Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Moral and Ethics Education
Moral and Ethics Education
Contents
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Aims and objectives
1.2 Definition and subject matter of Ethics
1.3 Relationship of Ethics with other fields
1.4 Classifications of Ethics
1.5 Importance of studying Ethics
1.6 Check your progress
1.7 Selected References
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This unit is your introduction to Block I that contains the ethics part of your course. The
unit begins by defining ethics and pointing out its subject matter. This will be followed
by the sub-unit that describes the relationship of ethics to other fields. The purpose of this
sub-unit is to explain further the meaning and concern of ethics by comparing and
contrasting it with other related fields. The next sub-unit presents description of different
parts or subdivisions of ethics. This is also intended to give you still more idea about the
concern of ethics. The section on the importance of studying Ethics will explain the
relevance of ethics and the benefits you are expected to gain from your study of ethics.
The last sub-unit contains questions that help you to “check your progress”.
The aim of this unit is to introduce you to the meaning Ethic, its concern/subject matter a
s well as the relevance or importance of studying it. After you have studied the unit, you
are expected to be able to:
- define ethics
The following are some of the several but related definitions of Ethics: Ethics is the field
of study that is concerned with moral values. Moral values are values that determine
human conduct (behaviors, actions, decisions) as right or wrong, good or bad, moral or
immoral. Hence, ethics could also be defined as the field that studies rightness or
wrongness (goodness or badness, morality or immorality) of human conduct.
Ethics is also defined as “a set of principles prescribing a behavior code that explains
what is good and right or bad and wrong and outlines moral duty and obligations”.
According to still another definition, “Ethics is the discipline that is concerned with what
constitutes human welfare (good, happiness, benefit, safety) and the kind of conduct
necessary to promote it”.
We can give a working definition of ethics (the definition that we maintain in this course)
as follow: Ethics is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with rightness or wrongness
(morality or immorality) of human conduct/behavior.
The subject matter of a discipline or field of study is what it is about or concerned with.
Ethics is about or concerned with human conduct/behavior. Hence, the subject matter of
Ethics is concerned with human conduct because only human beings are said to be moral
or immoral. We cannot speak or think about morality of other things or animals. We do
not say, for example, a car or cow is moral or immoral. Hence, morality (that is, the
capacity of moral decision making, or being moral or immoral) is a major quality that
distinguishes human beings from other animals. It is in this sense that man is defined as
moral animal.
The reason why morality applies only to human beings is that it involves choice, choice
between right and wrong; and only human beings are endowed with the capacity for
choice. This capacity is known as will. Human beings are peculiarly endowed with the
will of choosing to do or not to do something.
Consideration of the will (also called will power) is important to understand or to talk
about morality because morality dose not make sense otherwise. A person is regarded or
evaluated as right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or bad only if he/she did the action
willingly, by his/her free will or choice. We cannot blame a person who performed an
action without his/her will or choice (or did it forced to do); or we do not regard such
person as immoral or bad person.
In dealing with human conduct from the perspective of obligation and value, ethics
investigates a variety of related concerns. Among them are whether a standard of
morality exists that applies to all peoples at all times everywhere (which is the question
whether morality is relative or absolute), the origin of moral values (whether moral
values derived from an ultimate value), the precise nature of moral responsibility, the
condition under which one is accountable or responsible, and the proper end of law.
Ethical objectivism and absolutism and ethical subjectivism and relativism are positions
that arise when ethicians deal with the first of these concerns.
Relativism, in epistemology, refers to the doctrine that every known object is relative to
the knowing subject and as such is dependent in its being upon the knowing subject and
is incapable of existing apart from consciousness. Ethical relativism is the doctrine that
denies that there is a single moral standard or code that is universally applicable to all
people at all times. Positively defined, ethical relativism is the doctrine that believes that
morality is relative to individuals; that is, it depends upon the perceptions, desires,
inclinations or tastes of the individual (whether the individual is a person, country,
society, or a group of people).
The purpose of this sub-unit is to explain further the meaning and concern of ethics by
comparing and contrasting Ethic with other related fields. This is because there are some
questions that come necessarily from above explanation of the meaning and subject
matter of Ethics. We have said, for example, that the subject matter of Ethics is human
conduct/behavior. One may ask here: Is it only Ethics that is concerned with human
As mentioned, there are several other fields that are concerned with human
conduct/behavior. For example, the fields that are commonly known as behavioral
sciences (fields such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, history and economics)
study different aspects of human behavior. Ethics is distinguished from such fields by
being normative. In other words, it is concerned with pronouncing judgment upon human
behavior, not merely describing the behavior. Ethics is the study not only of what is but
also that of what ought to be. Ethics, and only Ethics, is concerned with the “ought” of
human conduct. That is, whereas all other fields are limited to descriptions of how human
beings in fact behave, Ethics (particularly normative Ethics) is concerned with
prescriptions of how human beings ought to behave. Ethics not merely describes moral
ideals held by human beings but asks which ideal is better than others, more worth
pursuing, and why.
Put differently, all ethical questions involve a decision about what one should do in a
specific instance. Notice here the word should. It implies that ethical questions are not
concerned with what one would or may do (which is an essentially psychological
concern) but what one ought to do. Judgments about such decisions are generally
expressed with words like right and wrong, should and ought, or obligation and duty. For
instance, “I should tell the truth” or “Telling truth is the right thing to do”. A good
portion of ethics is devoted to problems concerning the right thing to do or what we
should do, which is the question of obligation. Hence, ethics is about ought, obligation,
duty, or responsibility. Think about what are our duties or obligations are as: human
beings, citizens, brothers, sisters, fathers/mothers, children, teachers, students, doctors,
accountants, etc.
All ethical decisions involve choice. But implied in any choice is a value or value
judgment. In effect, every choice involves an assessment of worth. We feel obliged to
behave a certain way because we seek a specific value or good. These values, just as
Within philosophy, ethics is a branch of the above mentioned philosophical field known
as axiology. Axiology, which comes from Greek word axios meaning “worthy”, is the
study of value in general. As such it is alternatively known as value theory. Specific
concerns of axiology include the nature of value (whether values are subjective or
objective, relative or absolute, etc.), the origin of values, classification of values and the
like.
Ethics is generally divided into two major types, namely Normative Ethics and Non-
normative Ethics. In this sub-unit you will study these two types of Ethics and their
further classifications.
Normative ethics is further divided into two sub areas, namely general normative ethics
and applied normative ethics.
1.4.1.2 Applied Normative Ethics: is the attempt to explain and justify positions on
specific moral problems/issues. It is called applied because here ethicists attempt to use
(apply (implement/put into practice) the general theoretical ethical principles to resolve
concrete or specific moral problems. Some of the issues of applied ethics include capital
punishment, abortion, euthanasia, war, sex, and corruption.
There are many sub-divisions of applied ethics depending upon the diverse moral issues
that call for theoretical considerations. The following are just few examples of the
specialized areas of applied ethics: Development Ethics, Environmental Ethics,
Professional Ethics, Medical Ethics, Business Ethics, Work Ethics, Social Ethics,
Individual Ethics, Political Ethics, and Historical Ethics. Though there may exist
overlapping between some of these subdivisions of ethics, each could be treated as
distinct area/concern of ethics. Some of these areas of applied ethics are defined below to
give you more ideas about the concern of applied normative ethics.
Environmental Ethics is the area of applied ethics where ethicists consider the ethical
relationship between human beings and the natural environment. There are many ethical
decisions that human beings make with respect to the environment. Consider the
following questions, for example: Should we continue to clear cut the forests for the sake
of human consumption? What environmental obligations do we need to keep for future
generation? Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the
convenience of humanity?
Business Ethics is a form of applied ethics that examines the ethical rules and principles
within a commercial/business context; the various moral problems that may arise in the
commercial/business settings; and any special duties or obligations that apply to persons
who are engaged in commerce/business. Hence, business ethics is also a branch of
applied ethics generally known as Professional Ethics.
Legal Ethics is refers to an ethical code that governs the persons in the practice of law. In
other words, it is the area of ethics concerned with professional responsibility of the
persons involved in legal decision making. Hence, legal ethics, too, is a branch of applied
ethics generally known as Professional Ethics.
1.4.2.2 Meta-ethics
Meta-ethics is the second field of non-normative ethics. It is highly technical discipline
in which philosophers analyze and clarify the meaning of important terms used in ethical
Ethics
What is that makes Ethics relevant subject to students like you? Or, why should you
study Ethics? In order to get the best from your study of ethics, you must have a
satisfying explanation as to why you are studying ethics as a part of this course. Of
course you may answer the question by saying “I am studying ethics because I am
required to do so”. However, you should also know the reason why you are required to
study ethics. This section of the unit tries to answer such questions. That is, it will explain
the relevance of ethics and the benefits you are expected to gain from your study of
ethics.
Secondly, you can also consider the general nature and concern of ethics to realize its
relevance. Ethics, especially through its, normative approach towards life, has practical
importance. Its problems and solutions have to do with the real questions of the conduct
of living. Its solutions are solutions for the problems of goals and means of goals in the
practical life of all human beings. As the question of the manner of living, ethics is also
concerned with the question of the meaning of life; and how we live our actual life could
be determined by our conceptions of the meaning of life. Hence, though theoretical, the
concern of ethics is clearly related to the concrete or practical life situations. That is to
say, it has obvious relevance to practical difficulties which confront every human being.
Its theorizing almost always stems from the efforts of human beings to solve the
practical, immediate, and pressing problems which arise in the everyday living.
Put differently, the ethical theories and principles you study in the course are the
framework by which we can intelligently conduct moral investigations. If adequately
understood, they could be applied to concrete moral situations or to solve specific moral
problems/dilemmas. However, you should note that the fundamental value of studying
and understanding of the ethical theories is not to obtain definitive guides to moral
conduct. Rather, the primary and fundamental value lies in becoming aware of the moral
options available to us for dealing with complex moral decisions on a personal and
collective level.
Finally, we hope you have recognized that there is currently a kind of universal
movement for ethical education. That is, everywhere in the world including our country
there is common understanding/urge by scholars as well as leaders and common people
for ethical education. If you have noticed this, what do you think the reason for that?
1.6 I From the alternatives given to each question below, choose the best one.
1. Which of the following is wrong match?
A. Aesthetics/beauty
B. Epistemology/knowledge
C. Ethics/conduct
D. Logic/thinking
E. None of the above
3. The area of ethics that is concerned with clarification of ethical terms is known as
A. Normative ethics
B. Applied ethics
C. Metaethics
D. Scientific ethics
E. None of the above
4. The fundamental value of studying and understanding of the ethical theories lies in
A. obtaining definitive guides to moral conduct
B. becoming aware of the moral options available to us for dealing with complex
moral decisions on a personal and collective level.
Donald Palmner (1996). Does the Center Hold? An Introduction to Western Philosophy.
(Chapter 7, Ethics; Chapter 8, Critique of traditional Ethical theories)
Vincent Barry (1980) Philosophy: A Text With Readings. (Chapter 3, Ethics, pp. 89-103)
Contents
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Aims and objectives
2.3 Sophists and Sophism
2.4 Platonism: ethical theory of Socrates and Plato
2.5 Nicomachean Ethics: ethical theory of Aristotle
2.6 Relevance of the classical ethical theories
2.7 Check your progress
2.8 Selected References
2.0 Introduction
This second unit of your course intends to introduce you to the Greek Classical Ethical
Theories, particularly Platonism and Nicomachean Ethics, ethical theories of the three
popular Greek giants, namely Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. The first is ethical theory of
Socrates and Plato whereas the second is that of Aristotle. As such, this unit gives you an
opportunity to familiarize yourself with the most influential persons and philosophical
ideas in the history of mankind whose thoughts have laid foundation for all subsequent
thinkers including those of our times and that of each of us.
At the end of your study of the unit you are expected to:
- explain the importance of knowing the relevance of the classical ethical theories
- know the meaning of sophists and sophism
- comprehend Platonism
- know the major elements of Nicomachean ethics
- the meaning of golden mean and the theory of moderation
Plato and Socrates severely criticized the Sophists because of their relativism,
subjectivism or skepticism. Indeed, a major part of Platonism was a reaction to the
philosophy and teaching of these Sophists, known as sophism. Hence, to understand
Platonism, you have to be acquainted with the major elements of the Sophists’
philosophy.
Sophists (literally “wise men”) were a group of philosophers in the fifth century BC who
offered to teach young Athenians how to use logic and rhetoric to defeat opponents in
any controversy. They were the first to teach wisdom for a fee, something that irked
Socrates.
Actually, the Sophists may not have been as wise as they were clever with words, and
they were accused of making the stronger arguments appear to be the weaker and the
weaker arguments appear to be the stronger. But in the days of the Athenian democracy,
when an individual was required to defend himself in the law courts, the Sophists’
“wisdom” was much in demand. Socrates and Plato sharply criticized the Sophists
because they accepted monetary rewards for encouraging unprincipled persuasive
method.
Protagoras, one of the two most popular sophists who was active about 425 BC,
expressed the central philosophy of the sophists in the following statement which is
known to be one of the most famous lines ever uttered. He wrote: “A man is the measure
of all things; of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they
are not.” This means that the individual, each and every person, is the criterion unto
himself or herself as to what exists and what does not. This thought was expanded to
include truth and morality. It implies that what ever you perceive as true or false is true or
false, and whatever you think as good/right or bad/wrong is good/right or bad/wrong.
“A man is the measure of all things; of the things that are, that they are, and of the things
that are not, that they are not.” Protagoras
The Sophists expanded this relativism to skepticism, uncertainty with respect to knowing;
philosophical epistemological position that doubts or denies the possibility of knowledge,
or holds that mankind cannot possess certain knowledge about anything. Skepticism is, in
other words, the epistemological position that varies between doubting all assumption
until proved and claiming that no knowledge is possible. The latter extreme position is
The transition from the relativism of Protagoras to skepticism was expressed in the
following statement of Gorgias, the second popular Sophist: “Nothing exists; if
something does exist, we cannot know it; if we come to know it, we cannot teach it to
others.” Hence, the only thing remaining is the use of the word, and Gorgias affirmed that
all things can appear true and just, if oratorical power is capable of revealing things as
true and just, beyond every pretension of reality of content.
The traditional belief of the Greeks had been that their cities had received laws from
some divinity; protector of the cities, and that goodness or happiness consists in
conforming one’s life to these laws, accepted as divine and eternal. The Sophists shook
this faith to its very roots. By their subjectivist and skeptical prejudices they ended in the
conclusion that the good is that which satisfies one’s instincts and passions.
You have been studying about who the Sophists are and their philosophy or teachings.
You may ask at this point “what is then Sophism?” Sophism is just the manner of the
Sophists, which associated with cheating, making the stronger arguments appear to be the
weaker and the weaker arguments appear to be the stronger. Sophism is, in other words, a
plausible argument that is actually fallacious, especially when one presents it as if it were
legitimate reasoning.
Fallacy is incorrect or illogical argument that appears or seems correct or logical. It is, in
other words, deceptive argument, an argument that deceives, cheats or misleads. Sophism
(also called Sophistry) is intentional or deliberate use of such arguments to defeat one’s
opponent (or teaching to do so).
As mentioned above, Platonism is the ethical theory of Socrates and Plato. Who is
Socrates? What is the relationship between Socrates and Plato and between Socrates’
views and those of Plato? In what follow immediately below you will read about who
Socrates is and his major moral views, the relationship between Socrates’ and Plato’s
views, and the finally views of Plato.
In his use of critical reasoning, by his unwavering commitment to truth, and through the
vivid example of his own life, Socrates set the standard for all subsequent Western
philosophy. His dedication to careful reasoning transformed the entire enterprise
(Western philosophy). Since he sought genuine knowledge rather than mere victory over
an opponent, Socrates employed the tricks (logic) of the Sophists to a new purpose, the
pursuit of truth. His willingness to call everything to question and his determination to
accept nothing less than an adequate account of the nature of things makes him the first
clear exponent of critical philosophy. Critical philosophy is the analysis and definition of
basic concepts and the precise expression and criticism of basic beliefs.
For the most part of his life, Socrates devoted himself to free-wheeling discussions with
the aristocratic young citizens of Athens, insistently questioning their unwarranted
confidence in the truth of popular opinions. Unlike the professional Sophists of the time,
Socrates refused to accept payment for his work with students. Despite (or, perhaps,
because) of his loft disdain for material success, many of his students were fanatically
loyal to him. Their parents, however, were often displeased with his influence on their
offsprings.
An Athenian jury found charges of impiety (corrupting the youth and interfering with the
religion of the city) upon which to convict him, and they sentenced him to death in 399
B.C, which he accepted with remarkable grace in obedience to the rule of law. He drank
hemlock and died in the company of his friends and disciples. The trial provides us with
one of the heroic moments in human history. Instead of defending himself, Socrates
continued his campaign. He refused to apologize or to promise to reform (to stop asking
everybody questions). As such, Socrates became one of the first and greatest martyrs in
mankind’s search for truth.
Civilization and all that it implies have not come easily. Many along the way have
suffered enormous intellectual agony. One of such persons is Socrates, who ultimately
Socrates, the great ethical philosopher, is thus regarded as a model of moral person with
respect to the search for, and devotion to, truth. “Unexamined life is not worth living”, he
said, and his whole life was dedicated to self-examination and questioning of both the
self and others. Analysis of his life provides a model as to “how life should be lived”.
Some find analogy between the place of Jesus Christ in the Christian religion and that
Socrates in philosophy, mainly because the latter is regarded as the symbol of
philosophizing and also because he gave his life for the principles/truth he taught.
“I tell you that to let no day pass without discussing goodness and all the other subjects
about which you hear me talking and examining both myself and others is really the very
best thing that a man can do, and life without this sort of examination is not worth
living.” Socrates
For Socrates, the answer to the second question, from the above two questions, was
obvious: Men ought to act in such a way as to achieve the good life. It was the first
question that was more troublesome – namely, what constitutes the good life? In dealing
with that question, the teaching of Socrates can be summarized in a remark: The good life
can be discovered if and only if men have knowledge. Indeed, “Socrates’ main
philosophical concern was with how anyone can know the right way to live.”
The remark also expresses Socrates’ doctrine which is sometimes termed “the Socratic
paradox”. The paradox lies in the fact that although men in fact act immorally, none do
so deliberately. For it was Socrates’ belief that if a man knows what is good, he will
always act in such a way to try to achieve it. Evil, seen from this standpoint, is thus
always the product of ignorance (that is, a case of a man believing something to be good
when it is not). Socrates defended this point of view by the following argument: The
good, he maintained, is that which is most serviceable to men. Everyone aims at doing
that which is most serviceable to himself. It is, accordingly, unthinkable that anyone
should not do that which he recognizes as being most serviceable to himself. If anyone
should act in a way which is not conducive to his own good, therefore, his action must
result from a failure to recognize what is good in those circumstances. It follows from
this that immoral action is always due to lack of knowledge. It is this doctrine which is
summarized in the epigram “virtue is knowledge”, and also in the remark “nobody errs
wittingly”, which means nobody act immorally knowingly. In a word, Socrates held that
men do not act immorally if they know what is moral.
Socratic problem
Platonism is the ethical theories of Socrates and Plato. As mentioned above, Plato was a
student of Socrates. Plato (427-347) expressed his philosophy in numerous dialogues. In
earlier of these dialogues Plato develops the ideas of his teacher Socrates through
portrayals of Socrates’ discussions with his contemporaries, discussion which proceeded
by questions and answers. In the dialogues, which were composed over a long period of
nearly fifty years, Plato gradually introduced his own and more developed ideas in place
Is knowledge necessary to lead the good life? Can not a person lead the good life without
knowledge? In The Republic, the major work of Plato which is known to be one of the
most popular literary works, Plato portrays Socrates maintaining that it is possible for
some men to lead the good life without possessing knowledge. They might do so if they
are men having virtuous character which has been molded through their imitating people
who are already virtuous. But in all such cases, they will lead the good life only
haphazardly or accidentally. It is only if they possess knowledge that they will
necessarily act morally.
Plato’s claim that knowledge of the good life is possible has been of the greatest
theoretical importance. Platonism constitutes one of the classical bulwarks or protection
against a commonly held point of view often termed “moral skepticism”. In Plato’s own
day, the most vigorous exponents of this outlook were the Sophists, but it is an outlook
which has never really vanished from the philosophical scene. Even today, it is possible
to find professional thinkers and ordinary men who hold the same idea about morality.
Advocates of this doctrine maintain, as you have seen above, that moral standards or
moral principles such as “you should not steal” are basically the products of arbitrary
human decisions. Such decisions, they argue, merely reflect the attitudes, preferences,
tastes, opinions and likings which people have. But since such attitudes, preferences,
tastes, and so forth are, in the last analysis, beyond the control of reason, the decisions
which reflect them can not have rational justifications or objective validity. Whether an
action is to be counted as right or wrong thus ultimately depends upon whether someone
approves or disapproves of it. If he approves of it, it is right; if he disapproves of it, it is
wrong – and that is the end of the matter. Indeed, in a sense, the same action may be both
right and wrong. Seen from one standpoint, it may be right; seen from another, wrong.
What label we choose to apply to it depends upon the point of view from which we see it.
It thus makes no sense to ask whether the action is really right or really wrong. It follows
from this principle that anybody’s opinion on moral matters is as good as anyone else’s,
whether one is Prime Minister of a country or a madman, a saint or sinner. The oft-quoted
remark of Protagoras that “a man is the measure of all things” is a succinct expression of
this point of view.
It was against such point of view (which could alternatively be called as subjectivism,
ethical relativism, or moral skepticism) that Plato was urging that moral standards are as
Still another important element of Platonism is that, according to Socrates and Plato
morality (goodness/justice) consists in “minding one’s business” and not interfering in
the “business” of others. This is tantamount to saying fulfilling one’s moral
responsibility/obligation/duty. This is both in politics and individual life. Thus, morally
good person is one who “minds one’s business”; good/just or ideal society or political
system is one in which its members “mind their respective business”
Like that of Socrates, the basis of Plato’s ethics is that “if we know what the good life is
we will naturally act in such a way as to try to achieve it.” According to the beliefs of
both Socrates and Plato, “evil s due to lack of knowledge.” If a man can discover what is
right, he will never act wrongly. But the problem is to discover what is right, or as Plato
called it, “the good.” How could this be done where men differ so greatly in their opinion
about the good life?
Plato’s answer is that finding the nature of the good life is an intellectual task very similar
to the discovery of mathematical truths. Just as the latter can not be discovered by
untrained people, so the former can not be either. In order to discover what the good life
is men must first acquire certain kinds of knowledge.
Put in precise words, Plato’s view, too, is: knowledge is the good. According to Platonic
contention, reason comprises the essential nature of human being. It is what distinguishes
man from other animals. Man is human being. It is what distinguishes man from other
animals. Man is “a factional animal.” Human good and happiness lie therefore in the
activity and fulfillment of the rational faculty. That is, they lie in contemplation and
knowledge.
Plato believed that of the three aspects of the soul (Reason, Appetite, and Spirit), Reason
should predominate. Through Reason, through the intellect, humans can attain knowledge
about the Forms, especially of the predominant one, the Form Good. Thus, while Plato’s
Another basic element in Platonism is what contemporary scholars term his absolutism.
According to Plato, there is fundamentally one and only one good life for all men to lead.
This is because the good is something which is not dependent upon men’s desires,
inclinations, or their opinion. Goodness in this respect resembles the mathematical truth
that 2-3=5.this is a truth which is absolute; it exists whether any man likes such fact or
not, or even whether he knows mathematics or not. Likewise, goodness exists
independently of men and remains to be discovered if we can be trained properly.
This can be put in another way: Plato is arguing for the objectivity of moral principles as
opposed to all philosophies which contend that morality is a matter of opinion or
preference (which is known as ethical relativism). In more summarized way, his view is
that certain action is right or wrong absolutely and independently of anyone’s opinion.
Nicomachean Ethics, the first systematic presentation of morality, is the ethical theory of
Aristotle (384-322 BC), one of the three Greek giants. It is so named after his father or
son, both of whom were of the same name. As Plato was the student of Socrates,
Aristotle was the student of Plato. However, Aristotle ruthlessly criticized the theories of
his master, Plato.
Greek philosophy was generally characterized by speculative approach. That is the Greek
philosophers attempted to discover the true nature of the world by the use of reason
alone. This speculative approach’s also noticeable in their ethical writings. Generally, the
speculative approach is non-scientific – for it does not try to collect facts and derive
Aristotle one of these Greeks, departs from this tradition in his ethical writings and
adopts a scientific or empirical approach to ethical problems. Instead of trying to discover
the nature of good life for all men by reflection/ or reason” alone, he examined the
behavior and talk of people in everyday life. From this he noticed that what men of
common sense consider to be good contains one common character: via, Happiness. Thus
Aristotle’s answer to the basic ethical question “what is the good life for man?” can be
stated in one statement: “it is a life of Happiness.”
As we have mentioned already, the ethical theories that we are discussing attempt to
answer two questions: “what is the good life for men?” and “how ought men to behave?”
Aristotle’s answer to the first questions was “the good life for men is a life of happiness.”
His answer to the second questions is equally direct: “men ought to behave so as to
achieve happiness.” This second answer is vague or question begging. We can ask, more
specifically, how should we behave in order to achieve happiness? Aristotle’s answer to
this question is to be found in the well-known formula called “the Doctrine of the mean
“or sometimes called the “golden mean”. We shall now turn to a discussion of the
Doctrine of the mean, and in this way we will show how Aristotle’s moral philosophy
differs from that of Plato.
Being happy, according to Aristotle, is like being well-fed. How much food should a man
eat in order to be well fed? Aristotle’s contention is that there is no general answer to this
The two important consequences of this doctrine for ethics are that: there are various
correct ways of living for different people. What is good for one person may not be good
for another. And, further, one can not tell prior to actual experimentation, by use of
reason alone, which is correct way of living for him. We can summarize these two points
by saying that Aristotle is both relativist and empiricist in ethics.
So with happiness “the proper way for a man to behave in the moral sphere is in
accordance with the mean. For Example, in order to be happy he must be courageous,
liberal, proud, witty, modest, and so on. Courage is the mean between cowardice and
rashness; liberty between prodigality and fragility, pride between vanity and so forth. So,
Aristotle’s philosophy of the golden mean can be condensed as follows:
In order to achieve happiness, men must act moderately, they must act so as to be striving
for the mean between two extremes middle course between two activities. If they do this:
than they will be happy. But the mean will vary from man to man: some men can be more
carious than others, and some less and each will be proper for that man.
Here it seems very important to note that Aristotle is one of the first great philosophers of
common-sense in dealing with ethical matters. As we have seen, Plato maintained that
good life is in no way connected with pleasure – for he lays down a rigid requirement for
all men to follow, regardless of their inclinations, desires, temperament, in life. Aristotle
rejects this view of Plato and maintained the view that no man can be happy without
certain amount of pleasure in his life.
By the way, you may ask, what is the relevance of these ancient persons and theories?
Why should you study ethical theories of the ancient times? To answer this question, you
have to know the following facts about the persons and theories here.
Plato and Aristotle are known to be the greatest of all philosophers/thinkers in the history
of mankind, not only with respect to ethical theories but with respect to almost all
thoughts. That is, Plato was the student of Socrates while Aristotle was the student of
Plato. (Aristotle was the teacher/tutor of Alexander the Great, a very popular historical
figure.) As expressed by a writer, it is hard to imagine a time so rich in human genius as
the Athens into which Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were born.
Hence, this unit introduced you to the most influential persons and philosophical ideas in
the history of mankind. Their thoughts have laid foundation for all subsequent thinkers.
For instance, so encompassing and magnificent is Plato’s philosophy that it is said that all
subsequent philosophy is but a series of footnotes to it.” That is, they have influenced the
way of thinking of all people including those of our times, if not that of each of us.
To put the same thing in different words, the relevance of the classical ethical theories
has to do with the meaning of the word classical. In usages such as these the word
classical means that which has passed the test of time and space, or that which applies to
all times and places. Undying ideas
2.7 I From the alternatives given to each question below, choose the best one.
2. There is one and only one good life for all men to lead, according to Plato. This view is
known as ____________________________.
A. Ethical relativism
B. Skepticism
C. Ethical absolutism
D. All of the above
E. None of the above
4. Which of the following provide Aristotle’s answer to the question: “how should we
behave in order to achieve happiness”?
A. the Doctrine of the mean
B. golden mean
C. Objectivism
D. Absolutism
E. A and B are correct answers
Byrn Mawr, 1999. Platonic Ethics Old and New, Classical Review
Donald Palmner (1996). Does the Center Hold? An Introduction to Western Philosophy.
(Chapter 7, Ethics; Chapter 8, Critique of traditional Ethical theories)
Vincent Barry (1980) Philosophy: A Text With Readings. (Chapters 1 and 2 pp. 1-79)
Contents
3.0. Introduction
3.1. Aims and objectives
3.2. What are Consequentialist/Teleological ethical theories?
3.3. Hedonism (Pleasure principle)
3.4. Egoistic hedonism: Epicureanism and Cyrenaicism
3.5. Utilitarianism/Social hedonism
3.6. Check your progress
3.7. Selected References
3.0 Introduction
In the previous unit you studied classical ethical theories. This unit familiarizes you to the
most dominant theories that underlie the ethical and political theories of the modern
world, such as egoism, hedonism, and utilitarianism. As such, the theories and the
concepts you study in this unit will help you to understand most of the ethical and
political ideas of the modern time.
How do you determine whether a given action is moral or immoral, right or wrong?
Consequentialist or teleological ethics provides one way of answering this question.
Here, therefore, we have the answer to the two leading questions in ethical theories,
namely “What is the good life for man”? and “How ought men to behave?” The answers
that the hedonists provide to these questions are, respectively: “the good life for men is
that of pleasure” and “we ought to act so as to achieve pleasure”. In precise words,
hedonism is therefore in ethical doctrine that pleasure is the highest good, and the
production of pleasure is the criterion of right action.
Hedonism has two forms: egoistic hedonism and social hedonism. As forms of hedonism
both of them advocate pleasure as the good. The difference between the two arises when
we ask “whose pleasure?” That is, we are told by hedonists that “men ought to act so as
to achieve pleasure”, but whose pleasure? The answer to this question gives us the two
versions or forms of hedonism, namely egoistic hedonism and social hedonism.In the
following two sections of this unit you will study egoistic hedonism and social hedonism,
in that order.
What is egoistic hedonism? Egoistic hedonism is, of course, egoism + hedonism. Above,
you studied about what hedonism is. The question here must be therefore about what
egoism is.
Egoism comes from the Greek word “ego” which means “I” any form of egoism thus
makes the self the central concern, the beginning and the end of all consideration. It is, in
other words, self centeredness.
There are two forms of egoisms: psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Psychological
egoism is a doctrine about human nature, which claims that in fact everyone by nature
pressure’s primarily his or her own interest. Ethical egoism is, on the other hand, a value
judgment, claiming that everyone ought to pursue primarily his own interests. Ethical
egoism is, in other words, a consequentialist theory which contends that we act morally
when we act in a way that promotes our own interests.
Egoistic hedonism is thus the doctrine that each individual should pursue primarily his or
her own pleasure. In other words, egoistic hedonism is the doctrine that the pursuit and
production of one’s own pleasure is the highest good and the orientation of right action.
How do you evaluate the position of egoistic hedonists? Do you approve or disapprove
it? Do you think that we are egoists by nature? Anyway, consider here the principle
known as altruism. Altruism is the direct opposite of egoism. It is the principle that
everyone ought as much as possible to seek the good (well being, pleasure, happiness) of
others.
Egoistic hedonism is certainly very old moral philosophy. In fact, its two best examples
occur already in Greek philosophy: Cyrenaicism and Epicureanism. These are the two
versions of egoistic hedonism.
Epicureanism, so named after Epicurus (300 B.C), its founder, is a more important form
of hedonism. It has often mistakenly been represented along with Cyrenaicism as “pig
philosophy.” This is a mistake because, although Epicureanism was certainly also an
egoistic hedonism, it differed in important respects from Cyrenaicism.
Influenced by his atomistic view of soul that we have seen earlier, Epicurus advises that
men should live as pleasant a life as possible. But the pleasant life meant to Epicurus
something quite different from what it meant for Cyrenaics. The pleasure Epicures
advocated was leisure 2 according to our distinction. The proper way of life is to live
pleasantly, but without suffering from any of the undesirable effects of such living. The
pleasure to be pursued must b one that does not produce painful or “displaceable”
consequences. His idea of the life of pleasure is this: health of the body peace of mind
(serenity).
Hence, one can see that although the epicureans were who believed that there is only one
thing worth aiming at, namely the maximum pleasure for one self, by pleasure they meant
long-run pleasure, as estimated over an entire life span. To obtain pleasure later, one must
often sacrifice it now. They condemned most pleasure seeks because they sought the
immediate pleasure such as food, drink and sex, instead of the long-term pleasures, such
as aesthetic satisfaction and knowledge. They considered not only today’s pleasure, but
tomorrow’s and year’s thus the advice “don’t scratch it now, even though it itches, or it
As could be seen from the quotation below, rather than sensual gratification, Epicurus
associated pleasure with what he termed sober thinking. He wrote:
“When I say that pleasure is the goal of living I do not mean the pleasures of the
libertines inherent in positive enjoyment. … I mean, on the contrary, the pleasure
that consists in freedom from bodily pain and mental agitation. The pleasant life is
not the product of one drinking party after another or of sexual intercourse. … On
the contrary, it is the result of sober thinking – namely, investigation of the
reasons of every act of choice and aversion, and elimination of those false ideas
about the gods and death which are the chief source of mental disturbance.”
Social hedonism is popularly known as utilitarianism. In this text we use words social
hedonism and utilitarianism to mean the same thing. As a result, we continue to use the
word utilitarianism, instead of social hedonism.
Utilitarianism is ethical doctrine that an action is right or moral if and only if it promotes
the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people. It is the ethical as well as political
theory according to which the best rule of life is to aim at the greatest pleasure for the
greatest number of people.
The word “utility” simply means “usefulness,” but the utilitarian employ it to mean “that
which promotes the greatest balance of good over evil.” i.e. if an action produces an
excess beneficial effects over harmful ones, then it is right otherwise it is not. Thus
But what is the good? In fact utilitarianism has always gone hand in hand with hedonism
by specifying the nature of the good as pleasure. Therefore utilitarianism is: the doctrine
that we ought to act so as to promote the greatest balance of pleasure over pain.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill: the two versions of utilitarianism.
Historically, utilitarianism is identified with the English philosophers Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). These two figures represent the two
versions of utilitarianism. Bentham was the founder of utilitarianism whereas Mill was
his successor but the most popular utilitarian of all.
This position of act utilitarianism raises a problem: What if an action that promises the
greatest good for the greatest number, such as imprisoning an innocent person, appears to
be patently wrong? The consequences of removing a chronic public threat appear to
provide greater safety and happiness for the vast majority of people. Yet suppose that in
this particular case the individual is innocent.
A number of ethicists point out that we get into such dilemma when we apply the
“greatest happiness” principle to a particular act and not to the rule that the act
implements. What we should be concerned with is the consequences of keeping or
3.6 I Choose the best answer from the alternatives given to each question
1. The ethical doctrine according to which pleasure and only pleasure is intrinsically good
is known as ________________________
A. Egoism
B. Utilitarianism
C. Altruism
D. Hedonism
E. None of the above
Donald Palmner (1996). Does the Center Hold? An Introduction to Western Philosophy.
(Chapter 7, Ethics; Chapter 8, Critique of traditional Ethical theories.)
Vincent Barry (1980) Philosophy: A Text With Readings. (Chapter 3, Ethics, pp. 101-
110)
Contents
4.0. Introduction
4.1. Aims and objectives
4.2. What are non-consequentialist/deontological ethical theories?
4.3. Kantian/Duty Ethics
4.4.Devine command theory
4.5.Check your progress
4.6. Selected References
4.0 INTRODUCTION
Philosophers who object the consequentialist ethical theories hold that any appraisal of
the rightness or wrongness of an action must take into account the motive from which it
is done. These philosophers contend that moral actions are those for which an agent can
be held responsible. To say this is to imply that they are actions which the agent intended
to do. It is thus not behavior per se which is capable of being right or wrong, but behavior
which results from one’s intensions and conscious motives. This explains why we do not
morally condemn a doctor who inadvertently kills a patient during an operation.
According to the critics, it is thus clear that no moral action can be evaluated as right or
wrong apart from some consideration of the agent’s intension in performing.
Deontological derives from the word deontology, which refers to the theory or study of
moral commitment. Deontological theories maintain that the morality of an action
depends on factors other than its consequences, and that is why these theories are
alternatively called nonconsequentialist theories.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is the philosopher who has stressed, above all others, that
the moral worth of an action depends on the motive on which it is done. His ethical
theory is an attempt to support this position. This sub-section of the unit introduces you to
Kantian Ethical.
Kantian ethics is the ethical theory of Immanuel Kant. It is the theory that emphasizes
the performance of duty as the criteria of morality and that is why it is alternatively called
duty ethics. The third alternative name for Kantian ethics is “categorical imperative” or
the ethics of “categorical imperative”. This is because, as you will see later, categorical
imperative is the most central concept in Kant’s ethical theory.
The attempt of Kant is to make morality unconditional, i.e. not conditioned by self
interest, majority interest, consequences, and the like. To that end, he makes distinction
between conditional “ought “and unconditional “ought”. Kant does this because morality
must be necessary and universal, that is, it must be absolutely binding, and absolutely
binding on everyone alike: whoever you are, what ever your situation, you ought to do X.
but the conditional “ought” involves “ifs” and “ in order that” and therefore gets mixed
up with all sorts of particular circumstances, changing desires, personal inclinations.
Kant defined good will as “an intention to act in accordance with the moral law” and
moral law is what it is no matter what everything else. Good will is, in other words, to act
only out of respect for what is right and not for any other reason. To act out of good will
is, then, to do something because it is right to do it, and for no other reason. This would
be rational morality.
“Nothing in the world – indeed nothing beyond the world – can possibly be conceived
which could be good without qualification except a good will.” I. Kant
To put differently, by will Kant meant the uniquely human capacity to act according to
the concepts behind laws – that is, principles presumably operating in nature. A good
will, therefore, acts in accordance with nature’s laws. For Kant a will could be called
good without qualification only if it always had in view one principle: whether the maxim
of its action could become a universal law. This is the standard which is crucial part of
Kant’s theory of ethics. Kant formalizes this principle of all morality in the categorical
imperative, which you will find immediately below.
Natural law is a pattern of necessary and universal regularity holding in physical ration.
It is also a moral imperative, a description of what ought to happen in human
relationships.
For Kant human beings, as moral agents, are rational and autonomous (free to make
choices). He thinks that as rational beings we are able to judge whether an action is moral
by asking if the action is consistent with the categorical imperative. One formulation of
the categorical imperative is, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law.” What Kant means by this is that
the way we judge an action to be moral is to universalize it: If I want to know whether
telling a lie on a particular occasion is justifiable, I must try to imagine what would
happen if everyone was to lie. Kant thinks that any rational being would agree a world in
which there is no lying is preferable to one in which lying is common. In a society where
lying is common no one would trust the word of anyone else.
Sometimes the categorical imperative is referred to, for short, as the principle of
universalizibility, because it asks us whether we can “universalize” our actions, that is,
A second formulation of the categorical imperative is: “Act only so that the will through
its maxims could regard itself at the same time as making universal laws.”
Still another formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative is: “Always act to treat
humanity, whether yourself or others, as an end in itself, never merely as a means”. What
Kant means by this is that a rational being should not be used as a means to another
person’s happiness; if we use another person as a means to our ends then we have
removed that person’s autonomy.
To bring out the essential features of Kantian ethics, we have to center around Kant’s
efforts to answer the question, “What is the good life for man?” and How do we
Kant’s answer, in brief, is that what determines a person to be morally worthy is not what
he does, but why he does it. A man who repays debts out of the fear of imprisonment is
not a virtuous person, according to Kant, even though he does what he ought to do; nor is
a man morally worthy who pays debt because he is inclined to do so. Kant describes the
former person as acting from “prudential considerations” and the latter as acting “in
accord with duty”, not “from duty”. Insofar as a person acts from such considerations, he
is not virtuous. An agent has moral worth only when he recognizes that he ought to act in
a certain way because it is his duty to do so. One who takes care of his children properly,
because he understands that he is under obligation to do so and is motivated by this
consideration, is a person of virtue.
For the deontologist Kant, the rightness or wrongness of an action has nothing to do with
its consequences (unlike the consequentialist theories). The question of whether an act is
right or wrong arises only if there is some obligation on the part of the agent to do it; that
is, if in relevant circumstances, one could properly say to the agent, “It is your duty to do
so and so”. Therefore, an action is right if it ought to be done in those circumstances, and
wrong, given those circumstances, if it ought not to be done.
Kant’s view can therefore be summarized as maintaining that a morally good person is a
person of “good will” – a man who acts “out of reverence for duty”. To act in this way is
always to act in a morally justifiable manner, for as Kant says: “Nothing in the world –
indeed nothing beyond the world – can possibly be conceived which could be good
without qualification except a good will”.
These remarks bring us to the heart of Kant’s theory and enable us to answer the first of
Kant’s fundamental questions, “What is the good life for man?” The highest good, as
Like Aristotle, Kant holds that happiness is not an entity, a thing, or object; nor is it to be
identified with pleasure. Happiness consists of a sense of well being and it is a
concomitant of behavior, not a consequence of it.
Methodology
Throughout his moral works, Kant returns time and again to the question of the method
moral philosophy should employ when pursuing its aims. A basic theme of these
discussions is that the fundamental philosophical issues should be addressed a priori, that
is, without drawing on observations of human beings and their behavior. Once we “seek
out and establish” the fundamental principle of morality a priori, the we may consult
facts drawn from experience in order to determine how best to apply this principle to
human beings and generate particular conclusions about how we ought to act.
To understand the divine command theory of morality you have to familiarize yourself
first with what is called the religious view of human nature. The issue or question of
views of human nature is about what it means to be human or what distinguishes human
The religious view on human nature fosters the following view of self: First, since the
universe is the expression of an intelligent mind (God), believers may see themselves as
part of a universe whose meaning and purpose they personally share through fellowship
with God. One’s purpose in life, therefore, is found in loving and serving God.
The religious view also fosters the concept of a moral self: Each of us is capable of great
good, but also of great evil. When we refuse to love and serve God, we commit our
greatest evil. This refusal is expressed in various ways such as injustice, vanity, pride,
and dishonesty.
Thus, in contrast to the Greek belief that we must develop our rational powers to perceive
the moral order in the universe, the divine view holds that intelligence is no prerequisite
for a moral sense. We do good when we make God the centre of our lives; we do wrong
when we retreat from this commitment. We are rational, but what makes us unique is our
divine likeness.
Notice that this theory does not state that we should obey God’s law because we will,
thereby, promote our own or the general good. Perhaps we may accomplish these ends,
but the sole justification for obeying God’s law is that God wills it. The theory also does
not defend the morality of an action by promising some supernatural reward to the
faithful; that is, though the faithful may be rewarded for his/her moral actions, egoistic
actions do not justify morality according to the divine command theorists.
Indeed, divine command theorists would see no intrinsic worth or value in such things as
pleasure, power, or knowledge; instead they propose something like a union with God as
taking the form of heavenly salvation. The great Christian theologian and philosopher
Thomas Aquinas, wring in one of his famous ethical works, Summa Contra Gentiles,
refers to the human’s ultimate happiness as being the contemplation of God. He arrives at
this conclusion after arguing that human happiness does not consist in wealth worldly
power, or sensual pleasures. He wrote the following in that regard:
Accordingly, if man’s ultimate happiness consists not in external things, which
are called goods of chance, nor in goods of the body; nor in the goods of the soul,
as regards the sensitive faculty; nor as regards the intellective faculty, in the
practice of moral virtue; nor as regards intellectual virtue in those which are
concerned about action, namely art and prudence; it remains for us to conclude
that man’s ultimate happiness consists in the contemplation of the truth. For this
operation alone is proper to man, and none of the other animals communicates
with him therein. Again, this is not directed to anything further as its end: since
the contemplation of truth is sought for its own sake. …. All other human
operations seem to be directed to this as their end. Because perfect contemplation
requires that the body should be disencumbered. …. It follows then that man’s
ultimate happiness consists in wisdom, based on the consideration of divine
things. It is therefore evident by way of induction that man’s ultimate happiness
consists in the contemplation of God, which conclusion was proved by above
arguments.
