By Genet Mersha, November 17, 2009

In an unfortunate turn of events, however, news sources reported early on not only about Medrek�s refusal to join the four-party negotiations, but also its subsequent dissociation from the code of conduct for the 2010 election, signed early this month between the ruling party and three others. As it appears now, Medrek is the only political party that is puzzled by the agreement. It rejects it as sneaky and prepared by the ruling party in collusion with parties whose leaders it sees as associates of its primary opponent.

The problem with this position is that it has denied Medrek possibilities to make its mark on the code of conduct, which it may be compelled to accept eventually once it becomes part of the laws of the land, unless it boycotts the election altogether, or alternative solution is arrived at. Boycotting the election is not a good prospect for a free and fair election. Nor would the people of Ethiopia be served well by an outcome such as that limiting their choices, not to speak of the disenfranchisement that may entail to those behind Medrek.

Early wind of election related crisis

At the time of writing of this article, the impasse between Medrek and the four signatories has remained unresolved. At least by insinuation, the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) has not been spared of accusations of taking sides, or for ceding its authority to the four parties. That charge springs from the Board having to invite all legally recognized political parties in the country for discussion on the code of conduct. At the meeting, Medrek strenuously objected the convening of the parties for that purpose, on a document for which the NEBE is not its author. The chairperson of NEBE rejected the allegations of impropriety on the part of the NEBE claiming that nothing in existing laws prevents it from advancing the objectives of parliamentary parties (Walta, 4 Nov). It is to be seen how tenable this position would be, in the event the problems gets out of hand and disagreements deepen.

Since the signing of the agreement, Medrek claims the media has turned against it with full-blown attacks portraying it as an obstacle to a peaceful election. Medrek also accuses the ruling party of having imprisoned 450 of its members and candidates �to stop them [from] running as candidates in national elections� (Reuter, Nov 3). In his October 29 press conference, Government Head of Information Bereket Simon had responded to similar allegation stating that those imprisoned were criminals and rapists.

Furthermore, on 11 Nov. quoting Ato Gebru Asrat of the coalition, Reuter reported opposition members and supporters were refused food aid to force them to join the ruling party before the coming national election. Ato Gebru Asrat emphasized, �Only ruling party members can now join the programme [food-for-work], so it forces desperate people to leave the opposition.� Similarly, Eng. Hailu also speaks of about mistreatment of his members, despite them being members of the new alliance, which he said were being handled with the ruling party in a quiet way (The Reporter, 8 Nov).

Even then, nothing irks Eng. Hailu Shawl as much as Medrek�s complaints about the imprisonment of its members. His advice to Medrek is not to waste its breath (The Reporter, 8 Nov), as his party also continues to suffer similar fate. He says, �We do not cry loud. We follow up with letters. Sometimes we get positive responses, sometimes not. They [the EPRDF] do not like it when one is loud about such things.�

The latest response by government and party officials is either to dismiss such allegations of harassments or invite the complainers to a �discussion.� Ato Hailemariam Dessalegn, EPRDF negotiator, used the opportunity to invite Medrek to return to the negotiating table. "We were asking them [Medrek] several times to come to the negotiation table they are always boycotting�not once - four or five times. I think the problem is just allegation� They haven't brought to EPRDF issues with evidence. And we still urge them and beg them to come into the discussion. And whatever problem they have, we are ready to discuss with them" (VOA 11 Nov.)

Consequently, it has now become clear the wind of election-related political crisis has begun to blow much too early, even before the start of the official campaign season. Unfortunately, ruling party officials, their supporters, and junior members of the new alliance appear to be carried away by a sense of euphoria that the agreement has imbued them. An evidence of this is the speed with which the code of conduct was whisked to approval by all the regional parties and readied to be made into law by parliament. What is missing here is the realization that that courts disaster, by not being a sufficiently solid foundation for a transparent, free and fair election, wherein a strong party with a likely strong public support is objecting its manner of adoption. So far, there has not been much too obvious by way of rejecting the substance.

Has the agreement put the EPRDF in a bind?

In elections, the contenders compete for power and ultimate control over everything in society�state institutions and their powers of coercion�and through them a country�s resources and shaping national policies in the direction of their preferences. That is why in all elections political tensions are far too common, exacerbated by emotions running high, exchange of unkind words with unfounded charges and perceptions of ill-gotten gains. Mostly, the fierceness of such struggles is more evident in our region with so many countries at low levels of development, where governance is centred on the interests of strongmen.

