By Assefa A. Lemu
Introduction: The debate over presidential and
parliamentary system of government has long history. The students of
comparative politics done myriads of research in this area and produced plenty
of research papers. Therefore, I have no intention to go into the details of the
theoretical analysis of these two systems. Rather, I would like to focus on
evaluating both systems in relation to Ethiopian politics. Up until the introduction
of the current constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
(FDRE) in 1995, the top officials who were heads of state of Ethiopia were also
heads of government of the country. However, the current Ethiopian
constitution introduced a parliamentary form of government where the head of
state and head of government are separate and held by different individuals.
In 2005 political
debate for election, the founder and leader of Oromo Federalist Democratic
Movement (OFDM) Mr. Bulcha Demeksa argued that presidential system of
government is better for Ethiopia and vowed to struggle to replace the
parliamentary system of government of Ethiopia with the presidential system. In
2009, OFDM merged with Oromo People’s Congress (OPC) led by Dr. Merera Gudina
and established Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC) which wants to use the
parliamentary system of government (see the Political Program of OFC here: http://oromofederalistcongress.net/democracy.html
). Even though Mr. Bulcha retired from politics after serving as the member of
the House of Peoples’ Representatives of Ethiopia for one term (2005-2010), he
continued advocating for the presidential system through his book and
interviews. For example in his book titled “My Life: My Vision for the Oromo
and Other Peoples of Ethiopia” published in 2013, he argued that the
parliamentary system should be dropped and replaced by a presidential system
(P.200). I think Mr. Bulcha’s preference for presidential system over
parliamentary was influenced by his experience with U.S. system and I doubt if
it is based on the thorough analysis and evaluation of the political realities
in Ethiopia.
After Prime
Minister Dr. Abiy Ahmed came to power in April 2018 and said that he would have
liked that he had been elected by all Ethiopians rather than being elected by
one electoral region and becoming the leader of Ethiopia, the debate for
replacing parliamentary system with presidential system has been re-ignited and
picked by other political figures like Dr. Berhanu Nega of Arbegnoch Ginbot 7
and ESAT journalists fanned it (https://youtu.be/uqbY6A2pgyc?t=1064
). Even though the political Program of Ginbot 7 Movement for Justice, Freedom,
and Democracy (http://www.ginbot7.org/program-3/)
doesn’t state the form of government the Movement wishes to introduce, its
leader became one of the advocates for the presidential system of government. In
his recent interview with Ethiopian Television (ETV) (https://youtu.be/5LBlIeEXQjM?t=1795
), Dr. Berhanu Nega said he prefers presidential system of government because
if the president is elected by all citizens, he or she will be a unifying
figure and creates clear separation of government powers.
As I discussed in
my previous articles (http://www.aigaforum.com/article2018/Ethiopia-and-the-Federal-System.htm
and https://kichuu.com/making-ethiopian-constitution/
), the current constitution of the FDRE is in peril from both within (from the
officials of EPRDF led Government) and from outside ( from the leaders of
opposition political parties and individuals opposing the current system of
government in Ethiopia). As the Oromo saying goes “takku keninaan dhundhuma gaafatte”,
which is slightly equivalent with the saying of "if
you give them an inch, they'll take a mile”, the recent
concession given by the Ethiopian Government to the opposition political
organization is leading to changing the constitution and system of government. The
“chickens who broke EPRDF’s egg from inside out” and claimed that they gave
life to EPRDF which was on the verge of death are giving a way for other
chickens that are eager to smash EPRDF’s egg from outside in to take life out
of it (the metaphor of “breaking the egg” in relation to EPRDF was first used
by Dr. Abiy Ahmed on the opening of 11th General Assembly of EPRDF
held in October 2018 in Hawasa (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqwhOBx7krw
). Prime Minister Dr. Abiy Ahmed who is leading the group that broke “EPRDF’s
egg” and opened a way to undo some of what his party EPRDF done in the past 27
years is becoming another Mikhail Gorbachev who through his Glasnost
(openness) and Prestroika (restructuring) policies dismantled what the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union did and disbanded USSR. From the November
27, 2018 meeting of Dr. Abiy with 81 political party leaders, we heard that his
Medemer policy will lead to the revision or change of the constitution (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dxCOD-stkM).
What we haven’t heard yet is whether Medemer will lead to the collapse or
disbandment of the FDRE or not. The current move of EPRDF leadership and the
exaggerated commending reminds me the Oromo saying “sobi jaji, dhaqee
haadu’u”, meaning praise him fictitiously so that let him go and die. I am
in support of the current political change in Ethiopia, but I have worries
regarding the direction the change is heading. Some groups are trying to put as
many harnesses on the change to pull it to the direction they want and others
are simply spectators of the show without taking balancing measures. As Dr.
Berhanu Nega put it in his recent interview with the Voice of America, Amharic
Service, all they (Ginbot 7) want to do is “to keep their eyes on the ball” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4tK1PSpheU ). In politics “the ball” is political (government)
power.
