CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO CIVICS AND ETHICAL STUDIES

CHAPTER CONTENTS
1.1. Origins and Definitions of Civics and Ethics
1.2. Sources and Interdisciplinary Nature of Civics and Ethical Studies
1.3. Major goals and objectives of Civics and Ethical Studies

Reference and Further Reading:

Yadav, Nirmal. (2007). Teaching of Civics and Political Science. Anmol Publications: New
Delhi.

LESSON ONE: ORIGINS AND DEFINITIONS OF CIVICS AND ETHICS

Human being is a social animal who is endowed with instance of sociability. All his/her
instincts are achieved and fulfilled in society. Human being can make unhampered progress
only in a well- organized society. Society enables him/her to achieve talents and qualities by
virtue of which he/she can make progress and achieve superiority over other living beings.
Along with this, a human being also makes efforts to resolve conflict and live in harmony
with other social beings. He/she looks after the interests and requirements of his/her other
fellow beings. Civics and ethical studies helps to resolve social conflicts in society and help
human being to live in harmony with his/her other fellow beings.

Civic and Ethical Studies deals with the right and duties of citizens and the right and wrong
behaviors of what citizens are ought to develop and avoid respectively. As we can understand
from its name, the discipline Civics and Ethical Studies is a combination of Civics on the one
hand, and Ethics on the other hand. Thus, let see the origin and definition of each of these two
concepts: etymologically

Origin and definition of Civics

The word civics comes from Latin word “civita-tes” which means citizen or of citizens. The
word citizen is to mean a person who is a member of a particular country by birth or
Naturalization (getting a right of citizen ship through legal process). This is to say that a
citizen refers to a person who has certain rights and privileges, and who is expected to render
(provide) services and duty expected from him / her by being a member of citizen of a given
country. This implies the state of being the ownership of certain rights and duties.
Civics as an education for the first time delivered in ancient Greek-city-state i.e. Athens.
During those times its main concern was preaching Athenians about the “good life”. The
ancient Greek city state or polis was thought to be an educational community, expressed by
the Greek term paideia. The purpose of political—that is civic or city—life was the self-
development of the citizens. This meant more than just education, which is how paideia is
usually translated. Education for the Greeks involved a deeply formative and life-long process
whose goal was for each person to be an asset to his friends, to his family, and, most
important, to the polis.

Becoming such an asset necessitated internalizing and living up to the highest ethical ideals of
the community. So paideia included education in the arts, philosophy and rhetoric, history,
science, and mathematics; training in sports and warfare; enculturation or learning of the city's
religious, social, political, and professional customs and training to participate in them; and
the development of one's moral character through the virtues. Above all, the person should
have a keen sense of duty to the city. Every aspect of Greek culture in the Classical Age—
from the arts to politics and athletics—was devoted to the development of personal powers in
public service.

Paideia was inseparable from another Greek concept: arete or excellence, especially
excellence of reputation but also goodness and excellence in all aspects of life. Together
paideia and arête form one process of self-development, which is nothing other than civic-
development. Thus one could only develop himself in politics, through participation in the
activities of the polis; and as individuals developed the characteristics of virtue, so would the
polis itself become more virtuous and excellent.

All persons, whatever their occupations or tasks, were teachers, and the purpose of education
—which was political life itself—was to develop a greater (a nobler, stronger, more virtuous)
public community. So politics was more than regulating or ordering the affairs of the
community; it was also a “school” for ordering the lives—internal and external—of the
citizens. Therefore, the practice of Athenian democratic politics was not only a means of
engendering good policies for the city, but it was also a “curriculum” for the intellectual,
moral, and civic education of citizens.
The concept civics has been defined by many authorities in varies ways. The working
definitions come from the tasks or activities of the subject. Accordingly, civics has the
following working definitions:
1. Civics education is a branches of social science which deals with the rights and
responsibilities of citizens;
2. It studies the theory and practice of free and open democratic society;
3. It is the intensive study and understanding of political institutions such as law-making
institutions, executive bodies, law interpreting body etc.
4. It is the study of the purpose of government, the nature of the law, and the way private
behavior affects the public order and the political system;
5. It also studies the international socio-economic and political conditions. i.e. civic
competence. It is the capacity or ability participates effectively in political, economic
and social affairs.
6. Civics education is an education for the wide spread participation of citizen in the
overall affaires of their nation.
7. It is also deals with the knowledge and skills that you should acquire in order to be
competent and responsible citizen

In the modern times with the whole world becoming a single unit, the need for world
fraternity has enormously increased and so civics has assumed greater importance in the field
of study. Generally, as a field of study, civics can be defined as a branch of social science
which studies about “the right and duties of citizens” the term rights refers to privilege
claimed or enjoyed by citizens. Right enables citizens to use their mental and physical
faculties provide with them. On the Other hand duties indicate the obligation that has to be
fulfilled by the citizen. Shortly, it is responsibility discharged by citizens. Both the terms Duty
and Right are very interrelated because, for the citizens, to have certain rights at the same time
they are required to discharge certain duties. As a whole the purpose of education is to create
active citizens who could directly participate in political, economic and social and cultural in
a given society.

Origin and Definition of Ethics

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that study the rightness and wrongness of human actions and
conducts. Ethics is the study of moral values that tries to determine which things are morally
good and which actions are morally right though reflecting on one´s moral standards or the
moral standards of a group or a society and asking whether they are reasonable. It aims to at
developing standards that we feel are reasonable to hold, standards that we have thought about
and have decided are justified.

The term “ethics” comes from the Greek term “ethika or éthos” which means custom or habit
or character. Ethics is a means to decide a course of human action or conduct as right or
wrong, or as bad or good based rational ethical principles and standards. It deals with the
study of the principles or standards of human conducts and action centering on the aspects of
the right conduct and the good life. It is an attempt to understand and critically evaluate our
moral values and principles and to see how these relate to our conduct, actions, and social
arrangements.

In ethics, we are concerned with what we ought to do, what consequences ought to be
achieved, and what sort of persons we ought to become. In other words, ethics is a normative
inquiry and not a descriptive one. It seeks to establish and prescribe norms, standards, or
principles for evaluating our actual practices. It is used to designate the philosophical task of
discerning which moral principles are rationally defensible and which actions are genuinely
good or bad.

LESSON TWO: SOURCES AND INTERDISCIPLINARY NATURE OF CIVICS AND

ETHICAL STUDIES

Civic and Ethical Studies is an interdisciplinary subject. As interdisciplinary subject it is a

subject that borrows from and gives its content and methods to different fields of studies.
Hence, to achieve such a gross goal, the content and methods in civics and ethics education
can be broadly categorized into two categories: i.e. theoretical and documentary sources.

Documentary sources of civics and ethical studies exist in the form of international
agreements and conventions, written or unwritten constitution, decisions and enactment of
legal bodies, historical sources, films, and photographs.

Theoretical sources of civics and ethical studies can be seen in regard to the relationship with
other disciplines. A theory is a statement of a leading idea for explaining reality. It is a
systematic representation of facts. These facts may serve as guides to make observation and
discovery in order to arrive at a general explanation and a viable prediction. These theoretical
sources include philosophy, political science, sociology, law, economics, geography, and
history are the main theoretical sources for the content of civic and ethical studies.
A. Political science and civics and ethical studies

Political science can be conceptualized as an academic discipline focusing on governance and

politics. Political science considers the state as an institution of power, in the totality of its
relations, its origin, its setting, its objects, its ethical significance, etc. Moreover, political
science concerned with analyzing the activities of governments, the processes of political
decision making and the distribution of political powers. Thus, it is obvious that civics took
some of the above enlightened ideas for its content. The main concerns of political science
are:

1. origin and development of state

2. description, analysis and comparison of their constitution
3. government structures
4. rules and regulations
5. organizations and activities of political parties

Generally, the broad themes and the main concern of political science are of the same time the
contents of civic and ethical education.

B. Philosophy and civics and ethical studies

Philosophy is the oldest discipline of liberal arts that seeks to liberate us (human beings) from
ignorance and free us from the particular forces and prejudices which influence our beliefs
and threaten to control our lives, allowing us to achieve our own human excellence.
Philosophy is the critical and rational activity in arguing, evaluating and investigating the
most fundamental questions of human beings taking reason as the highest authority.
Etymologically, the word “philosophy” comes from the Greek (derived from the terms
“philo” or Love, and “sophia” or Wisdom) word meaning “Love of Wisdom”. Basically, the
fields of study in philosophy include: methaphysics (the study of reality or existence),
epistemology (the study of knowledge), ethics (the study of moral value, right and wrong),
aesthetics (the study of beauty and art), and logic (the study of principles of correct/right
reasoning).

The sub-fields of philosophy have a general impact on critical rational thinking and activity of
human being and civics and ethical education gives due emphases on the question of ethics or
moral philosophy.
C. Law and civics and ethical studies

Law is a branch of social science that deals with the system of rules and regulations that
govern the relation of legal persons in a society. Naturally the state is like a nation organized
for action according to certain specific and well-set rules. It exists for law and it exists in and
through law.

Law is one of the most determinant factors for the survival and well-fare of the citizens of any
state. The application of the law on all citizens without any destruction refers the prevalence
of the rule of law. As a result civics and ethics as an education for citizenship extracts
contents related to law.

D. Sociology and civics and ethical studies

Sociology is the study of society, human groups and organizations. Thus, the components of
society in civics and ethical education will help you achieve a better grasp of how society is
organized, where power lies, what beliefs influence people’s behavior and how society has to
see what it is. And civics education also, gives emphasis for these issues.

E. Economics and civics and ethical studies

Economics is a discipline that tries to harmonize the unlimited wants of human beings with
the available scarce resources. Thus, the relevance of economics both as a course and as
component of civics and ethical education is tremendous. This is true, because without
properly addressing of the basic socio-economic problems at the local, national and
international levels, it is nearly impossible to have lasting peace, good governance, tolerance,
rule of law, and observance of human rights.

F. History and civics and ethical studies

The study of history mainly focuses on the total experience of human beings organized in
society. That means history generates a body of scientific knowledge, for understanding of the
political, economic, social, cultural, etc. aspect of a given society; history as a body of
scientific knowledge is, thus, one of the essential instruments for the formation of competent
citizenship. History studies the interaction of man and the development through the passage of
time.
G. Geography and civics and ethical studies

It deals with the spatial distribution of natural and social phenomena with their dynamism. A
good knowledge of geography is important to understand human activities. With the help of
the knowledge of geography we can have an idea about the culture and the way of living of
the people of a country. To understand the different political set ups in different countries we
have to understand the difference in geographical factors in those countries. Civic and ethical
studies can take advantage of this knowledge.

H. Psychology and civics and ethical studies

According to some psychologist, “Government to be stable and really popular must reflect
and express the mental ideas and moral sentiments of those who are subject to its authority. In
short it must be in harmony with ‘mental consultation’ of the people. In the general elections
political Leaders make all possible efforts to play with the sentiments of the people.

LESSON THREE: MAJOR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF CIVIC AND

ETHICAL STUDIES

As education is concerned with the formation of the human person as a whole in a changing
world, a well-organized civics and ethical education responds to societal needs in terms of
providing citizens with many intellectual abilities, social virtues and moral qualities. The
major objectives of civics and ethical education need to be broad enough to acquaint and
provide make to know with a broad range of human activities that are meaning full to them.

Civics and ethical education provides realistic and firsthand knowledge and experience on
improvement of daily living in home, school and community and participation in the affairs of
the country in democratic manner. The major goals of civics and ethical education are the
following.

1. Building civic competence in citizens. It is to mean the capacity and ability to

participate effectively in the political, economy and social system of their country. It is
to gear common form of participation.
2. Promoting the culture of civic responsibility- is the commitment to fulfill the
obligation of citizenship
3. Promoting the culture of civic right. Civic right refers to the political rights and
freedoms you are entitled to enjoy. It as a citizen of your country.
 4. Promoting civic virtue; this means the attitude, filling, and behavior citizens should
develop. That is civic and ethical education is aimed at creating good citizens who is
acquainted with the necessary moral values of their society.
5. Develops an intelligent understanding of the structure and working of civic and
political institutions of their state and helps the students to appreciate the role of
different institutions and their contributions to the maintenance of world peace
Furthermore, one of the most important goals of teaching civics and ethical studies is to
produce ideal citizens i.e., to imbibe in students all the qualities of an ideal citizen.

Characteristics of a Good Citizen: A good citizen is who: believes in equality of

opportunity for all people; values, respects and defends basic human rights and privileges
guaranteed by our constitution; respects and upholds the law and its various agencies;
understands and accepts the democratic principles; puts the general welfare above his own
welfare; exercises his civic responsibility and discharges them to the best of his capability;
accepts his civic responsibility and discharges them to the best of his capability; realizes the
necessary connection of education with democracy; assumes a personal responsibility for the
wise use of natural resources; understands cultures and ways of life other than his own;
supports all efforts to prevent war, but is always ready to defend his country against tyranny
and aggression; cultivates qualities of character and personality that have a high value in his
culture; recognizes taxes as payment for community services and pays them promptly; in a
responsible family member and assumes his full responsibility for maintaining the civic
standards of his neighborhood and community.

In general the significance of civic and ethical studies includes: to make citizen aware about
the fundamental rights freedoms and duties, to initiate citizens to participate actively in the
political activities of the government, to produce competent and responsible citizens who
actively take part in the overall development of the country, to develop the culture of
democracy and avoid the culture of passivity and apathy, to make citizen think rationally and
critically, and to make citizen feel responsible to their actions and conducts.
 CHAPTER TWO: SOCIETY, STATE AND GOVERNMENT

CHAPTER CONTENTS
2.1 Conceptual Issues on Society
2.2 Conceptualization of State
2.3 Attributes of the State
2.4 The State Structure
2.5 Understanding Government
2.6 Modern State Formations in Ethiopia

Reference and Further Reading

Macionis, John. (1996). Society the Basic. Simon and Schuster: New Jersey:
Heywood, Andrew. (2002). Politics: An Introduction. New York: Macmillan:
Schwarz, Mentel.J. (1994). The State in Contemporary Society: An Introduction. Wheastsheof
: New York:
Pierce, J and B. Guypetes. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. Bossly Stake:Polgame.

LESSON ONE: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES ON SOCIETY

The English word society emerged in the 15th century and is derived from the French word
société. The French word, in turn, had its origin in the Latin word societas, a "friendly
association with others," from socius meaning "companion, associate, and comrade or
business partner." Implicit in the meaning of society is that its members share some mutual
concern or interest, common objective and common characteristics.

The term Society refers to a grouping of individuals, which is characterized by common

interest and may have distinctive culture and institutions. "Society" may refer to a particular
people, such as the Sidama; to a nation state, such as Ethiopians; and to a broader cultural
group, such as African Society. Society can also be explained as an organized group of people
associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other
purposes such as the society of physics and the like.

In political science, the term is often used to mean the totality of human relationships,
generally in contrast to the state, i.e., the apparatus of rule or government within a territory. In
the social science society has been used to mean a group of people that form a semi-closed
social system, in which most interactions are with other individuals belonging to the group.

However , most scholars commonly defined ' society' as a sizeable community of persons
who have interacted together for some considerable period of time , possessing common
institutions and generally ,if not always , accepting common values and norms which regulate
their interaction. This definition comprises certain concepts; such as community, institutions,
norms, beliefs and values which require further clarification.

A. Community
In order to constitute a society a group of people must attain a sense of community. A
community is a group of people who have common attachments to a given area and who
possess strong ties of identity. This sense of communal identity might arise out of blood or
kinship-ties, out of possession of common culture or religion, out of attachment to a certain
neighborhood or common territory, or, most commonly, out of some combination of these
elements. But, in any case, community is the achievement of a common sense of belonging by
a group of people which comes from the recognition of a common problem and prospects of
living together. Because living together confronts men with common problems and prospects,
it usually determines common interests to be attained. This necessitates some form of social
organization for the fulfillment of specific goals of the community. The need to achieve
common societal ends in part pushes societies to create institutions. Equally, however, living
together tends to give rise to different interests, to competition between them and so to the
probability of serious conflict within community. Institutions are also created, therefore, both
to promote those different sectorial interests and to judge or arbitrate between them, whether
through courts and judicial system at the individual level or through policy and law -making
at the collective level.

B. Institutions
We use the term institutions to refer not merely to habitual practices of society, but rather to
specific institutions or organizations that are formed for the purpose of coordinating the
achievement of a known set of goals. A church or mosques will qualify to be called
institutions if the groups of persons belonging to it are consciously pursuing a common
objective, in this case, the objective of attainment with the supernatural. A business
corporation is an institution if it is deliberately organized to attain a common end. The army is
an institution for the defense of the collectivity. It is also in this sense government is
considered as an institution of society. In this case, society is organized into numerous
institutions, each pursuing its set of goals and in the process interacting with other institutions
of society.
One important aspect of social organization is that it requires different persons to take the
leading role in the performance of different functions. In short, social organizations imply
specializations of functions, and this usually leads to the definition of occupations and
occupational groups. These groups differ in their 'status', which means the ranking of persons
and groups according to a hierarchy of prestige and rewards. A Manager in a given
organization, for example, enjoys a higher prestige and income than a clerk. Thus formal
organizations have leaders and members. Furthermore, different members of the leadership
perform different functions, and different followers also have different tasks. In addition,
different institutions perform different functions and are ranked accordingly in society. It is
this ranking of men and groups of men which is usually referred to as a social stratification.
Persons, as well as groups, might change their relative positions within the accepted
hierarchy. But the extent to which there is mobility within the hierarchy will differ from one
society to another and from one period to another in the life of any one society.

C. Norms

In order for an organization or purposeful association to exist, there has to be an acceptance of

a set of rules which govern the interaction among its members. 'Norms ', in a nutshell, are
those generally accepted rules which define the role of different individuals in social
institutions. They are explicit or implicit criteria that guide members in their conduct when
they perform their respective roles. As such, they can be expected to define not only the
functions or roles of specific individuals, but also the manner in which these roles or functions
may be performed. Moreover, the norms operative in an organization or group also define the
status attributed to various members who perform certain function and roles.

Of course, different organizations, occupations, groups and even classes exhibit different
norms. This variety is seen, for example, in the roles that are defined for leaders in these
groups. Some organizations may give few functions to their leaders while others may make
them perform many important functions. Some groups may reward the leadership in such a
manner as to create wide differences between leadership and followers; while other groups
may maintain only moderate differences in reward and honor. One group may attach the
greatest importance to accomplishment as a qualification for leadership; while another group
may consider birth by a particular parent, or age, as the important qualification for leadership.
D. Values and Belief

As we have discussed above, society is composed of numerous interrelations of men who are
organized in a variety of different ways, and whose conduct is regulated by established norms,
customs and laws. Laws, in this sense, are understood to be a special class of rules. They are
distinguishable essentials in that they convey greater compelling forces of compliance. This
compelling force is due principally to the existence of the power of the state to ensure the
enforcement. Like norms and customs, laws define the rights and duties of persons in specific
social contexts within the political society.

An important feature of rules, however, is that, once accepted, they soon acquire the property
of 'rightness ' that is, of being regarded as the way things 'ought to be'. Keen observers of
society have noticed that this becomes especially clear when certain rules are under attack. It
usually becomes necessarily for the change. This is because the existing rules have already
developed through time their own set of justifications which make members 'believe ' that it is
right to conform to them. And this how, in part at least, though also through religion, the
mental phenomena known as 'values' develop.

The mental phenomenon which we call a 'value' is a standard or a principle which human
beings use to justify or oppose a course of action. This mental phenomenon is apparently
characteristic of man because he/she is rational and moral being. It is by values that we judge
action in terms of what ought or ought not to be done, of what is right or wrong. In other
words, they are short hand mental codes for deciding what is desirable. For this reason, values
are powerful influences in directing and motivating human action in society.

Values are usually transmitted as an important part of a people's culture. They are taught by
many agents, both formal and informal, in society. Some of the best known-societal agents for
the transmission of values are the family, the school, peer groups, and the Mass media. The
process is known as socialization.

Beliefs, then, are very influential in leading us to evaluate something as being desirable or
undesirable. Beliefs may be concerned with accepting a declaration as true or false, or with
accepting a thing as good or bad. It is interesting to note , however, that we may accept that
something is true or false , good or bad, either because we have experienced that event or
because we accept the conventional social view held by most other people , or , finally
because someone whose truthfulness we acknowledge has declared that event to be true or
good.

There have been debates as to the exact meaning of society. For some society implies a
collection of individuals living in a certain country for the longer period of time. For others,
society is meant to mean more than the collections of individuals. There are two contending
views: The atomistic theory and the organic theory.

Atomistic theory of society is based up on an individualist conception of the society. These

assume that society is a human artifact, constructed by individuals to serve their or purpose. In
its extreme form this can lead to the belief, expressed by Thatcher, that there is no such thing
as society. In other words, all social and political behavior can be understood in terms the
choices made by self-interested individuals without references to collective entities such as
society. This has often been described as atomistic theory of society, in that it implies that
society is nothing more than a collection of individual units or atoms.

Such a view doesn’t, however, ignore the fact that individuals pursue their interests through
the formation of groups and associations, business, trade unions, clubs, and so forth. This
cement which holds this society together though based on self-interest, the recognition that
private interest overlap, making possible voluntary agreement.

An organic theory of society is based up on an organic analogy. Instead of being constructed

by rational individuals to satisfy their personal interest, society may operate as an organic
whole, exhibiting properties more normally associated with living organism-a human being or
plant. This suggests a holistic approach to society, emphasizing that society is complex
networks of relationship which ultimately exist to maintain the whole: the whole is more
important than its individual’s parts. This is similar to the functionalist view of society. These
assume that all social activities play some part in maintaining the basic structure of society.

LESSON TWO: CONCEPTUALIZATION OF STATE

2.2.1 MEANING OF STATE

The concept of the state is a perplexing one to understand it easily. Etymologically, the state,
as a word stato, appeared in Italy in the early part of 16 th century in the writings of
Machiavelli (1416-1527). The meaning of the state in the sense of a body politic became
common in England and France in the latter part of the 16 th century. The word staatskunst
become the German equivalent of ragions di stato during 17th century and a little later, the
word staatrecht got the meaning of jus publican. Thus, come to the use of the term the state.

The concept of the state is an abstract idea and its existence manifested through its agents,
government. Hence various scholars tend to use the term state interchangeably with other
terms like ‘government, society, and country,’ though, as we shall see, it is distinct from all
these concepts.

2.2.2 THEORETICAL APPROACHES FOR UNDERSTANDING THE STATE

To understand the conception of state, it is significant to explore the various theories on the

origin of state. There are many contending theories that try to explain the origin, nature, and

functions of state including: the divine right theory, the social contract theory, force theory,

Marxist view, and natural/ genetic theory.

A. The Theory of Divine Origin

This is the oldest theory concerning the primary origin of the state. Accordingly, the state is
established and governed by God himself or by some superhuman power. God may rule the
state directly or indirectly through some ruler who is regarded as the agent or vice-regent or
vicar of God. Such a state is known as a theocratic or God-ruled state. The divine origin or
the theocratic conception is almost as old as the state itself and is found universality among
early peoples. It is a well-authenticated fact that early forms of political authority were
beloved to be connected with the unseen powers. The divine origin theory more and more
took the form of the theory of the divine right of kings.

The salient features of the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings are:

 Monarchy is divinely ordained;

 Hereditary right is indefeasible;

 Kings are accountable to God alone; and

 Resistance at a lawful king is sin.

It is more than likely that even the supporters of this doctrine did not fully believe in all its
extravagant claims. In supporting it, people failed to consider the danger of the king becoming
a tyrant. Later, the theory was used against the growing political consciousness of the people'
and the rise of democratic ideas, and was made to support royal despotism. It was not until the
end of the eighteenth century that it was rejected as unsound in theory and dangerous in
practice.

Some of the principal causes which brought about the decline of the theories are the rise of the
contract theory, which rests' political growth of authority on the idea of consent, the
democracy which is opposed to absolutism particularly royal absolutism and the secular
outlook of the modern man which seeks, as far as possible, to separate religious and political
issues.

B. The Social Contract Theory

This theory holds that the state is the result of a deliberate and voluntary agreement on the
part of primitive men emerging from a state of nature. It assumes that there was a period in
human history when there was no state at all and no political order. Some writers regard this
pre-civil or pre- political period as pres- social as well. In this ‘state of nature’ the only law
that governed human relations was the law of nature. Advocators of the social contract theory
are not agreed up on what exactly this law of nature was. Hence men in this primitive state
soon abandoned the state of nature and set up a political society through the instrumentality of
a covenant. As a result of the covenant each man lost his natural liberty in part or in whole,
and in its place he obtained the security and protection of the state provided by political law.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is the best known of the contact theorists not only because of
the extreme radicalism of his thought but also because of the impeccable logic of his ideas.
Hobbes argues that the state should be conceived of as a contact between a group of people to
guarantee their mutual security and prosperity. Hobbes argued that the natural condition of
humanity- the state of nature -was a thoroughly unpleasant one. People live in the state of
anarchy, which characterized by "solitary, poor, nasty brutish and short" life. The state
emerged to terminate anarchism, which threatens the life of all individuals in the state of
nature. In order to control the trend of anarchism the state, which emerged via mutual contact
of individual at the one hand and the supposed ruler at the other, should posses an absolute
power that is no challenged by individuals.

