Majoritarian or Proportional Representation Electoral
System: Ethiopia’s Pathway to Participatory Democracy Desta, Asayehgn Sarlo Distinguished Professor of Sustainable Economic Development
Introduction
The
choice of electoral system has a profound effect
on the future political life of a country (IDEA,
2005). After the promulgation of the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia in 1995, Ethiopia
declared that its electoral system — the set of
rules that specify how voters can express their
preference (ballot structure) and how the votes
are translated into parliamentarian seats or elect
legislature (Aziri, E. and Saliaj, 2013) — would
be based on majoritarian or winner–take-all
electoral votes. That
is, the Constitution and the amended electoral law
(Article 25) state that Ethiopia follows the
majority system, under which the candidate who
receives more votes than any competitors within a
constituency is declared the winner (Ethiopian
Election, 2016).
From
1995-2015, Ethiopia has run five elections in
which several multi-party politicians have
participated. However, “the easiest political
institution to be manipulated, for good or for
bad, is the electoral system” (IDEA, 2005).
Given this, there is no reason to not assume that
the
Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary
Democratic Front (EPRDF) had been using its
knowledge of the electoral systems to promote its
own partisan advantage. For example, currently,
the EPRDF controls 100 percent of the seats in the
House of People's
Representatives and has remained in power
for the last two decades.
Citing
the 1994 Constitution that stands for competitive,
free, and fair elections (WIPO, 2016), some
opposition political parties have shown
dissatisfaction with the present electoral system
and political process in Ethiopia. The various
opposition groups characterize that the way votes
have been translated to elect legislatures in
Ethiopia for the last two decades were based on
vote rigging, intimidation, irregularities, and
systematic fraud.
For
example, in 2005, four major opposition parties
formed as the Coalition for Unity and Democratic
or CUD or Kinijit.
The CUD was composed of: All Ethiopian Unity
Party; the Rainbow Ethiopian Movement for
Democracy and Social Justice; the Ethiopian
Democratic League; and the United Ethiopian
Democratic Party (Medhin). Although they won 17
percent (i.e., 89 out of 527) of the seats in the
Ethiopian legislature or House of People’s
Representatives, the CUD members were not willing
to assume the legal seats they won.
The
CUD members were not willing to take their seats
in parliament because they asserted that they were
harassed by the EPRDF, the ruling party, during
the election process. Due to the massive unrest
that occurred in Ethiopia immediately after the
election, several CUD members and their
sympathizers were arrested for 20 months. However,
after the CUD members and some of their
sympathizers were willingly to sign an apology
letter, promising not to use unconstitutional
means for any political aims, their incarceration
was reversed and they were released from prison
(Addis Fortune, July 18, 2007and Crummey, 2016).
Ethiopia
signaled to the entire world that it was
experimenting with and transitioning to democracy.
However, after 2005, the country started to
relapse to an authoritarian style that almost
mirrored the Haile Selassie’s feudal system. In
fact, some characterize the ruling classes’ form
of government very similar to the military
juntas’ dictatorial style. The opposition
groups, for instance, depicted the outcome of all
elections that happened during the EPRDF period as
too narrow and a failure to render the democratic
space needed for a successful election. Similarly,
it was discerned by the Africa Development Bank
(2009) that the nominal opposition parties that
exist in Ethiopia during the EPRDF regime
generally perceive the period with an absence of a
level playing political field, such as equal
access to the official media, adequate party
funding, and limited in giving political space to
the opposition parties to solicit votes without
fear of intimidation.
Given
that the electoral system in Ethiopia was flawed
and unconducive for competition, it rendered
enough room for the EPRDF to consolidate the
electoral competition in 2010 and 2015. For
example, the legislature
in the House of People’s Representatives
were not elected
directly by the citizens, but instead selected by
the EPDRF Party. As wholeheartedly accentuate,
some elected members of parliament in Ethiopia
felt that they did not have any obligation to the
Ethiopian public because they were not required to
reflect the will of the citizens. Instead,
loyalties and patronage of the members of the
parliament rested on their political party.
A
case in point is that during the last election in
2015, some of the EPRDF members seldom went to
their localities to campaign because their party
leaders assured them in advance that they would be
elected, provided they fully ascertained their
loyalty to the ideological stance of their party.
