Rigging election legally: What you should know about Ethiopia�s election system?
By Zekarias Ezra 

The Ethiopian 2010 election is concluded peacefully. But, whether this election has been fair and free is debatable from which perspective you look at it. International Observers did say it was not fair but the government not surprisingly insists otherwise. A reasonable person will side with the international observers unless it is shown they are not impartial.

But, I do not think the real question lies in whether the election was rigged. There is little doubt it is rigged. I did not say EPRDF committed voter fraud. So brace yourself for this hard to swallow fact.

The election process is rigged, and you are being disenfranchised. You need to understand how this is being done. The first thing you need to know about Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and his government is that they have little need for vote fraud because they control the election laws. 

Just review the establishment and management of the election board, the election laws, and the varied executive orders (kelates) that came out during the pre-election season. All of these are aimed at keeping at bay any public influence of the election process and outcome. So, if voters have no effective way to influence elections, then the elections are effectively rigged, and the voters are disenfranchised. 

Politicians can rig elections in two ways even in the most advanced democracies:
1. They can engage in vote fraud, and risk scandal and imprisonment, or 
2. They can pass election laws that give themselves an unassailable legal advantage. 

In the context of Ethiopia, there is neither risk nor any legal consequences for engaging in voter fraud except light condemnation from the international community which is but an empty rhetoric. Election rigging through vote fraud could occur but I doubt it EPRDF really needed to engage in vote fraud while election rigging through law making is safer and more effective. After all, such election rigging is far more prevalent even in the United States.

EPRDF has made it effectively illegal for any challengers to compete with them. (Read the EU Observers statements). Here is a partial list of the many ways in which EPRDF has acted to protect itself from competition. 

Access to voters
It is cumbersome and difficult for any challenger to easily communicate with voters. For one thing, challengers are not afforded ample air time to reach out to voters. They were denied holding political rally in public areas and buildings on the bases of the law proving incumbents first access to such venues. For another, EPRDF has made it practically illegal for their competitors to raise money from abroad to mount an effective campaign while conferring huge fundraising advantages on themselves by reason of incumbency. 

Subtle Intimidation
It's not surprising that EPRDF hardly ever lose. By the sheer political power they hold, they are able to dispense favors and impose punishments like Mafia Godfathers running a protection racket. 

As incumbent politicians they use their ability to bestow government handouts and pass harmful legislation to subtly coerce people into supporting and voting for them. 

As a result, many businesses, wealthy individuals, and special interests contribute preferentially to incumbents, even if they prefer a challenger's stands on the issues. For many contributors with vested interests it is vitally important to not offend the incumbent office holder lest government favors be denied, or harmful legislation passed. Even the Prime Minister in his victory address attests to this when he said: "We also thank the private sector of our country that we have some times offended due to our short coming in the provision of proper services that they deserve. We truly appreciate their confidence in us which they have shown through their votes in this election. We thank them, for their understanding and their trust that the EPRDF is always ready to learn from its mistakes. We thank them for their support." 

By contrast, challengers have no ability to raise money. 

Intimidation
Citizens reported that Kebele officials come to their homes to inquire if they register to vote and to whom are they intending to vote. In addition, residents also described an EPRDF pyramid recruitment strategy called One-for-Five. A coordinator (ternafi) had to identify five recruits or fellow voters (teternafiwoch) among family members, friends, colleagues or neighbors. Coordinators then tried to compel their five signers to go to the polling stations and vote all together. The list of their unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and monopolistic transgressions against the Ethiopian voter is lengthy and highly disturbing.


Bureaucratic Barriers 
While all the above is sufficient to kill any opposition parties chance to win an election, the election rules do add other burdens too. In other words, the national electoral board effectively strangles challengers in red tape. Complete this form, and submit this or that document etc.

These regulations, and others, are so intimidating, time consuming and expensive to comply with. In fact, the regulations are especially burdensome for opposition parties that must recruit candidates from the ranks of hardworking taxpayers. 

But these bureaucratic barriers are actually the least of the problem. The most devastating harm to voters and opposition parties is the part of the �law� that allots to the incumbent a bigger air time both during campaigns coverage and debates. These limits are what place the incumbent in complete charge of the political process, leaving opposition parties and voters powerless.

The media
The government (aka EPRDF) controls the government media and severely curtailed the workings of private media which is in its infancy to begin with. Moreover, the government even jammed VOA and other media outlet in the months leading up to the election. 

The government and by extension EPRDF through the government media have an unrestricted right to free speech, but the opposition parties do not.

Debates
Granted EPRDF has opened up venues for debates with the opposition parties. For that it should be congratulated and commended. But, the way the debates format was structured has plainly given undue advantage to EPRDF. What could it mean, unless to give EPRDF an upper hand, EPRDF will have 37 minutes and all the rest of the parties will share equally 37 minutes? 

No Fair election
That's why I say Ethiopia�s elections are rigged. The ruling party has passed so many laws and regulations to protect itself from competition that it is hardly right to talk of free and open election.
The deck is so stacked against the opposition parties that if EPRDF were an international firm it would be prosecuted for monopolistic practices.

International Observers
The government has allowed EU observers. I for one would like to commend for that. I believe as a government they do not owe the international community or any one except the Ethiopian people to conduct a fair and open election. Having lived for so many years in the States, I have found that American election itself cannot be called fair and open in the true sense of the word.