Learn From History or Risk Repeating It

It is to be recalled that, during the 2005 Ethiopian election, various political groups with diverse, if not divergent, ideologies came together to form a political party called Kinjit or Coalition for Democracy and Unity (CDU). Subsequently, many voters, particularly in the country’s capital, welcomed this new political development, I believe, for the following main reasons:

1. For a people used to decades of absolute monarchy, military dictatorship and one party rule, the entirely new concept of having a seemingly viable alternative to the ruling party became appealing. Indeed, the power of the ballot and – figuratively speaking – the right to raise electoral arms, and impact change enticed many voters.

2. The ruling party, EPRDF, seemed so sure of winning that it failed to gauge public mood, and the DOs and DON’Ts of election politics were ignored. Among them,

a. Perhaps overconfident of the economic and social progress registered under their watch and presumably with "Let our achievement speak for itself" approach, EPRDF leaders fell short of executing a well organized election campaign.

b. Denounced as “election bribe” by some, pre-election spending whereby an incumbent party rolls out “pre-election goodies” is quite common in mature democracies. Depending on what is on top of public agenda, a tax reduction, child benefits or healthcare funding may, for instance, be conveniently announced in the months leading up to an election. Come to our emerging democracy, never mind election incentives, decision makers and enforcers, especially at sub-city and kebele levels, couldn’t find a better time than the election season to scold taxpayers and residents for any given reason.

c. Parliament, wherein the ruling party held a commanding majority, didn’t enact an election code of conduct. So, it became an open season for political parties and candidates to run negative ads; make unfounded allegations; trade insults and hit below the belt without restraint. This inevitably had to hurt and bruises eventually began to show on those on the receiving end.

d. The so-called independent press was virtually left unchallenged in its partisan position as the mouthpiece of the opposition. It certainly appeared that there were no sacred cows as some in the private press irresponsibly and blatantly used spirituality, ethnicity, history, geopolitics and what not to demonize the governing party, and stir up public discontent.

3. The politics of hate, which dangerously appeals to people’s emotions as supposed to their common sense, was deliberately and effectively used by, so to speak, “barbarians at the gate” who were eager to grab power by “any means [un]necessary”. A shameless attempt was made to ethnicize the election, and make it appear as though the race was between ethnic groups as supposed to political interests.

Capitalizing on the facts discussed above and the momentum created, Kinjit leaders, their local backers as well as overseas sponsors became so self-absorbed that they began to see the party’s swift rise to fame not as an outcome of changing times and an improved political environment within which political parties became able to operate, but rather as a rightful destiny and one with not only public support but also a divine intervention behind it. Remember the immodest comment made by one of the leaders that Kinjit was a spirit! With such a holier-than-thou attitude and egotism, defeat simply became unimaginable and impossible to accept even in the aftermath of mayhem and the high cost in human lives that followed.

However, when all said and done and it became apparent that the odds were not in the new political heavyweights’ favour, cracks began to emerge, which revealed that there was neither democracy nor unity in the Coalition. And it didn’t take long for the Kinjit political comrades (or “spiritual brethren”?) to unwisely yet unashamedly wash their dirty laundry in public. Accusations and counter accusations of authoritarianism, power struggle, political betrayal and sabotage began to fly.

As a result, Kinjit became a house divided between those who decided to join parliament and those against; those who went to prison and others who allegedly were not committed enough to the “struggle” to end up in prison; those that took a peaceful path and others who resorted to violence as a means to an end. Ultimately, it became a public knowledge that Kinjit was a party built on sand that couldn’t withstand strong political storm, and it unceremoniously fell apart.

As hindsight is said to be 20/20, it’s certainly easy to look back, and pileup a list of what went wrong in the Kinjit camp. Nonetheless, at the heart of it all lies the fact that Kinjit was not built on a strong foundation or an alliance of politicians and parties that share common political values and vision.

Some of the most fundamental prerequisites for effectively running a parliamentary government are party discipline, cabinet secrecy and caucus solidarity, which are “important for governments wishing to maintain a united front in public”, not to mention in regional and international arenas. In fact, one of the greatest strengths of the ruling party, which I believe has significantly contributed to its success and political longevity, is party discipline and solidarity. But the same cannot be said about Kinjit, which undoubtedly has proven on many levels that it simply wasn’t up to the job.

Alas, in some way, history seems to be repeating itself. Indeed, politicians and parties from the opposite ends of the political spectrum and who cannot see eye to eye on key political principles and public policies have once again come together on “the enemy of my enemy …” premise to form yet another coalition party called Medrek (Forum). Furthermore, as Ato Siye Abraha, the party’s Public Relations Rep., has made it abundantly clear in more than one interview, the self entitlement to the throne is as prevalent as ever, and one can’t help but wonder if the “no one but I should win” syndrome is contagious and incurable.

Let’s face it, leave alone in a country with no history of opinion polling, even in the developed world where such a practice has evolved to near perfection, elections do bring their shocks and surprises from time to time. I wonder if Ato Siye is familiar with the term, “election upset”, which refers to the defeat of a frontrunner or a popular candidate perhaps similar to someone of his caliber or as he publicly has self-inducted himself into an exclusive hall of fame. Besides, if Ato Siye and others who share his view are so sure of one outcome and one outcome only, why even bother going through the grueling, time consuming and costly electoral process?

That said, I don’t want to conclude by leaving the impression that it’s all doom and gloom. Lessons, in fact, have been learned from the past; corrections made and there have been positive steps in the right direction. For instance, there is a new code of conduct for political parties and the media to abide by, which will positively contribute to an orderly campaign and civil electoral process.

More important, the public is five years older and wiser; politically more mature and capable of making a decision that’s based on common sense and intellect. As the old saying goes, “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. Clearly, it’s in no one’s interest, and certainly not in the interest of our country and people, to repeat the 2005 history that has left a scar in our individual as well as collective psyche. Thus, we all have the duty and responsibility to say “never again!” to politics of hate, divisiveness and violence, and play our part in performing our civic duty in a civil and orderly manner, thereby contribute to the strengthening of democracy and development of our country.