As is often the case in those situations, the rule of law is absent; institutions are fragile and toothless, hijacking of electoral processes endemic, the outcome of all these is rigged elections and political violence. Election usually provides a forum for open and covert display of repressed tensions and resentments within society (the case of Kenya), such as the lack of or limited exercise of power by the broader society (Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, etc.), access to opportunities and resources, ethnic inequalities and religious problems (prevalent in a number of countries). Not long ago, our country had passed though a tragic path that ever since has negatively changed its otherwise huge potentials for improved life with good reforms.

This time while Ethiopia is preparing for a new round of election, what is apparent is a false sense of triumphalism within the four-party alliance on one hand, which seems to countenance the idea of isolating and stifling Medrek�s eight-party strong coalition, seemingly as if that is the end of the road. On the other, Medrek has not been any different in over-estimating early on its combined strength that its opponents have also read into too much. Thus, it has been enticed into seeing itself on a higher pedestal than the other parties could claim in that respect. Its �holier than thou� attitude seems to have made it believe itself as the sole advocate of democracy and human rights in Ethiopia.

While on the surface the alliance claims to have fostered new possibilities, not all is swell from within. For them, they acknowledge [especially Eng. Hailu] theirs is a status clearly defined and understood as junior partners. Their only insurance policy of sorts is their success in locking the ruling party into a binding agreement, as Eng. Hailu has acknowledged (The Reporter, 8 Nov). They feel not only the EPRDF would not accommodate Medrek at their expense, but also believe its freedom of choice and action is limited. Because of that, they are comforted that the ruling party would not risk breaking its agreement, at least, so long as it serves its interests, against Medrek, not theirs.

In recognizing that, Eng. Hailu was quick to point out that the agreement can no longer be re-opened hereafter, although Medrek is welcome to be a part of it anytime. He told The Reporter, �Any new negotiations and changes in it can no longer happen; it is not acceptable at all.� Asked whether he trusts the EPRDF to implement fully the agreement, as he sees it, his response was brief, �ask me in six months time.� However, he was open to acknowledge his party has numerous outstanding issues with the EPRDF.

In contrast, the other two parties seem content with participation and in increasing the number of their seats in parliament. To that effect, Ato Lidetu Ayalew of EDP on 14 November told The Reporter, �However narrow or wide the political space is, whatever the final outcomes will be of the ongoing dialogue between political parties, EDP will not give any excuses not to participate. Instead, it is confident that it will win significant votes in the coming elections and is currently recruiting its candidates.�

Where does Ethiopia go from here?

On one side, the issue at hand is that the ruling party is working hard to remain in power, while its opponents are desirous, at best of unseating it, or increasing their parliamentary seats. This is in the nature of elections and a good political tradition, where knowing ones strength is strength by itself. That is what Ethiopian politics terribly lacks and proved incapable of acquiring.

At this point, it is important to recognize that millions of Ethiopians must have been on a diet of faint hope for some time as regards the forthcoming election because of negative experiences. On the other hand, they must long for an energetic political competition amongst the parties, in the light of Medrek�s success in pulling itself together as a coalition and a strong challenger to the ruling party, a difficult but an important political evolution. Clearly, Medrek will have to prove its cohesiveness as the electoral phase changes fast, that it is capable of participating with a single voice and a single objective in mind.

Added to this, the public pledge into which the ruling party has been pulled into to abide by international principles governing the conduct of free, fair and transparent election should be encouraging millions of voters. Compared to election 2005 and the tragedies surrounding the post-election phase, this is an improvement in many respects, so long as solution is found to the present political difficulties, the lack of which may force Medrek to boycott, as it has repeatedly indicated.

This time around, the international community has also become more involved in helping in the preparation of the country presumably to organize free, fair and transparent election. Furthermore, this writer views the invitation by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin to Washington D.C., this month as part of those processes. It may be the much-talked sign of President Obama�s quiet diplomacy to declare his administration�s expectations of greater transparency and respect for democratic principles in the forthcoming election, not much of its feel seems apparent on the ground though. Thus, clearly international efforts in helping address the current political crisis judiciously seem woefully inadequate or constrained.

Perhaps this is because of the dictates of their interests and concerns in the Horn of Africa, thanks to Somalia, Africa�s troubled child. This reminds me of Alexander Hamilton�s opinion piece of July 10, 1793 under the pseudonym Pacificus that states, �It may be affirmed as a general principle that the predominant motive of good offices from one nation to another is the interest or advantage of the nation which performs them.� This should impress on political parties and citizens, primarily it is their duty to safeguard the national interest, including the ardent search for political solutions, without forgetting such involvement in our country may be indispensable at this stage.

