Chapter Four: State, Government and Citizenship

4.1 Understanding State

State is an institution through which the dynamics of politics is organized and formalized.

4.2 Attributes/Elements of State

The state is essentially characterized by the following five attributes: population, defined territory,
government, sovereignty and recognition.

1. Population
Since state is a human association, the first essential element that constitutes a state is the people
who are residing (living) within a certain defined area. No minimum number is required to
constitute the population of a state. We have states with a population of about 1.3. Billion as China
and few thousand population number like Vatican and San Marino.

2. Defined Territory
This refers to the internationally accepted demarcated geographical boundary that includes the land,
water, airspace and other natural resources. Territory is the second most essential attribute of
modern statehood, i.e. definite portions of the earth’s surface marked off from the portions occupied
by population of other states.
3. Government
Government is the soul and brain of the state. It implements the will of the community. It protects
the people against conditions of insecurity. If state is regarded as the first condition of a civilized life,
it is due to the existence of a government that maintains law and order and makes ‘good life’
possible. The government is the machinery that terminates the condition of anarchy. Government is
the administrative wing of the state.

4. Sovereignty
Sovereignty is power over the people of an area unrestrained (unfettered) by laws originating outside
the area or independence and completely free of direct external control. It means the state is the final
and ultimate source of all laws with its territorial jurisdiction.

It has two aspects: internal and external.

1. Internal sovereignty: refers to a state’s government not those of any other states
deciding how it will manage its domestic affairs, problems, and formulates its own

1|Page
 laws and rules. In other words, it means that inside the state there can be no other
authority that may claim equality with it.
2. External sovereignty: In the external sphere, it implies that the country should be
free from foreign control of any kind and its right to define its interests and decides
what its objectives are to be, the priorities among these objectives. It is, however, a
different matter that a state willingly accepts some international obligations in the
form of membership of the League of Nations or of the United Nations. The
existence of sovereign authority appears in the form of law.
5. Recognition
For a political unit to be accepted as a state with an “international personality” of its own, it must be
recognized as such by a significant portion of the international community.

4.3 Rival Theories of State

There are various rival theories of the state, each of which offers a different account of its origins,
development and impact on society.

4.3.1 The Pluralist State

The pluralist theory of the state has a very clear liberal lineage. It stems from the belief
that the state acts as an umpire or referee in society. The origins of this view of the state
can be traced back to the social-contract theories of thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and
John Locke. The principal concern of such thinkers was to examine the grounds of
political obligation, the grounds on which the individual is obliged to obey and respect
the state. They argued that the state had arisen out of a voluntary agreement, or social
contract, made by individuals who recognized that only the establishment of a sovereign
power could safeguard them from the insecurity, disorder and brutality of the state of
nature. Without a state, individuals abuse, exploit and enslave one another; with a state,
order and civilized existence are guaranteed and liberty is protected. As Locke put it,
where there is no law there is no freedom. In liberal theory, the state is thus seen as a
neutral arbiter amongst the competing groups and individuals in society; it is an umpire
or referee that is capable of protecting each citizen from the encroachments of fellow
citizens. The neutrality of the state reflects the fact that the state acts in the interests of all
citizens, and therefore represents the common good or public interest.

2|Page
4.3.2 The Capitalist State
The Marxist notion of a capitalist state offers a clear alternative to the pluralist image of
the state as a neutral arbiter or umpire. Marxists have typically argued that the state
cannot be understood separately from the economic structure of society. This view has
usually been understood in terms of the classic formulation that the state is nothing but
an instrument of class oppression: the state emerges out of, and in a sense reflects, the
class system. Nevertheless, Marx‘s attitude towards the state was not entirely negative.
He argued that the state could be used constructively during the transition from
capitalism to communism in the form of the ‘revolutionary dictatorship of the
proletariat’. The overthrow of capitalism would see the destruction of the bourgeois state
and the creation of an alternative, proletarian one.

