© 2020 ijrar september 2020, volume 7, issue 3 the ...ijrar.org/papers/ijrar2002627.pdfno.621/2009,...

© 2020 IJRAR September 2020, Volume 7, Issue 3 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)

IJRAR2002627 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 1

The Prospects and Challenges of the FDRE Charities

and Societies Proc. No.621/2009 in the Formation and

Operation of Civil Society Organizations in Ethiopia

Muuz Abraha Meshesha1

Lecturer of Law, in Adigrat University, Ethiopia and a graduate of both LL.B Degree and LL.M Degree from Mekelle University

School of Law

Abstract

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia hereafter, FDRE, has six years ago, taken a legal measure to regulate

the old long lasting civil society sector which is currently has being implemented in the country accordingly. The

government justifies its introduction as a panacea for the challenges the country had previously been facing mainly in

relation to the regulation of the sector.

In this article, the author argues that, the proclamation as it stands now, provides for very specific and restricted

activities to be carried out by both the societies and charities thereby narrowing down the scope of the civil society

organizations (herein after CSOs) engagement; expels foreign CSOs from concentrating in the areas of Human rights

and democratization; interferes in the financial sources of the CSOs, prohibits foreign fund for domestic CSOs;

restricts the financial expenditure; limits access to an independent judicial review; and the provides an excessive

discretionary power to the governing governmental agency.

Not only this, but excessive reporting and auditing requirements stipulated under the proclamation also inflict

unpleasant consequences on the CSOs operating in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (herein after FDRE)

and this has sooner or later restrained the opportunity for mobilization of issues of rule of law, democracy, and

human rights.

Key words: CSOs, Self-regulation, Charities, Societies, CSOs Proclamation

http://www.ijrar.org/



Introduction

Civil society organizations have become one of the favorite buzzwords contributing in the ensuring of sustainable

development, flourishment of human rights, and democratization process all over the globe. They have an immense

contribution to the world community not lesser than what governments did serve to their citizens. However, many

governments in the world out line laws, policies, and strategies that could harshly threaten environment and thereby

halted their activities. Such challenges are most of the times manifested through the narrowing down of the regulatory

framework, including policies, whereby the CSOs are operating. Because of this or may be other related factors many

CSOs find it difficult and unwelcoming to carry-out their activities.

This article attempts to present the main challenges the CSOs operating in Ethiopia are facing and it highlights the

contending legal provisions. The first chapter presents background overview and common challenges of civil societies.

Section two briefly discusses the lessons from regulatory frameworks of different countries following by section three

and four respectively dealing with the exploration of CSOs in the Ethiopian context and analysis of the main

challenges facing to the CSOs operating in Ethiopia respectively. Lastly, section five of this article briefly puts the

concluding remarks.

Prospects and Challenges of the FDRE Charities and Societies Proc. No.621/2009 in the

Formation and Operation of CSOs in Ethiopia

1. Introductory Remarks

1.1 Overview of Civil Society

The term civil society as a concept has been given of myriad definitions at different times from different perspectives

or arenas.2 In light of political theorists like John Lock, a society becomes civil when it strives to define and establish

political authority, in which it determines the rules as well as norms of political legitimaacy.3 Hence in a classical

usage, civil society has been an equated definition or meaning with state. Apart from this ancient definition the term

has been defined differently in the modern times since the enlightenment time on 18th century onwards.

According to the modern definition of the term civil society, it is referred to as a domain parallel to but separate from

2According to the modern definition of the term civil society is referred to as a domain parallel to but separate from the state where citizens

associate according to their own interests and wishes. See Sisay G/egziabher, Hereinafter referred Sisay, ‘The Role of Civil Society

Organizations in Democratization Process in Ethiopia’, in the proceedings of fifth international conference on Transforming Civil Society,

Citizenship and Governance: The Third Sector in an Era of Global (Dis)Order’ , 2002, (Cape Town, July 7-10, 2002)available at,

http://www.Istr.org/conference/cape town/volume/gebre.Pdf, p.2 (retrieved on April 2014)

3Diamond Larry, ‘what is civil society?’ (200 ) London School of Economics and Political science center for civil society. http://

www.ise.ac.uk/ what is civil society.html, p.26, (retrieved on April 2014)


http://www.istr.org/conference/cape%20town/volume/gebre.Pdf

http://www.ise.ac.uk/



the state where citizens associate according to their own interests and wishes.4

1.2 Historical Back ground

The concept of civil society has an older history in the realm of political thought from the political machinery in the

pre-modern times until the separated institutional form in the postmodern times. Below, we will try to search what the

historical back ground of civil society does look like and how evolved to its current form.

1.2.1 Pre modern history

During this period, the concept was used as a synonym for the good society and seen as indistinguishable from the

state.5 This is to mean, civil society has been referred to as apolitical association governing social conflict through the

imposition of rules that restrain citizens from harming one another. The philosophers in this classical period didn’t

make any distinction between the state and civil society. Beyond to this they held that the state represents the civil

society and the civil society in turn represents the requirement of good citizenship.6

After the continuous tremendous efforts made by different politicians mainly of John Lock and Thomas Hobbes to

bring a consolidated and liberal society, they both have set forth a system, in which peaceful coexistence among

human beings could be ensured through social contract.7 They maintained civil society as a sphere that considered

civil life, the realm where civil virtues and rights were derived from natural laws. Despite of this they didn’t hold that

civil society is separated realm from the state.8

During this period the enlighten meat thinkers argued that human being are so rational to determine their destiny

challenging the divine right theory. They added those human beings are in no need of an absolute authority to control

them.

4 Ibid,

5 Working with the United Nations Human Rights Programme, a Handbook for Civil Society, available from

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/CivilSociety/Documents/Handbook_en.pdf , p.171, (New york and Geneva, 2008) (retrieved on April

2014)

6Desalegne Rahmato, Akalewold, et al, ‘CSOs/NGOs in Ethiopia, partners in development and good governance’, 2010, Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia

7Ibid. p.5

8Ibid


http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/CivilSociety/Documents/Handbook_en.pdf



1.2.2 Modern History

With Hegel who completely changed the meaning of the idea, modern liberal understanding of civil society as a form

of market society was the main feature of the modern history.9 Apart from their ancestors, the leading thinker of

Romanticism considered civil society as a separate realm, “system of needs,” that stood for the satisfaction of

individual interests and private property.

