For quite a long time, there has been a dearth of civic engagement in the parliamentary procedure in Ethiopia because of a long tradition of authoritarian political culture and excessive domination of the political space by the state. Since World War II, the Ethiopian state has had three regimes – imperil era (1931-1974), Derg regime (1974-1991), and EPRDF/Prosperity Party (1991-present) – with radically different ideological persuasions and basis of legitimacy.
All the three have had the unenviable record of being authoritarian in the governance and democratic realm. More specifically, the parliaments under the three regimes were not genuinely democratic institutions, and there has been very little public participation and involvement in the policy and law making process. Whatever citizens participation and involvement in governance and development has there been, it has always been highly structured and formalistic and not substantive.
There might have been times when there has been some public participation of consultation in the formulation and adoption of important laws, like, for example, the ex-civil society law, but the inputs of suggestions that come from citizens were often ignored and did not have any impact on the structure and content of the final version of the law.
Due to various reasons, the current state of civic engagement in the parliamentary procedure (CEPP) in the House of Peoples’ Representatives (HoPR) of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) leaves much to be desired, which indicates that the country has a long way to go towards participatory and democratic governance. Since coming to power in 1991, the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)-led government has conducted five nationwide elections to institutionalize parliamentary democracy and participatory governance whereby citizens will have a say in government decision-making through their elected representatives. However, since the political system has largely remained authoritarian and top-down with a single ruling party monopolizing state power for long, the ideals of representative democracy with the needs and concerns of the people being taken into consideration through their representatives have remained far from a reality.
In recent years, there have been some modest attempts by the current Ethiopian parliament to democratize its working process and enhance its scrutiny over the executive. For example, an assessment has been conducted on parliamentary oversight tools and mechanisms used by the House of Peoples’ Representatives. In addition, a draft policy document on national civic engagement policy has been prepared and distributed for comment by relevant stakeholders. However, no concrete steps or tangible outcomes on civic engagement in the parliamentary procedure in the HoPR worthy of mention have been witnessed.
Parliament in principle is an embodiment of the will of the people. It is this will of the people that constitutes parliament to function on behalf of the people. The assembly of deputies which takes shape in an institution called parliament may be able to function on behalf of the people in the true sense of the term when it involves stakeholders in the discharge of its responsibilities. This is essential for ensuring legitimacy, quality and trust in governance and development.
The legitimacy of parliament depends on the support and engagement of the electorate the primary function of any parliament: legislation is also improved in terms of quality when it is informed by citizens’ concerns, experiences and views. And, finally a parliament that is seen connected to citizens and is responsive to their concerns is in a good position to earn the trust of the people. Such arrangements in the discharge of parliamentary duties are generally anchored in constitutional/legal provisions.
So is the case of Ethiopia. In the Ethiopian case, the constitution under article 8 sub article 1 and 3 provides that sovereign power resides in the Ethiopian people and their sovereignty shall be expressed through their elected representatives as well as their direct participation. Further in this regard, article 54 of the constitution and its sub article 2 affirm that members of the House of Peoples’ Representatives are representatives of the Ethiopian people as a whole and in the discharge of their responsibilities they shall be governed, among other things, by the will of the people.
Moreover, the Rules of Procedure and Members’ Code of Conduct of the House of Peoples’ Representatives similarly provide for public participation in the conduct of the core parliamentary functions and outlines aspects of the mechanism of engaging the public. However, the practice so far has not been up to promises.
The need for having active and engaged public is premised in the very nature of representative democracy which takes care of citizens’ concerns and demands through their elected deputies. Elected deputies to be able to, live up to expectations, need to always consult and be abreast of issues concerning their consistencies in particular and the country in general. This is all the more important especially in light of the fact that political systems in the modern world mainly rely on indirect democracy for the reason that the population and territorial size of states has made practicing direct democracy impossible despite modest attempts at grassroots level.
Therefore, whatever the people would like to have executed is decided upon by their representatives. That does not mean, however, the people remain relegated. In this regard, the deficit in indirect participation is supposed to be filled by regularly engaging the public in parliamentary functions, according to an MP interviewed for this study. Besides filling the deficit in indirect participation, the MP contends, public engagement in parliamentary activities can be rationalized on the basis of its usefulness for quality legislation and informed oversight.
In a parliamentary system the legislature holds a special place. It is the parliament that makes government. It is also the parliament that breaks government; through, in this case, the vice versa is also possible. It is for this reason that the legislature is the locus of sovereign authority in parliamentary forms of government. In Ethiopia, too, the House of Peoples’ Representatives is entrusted with the highest political authority as per article 50 (3) of the FDRE Constitution. In spite of this, a parliamentary system of government is known for the fusion of the executive and the legislative branches of government.
Potential adverse effects that may stem from its very nature are tamed by maintaining the constitutional division of power and a system of checks and balances. When both are adhered to in both principle and practice, the parliament stands out as the real sovereign from a political point of view. In a more pragmatic way, however, the parliament can be taken as the embodiment of the will of the people when it involves the public in the undertaking of its core functions.
The constitution stipulates that members of parliament shall be guided by their conscience, the will of the people and the constitution in the undertaking of their duties. This implies that parliamentary activities shall always involve and be informed by public opinion. Likewise, the parliamentary rules of procedure and code of conduct provide that standing committees of the House of Peoples’ Representatives are duty bound to involve stakeholders in the undertaking of the core parliamentary functions. Despite such promises, the attempts at involving the public in parliamentary activities are modest.
Engaging the public in the undertaking of parliamentary activities helps to ensure legitimacy, quality and trust. These essentials for any parliament can be realized when public engagement schemes are supported by an enabling political environment, institutional arrangements, physical and technological infrastructure, trained and skillful human resource and sufficient financial outlay.
Compiled by ABDUREZAK MOHAMMED
The Ethiopian Herald June 6/2021
