For everyone that have been following the political dynamics of Ethiopia’s recent past, it is in everyone’s memory that a fter four years of street protests, the “late” ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) elected Abiy Ahmed Ali, Prime Minister on 2 April 2018. The incumbent Prime Minister, after admitting the ruling coalition’s shortcomings, pledging reform, preaching of unity and rapprochement Eritrea, was portrayed by some as a sign of new beginning for the multinational diverse country.

After the dusts had settled Dr. Abiy was a victim of his government’s unrealistic promises coupled with lack of a political roadmap,  non-institutionalized course of actions; has resulted an intensified and proliferated violence across the country, with communal violence tearing at the multi-ethnic fabric of Ethiopian society,Regional states asserting their constitutional  power, an economy on life support, with foreign debt in excess of $28 billion; and  many young people without jobs, has become the defining elements and beginning of a new normal.

The disproportionate focus to easy fixes to these challenges rather than addressing the root causes by working to stop communal conflict, preparing for 2020 elections and reforming the dangerously weak economy; exacerbated by the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequential “decision by inaction” from the side of the government has positioned the country in a looming legitimacy crisis that have raised a n existential question that have put beyond the uncertain horizons.

The focus of this article is to contextualize the implication of postponement of the 2012 election, analyse the looming legitimacy crisis, explore possible options from normative perspective.

Postponement of the election: a windfall excuse

The very idea of convening 2012 election as per the constitution has been the bone of contention since the assumption of the premiership in the last 2 years. The appetite on the side of the government on holding an election was exceptionally low. And even after the decision of convening an election was reached out of inclination, the decision of holding the election on 29 August 2020 was in apparent contradiction with the constitution.

As per article 58 (3) of the FDRE Constitution, the House of Peoples' Representatives shall be elected for a term of five years. Elections for a new House shall be concluded one month prior to the expiry of the House's term. And the term of office of Members of the House of Peoples' Representatives expires on Sene 30 not in September; and that is why elections had been held in the previous elections in May. Some are confusing the annual session of the House with term of office of Members of the parliament. Article 58 (2) is speaking to the annual session of the House which shall begin on Monday of the final week of the Ethiopian month of Meskerem and end on the 30th day of the Ethiopian month of Sene; in which the the House usually adjourn for one month of recess between Sene 30 and last week of September.

On a related topic, though the final mandate of deciding to postpone the election lies on the hand of the House of Peoples' Representatives, the announcement of the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) on 31 March 2020,citing the ongoing and expected impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, as a windfall excuse for not holding an election at all; cognizant of the facts that electoral board preparations were behind schedule, raising the destabilising prospect of a delay beyond the constitutional deadline even before the pandemic arrived.

The dynamics is further exacerbated from the fire to the frying pan with the declaration of a five-month State of Emergency on 8 April 2020 due to the pandemic; which begs the questiof the legitimacy of declaring a SoE for 5 months with a government whose mandate expires in 2 months.

With these contexts, the current Parliament’s five-year term expires in two months; the FDRE Constitution requires new Members of Parliament (MPs) to be elected a month prior to the expiry of the existing House’s tenure on Sene 30 (Article 58 (3)); and with no exceptions to parliamentary term limit; with unofficially postponed elections, COVID-19 pandemic; and a big trust deficit political landscape; creates leadership vacuum, which may lead to a constitutional crisis unless addressed or its damage minimized promptly.

There is excessive focus on the looming legitimacy deficit on the level of Federal government. And this misses the elephant in the room, which isthe similar proximate risks in the 9 Regional States and 2 City Administrations.

With emerging perspectivesfrom experts with diverse background, options such as a consensual dissolution of the Parliament by the Prime Minister, a state of emergency decree, amendment of the constitution, and political elite bargain, are being explored. With a slim possibility of holding an electionin different arrangements and modes, this opinion piece is restricted to assessing possible options from a constitutional and legal perspective.

Dissolving the Parliament

As per article 60 of the constitution, the parliament can be dissolved on two grounds. First, with the consent of the House, the Prime Minister may cause the dissolution of the House before the expiry of itsterm in order to hold new elections before the expiry of the term of the Parliament; which is most of the time referred as “snap election”.And the second is when the President invite political parties to form acoalition government within one week if the Council of Ministers of a previous coalition is dissolved because of the loss of its majority in the House;which is not relevant for the current discussion.In our context, it would not have been that difficult to get the consent of the house. However, in both scenarios, the Constitution necessitate an election with a Parliament within its term of office, which is not the case in this circumstance.

A State of Emergency

The other option that is being suggested is declaring a state of emergency, in accordance with Article 93 of the Constitution. This is both undesirable and dangerous route for the following reasons. First, the grounds for declaring a State of Emergency are an external invasion, a breakdown of law and order which endangers the constitutional order and which cannot be controlled by the regular law enforcement agencies and personnel, a natural disaster,or an epidemic.Apparently, expiry of term of office of Members of the Parliament, including the Prime Minister are not grounds for declaring SoE. Second, it is unconstitutional to think of extending the SoE before the already durationis not expired.Third, the SoE assumes a Parliament within its term and do not have the effect of extending term of office of neither the Parliament nor the members of the Council of Ministers.