For Hegel civil society manifests contradictory force.10 Being the realm of capitalist interests there is a possibility of

conflicts and inequalities with in civil society. Originating from this argument Hegel has allowed the constant

interference of the state is imperative to sustain the moral order in society.11

This theme of G.W.F Hegel was further taken by Karl Marx. Agreeing with the link between capitalist and society,

Marx held that latter represents the interests of bourgeoisie.12 “For Marx, civil society was the base where productive

force and social relations was taken place whereas, the political society was the superstructure representing the

interests of the dominant class.13 Hence Marx rejected the positive role of state put forth by Hegel. Marx considered

the state and civil society as the executive arms of the bourgeoisie; therefore, both should be withered away.14

The negative impression about civil society was rectified by Antonio Gramsci. Departing from the dictation of Marx,

Gramsci didn’t consider civil society as conterminous with socio economic base of the state.15 Rather Gramsci

underlined the crucial role of civil society as the contributor of the cultural and ideological capital for the survival of

the hegemony of capitalism. Gramsci viewed civil society as the site for problem solving and a key contributory in

defending the people against the state and market in formulating democratic will to influence the state.16 During this

time agreeing with the Marx’s view, the neoliberals considered civil society as a site for struggle to subvert communist

and authoritarian regimes.17

9Ibid, p.6

10Dr Rosario Laratta, Contemporary Civil Society Theory Versus Hegel’s Understanding of Civil Society, Dr. Rosario Laratta (Ed.), Social

Welfare, (Japan, Meiji University 2012), p.11, Available from:

http://www.intechopen.com/books/social-welfare/contemporary-civil-society-theory-versus-hegel-sunderstanding-

of-civil-society.doc (retrieved on April 2014)

11Ibid,

12Ibid, p.4

13Ibid, p.5

14Ibid

15Id.

16Ibid, p.6

17Ibid,




1.2.3 Postmodern history

The postmodern way of understanding of civil society was first developed by political opposition in former soviet

block East European countries in 1980s.18 From this time onwards a practice stems with in political field using the

idea of civil society instead of political society. However 1990’s onwards the postmodern usage of the idea of civil

society become divided in to a political society and third sector apart from the other plethora definitions.

The Washington consensus of the 1990’s which involve conditionally the World Bank and IMF on loans to debt-laden

developing states, also created pressures for states in poorer countries to shrink.19 “The new conditionality led to an

even greater emphasis on civil society as a panacea, replacing the state in service provision and social care, Hume and

Edward suggested that it was now seen as ’the magic bullet’.”20

By the end the 1990’s civil society was seen as a panacea amid the growth of anti-globalization movement and the

transaction of many countries to democracy; instead it was increasingly civil society that was called on to justify its

legitimacy and democratic credentials. Postmodern civil society has more or less returned to a moral neutral stance.21

1.3 What Challenges did Commonly CSOs Encountered?

CSOs worldwide are working on a broad agenda of promoting human rights, social justice, equity and sustainable

development. This is practically done by providing concrete services and other inputs in situations where it is most

needed. On their way, CSOs try to influence the shape of public policy, through voicing their opinions in local,

national and international arena.

The universality of CSOs association, assembly, and expression are essential rights for CSOs to provide public

services but particularly to allow them to effectively perform their efforts to influence public policy.22 During this time

power holders or governments could get upset with the influence of CSOs in policy making and impose higher risks.

This in turn results on the violation of rights of CSOs. Violations are mostly conducted by governments who exercise

their span of control of power over the political process.23 Here under, we are going to discuss the most common

grounds many governments employ as disabling/challenging mechanisms of CSOs.

18Id,

19Neera Chandhoke, the limits of global civil society, available from

http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationalDevelopment/research/CSHS/civilSociety/yearBook/chapterPdfs/2002/chapter2.pdf, p.35, retrieved on

August 2014

20Ibid, p. 36

21Ibid,

22 Peter van Tuijl, ‘promoting rights while offsetting risks’ in proceedings of a workshop on ‘Promoting Three Basic Rights: towards greater

freedom of association, Assembly and Speech in Asia’, 1997 (Bangkok, July 1997) p.2 available from

http://www.civicus.org/csw_files/Promoting_rights_Tuijl.pdf (retrieved on Feb.2014)

23Ibid, p.2


http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationalDevelopment/research/CSHS/civilSociety/yearBook/chapterPdfs/2002/chapter2.pdf

http://www.civicus.org/csw_files/Promoting_rights_Tuijl.pdf



1.3.1Challenging Credibility: Governments most commonly do use this mechanism to weaken the civil society

organization. This is all about usually publicly discredited the organization and its most well-known representatives

for what they do.24 Strictly speaking this doesn’t necessarily entail violation of rights, but may very well include

distributing misinformation. This mechanism is presumed as it is prior to all other mechanisms in gravity of violation

of rights there by consequences on the organization and persons are concerned. When discredit the organization, they

could employ different tools such as the distortion of information, hidden political agenda, destabilization, religious

arguments and nationalism arguments which could result in a great crises of the CSOs.

1.3.2Challenging Legality: The other means of curbing CSOs activities is the challenge by imposing a legal and

regulatory frame work in which the role of CSOs is conceived and defined with in very narrow parameters. This

happened today and yesterday with a contested law on CSOs that mostly assign CSOs to community development,

disaster relief and service provision and deny them any role in advocating public policies.25

In the harshest condition beyond the above restriction governments may abuse through the legal and regulatory frame

work by purposely leaving a wide area that results in wide interpretation of the regulation. Here the same mechanism

is employed like the discrediting of the CSOs framing them in a legal or regulatory context here. The legality

challenge could be operated through enormous ways such as identifying activities as disallowed, intervening in the

internal governance, complicating income generating activities and prohibiting registration of a complete organization.

1.3.3 Corrupting the CSOs strategic position: CSOs worldwide contribute more than governments or international

agencies to development, but when they fulfill this task their resources are very limited. This is caused by the power

holder’s corruption of the strategic position of the CSOs and absorbing the resourcesand capacities of the

organization.26

Even though, this activity can’t directly entail the violation of the CSOs rights it will have fundamental consequence

in discouraging the activities of the CSOs.