This state of eternal bliss (perfect happiness/great joy) is the ultimate goal of all human
endeavors; it is the only thing of intrinsic value. What is valuable, then, is independent of
4.5 I Choose the best answer from the alternatives given to each question
1. Which of the following is most relevant for Kant’s theory of morality?
A. the well being of society
B. consequences of actions
C. duty
D hypothetical imperative
E. none of the above
5. What is the ultimate goal of human endeavors according to the divine command
theory?
A. pleasure
B. wealth
C. power
D. all of the above
E. none of the above
Donald Palmner (1996). Does the Center Hold? An Introduction to Western Philosophy.
(Chapter 7, Ethics; Chapter 8, Critique of traditional Ethical theories)
Vincent Barry (1980) Philosophy: A Text With Readings. (Chapter 3, Ethics, pp. 44-78 ;
113-124)
Introduction
Civic Education is an important component of education that cultivates citizens to
participate in the public life of a democracy, to use their rights and to discharge their
responsibilities and duties with the necessary knowledge and skills that they acquire.
It should be recognized that the realization of a free society whose members exercise self-
governance highly depends on the active involvement of the citizens in every angle of the
social life.
Here what should not be forgotten is that democracy is a process not an event. It is a
process in which it renews itself or progresses to the better level. This can be achieved if
the citizens are alert, informed and those who feel sense of belongingness. In this
building up process of democracy, the active involvement of citizens is vitally important.
The enjoyment of the fruits of democracy: development, peace, stability and the like is
possible, provided that the citizens, actively involve in the process. In short, citizens in
democratic society are expected to be vigilant, active participant, informed, duty-minded
and responsible, and the way to infuse them with the necessary qualities is through
education. That could be the very goal of civic education.
This second Block of the teaching material in general, is made in line with the above
mentioned purpose of civic education. For that end, the second Block has five units each
of which has brain storming, related quotations (sayings), review questions, assignments.
Contents
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Aims and Objective
5.2 Definition and Subject Matter of Civic Education
5.3 The ultimate goal of civics
5.4 The importance of civic education
5.5 Check your progress
5.6 Selected References
5.0 Introduction
It is common and appropriate to begin with questioning about the very intention, meaning
and importance of learning a certain discipline. There must be purpose(s) when we attend
an education. In similar way, civics as an education about free people has a purpose. Its’
goal is arming citizens with the necessary knowledge and skill that will enable them to be
informed, responsible, competent and active participant in all the three life aspects
(political, social and economic). After having the necessary knowledge and skill citizens
are expected to develop attitude.
The first sub-division of the unit deals with the meaning of civic education and its subject
matter. In this sub-unit, you will see also the multi disciplinary nature of civic education.
The coming sub-unit (1.2) is dedicated to deal with the goal of civics, which has been
mentioned above. The third element of the unit (1.3) focuses at explaining the importance
of learning civic education.
The purpose of this unit is to familiarize you with the very nature, essence and intention
of civic education. You might have asked your self, the reason why you learn civic
education. This unit tries to give you the reason why you learn it. In this unit, you learn
the importance of having this education.
Civis is also the root word for the present time widely used concepts such as civil,
civility, civic, civics etc. One of the derivatives of this word, civics is also used as the
study of a person's rights and duties as a citizen. Civics is also sometimes understood as a
science of citizens and citizenship. It is a combination of many subjects, including
history, political science, geography, law, philosophy, economics, etc. Civics is the
science of comparative government and means of administering public trust - the theory
of governance as applied to state institutions. From its Etymological meaning, we can
understand that civic education is education about citizens (civis). In general, it is treated
as the study of citizenship and government, usually having to do with the rights and
duties of citizens and government.
* Forms of government
“There is in our hands as citizens an instrument to mould the minds of the young and
to create great and good and noble citizens for the future.”
The active participation of citizens in their own socio-economic and political affairs is
vitally important for the realization of a healthy democratic system. Democracy is a
political system in which people are decision makers on their own affairs. It is a system
in which people exercise self administration (self governance). Self administration
demands the active participation of citizens. The participation should not be for the sake
of participation, but for the purpose of bringing change (betterment) in the society.
In order to actively participate in the political, economic and social affairs, citizens
require the necessary knowledge, awareness and skills. Particularly, in the process of
building up a democratic system citizens should be armed with the necessary knowledge
and skill that enable them to be active participant.
Political philosophers insisted always that enlightened citizens, capable of following their
own initiatives are necessary for both, the perpetuation and the continuous renewal of
democracy. To foster the development of democratic values and institutions requires
careful attention assiduous cultivation. Civic education aims at producing such kind of
citizens who are competent, vigilant, informed, and responsible citizens.
The active participation of citizens in their own socio-economic and political affairs is
vitally important for the realization of a healthy democratic system. Citizens require the
necessary knowledge, awareness and skills in order to actively participate in the political,
Part I
1. Civic education does not borrow ideas or theories from one of the following
science. Which one is that?
A. Economics C. Anthropology
B. Sociology D. Philosophy
A. state
B. political community
C. citizenship
D. none
4. All of the followings are uses of studying civic education except
Part II
Match the items on the left with the items on the right.
LEFT RIGHT
1. Free people A. self-
governance
2. Democracy B. Civis
3. Civic education C. Political community
4. State D. Civics
5. The Greek city states E. Civitas
F. minority rule
Part III
Part IV
1. Why are citizens required to be watchful, alert, actively involving in the decision
making process, in democracy?
2. What kind of democratic system do you imagine in which the people are passive
recipient of orders?
CONTENTS
6.0 Introduction
6.1 Aims and Objectives
6.2 Origin and Essence of State.
6.2.1 Definition of State
6.2.2 Theories of state
6.2.2.1 Divine Right Theory
6.2.2.2 Social Contract Theory
6.2.2.3 The Marxist Theory
6.2.2.4 The Conquest Theory of the State
6.3 Structure of state
6.4 Forms of Government
6.5 State Organs
6.6 Check your progress
6.7 Selected references
The concept state has been a debatable issue through out the history of political
philosophy. It has been understood, interpreted and defined in different ways, by political
philosophers and even by lay persons or non-scholars. Some of the questions raised by
those prominent philosophers are: What political system is more preferable and why?
When, why and how state came in to existence? What are the essence and functions of
state? Who should rule and based on what? Where does the political legitimacy rulers
emanate from? Etc. This unit deals with some of these problems.
In this unit you will be introduced to those important concepts like criticizes, state,
territory, people, sovereignty and government. In this unit, the interrelation among the
above mentioned concepts, implicitly and explicitly is discussed in the sub-units.
The unit begins with students analyzing the meaning and purpose of living in a state. You
will be exposed to the problems of how and why state came in to existence. Why and
how human beings exist in a society and at large in a state? What would life look like in
the absence law, law enforcing body and authority? The unit will also focus upon the
interrelation and difference between state and government.
□ list the elements of state and explain each and their interdependence relation.
□ compare and contrast the purpose and functions of government in different political
systems.
□ explain how participation is related to the purpose of our constitutional government.
□ take part in a problem-solving activity in which you learn of various forms of political
participation
The term state is interchangeably used with nation, country, land and government. To
some extent, the interchangeable usage of these concepts, substituting state is possible. In
our day to day life we use these terms interchangeably; that means one substituting the
other. If you were asked what your nation, country, state or land was, (understanding all
these as to mean one thing) you would give one answer; that is, Ethiopia. In ordinary
conversation or communication that could be possible, but in the strict usage, state is
not exactly any of these listed above. It is rather, as we are going to see next, all of them
As it has been cited above, the terms country, nation, state, government and land are
often used as synonyms, but in a more strict usage they are distinguished:
I. Country
Country is the geographical area that includes the landmass (valleys, plateau, plain land,
mountain, hill etc.) and water bodies (river, lake, sea, ponds etc.)/ Generally, it refers to
the physical features.
II. Nation
Nation designates a people. The English word people, refers to a specific group of
humans, or to persons in a general sense. Actually in common usage the two words
(Nation and State) are exchangeable. In scholarly discussion there is a distinction
especially when this topic is discussed As Defined by the New Oxford Dictionary of
English, “A Nation is a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history and
culture inhabiting a particular territory”.
A ‘people’ is also the problematic concept of a group of humans which are united by
some common factor, for example nationality, skin color, belief, tradition, custom or a
common culture. For example the Christian Bible mentions to the people of Moses. The
individuals of the people are assumed to share values and beliefs and be aware of the fact
that they are part of the group. The sum total of individuals who have permanent
existence; sharing common cultural elements makes people. When individuals live
collectively together, in a given area, they develop tradition, custom, belief, language
moral codes that evaluate the action and behavior of the members and more or less
similar way of life. These and more others are the constituting elements of culture. People
III. Land
Land may be used for "a country and its people" but also thought of as country
belonging to a nation or a monarch. For instance, in the ancient time, the present time
northern part of Ethiopia, Eritrea, the western part of Yemen was ruled by queen Maceda
or commonly known as queen of Sheba ( in Amharic Saba; Negiste Saba yesaba negist ).
This area was called land of Sheba. The people were known as the people of Sheba or
Shebean. So, Sheba refers to both the people and the geographical area.
IV. Government
No one of these sufficiently explain what state is. The following Convention, in America
provides us with working definition of state. The criteria for statehood are generally
accepted to be those set out in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention Signed at
Montevideo on 26 December 1933 and entered into force on 26 December 1934.
The last one, (d), refers to the Sovereignty of the government and the law making body;
having the highest decision making power over the social, political and economic affairs
of the people (citizens). This enables the state to have a capacity to enter into relations
with the other states." (The Montevideo is a regional American convention; but the
principles contained in this article have been generally recognized as an accurate
statement of customary international law.) However, some have questioned whether these
Furthermore, the first sentence of Article 3 explicitly states that "The political
existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other
states." This is known as the declarative theory of statehood.
There is still a controversy over the definition and essence of state. A major issue in
defining state is the difference between the constitutive and declarative theories of
recognition of states. According to the constitutive theory, a state exists only insofar as it
is recognized by other states. The declarative theory, by contrast, holds that the existence
of a state is independent of its recognition by other states. Which theory is correct is a
controversial issue in international law. An example in practice was the collapse of
central government in Somalia in the early 1990s: the Montevideo convention would
imply that the state of Somalia no longer existed, and the subsequently declared republic
of Somaliland (comprising part of the so-called "former" Somalia) may meet the criteria
for statehood. However the self-declared republic has not achieved recognition by other
states.
sovereignty are the necessary conditions if not sufficient for the existence of state. The
convention distinguishes four elements or phenomena of the state: geographical, people,
government, finally, the state as the formal legal subject of power (sovereignty). If one
of these elements that constitute the state is missing, there is no more state. Imagine
Ethiopia with out its territory, people, government and its sovereignty. How could you
think of a state with out having geographical area, human resource, law and law
implementing body and having supreme authority over the natural and human resource
(sovereignty?). The state cannot exist without population, or territory, or government, or
Territory
The existence of a distinct territory with in fixed bounders is the basic element of the
state. Boundaries are intended to be as clear as possible, surveyors plot out exact lines not
only on the land, but also through inland waters that form part of the border Under
contemporary international law the territory of the state is considered to extend to the
oceans, air space, and the resources beneath its soil
Population
The state also possesses a distinct population over which it has legal jurisdiction. The
population of the state consists of two groups, citizens and aliens Citizens are persons
formally recognized under law as having membership in the state. The population of a
state may also include aliens, inhabitants who are not citizens of the state. According to
international law, states are entitled to admit or exclude aliens, but must observe
standards of decent treatment toward those who are admitted.
Government
Sovereignty
According to the theory of sovereignty, there is no higher authority above that of the
government of the state, and the state possesses supreme decision-making power with in
its territory.
In other words, sovereignty means that the state is the supreme power, subject to the rule
neither of some external power nor of a rival power with in its own boundaries
Thus, state is not merely identified with one or two of those synonymously used terms,
rather it is the totality of all. In short, the State is not a physical entity that exists
independently. It is an abstraction that has emerged many times and in many forms
Through out the history of political philosophy, the meaning, purpose, function and
origin of state have been perplexing problems that were critically analyzed by the
philosophers existed in different periods. In the coming sub-division of the unit you will
study different political philosophers' theories concerning the essence and origin of state.
Historically, when political thinkers have attempted to discover the essential nature of
'the State' and whether it has legitimacy, they have looked to the origins of that institution
for answers. In general, there are four basic and somewhat overlapping theories of how
the State originated. Each theory carries different implications for the State's relationship
to Society and individual citizens.
The first theory is a supernatural one which claims that the State, or at least a certain
ruler, is in place through the will of God. State and its institutions, according to this
theory, are natural product. They are purposefully instituted by God/s or
Heavens/Divinity. In short the Super Natural entity created the State, other institution
like prisons, courts, police and military force etc. and appoints rules who are placed to
fulfill the will of the Creator.
pericles Kings are earth's gods; in vice their law's their will.
This theory results in theocracy and the Divine Right of Kings. The Divine Right of
Kings is a phrase which refers to European political and religious doctrines of political
absolutism. These are largely, though not exclusively, associated with the mediaeval era,
based on contemporary Christian belief that a monarch owed his rule to the will of God,
not to the will of people, parliament, the aristocracy or any other competing authority and
that any attempt to depose a monarch or to restrict his powers ran contrary to the will of
God. In the western world it came to be associated with Roman Catholicism and other
Christian faiths in the Reformation period. The notion of divine right of kings was
certainly in existence earlier to the mediaeval period; however it was during this time that
the notion became extensively used as a primarily political mechanism i.e. for increasing
the power of kings within centralized monarchies relative to their nobles and subjects.
This theory has been a dominant one for a long period of time, before the appearance
Marxist ideology here in Ethiopia. Ethiopia has implemented this theory in reign of
different kings who ruled the state. Emperor Hileselasie I was the last Solomonic
emperor. (You will see about Solomnic Dynasty in the sub unit that deals with
constitutional development in Ethiopia in detail) He had the right to be emperor of
ARTICLE 2.
ARTICLE 4.
By virtue of His Imperial blood, as well as by the anointing which
He has received, the person of the Emperor is sacred. His dignity is
inviolable and His power indisputable. He is, consequently, entitled
to all the honors due to Him in accordance with tradition and the
present Constitution. Any on so bold as to seek to injure the Emperor
will be punished.
From the above two articles we can understand that the source of political legitimacy (the
reason why people accept the authority of Monarchs) is Divinity. The people had no right
to question, resist or oppose the authority of the monarch, because he had Imperial blood
and elected of God. Revolting against the monarch means, revolting against God.
God chooses the rulers or royal family to run the State and govern their subjects.
Inhabitants of such States were generally considered to be "subjects" at the mercy of the
Ruler rather than "citizens" (with civil rights). According to the 1955 or Revised
Constitution of Ethiopia during the reign of Emperor Haileselassei I the majority of
Ethiopia were subjects. In the constitution, the word subject is used several times to
indicate the people. The following Articles of the constitution indicate that the people
were subjects (ruled persons)
Ethiopian subjects shall have the right, in accordance with the conditions prescribed by
law, to assemble peaceably and without arms.
ARTICLE 47.
Every Ethiopian subjects has the right to engage in any occupation and, to that end, to
form or join associations in accordance with the law.
ARTICLE 49.
KING RICHARD II Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Social Contract Theory is the view that human beings' moral and/or political obligations
How should government get the authority or right to make laws telling
people what they can and cannot do?
What should the people have the right to do if their government does
not serve the purposes for which it was created? Why should they
have this right?
are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form state. According to
this theory human beings for the purpose of securing their life they deliberately agreed to
Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument in the early Platonic
dialogue, Crito, Socrates makes a compelling argument as to why he must stay in prison
and accept the death penalty, rather than escape and go into exile in another Greek city.
He personifies the Laws of Athens, and, speaking in their voice, explains that he has
acquired an overwhelming obligation to obey the Laws because they have made his entire
way of life, and even the fact of his very existence, possible. They made it possible for
his mother and father to marry, and therefore to have legitimate children, including
himself. Having been born, the city of Athens, through its laws, then required that his
father care for and educate him. Socrates' life and the way in which that life has
flourished in Athens are each dependent upon the Laws. Importantly, however, this
relationship between citizens and the Laws of the city are not such kind of laws which
force somebody to do something that he or she does not want to do. Citizens, once they
have grown up, and have seen how the city conducts itself, can choose whether to leave,
taking their property with them, or stay. Staying implies an agreement to abide by the
Laws and accept the punishments that they mete out. And, having made an agreement
that is itself just, Socrates asserts that he must keep to this agreement that he has made
and obey the Laws, in this case, by staying and accepting the death penalty. Importantly,
the contract described by Socrates is an implicit one: it is implied by his choice to stay in
Athens, even though he is free to leave. Why he must remain in prison and accept the
death penalty. However, Social Contract Theory is rightly associated with modern moral
and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.
After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of
this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories
A. Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes, (1588-1679), rejects the theory of the Divine Right of Kings or the
Natural Power of Kings. Its’ view held that a king’s authority was invested in him (or,
presumably, her) by God, that such authority was absolute, and therefore that the basis of
political obligation lay in our obligation to obey God absolutely. According to this view,
then, political obligation is subsumed under religious obligation. He argues, radically for
his times, that political authority and obligation are based on the individual self-interests
of members of society who are understood to be equal to one another, with no single
individual invested with any essential authority to rule over the rest. at the same time, he
maintained the conservative position that the monarch, which he called the Sovereign,
must have absolute authority if society is to survive.
Hobbes' political theory is best understood if taken in two parts: his theory of human
motivation, Psychological Egoism, and his theory of the social contract, founded on the
hypothetical State of Nature. Hobbes has, first and foremost, a particular theory of human
nature, which gives rise to a particular view of morality and politics, as developed in his
philosophical masterpiece, Leviathan, published in 1651. The Scientific Revolution, with
its important new discoveries that the universe could be both described and predicted in
accordance with universal laws of nature, greatly influenced Hobbes. He sought to
provide a theory of human nature that would parallel the discoveries being made in the
sciences of the inanimate universe. His psychological theory is therefore informed by
mechanism, the general view that everything in the universe is produced by nothing other
In Hobbes' view, this mechanistic quality of human psychology implies the subjective
nature of normative claims. ‘Love’ and ‘hate’, for instance, are just words we use to
describe the things we are drawn to and repelled by, respectively. So, too, the terms
‘good’ and ‘bad’ have no meaning other than to describe our appetites and aversions.
Moral terms do not, therefore, describe some objective state of affairs, but are rather
reflections of individual tastes and preferences.
In addition to Subjectivism, Hobbes also infers from his mechanistic theory of human
nature that humans are necessarily and exclusively self-interested. Human beings are self-
centered. All men pursue only what they perceive to be in their own individually
considered best interests - they respond mechanistically by being drawn to that which
they desire and repelled by that to which they are averse. This is a universal claim: it is
meant to cover all human actions under all circumstances – in society or out of it, with
regard to strangers and friends alike, with regard to small ends and the most generalized
of human desires, such as the desire for power and status. Everything we do is motivated
solely by the desire to better our own situations, and satisfy as many of our own,
individually considered desires as possible. We are infinitely appetitive and only
In addition to being exclusively self-interested, Hobbes also argues that human beings are
reasonable. Rationality is purely instrumental. It can add and subtract, and compare sums
one to another, and thereby endows us with the capacity to formulate the best means to
whatever ends we might happen to have.
From these premises of human nature, Hobbes goes on to construct a provocative and
compelling argument for why we ought to be willing to submit ourselves to political
authority (Sovereign). He does this by imagining persons in a situation prior to the
establishment of society, the State of Nature.
According to Hobbes, the justification for political obligation is this: given that men are
naturally self-interested, yet they are rational, they will choose to submit to the authority
of a Sovereign in order to be able to live in a civil society, which is conducive to their
own interests. Thus the origin of state is the desire of human beings to abandon the State
of Nature and enter in to agreement to form a state under the despotic monarch. Hobbes
argues for this by imagining men in their natural state, or in other words, the State of
Nature. In the State of Nature, which is purely hypothetical according to Hobbes, men are
naturally and exclusively self-interested, they are more or less equal to one another, (even
the strongest man can be killed in his sleep), there are limited resources, and yet there is
no power able to force men to cooperate. Given these conditions in the State of Nature,
Hobbes concludes that the State of Nature would be unbearably brutal. In the State of
Nature, every person is always in fear of losing his life to another. In such condition men
find themselves in the absence of freedom, security and peace. They have no capacity to
ensure the long-term satisfaction of their needs or desires. No long-term or complex
cooperation is possible because the State of Nature can be aptly described as a state of
utter distrust. Given Hobbes' reasonable assumption that most people want first and
foremost to avoid their own deaths, he concludes that the State of Nature is the worst
The situation is not, however, hopeless. Because men are reasonable, they can see their
way out of such a state by recognizing the laws of nature, which show them the means by
which to escape the State of Nature and create a civil society. The first and most
important law of nature commands that each man be willing to pursue peace when others
are willing to do the same, all the while retaining the right to continue to pursue war
when others do not pursue peace. Being reasonable, and recognizing the rationality of
this basic precept of reason, men can be expected to construct a Social Contract that will
afford them a life other than that available to them in the State of Nature. This contract is
constituted by two distinguishable contracts. First, they must agree to establish society by
collectively and reciprocally renouncing the rights they had against one another in the
State of Nature. Second, they must imbue some one person or assembly of persons with
the authority and power to enforce the initial contract. In other words, to ensure their
escape from the State of Nature, they must both agree to live together under common
laws, and create an enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that
constitute it. Since the sovereign is invested with the authority and power to mete out
punishments for breaches of the contract which are worse than not being able to act as
one pleases, men have good, albeit self-interested, reason to adjust themselves to the
artifice of morality in general, and justice in particular. Society becomes possible
because, whereas in the State of Nature there was no power able to "overawe them all",
now there is an artificially and conventionally superior and more powerful person who
can force men to cooperate. While living under the authority of a Sovereign can be harsh
(Hobbes argues that because men's passions can be expected to overwhelm their reason,
the Sovereign must have absolute authority in order for the contract to be successful) it is
at least better than living in the State of Nature. And, no matter how much we may object
to how poorly a Sovereign manages the affairs of the state and regulates our own lives,
According to this argument, morality, politics, society, and everything that comes along
with it, all of which Hobbes calls ‘commodious living' are purely conventional. Prior to
the establishment of the basic social contract, according to which men agree to live
together and the contract to embody a Sovereign with absolute authority, nothing is
immoral or unjust - anything goes. After these contracts are established, however, then
society becomes possible, and people can be expected to keep their promises, cooperate
with one another, and so on. The Social Contract is the most fundamental source of all
that is good and that which we depend upon to live well. Our choice is either to abide by
the terms of the contract, or return to the State of Nature, which Hobbes argues no
reasonable person could possibly prefer. Reason led men to abandon their previous worst
condition of life, in the State of Nature and agree to establish ordered life in a state. In a
state there is no fear of death, no insecurity, no lack of peace, etc
Do you agree that according to Hobbes the reason of state is the self-centeredness nature
of human beings?
