Chapter Three

Constitutional Development in Ethiopia

 Pre-1931
 The 1931 Constitution
 The 1955 Revised Constitution
 The Proclamation establishing the PMAC
 The 1987 PDRE Constitution
 The Transitional Charter
Why we care about the past?
Ethiopian Constitutional law remained largely unwritten until 1931, passing down through
generations in the form of Conventions and practices. There are also informal documents
alongside conventions. There are some conventional principles of the traditional constitutions
that stand out although they lost their social relevance with the passing of time.
The Pre-Written Constitutional Era
A centralized Ethiopia was initially conceived in the late 19th century by then little-known Kassa
who was later enthroned as Tewodros II. Petrified by the developments of the Zemene Mesafint
(1769 -1855) – a historical epoch during which the monarch, then based in Gondar, was reduced
to a mere puppet with the regional warlords running their regions as independent entities. The
rise of Emperor Tewodros II ushered in an era of power centralization that affected not only the
northern core of the Ethiopian state but also other parts of “Greater Ethiopia” in the east, south
and southwest. Beginning from the time of Gonderine court politics, both the reorganization of
Ethiopia and the assumption of power in a reorganized Ethiopia were visions to which most
groups in Ethiopia (but more directly the Amhara, Oromo and Tigre) had a shared interest.
A centralize Ethiopia was less than accommodative of all peoples and cultures mainly due to the
feudal and backward nature of the power elites. Peoples who were to the south of the traditional
northern core of the Ethiopia state (commonly known as Abyssinia) were for the most part not
treated as coequals, and were exposed to abuse and exploitation by the aristocracy associated
with the state power. It is worth noting here what Harold Marcus has stated about the
relationship between the state machinery of Emperor Menelik II and the southern peoples
brought under central administration. He notes that the political centralization, thereby
attempting to create a uniform mode of governance throughout the empire, and the presentment
to the southern society of the Christian Abyssinian culture and religion through extended central
administration (which he calls “political and cultural assimilation”) did not bring disrespect to
the individual.
“Local southerners were able to enter the political life of the empire by means of the preliminary
experience acquired from actual observation of life among the dominant northerners, by learning
Amharic, the lingua franca of Menelik’s state and by Christian conversion and baptism. With the
Page | 1
acquisition of a thin but necessary veneer of Amhara culture, the new citizen of the empire might
rise to the limits of his ability, ambition and good fortune.”
In any case, the relationship created by the political economy of the time did maintain
stratification of some sort that was in fact destructible and not at all based on ethnicity. It also
bears noting that this kind of feudalistic relationship had been the case with many societies
around the world. But Ethiopians have never developed any kind of animosity on individual
levels on any grounds. The fact that the Ethiopian people stuck together through bad and good
times – for example in the face of a clear agitation for truncation of various groups from Ethiopia
by the Italians during the five years of Italy’s occupation (1936-41) – demonstrate the
indestructible nature of the relationship among Ethiopians.
Now, with the old feudal relationships among our peoples out of the way, new forms of unfair
relationships should not be allowed, and should be legally and politically condemned wherever
they may occur, regardless of the victim and the perpetrator. The current situation (as we speak)
in which all Ethiopian citizens and groups are again made deeply unhappy with the way politics
is being run from Addis Ababa and the regional state capitals shows our inability to genuinely
break from the past hegemonic and instrumentalist approach to political power. In Ethiopia,
political power is yet to become truly the people’s power. Unless and until that happens,
freedom, democracy, just peace, and transformative development as well as the survival of
Ethiopia as a nation will always hang in the balance.
Constitutional development of traditional Ethiopia till 1931
Ancient and Medieval Documents of Constitutional Nature
Prior to 1931 there was no modern written constitution in the history of Ethiopia. Absence of
written constitution does not imply or signify the absence of constitution. Apart from the
Conventional principles, there were documents governing the state apparatus and state- church
relationship. Hence, there exists a sophisticated constitutionally significant traditional document
which serves as a supreme law of the land. These traditional unwritten constitutional documents
were Kibre Negest, Ser’ate Mengist and Feteha Negest. The first two were issued during the
reign of king Made Tsiyon (1314-1344).
A. Kibre Negest (The Glory of the Kings)
• The Kibre Negest also known as the glory of kings vividly dealt with the legend of a
Solomonic Dynasty and thus served certain political-religious needs of the time in the
constitutional process. As its name indicates, it is a narration of “the origin of the
Ethiopian kingdom and adulation of the Solomonic line.” It regulated the power of the
emperor. It tried to relate Queen Sheba of Axum with king Solomon of Israel. The
legend history of such relation created Menelik I and as a result the Solomonic dynasty
appeared.

Page | 2
B. The Ser’ata Mengist
• May be considered as the initial document of the Axumite Civilization. It is a more
advanced instrument described as an “original attempt in defining the power and
prerogatives of the king….an earnest attempt to develop a written Constitution.”
• It was reinstituted during the time of Amda Tsion (1314-1344) culminating at the time of
Fasiladas (1632-1667). The text was written in medieval Geez. It contained some twenty-
one articles of law. Ser’ata Mengest was an important guideline for the political life of
the royal court as well as for the ruling elements connected with it. It was in fact a
protocol of ceremonies, which had to be consulted whenever occasions required it. The
writing and rewriting of the Serate Mengist have been necessitated by complex of
problems among which are the problem of succession to the throne and need for term of
reference.
• It is the first document known to have been used for allocating power among the Crown,
its dignitaries and the Church. It contains the description of a series of ceremonial
activities such as the ceremonies attending the kings ascending to the throne and the
ceremonial naming of the Queen. It tried to lay out a pattern of succession to power
through primogeniture. It contains the rules of succession to the throne and the role of the
Army in it. It shows to what extent I Ethiopia the succession was left to the decision of
the late king and the consent of the army. “If a king Died, they wuld put his dead body in
the Grad House. They would bring out one of his sons or brothers, chosen by the late
king and his army, and they would enthrone him.” It also contains the investiture of
dignitaries in their functions as administrative and judicial officers. It contains Church
ceremonies and hierarchical rank list. It also concerns itself with the competence of the
law in cases of conflict between laity and the church.
• Naturally we cannot expect to find human rights constitutional instrument which quite
clearly states the hierarchical power. The large text of organization power – rules shows a
typical feature of a feudal system trying to centralize the imperial power. The leader
being crowned used to be referred to as ‘Atse’ meaning King or ‘Niguse Negest’ meaning
King of Kings. Referring to the executive power of the king. He also was referred to as
‘Jhan’ meaning Judge reflecting his judicial power. The judicial power of the king and
the dignitaries is mentioned in describing the process of decision making. The process
ends with the following statement: “Finally the King would give verdict and all would be
finished.”
C. The Fetha Nagast (Law of the Kings)
• It is a collection of laws which in use in Christian Ethiopia for many centuries. It was
originally written in Arabic by the Coptic Egyptian writer Abu-l Fada’il Ibn al-

