Politics and Gov T .Behardar University

Bahir Dar University
Faculty of Social Sciences

Department of Political Sciences and
International Studies
Introduction to Politics and Government
Reading Material for 4th Year PSIR Students who are

preparing themselves to the Upcoming National Exit Exam
Compiled By: Workineh Genet
2015 E.C
BDU’s Department of PSIR: Introduction to Politics and Government: Chapter One
CHAPTER ONE
BASICS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT
1.1. The Essence of Politics
Defining Politics
Etymologically, the term 'Politics' is closely related to the Greek word 'Polis' meaning 'city-state'
(for affairs of the cities-for affairs of the state). The study of politics dates back to the 5th century
BCE in Greece with immense contributions by political philosophers like Plato and Aristotle.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle who is the father of Political Science considered the study of
politics as a systematic inquiry into the relationship between the State and individuals. He
described and classified different political systems. In his book "Politics", Aristotle articulated
that "Man is by nature a political animal and he, who by nature and not by mere accident is
without a state is either above humanity-God or below it-Beast." Plato also in his book
―Republic‖ analyzed different forms of political systems.
Politics was a matter of discussion in the churches during the medieval period as political power
remained with the church under the Holy Roman Empire. The works of philosophers such as St.
Augustine (‗The City of God‘) amalgamated the principles of political philosophy with those of
religion. It was during the Italian Renaissance that Niccolo Machiavelli laid the foundations of
modern political science through his emphasis on empirical observation and investigation of
political structures from a secular perspective.
In the words of the American Political Scientist Harold Lasswell, Politics determines ‗Who gets
What, When and how?‘ This definition is based on the assumption that all societies exhibit sharp
diversities with people pursuing different interests and there requires a mechanism through
which the conflicting interests can be reconciled. Also, scarcity of resources is a feature of all
modern societies and so politics would mean the mechanism through which goods and resources
are distributed. Again, for Karl Marx, politics is all about class conflict and a power struggle,
and to David Easton, politics meant ‗the authoritative allocation of values.
All in all, politics may be treated as an 'essentially contested' concept in the sense that the term
has several definitions given by scholars and practitioners.
Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 2

But for the sake of having a nearly common understanding, politics is defined as an activity
through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. It is
inextricably linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation. On the one hand, the existence
of rival opinions and competing interests about the rules under which people live. On the other
hand, people recognize that they must work with others. This is why the heart of politics is often
portrayed as a process of conflict resolution, in which rival views or competing interests are
reconciled with one another. The inescapable presence of diversity (we are not all alike) and
scarcity (there is never enough to go around) ensures that politics is an inevitable feature of the
human condition.
Whether we are dealing with rival concepts or alternative conceptions, the debate about 'what is
politics?' is worth pursuing because it exposes some of the deepest intellectual and ideological
disagreements in the academic study of the subject. The different views of politics examined
here are as follows:
• Politics as the art of government
• Politics as public affairs
• Politics as compromise and consensus
• Politics as power and the distribution of resources
A. Politics as the art of government

'Politics is not a science ... but an art', Chancellor Bismarck is reputed to have told the German
Reichstag. The art Bismarck had in mind was the art of government, the exercise of control
within society through the making and enforcement of collective decisions. This is perhaps the
classical definition of politics, developed from the original meaning of the term in Ancient
Greece. The modern form of this definition is therefore 'what concerns the state'. This view of
politics is evident in the everyday use of the term: people are said to be 'in politics' when they
hold public office or to be 'entering politics' when they seek to do so.
Therefore, politics is what takes place within the government, a system of a social organization
centered upon the machinery of the state. Politics is therefore practiced in cabinet rooms,
legislative chambers, government departments, and the like, and it is engaged in by a limited and

specific group of people, notably politicians, civil servants, and lobbyists. This means that most
people, most institutions, and most social activities can be regarded as being 'outside' politics.
Businesses, schools and other educational institutions, community groups, families, and so on are
in this sense 'non-political'.
B. Politics as public affairs

A second conception of politics moves it beyond the narrow realm of government to what is
thought of as 'public life' or 'public affairs'. In other words, the distinction between 'the political'
and 'the nonpolitical' coincides with the division between an essentially public sphere of life and
what can be thought of as a private sphere. Such a view of politics is often traced back to the
work of the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle. In Politics, Aristotle declared that 'man is by
nature a political animal', by which he meant that it is only within a political community that
human beings can live 'the good life'. From this viewpoint, then, politics is an ethical activity
concerned with creating a 'just society'; it is what Aristotle called the 'Master Science'.
However, where should the line between 'public' life and 'private' life be drawn? The traditional
distinction between the public realm and the private realm conforms to the division between the
state and civil society. The institutions of the state (the apparatus of government, the courts, the
police, the army, and so forth) can be regarded as 'public' in the sense that they are responsible
for the collective organization of community life. Moreover, they are funded at the public's
expense.
In contrast, private affairs institutions such as family and kinship groups, private businesses,
trade unions, and so on are 'private' in the sense that they are set up and funded by individual
citizens to satisfy their interests. Based on this 'public/private' division, politics is restricted to the
activities of the state itself and the responsibilities that are properly exercised by public bodies.
Those areas of life that individuals can and do manage for themselves are therefore clearly
'nonpolitical'. According to this perspective, politics does not, and should not, infringe upon
'personal' affairs and institutions. However, feminist thinkers challenged this in that this implies
that politics effectively stops at the front door; it does not take place in the family, in domestic
life, or personal relationships.

This view is illustrated, for example, by the tendency of politicians to draw a clear distinction
between their professional conduct and their personal or domestic behavior. By classifying, say,
cheating on their partners or treating their children badly as 'personal' matters, they can deny the
political significance of such behavior because it does not touch on their conduct of public
affairs.
C. Politics as compromise and consensus
This third conception relates politics as a particular means of resolving conflict: that is, by
compromise, conciliation, and negotiation, rather than through force and naked power. This is
what is implied when politics is portrayed as 'the art of the possible'. For instance, the description
of a solution to a problem as a 'political' solution implies peaceful debate and arbitration, as
opposed to what is often called a 'military' solution.
In this view, the key to politics is therefore accepting that conflict is inevitable. Such a view of
politics reflects a deep commitment to a rationalist principle. It is based on resolute faith in the
efficacy of debate and discussion, as well as on the belief that society is characterized by
consensus rather than by mere irreconcilable conflict. In other words, the disagreements that
exist can be resolved without resorting to intimidation and violence.
D. Politics as power
The fourth definition of politics is both the broadest and the most radical. Rather than confining
politics to a particular sphere (the government, the state, or the 'public' realm), this view sees
politics at work in all social activities and every corner of human existence. 'Politics is at the
heart of all collective social activity, formal and informal, public and private, in all human
groups, institutions, and societies. In this sense, politics takes place at every level of social
interaction; it can be found within families and amongst small groups of friends just as much as
amongst nations and on the global stage.
What marks politics from any other form of social behavior? In its broadest sense, politics
concerns the production, distribution, and use of resources in the course of social existence.
Politics is a power struggle: the ability to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means.

This notion was neat that 'the personal is the political'. This slogan neatly encapsulates the
radical feminist belief that what goes on in the domestic, family, and personal life is intensely
political, and indeed that it is the basis of all other political struggles. A more radical notion of
politics underlies this position.
This view was summed up by Kate Millett in Sexual Politics (1969:23), in which she defined
politics as 'power structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is
controlled by another'. Feminists can therefore be said to be concerned with 'the politics of
everyday life'. In their view, relationships within the family, between husbands and wives, and
between parents and children, are every bit as political as relationships between employers and
workers, or between governments and citizens.
1.2. Is Politics a Science or an Art?

There is a great debate on the scientific nature of Political Science. Some scholars consider it a
science of the State and the Government. While others consider the opinion that people use it as
an art of living. Writers like Auguste Comte and Maitland think that social sciences lack
scientific character as there is no consensus among experts on their nature, methods, and
approaches. It lacks continuity and development and the elements that constitute a basis of
precision.
There are no universal principles and the scientific methods of observation and experimentation
may not apply to Political Science. The elements of reliability, verifiability, precision, and
accuracy found in natural sciences are absent in Political Science. There is no uniformity in the
principles of Political Science and it does not strictly observe the relation of cause and effect as
the other sciences do. Similarly, we do not find that exactness and absoluteness in Political
Science as it is found in Physics and Chemistry. Hence several scholars identify it as an Art.
On the other hand, some writers argue that Political Science is the science of state and
government. Aristotle was the first one to call it a Master Science. Writers such
as Bodin, Hobbes, Montesquieu, and Bluntschli subscribe to this view. Dr. Garner defines
science as knowledge relating to a particular subject acquired by a systematic study, observation,
or experience.

If science is thus defined, conclusions in Political Science are also drawn after systematic study,
observation, or experience. Though Political Science cannot claim universal laws as in the case
of natural sciences, some conclusions can be proven.
For instance, it cannot be denied that democracy is the most suited form of government in
pluralistic societies and that it is the best possible one to promote social welfare. This conclusion
was derived after a systematic study of the other forms of government in different parts of the
world during the ancient, medieval, and modern periods. Though Political Science does not
strictly adhere to the theory of cause and effect, certain political phenomena have their cause and
effect. For instance, poverty and unemployment are causes that can result in the consequence of
the revolution. Hence, scholars conclude that Political Science is undoubtedly a ‗Science‘.
1.3. The Nature, and Scope of Political Science

1.3.1. The Nature of Political Science
The switch from ‗Politics‘ to ‗Political Science‘ occurred when the discipline began to emerge as
an autonomous discipline in the modern period. The important developments in Political Science
since the time it became a distinct academic discipline occurred in the United States. Until then,
Politics was a part of other disciplines such as philosophy, law, and economics. Political Science
as an autonomous discipline dates back to 1880 when John Burgess established a School of
Political Science at Columbia University. By the 1920's most of the leading Universities
established an exclusive department for the study of Political Science.
A human being is a social animal who prefers company to solitude. Humans are never self-
sufficient rather they depend on fellow beings for the satisfaction of their diverse needs. So, they
have always lived in social groups. They have been a part of society with set rules of common
behavior. Such a society had to be properly organized with individuals to enforce rules and
regulations and also their observance had to be ensured. The organized society is the state, and
the agent who administers it is the government. Thus, the nature of Political Science is dealing
with a human being concerning the State and government. It is the study of humans in the
process of governing themselves.

Political Science is concerned with the theory and practice of politics. It analyses political
systems and political behavior. It traces the origin and development of the State. It studies the
associations and institutions related to the State. Political Science attempts to explain what
humans do in political situations.
1.3.2. The Scope of Political Science

The scope of Political Science implies its subject matter. Political Science covers a vast field. It
is seen as a study of the State. The state is located on a territory with its people and a government
to promote an orderly and happier life. Hence, as the subject matter of political science includes
enacting legislation that binds everyone and every other activity its areas of inquiry also includes
fields like economics, commerce, sociology, law, etc. Among many, the following are the
Scopes covered by Political Science;
 Politics and Government
 Political Theory
 Comparative Politics
 International Relations
However, the scope of Political Science cannot be limited to the above-mentioned sub-
disciplines it goes even beyond the above components.
1.4. Differences between Politics and Political Science

Even though the two terms have different meanings, politics and political science have some
aspects in common. Both of them focus on governance and refer to the state of affairs of a given
country – even though political science provides a more comprehensive and theoretical approach
to the matter. The concepts of politics and political science are often confused and interchanged.
Indeed, they deal with very similar topics, but they are deeply different in meaning. The term
―politics‖ refers to the state of affairs of a country, including the structure of its government and
the decisions taken by the ruling party. Conversely, the term ―political science” refers to the
theoretical analysis of all political systems, including their origins, their underlying values, and
their goals.
Therefore, the main difference between politics and political science is their area of concern.
Politics focuses on the affairs of the state and includes the act of governing a country and the
decision-making process.

Conversely, political science is the ―science of politics‖ and uses comparative, qualitative, and
quantitative methods to achieve a comprehensive understanding of politics and governance.
Some of the main differences between the two concepts are listed below:
Relationship:
The two concepts are strictly linked. Politics is the subject matter of political science while
Political Science is a science that studies politics.
Actors: Actors of politics are politicians and administrators; conversely, actors in the world of
political science are political scientists, scholars, and academicians;
Aim: Politics aims at improving the welfare and conditions of all citizens and at promoting and
implementing constructive policies. Conversely, political science aims at understanding different
political paradigms and at providing a comprehensive theoretical framework that can explain
how states should govern.
Politics Politics affects all aspects of the citizens‘ lives. It influences the country‘s
economic and social strategies as well as the government‘s attitude towards
Scope core matters.
Political The scope of political science covers disciplines such as politics and
Science government, international relations, comparative politics, national and
international politics, and political theory.
Practitioners Politicians and administrators are practitioners that need to make concrete
Vs. decisions and implement laws to maintain order within the country.
Scientists Political scientists are scholars, academicians, and theorists who play an
active role in a country's political scenario. Indeed, political scientists have a
comprehensive understanding of politics.
1.5. Approaches to the Study of Political Science

Disagreement about the nature of the political activity is matched by controversy about the
nature of politics as an academic discipline. One of the most ancient spheres of intellectual
inquiry, politics was originally seen as an arm of philosophy, history, or the law.

From the late nineteenth century onwards, however, this philosophical emphasis was gradually
displaced by an attempt to turn politics into a scientific discipline. The high point of this
development was reached in the 1950s and 1960s with an open rejection of the earlier tradition.
The discipline is today more exciting, precisely because it embraces a range of theoretical
approaches and a variety of schools of analysis.
A. The Philosophical Approach

This political analysis dates back to Ancient Greece and is a tradition usually referred to as
'political philosophy'. This approach involves prescriptive or normative questions, reflecting a
concern with what 'ought‘, or 'must' be done rather than with what 'is'. Plato and Aristotle are the
founding fathers of this approach. The central theme of Plato's work, for instance, was an attempt
to describe the nature of the ideal state, which in his view took the form of a government
dominated by a class of philosopher kings.
This approach has the character of literary analysis: it is interested primarily in examining what
major thinkers said, how they developed or justified their views and the intellectual context
within which they worked. Although such analysis may be carried out critically and
scrupulously, it cannot be objective in any scientific sense, as it deals with normative questions
such as 'why should I obey the state?', 'how should rewards be distributed?' and 'what should the
limits of individual freedom be?'
B. The Empirical Approach
Empirical means based on observation and experiment which is known by sense data and
experience. Although it was less prominent than normative theorizing, a descriptive or empirical
tradition can be traced back to the earliest days of political thought. It can be seen in Aristotle's
attempt to classify governments, and in Machiavelli's realistic account of statecraft. In many
ways, such writings constitute the basis of what is now called comparative government, and they
gave rise to an essentially institutional approach to the discipline.
The empirical approach to political analysis is characterized by the attempt to offer a
dispassionate and impartial account of political reality. The approach is 'descriptive' in that it
seeks to analyze and explain, whereas the normative approach is 'prescriptive' in the sense that it
makes judgments and offers recommendations.

Descriptive political analysis acquired its philosophical underpinning from the doctrine of
empiricism, which spread from the seventeenth century onwards through the work of theorists
such as John Locke and David Hume. The doctrine of empiricism advanced the belief that
experience is the only basis of knowledge, and that therefore all hypotheses and theories should
be tested by a process of observation. By the nineteenth century, such ideas had developed into
what became known as positivism, an intellectual movement particularly associated with the
writings of Auguste Comte (1798-1857).
C. The Scientific Approach

The first theorist to attempt to describe politics in scientific terms was Karl Marx by using a
materialist conception of history. Marx strove to uncover the driving force of historical
development. This enabled him to make predictions based upon 'laws' that had the same status in
terms of proof as laws in the natural sciences.
The vogue for scientific analysis was also taken up in the nineteenth century by mainstream
analysis. In the 1870s, 'political science' courses were introduced in the universities of Oxford,
Paris, and Columbia, and by 1906 the American Political Science Review was being published.
However, enthusiasm for the science of politics peaked in the 1950s and 1960s with the
emergence, most strongly in the USA, of a form of political analysis that drew heavily upon
behaviouralism. Behaviouralism is a belief that social theories should be constructed only based
on observable behavior, providing quantifiable data for scientific analysis.
For the first time, this gave politics reliable scientific credentials, because it provided what had
previously been lacking: objective and quantifiable data against which hypotheses could be
tested. Political analysts such as David Easton proclaimed that politics could adopt the
methodology of the natural sciences, and this gave rise to a proliferation of studies in areas best
suited to the use of quantitative research methods, such as voting behavior, the behaviour of
legislators, and the behavior of municipal politicians and lobbyists.
Behaviouralism, however, came under growing pressure from the 1960s onwards. In the first
place, it was claimed that behaviouralism had significantly constrained the scope of political
analysis, preventing it from going beyond what was directly observable.

Although behavioral analysis undoubtedly produced and continues to produce, invaluable

insights in fields such as voting studies, a narrow obsession with quantifiable data threaten to
reduce the discipline of politics to little else. More worryingly, it inclined a generation of
political scientists to turn their backs upon the entire tradition of normative political thought.
Concepts such as 'liberty', 'equality', 'justice', and 'rights' were sometimes discarded as being
meaningless because they were not empirically verifiable entities. Dissatisfaction with
behaviouralism grew as interest in normative questions revived in the 1970s, as reflected in the
writings of theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Moreover, the scientific credentials
of behaviouralism started to be called into question. The basis of the assertion that
behaviouralism is objective and reliable is the claim that it is 'value-free': that is, that it is not
contaminated by ethical or normative beliefs.
However, if the focus of analysis is observable behavior, it is difficult to do much more than
describe the existing political arrangements, which implicitly means that the status quo is
legitimized. This conservative value bias was demonstrated by the fact that 'democracy' was, in
effect, redefined in terms of observable behavior. Thus, instead of meaning 'popular self-
government' (literally, government by the people), democracy came to stand for a struggle
between competing elites to win power through the mechanism of popular election. In other
words, democracy came to mean what goes on in the so-called democratic political systems of
the developed West.
2. Basic Concepts in Political Science

2.1. Power, Authority and Legitimacy
In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a governing body, law or regime
whereas ―authority‖ denotes a specific position in an established government. Authority is an
assigned jurisdiction offered by institutions. So it denotes a specific position in an established
government. It can be traditional, legal, Charismatic, and religious. Political legitimacy is
considered a basic condition for governing, without which, a government will suffer deadlock
and collapse. Power, in political contexts, is the ability to persuade others to do something, even
if they don‘t want to do it. This could take two forms, either through discussion, so that the
people cooperate for reasons which are given to them, or through a form of coercion; they are

forced into doing what somebody wants. In politics, Power is used to implement a decision.
Therefore, Power and legitimacy are the main components of authority.
In a democracy as well as in a dictatorship, both forms power are used by political parties to get
what they want. They use persuasion in order to get themselves into power, using the campaigns
and speeches to convince the public to agree with them how to run the country, but also use
coercion when people step out of line, with the use of threats, sanctions, and, if necessary, force.
Power is the capacity to influence others. Personality and self-knowledge are among the sources
of power. Methods of exercising power are dominance, manipulation, persuasion, reward and
punishments. Power can be economical, political, ideological or national.
2.2. Society, State, and Government Relationship

State is a politically organized society which has elements of population, fixed (definite)
territory, government, sovereignty and recognition. Society is an organization which
encompasses a web of social relationships. In terms of origin, society is prior to the state. Society
may be said to have been born the day the human life must have begun. But the state did not
begin with the society; it must have started at a later stage of social development. Human beings
are social being first and then political beings.
Being prior to the state, society is clearly a natural and therefore, an instinctive institution. The
state, on the other hand, is artificial, a created institution; it was made when it was needed. The
state is sovereign; the society is not sovereign; it exists without being sovereign. As sovereign,
the state is supreme over all other organizations, institutions and individuals within its
boundaries; as sovereign, the state is independent of all other like states; sovereignty gives the
state a separate and independent existence.
The Difference between State and Society are as follows:
(1) Society is wider in scope than State:
Society is a very broad and comprehensive organization of human beings. It is formed by all
types of relations. As against this, State is only a political organization. It is concerned primarily
with the exercise of power in society.
(2) Society is prior to State:
Society is rooted in human nature. As social animals people naturally enter into social
relationships and form society. The birth of society took place in the earliest period of history.

State also has a very long history behind it and yet, everyone agrees, it came after the birth of
society.
(3) Government is the agency of the State; Society has no formal organized agent:
State acts through its government. Government is the agent of the State. It exercises the
sovereignty of the State. Society has no agent or agency. It is a self-regulating system of
relationships. It functions naturally on the basis of its customs, traditions, usages and naturally
evolved moral codes of
(4) Sovereignty belongs to State and not to Society:
Sovereignty is the most essential property and the hallmark of the State. State alone exercises
supreme power over all its citizens and their institutions. It is the law and order bind all the
members of the Society.
(5) Territory belongs to State and not to the Society:
State is a territorial entity. Definite territory is an essential element of the State. Society has no
territory.
2.3. State and Government
The government is one element of the state. It is the agency through which laws are made,
enforced and those who violate laws will be punished. Though the state speaks through the
government, it is proper to differentiate between the two.
 The state has authority inherent in itself whereas the government has no inherent powers.
The government gets its structure, authority and power from the Constitution of the State.
 The state is a larger entity that includes all the citizens; the government is, relatively a
smaller unit. We are all citizens of the state, but we are all not functionaries of the
government.
 The idea of state is quite abstract. The government is the concretization of the idea of the
state. We see the government, not the state.
 The state is a near permanent institution; it is so because it does not die unless it is
attacked and made a part of the other state. The government is temporary; it is so because
it may change: today‘s rulers may not be tomorrow‘s rulers.
 The government is merely an element of the state. Accordingly, it is one part of the state.
It is a part of the whole. As a part, the government is not greater than the whole. When
we talk of the state, we talk of the population, the definite territory, the government and

sovereignty. But when we talk of the government, we talk of one part, one element of the
state.
2.4. Social Movement
In the society a large number of changes have been brought about by efforts exerted by people
individually and collectively. Such efforts have been called social movements. A social
movement may, therefore, be defined as a collectively acting to promote or resist a change in the
society. According to Anderson and Parker, social movement is ―a form of dynamic pluralistic
behavior which progressively develops structure through time and aims at partial or complete
modification of the social order.‖ Social movement an association of people engaged in
concerted efforts to change attitudes, and social relationships in a society. Thus, social movement
is the effort by an association to bring about a change in the society. A social movement may
also be directed to resist a change.
Some movements are directed to modify certain aspects of the existing social order whereas
others may aim to change it completely. The former are called reform movements and the latter
are known as revolutionary movements. Therefore, social movements may be of numerous
kinds, such as religious movements, reform movements, or revolutionary movements.
Causes of Social Movements:
Social movements do not just happen. It is social unrest which gives rise to a social movement.
The social unrest may be caused by the following factors:
(i) Cultural Drifts:
The society is undergoing constant changes. The values and behavior are changing in all
societies. In the course of cultural drift most of the people develop new ideas. To get these ideas
operative in society they organize a movement. The development of a democratic society, the
emancipation of women, the spread of mass education, equality of opportunity for both the
sexes, growth of secularism are the examples of cultural drift.
(ii) Social Disorganization:
A changing society is to some extent disorganized because changes in different parts of society
do not take place simultaneously. One part changes more rapidly than the other producing
thereby numerous lags. Industrialization has brought urbanization which has in its turn caused
numerous social problems. Social disorganization brings confusion and uncertainty because the

old traditions no longer form a dependable guide to behavior. The individuals become rootless.
They feel isolated from the society. A feeling develops that the community leaders are
indifferent to their needs. The individuals feel insecure, confused and frustrated. Confusion and
frustration produce social movements.
(iii) Social Injustice:
When a group of people feel that injustice has been done to it they become frustrated and
alienated. Such feeling of injustice provides fertile soil for social movements. The feeling of
social injustice is not limited to the miserable poor. Any group, at any status level may come to
feel itself the victim of social injustice.
2.5. Political Change

Political change, despite its broad reach, is usually defined as a significant change in government
leadership and policies. Change is common in our everyday lives. We change the channel on our
TVs to find our favorite shows; we change our clothes to suit the weather. These types of
changes are small and somewhat common; however, there are other types of changes that are
much bigger and do not happen frequently. These kinds of changes are visible when there is a
significant disruption in a government that leads to new or modified leadership; we call this type
of change political change.
2.4.1. Causes for Political Change
If there is a group of people who feel that the government treats them unfairly and doesn't
support them, while the government thinks that what they are doing is fine, then there is a
friction that arises between the citizens and the government. In order to get things back into
balance, either the citizens have to accept their way of life or the government has to be persuaded
to do things differently. This is the purpose of political change. Political change is meant to
restore balance from mismatched ideas and values between a government and the people that it
leads.
Political changes most often stem from social or economic issues that a country may be facing.
For instance, political change may be caused by social issues, such as the tensions between
differing racial and ethnic groups or policies that deny specific groups of people civil rights.
Political change may also occur if a country is suffering from economic turmoil and its citizens

feel the pressure of not having enough money and feel that the government is not helping them
out. This frustration then comes to a head and sparks political change.
Political change can happen in different ways. Among them reform and revolution are the
dominant ones.
2.4.2. Reform
The reform movement is an attempt to modify some parts of the society without completely
transforming it. Reform movements can operate only in a democratic society where people have
freedom to criticize the existing institutions and may secure changes.
2.4.3. Revolution
The revolutionary movement seeks to overthrow the existing social system and replace it with a
greatly different one. The reform movement wants to correct some imperfections in the existing
social system but a revolutionary movement wants to root out the system itself. Revolutionary
movement‘s flourish where reform is blocked so that revolution remains the people‘s only
alternative to their present misery. Therefore, revolution results in the overthrow of the status
quo, and especially of the government, by force.
Delays in necessary reforms can lead to revolutions, meaning that if governments do not make
necessary changes in a timely manner, tensions might escalate into violent revolutions.
Revolutionary change tends to be illegal transfer of power and dominance of violent behavior in
the events leading to the regime's collapse
2.6. Regime and Regime change

Uses of the regime concept often involve an association with a specific individual and
ideology (e.g. Fascist regime, military regime). In a political context regime is used to refer
governing bodies that are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate. The word regime carries a
negative connotation, often in the sense of a totalitarian and corrupt political
system. Government is used to refer a governing body that controls the state by the consent of to
the people. Regime change thus refers to the overthrow of a government which considered
illegitimate by force and its replacement with a new government according to the ideas or
interests promoted by that force. Regime change can be precipitated by revolution or a coup
d'état. For example, the 1917 Russian Revolution, and the 1979 Iranian Revolution are notable.