B. John Locke
For Hobbes, the necessity of an absolute authority, in the form of a Sovereign, followed
from the utter brutality of the State of Nature. The State of Nature was completely
intolerable, and so rational men would be willing to submit themselves even to absolute
authority in order to escape it. For John Locke, 1632-1704, the State of Nature is a very
different type of place, and so his argument concerning the social contract and the nature
of men's relationship to authority are consequently quite different. While Locke uses
Hobbes’ methodological device of the State of Nature, as do virtually all social contract
theorists, he uses it to a quite different end. Locke’s arguments for the social contract and
for the right of citizens to revolt against their king were enormously influential on the
democratic revolutions that followed, especially on Thomas Jefferson, and the founders
of the United States.
According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of
perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the
interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not
free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one’s
interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or
government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without
morality. The State of Nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral. Persons are assumed
to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering
and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Locke’s view the
basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with
regards to their "life, health, liberty, or possessions" (par. 6). Because we all belong
equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are
prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where
persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and,
because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is
relatively peaceful.
The State of Nature therefore, is not the same as the state of war, as it is according to
Hobbes. It can, however devolve into a state of war, in particular, a state of war over
property disputes. Whereas the State of Nature is the state of liberty where persons
recognize the Law of Nature and therefore do not harm one another, the state of war
begins between two or more men once one man declares war on another, by stealing from
him, or by trying to make him his slave. Since in the State of Nature there is no civil
Property plays an essential role in Locke's argument for civil government and the contract
that establishes it. According to Locke, private property is created when a person mixes
his labor with the raw materials of nature. So, for example, when one tills a piece of land
in nature, and makes it into a piece of farmland, which produces food, then one has a
claim to own that piece of land and the food produced upon it. Given the implications of
the Law of Nature, there are limits as to how much property one can own: one is not
allowed to take so more from nature than oneself can use, thereby leaving others without
enough for themselves. Because nature is given to all of mankind by God for its common
subsistence, one cannot take more than his own fair share. Property is the linchpin of
Locke’s argument for the social contract and civil government because it is the protection
of their property, including their property in their own bodies that men seek when they
decide to abandon the State of Nature.
Given that the end of "men's uniting into common-wealth" is the preservation of their
wealth, and preserving their lives, liberty, and well-being in general, Locke can easily
imagine the conditions under which the compact with government is destroyed, and men
are justified in resisting the authority of a civil government, such as a King. When the
executive power of a government devolves into tyranny, such as by dissolving the
legislature and therefore denying the people the ability to make laws for their own
preservation, then the resulting tyrant puts himself into a State of Nature, and specifically
into a state of war with the people, and they then have the same right to self-defense as
they had before making a compact to establish society in the first place. In other words,
the justification of the authority of the executive component of government is the
protection of the people’s property and well-being, so when such protection is no longer
present, or when the king becomes a tyrant and acts against the interests of the people,
they have a right, if not an outright obligation, to resist his authority. The social compact
can be dissolved and the process to create political society begun anew.
Because Locke did not envision the State of Nature as grimly as did Hobbes, he can
imagine conditions under which one would be better off rejecting a particular civil
government and returning to the State of Nature, with the aim of constructing a better
civil government in its place. It is therefore both the view of human nature, and the nature
of morality itself, which account for the differences between Hobbes' and Locke’s views
of the social contract.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1712-1778, lived and wrote during what was arguably the
headiest period in the intellectual history of modern France--the Enlightenment. He was
one of the bright lights of that intellectual movement.
Rousseau has two distinct social contract theories. The first is found in his essay,
Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, commonly referred
to as the Second Discourse, and is an account of the moral and political evolution of
human beings over time, from a State of Nature to modern society. As such it contains his
naturalized account of the social contract, which he sees as very problematic. The second
is his normative or idealized theory of the social contract, and is meant to provide the
means by which to alleviate the problems that modern society has created for us, as laid
out in the Second Discourse.
Rousseau wrote his Second Discourse in response to an essay contest sponsored by the
Academy of Dijon. (Rousseau had previously won the same essay contest with an earlier
essay, commonly referred to as the First Discourse.) In it he describes the historical
process by which man began in a State of Nature and over time ‘progressed' into civil
society. According to Rousseau, the State of Nature was a peaceful and quixotic time.
People lived solitary, uncomplicated lives. Their few needs were easily satisfied by
nature. Because of the abundance of nature and the small size of the population,
competition was non-existent, and persons rarely even saw one another, much less had
reason for conflict or fear. Moreover, these simple, morally pure persons were naturally
endowed with the capacity for pity, and therefore were not inclined to bring harm to one
another.
As time passed, however, humanity faced certain changes. As the overall population
increased, the means by which people could satisfy their needs had to change. People
slowly began to live together in small families, and then in small communities. Divisions
of labor were introduced, both within and between families, and discoveries and
The normative social contract, argued for by Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762), is
meant to respond to this sorry state of affairs and to remedy the social and moral ills that
have been produced by the development of society. The distinction between history and
justification, between the factual situation of mankind and how it ought to live together,
is of the utmost importance to Rousseau. While we ought not to ignore history, nor ignore
the causes of the problems we face, we must resolve those problems through our capacity
to choose how we ought to live. Might never make right, despite how often it pretends
that it can.
Rousseau says, "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains". Humans are
essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the ‘progress' of civilization has
The most basic covenant, the social pact, is the agreement to come together and form a
people, a collectivity, which by definition is more than and different from a mere
aggregation of individual interests and wills. This act, where individual persons become a
people is "the real foundation of society”. Through the collective renunciation of the
individual rights and freedom that one has in the State of Nature, and the transfer of these
rights to the collective body, a new ‘person', as it were, is formed. The sovereign is thus
formed when free and equal persons come together and agree to create themselves anew
as a single body, directed to the good of all considered together. So, just as individual
wills are directed towards individual interests, the general will, once formed, is directed
towards the common good, understood and agreed to collectively. Included in this
version of the social contract is the idea of reciprocated duties: the sovereign is
committed to the good of the individuals who constitute it, and each individual is
likewise committed to the good of the whole. Given this, individuals cannot be given
liberty to decide whether it is in their own interests to fulfill their duties to the Sovereign,
while at the same time being allowed to reap the benefits of citizenship. They must be
made to conform themselves to the general will, they must be “forced to be free”.
Rousseau's social contract theories together form a single, consistent view of our moral
and political situation. We are endowed with freedom and equality by nature, but our
nature has been corrupted by our contingent social history. We can overcome this
corruption, however, by invoking our free will to reconstitute ourselves politically, along
strongly democratic principles, which is good for us, both individually and collectively.
segment. Marx and Engels asserted that the key to understanding human culture history
and the essence of state was the struggle between the classes. They used the term class to
Marx, in order to understand the origin, essence and function of state, studied the selected
past and capitalist societies’ social, economic and political conditions. Marx in his
analysis introduced five social systems: primitive social system, slave owning, feudalism,
capitalism, socialism and the last social system communism, which is the Marxist dream.
According to Marxists, state appeared at a certain evolutionary development human
society. State came in to existence with the appearance of private property in the slave
owning system. Private property resulted in the class division (propertied, the slave
master and property less, the slave). A state is a machine for the maintenance of the
domination of one class over another. Thus, when private property is abolished and when
and where there will be no class division (in a communist society) state gradually
‘weathers away’. Since in the classless society (Communism) in which property is owned
communally, the state has no function of defending the economic interest of any class. At
last, it brings about the no more existence of the state.
Prior to class division there appeared division of labor, in the antiquity societies
(primitive societies). At last, social division of labor gave birth to social classes division.
In other words, the emergence of the state is a product of the social division of labor. In
the primitive societies, the division of labor was based on nature. It was between males
and females. So long as this social division of labor is only at elementary or level, all
members of the society in turn exercise practically all its functions. There is no state.
There are no special state functions.
In the primitive communal society, there is no private property. Any thing that is
important for the members belongs to the community. It is a communal and egalitarian
society, in which every one is at equal status and enjoys communal property.
In connection with the Bushmen, Father Victor Ellenberger writes that this tribe knew
neither private property nor courts, neither central authority nor special bodies of any
kind. Another author writes of this same tribe: “The band, and not the tribe, is the real
political body among the Bushmen. Each band is autonomous, leading its own life
independently of the others. Its affairs are as a rule regulated by the skilled hunters and
the older, more experienced men in general.”
But to the extent that social division of labor develops and society is divided into classes,
the State appears - and its nature is defined: The members of the collectivity as a whole
This is an important function. Engels said that the state is, in the final analysis, nothing
other than a body of armed men. In the primitive collectivity, all male members of the
group (and sometimes even all adults, male and female) are armed. In such a society the
concept that the bearing of arms is the particular prerogative of some special institution
called army, police, or constabulary, does not exist. Every adult male has the right to bear
arms. (In certain primitive societies, the ceremony of initiation, which marks coming of
age, confers the right to bear arms.)
It is exactly the same in societies that are still primitive but already close to the stage of
division into classes. For example, this holds true for the Germanic peoples at about the
time they attacked the Roman Empire: all free men had the right to bear arms and they
could use them to defend their person and their rights. In ancient Greece and Rome, the
struggles between patricians and plebeians often revolved about this question of the right
to bear arms.
In general, writing is unknown to primitive society. Thus there are no written codes of
law. Moreover, the exercise of justice is not the prerogative of particular individuals; this
right belongs to the collectivity. Apart from quarrels decided by families or individuals
themselves, only collective assemblies are empowered to render judgments. In primitive
Germanic society, the president of the people’s tribunal did not pass judgment: his
function consisted in seeing that certain rules, certain forms, were observed. The idea that
there could be certain men detached from the collectivity to whom would be reserved the
right of dispensing justice, would seem to citizens of a society based on the collectivism
To sum up: At a certain point in the development of society, before it is divided into
social classes, certain functions such as the right to bear arms or to administer justice are
exercised collectively - by all adult members of the community. It is only as this society
develops further, to the point where social classes appear, that these functions are taken
away from the collectivity to be reserved to a minority who exercise these functions in a
special way.
In the feudal society the feudal lord, and only he, exercises throughout his domain all
the functions enumerated above, functions that had devolved on the adult collectivity in
primitive societies.
This feudal lord is the absolute master of his realm. He is the only one who has the right
to bear arms at all times; he is the only policeman, the only constable; he is the sole
judge; he is the only one who has the right to coin money; he is the sole minister of
finance. He exercises throughout his domain all the classic functions performed by a state
as we know it today.
Later, an evolution will take place. As long as the estate remains fairly small, its
population limited, the “state” functions of the lord rudimentary and not very
complicated, and as long as exercising these functions takes only a little of the lord’s
time, he an handle the situation and exercise all these functions in person. But when the
domain grows and the population increases, the functions for which the feudal lord is
responsible become more and more complex and more and more detailed and
burdensome. It becomes impossible for one man to exercise all these functions.
To the extent that these people, these non-free men, these domestics, are completely
under his control, does the seigneur partially delegate his powers to them.
The state functions exercised by the ruling class do not only concern the most immediate
areas of power, such as the army, justice, finances. Also under the land lord’s thumb are
ideology, law, philosophy, science, art. Those who exercise these functions are poor
people who, in order to live, have to sell their talents to a feudal lord who can take care of
their needs. (Heads of the church have to be included in the class of feudal lords,
Needless to say, in the course of the evolution of society, the function of the state
becomes much more complex, with many more nuances, than it is in a feudal regime
such as we have just very schematically described.
Nevertheless, we must start from this transparently clear and obvious situation in order to
understand the logic of the evolution, the origin of this social division of labor that is
brought about, and the process through which these different functions become more and
more autonomous and begin to seem more and more independent of the ruling class.
This new society is no longer dominated by feudal lords but by capitalism, by modern
capitalists. As we know, the monetary needs of the modern state - the new central power,
more or less absolute monarchy - become greater and greater, from the fifteenth to
sixteenth century onward. It is the money of the capitalists, of the merchant and
commercial bankers, that in large part fills the coffers of the state.
Ever since that time, to the extent that the capitalists pay for the upkeep of the state, they
will demand that the latter place itself completely at their service. They will make this
quite clearly felt and understood by the very nature of the laws they enact and by the
institutions they create.
Several institutions which today appear democratic in nature, for example the
parliamentary institution, clearly reveal the class nature of the bourgeois state. Thus, in
most of the countries in which parliamentarianism was instituted, only the bourgeoisie
had the right to vote. This state of affairs lasted in most Western countries until the end of
the last century or even the beginning of the twentieth century. Universal suffrage is, as
we can see, of relatively recent invention in the history of capitalism. How is this
explained?
Easily enough. In the seventeenth century, when the English capitalists proclaimed “No
taxation without representation. It was only, representation for the bourgeoisie that they
had in mind; for the idea that people who owned nothing and paid no taxes could vote,
seemed absurd and ridiculous to them. Isn’t parliament created for the very purpose of
controlling expenditures made with the taxpayers’ money?
This argument, extremely valid from the point of view of the bourgeoisie, was taken up
and developed by our Doctrinaire bourgeoisie at the time of the demand for universal
suffrage. For this bourgeoisie, the role of parliament consisted in controlling budgets and
The parliamentary institution is a typical example of the very direct very mechanical
bond that exists - even in the bourgeois state - between the domination of the ruling class
and the exercise of state power.
There are other examples. Let us look at the jury in the judicial system. The jury (a group
of people, usually twelve people, chosen to give a verdict (jury decision) on a legal case
that is presented before them in a court of law) appears to be an institution eminently
democratic in character, especially when compared to the administration of justice by
irremovable judges, all members of the ruling class over whom the people have no
control.
But from what social layer were - and still in very large measure today, are - the members
of a jury chosen? From the bourgeoisie. There were even special qualifications,
comparable to property-holding requirements for voting, for being able to sit on a jury - a
juror had to be a homeowner, pay a certain amount of taxes, etc. To illustrate this very
direct link between the machinery of the state and the ruling class in the bourgeois era.
The parliament of Ethiopia in the reign of Emperor Haileselassie I had such nature. Who
were the members of the parliament, legislators? The then parliament was bicameral (A
parliament with two legislative chambers: having two separate and distinct lawmaking
assemblies) in its structure. The two chambers were Chamber of Deputy (“Yehege
Memeria Meker Bet”) and Chamber of the Senate (“Yehege Mewesegna Meker Bet”).
Both chambers were composed of nobilities, lords, princes, high rank persons, gentle men
from well to do families etc. Serfs, the majority were not represented in the parliament
nor had totally the right to be elected. The 1955 constitution of Ethiopia explicitly shows
that privet property or wealth was important requirement to join the parliament. Article
ARTICLE 96
Among the legal requirements (age, property, nationality and loyalty to the Emperor)
property is the most difficult one to possess. Property was owned by few lords, princes,
nobilities and the like. Among the princes, lords, nobles and high rank persons the
Emperor appoints to be the members of the Chamber of the Senate Article 103
concerning this states as follows
To be eligible for appointment as a member of the Senate, a person must be, by birth, an
Ethiopian subject who:
(a) has reached the age of thirty-five years;
(b) is a Prince or other Dignitary, or a former high governmental official, or other
person generally esteemed for his character, judgment and public services; and
(d) is not disqualified under any provision of the electoral law.
The majority of Ethiopian population was land or property less. These few propertied
privileged persons occupy sits in the parliament discuss issues, make laws and polices.
Do you think that the laws made by the propertied people reflect the interest of the
majority, the property less? Never at all. The laws made by the parliamentarians and the
In the same way as the state, law is inseparably tied to the division of society into classes.
Every law is the law of the ruling class. The basis of law is the formulation and
consolidation of the relationship to the means of production, owing to which in
exploitative society, one part of the people can appropriate to itself the unpaid labor of
another
The appearance and withering away of law, similar to the appearance and withering of
the state, is connected with two extremely important historical limitations. Law (and the
state) appears with the division of society into classes. Passing through a long path of
development, full of revolutionary leaps and qualitative changes, law and the state will
wither away under communism as a result of the disappearance of classes and of all
survivals of class society.
To sum up, the state for Marxism is a special organ that appears at a certain moment in
the historical evolution of mankind and that is condemned to disappear in the course of
this same evolution. It is born from the division of society into classes and will disappear
at the same time that this division disappears. It is not the agreement of the people as the
consent theory says rather disagreement or internal conflict between the antagonistic
classes that gave birth to the state. It is born as an instrument in the hands of the
possessing class for the purpose of maintaining the domination of this class over society,
and it will disappear along with this class domination.
All great civilizations, in their early stages, are based on success in war.
The advocates of this theory believed that material need was the prime motivator of
human beings and that progress is produced by economic causes, not by political ones.
The 19th-20th century German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer spearheaded an analysis
of these key terms in his classic work The State. Oppenheimer defined the State, "I mean
by it that summation of privileges and dominating positions which are brought into being
by extra-economic power....I mean by Society, the totality of concepts of all purely
natural relations and institutions between man and man..."(xxxiii). (1) He contrasted what
he terms 'the political means' with 'the economic means' of acquiring wealth or power.
The State uses the political means -- in other words, force -- to plunder and exploit
Society which used the economic means -- in other words, co-operation. The State may
be considered to be a continuing act of war committed against Society by a separate
group. Thus, the State was the enemy of Society.
The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does
not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which
is perpetually to be conquered.
Oppenheimer discovered the origin of the State within the 'economic impulse of man' --
or, rather, within those men who wished to satisfy this impulse through the political
means. He posited six stages through which a conquering group typically passes in order
to become a State. At first, a warlike group raids and plunders another vulnerable one.
Second, the victimized group ceases to actively resist. In response, the raiders now
merely plunder the surplus, leaving their victims alive and with enough food to ensure the
production of future plunder. Eventually, the two groups come to acknowledge mutual
interests, such as protecting the crops from a third tribe. Third, the victims offer tribute to
the raiders, eliminating the need for violence. Fourth, the two groups merge territorially.
Fifth, the warlike group assumes the right to arbitrate disputes.
Oppenheimer described the last stage in which both groups develop the 'habit of rule':
"The two groups, separated to begin with, and then united on one territory, are at first
merely laid alongside one another, then are scattered through one another...soon the
bonds of relations united the upper and lower strata."
Thus the State that originated from external conquest evolves into one of continuing
internal conquest by which one group -- or a coalition of groups -- use the political means
to attain wealth and power at the expense of those who actually labor. The State arises
and maintains itself as the enemy of Society.
Although the conquest theory has much greater historical validity than the consent
theory, debate continues as to what implication the origin of the State has upon the
legitimacy of current states.
Oppenheimer's position may resemble Marx's but there are at least two key differences.
1. He contends that, however the State may evolve, its origin is to be found in external
conflict, not an internal one. For Marx the origin of state is internal conflict between the
propertied and property less section of the society. But for the conquest theory the source
of state is external conflict; that is, the powerful ones control the weak.
2. He defines two classes as entirely separate entities -- those who use the political means
(the State) and those who use the economic means (Society), thus removing the
inevitability of conflict within Society. The State is an imposed cost upon Society, not an
inevitable result of internal conflict.
Aristotle
The states of the world are different in different ways. Their difference might be because
of either their structure (how power is distributed), the form of government (how the top
official is selected) that they have, the type of ideology that they use in order to the
leaders have political legitimacy, how and for how long the important public officials or
the representatives of the people are elected. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the
population to accept decisions of the state, its government and courts, which go against
Forms of State
(A)Structure
Unitary state
o f structureForms of Politico- legal system
State Government (Ideology)
It is a type of state in which a constitution vests all governmental power in the central
government. Most countries are unitary systems, with laws giving virtually all Monarchic
authority
Unita Presidenti Dictatorship
to the central
ry government. The al
central government may delegate duties to cities or other
administrative units, but it retains final authority and can retract any tasks it has
Federal
delegated. Parliamentary Democrati Republ
c ic
This type of state structure is appropriate in relatively homogenous society; that means,
Confederal Semi-presidential
where there is no a great disparity in terms of language, culture, religion etc. in the
society. It is also appropriate in geographically compact country. The central government
in a unitary system is much more powerful than the central government in a federal
system. Cameroon, France, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Morocco, South Korea, Sweden,
Uruguay and Ethiopia, during the reign of Emperor Haile Selassie and Reign of Dergue
are examples of unitary systems.
The word federal comes from the Latin term fidere, meaning “to trust.” Countries with
federal political systems have both a central government and governments based in
smaller political units, usually called states, provinces, or territories. These smaller
Federalism a state structure in which two levels of government control the same territory
and citizens. In federalism a constitution distributes powers between a central
government and sub divisional governments, giving to both substantial responsibilities
and powers, including the power to collect taxes and to pass and enforce laws regulating
the conduct of individuals.
This state structure is common in the nations which have heterogeneous society and that
are not geographically compact (that is not easy for centralized administration). In a state
whose people are diversified in terms of ethnicity, language, tradition, custom, way of
life, psychological make-up, etc. implementing federal state structure is advisable.
