Analysis of the Governance Models Applied in Agricultural Primary Cooperatives: The Case of Ilu Galan District, West Shawa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia

Prompted by increased concern about cooperative governance, the study was conducted to analyze the governance architecture, the governance models applied and the factors determining the choice of the application of the models using data obtained from 114(99 male and 15 female) respondents from four of Primary Agricultural cooperatives in Ilu Galan District. The study focuses on the governance architecture, six governance models (Democratic, Compliance, Partnership, Cooptation, Stakeholder and Rubber Stamp) and determining factors thematically organized in to seven themes: Teaming, leadership, Conflict of interest, Unnecessary intervention, legal, governance and education/training. The data analysis was made using descriptive statistics: percentage of frequency, weighted mean, standard deviation and ranking methods. The results identified that primary Agricultural cooperatives in the District have the poorly adapted governance architecture which cannot clearly show the governance framework or the four pillars (accountability, transparency, predictability and participation) and strategic leadership activities (the vision, mission, objectives and activities to be achieved in their plan and bylaw). The cooperatives hardly apply the principles of cooperatives in general and that of governance models in particular. Democratic, Co-optation, Rubber Stamp Models were the top three models that Primary Agricultural Cooperatives were implementing in the District. The data analyzed show that almost all the members of the cooperatives were confused with word “model” as a result of which governance related factors, lack of awareness/education/training, Teaming and strategic leadership factors were the first four important factors in influencing the choice of the application of Cooperative Governance Model to Primary Agricultural Cooperatives in the District. Therefore, the prescriptions for the cure also lie in bringing about improvement in these factors. IJOHMN (International Journal Online of Humanities) ISSN No: 2395-5155 2 Key Terms: Agricultural primary Cooperatives, Cooperative Governance Models, Pillars of Governance Introduction Cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise (Bhoria 2002; Rencher, 2002). The people of Ethiopia have got a very long social history of working together to fulfill their socio-economic needs (Oliver, 1999). Agriculture, Trade and Military Operations were carried out through cooperative efforts. Cooperative in Ethiopia is defined as an association of persons who have voluntarily joined together to a common end through the formation of a democratically controlled organization, making equitable contribution to the capital required and accepting a fair share of the risks and benefits of the undertaking, in which the members actively participate (Karthikeyan, 2008). Cooperation among people of Ethiopia has existed since time immemorial. Hence, cooperative as a legal institution first came in to being in Ethiopia in 1960s. During the socialist government i.e. the Derg regime (1974-1991), cooperatives were formed to assist implementation of the government policy of collective owner ship of properties. It was then triggered by reforms to the socio-political system (Manly, 2005). Many social events are still taking place in Ethiopia through collective effort. The current Federal Government of Ethiopia has also identified cooperative form of business organizations as an instrument of socio-economic change particularly to achieve food security. As a result, the country has recorded 6004 Primary Agriculture in 2006 and Allied Cooperatives to serve the suppressed and depressed community of Ethiopia. To this end, cooperative governance is the heart of system to actively participate the members in cooperatives’ activities (Karthikeyan, 2008). This needs a detailed IJOHMN (International Journal Online of Humanities) ISSN No: 2395-5155 3 study. Current government of Ethiopia however issued different proclamations, policies and strategies to revitalize cooperatives (Proclamation 85/1994) and to reinforce these principles and strength en membership incentives by improving members ’rights in the areas of ownership, voting ,share transfers ,and risk management (Proclamations147/1998and 402/2004). In a related but slightly different vein, the owners, the board and management of cooperatives are known as the governance team (Houle, 2002). Combining these notions, the cooperative consists of four main players: owners, board, an executive and staff (Gill, 2002). In its broadest sense, this is the model. As we move further down this path and try to define further layers of this model, we find discussion around three main themes: the who of governance (structure or division of work),the why of governance (motive and behavior) and the “what to do ”of governance (prescription and best practice)(Garber, 1997). As analyzed by Cornforth (2004), Cooperatives Governance Models include: Democratic Model, Compliance Model, Partnership Model, Co-optation Model, Stakeholder Model and Rubber Stamp Model. In the literature, dealing with governance, the word “model” is a confusing, overlapping and often misleading term. A model is a framework or approach may be formulated in theoretical, functional, institutional, or behavioral terms (Duntaenman 1989). However, to be useful, it must serve as a guide for members; it must be prescriptive. By model, Carver (1997) means “a collection of principles and concepts that makes sense as a whole”. In this context, model is “principles of governance” that might be better terminology than the word “model” because they should be “a logical, deductive sequence built on postulates”. Therefore, in this paper “governance model” has been defined as a” distinctive set or cluster of governance structures, responsibilities (functions) and processes (practices) that are logically consistent with one another” (Bruun, 2002). As a result, this study is intended to assess the implementation of the common characteristics of all the six Cooperative Governance Models to Agricultural Cooperatives in Ilu Galan District, West Shawa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia (Areawai, and Haileslasie, 2013). IJOHMN (International Journal Online of Humanities) ISSN No: 2395-5155 4 1.2. Statement of the Problem The instrumental nature of governance models implies the governance pillars (accountability, transparency, predictability and participation) which are universally applicable regardless of the economic orientation, strategic priorities, or policy choice of the cooperatives (Areawai, and Haileslasie, 2013; Bhagwaiti, 2003; FAO, 2011 ). However, inappropriate implementation of the cooperative models/principles can cause the deterioration of honesty, ineffectiveness of cooperatives, inactive participation and less mutual benefits for one another among members. Hence, the failure of democratic governance and the recent years increase in corruption across the cooperative societies in Ethiopia has witnessed the crisis and collapses for many cooperative. Members of some cooperatives in the study area informally expressed that cooperative governance systems are being devoted for political affiliations rather than members’ socio-economic problems (Bezabih, 2008). As a result, they are dissatisfied with their cooperatives’ governance activities in making equitable contribution to the capital required and accepting a fair share of the benefits of the cooperatives. As to the member, limitation of governance is negatively affecting the willingness and confidence of the members to continue as the members of the cooperatives. Moreover, the members of the cooperatives were unexpectedly resigning from the membership of cooperatives. Evidently, a report made by Ilu Galan Woreda cooperative office in 2006 indicated that 98(32.88%) member were left from four Agricultural cooperative within the last two years (Areawai, and Haileslasie, 2013). Moreover, two agricultural primary cooperatives were collapsed. This has led to surging up questions about the quality of the implementation of governance principles (the structure or division of work and the prescription and practice) among different managing committees and the members of the cooperatives (FAO, 2011). IJOHMN (International Journal Online of Humanities) ISSN No: 2395-5155 5 Therefore, the main problem for the study was the confusions to implement the effective governance models applied to the Agricultural primary cooperative. These could include the governance failure to identify and implement the appropriate structure or division of work, the motive and behavior and the prescription and practice of different management bodies and members of cooperatives in Ethiopia in general and in the District in particular. In other words, three paradoxes: the “who governs”, the “board roles” and the “relationships with management” had been identified as the concern for the study because boards, managements bodies and members of the agricultural primary cooperative were not clear in adapting governance system and applying relevant governance models/principles based on their unique and distinctive purpose and work patterns to their cooperatives (FAO, 2011). In addition, although the principles of cooperative states that cooperative organizations need to be democratically controlled, there were observable problem of mismanagement and financial scandals in some cooperatives societies. Objectives of the Study 1. To explore the governance architecture in primary agricultural cooperatives in Ilu Galan District. 2. To analyze governance models applied in primary agricultural cooperative in Ilu Galan District. 3. To examine the factors those determine the choice of application of governance models in selected cooperatives in Ilu Galan. Basic Research Quest