Given this, it is sad that some of the nominal
candidates never cared to listen to the concerns
of their constituents. After it was ascertained
that the candidate had proven faithful and
accountable to their political party, the
constituent units were instructed to elect the
party nominated cadres because he (she) was the
endorsee of the ruling party (Desta, 2016).
Given
that the election process has be very ragged, it
seems ironic for Ethiopia to declare that the
various election process that it has trespassed
through the intermittent period have made Ethiopia
go through and learn from the democratic process.
Actually, now some of the ill-democratic
management that Ethiopia had over the years has
triggered flashpoints and ignited signs of massive
demonstrations and violent social unrest
throughout the country. The universal suffrage
based on nominal majority system that Ethiopia
completed have not attempted to empower women and
other minority groups. Thereby, some of the vocal
groups of the opposition parties have persuasively
debated for other types of egalitarian election
systems.
In
my article entitled “From Retroactive to
Proactive Strategic Management Style: Redressing
Widespread Social Unrest in Contemporary
Ethiopia,” I have forwarded an economic model
known as “Employer of Last Resort (ELR)” to
resolve the massive youth unemployment that the
country is encountering currently. In my second
article entitled “Curbing
Corruption in Ethiopia: Applying Democratic
Autonomy at the Local Level,” I have suggested
that Ethiopia needs to institute democratic
autonomy at the grass root level to mitigating the
level of corruption that has engulfed the
Ethiopian polity.
Currently,
this article 1) reviews the different variations
in the existing electoral processes; and 2)
attempts to distil some lessons that could be
learnt about the actual examples of institutional
design in other countries. Concomitant to culture,
literacy rate, and embracing simplicity, this
article attempts to draw the best electoral
process design that could bring about political
stability, optimize local representation, and
finally promote Ethiopia’s autonomous democratic
governance.
The
remaining sections of this paper are organized as
follows. Section 2 reviews the literature and
identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the
types of electoral systems. Section
3 draws some culturally appropriate policy that
could be drawn to strengthen Ethiopia’s
democratization process. The article is not
prescriptive but forwards sets of recommendations
that could help Ethiopia’s policy makers to make
an informed decision and identify future related
electoral process that could flourish Ethiopia’s
sustainable political harmony and stability.
The
Types of Democratic Electoral Systems
Elections
are the core to the nature of democratic systems
because elections can provide the primary means
for ensuring that elected governments remain
responsive and accountable to their citizens. As
put by Aziri and Saliaj (2013), for
instrumentalist, elections are a means for getting
the right to govern, whereas for functionalist,
elections are a means for creating a balance
between state and society. Given this, in democratic
systems, governments
are established to fulfill the will of the
citizens. A regime
is therefore classified as a democratic if a)
there is more than one party competing in
elections, and b) both the chief executive and the
legislative are elected. For this paper, among the
enumerable democratic electoral process that exist
globally, only the two conventual divisions of
electoral systems: Majoritarian and Proportional
Representation (PR), which are heavy used for
national legislative elections throughout the
globe, are briefly analyzed to give guidance to
Ethiopia’s electoral system.
Majoritarian
Systems: A
majoritarian electoral is a simply way of electing
the candidates or parties that receive the most
votes in the election process. As noted by Aziri
and Saliaj (2013) a worldwide survey found that 91
out of 191 countries use majoritarian systems.
Majority is generally equated with democracy.
There are two types of majoritarian system; these
are 1) absolute majority and 2) plurality systems.
Absolute
majority
electoral processes are designed to retain the
views of the majority. In an absolute majority
system, the candidate who receives 50+1 percent of
votes from its electoral constituency is granted
full power to run the government. Absolute
majority fosters few political parties to cluster
around one or two types of parties to get votes
necessary to win an election. Within the absolute
majority systems, if candidate fails to attain
50+1 percent votes, some countries use an alternative
vote (AV). An alternative vote is
candidate centered. Its purpose is to ensure that
the winning candidate receives an overall majority
of votes. “To win, candidates need an absolute
majority of votes. Where no one gets over 50
percent after first preference are counted, then
the candidate at the bottom of the pile with the
lowest share of the vote is eliminated, and their
votes are distributed amongst the other
candidates. The process continues until an
absolute majority is secured” (Norris, 1997). That
is, a preferential
voting system is used in single-member
districts where voters rank some of the
candidates. A candidate can win an absolute
majority of first-preference votes by amalgamating
votes from other candidates who are at the bottom
of the poll so that the candidate with the
majority of the votes gets immediately elected (Bormann
and Golder, 2013).
