ETHIOPIA CONDUCTED ITS FOURTH FEDERAL and regional election on 23 May 2010. Considering the widespread pre-election interest and excitement the 2005 election attracted, and the vigorous role played by the opposition both during the campaign and in the post-election turmoil, the 2010 process was a huge let-down. The general impression among Ethiopians was that the outcome was a foregone conclusion, so the electorate was rather passively, or perhaps reluctantly, following the campaign and election discourse. The only excitement was related to how overwhelmingly the incumbent Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) would win; the general guesstimate was that the huge opposition gains in the 2005 elections, giving them one-third of the seats in the House of Representatives, would be pushed back in order for EPRDF to secure a solid victory of between 75–85 percent of the seats. It thus raised some eyebrows both domestically and internationally when the National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) declared that EPRDF had secured 99.6 percent of the seats in Parliament – all but two, one going to the opposition and one to an EPRDF-friendly independent candidate.
ThereforeWhat happened in the 2010 electoral process, or before, that can explain the radical setback for the opposition and the total victory of EPRDF? Does the election outcome represent the genuine will of the Ethiopian electorate? Is it true, as Prime Minister Meles Zenawi asserts, that EPRDF actually is that popular? This brie!ng offers three broad categories, each with three sets of interconnected and reinforcing factors, explaining the shift of political climate in Ethiopia since the 2005 elections, making sense of the ‘better-than-Soviet-style’ 2010 election result. First, however, a brief background to Ethiopia’s electoral transition is presented and an analysis of the political context prior to the run-up to the 2010 election. Thereafter, the article turns to the campaign, polling, results, and complaint processes, before concluding with the three sets of factors explaining the election outcome.
Democratic ‘transition’ in Ethiopia and the run-up to the 2010 elections
Political transitions of states are complex processes formed by an in!nite number of factors anchored in unique past histories, in"uenced by peculiar current events, and motivated by ideology and future aspirations. One should thus be wary of slotting the Ethiopian democratic transition into a formula based on a !xed number of variables, as ‘different states have different histories, cultures, sizes, and economic and demographic structures that at the very least have to be taken into account in the construction of democratic formulae’.1 In Christopher Clapham’s illuminating analysis, Ethiopia presents !ve explicit challenges to democratization which have worked as overall impediments to consolidating the transition: (1) a political history in which no government has assumed power through elections – but always by force; (2) a state structure where the complexities of geography and demography fragment and undermine any attempt at social or political cohesion; (3) a political ‘state culture’ that places enormous emphasis on hierarchy and obedience, the antithesis of democratic values of egalitarianism and liberty; (4) a violent revolutionary experience which tore apart the social fabric of society; and (5) a government that took power through insurgency is – as history shows – hardly one which will relinquish power without struggle.2
The constrained, manipulated, and non-competitive 2008 local elections set the stage for the 2010 electoral process.3 One year prior to the election Professor Beyene Petros, opposition leader and chairman of the main opposition coalition Medrek,4 was still uncertain whether they would run in the 2010 elections given the political environment:
The government prevents us to communicate and get close to our constituency. We are not even allowed to talk to local administrators about our followers’ concerns. I was told by district leaders from my constituency in Hadiya that us ‘parliamentarians’ should stay in Addis and make laws, and not interfere in local affairs.5
As numerous studies have shown, the post-2005 crackdown in Ethiopia had widespread consequences on governmental policies and how they restricted liberal values and democratic principles, in contradiction to the Ethiopian constitution and international instruments rati!ed by the country.6 By ratifying new restrictive legislation and adopting new policies aimed at curbing dissent, the government consciously developed a complex and multi-layered strategy to prevent the political opposition from consolidating and making further political and electoral advances. In the aftermath of the 2005 electoral shock, the EPRDF leadership, and notably the chief ideologist Prime Minister Meles Zenawi himself, authored a number of booklets used to reinvigorate and re-ideologize the party apparatus and to inspire and guide cadres in