In this state structure dual jurisdictions and dual systems of government exist. In a federal
system, laws are made both by state, provincial, or territorial governments and by a
central government. In the United States, for example, people who live in the state of
Ohio must obey the laws made by the Ohio legislature and the Congress of the United
States. In Canada, residents of the province of Québec follow the laws made by Québec’s
legislature and those made by the Canadian parliament. The same holds also true in
Ethiopia, for example, the residents of the Oromia regional state are obedient to both the
federal state law and the Oromia regional state law.
The division of powers is set down in written constitution. The mere existence of both
national and state governments does not make a system federal. What is important is that
a constitution divides governmental powers between the national government and the
constituent governments, giving substantial functions to each.
In USA constitutional court exists to settle disputes between the two levels of
government. In the existing Ethiopia this is done by the House of Federation whose main
task is interpreting the constitution. In a federal system of government, neither the federal
government nor the state government has the right to take away power and authority
constitutionally belonging to the other.
Federal political systems divide power and resources between central and regional
governments. The balance of power between the two levels of government varies from
country to country, but most federal systems grant substantial autonomy to state or
provincial governments. Central governments decide issues that concern the whole
country, such as organizing an army, building major roads, and making treaties with other
countries. In addition to the United States, Canada and Ethiopia countries that are
considered federalist include Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico,
Nigeria, and Switzerland.
It is the third kind state in which sovereign nations by a constitutional compact create a
Central government but carefully limit the power of the central government and do not
give it the power to regulate the conduct of individuals directly. A confederation is
similar to a federal system but gives less power to the central government. This political
concept refers to a union of sovereign states each of which is free to act independently.
Some times this is termed as loose federation. The loose alliances of countries or other
political entities that make up a confederation seek to cooperate with one another while
retaining ultimate control of their own internal policies. Unlike federal systems,
confederations usually give each member nation absolute control over its citizens and
territory. The central government decides only issues that affect all members of the
confederation. Confederations are uncommon; most are international bodies with limited
and specific responsibilities, such as the European Union (EU) and the British
Commonwealth.
In a presidential system, the central principle is that the legislative and executive
branches of government should be separate. This leads to the separate election by the
electorate or an electoral college of the president, who is elected to office for a fixed term
of office, and only removable in extreme cases for gross misdeamour by impeachment
and dismissal. In addition he or she does not need to choose cabinet members from or
commanding the support of, a parliamentary majority.
In a presidential system, the president usually has special privileges in the enactment of
legislation, namely the possession of a power of veto over legislation of bills, in some
cases subject to the power of parliament by weighed majority to over-ride the veto.
However, it is extremely rare for the president to have the power to directly propose laws,
or cast a vote on legislation. The legislature and the president are thus expected to serve
as a check on each other's powers. The fact that a presidential system separates the
executive from the legislature is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that each branch
may scrutinize the actions of the other. In a parliamentary system, the executive is drawn
from the legislature, making criticism of one by the other considerably less likely.
According to supporters of the presidential system, the lack of checks and balances
means that misconduct by a prime minister may never be discovered.
In this system, the legislature and the president have equally valid mandates from the
public. There is often no way to reconcile conflict between the branches of government.
When president and legislature are at loggerheads and government is not working
effectively, there is a powerful incentive to employ extra-constitutional maneuvers to
break the deadlock (block to progress)
A fusion of power exists between the legislative and the executive in which the executive
is not independently elected as in a presidential system, but instead is elected by the
members of the majority party or parties in the legislature,
The Britain and Canada the head of government is called the prime minister, in Italy and
Sweden the states under discussion have bicameral legislatures, and the chief of
government is elected by the members of the lower house.
Britain and Canada the lower house is the house of commons. In Italy the chamber of
Deputies, and in Germany the Burdestag.
The Unicameral legislature of Sweden is the Riksdag elected the head of government
selects the members of the cabinet, the group of top ministers who direct the various
depts. (ministries) of the government bureaucracy. Ministers not only administer their
departments but also take responsibility for the development of policies with in the scope
of their Ministries.
How the powers between president and prime minister are divided can vary greatly
between countries. For example, in France the president is responsible for foreign policy
and the prime minister for domestic policy. In this case, the division of power between
the prime minister and the president is not explicitly stated in the constitution, but has
evolved as a political convention.
As I try to mention earlier, in the second chapter, any democratic state is expected to have
three benches or organs that are separated in power and function have a check and
balance relation. The three branches are (1) Legislative that has power to make laws; (2)
Legislature
Legislature is a branch of government empowered to make, change, or repeal its laws and
to levy and regulate its taxes. Most modern legislatures are representative- composed of
many members who are chosen directly or indirectly by popular vote. Legislatures that
provide direct representation are usually considered more democratic in practice because
they are less susceptible to being dominated by a single faction.
Nearly all modern governments have a bicameral, or two-house, legislature. The so-
called lower house is generally elected on a basis of direct representation; and the upper
house commonly on a basis either of indirect representation or of direct representation
limited to certain occupational, territorial, or hereditary categories. The traditional
theoretical justification for an upper house is that it can exercise moderation and delay on
legislation by the lower house and thus restrain the effects of impulsive or excessive
fluctuations of public opinion. Some states have unicameral, or single-house, legislatures.
For example, Ethiopia during the time of Derg had unicameral legislature (Shengo)
The various legislatures throughout the world are known by different names, such as
Congress, Parliament, Duma, Assembly and ‘Shengo’. Most are limited in their powers
by the Constitution.
Executive (Government)
This branch of state (government) has a law administering and implementing power.
According to the 1995 Constitution of Ethiopia, the executive power of the state is vested
in the Council of Ministers, whose head is the Prime Minister. The law is made by the
parliament (the legislative organ) administered and enforced by the Council of Ministers.
In the US, laws are written by the legislative branch (Congress), approved by the
president who is the head of the cabinet (the executive), and subject to interpretation by
the judicial branch.
Judiciary
Interpreting and settling disputes are the important tasks of the judiciary branch. This
refers to courts at different levels. In different nations, courts are established to
administer the civil and criminal law. The independency of this organ from any other
political organ or institution is very vital for the realization of a healthy democracy. The
present constitution of Ethiopia guarantees the independency of the judiciary. In the
present Ethiopia courts are found in three levels at federal and regional state level. The
three court levels are:
4. These three levels are found at central or federal level and member states level.
2. According to the social contract theory the head of the state is responsible to
A. Democracy C. Monarchy
B. Federal D. Authoritarian
5. Concerning its structure one of the following is different from the others
2. According to the social contract theory, rulers are accountable to the people.
3. The very purpose of government is protecting the rights of citizens.
PART. III
Define the following terms
State Country Legislative
Government Land Executive
Territory Sovereignty Judiciary
People Legitimacy Social contract
Monarch Divine right
PART. IV
2. What conditions must prevail for the people to alter or abolish this type of
CONTENTS
7.0 INTRODUCTION
7.2 The Origin and Definition of the terms Citizen and Citizenship
7.3 Citizenship as the Totality of Rights, Duties and Responsibility
7.4 Full membership of citizens
7.5 Nationals, Citizens and Subjects
7.6 Ways of Acquiring Citizenship
7.0 INTRODUCTION
When the term citizen is properly used, it means a legal and political member of the state.
And the legal and political status of the citizen is termed as citizenship. In this unit you
The very goal of this unit to raise your awareness concerning who you are in relation to
the state (Ethiopia) in which you are the citizen. As citizens you are charged with some
duties and responsibilities, and entitled to some rights which you enjoy. Those who
properly discharge their duties and responsibilities and enjoy their right are good citizens.
Are you such type?
At the conclusion of this unit you should be able to
□ identify and examine some problems likely to arise in situations where there is an
absence of rules or other effective authority.
7.2 The origin and definition of the terms citizen and citizenship
“Citizen,” as it is defined by Encarta Reference Library 2003 E-Encyclopedia “in its most
general sense, is an individual member of a given political society or state; by extension,
a citizen is one who owes allegiance to and may lawfully demand protection from the
government of that state.” The more specific sense of the term citizen is closely in accord
with the original meaning of the word. In the free republics of classical antiquity, the
term citizen signified not merely a resident of a town but a free, governing member of the
state, just as the Latin term civitas, from which the English word city is derived, signified
not merely a local municipality but the state as a whole.
As it has been mentioned in the previous unit (Unit Five), “Civis “a Latin term that has
the English meaning “citizen” refers to those free individuals who were the full members
of the civitas and the right to participate in political decision making process. Here by full
membership we should understand that the term civis was used to refer those who had the
right to participate, directly and fully in the socio-economic and political affirs of their
Civitas, city-state, political community or state to which they were Civis or citizens. This
shows the legal and political relation between the citizens and the political unit (State) to
which they are full members. This political and legal relation or status that citizens have
with the state is termed as citizenship. Generally the term was applied to those free
individuals who were able to take part in the law making (legislating) implementing
(executing) and interpreting (judiciary). Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher
expressed the Greek idea of citizens and citizenship. He expressed citizens are those free
individuals who had the right to participate in both the legislative and judicial functions
of their political community. This right was carefully guarded and was rarely conferred
on anyone of foreign birth.
In ancient Rome two classes of citizens were recognized. The first possessed the rights of
citizenship, including the privilege of voting in the public assembly; the other possessed
It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to
his convictions in political affairs.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), 'Treasury for the Free World,' 1946
Citizens are charged with some rights, equalities, freedoms generally, benefits that
citizens enjoy because they are all both human beings and legal as well as political
members of a political community or state. They have also duties and responsibilities that
they are required to discharge, what they have been charged as citizens. Citizens
discharge their duties and responsibilities when they properly fulfill what they are
expected to perform by the law of the state. When somebody charges whatever
It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.
Being a citizen is not simply limited to having a legal document like passport from the
country in which one is born, or being a resident of a particular city, state, or country.
Citizenship implies certain rights (e.g., legal, economic, political, and social); it also
implies responsibilities, including placing the well-being, or common good, of society
before private and personal interests.
We divide responsibilities into two areas: personal and civic. Personal responsibilities
include taking care of oneself, accepting responsibility for the consequences of one’s
actions, taking advantage of opportunities to become educated, and fulfilling
responsibilities to one’s family, friends, and neighbors. Civic responsibilities, on the
other hand, comprise obeying laws, respecting the rights and opinions of others, paying
taxes, serving in the military, voting, and being informed and attentive to the needs of
Responsible citizens are often said to be active socially and politically. Social activity
might entail joining citizens’ groups that are devoted to solving societal problems, such
as homelessness, social relations, or neighborhood crime; social activity could also
involve volunteering in a local hospital, school, homeless shelter, or helping disabled
individuals.
Political activity is quite different from social activity. Political activity usually refers to
more than the simple act of voting in periodic elections. It might entail talking about
public issues; writing letters to public official; presenting a problem to a governmental
council; staying informed about important issues by reading the newspaper, listening to
television news, or attending public meetings; or getting involved in a political campaign.
Recent discussions of responsible citizenship have taken on new dimensions and have
expanded to include the concept of worldwide citizenship. As international travel,
communication, and exchanges have become easier and more common, citizens of
different countries are becoming more dependent upon one another. This interdependence
has given birth to the notion of world citizenship that is, being a citizen of the world. In
general, world citizens are concerned about issues that affect all nations and all people,
including overpopulation, the mismanagement of natural resources, and pollution. World
citizenship, as a new type of citizenship, requires new sets of individual responsibilities.
Nationality refers to, in law, condition or status of belonging to, or having legal identity
with, a nation or state. In various political systems a distinction is made between
nationality and citizenship; the latter represents a higher political status, usually involving
rights to full participation in governmental affairs. Nationals were classed as citizens and
non-citizens in ancient Greece and Rome, with citizens often forming a minority of the
population; this distinction still prevails in some countries. Although the term national is
Nationality is a legal relationship existing between a person and a state. The person
becomes subject to the state's jurisdiction even while not on the state's territory; in
exchange the subject becomes entitled to the state's protection and to other rights as well.
The nationals of a state generally possess the right to reside in the territory of the state
they are nationals of, though there are some exceptions (e.g. British Nationality Law that
made distinction between subjects and privileged individuals or citizens).
British nationality law has its origins in mediaeval times. There had always been a
distinction in English Law between the subjects of the monarch, and aliens or outsiders.
The subjects of the monarch owed the monarch allegiance, and were either natural born
subjects (those born in the monarch's realms), or those who later gave their allegiance to
the monarch (naturalized subjects).
During the period of the monarchic administration, the Ethiopian people were treated as
subjects not citizens. The following articles which are taken from the 1955 Revised
Constitution of Ethiopia indicate this fact.
The first Article of Chapter I states…”All Ethiopian subjects, whether living within or
without the Empire, constitute the Ethiopian People”. From this article we can understand
that the people of Ethiopia are all subjects.
Chapter III. Article 38. “There shall be no discrimination amongst Ethiopian subjects
with respect to the enjoyment of all civil rights.” The term ‘Ethiopian subjects’ is found
else where in the Revised Constitution.
The 39th article of Chapter III made distinctions of subjects as it has been made by
British Nationality Law:
1. Born subjects
Chapter III, Article 39. “The law shall determine the condition of acquisition and loss of
Ethiopian nationality and of Ethiopian citizenship”. According to this article Ethiopian
nationality refers to born subjects whereas Ethiopian citizenship refers to naturalized
subjects (those who later became subject to the monarch. The Amharic version of this
article translates the later as ‘zegenet’ referring the naturalized one and the former as
‘tewelagenet’ referring the born subjects.
When the British Empire came into existence, there remained a single category of
nationality: British subject. British subjects included not only persons within the United
Kingdom, but those throughout the British Empire, in the colonies and the self-governing
dominions (namely Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and Newfoundland).
The law on nationality was spread across many statutes, and much of it was unwritten.
Traditionally under international law, determining who its nationals are was the exclusive
competence of the state in question. However there were nonetheless many similarities in
the laws of each nation, and today the law of nationality is increasingly coming under
regulation, e.g. by the various conventions on statelessness, and the European Convention
of Nationality.
Nationality can generally be acquired by jus soli, jus sanguinis or naturalization. These
are discussed next. A person who is not a national of any state is referred to as a stateless
person. The nationality of a legal person is generally the state under whose laws the legal
person is registered.
Different states of the world provide different ways of acquiring citizenship. Generally,
acquisition of citizenship is divided in to two broad categories:
The following are the most commonly known acquisitions of citizenship by birth.
(A) Jus sanguinis (Latin for "right of blood") is a right by which nationality or
citizenship can be recognized to any individual born to a parent who is a national or
citizen of that state. It contrasts with jus soli (Latin for "right of soil").
In many European countries, lex sanguinis still is the preferred means of passing on
citizenship. This has been criticized on the grounds that, if the only means, it can lead to
generations of people living their whole lives in the state without being citizens of it.
More recently these countries have begun to move more towards use of lex soli, partially
under the influence of the European Convention on Nationality. The European
Convention on Nationality (E.T.S.No. 166, done at Strasbourg, 6 November, 1997) is a
comprehensive convention dealing with the law of nationality.
Common practice among states at the beginning of the twentieth century was that a
woman was to have the nationality of her husband; thus upon marrying a foreigner she
would automatically acquire the nationality of her husband, and lose her own nationality.
Article 5 provides that no discrimination shall exist in a state's internal nationality law on
the grounds of "sex, religion, race, color or national or ethnic origin". It also provides that
a state shall not discriminate amongst its nationals on the basis of whether they are
naturalized or native born nationals.
Article 7 regulates the involuntary loss of nationality. It provides that states may only
deprive their nationals of their nationality in the cases of voluntary acquisition of another
nationality, fraud or failure to provide relevant information when acquiring nationality,
voluntary military service in a foreign military force, or adoption as a child by foreign
nationals. It also provides for the possibility of loss of nationality for nationals habitually
residing abroad. Finally it provides loss of nationality for "conduct seriously prejudicial
to the vital interests of the State Party".
Many states have both lex sanguinis and lex soli, including,Isreal,German, andIreland.
Despite this, the jus sanguinis laws of Israel are sometimes used to link Zionism and
racism.
(B) Jus soli (Latin for "right of the territory") is a right by which nationality and
citizenship can be recognized to any individual born in the territory of the related state. It
contrasts with sanguinis("right of blood")
However, increasingly countries are restricting lex soli by requiring that at least one of
the child's parents be a national of the state in question at the child's birth, or a legal
permanent resident of the territory of the state in question at the child's birth, or that the
child be a foundling found on the territory of the state in question.
In short, citizens are legal and political members of a state. The citizen’s state is
collectively sovereign. The citizens have the right to change the government that fails to
protect individual right. Therefore, citizenship is the total membership of the sovereign
body (state)
2. A male child was born in a certain territory and yet he had no chance to be the citizen
of the state in which he was born. From this we can understand that
N.B The parents are not the citizens of the state where the chilled was born
A. the state does not implement lex soli
B. the child is a naturalized citizen
C. he is a stateless child
D. the state does not implement lex sanguinis
3. What condition determines the child mentioned above (in question № 9)
to acquire the citizenship of the state.
PART. III
1. What does the present constitution of Ethiopia regarding nationality refer to? Is it Jus
soli or Jus sanguinis?
2. Can you identify and categoris the above articles of the Europian Convention on
Nationality in to jus sanguinis, jus soli and naturalisation
3. Citizenship law that states “a child becomes a citizen of the state provided that either
of the two parents or both are the citizens of the state” often is related to racism. Do
you agree with idea? Whether your answer is yes or no give your justification.
PART. IV
Define the following terms
Citizenship Citizen
Subject Lex soli
Jus soli Jus sangunise
Lex sangunise Naturalization
Contents
8.0 Introduction
8.1 Aims and Objectives
8.2 Meaning of Constitution
8.3 Forms of Constitution
8.4 Constitutional Development in Ethiopia
8.5 Constitutionalism
8.6 Check your progress
8.7 Selected references
8.0 Introduction
This lesson describes the ideas about what kind of government is most likely to protect
the basic rights of people. In this unit you learn to distinguish between limited and
unlimited government, and develop their understanding of concepts such as constitution,
and constitutional government. You also learn that while all nations have constitutions,
not all nations have constitutional governments. The essential characteristics that
differentiate constitutional government from autocratic or dictatorial government include
the idea that in a constitutional government the powers of a person or group in
government are limited by a set of laws and/or established customs (a constitution) which
must be obeyed. The constitution is a form of higher law, either written or unwritten that:
(1) sets forth the basic rights of citizens to life, liberty, and property;
During the lesson, you learn how a constitutional government protects natural rights and
how constitutional governments can be organized to prevent the abuse of power,
including a system of distributed and shared powers and checks and balances. At the end
of the unit you will see the historical development of constitution in Ethiopia.
The very intention of the unit is to enable you to understand the importance of rule of law
for stability, development, peace, enjoyment of rights in any society.
□ understand and explain the difference between limited and unlimited government, the
difference between written and unwritten constitutions,
□ compare and contrast the provisions and contents of the constitutions that Ethiopia
experienced till the present.
Aristotle
The unusual usage of these terms has noting to do with putting ideas on paper. Their
peculiar meaning here is related to do whether constitutions are found in a handy and
single document or not. Those Countries with out written Constitution use laws passed at
different times and widely accepted traditions as their Constitution. These laws and
traditions Concerning various Political, economic and social issues are found in different
and separate pieces. That means; they are not compiled in a single document. Therefore,
they are not accessible to Ordinary Citizens. Thus, Citizens would be in different
situations to control the behaviors of their government, while in the case of a written
The history of constitutional practice in Ethiopia is traced back to the formation of the
earliest states of ancient Ethiopia one of those earliest Ethiopian states was the Aksumite
state that emerged in the north in first century A.D. It was during the Aksumite
civilization that Christianity was introduced to Ethiopia. Ever since, Christianity had
remained the dominant state religion ideology up to 1974. On the other hand, a political
system of monarchy was established in the very early times in Aksume on the basis of
divine right of kings
As you have seen in the sixth unit divine right of kings is the claim of monarchs or kings
for absolute power over their “Subjects”. Not only that they assumed unquestioned
power, they also claimed that they and only their descendants were selected by God to
rule: ever lasting authority of kings. Accordingly, they claimed that God gives them the
power to rule.
Accordant to the divine right of kings, their rule was meant to be not only secular but also
spiritual. That means they were seen to be as partly human and partly supernatural
beings. Such rulers presented them selves, thus, as the only respected and trusted
representative of God for the service of the ruled or Subjects. With this ideology, they
made their people believe and accept kings as Unquestionable beings who cannot be
challenged by the people so their reign is made to Continue, while their subjects remain
to obedient and loyal to them. Religion particularly Christianity served as the ideology of
the state. This, in fact, is far from the truth. It is only a political strategy of enforcing and
A monarchical system of the divine rule of kings is a type of political rule with the belief
that the right to rule is given only to those who are believed to be born to rule. These are
members of the families of kings. This political system being justified by the Orthodox
Church established the development of traditional constitution in Ethiopia. The
traditional Constitution gave absolute power to the monarchy over their “Subjects.” The
basic traditional documents that used to serve as the source of tradition constitution are
the Fetha Negest, the kibre Negest and the serate Mengist. The monumental Fetha Negest
was basically a codex of Law provding for secular and religious legal provisions rather
than a constitution. The Kibre Negest colorfully wove the legend of a Solomonic dynasty
and there by served certain politico-religious needs of the times in the constitutional
process. The Serate Mengist of the 19thc entury also provided certain administrative and
protocol directives useful to the constitutional process. But none of these were
constitutions in the modern sense even though they were instrumental documents that
served specific purposes with in the constitutional process. Thus it is safe to say that prior
to 1931 Ethiopia had no written Constitution.
Before the introduction of the first written and modern constitution in Ethiopia, in 1931
Ethiopia had constitutional experience, but not a written type. It had unwritten
constitutional experience. One should hasten, though to make the point that the absence
of a written constitution does not signify the absence of a constitution. Indeed, Ethiopia
had a sophisticated traditional, Unwritten constitution.
Some of the major principles of rule stated in these traditional documents include:
Only the descendants of the Solomonic Dynasty has the divine right to rule, Kings must
be members of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church; Only male descendants must be crowned
as kings.
The phrase ‘in accordance with tradition’ refers to the unwritten constitutional
experience.