2.7. Political Ideologies

Ideology means the science of ideas. Aside from being the political science of ideas, political
ideologies are defined as:
 A system of beliefs about politics.
 A view of the world held by a social class or group of people.
 Political ideas that embody or articulate class or social interests.
 A political doctrine that asserts a monopoly of truth.
The role of political ideologies is to establish a set of ideas that can be used to provide the
foundation of political organization. As a result, all political ideologies have three specific
features:
The main political ideologies
In political science, it is widely accepted that the three main political ideologies are
conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. We also refer to these ideologies as classical ideologies.
Classical ideologies are the ideologies developed prior to or in the midst of the industrial
revolution. These are some of the earliest political ideologies.
2.7.1. Conservatism
Conservatism is characterized by its reluctance or suspicion to change. Conservatives call to
maintain tradition, underpinned by a belief in human imperfection and attempts to uphold what
they view as the organic structure of society. The origins of conservatism can be traced back to
the French Revolution. Conservatism rejected the rapidly increasing changes that were occurring
in the French society, for example, the rejection of hereditary monarchies. Therefore,
conservatism emerged in a bid to uphold the social order. Whilst many ideologies seek reform,
conservatism is strong in its belief that change is not necessary.
2.7.2. Liberalism
The term ―Liberalism‖ is derived from the Latin word, ―liber‖ meaning
―free.‖ Liberalism is an ideology which stands for individual freedom, political equality and
liberty. Politically speaking it stands for an individual-centric polity wherein the individuals had
a say in choosing their own government. So, Political Liberalism refers to individual freedom
and choice to make their own laws and choose their own government whereas Economic

Liberalism refers to free markets and abolition of barriers on movement of goods from one
territory to another. As a political ideology, liberalism rejects what is viewed as traditional social
ideas and emphasizes the importance of personal freedom, and the power of individual
rationality. This emphasis on individual freedom and rationality has contributed to its sustained
embrace as an ideology. The core ideas of liberalism are liberty, individualism, rationalism, the
liberal state.
2.7.3. Socialism
The word ―Socialism‖ finds its roots in the Latin word ―sociare‖ that means to combine or share.
If we characterize Socialism, we may call it as a supporter of public ownership of property,
support to equality and provision of basic needs and social welfare. Social class based
on Egalitarian society and a centralized planning. It is needed to bring equality in socio-
economic strata of the society by removing any sort of economic exploitation that would create a
rift between a rich and a poor.
And who would be the regulatory body? Of course it‘s the State that has to take upon it that
responsibility to bring in equality and justice in the society by curbing any economic oppression
existing in the society. Socialism has also been demonstrated through a cooperative system in
which each member of the society owns a share of communal resources. The rule of engagement
in a socialistic system is that each person receives and contributes according to his ability.
Socialism is a political ideology that has historically opposed capitalism. The roots of socialism
are in the Industrial Revolution and it is heavily influenced by the theories and writings of Karl
Marx. Karl Marx in his ―Communist Manifesto‖ (1848) stated that the aim of all workers over
the world was to overthrow the capitalistic order with an aim to establish a socialistic pattern.
The book also included the contributions of Frederick Engels who was Marx lifelong associate.
He quoted ―In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class differences, it appears
an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of
all‖. It realized that socialism was not merely desirable, but also a compulsion.
Capitalism does not serve to the needs of the people. It is perhaps working for the interests of a
particular elite economic class only. So it is needed to replace it with a social and political order

that will work for the society at large. He analyzed the working of capitalism is only paving
paths for economic destruction. In his book ―Das Kapital‖, he said that the workers produce
more ―value‖ than they get in the form of wages. The differences are being appropriated by the
capitalists in the form of profits. It led to economic crisis because there was the discrepancy
between the purchasing power of workers and total production. Marx examined that such
economic crisis would be resolved only by the abolition of the private ownership of the means of
production and the profit motive. It will pave way for social profit instead of private profit. The
exploiting class will vanish and a classless society would emerge in which there would be no
difference between what was good for the individual and for the society as a whole.
2.7.3.1. Marxism and Communism

Marxism is a theory and Communism is the practical implementation of Marxism. Marxism
which is also known as ―Scientific Socialism‘, uncovered the fundamental laws of social
development in general and the modern capitalist system in particular. He scientifically analyzed
that the whole course of human development along with its infinite variety and contradictions is
governed by definite laws. He said science itself moves in a dialectic way from induction to
deduction, from analysis to synthesis and from the concrete to the abstract and back again.
The same methodology Karl Marx used in its Scientific Socialism. Communism is the realization
of Stateless society where all are equal. Marxism is a framework by which
such a state shall develop. It is a social, political and economic theory originated from Karl Marx
that focuses on the struggle between capitalists and the working class. It is basically a system of
analysis in a way to see the world in order without any exploitation. Communism is based on
the ideas of common ownership and the absence of social classes and the state. Hence, Marxism
is referred to Socialism.
Different Political ideologies

After exploring what is considered the ‗main political ideologies‘, let‘s explore some of the less
common political ideologies that you may encounter in your political studies.
2.7.4. Anarchism
Anarchism is a political ideology that places the rejection of the state at its epicenter. Anarchism
rejects all forms of coercive authority and hierarchy in favor of the organization of society based

on cooperation and voluntary participation. While most ideologies are concerned with how to
manage authority and rule in society, anarchism is unique in that it rejects the presence of both
authority and rule. The core idea of anarchism is its anti-state view.
2.7.5. Nationalism
Nationalism is having of strong feeling towards one‘s own nation. It is the most influential force
in international affairs that caused the outbreak of revolutions and wars across the globe.
Nationalism is a feeling of the people to determine their own fate- self-determination. The
prevailing of nationalism in the world politics brought the coming of the nation-states.
Nationalism is an ideology based on the concept that a person‘s feeling and commitment to the
nation-state are more important than any interest. It was originated in the late eighteenth century
during the French Revolution. Hereditary monarchy and loyalty to a ruler were rejected, and
people went from being subjects of the crown to citizens of a nation. The core ideas of
nationalism are nations, self-determination, nation-states. Nationalism can be liberal, ethnic,
conservative or expansionist.
2.7.6. Feminism
Feminism is an ideology that fundamentally seeks to establish the social, economic, and political
equality of the sexes. This drive to seek equality is not limited to those spheres, as feminism
observes that women are disadvantaged by their sex in all spheres of life. Feminism seeks to
combat all forms of sex-based inequality. The core ideas of feminism are sex and gender, and
patriarchy. Types of feminism can be seen as liberal, socialist, and radical.
2.8. Political Culture

Political culture, in Political Science, is a set of shared views and normative judgments held by a
population regarding its political system. The notion of political culture denotes how people
view the political system as a whole and their belief in its legitimacy. The building blocks of
political culture are the beliefs, and emotions of the citizens towards government.
Political culture has been studied most intensively in the context of established
Western democracies. The classic study of political culture is The Civic Culture (1963) by
American political scientists Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba. Based on surveys conducted in

the United States, Britain, West Germany, Italy, and Mexico, this landmark investigation sought
to identify the political culture within which a liberal democracy is most likely to develop and
consolidate.
Almond and Verba‘s argument is based on a distinction between three pure types of political
culture: parochial, subject, and participant. In a parochial political culture, citizens are only
indistinctly aware of the existence of central government. In a subject political culture, citizens
see themselves not as participants in the political process but as subjects of the government. In
a participant political culture, citizens believe both that they can contribute to the system and that
they are affected by it. Almond and Verba‘s work attracted the attention of generations of
scholars who replicated the findings, criticized the conceptualizations, and refined the theory.
2.9. Political Socialization

Political socialization is the process whereby individuals are initiated into the dominant values
and traditions of a society, including those values which define the legitimate processes of
politics and the way that power is exercised. Political socialization occurs throughout an
individual's life, but is most pronounced during childhood and adolescence. The family is
generally considered to be the primary agent of political socialization, followed by educational
institutions, the media, and peer groups.
As a phenomenon, political socialization has been around for centuries, but it has been studied
extensively and systematically since the early 20th century. Around the turn of the twentieth
century educators in the United States conducted studies of school children that included choices
of national figures most admired by the children. Early research also focused on understanding
how World War II and the Cold War influenced children's attitudes towards politics and
government. In more recent years, scholars have taken a broader approach to political
socialization, studying factors such as race, gender, and social class in addition to age, education,
and family background.
2.9.1. Agents of political Socialization

A. Family
It is considered to be the primary agent of political socialization. From an early age, children
learn about politics and government from their parents or guardians. Parents often share their

own political views with their children, which can have a significant impact on the development
of those views. In addition, parents provide information about how to participate in the political
process, such as voting or running for office. For example, a parent who is active in their local
community may take their child to city council meetings, help them register to vote when they
turn 18, or take them to political protests and rallies aligned with their own political views.
B. Friends
Friends can play an important role in our political socialization. One's friends can help shape
one's political views by providing them with new perspectives and ideas, and by serving as a
sounding board for their own beliefs. In addition to shaping views on politics, friends can also
influence participation in the political process. If someone's friends are politically active, people
are more likely to be engaged in politics themselves. Friends can also provide people with
motivation and support when it comes to taking action on issues they care about.
C. Education
Another important agent of political socialization is schools. From a young age, children learn
about government and politics in their social studies classes. They also engage in classroom
discussions and debates about current events and controversial issues. As children get older, they
may participate in student government or extracurricular activities that involve politics. Schools
play a significant role in shaping students' political views and preparing them to be active
citizens. In general, effective civic education programs engage students in activities that prepare
them for the real world of politics, such as mock elections and legislative hearings.
D. Mass Media
People also learn about politics from the media. Television, movies, and music often contain
messages about political issues and events. For example, a child might see a news story about a
hurricane and learn about the government's role in providing emergency assistance. Or a child
might watch a movie that depicts a corrupt politician and learn about the importance of honesty
in government. In general, as the number of media outlets has increased and new technologies
enable for more engaging media experiences, mass media's ability to socialize people to politics
has grown. This high level of media consumption means that people are likely to encounter
political messages on a regular basis.
E. Political parties

Political parties provide alternative policies and strategies to govern the state. The aim of their
establishment is to take power for governing the state. They advocate their utopian ideologies
and policies. In doing so, they are educating the society which can be called political
socialization. Political parties are designed explicitly to spread political ideas, mobilize political
engagement, and develop political leaders.
3. The Notion of Justice
Justice is one of the most important moral and political concepts. The word comes from the
Latin jus, meaning right or law. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the ―just‖ person as one
who typically ―does what is morally right‖. It is the idea of getting what one deserves. But
philosophers want to get beyond etymology and dictionary definitions to consider, for example,
the nature of justice as both a moral virtue of character and a desirable quality of political
society, as well as how it applies to ethical and social decision-making.
Let us focus on philosophical conceptions of justice. For Plato, justice is a virtue establishing
rational order among three parts of human soul and three parts of the ideal state, with each part
performing its appropriate role and not interfering with the proper functioning of other parts.
Aristotle says justice consists in what is lawful and fair, with fairness involving equitable
distributions and the correction of what is inequitable. Hobbes believed justice is an artificial
virtue, necessary for civil society, a function of the voluntary agreements of the social contract.
For Kant, it is a virtue whereby we respect others‘ freedom, autonomy, and dignity by not
interfering with their voluntary actions, so long as those do not violate others‘ rights.
Rawls in his game-changing paper, ―Justice as Fairness‖ assumes a Kantian view of persons as
―free and equal,‖ morally autonomous, rational agents, who are not necessarily egoists. He asks
us to imagine persons in a hypothetical ―initial situation‖ which he calls ―the original position‖
(corresponding to the ―state of nature‖ or ―natural condition‖. This is strikingly characterized by
what Rawls calls ―the veil of ignorance,‖ a device designed to minimize the influence of selfish
bias in attempting to determine what would be just.

