One of the big African stories of the last eight days or so has been the holding of key parliamentary elections in one of the continent’s most populous countries. Ethiopia has been such a major player in not just regional politics, but, equally world affairs, not least since it openly chose to back the United States and other Western governments in their global against terror.
So, when, only last weekend, 32 million Ethiopian flocked polling-stations across the country, several interested parties around the world waited anxiously to see how the exercise was going to pan out. Was it going to be better than the parliamentary elections of five years ago, after which all hell went loose? Would it be fair, free and transparent? Was their any chance that the ruling EPRDF would be voted out of office, after running the country for nearly two decades? And what was the Ethiopian opposition, as well as the international community, going to make of the outcome of this vote?
Well, since the outcome of some 500-plus contested parliamentary seats became public earlier in the week, criticism of the election process has only grown. People find it astonishing that a mere three parliamentary sets went to the opposition combined.
Merdrek and the All Ethiopia’s Unity Party are Ethiopia’s two largest political parties. They received a crushing defeat in last weekend’s national polls. They are saying, however, that the contest is not over yet, and have called for new elections. They accuse the ruling party of intimidation, fraud, harassment and violence. Early results showed the ruling party of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi leading in every single corner of the country, including the capital, Addis Ababa, where opposition to the ruling E.P.R.D.F. has traditionally been fierce.
The opposition also say they do not expect the courts to grant their request for the holding of a fresh vote. Even Ethiopia’s conventional courts, along side the elections board, are not known to be independent of the ruling party.
The victorious party in these elections has also been hitting back at its critics, and none other than Prime Minster Meles himself has been leading he way. Reacting to opposition demands for himself has been leading the way. Reacting to opposition demands for a new vote, Meles told journalists, last week, that the law in Ethiopia allows for parties to demand a new vote; but, as he said, the petitioners must first be able to prove in court that the ballot, whose legitimacy they were disputing, was fraudulent.
The Prime Minister’s take on the disputed vote was that it had panned out successfully, because, as he saw it, voters were able to choose candidates without intimidation or coercion. To claims by the twenty seven-member European Union that the exercise was marred by lack of level-playing field, Meles described those as “pure opinion base on rumors.
The EU represent a big-time provider of aid to Ethiopia, and their views on the vote certainly cannot be taken lightly. Apart from the EU, as well as the Ethiopians opposition, who say the poll was less than fair, US-based Human Rights watch also has been speaking out. As the human rights body put it, the May 23 elections were “an orderly facade”.
Ethiopia happens to be the staunchest ally of the United States in the entire region of East Africa. Despite that, Washington has felt compelled to take a swipe at the current EPRDE government in Addis Ababa. Condemning the manner the vote was conducted, a U.S. government spokesman accused the Ethiopian authorities of repression, fraud and intimidation. He attacked the election process — saying it didn’t create an environment of free and fair elections. The official, P.J. Crowley, who is the leading spokesman in he U.S. State Department complained that while the U.S. has commended the Ethiopians for the co-operation on security and other issues, the Obama Administration was “disappointed with the conduct of the election”. He warned that bilateral ties between their two countries will be affected by whether or not the government in Addis addresses elections concerns.
According to Mr. Crowley, the freedom of choice for Ethiopian voters was constrained throughout the electoral process by actions of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s government, the National Elections Board and the ruling party and its supporters. He said election laws and procedures enacted after Ethiopia’s last polls back in 2005 created a “clear and decisive advantage” to the ruling EPRDF alliance.
“It is important that steps be taken to level the playing field, and to allow all factions to take part in the process,” Crowley said. “Whether that occurs, he went on, “will influence the future direction of U.S.-Ethiopia relations.”
If Ethiopia valued its relationship with Africa, Crowley said, then, it could not ignore “this strong message “. Again, he said: “We value the co-operation we have with he Ethiopian government on a range of issues, including regional security, climate change, for example. So, we will continue to engage this government. But, we will make clear that there are steps they need to take to improve their democratic institutions.”