In other words, the 1931 Constitution was founded up on the very idea of the divine right
of kings. You have seen this, in the previous unit that dealt with theory of state.
Therefore, it did not; provide genuine freedom to the Ethiopian peoples. Its main aim was
to give the Country and the Imperial rule on image of modernity. By and large, the
measure aimed at guaranteeing the continuity of the rule of the emperor. This can be
clearly seen in the constitution of 1931 that the king was presented as the representative
of God. In the some constitution, the king is presented as Niguse Negest seyume
Egziabher, which literally means king of kings elect of God. Those who were
participating in the political leadership were only the noblemen. Even then, the power
was absolutely in the hands of the Emperor. Generally, the main objectives of the 1931
Constitution were To achieve or get diplomatic recognition abroad and to
strengthen the basis of political legitimacy i.e. to justify the rule of king
The 1931 Constitution laid foundation for experimenting the modern government system
such as the following:
1. Parliament system. The Constitution Created a semblance of a bicameral (two - house)
parliament – upper House and Lower House. The upper House (the senate) was strong
2. Another innovation of the written constitution was the concept of a fixed annual
budget for government traditionally; authorization on expenditure was carried out
through the mazeja- a written order by the Ministry of pen on the Emperor’s instructions.
During Scheduled audiences with the Emperor, Known as Akabe Saat, individual
ministers presented their requests. The Mazeja would then authorize the transfer of
government funds from the Ministry of Finance to respective ministries. No over-all
balance sheet had ever been prepared before the written constitution, which now expected
a Ministry of Finance budget proposal to deliberated up on by the chambers and
submitted to the Emperor for approval-The budget concept never became viable during
the life-time of the constitution of 1931 and remained an embarrassing paper model.
4. Introduced judicial branches. It provided for two separate systems of courts regular
courts & administrative tribunals. The regular court would handle civil and criminal
cases. Civil cases affecting government, however, would be “with drown from the
jurisdiction of ordinary (regular) Courts and placed in the administrative tribunals. The
head of the Court was the Emperor.
In general, the 1931 Constitution was Undemocratic because it didn’t give the right to
self-governance, democratic and human rights, fundamental freedom of citizens, nations,
nationalities and people. They remained “Subjects of the king.”
The political principles and objectives of the revised constitution was similar to the 1931
Constitution But it was more clear in defining the power and Functions of the
government. In that period the social process had altered to such an extent that The
Constitutional frame work provided by the written constitution was visibly inadequate.
- The world war had affected Ethiopia tremendously
- The short Italian occupation had created closer ties with the out side world. The war had
enhanced the movement of goods, ideas, and people. The Italians left in their wake a
modern communication infrastructure
- In 1945 Ethiopia become a founding member of the United Nations organization
- Political alliances brought western ideas and socio-economic reorientation, Then in
1952 came the Eritrean Federation. The General Assembly of the United Nations passed
a resolution, the federal Act, by which Eritrea, as an autonomous Unit, came Under the
sovereignty of the Ethiopian crown. This necessitated incorporation of the Federal Act in
to the Ethiopian Constitutional system and the ratification of the Eritrean Constitution by
the newly created Eritrean Representative Assembly and the Emperor.
The written constitution, on the one hand, and the Federal Act and Eritrean Constitution
on the other, were poles apart in their ideologies and conceptions of government. The
federal Act was modeled after the declaration of Human Rights and contained
progressive concepts.
For instance, according to the federal law
Eritrea had an elected government while Ethiopia had an absolute monarchy system. In
the some sovereign state there were different political systems.
The Eritrean Constitution was Liberal and granted political and religious diversities and
equality while in Ethiopia political parties were illegal
Thus the legal engineering necessary to make the two systems function was an acrobatic
feat. The revised Constitution therefore, took over.
The 1995 revised Constitution however, failed to guarantee political and human rights of
the people. The only individual rights guaranteed were Limited to property, life and
Under the absolute rule of the Emperor, the large majority of the Ethiopian societies
suffered a great deal. The messes of the Ethiopian peasants suffered from the economic
relation of the Feudal system. The peasants were forced to share to the land lord up to
three-fourth of their small yield in every production cycle. The peasants had no guarantee
of ownership of the land. Any time, a peasant could be displaced from the piece of land
on which he toils. The system of taxation was harsh. Only the few family members of the
ruling class benefited from the resources and fruits of the country at expense of the labor
of the masses.
In rural areas as well peasants in different region made rebellions against the Imperial
rule. Other forms of the struggle included several strikes by Teachers, Taxi drivers and
other workers. As Living standards deteriorated and oppression become worst, the
Conditions for a revolution emerged through out the country, then, in 1974 the Imperial
government was overthrown.
However, the popular Uprising was suppressed by military coup d’etat Known Derg
which took power. The 1955 constitution was suspended and the country was ruled by
The 1987 Constitution was different from the previous constitutions because it was
drafted by popular participation (though limited to voting) which was major contribution
for constitutional development in Ethiopia. It incorporated some democratic principles. It
declared the source of the government to be the National shengo (a legislative body).
However in reality the national shengo was nominal supreme organ of the state. The
national shengo led the responsibility to endorse the election of the presidents and other
higher officials.
However, the 1987 constitution failed to address the national question in Ethiopia. The
state organ was highly centralized.
The constitution officially took effect on February 22, 1987, when the People's
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia was proclaimed, although it was not until September
that the new government was fully in place and the Provisional Military Administrative
Council (PMAC) formally abolished. The document, which established the normative
foundations of the republic, consisted of seventeen chapters and 119 articles. The
preamble traced Ethiopia's origins back to antiquity, proclaimed the historical heroism of
its people, praised the country's substantial natural and human resources, and pledged to
continue the struggle against imperialism, poverty, and hunger. The government's
primary concern was proclaimed to be the country's development through the
implementation of the Program for the National Democratic Revolution (PNDR). In the
process, it was assumed that the material and technical bases necessary for establishing
socialism would be created.
The constitution attempted to situate Ethiopia in the context of the worldwide movement
of so-called "progressive states" and made no direct reference to Africa. Critics claim that
Chapter 2 dealt with the country's economic system. The state was dedicated to the
creation of a "highly interdependent and integrated national economy" and to the
establishment of conditions favorable to development. In addition, the constitution
committed the state to central planning; state ownership of the means of production,
distribution, and exchange; and expansion of cooperative ownership among the general
population.
Chapter 3 addressed social issues, ranging from education and the family to historical
preservation and cultural heritage. The family was described as the basis of society and
therefore deserving of special attention by means of the joint efforts of state and society.
In addition, the constitution pledged that health insurance and other social services would
be expanded through state leadership.
Foreign policy objectives were spelled out in four brief articles in Chapter 5 and were
based on the principles of proletarian internationalism, peaceful coexistence, and
nonalignment.
Chapters 6 and 7 were concerned with defining citizenship and spelling out the freedoms,
rights, and duties of citizens. The language was egalitarian, and Ethiopians were declared
to be equal before the law, regardless of nationality, sex, religion, occupation, and social
or other status. They had the right to marry, to work, to rest, to receive free education,
and to have access to health care and to a fair trial. Ethiopians were guaranteed freedom
of conscience and religion. As was not the case in imperial Ethiopia, religion and the
state were proclaimed to be separate institutions. Citizens were assured the freedoms of
political participation, citizens had the right to vote and the right to be elected to political
office. Their duties included national military service, protection of socialist state
property, protection of the environment, and observance of the constitution and laws of
the country.
In spite of the attention the constitution paid to basic freedoms, until the last days of the
regime international human rights organizations were virtually unanimous in condemning
The constitution's most detailed sections related to the central government's organization
and activities. In these sections, the document described the various state organs and
explained their relationship to one another.
The supreme organ of state power was the National Shengo (National Assembly). Its
responsibilities included amending the constitution; determining foreign, defense, and
security policy; establishing the boundaries, status, and accountability of administrative
regions; and approving economic plans. The National Shengo was also responsible for
establishing the Council of State; the Council of Ministers, ministries, state committees,
commissions, and state authorities; the Supreme Court; the Office of the Prosecutor
General; the National Workers' Control Committee; and the Office of the Auditor
General. In addition, the National Shengo elected the president and officials of the
Council of State and approved the appointment of other high-ranking authorities.
Council of State
The Council of State, consisting of the president of the republic, several vice presidents, a
secretary, and other members, was an organ of the National Shengo. The Council of State
served as the most active oversight arm of the government, and it exercised the national
legislative role when the National Shengo was not in session. In addition to its normal
functions, the Council of State was empowered to establish a defense council and might
The President
The 1987 constitution established the office of president. Theoretically, the Council of
State ruled along with the president and exercised legislative oversight in relation to other
branches of government. In reality, however, the office of the president in particular and
the executive branch in general were the most powerful branches of government. The
president was able to act with considerable independence from the National Shengo.
Although the constitution stipulated that the president was accountable to the National
Shengo, Mengistu demonstrated repeatedly that there was no authority higher than his
own office. By law he was responsible for presenting members of his executive staff and
the Supreme Court to the National Shengo for election. At the same time, the president,
"when compelling circumstances warrant it" between sessions of the National Shengo,
could appoint or relieve the prime minister, the deputy prime minister, and other
members of the Council of Ministers; the president, the vice president, and Supreme
Court judges; the prosecutor general; the chairman of the National Workers' Control
Committee; and the auditor general. The National Shengo was by law supposed to act on
such decrees in its next regular session, but this appeared to be only pro forma.
Council of Ministers
The Council of Ministers, defined in the constitution as "the Government," was the
government's highest executive and administrative organ. The body consisted of the
prime minister, the deputy prime minister, the ministers, and other members as
determined by law. Members were accountable to the National Shengo, but between
sessions they were accountable to the president and the Council of State. Members of this
council were chosen from regularly elected members of the National Shengo and served
five-year terms, unless they resigned or were removed by the president. For example, in
early November 1989 Prime Minister FikreSelassie Wogderes resigned his office,
allegedly for health reasons. However, some reports maintained that he was forced out by
Mengistu because of his apparent loss of enthusiasm for the regime's policies. At the
same time, Mengistu reshuffled his cabinet. Significantly, these events occurred weeks
after the annual session of the National Shengo had concluded.
The Council of Ministers was responsible for the implementation of laws and regulations
and for the normal administrative functions of national government. It prepared social
and economic development plans, the annual budget, and proposals concerning foreign
relations. In their respective areas of responsibility, members of the Council of Ministers
were the direct representatives of the president and the government; and because they
typically held parallel offices within the WPE, as a group they tended to be the most
significant political actors in the government.
In 1991 there were twenty-one ministries. Portfolios consisted of the Ministry in Charge
of the General Plan and the ministries of agriculture; coffee and tea development;
communications and transport; construction; culture and sports affairs; domestic trade;
education and fine arts; finance; foreign affairs; foreign trade; health; industry;
information; internal affairs; labor and social affairs; law and justice; mines, energy, and
water resources; national defense; state farms; and urban development and housing. In
Judicial System
The constitution provided for Ethiopia's first independent judiciary. Traditionally, the
Supreme Court and various lower courts were the responsibility of the Ministry of Law
and Justice. After Haile Selassie's overthrow, much of the formal structure of the existing
judicial structure remained intact. Over the years, regional and district level courts were
reformed somewhat. However, the new constitutional provisions had the potential to
change Ethiopia's national judicial system significantly.
The constitution stipulated that judicial authority was vested in "one Supreme Court,
courts of administrative and autonomous regions, and other courts established by law."
Supreme Court judges were elected by the National Shengo; those who served at the
regional level were elected by regional shengos (assemblies). In each case, the judges
served terms concurrent with that of the shengo that elected them. The Supreme Court
and higher courts at the regional level were independent of the Ministry of Law and
Justice, but judges could be recalled by the relevant shengo.
The Supreme Court was responsible for administering the national judicial system. The
court's powers were expanded to oversee all judicial aspects of lesser courts, not just
cases appealed to it. At the request of the prosecutor general or the president of the
Supreme Court, the Supreme Court could review any case from another court.
Noteworthy is the fact that, in addition to separate civil and criminal sections, the court
had a military section. In the late 1980s, it was thought that this development might bring
the military justice system, which had been independent, into the normal judicial system.
However, it became evident that it would be some time before the Supreme Court could
begin to serve this function adequately.
Chapter 15 of the constitution established the Office of the Prosecutor General, which
was responsible for ensuring the uniform application and enforcement of law by all state
organs, mass organizations, and other bodies. The prosecutor general was elected by the
National Shengo for a five-year term and was responsible for appointing and supervising
prosecutors at all levels. In carrying out their responsibilities, these officials were
independent of local government offices.
Local tribunals, such as kebele tribunals and peasant association tribunals were not
affected by the 1987 constitution. People's courts were originally established under the
jurisdiction of peasant associations and kebeles. All matters relating to land redistribution
and expropriation were removed from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Law and Justice
and placed under the jurisdiction of the peasant association tribunals, whose members
were elected by association members. In addition, such tribunals had jurisdiction over a
number of minor criminal offenses, including intimidation, violation of the privacy of
domicile, and infractions of peasant association regulations. The tribunals also had
jurisdiction in disputes involving small sums of money and in conflicts between peasant
associations, their members, and other associations. Appeals from people's tribunals
could be filed with regional courts. Kebele tribunals had powers similar to those of their
counterparts in peasant associations.
8.4.4 The Charter of the Transitional period (July 22, 1991 August 21, 1995)
A charter is a document of important principles and lows that serve as a highest low in
the country in place of a constitution. In other words, the Charter was a basic legal &
general document similar to that of a constitution that addressed the problems of the
period The Transitional factors that necessitated the transitional period charter included.
- The period between the over thrown of the military regime & the formation of a new
government required marinating peace & stability by introducing low & order;
Attempts had to be made to solve some of the problems inherited from the previous
regime;
The Derg institutions & practices of repression had to be terminated
Mutual Confidence among people had to be brought for long period of time with positive
attitudes;
Disintegration had to be avoided and the way for peaceful transition to a democratic
Order paved.
Based on the transitional period Charter a Transitional Government came in to being by
convening a peace and Democratic Transitional conference in Addis Ababa between July
1 and 5, 1991 to ensure its democratic nature the conference represented different
political entities, national Liberation movements, religious institutions and intellectuals
from various sectors. This conference drafted, discussed and ratified the charter. The
peace and democratic conference established the major principles and ideas by which the
country was to be governed Until a Constitutionally Limited government was formed.
The charter gave opportunity for self-governance & recognized the diversity of the
Ethiopian Societies and laid down foundation for the 1995 Constitution.
The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia was different from the
Previous Constitution in that it was
A special body known as a Constitutional commission carried out the drafting task. The
Commission took enough time and conducted a number of activities. Various seminars
and workshops have been held in order to come up with the initial from of the
constitution. More over, experts with a good deal of experiences form other countries
were invited to such seminars and workshops that have helped immensely in sharing
others’ experience.
The Second stage is the form of popular ratification of the initial draft of the constitution.
That was the opportunity given to all citizens of the country where by they examined,
commented and improved the various tentative provisions of the draft constitution.
That was important since it enabled citizens to know the tentative provisions that would
be parts of their final Constitution
Amend or improve the provisions before they are enforced in to action and to participate
in the formulation of their own constitution.
In the nation wide discussion on the initial draft, different ideas and views have been
shared and obtained that enriched the final form of the constitution.
3. The Ratification stage
Finally, The Constitutional Assembly ratified the Constitution of the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia on 8 December 1994. It established the new federal structure where
power is shared between central and regional government. The constitution came in to
effect on the 21st day of August, 1995. The new government began its five-year term in
August of the same year.
THE PARLIAMENT
Article 62 (3-11) of the Constitution gives the House of Federation responsibility for
□ interpreting the Constitution;
□ organizing the Council of Constitutional Inquiry;
□ deciding on claims based upon the rights of nations, nationalities, and peoples to self-□
determination, including their right to secession;
□ Promoting the equality of the peoples of Ethiopia enshrined in the constitution and
□ promoting their unity based on their mutual consent;
□ exercising the powers and the functions concurrently entrusted to it and the Council of
Peoples’ Representatives;
□ Striving to find solutions to disputes or misunderstandings that may arise between
States;
□ determining the division of revenues derived from joint Federal and State tax sources
and the subsidies that the Federal Government may provide to the States;
□ identifying civil cases that require legislation by the House of Peoples’
Representatives
Ordering Federal intervention if any State, in violation of this Constitution, endangers the
constitutional order;
The House of Federation has 108 representatives who are elected by the state
governments for a five-year term of office. The composition of the House of Federation
is determined according to a system of proportional representation where each nation and
nationality is entitled to at least one member and one additional representative for each
one million of its population. The House holds at least two sessions annually, each lasting
a week, and also holds a joint meeting annually with the House of Peoples'
In addition, the Constitution gives the House of Peoples’ Representatives important fiscal
and budgetary powers, including the power to:
Approve general policies and strategies of social and economic development, and
fiscal and monetary policy of the country;
THE PRESIDENT
The President of the F.D.R.E is the Head of State. The President is elected by a two-
thirds majority vote of a joint session of the House of Peoples' Representatives and the
House of Federation. The term of duty is six years and the President shall not be elected
for more than two terms.
The highest executive powers of the Federal Government are vested in the Prime
Minister and in the Council of Ministers. The Prime Minister is elected from among
members of the House of Peoples' Representatives and power of government shall be
assumed by the political party, or a coalition of political parties, that constitutes a
majority in the House of Peoples' Representatives. The Prime Minister is the chief-
executive, the chairman of the Council of Ministers and the Commander-in-Chief of the
National Armed Forces.
Judiciary
Once appointed, the judges hold office until they reach pension age, and thus their tenure
is independent of the will of the executive. A special procedure has been laid down for
removal of judges on the grounds of incompetence, inefficiency or misbehavior. Judges
are supposed to exercise their function in full independence and shall be directed solely
by the law. The Federal Supreme Court draws up and submits the Federal Court budget to
the House of Peoples' Representatives for approval and, upon approval, administers the
budget.
In this regard, the Judiciary has the power and duty to ensure effective and speedy
enforcement of the rights of individuals. To ensure the fundamental rights effectively and
speedily the courts in Ethiopia have yet to develop full capacity. Towards this end,
special efforts are underway to build the capacity of the courts. One such effort is
focusing on increasing the supply of qualified lawyers, with impeccable integrity and
honesty for appointment as judges. Given the independence of the Judiciary, which is
enshrined in the constitution, the unreserved efforts to fully build the capacity of the
Judiciary and the commitment, sincerity and good intention of those on the bench,
individuals surely have remedies in the case of infringement of their rights.
8.5 Constitutionalism
This should not be taken to mean that if a state has a constitution; it is necessarily
committed to the idea of constitutionalism.
A good illustration of this point is the so-called Stalin Constitution of the Soviet Union.
For a variety of reasons the Russian dictator found it desirable, in 1936, to adopt a written
constitution. For example, Article 125 declares that citizens are guaranteed freedom of
speech, press, assembly, street processions and demonstrations, but only “in conformity
with the interests of the working people, and in order strengthen the socialist system....”
Furthermore, these individual freedoms are not in fact respected by the government of the
Soviet Union, and even mild expressions of dissent from prevailing official policy are
subject to police repression and severe punishment. Communist China presents another
example of a state which has a constitution without a commitment to constitutionalism.
For example, Article 87 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China (1954)
provides: “Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, freedom
of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of pro- cession and
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no
constitution, no law, no court can save it.... While it lies there, it
needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.
The higher law of the constitution is not subject to formal alteration by ordinary
legislative procedures, and the constitution, unlike statutes, emanates directly from the
whole body of citizens in the form of an organic document written and ratified in some
special way which stresses that the people are the ultimate repository of political power,
and that their enduring will must be obeyed by government officials.
2. Which one of the following is wrong about the president of the federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
A. The head of state
B. Elected by the House of peoples’ Representative
PART. III
Define the following terms
Constitution Rule of law
PART II: - Consider the following passage and answer the questions that come after
the passage.
N.B. Write your answer in space provided under each question.
It shall, on its own initiative, request a joint session of the House of the
Federation and of the House of Peoples’ Representatives to take
appropriate measures when State authorities are unable to arrest
violations of human rights within their jurisdiction. It shall, on the basis
of the joint decision of the House, give directives to the concerned State
authorities.
1. What is the structure of the state mentioned in the passage?
2. Does the state have a parliament? If it does what type of parliament does the
states have?
3. From which constitution of Ethiopia is the passage taken?
4. What do you understand from the passage?
5. What is the form government that the state mentioned in the passage has?
9.0 INTRODUCTION
9.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
9.2 Origin and definition of democracy
9.2.1 What is democracy and democratic system?
9.3 Types of Democracy
9.3.1 Direct/Pure democracy
9.3.2 Indirect /Representative democracy
9.4 Characteristics of democracy
9.5 Constitutional Democracy and Participation of Citizens
9.6 Check your progress
9.7 Selected References
9.0 INTRODUCTION
The term democracy is as old as the golden age of Greek. The Athenians, in the fifth
century BC reached at the highest level in democratic development in comparison with
other city-states of the time. In a short period of time, they were able to promote it
surrounding world. In the existing world many nations are building the political system in
which the citizens are in the process of self-governance. We the people of Ethiopia are
now in that process.
Nowadays, the word democracy is commonly used in our state, Ethiopia. Some people
wrongly understand. Some times you might have heard even people saying “this is my
democracy”, which is absurd.
People, in the process constructing democracy, should be able to have a reliable and clear
understanding and knowledge about the system that is being built by them. They need to
have also the required skill, in order to effectively participate in the building up process.
The term democracy and the classical conception of democratic rule are firmly rooted in
Ancient Greece. Like other words that end in ‘Cracy’ democracy is derived from the
ancient Greek word kratos, meaning ‘power’ or ‘rule’. Democracy there fore means ‘rule
by the demos’ demos standing for ‘the many’ or’ the people’. In other words, in
democracy the people are the source of political power.