Introduction
Cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise (Bhoria 2002;Rencher, 2002). The people of Ethiopia have got a very long social history of working together to fulfill their socio-economic needs (Oliver, 1999).
Agriculture, Trade and Military Operations were carried out through cooperative efforts. Cooperative in Ethiopia is defined as an association of persons who have voluntarily joined together to a common end through the formation of a democratically controlled organization, making equitable contribution to the capital required and accepting a fair share of the risks and benefits of the undertaking, in which the members actively participate (Karthikeyan, 2008). Cooperation among people of Ethiopia has existed since time immemorial. Hence, cooperative as a legal institution first came in to being in Ethiopia in 1960s. During the socialist government i.e. the Derg regime (1974)(1975)(1976)(1977)(1978)(1979)(1980)(1981)(1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991), cooperatives were formed to assist implementation of the government policy of collective owner ship of properties.
It was then triggered by reforms to the sociopolitical system (Manly, 2005).
Many social events are still taking place in Ethiopia through collective effort. The current Federal Government of Ethiopia has also identified cooperative form of business organizations as an instrument of socio-economic change particularly to achieve food security. As a result, the country has recorded 6004 Primary Agriculture in 2006 and Allied Cooperatives to serve the suppressed and depressed community of Ethiopia. To this end, cooperative governance is the heart of system to actively participate the members in cooperatives' activities (Karthikeyan, 2008). This needs a detailed IJOHMN (International Journal Online of Humanities) ISSN No: 2395-5155 3 study. Current government of Ethiopia however issued different proclamations, policies and strategies to revitalize cooperatives (Proclamation 85/1994) and to reinforce these principles and strength en membership incentives by improving members 'rights in the areas of ownership, voting ,share transfers ,and risk management (Proclamations147/1998and 402/2004. In a related but slightly different vein, the owners, the board and management of cooperatives are known as the governance team (Houle, 2002). Combining these notions, the cooperative consists of four main players: owners, board, an executive and staff (Gill, 2002). In its broadest sense, this is the model. As we move further down this path and try to define further layers of this model, we find discussion around three main themes: the who of governance (structure or division of work),the why of governance (motive and behavior) and the "what to do "of governance (prescription and best practice) (Garber, 1997).