Clearly, the Americans were incensed by the refusal of the Ethiopian authorities to allow an American embassy official, who wanted to observe the voting, to travel outside Addis Ababa to visit polling places.
Did the vote fall short of international standards? “Most definitely,” has been the answer from both the U.S. government and E.U.
But, in an equally combative manner, Meles has been responding to the criticism, as well as the veiled threats. On Wednesday, the embattled Meles told reporters in Addis that U.S. criticism “is politically motivated.” He said, “…if the outcome of our elections are such that they cannot continue our partnership, then, permit me to say we’ve been very grateful for the assistance they have rendered so far.”
Meles said, in effect, that his government will not allow itself to be “bossed around” just because it receives aid. The U.S. is the single largest donor to Ethiopia, a country that is no stranger to famine, drought, mass starvation and civil conflict. Every year, the U.S. delivers roughly a billion dollars in financial assistance the country.
Following the last election in 2005, opposition protesters, who were alleging fraud, took to the streets. The resultant crackdown by the government killed over 200 people. Another 100 or so leaders of the opposition, journalist and protesters were arrested. Most of them were pardoned and released within two years. However, many opposition leaders now live in exile or are still holed up in jail.
ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) — Girma Seifu was at home hosting a dinner party to celebrate what looked like a sure parliamentary seat win when he got the phone call that would force him into the spotlight.
Ethiopia’s opposition coalition, the eight-party Medrek, had won only one seat in the 547-seat parliament — his.
“The secretary general of the party called,” says the newly elected MP, in his Addis Ababa office. “He said, ‘you could be the only one’. I didn’t expect that.”
The almost complete wipeout of opposition in the Horn of Africa country’s parliament was a shock. Analysts had expected the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) to win but not by that margin.
Aside from Girma and one independent parliamentarian, every winning MP is either a member of the EPRDF or from one of several closely allied parties.
The European Union and the United States have said the poll did not meet international standards. The country’s main opposition parties are calling for a rerun, citing pre-poll intimidation and even the stuffing of ballot boxes.
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi says his government won on its development record and he has offered an olive branch to the defeated opposition with the possible setting up of inter-party forums outside parliament to discuss major legislation.
Girma may also be given extra time to speak in the house.
“I think they are going to give me more time because otherwise they could have the parliamentary discussions at the EPRDF headquarters,” he said.
Girma won his seat in Addis Ababa’s Mercato district, seen as Africa’s biggest open-air market and one of the city’s poorer areas.
“PENALTY SHOOT-OUT”
“I won because a lot of my voters were merchants who are economically independent,” he said. “They weren’t civil servants or unemployed and subject to the same forms of intimidation as a lot of other people. I was lucky.”
Girma’s victory was slim, however, and he only beat his ruling party opponent by a margin of 114 votes in a constituency where both he and his father were born.
“If it was a game of football, you could say I won in a penalty shoot-out,” he says.
The father of two has been involved in politics since the last elections in 2005 but this will be his first time in parliament, where he will be without a leader.
The 2005 elections ended with the then opposition disputing the government’s victory. Riots broke out in Addis Ababa in which 193 protestors and seven policemen were killed. The top opposition leaders were jailed until 2007.
The leader of Girma’s party, the Unity for Democracy and Justice, which is part of Medrek, was sent back to jail, however, for violating the terms of her pardon.
For Girma, the reason Birtukan Mideksa is in jail is clear.
“It’s part of the game the government plays,” he says. “She was jailed because she’s a strong lady. If she had been free, the result might have been different.”
Despite the fact the opposition is set to challenge the result in court, Girma doesn’t hold out much hope for a rerun and is resolved to going it alone.
And the novice politician is putting on a brave face ahead of the challenge.
Meles is famously sharp and well known for his sometimes humiliating putdowns.
But Girma says he will not let that worry him.
