2.

Discuss the difference between acts and rule utilitarianism with illustration to indicate how the
two are working in real life.

The Difference Between Act and Rule Utilitarianism (With Examples)

Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics which it is preferable by an action produces greatest happiness
among greatest numbers. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism, as to say that it believes
something's right or wrong based on the consequences of so being.
There are two broad forms of utilitarianism: Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. They
both want the same—maximization of happiness—but want it in a different way.
Act Utilitarianism
Act. utilitarianism tries to meet each case on its own terms. It queries. "What do I do here and
now to cause most happiness or least harm?" There are no set moral rules so. Telling a lie,
stealing something, or murdering another human being could be justified if one's act was sure. to.
cause. more. happiness. on. this. specific. occasion.
For example, if one has a doctor with five patients and each one of them needs a different organ
to survive, then a healthy individual shows up at the hospital for a check-up. Over-the-top act
utilitarianism would believe it is moral to kill the healthy individual to save the other five—five
are saved but one is sacrificed. Yes, sure, this would be wrong in everyday life, but act
utilitarianism is not concerned with long-term effect or moral norms, just immediate effect.
Strength of act utilitarianism is that it is adaptive and adjusts based on the circumstance.
Weakness is that it may be doing something unethical if it leads to a better thing in the short run.
It may ignore the rights of other people or the minorities if it benefits the majority. Rule
Utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism is concerned with moral rules in general, not with particular acts. It would
consider: "What rule, if everybody were to act on it, would make the greatest happiness?"
Having decided on a rule, one ought then to adhere to it although this would seem on an
individual case to bring about greatest happiness.
Once more, with the same case of a hospital, rule utilitarianism would state that it would be
immoral to have doctors kill an innocent patient so other people could be saved—since the rule
"do not kill innocent people" maintains people's faith in doctors and hospitals. If everyone who
trusted doctors to kill them so other individuals could live, then no one would go to hospitals,
and society would lose out. Thus, though violating the rule will save more people in that
particular circumstance, maintaining the rule generates more overall happiness for everyone.
The advantage of rule utilitarianism is that it can make individual rights acceptable and induce
social stability. It will not be exception-full exceptions because it is reliable and trustworthy. The
 disadvantage is that it may be too rigid. There may be some instances where adherence to a rule
will lead to harm in a particular case, even if its breach will produce better outcomes.
Another Everyday Example
Let us take the example of a student who is pretending to be sick in order to avoid sitting for an
examination.
•Act utilitarianism would suggest that the lie is justified if the stress of the student is reduced and
no one gets injured.
•Rule utilitarianism would hold that lying is wrong because if everybody lied in the same way,
nobody would believe the students and the education system would collapse. So, although the lie
would be useful once, the rule "always tell the truth” Must be followed for the good of all.
Act vs Rule Utilitarianism

Aspect Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism

Focus The immediate outcome of an The long-term benefit of following a

individual action moral rule
Moral Rules Not fixed—can be broken if the Important—should be followed to
outcome is better ensure lasting happiness
Flexibility Very flexible and situation-based Less flexible—rule-based even if the
outcome might be worse in a specific
case

Decision- Case-by-case: choose the action with Rule-based: follow rules that lead to
making the best result now the best outcomes in general
Strength Adapts easily to unique or emergency Builds trust, fairness, and stable moral
situations systems
Weakness Can justify morally wrong acts if they Can lead to unfair outcomes if rules
bring short-term good are followed without exceptions
Example Lying to protect a friend is okay if it Lying is wrong because honesty builds
increases happiness in that moment trust in society