John Locke was another English contract theorist. In fact, His view differed from Hobbes
conception. Unlike Hobbes he argued that the state of nature characterized by “peace, good
will, mutual assistance and preservations"; in such a state individuals possessed natural rights
such as the right to life, liberty, and property. Any defect in the state of nature arose from the
absence of an organization capable of protecting these rights. The state arose out of the
contract of individuals in the state of nature in order to regulate and protect the individual
natural right, especially the right to property. Therefore an ideal state is that which protects
life, liberty and private property. Unlike Hobbes, Locke vehemently argued that the power of
the state should be limited and restricted by laws. He further argues if the state failed to keep
its promise an individual has the right to civil disobedience in order to overthrow the ruler.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was another contract theorist. Accordingly, his version of social
contract theory is contrary to the preceding social contract theorists. He argued that rights and
liberties of individuals have no existence at all except in as much as individuals are members
of groups. In simple terms man who lives in the state of nature is part of an ideal society. He
regarded men as naturally good and argued that the type of calculating and selfish individuals
whom contract theorist describe did not exist in the state of nature, they were not therefore
natural, and that when such people did exist it was because they were the product of a
perverted society.

SUMMERY OF THE THREE SOCIAL CONTACT THEORISTS VIEW

Description of Reasons for Type of

state of nature living state of government
nature established

Man lives in a perpetual Absolute, with a

Thomas Hobbes Man yearns for security
state of war sovereign ruler for all
time

John Locke Man live by experience Man wants to preserve Delegated, that could be
and common senses; life, liberty and property. abolished if it does not
follows laws of nature preserve life, liberty and
property.

Jean J. Rousseau Man initially lives in Man wants to regain Society is government;
paradise and is good; freedom and ability to the "general will" rules.
population growth and make decisions Or a model of Greek city
ability to reason force states
interactions among
people who select a "
father' to govern
primitive society

C. The Force Theory

According to force theory, the state is the result of superior physical force; it originates in the
subjugation of the weaker by the stronger. It is natural to suppose that in primitive times the
man of exceptional physical strengths was able to dominate his fellowman and to exercise
some kind of authority over them. The same is probably true also of superior tribes and clans
in their relationships to other tribes and clans. On the basis of this supposition, advocates of
the force theory contend that all states have come into being through physical coercion or
compulsion.

According to this theory, it is war that begets the state. Advocates of the theory argue that
what they regard to be fundamental features of modern political society -military allegiance
and territorial character are based on the relation between the war chief and his followers and
on conquest which brings under the authority of a single ruler people of different countries
and of different races.

Like the divine origin and the social contract theories, this theory is advocated both as an
explanation of the historical origin of the state as rational justification of the state to be; and
like them, also, it is defective on both counts. In its practical form, it reduces itself to the
position that claims government as the outcome of human aggression. Such a view is found in
the earlier works of Herbert Spencer where he says, government is the offspring of evil,
bearing about it the marks of its parentage.

It is true that force must have been an important factor in the evolution of' the state, but to
regard it as the one and only factor is a clear mistake. Several other facts must have entered
into the composition of early political societies, the state must have grown as much by
voluntary amalgamation as by force and conquest, after conquest the state must have grown
more as a result of conciliation and agreement than as a result of coercion. The force theory
minimizes the element of cooperation and other such peaceful agencies which must have
played an important part in the evolution of the state

Force is an essential element of the state both for internal unity and for security against
external attack. Without the element of force, the state would become a prey of disruptive
factors and would soon cease to be. But force alone cannot account for the historical origin of
the state or for its continuance in modern times, since might without right can at best be only
temporary might; with right is a permanent basis for the state.

The force theory, like the social contract, has been used for a variety of purposes; some have
argued that since the state is the outcome of force, people should obey it absolutely. Such a
position seems altogether illogical. As Rousseau has pointed out clearly, the right of the
strongest is no right at all. Right based upon might last duly as long as might lasts. But what
kind of right is that which perishes when force fails? To quote Rousseau again, ‘force is a
physical power; to yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will-at the most, an act of
prudence.' The individualists, as well as the socialists, have also employed the force theory
to support their respective doctrine. The individualist argument is that just as the state is the
result of superior strength, so within society itself the race should go to the swiftest. This
means unrestricted competition and unlimited scope for individual efforts, the socialists
attack this argument on the ground that individualism means an improper use of force and
that the state, by means of its superior force, should check the exploitation of the weaker by
the stronger.

D. Genetic (Natural) Theory

While divine origin theory, as we have seen in the preceding section is a matter of faith, the
genetic theory is based on sociological facts. Here the argument is that states are an eventual
extension of the family. The first group of collective human life is the family or the
household, the last is the state. This larger unit became a tribe or a clan and that eventually
became a state. The elementary group is the family, connected by common subjection to the
highest male ascendant. The aggregation of families forms the Genes or Houses. The
aggregate of Houses makes the tribe. The aggregation of tribes constitutes the commonwealth.
It demonstrates that from the early patriarchal family emerged the warrior ruler judge and as
political societies increased in size and complexity, political headship and leadership were
asserted and recognized as significant forms of social control.

The patriarchal theory adopting the family as the unit and supposing the headship bequeathed
from one chief to another by easy stages transformed the father into the chief of king, and the
family into a civil community . The father is the natural chief, the governor of the little state
of which the members of the family are the governed. The ancient city was merely a union of
families in which political power belonged to the father.

E. The Marxist View

Karl Marx suggested a more rational basis for the concept of state based on force. According
to him, historically, the state was originated from the split of society into two classes with
sharp and polarized economic interests. The formation of social classes is associated with the
emergence of private property. The rise of the state with its agent, the government established
to make laws is , therefore, directly reacted with the urgency of private property and the need
to safeguard it. This means that the state in its function is a partisan political organization that
stands for the interest of the rich against the poor. Marx felt that the state at any time reflects
the value of its dominant classes and that the government of a rich state, therefore, only acts to
perpetuate the interests of these classes. The proponents of the Marxist theory believe that
with the historical process of disappearance of private property and antagonistic social class,
the state will wither away. Congruently communism an envisioned social system, where
everybody will be equal and all get whatever they want, would prevail.

All the fore mentioned theories forward explanations about the origins and purpose of the
state varies greatly among different persons in different times. However, as the result of
accumulated knowledge and culture in politics, nowadays there is a widely held consensus
about the practice and idea of modern nation-state. The consensus is on the fact that the idea
of modern state is typical in17thc Europe creation. This period saw the break up and
disintegration of the medieval European Christian kingdom and the emergence of secular and
sovereign political units in the form of modern nation states (1646-westphalia treaty)

Today the nation-state comprising of people, government, territory and sovereignty has
expanded and becomes a universal model of the state. However, this model of the notion of
state could not be easily reproduced on various part of the world in exactly the same way as it
emerged in Europe. This is because of difference of historical forces and factors, cultural and
social differences, different level of economic and technological developments that make the
countries Africa, Asia and elsewhere distinct from that of Europe. For example, the modern
states in Africa, Asia and Latin America are largely creations of European colonial powers.
Among others, the international boundaries, ethnic compositions, as well as the nature of
political organizations and performance of governments of these post-colonial states are
influenced by the legacies of their former colonial powers.

In conclusion, the theories and arguments discussed so forth provide plausible explanations as
to why and how the state has emerged as the highest political organization of society.
Nevertheless, there is no single and the only acceptable argument about the origin of the state.
The emergence of such different contending theories proves that there is still lack of accurate
explanation-on the origin and function of the state. Furthermore, the existence of various
contending theories of the state, in turn, also indicates the gradual development, in the
thinking of human beings on the ideas of state and its institutions. Therefore, in politics in
general and in areas of state and government in particular, research and debate is dynamic and
continues.

LESSON THREE: ATTRIBUTES OF THE STATE

2.3.1 Attributes of the Modern State

A modern state is the product of four elements such as: people, territory, government and
sovereignty. In addition to this, legitimacy, and administrative capacity regarded also as
essential features of the modern state.

A. People ( population)

Since state is a human association, the first essential element that it constitutes is people. It is
obvious that there can be no state unless people live together. Modern states do have fixed
number of population. Census is often held to know the exact number, composition and other
demographic factors of the population.

The number of population is one of the factors that influencing the power and maintenance of
state. However, number of population is not a determining factor for the existence of a state.
So long as there are people, be it small or large, the state can exist. There is no standard with
regard to the number of people in a state. In this regard, some states have a large number of
population (countries like China, India, Indonesia, Japan, America and etc.) while other states
like (Vatican, Malta, Djibouti and etc.) possess a very small number of populations.

From the legal point of view population is as an element of the state includes both those who
rule and those who are ruled. The people of state possess a dual character. In the capacity of
who have a share in framing the will of the state, they are citizens, and in the capacity of those
who obey the will thus formed they are subjects. As citizens, people possess rights and as'
subjects they have duties.

B. Territory

There can be little doubt that without fixed territory there can be no state; yet not all political
thinkers are absolutely agreed on it. The modern state undoubtedly requires a definite portion
of earth's territory over which it can have undisputed authority. In contrast with the ancient
state, the modern state is essentially territorial in character. A nomadic people cannot be said
to constitute a state. Although they may have some form of political organization through
common subjection to a leader or chief. 'Territorial sovereignty or the superiority of the state
overall within its boundaries and complete freedom from external control has been a
fundamental principle of the modern State life.

A fixed territory is so much an essential factor of the modern state that no two separate and
unrelated states can claim jurisdiction over the same area. The only apparent exception is that
of the federal state, where ‘two states’ exercise authority over the same territory. It should be
remembered that they are related States and that 'the sphere of each is carefully determined by
the provisions of the written constitution. As a rule, the territory of a state is contiguous.

C. Sovereignty

The term sovereignty first coined by French philosopher Jean Jaques Bodin of France who
in his six books on the republic (1576) used the term "souverainete" that come to have an
English equivalent in the word" sovereignty". In his words, "sovereignty is the supreme
power of the state over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law." Sovereignty implies the
ultimate authority, an authority from which there can be no appeal. It is the highest power of
the state that distinguishes it from all other associations of human beings. Associations other
than the state may have people, territory and even government form of compulsive
organization, but they do not have sovereignty.

Sovereignty, in simple terms, signifies supreme authority of the state. It has two dimensions
internal and external sovereignty. In the last resort, all individuals and groups of individuals
with the state have to submit to the will of the state. This fact is expressed by the term
internal sovereignty. In external relations, the modem state claims final authority. It may
obey international covenant and understandings, but there is no power on earth that compels
obedience of the state to a higher entity. This attribute of the state is expressed by the term
external sovereignty. By virtue of its sovereign authority, the modern state claims supremacy
in internal matters and freedom from the control of external governments.

D. Government

Government is the political organization of the state. It is the instrumentality through which
the sovereign will of the state finds concrete expression. If the ultimate sovereign in a
democratic country is the people, the legislative sovereign is the government. A state
without government is inconceivable, for the state will and acts through the government.
No particular form of government is essential, since the form of government depends upon
the nature of state which in turn depends upon the political thought and character of people.
The state is the organization of which government’s is the administrative organ; and since
the organization is greater than the government the state is the greater and more inclusive.

2.3.2 The Relationship and Differences between Society and State

The State is a political organization. Society is both broader and narrower than the State. In
narrower sense, it may be used to describe the whole community of mankind just as much as a
small social group of a village. In its broader sense, it transcends the individual state national
boundaries. The State is a part of society but is not a form of society. It is more than a number
of closely connected individuals who happen to live together. It is a number of people
associated politically, organized under and through some form of government occupying a
definite portion of the earth’s surface. Society exercises authority largely through customs.
The state exercise authority through laws enacted and enforced by government. The State is
the only instrument that can legitimately use force. Society, on the other hand, can use only
moral persuasion or influence and social ostracism or expulsion. It cannot imprison a man for
the violation of its requirements. The state is a structure not coextensive with society but
built within it as determinate order for the attainment of specific ends.

The importance of the state to society is visibly observed because society is held together by
the state and if it were not thus held together, it may not exist. Society may be compared to
the many planks, which comprise a wooden barrel, and the State to the iron band that goes
around them holding them together in their proper places.

Prof. Barker clearly pointed out the difference between the State and society under three
headings as follows: (I) Purpose or function, (2) organization and structure, and (3) method.
From the point of view of purpose, the state is a legal association; which acts for a single
purpose of making and enforcing a permanent system of law and order. But society,
comprising as it does, a plurality of associations, directions, acts for a variety of purposes
other than the legal purpose. These varied purposes 'are intellectual, moral, religious,
economic, esthetic, and recreational. The membership of the State and society may be the
same, but they differ as regards purpose.
From the point of view of organization, the state is a single legal organization, whereas
society comprises within itself many varieties of organizations. In this regard, state as too
many classical philosophers elucidated a highest and single social organization in human
association. The existence of state as social organization manifested through one of its
elements, i.e., governments.

As regards to method, the state employs the method of coercion or compulsion; society
employs the method of voluntary action. The purposes for which society exists, make the
‘persuasive methods necessary: and the multiplicity of its organization give ample opportunity
to the members’ to relinquish one association and join another in case coercion is ever
attempted. Even though in" theory we say that society depends mostly on persuasion, at times,
it can be harsh tyrant.’’

According to JC Johari in his book 'Principle of modern political science' also distinguishes
state and society as follow:

1. In terms of time, society comes first to state. It means society exist much earlier than
state. In this regard, family and community are the oldest social institutions. A term
which is becoming even more common and popular than society is "community", it
suggests a group of people even more closely knit together than a society willing to
help each other, and even die for one another when necessity arises.
2. State is just part of the society. The term society implies our relations and associations
of all kinds. It means a complex of mutual intercourse, which has diverse forms. Of
these diverse forms, state is one part (political part) that has a purpose of maintaining
social order.
3. State and society serves different functions. The society performs a multiplicity of
functions in order to meet multifold requirements of man. But the function of state
exclusively concentrated on making and enforcing a legal order.
4. State is the only legal entity in possessing sovereignty from various social
organizations, which set up by society to fulfill different purposes. State using its
sovereign power can coerce and compel others to maintain legal and social order. But
other social organization not.
These and others are some features, which distinguish society from state. All in all, state is
one of the highest political organizations, which set up by society to maintain social and legal
order.
LESSON FOUR: THE STATE STRUCTURE

2.4.1 UNITARY STATE STRUCTURE

In unitary state structure, there is a single central source of authority, and administrative units
exercise their rights primarily through the common organs of the general government rather
than through dual government structures. While regional political mechanisms may be
established, they are constitutionally subordinate to and receive all their political authority
from the central government. They do not independently represent citizens or undertake
independent legislative or executive decisions. Examples include New Zealand, Lebanon,
France, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

To protect minority interests in a unitary state, the central government may grant autonomy to
ethnically or religiously defined regions. Autonomous entities within a unitary state may
exercise certain rights that enable them to protect and promote a unique culture, religion, or
language. Autonomous provinces, however, rarely exercise substantial political power.
Unitary states may also seek to protect diverse interests by designing a pluralistic executive
structure or establishing set-aside parliamentary seats for minority groups.

Decentralized unions closely resemble a unitary state, but with constituent units. In a
decentralized union, the constituent units are subordinate to the central government. While
ultimate authority rests with the central government, certain constitutionally identified
administrative powers may be devolved to the constituent units, which then exercise
functional autonomy. Over time, constituent units may also absorb increasing levels of
executive and legislative power from the central government. Examples include Japan, Italy,
Macedonia, Indonesia and etc.

A unitary state is one in which no other governmental body but the central government has
any areas of policy that are exclusively under its control. In unitary state, local and regional
political bodies may potentially be overruled by the central governmental in any political
decision they make. In a unitary state, the national legislature is the supreme lawmaking body
in the country. It can allow other legislative bodies to exist at provincial and municipal level,
but can overrule them and they are subordinate to it. There is no entrenched (protected)
division of power between the national legislature and the state or provincial legislatures. This
means that the national legislature can revoke or amend any powers that regional legislatures
might have been given previously.

The most distinctive features of the unitary form of government are that, there is only one
source of authority. That means all the state power concentrated at the hand of the central
government and the ultimate power for making of all decisions esteemed from the authority of
the central government.

Even if adequate power is necessary for effective administration of the local governance at the
local level, in the unitary state structure local governments exist only as mere agents of the
central government. Therefore, local governments do not have any sufficient power to make
decisions on the daily affair of their local government and lack the right to self-administration.
This is because, the extent of their authority, duration of their tenure and their legal existence
are determined directly through the act of the central government. In this case, the central
government has a full power to deal over the function, resource, power and territorial
jurisdiction of the local government.

The essence of the unitary system of government is that there is one over-riding authority,
from which all sub-systems derive their power. It is a common fallacy to assume that a unitary
system is necessarily a highly centralized system.

Essential Features of Unitary State

Distinctive/principal/ features of a unitary form of state structure include the following:
A. Supremacy of the Central Legislature (Parliament). There is only one (unicameral)
kind of legislature, which is invariably (always) absolutely supreme. It is the only
body that enacts and monitors the law. Other bodies (sub-national bodies to
implement the laws) are made by the central legislature/parliament.
B. Absence of Subsidiary Sovereign Bodies Sovereignty is vested in the national
/central government and hence sub national bodies are not sovereign because
sovereignty in unitary form of state structure is indivisible. But subsidiary legislatures
can exist when represented by the central government. However it can be ruined by
the central government at any time.
 C. Re-Centralization of Power at the Will of the National/Central Government
Unilaterally. This is to mean that power that may have been decentralized to sub-
national bodies can be re-centralized at the will of the central government unilaterally.
D. Unchecked Centralization of Power at the Center i.e. Sub national bodies
(regional, provincial and local bodies) can be reshaped, reorganized and even
abolished at will of the central government.

Merits of Unitary structure

 It can easily adapt changes in the constitution when needed.
 It is less expensive compared to the federal type
 It is good for small countries and homogeneous people.
 There is uniformity in administration and policies.
Demerits of unitary state structure
 There is a possibility becoming automatic and destroy people liberties.
 It does not accept initiatives that could be done locally and regionally.
 It is not favorable for large countries with diversity of people in language, religion,
etc.

2.4.2. FEDERAL STATE STRUCTURE

Federalism as a concept just as many concepts in social sciences it is difficult to define and
hence does not have any clear and universally agreed meaning. Etymologically, the term
federalism is derived from the Latin word “foedus,” which means contract or alliance or
covenant. The term federal has been used as synonym for such words like nation league, or
decentralizes. This indicates that the term has come to possess different meanings to different
people in different time and space.

Federalism is a set of principles and institutional arrangements for the organization of a

country, which has at its core the sharing of sovereignty between central and constituent
states. The subunits, (which are usually called constituent stats, cantons, provinces or
communes, regional states and etc) have a constitutionally protected existence of their own
that is, they can only be modified by amendment of the constitution; and this amendment
needs extraordinary majorities. Moreover, the subunits have protected executive, legislative
and judicial competencies and have access to independent financial resources.
Federations come into existence under two circumstances as result of various reasons. In the
first case, some federations emerged from a voluntary contract between previously
autonomous states, such as the United States, Switzerland and Canada. In these cases,
autonomous states transferred part of their powers to a new central authority; and in the
second case, unitary states undertook a constitutional reform and restructured as federal
systems, so powers were given from an existing national government to the newly created
subunits. The second mechanism, which is rather seldom, holds true for Belgium, Ethiopia,
and Nigeria.

In the first instance, a common rationale for federalism could be that a pooling of resources
would facilitate the achievement of common goals. Besides, the following are some of the
reasons:
 A sense of military insecurity and the subsequent need for common defense,
 A desire for independence from forcing powers,
 A realization that only via union could independence is secured,
 A hope of economic advantage from union,
 Some prior political association,
 A similarity of political install actions,
 Geographic contiguity could bring federation, and the like.

The second instance of federal arrangement comes into existence or could be adapted for the
following reasons:
 In ordered to accommodate the demands of particular groups for control over
sensitive local concerns,
 When social- cultural conditions that make a unitary system are unacceptable
and independent existence is unviable,
 To accommodate differences of whatever nature that has become or are seen as
irreducible to a common denominator,
 To mitigate problems related to identity question, and
 To protracted civil war, and so on.

Basic Federal Principles

The following are the major elements, which constitute the federal arrangement and also
consider as federal principles such as:
  Written constitution. The distribution of competence and power between the center
and the regions is effected by written constitutions having a fair degree of rigidity,
 Territorial division. This refers to the idea that federal state is divided into a number
of geographical areas with autonomous political power.
 Non-centralism. this means that the powers of government-legislative, executive, and
judiciary- are distinctively divided between the center and the regions,
 Act on individuals. Both the center and the regions directly act on the individual
citizens and other legal persons with in their assigned sphere of competence and
territorial limits.
 Regions participate in the center via their elected representative, i.e. a shared
institution whose seats are to be filled by representatives of government or people of
the component units.
 Judicial review. A judicial body interprets the division of power between the two
component governments, especially; this is so when there is conflict. That means,
judicial body interprets what is written in the constitution
 Amendment of the constitution. Constitution, which is the base for federal system, is
amended by the consent and participation of the central government and regional
governments.

Merits of Federal system

 It would help create a big nation by bringing together small countries.
 It accepts local affairs and initiatives.
 Favorable for large state with heterogeneous people
 It balance the centripetal and centrifugal forces demerits

Demerits of Federal system

 It is expensive as it uses more manpower and resources when we compare it with
unitary.
 It has rigid constitution
 There may be overlapping of jurisdiction

2.4.3 CON-FEDERAL STRUCTURE

Con-federations are voluntary associations of independent states. It is an association of states,

which rests upon the common agreement of its members expressed in an elaborate document.
Confederations are formed for common advantage without affecting internal freedom,
structure, lawmaking and enforcing process, external relations of the state confederating. It
differs from an alliance, in that it has fixed central organ through which the common wills of
its members may be expressed. It also differs from the League (Union) in a greater variety of
directives designed to achieve. These objectives include external security, promotion of
cultural unity, and operation of postal service.

Historically confederations are often provided to be first of second step toward the
establishment of a national state usually as federal union. The federal form of state in
Switzerland, Germany and USA was preceded by confederations. The common wealth of
nations, which was formed in 1972, is an example of confederation born as a result of the
decentralization and eventual disintegration of empire, UK and former British colonies. In
contemporary world, there are modern forms of confederations, but such arrangements are
different from the older ones. The modern arrangements are established around common
defense (NATO); economic alliance (Common Market of East and Southern Africa -
COMESA, European Economic Community- EEC, Economic Community of Western
African States - ECOWAS); neighborhood alliance ( African Union- AU, Association of
South East Asia Nations - ASEAN, Organization of American States - OAS); politico-
religious alliance (Arab league); and community of nations (UNOs).

On international arena, there are some organizations which have con-federal structure.
 Common defense – NATO
 Economic Alliance –ECOWAS
 Neighborhood alliance – OAU, OAS
 Politico –religious alliance – Arab League
 Community of Nations __ UN

LESSON FIVE: UNDERSTANDING GOVERNMENT

2.5.1 Government: Meaning

The term government is undoubtedly central to political science. To govern’ in its broadest
sense is to rule or exercise control over others. That government is the art and activity of the
exercise of control within society through the making and enforcement of collective decisions.
The activity of government therefore involves the power (ability) to make decisions and
exercise that they are carried out. In this sense, a form of government can be identified within
most social institutions. For instance, in the family it is apparent in the control that husband
exercise over wife or parents exercise over children, in schools it operates through discipline
and roles imposed by teachers or others and in work place it is maintained by regulations
drawn up by managers or employers. Government therefore exists whenever and wherever
there exist ordered rules and hierarchies.

Nevertheless, the term ‘government’ is usually understood more narrowly to refer to formal
and institutional processes by which rules are exercised at community, national and
international levels. As such, government can be identified with set of established cluster of
institutions whose function assumed is mainly to maintain public order and undertake
collective action.

The institutions of government are usually concerned with the making, implementation and
interpretation of law, law being a set of enforceable rules that are binding up on society. All
systems of government therefore encompass three functions legislation or the making of laws,
the execution or implementation of laws, and the interpretation of law, the adjudication of its
meaning. In some systems of government all these functions are carried out by separate
institutions- the legislature, the executive and the judiciary- but in others they may all come
under the responsibility of a single body, such as a ruling party or even a single individual,
dictator. In some cases, however, the executive branch of government alone is referred to as
the government making government almost synonymous with the rulers or officials and
authorities. Government is thus identified more narrowly with a specific group of ministers or
secretaries, operating under the leadership of a chief executive.

2.5.2 The Relation and Differences between the State and Government

As you might remember from your study of the concept of the state, there is general but
preliminary problem about the concept of the state. The state is simply a nebulous entity but
government is its soul. For it is government which speaks on the states behalf, executes its
policies and materializes state’s decisions. If state is regarded as wither the first or worst
condition of a civilized life, it is due to the existence of a government and its machineries.
Government in general could be regarded as agency for the state to realize itself.

It is, hence, not surprising that government and the state should be often appearing as
synonymous. This nevertheless is not always the case that there are certain principle
distinctions between the state and government. In other words, though the state and
government are identified when we study them in concrete or practical terms, the two may be
distinguished on a theoretical plane on these grounds:
 1. The state is a bigger entity that includes all citizens of a country, but the
government is a smaller unit that covers only those who are employed to perform
its functions. The state is the politically organized person or entity for the
promotion of common ends and the satisfaction of common needs, while the
government is the collective name for the agency or organization through which
the will of the state is formulated. The government is an essential organ or agency
of the state but it is no more than the state itself.

2. The state is an abstract entity, but the government has its existence in a concrete
form.

3. The power of the state is original and primary, but the authority of the government
is delegated and derivative. In other words, it is said that while the power of the
state is absolute on account of being a sovereign entity, the provisions of for
instance, constitution limit the authority of the government.

4. The state is relatively permanent institution. It survives until its sovereign power is
destroyed by for instance invasion, or colonization of some other state. But
government come and goes by means of election, coup d’état, revolution or other
means.

5. The states are not of different kinds, but the governments have their forms like
monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, dictatorship etc. All states are made
of four attributes (territorial concept of the state) and so they may not be
distinguished from each other.

