with democr acy in the Ethiopian parliament

Presented by: Honorable Ato Temesgen Zewdie, Member of the Ethiopian Parliament, whip of the parliamentary group of CUDP

Addis Ababa University , Ras Mekonnen Hall, 14 November 2006.

The second lecture within Democracy and the Social Question II was given by Honorable Ato Temesgen Zewdie, whip of the parliamentary group of CUDP, on Tuesday, 14 November 2006 in Ras Mekonnen Hall, Addis Ababa University . The series of lectures, with speakers from both the Ethiopian and international community in Addis Ababa , provides a podium for open dialogue on important issues on democracy. Capital is the media partner of this series.

Honorable Ato Temesgen Zewdie

From the presentation of Ato Temesgen by the Swedish Ambassador Staffan Tillander:

“The leaders of the opposition parties play a central role in the democratic process. Ato Temesgen is one of them, leading one of the opposition parties as its "whip". Ato Temesgen was elected member of parliament in 2005 from Woreda 5 in Merkato. He was elected provisional chairman of CUDP, a party that was registered with the National Election Board in March 2006.

Before joining the campaign in 2005, Ato Temesgen was devoted to academia and teaching. He has been Assistant Dean and teaching at the Admas College and New Generation University College in Addis Ababa since 1995. His teaching has been mainly in business subjects and entrepreneurship.

As a student Ato Temesgen has studied Business Administration in Dallas , Texas and then also worked in the oil business as technical assistant in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, until returning to Ethiopia in 1995.

Ato Temesgen will share with us his experiences from the first year in Parliament; the theme is "Parliamentary Democracy - The Ethiopian Context". We will hear about the structure of the parliament and its role, the role of the members of parliament and the role of the opposition.

We should all express our thanks to the organizers Addis Ababa University, Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation and Goethe Institute for arranging this series of lectures on democracy. This open discussion on sometimes sensitive issues is a natural and necessary part of a pluralistic society. It will enable us at present to be better informed about what actions should be taken to promote democratic development. It will also allow future historians to better judge us and the actions we take or choose not to take.

My discussion, this evening will focus on the Lower House of the Parliament. This is not only for the simple reason that I am a member of the Lower House but also the topic of this discussion is about Parliamentary Democracy: and in the Ethiopian context, legislative power is constitutionally delegated to the Lower House of the Parliament. Therefore, I will briefly assess how the Lower House exercises the power that is entrusted to it.

Parliamentary Democracy - an Ethiopian perspective

Parliamentary democracy is the core and source of democracy. This is because all legislations, laws, rights, and obligations emanate from the parliament. The life or death of democracy begins from it. In Parliamentary Democracies, the Legislature is the centre-point in expressing the will of the People. The Federal parliament of Ethiopia is constitutionally the highest authority of the Federal Government; similarly, the Legislature of the State Council is the highest organ of State authority that is subject to the people of the Regional States.

Composition of the Federal Parliament

The Federal parliament has a Lower House known as 'The House of Peoples Representative', with 547 elected members, and an upper House known as the 'The House of Federation' who are elected by the State Council representing the interest of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples.

Parliamentary Democracy in progress

Our Federal parliament is now operating under the recently agreed upon Code of Conduct and Rules of Parliament; which is by far a better piece of document as a total package than what was enacted by the previous parliament on its last working session to serve as a Code of Conduct for this parliament. Although the opposition did not succeed to influence the outcome of the new Code of Conduct to its own liking; the opportunity to open a dialogue with the government on such an important document which is the corner stone for a parliamentary democracy is taken as an important step in the right direction. The current document would partially fulfil the requirements of a parliamentary democracy for the reasons stated below. That the number of the standing Committees have increased from 12 to 13. Besides one of the Standing Committees is being chaired by the opposition. In addition the deputy chairs of two Standing Committees are: From the opposition: Further, the number of Committee members in the Standing Committees has increased from 13 to 20, allowing almost half of all the members participating in committees. Moreover, there is a question session with concerned government Ministers once a week. Furthermore, members can initiate a motion of 'no confidence' on the executive branch. Finally, the opposition has one hour a month to discuss its own agenda.