4. Why did Emperor Haile silase the first want to possess the 1931 written constitution of
Ethiopia.
The 1931 written constitution was approved by the Emperor Haile Selassie I, it initiated the
process of transforming Ethiopia from a conventional, traditional state to a more centralized,
modem state ruled by formal principles of law. Its enactment was brought about by an internal,
political, and external combination of pressures. On the surface, it appeared that the constitution
was creating new institutions and rights, but actually, it was establishing the state in the
contemporary era but maintaining the imperial powers.
I. To Modernize Ethiopia and Present It as a Civilized State
One of the underlying reasons why Emperor Haile Selassie promulgated the 1931 Constitution
was to show the world that Ethiopia was a civilized and a progressive state. The majority of
Africa then was colonized by Europeans, and Ethiopia was one of the independent African
nations. The emperor thus needed to protect the sovereignty of Ethiopia by showing that it was a
progressive and an organized state that could govern itself.
The taking on of a written constitution by Ethiopia itself was a sign of modernity. Europe and
Asia were already employing constitutions at the beginning of the 20th century, and as Ethiopia
tried to become a member into the League of Nations—its equivalent, the United Nations—it
had to be as legitimized and institutionalized-looking a state as possible. Haile Selassie wished to
promulgate a constitution in a bid to show that Ethiopia was embracing contemporary political
and legal precepts, hence becoming increasingly difficult for the European powers to provide a
pretext for colonizing or interfering with Ethiopian politics.
Another unstated motive behind the 1931 Constitution was that Haile Selassie wished to
centralize power at the cost of the emperor and strip power from local nobles. Through a
succession of centuries, Ethiopia was governed by a de-centralized feudal state system in which
prominent nobles (ranks such as Rases, Dejazmachs, etc.) possessed their own armies, levied
taxes on the populace, and governed their own domain. Even though these nobles theoretically
were in allegiance to the emperor, in practice they used to govern independently.
Haile Selassie saw this broken regime as a menace to national unity and development. Haile
Selassie's formula for concordance and modernization was centralization. Ultimate authority in
law resided in the emperor himself but with the qualification that the emperor was the ultimate
commander of the country. In practice, the constitution stepped forward to proclaim that the
emperor was "sacred and inviolable," reaffirming his prerogative to rule in the language of divine
law.
Apart from the constitution, Haile Selassie was constitutionally positioned to limit the role of
traditional leaders and subject the business of the regions to the authority of the national
government in Addis Ababa. It permitted him to position himself to exert more direct control
over the provinces and allowed him to replace hereditary power with appointive power by virtue
of service to the throne.
III. In order to create the foundation of a contemporary legal system
Prior to the 1931 Constitution, Ethiopia had no written corpus of law. Law was predominantly
tradition, religious texts like the Fetha Negest, and the decrees of strong local chiefs. This was
working to offer an unequal and imperfect system of law to govern. Haile Selassie wished to
have it replaced by a superior system of law that was more egalitarian and codified that would be
equally enforced throughout all of Ethiopia.
By the adoption of the constitution, he set the stage for the new government institutions,
including the bicameral parliament with a Chamber of Deputies and a Senate. Membership in the
institutions was achieved through imperial appointment or nobility, but this was the beginning of
the path Ethiopia would take towards formal governments, procedural legislatures, and
eventually constitutional government.
Although the constitution did not grant democratic rights such as suffrage to common folk, it was
at least a bare minimum reform from hereditary government to rule of law and state by right of
written law.
IV. To Regulate and Restrict the Power of Nobles
Haile Selassie knew that if he were to bring order and civilization to Ethiopia, he would have to
diminish the centuries-old aristocracy who had enjoyed a great deal of autonomy for centuries.
Each aristocrat held an army of their own and could stem imperial aggression if they chose to.
They tended to take care of their own local as opposed to national interest.
The constitution gave Haile Selassie a viable method of replacing or systematically removing
these nobles with alternatives to sheer force. By emphasizing more institutionalized rule and
powers, the emperor progressively disenfranchised them politically. It allowed him to implement
reforms, reorganize provinces, and reform the military, replacing noblemen with educated
specialists owing allegiance not in patronymic surname or region but to him alone.
V. To Project Ethiopia's Image in the World Community
In the world, Haile Selassie saw increasing danger from foreign imperialism and colonialism—
mainly that of Italy, already colonizing Eritrea and looking towards Ethiopia. By adopting a
constitution, the emperor hoped to project Ethiopia as a country of law and order with well-