4.3.3 The Leviathan State

The image of the state as a ‘leviathan’ (in effect, a self-serving monster intent on
expansion and aggrandizement) is one associated in modern politics with the New
Right. Such a view is rooted in early or classical liberalism and, in particular, a
commitment to a radical form of individualism. The New Right, or at least its neoliberal
wing, is distinguished by a strong antipathy towards state intervention in economic and
social life, born out of the belief that the state is parasitic growth that threatens both
individual liberty and economic security. In this view, the state, instead of being, as
pluralists suggest, an impartial umpire or arbiter, is an overbearing ‘nanny’, desperate to
interfere or meddle in every aspect of human existence. The central feature of this view is
that the state pursues interests that are separate from those of society (setting it apart
from Marxism), and that those interests demand an unrelenting growth in the role or
responsibilities of the state itself. New Right thinkers therefore argue that the twentieth
century tendency towards state intervention reflected not popular pressure for economic
and social security, or the need to stabilize capitalism by ameliorating class tensions but,
rather, the internal dynamics of the state. New Right theorists explain the expansionist
dynamics of state power by reference to both demand- side and supply-side pressures.

3|Page
4.3.4 The Patriarchal State
Modern thinking about the state must, finally, take account of the implications of
feminist theory. Feminist theory encompasses a range of traditions and perspectives, and
has thus generated a range of very different attitudes towards state power. Moreover,
feminists have usually not regarded the nature of state power as a central political issue,
preferring instead to concentrate on the deeper structure of male power centered on
institutions such as the family and the economic system. Some feminists, indeed, may
question conventional definitions of the state, arguing, for instance, that the idea that the
state exercises a monopoly of legitimate violence is compromised by the routine use of
violence and intimidation in family and domestic life. Nevertheless, sometimes implicitly
and sometimes explicitly, feminists have helped to enrich the state debate by developing
novel and challenging perspectives on state power. Liberal feminists, who believe that
sexual or gender equality can be brought about through incremental reform, have tended
to accept an essentially pluralist view of the state. They recognize that, if women are
denied legal and political equality, and especially the right to vote, the state is biased in
favor of men. However, their faith in the state‘s basic neutrality is reflected in the belief
that any such bias can, and will, be overcome by a process of reform.
4.4 The Role of the State
Contrasting interpretations of state power have clear implications for the desirable role or
responsibilities of the state. There is profound disagreement about the exact role the state
should play, and therefore about the proper balance between the state and civil society.

4.4.1 Minimal States

The minimal state is the ideal of classical liberals, whose aim is to ensure that individuals
enjoy the widest possible realm of freedom. This view is rooted in social-contract theory,
but it nevertheless advances an essentially ‘negative’ view of the state. From this
perspective, the value of the state is that it has the capacity to constrain human behavior
and thus to prevent individuals encroaching on the rights and liberties of others. The
state is merely a protective body, its core function being to provide a framework of peace
and social order within which citizens can conduct their lives as they think best. The
institutional apparatus of a minimal state is thus limited to a police force, a court system
4|Page
and a military of some kind. Economic, social, cultural, moral and other responsibilities
belong to the individual, and are therefore firmly part of civil society.
4.4.2 Developmental States

A developmental state is one that intervenes in economic life with the specific purpose of
promoting industrial growth and economic development. This does not amount to an
attempt to replace the market with a ‘socialist’ system of planning and control but,
rather, to an attempt to construct a partnership between the state and major economic
interests, often underpinned by conservative and nationalist priorities. The classic
example of a developmental state is Japan.

4.4.3 Social Democratic (Welfare) States

Whereas developmental states practice interventionism in order to stimulate economic
progress, social-democratic states intervene with a view to bringing about broader social
restructuring, usually in accordance with principles such as fairness, equality and social
justice. In countries such as Austria and Sweden, state intervention has been guided by
both developmental and social democratic priorities. Nevertheless, developmentalism
and social democracy do not always go hand-in-hand. The social-democratic state is thus
the ideal of both modern liberals and democratic socialists.

Rather than merely laying down the conditions of orderly existence, the social-
democratic state is an active participant; in particular, helping to rectify the imbalances
and injustices of a market economy. It therefore tends to focus less upon the generation
of wealth and more upon what is seen as the equitable or just distribution of wealth. In
practice, this boils down to an attempt to eradicate poverty and reduce social inequality.
The twin features of a social democratic state are therefore Keynesianism and social
welfare. The aim of Keynesian economic policies is to ‘manage’ or ‘regulate’ capitalism
with a view to promoting growth and maintaining full employment. Although this may
entail an element of planning, the classic Keynesian strategy involves ‘demand
management’ through adjustments in fiscal policy; that is, in the levels of public
spending and taxation. The adoption of welfare policies has led to the emergence of so
called ‘welfare states’, whose responsibilities have extended to the promotion of social

