Capitalizing on 'Live' TV Debates

By Fitsum G.

April 5, 2005

Undoubtedly, the fact that such debates are being transmitted 'live' has immense significance. They create huge interest and unprecedented curiosity in the audience, giving them the chance to listen to whatever has been said, and how, without undergoing any kind of 'editing'. This in a way guarantees that who ever speaks at the fora knows that his/her opinions are being heard by the wide electronic media audience, and as it is, and this encourages more responsibility and maturity, enhancing confidence on the media. It invites the speakers to ponder seriously on what they need to communicate, and if mistaken, they might suffer setbacks, resulting in a loss of potential support, specially in view of the elections. It also safeguards more neutrality and transparency in the reporting of these events, ridding of suspicion and doubts. It involves the audience emotionally as everything is unfolding under their eyes! This could easily be taken as one important facet of democracy, the expression of one's ideas 'live' to the audience, without being modified, dismissed or silenced, albeit within a certain limited time frame, of course.

It is true that such transmissions have their own risks and dangers. Their full success all depends on the level of maturity and code of conduct that all participants abide by, (not only the main speakers, but also the panellists, the moderators as well as the wide general audience that eagerly attend the function in the halls). There have been various incidents of accusations and counter accusations, polemics between the debating parties and the organizer. They dwelt on how certain formalities should be fulfilled to the satisfaction of all contending parties such as the topic of the debates, their timing, the order of priority that speakers follow, the choice of chairpersons who lead the debating parties, the venues and the size of the audience to be invited at the same and who to invite and even the way the audience should behave itself etc. For instance the participation of the audience through applause and boisterous laughter was a point of contention as it was interpreted as undesired behaviour by some, while others (mainly the opposition) seemed to enjoy and capitalize on them. Undoubtedly, any democratic process involves such issues and much more. It cannot be simple and smooth to apply, realize. Even countries where there now reigns firm democratic culture and tradition had to pass through successive stages of violence, protest, battle, revolution and evolution, through years of hard and interminable work. Parties, associations, trade unionists and others had to stage protracted struggles through campaigns, public rallies and demonstrations, often marred with violence and casualties, to attain their current position. They had to fight for it as no despot would have granted them the rights that they now enjoy on a silver platter. Rights are to be fought for and earned, and not granted, the saying goes.

In a certain sense and to a limited extent, we are now observing that in Ethiopia, perhaps the time is coming to mature when people could fully participate in the democratic selection of their representatives, rulers, administrators, perhaps more than ever before. As election day is approaching, the election fever is rising higher and higher. The media is giving it maximum attention and focus, and every party and candidate is trying to attract as much attention as possible. Private papers dedicate special pages and feature stories to the vote, and a number of organizations are staging awareness creation forum where the public meet with their potential representatives. Emotions are growing by leaps and bounds, and people seem hugely fascinated by the process. They feel that their destinies are perhaps in their hands, forgetting recent expressions of apathy such as 'one should distance oneself from politics and fire'. Or 'what is the use of elections, the ruling party is going to win them any way!' Such cynic comments and attitude are hard to fade away, but they are gradually losing credit.

Hence, these continuing debates among the various political forces, with all their problems and idiosyncrasies can represent a certain maturity of the constituencies as the quality of candidates is showing marked improvement as well. We now see a lot of well educated and experienced people vying for seats in parliament, and this is encouraging. Politics should not be left to 'the ignorant', the 'little educated', the party affiliates or cadres by mere partisanship. Politics is a damn serious business because it is about power and about allocating resources, administering them, about guiding the country. The sensation that citizens cannot afford to leave all this responsibility to anyone without the necessary expertise, that is, not up to the lofty duty, or that they cannot let squander the scarce resources or precious time and sit idle, is acquiring credit.

It is true, the way to a certain acceptable standard of democracy is still very long and tortuous. But the beginning has already been heralded and, perhaps hopefully, irreversibly. It is encouraging to see that people now feel free enough to express their doubts and worries about government; they criticize their 'rulers' outspokenly. In these 'live' TV public debates among political parties, the opposition are enjoying a certain unprecedented freedom of expression in exposing their views to their potential supporters in a very large public forum, and their language is often direct and categoric, non compromising. In a way, it could be taken as one step ahead. It is also good to see that opposing party representatives can sit together and debate after which they exchange hand shakes, (just as we see happening in the democratic world). Why not? This can be a good example of how to enhance the culture of tolerance, the culture of cooperating on national issues. Matters should not be personalized!

This year's elections hence might promise certain changes in the sharing of the power at the House of Peoples Representatives and the various regional councils. It might be difficult to expect miracles, (such as defeating the ruling party and assuming power, or having all the problems of the country solved in one go). This could still be too farfetched. The feeling or expectation is however that the current elections will not be the same as the other two precedents. What is in any case very important is that a certain movement is going on among the Ethiopian people vis B vis the electoral process, and the party in power seems open to dialogue/discussion. This is often attributed by observers to a number of factors.

