Forward-looking : The sole option for oppositions to come out stronger

For the first time in the long history of Ethiopia, a multi-party system of governance (multi-party democracy) was declared and opposition parties were legally allowed to operate in the country in the wake of the demise of the military junta ("Derg") and the subsequent assumption of political power by the victorious Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) in 1991. It was the Transitional Period Charter of 1991 and subsequently the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia in 1994/5 that ushered in a new era for the functioning of opposition political parties. Consequently, a legal regime (Political Parties Registration Proclamation No. 46/1993 as amended by Proclamation No. 82/1993 which in turn was amended with Proclamation No. 573/ 2008) was set in place requiring all political parties to get registered by the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE), which was established as its primary function to conduct periodic and regular elections in the country. Accordingly, numerous political parties mushroomed at the local, regional and national levels in the newly established federal state, even though many of them were very weak parties and existed only in name.

Since the legalization of opposition parties in Ethiopia, four national and regional elections were held in 1995 and 2000, 2005 and 2010. The fourth national and regional elections to the House of People’s Representatives and State Councils were conducted on the 23rd of May 2010. The turnout was huge by any standard, as close to 32 million Ethiopians (over 90 percent of eligible voters) cast their votes in over 43,000 polling stations. The Ethiopian Government invited European Union and African Union Observer Mission as well as a large army of local voluntary civil organizations were conspicuous across the nation.

Vote counting was concluded in accordance with the time table set. The results announced by NEBE show that the ruling EPRDF has won more seats than expected, leaving opposition parties with just one parliamentary seat and no seat in regional councils. Though, an EPDRF win was predicted, a tsunami of such magnitude completely dispossessing the chance of Ethiopia’s opposition parties from the electoral map of Ethiopia at least for the life time of this parliament. All agree that the result represented the freely expressed will of voters. Some opposition parties, however, allege that these results are not correct and that the elections were stolen. While others complain that their candidates were harassed and that the observers they assigned were prevented from carrying out their tasks. Some have described the elections as something akin to "children's games". In this regard, they need to ask themselves why they were punished.

The opposition bloc is in mixed feelings in Elections 2010. Some have accepted the results. Others appealed to Supreme Courts calling for re-elections and the latter invalidated their cases and decided against them. The chronic problems in their bloc is that they failed to accept their problems. Instead opposition parties are exposing themselves to further public censure by accusing the electorates for selling their vote for money. They keep on saying they were not able to win the elections because of intimidation, because of arrest, because of narrow political space, because the elections were not free and fair and what have you. They never look into themselves; they simply externalize their own problems.

Ethiopian voters testified that opposition parties did not do their homework in the 2010 elections. Apart from trashing EPDRF’s policies and strategies, they failed to present clear policy and strategy to the Ethiopian people. During the televised debates it was apparently clear to the public that they even did not present a better alternative that had substance.

The only options they have is that they should assess the results announced calmly rather than reject them outright. They should ask themselves whether it is not their fault to lose the elections. Given that anyone running for an election can lose, it would be wrong to refuse the results stubbornly. If their grievance is that they could not have lost so heavily, they should identify the areas where they claim irregularities occurred resulting in the election not being fair, free, democratic and peaceful. Then they should submit a complaint that is substantiated with evidence.

In countries where there is a stable democracy, it is customary for the governing and opposition parties to work together on issues that unite them while maintaining differences on those they do not agree on. In this regard, recently, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi addressed several important issues in a speech he gave at a victory rally at Masqal Square. His speech reached out to all sections of the society, including those who voted for opposition parties. He said that the EPRDF will not feel conceited on account of its victory. He stretched out a hand to opposition parties to work together on issues of national importance because "the public also supported them and gave them its votes". This is laudable. Opposition parties should be consulted and allowed to participate in the affairs of the nation. He also pledged that the EPRDF would not exact revenge on opposition parties.