Page | 3
 Assal(commonly known as Ibn al-’Assal) when Cyril III was the Patriarch of Alexandria
(1235-1243). The document was named Nomo Canon and later changed in to Fetha
Nagast (the Law of the Kings) when it reached the Ethiopian soil in the middle of 15 th
century during the reign of Emperor Zera yaqob. Being imported in the 15th century, it
regulated matters relating to the monarchy, courts and the church. This is by far the
most long lasting in the history of Ethiopia.
• The Fetha Nagast consisted of two parts; the first part of the document dealt with
mostly ecclesiastic affairs and outlining the structure of the church hierarchy. The
second part deals with issues pertaining to the laity, like family law, debt, civil
administration. Feteha Negest came into force or used as a constitution during the reign
of Sarsa Dengel. Starting from the reign of Sersa Dengle up to the promulgation of the
first written constitution of Ethiopia in 1931, Fetha Negest remained officially the
supreme law of the land.
The Haile Sellassie I Era (1930-1974)
The Haile Sellassie era was a time when many changes along the line of Western state
conception were introduced in the Ethiopian state power and public life. For example, this was
the first time when a law that was described as a “constitution was enacted in Ethiopia. Many
laws were enacted during this time through the medium of, since 1941, an official law gazette –
the Negarit Gazeta. The six legal codes – the Penal Code (1957), the Civil Code (1960), the
Commercial Code (1960), the Maritime Code (1960), the Criminal Procedure Code (1961) and
Civil Procedure Code (1965) – were all enacted during his time, in most cases with the Emperor
himself putting together the expert draftspersons (like the well-known French comparative
law jurist, Rene David) and supervising their work. The state bureaucracy and functions also
obtained a meaningful shape during the reign of Emperor Haile Sellassie. The 1931 Constitution
with its modest but important contributions existed until 1955, when it was revised owing largely
to the Federation of Eritrea with Ethiopia in 1952 through the decision of the UN General
Assembly passed in 1950.
The 1931 Constitution: The first written Imperial Constitution
The coming to power of Emperor Haile Selassie in 1930 and the subsequent grant of the 1931
Constitution marks a new epoch. On the one hand this epoch reinforced the traditional position
of the emperor as “Siyume Egziabiher, Niguse Negast Za-Ethiopia” which literally means: Elect
of God, King of Kings of Ethiopia,” but on the other marked the end of the role of the nobility
or at least the gradual reduction of their role in local leadership, the traditional check against the
power of the king of kings, to insignificance. Yet, it is important to note that Haile Selassie was
crowned with full support of the pre-war modern elite with a mission of “Japanizing Ethiopia.”
One might well wonder about the motives behind the introduction of a constitution by a
monarch whose legitimate authority stems from powerful traditional sources and is, at least in

Page | 4
theory, unlimited. Certainly, there was no discernible popular demand for a constitution at the
time. If there was any reaction, it was the opposition of the conservative nobility, which, at that
time, retained a highly influential position. The Emperor's statement, in the speech proclaiming
the Constitution, that it was voluntarily granted, “unasked and of our Own free will,” must be
very close to the truth.
The Reasons for the introduction of the 1931 Constitution are the following;
 Consolidating the emperor's power.
 Laying a legal foundation for modernization: Expansion of education, infrastructure…
 The Emperor's high regard for world respect, and his concern for improving his country's
image abroad, an image that was none too bright at the beginning of this century. To this
end he has worked assiduously throughout his long reign, and with no little measure of
success. A constitution is universally, though uncritically, regarded as the foundation of
stability and legality in government, and, of course, the essence of modernity in the
political process. There is no doubt that these considerations contributed to the Emperor's
decision to grant the 1931 Constitution. and
 Appeasing educated elites pushing for reform, while ensuring the monarch retained
supreme authority.
The Ethiopian political system has always contained powerful centrifugal forces which
constantly posed the threat of disintegration and occasionally succeeded in virtually
eliminating the central authority of the King of Kings. These forces were represented by the
great provincial lords, with the title of Ras, whose claim to rule their provinces with a
minimum of imperial interference was effectively supported by substantial military forces
under their command. In the absence of a centralized administration, a national army, a
national treasury and revenue system, and codified legislation, the provincial lords ruled
their areas like pure autocrats, zealously guarded their domains against imperial incursion,
and often set out to win the imperial throne for themselves. Since his emergence as Regent
in 1916, Haile Selassie had successfully faced a series of challenges to his position. By
1930, having made himself the master of the rebellious lords, he felt secure enough to
continue the process of centralization that had begun under Emperor Theodoros and
continued under Emperor Menelik.
The Constitution was designed to play a key role in this process by establishing the legal
framework, bases, and limits for the exercise of governmental power. It aimed thus to
eliminate gradually the personal and arbitrary power of the nobles by tightening the
legal reins on its exercise. As long as the Emperor retained complete control of the
constitutional process of legitimation – and the Constitution was designed to ensure such
control-there would be no legal justification for such powers. The Constitution was thus
designed to provide a statutory basis for what was slowly becoming a de facto situation:
that all power emanated from the Emperor and could be enjoyed by others only in the form
of temporary and revocable delegation by him.

Page | 5
The first Ethiopian Constitution was proclaimed by Emperor Haile Selassie I on 16 July 1931, in
the second year of his reign. This brief constitution consisted of 55 articles which formalized
what had already prevailed defacto – i.e. that the power of government in Ethiopia rested
essentially with the Emperor. In form, it was closely modelled on the Japanese Imperial
Constitution. The few educated elites of traditional Ethiopia wanted to emulate the Japanese
model of a unitary nation state under an imperial government. Hence called the Japanizers, the
like of Bejrond Tekle Hawariat, the drafter of the 1931 constitution. Hence, it was modelled after
the 1889 Meji Constitution of Japan that established an Absolute monarchy and centralized
administration. At the outset it defined the nature of legitimacy: “By virtue of His Imperial
Blood, as well as by the anointing which He has received, the person of the Emperor is sacred.
His dignity is inviolable and His power indisputable.” The gist of the Constitution was contained
in Article 6, which stated simply: “In the Ethiopian Empire, supreme power rests in the hands of
the Emperor.” The Constitution was seen as a benevolent gift of the Emperor to the people.
• This constitution gave the first written and systematized framework for centralization
process started by Emperor Tewodros II. The political struggle of the years 1913-1929
resulted in the gradual demolition of autonomous or semi-autonomous provincial
power centralizing power in the Hand of the Emperor. The attempts were meant to
achieve centralization and consolidation of power not modernization.
• It was a fairly brief Constitution containing fifty-five articles. The first chapter with five
articles dealt, as one might expect, with the emperor and the succession to the throne. The
famous article three states “…the imperial dignity shall remain perpetually attached to the
line on his majesty Haile Selassie I, descendant of king Sahle Selassie whose line
descends without interruption from the dynasty of Menelik I, son of King Solomon of
Jerusalem and of the Queen of Sheba.” Article four stipulated about the succession to the
throne and the subsequent provision explained “the person of the emperor as sacred, His
dignity inviolable and His power indisputable.” His authority was unlimited and
unquestionable and his function multi-faceted: the emperor was the head of the executive,
the fountain of justice, the agent of change and the law-giver, albeit moderated by
parliament that lacked the competence to enact law. To a careful observer such clauses
represent a significant departure from the Ethiopian tradition of the right to rule which was
open for any one (presumably from the regional nobility) who combines competence,
might and Solomonic legend. With the coming to power of Haile Selassie and his
constitution, it was planned to take a different course.
• The bulk of the other provisions provided about the power and prerogatives of the
emperor. The Constitution vested supreme power in the hands of the emperor and
heralded the establishment of the institutions of the chamber of Deputies and the Senate.
These two houses were important instruments for curbing the power of the nobility. Close
scrutiny over the provisions and the practice revealed that both houses were merely meant
to play a strictly advisory role. According to Article 31 members of the Senate were