If you must decide on what sort of society you could commit yourself to accepting as a
permanent member and were not allowed to factor in specific knowledge about yourself—such
as your gender, race, ethnic identity, level of intelligence, physical strength, quickness and
stamina, and so forth—then you would presumably exercise the rational choice to make the
society as fair for everyone as possible
In such a ―purely hypothetical‖ situation, Rawls believes that we would rationally adopt two
basic principles of justice for our society: ―the first requires equality in the assignment of basic
rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities, for example
inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating benefits for
everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society.‖ Here we see Rawls
conceiving of justice, the primary social virtue, as requiring equal basic liberties for all citizens
and a presumption of equality even regarding socio-economic goods. Like Kant, Rawls opposed
the teleological or consequentialist gambit of defining the right (including the just) in terms of
―maximizing the good‖; he rather, like Kant, the deontologist, is committed to a ―priority of the
right over the good.‖
We should notice that the first principle of justice, which requires maximum equality of rights
and duties for all members of society, is prior to the second, which specifies how socio-economic
inequalities can be justified. Rawls proceeds to develop his articulation of these two principles
of justice more carefully. He reformulates the first one in terms of maximum equal liberty,
writing that ―each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible
with a similar liberty for others.‖ The basic liberties intended concern such civil rights—free
speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, the right to private property, the rights to
vote and hold public office, freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure, etc.
The second condition is one of ―fair equality of opportunity,‖ in that socio-economic advantages
must be connected to positions to which all members of society could have access. For example,
the office of the presidency has attached to it greater social prestige and income than is available
to most of us. Is that just? It can be, assuming that all of us, as citizens, could achieve that office
with its compensations and that even those of us at or near the bottom of the socio-economic
scale benefit from intelligent, talented people accepting the awesome responsibilities of that

office. Just as the first principle must be lexically prior to the second, Rawls also maintains that
―fair opportunity is prior to the difference principle.‖ His principle goes from creating equal
opportunity to treating differences differently.
Robert Nozick’s View of Justice
The libertarian approach Proponent Nozick (a departmental colleague of Rawls at Harvard) was
one of the first and remains one of the most famous critics of Rawls‘s liberal theory of
justice. Both are fundamentally committed to individual liberty. But as a libertarian, Nozick is
opposed to compromising individual liberty in order to promote socio-economic equality and
advocates a ―minimal state‖ as the only sort that can be socially just.
In Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), especially in its famous chapter on ―Distributive Justice,‖
while praising Rawls‘s first book as the most important ―work in political and moral philosophy‖
since that of Mill, Nozick argues for what he calls an ―entitlement conception of justice‖ in
terms of three principles of just holdings. First, anyone who justly acquires any holding is
rightly entitled to keep and use it.
Second, anyone who acquires any holding by means of a just transfer of property is rightly
entitled to keep and use it. It is only through some combination of these two approaches that
anyone is rightly entitled to any holding. But some people acquire holdings unjustly—e.g., by
theft or fraud or force—so that there are illegitimate holdings. So, third, justice can require the
rectification of unjust past acquisitions. These three principles of just holdings—―the principle
of acquisition of holdings, the principle of transfer of holdings, and the principle of rectification
of the violations of the first two principles‖—constitute the core of Nozick‘s libertarian
entitlement theory of justice.
What is War?
War is a state of organized, armed, and often prolonged conflict carried on between
states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually
high mortality. The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An
absence of war is usually called peace.
Types of Warfare

War involves of confrontation using weapons and other military technology by armed forces
employing tactics and operational part within the broad military strategy. Modern military
science considers several factors before a National defense policy is created to allow a war to
commence the environment in the areas of combat operations. Among different types of war,
some of them are discussed below.
A. Conventional war: It is an attempt to reduce an opponent‘s military capability through open

battle. It is a declared war between existing states.
B. Guerrilla war: It is a form of irregular warfare in which small groups of combatants, such as
armed groups use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, and hit-and-run tactics
and vandalizing.
C. Proxy war: fight between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of
other larger powers, and may have help and support from these: It is a war instigated by a
major power that does not itself participate.
D. Civil War is a war where the forces in conflict belong to the same nation or political entity
and are vying for control of or independence from that nation or political entity.
E. Asymmetric war is a conflict between two populations of drastically different levels of
military capability or size. Asymmetric conflicts often result in guerrilla tactics being used to
overcome vast gaps in technology and force size.

CHAPTER TWO
UNDERSTANDING THE STATE
2.1. Meaning of State
The concept of ‗the state‘ occupies a central place in political science. No discussion in political
science is complete without reference to the word ‗the state‘. The state, indeed, touches every
aspect of human life and that is why it has captured the attention of all political philosophers
since the days of Plato. However, there is no commonly agreed definition regarding the concept
of the state. This unit aimed at exploring different thought on the concept of the state and its
formation and attributes. The concept of the state is an abstract idea its existence manifested
through its agents, government. Hence, various scholars tend to use the term state
interchangeably with other terms like ‗government, society, and country,‘ though, as we shall
see, it is distinct from all these concepts. The following are some of the conceptions about what
the state is.
 The state is the highest and most power full organization of the society and its
sovereignty extends to all individuals within a given territory, and applies equally, even
to those in formal positions of government.
 The state is organized machinery of the making and carrying out of political decisions
and for the enforcing of the laws of government.
 A state is a society which is politically organized and is more than a mere collection of
families of occupational organizations.
 A state is the fundamental association for the maintenance and development of social
order and for this end its central institution is endowed with the united power of the
community.
2.2. Attributes/ Elements of State

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, agreement signed at Montevideo,
Uruguay, on December 26, 1933, that established the standard definition of a state under
international law. So, let us now discuss details of the standard/element or the attributes as
follows:
A. Defined Territory

There can be no state without a territory of its own. The territory of a state
includes land, water, and airspace; it has maritime jurisdiction extending up to a distance of three
miles, though some states contend for a distance of up to 20 miles. The territorial authority of a
state also extends to ships on high seas under its flag as well as its embassies and
legations/diplomat‗s residence in foreign lands. It should be emphasized that the size of a state‗s
territory cannot limited a specific measurement. There are as large states as China and Russia
and as small states like Djibouti 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 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.
B. Population
Since state is a human association, the 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. 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.
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 maintains 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 legally actor in the international stage, it must be recognized as a state by other
actors (such as external states, international intergovernmental and non – governmental
organizations and so on). Thus, recognition implies both cognition for the necessary facts and the
desire of coming in to effect of the legal and political results of recognition. Likewise, for a
government of a state to be formally to act on its behalf, the government must be recognized as

legitimate government of the state by other governments.
Here, it is important to note that, the recognized as legitimate 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
over thrown by illegal and unconstitutional menses, surely the international community will
refuse to recognize the political power that control the country. In such circumstances, the cage
in government will not affect the identity or international personality of the sate itself.
The state remains to be an international legal entity though its government is over thrown.
Hence, the recognition and non-recognition of the new government will not have any impact on
the legal character of the state. Hence, recognition of as state will affect its legal personality
whether by creating or acknowledging it, whereas 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. Besides, there are Two Types of recognitions, defacto and dejure
recognition. Defacto means the state exists in fact but not gets legal recognition from other
states and international organizations. For example, Somali land, whereas Dejure recognition
means the state is legally recognized (accepted) by others.
2.3. Competing Theories about the Origin and Development of State

The subject matters of the origin of the state are subjected to mystery. We may trace some
impressions from the records of archeology and anthropology to have a glimpse in to the dim
past of human history, and we may collect information from records of ancient history. So we
should depend on some philosophical explanations in order to speculate the origin of the state
from its primitive to its present form. 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.
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

developed in the Tigiris, Euphrates and Nile valleys and later in valleys of the great rivers of
china. 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. 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 here discussed below.
A. The Divine Origin Theory;
B. The Social Contract Theory;
C. The Genetic Theory
D. The Force Theory; and
E. Marxist theory
A. The Divine Origin Theory;

This theory is regarded as the oldest or the earliest theory. It claims that the state to be of a
divine creation. In this sense, the state is created by God. 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 other are born to be
ruled. Furthermore, the theory asserts that the social order, in which the position of the
individuals is determined hierarchical on the basis of birth or hereditary succession, was
divinely given and thus it is legitimate and unchangeable.
The salient assumptions of the Divine Right theories are:
 The Monarchy (king) is divinely ordained;

 Hereditary right is naturally justifiable;
 Kings are accountable to God alone not for its subjects; and
 Resistance at a lawful king is sinful.
We know that in line of the doctrine of divine right, the Kings 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 that they have no part in the
creation of their political organization, or God prefers a monarchical system alone. Generally, the
divine theory lost its importance or fails to continue because of:
 The emergence of social contract theory

 The separation of state and religion

 The rise of democracy
 Supremacy of reason
B. 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 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.
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
being a selfish, egoistic, and aggressive creature is free to defend himself either by running away
from the scene or by killing his enemy. There is nothing like peace, security, order, property,
justice, and anything what we find in a state. There is all but fear and dander 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. In short, life of man is solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short in the
state of nature.
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 political assembly that
ensures them liberty, property and the entire of a good life. By such contract of the society, state
and government came in to being; a ‗common power‘ that ensures security of their life and
possession.
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
privileges of the right to life, liberty, and property. As he says, the state of nature has a law of
nature that governs everyone, and teaches all mankind being all equal and independent; no one
ought to harm another in his life, liberty or possession. It is a stat 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 and each man was necessarily the judge
to the execution of the law. Thus, it is the need of a common judge that brought the state.
Locke in his part forwarded two contracts. The first is the open or social contract dome by the
individuals to institute a political authority by them. As a result ‗community‘ comes in to being
that holds the sovereign authority. Then, a contract will be made by the community with a person
who takes the leadership effectively to protect three natural rights of the people. The motivating
force behind these contacts is that the creation a government that will correct the deficiencies of
the state of nature
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 propriety 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 in to a horrible condition.
The innocent creatures, that is, men become selfish and aggressive, and natural life was
destroyed. Thus, the people living in that condition desire a political society of free consents by
the general will for the maintenance of liberty in law.
Rousseau asserts a 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 on all, man thus not only gains the equivalent of what is lost but also acquires
greater. That is, each individual puts himself/herself into a common stock under the direction of
the general will. As a result, he/she gains 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 property. This theory mainly advocated
popular sovereignty, limited government and individual rights.

Summary of the three social contract theorists view
Theorists Description of state of Reasons for Type of government

nature leaving state of established
nature
Hobbes Man lives in a perpetual state Man yearns for Absolute, with a sovereign
of war security ruler for all time
Locke Man live by experience and Man wants to Delegated, that could be
common senses; follows preserve life, abolished if it does not
laws of nature liberty and preserve life, liberty and
property. property.
Man initially lives in Man wants to Society is government; the
Rousseau paradise and is good; regain freedom "general will" rules. Or a
population growth obliges and ability to model of Greek city states
the people to select a " father' make decisions
who will govern the society
C. Genetic /Natural/ 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.
It is certain that family is the first unit of social development. In his view, society in primitive
times was an aggregation of the families and the law was framed to recognize the patriarchal
family. 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. Therefore, this social unit, family,

becomes a tribe or a clan and that eventually becomes a state.
D. 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 for the forcible subjugation through long
continued warfare among primetime group of peoples. The state is the result of superior physical
force; it originates in the subjugation of the weaker by the stronger. It is natural to suppose that
in primitives times the man of exceptional physical strengths was able to craw his fellowman and
to exercise some kind of authority over them.‘ The same is probably true also of superior tribes
and clans in their relationships to other tribes and clans. On the basis of this belief, advocates of
the force theory contend that all states have come into being through physical coercion or
subjugation.
From the very beginning of human history, there has always been struggle among different social
groups to achieve economic advantage resulting in the ascendance 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. 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.
E. Marxist Theory
Like other theories 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. 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 in to being the owner of the means of production. 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.
The state is an organization of the possessing class for its protection against the non-possessing
class. 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 the

development of two contending classes. It has come in to being with the rise of class
contradiction, so it will wither away (die out) with the end of class antagonism.
2.4. The Role of the State

