Ethiopia has successfully conducted so far three general elections since its introduction of multi-party system as part of the overall democratic changes brought about after the demise of the last dictatorship in 1991. At this moment, the country is preparing to hold the Fourth General Elections. The main road opted by the Ethiopian peoples ever since their victory of democracy is the one in favor of the peoples’ right to self-administration. That is why; the Ethiopian peoples are now being administrated by leaders they elect them through free and direct elections. In short, elections in which various alternatives are presented to the peoples and compete freely and fairly with one another have been a regular phenomenon in this country since the introduction of democratic order.
The third general elections conducted in the year 2005 were characterized by unprecedented public participation. The peoples had extensive access to various political outlooks and party programs as alternatives to choose from. With the final outcomes, oppositions had managed to get 25%; emerging nationality-based parties 11% while the ruling party secured the remaining 64%of seats in the Federal House of Peoples’ Representatives. Similarly, the ruling party was able to secure the upper hand in regional seats, while the oppositions had managed to get some. Though the electoral process was as democratic as recognized by all parties including the contestants, the public and foreign observers, the post-election incidents were marred by street violence ignited by some elements as they instantly rejected the final official electoral outcomes in a desperate move to reverse them forcefully, which ultimately led to the death of 186 civilians and 7security members.
Despite the fact that the Third National Elections were democratic as recognized by all sides, the attempt made by some elements to change the final outcomes forcefully was absolutely wrong that should never happen again. The situation has however given the nation a good lesson. It has made it imperative that all the necessary precautions have to be put in place before conducting any elections so that similar incidents would no more prevail in other elections and halt the democratic process. In line with these objectives, several activities have been carried out since post-election incidents in 2005.
The first step taken was the initiative of inter-party dialogue on vital issues that would have greater implications on the political process in Ethiopia. Thus, interparty dialogues were carried on major issues. Among them are rules of Procedures and Members code of Conduct the House of Peoples’ Representatives, the Electoral Law of the country, establishment of the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia with the consensus of contending parties, and other laws related to political parties and the media. While most of the issues discussed were endorsed much often with the consensus of rival political parties, differences were settled by majority vote rulings of the House of Peoples’ Representatives.
Partners of the inter-party dialogues were political parties that have seats in the House of Peoples’ Representatives. Namely, they were Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), Union of Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF), Ethiopians Democratic Party (Medhn), EDP, Kinjit (CUD) led by Honourable Ato Ayele Chamiso, Oromo Federalist Democratic Movement and some other allied political organizations.
It is recalled that rules and procedures and members code of conduct of the former parliament that was to quickly dissolve in the post-elections 2005, was a subject of much criticism. Some had even dubbed it as a restrictive one to oppositions. That time, the government had pledged to revise that as well as some other pertinent laws. Thus, in line with its pledge, the first thing the government has done was reviewing them vis-à-vis to similar laws of other democratic countries. And no doubt, the initial reviews were made by foreign consultants as per the government’s promise. Thus the studies, which had extensively provided comparisons and contrasts were compiled and distributed to the negotiating political parties. Thus, capitalizing on the compiled reports, the parties had a two-month long dialogue on the Code of conduct of the House during which they have introduced several inputs. At the end of the day, an inter-party consensus was reached to enrich the democratic provisions in the first proclamation and to make some new entries. Major new entries made by the inter-party dialogue to the Code of Conduct of the House include, motioning system, question hour, wherein the Prime Minister and other ministers prevail themselves to parliamentary question-answer sessions, the Opposition Day, when the oppositions have unmatched privilege of airing their views, the establishment of joint forum of political parties with parliamentary seats and more than 10 members, as well as the reorganization and redistribution of task in the parliamentary standing committees in a way it ensures wider participation of the oppositions. That was why the parliament has featured itself over the last four years as a House where in the majority ruled while the oppositions exercised their right to be heard.
The other major step taken as a result of the inter-party dialogue was the amendment of the Electoral Law of the country. Though the law was basically perfect, amending some of its provisions through the involvement of all political parties was believed to have been a cornerstone in cementing the foundation for mutual understanding and confidence among political actors. Thus, an inter-party dialogue was carried out with the objective of amending the electoral law of the country. The subject of the dialogue was again a proposal drafted by foreign experts who analyzed the experiences of other democratic countries. As a result of the dialogue, while some of the democratic provisions in the original law were kept as they were, other new provisions which all the political parties believed as vital were included without contravening the Constitution. Among the new entries are the one referring to the nomination of members of National Electoral Board of Ethiopia.
Basically Article 102 of the Constitution of the Federal democratic Republic of Ethiopia gives the mandate to the Prime Minister to propose candidates for membership of the Electoral Board on the basis of profession and non-partisanship. Of course, that is subject to the endorsement of the House of Peoples’ Representatives. This is constitutional provision that can never be transgressed by whatever interests.
Be that as it may, involving all the political parties in the nomination of board members had been felt important in consolidating the democratic process in this country. And, that was no more a goodwill but a reality. Indeed, what we have right now in this country is an Electoral Board set up with the involvement and consent of political parties.
The process was as follow: Honorable Bulcha Demeksa, one of the opposition leaders was made to play a chairmanship role in collecting the names of all possible candidates proposed by each political party. Then, each of specific proposals was redistributed to the other party so that every one of them scrutinized the proposals of others and finally came up with a compromised selection of one’s own. That was how, names of 12 nominees who have got the acceptance of all the parties were forwarded to the Prime Minister, who ultimately submitted nine of them to the House of Peoples’ Representatives that ultimately endorsed them as Members of the functional National Electoral Board of Ethiopia. Thus, what we have today is a nine-member Board, whose three members were initially proposed by the Oppositions and later approved by the consent of the ruling party and the remaining six initially proposed by the ruling party and later approved by the consent of the Oppositions. In short, the current Electoral Board is in deed an independent and non-partisan institution responsible for undertaking elections in the country means that the decisions made by the Board are likely to be accepted by all contending parties in the elections.
The inter-party dialogue has extended itself to encompass even the strategic plan of the Electoral Board, which was again drafted by foreign experts, and actually led to its endorsement with important amendments. Major differences that manifested amid the process were whether the Electoral Board at district level should have permanent staff. The ruling party and some of the oppositions have favored for the prevalence of permanent structure at the central, regional and probably up to the zonal levels and opposed permanent staff beyond on the argument that would make tens of thousands idle for every five years, on the one hand, and would cost the country a huge amount, on the other. That was against the stands of some of the oppositions who argued for the creation of permanent staff at the district level regardless of the costs. Finally their differences were resolved by Majority Ruling of the parliament.
Similarly, the party and media rule(s) had undergone through inter-party dialogue. Minor differences that were manifested in the dialogue on the specific areas were ultimately resolved by majority rulings of the House.
In general, the new manifestations in the political process of Ethiopia as of 2005 prove how some of the rules of the game have been redrawn by inter-party dialogue and hence how reliable foundations have been created for the establishment of a robust multi-party system in the country. Though some tried to portray the democratic process in the country as back-pedaling, genuine exploration of differences in the pre- third and the pre-fourth elections proves the ever improving political environment for legally registered political parties determined for peaceful political struggle.
Thus, it is with such a conducive environment that the fourth general elections are to take place. That is because the Government of Ethiopia has recognized from the outset that there is no substitute to a true democratic system. The fact that the political process in Ethiopia is ever-consolidating and not deteriorating as some tried to portray is simply because of the government’s commitment for the prevalence of robust democratic order in the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment