Ethiopia in Constitutional Crises? ALEMAYEHU G MARIAM

July 29th, 2012 Print Print Email Email

In an interview I gave to the Voice of America Amharic program last week, I was asked to comment on the nature of constitutional succession in the event of death, disability, resignation, illness, incapacity or removal from power of the prime minster (PM) in Ethiopia. The answer I gave seems to have surprised, shocked, dismayed and appalled many. The Ethiopian Constitution makes no provisions for the orderly transfer of power in the event of a vacancy in the PM’s office. Simply stated, there is no constitutional process for succession of executive power in Ethiopia!

The issue of succession has become critical in light of the prolonged and mysterious absence of the current holder of PM’s office and the garbled official explanation for his complete disappearance from public view. Some Ethiopian opposition leaders have apparently argued for the installation of the deputy prime mister (DPM) as a constitutional successor to the PM or at least serve as acting PM until the final health status of the current holder of the PM’s office is established. Their argument is neither textually nor inferentially supported by any reasonable reading of the relevant provisions of the Ethiopian Constitution.

The office of the DPM is mentioned 4 times in the Ethiopian Constitution, three of which occur in Art. 75; and once in Article 76 in which the DPM is mentioned as a member of the Council of Ministers. Article 75 defines the totality of powers, duties and roles of the DPM:

1. The Deputy Prime Minister shall: (a) perform the duties assigned to him by the Prime Minister; (b) represent the Prime Minister in his absence. 2. The Deputy Prime Minister is accountable to the Prime Minister.

Under Article 75, the DPM is a political creature of the PM’s making, and not an actual constitutional officer with prescribed duties and functions. Unlike the PM (art. 73), the DPM is not “elected”, rather s/he is a mere political appointee who is selected by the PM. Whatever powers the DPM has comes directly and exclusively from the PM, and not the Constitution. The DPM “performs duties assigned by the prime minister” and has no independent or residual statutory or constitutional duties or powers. The PM directs the activities, functions and roles of the DPM as the PM sees fit. The DPM can be dismissed or replaced by the PM at any time. In short, the DPM’s office is in reality an empty constitutional shell — a make-believe office — devoid of any constitutional or statutory responsibilities.

It is important to examine the constitutional nature of the DPM’s office more closely to understand the enormity of the constitutional crisis facing Ethiopia today regardless of whether the current holder of the PM’s office returns to office. The DPM is constitutionally designated as the “representative” of the PM. The term “representative” in Article 75 does not have the same meaning as the term “representative” in the “Council of Representatives” whose members are “elected for a term of five years” with full authority to “represent” their constituencies (Article 58). The DPM as the PM’s “representative” is not a “PM in waiting or in the wings”. The DPM could stand in or appear on behalf of the PM as directed and assigned, or possibly “represent” the PM as an agent or proxy if specifically authorized. But the DPM has no independent constitutional powers to “represent” the PM or perform the PM’s duties and responsibilities as the PM’s “representative”.

To be sure, there is no textual basis in Article 75 or in any other part of the Constitution to infer that the DPM can exercise any of the PM’s powers under Article 74. For instance, the DPM has no constitutional authority to function as “the head of government, chairman of the Council of Ministers and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces” under any circumstances. Nor does s/he have the power to act as “acting prime minster” or perform in any other similar capacity in the event of a vacancy in the PM’s office or in the absence of the PM. The DPM does not have the constitutional power or authority to “direct, coordinate and represent the Council of Ministers,” or to “appoint all high government officials.” The DPM cannot “perform other duties assigned to him by this Constitution and other laws” because neither the Constitution nor other “laws” give the DPM any “duties” whatsoever to perform. Whatever the DPM does, s/he does at the direction, supervision and pleasure of the PM. Practically speaking, the DPM is the PM’s “gofer” (errand runner) and factotutm (handy person), and not a true constitutional officer.

Analysis of Articles 72-75 (“Executive Power”) demonstrates that the DPM’s office was structurally designed as a shadow, symbolic or make-believe office with the manifest aim of giving the public impression that there is a deputy PM who could take over in the event of a vacancy in the PM’s office in the same sense as a vice president would succeed a president. It is an office created with constitutional smoke and mirrors with the intention of creating the illusion of a constitutional plan of executive succession without actually creating one. Article 75 could be an amazing constitutional sleight of hand or an egregious omission in constitutional design!

Is Ethiopia in Constitutional Crises?

It is manifest that Ethiopia is now facing not only a leadership and power vacuum but also a monumental constitutional crises in the absence of a constitutional plan or procedure for succession. A constitution without a clear plan of succession is an invitation to political chaos, conflict and instability. In the United States, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (which supersedes other prior succession Acts) establishes the line of succession to the powers and duties of the office of President of the United States in the event that neither a President nor Vice President is able to “discharge the powers and duties of the office.” The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes procedures for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President and responding to Presidential disability.

Article 60 of Ghana’s Constitution also provides clear provisions on presidential succession: “(6) Whenever the President dies, resigns or is removed from office, the Vice-President shall assume office as President for the unexpired term of office of the President… (8) Whenever the President is absent from Ghana or is for any other reason unable to perform the functions of his office, the Vice-President shall perform the function of the President until the President returns or is able to perform…” Even North Korea has a plan of succession though the process is a dynastic family affair in which power is passed from grandfather to son to grandson as we have witnessed recently.

Why is there no plan or clear statement or language on succession of executive power in the Ethiopian Constitution? I noted above that the particular design of the office of the DPM could be an amazing constitutional sleight of hand or an egregious omission and irremediable defect in constitutional design. If the drafters of the 1995 Ethiopian Constitution never anticipated, imagined, calculated or believed the person who becomes PM of Ethiopia will ever be removed from office by any means and for any reason and thus designed the DPM’s office as it is, then their omission could be regarded as a grossly negligent act of incompetence for which they should collectively suffer public condemnation and castigation. But it is unlikely that the DPM’s office was designed with such obvious oversight or inadvertence. It is not an act of omission; it is an act of commission.

A reasonable analysis of Article 75 suggests that the drafters intentionally and with great foresight designed the DPM’s office the way they did (toothless, powerless, duty-less) out of an abundance of caution to guard against any potential future loss of the PM’s office (and with it control of the state, armed forces, economy, etc.,) from the hands of those elements who have had a chokehold on the office for the past 21 years. Given the ethnically tangled nature of Ethiopian politics, the individuals who controlled the drafting of the Constitution understood that the PM’s and DPM’s office could not be in the hands of members of the same ethnic group. That is to say, if the PM is a member of one ethnic group, the deputy prime ministership must necessarily be given to a person from another ethnic group to maintain the illusion of power sharing and play a clever political balancing game. If there is a real possibility of succession under this “power sharing” arrangement, the outcome could be potentially catastrophic to the power brokers controlling the PM’s office in the remote and unlikely event the PM is unable to discharge his/her duties and must leave office.

Under Article 75, the DPM could prove to be a Frankensteinian creation of the PM capable of destroying its own creator. If the DPM succeeds the PM, then the power brokers and structure that supported the PM could collapse with the supporters of the DPM as PM gaining power. As a result, there is high likelihood that the power brokers and supporters of the PM who vacated office could potentially lose power and influence and be marginalized under the new PM. However, the power brokers and supporters of the PM who vacated office could still maintain their power and influence by installing a DPM from one of the minority ethnic groups in the country. By making such an appointment, the PM and supporters effectively create the illusion that members of the country’s ethnic minorities are gaining recognition, power and status hitherto unavailable or denied to them while immunizing themselves from the criticisms of other major ethnic group contenders who may be making claims to the DPM’s office.

The appointment of a DPM from a minority group ensures that power remains in the hands of the power brokers and supporters of the PM whether the PM stays in office or vacates for any reason. The only way a DPM from an ethnic minority could survive politically as a PM is with the support of those who supported the PM who vacated office. The DPM as PM simply will not have a sufficient support base in the party structure, bureaucracy, military, civic society, economic structure, etc. to be able to act independently. The DPM as PM could only survive as a mere puppet in the hands of the power brokers and supporters of the PM who vacated office.

Facing such a daunting constitutional dilemma, the power brokers and supporters of the current holder of the PM’s office will have no viable option but to ram through by unconstitutional means the installation of the holder of the DPM as PM. If such was the design, Article 75 could be regarded as a masterful stroke of political genius unrivalled in modern African constitutional history. The downside is that given the manifest constitutional problems of succession, other power contenders are unlikely to accept such an outcome which is patently unconstitutional and undemocratic. They may insist on a new election for a PM within a reasonable period of time if it comes to pass that the current holder of the PM’s office could no longer perform the duties of that office.

To dodge this enormous constitutional dilemma and avoid an election for a new PM at any cost, the power brokers and supporters of the holder of the PM’s office could create various distractions and diversions. It is very likely that they could fabricate an emergency (internal by claiming insurrection or external by triggering conflict) and declare martial law. They could engage in dilatory tactics by refusing to make firm and clear announcements on the status of the current holder of the PM’s office. They could seek the intervention or mediation of outside powers to help resolve the crisis by proposing a short-term transitional solution until a permanent solution is found either by constitutional amendment or new elections. They are likely to use the “constitutional court” under Article 83 to obtain an interpretation of Article 75 which is manifestly contrary to the plain meaning of the constitutional text. No doubt, they will have many tricks up their sleeves to get themselves out of the constitutional jam, buy time and cling to power.

The smart move for the power brokers and supporters of the holder of the PM’s office now would be to take this fantastic opportunity and offer an olive branch to the opposition and invite them to a dialogue on power sharing and other matters. There is no shame, defeat or harm in making a peace offering to the opposition. It has been done in Kenya and even Zimbabwe. It was done in South Africa under the most difficult of circumstances. It has been tried with different outcomes in Burundi, Guinea, Madagascar and the Ivory Coast.

In 2009, Kenya formed a “grand coalition government” among bitter political enemies. They were able to write a new constitution which was approved by an overwhelming 67 percent of Kenyans in 2011. In 2008, President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai signed a power-sharing deal. Last week, Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai pushed for approval of a draft constitution prepared by the Select Committee of Parliament on the New Constitution (COPAC). Both countries have a long way to go on the road to full democratization but they are certainly on the right track. The only sensible way out of this constitutional predicament is to follow Nelson Mandela’s prescription: “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” It’s the perfect time now for all to bury the hatchet, shake hands and get their shoulders to the grindstone and build a new Ethiopia.

Constitutional Transition From Dictatorship to Democracy

The DPM issue is only the tip of the iceberg of the enormous constitutional crises to face Ethiopia. Those of us in the business of constitutional law and analysis have known of the structural flaw in the design of the DPM’s office, the expansive nature of executive power as well as numerous other flaws in the current Constitution for a long time. Truth be told, our characterization of the current holder of the PM’s office as “dictator” over the years was not mere rhetorical flair but an accurate and precise description based on a careful and penetrating analysis of the Ethiopian Constitution and the way power is concentrated in one office and one person.

A dictator is a person “who has absolute power or authority.” That is what the 1995 Ethiopian Constitution created in Articles 72-75. Article 74 created a PM whose powers are total, unbridled and unlimited and without any plan of succession. The PM and his hand-selected Council of Ministers are the “highest executive authority” in the country. The “Prime Minister” is the “head of government, chairman of the Council of Ministers and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.” The PM is only nominally accountable to the Council of Deputies and the judiciary. S/he is not accountable to the Council of Ministers. In fact, the PM has total and absolute dominance over these institutions. The PM has the power to “dissolve the Council [of Representatives] before the expiry of its term so as to conduct new elections”, dismiss or replace any member of the Council of Ministers at will and nominate and dismiss judges. Under the Constitution, the PM is accountable to no one. The PM’s word is the constitution and the law. The PM is an absolute constitutional dictator though that sounds oxymoronic!

The Life and Death of African Dictators

All dictators believe they can live forever. But only the evil they have done during their lifetimes lives forever. Sitting in the saddle of power, African dictators fear no one, not the people or even God. They have convinced themselves they are heroes and “gods” in their own right. They try to project the image of invincibility and immortality. But they are neither; they are mere mortals. They get sick, they suffer pain and they die like the people they oppressed, jailed, tortured and killed. They hold their people in total contempt and treat them like dumb children. They try to convince their people that they are healthy when they are sick and alive when they are dead.

In the past 7 years, the story we hear in Ethiopia today has been told many times in Africa. In 2005, President Gnassingbé Eyadéma of Togo, at the time Africa’s longest-ruling dictator, died of a “heart attack” as he was being rushed to Europe for treatment. Though he had heart and other serious health problems for years, those facts were hidden from the public until it was suddenly announced that he had passed away. In 2009, Gabon’s long reigning dictator, Omar Bongo Ondimba, died in a hospital in Spain. Government officials in Gabon had long denied he was sick or had any serious health problems. But Bongo had cancer. In 2009, President Umaru Yar’Adua of Nigeria reportedly left the country for what was described as “routine medical check up” in Saudi Arabia. After months of prolonged absence, he returned to Nigeria and died of lung cancer. Earlier this year, President Malam Bacai Sanhá of Guinea-Bissau died at a Paris hospital from what was officially described as “advanced diabetes” and a hemoglobin problem (possibly leukemia). Sanha denied that he had health problems and said his situation “was not as serious as people want to make out”. President Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi also died earlier this year from what was described officially as a heart attack after being transported to South Africa in a comatose state.

