Author Tesfaye GebreAb analyzes Ethiopian election 2010 in which he gives us insight into what possible measures Meles Zenawi and his Woyanne ruling junta are preparing to take in order to consolidate their 99% ‘victory’ at the May 23 election. Click here to read – PDF, Amharic.
European Union Election Observation Mission has issued an 11-page preliminary statement on the May 23, 2010, elections in Ethiopia. (Click here for the full statement, pdf)
Executive Summary
The fourth elections to the House of People’s Representatives and State Councils have so far been held in a generally peaceful environment, as unanimously called for by all stakeholders. The relatively quiet election campaign by the opposition parties and the incumbent, the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front, grew in intensity at the very last stage. The National Electoral Board of Ethiopia administered the electoral process in an efficient and competent manner, but failed to dispel opposition parties’ lack of trust in its independence.
While several positive improvements have been introduced, 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.
Election Day unfolded in a peaceful manner, with a high voter turnout. Overall, the secrecy of the vote was respected despite isolated irregularities and an inconsistent application of procedures. Party agents and domestic observers were present in the majority of observed polling stations.
The general political environment in the country has been relatively calm, although the level of localised tension in numerous constituencies rose as Election Day approached. Similarly, the election campaign was essentially peaceful, if somewhat low-key and discreet until the last days of campaigning.
The separation between the ruling party and the public administration was blurred at the local level in many constituencies. The EU EOM directly observed some cases of use of state resources for ruling party campaign activities. Even taking into account the inherent advantages of the incumbency, the EU EOM considers that the playing field for the 2010 elections was not sufficiently balanced, leaning in favour of the ruling party in many areas.
The fragmentation of the main opposition forces in the aftermath of the 2005 elections, together with the departure of important opposition figures from the Ethiopian political scene, in conjunction with changes to the legal framework have resulted in a cumulative narrowing of the political space within the country.
The Ethiopian legal framework appears to provide an adequate basis for the conduct of genuine elections in line with regional and international commitments subscribed to by Ethiopia. However, the practical implementation of the laws regulating elections deviates in certain cases from the spirit of these commitments, thereby constraining the electoral process and more particularly the full, non-discriminatory enjoyment of fundamental rights.
Overall, the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) administered the elections in a competent and professional manner, overcoming significant technical challenges. However, shortcomings were noted, notably in terms of the consistency and coherence of technical information received and aggregated by the electoral authority, such as complete polling station lists, which has affected the transparency of the process. Insufficient measures were taken to increase the level of trust of some opposition parties in the impartiality of the NEBE, especially at the constituency level. At the national and in most cases constituency level, the electoral authorities have been very cooperative with the EU EOM.
The voter register for the 2010 elections is relatively inclusive on the basis of NEBE projections, with around 32 million registered voters out of 37 million eligible citizens. Notwithstanding, the lack of a national voters list does not allow for the purging of multiple registrations.
The provisions for complaints and appeals related to voting, counting and tabulation have been significantly strengthened in the last five years. Nonetheless, the EU EOM considers that further measures must be implemented to ensure that they provide the opportunity for effective legal remedy on election-related complaints, in light of opposition parties’ lack of confidence in the independence and neutrality of the judiciary and the police.
The number of complaints of campaign violations, harassment and intimidation, including cases of violence, voiced both by the opposition and the ruling party rose in the last weeks. The sheer volume and consistency of these complaints is a matter of concern and has to be taken into consideration in the overall appreciation of the electoral process. The EU EOM recalls the importance for the representatives of all parties to be able to campaign in an environment free from intimidation and threats and for all dissenting views to be respected.
Generally, the media ensured a neutral coverage of the main political campaign events. The state-owned media gave the ruling party more than 50% of its total coverage on news programmes. A generous amount of free airtime was distributed proportionately to the different parties. Overall, the media were cautious in their reporting. The jamming of Voice of America Amharic Service during the last weeks of the campaign contributed to reduce the possibility for voters to receive information from a wider range of sources.
