Chapter Two-Understanding The State

Wollo University Society, State, and Government
CHAPTER TWO
UNDERSTANDING THE STATE
Dear students, welcome to the second chapter of this course „Society, State, and Government. In this
chapter, you will be acquainted with the general concepts, theoretical and practical perspectives of the
state in its broad basis.
2.1. Conceptual Framework: Defining State and Nation

2.1.1. State
The conceptions about the state show differences in the expression of political scientists, political
philosophers and lawyers. In addition, definitions of the state are almost as numerous as the author
who wrote about it. In general, the variation of the conceptualization revolves around the difference
where historians regard the state as a concrete reality, philosophers as an abstraction and lawyers
regard it as a juristic person of formulating single definition that would fit variety of state existence.
The following are some of the conceptions about what the state is. The state to some is,
 A tiny republic or
 A great federal union or
 A state which is simple government structure or
 One with a huge bureaucracy or
 That barely maintains internal order or a police state or
 A body whose foreign policies are swaged (maintained) by powerful neighbors or
 A body that is greatest in world diplomacy
The concept of state is central to traditional approaches in political science. Different scholars have
various conceptions about the state. There were numerous philosophical explanations about the state.
 The state is organized machinery for the making and carrying out of political decisions and for
the enforcing of the laws and rules of government.
 A state is an autonomous political unit, encompassing many communities.
 A state is a society politically organized and is more than a mere collection of families or an
agglomeration of occupational organizations.
 A state is the fundamental association for the maintenance and development of social order, and
to this end, its central institution is endowed with the united power of the community.
1
 The state is the institution or sets of institutions, which serve certain elementary common
purposes and conditions of life, unites under a single authority the inhabitants of a clearly marked
territorial area. The „united power of the community‟ and „single authority‟ expresses the power
authority to make law.
However, as part of its technical expression, political theorists, define the state as a human association
having five essential elements - population, territory, government, sovereignty and recognition. While
the first two elements are taken as its physical elements, the rest are considered as the spiritual or
metaphysical elements. Let us now look into the elements of the state.
A. Population: since state is a human association, the first essential element that constitutes it
is the people. How much people constitute state? No exact number can be given to such a question.
The fact is that the states of the world vary in terms of demographic strength. There are states with a
population of greater than 1 billion like that of China and India, and with a constituency of few
thousand people like Vatican and San Marino. Another question that comes up at this stage is whether
the population of a state should be homogenous. Homogeneity is determined by any factor like
commonness of religion, or blood, or language or culture and the like. It is good that population of a
state is homogeneous, because it makes the task of national integration easy. But it is not must,
because most of the states have a population marked by diversity in respect of race, religion, language,
culture, etc. All problems of nation building are solved and people of a state, irrespective of their
differences, become a nation. It signifies the situation of „unity in diversity‟. In short, it is to be noted
that without population there can be no state, „it goes without saying that an uninhabited portion of the
earth, take in itself, cannot form a state. Plato‟s and Aristotle‟s ideal states shall encompass a
population of 5040 and 10,000 respectively.
B. Defined Territory: there can be no state without a territory of its own. The territory of a state
includes land, water, and airspace; it has maritime jurisdiction extending up to a distance of three
miles, though some states contend for a distance of up to 20 miles. The territorial authority of a state
also extends to ships on high seas under its flag as well as its embassies and legations in foreign lands.
As seen in the case of the factor of population, so here it should be emphasized that the size of a state‟s
territory cannot be fixed. There are as large states as China and Russia and as small states of Fiji and
Mauritius in respect of their territorial make-up. It also possible that states may be in the form of
islands as Indonesia, Philippines, and Japan. It is, however, certain that the boundary lines of a state
2
must be well marked out. This can be done either by the geographical make up in the form of division
by the seas, rivers, mountains, thick forests, deserts, etc, or it may be done by creating artificial
divisions in the form of digging trenches or fixing pointed wire fencing.
C. Government: government is said to be the soul of the state. It implements the will of the
community. It protects the people against conditions of insecurity. If state is regarded as the first
condition of a civilized life, it is due to the existence of a government that maintain law and order and
makes „good life‟ possible. The government is the machinery that terminates the condition of anarchy.
It is universally recognized that as long as there are diverse interests in society, some mechanism is
needed to bring about and maintain a workable arrangement to keep the people together. The
government of a state should be so organized that it enforces law so as to maintain the conditions of
peace and security. The form of government may be monarchical, aristocratic, oligarchic, democratic,
or dictatorial and the like, what really needed is that if there is no government, there is anarchy and the
state is at an end.
D. Sovereignty: as already pointed out, sovereignty is the fourth essential attribute of the
concept state. It is the highest power of the state that distinguishes it from all other associations of
human beings. Sovereignty, in its simplest sense, is the principle of absolute and unlimited power. It
has two aspects - Internal and External. Internal Sovereignty implies that inside the state there can be
no other authority that may claim equality with it. The state is the final source of all laws internally.
On the other hand, External sovereignty implies that the state should be free from foreign control of
any kind. It is, however, a different matter that a state willingly accepts some international obligations
in the form of membership to some international intergovernmental and other organizations such as
the United Nations. Conceptually, the existence of sovereign authority appears in the form of law. It is
for this reason that the law of the state is binding on all and its violation is resulted with suitable
punishment. It is universally accepted that a sovereign state is legally competent to issue any
command that is binding on all citizens and their associations.
E. Recognition: for a political unit to be accepted as a state with an „international personality‟
of its own, it must be recognized as such by a significant portion of the international community. It is
to mean that, for a state to be legal actor in the international stage; other actors (such as external states,
international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and so on) must recognize it as a
state. Thus, recognition implies both approaching of the necessary facts and the desire of coming into
3
effect of the legal and political results of recognition. Likewise, for a government of a state to be
formally to act on its behalf, the government must be recognized as legitimate government of the state
by other governments.
Here, it is important to note that, the recognition of a new government is quite different from the
recognition of a new state. In case of any government, recognition will be relevant where the change in
government is unconstitutional. For instance, if a legitimate government in a country is overthrown by
illegal and unconstitutional means, surely the international community will refuse to recognize the
political power that controls the country. In such circumstances, the change in government will not
affect the identity or international personality of the state itself. The state remains to be an
international legal entity though its government is overthrown. The recognition and non-recognition of
the new government will not have any impact on the legal character of the state. Hence, recognition of
a state will affect its legal personality whether by creating or acknowledging it, where as recognition
of government affects the status of administrative authority only, not the state. However, it is possible
for recognition of a state and a government to occur together in certain circumstances. For instances,
this can be take place up on creation of a new state.
In summary, as a concept the state can refer to a territorial entity that is politically organized and has a
government and people. The state can be understood as the highest and most powerful political
organization of society, and possesses the monopoly of power to use within its territory. The state is
the final source of all laws within its territory; and it is subject to no other power above itself
whatsoever. This implies that the state is sovereign. This is to say that the state has legitimacy to
exercise power internally in its relations with its people and externally in its relation with other
international actors. The state also determines how this power shall be organized and exercised in its
territory through sets of institutions that is the government.
2.1.2. Nation
The world nation is derived from a Latin word ‘natio’ that denotes the idea of common birth or
descent. But in modern times, it has a significance of its own. Identified with the word ‘nationality’,
the term nation signifies the existence of a common political consciousness of a nationality, that is the
form of corporate sentiment of peculiar intensity, intimacy and dignity related to a definite home
country.‟ That is, nationality is a collective name given to that complex of psychological and cultural
4
factors that furnish the cohesive principle uniting a nation. Nationality is a sentiment of oneness that
unites the people of a particular kind and thus differentiates them from others who do not share similar
feelings and sentiments. As a result of such feelings and sentiments, the supreme loyalty of the
individual is to his nation-state. Nationalism, in short, becomes the „state of mind.’
The word nationality is used in three different senses. First, it refers to the legal status of citizenship of
a particular state. That is, nationality of a person refer to his/her status as a citizens of the country
which he/she belongs to. For instance, one may say that one‟s nationality is Ethiopian or Sudanese,
etc. Second, nationality means a group of people having their distinct identity with in a particular
nation. For instance, there are many nationalities as the Tigriyans, Amharas, Oromos, Sidamas,
Gurages, etc in Ethiopia, and that is why Ethiopia is termed as a multi-national State. Third,
nationality signifies a particular kind of feelings and sentiments that bind a people and differentiate
them from the people of other nationalities. This is the most important implication of the term
nationality with which gets emphasis in this lesson. In other words, the sentiment of nationality makes
a nation and the establishment of self-rule by the people of one particular nationality makes their
nation-state.
The difficulty with offering a standard definition of the terms nation, and nationality and nationalism,
is that they are used either interchangeably or differently in different contexts. Nevertheless, despite all
kinds of variations, the factor of a common political consciousness sustaining itself on the stock of
certain deep psychological and sentimental considerations has been attached key importance. In most
the situations, nationalism has been identified with love for the motherland or patriotism. The
multitude of people bound by such strong bond of unity and oneness may be either sovereign or
fighting for the cause of liberation from alien oppression. It is due to this that the struggle of a subject
people for overthrowing foreign rule becomes the history of their national movement. The central
point that must be stressed in defining nation and nationalism is the existence of a common political
consciousness that creates the tendency of distinct shared identity of a people. Nationalism is,
therefore, a state or a condition of mind characteristic of certain peoples with a homogeneous culture,
living together in close association in a given territory, and sharing a belief in a distinctive existence
and a common destiny. Accordingly, a nation can be said as a body of men inhabiting a definite
territory who normally are drawn from different races but posses a common build-up of thoughts and
feelings acquired and transmitted during the course of a common history who on the whole and in the
5
main, though more in past than in the present include in that common build-up and a common
religions belief, who generally as a rule use a common language as a vehicle of their thoughts and
feelings, also appreciate a common will and accordingly form, or tend to form, a separate state for the
expression of that will.
2.1.3. Principal Distinction between State and Other Associations

