|
�The
Democracy Paradox�: Electoral Preparations Hint Gearing up Towards Known
Outcome
By
Genet Mersha, 5 March 2010
The
stage for this article was set by two events. Firstly, at the forefront
triggering the writing was the second round inter-party debate of March 2nd
in preparation for the May 23rd national election. Secondly,
coincidentally in the background was The
Democracy Paradox (Project Syndicate Sept 14, 2009), an article by
Dominique Moisi, a respected French commentator on international issues
and visiting professor at Harvard University that I read moments before
watching the debate on video.
Prof.
Moisi engages his readers in a conversation with a view to enabling them
see the potential divorce between elections and democracy that is assuming
a new dimension in a globalized world. Much as he has made reference to
improved techniques in election rigging and stealing that despots employ
these days, he also admonishes �the West to reassess its policies in a
fundamental way.� He urges Western countries to see that they cannot
switch as they like �from �activism� at one moment to abstention the
next.�
I
would return shortly for reflection on Prof. Moisi�s observations. In
the meantime, I leave behind his main thesis: �Elections stolen in Iran,
disputed in Afghanistan, and caricatured in Gabon: recent ballots in these
and many other countries do not so much mark the global advance of
democracy as demonstrate the absence of the rule of law.�
Federalism
and devolution of power
I cannot hide my
disappointment on this subject of the second round debate on a number of
levels.
�
First the topic of the debate is too complex for the average
citizen to make determination of who to vote for and why, if at all the
choice of the topic and its purpose is to help voters, assuming that their
votes count.
�
Secondly, understanding of the subject might have been
rendered even more difficult by interventions of at least one
representative unfamiliar with the topic and his shifting stand on issues
he could not articulate.
�
Thirdly, nor did representatives of EPRDF stood on solid
ground regarding theory and practice of federalism and devolution of
power. They repeatedly moved in and out of slippery paths of confusion
between realities on the ground and efforts to give it acceptable face,
which made their salesmen�s pitch mostly notable for misrepresentation.
That is why, at one point they even theorised why Ethiopia is spared of
disintegration like Somalia, although the issues the two countries contend
bear no similarity, not today not in the past.
Having
stated these, I must hasten to add that overall the discussion, if we
could call it that, was
revealing in a way, even though the rule governing the forum was so
controlling that the rigidity of its set up has rendered it coldly
sovietesque, thereby severely affecting its quality and content. In spite
of that, Medrek, EDP, Berhan and Kinjit were sterling clear in their
presentations. They explained well why they thought the current federal
arrangement and devolution of powers is unworkable and fake. While all
opposition members in principle supported federalism, they were unanimous
in saying that the present arrangement is designed only to serve the
interests of the TPLF.
Therefore,
if the debate is to be taken as a measure of what the country has achieved
and the governing party�s contributions in the past two decades,
expectations would become a source of frustration to its authors. True,
common sense dictates that, at least, after fifteen years of experience in
federalism and the devolution of power, one would assume there may be a
few areas of common understanding between the two sides. Clearly, it is in
the scheme of such things to expect the EPRDF to garner some support for
its much-vaunted instruments of governance and decentralisation of power,
not from novice, but from well-placed witnesses to Ethiopia�s reality
some of them as parliamentarians, public officials and as citizens, even
if they were standing there as contenders for power.
The
truth of the matter is that opposition representatives have contacts with
the people in their respective regions. They said they do not like the
hush-hush complaints they get from constituents. Hence, what they did in
this debate is to take to task efficacy and relevance of the federalism
and devolution of power. Their judgement is that these instruments of
empowerment have been found empty and wanting in many respects, which they
said the fault is in the implementation process, characterised at it is by
disloyalty to the promises of the constitution.
The
outcome of this debate tells us that there is need for greater awareness
of the difficult path before our country. Of all issues touched upon so
far, the 2nd March debate has shown that the country still has
many unfinished businesses on the drawing board, especially regarding
democracy, federalism and empowerment of the people in real ways at the
lowest kilil (unit of
administration). To put it mildly, it is an injurious verdict, indicating
the seriousness of the problem awaiting Ethiopia in the years and decades
to come. Many see the question of Assab a thorn on TPLF�s side.