The state of affairs & election politics

Clearly, if indeed Medrek changes its mind and opts to stay out, not only would that make the prospects perhaps of a strong opposition in the country (even by EPRDF�s assessment) bleak, but also casts dark shadows on the conduct of the election itself. If it so happens, neither the coalition nor the ruling party should expect to walk away freely and point fingers at anybody other than themselves. This is because, first, chances of good competition and as many choices to the electorate would be lost. Secondly, this would entail the disenfranchisement of an unknown size of Medrek supporters, perhaps including those that have been disillusioned with government policies.

Whereas Medrek is now in a seemingly disadvantageous position, all the same the ruling party has greater stake in a successful election. Without it, it cannot glide safe to the world of legitimacy and credibility that has eluded it this long. The forgotten lesson still is that neither force nor �smart moves� could be a midwife for that. The good midwife avails herself primarily when there is genuine interest in addressing all allegations of impropriety by the Electoral Board without equivocation or delay. Otherwise, the Electoral Board would stand to be accused of not being faithful to its obligations and responsibilities under the law.

There is no doubt that the challenge for the ruling party is enormous. For a reason of its own, it would not view Medrek�s participation with the ease and glee it exhibited at the beginning of this month at the signing of the code of conduct for the election. Nevertheless, it cannot escape from its freely and officially expressed commitment to be governed by internationally accepted rules and standards for a free and fair election. Adherence to it is the only strength to the ruling party. That is why, as its formidable challenger, signing by Medrek of the code of conduct, if at all it does, has become worrisome to it. It has necessitated on its part to make extra precaution through the creation of the alliance of the four with possibilities for the establishment of a parties� council. If that proceeds as is, it would be the first to look into complaints, instead of the NEBE.

Therefore, if that is the case, as it stands now, it is hardly likely that existing electoral mechanisms would work transparently to prevent any presumption of or acts of unfairness that subsequently might lead to torrents of complaints during the election phase or tragic consequences in the post election stage. That is why the ruling party and its allies need to open their minds� eye and envision what lies ahead.

Risks to the conduct of free and fair election

There are two challenges that would endanger prospects of a free and fair election. First, if the current process is allowed to continue without satisfactory settlement of the obstacles flagged by Medrek, the election faces serious challenges, irrespective of how many have signed on the code of conduct, whether or not parliament approves it, when even one of the registered parties is compelled to withdraw. Why is this? Unless the code of conduct authorized by parliament is consistent with internationally accepted principles, it would face problems of conflict with the principles of free and fair election to which the international community cannot close its eyes.

In the event that squabbling extends into pre-election phase in early December, the dilemma it poses to observers in certifying the election later as free and fair should not be underestimated. At the same time, this does not mean the trouble would be over with Medrek participating or boycotting altogether. What is material here is whether the alleged obstacles are the cause and that they negate the conduct of free and fair election, according to acceptable international standards on elections. In this case, the question of what the role of the NEBE should be needs to be clarified once again, especially vis-�-vis the role of the party�s council. Otherwise, when complaints are submitted to the NEBE, it cannot tell the complainers that it should go to the parties� council, a situation that makes the Board redundant.

Such a situation unless corrected in time, what is worrisome is that the party�s council may be usurping the powers of the NEBE. Should this situation continue, it would be another complication to the competing parties as well as the work of international observers. The ruling party seems to have recognized that, if this situation lingers on, it would not be a good start for the electoral process itself. Complaints would keep on pouring going forward. That is why it is bent on pressuring Medrek in every conceivable way to get it sign the agreement. Already, the signing of the agreement and recognition of the coalition�s legal status seems to have been linked (technically, if not legally), as a means of not only pressuring Medrek but also whether it should have voice at all on how the election is run or complaints are treated.

Secondly, even if those problems were addressed sufficiently, it is less likely for the ruling party to be able to exercise full control over its cadres and supporters throughout the country that through the years have been fed and bred on the notion that they are free to do anything against the opposition for the good of their party. During the past two decades, the opposition has been seen not as people with legitimate cause and the right to contend for power, but no differently from enemies of the nation.