Plurality
or relative majority systems, also
known as
‘first-past-the-post’ (FPTP) almost always
use single-member districts.
In this simple system, the candidate with the
most votes is regarded as the winner. As stated by
Norris (1997), under the first-past-the-post
system, “Candidates usually do not need to pass
a minimum threshold of votes, nor do they require
an absolute majority to be selected, instead all
they need is a simple plurality i.e., one more
vote than their closest rivals.” That is, the
voter is presented with a list of candidates, and
votes by choosing one, and only one. “The
winning candidate is simply the person who wins
most votes” (IDEA, 2005). As applied to Africa
countries, Molomo (2000), points that “Based
on the single-member constituency system, any
candidate who gets a mere plurality of the vote
stands duly elected as a Member of the Parliament
(MP) and the other candidates irrespective of the
size of their poll are declared losers, and do not
make it to parliament.”
Given
this, a parliamentary democracy entails to include
a simple form of delegation and accountability. In
terms of the chain of flow of delegations,
parliamentary democracy reflects at least four
discrete steps: 1) the voters (who are the holders
of original authority) elect their legislative
representatives to parliament; 2) the majority of
the legislators then choose the head of the
government or prime minister to run the country
and oversee the executive branch of ministers; 3)
the prime minister in turn chooses heads of
cabinet and presents them to the legislators for
approval; and 4) the heads of departments appoint
or hire civil servants to run the day to day
operations of their institutions. When analyzed in
reverse direction, the chain of accountability
scrutinizes or monitors the effective
implementation of the chain of delegation that
runs from ultimate policy makers to voters.
Though
very simple, the domination of the victor is
seriously disputed by many countries. For example,
in a number of countries in Western Europe, some
newly democratized countries, and about 25 percent
of the electoral process in Africa, have abandoned
the majority electoral process. Instead, they have
introduced proportional representation (PR) as a
pathway to participatory democracy. Professional
representation (PR) encourages higher levels of
voter turnout and facilitates better
representation of minorities and women to widen
the ideological dispersion of the voters (Downs,
A.1957, Dow, 2011,
Molomo, 2000).
Proportional
Representation (PR): A
worldwide survey shows that more than 60 of the
191 nations use proportional representation
system. In stark contrast to majority democracy,
the rationale underpinning the proportional
representation (PR) share of the national vote is
it “consciously reduces the disparity between a
party’s share of the national and its share of
the parliamentary seats” (IDEA, 2005). In other
words, the share focuses on the inclusion of
minority voices and is based on a quota system. A
quota system “guarantees a party and a seat in
particular district. Five different quotas are
commonly used” (Bormann and Golder, 2013). It
allows the representatives of each community to
engage in dialogue, form a shared space, and
effectively bargain for their interests,
grievances, and aspirations. Proportional
representation (PR) adheres to the principle of
equal representation of all members of society in
the election processes. The most typical features
of PR are that it carries multi-member
constituencies and believes in equal partnership
or accommodation in a democratic process (Molomo,
2000 and Lijphart, 1977).
Stated
differently, proportional representation
recognizes and promises harmonious relationships
to exist among ethnic, religious, or linguistic
factions. As aptly put by Lijphart (1977), to be
called democratic, a nation must be governed by
the existence of 1) grand coalition (the ruling
elites of each unit rule in the interest of their
constituency); 2) mutual veto (consensus is
required rather than majority rule); 3)
proportionality (representation based on the
population of each unit); or 4) segmental
autonomy. Given this, proportional representation
brings about stability, the existence of
reciprocal relationships between central and local
government and citizens, the survival of the
power-sharing provisions, and the avoidance of
violence.
Specifically,
in a proportional electoral system, a small party
is likely to be represented by at least one member
of parliament rooted in their region and sharing
their political views and convictions. The number of
seats that a party wins in an election is made to
be proportional to the amount of its support it
gets among voters. However, Party list may be open
as in Norway, Finland, the Netherlands and Italy,
in which case voters can express preference for
particular candidates within the (Party) List. Or
they may be closed as in Israel, Portugal, Spain,
and Germany, in which case voters can only select
the party, and the political party determines the
ranking of candidates (IDEA 2005). For example, in
a 5-member district, if “Party A” wins 49% of
the vote, it receives two seats and “Party B”
with 40% of the vote also receives two seats. and
the Independent Candidate listed on the ballot
with 11% of the vote is entitled to one seat in
the legislative because the candidate has attained
more than 10% of the minimum threshold of votes.
The advantage of FPTP is that it produces
representatives that could represent a certain
geographical region. Thus FPTP is praised for
being simple and easily applicable to
semi-illiterate societies because “A valid vote
requires only one mark beside the name or symbol
of one candidate. Even if the number of candidates
on the ballot paper is large, the count is easy
for electoral officials to conduct” (IDEA,
2005).
Comparing
Majoritarian and Proportional Representation
Electoral Process
To
differentiate the majoritarian electoral process
from the proportional representation perspective,
this article uses ten criteria: 1) Simplicity and
Clarity, 2) Measurable, 3) Contextual Relevance,
4) Social Responsibility and Inclusively, 5)
Accountability, 6) Legitimacy, 7) Effectiveness,
8) Efficiency, 9) Alleviates Conflict, and 10)
Administrative and Financial Sustainability.
Though
very traditional, the majoritarian electoral
system is very simple. In terms of agreement on
issues, the majority system seems more stable and
legislators could arrive at a consensus because
there could be only very few disagreements on
social and governmental issues. More recently,
rather than using the 50% plus absolute majority
vote, many countries are in the process of
adopting plurality-majority (the
first-past-the-post) election systems. As shown in
Table 1, the proportional representative system is
based on a quota system. While the two systems
provide accountability to their voters, the
proportional representative electoral system is
more effective and inclusive. Since the hallmark
of proportional representative is social
representation, this system includes minorities,
women, and ethnic groups. In other words,
proportional representative, whether abiding by a closed
list (voters only choose political parties and
the party deicides per their rank order who is
elected into parliament) or open
list (where voters choose listed candidates),
is premised on the assumption that all
constituencies must be represented in parliament.
As shown in Table 1, proportional representation
seems less stable because many parties share
power.
In
a nutshell, when the majoritarian is distinguished
from the proportional representation electoral
system, it is obvious that while the majoritarian
electoral system provides stability, proportional
representation is egalitarian and provides
accountability. What clearly distinguishes between
the two is that PR allows social representation
and empowers a
larger group of electorate and this particularly
allows the disenfranchised to have influence over
government and governmental policy. Finally,
proportional
representation accords a
nation not
only legitimacy but also allows it to endure
both administrative and financial sustainability.
Table
1: Difference Between Majoritarian and
Proportional Electoral System
Electoral
System
Indicator
|
Majoritarian
|
Proportional
Representation
|
Simplicity
and clarity (the process and results are
understood by voters and politicians)
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Measurable
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Contextual
relevance (pays attention and can be made
culturally appropriate)
|
?
|
Yes
|
Social
responsibility and inclusivity (empowers a
larger group of electorate and do the
disenfranchised have influence over
government and governmental policy)
|
No
|
Yes
|
Accountability
(producing electable candidates who would be
responsible and answerable to constituency
concerns)
|
Rarely
|
Yes
|
Legitimacy
(the fairness of the system to give equal
chance to every citizen)
|
No
|
Yes
|
Effectiveness
(the election outcome is decisive and
relevant to add value to produce political
stability)
|
Yes
|
No
|
Stability
|
Yes
|
No
|
Efficiency
(increasing voter turn out and avoids
wastage of votes)
|
No
|
Yes
|
Alleviates
ethnic conflict or social unrest
|
Yes
|
No
|
Sustainable
for continuity
|
No
|
Yes
|
Summary
and Policy Implications
After
the promulgation of the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia in 1995, Ethiopia declared
that its electoral system — the way votes are
translated into parliamentarian seats or elected
legislature — would be based on
majority/plurality electoral system. In
accordance with Article 25 of the Ethiopian
Constitution, Ethiopia has run five elections in
which several multi-party politicians have
participated. The EPRDF has dominated the house of
the Ethiopian Federal Council
of People's Representatives and has remained
in power for the last two decades. For good or for
bad, the easiest political institution that can be manipulated is the electoral system (IDEA, 2005).