Compliance Model, Partnership Model, Co-optation Model, Stakeholder Model and Rubber Stamp
Model. In the literature, dealing with governance, the word "model" is a confusing, overlapping and often misleading term. A model is a framework or approach may be formulated in theoretical, functional, institutional, or behavioral terms (Duntaenman 1989). However, to be useful, it must serve as a guide for members; it must be prescriptive. By model, Carver (1997) means "a collection of principles and concepts that makes sense as a whole". In this context, model is "principles of governance" that might be better terminology than the word "model" because they should be "a logical, deductive sequence built on postulates". Therefore, in this paper "governance model" has been defined as a" distinctive set or cluster of governance structures, responsibilities (functions) and processes (practices) that are logically consistent with one another" (Bruun, 2002). As a result, this study is intended to assess the implementation of the common characteristics of all the six Cooperative Governance Models to Agricultural Cooperatives in Ilu Galan District, West Shawa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia (Areawai, and Haileslasie, 2013). IJOHMN (International Journal Online of Humanities)

Statement of the Problem
The instrumental nature of governance models implies the governance pillars (accountability, transparency, predictability and participation) which are universally applicable regardless of the economic orientation, strategic priorities, or policy choice of the cooperatives (Areawai, and Haileslasie, 2013;Bhagwaiti, 2003;FAO, 2011 ). However, inappropriate implementation of the cooperative models/principles can cause the deterioration of honesty, ineffectiveness of cooperatives, inactive participation and less mutual benefits for one another among members. Hence, the failure of democratic governance and the recent years increase in corruption across the cooperative societies in Ethiopia has witnessed the crisis and collapses for many cooperative.
Members of some cooperatives in the study area informally expressed that cooperative governance systems are being devoted for political affiliations rather than members' socio-economic problems (Bezabih, 2008). As a result, they are dissatisfied with their cooperatives' governance activities in making equitable contribution to the capital required and accepting a fair share of the benefits of the cooperatives. As to the member, limitation of governance is negatively affecting the willingness and confidence of the members to continue as the members of the cooperatives. Moreover, the members of the cooperatives were unexpectedly resigning from the membership of cooperatives. Evidently, a report made by Ilu Galan Woreda cooperative office in 2006 indicated that 98(32.88%) member were left from four Agricultural cooperative within the last two years (Areawai, and Haileslasie, 2013).
Moreover, two agricultural primary cooperatives were collapsed. This has led to surging up questions about the quality of the implementation of governance principles (the structure or division of work and the prescription and practice) among different managing committees and the members of the cooperatives (FAO, 2011). IJOHMN (International Journal Online of Humanities) ISSN No: 2395-5155 5 Therefore, the main problem for the study was the confusions to implement the effective governance models applied to the Agricultural primary cooperative. These could include the governance failure to identify and implement the appropriate structure or division of work, the motive and behavior and the prescription and practice of different management bodies and members of cooperatives in Ethiopia in general and in the District in particular. In other words, three paradoxes: the "who governs", the "board roles" and the "relationships with management" had been identified as the concern for the study because boards, managements bodies and members of the agricultural primary cooperative were not clear in adapting governance system and applying relevant governance models/principles based on their unique and distinctive purpose and work patterns to their cooperatives (FAO, 2011). In addition, although the principles of cooperative states that cooperative organizations need to be democratically controlled, there were observable problem of mismanagement and financial scandals in some cooperatives societies.
Objectives of the Study 1. To explore the governance architecture in primary agricultural cooperatives in Ilu Galan District.
2. To analyze governance models applied in primary agricultural cooperative in Ilu Galan District.
3. To examine the factors those determine the choice of application of governance models in selected cooperatives in Ilu Galan.

