CHAPTER THREE: SOCIETY, STATE, GOVERNMENT,

AND CITIZENSHIP
Dear learners, this chapter discusses the concept of society, the notion of state, basic features
of state, the role of state and the state structure, government functions and systems, and
citizenship. It starts by defining the terms and then proceeds to the dimensions and theories
of state, government and, citizenship.
3.1. SOCIETY
For much of history, people lived in small, relatively autonomous societies and made their
living by hunting and farming. Traditional definitions of society, as people who live in a
specific geographic territory, interact with one another, and share many elements of a
common culture, were well suited to these lifestyles. Today, any definition of society must
be broader and more flexible.

Until about 10,000 years ago, all societies were hunting-gathering societies, and they were
pretty much alike with respect to size, structural complexity, technology, and other aspects
of social and cultural life. In the first great technological revolution, which sociologists call
the agricultural revolution, however, farming societies emerged and began to supplant them.
Farming societies were more complex, more technologically sophisticated, and more
densely populated than hunting-gathering societies and far more competitive.

These trends, in turn, accelerated in the late eighteenth century as part of a second great
revolution, the Industrial Revolution, which produced much larger populations, many more
goods and services, urbanization, militarization, and the erosion and disappearance of
thousands of rural communities. Today, many sociologists believe that computers and
other advanced technologies have produced a third major revolution, the information
revolution that is generating two very different social trends. On the one hand, new
information technologies encourage greater social consolidation, perhaps the beginning
stages of life in a truly “global village,” where patterns of social interaction instantaneously
crisscross the globe. On the other hand, new technologies encourage a more private and
individualistic society, where more people may work, socialize, and spend much of their
lives at home. They are also creating many more flexible and tentative statuses and identities
than in any previous period.

These great transformations are all part of what sociologists call sociocultural evolution, a
process in which societies grow more complex in terms of technology, social structure, and
cultural knowledge over time. Although there is nothing inevitable about this process, and at
any given time a society may decline or collapse, in the course of human history there has
been a progressive trend toward more complex and more geographically far-reaching
sociocultural arrangements.

Theoretical perspectives on society stress the social contexts in which people live. It
examines how these contexts influence people’s lives. At the center of the theoretical
perspective is, the question of how groups influence people, especially how people are
influenced their society, a group of people who share a culture and a territory. Following
three theoretical perspectives on society will be discussed briefly:

Symbolic interactionism study how people use symbol, the things to which we attach
meaning, to develop their views of the world and to communicate with one another. This
perspective mainly focuses on Micro-level analysis of society. In short, symbolic
interactionists analyze how our behaviors depend on the ways we define ourselves and
others. They study face-to-face interaction, examining how people work out their
relationships and how they make sense out of life and their place in it. Symbolic
interactionists, point out that even the self is a symbol, for it consists of the ideas we have
about who we are. In addition, the self is a changing symbol: As we interact with others, we
adjust our views of who we are based on how we interpret the reactions of others to us.

Think of society as a living organism in which each part of the organism contributes to its
survival. This view is the functionalist perspective (Functionalism), which emphasizes the
way that parts of society are structured to maintain its stability. The proponents of the
functionalist theory saw any society as a vast network of connected parts, each of which
helps to maintain the system as a whole. The functionalist approach holds that if an aspect of
social life does not contribute to a society’s stability or survival, if does not serve some
identifiably useful function or promote value consensus among members of a society, it will
not be passed on from one generation to the next. Society is seen as a resulting from
agreement (consensus) about what is important (Values), and how we should behave
(norms) in particular situation (roles).

Emile Durkheim viewed society as being composed of many parts, each with its own
function. When all the parts of society fulfill their functions, society is in a “normal” state. If
they do not fulfill their functions, society is in an “abnormal” or “pathological” state. Talcott
patrons

Conflict theory provides a third perspective on social life. Unlike the functionalists, who
view society as a harmonious whole, with its parts working together, conflict theorists stress
that society is composed of groups that are competing with one another for scarce resources.
Although alliances or cooperation may prevail on the surface, beneath that surface lies a
struggle for power. Some scholars use conflict theory in a much broader sense. They
examine how conflict permeates every layer of society, whether that is a small group, an
organization, a community, or the entire society. When people in a position of authority try
to enforce conformity, which they must do, this creates resentment and resistance. The result
is a constant struggle throughout society to determine who has authority and how far that
authority goes.

3.2. STATE
3.2.1. Understanding State
The term ‘state’ has been used to refer to a bewildering range of things: a collection of
institutions, a territorial unit, a philosophical idea, an instrument of coercion or oppression,
and so on. This confusion stems, in part, from the fact that the state has been understood in
four quite different ways; from an idealist perspective, a functionalist perspective, an
organizational perspective and an international perspective.
Idealist approach to the state is most clearly reflected in the writings of Hegel. Hegel
identified three moments of social existence: the family, civil society and the state. Within
the family, he argued, a particular altruism operates that encourages people to set aside their
own interests for the good of their children or elderly relatives. In contrast, civil society was
seen as a sphere of ‘universal egoism’ in which individuals place their own interests before
those of others. Hegel conceived of the state as an ethical community underpinned by
mutual sympathy – ‘universal altruism’. The drawback of idealism, however, is that it
fosters an uncritical reverence for the state and, by defining the state in ethical terms, fails to
distinguish clearly between institutions that are part of the state and those that are outside the
state.

Functionalist approaches to the state focus on the role or purpose of state institutions. The
central function of the state is invariably seen as the maintenance of social order, the state
being defined as that set of institutions that uphold order and deliver social stability. Such an
approach has, for example, been adopted by Neo-Marxists, who have been inclined to see
the state as a mechanism through which class conflict is ameliorated to ensure the long-term
survival of the capitalist system. The weakness of the functionalist view of the state,
however, is that it tends to associate any institution that maintains order (such as the family,
mass media, trade unions and the church) with the state itself. This is why, unless there is a
statement to the contrary, an organizational approach to the definition of the state is adopted
throughout this book.