Therefore, it is possible to assume that over all
these years, the
Ethiopian
Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)
might have overused its knowledge of the electoral
systems to promote its own partisan advantage.
However,
it needs to be ascertained that though EPRDF has
been winning most seats in parliament, it does not
mean that EPRDF won 100% of the nation’s votes.
Instead, it needs to be interpreted that the EPRDF
might have used its organizational structure to
win majority/
plurality votes during the first election process. However, as argued
by Norris (1997), the “majoritarian electoral
systems, like First-Past-the-Post, systematically
exaggerates the parliamentary lead for the party
in the first place, with the aim of securing a
decisive outcome and government accountability,
thereby excluding smaller parties….”
Given
this type of electoral system that has become
predominant in Ethiopia, it is no wander that
currently, several
Ethiopians and organized political parties have
demanded that the electoral process needs to be
restructured to accommodate the disenfranchised.
With
the increased expressions of antipathy towards the
existing government, the current government seems
willing to consider constructive suggestions that
might bring tranquility to Ethiopia. It is
therefore suggested by this article that instead
of becoming dependent on the existing system that
has created a mono-party system, Ethiopia must
give away to multi-party system that are given
equal level field. Thereby, it is the right moment
for Ethiopia to experiment, refine, and steadily
improve its electoral system and give way to the
proportional representation electoral system.
As
discussed above, the proportional representation
electoral system is inclusive and can allow the
other smaller parties to participate in the
election system and maximize their chance to
participate into the Ethiopian parliament. As
narrated by Amy (2005), the basic principles
underlying proportional representation (PR)
instead of electing one person from each district
are: 1) several members are chosen to parliament
from multi-member district; 2) legislators are
elected in large from multi-member district; 3)
each party or independent candidates puts up a
list or slate of candidates equal to the number of
seats in the districts; and 4) the seats in the
multi-member districts are assigned in the
proportion of votes received by the various
parties or groups running for election.
To
start with the proportional representation (PR)
electoral system, in Ethiopia, for example, the
voting system could start assorting the nearby 700
(600 rural and 100 urban) woredas
into the parliamentarian 547 seats. Then, one
seat could represent approximately 1 to 2 woredas.
Then five candidates could be chosen to represent
(depending on their geographic proximity)
approximately 6 or 7 woredas.
Due to the low literacy rate in Ethiopia, it is
advisable to use an open form of listing
candidates and the party for the voting system
(See Figure 1).
For
example, in a hypothetical five member district,
if the “UNITY Party” wins 40% of the vote, it
receives two of the seats, the “ETHIO-DEM”
party with 20% of the vote receives one seat, the
“GREEN” with 20% receives one seat, and the
“Independent Candidate” with 12% is entitled
to one seat because the candidate has attained
more than 10 percent of the minimum threshold of
votes.
Figure
1: Open Ballot System
Official
Ballot
|
VOTING INSTRUCTIONS:
1.
You only
have ONE Vote
2.
Place an
X
in the box next to the candidate for
whom you wish to vote.
3.
Your
vote counts both for your candidate and your
party
|
UNITY
|
ETHIO-DEM
|
HIBRET
|
GREEN
|
Independent
Candidates
|
1
|
Ms. AAA
|
|
1
|
Mr. 111
|
|
1
|
Ms.XXX
|
|
1
|
Mr.666
|
|
1
|
Mr.aaa
|
|
2
|
Mr. BBB
|
|
2
|
Ms. 222
|
|
2
|
Ms.YYY
|
|
2
|
Mr.777
|
|
2
|
Ms.bbb
|
|
3
|
Mr.CCC
|
|
3
|
Ms.333
|
|
3
|
Mr. ZZZ
|
|
3
|
Ms.888
|
|
3
|
Mr. ccc
|
|
4
|
MS. DDD
|
|
4
|
Mr.444
|
|
4
|
Mr. RRR
|
|
4
|
Mr.999
|
|
4
|
Ms.ddd
|
|
5
|
Ms. EEE
|
|
5
|
Mr.555
|
|
5
|
Mr. SSS.
|
|
5
|
Ms.000
|
|
5
|
Ms.eee
|
|
Source:
Adapted from Amy, Douglas J. (2005). “How Proportional Representation Election Works.” Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting Systems.