ful!lling the power ambitions of the party.7 For instance, in a booklet called Democracy and Democratic Unity used in the massive, countrywide teacher training ideology seminars conducted in early 2006 to ‘explain’ the 2005 election result and the following crackdown, and make corrections for the future, it is explicitly stated that the Ethiopian people has a ‘clear choice between dependency and anti-democracy forces8 (utilizing tools of chauvinism and narrow nationalism) and revolutionary democracy9 (peace and developmentalism)…. No Ethiopian can stand on middle ground or be neutral.’10 During the massive re-ideologization campaign undertaken after the 2005 elections (commonly referred to as ‘capacity-building’ seminars and supported through donor basket funding), the EPRDF and the Prime Minister deliberately employed an alarmist language, aiming to polarize the political landscape and to convince the people that, without EPRDF in power, Ethiopia would turn into chaos.11
The tactics used in the 2010 pre-electoral period targeted individual voters, human rights defenders (such as NGOs and journalists), and opposition parties and their members directly, in order to eliminate their capacity as voices of dissent and criticism. Citizens of constituencies that had voted for the opposition in 2005 were pressured – intimidated, harassed, and threatened – to withdraw the symbolic support they had voluntarily extended through the ballot to ‘anti-democratic’ forces.12 NGOs who had observed the elections and raised a critical voice against the postelection governmental crackdown were sanctioned, and later permanently curbed through the new legislation (Charities and Societies Proclamation – CSO law) effective from January 2010.13 Private media outlets were closed down and journalists reporting on the crackdown and voicing criticism of government policies were harassed and intimidated, forcing scores to "ee the country.14 Opposition parties’ members and facilities were directly targeted through a variety of repressive mechanisms, such as personal threats and harassment, closure of party of!ces and breaking up of meetings, and denying individuals access to state resources, public goods, or of!cial permits needed to carry out their work.15 The all-out assault emerges clearly in the testimony of Professor Merera Gudina, Medrek opposition leader and chairman of Oromo Peoples Congress:
More or less all our party of!ces are forcefully closed. In Ambo, for instance, the house owner we rented of!ces from was told by the authorities that he constructed the building illegally and that it had to be demolished. Then we were kicked out; and the building is still standing.16
Four years of active state repression against democratic voices of dissent and legislative and institutional infringement on the freedom of organization and expression did not bode well for a level playing !eld in the 2010 electoral process.
The 2010 electoral process: registration, campaign, polling, results, and complaint process
In the fall of 2009 several Codes of Conduct for various stakeholders in the elections were prepared.17 Most attention was given to the Code of Conduct for Political Parties, signed on 30 October 2009 after two months of negotiations by Meles Zenawi and the leaders of three minor but symbolically important opposition parties.18 The Code regulated parties’ conduct during the electoral process and established cross-party committees vested with the theoretical mandate to investigate claims of violence and illegal detentions, and to intervene if necessary.19
The main opposition block, the Medrek coalition, never entered the negotiations on the Code, arguing that before reaching an agreement on rather super!cial electoral guidelines, an agreement on basic principles of the rule of law was needed. As explained by Gebru Asrat, the legendary former TPLF leader and regional president of Tigray, currently chairman of the Tigrayan opposition party Arena and among the leaders of Medrek, in the aftermath of the signing of the Code:
As of now it is even dif!cult for us to survive as a political party outside the electoral race. We are harassed, intimidated and our of!ces closed. Thus, before [the] Code of Conduct negotiations, we wanted to look at basic principles of rule of law during elections, as the denied right to assembly, forceful closing of party of!ces, political prisoners, harassment of opposition members, etc. Because rule of law is fundamental to all organized and individual political activity, these issues must be settled !rst…. We wanted to discuss free, fair and credible elections as a whole, not only a piece of paper called the Code of Conduct.20
Since the other non-Medrek opposition parties denied that they had similar problems related to basic rule of law in the country, Medrek asked EPRDF for bilateral talks on these issues before they entered the Code of Conduct negotiations. The government rejected this, and Medrek was thus left out of the high-pro!le and hyped negotiations.
