‘The Democracy
Paradox’: Election gearing up towards the known outcome
By
Genet Mersha, 5 March 2010
The stage for this article
was set by two events. Firstly, at the forefront
triggering the writing was the second round inter-party
debate of March 2nd in preparation for the
May 23rd national election. Secondly,
coincidentally in the background was The Democracy
Paradox (Project Syndicate Sept 14, 2009), an article by
Dominique Moisi, a respected French commentator on
international issues and visiting professor at Harvard
University that I read moments before watching the
debate on video.
Prof. Moisi engages his
readers in a conversation with a view to enabling them
see the potential divorce between elections and
democracy that is assuming a new dimension in a
globalized world. Much as he has made reference to
improved techniques in election rigging and stealing
that despots employ these days, he also admonishes “the
West to reassess its policies in a fundamental way.” He
urges Western countries to see that they cannot switch
as they like “from ‘activism’ at one moment to
abstention the next.”
I would return shortly for
reflection on Prof. Moisi’s observations. In the
meantime, I leave behind his main thesis: “Elections
stolen in Iran, disputed in Afghanistan, and caricatured
in Gabon: recent ballots in these and many other
countries do not so much mark the global advance of
democracy as demonstrate the absence of the rule of
law.”
Federalism and
devolution of power
I cannot hide my
disappointment on this subject of the second round
debate on a number of levels.
•
First the topic of
the debate is too complex for the average citizen to
make determination of who to vote for and why, if at all
the choice of the topic and its purpose is to help
voters, assuming that their votes count.
•
Secondly,
understanding of the subject might have been rendered
even more difficult by interventions of at least one
representative unfamiliar with the topic and his
shifting stand on issues he could not articulate.
•
Thirdly, nor did
representatives of EPRDF stood on solid ground regarding
theory and practice of federalism and devolution of
power. They repeatedly moved in and out of slippery
paths of confusion between realities on the ground and
efforts to give it acceptable face, which made their
salesmen’s pitch mostly notable for misrepresentation.
That is why, at one point they even theorised why
Ethiopia is spared of disintegration like Somalia,
although the issues the two countries contend bear no
similarity, not today not in the past.
Having stated these, I
must hasten to add that overall the discussion, if we
could call it that, was revealing in a way, even though
the rule governing the forum was so controlling that the
rigidity of its set up has rendered it coldly
sovietesque, thereby severely affecting its quality and
content. In spite of that, Medrek, EDP, Berhan and
Kinjit were sterling clear in their presentations. They
explained well why they thought the current federal
arrangement and devolution of powers is unworkable and
fake. While all opposition members in principle
supported federalism, they were unanimous in saying that
the present arrangement is designed only to serve the
interests of the TPLF.
Therefore, if the debate
is to be taken as a measure of what the country has
achieved and the governing party’s contributions in the
past two decades, expectations would become a source of
frustration to its authors. True, common sense dictates
that, at least, after fifteen years of experience in
federalism and the devolution of power, one would assume
there may be a few areas of common understanding between
the two sides. Clearly, it is in the scheme of such
things to expect the EPRDF to garner some support for
its much-vaunted instruments of governance and
decentralisation of power, not from novice, but from
well-placed witnesses to Ethiopia’s reality some of them
as parliamentarians, public officials and as citizens,
even if they were standing there as contenders for
power.
The truth of the matter is
that opposition representatives have contacts with the
people in their respective regions. They said they do
not like the hush-hush complaints they get from
constituents. Hence, what they did in this debate is to
take to task efficacy and relevance of the federalism
and devolution of power. Their judgement is that these
instruments of empowerment have been found empty and
wanting in many respects, which they said the fault is
in the implementation process, characterised at it is by
disloyalty to the promises of the constitution.
The outcome of this debate
tells us that there is need for greater awareness of the
difficult path before our country. Of all issues touched
upon so far, the 2nd March debate has shown
that the country still has many unfinished businesses on
the drawing board, especially regarding democracy,
federalism and empowerment of the people in real ways at
the lowest kilil (unit of administration). To put it
mildly, it is an injurious verdict, indicating the
seriousness of the problem awaiting Ethiopia in the
years and decades to come. Many see the question of
Assab a thorn on TPLF’s side.