There is a common consensus that the term state is often interchangeably used with other terms like
society, nation, government and other associations. Now it shall be worthwhile to look into the points
of distinction so that we may have a concrete understanding of the meaning and nature of this term.
A. State and Government

Though state and government are similar when strictly studied in concrete and practical terms, the
two may be distinguished on theoretical grounds. These differences may include:
The state is a bigger entity that includes all citizens, the territory, sovereignty, recognition,
etc; the government is a smaller unit that covers only those who are employed to perform its functions
and the agencies. That is, while the state is the politically organized entity for the promotion of
common ends and the satisfaction of common interests, the government is a common name for the
agencies, authorities, ministers, organizations through which the will of the state is formulated. The
government is an essential organ or agency of the state but it is no more than the state itself.
The state is an abstract idea, but the government has its existence in a physical form. In a
broad sense, a government includes all persons in the legislative, the executive or the judiciary
branches from the president/prime minister at the top to a more ordinary citizen at the bottom. Thus, in
its wider or narrower form, the government has a concrete/physical form.
The power of the state is original and primary, but the authority of the government is
delegated and derivative. In other words, it is said that while the power of the state is absolute as being
a sovereign entity, the authority of the government is limited by the provisions of the constitution.
The state is a permanent institution. It survives until its sovereign power is destroyed by the
invasion of some other state. But government come and goes. The office holders/political elites are
changed, i.e., it is quite possible that the rule of one party is changed by another party.
6
The government is an agency for the fulfillment of the purposes of the state. Hence, the
people may have grievances against the government, but not against the state. They may agitate for
changing their rulers, but they would not like to destroy the state.
B. State and Other Associations
An association may be defined as a group of people organized for the pursuit of an interest or a
group of interest in common. It is true that state itself is one of the social associations, but some line of
distinction between the state on the one hand, and associations on the other may be as follows.
The membership of the state is compulsory. As commonly said, man is a political creature by
his nature and necessity. But the membership for social associations is a matter of one‟s choice. Thus,
any person may join as many social associations as possible according to his choice.
The state is an association having its fixed territory, but an association may be without a
territory of its own and more than that, it may be having its network all over the world. Some
international associations, such as like Red Cross society, human rights watch, amnesty international,
etc have their branches in many countries of the world.
Associations are of many kinds as social, economic, cultural, and recreational, but states are not
of many kinds. All states are alike in the sense that by virtue of having five essential elements and are
political.
State has a permanent existence, but the associations may come and go. Many associations are
formed and deformed from time to time.
The area of state activity is much wider than that of the associations. Every association has a
specific end and its members try to protect and promote it. But the state has to perform a considerable
number of functions.
The most important point of distinction between the two is that, while state is a sovereign
association and has the power of coercion to enforce its will, associations have no such power. No
association can override the law of the state, but the state may make laws within which the
associations must operate. That is why the associations cannot enforce their will up on their members
in a way that is opposed to the law of the state.
7
2.1.4. The Origin and Development of the State

The subject matter of the origin of the state is subjected to mystery. We do not know exactly the
source and time of its origin. We may trace some impressions from the records of archeology and
anthropology to have a glimpse into the dim past of human history, and we may collect information
from records of ancient history and sociology. Nevertheless, this is certain that not all these are
sufficient to offer logical explanations of the origin of the state. Because of this difficulty, we should
depend on some philosophical explanations in order to speculate the origin of the state from its
primitive to its present form.
Generally, the emergence of the state is linked with a certain level of development of human society.
Obviously, since that level of development, human society has maintained an organized existence. In
this regard, various historical, archeological and anthropological studies indicate the existence of
organized societies since the beginning of human history, at least in their rudimentary forms. Such
rudimentary societies include the family, the clan, the tribe, etc. These crude forms of organization of
ancient times had several similar features and roles with that of the states of modern times. However, it
should be noted that the exact nature of the origin of the state is not yet precisely known and continues
to be a subject for scholarly discussions and debates.
Nevertheless, there is a broader consensus among scholars that advanced civilizations, with their
resultant political organizations in the human society, can be traced back to the ancient eastern
civilizations as far back as 5000 B.C. During that time, large-scale political organizations and state
systems, for which there are recorded history, developed particularly in the Tigris, Euphrates and Nile
valleys, and later in valleys of the great rivers of China. The emergence of the organized societies in
these areas was because of the importance of the great river valleys that facilitate crop cultivation and
surplus production in those times. In effect, the transition of human society into the process of crop
cultivation and production is a significant step towards civilization and the rise of politically organized
human societies. The argument is, therefore, that the rise of agricultural mode of economy in the great
river basins encouraged permanent settlement of people thereby leading to the creation of states.
There are also historical records in the western civilizations that indicate the embryonic foundations of
modern state and the principles of politics. This is particularly true to the ancient Greeks where city-
states, or polis, as they were called in Greek, developed and operated on narrowly based democratic
8
principles. However, the political system of the ancient Greeks was constantly fostered by the varieties
of ideas of the Greek philosophers. One of the prominent figures of the ancient Greek philosophers
was Aristotle whose work contributed much to the development of the ideas and practices of modern
state system. In general, as there were many places where states emerged, there are also various
contending theories that try to explain the origin and development of the state that may be discussed
below.
2.1.5. Contending Theories of State