Governments could practice this through many tasks ranging from setting up of parallel structures up to sucking

energy and resources of the CSOs under a cover of superficial support.27

1.3.4. Interventions at an operational level

This is the other category of actions that potentially could be resulted in the curding of CSOs from what they want to

do. This may be done in combination with or without the legal/ regulatory measures. The intervention at an

operational level could employed mechanisms such as denying access to or distorts information supply, extorting

information, penetrating communication, influencing CSOs/NGOs beneficiaries, imposing travel bans; endanger

24 Thomas Doe Nah, ‘Issues and Challenges facing the Civil Society in Liberia’, working paper, 2009, available at

http://www.cental.org/CSO%20Issues%20and%20Challenge%20-%20Liberia.pdf , p.4 (retrieved on August 2014)

25Supra note 22, p.3

26Ibid, p.5

27For instance, in Zimbabwe an organization called “Heritage Trust” whose main task is only to issue statements supporting the government

and the Zimbabwean Federation of Trade Union to rival the Zimbabwe congress of trade unions.


http://www.cental.org/CSO%20Issues%20and%20Challenge%20-%20Liberia.pdf



access to financial resources and etc.28

1.3.5 Illegal Interventions

This is the worst mechanism authorities may decide to actions against CSOs or their allies, outside the law. An illegal

intervention could be practiced using different forms such as the trying to resort to money or favors, the physical

damaging of a property, endangering physical safety of the staff and endangering social (economic situation of the

staff) allies.29

Generally, today, as civil societies engage and exercise their activities and become prominent not only at the national

level but also transnationally, there are increasing calls by governments and critics of civil society organization that

question the legitimacy, transparency and accountability of the organization. The challenges envisaged above cause

the very frustration or possibly extinction of the very mission and vision of the civil society organizations

governments or authority holders. Civil society organizations initiate their own alternatives or ways of counter

challenging the obstacles they face. The establishment of the ‘CSO International Accountability Charter’ in 2006 is

one of the steps under gone.30

2. Lessons of Countries on the Regulatory Framework of CSOs

The legal basis for the operation of the civil society organizations has been recognized in various international

instruments, international practices and initiatives. It is dictated under the universal declaration of human rights, the

international convention on civil and political rights and the international economic, social and cultural rights.31 All of

these international instruments express the rights of civil society organizations to form independent associations and

citizen’s rights to organize around certain interest.

An effective CSO regulatory framework has a significant value in promoting good governance both directly through

improvements to the local regulator and to the CSO, as well as indirectly by improving a CSO sectors ability to

suggest change in governance.32

A given regulatory frame work is designed either through self-regulation, in which internal governance is ensured by

allowing the CSOs to enact their own respective law to regulate the overall tasks of the CSOs, or governmental

regulations in which the sovereign organ or government in the country whereby CSOs are operating enacts a law to

regulate the organizations.

Mostly, self-regulations is preferred over the other form of regulation for many reasons ranging from increasing

responsibility of the CSOs and public trust and creditability to growth of diaspora and other cross border philanthropy

and advocacy for the benefit of the CSOs.33


29Ibid,

30Id.

31Supra note 4, p.1 See also Civil participation in international environmental governance, 2006,

http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/envdem/docs/others/BELLIETHTHAN/%20paper.doc . p.39 (retrieved on April 20- 2014)

32Ibid, p.39

33Id,


http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/envdem/docs/others/BELLIETHTHAN/%20paper.doc



2.1. Regulatory frame work of Tanzania

The relationship between the Tanzanian government and CSOs has been historically characterized by the states

constant efforts to create political hegemony.34With the flourishment of democracy, the state has started to loss its

control over civil society organizations, even though some are still on their place. No private television or Radio

stations were allowed to have national coverage; cultural groups of all kinds need to get special permission before

giving a performance. One of the CSOs, BAWATA who doesn’t come up with standard outlined by the government

was de-registered as late as 1997.35 A long lasting effort has been made by the government to create any means of

regulatory frame works abiding the task of the civil society organization sector by formulating different laws. Since

2005, the government has worked on a new policy to regulatory frame wok guiding the growth and operations of

CSOs.36 In contrast, to the ambivalent relationship, the official stance during this time is the government recognizes

the need to work in collaboration with the CSOs as partners in development.37 In fact, the regulatory frame work was

the first to specifically deal with contemporary CSOs. Up to then, CSOs have been registered, de-registered and

guided by a number of undemocratic ordinaries that date back to the colonial times.

The regulatory frame work has indeed been remarkable democratic considering the Tanzanian context. The current

regulating frame wok of CSOs of Tanzania was passed by accommodating different views and opinions from the

representatives of the government, local and international CSOs, CBOs and religious groups.38 The law has been

passed incorporating the views and comments on his fifth version of the regulating which will be used as background

document for the formulation of the law itself.39

The Tanzanian government needs to formulate the existing law governing CSOs for several reasons. The reasons

arechange of registration procedures, formulation of new institutional frame work, government’s need to support the

sector, and governments need to exchange information & reporting with the CSOs.

The Tanzanian regulatory frame work of CSOs has its own destination features and common factors shared with other

countries CSOs regulatory frame work. Some the distinguishing features of the Tanzanian government regulatory

frame work could be illustrated as follows.

To avoid the pitfalls of complexity and exclusion the Tanzanian regulatory frame work starts with what is the meaning

of the term CSOs40and accordingly CSOs are associations which inhibit the characteristics of organization, voluntary,

self-regulation, no profit sharing, nonpolitical organization, and objectively with the goal of improving the wellbeing

34Id,

35 Tony Haapanen, The Legal orientation of Regulating Civil Societies in Tanzania, ISBN 978-952-200-053-8 (Pdf)

(http://www.kepa.fi/palvelut/julkaisut/tausta selvit yk set /pdf 19-haapanen--tonic-tanzania.pdf , 2007, p.7, (retrieved on March 2014)

36 Simon Hearn, ‘Strengthening Civil Society in Tanzania, Is outcome mapping helping the act program and its partners influence change?’, (kisum

amapunda, Oxfam June 2012), p.17 available at http://www.accountability.or.tz/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/OM-2012-for-website.pdf (retrieved

on April 2014)


38Ibid

39Ibid,

40Id, p.9


http://www.kepa.fi/palvelut/julkaisut/tausta%20selvit%20yk%20set%20/pdf%2019-haapanen--tonic-tanzania.pdf

http://www.accountability.or.tz/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/OM-2012-for-website.pdf



of the society.41

Not only is the conceptual framework, but the legal frame work is also amongst the distinctive features of the

Tanzanian regulatory frame work of CSO. It was set up for the first time in 2002, before it is amended in the 2005

act.42 This legal frame work has made the registration of CSOs at local and district levels easier. The Tanzanian legal

frame work is also postulated in a manner that enables communication among stakeholders. As part of this, the legal

act begins with the phrase “to facilitate exchange of information and regular dialogue among all parties involved in or

with CSOs in Tanzania”.43

The government has developed this characteristics feature for one thing to maximize utilization of resources and

minimize general lack of information. Without limiting to this extent, the government has also developed a law stating

that all CSOs are required to make available annual financial or audited reports to the Registrations office and other

stakeholders. This is to the extent that each CSO should have a sign post or notice board displaying its activities.44

The CSOs requirement of accountability and transparency is another characterizing feature of the Tanzanian

regulatory frame work. The regulatory frame work of CSOs in Tanzania has provided that international CSOs

operating in Tanzania will be required to respect Tanzanian laws governing their operation; respect the culture and the

traditions of the people they operate and act to foster and promote the capacities and ability of local CSOs.

