Module Society State Government and Citizenship

Mekelle University State,
government and citizenship/cvet 201
MEKELLE UNIVERSITY
College of Law and Governance

Department of Civics and Ethics
Course Title: State, Government and Citizenship
Course Code: CVET -201

Credit Hours: 3
Prepared by:
 Mesele Abera
 Yemane Zeray
 Zelalem Getachew
April, 2010
Mekelle University
1
Module Introduction
Dear student! Welcome to the module of your course state, government and
citizenship. This course essentially deals with the general nature and essences of the
concepts state, government and citizenship. In the first unit, the module mainly
emphasizes with the essentials of the state. In doing this, the unit is concerned with the
meaning and concepts of state, the origin and development of the state, forms of state
structure such as the unitary and federal systems.
In the second unit, it fundamentally deals with the crucial features and practices of the
concept government. To deliver you with adequate understanding of the concept
government, the unit comprises sub-topics such as the definition and meaning of
government, attributes of government, purposes and functions of government,
organization of government, and systems of government. Furthermore, the unit also deals
with the relations and differences between government and state, organizational
arrangement of the state from both the vertical and horizontal arrangements as well as
about constitutional and unconstitutional governments.
In the third unit, the module will mainly dwell with the organization and power
distribution of the current Ethiopian government. In doing this, the unit focuses on the
vertical and horizontal arrangements and power distributions of the levels and branches
of the Ethiopian government. In the last unit which is the fourth unit of the module, it
thoroughly discusses the concept of citizenship, with theoretical discussions and practical
conditions such as the modes of gaining citizenship rights and some conditions of losing
citizenship rights, both in Ethiopia and other states around the world.
In order to help you understand all contents and coverage of the module, there are
activities and self-check exercises included throughout the units. These activities and
self-check exercises are believed to be helpful for your better understanding and practice,
so try to do all of them carefully and properly in order to achieve the intended goals of
the course.
2
Objectives of the module
After the successful completion of this module, you will be able to:
o Acquire the knowledge and understanding of the concepts state and government.
o Point out and describe the various theories on the subject matter of origin and
development of the state.
o Outline the differences and similarities between state and government.
o Identify and explain the common forms of state structures.
o Identify government organs and their respective functions.
o Explain the major purposes and functions of government.
o Distinguish the common ways of organization and arrangements of government.
o Know and describe the organizational arrangement and power distribution of the
current Ethiopian government.
o Compare and contrast the forms of state structures and able to analyze the
appropriateness of the Ethiopian state structure.
o Understand and explain the concept citizenship.
o Identify the common ways of acquiring and losing citizenship rights.
3
Table of Contents
Content
UNIT ONE
1. UNDERSTANDING ESSENTIALS OF THE STATE
1.1. Conceptual Framework: Defining State and Nation

1.1.1. Principal Distinctions between the State and Other Associations
1.2. The Origin and Development of State
1.2.1. State Formation in Ethiopia
1.3. Forms of State Structure
1.3.1. Unitary Form of State Structure
1.3.1.1. Systems of Administrative Organizations
1.3.1.2. Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Unitary Form of
State Structure
1.3.2. Federal Form of State Structure
1.3.2.1. Essential conditions for Successful Organization of Federal
Systems
1.3.2.2. Models of Federal State Structure
1.3.2.3. Processes of Federalism
1.3.2.4. Reasons for federalism
1.3.2.5. Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism
Self-Check Exercise 1
UNIT TWO
2. UNDERSTANDING GOVERNMENT
2.1. Definition and Meaning of Government

2.1.1. Attributes of Government
2.1.2. A Brief History of Origin and Development of the Modern Con-
4
cept of Government
2.2. Purposes and Functions of Government
2.2.1. Differences from Other Organization
2.3. Organization of Government
2.3.1. Vertical Arrangement/Organization
2.3.2. Horizontal Arrangement/Organization
2.4. Systems of Government
2.4.1. Parliamentary Systems of Government
2.4.2. Presidential Systems of Government
2.4.3. Hybrid/ Semi-presidential Systems of Government
2.5. Types/Classifications of Government
2.5.1. On the Basis of Constitutional Application
2.5.2. Other Forms of Government
UNIT THREE:
3. ORGANIZATION AND POWER DISTRIBUTION OF THE CURRENT ETHIOPIAN

GOVERNMENT
3.1. Vertical Arrangement of the Government

3.1.1. The Federal Government of Ethiopia
3.2.2. The Regional Governments
3.2. Horizontal Arrangement of the Government
3.2.1. The legislative Branch of the Government
3.2.2. The Executive Branch of the Government
3.2.3. The Judiciary Branch of the Government
3.3. Major Challenges of the Federal System in Ethiopia
Self –Check Exercise 3
UNIT FOUR:
4. Understanding Essentials of Citizenship
5
4.1. Meaning and definition and theories of citizenship
4.2. Ways of acquiring citizenship/nationality in Ethiopia
4.3. Ways of loosing citizenship/nationality in Ethiopia
4.4. The entitlement of citizenship/nationality
6
UNIT ONE
UNDERSTANDING ESSENTIALS OF THE STATE
Dear student! Welcome to the first unit of your module ‘state, government, and
citizenship’. In this unit, you will be acquainted with the general concepts, theoretical and
practical essences of the state.
Unit Objectives
After the successful completion of this unit, you will able to:
 Define and explain the terms state and nation.

 Point out the point of difference between state and other associations.
 Compare and contrast the different theories on the origin and development of the
state.
 Aware about the process of state formation in Ethiopian
 Distinguish the difference between unitary, federal and confederal state
structures.
 Understand the advantages and disadvantages of the unitary and federal state
structures.
Lesson one
1.1. Conceptual Framework: Defining State and Nation
Brainstorming:
7
 What do you understand by the term state? What about nation?

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Dear Student! In this lesson, you will see the definition and meaning of the state, and
examine principal distinction that differ the state from other forms of associations.
Lesson Objectives
By the end of this lesson, you will able to:
 Define and explain the terms State, Nation and Nationalism.

 Identify and explain the essential elements or attributes of the state.
 Distinguish and discuss the major principal distinctions between state and other
forms of associations.
 Understand and differentiate the concepts state, Nation, Nationalism and
Nationality.
Key terms
 State  Recognition
 Population  Nation
 Territory  Nationalism
 Government  Nationality
 Sovereignty
A. State
The conceptions about the state show differences in the expression of political scientists,
political philosophers and Lawyers. In addition, definitions of the state are almost as
numerous as the author who wrote about it. In general, the variation of the
8
conceptualization revolves around the difference where historians regard the state as a
concrete reality, philosophers as an abstraction and layers regard it as a juristic person of
formulating single definition that would fit variety of state existence. The following are
some of the conceptions about what the state is. The state to some is,
 A tiny republic or
 A great federal union or
 A state which is simple government structure or
 One with a huge bureaucracy or
 That barely maintains internal order or a police state or
 A body whose foreign policies are swaged (maintained) by powerful neighbors or
 A body that is greatest in world diplomacy
The concept of state is central to traditional approaches in political science. Different

scholars have various conceptions about the state. There were numerous philosophical
explanations about the state.
 The state is organized machinery for the making and carrying out of political
decisions and for the enforcing of the laws and rules of government.
 A state is an autonomous political unit, encompassing many communities.
 A state is a society politically organized and is more than a mere collection of
families or an agglomeration of occupational organizations.
 A state is the fundamental association for the maintenance and development of
social order, and to this end, its central institution is endowed with the united
power of the community.
 The state is the institution or sets of institutions, which serve certain elementary
common purposes and conditions of life, unites under a single authority the
inhabitants of a clearly marked territorial area. The ‘united power of the
community’ and ‘single authority’ expresses the power authority to make law.
Activity:
9
 Can you summarize the definition of the state in your own words?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
However, as part of its technical expression, political theorists, define the state as a
human association having five essential elements - population, territory, government,
sovereignty and recognition. While the first two elements are taken as its physical
elements, the rest are considered as the spiritual or metaphysical elements.
Let us now look in to the elements of the state.
1. Population: since state is a human association, the first essential element that
constitutes it is the people. How much people constitute state? No exact number can
be given to such a question. The fact is that the states of the world vary in terms of
demographic strength. There are states with a population of greater than 1 billion
like that of China and India, and with a constituency of few thousand people like
Vatican and San Marino.
Another question that comes up at this stage is whether the population of a state
should be homogenous. Homogeneity is determined by any factor like commonness
of religion, or blood, or language or culture and the like. It is good that population of
a state is homogeneous, because it makes the task of national integration easy. But it
is not must, because most of the states have a population marked by diversity in
respect of race, religion, language, culture, etc. All problems of nation building are
solved and people of a state, irrespective of their differences, become a nation. It
signifies the situation of ‘unity in diversity’. In short, it is to be noted that without
population there can be no state, ‘it goes without saying that an uninhabited portion
of the earth, take in itself, cannot form a state.
10
2. Defined Territory: there can be no state without a territory of its own. The territory
of a state includes land, water, and airspace; it has maritime jurisdiction extending
up to a distance of three miles, though some states contend for a distance of up to 20
miles. The territorial authority of a state also extends to ships on high seas under its
flag as well as its embassies and legations in foreign lands. As seen in the case of the
factor of population, so here it should be emphasized that the size of a state’s
territory cannot be fixed. There are as large states as China and Russia and as small
states of Fiji and Mauritius in respect of their territorial make-up. It also possible
that states may be in the form of islands as Indonesia, Philippines, and Japan. It is,
however, certain that the boundary lines of a state must be well marked out. This can
be done either by the geographical make up in the form of division by the seas,
rivers, mountains, thick forests, deserts, etc, or it may be done by creating artificial
divisions in the form of digging trenches or fixing pointed wire fencing.
3. Government: government is said to be the soul 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 maintain law and order and makes ‘good life’ possible. The
government is the machinery that terminates the condition of anarchy. It is
universally recognized that as long as there are diverse interests in society, some
mechanism is needed to bring about and maintain a workable arrangement to keep
the people together. The government of a state should be so organized that it
enforces law so as to maintain the conditions of peace and security. The form of
government may be monarchical, aristocratic, oligarchic, democratic, or dictatorial
and the like, what really needed is that if there is no government, there is anarchy
and the state is at an end.
4. Sovereignty: as already pointed out, sovereignty is the fourth essential attribute of

the concept state. It is the highest power of the state that distinguishes it from all
other associations of human beings. Sovereignty, in its simplest sense, is the
principle of absolute and unlimited power. It has two aspects - Internal and External.
11
Internal Sovereignty implies that inside the state there can be no other authority that
may claim equality with it. The state is the final source of all laws internally. On the
other hand, External sovereignty implies that the state should be free from foreign
control of any kind. It is, however, a different matter that a state willingly accepts
some international obligations in the form of membership to some international
intergovernmental and other organizations such as the United Nations.
Conceptually, the existence of sovereign authority appears in the form of law. It is
for this reason that the law of the state is binding on all and its violation is resulted
with suitable punishment. It is universally accepted that a sovereign state is legally
competent to issue any command that is binding on all citizens and their
associations.
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. It is to mean that, for a state to be legal actor in the
international stage; other actors (such as external states, international
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and so on) must recognize it
as a state. Thus, recognition implies both approaching of the necessary facts and the
desire of coming in to effect of the legal and political results of recognition.
Likewise, for a government of a state to be formally to act on its behalf, the
government must be recognized as legitimate government of the state by other
governments.
Here, it is important to note that, the recognition of a new government is quite

different from the recognition of a new state. In case of any government, recognition
will be relevant where the change in government is unconstitutional. For instance, if
a legitimate government in a country is overthrown by illegal and unconstitutional
means, surely the international community will refuse to recognize the political
power that controls the country. In such circumstances, the change in government
will not affect the identity or international personality of the state itself. The state
remains to be an international legal entity though its government is overthrown. The
12
recognition and non-recognition of the new government will not have any impact on
the legal character of the state. Hence, recognition of a state will affect its legal
personality whether by creating or acknowledging it, where as recognition of
government affects the status of administrative authority only, not the state.
However, it is possible for recognition of a state and a government to occur together
in certain circumstances. For instances, this can be take place up on creation of a
new state.
In summary, as a concept the state can refer to a territorial entity that is politically
organized and has a government and people. The state can be understood as the highest
and most powerful political organization of society, and possesses the monopoly of
power to use within its territory. The state is the final source of all laws within its
territory; and it is subject to no other power above itself whatsoever. This implies that the
state is sovereign. This is to say that the state has legitimacy to exercise power internally
in its relations with its people and externally in its relation with other international actors.
The state also determines how this power shall be organized and exercised in its territory
through sets of institutions that is the government.
Activity:
 What differences do you observe between the common definition and technical
definition of the concept state? Which one do you think is comprehensive in
explaining the state? Why?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
B. Nation
The world nation is derived from a Latin word ‘natio’ that denotes the idea of common
birth or descent. But in modern times, it has a significance of its own. Identified with the
word ‘nationality’, the term nation signifies the existence of a common political
13
consciousness of a nationality, that is the form of corporate sentiment of peculiar

intensity, intimacy and dignity related to a definite home country.’ That is, nationality is a
collective name given to that complex of psychological and cultural factors that furnish
the cohesive principle uniting a nation. Nationality is a sentiment of oneness that unites
the people of a particular kind and thus differentiates them from others who do not share
similar feelings and sentiments. As a result of such feelings and sentiments, the supreme
loyalty of the individual is to his nation-state. Nationalism, in short, becomes the ‘state of
mind.’
The word nationality is used in three different senses. First, it refers to the legal status of
citizenship of a particular state. That is, nationality of a person refer to his/her status as a
citizens of the country which he/she belongs to. For instance, one may say that one’s
nationality is Ethiopian or Sudanese, etc. Second, nationality means a group of people
having their distinct identity with in a particular nation. For instance, there are many
nationalities as the Tigriyans, Amharas, Oromos, Sidamas, Gurages, etc in Ethiopia, and
that is why Ethiopia is termed as a multi-national State. Third, nationality signifies a
particular kind of feelings and sentiments that bind a people and differentiate them from
the people of other nationalities. This is the most important implication of the term
nationality with which gets emphasis in this lesson. In other words, the sentiment of
nationality makes a nation and the establishment of self-rule by the people of one
particular nationality makes their nation-state.
The difficulty with offering a standard definition of the terms nation, and nationality and
nationalism, is that they are used either interchangeably or differently in different
contexts. Nevertheless, despite all kinds of variations, the factor of a common political
consciousness sustaining itself on the stock of certain deep psychological and sentimental
considerations has been attached key importance. In most the situations, nationalism has
been identified with love for the motherland or patriotism. The multitude of people bound
by such strong bond of unity and oneness may be either sovereign or fighting for the
cause of liberation from alien oppression. It is due to this that the struggle of a subject
people for overthrowing foreign rule becomes the history of their national movement.
14
The central point that must be stressed in defining nation and nationalism is the existence
of a common political consciousness that creates the tendency of distinct shared identity
of a people. Nationalism is, therefore, a state or a condition of mind characteristic of
certain peoples with a homogeneous culture, living together in close association in a
given territory, and sharing a belief in a distinctive existence and a common destiny.
Accordingly, a nation can be said as a body of men inhabiting a definite territory who
normally are drawn from different races but posses a common build-up of thoughts and
feelings acquired and transmitted during the course of a common history who on the
whole and in the main, though more in past than in the present include in that common
build-up and a common religions belief, who generally as a rule use a common language
as a vehicle of their thoughts and feelings, also appreciate a common will and
accordingly form, or tend to form, a separate state for the expression of that will.
1.1.1 Principal Distinction between State and Other Associations
Brainstorming:
 From what you have been acquainted with the concept state, what do you think
will be the difference between the state and other forms of organization?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
There is a common consensus that the term state is often interchangeably used with other
terms like society, nation, government and other associations. Now it shall be worthwhile
to look into the points of distinction so that we may have a concrete understanding of the
meaning and nature of this term.
A. State and Government
Though state and government are similar when strictly studied in concrete and practical
terms, the two may be distinguished on theoretical grounds. These differences may
include:
15
1. The state is a bigger entity that includes all citizens, the territory, sovereignty,
recognition, etc; the government is a smaller unit that covers only those who are
employed to perform its functions and the agencies. That is, while the state is the
politically organized entity for the promotion of common ends and the satisfaction
of common interests, the government is a common name for the agencies,
authorities, ministers, organizations through which the will of the state is
formulated. The government is an essential organ or agency of the state but it is
no more than the state itself.
2. The state is an abstract idea, but the government has its existence in a physical
form. In a broad sense, a government includes all persons in the legislative, the
executive or the judiciary branches from the president/prime minister at the top
to a more ordinary citizen at the bottom. Thus, in its wider or narrower form, the
government has a concrete/physical form.
3. The power of the state is original and primary, but the authority of the
government is delegated and derivative. In other words, it is said that while the
power of the state is absolute as being a sovereign entity, the authority of the
government is limited by the provisions of the constitution.
4. The state is a permanent institution. It survives until its sovereign power is
destroyed by the invasion of some other state. But government come and goes.
The office holders/political elites are changed, i.e., it is quite possible that the rule
of one party is changed by another party.
5. The government is an agency for the fulfillment of the purposes of the state.
Hence, the people may have grievances against the government, but not against
the state. They may agitate for changing their rulers, but they would not like to
destroy the state.
B. State and Other Associations
An association may be defined as a group of people organized for the pursuit of an

interest or a group of interest in common. It is true that state itself is one of the social
16
associations, but some line of distinction between the state on the one hand, and
associations on the other may be as follows.
1. The membership of the state is compulsory. As commonly said, man is a political

creature by his nature and necessity. But the membership for social associations is
a matter of one’s choice. Thus, any person may join as many social associations
as possible according to his choice.
2. The state is an association having its fixed territory, but an association may be
without a territory of its own and more than that, it may be having its network all
over the world. Some international associations, such as like Red Cross society,
human rights watch, amnesty international, etc have their branches in many
countries of the world.
3. Associations are of many kinds as social, economic, cultural, and recreational, but
states are not of many kinds. All states are alike in the sense that by virtue of
having five essential elements and are political.
4. State has a permanent existence, but the associations may come and go. Many
associations are formed and deformed from time to time.
5. The area of state activity is much wider than that of the associations. Every
association has a specific end and its members try to protect and promote it. But
the state has to perform a considerable number of functions.
6. The most important point of distinction between the two is that, while state is a
sovereign association and has the power of coercion to enforce its will,
associations have no such power. No association can override the law of the
state, but the state may make laws within which the associations must operate.
That is why the associations cannot enforce their will up on their members in a
way that is opposed to the law of the state.
Activity:
 Can you forward a brief definition of the concept state?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
17
____________________________________________________________________
 List and briefly discuss the essential elements of the state?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
 What differences and similarities do you observe between the concepts state and
nation?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
 What are the major differences identified between the state and other forms of
organizations?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Lesson Two
1.2. The Origin and Development of the State
Brainstorming:
 How do you think the present commencement of the state emerged and developed?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Dear student! Have you well understood the concepts of state, nation, and the essential
attributes of state? How about its embryonic origin and development? In this lesson, you
18
will thoroughly focus and emphasize on the different theories about the origin and
development of the current conceptions of state.
Lesson Objectives
After you have successfully completed this lesson, you will able to:
 Distinguish and describe the various theories on the subject of origin of the state.
 Point out the similarities and differences of the different theories.
 Identify and explain the major factors of the origin and development of the state.
Key terms
 Divine command theory  John Locke

 Genetic theory  Thomas Hobbes
 Patriarchy  Marxist theory
 Force theory  Class contradiction
 Social contract theory  Evolutionary theory
 State of nature
The subject matter of the origin of the state is subjected to mystery. We do not know
exactly the source and time of its origin. We may trace some impressions from the
records of archeology and anthropology to have a glimpse in to the dim past of human
history, and we may collect information from records of ancient history and sociology.
Nevertheless, this is certain that not all these are sufficient to offer logical explanations of
the origin of the state. Because of this difficulty, we should depend on some
philosophical explanations in order to speculate the origin of the state from its primitive
to its present form.
Generally, the emergence of the state is linked with a certain level of development of
human society. Obviously, since that level of development, human society has
19
maintained an organized existence. In this regard, various historical, archeological and

anthropological studies indicate the existence of organized societies since the beginning
of human history, at least in their rudimentary forms. Such rudimentary societies include
the family, the clan, the tribe, etc. These crude forms of organization of ancient times had
several similar features and roles with that of the states of modern times. However, it
should be noted that the exact nature of the origin of the state is not yet precisely known
and continues to be a subject for scholarly discussions and debates.
Nevertheless, there is a broader consensus among scholars that advanced civilizations,

with their resultant political organizations in the human society, can be traced back to the
ancient eastern civilizations as far back as 5000 B.C. During that time, large-scale
political organizations and state systems, for which there are recorded history, developed
particularly in the Tigris, Euphrates and Nile valleys, and later in valleys of the great
rivers of China. The emergence of the organized societies in these areas was because of
the importance of the great river valleys that facilitate crop cultivation and surplus
production in those times. In effect, the transition of human society in to the process of
crop cultivation and production is a significant step towards civilization and the rise of
politically organized human societies. The argument is, therefore, that the rise of
agricultural mode of economy in the great river basins encouraged permanent settlement
of people thereby leading to the creation of states.
There are also historical records in the western civilizations that indicate the embryonic
foundations of modern state and the principles of politics. This is particularly true to the
ancient Greeks where city-states, or polis, as they were called in Greek, developed and
operated on narrowly based democratic principles. However, the political system of the
ancient Greeks was constantly fostered by the varieties of ideas of the Greek
philosophers. One of the prominent figures of the ancient Greek philosophers was
Aristotle whose work contributed much to the development of the ideas and practices of
modern state system.
20
In general, as there were many places where states emerged, there are also various
contending theories that try to explain the origin and development of the state that may be
discussed below.
I. The Divine Right Theory
This theory is regarded as the oldest or the earliest theory on the subject matter of the
origin as well as nature of political authority that is the state. This theory claims that the
state to be of a divine creation. In this sense, the state is created by God not only in the
general sense in which everything that exists is said to be the creation of the divine-will
but also in a special sense of deliberate, direct, specific act of creation with a particular
end, the peace on earth for the preservation of human beings. Thus, the state is seen as an
institution created by God, and rulers were regarded as God’s own representatives or
agents on earth. That is, it is of God’s will that in human society some are born to rule
while others are born to be ruled. Furthermore, the theory asserts that the social order, in
which the position of the individuals is determined hierarchically on the basis of birth or
hereditary succession was God given and thus it is legitimate and unchangeable.
In simple terms, the divine right theory can be conceived in three important impressions
about the origin and nature of political authority. First, as it is said before, the state is
created by God not only in the general sense in which everything that exists is said to be
the creation of the divine will but also in a special sense of a deliberate, direct, specific
act of creation with a particular end in view, the peace on this earth for the preservation
of human race. Second, the ruler is the nominee of God on earth and, as such, he/she is
the representative of God. The rule of hereditary succession to the office of the ruler is
legitimate. Third, all rights of the ruler are a gift of the divine will and as such what he
does in the exercise there of, his accountability is to his creator alone. People have no
right to political resistance.
This theory has lost its significance in modern times. With the advancement of new
learning’s, the people have discarded their superstitions and come to think and act
rationally in most of the realistic situations. We know that in line of the doctrine of divine
21
right, first the bishops and then the rules acted in the most arbitrary and despotic manner
for hundreds and thousands of years. Now, especially after the development of modern
political theories, people are not prepared to accept that they have no part in the creation
of their political organization, or God prefers a monarchical system alone, or their ruler is
not accountable to them for his acts. It is true that this theory is hypothetical as well as
reactionary; it cannot be appreciated by the people in the present era of democracy and
secularism.
II. The Genetic Theory
While divine right theory is a matter of faith or religion, the genetic theory is based on
sociological facts. Here the argument is that state is an eventual extension of the family
system. The first group of human life is the family or the household, the last is the state.
The earliest advocate of this theory is Aristotle in whose view a society of many families
is called a village, and a village is most naturally composed of the descendants of one
family, the children and the children’s children for which reason states were originally
governed by kings, which are composed of those who had before submitted to kingly
government; for every family is governed by the older, as are the branches there of, on
account of their relation there on to; and when many villages so entirely join themselves
together as in every respect to form but one society, that society is the state, and contains
in itself the end and perfection of government.
Certain it is that family is the first unit of social development. Historians of ancient law
and early institutions have sought to study the subject of family, its composition,
residence of authority in the family and its growth into the clan and tribe and eventually
in to the state. Evidently, society in primitive times was an aggregation of the families
and the ancient law was so framed as to recognize the patriarchal or family groups as
perpetual and inextinguishable entities. The term patriarchy literally means, rule by the
father, the domination of the husband/father within the family and the subordination of
his wife and his children. However, the term is usually used in the more general sense of
‘rule by men’, drawing attention to the totality of oppression and exploitation to which
22
women are subject. The family consisted of a male, his wife and his children, but it was a
male dominated family. The eldest male parent was absolutely supreme in his household
and his dominion extended to life and death and was as complete over his children and
their houses as over his slaves. The absolute authority of the head of the family was
complete to the extent that he could sell or give away his property to anyone, or he could
punish even kill a member of his family. The original families broke up and many other
families grew out of them with the same tradition of final and complete authority in the
hands of a male elder. This larger unit becomes a tribe or a clan and that eventually
become a state. The elementary group is the family, connected by a common subjugation
to the highest male ascendant. The aggregation of families forms the houses, and the
aggregate of houses makes the tribes. The aggregation of tribes then forms the village,
and then the society. It demonstrates that, from the early patriarchal family emerged the
warrior ruler, judge and as political societies increased in size and complexity, political
headship and leadership were asserted and reorganized as significant forms of social
control. The patriarchal theory, thus, holds the family as the unit and supposing the
headship bestowed or transferred from one chief to another by easy stages transformed
the father in to the chief of king, and the family in to a civil community.
Hence, according to this view, the state is the result of the evolution that had its first
manifestation in the formation of the families. The original families broke up as a result
of which many other families come in to existence and that formed a bigger unit like a
clan or a tribe. If someone was the head of the family, a chief become the head of the
tribe. When this bigger unit assumed the form of a state, the leadership fell in to the
hands of a person who become their ruler or king.
In summary, if viewed from the standpoint of sociology, the genetic theory on the origin
of the state makes sense. It is not hypothetical like that of the divine theory. But the point
of criticism is that it stands on social rather than political hypotheses. The whole attempt
is to demonstrate the process of the evolution of social institutions. It is also doubtful
whether the evolution of state has occurred exactly according to the process as taken in to
consideration by the advocates of this theory. It would not be true to say that the state
23
developed out of this small social unit. Because, the two institutions are different in
essence; that in the family the location of authority is natural (i.e. in the father), but in the
state it is one of choice. Furthermore, the functions or aims of the state are essentially
different from, and even contradictory to, those of the family.
III. The Force Theory
According to the force theory, the state is neither a creation of God, nor a result of
irresistible social development. It is primarily the consequence of the forcible subjugation
through long continued warfare among primitive groups and, there is not the slightest
difficulty in proving that all political communities of modern type owe their existence to
successful warfare. That means, the state is nothing but the result of wars and conflicts
that have been endemic in the political history of human beings. From the very beginning
of human history, there has always been struggle among different social groups to
achieve economic advantage resulting in the dominance of some over others. Ultimately,
this condition of conquest resulted in the occupation of more and more territories and
finally led to the rise of states.
According to the advocates of force theory, the state in the earliest stage of its
development was the ‘wolf state’ or ‘a band of robbers’, but ‘economic impulses’ moved
men to subjugate others and appropriate their labor for the sake of their own promotion
and material comforts. There was no state when men were all hunters, but its rudiments
emerged when an organization of the herdsmen (group of people) developed. They
instituted the system of keeping those under slavery who were defeated in a war or were
held captive in some form of combat. In course of time, when the people got themselves
settled somewhere, a dominant class emerged that was distinguishable from the class of
the ‘dominated’ ones. In the meantime, six stages in the formation of the state were
distinguished.
1. There was robbery and killing in border fights and endless combats broken neither
by peace nor by peace agreement.
24
2. The peasants after their defeat by the hunters and the herdsmen made many
unsuccessful attempts to throw of the yoke of the foreigners and in the end ceased
resistance and reconciled themselves to their life.
3. They began to give away their surpluses to the conquerors as ‘tributes’ and were
happy to be protected from persistent troubles of every day, while the herdsman
were satisfied because they could depend up on the labor of others.
4. After a time, division of labor developed that marked out the class of the rulers
from the class of the ruled. Moreover, settled life at a particular place and under
particular circumstances created a sort of homogeneity in respect of their way of
life. It led to the emergence of the sentiments of ‘nationality’ and ‘nationalism’.
5. Disagreement among different settlements of workers needed adjudication and
arbitration by the group of the rulers.
6. Thus organized government came in to being. The leader becomes the king. His
word was a ‘command’ and his authority became the highest authority of the land.
However, the force theory has its own weaknesses. Force may be one of the factors, but it
cannot be treated as the only factor in the origin of state. The emergence of state may be
due to factor of force; in the process of expansion, force has undoubtedly played a part.
This theory is based on the argument that might is right. But its validity may be
challenged by numerous instances of the civilized behavior of the people. Any
organization based on sheer force cannot survive forever. Those who are addicts to the
way of force justify the course of war at every level - whether local, national or
international. But, in actual practice, we find that people desire peace and they appreciate
the way of pacific settlement of their disputes. Hence, force may be one of the factors but
it cannot be treated as the only factor in the origin of state. Military might and physical
force alone cannot explain the complex phenomenon of political systems for mere force
cannot maintain lasting relationship between the rulers and the ruled.
IV. The Social Contract Theory
25
The social contract theory holds that the state is an artificial creation based on voluntary
agreement or contract among people, and necessarily the existence of political authority
was based on the consent of the people. The theory was developed and gets a clear-cut
expression in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries by the works of Thomas Hobbes (1588 -
1679) and John Locke (1632 -1704) of England, and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 –
1778) of France.
To prove their theory, they supposed a period without authority of any kind, what they
called the state of nature, and its termination by the covenant where by the people
surrendered their rights to be translated in to civil rights by the action of a political
authority instituted by them. Though their views are different on different issues, they all
assume the existence of a primitive pre-political condition of mankind escape from which
“was effected by means of a contract, pact, or covenant, express between each individual
and his fellows, by which each surrendered his natural right to do as he pleased and
received in exchange civil rights; that is rights created and protected by the state. This
pre-civil condition of society was described as the original state of nature.”
As it was said, the social contract theory on the origin of the state has a framework of its
own. Its starting point is a hypothetical state of nature or a condition that prevailed before
the creation of the state. According to Hobbes, it is a very horrible condition in which
man is the enemy of man. Man being a selfish, egoistic, brutal, and aggressive creature is
free to defend himself either by running away from the scene or by killing his enemy
singly or in group with others. There is nothing like peace, security, order, property,
justice, and anything what we find in a state. There is all but fear and danger of a violent
death. The law of nature or rule of commonsense informs man to be in competition with
others and so invade others for some gain, or live in reserve so as to be in search of
safety, or seek glory so as to secure some standing. In short, life of man is solitary, nasty,
poor, brutish and short.
Completely different is Locke’s picture of state of nature. According to him, it is a pre-

