What are elections without alternatives?

By Fitsum Getachew

How to guarantee, therefore, that elections really meet the target of their essence, their raison d’etre? Who to organize, lead and monitor them, so that they are not manipulated and distorted become crucial questions. Averting elections from being tampered with, and rigging, becomes key in averting abuse of power, artificial prolongation of the life of government. Otherwise, the whole exercise would be darkened by discontent, preclusion of change, suspicion or loss of confidence on the system. As a matter of fact, reports indicate that public participation in elections is dwindling (due to peoples’ skepticism and cynicism against politicians) to such an extent that it is becoming a worry that democracy could be in peril. And this is so even in the traditionally established democracies. Recent electoral research shows that those who participate in elections are at an all time low in the UK, the US and even Canada! Analysts are probing into the ways of reversing such dangerous trend.

Media reports that elections in so-and-so country have been rigged and that opposition/defeated parties, vanquished candidates, have rejected or contested the outcome do contribute to the scepticism of voters. We have heard of not fair-and-free, manipulated elections, by ruling coalitions or their cohorts, and the results judged ‘not genuine’. For many reasons. Suffice it to mention the results of the recent Russian elections with incumbent president Vladimir Putin’s landslide win, (rated by observers as ‘artificial’). Protests usually follow the disclosure and publication of results, but there are cases where they are voiced even earlier, claiming that the grounds of competition were not ‘level’ or fair. Although such voices are recurrent in the Third World, they are becoming common even in the so-called democratic world. And the fact that elections have often led to ‘controversies’, and even violence with casualties, has been considered as a sort of a healthy and normal ritual of a vibrant and vigorous democratic society. The interests at stake are such that avoiding all sorts of controversies would have sounded unreal. An apathetic society would have submitted to what ever was imposed on it! The Bush-Gore duel in the US 2000 presidential election was one incident where the results were highly contested!

In Africa, the situation is complicated by a number of extra-political interests/motives that are not so common (outdated?) in the West. Here, politics could be a matter of ‘survival’, full of issues of ‘nationalities’, tribal or familial affiliations, regions, religions, circles/elites, groups of various colours and interests, borders, rather than the more logical issues on the economy, the foreign policy, the social welfare....African democratic culture, (admitted it even existed), is still infant, vulnerable and precarious, built on the mix of ashes of the ‘anti-colonial’ movement, the ‘anti-European’ sentiment, the sympathy with the East, and the Socialist psyche (considered as panacea for years). And frequent rebellions, coup d’états, military junta take overs have characterized the political scenario for decades. The recent incidents in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d’Ivoire are samples!

The ‘fragmentation’ of Africa into some 53 ‘independent’ nations, a result of the above scenario, makes the reality all the more complex, and difficult to decipher. There is a certain legacy (from presumably a ‘Leninist mentality’), which asserts that any nationality has the right to be a ‘sovereign’ state. Such influence some how induced even ‘tiny’ nationalities, with barely enough resources to maintain themselves, to try and live autonomously, while the reigning reality now would be ‘globalization’, convergence and cohesion of nation states into one big force and face the stiff economic competition with a broader perspective and stronger muscle.

In as much as economics very much determines all the games of the world, any infant or fragile state could very easily be crushed/engulfed by the larger ones. The possibility of existing ‘independently’ is hence farfetched. The reality is that the big fish continues to devour the smaller ones, (contrary to the wishful thinking that the ‘theory of laissez-faire economy’ would make you fancy. The small fish is simply a prey!) It is hence difficult to tell what future will await all these tiny nation states, created artificially and unrealistically (often by the whims and caprices of ambitious leaders), bearers of certain nationalistic slogans! After all, we have seen that their priorities have rarely coincided with the needs of the communities they intend to lead, other than sheer pursuit of personal glory or grandeur!

In any case, in all these tiny entities, politics has even stronger flavour than in the bigger nations! As usual, there are talks about elections, parties, candidates, and the media. If democracy can hardly be expressed without free elections, these can hardly have such posture, unless promoted via a free and independent media! Doubtless, one sided media would be an instrument to dictatorship, destructive of the ‘spirit of democracy’!

Meanwhile, the most significant and notorious of all elections, the ones in the US, shall have been decided by November 2, 2004. The candidates have passed all the formalities, and the campaigns have been intense and full of frenzy with the last days being real frenetic. Almost every issue has been raised and debated. People have seen very interesting, live debates (civilized, even in an atmosphere of hostility or disagreement), between the candidates, challenger Senator John Kerry and incumbent George W. Bush). To see that two aspiring leaders of the only supreme power in the world argue face to face on any number of national and international issues on live TV transmission should really be considered as a wonderful outcome of democracy. (We long for the time when similar contests will be carried out in Africa!)