2.5.3 Organs of government

The government is composed of three major organs –Legislature, Executive and Judiciary-
and each organ has its own distinct role.
1) Legislative Body
The legislative body is responsible for the formulation of laws and decisions and other
documents. Above all, assemblies provide a link between government and the people, a
channel of communication that both support government and help to uphold the regime and
government to respond to public demands and anxieties.
The power and function of legislature varies but most of them share the followings:
 Constitution making and amending function
 Election function
 Financial function
 Control of administration
 2) Executive Body
In its broadest sense, the executive branch of government is a branch of government
responsible for the implementation of the laws, rules, policies, and decisions made by the
legislature. The executive branch of government extends from the head of government and
head of the state to the members of enforcement agencies.
Power and Function of Executive
The power and functions of executive varies but the following are the most common:

 Enforcement function
 Formulation and execution of administrative policy
3) Judiciary
Control of military force
Body
 Conduct of foreign relations

Judiciary institution is an independent legal institution (relatively) and it is concerned with

administrating rule of law and control state organ sand citizens under the rule of law and
watches that every activity take place in accordance with the law.
In modern times, the liberty of individual depends upon the fairness of court in protecting
from abuse. Separation of the judiciary from the control of legislative and executive power is
considered essential to the preservation of individual liberty.

Judiciary body is an organ responsible to interpret the law

Major functions of Judiciary body

1) Adjudication. The courts see and examine various cases and gives decision(s) on the
cases presented.
2) Formulating case law. Case law is developed where judges must decide how a law,
whether common or statute, should apply in a particular case. This kind of law is often
referred to as judge-made law because the interpretation is made by the judge in each
case and becomes binding on all other courts.
3) Protection of individual rights. The judiciary body has great role in protecting the
constitutionally guaranteed rights of individuals mainly through the process of due
process of law. For example the judiciary plays a great role in the protection against
unreasonable or arbitrary laws and procedures by the government and its institutions at
any level.
2.5.4. Systems / forms of Government
In the modern world, there are various systems of government. The two most systems of
government are:
(1). Parliamentary system of government; and
(2). Presidential system of government
1. Parliamentary system of Government
A Parliamentary system/form of government refers to the form of government in which the
government governs in and through the parliament/ Assembly, there by fusing the legislative
and executive branch of government. In other words, it refers to a system of government,
which vests the political leadership in a legislative body (the parliament) which, in turn,
selects the executive body (the cabinet + prime minister) entirely or largely from its
membership. E.g. Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy, Australia, Israel, India, Ethiopia etc.
The Principal features of a parliamentary system/form of government include the following:
A. Government is formed as a result of parliament/ assembly elections, based on the
strength of party or a cooperative coalition party’s representation; therefore, there is no
separately elected political executive.
B. A parliament of representatives is elected by the citizens of the state. In federal state
structure like Ethiopia, the citizens directly elect representatives both to the Federal
parliament, and regional parliament.
C. The executive power of the government (both political executives like the Prime
Minster and ministers at a federal and at regional levels) is lodged with group of people
who are elected and even approved by the parliament to conduct the affairs of the state.
D. Most or all members of the cabinet (council of ministers) are usually members of the
parliament/ Assembly. And usually, the party or cooperative coalitions of parties that
have majority seat or control that take on executive responsibilities in addition to their
legislative chores.
E. The government can, in most cases, dissolve the parliament, meaning that electoral
terms are usually flexible within a maximum limit. As such, just as the parliament
holds the cabinet (council of ministers) in jeopardy, the reader of the cabinet (usually
the PM) has the right to have the parliament disbanded, with the consent of the majority
members of the parliament.
F. As the head of the government is the Prime Minister, there is a separate head of the
state, i.e., the constitutional monarch or non- executive president. In Ethiopia case, the
 head of the state is the president, who is non-political executive who cannot be a
member of any political party. He/she is the figurehead of the state.
G. The PM (Prime Minister), who is the head of the government, retains office only as
long as he/she can command majority support in parliament. If an issue is made the
basis for a vote of “no confidence” in the legislative and results in a vote for of no
confidence, the PM must resign because the parliament has the ultimate power; the
ability to remove.

2. Presidential System of Government

Presidential system of government is a form of government which is chiefly characterized by
separations of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government.
Example, USA, Argentina, Mexico, Costa Rica etc.

The distinguishable features/characteristics of a presidential system of government include the

following:
A. Real authority of the president: i.e. the leadership of the executive is in the hands of the
president who is elected by the people for a fixed period. For instance, it is for four years
in the United States. The procedure of decision may be either direct or indirect and the
constitution may also specify as either direct or indirect and the constitution may also
specify as to the number of tenures a person may hold (as of two term in the USA). The
president may nominate his/her ministers as his/her advisers. The body of the ministers is
called the cabinet. The president may change the portfolios of his/her ministers as per
his/her will, or may dismiss any one of them in case he/she loses the confidence of the
“boss”. The president formulates national policy; orders mobilization of troops declares
state of emergency and takes all necessary steps for the enforcement of law and
maintenance of order in the country. In short, the president governs like the real ruler of
the country.
B. Separation of legislative from the executive: The president and his/her ministers cannot be
the members of the legislature. In case the president appoints a member of legislature as
his/her minister, he/she has to level his/her legislature membership. It is for this reason
that the president and his/her ministers do not take part in the deliberations of the
legislature. The president may go to the legislature either for delivering an important
address, or he/she may send “messages” that may be accepted by the legislature. Even
his/her ministers may attend a session of the legislature and may also take part in the
 discussion, but they have no right to vote. Moreover, the executive and the legislative
organs of government are separately elected and work independently and separately.

C. It is based on the strict application of the principle of separation of powers between the
legislative and executive organs of government.
D. Each of the executive and legislative are vested with arrange of independent constitutional
powers.
E. The roles of head of state and head of government (the chief executive) are combined in
the offices of the president. As such, the executive authority is vested in or concentrated in
the hands of the president; the cabinet and ministers being merely advisors and
responsible to the president.
F. Electoral terms of the president are fixed: That is, the president is supposed to be lead and
govern the state for four years in one term. For example, in USA he/she can be reelected
for the second term (having four years). But, he/she cannot be elected for more than two
terms (having 8 years totally).
G. The president can neither “dissolve” the legislative nor be dismissed by the Congress
/Assembly except possibly through impeachment. The process of impeachment is
provided to remove the president in case he/she held quality of violating the Oath of
office. The president is under an oath that he/she will defend and protect the constitution
of the state. In case he/she does otherwise, the process of impeachment may be cause to
remove him/her from office. Usually the power of impeachment is given to the legislative.

LESSON SIX: MODERN STATE FORMATION IN ETHIOPIA

The statehood history of Ethiopia dates back to the tenth century BC or as official records
identities in the Axumite civilization (First century AD to 1150 ). There is no doubt that
Ethiopia is one of the ancient nation and the birth place of human kind as well as cradle of
greatest civilization in our world. As to most historians, the history of Ethiopia is as old as the
human species itself. However the Ethiopia historiography is full of controversy even though
we can be sure that for more than three thousand year people live as political community
having common geographic demographic and cultural foundation.

The modern state formation in Ethiopia began in the late of 19 th century. The political process,
the collusion and collision of different contending fiefdoms that was set in motion by the mid-
19th century as an anti-thesis to the era of princes (Zemene mesafint) was a causative factor
for modern and fully fledged empire state formation by the end of 19 th century. State
formation in Ethiopia was the product of conjunctures of three historical processes
i. The drive to centralize historic Ethiopia
ii. The drive to expand to the rich lands in the centre –south
iii. The scramble of Africa by European state which leads to the drive to maintain the
nation from possible European conquest and intrusion provided access to their
weapons.

The conjuncture of the three drives have resulted in a fundamentally different Ethiopia with
two contradictory phenomena: on the one hand; it created the present Ethiopia which consists
of multi-ethnic societies that heroically resisted the ambition of the European colonial powers
to annex the country. On the other hand, it leads to a century of ethnic and religious cleavage
among contending ethnic and religious groups.

Though most literatures affirm modern state formation in Ethiopia began by the end of 19 th
century, the exact time of modern state formation in Ethiopia is a point of debate among
scholars. Some scholars say modern state formation in Ethiopia began during the reign of
Emperor Tewdros (1855-1868) because:
i. He was the man who ended the era of princes ( Zemene mesafint)and started the
unification endeavor
ii. He was a pioneer emperor who initiated modernization in Ethiopia
iii. He attempted to establish a secular government which would be free from any
possible influence of church. In this regard his effort to separate church and state
sited as an example.
iv. He was the first king who established a modern and standing army in Ethiopia with
permanent salary.
v. He also introduced improved tax collection system.
Taken all these contributions into consideration, as mentioned before, some scholars portrays
the modern state formation in Ethiopia began in the reign of Emperor Tewedros.

Whereas, other scholars favor Emperor Menelik II as founding father of modern state in
Ethiopia. Accordingly, during the reign of Emperor Tewodros the geographical scope of
Ethiopia state was limited to the northern part of today’s Ethiopia. Nevertheless, Emperor
Menelik II expanded the territory to the south and west part of today’s Ethiopia with his claim
of the historic Ethiopia extended up to Lake Nyanza in the south and Khartoum in the East.

In addition to the geographical expansion and the creation of the modern multi-ethnic empire
state in the last quarter of the 19 th century, the reign of Emperor Menelik II marks different
features of modern state formation:
i) Expansion of the territory to the south, south west, and south east of the
country and establish center region of power
ii) Concluded boundary demarcation and delimitation agreements
(international treaties from 1897 -1904) with the surrounding neighboring
countries which defines the territory of today´s Ethiopia
iii) Institutionalization of modern ministerial system in 1907 that marked the
organization of modern government in Ethiopia
iv) Improved tax collection system and the introduction of currency (paper
money) system
v) The monopolization of coercive forces and effective jurisdiction over the
controlled territories
vi) The victory of Adewa signals the independence and the sovereign entity of
Ethiopia.
The debate among scholars is still going on. However, as most scholars agree modern state
formation in Ethiopia started at the end of 19 th century and ended during the reign of Emperor
Haile Selassie (1930-1952). In view of the attributes of modern state; population, defined
territory, government and sovereignty, when we analyze the pattern of modern state formation
in Ethiopia it had undertaken during the Emeror Menelik II reign. Because the essence of
modern government organization with defined territory and the recognition of Ethiopia as
sovereign state by the then European state had attained during this period.

From its establishment as a state at the end of 19 th century, Ethiopia had been a centralized
and unitary state structure. This was achieved through the territorial expansion and political
authority of the state into the south and south western parts of the country through conquest
and coercive incorporation. Since then, the conquered people were subjected to political,
cultural and economic marginalization. Nevertheless, by 1960s and 1970s, different sets of
radical and nationalist groupings that sought to reform the state structure and state-society
rations challenged and opposed the centrist structure of the state. This resulted in the popular
revolution of 1974 that continued to maintain the centrist nature of the state in spite of some
changes of political ideology and a socialist system.

With the overthrow of military rule in 1991, immediate agenda of the EPRDF was
restructuring the Ethiopian state on the basis of ethnic federalism. The transitional charter,
was adopted by on July 1991 Peace and Democracy conference recognized: The basic
experiment with democratic and liberal notions was put in to effect within the ethnic and
linguistic framework of political and territorial organization, which was basically stood to
promote mainly group right as in the form of “ethnic democratization.” Adopting ethnicity in
the political and structural aspects was considered as the only key for preserving political
stability as well as unity in the country. At least in principle, this implied the re-establishing
of the political survival of the polity based on unity-in –diversity, where by all national groups
would enjoy political autonomy and self-government in a constituently sanctioned devolution
of political authority within a federal framework. In Ethiopia, ethnic-federalism has so far
exhibited two phases: Phase I (1992 to 1995) and Phase II 1995 onwards.

Phase I: The transitional phase (1992-1995)

The first phase of ethnic-federalism was characterized by the effort to establish the
administrative and political structures of the new government in the country and translate its
political philosophy. Hence, the transitional charter marked a major departure from the
previously unitary state structure. The proclamation No.7/1992 laid the foundation for the
establishment of national and regional governments. The proclamation established fourteen
regional governments on ethno-linguistic bases, while Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa were
accorded special status on consideration of politics and population composition. The
proclamations also granted upon regional governments legislative, executive and judicial
responsibilities. The regional governments were provided with powers to exercise different
sets of administrative and political functions in their respective jurisdiction. The national and
regional governments established lower level of administration that is hierarchically
structured in to Zones and Woreda etc.

Phase II: the Evolution of Ethnic federalism (1995 onwards)

The year 1995 marked promulgated of the federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE)
and the evolution federal structure through an elaborate legal framework. Accordingly, the
FDRE constitution established nine regional states as the constituent.
Article 52/1: Enumerates all powers that are not specifically given to the federal government
alone or concurrently to the federal government and the regional states are reserved to
regional states. The regional governments maintain the power to chart and manage their own
development Programmes. In terms of taxation, regional governments share revenues with the
federal government. More significantly, regional state and in some cases Zonal
administrations are allowed to designate their languages for both administrative and
educational purposes.

Article 50/2: dictate that the regional states have legislative, executive and judicial
institutions. State councils are the highest authority for a five-year term. The executive
committees of the regional states are elected by state councils and are. The executive
committees of the regional state are responsible in electing the president and other key
executive officials as well as responsible for managing the daily activities of the regional
states. The regional government is hierarchically divided in to Zonal, Woreda and Kebele
levels of administration. Keble’s comprise the lowest structure in the administration of federal
Ethiopia. They are very instrumental for implementing polices politicization of the public
administration.

The federal state of Ethiopia believe that Ethnic empowerment is the single most device to
improve the political, economic and socio-cultural rights and privileges of Ethiopia’s
“nations, nationalities and people” in particular, the issue of developing languages, cultures,
and a sense of pride in ethnic identities of those previously oppressed groups.

Article 39 of the constitution states the rights of nations and nationalities, and peoples. The
adoption of federalism in Ethiopia has addressed the long time national questions for self-
determination in Ethiopian history. The federal constitution of Ethiopia is unique its
recognition of nations, nationalities and peoples to self-determination including secession.
This article explicitly mentions the right to self-determination, including secession of every
Nation, Nationality and peoples.

As article 39/4 states this democratic right shall come in to effect:

(a)When a demand for secession has been approved by a two-thirds majority of the
members of the legislative council of the Nation, Nationality or people concerned ;
 (b) When the federal government has organized a referendum which must take place
within three years from the time it received the concerned council’s decision for
secession;
(c) When the demand for secession is supported by majority vote in the referendum;
(d) When the federal government will have transferred its powers to the councils of the
Nation Nationality or people who has voted to secede; and
(e) When the division of assets is effected in a manner prescribed by law.

However, since the promulgation of the 1991 Charter of the transition period the
incorporation of this right has been one of the controversial issues of national politics. There
are three broad views surrounding the issue.
1. The EPRDF and its followers consider the incorporation of secession clause in to
the constitution as an assurance for respect of the rights of nations, nationalities and peoples.
The EPRDF further argues that nation, nationalities and peoples will decide for secession only
if they feel that their rights are abrogated and thus the inclusion of this principle cements
Ethiopian unity based on ethnic equality.
2. Many ethnic based political parties and liberation fronts welcome the provision of
the right of secession in the constitution.
3. Some opponents of the EPRDF consider the secession clause as a grave danger to
Ethiopian unity and integrity.

Article 46/2: The other unique feature of Ethiopian federalism is the formation of the
constituent unit along ethnic and linguistic line. As this article spells out regional states shall
be delimited on the basis of the settlement patterns, language, identity and the consent of the
people concerned. As a result, major ethnic groups were accorded the status of regional state
the sub-national states on the basis of ethnic and linguistic criteria

The ethnic identity, language, and settlement patterns are the basic criteria but the regional
boundaries have not corresponded with the established principles of various sub-national
units. Consequently, the political boundaries at both regional and zone levels have not been
able to create completely homogenous regional state or Zones. The inconsistency in the
criteria used to set up administrative tiers and uneasy overlaps between regional boundaries
made potentials of inter-group tensions and political claims of ethnic minorities become
inevitable, there by further complicating the federal process.
The other unique feature in Ethiopian federalism the task of interpreting the provision of the
constitution. As article 62/1 and article 83 points out the responsibility of interpreting the
provision of the constitution has been given to the House of Federation, the upper house of the
parliament. The situation seems contrary to the principle of separation of power and checks
and balance system in organization of modern government. Because the house of federation
assumes both power of law making as well as law adjudication power. Yet, the justification
for giving this task to the House of federation related to article 8 /1 of the constitution that
demand all sovereign power resides in the Nations, Nationalities and People of Ethiopia.
Since Nation, Nationality and Peoples is the ultimate owner of the sovereignty of the country
the mandate of interpreting the constitution should be given to them. As article 61/1 describes
Nation, Nationality and Peoples are directly represented in the House of federations.
 CHAPTER THREE: CITIZENSHIP

CHAPTER CONTENTS
3.1 Meaning of Citizenship
3.2 Historical Development of Citizenship
3.3 Characteristics of Good Citizenship
3.4 Modes of Getting and Loosing Citizenship
3.5 The Ethiopian Experience
Reference and Further Reading

Heywood, Andrew. 1994. Political Ideas and Concepts: an Introduction. New York: St.
Martin’s Press
Isin, Engin F. and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) 2003. Handbook of Citizenship Studies. London:
Sage.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1960. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Baltimore:John
Hopkins
3.1 LESSON ONE: CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP

3.1.1 Citizenship: Meaning

A ‘citizen’ is a member of a political community, which is defined by a set of rights and

obligations. Citizenship, therefore, represents a relationship between the individual and the
state, in which the two are bound together by reciprocal rights and obligations. Citizenship is
a politico-legal status and an identity. Thus, there is an objective dimension of citizenship:
specific rights and obligations which a state invests in its members, and a subjective
dimension: a sense of loyalty and belongingness.

Citizenship can be described as both a set of practices (cultural, symbolic and economic) and
bundle of rights and duties (civil, political and social) that define an individual's membership
in a polity. It is important to recognize both aspects of citizenship-as practice and as status--
while also recognizing that without the latter modem individuals cannot hold civil, political
and social rights. In the same vein, many rights often first arise as practices and then become
embodied in law as status. Citizenship is therefore neither a purely sociological concept nor
purely a legal concept but a relationship between the two. While, then, citizenship can be
defined as a legal and political status, from a sociological point of view it can be defined as
competent membership in a polity, thus emphasizing the constitutive aspect of citizenship.
But those who do not possess the civil, political and social rights to exercise such citizenship
would be denied to become such a competent and full-fledged member of the polity in the
first place. Thus, the sociological and politico-legal definitions of citizenship are not mutually
exclusive but constitutive. However, objective citizenship does not in itself ensure the
existence of subjective citizenship, because members of groups that feel alienated from their
state, perhaps because of social disadvantage or racial discrimination, or any other factor,
cannot properly be thought of as ‘full citizens’; even though they may enjoy a range of formal
entitlement.

LESSON TWO: THE ORIGION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CITIZENSHIP

3.2.1 History of Citizenship

Historically, citizenship (denoting political rights with their corresponding duties), began in
ancient Greek city-states. However, initially not all members of the city-states were provided
with equal rights. This is to say that, the Greek city-states that exercised democracy for the
‘first time’ had not opened the door of democracy for all members of the city-states.

The society in ancient Greeks cities was divided in to three social groups, namely; citizens,
plebeians and slaves. The citizens, who were few in number, were free to participate directly
in public affairs and decision-making processes. They had the freedom to debate and make
political speeches. They also had the right to elect or be elected to public offices of the city-
states. They also enjoyed the right to own private property, including slaves.

The plebeians were also free members of the society. They, however, did not enjoy political
rights like the citizens. They constituted the lower class of the society. In simple terms, they
were free laborers who owned little property and depended on their labor for earning their
living.

The slaves were not free members of the society. They had no rights at all. They were rather
held as properties of their owners, who could use them in any way they wished. Though the
ancient Greek are the originators of democracy, their political system was discriminatory,
whereby citizens alone enjoyed exclusive social, economic and political rights. In fact, even
the degree of actual participation of citizens in the affairs of the cities varied from one city-
state to another.

Likewise, in ancient Rome, citizenship was limited to a small and privileged group of the
Romans only. These were men who owned property. Women, however, were not considered
as citizens. Citizens had the right to movement in the city-states, they could sit in the councils
of governments and could vote to elect their leaders and make laws. Later on, by 212 A.D,
citizenship right that was reserved only for the Romans, extended to all free residents of the
Roman Empire, whether natives or inhabitants of conquered territories. This was done to
promote loyalty to the Roman Empire and its rulers.

Similarly, in feudal Europe of the Middle Ages, the people were expected to give full
allegiance to the rulers or specific kingdoms. However, they were not recognized as citizens
and the term 'citizenship' was not used to include the people at large. It was only the
economically privileged persons that were considered as citizens. It was during the transition
from small feudal kingdoms to the creation of the national state (in 17 th century) that the
notion of citizenship was extended to members of the urban middle class in Europe due to the
increasing economic importance of this class.

Generally, it could be said that the emergence of the modern concept of citizenship is
associated with the rise of the demands of the people for increased freedom and participation
in political, economic and social affairs of their states. Especially, the political development
that followed the French, English and American Revolutions in the 18 th century were crucial
millstones in the crystallization of the idea of citizenship. In due course, the idea of
citizenship came to be accepted as an instrument to promote popular government, individual
liberties and political equality and participation.

Furthermore, with the consolidation of modern nation states, citizenship continued to be a

strong political force that inseparably attached the individual with the state. It should be
noted, however, that all people residing in a given state are not necessarily citizens, as there
might be aliens who live in that state. Aliens are persons who are not citizens of the state
where they reside. As there could be aliens in every state, governments have legal procedures
for aliens to acquire citizenship.

The status of citizenship may not be the same in different states and at different times. In
authoritarian regimes, the rights of citizens may be very much limited or even almost non-
existent. In such undemocratic systems, the people are usually subjects over which the rulers
govern as they wish. Subjects have little or no choice to determine who should rule them and
what policies should be made for them.

In a democracy, however, every citizen, i.e. full and equal member of a state are endowed
with rights and entrusted with responsibilities. In such a political system, citizens elect their
leaders and equally participate in all affairs of the state. In a democracy, citizens are members
of a state regardless of their differences in wealth, religious belief, ethnic background, sex,
political attitude, education, etc. In a democracy, there is no hierarchy of citizenship, that is,
there is no first class and second class ranking of citizenship.

LESSON THREE: CHARACTERSTICS OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP

Good citizen possess an attribute that are known as civic virtues. These attributes are
instrumental for any citizens properly to maintain their right as well as to discharge their
responsibilities. The most common attributes of a good citizen includes;

Active political participation

Political participation is a critical component of democracy for an effective functioning of a

democratic political system. The modern democracy requires active participation of citizens
in the affairs of government. In political systems, where there is no or little citizens political
participation, the style of rule will be one way i.e from government to citizens and not the vice
versa. Thus, to make government accountable and responsible to the wishes and interests of
the governed citizen’s, political participation is essential. Political participation could range
from being informed about politics to membership in apolitical organization.

Civic mindedness

This refers to citizen's commitment and readiness to give concern to public interest and goods.
Civic mindedness implies assigning priority to the common good than to personal interests.
Civic mindedness is the un-selfish behaviors that enable us to do well and make sacrifice of
private interests for the sake of society and nation. As we think and work for ourselves, we are
also expected to do our own best to the good of our society. However, civic mindedness does
not imply complete neglect and ignorance to the personal interest of the individual.

Open Mindedness

This refers to the readiness of individuals to hear or listen to the views and arguments of
others. In a democracy, people have the right to be different and forward various arguments.
That is citizens have the right to express what they feel and what is in their mind. Thus, the
prevalence of open-mindedness among members of the society creates the opportunity for
citizens to forward their views and exercise their right to freedom of speech.

Tolerance

Our world is full of diversity and differences. Differences are natural and part of the lives of
human kind. How can we live in peace with people having different ideas and beliefs?
One important and critical virtue which enables citizens to live peace-fully is the virtue of
tolerance. This is the ability and willingness to accommodate differences in ideas, outlooks,
views etc. Nature and society are full of diversities. Moreover, the life of human kind is full of
relationships and interactions. Individuals are dependent each other and no one is self
sufficient. Relationships and interactions between people could only be maintained and kept
alive when people develop feeling of tolerance and appreciation for differences. Tolerance
enables us to understand that other people have the right to hold opinions, believes, and
positions that are different from our own. It helps individuals to give respect and value for
traditions, languages, culture etc of others as well as to listen to the view points of others.
Therefore, you, as a vitreous citizen need to give respect for others dignity and recognize that
your life is dependent up on the existence of others.

Patriotism

Patriotism is another civic virtue with citizens require in a democracy. Simply defined
patriotism is love devotion and commitment to one's country. Patriotism indicates the feeling
that one has towards his or her own country. However, this is not only the entire story.
Patriotism is not only a sentiment but it is also action oriented. The concept of patriotism is
usually confused with nationalism which in fact shares certain attributes. Nationalism is
traditionally based on alignment of certain groups to primordial features such as kinship,
family, territory and others. Nationalism could lead the individual to make comparisons of
one's country or nation, often in a manner that does not encourage coexistence, with other
nations or groups. Hence, it is possible to argue that nationalism is often grounded on
resentment and rivalry. It emphasizes on the cultural, ethnic, religious, economic or even
technological superiority of a certain group or country over others.

In contrast, patriotism is a republican ideal which refers to citizen's ideal and commitment to
live in peace, freedom and dignity. It implies citizens’ commitment and solidarity with
democracy, human rights and freedom. Patriotism has several attributes.