5|Page
well-being amongst their citizens. In this sense, the social-democratic state is an
‘enabling state’, dedicated to the principle of individual empowerment.
4.4.4 Collectivized States
While developmental and social-democratic states intervene in economic life with a view to
guiding or supporting a largely private economy, collectivized states bring the entirety of
economic life under state control. The best examples of such states were in orthodox
communist countries such as the USSR and throughout Eastern Europe. These sought to
abolish private enterprise altogether, and set up centrally planned economies administered
by a network of economic ministries and planning committees. So-called ‘command
economies’ were therefore established that were organized through a system of ‘directive’
planning that was ultimately controlled by the highest organs of the communist party. The
justification for state collectivization stems from a fundamental socialist preference for
common ownership over private property.
4.4.5 Totalitarian States
The most extreme and extensive form of interventionism is found in totalitarian states. The essence
of totalitarianism is the construction of an all-embracing state, the influence of which penetrates
every aspect of human existence. The state brings not only the economy, but also education, culture,
religion, family life and so on under direct state control. The best examples of totalitarian states are
Hitler‘s Germany and Stalin‘s USSR. The central pillars of such states are a comprehensive process
of surveillance and terroristic policing, and a pervasive system of ideological manipulation and
control. In this sense, totalitarian states effectively extinguish civil society and abolish the private
sphere of life altogether.

4.4.6 Religious States

The period since the 1980s has witnessed the rise of the religious state, driven by the
tendency within religious fundamentalism to reject the public/private divide and to view
religion as the basis of politics. Far from regarding political realm as inherently corrupt,
fundamentalist movements have typically looked to seize control of the state and to use it as
an instrument of moral and spiritual regeneration. Religious states are founded on the basis
of religious principles.

6|Page
4.5 Understanding Government
Government refers to some particular set of institutions and organs that make laws (the
legislative body), implements public policies (executive body) and law interpreting body (the
judiciary body). As such, a government is a group of people within the state who have the
ultimate authority to act on behalf of the state. Government refers to the institutional
processes through which collective and usually binding laws and decisions are made
through its various branches of organs. Any form of government, to be stable and effective, must
possess two essential attributes: authority and legitimacy.
Authority: In politics, the word authority implies the ability to compel obedience. It can
simply be defined as ‘legitimate power’. While power is the ability to influence the
behavior of others, authority is the right to do so. Authority is therefore, based on an
acknowledged duty to obey rather than on any form of coercion or manipulation. Thus,
authority is the legitimacy, justification and right to exercise that power. Authority can
be expressed as naked force and terror as was the case in many undemocratic
governments or through a series of more or less transparent public hearings as in the case
of most democratic states.

Legitimacy: The term legitimacy (from the Latin word legitimare, meaning to declare
lawful‘) broadly means rightfulness. Thus, legitimacy is the attribute of government that
prompts the governed to comply willingly with its authority. It confers on an order or
commands an authoritative or binding character, thus transforming power in to
authority. Thus, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a governing regime or law as an
authority.
Legitimacy is considered as a basic condition to rule; without at least a minimal amount
of legitimacy, a government will deadlock or collapse. Thus, as long as legitimacy stays
at a certain level, stability is maintained, if it falls below this level it is endangered. For
instance, most of the times regimes are seen as requiring the consent of a large
proportion of the population to retain power, but this is not necessarily be the case, since
many unpopular regimes have been known to survive provided they are seen as
legitimate within a small but influential elite. Therefore, legitimacy is gained through the
acquisition of power in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles.

7|Page
That is to say that a legitimate government will do the right thing and therefore deserves
to be respected and obeyed. The concept legitimacy differs from legality in the sense that
the term legality does not necessarily guarantee that a government is respected or that its
citizens acknowledge a duty of obedience.