This has helped it to be seen by staunch opponents of the ruling party as an authentic and genuine opposition party worth their support. This could also be taken by opposition leaders as the appropriate moment to take stock of what happened. It might serve as a time to start building electoral fronts and party coalitions on clearly shared values and coherent policies. They may also need to ponder a viable strategy to launch grassroots movements, unlike their conduct over the past five years where some of them went to visit their respective constituencies only a few weeks ahead of the polling date.
But most of all Ethiopians want to see a culture of political tolerance to set in. The EPRDF has promised to open the door for opposition parties and consult them on national issues. Opposition parties on their part are calling for a culture of tolerance and a multi-party system must take root in Ethiopia. They are saying that this should be achieved in a peaceful and legal manner, not through force and violence.

Elections are an important means of expressing the sovereignty and will of the people. The right to vote and to be elected is a vital human right. Elections are not off and on affairs; they are a continuous exercise. Parties which win one election can lose another; they are not destined to stay in office forever. The nature of the activities of political parties to hang on to power or to oust the incumbent is determined by the public through peaceful and democratic election.

Tolerance for diverse opinions means forbearance in the face of disagreeable expression of opinion, without transgressing the rule of law. And this will foster the consolidation of opposition parties and flourishing of multiparty system. By doing so, free expression of ideas, supporting or opposing this or that party will be entertained, without any imposition.

In short, it is clear that a society in which there is a search for true consensus and tolerance for diverse views is one in which fundamental human rights are respected by all. Such a political culture of tolerance should be upheld in our society both before, during and after periodic elections. When the elections are over, the losers should accept the judgment of the voters. If the incumbent party loses, it should hand over power to the winning party peacefully and vice versa. No matter who wins, both sides should agree to cooperate in solving the common problems of the society. The losers, now in the political opposition, whether it consists of one party or many, can continue to participate in public life with the knowledge that their role is essential in any democracy worthy of the name. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the incumbent party and government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself.

Peace, tolerance and understanding are cornerstones for durable solution to any differences that may occur between and among us. Democracy, good governance and economic development can only be realized and sustained if there is peace, tolerance, and understanding between and among people. Drawing lessons from the past is imperative for us to move forward without repeating the past costly mistakes of the 2005 elections. Tolerance, dialogue, understanding, the supremacy of law as well as respect for one another and must be upheld to reconstruct a civilized society. No matter how long it will take, such core values of humanity must be followed to narrow the difference, strengthen the healthy relationship and cooperation amongst us and forge a civilized society. And most importantly, such imperatives would help reduce and avoid damage and destruction and enhance mutual respect and unity in diversity among nations, nationalities and peoples.

The main actors for the event are the political parties and the electorate. All Ethiopians do not expect less than an absolutely peaceful election process throughout. Strict adherence to democracy, throughout the period, will guarantee certainty of a dignified contest among parties for political power. No doubt, the democratic process will impose responsibilities on parties and their constituents, in view of national obligations of the highest order. The venue will be a play ground for contest, and judgment will rest in the hands of the electorate. Foreign hands, whatever their role will always remain foreign, and will never be allowed to meddle with elections campaign and the outcome of the event. Ethiopia has suffered from manipulative behavior of foreign hands and their mass media. Ethiopians are the sole owners of our country; they should never be dictated to do this by remote control.

The most dangerous enemy of democratization is arrogance, and stubbornness of party leaders, members and supporters. Such demeanor having no space in democracy takes its seat in anarchy and destruction of what society values most. It is up to political parties to fight arrogance and stubbornness all over the leadership, membership and support base. Otherwise such a behavior will undermine the party and the overall effort to democratization of our country. We are “rich,” from the costly experience, in what arrogance and stubbornness entail.

Dialogue and understanding foster culture of “agree to disagree”, negotiation and respect for variety of views and ideas. Is the answer certainly not violence? Therefore, dialogue and negotiation must be the only answer to any problem or differences that may exist before, during and after the elections because those values and norms are the only principles that underpin the ideals of a civilized society. They should be promoted and not discouraged. The public at large must be determined to put increased pressure on those individuals, groups and institutions from within and abroad who intend to transgress such civilized values that help the country to progress ahead.

Written by: Dejene Sojato
August 17, 2010