Sheik Khojale Al Hassan, who was the ruler of Benshangul, is one of the historians who fell for the borders of his country. The world is an incredibly diverse place, in which voices need to be heard. Yet, especially in the past, out of fears of instability and the disaggregation of the state, many leaders have chosen to ignore that reality and have opted for the creation of one people within the state, ignoring the diverse voices in favor of one voice has not always resulted in the aspired stability. Many of today’s civil wars are fed by fears of groups that their voices will remain unheard. Some leaders, interested in mitigating such conflict, in anticipation that ethnic conflict could become violent or prevent a country from falling apart, have chosen to accept such diversity, by allowing these groups representation in central institutions as well as in some cases a greater amount of self-rule (McEwen and Lecours 2008; Simeon and Conway 2001; Subaru 2005; Yonatan 2008). These power-sharing arrangements in multiethnic contexts have not remained without controversy. Some argue that they can mitigate conflict and prevent a country from falling apart (Lijphart 2008; Gurr 2000; Hartzell and Hoddie 2003). Others however maintain that such arrangements are short-term solutions that in the long-term can create or maintain conflicts and, in cases where regional boundaries are drawn along ethnic lines, are more likely to result in either the disaggregation of the state or the recentralization of power (Rothchild and Roeder 2005; Roeder 2008). However, rather than drawing rigorous conclusions about the benefits or not of such arrangements, one argues that constitutional arrangements alone cannot explain group behavior as each group exhibits distinct features influencing if, where, and how voice is sought.