Page | 6
 appointed by the emperor from among the nobility and the local chiefs. As for the
chamber of Deputies, they were chosen by the nobility and the local chiefs. The presence
of the nobility while providing some semblance of legitimacy at the center, on the other
hand became part of a toothless legislative body and in a way remained the instrument of
the centralizing and modernizing process launched by the regime. “They simply found a
place for honorable retirement, as they were kept in the capital under close surveillance.’
Consequently, the Constitution’s major outcome was its ability to establish the legal
framework within which governmental power was to be channeled and distributed. It was
aimed against the personal, arbitrary and ill-defined powers traditionally held by the
nobility. It reflected the traditional principle of absolute imperial power without any
practical limitations. The Emperor was granted full executive power over both central and
provincial government and the nobility and provincial governors were granted no
independent authority.
• Established a judicial system that was not independent from the executive as the
Emperor is at the apex of the judiciary with his Zufan Chilot.
• The text of the Constitution from article 22-28 guaranteed rights to movement, liberty,
privacy, property, petition and access to Court. However, these rights were qualified with
claw-back clauses. Consequently, the rights wee to be exercised “in accordance with law”
and “within the limits provided for by the law.” These clauses made the scope of the rights
dependent on legislative discretion. Meaning, the Constitution gave rights which could be
taken away through legislation. Moreover, the constitution is silent whether Courts could
enforce its provisions.
• The constitution also provided for the appointment of ministers whose role was just to
provide advice. The Constitution formalized the existence of Ministers, but not as a
collective body. Ministers were individually appointed by, and were personally
responsible to, the Emperor. The deliberative chambers were bound to receive and
deliberate on the proposals submitted to them by the Ministers.
• It has established a bi cameral parliament houses-the senate and the chamber of deputies.
One significant innovation was the introduction of quasi-representative structures in the
forms of two “Deliberative Chambers”: The Senate (yaheg Mawossena Meker-beth), and
the Chamber of Deputies (yaheg Mamria Meker-beth). Neither of these was elected nor,
strictly speaking, representative. The members of the Senate were appointed by the
Emperor “from among the Nobility (Mekuanent) and the local Chiefs, who served his
Empire as Princes or Ministers, Judges, or high military officers.” As for the Chamber of
Deputies, “temporarily, and until the people are in a position to elect them themselves, the
members of the Chamber of Deputies shall be chosen by the Nobility and the local
Chiefs.” Thus, the composition of the chamber of deputies made up representatives
elected by the people who were to be nominated by the nobility and the local chiefs.

Page | 7
 • Neither the parliament size of the chambers, nor the duration of their sessions, or the
length of their members’ terms of service were specified in the Constitution. These were
presumably left to the discretion of the Emperor. As for the powers of these institutions,
they were predictably innocuous. Article 34 stated that “no law may be put into force
without having been discussed by the Chambers and having obtained the confirmation of
the Emperor.” However, their active participation in the decision-making process was
limited to the following provision: “When the Deputies have an idea which could be
useful to the Empire or to the nation, the law reserves to them the right to communicate it
to the Emperor through their President, and the Chamber shall deliberate on the subject if
the Emperor consents thereto.”
• What the Emperor wanted the parliament was for consolidation of his power over the
provinces, and as a device for the dissemination of ideas from the center to the provinces.
The functions of Parliament as a law-making body were limited. Legislative initiative was
the monopoly of the Emperor. The work of the Parliament from its creation to the time of
the Italian invasion is very little.
• The Emperor continued to issue his own decrees and the reserve of absolute power lay
in his hands. This constitution is nothing less or nothing more than a mere confirmation
of the powers and prerogatives of the Emperor. At this particular historical juncture,
where there was little of modernism and yet so much was wanting.
• This is soon followed by Italian invasion in 1935 and occupation which ended by the war
of resistance and support of the allied power in 1941. After the war of liberation two
trends were set in motion-the continuation of the process of modernization and the
reorganization of the status quo. As regards the former, the legal order was
established, new laws were enacted and the corresponding political structures were either
reorganized or new ones were established. Further, the powers and duties of the various
organs of government were better articulated and administrative units redefined. Parallel
to this, the old order was renovating and institutionalizing itself in the direction of
constitutional monarchy.
The 1955 Revised Constitution
What are the reasons that inspired the constitutional reform in 1955?
The revised constitution of 1955 was largely the cumulative and resultant effect of external and
internal pressure that was brought to bear on the status quo.
 Two of the basic motives that inspired constitutional reform in 1955 were the same ones
that had inspired the experiment of 1931, namely, a concern for Ethiopia's international
image, and the centralization of governmental authority in the hands of the Emperor.
 The 1931 Constitution, based as it was on a model considered archaic in its own time, had
obviously outlived its usefulness, and had become the subject of adverse comment abroad.