Constitutional patriotism

This kind of patriotism implies one's belongingness to the constitutional state as opposed to a
particular sense of belonging to a nation or a country as such. Its prominent guiding principles
are constitutional democracy, and recognition and protection of human rights. In
constitutional patriotism, the patriotic attachment is not just to the territory or to the country in
consideration, but it is rather a form of solidarity to democratic and human right principles.
In a democratic and constitutional order, it is up to the responsibility of every citizen to show
unreserved support for the implementation of the sprit and the word of the constitution. The
reason behind why we have to bother about the full realization and implementation of
constitutional principles is that a constitution provides for a fair political and legal playing
field for all.

Individual citizens can also show their loyalty to the constitution by exerting their own effort
and contribution for respect rights and entitlements of others. That is citizens are expected to
refrain from any kind of activities which put under strain the right of others. The following are
some of actions which question the constitutional patriotism of an individual.

 Disregard to the right of nations, nationalities and people's

 Involvement of oneself in corruption

 Irresponsibleness to the right of others

 Inability to fulfill the obligations that are stipulated by the constitution

 Participation in subversive activities to bring non constitutional change of

government

 Disregard to the rights of women and engagement in activities that undermine the
right to equality.

Respect for National Symbols

Showing respect and loyalty to national symbols such as national Flag and Anthem could also
manifest patriotism. These two elements establish the identity of states at the international
level, and states and people all over the world are recognized each other by their national
anthems and flags. Usually, when states participate in international conferences and Olympic
Games, their flags is blown and the national anthem is played.

Safeguarding the country’s sovereignty

Patriotism also explains the readiness of citizen to defend his or her own state from foreign
aggression or attack. Historically, Ethiopians are very much known about the scarifications
they paid in order to defend and maintain the sovereignty of the state. As a result, our
ancestors managed to pass for current generations a country free of colonialism and foreign
invasion. In this regard, the victory of Adewa represents a patriotic movement made by
Ethiopians to defend their own independence and dignity. This kind of devotion to a country
is unquestionably patriotic.
Keeping state secrets

Secrets are not issues which are special to the life of individuals. States have also crucial
secrets which they want to keep away from the reach of others. This is mainly for the purpose
of protecting the national interest of the countries. For example, military strategies and plans
of a government, particularly when states are at war, are strictly confidential. Moreover,
nuclear program of a state are also considered as top secrets of a state. If all these secrets fail
in to the hand of the enemy or irresponsible individuals, it may cause a potential danger on the
state.

There are also other examples of state secrets, which may not be related with military
strategies and plans but whose publication could endanger national interest. For instance,
government procurement procedures and bid information are kept secret up until a certain
period of time. The notification and untimely publication of bid information undermines the
trust and confidence of bidders.

Voluntarism

Volunteerism refers to the personal initiative taken by an individual for providing community
service without any interest for personal enrichment. People decide to provide voluntary
service may be because they are interested in the cause or because they enjoy satisfaction in
helping others. Besides, voluntary service provides the individual with valuable job
experience. In order to provide voluntary service, citizens could join together and form a civic
association.

Civility

This is a polite way of acting or behaving against others. Civility refers to the type of behavior
which you show even to those people whom you disagree with. In other words, civility is a
civilized way of behaving and enables citizens for a peaceful living with others.

Peaceful Resolution of Conflicts

Good citizens develop skills for the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Negotiation and
compromise are important means of resolving conflicts in a democratic society. Compromise
implies the abandoning of partial interests for the sake of arriving at an agreement. That is,
whenever, somebody is in conflict with others on a certain issue there is a need to give up
some of the interests so that he/she can reach at a consensus. Nevertheless, compromise does
not imply the abandoning of all the interest and position of a given party.
Compromise and negotiations are civilized ways of resolving conflicts in all walks of
communal life. In addition to individual parties, Negotiations and compromises are important
channels of dealing and resolving disagreements and conflicts between two or more state
parties.

Self-discipline

This means acting and behaving according to some acceptable standards. In any society, there
are certain rules and regulations that should be observed. These rules and regulations guide
our actions. Thus, we should be able to respect these rules and standards in our day to day a
activities. When we do this freely and from our own initiative, we will become self-
disciplined. Self discipline implies the performance of activities without external controls or
impositions. It comes from inside without being forced or controlled by outside expectations
or impositions.

Individual Responsibility

Responsibility is the state of being answerable to one's duty and obligation. As a member of
various groups at different levels and as Ethiopian citizens, we all have some duties or
obligations to fulfill. As we would like to demand and enjoy our rights and benefits, we
should also be ready to discharge the responsibilities that are expected from every one of us. It
is the fulfillment of these responsibilities which is known as individual responsibility.

LESSON FOUR: MODES OF AQUIRING AND LOSSING CITIZENSHIP

3.4.1 Modes of Acquiring Citizenship

A person may acquire the citizenship of a state in accordance with the rules of municipal law
(a law that applies within the given state- for instance, Ethiopian municipal law applies within
Ethiopian only). It implies that municipal law determines as to who may be a citizen of a
particular state. Modes of acquisition of citizenship are, therefore, not uniform. They differ
from state to state. Following are the modes by which citizenship may be acquired:

1. By Place of Birth. For most people, citizenship is a matter of birth. These people whose
birth takes place within territorial limits of a state acquire the nationality of that state. This
principle is called jus soli (the law of the soil). The United Kingdom, the United State and
many states of Latin America follow the principle of jus soli. Children are citizens of the
nation in which they are born, no matter what the parents’ nationalities are. Thus a child
born to Ethiopian parents in the United State is citizen of the United State
2. By Descent. Nationality of a state may also be acquired by a person on the basis of the
nationality of either parent. Thus a child may become a national of that - state – of which
his parents are nationals. This principle is known as jus sanguinis (law of the blood).
Germany, France, and Ethiopia confer nationality on the basis of this principle. Under jus
sanguinis children take their parents nationality regardless of where they are born .For
example, a child born to Ethiopian parents in France is a citizen of Ethiopia. Note that
many states recognize the principle of jus soli as well as the principle of jus sanguins. The
USA and United Kingdom are typical illustrations.

3. By Naturalization. When the nationality of a person changes subsequently and he or she

acquires nationality of some other state, the process of acquisition is known as
naturalization. A person may acquire nationality through naturalization in different ways:
through marriage, through legitimation option acquisition of domicile appointment as
government official, and through grant of application. Adoption of children by parents
who are nationals of other state also entitles the children to acquire the nationality of
his/her parents. It may be stated that a state has discretion to confer nationality by
naturalization. It may grant a nationality upon the fulfillment of conditions it deems
appropriate. A person who wants to acquire nationality through naturalization is required
to give an application and to make request for the acquisition of nationality through
naturalization. Thus, a person may acquire nationality through naturalization when it is
granted by the state. It follows that no person has a claim to become naturalized in a
foreign states since state is entitled to refuse the naturalization of aliens without indicating
any reason.

4. By Resumption. A person who has lost nationality by naturalization or by any other

reasons may acquire the nationality of the same state again. The acquisition of this kind is
called reiteration on resumption. For instance an Ethiopia, who had lost Ethiopian
citizenship, may readmitted to Ethiopian nationality under the conditions specified under
the law.

5. By Subjugation. A person may acquire nationality through subjugation after conquest.

When a part of the territory of a state or a state itself is subjugated by another state, all the
inhabitants of the territory become the nationals of the latter state. When Austria was
annexed by Germany, all the nationals of Austria became the nationals of Germany.
7. By Registration. A person may acquire nationality of a state through registration .The
process of registration may be different from one state to another depending up on the
laws of that state.

8. By Option. When a state is portioned into two or more states, the nationalist of the former
state have the option to become the nationals of any of the successor states. The same
principle applies in the case of exchange of territory. Acquisition of nationality by option
was widely used in the latter half of nineteenth century to protect the interests of
inhabitants as far as possible from the consequences of apportions of exchange effective
without their assent.

3. 4.2 Modes of Loosing of Nationality

Person may lose the nationality of a state in many ways. They are as follows:

1. By Release: some countries give their citizens the right to ask to be released from
their nationality. Release occurs only when an application is made to that effect and if
it has been accepted by the country concerned.

2. By Deprivation: a national of a country may be deprived of nationality in case of

certain happenings. Legislation of many states recognizes numerous grounds for
deprivation of nationality. For instance, if a citizen enters into foreign civil or military
service without permission, he or she may be deprived of this nationality.

3. By Renunciation: a person may renounce his nationality of a state. The question of

renunciation of nationality arises when a person acquires it of more than one state. In
such cases he/she has an option to maintain the nationality of one state and to
renounce the other.

4. By substitution: a person may lose the nationality of a state when he or she acquires
nationality in some other state by naturalization.

5. By Expiration: a person may lose nationality of a state by expiration. For instance,

some states provided by legislation that citizenship expires in case if their citizens
have left the country and stayed abroad for more than legally specified length of time.

3.4.3 Double Nationality

The lack of uniformity in municipal laws of states with respect to the determination of a
nationality gives rise to the problem of double nationality or dual citizenship. In other words,
a person may be having nationality of two states (i.e. double nationality) or multiple
nationalities (i.e. nationality of more than two states) at the same time. Double nationality
may occur through many ways. For instance, if a person is born in some foreign country or
not in the country of his or her parents, he or she would be the national of the country where
he or she is born on the basis of the principle of jus soli and at the same he becomes the
national of that state of which his parents are in the principle of jus sanguinis may be
awkward. This since the child is nationalist of the different states who both therefore claim
their allegiance. Especially, in wartime, a serious problem could arise if both countries
demand their services from that citizen in the armed forces. This seems the reason why dual
nationality is not advised under the international arena. Does the Ethiopian law permit dual
nationality?

LESSON FIVE: CITIZENSHIP IN THE ETHIOPIAN CONTEXT

3.5.1 Citizenship: the Ethiopian Experience

In Ethiopia, citizenship law was first enacted in 1930. Prior to that, the issue of citizenship by
and large was regulated by custom and tradition. Even if there was no formal law, individuals
strongly identified themselves with the state. Nevertheless, the status of citizenship was more
of subjects than citizens. Acquiring of citizenship was conferred to various nations,
nationalities and peoples due to their integration into the Ethiopian state.

As mentioned above, citizenship law of Ethiopia was first issued on July 22, 1930 and
amended on October 5, 1932. Moreover, the 1995 Ethiopian constitution (FDRE constitution)
stipulates some important principles with regard to citizenship in Ethiopia. It could be said
that both are generally similar to each other. However, few departures or changes are made in
the 1995 constitution. In order to help you identify the similarity and difference between
them, each of them are discussed as below.

3.5.1.1 The 1930 Citizenship Law of Ethiopia

The Ethiopian law of nationality (citizenship), which is still in force, was issued on July 22,
1930, and amended on October 5; 1932.This law is based on the general principle of jus
sanguinis. Unlike jus soli, which awards the status of nationality by birthplace irrespective of
the nationality of one's parents, the principle of jus sanguinis gives a child the nationality of
his parents, irrespective of his or her birthplace.

On the basis of the principle of jus sanguinis, Ethiopian law provides that any person born in
Ethiopia or abroad, whose father or mother is Ethiopian, is an Ethiopian. This general
principle is however, qualified. (There are exceptions).
The first qualification provides that every child born in a lawful mixed marriage follows the
nationality of the father. The second qualification stipulates that the child legitimated through
subsequent marriage follows the nationality of his/her foreign father only on condition that the
nationality law of the father confers upon him the foreign nationality with all inherent rights.
Otherwise, the child preserves his/her Ethiopian nationality.

Loss of Ethiopian nationality occurs when:

a) An Ethiopian woman contracts a lawful marriage with a foreigner and acquires her
husband's nationality.

b) A child born in a lawful marriage between an Ethiopian female and a foreigner

follows the nationality of the father, and

c) An Ethiopian subject changes his nationality and acquires foreign nationality.

However, an Ethiopian woman who married a foreigner, if the law of the country of which
her husband is a national does not entitle her to the nationality of her husband may retain
Ethiopian nationality. A child born outside wedlock where his parents subsequently marry if
the national law of the child's father does not confer upon him his father's nationality with all
its inherent rights may also retain Ethiopian nationality.

Acknowledgement of paternity of a child born from an Ethiopian mother by a father who is a

foreigner deprives the child of his Ethiopia nationality only if the child can acquire his father's
nationality with all its inherent rights.

Adoption of an Ethiopian child by a foreign national made in accordance to the national law
of the adopting person does not cause a change of the adopted child's original nationality.

A woman who had lost her Ethiopian nationality by marriage to a foreigner may recover it
after the dissolution of the marriage by reason of divorce, separation or death of her husband,
if she returns to reside in Ethiopia, although for a limited time, she may be stateless under
such circumstances. Any person who had lost his Ethiopian nationality may recover it when
he/she returns to reside in Ethiopia.

A foreigner may acquire Ethiopian nationality if he:

a) Has attained the age of majority according to the law of his/her country;

b) Has lived at least for five years in Ethiopia;

c) Can earn his/her living (for himself and his family);

d) Can read and write the Amharic language; and

 e) Produces evidence to the effect that he/she has not been previously convicted of a
crime.

Notwithstanding non-compliance with the five-year residence requirement, the Ethiopian

Government may, pursuant to the October 5,1932, amendment, accord Ethiopian nationality
to a foreign applicant, if he is deemed to be useful to the country or if there are some special
reasons for granting it to him.

Thus, the Ethiopian law of nationality by prescribing the exclusive determining factors under
which Ethiopian nationality can be acquired and lost, has minimized the instances in which
problems of statelessness and dual (multi) nationality may occur.

3.5.1.2 Citizenship and the Constitution (1995) of Ethiopia

The laws of citizenship in Ethiopian begin from the constitution. What does the Constitution
say about citizenship? Article 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia declares that any person of either sex shall be an Ethiopian national where both or
either parent is Ethiopian. So the constitution enshrines the principle of jus sanguins is if a
child is born to an Ethiopian mother or an Ethiopian father. He is an Ethiopian respective of
where he is born. The Constitution also provides for naturalization in general terms.

The particular or the details of nationality laws of Ethiopia are legislated in the Ethiopian
Nationality Proclamation No. 378/2003. In this proclamation (article 3) the principle of
nationality by descent is provided- ‘Any person shall be an Ethiopian national by descent
where both or either of his parent is Ethiopian. In addition, any infant who is found
abandoned in Ethiopia shall be deemed to have been born to an Ethiopian parent and shall
acquire Ethiopian nationality. But if it proved that the infant has a foreign nationality, by
proving that his/her parents are foreigners he/she shall not acquired Ethiopian nationality
automatically.

According to this proclamation, a person may also acquire nationality by law through
naturalization. A person can become a naturalized – citizen- of Ethiopia through many- ways
the application must be made to the National Affairs Committee that shall provide its
recommendation to the Security, Immigration and Refugee Affairs Authority which shall have
the power to give decision to accord nationality. In Ethiopia, citizenship can be acquired
through naturalization by:
1. By Application to Acquire Ethiopian Nationality: any foreigner may apply to get
Ethiopian nationality where the foreigner applies to obtain Ethiopian nationality, he
shall fulfill the following requirements.

 He must have attained the age of majority and be legally capable under the
Ethiopian law.

 He must have established his domicile (permanent residence) in Ethiopia and

have lived in Ethiopia for a total of at least four years preceding the submission
of his application.

 He must be able to communicate in any one of the languages of the Country.

 He must have sufficient and lawful source of income to maintain himself and
his family

 He must be a person of good character.

 He must have no record of criminal conviction,

 He must be able to show that he has been released from his previous
nationality or the possibility of obtaining such a release upon the acquaint of
Ethiopian nationality or that he is a stateless person (this is to avoid dual
nationality) and

 He must be required to take the oath of allegiance.

2. By Marriage: a foreigner who is married to an Ethiopian national may acquire

Ethiopian nationality by the marriage if it is lawful marriage;

 The marriage has stayed for at least two years:

 The applicant for the nationality has lived for at least a year before application
to the Ethiopia nationality,

 He must be of age and legally capable

 He is released from his nationality or is to be soon released or is a stateless

person (this is to avoid dual nationality)

3. BY Adoption: a child adopted by Ethiopian national may acquire Ethiopian

nationality by law if

 The child has not attained the age of majority.

 The child lives in Ethiopian together with his adopting parent

  Where one of his adopting parents is a foreigner such parent had expressed his
consent in writing and

 Where he is released from his previous nationality, or where he will be

released from his previous nationality when he obtains the Ethiopian
nationality, or where he is stateless. (Reason this is to avoid dual nationality)

4. by outstanding contribution: a foreigner who has made outstanding contribution to the

interest of the country may acquire Ethiopian nationality although he has not lived in
Ethiopian or does not speak either of the Ethiopian languages.

Note that, when a person wants to acquire nationality on the basis of naturalization, he/she
must take, with the exception of naturalization of an adopted child, an oath of allegiance
which states, ‘I… solemnly affirm that I will be a loyal national of the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopian and be faithful to its Constitution.’

3.5.2 Loss of Ethiopian Nationality

Ethiopian nationality may be lost for the following grounds:

1. Renunciation

Any Ethiopian who has acquired or has been guaranteed the acquisition of the nationality of
another state has the right to renounce his Ethiopian nationality by informing the immigration
Authority in the form prescribed. However the renunciation may not be accepted if the person
has not yet discharged his outstanding national obligations or where he/she has been accused
or convicted for a crime and he has not yet been acquitted or has not yet served.

2. Acquisition

Any Ethiopian who voluntarily acquires another nationality shall be deemed to have
voluntarily renounced his Ethiopian nationality. This is to avoid double nationality. Except
under involuntary acquisition of another state’s citizenship, dual citizenship is not allowed
under Ethiopian law.

Note that a foreigner who was an Ethiopian national but later acquired foreign nationality may
be readmitted to Ethiopian nationality if he/she returns to domicile in Ethiopia, renounces his
foreign nationality and applies to the immigration Authority for re- admission.

Right and Responsibilities of Citizens

There are several rights and responsibilities an Ethiopian citizen assumes.

Rights of citizens include:

 The right to legal recourse when their rights have been violated, even if the violator
was acting in an official capacity

 The right to life

 The right to liberty

 The right to equality before the law

 The right to presumption of innocence till proven guilty

 The right to privacy and protection of that privacy by law

 Freedom of thought conscience and religion

 Freedom of assembly and association

 The right to non- extradition, i.e. not to be delivered to other states even if the citizen
has committed a crime against those countries;

 The right to change one’s nationality

Responsibilities of citizens include:

 The responsibility to vote

 The responsibility to defend the constitution

 To know and abide by the law

 To pay taxes voluntarily and happily

 To serve in the military where the need arises

 To actively participate in political and social life to be patriotic

 CHAPTER FOUR: CONSTITUTION AND CONSTITUTIONALISM
CHAPTER CONTENTS
4.1. Defining Constitution and Constitutionalism
4.2. Historical Development of Constitution
4.3. Modern Classification of Constitutions
4.4. Constitutional Development in Ethiopia

LESSON ONE: DEFINING CONSTITUTION AND CONSTITUTIONALISM

4.1.1 Meaning of constitution

Lawyers, philosophers, political scientists perceive constitution differently and, consequently,

ends up providing diverse definition. The difference in the definitions of constitution arises
from the difference in its perception, the disparities that exist between the constitutions of
different countries of the world. This means that, different countries of the world have a
constitution of different nature, scope, purpose and form.

Despite the diverse definition forwarded by different individuals, the following points could
be conceived as the common features, definition, and elements of every constitution:

 Constitution is a document that contains the laws of a country’s basic performance,

general rules and regulations.
 It is the fundamental law of a country
 It is a collection of principles according to which the powers of the government, the
rights of the governed (citizens), and the relations between the two are adjusted.
 Constitution is a collection of rules that establish and regulate between the government
 Constitution is the whole system of a government and also a collection of rules that
establish and regulate the behavior of the government
 Constitution consists the fundamental principles according to which state is
established and governed whether embodied in law, wisdom or conventions; and it is
concerned with:
 - How decisions are reached
- How powers are distributed (governmental power)
- Limits governmental authority,
- Limits methods of election and the appointment of those who govern
- establish judiciary independency from the other branches of government.
 A constitution is a framework (blueprint) for government.
 A constitution is a main law that gives direction to the country’s foreign policy;
economic, political, and social policies of a given country.

4.1.2 Constitutionalism

As you have understood from the meaning of constitution, any modern government has a
constitution. However, drafting constitution or writing and approving of constitution alone are
not sufficient condition to realize or make the constitution constitutional.

Constitutionalism enshrines respect for human worth and dignity as its central principle, too.
To protect that value, citizens must have a right to political participation, and their
government must be hedged in by substantive limits on what it can do, even when perfectly
mirroring the popular will. What constitutionalism insists on is having limited government.

Constitutional or constitutionalism refers to the fundamental principles of democratic

governance, in which the government of a country acts, decides and directs at in accordance
to the constitution. It is the principle that a government is organized and limited in ways that
adhere to the constitutional laws, that is considered to be above government. In other words,
constitutionalism is political governance based on a given constitution where state power is
exercised according to established rules obtained in that constitution. Constitutionalism is also
related with the prevalence of the rule of law where the government and public officials shall
be held accountable to the people and are responsible for their actions.

The concept of constitutionalism suggests, at least the following core ideas:

a. The exercise of power be within the legal limits.

b. The exercise of power irrespective of legal authority must conform to the notion of
respect for the individual citizens rights;
c. Power conferred on institutions with in a state whether legislative, executive or
judiciary is sufficiently dispersed between the various institutions to avoid the abuse
of power.
 d. The government in formulating policy, and the legislative in legitimating that policy
is accountable to the electorate on those trust power is held.
LESSON TWO: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTITUTION
4.2.1 The Origin and Development of Constitution
The Constitution has its origin in ambiguity. The story of the origin of the constitution,
like that of the proverbial elephant is told differently depending on who the story teller is.
To some, including McIver, the Constitution (or, at least the idea of it) dates back to the
earliest history of human social institution, with its roots in the family and communal
mores and regulations.
The concept of a constitution was developed in Europe and the United States of America.
Even though the original ideas were developed in the United Kingdom, it was the United
States that enacted the first document referred to as a constitution after independence, the
Constitution of the United States of America, in 1787. France enacted its first constitution, the
1791 Constitution, after the French Revolution. These constitutions attempted to establish
governments based on the power of the people, while at the same time restricting the power of
governments. They provided for the structure of government and a Bill of Rights. They were
meant to be the supreme law of the land. Many other countries followed in their footsteps and
enacted constitutions modeled after them. These Constitutions are often called ‘modern
constitutions’. To some people, the American constitution of 1787 and the preceding
constitutional debates of the 1760s marked the real origin of the constitution.

4.2.2 Major characteristic of a constitution

A constitution has distinctive feature that distinguish it from any other laws. The following
are some of the features.

Generality: constitution provides the general principles of a state and carry on foundation and
sets out general framework of the law and the government. Other laws provide the details of
the subject for which they are created. Constitutional principles are guideline for others laws.
Any law that contradicts the constitutional provision will be null and void. In this case,
constitution only states the general principles. Thus, this makes constitution different from
other laws that may found in a given country.

Permanency: unlike laws, constitution is made for undefined period of time. That means
constitution serve for a long lap of ages. It is purposely made to be stable and permanent. One
of the mechanisms to ensure this permanency is through constitutional amendment. Judicial
interpretation is also another ways of making a given constitution adaptability. In short,
amendment is necessary to offer stability in a country. Thus, constitutional stability is one of
the factors for creating a durable peace in a society. Unstable constitutional environment
mostly indicates a socio-political instability.
Supremacy: a constitution is a supreme law of the land. As a mother of law, it is original law
by which the system of government is created, and to which the branches of government must
look for all their power and authority. It is original because it is directly made by the people as
the direct expression of the will of the people.
4.2.3 Fundamental Constitutional Principles
The fundamental principles of constitution are popular sovereignty, rule of law and separation
of power
A. Popular sovereignty
The first fundamental principle of Constitution is the popular sovereignty. The first paragraph
of the preamble of the Ethiopian Constitution declares that “we the nation, nationality and
peoples…adopted…this constitution”, do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the
people and do firmly establish this Constitution’. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that it is the
people who have sovereign power in Ethiopia. Yet, there have been controversies as to the
precise meaning of this popular sovereignty principle and its implications. Usually,
sovereignty is defined in one of two ways. Firstly, applies to supreme public power, which
has the rights and, in theory, the capacity to impose its authority in the last instance. Second
definition refers to the holders of legitimate power, who is recognized to have authority.
B. Rule of law
Rule of law is a constitutional principle which requires the government to be restrained by
impersonal rule. The Constitution can be viewed as embodying this principle. The
Constitution is the supreme law and any legislation or other governmental acts which violate
the Constitution are invalid.
C. Separation of powers
The separation of powers principle divides the governmental powers into separate categories
and entrusts them to different branches of the government.

4.2.4 Major Purpose and Function of Constitution

A Constitution as a Charter for Governments: At minimum, an authoritative constitutional
text would more often sketch the fundamental modes of legitimate governmental operations.
Who its officials are, how they are chosen, what their terms of office are, how authority is
divided among them, what processes they must follow, and what rights, if any, are reserved to
citizens. Such a text need not proclaim any substantive values, beyond obedience to itself; if it
does proclaim values, they might be those of Nazism or Stalinism – anathema to
constitutional democracy.

A constitution as a guardian of fundamental rights: If a text is authoritative, for it

embodies democratic theory, it must protect rights to political participation; and if it is
authoritative and embodies constitutionalism, it must protect substantive rights by limiting the
power of those even freely chosen representatives.