But there have been ‘elections’ also in many African countries, (including South Africa, where perhaps there exists a more mature and credible democratic structure). The recent election of a new Somali president could be considered as a hope for the peace and stability of our sub-region, while the Cameroonian and Tunisian elections seem to have left a lot to be desired in terms of their being free and fair. Turning our eyes inwards, the inevitable questions are, ‘at what stage are the preparations for the forthcoming elections? How will opposition parties behave? What should we expect of them?

In Ethiopia, the idea of elections were in existence even during the Haile Selassie epoch, (before decades), albeit ‘formal’. MPs were elected to parliament by the people, but the fact that these parliamentarians were little more than a ‘rubber seal’ of what the executive proposed to them, had severely diminished their profile. Hence, the whole electoral process was not such a breakthrough, albeit pioneering! And in this sense, it could be judged ‘positive’. Election formalities were observed, with registrations, posters of candidates, presentations to the public etc. But alas there were no parties, and that was a clear lacuna. On what platform were candidates to contest elections? While admitting that a flavour or semblance of democracy was being attempted, (thanks to the ‘acquiescence’ of the enlightened monarch), the substance was way behind what would have been the legitimate aspirations of Ethiopians. The monarch felt kind enough to concede a share of his ‘divine powers’ to his subjects! There was the Senate, (again nominal) where the members were illustrious handpicked people (by the Emperor, in recognition of noteworthy service, or to remove them from a menacing position, aborting their ambition)! There are no traces of any ‘significant’ laws (that impacted on society) promulgated by these two archaic bodies.

Subsequently, when the military junta deposed the monarch, (1974), and settled on the apex of power, it too, had to flirt with the idea of ‘elections’ (the National ‘Shengo’, or Assembly, the neighbourhood elections (Kebeles, provinces etc) in search of ‘legitimization’, in a semblance of ‘democracy’. However, it was evident that democracy in the absence of alternative choices had remained only a fancy, (the ‘socialist’ Workers Party of Ethiopia was the only platform of election!). The ‘elections’ that consecrated the Peoples Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, a new constitution, and President Mengistu Haile Mariam’s ‘election’ with 99.9 per cent of the votes were simply fake! However, similar elections being very common elsewhere in Africa, Ethiopia’s case was hardly worthy of international media attention.

Then came May 28,1991. EPRDF, the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front, (mainly influenced by TPLF, Tigray Peoples Liberation Front), assumed power. Again, ‘elections’ and respect for human rights constituted a major agenda, and they were promptly declared. A federal arrangement of decentralisation was carved and put in place (with the ‘nationality criteria’ denounced by opposition forces). A new constitution was promulgated and elections ‘celebrated’ in 1995 and 2000, with the coming 2005 elections being the third since 1991.

Two houses were formed (Representatives and the Federation) with members chosen for the latter on the basis of origin of ‘nations and nationalities and peoples’. A sort of ‘parliamentary democracy’ (with parliament sovereign and the executive accountable to it) was installed. The president assumed mostly formal functions while the premier run the government. Now, leaving aside the issue of moral or legal legitimacy of such government, (which opposition elements would always defy), what sort of political scenario was in substance created since 1991, and did the government live up to the promises it made? would be questions to pose.

What is day to day reality is that EPRDF dominates the political scene and no other party seems to represent any tangible menace to its authority. With ninety percent of the Assembly’s seats commanded by its members, (main nationality representation being OPDO for the Oromo, ANDM for the Amhara, SPRDF for the South Peoples, and TPLF for Tigray), despite the noise that opposition forces may raise, (specially at donors meetings or international fora), EPRDF’s grip on power seems firm and cool. And giving extensive interviews, condemning government’s policies at any venue, (accusing it of anything conceivable, narrow ethnicity, human rights breaches and what have you...), their impact has been almost nill. Rather, the fragmentation and conflict amongst the anti-EPRDF forces must have made government smile. No one seems to realize that division amongst opposition is godsend for any incumbent government. Kenya’s KANU seemed to rule the country for eternity until all opposition forced decided to form the NARC alliance and deposed it. But this appears ‘Greek’ to most of our ‘politicians’, and they don’t understand this language.

And the fact that these so called opposition forces can speak out as much as they want (a few have seats in parliament) has contributed to the image of the government as ‘tolerant of criticism’ and ‘open to the public’ rather than looking intimidating. The existence of a certain anti-government private press seems to add even more to such image. And this has become more than an ‘anti-retro viral drug’ for the life of the government. If once the prime minister was heard saying that EPRDF’s main problem was that it did not have a well-organized and challenging opposition, these should consider seriously their weaknesses, even if they might have doubted the sincerity of such statement. A strong opposition would certainly open a new chapter in the political scenario of this country and many things would be put under discussion. No mysteries about it! But where to find it?!

