultural inequalities, prejudices in the wider society, unfriendliness, stigmatism, segregation, ethnic discrimination and low participation rates of women (ibid).

Personal intensifiers include factors like bad lifestyle, negative family circumstances, low living standards, poor health, indebtedness, drug trafficking, unsatisfactory quality of life, lack of knowledge and information, and low levels of education and qualification (ibid.).Spatial intensifiers include: social isolation, geographical isolation, loneliness from family and community, the sense of being forgotten and the resort to out-migration(ibid).

Knowing the cause of social exclusion in this study, the primary reason why ‘Fuga’ has been socially excluded from non-‘Fuga’ is because of the role they play in society where they live. To come to the central point, the ‘Fuga’ role in the society of the study area is pot making. Indeed, in addition to making and providing earthenware to society,’ Fuga’ are also obligated to undertake some traditional practices. ‘Fuga’ minority as a society have their own beliefs, traditions, norms, customs, values and way of life.

Therefore, they are expected to prepare everything which is necessary for the forgiveness and purification ceremony. In this regards, all those who have a parental relationship with the one who got twin babies must be invited to and attend the program. This purification and forgiveness program is performed by the chosen ‘Fuga’ individual. The same ceremony is also practiced if thunder and lightning has damaged some ones Tree and other resources. Otherwise they believe the same thing might happen on the victim and his or her resources again. In the recent past, in the study area, ‘Fuga’ were also obligated to carry the diseased persons to its resting places. Furthermore, ’Fuga’ were also used to serve as a slave for none-Fuga’ because they were obligated to work for the non-‘Fuga’ with very less compensations. The above highlighted roles that the ‘Fuga’ play in society and beliefs and

16 traditions of the peoples of the study area altogether have been serving a lot as a cause for the exclusion of ‘Fuga’ in one way or another.

According to Bhalla and Lapeyre(1997),expressed that political exclusion also involves the notion that the state, which grants basic rights and civil liberties, is not a neutral agency but a vehicle of a society's dominant classes, and may thus discriminate between social groups (Bhalla and Lapeyre, 1997 ,as cited in Tamiru ,2017).

Economic exclusion was concerned with the fact that the excluded usually encounters particular difficulty to get own and access assets and resources. In this respect, due to lack and limited capabilities, the excluded may fail to compete and use provisions and opportunities which might be provided for the society as a whole. Failing to compete and use the economic opportunities such as employment would likely lead the excluded to live below the level of life that they supposed live. In this regards, pot makers do not use employment opportunities which are available in the study area partly due to lack of the required knowledge, skills and experiences for formal positions.

The other highly crucial dimension of social exclusion is social and cultural exclusion as it was discussed by (Khan, 2012, P. 74). According to the author it may take the form of discrimination along a number of grounds including gender, ethnicity and age, which reduce the opportunity for such groups to gain access to social services and limits their participation in the labor market. As far cultural exclusion is concerned with the fact that the values, norms, beliefs and traditions of the society that resonate and enjoin social exclusion.

The aforementioned stated dimensions of social exclusion are highly interconnected to each other. That is why social exclusion as a concept has been seen by many scholars as a multidimensional issue. For instance, if certain section of societies is either actively or passively excluded from employment and access to assets, they would likely lack minimum income and other basic necessities. Due to capability limitation, the excluded would likely leave out social and cultural interactions. As a result, it is highly challenging to identify single specific dimensions to examine and address the whole aspects of social exclusion.

In this regards, as (Khan, 2012), asserted that people may be excluded because of planned action on the part of others (for example, prejudice by employers); as a consequence of processes in society which do not involve deliberate action; or even by choice.

2.6. The social situation of socially excluded minority

Through time, their importance in the community went down and they were reduced to lead a marginal and subordinate life. They began building their houses far away from the other villagers, started eating extravagantly, including animals not slaughtered ritually, and began neglecting their persons. They live in the land of other farmers. The owner had the right to expel them from their territory when and in whatever way they wanted. This uncertainty of life was one of the reasons why they mostly did not plant Inset or have cattle, and why they lived on their handiwork (Braukämper, 1983 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

Another important feature, which characterizes the social segregation, is the prohibition to enter houses of the non-Fuga or the prescription how to behave when they enter. Usually, they are not given a chair or anything to sit on although it is a cultural obligation to give a chair if someone enters a house; whereas the Fuga sit on the floor just behind the door (Haberland, 1968 as cited in Girmaye, 2016). Therefore, through time their social status declined and they became a marginalized occupational minority (ibid).

One of the reasons why many societies exclude the ‘Fuga’ from living together is because of the belief that the latter have a supernatural power and they can make the non-‘Fuga’ ill (Lange, 1975 as cited in Girmaye, 2016). This exclusion is accepted and justified by the common people as well as by the ‘Fuga’ themselves. According to common opinion they were human beings of an inferior category. They were prohibited to participate in public meetings. Very often they regarded themselves as despised and as outsider in the true sense of the world. The reward, the blood price for a killed member of these castes, was meaningless compared with that of other Oromo farmers. They were forbidden to participate in public meetings. Officially they were ritually unclean; corporal contact with

18 them, even unintentional, caused a dangerous ritual pollution that had to be purified by a complicated ritual (Haberland, 1968 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

In Hadiya and Kanbata if a ‘Fuga’ touches a glass or the drink of another person, everything is thrown away and the ‘Fuga’ is insulted and hit. If he touches something belonging to a chief, he must pay with a goat whose blood serves to purify the lord's possession (Chiatti, 1984 as cited in Girmaye, 2016). In Toke Kutaye woreda, I also observed similar situation that it is impossible for ‘Fuga’ people to have physical contact with Communities in the area. The ‘Fuga’ are never invited to any feast since they have no right to participate in social events such as eating and drinking together with the members of the non-Fuga in the area. They are disliked and considered to be unclean, contaminating and polluting the farmers who have contacts with them; crop fields they have crossed, granaries they have touched, houses they have entered and the like need complicated purification rituals. The Farmers did not even drink the water from the stream the ‘Fuga’ used.

Even if they are allowed to come to the houses of farmers during special occasions or feasts, giving for left-over food, they stay either far outside or enter the house, bringing leaves with them to sit on in a far corner near the gate. Then, they are mostly served left-over meals on broken dishes and drink from broken vessels (Wolde-Selassie, 2001 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

According to Chiatti (1984), expressed ‘Fuga’ are always excluded from the community as permanent victims. However, the non-‘Fuga’ are dependent on the technical products and religious ritual activities of the ‘Fuga’. The economic activities of the ‘Fuga’ and smiths as handworkers‟ (secondary economic sector) were considered socially, economically and religiously inferior. When a domestic animal is accidentally killed or dies of disease, the ‘Fuga’ are called to pick up and eat the carcass, which is otherwise left to the hyenas. The impurity of the dead and of the hunter is equated with that of the outcasts (Chiatti, 1984, as cited in Girmaye 2016).

2.7. Challenges of social exclusion

Why social exclusion is a problem? For the question why social exclusion is wrong and it is a problem, finding unanimously agreed justifications and conclusions might be difficult. However, some of the commonly found justifications, assumptions and analysis for why social exclusion is wrong include the following. At any level, social exclusion results in the categorization of peoples into different categories.

Additionally, social exclusion also divides (a given) society into different groupings based on certain criteria’s.

Some of the bases according to which social exclusion takes place at different levels include race, class, color, religion, gender, age, ethnicity, role, status, occupation, wealth, health condition and employment status. No matter on which of the aforementioned stated grounds and attributes social exclusion was based, it has been viewed by many scholars as it is wrong and unjust (Le Grand, 2003 as cited in Tamiru,2017). According to Le Grand (2003) discussed that social exclusion dilutes social solidarity and creates a problem for democratic politics. According the same author, social solidarity was conceptualized as a sense of fellow feeling that extends beyond people with whom one is in personal contact with.

Considering the earlier stated definition of social solidarity into account, the following inferences can be made. Social exclusion rather than strengthening feeling in the society, it usually loosens and breaks the networks that connect individuals to individuals, individuals to society and society to society as well. Lack of feeling and harmony in the society and among society would also likely lead to competition instead of cooperation and consensus on common concerns and issues of a society.

Consequently, lack of cooperation and the prevalence of competition over resource and power often times results either violent or non-violent conflicts within a given society and among societies and states too. In this regards, resources which could have been used to achieve social, economic and political aspirations of the societies might be allocated for war and conflicts. History has been showing to us a lot about the effects of conflict at different levels.

Some of the effects of conflict at different level include lack of peace and order, lack of trust within and among society, breakdown of rule of law, violation of human and democratic rights loss of human life, destruction of the existing limited resources, destruction of infrastructure, poverty and backwardness. These are some of the effects of social exclusion that justify why social exclusion is wrong and problem.

Social exclusion is not only wrong, unjust and it also creates problem for a democratic politics, as it was discussed by (Le Grand, 2003 as cited in Tamiru, 2017), but it has also been viewed by some scholars as a violation of human rights. Social exclusion is viewed as a human rights issue because the excluded sections of societies usually face difficulty to exercise their social, economic and political

20 rights. Every citizen has the right to equal and fair access to social services. However, social exclusion usually creates inequality of opportunity, especially with respect to education, health and employment opportunities (Ibid).

Furthermore, social exclusion is wrong because it usually cause poverty and causes difficulty for the excluded to escape from it. It seems quite difficult for socially excluded to escape from poverty partly because the causes of poverty are highly complicated and multidimensional. In this regards, (Kabeern.d. as cited in Tamiru,2017) argued that the extreme or the chronic poor are not ‘just like’ the rest of the poor, only poorer or poor for longer, but in addition disadvantaged by ‘who they are’, aspects of their identity which set them apart from the rest of the poor. (Haan, 1999 as cited in Tamiru, 2017) also discusses that the disadvantages faced by the excluded may be, and often are, interconnected.

For example, people belonging to minorities or school drop-outs may have a greater risk of being unemployed or employed in precarious jobs and hence be low paid, less educated, recipients of social assistance, have little political power, and fewer social contacts In this regards, this study strongly believe that the effects, dimensions and severity of poverty and deprivation is more nuanced in the ‘pot makers’ than the majority of the peoples of the study area. One of the primary reasons why poverty is more nuanced on ‘Fuga’ than the rest of them was that they were socially excluded and marginalized in many regards.

2.8. The Fuga Culture and Religion

There has been strong awareness among the ‘Fuga’ that male and female genital mutilation is an obligatory practice. No ‘Fuga’member arranges marriage before circumcision. If ‘Fuga’ female have been found without circumcision no ‘Fuga’ male member would be willing to marry her. However, the dominant Oromo also practice it but now female circumcision is taken as bad cultural habits and going to be reduced. They have the ability of hunting skills. The expansion of the Christianity in the area has also contributed towards attitudinal changes on the part of farmers, since followers are taught that the ‘Fuga’ are also creatures of God. ‘Fuga’ occupation /livelihood since the middle of the 1980s the economic situation has become substantially difficult for the ‘Fuga’ because of the increasing introduction of modern European furniture and utensils (Belachew Gebrewold, 2001 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

According to Braukämper (1983), noted that in some cases the potters had to pay taxes to the owners of land from where they dig clay for their pottery. The economic problem of the potters is prevalent in many societies in Ethiopia. Women produce pottery, whereas men take responsibility for chopping trees fuel for firing the products. Tanning and woodworks are also the activities of men ‘Fuga’. The tanner’s basic livelihood is dependent more upon pottery than tanning, which is generally performed occasionally because skins are scarce. The only occasion when skins are available in abundance is the period of the Mesq‟el celebration (see Braukamper, 1983 as cited in Girmaye,2016), when customers either bring the skins themselves or call tanners to collect them together with the leftover pieces of meat, including hooves, heads, intestines, etc. These left-over are calculated as the labor cost of the tanners. The collected left-over meat also enables the ‘Fuga’ to celebrate the occasion. Besides, the ‘Fuga’ are known for their consumption of animal parts such as heads and hooves, which are not eaten by farmers. This use of remain products of non- ‘Fuga’ may be discourage 'Fuga’ not to be considered as other community in the area. Men take provider of arranging the clay-digging places and at times assist women with the digging.

However, digging, transporting and processing clay up to the finishing stage are mainly done by women. Men and women share the task of taking items to market such as knife, pottery, axe, piece of bamboo or wood used for shaping, coffee pot, cooking pan, small clay dish used for serving food, medium-sized clay container used for milking, very large jar (container)…etc. The different items produced are exchanged either for cash or in kind, both at the production site and in the local markets. Some customers bring meat (usually from animals which died without being ritually slaughtered), vegetables, or grain in exchange for pottery items. In-kind exchange occurs mainly at the production site, whereas exchange in the local market is mainly for cash. Usually women bring their items to the market places, carrying them on their backs.

However, husbands also assist with transporting products to local markets. The price of products rises during the dry season and falls in the rainy season because they will not be strong and of the right quality due to the lack of proper drying (Wolde-Selassie, 2001 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

Therefore, these stereotypes and malpractices have lessened the worth and the potential of the ‘Fuga’ in the study area. As a result, they view themselves as they are worthless for and powerless in the society. In this regards, Department for International Development (2005) asserts that when people

22 feel they are being judged on the basis of whom they are, they may perform less well. When people expect prejudice, it can undermine their motivation to achieve.

Together with social stigma and the ill perception of ‘Fuga’ about themselves becomes a paramount contributor for multiple deprivations of ‘Fuga’ in the study area. That is why, in this respect, (Tilly, 2007) noted that social exclusion lies at the heart of inequality generating processes. According to ( Tilly2007,) argued that exclusion itself promotes poverty, and exits from poverty therefore depend on eliminating usual effects of social exclusion. But in this study point of view, any sort of exclusion not only promotes poverty but it also multiplies poverty and worsens the fates of poor or/and poorest (Tilly, 2007, as cited in Tamiru, 2017).

According to Department for International Development (2005), noted that people who are excluded are not just like the rest of the poor, only poorer. Rather they are also disadvantaged by who they are or where they live and as a result are locked out of the benefits of development. Social exclusion deprives people’s choices and opportunities to escape from poverty and denies them a voice to claim their rights. In order to further discuss the effects of social exclusion in the context of the study area, the following definitions of social exclusion are worth mentioning. Social exclusion is the processes due to which individuals or groups are misjudged and excluded from participating in the society where they live (Department for International Development, 2005 as cited in Tamiru 2017 ).

The partial reason why the ‘pot makers’ were not able to actively engage in civic and political activities is that no one perceives that they have right and capacity to do so. Besides, there is a belief that the problems of participation at local levels can be addressed by implementing the countrywide reforms. However, unless policies, programs and packages are driven from the existing realities and implemented as per these existing realities, it would be very difficult to reap achievements for which our policies, programs and packages were intended for.

Active, equal and meaningful participation in both developmental and political decision making matters a lot at all levels in general and at grass root levels in particular partly because politics is concerned with active participation, influencing policies and programs in different ways and knowing about who is getting what, how much share someone deserves, why s/he/they has/have got that share and what would happen if someone has/have not participated and left with nothing due to lack of participation.

In this respect, ‘Fuga’ were not participating, influencing, deciding and knowing and getting the benefits that they should have got not because the legislations of the study area prohibits them rather it is because of socio-cultural factors which are embedded in the study area. It is through participation they could know the benefits and claim more avenues to be benefited, represented and empowered.

Furthermore, legally and politically, the ‘Fuga’ are entitled with rights, freedoms and privileges of citizenship in the Woreda. But in practice, they are not actively claiming and exercising these citizenship rights, freedoms and privileges in the study area. Because citizenship is not only legal entitlement but also it is equal and active participation in the political systems as many political theorists argues.

2.9. The social exclusion debate

First, and perhaps most importantly, theorists of social exclusion stress its multidimensional nature. Social exclusion, they argue, relates not simply to a lack of material resources, but also to matters like inadequate social participation, lack of cultural and educational capital, inadequate access to services and lack of power. In other words, the idea of social exclusion attempts to capture the complexity of powerlessness in modern society rather than simply focusing on one of its outcomes. Thus, in practical terms, exclusion in terms of a mixture of “linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family collapse (Social Exclusion Unit, 1998 as cited in Muddiman,2014).

Social exclusion was a broader concept than poverty, encompassing not only low material means but the inability to participate effectively in economic, social, political and cultural life and in some characterizations isolation and distance from ordinary society (Duffy, 1995 as cited in Muddiman,2014).

According to Walker, expressed that the term social exclusion has also been most generally used to refer to persistent and systematic multiple deprivations, as opposed to poverty or disadvantage experienced for short periods of time In this respect, the concept of exclusion is also vital because it captures the processes of disempowerment and alienation, whereas other descriptions focus largely on the outcomes of such processes (Walker, 1997 as cited in Muddiman, 2014).

As Hills (1998) focused on social exclusion can highlight the links between the sorts of problems noted above, and the way that the resultant dynamics affect the lives of individuals, families or whole 24 neighborhoods over what are sometimes lengthy periods of time. A study of processes is also claimed to be important because it can be used to identify the factors which lead into situations of decline and exclusion, and, more positively, to chart mobility out of poverty. The identification of strategies of empowerment of individuals and communities is a common result of this kind of investigation.

Social exclusion was often incorporates a stronger spatial focus than previous descriptions and discussions of social division. As we shall see, this is in part a product of the opinion that some social groups and neighborhoods have become more detached and alienated from normal society than hitherto fore (Hills, 1998, as cited in Muddiman, 2014).

According Pacione (1997), had thus pointed to the increasing spatial polarization of British society in the 1980s and 1990s, fuelled by the restructuring of employment patterns and housing policies such as the sale of better quality council houses. As a result, attention of material poverty, economic inactivity, lone parenthood, crime and other indicators of exclusion are claimed to have resulted in the creation of a “residuum” of not accepted council estates and inner city areas with very poor private rented housing stock. Such a supposed concentration of “excluded” individuals in “zones of exclusion” has had a double-edged effect on the visibility of poverty and exclusion: on the one hand, intensifying and (in many media reports) sensationalizing its effects; but, on the other hand, seemingly removing it from “mainstream” life(Pacione ,1997, as cited in Muddiman, 2014).

Excluded from the norms and values of normal society, undermined the idea, central to social democracy that all citizens had fundamental social and economic, as well as political and legal, rights. These ideas were also taken up by the Borrie Commission on Social Justice, and on a wider scale by the European Union Observatory on Social Exclusion which placed the idea of citizenship at the center of the inclusion/exclusion debate. Policy makers defining the goal of a socially all- encompassing society which included the social rights of citizens to certain essential principles of living and to contribution in the social and educational opportunities of society (Room et al, 1992 as cited in Muddiman, 2014). Such policies, it was felt, would generate a unified and stable social order, as well as being reasonable in moral terms.

One effect of the link to citizenship is its tendency to broaden the terms of the social exclusion debate away from a narrow focus on a supposed underclass to a much wider discussion about welfare policy and social rights. As Ruth Lister noted, those excluded from social opportunity incorporate not only the social groups identified by Field et al as a marginalized underclass (Lister, 1991 as cited in 25

Muddiman, 2014). Many other groups experience denial of welfare and civil rights such as people with disabilities; black and cultural minority communities; women; gays and lesbians; travelers and so on. Such groups often experience “exclusion” from mainstream society not only in an economic sense, but also as a cultural, political and organizational phenomenon.

Furthermore, these groups are very widely isolated throughout society, not necessarily concentrated in underclass suburbs or inner cities. As a result, according to Lister, this widespread exclusion challenges welfare organizations (like public libraries) to examine their own relationships with their clients, and understand the extent to which these still incorporate exclusionary practices. If social rights of citizenship are to be widely achieved, it follows that some reconsideration of equality of opportunity will need to follow.

The focus on citizenship also links with one of the key problems experienced by theorists of social exclusion: the issue of inclusion and social diversity. One clear danger of “inclusive” societies is that they become conformist, assimilative and intolerant of “deviant” behavior.