Page | 8
 Other African states, soon to become independent, were adopting constitutions of the most
advanced kind. And even, Eritrea with whom Ethiop had formed a federal union, already
possessed a Constitution far more modern than Ethiopia's.
 Ethiopia’s ratification of the UN Charter and the adoption of UDHR. This inspired Ethiopia
to revise its previous constitutions in a way that strengthens the protection and promotion of
human rights incorporated under UDHR and the purpose set under the UN Charter.
 One of the major reasons that necessitated the revision of the 1931 constitution in 1955
was the federation of Eritrea with Ethiopia. This motive for the constitutional revision of
1955 sprang from the deep concern of the Ethiopian Government for the territory of
Eritrea. Traditionally considered an integral part of the Ethiopian empire, the Red Sea coast
had been invaded by the Italians in the 19th century. Despite the crushing defeat inflicted
upon them by the Ethiopians at Adowa in 1896, the Italians retained control over Eritrea,
whence they launched their second invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. Following its liberation in
1941, Eritrea was placed under British military control. During the ensuing years,
speculation about the future of the region mounted, and so did Ethiopian concern. In 1950
the United Nations decided that Eritrea should become part of a federal system with
Ethiopia, maintaining self-government in domestic affairs, and having her own
parliament, chief executive, and administration. Eritrea adopted a modern constitution and
a surprisingly effective administration. The Ethiopian Government, however, was deeply
concerned over incipient separatist tendencies in that region and the opportunity for their
growth provided by regional autonomy. It was determined to consolidate central control
over this area, and the revised Constitution provided the legal basis for such an arrangement.
The 1931 Constitution had not applied to Eritrea. Article I of the revised Constitution settled
the question of sovereignty by declaring that “the Empire of Ethiopia comprises all the
territories, including the islands and the territorial waters, under the sovereignty of the
Ethiopian Crown. Its sovereignty and territory are indivisible.” There is not a single mention
of federation or any federal provisions in the 1955 Constitution.
 Finally, the internal political situation had changed significantly between 1931 and 1955.
The processes of economic transformation, urbanization, education, and the development of
communications and transport had produced a small but very important group of Ethiopians,
for whom the sanction of traditional legitimacy was no longer compelling. The maintenance
of the political system requires their acquiescence, which can be procured only if the
authority of the state is provided with a basis meaningful to them. Although there was no
overt demand for such reform in the early 1950’s, there was obvious disaffection within this
group, a state of affairs which promised that such demands would be forthcoming. To have
delayed the revision of the Constitution until such pressures became overt would have
involved the risk of compromising the position of the traditional authority, since it would
appear to have lost initiative and invited further demands. As it was, the granting of reform
at this time appeared to preserve the initiative and absolute authority of the Crown, the act of
revision being presented as purely voluntary on its part.

Page | 9
The new Constitution greatly reinforced it by continuing the formal process of centralization
begun by the 1931 Constitution. The older Constitution's sketchy provisions regarding the
powers and prerogatives of the Throne were greatly expanded and elaborated in the new
document. Some significant examples will suffice to illustrate this point. While article 6 of the
old Constitution vested “supreme power” in the hands of the Emperor, article 26 of the new
Constitution invests the Emperor with “the Sovereignty of the Empire” as well as with supreme
authority over all its affairs. The vesting of sovereignty in the Emperor is also related to the
implications inherent in the federal relationship with Eritrea, which will be discussed below.
Similarly, detailed provisions vested in the Emperor complete power over the army, foreign
affairs, local administration, and other matters.
Thus, In the 1950s there were several developments that necessitated reform in the government
and constitution. Particularly the role of the newly educated elite and the reunification of
Eritrea with Ethiopia in 1952 were significant developments that pushed for reform. By the
1950s there were a good number of educated elites in Ethiopia. Most of them were oriented
towards Western Europe type of democracy. Together with this and sometimes standing against
this group, there were the traditional elites, who stood for the maintenance of the old order –
the crown, the church, the land system and Ethiopianism – isolation and independence. The
compromise was sought in the English system of government to which both members of the old
and the new elite turned their eyes. In effect they opted for the establishment of a government on
the Westminster model of the English. The background of the model, there is, politically
speaking, the belief or commitment in non-violent evolutionary or gradual development. The
model itself composes the following basic elements. Firstly, they continued devolution of
power to a parliament that contains two houses one for the nobility and the other elected popular
representatives. Secondly, is an elected government coming out of party holding a majority seat
in parliament and constituting a cabinet of which the Prime Minister is the Head of Government.
Thirdly, popular will expressed, not only formally through parliament, but also through other
agencies of interest articulation. Finally, all these are accompanied by a strong and
independent judiciary.
A basic change effected by the 1955 constitutional revision was the introduction of the
representative principle. While under the 1931 Constitution both chambers were appointed by
the Emperor, the 1955 reform made the Chamber of Deputies elective, on the basis of universal
adult suffrage. The Senate remains an appointive chamber reserved for the nobility. The terms of
office are fixed by the Constitution at six years for senators and four years for deputies.
Qualifications for voters and candidates are defined. The time for regular sessions is also
prescribed. The Emperor retains the right to postpone, extend, and suspend sessions, and to
dissolve Parliament. The chambers have the right to determine their own rules of procedure, and
the Chamber of Deputies to elect its own president. The president of the Senate remains the
appointee of the Emperor.

Page | 10
Furthermore, Parliament was given the right to summon Ministers to answer questions before
it. Otherwise, the position of the representative institutions in the decision-making process was
not appreciably changed by the constitutional reform. The Constitution envisages a two-way
communication between Parliament and Emperor, with the Prime Minister playing the role of the
middleman. The Prime Minister to Parliament transmits proposals for legislation originating with
the Emperor, or with the Council of Ministers and approved by the Emperor. The Prime Minister
to the Emperor for approval transmits proposals originating with 10 members in either chamber
or having secured the approval of both chambers. Predictably, in practice legislative traffic has
been mostly one-way, with Parliament playing a very minor role in initiating legislation. A bill
becomes law only with the approval of the Emperor. The Constitution is silent concerning the
fate of proposals that fail to secure the approval of Parliament. The Emperor has the right to issue
decrees with the force of law in cases of emergency or when Parliament is not sitting. Such
decrees must subsequently be submitted to Parliament for approval. The two chambers are co-
ordinate and, in cases of disagreement between them, a full report must be made to the Emperor,
who then may transmit to Parliament his observations on the subject. Parliament was granted no
control over the Ministers-individually or collectively-and they remain responsible to the
Emperor. In his address to the first elected Parliament, Emperor Haile Selassie told the
representatives: “You are the bridge that connects Us with our people”; and again, “You are the
link between Us and our people in putting into tangible form the fruit of our efforts and in
enlightening and guiding our people”
• This constitution, defined and distributed powers, rights and obligations, between the
Emperor and the rest of branches of government (which enjoy derivative power)
• The constitution had also incorporated, the basic tenets of fundamental human and
political rights from the UN UDHR to which Ethiopia was, then a signatory. Article 37-63
of the constitution contained most of the civil and political rights we know today. However,
it also contained an overarching limitation clause setting out grounds for restriction of
fundamtal rights and freedoms under article 65.
• The Emperor held a pre-eminent place in the constitution. As such he enjoyed a lot of
executive, legislative and judiciary prerogatives. Art. “the sovereignty of the Empire is
vested in the Emperor and the supreme authority over all the affairs of the Empire is
exercised by him as a Head of state, in the manner provided for in the present constitution
• The legislative body was bi-cameral: Senators were appointed from the nobility and a few
from the commons for their meritorious achievements. The Deputies were directly elected
from equally populated constituencies. Election was made purely on personal basis, for there
was none in the nature of political party.
• Member of Parliament enjoyed, constitutionally, some privileges such as free debate,
immunity from arrest. They had also the power only to call the prime Minister or other
ministers to answer questions concerning the conduct of government affairs or legislative