Contrasting interpretations of state power have clear implications for the desirable role or
responsibilities of the state. What should states do? What functions or responsibilities should the
state fulfill, and which ones should be left in the hands of private individuals?
With the exception of anarchists, who dismiss the state as fundamentally evil and unnecessary,
all political thinkers have regarded the state as worthwhile and they put its role on the political
and socioeconomic lives of the society.
A. Minimal states
The minimal state is the ideal of classical liberals, whose aim is to ensure that individuals enjoy
the widest possible realm of freedom. It advances an essentially 'negative' view towards the state.
From this perspective, the value of the state is that it has the capacity to constrain human rights
and liberties. The state is merely a protective body, its core function being to provide a
framework of peace and social order within which citizens can conduct their lives as they think
best.
The institutional apparatus of a minimal state is limited to a police force, a court system and a
military of some kind. Economic, social, cultural, moral and other responsibilities belong to the
individual, and are therefore firmly part of civil society. It say the state should carry out only an
administrative role whereas the economic system should by based on free-market which free
from the governments intervention.
B. Collectivized State
Collectivized states bring the entirety of economic life under state control. The best examples of
such states were communist countries such as the USSR. It abolishes private enterprise
altogether, and set up centrally planned economies administered by a network of economic
ministries and planning committees. Command economic system runs the economy. The
justification for state collectivization emerges from a fundamental socialist preference for
common ownership over private property. Marx and Engels recommended nationalization of the
economy. During the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', state control would be extended to include

factories, the banks, transportation and so on. Nevertheless, they envisaged that the proletarian
state would be strictly temporary, and that it would 'wither away' as class antagonisms abated.
C. Developmental states
Here the state assumes a more active 'developmental' role from the outset. A developmental state
is one that intervenes in economic life with the specific purpose of promoting industrial growth
and economic development. This does not amount to an attempt to replace the market with a
'socialist' system of planning but rather to an attempt to construct a partnership between the state
and major economic interests. The kind of economic system that adopted by developmental
states is a mixed economic system where both the government and private sectors participate in
the economy or the market.
The classic example of a developmental state is Japan. Recently, economic globalization has
fostered the emergence of 'developmental states', examples of which are found amongst the Tiger
economies of East Asia namely, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Their role is
to develop strategies for national prosperity in a context of intensifying transnational
competition.
D. Social-Democratic State
Whereas developmental states practice interventionism in order to stimulate economic progress,
social-democratic states intervene with a view to bringing about broader social restructuring,
usually in accordance with principles such as fairness, equality and social justice. In countries
such as Austria and Sweden, state intervention has been guided by social-democratic priorities.
The key to understanding the social-democratic state is that there is a shift from a 'negative' view
of the state, which sees it as little more than a necessary evil, to a 'positive' view of the state, in
which it is seen as a means of enlarging liberty and promoting justice. The social-democratic
state is thus the ideal of both modern liberals and democratic socialists.
Rather than merely laying down the conditions of orderly existence, the social-democratic state
is an active participant, helping in particular to rectify the imbalances and injustices of the
economy. It therefore tends to focus less upon the generation of wealth and more upon what is
seen as the equitable or just distribution of wealth. In practice, it is an attempt to eradicate
poverty and reduce social inequality. The twin features of a social-democratic state are therefore
Keynesianism and social welfare. The aim of Keynesian economic policies is to

'manage' or 'regulate' capitalism with a view to promoting growth and maintaining

full employment.
E. Totalitarian states
The most extreme and extensive form of interventionism is found in totalitarian states. The state
brings not only the economy but education, culture, religion, family life and so on under direct
state control. The best examples of totalitarian states are Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR,
and Kim Jong-un of North Korea. The central pillars of such regimes are a comprehensive
process of surveillance and terroristic policing, and a pervasive system of ideological
manipulation and control. In this sense, totalitarian states effectively extinguish civil society and
abolish the 'private' sphere of life altogether. This is a goal that only fascists, who wish to
dissolve individual identity within the social whole, are prepared openly to endorse.
2.5. Nation and Nationalism

Nations
Nations are communities of people who identify themselves as part of a group based on shared
characteristics like language, culture, religion, or geography.
Self-determination: Self-determination is the right of a nation to choose its own government.
When we apply the concept of self-determination to individuals, this can take the form of
independence and autonomy. The American declaration of independence (1776) serves as a
good example of self-determination. During this period, Americans wanted to govern
themselves independently, free from British rule. They viewed themselves as a nation separate
and distinct from Britain and therefore sought to govern themselves according to their own
national interests.
Nation-state: A nation-state is a nation of people who govern themselves on their own sovereign
territory. The nation-state is a result of nationalism and self-determination. Nation-states connect
national identity with that of statehood.
2.5.1. Types of nationalism

Nationalism can take many forms, including liberal nationalism, conservative nationalism, post-
colonial nationalism, and expansionist nationalism. While they all essentially embrace the same
core principles of nationalism, there are significant differences.

A. Expansionist Nationalism
Expansionist nationalism can be described as a more radical version of
conservative nationalism. Expansionist nationalism is chauvinistic in its nature. Chauvinism is
aggressive patriotism. When applied to nations, it often leads to the belief in the superiority of
one nation over others. Expansionist nationalism has racial elements as well. Nazi Germany is an
example of expansionist nationalism. The idea of the racial superiority of Germans and the
Aryan race was used to justify the oppression of Jews and fostered anti-Semitism.
Due to a perceived sense of superiority, expansionist nationalists often do not respect the
sovereignty of other nations. In the case of Nazi Germany, there was the quest for Lebensraum,
which led to Germany's efforts to acquire additional territory in Eastern Europe. Nazi Germans
believed it was their right as the superior race to take this land from the Slavic nations who they
viewed as inferior.
B. Ethnic Nationalism
Ethnic nationalism developed in the late 19th century among many ethnicities living in multi-
ethnic empires such as Russian, Austrian-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empire and suffered from
discrimination by the dominant culture or ethnicity. Under ethnic nationalism, membership in a
nation is associated with membership in a specific ethnic group. Thus, belonging to the nation is
based on cultural traits such as language, religion, ancestry, and customs and traditions. For
example, Slovaks living in Austria-Hungary could not generally pursue education in their
language and were expected to adopt the Hungarian culture. This expectation led to the
conclusion that the only way to preserve one's culture was to create an independent state based
on ethnic belonging.
Ethnic nationalism was a force for national unification, or in some countries dominated by a
single ethnicity like Japan. In other words, the idea behind ethnic nationalism is that a nation,
defined in ethnic terms, should create its state, and the state should serve the nation's interests.
C. Civic nationalism
Civic nationalism sees the nation as a community bound by shared history, values, and beliefs. It
is a belief in equal citizenship, democracy, civil liberties, and more. Under civic nationalism, all
people living on the national territory, regardless of their cultural traits or ethnicity, become
nation members. For example, when Nigeria became an independent state in 1960, all Nigerians

living on the territory of Nigeria became members of the new nation regardless of ethnicity.
Civic nationalism is common in post-colonial nations, especially in the America. It also
developed in some multi-ethnic states which survived into modernity, such as Spain and Britain.
D. Conservative Nationalism
Conservative nationalism focuses on shared culture, history, and tradition. It idealizes the past –
or the notion that the past nation was strong, unified, and dominant. Conservative nationalism is
not as concerned with international affairs or international cooperation. Its focus lies solely on
the nation-state. In fact, conservative nationalists often don‘t trust supranational bodies such as
the United Nations or the European Union. They view these bodies as flawed, unstable,
restrictive, and a threat to state sovereignty. For conservative nationalists, maintaining a single
culture is important, whereas diversity can lead to instability and conflict.
A good example of conservative nationalism in the United States was former President Donald
Trump's inward-looking political campaign slogan ‗Make America Great Again!‘ There are also
conservative nationalist elements in the United Kingdom as seen under the Thatcher regime and
in the rising popularity of populist political parties like the UK Independence Party (UKIP).
Conservative nationalism is exclusive: those who do not share the same culture or history are
often left out.
E. Post-colonial Nationalism
Postcolonial nationalism is the name given to the nationalism that emerges once states rid
themselves of colonial rule and have achieved independence. It is both progressive and
reactionary. It is progressive in the sense that it seeks to improve society and reactionary in that
it rejects colonial rule. In post-colonial nations, we see many different iterations of governance.
In Africa, for example, some nations took on Marxist or socialist forms of government. The
adoption of these models of government serves as a rejection of the capitalist model of governing
used by colonial powers.
In post-colonial states, there has been a mixture of inclusive and exclusive nations. Some nations
tend towards civic nationalism, which is inclusive. This is often seen in nations that have many
different tribes such as Nigeria, which is made up of hundreds of tribes and hundreds of
languages. Therefore, nationalism in Nigeria can be described as civic nationalism.

CHAPTER THREE
UNDERSTANDING GOVERNMENT
3.1. Meaning of Government
Government in simple term refers a group of individuals and institutions authorized to
formulate public policies and conduct the affairs of the state. It is also a body that has the
power to make and enforce laws. In this sense, governing broadly implies administering
or exercising control over a specific territory and population. It is an institution through
which collective and binding decisions are made.
Andrew Heywood, in his book Political Theory, stated that to ―govern‖ means to exercise
control over others. Government can therefore be taken as an institution through which order
is maintained, collective decisions are made and the capacity to enforce them performed.
3.1.1. Roles and Functions of Government
Regarding to its necessity, most people and political-thinkers accepted without hesitation but
what role governments should play remained controversial. Liberals view the role of
government to be more limited to confine only in areas of maintaining law and order in the
society (―night-watchman‖ state) from domestic order to preventing from external attack. The
most extreme form of state control is found in totalitarian states. The essence of
totalitarianism is the construction of an all-embracing state whose influence penetrates every
aspect of human existence, the economy, education, culture, religion, family life and so forth.
Examples are Nazism; Fascism and Stalinism which politicize every aspect of human
existence.
Despite the above discrepancies, governments perform the following general functions;
1. Maintaining Security, Law and Order
The stability and security of states are the prime objectives of all governments. For this
purpose governments make regulations to govern the activities of all members of the society.
Providing security, law and order are among the most essential tasks that are required from
governments. The maintenance of law and order has two dimensions: the domestic and
external.

The external dimension of security emphasizes the protection of the state against any attacks
from outside force. To that end national defense forces such as armies, navies, and air forces
are typically created to perform this function. Domestic security implies maintaining social
order through protecting citizens against, theft, aggression and violence. Regarding this,
government deserves the legitimate or monopoly use of force.
2. Realizing Nation-Building and political-economic community
While we humans are social beings, it is not always easy to build a community in which large
number of individual can communicate, feel at home and engage in constructive interaction.
This is a serious challenge especially in multi-ethnic, multi- cultural societies. As a result,
governments will face serious burden to inculcate and foster common identities among large
and diverse communities living in an extended area without regular interaction with one
another. Governments can help to generate such communities in many different ways, for
example by teaching a common language, instilling common values and norms, creating
common myths and symbols supporting a national identify and so forth.
Nation building activities help to instill common views, values, and expectations towards the
state. Government activities in this regard help very much to homogenize the political culture
of their citizens. The more homogeneous the political culture, the easier it is to live in
peaceful coexistence and engage in activities for mutual gain such as commerce. Therefore,
governments must strive to integrate the various sections of the society.
3. Regulating the Economy

Government can help to promote economic development by establishing and enforcing
effective property rights and by facilitating trade. Free market proponent economists show that
market economies are efficient when property rights are protected, competition are rigorous
and when information are freely available. The economic activity can be also regulated by
government through direct participation in establishing public economic enterprises enjoying a
monopoly of activities in a chosen sector of the economy or indirectly it can participate in the
production by laying down the rules and regulations under which the private firm must
operate.

4. Achieving Social Justice
In many countries, the distribution of income is highly uneven. In many societies‘ income
inequalities have been getting worse overtime. In such circumstance, government
intervention may be needed to redistribute resources from the better to the poor. Social
justice is often referred to as a moral virtue to do so. It is associated with socialism,
Marxism, and other radical or progressive political views.
3.2. Classification of Government: Classical, Modern, and Contemporary

3.2.1. Classical Classification of Government
One of the earliest classifications of government was provided by Aristotle in the 4th BC by
focusing on ―who should rule? And what form of governments is benevolence and perverted?
Thus, Aristotle identified six forms of government shown below.
Who rules Good/ Benevolence Bad/ Perverted
One Monarchy Tyranny
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Polity Democracy
In his view tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy are all perverted forms of rule in which a
single person, a small group, and the masses, respectively rule the society in their own
interests and therefore at the expense of others. In contrast, monarchy, aristocracy and polity
are the preferred ones because in these forms of government the individual, small group and
the masses, respectively govern in the interest of all.
Aristotle assumed tyranny as the worst of all forms of government, as it reduced citizens to the
status of slaves. Monarchy and aristocracy, on the other hand, were based on a God like
willingness to place the good of the community prior to the rulers own interests. Polity (rule
by the many in the interest of all) was accepted as the most benevolence or good form of
government for him.