Overall, women are under-represented in the electoral authorities, although their participation among polling station staff was higher than at other levels of the NEBE. Women are also under-represented in most political parties, with the exception of the EPRDF who is fielding women candidates in line with its 30% quota. The number of women candidates as a whole has decreased compared to the 2005 elections.
By Rene Lefort
It means that the EPRDF had decided — and successfully taken the appropriate authoritarian measures — not only to be the unquestionable winner of the 2010 elections, but also to get its revenge on the opposition by humiliating it in 2010 as much as it felt humiliated by the opposition’s push in 2005.
This landslide victory blackens the future of Ethiopia. It first proves once again that the EPRDF went as far as to obtain that the opposition could not even get a decent representation, and to reduce it to a purely formal role, without any real leverage. Second, by weakening the legal opposition, this landslide victory will prove once more to the opponents that all legal ways of contesting the ruling power are in fact closed and that thus the only way for an alternate government is to wage an armed struggle.
This centuries old dichotomy: submit or rebel, which has been disastrous for Ethiopia will only lead to another disaster, except if the new generation of leaders who could take the commands in the coming years would decide they must lastly escape from it.
(René Lefort has been writing about sub-saharan Africa since the 1970s and has reported on the region for Le Monde, Le Monde diplomatique, Libération, Le Nouvel Observateur. He is the author of “Ethiopia. An heretical revolution?” (1982, Zed books). He can be reached at [email protected])
By KJETIL TRONVILL, UNIVERSITY OF OSLO
In the near future, I do not see any changes of policy either from the EPRDF’s side, or from the international side versus Ethiopia: it will be business as usual.
The donor group will embrace the result and the process, as it gives continued legitimacy for their cooperation with EPRDF, and the many difficult questions regarding democratic substance and respect for human rights can be brushed aside, as long as they can use the superficial technicalities of the process as window-dressing for ‘continued democratisation of Ethiopia’ – and thus justifying the billions of dollars spent on the regime.
For the Ethiopian public, the result will not signal any immediate changes either. The EPRDF will probably continue developing its totalitarian structure, with compulsory party membership for anybody who will be interested to pursue public employment and advancement within the country.
The result will probably have most effect on opposition politics. Some of the old-timers in opposition have earlier expressed that this time will be their last shot in elections. If EPRDF do not accept a level playing field, they will give in. This attitude might have changed, but I still think a cut-back to 10 percent of seats or so to the opposition will be a hard blow to carry for many of them. This will surely shake the foundations of Medrek, which might split up into two or more opposition platforms; as part of a blame-game of the election failure.
The result might also be used as a argument for the opposition groups which argue for a tougher more confrontational — or even military — opposition tactics towards the regime; as they can claim that the democratic space is too restricted for them to come to power via the ballot box.
By Douglas Mpuga | VOA
A former top U.S. official on Africa says Ethiopian opposition parties failed to get equal access to the media in the run-up to Sunday’s parliamentary elections.
Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Herman Cohen (1989-93) said, “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.”
He added, “In contrast to the 2005 election, this seems to be rather peaceful and administratively ok, so I think it is an improvement,” said Cohen, a specialist in African and European affairs.
He expressed doubt opposition complaints and their call for a new vote would amount to anything, but added “If the opposition rejects [the election] then it makes it difficult to consider the election legitimate.”
Cohen said despite the flaws it was important for the opposition to have taken part. “I always tell the opposition that if they do not participate then there is no reason for the government to commit fraud, so they should always participate and if there is fraud everyone will know.”
He said unlike the 2005 election, it is unlikely there will be violence.
“In 2005, they (government) reacted to violence with lethal force and I think the opposition groups have a vivid memory of the results,” he said.
Also, the current top U.S. diplomat for Africa, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, said Tuesday the Ethiopian government took “clear and decisive steps” that ensured it would win the election.