Page | 11
 proposals. Essentially, the cabinet, particularly the Prime Minister stood between the
Emperor and the Parliament-stood may be as liaison officer.
• The judiciary was appointed by the Emperor, subject to a special law, which was to be
enacted. Judges were to submit to no other authority‖, but to the law including the
constitution. The Emperor had also judicial function, in the capacity of final appellate court
of equity.
• Finally, the constitution was declared to be the supreme law of the Empire and as such, acts
or enactments which were found inconsistent with the constitution were rendered null and
void. In Ethiopian history, it was this constitution, which for the first time, articulated the
power structure of the Ethiopian polity and it was this same document which spelt out
fundamental rights of citizens. Nonetheless, it was prerogatives and other powers of the
emperor which was considered too much a restriction for the people and found to be
intolerable. This led to the popular revolution of 1974.
The Ethio-Eritrean Federation (1952-1962)
The Ethio-Eritrean federation, as already pointed out, was a significant political factor that
influenced the revision of the 1955 Constitution. The crisis related to the dissolution of the
federation remained to be the central challenge to three consecutive Ethiopian governments,
including the present one.
The territory now called Eritrea was historically an integral part of Ethiopia since the Axumite
Era in the first century AD. Eritrea did not exist as an entity of its own prior to 1890 when it was
created by Italy. The historical and cultural background of the Christian Eritreans is identical to
those in Tigray. The language Tigrigna is the same as the one spoken in Tigray and belongs to
the family of Semitic languages. The Tigrayan, therefore, form a solid bridge connecting Eritrea
with the rest of Ethiopia. The death of Emperor Yohannes in 1889 and the shift of center of
power from Tigray to Showa created a favorable condition for Italian colonial expansion.
Between the years 1869-1889 Italy insisted on expanding southwards, despite suffering defeats
brought upon them by Ras Alula at Dogali. As early as 1887, Menelik the King of Showa had
expressed readiness to negotiate with the Italians about supplies of arms in exchange for cession
of territory, if this would ensure his speedy accession to power. Menelik seized the opportunity
provided by the political vacuum created and sealed an Italo-Ethiopian pact, the treaty of
Wuchale, in May 1889. As a result, part of the territory was ceded and in January 1890, Eritrea
was born as an entity. In spite of the treaty of Wuchale, Italy continued expanding southwards
and occupied some territories leading to the famous Battle of Adwa in 1896. Even after the battle
of Adwa, the treaty of Addis Ababa (October 1896) which abrogated the treaty of Wuchale,
recognized the independence of Ethiopia, but confirmed the Italian possession of Eritrea until
1941. Controversies exist as to why Menelik did not insist on expelling Italy from the whole of
Eritrea as a victor of this famous war in history.

Page | 12
As a result, from 1890 until its liberation in 1941, Eritrea was administered as a colony by the
Italian Colonial Ministry, under a governor nominated by the Italian king. After liberation
Eritrea remained under British rule till 1952. After World War II Italy renounced all right and
title to its colonies and the Treaty of Peace signed in Paris in 1947 provided for the final disposal
of the former Italian colonies to be determined by agreement among the four allied powers, the
USA, USSR, UK and France. Failing agreement, the matter would be submitted to the UN
General Assembly for disposition. The four victorious allies established an investigating
committee to come up with a proposal on the future of Eritrea. The United States based on its
interest in the region and good relations with the Emperor was keen to see Eritrea joined to
Ethiopia in unity. The USSR and some Afro-Arab countries were on the other hand opposed to
this move. They took the position that only separate existence could guarantee the sovereignty
and progress of Eritrea. At the same time, however, they were sympathetic to Ethiopia’s need for
access to the sea. Because of disagreements the matter was referred to the United Nations. In
November 1949 the General Assembly set up the United Nations Commission for Eritrea,
constituting members from Burma, Guatemala, Norway, Pakistan and South Africa whose
task was to visit Eritrea and after considering the interests of the inhabitants and the interests of
all the countries involved to report its findings to the UN. The findings were however divided.
Burma and South Africa proposed federation with Ethiopia, Norway proposed union with
Ethiopia while Pakistan and Guatemala proposed UN trusteeship for ten years and
independence to follow thereafter.
In the period preceding the federation, the demand of political parties in Eritrea was diverse
concerning the destiny of Eritrea. Many Eritreans demanded unity with Ethiopia, others
requested for immediate independence and still others urged for a partition or at least a different
status for the western side of the province. In short, the internal situation was divided. On the
Ethiopian side, Haile Selassie demanded the full incorporation of Eritrea and nothing less.
Ethiopia’s claim was based on her need for access to the sea and by the claim of historical title
and cultural affinity of the two populations. Furthermore, Ethiopian diplomats successfully
invoked the OAU principle of non-territorial intervention in the internal affairs of the state and
the need to respect the territorial integrity of African States whose territories were defined by
colonial borders. Ethiopia argued that if Eritrea’s plea received a hearing, it would upset the
entire post-colonial African state system as legitimized by the Cairo Resolution of the OAU in
1964.
The proposal by South Africa, Norway and Burma, constituting a majority, was finally approved
by 46 to 10 with four abstentions. The Eritrean domestic situation, the international context and
Ethiopia’s case finally brought what is commonly described as the “compromise formula,”
which became UN General Assembly Resolution 390 A(v). The UN General Assembly passed
this resolution on December 2, 1950 and the Resolution stated that Eritrea should form “an
autonomous unit federated with Ethiopia under the sovereignty of the Ethiopian crown.” The
first seven Articles of the Resolution passed by the UN General Assembly on December 2, 1950
formed the Federal Act. A draft constitution prepared by UN experts was submitted to an
Page | 13
Eritrean Assembly and the latter adopted it on 10 July 1952. By proclamation Number 124 of 11
September 1952 the Eritrean Constitution with the Federal Act was put into force in Negarit
Gazetta. At this point in time, the federation of Eritrea with Ethiopia came into effect. The
Federal Act as well as the Eritrean Constitution provided for a “federal arrangement” between
the two governments. According to the Constitution “Eritrea is an autonomous unit federated
with Ethiopia under the sovereignty of the Ethiopian Crown.” The government of Eritrea was
authorized, as a manifestation of its autonomy, to exercise legislative, executive and judicial
powers. The actual division of power under the federal act vested a number of basic functions in
the federal government: notably defense, foreign affairs, currency and external trade while
reserving residual powers to the Eritrean government. These included civil and criminal law,
police, health, education, natural resources, agriculture, industry and internal communication.
Many controversies arose over the ambiguity of some of the concepts included in the documents
as well as over the whole federal compromise. There seemed a consensus though that the term
autonomous unit signified not a sovereign state but rather a politically organized unit linked
federally with Ethiopia and that the phrase under the sovereignty of the Ethiopian crown implied
that the federation, not the autonomous unit, enjoyed sovereignty.
More controversial were the status of the federation and its subsequent dissolution in 1962.
Closer observation of the 1955 Constitution and the Eritrean Constitution seems to suggest that
Eritrea was only an autonomous region rather than a full-fledged unit in a federation, as we
understand it today. The Resolution characterized Eritrea as “an autonomous unit federated with
Ethiopia under the sovereignty of the Ethiopian Crown.” It did not accord Eritrea the status of a
state in a federal union with Ethiopia. In a federation resulting from two units, one would expect
there to be three institutions. The two constituent units and one other overarching federal
government for both of them. Furthermore, a supreme constitution which both units submit to, is
a requirement. None of them existed in the UN sponsored federal compromise. The Resolution
had provided for a Federal Council, an institution that was a faint approximation of a federal
body. This body was to comprise Ethiopian and Eritrean representatives in equal numbers and
advise the Emperor on matters of the federation. The Council was simply ignored and practically
done away with before it could even start functioning. As a result, the federal powers belonged to
the Ethiopian government. The Ethiopian Emperor was the sovereign, the Ethiopian courts were
the federal courts and the Ethiopian Ministers were the ministers of the federal government.
Tekeste states, “For all intents and purposes the resulting relationship between Ethiopia and
Eritrea was not in the least federal. Even according to the intentions of the union, Eritrea was not
granted a federal status but only a status of autonomy.”
Even Eritrea’s mere status of autonomous region was not tolerated by Haile Selassie’s regime.
The reasons as stipulated by many writers seem to relate to the nature of the two incompatible
Constitutions. Ethiopia by then had a feudo-monarchichal system of government, ideologically
sustained by some notion of the divine right of kings. It was imperial. The emperor ruled as an
absolute monarch and as head of an empire, every part of which he sought to subordinate to