Opposition
parties hold inflexibility of the governing party responsible for all the
problems of governance Ethiopians have encountered. They attribute this
not to inadequacies, but to TPLF�s sole interest in centralising and
consolidating its powers at the centre. A
couple of opposition parties saw what the governing party proudly sees as
its proudest achievements as an explosive problem waiting to happen.
In
the circumstances, the task of the representatives of the ruling party was
on one hand to scold people in the opposition how �distorted their
perception of the reality in the country is� and their �incapability
to see and understand federalism the bright prospects before
Ethiopians.� On the other, they spent their time allotted praising their
achievements in bringing about the democratic devolution of power, the
first in the country�s history. It should be said that, in spite of
these efforts to mount a vigorous defence, the fact that not a single
point of agreement between the two sides emerged is in itself judgement
against the fifteen-year old governance arrangements and its institutions
thereon.
To
avoid the dangers before the country, some opposition members suggested
constitutional revision and a flexible approach that takes into account
the needs and interests of the local people. This was greeted by the
ruling party with scorn, dismissing it as an attempt by the opposition to
get a backdoor to power. Medrek aptly responded to this by saying there
was no need for a backdoor, since they were already there openly
contending to take power.
The core issues setting
the two sides apart
The
opposition sees devolution of power in Ethiopia as counterfeit. EDP
started right from the centre, saying that the division of powers itself
in the centre is not a true constitutional division between the three
branches of government. It equated the present reality to cooperation
between the powers. It accused EPRDF of hindering the true devolution of
power to the regions through such an arrangement. It said that is designed
for the TPLF to ensure its hold on power. The guise used for this is
ethnic issues and group rights, which contradicts the rights of the
individual citizens. Instead of addressing the nationalities problem
honestly and ensuring the unity of the country, TPLF�s approach is said
to deepen differences between people and cultures. This
position was supported by other opposition parties.
Similarly,
Light (Torch) for Unity and Democracy Party focussed on problems of
democracy in Ethiopia, which it considered obstacle to a genuine federal
arrangement and the devolution of power, based on the interests of the
people. In its view, without democracy, federalism by itself cannot
provide opportunities for people to be able to administer themselves
effectively. It rejected EPRDF�s claim of being democratic, which it
said is false claim, sham by a centrist party, obsessed with consolidation
of its powers at the centre.
In
the views of the representative of Medrek, the federal arrangement is not
the true expressions of constituent entities within the country. For this,
it cited instances whereby a single ethnic group has become a kilil
arbitrarily by a memo from the prime minister, whereas at the same time as
many as over fifty ethnic groups are lumped together as a single kilil.
This he said has become cause for many conflicts, with efforts to solve it
through demands for adjustments of structures rebuffed by government, and
which eventually sent its forces to massacre protestors in Awassa,
Gambella and elsewhere when people started demanding their
constitutionally provided rights.
This
he presented as evidence of the fact the self-administration has not been
translated into practice in many parts of the country, especially in the
south and south west, in keeping with provisions of the constitution. In
addition, true to the nature of top-down structures, Medrek accused the
federal government of endless meddling in the affairs of regional
administrations. He added that often regional leaders and officials
elected by the people are removed by signed memos and replaced by whomever
the ruling party chooses, which he said is typical problem of archaic
revolutionary democracy. This view is also shared by Kinijt and Berhan.
In
brief, Medrek�s view is that there is no desire on the part of central
government to enable regions to address problems the centre has created
for them with a view to facilitating their inherent rights to
self-government. Medrek�s charge is that the central government is
deliberately keeping the regions dependent on it, as a means of
controlling them, systematically limiting their ability to collect taxes
to land leases only.
Medrek
traced the problem for all this to the current legislative system, which
he said is not capable of supporting a country with federal structures and
federal system. Medrek saw two sources for this problem. Firstly, the
election process of members to parliament has been unfair and unjust.
Secondly, the two chambers ought to have the same legislative powers. In
that regard, he complained the house of federation in particular is
powerless denied of ability to legislate laws, because of which it could
not help strengthen the legal basis of devolution and decentralisation.