Opposition parties hold
inflexibility of the governing party responsible for all
the problems of governance Ethiopians have encountered.
They attribute this not to inadequacies, but to TPLF’s
sole interest in centralising and consolidating its
powers at the centre. A couple of opposition parties
saw what the governing party proudly sees as its
proudest achievements as an explosive problem waiting to
happen.
In the circumstances, the
task of the representatives of the ruling party was on
one hand to scold people in the opposition how
“distorted their perception of the reality in the
country is” and their “incapability to see and
understand federalism the bright prospects before
Ethiopians.” On the other, they spent their time
allotted praising their achievements in bringing about
the democratic devolution of power, the first in the
country’s history. It should be said that, in spite of
these efforts to mount a vigorous defence, the fact that
not a single point of agreement between the two sides
emerged is in itself judgement against the fifteen-year
old governance arrangements and its institutions
thereon.
To avoid the dangers
before the country, some opposition members suggested
constitutional revision and a flexible approach that
takes into account the needs and interests of the local
people. This was greeted by the ruling party with scorn,
dismissing it as an attempt by the opposition to get a
backdoor to power. Medrek aptly responded to this by
saying there was no need for a backdoor, since they were
already there openly contending to take power.
The core issues setting
the two sides apart
The opposition sees
devolution of power in Ethiopia as counterfeit. EDP
started right from the centre, saying that the division
of powers itself in the centre is not a true
constitutional division between the three branches of
government. It equated the present reality to
cooperation between the powers. It accused EPRDF of
hindering the true devolution of power to the regions
through such an arrangement. It said that is designed
for the TPLF to ensure its hold on power. The guise used
for this is ethnic issues and group rights, which
contradicts the rights of the individual citizens.
Instead of addressing the nationalities problem honestly
and ensuring the unity of the country, TPLF’s approach
is said to deepen differences between people and
cultures. This position was supported by other
opposition parties.
Similarly, Light (Torch)
for Unity and Democracy Party focussed on problems of
democracy in Ethiopia, which it considered obstacle to a
genuine federal arrangement and the devolution of power,
based on the interests of the people. In its view,
without democracy, federalism by itself cannot provide
opportunities for people to be able to administer
themselves effectively. It rejected EPRDF’s claim of
being democratic, which it said is false claim, sham by
a centrist party, obsessed with consolidation of its
powers at the centre.
In the views of the
representative of Medrek, the federal arrangement is not
the true expressions of constituent entities within the
country. For this, it cited instances whereby a single
ethnic group has become a kilil arbitrarily by a memo
from the prime minister, whereas at the same time as
many as over fifty ethnic groups are lumped together as
a single kilil. This he said has become cause for many
conflicts, with efforts to solve it through demands for
adjustments of structures rebuffed by government, and
which eventually sent its forces to massacre protestors
in Awassa, Gambella and elsewhere when people started
demanding their constitutionally provided rights.
This he presented as
evidence of the fact the self-administration has not
been translated into practice in many parts of the
country, especially in the south and south west, in
keeping with provisions of the constitution. In
addition, true to the nature of top-down structures,
Medrek accused the federal government of endless
meddling in the affairs of regional administrations. He
added that often regional leaders and officials elected
by the people are removed by signed memos and replaced
by whomever the ruling party chooses, which he said is
typical problem of archaic revolutionary democracy. This
view is also shared by Kinijt and Berhan.
In brief, Medrek’s view is
that there is no desire on the part of central
government to enable regions to address problems the
centre has created for them with a view to facilitating
their inherent rights to self-government. Medrek’s
charge is that the central government is deliberately
keeping the regions dependent on it, as a means of
controlling them, systematically limiting their ability
to collect taxes to land leases only.
Medrek traced the problem
for all this to the current legislative system, which he
said is not capable of supporting a country with federal
structures and federal system. Medrek saw two sources
for this problem. Firstly, the election process of
members to parliament has been unfair and unjust.
Secondly, the two chambers ought to have the same
legislative powers. In that regard, he complained the
house of federation in particular is powerless denied of
ability to legislate laws, because of which it could not
help strengthen the legal basis of devolution and
decentralisation.
Once again, EPRDF was left
alone to defend its achievements. On the question of
rights of individual citizens, it was categorical in
saying they have been fully ensured and respected as the
rights of nations and peoples. It added that the rights
of individual citizens and ethnic groups are
inseparable. Those who problems with the current
arrangement are only those hungry for power.
All said and done, the
opposition side was more civil and united.
MOISI’S PARADOX OF
DEMOCRACY = RIGGED ELECTION + A WEST
UNABLE TO LIVE BY ITS PRINCIPLES
= DUAL
PROCESS OF ILLEGITIMACY
Prof. Dominique Moisi
feels that the democracy front is not well fortified. He
sees major evolution in the continued attempts of
election hijackers around the world to hoodwink domestic
and international opinion. There are more and more
instances of subtle ways of ‘claiming victory.’ Moisi
observes, “With instantaneous communication and access
to information, the less legitimate a regime, the
greater will be the temptation for it to manipulate, if
not fabricate, the results of elections.”
However, the new new
electoral victory claim by despots that Prof. Moisi
speaks of, like everyone else, frowns upon
“near-unanimous Soviet-style electoral “victories” as
vulgar and old fashioned.” It is in light of that one
has to see Ethiopia’s constant drumming of its
commitment to democracy, a country caught in the
transition between traditional ballot box stealing and
violence on one side and jamming international radio and
internet transmissions on the other. That is why in this
debate there was total split between the governing party
and the opposition. Recall that in other countries, even
in those aspiring for democracy, there are certain
things and principles all sides defend as a common. From
that point, this debate has exposed the Ethiopian
leadership that nobody has anything in common with it.
A few months back, the
ruling party signed a code of conduct agreement with a
few parties saying that it wanted an end to election
related problems. Non-signatories were battered with
propaganda campaigns to make them look like
disinterested in peaceful election. Nevertheless, not
surprisingly in the countdown to this election, just
less than a hundred days from now, it is already
foreshadowed by the first signals of bloodshed by the
murder of an opposition candidate in Tigray, homeland of
the TPLF, core of the governing party.
Not many independent
journalists are left in the country for the government
now to imprison. Therefore, it has chosen to jam the
Voice of America (Bloomberg, 4 March). German radio
Amharic language programme is also complaining about
interference from Ethiopia. A spokesperson for the VOA
deplored the jamming. As usual, spokesperson of the
government dismissed it as a baseless allegation. He
added, “Ethiopia has a constitution which outlaws any
act by any official organ to restrict the dissemination
of broadcast material from abroad.” This continuing
practice has also been confirmed by shortwave radio
monitors (so says VOA)), further discrediting government
credibility.
The traditional electoral
rigging is simple, and not anything unknown to Ethiopian
experience. Suppression of the media, open violence,
threats, murders and imprisonments of opponents and
withholding of items needed for survival by the poor are
far too common, although refined electoral rigging has
been slow in coming. Just from recent memory, however,
recall what happened in the April 2008 local election,
which was preparatory for this forthcoming 2010
election. The ruling party claimed victory taking 137 of
the 138 seats in the capital city. Regarding that loss
of one seat, government spokesperson Bereket Simon,
EPRDF’s campaign manager, said in a telling interview,
“It was simple
coincidence. As you can imagine, we did not know we
would win all the seats prior to the results. As any
party we competed for all the seats; the gains could
have been 90pc, 95pc or any percentage. It just happened
that one of our candidates was not up to the standard
that had been set by EPRDF, so we withdrew his
candidacy, thus leaving one seat up for grabs”
(Addis Fortune, Interview
with Bereket Simon, May 4, 2008)
Opposition parties cried
foul to no avail. As usual, there were charges and
counter-charges and then more imprisonments. The West
turned a blind eye. In fact, in its business as usual
mode, it turned to shoring up the regime, its driving
motives being strategic, economic and security
interests. The first one basically is to win the
competition, at least, if not to leave the field wide
open for China, an act that has led to pumping more
money into the country. The second one is the West’s
security needs, with Somalia, as home of terrorism
because of it turning from rubbles to training grounds
for fundamentalist killers bent on disrupting
international life.