political and not a pre-social condition. People live peacefully and collectively and enjoy
26
three natural rights relating to life, liberty, and property. As he says, the state of nature
has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone, and reason, which that law,
teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one
ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possession. It is a state of peace, good
will, mutual assistance and preservation in contrast to a state of violence and mutual
destruction. And yet the source of inconvenience is that each man is a police man as well
as a magistrate (the maker and the enforcer of the law of the state of nature); each man
was necessarily the judge as to what it permitted and what it forbidden and he was also
the executioner of the law. In these circumstances, there was need of a common judge to
interpret the law and a superior authority to enforce it, considering that men are biased
and not, therefore, competent judges in their own cases.
With Rousseau, the case is quite different. Man is born free, he is everywhere in chains.
In Rousseau’s view, man is a ‘noble savage’. His life was very simple and happy in the
oldest phase of civilization, but it was perverted by the growth of ‘reason’ that inculcated
the sense of distinction between mine and their. A few persons created their own property
so as to deprive others of the pleasures of a primitive communization life. It all led to the
rise of conflicts and wars as a result of which the peaceful condition of life was converted
in to a horrible condition of mutual conflicts. The innocent creatures, that is, men become
selfish and aggressive, and natural life was destroyed. Thus, the people living in that
condition desire a society of free consents and not of force, a union of each with all on
equal terms for common good; sovereignty vested in all and voiced by the general will
for the maintenance of liberty in law.
To terminate the state of nature, contract is made by the people. According to Hobbes,
law of nature informs the people to surrender their all-natural rights in favor of a man or
an assembly of man as the price for living in commonwealth that ensures them liberty,
property and the entire of a good life. By such contract of the society, state and
government came in to being; a ‘common power’ is instituted that would keep all terror
and ensure security of their life and possession. It shows that each individual agreed with
all the others to surrender his right to govern himself, to some particular man or
27
assembly. By doing this, they established the state, and the person or assembly up on
whom they had bestowed their power was the sovereign of whom they were subjects.
Locke in his part forwarded that the open or social contract is done by the individuals to
institute a political authority by them. As a result ‘community’ comes in to being that
holds the sovereign authority. Then, an inferred contract is made by the community with
a person who takes up on himself the responsibility of effectively protecting three natural
rights of the people. It is a contract of the society with the government, and the ruler is
committed to the discharge of his obligations according to the terms of contract. The
motivating force behind these contracts is that men come to understand that improvement
over the natural state may result from the organization of a civil society and the creation
of instruments that will correct the deficiencies of the state of nature.
Like Hobbes but unlike Locke, Rousseau asserts about one contract whereby all
surrender their all in favor of all as a result of which a new authority in the name of good
will/common good is created. As Rousseau says, since each gives himself up to all,
actually there is little that he gives up. In fact, he acquires over every associate the same
right that is given up by him. Man thus not only gains the equivalent of what is lost but
also acquires greater power to preserve what is left. That is, each individual puts his
person and faculties in to a common collection under the direction of the general will,
each giving himself to all, gives himself to none, what he loses by the social contact is his
natural liberty and an unlimited right to anything to tempts him which he can obtain;
what he gains is civil liberty and the ownership of all that he possesses.
In sharp contrast to the divine right theory, the social contract theory developed its
arguments from the doctrine of popular sovereignty. Thus, according to this the theory,
since the state is established by the consent of the people, its main purpose is to protect
and safeguarded people’s inalienable rights such as the right to life, liberty, and
prosperity. The social contract theory was further developed in the age of revolutions in
the fight against the rule of absolute monarchies. This theory mainly advocated popular
sovereignty, limited government and individual rights.
28
However, with its all plausible justifications and speculations, the social contract theory
is mainly criticized on the following certain groups:
1. The historical argument is that in the history of the world, we nowhere find the
description of the state of nature and the making of a social contract for the sake
of its termination. The sociological and anthropologic evidences rather show that
human beings have always lived under some kind of authority. The very fact that
the story of peaceful and collective life is as old as man proves that the arguments,
particularly of Hobbes, are indefensible.
2. The theory is also indefensible from the philosophical point of view. How is it
possible to believe that the persons who had never seen a thing like political
authority or who had not even heard of it could think about its institution and then
they did it all of a sudden to convert themselves in to loyal citizens? Such a
conversion may be possible in legend or tales; it is not possible in the world of
normal human beings.
3. From the legal point of view, it may raise a question how a contract could survive
for so long whose terms were not clearly spelt out in writing and, more than that,
how it could be binding on those who were, or are, no party to it. There is no
justification in the argument that a social and political contract entered into by the
ancestors could bind their successors.
With its limitations in its premises, however, the social contract theory reveal real on the
development of political theories. Mainly, it displaced the theory of divine right that was
powerful instrument in defense of kingly arbitrary rules, and contributed for combating
irresponsible rulers and a justification for resistance against tyranny. Eventually, because
of its emphasis on the popular sovereignty and limited government, the social contract
theory becomes currently operational in the modern international politics.
V. The Marxist Theory
29
Like other theories on the subject of the origin of the state, this theory takes in to account
one factor, the fact of class contradiction. According to this theory, there was no state in
the most primitive stage of social life as there were no contending classes. The state arose
as a matter of necessity when society divided in to two hostile classes, each having its
own interest. The origin of state, therefore, should be treated in the fact of class
antagonism. With the invention of agriculture and creation of private property, the
dominant class came in to being by virtue of being the owner of the means of production.
It required some authority (the state) to protect its interests that lay in the exploitation and
oppression of the class having no ownership of the means of production. Thus, state is
not something introduced into society from the outside, but is a product of society’s
internal development.
It is with the emergence of the dominant class in the society that state has come in to
being and as the nature of the dominant class has changed from one epoch to another, so
has happened with the character of the state. The state has not existed from all eternity.
There have been societies that did without it when there was no competition or struggle
for dominance. The state becomes a necessity at a certain state of social development that
was a consequence of the cleavage of society in to two contending classes. And as the
nature of the classes (relations of production) changed, so occurred a change in the nature
of the dominance of the class over another. Thus, the state has not come in to being to
bring peace, order and unity in the society, the real cause of its origin is the fact of
irreconcilable class antagonism. The state is an organ of the rule of a definite class, which
cannot be reconciled with the class opposite to it. Simply, the whole essence of the theory
is that, the state has not always existed and it may not always exist also. It has come in to
being with the rise of class contradiction, so it will wither away (die out) with the end of
class antagonism.
Primitive society that had no private property had no class and state either. Naturally,
there were certain social functions, but they were performed by men chosen by all
members of society which had the right to dismiss the people at any time and to appoint
others. In those primitive times relation between people were regulated by public opinion.
30
The further development of the productive forces led to the disintegration of primitive
society. Private property appeared, accompanied by classes - Slaves and slave owners. It
become necessary to protect private property, the rule and security of its owners, and this
brought the state in to being. Therefore, the state is the product of class society.
The Marxist theory on the origin of the state may be correct to a little extent. No doubt,
the element of force has played its part in the formation of political authority and the fact
of class dominance may also be substantiated with a sociological analysis of its own kind.
But it cannot be taken as a scientific explanation of the origin of state for two important
factors. First, not one but many factors have played their part in the evolution of the state.
Hence, like other theories on this subject, this theory also commits the mistake of
dwelling on the single factor of force (class dominance) playing decisive part in the
origin of political authority. Second, it is not only traces the origin of state in the element
of the class contradictions, it run down state as an instrument of class exploitation and
oppression and also thinks of its eventual ‘withering away’ in the last stage of social
development. This is quite unconvincing, because we should to overlook the positive side
of the nature of political authority. State has also been an instrument of protection, peace,
order, unity and general welfare. If so, the question of its eventful disappearance does not
at all arise.
VI. The Evolutionary Theory
The evolutionary theory is like a rejection as well as a synthesized version of the key
elements of all the theories on the origin of state. The theory mainly emphasizes on two
important arguments.
 The state is not a make but a growth. It is a result of very long evolution covering
hundreds and thousands of years.
 Not only one but many factors have played their part in state building.
31
Thus, state is neither a handiwork of God, nor a result of a superior physical force, nor a
creation of a social contract, nor a mere expansion of (patriarchal) family system and the
like.
Accordingly, the state is a result of very long process of evolution, and due to many
different factors. Among these factors that have played their part in its gradual and
invisible development, it includes kinship, religion, force, social contract, economics,
political consciousness, etc.
1. Kinship: the first and for most factor is the fact of blood relationship that led to
the creation of family as the first unit of collective life. A family consisting of a
man, a woman and their children become the first unit of organized life. Whether
it was male dominated (patriarchal) pattern as in most of the places of the world
or female-dominated (matriarchal) pattern as in some parts, the essential fact
stands out that the earliest tie, which bonded men together in communities, was
kinship. The family had of its-own and that should be taken as the first instances
of an authority over the members. Different families broke out of the original
families as a result of which a new unit (clan or tribe) come in to being. And as
father (in the patriarchal system) or mother (in the matriarchal system) becomes
the wider of authority, so chief of the tribe become the lead of this larger unit.
Thus, the blood bond of son-ship changed invisibly into the social bond of wider
brother hood. The authority of the father passes in to the power of the chief. Once
more under the negate of kinship new forms arise which transcend it. Kinship
creates society and society at length creates the state.
2. Religion: religion emerged out of the way of life the people living in the families
and tribes. It assumed the form of social practices associated with worshiping
some objects of nature of some mystical forces. When the bond of kinship
become weak, the bond of religion served the purpose. Even ancestors-worship
becomes a matter of social usage. Moreover, anyone who could show some
charismatic activities becomes an important person of the tribal life. The magician
who was often a clear and deceitful person gained the position of superiority
32
pretended to possess extraordinary powers of prediction. The fertility of the soil,

the occurrence of a rainfall or a draught, the success or failure of the crops, the
victory or defeat in a tribal war and the like seemed to depend more up on his
rituals and prayer than upon human efforts. Those who had full faith in the power
of religion and thereby could demonstrate some super-human achievement also
got authority and become the class of priests. In this way, the forces of the priests
and the magicians conditioned the residence of authority. Religious beliefs thus
helped in subordinating anarchy and educated respect and obedience to the
primitive people.
3. Force: the element of force has played its own part in the form of conflicts and
wars. It is the elements of force that placed man (father) as head of the family,
the chief as the supreme authority of the tribe, and the king as the highest ruler
of the biggest unit. History is full of tribunal wars in which force decided the
issue. The victorious become the masters and the conquered had to accept the
religion and servitude of their lords. The members of a group had to live and
work in performance under a recognized leader for the purpose of defense or
aggression against other groups. The coercive force exercised by the leader
eventually, developed in to political sovereignty and the sentiment of loyalty to
the ruler was established and approved. Therefore, accordingly, struggle and
warfare are historically the most important elements in state formation, and it is
certain that the union of two groups even by force develops after a while
common interests, out of which is born a sense of unity.
4. Economics: obviously, man has always done some economic activities for the
sake of living. In the most primitive state, life was nomadic and the tribes moved
from place to place in search of food and shelter. They were all hunters, all
fishermen, and the like. However, when life becomes settled at a particular place,
division of labor became in to being. If some took the work of religion, others
took defense, while some others adopt some other functions like agriculture,
trade, and the like. Economic life now had a clear expression. The institutions of
private property also come in to being that informed the people to have some
33
arrangements for the effective protection of their material possessions. The

economic activities of the early people, therefore, contributed to the origin of the
state in several ways. Differences in occupation and in wealth created social
classes, and the domination of one class by another for purposes of economic
exploitation was an important factor in the rise of government. As wealth
increased and the idea of private property developed, laws were needed for the
protection of property rights and the settlement of property disputes.
5. Political consciousness: the needs of the people for the security of their person
and property created need for defense against external attack and for social, moral
and intellectual development. All these things led to the emergence of political
power and the conscious adaptation of political institutions to meet certain
definite ends. The place where the people lived became their country and they
developed the spirit of patriotism. A new class of people arose that not only took
up the work of defense in their hands; they also did not like to stop their position
of authority. Thus, conflicts started in which the matter was decided the habit of
rendering obedience to their rulers and, in return, the rulers took up on themselves
the responsibility of giving proper protection to the life and goods of their
rules/the people.
In summary, according to the evolutionary theory, this all show that the making of the
state is a result of very long process of evolution. Moreover, in this long process some
important factors have played their part. As such, the credit of the origin of the state
cannot be described by a single factor. Moreover, as these elements have been covered by
different theories on this subject matter, it appears that the evolutionary theory is like the
synthesized version of all other theories on the origin for the state. For instance, its
element of religion may be traced in the divine right theory; its element of force may be
discovered in the force theory; its element of consanguinity may be found in the family or
genetic theory; and its element of consent as accepted in social contract theory may be
seen in the division of labor that was effected by the choice of the people. Thus, the fact
remains that the state is a gradual and natural historic evolution. It is neither a gift of
34
divine power nor the deliberate work of man. Its beginnings are lost in the vague past in
which social institutions were unconsciously arising, and its development has followed
the general laws of evolutionary growth.
All the aforementioned theories depict that the explanations about the origin and purposes
of the state vary greatly among different people in different times. However, as the result
of accumulated knowledge and culture in politics, nowadays there is a widely held
consensus about the practice and the idea of the modern nation-state. The consensus is on
the fact that the idea of modern state is a typical 17 th century European creation. This
period saw the break up and disintegration of the medial European Christendom and the
emergence of modern state.
Today, the state comprising of the people, territory, government, sovereignty and
recognition has explained and become a universal model of the state. However, this
model of the state could not be easily reproduced in various parts of the world in exactly
the same ways it emerged in Europe. This is because of different historical force and
factors: cultural and social differences, different levels of economic and technological
developments that make the countries in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere distinct from that of
Europe. For example, the modern states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are largely
creations of European colonial powers. Among others the international boundaries, ethnic
compositions, as well as the nature of the political organization, and performance of these
post-colonial states are influenced by the legacies of their former colonial power.
1.2.1 State Formation in Ethiopia
Brainstorming:
 From your knowledge of Ethiopian history, how do you think the Ethiopian state is
shaped in to its current structure?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
35
___________________________________________________________________
The rise and foundation of states took place in different parts of Ethiopia at different
historical periods. Some of the developments took place in the north, while others were in
the south, southwest, east, and south eastern parts of Ethiopia. The span of development
ranges from pre-Axumite civilization to recent-past. Out of the continuous interrelations
among them, the various states of the different parts gave rise to the present form of
modern Ethiopia state.
I. Development in the North
The rise of ancient states in the northern part of Ethiopia goes back to the pre-Axumite
period. Even though much is not known, there are some recent evidences that show there
were states even before the rise of the Axumite state. Nevertheless, there are enough facts
about the Axumite state and its established political institutions as early as 100 B.C. The
Axumite state was one of the most civilized few states of the ancient world, that
civilization made great achievements. The monuments that are found today as Axum are
the heritage of that ancient civilization. An Axumite state was also well known for its
commerce and trade within Ethiopia as well as out of Ethiopia with Greece, Rome, India
and others. The Axumite state started to decline beginning from the 7 th century and was
no more in existence after the 10th century.
Following its decline, the political center shifted from Axum to the northwestern part of
Wello, and political institutions developed in Lasta. This political development is called
the zagwe Dynasty. Eventually, after many years of active rule, the zagwe period came to
an end in 1270. The Agaw people that are found today in the Amhara region were belive
to be the founders of the Zagwe dynasty.
After the fall of the zagwe kingdom, the political center shifted further to the south of
lalibela, that was marked by the foundation of the Christian Highland kingdom called the
solomonic dynasty. Yekuno Amlak was the first king of the dynasty. The dynasty
claimed descent from king Solomon of Jerusalem as it is explained in the Kibre Negest.
The Solomonic dynasty moved its center from shewa to Gondar in the 17 th century. Later,
36
the political power at Gonder declined being followed by what is called as the zemene
mesafint or the era of princes. This era was known for its instability, civil war and
struggle for power among different local lords in all surrounding of the country. As the
result of such chaotic political phenomena, the northern part of Ethiopia was
decentralized, and led to the establishment of scattered governance by nobilities in their
respective regions. As a result of this, political power at the center was very weak. That
situation continued up to the first half of the 19th century.
II. Developments in the South and Other Parts
While Christian states largely developed in the north, other states were also emerging in
the center, south, south-west, and eastern parts of Ethiopia. The earliest Islamic state was
the sultanate of Ifat, Dawra, Bali, Fatagar, Hadiya, the Emirates of Adal and Harar. There
were also states in the kingdoms of kaffa, Walayta, Janjere and Enarya. They were
formed at different periods. Moreover, the various Oromo states such as Jimma, Limu-
Enarya, Guma, Goma and Gera. In the east, there were the Emirates of Harar. The
Kambata and Gurage political institutions were also parts of the formation of various
states prior to the emergence of the modern centralized Ethiopian State.
III. The Formation of Modern Ethiopian State
The formation of centralized statehood in Ethiopia goes back to the end of the 19 th
century. However, this does not mean Ethiopia did not exist before the end of the 19 th
century. As a matter of fact, the existence of Ethiopia as a state is as old as no less than
three thousand years. However, with its present form and extent of territory, the
Ethiopian state can relatively be viewed as a recent phenomenon.
The process of building a modern centralized state in Ethiopia was significantly

accomplished during the reign of Emperor Menilik II. But, the attempts to do so were
started by Emperor Tewodros right after the end of the Zemene Mesafint, and was
extended by his succesor Emperor Yohannes.
37
The campaigns carried out by Emperor Menilike during the second half of the 19 th
century incorporated the states in the southern, southeastern, and the eastern parts in to
present-day Ethiopia. With that process of expansion from the center, the various nations,
nationalities and peoples in different parts in the south, southwest and east were also
brought under the Ethiopian Empire. In the meantime, the present day boundaries of
Ethiopia were established based on international agreements between the Ethiopian
government and the surrounding colonial powers of the time. This took place at the end
of the 19th century. Therefore, it is clear to understand the fact that today’s Ethiopia is
shaped in to Modern centralized statehood through the political integration of the various
states, nations, nationalities and peoples. They formed modern Ethiopia with their
respective languages, traditions, beliefs, and religions.
Lesson Three
1.3. Forms of State Structure
Brainstorming:
 What is your understanding of the concept state structure?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Dear student! In this lesson, you will be introduced with the basic forms of state
structures and their practice in different states. In addition, this lesson includes sub-
topics: unitary form of state structure, federal form of state structure, basic models of
federalism and so on.
Lesson Objectives
Up on the successful completion of this lesson, you will able to:
38
 Distinguish and explain the theoretical and practical existence of the two
common forms of state structures.
 Define and explain the terms unitary system and federal system.
 Pinpoint the basic differences between unitary and federal systems.
 Point out the essential conditions for the successful organization of federal
systems.
 Understand the potential advantages and disadvantages of unitary and federal
forms of state structures.
 Understand the importance of federal state structures in multi-ethnic societies.
Key Terms
 Unitary system  Autonomous regions
 Federal systems  Coming together federalism
 Confederations  Holding together federalism
 Deconcentration  Dual federalism
 Decentralization  Cooperative federalism
 Devolution  Marble cake model
 Administrative regions  Layer cake model
State organization is the result of lengthy processes of experimentation and modification.

State systems are continually changed, sometimes through deliberation and consultation
and at other times because the system cannot withstand certain challenging forces. Thus,
the state organization with in a state is shaped by a wide range of historical, cultural,
geographical, economic and political factors. The most prominent of these is the
constitutional structure of the state, particularly the location of sovereignty in the political
system. Although modified by other factors, the constitutional structure provides, as a
minimum, the framework within which center - periphery relationships are conducted.
The two most common forms of territorial organization found in the modern world are
39
the unitary and federal systems. A third form, confederation, has generally proved to be
unsustainable.
Confederations establish only the loosest and most decentralized type of political union
by vesting sovereign power in provincial bodies. Because of this feature, in the modern
world there is no such confederal form of state/states, rather it commonly applied in the
form of intergovernmental originations as embodied in international institutions such as
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations (UN), the
Commonwealth of Nations, etc. Examples of confederations at a state level are, however,
far-rare to consider, especially in the modern practice of state structure. But remarkable
states can be coined in the past. For instance, the USA was originally a confederation,
first in the form of the continental congresses (1774 -1981). The most important modern
example of a confederal state is the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which
in 1991 formally replaced the USSR. The CIS was established by 11 of the 15 former
soviet republics (only Georgia and the three Baltic states refused to join). However, it
lacks executive authority, and therefore constitutes little more than an occasional form for
debate and arbitration. Indeed, the evidence is that, in the absence of an effective central
body, confederations either transforms themselves into federal states, as in the USA, or
surrenders to centrifugal pressures and disintegrates altogether, as has more or less
occurred in the case of the CIS.
1.3.1. Unitary form of State Structure
Unitary form of state structure is a form of state structure that is chiefly characterized by
centralization of power and indivisible sovereignty. The central government is legally
supreme over regional or local governments. In unitary state, there is only one source of
authority and that is the central government. The central government controls the local
governments and determines how much power they will have. The central government
may under certain circumstances, temporarily take over the functions of the local
40
governments and it can also impose its decisions on all local governments regardless of
their will.
The essence of unitary state is that sovereignty is undivided, the powers of the central
government is unrestricted; for the constitution of a unitary state does not admit any other
law-making body than the central government. Subsidiary law making bodies (regional or
local bodies) can exist and can be abolished at the will of the central government. In
simple terms, “a unitary state is one organized under a single central government; that
is, whatever power are possessed by the various districts with in the area administered as
a whole by the central government are held at the discretion of that government, and the
central power is supreme over the whole without any restrictions imposed by any law
granting special power to its parts.” It follows that the concentration of all powers in the
central government is the essential features of a unitary system. There may be some local
governments, but they are a creation of the central government. As such, these local
governments enjoy no autonomy, their position is like that of subordinate governments. It
is the characteristic of this form state structure that there is no constitutional division of
powers between central government of the state and subordinate local governments.
Features of Unitary States
Though there can be explicit variations in practice among different unitary states, the
following could be considered as some of the common features shared by most unitary
systems.
1. Supremacy of the Central Government: in unitary form of state structure, there is

an existence of a strong single center. That is, there is a single focus of authority,
which is the central government. All powers are legally driven from the central
government; as a result it is that central government which makes all laws, rules,
regulations and policies. It is again the central government which controls all the
lower level administrations throughout the country.
41
2. Absence of Subsidiary Sovereign Bodies: the regional or local territorial

units/subsidiary bodies are not sovereign. Because, as it is said before,
sovereignty in unitary form of state structure is indivisible. Because of this, local
units do not have any power to make their own laws, to enforce laws and to levy
taxes. They are heavily controlled by the national government at the center, and
even their existence, is at the mercy of the central government. Thus, in unitary
form of state structure, there is no legal decentralization of authority and no
devolution of power, but there are only delegations of authority.
3. Local units/sub-national units are created or abolished by the center at will. In
unitary state, if the central government wants to create sub-national units, it can.
And again, if the central government wants to abolish sub-national units it can.
Thus, the central government in the unitary state is the mover and shaker of all
events in the country. Local units are simply agents of the central government.
The local units/sub-national units are thus dependent on the central government.
In the contemporary world, most states are unitary, which means that sovereignty of these
states lies exclusively with the central government. Sub-national authorities may make
policy as well as implementing but they do so by permission of the center. With regard to
their foundation, most unitary states emerge naturally in societies with a history of rule
by sovereign emperors and monarchs, such as Britain, France, and Japan. In addition,
unitary structures are also the norm in smaller democracies, particularly those without
strong ethnic divisions, for example Scandinavian states. In Latin America, with its
history of centralized presidential rule, nearly all the smaller countries are unitary.
Power dispersion in unitary systems
Concerning the way central governments interact with their sub-national bodies, there are
three distinguished ways in which the unitary states can disperse power from the center to
lower level administrations. The first and least significant is deconcentration. This is
purely a matter of administrative organization; it refers to the location of central
42
government employees away from the capital. The case for a deconcentrated structure is
that it spread the work around; enable field offices to benefit from local knowledge and
freeing central departments to focus on policy-making. The second, and politically more
significant way of dispersing power, is through decentralization. This means delegating
policy execution to sub-national bodies, traditionally local authorities but also (and
increasingly) a range of other agencies. In the Scandinavian states, for instance, local
governments have put in to effect many welfare programs agreed at national levels. In the
United Kingdom too, local governments have proved to be the workhouse of the central
authority. The third and most radical form of power dispersal is devolution. This occurs
when the center grants decision-making autonomy, including some legislative powers, to
lower levels. In the United Kingdom, for example, devolved assemblies have been set up
in Scotland and Wales and a similar body reintroduced to Northern Ireland. Another
peculiar example takes the case of Spain. Seeking to integrate a centralist tradition with
strong regional identities, Spain’s constitution-makers created a system in which the
country’s ‘autonomous communities’ (that is regions) could decide their own level of
autonomy. The ‘historic communities’, the Basque country and Catalonia, quickly
followed by Galicia, were the first to receive their status of autonomy. Thus, the central
government’s compromise with the communities created near federalism within the
framework of a unitary state. This situation was a confused but politically effective
solution for a country that has always needed to reconcile a strong center with some
assertive regions.
Therefore, even the category unitary structure may essentially show some common
features of concentration of power at the central government in a range of states, but there
are still great differences among them in the institutions and procedures through which
their central government interact with their territorial subunits or localities. Hence the
concept unitary structure does not necessarily imply highly centralized government. As
indicated in the above, sub-national units can be granted some kind of autonomy by the
central government which in reality has the legal authority to take it back at any time it
wishes.
43
The degree of local autonomy varies from state to state. As mentioned above, in Great
Britain the statues of parliament have created local governments that the local people
may manage those local affairs. The activities and actions of the local councils are not
interfered unless they overpass the legal boundary. In contrast, in France the council of
departments and communes are subjected to constant detailed supervision by central
authority. Therefore, the difference among unitary states can be categorized in to two
types of practices and procedures. These are
a) In one type of unitary systems, decentralization of power among sub-national units

goes so far in practice, although not constitutional principles. In other unitary
system of this type, decentralization on a territorial basis may actually provide
constitutionally forwarded - highly decentralized unitary systems.
b) A second type of unitary system makes substantially less provision for territorial
decentralization of authority and employs rather strict procedures for the central
supervision to locally elected units – highly centralized unitary systems.
1.3.1.1. Systems of Administrative Organizations in Unitary States
In unitary form of state arrangements, there are two common types of territorial
administration organizations. These are
1. Administrative Regions: in this category, lower level units are regularly supervised
and controlled by the central government, though it may differ from country to
country as we tried to look it earlier. The territorial division in administrative regions
could take various reasons pertinent to the reality of a country. The reasons could
range from historical and people’s identity, the nature of politics, administrative
effectiveness to socio-economic development factors. The administrative regions
sometimes can be termed as Regional Administration, and formally recognized as
centralized unitarism.
The principle of administrative regions, in turn, also sub-divided and realized in to
two major categorization principles. These are:
44
a) National territorial administrative principles: the territorial division in the

national territorial administrative principle takes in to account mainly on ethnic
identities, particularly language, culture, etc.
b) Administrative Principle: unlike the national territorial administrative principle,
the territorial division in the administrative principle is chiefly based on factors
such as natural topography, people’s history and settlement, and relations
concerning the socio-economic development of regions.
2. Autonomous Region: as the name indicates such kind of center-periphery divisions
resembles to federal systems, and termed as quasi-federal structure. The autonomous
regions have a great degree of decentralization of decision-making power, even the
local council functions under the supervision of the central government and
constitution.
Accordingly, in reality, different unitary states can use and practice either of this system
of administrative organization, or in some situations the states can use both principles and
practices at the same time. For instance, the case of Great Britain, as discussed above, can
depict the usage of both principles at the same time, i.e. both administrative and
autonomous region.
1.3.1.2. Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of unitary State Structure
A unitary state structure has its own benefits and disadvantages. To discuss some of
them, the following will show the advantages and disadvantages respectively.
Advantages of Unitary form of State Structure
 It is a very effective and efficient form of government. The central government is

all powerful. As such, it can take any step and decision to meet the situation
before it. It proves very successful in dealing with the conditions of emergency.
 It is relatively a more flexible type of government. The constitution can be
amended easily by the central government, according to the requirement of the
situation.
45
 It brings uniformity in administration and legislation. Since there is only one

national legislature and since all powers are vested in the central government,
there is uniformity in laws, policy and administration throughout the
state/country.
 It is less expensive as compared to a federal system, because there is no
duality/duplication in the field of legislation, administration and adjudication. In
other words, there is no duplication of work at the regional levels.
 Conflicts of jurisdiction, among levels of government that may arise in federal
form of state structure, is avoided in unitary form of state structure.
 It is best suited for a small country and marked by the factor of homogeneity in
respect of religion, race, language, culture, etc.
Disadvantages of Unitary form of State Structure
On the other hands, besides of its advantages, unitary state structure has also its own
disadvantages, to mention some of them.
 Since all powers are concentrated in the central government, it may create the
room to develop in to autocratic system to the extent of depriving the liberties of
the local people.
 It discourages local initiatives, that is; excessive centralization takes away the
autonomy of the local units.
 Local affairs are ignored. In order words, it leaves distant authorities and may
lack adequate knowledge of local conditions to the determination of policies and
the regulation of matters that may concern only to the localities affected.
 It overburdens the central government and legislature with numerous local
matters.
 It is not suited to very big countries characterized by heterogeneity.
Activity:
 What is meant by a unitary system of structure? Mention some examples?
46
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
 Can you summarize the main common features that are shared by unitary systems?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
 Identify and explain the three widespread ways of power dispersion schemes used
by unitary states?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
 What are the major differences that we found in unitary states today? Mention
some examples.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
1.3.2. Federal Form of State Structure
Brainstorming:
 Certainly, you might heard and have some understanding of the terms unitary and
federal systems; pertinent to the above lesson about unitary system, what do you
think is the central difference between them/unitary and federal systems?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
The term federalism come from the Latin word ‘foedus’ which means ‘pact’ or
‘covenant’, and usually implies to legal and political structures that distribute power
territorially within a state. As a political form, federalism refers to the existence of two
distinct levels of government, neither of which is legally or politically subordinate to the
other. Its central feature is, therefore, the notion of shared sovereignty. In other words, a
federal form of state structure is a form of state structure where by power is
formally/constitutionally divided between the federal/central/national government and
47
sub-national/regional/provincial governments, each of which is locally supreme in its

own sphere. It provides for an actual division of powers between two or more nearly
independent governments each of which exercises control within its scope of authority,
over the same people. Unlike to the unitary form of state structures, the sub-national
governments are not the creations of a central government of the union rather in most
federal systems the reverse is the case; that is, the central government has been created by
the territorial sub-units through the act of federation; they are something more than parts
or agents of the central organization; their sphere of autonomy is determined not by the
central government but by the general constitution of the federation. Consequently, they
do not, exist by the mercy of the central government, nor may their competence be
restricted by it.
Obviously, a federal system is a dual set of government, while the central or federal
government is charged with the administration of the affairs of the national importance;
matters of regional or local importance are given to the governments of the federal
units/regional governments.
Features of Federalism
Every federal systems of state structure have their own unique features in the sense that
the relationship between federal/central government and regional governments are
determined not just by constitutional rules, but also by a complex of political, historical,
geographical, cultural and social circumstance. Nevertheless, certain features can be
traced as common to most, if not all, federal systems of state structures. Among others,
the following are said to be some of the features that characterize federal systems.
1. Two Relatively Autonomous Levels of Governments: in federal forms of state

structure, both the federal/central and regional governments possess a range of
powers that the other cannot encroach upon. These include at least a measure of
legislative and executive authority and the capacity to raise revenue and thus enjoy a
degree of fiscal independence. However, the specific fields of jurisdiction of each
48
level of government and the capacity of each to influence the other vary
considerably from country to country.
In addition, since federal units/regional governments have sovereign existence
guaranteed by the constitution, the central government cannot create or abolish
them. This is because; the central government is not empowered to do so, unless it is
with consensus and agreement of the Regional states. Except for the powers and
responsibilities assigned to it in the constitution, the federal government cannot do
other activities without the consultation of the federal units/regional states.
2. The Existence of Written Constitution: in federal systems, the powers and

responsibilities of each level of government (i.e. the central and regional
governments) are defined in a codified or written constitution. The relationship
between the central and federal units is, therefore, conducted within a formal legal
framework. The autonomy of each level is usually guaranteed by the fact that neither
is able to amend the constitution unilaterally.
3. Supremacy of the central/federal Authority and constitution: in most federal
systems, the central government is superior over the regional governments in
conducting key issues and activities of the country. At the same time, the federal
constitution is also supreme over constitutions of the regional governments. This is
to mean that, even both the central government and regional governments have
constitutions of their own, but the constitution of regional governments are always
accountable and within the general framework of the federal constitution.
4. Constitutional Arbiter: in all federations, the formal provisions of the federal
constitution are interpreted by a body or institution empowered by the constitution.
For instance, in Ethiopia the formal institution that has the power to interpret the
constitution is the House of Federation, where as in other countries like USA, India
and Germany, the constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Hence, by doing
this, the body or institution arbitrate in case disputes happen between federal and
state levels of governments.
49
5. Linking Institutions: in order to foster cooperation and understanding between the

federal and regional governments, the regions and provinces must be given a voice
in the processes of central policymaking. This is usually achieved through a
bicameral (two houses) legislature in which the second house represents the interest
of the regional states. For example, the 9 states of the federal democratic republic of
Ethiopia are represented in the House of Federation, and invariably in the House of
Peoples Representative.
Power Distribution in Federal Systems
As one major characteristic feature of federal systems, powers and responsibilities of the
state are divided and distributed among the levels of governments. The general powers
and responsibilities of these levels of governments are known as the exclusive,
concurrent and reserve powers.
1. Exclusive Powers: refers to the powers and responsibility that are exclusively
vested to the federal/central government. In other words, these are the powers and
responsibilities that are not shared powers but only exercised by the
federal/central government. Powers such as to print and circulating currency,
establish and maintain the defense, conducting foreign affairs, regulate interstate
commerce, protecting and preserving the constitutional system, establish the seat
of national government, and the like are among the powers that exclusively
controlled by the central government.
2. Concurrent Powers: these are powers and responsibilities that are commonly
shared between the federal government and state governments. Some powers and
responsibilities that included in this category are such as social sectors, planning,
transport and communication, internal security, finance and the like.
Activity:
 Can you mention some powers that you believe are the exclusive power of the federal
government of Ethiopia, and powers controlled both by the federal and regional
50
governments?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
1.3.2.1. Essential Conditions for the Successful Organization of Federal Systems
In contrast to a unitary state structures, a federal state is one in which a number of co-
ordinate states unite for certain common purposes, as such federal systems contain a
character of a treaty. It is an arrangement made between certain political bodies which
wish to retain certain rights. Since federal state has the character of a ‘composite’ state,
its successful organization requires the existence of some important conditions that may
be enumerated as follows:
1. Geographical Continuity: a federal state must have a geographically continuous