Once
again, EPRDF was left alone to defend its achievements. On the question of
rights of individual citizens, it was categorical in saying they have been
fully ensured and respected as the rights of nations and peoples. It added
that the rights of individual citizens and ethnic groups are inseparable.
Those who problems with the current arrangement are only those hungry for
power.
All
said and done, the opposition side was more civil and united.
MOISI�S
PARADOX OF DEMOCRACY
= RIGGED ELECTION + A WEST UNABLE
TO LIVE BY ITS PRINCIPLES
=
DUAL PROCESS OF
ILLEGITIMACY
Prof. Dominique Moisi
feels that the democracy front is not well fortified. He sees major
evolution in the continued attempts of election hijackers around the world
to hoodwink domestic and international opinion. There are more and more
instances of subtle ways of �claiming victory.� Moisi observes,
�With instantaneous communication and access to information, the less
legitimate a regime, the greater will be the temptation for it to
manipulate, if not fabricate, the results of elections.�
However,
the new new electoral victory
claim by despots that Prof. Moisi speaks of, like everyone else, frowns
upon �near-unanimous Soviet-style electoral �victories� as vulgar
and old fashioned.� It is in light of that one has to see Ethiopia�s
constant drumming of its commitment to democracy, a country caught in the
transition between traditional ballot box stealing and violence on one
side and jamming international radio and internet transmissions on the
other. That is why in this debate there was total split between the
governing party and the opposition. Recall that in other countries, even
in those aspiring for democracy, there are certain things and principles
all sides defend as a common. From that point, this debate has exposed the
Ethiopian leadership that nobody has anything in common with it.
A
few months back, the ruling party signed a code of conduct agreement with
a few parties saying that it wanted an end to election related problems.
Non-signatories were battered with propaganda campaigns to make them look
like disinterested in peaceful election. Nevertheless, not surprisingly in
the countdown to this election, just less than a hundred days from now, it
is already foreshadowed by the first signals of bloodshed by the murder of
an opposition candidate in Tigray, homeland of the TPLF, core of the
governing party.
Not
many independent journalists are left in the country for the government
now to imprison. Therefore, it has chosen to jam the Voice of America
(Bloomberg, 4 March). German radio Amharic language programme is also
complaining about interference from Ethiopia. A spokesperson for the VOA
deplored the jamming. As usual, spokesperson of the government dismissed
it as a baseless allegation. He added, �Ethiopia has a constitution
which outlaws any act by any official organ to restrict the dissemination
of broadcast material from abroad.� This continuing practice has also
been confirmed by shortwave radio monitors (so says VOA)), further
discrediting government credibility.
The
traditional electoral rigging is simple, and not anything unknown to
Ethiopian experience. Suppression of the media, open violence, threats,
murders and imprisonments of opponents and withholding of items needed for
survival by the poor are far too common, although refined electoral
rigging has been slow in coming. Just from recent memory, however, recall
what happened in the April 2008 local election, which was preparatory for
this forthcoming 2010 election. The ruling party claimed victory taking
137 of the 138 seats in the capital city. Regarding that loss of one seat,
government spokesperson Bereket Simon, EPRDF�s campaign manager, said in
a telling interview,
�It was simple coincidence. As you can imagine, we did not know we
would win all the seats prior to the results. As any party we competed for
all the seats; the gains could have been 90pc, 95pc or any percentage. It
just happened that one of our candidates was not up to the standard that
had been set by EPRDF, so we withdrew his candidacy, thus leaving one seat
up for grabs�
(Addis
Fortune, Interview with Bereket Simon, May 4, 2008)
Opposition
parties cried foul to no avail. As usual, there were charges and
counter-charges and then more imprisonments. The West turned a blind eye.
In fact, in its business as usual mode, it turned to shoring up the
regime, its driving motives being strategic, economic and security
interests. The first one basically is to win the competition, at least, if
not to leave the field wide open for China, an act that has led to pumping
more money into the country. The second one is the West�s security
needs, with Somalia, as home of terrorism because of it turning from
rubbles to training grounds for fundamentalist killers bent on disrupting
international life.