In all of these cases, the serious health issues were underplayed by the leaders themselves and their officials. They often blamed the cynical opposition for exaggerating news and information of their health condition. The officials in Ethiopia have a constitutional duty under Article 12 to perform their responsibilities “in a manner which is open and transparent to the public”. That transparency includes the duty to divulge full information to the public on the prolonged absence of the holder of the office of PM.

The life and death of President John Atta Mills of Ghana last week stands in stark contrast to the other African dictators. For the past several months, the Ghanaian public was aware that President Mills was having serious health problems. He was making few public appearances and had retreated from public view, leaving his vice president, John Dramani Mahama, to attend public functions. Though he won the presidency by a razor-thin margin in 2009, Mills soon gained the love, respect and appreciation of his people. In its online editorial, The Nation, Nigeria’s top circulation publication observed: “The open affection Ghanaians showed President Mills and the Ghana Parliament’s fidelity to constitutional provisions are areas Nigeria can learn from. President Mills respected his office and honoured his people by working hard for them. Little wonder, the people reciprocated by treating him as a rare hero in death.” Africa needs rare heroes. The alternative for Africa’s villains has been prophesied by Gandhi long ago: “There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall — think of it, ALWAYS.”

There is a way out of the constitutional crises and dead end Ethiopian is facing today. Nelson Mandela paved that two way road in South Africa and called it “Forgiveness and Goodness.” We should all prepare ourselves and the people to travel that two-way road. It is time for national dialogue!

  1. Zeberga
    | #1

    Ethiopia follows a parliamentarian system not a presidential. The power of the prime minister also comes from the notion that his party has the majority seat in the parliament. Hence he is also an appointee by his party. The president can consult the party/parties in majority to form a government in times of crisis or dismiss the parliament and call fresh elections. Any elementary school student who have taken civic classes in Ethiopia knows these.

  2. Berihu
    | #2

    አንድን ነገር ከመጻፌ በፊት ራሴን እንዲህ ብዬ እጠይቃለሁ፡፡ መጻፌ ጥቅም ይኖረው ይሆን? የምጽፈው ነገር ምክንያታዊ ነውን? ይህ ካልሆነ ግን ዝምታን እመርጣለሁ፡፡ ዛሬ ለመጻፍ ስነሳም ለጥያቄዎቼ በቂ ምላሽ ከሰጠሁ በኋላ ነው፡፡ ሪፖርተር ጋዜጣ በሐምሌ 15 ቀን 2004 ዓ.ም. ዕትሙ በአገራችን ዕውቅ ከሆኑ የሕግ ምሁራንና ባለሙያዎች ጋር የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩን መታመም በማስታከክ፣ ‹‹ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ጊዜያዊ ወይም ቋሚ ሕመም ቢያጋጥመው ማን ተክቶት ይሠራል ለሚለው የሕገ መንግሥቱ አንቀጽ ክፍተት አለበት›› በሚል ርዕስ የቀረበውን ጽሑፍ አንብቤ የተነሳው ጭብጥ፣ አስፈላጊነትና ወቅታዊነት ብዙም ባላምንበትም፣ በተነሱት አንዳንድ ሐሳቦች ላይ ከተነሱት ሕገ መንግሥታዊ መርሆዎችና ድንጋጌዎች ምክንያታዊ እሳቤ (rationale)፣ ይዘት (content)፣ መልእክት (message)፣ ትርጓሜ (interpretation) እና ማብራርያ ምሳሌዎች (illusturation) ረገድ የምስማማባቸውን ትቼ፣ በማልስማማባቸው ሐሳቦች ላይ ይን መጣጥፍ ስጭር፣ በተነሱት ጉዳዮች ላይ ምላሽ ለመስጠትና ለእሰጥ አገባ በር ለመክፈት እንዳልሆነና በሠለጠነው ሐሳብ የማንሸራሸር ውቅያኖስ ላይ ጠበል ጠዲቅ ከመቃመስ አኳያ ብቻና ብቻ እንደሆነ ግንዛቤ እንዲወሰድበት እፈልጋለሁ፡፡

    ስለዚህ ሕገ መንግሥትና ሕገ መንግሥታዊነት፣ ሕገ መንግሥት ከሌሎች ሕጎች የሚለይበት መሠረታዊ ባሕርያት፣ የፓርላማ ሥርዓትና የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትርነት ሥልጣን መሠረታዊ መገለጫዎችና ከፕሬዚዳንታዊ ሥርዓት የሚመሳሰሉበትና የሚለያዩበት ሁኔታ፣ የአስቸኳይ ጊዜ ማዕቀፍ፣ ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ክፍተትና የኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት በጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ አሰያየምና ያንፀባረቀው አቋም፣ እንደ መንደርደርያነት በመመልከት እውን ይህ የተባለው የሕገ መንግሥት አንቀጽ 75 ክፍተት ያለበት ነውን? የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ መታመምና የተለያዩ የእክል ክስተቶች በሕገ መንግሥት መመለስ ያለባቸው ጉዳዮች ናቸውን? የኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት እውን በተነሳው ጭብጥና ተያያዥ ነጥቦች ላይ ከቀደምት ሕገ መንግሥቶች የሚነፃፀር ነውን? የደርግ ወይም የኃይለ ሥላሴ ሥርዓት የወላድ መካን የሆኑት በሕገ መንግሥትና ሕገ መንግሥታዊነት መርሆዎች በተነሳ ጉዳይ ነውን? የሌሎች ሚኒስትሮች ቢሮዎች እውን ከምክትል ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ከፍ ያለ ኃላፊነት የተጣለባቸው ናቸውን? የሚኒስትሮች ምክር ቤት የሥልጣን ወሰንና እንደ አንድ አካል መቆጠር እርግጠኛ መሆን አይቻልምን? የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ጊዜያዊ ወይም ቋሚ ሕመም ለኢ-ሕገ መንግሥታዊ የሥልጣን ሽግግር ምክንያት ሊሆን ይችላልን? የሕገ መንግሥቱ ዘላቂነት በሚሉትና ሌሎች ተያያዥ ጭብጦችን እንደሚከተለው አብረን እንመርምራቸው፡፡

    ሕገ መንግሥትና ሕገ መንግሥታዊነት
    በዘመናችን ሁለት መቶ የሚሆኑ ሉዓላዊ አገሮች እንዳሉና ከእነዚህም በጣም የበዙት የተጻፈ፣ በጣት የሚቆጠሩት ደግሞ ያልተጻፈ ሕገ መንግሥት እንዳላቸው በዘርፉ የተካሄዱ ጥናቶች ያስረዳሉ፡፡ በመሆኑም ሰዎች ስለሚኖሩበት አገር ወይም ስለሌላው አገር ሕገ መንግሥት በአንዱ ወይም በሌላው መልኩ ሲገልጹ፣ ሲከራከሩና ሲወያዩ መስማት ወይም ማየት እንግዳ ነገር አይደለም፡፡ ስለ ሕገ መንግሥት የሚወያዩ ሰዎች ሁሉ ስለሚወያዩበት ሕገ መንግሥት ትክክለኛና የተሟላ ግንዛቤ አላቸው ብሎ አፍን ሞልቶ መናገር ግን አይቻልም፡፡ ምክንያቱም እያንዳንዱ ሰው ከደረሰበት የትምህርት ደረጃ፣ ከኖረበት ሥነ ቁጠባዊ፣ ማኅበራዊና ፖለቲካዊ ባህል፣ ከተሰማራበት የሙያ ዘርፍና ሌሎች ምክንያቶች ስለ ሕገ መንግሥት ያለው ግንዛቤ አንዱ ከሌላው ሰው የተለያየ በመሆኑ ነው፡፡

    ስለዚህ ጽንሰ ሐሳቡን ለመረዳት ይረዳን ዘንድ ከትርጓሜው እንነሳ፡፡ ብላክስ ሎው የተባለው የሕግ መዝገበ ቃላት የሰጠውን ትርጓሜ ስንመለከት “Constitution is the fundamental and organic law of Nation or State establishing the conception, character, and organization of its government, as well as prescribing the extent of its sovereign power and the manner of its exercise” የሚል ፍቺ ሰጥቶት እናገኘዋለን፡፡ ይህን ፍቺ ስንመረምረው፣ ሕገ መንግሥት መሠረታዊ የሆነ፣ አንድ አገር ወይም መንግሥት የሚመራበትና የሚተዳደርበት፣ በዋነኛነት ስለሕገ መንግሥት አወቃቀር፣ የመንግሥት አካላት አደረጃጀት፣ የመንግሥቱን ባህሪና ስለ መንግሥት ሥልጣን ሊያዝ የሚገባውን ገዢ አስተሳሰብ፣ የመንግሥት ሉዓላዊ ሥልጣን ወሰን፣ መንግስት ሉዓላዊ ሥልጣኑን ሥራ ላይ ስለሚያውልበት አግባብ ወይም ሥርዓት፣ የመንግሥት ሥልጣን አጠቃቀም ላይ ልጓም በማድረግና ገደብ በማበጀት፣ መንግሥት ሉዓላዊ ሥልጣኑን እንዴትና በምን መንገድ መጠቀም እንዳለበት ገዢ የሆነ ደንቦች የሚያስቀምጥ ሕግ ብቻ ሳይሆን፣ ኢኮኖሚያዊ፣ ማኅበረዊና ፖለቲካዊ ባህል የሚገለጽበት ፖለቲካዊና ሕጋዊ ሰነድ ጭምር ነው፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥት በትርጉሙ የሕግና የፖለቲካ ሥርዓትን ቁልፍ ማዕቀፍና መሠረት የሚጥል (Framework and Skeleton) ሆኖ እንዲያገለግል የአውጪዎቹ የጋራ እምነት፣ እሴትና ስምምነት እንዲሁም የሥልጣነ መንግሥት ክፍፍልና በመንግሥት አካላት ውስጥና መንግሥት ከሌሎች ድርጅቶና ዜጎች በአጠቃላይ የሚኖረው ግንኙነት የሚወስንና አንዲት አገር በረዥም ጊዜ ውስጥ ዕውን ልታደርገው የምትፈልገውን ራዕይ፣ አገራዊ ራዕዩን ዕውን ለማድረግ መሳካት የሚገባቸው ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ግቦችንና ዓላማዎችን በረቀቀ ሁኔታ የሚገለጽበት ሰነድም ጭምር ነው፡፡

    ይህ ማለት ግን የሕገ መንግሥት ተግባር ይህ ብቻ ነው ማለት አይደለም፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥት የመንግሥት ስያሜ፣ ዝርዝር ዲሞክራሲያዊና ሰብዓዊ መብቶችን፣ የአሠራር ደንቦችና ሥነ ሥርዓቶችን አጠቃልሎ ሊይዝ ይችላል፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ሥርዓትም ተቋማዊ ልጓምና አለንጋ ወይም የቁጥጥርና ምዝዝን (Check and Balance) አሠራር ያለበት፣ የሕግ ሉዓላዊነት የሰፈነበት፣ የመንግሥት ተግባርና ሥራ በሕግ ሥርዓቱ ቁጥጥር ሥር የሆነበት የሥርዓተ መንግሥት ምሶሶ ማለት ነው፡፡

    የአንድን አገር የሕግ ሥርዓት፣ የፖለቲካ እንቅስቃሴና ኃይሎች የሚወሰኑት በሕገ መንግሥት መርሆዎች ነው፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥት በተፈጥሮው ከሥልጣነ መንግሥትና ሥርዓተ መንግሥት ይዘትና አመሠራረት ጋር የተያያዘ ነው፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥት ሕግ ብቻ ሳይሆን፣ የፖለቲካ መሣሪያም ጭምር ነው፡፡ በአንድ ጂኦግራፊያዊና ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ወሰን ክልል ያለው አገር ውስጥ የሚደረጉ የፖለቲካ እንቅስቃሴዎች በሙሉ በሕግ ሥር የሚደረጉ ከሆነ ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ሥርዓት አለ ማለት ነው፡፡ የአንድን አገር ሕገ መንግሥት በማጥናት ብቻ በንድፍ ሐሳብ ደረጃ ፖለቲካውንና የሕግ ሥርዓቱን ማወቅ ይቻላል፡፡ ስለሆነም ሕገ መንግሥት ለአንድ የፖለቲካና የሕግ ሥርዓት የማዕዘን ድንጋይ፣ ምሰሶና ማገር ሆኖ የሚያገለግል ሰነድ ነው፡፡

    ሕገ መንግሥታዊነት (Constitutionalism) ሥርዓተ መንግሥቱ ለአንዲት አገር ሕገ መንግሥት ያለው ታማኝነትና እምነት የሚገለጽበት ጽንሰ ሐሳብ ነው፡፡ የመንግሥት አካላትና የመንግሥት ባለሥልጣናት በሕገ መንግሥቱ የተደነገጉ መሠረታዊ መርሆዎች እሴቶች በሙሉ ልብ በመቀበል እነዚህን ሕገ መንግሥታዊ መርሆዎች፣ እሴቶችና ድንጋጌዎች በመላ ተግባሮቻቸው እንዲገለገሉበትና ሕገ መንግሥቱን በማክበር፣ በማስከበርና በመጠበቅ ያለውን ተፈጻሚነት የሚገለጽበት ዘውግ ነው፡፡