Organizational structure of the Parliament and its Functions

1. In our Federal parliament, the responsibility of legislating laws is constitutionally delegated to the Lower House; this unique arrangement and practice not only limits the opportunity of sharing the views and wisdom of the Upper House in matters of grave importance of legislating the laws of the Nation; but also prevents the people from having a second body of opinion from the Upper House of the parliament. The practice of having the Lower House have its way in the process of law making, without any limit to its authority has taken away the art of debate, discussion, deliberation, and compromise that would have been the norm in reaching an agreement with an Upper House on a pending legislation before it becomes the Law of the Nation. Having both Houses participate in the process of legislating laws of the Nation has the added advantage of accommodating different views, interest groups, and constituents of both Houses, which would have resulted in a far better parliamentary democracy.

2. In our parliamentary democracy, the power to interpret the Constitution is given to 'The House of Federation'. This is in direct conflict with the essence of Federalism and the Federal structure of most parliamentary democracies, in which power is vested on the three branches of government, namely the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The foundation of parliamentary democracy of a Federal system rests upon the checks and balances of these three branches of government. Parliamentary democracies in other nations have gone a great length to ensure that one branch of government does not dominate and undermine the other branches by explicitly stating the constitutional mandate for each branch of government. The interpretation of the Constitution demands legal and technical skills with many years of experience in addition to having academic background in constitutional law and a proven ability of legal scholarship. In light of the above, to delegate the interpretation of the Constitution to another body other than the Judiciary is to deny the right of appeal of citizens in the court system, in addition to circumventing the major intended benefit of Federalism as a form of government. Because of the organizational structure that the Ethiopian parliament currently maintains; it is difficult to conclude that it is truly a bicameral parliament. While it appears to be structurally bicameral, it is actually unicameral in nature since it does not share the responsibility of legislation with the Upper House of parliament.

What are the indicators of a Parliamentary Democracy?

1. Direct Participation: where members can freely express their concerns in parliament In the case of our Federal parliament, we have to ask the following questions:

a) Do members get enough time for debate?

b) Is the Speaker impartial and free from the influence of the Ruling Party to which he belongs?

c) Does parliament give due consideration and include the rights and opinions of the oppo­sition in its deliberation and resolutions or is it just Majority Vote? The answer to this and other questions will be clear as we continue our presentation.

2. Indirect Participation through Committees:

The Ruling Party chairs 12 out of a total of 13 Standing Committees; and the majority of the member in the Committees belong to the ruling party; the question that should be asked is what could be the role of opposition under this situation?

3. The Setting of Agendas:

In the New Code of Conduct and Rules of Parliament, agendas for debate, their priorities, and the time allocated for discussion is supposed to be set by consensus in the Business Advisory Committee. When there is no agreement on the agenda and consensus cannot be reached in the Business Advisory Committee; it will be referred to the floor of the parliament by the Speaker for the matter to be decide by a 1/3 vote on the floor of the parliament. The irony of the matter is that, all of the opposition combined cannot add-up- to 1/3 of the vote of the total members of parliament. It is, therefore, a foregone conclusion that the Ruling Party will have a simple majority vote on any issue either in the committees or on the floor of the parliament. The question to ask is, what are the chances of an opposition having its agenda brought to the floor of the parliament for debate? To be fair to the new Code of Conduct and Rules of parliament; one hour a month is allotted to the opposition to discuss its own agenda. Is one hour a month a fair distribution? Why is it that the majority party apprehensive to allocate reasonable debate time to the opposition? I want you to be the judge given the facts stated above.