3.2.2. Modern Systems of Governmentt

I. Presidential System of Government
In presidential forms of government the president is the executive head, independent of the
legislature. It is based on the doctrine of separation of power. Usually the president is directly
elected by the people or by a college of electors. He/she is the both real executive and
ceremonial head of the state. The legislature has a share in the making of appointments and
treaties and in supervising administration. The chief executive is also the head of the
Administration. He is the supreme commander in chief of the armed forces and has extra
ordinary powers conferred on him/her in times of war or other emergencies.
The cabinet members chosen by the president are not members of the legislature. If the
member of the legislature is appointed as a member of the cabinet he/she has to resign from
the legislative seat. The cabinet is not accountable or responsible to the legislature but is
accountable only to the president. Although the three branches of government power are
separated, the line of connection between institutions are also provided, so that institutions
keep check on each other and they function in a coordinated and well balanced system through
the system of checks and balances. USA is a typical example for Presidential system of
government.
Characteristics the Presidential systems
- The executive and legislative are separately elected and each is invested with a range of
independent constitutional powers.
- The head of the government is the head of the state-combined in the office of the president
- Executive authority is concentrated in the hands of the president, the cabinets and ministers are
responsible to the president.
- There is a formal separation of the personnel of the legislative and the executive branches.
- Electoral terms are fixed. The president can neither 'dissolve' the legislature nor be
dismissed byit (except, possibly, through impeachment).
- The executive is directly responsible to the electorate or to the people.
Merits of presidential system

1. It ensures stability of government. The president is elected for a fixed term and is a very
tedious job to remove him by impeachment. As such, the fate of the executive does not

depend upon the vote of the parliament. Thus, the government can follow a consistent and
continues policy.
2. The principle of separation of power avoids the president to assume legislative power
through effective check and balance on each other, there by minimize the possibility of
abusing power.
3. Since the legislature cannot be controlled by the executive it is also possible for the
legislature to act more in dependently they can vote freely.
Demerits or Weaknesses
1. It leads to executive autocracy as the president is elected for fixed term and the process of
impeachment is a difficult task.
2. Because of separation of powers the executive and legislative departments are at
loggerheads or in opposition especially when one branch is controlled by the opposition
party that can lead to a dead lock.
3. Since the legislature is free from the control of the executive, it may act in a very
irresponsible manner.
4. It may be accused of being a rigid system. The president cannot influence the parliament
to make laws quickly so as to meet the condition of crisis.
II. Parliamentary System of Government

A parliamentary system of government is one in which the government governs through the
assembly or parliament, there by fusing the legislative and executive branches. Although they are
formally distinct, the parliament and the executive are bound together in a way that violates the
doctrine of the separation of powers. The central feature of this system is a fusion of legislative
and executive power. The government is drawn from and accountable to the parliament. The
strength is it supposedly delivers effective but responsible government. The government can
govern only as long as it retains the confidence of the parliament. The parliament has the upper
hand because it has the ultimate power: the ability to remove the government. UK or Britain, and
Ethiopia are typical examples for parliamentary system
Features of parliamentary system
 The head of the state is separate from the head of government. The head of the state is
normally either a monarch or a president. Their role is largely symbolic and ceremonial.

 Mostly, the executive is drawn from the parliament. The prime Minister holds the real
executive power as the head of government.
 Political homogeneity- the prime Minister is the leader of the party having clear majority
in the parliament in the popular house. All or most ministers belong to the same party that
has its leader in the prime minister. It may be possible that two or more parties join to form
a coalition government when no party is in a position to have absolute majority in the
parliament.
 Collective Responsibility- Ministers can live in office so long as they enjoy that
confidence the parliament. Decisions taken in cabinet are portrayed as collective decisions
which all members support and agree with.
Merits of Parliamentary System
 It ensures harmony between the legislative and the executive‘s branches. Since the
ministry (executive) is part of the legislature and since it has majority behind, there are no
chances of confrontation and dead lock between the two.
 It secures swiftness in decision and vigor in action. It is easy to pass legislation. It can
pursue vigorous policy, home as well as foreign, as it is confident of the support of the
majority behind it in the legislature.
Demerits
 It violates the principles of separation of powers, which may lead to concentration of
power.
 It may be quite unstable incase when no party is in a position to secure absolute
majority in the legislature.
Parliamentary systems are of two types: - cabinet-dominated or assembly dominated. In both

varieties the senior politician tends to be a prime minister, who controls and even may
dominate his/her ministers, but is responsible to the legislature.
In cabinet-dominated systems the ministers and prime ministers are collectively responsible
to the legislature for their actions. The cabinet defines the line of national policy and how it be
administered. They prepare legislative proposal and submit to the parliament for approval and
it is easy to get vote of the majority.

When the cabinet cannot dominate the legislature, political Scientists tend to call the system
assembly-dominated to indicate the weight of the legislative body in policy formulation. In
this system, the members of the legislature make and un-make cabinets and prime ministers at
will.
III. Semi-Presidential System (Hybrid system)

The essence of this institutional arrangement (the mixed presidential-parliamentary system)
is that it possesses both a president with significant decision-making powers and a prime
minister with responsibilities to the national legislature. In other words, this system has two
executive decision makers: the president and the prime minister. It is typified by
contemporary France and Russia. In some cases as in these two countries, the president has
greater constitutional powers.
The danger arises, however, that a president with too much power may abuse it, perhaps
threatening the very principle of negotiation, accommodation, and compromise on which
democracy ultimately rests. While an efficient decision-making process firmly concentrated in
the president's hands may not always put in practice. In addition to electing president, the
voters also elect the legislature. If the president represents one political party and the majority
of the legislators represent rival parties, gridlock may ensue. It can even happen that the
president and the prime minister represent opposing parties, a prospect that can severely
complicate the process of decision making at the highest executive levels of national
government.
In both France and Russia, the president may name the prime minister but the legislature has
the right to reject the president's choice. As a consequence, the president may decide to name a
prime minister of an opposing party so as to satisfy the legislative majority.
3.2.3. CONTEMPORARY CLASSIFICATIONS OF GOVERNMENT
Contemporary forms of government are broadly divided or categorized into two major types
based their constitutionality. These are democratic or constitutional government and
undemocratic or non-constitutional governments. Different scholars and writers give different
forms of classification often each forms overlap one another on some of their features.

1. Democratic Government
The essential idea of democracy is that the people have the right to determine who governs
them. In most cases, they elect the principal governing officials and hold them accountable
for their actions. Democracies also impose legal limits on the government authority by
guaranteeing certain rights and freedoms to their citizens. Democracy today is undoubtedly
the most popular form of government. Every government today practically calls itself
―democratic‖ no matter how authoritarian they may actually be. Groups such as liberals,
conservatives, socialists, communists, anarchists and even fascists are eager to proclaim the
virtues of democracy and to demonstrate their democratic credentials. So, careful
distinction/definition must be given in order to understand the contemporary forms of
government.
Some of the contemporary forms of democratic government are:

a. Constitutional monarchies – It is a system of government in which the monarch
performs largely symbolic functions of a ceremonial head of state while the day-to-day
decision making rests in the hands of a prime minister and cabinet backed by supporters
in parliament. The parliament and the cabinet are by far the most important decision-
making institutions in such system; the monarch however possesses a few traditional
political prerogatives that have not been formally abolished. The legislature is politically
supreme over a constitutional monarchy. Some of the constitutional monarchies today are
the UK, Spain, Japan, and Canada. The head of the state in constitutional monarchies
succeeds to the position by heredity.
b. Republics – are also a form of government that contrasts with a monarchy (literally a
republic is a form of government without a monarch and a republican is an opponent of
monarchy). It is a principle that political authority stems ultimately from the consent of
the people and hence the rejection of monarchical and dynastic principles. The term
republic suggests not merely the absence of monarchy but it implies a distinctively public
arena and popular rule. Republic indicates a governor elected by the people.
2. Undemocratic or Authoritarian Government

Authoritarianism is the opposite of democracy. Whereas, democracy places the people above
the government, authoritarianism (or dictatorship) places the governing authorities above the
people. The people have little, if any, say in who governs them or how they are governed.
Power is organized by the elites through the military, bureaucracy, religious leaders or similar
authorities. All political activities are dominated or manipulated by these elites.
Institutions such as the media are carefully controlled or censored. Although the economy,
educational institutions, churches, unions, and cultural institutions may seemingly be free,
they too are often subordinated to the authoritarian machine. Parties are frequently banned
and opponents are imprisoned. Authoritarian governments came in several varieties. Their
ideology differ greatly, these states may be on the right or the left of the political spectrum.
Focus
Authoritarianism is a belief in, or practice of government ―from above‖, in which authority is
exercised regardless of popular consent. Authoritarianism thus differs from authority. The
latter rests on legitimacy and in that sense it arises ―from below‖ (from popular consent).
Authoritarianism can be classified in to different varieties, broadly, however, it can be

categorizedin to two types, and these are the following;
1. Dictatorship-
In dictatorship, ultimate power rests in the hands of individual or small elites. Leaders such as
Hitler are referred to as dictators.
2. Totalitarianism
It is a 20th Century phenomena. The concept is used to describe those states in which leaders
impose their objectives or goals upon their people to an unlimited degree.
What is the difference between dictatorship and totalitarianism?
Dictatorship is a form of rule in which absolute power is vested in a single individual arbitrary
and unchecked power, like military dictatorship or personal dictatorship. But totalitarian system
controls all aspects of society; to subordinate individuals and groups to the dominant leadership.
Leaders in totalitarian states use ideology to control society. The State and Society will be fused.
The hallmark of this system is total domination of one group over the rest of society basing its
control on state-imposed ideology.

Totalitarianism is an all-encompassing system of political rule that is typically established by

pervasive ideological manipulation and open terror and brutality. It differs from autocracy or
dictatorship in that it seeks total power through the politicization of every aspect of social and
personal existence.
3.3. VERTICAL ARRANGEMENT/ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT
Rationale for Centralization and Decentralization
All modern states are divided on a territorial basis between central/national/federal and
peripheral (regional, provincial, state or local) institutions, although the nature of its division
varies greatly. In the absence of central government, a state would not be able to function as
an international actor including establishing diplomatic relations, nor entering in to strategic
alliances.
The case for centralization includes the following:

1. National Unity: Central government alone articulates the interests of the whole rather
than the parts. That is that the interests of the nation rather than those of sectional
ethnic or regional groups are promoted by the national government. A strong center
ensures that the government addresses the common interests of the entire community; a
weak center leads to rivalry and disharmony.
2. Uniformity: Central government alone establishes uniform laws and public services
thathelp people to move more easily from one part of the country to another.
3. Equality: It is only the central government that can rectify inequalities which arise
from the areas with the greatest social needs.
The case for decentralization includes the following:

A. Participation: Local or regional governments are certainly more effective than central
government in providing opportunities for citizens to participate in the political life of their
community. The benefits of widening the scope of political participation include the fact
that it helps to create a better educated and more informed citizenry.
B. Responsiveness: Peripheral institutions are usually ―closer‖ to the people and more
sensitive to the needs of the local community. This helps to strengthen democratic

accountability.
C. Legitimacy: physical distance from government affects the acceptability or rightness of its
decisions. The central government may appear remote, both geographically and politically.
D. Liberty: Concentration of power at one center commonly leads to violation or suppression
of regional peculiarities or differences. Decentralization protects liberty by dispersing
government power.
The most common and widely used forms of territorial organization are two: unitary and
Federal systems. There is also a third category, confederation which is a loose association of
independent states. The regional authorities exercise much of the power, and central control is
relatively weak. Sovereign power as a result is rested to its components. It is most commonly
applied in the form of intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations (UN),
African Union (AU), North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO), European Union (EU),
etc. Examples of confederation at the state level is, however, far rarer.
3.3.1. Unitary State Structure
In such a system the constitution provides for one level of government to be in control of all
policy fields over the whole country. All legal power flows from one center, the national
government. The central government may delegate its power or subsidiary law making
authority to regional or local administrative units, but it alone remains, in constitutional
terms, the supreme law making institution. The powers and responsibilities of local /regional
government can be contracted as easily as they can be expanded in the interest of the single
sovereign national authority. The vast majority of states today have unitary systems of
governments such as UK, France, Italy, Japan and China.
Two distinct forms of peripheral authority exist in unitary states: local government and
devolved assemblies
A. Local government
Local government refers government that is specific to particular locality, for example a
village, district, town, and city. It is also a form of government that has no share in
sovereignty, and is thus entirely subordinated to central authority. This level of government
is in fact universal, found in every system of government. In unitary systems, local

governments are in most cases the only forms of government outside the center. The UK
traditionally possesses a relatively decentralized local government system, with local
authorities exercising significant discretion with in a legal frame work laid down by
parliament. Respect for local democracy was long seen as a feature of the UK‘s unwritten
constitution.
B. Devolution
It involves the idea that there should be some redistribution of power away from the center to
subordinate assemblies. Devolved assemblies have usually been created in response to
increasing centrifugal tendencies / tensions with in a state and as an attempt, in particular to
reconcile growing regional and sometimes nationalist pressures. One of the oldest traditions
of devolved government in Europe is Spain. Although it has been a unitary state, Spain is
divided in to 50 provinces, each of which exercises a measure of regional self- government.
This devolution was designed to meet long standing demands for provinces like Catalonia.
3.3.2. Federal State Structure
In federal states, its central feature is that legal sovereignty is shared between a federal
(central) government and regional governments. It is a form of shared rule plus self-rule. The
constitution specifically divides jurisdictional powers between a central government and
regional governments. This ensures that neither levels of government can encroach on the
powers of the other. They are based on a compromise between unity and regional diversity,
between the need for an effective central power and the need for checks or constraints on that
power.
Federalism is defined as a political organization in which the activities of government are

divided between regional governments and a central government in such a way that each kind of
government has some kind of activities on which it makes final decisions or sovereign on their
own jurisdiction.
The following features are common to most federal states