Indeed, as some policy makers are now arguing, excluded groups might be seen as having responsibilities as well as rights, and might be expected to conform to certain norms of social behavior, such as taking a job. But how far might such pressures to conform be taken, and how are they compatible with the existence of pluralistic and culturally diverse societies? As Levitas (1996) ,expressed in her critique of social exclusion, one effect of such Policies aimed at social inclusion might also, of course, exclude other groups such as those unwilling to engage in “community” activity or those unwilling to settle in one place. Some writers on policy have clearly recognized these dangers, and have generally used the term social cohesion (as opposed to inclusion) to indicate a much wider focus on developing social capital: the institutions, networks and opportunities available to “excluded” citizens in civil society as a whole (Hutton, 1995 and Miller, 1998 as cited in Muddiman, 2014).

According to Byrne(1997), represented a new “reserve army” of labor for globalized capitalism and they are excluded from full participation in society in the sense that they lack the permanent means to sustain affluence in terms of home ownership, car ownership, leisure and educational opportunities and so on. According to Byrne, we thus have to face the prospect that “social exclusion”, as a concept can be applied, at least from time to time, to many more people and places than on the surface seems to be the case (Byrne, 1997 as cited in Muddiman 2014). 26

In concluding this section, it thus seems important to distinguish between two main manifestations of the social exclusion idea. Narrower explorations of the theme usually stress:  The multidimensional nature of poverty and disadvantage;  The persistence of multiple deprivations over time;  The excessive effects of such deprivation on relatively concentrated social groups and geographical locations;  The attraction of “including” such groups in normal society.

Broader applications of the idea, in contrast, emphasize:

 The vulnerability of large proportions of the population to situations of exclusion for at least some of their lives;  The need a social dimension to the idea of citizenship, linked to the ideas of equality of opportunity and protection from poverty;  The attraction of “cohesive” societies which however respect social difference. It is perhaps important to stress that both views of social exclusion have some legality, and although their policy implications are not opposing, they do differ in emphasis. The narrow view of social exclusion reasonably suggests focused and targeted action aimed at particular problems, social groups and communities. The broader view, though, implies a much wider project to construct social capital and equal chance in society.

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter focuses on the reasons for site selection, geographical location of the study area, the brief history and social organization of the people and gives much focus to the research methodologies, research strategy and design, target population and sampling, data types and sources, data collection instruments, data processing and Analysis employed in the study.

3.1. Description of the Study Area

The study is conducted in south west shewa zone of the Oromia regional state in Ethiopia. The major geographical area central to this study is Toke kutaye Woreda, which is found in the West Shewa zone in the Oromia Region of Ethiopia. It was part of Ambo woreda. It is situated at a distance of about 126 km from Addis Ababa to west and 12 km from Ambo town of west shewa Zone. Toke Kutaye is bordered on the South by the Amaya Zone, on the south by the Amaya, the west by LibanJawwi”, on the north by “Midakagn”, on the north by “Midakagn and Ambo”, and on the east by “Ambo”.

The woreda covers 49,385.97 hector and was inhabited by men, 63,873 and female, 64,386 totally 128,259, populations as counted in population and housing census of 2011. (Toke Kutaye Woreda Human Resource Management 2011). The climatic situation of the woreda is also said to have a combination sub- tropical and temperate climate. Both livestock rearing and crop cultivation (mixed farming) are practiced. It is characterized by highland climate that are mostly known crop productions such as Teff, Wheat, Barely, Maize, Beans, and Enset. The rainfall distribution is from May to September (Strategic Planning and Management document of Toke kutaye woreda, 1999).

The highest concentration of the rain falls during the months of June to August. The woreda administrations have different ethnic groups which settled sparsely in the rural and town of the woreda. Among these minorities’ ethnic groups were ’Fuga’ minority group in the woreda, Amhara and Gurage a few in numbers. The ‘Fuga’ are relatively the large minority in the woreda when compared with other minority groups. Three chief religions have been noticeable in the woreda: namely Christianity (Protestant and Orthodox), Islam and Indigenous (i.e. people’s adherence to Waqefaana-believe in one supreme God). It is in to this and other woredas in West Shewa Zone that migration and settlement by ‘Fuga’ people have taken place for a long period. The ‘Fuga’ ethnic minorities with the dominant Oromo ethnic group co-exist in the Woreda. Toke kutaye is predominantly inhabited by Oromo people except for a few localities, mainly the rural area in the 28 kebele where ‘Fuga’ settlers from other are sparsely found. Other ethnic groups like Amhara and Gurage have been settled in the town of the woreda administration.

According to the Toke kutaye woreda tourism office, (2015), the name Kutaye was derived from the Afan Oromo word,which is the name of Oromo clan. Kutaye is one of the youngest oromo clan among Oromo clan, Such as Liban, Jidda, Jiille, Guduru and Caliya. Kutaye clan also contains other seven oromo sub-clan like‘Dada’, ‘Abebe’, ‘Maliyu’, ‘Hidhabu’, ‘Gurra’, ‘Galan’ and ‘Bundha’.

According to Yeshoda (2013), the Fuga was a minority group living in pockets of the Kutaye (Southwest shewa zone in the oromia region). Some ‘Fuga’ also live in the Oromia and Gambela Regional States. There are no census data on the ‘Fuga’ population because they live within the majority culture and are considered members of the majority ethnic group (Yeshoda, 2013)

They are sometimes given different names according to the area in which they reside: ‘Fuga’ among the Gurage, and Geemi among the Dizi, Fuga and Waata among the Oromo, or are considered craft workers (e.g., blacksmiths, tanners, and potters). The ‘Fuga’ in oromia are one of the cultural groups who are settled in and around the natural forests of south west shewa Zone. They are entirely dependent on natural resources for firewood, honey production, clay and charcoal making (Akalework, 2014 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

In terms of economic activity, almost all rural inhabitants of the kutaye woreda society engage in agricultural and related works throughout the year. They grow grain using oxen. Crop rotation, application of manure and chemical fertilizers and fallowing are used to maintain the fertility of the soil (BPED, 2008). Wheat, teff, bean, pea, maize, red and white sorghum and lentil crop are among the most widely cultivated crops. Grain is mainly produced for subsistence, but when excess it is also for sale. Besides crop production, they also raise livestock of various species such as cattle, sheep, goats, horses, donkeys, equines and mules (BPED, 2008).

The sole economy is crop production supplemented by livestock rearing. 80 % of the Woreda population livelihood depends on mixed agriculture, 16.6% of the population depends on crop production alone, 3% and 9.4% on handcrafts and trade respectively.

3.2. Research Approach

The study used qualitative methods of data analysis. The research method that was applied in this area of study is employed qualitative research methodology. Considering the research objectives, the researcher used different qualitative data collection tools which enable to obtain rich data in this regard. These tools include: interview and observation. Qualitative methods are preferred due to the following reasons. First, due to the nature of the research, this research focuses on the community’s beliefs, opinions, attitudes and relationships. Second, this technique enables researcher to have the critical and deeper understanding of the social phenomenon that is often carried out in a natural context. It also enables the researcher to dig the deep knowledge and skills used by community elders. Last but not least, qualitative research approach was used primarily focusing on first-hand information from primary sources. As explained by different scholars, qualitative research is chosen to carry out an in-depth study in order to search out important information. Qualitative research is an inquiry process of understanding based on methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem (Creswell, 1998).

Therefore, the researcher built, holistic picture of the issue understudy, analyzed words and detailed views of informants in the natural setting and in context of Toke kutaye woreda. The qualitative approach was employed to grasp the attitude of respondents regarding the common types, causes of conflict and the role of indigenous conflict resolution systems and practices for socio economic development, because using different research strategies in the same study to collect data is advantageous to ensure validity and reliability of the findings and to control possible data bias.

3.3. Source and Type of Data

For this study qualitative type of data were employed. The qualitative type of data employed to get reliable information by specifying objectives of the study through focus group discussion and interview. With regard to data sources, both primary and secondary sources of data were employed.

3.3.1 Primary Data Sources

In this research basically, primary data source employed to gather first-hand information to achieve the objectives of the research. The sources of primary data were household heads, local elders, unemployed and religious leaders, police force, individuals from Toke kutaye.

3.3.2. Secondary Data Sources

In the secondary data, there were detailed reviews of different files. Special emphasis was given to documents in which socio - economic challenges of social exclusion in the study area. Additionally documents and reports related to the common social challenges in the study area and the indigenous practice of the minority group which is available from Kutaye social institution and in the woreda were also reviewed.

3.4. Target population and Sampling Techniques

Selection of appropriate samples was depended on the sampling procedures the researcher followed and the nature of the tools that is planned to be applied. To this end; the researcher has used Lottery sampling techniques. This method was meant to give as proper response for the questions mentioned earlier. Accordingly, the researcher purposively selected sample respondents for this study based on the judgment that the data obtained from these purposively selected respondents on the basis of their experience in social exclusion were meet the purpose of the study.

The researcher selected kutaye woreda through Lottery method. This is because the process of social exclusion is exercised almost in a similar manner across the study area, especially the selected kebeles to conduct the study are Melke, Maruf, and Birbirsa kebele where many member of ’Fuga’ are living area and exposed to repeated social exclusions and the researcher taking these Kebeles through such method does not create difference. Therefore, the target populations of the study are residents of kutaye woreda.

As such the respondents were select based on the researcher's judgment that they were providing ample information that best meet the objectives of this study. A purposeful sampling technique was used to select individuals who are well versed with the challenges. The participants are knowledgeable elders who frequently participate in different challenges. Woreda experts were interview to get information about their social interaction. The participants will select through a purposive or judgmental method.

According to Stake (1995) the question of representative sampling for the study population does not necessarily arise in qualitative approach. Thus, the number of participants in study does not matter for a qualitative research to be acceptable provided that the study has met its objective of exploring the issue understudy. Regarding sample size, the researcher made key informant interviews with 25 31 respondents. Comprising 3 key informants were craft man, 4 key informants were elders, 2 key informants were religious leaders, 2 key informants were Administrative leaders, 2 key informants were education Experts, 3 key informants were youths, 4 employees, 3 key informants were women and 2 informants were farmers. The participants were selected through judgmental method.

3.5. Data Collection Instruments

Interview: In-depth interviews were made using semi-structured interview questions with selected key informants to get primary data regarding the structure, procedures, and actors in the woreda. The researcher was interview 25 key informants, comprising 3key informants were craft man, 4 key informants were elders, 2 key informants were religious leaders, 2 key informants were Administrative leaders, 2 key informants were education Experts, 3 key informants were youths, 3 key informant was women and 2 informants were farmers and 4 key informants were employees. The participants were selected through judgmental method.