functioning institutions, and be accorded the same respect as any other nation.
In fact, the enactment of the constitution assisted in solidifying respect and dignity that the
League of Nations had given to Ethiopia. Haile Selassie used the global platform to stage a call
for sovereignty and independence of Ethiopia, especially when invaded by Italy in 1935. The
constitution acted as evidence that Ethiopia was not an uncivilized nation or a lawless state but
was a state that possessed institutions of their own and were modern.
VI. Preparatory to Long-Term Political and Social Reforms
Finally, the 1931 Constitution was consistent with Haile Selassie's gradualist policy. While as
much as the constitution did not create a democratically founded government, it provided the
basis for change to eventually occur. It solidified the notion that laws must be codified,
governments must be organized, and rulers must be ruling through institutionalized mechanisms
rather than resorting to rule by person or employing the military.
This was then followed by Haile Selassie writing a new constitution in 1955, which espoused
some rights and gave the citizens more political representation (even though still limited). The
1931 Constitution was therefore the foundation of long-existing Ethiopian state-building and
modernization.
Explain federalism and its varieties and relate it to the practice in Ethiopia.
What is Federalism?
Federalism is a form of government where there is division of power between a central state and
various regional states. The most wonderful aspect of federalism is that both the governments
exercise authority over some areas of policy and enjoy some degree of autonomy to rule in their
domains. Federalism must be compared with the unitary models, which had the central states
holding command of the majority, and in some cases all, of the governing powers.
Powers are typically distributed by a constitution defining national state and region government
power of benefit in a federal state. A number of governments and local representation prevent
concentration of powers in a single government by division, even where there are plural or
massive states. Federal governments seek unity and balance of diversity, especially in extremely
ethnically, culturally, or geographically diverse states.
Federal systems vary widely in allocation of power, distribution of it, and the degree of
autonomy they leave to regional units within central to regional government. Territorial and
ethnic federalism is the most common form of federalism, but others depending on the relation
between governments might exist. These are examined sequentially:
Territorial Federalism
Territorial federalism is a form in which provincial and national governments have an equal
sharing of intergovernmental power geographically. Provincial governments exercise powers and
functions but not ethnic or cultural communities. Territorial regions involve equal representation
with priority on preserving national unity. Territorial federalism works best where states possess
high geographical diversity but low ethnic or cultural fragmentation.
Every territory in a territorial federation is accorded equal status and authority at the
constitutional level to other territories. Defense, foreign affairs, and trade are handled at the
national level by the federal state but education, healthcare, and transportation are handled at the
level of local government. Territorial federalism offers space for integration at the national level
but Malaita gives independence to local localities to a greater extent in the issues which are
individually affecting them.
Examples of territorial federalism include nations such as the United States of America, Canada,
and Germany. All these nations have regional governments that enjoy a great deal of powers, but
where each region has an equal amount of power whether they have a small or large population
and economy.
Ethnic Federalism
Ethnic federalism, on the other hand, is a form where regions are defined along ethnic, linguistic,
or cultural lines. This type of federalism is most often observed in very ethnically divided
countries, in which decentralization is transferred to regions as a way of satisfying the political
and cultural ambitions of each ethnic minority. Ethnic federalism leads to the creation of regions,
typically known as ethnic states or federal units, whose sole purpose is to act as representatives
of the dominant ethnic groups present in the different zones, and to whom autonomy is given so
that they can administer their own politics and culture.
The ideology of ethnic federalism is to empower ethnic citizens by giving them the power to
administer their affairs. Ethnic federalism devolves powers to ethnic citizens to safeguard their
culture, speak their mother language, and decide for the people. India and Ethiopia are the finest
embodiments of ethnic federalism. Ethiopian borders are ethnic borders and even in the
Ethiopian constitution of 1995, right of self-determination and even secession was accorded to
different ethnic communities. Indian federalism is also ethnic and linguistic and part of its states
are language lines.
While ethnic federalism has the advantage of coping with diversity and avoiding ethnic
marginalization, it is not problem-free either. Ethnic federalism has at times cemented ethnic
polarization, incubating separatism or fueling conflict among ethnically splintered groups vying
for political and territorial control.