The organizational view defines the state as the apparatus of government in its broadest
sense; that is, as that set of institutions those are recognizably ‘public’, in that they are
responsible for the collective organization of social existence and are funded at the public’s
expense. The virtue of this definition is that it distinguishes clearly between the state and
civil society. The state comprises the various institutions of government: the bureaucracy,
the military, the police, the courts, and the social security system and so on, it can be
identified with the entire ‘body politic’. The organizational approach allows us to talk about
‘rolling forward’ or ‘rolling back’ the state, in the sense of expanding or contracting the
responsibilities of the state, and enlarging or diminishing its institutional machinery.

The international approach to the state views it primarily as an actor on the world stage;
indeed, as the basic ‘unit’ of international politics. This highlights the dualistic structure of
the state; the fact that it has two faces, one looking outwards and the other looking inwards.
Whereas the previous definitions are concerned with the state’s inward-looking face, its
relations with the individuals and groups that live within its borders, and its ability to
maintain domestic order, the international view deals with the state’s outward-looking face,
its relations with other states and, therefore, its ability to provide protection against external
attack. The classic definition of the state in international law is found in the Montevideo
Convention on the Rights and Duties of the State (1933). According to Article 1 of the
Montevideo Convention, the state has four features: a defined territory, permanent
population, an effective government and sovereignty. Let us now discuss details of the
above-mentioned attributes as follows:

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’.
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/diplomat’s residence 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.
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.
Sovereignty: 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. 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.
In addition to the essential attributes of the state agreed in the 1933, the contemporary
political theorists and the UN considered recognition as the fifth essential attribute of the
state. This is because, 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 other states, international intergovernmental and non-
governmental organizations… etc.) 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.

3.2.2. State Structure

State structure 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
structure 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 the unitary and federal systems.

[Link]. 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 governments
and it can also impose its decisions on all local governments regardless of their will. As
such, these local governments enjoy no autonomy, their position is like that of subordinate
governments. Among others, the following can be considered as the basic characteristic
features of a unitary state.
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, the central
government. All powers are legally driven from the central government. It is that central
government which makes laws, rules, regulations and policies. It is again that central
government which controls all the units in the country.
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 a country. Local
units are simply agents of the central government. The local units/sub-national units are thus
dependent on the central government.
Finally, 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. The first and least significant is deconcentration. This is purely a matter of
administrative organization; it refers to the location of central government employees away
from the capital. The case for a deconcentrated structure is that it spreads 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.
 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.
 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 whole 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. Excessive centralization takes away the autonomy of the
local units. There is noting like local self-government that encourages the people to take part
in their local affairs.
 Local affairs are ignored. The center is incapable of looking after the problems of
distant areas that can be better managed in a federal system. 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 legislature with numerous local matters. In fast changing
world, the central authority cannot cope with and maintain pace with the issues prevailing.
 It is not suited to very big countries characterized by heterogeneity.

[Link]. Federal Form of State Structure

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.
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
governments and 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.
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 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 autonomous 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 in 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 with in 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: in most federal systems, the central
government is superior and supreme 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. In almost all federal systems, the federal constitution has always
contain articles and provisions that specifically stipulate the power sharing/distribution
between the levels of government.
4. Constitutional Arbiter: in all federations, the formal provisions of the 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, the constitution is interpreted by the
Supreme Court. Hence, by doing this, the body or institution arbitrate in the case of disputes
 arise between federal and state levels of governments. In determining the respective fields of
jurisdictions of each level of government, the assigned institution in a federal system are
able to determine how federalism works in practice.
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 Federalism

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: these are powers and responsibility that are exclusively vested to the
central or federal government. That is, powers and responsibilities that are not shared
powers, but only exercised by the federal/central. 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.
3. Reserved Powers: these powers refer to the powers and responsibilities that are reserved
to the federal government or to the state governments.
 Advantages of Federal Systems
 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-
government, their interest in public affirms is stimulated; they are better qualified for
determining their own policies and regulating their own local affairs than uninformed,
overburdened, 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 of Federalism
 It is a weak form of arrangement in the sense because 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 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 expenses and delay due to complexity of a double system of
legislation and administration.

3.3. Government
3.3.1. What is Government?
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
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 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. Any form of government, to be stable and
effective, must possess two essential attributes: authority and legitimacy.

Authority: In politics, the word authority implies the ability to compel obedience. It can
simply be defined as ‘legitimate power.’ While power is the ability to influence the behavior
of others, authority is the right to do so. Authority is therefore, based on an acknowledged
duty to obey rather than on any form of coercion or manipulation. Legitimacy: The term
legitimacy (from the Latin word legitimare, meaning ‘to declare lawful’) broadly means
rightfulness. Thus, legitimacy is the attribute of government that prompts the governed to
comply willingly with its authority. It confers on an order or commands an authoritative or
binding character, thus transforming power in to authority. Thus, legitimacy is the popular
acceptance of a governing regime or law as an authority.
3.3.2. Purposes and Functions of Government
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.
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. Many
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:
 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.
 Distribution and Regulation of Resources: All governments invariably play the
role of distributing resources in their societies. In addition, governments are the 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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, development of public works, provision of food, shelter, clothing
for the public, Developing social services, etc.

3.3.2. Organization of government

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 the law.

[Link]. 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 adopt the budget and other
money bills. The consent of the legislature is also often required to ratify treaties and declare
war. the principal structural differences between parliaments are whether they comprise one
chamber or two, unicameral or bicameral.

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. Legislation, Legislation, Oversight of the
Executive, Legitimacy, Constitutional Making and Amending, Electoral and Deposing
Functions, Financial Functions, Investigative Functions.