4. Fear of prosecution Vs. Freedom of Speech

Article 54 sub-articles 5 of the Federal Constitution clearly states 'No member of the House may be prosecuted on account of the opinion he expresses in the House, nor shall any administrative action be taken against him on such grounds'. In contravention to the constitution, the new Code of Conduct & Rules of Parliament stipulates on article 29 of its House Rules that:

- A member may not bring an issue, which is under consideration in a court of law, no matter whether the issue is political in nature, and of major concern to the peace and stability of the Nation.

- No statement can be made that could easily be interpreted by the Speaker as disestablishing the peace and security of the Country.

Given the above situation; it is appropriate to ask the following questions:

What is the scope of the Speakers authority? Given the fact that the Speaker is a member of the Ruling party, would he be able to judge impartially and outside the influence of his party's interpretation of the member's speech without bias? What are the mechanisms put in place to limit the Speakers authority to prevent tyranny and abuse of power?

Given the above situations:

- Is it fair for the Speaker to expel members from the floor for an alleged inappropriate speech?

- How about suspending the member from parliament for using a strong tone of voice on the floor or in hallways of the parliament?

It is simple to see that the new code of conduct infringes upon members constitutionally guaranteed immunity and freedom of speech in parliament and the trust placed upon him by the thousands of voters.

5. Limitations on representation of constituents:

- Limitations are placed on members by the new Code of Conduct and Rules of Parliament that they cannot bring to the floor of the parliament issues that are not under Federal Jurisdiction; and the fact of the matter is that every member of the House is elected from his electoral districts, the majority of which fall under state-jurisdiction. Often a member is challenged by his constituents to deal with a problem that relates to his district' s social, economic and political issues; but according to the Rules of parliament, since the issue falls under State Jurisdiction it cannot be raised in parliament; what is to be done? If a member cannot serve his constituents, what is the relevance of his being elected as a representative of this or that district?

6. Party discipline Vs Constitutional Right and the Members conscience

Although the Federal Constitution clearly states in article 54 (4) that a member is governed by (a) the constitution (b) the will of the people and (c) their conscience; what is being practiced on the floor of the parliament is that members of the majority party voting as one unit (in blocks) on each and every issue brought to the floor of parliament for fear of being accused of violating party discipline; and of late, we are being told by the Speaker that crossing of the floor (switching from one political party to another) is not allowed; even in the absence of an Ethiopian law clearly stating to that effect. The above is equivalent to saying that a member is a slave to his party for the term of his office in parliament; and also in violation of article 54(4) the member is subjected to vote only his party line and not of his conscience" and in free exercise of his Constitutional right. In a parliamentary democracy, the opposition takes the art of persuasion and negotiation to sway votes away from the majority party by appealing directly to a member on a floor debate and or in the committees. In the Ethiopian context this opportunity is totally denied since members of the majority are instructed to always vote their party line. The practice stated above is not only a clear intention of the ruling party to limit the role of the opposition in parliament but also a flagrant violation and infringement on the rights of individual members of the majority party who are restricted from exercising their constitu­tional right for fear of violating party discipline.

Conclusion :

In a mature parliamentary democracy, legislatures, in addition to performing the duties described earlier, also serve as a forum for the formation of public opinion and as a vital link between the government and the governed. Because of parliamentary democracy, public issues acquire political significance both at the local and national levels of government.

When we turn our attention to parliamentary democracy in Ethiopia; although there are encouraging signs, lack of a sustained democratic political culture, a dedicated civil service and the lack of democratic institutions are challenges that have to be dealt with at a national level to meet the standards of a parliamentary democracy; and these challenges could be tackled successfully only when people at the position of leadership take an active role in living an exemplary and tolerant life to be role models to the rest of the population. No democracy inc1udingthat of parliamentary democracy could be built and sustained without a willing and committed leadership to accommodate the views of the opposition without resorting to suffocating tactics under the guise of parliamentary rules and procedures. The free exercise of a member's freedom of speech and all other natural and constitutional rights has to be respected, whether that member is of the opposition or the majority party.

Thank you.