Generally the regulatory frame work of civil society organizations in the Tanzanian context is the set of norms,

principles and values to standardize the conduct, action and behavior of CSOs, and it recognizes CSOs as a voluntary,

not for profit sharing, no self-serving, non-government,non-partisan and independent organization registered per the

CSOs act of 2005.45

The code consists of two major parts named the regulatory frame work, which provides for the CSOs self-regulatory

frame work, and the fundamental principles of a CSO.

The regulatory framework part consists of the enforcement mechanism of the law other than the law, whereas the

fundamental principles part contains the legal provisions.

41Id,

42Ibid,

43Art. 6 of The Non-Governmental Organizations Code of Conduct of Tanzania Notice No. 363, published on 5/12/2008, available from

http://tdsnfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Non-Governmental-Organizations-Code-of-Conduct-TZ1.pdf (retrieved on10 April 2014)

44Ibid, Art.12



http://tdsnfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Non-Governmental-Organizations-Code-of-Conduct-TZ1.pdf



2.2 Lessons from the Regulatory frame work of Kenya

Before the enactment of the 1990 civil society organizations act, Kenya didn’t have a specific legislative frame work

governing the operation of the CSO sector. The Kenyan national council of social services, formed in 1964 as a quasy-

official institution under the ministry of culture and social services to co-ordinate CSO activities and to give advice to

the government on the sector was inadequate and replaced by the statutory scheme of the CSO act.46 The CSO act not

only provides a state mechanism under the CSO coordination board but also establishes a system for self-regulation by

establishing the Kenyan national council of CSOs.47

Until the CSO act come in to force, CSOs were registered under ordinary Kenya laws including the companies act, the

societies act and the trustees act as well as administratively under the ministry of culture and social services.48 In 1995,

the council prepared the CSOs code of conduct as a regulatory frame work setting out the principles and benchmarks

for the operations of CSOs.49

These included such values as probity, self-regulation, justice, service, co-operation, prudence and respect. In practice

there are numerous networks of CSOs which bring together organizations working in particular fields.50 Even though

the CSOs coordination act set out to harmonize the frame work governing CSOs there still exists parallel mechanisms

for registration. This is because CSOs can also be companies and thus registered under the companies act, though most

was registered under the societies act.51

The board which has been given an extensive power in the previous times goes to act on the recommendation of the

national council for CSOs of Kenya.52 However, an applicant can appeal from the decision of the board; initially to the

relevant minister and then to the high court within 28 days of receipt of the decision.53

Generally, in the Kenyan history it was the early ninety’s introduction of CSOs co-ordination act early set the base of

the current regulatory frame work of the country.54 This initiation has resulted in the promulgation of the regulatory

frame work that is more conductive to the CSOs. The frame work recognized the CSOs council and umbrella

organization for CSOs and the CSO coordination board which facilitate engagement between the sector and the

46JemBendell, ‘Debating NGO Accountability’, (United Nations-New York and Geneva, 2008), Available from (http:www.un-

gls.org/index.Php?Option=comdocman & task=docdownload&gid=492itmed= 9999999.doc.p. 22, (retrieved April 2014).

47 Rules and regulations affecting civil society space, available at (http://www.Human rights initiative org/advocacy /chogm/chrf2005/rules-

regu-affecting-civil-sociey-affecting-civil-society-space.pdf. p.4, (retrieved on March 2014). Section 23 of this act gives the Kenyan national

council self-regulatory powers, and based on this it can adopt its own rules and proceedings.

48Supra note 46 p.20

49Ibid,

50Id. p.22

51Id,

52Supra note 47

53Id.

54Enhancing the competence and sustainability of High Quality CSOs in Kenya, 2011, available at (http://www. Adkn.org/publications/civil

society Kenya competence.Pdf, p. 42, (retrieved on April 2014).


http://www/

http://www/



government.55 This time on wards the CSO council developed rules and regulations and a code of conduct to promote

self-regulation, which has got the response from the current regulatory frame work.

The Kenyan government like its counter parts has its own driving factors and justifications to have the regulatory

frame work of civil society organizations, abiding the operation of the CSOs. The main driving factors were the

increasing number of CSOs, diversification of issues to be addressed by CSOs56and, the government’s need to enhance

partnership.57

The Kenyan regulatory frame work is typically characterized by the embodiment of self-regulation.58The CSOs

council has developed rules and regulations and a code of conduct to promote self-regulation. Almost half of the code

of conduct of Kenya is devoted to describing how the standards would be enforced by the sector largely on itself and

by itself. The underlying ethos of these mechanisms is an overwhelming reliance on willful obedience and adherence

and willing submission to queasy-judicial dispute resolution or standards enforcement structures.59The institutional

arrangements provided in the regulation include a minister responsible for overall regulation direction; a CSO

coordination board responsible for operational issues such as registration, deregistration, over sights of the self-

regulation mechanism, auditing and reporting ...as well as CSOs council responsible for enforcing self-regulation.60

Similarly, the door of the Kenyan regulatory frame work is open for the strong government and the sector co-operation

and partnership by its nature. As we have seen above, the Kenyan government has given CSOs a strong trust and space

enabling them to operate installing their own internal governance. This preface on our mind, the Kenyan government

has proposed a number of mechanisms to facilitate and strength its relationship with CSOs sector, with in its

regulatory frame work.61

The Kenyan regulatory frame work of CSOs is characterized by the encompassing of transparent and accountable

behavior. The government has a means of monitoring the organizations operation through different mechanisms

ranging from receiving of an annual report up on their work up to the auditing of their expenses. Due to the strong

brother hood developed between the CSOs, & the government there exists a mutual trust and care of responsibility

55Ibid, p.43

56From time to time issues addressed and worked by the CSOs are increasing. For example, CSOs under gone advocacy, lobbying,

rehabilitation programs, and other similar tasks.

57There is no African country to give such a free space for the operation of CSOs activities. To gather with this, the government has a strong

interest to upgrade the partnership with the CSOs themselves or other private sector actors. This interest of the government needs a modality

that facilities the interaction of the government with the other organs.

58Kenya has broken the eyes and advocates the frame work. Civil society in Kenya has made fairly more progress in self-regulation than most

countries in the region.See alsoSupra note 53 p.43

59Ibid,

60Id,

61Id. p.47 two of the mechanisms employed to achieve the predetermined results are the funding of the CSOs activities and subcontracting of

works or projects to CSOs. The government works collaboratively with CSOs in service delivery and other programs, even subcontracting on

the basis of efficiency and effectiveness.




towards their beneficiaries.