[Link]. The Executive Organ

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. 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.

The task of the political executive is to provide: Ceremonial Leadership, Policy making
Leadership, Control of the Military and Foreign Affairs, Popular leadership, Bureaucratic
Leadership, Crisis leadership. 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 by the political executives. Moreover, in addition to their primary
function, they have important role in the following areas: Administration, Policy Advice,
Articulating Interests, and Political Stability.

[Link]. 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: Adjudication, Formation of Case Law,
Guardian of the Constitution, Protection of Rights of the Citizenry, Judicial Review.

3.3.3. Systems of Government

Political system can be classified 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
rulemaking 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: presidential and parliamentary systems of government.

[Link]. Presidential system of government

The institution of a single man and non-parliamentary executive chiefly characterizes the
presidential system of government. The same person who holds the title of head of state is
also head of government. The real political or executive power is combined with the
ceremonial powers and are both exercised by a single man who is also addressed as the
Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The executive headed by him is the government
and it is headed by the president who is also the head of the executive. The president is
normally elected directly through popular votes or, indirectly via the collegiate system,
otherwise known as the Electoral College and he is directly accountable to the electorate.
The election to the office of the president is independent of the election to the legislature.
The whole country constitutes a single constituency to the president. On assumption of
office, the president is seen as the symbol of national unity, a magnet of loyalty, a centre of
ceremony and chief administrator for the nation. The number of years a president stays in
office depends on the constitution of the country concerned.
Unlike the Prime Minister in a parliamentary system, the President in a presidential system
of government does not share his power with any other person. The famous story of Lincoln
consulting his cabinet and announcing ‘Noes seven, Ayes one, the ayes have it’ expresses
perfectly the spirit of the American Constitution”.

 Features of Presidential System of Government

The president exercises veto power Under the Presidential system of government, the
President who has the whole country as his constituency is elected separately for a fixed
term of four years, and separately from the Congress. The President is the head of state, head
of government and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Nevertheless, in some respects
despite having, the whole country has his constituency, the President in exercising his major
functions of legislations, appointments; treaty making and declaration of war shares his
power with the Congress. i). Combination of two offices in one ii). Presidential discretion in
Appointmentsiii). A single countrywide constituency: iv). Clear Separation of Powers, and
Checks and Balances v). Fixed Tenure of Office: vi). Veto Power.

 Advantages of presidential system of government

i) Quick and decisiveness in Decision-making: The presidential system of government
makes for decisive actions because the president knows that ‘the buck stops on his desk’, a
phrase popularised by the late Harry Truman, when he decided to use nuclear weapons
against two Japanese cities in order to bring about a decisive end to World War II. In
America and Nigeria, the constitution did not even make it mandatory for the president to
call a meeting of the executive council before he can take action on any issue.
ii) Presidential discretion in Appointments: One major advantage of the presidential
system of government is that the President has a free hand in appointing his ministers and
other government appointees. Ministers could be chosen from outside the president’s party,
a situation that confers high degree of latitude on the president to select the best materials
from any part of the country.
iii) A single countrywide constituency: The fact that the electorate popularly elects the
president makes the whole country a single constituency for him, and as such, the party does
not have an overbearing control over him, beyond offering him advice at party caucuses. He
rather than his party or his appointees bear singular responsibilities for his actions and
inactions. This constitutes a consistent source of pressure on him to perform since he cannot
shift blame to any other person.

iv). Merits of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances

The mechanism of separation of power enhances the effective performance of each arm of
government in its functions while checks and balances also ensures that a president who by
nature is dictatorial can be brought under constitutional checks. The combination of the two
devises will obviously improve the performance of government as whole and its capacity for
optimal service delivery.

v). Fixed Tenure of Office

The fixed tenure in office enjoyed by a president under the presidential system makes for the
stability of the government and the continuity of policies. A stable government also allows
for both medium and long term planning, rather than the instability that characterizes a
parliamentary system of government. A new general election can be called in a
parliamentary system any time a vote of no confidence is passed on the government.
vi). Individual Ministerial Responsibility Unlike the parliamentary system, which allows a
non-performing minister to shelter under the concept of collective responsibility, the
presidential system makes it easier for an ineffective minister to be identified and singled
out for blame or even dismissal. His dismissal will not affect other ministers or even, in the
extreme make a government to collapse.

 Disadvantages of the Presidential System of Government

i). Prone to Dictatorship: The presidential system is prone to dictatorship or abuse of
office, which is dangerous to the democratic process. This is because of enormous power
that is concentrated in the office of the president.
ii). Friction among Government Organs: Separation of powers can cause delays in the
execution of government programmes, especially in situations where executive-legislative
relations are not properly managed.
iii). Lack of flexibility in Tenure of Office: The operation of the presidential system has
been criticized for being too rigid and not amenable to changing circumstances. For example
in the United States during World War II all the scheduled elections under the stipulated
electoral calendar were held since the system did not allow for any flexibility in form of
postponement. What only ensured stability of the system and continuity of U.S. ‘war policy
was the popularity of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was re-elected twice during
the World War II. However, during the same period in Britain the tenure of the government
that was held together under a war coalition structure was easily extended.
iv). Very Expensive to Operate: Another disadvantage of the Presidential system is that it
is very expensive to run. The parliamentary system is considered to be more cost effective
since it is from the elected members of the parliament that the Prime minister and other
ministers, who constitute the nation’s cabinet, are appointed.
v) Absence of Party Discipline: Unlike the parliamentary system where party discipline is
very strong and which fuses the cabinet and the parliament into one like a Siamese twin
which must swim and sink together, this is not the case in a the presidential model.
vi) The process of Lobbying can encourage Corruption: Although lobbying, if decently
applied, has become an acceptable means by which pressure groups influence public
policies; yet it is also open to abuse or misuse by a more than determined chief executive
who is determined to have his ways at all costs. This was very evident during the early days
of the fourth Republic in Nigeria when ‘Ghana Must Go’ bags allegedly funneled from the
presidency and meant to bribe members of the National Assembly were displayed publicly
for everyone to see.

[Link]. Parliamentary system of government

Parliamentary system of government is the system of government in which the office of the
head of government is different from head of state. The head of government performs the
real and executive function. In Britain, a good example of a country operating the
parliamentary system of government, the prime minister, who is the head of government,
performs the substantive executive functions. The prime minister is usually appointed by the
head of state from the party that controls majority seats in the legislature. The head of state,
like the Queen in Great Britain performs ceremonial duties like welcoming foreign
dignitaries, presiding over important national functions or ceremonies, signing bills into law
in the parliament and addressing the parliament at the beginning and the end of
parliamentary life.

In a parliamentary system of government the Prime minister occupies a pivotal and key
position; he appoints ministers from the elected members of House of Commons, and they
are all answerable and accountable to the parliament for the discharge their functions. The
prime minister is the chairman of the cabinet and he has primary responsibility for the
execution of policies.
 Features of Parliamentary System of Government
It might be appropriate here to examine the differences between the presidential system,
which we have discussed in the section and the parliamentary (cabinet) system which we are
examining presently. This will also help to bring out vividly the major characteristics of the
parliamentary system of government. The two systems differ in a number of ways that we
shall examine below. i). Dual executive ii) Fusion of powers iii). Tenure not guaranteed iv).
Power of attainment v). Parliamentary supremacy.

 Merits of the Parliamentary System of Government

i). The parliamentary system of government curbs autocracy and dictatorship in government.
It is very difficult for the system to breed or produce dictators since the government is
always conscious of the fact that if it does, it will incur the wrath of members of parliament
which may lead to the passing of a vote of no confidence on it.
ii). Parliamentary system promotes dedication and efficiency in government. The ministers
at party caucus must have thoroughly discussed proposals/bills before bringing them to the
parliament for consideration. This ensures quick approval of policies and enacted of laws
since members of the cabinet also sit in parliament where they see to their passage. In
addition, in order to avoid criticisms and the possibility of vote of no confidence on his
government, the Prime Minister is always conscious of putting in the best.
iii). There is a lot of merit in the concept of collective responsibility and ministerial
responsibility which is built on the principle that the cabinet should be united in all its
decisions. This makes the cabinet as a body and the ministers as individuals to be careful
about their conduct in office because it may have far reaching implications on the stability
and survival of the government. The principle of ministerial responsibility also discourages
passing of bulk or shifting of blame by individual ministers. The parliamentary system is
equally more democratic responsive to public opinion. This is because the cabinet is not
responsible to the Prime Minister who appoints them, but to the parliament.
iv). The presence of an officially recognized opposition party in a parliamentary system of
government makes the ruling party or the governing coalition to be conscious of its
responsibilities to the electorate. For this reason the government is always alert to alternative
views that may be canvassed by the opposition so as to know where to improve its
performance. The role of the opposition party therefore is not only to constructively criticize
the government as an effective watchdog, but also to see itself as the government in waiting
or as an alternative government, that is ready to take over the government should the
situation arises.
v). The fusion of power which ensures that cabinet members are also parliamentarians
promotes mutual understanding between the legislative and the executive branches of
government. The fact that members of the executive also sit in the legislature as lawmakers
ensures that process of decision making is faster. It does not require further elaboration to
know that consensus on major issues can be easily reached since the cabinet usually operates
as a committee of the parliament.
vi). The parliamentary system is less expensive to run because ministers are chosen from
elected members of parliament. This is not the case under the presidential system of
government where ministers are chosen from outside the parliament. Indeed, in a
presidential system a serving member of the legislature parliament must first resign and
vacate his seat in the house before he can be qualified to be appointed as minister. Thus, the
additional money that will be required to hire more hands outside the legislature is thereby
saved in a parliamentary system of government.
vii) In spite of changes of government at regular intervals the non-partisan but largely
ceremonial and symbolic role of the head of state in a parliamentary system contributes to
continuity and sustenance of state institutions. For example, in Britain because the Queen
has been in office since 1953, she has remained the anchor of stability of the British
institutions and values, despite changes in governments in the country in the past 53 years
now.

 Demerits of the Parliamentary System of Government

i). The best people may not be in government since the Prime Minister is restricted to
appoint ministers into his cabinet from members of his party. This is not the case under the
presidential system of government the executive president is popularly elected, and enjoys a
high degree of flexibility and freedom in the choice of those who will serve him in the
cabinet. It is even possible for non-card carrying party member to be appointed to serve in
the cabinet and other key positions in government.
ii). Parliamentary system violates the principle of separation of powers and the expectations
that liberty of the citizens and rule of law will be guaranteed. A major disadvantage of
fusion of powers is that it may lead to needless bottleneck in the relationships among the
organs of government and complexity in administration of government.
iii) There is also the danger of personality clash or conflict of interest between the head of
state and head of government in a parliamentary system of government. It has been further
argued that a division of power between the head of state and government is alien to African
societies where political leaders are used to wielding enormous power. This type of conflict
of interest manifested between Dr. Azikiwe, then President and Alhaji Tafawa Balewa, then
Nigeria’ Prime Minister of Nigeria in the First Republic when the two of them disagreed
over the conduct and outcome of the December 30, 1964 federal elections. One of the
reasons that made Nigeria decided in favour of the presidential system of government in
1979 was the fear of a possible repeat of the constitutional crisis, which enveloped the
country in the aftermath of this disagreement between the two leaders. In September 2010,
the Somalia Prime Minister, Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke resigned from office due to
personal disagreement between him and president Sheik Sharif Ahmed. While defending his
resignation, Sharmarke explained: “After seeing that the political turmoil between me and
the president has caused security vulnerability, I have decided to resign to save the
nation…”
(iv). Another disadvantage of the parliamentary system of government is that it can also
throw up a person who is not countrywide popular or known as a Prime Minister. Unlike the
presidential system, which requires the leader of government (president) to have a
countrywide appeal before he can be elected, the requirements for the office of a Prime
Minister are less stringent. Any elected member of House of Commons from a single
member constituency who is believed to have the majority support of other members can
become the leader of government in Britain. This was exploited in Nigeria during the First
Republic when the leaders of the Northern People’s Congress did not bother to campaign in
the other regions because they were confident that votes from the Northern region alone
were sufficient to earn them the prestigious post of Prime Minister.