4.6 The Major Functions of Government

In a modern state, government functions have greatly expounded with the emergence of
government as the most active force vehicle in political, social, and economic development.
Accordingly, the major purposes and functions of government include the following:
♣ Self-preservation: Any government must keep its state from internal and external
threats. That is, order, predictability, internal security and external defense are
among the major functions whether it is democratic or authoritarian.
♣ Management of conflict (supervision and resolution of conflict: Governments
usually develops and consolidates institutions and procedures for the management
of conflict. It is obvious that conflict is inevitable and inescapable characterizing
human beings. Therefore, building and effectively applying the institutions for
resolving and managing conflict is an indispensable function for developing and
consolidating peace, security and stability and tranquility.
♣ Regulation of the economy: Government plays the role of regulating the economy
like regulation of policies such as agriculture, industry, transportation, taxes, tariffs,
etc. Moreover, governments usually play role on controlling the distribution of
resources in their societies. Hence, it is the government that determines which
resources are to be publicly controlled and which are to be in private hands.
♣ Protection of political, human, social and economic rights of its citizens:
Especially those rights enshrined in the constitution of state.
♣ Provision of necessary goods and/or services to the public. Governments,
especially in developing countries like Ethiopia, usually participate in providing
necessary goods and services to its citizens. Such goods and services include:
provision of education, health care, development of public works, conservation of
natural resources, developing water supply, electricity, telecommunication, etc to
the public.

8|Page
4.7 Citizens and Citizenship: Ethiopian Focus
4.7.1 The concept of citizens and citizenship
Very broadly, the term "citizen" may be defined as an individual who is legally recognized member
of a given state. The idea of "citizenship" is not fundamentally different from the idea of "Citizen".
Citizenship refers to the legal status of an individual member to be a citizen of the state. In other
words, citizenship is the official recognition of an individual's integration in to the political system.
That means, citizenship is the status of a person to be a member of a particular state. Therefore,
citizenship is a relationship between an individual and a state originating under terms prescribed by
the law of that state and giving rise to certain rights and duties which such law attaches to
citizenship. Without the status of citizenship, a person would be "Stateless", i.e. he would not belong
to any state.

4.8 Theories of Citizenship

1 The Liberal theories

For liberals, membership of the community is crafted through the equal granting of rights to
individuals: rights and equality are important. John Locke, one of the founders of this school, argued
that individuals should have the freedom to act, provided that they respect others’ ability to do the
same. J.S.Mill (1869) also supports this argument. Locke saw secure property rights as the most
crucial aspect of these freedoms. He argued that “the great end “of men entering society is “the
enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety.”

Thus, the liberal perspective to citizenship underlines on individual freedoms and rights more than
any group whose identity could be defined in terms of ascriptive (religious, cultural or linguistic)
criteria. They hold the view that individual interest, values and choice need to be protected by the
state through the enactment and enforcements of citizenship rights which are applicable to all.

According to this view, the disproportional allocation of rights and duties for any group of
among citizens would mean discrimination, and hence it is an unacceptable. Thus,
citizenship is understood as a statement of equality among individuals where rights and
obligations are conferred on citizens uniformly. With regard to the scope of rights and duties
in relation to state, liberals argue that the state needs to have limited role in socio-economic
domains of society leaving much room for the citizenry.

9|Page
Consequently, liberal approach underlines on civil and political citizenship rights of the individual.
By the same token, the citizens are believed to have less duty and responsibility towards the
promotion of what is often referred to as “the common good’ of the society and the state. The
central assumption , here, is that there would not be a collective good that must govern every one as
individuals are free to pursue their own individual interests with less , or no constraints , from the
part of the society.

2) The Republicans theories

The term “Republic” is derived from the Latin term-republica which literally mean of the public thing
or business, as opposed the ‘the private domain or affair’. The private affair is usually associated
with concerns related the family, the division of labor within home, religious beliefs and practices of
individuals; whereas the public affairs touches all aspects of life related to political participation,
authority, workplace and market. According to the Republican view, the private interest of the
citizens cannot be strictly different from the public interests.

Unlike the liberal view, republicans argue that individual interests would be served better when the
collective interest (common good) of the state and the society is promoted or advanced. Citizens are
urged to contribute their level best to the interest of their country; otherwise they no longer deserve
the statutes of good citizenship. The notion of citizenship, thus, goes beyond mere membership to
the political community. Nor it is right-based only; it has an ethical element that citizens should
fulfill as sort of public responsibility or duty.

The civic republican discourse habitually expresses the values of love and service to one's political
community (local, state, and national) and focus on patriotism which characterizes the love of
country. The civic virtues of central concern are self-sacrifice, patriotism, loyalty, and respect. For
civic republicans, citizenship requires identification with and commitment to the political
community's goals, gained through the processes of education and active engagement in the
democratic process.