Page | 14
himself. The government had a notion of territorial integrity that was incongruent with federal or
other structures of decentralization and hence the dissolution was no surprise. By contrast, the
Eritrean Constitution was one modeled on those of Western democracy. It provided for three
branches of government based on the rule of law, it stipulated for fundamental freedoms and a
multi-party system.
Haile Selassie demonstrated a considerable diplomatic success when he orchestrated a federation
between Ethiopia and Eritrea with the approval of the UN. However, the regime lacked the
political wisdom and political will to maintain the regional autonomy. As early as 1955 the
Emperor’s representative in Eritrea already hinted at the fact that “there are no internal or
external affairs as far as Ethiopia is concerned . . .” and pointed out that “the affairs of Eritrea
concern Ethiopia as a whole and the Emperor.” In 1958 the Eritrean Assembly voted
unanimously to abolish the Eritrean flag and use only the Ethiopian flag. In 1959 the Ethiopian
penal code replaced the existing legislation in Eritrea. In 1960 the Eritrean assembly voted
unanimously to change the name Eritrean government to Eritrean administration and other
adjustments connoting its lower position than a federation. On 14 November 1962 again, the
Assembly voted unanimously for the abolition of the federation. Whether this important series of
events was undertaken with full backing from the Ethiopian side or not is a troublesome
question. But few seem to doubt the fact that these events were taking place with full knowledge
and influence from both sides of the “federation.” In as much as the Imperial regime had wanted
to terminate the federation, the Eritrean Union party, the then governing party in Eritrea,
cooperated equally in the demolition of the autonomous status. The controversial debate among
Ethiopian and Eritrean intellectuals as well as foreign writers begins with the status of the
“federation” that was in force from 1952-1962. The controversy gets reinforced with the impact
of its dissolution in 1962. Many believe that by virtue of this compromise formula, the
Resolution formalized the decolonization of Eritrea at this moment in time. Others believe that
Eritrea was formally decolonized in 1993.
The bulk of Ethiopian intellectuals believe that the Eritrean case is a case of secession rather
than decolonization. Eritrea did not have a legal personality under international law until 1993.
Regarding the charge that the re-incorporation of Eritrea in 1962 was illegal, it is important to
note that it was the elected Eritrean Assembly that unanimously decided to terminate the
federation in the first place. A minority of Eritreans also shares this view. “The war in Eritrea
had neither a colonial character nor that of a war fought against a foreign dominator. It was an
internal war for power sharing or control of state power.”
The armed struggle in Eritrea began in 1961 with the formation of the ELF by Eritrean exiles in
the Middle East under the leadership of the veteran shifta Idris Awate. The struggle both in its
own right and in radicalizing the influence it exerted on the Ethiopian opposition in general
played a significant role in the regime’s collapse in 1974 and the military in 1991. After 30 years
of struggle, EPLF de facto controlled Eritrea in 1991 and a referendum held in 1993 resulted in
Eritrean independence.

Page | 15
Considering Haile Selassie’s ambition of centralizing power, the failure of the Ethio-Eritrean
short- lived autonomous experience was no surprise. What is more remarkable is that the regime
was not willing to tolerate it even though there were clear indicators of the probable long-term
consequences of the collapse. The failure of the decade of federal experience also fits the
hypothesis that a federal system should be based on a covenant, should have internal support and
should not result from outside. Most post-colonial federal experiments in Africa failed for similar
reasons. There is another bitter lesson for those who still claim to follow the Eritrean example of
secession. Secession or the emergence of an independent state does not necessarily result in the
establishment of a stable and democratic state. This is evident not only from the experience of
post- independence Eritrea but also from many other of the post-independence African states.
Secession or independence simply replicates the nation state without resolving the controversial
and normative question of how to politically integrate, share power and resources among several
contending forces.
The attempted but Failed Reform
• The 1960 failed coup deta etats had been a clear sign for the reform of his government, but
He believed He has done away with the actors as well as the effects. Some attempted
reforms were however taken. One such attempt was to empower the Prime Minister as per
Order 44, to nominate the members of his cabinets; yet, he had to get the approval of the
Emperor. This too failed to meet the needs of the time.
• In the eyes of the then elites one of the primordial needs of the time was the establishment
of parliamentary form of government maintaining the Crown as a symbol.
• Overtaken by events, Haile Selassie’s government scrambled to take last-minute desperate
actions. The appointment of new Prime Minister, Lij Endalkachew Mekonnen and the
decision to replace the 1955 Revised Constitution with a new Constitution announced by
the Emperor Mid-February 1974 were the two noteworthy attempts of constitutional
significance.
• By early 1974, events started to take a different course; the entire cabinet of Aklilu
Habtewold resigned and a creeping coup was set in motion. A new cabinet was established
under Endalkachew Mekonnen, which was, among other things one major step, established
a constitution revision commission. The commission managed to come up with a draft, the
1974 Draft Constitution which appeared in one of the daily papers. The draft was
modeled after what could be characterized as Constitutional Monarchy of Western
Democracy with separation of power and controlling mechanisms.
• The Emperor as Head of State had only one effective power only – Commander-in-Chief of
the army. It has also included some form of recognition for the religious, cultural and
linguistic diversity of the country. But it was too little late. The draft was not ratified;