I. The Divine Right Theory
This theory is regarded as the oldest or the earliest theory on the subject matter of the origin as well as
nature of political authority that is the state. This theory claims that the state to be of a divine creation.
In this sense, the state is created by God not only in the general sense in which everything that exists is
said to be the creation of the divine-will but also in a special sense of deliberate, direct, specific act of
creation with a particular end, the peace on earth for the preservation of human beings. Thus, the state
is seen as an institution created by God, and rulers were regarded as God‟s own representatives or
agents on earth. That is, it is of God‟s will that in human society some are born to rule while others are
born to be ruled. Furthermore, the theory asserts that the social order, in which the position of the
individuals is determined hierarchically on the basis of birth or hereditary succession was God given
and thus it is legitimate and unchangeable.
In simple terms, the divine right theory can be conceived in three important impressions about the
origin and nature of political authority. First, as it is said before, the state is created by God not only in
the general sense in which everything that exists is said to be the creation of the divine will but also in
a special sense of a deliberate, direct, specific act of creation with a particular end in view, the peace
on this earth for the preservation of human race. Second, the ruler is the nominee of God on earth and,
as such, he/she is the representative of God. The rule of hereditary succession to the office of the ruler
is legitimate. Third, all rights of the ruler are a gift of the divine will and as such what he does in the
exercise there of, his accountability is to his creator alone. People have no right to political resistance.
This theory has lost its significance in modern times. With the advancement of new learning‟s, the
people have discarded their superstitions and come to think and act rationally in most of the realistic
situations. We know that in line of the doctrine of divine right, first the bishops and then the rules
9
acted in the most arbitrary and despotic manner for hundreds and thousands of years. Now, especially
after the development of modern political theories, people are not prepared to accept that they have no
part in the creation of their political organization, or God prefers a monarchical system alone, or their
ruler is not accountable to them for his acts. It is true that this theory is hypothetical as well as
reactionary; it cannot be appreciated by the people in the present era of democracy and secularism.
II. The Genetic Theory
While divine right theory is a matter of faith or religion, the genetic theory is based on sociological
facts. Here the argument is that state is an eventual extension of the family system. The first group of
human life is the family or the household, the last is the state. The earliest advocate of this theory is
Aristotle in whose view a society of many families is called a village, and a village is most naturally
composed of the descendants of one family, the children and the children‟s children for which reason
states were originally governed by kings, which are composed of those who had before submitted to
kingly government; for every family is governed by the older, as are the branches there of, on account
of their relation there on to; and when many villages so entirely join themselves together as in every
respect to form but one society, that society is the state, and contains in itself the end and perfection of
government.
Certain it is that family is the first unit of social development. Historians of ancient law and early
institutions have sought to study the subject of family, its composition, residence of authority in the
family and its growth into the clan and tribe and eventually into the state. Evidently, society in
primitive times was an aggregation of the families and the ancient law was so framed as to recognize
the patriarchal or family groups as perpetual and inextinguishable entities. The term patriarchy
literally means, rule by the father, the domination of the husband/father within the family and the
subordination of his wife and his children. However, the term is usually used in the more general sense
of „rule by men‟, drawing attention to the totality of oppression and exploitation to which women are
subject. The family consisted of a male, his wife and his children, but it was a male dominated family.
The eldest male parent was absolutely supreme in his household and his dominion extended to life and
death and was as complete over his children and their houses as over his slaves. The absolute authority
of the head of the family was complete to the extent that he could sell or give away his property to
anyone, or he could punish even kill a member of his family. The original families broke up and many
10
other families grew out of them with the same tradition of final and complete authority in the hands of
a male elder. This larger unit becomes a tribe or a clan and that eventually become a state. The
elementary group is the family, connected by a common subjugation to the highest male ascendant.
The aggregation of families forms the houses, and the aggregate of houses makes the tribes. The
aggregation of tribes then forms the village, and then the society. It demonstrates that, from the early
patriarchal family emerged the warrior ruler, judge and as political societies increased in size and
complexity, political headship and leadership were asserted and reorganized as significant forms of
social control. The patriarchal theory, thus, holds the family as the unit and supposing the headship
bestowed or transferred from one chief to another by easy stages transformed the father into the chief
of king, and the family into a civil community.
Hence, according to this view, the state is the result of the evolution that had its first manifestation in
the formation of the families. The original families broke up as a result of which many other families
come into existence and that formed a bigger unit like a clan or a tribe. If someone was the head of the
family, a chief become the head of the tribe. When this bigger unit assumed the form of a state, the
leadership fell into the hands of a person who become their ruler or king.
In summary, if viewed from the standpoint of sociology, the genetic theory on the origin of the state
makes sense. It is not hypothetical like that of the divine theory. But the point of criticism is that it
stands on social rather than political hypotheses. The whole attempt is to demonstrate the process of
the evolution of social institutions. It is also doubtful whether the evolution of state has occurred
exactly according to the process as taken into consideration by the advocates of this theory. It would
not be true to say that the state developed out of this small social unit. Because, the two institutions are
different in essence; that in the family the location of authority is natural (i.e. in the father), but in the
state it is one of choice. Furthermore, the functions or aims of the state are essentially different from,
and even contradictory to, those of the family.
III. The Force Theory
According to the force theory, the state is neither a creation of God, nor a result of irresistible social
development. It is primarily the consequence of the forcible subjugation through long continued
warfare among primitive groups and, there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political
communities of modern type owe their existence to successful warfare. That means, the state is
11
nothing but the result of wars and conflicts that have been endemic in the political history of human
beings. From the very beginning of human history, there has always been struggle among different
social groups to achieve economic advantage resulting in the dominance of some over others.
Ultimately, this condition of conquest resulted in the occupation of more and more territories and
finally led to the rise of states.
According to the advocates of force theory, the state in the earliest stage of its development was the
„wolf state‟ or „a band of robbers‟, but „economic impulses‟ moved men to subjugate others and
appropriate their labor for the sake of their own promotion and material comforts. There was no state
when men were all hunters, but its rudiments emerged when an organization of the herdsmen (group of
people) developed. They instituted the system of keeping those under slavery who were defeated in a
war or were held captive in some form of combat. In course of time, when the people got themselves
settled somewhere, a dominant class emerged that was distinguishable from the class of the
„dominated‟ ones. In the meantime, six stages in the formation of the state were distinguished.
There was robbery and killing in border fights and endless combats broken neither by peace
nor by peace agreement.
The peasants after their defeat by the hunters and the herdsmen made many unsuccessful
attempts to throw of the yoke of the foreigners and in the end ceased resistance and reconciled
themselves to their life.
They began to give away their surpluses to the conquerors as „tributes‟ and were happy to be
protected from persistent troubles of every day, while the herdsman were satisfied because they could
depend up on the labor of others.
After a time, division of labor developed that marked out the class of the rulers from the class
of the ruled. Moreover, settled life at a particular place and under particular circumstances created a
sort of homogeneity in respect of their way of life. It led to the emergence of the sentiments of
„nationality‟ and „nationalism‟.
Disagreement among different settlements of workers needed adjudication and arbitration by
the group of the rulers.
Thus organized government came into being. The leader becomes the king. His word was a
„command‟ and his authority became the highest authority of the land.
12
However, the force theory has its own weaknesses. Force may be one of the factors, but it cannot be
treated as the only factor in the origin of state. The emergence of state may be due to factor of force; in
the process of expansion, force has undoubtedly played a part.
This theory is based on the argument that might is right. But its validity may be challenged by
numerous instances of the civilized behavior of the people. Any organization based on sheer force
cannot survive forever. Those who are addicts to the way of force justify the course of war at every
level - whether local, national or international. But, in actual practice, we find that people desire peace
and they appreciate the way of pacific settlement of their disputes. Hence, force may be one of the
factors but it cannot be treated as the only factor in the origin of state. Military might and physical
force alone cannot explain the complex phenomenon of political systems for mere force cannot
maintain lasting relationship between the rulers and the ruled.
IV. The Social Contract Theory
The social contract theory holds that the state is an artificial creation based on voluntary agreement or
contract among people, and necessarily the existence of political authority was based on the consent of
the people. The theory was developed and gets a clear-cut expression in the 16th, 17th and 18th
centuries by the works of Thomas Hobbes (1588 -1679) and John Locke (1632 -1704) of England, and
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) of France.
To prove their theory, they supposed a period without authority of any kind, what they called the state
of nature, and its termination by the covenant where by the people surrendered their rights to be
translated into civil rights by the action of a political authority instituted by them. Though their views
are different on different issues, they all assume the existence of a primitive pre-political condition of
mankind escape from which “was effected by means of a contract, pact, or covenant, express between
each individual and his fellows, by which each surrendered his natural right to do as he pleased and
received in exchange civil rights; that is rights created and protected by the state. This pre-civil
condition of society was described as the original state of nature.”
As it was said, the social contract theory on the origin of the state has a framework of its own. Its
starting point is a hypothetical state of nature or a condition that prevailed before the creation of the
state. According to Hobbes, it is a very horrible condition in which man is the enemy of man. Man
13
being a selfish, egoistic, brutal, and aggressive creature is free to defend himself either by running
away from the scene or by killing his enemy singly or in group with others. There is nothing like
peace, security, order, property, justice, and anything what we find in a state. There is all but fear and
danger of a violent death. The law of nature or rule of commonsense informs man to be in competition
with others and so invade others for some gain, or live in reserve so as to be in search of safety, or
seek glory so as to secure some standing. In short, life of man is solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short.
Completely different is Locke’s picture of state of nature. According to him, it is a pre-political and
not a pre-social condition. People live peacefully and collectively and enjoy three natural rights
relating to life, liberty, and property. As he says, the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it
which obliges everyone, and reason, which that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that
being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possession.
It is a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation in contrast to a state of violence
and mutual destruction. And yet the source of inconvenience is that each man is a police man as well
as a magistrate (the maker and the enforcer of the law of the state of nature); each man was necessarily
the judge as to what it permitted and what it forbidden and he was also the executioner of the law. In
these circumstances, there was need of a common judge to interpret the law and a superior authority to
enforce it, considering that men are biased and not, therefore, competent judges in their own cases.
With Rousseau, the case is quite different. Man is born free, he is everywhere in chains. In Rousseau‟s
view, man is a „noble savage‟. His life was very simple and happy in the oldest phase of civilization,
but it was perverted by the growth of „reason‟ that inculcated the sense of distinction between mine
and their. A few persons created their own property so as to deprive others of the pleasures of a
primitive communization life. It all led to the rise of conflicts and wars as a result of which the
peaceful condition of life was converted into a horrible condition of mutual conflicts. The innocent
creatures, that is, men become selfish and aggressive, and natural life was destroyed. Thus, the people
living in that condition desire a society of free consents and not of force, a union of each with all on
equal terms for common good; sovereignty vested in all and voiced by the general will for the
maintenance of liberty in law.
To terminate the state of nature, contract is made by the people. According to Hobbes, law of nature
informs the people to surrender their all-natural rights in favor of a man or an assembly of man as the
14
price for living in commonwealth that ensures them liberty, property and the entire of a good life. By
such contract of the society, state and government came into being; a „common power‟ is instituted
that would keep all terror and ensure security of their life and possession. It shows that each individual
agreed with all the others to surrender his right to govern himself, to some particular man or assembly.
By doing this, they established the state, and the person or assembly up on whom they had bestowed
their power was the sovereign of whom they were subjects.
Locke in his part forwarded that the open or social contract is done by the individuals to institute a
political authority by them. As a result „community‟ comes into being that holds the sovereign
authority. Then, an inferred contract is made by the community with a person who takes up on himself
the responsibility of effectively protecting three natural rights of the people. It is a contract of the
society with the government, and the ruler is committed to the discharge of his obligations according
to the terms of contract. The motivating force behind these contracts is that men come to understand
that improvement over the natural state may result from the organization of a civil society and the
creation of instruments that will correct the deficiencies of the state of nature.
Like Hobbes but unlike Locke, Rousseau asserts about one contract whereby all surrender their all in
favor of all as a result of which a new authority in the name of good will/common good is created. As
Rousseau says, since each gives himself up to all, actually there is little that he gives up. In fact, he
acquires over every associate the same right that is given up by him. Man thus not only gains the
equivalent of what is lost but also acquires greater power to preserve what is left. That is, each
individual puts his person and faculties into a common collection under the direction of the general
will, each giving himself to all, gives himself to none, what he loses by the social contact is his natural
liberty and an unlimited right to anything to tempts him which he can obtain; what he gains is civil
liberty and the ownership of all that he possesses.
In sharp contrast to the divine right theory, the social contract theory developed its arguments from the
doctrine of popular sovereignty. Thus, according to this the theory, since the state is established by the
consent of the people, its main purpose is to protect and safeguarded people‟s inalienable rights such
as the right to life, liberty, and prosperity. The social contract theory was further developed in the age
of revolutions in the fight against the rule of absolute monarchies. This theory mainly advocated
popular sovereignty, limited government and individual rights.
15
However, with its all plausible justifications and speculations, the social contract theory is mainly
criticized on the following certain groups:
The historical argument is that in the history of the world, we nowhere find the description of the
state of nature and the making of a social contract for the sake of its termination. The
sociological and anthropologic evidences rather show that human beings have always lived under
some kind of authority. The very fact that the story of peaceful and collective life is as old as
man proves that the arguments, particularly of Hobbes, are indefensible.
The theory is also indefensible from the philosophical point of view. How is it possible to
believe that the persons who had never seen a thing like political authority or who had not even
heard of it could think about its institution and then they did it all of a sudden to convert
themselves into loyal citizens? Such a conversion may be possible in legend or tales; it is not
possible in the world of normal human beings.
From the legal point of view, it may raise a question how a contract could survive for so long
whose terms were not clearly spelt out in writing and, more than that, how it could be binding on
those who were, or are, no party to it. There is no justification in the argument that a social and
political contract entered into by the ancestors could bind their successors.
With its limitations in its premises, however, the social contract theory reveal real on the development
of political theories. Mainly, it displaced the theory of divine right that was powerful instrument in
defense of kingly arbitrary rules, and contributed for combating irresponsible rulers and a justification
for resistance against tyranny. Eventually, because of its emphasis on the popular sovereignty and
limited government, the social contract theory becomes currently operational in the modern
international politics.
V. The Marxist Theory
Like other theories on the subject of the origin of the state, this theory takes into account one factor,
the fact of class contradiction. According to this theory, there was no state in the most primitive stage
of social life as there were no contending classes. The state arose as a matter of necessity when society
divided into two hostile classes, each having its own interest. The origin of state, therefore, should be
treated in the fact of class antagonism. With the invention of agriculture and creation of private
property, the dominant class came into being by virtue of being the owner of the means of production.
16
It required some authority (the state) to protect its interests that lay in the exploitation and oppression
of the class having no ownership of the means of production. Thus, state is not something introduced
into society from the outside, but is a product of society‟s internal development.
It is with the emergence of the dominant class in the society that state has come into being and as the
nature of the dominant class has changed from one epoch to another, so has happened with the
character of the state. The state has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did
without it when there was no competition or struggle for dominance. The state becomes a necessity at
a certain state of social development that was a consequence of the cleavage of society into two
contending classes. And as the nature of the classes (relations of production) changed, so occurred a
change in the nature of the dominance of the class over another. Thus, the state has not come into
being to bring peace, order and unity in the society, the real cause of its origin is the fact of
irreconcilable class antagonism. The state is an organ of the rule of a definite class, which cannot be
reconciled with the class opposite to it. Simply, the whole essence of the theory is that, the state has
not always existed and it may not always exist also. It has come into being with the rise of class
contradiction, so it will wither away (die out) with the end of class antagonism.
Primitive society that had no private property had no class and state either. Naturally, there were
certain social functions, but they were performed by men chosen by all members of society which had
the right to dismiss the people at any time and to appoint others. In those primitive times relation
between people were regulated by public opinion. The further development of the productive forces
led to the disintegration of primitive society. Private property appeared, accompanied by classes -
Slaves and slave owners. It became necessary to protect private property, the rule and security of its
owners, and this brought the state into being. Therefore, the state is the product of class society.
The Marxist theory on the origin of the state may be correct to a little extent. No doubt, the element of
force has played its part in the formation of political authority and the fact of class dominance may
also be substantiated with a sociological analysis of its own kind. But it cannot be taken as a scientific
explanation of the origin of state for two important factors. First, not one but many factors have played
their part in the evolution of the state. Hence, like other theories on this subject, this theory also
commits the mistake of dwelling on the single factor of force (class dominance) playing decisive part
in the origin of political authority. Second, it is not only traces the origin of state in the element of the
17
class contradictions, it run down state as an instrument of class exploitation and oppression and also
thinks of its eventual „withering away‟ in the last stage of social development. This is quite
unconvincing, because we should to overlook the positive side of the nature of political authority.
State has also been an instrument of protection, peace, order, unity and general welfare. If so, the
question of its eventful disappearance does not at all arise.
VI. The Evolutionary Theory
The evolutionary theory is like a rejection as well as a synthesized version of the key elements of all
the theories on the origin of state. The theory mainly emphasizes on two important arguments.
 The state is not a make but a growth. It is a result of very long evolution covering hundreds
and thousands of years.
 Not only one but many factors have played their part in state building.
Thus, state is neither a handiwork of God, nor a result of a superior physical force, nor a creation of a
social contract, nor a mere expansion of (patriarchal) family system and the like.
Accordingly, the state is a result of very long process of evolution, and due to many different factors.
Among these factors that have played their part in its gradual and invisible development, it includes
kinship, religion, force, social contract, economics, political consciousness, etc.
1. Kinship: the first and for most factor is the fact of blood relationship that led to the creation
of family as the first unit of collective life. A family consisting of a man, a woman and their children
become the first unit of organized life. Whether it was male dominated (patriarchal) pattern as in most
of the places of the world or female-dominated (matriarchal) pattern as in some parts, the essential fact
stands out that the earliest tie, which bonded men together in communities, was kinship. The family
had of its-own and that should be taken as the first instances of an authority over the members.
Different families broke out of the original families as a result of which a new unit (clan or tribe) come
into being. And as father (in the patriarchal system) or mother (in the matriarchal system) becomes the
wider of authority, so chief of the tribe become the lead of this larger unit. Thus, the blood bond of
son-ship changed invisibly into the social bond of wider brother hood. The authority of the father
passes into the power of the chief. Once more under the negate of kinship new forms arise which
transcend it. Kinship creates society and society at length creates the state.
18
2. Religion: religion emerged out of the way of life the people living in the families and tribes.
It assumed the form of social practices associated with worshiping some objects of nature of some
mystical forces. When the bond of kinship become weak, the bond of religion served the purpose.
Even ancestors-worship becomes a matter of social usage. Moreover, anyone who could show some
charismatic activities becomes an important person of the tribal life. The magician who was often a
clear and deceitful person gained the position of superiority pretended to possess extraordinary powers
of prediction. The fertility of the soil, the occurrence of a rainfall or a draught, the success or failure of
the crops, the victory or defeat in a tribal war and the like seemed to depend more up on his rituals and
prayer than upon human efforts. Those who had full faith in the power of religion and thereby could
demonstrate some super-human achievement also got authority and become the class of priests. In this
way, the forces of the priests and the magicians conditioned the residence of authority. Religious
beliefs thus helped in subordinating anarchy and educated respect and obedience to the primitive
people. Shared by other approaches, we do have, at least, three types of State-Religious relations:
erastianism, theocratism and secularism. Erastianism is a doctrine that the state is superior to the
church in ecclesiastical matters. It is named after the 16th-century Swiss physician and Zwinglian
theologian Thomas Erastus, who never held such a doctrine. He opposed excommunication as
unscriptural, advocating in its stead punishment by civil authorities. Theocracy/tism is a government
by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies,
government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state's legal system is based on religious law.
Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations where religion dominates states system. Finally,
secularism is the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions on the basis that no
discrimination against anybody in the name of religion.
3. Force: the element of force has played its own part in the form of conflicts and wars. It is the
elements of force that placed man (father) as head of the family, the chief as the supreme authority of
the tribe, and the king as the highest ruler of the biggest unit. History is full of tribunal wars in which
force decided the issue. The victorious become the masters and the conquered had to accept the
religion and servitude of their lords. The members of a group had to live and work in performance
under a recognized leader for the purpose of defense or aggression against other groups. The coercive
force exercised by the leader eventually, developed into political sovereignty and the sentiment of
loyalty to the ruler was established and approved. Therefore, accordingly, struggle and warfare are
19
historically the most important elements in state formation, and it is certain that the union of two
groups even by force develops after a while common interests, out of which is born a sense of unity.
4. Economics: obviously, man has always done some economic activities for the sake of living.
In the most primitive state, life was nomadic and the tribes moved from place to place in search of
food and shelter. They were all hunters, all fishermen, and the like. However, when life becomes
settled at a particular place, division of labor became into being. If some took the work of religion,
others took defense, while some others adopt some other functions like agriculture, trade, and the like.
Economic life now had a clear expression. The institutions of private property also come into being
that informed the people to have some arrangements for the effective protection of their material
possessions. The economic activities of the early people, therefore, contributed to the origin of the
state in several ways. Differences in occupation and in wealth created social classes, and the
domination of one class by another for purposes of economic exploitation was an important factor in
the rise of government. As wealth increased and the idea of private property developed, laws were
needed for the protection of property rights and the settlement of property disputes.
5. Political consciousness: the needs of the people for the security of their person and property
created need for defense against external attack and for social, moral and intellectual development. All
these things led to the emergence of political power and the conscious adaptation of political
institutions to meet certain definite ends. The place where the people lived became their country and
they developed the spirit of patriotism. A new class of people arose that not only took up the work of
defense in their hands; they also did not like to stop their position of authority. Thus, conflicts started
in which the matter was decided the habit of rendering obedience to their rulers and, in return, the
rulers took up on themselves the responsibility of giving proper protection to the life and goods of
their rules/the people.
In summary, according to the evolutionary theory, this all show that the making of the state is a result
of very long process of evolution. Moreover, in this long process some important factors have played
their part. As such, the credit of the origin of the state cannot be described by a single factor.
Moreover, as these elements have been covered by different theories on this subject matter, it appears
that the evolutionary theory is like the synthesized version of all other theories on the origin for the
state. For instance, its element of religion may be traced in the divine right theory; its element of force
may be discovered in the force theory; its element of consanguinity may be found in the family or
20
genetic theory; and its element of consent as accepted in social contract theory may be seen in the
division of labor that was effected by the choice of the people. Thus, the fact remains that the state is a
gradual and natural historic evolution. It is neither a gift of divine power nor the deliberate work of
man. Its beginnings are lost in the vague past in which social institutions were unconsciously arising,
and its development has followed the general laws of evolutionary growth.
All the aforementioned theories depict that the explanations about the origin and purposes of the state
vary greatly among different people in different times. However, as the result of accumulated
knowledge and culture in politics, nowadays there is a widely held consensus about the practice and
the idea of the modern nation-state. The consensus is on the fact that the idea of modern state is a
typical 17th century European creation. This period saw the break up and disintegration of the medial
European Christendom and the emergence of modern state.
Today, the state comprising of the people, territory, government, sovereignty and recognition has
explained and become a universal model of the state. However, this model of the state could not be
easily reproduced in various parts of the world in exactly the same ways it emerged in Europe. This is
because of different historical force and factors: cultural and social differences, different levels of
economic and technological developments that make the countries in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere
distinct from that of Europe. For example, the modern states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are
largely creations of European colonial powers. Among others the international boundaries, ethnic
compositions, as well as the nature of the political organization, and performance of these post-
colonial states are influenced by the legacies of their former colonial power.
2.1.6. State Formation in Ethiopia