    ሕገ መንግሥታዊነት በአንዲት አገር በሕገ መንግሥትነት የታወጀ ሰነድ ከመኖሩ ባሻገር፣ በሕገ መንግሥቱ ጥላ የተደራጁ አካላት ለሕገ መንግሥቱ ተገዥ ሆነው መገኘታቸውን ይመለከታል፡፡ የዘርፉ ሊቃውንት ሕገ መንግሥታዊነትን ‹‹The phenomenon of government conforming to the dictates of a settled constitution is known as constitutionalism›› በማለት ይገልጹታል፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥቱ በአገሪቱ ውስጥ የመንግሥት ሥልጣን ምንጭና መሠረት መሆኑና መንግሥት ዜጎችና ሌሎች ተቋማት የፖለቲካ ድርጅቶችን ጨምሮ ገዥ የሆነ የአገሪቱ የበላይ ሕግ መሆኑን በመቀበል፣ ለሕገ መንግሥቱ ተገዥ ሆኖ በመገኘትና ሕገ መንግሥቱም እንዲከበር የበኩላቸውን ኃላፊነት መወጣትንም የሚያመለክት ነው፡፡ በመሆኑም ሕገ መንግሥታዊነት ስንል የተለያየ ሐሳብና ፍላጎት ያላቸው አካላት ያሏቸውን ልዩነቶች በሕገ መንግሥቱ ጥላ ሥር ተሰባስበው የሕገ መንግሥቱን ድንጋጌዎች መሠረት አድርገው ለመፍታት ያላቸውን እምነትና ቁርጠኝነት ሁሉ የሚያመለከት ጽንሰ ሐሳብ ነው፡፡

    ሕገ መንግሥት ከሌሎች ሕጎች የሚለይበት መሠረታዊ ባህርያት
    ሕገ መንግሥት ከሌሎች ሕጎች የሚለይበት መሠረታዊ ባህርያት እጅግ በጣም በርካታ ቢሆኑም የተወሰኑትን ለመመልከት ያህል፣ የሕገ መንግሥት ዓይነተኛ ተግባርና ዓላማ የመንግሥትን ተግባራት ሁሉ መቆጣጠር ነው፡፡ የሕገ መንግሥት ከሌሎች ሕግና አዋጆች በተለየ ሁኔታ የሚወጣውና የሚሻሻለው በሕግ አውጪ አካል ሳይሆን ከሱ በላይ በሆነ ምልዓተ ሕዝብና ምልዓተ ሕዝቡ በቀጥታ በሚወስነው ውሳኔ መሆኑ፣ ህያውና መሠረታዊ የሆነ የሕጎች ሁሉ የበላይ ሕግ መሆኑ፣ ማንኛውም የመንግሥት አካል ውሳኔ፣ የኢኮኖሚ፣ የማኅበራዊና የፖለቲካ ፖሊሲዎችና ስትራቴጂዎች ከሕገ መንግሥቱ የሚመነጩና ከሕገ መንግሥቱ ጋር ከተቃራኑ ውጤት አልባ እንዲሆኑ የሚያደርግ፣ ከሥልጣነ መንግሥትና ሥርዓተ መንግሥት ይዘትና አመሠራረት ጋር የተያያዘ ሕግ ብቻ ሳይሆን የፖለቲካ መሣሪያም ጭምር ሲሆን፣ በሌላ መልኩ ማናቸውም ሕግ (አዋጅ ወይም ደንብ) ሊያሳካው የሚፈልገው መሠረታዊ ግብና ዝርዝር ዓላማዎች በሕገ መንግሥቱ እንዲመሠረት ያደረገ የሕግ ሰነድ ነው፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥት በአዋጅ ወይም በደንብ ሊገለጽና ሊካተት የማይችል ጥቅል መሠረታዊ ቁም ነገር የሚገልጽና ያካተተ ሰነድ ነው፡፡ ከግቦቹና ዝርዝር ዓላማዎቹ በላይ የረዥም ጊዜ አገራዊ ራዕይም የሚገለጽበትና የሚካተትበት መሠረታዊ ሰነድ ነው፡፡

    በፓርላሜንታዊ ሥርዓት የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትርነት ሥልጣን መሠረታዊ መገለጫዎችና ከፕሬዚዳንታዊ ሥርዓት የሚመሳሰሉበትና የሚለይበት ሁኔታ
    በዲሞክራሲያዊ ሥርዓት ማናቸውም መንግሥት ሲደራጅ ይብዛም ይነስ በመራጩ ሕዝብ በሚመረጡ ሰዎች እንደሚሆን ግልጽ ነው፡፡ በዚህ ሥርዓት መንግሥት በመራጩ ሕዝብ በቀጥታና ነፃ በሆነ ምርጫ በሚመረጡ ተወካዮች የሚቋቋም እንደመሆኑ መጠን ከሌሎች አካላት በተሻለ ሁኔታ ሕዝቡን ይወክላል፣ የሕዝቦች ፍላጎትን ያንፀባርቃል ተብሎ እምነት የሚጣልበትና የዲሞክራሲያዊ ሥርዓት እውነተኛ መገለጫ መሆን አለበት፡፡ በተለያዩ አገሮች የሚገኙት መንግሥታት የተለያየ አደረጃጀት ያላቸው ሲሆን፣ እንደ ናሙና (ሞዴል) ሆነው ያገለግላሉ የሚባሉት አደረጃጀቶች ፓርላሜንታዊ (parliamentary system) እና ፕሬዚዳንታዊ (presidential system) የሚባሉት ናቸው፡፡ ለምሳሌ የእንግሊዝ የፓርላሜንታዊ አስተዳደር ቅርፅ የተከተለ ሲሆን፣ የኤሜሪካ ኮንግረስ ደግሞ ፕሬዚዳንታዊ የአስተዳደር ሥርዓት ቅርፅ የተከተለ ነው፡፡

    እንደ ፕሮፌሰር አረንድ ሌይፍርት የተባሉ የፖለቲካ ሳይንስ ምሁር ፓርላሜንታዊ የመንግሥት ሥርዓት በዴሞክራሲያዊ የሥልጣን ክፍፍል የተመሠረተ ሲሆን፣ መንግሥት (government) የሕግ አውጪው (የመንግሥት ከፍተኛው የሥልጣን ደረጃ የያዘ አካል)፣ የሕግ ተርጓሚና በጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ የሚመራ የሥራ አስፈጻሚ ክፍል የሚያደራጅ ነው፡፡ በእዚህኛው ሥርዓት በሕዝብ በቀጥታ የተመረጡ የሕግ አውጪ (ፓርላማ) አባላት ሕግ በማውጣትና ሌሎች የሥልጣን አካላቶችን በመሾምና በመቆጣጠር የበላይ ሥልጣን እንዳላቸው የሚያረጋግጥ የመንግሥት ሥርዓት ሲሆን፣ የሥራ አስፈጻሚው አካል ዋና ኃላፊዎች የፓርላማው አባላት የሆኑበት ወይም ፓርላማው በቀጥታ እንዲቆጣጠራቸው የሚያደርግ ሥርዓት ነው፡፡ የሕግ አስፈጻሚው የሚመረጠው አብላጫ ወንበር ከያዙ ወይም የተጣመሩ ፓርቲዎች ነው፡፡ በጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ የሚመራ የሥራ አስፈጻሚ ክፍል የሚያደራጀውም እንደ ፕሬዚዳንታዊ ሥርዓት በግለሰብ ጥላ ሥር ሳይሆን፣ በድርጅቱ (ፓርቲው) ጥላ ሥር ብቻ ነው፡፡ ለስኬቱም ሆነ ለውድቀቱ በጋራ ፓርቲው፣ ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩና ሚኒስትሮች እኩል ኃላፊ የሚሆኑበት ሥርዓት ነው፡፡ ‹‹…in a parliamentary system, the prime minister is merely the first of the team-hence the term prime minister, or in Latin primus inter pares (the first among equals)… the relevant actors are not individual members of parliament, but the parties.››

    በተቃራኒው በፕሬዚዳንታዊ የአስተዳደር ሥርዓት የሥራ አስፈጻሚ ክፍል (cabinet) የሚያደራጀው በፕሬዚዳንቱ ጥላ ሥር ነው፡፡ ለስኬቱም ሆነ ለውድቀቱ ኃላፊ የሚሆነው ፕሬዚዳንቱ ነው፡፡ በፓርላሜንታዊ ሥርዓት የአስፈጻሚው አካል ፓርላማውን መቆጣጠር የሚያስችለው ሥልጣን የለውም፤ ራሱ ተጠሪነቱ ለፓርላማው ነው፡፡ ይህ በመሆኑም የአስፈጻሚው አካል የሕግ አውጪን ብሎም አንዱ ሌላኛውን የሚቆጣጠርበትና የሚከታተልበት ሥርዓት ከፕሬዚዳንታዊ ሥርዓት አንፃር ሲታይ እጅግ የጎላ አለመሆኑን መገንዘብ ይቻላል፡፡ ይህ ማለት ግን የሕግ አውጪው በአስፈጻሚው ላይ የሚያደርገው ክትትልና ቁጥጥር የለም ማለት አይደለም፡፡ በፓርላማዊ ሥርዓት የሕግ አውጪው የበላይነት (legislative supremacy) ያለበት ስለሆነ፣ በአገሪቱ ግዛት ሥር ባሉ ሰዎች በራሱም ላይ ሳይቀር አዛዥነት፣ አስገዳጅነትና ተፈጻሚነት ያላቸውን ሕጎች ያወጣል፡፡ በፓርላማዊ ሥርዓት የፓርላማ ሥልጣን ከርዕስ ብሔሩም (Head of State) ከርዕስ መስተዳድሩም (Head of Government) በላይ ነው፡፡ ለዚህም ነው ፓርላማዊ ሥርዓት የሕግ አውጪው የበላይነት የሰፈነበት የሥርዓተ መንግሥት አወቃቀር ነው የሚባለው፡፡ የፓርላማዊ ሥርዓተ መንግሥት ዋነኛ መሠረተ ሐሳቡ ከግለሰባዊ ሥልጣን ክምችት (እንደ ፕሬዚዳንታዊ) ይልቅ ተቋማዊና ብዙ ተወካዮች ያሉበት ምክር ቤት ላይ ሥልጣን ቢከማች መተማመን (ኮንፊደንስ) መፍጠር ይችላል የሚል ነው፡፡

    የአስቸኳይ ጊዜ የሕግ ማዕቀፍ
    የአስቸኳይ ጊዜ ድንጋጌ መርህ የወል እሴት በሆኑና በአገርና ሕዝብ የተጋረጠ አደጋ ለመቀልበስ የሚደነገግ መርህ ነው፡፡ የአገር ሉዓላዊነትን ከውጭ ወራሪ ጠላት ለመጠበቅ፣ የተፈጥሮ አደጋ ለመመከትና ሕዝብና ዜጎችን ከበሽታና ሰቆቃ ለመታደግም ጨምሮ ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ሥርዓቱን እንዳይናጋ ለማድረግ ነው የአስቸኳይ ጊዜ የሕግ ማዕቀፍ የሚቀረፀው፡፡ ግለሰባዊ አንድምታ ያለው የአስቸኳይ ጊዜ የሕግ ማዕቀፍ የዳበረ የሥልጣኔ ዘንግ አላቸው በሚባሉ አገሮችም የለም፡፡

    በኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት የመንግሥት አደረጃጀት፣ የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ አሰያየምና የሕግ አስፈጻሚው አካል አወቃቀር
    በኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት ምዕራፍ 6 አንቀጽ 53 ላይ እንደተጠቀሰው የፌዴራሉ መንግሥት ሁለት ምክር ቤቶች ማለትም የሕዝብ ተወካዮች ምክር ቤትና የፌዴሬሽን ምክር ቤት ናቸው፡፡ የሕዝብ ተወካዮች ምክር ቤት የሕገ መንግሥቱን ዓበይትና መሠረታዊ ዓላማዎች ከግብ ለማድረስ ከተቋቋሙት በርካታ ተቋማት መካከል በአንቀጽ 55 መሠረት በተሰጠው ሥልጣን ተግባራት መሠረት በአገሪቷ ከፍተኛ የሥልጣን አካል ነው፡፡ በዚሁ መሠረት ምክር ቤቱ ለፌዴራል መንግሥቱ ተለይተው በተሰጡ ሥልጣኖች ዙሪያ ሕግ የማውጣትና አስፈጻሚውን አካል የመቆጣጠር ሥልጣን ተሰጥቶቷል፡፡ በአንቀጽ 55 (13)፣ (17) (18) መሠረት ሹም ሽር መፈጸምን ጨምሮ የሕግ አስፈጻሚው አካል አሠራር የመመርመርና አስፈላጊ መስሎ የታየውን ዕርምጃ የመውሰድ ሥልጣን ለሕዝብ ተወካዮች ምክር ቤት የተሰጠ ነው፡፡

    በኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት አንቀጽ 45 መሠረት ኢትዮጵያ የምትከተለው ሥርዓት የፓርላሜንታዊ ሥርዓት እንደሆነ በግልጽ ተቀምጧል፡፡ ይህ ማለት በፓርላሜንታዊ ሥርዓት የሚገኙትን በጎ ትሩፋቶች በሙሉ ትጋራለች ማለት ነው፡፡ በሕገ መንግሥቱ አንቀጽ 56 እና 73 (2) መሠረት የሕዝብ ተወካዮች ምክር ቤት ሕግ ከማውጣት ሥልጣን በተጨማሪ የፌዴራል መንግሥት ከፍተኛ ሥልጣን ባለቤት መሆኑ ነው፡፡ ይህም የሚገለጸው በምክር ቤቱ ከፍተኛ መቀመጫ ያገኘ የፖለቲካ ድርጅት ወይም የፖለቲካ ድርጅቶች ጥምረት የፌዴራሉን መንግሥት የሕግ አስፈጻሚ አካል (ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩና የሚኒስትሮች ምክር ቤት) በማደራጀትና በመምራት ነው፡፡