Basic Research Questions
The study was intended to answer the following questions.   (ACDI/VOCA, 2013). In this context, the dependent variables as categorical variable have more than two outcomes as choices. The governance models applications choice would be: models based on structure or function (the who of governance); models based on motives or behavior (the why of governance) and/or models based on prescription and best practices (what to do of governance). In other words, this can be stated as Carver (1970) as: "who of Governance", "why of governance" and "what to do governance". In the same token, this refers to the analysis of IJOHMN (International Journal Online of Humanities) ISSN No: 2395-5155 7 the role the management, members, non-members play in the governance of co-operative and the issues influencing them to choose certain types of governance models.
On the other hand, the figure also demonstrates the independent variables. These include: legislations/ legal frameworks (the physical presence and effective implementation of Legal frameworks like bylaws and others); training and education level (the awareness and education level of member owners, Board, GM/CEO, staff to implement the legal matters of the cooperatives and the economic, social, and cultural success of them), democracy (transparence, fairness and social mobilization of member owners, Board, GM/CEO and Staff in ensuring timely, protect stakeholders' right, practice, promote, perpetuate and treat all stakeholders equitably. Moreover, it also includes strategic leadership (strategic leadership to implement vision, mission and objectives of the cooperative governance models, legal matters of the cooperatives and the economic, social, and cultural success of them), teaming (how stakeholders are working together and individually to achieve common purpose) and accountable empowerment (ability to get things done and to be effective through delegation based on clear expectations, assigning responsibility and checking).

Research Design and Methodology of the Study
To assess the models of governance used in Agricultural Primary Cooperative society in the study area, survey research design was used. This type of research design helped the researchers to achieve a comprehensible understanding of evidence on the experience of cooperative governance models (Chambo, 2009)). Besides, a descriptive survey research design is helpful to identify present conditions and point out present needs of governance. It is also useful in showing the immediate status of governance phenomenon (Oxfam International, 2013). In other words, the study utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods to elucidate the implementation of cooperative models and thereby, enables the researcher to collect valuable data from primary (owners/members, board, and IJOHMN (International Journal Online of Humanities) ISSN No: 2395-5155 8 staff or Managers and others and experts from the cooperative promotion offices) and secondary source (the review of governance models and pillars of governance, such as accountability) for this study, analyze and present them in a chronological manner.

Sample Size and Sampling Techniques
There were thirty-six (36) cooperative societies in the study area. Among these, four of them are agricultural cooperatives societies. The sample of the study included all the four available Agricultural primary cooperatives from the study area. Kothari (2004) formula was used to determine sample size from these four primary cooperatives. = Z2. p. q. N e2(N − 1) + Z2p. q Therefore, 123 members as respondents were selected from 198 populations of four Agricultural cooperatives in the Woroda. Stratified sampling techniques were employed to select these 123 respondents from four cooperatives.

Data Collection Tools
Questionnaire, semi-structured interview, focus group discussion and document analysis (like plan proclamation and policies) were used to collect appropriate data from the respondents in the context of this study. An eleven-page structured questionnaire, which was divided in to nine parts with 120 (23 open-ended and 107 close-ended items) was prepared. Then, 123 copies of the questionnaire were distributed to the respondents but 114 (99 male and 15 female) returned the questionnaire. Semi Structured interview schedule was administered to 20 key respondents to elicit information regarding the set objectives of the study. These include three experts and three developmental agents from the respective Woreda, one Zonal expert and totally 10 members from fours were interviewed to know why the cooperatives really choose certain cooperative governance model. The preparation of the questionnaire and the interview schedule included governance architecture (the framework of the study, the dimension (constitution, administration and management) of stakeholders and pillars. A focused group discussion (FGD) was conducted using the guiding checklist among, totally 12, members, management committee and control committee of four cooperatives. From each cooperative, one member, one management committee and one control committee were participated. In relation to the document analysis, secondary data, mainly concerning the governance models supposed to be used in Ethiopian cooperatives including legislatives, bylaws and other related document that can show the determining factors on the choice of cooperative governance models was collected from Regional, Zonal, District offices, websites journals and different related documents. Moreover, legislation and strategic related documents like the bylaws, proclamation and their plans were assessed. Furthermore, the researcher has purposely participated in their annual conference held 27/6/2009 to 30/6/2009 E.C to supplement the interview.