3) The Transnationalism perspective (global citizenship theory)

Transnational citizenship focuses on the local, national, and international communities. A citizen in
this discourse is one who identifies not primarily or solely with her own nation but also with
communities of people and nations beyond the nation-state boundaries. This discourse articulates an
agenda for citizenship that simultaneously educates students for membership in local, national, and
international organizations and civic organizations.

10 | P a g e
Membership is more fluid and transcends national or regional borders. A citizen therefore weighs
political and social decisions considering both the local and global possible effects. A citizen
participates in local associations and government as well as in global alliances (NGOs, international
organizations, etc.). Because of this interconnectedness and focus on new global frontiers,
transnational citizenship is represented as a new kind of citizenship to be ushered to the forefront of
civics classrooms.

The discourse on cosmopolitanism has emerged in response to the resurgence of global

interconnectedness mainly driven by movement of peoples, ideas, values, goods and commodities
crossing the traditional boundary of nation-states.

This discourse articulates an agenda for citizenship that simultaneously educates students for
membership in local, national, and international organizations and civic organizations. The
cosmopolitan view central argument is that citizens’ allegiance to the nation-state has not addressed
the problems of humanity. According to this school of thought the contemporary challenges to
humanity, like environmental problems, diseases, hunger, war, displacement of peoples and many
other could be addressed better under the umbrella of global governance. Particularly, this school of
thought intends to address the problem of global inequality and global commons.

4.9 Ways of Acquiring and Loosing Citizenship (Emphasis on Ethiopia)

Nations have various laws that govern the granting of citizenship. People become citizens in
two ways.
1. By Birth, and
2. By Law (naturalization)

4.9.1 By Birth
Most people become citizens of a country simply by being born there. Individuals acquire citizenship
by birth in two ways, i.e. via right of soil (jus Soli) and right of blood (jus Sanguinis). The right to
citizenship in the country of one’s birth is called jus soli. However, some nations limit jus soli to
children whose parents already have citizenship in that nation. Some nations also deny jus soli to
certain groups of persons. Some countries use another rule of citizenship instead of jus soli or in
addition to it. This rule provides that the citizenship of children is determined by the nationality of
their parents, no matter where the children are born. The right to citizenship in the country of one’s
parents is called jus Sanguinis.

11 | P a g e
4.9.2 By Law/Naturalization
It is the legal process by which foreigners become citizens of a country they have adopted. Each
nation sets requirements that alien must meets to become naturalized.

4.10 Ways of Acquiring Citizenship in Ethiopia

1. By Birth: According to the Ethiopian Nationality proclamation of 2003, article 3(1), any person
shall be an Ethiopian national by descent where both or either of his parents is Ethiopian.
2. By Law (Naturalization):- Any foreigner may acquire Ethiopian nationality by law in
accordance with the provisions of Articles 5-12 of the Ethiopian Nationality proclamation of
2003.
A. Marriage: A foreigner who is married to an Ethiopian national may acquire Ethiopian
nationality. Besides, status of citizenship cannot be obliterated even if the partners get
divorced.
B. Legitimation (Cases of Adoption): This is citizenship by recognition. An illegitimate child
has the right to get his biological or caretaker father/mother citizenship after legitimation.
And child adopted by Ethiopian national may acquire Ethiopian nationality by law.
C. Reintegration/ Restoration: A person who has lost his/her citizenship due to some reasons
may get it back if he/she fulfills some conditions as laid down by the laws of the state.
According to the Ethiopian Nationality proclamation article 22, a person who was an
Ethiopian national and who has acquired foreign nationality by law shall be readmitted to
Ethiopian nationality if he/she:
i. Returns to domicile in Ethiopia
ii. Renounces his foreign nationality; and
iii. Applies to the security, Immigration and Refugee Affairs Authority
D. Citizenship by Special Case: As to the Ethiopian Nationality proclamation article 8, a
foreigner who has made an outstanding contribution in the interest of Ethiopia may be
conferred with Ethiopian Nationality by law irrespective of the conditions stated under sub-
articles (2) and (3) of Article 5 of the proclamation.
E. Citizenship by Political Case (Process): The political case refers to acquisition of citizenship by
conquest or cession of territory. Cession is voluntary process whereas conquest is coercive act.
Citizenship by political case is possible in two ways, these are:

i. When the people of subjugated state are incorporated within the territory of the
victorious state, they acquire citizenship of the new state. When large number of

12 | P a g e
 people acquires citizenship at the same time, such practice is termed as collective
citizenship.
ii. Due to the merger of one state or region of a state with another state, citizens of the
merged territory become citizens of the new state in which they are merged.
Example, when the United States bought the Louisiana territory from France in
1803, the treaty provided that all the people in the area should become American
citizens.

