.png)
By Seble Teweldebirhan
Addis Ababa, June 4, 2012 (Ezega.com) - The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) celebrated the 21st anniversary of the party’s successful conquest of political power last week. As usual Ginbot 20 (May 28) was remembered for the seventeen years of difficult armed struggle to defeat the Derg regime and the endurance and bravery of it’s fighters. In addition, the ‘constitutional rights’ guaranteed as a result of Ginbot 20 victory was over-emphasized as part of the celebration.
One of the fundamental human rights Ginbot 20 credited for is civil and political rights ensured under the FDRE constitution. The constitution guaranteed the Ethiopian people freedom of association for any cause or purpose. It ensured the rights of every one to vote, to be elected, and to participate in public affairs directly or through representatives. In addition, every citizen has a right to be a member in any political organization by his/her own will. In other words, the constitution creates a suitable environment for a multi-party system in Ethiopia.
However, it is clear that, for the last two decades the nation has been ‘unsuccessful’ in forming a strong and trustworthy political party or individual politicians other than the ones already in power. At this point many are starting to wonder if Ethiopia, regardless of constitutional promise for multi-party system, is slowly moving back to where it all started. To many, the outlook appears to be that the nation is once again on a path to one-party system and, at its worst, a one-man rule. Indeed, just as Haile Selassie and his imperial rule dominated the country or Mengistu Hailemariam and his Ethiopian People Workers Party had absolute authority over the country, today PM Meles Zenawi and his party, the EPRDF, are the dominant political figures.
However, some disagree and suggest that the present-day Ethiopia by any standard cannot be seen as a one-party state. Rather, the country has formed a dominant single party system, which is common in some nations with respectable democracy. The difference between a one-party and dominant single party system has a demarcation blurred in certain situations. However, it is possible to come up with some clear differences.
A dominant single party system may be defined as that despite the multi-party situation in the country, only one party is dominant and directs the political system by default. That party is firmly in control of state power over a long period of time. In this system periodic elections and other democratic gestures exist. In fact, multi-party activity is always behind the scenes. However, one particular party wins elections every time, and it might be difficult to forecast when that party will fall and lose elections. The reason why a single party dominates politics power differs depending on the history of each nation. Singapore, Russia, and most African nations, including South Africa and Tanzania, are examples of dominant single party system created through multi-party elections.
On the other hand, a one-party system is a system where there is only one political party in the country, and formation of any other opposition party is prohibited. For that matter, in most one-party system countries, there are no periodic elections. Eritrea, Cuba and China are some of the examples for a one-party state.
From the above brief description, it is possible to see, theoretically, where Ethiopia stands. Unlike the suggestion by many, the country actually formed dominant single party system, with a number of existing opposition parties unable to break into power.
The main question is how that is better than a one-party system. Dominant single party system is mostly criticized for anti-democratic features. This is because of the popular belief that alternation of power is a very crucial element for democracy – and for long-term development, for that matter. The main concern on dominant party system is the governing party sees less and less need to respond to public opinion because it is always assured of re-election all the time. It is therefore reasonable to argue that this in most cases leads to autocratic rule and abuse of power. It also weakens the separation of power and puts the integrity of the legislature in question. In addition, the vital elements of democracy, which is genuine competition and uncertainty in the outcome of elections are absent in a dominant single party system. There is also concern that a dominant single party system will likely lead to a one-party system.
Dominant single party system, however, for some is not all that bad. Scholars suggest that its advantages are worthy of consideration. This is because a political party can be dominant with democratic means. If it manages to win the hearts of its citizen repeatedly, regardless of existence of strong opposition, then it could be a sign of political stability especially in fragmented political environment.
EPRDF won the last election with more than 99% of the vote. So far, the society as well as the party expects similar results in the next election. For two decades, the only significant challenge to the ruling party was the 2005 election. Even that, one way or another ended with great political victory for EPRDF. The party that lost considerable votes gained a lot of acceptance after oppositions failed to meet any of the expectations of the electorate. The fact that they ended up refusing to join parliament, and embarrassingly fought between one another and kept blaming each other, formed breakaway mini-parties, some fled the country, and others failed to show any integrity and sound strategy to confront the ruling party was a huge political victory for EPRDF, even better than election win, some argue. (It must also be mentioned here that many also argue with reason that, whether the opposition had joined the government or not, the path to genuine multi-party system was doomed from the start – for lack of independent judiciary and military, they say. But this is a topic for another discussion some day.)
All of this created an environment for the ruling party to be dominant. However, one might question if the EPRDF played a role in this drama of the opposition and gained its dominance in an undemocratic manner. In other words, does all of this come, as the officials claim, with no intention of their own, but just because the opposition couldn’t manage to build the capacity to become a strong challenger?
Now the most important question is, is the country heading eventually to a single party system because we could not and do not have strong opposition parties?
The failure of the opposition parties in Ethiopian helped create an attitude among the public that says ‘Ethiopia is better off with the EPRDF’. During the 2010 election, many people voted for the ruling party, and their reason was that there was no better alternative. The oppositions in their own time seem to have lost the trust and acceptance of the public. Highly fragmented, weakened and confused, they seem to lack the reliability and endurance to flight and mount any significant challenge to the ruling party.
In addition, today, those who lead opposition parties happen to be individuals who have already disappointed the public politically in the past. The existing parties, even the main ones, have failed to show a clear vision for the country and present a compelling political agenda, or could not reach the public even if they have the strategy. Their voice is unheard on many of the critical problems of the society, unless when they blame or insult one another. At times, their comments and actions are hypocritical. For example they accuse the ruling party for worshipping individuals, creating a one-man rule and dominating the politics while their entire existence solely depended on individuals and never show any spirit of democracy or power sharing in their inside party politics.
For the ruling party, their every move seems a boost in its run to dominate the country politics. This is used to disgrace them in the eyes of the public and present them as a joke rather than an alternative.
However, the argument mostly is that the EPRDF intentionally played opposition parties in their eventual doom. Many cite the tough and challenging legal environment that followed as a reason. Especially after the 2005 election, several legislations that targeted and weakened the opposition one way or another were written into law. In addition, the public media is used almost entirely for ruling party programs and the miniature private media in Ethiopia never grew. Therefore, most opposition parties in Ethiopia are unknown even at name level. Some opposition leaders may have also been victimized for their political run, including economically ruined as they claim.
Regardless, it is proper to suggest opposition parties share a significant role for EPRDF’s political dominance in the country today. Indeed they have shown already in 2005 that there is a chance to influence power however small that may be. They won 100 seats in the House of Representatives, which has the highest political power in the country. The ruling party admitted this win at the time and was ready to give them (at least in theory) their share of power. This may have been the beginning of the moderating process in an otherwise the dominance of EPRDF.
The path they chose is well-known. Presently, they keep embarrassing the politics by sometimes acting in an irresponsible and self-centered manner, as if committed to popularize the ruling party.
A tough political environment is to be expected in a country like Ethiopia. The fact that the EPDRF itself came to power through armed struggle means sharing or giving-up power through elections is not conventional. In general, such parties have the history of resistance for opposition of any kind. However, if opposition parties choose to challenge this, it is important to come up with practical and clear vision and long-term strategy, and one that is not dependent on individuals, but rather on a party system. If not, they will always be doomed. After all, political game in countries like Ethiopia is not all about the best interests of the people, but rather a constant struggle to be relevant and/or stay in power.
_______________________________________
Seble Teweldebirhan is Addis Ababa based Reporter for Ezega.com. She can be reached by sending email through this form.
No comments:
Post a Comment