There was nothing in the Code of Conduct for Political Parties that was not already enshrined in the electoral act and other laws of Ethiopia.21 But from the manner in which the negotiations were handled and talked about by EPRDF, as well as by donors and diplomats supporting the process, it is quite clear that it was deliberately stage-managed to give democratic legitimacy to EPRDF ahead of elections, despite the very restrictive legislative and political environment described above. Speaking at the signing ceremony, Meles Zenawi said ‘the document would mean that parties could contest peacefully and legally with fair competition among all parties’, and emphasized that ‘the agreement is a new chapter for the country’.22
Medrek never signed the Code of Conduct for Political Parties, but as the House of Representatives later rati!ed it as law, they were nevertheless bound by its dictates. Beyond giving a semblance of democratic legitimacy to EPRDF, the Code would also be a convenient tool if needed in a possible post-election crackdown on the opposition, as explained by Meles Zenawi at a press conference just four days prior to Election Day when addressing opposition campaign activity: ‘We prefer to look the other way during the election contest, in the interest of a smooth election contest. If need be, we can come back to those crimes committed during the election, after the election. I hope it does not intimidate anybody.’23
The electoral cycle commenced in December 2009 with candidate registration from 25 December to 22 February 2010.24 A total of 63 political parties registered to compete in the elections (at federal and regional levels), launching 2,188 candidates for the House of Representatives and 4,746 candidates for the nine Regional State Councils.25 Opposition parties complained, however, that some of their candidates were prevented from registering by the authorities.26 Voter registration was conducted from 9 January to 21 February 2010. Several sources – both Ethiopians and foreigners – con!rm that the authorities pressured people to register; cadres went door-to-door and instructed people to go to registration centres. Furthermore, the voter registration cards were reportedly also used as a compulsory ‘ID-card’ in certain circumstances to show that you ‘support the process’. Consequently 31,926,520 million voters registered (out of an estimated 37 million potential eligible voters) – a very high number for an African country.27
Considering the widespread 2005 post-election violence, many feared a high level of con"ict during the 2010 elections. The government had thus taken special precautions in surveillance of opposition activity and in police riot control, in order to prevent a repeat of the 2005 events.28 The campaign period was of!cially launched on 9 February 2010. There were a number of complaints from both government and opposition parties about campaign violations, notably campaigning in prohibited areas and the destruction of campaign materials. The opposition also lodged a number of complaints against local administrators, police, and the government party on obstacles to campaigning;29 generally these complaint were either not acted upon by NEBE30 or rejected by the authorities. Furthermore, a number of opposition candidates were arrested or detained without charge during the campaign,31 creating apprehension and insecurity in many locations. The campaign also witnessed some serious, but isolated, incidents of violence; among these, two opposition members and a police of!cer were reported killed in separate incidents. The opposition argued that the killing of an Arena opposition candidate in Tigray was politically motivated, a claim which was rejected by the authorities.32 The opposition also accused the government of organizing a broad-based and systematic campaign of harassment, intimidation, and coercion, including the systematic denial of food aid to opposition supporters, in order to force people to vote for EPRDF.33 According to NEBE, 72 candidates withdrew during the election campaign alleging harassment and intimidation (as well as !nancial and personal motives). Overall, the European Union observer mission ‘considers that insuf!cient measures were taken to protect the right to campaign in an environment free from threats and intimidation throughout the country’.34 Despite these claims and incidents, the campaign, voting, and post-election phase were generally peaceful and calm with no major disturbances observed – a fact many Ethiopians accredit to the stalwart security and military control the government has over its population.
