THE ANATOMY OF A POLITICAL LANDSLIDE:  How the EPRDF WON!

    By Tesfaye Habisso 06/01/2010

 

When more than 30 million eligible voters consciously go to the polls and elect a political party in free, fair and credible elections 534 seats to 3 something must have gone very, very right for one party and something must have gone radically wrong for the losers, in this case, the missing opposition. Such election landslides have been observed only in a few countries. In the 2010 National Elections in the Dominican Republic, the Dominican Labor Party (DLP) won 18 seats out of 21 leaving only 3 to its opponent the United Workers Party (UWP). In Singapore, the ruling People’s Action Party has snatched 82 out of 84 parliamentary seats, and has held the reins of power for the country’s entire history since independence from Great Britain. Both countries are democracies in practice as well as theory. No party can win 18 out of 21 seats and 82 out of 84 seats honestly, it is assumed. Can it, without delving into some sort of political corruption and fraud or malpractice?  But when you delve deeper, you will find almost no supporting evidence for these suspicions. Both countries seem to be sui generis; where else on earth does honest democracy lead to total domination by a single party?

In the aftermath of an election sweep at the polls in the May 23, 2010 Ethiopian National Elections by the EPRDF over the opposition bloc it merits that scholars of political science, history and local politicians step back and pay close scrutiny to the anatomy of this unprecedented victory by the EPRDF coalition of four major parties and the latter’s so-called five allied regional parties.

The victory was comprehensive and decisive resulting in the largest electoral margin in Ethiopia’s election history since its transition to a democratic political system in 1991. The result was 534 seats by the EPRDF and its allied parties, and only 1 by the largest opposition coalition, MEDREK, and the remaining 1 or 2 by independent candidates.

HOW COULD the OPPOSITION LOSE SO BADLY?

Ethiopia’s so-called experts and backyard pundits had predicted a close election and some of EDP’s and MEDREK’s officials and supporters had even predicted a win for the EDP and the MEDREK. It is remarkable that those individuals never provided any evidence to support those claims of winning. Anyway, why did the opposition lose so badly?

One of the simplest explanations for the weakness of opposition parties and their dismal failure in the 2010 national elections is lack of demand for them from the electorate. Another oft mentioned explanation is their fragmentation and uninspiring leadership excluding, of course, the articulate and well organized EDP leadership. Most opposition parties in Ethiopia need very little assistance in marginalizing themselves: they fight each other constantly, they consistently fail to work together, and their leaders do not behave in ways that inspire confidence. Hence, it is not surprising that voters largely distrust them. Yes, the actions of the leading opposition figures and parties discourage all but their most loyal adherents.

WHAT WENT WRONG for the OPPOSITION?

The opposition bloc (more than 60 national and regional parties) had five solid years to plan their election strategy for the 2010 national elections but got caught with their pants down when the National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) made announcement of the May 23, 2010 general elections. Secondly, the opposition bloc (excluding the EDP leadership and party) continued to feed their supporters a dose of fragile hope, based solely on a campaign built around a comprehensive and relentless attack on the ruling party. What was faulty about this approach was that this was the very opposite of the strategy that the opposition bloc utilized in the 2005 campaign: harping, day in, day out, on the weaknesses of the ruling party and the failure of its socio-economic policies in delivering the much needed goods and services to the wider public in the 2005 campaign and now, in 2010, spewing their visceral dislike and demonic hatred for the ruling party, and not hammering on the failures of its policies and strategies, real or imagined. Their first strategy succeeded tremendously in the 2005 campaign but their 2010 campaign failed miserably due to the obvious reasons: no substance except hate politics.

The question the voters kept asking themselves however was what has hate politics have to do with providing quality health care, universal education, housing for the urban poor and the working class, roads and electricity for the farmers, and assistance to the elderly and the helpless segment of the population, employment for the rural and urban youth and women, and help for the cottage industries and small businesses? The answer to that question was ‘NOTHING!’ and it now appears that people would have liked the opposition to focus on telling the population what plans , strategies and programmers they had to address all of the above. No one seemed to be paying attention. The opposition continued to spew out their venom aimed solely at the ruling party, which all the while was simply going about its business and successfully running the country.

The opposition bloc provided no strategic plans for meeting the country’s needs and aspirations. In the eleventh hour the EDP and MEDREK launched their hurriedly prepared manifestos and pledges but by then it was too late. Even if these parties had launched their plans earlier, I don’t think they could have won the hearts and minds of the electorate, simply because of their undesirable role, real or imagined, during the 2005 national elections and MEDREK’s coalition of strange bed-fellows (a sort of marriage for convenience type of coming together) with irreconcilable political ideologies

 

WHAT IS TO BE LEARNT?

Political parties in the country, I believe, are beginning to feel the outcome of a progressively sophisticated populace; Ethiopian voters seem no longer willing to vote for a party or parties simply because they criticize the ruling party. The voters now appear to want to know what the political parties are going to do that will improve the citizens’ well-being and quality of life. They don’t really care if the ruling party members have luxurious cars or live in comfortable mansions, or whether or not the ruling party has its own companies and endowments. Political parties in opposition do not seem to have learnt any of those lessons, and continue to take the population for granted. Hollow slogans that they throw out to the public now and then do not work.

In the early years after the democratic transition the population of the country was just beginning to understand the value of their votes and how to elect parties that are best equipped both philosophically and strategically to govern the country, but in the last decade or so that has changed dramatically. Today’s voters want to see a comprehensive strategic plan of how a party intends to govern, how they intend to improve the economy and the quality of the life of the citizens and more importantly how they plan to fund those improvements. In Ethiopia Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and his party, the EPRDF, understood that concept very well. First, they delivered on their promises to the people; secondly, they paid attention to the people who needed to be helped the most, and finally, they delivered a manifesto with a comprehensive strategic plan on the way forward, and together with the experience and history of fiscal responsibility and caring that they had manifested throughout their three-term in office, they have fully convinced the population to re-elect them for the fourth term to govern the country. That in a nutshell is the anatomy of a landslide victory at the 2010 national elections!

In the future, the ruling party has to engage itself fully to wipe out the day-to-day problems that the population throughout the country faces in the areas of miserable justice delivery and rule of law, poor governance at the Zonal, Woreda and Kebele levels, nepotism, ethnocentrism, corruption and predatory tendencies in the public bureaucracies, galloping inflation, lack of freedom, etc. On the other hand, national and regional opposition parties need to listen to the voice of the people and present at all times a plan for governing the country, and a blueprint of how their governance will improve the lives of the average citizens.

Finally, it is appropriate and fitting, at this juncture, to acknowledge the peaceful role and civilized behavior of all political parties, ruling as well as opposition, during the election season and for having collaborated and cooperated in the holding of a national election worth remembering as well as emulating for the future. In addition, KUDOS to all the opposition parties which honorably conceded their defeat and sent congratulatory messages to the winning parties, the EPRDF. This is indeed a historic moment for all of us who yearn to observe the genesis of a peaceful loyal opposition in the country. If this trend continues, we shall indeed see a genuine practice of real democracy in our country, in the not distant future. INSHALLAH!