F. Option: This is a modern development due to the direct participation of the inhabitants in their
status of citizenship. In voluntary partition, cession or exchange of territories option is given to the
inhabitants to choose only the citizenship of one state, e.g. when the territory of India was divided
into Pakistan and India.

G. De facto Citizenship/ Citizenship by Claim: A woman or man can marry another national
without undergoing the required legal procedure of marriage. Under such condition the married
woman or man can possibly claim citizenship of her husband’s (his wife’s) country.

H. Grant on Application: Depending on their rules, different countries adopt requirements to grant
citizenship by application. According to the Ethiopian Nationality proclamation of 2003 article 5,
the following are the requirements.

i. One who is majority or legal age; i.e., eighteen

ii. One who lived in Ethiopia for a total of at least four years
iii. Not dependant (self-reliant)
iv. One who is able to communicate in any of the languages of the nations and nationalities of the country
Dual Citizenship
v. One who is a person of good character
vi. people
Some One has hold
no record of criminalin
citizenship conviction.
two nations. The condition of being a citizen of two nations
vii. One who be able to show that he has been released from his previous nationality or the possibility of
is called dual citizenship
obtaining such a releaseor dual
upon thenationality.
acquisition of Ethiopian nationality or that he is a stateless person, and
viii. He/she shall be required to take the oath of allegiance stated under Article 12 of this proclamation.

13 | P a g e
4.11Ways of Loosing Citizenship
A. Renunciation/ Expatriation: The United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights of
1948, Article 15(2) provides the right to the individual to renounce his/her citizenship and seek the
citizenship of some other state according to his/her choice. The personal decision of a person to
renounce or give up his/her citizenship emanates when the state harasses the person and when the
person dislikes the policies or politics or ideologies pursued by the state or for other reasons like
better economic standing.

B. Deprivation: A citizen of a state may be deprived of his/her citizenship, if he/she is guilty of

committing certain serious crimes against the state. Such as:

♣ To make access national secrets to alien country.

♣ Serving in another country’s armed forces or government
♣ Trying to overthrow the government by force.
♣ Promising loyalty to another country.
But according to the Ethiopian Nationality proclamation of 2003, article 17; no Ethiopian
may be deprived of his nationality by the decision of any government authority unless
he/she loses his/her Ethiopian nationality under article 19 or 20 of the proclamation.
C. Substitution: Citizenship may be lost when the original citizenship is substituted by another
state, where it is acquired through naturalization. According to the Ethiopian Nationality
proclamation article 20, Ethiopian nationality can be lost upon acquisition of other nationality.

D. Lapse: Citizenship may be lost, if the person stays outside of his/her country for a long and
continuous period. E.g., if an Indian citizen stays out continuously for more than seven years, the
person will lose his/her Indian citizenship by the principle of lapse. The principle of lapse has no
application according to the Ethiopian Nationality proclamation of 2003.

Focus

Statelessness is lack of citizenship in any country. Children of alien parents are born stateless if
the country of their birth does not grant jus soli and the parents’ homeland does not grant jus
Sanguinis. People can become stateless by giving up citizenship in one country without
gaining citizenship in another.

14 | P a g e
Some people become stateless as a result of government action. For example, a government might
punish citizens by expatriating them, leaving them stateless. In 1935, the German government led by
the Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler expatriated all Jews living in Germany. Many other people become
stateless when their homelands are destroyed by war. Stateless persons have no government from
which to ask protection.

4.12 Overview of citizenship and nationality laws in Ethiopia

In Ethiopia citizenship law was first enacted in 1930. Before that time, the issue of
citizenship was largely based on custom and tradition. Even if there was no formal law,
individuals strongly identified themselves with the state. Nevertheless, the status of
citizenship was more of subjects than citizens. Acquiring of citizenship was conferred to
various nations, nationalities and peoples due to their integration into the Ethiopian state.
Moreover, the 1995 Ethiopian constitution (F.D.R.E constitution) stipulates some
important principles with regard to citizenship in Ethiopia. It could be said that both are
generally similar to each other. However, few departures or changes are made in the 1995
constitution.

15 | P a g e