9.2.1 What is democracy and democratic system?
Democracy is a concept that has very complex and wide meaning the following
definitions are among the common ones;
1. Democracy is a system of government in which the supreme political power resides
in the people
2. Democracy is a form of government in which political control is exercised by the
people either directly or through their elected representatives
3. Democracy (rule by the people) is a system of government in which all adults with
the exception of disqualified by criminal behavior or mental incapacity have the right
and the means to exercise some form of genuine control over government
4. In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln democracy is a government ‘ of the people , by the
people and for the people’
Democratic government has however, varied considerably over the centuries. Perhaps the
most fundamental distinction is between democratic systems, that are based up on direct
popular participation in government and those that operate through some kind of
representative mechanism This highlights two contrasting models of democracy direct
democracy and representative democracy
1. Direct
2. Indirect democracy
Historically, the Athenians exercised this pure democracy. During the 4th century BC,
the population of Athens may well have comprised some 250,000—300,000 people.
Citizen families may have amounted to 100,000 people and out of these some 30,000 will
have been the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly. This excluded a
majority of the population, namely slaves, children, women and resident foreigners.
Nowadays, at manageable population size level for example keble, town meeting,
community and trade union, direct democratic system is practical. Referendum and
election are two processes in which people exercise direct democracy. In these processes
not the representatives but the citizens themselves appear in person and pass their own
decision. In this system the people pass decision on behalf of themselves. But in the case
of indirect or representative democracy, the representatives pass decision on behalf of the
people.
Some advocates of representative democracy argue that it is the only practicable form of
democracy in modern conditions Because, a high level of popular participation is
possible with in relatively small Communities in that face-to-face communication can
take place between and amongst citizens moreover, to consult the general public on each
and every issue, and permit wide-ranging debate and discussion threatens to paralyze the
decision- making process and make a country virtually ungovernable
In democracy it's your vote that counts; In feudalism it's your count that votes.
Mogens Jallberg
To sum up, in democracy the people exercise self-governance either directly or through
their chosen representatives. Democratic government means popular government in
theory; the people are fundamentally responsible for their own political well-being.
However, the people are the source of governmental power, they can’t simply do any
thing they wish virtually every democracy imposes Limitations on majority rule.
Furthermore, well-established rules and regulations usually dictate the procedures
according to which government operates where governments are determined by
meaningful elections and where such limitations are in force, the government is said to be
a constitutional democracy
Civic participation refers to the active involvement of citizens in the political, economic
and social affairs which are their own. Providing human and democratic right
constitutional democratic system facilitates the active participation of citizens in the three
spheres mentioned above.
As it has been cited in the previous unit, a constitution is defined as sets of laws,
principles, policies etc serving as guiding and the highest law of the state. It describes a
government and its operation. It has also a function of issuing of rights, freedoms,
equalities, and liberties to citizens to play active role in socio-economic and political
affairs of their own. Thus, constitutional democracy (democratic system based on
As we shall see later, when we deal with constitution and constitutionalism, the mere
existence of constitution does not bring about the active participation of citizens. There
must be constitutionalism. The active and effective involvement of citizens, in their own
affairs is possible if their constitutional rights are properly protected and enjoyed. It
requires rule of law; that means acting or behaving according to the law. The government
bodies and their officials have the duty to obey and observe the constitution. The
government is expected to protect not violet, the rights of citizens issued by the
constitution. The rights include
PART. III
PART. IV
Questions for reflection
1. Mention the reason why indirect democracy is sometimes said to be representative
democracy.
2. Is there any means of implementing direct democracy in the present condition of the
World? Give your justification for your answer
3. List any of two indicators of constitutional democracy
CONTENTS
10.0 INTRODUCTION
10.0 INTRODUCTION
In today's world, Human Rights are the great ethical yardstick that is used to measure a
government's treatment of its people. A broad consensus has emerged in the twentieth
century on rhetoric that frames judgment of nations against an international moral code
prescribing certain benefits and treatment for all humans simply because they are human.
Human rights those benefits that we enjoy for the simple reason that we are humans. We
deserve them because of our nature. These are all natural rights.
Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are
all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an
individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights
of others.
One of the important indicators whether the political system is democratic or not is the
provision of human rights. The proper enjoyment of these rights is also another important
related issue. So, citizens, in a democratic society, are those who are expected to enjoy
their rights. Exercising one’s rights presupposes knowing which one is our right and why.
Rights are our advantages or benefits that we obtain as the member of community in
which we belong. For example, we enjoy rights because we belong to human community.
Human rights are our benefits that we acquire because of our essential nature. These are
natural rights with which we human beings are born. Human rights are the rights
available to human beings by virtue of their being human. They are natural rights which a
human being acquires simply through birth.
Because you are in control of your life. Don't ever forget that. You are what you are
because of the conscious and subconscious choices you have made.
There are some rights which we enjoy because of our nature (human being). These are
rights that are considered by most societies to belong automatically to everyone, for
example, the rights to life, freedom, justice, and equality, liberty etc. Thus, they are
inalienable and inviolable rights of all human beings living in whatever country and
political system.
We hold in our hands, the most precious gift of all: Freedom. The freedom to express
our art. Our love. The freedom to be who we want to be. We are not going to give that
freedom away and no one shall take it from us!
● Inalienability: human rights are inalienable and cannot be separated from human
beings;
● Inviolable: human rights are secured from infringement, violence or attack
● Universality: human rights are universal and are available to all individuals and
peoples without discrimination on the basis of gender, political affiliation, race,
religion and so on;
● Indivisibility: human rights are indivisible and all rights are dependent on other
rights. There are no hierarchies of human rights. And human rights cannot be
applied selectively (this does not mean that all states have accepted and
implemented all rights contained in the Universal Declaration and the
international human rights conventions).
Questions about which rights are human rights arise in regard to many families of human
rights. Discussed below are:
These rights are familiar from historic bills of rights such as the French Declaration of the
Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) and the United States Bill of Rights (1791, with
subsequent amendments). Contemporary sources include the articles of the UDHR, and
Civil and political rights are not absolute, and they may sometimes be suspended. Some
civil and political rights can be restricted by public and private property rights, by
restraining orders related to domestic violence, and by legal punishments. Further, after a
Besides the "civil and political" rights just discussed, the UDHR includes "economic and
social" (or welfare) rights. For example, the UDHR included a putative right to holidays
with pay (Article 24), and such a right pertains to a good life, not to a minimally good
life. In addition to this there are equality and nondiscrimination for women and
minorities, access to employment opportunities, fair pay, safe and healthy working
conditions, the right to form trade unions and bargain collectively, social security, an
adequate standard of living (covering adequate food, clothing, and housing), health care,
and education. These rights were made part of international law by treaties such as the
European Social Charter, the ICCPR. which amended the American Convention on
Human Rights. Whether economic and social rights are genuine human rights is
discussed below.
The International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR's) list
of rights includes nondiscrimination and equality for women in the economic and social
area (Articles 2 and 3), freedom to work and opportunities to work (Article 4), fair pay
and decent conditions of work (Article 7), the right to form trade unions and to strike
(Article 8), social security (Article 9), special protections for mothers and children
(Article 10), the right to adequate food, clothing, and housing (Article 11), the right to
basic health services (Article 12), the right to education (Article 13), and the right to
participate in cultural life and scientific progress (Article 15).
Article 25, sub-article (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is read as
follows:
These are as important rights as others. To show their importance we better to use two
welfare rights as examples: the right to an adequate standard of living, and the right to
free public education. These rights require governments to try to remedy widespread and
serious evils such as hunger and ignorance.
The importance of food and other basic material conditions of life is easy to show. These
goods are essential to people's ability to live, function, and flourish. Without adequate
access to these goods, interests in life, health, and liberty are endangered and serious
illness and death are probable. The connection between having the goods the right
guarantees and having a minimally good life is direct and obvious -- something that is not
always true with other human rights.
Concern for the rights of minorities is a longstanding concern of the human rights
movement. Human rights documents emphasize that all people, including members of
minority ethnic and religious groups, have the same basic rights and should be able to
enjoy them without discrimination. The right to freedom from discrimination figures
prominently in the UDHR and subsequent treaties. The ICCPR, for example, commits its
participating states to respecting and protecting their people's rights "without distinction
of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth, or social status."
Some standard individual rights are especially important to ethnic and religious
minorities, including rights to freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of
religion, and freedom from discrimination. Human rights documents also include rights
that refer to minorities explicitly and give them special protections. For example, the
ICCPR in Article 27 says that persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic
minorities "shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their
group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use and
develop their own language."
Minority groups are often targets of violence and human rights norms call upon
governments to refrain from such violence and to provide protections against it. This
work is partly done by the right to life, which is a standard individual right. But the right
against genocide protects groups from attempts to destroy or decimate them. The
Genocide Convention was one of the first human rights treaties after World War II. It
says:
The right against genocide seems to be a group right. It is held by groups and provides
protection to groups as groups. It is largely negative in the sense that it requires
governments and other agencies to refrain from destroying groups; but it also requires
that legal and other protections be implemented for this purpose.
Can a group right fit the general idea of human rights proposed earlier? It can if we
broaden the conception of who can hold human rights to include ethnic and religious
groups. This can be made more palatable, perhaps, by recognizing that the beneficiaries
of the right against genocide are individual humans who enjoy greater security against
attempts to destroy the group to which they belong (Kymlicka 1989).
In spite of the danger of rights inflation, there are doubtless norms that should be counted
as human rights but are not generally so treated. After all, there are lots of areas in which
fundamental human interests are threatened by governmental actions and omissions.
Consider environmental rights, which are often defined as rights of animals or of nature
itself. Conceived in this way they do not fit our general idea of human rights because the
right holders are not humans or human groups. But more modest formulations are
possible; environmental rights can be understood as rights to an environment that is
healthy and safe. Such a right is human-oriented: it does not cover directly issues such as
the claims of animals, biodiversity, or sustainable development.
The right to a safe environment can be sculpted to fit the general idea of human rights
suggested above by conceiving it as primarily imposing duties on governments and
international organizations. It calls on them to regulate the activities of both
governmental and nongovernmental agents to ensure that environmental safety is
Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or
justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it.
After the atrocities committed by the Germans in the Holocaust, the slaughter of Jews
that occurred during World War II (1939-1945), the UN adopted a Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. The declaration affected the terms of several national constitutions that
were written after World War II. The declaration was adopted on December 10, 1948,
which is now celebrated annually as Human Rights Day. It is an international document
affirming the dignity and rights of all human beings.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was prepared by the Commission on Human
Rights of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations.. French
jurist and Nobel laureate René Cassin was the declaration’s principal author. In 1968
Men are equal; it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference.
Voltaire
The rights described in the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
include the right to life, liberty, and security of person; to freedom of conscience,
It proclaims that “all human beings are born free and equal” (Article 1) and the second
article of the declaration mentions the entitlement of all human races with out any
discrimination to these basic rights. Article 2 says that “Everyone is entitled to all the
rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as
race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of
the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a
person belongs, whether it is independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other
limitation of sovereignty”.
It says that all people have the right to liberty, life, and religious and political freedom,
education, and economic well-being, freedom of peaceful assembly and association,
freedom of opinion and expression
The UN operates a Commission on Human Rights, which monitors human rights abuses
in countries, holds international meetings on human rights concerns, and handles
complaints about human rights violations. In 1993 the General Assembly also created the
In the eighth unit, particularly in the sub unit that deals with historical development of
constitution in Ethiopia, you have already seen that the contents of Universal Declaration
Human Rights were included for the first time in the Revised Constitution of Ethiopia
(during the reign of Hileselassie I). As it has been cited above, in the third chapter, the
1955 constitution was different from that of the 1931 because the former included human
rights following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One chapter, namely
Chapter III which had 29 articles(Article37-Article65) was reserved to these human
rights. The following are some of the human rights provisions of the constitution:
Article 41 Freedom of speech and of the press is guaranteed throughout the Empire in
accordance with the law.
Article 45 Ethiopian subjects shall have the right, in accordance with the conditions
prescribed by law, to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Article 46 Freedom to travel within the Empire and to change domicile therein is assured
to all subjects of the Empire, in accordance with the law.
Article 47 Every Ethiopian subject has the right to engaged in any occupation and, to that
end to form or join associations in accordance with the law.
Article 61 All persons and all private domiciles shall be exempt from unlawful searches
and seizures
A phrase “in accordance with the law” was found in many of the articles of this chapter.
To some extent the inclusion of the phrase restricted the proper implementation of the
rights. During the time of Hailesellassie I regime many of the rights issued by the
constitution were all at theoretical level not at practical. Violation of human rights
reached its climax and that brought about the overthrow of the regime.
The 1987 constitution also included the basic human rights. Chapter Seven (Article 35-
Article 58) was concerned with the issuance of human and democratic rights. Article 35,
sub article 1 guaranteed all Ethiopians would enjoy equality before the law, regardless of
nationality, sex, religion, occupation, and social or other status. They had the right to
marry (Article 37), to work, to rest, to receive free education, and to have access to health
care and to a fair trial. Ethiopians were guaranteed freedom of conscience and religion.
As was not the case in imperial Ethiopia, religion and the state were proclaimed to be
separate institutions. Citizens were assured the freedoms of movement, speech, press,
assembly, peaceful demonstration, and association. Regarding political participation,
citizens had the right to vote and the right to be elected to political office (Article 50).
Sub-article 1&2 of the 2nd article says that all Ethiopian nationalities would be given
equal recognition in the republic.
The existing constitution of Ethiopia made distinction between human and democratic
rights. The chapter three that deals with fundamental rights and freedoms has two parts:
Part One (Article 14 - Article 28) contains Human Rights. The first three articles (Article
14, 15 and 16) are about the right to life, the security of person and liberty. This is based
on the crucial point of the Social contract theory which was the foundation of modern
western states societies- all men are created equal as well as free. The above mentioned
articles of the existing constitution of Ethiopia prohibit arbitrary arrest, deprivation of life
The second part of chapter three (Article 29 –Article 44) contents civil rights or
democratic rights. The first article of this part (Article 29) states the right of thought,
opinion and expression. Every Ethiopian citizen has the right to hold his/her personal
view, freedom of expression that includes “freedom to seek, receive and import
According to Article 35 women have equal rights with men in what ever respect: social,
political and economic. Children as the foundation of the coming society have to have
some basic rights. The rights of children ( Article 36) includes the right to life; a name
and nationality; know and be cared for by his or her parents or legal guardians; not to be
forced to work which my cause hazard or harm to his or her physical or psychological
condition or well-being.
Article 38 assures that all Ethiopian citizens “…with out any discrimination based on
race, color nation, nationality, sex, language, religion political and other opinion or other
status… have the right to vote and to be elected.
Article 39 is regarding group rights (Rights of Nations Nationalities, and Peoples). Sub-
article 1 of the same article states that “Every Nation, Nationality, and People in Ethiopia
has an unconditional right to self-determination, including the right to secession.”(Sub-
article 1) .This means any Nation, Nationality, and People of Ethiopia is free to separate
(secede) itself from the union (federation) and establish its own independent state. The
Nations, Nationalities and peoples in Ethiopia have “the right to speak, to write and to
develop [their] own language; to express, to develop and to promote their culture; and to
preserve its history.”(Sub- article 2)
Every Ethiopian has the right to engage in whatever economic activity and choose his/her
occupation or profession. In order to protect their rights in group; improve their living
and working conditions civil servants, factory workers, farmers etc have the right to
establish professional associations or trade unions.
The last article of this chapter (Article 44) is about environmental rights. It indicates that
every one has the right to live in clean and healthy living area.
All the above mentioned fundamental rights and freedoms are “interpreted in a manner
conforming to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [and other]
International Conventions on Human Rights adopted by Ethiopia.”
2. Which one of the following does not characterize The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights?
A. It is a declaration that includes natural rights which are interdependent
B. They are enjoyed the whole human race
C. All human rights are interrelated to one another.
D. Human rights are inalienable and natural rights.
E. All of the above
3. One of the following Ethiopian constitutions was the first to include the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Which one of that?
A. The 1931 constitution C. The revised constitution
B The 1955 constitution D. The 1995 constitution
4. The following article is extracted from the 1995 constitution of Ethiopia. What does
the article e refer to?
Every Ethiopian has the right to choose his or her means of livelihood, occupation and
profession.
A. Minority and Group Rights
B. Environmental Rights
C. Economic and Social Rights
D. Civil and Political Rights
PART. II
True or false
1. All human rights are for all human beings.
2. Let a person be in what ever political system, he is entitled with all the benefits that he
obtained naturally.
3. Democratic rights are established on the natural rights
PART. III
PART. IV
Questions for reflection
1. What are the possible results of violation of human rights?
2. The important task of government is protecting the natural rights of citizens. Do you
agree? Do you think that this is true in what ever political system?
● Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, New York: Penguin Books, 1985
● Douglas Husak, "The Motivation for Human Rights", (1985)
● Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1989
● Allan Gewirth, "Why There Are Human Rights", (1985)
● Douglas Husak, "Why There Are No Human Rights", (1984)
● John O'Manique, "Universal and Inalienable Human Rights, (1990)
● Gayle Binion, "Human Rights: A Feminist Perspective," (1995)
CONTENTS
11.0 INTRODUCTION
11.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
11.2 Meaning and Historical Development of International Relations
11.0 INTRODUCTION
In this final unit of the material you are going to deal with the multi-facetted relations
among the world nations. The unit starts with defining the concept; international
relations. In the next sub-unit the important current world wide issues are identified and
discussed
So as to solve the problems that the world nations encounter with, they established
regional or international organizations. In this unit some important international
organization established for this purpose are selected and dealt at the end of the unit.
One the feature of good citizens is being informed about their localities, community and
their world at large. Citizens require a proper knowledge and understanding of the
situations in which the surrounding world is found. The problems that the world faces are
the problems that affect many people of the world. So the people should be fully aware of
□ develop the value of the culture of tolerance, skills of conflict resolution and
respect for the international order;
International relations (IR) is a branch of political science, which studies foreign affairs
of and relations among states within the international system, including the roles of
states, Inter-Governmental Organizations (IGOs), Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs), and Multinational Corporations (MNCs). These are companies that operate in
more than one country)
The history of international relations is often traced back to the Peace treaty of
Westphalia which was, signed on October 24, 1648. The main participants were France
and Sweden and their opponents Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. By the terms of the
treaty, the sovereignty and independence of each state of the Holy Roman Empire was
fully recognized, making the Holy Roman emperor virtually powerless.
The peace treaty closed the Thirty Years' War and readjusted the religious and political
affairs of Europe. Thirty Years’ War is known in the history of Europe as series of
European conflicts lasting from 1618 to 1648, involving most of the countries of Western
Europe, and fought mainly in Germany. At first the struggle was primarily based on the
After this treaty the modern state system was developed ever before. Prior to this, the
European medieval organization of political authority was based on a vaguely
hierarchical religious order. Westphalia peace treaty instituted the notion of sovereignty,
which essentially meant that rulers, or sovereigns, would recognize no internal equals
within a defined territory, and no external superiors. Classical Greek and Roman
authority at times resembled the Westphalian system, but both lacked the notion of
sovereignty. Westphalia encouraged the rise of the nation-state and the
institutionalization of diplomacy and armies. This particular European system was
exported to the Americas, Africa, and Asia via colonialism and the "standards of
civilization". The contemporary international system is established on and facilitated by
the advancement of science and communication technology. Today, many of the
foundations of the interstate system are being challenged by changes in technology and
international norms. The idea of territorial integrity and a nation’s sovereignty—that is,
it’s absolute authority over its own internal matters—are being undermined. Neither
ballistic missiles nor television signals respect borders. Television, the mass media,
telephones, and the Internet are erasing the boundaries between nations, blending once-
distinct cultures together and expanding transnational connections. Mass communication
is also drawing worldwide attention to domestic issues that in the past were of little
concern to other nations, such as human rights, the status of women, environmental
practices, and democracy. These may relate violation sovereignty. Thanks to the
development of science and technology, and the appearance of new phenomenon
(Globalization) the world nations interaction or relation is now very intense. It is because
of this reason that it was said the world was becoming a village. In addition, the
territories of nations are changing from time to time. Some nations are becoming
integrated into larger entities—for example, the European Union. Others are fragmenting
into smaller units, as did the Soviet Union and Ethiopia.
One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is
as disastrous as to lose one.
Conflicts among nations are inevitable since their political and economic aims and
interests often diverge. Cooperation does not refer to the absence of conflict but to the
ability of nations to peacefully resolve their differences in a way that is acceptable to all
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will
be fought with sticks and stones.
parties involved. When cooperation fails, conflicts often escalate into coercion and
ultimately war. As you know war costs so many things including human life. Still some
nations of the world find themselves in armed conflict or war. In the following sub-unit
you see ways of handling conflicts in a peaceful manner.
Our first and most pressing problem is how to do away with warfare as a method of
solving conflicts between national groups within a society who have different views
about how the society is to run.
The third type of a peaceful way resolving conflicts is mediation. This way of settling
disputes is possible through the intervention by a third party (Mediator) between two
sides in a dispute is an attempt to help them reach an agreement. The task of the third
body is facilitating a favorable condition in which those that are in conflict would come
to agreement.
11.3.2 Globalization
Thanks again to the advancement of science and technology speedy communication and
information exchange among the world people are now possible. Due to the appearance
of internet and satellite communication which are incredibly speedy means of
information exchange system, space diminishes. According to physics speed is distance
per time. From the relation among speed, distance (space) and time we can say that as
the speed is high the time required to link different areas becomes negligible and thereby
the distance between distant areas conceptually diminishes. Business people on different
continents now engage in electronic commerce (internet and communication satellite);
television allows people situated anywhere to observe the impact of terrible wars or
terrorist attack occurred far from the comfort of their living rooms; teleconference, a
conference or seminar held among people in different places by means of
11.3.3 Terrorism.
One of the problems that the present world faces is terrorism. “Terrorism”, defines
dictionary, “is violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and
assassination, carried out for political purposes” (Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, 2003).
Terrorism results in violation of the basic human rights; such as the right to liberty
(kidnapping), the right to life. In the present world terrorism is a great threat of the world
that required the collaborative effort of world nations. Regarding this the UN Secretary-
General Kofi Annan pointed out that
“Terrorism is a global threat with global effects; ... its
consequences affect every aspect of the United Nations agenda –
from development to peace to human rights and the rule of law. …
By its very nature, terrorism is an assault on the fundamental
principles of law, order, human rights, and the peaceful settlement
of disputes upon which the United Nations is established. … The
United Nations has an indispensable role to play in providing the
legal and organizational framework within which the international
campaign against terrorism can unfold” (The UN office on Drugs
and Crime press release: Global Programme against Terrorism on
internet on Monday, 24 May 2004).