Branches
of Government:
Normally, government has three branches—Legislative/Parliamentary branch
(the branch that makes laws), Executive branch (the branch that enforce or
implement laws), and Judiciary branch (the branch that interpreter laws). The
main distinction of these branches is based on their role in making,
implementing, and interpreting the laws of a country. The basis for
categorizing a form of government either as parliamentary or presidential
system is the relationship between executive and legislative branches of
government. Under presidential system, there is a clear distinction (clear
separation of power) between executive and the legislative branches. However,
under the parliamentary system, some members of the executive branch including
the prime minister will be members of the legislative. Therefore, there is
intersection or overlap of duties. Regarding accountability, under
parliamentary system, the executive branch is accountable to the legislative branch
from where it got power. But, under presidential system, the chief executive
(the president) is accountable to the people not to the legislative.
Why
Presidential System of Government for Ethiopia? Presidential system is a form of government
where the president is elected by the people and serves as both head of state
and head of government and independent from the legislative branch. On the
other hand, parliamentary system is a form of government where the executive
branch, at least certain members of the executive including the head of the
executive branch (the prime minister), is part of the legislative branch and
accountable to the legislative. Therefore, the presidential form of the
government in which one individual has strong power as both head of state and head
government and not accountable to the legislative and has personalized
leadership is much closer to the Habesha political culture dominated by
kingship. To the contrary, the parliamentary form of government in which party
(group) leadership and institutionalized administration is common is more close
to the Oromo Gada system and to the political cultures of most of the non-
Habesha peoples in Ethiopia. Under the presidential system, the legislative and
executive branches of government compete against each other rather than
cooperating and sometimes that competition leads to stalemate. This was
observed several times in the U.S. under the Obama administration where both
the executive and congress/legislative repeatedly failed to achieve what they
wanted to achieve.
Thus, the
preference for the presidential system is not only about its benefits for
governance but also about the continuity of Habesha political culture. One of
the differences between Habesha and Oromo political cultures is the credit
taking culture. In the Habesha political culture, the king or other individual
leader such as Yegobez Aleka takes all the credits and become popular. In
addition, since there is no limitation of term of office, the king or another
leader stay in power for a longer time and instill his legacy that will be
remembered under his name. In the Oromo political culture, achievements and
credits belong to the team, not to an individual leader. Abba Gada (the father
of the period) is considered as a team leader and his term in office cannot exceed
eight years (one gada). Unlike that of the Habesha political culture which is
more of personalized, Oromo political culture revolves around team or group.
Therefore, the competition over the choice of form of government is about the
choice of political culture. The debate about yezeginet (individual)
politics versus group politics also boils down to the choice of political
culture—individual versus group.
As stated under
article 26 of the revised constitution of Ethiopia of 1955, the supreme
authority over all the affairs of Ethiopia was vested in the Emperor who was
both head of state and head of government and had all the authority to
determine the organization, power, and duties of the executive branch. The Emperor
had all the rights to select, appoint, and dismiss the prime minister and all
the ministers (Art. 66 of the revised Ethiopian Constitution of 1955).
Derg also used the
presidential form of government, but the president was elected by the National
Shengo (Assembly), not directly by the people. According to Article 85 of the
constitution of the People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (PDRE) of 1987,
the president of the PDRE was the head of state and commander-in-chief of the
armed forces and the Council of Ministers (the highest executive and
administrative organ of the PDRE) was accountable to him. The president of PDRE
had the power to appoint and dismiss the prime minister (the executive) and the
president and vice president of the Supreme Court (the judiciary).
In a nutshell, the
governments of Emperor Haileselassie and Derg somehow had the structure of the
presidential form of government. Under the two regimes, Ethiopia was a unitary
state in which the top individual official used to dictate his will from the
center. This was the political reality in the past and this is what some
groups want to bring back.
Why Not Parliamentary System? The argument that
some Ethiopians and individuals of Ethiopian origin make to change the current
parliamentary system of Ethiopia to presidential system is that the current
politics in Ethiopia is dominated by ethnic or identity or group politics which
weakened “Ethiopiawinet”. Therefore, they argue, delaying the election until
the ideas of group politics fades out in the mind of the people and replaced
with individual (yezeginet) politics and making prominent Ethiopian individual
to be elected by all Ethiopians eligible to vote can restore “Ethiopiwinet”.
They also argue that since others are ‘yehasab deha’ and cannot present
popular and visionary individuals who will be elected by all Ethiopian voters,
presidential system will give them better chance to have their candidate chosen
because their group has individuals who are known by all or by the majority.
This is baseless and flawed argument, but it is one of their political
strategies to take power and they are repeating these arguments over and over
again. Even though the historical inequalities still have some implications, unless
the definition of “Ethiopian” given under Article 6 of the current Ethiopian
constitution is changed, I don’t think that we see again the domination of one
ethnic group when there is a call for “yeager shumagle” or “yeItophiya mihuran”
or “tawaki Itophiyawuyan” because all peoples who live in the territory of
Ethiopia are now considered equally Ethiopians regardless of the language they
speak and the religion they follow.
