Bias
of The EU- Election Observer Mission
Overshadowing
the Truth
(An independent opinion)
By Abebe Nigatu
Email: abebenigatu@yahoo.com
Preliminary statement given by
European union Election Observation Mission (EU-EOM) on the May 23,2010 Ethiopian Election was released on May 25,2010.[1]
The preliminary report asserts
that the Ethiopian Electoral which took place on 23 May, was conducted
peacefully and the turn out was high. The report
highlights important improvement recorded in the run up to elections including
the establishment of the electoral code of conduct, and the efficient
administration by the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE).
The preliminary report has
plainly witnessed the following positive aspects:
·
Election
was conducted in peaceful environment
·
The
election campaign was relatively quiet
·
The
National Electoral Board of Ethiopia administered the Electoral process in an
efficient and competent manner.
·
Election
day unfolded in peaceful manner; with a high voter
turn out.
·
The
secrecy of the vote was respected despite isolated irregularities and an
inconsistent application of procedures.
·
Party
agents and domestic observers were present in the majority of observed polling
stations.
·
The
general political environment in the country has been relatively calm.
·
The
Ethiopian legal frame work appears to provide an adequate basis for the conduct
of genuine elections in line with regional and international communities
subscribed by
·
The
voter register for the 2010 elections is relatively inclusive on the basis of
NEBE projections, with around 32 million registered voters out of 37 million
eligible citizens.
·
The
provision for complaints and appeals related to voting, counting and tabulation
have been significantly strengthened in the last five years.
·
Generally,
the media ensured a neutral coverage of the main political campaign events. A
generous amount of free air time was distributed proportionately to the
different parties; overall the media were cautious in their reporting.[2]
These are some positive aspects
of the preliminary report of EU-EOM. Taking only the positive elements in the statement,
one can at least see that the report confirms the fulfillment of basics of any
electoral process.
In any standard of election,
the most important factors are existence of peaceful environment, proper
administration of the electoral process, turn out number, presence of party
agents and observers in the polling stations, the legal frame work to conduct
genuine elections, inclusiveness of voters register, handling mechanism of
complaints and appeals and media coverage of political campaign events.
As it is evident in the
statement, all these basics of election processes are affirmatively indicated.
The assessment of the May 23 election process with respect to international
standards will help to conclude whether
the electoral process of Ethiopia meets the standard or not. The European Union
Election Observation Mission(EU_ EOMs) is known to use
the following areas of assessment when observing electoral process:
i.
The Political Context to the Elections
As indicated in the preliminary
statement of EU-EOM on Ethiopian May 23 election, the political environment was
calm across the country. (Page3)
This means the first area of assessment
provides positive witness to the election process.
ii.
The Legal Frame Work for Elections,
including reference to the Electoral system
In the preliminary statement,
it is stated “ the Ethiopian legal frame work appears
to provide an adequate basis for the
conduct of genuine elections” page3.
In terms of the second basis
the EU mission uses, the Ethiopian electoral process has passed the test.
iii.
The Administration of the
Elections including the Conduct and the Transparency of the Electoral Process
The preliminary statement
assured the administration of the elections by
“The National Electoral Board
(NEB) of Ethiopia administered the electoral process in an efficient and
competent manner”page4
iv.
The Registration of Candidates
and Electoral lists ,including Registration of
Political Parties.
With regard to this basis of assessment,
the EU-EOM has given testimony in its preliminary statement very positively.
“ the voter register for the 2010 election is relatively
inclusive” page4
“ the election day unfolded in a peaceful manner, with a
high voter
turnout” page10
v.
The Election Campaign
One of the important areas of assessment
that EU-EOM uses is the campaign situation and regulations and the environment
for the campaigning. The preliminary report assures the election campaign was
held peacefully except some intense moves on the last days of the campaign both
by all parties including the incumbent, EPRDF. Page6
vi.
The Media, including the Legal
Frame Work for Media, the Media Environment and an assessment of Media’s
coverage of the Election.
On page 7 of the preliminary report, it is clearly written that the
media ensured meeting the standards that the EU itself applies in any election.
“Generally, the media ensured a neutral coverage of the main political campaign
events. A general amount of free air time was distributed proportionately to
the different parties; overall the media were cautious in their reporting”
vii.
Election –Related Complaints
and Appeals;
“The
provision of for complaints and appeals related to voting, counting and
tabulation have been significantly strengthened in the last five years” page 9 of the preliminary report.
In any standard the fairness of
election is tested by the existence a system handling election related complaints
and appeals. in
As I tried to analyze the
report delivered by EU-EOM, by contrasting the very basics that EU-EOM uses to
asses the election in any country with the facts in the report, it becomes
obvious that the report has a lot of positive aspect about Ethiopian election
of May 23,2010.
Let’s now look in to the most
misguiding, subjective and politically driven statement (“the high turn out on a peaceful and orderly
election day to be marred by a narrowing of political space and uneven playing
field”); mentioned
in the report which intentionally is being manipulated by some people, particularly
the international media to overshadow the success of Ethiopian people to
maintain peace before, during and after election.
The EU- EOM standards for elections
are known to be based on fundamental freedom and political rights applicable
during election with due reference to the law of the country being observed.
The report shows positive aspects and indicates some short comings during
electoral process. My point of interest here is only to challenge EU mission’s
report focusing only on the point (the statement in
Italics above)
that seems to overshadow the fairness of Ethiopian Election. The report has to
be challenged by the very standards the EU mission itself applies during
election observation.
“…….The high turn out
on a peaceful and orderly election day to be marred by a narrowing of political
space and uneven playing field…...” What does this mean in terms of the
standards EU-EOM itself set to assess the whole process of election? The
statement contradicts the assessment of the EU – EOM itself. On one hand, the
election process was witnessed to meet the standards EU-EOM uses to evaluate
election in any country[3], and on the other hand it talks of
narrow political space and uneven playing field.
Any
reader of the preliminary report can see the fact that the opinion of the
mission on that particular overshadowing statement is a reflection of the bias
of the observer since that kind of conclusion can not be objective as it is not
based on assessment standards. It can be only either political or subjective. It
is to be recalled that a few parties who participated in the contest were used
to claiming that the political space is narrowed, where in fact they were not able
to justify the claim on the ground. What has been propagated in the political
wave particularly in the spectrum of foreign interests and international media,
the political space was pictured as if it were narrow; while, in fact all the
parties have peacefully conducted their campaign, had all the opportunities to
mobilize their supporters without any obstruction from the government or the
ruling party. The political space was enough to accommodate the interest of all
legally registered parties.
In
the preliminary report of EU mission, it is stated that the general political
environment was calm and peaceful. If the political environment is peaceful,
what does ‘narrow space mean’? Peaceful environment can be nothing but a
situation where tolerance is there and different ideas are respected. In the
absence of political environment which does not accommodate different views,
peace is unthinkable. No peaceful political environment amounts to narrow
political space and uneven playing field. So how dare one say that political
space is narrow; when in fact 65 parties were able to campaign for election
peacefully? All contesting parties (above 65 parties accordingly to
In
most cases, in a single polling station there were about 10 or more candidates
from different parties for a single seat. Does this indicate that the political
space was narrow? How does EU – EOM say that the political space was narrow
unless it is due to a bias factor or political interest?
The
political space was enough to accommodate every legal movement of any party.
Majority of the opposition parties, off course have not said that the space was
narrow. Surprisingly such parties (which did not use to say the political space
was ‘narrow’) even lost votes. The final result of a party does not and can not
reflect the direct relation between political space and the decision of the
voters. The party which used to accuse
of the ruling party not allowing more political space had more vote counts than
some of the parties which were claiming to have enough political space. If the
vote count were related to the political space a party enjoyed,
the count should have shown different results for such parties.
Why
was the statement “narrow political space and un even playing field” put in the
report, which most of the part, has a lot of positive aspects that justify the
whole process meets the international standard? Is it not due to a bias? One can see that the EU – mission is affected
by the ideology difference, the Neo liberal ideology (which the observers may
favor by the virtue of their being from West) and Developmental state ideology
the incumbent EPRDF follows.
Would it be a hasty generalization if one
could conclude that the preliminary report is intended to overshadow the
success of Ethiopian people to speak their own way? The EU –EOM preliminary
report fails short for the statement “narrow political space and uneven playing
field” seems to
base on the final result of the vote counting.