The constitution as covenant, symbol, and aspiration: In so far as a constitution is a

covenant by which a group of people agree to (re) transform themselves from mere state into
a nation, it may function for the founding generation like a marriage consummated through
the pledging partners; consenting to remain a nation – for better or worse, through prosperity
and poverty, in peace and war.

LESSON THREE: MODERN CLASSIFICATIONS OF CONSTITUTION

4.3.1. By looking at the Nature of the Constitution itself

By looking at the nature of the constitution itself, it can be classified as:

Written /unwritten, codified/uncodified constitution

It is generally agreed that the written /unwritten dichotomy is false distinction as there is no
constitution which is entirely unwritten and nor is there a constitution which is entirely
written. What is meant by a written constitution is, therefore, one that is reduced into a form
of a document having special sanctity. The term written constitution, according to C.F.
Strong, also designates a rather complete document/instrument in which the framers of the
constitution have attempted to arrange for every foreseeable contingency in its operation.

Unwritten constitution, on the other hand, is one which has grown upon the basis of custom
rather than of written law. Notable in this regard is the United Kingdom. But then, there is a
great deal of statute law that could properly fit into the realm of constitutional law, and much
of it treats fundamental political institutions in the same way as “written” constitution does.
Israel affords a unique example of an “evolving” and “uncodified” constitution, but not as is
often claimed of an “unwritten” constitution. On the other hand, the United States constitution
offers an example of the most completely written constitution.

To restate what has been said at the beginning of this section, the classification of constitution
on the basis of whether they are unwritten or written is illusory. But we can adopt this
classification as a valid classification by considering it as dealing: First- with the degree of
codification, second- with the degree of written detail, and thirdly- with the origin of the
written text of the documents.

The degree of codification could be established only if an agreed list of ‘basic constitutional
constituents’ were accepted, as it is only with such a bench mark that one could have a
measure. Many constitutional texts deal only with the skeletal outlines of topics, leaving the
details to be regulated by organic laws or ordinary statutes. But there are some constitutions
that display enough detail that one usually expects to find in subsidiary legislations. Indian
and Mexican constitutions are good examples in this regard.

Nominal and practical Constitutions

Constitution by its nature, in most cases provides a set of general principles and frame work
that guide (directs) the actions of government visa vise the people. In accordance to that
general framework, there exist legal provisions going to state about the specifications.

Unfortunately, the constitutions of some states are not practically implemented and serve only
the will of the ruling parties, while ignoring the interest of the public. We can call such
constitutions as factious constitutions; therefore, they could be regarded as a mere provisions
and remains paper tiger. On the extreme side of the nominal constitution, there exists a
normative or (Practical) constitution, which serve us to limit the power of rulers
(governmental officials) and guide the day to day endeavor of the society altogether.

Indigenous and Imitate (Adventurous) constitutions

The type of constitution that can be drafted based on the history of one country’s economical,
historical, cultural and political experiences is called Indigenous constitution. For example,
the French constitution, which was drafted, based on the French historical, cultural and
political experiences. On the other hand, some constitutions make their base on others
experiences of politics. Their content and shape will generally be taken from other countries;
such constitutions are known as Imitated constitution.

Stable and Unstable constitutions

Stable constitutions are constructed based on the countries objective conditions and in line
with the needs of countries citizens and is approved by the majority of citizens of the country.
Therefore, such constitutions are stable or cannot be changed now and then. Most countries
of the world are said to have a stable and comprehensive constitutions. For example, the
constitutions of USA, India, Kenya, Malaysia etc are considered as a stable.

On the other hand constitutions of some countries are being changed from time to time. Such
constitutions are the opposite of above constitutions. For example, the constitutions of most
Latin American and African countries are unstable.

General and detailed constitutions

It is all known that constitution is relatively general law document while compared with the
other ordinary rules, proclamations and laws. However, this does not the case when
comparing the constitutions of one state with the other. In other words, the constitutions of
some countries are written by specifying very detail issues and it does not need more
specification to make it practical. On others the general frame work of the government are
outlined. Such constitution needs other ordinary laws to lower it down to the practical
situation of the society.

Generally constitutions, therefore, need decrees, proclamation and other provisions to be

practical enough and can be implemented in the real situations.

4.3.2. By looking at the amendment process

Rigid/flexible, Conditional/unconditional Classification

The true ground of division by virtue of the nature of the constitution itself is whether it is
flexible or rigid. A written constitution is a standard of reference for classifying constitutions
as rigid or flexible as unwritten/ uncodified or non-documentary constitution cannot be other
than flexible, and it is possible for codified/documentary constitution to be either flexible or
rigid. The most important question, here, would then be what is it that makes a constitution
rigid or flexible?
The rigidity or otherwise flexibility of a constitution hinges on whether or not its making is
identical to the making of other ordinary laws. Accordingly, if the amendment or alteration
procedure of a constitution is not made to depend on some conditions or special procedures,
then it may be called flexible constitution. If some conditions or a special procedure has to be
met before the amendment of a constitution, then it is a rigid constitution. In the case of Great
Britain for instance, the same procedure is followed to amend an ordinary law or the
constitution. This renders it a flexible. Thus, flexible constitutions have elasticity as they can
be bent and altered in form without any need to fulfill some conditions while retaining their
main features. Rigid constitutions, on the other hand, are those whose lines are hard fixed.

In a nutshell, although a constitution may be much written; there is every opportunity for it to
be flexible. In fact, that the constitution contains various provisions passed at various times is
proof enough for the flexibility of written constitutions. On the other hand, the constitutions
of the Third, Fourth and Fifth French Republics which were all written are all rigid as they
required special procedure for amendment. In a similar vein, the US constitution is so rigid
that it can’t be amended unless a special procedure is fulfilled. In short, a constitution, cannot
be bent without being broken is a rigid constitution.

4.3.3. By looking at the Nature of the State itself: Federal/Unitary classification

The classification of constitutions into federal, unitary is based upon the principle by which
the powers of government are distributed in the constitution between the government for the
whole country and governments which may be established for its constituent part. In other
words, the classification of constitutions as federal /unitary constitution relates to the method
by which power is divided between the two tiers of governments i.e., government of the
whole country and local governments which exercise authority over parts of the country.

In a federal constitution, powers of governments are divided between government for the
whole and governments for parts of the country in such a way that each government is
independent and none is subordinate to the other, and legislature in both cases have limited
powers.
In a unitary constitution on the other hand, the legislature of the whole country is the supreme
law-making body and it has the mandate to allow other legislatures to exist and exercise their
powers while reserving the right to overrule them as they are subordinate to it.

If the government of the whole country is rather subordinate to the governments of the parts,
the constitution of such state would come to have another name - a confederate constitution.
These are not very convenient terms though. They are often used as words tantamount to the
words “federation” or federal, as the Swiss constitution which is federal describes itself
officially as ‘constitution federal de co confederation Suisse’ while it is customary in Canada
to speak of the union of the provinces as confederation.

Despite all these difficulties the word confederation may be used to describe a form of
association between governments whereby they set up a common organization to regulate
matters of common concern but retain to themselves, to a greater or less degree, some control
over this common organization.

4.3.4. By looking at the nature of the Government itself:

Presidential/Parliamentary Classification
It goes without saying that it is up to the executive to formulate policies and execute upon
gaining the sanction of the law through legislature. This in turn calls for checks or limitation
upon the executive as misuse/abuse of power might arise in the absence of control. Thus the
executive should necessarily be answerable to somebody whether this somebody is the
legislature or the public at large (through periodic election).

But the question that needs closer attention, at this juncture, is in whom is the immediate
responsibility confided? This question takes us to the crux of the matter, i.e. to dividing
constitutional states into two classes: states with parliamentary executive and those with
presidential executive.

If the executive is immediately answerable to the parliament, then it can be called

parliamentary executive. But if it is immediately responsible at definitely arranged intervals to
some wider body and is not amenable to removal by the action of the legislature, then it is
called presidential executive. Differently stated, in constitutions that provide for presidential
executive, there is a rigid separation of institutions from the bottom upwards. Hence the
president and his subordinates may not sit in the congress (legislature). In constitutions that
provide for parliamentary executive, although the great majority of the members of the
executive (civil servants and office holders) are excluded from the parliament, the heads of
department and ministers may sit in the parliament and hence may be accountable to the
parliament. As a rule a country which has presidential executive will have that form of
government embodied explicitly in its constitution and in a country where has parliamentary
executive prevails, it may be either embodied in the constitutions as in Ireland, India,
Australia and South Africa or assumed and permitted and largely regulated by custom and by
ordinary law as in New Zealand or Canada, Holland, and Belgium, or the Scandinavian
monarchies.

Republican/Monarchical Classification
A constitution can be classified as republican or monarchical, although such classification has
a lesser significance nowadays. The classification on the basis of this distribution is so less
significant that it means little more than that where the head of state is a president, then that
state is a republic, and where the head of state is a king, that state is a monarchy or a kingdom.

In fact, the distribution between a republican and a monarchical constitution once had
considerable meaning and importance as it stood for the difference between what may be
called popular/democratic government and absolutism, autocracy, or dictatorship.

A monarch, as the name implies, was the sole ruler responsible to himself alone. But it is
difficult today to find examples of such absolute monarchies. The transformation of absolute
monarchies into constitutional or limited monarchies all the more diminishes the significance
of the distinction. The transformation has brought about the position that whenever
monarchies exist today, with a few possible exceptions, the contribution provides for
democratic or popular government. Modern monarchies have come to resemble closely what a
republic was intended to be; republican constitutions on the other hand illustrate almost every
system of government from democracy to dictatorship.

LESSON FOUR: CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN ETHIOPIA

4.4.1. Traditional Constitutions of Ethiopia
Ethiopia had sophisticated traditional unwritten constitution, which included the major
principles of the monarchy, as well as the exclusive right of the imperial court, the
church, and the nobility. The following are the most prominent constitutionally
significant documents.
The Fetha Negest (the law of the king)
The basic content of the Fetha Negest was the religious ethics of Christianity, then
common in nearly the whole Christian world. It basically dealt with religious, civil and
criminal affairs. It was used as a traditional law in Ethiopia church starting from 16thc,
depicting the fact by starting that every subject must submit to the authority of the ruler,
since he is appointed by God and God has given them authority; one who oppose the
ruler and rebels against his creator. Thus, it was essentially a codex of law providing for
secular, spiritual and legal provisions rather than a constitution.

Other important documents in the constitutional process are KebreNegest and SerateMengest.
The KibreNegest (the glory of Kings), strongly dealt with legend of a Solomonic Dynasty and
thus served certain political-religious needs of the time in the constructional process. Beyond
that, it gave the Ethiopian state a legitimizing basis. Another is SerateMengeste of the 19th
which deals with administrative protocols within the government institutions.

THE 1931 CONSTITUTION OF ETHIOPIA

The 1931 Constitution of Ethiopia is the first modern and written constitution of the country.
This constitution replaced the traditional constitutional experiences which are written in the
Kibere Negest (Glory of Kings) and Fetha Negest (Law or Code of kings). It modeled on
Japans Meiji constitution to follow in Japans progressive steps. However the 1931
Constitution brought only little changes. The major ones are:
 The beginning of the parliamentary system. The parliament has two branches or
houses:
1. The chamber of Senate- its members were elected by the Emperor for six
years.
2. The chamber of Deputy- its members were elected by local nobles for four
years.
 The incorporation of some rights such as:
 Freedom of movement
 The security of life
 The security of property.
However, the 1931 constitution like the traditional constitutions, gave a highly centralized and
absolute power to the monarch. For instance, among others, The Emperor had the power to:
  Appoint members of the legislative body (the chamber of senate or yehig
mewesegna mikir bête).
 Appoint and dismiss high ranking civil and military officials including
ministers.
 Declare and terminate (end) wars.
 Rendering justice
 Granting of land and honors.
 Disregard the human rights provision in case of emergency.
Besides this, the constitution didn’t include other more fundamental and basic rights of
citizens’. Citizens were deprived of their basic democratic and human rights. For instance
citizens were denied the right to elect their representatives for the parliament. The reason
given for this denial was the idea that people were not in a position to elect.
Generally, the 1931 constitution aimed at
a. To quiet the country and the imperial rule as an image of modernity
b. To guarantee the continuity of the rule of the Emperor by giving him legitimacy.
c. Established a legal framework for absolutism and centralization.
Hence, if the 1931 constitution was a benevolent gift of the Emperor, 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.

By the 1950s there were a good number of educated elite 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.
THE 1955 REVISED CONSTITUTION
New developments in the beginning of at 1950s arose the need to revise the existing
Constitution, such as:
1. The federation of Eritrea with Ethiopia in 1952 by the resolution of the General
Assembly of the UN
2. The UN had prepared a constitution for Eritrea which was more liberal and
progressive than the Ethiopian constitution Therefore, there was a discrepancy
 between the 1931 constitution of Ethiopia and the Eritrean constitution Hence to
bridge the difference the Emperor wanted to revise the constitution
3. The constitution remained unrevised for long years (25 years),so it need revision so as
to cope up with the modern out looks and developments.
4. The change of the political climate because of emergence of intellectuals and different
uprisings.
Because of these and other factors, the 1931 constitution was revised in 1955. The revised
constitution was however, established on the some idea of the 1931 constitution.
The constitution established bicameral parliamentary system. It claimed about the
inviolability of the powers of the Emperor and his sacred personality like in the 1931
constitution the different nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia were considered
mere as subjects of the Emperor, not as citizens.

The 1955 Revised constitution was in fact more expanded and elaborated than the 1931
constitution. It had eight chapters and 131 articles while the 1931 constitution had seven
chapters and 55 articles. Moreover, some improvements were available in the revised
constitution of 1955 some of these were:
 The freedom of speech
 The freedom of Press
 Universal suffrage (people’s participation in the election of members of the
chamber of senate)
However, these added basic rights were not supposed to be implemented in practice. They
were inserted for form and foreign consumption. Through time the suppression of the basic
economic personal and political rights provoked a nation-wide opposition against the Emperor
and the imperial rule. Students, soldiers, peasants, workers, teachers and other parts of the
society joined together to fight for their rights some of the manifestations of opposition
include the following:
 The students movement
 The peasants rebellion in Bale Gojjam and Tigray
 The abortive coupdita of 1960, which was led by the two Neway brothers
Mengistu and Girmame
The cumulative effect of this nationwide anti- imperial rule struggle resulted in the Revolution
of 1974 which brought about the down fall of Emperor Haile Sellase I on sept 12, 1974 and
the end of the imperial regime (autocratic monarchy). However, this mass supported
Revolution didn’t grant citizens the rights they were deprived of and struggled for. It didn’t
bring the rule of people. Rather the Revolution brought the military officers who possessed
the guns to power. Therefore, the functions of government laid in the hands of few military
dictators, who named themselves the Dergue. Thus, it began another period of more terror,
blood-shed and dictatorship. As a result, the fundamental questions of different nations,
nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia and the questions of freedom and democracy remained
unsolved during the Dergue Era (1974-1991)

The Constitution of the Dergue Era

The Dergue, however, didn’t ignore the idea of formulating a draft constitution. The draft
constitution of the Dergue was presented to the people for ratification in 1987 (i.e, 13 years
after it came to power). It was controversial whether Ethiopia possessed a written constitution
or not during this intervals (1974-1987). Several proclamations were issued to include
principles of the constitution. The country was ruled by simple decrees and proclamations of
the PMAG (Provisional Military Administrative Government). But the Dergue constitution
(1987) allowed only a one- party (mono party) rule and quite naturally didn’t do apolitical
transformation towards democratic system. Establishment of socialism was its goal. The
president of the Dergue remained the absolute source and mover of all power of the one party
he represented. The military dictatorship, of course in catil uniforms, gave rise to the a
multiple of national liberation struggles, whose combined effort brought about the dawn fall
of the regime in 1991.

The constitution of the FDRE

Following the overthrow of the Dergue regime in May 1991, the Transitional Government of
Ethiopia was established in July 22, 1991. This government was made up of various political
parties which in one way or another fought with the military dictatorship of the Dergue. The
Transitional Government had many functions. One of these was drafting, improving and
ratifying the constitution of the FDRE through public participation. The country was led by
the transitional period charter. The charter of the Transitional government was formulated and
proclaimed by the peace and democratic conference, which was held in Addis Ababa from
July 1-5 formulated through public participation based upon the needs and demands of the
Ethiopian people.
Generally, the 1995 constitution of the federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia do the
following
  Establishes the federal and democratic state structure
 States the powers and functions of the Federal and Regional states
 Outlines the economic social, political and cultural rights of citizens
 Outlines the principle of foreign relations
 States the sovereign authority of the stats and its peoples
 Limits the power of government
 Clear separation of power.
 Serves as the supreme law of the country
 States universal suffrage.
 Gave rights for minorities.
 Legal and political processes were separated.
The major changes that the 1995 constitution brought about are the transformation of the state
structure from unitary to federalism and granting for different Nations, Nationalities and
Peoples of Ethiopia the right to self- determination including secession.

The FDRE constitution was proclaimed on August 21, 1955, consists

The fundamental principles of the constitution including
1. Sovereignty of the people
2. Supremacy of the constitution
3. Human and democratic rights
4. Separation of state and religion
5. Conduct and accountability of the government
 CHAPTER FIVE: UNDERSTANDING HUMAN RIGHTS

CHAPTER CONTENT
5.1. Conceptual Approaches to Human Rights
5.2. The Scopes and Contents of Human Rights
5.3. Basic Features and Limitations of Human Rights

Reference and Further Readings

Alfredson, Gudumndur. (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Common
Standard of Achievement: The Hague: Martinusnijgoff Publishers
Casse, Antonio.(1991) Human Rights in a Changing World. New York:Polity Press
Donnely, Jack.(1993). International Human Rights: Dilemmas in World Politics. Denver:
University of Denver.

LESSON ONE: CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES TO HUMAN RIGHTS

5.1.1. Meaning of Human Rights
The concept of rights has a long and complex history. The history of rights reflects the various
demands forwarded by human beings at different times and conditions. Human beings
demand the realization of diverse values to ensure their individual and collective well-beings.
In addition, the prevalence of exploitation, oppression and persecution, which are results of
social, political, economic and natural forces, led to the steady development of human rights
consciousness.

Right is of course closely connected to the concepts of ‘freedom’, ‘responsibility’ and

‘obligation’. Indeed, all of these concepts form a kind of family. Let us now elaborate these
concepts. Sometimes ‘freedom from’ may be referred to as having negative rights. This means
that everyone has the right to not be interfered with. ‘Freedom to’ can also be called positive
rights meaning the right to something positive. But rights are not objects. When we say that
someone has a right to something, what we mean is that there is a three-part relationship. A
person (P) has a right to an object (O) in relation to someone else (P') who has a responsibility
to provide the object. Rights then have to be negotiated and exist in relation to another person
or groups of other people.
5.1.2. Negative Rights
From that point of view, a negative right is the right to be left alone, with the correlative
responsibility, or obligation to provide that right. Thus P has a right to O (being left alone)
that P' should provide (where P happens to be everyone else). Notice that this right is
essentially one (the right to be left alone), yet in a sense it is also infinite, because it refers to
anything one may wish to do so long as it does not prevent someone else’s right to do the
same. This sometimes is expressed in simple terms: “my ‘right’ ends at your nose!” I can
leave you alone so long as you leave me alone, and vice versa.

5.1.3. Positive Rights

The same cannot be said of positive rights. If, for example, a person claims a right to health
care, someone such as a doctor has to provide it. But what is the basis for that claim upon the
doctor’s time? Merely, because, the fact that the sick person needs help. But what about the
idea that: everyone has the right to be left alone. Why should a doctor be obliged to provide
health care as opposed to being left alone? Clearly, people create positive rights through their
own decisions. But, prior to doing anything special people are automatically in a relationship
with one another simply on the basis of being human. This is known as having general rights.
This is distinct from as acquiring special rights by entering into special relationships as a
result of specific actions. General rights are another term for negative rights. But as we
become players in the community, we agree to give up some of our general rights in exchange
for certain goods and services. We then enter into special relationships that give rise to
special rights and responsibilities.
For example, if you sign a lease promising to pay rent, you thereby have responsibility to give
your landlord rent in exchange for a home. Meanwhile, the landlord has the special right to
expect the rent from you – and, depending on the terms of the lease usually has special
responsibility to fix certain items that go wrong, such as the heating system. This corresponds
to your special right to expect those services.

Moreover, a right is a claim of individual recognized by the society and the state. Obviously, a
proper definition of the term 'right' has three ingredients. First, it is a claim of individual.
However, not every claim can become a right. It requires that the claim should be like a
disinterested desire, or something that is capable of universal application. The guiding factor
is that what an individual wills should be of common interest. That is, in asserting a claim one
should feel like rendering a public service. In other words, the motivating force should be a
rational consideration and not a personal caprice of the individual. Second, the claim of the
individual should receive recognition by the community. Since individual's claim is backed by
a disinterested desire, it involves the good of all and, as such, it receives social recognition.
Finally, we come to the point of political recognition. Rights are just like moral declarations
unless they are protected by the state. The state translates the socially recognized claims or
moral rights into terms of law and thereby accords them legal recognition. The state,
therefore, acts like a coercive agency to prevent the operation of selfish wills of individuals.

Viewed in detailed perspective, the meaning of right is necessarily connected with its nature
that is contained in the following important points:
 Rights are implicit in the conscience of human and the community ceaselessly
presses for their legal recognition so that the morally recognized claims of the
individuals have their proper protection. As such, a state is set between the rights
that have been recognized by the community and rights that demand proper
protection. In this way, the rights have a moral character. They are rights that the
individual deems significant; they are essential to self-realization and the society
accords its tacit approval to them. In other words, they are rights which a society
properly organized on the basis of goodwill should recognize.
 Rights are organically bound up with duties. As a matter of fact, they are like a coin
having rights on the one side and duties on the other. Since rights prescribe the
rules of behavior, in doing so they are said to impose duties or obligations. The
relation between the two is logical band not a moral or legal affair inasmuch as a
rule-giving rise to rights does not give rise to duties as separate and different entity.
The enjoyment of rights is conditional on the performance of duties; no one can
reasonably expect that his interests will be safeguarded by the social order unless
he recognizes and respects corresponding obligations towards others.
 In a sense, rights have a pre-political character. They may be independent of state
but not society. Social recognition comes first. If studied in historical terms, we
may say that selfless claims of the individual became well-established usages and
customs, which are translated by the state in terms of law in due course. Thus,
rights have a pre-political character.
  Rights have a natural and socio-utilitarian character. They are natural not in the
sense of prevailing in the state of nature (as described by social contract
philosophers) in view of the character of a civilization, the facts of social existence
demand their recognition. Moreover, their social utilitarian character is traceable in
the fact that they are of value both to the individual and the society. The utility of
rights is a matter of value to each member of the state. Besides, they are useful to
the end the state seeks to serve.
 Rights are not mere abstract entities. They need their exercise. Thus, the issue of
rights and duties figures in. A man is expected to exercise his or her rights in a way
that he or she does not harm the rights another. The exercise of a right, naturally,
calls for the observance of a duty and makes it correlated with the functions of
human. A man possesses rights so that he or she may seek the best possible
development of his or her personality and, at the same time, contribute to the social
end.
 Rights are also connected with the functions of the state. In theory, rights of
individuals and functions of the state may be separate; in practice, they are not. The
two are so closely related that they are indistinguishable like the obverse and
reverse sides of a coin. The functions of government are a condition of rights of
persons because they are necessary to the enjoyment of those rights and because
they exist in order to secure them. On the other hand, the rights of a person are a
condition for the functions of government, because they are the sources and cause
of the existence and action of government.

5.1.4. Type of Rights

Rights are of different kinds. For simplicity, the idea of rights embodies a number of spheres
of entitlements as discussed below. The classification, of course, reflects the ways of attaining
these rights.
A. Legal Rights
These are written laws. They are legally permitted ones; exercised by all or certain sectors of
the society which can be amended by legislators. Citizens have specific legal rights that are
guaranteed by the laws of the county they live in. For example, they generally have the right
to vote in an election subject to constraints defined in their constitutions. This is an example
of rights that arise in a specific context. When legal rights are violated the body whose right(s)
is (are) violated is able to bring the case to court to safeguard his/her right(s).
 B. Moral Rights
These are rights that emanate by the consensus of two or more bodies. The basic principles of
these rights are justice and impartiality. Such rights are related with religion and precepts.
"Who or what is moral right?", is still under argument. The question of universalization and
comprehensiveness of moral rights cannot be assented (approved) by all.
C. Human Rights
Human rights in contrast refer to rights we all have merely by being human. This can
coincide with the idea of general rights or negative rights. The idea of human rights then is
based on the idea that although we may be of different religions, nationalities, have different
skin colors, come from very different cultures, our common humanity means we all share a
set of human rights. This applies even if we don’t belong to a particular country. Refugees,
stateless people, people who leave their country to go and work in another, do not loose their
claim on human rights.

Human rights are also sometimes called 'natural rights'. They don't emanate from government
will or from individual's conventions. The following examples illustrate how human rights are
natural rights. The right to education emanates from man's desire to know him/her and the
environment; the rights to life emanate from the instinctive desire of man to live in life. To
exist man must get something to eat, get shelter and clothing, to get these necessities we have
to work, move from place to place; then comes the right to work, the right to free
movement…etc.
Human rights are protections to which all human beings are entitled because of their humanity
and not because of their social status or individual merit. Some of these rights are claimed and
enjoyed without regard to political order. The types of human rights, which are closely related
with the actions of governments, are Civil liberties and Civil rights. Civil liberties are
constitutional protections of persons, opinions and property against arbitrary interference by
government. They include such protections as freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom
of religious belief and freedom from arbitrary arrest and punishment. Civil rights are legally
guaranteed benefits provided by positive actions of government. They include such
guarantees as education, protection against illness and starvation and financial support in
unemployment and old age.
Though there is widespread acceptance of the principles of Human Rights, there is no
complete agreement on the nature of these rights and their substantive scope.