a. Two levels of government: Both central and regional governments possess a range of
powers. 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 field of jurisdiction of each level of government and the capacity
of each to influence the other vary considerably. For instance in some county the
central government holds key policy making area and left to states for implementation
of policy.
b. Written constitution: The responsibilities and powers of each level of government are
defined in a codified or written constitution. The relationship between the center and
the periphery is, therefore, conducted with in a formal legal framework
c. Constitutional arbiter: The formal provisions of the constitution are interpreted by a
supreme court, which arbitrates cases of disputes between federal and state levels of
government. In determining the respective fields of jurisdiction of each level, the
judiciary in a federal system is able to determine how federalism works in practice,
inevitably drawing the judiciary in to the policy process.
d. Linking institutions: In order to foster cooperation and understanding between federal
and state levels of governments the regions and provinces must be given a voice in the
processes of central policy – making. This is usually achieved through a bicameral
legislature in which the second chamber or upper house represents the interest of the
states.
Distribution of Powers
In federal systems of government a written constitution usually describes the jurisdiction of
both central and regional government i.e. it outlines the division of powers yet the manner of
dividing jurisdiction among different tiers of government varies from country to country. In
line with this therefore there exist three areas of jurisdiction, exclusive concurrent and
residual powers.
a. Exclusive powers- are power enjoyed by the federal government without sharing to the
states. This is largely seen as matters of national importance or common interest of the
nation as a whole which require uniformity of regulation, and hence delegated to the
federal or central government. Normally such powers are enumerated in the constitution.
Most often foreign affairs, defense, regulation of interstate commerce and the minting,
printing and circulation of national currency is reserved to the central government in
almost all countries.
b. Concurrent jurisdiction – this is a power commonly shared and exercised both by

the federal government and the state governments. The shared responsibilities are largely
concentrated on social sectors such as education, health, cultural issues, security and
taxation.
c. Reserved power: these are powers which are reserved to the regional states by the
federal constitution. Reserved or Residual powers are defined as the authority over
jurisdiction fields that do not fall under the subjects enumerated specifically in the
constitution. In Ethiopian, United States, and Switzerland the residual or reserved powers
belong to the regional states, whereas in Canada the residual powers are left to the federal
government.
3.4. Horizontal Arrangement/ Organization of Government
The second form of organization is the horizontal arrangement or commonly called the
organs of government (Legislature, executive and the judiciary). Almost all modern
governments are generally organized along the three major functions of government.
3.4.1. The Legislature Organ of Government

The legislature has various names including assemblies, parliaments, and congress. The most
popular and widely used name is the Parliament. The legislature is regarded as the mirror of
the will of the nation. It is taken as the chief means of the expression of the popular will, or a
body that can speak on behalf of the people. Since it is the representative body of the people,
it is considered as the most important organ of the political system. Parliaments in most
countries are usually composed of politicians who claim to represent the people. In most case
they are invested with formal law making power.
Structure of Legislatures
The legislatures around the world display considerable variations; some countries have a
unicameral national legislature consisting of only one house of parliament, others have
bicameral ligature constituting of two houses. In terms of strengthening cheeks and balances
with in assemblies and between executives and assemblies, bicameralism has usually seen as
a central principle of liberal constitutionalism. In bicameralism, the upper house (the second
chamber) and the lower house (the first chamber) clearly separated. Usually the lower houses
are representatives of the people where as the upper houses are representatives of their states,
regions or territorial units.

Functions of legislatures
The following are some of the major functions:

A-Legislation: This is the key functions of Parliaments which typically are vested with
legislative power that the laws made will be binding. This is because parliament is a forum
in which proposed laws can be openly discussed and debated, and are constituted so as to
suggest that the people make the laws themselves. However, the idea that legislatures possess
the formal law making authority is often misleading. Today assemblies / parliaments rarely
monopolize legislative authority. Constitutional law is usually placed beyond the competence
of the parliaments. In some countries constitution is amended by referendums.
B- Representation: Assemblies play an important representative role in providing a link

between government and the people. The achievement of universal adult suffrage turned
assemblies in to popular forums, bodies that stood for the people themselves. Democratic
practice presumes that all citizens will be treated equally in the sense that each legislature
represents the people.
C- Scrutiny and Oversight: the parliament paly a check and balance role on the executive
power. Assemblies have increasingly become scrutinizing bodies, the principal role of which
is to deliver responsible or accountable government.
3.4.2. The Executive Organ of Government

Executives are broadly divided in to two: the political executive that includes the prime
ministers, presidents; and the non-political or the 'bureaucratic' executive that includes the
civil service. This highlights the difference between politicians and civil servants, and more
broadly, between politics and administration. The distinction between political and
bureaucratic executive is most clear cut in the case of parliamentary executives, as the
political executive comprises elected politicians, ministers drawn from and accountable to
the assembly; their job is to make policy, in accordance with the political and ideological
priorities of their party, and to oversee its implementation. The official or bureaucratic
executive comprises appointed and professional civil servants whose job is to offer advice
and administer policy, subject to the requirement of political neutrality and loyalty to their
ministers.

In parliamentary executive, two separate executive bodies headed by two persons exist. The
head of the state is largely symbolic and ceremonial. It may be elected or hereditary. The
head of the government on the other is the chief executive which carries out policy making
and political responsibilities. Normally the executive consists of the prime minister, and a
cabinet which is responsible for policy formulation and for the administration of the various
government departments. The cabinet is the core executive that meets on a regular basis to
discusspolicy and government business.
In presidential executives, the president combines the formal responsibilities of the head of
the state with the political power of the chief executive. The direct election of the chief
executive by the electorate removes the reliance of the executive on legislative confidence
because of the clear separation of power among the three organs
In semi-presidential systems, the power relationship between the two offices will vary i.e.
between the president and the prime minister. In France and Russia the president enjoys
supremacy, in Portugal a balance seems exists.
Functions of Political Executives
The key functions of the executive branch are the following:

a. Ceremonial leadership: Non-executive presidents and constitutional monarchs are
engaged in such ceremonial responsibilities, allowing other executives to get on with the
day-to-day business of the government.
b. Policy-making leadership: Political executive‘s vital function is to direct and control the
policy process. It is entrusted to 'govern'. The political executive requires developing
coherent economic and social programs that meet the needs of more complex and
politically sophisticated societies.
c. Popular leadership: the popularity of the political executive is crucial to the character
and stability of the regime as a whole. Without support from the public, or from key
groups in society, policy implementation becomes difficult. Unpopular governments can
survive only by resorting to authoritarianism in which popular compliance is brought
about through repression and ideological manipulation.

d. Bureaucratic leadership: Its task of overseeing the implementation of policy means that
the political executive has major bureaucratic and administrative responsibilities. The
chief executives, ministers and secretaries constitute a 'top management' charged with
running the machinery of government.
a. Crisis leadership: A crucial advantage that the political executive has over the assembly is
its ability to take swift and decisive action. When crisis breakout in either domestic or
international politics it is invariably the executive that responds, by virtue of its hierarchical
structure and the scope it provides for personal leadership.
3.4.3. The Judiciary Organ of Government
The judiciary is the branch of government that is empowered to decide legal disputes. The
central function of judges is to adjudicate on the meaning of law, in the sense that they
interpret or 'construct' law. One of the chief characteristics of the judiciary is that judges are
expected to be independent and non-political actors. The ability of judges to be 'above'
politics is normally seen as the vital guarantee of a separation between law and politics.
The functions of judiciaries

There are some major functions of the judicial branch of government. Judiciaries:
 Resolve disputes between individuals, adjudicating in controversies within the

limits of the law;
 Interpret the law, determining what it means and how it applies in particular
situations, thereby assessing guilt or innocence of those on trial;
 Act as guardians of the law, taking responsibility for applying its rules without fear
or favor, as well as securing the liberties of the person and ensuring that
governments and peoples comply with the „spirit‟ of the constitution.
 Legislation- though legislation is the work of the legislature, the courts also make
laws in different ways A different kind of law comes out of the decisions of the
courts which is known as case-law.
 Judicial review- judiciaries particularly supreme courts has the power to consider
and possibly invalidate laws, decrees and the action of other branches of
government if they are incompatible with the constitution.

Judicial Review
The principle of judicial review refers that the courts are granted the power to interpret the
constitution and to declare void any actions of other branches of government if they are found
to breach the document or the basic law of the land. In such a sense judges of any court can
have the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Constitutional issues can therefore be raised
at any point in the ordinary judicial system, although it is the Supreme Court which arbitrates
in any matter which has broad significance.
Judicial review is particularly important in federal systems to ensure that each layer of
government keeps to its respective sphere. In the United States the Supreme Court has the
power of judicial review. In exercising its power of review, the Court normally decides on the
basis of precedent but on occasion it has spectacularly reversed a previous decision and thus
enabled the Court to adapt to changing situations and give a lead.
For instance the Supreme Court in the USA has vested with the power of judicial review- the
authority and obligation to review any lower court decisions where a substantial issue of public
law is involved. The Supreme Court‘s power of judicial review has come to mean review not
only of lower court decisions but also of state legislation and acts of Congress

CHAPTER FOUR
CONSTITUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONALISM
4.1. The Meaning of Constitution
In Political Science, the term constitution principally means the system of fundamental laws and
principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government. It is a set of
principles that form the fundamental organizing principle of the state. Understandably,
Constitution is a law, but a special kind of law-a Mother Law which in which other laws bring
forth on the basis of it. Simply, law is the set of rules and regulations that govern the relation of
legal person in a political community. The regulatory mechanism of laws is either prohibitive or
permissive: a law permits you to do something or a law prohibits you from doing something.
A constitution could be defined in the following ways:
 A constitution defines the basic purposes and aspirations of the state-society.
 A constitution provides the framework for government power - its scope of authority,
mechanisms for exercising that authority, and the procedures for passage of future laws.
 A constitution establishes the political, administrative, and judicial foundations of the state.
4.2. Major Features of a Constitution

A constitution has distinctive features that distinguish it from any other laws. The following are
the basic features:
A) Generality: A constitution provides the general principle of a state and builds sustentative
foundation and sets out general framework of the law and the government. Other laws provide
the details of the subject for which they are created. Constitutional principles are a guideline for
others laws.
B) Permanency: A constitution is made for undefined period of time. It is made to be stable and
permanent with the tides of events. One way to ensure permanency is amendment. Other ways of
making adaptability and to make detail are judicial interpretation and legislation. Since a
constitution is written at a certain point in time, it must be amendable so that it may adapt to the
changing needs of the people in the future.
C) Supremacy: A constitution is a supreme law of the land, a legal document having a special

legal sanctity, often described as a law above the land. As a mother of law, it is original law by
which the system of government is created, and to which the branches of government must look
for all their powers and authority.
4.3. Purposes and Functions of Constitutions

Among recognized purposes of constitutions, some of them are the majors:
1) A constitution is charter of government: Government derives its whole authority from the
governed. The constitution sets out the form of the government, and creates the branches of
government. It specifies the purpose of the government, the power of each department of the
government, the state-society relationship, the relationship between various governmental
institutions, and the limits of the government. Thus, constitution is a social contract between the
governors and the governed.
2) Put limits on the powers of government and rights protection function
Constitutions clearly put what the government has to do and not to do. In doing so, the protection
of human rights from violation is being protected.
3) The constitution is a commitment device: In a democratic state, the constitution binds not
only the government, but also the people. Through the constitution, the people collectively
commit to certain institutional procedure for managing public affairs and resolving social
conflicts.
4) The constitution as covenant, symbol, and aspiration: A constitution may serve as a
binding statement of a people‘s aspirations for themselves as a nation. A constitutional text may
outline the sort of community would like to become. It puts the ideals of the state that strive to
realize in the future.
4.4. What should a Constitution Contain?

Mostly, the structure of any constitution is composed of three. These are:
1. Preamble.
2. Body, and
3. Amending provision.
The preamble is an introductory section and explains the will of the people to live together in a
given state and to be ruled in accordance of the principle of the constitution. The statement in

this section mostly begins with the phrase ―We the People.‖ The preamble states the rationales
of the constitution, i.e. the targeted goals and missions and the long-term aspiration of the people
of a state. This part is crucial to better understand subsequent provisions of a constitution.
The body part contains different provision of a constitution. It is the main part of the constitution.
In this part, the structure of state, the form of government, power and function of different organ
of the government, human right, policy objective of the state and other issues will be addressed.
Amendment part contains provisions concerning the legal procedures to amend the constitution.
Constitutional changes are to be effected only under this provision.
4.5. Constitutionalism and Fundamental Principles of a Democratic Constitution

Constitutionalism is defined as the existence of a limited government and the rule of law to
prevent arbitrary use of power. Therefore, constitutionalism limits the government from arbitrary
activity. Constitutionalism is limiting and regulating of the government's power through a
supreme constitution, and by preserving the sovereignty of people. It recognizes the sovereignty
of people. Constitutionalism is a necessary foundation of rule of law. It is the limitation of
government by law. Constitutionalism implies also a balance between the power of the
government on the one hand and the rights of the people on the other hand. Constitutional
democracy is the antithesis of arbitrary rule.
4.6. Classification of Constitutions

The classification can be based on the following ways:
1) The nature of the state to which the constitution applies, i.e. unitary, federal, or Con-federal;
2) The nature of the document: whether written, and flexible;
3) The system of government it declares: parliamentary or presidential or hybrid
A. Based on the Nature of the Document: Written or Unwritten

Written constitutions are constitutions that are embodied in a single document. On the other
hand, Un-written constitutions are constitutions which are not assembled and written in a single
document. In this case, there is no single document that exclusively serves as a constitution.
Parliamentary enactments, customary practices, traditions, court decisions etc., serve as

constitutions in countries having unwritten constitutions.