Polling was generally conducted in an organized and peaceful manner on Saturday 23 May. Turnout was also extremely high, at 93.4 percent; considering the constrained political environment in the country, this is a remarkable level and the likeliest explanations are the use of coercive means to get people to vote, or a rigged turn-out number. The EU observer mission35 noted several severe inconsistencies of election protocol among the polling stations they observed. For instance, in about one-third of observed polling stations the opening procedures were not followed. More critically, in 23 percent of observed polling stations the number of ballots received was not checked against the !gure provided by the NEBE-issued document, making it impossible to reconcile this !gure with the number of ballots at the closing.36 Furthermore, in 21 percent of the polling stations observed people were allowed to vote without their voter cards, and the process of closing and counting was described as ‘poor’ in 34 percent of the polling stations.37 In international election observer terms, these are extremely high numbers of signi!cant breaches of the electoral protocol; which makes it more or less impossible to vouch for the credibility of the overall election result. Added to this is the fact that opposition party agents were only observing the balloting in about half of the polling stations, and Medrek reported that many of their party agents had been ‘hunted down and barred from observ[ing] the process’.38 In Tigray, for instance, the Medrek-af!liated opposition party Arena !led over 7,000 names of party agents to NEBE, and only 250 showed up on polling day to do their job; as Arena chairman Gebru Asrat explained, ‘The rest were terri !ed and ran away due to pressure and harassment.’39 Medrek also complained about the breaches of secrecy of votes, as in several places people were voting in groups – surveyed by the local EPRDF cell leader.40 The opposition also has credible evidence of ballot stuf!ng and trashing of opposition votes. Professor Merera Gudina showed this author dozens of valid ballot papers (with NEBE stamp) where voters had ticked off for Medrek: the ballots were found in the latrine areas after the counting was !nished in two constituencies in Western Shoa, Oromia Region.41 Credible international citizens of Addis Ababa report that many among the local population expressed disbelief when the results were announced. A typical response was: ‘We all voted for Medrek, how come EPRDF won?’42
In several constituencies, in particular in Addis Ababa, the result margin is conspicuously close between the winning EPRDF candidate and the runner-up Medrek candidate.43 Even more interesting is the fact that in the only constituency where Medrek won, they did it with a margin of only 4 votes!44 This may give plausible reason to argue that the level of misconduct in following the electoral protocol (as observed by the EU observer mission) – let alone the extremely unlevel playing !eld during the campaign and run-up to the elections – had a direct and signi !cant impact on the overall election result. The EPRDF and its af!liates obtained 545 seats in the House of Representatives, and Medrek one; as we have seen, the remaining seat went to an independent candidate.45 In the nine regional assemblies, EPRDF won a total of 1,903 seats, while the total opposition obtained one seat only (the All Ethiopian Unity Organization won this, in Benishangul Gumuz). The single-member constituency ‘!rst-past-the-post’ electoral system in Ethiopia may partly explain such results, nevertheless Medrek won almost 40 percent of the votes in certain regions, they still lost to the EPRDF candidates. It seems unlikely, however, that the total victory of EPRDF can be attributed to the electoral system alone.46
The NEBE Chairperson, Professor Merga Bekana, declared the election to be characterized ‘by high voter turnout and orderly conduct of the Election Day proceedings’ and asserted that it was ‘peaceful, credible, fair, free, and democratic’.47 Prime Minister Zenawi concurred: ‘As the whole world knows, the fourth national elections have taken place in a peaceful, democratic and credible manner. These elections have been conducted successfully according to plan.’48 Medrek leader and the !rst EPRDF President of Ethiopia, Dr Negasso Gidada, on the other hand, summed it up in the following manner: ‘EPRDF blatantly stole the election!’49
The opposition expressed frustration and hopelessness after the results were announced. Medrek leader Professor Merera Gudina explained: ‘It is useless to stage any demonstrations – it will only kill us. There will be no response from the West anyway; they have given up too…. The civil opposition is back to zero! We will just try to survive the best we can.’50 The opposition did !le a well-documented 87-page complaint to the NEBE and demanded a re-run of the election. The Election Board chairman dismissed the complaints: ‘These elections were carried out peacefully and fairly. We had taken corrective measures for the handful of justi!ed complaints. I assure you that the Board handled all complaints fairly, but the appeal from Medrek and another group lacked evidence and was given a deserved response.’51 The opposition appealed NEBE’s decision both on substance and procedural matters to the Supreme Court, complaining that NEBE had not even investigated any of the welldocumented complaints. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, however, and backed NEBE’s decision.52 Medrek chairman Professor Beyene Petros re"ected on the opposition’s marginalized role vis-à-vis the so-called independent election board and judiciary of Ethiopia: ‘There was a total lack of seriousness in reviewing our appeal. Under Ethiopian law, the burden is on the NEBE to investigate whatever allegations and evidence we put forward and they didn’t do this, which is a violation of the law.’53
Re-establishing the one-party state: explaining the total EPRDF ‘victory’
When I arrived in Addis Ababa some few days after the elections in May 2010,54 a long-term Ethiopian friend greeted me with the following warning:
Things have changed. Everyone is afraid now. You cannot trust anybody, and the direct orders by the cadres – from the local to the top level – to comply with government dictates sti"e all political discourse. We do not even dare to joke about politics any longer, as it might be overheard and interpreted as opposition. We are afraid. We are back to a culture of fear and intimidation reminiscent of the Derg era.55
The election outcome obviously put a scare into many Ethiopians. Despite massive opposition support in 2005 the EPRDF had manage not only to reverse the growing trend over 15 years of elections of increasingly higher opposition representation in the parliament – but actually to turn it back to zero. How has this been possible? Let me summarize the post-2005 developments into three broad categories, each containing three variables working as impediments to a democratic transition—and actually reversing previous democratic gains—in order to explain such a totalitarian outcome in a multi-party election.