Page | 16
 instead a new government was established by September of the same year (1974).
P.M.A.C. was established.
• As part of the thinking of Ethiopian constitutional development, it is interesting to see some
very dynamic aspects of the draft constitution. It basically established a monarchical
system whose power is limited by the constitution. It made the prime minister accountable
to the biherawi (national) Shengo it established as a legislative body. The national Shengo
had full-lawmaking power unlike the legislature under the 1955 constitution. Also, it
declared: “the Prime Minister’s regular term of office is four years”. “If re-elected
consecutively, he may serve for three regular terms only” (art 95).
The 1974 Revolution and the 1987 Constitution
Towards the end of the imperial regime, the centralization and the tension between the
traditional forces backing the regime and the modern elite was gaining momentum.
Opposition to the regime took many forms.
 The 1960 attempted coup d’etat was a watershed. Infuriated with Ethiopia’s backwardness
compared to the newly emerging states in Africa, the designers wanted to restore Ethiopia
to its proper place. They promised new factories and schools and also had a plan of
introducing a constitutional monarch although the land issue was not raised. Despite its
failure the coup succeeded to attract the attention of the university students who became the
heirs of the rebels. It was fundamental in the sense that for the first time many realized that
the regime whose legitimacy came from the divine right to rule could be overthrown.
 The urban uprising of 1974, the events of January to June of the same year showed a total
collapse of the regime and the absence of any obvious successor to it. It should be noted
though that when the revolution was about to erupt, the nations teachers, taxi drivers,
students, unemployed and the labor union had shown a stake in it thus making it very
popular at inception. Towards the end of February, the cabinet of Aklilu Habtewold was
forced to resign and Endalkachew Mekonen was instructed to form a new cabinet but
despite the good profile of the team, it never succeeded to stop the course of the
Revolution. “The plea for patience (fata) fells on deaf ears and indeed the radicals insisted
‘gulcha bikeyer wot ayatafitim’ (changing the stove does not make the stew any better).”
Endalkachew was removed in July and replaced by Mikael Imiru, the latter to be replaced
soon by the Derg.
 A convergence of domestic as well as international factors fueled by the urban uprising
reflecting regional, ethnic as well as class contradictions as championed by the student
movement, was accelerated by the military, thus ending the regime with its Solomonic
legend. Not only did it end the Monarchy but this time the Derg filled the political vacuum
by introducing socialism, a complete change of direction.
Thus, Key factors for the downfall of Haile Selassie’s regime are the combination of various
causes. Firstly, 1972–1973 Wollo famine: The government's failure to respond to and cover-up

Page | 17
the devastating famine was a major catalyst. The public became aware of the famine's extent
through international media, leading to a scandal and destroying the government's credibility.
Secondly, Political and social unrest: Frustration grew over the stagnant, feudal system and the
government's inability to enact reforms, particularly land reform. The Ethiopian Student
Movement, in particular, played a crucial role in organizing opposition to the regime. Thirdly,
Economic problems: The country faced rising unemployment and inflation, issues that the
government was ill-equipped to handle. Fourthly, Military mutinies: Starting in early 1974,
soldiers began to mutiny over issues like poor pay and living conditions. These mutinies spread
throughout the army and eventually led to more organized political action. Moreover,
weakening of the emperor: Haile Selassie's mental and physical health was in decline, which
likely impacted his ability to lead effectively and respond to the escalating crises. Finally,
Eritrean secessionist war: A long-running guerrilla war in Eritrea further strained government
resources and contributed to instability.
 After consolidating power, the first measure the Derg took was to herald, the same date of its
crowning, by decree all demonstrations and assemblies illegal. The proclamation that
deposed the Emperor transformed the Derg into the Provisional Military Administrative
Council (PMAC), which assumed full state power. Simultaneously it suspended the
Constitution, dissolved parliament, banned all strikes and demonstrations and declared
Ethiopia Tikdem (Ethiopia First) with its socialist doctrine. As it started to catch up with
Marxist thoughts it nationalized financial institutions and private commercial and industrial
enterprises in January 1975. This was followed by the nationalization of urban land and extra
houses. According to Bahru the nationalization measures transferred resources from private
to government hands and thereby constituted the economic foundations of totalitarianism.
• At the wake of the 1974 Revolution, In Ethiopia, the slogan was “Down with Feudalism,
land to the tiller”. The slogan against feudalism meant the destruction of the imperial order
– the crown, the nobility and the landed gentry. “Land to the tiller‟, on the other hand,
meant land to the peasants, which actually ended up with Socialism. There were demands of
such questions as right of nations and nationalities to self-determination.
• Rural and urban lands were nationalized. All private production and distribution
enterprises, including rental houses were brought under the ownership and control of the
state.
• The Emperor, along with ministers, governors, the high nobility and the top brass were
executed, the rest were detained. Red Terror was unleashed against opposition and even
against individual dissenters. In short, the Russian model of revolution and socialism were in
the making.
• Under socialism there was no rule of law, but socialist legality. No separation of power, but
Unity of state power. In Socialism, the concepts of law, constitution included, were
essentially different from those conceived in capitalist society. The soviet model provided for

Page | 18
 one party i.e. a vanguard party, one state the workers state and that state had oneness
characteristic in contradiction to separation of power.
• Finally, all these superstructures were built upon the social ownership of property and the
progressive development of society into communism. Since 1974, a new social order was in
the making.
• On September 12, 1974 the Derg suspended the Constitution, deposed the Emperor, and
dissolved parliament, thus ending the regime. Although the Derg took over power from June
1974 with the set-up of a military committee, 12 September 1974 marks the official taking
over of power. After suspension of the 1955 Revised Constitution, the country was governed
without a constitution by mere proclamations for 13 years.
• To legitimize itself within and a broad it had, at least, to take off the Military uniform and
appear in a civil dress. As such the Provisional Military Administration was in the process
of reconstituting itself. The PMAC presented itself for elections through a new party- the
Workers’ Party of Ethiopia. The party became the vanguard communist party.
In 1987 the PDRE constitution was adopted that took the socialist model of state and
constitution.
• The Head of the PMAC became the president. Naturally, the country became the People’s
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
• The party took upon itself to change the political, economic and cultural life of the country.
The new order represented a new social order, a new set of values. Ministries are entrusted
with responsibility of educating the present society and molding the coming generation
with ideals of socialism. The organ of state machinery was also carved out from socialist
countries.
• The national “Shengo” (Parliament) was modeled after the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.
It had a standing body, the Council of state, which was acting as executive committee of the
parliament. The president of the council was also the president of the Republic.
• The power to interpret the constitution and the constitutionality of other laws were given to
the Council of state which was a contradiction in terms, for the Council itself was the
mainstay of parliamentary and presidential powers.
• Chapter seven of the PDRE Constitution is devoted to fundamental freedoms, rights and
duties of citizens. Unlike the imperial constitutions, this constitution recognized group
rights, inter-group and gender equality and language rights. See article 2(5) and 36(1 and
2).
• The president enjoyed a lot of power. He was the Head of State and had no less power than
any head of Government. He had the power to present the Prime Minister, and though him