3.4. CITIZENSHIP
3.4.1. Defining Citizenship
As you can remember, in chapter one of this course, we have seen the definitions of citizen
and citizenship. In simplest terms, citizen refers to the person who is a legal member of a
particular State and one who owes allegiance to that State. To describe it in a different
mood, citizen is a person who is legally recognized as member of a particular, officially
sovereign political community, entitled to whatever prerogatives and encumbered with
responsibilities.
The means by which we determine whether a person is legal member of a particular State or
otherwise is called ‘citizenship’. However, from political and social perspectives and at a
substantive level, citizenship is beyond a legal status. Though many agree that citizenship is
a political and legal artefact that creates a condition of civic equality among those who
possess it with regard to the prerogatives and responsibilities it bestows and requires, the
term citizenship has been defined differently by scholars and practitioners. Although
differences may exist, there are common elements such as rights, duties, belonging, identity
and participation one can find in definitions of the term.

i) Citizenship as a Status of Rights: The mere fact of being a citizen makes the person a
creditor of a series of rights. In this sense, current political discourse often tends to identify
citizenship with rights. Marshall 1998, distinguishes three types of rights that historically
have been established in succession: the civil, or the rights necessary for the development of
individual liberty; political, i.e. the right to participate in the exercise of political power, as
an elected member or as a voter and social rights, which are those that guarantee the right to
public safety, health, the right to education, etc., that is the right to a decent life (these rights
are discussed in detail in Chapter four of this module). It is precisely these rights that give us
the status of citizens, to enjoy these means to be a full member of a democratic society. Each
right is often pursued in specific institutional forums: legal/civil rights are mainly exercised
in the courts; political rights are used in voting booths, legislatures and street protests; social
rights are often activated or disputed in government buildings.

ii) Membership and Identity: Citizenship is associated with membership of a political

community, which implies integration into that community with a specific identity that is
common to all members who belongs to it. The criteria for membership have been linked to
shared territory, common culture, ethnic characteristics, history, etc. However, nowadays,
we often use citizenship to signify not just membership in some group but certain standards
of proper conduct. Some people – those who contribute to the well-being of their community
are understood to be the ‘true’ citizens. Those who free-ride are mere members who do not
seem to understand, embrace, or embody what citizenship really means. When communities,
public or private, bestow citizenship awards to some of their members, it is this usage they
invoke. It obviously implies that only ‘good’ citizens are genuine citizens in the full
meaning of the term.
iii) Participation: Participation occupies a key position in citizenship. Nonetheless,
individuals differ in what approaches they find important, some people focus on their private
affairs while others actively participate in the life of the society, including politics. There are
two approaches in this regard; minimalists and maximalists. A minimalist approach to
citizenship characterized by a kind of basic passive compliance with the rules of a particular
community/State, while the maximalist approach imply active, broad participation of
citizens engagement in the State.
iv) Inclusion and Exclusion: All individuals living in a particular state do not necessary
mean that all are citizens. For instance, there are non-citizens visiting, working and living in
Ethiopia branded as foreigners/aliens. Foreigners have the likelihood of staying in the
territorial administration of Ethiopia as far as they have authorized visas. The aliens,
therefore, have rights just like the Ethiopian citizens such as the right to life, movement, and
protection of the law. Additionally, there are also responsibilities shared by both the non-
citizens and citizens domiciled in Ethiopia particularly in respecting the laws of the country.
However, citizens are fundamentally different from aliens in enjoying privileges and
shouldering responsibilities. There are some political and economic rights that are reserved
to and duties to be discharged by citizens only. For instance, vote and to be elected and get
Ethiopian passport. Likewise, defending the constitution as well as Ethiopia territory from
foreign aggressors are solely the duty of Ethiopian citizens.

3.4.2. Theorizing citizenship

 Citizenship in Liberal Thought
Liberal theory of citizenship begins with the individual person (the self). The self exists as
the true symbol of liberal theory. Accordingly, it gives a strong emphasis to the individual
liberty of the citizen, and rights that adhere to each and every person. The self is represented
as a calculating holder of preferences and rights in a liberal society. Hence, in liberalism the
primary political unit as well as the initial focus of all fundamental political inquiry is the
individual person.

Generally, the bedrock principles of liberal theory of citizenship are: individuals are free to
form their own opinions, pursue their own projects, and transact their own business
untrammeled by the State’s political agenda and coercive power, except in so far as
individual actions implicate the interests of other members of society. Liberal citizens are
thus left to their own devices without much guidance from the state. They must decide for
themselves how to use their constitutionally secured freedoms, decide what kind of citizen
to be – including the possibility that they will decide to forswear any political activity at all,
preferring to retreat into an entirely private world of family, friends, market transactions,
and self-absorption and gratification, into a world largely indifferent to any public goods not
generated within these parochial domains. Citizenship cannot be defined based on shared
identity or a common culture; the individual chooses his own affections, and any
identification with other individuals is rather a product of their legal status as citizens. Equal
rights bind citizens together in a legal community of free individuals. This does not imply
the complete rejection of culture and identity as such, but identity and culture are not a
priori foundations for citizenship.