The !rst category can be labelled structural causes; these factors de!ne the overall parameters of democracy in the country. First, we have seen the development of a set of new restrictive legislative acts imposing severe limitations on freedom of expression and organization in Ethiopia. The new media law, the CSO law, and the anti-terror law give the authorities the powers to construe normal democratic initiatives such as alternative development strategies emanating from civil society or peaceful opposition political activity as ‘unlawful’ and thus susceptible to a government clampdown. Second, the development of an omnipresent and all-embracing totalitarian state and party structure carefully limits the space in which opposition forces can organize. The expansion of the local administration councils from about 600,000 members to 3.5 million ahead of the 2008 local elections, and the enlargement of the EPRDF party membership base from about 760,000 in 2005 to more than 5 million today, effectively means that without a government party af!liation personal or organizational career opportunities are limited. Third, although some research indicates that the use of brutal repressive mechanisms has been declining over the last few years, partly displaced by the new ‘soft’ co-optation tactics used instead by the totalitarian state, the authoritarian and coercive forces of the state and party are still at work in Ethiopia. International human rights reporting repeatedly list Ethiopia as one of the worst human rights abusers in Africa, a country where political opposition activity ( particularly in rural areas) constantly runs the risk of apprehension.
The second category of factors explaining the election outcome may be called contextual or cultural causes; these are sentiments and preferences guiding political action that are anchored in cultural notions, historical experiences or religious dictates. First, a culture of fear has been reintroduced into Ethiopian politics after the unprecedented ‘liberal spring’ of the 2005 campaign. The violent and widespread crackdown on the opposition after the 2005 elections, in combination with new restrictive government policies and alarmist rhetoric, have aroused trepidation among most Ethiopians and revived old memories of the political purges during the Red Terror campaign of the 1970s. Consequently, the preferred individual political strategy is one of disengagement and apathy, shying away from politics in order not to become a victim. Second, as illuminatingly argued by René Lefort,56 for the majority of the rural population the elections present a quandary; the general belief is that divine will determines life on earth, including who is in power. Thus, casting a vote may be construed as challenging the will of God. Furthermore, it confronts the peasant with the major danger of voting for the loser (as many did in 2005). The winner (the incumbent) will know how they voted despite the ‘secret ballot’, and the ‘culprits’ will suffer as they did after the 2005 elections. Retribution puts the survival of the whole household at risk, since all public services and goods – including access to agricultural land, the only means of production – are controlled by the party-state. Under such pressure, peasant voters are likely to turn to their opinion leaders to gauge the most plausible winner, and then all vote the same way – for there is safety in numbers. Since the rural elite all suffered after the 2005 display of opposition support, and had been subjected to massive strategies of cooptation and party enrolment, their choice was clear – and opposition ‘defeat was inevitable from as early as autumn 2005’.57 Third, for certain segments among the urban electorate and in Ethiopia’s business sector, EPRDF has become the preferred and only alternative. This is based both on giving credit to the party’s own development performances (which commendably have been impressive in some sectors), and on the need to pursue personal as well as professional interests.58 As a long-term contact in Addis Ababa, a distinguished businessman of the old class and a staunch Amhara, embarrassingly confessed after the May election:
I have to admit something to you. For the !rst time, I actually voted for EPRDF. I am so angry with the opposition (CUD) who betrayed us in 2005. They left the voters to hang, while they were childishly !ghting for positions. But EPRDF has also proven that they can deliver; look around you and see all the changes which have taken place over the last !ve years!59
