Page 1 of 13
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning
Available at
http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/
ISSN: 2395-0463
Volume 04 Issue 07
July 2018
Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 95
Assessment of the Process of Decentralization and District
Level Decentralization in Ethiopia: the Case of Amhara National
Regional State
Mr. Besfat Dejen
Senior Lecture at School of Law, Department of Governance and Development Studies; Bahir
Dar University, Ethiopia
besfloved@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper tries to examine the process of decentralization and district level decentralization program in Amhara
regional state. The paper traced out the overview of decentralization process during imperial, derg, and EPRDF
regimes. The depth and degree of decentralization in the three consecutive regimes found to be different in which
the process of decentralization in current government meant to be deeper and extensive as it pushed powers,
functions and roles to the district level of government. The process of decentralization in the current government
had two phases. The first phases was evident since 1992-2001 which moved powers and functions to the regional
governments. The second phases of decentralization was also realized since 2002 as it has transferred powers and
functions to the districts. However there have been many challenges that were accompanied with the district level
decentralization process. This paper aspires to examine these challenges. The paper found out that unclear
assignments of powers and functions, executive dominations at local level, upward accountabilities, top down
planning approach, absence of skilled manpower, limited participatory systems, failure of the woreda and kebele
councils in holding the executive accountable, lack of adequate budget, low level of revenue mobilization capacity,
low sense of responsiveness and accountability in woreda and kebele councils to the people were the main
challenges that intervened in the process of district level decentralization process.
1. Introduction
Decentralization is the process of transferring
authorities, resources and responsibilities from
central government to intermediary and local
governments. The major motives behind
decentralization are addressing failures to foster
development, strengthening democracy, provision of
effective and efficient services and combating
poverty. Which it, in a nutshell, promotes good
governance. Decentralization has four forms; De
concentration, Delegation, Devolution and
Privatization. It has also three dimensions;
Administrative, Fiscal and Political
decentralizations.
Meheret (2002) pointed out that one of the aims of
decentralization is to devolving government power
form the center to lower tier of governments. As a
result of this, nine ethnic based regional states and
two autonomous city states named Addis Ababa and
Dire Dawa are created. The main objective of this
regionalization is to empower ethnic groups to
develop their culture, language, manage their socio- economic development and exercise self-rule in
order to bring about equitable share of national
resources.
The process of decentralization in Ethiopia took two
phases; the first phase was started in1992 and lasted
in 2001. This phase was contented with transferred
powers, functions and resources from the center to
the regional governments. This process might laid a
landmark spot in the political development of
Ethiopia. The second phase of decentralization
began in 2001 which further deepened the process of
decentralization as it was aimed at further pushing
powers, resources and functions to the local level
governments (ibid, 2002). The process was
undertaken with a program called DLDP (District
Level Decentralization Program) upheld by the
EPRDF (Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary
Democratic Front) government to devolve more
powers to the districts. This process, as proclaimed
by EPRDF government, is hoped to enhance the
governance quality since it enables the government
to be closer to the people and makes the local
government more accountable, transparent and
responsive to the local people. Therefore this paper
has critically examined the processes of
decentralization in the three consecutive regimes and
it also aspires to assess the process of district level
decentralization program in Amhara regional state.
2. Materials and Methods.
This paper is conducted following qualitative
research methodology. The paper examines
Page 2 of 13
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning
Available at
http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/
ISSN: 2395-0463
Volume 04 Issue 07
July 2018
Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 96
qualitative data ascertained both from primary
(interviews) and secondary sources of data. In order
to produce this paper 53 interviewees (from woreda
administrative council, woreda council, kebele
administrative council and kebele councils), federal
and regional constitutions, regional legislations, state
annual reports, books, articles and literatures were
consulted. The ascertained qualitative data are
analyzed using qualitative data analysis techniques.
Document analysis and descriptive analysis have
been employed.
3. Results and Discussions
3.1 The overview of decentralization in
Ethiopia
3.1.1 The Imperial Regime
Even though the introduction of local governments
is traced back to Emperor Menilek II when he had
completed the state formation of Ethiopia, the first
move toward the institutionalization of
decentralization was made by Emperor Haileselassie
I when the emperor submitted the Awraja Local
Self-Administration Order No. 43 of 1966 to the
then parliament (Kassahun, 2007).