    የሕግ አስፈጻሚው የሚመራው በጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ሲሆን፣ ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ የመንግሥት የበላይ አስፈጻሚና የአገሪቷ ርዕሰ መስተዳድር፣ የሚኒስትሮች ምክር ቤት ሰብሳቢና የጦር ኃይሎች ጠቅላይ አዛዥ ነው፡፡ ይህ ሥልጣኑ ግን ከፓርቲው የሚመነጭ ነው፡፡ የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩም ሆነ የሕግ አስፈጻሚው የቆይታ ዘመን የሚወሰነው ሥራውን በአግባቡ እየመራ ነው ተብሎ እስከታመነበት ጊዜ ድረስ ነው፡፡ በፓርላማዊ ሥርዓተ መንግሥት ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ለሥልጣን ያበቃውን ፓርቲ በመወከል የሥራ አስፈጻሚው አካል ቁንጮ በመሆን ያገለግላል፡፡ የፓርላማ አባል ነው፡፡
    ይህ ምርጫ የሚመሠረተው በፓርቲ ይሁንታ እንጂ በግለሰብ አይደለም፡፡ በኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት ምዕራፍ 8 አንቀጽ 72 መሠረት ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩና የሚኒስትሮች ምክር ቤት አባላት በመንግሥታዊ ሥራ በጋራ ለሚወስኑት ውሳኔ በጋራ ተጠያቂዎች ናቸው፡፡ ምክንያቱም ይህ የሕገ መንግሥት ምዕራፍና አንቀጽ የሚያደራጀው የሕግ አስፈጻሚ አካል እንደ ቡድን በመሆኑ ነው፡፡ ነገር ግን ሕገ መንግሥቱ በአንቀጽ 56 እና 72 ያስቀመጠው መርህ እንደተጠበቀ ሆኖ፣ በአንቀጽ 73 እስከ 77 የአባላቱ የወልና የተናጠል ዝርዝር ኃላፊነቶች በልዩ ሁኔታ አስቀምጧል፡፡ ይህ በልዩ ሁኔታ የተሰጠ ኃላፊነት ግን መርሁን የሚሸረሽርና ለውድድር በር የሚከፍት ሳይሆን በአንድ መንግሥታዊ መዋቅር ጥላ ሥር፣ በጋራ ኃላፊነት፣ በጋራ አቋም፣ ለጋራ ግብና ዓላማ እንዲሠሩ የሚያደርግ መዋቅራዊ ቅርፅ ነው፡፡ ለዚህም ነው በአንቀጽ 72 መሠረት ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩና የሚኒስትሮች ምክር ቤት አባላት በመንግሥታዊ ሥራ በጋራ ለሚወስኑት ውሳኔ በጋራ ተጠያቂዎች ናቸው የሚለው፡፡

    ለዚህም ነው የሚኒስትሮች ምክር ቤት አባላት በመንግሥታዊ ሥራ በጋራ ለሚወስኑት ውሳኔ ሁሉም ሚኒስትሮች እንዲተገብሩት የሚገደዱት፡፡ የአንድ አምሳልነት ማረጋገጫ፡፡ እዚህ ላይ እ.ኤ.አ በ2003 በእንግሊዝ ካቢኔ ሮቢን ኩክ የሚኒስትሮች ምክር ቤት አባላት በኢራቅ ላይ የወሰዱትን አቋም ደግፈው መቀጠል ስላልቻሉ ከሥራ መልቀቃቸውን ልብ ይሉታል፡፡

    የሕገ መንግሥት አንቀጽ 75 እውን ክፍተት ያለበት ነውን?
    በፍፁም፡፡ ከላይ እንደተገለጸው በመርህ ደረጃ ሕገ መንግሥት መርህ እንጂ ልዩ ሁኔታና የአፈጻጸም ድንጋጌዎች መያዝ አይጠበቅበትም፡፡ የኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥትም ያደረገው ይህንኑ ነው፡፡ የኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት በአንቀጽ 75 ለምክትል ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ካስቀመጣቸው ኃላፊነቶች በተጨማሪ ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ በማይኖርበት ጊዜ ተክቶ እንደሚሠራ ደንግጓል፡፡ ይህ የሆነበት ምክንያት ደግሞ አንድም ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ከአንድ በላይ ምክትሎች እንዳይሾም በሌላ መልኩ ደግሞ ምክትል አያስፈልገኝም በማለት ሊፈጠሩ የሚችሉ ክፍተቶችን ለማስቀረት አልሞ በተመጠነ ይዘትና ግልጽ በሆነ መልዕክት የተቀመጠ ድንጋጌ ነው፡፡ በተለይ ደግሞ በፓርላሜንታዊ ሥርዓት በሕዝብ ተወካዮች ምክር ቤት አብላጫ ድምፅ ካገኘ ፓርቲ ወይም ካገኙ የፖለቲካ ድርጅቶች ውስጥ የሕግ አስፈጻሚው እንዲያደራጅ በአንቀጽ 56 እና 73 (2) የተሰጠው ሥልጣን ቢኖርም፣ የሕግ አስፈጻሚው አካል ይህን መርህ እንደፈለገ እንዳያደርገውና ከሕዝብ ተወካዮች ምክር ቤት ጋርም ሆነ ከሌሎች የሚመለከታቸው አካላት ጋር በሚኖረው ግንኙነት ድልድዩ በግልጽ መለየት ስላለበት፣ በሕግ አስፈጻሚው ውረድ ተዋረድ ልጓም ያበጀ ድንጋጌ ነው፡፡

    እንደ አስተያየት ሰጪዎቹ አንድምታ ሕጉ ክፍት ነው ያስባላቸው ምክንያት ‹‹በማይኖርበት ጊዜ ተክቶ›› የሚለው ለትርጉም ተጋላጭ ነው የሚል ነው፡፡ በመሠረቱ የሕገ መንግሥት ሰነድ በጣም በጥቅል ከመቀመጡ የተነሳ ሕገ መንግሥት የተወሰኑ ጉዳዮችን ብቻ ሊዘረዝር ይችላል፡፡ በአብዛኛው መርህን ብቻ ሊያስቀምጥ ይችላል፡፡ ይሁን እንጂ ዝርዝር ጉዳዮችን ባይዝም አጠቃላይ ይዘቱን ወይም መንፈሱን ከሕገ መንግሥቱ በመረዳት ሕገ መንግሥቱን መተርጐም ይቻላል፡፡ ለአብነት ያህል አጠቃላይ የኢኮኖሚ፣ የማኅበራዊ፣ የባህላዊ ፖሊሲዎች ሕገ መንግሥታችን ከአንቀጽ 85 ቀጥሎ በምዕራፍ አሥር ሥር ተለይተው በአጭሩ ተቀምጠዋል፡፡ ይሁን እንጂ እነዚህ ድንጋጌዎች በጣም ውስንና ጥቅል ሆነው በአጠቃላይ አቀማመጥ የተቀመጡ ናቸው፡፡ ስለሆነም ከእነዚህ መርሆዎች በመነሳት በዝርዝር ያልተቀመጡና ያልተሸፈኑትን ጉዳዮች አጠቃላይ የሰነዱን ይዘት በመፈለግ የመተርጐም ሥልጣን ያለው አካል ሊተረጉም ይችላል፡፡

    አሁን እየዳሰስነው ባለነው ጉዳይ ግን ምክትል ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩን የሚተካው ከሰነዶች ማረጋገጫ በሚሰጠው የውክልና ሰነድ አይደለም፡፡ በሕገ መንግሥታዊ ውክልና ነው፡፡ ይኼው የመተካት ሁኔታ ግን ተግባራዊ የሚሆነው ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ በቦታው እስከሌለ ድረስ ነው፡፡ ግልጽ፡፡ አገር ውስጥ፣ ውጭ አገር፣ ለረጅም ጊዜ ዕረፍት፣ አጭር ጊዜ ዕረፍትና መልቀቅን ጨምሮ፡፡ ለምሳሌ የኦሮሚያ ክልል ርዕሰ መስተዳደር በእክል ምክንያት ባልነበሩበት ጊዜ የርዕሰ መስተዳደር ሥራው ቀጥሏል፡፡ ይህ ማለት ግን የሥልጣን ሽግግር እየተካሄደ ነው ማለት አይደለም፡፡ ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ባለመኖሩ የሕግ አስፈጻሚው ወይም በሥሩ የተደራጁት የመንግሥት አካላት ሥራ አቁመዋል፤ የሥልጣን ክፍተት ተፈጥሯል ማለት አይደለም፡፡ በመሠረቱ ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩም ሆኑ ምክትል ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ያላቸው የመሪነት ሚና ከፓርቲያቸው አሸናፊነትና የፓርቲው ሕገ ደንብ የመነጨ፣ ፓርቲውና ፓርላማው ባለው እምነት ላይ የተመሠረተ መሆኑን መገንዘብ ያስፈልጋል፡፡ አንቀጽ 75 ብቻውን ተነጥሎ የሚቆም አይደለም፡፡ አንቀጽ 56 እና 72 ላይ በተቀመጡት መርሆዎች ላይ የተመሠረተ ነው፡፡

    የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ መታመምና የተለያዩ የእክል ክስተቶች በሕገ መንግሥት መመለስ ያለባቸው ናቸውን?
    ከሕገ መንግሥት ከገጽታዎቹ አንዱ የወል እሴት በሆኑና በአገርና ሕዝብ ላይ የተጋረጠ አደጋን ለመቀልበስ አስቸኳይ ጊዜ ሁኔታዎች ሲያጋጥሙ፣ ሁኔታውን ለመቋቋም መንግሥት ስለሚወሰዳቸው ልዩ ዕርምጃዎችና ዕርምጃዎቹ ስለሚቆዩበት የጊዜ ገደብ፣ ዕርምጃዎቹ ትክክለኛ ስለመሆናቸው ክትትልና ቁጥጥር ስለሚደረግበት ሁኔታ፣ ገዥ የሆነ ሥርዓት መዘርጋት ነው፡፡ ከዚህ አንፃር የኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት የፌዴራልና ክልል የመንግሥታት የአስቸኳይ ጊዜ ሁኔታ ስላላቸው፣ ሥልጣናቸውን እንዴት መጠቀም እንደለባቸውና በጉዳዩ ላይ ክትትልና ቁጥጥር ስለሚደረግበት ሥርዓት በምዕራፍ አሥራ አንድ አንቀጽ 93 ላይ በመደንገግ፣ የአስቸኳይ ጊዜ ሁኔታ ተፈጻሚነት ያለውን የአሠራር ሥርዓት ዘርግቷል፡፡

    ነገር ግን የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ መታመም አንደ ዜጋና እንደ ሰው በማናቸውም ጊዜና ወቅት ባልመኘውም የአስቸኳይ ጊዜ ለመሆን የሚያበቃ ክስተት አይደለም፡፡ በመሠረቱ ይህ ጥያቄ መመለስ ያለበት በግለሰቡ፣ በፓርቲውና ቢበዛ በውስጣዊ አሠራር ነው፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥቱ የወል ሰነድ ነው፡፡ ማስተናገድ ያለበት የወል የሆኑ መርሆዎችን ነው፡፡ የንጉሡ ዘመን የግለሰብ ሕገ መንግሥት ስለነበር የግለሰብ ጉዳይ አስተናግዶ ሊሆን ይችላል፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥትን የሚያክል ክቡር ሰነድ ወደ ግለሰባዊ ማዕቀፍ መቀየሩ ግን ከሕግም ሆነ ከሞራል አንፃር ተቀባይነት የለውም፡፡ የኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት ይህንኑ አለማድረጉ ደግሞ ትክክል ነው፡፡ ይህንኑ ሕገ መንግሥት ላረቀቁና ተወያይተው ይሁንታቸውን ለሰጡት ምስጋና ሊቸራቸው ይገባል፡፡ በመሠረቱ አሁን ግለሰብ ላይ የተንጠለጠለ መንግሥት የለም፡፡ ሥርዓትና በሥርዓቱ ሥር የተደራጁት ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ተቋሞች የሚመሩት መንግሥት እንጂ፡፡ ለዚህም ነው በፓርቲያቸው ጥላ ሥር የተሰበሰቡ ሰዎች እንጂ፣ በግለሰብ ጥላ ሥር የተሰባሰቡ ፓርቲዎች የማይኖሩት፡፡

    የኢፌድሪ ሕገ መንግሥት እውን በተነሳው ጭብጥና ተያያዥ ነጥቦች ላይ ከቀደምት ሕገ መንግሥቶች የሚነፃፀር ነውን? የደርግ ወይም የኃይለ ሥላሴ ሥርዓት የወላድ መካን የሆኑት በሕገ መንግሥትና ሕገ መንግሥታዊነት መርሆዎች በተነሳ ጉዳይ ነውን?