area. The size of the state may be very large or very small. What is needed is that
the entire area of the state must be geographically continuous. If the parts of the
state are cut off from one another by a big distance, federal systems cannot be
successfully worked out there. For instance a country like Indonesia cannot have a
successful federal system as the country is an archipelago and the country’s worst
enemy is its geography. In contrary, federal system successfully operates in a large
country like the USA, India, and the Soviet Union for the reason that these
countries have the advantage of geographical continuity.
2. Community of Interests: what provides cementing force to a federal system is the
community of interests in the spheres of language, religion, culture and the like. A
federal system stands on the principle of ‘unity in diversity,’ that it aims at forging
a union and creating a ‘united nations.’ The cases of Ethiopia, United States,
Canada, India, etc illustrates that in each one of them there are prevailing
diversities that are sought to be preserved. Though the people have diverse
51
religious, ethnic or cultural patterns of life, they have also developed a sense of
common identity that they do not desire to lose.
3. Similarity of Social and Political Institutions: it is required that the pattern of
governmental systems should be the same both at the federal/national and regional
levels. That is, the center and the regional states must have the same form of
government. We find in federal countries like Ethiopia, Canada and India that the
parliamentary form of government prevails at the center and also in the provinces
or states. Likewise, in the United States, presidential form of government prevails
at center and also in the regional states.
4. Absence of Marked Inequality: as far as practibility, the regional governments of a
federal state should enjoy equality of status in respect of their powers though not in
respects of their territorial and demographic compositions. It is not possible that all
units of a federal state are of equal size, or they have equal density of population. It
is, however, essential that there should be no inequality in matters relating to the
distribution of powers, as far as possible. In contrast, if there are significant
inequalities, it may create dissatisfaction that has its harmful effects on the political
behavior of the regional governments.
5. Socio Economic Development: a federal system cannot work successfully unless
there is social and economic development of the country. It is required that the
people are educated and modernized so that they can keep themselves away from
the influences of narrow-minded tendencies. In addition to political equality,
though it is much more challenging, care should also be taken to remove regional
economic imbalances. If one of the state is very rich and economically advanced,
and the other very poor and backward, it will lead to agitations. In case the people
of one part of the country are well developed, socially and economically, others
will resent it and then came out with their demands for speedy social and economic
development that may culminate in their movement for seceding from the union.
6. Political Ability: the political ability of the people had its own significant part to
play. It refers to a developed political culture. Unless the people have their own
ideas, beliefs and commitments to the values of their political system, no political
52
system can work successfully. More so, in a federal state, it is required so that the
people understand the meaning of their allegiance towards a double set of
governments. National leadership must be in the hands of those who have national
image and who can inculcate the sentiments of national integration in the minds of
their people.
7. Political and National Integration: the people of a federal country should be
integrated politically as well as nationality. The political map of the country should
be drawn or redrawn in a way that the local urges and aspirations of the people for
having a separate state of their own are reconciled with the over-all requirements of
national integration. Then, people should learn that the interests of the nation as a
whole override their primordial loyalties. If so, then divisive movements would be
arrested and the people saved from the disastrous effects of those forces that
balkanize and divide a country.
8. Center - State Coordination: there should be a healthy coordination between the
central and regional governments. Though the areas of their respective jurisdictions
are specifically earth-marked, it is also required that some inter-linking
arrangements be devised so that the two governments remain connected with each
other. Federalism should have a cooperative and not a competitive, a persuasive
and not a coercive, a flexible and not a rigid and, above all, a positive and not a
negative character. The timely conferences of the heads of the central and regional
governments that takes place in federal states may be suggested as concrete
evidence in this direction.
9. Reasonable Trend towards Centralization: in the modern exercise of political
systems, centralization of powers has become an unmistakable trend in every
federal system of the world. No federal state can live in its true or classical form
under modern political conditions. The regional governments must appreciate this
dynamic political truth and thus, instead of resenting, they should accept the
reasonable moves of the central government, no matter they go to satisfy the scope
of their authority to some extent. At the same time it is required that the central
government should not take to the course of finishing the autonomy of the states.
53
The move of the central government must be ‘reasonable’, that is, it should be
supported by, some plausible justification.
Activity:
 Which of the above conditions do you think is/are more important than the others
for successful functioning of federal systems? What is your reason to say so?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
 What if countries do not fulfill the above conditions? What do you guess its effect
in their federal structure?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
1.3.2.2. Models of Federal State Structures
As stated above, federal state structure is when two or more governments exercise
authority over the same people and in the same territory. While the federal government is
responsible for ‘aggregate interests,’ the state governments are responsible for ‘local and
particular’ interest of the people. In respect to the inter-relationship between the federal
and regional states, two major models/theories have dominated political thoughts in the
field of federalism. These are dual federalism and cooperative federalism.
1. Dual Federalism: is the idea that the federal/national and state governments are
equal partners with separate and distinct spheres of authority. That is, that the
federal government and the state governments are co-equals and each sovereign.
The concept dual federalism sums up a theory about the proper relationship between
the national government and the states. The theory has four essential parts.
 First, the national government rules by enumerated powers only.
54
 Second, the national government has a limited set of constitutional

purposes.
 Third, each government unit, the federal and regional states, is sovereign
within its spheres.
 Fourth, the relationship between national and states is best characterized by
tension rather than cooperation.
Dual federalism portrays the states as powerful components of the federal system, in
some ways, the equals of the national government. Under dual federalism, the
functions and responsibilities of the national and state governments are theoretically
different and practically separate from each other. Of primarily importance in dual
federalism are states’ rights, a concept that all rights not specifically conferred on
the national government by the constitution reserves to the states. The notion of dual
federalism can be also expressed in the metaphor called layer-cake model.
Layer-cake model
Political Scientists use a metaphor to describe dual federalism. They call it layer-cake
federalism, that the powers and functions of the national and state governments are as
separate as the layers of a cake. Each government is supreme in its own layer, its own
sphere of action; the two layers are distinct, and the dimensions of each layer are fixed by
the constitution. Thus, layer-cake federalism is the relationship between the central
government of a nation and that of its states, where the powers and policy assignments of
the government hierarchy (‘layers’ of government) are clearly spelt out and distinct from
one another. In other words, the national government deals with the issues that are
national, and the states deal with the state and local issues. Ideally, there will be no
interference between the two political units.
2. Cooperative Federalism: the concept of cooperative federalism does not accept a clear
demarcation between the functions of the national government and the state government.
It is rather a different theory of the relationship between the national and state
55
governments, than dual federalism. It acknowledges the increasing overlap between state
and national functions and rejects the idea of spheres, or layers for the states and the
national government. Cooperative federalism includes three elements.
 First, national and state agencies typically undertake government

functions jointly rather than exclusively.
 Second, national government and states routinely share power.
 Third, power is not concentrated at any government level or in any
agency; the fragmentation of responsibilities gives people and groups
access to many to many centers of influence.
Cooperative federalism can be explained also by the metaphor marble-cake model.
Marble- cake model
In contrast to the layer-cake model of dual-federalism, the metaphor used to describe the
cooperative federalism is a marble-cake model. The national and state governments do
not act in separate spheres; rather they are combined in vertical and diagonal strands
(wires or lines) and patterns. Thus, in the marble-cake model, the national and state
governments are not separate and distinct; rather their functions and responsibilities are
mixed and inter-wined in the result work cooperatively.
56
Marble Cake Federalism is based on a

pragmatic mixing of authority and programs Layer Cake Federalism is based on a clear
among the national, state, and local delineation of authority and programs among
governments. the levels of government
1.3.2.3. Processes of Federalism
With regard to the formation and establishment of federal state structures, two processes
may be identified. These processes are called as coming together and holding together
federalism.
A. Coming Together Federations: in this process of federalism, independent states come

together by ceding or pooling sovereign powers in certain domains and form a common
political union for the sake of common goods and interests that otherwise will be
unattainable. Such interests may include security or economic prosperity of the states.
Coming together federations are typically arranged to constrain the center and prevent
majorities from overriding a sub-unit. Examples of countries that evolve in this process
may include the USA, Australia, Switzerland, etc. Coming together federalism is also
known as federalism by aggregation.
B. Holding together Federations: in contrast to coming together federations, holding
together federations develop from unitary states as governments’ response to alleviate
threats of secession by territorially clustered minorities. In some cases, such federations
grant some sub-units a particular domain of sovereignty, example over language and
57
cultural rights in an symmetric federation, while maintaining broad scope of action for
the central government and the sub-units. Sometimes holding together federations are
also termed as federalism by disaggregation. States such as India, Belgium, Canada,
Ethiopia, etc are some of the countries categorized in the holding together federations.
Activity:
 What do you understand by the concept federal forms of state structure?

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 What about the basic characteristic features of federal systems?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 Forward some similarities and differences that you between unitary and federal
systems?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
 Identify and discuss the essential elements for the successful organization of
federal systems? Which of the elements do you think are more important? What is
your reason to say so?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
1.3.2.4. Reasons for Federalism
Many arguments for federalism have traditionally been put in terms of promoting various
forms of liberty in the form of non-domination, immunity or enhanced opportunity sets.
When considering reasons offered in the literature of federal political orders, many
appear to be in favor of decentralization without requiring constitutional entrenchment of
58
split authority. Two sets of arguments can be distinguished. These are arguments favoring
federal orders compared with secession and completely independent sovereign states, and
arguments supporting federal arrangements rather than a centralized unitary state. They
occur in different forms and from different starting points, in defense of coming together
federalism and in favor of holding together federalism.
I. Reasons for a Federal Order Rather than Separate States or Secession
 Federations may foster peace, in the sense of preventing wars and preventing
fears of war, in several ways. States can join a federation to become jointly
powerful enough to deter external aggressors, and/or to prevent aggressive and
preemptive wars among themselves. For instance, the confederate American
states moved to a federation largely for the firstly of these reasons, since the
power of the center in confederacy were too weak for protection from external
threats.
 Federations can promote economic prosperity by removing internal barriers to
trade by establishing and maintaining inter-sub-unit trade agreements, or by
becoming a sufficiently large global player to affect international trade.
 Federal arrangements may protect individuals against political authorities by
constraining state sovereignty, placing some powers with the center. By entrusting
the center with authority to intervene in sub-units, the federal arrangement can
protect minorities’ human rights against sub-unit authorities. Such arguments
assume, of course, that abuse by the center is less likely.
 Federal political orders can be preferred as the appropriate form of layered
organizations. The federation may promote cooperation, justice or other values
among and within sub-units as well as among and within their constituent units,
for instance by monitoring, legislating, enforcing or funding agreements, human
rights, immunity from interference, or development.
II. Reasons for Preferring Federal to a Unitary State
59
 Federal arrangements may protect against central authorities by securing

immunity and non-domination. Constitutional allocation of powers to a sub-unit
protects individuals from the center, while interlocking arrangements provide
influence on central decisions via sub-unit bodies. Sub-units may thus check
central authorities and prevent undue action contrary to the will of the minorities.
 Federal systems may increase the opportunities for citizen participation in pubic-
decision making through deliberation and offices in both sub-unit and central
bodies that ensures character formation through political participation among
more citizens.
 Federal systems may promote mobility and hence territorially clustering of
individuals with similar preferences, and allow sub-units autonomy to experiment
and compete for individuals who are free to move where their preferences are best
met. Such mobility towards sub-units with similar-minded individuals adds to the
benefit of local autonomy over the provision of public services.
 Moreover, one of the chief strengths of federal systems is that, unlike unitary
systems, they give regional and local interests a constitutionally guaranteed
political voice. The states or provinces exercise a range of autonomous powers
and enjoy some measure of representation in central government usually through
bicameral legislatures.
1.3.2.5. Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism
Like the unitary form of state structure, a federal system has its own merits and demerit.
In comparison, in almost all cases, the advantages of unitary state structure are happened
to be the disadvantages of federal state structure, and the disadvantages of unitary
systems are advantages of federal systems. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of
federal systems include:
Advantages of Federal Systems
60
 Under a federal system, small political units/states may unite themselves in to a

more powerful state and there by obtain certain manifest advantages both internal
and external, which flow from the union without wholly surrendering their
separate existence and sacrificing their right to govern themselves in respect to
matters which concern them alone. It thus combines the advantages of national
unity with those of local autonomy and the right of self-government. In return for
this advantage, the people are reconciled to the loss of power that they attain
through the delegation to the central government of the authority to regulate
creating affairs of general interest to all the states composing the union. It
furnishes the means of maintaining between the centrifugal and centripetal forces
in a state of widely different tendencies.
 It is well suited to states of vast area and diversity of conditions and also to those
small ones whose people are separated by racial, geographical and other barriers
and who can be reconciled to live under a common regime only when they are
permitted a certain degree of autonomy.
 By permitting the inhabitants of each component state a large degree of self-
governance, their interest in public affirms is stimulated. They are better qualified
for determining their own policies and regulating their own local affairs than
uninformed, over burdened and distantly removed bureaucrats in unitary systems.
 It stimulates interest in self-government by leaving the determination of local
policy in the hands of local officers and assemblies who are responsible to local
electorate.
 It relieves the central legislature and authorities from the necessity of devoting
time and energy to the solution of local problems.
Disadvantages
61
 It is a weak form of arrangement in the sense of the division of powers between

the central and the federal units. Thus, in times of national crisis, it faces
numerous difficulties. The central government is not powerful enough to deal
with all breakage tendencies that entail from the distribution of authority between
two coordinate governments.
 A federal system creates a distinctive zone that becomes a source of unnecessary
complexity and confusion. There is duplicity of legislation, administration,
taxation, adjudication and the like. Thus, it entails heavy expenditure at the cost of
taxpayers.
 The division of power between the central government and federal units may lead
to conflicts of jurisdiction between national and local officers and authorities.
 It creates liability to groups and factions by the formation of separate
combinations of component states.
 It leads to additional delay due to complexity of a double system of legislation
and administration.
62
Self-check Exercise
Part I: Choose the best answer among the choices given below each question.
1. Which one of the following is considered as the spiritual or metaphysical element of

the state?
a. Population d. All of the above
b. Territory e. None of the above
c. Government
2. Which one of the following statement is not true?
a. The state is organized machinery for the making and carrying out of political
b. Sovereignty is the ultimate decision making power of the state.
c. For a political state to be accepted as a state with an international personality, it is
enough that as such recognized by few international actors.
d. Nationality is a sentiment of oneness that unites the people of a particular kind
and thus differentiates them from others.
e. None of the above
a. According to the force theory, the state is the result of physical force.
b. By the view of the evolutionary theory, the state is the result of one important
factor.
c. According to the genetic theory, the state is the result of forceful eventual
extension of the family system.
d. By the speculations of the Marxist theory the state is the result of class
contradiction.
e. None of the above.
4. Which one of the following is not true about the social contract theory?
a. The view beliefs on the social agreement or contract.
b. It bases on the pre-state condition of the state of nature.
63
c. Both John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau had identical conception about the
state of nature.
d. It beliefs on the principles of popular sovereignty, limited government and
individual rights.
e. None of the above.
5. Which one of the following is not true about the state and government?
a. In concrete and practical terms, the two terms are identical and the same.
b. The state is bigger entity than the government.
c. The government is an abstract idea, but the state has its existence in a physical
form.
d. All of the above
e. ‘A’ and ‘C’ only
6. Which one of the following is considered as the soul and brain of the state?
a. Population d. Sovereignty
b. Territory e. None of the above
c. Recognition
a. Unlike unitary systems, the division of power between levels of government
characterizes federal state structure.
b. In federal form of state structure, there is always one level of government that
control the whole activities of the state.
c. In federal states, there is always a body vested with the power to interpret the
constitution.
d. All of the above
a. In autonomous regions, the center - periphery division of power resembles to

unitary systems.
b. Unlike the national territorial administrative principle, the territorial division in
the administrative principle is mainly based on ethnic identities.
64
c. In administrative regions, there is a great degree of decentralization of power.

d. All of the above
9. Which one of the following is considered as the disadvantage of unitary systems?
a. It shares power between levels of governments.

b. It highly empowers local units.
c. It restricts local autonomy
d. It best fits to homogeneous society.
10. Which one of the following is true about federalism?
a. The division of power between levels of governments

b. The existence of strong single center.
c. The existence of weak sub national units
d. It is best suited for homogeneous society.
11. Which one of the following is among the characteristic feature of confederations?
a. It vests strong power at the center.

b. It is a highly centralized form of state structure.
c. It vests strong and decisive power for the member states.
d. None of the above
12. Identify the incorrect statement.
a. Unitary systems create uniformity in administration and legislation.

b. Conflict of jurisdiction that happen in unitary state is avoided in federal states.
c. Unitary structure is best suited for small states.
d. Unitary structure is less expensive compared to federal systems.
13. One is different from the others.
65
a. Linking institutions d. Written constitution

b. Constitutional arbiter e. None of the above
c. Absence of subsidiary body
14. Which one of the following is not among the essential conditions for the successful
organization of federal systems?
a. Geographical continuity
b. Diversity of Social and political institutions
c. Community of interest
d. Center - state coordination
15. Identify the incorrect statement about the reasons of establishing federalism.
a. Federations foster peace and cooperation by preventing fear of war among

independent sovereign bodies.
b. Federal arrangements protect against central authorities by securing immunity
and non-damnation.
c. Federal arrangements limit the opportunity for citizen participation in public
decision-making.
d. All of the above
Part II: Write ‘True’ if the statement is correct or ‘False’ if the statement is not
correct.
1. According to John Locke, man by nature is selfish, egoistic, brutal and aggressive
creature.
2. The first attempt to build a modern centralized state in Ethiopia was significantly
accomplished in the early 10th century.
3. States’ willingly acceptance to international treaties and conventions is regarded as
the infringement of its external sovereignty.
4. By the view of the evolutionary theory, the state is not a growth rather it is a make.
66
5. Unlike to the permanent existence of the state, other forms of associations often
come and go.
6. State organization is considered as the result of lengthy processes of
experimentation and modification.
7. Recognition of the state by the international community necessarily implies the
same to its government.
8. In the Marble-cake federalism, powers and functions of the national and state
governments are as separate as the layers of a cake.
9. In the American federal arrangement, the period from 1901 to 1960 has been
termed as the era of creative federalism.
10. According to the divine right theory, all right of the ruler are gifts of the divine and
thus he is responsible to the people.
Part III: Match the items or phrases listed in column “A” that fits best with that of
term or phase listed under Column “B”
Column “A” Column “B”
1. Concurrent Powers A. Genetic Theory

2. Layer-cake model B. Authority
3. French Revolution C. Social Contract
4. Political consciousness D. Parliamentary systems
5. Thomas Hobbes E. Marxist theory
F. Cooperative federalism
G. Dual federalism
H. Shared Powers
I. Evolutionary theory
J. Origin and development of the state
67
References
 Apter, David and Harry Eckstien (eds) (2003). Comparative politics: A Reader.
Delhi: Surjeet Publications.
 Bakuis, Herman and W.H. chandler (1989). Federalism and the Role of the state.
Toronto: Toronto university bpress.
 Boyd, Eugene (1997). American Federalism, 1976 to 1997: Significant Events.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
 Brinkley, Alan (2000). The unfinished Nation: A concise history of the American
people. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
 Collin, P.H. (1994). Dictionary of Government and Politics. New Delhi: Universal
Bookstall.
 Dazinger, James N. (1991). Understanding the political World: An Introduction to
political science. New York: Longman.
 Debryshire, J. and Ian Denis (1991). World political sytem: An introduction to
comparative politics. New York: W and R chambers Ltd.
 Dennis, L.d. and James J.C. (2003). Politics and policy in American states and
communities. Boston: Allyn and Ballon.
 Diclerico, Robert E. and Allan S. Hammock (2001). Points of view: Readings in
American government and politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
 Drake, D. Frederick and Lynn R. Nelson (2002). Teaching about Federalism in the
united states. New York: McGraw-Hill.
 (2006), Encyclopedia Almanac.
 (2006), Encyclopedia Britanica
 (2006), Encarta reference library.
 Goodin, R. E. and Philip Pettit (1997). Contemporary political philosophy: An
Anthology. London: Black-well.
68
 Heywood, Andrew (2003). Politics: An Introduction. Second edition. New York:

palgrave.
 Janda, Kenneth et al. (2000). The challenges of Democracy: Government in
America. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
 Johari, J. C. (2001). Comparative politics. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers pvt Ltd.
 Johari, J. C. (2002). Principles of Modern political Science. New Delhi: Sterling
publishers pvt Ltd.
 Kassaye Amare (2001). Fundamentals of Civic Education. Addis Ababa.
 Mildlarsky, Manus I. (1997). Inequality, Democracy and Economic Development.
New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
 Miller, Roger L. (2002). American Government. Illinois: National text Book
Company.
 Morrow, John (1998). History of political Thought. London: Macmillan press Ltd.
 Norton, Katzman. Et al. (1991). A people and a Nation: A history of the United
States. Boston: Houghton Mifflin company.
 Pierre, J. and B. Guypetes (2000). Governance, politics and the state. Bassing stake:
palgrave.
 Ray, N. Samirenda (2002). Modern comparative politics: Approaches, Methods and
Issues. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall.
 Renny, Austin (1990). Governing: An Introduction to political science. New Jersey:
prentice Hall Inc.
 Roskin, Micheal G. (1995). Countries and concepts: An Introducton to comparative
politics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
 Rourke, T. John and Mark A, Boyer (1998). World politics: International Politics in
the World stage, Brief. Dushkin: McGraw-Hill.
 Schwarz mantel, J. (1994). The State in contemporary society: An Introduction.
New York: Harvester Wheastshe of.
 Shively, W. P. (1999). Power and Choice: An Introduction to Political Science.
69
 Turner, Marry J. et al. (1996). American Government: Principles and Practices.

California: McGraw-Hill.
 (2006). Wikipeda, The Free Encyclopedia.
UNIT TWO
UNDERSTANDING GOVERNMENT
Dear student! Welcome to the second unit of this module. In this unit, you will be high
lightened with the general essence and nature of government.
Unit Objectives
Up on the successful completion of this unit, you will able to:
 Describe and discuss the definition and meaning of government.

 Identify and discuss the major attributes of government.
 Be aware of the common purposes and functions of government.
 Point out the differences of government from other organizations.
 Define and explain the concept organization of government.
 State and describe the different systems of government.
 Compare and contrast the parliamentary, presidential and hybrid systems.
LESSON ONE
2.1. Definition and Meaning of Government
Brainstorming
What do you understand by the term government?
70
Dear student! In this lesson, you will see the definition and meaning of government,
attributes of government, and a brief history of the origin and development of the modern
concept of government.
Lesson Objectives
After you have successfully completed this lesson, you will able to:
 Define and explain the term government.

 Point out the main attributes of a government.
 Distinguish the difference and similarities between authority and legitimacy.
 Understand the history of origin and development of the modern concept of
government.
Key terms
 Authority  Constitutionalism
 Legitimacy  Nationalism
 Traditional authority  City-state
 Charismatic authority
 Rational-legal authority
 Democracy
In its broadest sense, to govern means to rule or control others. Government can therefore
be taken to include any mechanism through which ordered rule is maintained, its central
features being the ability to make collective decisions and the capacity to enforce them. A
71
form of government can thus be identified in almost all social institutions like families,
school, businesses, trade unions and so on. However, government in our context, is more
commonly understood to refer to the formal and institutional processes that operate at the
national level to maintain public order and facilitate collective action. It is a body or
organ that administers a country and main organization dealing with affairs of the whole
country. Thus, government is one of the most essential components and also an
administrative wing of the state.
In other words, government can also refer to political organization comprising individuals
and institutions authorized to formulate public policies and conduct affairs of state.
Governments are empowered to establish and regulate the interrelationships of the people
within their territorial confines, the relations of the people with community as a whole,
and the dealings of the community with other political entities. Thus, government applies
both to the governments of national states, for instance the federal government of
Ethiopia and to the governments of subdivisions of national states such as the regional
states, provinces, and municipal governments, etc of Ethiopia.
In its simplest sense, government can refer to either of the following.
 The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of

public policy in a political unit.
 The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
 Exercise of authority in a political unit or rule.
 The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions
and exercises authority.
 The persons who make up a governing body.
 A system or a policy by which a political unit is governed.
 The organization that is the governing authority of a political unit.
 A body that has the authority and the power to make and to enforce laws within a
civil, corporate, religious, academic, or other organizations or groups.
72
2.1.1. Attributes of Governments
Activity
 What do you understand by the concept attributes of the government?
b
___________________________________________
Any form of government, to be stable and effective, must possess two essential attributes:
authority and legitimacy.
1. 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. Accordingly, governments either compel
obedience using an element of direct physical force, or using less violent forms of
compulsion typically include threats, exile, religious banishment, social banishment, or
siege (isolation of individuals from subsistence level economic goods). In some cases,
money may be also used as a form of compulsion.
2. Legitimacy
73
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.
In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a governing regime or law as

an authority. Whereas authority refers to a specific position in an established
government, the term legitimacy is used when describing a system of government itself -
where “government may be generalized to mean the wider sphere of influence.”
The word legitimacy can be interpreted in either a normative or a positive way. For the
former, which gets greater attention in moral philosophy, something is ‘legitimate’ if one
approves of it. For the letter, which gets greater attention in political science, an
institution is legitimate if such approval is general among those subject to its authority.
Issues of legitimacy are linked to that consent, both explicit and implicit.
Legitimacy is considered as a basic condition for 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. 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.
74
Generally, political philosophers treat legitimacy as a moral or rational principle, the

grounds on which governments may demand obedience from citizens. The claim to
legitimacy is thus more important than the fact of obedience. Political scientists,
however, usually see legitimacy in sociological terms, that is, as a willingness to comply
with a system of rule regardless of how this is achieved.
Sources of Legitimacy
Brainstorming: What do you think are the major sources of legitimacy?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
i. Weber’s Three Sources
The classic contribution to the understanding of legitimacy as a sociological phenomenon

was provided by the well –known German Economist and Sociologist Max Weber (1864
– 1920). Weber was concerned to categorize popular ‘systems of domination’, and to
identify in each case the basis on which legitimacy was established. He argued that there
are three forms of legitimacy and that all human societies, across history, have been
based on them. These are:
a. Traditional Authority: legitimacy based on tradition, which simply derives

from long-established habits and social structures. For instance, people may
accept the government for the simple fact that it has been around for so long.
The right of hereditary monarch to rule furnishes an obvious example.
b. Charismatic Authority: legitimacy based on the charisma of the leader, often
partly based on the perception that this leader has certain supernatural
attributes. Thus, charismatic authority is authority derived from ‘the gift of
grace,’ that is, when the leader claims that his authority from a higher power
(such as God or natural law or right) or ‘inspiration’.
c. Rational-Legal Authority: legitimacy based on the perception that a
government’s powers are derived from set procedures, principles, and laws.
75
Hence, a rational legal authority depends of its legitimacy on formal rules,

usually written down and often very complex. Modern societies depend on
legal rational authority, such as representative democracies and constitutional
governments.
Each of these is characterized by a particular source of political legitimacy and thus
different reasons that people may have for obeying a regime. In the process, Weber
sought to understand the transformation of society itself, contrasting the systems of
domination found in relatively simple traditional societies with those typically found in
industrial and highly bureaucratic ones.
Weber’s first type of political legitimacy is based on long-established customs and

traditions. In effect, traditional authority is regarded as legitimate because it has ‘always
existed’; it has been sanctified by history because earlier generations had accepted it.
Typically, it operates according to a body of concrete rules; that is, fixed and
unquestioned customs that do not need to be justified because they reflect the way things
have always been. The most obvious examples of traditional authority are found amongst
tribes or small groups in the form of partriarchism (the domination of the father within
the family or the master over his servants) and gerontocracy (the rule of the aged,
normally reflected in the authority of village elders). Traditional authority is closely
linked to hereditary systems of power and privilege, as reflected, to example, in the
survival of dynastic rule in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Morocco. Although it is of
marginal significance in advanced industrial societies, the survival of monarchy in a
constitutional form, in United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain, for
example, helps to shape political culture by keeping alive values such as deference,
respect and duty.
Weber’s second form of legitimate domination is charismatic authority. This form of

authority is based on the power of an individual’s personality, that is, on his or her
‘charisma’. Owing nothing to a person’s status, social position or office, charismatic
authority operates entirely through the capacity of a leader to make a direct and personal
appeal to followers as a kind of hero or saint. Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Fidel Castro,
76
etc are more appropriate examples. However, charismatic authority is not simply a gift or
a natural propensity; systems of personal rule are invariably underpinned by ‘cults of
personality’ (a propaganda device through which a political leader is portrayed as heroic
or God-like figure and treating the leader as the source of all political wisdom and an
unfailing judge of the national interest), the undoubted purpose of which is to
‘manufacture’ charisma.
Weber’s third type of political legitimacy, legal-rational authority, links authority to a

clearly and legally defined set of rules. In his view, legal rational authority is the typical
form of authority operating in most modern states. The power a president, prime Minister
or government officials is determined in the final analysis by formal, constitutional rules,
which constrain or limit what an office holder is able to do. The advantage of this form of
authority over both traditional and charismatic authority is that, as it attached to an office
rather that a person, it is far less likely to be abused or to give rise to injustice. Legal
rational authority therefore maintains limited government and, in addition, promotes
efficiency through a rational division of power.
ii. Democracy
The most common source of legitimacy today is the perception that a government is
operating under democratic principles and is subject to the will of the people.
Governments often claim a popular mandate to exercise power; however, how this
mandate is derived can vary sharply from regime to regime. Liberal democratic states
claim democratic legitimacy on the grounds that they have regular free and fair contested
elections.
A liberal democratic state may also gain legitimacy if the population believes that the
following factors hold.
 Free and fair elections

 Accountability
 A rigid written constitution or well –respected constitutional conventions
77
 Popular participation
 A strong and independent media
 A system of check and balances
 Economic and political stability
It has been claimed that liberal democratic states can be remarkably stable because the
legitimacy of the state is not tied to an individual ruler or ruling party. According to this
argument, in a dictatorial state, deposing the ruler can led to total collapse in the system
of government. However, in most well-functioning liberal democracies the ruling party is
regularly replaced peacefully without any constitutional change.
iii. Constitutionalism
A related form of political legitimacy involves constitutionalism or the belief that an

action is legitimate because it follows regular procedure. This form of legitimacy is
related to democracy in that the justification of those constitutional procedures are agreed
to be popular consent, but it may result in different outcomes, in that constitutional
procedure often require super majorities or are intended to protect minority groups.
iv. Nationalism
Patriotism and nationalism can inspire loyalty to a state. This can take many forms.
Democracy as described about is sometimes called civic nationalism. Other forms of
nationalism that can be beneficial to a state include ethnic nationalism, where the state
derives legitimacy from cultural or hereditary groups, and religious nationalism, where
the state derives legitimacy from a shared religion.
v. Traditionalism
In monarchies, the king gained legitimacy through the popular perception that he was the
rightful lord of the kingdom. This perception was further enhanced by propagating the
belief that he was divinely predestined to hold his post. This form of legitimacy remains
today in the form of absolute monarchy where the monarch still have effective power,
78
and constitutional monarchy where traditional source of legitimacy have been combined
with democratic and constitutional sources of legitimacy.
Activity
 State and describe the two common attributes of any government.