Among others, the pressure of the international community, (specially those who guarantee the survival of our government in power, through financial and moral support), is one. The very awakening of the people themselves, who by now are conscious about their rights and duties, and feel that the incumbent government has disappointed them, is another. The maturity and growth of various political forces that are now operating effectively in the country, and their adoption of a certain united stand (avoiding fragmentation and intestinal disputes, inflated ambitions etc. is still another. Fourthly, the very weakening of the ruling coalition could be cited as another factor in this process (continuous division/disputes among the members exposing the party to severe criticism, and hence the urge to renovate, all issues widely dwelt up on by the private press and have become a domain of the general public). Fifth, the huge burden of problems that citizens hardly cope with (as the discrepancy between the have and have-not increases), and people crave for changes in policies. The crisis in the economy, the high unemployment rate of the youths, the spiralling cost of living, the HIV/AIDS factor etc, are but a few of the factors in this mentality. And last but not least, the impasse with neighbouring Eritrea (no peace, no war) creating anxiety on the population. (And many even fear the eventuality that such uncertainty might be manipulated to prolong the life of this government, in an artificial way.) The case of the Ethio-Eritrean dispute has now become a fixed government agenda for the last few years; so much so that many of our long term development ventures seem to depend on whether we settle this critical dispute, once and for all, (and 'normalization' is attained sweeping away every residual anxiety); or we continue to entertain doubts about our relations with bordering nations. Hence, this issue as well may motivate voters to seek a change in government or at least in government policy so that peace and stability could become a guaranteed reality.

All these factors together with the expansion of the private newspapers, which are specialising in exposing the misdeeds of government, the ill-conceived, badly implemented policies, the corruption that is continuously reported and denounced, the various inter-ethnic clashes that risk to degenerate into all out civil conflicts, are forming a new state of mind in the population. This has convinced many that the ruling parties should not continue to rule this country singlehandedly. Undisturbed by worries of criticism, by accountability. After all, opposition parties' campaign is largely based on claims that Ethiopians are fed up with this government after having waited patiently for promises that never materialized. Fourteen years are already too many, (and another five years of such plight would be too much to bear!) they argue.

The democratic process that seems to unfold may be totally claimed by the ruling party (whom we often observe is keen to compare itself with past regimes that granted to Ethiopians little or nothing). The famous statement that EPRDF likes to portray itself as the 'redeemers' of Ethiopians from the dictatorship of the Derg, is now gradually fading as people's frustration and disappointment with the government continue to swell. And all this can be witnessed as one watches the debates on TV. Besides, the image of opposition party delegates/representatives, looking so fragile and insecure and their programs seeming to lack vision and conviction seem to be fading. Today's opposition parties are showing solidity and confidence. They even go to the extent of challenging the very members of the ruling party to 'vote for them' and 'liberate themselves from a certain bondage that their very party is subjecting them to!'

And coming back to last Sunday's debate, what was most impressive about it was what the audience of workers from the federations of the labour force did to the organizers, the Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions, (CETU). They demanded that their true representatives' voices be heard, not acknowledging the ones already chosen, and placed as panellists as theirs. And this had to happen outside the schedule and the will of the organizers! When the chairman of the debate invited them to cordially abide by the schedule, the wide gathering of the assembly blocked the process, continuously and boisterously applauding the designated speaker, until their demands were heard. For minutes, the proceedings had to be halted, to the embarrassment of the party representatives at the podium, ready to present their parties' programs on the plight of the labour force. When the chairman of the debate failed to control the noises, representatives of each party intervened, imploring the protesters to calm down and that their voices would be heard soon anyway, and what they did then was already enough to show their discontent. But the protest could not subside until finally, one person from the large gathering was invited to 'suggest a compromise'. He said that since the forum was a 'democratic platform', they must be given the chance to speak their mind, through their genuine representatives, and not through people chosen at the union's leaders' convenience. He was challenging the legitimacy/authority of CETU, and simultaneously the 'influence' of the ruling party on the same.

And two people chosen at random were given the chance to immediately present their questions. That was in miniature a demonstration of how democratic rights could be respected where a determined and conscious people existed. Government cannot govern outside the will of the people, if there is going to be democracy. In a way, what we saw was what we hardly experienced before. At other occasions, measures were taken at the halls and the voices were successfully subdued while this time around, the chairman or other forces could not control/suppress the voices, before they were allowed to be heard. And so it happened.

If 'appetite comes while eating', other similar occasions could erupt. And eventually, this could be an exemplary demonstration that the peoples' voice is actually the winning voice. Even when dictatorial regimes abounded in history, finally, it was the peoples' unity and determined voices that defeated fascism and dictatorship. That is what democracy is all about. It is not a mysterious object. Hence, Sunday's event can be presented as a pioneering 'eye-opener'. The debates may make a difference!