Adal Isaw
October 10, 2009
Big and small; long-term or short-term; governmental or non-governmental; let’s hope that most Election Observers are human do-gooders with unadulterated mission to check the fairness and freeness of a democratic election. If they’re, their mission bears a far-reaching and tacitly conveyed principle of democracy—about what an elected government should be—“a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Let’s also hope that it is for the feasibility of this axiomatic principle that most Election Observers arduously work for; first and foremost.
Fair and free election, it is assumed with alacrity, is what gives birth to “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” This assumption is sometimes the very first misstep that Election Observers take to interrupt their observing mission halfway from the end. In other words, Election Observers do not follow to finality what it means to have a free and fair election.
How good is observing a democratic election if the mission is limited to check only its fairness and freeness? If free and fair election is the means for “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” why not continue observing the political deeds of a freely and fairly elected government, to see if it is working for what it is crowned for? In other words, why do observers stop observing the day after a democratic election? Furthermore, how good is a fair and free election, if the end result is for moneyed interest to hijack the benefits of democracy halfway from serving the interest of the people? Is it progress in the living standard of the people or the free expression of ideas on empty stomach that Observers are primarily looking for and why? These are the must be answered questions of an era, where a sixty years old unelected government is leading a country of billions to the forefront of world economic dominance—in the wake of a developmental leap unseen before in the world.
Election Observers do not normally go back and check the soundness of their assumption about a freely and fairly elected government. This is either for lack of a penetrating insight about the broader concept of democracy and the complexity that it entails in practice or, because of the limiting nature of the mission coupled with lack of resources. Nonetheless, these and possibly other additional reasons may inhibit observers—to follow through and find out whether a freely and fairly elected government is really “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
On a two-way street, observing should take Observers all the way to the end. The two-way street accommodates those who’re fairly and freely elected on one side and those who aren’t on another. If Election Observers think that an election is free and fair, then, they should follow the elected body of people in the government till the end of their term and grade them how true they’re to the interest of their constituencies. Conversely, if election observers have issues to doubt the fairness and freeness of an election, they still should follow the elected body of people in the government till the end of their term and grade them how true they’re to the interest of their constituencies. Failing to observe a democratically or not so democratically elected government to the end of its term, is a halfhearted mission that needs to be looked at by Election Observers sooner than later.
Consider America—a country with over two hundred years of experience of experimenting with democracy: It has been only ten-month since a freely and fairly elected President and representative law makers are said to be at the helm of the government. To the surprise of very few, an election that is surely known for its huge historical importance and fairness has not yet been revisited by any one of the Observers, to check whether the fairly and freely elected government is truly governing as “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” From ten months’ of eventful evidences, what the American people voted the government for doesn’t seem to be what is driving the elected government carry over its duties. More than any time in the recent political history of America, moneyed interest, especially in defense of handful and gigantic health care insurance companies is what appears to be the driving force of the government at least for now, and, it is a shame that no Election Observer is around to turn off the alarm on behalf of the American people.
Democracy at work cannot be seasonal and needs a constant follow-up rather than ephemeral hype during election. Hype during election time is a beat-up drum of sensationalism that is likely to create irrational reaction rather than a sober interest in the interest of the people.
In the final analysis, civil, human, and natural rights that we deem are very important components of democracy cannot be realized in their truest senses if a freely and fairly elected government is not truly representing the interest of its constituencies. The American experience is teaching the students of democracy that, the need to shift emphasis on checking the true nature of an elected government rather than on aggrandizing and lamenting hyped irregularities should be the order of the day. And this is a challenge that Election Observers should face in free spirited and fair minded manner.
Within days of many democratic elections, it’s almost inevitable for irregularities with differing degree of seriousness to arise and those that will have no weight on the outcome of the election would only serve as teachable instances. However, when it comes to some irregularities seen in emerging democracies, it’s likely that they’re hyped and complaints are made mortally serious without warrant, merely because some Election Observers do not look back in history to contrast what they see with what they might have forgotten.
Irregularity is not the patented shortcoming of the so called “under developed” countries for example Ethiopia. It can surely affect “developed” countries such as the US as it did in 2000 and 2004 and “developing” countries such as Mexico. Nonetheless, unwarranted emphasis on only one aspect of a democratic election process is very misguided and it is usually unfair to countries without fair democratic tradition. Election Observers should seriously consider the extent of democratic tradition or lack thereof of a country before jumpstarting their assessment about election irregularities. The mostly frivolous alleged election irregularities of the 2005 Ethiopian Parliamentary Election and the very plausible irregularities of 2000 and 2004 American Presidential Election, can serve as reference to show how cautiously Observers should treat those countries with weak democratic tradition during elections.
In Ethiopia, a frivolous claim of opposition leaders instigated some citizens to lash out violently with utter disregard to the Supreme Law of the land, while in America; the Democrats, Independents, and some Republicans sat at home or minded their own business although they were overrun by indignation. It was Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004 respectively, who were out of the race in due time so that the life of America as a country goes unabated by highly plausible election irregularities.
A violent reaction to any election irregularity is mortally counterproductive and many Observers know exactly this to be true, and yet, they don’t follow the violent nature of an opposing group days after a democratic election to critic it openly. For example, Ginbot 7 is nothing but a degenerative political activity born out of a frivolous irregularity claim of the 2005 Parliamentary Election of Ethiopia by few hateful, violent prone and power hungry heads. From now on, Election Observers should seriously consider following and observing the potential hindrances that such a degenerative activity poses for emerging democracies. In so doing, they will be in a position to understand the many intricate pre and post election activities of contending parties as well as the government in power. This is a challenge that Election Observers should take if indeed their mission bears a far-reaching and tacitly conveyed principle of democracy—about what an elected government should be—“a government of the people, by the people, for the people.”