_
____________________________________________________________
 What are the major sources of legitimacy according to the Weber’s view?
_
____________________________________________________________
 Mention and explain the main and common source of legitimacy of a government.
_
____________________________________________________________
2.1.2 A Brief History of Origin and Development of the Modern concept of

Government
The despotic empires of Egypt, summer, Assyria, Persia, etc were followed by the rise of
city-states, the first self-governing communities, in which the rule of law predominated
and state officials were responsible to the citizens who chose them. The city-states of
Greece such as Athens, Corinth and Sparta, and of that part of Asia Minor dominated or
influenced by the Greeks, provided the material for the speculative political theories of
Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle’s system of classifying states, which influenced subsequent
political thought for centuries, was based on a simple criterion that, good governments
are those that best serve the general welfare, bad governments are those that subordinate
the general good to the good of the individuals in power. Ancient Rome, which evolved
from a city republic to the seat of a world empire, also greatly influenced the
development of government in the Western World. This influence was derived in part
from the great Roman achievement in formulating clearly for the first time the principle
79
that constitutional law, establishing the sovereignty of the state, is superior to ordinary
law, such as that created by legislative enactments.
After the fall of Rome, the Roman concept of a universal dominion was kept alive during
the Middle Ages through the formulation of the Holy Roman Empire, and also, in part, by
the establishment, through standard law and religious courts with justification over
secular affairs of the ruling body of the Roman Catholic church. The effects of these
influences were to retard the development of national territories and governments after
tendencies in that direction had manifested themselves among the feudal principalities of
Europe. On the other hand, the struggle of the feudal barons to limit the absolute power
of their monarchs eventually produced many contributions to the theory and institutions
of representative government.
The final emergence of national governments is attributed to two principal causes. One
comprises a number of underlying economic causes, including a great expansion in trade
and the development of manufacturing. These conditions began to undermine the feudal
system, which was based on isolated and self-sufficient economic units, and to make
necessary the creation of large political units. The other cause was the reformation, which
succeeded in eliminating the restraining influence of the Catholic Church on political
development in a number of European countries.
The modern nation-state becomes a definite form of government in the 16 th century. It

was almost entirely dynastic and autocratic. The will of the reigning monarch, in theory
and often in practice, was an expression of existing reality. Gradually, however, the
demand of the general population for constitutional and representative government made
itself felt, and the unlimited powers of monarchs began to be challenged. These overall
tendencies culminated in two events of historic importance, the American Revolution
beginning in 1775 and the French Revolution beginning in 1789, as historians
generally date the rise of modern democratic government.
Eventually, the history of government in the 19th century and in part of the 20th century is
notable for the broadening of the political base of government through extensions of
80
suffrage and other reforms. A tendency that became especially marked in the 20 th century
was the development and implementation of the concept that government, in addition to
maintaining order and administering justice, must be an instrument for administering
public and social services including, among many others, conservation of natural
resources, scientific research, education, health, and social security. Other outstanding
developments of the 20th century were the appearance of the corporative state and of
totalitarian governments in a number of countries in all regions of the world.
Lesson Two
2.2. Purposes and Functions of Government
Activity
 What do you think are the purposes and functions of any government?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Dear student! Do you answer the above question? What do you think are the basic
purposes and functions that your government is responsible to perform? In this lesson,
you will be well introduced with the fundamental purposes and functions of any
government, and the differences of government and other organizations.
Lesson Objectives
After you study this lesson, you will be able to:
 Identify and describe the fundamental and basic purposes and functions of any
government.
 Appreciate the importance of government in any society.
 Be aware of the differences and similarities between government and other
forms of organizations.
Key terms
81
 Anarchism  Management of conflicts

 Communism  Provision of goods and services
 Capitalism  Comprehensive authority
 Socialism  Involuntary membership
 Self-preservation  Authoritative rules
 Distribution of resources  Overwhelming force
One of the central questions of political philosophy is the purpose of government. Many
great political philosophers have conceived themselves with this question. One common
formulation is that the main purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve
justice. A countervailing formulation is that government exists to protect the privileges of
a few, preserving a state of injustice for the majority. But such proposition raises more
questions than it answers. Which and whose rights? What sort of justice? There are, after
all, many different conceptions of what rights are, and what constitutes justice.
It is on those questions that one can find the difference between conservatism, liberalism,
fascism, especially the latter, and other political ideologies. There are also two ideologies
- anarchism and communism, which argue that the existence of the state is ultimately
unjustified and harmful. For this reason the kind of society they aim to establish would be
stateless. Anarchism claims that the community of those fighting to create a new society
must themselves constitute a stateless community. Communism wishes to immediately
or eventually replace the communities, units and divisions that such as work, money,
exchange, borders, nations, governments, police, religion, and race create with the all-
human community possible when these things are replaced. Capitalism and Statism sees
taxes and the nation-state as necessary for property, which is in turn held to be necessary
for ‘self- ownership’. State socialism states that the degree to which a state is working
class is, the degree to which it fights government, class, work and rule. The degree to
which it wins such a fight is held to be the degree to which it is communist instead of
capitalist, socialist or the state. However, the majority of viewpoints agree that the
82
existence of some kind of government is morally justified. In fact, what they disagree lies
on the proper role and the proper form of that government.
There are several ways to conceive the differences between the different political views.
For example, one might as in what areas should the government have jurisdiction, to what
extent it may intervene in those areas, or even what constitutes intervention in the first
place. A lot of institutions can be said to exist only because the government provides the
framework for their existence; for instance, Marxist argue that the institution of private
property only exists due to government. Mostly, the constitutions of various countries
codify views to the purposes, powers, and forms of their governments, but they tend to do
so in rather vague terms, which particular laws, courts, and actions of politicians
subsequently flesh out. In general, various countries have translated vague talk about the
purposes of their governments in to particular state laws, bureaucracies, enforcement
actions, etc.
Evidently, depending on the character of the society of which they are an expression,
different governments may serve various purposes and functions. In the contemporary
world, however, the purposes and functions of governments have greatly expanded with
the emergence of government as the most active force vehicle in the political, social, and
economic developments. Accordingly, the major purposes and functions of government
include, among other things, the following:
i. Self-Preservation: nearly all governments at least claim to have as their purposes

the establishment of an order that permits predictability, which in turn promotes a
sense of security among the governed. This may be true whether a government is
authoritarian or democratic. Sovereign states also take as a primary purpose the
defense of the country’s territory against external attack. Thus, as their first and
primary purpose and function, governments are responsible to prevail order,
predictability, internal security, and external defense.
ii. Distribution and Regulation of Resources: all governments invariably play the
role of distributing resources in their societies. In addition, governments are the
83
only institutions that determine whether resources are going to be controlled by

the public or private sector. Some governments may decide that the resources
should be controlled by the public, which commonly known as socialist states and
others may decide to be controlled by the private sector, which are capitalist
states. In addition, other states may place in between, that is the resources could
be controlled by both the public and private sector.
Moreover, governments also play the role of regulation of the Economy. By
enacting and implementing policies related with the agricultural, industrial
transportation, taxes, tariffs, etc, governments (some of the institutions) indulge in
regulating the overall economic activities of the country.
iii. Management of Conflicts: governments usually develop and consolidate

institutions and procedures for the management of conflicts. These may include
the legislative, executive, and judicial institutions with established procedures for
the supervision and resolution of conflicts that may arise in the society.
iv. Fulfillment of Social or Group Aspirations: in addition to the aforementioned
purposes and functions, governments also strive to fulfill the goals and interests of
the society as a whole and of various groups within the society. These aspirations
may include the promotion of human rights, common good, and international
peace.
v. Protection of Rights of Citizens: some governments, especially those of
constitutional and democratic governments, are established for the protection of
every citizen’s human, democratic, political, social, economic and cultural rights.
Constitutional and democratic governments are created to serve and protect every
citizen’s rights, not to dominate them.
vi. Protection of Property: states or governments provide means such as police and
the court systems that protect private and public property. As such, protection of
private and public property is, therefore, one among the major purposes and
functions of any government.
84
vii. Implementations of Moral Conditions: some governments’ attempts to improve

the moral conditions of their citizens that is why, in all countries, laws and
institutions are designed to shape citizens character in accordance with some
standard of morality.
viii. Provision of Goods and Services: Some governments, especially those of the
poor countries, participate heavily in the provision of goods and services for the
public. Some of the necessary common goods and services provided by
governments may include:
 Provision of healthcare, education, etc services
 Development of public works
 Provision of food, shelter, clothing for the public
 Developing social services, etc,
2.2.1. Differences from other Organizations
Government as a political and administrative body and because of its distinctive qualities,
it differs from other organizations. The main point that clearly distinguishes government
from other set –ups is discussed below.
i. Comprehensive Authority: rules made by any other organizations other than

government are applied and intended to apply to members of that organization only.
On the other hand, the rules of government apply and are intended to apply
universally to all members of the society. Governmental authority is the
acknowledged/recognized power to make binding decisions, issues, and obligatory
commands.
ii. Involuntary Membership: membership to the government or nation is largely
based on the involuntary acts of human beings, unlike to the voluntary and
conscious act of membership in other social organizations. That is, most people
85
initially become citizens of a nation and subject to its rules with out any deliberate
choice or conscious act.
iii. Authoritative Rules: rules made by some social and private organizations often
conflict with those made by other private/social organizations. In most societies,
there is no clearly defined and generally accepted hierarchy among organizations.
Therefore, there is no automatic way to determine which organization rules should
prevail and which should be overridden in situation of conflict. However, the rules
of government are quite another matter for in every nation, governmental rules are
generally recognized as authoritative, i.e., they are generally considered to be more
binding upon all members of society than the rules of other organizations.
iv. Legitimate Monopoly of Overwhelming force: all members of any society do not
always obey to all rules and regulations set by the government and other
organizations. In such instances, both the government and other organizations
impose sanctions on rule breakers, but government differs from other organizations
in the kind of sanctions, it is authorized to impose. Government impose all
sanctions and can also impose two additional sanctions forbidden to private
organizations as well, these include to send lawbreakers to prison and take their
lives. Governments’ ability to impose additional sanctions indicates existence of
legitimacy on the part of the government, that the belief of the people that
government rules are proper, lawful and entitled to obedience.
Activity
 What are the basic and fundamental purposes and functions of government?
_
______________________________________________________
 Identify the main points that distinguish government from other forms of
organizations._
__________________________________________________________
86
Lesson Three
2.3 Organization of Government
Brainstorming
 From your knowledge about the concept government, what do you think is meant by
organization of government?
_
______________________________________________________
Dear student! In this lesson, you will be introduced with the topics such as vertical
arrangement of government, and horizontal arrangements of government.
Lesson Objectives
After successful completion of this lesson, you will be able to:
 Identify the different levels of government.

 Distinguish and describe the national government and sub-national level of
governments.
 Appreciate the main arguments in line with the national and sub-national
governments.
 Aware about the three common branches of any government.
 Identify and discuss about the basic powers of the three branches of government.
Key terms
 National government  The Executive

 Sub-national government  Political Executive
 The Legislative  Bureaucratic Executive
87
 The Chief Executive  Bi-Cameral legislature

 The Judiciary  Judicial review
 Uni-Cameral legislature
Although nation-states are treated as discrete and unified entities as far as international
politics is concerned, each nation state incorporates a range of internal division and levels
of power. Most significantly, there are territory-based divisions between central or
national government and various forms of provincial, state and local governments. These
divisions are crucially shaped by a state’s constitutional structure, that is, by whether it
has a federal or unitary system of government. Each system establishes a particular
territorial distribution of government power, thus providing a frame-work within which
center - periphery relationships can be conducted.
Accordingly, all modern states are divided on a territorial basis vertically between central
(national) and periphery (regional, provincial or local) institutions. The nature of such
divisions varies enormously, however. These differences include the constitutional
framework within which center - periphery relationships are conducted; the division of
functions and responsibilities between the levels of government; the means by which
their personnel are appointed and recruited; the political, economic, administrative and
other power that the center can use to control the periphery, and the independence that
peripheral bodies enjoy. On the same vein, governments are also divided horizontally
among the legislative, executive and judiciary organs.
2.3.1 Vertical Arrangement/organization
Activity: What do you understand by the concept vertical arrangement/organization of

government?
_____
88
The vertical arrangement or organization of government specifically shows the

relationship between the central/national government and sub-national bodies or
institutions (such as the regional, provincial or local bodies).
a) The Central/National Government: the central/national government refers to the

level of government that control the overall affairs of the state. This means, in most
cases, that central government assumes overall control of the state’s economic life,
and supervises matters such as internal trade, transport and communications.
Accordingly, the central/national government is the level of government that situated
at the top of the governmental structure of any state. Thus, the central/national
government is the level of government that is responsible to enable the state to
function as an actor on the international or world state. It would possesses the
machinery for entering into strategic alliance, negotiating trade agreements, gaining
representation at international summit meetings, or becoming a member of
supranational bodies. This is why central government is invariably responsible for a
state’s external relations, as demonstrated by this control of the foreign, diplomatic
and defense policy. Moreover, some form of central government is necessary to
mediate between sub-national bodies to ensure cooperation in areas of mutual
interest.
In this sense, there are some powerful reasons that strengthen the existence of central
government at the expense of sub-national institutions/bodies. Among other things, the
following includes the main arguments:
 National Unity: central government alone articulates the interests of the whole
rather than the various parts. That is, the interest of the nation rather than those of
sectional, ethnic, or regional sub-groups. A strong center ensures that the
government addresses the common interest of the entire community.
 Uniformity: central government alone can establish uniform laws and public
services that help people to move more easily from one part of the country to
another.
89
 Equality: only central government can rectify inequalities that arise from the fact
that the areas with the greatest social needs are invariably those with the least
potential for raising revenue.
 Prosperity: economic development and centralization invariably go hand in hand.
Only central government, for instance, can manage a single currency, control tax
and spending polices with a view to ensuring sustainable growth, and if necessary
provide an infrastructure in the form of roads, rail ways, air ports and so on.
On the other hand, regardless of the above reasons, there are limits to the amount of
centralization that is possible or desirable. Indeed, the nation of modern states comprising
tens or even hundreds of millions of citizens being entirely governed from the center is
simply absurd. For example, if all the services and functions of modern government were
to be administered from the center, the result would be hopeless in efficiency and
bureaucratic chaos. In general, the responsibilities vested in peripheral institutions are
those that are domestic in the sense that they primarily address the needs of the domestic
population such as education, health, social welfare, and planning. Thus, the pressure to
shift other responsibilities and decision-making power from the center to the sub-national
bodies is considerable.
b) The Sub-National governments: although the national/central governments are the

dominant forms of political systems, an extraordinary indispensable range of political
organization below the national/central level also exists in all forms of governments -
the governments of the regions or provinces and local governments. Thus, the sub-
national governments are the levels of governments that exist always below the
upper/top national government, with the responsibility and function to control and
administer all affairs of the state in their respective regions and districts. In other
words, the notion sub-national government, in its simplest sense, is government that
is specific to a particular region or locality, for example a region, village, district,
town, city or country. More particularly, it is a form of government that has no share
in sovereignty, and is thus entirely subordinate to central authority, in the case of
90
unitary states; or in a federal system, to state or regional authority. This level of

government is in fact universal, being found in federal and nonfederal systems as well
as in unitary ones. These sub-national entities are, in fact, the basic political
organizations for all political systems of the world.
The essential reasons for establishing the sub-national or local governments include:
 Participations: sub-national governments are certainly more effective than the

central government in providing opportunities for citizens to participate in the
political life of their community. The benefits of widening the scope of political
participation include the fact that it helps to create a better educated and more
informed citizenry.
 Responsiveness: sub-national institutions are usually ‘closer’ to the people and
more sensitive to their needs. This both strengthens democratic accountability and
ensures that government responds not merely to the overall interests of society,
but also to the specific needs of particular communities.
 Legitimacy: physical distance from the government affects the accessibility or
rightness of its decisions. Decisions made at a local level are more likely to be
seen as understandable and therefore legitimate. In contrast, central government
may appear remote, both geographically and politically.
 Liberty: as power tends to corrupt, centralization of power at the center threatens
to turn government into tyranny against the individual. Thus, decentralization to
sub-national bodies protects liberty by dispersing government power, there by
creating a network of checks and balances, i.e. sub-national bodies check central
government as well as each other.
Activity
 Mention some of the arguments that necessitate the establishment of a national

government.
91
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
 What about the essential reasons for establishing the sub-national governments?
_
______________________________________________________
2.3.2 Horizontal Arrangement/Organization
Activity
 You already understand what a vertical arrangement of government mean, but can
you forward what is meant by horizontal arrangement/organization of government
is?_______
____________________________________________________________
Under modern political theory, government is understood as having three main branches.
These are the legislative, the executive and Judiciary branches /organs. Each organ has its
own distinct roles and responsibilities, the legislature makes law, the executive enforce
and implement law, and the judiciary interprets and adjudicates the law.
I. The Legislative Organ

A legislature is a type of representative assembly with the power to adopt laws.
Legislatures are known by many names, the most common being parliament and
congress, the legislature is formally supreme and appoints the executive in the case of
parliamentary systems. In presidential system of governments, the legislature is
considered as a power branch which is equal to, and independent of, the executive. In
addition to enacting laws, legislatures usually have exclusive authority to raise taxes and
92
adopt the budget and other money bills. The consent of the legislature is also often
required to ratify treaties and declare war.
Structural Arrangements of Legislatures
Parliaments differ in a number of respects. For example, their members may be elected,
appointed, even selected by inheritance, or any combination of these methods. When
members are elected, this may be on the basis of population (in the form of equal-size
constituencies), or through regions or states. The franchise may be restricted or universal,
and various electoral systems may be used. The sizes of parliaments also vary
considerably. The tiny republic of Nauru, in the West central pacific, has an assembly of
18 members, each of whom represents approximately 440 people. At other extreme, there
is the 2000 member National peoples’ congress in China, in which one member
represents over 350,000 people. However, the principal structural differences between
parliaments are whether they comprise one chamber or two. About three-fifths of the
nation-states with legislatures have unicameral or one-legislature.
The presumed advantage of a unicameral system are that political responsibility is clearly
located in one body and that risks of duplication or stalemate between parallel legislative
bodies are eliminated. These arguments sound similar to those put forth in favors of a
unitary state. And, in fact, most unitary state have unicameral legislatures. Among the
many states with unicameral legislature are Algeria, Bulgaria, China, Costa Rica,
Denmark, Finland, Kenya, Tanzania, etc.
In contrast, many of the states that have two legislative chambers - bicameral
legislatures - are federations. These federal states include Ethiopia, Australia, United
States, India, Canada, etc. There are also bicameral systems in some unitary states such as
Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. One argument for bicameralism is that, two legislative
houses ensure more careful and thorough deliberation on issues and laws. Secondly, the
two houses can be based on two different and desirable principles of representation. For
instance, in Ethiopia, United States, West Germany, and other states; one house
93
represents the regional government in the federal system and the other house more
directly represents the numerical and geographic distribution of citizens.
Powers and Functions of the Legislature
Although the role of the legislature varies from state to state and from system to system,
in every case it fulfills a complex of functions. Above all, legislatures provide a link
between government and the people, a channel of communication that can both support
government and help to uphold the regime, and force government to respond to public
demands and anxieties. Among many others, the principal functions of the legislative
branch include:
i. Legislation: legislation is often seen as the key function of the legislative organ, as
is clearly implied by their common classification legislatures. Parliaments are
typically vested with legislative power in the hope that the laws thus made will be
seen to be authoritative and binding. This applies mainly for two reasons. First, an
assembly is a forum in which proposed laws can be openly discussed and debated.
Second, parliaments are constituted so as to suggest that the people (or, in pre-
democratic days, the major interests in society) make the laws themselves. Thus the
responsibility to draft, modify, and then ratify laws, public policies, decisions, etc
are the power and role of the legislative branch, although in most contemporary
systems, dominance in rule making has passed to the executive. That is, more
significantly, the policy proposals and programs emanate, in the main, from the
executive, which has the organizational coherence and access to specialist advice
and information necessary for policy formulation.
Nonetheless, many legislatures continue to have an active and significant role in
the rule-making function. The essence of the legislature’s power in rule making is,
in most political systems, a constitutional provision that a majority vote of the
members of the legislature is required to authorize the passage of any law
(legislative enactment).
94
ii. Representation of the Citizenry: a second major role of the legislature is to

represent, with in the governing process, the opinion and interests of the citizenry.
Thus, parliaments play an important representative role in providing a link between
government and the people. Most legislatures are elected by some set of the
eligible voters, and it is assumed that a key responsibility of a legislature is to
reflect and to serve the best interests of voters. In addition, the extension of the
franchise and eventual achievement of universal adult suffrage turned parliaments
in to popular forums, bodies that ‘stood for’ the people themselves. For this reason,
the power of a parliament within the political system is usually seen as an
important index of democratic government.
However, it is less clear how this representative functions carried out in practice, because
there are at least four different conception of the ‘interest’ that a legislature might attempt
to represent:
a) the group that is most dominant in the legislature’s constituency, possibly a

social class or an occupational class or an ethnic group;
b) the political party to which the legislature owes loyalty;
c) the nation-state as a whole, whose broad interests might transcend those of any
group or party; or
d) the legislature’s own conscience, which provides a moral/intellectual judgment
about appropriate political behavior.
Evidently, there are a few political systems where most national legislatures are not
significantly constrained by these forces, most likely the legislatures of democratic states.
Therefore, legislatures can experience underlying tensions, as they attempt to balance
legitimate but competing interests that would lead them to support different decisions or
actions. Even in such systems, there is predictability in most legislators’ choices (on the
basis of some dimension such as conservative - radical ideology or party-political
loyalty). But there can be considerable variation, as the legislature attempts to balance
95
competing interest, and also as it attempts to do some vote trading, compromising on

some issues to insure greater support for the issues cared most deeply.
iii. Oversight of the Executive: the third major role of the legislatures’ concerns their
action with the executive. In general, the legislature is responsible to oversee and
scrutiny the actions and activities of the executive. In addition, the legislature
might have the constitutional right to select the executive, to authorize major policy
decisions by the executive and to appropriate the chief executive’s selection of key
appointments.
In many political systems, there are regular procedures by which the legislature can
question and even investigate whether the executive has acted properly in the
implementation of pubic policies. At minimum, the legislature serves as a
discussion and debating chamber. In subjecting the plans and actions of the
political executive to public debate, a modest check on executive power is
established. Many legislatures have a more direct power, during legislative
sessions, to question the specific plans and actions of particular members of the
executive. In Ethiopia, Britain, and Germany, for example, each minister in the
executive cabinet and the prime minister must appear before the legislature and
justify any actions taken by his/her department.
iv. Legitimacy: the other function of parliament is to promote the legitimacy of a

regime by encouraging the public to see the system of rule as ‘rightful.’ This is
why most authoritarian and even totalitarian states tolerate assemblies, though, of
course, ones that have no legislative independence or policy-making power. The
ability of parliaments to mobilize consent depends largely on their ability to
function as poplar conventions, endorsing laws and policies in the name of the
public as well as in their interest. In addition to having propaganda value,
parliaments may also perform more credible educational functions, parliamentary
debates can help to inform and instruct citizens about the affairs of government
and the major issues of the day.
96
v. Constitutional Making and Amending: legislatures have also certain power over
the establishment and amendment of national constitution. It is also authorized to
play some role in making formal amendments. In fact, there are two kinds of
experiences in making and amending of constitution. In some political systems,
especially in unitary state structure, the central/national legislature is the sole
agency authorized to amend the constitution. However, in other state structures,
especially federal systems, the legislature normally propose amendments and need
to ratify by the regional governments.
vi. Electoral and Deposing Functions: the legislative organ, in addition to other
functions, also play the role of electing the prime minister, and vote on motion of
no-confidence there by deposing from power, in parliamentary system of
governments. At the same time, in presidential systems, the legislative organ is
responsible to remove the president by the process of impeachment, in case if the
president is guilty of violating the oaths of the office.
vii. Financial Functions: the power to enact laws that raise revenue to the government
and to authorize its expenditure on public policies (commonly known as the power
of the purse) has been a central responsibility of most legislatures. Legislatures
revise budgets proposed by executives, and determine the nature and amount of
taxes and appropriations. Thus, governments legally spend only funds appropriated
by legislature.
viii. Investigative Functions: most often, legislature through an established ‘selected
committees’ are engaged in digging up information it desires on matters not
covered by its legal standing committees. For example, the House of Peoples
Representative, of Ethiopia plays its role of investigation by establishing
“commission of inquiry”. As one of their basic functions, thus, legislatures are
responsible to investigate various matters presented to them.
II. The Executive Organ
97
In its broadest sense, the executive is the branch of government responsible for the
implementation or enforcement of laws and policies made by the legislature. In its
coverage, the executive branch extends from the head of government to the members of
enforcement agencies such as the police and the military, and includes both ministers and
civil servants. However, more commonly, the term is now used in a narrower sense to
describe the smaller body of decision-makers who take overall responsibility for the
direction and coordination of government policy.
The executive is the irreducible core of government. Political systems can operate
without constitutions, assemblies, judiciaries, and even parties, but they can not survive
without an executive branch to formulate government policy and ensure that it is
implemented. This is the potential power of executives that much of political
development has taken the form of attempts to check or constrain them, either by forcing
them to within a constitutional framework, or by making them accountable to popular
assembly or democratic electorate.
Structural Arrangements of the Executive
As discussed earlier, the executive is technically the branch of government that is

responsible for the execution or implementation of policy. In practice, however, their
responsibilities tend to be substantially broader as well as more complex. This
complexity also extends to the composition of the executive. Thus, members of the
executive have been categorized in one of two ways. First, a distinction is often drawn
between the ‘chief executive’ and the ‘executive’ based on the levels of status and
responsibility that have been identified with in the executive. Second, based on
recruitment, responsibility, status and political orientations, and so on; the executive can
also sub-divided between the ‘political’ executive and the ‘bureaucratic’ executive. This
highlights the differences between politicians and civil servants, and more broadly
between polities and administration.
98
Hierarchically the executive is, commonly, categorized in to two, the chief executive and
executive. The chief executive refers to the one individual or small group (such as a
president, Prime Minister, or ruling junta) at the apex of the executive structure of the
political system. The executive is a much broader term, including all the people and
organizational machinery that are below the chief executive in the executive structure.
Thus, broadly the concept executive encompasses upper and middle-level decision
makers in all the departments, agencies, or other administrative units that are in the chief
executive’s chain of command.
The distinction between political and bureaucratic or official posts is most clear in the
case of parliamentary executives, where differences in recruitment, responsibility, status
and political orientation can be identified. In parliamentary systems, the political
executive comprises elected politicians and ministers drawn from and accountable to the
assembly; their job is to make policy, in accordance with the political and ideological
priorities of their party, and to oversee its implementation. The bureaucratic executive,
on the other hand, comprises appointed and professional civil servants whose job is to
offer advice and administer policy, and generally subject to the requirements of political
neutrality and loyalty to their ministers.
Powers and Functions of the Executive
As its most simple, the chief function of the executive organ of government is to execute
or implement laws, orders, decisions, regulations and the like that are enacted by the
legislative branch. Such function also covers prevention of violation of laws and the
proper punishment for law-breakers, in turn maintaining peace and good government in
the country. Hence, these roles extend over a variety of areas and this means that the
members of the executive have to carry out several powers and functions.
The Political Executive
The task of the political executive is to provide leadership. In this sense, the executive
functions as the ‘commanding heights’ of the state apparatus, the core of the state itself.
99
The most important of the areas are the following:
a) Ceremonial Leadership: heads of state, mostly chief executives and, to a lesser

extent, senior ministers or secretaries ‘stand for’ the state’. In giving state authority
personal form, they represent the larger society and symbolize accurately or
otherwise, its unity. This role is largely formal and ceremonial, and covers, for
example, state occasions, foreign visits, international conferences, and the ratification
of treaties and legislation. Non-executive presidents and constitutional monarchs are
sometimes charged with these essentially ceremonial responsibilities, allowing other
executive officers to get on with the day-to-day business of the government. The role
is nevertheless of broader significance for two reasons. First, it provides a focus for
unity and political loyalty, and so helps to build legitimacy. Second, it allows those at
the top of the executive to portray themselves as ‘national leaders’, which is vital to
the maintenance of public support and electoral credibility.
b) Policy making Leadership: the key function of the political executive is to direct
and control the policy process. In short, the executive is expected to ‘govern’. This
role was substantially expanded during the twentieth century in response to the
broadening responsibilities of government. The political executive is looked to, in
particular, to develop coherent economic and social program that meet the needs of
more complex and politically sophisticated societies, and to control the state’s various
external relationships in an increasingly interdependent world. One important
consequence of this has been the growth of the executive’s legislative powers, and its
encroachment on the traditional responsibility of the assembly/parliament.
Not only do political executives usually initiate legislative programs and help, by
persuasion or in many cases, they also exercise a wide range of law making powers,
using decrees, orders and other instrument. However, it is misleading to imply that
the political executive always dominates the policy process. Much policy, for
instance, is initiated by political parties and interest groups. Moreover, by virtue of
their expertise and specialist knowledge, bureaucrats or civil servants may play a
100
crucial role in policy formulation, at best leaving the political executive to establish
the overall direction of government and policy.
c) Control of the Military and Foreign Affairs: given the state’s monopoly of the
legitimate use of force, the military including internal security forces is an area over
which the top political executive usually has direct control. In such cases, the top
executive is the commander in chief of the entire military system of the state,
including personnel and other resources such as the aircrafts, military intelligence, the
troop, etc. The chief executive must set policy and supervise the organization and
utilization of the state’s military capabilities for the security and well-being of the
society.
Associated with control of the military is the executive’s responsibility for foreign affairs,
the state’s relation with other states. Mostly the relations between states involve complex
patterns of cooperation and conflict, as each state attempts to accomplish its own goal in
the international environment. The chief executive or its delegates, represents the state’s
dealings with other countries. Particular significances often attach to situations where the
chief executives of different states meet directly, as in a state visit or a summit
conference. In fact, such meetings among heads of state typically are symbolic gestures
of cooperation or ratify agreements that have been reached by the chief executives’
representatives. However, the concentration of the state’s political power in the chief
executives is so great that such meetings can provide opportunities for major
breakthrough in the relations between the states.
d) Popular leadership: the popularity of the political executive, more than any other
part of the political system, is crucial to the character and stability of the regime as a
whole. At a policy level, it is the ability of the executive to mobilize support that
ensures the compliance and cooperation of the general public. Quite simply, without
support from the public, or from key groups in society, policy implementation
becomes difficult, perhaps impossible. More importantly, the political executives’
popularity is linked to the legitimacy of the broader regime. The unpopularity of a
101
particular government or administration does not in itself weaken support for the
political system, but it may do so in the absence of a mechanism for removing and
replacing that government. This goes some way towards explaining the widespread
use of regular and competitive elections. Of course, this is not to say that unpopular
and immovable executives always spell systemic breakdown. Such regimes can
survive, but only by resorting to authoritarianism, meaning that popular compliance is
brought about through repression and ideological manipulation.
e) Bureaucratic Leadership: its task of overseeing the implementation of policy means
that the political executive has major bureaucratic and administrative responsibilities.
In this sense, chief executives, ministers and secretaries constitute a ‘top
management’ charged with running the machinery of government. This work is
organized largely along departmental lines and senior ministers having responsibility
for particular policy areas and for the bureaucrats engaged to administer those areas.
At a higher level, there is a need for policy coordination, which is usually
accomplished through some kind of cabinet system.
f) Crisis leadership: a crucial advantage that the political executive has over the
assembly/parliament is its ability to take swift and decisive action. When crises break
out in either domestic or international politics, it is invariably the executive that
responds, by virtue of its hierarchical structure and the scope it provides for personal
leadership. It is therefore common for parliaments to grant political executives near-
dictatorial powers in times of war, and for executives to seize ‘emergency powers’
when confronted by domestic crises such as natural disasters, terrorist threats, and
civil disorder. For example, the power to declare ‘state of emergency’ in Ethiopia is
vested on the hand of the executive, especially in the Prime Minister, because of the
role of the executive in crisis management.
The Bureaucratic Executive
Among other things, the primary and main function of the bureaucratic executive is the
execution and enforcement of the laws made by the legislature and the policies decided
102
by the political executives. Indeed, while other functions of government (such as

representation, policymaking, interest articulation) are carried out by a variety of
institutions, policy implementation is solely the responsibility of civil servants working
under their political masters. Moreover, in addition to their primary function, they have
important role in the following areas:
a. Administration: the core function of the bureaucracy is to implement or execute

law and policy, it is thus charged with administering government business. This is
why the bureaucracy is sometimes referred to as ‘the administration’, while the
political executive is termed ‘the government’. This distinction implies that a
clear line can be drawn between the policy-making role of politicians and the
policy-implementing role of bureaucrats. Certainly, the vast majority of the
world’s civil servants are engaged almost executively in administrative
responsibilities that range from the implementation of welfare and social security
programmes to the regulation of the economy, the granting of licenses, and the
provision of information and advice to citizens at home and abroad.
b. Policy Advice: the political significance of the bureaucracy stems largely from its
role as the chief source of the policy information and advice available to
government. This policy role helps to distinguish top-level civil servants, who
have daily contact with politicians and are expected to act as policy advisers, from
middle-ranking and junior-ranking civil servants, who deal with more routine
administrative matters. Quite simply, decisions made by political executives are
made on the basis of the information available, and this means that the content of
decisions is invariably structured by the advice offered. Moreover, as the principal
source of the advice available to politicians, bureaucrats effectively control the
flow of information, that is, politicians know that civil servants tell them.
c. Articulating Interests: as one of their formal functions, bureaucrats often help to
articulate and sometimes aggregate interests. Bureaucrats are brought in to contact
with interest groups through their task of policy implementation and their
involvement in policy formulation and advice.
103
d. Political Stability: the final function of bureaucrats is to provide a focus of

stability and continuity with in political systems. This is sometimes seen as a
particular important in developing states, where the existence of a body of trained
career officials may provide the only guarantee that government is conducted in
an orderly and reliable fashion. This stability depends very largely on the status of
bureaucrats as permanent and professional public servants; that is, while ministers
and governments come and go, the bureaucracy is always there.
III. The Judiciary Organ
The judiciary is the branch of government that is empowered to decide legal disputes.
Most, but not all, governments have specialized judicial structures that include the system
of courts and judges. Thus, the central function of judges is to adjudicate on the meaning
of law, in the sense that they interpret or construct law. The significance of this role
varies from state to state and from system to system, however, it is particularly important
in states with codified constitutions, where it extends to the interpretation of the
constitution itself, and so allow judges to arbitrate in dispute between the major
institutions of government or in ones between the state and the individual. Accordingly,
the major powers and functions of the judiciary organ may include the following areas:
a. Adjudication: the first and for most function of the judges is to administer
justice. They hear and decide cases, such as civil, criminal, and constitutional, in
the light of the arguments given by the concerned parties. To a large extent, the
courts are regarded as the defenders of the rights and liberties of the people. In
states having written constitutions, the courts are also entrusted with the power of
interpreting the fundamental law of the land/country, that is the constitution.
b. Formation of Case Law: though formulation of law is the responsibility of the
legislative organ, courts or judges are also engaged, some times, in formulating a
different kind of law known as case-law. This kind of law is often referred as
judge-made law, because the interpretations made by the judge in each case and it
become serve as binding law for other similar cases even in other courts.
104
c. Guardian of the Constitution: in most federal systems, the courts act as the
guardian of the constitution and an umpire between the central and regional
governments. All constitutional disputes among the regional states or between the
regional states and the central/federal government are settled by the highest court
of the country. However, there are differences among federal states in
empowering the power to interpret the federal constitution. For example, in
Ethiopia it is not the federal Supreme Court, but the House of Federation that has
the power to interpret the FDRE constitution.
d. Protection of Rights of the Citizenry: in addition to the aforementioned
functions, the judiciary organ also play an important role in protecting and
guaranteeing the constitutionally provisioned rights of citizens, mainly through
the process of the due process of law. Generally, the judiciary/courts play an
important role in the protection of citizens against unreasonable and arbitrary
treatment by government officials, and its institutions at any level.
e. Judicial Review: another significant function of the courts, particularly of the
high and supreme courts, is to look in to the constitutional validity of a legislative
measure or executive action, and then declare it unsound and void to the extent of
its being against to the fundamental law of the land. This is known as the power
of judicial review. That is, the power of the judiciary to review the laws, decrees
and actions of other branches of government, and to declare them invalid.
Activity
 What are the principal powers and functions of the legislative branch of government?
_
____________________________________________________________
 What about the major powers and functions of the executive branch?
_
____________________________________________________________
105
 What are the point of similarity and difference between the political and bureaucratic
executives?
_
____________________________________________________________
 What are the central powers and functions of the judiciary branch of government?
_
____________________________________________________________
Lesson Four
2.4. SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT
Activity
 What do you understand by the concept systems of government?

_
____________________________________________________________
Dear student! At this sub-unit, you will be well introduced with the topics: systems of
government, parliamentary systems of government, presidential systems of government
and the hybrid or semi-presidential systems of government.
Lesson Objectives
By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
 Distinguish and describe the different systems of government.