Pro-presidential
system groups argue that, under presidential system, the head of the executive
branch (the president) is directly elected by the people and accountable to the
people. However, this is not necessarily true. For example, in 2016
presidential election, Hillary Clinton got 65,853,516 popular vote (48.5% of
vote) and Donald Trump got 62,984,825 popular vote (46.4% of vote) (https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/president
). Had the determination was made based on the direct vote of the people, Ms.
Clinton who got more direct vote would have been the president of the United
States. However, the decision was made not on the basis of the number of direct
vote, but through the process of Electoral College in which Mr. Trump got 306
out of 538 electoral votes and Ms. Clinton got 232 out of 538. Those admirers
of the U.S. style of presidential system need to tell us why an indirect
election where the voters elect a body of representatives which elect the
political office holder on their behalf is considered appropriate for the U.S.
presidential election and considered inappropriate for electing the prime minister
for Ethiopia. If the selection of a president for the United States by 538
electors (representatives) is considered right, why the selection of a prime
minister for Ethiopia by 547 representatives is considered wrong? The voters’
voices which exist behind the 538 U.S. electors also exist behind 547 Ethiopian
Peoples’ Representatives.
Even if Ethiopia
uses other styles of presidential system where the president is elected through
direct election where the voters directly cast ballots to elect the president
like in Kenya or Uganda, that will not guarantee the formation of good
governance in Ethiopia. Studies show that “strict accountability between
elected officials and voters may not lead to better governance outcomes” (John
Gerring et al (n.d) P. 9 https://www.bu.edu/sthacker/files/2012/01/Are-Parliamentary-Systems-Better.pdf
.
Furthermore, the argument
which says “Parliamentarism may work fine for ethnically homogenous countries
like Japan, Israel, or England, but in highly diverse countries such as
Ethiopia (80 ethnic groups), and Nigeria (250 ethnic groups) such a system
invites frictions and rivalries between different ethnic and religious groups” (
https://mereja.com/index/224921)
is not valid. Studies show the opposite. Parliamentary system is proven to work
better in multi-ethnic and multi-religious countries like India. In his article
titled “Parliamentary and Presidential Systems of Government With Special
Reference to India”, Professor Subrata Mukherjee wrote “With growing ethnic,
tribal and linguistic consciousness a charismatic leader or a strong symbolic
presidential authority may become ruinous. In the mass societies of today which
are inherently plural a successful political process is to be accommodative and
participatory and in this crucial area the presidential system is grossly
inadequate as it restricts politics instead of expanding it. It polarizes
politics rather than accommodate even regional aspirations, extreme ideological
parties and minority organizations” (http://paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/paper_55397.pdf
). His study shows that the presidential system is inappropriate for multi
ethnic countries like India. He concluded the parliamentary system is better
suited to heterogeneous countries like India. The same is true for Ethiopia
which is one of the multi-ethnic countries.
Conclusion:
Above, I briefly discussed
the characteristics of presidential and parliamentary forms of government and
some of the driving sugar coated reasons for changing the current parliamentary
form of government of Ethiopia to presidential system. The Oromo Gada system
which operates based on the rotation of five parties (Birmaji, Horota,
Michille, Dulo, and Robale) proved that the parliamentary system accommodates
pluralism, efficient for administration, and make the administration more
accountable. Neither Abba Gada who serve as the father of the nation or
president, nor Abba Bokku who is the head of the Hayyu Council (cabinet
ministers) and serve as a prime minister, nor Abba Chafee who is the head of
the parliament (the Speaker) has monopoly of power. All Gada officials work as
a team in collaboration and in coordination. The Gada system encourages having
strong institutions rather than depending on strong individual. The strong relationship
between parliamentary system and good governance found by some studies is vivid
under Oromo Gada system.
Both parliamentary
and presidential systems got their advantages and limitations. As John Gerring
et al summarized in their article titled Are Parliamentary Systems Better?
“…parliamentarism fosters a style of politics and policymaking that is probably
more institutionalized, centered as it is on political parties, while
presidentialism fosters a more personalized and free-floating style of
leadership centered on individual politicians and smaller, less established
organizational entities” (https://www.bu.edu/sthacker/files/2012/01/Are-Parliamentary-Systems-Better.pdf
). Under presidential system, there are two separate elections- one for the
president and the other for the legislature (member of parliament). However,
under parliamentary system, there is only one national election, the
parliamentary election, because the prime minister is first elected as a member
of the parliament and then elected by the parliament members as a prime
minister.
In short, the
choice of form of government for Ethiopia must be based on the current and
future needs of the country, not on maintaining the old political culture and
mere objective of introducing change.
No comments:
Post a Comment