“If I have a question, I have to ask,” he says. “I know he is a strong opponent. But I won’t be intimidated because of that. I will simply put my issues forward.” (Editing by Richard Lough and Diana Abdallah)
Ethiopian movies Teza (Haile Gerima), Atletu (Rasselas Lakew, Davey Frankel) and LEZARE (Zelalem Woldemariam) won the main awards at 7th African Film Festival in Tarifa (FCAT). Teza won the award “Wind Griot” for the best feature film. The award is worth 15.000€ and includes the trophy. Atletu won The Audience Special Award for the best feature film. The award is worth 5.000€ and includes the trophy. The award is granted according the votes, viewers were giving to the movies after projections. LEZARE won the award for The best short film. The award is worth 2.000€ and includes the trophy.
A mixture of fiction and stock footage, The Athlete is a portrait of the legendary marathoner from Ethiopia, Abebe Bikila. Set in Ethiopia and Germany, Teza examines the displacement of African intellectuals, both at home and abroad, through the story of a young, idealistic Ethiopian doctor, Anberber, from the 70s until nowadays. Lezare tells the story of a small homeless boy, Abush, who wakes up hungry early in the morning in a small village…
The FCAT, one of the biggest African film festivals in Europe, had its seventh edition between May 21th and May 29th in Tarifa, the closest Spanish town to Africa on the Andalusian coasts of the Strait of Gibraltar (www.fcat.es). This year the FCAT presented 113 movies from 36 countries, which competed for €48,500 in prize money through 8 different awards.
(Filip Hruby is International press officer of Festival de Cine Africano de Tarifa (FCAT), Ed. Santa Catalina
C/ Alcalde Juan Nuñez, 10 bajo, 11380 Tarifa, España. He can be reached at Tel. +34/956.684847; Móvil: +421/775011550; Email: [email protected])
Ethiopia’s ruling party has already staged a victory rally in Addis Ababa to mark their satisfaction with the elections held last Sunday. The official results will not be announced until 21 June. But it is already clear that Meles Zenawi’s Ethiopian People’s Democratic Revolutionary Party (EPRDF) has seen off the opposition parties in no uncertain terms.
The shock of 2005
Is this a surprise? Not really. The big surprise occurred five years ago when the Ethiopian electorate threw caution to the wind and voted in their millions for a change of government. But they did not secure victory and the bold democratic experiment ended in violent protests and bloodshed. Opposition supporters were harassed and intimidated. Amongst opposition politicians there were bitter recriminations. Many endured imprisonment. Some chose exile. Judging from the results of the latest contest, it was not an experience that many wanted to repeat.
The 2005 election is chiefly remembered for the violence that came in its aftermath, as well as for a rather unseemly public row between Prime Minister Meles and Ana Gomez, who headed the EU Election Observation mission. In the confusion of a disputed poll and legal challenges, it has been largely forgotten how impressively the opposition actually performed.
Opposition annihilated
In 2005 the opposition took all 23 seats in the Addis Ababa region. In this month’s election the EPRDF has gained 22 seats in the Addis Ababa region and the opposition just one.
In the vast regional state of Oromia (some 10 million voters) where the opposition took 68 seats in 2005, the EPRDF has claimed all 178 seats.
In Amhara region (around 8 million voters) the turnaround is equally dramatic: the EPRDF has won 137 out of 138 seats, 50 of which were taken by the opposition in 2005.
The third most populous Southern Region (over 5 million voters) is a similar story. Where the opposition held 30 seats before, the EPRDF has won all of the 123 seats. With all but one seat out of 547 still to declare, the opposition forum, Medrek, has just one seat to its name.
Practically speaking, the opposition has been annihilated.
Just desserts?
This result has not been achieved without serious and sustained effort on the part of the EPRDF, including a mass recruitment drive for party membership which now exceeds 5 million (1 in 6 of the electorate).
Representative bodies at the grass roots level have been expanded to afford the government closer control of the populace.
At the same time legislation was passed to prevent non government organizations engaging in any form of political advocacy or democratization activities. In short, the government closed down political space and has got the result it wanted.
Not surprisingly, Medrek is calling for a re-run. But such results are rarely produced through technical shortcomings in the election process.
It is the political environment as a whole that needs to be addressed.