A written constitution is always enacted while an unwritten constitution is evolved. A written
constitution is one which is framed at a given time and comes into practice on a fixed date. An
unwritten constitution, on the other hand, is a result of evolution: it is given by history. It is never
framed by any Constituent Assembly. It is based on conventions, customs and statutes that grow
over the centuries. The British Constitution is the best example of an evolved and unwritten
constitution.
B. Based on Amendment Procedure: Rigid or Flexible
A rigid constitution needs complex procedure of amendment. A flexible constitution can be
amended easily by an ordinary legislative process. It can be amended without any special
procedure. For example; the constitution of England is flexible because any provision can be
changed by an act of Parliament.
C. Based on the State Structure it declares: Federal, Con-federal, and Unitary
Constitutions may be classified also in terms of the method of which the powers of the
government are distributed between the government of the whole country and the constituent
units.
4.7. The Stages of Constitution Making

4.7.1. Formal Stages of Democratic Constitution Making
Constitutions could be adopted as a gift by leaders, or evolve from tradition and customs, or by a
constitutional commission. Our concern here is the third one. This kind of constitution has to
pass through different steps. The ways in which a constitution is drawn up will affect the fate of
a constitution to meet its goals. Thus, any constitutional making process is supposed to pass
through four successive stages such as drafting, development, ratifications, and promulgation.
These stages are based on the concepts of sovereignty of the people:
A. Drafting
Drafting stage is the first stage in a modern constitutional making process. In many countries,
constitutional assemblies or committees will be organized to draft a constitution. The members
are mostly elected by the people. If members are elected than appointed, the process would
promote the democratic behavior of the constitution, since the aspiration of the people will be
better expressed by representatives. But if members are appointed by those who hold

governmental power, the view of different groups and the people may be ignored.
In any case, the following issues are focus areas at the drafting stage:
 Identification of issues that must be addressed by the new constitution
 Prevailing political and historical condition of the country as a basis
 The need to bring various groups with different opinion to a consensus on main national
issues in the constitution.
B. Development (consultation and discussion)
Development is the second stage whereby people take part for the further development of the
draft into a constitution. Once the draft proposal of a constitution is available, it will enter into
the deliberation process in which the people make a thorough discussion on the initial proposal
and make their own input. The people will decide if there are issues that should be included or
issues that should be left out from the draft. This will be also very important for the creation of
legitimacy and national consensus on the fundamentals of the political system. This is a central
deliberative phase in which people carefully decided on constitutional issues.
C. Ratification
Allowing the people to ratify is crucial for the success and legitimacy of a constitution. This
phase is endorsement or ratification, through a final vote by the people. A constitution can be
ratified in either of the following ways:
I. A referendum by the People where majority vote wins could be required
II. A Simple majority referendum vote of the people combined with majority vote of the
constitutional assembly might be required.
III. A ratification by the constitutional assembly only can be made.
IV. It can be done in an exclusive parliamentary ratification.
D. Promulgation
This is the last stage in the constitution making. It is the stage to give a constitution a legal power
effect by officially announcing to the public. This final stage is more of procedural than
substantive. It simply means promulgation of the constitution in a country‘s official legal gazette.
4.8. The Constitutional Experiences of Ethiopia

4.8.1. Traditional Unwritten Constitutions of Ethiopia
Ethiopia has had sophisticated traditional unwritten constitutions. The following are the most

prominent constitutionally significant traditional documents.

A. The Fetha Negest (The law of the Kings)
The Fetha Negest (The Law of Kings) was both a religious and secular legal provision. Law of
the Kings is a collection of laws which used in Ethiopia for many centuries. It was used as the
sources of constitutional, civil, and criminal laws. It was a fundamental law upon which the
government and the administration were based.
B. The Kibre Negest (the glory of kings)
Kibre Negest vividly dealt with the legend of a Solomonic Dynasty and thus served certain
political-religious needs of the time in the constitutional process. Beyond that, it gave the
Ethiopian state a legitimizing basis. The Kebra Nagast (The Glory of Kings) was written to
show the origins of the royal house. It was the most important traditional document that even
defined who should become king in Ethiopia i.e., it determine the succession of the throne in
Ethiopia. It was the principal sources of legitimacy for the kings. This document takes the
Ethiopian history back to the Solomonic dynasty, where the queen of Sheba made romantic tripe
to King Solomon of Israel and gave birth to the first Ethiopia king Menelik I. Based on this, the
document determined that any king in Ethiopia must descend from the Solomonic dynasty or
must have such blood relationship with the dynasty.
C. Serate Mengeste
It was the 19th century‘s administrative protocols within the government institutions.
4.8.2. The 1931 Written Constitution

The constitution was significant not for its liberal traditions but rather for its symbolic role in
providing formal definitions of the relations between the emperor and the nobility and the
administration of the government. The constitution can be considered as more of a formal
agreement between the monarchy and the feudal lords.
The constitution has two motives: Internal and external. One of the internal goals of the
Constitution was to breakdown the powers of the regional lords by bringing them under powerful
centralized state machinery. This constitution strengthened the traditional position of the emperor
by weakening the role of nobility.
Secondly, its major purpose was modernization. Consistent with their colonial intention, the

west, particularly, Italy under Mussolini continued to accuse Ethiopia as uncivilized, backward,
arbitrary, feudal etc. Therefore, the constitution was written with the Emperor's strong
motivation to reverse all these criticisms and to show the modern picture of the country. Ethiopia
was expected to show to the outside world that it is becoming civilized.
The basic theme of the constitution is found in article which states that "in the Ethiopian Empire
supreme power rests in the hands of the Emperor." However, the 1931 constitution is remarkable
in the sense that it has established the three branches of government.
The constitution established a bicameral parliament containing the senate (Yehig Mewossagna
Mikir Bet) and the Chamber of Deputies (Yehig Memiria Mikir Bet). Members of the senate
were appointed by his majesty from among the nobility and local chiefs who served his empire
as princes, masters, judges or high military officials. The primary role of the two Houses was
strictly advisory. They had no power to make laws independently by themselves as modern
parliaments do today. The other innovative element of the 1931 constitution is that it provided
the constitutional frame work for ministerial system. Concerning the Judicial body, the
constitution introduced two different court systems called Regular courts and administrative
tribunals. The ordinary courts handle civil and criminal cases. All kinds of suits relating to
administrative affairs were handled by special courts or administrative tribunals. At the top of the
court system was the emperor with his Zufan chilot, in which the emperor tries cases in person.
4.8.3. The 1955 Revised Constitution

The federation of Eritrea (with its liberal constitution) with Ethiopia in 1952 was the one that
necessitated the revised Constitution. The pressures come from enlightened Ethiopians returning
home from abroad was another reason for the revision of the constitution.
The Revised Constitution continued to reinforce the process of centralization. The emperor was
both the head of state and the head government and he continued to oversee the judiciary through
his Chilot (Crown Court). Similar to its predecessor, the revised Constitution solidified the
absolutism of the monarchy. The first two chapters were devoted to the institution of the
monarchy, the holiness of the Emperor, his dignity, and the Solomonic root of the dynasty, etc.

4.8.4. The 1987 Constitution of the People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (PDRE)
After assuming power, the military regime, suspended the 1955 revised constitution and began to
rule the country by series of decrees and proclamations. The Constitution starts by making ―the
Working People of Ethiopia‖ owners of the Constitution. It goes on at the preamble to note the
fact that Ethiopia is a multinational state with various nationalities and diverse communities with
essential unity created by cultural intercourse, migration and commerce.
In PDRE the organization and functioning of the organs of state is based on the principles of
democratic centralism. Sovereignty lies on the workers of Ethiopia and exercised through the
unicameral parliament called the National Shengo and local Shengos established by election, as
well as through popular referendums. According to the Constitution, the Shengo was the
supreme organ of the state power in the country.
4.8.5. The 1991 Transitional Charter

The Charter was the result of the 1991 July conference on the so-called Conference on Peace
and Democracy (1-5, July, 1991). The conference had brought various political parties. There
were also delegates representing 22 international bodies and governments. The total delegates
were 500. The Charter affirmed that freedom, equal rights, and self- determination to all peoples
were the cardinal governing principle to the state of Ethiopia.
The Charter introduced the following contents:

A. It devolved administrative units on the basis of ethnic and linguistic criteria.
On the basis of the Charter, proclamation number 7/1992 created fourteen regional governments;
Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa were given autonomy on the basis of political and population
considerations.
B. Self- determination up to secession to all Nations, Nationalities (Art.2).
This provision, especially the secession part was the most controversial part of the Charter. It is
reported that some parties like TPLF, and OLF put secession as a condition to participate in
transitional government, arguing that the provision is their only guarantee against oppressive
central government.

4.8.6. The 1995 FDRE Constitution

The Constitution gives the ownership of the constitution to ―Nations, Nationalities and Peoples
of Ethiopia‖ and established a federal state by dividing and sharing power between the federal
and state governments. In line with federal traditions, the constitution stipulated two layers of
legislative, executive and judicial organs. Also an executive organ led by a Prime Minister whose
office is accountable for the House of Peoples Representatives (HPR) is set up. All ministers
serve for the duration of the legislative session. Executive power is in the hands of the Prime
Minister, who is also the commander in chief of the armed forces.
Similarly an independent judiciary with the supreme federal judicial authority vested in the
Federal Supreme Court is established. Likewise, states have the State Council (with legislative
power), State administration (highest organ of state executive) and a judicial power vested in
courts. The judicial branch is composed of federal and state courts.
The Salient features of the FDRE Constitution

The Constitution has salient principles which give a background to many of the rules. Now, let‘s
consider those principles one by one.
A. It has given Sovereignty of the Nation, Nationalities:
The Preamble to the Constitution starts with the words ―Nation, Nationality, and Peoples...‖
Article 8 unequivocally vests sovereignty in ―Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia‖.
Pursuant to Articles 5, 8, 39, and 47 of the Constitution, not the Ethiopian citizens, but the
Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia are sovereign and building blocks of the Ethiopian
federalism.
B. Public ownership of land
This article of the Constitution is one of the hotly debated one. The Constitution stipulates that
the State and the Peoples of Ethiopia have unchallenged ownership over both rural and urban
lands, along with all natural resources (Art.40 (3)). Ethno-cultural communities have collective
ownership of land and its resources, and the special right of pastoralists for grazing land and
protection from displacement is recognized. It further states that being a common property of the
Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia, and not a private property of individuals or
groups of individuals, land will not be sold or exchanged by any other means.

C. Ethnic component as a major state policy and Federal state structure:

Ethiopia‘s adoption of ethnicity as a determinant factor in the federal structure is based on
multiple set of factors and arguments that raise political, social and economic issues and
problems inherent to the Ethiopian state and society. First, it is to answer the long-standing
problem of the national question. By settling the problems of power distribution and enhancing
access to state power for the previously dominated groups, ethnic federalism is seen to offer a
major positive departure in Ethiopian politics. Second, the need to promote the political,
economic and socio-cultural rights privileges of Ethiopia‘s Nation, Nationalities and Peoples.

Politics and Gov T .Behardar University

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

Politics and Gov T .Behardar University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bahir Dar University

Faculty of Social Sciences

Introduction to Politics and Government

Reading Material for 4th Year PSIR Students who are

Compiled By: Workineh Genet

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 2

A. Politics as the art of government

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 3

B. Politics as public affairs

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 4

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 5

1.2. Is Politics a Science or an Art?

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 6

1.3. The Nature, and Scope of Political Science

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 7

1.3.2. The Scope of Political Science

1.4. Differences between Politics and Political Science

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 8

1.5. Approaches to the Study of Political Science

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 9

A. The Philosophical Approach

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 10

C. The Scientific Approach

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 11

Although behavioral analysis undoubtedly produced and continues to produce, invaluable

2. Basic Concepts in Political Science

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 12

2.2. Society, State, and Government Relationship

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 13

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 14

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 15

2.5. Political Change

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 16

2.6. Regime and Regime change

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 17

2.7. Political Ideologies

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 18

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 19

2.7.3.1. Marxism and Communism

Different Political ideologies

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 20

2.8. Political Culture

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 21

2.9. Political Socialization

2.9.1. Agents of political Socialization

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 22

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 23

3. The Notion of Justice

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 24

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 25

Robert Nozick’s View of Justice

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 26

A. Conventional war: It is an attempt to reduce an opponent‘s military capability through open

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 27

2.2. Attributes/ Elements of State

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 28

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 29

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 30

legitimate government of the state by other governments.

2.3. Competing Theories about the Origin and Development of State

Compiled By: Workineh Genet Page 31

A. The Divine Origin Theory;

B. The Social Contract Theory;