    እንደ ዜጋ የኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት በተነሳው ጭብጥም ሆነ በሌሎች ተያያዥ ነጥቦች ላይ ከቀደምት ሕገ መንግሥቶች የሚነፃፀር አይደለም፡፡ የደርግ ወይም የኃይለ ሥላሴ ሥርዓት የወላድ መካን የሆኑትም በሕገ መንግሥትና በሕገ መንግሥታዊነት መርሆዎች በተነሳ ጉዳይ ሳይሆን፣ ሥርዓቶቹ በሕገ መንግሥትና በሕገ መንግሥታዊነት መርሆዎች ያልተቃኙና ዘመኑ የሚጠይቀውን ምላሽ ባለመስጠታቸው ነው የሚል የፀና እምነት አለኝ፡፡ ስለ ኢትዮጵያ ሕገ መንግሥት ታሪካዊ ዕድገት ስንመለከት ክብረ ነገሥትና ፍትሐ ነገሥት እንደ ዘመናዊ ሕገ መንግሥት ከወሰድናቸው እስከ 20ኛው ክፍለ ዘመን የፖለቲካ ሥርዓት የአምላክ ትዕዛዝ ነው ይሉናል፡፡ ፍትሐ ነገሥት ነገሥታት በሚለው ምዕራፍ ላይ ሐዋርያው ጳውሎስ ለሮሜ ሰዎች እንዳለው ‹‹መሪ በእግዚአብሔር ብቻ የሚሾም በመሆኑ፤ ሁላቹሁም ለመሪዎቻችሁ ሥልጣን ተገዢ መሆን ይኖርባችኋል፡፡ ሁሉንም መሪዎች ሥልጣን ሰጥቶ የሾማቸው እግዚአብሔር ነው፡፡ ስለሆነም መሪን የሚቃወምና መሪ ላይ የሚያምፅ በእግዚአብሔር ፈቃድና በመሪው ላይ ያመፀ ነው፡፡ በመሪዎቻቸው ላይ የሚያምፁ ከፈጣሪያቸው ቅጣትን ይቀበላሉ፤›› በማለት የፖለቲካ ሥልጣን ሽግግር በዘርና በደም ላይ መሠረት ያደረገ እንዲሆን አደርጎታል፡፡

    ነገር ግን ኢትዮጵያ ከ1923 ዓ.ም. በፊት የተጻፈና በሕገ መንግሥትነት በይፋ የታወጀ ሕገ መንግሥት እንዳልነበራትና የመጀመሪያው እንደሆነ ተቀብለን፣ ይህ የቀዳማዊ ኃይለ ሥላሴ ሕገ መንግሥት ከመውጣቱ በፊትና ሲወጣ በአገሪቱ ውስጥ ደም ያፈሰሱ አንገብጋቢ የማኅበራዊ፣ ፖለቲካዊና ኢኮኖሚያዊ ጥያቄዎች የነበሩ ቢሆንም፣ ሕገ መንግሥቱ ይህንን የሕዝብ ጥያቄ ለመፍታት ታስቦ የተዘጋጀና የወጣ ሳይሆን፣ በወቅቱ ወራሴ መንግሥቱ ለቀዳማዊ ኃይለ ሥላሴ ተወላጆች ብቻ እንዲተላለፍ በሕግ ለመደንገግና የዘውዳዊው ሥርዓት የግዛት ሉዓላዊነት ሕጋዊ መሠረት ለመጣልና የመኳንንቱና የመሳፍንቱን ጥቅም ለማስከበር የተደነገገ ሕገ መንግሥት እንደሆነ የሚያከራክር አይደለም፡፡ እንደ ፊታውራሪ ደምስ ወልደ አማኑኤል ከሆነ ይኼው ሕገ መንግሥት የዲሞክራሲ ጥያቄዎችን መመለስ የቻለ ሥር ነቀል የአስተዳደር ለውጥ ይቅርና ይህ ነው የሚባል ለውጥ እንኳን አላመጣም፡፡ ለውጥ አመጣ ቢባል የየክፍለ ሀገሩ ባላባቶችና መሳፍንት በአዲስ አበባ እንዲቀመጡ በማድረግ በአፄው ቁጥጥር ሥር እንዲሆኑ ለማድረግ መቻሉ ነው፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥቱ ንጉሠ ነገሥቱ በመሰላቸው መንገድ ቀርፀው ለሕዝቡ በስጦታ መልክ ያወጁት እንደሆነ በመግቢያው ላይ በግልጽ አስቀምጧል፡፡ በአንቀጽ 3፣4፣5 እና 17 የንጉሠ ነገሥትነት ሥልጣን ከኢየሩሳሌም ንጉሥ ከሰለሞንና ከኢትዮጵያዊትዋ ንግሥት ንግሥተ ሳባ ከተወለደው ቀዳማዊ ምኒልክ ነገድ ተያይዞ ከመጣው ከንጉሥ ሳህለ ሥላሴ ዘር ከተወለደው ከቀዳማዊ ኃይለ ሥላሴ ትውልድ እንዳይወጣ፣ ለልጅ ልጆቻቸው እንዲተላለፍ ታመውና ሞተው አይደለም ከዘራቸው ሰው ቢጠፋ እንኳን በማህፀን ውስጥ ያለ ሽል እንዲወርስ በሕግ የወሰነ ሕገ መንግሥት ነው፡፡

    በ1948 ዓ.ም የተሻሻለው ሕገ መንግሥት እንዲሁ በንጉሠ ነገሥቱ ታወጀ፡፡ ይህ ሕገ መንግሥትም እንደ ቀዳሚው የሕዝብ ጥያቄዎችን በአግባቡ ያልፈታ፣ በአገሪቱ የተቀጣጠለውን ሕዝባዊ ትግል ለማብረድና ሕገ መንግሥታዊ መፍትሔ መስጠት የማይችል፣ በተቃራኒው በአንቀጽ 4፣5፣ 11፣ 12 እና 13 የንጉሠ ነገሥትነት ሥልጣን ከኃይለ ሥላሴ ትውልድ እንዳይወጣ፣ ለልጅ ልጆቻቸው እንዲተላለፍ ታመውና ሞተው አይደለም ከዘራቸው ሰው ቢጠፋ እንኳን በማህፀን ውስጥ ያለ ሽል በሞግዚቱ በኩል እንዲወርስ በሕግ የወሰነ ነበር፡፡

    ‹‹ጊዜያዊ ወታደራዊ አስተዳደር ደርግ›› በሚል መጠሪያ የሚጠራ ወታደራዊ አምባገነን መንግሥት ራሱ ባወጣው ቀላጤ የ1948 ዓ.ም. አዋጅ ከማገዱም በተጨማሪ የመሰለውን ሕግ እያወጣ፣ በርካታ የሰብዓዊ መብት ጥሰቶች፣ በስብዕናና በሰብዓዊ ፍጡር ላይ ወንጀሎችን በመፈጸምና የጦርነትን ሕግጋት የሚጥሱ ወንጀሎችንና የዘር ማጥፋት ወንጀል እንደፈጸመ ብዙ ማጣቀሻና ማስረጃ የሚያስፈልገው አይደለም፡፡ እስከ 1980 ዓ.ም ድረስም ቀላጤ እንጂ ሕገ መንግሥት የሚባል ነገር አልነበረም፡፡ ይህ ሕገ መንግሥትም ቢሆን ኢሠፓ ብቸኛ የፖለቲካ ፖርቲ መሆኑን ከመደንገጉም በላይ፣ በአንዳንድ አካባቢዎች በአሃዳዊ መንግሥት ሥር የራስ ገዝ አስተዳደር እንደሚኖራቸው ከመደንገግ ያለፈ ለኢትዮጵያ ሕዝብ ጥያቄ መሠረታዊ መልስ የሚሰጥ ሕገ መንግሥት አልነበረም፡፡ ታድያ እንዴት ነው የኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት ከእነዚህ ሕገ መንግሥታት የሚነፃፀረው? ለግለሰቦች በግለሰቦች ከታወጁት ጋር? ጉድ ሳይሰማ መስከረም አይጠባም አሉ፡፡

    የአንድን አገር የሕግ ሥርዓት የፖለቲካ እንቅስቃሴና ኃይሎች የሚወስኑት ሲሆን፣ የሕግ ሥርዓቱ በተራው የፖለቲካ ሥርዓቱን ይቀርፀዋል፤ ይወስነዋል፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥት ሕግ ብቻ ሳይሆን የፖለቲካ መሣሪያም ጭምር ነው፡፡ የኢትዮጵያ ብሔር ብሔረሰቦችና ሕዝቦች የጋራ ራዕይ ሲቀርፁና ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ግቦችንና ዓላማዎችን ለይተው ሲያወጡ የሚያማልሉ ንድፈ ሐሳባዊና ፍልስፍናዊ ሐሳቦችንና ትንታኔዎችን መነሻና ማጣቀሻ በማድረግ አይደለም፡፡ ይልቁንም ለዘመናት በጋራ በኖሩባቸው ጊዜዎች በአገሪቱ ውስጥ አንገብጋቢና ቁልፍ የሆኑትን ችግሮች በመለየት፣ ችግሮቹ በወቅቱ በቂና አጥጋቢ መፍትሔ ባለማግኘታቸው የደረሰውን ሰቆቃና እልቂት እንደዚሁም ቁሳዊ ውድመት፣ ካለፉበት የሕይወት ዘመን ተሞክሮና ከተጨባጭ መረጃዎች በመረዳት ለችግሩ ዘላቂ መፍትሔ የሚሆነውን በሰከነ ሁኔታ በማሰብ ነው፡፡

    ‹‹በአገራችን ኢትዮጵያ ውስጥ ዘላቂ ሰላም፣ ዋስትና ያለው ዲሞክራሲ እንዲሰፍን፣ ኢኮኖሚያዊና ማኅበራዊ ዕድገታችን እንዲፋጠን፣ የራሳችን ዕድል በራሳችን የመወሰን መብታችን ተጠቅመን፣ በነፃ ፍላጎታችን፣ የሕግ የበላይነትና በራሳችን ፈቃድ ላይ የተመሠረተ አንድ የፖለቲካ ማኅበረሰብ በጋራ ለመገንባት ቆርጠን በመነሳት፤›› የሕገ መንግሥቱ ዓላማ በመግቢያው ላይ እንዳሰፈረው፡፡

    ይህ ማለት እንደ ዘውዳዊውና አምባገነኑ መንግሥታት የግል ፍላጎት የሚንፀባረቅበት ሕገ መንግሥት ሳይሆን፣ የጋራ እሴቶች ላይ የተመሠረተ የሕዝብ ለሕዝብ የሚሆን ክቡር የቃል ኪዳን ሰነድ መሆኑን ነው የሚያሳየው፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥቱ የግለሰብ ሳይሆን የብሔር ብሔረሰቦችና ሕዝቦች ሉዓላዊ ሥልጣን ባለቤትነት መገለጫ፣ የሕጎች ሁሉ የበላይ፣ ሰብዓዊና ዲሞክራሲያዊ መብት የሚያስከብር፣ የመንግሥትን አሠራር ለሕዝብ ግልጽ የሚያደረግና ከቀደምት ሕገ መንግሥቶች በተለየ ሁኔታ የፓርላማ ሥርዓት ያስተዋወቀ በመሆኑ፣ ቢያንስ በእነዚህና በሌሎች ሕገ መንግሥታዊ መርሆዎች ከቀደምቶቹ እጅግ በጣም ይለያል፡፡ ለዚህም ነው የሥልጣን ሽግግር ቢኖር እንኳን በዘር ወይም ደማዊ ሳይሆን ሕገ መንግሥቱ በሚፈቅድው መርህ ሊሆን ይገባል ሲል የደነገገው፡፡ ግለሰብ ሳይሆን ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ተቋማትና ሥርዓት አለ የሚለው፡፡ የጋራ እሴቶች ላይ በማጎልበት የተመሠረተው፡፡ የደርግና የኃይለ ሥላሴ ሥርዓት የወላድ መካን የሆኑት ግን ግለሰባዊ መርህ ላይ ስለተንጠለጠሉ፣ በሕገ መንግሥትና በሕገ መንግሥታዊነት መርሆዎች ላይ ስላልተመሠረቱና ራዕይ አልባ ስለሆኑ ነው፡፡

    የሌሎች ሚኒስትሮች ቢሮዎች እውን ከምክትል ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ከፍ ያለ ኃላፊነት የተጣለባቸው ናቸውን? የሚኒስትሮች ምክር ቤት የሥልጣን ወሰንና እንደ አንድ አካል መቆጠር እርግጠኛነት በሕገ መንግሥቱ አልተንፀባረቀም?