Page | 19
 members of the council of Minister to the Parliament. He also presided over the council of
Ministers as necessary. Upon the occurrence of compelling circumstances, the President had
the power to dismiss and appoint the Prime Minster and other ministers.
• Judges were elected, recalled and dismissed by the parliament and more interestingly the
term of their office was made to be congruent of that of the parliament. Although judges
were in those days, as in the past, were to be guided by “no other authority than that the law”,
it was clear more than even before that the judiciary was under the double yoke of the
executive and the parliament.
• On top of this, socialist legality required the construction of laws in accordance with
“revolutionary legal consciousness”. In Ethiopia what the Constitution modeled after the
former USSR did was to replace the aristocrats by totalitarian technocrats. The power of
the emperor whole sale transferred to the president.
• Yet, there are certain social, economic, political realities and attitudes that still operate in the
present society, which seem to have taken root and would not so easily vanish. It is for this
very fact that we have been compelled to go so deep into the past, so as to appreciate the
present and look forward to the future. The 1987 Constitution does not merit so much
discussion because it died well before it was born. Marx and Engels had envisaged “the
withering away of the state”. But to the contrary, after seventy years of exercise the whole
structure of the U.S.S.R. disintegrated – and withered away. Its fall did also symbolize a new
era – on the international front it seemed to mean unipolar globalization.
• There were more than 17-armed liberation fronts fighting the Derg government. In 1991
some parallel things seemed to happen in Ethiopia. The entire people revolted. War engulfed
the capital city. Eritrea declared its independence. Mengistu Haile Mariam left for Harare;
Zimbabwe.
The 1991 Transitional Government Charter: Prelude to Federalism
• The P.D.R.E. Constitution of 1987 was a short lived one. The Transitional Period Charter
of 1991 replaced it. Following the downfall of the Derg, a national conference was
convened in Addis Ababa from July 1-5, 1991. The Conference resulted in the signing of
the Charter by the representatives of some 31 political parties, the creation of an 87 seat
Council of Representatives and the establishment of Transitional Government of Ethiopia
(TGE). The most remarkable feature of the conference was that its members were
designated almost entirely, save the representatives of professional organizations and the
members from the university, on the basis of nationality. The centre has collapsed and
forces of centralisation were totally unrepresented.
• Composed primarily of leaders of nationality-based parties spawned by the civil war, the
conference reflected a dramatic shift of political power from the centre to new politicians
from hitherto marginalized regions. It aimed at rebuilding the country and restructuring

Page | 20
 the state democratically. It also sought to mark a break with the past and usher in a new
chapter in the history of Ethiopia. The political implications that followed the
introduction of the Charter and the proclamation issued to establish national/regional self-
governments certainly represent departure from the past.
• The choice of ethnicity as a basic principle of political organization of the state, and
society and the reconstruction of the Ethiopian centrist and unitary state by introducing a
federal system of government has signified a new era on the way of answering the
Question of nationalities. These two interlinked processes were again anchored on the
basic formula of the right to self-determination for ethno-national groups. The political
rationale for such a radical change in the fundamental thinking of state organization
among other things has been the view that this formula was a decisive remedy for the
resolution of Ethiopia’s long-standing problem of the ‘nationality question’. This is in
sharp contrast to the two earlier regimes. It certainly marked an official
acknowledgment of Ethiopia as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state.
• The Charter in its preamble declared the overthrow of the military dictatorship that has
ruled Ethiopia for 17 years. This presented a historical moment and opened a new chapter
in Ethiopia in which freedom, equal rights and self-administration of all the peoples
shall be the governing principles of political, economic and social life.
• The Charter also guaranteed each nation, nationality and peoples the right to 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 presentation. Although the
Charter mentioned nothing about federalism, the rights given to the nations,
nationalities clearly indicated that the envisaged structure of state was federal.
• The Transitional Period Charter has completely changed the structure of the State; i.e.,
from a unitary to a federal structure. Although there was no mention of federal
arrangement in the Charter in an explicit manner, it can be inferred from the Charter itself
and from the subsequent proclamations that the forthcoming constitution would make the
Country a federal one. Constitutionally speaking, the political structure established by the
charter was a federal type but not a full-fledged federation. See Art. 12, 14, 9(3) of Proc.
7/92. which indicates that National/regional self-government as well as
National/Regional Councils are accountable to the central government.
• Even though there were central and regional governments established and there was
power division, the regional governments were accountable to the central government.
This utterly departs from the principle of federalism.
• The National/Regional Transitional self-governments established by Proclamation No.
7 of 1991 were mainly based on ethno-linguistic boundaries. It was considered that the
Transitional Period Charter has served as a precursor to the 1994 F.D.R.E. Constitution.

Page | 21
• It is clear that, in the Charter, ultimate power rests with the central government. And
the regions are subordinate to it. The establishment of National Regional Self-
Government was provided for in Proclamation 7 of 1991 by the same title. 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 peoples. Four regions had one
identified nation each and greater Addis Ababa with its amalgam of urban and rural
peoples formed a region by itself.
• Charter and the Proclamation go to the extent of guaranteeing each nation, nationality and
people the right to exercise its right to self-determination of independence, if it is
convinced of its rights to preserve it. It is somewhat difficult to characterize the Ethiopian
National/Regional Self-Government set-up either as a complete or an incomplete
federation, though federal it clearly is. The residue of power rests with the Central
Government, but with strong and authoritative recommendation that the Self-
Governments be encouraged to handle their own affairs fully as much as possible. In light
of this, the best way to characterize the Self-Government set-up of the Provisional
Government is an evolving federal process.
• The Charter and the Proclamation have set in motion a new experimental process for the
governance of Ethiopia. The most important of the regional organs was the Regional
State Council. The Council, as the legislative organ of the Self-Government was the
repository of overall political power regarding the internal affairs of the Region State.
The highest executive organ of the National/Regional Self-Government was the
Executive Committee of 11 to 19 members elected by and from the National/Regional
Council. The executive Committee was accountable both to the Council of Ministers and
to the Council that elected it.
• With respect to the Court structure, the Proclamation envisaged a wereda and a superior
court system. The Proclamation also referred to the Central Government ‘s court system.
Thus, it envisaged two parallel court systems.
• After a promising start, the disagreements that ensued at the end of the transitional
period, which led to the withdrawal of major opposition groups, like the OLF have
stained the success of the transitional period. This seems to have also stained the
legitimacy of the federal constitution that followed. Based on this some argue that the
Transitional Period has not reversed the process of political domination. The truth
however is that Ethiopia has taken major steps to reconcile itself with its existing but
denied diversity. On the basis on the transitional charter, new federal constitution was
drafted and adopted establishing the FDRE.

Page | 22