Systematic Observation: the systematic observation data collection method is the most commonly method in social science and behavioral studies. If systematic observation method is done accurately, subjective bias is eliminated (Kothari, 2004:96). In my stay in the study areas (December to June) researcher observed the actual social exclusion practice. The researcher also attends various social and economic situations. These connections with the study community members were fundamental to observe the situation and behavior of the people. This method enabled the researcher to cross-validate and triangulate the available sources of information collected through interviews and focus group discussions. In observations, I try to collect data related to their social interaction like wedding and funereal ceremonies and to document the ceremony in the photographs. Document Observation and analysis also simply supplemented by note taking of undergoing activities since the video audio recording was prohibited on some sessions for their own reason.

3.6. Data Analysis methods and Processing

The information that was collected from data sources were organized to explore the inherent relationships among the different variables. Immediately after finishing the data collection, the data was analyzed by using qualitative data analysis techniques. It was analyzed manually through careful interpretation of meanings and contents, organizing, recording and summarizing in accordance with the issue under investigation. The qualitative data obtained through interviews were described

32 qualitatively in sentence form. It is true that in a given research, data collection is indispensable. However, mere collection of data does not make a research unless the collected data is analyzed and interpreted. Therefore, the researcher analyzed and interpreted the raw data that was gathered through all designed tools and other secondary sources to answer the research questions and to meet stated objectives by describing through the contextualization of the concepts based on the intentions of the research participants step by step.

At the beginning, the researcher documented the data obtained from the notes jotted down and records during the discussion, interviews and personal observation and other supporting documents. Then, transcription and refining of important concepts to provide a detailed description of the obtained data followed. The next stage in this activity was examining the meanings of respondent’s words and actions to present or display the data. Lastly conclusion was made through careful consideration of the evidences and methods from which the conclusion was planned to be derived.

3.7. Ethical Considerations

Ethical issues exist at any stage of research process and should be addressed from the beginning to the final reporting. It is obvious that ethical consideration is crucial as other aspects in the process of conducting research for the reason that it significantly affects successful accomplishment of the study. Accordingly, the researcher considered ethical issues from the designing stage of the research to the reporting of the findings of the research.

During interview in the fieldwork, the free and informed consent of the informants to participate was obtained and the researcher told the respondents his background and objectives of the research. The researcher also informed the informants that their confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained in a way that any information obtained from them will be kept in secret and will not be utilized for other purposes other than the objectives it intended for.

During the transcription stage, the researcher informed the participants that he will maintain the confidentiality of the interviewees and address whether the written text is similar to the interviewees oral statements. The issue of confidentiality and anonymity of interviewees during reporting of the findings of the research was also being taken care of.

The participants were told that they can agree or refuse to participate and also withdraw from the interview or focus group discussions at any time by their interest. 33

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

In this chapter, include data analysis, interpretation, and the research findings presented and discussed in relations to response and theories about the socio-economic situations of ‘Fuga’ people in the existing literatures related to the issue. The research was conducted in “Toke Kutaye woreda” to assess the socio economic situation of ‘Fuga’ minorities among the “Toke Kutaye woreda” people, so the data was collected from 5 February to 24 May 2020 under the rule and regulation of the pandemic covid-19. The chapter constitutes major themes like who are ‘Fuga’, Right to access education, livelihood and work experience of ‘Fuga’, Social acceptance of ‘Fuga’ and social situation of ‘Fuga’, socio-economic challenges of minority And sub-themes that emerge from the analysis and synthesis of the already collected data by using the tools stated in the previous chapter.

4.1 Who are ‘Fuga’?

‘Fuga’ people are the people who live in Oromia region west shewa zone Toke Kutaye Woreda and also live in Amaya,Liban Jawi,Ambo and Waliso woreda. . For the first time, these people settled around Amaya, waliso and Toke kutaye by the ruler of land lord. ’Fuga’ people got the settlement land from land lord in order to serve the people who were on power by making material and plough land. The name of ‘Fuga’ was given to them for the reason why they are inferior or socially discriminated in the society they live in (Interviewee 17, March 2020, Gudar ). The Fuga have own unique language, culture, religion, history, and economic activities. But, they are not exercising their identity as dominant Oromo or other minority due to they are being marginalized. Based on having these identities markers they are Occupational minority. Since most of the marginalized minorities are considered as „social groups‟ rather than localized ethnic groups, their concerns have hardly been considered in the new „ethnic politics‟ (Freeman and Pankhurst, 2001, p. 336).

Beside to this, ‘these people live in separate or sparsely settled in different area. ‘Fuga’ people are naturally skilled and hand craft people. Thus, their economic activities based on hand craft rather than participating on agriculture. Likewise, these people have their own language called Afan ‘Fuga .However, regarding to their language there is no common agreement because there is different opinion some people call as Cushitic and other describe them one of the language of southern nation and their language has no recognition among the people they live in. Regarding to their language they

34 had no interest on their language to be known by another people. They spoke Afan Oromo but they spoke their language especially during secret time. In addition to this, ‘Fuga’ have their own religion which is called mo’ata and they worship to it. In present day a few of them have been baptized and took orthodox and protestant in order to live with their neighbors peacefully (Ibid).

Furthermore, ’Fuga’ people are naturally skilled in hand craft for instance: they practice on making pottery and wood work. These people also practice on hunting and gathering to sustain their life. This condition made them economically poor and exposed them for backwardness. They do not participate on agriculture that made living with poverty. Here, when the community they live in practice on farming land, irrigation, beef farming, and trade, but ‘Fuga’ people do not take part on this activities. Thus, they are economically discriminated and they live in absolute poverty (Ibid).

‘Fuga’ people are socially, culturally and economically discriminated, or excluded in the community they live in. The ‘Fuga’ occupy the lowest social stratum and they are isolated from the rest of the population, without rights or protection. They are despised and marginalized by the Oromo farmers, and other ethnic group are considered them as impure due to their consumption habits, namely, eating the meat of animals that have not been ritually slaughtered (murdered Wolde- Selassie, 2001 as cited in Girmaye,2016).

According to AtoTesfa Mosisa the well-known religious leader who knows the history of ‘Fuga’ people told me that the origin of ‘Fuga’ people in to Oromia was before king Menelik concurred the area, the people of Oromo was ruled by the appointed land lord. As he stated that‘Fuga’ people was come to the Oromia by the ruler of land lord called Banta Alanga through Gurage from southern nation through peace full means or through diplomacy rather than subjugation. The reason why land lord wanted ‘Fuga’ people had the ability to do carpenter and pottery. Such materials used for sitting chair, material eating on, pot, pillow and other materials for beauty purpose. Then, the land lord ordered the ‘Fuga’ people who live in Toke kutaye woreda particularly in Malke kebele as they made the above listed materials for home. Accordingly, these people settled in the huge forest around them by land lord and continued their hand work. In addition to this, ’Fuga’ started to hunting and gathering animals found in that forest (Interviewee 11, March 2020, Guder ).

The Fuga have own unique language, culture, religion, history, and economic activities. But, they are not exercising their identity as dominant Oromo or other minority due to they are being marginalized. Based on having these identities markers they are Occupational minority. Since most of the 35 marginalized minorities are considered as „social groups‟ rather than localized ethnic groups, their concerns have hardly been considered in the new „ethnic politics‟ (Freeman and Pankhurst, 2001 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

The ‘Fuga’ occupy the lowest social stratum (Wolde-Selassie, 2001 as cited in Girmaye, 2016). They were isolated from the rest of the population, without rights or protection. They are despised and marginalized by the non-‘Fuga’ communities, and are considered impure due to their consumption habits, namely, eating the meat of animals that have not been ritually slaughtered (murdered) (ibid). There was very little mixing between the ‘Fuga’ and other ‘non-Fuga’society and they did not enter marry.

According to Pankhurst (1999), argued that the overall context of relations between ‘Fuga’ and dominant groups were „structured clearly by social and economic marginalization.‟ their settlements were separated from farmer villages. The farmers have developed prejudices and stereotypes about the ‘Fuga’, whom they consider to be lacking self-esteem, to consume extravagantly and to reside in small temporary and fragile shelters. Freeman and Pankhurst also added that the ‘Fuga’ peoples were not allowed to own any productive assets such as land; they do not participate in politics even in local assemblies, and they are not allowed to take part in any social events, are prohibited from entering farmers' houses, have separate seating at weddings and funerals, are restricted from joining associations and have separate burial places (Freeman and Pankhurst, 2003 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

Farmers rarely enter their houses and do not share food with them because of they do not clean their house and they also fear the’ Fuga’ of their ritual power, which they believe is linked with the land and related spirits (Tecle Haimanot , 2000 as cited in Girmaye, 2016). The ancestors of the ‘Fuga’ out caste occupational group initially arrived from north western Ethiopia some times in the early medieval period (Ibid).

According to him, they together with some people settled at Kambata, Hadiya, Gurage and Yam. On their arrival these place ‘Fuga’ were hunters and wood workers who served their friends in identifying covenant settlement place in south central Ethiopia. After the immigrant ‘Fuga’ settlement in south- central Ethiopia they intermarried with the indigenous people, remnants of the primitive hunters who also practiced occupations like pottery and tanning. They were both able to learn each other occupation through time. Both came to be identified as low caste occupational group with the 36 common name ‘Fuga’. For long they have lived among the Kambata, Hadiya, Gurage and Yam being branded as despised low-social caste occupational communities. The lack of land among ‘Fuga’ subjected them to economic poverty and harsh social oppression and labor exploitation. As a result some of ‘Fuga’ families migrated to neighboring areas in the same region looking for better opportunities. During this time they entered Oromia region in general and Toke kutaye woreda where ever I conduct my study in particular. Wherever they went they were segregated in their settlement areas as they were considered landless low-caste occupational communities (Ibid).

Despite their population growth, they were not able to gain any additional land outside of their original settlement place before the arrival of the Shewan conquering army of Menelik (1889- 1916) in the nineteen century (Tecle Haimanot, 2000 as cited in Girmaye,2016). However, in the 2o th century the ‘Fuga’ came to be relatively better treated at the hands of Shewan conquerors and settlers who dominate the indigenous societies. Some ‘Fuga’ families were able to integrate with the Shawan army and able to secure farm land as tenants in the same manner the other indigenous societies underwent (Ibid).