Ethiopia’s ruling party claimed a landslide victory this week in the first vote since a brutal crackdown in 2005, but some observers and human rights groups say the election was heavily tilted in favour of the government. After the election results were announced on Tuesday, thousands of government supporters rallied in the streets of Addis Ababa, celebrating the victory.
Ethiopia’s opposition leaders are sceptical of the official results. One of the top opposition leaders, Hailu Shawel, said the election was “ridiculous” because it was completely controlled by the ruling party. He told reporters Wednesday intimidation and fraud influenced Sunday’s elections.
By Jonathan Manthorpe | Vancouver Sun
After Ethiopia’s previous dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam murdered the man he had deposed, Emperor Haile Selassie, he capped his triumph by having the body buried under his office floor.
Ethiopia’s current leader dictator, Meles Zenawi, who led the rebellion that deposed Mengistu in 1991, has not been quite so utilitarian in how he disposes of his opponents.
But critics say Meles has been just as effective in creating what amounts to a repressive one-party state in what was once a country carrying reasonable hopes of leading a democratic upsurge in Africa.
There is a fine example of Meles’ skills as an elected despot in the results of last Sunday’s vote which will give his Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) all but one or two seats in the 547-seat parliament.
Election observers from the European Union say all the power and influence of the government was marshaled behind Meles’ EPRDF.
The chorus of criticism was taken up on Tuesday by Washington where the assistant secretary of state for Africa, Johnnie Carson, said: “While the elections were calm and peaceful and largely without any kind of violence, we note with some degree of remorse that the elections were not up to international standards.”
No doubt the remorse in the United States is genuine because Meles is Washington’s and Europe’s man in the Horn of Africa.
Washington has on occasion expressed concerns about Meles’s repressive instincts, especially after the last elections in 2005 when the opposition took to the streets claiming massive fraud. Two hundred people were killed in the crackdown and many more are still in prison.
But criticism has been muted because Meles has been the go-to guy for American administrations attempting to control the upsurge in Muslim fundamentalism in Somalia, Eritrea and Sudan.
Meles is also the recipient of close to $1 billion a year in foreign aid, more than two-thirds of it from the U.S. and much of the rest from Europe.
And as many African potentates before Meles have discovered, accepting western aid seldom increases the outside pressure for reform. All too often donor countries become captives of their aid budgets and unwilling to use leverage on recipient countries for fear of upsetting domestic political priorities.
That certainly seems to be the case with Ethiopia, where there has been growth in the gross domestic product of more than 10 per cent for several years. So government aid agencies in Europe and the U.S. chalk Ethiopia up as a success and do not look at what is happening in other areas of the country’s civic life.
But other arms of government do look. Last year in its report on global human rights, the U.S. State Department accused the Ethiopian government of “unlawful killings, torture, beating, abuse and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces, often acting with evident impunity.”
New York-based Human Rights Watch published a scathing report in March.
“Expressing dissent is very dangerous in Ethiopia,” said the report.
“The ruling party and the state are becoming one, and the government is using the full weight of its power to eliminate opposition and intimidate people into silence.”
The way Human Rights Watch describes it, it was not necessary for the EPRDF to stuff ballot boxes last Sunday.
Right down to the village level, governing party cells and local administrations are interwoven. They ensure government services, such as the allocation of seeds and fertilizers, and microcredit loans, do not go to government critics.
So it can be a choice between supporting the opposition or feeding your family.
But there is an opposition and it may yet take to the streets in revulsion at this election as it did in 2005.
One of the leaders is a 35-year-old lawyer and former judge, Birtukan Mideksa, who is sometimes called Ethiopia’s Aung San Suu Kyi. She is a leader of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy and was arrested for taking part in the 2005 demonstrations. She was pardoned in 2007, but rearrested the following year and is now serving a life sentence.
Meles has not buried her under his office floor, but he might as well have done. Last year he said she will never be released and she is “a dead issue.”