Does it matter? For Ethiopia’s external relations, probably not. It is likely to stay the UK’s number one aid target in Africa. But it does matter for the prospects for democracy in Ethiopia. Over six million people voted for change in 2005. It stretches credulity that such a number – 32% of the electorate – could have become convinced in the space of just five years that the EPRDF is, after all, the best choice for government.
It seems more likely that the lesson taken from 2005 was that, in Ethiopia, the chance to choose a government through a fair democratic contest was not in the end a serious one.
(Sally Healy is an associate fellow of the Africa Programme of Chatham House.)
Note: Over the past week, I have received numerous requests from those who read my last commentary “Ethiopia at the Crossroads of History[1], to share my views on the on the question, “Where do we go from here?” in the aftermath of the so-called May 2010 elections. I am pleased to oblige in a series of forthcoming commentaries. Here I offer my analysis of the “election” and what I perceive to be the ruling regime’s future direction.
The 2010 Election: Putting Lipstick on a Pig
Some say, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day, it is still a pig.” Others say, “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper and call it an ‘election’. It’s still gonna stink.” Well, one can certainly say that you can stampede throngs of “esteemed residents of Addis Ababa” into the public square and lecture them on how the “whole world knows the 4th national election has taken place in a peaceful, democratic and credible manner,” but at the end of the day a phony election with a 99.6 percent win is still a phony election. In fact, the spectacular margin of electoral victory claimed by dictator Meles Zenawi is second only to the victory claimed by the late dictator Saddam Hussien who won 100 percent of the 11,454, 638 yes votes in a referendum in 2002.
For the past year, I have been predicting that the 2010 Ethiopian “election” will prove to be a sham, a travesty of democracy and a mockery and caricature of democratic elections.[2] Without my literary and rhetorical flourish, that is now the exact conclusion of the international election observers. The “Preliminary Statement” of the European Union Election Observation Mission- Ethiopia 2010 stated: “The electoral process fell short of certain international commitments, notably regarding the transparency of the process and the lack of a level playing field for all contesting parties.” The White House issued a statement expressing “concern that international observers found that the elections fell short of international commitments. We are disappointed that U.S. Embassy officials were denied accreditation and the opportunity to travel outside of the capital on Election Day to observe the voting.” Johnnie Carson, the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in the State Department told the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee that “we note with some degree of remorse that the elections were not up to international standards… The [Ethiopian] government has taken clear and decisive steps that would ensure that it would garner an electoral victory.” Even Herman Cohen, the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State who served as “mediator” in the so-called May 1991 London Peace Talks which resulted in the establishment of the Zenawi regime decried the outcome: “This time opposition media and opposition groups were not given fair time on the media and opposition media tends to be suppressed and in that sense I don’t think it was a fair election.”
Only the 60-person African Union (AU) observer team led by former Botswana president Ketumile Masire concluded the “elections were free and fair and found no evidence of intimidation and misuse of state resources for ruling party campaigns.” Masire proclaimed:
The [elections] were largely consistent with the African Union regulations and standards and reflect the will of the people… The AU were unable to observe the pre-election period. The participating parties expressed dissatisfaction with the pre-election period. They did not have freedom to campaign. We had no way of verifying the allegations.
With all due respect to Masire, it seems that he made his declaration clueless of the observation standards he is required to follow in the AU Elections Observation and Monitoring Guidelines[Guidelines] [3]. If he had done so, he would have known that there is no logical, factual or documentary basis for him to declare the “elections were largely consistent with the African Union regulations and standards.” For instance, pursuant to Section III 9 (e) of the Guidelines (“MANDATES, RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE OBSERVERS”), Masire’s team had a mandatory duty to “observe the political parties and groups as well as the population at large in the exercise of their political rights, and the conditions in which such rights are to be exercised.” Masire by his own admission made no such observation. (“The AU were unable to observe the pre-election period ‘s team made no such observation.”) Under Section V (13), the Guidelines mandate that “AU Observers should ascertain that… (b) all competing political parties have equal access to both the print and theelectronic media (radio, T.V.).” Masire said his team “had no way of verifying” pre-election complaints, including complaints of unequal access to state-controlled media. Under Section V (B) (d), the AU observers had a mandatory duty to ascertain “the campaign process is conducted in conditions of serenity, and that there are no acts of provocation or intimidation capable of compromising.” Masire’s team failed to make such inquiries. Under section B (24), the Guidelines mandate: “The atmosphere during the campaign should be carefully observed, and among the factors to consider in this regard include … (iv) persistent or reported cases of human rights violations.” Masire’s team does not appear to be aware of such a requirement, let alone to actually make the observation. It is truly regrettable to say of a former African leader that he showed no evidence of having read or understood the numerous mandatory election observation duties set forth in minute detail in the AU Guidelines before shamelessly and pathetically declaring the elections “were largely consistent with African Union regulations and standards.”
Where Do the Dictators Want to Go From Here?
In his victory speech (an event billed as a public protest against Human Rights Watch for its critical report on the regime), dictator Meles Zenawi boldly stated that he ain’t going nowhere. He is staying put where he has been for the past 19 years. It will be business as usual. The political game will be played out on the same 19 year-old zero-sum field; and his team will always win and everybody else will always lose. But there will be a change in style, form, appearance and public relations in the post- “election” period.
Hide the Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove
“Hide the iron fist in a velvet glove. Speak softly and carry a big stick.” That was the essence of Zenawi’s “victory” speech (a/k/a demonstration against Human Rights Watch) on May 26. It was a grotesquely Churchillian speech. It was Winston Churchill who said, “In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity”. In the “election” battle, Zenawi was resolute. For months before election day, he had threatened to prosecute opposition leaders for their “inflammatory” and “hateful” campaign statements calculated to “incite violence”. He even threatened to burn them at the stake if they withdrew from the elections at the last minute and agitated the youth to demonstrate in the streets[4]. In his defeat — that is, the complete loss of credibility that comes from winning an election with 99.6 percent of the votes– he was defiant. (By the way, he gave a solemn promise to the 0.4 percent of the people who did not vote for him: “I would like to confirm to those who did not vote for us that we will work hard to look into your reasons for not voting for us with the view to learning from them and correcting any shortcomings on our part. We will work day and night to obtain your support in the next election.” In 2015, the vote will be 100 percent for Zenawi and his party!) In his 99.6 percent electoral “victory”, he was magnanimous – “let bygones be bygones.” (yalefew alfwal.)
The velvet glove/big stick strategy is based on a simple idea of totally demoralizing and humiliating the opposition, hoodwinking the Western donors and simply fooling the people. Zenawi’s velvety message was that he “does not want to be forced to embark upon the business of tracking down people committing crimes. I would like to appeal to some opposition parties… not to force the Government to take measures against them.” He is still carrying a chip on his shoulder from the drubbing his party got in 2005. The opposition humiliated his party in 2005 by wining every seat in Addis Ababa, and now it is their turn to be humiliated. “It is to be recalled that in the last election, five years ago, we, the EPRDF lost every seat in the capital due to our failure to achieve our goals..” Not this time. We won them all. (Hee…hee). In 2005, the opposition accused him of rigging and stealing the election; well, let them get a load this in 2010: “We all know the destructive role some political parties have been playing so far. [They have] attempt[ed] to mar and discredit the polling process. They have tried to cause delay by instructing their observers to arrive late at the polling stations. They have tried to disrupt the queues, make all sorts of shouts and cries,…[and even] sen[t] in their members with grenades to detonate among people queuing at polling stations… We have also observed successful and unsuccessful attempts by members of some of the opposition parties to snatch away ballot boxes and burn the votes of the people.”
But there is an olive branch extended to the opposition wrapped in condescending cordiality and paternalism. Now that the opposition has been vanquished, they will be allowed to lick the crumbs off the table (and the shoes of the victors) as long as they keep their tails between their legs. “We make this pledge to all the parties who did not succeed in getting the support of the people, during this election, that whether or not you have won seats in the parliament, as long as you respect the will of the people and the country’s Constitution and other laws of the land, we will work by consulting and involving you in all major national issues. We are making this pledge not only because we believe that we should be partners… [but also] you have the right to participate and to be heard.” In other words, we will let you speak, if we want to; and we’ll shut you up when we want to. Your political existence depends on our good will, whim and fancy.
Birtukan Midekssa, the first female political party leader in Ethiopia’s recorded history and that country’s no. 1 political prisoner had said it all before she was re-imprisoned for life in December 2008:
The message is clear and this message is not only for me but for all who are active in the peaceful struggle. A peaceful and law-abiding political struggle can be conducted only within the limits the ruling party has set and not according to what the country’s Constitution allows. And for me it is extremely difficult to accept this.
Now that the “election’ is over, Zenawi will probably trot out the tired old “elders” to begin reconciliation talks to help him buy time until the dust settles around the “elections” controversy. He may even tantalize some opposition leaders with offers of fancy appointments and positions to divide and neutralize them. He is very good at the divide-and-rule thing, which he has successfully used for the past 19 years. Unsurprisingly, some will fall for his tricks, as history shown time and again. He will make promises to democratize, uphold the rile of law and all that just to buy enough time for the opposition and the people to fall deeper into the vortex of hopeless and despair.
The bottom line for Zenawi’s regime is: For the foreseeable future, the opposition will know who the Boss is; and if they have any doubts, the iron fist will be unsheathed from the velvet glove and the big stick pulled out to drive that point home. No political prisoners will be released, including Birtukan Midekssa. More will be added. There will be no independent press. Civic society organizations will not be allowed to operate freely. Judges will remain in the back pockets of the ruling regime. Justice, and pieces of the country, will be up for sale to the highest bidder; and on and on. Business will be conducted in the same way it has for the last 19 years!
Hoodwinking the Donors
The contempt and disregard Zenawi has for the Western donors is exceeded only by his utter scorn for the opposition. He warned the donors with diplomatic finesse: “We have seen those we believed were friends and partners behaving like king makers and an appeal court for Ethiopia’s politics. Our proud people would still like to extend a warm welcome of friendship and partnership. We say to you: Please give due respect to the decision and the sovereign power of the people to elect their own leaders.” His strategy in dealing with the Western donors is simple: He is the only game in town. The donors have no alternatives to him because he has wiped out the opposition. The donors want stability above all things and will tolerate anything he does. They don’t really believe in democracy and human rights anyway; they believe only in advancing their national interests. They do not have the guts to take any action against him because he will threaten to cut them off and go with the Chinese. In any case, they have never taken any serious actions against him and never will. He regards them as a bunch of hypocritical, forked-tongue, double-dealing and double-talking windbags. America is not going to do anything because of her preoccupation with terrorism in the Horn. To ease the criticism on the donors, he will give them diplomatic cover by touting that he has achieved “double digit economic growth”, built roads, schools and other infrastructure. In any case, if push comes to shove, he will attack them by claiming that they are interfering in the country’s sovereignty and affronting the Ethiopian people.
If truth be told, Zenawi would not be necessarily inaccurate in his view. The U.S., Britain and the European Union have poured in tens of billions of dollars of aid to support his regime for nearly two decades while pontificating about democracy and human rights endlessly. They took no action when he passed a so-called press law criminalizing free speech and the free press. They just moaned and groaned about it a little. They took no action when he passed a so-called civic society law that effectively banned civic organizations. They have taken no action against him despite a nearly two decade uninterrupted record of gross human rights violations and criminality. All they have done is dump the blame on the opposition: “There is no viable alternative in the opposition.” They know full well that the opposition is subjected to daily threats, intimidations, arbitrary arrests and detentions and violence, yet they have mustered the audacity to blame them for being “not viable”. As I have argued previously[5], the Western donors have entered into a conspiracy of silence to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil of Zenawi.