In some Kebele they were too black and their mouth and nose are more extended than Oromo but, in other Kebele they are not compactly different from Oromo farmers. The ‘Fuga’ have attempted to present themselves as different from the Oromo by using a logic that refers to their culture, history, language, and other factors, and to the Constitutional definition of nations, nationalities and peoples. In other words, they claim that they are a nation, nationality and people because of their ability to demonstrate their specific character, achievement that can also be used for political purposes. They are occupationally artisan sparsely settled in the rural area of Toke kutaye Woreda. No ‘Fuga’ people live in town Kutaye Guder town. It was difficult to know the total number of them or no reflection on the exact size of the population, because I did not get any literature on their censuses. After they immigrated to Oromia region and settled in villages which located in around Amaya,Toke Kutaye, Waliso and Ambo (Tecle Haimanot , 2000 as cited in Girmaye).

The ‘Fuga’ though live in scattered manner over vast area; they still maintain common identities and characteristics. It is possible to estimate the village ‘Fuga’ have settled but, difficult to tell the size of their population. The ‘Fuga’ number is half million in Ethiopia (Ibid). But he had found it difficult to come up with meaningful figure.

In Toke kutaye woreda the ‘Fuga’ people settled in scattered way in many kebele of the woreda .I informant from Ato Chala Dugasa who is English teacher at Guder secondary school, who participated in 2007 Ethiopian population and housing census stated that the number of ‘Fuga’ people were not more than 7,000 people. As he described these people were counted as Oromo people but they were not Oromo. The reason why they were counted as Oromo people they had not recognized as ethnic group like other ethnic group in the woreda they live in. He also mentioned that why’ Fuga’ people counted as Oromo was these people live on the Oromo’s land (Interviewee 6, May 2020, Guder).

‘Fuga’ live in the land of other farmers. The owner had the right to expel them from their territory when and in whatever way they wanted. This uncertainty of life was one of the reasons why they mostly did not plant Inset or have cattle, and why they lived on their handiwork (Braukämper, 1983 as cited in Girmaye, 2016.

4.2 The right to Education.

Ethiopia, signed international agreements, including the Human Rights Declaration of 1948, and its article 26 which stipulates education as a legal right (UN, 1948). This means that the government is responsible for ensuring the right to education of every child without preconditions. The Education and Training Policy of the country, formulated in 1994, aims to ensure that all school-aged children, particularly those in rural area and specifically girls, get access to quality primary education. To realize this, and government abolished school fees in primary education (grade 1-10) in 1994. The policy acknowledges that one of the chronic problems of the education system in the country is inequality in access to education (MoE, 2002).

One of the primary aims of introducing free primary education is to bring those school-aged children to school that would otherwise be out of school for mere lack of money. Massive construction of schools has taken place in rural areas, as part of a campaign to provide access to the rural population.

According to Ato Diriba Wakuma who is 45 years old described the problem why‘Fuga’ parents did not send their children to school to get modern education was ‘Fuga’ was illiterate and back warded economically, socially and culturally discriminated group of people. Likewise, they have no awareness about importance of education. This condition exposed their children lagged back from education and run with technology. Not only this but also, they oppressed by the farmers of the area.

Here, the children of the farmers intimidate, insult and demoralize the children of ‘Fuga’ when they went to school together. This condition enforced ‘Fuga’s’ children to readmit and drop out lives with difficult situation can to push their students toward up to stop their education and they turned to handcraft as their family practice. When this condition increase time to time these people exposed to unemployment, social stigma, crime, poverty, and traditional. So, the opportunity of these people to get modern education is very low. As result, they do not get the chance of equal justice, social service like school, healthcare, clean water and take part in social issue like in iddir and ikub (Interviewee 4, May 2020, Maruf).

Regarding to the problem ‘Fuga’ faced on their education I informant from ‘Fuga’ Children Desta Dajane who is 13 years old, when she expressed her parent’s problem she told me that she was grade 3 student and her parent has six children both her father and mother were too old to make material like pot and chair to feed their children. For this reason she always absent from school and went to market to sell material like pot in order to sustain the life of her parent rather than attending her education. Desta also expressed that her parent could not fulfill the material which was needed to her because of financial problem and social pressure that developed in her society forced her to stop her education and start to serve her parent in house (Interviewee 4, April 2020,Birbirsa).

As I informant from Ato Belama Sirna head of woreda civil service who is 56 years old expressed that the reason why ‘Fuga’ children did not get modern education was: ‘Fuga’ children faced difficult problem from non-‘Fuga’ children on their education because of economic and social discrimination that developed in their society for a long period of time hindered them to follow their education as they to exercise and develop their economy including their language effectively. This problem made them did not get modern education to have commitment on themselves .As he expressed he always hear many ‘Fuga’ children did not go to school even if they went to school they faced problem with no-‘Fuga’ people. In addition this, Belama stated that no one can gave attention to them in the past years but we discussed with the staff member this year to give awareness for these people. This year when they discussed on challenge of covid -19 led on education. Another problem that ‘Fuga’ children faced on their education was these people lived in separate place because of socially and economically marginalized people that made them to live their alone because they had no harmonious relationship with other rest of no-‘Fuga’ people. Finally he mentioned that as the part of government we have obligation to aware this group of people and working with kebeles leaders including community of that area in order to change their image toward their education (Interviewee 16, April 2020, Gudar). 39

The main causes for ‘Fuga’ children excluded from their education was attached with both matter of economic problem like calling ‘Fuga’ children and their parent who participated on making pot and other material considered as illiterate, foolish, back warded and also calling ‘Fuga’people who ate bad nitration, died animal and parts of animal which was not eaten by non-‘Fuga’ people were considered as animal. These people highly excluded from their education to sustain their life and to develop their language including and even shamed to speak their own language because many people considered their language as inferior meaningless language and their language going to extinct. Another obstacle on their education was social stigma that developed his root in the societies for many years (Interviewee 16, May 2020, Mutulu).

Regarding to the challenge Fuga’ children faced on their education I informant from‘Fuga’ students Jiru Dinka who is 10 years old and grade3 student who was drop out from school told me that he had interest to attend his education but because of the pressure from non-‘Fuga’ people made on him not to attend his education effectively as he can. He also told me that he always late went to school because he feared non-‘Fuga’students and he sat his alone. As he explained that there was no chance to sit on one chair to gather with non-‘Fuga’ children because they touched their psychology which pushed him from his education (Interviewee 13, May 2020, Malke ).

I informant from Ato Eba Lema who is 45 years old and math’s teacher told me that the why ‘Fuga’ students did not success by their education and withdrew from school was negative attitude people had to ward ‘Fuga’ students and economic and social problem like ‘Fuga’ student did not clean their body and also wore dirty clothes. According to Eba stated another problem that ‘Fuga’ student faced was they isolated themselves from other this made them did not success by their education. He also adds that ‘Fuga’ students gave more attention to hand craft rather than attending their education (Interviewee 12, May 2020, Birbirsa).

4.3. Economic right

The economic activities of the ‘Fuga’ and smiths as handworkers‟ (secondary economic sector) were considered socially, economically and religiously inferior. When a domestic animal is accidentally killed or dies of disease, the ‘Fuga’ are called to pick up and eat the carcass, which is otherwise left to the hyenas. The impurity of the dead and of the hunter is equated with that of the outcasts (Chiatti, 1984 as cited in Girmaye,2016).

As I informant from Ato Chimdi Nadasa who is 55 years old emotionally told me that they were human being and Ethiopian why many people consider them as slave. As he mentioned that it was the matter of economy made them as slave, inferior and inhuman in the society they live in. He stated that they were economically poor because they had no enough farm land which was given to them by Oromo farmers to live on rather than farming .Likewise, the land given to them was infertile land and not suitable for agriculture even if they had oxen and used for agriculture. In addition to this, he described the reason why land given to them was in order to serve Oromo farmers by labor including serving them like repairing fence, fetching water, and farming land (Interviewee 22, June 2020, Birbirsa).

Fuga’ live in the land of other farmers. The owner had the right to expel them from their territory when and in whatever way they wanted. This uncertainty of life was one of the reasons why they mostly did not plant Inset or have cattle, and why they lived on their handiwork (Braukämper, 1983:182.

I informant from AtoBuzune Dinku the elder of ‘Fuga’ people who is 55 years old stated that why their people economically poor and why did not focus on agriculture like non-‘Fuga’ people was they had few hector of land enough land. As he explained that such land was not fertile and suitable for agriculture even if we wanted to plough we lack oxen because they were poor to buy. According to Buzena explained that they were live under difficult situation because majority of them participated on hand craft like making pot and chair which gave low cost when they sold to market. Another problem that ‘Fuga’ faced on economy was they bought clay from Oromo farmers including the material from chair made with high cost and sold by low cost. But not only this they also paid tax to owner who had clay. As he additionally explained they were live with difficult situation their women made pot and men made chair but the money gained from these martial used only for hand to mouth (Interviewee 13, May 2020, Mutulu).

‘Fuga’ people did not take part in trade as other rest of non- ‘Fuga’people to lead their life because majority of them were hand craft people and the opportunity to take part in trade was too limited because of they were poor to compete with others. As Ato Buzuna stated that even if they had the chance to took part in trade no one can bought from them the reason for they were discriminated in the societies. He also described another challenge that’ Fuga’ people faced were they were illiterate this made them difficult problem on their life. These people had no the opportunity to life in the town in

41 order to exercise their activity effectively because it was difficult to them to live in the town because their daily activity based on making pottery and wood work in rural. It was difficult to them to live in the town with their own capacity to rent house (Ibid).

Regarding to economic problem of ‘Fuga’ people faced I informant from Ato Debere Abdisa who is 56 years old Oromo Farmer described the main cause for ‘Fuga’ people economically poor was they lack sufficient land including cattle like oxen, sheep, goat, even hen that made them to become poor .As he stated that ‘Fuga’ people had not commitment to become hard work because they gave low self-esteem for themselves and always shamed by non-‘Fuga’of the study area. Ato Debere also adds that because of lack of economic problem they did not full fill their basic need as they can. For the matter of poorness and lack additional income they did not take part in economic activity like trade and agriculture. As he additionally a stated that even if ‘Fuga’ people had the chance to took part in trade activity no one can buy from them expect ‘Fuga’ themselves because many people consider that they do not buy the material which was touched by’ Fuga’(Interviewee 13, June 2020, Malke ).

