1. Comparative constitutional law analysis on US and Ethiopian constitutions on the questions
of representation in the upper house, vertical separation of power and legitimacy of federal
legislator:
By Legesse Tigabu
To begin with making a comparative analysis between US and Ethiopian (FDRE) constitutions is
significant as Ethiopian federation is at its infant stage and the US is practiced for long time and
has rich experience which would be helpful for Ethiopian federation.
Firstly when we compare representation in the upper house i.e. the Senate in US and the House of
Federation (HF) in Ethiopia, we can find basic differences between the two jurisdictions. In US
each state, whether it is large or small has uniformly two representatives in the Senate (Art I
section 3) and members are elected directly by the people (Amendment 17).
On the other hand in Ethiopia each nation (not state) is represented at least by one member in the
HF and for one million extra people, nations will have one extra representative and members are
not directly elected by the people, rather by state legislatures (Art 61 of FDRE constitution). The
practical implication here will be for example the state of Southern nations in Ethiopia which
constitutes about 45 ethnic groups (nationalities) out of the total 80 and which shares significant
number of population out of the total 70 million Ethiopian people will have large number of seats
in the HF and state with large population too according to Art 61 and that undermines other states.
The rational behind Art 61 may be the social fact (diversity) in Ethiopia. But still it fails to
prescribe the maximum number of representation and that creates problem for which one may

2. need to consider US and German experience. What is more, election of members of HF by state
legislators is problematic as members will not be directly accountable to the people. Here also
resort to US constitution will be imperative.
Secondly, when we see vertical distribution of power, apparently the two jurisdictions seem to
have the same rules as both constitutions granted non enumerated powers for states. But still there
are differences in relation to powers not enumerated that in US Congress may enact laws under the
necessary and proper clause only in case it is necessary for execution of federal power which is
also subject to judicial review, but in Ethiopia the federal legislator can enact laws in non
enumerated areas whenever the HF deems it necessary for unity and this is not subject to judicial
review as the HF itself is constitutional interpreter. This trend is problematic in that it may
swallow powers reserved for states.
Lastly, the salient difference between the two jurisdictions is that while US legislator is bicameral
which is composed of Congress and the Senate, Ethiopian legislator is unicameral as the upper
house (HF) which represents diversities (ethnic groups) is denied the power to make laws which
makes the legitimacy of Ethiopian legislator questionable. Here, it would be obvious for any one
to see how the Ethiopian legislator fails to accommodate diversities and such constitutional
position needs amendment.
Generally, comparative constitutional law study between US and Ethiopia is crucial as there are
relevant experiences and common federal principles which can be taken from US and adopted for
the Ethiopian federal system.
Budapest, Hungary, Central European University