Dual vs. Cooperative Federalism

Another classification of the federal systems is the interaction of the regional government and the
central government. The dual federalism is a political system in which state and central
government activities and powers are clear in advance openly like the two pieces of cake. Both
governments have separate jurisdictions, and one does not have anything to do with the matters
of the other government at the state or center level. America, especially during the 19th century,
is the epitome of the dual federalism.
Contrary to this, cooperative federalism is interventionist in character where the federal
government as well as state governments do their functions together and at the same time on
issues, and overlapping of one over the other occurs. In accordance with this compromise, lines
of duty and command get distorted and matters of mutual concern of the two governments get
dealt with, i.e., medicine, education, or roads. Cooperative federalism is the way of the day in a
country where national and regional interests meet and the two governments have to move
together. The European Union, where there is collective decision making with national
sovereignty, is a model of cooperative federalism.
Symmetrical vs. Asymmetrical Federalism
Federal systems also vary in the distribution of power between and among the regions.
Symmetrical federalism is when equal powers and equal functions are allocated to all the states
or all the regions. It is one of the types where all the regions are equated to possess equal
sovereignty, equal rights, and equal powers to make policy nationally. One of the examples of
symmetrical federal system is the United States of America where each one of the 50 states is
equally represented in the Senate and equally possesses powers.
Asymmetrical federalism, however, is where some of the pieces are more independent than
others. It is one which acknowledges that some of the pieces may have some special needs,
history, or culture that have to be addressed differently. An example would be the case of in
Canada where they have this province of Quebec which has special rights over other provinces,
mostly in the matter of language laws and preserving culture.
Asymmetrical federalism allows leeway for departure in central-state regional relations in which
powers are transferred to regions to administer their affairs. Asymmetrical federalism is likely to
risk the entrenchment of deviations across regions and will be the cause of sources of tensions or
petitions by other regions for parity of powers.
Federalism in Ethiopia
Ethiopian federalism is intriguing as an ethnic-federal state. It was entrenched by the 1995
Constitution. It was one part of the grand political restructuring in the wake of the fall of the
Derg state. The new era's ruling party, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front
(EPRDF), sought to correct historic injustice against repressed ethnics and provide them more
control over their fate.
a) Constitutional Foundation
Ethiopian federalism is legally rooted in the 1995 Constitution, which makes a rhetorical
commitment to declaring the state "a multi-national state". That is, Ethiopia recognizes the
population's ethnic diversity and promises any particular ethnic group a right of self-
determination, including secession under Article 39 of the Constitution. This was a response to
the past ethnic rebellions of Ethiopia and insisting that there should be no further rebellions by
granting more power to ethnic groups to control their own fate.
The country under this system has been divided into ethnic states or kililoch with powers to
govern their internal affairs. These are Oromia, Amhara, Tigray, Somali, and others, each
government corresponding to the largest ethnic group.
b) Power Sharing and Autonomy
It is extremely high for all the regional governments of Ethiopia. It empowers the regions to
establish their regional governments, parliaments, and official languages and to exercise
administrative jurisdiction over extremely important issues such as education, culture, and local
police. In this manner, decentralization is provided, and autonomy is given to the ethnic groups
to fulfill their special requirements, cultivate their culture, and attain their economic and social
development.
But the system has held. Even when the federal government has taken over the roles of national
defense, foreign policy, and economic planning, there have been confrontational clashes between
the federal government and regional states, worst of all in times of political crisis. The Addis
Ababa federal central government has clashed with increasing calls from regional states for
autonomy, and calls for reengineering the federal system have been prompted by such clashes.
c) Ethiopian federalism tensions and challenges
Regardless of the efforts of the Ethiopian federal system to achieve harmony through the
preservation of ethnic diversity, ethnic tension and polarization have grown rather than
decreased. Preoccupation with ethnicity led to conflict, especially where there is a development
of dominance or politicization against an ethnicity.
For example, the 2020 Tigray conflict brought out the weakness of Ethiopian ethnic federalism.
The war was triggered by, among other issues, power rivalry between the Tigray People's
Liberation Front (TPLF), which had long been the central power center in the federal state, and
the federal state. Power rivalry along the lines of access to resources and self-determination
revealed fault lines in Ethiopia's ethnic regime and difficulties in reconciling ethnic interests and
national unity.
Furthermore, the right to secede granted under Article 39 has been disputed and made a fuel to
some of the ethnic groups willing to be independent or autonomous from Ethiopia. The
government's reaction to such challenges has also been one of the causes of instability in the
country.
The FDRE Constitution achievements and challenges.
The. Achievements and Challenges of FDRE Constitution
The. Federal. Democratic. Republic. of Ethiopia (FDRE) Constitution, which was enacted. in
1995, is a milestone reshaping of the political face of Ethiopia from an. authoritarian, centralized.
state into a federal state with precedence to democracy, pluralism, and human rights. Though it
has been accountable for a broad range of spectacular advancements, the constitution itself has
not been exempted from a broad range of implementation and in solving an overwhelming
majority of the nation's socio-political issues.
Landmarks of the FDRE Constitution
1. Federal System In the 1995 FDRE Constitution, Ethiopia was proclaimed a federal republic,
and its main paradigm was ethnic federalism. The paradigm was to resolve Ethiopia's pluralistic
ethnic diversity by making provision for the self-determination of ethnic groups in their
homelands. The country was organized into regional states largely along ethnic lines so that each