The flow of aid increases
Politically
and economically, this situation has become a blessing in disguise for the
Ethiopian regime, which otherwise has been dogged internally for its
undemocratic nature and its violence against citizens. Already, for a
while now Ethiopian stories of widespread imprisonment of opposition
candidates and supporters, intimidation of the electorate and adoption of
new laws that disadvantage opposition parties and barring civil societies
have either moved to the back of news pages internationally, or ignored
totally. The TPLF is making sure that this changing now.
For
instance, The New York Times, which
has literally ignored developments in Ethiopia for a long time, picked up
Jason Maclure�s story in its March 2nd issue about the murder
by six persons in Tigrai, home of the ruling party. So did The
Washington Post. Perhaps both papers sees this as sign of what is in
store, coming less than two weeks after the prime minister attacked
opposition candidates form Mekelle, the regional capital of Tigrai, on the
35th anniversary of his liberation movement�s founding
likening them to �dirt� and remnants that represent the past he hates.
Interestingly,
the country has received more money in aid now since the stigmas of the
bloody 2005 election. It is increasing even more with every passing month,
as it is preparing for another round of election in May 2010. Besides
direct development aid, a few days ago UK committed itself to cover part
of the running cost of the productive safety net until 2014, setting aside
200 million sterling pounds. There is also the PBS, which the British say
is not direct budget support but for all intents and purposes is.
This
helps the country to remain afloat. The negative consequences of the
recurring droughts are also staved off, i.e., the dangers of death by
famine and popular uprising, two decades of efforts under this regime not
enabling the country to become food self-sufficient to overcome hunger and
poverty through its own seats. The American aid is also very significant,
as is that of a number of European countries. This has generated some
anger in the development community against donor largesse to unaccountable
governments.
Prof.
William Easterly, a former World Bank hand and now professor at NYU and
Laura Freschi, associate Director of the Development Research Institute
(DRI-NYU), wrote that European donors, the UK leading the charge, are
moving towards increasing direct budget support, irrespective of whether
there is �country ownership� of the aid money and the development it
is supposed to fund, in an environment where a government is not
democratically accountable to the �country�, as measured, among
others, by international indices such as Freedom House. They tried to seek
the answer to this dilemma by reading the purported intentions of the aid
givers that forces that compels them to collaborate with the corrupt and
undemocratic governments. They observe in this connection,
�Of course, low income
countries have lower ratings on democracy, human rights, and corruption
than richer countries, so poverty-alleviation aid has to face the tricky
trade-off of directing aid to the poorest countries while trying to avoid
the most corrupt and autocratic ones. Unfortunately, a recent article
found that the UK was one of the best (least bad) official aid agencies in
doing this, so most of the others are apparently even worse. This study
did not consider the issue of direct budget support. There is nothing that
says you have to give aid meant for the poorest peoples directly to their
governments, if the latter are tyrannical and corrupt. With the examples
above, which side are UK aid officials on, on the side of poor people or
on the side of the governments that oppress them?�
(Why Does British Foreign Aid Prefer Poor Governments Over Poor
People? Aidwatch
March 20, 2009)
Prof. Moisi�s admonition to the West
Prof.
Dominique Moisi says,
�The distance that separates the
West from countries that rely on sham elections is not only geographic,
religious, or cultural; it is chronological. Their �time� is not, has
never been, or is no longer the same as that of the West. How can they be
understood without being judged, or helped without humiliating paternalism
or, still worse, without an unacceptable �collateral damage,� as in
Afghanistan? The West�s status in tomorrow�s world will largely depend
upon how it answers this question. It cannot afford to ignore the issue
any longer.�
Courage
monsieur le professor! Tomorrow is struggling to be here and
now, as far as the United States is concerned. There is some movement
within academia, the Congress and even in the administration. The US
Congress made today public a
letter to President Barack Obama by Senator Russ Feingold, chairperson of
the Senate�s sub-committee on Africa, dated March 5, 2010. It is asking
the president to ensure �that Ethiopia�s democratic process moves
forward, not backward.� The Senator�s letter closes stating,
�There is no way that e
lections can be fair, let alone credible, with opposition leaders in jail
or unable to campaign freely. At the bare minimum, the international
community should push for the release of these political prisoners ahead
of the elections. And if nothing changes, we should not be afraid to stand
with the Ethiopian people and state clearly that an election in name only
is an affront to their country�s democratic aspirations.�
|