The rise and foundation of states took place in different parts of Ethiopia at different historical periods.
Some of the developments took place in the north, while others were in the south, southwest, east, and
south eastern parts of Ethiopia. The span of development ranges from pre-Axumite civilization to
recent-past. Out of the continuous interrelations among them, the various states of the different parts
gave rise to the present form of modern Ethiopia state.
21
I. Development in the North
The rise of ancient states in the northern part of Ethiopia goes back to the pre-Axumite period. Even
though much is not known, there are some recent evidences that show there were states even before
the rise of the Axumite state. Nevertheless, there are enough facts about the Axumite state and its
established political institutions as early as 100 B.C. The Axumite state was one of the most civilized
few states of the ancient world, that civilization made great achievements. The monuments that are
found today as Axum are the heritage of that ancient civilization. An Axumite state was also well
known for its commerce and trade within Ethiopia as well as out of Ethiopia with Greece, Rome, India
and others. The Axumite state started to decline beginning from the 7th century and was no more in
existence after the 10th century.
Following its decline, the political center shifted from Axum to the northwestern part of Wello, and
political institutions developed in Lasta. This political development is called the zagwe Dynasty.
Eventually, after many years of active rule, the zagwe period came to an end in 1270. The Agaw
people that are found today in the Amhara region were belive to be the founders of the Zagwe dynasty.
After the fall of the zagwe kingdom, the political center shifted further to the south of lalibela, that was
marked by the foundation of the Christian Highland kingdom called the solomonic dynasty. Yekuno
Amlak was the first king of the dynasty. The dynasty claimed descent from king Solomon of
Jerusalem as it is explained in the Kibre Negest. The Solomonic dynasty moved its center from shewa
to Gondar in the 17th century. Later, the political power at Gonder declined being followed by what is
called as the zemene mesafint or the era of princes. This era was known for its instability, civil war
and struggle for power among different local lords in all surrounding of the country. As the result of
such chaotic political phenomena, the northern part of Ethiopia was decentralized, and led to the
establishment of scattered governance by nobilities in their respective regions. As a result of this,
political power at the center was very weak. That situation continued up to the first half of the 19 th
century.
II. Developments in the South and Other Parts
While Christian states largely developed in the north, other states were also emerging in the center,
south, south-west, and eastern parts of Ethiopia. The earliest Islamic state was the sultanate of Ifat,
22
Dawra, Bali, Fatagar, Hadiya, the Emirates of Adal and Harar. There were also states in the kingdoms
of kaffa, Walayta, Janjere and Enarya. They were formed at different periods. Moreover, the various
Oromo states such as Jimma, Limu-Enarya, Guma, Goma and Gera. In the east, there were the
Emirates of Harar. The Kambata and Gurage political institutions were also parts of the formation of
various states prior to the emergence of the modern centralized Ethiopian State.
III. The Formation of Modern Ethiopian State
The formation of centralized statehood in Ethiopia goes back to the end of the 19th century. However,
this does not mean Ethiopia did not exist before the end of the 19th century. As a matter of fact, the
existence of Ethiopia as a state is as old as no less than three thousand years. However, with its present
form and extent of territory, the Ethiopian state can relatively be viewed as a recent phenomenon.
The process of building a modern centralized state in Ethiopia was significantly accomplished during
the reign of Emperor Menilik II. But, the attempts to do so were started by Emperor Tewodros right
after the end of the Zemene Mesafint, and was extended by his succesor Emperor Yohannes.
The campaigns carried out by Emperor Menilike during the second half of the 19th century
incorporated the states in the southern, southeastern, and the eastern parts into present-day Ethiopia.
With that process of expansion from the center, the various nations, nationalities and peoples in
different parts in the south, southwest and east were also brought under the Ethiopian Empire. In the
meantime, the present day boundaries of Ethiopia were established based on international agreements
between the Ethiopian government and the surrounding colonial powers of the time. This took place at
the end of the 19th century. Therefore, it is clear to understand the fact that today‟s Ethiopia is shaped
into Modern centralized statehood through the political integration of the various states, nations,
nationalities and peoples. They formed modern Ethiopia with their respective languages, traditions,
beliefs, and religions.
2.2. Forms of State Structure