Notwithstanding the subjective and political
part of the assessment of the election process, the political space was enough
and the playing field was as even as the capacity of the parties to play the
game respecting the rule of the law. It is remembered that in the third Ethiopian
election in 2005, the then CUD party had a land slide win in
I challenge the EU – EOM to clearly put why it
concluded that the playing field was uneven. The land slide win of EPRDF, the
incumbent, can not be a justification for the narrowness of political space and
to conclude there was uneven playing field for the parties who lost the game.
That kind of political equation does not work!
I hope each party including the winning party
will evaluate its failure and success factors through time and come up with
better strategy for the future.
Unfortunately it is often rare to hear of political parties exploring
and revealing their weakness. Instead, a losing party often ascribes its
failure to external factors and declares the election fraudulent and rigged.
Fortunately enough, the people of
I
think the move to strengthen the developmental state ideology in Ethiopian
context is challenged by neo-liberal advocators. They are trying to suppress or
at least to slow down the move in different and latent ways. One way of doing
this is to overshadow every success of developmental state strategy. They stand
to preach democracy and development is impossible without liberalism. Peoples’
right to self determination and sovereignty is a null unless liberalism is
followed.
The advocators’ of liberalism fight
developmental state ideology at any cost lest the ideology will expand in
developing countries. In the name of
democracy and individuals’ right, they do everything possible to bring down any
success of developmental state ideology.
For the unseen forces of neo liberalism investing
every energy, time and resource to get false pictures in the minds of people,
some genuine people may be mislead that a land slide win of the EPRDF was due
to the ‘narrow space’ and ‘uneven playing field’ as it is being said.
Most
of liberal advocating organizations in the name of human rights, they try to
stretch their unclean and long hands to overshadow the success of the
developmental state ideology. For
For
Ethiopians, peace is not luxury. The people know the price of ‘no peace’
situations. Peace is second to none in our politics whatever the political
thinking is! The poverty we are shouldering is not a burden or curse given from
above. It is the phenomenon as a result of luck of peace for years; it is only
nearly two decades, since the people of
The analysis to find
out why the ruling party has got a land slide win is left to the party itself,
but an average healthy person can see obvious facts for the slide win; the
ruling party has aggressively run the campaign exhibiting all developmental
achievements which can be counted and measured. This was demonstrated in the
political debate, where the party was clear and consistent with its
developmental state principles.
As part of the run up
for election, the ruling party’s leader has visited and discussed with many
people at grass root levels in different regions with various social groups.
There is nothing wrong in that kind of movement by any party to buy votes. The
land slide win in Amhara Region for instance is
attributed mainly to changes achieved in development particularly in
infrastructure and agriculture sectors. The achievement in development being major
reason, the visit the EPRDF’s leader had just before the Election day, I guess, has helped much in the voting decision of some
people.
The effort made by the ruling party to win the
election started from day one of the 2005 election as citizens in most regions,
particularly in urban areas, since the citizens had given a warning to EPRDF to
improve some of the implementation processes of major development and
governance issues.
Besides the effort made by
the ruling party, I personally feel that the weakness of the opposition parties
have significant contribution for the land slide win of the EPRDF. The opposition parties had no focused strategy
in the run up. The opposition parties all claimed liberalism is the best
ideology for the country but failed to unite themselves to defend liberalism –
against developmental state ideology.
Their un harmonized campaign and fight among
themselves cost them much in losing votes even from their own supporters.
Without their imagination, the strategy they followed in the run up let them down.
I hope the final report of EU-mission will
write off the overshadowing statements in its report and deliver the peoples
message to the world to respect the right of self governance. The mission is
also expected to focus only on its assessment standards when evaluating the whole
electoral process.
The
international standard for election, as well known by the EU mission includes
right to vote, equal suffrage, secret vote and free expressing of the will of
the voters. What are the short comings with respect to such standards? EU
mission has the responsibility to asses the election process in terms of such
instruments instead of making assessment subjectively and politically. It is
unacceptable by the people of
To conclude, the land slide win of the EPRDF should
not be shocking and never to be ascribed to ‘the narrow political space and
uneven playing field.’ For any one genuinely interested to find out the truth
about the election process, the equation is to focus on objective assessment
with out political motive. The peace we are enjoying after the election is an
indicator for people have spoken for themselves. Any effort to overshadow the
success of citizens of a sovereign country would be unacceptable.