CSOs are the owners of their administration or governance who felt the sense of belongingness and responsibility to

every job they fulfilled. Even though it is criticized for some hindrances, transparency and accountability are one of

the distinctive features of the Kenyan regulatory frame work.

3. Civil Society Organizations in the Ethiopian Context

3.1 Evolution of CSOs in Ethiopia

As we have seen before, the concept of civil society has been internationally given different definitions by different

authors from their own different points of view. In the Ethiopian context, the concept of civil society has been defined

by the 1998 code of conduct as it is to mean “the formal and informal groups and associations that are not of the

public and business sectors.62 Civil society organizations in Ethiopia include the NGOs, advocacy organizations,

cooperatives, trade union, religious organizations, business institutions, professional associations and the independent

press.63In addition to this, the term consists of the traditional self-help institutions and the local human rights

organizations in its local Ethiopian context.64The term informal on the definition of the civil society in Ethiopia refers

to the traditional associations like “Idirs” and “Mahbers.”65

Civil society organizations in the form of self-help system (traditional mutual help associations) aren’t a recent

phenomenon and are long existed. These associations that have been registered as neighborhood associations since

1960 are considered as the forerunners of the currentlydesignated as CSOs.66On the other hand, modern civil societies

have no similar anonymity. Due to this, other than the civil societies in the form of self-help system, the emergence of

modern, formal and legal civil society organizations is a recent phenomenon.

The constituents of the CSOs and Nongovernmental Organizations (herein after referred asNGOs) started to evolve as

a result of the 1973 and 1984 Ethiopian famine, where they involved in relief operations. With another expression, the

historical centralization of power in Ethiopia has left long shadows and the impulse to extend strict and at times severe

influences.67

Ethiopia’s long history as feudal monarchy and its subjugation by a brutal and doctrinaire Marxist have left most

62 Civil society participation in international environmental governance, available at;

(http://www.yate.Edu/environcenter/envedem/docs/others/Bell/ETHATHAN%20paper.doc, p.21(retrieved on August 2014)

63Ibid, p.25

64Id.

65Ethiopian Civil Society Organizations Ad-hock Task force, Commentaries and Recommendations on the latest draft Charities and Societies

Proclamation, 2008, (http://www.crdaethiopia.org.cs /files/commentaryon the latest draft+charitiesand+societies proc.140808.Pdf. p.1,

(Retrieved on March 2014).

66 Supra note 5, p.2. This can be shown from the 1945 workers struggle of Franco-Ethiopian labor associations in Ethiopia for the first time let

in the decade.



http://www.yate/



structures of civil society stunted.68 The time Derg collapsed in 1991; virtually all civil society entities had been

barred from meaningful existence by the regime. By any measurement the impressive progress of CSOs was realized

since 1991.69 From this time onwards, there has been notable progress in the ability of the national CSOs to

strategically target and design activities, credibly deliver critical services and providing accountability.

Therefore, historically viewed, both the imperial and Derg regimes were unwilling to tolerate independent citizen

activism and to allow autonomous non state organizations.

The sector was given an active existence, when the Imperial regime was forced to open its doors to the international

and local CSOs, Christian relief development association, herein after referred asCRDA, for instance as a result of the

devastating famine in Wollo and Tigray.70This event was followed by the permission of the Derg regime for CSOs

interventions keeping a watchful eye on the work of the organizations.The distinctive changes and impressive

flourishment of CSOs obtained in the late 1990’s in number and diversity in the history of Ethiopia.

3.2 How CSOs regulated in Ethiopia?

As we have seen in the preceding discussions, provisions for the regulation of CSOs are embodied with in the major

international instruments. As a result, since the Ethiopian government is a party to the international human rights

instruments, these organs were pressurizing the state to draft legislation in line with the obligations it has signed up

to.71

CSOs has been conducting their activities pertinent to the provisions of the 1960’s Ethiopian civil code, Association

registration regulation (1966), code of conduct of association (1966) , as well as the freedom of association clauses

with in the constitution before the enactment of the proclamation in 2009.72

The civil code contains specific provisions governing the establishment, governance and operation of associations.73

However, these provisions are indicative and not exhaustive; they lack the detail to make it pertinent and useful for the

CSOs sector as they were not adequately accommodate the emerging roles and needs of CSOs.

However, six years ago from nowafterwards the startling absence of a comprehensive stand-alone regulatory frame

work74 that specifically deals with CSOs becomes history and Ethiopia has formulated the charities75 and societies76

68Ibid, p.2

69Id.

70Id.

71Supra note 5 p.8

72Ibid,

73The Ethiopian Civil Code of the 1960, Articles 404-549; the code provides the establishment, management, meeting, auditing, liquidation,

dissolution, and other frameworks of the then recognized associations, trusts, endowments, and committees.

74 The proclamation is the Proclamation to regulate, register and license Charities and Societies (Proc. No. 621/2009).This proclamation for

the registration and regulation of charities and Societies has used principally the Singapore societies act, Singapore charit ies act (chapter 37)

Revised edition 1995, companies act, trusts act (Chapter 37) 2005 revised edition &charities fees regulation, 17th may 1996. Not only has this

law added the following additional sources with some improvements on their content. These are the England charities Act 2006, 1952

Ethiopian civil code, South African nonprofit organization Act, 1997, the Ugandan Nongovernmental organizations registration act, statutory

instrument (113-1) and other laws of CSOs together with different research papers.




proclamation specifically dealt with the CSOs.

The law is applicable to CSOs that operate in more than one state, foreign charities and Ethiopian resident chari ties

and societies even if they operate in one regional state & charities or societies operating in the city administration of

Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa.77

4. Prospects and Challenges of the FDRE Charities and Societies Proc. No.621/2009 in the

Formation and Operation of CSOs in Ethiopia

The charities and societies proclamation have profound and far reaching implications on the growth and effectiveness

of the CSO sector as well as on the democratization and development process and the realization of human rights in

the country. It is inevitable that new circumstances and provisions of the law have caused their own respective

implications on the operation, procedure and effectiveness of the civil society organizations. Implications could be

either the results of the strong side of the proclamation, which are positive implications or the results of the weak side

of the proclamation which have a negative implication. Here under are outlined the positive aspects of the

proclamation and its negative consequences respectively.

Basic laws that govern the formation and operation of most types of CSOs were the 1960 civil code of the empire of

Ethiopia and associations registration regulation of 1966.78 The laws are generally unresponsive to the current realities

of the sector, as they fail to take in to account the diversity of profiles among CSOs and contemporary appreciation of

their roles in good governance and development. It could be a meritious initiative to improve the existing failure to

recognize the diverse nature and purpose of CSOs. This could be through the current mechanism incorporated within

the proclamation by differentiating information and supervision of the different CSOs. This alternative contributes

through its different formation and supervision regulatory frame work by giving different alternatives or choices to the

public in what modality to organize or associate. The public could achieve success and development by concentrating

in its chosen area and sector of the CSOs. Member of the CSOs could have a clear cut preference and decision

makings through the indicated provisions of the charities and societies proclamation. In return this makes the policies

and strategies of the CSOs speedy and more certain. They can during this time ensure their rights and perform their

obligations based on the law.