State organization is the result of lengthy processes of experimentation and modification. State
systems are continually changed, sometimes through deliberation and consultation and at other times
because the system cannot withstand certain challenging forces. Thus, the state organization with in a
state is shaped by a wide range of historical, cultural, geographical, economic and political factors.
23
The most prominent of these is the constitutional structure of the state, particularly the location of
sovereignty in the political system. Although modified by other factors, the constitutional structure
provides, as a minimum, the framework within which center - periphery relationships are conducted.
The two most common forms of territorial organization found in the modern world are the unitary and
federal systems. A third form, confederation, has generally proved to be unsustainable.
2.2.1. Unitary form of State Structure

Unitary form of state structure is a form of state structure that is chiefly characterized by centralization
of power and indivisible sovereignty. The central government is legally supreme over regional or local
governments. In unitary state, there is only one source of authority and that is the central government.
The central government controls the local governments and determines how much power they will
have. The central government may under certain circumstances, temporarily take over the functions of
the local governments and it can also impose its decisions on all local governments regardless of their
will.
The essence of unitary state is that sovereignty is undivided, the powers of the central government is
unrestricted; for the constitution of a unitary state does not admit any other law-making body than the
central government. Subsidiary law making bodies (regional or local bodies) can exist and can be
abolished at the will of the central government. In simple terms, “a unitary state is one organized
under a single central government; that is, whatever power are possessed by the various districts with
in the area administered as a whole by the central government are held at the discretion of that
government, and the central power is supreme over the whole without any restrictions imposed by any
law granting special power to its parts.” It follows that the concentration of all powers in the central
government is the essential features of a unitary system. There may be some local governments, but
they are a creation of the central government. As such, these local governments enjoy no autonomy,
their position is like that of subordinate governments. It is the characteristic of this form state structure
that there is no constitutional division of powers between central government of the state and
subordinate local governments.
 Features of Unitary States

Though there can be explicit variations in practice among different unitary states, the following could
be considered as some of the common features shared by most unitary systems.
24
1. Supremacy of the Central Government: in unitary form of state structure, there is an

existence of a strong single center. That is, there is a single focus of authority, which is the central
government. All powers are legally driven from the central government; as a result it is that central
government which makes all laws, rules, regulations and policies. It is again the central government
which controls all the lower level administrations throughout the country.
2. Absence of Subsidiary Sovereign Bodies: the regional or local territorial units/subsidiary
bodies are not sovereign. Because, as it is said before, sovereignty in unitary form of state structure is
indivisible. Because of this, local units do not have any power to make their own laws, to enforce laws
and to levy taxes. They are heavily controlled by the national government at the center, and even their
existence, is at the mercy of the central government. Thus, in unitary form of state structure, there is
no legal decentralization of authority and no devolution of power, but there are only delegations of
authority.
3. Local units/sub-national units are created or abolished by the center at will. In unitary state,
if the central government wants to create sub-national units, it can. And again, if the central
government wants to abolish sub-national units it can. Thus, the central government in the unitary state
is the mover and shaker of all events in the country. Local units are simply agents of the central
government. The local units/sub-national units are thus dependent on the central government.
In the contemporary world, most states are unitary, which means that sovereignty of these states lies
exclusively with the central government. Sub-national authorities may make policy as well as
implementing but they do so by permission of the center. With regard to their foundation, most unitary
states emerge naturally in societies with a history of rule by sovereign emperors and monarchs, such as
Britain, France, and Japan. In addition, unitary structures are also the norm in smaller democracies,
particularly those without strong ethnic divisions, for example Scandinavian states. In Latin America,
with its history of centralized presidential rule, nearly all the smaller countries are unitary.
 Power dispersion in unitary systems