Since the middle of the 1980s the economic situation has become substantially difficult for the Fuga because of the increasing introduction of modern European furniture and utensils (Belachew Gebrewold, 2001:243). Braukämper notes that in some cases the potters had to pay taxes to the owners of land from where they dig clay for their pottery. The economic problem of the potters is prevalent in many societies in Ethiopia. Women produce pottery, whereas men take responsibility for chopping trees fuel for firing the products. Tanning and woodworks are also the activities of men Fuga.

I informant from was Ato Kefena Dinsa who is 56 years old the ‘Fuga’ elder told me thatwhy they did not exercise agriculture like other rest of the people to sustain their life was there was bad culture that developed in their society and lack of land made them to exercise agriculture effectively. According to Ato kefena’s opinion even they had land they considered agriculture as difficult task and their children follow them and did not practice other activity because they follow their culture. He also adds that they were economically poor because they did not have saving habits because they lack education and they took as habit and used for only for consumption rather than accumulating their wealth. As Ato kefena stated they had no the right to own land and they were considered as tenant rather than independent farmers like other group of people. In addition to this he also expressed that the land they lived on was given them by Oromo farmers and expelled or taken from them at the time

42 they need from them. According to Ato Kefena mentioned they had no guaranty if their land was taken from them because not given to them by the government even the government did not know their existence(Interviewee 13, April 2020, Guder).

The ‘Fugas’ in the study area have been producing and providing clay products for the society because of the fact that the other means of survival for them are highly tough and rare due to many reasons. For instance, most of the ‘Fugas’ in the study area, have too limited and unproductive land and by and large they usually lack oxen to plough that limited plot of land drying (Wolde-Selassie, 2001:105).

I informant from Fuga women W/ro Meseret Dandena told me about her economic activity focused only on making pot and she had no the opportunity to participate in trade, agriculture because people called them as hated people and no one gave value to them. As she stated that she had six children, four boys and two girls but she had no additional income to sustain her life including her children because she had no sheep, goat ox and even hen except making pot. In addition to this she also mentioned that if the pot she made did not get sun light and did not dry unable to went to the market and her children harmed by hunger. She told me emotionally because her house was burnt when she made the pot (Interviewee 13, March 2020, Mutulu).

4.4 Social situation of ‘Fuga’people

One of the reasons why many societies exclude the Fuga from living together is because of the belief that the latter have a supernatural power and they can make the non-Fuga ill(Lange, 1975 as cited in Girmaye,2016). This exclusion is accepted and justified by the common people as well as by the Fuga themselves. "According to common opinion they are human beings of an inferior category. They were forbidden to participate in public meetings. Very often they regarded themselves as despised and as outsider in the true sense of the world. The reward, the blood price for a killed member of these castes, was meaningless compared with that of other Oromo farmers. They were forbidden to participate in public meetings. Officially they were ritually unclean; corporal contact with them, even unintentional, caused a dangerous ritual pollution that had to be purified by a complicated ritual (Haberland, 1968 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

Regarding to exclusion of ‘Fuga’people I informant from w/ro Warqi Lema who is 43 years old and teacher of Malke elementary school, who has been teaching English for many years and who know the daily life of ‘Fuga’ people told me that non-‘Fuga’ people hated them and had no positive attitude for

43 them because they did no respect and accept the norm and custom of other section of the society. They ate died animal and also ate part of animal which was not eaten by both Christian and Muslim like lung and pancreas. As she described their activity they did made them socially excluded and discriminated in the mass society (Interviewee 21, April 2020, Malke).

I informant from Ato Bekele Dame who is 43 years old and Toke Kutaye Education expert as he described the relationship between’ Fuga’ and non-‘Fuga’ in terms of social relation there was no harmonious relationship between ‘Fuga’ and non-‘Fuga’people .The material on which ‘Fuga’ people ate could not be eaten by non-‘Fuga’ people. ‘Fuga’ people did not inter the house of non-‘Fuga’ people both during funeral ceremony and wedding ceremony. He also stated that ‘Fuga’ people were do not participated on any social activity like iddir and mahiber including at community meeting. There was no the culture of marriage between’ Fuga’ and non-people. There was superiority of Oromo people over ‘Fuga’ people in contrast with other people and also discrimination ‘Fuga’ children in school and out of school. Children of ‘Fuga’ people were not sitting together with children of Oromo on one chair and did not complete their education and withdraw from school. ‘Fuga’ people were aggressive because majority of the Oromo people had no positive attitude toward them (Interviewee 5, May 2020, Guder).

The situation of the ‘Fuga’, which is described as landless and the attitude of the traditional people towards handwork and landlessness lead the ‘Fuga’ as low social status. To possess no land means to own no domestic animals. To live without land and cattle in an agricultural society like Toke kutaye is an absolute material disadvantage and social disgrace. A bad nutritional situation, ragged clothes, small houses constructed with bad wood, dirty and small compounds, lack of domestic animals, etc., are some of the features which characterize the life of the ‘Fuga’ (Belachew Gebrewold, 2001 as cited in Girmaye,2016). Through time, their importance in the community went down and they were reduced to lead a marginal and subordinate life. They began building their houses far away from the other villagers, started eating extravagantly, including animals not slaughtered ritually, and began neglecting their persons. They live in the land of other farmers. The owner had the right to expel them from their territory when and in whatever way they wanted. This uncertainty of life was one of the reasons why they mostly did not plant Inset or have cattle, and why they lived on their handiwork (Braukämper, 1983 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

Another important feature, which characterizes the social segregation, is the prohibition to enter houses of the non-‘Fuga’ or the prescription how to behave when they enter. Usually, they are not given a chair or anything to sit on although it is a cultural obligation to give a chair if someone enters a house; whereas the ‘Fuga’ sit on the floor just behind the door (Haberland, 1968 as cited inGirmaye, 2016). Therefore, through time their social status declined and they became a marginalized occupational minority (ibid). One of the reasons why many societies exclude the ‘Fuga’ from living together is because of the belief that the latter have a supernatural power and they can make the non- ‘Fuga’ ill (Lange, 1975 as cited in Girmaye, 2016). This exclusion was accepted and justified by the common people as well as by the ‘Fuga’themselves (Ibid).

According to common opinion ‘Fuga’ were human beings of an inferior category. They were prohibited to take part in community meetings. Very often they regarded themselves as despised and as outsider in the true sense of the world. The reward, the blood price for a killed member of these castes, was meaningless compared with that of other non-‘Fuga’. They were prohibited to participate in public meetings. Formally they were ritually unclean; corporal contact with them, even unintentional, caused a risky ritual contamination that had to be purified by a complicated ritual (Haberland, 1968 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

According to Chiatti, in Hadiya and Kanbata if a ‘Fuga’ touched aglass or the drink of another person, everything is thrown away and the Fuga is insulted and hit. If he touches something belonging to a chief, he must pay with a goat whose blood serves to purify the lord's possession (Chiatti, 1984 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

In Toke kutaye I also observed similar situation that it is impossible for ‘Fuga’ people to have physical contact with Communities in the area. The ‘Fuga’ was never invited to any feast since they had no right to participate in social events such as eating and drinking together with the members of the Oromo in the area. They are disliked and considered to be unclean, contaminating and polluting the farmers who have contacts with them; crop fields they have crossed, granaries they have touched, houses they have entered and the like need complicated purification rituals. The Farmers did not even drink the water from the stream the ‘Fuga’ used. Even if they are allowed to come to the houses of farmers during special occasions or feasts, giving for left-over food, they stay either far outside or enter the house, bringing leaves with them to sit on in a far corner near the gate. Then, they are mostly

45 served left-over meals on broken dishes and drink from broken vessels (Wolde-Selassie, 2001 as cited in Girmaye, 2016).

The ‘Fuga’ are excluded from the community of their village or neighborhood because they eat what is despised by the masses and higher classes such as the stomach, the intestines and the lungs. They ate this despised food because they are excluded from the community, social norms, values and living together I informant from ‘Fuga’ man Ato Taye Mirkana, he told me that "they were already not respected. They are considered animas rather than human and they are seen as back ward society. It does not make any difference if we eat remains or not; no body respects us; we cannot marry other people except themselves (Interviewee 5, April 2020, Maruf).

I informant from W/roZanabuAbera one of Oromo woman told me that the reason why non-‘Fuga’ people prejudiced and stereotyped was because the ‘Fuga’ eat unclean, dirty and religiously prohibited animals such as dead animals and animals body like lung and pancreas . Non-‘Fuga’ people described the ‘Fuga’ as people who did not care about their hygiene, did not wash their bodies or clothes, and and also had no culture of living together in peace full way because they were socially excluded and they suspect other non-‘Fuga’ people. As mentioned these people did not know the custom and norms of society of non-‘Fuga’ people state. These people lack the principle of morality in their mind which made them carless on their day to day life (Interviewee 6, May 2020, Malke).

‘Fuga’ people socially excluded by Oromo farmers of the study area because there was no smooth relationship between ‘Fuga’ and non-‘Fuga’ people. In addition to there was no participation of both ‘Fuga’ and non-Fuga people during wedding ceremony, funeral ceremony, in iddir, and ikub.’ Fuga.’ These people were also excluded from stream because’ Fuga’ people were considered dirty people and polluter of the stream. These people were fetching the water after non-‘Fuga’ were fetching the water by themselves. As he explained that the ‘Fuga’ people did not inter the house of others people but they sat behind of the door. They had no culture of eating to gather with non-‘Fuga’. According to Zenabu

46 stated that no one gave food on normal material to these people given to them on the leaf of plant or on the material which was out of service (Ibid).

I informant from Ato Birhanu Lagasa, who is 56 years and the elder of Oromo told me that the reason why ‘Fuga’ people discriminated. They eat bad died animals and cattle’s which didn’t slaughter by human and do not allowed by large majority of Oromo people. They eat cattle which died by them thus; Oromo people consider ‘Fuga’ people as animas and underestimate them rather than human being as Ato Birhanu Lagasa opinion. In addition to this, ‘Fuga’ people has low culture living harmoniously with mass society and has no the culture of living with people peacefully because they are aggressive people. And also eat part of animal meat which cannot be eaten by large communities. For example lung and pancreas of animals which cannot be eaten by the large majority people..(Interviewee 12, May 2020, Guder).