Critics of Liberal Theory of Citizenship

First, how can individuals be/are prevented from destroying each other and from destroying
the basis of their mutually beneficial interaction? Second, liberalists affirmatively valorize
the privatization of personality, commitment, and activity. Hence, the problem has to do
with is the ways in which individuals and their ideas are framed. Third, as we have seen in
the above, individuals have absolute freedom either to actively engage in politics or ignore
at all. Deducing from this, the citizens do not only have the right to participate in the
political affairs of their country but also the right not to engage in it and then retreat into
their private pursuits if they wish. Fourth, liberalists justify that inequalities arise out of
differences in individual talents, values, and choices – differences, moreover, that the State
cannot seek to efface without endangering citizens’ liberties. Perhaps the most daunting
challenge to liberalism, then, is to reduce inequalities to socially acceptable and politically
sustainable from the views of the disadvantageous groups, while at the same time
vindicating the liberal commitment to the protection of individual liberties. Finally,
liberalism posits a State that maintains substantial normative neutrality. In this conception,
the liberal State should neither choose among competing visions of the good society nor
place its thumb on the scales in other ways, such as redistributive policies, that favor
particular visions.
 Citizenship in Communitarian Thought
The debate on citizenship as the expression of community revived with the emergence of
communitarianism since the 1980s. Communitarianism is as an approach emphasizes on the
importance of society in articulating the good. The communitarian (also known as the
nationalist) model argue that the identity of citizens cannot be understood outside the
territory in which they live, their culture and traditions, arguing that the basis of its rules and
procedures and legal policy is the shared common good. The political subject, above all,
belongs to a community, a community to which he/she owes allegiance and commitment.
Thus, rather than viewing group practices as the product of individual choices,
communitarians view individuals as the product of social practices.
Communitarian citizenship thought has been criticized for various reasons.
Communitarianism is hostile towards individual rights and autonomy, even that it is
authoritarian since it melts the self into the society. A community push people to sacrifice
large parts of their individual differences in order to follow shared values.

 Citizenship in Republican Thought

Republican citizenship theory put emphasis on both individual and group rights. Means
republican though attempts to incorporate the liberal notion of the self-interested individual
within the communitarian framework of egalitarian and community belonging. Like
communitarian thought, it emphasizes on what bind citizens together in to a particular
community. Citizenship should be understood as a common civic identity, shaped by a
common public culture. It requires citizens to bring together the facets of their individual
lives as best they can and helps them to find unity in the midst of diversity. However,
republicans don’t pressurize individuals to surrender their particular identities like the
communitarian thought. Instead, it is underpinned by a concern with individual obligation to
participate in communal affairs. It encourages people to look for the common ground on
which they stand, despite their differences, as citizens. At this juncture, an effective balance
between toleration and obligation is required. Toleration involves citizens participating
politically as advocates of particular interests, with their concern focused on ‘fairness
between different sections of the community and the pursuit of common ends.
Republican citizenship has been criticized by scholars who advocate multicultural and other
approaches of citizenship. The first is that the republican conception of citizenship is no
longer realistic. Republican citizenship is an irredeemably nostalgic ideal in this age of
globalization. To be a citizen, in the republican view, is to be a partner in a common
enterprise, and people will be likely to put the common interest ahead of their own – to act
as true citizens – only when they feel themselves to be part of such an enterprise. The
Internet and satellite television are unlikely to inspire this sense of community on a global
basis. The second is that the conception poses a threat to an open, egalitarian, and pluralistic
society. This second criticism is put forcefully by Young (1990: 117), who detects a denial
of ‘difference’ in republican attempts because in practice republican politicians enforced
homogeneity by excluding from citizenship all those defined as different.

 Multicultural Citizenship
There is a need to move towards a new type of multicultural citizenship appropriate to
highly diverse societies and contemporary economic trends. Recognition of group difference
implies departing from the idea of all citizens as simply equal individuals and instead seeing
them simultaneously as having equal rights as individuals and different needs and wants as
members of groups with specific characteristics and social situations which is basically the
focus of multicultural citizenship discuss four principles of multicultural citizenship which
are presented here under. i) Taking equality of citizenship rights as a starting point; ii)
Recognizing that Formal equality of rights does not necessarily lead to equality of respect,
resources, opportunities or welfare; iii) Establishing mechanisms for group representation
and participation. iv) Differential treatment for people with different characteristics, needs
and wants.

Critics of differentiated citizenship worry that if groups are encouraged by the very terms of
citizenship to turn inward and focus on their 'difference' (whether racial, ethnic, religious,
sexual, and so on), then the hope of a larger fraternity of all human beings will have to be
abandoned. Critics also worry that differentiated citizenship would create a "politics of
grievance."

3.4.3. Modes/Ways of Acquiring and Loosing Citizenship

Citizenship right was one of the rights guaranteed to individuals by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948. According to Article 15 of the declaration,
“everyone has a right to a nationality” and that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
nationality.” Hence, in the following sections we will discuss the ways of acquiring and
loosing citizenship.
[Link]. Ways of Acquiring Citizenship
Since the grant of citizenship remains within the discretion of the state concerned, the means
of acquiring a particular State’s citizenship vary from country to country. However, the
common ways of acquiring citizenship can be grouped in to two: citizenship by birth and
citizenship through naturalization/law.

i) Citizenship from birth/of Origin: individuals can get citizenship status of a particular
State either because he/she is born in the territorial administration of that or his/her mother
and/or father are citizens of the State in question. That is, there are two principles of
citizenship from birth commonly known as Jus Soli (law/right of the soil) and Jus Sanguinis
(law/right of blood). Whereas Jus Soli is a principle whereby an individual is permitted to
obtain citizenship status of a particular State because he/she was born in the territorial
administration of that country, Jus Sanguinis is a norm where citizenship acquired claiming
one’s parents citizenship status. However, jus soli could not apply to children born from
diplomats and refugees live in a host State. Children born from diplomats in a host State
where jus soli is allowed do not have the right to claim citizenship status of the host country
because of two special principles (international diplomatic immunities): extraterritoriality
and inviolability principles.