 Identify and describe the major principal features of parliamentary and
presidential systems.
106
 Identify and discuss the chief characteristic features of a hybrid or semi-

presidential systems.
 Understand the potential advantages and disadvantages of the parliamentary,
presidential and semi-presidential systems.
Key terms
 Parliamentary systems  Presidential system

 The cabinet /council of  Separation of power
ministers  Impeachment
 Fusion of power  Checks and balances
 Cooperative coalition of parties  Hybrid /semi-presidential
 Majority seat /control/ systems
 Vote of confidence  Dual Executive
 Vote of no-confidence
The other conventional method of classifying and especially of describing political

system is by defining the pattern of power and interaction between the legislative and
executive structures: that is, the relationship between the legislative and executive. The
taxonomy in this context emphasizes the two most common patterns through which the
executive and the legislative structures interact to perform the functions of rule making
and rule application. In the contemporary world, though there are various systems of
government based on their characteristics, the most common systems of government are:
1) parliamentary system of government

2) presidential system of government, and
3) hybrid or semi-presidential systems
2.4.1 Parliamentary System of Government
107
A parliamentary system of government is one in which the government governs in and

through the assembly or parliament, thereby ‘fusing’ the legislative and executive
branches. Although they are formally distinct, the legislature and the executive, usually
seen as the government, are bound together in a way that violates the doctrine of the
separation of powers. In other words, it refers to a system of government, which vests the
political leadership in a legislative body (parliament), which in turn selects the executive
body.
Electorate/
People Parliament Executive
Thus, in parliamentary system, the legislature and the executive are combined, and the
executive is held accountable to the legislative. This system of government is also known
by the name cabinet government. Accordingly, parliamentary government is that system
in which the real executive (the cabinet or council of ministers) is immediately and
legally responsible to the legislature or one branch of it (usually the most popular house)
for its political polices and acts, and moderately or ultimately responsible to the electorate
or the people. In the contemporary political system, similar parliamentary systems came
in to existence in states such as Germany, Sweden, India, Japan, Australia, Ethiopia,
Canada, Britain Israel, Italy, etc. As discussed above, the central feature of these systems
is a fusion of legislative and executive power; government is parliamentary in that it is
drawn from and accountable to the parliament or assembly. The strength of this system is
that it supposedly delivers effective but responsible government. Government is effective
in that, it rests on the confidence of the parliament and so can, in most cases, ensure that
its legislative program is passed. In theory, the parliament has upper hand because it has
the ultimate power, the ability to remove the government.
Among many other things, the chief characteristic features of a parliamentary system
include:
1. Government is formed as a result of parliament or assembly elections based on the

strength of one party or cooperative coalition of different parties’ representation in
the parliament, hence there is no separately elected executive.
108
2. The members of the executive branch are drawn from the parliament, usually from
the leaders of the party or parties that have majority control. In other words, in a
parliamentary system, most or almost all members of the executive (the cabinet)
are members of the parliament, and usually the party or a cooperative coalition of
parties that have majority vote in the parliament control the leadership of the
executive.
3. The government/the executive is responsible to the parliament in the sense that it
rests up on the parliament’s confidence (majority seat) and can be removed, if it
loses that confidence. Thus, the cabinet retains executive power only as long as it
has the confidence or majority vote in the parliament.
4. The government /the cabinet can, in most cases, dissolve the parliament, meaning
that electoral terms are usually flexible within a maximum limit.
5. The head of the state (a monarch or a president) in a parliamentary system has
nominal authority. His authority is in name, not in fact. The head of the state has a
nominal authority and hence he/she is a nominal head.
6. The Prime Minster (which is the head of the executive body) holds the real
executive authority and, as such, the Prime Minister is described as ‘the real
working head of the state.’
7. As the head of the government in parliamentary system is the Prime Minister, there
is separate head of state; headed by a constitutional monarch or a non-executive
president.
8. In most parliamentary systems, as long as the Prime Minister win majority support
or confidence from the parliament, his/her electoral terms is not fixed. Thus, the
Prime Minister can lead the executive as much as, he/she get confidence, for
consecutive terms of offices.
Generally, this system of government has its best feature in the rule of a body of
ministers (the cabinet) accountable to the parliament directly, and through it, indirectly
accountable to the electorate /the people.
109
Potential Advantages and Disadvantages
The parliamentary system of government has its strong and weak elements.
Potential advantages
One of the commonly attributed advantages to parliamentary systems is that it's faster and
easier to pass legislation. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the
direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the
legislature. Thus, this would amount to the executive (as the majority party or coalition of
parties in the legislature) possessing more votes in order to pass legislation. In a
presidential system, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If
the executive and legislature in such a system include members entirely or predominantly
from different political parties, then stalemate can occur. Former US President Bill
Clinton often faced problems in this regard, since the Republicans controlled Congress
for much of his tenure. Accordingly, the executive within a presidential system might not
be able to properly implement his or her platform/manifesto. Evidently, an executive in
any system (be it parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential) is chiefly voted into
office on the basis of his or her party's platform/manifesto. It could be said then that the
will of the people is more easily instituted within a parliamentary system.
In addition to quicker legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for

nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a unipersonal presidential
system, all executive power is concentrated in the president. In a parliamentary system,
with a collegial executive, power is more divided. In the 1989 Lebanese Taif Agreement,
in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-
presidential system with a strong president to a system more structurally similar to
classical parliamentarianism. Iraq similarly disdained a presidential system out of fears
that such a system would be tantamount to Shiite domination; Afghanistan's minorities
refused to go along with a presidency as strong as the Pashtuns desired.
110
It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of
parliamentarianism. The prime minister seldom tends to have as high importance as a
ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political
ideas than voting for an actual person.
There is also a body of scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce
Ackerman, and Robert Dahl that claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to
authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of
Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the
transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully
made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional
breakdowns. A recent World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated
with lower corruption. In short it has the following advantages:
1. It ensures harmony between the legislative and executive branches of government.

Since the executive is a part of the legislature and since it has majority support
behind it, there are no chances of confrontation and deadlock between the two
branches.
2. Since the executive is accountable to the legislature, it can not be autocratic. The
members of the parliament always ask questions and conduct investigations that
must be answered by the different ministries of the government (the executive). In
addition, the policies and programmes of the government are discussed and
criticized in the parliament. Hence, the government (the cabinet) always remains
under the fear of attack from the parliament, and consequently become responsible
government hindering the chance of autocratic regime.
3. It secures swiftness in decision and vigor in action. Because, it is easy for the
cabinet to get the measures, it deems essential, as it is confident of the support of
the majority, behind it in the legislature.
4. It holds prospects for the formation of an alternative government without
conducting another election. The leader of the opposition party or a coalition of
111
parties that held majority seat in the parliament are ready to form the government
in case the party/the Prime Minster stop to lead the executive.
On the other hand, the disadvantage of the parliamentary system of government may be
described as follows.
1. It violates the principle of separation of powers. The combination of legislative

and executive branches means concentration of authority that may result in bad
and unsupported decisions and actions.
2. Parliamentary system of government may be quite unstable in case no party is in a
position to secure majority seat in the legislature.
3. Sometimes, it tends to make the executive autocratic. A prime minister hardly
bothers for criticism in the parliament when his/her party has overwhelming
majority and supports him/her blindly. The opposition feels helpless in correcting
the inconsistent behavior of the government, because all decisions in the
parliament are taken on the basis of voting.
4. The opposition party or parties plays an irresponsible role in many cases. Its
function is just to oppose the ruling party. Sometimes even good and constructive
proposals of the government are criticized by the opposition leaders in order to
embarrass or humiliate the party in power. The legislature may look like as a
battle-ground of parties rather than a forum for healthy discussion.
5. The interest of the nation is ignored for the sake of interest of the party in power.
The government distributes favors among its own members as a result corruption
prevails and it may assume serious proportions. Therefore, all matters are decided
in the interest of the party rather than the nation in general.
Countries with a parliamentary system of government
Unicameral system - countries with parliament consisting of a single house.
112
Country Parliament
Albania Kuvendi
Bangladesh Jatiyo Sangshad
Bulgaria National Assembly
Botswana Parliament
Burkina Faso National Assembly
Croatia Sabor
Denmark Folketing
Dominica House of Assembly
Estonia Riigikogu
Finland Eduskunta/Riksdag
Greece Hellenic Parliament
Hungary National Assembly
Iceland Althing
Israel Knesset
Kosovo Kuvendi
Kuwait National Assembly of Kuwait
Latvia Saeima
Lebanon Assembly of Deputies
Lithuania Seimas
Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies
Republic of Macedonia Sobranie
Malta House of Representatives
Mauritius National Assembly
113
Moldova Parliament
Mongolia State Great Khural
Montenegro Parliament
Nepal Nepalese Constituent Assembly
New Zealand Parliament
Norway Stortinget
Palestinian Authority Parliament
Papua New Guinea National Parliament
Portugal Assembly of the Republic
Saint Kitts and Nevis National Assembly
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines House of Assembly
Samoa Fono
Serbia National Assembly
Singapore Parliament
Slovakia National Council
Sri Lanka Parliament
Sweden Riksdag
Turkey Grand National Assembly
Ukraine Verkhovna Rada
Vanuatu Parliament
Kyrgyzstan Jogorku Kenesh
Bi-cameral system - countries with parliament consisting of two houses.
Country Parliament Upper chamber Lower chamber
114
Commonwealth
Australia Senate House of Representatives
Parliament
Austria Parliament Federal Council National Council
Antigua and
Parliament Senate House of Representatives
Barbuda
The Bahamas Parliament Senate House of Assembly
Barbados House of Assembly Senate House of Assembly
Council of the
Belarus National Assembly House of Representatives
Republic
Belize National Assembly Senate House of Representatives
Belgium Federal Parliament Senate Chamber of Representatives
Bhutan Parliament National Council National Assembly
Brazil National Congress Senate Chamber of Deputies
Cambodia Parliament Senate National Assembly
Canada Parliament Senate House of Commons
Czech Republic Parliament Senate Chamber of Deputies
Federal Parliamentary House of People's

Ethiopia House of Federation
Assembly Representatives
Council of the
European Union European Parliament
European Union
Bundesrat (Federal
Germany Federal Legislature Bundestag (Federal Diet)
Council)
Grenada Parliament Senate House of Representatives
Rajya Sabha (Council

India Parliament (Sansad) Lok Sabha (House of People)
of States)
Ireland Oireachtas Seanad Éireann Dáil Éireann
Iraq National Assembly Council of Union[5] Council of Representatives
115
Italy Parliament Senate of the Republic Chamber of Deputies
Jamaica Parliament Senate House of Representatives
Japan Diet House of Councillors House of Representatives
Dewan Negara Dewan Rakyat (House of

Malaysia Parliament
(Senate) Representatives)
Staten-Generaal (States- Tweede Kamer (House of

Netherlands Eerste Kamer (Senate)
General) Representatives)
Parliament/Majlis e
Pakistan Senate National Assembly
Shoora
Poland Parliament Senate Sejm
Saint Lucia Parliament Senate House of Assembly
National Council (only

Slovenia Parliament National Assembly
partially)[6]
National Council of
South Africa Parliament National Assembly
Provinces
Spain Cortes Generales Senate Congress of Deputies
Switzerland Federal Assembly Council of States National Council
Thailand National Assembly Senate House of Representatives
Trinidad Parliament Senate House of Representatives
United Kingdom Parliament House of Lords House of Commons
Activity
 What are the major characteristic features of a parliamentary system of government?

_
____________________________________________________________
116
 What about the common potential advantages of a parliamentary system of

government?
_
____________________________________________________________
 Mention some characteristic features that you may observe in the practice of the
current Ethiopian government compared to the general characteristic feature of
parliamentary system of governments.
_
____________________________________________________________
2.4.2 Presidential System of Government

A presidential system of government is characterized by a constructional and political
separation of powers between the legislative and executive branch of government.
Presidential systems are based on the strict application of the doctrine of the separation of
powers. This ensures that the parliament/assembly and executive are formally
independent from one another and separately elected. Executive power, in a presidential
system, is thus vested in an independently elected president who is no directly
accountable to or removable by the assembly. The doctrine of the separation of powers
proposes that each of the three functions of government (legislation, execution and
adjudication) should be entrusted in a separate branch of government (the legislative,
executive and the judiciary branches respectively). This is to fragment government power
in such a way as to defend liberty and keep tyranny at bag. In its formal sense, it demands
independence, in that there should be no overlap of personnel between the branches.
However, it also implies interdependence in the form of shared powers to ensure that
there are checks and balances. Therefore, as chief characteristics, presidential systems are
based on the principle of the separation of powers. Thus, presidential system is that
system in which the executive (the president and his ministers) is constitutionally
117
independent from the legislature and elected separately from it. Countries such as USA,
Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, the Philippines, South Korea, etc are some of the
countries that follow a presidential system.
Check and
Presidency/ Assembly/
the Executive the legislative

Balances
Electorate
/People
The chief principal features of a presidential system include:
i. Real Authority of the President: the leadership of the executive is in the hands
of the president who is elected by the people for a fixed period of time. The
procedure of election may be either direct or indirectly and the constitution may
also specify as to the number of tenures a person may hold (as of two term in
USA, for instance). The president formulates national policy, orders mobilization
of troops, declare state of emergency and take all necessary steps for the
enforcement of laws and maintenance of order in the country. In short, the
president governs the country by controlling the real authority of the executive.
ii. Separation of Legislature from the Executive: the president and his ministers
cannot be the members of the legislature/parliament. In case the president
appoints a member of legislature as his minister, he has to leave his legislative
membership. It is for this reason that the president and his ministers do not take
part in the deliberations of the legislature. The president may go to the legislature
either for delivering an important address, or he may send message that may be
accepted by the legislature, and even the ministers may attend a session of the
legislature and may also take part in discussion but they have no right to vote.
118
Thus, it is based on the strict application of separation of power between the

branches of government.
iii. In Such systems, the legislative and executive are separately elected, and vested
with a range of independent constitutional powers.
iv. Unlike to the parliamentary systems, the roles of the head of the state and
government are combined in the office of the presidency.
v. The president neither can dissolve the legislature nor be dismissed by it, except
possibly through the process of impeachment. Impeachment refers to the formal
process for the removal for the president or a public official in the event of
personal or professional wrongdoing. That is, the process of impeachment is
provided to remove the president in case he/she is held guilty of violating the oath
of office. Formally, in presidential system, the president is under an Oath that
he/she will defend and protect the constitution of the state. Thus, in case he/she
does otherwise, the process of impeachment may be used to remove him/her from
office.
vi. In almost all presidential systems, the electoral terms of the president are fixed.
For instance, in the USA, a president leads the country for a maximum two terms
of office (a term of office is for four years).
The principal virtue of presidential system is that by separating legislative power from
executive power, it creates internal tensions that help to protect individual rights and
liberties. As best example of the presidential system of government, in the USA, for
instance, the danger of executive domination is protected by incorporating the network of
checks and balances. Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court are separate
institutions in the sense that no overlap of personnel is permitted, but nevertheless
possess the ability to constrain one another’s power. Thus, while the congress has the
power to make law, the president can veto it, but congress can, in turn, override this veto
with a two-thirds majority in both houses (the congress and the senate). In the same way,
although the president has the power to make senior executive and judicial appointments,
these are subject to confirmation by the house of senate.
119
A few countries (e.g., South Africa) have powerful presidents who are elected by the
legislature. These presidents are chosen in the same way as a prime minister, yet are
heads of both state and government. These executives are titled "president", but are in
practice similar to prime ministers. Other countries with the same system include
Botswana, the Marshall Islands, and Nauru. Incidentally, the method of legislative vote
for president was a part of Madison's Virginia Plan and was seriously considered by the
framers of the American Constitution.
Presidents in presidential systems are always active participants in the political process,
though the extent of their relative power may be influenced by the political makeup of the
legislature and whether their supporters or opponents have the dominant position therein.
In some presidential systems such as Weimar Germany and South Korea, there is an
office of prime minister or premier but, unlike in semi-presidential or parliamentary
systems, the premier is responsible to the president rather than to the legislature
Potential Advantages and Disadvantages
It is obvious that the presidential system of government is the opposite form of the
parliamentary model. As such, the advantages of the presidential systems are more
probably the disadvantages of the parliamentary systems and vis-versa, in fact, which
may vary from one country to another due to varying levels of political culture and
political development.
Accordingly, the presidential system of government has its points of strengths and
weaknesses. To mention some of them, its advantages may include:
i. It ensures stability of government, since the president is elected for a fixed term
and it is a very difficult process to remove the president by the process of
impeachment. As such, the fate of the executive does not depend up on the
unstable vote of the parliament. Thus, the government can follow a consistent and
continuous policy.
120
ii. It may meet the conditions of national crisis effectively. In such system, the
president does not have to follow and act according to the directions of the
legislature or the members of the cabinet, and thus able to counter national crisis
effectively by providing necessary actions and decisions.
iii. Since the system is based on the strict application of the principle of separation of
power, the president does not have the power to assume legislative authority. As
a result of this, each government organs will act as a check on each others, and
thus preserve the democratic system and eliminate abuse of power.
iv. It is also preferable from the point of administrative efficiency. Since the
members of the executive organ are not obliged to attend in the routine activist of
the legislative branch, they can devote themselves wholly to the duties and
activities of the administration of the government.
v. Since the legislature cannot be controlled by the executive, it is also possible for
it to act more independently. Members of the legislature are not required to agree
with the line of the ruling party like in the case of the parliamentary system, and
therefore, they can vote freely on the issues presented to them.
On the other hand, apart from its advantages, the disadvantages of the presidential system
can also include:
i. It leads to executive autocracy. Since the president is elected for a fixed term and
since he/she cannot be remove by the process of impeachment on account of its a
tiresome nature, the president may rule like a dictator.
ii. Since it is based on the principle of separation of power, it is also possible that
the executive and the legislative branches may subject to unintelligent activities.
In case one political party wins the office of the president and the other party has
majority in the legislature, the chance of confrontation between the two increases.
Thus, there may occur disagreement due to confrontation between the executive
and the legislative organs.
121
iii. Since legislature is free from the control of the executive, it may act in a very
irresponsible manner, because different groups may manipulate things in
different directions.
iv. It may also accuse of being a rigid system. The president cannot influence the
parliament to make laws quickly so as to meet the conditions of crisis, because
the legislature may or may not support the executive to the necessary extent.
Republics with a presidential system of government
 Afghanistan  Ecuador  Myanmar  Sudan

 Argentina  El Salvador  Nicaragua  Suriname
 Armenia  Guatemala  Nigeria  Tanzania
 Belarus  Haiti  Panama  Uganda
 Bolivia  Honduras  Paraguay  United States
 Brazil  Indonesia  Peru  Uruguay
 Chile  Iran  Philippines  Uzbekistan
 Colombia  Kazakhstan  Seychelles  Venezuela
 Costa Rica  Kenya  Sierra Leone  Zambia
 Cyprus  Liberia  South Korea
 Dominican  Mexico  Sri Lanka
Republic
Activity
 What are the major characteristic features of the presidential system of government?
_
122
 What are the points of similarity and difference between parliamentary and
presidential systems of government?
_
 Mention some of the advantages and disadvantages of presidential systems of

government.
_
2.4.3. Hybrid Systems

An increasing number of political systems attempt to combine desirable aspects of both
the presidential and the parliamentary systems. These ‘hybrid’ systems, which have also
been termed as ‘semi-presidential’ systems, tend to fuse executive and legislative power
like the parliamentary system. They have a prime minister and an elected legislative that
can both enact and implement policies. But they also have a president (selected for a
fixed term and having some independent executive power) who, being a single individual
can act with decisiveness. Some hybrids are more like parliamentary systems, that the
president has limited power and most power is exercised by the prime minister and the
cabinet. In other hybrids, there is a more balance sharing of power between the president
and the prime minister.
The hybrid or semi-presidential system was first established in France during the fifth
republic in 1962. In this system, there is a ‘dual executive’ in which a separately elected
president works in conjunction with a Prime Minster and cabinet drawn from and
responsible to National Assembly. How such a system works in practice depends on
fragile balance between, on the one hand, the personal authority and popularity of the
president and, on the other, the political complexion of the National Assembly. A similar
123
semi-presidential system also operates in Finland, in which the president concerned

largely with foreign affairs and leaves the burden of domestic responsibilities in the
hands of the cabinet. There is, more or less, balanced sharing of power between the
president and the cabinet. In Finland, while the president does attend meetings on major
legislations, the president and the prime minister must sign a law before it is enacted and
the cabinet and the legislature undertake most of the legislation. In thus more balanced
hybrid systems, the relative power of the president and the prime minister/the cabinet
varies depending on the constitutional rules, the personality of the office holders, and the
political situation in the society.
Division of powers- How the powers are divided between president and prime minister
can vary greatly between countries. In France, for example, in case of cohabitation when
the president and the prime minister come from opposing parties, the president is
responsible for foreign policy and the prime minister for domestic policy. In this case, the
division of powers between the prime minister and the president is not explicitly stated in
the constitution, but has evolved as a political convention. In Finland, by contrast, this
particular aspect of the separation of powers is explicitly stated in the constitution:
"foreign policy is led by the president in cooperation with the cabinet".
Cohabitation - Semi-presidential systems may sometimes experience periods in which

the President and the Prime Minister are from differing and opposing political parties.
This is called "cohabitation", a term which originated in France when the situation first
arose in the 1980s. In most cases, cohabitation results from a system in which the two
executives are not elected at the same time or for the same term. For example, in 1981,
France elected both a Socialist president and legislature, which yielded a Socialist
premier. But whereas the president's term of office was for seven years, the National
Assembly only served for five. When, in the 1986 legislative election, the French people
elected a right-center Assembly, Socialist President Mitterrand was forced into
"cohabitation" with a rightist premier.
124
Cohabitation can create an effective system of checks and balances or a period of bitter
and tense stonewalling, depending on the attitudes of the two leaders, the ideologies of
their parties, or the demands of their constituencies. As a typical example, Sri Lankan
politics for several years witnessed a bitter struggle between the President and the Prime
Minister, belonging to different parties and elected separately, over the negotiations with
the LTTE to resolve the longstanding civil war.
Activity
 How are hybrids or semi-presidential systems of government differ from that of the
parliamentary and presidential systems?
_
 Do you observe any common characteristic feature shared among the three major
systems of governments? What are these?
_
Lesson Five
2.5 Types/classifications of Governments
Brainstorming
 From your knowledge of systems of government, what do you think of the concept
types or classifications of government?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
125
Dear student! Can you remember what is discussed in the previous lesson? As part of the
general classification of governments, in this lesson you will be introduced with further
arrangement and forms of governments.
Lesson Objectives
Up on the successful completion of this lesson, you will be able to:
 Distinguish and describe the constitutional and non-constitutional governments.

 Identify and show the essential characteristic of constitutional and non-
constitutional governments.
 Define and explain the terms monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy and dictatorship.
Key Terms
 Constitutional /Democratic  Oligarchy

Governments  Aristocracy
 Non-constitutional  Absolute monarchy
/undemocratic governments  Constitutional monarchy
 Authoritarian governments  Limited government
 Totalitarian governments  Dictatorship
 Monarchy
In the contemporary period, in many parts of the world such as in Europe, Asia, Africa,
Latin America and other parts, there are continuing experiments in new constitutions and
political systems. However, the difficulties of establishing a new system of classification
is that there is not consensus about the criteria up on which such a system should be
based. Nevertheless, particular systems have tended to prioritize different sets of criteria.
Among the parameters most commonly used are the following:
 Who rules? Is political participation confined to an elite body or privileged group,

or does it encompass the entire population?
126
 How is compliance achieved? Is government obeyed as the result of the exercise

or threat of force, or through bargaining and compromise?
 Is government power acquired and transferred? Is a regime open and competitive,
or is it monolithic?
 What is the balance between the state/government and the people? What is the
distribution of rights and responsibilities between government and citizens?
 How stable is the regime? Has the regime survived over time, and does it have the
capacity to respond to new demands and challenges?, etc.
2.5.1 Classification on the Basis of Constitutional Application

A related conventional classification of political systems, on the basis of the
aforementioned issues, is based on the relationships between the rulers/government and
the ruled/the people. In this categorization, the key question is whether the political
system is abided by the provisions in the state’s constitution/fundamental rules and laws
or not. Accordingly, based on this classification, there are two types of governments the
constitutional and non-constitutional governments.
Constitutional/Democratic governments
The defining feature of a constitutional government is that the state always attempts to
fulfill the provisions of its constitution. That is, the government operates in terms of the
rule of law, as defined within the constitution, and insures effective restraints on the
power holders. The constitution declares the existence of the state and it expresses the
most important fundamental rules of the political system. Thus, in constitutional
governments, three sets of rules are important. First, the constitution allocates
governmental activities, defining what actions are within the domain of the governance
and what political structures will perform these various actions. Second, it establishes the
formal power relationship between the political structures, indicating the conditions
under which is independent or dependent up on the actions of other structures. Third, the
constitution limits the power of the rulers and guarantees the rights of the people, by
defining the maximum extent of the state’s authority over its citizens and by enumerating
127
citizen’s freedoms and benefits from the state. The third set of rules is more important. A
government becomes more fully a constitutional one to the extent the political system
fulfills the constitutional limits on the ruled. Therefore, merely having a constitution does
not necessarily mean that the country has a constitutional government. The following are
the essential characteristics of constitutional government.
A. Limited Government: as stated above, the first essential characteristic of a

constitutional government is to be limited by the basic laws and rules of the
constitution. Thus, constitutional governments are those governments whose
actions and decisions are in practice limited by the law and rules of the
constitution. In reality, even among some constitutional governments, the limits on
the state and the rights of the people are not absolutely implemented. Some states
justify suspension of major constitutional provisions as a ‘temporary’ response to
circumstances that threaten the stability of the society. But the main concern is that,
as one major characteristic, governments must comply with the fundamental law
and rules of the constitution and there by limited by it. Thus, if a constitution
provides for unlimited exercise of power to the government, it is not the basis for a
constitutional government.
B. Higher Law: in constitutional government, the constitution is higher or supreme
law in which those in government and the people must and do obey. The
constitution has the following features.
i. Individual rights: it provides for the protection of the rights of the individual
against unfair and unreasonable infringement by the government and other
individuals. This typically includes the establishment of a private domain
which the government may not intrude upon. The individual also typically
enjoys the strict protections of due process of law intended to protect the
rights of both innocent and guilty alike from full and arbitrary power by the
government.
ii. Methods of limiting Power: among other things, methods of liming power
can be done by formal means such as the separation of power, the system of
128
checks and balances and other constitutional restrictions. Power can also be
limited by informal means such as publicity of government actions and
creating pressure such as lobbying and demonstrations.
iii. Stability: the constitution must not be changed without the wide consent but
in accordance with the established and well set procedures. Ultimately, the
strength of the constitution depends up on the will and readiness of those
with political power to enforce its provisions. The actual drafting of every
constitution is either directly or indirectly controlled by those with political
power in the society. Many groups in a society might offer interpretations of
what the constitution mean and how it ought to be applied to particular
circumstance such as to the governmental officials, courts, political parties,
interest groups. But in the short run, at least, political power in the society
establishes whose interpretation of the constitution will prevail and how the
constitutional provisions will be implemented. In constitutional
governments, the interpretations are generally reasonable and judicious, and
the implementation is fair.
Non-Constitutional/Undemocratic Governments
Non-constitutional governments may also have constitutions that set forth the basic way
they are or are said to be organized and operated. However, they may be distinguished
from constitutional governments by the following two main characteristics.
A. Ineffective limitations on Power: in non-constitutional governments, there is no

effective means available to the general public how to limit the powers of the rulers.
Rulers or government officials are not effectively restrained by law in the exercise
of their powers. Government rulings, actions, and decisions may be made arbitrarily
at judgment of the rulers, instead of within prescribed limits according to the
established rules, laws and procedures.
B. Uncertainty or absence of individual rights: as a second feature, in non-
constitutional governments, any rights of individuals that may be claimed to exist
129
are subject to the arbitrary violation of the ruler or rulers. Typically, there is no
private domain in to which rulers may not intrude. Whatever rights the individuals
may be considered to possess, rather being protected by strict standards of due
process of law, are typically subject to arbitrary and summary decree and
deprivation.
Among non-constitutional governments, a distinction is often made between authoritarian

systems and totalitarian governments.
i. Authoritarian Governments: authoritarian governments place severe restrictions

on the activities of individuals and groups desiring to influence the allocation of
values by the political system. Meaningful power over political institutions and
pubic policy is limited to a small group and the great majority of the populations
are excluded from the political activities of the country. The people are not
allowed to participate in any political activities except those expressly encouraged
by the regime.
ii. Totalitarian Governments: a totalitarian government is a system of government
that attempts to have power over every aspects of human life, not just over what
concerns the government. That is, it is an all-encompassing system of political
rule that is typically established by pervasive ideological manipulation and open
terror and brutality. It seeks ‘total power’ through the politicization of every
aspect of social and personal existence. Totalitarianism thus implies the outright
abolition of civil society, and the abolition of the private. Totalitarian regimes are
sometimes identified through a six-point condition. These are:
o an official ideology.
o a one party state, usually led by an all powerful leader.
o a system of terrorist policing.
o a monopoly of the means of armed combat.
130
o state control of all aspects of economic life.
Activity
 What do you understand by the term constitutional government?

_
 What about the unconstitutional /undemocratic governments?

_
 What are the main distinctions between constitutional and unconstitutional

governments?
_
2.5.2 Other Forms of Government

Apart from the aforementioned ways of classifications of different systems and types of
governments, on the basis of various considerations and parameters, governments are
also classified as follow:
I. Monarchy: a monarchy is the system of the rule dominated by one person; i.e. it
literally means ‘rule by one person’. Thus, a monarchy is a form of government
that has a monarch as head of state. In general usage, it is a form of government
131
through which the post of the head of state is filled through inheritance or
dynamic succession. Sometimes, the term monarchy is used to refer to the people
(especially the dynasty, also known as ‘royalty’) and institutions that make up the
royal or imperial establishment or to the realm over which the monarch reigns.
Such governments exist in two forms.
a. Absolute Monarchy: in an absolute monarchical system, the monarch has power
over every aspect of the state, if not of social life in general, and a constitution may
be granted or withdraw. The monarchy (the king/the queen) maintain his/her
position by the claim of legitimate blood decent than their as popular leaders. For
instance such categorization may include the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Morocco,
the imperial regime of Emperor Haile Selassie I in Ethiopia, etc.
b. Constitutional Monarchy: in constitutional monarchical systems, the monarch
fulfills an essential ceremonial function largely devoid of political significance.
That is to say that, the constitutional monarchy is considered as ceremonial head of
the state, an indispensable figure in all great official occasions and a symbol of
national unity and authority of state, but lacking real powers. Best examples are the
modern governments in England, the Netherlands and Spain.
II. Oligarchy: oligarchy is a form of government where most or all political power
effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful,
whether by wealth, family, military strength, ruthlessness or political influence).
The world oligarchy is from the Greek words for ’few’ (oligo) and ‘rule’ (arkhos).
Some political theorists, in fact, have argued that all governments are inevitably
oligarchies no matter the supposed political system.
Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and
guided to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy, often at some sort of expense to those of
the governed. In oligarchies, this power may not always be exercised openly, but
preferring to remain ‘the power behind the throne’, exerting control through economic
means.
132
A society may become an oligarchy by default as an out-growth of the shifting alliances

of warring tribal chieftains, although any form of government may transform in to an
oligarchy at some point in evolution. The most likely mechanism for this transformation
is a gradual accumulation of otherwise unchecked economic power. Oligarchies may also
evolve in to more classically authoritarian forms of government, sometimes as the result
of one family gaining ascendancy over the others. Many of the European monarchies
established during the late middle-ages began in this way. A modern example of
oligarchies would be seen in South Africa during the 20 th century or in Tunisia from the
early 1990s until today. In South Africa, for instance, the twenty percent white population
had access virtually all the educational and trade opportunities, and they proceeded to
deny this to the black majority even further than before. Although this process had been
going on since the mid 18th century, after 1948, it become official government policy and
become known worldwide as apartheid. This lasted until the arrival of democracy in
South Africa in 1994. In some Latin American countries, the concept of oligarchy is
expected to include government and military officials, without necessarily implying
nepotism. In addition, sometimes capitalism as a social system is also described as an
oligarchy. In capitalist society, power such as the economic, cultural and political power
rests in the hands of the capitalist class or, to put it in another way, the few who have a
vested interest in the maintenance of the system.
III. Aristocracy: the word ‘aristocracy’ originates from a Greek Word ‘aristo’, which
means the best. Thus, aristocracy may be defined as the rule of the chosen few or
a very small section of the population marked out by birth, wealth, talent, status
and the like. It stands for the control of power in and its exercise by few persons
distinguished by their superiority, ability and merit. In other words, it refers to a
form of government in which political power resides in and is exercised by the
few, in which only a relatively small proportion of the citizens have a voice in the
choosing of public officials and in determining public policies.
133
If aristocracy means the rule of the ‘few’, the problem arises as to what does the
word ‘few’ imply. Historical evidence shows that these few may be chosen on the
basis of blood, birth, family, wealth, culture, education, physical power,
charismatic potentialities, religious position, etc. But whatever may be the method
or the basis of classification or the form which aristocracy may take, the general
principle is the same; that aristocratic government ‘is government by
comparatively small proportion of the population.’
Sometimes, the two terms – aristocracy and oligarchy are used interchangeably.
However, in the strict sense, aristocracy is treated, as a government by a ‘class’
and oligarchy as a government by ‘a small number of persons’ who do not
strictly constitute a class. In recent times, the distinction between aristocracy and
the oligarchy, the former as government of the best and the widest and the latter
as government of the wealthy minority, has almost disappeared so that aristocracy
connotes the same characteristics which the ancients associated with oligarchy.
The most important point about aristocracy is that it has hardly existed in an
independent form like monarchy, dictatorship and democracy. It has survived
under the superficial array of monarchy. Its determining features have been
hereditary as well as wealth.
IV. Dictatorship: dictatorship, in contemporary usage, refers to absolute rule by

leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions or other social and political factors
within the state. The existence of a dictatorship has its proof in the position of a
person who holds extra constitutional powers and identifies himself/herself with
the state. The person is the head of the state, of the government, of the party or the
military group in power. In simple terms, dictatorship is the assumption of extra-
legal authority by the head of the state.
In other words, a dictatorship mean absolute rule of a single person who occupies
his/her position by means of force and, as such, is not accountable to any popular
institution. It is the government of one man, who has not obtained his position by
134
inheritance, but by force which possesses absolute sovereignty, that is, all political
power ultimately emanates from his will and it is unlimited in scope. It is also
exercised in an arbitrary manner by decree rather than law. The authority of the
dictator is not limited in duration, and is not subject to any other authority.
In the 20th century, dictatorship has been the essential pillar of single-party states,
military regimes and other authoritarian regimens. For instance in the era between
the First World War and second World War, fascist regimes such as Mussolini of
Italy and Hitler of Germany incorporated principles of dictatorship with a single
party state, mass mobilization and regimentations of social and economic activity,
and arbitrary exercise of police terror by the regime. In the post 2 nd World War
era, dictatorship became a frequent feature of military government, especially in
Latin America, Asia and Africa. In the case of many African or Asian former
colonies, after achieving their independence in the post 1945 wave of
decolonization, presidential regimes were gradually transformed in to personal
dictatorships. These regimes often proved unstable, with the personification of
power in the hands of the dictators and their associates making the political
system by posing problems of succession. Thus, as patterns, dictatorship
governments have been observed in many countries of the World in the post 1945
period as in Argentina under person, in Portugal under Salazar, in Uganda under
Idi Amin, in Ethiopia under Mengistu, etc.
Activity
 What do you understand by the concepts monarchy and oligarchy?