As a sign of the brewing trouble, members of the ruling party have even been unable to avoid official inconsistencies, betraying motives or issues they deny on the media. For instance, on 29 October, at his �regular� press conference to the foreign press, Ato Bereket emphasized, "Signing is not a precondition for registering.� Nonetheless, since then every effort has been exerted to isolate and discredit Medrek. Not long after, Ato Sekuture Getachew of the EPRDF advised those who claim allegation of mistreatment to take their cases to the parties� council, for that matter even before it has become legally and officially functional.

Opposition forces in Ethiopia are at a severe disadvantage. Even then, the experiences of our country during the last five years have shown that there would be little advantage to be had by boycotting election. In reality, not the election mechanism or the courts are free to exercise their judgements. Boycott would only leave the political field wide open to the ruling party and its allies that are in an embrace mode now. They would seize the opportunity to fill up parliament with their supporters and adopt any laws, irrespective of their consequences to the rights and dignities of citizens or the interest of the country.

The past has also shown Ethiopian opposition groups have gained little by their refusal to join parliament after the last election, especially after tragic and costly sacrifices have been paid in lives and human sufferings that continue to be felt to this day throughout the country.

Parliamentary democracy as a path toward societal democratization

All politicians love a short cut to power, although the rewards of the extra miles are more rewarding. There is no exception to that. Nonetheless, given today�s reality of a single party dominance in Ethiopia, as these past two decades have shown, the only practical option at this moment for the country is to focus on means of reducing the power of the ruling party with a view to strengthening parliamentary oversight. This goal can be attained through:

It should be stated that, in offering such a political opinion it might be in order to give indication of from which angle this writer is coming. That would help avoid needless speculations. Therefore, the purpose of this article is simple and straightforward; it is to help galvanize opinions and facilitate their crystallization. Overtime this may lead to actions in support of sensible political direction as part of the process to foster responsible governance anchored in democratic principles. In putting these ideas forward, it is essential to make it clear that the writer is not beholden to any political party, nor has affiliation with any organization, at home or abroad. These are the personal views of a concerned citizen about the direction of the country�s politics and its economic future. It is of vital importance that Ethiopians begin to see openings through parliamentary democracy, without excluding other realistic and peaceful alternative avenues.

I was recently taken aback by the review of a well-written book by Gail Collins of the New York Times, titled When Everything Changed: the Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present. In introducing her work, the author cogently highlighted that women�s equality in America is not simply a matter of protests by suffragists or feminists, or men�s goodwill. She observed that, among the favourably advancing factors were also societal forces and developments that moved in tandem. In that connection, she listed education, the expanding economy requiring more workers, day care, birth control pills, the civil rights movement, new home appliances, women�s rising incomes meeting men�s on their way down in times of a series of economic downturns. Thus, after the 1960s, within a short decade, American women began to see real changes one after the other, today where they are half of the labour force.

This is one demonstration of the fact that how major achievements are not merely the outcome of huge bangs or legislations, occasional protests or someone�s goodwill, or mere solidarity with other groups, but a combination of favourable factors moving together to facilitate opening of great possibilities for realization of civil and equal rights. In Ethiopia, today political power has in reality become the dominion of those who wield power, instead of influence. The former comes from the barrel of a gun, the latter from the people. The former has kept them in power. However, it did not get them the peace of mind or enjoyment of public support of the majority of citizens. It is a hard lesson that since 2005 has made government aware of its shortcomings.

In the absence of other viable alternatives, parliamentary democracy better fosters and strengthens democracy within the broader society by empowering representatives of the people in parliament. If the ruling party counters that by unlawful means, it would only expose its last cover to national and international criticisms and condemnations. Thus, this path may have a lot to offer our nation towards a system of democratic governance, instead of sterile squabbling in the wilderness and vegetating under conditions of the past eighteen years where a single and unchallenged winner has kept on amassing it all.

It is important for Medrek to quiz itself now where it would be on the political map once the election is over without participation. This question was presented to Medrek�s Chairperson Dr. Mererea Gudina, who in the course of his US tour in early November, responded by saying, �The struggle would continue as in the past.� One would think Medrek would have a better plan; may be it does, but he did not say; nor is it evident at this fateful moment. This is not being thrown to prejudge Medrek�s strength or public sentiment toward it. It is only to stress people certainly want change�not for change�s sake�but an empowering change that for a long time has been lacking. Medrek has to show, if it has what it takes to deliver that.

Finally, this paper would not be complete without reminding everyone to press in every way possible for the release of all political prisoners. Most of all, the place of Judge Birtukan Mideksa at this time is not in a prison cell, but in the electoral fray along with her colleagues and with the Ethiopian people.