Generally, the ratification of a separate legislation focusing on CSOs only creates an enabling environment for the

operation of the CSOs by accommodating the diversity of CSOs, their operations and unique characteristics.

75According to the definition given under art-14(1) of the proclamation a charity is “an institution, which is established exclusively for

charitable purpose and gives benefit to the public. Within this law, in the law that a given charity organization could only carry out its

activities in either of the form of an endowment, charitable institution, a charitable trust or charitable society.

76According to art-55(1) of the law by the sense of “a means of association of persons organized on non-profit making and voluntary basis for

the promotion of the rights and interest of its members and to undertake other similar lawful purposes as well as to co-ordinate with the

institutions of similar objectives.”

77 Proc. No.621/2009, Art. 3(a-c)

78Supra note 5, p.7




Another positive feature of the CSO proclamation is the incorporation of specific provisions for different types of

CSOs their own distinguishing features one from another in their formation, operation, purpose, and dissolution.

Annexing of specific provisions relevant and to be applied to the specific CSOs is an effective way of facilitating the

CSO works. A compatible regulatory frame work for each CSO could best recognize the internal problems of the

organization and stand to treat it individually. Hasty generalization and single entrenched law could suffocate those

parties to the law irrelevantly. Classification of each CSO and stating it’s regulations under it is a smart source of

efficiency to the organization.

The charities and societies proclamation has come up with set standards and criteria’s for the registration and licensing

procedures to cope the existing difficulty in registration and licensing CSOs. Previously there was no precise and

visible criterion that enables the CSOs to attain legal personality through registration and licensing. Habitually

common denominators were applied to these different tasks. Registering of CSO has set out obligations to be fulfilled

before an application is made for registration. In the same arena, in order to receive a license from the agency a given

CSO has to comply with specific standards set out within the proclamation. This clarifies the possible dilemmas and

confusions to be manifested in the acquiring of the two tasks. Identifying of the requirements could make the

operation of the CSOs secured and speedy, by having a look at the regulating laws.

The making of a consortium between charities and societies is another valuable contribution of the proclamation in

magnifying their nomenclature, nature and meaning of these organizations prior to the coming of the proclamation, the

difference and similarity of the charities and societies was confusing and practical organizations on the earth was not

actually and correctly represented by the terms. Such problems create uncertainties and repeated mistakes in a given

charity or society decision makings by leading it to unexpected interruption and reality. Those uncertainties in turn

have played their own role at influencing the enhancing and growth of the CSOs themselves and their expecting

beneficiaries. Individuals couldn’t encouraged to invest and concentrate themselves in this sector due to the existing

hurdles and obstacles to identify, which are the fields that has made them prosperous and successful in their

concentration. Currently, the enacted charities and societies proclamation has avoided these up’s and downs to

distinguish charities and societies by a mere reference to the charities and societies legislation there by enable the

categorized organizations of the practical world into charities and societies classification.

When viewed from the economic efficiency perspective it is rewarding to allow charities and societies to concentrate

in income generating activities. On their way to engage in any income generating activity, they are upgrading the

employment opportunity thereby accelerating the economic transaction and improving the economic status of the

country. CSOs could be free of depending up on an aid and searching for assistance; if they cover their expenses from

the income they generate out of the economic activity.This could be a model for different organizations and the

general public to engage in different economic activities. Resources and assets of the country shall be utilized by the

economic performers in their daily engagement at the economy which were previously idle and unutilized.

Automatically these efforts could be an answer to the initiation of the CSO sector and speedy response to the

beneficiaries’ question. The incorporation of the income generating activity provision within the proclamation

strengthens internal capacity of the CSOs and ensures the sustainability of their activities. More importantly apart




from the initial objective of the CSOs employees of the CSOs in its engagement in an economic activity saves the life

and economic status of the employees.

The establishment of an autonomous agency to undertake the registration and supervision of charities and societies,

and a corresponding board for facilitating implementation of the proclamation , shows the attention and recognition

given to the sector and may help CSOs to get efficient services during registration and operation. The administration

of the sector through a specialized agency increases efficiency and standard by avoiding delays and interruptions to be

occurred either due to the work load or insufficiency of man power. The initiative target of the CSO shall be simply

attained and scored its initial goals within a short period of time. Dreams of most CSO like good governance,

flourishment of human right and economic development became easy to be realized. Increasing attention of the

government enhance the sector facilitates CSOs to gain courage and apply tremendous effort for the flowering of the

beginning target of the CSOs.

Though to be nominated by the government, granting space for the two CSOs representatives in the board gives CSOs

the opportunity to have a say and heard their voice in the regulation of the sector.Regulations detriment to the CSOs

could be studied well by the members of the board and indicate how it is going to endanger their existence. They do

reflect their own internal problems and supply them to the house .since the board plays a vital role in the regulation of

the CSO sector, members representing the CSOs in the board could enjoy these privileges and work to create an

enabling environment for the CSOs.

However, the CSOs proclamation is followed by potential adverse implications with profound and direct negative

consequences on development and effectiveness of the civil society sector. This in turn has significantly affected the

development and good governance process of the country. The influences has taken different forms and manifested in

different areas. They have directly affected the engagement, growth of CSOs, and/or on the development and

democratization process and realization of human rights in the country. Saving positive implications of the law, it has

causedan unexpected adverse consequences arising from the provisions incorporated in the proclamation. The issuance

of the law has inevitably resulted in the narrowing down of the scope of CSOs engagement.79 The proclamation has

excluded as “foreign” any Ethiopian CSO that receives more than 10 percent of its funding from foreign sources, and

then bars all “foreign” CSOs from working on human rights and governance issues. Almost all of the existing formal

local CSOs in Ethiopia secure their full or substantial part of their budget from foreign sources and used to fall under

“foreign” CSOs as per the definition of the proclamation. Considering the financial capacity of the Ethiopian citizens

and lack of culture of voluntarism and practice of funding formal CSOs among the public, it has become very difficult

for local CSOs to raise more than 90% of their finding locally. As a result of the exclusion from engaging in the

promotion of good governance, democracy, human rights and peace, CSOs role and basic initiating element has got

79 The proclamation has substantially and directly prohibited foreign charities from concentrating in human rights and democratization

process; and indirectly dematerialized the same, foreign CSOs, from earning foreign funding. See also Proc. No.621/2009, Art. 3 which reads

“Ethiopian Residents Charities” or “Ethiopian Residents Societies” shall mean those Charities or Societies that are formed under the laws of

Ethiopia and which consist of members who reside in Ethiopia and who receive more than 10% of their funds from foreign sources; which

reversely mean ‘Foreign CSOs’.




close to zero success if not fully disappeared.