Method of Data Analysis
The study employed both qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques. The data obtained through the questionnaire were tallied, organized, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted in the context of the topic to make the findings as clear as possible for the reader. The context of the topic mainly focuses on the "who of Governance", the "why of governance" and the "what to do governance", in other words, this includes the analysis of the role the members play in the governance of co-operative and the issues influencing the management and the members to choose certain types of governance models.
Descriptive statistics such as mean, weighted mean standard deviation, frequency percentages and ranking methods were used to analyze the objectives to identify why of governance, who of governance, what to do of governance in the process of the application of different governance models. This is because descriptive statistics can help to analyze the first two objectives to infer on the governance architecture and governance models applied by employing frequency and percentage.
The third objective was also analyzed on factors that determine the choice of governance models by using descriptive statistics and ranking in order of the models choices of responses given by the respondents.

Result
Governance Architecture for Agricultural Cooperative in the District This section presents information on whether Agricultural primary cooperatives in Ilu Galan District adapted governance architecture/system including the four pillars of cooperative governance: accountability, transparency, predictability and participation. The respondents had given a five alternative responses for each statement to show their agreement using a tick () mark in the space provided for the alternatives. In addition, they were asked to give their reasons for their responses as in the following table.   However, a mean value of 1.6 shows that 40% of the respondents think that member interest is driving the cooperative activities. This perspective suggests that representation of member interest is not key driver in the job and responsibility of the cooperative management in the area of the study.
According to the half (50%) of the respondents the management body is not resolving the conflict between the interests of different groups. Although democratic representation theory considers that the job of management members is to represent the member interests of the cooperative, The mean  ' (1932) in that although members of the cooperatives legally own and control large corporations, they no longer effectively control them. In addition, they make reference to some works about the decision. Herman (1981) came to similar conclusions but argued that managerial power was always in the context of various constraints and the latent power of stakeholders such as external board members. In summary, although the implementation of this model is better than others, the result shows that the performance still leave much room for improvement.