This
kind of division is very simple to administer and
can encourage a cordial relationship among the
sub-units or woredas.
Members of the constituency can easily participate
to run a coalition government and can require the
elected officials to be accountable to the
citizens. No vote can be wasted because elections
can be held fairly, without restrictions in every
locality. As persuasively argued by John Adams,
following the proportional representation (PR),
the legislative system in Ethiopia could be made
to reflect “an exact portrait, in miniature, of
the people at large, as it should think, feel,
reason and act like them” (Pitkin, H. 1967).
Given
the massive unrest that has been recorded in
current Ethiopia, it is a high time for Ethiopia
to rethink and redesign its existing electoral
system. The existing majoritarian or
“winner-all-take” system is out dated and does
not meet the needs of citizens. Voters of minor
parties feel that the federal legislatures do not
represent them. With the present system, they feel
that they would rather not participate in a
nominal election system to elect only the existing
mono or EPRDF party.
As
argued in my previous article (see Desta, 2016),
Ethiopia’s journey towards autonomous democratic
federalism can become a reality
if it redesigns its form of federalism and
practices predictable and transparent democracy
that incorporates adequate checks and balances. To
empower its local citizens and speed up its
transition to democracy, it is high time that
Ethiopia considers using the proportional
representation (PR) electoral system. The
proportional electoral system allows multiple
ballots choices to all Ethiopian citizens. Under
this broad electoral spectrum, no Ethiopian who is
eligible to vote could be left out. Proportional
representation also minimizes the ethnic tensions
that have become very rampant in the country.
Therefore, with adequate citizens’ participation
using the proportional electoral system, there is
no doubt that Ethiopia would remain stable and
could march towards achieving the three pillars of
sustainable development.
References:
Addis
Fortune (July 18, 2007).
“Ethiopia: CUD Leaders Appeal for Amnesty Under
Review: Says Gov’t.”
Amy,
Douglas, J. “How Proportional Representation
Election Works.” Behind
the Ballot Box: A Citizen’s Guide to Voting
Systems.
Aziri,
E and Saliaj O. (2013). “Electoral Systems and
Democracy: A Comparative Analysis of Macedonia and
Albania.” Journal
of Identity and Migration Studies. Vol. 7, No.
1.
Bormann,
N. and Golder, M. (2013). “Democratic Electoral
Systems Around the World, 1946-2011.” Electoral
Studies. 23, 360-369.
Crummey,
D. E. (2016).
Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/place/Ethiopia/Fedreal-Democratic-Republic-of-Ethiopia-since-1995.
Desta,
A. (2016) “Curbing
Corruption in Ethiopia: Applying Democratic
Autonomy at the Local Level.”
Desta,
A. (2016). “From Retroactive to Proactive
Strategic Management Styles: Redressing Widespread
Social Unrest in Contemporary Ethiopia.”
Dow,
K. (April 2011). “Party-System Extremism in
Majoritarian and Proportional Electoral
Systems.” British
Journal of Political Science. 41.2,
341-361.
Downs,
A. (1957). An
Economic Theory of Democracy. New York:
Harper, 117-127.
Ethiopian
Election (2016). “Ethiopian Electoral System.”
Http://www.electionethiopia.org/en/ethiopian-election/electio-system.html
IDEA
(2005). International Institute for Democracy and
Electoral Assistance, IDEA Handbook of Electrical
System Design. Sweden: Stockholm.
Lijphart,
A. (1977). Democracy
in PLURAL Societies: A Comparative Explanation. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Molomo,
M. (2000). “In Search of an Alternative
Electoral System for Botswana.” The
Journal of African Studies. Vol. 14, No. 1.
109-121.
Norris,
P. (July, 1997). “Choosing Electoral Systems:
Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed System.” International
Political Science Review. Vol. 18(3): 297-312.
Norris,
P. (1998). “Testing Consociational Theories of
Ethnic Conflict, Electoral Systems and
Democratization. Harvard University: John F.
Kennedy School of Government.
Pitkin,
Hanna Fenichel, 1967. The Concept of
Representation, Berkeley: University of
California.
Proportional
Representation (2016). http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginningReading/PRsystems.htm
World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 2016).
“Ethiopia: Constitution of the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.” http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=234349.
|