Today is an essential day for developing countries particularly, Ethiopia, to advance or improve their democracy,

raising awareness of their people, and motive their citizens to stand on the side of justice. This being the reality, the

statement of limitation of activities of CSOs has produced a reversed result. Manifestation of gaps due to the

restriction made on the engagement CSOs has entailed excessive loss and damage to the Ethiopian citizens, where

human rights and democracy are carried out in a closed door without access to the international circumstances.

Provisions of the law have also incorporated laws reducing the effectiveness of CSOs intervention in development.

There has been a wide and growing consensus among development actors around the globe as to the existence of close

links between development and governance, which is also recognized by Ethiopians reflected in various policy

documents. Poverty is not only a state of low income but a human condition caused by deprivation of the capabilities,

choice and power necessary for the enjoyment of fundamental rights. Accordingly, effective strategies to address

poverty to enhance development need to be multi-sectorial, multi-level and holistic approaches that target structures

and social arrangements that breed or sustain exclusion, marginalization , vulnerability and disempowerment. Contrary

to the other policy documents, the proclamation attempts to make a separation between development and

governance/human rights interventions. Concerning the CSOs defined as “foreign”, the proclamation allows them to

engage in poverty reduction and other development interventions, but prohibits them from engaging in human rights

issues.80 Apart from the obvious difficulty to separate development and governance interventions, this has prevented

CSOs from making effective and sustainable interventions by addressing the root causes of poverty, which are directly

or indirectly related withthe problems in governance. For instance, a CSO working to increase educational coverage

cannot achieve its objective only by constructing schools unless it also engage in creating awareness among the public

about the rights of males and females to education.

In practice, the most important contribution of CSOs with respect to rural and human development has been achieved

through combining direct development works with policy advocacy intervention.We can evaluate this practice from

the CSOs.81

So exclusion of most CSOs from engaging in governance or policy advocacy has practically curtailed their

development intervention to relief and service provision and thereby profoundly affected their effective and

sustainable engagement in the development process of the country.

Not only this, but the proclamation is also hampering the growth of the civil society sector. This arises from the much

80 Proc. No. 621/2009 Art.14 (5) which reads 5/ “Those who can take part in activities that fall under Sub-article 2 (j), (k), (l), (m) and (n) of

this Article shall be only Ethiopian Charities and societies.” Art. 14(2(J-N)) refer to activities of the advancement of human and democratic

rights; the promotion of equality of nations, nationalities and peoples and that of gender and religion; the promotion of the rights of the

disabled and children’s rights; the promotion of conflict resolution or reconciliation; and, the promotion of the efficiency of the justice and

law enforcement services respectively.

81Contribution in this area of education through piloting alternative basic education and then influencing the government to adopt alternative

basic education in its policies and programs or success achieved in addressing the plight of coffee farmers through influencing the legal frame

work to allow cooperative to engage in export transaction.




expanded regulatory power given to the agency and allowing of its interference in the operation of CSOs beyond the

acceptable standards. This lack of acceptable degree of operational freedom has affected both the development of the

sector and the effectiveness of its interventions. As a result, CSOs have become uncertain and unsecured of their

prospects they tend to operate. Restriction in engagement of governance and human rights issues under the

proclamation has discouraged donors from supporting the CSOs weakening their capacity. Motivation of the donors to

stretch their hands has extinguished and resulted in the interruption of the flow of fund from the donors to the CSOs

and thereby the beneficiaries.

Losing its capacity, the size of the sector has reduced, since almost the entire advocacy CSOs are forced to completely

cease their operation and most of the development CSOs are forced to terminate the advocacy (governance)

component of their intervention.

The above discussed undesired impacts of the proclamation on the engagement and development of CSOs caused far-

reaching consequences on the democratization and development endeavors of the country by undermining most of

their invaluable contributions in the areas. These are cases such as the termination of most CSOs interventions in

mobilizing and empowering different section of the society to engage in governance and human rights issues which

has subsequently resulted in reduced participation of citizens. This diminished citizen’s participation in governance

has in turn, led to less pluralism, democracy, and respect of human rights in the country.

Most of the CSOs working on justice matters have been forced to discontinue their services of promoting access to

justice and this has decreased the ability of citizens, especially the poor, women children, and other marginalized

sections of the society’s access to justice and administrative process. Substantial CSOs are prohibited from

participating in the formulation of policies, laws and programs related to governance and human rights thereby

minimized policy dialogue among the public, which has in turn, affect the formulation of appropriate and responsive

policies. CSOs are remote from the policy formulating organs; thereby make the communication network interrupted

and offline, eventually leading to the absence of an immediate response to changes arising from acts of the

government. CSOs mostly have been engaged in building the capacity of law enforcement and other government

organs were involved in governance, which in the current legislation couldn’t continue their invaluable contribution

resulting in less efficiency of the justice and governance system. Implementation of government’s policies in areas like

decentralization, justice sector reform program has already endangered.

Most CSOs that have been engaged in promoting development or poverty alleviation couldn’t continue their

successful contributions in addressing causes of poverty related to governance or policy frame works. This has

discouraged CSOs from making effective and sustainable contribution in the development process of the country. As a

result, many of the poor and disadvantaged which benefited from the development programs undertaken by the CSOs

have deprived of the support and services that was provided to them.

The new CSOs proclamation is also causing a challenge for its drawback falling in the provisions of the law. This is

related with the right to access an independent judicial review. Only Ethiopian organizations (those groups that receive

less than 10% of their income from foreign sources) are allowed to appeal to court against the decision of the

administrative organ; other organizations do not have any right of appeal to whatever decision is made against them by




the administrative bodies.82 This law denies CSOs their right to access justice which is guaranteed under art-37 of the

FDRE constitution and consequently makes the constitution prone to violation and degrading its supremacy there by

the law becomes unconstitutional.

Art 57(6) of the proclamation states that national CSOs need to have representation from and branches in five regions.

This rule applies to any society whose name is with a national or federal mandate. This provision is arbitrary and

unreasonable for different reasons.83

In addition to the above reasons, given the administrative cost is limited to 30%; it has been difficult if not impossible

for any organization to open five branches in five regions at a time.

Failure of the legislation to give recognition to the well-studied meritious concept of self-regulation is another

challenge to be inferred. Administration of the by itself contributes a lot for the strengthening of the CSO sector by

identifying the smooth ways from the difficult operation. The law doesn’t give any provision to this effect and even

show its advocacy to such regulation. Expectation could be guessed that, it is resulting in all the above challenges and

drawbacks.