Determining Factors for the Choice of Application of Cooperative Governance Models
It is adequately documented that initial preference of the members to their cooperative is a factor for future commitment and job satisfaction for the members. Higher commitment may be higher among the members who were initially attracted to the cooperative. Thus, this variable was roughly assessed based on a single item. Accordingly, the members were asked to indicate why they became the members of their cooperatives to evaluate their commitment to their cooperatives by making a think (√) mark under the alternative against each statement given as in table 3 below. As it is already indicated above, it was intended to see the member's commitment to the cooperative as a precursor (anticipating) of future likelihood of their satisfaction in the job. The overall mean value (1.6) calculated in table 3 reveals that the initial commitment of the stakeholders to their cooperative is low. Specifically, table 3 indicates that the mean value (2.7) shows that most 62(54%) of the members had joined the cooperative to get money like their friends because of the fact that they (35%) could not get another occupation as an alternative, and it is the kind of job that they (40%) could easily get. Moreover, greater number of (57.5%) of the respondents also claimed that they became members because the kebele leaders forced to be the member of the cooperative it had organized. In contrary, the mean value of 0.8 indicates that very few 20(17.5%) members selected the cooperative as a career for its attractive nature by that time. Therefore, it may be anticipated that lack of interest in the cooperative affected the choice of the right cooperative governance models.  above, the strategic leadership ability (1.3) and the commitment of the stakeholders in general is low.
almost half (70%) of the respondents think that ability to set and communicate vision (0.95), mission (1.1), and direction (1.7 )as well as the ability o mobilize the cooperative society(0.9) towards the goal of the cooperative affected the choice of the model. The management of the cooperatives was also ineffective in setting and communicating the cooperatives' objectives (1.8), purpose (1.6) and activities (0.9).
The respondents were also asked to evaluate the commitment of the stakeholders in their cooperatives. As result more than half (57%) of the respondents claim that government structure (1.2%) commitment was better than that of members (1.1), paid worker including managers (1.1) and managing committees (1.0) in their commitment to their cooperatives.
Teaming refers to the activity of the stakeholders to successfully working together to achieve common purpose. However, according to most of the respondents the level of team sprite is judged as low because the weighted mean value of the teaming factor is 2.3. Specifically, common goal commitment (1.1), relationship (2.1) and common excellence (3.3) for their cooperative are still low, which in turn may affect the choice of the appropriate cooperative governance model. Normally, the management body is responsible for perpetuating the excellence and for organizing and managing its own cooperatives' works. The management must work together effectively as a team to make this possible. This includes having a common agreement about the work, clear expectations of individuals and the group itself, an effective decision-making system, and effective leadership of the group.
The cooperatives have different choices of applying various models of governance to govern their affairs. In this context, the governance models applications choice would be Models based on structure or function (the who of governance), Models based on motives or behavior (the why of governance) and Models based on prescription and best practices (what to do of governance). In the same token, this refers to the analysis of the role of the management, members, non-members play in the governance of co-operative and the issues influencing them to choose certain types of governance models. The respondents were asked to rank the determinant factors. According to the responses of the respondents, the mean value in brackets show that governance Factors(6.60), lack of awareness/education/training(6.50), Teaming factors (6.21) and leadership factors ((6.01) are the top four factors in influencing the choice of the application of cooperative governance models to primary Agricultural cooperatives in the District.
The cooperative do moreover not use legal frameworks prescribed in the proclamation and bylaw.
Teaming factors such as commitment, group culture, common excellence, common agreement, common expectations, group leadership and power as a unit are also identified as determinant factors for the subject. Furthermore, poor strategic leadership, which means poorly setting visions, missions and objectives, cooperative's directions, plan cooperatives' purpose for social mobilization have contributed for the problem. Still lack of proper role play of stakeholders (managing committee, controlling committee, members, manager and other employed) are also factors for the choice of the application of cooperative governance models to primary Agricultural cooperatives in the District.

Discussion
This discussion section includes all the data obtained through the instruments such as questionnaire, document analysis, interview and FGD. For the last two decades in Ethiopia in general and in Oromia in particular the government has been organized cooperative structure from the federal to kebele level. The structure has also been working for the empowerment of different types of cooperatives to reduce poverty in the country. To this end, the governance has indispensable roles.
Researchers also conducted different studies on different aspects of governance. However, prompted by increased concern about the cooperative governance models, the study was conducted to analyze the architecture, the application and the factors determines the choice of governance models applied in Primary Agricultural Cooperatives in Ilu Galan District. As a result, based on the data analysis made so far, the following findings were summarized below.
To begin with, the characteristics of the respondents by sex, age, and marital status, length of years as membership and level of income were analyzed. The information shows that all the cooperatives were male dominated organization. In relation to the governance model, both the cooperatives' bylaws and annual plans did not clearly indicate the vision, mission and objective, as well as the role and responsibilities of management committees. Moreover, the management bodies, members and experts from Worada level including DAs do not know the cooperative governance models. Moreover, from 123 members of the cooperatives selected on the basis of random sampling techniques, 114. i. e. 99 (86.8%) male and 15 (13.2%) female respondents were available for the self-administered interview. The existing members of the cooperative seem to be older in their age.
For instance, 101 (88.6%) of the members were more than 40 years old, whereas only 13 (21.4%) of them were less than 40 years old. The median age of the members is 38 years. In relation to their marital status, 108(94.7%), 95(96%) male and 13 (86.7%) female of the members were married but only 7(6.1%), 3(3%) male and 4(26.7%) female of the members were divorced/widowed during the data gathering time for this study. cooperatives do not also clearly show the governance framework or the four pillars: accountability, transparency, predictability and participation.
As it is already indicated, the data analyzed show that almost all the members of the cooperatives were confused with word "model". They hardly apply the principles of cooperatives in general and that of governance models in particular. For a number of different reasons, cooperatives try to avoid hierarchical structures. The decision-making structure in such organizations is typically labeled "peers management" or "collective governance". In Democratic governance Model all responsibility is expected to be shared, and there is no Chief Executive Officer. In other words, decision-making is normally by consensus and no individual has power over another. However, as per the law or different proclamations, Agricultural cooperatives do not have a board of directors at primary level. Therefore the cooperative strives to fit the management into its organizational philosophy by creating a single managing body composed of seven members.
The data indicates the most important issue for most (75%) of the respondents is the profit they expect from their cooperatives. dependency as its foundation. The role of the board is one of spanning boundary. The data also gathered through interview and FGD shows the standpoint of this theory that the management is seen as a way of reducing uncertainty by creating influential links to the externals, for example, the worada cooperative promotion offers, Worada and Kebele political leaders. The decision-making structure in such cooperatives is typically labeled "peers management" or "collective governance". The qualitative data collected through FGD and interview also indicate that the political situation and the direct involvement of the local government structure (Woreda and Kebele Leaders) influenced the cooperatives to implement more democratic model's features than others.
The focus of the governance debate was on issues relating to structural governance (because the primary cooperatives do not have board of governance) and on the challenge of participatory decision-making. There was hardly any discussion on how the cooperatives progress and transformation by the management body. The respondents also complain on the improper role of management bodies because they sometimes involve in the multi-folding processes.
The findings from key informants and FGD also show similar results with the above findings.
The governance debate was on issues relating to structural governance (because the primary cooperatives do not have board of governance) and on the challenge of participatory decisionmaking. The respondents also complain on the improper role of management bodies because they sometimes involve in the multi-folding processes. The respondents complained the relationship between cooperatives and the government that local political cadre has a peculiarly mixed (abnormal, paradoxical, inconsistent and contradictory) role. In general, the respondents commonly perceived that there is little or no autonomy in the cooperative governance to apply certain cooperative governance model to the cooperatives.
According to the data, the reasons advanced for becoming members of the cooperative were mostly extrinsic to the cooperative. That is, according to the respondents, lack of other alternative job that they could easily get to earn money like their friends was ranked as the most important reasons. However, some members were assigned/ organized to the cooperative by their respective kebele leaders without their interest. This may lead to say that some of the members may refuse to receive responsibilities in the cooperative which in turn may affect the choice of cooperative governance model.
To discuss some points, the reasons for poor relationship between members and manager, for example, include: conflict interest, low awareness about their role, lack of interest in taking role, more advantageous gained from other personal activities, poor attentions to members concern, members are not democratically treated lack of transparency and poor understanding of cooperative proclamations. The unnecessary involvement of the government structure in the cooperative activities is also another factor to choose the model. This is because of the fact that the government uses the cooperative as political affiliation and without the government intervention, success is possible. The respondents complain that the government intervention affected the concept that cooperative is self-controlled and self-covered organization. However, the management members of the cooperatives work for the government interest because they expect more benefits from the government. Reasonably, most (89%) of the respondents of this study claimed that they want the government intervene in their cooperatives in administrative and financial (provide credit), technical support and in legal assistance.
The information in this table 3 implies that the stakeholders of the cooperatives need to have power as a unit. An individual chairperson has only power, beyond that of any other co-op owners, is the ability to influence the management group. Diversity of opinion is necessary and valuable. Yet the group must have the ability to think and learn together, to come to a decision and support that decision. The managing committees must also create and maintain a group culture that supports their work. Viewed through the lens of the four pillars of cooperative governance, self-responsible teaming is the first step for management effectiveness.
In simple words, the management of the cooperatives was unable to ensure the pillar of governance: transparency, responsibility predictability, participatory and accountability. Similarly, low level of educational background, insufficient training and lack of team commitment for members and management affected the choice of the application of cooperative governance models to primary Agricultural cooperatives in the District.

Conclusions
On the basis of data analysis made so far, the most difficult issue in the cooperative governance were the problems of defining the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders: local government structure, management committee, controlling committee, managers and other paid workers as well as members and non-members stakeholders.This confusion with the system, 4. The management bodies of the cooperatives in the District should use different cooperative legal frameworks prescribed in the proclamation and bylaw to ensure the pillar of governance (transparency, responsibility predictability, participatory) and to minimize the dominance and the conflict of interest among individuals and/or groups.
5. The local political leaders should make the cooperatives governance systems from political affiliations so as to they can focus on their own socio-economic problems.
6. The management committees of the cooperatives must be more democratic than they were to apply more Democratic governance model/feature for a number of different advantages.
7. Members of the cooperatives must learn the difference between the principles and values of corporate and cooperative to avoid unexpected expectations from cooperative.