These people have dared to vow that if the upcoming elections were conducted freely and fairly, they could place a lethal blow to the incumbent rule! And that would be why the government was doing every thing within its capacity to smear their reputation, they claim. Certainly, the opposition themselves are making life to the ruling coalition ‘very easy’, by despising and accusing one another with epithets that would hardly inspire their followers, effective or potential! They have often gone public on their disagreements, (instead of washing their dirty linen at home!) and disputed on ‘partition of seats’, prematurely and ridiculously!

Meanwhile, it is evident that the incumbent government is doing every thing it can to ‘polish its image’ as a popular and striving-to-reform government (with ‘tehadiso’) and the like, and it is making very intense use of the public media under its control. Certainly, it would not let any opposition take the upper hand in any contest.

Talking about the media in Ethiopia, we see that it is enjoying a certain liberty, (and currently, there are no reporters in prison, compared to some years ago, even if its international rank is still at 112th). The ‘Ethiopian Free Press Journalists Association’, EFPJA, (now banned and allegedly substituted by a government-embraced or sponsored association,) had consistently mounted an extensive campaign for the release of jailed journalists, with success. But the fact that electronic media is still a government monopoly has cast a big shadow on its reputation. Criticism on this is as fierce as it could be. It is hard to imagine freedom of expression in the absence of some independent views aired on private, independent electronic media. Notwithstanding government’s declarations that it would not object to a private media outfit, however, legislative formalities/preconditions have resulted unsurmountable bottlenecks. A new broadcast law, presented some five years ago, still awaits implementation, (while neighbours such as Tanzania and Uganda undergoing similar process have done it!) This issue was steadfastly brought to the attention of the Minister of Information by international media organisations and stakeholders (at a discussion forum hosted here recently by the minister on the delicate issue of the newly proposed press law). We still seem to be in the midst of the dark tunnel.

Clearly there is a blatant difference between electronic and print media, specially in an African context, (the majority of the population is illiterate, with little access to readership; copies of papers hardly reach outside the main centres, and with printing costs in continuous hike, copies are precious few). Beside the mediocre media organization, the distribution as well lags. Some statistics say, for seventy million Ethiopians, there are not even three hundred thousand copies of regular news prints! This by itself is a major drawback. Conversely, in the case of the electronic media, the chances of reaching the public are better, and simultaneously, (sharing the same, public radio apparatus or TV sets). If there are millions of radio sets, and if ETV’s claim that it covers some 65% of the country’s surface is plausible, there would be the potential of reaching a huge number of Ethiopians. Here is where the government could flex its muscles, continuing to enjoy more than a comfortable advantage on its use!

At a recent workshop intended to use as a ‘curtain raiser’ for the coming elections, presenters talked about the significant role of the media and journalists in election reporting, (journalists and press people from all over the country were invited ). It was noted that without a free and independent media, there could not be valid opposition to government through elections. If people did not have the chance of choosing from a variety of political platforms, having had the chance to partake in debates on issues, elections would be meaningless. Some of the participants talked of ‘dreams’ of free election unless the electronic media were de-monopolized, and private companies were allowed to have a share of them.

But as things stand today, there seems to exist little chance of having an independent private electronic media before the forthcoming elections. Not only that. Many even fear that with the new Press Law, due to be promulgated soon, there could even be less press freedom, enough to curtail significantly the current ‘acquired’ independence and courage! The private press has been often criticized by the government of disseminating ‘unfounded, distorted and alarming stories’ on what was going on, both with government intentions, policies and implementation, as well as with the country’s development achievements. Specially with certain clashes flaring up here and there, there have been ‘exaggerations and slanted views’ motivated by ‘destabilizing’ political elements, foreign and local, ‘anti-peace gangs’ undermining the democratic law and order, security. For the government, the private press is enjoying undeserved power, and would need to be ‘recalled to its senses’. And a new Freedom of Information Act was also in the making, ‘for the purpose of provision of information from all government bodies’. Public Relations officers of public office have hence been undergoing some training.

Naturally, there is widespread opposition against certain government restrictions imposed on the private press. The draft press law has attracted stiff resistance from international press associations (with letters of protest addressed to the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Information, (the author of the draft, provoking the question, ‘is the ministry a legislator?), and to the Ministry of Justice and the House of Peoples Representatives). As events unroll, (there could soon be new breakthroughs and the private media operators are anxiously waiting to see how much of their destiny is to be affected), we cannot undermine the significance of the role of media in elections. We have seen them making and unmaking many elections, and this is very much so, specially with TV, where spots are bought for millions of dollars! In any case, every one in our courtyard is anxious to know what new developments are in the pipeline with what results. Will it be the same persons with different hats, or could there be some beef in the elections? We wait and see.