Ethiopian Journal

(By Observer)

Campaigning of Ethiopian Election 2010 was launched in the weekend of February 13 with position statements by repetitive of the governing party and few from the opposition groups. In the process, broadcast viewers and listeners were treated to repeats of known stories, unsubstantiated complaints, incomprehensible foreign concepts and virtually little that could invite voter enthusiasm. 

The subject of the debate was: Democracy, Elections and Multipartism in Ethiopia. In the interest of fairness, one is inclined to allow some positive points to the EPRDF (Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front) for relating its philosophy and policies with concrete results in bringing about transformational development, socio-economic progress towards improving the livelihoods of the population. Emphasis on the need to hold peaceful, all-inclusive and credible election was presented as evidence that democratization is on track. The federal system which underscores cultural diversity and   voluntary union of the stakeholders and commitment to uphold multiparty politics were points of empirical evidence for which the EPRDF deserves credit.

All the arguments presented by the EPRDF implied that the incumbent government was seeking re-election on the basis of its track record. In this, it failed to indicate innovative ideas that may exite and inspire the electorate. (This point begs the indulgence of readers for lack of post-debate survey of reactions.)

On the other side of the political divide were repeated complaints about alleged obstructionist policies and harassment of opposition politicians by EPRDF “cadres”. On assessment of the pronouncements heard in the campaign broadcasts, a reasonable conclusion is that “politics of complaints” dominated the debate. Branding without providing clear indicators of the elements that constitute the general brand was another confusing menu to which the voters were treated.

Endless complaints were heard about alleged obstruction by the very front which, in the first place, introduced a wide range of democratic changes. This writer heard in disbelief and with considerable boredom utterances circling ideas that indicated no material evidence of illuminating nature.

The conventional wisdom is that freedom of the press and of expression are hallmarks of democracy. The opening up for the creation of independent or private press has led to the exercise of the press which is unprecented in Ethiopia, in terms of quality and content. Privately operated FM radios have joined the fray. Traditional Ethiopians are very surprised at the level of freedom enjoyed by the private newspapers.

The political debate has been organized as a manifestation of freedom of expression freely exercised formally in ways which are visible all over the country with no incident of harassment against any person for words uttered under any circumstance.  Complaints by those who were speaking their mind about the alleged absence of freedom of expression were impossible to comprehend, to say the least. For, how much more would they have said otherwise?

Branding without sufficient examination of its attributes is a waste of everything. The word “revolutionary” was associated by the opposition politicians with “socialism” that had wrought havoc in Ethiopia. The claim that socialism, and not democracy prevails in Ethiopia is idle branding which is completely at variance with what is on the ground. 

Another expression, borrowed from outside, which was glorified in the debate was “liberal democracy”. What is the electorate supposed to make of this term which sounds of a high profile caliber because its proponents are in industrially advanced and rich societies? But Ethiopia is a developing country struggling to attain tolerable livelihoods for its population. How does “liberal democracy” deliver the goods when the fundamentals such as organized and avonced production and distribution are at their rudimentary state?

Neo- liberalism as a political doctrine and its economic twin-concept known as market fundamentalism have been faulted for the recent global financial and economic crises. The Nobel-prized wining economist Joseph Stighitz has critized Neoliberal policies for costs to developing economies. In short, liberal democracy has robbed the bread winner of the trickle-down benefits of economic activity. “Developmental democracy” seeks to distribute the dividends of economic activity to the widest possible. Can we have some details of what this intention has achieved? 

Admittedly, elitist analyses of the pros and cons of liberalism do not project stimulants to campaign enthusiasm. Nether does the mere mention of the doctrine.

In this brief comment, an attempt is made to point out that the beginning of the election campaign 2010 in Ethiopia lacks liveliness in terms of presenting concrete policy choices from the vantage point of the opposition. On the incumbent party side, there is plenty to be said in terms of track record, although embellishing anecdotes and courageous promises were wanting at the start of the debate. Election campaign should be about winning the hearts and minds of the bread winners.

Election is about choices between competing offers. The voters need to see compatible alternatives from which to choose.

If the first phase of the debate is to become standard rule for the campaign, we may be in for boring repetition of branding, recital of in competencies of the other side and externalizing own failings, with no offer of some indications that the future is promising. In that eventuality, woe unto us who will endure a campaign which is uninspiring: