Sovereignty and State Power in Ethiopia:A Comparative Constitutional and Ideological Analysis

Sovereignty and State Power in Ethiopia:

A Comparative Constitutional and Ideological Analysis

Abstract

Ethiopia’s modern constitutional history reflects a continuous contest over the locus of sovereignty and the structure of state power. From imperial absolutism through socialist centralism to multinational federalism, each constitutional order embodies a distinct ideological conception of the state, the people, and political authority. This paper offers a comparative analysis of five key constitutional and quasi-constitutional moments in Ethiopian history: the imperial constitutions under Haile Selassie, the Derg’s provisional military rule, the 1987 Constitution of the People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (PDRE), the 1991 Transitional Charter, and the 1995 Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). It argues that Ethiopia’s constitutional evolution represents a fundamental ideological shift from personalised and unitary sovereignty toward collective, plural, and constitutionally mediated sovereignty.

1. Introduction

The question of sovereignty lies at the heart of Ethiopia’s political history. Competing answers to the question of who owns the state and how power should be exercised have shaped revolutions, armed struggles, and constitutional redesigns. Unlike many post-colonial African states, Ethiopia’s constitutional transformations did not emerge from decolonisation, but rather from internal ideological ruptures—namely, the collapse of the empire, the socialist revolution, and ethnonational mobilisation.

This paper examines how sovereignty and power were conceptualised and institutionalised across successive regimes. It adopts a comparative constitutional approach, focusing on ideological foundations rather than institutional detail alone.

2. Imperial

 Constitutionalism: Sovereignty as Monarchical Authority

2.1 Source of 

Sovereignty

The 1931 and 1955 imperial constitutions located sovereignty exclusively in the Emperor. Authority was justified through divine right and Solomonic legitimacy. The Ethiopian people were subjects of the crown, not constitutional authorities.

2.2 Structure of Power

Power was centralised and personal. The Emperor exercised ultimate authority over the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Parliamentary institutions existed but lacked autonomy and adequate checks on imperial power.

2.3 Ideological Foundation

Imperial constitutionalism was grounded in:

Absolutist monarchy

Unitary nationalism

Cultural and linguistic assimilation

The constitution functioned as a grant from the monarch, not a social contract.

2.4 Implication

Sovereignty flowed downward from the crown, reinforcing a hierarchical state that denied political agency to Ethiopia’s diverse populations.

3. The Derg’s Provisional Military Rule: Revolutionary Centralism

3.1 Source of Sovereignty

Following the 1974 revolution, sovereignty was rhetorically transferred to “the people.” In practice, it was monopolised by the Provisional Military Administrative Council (the Derg).

3.2 Structure of Power

Rule by decree

Suspension of constitutional legality

Militarisation of governance

The state operated without a constitutional framework during much of this period.

3.3 Ideological Foundation

The Derg adopted Marxist-Leninist ideology, framing itself as the vanguard of the masses and the destroyer of feudal and imperial structures.

3.4 Implication

Although sovereignty was no longer personalised in a monarch, it remained centralised and authoritarian. The people were invoked symbolically but excluded practically.

4. The 1987 PDRE Constitution: Party-State Sovereignty

4.1 Source of Sovereignty

The 1987 Constitution declared sovereignty to reside in the “working people.” However, effective authority was exercised by the Workers’ Party of Ethiopia.

4.2 Structure of Power

One-party socialist state

Strong executive presidency

Centralised planning and administration

4.3 Ideological Foundation

The PDRE constitution constitutionalised Marxism-Leninism and institutionalised the party-state model.

4.4 Nationalities Question

For the first time, “nationalities” were formally recognised. However, recognition was cultural rather than political, with no genuine self-rule or autonomy.

4.5 Implication

This period marked a transition from military to bureaucratic authoritarianism, preserving centralised sovereignty under a constitutional façade.

5. The 1991 Transitional Charter: Plural and Collective Sovereignty

5.1 Source of Sovereignty

The Transitional Charter explicitly vested sovereignty in Ethiopia’s Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples.

5.2 Structure of Power

Transitional and negotiated authority

Decentralized administration

Power sharing among liberation movements

5.3 Ideological Foundation

The Charter rejected unitary nationalism and embraced:

Self-determination

Ethno-linguistic equality

Post-conflict reconstruction

5.4 Implication

This document represented a radical ideological rupture, redefining Ethiopia as a polity constituted by multiple sovereign communities.

6. The 1995 FDRE Constitution: Multinational Federal Sovereignty

6.1 Source of Sovereignty

The FDRE Constitution unequivocally vests sovereignty in Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples, not in the state or a single demos.

6.2 Structure of Power

Federal system

Constitutional supremacy

Shared rule at the centre and self-rule at the regional levels

6.3 Ideological Foundation

The constitution institutionalises:

Multinational federalism

Equality of peoples

Constitutionalised self-determination, including secession

6.4 Implication

Ethiopia is reconceptualised as a state of nations rather than a singular nation-state.

7. Comparative Analysis

Locus of Sovereignty

Power Structure

Ideological Character

Period

Imperial

Emperor

Absolutist monarchy

Unitary, divine

Derg (Provisional)

Military junta

Revolutionary centralism

Socialist authoritarian

PDRE (1987)

Party-state

One-party system

Marxist-Leninist

1991 Charter

Peoples

Transitional pluralism

Self-determination

FDRE (1995)

Nations & Peoples

Federal constitutionalism

Multinational democracy

8. Conclusion

Ethiopia’s constitutional history reveals a gradual but profound ideological transformation. Sovereignty has shifted:

from personal rule to collective ownership,

from unitary nationalism to multinational federalism,

from state supremacy to constitutional supremacy.

While earlier regimes sought to impose national unity from above, the post-1991 constitutional order attempts—controversially—to construct the state from below, through its constituent peoples. The tensions surrounding the FDRE Constitution reflect not merely technical governance disputes but unresolved ideological conflicts about the very nature of sovereignty in Ethiopia.

References (indicative)

Ethiopian Constitutions (1931, 1955, 1987, 1995)

Transitional Charter of Ethiopia (1991)

Clapham, C. Transformation and Continuity in Revolutionary Ethiopia

Assefa Fiseha, Federalism and the Accommodation of Diversity in Ethiopia

I