Concerning the way central governments interact with their sub-national bodies, there are three
distinguished ways in which the unitary states can disperse power from the center to lower level
administrations. The first and least significant is deconcentration. This is purely a matter of
administrative organization; it refers to the location of central government employees away from the
capital. The case for a deconcentrated structure is that it spread the work around; enable field offices to
25
benefit from local knowledge and freeing central departments to focus on policy-making. The second,
and politically more significant way of dispersing power, is through decentralization. This means
delegating policy execution to sub-national bodies, traditionally local authorities but also (and
increasingly) a range of other agencies. In the Scandinavian states, for instance, local governments
have put into effect many welfare programs agreed at national levels. In the United Kingdom too, local
governments have proved to be the workhouse of the central authority. The third and most radical
form of power dispersal is devolution. This occurs when the center grants decision-making autonomy,
including some legislative powers, to lower levels. In the United Kingdom, for example, devolved
assemblies have been set up in Scotland and Wales and a similar body reintroduced to Northern
Ireland. Another peculiar example takes the case of Spain. Seeking to integrate a centralist tradition
with strong regional identities, Spain‟s constitution-makers created a system in which the country‟s
„autonomous communities‟ (that is regions) could decide their own level of autonomy. The „historic
communities‟, the Basque country and Catalonia, quickly followed by Galicia, were the first to receive
their status of autonomy. Thus, the central government‟s compromise with the communities created
near federalism within the framework of a unitary state. This situation was a confused but politically
effective solution for a country that has always needed to reconcile a strong center with some assertive
regions.
Therefore, even the category unitary structure may essentially show some common features of
concentration of power at the central government in a range of states, but there are still great
differences among them in the institutions and procedures through which their central government
interact with their territorial subunits or localities. Hence the concept unitary structure does not
necessarily imply highly centralized government. As indicated in the above, sub-national units can be
granted some kind of autonomy by the central government which in reality has the legal authority to
take it back at any time it wishes.
The degree of local autonomy varies from state to state. As mentioned above, in Great Britain the
statues of parliament have created local governments that the local people may manage those local
affairs. The activities and actions of the local councils are not interfered unless they overpass the legal
boundary. In contrast, in France the council of departments and communes are subjected to constant
detailed supervision by central authority. Therefore, the difference among unitary states can be
categorized into two types of practices and procedures. These are
26
a) In one type of unitary systems, decentralization of power among sub-national units goes so far
in practice, although not constitutional principles. In other unitary system of this type, decentralization
on a territorial basis may actually provide constitutionally forwarded - highly decentralized unitary
systems.
b) A second type of unitary system makes substantially less provision for territorial
decentralization of authority and employs rather strict procedures for the central supervision to locally
elected units – highly centralized unitary systems.
 Systems of Administrative Organizations in Unitary States

In unitary form of state arrangements, there are two common types of territorial administration
organizations. These are
1. Administrative Regions: in this category, lower level units are regularly supervised and
controlled by the central government, though it may differ from country to country as we tried to look
it earlier. The territorial division in administrative regions could take various reasons pertinent to the
reality of a country. The reasons could range from historical and people‟s identity, the nature of
politics, administrative effectiveness to socio-economic development factors. The administrative
regions sometimes can be termed as Regional Administration, and formally recognized as centralized
unitarism. The principle of administrative regions, in turn, also sub-divided and realized into two
major categorization principles. These are:
a) National territorial administrative principles: the territorial division in the national territorial
administrative principle takes into account mainly on ethnic identities, particularly language, culture,
etc.
b) Administrative Principle: unlike the national territorial administrative principle, the territorial
division in the administrative principle is chiefly based on factors such as natural topography, people‟s
history and settlement, and relations concerning the socio-economic development of regions.
2. Autonomous Region: as the name indicates such kind of center-periphery divisions resembles to
federal systems, and termed as quasi-federal structure. The autonomous regions have a great degree of
decentralization of decision-making power, even the local council functions under the supervision of
the central government and constitution.
Accordingly, in reality, different unitary states can use and practice either of this system of
administrative organization, or in some situations the states can use both principles and practices at the
27
same time. For instance, the case of Great Britain, as discussed above, can depict the usage of both
principles at the same time, i.e. both administrative and autonomous region.
 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of unitary State Structure

A unitary state structure has its own benefits and disadvantages. To discuss some of them, the
following will show the advantages and disadvantages respectively.
Advantages of Unitary form of State Structure
 It is a very effective and efficient form of government. The central government is all powerful.
As such, it can take any step and decision to meet the situation before it. It proves very successful in
dealing with the conditions of emergency.
 It is relatively a more flexible type of government. The constitution can be amended easily by
the central government, according to the requirement of the situation.
 It brings uniformity in administration and legislation. Since there is only one national
legislature and since all powers are vested in the central government, there is uniformity in laws,
policy and administration throughout the state/country.
 It is less expensive as compared to a federal system, because there is no duality/duplication in
the field of legislation, administration and adjudication. In other words, there is no duplication of work
at the regional levels.
 Conflicts of jurisdiction are avoided in unitary form of state structure but common among
levels of government that may arise in federal form of state structure.
 It is best suited for a small country and marked by the factor of homogeneity in respect of
religion, race, language, culture, etc.
Disadvantages of Unitary form of State Structure
On the other hands, besides of its advantages, unitary state structure has also its own disadvantages,
to mention some of them.
 Since all powers are concentrated in the central government, it may create the room to
develop into autocratic system to the extent of depriving the liberties of the local people.
28
 It discourages local initiatives, that is; excessive centralization takes away the autonomy of
the local units.
 Local affairs are ignored. In order words, it leaves distant authorities and may lack
adequate knowledge of local conditions to the determination of policies and the regulation of matters
that may concern only to the localities affected.
 It overburdens the central government and legislature with numerous local matters.
 It is not suited to very big countries characterized by heterogeneity.
2.2.2. Federal Form of State Structure

The term federalism come from the Latin word „fedus’ which means „pact‟ or „covenant‟, and usually
implies to legal and political structures that distribute power territorially within a state. As a political
form, federalism refers to the existence of two distinct levels of government, neither of which is
legally or politically subordinate to the other. Its central feature is, therefore, the notion of shared
sovereignty. In other words, a federal form of state structure is a form of state structure where by
power is formally/constitutionally divided between the federal/central/national government and sub-
national/regional/provincial governments, each of which is locally supreme in its own sphere. It
provides for an actual division of powers between two or more nearly independent governments each
of which exercises control within its scope of authority, over the same people. Unlike to the unitary
form of state structures, the sub-national governments are not the creations of a central government of
the union rather in most federal systems the reverse is the case; that is, the central government has
been created by the territorial sub-units through the act of federation; they are something more than
parts or agents of the central organization; their sphere of autonomy is determined not by the central
government but by the general constitution of the federation. Consequently, they do not, exist by the
mercy of the central government, nor may their competence be restricted by it.
Obviously, a federal system is a dual set of government, while the central or federal government is
charged with the administration of the affairs of the national importance; matters of regional or local
importance are given to the governments of the federal units/regional governments.
 Features of Federalism
Every federal systems of state structure have their own unique features in the sense that the
relationship between federal/central government and regional governments are determined not just by
29
constitutional rules, but also by a complex of political, historical, geographical, cultural and social
circumstance. Nevertheless, certain features can be traced as common to most, if not all, federal
systems of state structures. Among others, the following are said to be some of the features that
characterize federal systems.
1. Two Relatively Autonomous Levels of Governments: in federal forms of state structure, both the
federal/central and regional governments possess a range of powers that the other cannot encroach
upon. These include at least a measure of legislative and executive authority and the capacity to raise
revenue and thus enjoy a degree of fiscal independence. However, the specific fields of jurisdiction of
each level of government and the capacity of each to influence the other vary considerably from
country to country.
In addition, since federal units/regional governments have sovereign existence guaranteed by the
constitution, the central government cannot create or abolish them. This is because; the central
government is not empowered to do so, unless it is with consensus and agreement of the Regional
states. Except for the powers and responsibilities assigned to it in the constitution, the federal
government cannot do other activities without the consultation of the federal units/regional states.
2. The Existence of Written Constitution: in federal systems, the powers and responsibilities of
each level of government (i.e. the central and regional governments) are defined in a codified or
written constitution. The relationship between the central and federal units is, therefore, conducted
within a formal legal framework. The autonomy of each level is usually guaranteed by the fact that
neither is able to amend the constitution unilaterally.
3. Supremacy of the central/federal Authority and constitution: in most federal systems, the
central government is superior over the regional governments in conducting key issues and activities
of the country. At the same time, the federal constitution is also supreme over constitutions of the
regional governments. This is to mean that, even both the central government and regional
governments have constitutions of their own, but the constitution of regional governments are always
accountable and within the general framework of the federal constitution.
4. Constitutional Arbiter: in all federations, the formal provisions of the federal constitution are
interpreted by a body or institution empowered by the constitution. For instance, in Ethiopia the formal
institution that has the power to interpret the constitution is the House of Federation, where as in other
countries like USA, India and Germany, the constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Hence,
30
by doing this, the body or institution arbitrate in case disputes happen between federal and state levels
of governments.
5. Linking Institutions: in order to foster cooperation and understanding between the federal and
regional governments, the regions and provinces must be given a voice in the processes of central
policymaking. This is usually achieved through a bicameral (two houses) legislature in which the
second house represents the interest of the regional states. For example, the 9 states of the federal
democratic republic of Ethiopia are represented in the House of Federation, and invariably in the
House of Peoples Representative.
 Power Distribution in Federal Systems

