Genesis of similarities and dissimilarities between Ethiopian and Indian federalism

This article has explored and analyzed some of the key similarities and dissimilarities between Federal systems of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and India. In doing so, it found out that both Ethiopia and India are countries of diverse people with diverse culture, Religion, history way of life etc. Their respective constitutions are federal in character, which is compatible with societal nature of both countries- Indian as well as Ethiopian societies are essentially federal in character. By assuming that, countries like Ethiopia and India with vast diversities in terms of culture, language, religion, history, way of life etc cannot be administered and ruled from the single political centre. Keeping these factors in mind, the makers of the constitutions of India and Ethiopia rightly opted for Federal forms of governments. In spite of their out outstanding similarities, there are also differences between them. This article tried to compare and contrast some of the key principles of federalism under their respective constitutions. , it does not consider factual situations and only looks into or and descries the constitutional landscape. It covers, Inter alia; the principle of separation of power, supremacy of the constitution, the principle of check and balance, the principle of parliamentary system and parliamentary democracy, Judicial independency and judicial review adaption of federalism and accommodation of diversities, fundamental rights and freedoms, etc. In spite of substantial similarities, there are also dissimilarities or divergences’ between the Indian and Ethiopian Federal systems. The key dissimilarities include: Unitary tendencies of Indian Federalism, Judicial review etc. Courts are not given the power of judicial review in Ethiopia; rather this power is given to house of Federation. This is one of an innovative and home grown approach introduced and adapted by constitution of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Allocation of the powers to the presidents is another area of dissimilarities between Ethiopian and Indian Federalism. Unlike Ethiopian president of the state, Indian, president has three veto powers in the union legislative process which include that he/she can refuse to agree to a law, which would mean an absolute veto. He can also send the bill back to the parliament for changes, or he could take no action on the bill. In the case of Ethiopia, the president has no role in the law making process of the country. The writer of this article would argue that Ethiopia should draw lesson from India and amend its constitution so as give meaning for to the role of the president. Therefore, the country would have convincing reason to keep the Presidency.