ii) Citizenship by Naturalization/Law: is the legal process by which foreigners become

citizens of another country. The common sub-principles of acquiring citizenship through
naturalization are the following. Political case (secession, merger and subjugation), grant on
application, marriage, legitimatization/adoption, and reintegration/restoration. Citizenship
by political case is a process by which an individual person acquires citizenship of a certain
State following the conquest or cession of a territory. In case a particular territory is merged
to or subjugated by another country, people domiciled in that territory would acquire a new
citizenship. Besides, in cases of secession option may be given to individuals to choose
either country’s citizenship. Let us now discuss the remaining ways of acquiring citizenship
vis-à-vis to Ethiopia.
  The Modes of Acquiring Ethiopian Citizenship
Before the 1930, there was not officially inscribed legal document that deals with
citizenship. However, in 1930 Ethiopia adopted a legal document named as “Ethiopian
Nationality Law”. Recently, this nationality law has replaced by another legal document
called “Ethiopian Nationality Proclamation NO. 378/2003” that was adopted in 2003 by the
House of People’s Representatives. This proclamation is enacted in accordance to article 6
and 33 of the 1995 FDRE constitution and affirms that a person can acquire Ethiopian
citizenship either by birth or naturalization. Now, let’s discuss the modes of acquiring
Ethiopian citizenship included in the 2003 nationality proclamation.

1) Acquisition by Descent: the 1930 Ethiopian nationality law asserts, “any person born in
Ethiopia or abroad, whose father or mother is Ethiopian, is an Ethiopian subject.” In its
Article 6(1), the 1995 FDRE constitution states, “any person of either sex shall be an
Ethiopian national where both or either parent is Ethiopian.” In line with this, Article 3 of
the 2003 nationality proclamation ascribed two principles under the acquisition of Ethiopian
citizenship by decent. One, “Any person shall be an Ethiopian national by descent where
both or either of his/her parent is Ethiopian;” second, “An infant who is found abandoned in
Ethiopia shall, unless proved to have a foreign nationality, be deemed to have been born to
an Ethiopian parent and shall acquire Ethiopian nationality.” According to the proclamation,
any person can’t acquire Ethiopian citizenship through the principle of Jus Soli (law of soil).
It means that children born in the territorial administration of Ethiopian do not have the right
to acquire Ethiopian citizenship. Birth place of a child is not a requirement to acquire
Ethiopian nationality. Wherever a child was born, he/she has the right to attain Ethiopian
citizenship if, and only if, he/she is born from an Ethiopian father or mother or both
Ethiopian parents.

2) Acquisition by Law (Naturalization): Article 6(2) of the 1995 FDRE constitution also
avers that aliens can get Ethiopian citizenship. Under naturalization, there are various ways
of acquiring Ethiopian citizenship in accordance with of the amended Ethiopian nationality
proclamation of 2003 recognized by the provisions of Articles 5 to 12 of the 2003
nationality proclamation. These are:
a) Grant on Application (registration): happens when an alien requests a host state to be
granted citizenship status of the country in question. However, host countries, including
Ethiopia, do not simply grant citizenship status to those who apply unless they fulfill certain
requirements. The common ones are applicant’s age, length of residence in the host country,
criminal conviction, income and moral character. But the criteria vary from country to
country. For instance, according to Article 5 of the 2003 Ethiopian nationality proclamation,
an applicant shall get Ethiopian nationality if, and only if, he/she (1) reach the age of
majority, 18 years; (2) lived in Ethiopia for a total of at least four years; (3) has sufficient
and lawful source of income (economically self-reliant); (4) is able to communicate in any
of the indigenous languages spoken in Ethiopia; (5) has a good character; (6) has not
recorded criminal conviction; (7) has been released from his/her previous nationality or the
possibility of obtaining such a release upon the acquisition of Ethiopian nationality or that
he/she is a stateless person; and (8) takes the oath of allegiance indicated in Article 12 of the
proclamation: “I-----, solemnly affirm that I will be a loyal national of the federal
democratic republic of Ethiopia and be faithful to its constitution”.

b) Cases of Marriage: an alien who is married to an Ethiopian citizen have the possibility of
acquiring Ethiopian citizenship. Yet, there are certain preconditions set in Article 6 of the
proclamation in which the marriage and the alien married to an Ethiopian citizen must fulfill
just to allow the foreigner acquire Ethiopian nationality by law. One, the marriage shall be
thru in accordance with the laws of Ethiopia or the State where the marriage is
contracted; second, the marriage shall lapse at least for two years; third, the alien married to
an Ethiopian citizen have to live in Ethiopian for at least one year preceding the
submission of the application; and fourth, the alien have to reach the age of majority, be a
morally good person, and lastly take the oath of allegiance stated under Article 12 of the
proclamation.

c) Cases of Adoption (Legitimating): this process whereby an illegitimate child get

citizenship status of his/her caretaker’s nationality. In this case, Article 7 of the nationality
proclamation asserts that a child adopted by and grown under the caretaker of Ethiopian
citizen has the right to acquire Ethiopian citizenship. But, the child could get Ethiopian
citizenship if the adopted child has not attained the age of majority; lives in Ethiopia
together with his/her adopting parent; and has been released from his/her previous
nationality or the possibility of obtaining such a release upon the acquisition of Ethiopian
nationality or that he/she is a stateless person. However, where one of his/her adopting
parents is a foreigner, in writing, such a parent has to express his/her agreement that his/her
adopted child gain Ethiopian nationality.