“Haileselassie’s I major drive, with the death of
emperor Menilek II, both as a regent for empress
Zewditu (1916-1930) and emperor (1930-1974) was
aimed at ensuring the strengthening of the central
government at the expense of the provinces. The
major motive of the emperor in weakening the
provinces was to shatter the oppossers of his coming
to power and those who wanted the empress to keep
on power” (Kassahun, 2007).
The gradual dismantling of the regional power bases
was more or less successful and finally with the
promulgation of the 1931 constitution the
dispossession of the power bases of the regional
power, which historically at one time during Zemen
Mesafit had even more powerful than the central
government, was completely weakened. Since the
constitution confirmed the emperor with the legal
mandate to preserve the firm control of power over
anybody in the country and the constitution also
bestowed the emperor with all prerogatives that
made him even above the constitution itself. As a
result of this, the emperor supported, with the
constitution, initiated centralized state whereby the
power was concentrated in the hands of one person,
the emperor, instead of in the hands of the masses
(ibid, 2007).
Haileselassie’s I fast attempts to move towards
centralizing and reorganizing his government was
interrupted by the Fascist Occupation (1935-41) of
the country. By the time of invasion in 1935 the
country was divide in to 32 Gizatocch
(administrative regions) indeed there subdivision
was not clearly identified (ibid 2007). Following the
evacuation of Italy the Ethiopia Emperor
Haileselassie I had successfully restored his previous
power. Once the emperor had firmly reasserted his
power, he had begun to reassure his ever motive of
strong central government by culminating all
resistances posed against his uncontested
authority(ibid 2007).
After a lot measures were taken the
emperor had built a strong central
government that enabled him to make
everything based on his interests and
wishes. The first series in his attempt
towards the moves of centralization was
articulated with the enactment of decree
No.1/1942 providing the establishment for
the provincial administrations. In deed the
decree specified the competencies,
accountability, composition of the council
and commissions. But the emperor was
placed at the top to supervise the governors
at various levels of the provincial
administrative hierarchy (ibid 2007:45).
The prewar 32 gizahats (administrative regions)
were renamed as Awraja (provinces), and the
numbers of the provinces were also reduced to 12
administrative entities. The newly created 12
Awrajas (provinces) constituted the first order of
administrative tier below the central government.
Below Awrajas (provinces) a number of woredas,
mislenies(local leaders) and mikitil mislenies(deputy
local leaders) were evolved in descending order of
importance as second, third and fourth
administrative tiers (Daniel 1994 cited in Kassahun,
2007). The imperial regime instituted administrative
subdivisions for the sake of administrative
convenience or to perform functions of central
government at lower levels instead of empowering
the local government for assuring local self- administration. Hence the lower levels had delegated
powers to perform function on behalf of the central
government rather than on behalf of the local people.
Therefore, the lower bodies didn’t have a devolved
power that makes them responsible and accountable
to the local people. As a result of this, accountability
was lined up towards the immediate higher bodies
and responsibility was also veined upward instead of
downward (Kassahun, 2007).
According to Kassahun (2007) “Decree No 6/1946
also maintained the number of the existing four tiers
of local government but effected change of names in
descending order of hierarchical importance as
T’aqilay Gizate (governorate General), Awraja
(provinces), Woreda (district) and Mikitil Woreda
(Sub-district). The decree couldn’t create any
Page 3 of 13
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning
Available at
http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/
ISSN: 2395-0463
Volume 04 Issue 07
July 2018
Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 97
changes in the substances of the administrative tiers
except a change in the name of the four tiers” (ibid,
2007).