ethnic group would have a state in which to express its interests.
Example: State creation such as Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, and Somali gave ethnic groups
political freedom to govern their local government administration. The state is granted a
government, constitution, and even right of secession based on the provision of self-
determination doctrine.
2. Equality and Human Rights
The FDRE Constitution focuses more on human rights, equality, and democracy. It guarantees
several civil liberties including the right to life, freedom of expression, freedom of association,
and freedom of assembly. Equality before the law irrespective of social status, gender, or
ethnicity is also assured by the constitution.
Example: Gender equality, equality of representation, and opportunities for women in political,
social, and economic life are guaranteed by the constitution. It also ensures provisions for
safeguarding against discrimination and exclusion on ethnic, social, and cultural grounds.
3. Democratic System Establishment The most significant achievement of the FDRE
Constitution is that it entrenched a democratic system. It ensures the citizens a right to vote,
stand in an election, and become a candidate for office, thereby owners of government. It
institutionalized the multi-party politics, and thereby political pluralism was able to thrive.
Example: The constitution speaks of free election and formation of political parties in such a way
as to provide political ideologies space to co-exist and space to contest at state levels. Provision
has been made therein for parliamentary structure where House of Peoples' Representatives and
House of Federation provide representation to various strata as well as ethnical groups.
4. Ethical safeguarding of Culture
The FDRE Constitution acknowledges and ensures the rights of ethnic groups and legislates
provision for recognition and preservation of diverse languages, cultures, and traditions. It also
legislates protection of minority rights in all regions to the point that minor ethnic groups shall
not be denied.
Illustration: The constitution accords official language status to the regional languages in the
states of all regions so that mother languages can be used for official purposes, education, and in
mass media.
5.Environmental Protection the FDRE Constitution also makes provision for the protection of the
environment and gives primacy to the conservation of the country's natural resources for
generations yet unborn. The constitution cherishes the protection of the environment and
sustainable development.
Example: The constitution enshrines state ownership of natural resources, to be used in the
interest of the people and the environment.
Problems of the FDRE Constitution
1. Ethnic Federalism and Regional Tensions
The most significant problem with the FDRE Constitution is the ethnic federal system, which
was created to govern Ethiopia's diversity along ethnic lines. Although it has granted various
ethnic groups some form of autonomy, it has also contributed to ethnic tensions and conflicts
between states.
Inter-ethnic Oromo and Somali competition for land and political power along the Oromia-
Somali border and Amhara-Tigray has driven conflict and displacement. Constitutionally
enshrined right of self-determination has, in part, generated secessionist pressures, broadening
cleavages.
2. Fragmentation and Promotion of Ethnic Nationalism
Promoting autonomy on ethnic bases has, in certain instances, given rise to ethnic nationalism.
Some have viewed the FDRE Constitution, in entrenching society along ethnic lines, as having
reinforced ethnic cleavages and encouraged exclusionary politics, polarizing the nation along
ethnic lines as a result.
Example: This has also at times prevented it from realizing national unity, with ethnic groups or
regions advancing their agenda at the expense of national interest and follow-up coordination of
one single individual ethnic-based political movement.
3. Centralization of Federal Government Power
Notwithstanding that the FDRE Constitution allocates elephantine powers to regional states, its
critics note that de facto there has been extensive centralization of power in the federal
government, particularly under the EPRDF administration until its disintegration in 2018.
example: Even though the constitution grants a lot of independence to the regional states, there
have been occasions where the central government has assumed enormous amounts of control
over the affairs of the regional states such as the military and the economy. This has created
tension between the central government and the regional governments.
4. Practice of Democratic Principles There have also been grievances regarding the practice of
democratic principles in Ethiopia as opposed to constitutional guarantees of democracy.
Grievances are that electoral processes have in most cases been marred by allegations of fraud,
intimidation, and political rivalry.
Example: Political opposition has been attempted to be stifled, and media freedom limited so that
the possibilities of the citizens to engage actively in the democratic process are not realized.
Anti-terror law and state of emergency law has been used with the objective of stifling political
opposition.
5. Armed Conflicts and Insecurity
There have been a succession of security threats and armed conflicts in Ethiopia that have
operated against stability as envisioned in the constitution. They are primarily instigated by
ethnic and regional clashes, and otherwise by terror activities and armed resistance movements.
For example: Tigray War (2020-2022) is a glaring example of failure to prevent escalation of
ethnic conflict into large-scale violence, rather than success of peaceful governance
contemplated by the constitution.
6. Economic Inequality
Despite the constitutionally guaranteed economic rights such as the right to property and the
right to work in the FDRE Constitution, economic inequality remains a burning issue.
Development disparity between the regions in economics, in resource distribution, and in access
to services persists.
For instance, the Oromia and Somali regions have been ravaged by poverty, underdevelopment,
and lack of infrastructure in equal measure despite the attempts by the constitution to ensure
economic rights to all Ethiopians.
7. Limited Exercise of Women's Rights Despite the constitutional assurance of gender equality,
violence and discrimination against women are very common in Ethiopia. Society and cultural
tradition limit the meaningful exercise of such rights in most cases, especially within rural parts
of the country.
Example: Despite equal access to education, employment, and political participation of women
legislation, some cultural practices such as early marriage, female genital mutilation (FGM), and
gender violence still exist in some societies.