_
 What about the terms Aristocracy and dictatorship?
135
 What point of similarities and differences do you observe among the terms monarchy,
oligarchy, Aristocracy and Dictatorship?
_
Summary
In this unit, attempts have been made to provide you with an opportunity of
understanding the concepts and practices of governments. It has been presented that,
government as formal and institutional processes that operate at the national level to
maintain public order and facilitate collective action, which take the responsibility to
administer the country and the responsibility to administer the country and main
organizations dealing with the whole affairs of the state. Government is also referred as a
political institution authorized to formulate public policies and conduct the affairs of the
state. As a formal and legal institution that demands obedience from the people,
government is also necessarily endowed with two essential attributes, authority and
legitimacy. Moreover, attempts has also made to identify the major purposes and
functions of government, as an agent responsible to establish peace, order, predictability
in the country; distribute resources; manage conflicts that may arise in the society; fulfill
aspirations of society and groups; protect the rights and property of citizens; implement
moral conditions in the society; and provide the necessary goods and services to the
people. Similarly, the unit also dealt with the common forms of organization of
governments, both vertically and horizontally. In their vertical arrangements,
governments most commonly organized in the way as central/national level and sub-
136
national level governments, vested with distinctive respective powers and functions. On
the other hand, the horizontal arrangement of governments is commonly categorized in to
the legislative, executive and judiciary branches with their respective powers and
authorities. In addition, in this unit, it has been presented the common systems and
practices where the governments of the world are structured - the parliamentary, the
presidential and the hybrid systems. Parliamentary systems are the systems of
governments in which the government governs in and through the parliament by fusing
the legislative and executive powers and authorities of the government. In contrast,
presidential systems are system of organization of governments that are chiefly
characterized by strict constitutional and political separation of the legislative and
executive branches. Different from these two systems, the hybrid or semi-presidential
systems are arranged in a way that fuse the executive and the legislative like the
parliamentary system and again elect a prescient with some independent executive
powers like that of the presidential systems. Finally, the unit touched upon other types
and classifications of governments that commonly practiced and existed in different
states of the world.
137
1. Which one of the following is not true?
a. Government refers to the act of governing, especially the control and

administration of public policy in a political unit.
b. Authority implies the ability to compel obedience.
c. Legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a governing regime or law as an
authority.
d. In democratic governments, legitimacy is mainly gained through physical force.
2. Which one of the following is among the major purpose and function of a government?
a. Management of conflicts
b. Self-preservation
c. Protection of property
d. Fulfillment of social or group aspiration
e. All of the above
3. One of the following is different from the others
a. National unity
b. Uniformity
c. Liberty
d. Prosperity
4. Which one of the following is not among the major reasons for the establishment of
state level or regional governments?
a. Participation
b. Responsiveness
138
c. Equality
d. Legitimacy
5. Which of the following is not among the major powers and functions of the legislative
branch of government?
a. Legislation of laws and regulations

b. Representation of the citizenry
c. Policy making leadership
d. Constitutional making and amending
e. All of the above
6. Which one of the following is not true about the judiciary branch of government?
a. It has the power to oversee the implementation of policy

b. It has the role to articulate and aggregate interests of the people
c. It has the power to hear and decide cases presented to it.
d. All of the above
e. ‘A’ and ‘B’ only
7. Which one of the following is among the disadvantages of a parliamentary system of
government?
a. It ensures harmony between the legislative and executive branches of

government.
b. It violates the principle of separation of power
c. It secures swiftness in decision making
d. All of the above
e. Only ‘B’
8. Which one of the following is not correct statement?
a. In parliamentary system of governments, government is formed as a result of

parliament election based on the strength of one party or cooperative coalition of
different parties
139
b. In presidential system of government, almost all members of the executive branch

are drawn from the parliament
c. In presidential systems of government, the executive branch is responsible to the
parliament.
d. All of the above
e. ‘B’ and ‘C’ only
9. Which one of the following is not included in the advantages of presidential system of
government?
b. It ensures stability of the government

c. It leads to executive autocracy
d. It is preferable from the point of administrative efficiency
e. It is based on the strict application of the principle of separation of power.
f. None of the above
10. One of the following is not among the essential characteristics of constitutional
governments.
a. The basic law of the land limits governments.

b. The constitution is the higher or supreme law of the land.
c. The government provides and guarantees the rights of the individual against
unfair and unreasonable infringements.
d. The government places restrictions on the activities of individuals and groups
correct.
1. Legitimacy based on set procedures, principles and laws is known as charismatic

authority.
2. One of the advantages of bicameralism is that political responsibilities are clearly
located in one body and that risk of duplication is eliminated.
140
3. In most governments, the courts are vested with the power to guard and protect the
constitution.
4. Political executives comprises those appointed and professional civic servants
whose job is to offer advice and administer policy.
5. In parliamentary systems, the terms of office of the prime minister is not fixed.
6. Legal rational authority is closely linked to hereditary systems as reflected in
dynastic systems of governments.
Part III: Match the items or phrases listed in column “A” that fits best with that of
term or phase listed under column “B”
Column “A” Column “B”
1. Ethiopia A. Bi-cameral system

2. American Revolution B. Authority
3. Democracy C. Bureaucratic Executives
4. Capitalism D. Uni-cameral system
5. Policy advice E. Purpose and function of government
6. Traditional authority F. Origin and development of government
7. Impeachment G. Legitimacy
H. Political executives
I. source of Authority
J. parliamentary system
K. Presidential system
141
References
 Apter, David and Harry Eckstien (eds) (2003). Comparative politics: A Reader.
Delhi: Surjeet Publications.
 Bakuis, Herman and W.H. chandler (1989). Federalism and the Role of the state.
Toronto: Toronto university press.
 Boyd, Eugene (1997). American Federalism, 1976 to 1997: Significant Events.
 Brinkley, Alan (2000). The unfinished Nation: A concise history of the American
people. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
 Collin, P.H. (1994). Dictionary of Government and Politics. New Delhi: Universal
Bookstall.
 Dazinger, James N. (1991). Understanding the political World: An Introduction to
political science. New York: Longman.
 Debryshire, J. and Ian Denis (1991). World political system: An introduction to
comparative politics. New York: W and R chambers Ltd.
 Dennis, L.d. and James J.C. (2003). Politics and policy in American states and
communities. Boston: Allyn and Ballon.
 Diclerico, Robert E. and Allan S. Hammock (2001). Points of view: Readings in
American government and politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
142
 Drake, D. Frederick and Lynn R. Nelson (2002). Teaching about Federalism in the
United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.
 (2006), Encyclopedia Almanac.
 (2006), Encyclopedia Britanica
 (2006), Encarta reference library.
 Goodin, R. E. and Philip Pettit (1997). Contemporary political philosophy: An
Anthology. London: Black-well.
 Heywood, Andrew (2003). Politics: An Introduction. Second edition. New York:
palgrave.
 Janda, Kenneth et al. (2000). The challenges of Democracy: Government in
America. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
 Johari, J. C. (2001). Comparative politics. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers pvt Ltd.
 Johari, J. C. (2002). Principles of Modern political Science. New Delhi: Sterling
publishers pvt Ltd.
 Kassaye Amare (2001). Fundamentals of Civic Education. Addis Ababa.
 Mildlarsky, Manus I. (1997). Inequality, Democracy and Economic Development.
New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
 Miller, Roger L. (2002). American Government. Illinois: National text Book
Company.
 Morrow, John (1998). History of political Thought. London: Macmillan press Ltd.
 Norton, Katzman. Et al. (1991). A people and a Nation: A history of the United
States. Boston: Houghton Mifflin company.
 Pierre, J. and B. Guypetes (2000). Governance, politics and the state. Bassing stake:
palgrave.
 Ray, N. Samirenda (2002). Modern comparative politics: Approaches, Methods and
Issues. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall.
 Renny, Austin (1990). Governing: An Introduction to political science. New Jersey:
prentice Hall Inc.
 Roskin, Micheal G. (1995). Countries and concepts: An Introducton to comparative
politics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
143
 Rourke, T. John and Mark A, Boyer (1998). World politics: International Politics in
the World stage, Brief. Dushkin: McGraw-Hill.
 Schwarz mantel, J. (1994). The State in contemporary society: An Introduction.
New York: Harvester Wheastshe of.
 Shively, W. P. (1999). Power and Choice: An Introduction to Political Science.
 Turner, Marry J. et al. (1996). American Government: Principles and Practices.
California: McGraw-Hill.
 (2006). Wikipeda, The Free Encyclopedia.
UNIT THREE
ORGANIZATION AND POWER DISTRIBUTION OF THE CURRENT ETHIOPIAN

GOVERNMENT
Dear student! Welcome to the fourth unit of this module. As you already note that, in the
previous units, we discussed generally about the theoretical conceptions of the concepts
society, government and state. In this unit, we will thoroughly look at the actual practices
and principles of the federal state structure of the current Ethiopian government.
Unit Objectives
After successful completion of this unit, you will able to:
 Understand the organization and power distribution of the Ethiopian

government.
144
 Distinguish and discuss about the vertical arrangement of the Ethiopian

government.
 State and describe the horizontal arrangement of the Ethiopian government.
 Aware about the powers and functions of the federal and regional governments.
 Identity the major challenges of the federal system in Ethiopia.
After the adoption of the FDRE constitution, Ethiopia has been and is a ‘Federal
Democratic Republic.’ The new constitution of the 1995 had explicitly declared Ethiopia
to be a federal with nine states that constitute the federation. In fact, the general move
towards the adoption of constitutional federalism was only a culmination of the process
of decentralization that was taking place since 1991 that was ushered in after the fall of
the military regime. The Transitional charter that brought a departure for the National/
Regional Self-government set-up during the transitional period (July 22, 1991 to August
21, 1995) was proclaimed by the Peace and Democracy Conference convened on July 1
- 5, 1991 in Addis Ababa.
The charter in its preamble having declared the ‘staring of a new chapter to Ethiopian
history in which freedom, equal rights and self-determination of all the peoples shall be
the governing principles of political, economic and social life,’ to affirm the rights of
nations, nationalities and peoples to self-determination. To this effect article 2(b) of the
charter guaranteed each nations, nationalities and people the right to self-administer its
own affairs within its own defined territory and effectively participate in the central
government on the basis of freedom, and fair and proper representation.’ In line with the
charter, the establishment of the National Regional self –government was provided for in
proclamation 7 of 1991. Article 3 of the proclamation enumerated 63 identified nations,
nationalities and peoples and established 14 regions. Eight of these regions were
composite regions embracing from 3 up to 13 identified nations, nationalities and propels.
Four regions had one identified nation each and greater Addis Ababa with its mixture of
urban and rural peoples formed a region by itself. Furthermore, the proclamation also
provided for 48 of the identified nations, nationalities and peoples to be able to establish
145
their own National/ Regional self-governments at the wereda level or above. The
remaining 17 nationalities and peoples having small-size population and therefore less
than 50% of the population of a self-government wereda were incorporated in it. These
regions, therefore, had areas of competence that were put adjacent to alongside that of the
then central transitional government. Thus from 1991 to 1995, Ethiopia was gradually
evolving to a full-fledged federal system as it was also experiencing a decentralization
that bordered federal non-centralization.
The 1995 constitution, which established the country as a federation of multi –ethnic
nation, identified nine states namely the state of Tigray, the state of Afar, the state of
Amhara, the state of Oromia, the state of Somalia, the state of Benshangul/Gumuz, the
state of Southern Nations, Nationalities and peoples, the state of the Gambela peoples,
and the state of Harari people as the sub-national entities that constitute the Ethiopian
federation, because of the ethno-linguistic nature of state formation; i.e., because
“language, identity, settlement pattern, and consent of the people concerned” are the
bases on which state borders are delimited. Above all, the most important thing about the
Ethiopian constitution of the 1995 is that it is clearly a departure from all previous
Ethiopian constitutions. The state it envisages and the government it establishes are
different both in form and content. Unlike the age-old monarchical constitutions that are
familiar landmarks in Ethiopian history, this constitution provides for republican form of
government. In fact, it is the second republican constitution that has been promulgated;
but while the Derg constitution provide for a single –party system and a unitary
government, the 1995 FDRE constitution provides for a federal multi-party system of
government. The clear-cut departure the constitution of 1995 makes is based on the
evaluation of previous systems. It is based on the understanding that the previous
constitutional orders, whether of a feudal monarchial nature or of a Marxist dictatorial
type, have failed to deliver what the society expected of them. What the society expected
is a constitutional order that, without sacrificing the fundamental values of the society,
drives it towards a sustainable political and socio-economic development in an orderly
and peaceful fashion.
146
Lesson One
3.1 Vertical Arrangement of the Government
Brainstorming
From your knowledge of government, what do you understand by the concept vertical
arrangement of government?
____________________________________________________________
Dear student: do you answer the above question? Can you identity the levels of
government that are arranged vertically? This unit mainly emphasizes on the discussion
about the two levels of governments of Ethiopia: the federal or central government and
the regional governments.
Lesson Objectives
Up on successful completion of this lesson, you will able to:
 Distinguish the two main levels of the Ethiopian government.

 Describe and discuss the fundamental powers and functions of the central
government.
 Point out and explain the basic powers and functions vested on the regional
governments.
 Identity and relate the powers and functions vested on the federal and regional
governments.
Key terms
 Federal/central government  Exclusive power
 State/regional governments  Concurrent power
 Multi-ethnic federalism
The inter-governmental relations, that are the relationship between the federal
government and region states, are fairly regulated by the federal constitution. The
constitution explicitly lists down the federal powers, the state powers, concurrent powers
147
(powers that are shared between the federal and regional state governments), and leaves
residual powers to the states. The principle of mutual respect (between federal and state
governments) is explicitly stated. Mutual non-interference in one another’s affairs, and
thus in matters that is exclusively under the jurisdictional competence of each other is
recognized. At the same time, interstate equality in terms of rights and powers is also
clearly stipulated in Article 47(4) which read as, “member states of the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia have equal rights and powers.” The fact that the states
have legislative, executive and judicial competence is readily recognized under Article
50(2) of the constitution.
As is stated before, the constitution of the 1995 establishes the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia, which comprises of the Federal government and the nine member
states, including the tenth entity that is the Addis Ababa administration. The constitution,
however, does not freeze the system, as it expressly leaves the door open for possible
further changes since the Nations, Nationalities and peoples have the right to establish at
any time, their own respective states. The process by which a nation, nationality, or
people can exercise its rights to form its own state is also spelled out by the constitution
and closely resembles the procedure followed for the exercise of the right to secession.
3.1.1 The Federal Government of Ethiopia
The Federal Government is structured in terms of legislative, executive, and judicial

institutions and powers. The legislative institutions of the Federal Government are the
two Federal Houses known as the House of peoples’ Representatives and the Houses of
Federation. Then there is the president of the Republic, who is the Head of the State and a
separate Head of the government headed by the prime Minister, who together with the
council of Ministers exercises highest executive powers. Moreover, supreme federal
judicial authority is vested in the Federal Supreme Court.
As clearly stated in the Federal constitution, the Federal government is given powers in
major areas that require uniformity by its nature like matters relating to nationality,
148
national defense, inter-state commerce, communication, inter-state water resources, etc.

The formulation and implementation of the country’s policies, strategies and plans in
overall economic, social and development matters are also given to the federal
government. In effect, the federal government has the power to establish and implement
national standards and basic policy criteria for public health, education, science and
technology, as well as for the preservation and protection of cultural and historical
legacies.
Basically, matters related to currency are also left to the uniform governance of the
federal government. It is specifically stated under article 51 (7) of the constitution that the
Federal government shall administer the National Bank, print and borrow money, mint
coins, regulate foreign exchanges and money in circulation. International and regional
relations of the country are made to be governed by the federal government for its is a
matter that clearly affects the country as a whole. Hence, the federal government is made
to formulate and implement foreign policy, negotiate and ratify international agreements.
For the same reason, the federal government is given the power to determine and
administer all matters relating to immigration, the granting of passports, entry in to and
exist from the country, refugees and asylum. At the same time, matters that affecting two
or more regions are also to be handled by the central government. In effect, the federal
government is responsible for the development, administration and regulation of air, rail,
waterways, sea transport, and major roads linking two or more states, as well as for the
postal and telecommunication services.
The task of administration and utilization of water or river and takes linking two or more
regions, and the responsibility of expansion and administration of all federally funded
institutions that provide services to two or more states are also given to the federal
government. Matters affecting the federal government itself are left to the executive
power and function of the federal government. Accordingly, it has the power to levy
taxes and collect duties on revenue sources reserved to the federal government, and
drawn up, approve and administer the federal government’s budget. In addition to these,
there are areas where special treatment is given by the constitution and hence are left to
149
the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. The declaration and lifting of
national state of emergency and states of emergency limited to some region of the
country is among these areas. The other area that can be included in the sphere where
special treatment is given is political rights, that the federal government is given the
power to enact all necessary laws governing political parties and elections.
For further clarity on the specific powers and functions of the federal government, the
FDRE constitution under Article 51 states the following:
a. It shall protect and defend the constitution

b. It shall formulate and implement the country’s policies, strategies and plans in
respect of overall economic, social and development matters.
c. It shall establish and implement national standards and basic policy criteria for
public health, education, science and technology as well as for the protection and
preservation of cultural and historical legacies.
d. It shall formulate and execute the country’s financial, monetary and foreign
investment policies and strategies.
e. It shall enact laws for the utilization and conservation of land and other natural
resources, historical sites and objects
f. It shall establish and administer national defense and public security forces as
well as a federal force.
g. It shall administer the National Bank, print and borrow money, mint coins,
regulating foreign exchange and money in circulation; it shall determine by law
the conditions and terms under which states can borrow money from internal
sources.
h. It shall formulate and implement foreign policy; it shall negotiate and ratify
international agreements.
i. It shall be responsible for the development, administration and regulation of air,
rail, water ways and sea transport and major roads linking two or more states, as
well as for postal and telecommunication services.
150
j. It shall levy taxes and collect duties on revenue sources reserved to the Federal
Government’s budget.
k. It shall determine and administer the utilization of the waters or river and lakes
linking two or more states or crossing the boundaries of the national jurisdiction.
l. It shall regulate inter-state and foreign commerce.
m. It shall administer and expand all federally funded institutions that provide
services to two or more states.
n. It shall deploy, at the request of a state administration, federal defense forces to
arrest a deteriorating security situation within the requesting state when its
authorities are unable to control it.
o. It shall enact, in order to give practical effect to political rights provided for in the
constitution, all necessary laws governing political parties and elections.
p. It has the power to declare and to lift national state of emergency and states of
emergencies limited to certain parts of the country.
q. It shall determine matters relating to nationality.
r. It shall determine and administer all matters relating to immigration, the granting
of passports, entry into and exit from the country, refugees and asylum.
s. It shall patent inventions and protect copyrights.
t. It shall establish uniform standards of measurement and calendar.
u. It shall enact laws regulating the possession and bearing of arms.
3.1.2 The Regional Governments
According to the text of the constitution, the states are called states or sometimes as
Regional States. Although, from their basic establishment the states have been an ethnic
configuration, none of them are totally homogeneous, some are even extremely
heterogeneous. For instance, the SNNPRS having around 56 different groups is so
diverse and so complex. Benishangul/Gumuz and Gambella have 4 - 5 ethnic groups
within their territory. Afar, Somali and Oromia, which seem to be homogeneous also
have pockets of non –Afar, non –Somali and non – Oromo in their territory. Tigray
151
another Regional state is also a composite of the dominant Tigray, the Erob and the
Kunama. The Amhara state has the Agaw, the Oromo and other minorities in addition to
the dominant Amhara. The Harari state has a large number, estimated to be over 50% of
the total of Oromo inhabitants there by necessitating the formation of a coalition, of
constitutional government at the state level. In this way, Ethiopia can be termed as a type
of multi-ethnic federation.
As has been stated at earlier on, the states have equal power and rights irrespective of the
glaring numerical or economic disparity among them (it is important to note that the
economic and population size of the regions is very uneven). This is perhaps because the
constitutional makers have intended to replace a past that has been challenged with inter-
ethnic discrimination, oppression, and marginalization.
As it is clearly stipulated in the constitution, all powers and functions not given expressly
to the federal government alone or concurrently to the federal government and regional
governments are reserved to exclusive jurisdiction of the regional government. Those
powers and functions which are not stated to be given to the federal government alone
and to the federal and regional governments concurrently are left for the regional
government. As per Article 52 (2), the constitution has enumerated the basic powers and
functions that are left for the state. Among these, the major powers and functions of the
regional states include:
1. All powers not given expressly to the Federal Government alone, or concurrently
to the Federal Government and the States are reserved to the states.
2. Consistent with the above Article, states shall have the following powers and
functions.
a) To establish a state administration that best advances self –government, a
democratic order based on the rule of law; to protect and defend the
Federal constitution;
b) To enact and execute the state constitution and other laws;
152
c) To formulate and execute economic, social and development policies,

strategies and plans of the state;
d) To Administer land and other natural resources in accordance with Federal
laws;
e) To levy and collect taxes and duties on revenue sources reserved to the
states and to draw up and administer the state budget;
f) To enact and enforce laws on the state civil service and their condition of
work; in the implementation of this responsibility it shall ensure that
educational; training and experience requirements for any job, title or
position approximate national standards;
g) To establish and administer a state police force, and to maintain public
order and peace with in the state.
Activity
 What were the major departures effected by the 1991 transitional charter of the
transitional government of Ethiopia?
 Why was the transitional charter regarded as a new chapter to the Ethiopian political
history?
 Can you summarize briefly the powers and functions of the federal government?
 What about the basic powers and functions of the regional governments?
153
Lesson Two
3.2 Horizontal Arrangement of the Government
Brainstorming
 What do you understand by the concept horizontal arrangement of government?
Dear student! In this lesson, you will be introduced with the general organization and
distribution of the branches of the Ethiopian government, and with the specific powers
and functions vested on these three branches of the Ethiopian government: the legislative,
executive and judiciary branches. Finally, we will try to look at some of the potential
challenges and problems of the federal system arrangement in Ethiopia.
Lesson Objectives
After having completed studying this lesson, you will able to:
 Identify and discuss the branches of the Ethiopian government.

 Point out the two houses of the legislative branch.
 Distinguish the major components of the executive branch.
 Aware about the common powers and functions vested on the legislative,
executive and judiciary branches of the Ethiopian government.
 Understand and aware about the major challenges and problems posed on the
federal arrangement of the Ethiopian government.
154
Key terms
 House of peoples’  Representation
representatives  The prime minister
 House of federation  Council of ministers
 Law-making  Federal supreme court
 Constitutional Inquiry  Federal high court
 The office of the president  Federal first-instance court
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia constitution has also established a

parliamentary system of Government with the legislative, executive and Judiciary
branches. According to the constitution, these different branches of government have
vested with various powers and functions distributed to each of these chambers. The
legislative institutions of the Federal Government are the two Federal Houses known as
the House of Peoples’ Representatives and the House of Federation. Then there is the
president of the republic, who is the Head of state. The Head of government is the Prime
Minister, who together with council of Ministers exercises highest executive powers.
Supreme federal judicial authority is vested in the Federal Supreme Court. Federal first-
instance and federal high courts may also be established if deemed necessary by the
House of Peoples’ Representatives.
3.2.1 The Legislative Branch
I. The House of Peoples’ Representatives
The highest authority of the Federal Government rests with the House of Peoples’
Representatives. The House of Peoples’ Representatives is an institution whose members
are elected for a five-year term on the basis of universal suffrage and by direct, free, and
fair elections through secret ballot. Each member state is divided in to electoral districts,
and members are elected by a plurality of the vote race.
155
The House of Peoples’ Representatives plays many important roles. Its functions
encompass the legislative, financial, deliberative, informative, and representative areas.
Among these, the most important function of the House is the process of law making, that
it is entitled to issue laws. With respect to it’s, ‘power to legislate,’ the constitution
provides that all matters assigned to Federal jurisdiction fall within the competence of the
House of Peoples’ Representatives. Federal jurisdiction is exhaustively enumerated in
twenty-one provisions under Article 51 of the constitution. From the protection and
defense of the constitution, through policy formulation in political, economic, and social
spheres to more specific areas such as control of firearms, the patenting of inventions or
the protection of copyrights, and the establishment of uniform standards of measurement
and calendar is carefully defined. The reason for such careful enumeration of the
processes and functions of the Federal Government is, of course, because of the juxta-
positioning of the powers and functions of the member states, which are enumerated in
Article 52.
Beyond the careful delimitation of federal jurisdiction and hence the broad legislative
competence of the House of Peoples’ Representatives, the constitution mandates it to
‘enact specific laws’ on a number of vital areas such as the utilization of land, natural
resources, and interstate lakes and rivers; interstate and foreign commerce; interstate
roads postal and telecommunication services; enforcement of constitutionally established
political rights; nationality, asylum, and other specific issues. The issuance of major
codes such as a labour code, a commercial code, a penal code, and civil laws are also
specifically provided by the constitution. The House of Peoples’ Representatives is also
specifically mandated to decide on the organization of national defense, public security,
and national police force, as well as the proclamation of a state of emergency or a state of
war pursuant to decisions made by the council of Ministers. The ratification of
international agreements entered into by the executive is also specifically within its
mandate.
The approval of economic, social and development polices and strategies as well as the
fiscal and monetary policy of the country, including legislation on the National Bank and
156
foreign and on local currency, is particularly vested into the power of the House of
Peoples’ Representatives. So is the ratification of the budget of the Federal Government
and the levying of taxes and duties on revenue sources reserved to the Federal
Government Specifically provided for.
With respect to the administration of justice, the approval of the appointment of federal
judges, the establishment of Human Rights commission and the institution of the
Ombudsman, as well as the determination of their powers and functions is expressly
provided for. The inability of state authorities to arrest violations of human rights is
considered so grave a matter, and rightly so, that the House of peoples’ representatives
may initiate a joint deliberative session with the House of Federation through which
appropriate decisions are then made and directives passed to the concerned state council.
The House of Peoples’ Representatives is also specifically provided with the questioning
power; that is, having approved the appointment of members of the executive, it has the
power to call and question the Prime Minister and other Federal officials. Its questioning
power is unambiguously stated to include the power ‘to investigate the Executives’
discharge of its responsibilities.’ Beyond the questioning power, the House of Peoples’
Representatives, at the request of one-third of its members, may discuss any matter
pertaining to the powers of the Executive and take the necessary decisions and measures.
The same with other parliaments of other countries, the House of Peoples’
Representatives has also the mandate to establish standing and ad hoc committee to
accomplish it work. And according, it has already established the following standing
committees.
Standing Committees of House of Peoples’ Representative
The House of People's Representatives has 11 standing committees. Each standing

committee has 13 members, including the chairman and the secretary.
The committees of the HPR are:
 Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Affairs Standing Committee
157
 Legal and Administrative Affairs Standing Committee

 Women's Affairs Standing Committee
 Capacity Building Affairs Standing Committee
 Information and Cultural Affairs Standing Committee
 Budget and Finance Affairs Standing Committee
 Trade and Industry Affairs Standing Committee
 Infrastructure Affairs Standing Committee
 Social Affairs Standing Committee
 Rural Development Affairs Standing Committee, and
 Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Affairs Standing Committee
Procedurally, after preliminary discussions that it holds, the House channels incoming
bills to one of the committees. Each committee then publicizes the bill once it gets hold
of it. It organizes a public hearing and entertains suggestions delivered in different ways,
and present to the House speaker a well-documented report on any given bill. The House
speaker and the committee in question chair House deliberations on the report.
According to the statues of each committee approved by the House, the committees
follow the accomplishment of the country's policies, programmes and strategies and if
necessary, prepare a better way of implementation for them. In addition to this, the
committees follow and investigate different organization, which are grouped in respect of
them.
1. Legal and Administrative Affairs Committee
The Main objective of the legal and administrative affairs committee is to conduct a
follow-up on the structure and accomplishment of the legal and administrative works,
which should base the constitution. Furthermore, it studies basic problems of these
institutions and set directions to correct them.
2. Budget and Finance Affairs Committee
158
Besides reviewing the draft annual budget of the Federal Government, the committee also
looks into it that the subsidy the Federal Government provides to the states are carried out
in accordance with the standards set by the House of the Federation. It also follows and
examines the money and property of the federal government collected, protected and
manipulated properly.
3. Foreign Affairs, Defense and Security Affairs Committee
The objectives of the establishment of the Foreign, Defense, and Security Affairs
Committee is to follow and control the federal government's agreements, thrities of loans
and grants to be related with our people's national interest and our Country's sovereignty
as well as the country's foreign policy. Besides, the committee is entrusted with the
organization of the country's defense force respecting the composition of different nations
and nationalities.
4. The Social Affairs Standing Committee
The committee assesses the country's general social development policies and strategies
with reference to the social development plan put in place. It reviews issues related to
education, health, labor, pension and social security and others falling with in the
jurisdiction of the social sector.
5. Capacity Building Affairs Standing Committee
In order to ensure rapid economic development and build up democratic society,

Capacity Building Affairs Standing Committee targets to produce professionals who have
efficiency, quality, integrity and commitment with in a very short period of time.
Besides, it follows and controls activities to upgrade implementation capacities done by
the government as well as private economic sector.
6. Trade and Industry Affairs Standing Committee
The trade and industry standing committee conduct a follow-up on the proper design and
implementation of the agricultural policy hence to rapid the country's economic
159
development. Furthermore, it controls whether encouraging activities are done in respect

with trade, industry and handcrafts. Besides it checks whether the laws and policies
regarding investment are good and favorable for the one's who are interested in the sector
and alos controls the implementation of different policies and regulations designed to
facilitate trade relations.
7. Rural Development Affairs Standing Committee
The Agricultural Development Affairs Standing Committee follows and investigates

policies, programs and plans designed to increase our production and production capacity
of agricultural sector, ensure our aims of self-sufficiency and control the success and
implementation of our agricultural led industrialization strategy.
8. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Affairs Standing Committee
The main objective behind the establishment of Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Affairs Standing committee is to protect and look after the country's natural
resources, to assure sustainable development in the future by securing environmental
protection and conduct a follow-up on the proper implementation of policies, strategies
and programs.
9. Infrastructure Affairs Standing Committee
The committee has main objectives to conduct a follow-up and investigation:
A. On energy development and consumption, electric power supply, development and

distribution.
B. Concerning the country's construction activities
C. concerning the expansion of airways, railways, water transport, postal and
telecommunication services of the country
D. Concerning the hand-in-hand development between different sectors of transport
and communication
160
E. Concerning the appropriate use of capital budgets according to policies, rules and
regulations for infrastructure development gained from foreign loans and
assistance.
10. Women's Affairs Standing Committee
The committee presents recommendations on issues specifically related to the production

of the rights of women in the formulation of policies, plans and programmes that are
associated with their economic rights. It reviews bills covering women's fundamental
democratic and human rights; and probes the violation of these rights as provided in the
constitution. The committee also investigates cases where women are disenfranchised in
the health, education and other social services including the drive to avoid harmful
practices that are detrimental to the physical and psychological well-being of women.
11. Information and Cultural Affairs Standing Committee
The committee sees to it that the fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly the right
of thought, opinion and expression are protected, It also reviews bills and regulations
with regard to the preservation and enrichment of the culture and area of the country's
nations and nationalities, including those of minority nationalities. It also studies about
different conditions, which are necessary for the betterment of the country's sources of
tourism. Besides, it conducts a follow-up and investigation on the responsibility of the
board, which is established to look after government media’s.
Process of Bill Endorsement
The HPR endorses bills in accordance with the HPR legislative bill, approved by the
House in a proclamation no. 271/1994 E.C.
The HPR legislative Bill states that representatives could present a bill on any issue to the
House, provided that they secure endorsement signatures of at least twenty
representatives. Elaborating on the procedures, it says the bill should be presented in
print to the House speaker. The speaker of the House could either have that bill
presented to the House for a first reading or distribute it to the representatives at an earlier
161
date. Once the House deliberates on the bill, the House Speaker channels it to the
appropriate committee, which in turn reviews the case and presents its recommendations
at one of the sessions, it states. After deliberations are once again conducted on the bill,
the speaker of the House makes public the consensus reached by the representatives. The
bill could become a low once the president signs it and is published in the Negarit
Gazetta as stipulated in the HPR's statute.
II. The House of Federation
The House of Federation is definitely the upper House or Second Chamber of the
bicameral parliament, which is a house of nations and nationalities elected for a five year
term. That is, each Nation, Nationality and people is represented in the House of
Federation. However, larger Nations have greater representation than smaller ethnic
groups, because each Nation, Nationality or people are represented by ‘at least one
member’ and additionally each Nation or Nationality is represented by one additional
member for each one million of its population. In the process of their election, it can be
direct and indirect, based on the decision of the councils of member states. Thus, the state
Councils may elect House of federation members themselves or they may hold elections
to have house of federation members elected directly by the people.
The function of the House of Federation is very different from that of the House of
Peoples’ Representatives. Its competence revolves firmly around the constitution. Its
most important function is its power as the interpreter of the constitution, however it does
not mean that no one else can interpreter the constitution. The interpretation and
implementation of the constitution is a daily occurrence that goes on throughout the
system. The House of Federation is, however, the Ultimate authoritative interpreter of the
constitution. The formal way through which issues of interpretation take place is via the
council of Constitutional Inquiry, that is an institution of advisory capacity made up of
eleven persons.
When issues arise in courts of law that warrant constitutional interpretation, and such are
submitted to the council of constitutional Inquiry by a court or a party to a dispute, the
162
council of constitutional Inquiry has the power to examine the constitutional issues and
either return the case to the competent court after it has found case to the competent
court after it has found no grounds for constitutional interpretation to the House of
Federation, who then deliberates on it and make the final determination. In this regard,
unlike most federal systems around the world which make constitutional interpretation a
purely legal matter by placing it in the hands of either a constitutional court or the Federal
Supreme court, Ethiopia has opted for a system that benefits from authoritative legal
expertise within and beyond the Federal supreme court via the council of constitutional
inquiry, but makes the final decision a political one to be determined by the House of
Federation.
Another important matter fully entrusted to the House of Federation is the relationship
among the Nations, Nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia. In this respect the House of
Federation is first and foremost entrusted with the duty to ‘promote the equality of the
peoples enshrined in the constitution and enhance peoples their unity based on mutual
consent.’ In the same vein, the constitution goes on to mandate the House of Federation
to ‘seek solutions to misunderstandings that may arise between states.’ The sensitivity
introduced by the constitution with respect to legislation of civil laws can only be
understood when looked at through the risk of misunderstandings that the House of
Federation is specifically mandated to handle, whereas the house of peoples’
Representatives is entrusted with the issuance of all sorts of laws falling within federal
competence, when it comes to ‘civil laws’, the house of federation has to first delimit the
areas of civil laws that require federal legislation. Presumably the house of federation
may not only delimit which areas of civil law require legislation but may include
directives on how they are to be handled.
Another important financial function of the House of Federation has to do with the
determination of the division of funds between Federal and State Governments on
revenues derived from joint tax sources. Together with this, the House of Federation is
also empowered to determine the amount of Subsidy the Federal government may
provide to the states. While the House of Federation concerns itself with apportionment
163
of joint revenues and subsidies, the house of peoples’ representatives will have to deal
with the levying of taxes and duties and ratify the budget of the Federal Government.
There is no question that these various functions overlap. Moreover, it is not unlikely that
the two houses may at times develop different perspectives. Hence, one can assume that
the sensitive area of financial competence may require joint committees to examine and
submit recommendations to join meeting of both chambers.
The House of Federation, as earlier stated, is the ultimate interpreter of the constitution.
Beyond that, the House of Federation is also the ultimate defender of the constitutional
order in Ethiopia. One of its important areas of competence is to order federal
intervention if, in violation of the constitution, a member state endangers the
constitutional order. In addition to the over stated powers and functions, the house of
federation is entitled to respond appropriately to arrest violations of human rights, in a
joint session with the House of Peoples’ Representatives (Art. 55(16)). The decisions of
the joint Houses are, however directed at the concerned state council. The provision
empowering the House of Federation to order the Federal government to intervene if a
member state, in violation of the constitution, is in the process of endangering the
constitutional order, is invoked either because the matter at hand is seen not as an issue of
human rights violation but as a constitutional crisis of a different nature or if seen as a
human rights violation, because it has gone beyond the capacity of state authorities to
handle effectively. In the latter case, the state authorities may have become the problem,
or part of it, thus making federal intervention unavoidable.
One last area of competence that falls directly within the powers of the House of
Federation is the decision dealing with issues of the right of self-determination including
secession of Nations, Nationalities and peoples. Where the House of federation has tried
everything in its power to ‘enhance their unity based on their mutual consent’ and, still
the compulsion to go one’s own way becomes inevitable for a nation, nationality or
people, the constitution appoints the house of federation to become the in charge. In
doing so, however, the constitution provides for a careful procedure to be followed every
step of the way and sets deadlines to be respected. The constitution has also mandates the
164
house of federation to establish standing and ad hoc committees and to adopt its own
administrative and procedural rules. It is by so doing that it can effectively organize its
work and produce the desired result in handling its weighty task.
Activity
 List briefly the common powers and functions of the house of peoples’ representative.
 Summarize in your own words the major powers and functions of the house of
federation.
3.2.2 The Executive Branch
As stated before, the executive branch of the FDRE is composed of the office of the
president and the office of the prime minister. That is, the president of the republic who is
the head of the state and the prime minister who is the head of the government, together
with the council of ministers exercise the highest executive power in the government.
I. The Office of the President