The flow of aid
increases
Politically and
economically, this situation has become a blessing in
disguise for the Ethiopian regime, which otherwise has
been dogged internally for its undemocratic nature and
its violence against citizens. Already, for a while now
Ethiopian stories of widespread imprisonment of
opposition candidates and supporters, intimidation of
the electorate and adoption of new laws that
disadvantage opposition parties and barring civil
societies have either moved to the back of news pages
internationally, or ignored totally. The TPLF is making
sure that this changing now.
For instance, The New York
Times, which has literally ignored developments in
Ethiopia for a long time, picked up Jason Maclure’s
story in its March 2nd issue about the murder
by six persons in Tigrai, home of the ruling party. So
did The Washington Post. Perhaps both papers sees this
as sign of what is in store, coming less than two weeks
after the prime minister attacked opposition candidates
form Mekelle, the regional capital of Tigrai, on the 35th
anniversary of his liberation movement’s founding
likening them to ‘dirt’ and remnants that represent the
past he hates.
Interestingly, the country
has received more money in aid now since the stigmas of
the bloody 2005 election. It is increasing even more
with every passing month, as it is preparing for another
round of election in May 2010. Besides direct
development aid, a few days ago UK committed itself to
cover part of the running cost of the productive safety
net until 2014, setting aside 200 million sterling
pounds. There is also the PBS, which the British say is
not direct budget support but for all intents and
purposes is.
This helps the country to
remain afloat. The negative consequences of the
recurring droughts are also staved off, i.e., the
dangers of death by famine and popular uprising, two
decades of efforts under this regime not enabling the
country to become food self-sufficient to overcome
hunger and poverty through its own seats. The American
aid is also very significant, as is that of a number of
European countries. This has generated some anger in the
development community against donor largesse to
unaccountable governments.
Prof. William Easterly, a
former World Bank hand and now professor at NYU and
Laura Freschi, associate Director of the Development
Research Institute (DRI-NYU), wrote that European
donors, the UK leading the charge, are moving towards
increasing direct budget support, irrespective of
whether there is “country ownership” of the aid money
and the development it is supposed to fund, in an
environment where a government is not democratically
accountable to the “country”, as measured, among others,
by international indices such as Freedom House. They
tried to seek the answer to this dilemma by reading the
purported intentions of the aid givers that forces that
compels them to collaborate with the corrupt and
undemocratic governments. They observe in this
connection,
“Of course, low income countries have lower ratings on
democracy, human rights, and corruption than richer
countries, so poverty-alleviation aid has to face the
tricky trade-off of directing aid to the poorest
countries while trying to avoid the most corrupt and
autocratic ones. Unfortunately, a recent article found
that the UK was one of the best (least bad) official aid
agencies in doing this, so most of the others are
apparently even worse. This study did not consider the
issue of direct budget support. There is nothing that
says you have to give aid meant for the poorest peoples
directly to their governments, if the latter are
tyrannical and corrupt. With the examples above, which
side are UK aid officials on, on the side of poor people
or on the side of the governments that oppress them?”
(Why Does British Foreign Aid Prefer Poor Governments
Over Poor People? Aidwatch
March 20, 2009)
Prof. Moisi’s
admonition to the West
Prof. Dominique Moisi
says,
“The distance that
separates the West from countries that rely on sham
elections is not only geographic, religious, or
cultural; it is chronological. Their “time” is not, has
never been, or is no longer the same as that of the
West. How can they be understood without being judged,
or helped without humiliating paternalism or, still
worse, without an unacceptable “collateral damage,” as
in Afghanistan? The West’s status in tomorrow’s world
will largely depend upon how it answers this question.
It cannot afford to ignore the issue any longer.”
Courage monsieur le professor!
Tomorrow is struggling to be here and now, as far as the
United States is concerned. There is some movement
within academia, the Congress and even in the
administration. The US Congress made today public a
letter to President Barack Obama by Senator Russ
Feingold, chairperson of the Senate’s sub-committee on
Africa, dated March 5, 2010. It is asking the president
to ensure “that Ethiopia’s democratic process moves
forward, not backward.” The Senator’s letter closes
stating,
“There is no way that
elections can be fair, let alone credible, with
opposition leaders in jail or unable to campaign freely.
At the bare minimum, the international community should
push for the release of these political prisoners ahead
of the elections. And if nothing changes, we should not
be afraid to stand with the Ethiopian people and state
clearly that an election in name only is an affront to
their country’s democratic aspirations.”