    ይህ አባባል ለእኔ አዲስ ግኝት ነው፡፡ ነገር ግን የተሳሳተ ግኝት፡፡ መሳሳት ነውር አይደለም ሊታረም ግን ግድ ይላል፡፡ ለመሆኑ ሕገ መንግሥቱ በግልጽ በውረድ ተዋረድ ለይቶ የሚያውቃቸው የሕግ አስፈጻሚው ከፍተኞቹ የሥልጣን እርከኖች ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩና ምክትላቸው አይደሉም እንዴ? ናቸው፡፡ የኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት አንቀጽ 73 እና 75 ብቻ ማየቱ በቂ ይመስለኛል፡፡ ሆኖም ግን በፓርላሜንታዊ ሥርዓት ሚኒስትሮች እኩል ኃላፊነት የተጣለባቸው፣ በአንድ መንግሥታዊ መዋቅር ጥላ ሥር፣ በጋራ ኃላፊነት፣ በጋራ አቋም፣ ለጋራ ግብና ዓላማ እንዲሠሩ የሚያደርግ አደረጃጀት ነው ያለው፡፡ አንዱን ከፍ አንዱን ዝቅ የሚያደርግበት አግባብ የለም፡፡ ለማጣቀሻ የኢፌድሪ ሕገ መንግሥት አንቀጽ 72 ይመልከቱ፡፡

    የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ጊዜያዊ ወይም ቋሚ ሕመም ለኢ-ሕገ መንግሥታዊ የሥልጣን ሽግግር ምክንያት ሊሆን ይችላልን? የሕገ መንግሥቱ ዘላቂነትስ?
    የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ጊዜያዊ ወይም ቋሚ ሕመም ለኢ-ሕገ መንግሥታዊ የሥልጣን ሽግግር ምክንያት ሊሆን አይችልም፡፡ የኢፌድሪ ሕገ መንግሥት አንቀጽ 9(3)፣ 45፣ 55(13)፣ (17)፣ (18)፣ 56፣ 72 እስከ 77 ኢ-ሕገ መንግሥታዊ የሥልጣን ሽግግር እንዳይኖር የሚከላከሉ ፈውሶች ናቸው፡፡ አሁን በኢትዮጵያ የተቋቋመው መንግሥት ፓርላሜንታዊ የመንግሥት ሥርዓት የሚከተል፣ ባለሙያዎቹ እንደ ምሳሌ ካቀረቡት የፕሬዚዳንታዊ ሥርዓት የሚያራምዱ አገሮች (አሜሪካና ፖላንድ) ፍፁም የተለየ፣ በአንድ ግለሰብ (ፕሬዚዳንት) የተንጠለጠለ ሳይሆን፣ በጋራ ኃላፊነት (collective reponsiblity) ላይ የተመሠረተ፣ መንግሥት ከመሠረተው ፓርቲ መርህ ጋር የተቆራኘ፣ ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ተቋማትና ሥርዓት ያደራጀ፣ ሥልጣን ለጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ብቻውን የተተወ ሳይሆን፣ ለሥልጣን ባበቃው የፓርቲው መርህና በዚሁ ጥላ ሥር በተደራጀው የአስፈጻሚ አካላትን ጨምሮ ሌሎች ሕገ መንግሥታዊ ተቋማት (ሕግ አውጪው፣ ሕግ ተርጓሚውና ሌሎች ዲሞክራሲያዊ ተቋሞች) ጭምር ነው፡፡ ሥርዓት አለን እስካልን ድረስ ግለሰቦች በዚህ ሥርዓት ይስተናገዳሉ፡፡ ይህ ስጋት ለእኔ ምክንያቱ አልታየኝም ሕገ መንግሥቱ በቂ ፈውስ ነው፡፡

    በመጨረሻ የሕገ መንግሥቱ ዘላቂነት ላይ አስተያየት ልሰንዝርና ላብቃ፡፡ ሕገ መንግሥት ማሻሻል ማለት በአጭር አነጋገር ለሕገ መንግሥት ማስተካካያ የሚደረግበት ሒደት ነው ማለት ይቻላል፡፡ በእርግጥ ሕገ መንግሥት መሻሻል እንደሚችል ሁሉ በቀላሉና በማናቸውም ጊዜ የሚሻሻል ባለመሆኑ፣ በእያንዳንዱ አገር ነባራዊ የዕድገት ሒደት በሕገ መንግሥት ያልተሸፈኑ ጉዳዮች እየተሸፈኑ ይሄዳሉ፡፡ የሕገ መንግሥት ማሻሻል ሒደት ክለሳ (Revision) ወይም አብዮት (Revolution) ማለት አይደለም፡፡ ይልቁንም መሻሻል ማለት የለውጥ ሒደት ነው ማለት ይቻላል፡፡ ይህ ሒደት በአንድ ሕገ መንግሥት ሰነድ ውስጥ የለውጥ ዕርምጃ ወይም ዕድገት የሚታይበት ሒደት ነው፡፡ አብዛኛው ጊዜ ማሻሻያ የሕገ መንግሥቱን ቃላት፣ ሐረግ፣ ዓረፍተ ነገር ወይም አንቀጾችን ሊያጠቃልል ይችላል፡፡ በሚሻሻሉት ፈንታ በከፊል መጨመር፣ በከፊል መቀነስ ወይም ሙሉ በሙሉ መለወጥ ሊሆን ይችላል፡፡ ይሁን እንጂ እነዚህ ሁሉ ለውጦች ከሕገ መንግሥቱ አጠቃላይ ዓላማ፣ ግብና መንፈስ ጋር በሚጣጣም ሁኔታ ነው የሚደረገው፡፡ የሕገ መንግሥት ማሻሻል ሒደት ሕገ መንግሥቱ ሕይወት ኖሮት ለረጅም ጊዜ እንዲኖር ለማድረግ ነው፡፡ ስለሆነም ሕግም ሆነ ሕገ መንግሥት ከኅብረተሰብ ዕድገት ጋር አብረው ማደግ የግድ ይላል፡፡ ይህ ማለት ሕገ መንግሥቱ ዘላቂ ሆኖ እንዲበለጽግ ማድረግ ማለት ነው፡፡ ለዚህም ነው የኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት ሕገ መንግሥታዊ መርሆዎችን ባከበረ መንገድ ማሻሻያ ማድረግ እንደሚቻል በአንቀጽ 104 እና 105 የደነገገው፡፡

  3. The silence
    | #3

    Well it could be that to protest TPLF completely, they might follow the Egyptian way, get ruled by the army. This will completely freeze any activism because of fear of the army. It has benefited party members. The army will function only when TPLF is threatened.

  4. ሕገመንግስትና አርቃቂዎቹና አክባሪዎቹ
    | #4

    ዶ/ር ተኮላ ሐጎስ በአደባባይ ሲመክራቸው ያሉትን ብናይ አገሪታን ለማዳን ከተፈለገ

    ም/ጠ/ሚ ክስልጣን አንስቶ ሕገ መንግስቱን ካሻሻሉ መቀጠል ይችላሉ ነው
    ግን ማን ሰምቶአቸው?

    እርሶም የባለስልጣኖቹን ችሎታቸውን ዘግይተው እንደነገሩን ክሆነ
    ‘…No doubt, they will have many tricks up their sleeves to get themselves out of the constitutional jam, buy time and cling to power…’

    ቶኒይ ብሌር እንዳሉት ከሆነ የብሪታኒያ ውጭ ጉዳይ ፖሊሲያቸው ሁኔታዎችን/ሪአሊቲውን መፍጠር ነውና ምናልባት ችሮታቸው ን እንዳሉት እየለገሱ ይሆናል

    አንጋሽና ንጉስ መራቂዎች በአሁኑ ሰዓት ምን እንደሚሰሩ የሚያውቅ ቢኖር ሁላችንም እፎይ ባንልም ቁርጡን እናውቅ ነበር

    ሲደመድሙት ዋናው ነገር እርቅ ብለዋልና እርሶ እንዳሉት ጸሎታችን ይድረሳቸው

    ችግሩ እውነቱን እናውራ ካልን ስልጣንን ማን ዝም ብሎ ያስረክባል የሚያስገድድ ሃይል/ሁኔታ ካልተፈጠረ?

    ባንፈልግም ያው ለቢሪታኒያና አማሪካ ነገሩ ትተናል ይመስላል
    አቅማችንን ሳውቅ እፎይ አልኩኝ

    ለማንኛውም ይህ ሕገመንግስት የሚባል ነገር አርቃቂ እንጂ አክባሪ ያጣ አዛውንት ነገር ሆነብኝ

    እግዜር ይስጦት ዶ/ር ተኩላ ዳጎስ አርገው ያለፈቱን ባንዳይን እንዳናያው አርገውናል

  5. Daman
    | #5

    Really it is time of forgiveness & goodness,when i am reading the article by ALemayehu, speedly i opened the nearby not Ethiopian but EPRDF constitution and grasped artile 72 -75 and again and like bible .it is amazing game,trully it is omission(error) it has its own mission and commiission,why don’t they look it up on public,pls God the public is needing peace not power.GOD bless our Ethiopia.

  6. astra
    | #6

    Alemayehu do not waste our time. All non-Tigreans know that the so-called “constitution” doesnot and has never applied to them!! Please know this fact first if you care to know about Ethiopia and if your interest is more than your academic mumbo-jumbo. Teach it to your students,if you wish- it may be a good excercise in futility for them. For the clear eyed and level headed Ethiopians, who deal with daily reality and misery, what the “constitution” may and may not say is as far away from their reality as the other side of the moon.So keep your academic analysis to your self or send it to an obscure Journal. Please be real, come down from your academic armchair and face reality. I could nor say that you support the TPLF like that self-proclaimed “Dr.and Professor” Tecola tried to to pull the wool over our eyes a few days ago. But what I can most definately say is that you are naive to the extreme!!!

  7. aha!
    | #7

    The only operating system, with the security, military and the federal policie and the teletafi and loyalist opposition parties as its tools and utilities to facilitate the running of the country against the opposition parties and factions for unity, territorial integrity, sovereignity of Ethiopia and Ethiopians. TPLF as the architect of the constitution sprearheading the liberation fronts of the oppressed nations and nationalities are supportive of the constitution with ethnic federalism, secessionism and totaliarinism built into it it, which divides the Ethiopian land mass into seven of nine and/or ninty ethnic groups, in a divide and rule policy, devoid of private ownership of land and unequal branches of government, ill defined ethnic boundries as a prelude to secessionism and future boundry conflicts are the major flaws of the TPLF/eprdf regime. eprdf (the teletafi (ethnic federalist) parties serve as a cover, supporters and utilities to the TPLF Politbeurro, from which laws are derived to fend off any resistances.

    Add to that the alignment of the parties along ethnic lines and lately before 2010, the alignment of parties UDJP with the loyalist opposition parties (Tigrai-Harena, OPDM, ONC, etc.) is only a mirror image of TPLF/eprdf regime with ethnic agenda, whcih lately confirmed from the words of Ato Tilahun on VOA. Do not take my word or the word of one Ethiopian observer who said of Medrek prior to 2010 election “keingideh wodih mircha yemibal neger waga yelewim: inezihma yalew mengist gilibach nachew”, had they won majority or minority seats thy would have maintained a bcameral chamber of parliament, despite their scramble for votes with KAUEP in the Amhara and Tigrai regions.

    Therfore, as the silent majority of Ethiopians are in a dichotomy between the negative forces of disintegration in terms of ethnic federalism, secessionism and totaliarinism and the positive forces of integration in terms of unity, territorial integrity of Ethiopia and Ethiopians, where the last item refers to individual freedom, liberty and equality exceeds ethnic and secessionist rights and also sreves as the central piece fo the new constitution.

    Now, in the wake of death or disabilty of the Prime Minister, you came to realise the ommission regarding the evetual succession of Deputy Prime Miniter to the TPLF/eprdf regime, ignoring the fact who ever succeeds, the Gang of Four or the Deputy Prime Minister does not make an iota of difference with respect to radical changes from ethnocratic rule of majority or minority to a democratic rule or democracy, which is a rule by the people, for the people and of the people, as long as your slogan from 6 years ago is : “no change but durable democracy”, in a country where economic development in East Asian style comes before democracy and the constituion is based on ethnic federalism, secessionism and totaliarinism as root cause to humanitarian, econoomic, political, environmental, and constituional crises perpetrated by TPLF/eprdf regime.

    You would have been better in your narratives now and in the past had you and the prodemocracy movent anchored yourselves to the flaws of the constituition with respect to ethnic federalism, secessionism and totaliarinism, totaliarinism as a carry over from the Derg regime and its own inclination to marxism, and ruling the country and the silent majority by a conglomerate of exliberation fronts with ethnic agenda to the exclusion of those parties and factions with national agenda, and vouching for parties with ethnic agenda for power sharing in the words of Prof. Messay Kebede with the TPLF/eprdf regime does bring about individual freedom, Ethiopian Nationalism/unity, and sovereignity of Ethiopia. That is the distinction between the positive forces of integration and the negative forces of forces of disintegration, to which the balance is tilted. It calls for Ethiopians themselves to tilt the balance in the positve direction by unitying over the goals for unity, territorial integrity, sovereignity of Ethiopia and Ethiopians and the strategies for achieving those goals to which parties with the national agenda need to draft the strategies to achieve those goals in national convention signed on by the leaders of all parties and factions.

  8. tewbel
    | #8

    It is amazing that after 22 years of illegal rule where the Woyane have broken every part of their own made constitution and have ruled the country as they please, we still talk about constitutional rights.
    Are we living in some other world? or fantasy land? You spend so much effort to explain something that does not exisit. It is pityful!

  9. aha!
    | #9

    Berihu! You do not have to censor yourself on the basis of the impact of your ideas bings about changes or not, you have the right to express your opinion one way or the other to exchange ideas. If as you stipulated Aticles 104 and 105 allows for the ratification of the constitution with some restriction, meaning within the context of the constituional frame work of ethnic federalism, secessionism and totalirianism. If those articles imply those ideologies and/policies to remain intacat there is no radical changes to be renderd by Article 104 and 105, other than to to dismantle ethnic fereralism, secessionism and totaliarinism to free the silent majority of Ethiopians from ethnic rule, where parties are lined by by ethnicity and the country is divided by major ethnic groups to a democracy of the people by the people and for people with the individual central piece of the constitution as in the United States, not the limited ethnic groups as the major ethnic groups to crate ethnic majority or ethnic minority rule, leaving on the way side individual rights, Ethiopian Nationalism and the sovereignity of Ethiopia on the fringes of the constitutional frame work.

  10. aha!
    | #10

    On the other hand with respect to the transfer of power from the Prime Mister you by passed the lack of three independent branches of the government of TPLF/eprdf regime, and opted to tell us about the presidential system and the pariamentary system led by the Prime Minister
    collective responsibility of the cabinet of ministers, where the executive branches of the government dominates the parialmentary and the judiary branches of the government and the tranfer of power rests on the collective reposibility of the cabinet, where TPLF Politburro dominates those ministers in the cabinet, posing as four members of TPLF as candidates for succession to the Prime Minister, but not the Deputy Prime Minister with the pretext of ommision in Article 72-75 for the tranfer of power to the Deuty Prime Minster, eventhough it maintains ethnic federalism, secessionism and totaliarinism, built into the constitution in tact.

  11. Mesfin
    | #11

    Professor Alemayehu I appreciate what you usually write in Ethiopian websites. However, I don’t always agree with your discourses as you can imagine. Some of the ideas in this article are completely inacurate. For instance you talked about unlike the PM, the DPM is not elected etc. This is completely wrong. No one elects the PM. The PM is simply nominated by the ruling party. You inappropriately gave credit & recognition for Meles Zenawi’s power by telling us he is ELECTED. Moeover, the whole theme of your discourse is based on wrong premises. The Ethiopian constitution is not expected to give clarity on who takes power when the PM fails for any reason because the ruling party is in charge of taking care of those issues. As to me the second in command of EPRDF is a possible overtaker of the PM’s office.

  12. Darsema
    | #12

    The fascist and racist Meles Zenawi has only imposed his dedebit dokument on the people of Ethiopia. It can not be called a constitution.

  13. ሕገመንግስትና አክባሪዎቹ
    | #13

    ለጋሽ በሪሁ
    ሕገመንግስት ምንነትና የአገራችንንም የተለያዩ መንግስታተን ህገመንግስቶች ልዩነት ገልጸውልን የተሻለው ያሁኑ ሕገመንግስት ነው በማለት ዳኝነቶዎን አሳልፈዋል

    ሕገመንግስቱና ሽሎችን አገናኝተው ሲገልጹ- ካንድ ሰው ሽል የአንድ ክልል ልጆች ሽሎች መሰረት በማድረጉ ያሁኑ ሕገ.መ የተሻለ ነው ይላሉ ክልሉ ደግሞ ዘር ድንበሩ ነው

    ታዲያ የአንድ ግለሰብ ሽል ሆነ የአንድ ክልል ሽሎች ሆነ ለቀረው ክልል ሽሎች ምን መብት ያስከብራል ነው የሚሉት?

    ባይሆን ብዝበዛው ይከፋል ምክንያቱም ብዙ ሽሎችን መመገብና አንዱን ሽል ቤተሰብ መመገብ ልዩነት አንዳለው ራስዎ ያስሉት

    በርስዎ አገላለጽ የተሻሉበትን ምክንያቶች ሲያስቀምጡ
    ….የደርግና የኃይለ ሥላሴ ሥርዓት የወላድ መካን የሆኑት ግን ግለሰባዊ መርህ ላይ ስለተንጠለጠሉ፣ በሕገ መንግሥትና በሕገ መንግሥታዊነት መርሆዎች ላይ ስላልተመሠረቱና ራዕይ አልባ ስለሆኑ ነው፡፡…

    ያሁኑ ግን ይላሉ

    …ሕገ መንግሥቱ የግለሰብ ሳይሆን የብሔር ብሔረሰቦችና ሕዝቦች ሉዓላዊ ሥልጣን ባለቤትነት መገለጫ፣ የሕጎች ሁሉ የበላይ፣ ሰብዓዊና ዲሞክራሲያዊ መብት የሚያስከብር፣ የመንግሥትን አሠራር ለሕዝብ ግልጽ የሚያደረግና ከቀደምት ሕገ መንግሥቶች በተለየ ሁኔታ የፓርላማ ሥርዓት ያስተዋወቀ በመሆኑ፣ ቢያንስ በእነዚህና በሌሎች ሕገ መንግሥታዊ መርሆዎች ከቀደምቶቹ እጅግ በጣም ይለያል፡፡…

    ‘…ታድያ እንዴት ነው የኢፌዲሪ ሕገ መንግሥት ከእነዚህ ሕገ መንግሥታት የሚነፃፀረው? ለግለሰቦች በግለሰቦች ከታወጁት ጋር? ጉድ ሳይሰማ መስከረም አይጠባም አሉ፡፡…’

    ጉድ ሳይሰማ መስክረም አይጠባም ነው የሚሉትና እውነት ነው ብዙ ሰማን እስክ መስከረም!!!


  14. በለው!
    | #14

    July 27,2012 at 4:04pm
    “ጠቅላያችን ይሄንን ሁሉ ኖሯል ሃያ አንድ አመት ሙሉ ሲሰሩ የኖሩት…? መድከም ይነሳቸው እንዴ…!? ለዚአውም በ፮፼፪፻ የኢትዮጵያ ብር ደሞዝ !? ከደደቢት በረሃ እስከ ብራስልስ ተወጥቶ ተዋርዶ መድከም ይነሳቸው እንዴ…!? አንዱ ስብሰባ ላይ ክልትው ብለው አለመቀረታቸውም በእውነቱ ብርታታቸውን ያመለክታል!) ክልትው ባይሉስ ክትት ማለታቸው አያሳዝንም ? ?
    አንቀፅ ፸፪ (፫) ስለ አስፈፃሚነት ሥልጣን…
    “በሌላ አኳሗን ካልተወሰነ በስተቀር (ፓርቲው እግራቸው ላይ ካልወደቀና አልቅሶ ካለመናቸው) የሥራ ዘመናቸው የሕዝብ ተወካዮች ምክር ቤት የሥራ ዘመን ነው ። አምስትዓመት ። አራት ነጥብ ።
    “ፖለቲካችንም የሥራ ዘመን ኤክስፓየር ዴት ይኑረው ! ” ብሎ በእንግሊዝ ፪፼፲፪ ኦሎምፒክ የወከለን ማን ነበር ? በደህና ይመልሰው እና…
    “ህገ መንግስታችን አንቀፅ 74 ስለ ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ የስራ ድርሻ በአንድ ገፅ ተኩል ያህል ይዘረዝራል።”
    የጠ/ሚ አሰያየም አንቀፅ ፸፫ (፪)
    በሕዝብ ተወካዮች ም/ቤት አብላጫ መቀመጫ ያገኘው ወይም ያገኙት የፖለቲካ ድርጅቶች የመንግስት ሥልጣን ይረከባል… አበበ የለጋትን ጓስ አበበ እራሱ ተወርውሮ ቀለባት ….
    አንቀፅ ፸፭ ስለ ምክትል ጠ/ሚ የሥራ ድርሻ
    ምክትል ጠ/ሚሩና የውጭ ጉዳይ ም/ጠ/ሚ (በጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ተለይተው የሚሰጣቸውን ተግባሮች ለማከናውን) ውጭ በመሄዴ ሀይለማርያም ይሙት ደስአለኝ ሲሉ ዋናው የውጭ ጉዳይ ሚ/ር አምባአሳድር ብርሃነ ገብረክርስቶስ ከውሰጥ ሆነው ወደውጭ ጉዳዮችን (ጉዶችን) ይሰራሉ።!!?
    አንቀፅ ፸፯ (፬) የሚኒስትሮች ምክር ቤትን ይመራል ፤ ያስተባብራል ፤ ይወክላል
    (፱) የሲቪል ሹመትን ጨምሮ ስለመስጠት ሥልጣን ከአምስት አመቱም ትራንስፎርሜሽን በበለጠ የተለጠጠ…. (፲፪) በዚህ ሕገ መንግስት እና በሌሎች ሕጎች የተስጡትን ሌሎች ተግባሮች ያከናውናል። (ወይ መጠቅለል መጨራሻው ለመጠቅለል ) !! ታዲያ እንኳን መሞት መታመም ይገባቸዋል? ? አሁን ማን ይተካ አይተካ የሚለው ጥያቄ “የኢህአዴግ ቀሪ ባለስልጣናት ህገመንግስቱን ጠቅሰው ምክትል ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ የሚተኩት ለአጭር ጊዜ ጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ በማይኖሩ ወቅት እንጂ ከናካቴው ሳይኖሩ ሲቀር አይደለም። ብለው መከራከራቸውን ሰምተናል። በእርግጥም የተላለፉትን ስብሰባዎች በቴሌፎን(በእስካይብ) በመከታተል እየመሩ ነው ሰሞኑን(በአስር ቀን ጊዜ) ድንገት (ሰርፕራይዝ )ያደርጓችሗል ሲሉ እንቧይ ፀሐዬ ጠቁመዋል ! ያው የፈረደባቸው ማሟያ ም/ጠ ሚኒስትር ለብሔር ብሔረሰቦች ደስታ እና ፈንጠዚያ ኮንትራትን ለማራዘሚያ እስከመስከረም በስማቸው ይማላል ከመስከረም በሗላ ሀገሪቱ ዘጠኝ ጠ/ሚኒስትሮች ይኖራታል። አላትም..ያኖራታልም።!!እሳቸው ፈግግታቸው እራሱ በጠቅላላ ይገዛል!!ድሮውንም ለጠቅላይ ሚኒስትሩ ሲጠሩት አቤት ሲሊኩት ወዴት የሆነው ኑሯቸው አንቀፅ ፸፭ (፪) ጠቅላይ ሚ/ሩ በማይኖርበት ጊዜ…በፍቃዱ በለቀቀ ጊዜ፣ ሀገሪቱ አደጋ ሲገጥማት፤ ሲታመም ፤ሲሞት፤ሲባረር፤ ሀገር ሲከዳ፤በእረፍት ከሀገር ሲወጣ፤ከመደበኛ ሥራው ለምን ያህል ጊዜ እረቆ ሲቆይ፤ሲመንን (… ) ተቃዋሚ ነኝ የሚለውም ጎራ እኔ ቦታው ይገባኛል ሲል አልሰማሁም የሰው ቤት ሐሳብ ይዞታል። ወይ እኔው ልሞክረው ይሆን? ? ? ጉድ እኮ ነው! ህገ መንግስቱ ጠ/ሚ እንዲሞቱ ባይፈቅድም የጠቅላይ ሚኒስትርነት ሥልጣን ከአምስት ዓመት በላይ ለትውልድ የማይተላለፍ ወይንም የዕድሜ ልክ (፴-፵ ዓመት) ኮንትራት ነው አይልም ። የጠ/ሚኒስትርነት ሹመት እና የመሬት ሊዝ አንድ አደሉም በለው!!!!!ከሀገረ ካናዳ

  15. Sitina Ahmed (first posted on the Ethiopian Law and Justice Society Blogspot
    | #15

    The Ethiopian Constitution is clear enough on the replacement of the PM. The problem is lack of openness, transparency and integrity in the political system. Anger and frustration with the political system is one thing while telling the truth another. There is no “constitutional crisis” that forces constitutional debate, review and amendment which takes years. Even TPLF says “the Constitution is clear” and we should insist that it respects what it says.

    Most of the constitutions of countries that have adopted parliamentary system (as opposed to presidential system) do not specify succession of power if the prime minister is removed from position, resigns, dies or loses capacity to carry out her/his duties due to illness or some other reason. This is true for Britain and Canada, two of the oldest democracies with long constitutional and parliamentary history. Ethiopia falls in the parliamentary system category but with brief constitutional and parliamentary history and authoritarian rule.

    Removals, resignations, deaths and incapacity of prime ministers occur rarely and most of the countries in the parliamentary system do not seem bothered by power succession issues. Ethiopia is not an exception in this regard. In practice, when there is no prime minister, a “constitutional convention” steps in to fill the gap. Generally speaking, convention provides that deputy (vice) prime minister positions are symbolic which do not enable the holder of such office to claim and acquire the prime minister position. Again, generally speaking, the governing party from which the prime minister came will form a new government or the party will elect a new leader who becomes the prime minister. The new prime minister might form a new cabinet or continue with the old one. He vacates his office with the end of term of his predecessor.

    Compared to others, the Ethiopian constitution appears better; it indirectly specifies how the prime minister can be replaced. In conformity with the convention and tradition of the parliamentary system, Article 75 of the Constitution makes clear that the deputy prime minister cannot replace the prime minister. The moment the prime minister is unable to carry out her/his functions, the deputy prime minister loses power to act on her/his behalf. The deputy prime minister can finish tasks given to him by the prime minister but cannot undertake new ones. In effect, his responsibility as deputy prime minister ends simultaneously with that of the prime minister. Any decision he makes after that stage can be illegal except decisions with international consequences which might be binding.

    Again, in conformity with the convention and tradition of the parliamentary system, once the prime minister is removed, resigns, dies or loses capacity, his position is open and it is to be filled. In our case, it is by way of election. The same procedure through which the prime minister took office in the past. Article 73 of the Constitution states that the prime minister is elected by the Council of Peoples’ Representatives (HPR) from among its members. The article further states that executive responsibility is assumed by a party or a coalition of parties that constitutes a majority in the Council of Peoples’ Representatives. Since there is no change of government, any member of the HPR that comes from the party that has won the majority of seats becomes the prime minister. His term of office ends with that of the HPR’s whic is shorter than five years.

    What appears to be missing is the procedure to initiate the process of replacing the prime minister. Such a procedure is not supposed to be dealt with by the Constitution. Laws other than the Constitution and internal regulations of the HPR casts some lights on this issue. First, the prime minister has an office established by law led by a minister. The office, responsible for the day to day activities of the prime minister is expected to report the prime minister’s absence from office to the HPR, to which the prime minister is accountable. The HPR then investigates the situation and proceed to replace him by electing a new prime minister as stipulated by the Constitution. If the HPR was independent, it could have, on its own accord, initiated investigation since the absence of the prime minister from office for a month or more is a public knowledge. Second, members of HPR could petition for an investigation of the situation so that a prime minister is elected.

    The 2010 election fiasco put aside, executive responsibility is still assumed the TPLF/EPRDF. That’s the party that constitutes the (absolute) majority in the HPR. The TPLF/EPRDF resembles a coalition of parties, but it is a partnership of different ethno – political organizations led and controlled by the TPLF. It is a party and not a coalition of parties as foreseen by the constitution. The fact that TPLF/EPRDF is considered one organization irrespective of ethnic background of its constituent parties makes every individual member of the parties eligible to be elected prime minister. The only additional requirement is being elected to the HPR.

    The interesting thing to happen from election of a new prime minister is if the junior partners of TPLF vote in block. Say OPDO, ANDM and SNNP vote for their candidate or vote jointly for their joint candidate. Since these organizations individually and collectively have the majority of seats in HPR, they can effectively end TPLF rule in the country.

  16. ananymous
    | #16

    Dearest professor: the Ethiopian constitution that was written in the jungle of aiga could not be Ethiopia’s. It was written by the thugs of weyanes to imitate and confuse the western donors.

  17. ASEBE
    | #17

    The current news is that Meles Zenawi has passed away.

  18. Girum
    | #18

    Astra is quite right!!!
    Theoretically the article is such a good analysis. But the problem is that, for so many reasons as a human being, we failed to live by the theory and the laws we formulate and endorse.If you create a certain law by yourself then you can play games on it and change the law any time any where you want. However, I believe that it is only almighty God who is loyal and abide by his own laws. Meles/TPLF is (they claim and believe) the main creator architects of the constitution (well they also claim and believe they are main creator architects of New Ethiopia in their image and likeness) then they have absolute right to play games on it. The controversial void in the constitution regarding DPM arises from this deep-rooted perverted sentiment. I am not a as such lawyer and I am not as such very familiar in detail with Ethiopian constitution but it is not that much difficult to say some logical things.
    If the DPM is also in advance elected by the parliament like PM then the DPM can automatically take over power as PM. As far as I can understand from such articles written what I happen to understand is that the DPM post is the mere personal creation of PM Meles with some controversial constitutional basis. Hence the DPM post is like we call it like to “give a raw meat(KURT) with out a knife”. So the constitutional controversial void regarding the DMP post seems like a deliberate crafty tactic and strategy devised by Meles/TPLF to reliably secure the power of Meles in any unexpected cases. Any way it is very difficult to advance or hamper inherent internal human deliberations with mere laws alone as long as human dynamism is not taken in to consideration. Laws mainly originate from the very internal motives and interests of human beings. So laws have to be seriously scrutinized before getting endorsed and getting to be effective. Just because any law is incorporated in to a constitution and then endorsed does not mean it is eternal like the words of God like in the Ten-Commandments. What is even most surprising at this moment of time in history regarding the current situation in Ethiopia is that though Meles/TPLF time and again reiterate and invoke about the integrity and legitimacy of the constitution every time they want to demonize any opposition in that such forces are against the constitution and bla bla… the contrary we happen to see the true meaning and purpose of our constitution regarding the controversial void regarding the DPM post. Though constitution is very necessary instrument for discipline, order and rule of law, however, constitutions is just mere reflections of our inherent human dynamism and what we also have to work hard is on our own human dynamism regarding the identification and nurturing of our intrinsic-virtues and values. Had there not been such unbridled power-mongering and disharmony among Ethiopian elites then even with void in the constitution then we can workout the problems like cases in the case of MP Meles’s illness or death or incapacitation. So we are not human creatures to only live by laws but also by intrinsic-virtues and values. And as a Christian that is why there is Old-Testament where we were to live primarily by laws and to the contrary there is New-Testament where we live not only by mere laws but also by the faith and trust in Jesus Christ in that we are also sons of God where we transcend beyond the bondage of laws.
    So the current and general situation in Ethiopia is not as such a mere constitutional controversial void manifestation but rather an issue and manifestation of being a virtueless society in that we in some sort of generational-crisis. So for some one who studies law he/she may professionally hype the constitutional law, for the economist may hype the economy and for the politician may hype the politics and the fashionable democracy for the military may hype the military. However, we need such an integrated and multifaceted holistic approach in order to unravel our mystery and quandary. The controversial void in the constitution is the reflection of our own void as an Ethiopian society. Having such a amazing perfect constitution directly copying from some where else may not work directly and automatically for we Ethiopians unless we do things in a way that properly fits and adapts to our own Ethiopian society. The Meles/TPLF constitution has been such a paper tiger when it comes to the interest of the majority Ethiopian mass and a real tiger when it comes to the interest of Meles/TPLF.
    Any way what is most important now this time is the saddest prevalence of Opposition forces void to take over and replace the existing TPLF corrupt system with a new one more than the secondary issue of phony DPM constitutional void which is this way already in advance designed to work out by the crafty Meles/TPLF.

    God Bless Ethiopia!!!

  19. kentu
    | #19

    becouse of you i feel shame special among weyane supporter they call me ,, tiger of paper; 20 years isenough we have two choice 1 fight for good and win 2 accept weyane rule the all your life otherwise it is wast time even shabia government lose hope and finance he make rong calculatio he though you are a man even he fight for you for the last 50 years he dont know yousorry for eritrean people even shabia him self is in rong direction

  20. SheIsEthiopia
    | #20

    Great analysis, I enjoyed reading it. Thank you very much for re-informing us that the Ethiopian constitution is cleverly written by the TPLF dead president, Band Meles Zenew, that to make it appear that he is treating all Ethiopians are treated equally though the facts on the ground are pointing that Ethiopians are under a colony of the TPLF.

    Glad that the TPLF rule is OVER!!!

  21. Konjit Kassa
    | #21

    For the past 21 years Ethiopia has no functional constitution. What we have
    is Tigrean/TPLF dictatorship. The moment is now to nip this devilish junta

  22. ሕገመንግስትና አክባሪዎቹ
    | #22

    በርግጥ ሞተው ከሆነ
    ለቤተሳበቸውና ለሚቀርባቸው ወገን ሐዘናቸውን በሚገባው እንዲወጡ ቅድሚያ ቢሰጠው ለሁሉም ክብር ነው ለአገሪታም ጭምር ካለበለዚያ
    ደጋፊዎቸው እንካንስ ለአገርና ለሕገመንግስቱ ይቅርና መሪያቸውን ሲሞት ለማንም የሚሰጠውን ክብር ለስልጣን ሲሉ የነፈጉ ናቸው እንዴት አንድ ሰው ሞቶ ተገቢውን ሐዘን ልጆቹም ይሁን ባለቤቱ ዘመዶች እንዳይወጡ ይነፈጋሉ

    ስለዚህ እውነቱን ማሳወቅ ለቤተሰብ ለአገርም ለሕዝብም ለወገንም ክብር ነው

    በተረፈ ሕገመንግስቱን በተመለከተ በደጋፊዎች ጎራ የሚሰማው ሽኩቻ ከተቃዋሚው የተለየ አይደለም
    ለምሳሌ ዶ/ር ተኮላ ሐጎስ ይሻሻል ሲሉ ብርሃኔ ደግሞ ምን ጎድሎት ይላሉ
    ስለዚህ ችግሩ ሕገ መንግስቱ ጋ ሳይሆን መተማመኑ ላይ ነውና የተሻለ ቀን ያምጣልን ነው

  23. Zerayakob Yared
    | #23

    # 6,

    “Alemayehu do not waste our time. All non-Tigreans know……” -Tigreans የሚለው አባባል, ደቂ ሓትኖታት, ገዳሪፎችንና አባሻውሎቹን ተብሎ ተገንዛቢነት እስካገኘ ጊዜ ድረስ ብቻ::

    አለበለዚያ ግን ለምሳሌ ያህል ይሄ መጣጥፍና ያንተም ትቺት ከመምጣቱ በፊትም ሆነ, ከዚያም ሁሉ ቀደም ተብሎ የሆኑ ዘ’ብሄረ ትግራዮች እንደልማዳቸው በእንደሚከተው አይነት ድምፃቸውን ያሰሙትሳ!?

    “አንድ ነጥብ ባጠቃላይና ከዋናው አርቲኪል ጋራም በማያያዝ:- በአሁኑ ጊዜ የኢትዮጵያን ሁናቴ ከህግ አንፃር ለማተት መሞከሩ ፋይዳ የለሽ ነው! ህግ የለምና! ገና ህዝባችንን በህግ መተዳደር ይችል ዘንዳ ማነፅና በህግም የሚያምን አመራርና መዋቅር መምጣት አለበት::እስከዚያን ጊዜ ድረስ ኢትዮጵያን አያይዞ ስለ ህግ ማውራቱ Fake (የማደናበርያ ቱሻ)ነው!”

    በተረፈ ግን አባባልህ ተጋሩን ለማግለል ከመሞከሩ በስተቀር, ካስቀመጥኩት ጥቅስ በእንግሊዘኛ ከመሆኑ በስተቀር ምንም ልዩነት የለውምና, ፍርደ ገምድልነትን ለማስወገድም እንጣር!! ፍርደገምድል ሆኖ ከመሽቀንጠር መግባባት ይበጃል!!

  24. kentu
    | #24

    we are talking about meles is dead so what about us we allready dead but our differnce meles is under ground and us we are over ground, becouse even no leadership in ethiopia we are not use this great apotunity to mobilize the people as i mention in allways righting even i change my baby dieper here in US still i can rule ethiopia becouse we have the worst calture in humanbing we need to make first caltural revolution like to raise you kid with love and respect so when the kids grow up he will be a full man and he kills you when you touch is right but us we are differnt to raise kids but biting assulting azolating so i dont blaim the generation he is allready dead when he was a kid

  25. Abu
    | #25

    it is very rediculous why people squander their precious time and energy on Woyanes so called fake “constitution” knowing that it is woyanes POLITICAL PROGRAMME- Please come to your senses and devout all your time and eneergy towards choking off the woyanes and its regime once and for all. It is high time to exploit the situation, as woyane is totally in disarray,to advance our struggle and snatch the freedom usurped forcefully by woyane thugs and Mafia like Tigrawyan colonial forces.The woyane so called constitution and transfer of power from one woyane core to another carbon copy is not a hot button issue for genuine anti woyanes.But of how to dismantle the regime and replacing with all inclusive democratic government is our burning issue landing in our face.Let the woyane discuss that to buy time .Let pro Ethiopian forces join hands devise ways and means of mobilizing the dissatisfied population of Ethiopians for the final showdown against the woyanes .That is our urgent duty as genuine Ethiopians .No more and no less.No more compromise .No more dialogue with woyane .Time is over.Woyane is in its last breath.No force in the world can save woyane .Neithr Americans nor Chinese are nothing in the face of the Ethiopian peolple anger and indignation.Let us stay united.

  26. aha!
    | #26

    Sitina Ahmed! Although you disagree with the author on mechanism for the transfer of power from the Prime Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, which he considers as constitutional crisis and you do not; and yet both of you are on the same side of the fence of the negative forces of disintegration by not considering the major flaws of the constitution by adoptining a parialimentary democracy, when there is commensrate constitutional Monarchy, by adopting ethnic federalism, secessionism and totaliarinsm, to the detriment of individual freedom, free market capitalism and /or mixed economic model and democracy to the silent majority of Ethiopians, which nevertheless available to TPLF and TPLF affiliated enterprises, cadres and foreign corporations, as well as lack of independent branches of the government to foster free and fair elections, trials and corruptions, etc. and the sovereignity of Ethiopia.

    Although both of you are contending that that there is a mechanism to the transfer of power not specified in Articles 72-75 by stating “the Ethiopianconstitutionindirectly specifies how the the prime minister can be replaced by “constitutional convention” from the governing party (TPLF/eprdf), and the DPM position disolves with absence or death of the Prime Minister, I paraphrase, by replacing the Prime Minister through the “constitutional convention”, which nevertheless does not bring about an a slight difference in bringing about changes to the major flaws of the constitution in favor of those parties with national agenda for unity territorial integrity, sovereignity of Ethiopia and Ethiopians, where the last item refers to individual freedom, liberty and equality to have precedence over ethnic and secessionist rights, where if the individual rights is respected and holds center stage of the constituion as in the United States the ethnic rights follows through and party alignments by ethnicity with ethnic agenda reverts to the national agenda and the original provincial boundries we will have have restored federated provinces with presidential system much like the United States od democratic government, where the party governs by the consent of the governed. Therefore, both of you are siding implicitely with the negative forces of disintegration, be it TPLF/eprdf for which I give you credit for labling the regime as (TPLF/eprdf) political model with ethnic-based platform and its attributes, without assigning the label of OPDF?EFDF/fdre a front composed of Tigrai-Harena, OPDM, ONC, ONLF, and UDJP etc) as its mirror image with ethnic agenda as being as one entity, a governing body and an embodiment of the constitution, that does not favor those parties with national agenda and the silent majority of Ethiopiapians, where the constitution is crafted by TPLF spearheading the ex-liberation fronts standing against the prression of nations and nationalities by the previous regimes instead of class struggle, and is being governed by ex-liberation fronts, and not by those with national agenda in addition to the imposition of totaliarinism with a new twist of State capitalism with monoploly of land and businesses by TPLF and TPLF affiliated enterprises, cadres and foreign corporations. To that end your “constitutioal convention” as a mechanism of tranfer of power to a new Prime Prime Minster, is of litte concern to the silent majority of Ethiopians, other than to maintain the TPLF/eprdf regime in tact as ethnic minority and/or ethnic minority rule intact.

Comments are closed.