You Can Fool All of the People All of the Time on Planet Ethiopia
It is said that “you may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.” Not so for Zenawi and company on Planet Ethiopia. If you think you have fooled the people for 20 years, you can try and fool them for another five or more. In his speech, Zenawi told the people:
The voters have given us their support freely and democratically. Women are the real backbone of our organization… The youth of our country who have started to benefit from the ongoing development. We are ready to learn from [our] mistakes…. The important point in the election process is not the result of the election. It is not about which party won the election. It is Ethiopia’s renewal. The winner is Ethiopia’s democracy and all Ethiopians. We say congratulations to all the electorate and to our country’s forces of peace and democracy… The residents of Addis Ababa are fully aware of our respect for their decision. I believe that the people of Ethiopia, beyond recognizing the efforts of the EPRDF and voting it into power have unequivocally sent a clear message to the opposition parties in our country…
It is all about humility and how they can learn from their mistakes and all of the improvements they will make to earn the trust and confidence of the people and so on. We have heard it all before. No need to recite that litany of lies and false promises. Of course, if Zenawi wants to find out the truth all he has to do is ask the people one simple question: Are they better off today than they were in 2005?
I have expressed my views on the limitations of the regime on previous occasions[6]:
The dictators of Ethiopia are trapped in a historical time warp. They have clutched the reigns of state for two decades and ostentatiously display the trappings of political power and wealth. But they have not been able to transform ‘bushcraft’ into statecraft… In their armed campaign against the Derg junta, decision-making was left in the hands of the few. The few leaders exercised raw, brute power over their followers and the communities they controlled. They silenced dissent and criticism ruthlessly, and leaders who disagreed were marginalised, labeled as traitors and removed. Everything was done in secrecy. Power was understood not as a public duty but as a means of self-enrichment, political patronage and intimidation. Leadership meant the cult of personality. The best they have been able to do is to transform the ‘politics of the bush’ fighting the Derg into a one-man, one-party state, whose guiding motto is, ‘What is good for the TPLF/EPDRF is good for Ethiopia!’
The transition from ‘bushcraft’ to statecraft requires tectonic transformations. Democratic statecraft requires an appreciation, understanding and application of basic democratic principles such as the rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances and constitutionalism in the governance process. The dictators have little experience with or practical understanding of such principles… They never had free elections in the bush; and it is no wonder that they were totally surprised when they got thumped in the 2005 elections. Upholding the rule of law is absurd to them because they believe themselves to be THE LAW… They scoff at civil liberties and civil rights as Western luxuries because they never lived in a system where the powers of government are constitutionally subordinated to the rights of the individual. In short, it is wishful thinking to expect from them the kind of statecraft necessary for democratic governance.
Mr. Zenawi and company need to understand a simple fact about elections: “Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.” Arrrrgh! The thought of poor Ethiopia wearing the same diapers for another 5 years….
Free Birtukan Midekssa and all political prisoners in Ethiopia.
Alemayehu G. Mariam, is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, and an attorney based in Los Angeles. He writes a regular blog on The Huffington Post, and his commentaries appear regularly on pambazuka.org, allafrica.com, afronline.org, newamericamedia.org and other sites.
(Press Release) — For the past three days and intermittently before that, Ethiopian Satellite Service (ESAT) broadcasts in Ethiopia have been interrupted due to undetermined electronic interference.
Following preliminary investigations, we have confirmed the following facts:
Our service providers have performed extensive technical tests and determined that ESAT transmissions have been targeted for multiple interference from unknown sources.
Once the interference was detected, our service providers made appropriate adjustments to overcome the interfering signal. That effort worked temporarily and ESAT was back on the air. In the last 72 hours, the interfering signal was boosted jamming ESAT signals once again.
Our service providers have performed additional tests and determined that the multiple interference is targeted only at ESAT broadcasts and none of their other broadcasts.
Our service providers are continuing their investigations of the
interference and seeking appropriate solutions.
ESAT asks its viewers and supporters to continue their support of the service. ESAT management wishes to assure its viewers and supporters that it will pursue its commitment to meet its mission objectives.