A terrorist act is a political act “because it involves the acquisition and use of power for
the purpose of forcing others to submit, or agree, to terrorist demands. A terrorist attack,
by generating publicity and focusing attention on the organization behind the attack, is
designed to create this power. It also fosters an environment of fear and intimidation that
the terrorists can manipulate. As a result terrorism’s success is best measured by its
ability to attract attention to the terrorists and their cause and by the psychological impact
it exerts over a nation and its citizens.” (Microsoft Encarta Reference Library, 2003
Encyclopedia article on Terrorism Microsoft Corporation. 1993-2002)
From this we can say that terrorism tries to replace peace with insecurity, and absence of
law and order. It endangers the peaceful living situation of the people of the state at
which terrorism targets. It causes enormous amount of property destruction, moreover
loss of human life which is priceless. It is the very enemy of peace, security, stability. It
also hinders the exercise of basic human rights, thereby the development of democracy.
Among the legal issues that arise between states of the world are those related with
genocide, drug trafficking, international robbery, violation and abuse of human rights etc.
Border disputes, nuclear proliferation and building of war weapons, nuclear waste
disposal, the problem of the equitable use of international waters and natural resources
etc. are referred as security issues.
International relation is the method created to deal with the above mentioned current
global issues and problems. So as to deal their relations or problems world states
establish international or regional organizations.
The main conditions for the establishment of the regional or international institutions are:
□ due to the division of the world in to different states as independent political units.
□ due to the necessity of relations interdependence between the states.
□ because states must develop an awareness of the problem which arise out of their
coexistence
□ states must also recognize the need for creation of systematic methods
for regulating their relations with each other.
The interdependence of nations in the modern world means that no single nation can
dictate the outcome of international conflicts. Nor can private groups and individuals rely
on national governments to solve major world problems. Therefore, both governments
and individuals will continue to turn to the International Organizations as an important
way to address these problems and to protect their own interests.
The following international and regional organizations are the results of development in
the above areas.
Purposes
The purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in the Charter one are to maintain
international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to
cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems
and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre
for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.
Structure
The six principal organs of the United Nations are the: General Assembly, Security
Council, Secretariat, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council and International
Court of Justice. In addition to these the United Nations has 15 agencies and several
programs and bodies that assist the organization to perform its intended tasks properly.
The General Assembly is the main deliberative organ of the United Nations. It is
composed of representatives of all Member States, each of which has one vote. Decisions
on important questions, such as those on peace and security, admission of new Members
and budgetary matters, require a two-thirds majority. Decisions on other questions are
reached by a simple majority.
Under the Charter 4, article 10 of the UN the functions and powers of the General
Assembly include:
● to consider and make recommendations on the principles of cooperation in the
maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing
disarmament and arms regulation;
● to discuss any question relating to international peace and security and, except where
a dispute or situation is being discussed by the Security Council, to make
recommendations on it;
● to discuss and, with the same exception, make recommendations on any question
within the scope of the Charter or affecting the powers and functions of any organ of the
United Nations; to initiate studies and make recommendations to promote international
political cooperation, the development and codification of international law, the
realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and international
collaboration in economic, social, cultural, educational and health fields;
The Security Council is the most powerful body in the UN. It has primary responsibility,
(under the Charter, article 23) for the maintenance of international peace and security and
for restoring peace when conflicts arise. The same Chapter and article determined that the
Security Council would consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. Its decisions
are binding on all UN members. The Security Council has the power to define what is a
threat to security, to determine how the UN should respond, and to enforce its decisions
by ordering UN members to take certain actions. For example, the Council may impose
economic sanctions, such as halting trade with a country it considers an aggressor.
The Council convenes any time there is a threat to peace. A representative from each
member country who sits on the Council must be available at all times so that the Council
can meet at a moment’s notice. The Security Council also frequently meets at the request
of a UN member—often a nation with a grievance about another nation’s actions.
Out of the 15 members of the Security Council the five “great powers” hold permanent
seats. The Assembly elects the other ten members for two-year terms. The five permanent
members—the United States, Britain, France, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), and
China—have the most power. These nations were the winning powers at the end of
The Council has a variety of ways it can try to resolve conflicts between countries.
Usually the Council’s first step is to encourage the countries to settle their disagreements
without violence. The Council can mediate a dispute or recommend guidelines for a
settlement. It can send peacekeeping troops into a distressed area. If war breaks out, the
Council can call for a ceasefire. It can enforce its decisions by imposing economic
sanctions on a country, or through joint military action.
Since the 1990s, there has been growing controversy over which countries should have
permanent seats on the Council. Some nations believe that other countries beside the
original five should be included. For example, Japan and Germany are powerful countries
that pay large membership dues and make substantial contributions to the UN, yet they
do not have permanent seats. There is no easy solution to this problem. Political scientists
argue that adding more permanent members would create its own set of complications,
including how to decide which countries get a seat and which do not. For example, if
Germany joined, three of the permanent members would be European, giving that region
an unfair advantage. Several proposals for addressing this problem have been considered,
including adding Germany and Japan as permanent members, waiving the veto power of
the permanent members, and limiting Council membership to one year. Thus far, none of
the proposals have been adopted, partly because the present structure works well for the
five permanent members and they can veto any changes to it.
It has primary responsibility, under the Charter 5, article 23 for the maintenance of
international peace and security. The same Chapter and article determined that the
Security Council would consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic
of China, France, the previous Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America would be
permanent members of the Security Council. Ten other Members of the United Nations
would be elected by the General Assembly to be non-permanent members of the Security
Council,
When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the Council's first
action is usually to recommend to the parties to try to reach agreement by peaceful
means. Article 33, sub-article 1 states the pacific settlement of disputes in the following
manner.
“The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the
maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a
solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful
means of their own choice.”
In some cases, the Council itself undertakes investigation and mediation. It may appoint
special representatives or request the Secretary-General to do so or to use his good
offices. It may set forth principles for a peaceful settlement.
A Member State against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the
Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of
membership by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. A
Member State which has persistently violated the principles of the Charter may be
expelled from the United Nations by the Assembly on the Council's recommendation.
Under the Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:
● to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and
purposes of the United Nations;
● to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;
● to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
● to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
● to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to
recommend what action should be taken;
● to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving
the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
● to take military action against an aggressor;
● to recommend the admission of new Members;
● to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas";
● to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General
and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of
Justice.
The Secretariat is the UN’s executive branch. It oversees the administration of the UN’s
programs and policies and carries out day-to-day operations. This branch is headed by the
secretary general, who acts as the UN’s spokesperson.
The UN’s Secretariat staff includes administrators, experts on technical issues such as
environmental protection, and economic advisors working on various programs and
projects in the member countries. These workers have a variety of responsibilities, such
as overseeing the operations of peacekeeping missions, preparing studies on world issues,
organizing international conferences, and surveying economic and social trends. The
largest concentration of staff outside New York City is in Geneva, Switzerland, where
several UN programs and agencies have headquarters.
The secretary general is a powerful public figure who oversees the daily operations of the
UN and plays a major role in setting the organization’s agenda in international security
affairs. The secretary general under Article 99 of the charter can bring to the Security
Council any matter that might threaten world peace. The secretary general has the
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) works under the authority of the General
Assembly to coordinate the economic and social work of the UN. ECOSOC has 54
member countries elected by the General Assembly for overlapping three-year terms.
Seats on the Council are allotted based on geographical representation with fourteen
allocated to African States, eleven to Asian States, six to Eastern European States, ten to
Latin American and Caribbean States, and thirteen to Western European and other States.
The Economic and Social Council coordinates the work of the 14 UN specialized
agencies, 10 functional commissions and five regional commissions; receives reports
from 11 UN funds and programs); and issues policy recommendations to the UN system
and to Member States. The agencies operate independently but work with other programs
in the UN. Those programs include the World Health Organization (WHO), the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the International
Labor Organization (ILO), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Under the UN Charter ECOSOC is responsible for promoting higher standards of living,
full employment, and economic and social progress; identifying solutions to international
economic, social and health problems; facilitating international cultural and educational
cooperation; and encouraging universal respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms. Article 62 of the Charter lists the following powers and functions of the
council.
1. The Economic and Social Council may make or initiate studies and reports with
respect to international economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related matters
and may make recommendations with respect to any such matters to the General
Under the Charter, the Trusteeship Council is authorized to examine and discuss reports
from the Administering Authority on the political, economic, social and educational
advancement of the peoples of Trust Territories and, in consultation with the
Administering Authority, to examine petitions from and undertake periodic and other
special missions to Trust Territories.
The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations. Its seat is at the Peace Palace in The Hague
(Netherlands). It began work in 1946, when it replaced the Permanent Court of
International Justice which had functioned in the Peace Palace since 1922(in the period of
League of Nations). It operates under a Statute largely similar to that of its predecessor,
which is an integral part of the Charter of the United Nations.
The Court has a dual role: to settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes
submitted to it by States, and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by
duly authorized international organs and agencies.
Composition
AFRICAN UNION
Organization of African Unity (OAU) that preceded African Union, established in 1963
at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, by 37 independent African nations to promote unity and
development; defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of members; eradicate all
forms of colonialism; promote international cooperation; and coordinate members'
economic, diplomatic, educational, health, welfare, scientific, and defense policies. The
OAU was, at the time, the most significant result of Pan-Africanism which anticipated
the establishment of the United States of Africa. The organization mediated several
border and internal disputes and was instrumental in bringing about majority rule and the
end of apartheid in South Africa, which in 1994 became the 53rd nation to be admitted to
the organization. In 1997, OAU members established the African Economic Community
(AEC), envisioned as an African common market; the AEC signed an agreement with
regional African economic groupings that was intended to lead to harmonization of
policies of those common markets.
A more radical expansion and transformation of the OAU was adopted at Lome, Togo, in
2000, in the form of the Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU). The AU is a
successor organization to the OAU with greater powers to promote African economic,
social, and political integration, and a stronger commitment to democratic principles. The
AU was first proposed in 1999 by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi as a more effective
institution for increasing prosperity throughout the region. In general, it is hoped that the
new AU will have the authority and the ability to achieve true economic and political
integration among its member states by promoting democratic values, defending human
● The AU is Africa’s premier institution and principal organization for the promotion
of accelerated socio-economic integration of the continent, which will lead to greater
unity and solidarity between African countries and peoples.
● The AU is based on the common vision of a united and strong Africa and on the
need to build a partnership between governments and all segments of civil society, in
particular women, youth and the private sector, in order to strengthen solidarity and
cohesion amongst the peoples of Africa.
● As a continental organization it focuses on the promotion of peace, security and
stability on the continent as a prerequisite for the implementation of the development and
integration agenda of the Union.
● To achieve greater unity and solidarity between the African countries and the peoples
of Africa;
● To defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member
States;
● To accelerate the political and socio-economic integration of the continent;
● To promote and defend African common positions on issues of interest to the
continent and its peoples;
● To encourage international cooperation, taking due account of the Charter of the
United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
● To promote peace, security, and stability on the continent;
● To promote democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good
governance;
● To promote and protect human and peoples' rights in accordance with the African
1. The Assembly shall take its decisions by consensus or, failing which, by a two-thirds
majority of the Member States of the Union. However, procedural matters, including the
question of whether a matter is one of procedure or not, shall be decided by a simple
majority.
2. Two-thirds of the total membership of the Union shall form a quorum at any meeting
of the Assembly.
First keep the peace within yourself, then you can also bring peace to others.
Thomas a Kempis (1380 - 1471), 1420
1. The Executive Council shall take its decisions by consensus or, failing which, by a
two-thirds majority of the Member States. However, procedural matters, including the
question of whether a matter is one of procedure or not, shall be decided by a simple
majority.
2. Two-thirds of the total membership of the Union shall form a quorum at any meeting
of the Executive Council
The Commission
1."The Commission" means the Secretariat of the Union. 1. There shall be established a
Commission of the Union, which shall be the Secretariat of the Union.
2. The Commission shall be composed of the Chairperson, his or her deputy or deputies
and the Commissioners. They shall be assisted by the necessary staff for the smooth
functioning of the Commission.
3. The structure, functions and regulations of the Commission shall be determined by the
Assembly
The Permanent Representatives' Committee
Composed of Permanent Representatives of Member States accredited to the Union. The
Permanent Representatives Committee is charged with the responsibility of preparing the
work of the Executive Council.
By decision AHG/Dec 160 (xxxvii) of the Summit of Lusaka, July 2001, a decision was
made for the creation within the African Union of the Peace and Security Council. The
Protocol establishing the PSC is in the process of ratification
Pan-African Parliament.
A Pan-African Parliament and organ to ensure the full participation of African peoples in
governance, development and economic integration of the Continent. The protocol
relating to the composition, powers, functions and organization of the Pan-African
Parliament has been signed by Member States and is in the process of ratification. It was
in this year, 2004 that the pan-African Parliament was established.
The Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC)
The Economic, Social and Cultural Council, an advisory organ composed of different
social and professional groups of the Member States of the Union. The statutes
determining the functions, powers, composition and organization of the Economic, Social
and Cultural Council have been prepared and will be submitted to Maputo Summit.
A Court of Justice of the Union shall be established. The statutes defining the
composition and functions of the Court of Justice have been prepared and will be
submitted to the Assembly in Maputo.
The original impetus for the founding of (what was later to become) the European Union
was the desire to rebuild Europe after the disastrous events of World War II, and to
prevent Europe from ever again falling in disaster.
History
The body was originally known as the European Economic Community (informally
called the Common Market in the UK), this later changed to the European Community
and then to the European Union. The EU has evolved from a trade body into an economic
and political partnership.
Member States
At present, the European Union comprises 15 member states. In 1950 the six founding
members were:
France Italy West Germany
Belgium Netherlands Luxemburg
The total area of the European Union is 3,235,000 km2 Were it a country, it would be the
eighth largest in the world by area. The number of EU citizens (all EU member State
citizens are EU citizens under the terms of the Maastricht treaty) is approximately 379
million as of October 2001. In population size this is the third largest in the world after
China and India.
Economic Status
The EU, considered as a unit, has the second largest economy in the world, with a 2002
GDP of 8,447 billion euro, second only to that of the United States (9,239 billion euro,
2002 equivalent). The EU economy is expected to grow further over the next decade as
more countries join the union - although the new States are usually poorer than the EU
average, and hence GDP per capita over the whole Union will fall over the short-term.
Main Policies
Free Trade of goods and services among member states A common external custom
tariff, and a common position in international trade negotiations
Removal of border controls between its member states (excluding the UK and Ireland,
which have derogations)
Freedom for citizens of its member states to live and work anywhere within the EU,
provided they can support themselves (also extended to the other EEA states).
Freedom for its citizens to vote in local government and European Parliament elections in
any member state
Free movement of capital between member states (and other EEA states).
Harmonization of government regulations, corporations law and trademark registrations
A single currency, the Euro (excluding the UK, Sweden and Denmark, which have
derogations).These three states still use their own monetary unit.
A large amount of environmental policy co-ordination throughout the Union.
A Common Agricultural Policy and a Common Fisheries Policy.
STRUCTURE OF THE EU
The CFSP and JHA pillars are based entirely on intergovernmental cooperation, and
decisions have to be made unanimously. CFSP is a forum for foreign policy discussions,
common declarations, and common actions that work toward developing a security and
defense policy. It has successfully developed positions on a range of issues and has
established some common policy actions; however, the CFSP has failed to agree on a
common security and defense. Some countries, led by France, want an integrated
European military force, while others, especially the United Kingdom, insist that United
States involvement via the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is vital for
European security.
This second argument was reinforced when the EU failed to resolve the Yugoslavian
crisis that began in 1991. Between 1991 and 1992 the Yugoslav republics of Slovenia,
Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia declared independence, leaving a
Yugoslavia that consisted only of the republics of Serbia and Montenegro. The Croatian
and Bosnian secessions were strongly opposed by Serbia, and violent conflict resulted
between ethnic Bosnian, Croat, and Serb populations. The EU attempted to find a
settlement for these conflicts. However, these efforts were ineffective because EU
members could not agree on how they should be involved, and they feared being dragged
into military intervention. The Yugoslav crisis underlined the difficulties in achieving a
common foreign policy for the EU. Effective international intervention in Yugoslavia
ultimately came only with U.S. and NATO involvement, acting under the auspices of the
The EC pillar contains all the governing institutions of the EU. The major organs of the
EU are the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European
Parliament, the European Court of Justice, and the Court of Auditors. In addition, there
are many smaller bodies in the EU, such as the Economic and Social Committee, and the
Committee of the Regions.
European Commission
The European Commission is the highest administrative body in the EU. Unlike the
European Council, which oversees all three pillars of the EU, the commission
concentrates almost solely on the EC pillar. It initiates, implements, and supervises
policy. It is also responsible for the general financial management of the EU and for
ensuring that member states adhere to EU decisions. The commission is meant to be the
engine of integration, and it spearheaded the preparations for the single market and the
moves toward establishing the euro.
Currently there are 20 commissioners, who are appointed by the member governments
and are supported by a large administrative staff. The United Kingdom, France,
Germany, Italy, and Spain each appoint two commissioners; the other countries appoint
one each. The policy of each member state selecting a commissioner has become an issue
with the possibility that the EU will become larger during the next decade. If each
country in an enlarged EU were allowed to appoint at least one commissioner, the
commission would be much larger, making it too unwieldy to be an effective executive
and decision-making authority. In addition, the fact that the commission is appointed by
member governments and not elected by the people has raised questions about how much
power it should be allowed to exercise. The lack of democratic accountability has become
a more important issue with the expansion of EU control into different policy areas and
the intention to admit more countries into the EU.
The Council of the European Union (formerly called the Council of Ministers) represents
national governments. It is the primary decision-making authority of the EU and is the
most important and powerful EU body. Although its name is similar to that of the
European Council, the Council of the European Union’s powers are essentially limited to
the EC pillar, whereas the European Council oversees all three pillars of EU cooperation.
When the Council of the European Union meets, 15 government ministers, one from each
member state, are present. However, the minister for each state is not the same for every
meeting. Each member state sends its government minister who is most familiar with the
topic at hand. For example, a council of 15 defense ministers might discuss foreign
policy, whereas a council of 15 agriculture ministers would meet to discuss crop prices.
The Council of the European Union adopts proposals and issues instructions to the
European Commission. Paradoxically, the council is expected to further EU integration
while at the same time protecting the interests of the member states—two goals that are
not always compatible. This contradiction will probably become more difficult to
reconcile as the EU continues to expand.
Decision making in the council is complex. A few minor questions can be decided by a
simple majority. Many issues, however, require what is called qualified majority voting,
or QMV. In QMV each country has an indivisible bloc of votes roughly proportional to
its population. It takes two-thirds of the total number of votes to make a qualified
majority. QMV was introduced in some areas to replace the need for a unanimous vote.
This has made the decision-making process faster and easier as it prevents any one state
from exercising a veto. QMV was extended to more areas by the Single European Act.
Many important decisions, however, still require unanimous support.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the judicial arm of the EU. Each member country
appoints one judge to the court. The ECJ is responsible for the law that the EU
establishes for itself and its member states. It also ensures that other EU institutions and
the member states conform to the provisions of EU treaties and legislation. The court has
no direct links with national courts and no control over how they apply and interpret
national law, but it has established that EU law supersedes national law.
Historically, the ECJ has declared both for and against EU institutions and member
states. Its assertion that EU law takes precedence over national law, and the fact that there
is no appeal against it, have given the ECJ a powerful role in the EU and have on
occasion drawn criticism from both national governments and national courts.
Court of Auditors
The Court of Auditors is made up of 15 members, one from each EU member state. The
court oversees the finances of the EU and ensures that all financial transactions are
carried out according to the EU budget and laws. The court issues a yearly report to the
Council of the European Union and the European Parliament detailing its findings.
The European Central Bank (ECB) began operations in 1998. It is overseen by a six-
member executive board that is chosen by agreement of the EU member governments
and includes the ECB president and vice president. The ECB has exclusive authority for
EU monetary policy, including such things as setting interest rates and regulating the
money supply. In addition, the ECB played and continues to play a major role in
overseeing the inauguration and consolidation of the euro as the single EU currency. Its
authority over monetary policy and its independence from other EU institutions make the
ECB a very powerful body. There are misgivings that the ECB has been given too much
independence, leading to a debate over whether it should be subject to political direction.
Other Bodies
Other important bodies in the EU include the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. The Economic and Social Committee is a 222-member
advisory body drawn from national interest groups of employers, trade unions, and other
occupational groups. It must be consulted by the European Commission and the Council
of the European Union on issues dealing with economic and social welfare. The
One of the major goals of the EU has been to establish a single market in which the
economies of all the EU members are unified. The EU has sought to meet this objective
in three ways: by defining a common commercial policy, by reducing economic
differences among its richer and poorer members, and by stabilizing the currencies of its
members.
The 1957 Rome treaties obliged the EU to adopt a common commercial policy. The EU
adopted several common policies, the main ones being the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). By 1968 the EU had also created a
customs union in which all tariffs and duties among members were eliminated. Finally,
members had defined uniform commercial practices for trade with nonmember states.
The EU has attempted to address regional economic differences through agencies such as
the European Social Fund, the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion
Fund, and the European Investment Bank (EIB). These agencies provide money through
loans or grants to further economic development in the poorer areas of the EU.
Finally, the EU attempted to stabilize the currencies of its members with the European
Monetary System (EMS). The EMS was prompted not only by the desire for a single
market, but also by international economic problems and fluctuations in exchange rates.
These problems also convinced the EU of the importance of Economic and Monetary
Union (EMU), in which both the economies and the currencies of the members would be
unified.
PART. II
PART. III
1. Identify any of one current global issue and explain the reason why it is global issue?
2. Mention any of two reasons why regional or international organizations established?
3. What do you understand from the next passage?
SELECTED REFERENCES
Rour Ke. John T. (1993) International Politics on the world stage 4th ed. USA. Dushkinpus
Company