As one major characteristic feature of federal systems, powers and responsibilities of the state are
divided and distributed among the levels of governments. The general powers and responsibilities of
these levels of governments are known as the exclusive, concurrent and reserve powers.
1. Exclusive Powers: refers to the powers and responsibility that are exclusively vested to the
federal/central government. In other words, these are the powers and responsibilities that are not
shared powers but only exercised by the federal/central government. Powers such as to print and
circulating currency, establish and maintain the defense, conducting foreign affairs, regulate interstate
commerce, protecting and preserving the constitutional system, establish the seat of national
government, and the like are among the powers that exclusively controlled by the central government.
2. Concurrent Powers: these are powers and responsibilities that are commonly shared between
the federal government and state governments. Some powers and responsibilities that included in this
category are such as social sectors, planning, transport and communication, internal security, finance
and the like.
3. Residual Powers: Not explicitly given and mentioned. In the US constitution, it is given to
the Federal government while the FDRE constitution gives to the regional governments in Ethiopia.
 Essential Conditions for the Successful Organization of Federal Systems
In contrast to a unitary state structures, a federal state is one in which a number of co-ordinate states
unite for certain common purposes, as such federal systems contain a character of a treaty. It is an
arrangement made between certain political bodies which wish to retain certain rights. Since federal
31
state has the character of a „composite‟ state, its successful organization requires the existence of some
important conditions that may be enumerated as follows:
1. Geographical Continuity: a federal state must have a geographically continuous area. The size
of the state may be very large or very small. What is needed is that the entire area of the state must be
geographically continuous. If the parts of the state are cut off from one another by a big distance,
federal systems cannot be successfully worked out there. For instance a country like Indonesia cannot
have a successful federal system as the country is an archipelago and the country‟s worst enemy is its
geography. In contrary, federal system successfully operates in a large country like the USA, India,
and the Soviet Union for the reason that these countries have the advantage of geographical continuity.
2. Community of Interests: what provides cementing force to a federal system is the community
of interests in the spheres of language, religion, culture and the like. A federal system stands on the
principle of „unity in diversity,‟ that it aims at forging a union and creating a „united nations.‟ The
cases of Ethiopia, United States, Canada, India, etc illustrates that in each one of them there are
prevailing diversities that are sought to be preserved. Though the people have diverse religious, ethnic
or cultural patterns of life, they have also developed a sense of common identity that they do not desire
to lose.
3. Similarity of Social and Political Institutions: it is required that the pattern of governmental
systems should be the same both at the federal/national and regional levels. That is, the center and the
regional states must have the same form of government. We find in federal countries like Ethiopia,
Canada and India that the parliamentary form of government prevails at the center and also in the
provinces or states. Likewise, in the United States, presidential form of government prevails at center
and also in the regional states.
4. Absence of Marked Inequality: as far as practibility, the regional governments of a federal
state should enjoy equality of status in respect of their powers though not in respects of their territorial
and demographic compositions. It is not possible that all units of a federal state are of equal size, or
they have equal density of population. It is, however, essential that there should be no inequality in
matters relating to the distribution of powers, as far as possible. In contrast, if there are significant
inequalities, it may create dissatisfaction that has its harmful effects on the political behavior of the
regional governments.
32
5. Socio Economic Development: a federal system cannot work successfully unless there is social
and economic development of the country. It is required that the people are educated and modernized
so that they can keep themselves away from the influences of narrow-minded tendencies. In addition
to political equality, though it is much more challenging, care should also be taken to remove regional
economic imbalances. If one of the state is very rich and economically advanced, and the other very
poor and backward, it will lead to agitations. In case the people of one part of the country are well
developed, socially and economically, others will resent it and then came out with their demands for
speedy social and economic development that may culminate in their movement for seceding from the
union.
6. Political Ability: the political ability of the people had its own significant part to play. It refers
to a developed political culture. Unless the people have their own ideas, beliefs and commitments to
the values of their political system, no political system can work successfully. More so, in a federal
state, it is required so that the people understand the meaning of their allegiance towards a double set
of governments. National leadership must be in the hands of those who have national image and who
can inculcate the sentiments of national integration in the minds of their people.
7. Political and National Integration: the people of a federal country should be integrated
politically as well as nationality. The political map of the country should be drawn or redrawn in a way
that the local urges and aspirations of the people for having a separate state of their own are reconciled
with the over-all requirements of national integration. Then, people should learn that the interests of
the nation as a whole override their primordial loyalties. If so, then divisive movements would be
arrested and the people saved from the disastrous effects of those forces that balkanize and divide a
country.
8. Center-Regional State Coordination: there should be a healthy coordination between the
central and regional governments. Though the areas of their respective jurisdictions are specifically
earth-marked, it is also required that some inter-linking arrangements be devised so that the two
governments remain connected with each other. Federalism should have a cooperative and not a
competitive, a persuasive and not a coercive, a flexible and not a rigid and, above all, a positive and
not a negative character. The timely conferences of the heads of the central and regional governments
that takes place in federal states may be suggested as concrete evidence in this direction.
9. Reasonable Trend towards Centralization: in the modern exercise of political systems,
centralization of powers has become an unmistakable trend in every federal system of the world. No
33
federal state can live in its true or classical form under modern political conditions. The regional
governments must appreciate this dynamic political truth and thus, instead of resenting, they should
accept the reasonable moves of the central government, no matter they go to satisfy the scope of their
authority to some extent. At the same time it is required that the central government should not take to
the course of finishing the autonomy of the states. The move of the central government must be
„reasonable‟, that is, it should be supported by, some plausible justification.
 Models of Federal State Structures

As stated above, federal state structure is when two or more governments exercise authority over the
same people and in the same territory. While the federal government is responsible for „aggregate
interests,‟ the state governments are responsible for „local and particular‟ interest of the people. In
respect to the inter-relationship between the federal and regional states, two major models/theories
have dominated political thoughts in the field of federalism. These are dual federalism and cooperative
federalism.
1. Dual Federalism: is the idea that the federal/national and state governments are equal partners
with separate and distinct spheres of authority. That is, that the federal government and the state
governments are co-equals and each sovereign.
The concept dual federalism sums up a theory about the proper relationship between the national
government and the states. The theory has four essential parts.
 First, the national government rules by enumerated powers only.

 Second, the national government has a limited set of constitutional purposes.
 Third, each government unit, the federal and regional states, is sovereign within its spheres.
 Fourth, the relationship between national and states is best characterized by tension rather
than cooperation.
Dual federalism portrays the states as powerful components of the federal system, in some ways, the
equals of the national government. Under dual federalism, the functions and responsibilities of the
national and state governments are theoretically different and practically separate from each other. Of
primarily importance in dual federalism are states‟ rights, a concept that all rights not specifically
conferred on the national government by the constitution reserves to the states. The notion of dual
federalism can be also expressed in the metaphor called layer-cake model.
34
Layer-cake model
Political Scientists use a metaphor to describe dual federalism. They call it layer-cake federalism, that
the powers and functions of the national and state governments are as separate as the layers of a cake.
Each government is supreme in its own layer, its own sphere of action; the two layers are distinct, and
the dimensions of each layer are fixed by the constitution. Thus, layer-cake federalism is the
relationship between the central government of a nation and that of its states, where the powers and
policy assignments of the government hierarchy („layers‟ of government) are clearly spelt out and
distinct from one another. In other words, the national government deals with the issues that are
national, and the states deal with the state and local issues. Ideally, there will be no interference
between the two political units.
2. Cooperative Federalism: the concept of cooperative federalism does not accept a clear
demarcation between the functions of the national government and the state government. It is rather
a different theory of the relationship between the national and state governments, than dual
federalism. It acknowledges the increasing overlap between state and national functions and rejects
the idea of spheres, or layers for the states and the national government. Cooperative federalism can
be explained also by the metaphor marble-cake model. Cooperative federalism includes three
elements.
 First, national and state agencies typically undertake government functions jointly rather than
exclusively.
 Second, national government and states routinely share power.
 Third, power is not concentrated at any government level or in any agency; the fragmentation
of responsibilities gives people and groups access to many to many centers of influence.
Marble- cake model
In contrast to the layer-cake model of dual-federalism, the metaphor used to describe the cooperative
federalism is a marble-cake model. The national and state governments do not act in separate spheres;
rather they are combined in vertical and diagonal strands (wires or lines) and patterns. Thus, in the
marble-cake model, the national and state governments are not separate and distinct; rather their
functions and responsibilities are mixed and inter-wined in the result work cooperatively.
35
Marble Cake Federalism is based on a

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

together by ceding or pooling sovereign powers in certain domains and form a common political union
for the sake of common goods and interests that otherwise will be unattainable. Such interests may
include security or economic prosperity of the states. Coming together federations are typically
arranged to constrain the center and prevent majorities from overriding a sub-unit. Examples of
countries that evolve in this process may include the USA, Australia, Switzerland, etc. Coming
together federalism is also known as federalism by aggregation.
36
B. Holding together Federations: in contrast to coming together federations, holding together

federations develop from unitary states as governments‟ response to alleviate threats of secession by
territorially clustered minorities. In some cases, such federations grant some sub-units a particular
domain of sovereignty, example over language and cultural rights in an symmetric federation, while
maintaining broad scope of action for the central government and the sub-units. Sometimes holding
together federations are also termed as federalism by disaggregation. States such as India, Belgium,
Canada, Ethiopia, etc. are some of the countries categorized in the holding together federations.