I informant from Ato Olikumala the director of Malke elementary school for many years who know the daily life the ‘Fuga’ people told me that ‘Fuga’ people made good material but they did not use themselves to sit on and to eat on it. But they sat on broken material, did not sat on normal material and sat on floor of land on the material made from clay.’Fuga’ people called their name as ogeyyi (handcrafted people) but other people called them by the name of ‘Fuga’ based on their activity. Another problem that ‘Fuga’ people was socially excluded or hated by other group was they did not keep something for future and used for only consumption purpose and also did not sleep until they finished food which was prepared by them. ‘Fuga’ people do not made good house and did not put the material they made in their home. As I informant from Oli Kumala opinion ‘Fuga’ people do not know from where they come and by whom they come into Oromia.(Interviewee 22, May 2020, Malke).

Informant from Ato Dajane Birhanu who is 49 years old and the religious leader told me that why ‘Fuga’ people live in separated was‘Fuga’ people always suspect other and had no the culture of living with other in peace full means and people who always need conflict with other .He also mentioned other reason why they separated themselves from the rest of other was lack of modern education they had. He also adds that non-‘Fuga’ people always insulted and touched something which affects their norms (Interviewee 14, May 2020, Birbirsa).

I informant from Ato Kumala Fayisa who is 41 years old and Toke kutaye woreda education head told me that about relationship between ‘Fuga’ and non-‘Fuga’ people regarding to marriage he said that: 47

There was no intimate relationship and no marriage take place between them because Oromo people consider ‘Fuga’ people as inferior people. ‘Fuga’ people were not invited during wedding ceremony. If ‘Fuga’ people are invited, no one can gave chair to sat on and sit on the floor of land and given by broken material to eat on it.’ Fuga’ had no role during wedding but their role was fetch water, repair fence ,keep horses ,collect wood. (Interviewee 18, May 2020, Guder).

According to W/roZanabu Abera one of Oromo woman told methat the reason why non-‘Fuga’ people prejudice and stereotype the ‘Fuga’ minority is because the ‘Fuga’ were eating unclean and religiously prohibited like eating dead animals. Non-‘Fuga’ people describe the ‘Fuga’ as people who do not care about their hygiene, did not wash their bodies or clothes, and had no the sense of morality. They were also considered as ignorant and extravagant people because they were lack education (Interviewee 12, May 2020, Malke).

The socio-cultural prejudices, stereotypes and discriminations that the ‘Fuga’ minorities encounters are quite similar with the stereotypes of ‘Fuga’ in KutayeWoreda. Social discrimination against ‘Fuga’ is noticeable in many ways such as during greetings, at mealtimes, in the social and cultural structures of the Oromo peoples, in marriage and so on. In other words, due to the existing stereotypes and prejudices, ‘Fuga’ are not allowed to marry with non-‘Fuga’ and the reverse also true. Large majority of the respondents replied that ‘Fuga’ were excluded due to various reasons from access to social services such as education and health services.

As I informant AtoWandimuChala, who is 53 years old and the Oromo elder responded about the social life of ‘Fuga’ people he said that:

’Fuga’ people had low self-esteem and low confidence in large non-‘Fuga’ people because of ‘Fuga’ people did not clean their clothes, protect their hygiene and they were eating on broken material. They were also not sat on chair. He also added that, ‘Fuga’ people were practice the opposite of what large communities of non-‘Fuga’ people were practice. ‘Fuga’ were people who always need conflict because when one of Oromo people said something which touches their norm they could not be silent and run it to conflict (Interviewee 9, May 2020, Birbirsa).

Regarding to conflict rose between ‘Fuga’ people and non-‘Fuga’ people I informant from AtoBojonaKudhama who 45 years old one of ‘Fuga’ people told me that there was always conflict between them because non-‘Fuga’ people always insult them which touch their norm and psychology.

As he described even if they were harmed no one can pay the compensation for them and none of them went to the court to got justice because they had no money and education that made them as inferior in thesociety finally they were back to their home. According to Bojona additionally expressed there were no equal treatment of them with rest of the people and they were considered as aggressive people (Interviewee 13, May 2020, Malke).

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents conclusion and recommendations based on the findings of the previous chapters. Accordingly the overall analysis is summarized and conclusions drawn from the study based on the finding of the research and lastly recommendations are also forwarded by the researcher.

5.1. Conclusion

The study was concerned with socially excluded Minority in Toke kutaye Woreda and specifically on issue of socio-economic situation of socially excluded minorities in Toke kutaye Woreda, basis for the right access to education, livelihood and work experience of ‘Fuga’, Social acceptance of ‘Fuga’, social situation of ‘Fuga’, and socio-economic challenges. Social exclusion varies from place to place, situation to situation and from time to time. The level where social exclusion takes place also differs. The issue of social exclusion would not be a serious issue, if the excluded sections of societies do not suffer many consequences with various degrees.

In this regards, my respondents replied that ‘Fuga’ were excluded due to various reasons from access to social services such as education and health services. Besides, during meal time, ‘Fuga’ are socially obligated to sit either at the corner or outside of the house. The ‘Fuga’ have been producing and providing clay products for the society because of the fact that the other means of survival for them are highly tough and rare due to many reasons. For instance, the ‘Fuga’ have too limited and unproductive land and lack oxen to plough that limited plot of land .Based on the findings obtained, the following conclusions have been made the finding in the study indicates that; As far as the findings of this particular study are concerned, ‘Fuga’ are not counted in Ethiopian population and housing census and settled in scattered way in many Woreda’s of Kebelles. The ‘Fuga’ have own unique language, culture, religion, history, and economic activities. Even other group also calls them as they are Negroid from outside or they are outside from Beta Israel people. But, they are not exercising their identity as dominant Oromo or other minority due to they are being marginalized. ‘Fuga’ peoples are not allowed to own any productive assets such as land; they do not participate in politics even in local assemblies, and they are not allowed to take part in any social events, are prohibited from entering farmers' houses, have separate seating at weddings and funerals, are restricted from joining associations and have separate burial places.

One of the primary aims of introducing free primary education is to bring those school-aged children to school that would otherwise be out of school for mere lack of money. All the ‘Fuga’ community needs to learn in own languages as majority Oromo from farmers the importance of education to solve their own problems .Oromia the practice by far extends better protection to others ethnic minority groups than ‘Fuga’ minorities.’Fuga’ caste has no chance to teach their children by their mother tongue language. Because of insignificant number of those ethnic groups and economic constraints it is difficult to establish primary education by the mother tongue of every dispersed ethnic minority groups. In the future we are going to study hard to solve the problem of ‘Fuga’ minority.The ‘Fuga’ people lost the right to education because no ‘Fuga’ child effectively participated in education rather they enter school at the beginning when school is opened and dropouts because of social operation from dominant groups. concerning to education the ‘Fuga’ children continued without change while Oromo farmers, did change for better, they are sending their children to school because they are close to the concerned bodies‟ and the government hears them. During door-to-door awareness creation for the farmers in the community was made regarding government plans as well as the importance of education for their children. But, ‘Fuga’ are forgotten people that struggle to live our own way of life. They repeatedly asked the local government and the woreda government but, they did not deliver any solution to them. No one cares about them. The ‘Fuga’ have own language which is widely spoken in rural area of Toke kutaye woreda although it is threatened to be extinct.

According to social respect ‘Fuga’ people lack the right of recognition as nation, nationalities and people of Ethiopia. They have attributes of negative stereotypes attached to them from different social economic and political factors. They do not have a social life; they do not know the rules of conversation, they are impolite, they are not gentlemen, and they lie all the time. They cannot keep secrets and do not keep their word, and they are always subservient to Oromo farmers. They are despised and marginalized by the Oromo farmers, and are considered impure due to their consumption habits, namely, eating the meat of animals that have not been ritually slaughtered. They eat everything: dead animals, fish, and birds. What we give to the dogs we give to the outcasts because there is no decayed food which can make unhappy a ‘Fuga’. They are denied the basic fundamental rights to the ownership lands owning, keeping domestic animals, to education and to some economic activities that have been reserved to members of the dominant groups. Traditionally, the ‘Fuga’ are marginalized; they are allowed only in-group marriage and are not supposed to own cattle and farmland, and they settle in peripheral areas, such as near riverbanks or at the periphery of villages.

In terms of the economy, all ‘Fuga’ family members are involved in pottery production in order to maximize the income they get from the sales. The job is physical demanding and labor intensive. We need to buy a lot of food; we have to eat to get the strength and power to produce as many pots as possible. there are many findings like have too limited and unproductive land, lack oxen to plough that limited plotted land, highly degraded land due to natural and manmade factors and as a result it is not fertile enough, reducing their level dependence on producing handwork for the society for many reasons, perception considering as economically poor and not focus on agriculture and adds economically poor because they have poor saving habits and there is rare to have accumulate wealthy.

The major social and social challenges of ‘Fuga’ are considered as the people of bad clan, excluded from participating in social and economic activities, lack of fair recognition and respect, Lack of equal and meaningful engagement in decision making at all levels, excluded from access to social services such as education and health services, violation human rights and discrimination takes place include during meal time, during the choice of spouses, during greeting times and during the choice of burial grounds and humane treatment by the rest of peoples.’ Fuga’have too limited and unproductive land and by and large they usually lack oxen to plough that limited plot of land, social organizations like Ikub, Edir, Jiggi or Debo and Mehaber in which ‘Fuga’ do not have any place to participate.

5.2. Recommendations

Nowadays, social exclusion is viewed by many as a human right, moral, development and peace issue and it has also been viewed as a vital issue for democracy. Countries and societies have been doing a lot to achieve so many aspirations at different levels and time. In order to do so, unity and solidarity among society about how to achieve those predetermined aspirations is highly demanded. It is not only unity and solidarity which is vital but also consensus among society on some of the potential challenges of growth, development, peace and order are highly crucial.

Based on the findings of this thesis the researcher utterly recommends the following major points. The responsible stakeholders need to give immediate and final solution for the problem.

