May 30,2010
Ethiopians have decided their next five years leaders on May 23,
2010, by very peaceful, free, fair, democratic and credible general election,
nothing more; nothing less. The May 23, 2010 general election is the result of
the government’s political commitment and the fulfillment of both international
and national standards for elections. The general election is an indication of
the advancement of Ethiopian democracy and the prevalence of the rule of law in
the country as such. More essentially, the peoples of Ethiopia have spoken and
they have spoken unequivocally. Nobody can do this on behalf of and in the name
of the Ethiopians at all. This is customary rule of international law that all
states and international organizations obliged to respect, otherwise entails
international state responsibility. To put differently, both the winner and the
losers, the international election observers and international community should
hail the Ethiopian voters. It is a hard fact that nobody could challenge it. It
is the rule that all international communities, international election
observers, international media and other international organizations are
duty-bound to respect and accept the decision of the Ethiopian voters.
But unfortunately, far from this solid fact both internationally
and nationally acceptable principle of the sovereign right of the people, it
happened that the European Union Election Observation Mission (herein after
referred to as EU-EOM) in its 11
pages preliminary election observation report with conflicting analysis stated” High
turnout on a peaceful and an orderly election day marred by a narrowing of
political space and an uneven playing field”.
It is, of course, highly appreciable that the EU-EOM has
included many positive remarks in its preliminary observation report such
as peaceful election campaign, peaceful
political environment ,the administration of the electoral process by the very
well organized and professionally competent
election commission, high turnout, peaceful and an orderly election day
etc.
But I completely disagree with its findings saying that
“election 2010 falls short of certain international standards “such as lack of
level playing field for all political parties.
It is to be noted that EU-EOM has claimed to use the
international standards for elections and most essentially the EU-EOM has
claimed to use the following international standards for elections:
1.
The
right to participate in the government which guarantees the rights and
opportunities without unreasonable restriction for:
-periodic election,
-genuine election,
-universal suffrage,
-equal suffrage,
-the right to stand for election,
-the right to vote,
-the right to a secret ballot,
-the free expression of the will of the
voters,
2. The freedom of expression,
3. The freedom of association,
4. The freedom of assembly,
5. The freedom of movement,
6. The right to an effective legal remedy.
The EU-EOM has also
claimed to use the national standards for elections as such.
Bear in mind that all the above international and national
standards for elections are the standards for elections herein Ethiopia (everyone is allowed to access to the
international minimum standards for elections adopted by the Ethiopian government
as per the Constitution, the electoral law, and the electoral code of conduct
for political parties).
It is also crystal clear that the fourth general election is
testified by about 63 contesting political parties, 32 million registered voters,
unrestricted and peaceful political campaign equal allotment of public funds;
in the Election Day a huge turnout with peaceful, democratic and well organized
arrangement of the voting and counting process.
All these prove that in Ethiopia there is a wide and enough
political space and level playing field as required by the international
standards for elections.
Thus, the EU-EOM critics on the political space and on the level
of playing field is baseless and doesnot have any
legal and practical ground .This is because Ethiopia, as it is stated herein
above,, from the legal point of view, has a legal framework to conduct genuine
and democratic election on the one hand, political institution, professionally
competent and well organized, to administer election in the country, on the
other hand. This is also accepted and approved by the fourth general election
turnout and in the subsequent huge demonstrations nationwide. This means that
the peacefulness, fairness and the credibility of this general election is a
closed chapter in the eyes of Ethiopian voters.
Therefore, the EU-EOM critics of the narrowing of political
space and lack of level playing field are completely against both international
and national public policy which is in contradiction with the will of Ethiopian
voters.
As this is the reality, it is appropriate to raise a question as
why EU-EOM has criticized as lack of level playing field and narrow political
space against the will of the Ethiopian voters. It is true that Ethiopia is
exercising developmental democracy rather than liberal democracy and hence the
EU-EOM critics are political and ideological rather than legal and objective as
such.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the positive facts stated in the
EU-EOM preliminary report such as Ethiopia has conducted peaceful, democratic
and credible elections, critics on falls
short of international standards is unfounded and politically motivated.
Finally, as an Ethiopian voter and legal professional, I want to
tell EU EOM and all international communities that the
destiny of this country has once and for all fallen up on its own people and no
other external forces can determine its course and development.