 Ways of Federal Territorial Demarcations/Definitions/

Geographic Federations: In most federations, geography or administrative conveniences have been
used to organize the federation.
Ethnic Federations: Ethnic federalism, multi-ethnic or multi-national federalism, is a form
of federal system in which the federated regional or state units are defined by ethnicity. Ethnic
federal systems have been created in attempts to accommodate demands for ethnic autonomy and
manage inter-ethnic tensions within a state. They have not always succeeded in this: problems
inherent in the construction and maintenance of an ethnic federation have led to some states or sub-
divisions of a state into either breaking up, resorting to authoritarian repression, or resorting
to ethnocracy, ethnic segregation, population transfer, internal displacement, ethnic cleansing, and/or
even ethnicity-based attacks and pogroms. This type of federation has been implemented since the
1990s by Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia. Features of ethnic federalism have been displayed also in other
countries, including Nepal, Pakistan, South Sudan, Yugoslavia, and Apartheid-era South Africa
 Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Federations
Symmetric federalism refers to a federal system of government in which each constituent state to
the federation possesses equal powers. In a symmetric federalism no distinction is made between
constituent states. This is in contrast to asymmetric federalism, where a distinction is made between
constituent states.
Asymmetric federalism or asymmetrical federalism is found in a federation or other types of union

in which different constituent states possess different powers: one or more of the sub-states has
considerably more autonomy than the other sub-states, although they have the same constitutional
status. It is practiced in India and to lesser extent in Canada.
37
 Reasons for Federalism

Many arguments for federalism have traditionally been put in terms of promoting various forms of
liberty in the form of non-domination, immunity or enhanced opportunity sets. When considering
reasons offered in the literature of federal political orders, many appear to be in favor of
decentralization without requiring constitutional entrenchment of split authority. Two sets of
arguments can be distinguished. These are arguments favoring federal orders compared with secession
and completely independent sovereign states, and arguments supporting federal arrangements rather
than a centralized unitary state. They occur in different forms and from different starting points, in
defense of coming together federalism and in favor of holding together federalism.
I. Reasons for a Federal Order Rather than Separate States or Secession

 Federations may foster peace, in the sense of preventing wars and preventing fears of war, in
several ways. States can join a federation to become jointly powerful enough to deter external
aggressors, and/or to prevent aggressive and preemptive wars among themselves. For instance, the
confederate American states moved to a federation largely for the firstly of these reasons, since the
power of the center in confederacy were too weak for protection from external threats.
 Federations can promote economic prosperity by removing internal barriers to trade by
establishing and maintaining inter-sub-unit trade agreements, or by becoming a sufficiently large
global player to affect international trade.
 Federal arrangements may protect individuals against political authorities by constraining
state sovereignty, placing some powers with the center. By entrusting the center with authority to
intervene in sub-units, the federal arrangement can protect minorities‟ human rights against sub-unit
authorities. Such arguments assume, of course, that abuse by the center is less likely.
 Federal political orders can be preferred as the appropriate form of layered organizations.
The federation may promote cooperation, justice or other values among and within sub-units as well as
among and within their constituent units, for instance by monitoring, legislating, enforcing or funding
agreements, human rights, immunity from interference, or development.
II. Reasons for Preferring Federal than a Unitary State
 Federal arrangements may protect against central authorities by securing immunity and non-
domination. Constitutional allocation of powers to a sub-unit protects individuals from the center,
38
while interlocking arrangements provide influence on central decisions via sub-unit bodies. Sub-units
may thus check central authorities and prevent undue action contrary to the will of the minorities.
 Federal systems may increase the opportunities for citizen participation in pubic-decision
making through deliberation and offices in both sub-unit and central bodies that ensures character
formation through political participation among more citizens.
 Federal systems may promote mobility and hence territorially clustering of individuals with
similar preferences, and allow sub-units autonomy to experiment and compete for individuals who are
free to move where their preferences are best met. Such mobility towards sub-units with similar-
minded individuals adds to the benefit of local autonomy over the provision of public services.
 Moreover, one of the chief strengths of federal systems is that, unlike unitary systems, they
give regional and local interests a constitutionally guaranteed political voice. The states or provinces
exercise a range of autonomous powers and enjoy some measure of representation in central
government usually through bicameral legislatures.
 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism

Like the unitary form of state structure, a federal system has its own merits and demerit. In
comparison, in almost all cases, the advantages of unitary state structure are happened to be the
disadvantages of federal state structure, and the disadvantages of unitary systems are advantages of
federal systems. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of federal systems include:
Advantages of Federal Systems

 Under a federal system, small political units/states may unite themselves into a more
powerful state and there by obtain certain manifest advantages both internal and external, which flow
from the union without wholly surrendering their separate existence and sacrificing their right to
govern themselves in respect to matters which concern them alone. It thus combines the advantages
of national unity with those of local autonomy and the right of self-government. In return for this
advantage, the people are reconciled to the loss of power that they attain through the delegation to the
central government of the authority to regulate creating affairs of general interest to all the states
composing the union. It furnishes the means of maintaining between the centrifugal and centripetal
forces in a state of widely different tendencies.
39
 It is well suited to states of vast area and diversity of conditions and also to those small
ones whose people are separated by racial, geographical and other barriers and who can be reconciled
to live under a common regime only when they are permitted a certain degree of autonomy.
 By permitting the inhabitants of each component state a large degree of self-governance,
their interest in public affirms is stimulated. They are better qualified for determining their own
policies and regulating their own local affairs than uninformed, overburdened and distantly removed
bureaucrats in unitary systems.
 It stimulates interest in self-government by leaving the determination of local policy in the
hands of local officers and assemblies who are responsible to local electorate.
 It relieves the central legislature and authorities from the necessity of devoting time and
energy to the local solution of local problems.
Disadvantages
 It is a weak form of arrangement in the sense of the division of powers between the central
and the federal units. Thus, in times of national crisis, it faces numerous difficulties. The central
government is not powerful enough to deal with all breakage tendencies that entail from the
distribution of authority between two coordinate governments.
 A federal system creates a distinctive zone that becomes a source of unnecessary complexity
and confusion. There is duplicity of legislation, administration, taxation, adjudication and the like.
Thus, it entails heavy expenditure at the cost of taxpayers.
 The division of power between the central government and federal units may lead to
conflicts of jurisdiction between national and local officers and authorities.
 It creates liability to groups and factions by the formation of separate combinations of
component states.
 It leads to additional delay due to complexity of a double system of legislation and
administration.
3.2.3. Confederal Structures

Weak or loose organization of states agrees to follow a powerful central government. Nations can
choose to follow or not follow the lead of the weak central government. Confederations establish
only the loosest and most decentralized type of political union by vesting sovereign power in
provincial bodies. Confederation lacks executive authority (constituent member states are more
powerful than the center which is delegated with a fraction of power by those constituent members),
and therefore constitutes little more than an occasional form for debate and arbitration. Indeed, the
40
evidence is that, in the absence of an effective central body, confederation either transform
themselves into federal states, as in the USA, or succumb to centrifugal pressures and disintegrate
altogether, as has more or less occurred in the case of the CIS.
Because of this feature, in the modern world there is no such confederal form of state/states, rather it
is commonly applied in the form of intergovernmental originations as embodied in international
institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations (UN), the
Commonwealth of Nations, etc. Examples of confederations at a state level are, however, far-rare to
consider, especially in the modern practice of state structure. But remarkable states can be coined in
the past. For instance, the USA was originally a confederation, first in the form of the continental
congresses (1774 -1981). The most important modern example of a confederal state is the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which in 1991 formally replaced the USSR. The CIS
was established by 11 of the 15 former soviet republics (only Georgia and the three Baltic states
refused to join). However, it lacks executive authority, and therefore constitutes little more than an
occasional form for debate and arbitration. Indeed, the evidence is that, in the absence of an effective
central body, confederations either transforms themselves into federal states, as in the USA, or
surrenders to centrifugal pressures and disintegrates altogether, as has more or less occurred in the
case of the CIS.
Confederations establish only the loosest and most decentralized type of political union by vesting
sovereign power in provincial bodies. Because of this feature, in the modern world there is no such
confederal form of state/states, rather it commonly applied in the form of intergovernmental
originations as embodied in international institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), the United Nations (UN), the Commonwealth of Nations, etc. Examples of confederations
at a state level are, however, far-rare to consider, especially in the modern practice of state structure.
But remarkable states can be coined in the past. For instance, the USA was originally a
confederation, first in the form of the continental congresses (1774 -1981). The most important
modern example of a confederal state is the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which in
1991 formally replaced the USSR. The CIS was established by 11 of the 15 former soviet republics
(only Georgia and the three Baltic states refused to join). However, it lacks executive authority, and
therefore constitutes little more than an occasional form for debate and arbitration. Indeed, the
evidence is that, in the absence of an effective central body, confederations either transforms
41
themselves into federal states, as in the USA, or surrenders to centrifugal pressures and disintegrates
altogether, as has more or less occurred in the case of the CIS.
42

Chapter Two-Understanding The State

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter Two-Understanding The State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wollo University Society, State, and Government

UNDERSTANDING THE STATE

2.1. Conceptual Framework: Defining State and Nation

2.1.3. Principal Distinction between State and Other Associations

A. State and Government

B. State and Other Associations

2.1.4. The Origin and Development of the State

2.1.5. Contending Theories of State

II. The Genetic Theory

III. The Force Theory

IV. The Social Contract Theory

V. The Marxist Theory

VI. The Evolutionary Theory

2.1.6. State Formation in Ethiopia

I. Development in the North

II. Developments in the South and Other Parts

III. The Formation of Modern Ethiopian State

2.2. Forms of State Structure

2.2.1. Unitary form of State Structure

 Features of Unitary States

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

 Power dispersion in unitary systems

 Systems of Administrative Organizations in Unitary States

 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of unitary State Structure

Advantages of Unitary form of State Structure

Disadvantages of Unitary form of State Structure

2.2.2. Federal Form of State Structure

 Power Distribution in Federal Systems

 Models of Federal State Structures

 First, the national government rules by enumerated powers only.

Marble- cake model

Marble Cake Federalism is based on a

A. Coming Together Federations: in this process of federalism, independent states come

B. Holding together Federations: in contrast to coming together federations, holding together

 Ways of Federal Territorial Demarcations/Definitions/

Asymmetric federalism or asymmetrical federalism is found in a federation or other types of union

 Reasons for Federalism

I. Reasons for a Federal Order Rather than Separate States or Secession

 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism

Advantages of Federal Systems

3.2.3. Confederal Structures

You might also like