LESSON TWO: SCOPES AND CONTENTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

To understand better the debate over the content and legitimate scope of human rights, it is
useful to note the dominant approaches and action that have informed the human rights
tradition since the beginnings of modern times. The French Jurist Karel Vasak advanced the
notion of three generations human rights. He was inspired by the three themes (Liberty,
Equality and Solidarity) of French Revolution (1789). The classifications were:

A. First Generation Rights named Civil and Political Rights ---

Liberty Rights
B. Second Generation Rights named Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights---Equality Rights
C. Third Generation Rights named solidarity rights or fraternity Rights

These generation rights are rooted in human history. They are outcomes of revolutionary
outbreaks and human relations. The 1789 French Revolution and 1776 American Declaration
of Independence were seminal in the birth to First Generation Rights, as the 1917 Bolshevik
Revolution was important in the development and birth of the Second Generation of Rights.
Finally the very human solidarity and altruism gave birth to Third Generation Rights.
5.2.1. First Generation Rights
First generation rights Refer to civil and political rights. They are based on political
philosophy of liberal individualism and economic doctrine of laissez fair. First generation
rights require the state to abstain from interfering in the life of the individual. Civil and
political rights are considered as negative rights that block governmental interference in to the
private domain.

These rights are derived from liberalist position which asserts that individuals possess right to
liberty, the right to life, the exercise of freedom of speech and so on that these rights are
inalienable and unconditional and that the primary function of government is to protect these
right. Their origin is the American Declaration of independence and the French Declaration of
the rights man and of the citizen of 1789 and becomes the corner stone of the political
thinking of 19th c and 20th c liberalism.

First generation rights became associated with a set of liberal principles, personal rights
matter; public authority should respect personal autonomy and preferences. The core idea of
these rights centers on respect for personal rights, based above all on the equal worth of the
individual, whose preferences should be followed in the public domain. These rights are core
rights as they are stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
First generation rights include:
 Freedom from racial and equivalent forms of discrimination
 Freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude
 Freedom from torture and from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment
 Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; the right to fair and public trial
 Freedom from interference in privacy and correspondence
 Freedom of movement and residence;
 The right to asylum from persecution
 Freedom of opinion and expression
 Freedom of peaceful assembly and associations
 The right to participate in government directly or through election
 The right to own property and the right not to be deprived of one's own property
arbitrarily.
5.2.2. Second Generation Rights
Second Generation Rights, Refer Economic social and cultural rights. These rights require the
extended function of the state to ensure economic and cultural rights. They are also termed as
positive rights “because the need state intervention in fulfilling the quest for these rights. The
economic social and cultural rights led to the emergence of welfare stare. For example
increasing of refugee and disaster problems demand expanding public Policies. Second
generation rights are sometimes known as equality rights.

Economic, social and cultural rights are entitlements to socially provided goods and services
such as food, health care, social insurance, education and the rights to property. For example
the right to work is a right to economic participation and the right to education and to
participate in the cultural life of the community provide asocial dimension to the idea of
personal autonomy.
The second-generation rights focusing on economic, social and cultural rights are stated in
article 22-27 of the UDHR. Accordingly, they, among others include:
 The right to social security
 The right to work, and protection against unemployment.
 The right to rest and leisure including periodic holidays with pay
  The right to a slandered of living adequate for health an d well being of self and
family
 The right to education and the right to the protection of one's scientific, literary
and artistic production.
The internationalization of these rights has been very slow compared to the first generation
rights. The International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights were open to
signature on January 31, 1976 and it took time to enter into force. All these claimed rights
tend to be collective right requiring the concerted efforts of all social and political forces at
national and global scale. The majority of these rights are aspiration in their character (what
states and peoples aspire to be).
5.2.3. The Third Generation Rights
Finally, the third generation or solidarity rights are even more seen as collective rights, based
on notions of international solidarity and relating to global structural problems rather than
individual cases. As indicated in Article 28 of the Universal Declarative of Human Rights,
which proclaims that 'ever one is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights
set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized,' it appears so far to embrace six claimed
rights. Three of these reflect the emergence of Third World Nationalism and its demand for a
global redistribution of power, wealth, and other important values:

 The right to political, economic and social development;

 The right to participate in and benefit from 'the common heritage of mankind;'
 The right to peace;
 The right to a healthy and balanced environment, and
 The right to humanitarian disaster relief.

All six of these rights tend to be collective rights, requiring the concerted efforts of all social
forces, to substantial degree on global scale.

Thus, at various stages of modern history-following the 'bourgeois' revolutions of the 17 th and
18th centuries, the socialist and Marxist revolutions of the early 20 th century, and the anti-
colonialist revolutions that began immediately following WWII the content of human rights
has been broadly defined, not with any expectation that the rights associated with the
generation would or should become outdated upon the ascendancy of another, but
comprehensively or supplemental.
This is not, however, to imply that each of these three generations of rights is equally
acceptable to all or that they or their separate elements are greeted with equal urgency. First
generation proponents, for example, are inclined to exclude second and third generation rights
from their definition of human rights altogether (or, at best, to label them as "derivative"). In
part, this is due to the complexities that in form the process of putting these rights in to action.
The suggestion of greater feasibility that attends first generation rights because they stress the
absence rather than the presence of government is somehow transformed in to a prerequisite
of a comprehensive definition of human rights, such that the aspired and vaguely asserted
claims to entitlement are deemed not to be rights at all.
The most forceful explanation, however, is stained with ideological and political baggage.
Persuaded that egalitarian claims against the rich, particularly where collectively espoused,
are unworkable without a severe decline in liberty and quality (in part because they involve
state intervention for the redistribution of privately held resources), first generation
proponents, inspired by natural law and laissez faire traditions, are partial to the view that
human rights are inherently independent from civil society and are individualistic.

Conversely, second and third generation defenders often look upon first generation rights, at
least as commonly practiced, as insufficiently attentive to material human needs and, indeed,
as legitimating instruments in service to unjust domestic, transnational, and international
social orders-hence constituting a 'bourgeois illusion'. Accordingly, while not placing first-
generation rights outside their definition of human rights, they tend to assign such rights a low
status and therefore to treat them as long-term goals that will come to pass only with
fundamental economic and social transformations to be realized progressively and fully
consummated only sometime in the future.

In sum, different conceptions of rights particularly emerging conceptions contain the potential
for challenging the legitimacy and supremacy not only of one another but, more importantly,
of the political-social systems with which they are most intimately associated. As a
consequence there is sharp disagreement about the legitimate scope of human rights and about
the priorities that are claimed among them.

On final analysis, however, this liberty-equality and individualist-collectivist debate over the
legitimacy and priorities of human rights can be precarious and misleading. It is useful,
certainly, insofar as it calls attention to the way in which notions of liberty and individualism
can be, and have been, used to rationalize the abuses of capitalism; and it is useful, too,
insofar as it highlights how notions of equality and collectivism can be, and have been, alibis
for authoritarian governance. But in the end it risks obscuring at least three essential truths
that must be taken in to account if the contemporary worldwide human rights movement is to
be objectively understood.

First, one-sided characterizations of legitimacy and priority are likely, over the long term, to
undermine the political credibility of their proponents and the defensibility of their
particularistic values. In an increasingly interdependent and interpenetrating global
community, any human rights orientation that does not genuinely support the widest possible
shaping and sharing of all values among all human beings is likely to provoke widespread
skepticism. The last half of the 20th century is replete with examples.

Second, such characterizations do not accurately mirror behavioral reality. In the real world,
despite differences in cultural tradition and ideological style, there exists a rising and
overriding insistence upon the equitable production and distribution of all basic values.
Essentially individualistic societies tolerate, ever promote, certain collectivist valves;
likewise, essentially communal societies tolerate, even promote, certain individualistic values.
Ours is a more-or-less, not an either-or, world.

Finally, none of the international human rights instruments currently in force or proposed say
anything whatsoever about the legitimacy or rank ordering of the rights. There is
disagreement, to be sure, among lawyers, moralists and political scientists about the
legitimacy and hierarchy of claimed rights when they treat the problem of implementation.
For example, some insist on certain civil and political guarantees, whereas others defer
initially to conditions of material and corporeal well-being. Such disagreements, however,
partake of political agendas and have little if any conceptual utility. As the UN General
Assembly has repeatedly confirmed, all human rights are an indivisible whole.

LESSON THREE: BASIC FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS OF HUMAN

RIGHTS
5.3.1. Basic Features of Human Rights

The following are fundamental features of human rights. These are not exhaustive but
contain the main features of human rights.
1. Human rights are based on equality, because these rights are consistent and based on
human nature. The following elements are not factors of difference in the application of
human rights. They are applied equally at any condition, place and time irrespective of
sex, ethnic group, color, language, nation, age, citizenship, religion, political outlook,
social position, etc.
2. Human Rights are unassailable. They cannot be attacked during promotion and
protection.
3. Human rights are eternal. As far as human society exists on earth human rights
continue to exist. In addition, any change in government, and any change in social,
political, economic outlooks do not have impact on human rights.
4. Human rights are irreducible. Human rights cannot be reduced to different interpretation.
Human rights are applicable in their fuller forms.
5. Human rights are indisputable. Human rights are not subjected to different arguments. As
they are natural, we cannot argue over the elements of human rights.
6. Human rights are inalienable. Human rights cannot be separated from human nature. We
cannot alienate human rights from human nature because they are fundamental.
7. Human rights are not to be given by government. Government is not a body that gives
human rights. In the meantime, we cannot inherit human rights rather we possess them by our
nature of human being. They are not transferred rights.
5.3.2. Limitation on Human Rights
For the peaceful existence of individuals in the society, every person has responsibilities
(Obligations). This by implication indicates the existence of limitation on human rights; for
example, even if we have freedom of movement we can’t enter in to other person's home
without permission.
When, we say, human rights have limitation in a sense that enough and legal imitation.
Human rights should be limited by taking in to consideration the rights of the individual with
respect to the interest of the Society.
For example if someone speaks to destroy all people who oppose his religion in front of
gathered people in Public Square, police will arrest him. Do you think that his freedom of
speech is violated? Discuss with your friends.
With the occurrence of certain circumstances Human rights can be classified in to derogable
and non-derogable rights and freedoms. Derogable rights are rights that can be limited or
fully suspended during emergency, in contrast non- derogable rights are those rights that
cannot be limited or suspended at any time regardless of state emergency.
All human rights are to be guaranteed and enforced unless special circumstances justify the
suspension of some rights. Respecting and protecting human rights are duties of states;
however, states may be relieved of their duty in certain exceptional circumstances. As an
exception to the general rights of states to be relieved from their duties to respect and protect
human rights during state of emergency, they are always bound to respect and protect certain
rights regardless of the existence of emergency situations. Hence certain rights remain
permanently protected. These rights are called non- derogable rights. The principle that
asserts the permanent protection of rights is the principle of non-drogability. Principle of non-
derogability prohibits states from suspending or limiting certain rights even in state of
emergency, this principle could also enable us to sort out some rights which are considered
non- derogable rights

The issue of non- derogability and hence non-derogable rights arises when there is a validly
declared state of emergency, unless there is a validly declared state of emergency one cannot
talk of principle of non- derogability and non- derogable rights, since in normal time all rights
guaranteed by law should be protected equally.
State of emergency presents problem for states: Overcoming the emergency while at the same
time respecting fundamental human rights. The state is provided with a derogation clause to
enable it to limit or suspend human rights in order to overcome the problem. In state of
emergency derogation from some individual freedoms and rights are justifiable as far as
implementation of this derogation, the right of the state is in line with international human
rights law and the constitution of the concerned state. Although, the state has a power to
declare state of emergency whenever it is necessary to its existence, even in such
circumstance there are certain rights which should not be limited or suspended, In addition,
there must be a balance between the interest of the state that it should save itself from danger
while without extremely endangering rights of individuals.
According to international convention on civil and political right the rights to life, protection
from inhuman treatment, freedom from slavery and freedom of religion is non-derogable
rights.

Limitation clause authorizes limitation on human rights in normal situation or peace time or
for the application of the dally life of the state on grounds of public order, public health,
public morality etc, on the other hand, derogation comes to effect for the protection of
national security in an exceptionally grave, circumstance after valid emergency is declared
limitation does not require special declaration by the state. Justification for non-derogable
rights

 Some rights and freedoms are so fundamental that derogation from them would
undermine rule of law. e.g. the right to life
 To prevent fundamental human rights not to be abuse by leaders during declaration
of state emergency.

CHAPTER SIX: DEMOCRACY

CHAPTER CONTENTS
6.1. What is Democracy?
6.2. Ways of Exercising Democracy
6.2.1. Direct Democracy
6.2.2. Indirect Democracy
6.3. Typologies of Democracy
6.3.1. Substantive View
6.3.2. Procedural View
6.4. Fundamental Values and Principles of Democracy
6.4.1. Fundamental Values of democracy
6.4.2. Fundamental Principles of Democracy
6.5. Election and Democracy
6.5.1. Democracy and Political Elections
6.5.2. Electoral Systems

Reference and Further Readings

Pickles, Dorothy. (1970). Democracy. Methuen and Co. Ltd.: London.
Janda, K. et al. (2000). The Challenge of Democracy. (6th Ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company:
New York.
Heywood, Andrew. (1997). Politics. Macmillan Press Limited: New York
LESSON ONE: What is Democracy?

Democracy is a 'mantra' term and as such it seems obvious that everybody understands what it
is all about. Strictly speaking, there are conceptual and methodological difficulties in
understanding and defining democracy.
In this case, one of the difficulties in defining democracy arises from the fact that political
systems are in a continual state of evolution. Things that is inconceivable in the political
climate of one period of history become not merely possible in another, but so generally
accepted that they are taken for granted.

As ideas change, so the content of the word democracy changes in people’s minds. A
consequence of this change of attitude has been that the term is now used to describe so many
different forms of government. Although democracy serves to justify some kind of political
systems and decry others; almost all governments prefer to call themselves as followers of
democratic political system. Besides, in everyday use people employ the term democracy to
cover anything and everything they regard as desirable. It is this very popularity of the term
that makes democracy a difficult concept to understand; when a term means anything to
anyone, it is in danger of becoming entirely meaningless.

Etymologically, the word democracy is a term that comes from Greek and it is made up with
two words demos, which means people and kratos, to mean to govern or to rule. In this case,
the word democracy refers to the idea of rule by the people or government by the people.
“Democracy” can then be literally translated by the following terms: Government of the
People or Government of the Majority.

The origins of the term democracy can be traced back to Ancient Greece. Like other words
ending in 'cracy' (for example, autocracy, aristocracy and bureaucracy), democracy is derived
from the Greek word kratos, meaning power, or rule. Democracy thus means 'rule by the
demos' (the demos referring to 'the people', although the Greeks originally used this to mean
'the poor' or 'the many'). However, the simple notion of 'rule by the people' does not get us
very far. The problem with democracy has been its very popularity, a popularity that has
threatened the term's undoing as a meaningful political concept. In being almost universally
regarded as a 'good thing', democracy has come to be used as little more than a 'hurrah! word',
implying approval of a particular set of ideas or system of rule. In Bernard Crick's (1993)
words, 'democracy is perhaps the most promiscuous word in the world of public affairs'. A
term that can mean anything to anyone is in danger of meaning nothing at all.

Amongst the meanings that have been attached to the word 'democracy' are the following:

 a system of rule by the poor and disadvantaged

 a form of government in which the people rule themselves directly and continuously,
without the need for professional politicians or public officials
  a society based on equal opportunity and individual merit, rather than hierarchy and
privilege
 a system of welfare and redistribution aimed at narrowing social inequalities
 a system of decision-making based on the principle of majority rule
 a system of rule that secures the rights and interests of minorities by placing checks
upon the power of the majority
 a means of filling public offices through a competitive struggle for the popular vote
 a system of government that serves the interests of the people regardless of their
participation in political life.

Perhaps a more helpful starting point from which to consider the nature of democracy is
Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, delivered in 1864 at the height of the American Civil
War. Lincoln extolled the virtues of what he called 'government of the people, by the people,
and for the people'. What this makes clear is that democracy links government to the people,
but that this link can be forged in a number of ways: government of, by and for the people.
The precise nature of democratic rule has been the subject of fierce ideological and political
debate. The term democracy has involved the 'democracy debate' that can boil down to the
attempt in answering three central questions: Who are the people? In what sense should the
people rule? How far should popular rule extend?

Although the root meaning of democracy is simple – ‘rule by the people’ from the fifth
century BC Greek demokratia – and democracy is almost universally commended in
contemporary politics, the ideal of democracy is complex and contested, as are its justify
actions and practical implications. Democracy is sometimes identified narrowly with majority
rule (Hardin, 1990), and other times broadly to encompass all that is humanly good
(Macpherson, 1973), but neither view is adequate to an understanding of democracy as a
social ideal. Majoritarian decision making may be a presumptive means of democratic rule,
but it cannot be a sufficient democratic standard. Other standards (concerning who rules, by
what procedures, over what matters, within what limits, and with what degree of deliberation)
have from the beginning been implicated in the ideal of democracy as rule by the people, and
continue to be entailed by the public aspirations of democratic and democratizing societies.

The contrastingly broad identification of democracy with the complete human good is
similarly unhelpful in presuming away increasingly important problems that have long
animated advocates of democracy and their critics: for example, whether the people should be
permitted to rule on complicated matters even when they lack the knowledge of experts or
whether the freedom of a few should be limited for the sake of authorizing the many to shape
social policy. A democratic ideal, no matter how inclusive, cannot credibly lay claim to
maximizing all the human goods at issue in such political choices.

What does democracy aspires to achieve? Although the answers vary according to the types
of democracy discussed below, several general justifications for democratic rule can be
identified. All types of democracy presume that people who live together in a society need a
process for arriving at binding decisions that takes everybody’s interests into account. One
common justification for democratic rule allies the premises that people are generally the best
judge of their own interests with the argument that equal citizenship rights are necessary to
protect those interests. There is no better way to minimize the abuse of political power,
democrats’ claim, than to distribute it equally. Another common, and complementary,
justification is that popular rule expresses and encourages the autonomy, or self-
determination, of individuals under conditions of social interdependence, where many
important matters must be decided collectively (Dahl, 1989).

Many democratic theorists also argue that democracy is instrumental to human development
insofar as it encourages people to take responsibility for their political lives. Others argue that
democracy represents fair terms of a social contract among people who share a territory but
do not agree upon a single conception of the good. On this common contractarian view,
democracy consists of a fair moral compromise, although the precise terms of that
compromise vary with different democratic conceptions. Democratic theorists argue that even
if democracy cannot live up to its aspirations, its promise on each of these counts is greater
than that of any non-democratic government. The strongest if not most inspiring justification
of democracy, well expressed by Winston Churchill, is that it is the worst form of government
except all the others.

Democracy can also be conceived as the institutionalization of freedom. In this case,

democracy refers to a set of ideas and principles as well as procedures and practices of human
rights, democratic rights and freedoms of citizens within the democratic political system.
Democratic norms and principles are universal, but the institutions and their concrete forms of
political practices may vary in time and space (i.e. through historical era and from country to
country). Thus, as a universal form of rule with specific manifestations in time and space,
democracy is a political concept founded on three underlining ideas; namely, democracy as a
value, a process and a practice.
LESSON TWO: WAYS OF EXERCISING DEMOCRACY

6.2.1. DIRECT DEMOCRACY

Direct democracy, which sometimes also referred as pure, is a system of self-governance in

which all citizens participate in decision-making process. In direct democracy, members of
the political community meet at certain place to discuss issues and arrive at decision either by
consensus or by majority vote. This form of exercising democracy is based on the direct,
unmediated and continuous participation of citizens in the activities of government. Direct
democracy, thus, eliminates the distinction between government and the governed and
between the state and civil society; since it is a system of popular self-government.

Direct democracy is an exercise of democracy in which ‘all citizens’; without the

intermediary of elected officials can participate in decision-making process. It is based on
the belief that every citizen over a certain age has a right to attend political meetings, to
vote on the issue being discussed at that meeting, and to accept the majority decision ,and
the right of every one to hold political office if they choose to do so.

The origin of direct democracy can be traced back to ancient Athens. In the ancient Athenian
city-state, all adult male citizens met in assembly and made decisions. Athenians were ruling
themselves directly without intermediaries of representatives. Political participation in
Athens, however, was not all-inclusive and opens to all. Women, slaves and aliens were not
considered as citizens and hence were not allowed to participate in the assembly.
Nevertheless, the Greek experiment of democracy is generally considered to have provided
important lesson for today's world. This is partly because of the facts that it was the first
known example of democracy, and was carried out in circumstances that can never be
repeated, which makes it possible to study a much simpler form of democratic government.
Although direct democracy is achieved in ancient Athens through a form of government by
mass meetings; its most common modern manifestations includes the use of referendum,
plebiscites, initiatives, and recall.

The advantages or merits of direct democracy include the following:

 it heightens the control that citizen can exercise over their own destinies, as it is the
only pure form of democracy;
 it creates a better-informed and more politically sophisticated citizenry, and thus it has
educational benefits;
  it enable the public to express their own views and interests without having to rely on
self-serving politicians; and
 it ensures that rule is legitimate in the sense that people are more likely to accept
decisions that they have made themselves.

6.2.2 INDIRECT (REPRESENTATIVE) DEMOCRACY

Indirect (Representative) Democracy is the modern form of democracy that we have today. In
representative form of democracy, citizens within a country elect representatives to make
decisions on their behalf. In this regard, the meaning of representative form of democracy is
that the whole people cannot directly participate in their own affairs but through their
representatives, which are periodically elected by the people themselves.

The purpose of representative government is to represent the will of the people by translating
popular sentiment or public interest into governmental policy. It therefore assumes that a good
measure of the performance of representative democracy, at least in its representative
capacity, involves comparing policy results with public opinion as it is or as it should be.
Representative or indirect form of democracy can be practiced in presidential, or
parliamentarian, or mixed democratic political systems.

The strengths of representative democracy include the following:

 it offers a practicable form of democracy

 it relieves ordinary citizens of the burden of decision-making
 it allows government to be placed in the hands of those with better education, expert
knowledge and greater experience
 it maintains stability by distancing ordinary citizens from politics, thereby
encouraging them to accept compromise.

LESSON THREE: TYPOLOGIES OF DEMOCRACY

6.3.1. SUBSTANTIVE VIEW OF DEMOCRACY

The substantive view concentrates on what a government actually does, that is, the policies it
makes should fulfill democratic ideals. A substantive theorist would not recognize a decision
that violated those ideals as "democratic" even if it were made in response to majority wishes.
Substantive theorists focus on the actual contents and nature of the democratic ideals.
Substantive democracy is a form of democracy in which the outcome of elections is
representative of the people´s interests. In other words, substantive democracy is a form of
democracy that functions in the interest of the governed. Though a country may allow all
citizens of age to vote; this characteristic of allowing universal suffrage does not necessarily
qualify it as a substantive democracy.

In a substantive democracy, the general population plays a real role in carrying out its
political affairs, i.e., the state is not merely set up a structure of democracy but it should
function effectively as well. This type of democracy can also be referred to as a functional
democracy.

6.3.2. PROCEDURAL VIEW OF DEMOCRACY

The procedural view stresses the form and process of government, or how the people govern.
Procedural democracy emphasizes on the principles of universal participation, political
equality, and majority rule. Modern nations are too large to employ direct (or participatory)
democracy, and they must rely on indirect democracy in the form of representative
government. The procedural view of democracy also insists on the principle of
responsiveness, that the government should follow the general thrust of public opinion. In
other words, the procedural view of democracy sets forth principles that describe how
government should make decisions and address three distinct questions:

 Who should participate in decision-making?

 How much should each participant's vote count?
 How many votes are needed to reach decisions?

Of course, there is no simple answer to these questions and as such there are various
perspectives on those issues.

In brief, procedural democracy is a democracy in which the people or citizens of the state
have less influence than in traditional liberal democracies. This type of democracy is
characterized by voters choosing to elect representatives in free elections. Procedural
democracy assumes that the electoral process is at the core of the authority placed in elected
officials and ensures that all procedures of elections are duly complied with. It could be
described as a democracy in which only the basic structures and institutions are in place.
Commonly, the previously elected representatives use electoral procedures to maintain
themselves in power against the common wish of the people, thus awkward the establishment
of a full-fledged democracy. Procedural democracy is quite different from substantive
democracy, which is manifested by equal participation of all groups in society in the political
process.

LESSON FOUR: FUNDAMENTAL VALUES AND PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY

6.4.1. Fundamental Values of Democracy

There are three fundamental values of democracy: liberty, equality and justice.

Liberty

Democracy as a system ensures freedom to the possible degree for all the people so that they
could develop their own capacity and potential. Liberty refers to the freedom enjoyed by
citizens to lead their life in their own way. The right to liberty is founded on the theoretical
justification that a society is characterized by value pluralism. Human beings make choices in
all their lives; and the choice and preference of individuals vary. For example, what an
individual believes as the right kind of worship is different from another; the association
which an individual seeks to be a member differs from others. So the best way of
accommodating all these diverse interests is guaranteeing the right to liberty to the individual

Some argue that the basic principles of democracy are founded in the idea that each individual
has a right to liberty. Democracy, it is said, extends the idea that each ought to be master of
his or her life to the domain of collective decision making. First, each person's life is deeply
affected by the larger social, legal and cultural environment in which he or she lives. Second,
only when each person has an equal voice and vote in the process of collective decision-
making will each have control over this larger environment.

