The Ethiopian constitution drove more interest, analysis and scrutiny in the past month than it had since its promulgation. Politicians and scholars have discussed and debated on what they referred as a constitutional conundrum after the National election board announced that it cannot conduct election as scheduled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lack of clear provisions in the
constitution to determine what happens if elections cannot be held for reasons
such as a global pandemic is at the center of the conundrum. What is the
legitimate constitutional way to extend the elections? Who will have the
legitimate power to rule until the election is held? How long can the election
get extended? Can regions decide to have their own elections?
Some have argued that these questions are fundamentally constitutional ones and must be resolved by constitutional mechanisms only. To the contrary some others have argued that this is primarily a political problem and solutions must be sought politically.
Constitutions are political documents and are supposed to devise systems and institutions to address issues, including political ones such as this one. When constitutions resolve political problems, it is rightfully called the rule of law which is a means and an end in any constitutional democratic system.
However, Ethiopia’s current
context requires a closer look at political issues, motives and positions that underpin
the constitutional conundrum if it is to have any chance of success in sustaining
the political order. Many have written
on the political issues and proposed solutions. At the risk of being redundant,
or even stating the obvious, this article is an attempt to examine the
political conundrum and analyze the possibility of success of the
constitutional process.
further read: https://addisstandard.com/op-ed-beyond-the-constitutional-debate-unpacking-the-political-conundrum/