Electoral dynamics sums up the third category of issues that determined the election outcome. First, the unlevel playing !eld tilted the votes radically in favour of the incumbent. The omnipresent cadre structure, the coercive means of the state, and the vast resources commanded by the EPRDF (both through state coffers and the party-owned commercial enterprises) were used to boost their campaign and reportedly buy votes en masse,60 resulting in a highly biased campaign.61 Added to this are concerns of intimidation and harassment of opposition candidates and voters throughout the process, and plausible information of election day rigging, which together with a single-member constituency electoral system, are likely to have tilted constituencies in favour of the incumbent. Second, the opposition parties did not have the capacity to provide a credible, attractive, and likely nation-wide alternative to the EPRDF in the campaign (as CUD did in 2005). Many factors contributed to this, including outside interference by the EPRDF. The undermining and dismantling of the CUD coalition after the 2005 elections was essential in order to neutralize the biggest electoral challenge to EPRDF. The Medrek coalition was only established in late 2008, and had little time to consolidate its nation-wide political organization and agenda. Despite the broad organizational platform of Medrek, and its presence in all the country’s regions, it failed to !ll the void of CUD as a credible and likely national alternative to EPRDF. Contributory factors may have included a lack of popular leaders with nation-wide appeal,62 or its core policies on ethnic federalism (as opposed to CUD’s pan-Ethiopian platform). Third, the last point worth mentioning as an in"uence on the electoral process is the lack of international pressure upon EPRDF to open up political space ahead of the 2010 elections, as we witnessed in 2005. The concerted attempt to ‘protect’ its re-ideologized version of ‘democracy’ in the policies adopted by EPRDF after 2005 scared and intimidated international NGOs, diplomats and foreign envoys, human rights organizations, and academic scholars. Very few international voices dared to speak truth to power in Addis Ababa, as the most likely consequence was expulsion and possible breach of relations. Thus instead of applying pressure on EPRDF to accept universal democratic standards as happened in 2005, the donor community this time around gave lip service to democracy and actually boosted the legitimacy of EPRDF by actively supporting the Code of Conduct for Political Parties, and failing to question the breach of basic principles of the rule of law in the country. ‘What can we do?’ a high-ranking EU diplomat admitted off the record just after the election: ‘We have no space at all to manoeuvre, as the government is not willing at all to discuss political substance and democracy. Neither are key donors to Ethiopia. All we talk about these days are poverty and classical development theory.’63
Conclusion
The facts speak for themselves: in the 2008 local elections EPRDF and its af!liates won about 3.5 million seats in the local and districts assemblies, while the opposition got only a handful. In the 2010 election for regional councils, EPRDF and its af!liates won 1,903 seats, while the opposition got one. In the 2010 federal election for the House of Representatives, EPRDF and its af!liates won 545 seats, while the opposition got one. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from Ethiopia’s electoral development than to consider it as the re-establishment of the country as a one-party state. The recent re-elections for party leadership positions within the EPRDF’s component parts, as well as the appointment of a new government (with many of the old guard guerrilla !ghters stepping down), indicates that Meles Zenawi, as chairman of EPRDF and Prime Minister of Ethiopia, will be unchallenged over the next !ve-year period, during which he will wield an omnipresent power in the country.
A few months after the election, the opposition leaders were in doubt on how to continue their peaceful struggle for real democracy in the country.64 Without genuine pre-election negotiations for a level playing !eld ahead of the 2015 elections, some saw continuing the electoral race as a futile exercise. Many opposition leaders, as well as local academic observers, fear that the total closure of plural democratic representation in the country will feed into recruitment to the many armed opposition movements roaming the Ethiopian countryside.