Thinkers such as Carol Gould (1988) conclude that only when some kind of democracy is
implemented, will individuals have a chance at self-government. Since individuals have a
right of self-government, they have a right to democratic participation. This right is
established at least partly independently of the worth of the outcomes of democratic decision
making. The idea is that the right of self-government gives one a right, within limits, to do
wrong. Just as an individual has a right to make some bad decisions for himself or herself, so
a group of individuals have a right to make bad or unjust decisions for themselves regarding
those activities they share.

Liberty can also be understood in the distinction between the rights of a person has or should
have as a human being and the rights derived from governments. The former are often called
natural (sometimes human) rights, while the later are called civil rights. The civil rights, in
democratic political system, includes: the right to vote, freedom of speech, press, assembly,
religion, movement and freedom from arbitrary treatment.

The concept of liberty can also be understood through establishing a distinction between
positive and negative liberty. In a famous essay first published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin created
and called these two concepts of liberty: negative and positive respectively. The reason for
using these labels is that in the first case liberty seems to be a mere absence of something (i.e.
of obstacles, barriers, constraints or interference from others), whereas in the second case it
seems to require the presence of something (i.e. of control, self-mastery, self-determination or
self-realization). In Berlin's words, we use the negative concept of liberty in attempting to
answer the question “What is the area within which the subject (a person or group of persons)
is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other
persons?”, whereas we use the positive concept in attempting to answer the question “What,
or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this
rather than that?”

It is useful to think of the difference between the two concepts in terms of the difference
between factors that are external and factors that are internal to the agent. While theorists of
negative freedom are primarily interested in the degree to which individuals or groups suffer
interference from external bodies, theorists of positive freedom are more attentive to the
internal factors affecting the degree to which individuals or groups act autonomously.

In its political form, positive freedom has often been thought of as necessarily achieved
through a collectivity. Perhaps the clearest case is that of Rousseau's theory of freedom,
according to which individual freedom is achieved through participation in the process
whereby one's community exercises collective control over its own affairs in accordance with
the ‘general will’.
Put in the simplest terms, one might say that a democratic society is a free society because it
is a self-determined society, and that a member of that society is free to the extent that he or
she participates in its democratic process. But there are also individualist applications of the
concept of positive freedom. For example, it is sometimes said that a government should aim
actively to create the conditions necessary for individuals to be self-sufficient or to achieve
self-realization. The negative concept of freedom, on the other hand, is most commonly
assumed in liberal defenses of the constitutional liberties typical of liberal-democratic
societies, such as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and in
arguments against paternalist or moralist state intervention. It is also often invoked in
defenses of the right to private property, although some have contested the claim that private
property necessarily enhances negative liberty (Cohen1995).

Equality

Many democratic theorists have argued that democracy is a way of treating persons as equals
when there is good reason to impose some kind of organization on their shared lives but they
disagree about how best to do it. Democracy embodies a kind of peaceful and fair
compromise among these conflicting claims to rule. Each compromises equally on what he
claims as long as the others do, resulting in each having an equal say over decision making. In
effect, democratic decision making respects each person's point of view on matters of
common concern by giving each an equal say about what to do in cases of disagreement
(Singer 1973, Waldron 1999).

Three notions of equality are of particular interest.

Political equality: central to this concept is the idea that all people who attain the status of
adult hood have equal political rights. For example, each adult citizen is to have an equal right
to vote and to run for and hold political office.

Social equality: central to this idea is that there should be no social hierarchy at individual and
collective level through which some individuals have certain privileges and duties that others
do not have.

Economic equality: Economic equality means all citizens and peoples of a country deserve
equal and fair access to the national resources and services.

Equality refers to the condition of enjoying substantially similar rights, privileges and
protection, and being subjected to similar duties. Equality among persons or groups does not
ignore the fact that individuals or groups are indeed distinctive and different. Often people are
classified on the basis of various criteria, such as, gender, religion, race, social background,
physical condition, color, nationality, age, and marital status. These social, economic and
cultural backgrounds make up groups different. There is also an obvious inequality of
accomplishment among people on the basis of their talent or level. This should in no way lead
to unequal treatment under the law. Normally, constitutions incorporate provisions that
guarantee the rights of individuals and groups to equality.

Citizens' equal protection before the law however does not necessarily result in socio-
economic equality. This is why despite the fact that our laws guarantee the rights of citizens to
equality, we still observe a striking inequality between individual and groups.

Justice

Justice is essentially synonymous with the idea of fairness. Generally three types of justice are
recognized.

Distributive Justice. Central to the concept of distributive justice is the idea that the
distribution of benefits and burdens in society should be fair. These distributions should be
determined by agreed upon standards such as the application of the principle of equality.

Corrective Justice. Corrective justice is the idea that fair and proper response should be used
to correct wrongs and injuries.

Procedural Justice. Procedural Justice is the idea that the use of fair procedures for gathering
information and making decisions. Procedures of due process in the legal system as well as in
other governmental institutions should be guided by such principles as impartiality and
openness of proceedings. Standards of procedural justice may also be applied in the private
sector.

Among the proper ends of state and government, justice has been a high rank at all times.
Two axioms have been generally accepted without questions: first, government's own actions
ought to be just: second, those governmental institutions, such as the law courts, ought to
ensure the preservation of justice.

Nevertheless, we confronted with the problem of offering a precise definition of the term
justice on account of three essential difficulties. First, different people assign the term justice
to different meanings at different times and places which exhibits its implications to vary
from person to person on account of their varying interpretations. Second, the idea of justice
is a dynamic affair. As such, its implications change with the passage of time. Thus, what was
justice in the past may be injustice in the present and vice versa; it is also possible that the
justice of today becomes the injustice of tomorrow and vice versa.

A further difficulty arises in reconciling the abstract notions of justice with its practical
manifestations. For instance, one may talk of the divine justice or moral justice, but it will not
be conformable to any set of empirical standards and, for this reason, not capable of practical
application. Due to this we may conclude that most people understand the meaning of justice,
but in fact, their notions prove to be vague.

The concept of justice has important implications. First, it requires a just state of affairs. That
is, it is impossible to assess the justice of actions without a prior identification of the just state
of affairs. Second, it is aligned with conditions of morality. For instance, a fair play/race is
one in which any person who wins morally deserves to win but one in which there is no
cheating, nobody jumps the gun or has an unfair advantage through the use of bad things like
drugs. Third, it carries the sense of proper distribution of favors and losses. It means that it is
primarily concerned with the way rewards and punishments are distributed to individuals in a
rule-governed practice. Fourth, it normally prevails in a friendly atmosphere that is provided
by a domestic set up.

While dealing with the problem of offering a precise definition of justice, we should,
however, keep this paramount fact in our mind that not only do different individuals hold
various ideas about the ideal state of affairs they would consider really just; but also our ideas
and feelings of justice may be twofold or threefold, or even more fold, in accordance with
different times.

In precise definition, the term justice is beset with the problem of its normative as well as
empirical connotations. While in the normative sense, it implies the idea of joining or fitting
or the idea of a bond of tie; in an empirical context; it has its relation with the concept of
positive law with the result that law and justice become sister-concepts. It is owing to this
affirmation that the fundamental purpose of law is said to be the quest for justice which is to
be administered without passion as when passion 'comes at the door, justice flies out of the
window´. If justice is viewed in this sense, it implies the fulfillment of the legitimate
expectations of people under the existing legal system and state of affairs and ensuring them
benefits promised therein and afford them protection against their rights or against any
encroachment on their rights.

6.4.2: Fundamental Principles of Democracy

The citizen should understand the most basic principles of democracy and be familiar with the
tools in their applications to specific situations. The fundamental principles of democracy
include:

Popular Sovereignty (Sovereignty of People): the idea that the only legitimate source of
government authority is the consent of the governed. The citizens as a whole are the sovereign
of the state and hold the ultimate authority over public officials. Consent is given by the
people through their regularly elected representatives and through approval of all
constitutional changes. Popular sovereignty also means that the people have the right to
withdraw their consent when the government fails to fulfill its obligations under the
constitution.

The Supremacy of the Constitution: This is a principle that puts the constitution at the
highest level in the hierarchy of laws. According to this principle, the constitution is above all
other laws and organs of a state. This principle dictates that all laws and governmental or non-
governmental acts to be under the constitution. It is, thus, important for officials or any citizen
to take extra care not to violate any provision of the constitution.

Constitutional Government: Central to the principle of constitutional government is the idea

that in order to protect the basic rights of the people, government should be limited both in its
scope and in its methods. By consenting to the constitution, the sovereign people agree not
only to limit the powers of their government but their own powers as well.

The Rule of Law: The principle of the rule of law means that both government and the
governed are, and must be, subject to the laws of country. Government decisions and actions
shall be made according to the established laws of the country rather than by arbitrary action.

Separation of Powers: Another essential part of democracy is the idea that legislative,
executive, and judicial powers should be separated and exercised by different institutions.
And, if government follows federalism, power and functions should be distributed between
the central government and the regional state.
Checks and Balance: The powers given to the different branches of government are balanced
so that no branch can completely dominate the others. Many of the powers of one branch are
shared and checked by those of the other branches.

Majority Rule and Minority Rights: Majority rule should rule and make decisions and law.
The idea of minority rights means that decisions that are made in accordance with the
principle of majority rule should not unreasonably and unfairly infringe up on the rights of
minorities.

Civilian Control of Military: The principle of civilian control of the military is implied in
the constitutional provisions that the head of government or state is the commander in chief of
the armed forces and that the parliament has the power to declare war.

Secularism: Separation of Religion and State: Individuals and groups in a free society
should have freedom of conscience; the right to decide for them what to believe. Freedom of
conscience would be threatened if the government attempts to support some religions but not
others. Government should do only what is necessary to keep the peace and prevent one
religious group from violating the rights of others. To achieve this goal government should
not interfere with religion in any way.

Accountability and Transparency: Public participation is an essential element of the

principle of accountability and transparency. It is in society with a culture of participation and
open-minded citizens that the government and the public officials will be forced to be
accountable and transparent. This is because the ultimate power holder is the people and
hence the officials are ultimately accountable and transparent for the people.

Fair, Free and Periodic Elections: In representative democracy, the authority of the
government derives solely from the consent (will) of the governed (the people). The principal
mechanism for translating the consent of the people into governmental authority is the holding
of periodic, free and fair elections.

Peaceful Transition of Political Power: One of the most important elements of a democratic
system is the prevalence of peaceful transition of political power. In democratic election there
are always winners and losers of the vote to seize political power. If democracy is to succeed,
it is essential that political parties and their members compete in elections and accept their
results. When the incumbent party loss at election, it should transfer the political power
peacefully to the newly elected one.
Protecting and Sustaining of Human Rights: Human rights are those values that reflect
respect for human life and dignity. In other words, human rights have been defined as
“generally accepted principles of fairness and Justice” or “universal moral rights that belong
equally to all people simply because they are human rights”.

Multi – Party System : Multiparty system refers to a political system that legally allows and
has more than one party politics to participate in elections. In multiparty democracy, people of
different views and various ethnic groups will articulate their interests through establishing a
number of political parties to improve their development and promote their prosperity and
welfare.

Citizen Participation: One of the most basic evidences of a democracy is citizen

participation in government. Participation is the key role of citizens in democracy.
Participation is not only their right, but it is also their duty. Citizen participation may take
many forms including standing for election, voting in elections, becoming informed, debating
issues, attending community or civic meetings, being members of private voluntary
organizations, paying taxes, and even protesting etc. This active participation of citizens in all
affairs of his/her country considered as a cornerstone to build a better democracy.

Patriotism: It is the devotion to one’s country based on the principles and values of
constitution of a country and other specific laws where by people’s solidarity and prosperity is
founded upon and serves as an essentially unifying force within the considerable diversity of
pluralist society and facilitates the perpetuation of democratic institutions. Patriotic citizens
willingly undertake actions intended to enhance the common good. They act to protect the
country in time of national danger.

LESSON FIVE: ELECTION AND DEMOCRACY

6.5.1: DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL ELECTION

Since in a democracy the ideal is seeking the consent and mandate of the citizens for any
leader to be accepted as legitimate, citizen participation in the choice of their leaders is
important. Elections as the ‘means of filling public offices by competitive struggle for the
people’s vote has become synonymous with democracy as it empowers the common citizens
with the right to choose their leaders. As a result, elections have become one of the yardsticks
for measuring how democratic a country is. As such, participation in the decision-making
process and the conduct of free and fair elections are some of the major principles of
democracy, to the extent that one of the political responsibilities of every citizen is to vote for
responsible leadership in their community or country.

In contemporary age of representative democracy, election (characterized by certain objective

and subjective features like freeness, fairness, all-inclusiveness, competitiveness, periodic-
ness and the like) is assumed to be the heart or life-blood of democracy. This is, at least and in
part, for the very simple fact that democracies are as good as the people who elect their
representatives and, in turn, as good as the representatives who are elected. Electoral process
is a formal procedure by which individuals decide what to choose. The act that individuals
perform while choosing among the different alternatives in an election is called voting.
Nevertheless for an election to be regarded as the life-blood of democracy it must fulfill
certain standards: Fair, Free, All inclusive, Periodic, and Competitive.

The elements of democratic elections include:

Elections must be competitive: Opposition parties and candidates must enjoy the freedom of
speech, assembly and movement necessary to voice their criticism of the incumbent
government openly and to bring alternative policies and candidates to the voters.

Election must be free: free election implies the independence and autonomy of voters for
electing the candidate of their own choice. Voters should be given freedom, i.e. they should
not be harassed and intimated while choosing whomever they want. It is about the
confirmation of election with the guarantee and practice of basic civil and political rights.

Election must be fair: fair implies that the contending political parties and candidates in
general should compete on equal and equitable bases having an equal and equitable
accessibility to resources such as media coverage.

Elections must be periodical: Democracies do not elect dictators or presidents-for-life.

Elected officials are accountable to the citizens and they must return to the voters at
prescribed intervals to seek their mandate to continue in office or face the risk of being voted
out of office. Elections must be definitive, as they define who the public office bearers will be
for a specified period of time.

Elections must be inclusive: Who is entitled to vote and how widely is the franchise drawn?
The definition of the citizen and voter must be large enough to include the adult population. A
government chosen by a small, exclusive group is not a democracy no matter how democratic
its internal workings may appear. Elections, to be democratic, need to be all-inclusive in the
sense that they should be held on the basis of universal suffrage and participation of all
eligible parties i.e. franchise right should be extended to all adult individuals. If election
fulfils these standards it is in a way competitive.

Moreover, an election to be free from any possible intimidations and influences should be
held in secret ballot. This is just for the purpose of protecting the privacy of the voter.
Democracies thrive on openness and accountability, with one very important exception: the
act of voting itself. To minimize the opportunity for intimidation, voters in a democracy must
be permitted to cast their ballots in secret. At the same time, the protection of the ballot box
and the tallying of the votes must be conducted as openly as possible, so that the citizens are
confident that the results are accurate and that the government does, indeed, rest upon their
consent.

One of the difficult concepts for some to accept where the transition of power has historically
not taken place peacefully is that of the ‘loyal opposition’. It means that all sides in a
democracy share a common commitment to its basic values. Political competitors do not
necessarily have to like one another, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge that
each has a legitimate and important role to play. The ground rules of the society must
encourage tolerance and civility in public debate. After the election, the losers accept the
judgement of the voters. If the incumbent party loses, it must turn over power peacefully. No
matter who wins, both sides must agree to cooperate in solving the common problems of the
society.

Elections are usually coordinated and carried out by an electoral commissions or boards.
These commissions shall be independent and neutral of any political loyalty or affiliation for
undertaking the election properly and in a democratic manner. In addition to an independent
and neutral electoral board, a democratic election also requires an independent judiciary
organ. Those individuals or parties who disagree with the final decision of the electoral
commission submit their complaints to courts for final decision.

6.5.2: Electoral Systems

An electoral system is a set of rules that governs the conduct of elections. The way elections
of public officials are conducted varies from country to country. Whatever the system used,
election processes must be seen as fair and open so that the election results are recognized as
legitimate.

An electoral process of a given state is not only about the simple translation of votes in to
seats but also must addresses, at least the following issue: the number of people and the
constituency a candidate represents, the number of representatives that a constituency would
have, and the electoral system.

The electoral systems in different countries and the different systems have different effects.
Electoral systems functions to select representatives and translate the votes cast in a general
election into seats won by parties and candidates in the parliament. Electoral systems also
affect the way in which district boundaries are drawn, how voters are registered, how votes
are counted and most importantly, the degree of political dissent and type of political activity
in the country. They also affect the outcome in terms of which parties gain control. Electoral
systems also influence the growth of political parties. A proportional representation system
encourages the development of many parties, for instance. But the effects of different
electoral systems cannot be determined with any degree of certainty; each country is very
different from every other and often-unexpected circumstance and factors have a function.

Generally, there are two types of electoral systems: Majoritarian and Proportional
representation systems.

 The Majority systems, which involves some sort of majority rule in deciding who
wins the election, and
 The Proportional representation system that uses a formula to calculate the seat
allocation, and the size of the district, as well as the number of representatives per
district, proportionate to the total electorate.

There are different forms or kinds of electoral systems grouped under each of these two types
of electoral systems, that is, the majoritarian system and the proportional representation
systems.

Ethiopia, since 1991, is following majoritarian electoral system. And among the variants of
the majoritarian system, Ethiopia practice the electoral system called Single-Member
Plurality System (SMP) or First Past the Post (FPTP).
FPTP (First Past the Post) is the simplest form of plurality-majority electoral system. It
involves electoral districts from which a single representative is elected to office, for instance
the legislature. The winning candidate is simply the one who gains more votes than anyone
else but, importantly, it doesn’t have to be the majority of the votes. That is, the candidate
gains a plurality of votes and has the majority of votes by having more than anyone else.
Countries like Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Puerto Rico, the USA and the UK subscribe to
this type of electoral system.

CHAPTER SEVEN: ETHICS

CHAPTER CONTENTS:

7.1. What is Ethics

7.2. Metaethics
7.2.1. Objectivism
7.2.2. Relativism
7.3. Normative Ethics
7.3.1. Virtue Ethics
7.3.2. Deontological/Duty Ethics
7.3.3. Consequentialist Ethics
7.4. Applied Ethics
7.4.1. Normative Principles in Applied Ethics
7.4.2. Issues in Applied Ethics

References and Further Reading

Anscombe, Elizabeth. (1981). Ethics, Religion and Politics. Blackwell: Oxford.
Velasquez, Manuel. (2011). Philosophy: A Text with Readings. (11 Ed.). Wadsworth: Boston
Wagner, F. Michael. (1991). An Historical Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Prentice Hall:
New Jersey.

LESSON ONE: INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS

WHAT IS ETHICS?

Ethics is one of the major fields of philosophy. Philosophy is the oldest discipline of liberal
arts that seeks to liberate us (human beings) from ignorance and free us from the particular
forces and prejudices which influence our beliefs and threaten to control our lives, allowing us
to achieve our own human excellence. Philosophy is the critical and rational activity in
arguing, evaluating and investigating the most fundamental questions of human beings taking
reason as the highest authority. Etymologically, the word “philosophy” comes from the Greek
(derived from the terms “philo” or Love, and “sophia” or Wisdom) word meaning “Love of
Wisdom”. Basically, the fields of study in philosophy include: methaphysics (the study of
reality or existence), epistemology (the study of knowledge), ethics (the study of moral value,
right and wrong), aesthetics (the study of beauty and art), and logic (the study of principles of
correct/right reasoning).

Ethics, as branch of philosophy, is the study of moral values that tries to determine which
things are morally good and which actions are morally right through reflecting on one´s moral
standards or the moral standards of a group or a society and asking whether they are
reasonable. It aims to at developing standards that we feel are reasonable to hold, standards
that we have thought about and have decided are justified.

Ethics is the study of rightness and wrongness of human actions and conducts. The term
“ethics” comes from the Greek term “ethika or éthos” which means custom or habit or
character. Ethics is a means to decide a course of human action or conduct as right or wrong,
or as bad or good based rational ethical principles and standards. It deals with the study of the
principles or standards of human conducts and action centering on the aspects of the right
conduct and the good life. It is an attempt to understand and critically evaluate our moral
values and principles and to see how these relate to our conduct, actions, and social
arrangements.

In ethics, we are concerned with what we ought to do, what consequences ought to be
achieved, and what sort of persons we ought to become. In other words, ethics is a normative
inquiry and not a descriptive one. It seeks to establish and prescribe norms, standards, or
principles for evaluating our actual practices. It is used to designate the philosophical task of
discerning which moral principles are rationally defensible and which actions are genuinely
good or bad.

We are all told, and we (probably) all believe, that there are some things we ought to do and
others that we ought not. Particularly, the process of living with in a society gives rise to
human beings to the need of determining what is right and wrong, and of establishing ideals
with which they can praise or blame others and themselves. Some acts are approved and are
called right or good while other acts are condemned and are called wrong or evil. Moreover,
human beings want to know and understand their own obligation, i.e. what they ought to do.
Ethics is an examination of these ‘oughts’ or norms of behaviour. What it seeks to provide are
justifications for the ‘oughts’ that we use to guide us through life.

Ethics is concerned with moral values as it applies to personal relations, actions, and
judgments through asking the questions such as: Why be moral? What is morally right or
wrong? What is morally good or evil? Are there any absolute or universal moral principles to
follow? Does the end justify the means?

The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide
ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied
ethics.

Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are
they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual
emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the
will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms
themselves. It investigates ethics itself, that is, its methods, basic concepts, and natures of
various ethical (moral) philosophies. The nature of the theories and the principles they
propose, the nature of the judgments and concepts are dealt in metaethics.. Normative ethics
takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and
wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the
duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. It searches for
standards for moral conduct. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial
issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, environment and development concerns, sexual
morality, war and terrorism, equality and discrimination, euthanasia, pornography, and animal
rights.

By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied
ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction between metaethics,
normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an
applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also
depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to
life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests
on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" and "what kind of beings have
rights?".

LESSON TWO: METAETHICS

The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of metaethics involves
a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of ethics. We may define metaethics as the
study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared to normative ethics and
applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy.
It covers issues from moral semantics to moral philosophy. Two issues, though, are
prominent: (1) metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently of
humans, and (2) psychological issues concerning the underlying mental basis of our moral
judgments and conduct.

The psychological issues of metaethics involve the psychological basis of our moral
judgments and conduct, particularly understanding what motivates us to be moral. We might
explore this subject by asking the simple question, "Why be moral?" Even if I am aware of
basic moral standards, such as don't kill and don't steal, this does not necessarily mean that I
will be psychologically compelled to act on them. Some answers to the question "Why be
moral?" are to avoid punishment, to gain praise, to attain happiness, to be dignified, or to fit in
with society.

Such concerns can be examined through critically reflecting on egoism (moral actions derived
from selfish desire), altruism (instinctive selfless desire to act), the role of reason and emotion
in motivating moral actions, as well as the feminist philosophers response on the
psychological difference between men and women.

The metaphysical issues concerns on whether morality exists independently of humans or not.
Metaphysics is the study of the kinds of things that exist in the universe. Some things in the
universe are made of physical stuff, such as rocks; and perhaps other things are nonphysical in
nature, such as thoughts, spirits, and gods. The metaphysical component of metaethics
involves discovering specifically whether moral values are eternal truths that exist in a spirit-
like realm, or simply human conventions. There are two general directions that discussions of
this topic take, one other-worldly and one this-worldly.

7.2.1. OBJECTIVISM
Ethical objectivism is the view that there are universally and objectively valid moral
principles that are relative neither to the individual nor to the society. Although there is
difference on which ethical principle to be followed; all ethical objectivists agree that there
are moral principles that universally apply for all persons in all the times and objectively
based without regarding individual opinion and culture. For ethical objectivism position, there
are objectively right and wrong answers to ethical questions just as there are objectively true
and false answers to questions in mathematics, medicine, or physics.

Proponents of the other-worldly view typically hold that moral values are objective in the
sense that they exist in a spirit-like realm beyond subjective human conventions. They also
hold that they are absolute, or eternal, in that they never change, and also that they are
universal insofar as they apply to all rational creatures around the world and throughout time.
The most dramatic example of this view is Plato, who was inspired by the field of
mathematics. When we look at numbers and mathematical relations, such as 1+1=2, they
seem to be timeless concepts that never change, and apply everywhere in the universe.
Humans do not invent numbers, and humans cannot alter them. Plato explained the eternal
character of mathematics by stating that they are abstract entities that exist in a spirit-like
realm. He noted that moral values also are absolute truths and thus are also abstract, spirit-like
entities. In this sense, for Plato, moral values are spiritual objects.

Medieval philosophers commonly grouped all moral principles together under the heading of
"eternal law" which were also frequently seen as spirit-like objects. 17 th century British
philosopher Samuel Clarke described them as spirit-like relationships rather than spirit-like
objects. In either case, though, they exist in a spirit-like realm. A different other-worldly
approach to the metaphysical status of morality is divine commands issuing from God's will.
Sometimes called voluntarism (or divine command theory), this view was inspired by the
notion of an all-powerful God who is in control of everything. God simply wills things, and
they become reality. He wills the physical world into existence, he wills human life into
existence and, similarly, he wills all moral values into existence. Proponents of this view,
such as medieval philosopher William of Ockham, believe that God wills moral principles,
such as "murder is wrong," and these exist in God's mind as commands. God informs humans
of these commands by implanting us with moral intuitions or revealing these commands in
scripture.
In addition to the divine command theory, ethical egoism, utilitarianism, Kant´s deontological
theory, virtue theory are all fall under the heading of ethical objectivism which we will
explore most of them in the Lesson 6.3, on normative ethics.

7.2.2. RELATIVISM

The second and more this-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality follows in
the skeptical philosophical tradition, such as that articulated by Greek philosopher Sextus
Empiricus, and denies the objective status of moral values. Technically, skeptics did not reject
moral values themselves, but only denied that values exist as spirit-like objects, or as divine
commands in the mind of God. Moral values, they argued, are strictly human inventions, a
position that has since been called moral relativism.

Ethical relativism is the position that there are no objective or universally valid moral
principles, because all moral judgments are simply a matter of human opinion. In other words,
there is no right or wrong apart from what people consider to be right or wrong. Ethical
relativists claim that there are no objective considerations by means of which we can say that
a particular moral judgment is mistaken or that some moral judgments are better than others.

There are two distinct forms of moral relativism. The first is individual relativism, which
holds that individual people create their own moral standards. Friedrich Nietzsche, for
example, argued that the superhuman creates his or her morality distinct from and in reaction
to the slave-like value system of the masses.

The second is cultural relativism which maintains that morality is grounded in the approval of
one's society - and not simply in the preferences of individual people. This view was
advocated by Sextus, and in more recent centuries by Michel Montaigne and William Graham
Sumner.

In addition to espousing skepticism and relativism, this-worldly approaches to the

metaphysical status of morality deny the absolute and universal nature of morality and hold
instead that moral values in fact change from society to society throughout time and
throughout the world. They frequently attempt to defend their position by citing examples of
values that differ dramatically from one culture to another, such as attitudes about polygamy,
homosexuality and human sacrifice.

LESSON THREE: NORMATIVE ETHICS

Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct.
The normative nature of ethics or moral philosophy lies in its attempt to discern evaluative
standards for human conduct. The “wisdom” sought by the ethical or moral philosophers is
evaluative standards –an understanding of what determines when something is good or bad, or
right or wrong. It seeks to impose itself on us by telling us what human conduct should or
ought to be like, if it is to merit a positive evaluation.

In a sense, normative ethics is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden
Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would
want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for
me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help
feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any
possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for
me to lie, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a
normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions. Other
normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, or a set of good character traits.

The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of moral
conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles. Three strategies will be noted here:
(1) virtue theories, (2) duty theories, and (3) consequentialist theories.

7.3.1. VIRTUE ETHICS

Many philosophers believe that morality consists of following precisely defined rules of
conduct, such as "don't kill," or "don't steal." Presumably, I must learn these rules, and then
make sure each of my actions live up to the rules. Virtue ethics, however, places less
emphasis on learning rules, and instead stresses the importance of developing good habits of
character, such as benevolence. Once I've acquired benevolence, for example, I will then
habitually act in a benevolent manner. Historically, virtue theory is one of the oldest
normative traditions in Western philosophy, having its roots in ancient Greek civilization.
Plato emphasized four virtues in particular, which were later called cardinal virtues: wisdom,
courage, temperance and justice. Other important virtues are fortitude, generosity, self-
respect, good temper, and sincerity. In addition to advocating good habits of character, virtue
theorists hold that we should avoid acquiring bad character traits, or vices, such as
cowardice, insensibility, injustice, and vanity. Virtue theory emphasizes moral education
since virtuous character traits are developed in one's youth. Adults, therefore, are responsible
for instilling virtues in the young.

Aristotle´s Theory of Virtue: In his great work Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle wrote that
human beings can be happy only if they fulfill their basic human purpose or function. That is,
human can be happy only if they act as humans are specifically meant to act. Because only
humans can reason, Aristotle concluded that humans are meant to act with reason. That is, we
humans will be happy only if we are able to act with reason in the various circumstances of
our life. Because the ability to do something well is a virtue, Aristotle concludes that humans
will achieve happiness only by developing their virtues. Aristotle´s ethic of virtue says
humans will achieve happiness –their ultimate end- only by fulfilling their specific purpose,
which is to exercise their reason, and to do so in an excellent or virtuous way.

Aristotle argued that virtues are good habits that we acquire, which regulate our emotions. For
example, in response to my natural feelings of fear, I should develop the virtue of courage
which allows me to be firm when facing danger. Analyzing 11 specific virtues, Aristotle
argued that most virtues fall at a mean between more extreme character traits. Being
virtuous in our actions and feelings is achieved by hitting the mean as determined by reason
and avoiding excess or deficiency in our actions and feelings. With courage, for example, if I
do not have enough courage, I develop the disposition of cowardice, which is a vice. If I have
too much courage I develop the disposition of rashness which is also a vice. According to
Aristotle, it is not an easy task to find the perfect mean between extreme character traits. In
fact, we need assistance from our reason to do this.

After Aristotle, medieval theologians supplemented Greek lists of virtues with three
Christian ones, or theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity. Interest in virtue theory
continued through the middle ages and declined in the 19 th century with the rise of alternative
moral theories. In the mid-20th century virtue theory received special attention from
philosophers who believed that more recent ethical theories were misguided for focusing too
heavily on rules and actions, rather than on virtuous character traits. Alasdaire MacIntyre
(1984) defended the central role of virtues in moral theory and argued that virtues are
grounded in and emerge from within social traditions.

Understanding and Internalizing Civic Virtues

In relation to the virtue ethics, let see some of the most common civic virtues which ought to
be taken as dispositions of good citizens for well-functioning, healthy and democratic society.

It is viewed that the citizen committed to civic virtue as one who watches both sets of values-
those of the public good and those of freedom, diversity, and individual rights and who acts
on the basis of the best informed judgment that profoundly study and active participation can
be provided.

It is believed that civic virtue embraces rational thinking and acting in such a way that
individual rights are viewed in light of the public good and that the public good includes the
protection of individual rights. Whether one prefers to stress balance, equilibrium, or tension
between these traditions, or views them as a blend, mixture, or tapestry it is believed that the
effort to identify and understand their ingredients is the first major step toward the practice of
civic virtue.

Civic virtue is described in terms of civic dispositions and civic commitments:

Civic Dispositions refers to those attitudes and ingrained habits of mind that are conducive to
behavior that leads to the healthy functioning and common good of the democratic system.
These dispositions also enhance the individual’s ability to participate competently and
responsibly in the political system.

Dispositions of the citizen conducive to the healthy functioning of a constitutional democracy

include the following:

1. Civility: - is a polite way of acting or behaving towards others. It is the need to respect
others. This includes the respect and politeness we show to those with whom even we may
disagree. In this case, thus, we are expected to respect the rights of those who are in dispute
with us. It is an element of civilized behavior. Moreover it is a way of peaceful living and co-
existence with others.

In its civic context, civility has the following characteristics:

Respect: Civility includes treating others with respect and as individuals inherently worthy of
regard whether or not one agrees with their positions.

Civil discourse: Civility includes a disposition to take part in public debate and in doing so to
adhere to commonly accepted standards of discourse such as: Addressing the issue: Debate
should be based on the substance of opponents’ argument or positions on the issue and not on
personal attacks on their character. Respecting the right of others to be heard: Disruptive
tactics that undermine debate in a public forum should be avoided. However, when people are
unjustly denied their right to express their views, disruptive tactics such as civil disobedience
and similar non – violent activities can be justified.

2. Individual responsibility: - refers to the moral and legal obligation of citizens, and hence
citizens should be disposed to care for and take responsibility for themselves and their actions
and activities.

3. Self – discipline: - Virtuous citizens freely adhere to the fundamental rules required for the
maintenance of a system of constitutional government without requiring the imposition of
external authority. In all situations, there are some rules and regulations to be observed. These
rules and regulations help to guide our actions. Thus, we should be able to respect these rules
and standards in our day-to-day activities. When we do this freely and from our own
initiative, our actions can be referred as self-disciplined. Thus self-discipline comes from
inside of us without being forced or controlled by outside expectations or impositions.

4. Civic –mindedness: - this refers to citizen’s readiness and desire to give concern to the
public. Thoughtful citizens recognize that there is often a tension between private interest and
the common good. Citizens should understand that there are times when they should place the
common good above their personal interests. Civic-mindedness is unselfish behavior that
enables us to do well and make sacrifice ourselves to the society and to our nation.

5. Open-mindedness: - This is the disposition to be receptive to different ideas and

arguments. This includes the following attributes:

Openness: - citizens should be open to considering opposing positions and changing or

modifying their own positions. Openness to opposing positions and arguments, however, does
not mean that all views are of equal value or validity.

A healthy skepticism: - A healthy skepticism is an appropriate response of the citizen to

unsupported generalizations and dogmatism.

Recognition of ambiguity: - citizens should recognize that actions and situations are
sometimes capable of more than one interpretation and that the character of political and
social reality is therefore sometimes ambiguous. It may therefore be difficult to achieve full
understanding or certainty.
6. Compromise (Negotiation/bargaining): - is one form of behavior that should be observed
in settling conflicts peacefully. It involves the readiness and willingness to spare something
on both sides of the conflict in favor of the peaceful resolution of the problem and its
outcome. That means, whenever we are in conflict with others on a certain issue, there is a
need to give up some of our positions or interests. However compromise never allows
abandoning basic principles and interests. Therefore, compromise is based on the principle of
give and take spirit and hence involves concession and counter concession by each party or
individual person engaged in conflict.

7. Patience and persistence: - Citizens should understand that forming or changing public
policy usually requires a great deal of time and persistent effort. They should not be
discouraged from this fact or by the inevitable delays and failures that result when trying to
exert influence on governmental decision-making.

8. Compassion: - Compassion is the disposition to empathize with others and show concern
for their welfare, and hence, it is an essential attribute of citizens in a society devoted to the
common good.

9. Generosity: - Generosity means the disposition to spend time, effort, and resources in a
civic context for the benefit of others. The virtuous citizen shows generosity to others and to
the community at large.

10. Loyalty to the Nation and its Constitution: - Citizens should habitually act in accord
with the fundamental values and principles of the constitution and be committed to narrowing
the gap between those values and principles and the actual practice. In doing so, constitution
clearly becomes effective and hence constitutionalism profoundly prevails across the nation
and the society.

Civic Commitment and Internalization

Civic commitments are reasoned devotion or commitment expected to be discharged or

fulfilled by all citizens of a given state. Civic commitment is profoundly applied or practiced
if and only if citizens conspicuously and persistently internalized the aforementioned and
other civic virtues, and thereby, making them part and parcel of their behavior conduct. It is
only if civic commitment is essentially practiced by each and every citizen that our social
system and solidarity get effective, and hence not fragile.

7.3.2. DEONTOLOGICAL / DUTY ETHICS

Many of us feel that there are clear obligations we have as human beings, such as to care for
our children, and not to commit murder. Duty theories base morality on specific, foundational
principles of obligation. These theories are sometimes called deontological, from the Greek
word deon, or duty, in view of the foundational nature of our duty or obligation. They are also
sometimes called nonconsequentialist since these principles are obligatory, irrespective of the
consequences that might follow from our actions. For example, it is wrong to not care for our
children even if it results in some great benefit, such as financial savings.

There are four central duty theories. The first is that championed by 17th century German
philosopher Samuel Pufendorf, who classified dozens of duties under three headings: duties
to God, duties to oneself, and duties to others. Concerning our duties towards God, he argued
that there are two kinds:

1. a theoretical duty to know the existence and nature of God, and

2. a practical duty to both inwardly and outwardly worship God.

Concerning our duties towards oneself, these are also of two sorts:

1. duties of the soul, which involve developing one's skills and talents, and
2. duties of the body, which involve not harming our bodies, as we might through
gluttony or drunkenness, and not killing oneself.

Concerning our duties towards others, Pufendorf divides these between absolute duties, which
are universally binding on people, and conditional duties, which are the result of contracts
between people. Absolute duties are of three sorts:

1. avoid wronging others,

2. treat people as equals, and
3. promote the good of others.

Conditional duties involve various types of agreements, the principal one of which is the duty
is to keep one's promises.

A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Most generally, a "right" is a

justified claim against another person's behavior - such as my right to not be harmed by you.
Rights and duties are related in such a way that the rights of one person imply the duties of
another person. For example, if I have a right to payment of $10 by Zelalem, then Zelalem has
a duty to pay me $10. This is called the correlativity of rights and duties. The most influential
early account of rights theory is that of 17 th century British philosopher John Locke, who
argued that the laws of nature mandate that we should not harm anyone's life, health, liberty
or possessions. For Locke, these are our natural rights, given to us by God.

Following Locke, the United States Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas

Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Jefferson and others rights theorists maintained that we deduce other more specific rights
from these, including the rights of property, movement, speech, and religious expression.

There are four features traditionally associated with moral rights. First, rights are natural
insofar as they are not invented or created by governments. Second, they are universal insofar
as they do not change from country to country. Third, they are equal in the sense that rights
are the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap. Fourth, they are
inalienable which means that I cannot hand over my rights to another person, such as by
selling myself into slavery.

A third duty-based theory is that by Kant, which emphasizes a single principle of duty.
Influenced by Pufendorf, Kant agreed that we have moral duties to oneself and others, such as
developing one's talents, and keeping our promises to others. However, Kant argued that there
is a more foundational principle of duty that encompasses our particular duties. It is a single,
self-evident principle of reason that he calls the "categorical imperative."

A categorical imperative, he argued, is fundamentally different from hypothetical imperatives

that hinge on some personal desire that we have, for example, "If you want to get a good job,
then you ought to go to college." By contrast, a categorical imperative simply mandates an
action, irrespective of one's personal desires, such as "You ought to do X." Kant gives at least
four versions of the categorical imperative, but one is especially direct: Treat people as an
end, and never as a means to an end. That is, we should always treat people with dignity, and
never use them as mere instruments. For Kant, we treat people as an end whenever our actions
toward someone reflect the inherent value of that person. Donating to charity, for example, is
morally correct since this acknowledges the inherent value of the recipient.

By contrast, we treat someone as a means to an end whenever we treat that person as a tool to
achieve something else. It is wrong, for example, to steal my neighbor's car since I would be
treating her as a means to my own happiness. The categorical imperative also regulates the
morality of actions that affect us individually. Suicide, for example, would be wrong since I
would be treating my life as a means to the alleviation of my misery. Kant believes that the
morality of all actions can be determined by appealing to this single principle of duty.

A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher W.D. Ross, which
emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his 17th and 18th century counterparts, Ross argues that
our duties are "part of the fundamental nature of the universe."

However, Ross's list of duties is much shorter, which he believes reflects our actual moral
convictions:

 Fidelity: the duty to keep promises

 Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them
 Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us
 Justice: the duty to recognize merit
 Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others
 Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue and intelligence
 Nonmaleficence: the duty to not injure others

Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must choose between two conflicting
duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow my neighbor's gun and promise to return it
when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, my neighbor pounds on my door and asks for the
gun so that he can take vengeance on someone. On the one hand, the duty of fidelity obligates
me to return the gun; on the other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence obligates me to avoid
injuring others and thus not return the gun. According to Ross, I will intuitively know which
of these duties is my actual duty, and which is my apparent or prima facie duty. In this case,
my duty of nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty and I should not return the gun.

7.3.3. CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICS

It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighting the consequences of

our actions. According to consequentialism, correct moral conduct is determined solely by a
cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences: Consequentialism: An action is morally
right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable.
Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good and bad
consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total good consequences
outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is
morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper.
Consequentialist theories are sometimes called teleological theories, from the Greek word
telos, or end, since the end result of the action is the sole determining factor of its morality.

Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18th century by philosophers who wanted a
quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to experience, rather than by appealing to
gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. In fact, the most attractive feature of
consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable consequences of actions. Most
versions of consequentialism are more precisely formulated than the general principle above.
In particular, competing consequentialist theories specify which consequences for affected
groups of people are relevant. Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:

 Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action.
 Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are
more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent.
 Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more
favorable than unfavorable to everyone.

All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different groups of people.
But, like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of each other. They also
yield different conclusions. Consider the following example. A woman was traveling through
a developing country when she witnessed a car in front of her run off the road and roll over
several times. She asked the hired driver to pull over to assist, but, to her surprise, the driver
accelerated nervously past the scene. A few miles down the road, the driver explained that in
his country if someone assists an accident victim, then the police often hold the assisting
person responsible for the accident itself. If the victim dies, then the assisting person could be
held responsible for the death. The driver continued explaining that road accident victims are
therefore usually left unattended and often die from exposure to the country's harsh desert
conditions. On the principle of ethical egoism, the woman in this illustration would only be
concerned with the consequences of her attempted assistance as she would be affected.
Clearly, the decision to drive on would be the morally proper choice. On the principle of
ethical altruism, she would be concerned only with the consequences of her action as others
are affected, particularly the accident victim. Tallying only those consequences reveals that
assisting the victim would be the morally correct choice, irrespective of the negative
consequences that result for her. On the principle of utilitarianism, she must consider the
consequences for both herself and the victim. The outcome here is less clear, and the woman
would need to precisely calculate the overall benefit versus disbenefit of her action.

I. Types of Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed
systems of utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworthy. First, Bentham proposed
that we tally the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on a case by
case basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of Bentham's theory is
known as act-utilitiarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the pleasure and
pain which results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only
consequences that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral. This aspect of
Bentham's theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point out limitations in both
of these aspects.

First, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to waste time on leisure

activities such as watching television, since our time could be spent in ways that produced a
greater social benefit, such as charity work. But prohibiting leisure activities doesn't seem
reasonable. More significantly, according to act-utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or
slavery would be morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions outweighed the
disbenefit. A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism addresses these
problems. According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the
consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.

Unlike act utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of each particular action, rule-
utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as "stealing is
wrong." Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favorable consequences than
unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is true for moral rules against lying or
murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. A
particular action, such as stealing my neighbor's car, is judged wrong since it violates a moral
rule against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because adopting this rule
produces favorable consequences for everyone. John Stuart Mill's version of utilitarianism is
rule-oriented.
Second, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences are the only factors
that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too restrictive since it ignores other
morally significant consequences that are not necessarily pleasing or painful. For example,
acts which foster loyalty and friendship are valued, yet they are not always pleasing. In
response to this problem, G.E. Moore proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves tallying
any consequence that we intuitively recognize as good or bad (and not simply as pleasurable
or painful). Also, R.M. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism, which involves tallying any
consequence that fulfills our preferences.

II. Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Theory Hobbes was an advocate of the
methaethical theory of psychological egoism—the view that all of our actions are selfishly
motivated. Upon that foundation, Hobbes developed a normative theory known as social
contract theory, which is a type of rule-ethical-egoism. According to Hobbes, for purely
selfish reasons, the agent is better off living in a world with moral rules than one without
moral rules. For without moral rules, we are subject to the whims of other people's selfish
interests.

Our property, our families, and even our lives are at continual risk. Selfishness alone will
therefore motivate each agent to adopt a basic set of rules which will allow for a civilized
community. Not surprisingly, these rules would include prohibitions against lying, stealing
and killing. However, these rules will ensure safety for each agent only if the rules are
enforced. As selfish creatures, each of us would plunder our neighbors' property once their
guards were down. Each agent would then be at risk from his neighbor. Therefore, for selfish
reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing these rules: we create a policing agency which
punishes us if we violate these rules.

LESSON FOUR: APPLIED ETHICS

Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific, controversial
moral issues such as abortion, animal rights, or euthanasia. In recent years applied ethical
issues have been subdivided into convenient groups such as medical ethics, business ethics,
environmental ethics, and sexual ethics.

Generally speaking, two features are necessary for an issue to be considered an "applied
ethical issue." First, the issue needs to be controversial in the sense that there are significant
groups of people both for and against the issue at hand. The issue of drive-by shooting, for
example, is not an applied ethical issue, since everyone agrees that this practice is grossly
immoral. By contrast, the issue of gun control would be an applied ethical issue since there
are significant groups of people both for and against gun control.

The second requirement for an issue to be an applied ethical issue is that it must be a
distinctly moral issue. On any given day, the media presents us with an array of sensitive
issues such as affirmative action policies, gays in the military, involuntary commitment of the
mentally impaired, capitalistic versus socialistic business practices, public versus private
health care systems, or energy conservation. Although all of these issues are controversial and
have an important impact on society, they are not all moral issues. Some are only issues of
social policy. The aim of social policy is to help make a given society run efficiently by
devising conventions, such as traffic laws, tax laws, and zoning codes. Moral issues, by
contrast, concern more universally obligatory practices, such as our duty to avoid lying, and
are not confined to individual societies. Frequently, issues of social policy and morality
overlap, as with murder which is both socially prohibited and immoral. However, the two
groups of issues are often distinct. For example, many people would argue that sexual
promiscuity is immoral, but may not feel that there should be social policies regulating sexual
conduct, or laws punishing us for promiscuity. Similarly, some social policies forbid residents
in certain neighborhoods from having yard sales. But, so long as the neighbors are not
offended, there is nothing immoral in itself about a resident having a yard sale in one of these
neighborhoods. Thus, to qualify as an applied ethical issue, the issue must be more than one
of mere social policy: it must be morally relevant as well.

In theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues should be easy. With the issue of
abortion, for example, we would simply determine its morality by consulting our normative
principle of choice, such as act-utilitarianism. If a given abortion produces greater benefit than
disbenefit, then, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally acceptable to have the
abortion. Unfortunately, there are perhaps hundreds of rival normative principles from which
to choose, many of which yield opposite conclusions. Thus, the stalemate in normative ethics
between conflicting theories prevents us from using a single decisive procedure for
determining the morality of a specific issue. The usual solution today to this stalemate is to
consult several representative normative principles on a given issue and see where the weight
of the evidence lies.

7.4.1. Normative Principles in Applied Ethics

Arriving at a short list of representative normative principles is itself a challenging task. The
principles selected must not be too narrowly focused, such as a version of act-egoism that
might focus only on an action's short-term benefit. The principles must also be seen as having
merit by people on both sides of an applied ethical issue. For this reason, principles that
appeal to duty to God are not usually cited since this would have no impact on a nonbeliever
engaged in the debate.

The following principles are the ones most commonly appealed to in applied ethical
discussions:

 Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial

consequences for the individual in question.
 Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial
consequences for society.
 Principle of benevolence: help those in need.
 Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they
cannot do so themselves.
 Principle of harm: do not harm others.
 Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.
 Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.
 Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her actions or
physical body.
 Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair compensation
for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.
 Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free expression,
and safety.

The above principles represent a spectrum of traditional normative principles and are derived
from both consequentialist and duty-based approaches. The first two principles, personal
benefit and social benefit, are consequentialist since they appeal to the consequences of an
action as it affects the individual or society. The remaining principles are duty-based. The
principles of benevolence, paternalism, harm, honesty, and lawfulness are based on duties we
have toward others. The principles of autonomy, justice, and the various rights are based on
moral rights.
An example will help illustrate the function of these principles in an applied ethical
discussion. In 1982, a couple from Bloomington, Indiana gave birth to a baby with severe
mental and physical disabilities. Among other complications, the infant, known as Baby Doe,
had its stomach disconnected from its throat and was thus unable to receive nourishment.
Although this stomach deformity was correctable through surgery, the couple did not want to
raise a severely disabled child and therefore chose to deny surgery, food, and water for the
infant. Local courts supported the parents' decision, and six days later Baby Doe died. Should
corrective surgery have been performed for Baby Doe? Arguments in favor of corrective
surgery derive from the infant's right to life and the principle of paternalism which stipulates
that we should pursue the best interests of others when they are incapable of doing so
themselves. Arguments against corrective surgery derive from the personal and social
disbenefit which would result from such surgery. If Baby Doe survived, its quality of life
would have been poor and in any case it probably would have died at an early age. Also, from
the parent's perspective, Baby Doe's survival would have been a significant emotional and
financial burden.

When examining both sides of the issue, the parents and the courts concluded that the
arguments against surgery were stronger than the arguments for surgery. First, foregoing
surgery appeared to be in the best interests of the infant, given the poor quality of life it would
endure. Second, the status of Baby Doe's right to life was not clear given the severity of the
infant's mental impairment. For, to possess moral rights, it takes more than merely having a
human body: certain cognitive functions must also be present. The issue here involves what is
often referred to as moral personhood, and is central to many applied ethical discussions.

7.4.2. Issues in Applied Ethics

As noted, there are many controversial issues discussed by ethicists today, some of which will
be briefly mentioned here.

Biomedical ethics focuses on a range of issues which arise in clinical settings. Health care
workers are in an unusual position of continually dealing with life and death situations. It is
not surprising, then, that medical ethics issues are more extreme and diverse than other areas
of applied ethics. Prenatal issues arise about the morality of surrogate mothering, genetic
manipulation of fetuses, the status of unused frozen embryos, and abortion. Other issues arise
about patient rights and physician's responsibilities, such as the confidentiality of the patient's
records and the physician's responsibility to tell the truth to dying patients. The AIDS crisis
has raised the specific issues of the mandatory screening of all patients for AIDS, and whether
physicians can refuse to treat AIDS patients. Additional issues concern medical
experimentation on humans, the morality of involuntary commitment, and the rights of the
mentally disabled. Finally, end of life issues arise about the morality of suicide, the
justifiability of suicide intervention, physician assisted suicide, and euthanasia.

The field of business ethics examines moral controversies relating to the social
responsibilities of capitalist business practices, the moral status of corporate entities,
deceptive advertising, insider trading, basic employee rights, job discrimination, affirmative
action, drug testing and whistle blowing.

Issues in environmental ethics often overlaps with business and medical issues. These include
the rights of animals, the morality of animal experimentation, preserving endangered species,
pollution control, management of environmental resources, whether eco-systems are entitled
to direct moral consideration, and our obligation to future generations.

Controversial issues of sexual morality include monogamy versus polygamy, sexual relations
without love, homosexual relations, and extramarital affairs.

Finally, there are issues of social morality which examine capital punishment, nuclear war,
gun control, the recreational use of drugs, welfare rights, and racism.