d) Citizenship by Special Cases: as it is labeled in Article 8, an alien who has made an

outstanding contribution in the interest of Ethiopia may be conferred with Ethiopian
nationality by law without undergoing the pre-conditions stated in Article 5 (sub-articles 2
and 3) of the 2003 Ethiopian nationality proclamation. That is, he/she is not required to live
in Ethiopia for a total of four years and may lack the ability to communicate in any of the
languages spoken in Ethiopia.

e) Re-Admission to Ethiopian Nationality (Reintegration/Restoration): this is a process by

which a person acquires his/her lost citizenship. The 2003 Ethiopian nationality
proclamation acknowledges this principle in its Article 22. That is, a person who has lost
Ethiopian citizenship status may get back Ethiopian nationality. However, there are
requirements in which the person is expected to fulfill. In this case, the person could be
readmitted to Ethiopian nationality if he/she applies to the Security, Immigration and
Refugee Affairs Authority for re-admission. In addition, he/she has to return and domiciled
in Ethiopia and renounces his foreign nationality to get back Ethiopian nationality.

 Examining and Deciding upon an Application to acquire Ethiopian Citizenship

An application to obtain Ethiopian nationality by law shall be accompanied with relevant
documents and shall be submitted to the Security, Immigration and Refugee Affairs
Authority (Article 10 of the proclamation). Then, the application shall be examined by the
Nationality Affairs Committee (Article 11 and 23 of the proclamation), a committee
comprises five members, namely; (i) a representative of the Security, Immigration and
Refugee Affairs Authority (chairperson); (ii) a representative of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (member); (iii) a representative of the Ministry of Justice (member); (iv) a
representative of the Federal Police Commission (member); and (v) a representative of the
Authority (member and secretary). The Committee has to submit its recommendation to the
Security, Immigration and Refugee Affairs Authority. If the committee’s recommendation
got approval of the Authority, the applicant shall take the oath of allegiance (see article 12
of the proclamation) in front of the committee. Lastly, the applicant confers with a
certificate of naturalization and become legally an Ethiopian national.

[Link]. Ways of Loosing Citizenship

Citizenship can be lost when a State provides for lapse or withdrawal of citizenship under
certain conditions, or when a citizen voluntary renounces it. The primary rational for loss of
citizenship is the absence of a genuine link with the state. Many citizenship laws also
provide for loss if there has been fraud in the course of acquiring citizenship. Some States
have provisions for depriving people of citizenship in cases where their behavior is
considered to demonstrate disloyalty towards the state.

One can imagine a number of reasons why a nation might want to terminate citizenship of
individuals. Aleinik off put denationalization grounds into three categories: allegiance,
punishment, and public order. One may lose a country’s citizenship when he/she
demonstrates a lack of allegiance which could be explained through what we called active
disloyalty (for example, treason) or simply no loyalty at all (apathy or unconcern about the
fate of the nation). Citizenship is related with enjoying rights in one nation. However, a
country may seek to deny such benefits to people it believes are unworthy of enjoying them.
Denationalization, on this account, may be justified as punishment. For example, the U.S.
Congress has enacted several denationalization grounds that fall within this category, such
as violation of laws against subversion, draft evasion, and desertion from the armed forces in
time of war. Also, the time that a citizen deemed to be a threat to public order, dangerous to
national security or who embroil the state in foreign controversies, the State may
denationalize the person. Generally, the commonly discussed ways of losing citizenship are
deprivation, renunciation, lapse/expiration and substitution.
Deprivation is an involuntary loss of citizenship which arises while government authorities
or court take a decision to nullify an individual’s citizenship. It is on the assumption that the
burden of justification for the loss of citizenship of an individual lies on the state. The
citizen may be deprived of his/her citizenship for reasons of uncovering national secrets,
non-compliance with citizenship duties (duty of loyalty), loss of genuine link with his/her
state, flawed acquisition of citizenship, promising loyalty to and/or serving in armed force of
another country, trying to overthrow the government by force, seriously prejudicial
behavior, and becoming naturalized in another country. But, the 1995 FDRE constitution
asserts that “no Ethiopian national shall be deprived of his or her Ethiopian nationality
against his or her will.” Similarly, in its Article 17, the 2003 Ethiopian nationality
proclamation prohibits the possibility of losing Ethiopian nationality through deprivation.

Lapse/expiration is another way of losing citizenship which is not applicable to Ethiopia.

Lapse is a mode whereby a person loses his/her citizenship because of his/her permanent
residence or long term residence abroad beyond the number of years permitted by the
country in question. For example, if an Indian citizen stays outside his/her country
continuously for more than seven years, he/she automatically loses his/her Indian nationality
by the principle of lapse.

Renunciation is the voluntary way of losing citizenship. The UDHR (1948) guarantees the
right of a person to change his/her nationality. Loss of citizenship is voluntary only if it is
intended and initiated by the individual concerned. An Ethiopian national has the full right
to renounce his/her Ethiopian nationality if he/she wishes according to Article 33(3) of the
FDRE constitution and Article 19 of the 2003 Ethiopian nationality proclamations.
However, the person who has renounced a country’s nationality may not be actually
released from that status until he/she has discharged his/her obligations towards that
particular State or accused of a crime. This situation is called indelible allegiance. According
to Article 19(4) of the 2003 Nationality Proclamation, an Ethiopian who has declared to
renounce Ethiopian nationality may not be released until: the citizen has discharged his/her
outstanding national obligations or until he/she has served the penalty for the crime he/she
has accused of or convicted.
Substitution: citizenship may be lost when the original citizenship is substituted by another
state, where it is acquired through naturalization. On the other side, this may also take place
when a particular territory is annexed by another state; the inhabitants’ citizenship within the
annexed territory will be replaced by the citizenship of the subjugator. Generally, an
Ethiopian citizen can lose his/her Ethiopian nationality through renunciation and upon
acquisition of other country’s nationality stipulated in article 19 and 20 of the 2003
nationality proclamation, respectively.