The limit put on charities from allocating more than 30% of their expenses to wards administrative costs is creating

unnecessary hurdles for them as in some circumstances it is becoming difficult to differentiate administrative expenses

from program costs. Administrative share of the cost of a charity is determined by various variables and should not be

fixed arbitrarily. Mere fixing of the expenses without providing a range to accommodate a diversity of institutional set

ups could be followed by confusion with in the sector administration or operation.

Limitation imposed on the scope of engagement of CSOs is considered as contravention with the international

development cooperation agreement entered the country. This reduces the development cooperation of country with

the international community, which iscausing significant impact on the countries development effort. Weakening of

this transaction will have a serious implication in the loss of significant amount of foreign currency flowing to the

country and loss of significant number of jobs.

The lesser composition of CSO members in the board affects the possibility of ensuring interests, demands and

autonomy of the CSOs and tax exemption which is not made in a full and complete manner, possibly to erode the

income accommodations of the CSOs are other provisions of the legislation incorporated with adverse factors.

82 Proc. No.621/2009, Art. 104 (3) this article states that 3/ Notwithstanding Sub-article (2) of this Article, Ethiopian Charity or Society

aggrieved by the decision of the Board may appeal to the Federal High Court within 15 days from the date of the decision.

83For instance, a given CSO might when it is established open an office in Addis Ababa only, though as its name might indicate; it might plan

to open offices in other parts of the country latter. It becomes unreasonable to expect a CSO which hasn’t even obtained legal personality to

open offices in five or more regions before registration. On the other hand, a society formed to promote national dialogue on policy issues

might effectively undertake its activities in Addis Ababa (which is the seat of policy makers at the federal level), while occasionally

organizing workshops in some of the regions. Under these circumstances requiring such an organization to open offices in five regions sounds

unreasonable.




5. Concluding Remarks

Civil society organizations due to the crucial role they play to the world community are spreading all over the globe,

as a result of the growing in awareness of their formulators and the beneficiaries. Together with this advancement of

civil society organizations in capacity and scope, governments put either a permissive or restrictive rule on their

policies and regulatory frame works regarding the civil societies organization operation. Challenges to the working

environment of CSOs are multiplying from time to time. Many governments are employing different mechanisms to

restrict the CSOs activities and function they are established for. Such measure mostly arises from the fear of

governments for association of multinational corporations/associations which could directly or indirectly be a threat to

their administration.

The distinctive policies and strategies of governments being as they stand, all countries in the world have their own

respective regulatory frame works consistent with their historical, political,social and economic status. Some countries

allow the governance of the sector by itself or self-regulation while some countries opt for the broad government

intervention in the sector’s regulation.

From the given regulatory mechanisms,Ethiopia has currently adopted regulation through the legislation enacted by

the government itself, wherebyextensive government interference is manifested. A long journey moved after, Ethiopia

has formulated six years ago from now the proclamation for the registration and regulation of charities and societies.

The proclamation which has opened a new chapter in the Ethiopian history of civil society organizations has its own

positive and adverse implications on the overall condition of the country and the sector itself.

Upcoming with an independent law regulating the sector, incorporation of specific provisions for the different types of

CSOs, setting up of standards and criteria’s for registration and licensing procedures, creation of consortium between

clarities and societies, permitting of CSOs to concentrate in income generating activities, income the exemption,

establishment of an autonomous agency for registration and supervision of CSOs are some of the positive aspects of

the proclamation.

Apart from the merits stated, the proclamation negatively inhibited adverse implications that generally endanger the

country and the CSOs, specifically. Narrowing down the scope of the CSOs engagement, restriction of funding,

limitation of access to an independent judicial review, excessive reporting and auditing requirements together with the

broad discretionary power of agencies are some of the negative aspect of the proclamation are the main panaceas

facing and/or faced on the CSOs operating in Ethiopia.




References

[1]. Rahmato D., CSOs/NGOs as partners of Development and Good governancein Ethiopia, (Flamingo

publishing.2010)

[2]. Sisay G.,The role of civil society organizations in democratization process in Ethiopia, (Cape Town University,

2002), http://www.Istr.org/conference/cape town/volume/gebre.Pdf

[3]. Diamond L., what is civil society?,(London school of Economics and Political science center for civil

society,2007), http:// www.ise.ac,uk/ccs what is civil society.html

[4]. Tuijl P., promoting rights while offsetting risks, 1997,http://www.civicus.org/csw_ files/Promoting_ rights_Tuijl.pdf

[5]. JemBendell, Debating NGOsAccountability, (United Nations-New York and Geneva, 2008),

http://www.hacKenya.org/index.Php?Option= comdocman& task=docdownload&gid=492itmed=9999999.doc

[6]. Siri Lange, et al,Civil Society in Tanzania, 2006,(http://www.cmi.nopublications/file/? 988=civil-society-in-

Tanzania.pdf

[7]. Chandhoke N., The limits of global civil society,


[8] Laratta R.,Contemporary Civil Society Theory Versus Hegel’s Understanding of Civil Society, Social Welfare,

(Ed.), (InTech, 2012), http://www.intechopen.com/books/social-welfare/contemporary-civil-society-theory-versus-

hegel-sunderstanding-of-civil-society.pdf

[9] Working with the United Nations Human Rights Programme, a Handbook for Civil Society,

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/CivilSociety/Documents/Handbook_en.pdf, (New York and Geneva, 2008)

[10] Ethiopian Civil Society Organizations Ad-hock Task force, Commentaries and Recommendations on the latest

draft Charities and Societies Proclamation, 2008, (http://www.crdaethiopia.org.cs/files/commentaryon the latest

draft+charitiesand+societies proc.140808.Pdf.

[11]. The FDRE Proclamation for the Registration and regulation of charities and societies, Proc. No. 621/2009

[12].The 1960 Civil Code of the Empire of Ethiopia

[13]. FDRE Constitution, Federal Negarit Gazzetta, Proc. No.1/1995


http://www.istr.org/conference/cape%20town/volume/gebre.Pdf

http://www.ise.ac,uk/ccs%20what%20is%20civil%20society.html

http://www.civicus.org/csw_%20files/Promoting_%20rights_Tuijl.pdf

http://www.cmi.no/


http://www.intechopen.com/books/social-welfare/contemporary-civil-society-theory-versus-hegel-sunderstanding-of-civil-society.pdf

http://www.intechopen.com/books/social-welfare/contemporary-civil-society-theory-versus-hegel-sunderstanding-of-civil-society.pdf

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/CivilSociety/Documents/Handbook_en.pdf