In 1952, another development in the political arena
of the country was introduced with the federation of
Eritrea to Ethiopia, as UN endorsed the federation of
these two countries. As a result of this, and other
external factors, the revised constitution of the 1955
was introduced in order to cope up with the political
development of Eritrea brought by the colonizer
Italy. Therefore, the 1955 revised constitution
endorsed some rights like freedom of speech, press,
association, assembly, and give regards for the
eligible electorate to elect the member of the lower
chamber of deputies, and etc. However, like its
preceding 1931constituion, the 1955 revised
constitution didn’t attempt to encroach upon the
uncontested authority and prerogatives of the
emperor rather it further ensuring the divinity and
incontestability of the emperor’s power. Soon after
half a decade (in 1960) of the introduction of 1955
constitution, the mikitil Woreda (sub district) tire as
the lowest unit of the provincial administration was
abolished and consequently reduced the number of
the tiers below the national government into three.
The functions executed by the now defunct units
were given on the one hand to the woreda (district)
and on the other hand to the balabat (local chief)
(ibid, 2007).
The other major attempt made during 1960s was the
idea to setup local self-administration at the level of
some selected Awrajas (provinces). In 1966 the new
Awraja Local Self-Administration Order No. 43 of
1966 was introduced and submitted to the then
parliament by the imperial regime. The order was
signaling the first drives of institutional
decentralization in the history of Ethiopia. The move
was aimed at granting administrative autonomous
for the selected administrative units (Awrajas) that
were drawn from fourteen Governorate General
(Meheret 2002). Indeed, local self-administration
would be given to the provinces (Awrajas). If the
provinces (Awrajas) were able to fulfill the already
prescribed criteria like, resource base, population
and land size, sectorial potentials in economic terms,
and proximity to one of the neighboring countries
(Asmelash 1987, cited in Kassahun 2007).
Accordingly, 17 provinces (Awrajas) that met the
criteria were identified but the parliament were
reluctant to endorse the proposal due to the cynicism
of many deputies regarding the possibility of
generating adequate revenue and due to the fear that
it could undermine the authority of the central
government and at the end would ship the country
into disunity. Therefore, the initiative was remained
simply in attempt without having operational
significance on the situation of local government
(Cohen and Koehn 1980, cited in Kassahun, 2007).
Generally, the Imperial regime was characterized by
delegation of power.
3.1.2 The Derg Regime
After the overthrown of the imperial regime in 1974,
the Derg or PMAC (Provisional Military
Administrative Council) came to power (Paulos,
2011). Following its coming into the scene of
political power several magnificent measures were
taken by the regime in relation to local government.
Among which the most relevant one that the Derg
had took to mobilize and galvanize the masses and at
the same time used to reform the local government
was the 1974 Land Reform Proclamation. The
proclamation made all tenants, who were
dispossessed of land by the imperial regime,
landholders and parallel to this, for the proper
implementation of the proclamation, several local
institutions were constituted; among which PAs
(Peasant associations), and Urban Dwellers’
Associations were the major ones in rural and urban
areas respectively (Kassahun, 2007).
The Derg had constituted the local unites based on
peasant association, the associations made from the
lower units (Kebele Peasant Association, constituted
peasants, tenants, landless laborers, and landowners
holding fewer than ten hectares within 800 hectares)
to the higher National Peasant Association (Ethiopia
Peasant Association). All peasants who are
practicing farming confined in a certain area were
eligible to be a member of peasant association and
the PAs were also given the responsibility for
implementing the land reform, adjudicating
legislations, undertaking developmental activities
like constructing and renovating physical and social
infrastructures in their respective localities (ibid,
2007).
According to Kassahun (2007), proclamation No.
31/ 1975 give the legal bases for the establishment
of Woreda and Awraja level peasant association,
whereas the creation of PAs at regional level came
to effect later with another proclamation in the year
1977. However, the peasant associations form the
woreda to the regional level, even though
constituted based on election, were not acting as
local unites of administration rather they were
responsible to cooperate with appointed woreda,
Awraja , and regional administrations on the one
hand and coordinate and supervise the grassroots or
village PAs on the other hand. Hence, this indicates
the existence of upward and downward
accountability since the grassroots PAs on the one
side became responsible to the higher PAs and in
turn they were also accountable to the peasants who
constituted it. The Derg government issued the
proclamation No.77/1975 in order for the Peasant