The president of the FDRE is nominated by the House of peoples’ Representatives and
elected by a two-thirds majority vote of the joint session of the House of federation. The
nominee to the office of the president need not be a member of either chamber of the
165
federal Houses. However, if he is, he vacates his parliamentary seat the moment he is
elected president. The president’s term of office is six years, in a five year parliamentary
system. Thus while the members of the Federal Houses are elected for five year terms
and the executive is appointed on a five-year basis, the president stays in office for six
years and so forms the linkage between one parliamentary term and the other of the
Federal Houses and Executives. The terms of office of the president are limited to two.
These two terms need not be consecutive, though normally that is what one would
assume.
The most important function of the president of the republic is representation. As head of
the state, the president officially and authoritatively represents the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia and is its chief spokesperson. He formally opens the joint session of
the Federal Houses at the commencement of their annual session. One would safely
assume that this is the time when a ‘state of the Republic’ address would be made,
highlighting the problems and achievements of the previous year and the challenges
posed by the coming year. His appointment of nominees submitted to him by the prime
minister to serve as Ethiopia’s ambassadors and special envoys abroad, as well as the
receiving of credentials of foreign envoys and ambassadors to Ethiopia, is also part of the
president’s broad representational function. The president’s other specific functions
include the granting of high military titles to nominees submitted by the prime minister,
the awarding of medals and prizes, and the granting of pardon, all in accordance with
procedure established by law.
The president also plays a role in the legislative process by ‘proclaiming in the Negarit
Gazeta laws and international agreements approved by the council of peoples’
representatives.’ The constitution provides that laws passed by the council of peoples’
representatives shall be submitted to the president to the president for signature.
Moreover, a double fifteen-day period is specified. First, it is the fifteen-day period from
the time the proclamation has been approved by the council of peoples’ representatives.
Second, the proclamation would normally have to be signed by the president within
fifteen days. Where the proclamation is not signed within fifteen days of its submission to
166
the president, it takes effect without his signature and forthwith becomes part of the law
of the land through publication in the Negarit Gazeta.
One other crucial role the president plays is in connection with the establishment of a
new Executive following the dissolution of the House of peoples’ representatives. This
political role may require all the wisdom and political intelligence he can control. Where
the prime minister dissolves the house of peoples’ representatives may or may not entail
the immediate fall of the government and the need for a new council of ministers. But
where it does because the council of ministers of a previous coalition of parties has lost
the support of the majority in the House of Peoples’ Representatives, the president’ may
invite political parties to form a new coalition’ and take over the government. The
president is constitutionally required to invite parties to form a coalition government
within one week of the loss of its majority support by the previous government. Such
interim or caretaker government can then be in work until the next parliamentary
election, which should take place within six months of the loss of confidence experienced
by the previous government.
II. The Office of the Prime Minister

Pursuant to the constitution of the 1995, the highest executive powers of the Federal
Government of Ethiopia are vested in the prime minister and the council of ministers.
This means that the executive of the Federal government is at its highest level constituted
by two instruments - the prime minister and the council of ministers.
The only constitutional requirement for the office of the prime minister is that the prime
minister be elected from among the members of the House of peoples’ Representatives.
Unlike the president, who is elected by a joint session of the Federal House, the prime
minister is elected by the House of peoples’ Representatives. At the same time, unlike the
president, the prime minister is not also required to vacate his parliamentary seat on
becoming prime minister. The prime minister’s term of office is for the duration of the
mandate of the House of peoples’ Representatives. Such mandate is under normal
167
circumstances for five years, the exception arising in connection with the dissolution of
the House of Peoples’ Representatives as constitutionally provided for.
Since executive responsibility in parliamentary systems, and the same to Ethiopia, is

assumed by the party or a coalition of parties constituting the majority in the House of
Peoples’ Representatives, the Premiership forges the direct and visible linkage between
politics and government. The constitutional enumeration of the powers and functions of
the Prime Minister ties up the executive atmosphere. He is the chief executive, the
chairman of the council of ministers, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. With
respect to the council of ministers, he leads it, coordinates its activities, and act as its
representative. Beyond that, he ensures the implementation of laws, policies, regulations,
and directives adopted by the House of Peoples’ Representatives and the council of
ministers. He ensures the efficiency of the Federal administration and takes such
corrective measures as are necessary.
The prime minister also appoints officials of the Federal Government other than the
members of the council of ministers, commissioners, Auditor General, and president and
vice-president of the Federal supreme court; all the latter requiring approval and
appointment by the House of Peoples’ Representatives after selection and submission of
nominees by the prime minister.
Moreover, the prime ministers is given overall supervision power over the
implementation of the country’s foreign policy. He also submits nominees for medals and
prizes to be awarded by the president of the Republic on the basis of laws or decisions
adopted by the house of peoples’ representatives. In light of the executive powers and
functions he is entrusted with, it is appropriate that the prime minister is charged with the
respect and protection of the constitution. The prime minister submits periodic reports to
the House of Peoples’ Representatives on the state of the Nation, on work accomplished
by the government and on future plans.
The constitution, alert of the heavy responsibility shouldered by the prime minister,
provides for the office of Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister has no
168
constitutionally specified task except to carry out responsibilities specifically entrusted to

him by the Prime Minister, and to act on behalf of the prime minister in his absence. As
may be expected, the deputy prime minister’s responsibility is to the prime minister.
III. The Council of Ministers/Cabinet
The council of ministers is the other institution with the highest executive powers of the
Federal Government. Its members, up on nomination by the prime minister, are appointed
by the house of people representatives from among members of the Federal Houses or
otherwise. The council of ministers has a dual accountability: it is responsible to the
prime minister and to the house of peoples’ Representatives in all its decisions. Its
membership includes the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, ministers of the federal
government, and other official whose membership has been determined by law.
The council of ministers’ main powers and functions may be categorized as falling in to
organizational, legal, and economic areas. There is no question but that the council of
ministers exerts strong influence in economic matters; it draws the annual budget of the
federal government and implements it up on approval by the House of Peoples’
Representatives. It constitutional exposition, the emphasis is usually placed on the
legislature enjoying control over the power of the purse. Much of the work of planning
and formulation, implementation and execution connected with budget is a means to an
end. Hence the formulation and implementation of economic, social and development
polices and strategies are provided for in the powers and functions of the council of
ministers. In addition, although it emphasize in the federal budgetary and socio-economic
power play, the federal government beyond its own federal budget and socio-economic
policies and strategy, it has power and function in the regional states activities through
important subsidies it provides to the states for implementation of states’ socio-economic
policies. As part of the economic power and function, the council of ministers is also
specifically empowered with ensuring the proper execution of financial and monetary
policies. By doing so, it administers the National bank, decides on the printing of money
169
and the borrowing of internal and external loans, and regulates the circulation of money
and foreign currency.
The powers and functions of the council of ministers in legal matters are vast and varied.
It is, first of all, empowered to ensure the overall implementation of laws and decisions
adopted by the House of Peoples’ Representatives. The council of Ministers, among other
things, by issuing implementing regulations on the basis of powers granted to it by the
legislature. It also ensures the observance of law and order through its law enforcement
agencies. The council of ministers in exceptional situations would issue decree of state of
emergency and submit it to the House of Peoples’ Representatives and thereby start the
state of emergency machinery rolling with all its constitutional implications. But what the
council of ministers submits to the House of Peoples’ Representatives on a regular basis
are draft proclamations on any matter falling within federal competence as defined by the
constitution.
The council of Ministers, as part of its powers and functions in organizational matters,
decides on the organizational structure of all administrative agencies and provides
leadership. The council of ministers is specifically empowered to formulate foreign
policy and exercise overall supervision over its implementation. Other specific areas
provided by the constitution under the power and functions of the council of ministers
include the protection of patents and copyrights and providing of uniform standards of
measurement and calendar. Another dual accountability of the council of ministers is also
reflected explicitly in the constitutional provision dealing with its powers and functions.
Thus, in addition to the powers and function enumerated, the council of ministers is
charged with the duty to carry out other responsibilities that maybe entrusted to it by the
House of Peoples Representatives’ and the Prime Minister.
Activity
 Can you summarize the chief powers and functions of the president?
170
 What about the major powers and functions vested on the prime minister and the
council of ministers?
 To which body is the council of ministers accountable.
3.2.3 The Judiciary Branch
In addition to the two brunches, which had discussed earlier, the constitution also
recognized the establishment of an independent judiciary with Federal Supreme Court at
the top in the Federal level. In doing this, the constitution of the 1995 established two sets
of courts and comparable jurisdictions. Thus, the constitution provides for a three layered
federal court system at the peak of which sits the Federal Supreme Court as the highest
court in the land. The two other courts of the federal government; that is, the federal high
court and the federal first-instance court, are also specifically mentioned and their
jurisdiction, which would be provided for in detail by relevant legislation, clearly
assumed by the constitution. However, Federal high court and federal first-instance court
are not automatically constituted. Unlike the federal Supreme Court, which is
automatically established by the constitution, the federal high and federal first-instance
courts may be established country wide or partially, by a two-thirds decision of the
council of Peoples’ Representatives, if and when supposed necessary. In their absence,
federal high and first-instance judicial powers are delegated to and exercised by state
courts.
The constitution at the same time established a three-tier court system of state supreme,
high, and first-instance courts. Unlike the Federal high and first-instance courts, all three
state courts are automatically constituted. The state high court in addition assumes
Federal first-instance judicial powers in the absence of the latter. So does the state
171
supreme court, in addition to its state jurisdiction, assume Federal High Court powers in
the absence of the latter.
The pragmatic approach of theoretically providing for a two-tier parallel court system, as
would be ideally expected in a federative constitutional order, but leaving its actual
operationally to necessity, cleverly address the permanent problems of court systems in a
federative constitutional order. On one hand, the need exists to delineate federal and state
jurisdiction and then go in to hierarchical material jurisdiction. Having done that, actually
establishing all the envisaged courts seems logical. On the other hand, the problem arises
of creating procedural confusion and unnecessarily extended lack of uniformity in the
administration of justice as well as wasting scarce resources if all the courts envisaged are
established what the constitution provides for, fully recognizes the existence of two sets
of jurisdiction-federal and state. It also establishes one court system (the state court
system) in full and the other (the federal court system) partially, with the possibility of
establishing the remaining federal courts as the need arises, in terms of hierarchy as well
as of geography. Thus, in densely populated urban areas with fast economic activities, the
load of the courts may be significantly higher, there by necessitate the establishment of
the federal courts.
With respect to court structure, the constitution makes two additional determinations.
One is that ad hoc or special courts outside the regular court system are prohibited; and
two, that religious or customary courts maybe established or given official recognition by
the council of peoples’ representatives. The jurisdiction of religious or customary courts
is however limited to adjudication of personal or family matters. The phase ‘institutions
legally empowered to exercise judicial functions’ is included to denote administrative
tribunals such as labor or tax determinant institutions with in the executive. The decision
of such institutions would however be appeasable to court under standard judicial review
procedures. This would be one conclusion to be derived from the constitutional provision
that ‘judicial powers are vested solely in the courts’ at both federal and state level. Other
conclusions would deal with the strengthening of judicial interdependence or influence of
any government body or official.
172
The constitution clearly provides for two sets of jurisdiction - Federal and State. The
Federal Supreme Court has the highest and final jurisdiction over federal mattes and the
state Supreme Court has the highest and final jurisdiction over state matters. This said
however, the constitution does provide of one court to be involved in the jurisdiction of
the other court.
I. The Federal Supreme Court
The federal Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to, in cassation (a court of
appeal), review and corrects any final decision of a ‘basic error of law.’ Such final
decision could be of a federal or state court, including a decision of the state supreme
court. For the Federal Supreme Court to make this exceptional move to review and
correct a decision of another court, and particularly of a state court on matters within state
jurisdiction seems at first glance out of character in the federal order. The fear may be
expressed of diluting the federal system and eroding the power and authority of states.
There is no question that at the extreme there is risk that such authority can in theory be
abused by its excessive employment.
The constitution, however, provides several safeguards. The Federal Supreme Court, first
of all, has to sit in cassation examine such a case. Secondly, such authority of review is
limited to correcting a basic error in law. In other words, it is only error in connection
with ‘question of law’ and not ‘question of fact’ that gives rise to such authority.
Moreover, the error in question of law has to be of a basic nature that may have
unfortunate consequences of shaking the constitutional or legal order. The overriding
objective for such authority is to ensure the protection of the constitution and the whole
legal regime it unfolds for safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms and
guaranteeing a lasting peace, a democratic order, and socio economic development.
II. State Supreme and High Courts
As already mentioned, the state supreme court and state high court have the power to
exercise Federal high court and federal first instance court jurisdictions respectively until
173
such delegation of authority is terminated. State supreme court in addition to its regular
appellate (empowered to review judicial decisions) authority may also review and correct
basic error of law in final decisions. To do so however, it sits in cassation and deals only
with state matters (i.e., cases dealing with state matters which reach final decision at the
state high court level may be reviewed and corrected by the state supreme court.
Appellate jurisdiction follows the court structure as may be expanse of federal first-
instance jurisdiction is appealable to the state Supreme Court, and state Supreme Court
decision on federal matter is appealable to the federal Supreme Court.
With respect to appellate jurisdiction, a question may arise that is not directly covered by
the constitution. Where the House of Peoples’ Representatives establishes one level of
federal court and not the other, federal matter cases may start at state high court and on
appeal move to Federal High Court. The federal cases that started at federal first-instance
court may on appeal continue to the state supreme court. Such move from on court
system to the other is no problem from a legal point of view. It is the distance to be
covered by concerned parties as they move from one place to the next that has to be taken
into account. In any case, if the house of peoples’ representatives establishes both federal
high and first –instance courts simultaneously, the question would be avoided.
Activity
 What are the two sets of courts and jurisdictions established by the 1995 FDRE
constitution?
 What powers and authorities are vested on the federal supreme?
174
 What about the constitutional authorities vested on the state supreme and high courts?
III. Independence of the Judiciary
The independence of the judiciary and that is to be directed solely by the law is a theme
that is strongly emphasized by the constitution. Judicial powers are vested solely in the
courts, and the establishment of special or ad hoc courts that do not follow legally
prescribed procedures is categorically prohibited. As pointed out earlier, president and
vice-president of the Federal Supreme Court are appointed by the house of peoples’
representatives, on submission of nominees by the prime minister. The same procedure is
followed for the appointment of all other federal judges. In addition, however, the
nominees the prime minister submits have to be on the basis of selections made by the
Federal judicial administration council.
Federal judges, once appointed, cannot be removed from duty until the legal mandated
retirement age, with the exception that the federal judicial administration council may
remove a judge for violation of disciplinary rules or on grounds of gross incompetence or
inefficiency. The council may also decide that a judge cannot longer carry out his
responsibilities on account of illness. But the decision of the council to remove a federal
judge before his retirement age, to be final, has to be approved by a majority vote of the
house of peoples’ representatives. The constitution also forbids the extension of the
service of a judge beyond the legally mandated retirement age. The import of all these
provisions is to strengthen the independence of the federal judiciary.
Moreover, the same principles and procedures are also apply with respect to state
judiciary. State Supreme Court president and vice-president are appointed by state
councils on the basis of nominees submitted by state heads of the executive. State
supreme and high courts judges are also appointed by state councils. But nominees are
submitted by state judicial administration council. And the state judicial administration
175
councils before submitting nominations to their state councils have to obtain the views of
the federal judicial administration council, which has to forward its views and
recommendations within three months. The appointment of state first-instance court
judges is also done by state councils on the basis of nominations submitted by state
judicial administration council. The latter; however, do not have to submit their state
first-instance court judge nominees to the federal judicial council.
State court judges once appointed may not be removed before reaching the legally
mandated retirement age, nor can their service be extended beyond the mandated
retirement age. The state judicial administration council plays the same role as the
council of peoples’ representatives with respect to removal from office of state court
judges, and on the same grounds. Apart from removal from office which has to be
sanctioned by the respective legislative body, decisions on the discipline and transfer of
judges at any level is made by the respective judicial administration council.
Additionally, courts are also made financially independent of the executive. The federal
Supreme Court draws up and submits to the house of peoples’ representatives the
administrative budget of federal courts and implements it up on approval. State councils
do the same with respect to the administrative budges of state courts. The house of
peoples’ representatives in addition is mandated by the constitution to compensate for the
expenses state supreme and high courts incur in adjudicating disputes on federal matters.
Activity
 List and discuss the core principles that show the independence of the judiciary
branch.
 What do you think will be, if the judiciary branch is dependent on the other branches
of the government?
176
3.3. Major Challenges of the Federal System in Ethiopia
Even different multi-faceted challenges and inadequacies may encounter to the different
countries of the world that adopt federal systems based on various principles, the major
challenges the Ethiopian federalism has posed to legal and political actors in the
contemporary Ethiopia include:
a) the threat of secession and internal fragmentation,

b) managing extreme inter –state imbalance;
c) the task of state –building especially in the economically impoverished and
historically underserved states;
d) power –sharing in the executive office;
e) choice of capital cities, both at the federal level and at the state level;
f) the quest for having more than one working languages at the federal level;
g) the promotion of a uniform human rights standard in the face of an intensely
pluralized legal system;
In the face of a progressively centralizing federal state, which has recently promulgated
the highly conspicuous federal intervention act of 2003, the challenge of maintaining
state autonomy and ensuring self-rule at the state level is a yet other challenge that
constitutional lawyers and political actors have reckon with.
Activity
 Summarize in your own words the main challenges of the federal system in Ethiopia.
177
 Can you forward any other challenge/s that you observe in the Ethiopia federal
system structure?
______
__________________________________________________________________
Summary
In summary, it can be said that, this unit describes some of the features of the Ethiopian
federal system in a more general and fragmented manner. In addition to the more general
features that characterize federal polities anywhere, Ethiopia’s system has some peculiar
features such as: the use of ethnicity to determine the state boundaries; the organization
of sovereignty to ethnic groups; the fact that the upper House/the house of federation has
little part in law-making; that absence of judicial review power; and the lack of an
explicit provision to establish the principle of federal supremacy and the consequent
confusion in the hierarchy of laws; etc. These distinctive features, in fact, are viewed by
some as factors put emphasis on the vulnerability and fragility of the federal union while
also being considered by others as innovations in constitutional design.
178
1. Which one of the following is wrong about the transitional charter?

a. It was proclaimed by the peace and democracy conference.
b. It guaranteed the rights and freedoms of the nations, nationalities and peoples of
Ethiopia.
c. It vested the nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia the right to self-
administer their affairs.
d. It continued the state structure of the Derg regime.
2. Which one of the following statement is not among the powers and functions of the
federal government of Ethiopia?
a. To protect and defend the constitution

b. To formulate and implement the county’s policies, strategies and plans
c. To maintain public order and peace with in the specific regional states
d. All of the above
3. In the FDRE legislative branch, the house of federation is
a. The first chamber

b. The second chamber
c. Peoples’ representative
d. Law making body of the government
a. All member states of the FDRE have their own constitution.
179
b. The state council is the highest organ of state authority.

c. All regional states have their own legislative, executive and judicial power.
d. All of the above
5. Identify the incorrect statement
a. Like in most federal states, the federal Supreme Court is the interpreter of the
FDRE constitution.
b. In the FDRE constitution, the principle of mutual respect is explicitly stated.
c. The state is organized machinery for the making and carrying out of political
d. The question of self-determination falls under the competence of the house of
federation.
6. One of the following statements is not considered as the challenge for the Ethiopian
federalism.
a. The threat of secession and internal fragmentation.

b. Managing extreme inter state imbalance
c. Choice of capital cities
7. Identify the wrong statement about the executive branch of the FDRE government.
a. It is composed of the office of the president and the office of the prime minister.
b. The most important function of the president is representation.
c. The highest executive power of the federal government is vested in the prime
minister and the council of ministers.
d. Unlike the prime minister, the president is not required to vacate his membership
to the parliament on his election.
8. Which one of the following is not true about the judiciary branch of the FDRE
government?
180
a. It is an independent branch
b. It is established on three layers.
c. The federal high court is the highest court in the land
correct.
1. The transitional charter established the transitional government based on the principle
of federalism.
2. The regional states of Ethiopia have equal power and rights irrespective of their
numerical or economic disparity.
3. The president of the FDRE is nominated and elected solely by the house of peoples’
representatives.
4. The same to the federal level, state courts are also established in two-tier court
systems.
5. The state supreme court and state high court have the power to exercise federal high
court and federal first instance court jurisdictions respectively.
181
References
 Clapham, Christopher (2000). War and State Formation in Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Paris.
 (1995). The constitution of the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia.
 (2005). Encarta Reference Library.
 (2005). Encyclopedia Britanica.
 (2005). Encyclopedia Almanac.
 Fasil Nahum (1997). Constitution for a Nation of Nations: The Ethiopian prospect.
Asmara: The Red Sea Press Inc.
 Kinfe Abrham (1994). Ethiopia from Bullets to the Ballot Box. Lawrenceville: The
Red Sea Press Inc.
 Solomon Abadi (2001). Materials for the study of constitutional Law I. Mekelle
University: Faculty of Law.
 Strong, C. F. (1972). Modern political constitutions. London: the English Language
Book society.
 Tsegaye Regassa (2004). State Constitutions in Federal Ethiopia: A Preliminary
Observation.
182
Chapter Four
Understanding Citizenship
Dear student! Welcome to the fourth unit of your module ‘state, government, and
citizenship’. In this unit, you will be acquainted with the general concepts, theoretical and
practical essences of citizenship and other related issues.
Unit Objectives
After the successful completion of this unit, you will able to:
 Define and explain the terms citizenship,
 Capture the evolving and ever dynamic understandings and meanings of
citizenship
 Compare and contrast the different theories on citizenship.
 Aware about recent developments like globalization and global citizenship,
human rights and citizenship, dual and multiple citizenship
 Understand modes of acquiring and loosing citizenship status
183
 Be familiarized with the current legal and policy frameworks in Ethiopia in

relation to citizenship issues in general and modes of acquiring and loosing
citizenship status in particular
Lesson one
4.1 Conceptual Framework: Understanding Citizenship, human right in the context

of citizenship, and Dual/Multiple Citizenship
Brainstorming:
 What do you understand by the term citizenship? What about human right in the
context of citizenship, and Dual/Multiple Citizenship?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________________
Dear Student! In this lesson, you will see the definition and meaning of Citizenship,
human right in the context of citizenship, and Dual/Multiple Citizenship.
Lesson Objectives
 Define and explain the terms Citizenship, human right in the context of
citizenship, and Dual/Multiple Citizenship.
 Capture the relationship between the Human Right Declaration and iits
implication to Citizenship dynamics in the global arena
 Understand the simultaneous possession of two or more citizenship rights.

And international attitude toward dual citizenship
184
Key Terms
 Citizenship
 Membership
 Human Right
 Multiple Citizenship
A. CITIZENSHIP
The concept of citizenship has been based upon the notion of the bounded society.
Societies are typically presumed to be sovereign social entities, with a state at their centre
that organizes the rights and duties of each member. Most major sets of social
relationships are seen as flowing within the territorial boundaries of each society. The
state possesses a monopoly of jurisdiction over the territory of the society. Therefore
citizenship can only be linked to territory. This is an inevitable linkage, since it can only
be discussed solely on the context of the nation state, which inherently requires a claim
on territory.
Like any other arms of society, such as for example a tennis club or a political party, the
state has the right to make rules governing membership. In the case of the state,
membership is known as citizenship. A citizen is therefore a person who is a legal
member of and owes allegiance to a particular country he reside in which he enjoys full
civil and political rights and will be ready to put his life at stake in defense of its territory
when occasion calls for that. The notion of citizenship originated in the Greek polis with
the intention of liberating a portion of humanity from tribal loyalties and fusing it into a
voluntary civic community. Citizenship was founded on the definition of the human
being as a creature formed by nature to live a political life. The dominant modern idea of
citizenship was definitely linked closely to the emergence of individuals endowed with
entitlements or rights in relation to the government of territorial sovereign states. Thus
the history of citizenship could be traced from the entitlements associated with the
freedom from abuses of governmental authority especially arbitrary exertions of coercion
185
to freedoms, which is, freedoms of a more affirmative character to participate directly or

indirectly in the governing process, and finally to a series of entitlements associated with
social democracy or the welfare state. Citizenship therefore confers certain rights on the
individual and also imposes certain duties. These rights enjoyed by the individual are
enshrined in the constitution of most democratic countries. Below are some of the
important rights:
(1) Right to life
(2) Right to dignity of the human person from torture or inhuman degrading treatment,
servitude and forced labor
(3) Right to personal liberty in accordance with a procedure permitted by law
(4) Right to fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established
by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and its impartiality.
(5) Right to private and family life, correspondence, telephone, conversations and
telegraphic communications are guaranteed and protected.
(6) Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion including freedom to change his/
her religion or belief and freedom to manifest and propagate his/ her religion or belief in
worship, teaching, practice and observance.
(7) Right to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive
and impart ideas and information without interference
(8) Right to peaceful assembly or belong to any political party, trade union or any other
association for the protection of his interests
(9) Right to freedom of movement and to reside in any part thereof
(10) Right to freedom from discrimination whether religious, racial political, ethnic,
sexual or place of origin
186
(11) Freedom from compulsory acquisition of ones property except with adequate
compensation,
(12) Freedom of access to law courts Though regarded as inalienable, “most states make
provision for the suspension of these fundamental rights during periods of national
emergency such as war”(Price, 1975). Rights go hand in hand with obligations, and the
enforcement of both requires effective institutions, operating within a framework of
legitimate governance. As with the old saying “sponge my back and I will sponge yours”,
the individual does not enjoy these right without giving something back in return. These
rights which the citizen enjoys can fully be guaranteed only if the individual fulfils his
duties and obligations to the state. Some of these duties or obligations are as follows:
(1) The most important duty is that the citizen must give allegiance or loyalty to the state
for the state to function very well.
(2) The citizen has a duty to obey the law and to uphold the order of society. This is to
avoid the state drifting into anarchy
(3) Sequel to the above, the citizen has a duty to assist the officers of the law in
maintenance of the law and order.
(4) The citizen has a duty to defend his country in times of war.
(5) The citizen also has the duty to pay tax, respect national symbols as well as contribute
in pursuance and maintenance of the state interest.
With globalization and its attendant interconnectedness and effects in virtually all facets
of human life, “you may find occasional confused circumstances where a man may be the
citizen of one country according to the laws of the country and the citizen of another
country under the laws of the other. It challenges our traditional sense of citizenship and
passes the following question. To what extent does globalization affect citizenship? How
far can membership of the nation-state still count as the basis of citizenship in an
increasingly globa-lizing world? Will the citizen of the future have no fixed nationality?
187
Activity:
 Can you summarize the idea of citizenship in your own words?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________________
B. DUAL/MULTIPLE CITIZENSHIP
Today, we are faced with the issue of dual and in some cases multiple citizenship
meaning the simultaneous possession of two or more citizenship rights. International
attitude toward dual citizenship vary. Some nations forbid it. Some encourage it. Most,
officially deplore it, but tolerate it. In all, most nations permit dual citizenship in one
form or another. This is a complete deviation from the earlier understanding of the
concept of citizenship and its attribution to membership of a particular country. Dual
nationality represents a far more significant transformation than one might think. For
many people in Nigeria, having more than one passport shows the class that one belongs.
It is also akin to a fashion accessory or a freedom of choice as to what passport they want
to travel on. One of the conditions an alien must satisfy before he can become a citizen of
another country is to renounce his former citizenship and take oath of allegiance to his
new country. But the mere fact that he asserts the rights of one citizenship dose not
without more mean that he renounces the other. This is hardly fulfilled, as he cannot
render equal duties to both. Instead of loyalty to one country, dual or multiple nationals
owe allegiance to each of the countries and are obliged to obey its law and regulations.
Such persons usually have certain obligations. To the extent this can be practicable is still
in doubt as this cannot be fully accomplished in certain cases without an infringement on
the other because it is difficult for one to serve two masters very well at the same time
without favoring one and displeasing the other. The growth of dual nationality reflects a
major historic transformation whereby citizenship moves away from exclusive allegiance
to what has been called ‘competitive nationality’ . Some of the elements of exclusive
188
allegiance are beginning to erode and it repositions the question of patriotism. It is the
duty of the individual to defend his country in times of war, “this duty is one that goes
back to the earliest and most primitive societies” (Price, 1975). Although failure to fulfill
such obligations may have no adverse effect on dual national while in one state because
the other country would have no means to force compliance under those circumstances,
dual national might be forced to comply with those obligations or pay a penalty if they go
to the country of their other citizenship. This is however a deviation from the earlier
understanding of the concept of citizenship and its exclusive nature. Even though not
binding among individual citizens of the world but to nation states, the Treaty of
Westphalia states that: the one shall never assist the present or future Enemy’s of the
other under any Title or Pretences whatsoever, either with arms, Money. Soldiers, or any
sort of ammunition; nor no one, who is a member of this pacification, shall suffer any
Enemy’s Troops to retire thro’ or sojourn in his country. With the increasing trend toward
homogeneity and because of the inability of the state to control her citizens who is an
integral part of the state, individuals, are now contravening this longstanding treaty as
they offer themselves as machineries in trouble spots around the world. In pursuance of
national honour and economic breakthrough, citizenship in most countries is now up for
sale. These countries lure some professionals in specialized fields with juicy packages to
change their citizenship and acquire new ones. It is not something new to see countries
advertising or canvassing for membership among sportsmen and professionals in
different fields. They are wooed with citizenship rights and juicy packages to change
their citizenship or renounce their former citizenship.
Activity:
 Can you summarize the aspects of Dual/Multiple Citizenship in your own words?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________________
189
C. HUMAN RIGHT
With the growth of citizenship from local into a statewide institution in the modern era,
the freedoms conferred on citizens in the polis and the medieval towns were radically
expanded and freedom itself was converted from privileges into right. The state does no
longer have total control over her citizens as “Universal Declaration of Human Right”
protects them. This makes the individual a global citizen as things that affect him are
taken seriously in the global community. Never before have issues affecting individual
citizens of different countries become global issue than now.
On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and
proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of
achievement for all peoples and all nations, “to the end that every individual and every
organ of society, keeping this declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and
education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures,
national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and
observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the
peoples of territories under their jurisdiction”. The Declaration ends this way: “Nothing
in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or persons any
right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the
rights and freedoms set forth herein”. This created a hole in the armor of sovereignty as it
does not only infringe on the ability of the state to control and punish erring citizens
adequately, it empowers and protects the citizen from its sin against the state as some
nation states pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with United Nations, the
promotion of universal respect for the observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms. In response to global demands, the new force of the idea of Human Rights
began to transcend national boarders. The way and manner a country deals with its
citizens is no longer the country’s business, as it has become a global business (Nwaogu,
2004). This connotes global citizenship. This however does not imply membership of all
the countries of the world. With this, it has become rather difficult to adequately punish
erring citizens who flout their oath of allegiance without external interference.
190
Citizenship granted to foreigners has increasingly offered immigrants the rights and
privileges once granted only to nationals. Another very significant factor is the
constitutionalizing of the right to sue one’s government as embedded in the Right of
Access to Community court of justice enshrined in the Protocol on the Free Movements
of Persons, the Right of Residence and Establishment (1979). This produces a certain
distance between the citizen and the state. For instance a non citizen may have direct
recourse to the community court of justice when they are maltreated by an individual or
corporate person at the boarders. It contests the notion that the sovereign is the people
and the people are the sovereign – sovereign being the term for nation state in the
language of international law. This right produces distance between the nation state and
the suing citizen. National courts where judges use international human rights
instruments either for interpretation or adjudication similarly have granted rights to
refugees and undocumented immigrants. In cases that are decided in international human
rights courts, over half concern immigrants and refugees. The other largest share mostly
concerns women – often they are immigrants and refugees – and female abuse issues,
notably genital mutilation. International courts are another location where rights are being
granted to undocumented immigrants, producing a kind of partial legal persona and
blurring the clarity of the distinction between undocumented immigrant, immigrant, and
citizen. This situation brings about undocumented social contract between the state and
the undocumented immigrants.
Activity:
 Can you summarize the relationship between in your own words?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________________
Lesson Two
4.2 Understanding the relative nature of citizens’ levels of Civic and Moral Awareness
191
Brainstorming:
 Do you think that there exists variation among citizens within a country and across
different societies in their levels of civic and moral awareness? What factors do you
think are responsible for the possible variations?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________________
Dear Student! In this lesson, you will see variation among citizens within a country and
across different societies in their levels of civic and moral awareness
Lesson Objectives
 Understand the fact that all citizens of a country may not be at the same
level of civic and moral awareness
 Identify the various factors that are responsible for possible variations
among citizens in terms of their levels of civic and moral awareness and
explain as to how these factors determine the variation.
 Capture the implication of a citizen’s level of civic and moral awareness

on his/her tendency to actively or passively participate in a societies’
political life
 Capture the implication of citizens’ level of civic and moral awareness on

the overall strength/weaknesses of a given society and on its socio-
economic prosperity
 Understand the reasons for studying citizenship
Key Terms
192
 Civic Culture  Kleptocracy

 Middle class society  Clienalism
 Lower class society  Prebendalism
 upper class society  Vandalism
 Participatory, passive/subject or
parochial citizen
The relative nature of levels of Civic and Moral Awareness of the citizens
Citizens’ level of awareness about fundamental civic and moral values also shapes the
relative nature of citizenship and morality. This gives us the relative nature of the two
concepts not among different societies but among citizens within the same society and
state. In the strict sense, citizenship and morality are meaningless without some kind of
bottom up participation by citizens on state’s affairs; its policies and rule philosophy.
This participation also depends on how far civic awareness is there among the people on
political processes and ethical aspects of citizen-state relations. Civic awareness is
probably the most relative issue in the study of civics and ethics, for there are always
background factors that affect it. For example, citizens’ awareness level is affected
among others by the following notable factors;
A. Level of Income
In the analysis of why there is difference in the level of awareness among citizens
regarding their politico-legal relations with the state and moral ties with their people, it is
widely believed that their level of income really matters. i.e wealth/ income places
citizens of the same state at different positions in their access and concern about the state,
government policies and the rest of the society. Accordingly, the upper class society
which consists of few citizens commanding the largest concentration of wealth and thus
are stable/ comfortable in their life styles due to their privileged economic positions in the
society tend to be conservative in their political and moral dispositions with a strong need
193
to see only little or no change of the statuesque in the political, moral, legal and social
setting. They heavily need a great degree of national stability and political predictability
in order to maintain their unchallenged advantages. They also tend to be remarkably
nationalistic with maximum loyalty to the state and the constitution as they guarantee
them peace and protection for their property and wealth. These citizens are close to
politics and government with keen interest areas of government policy that would greatly
affect their civic and moral positions within the state. The most important issues of
interest for them are policies of taxation, inflation, labor, environment and foreign
relations in general. The Middle class society which includes section of the society that
economically stand next to the upper income group on the other hand is highly dynamic
and with the best opportunity to uninterrupted rise of income as it works hard tends to be
vibrant, participatory and active social group for it consists of probably young,
professional, ambitious and liberal section of the society. It was this social group that
successfully led the bourgeois revolutions in Western Europe that transformed society in
to a capitalist socio-economic and political community. The political efficiency and
determination of this group comes from its very middle position between the richest
upper income group which seeks it to effect policy changes to its advantages. It equally
tends to master the support of the lower income group which believes that this group
understands more about the life conditions across the ordinary and helpless people.
Finally, the Lower class society which constitutes those large elements of society whose
annual income is extremely low and with little opportunities to leave the group tends to
be scarcely interested at what is going on at the national and regional governments. They
are hardly tuned to the media nor do they seek to access almost all information sources
though they generally tend to be law abiding citizens. The lower income group gets
alerted occasionally by particular domestic and foreign political developments and
unusual events that captivate their interest and influence their hopes for better life in the
negative or the positive. Politics is too complex, elusive, and unmanageable for them
hence they want to maintain a long distance from it and strongly feel to reject elections as
meaningless to change conditions by the vote of poor people. Generally, low income
194
groups are grossly marginalized from the main stream of politics and moral debates
worrying little about rights and the nature of their relation with the state.
B. Civic Culture
Civic culture is generally defined as a trend (of behaviors, attitudes and orientations)
among citizens to be concerned about political processes and being efficacious in the
political climate. Based on this definition, residents of a given state usually demonstrate
participatory, passive/subject or parochial civic culture and each affects the level of
awareness they develop. For instance, participant citizens are those with good general
knowledge and understanding about policies and government activities and thus are
assertive on civic participations. This in turn implies that in states with a proportional size
of participant citizens politics has been found to be stable, civilized and predictable
though dynamic. Besides, economic progress would be consistent/ uninterrupted and also
with little or no massive report of violent conflict. In contrast, subjects (citizens with
passive civic culture) are those with inconsistent interest in politics may be because they
feel their private conditions are too good to be concerned about politics(say join national
elections) or they have largely poor general knowledge and understanding about
national politics. At any rate, this group of citizens tends to be passive in its civic
participation. The worst case is, however, that of parochial civic culture in which we
have citizens with neither the knowledge about political developments at national level
nor the interest to participate at any level and agenda of discussion. They strongly believe
that they have no power to change or affect things even at local levels but simply observe
political developments only that are local and close to them. In other words, Parochials
are largely self- marginalized from politics unusually due their day to day concern to win
their daily bread which they feel has no relations with what the radio or the television
may say. They lack all the means to divert their attentions to politics and may go to the
extent of having no information about who rules the country or wins in a hotly contested
national election. They virtually have no record of visiting the polling station at all.
195
The general lesson to be derived from the above is thus the stability of the state and its
socio-economic developments are largely dependent on how reasonably it maintains the
balance among these three gradations of civic cultures. More ever, a society dominated
by a majority of Parochials is more likely to face even dangers of national disintegration
and fragmentation.
Reasons for studying Citizenship
There are several and complex real life problems that make the need to study civics and
Ethics highly imperative and hence justifiable for its problem solving profession nature.
Although the degree of their severity vary from state/society to state/society, the
following challenging societal problems can be identified as the most crucial ones
demanding an effective and constructive study of citizenship and morality to be solved.
The problem areas can be classified as legal-politico-cultural and socio-economic related
ones.
A. Civic/political culture related problems
Although the desired civic culture is the one with a good level of civic consciousness in
which citizens’ posses a tendency to be reasonably concerned with the conduct of politics
and to get actively participated. The following are still seen prevailing as the most
frequent cultural problems in many states/society today:
Large Imbalance between Rights and Duties
This undesired civic culture manifests itself interalia in the following ways:
1. A good number of citizens regardless of differences of age, sex, religion,

profession, etc, are usually observed to be more concerned and conscious about
their civic rights, while they tend to forget their civic duties recognized by the
constitution. An even clearer example here is that a lot of citizens demand and
guard the right to safe, peaceful and predictable life. They weight the efficiency
of the state solely on its capability to ensure a day – to – day safe life for the
196
individual citizen. These citizens, however, tend to forget their civic duty to co-
operate with the law by often cooperating with illegal citizens, not reporting
crimes of all kind to the police or not fighting crime and initiating the society for
the prevention or control of crimes etc.
2. The other group of citizens is those standing at the opposite pole of the above.
These citizens feel that they are weak and helpless to protect their rights even
when they rights are arbitrarily violated against constitutional limits. These
citizens are more sensitive to discharging duties at the price of their rights because
they regard the state as all powerful, unquestioned, unaccountable and naturally
rightful to do all its wishes upon citizens For these citizens, complete submission
to the state without an equal or parallel concern and assertiveness about their
constitutional rights benefits, advantages and official entitlements is the most
reliable guarantee for their individual safety and security. They have a strong
tendency to distant themselves from visiting public institutions, like kebel
administrations, courts etc, and regard them as sources of unexpected danger to
one’s safety. This extreme imbalance in the form of sacrificing o legal rights
(benefits) in excess of civic duties adversely affects positive civic culture.
3. The other group of citizens, which is said to be dominant, by researchers, in many

societies particularly of the developing world, is the one lacking a good
understanding about the general list of civic rights and civic duties. The level of
their consciousness about what is going on in the society and the state is at best,
inadequate and blurred, and at worst, they are ignorant and devoid of any relevant
information. Thus, with regard to their relation with the state on the protection of
their rights and discharging their civic duties, these groups of citizens tend to do
as per the instruction of others without self civic skill, in a passive and uncritical
manner. On the other hand, when they are asked why they violated the rights of
others and failed to discharge their civic duties, they innocently and intuitively
say that they know little or nothing that their action was illegal. Under civic
conditions where such group of citizens is a majority, leave a lone the
197
development in the life of the society, the existence of the state is at foreseeable
danger. These citizens negatively contribute for the growth of a civil culture
based not only on unbalanced distribution and assignment of civic rights and
duties but also on an all time unexpected danger to societal peace and security.
In sum, the consequences of the above civic culture problems can be;
 Incivility, self – centeredness and bad – faith at societal level;
 Passive, non patriotic and unresponsive citizenship which in turn

negatively affects social transformation;
 Ignorance, unprincipled citizenship and civic immobilization;
 Weak, Irregular and uncritical participation in the political process etc
B. Virtue/Ethicate of socio-economic life related problems
Civic mindedness is a highly desirable quality/virtue of a citizen due to its positive

contribution for the development and transformation of society. i.e when the mentality of
civic –mindedness becomes a dominant national spirit, citizens develop a strong
tendency to be committed to and concerned daily with the well – being of the general
public. As a result, they do things often voluntarily as far as their service provides some
benefit for the good life of their people.
Moreover, civic – minded citizens have a clear understanding and awareness about the
strategic importance of public infrastructures, common natural resources and prosperities
and thus they never hesitate to guard and preserve such public utilities and infrastructures
as roads, bridges, school buildings, hospitals, water pipelines, electric poles and cables,
etc. against any damage and misuse. Despite all theses, however, there still are several
evident problems regarding the virtue of socio-economic lives of both governments and
societies manifested mostly in the form of repeated and uninterrupted records of ‘’abuses
and careless treatment” by citizens and government of ‘common goods’. This can be seen
from three recognizable angles. One is a virtue of Vandalism in which citizens tend to
198
intentionally and illegally destroy public infrastructures, utilities and properties like
wild animals, forests, water, electric and communication facilities. Secondly, citizens
usually demonstrate a virtue of public good abuse/misuse (a behavior of using public
goods and wealth illegally and unethically for one’s computed benefits ) either via
Patron – client relations (clientalism) mechanism - a situation where a few government
officials abuse their political decision – making power to divert public resources for
sectional benefit of themselves and their supporters or through Prebendalism- a concept
denoting the use of state office as an instruments for the gains of individuals and their
ethnic brethren. The point here is that such behavior systematically undermines civic duty
when citizens begin to regard it as normal, unavoidable and at times, an established and
rightful quality of being a political leader. Prebendalism is also called ‘rent seeking’
behavior – gathering wealth, not as a reward to one’s labor and innovation, but exploiting
public resources. The third way citizens display their non-civic minded virtue is via
engaging in Kleptocracy –a behavior in which the entire government system, relations
between citizens and the state, citizens with each other, etc. become dominated by official
and proactive attitudes of corruption.
In conclusion, the study of civics and ethics which examines and analyzes undesirable
civic cultures and virtues of social life manifested in the above discussed different
features thus becomes justifiable against its cruciality to save us from their derived
negative consequences. This is so because the study of civics and ethics enables citizens
to fully understand and internalize among others the following fundamental elements of
civic and ethical virtues:
Activity:
 Can you identify the different factors responsible for variations among citizens’ levels
of civic and moral awareness and explain how they affect it?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
199
 Would you identify the different groups of citizens and their respective mode of
participation in societal life?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
 Discuss the different problems that necessitate the need to study citizenship?
Lesson Three
4.3 Review of States’ Citizenship Practices
Brainstorming:
 What do you think are the major aspects of citizenship and how are these reflected in
state’s citizenship practices?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
_______________
 Discuss the different modes of acquiring and losing citizenship status?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
_______________
Dear Student! In this lesson, you will see the major aspects of citizenship and how this
aspects are reflected in the practices of states, and modes of acquiring and loosing
citizenship status.
Lesson Objectives
200
 Understand the different aspects of citizenship and how these are reflected
in states’ citizenship practices?
 Understand modes of acquiring citizenship.
 Understand modes of loosing citizenship
 Expose to the legal and policy frame work of Ethiopia related to mode of
acquiring and loosing citizenship status
Key Terms
 Dehumanized elements
 Legitimation
 jus soil
 jus sanguinis.
States cannot be understood in the absence of citizens and citizenship. In the same way,
citizenship cannot be explained without the state. Thus, the notion of citizenship is
important both to the state and to individuals, since it denotes a basic relationship
between the state and its individual members. In this context, citizenship thus refers to the
broad study of rights and duties of citizens. It is the official recognition of an individual’s
integration in to the political system by denoting the status of a person as a member of a
particular country. Put differently, without the status of citizenship, a person would be
“stateless” and hence would loss official recognition to exercise citizenship rights and
fulfill responsibilities. However, citizenship in all states is not the same. For instance,
while non-democratic states usually reduce their people to mere subjects that have very
limited or no rights but only duties in democratic states, on the other hand, people govern
themselves and thus enjoy equal rights in all aspects of life. What this broadly implies is
that the historical development of democracy and democratization (from Greek- Rome-
Western Europe-USA- elsewhere in the world today) has very much affected the
historical development of the meaning, scope and content of the concept of citizenship.
201
Despite all these walks of historical evolution, the concept citizenship has now come to
be universally understood in terms of the following three basic aspects. These are:
The social aspects of Citizenship: this refers to the rights and duties of citizens that are
directly related to social and cultural norms and values. In other words, it refers to a
situation in which citizenship can be attained for example through parent’s nationality,
adoption, marriage etc which are all products of social processes. I.e in the case of
adoption, for instance, the full rights and responsibilities of parenthood are transformed
from natural to social parenthood and the child’s social and kinship position is also
transformed from the biological childhood to social hood. In this case, a social person is
created by appropriation and people became parents in every sense other than the genetic
factor. Therefore, the social aspect of citizenship discloses that the rights and duties
associated with citizenship status are socially determined and also distributed.
The legal aspects of Citizenship: this aspect can be best understood from the statement
which reads “citizenship entails a relationship between an individual and a state
originating under terms prescribed by the law of that state and giving rise to certain duties
and rights, which such law attaches to citizenship”. What this explanation reveals is,
therefore, the fact that different countries can pursue different laws in granting and
denying citizenship status or even the same country can have different laws depending up
on the prevailing political conditions of that state.
The political aspects of Citizenship: this implies that the political system in a country
affects the citizenship status. For example, while in a dictatorial or authoritarian political
system, the rights and privileges of citizenship are enjoyed by a small group of the
society but the majorities are merely required to fulfill their responsibilities or duties as
members of that country, in a democratic systems, however, citizens are expected to
express their allegiance to their nation and obey the laws and reciprocally they are treated
equally without any discrimination.
4.3.1 Modes of acquiring and loosing citizenship
202
The process of acquiring citizenship varies from country to country depending up on the
existing specific laws of each country. There is no clear cut uniformity in acquiring
citizenship status as there is no common standard that govern all state of the world. Thus
different states grant and deny citizenship to their citizens differently which in turn
implies the fact that the idea of citizenship is left to the domestic jurisdiction of a state.
However, this does not mean that the state should follow arbitrary and groundless
decision in granting or denying citizenship. Some broadly shared normative and
customary principles are underscored to minimize arbitrary deprivation of citizenship. In
nut shell, the process of acquiring or losing citizenship involves complex issues related
with the interest of states as well as the interactions of individuals. Accordingly, three
major ways/modes of acquiring citizenship can be singled out here for a discussion.
These are:
A. Citizenship by Birth
The majority of peoples in almost all countries usually acquire citizenship at birth and
hence after they do not normally change their citizenship. Citizenship by birth has two
principles namely; jus soil and jus sanguinis. Whereas Jus soil (a Latin phrase for right
of soil) means child born in a particular state automatically becomes a citizen of the state
irrespective of his/her parent’s citizenship (what matters most is the birth place of the
child), Jus-Sanguinis (a Latin term for right of blood), on the other hand, does not
consider the place of birth of the child as important rather the child enjoys the citizenship
of its parents automatically (what matters most here is the citizenship of his parents). For
instance, in the context of Ethiopia, it is clearly stated in proclamation No378/2003
(Article 3) that any person shall be an Ethiopian national by descent where both or either
of his parents is Ethiopian.
B. Citizenship by Law
Naturalization (citizenship by law) is a mode of acquiring citizen ship after birth. It is a

process by which a state confers citizenship on an individual who is originally (by birth)
not a citizen as a matter of its voluntary acts and intention of the individual. Hence,
203
naturalization is under the authority of the state and the individual is expected to fulfill
some sets of criteria set up by that particular country. More specifically, Citizenship by
naturalization includes among others marriage, legitimization, option and acquisition of
domicile. For instance, according to proclamation No. 378/2003 of the Ethiopian
nationality law (Article 5), a foreigner who applies to acquire Ethiopian nationality by
law is expected to fulfill the following conditions:
1) he/she has to attain the age of majority;
2) he/she has to establish a domicile in Ethiopia for a total of at least four years
preceding the submission of his application;
3) he/she has to be able to communicate in any one of the languages of the nations and
nationalities of the country;
4) he/she has to have a sufficient and lawful source of income to maintain him/her self
and his/her family;
5) he/she has to be a person of good charter;
6) he/she has to have no record of criminal conviction
7) he/she has to be able to show that he has been released from his previous nationality
or the possibility of obtaining such a released up on the acquisition of Ethiopian
nationality or that he is a stateless person, and
8) he/she is required to take the oath of allegiance stated under article 12 of the
proclamation which says that “I-----, solemnly affirm that I will be a loyal national of the
federal democratic republic of Ethiopia and be faithful to its constitution”. Marriage and
adoption are two additional examples of mode of acquiring citizenship by law. Here is
how the process practically proceeds. In the case of marriage for instance, if a woman
marries a man of another country, she can have the possibility of acquiring her husband’s
country citizenship. i.e, the woman has the option of choosing citizenship of her husband
and deleting her own country. In the context of Ethiopia, proclamation number 378/2003
204
article 6 clearly states that a foreigner who is married to an Ethiopian national may
acquire Ethiopian nationality by law when he/she fulfills the following requirements:
1) The marriage is concluded in accordance with the laws of Ethiopia or the other country
where the marriage is contracted;
2) There is a lapse of at least two years since the conclusion of the marriage;
3) He/she has lived in Ethiopian for at least one year preceding the submission of the
application; and
4) He/she has fulfilled the conditions stated under article 5 (1, 7, 8) of the above
proclamation.
Similarly, in the case of adoption, any child adopted by Ethiopian national, based on
proclamation No 378/2003, may obtain Ethiopian nationality by law when the following
conditions are fulfilled;
1) He/she has not attained the age of majority,
2) He/she lives in Ethiopia together with his adopting parent;
3) Where one of his adopting parents is a foreigner and so expressed in written statement;
and
4) The condition stated under article 5(7) of the proclamation has been fulfilled.
However, the government of Ethiopia also grants citizenship rights to those foreign
individuals who have made an outstanding contribution in the interest of Ethiopia
irrespective of the above stated conditions. Such type of acquiring citizenship is called
special case or functional nationality. Why irrespective of conditionality?
Legitimation and grant on application are also other mechanisms of citizenship

acquiring. While the former is about citizenship by recognition- i.e an illegitimate child
has the right to get his/her biological or caretaker father in accordance with Ethiopia’s
proclamation no 378/2003) the latter, on the other hand, refers to the possibility of
205
obtaining an Ethiopian nationality by law via the fulfillment of certain conditions.

Nevertheless, different countries pursue different requirements. For instance, according to
the 1930 Ethiopian citizenship decree the requirement for naturalized Ethiopian
citizenship were; having a majority (legal age), staying in Ethiopia for at least five years,
being not dependent, being able to speak and write Amharic language and not being
accused of crime or other related illegal matters. How about in the 2003 nationality
law? Besides, citizenship can also be obtained by political process in which case
acquisition of citizenship is by conquest or cession of territory. i.e. when the entire
populations of the newly incorporated area are made citizens of the conquering state.
C. Citizenship by mixed (dual) system
There are times when a person finds himself/herself with multiple citizenship status. Dual
nationality (citizenship) is when a person has citizenship status of two countries. This
might be due to an overlap of countries’ citizenship laws. i.e a person may have one
because of his /her place of birth (jus soil) and another because of his/her parent’s
citizenship by blood (jus sanguinis). Similarly, when a person has citizenship status of
more than two countries it is termed as multiple citizenship. Some individuals have more
than two citizenship status as a result of jus soil, jus sanguinis or naturalization laws.
Modes of losing Citizenship
As they pursue different principles in granting citizenship status, states also adopt
different principles to make citizens loss citizenship. For instance, in some states
nationality may be renounced i.e in case states harass the person and in turn he/she
dislikes the policies or politics/ ideologies pursued by the state. On the other hand, a
citizen may also be deprived of his/her citizenship, if he/she is guilty of committing
certain serious crimes against the state such as making access national secrets to alien
country, siding with enemy forces in time of war and so on. Furthermore, Citizenship
may be lost due to Lapse case- i.e in case the person stays outside of his/her country for a
long and continuous period. How about in Ethiopia?
206
Ethiopia also pursues different mechanisms or ways of denying citizenship rights. As

clearly explained in article 19 of proclamation no 378/2003 of the Ethiopian nationality
law one can loss his/ her Ethiopian nationality via renunciation if; he/she has acquired or
has been guaranteed the acquisition of the nationality of another state. However, one who
intends to do so shall in advance inform the concerned authority. Moreover, he/she who
has declared his/her intention to renounce his nationality may not be released until he/she
has discharged his/her outstanding national obligations or where he/she has been accused
of convicting a crime. Thus given, dual nationality is impossible in the Ethiopian context.
Article 20 of the above stated proclamation supports this stating:
1) Without prejudice to the provision of article 19 (4) of this proclamation, any Ethiopian
who voluntary acquires another nationality shall be deemed to have voluntarily
renounced his Ethiopian nationality.
2) An Ethiopian who acquires another nationality by virtue of being born to a parent

having a foreign nationality or by being born abroad shall be deemed to have voluntarily
renounced his other nationality unless he has declared to the authority his option to retain
it by renouncing his other nationality within one year after attaining the age of majority
or unless there has been an earlier expressed renunciation of his Ethiopian nationality
pursuant to Article 19(3) of this proclamation.
3) An Ethiopian who acquires, in the absence of his own initiative, another nationality by
the operation of the law in connection with any ground other than those specified under
sub-article (2) of this article shall be deemed to have voluntarily renounced his Ethiopian
nationality if he starts exercising the rights conferred to such acquired nationality or
fails to declare his option to the authority to retain his Ethiopian nationality by
renouncing his other nationality with in a period of one year. And
4) A person who retains another nationality in addition to Ethiopian nationality shall be

considered an Ethiopian national until the loss of his Ethiopian nationality pursuant to
sub-article (2) or (3) of this Article.
207
Who is entitled to citizenship status?
To some of us it might appear surprising that citizenship status is not a natural inheritance
of only human beings. Rather it also extends to non-human entities as well. Given this,
the following elements are normally entitled to citizenship status.
1. Human beings. All persons irrespective of religion, race, color etc directly have
the right to be citizens. Here, citizenship is a right not a privilege. i.e it is not a
status that is conferred by the will of government .
2. Dehumanized elements: These are institutions, plants, animals and materials

that have legal status. Example, commercial organizations, registered ships and
planes, endemic animals and plants etc. How ever, dehumanized elements cannot
be categorized under direct citizenship status which refers to exercising the title of
citizenship directly without the approval or will of any political body. Rather the
government has the responsibility to determine citizenship status of non-human
elements. Thus, direct citizenship applies only to humanized elements although
via legal status it is also possible to term dehumanized elements as nationals of a
country.
Activity:
 Discuss the differences between acquiring citizenship status as a human and a non-
human entity taking in to account the implication of each case to distribution of
state’s rights and responsibilities?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Self-check Exercise
208
1. One of the following sections of the society is historically known to successfully

led the bourgeois revolutions in Western Europe that transformed society in to a
capitalist socio-economic and political community.
A. The upper class
B. The Middle class
C. The lower class
D. A and B above
E. None of the above

2. In which of the following section of the society that people generally tend to be
law abiding citizens and get alerted occasionally by particular domestic and
foreign political developments and unusual events.
A. The upper class
B. The Middle class
C. The lower class
D. A and C above

3. Which one of the following sections of a society heavily needs a great degree of
national stability and political predictability and tends to be remarkably
nationalistic with maximum loyalty to the state and the constitution.
A. The upper class
B. The Middle class
C. The lower class
D. A and C above
209

4. A lot of citizens demand and guard the right to safe, peaceful and predictable life
however, tend to not reporting crimes of all kind to the police or not fighting
crime and initiating the society for the prevention or control of crimes. This
indicates;
A. Existence of elements of civic and ethical commitments
B. Absence of elements of Civic and ethical dispositions
C. Existence of Civic/political culture related problems
D. Absence of Virtue/Ethicate of socio-economic life related problems
E. All of the above
5. Which of the following can be considered as the consequences of civic culture

problems;
A. Public – centeredness and bad – faith at societal level;
B. Unresponsive and Patriotic citizenship
C. Civic mobilization;
D. Weak and critical participation in the political process
6. According to proclamation No. 378/2003 of the Ethiopian nationality law (Article

5), a foreigner who applies to acquire Ethiopian nationality by law is expected to
fulfill the following conditions except:
A. he/she has to attain the age of 18;
210
B. he/she has to establish a domicile in Ethiopia for a total of at least four years
preceding the submission of his application;
C. he/she has to be able to communicate in Amharic Language
D. he/she has to have a sufficient and lawful source of income to maintain

him/her self and his/her family;
E. he/she has to have no record of criminal conviction
7. One of the following is not a true statement about mode of loosing citizenship
A. Loss of citizenship through Renunciation occurs in case states harass the

person and in turn he/she dislikes the policies or politics/ ideologies pursued
by the state.
B. Loss of citizenship through Deprivation occurs when a person deprived of

his/her citizenship, if he/she is guilty of committing certain serious crimes
against the state such as making access national secrets to alien country,
siding with enemy forces in time of war and so on.
C. Citizenship may be lost due to Lapse case in case the person becomes the
citizens of more than one country
D. All of the above
Part-Two: Matching Items
Match from Column “A” to Column “B”
Column “A”
A. Patron – client relations (clientalism)
211
B. Parochial
C. Naturalization
D. Kleptocracy
E. Prebendalism
F. Horizontal Arrangement
G. Civic culture
H. Virtue of Vandalism
I. Vertical Arrangement
J. Lower class society
Column B
1. ___A behavior in which the entire government system, relations

between citizens and the state, citizens with each other, etc.
become dominated by official and proactive attitudes of
corruption.
2. ___Citizens tend to intentionally and illegally destroy public

infrastructures, utilities and properties like wild animals, forests,
water, electric and communication facilities.
3. ___A mode of acquiring citizen ship after birth by law when a

state confers citizenship on an individual who is originally not a
citizen
4. ___Citizens with neither the knowledge about political

developments at national level nor the interest to participate at any
level and agenda of discussion.
212
5. ___A situation where a few government officials abuse their

political decision – making power to divert public resources for
sectional benefit of themselves and their supporters
6. ___Trend of behaviors, attitudes and orientations among citizens to

be concerned about political issues
7. ___The use of state office as an instruments for the gains of

individuals and their ethnic brethren.
8. ___Are generally tend to be law abiding citizens and gets alerted

occasionally by particular domestic and foreign political
developments and unusual events that captivate their interest and
influence their hopes for better life in the negative or the positive.
213
References
Falk R (1993). The Making of Global Citizenship, in Brecher J, Childs
JB, Cutler J (eds.) Global Visions: Beyond the New World Order, Boston: South End Press pp. 39-
50.
Falk R (2005). The Decline of Citizenship in an era of Globalization

(http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/falk_citizen.html) pp.1-20
Marshal TH (1950). Citizenship and Social Class, Cambridge University Press.
Nwaogu KP (2004). Sovereign States and Global Co operations. J. Humanistic Stud. 4(2): 50 – 61
Price JH (1975). Comparative Government, London: Hutchinson and Co publishers Limited
Urry J (1999). Globalization and Citizenship, J. World Syst. Res. 2: 311- 324
Ong (2005) “(Re)Articulations of Citizenship”. Political Science & Politics, 38(4): 697-699;
Ong, Aihwa (2006), “Mutations in Citizenship”. Theory, Culture and Society 23(2-3): 499: 531;
Sassen, S. (2002). “The Repositioning of Citizenship: Emergent Subjects and Spaces for Politics”.
Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 46, 4-25.
214
Schuck, Peter (2002), “Liberal Citizenship” in Isin and Turner (eds), Handbook of Citizenship
Studies. London: SAGE Publications. 131-144;
Selznick, Philip (1998), “Foundations of Communitarian Liberalism” in Etzioni, Amitai (ed), The
Essential Communitarian Reader. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 3-13;
Shafir, Gershon (1998), “Introduction: the evolving tradition of citizenship”in G. Shafir (ed) In
The Citizenship Debates: a reader. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1-28;
Soysal, Yasemin (1994) in Shafir (ed) (1998), The Citizenship Debates: a reader. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press,
Thompson (1998), “Community Identity and World Citizenship” in Held, Köhler & Archibugi
(eds), Re-imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Turner, Brian (1993) “Contemporary Problems in the Theory of Citizenship” in Turner, Brian (ed),
Citizenship and Social Theory. London: SAGE Publications. 1-18;
Turner, Brian (1997), “Citizenship Studies: a General Theory”. Citizenship Studies, 1(1): 5- 18;
Young, Iris Marion (1989), “Polity and Group Difference: a Critique of the Ideal of Universal
Citizenship” in Shafir (ed.) (1998), The Citizenship Debates: a reader. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, pp 263-290
215
216

Module Society State Government and Citizenship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Module Society State Government and Citizenship

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module Society State Government and Citizenship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mekelle University State,

government and citizenship/cvet 201

College of Law and Governance

Course Title: State, Government and Citizenship

Course Code: CVET -201

Objectives of the module

1. UNDERSTANDING ESSENTIALS OF THE STATE

1.1. Conceptual Framework: Defining State and Nation

2.1. Definition and Meaning of Government

3. ORGANIZATION AND POWER DISTRIBUTION OF THE CURRENT ETHIOPIAN

3.1. Vertical Arrangement of the Government

4.1. Meaning and definition and theories of citizenship

4.2. Ways of acquiring citizenship/nationality in Ethiopia

4.3. Ways of loosing citizenship/nationality in Ethiopia

4.4. The entitlement of citizenship/nationality

 Define and explain the terms state and nation.

1.1. Conceptual Framework: Defining State and Nation

 What do you understand by the term state? What about nation?

By the end of this lesson, you will able to:

 Define and explain the terms State, Nation and Nationalism.

The concept of state is central to traditional approaches in political science. Different

Let us now look in to the elements of the state.

4. Sovereignty: as already pointed out, sovereignty is the fourth essential attribute of

5. Recognition: for a political unit to be accepted as a state with an ‘international

Here, it is important to note that, the recognition of a new government is quite

consciousness of a nationality, that is the form of corporate sentiment of peculiar

1.1.1 Principal Distinction between State and Other Associations

A. State and Government

B. State and Other Associations

An association may be defined as a group of people organized for the pursuit of an

1. The membership of the state is compulsory. As commonly said, man is a political

 Can you forward a brief definition of the concept state?

1.2. The Origin and Development of the State

 Divine command theory  John Locke

maintained an organized existence. In this regard, various historical, archeological and

Nevertheless, there is a broader consensus among scholars that advanced civilizations,

I. The Divine Right Theory

II. The Genetic Theory

III. The Force Theory

IV. The Social Contract Theory

Completely different is Locke’s picture of state of nature. According to him, it is a pre-

V. The Marxist Theory

VI. The Evolutionary Theory

pretended to possess extraordinary powers of prediction. The fertility of the soil,

arrangements for the effective protection of their material possessions. The

1.2.1 State Formation in Ethiopia

I. Development in the North

II. Developments in the South and Other Parts

III. The Formation of Modern Ethiopian State

The process of building a modern centralized state in Ethiopia was significantly

1.3. Forms of State Structure

 What is your understanding of the concept state structure?

Up on the successful completion of this lesson, you will able to:

State organization is the result of lengthy processes of experimentation and modification.

1.3.1. Unitary form of State Structure

Features of Unitary States

1. Supremacy of the Central Government: in unitary form of state structure, there is

2. Absence of Subsidiary Sovereign Bodies: the regional or local territorial