 In order to alleviate the issues that hinder minority to enjoy school, the government should consider a number of measures at the local level. First, the government should introduce reforms which favor minorities and improve the disadvantages that have persisted for a long time. Second, continuous education and awareness raising program toward combating discriminatory

attitudes toward ‘Fuga’ students should be given to teachers, students as well as the community through conferences and public meeting including Idir.  Social exclusion in general and the rights of occupational minorities in particular have failed to attain appropriate attention and emphasis by the government, researchers and the public as well. As social exclusion is one of the underestimated and hardly studied concepts in our country, further studies ought to be conducted by all concerned bodies. The incumbent government has to establish a particular institution at different levels which is mandated to handle the issues which are concerned with occupational minorities.  People of study area especially elders needs to encourage, treat, help and teach to promote brotherhood among ‘Fuga’ people. So the Toke Kutayeworeda community need to encourage Fuga people interns of protecting their right in social and economic right to exercise their right effectively.  It is overly applauded that Ethiopian society is usually appreciated by many like hospitality and love for peace and order. Contrary to the aforementioned, the question that reads why is that discrimination of occupational minorities viewed as normal thing and for how long should it be viewed as normal were raised. Therefore, our society at different levels should give up discriminating, marginalizing and dehumanizing occupational minorities that exist everywhere in zone. The Woreda authorities in the study area ought to work a lot to enhance the level of awareness of the whole peoples of the study area about social equality.

References

Abera, D. (2008). The Scope of Rights of National Minorities under the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Series on Ethiopian Constitutional law, Addis Ababa : Addis Ababa University Faculty of Law.

Akalework, M. (214. Roots and Manifestations of Marginalization: An Exploration of Socio- Economic and Political Facets of Minority Group in Woliatta Zone, Southern Ethiopia, Global Journal of Human Social Science 2014 © 2014 Global Journals Inc. (US) Volume XIV Issue VII Version I, Woliatta Sodo University, Ethiopia

Ariamanesh, B. (2011). Journal of law development researches, issue 4, the article on minorities rights in constitution and international law.

Assefa .F (2012). Ethiopia's Experiment in Accommodating Diversity: 20 Years Balance Sheets. Regional & Federal Studies, 22 (4): 435-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2012.709502

Barzilai, G. (2010). Communities and law: Politics and cultures of legal identities. University of Michigan Press.

Bhalla, A . and Lapeyre, F. (1997) . Social Exclusion: Towards an Analytical and Operational Framework. Development and Change, 28 (3): 413-433.

Capotorti, F. (1979).The Study of the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, U.N.ESCOR, 130th, sess / Para 568,U.N.Doct /CN-4/sub .2/384/Rev.1/1979.

Demireva.N (2017).Minority embeddedness and economic integration: Is diversity or homogeneity associated with better employment outcomes? Social Inclusion, 5(1):20-31. doi:10.17645/si.v5i1.825.

Dyer, S.A and Field, A. (2014, November ). Understanding the factors that contribute to social exclusion of disabled people. Retrieved from www.synergia.co.nz . Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (1995). Constitution of the FDRE. Mega Printing Press, Addis Ababa.

Fessha, YT. (28 .” Institutional Recognition and Accommodation of Ethnic Diversity: Federalism in South Africa and Ethiopia “A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Law) in the Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape.

Girmaye, G. (2016). Minority Right in Federal Ethiopia. Case Study of ‘Fuga’ in Dire Enchini Woreda, Oromia Regional State. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.

Kadun, P.B. (2014). Social Exclusion its types and impact on Dalits in India, 19(4):81-85. doi:10.970/0837-19448185. Khan, S . (2012). Topic guide on Social Exclusion. International Department, University of Birmingham. Kothari, C. (2004). Research methodology. methods and techniques. 2nd.Ed . New Age International publisher.

Mathieson, J., Popay, J., Escorel, S., Hernandez, M., Johnston, H., Rispel, L. and ,Enoch , E.(n.d) Social Exclusion, Meaning, measurement experience, and links to health inequalities A review of literature. WHO Social Exclusion Knowledge Network Background Paper 1.Lancaster University,UK.

MoE, (2002). National curriculum framework. Muddiman, D. (2014). Theories of Social Exclusion and the Public Library, 13:1-15. Retrieve from http://hdl.handle.net/10760/7118 Netherlands Institute for Social Research, (2017). Elements of social inclusion in developing countries.Hague. Peace, R. (2001). Social Exclusion: a Concept in Need of Definition? Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 16(16).

Pradhan, M.S. (2011). Social Exclusion and Social Change: Access to, and Influence of, Community- Based Collective Action Programs in Nepal (doctoral dissertation University of Michigan) Retrieve from http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/86357

Sealey, C. (2009). Social Exclusion and Young People: a critical Realist Strong Late Modern Analytic. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham.

Silver, H. (2007). The process of social exclusion: the dynamics of an evolving concept. George Washington University press, Washington. . Silver, H. (1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: three paradigms. International Labour Review 133(5).

Smihula. D. (2008). National Minorities in the Law of the EC/EU in Romanian. Journal of European Affairs, 8(3), 51-81.

Stake, R. (1995).The Art of Case Study. London: Sage.

Stewart, F.and Langer, A. 2007). Horizontal Inequalities. Explaining Persistence and Change. Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity. London.

Suarez, .F.B (2017). The design of migrant integration policies in Spain: Discourses and social actors. Social Inclusion, 5(1), 117–125.doi:10.17645/si.v5i1.783.

Tamiru, B. (2017). Assessing the causes and effects of social exclusion: The case of ‘pot makers’ in Yem Special Woreda in Sothern Nation, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State in Ethiopia. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations. 11(4):68-83.doi:10.5897/AJPIR2016.0967.

Yoshida S (2013). The Struggle against Social Discrimination: Petitions by the Manjo in the Kafa and Sheka Zones of Southwest Ethiopia. Nilo Ethiopian Studies 18:1-19, Osaka Prefecture University.

Appendices I

University of Gondar College of Social Science and Humanities Department of civics and ethical Studies Questionnaire for interviewer Introduction: This questionnaire is prepared by a post graduate student (Civics and Ethical Studies) in University of Gondar for partial fulfillment of master degree. The aim of this questionnaire is to collect data about “The socio-economic situations of socially excluded minorities in Oromia region: A Case Study on the ‘Fuga’ minority of Toke Kutayewereda, West ShewaZone.”, Ethiopia. The information you provide is believed to have a great value for the success of this research. I assure you that all data will be used for academic purpose and will be analyzed anonymously and you are not exposed to any harm because of the information you give. I express my heart-deep appreciation in advance to your kind cooperation in providing the necessary information.

Thank you for your genuine cooperation!!

General instruction:

1. No need of your name in the Interview.

Section I: General questions:

1. Age of the respondent

2. Educational status:

3. Work experience in kutayeworeda

Appendix II

Questions for Interview

1) What are the major socio-economic issues of the minority in your area? 2) What socio-economic issues are more practiced by the community? 3) What is the contribution of protecting the rights of the minority to social cohesion, ensuring stability, keeping sustainability and enhancing Justice? 4) What is the preference of people between social right (right to education) and economic right (right to work)? Why? 5) Does the government consider the participation of ‘Fuga’ minority in the process of social and economic development? 6) How do evaluate the contribution of ‘Fuga’ minorities to consolidate social relationship? 7) Are there any supporting courses from government or non-government bodies for the practicability of their rights? 8) How do you see the effectiveness of socio-economic change in comparison to the majority community? In terms of education, work and social events etc. 9) What are the challenges and obstacles for the effectiveness of the minority in the socio-economic aspects? 10) How do you evaluate the current educational status of the Fuga minority in your village?

Thank you!!

List of tables

Table1. List of informants

No Name Position Place of interview Date of interview 1 Ato Tesfa Mosisa Religious leader Guder 02 kebele March 11/2012

2 Ato Zalalem Bayena History teacher at guder Guder 02 kebele March 17/2012 secondary school 3 Ato Chala Dugasa English teacher at Guder Guder seconday May 6/2012 secondary school school 4 Ato Diriba Kuma Farmer Birbirasakebele May 4/2012 5 Desta Dajane Youth Birbirsa kebele April 4/2012 6 Ato Belama Sirna Leader of woreda civil Guder 01 kebele April 16/2012 service 7 Ato Kuma Rafera Elder Mutulu kebele May 16/2012 8 Jiru Dinka Youth Malke kebele March 13/2012 9 Ato Eba Lema Leader of Birbirsa Birbirsa Kebele May 12/2012 Kebele

10 Ato Chimdi Nadasa ‘Fuga’ man Birbirasa kebele June 22 /2012 11 Ato Buzuna Dinku ‘Fuga’man Guder kebele March 12/ 2012

12 Ato Debere Abdisa Farmer Malke kebele June 13/2012 13 Ato Kefena Dinsa ‘Fuga’ elder Guder kebele April 13/2012 14 Ato Wokina Lema Elementary Teacher Mallke kebele April 21 /2012 15 Ato Bekele Dame Education expert Guder Kebele May 5/2012 16 Ato Taye Mirkana Elder Maruf kebele April 5/2012 17 W\ro Zanabu Abera Woman Malke Kebele May 6/2012

18 Ato Birhanu Lagasa Elder Guder March 12/2012

19 Ato Oli Kumala Malke elementary Malke kebele May 22 /2012

director 20 Ato Dejene Birhanu Religious leader Birbisa kebele May 14/2012 21 Ato Kumala Fayisa Head of Toke Kutaye Guder kebele May 18/2012 woreda education office

22 Zanabu D Woman Malke kebele May 12/2012 23 Wondimu Chala Elder Guder kebele May 9/2012 24 Boja Kudama Youth Mellka kebele 13 March 6/2012 25 Meserat Dandena ‘Fuga’ women Malke kebele March 13/2012

Fuga woman who live in broken house at Fuga woman who making pot at MalkeDerakebele MelkeDerakebele

Fuga woman who is firing pottery at Malkekebele Interview with Fuga woman who making pottery at Melkekebele

Figure 1: Photos of informants during interview

Figure 2: Map of west shoa zone (https://www.google.com)

Figure 3: Map showing (a) Oromia region in Ethiopia, (b) west shoa zone, (c) Toke Kutaye district and (d) study area