The race for political seats, which is staged every five years in our country, is gathering some heat for the fifth time since the demise of the Dergue regime. The ordinary taxpaying citizen finds the few hours devoted to debates, which also appear every five years, not only a sigh of relief from the musical monotony of castle building in air, to a variety of alternative opinions by different parties. The audience pays the taxes necessary to finance the show. But for some obscure reasons, beyond the comprehension of the ordinary taxpayer, the time allocated to the ruling party alone is 40pc of the total debating time.
That kind of time apportioning can never be fair to all contestants no matter what principles and theoretical rationing are followed.
It is not my intention to criticise the issues raised in the debates entertained by the contesting parties. But I hasten to reveal the general disappointment of the taxpaying citizen in the general set up of the debates seen from the perspectives of the prevailing facts on the ground.
The past should be left to chapters in history. We now live in a rapidly changing world. We do not have to recite and review the failures and achievements of the past. It does to serve us any purpose apart from the lessons we have to draw from our failures, not to repeat them again and again.
The Dergue regime criticised the feudal or aristocratic system. Any change for the sake of change alone is more precarious unless substantiated by facts on the ground.
As students here and abroad, we campaigned for change. We misread the doctrines of socialism and communism and tried to copy some of them. We were exposed to the educational systems of the Western world without focusing on the background of our own long history.
We invented a route – the theory of ethnic oppression of minorities – and made it our slogan for true freedom. We were unable to substantiate the prevalence of ethnic oppression but what we arrived at was ethnic consciousness which created a sense of vengeance and hatred among all social groups.
That, of course, does not mean that there was no class difference at all. Not a logical flow as ethnicity and class are different. Just like anywhere in the world, that remains a problem to be solved over time.
The latest debate held at Addis Abeba University (AAU) focused on choices between ideologies. The debate went even deeper to criticise those ideologies from the global perspective. But the facts on the ground do not seem to live up to any ideology.
The ruling party, which is also the government, claims that there has been an average economic development growth of around 11pc annually. The ordinary taxpayer understands this rate of growth as an increase in the cost of living.
The country is heavily indebted with foreign loans and any further development heavily relying on foreign loans cannot be sustainable.
This issue of cumulated foreign loans should be an important issue to be debated. The local savings made through the sale of bonds will soon mature for repayment.
Are we going to have money printed to repay the dividends? If so, what will be the consequences on the circulation of money or inflation?
Another point of contention is the unanswered question of the land holding system prevailing in the country. Land ownership is not only an economic issue but also an expression of democratic rights and constitutional freedom.
This issue has lingered for the last 40 or so years. In fact, urban land ownership has, of late, become an issue widening the gaps between the politically affluent and the marginalised poor. The peasant community, instead of staying put in its place, is disintegrating and fleeing away from its birthplace. This critical issue should be raised in the debate.
The 2005 election and its results had, if anything, given a minor hint that if given the democratic freedom the electorate could exercise its right to vote for those whom they believe could serve them better. This tendency was aborted and therefore the fourth election almost resulted in unanimity with the exception of one seat won by the opposition party and one other seat won by an independent candidate. With the political atmosphere being what it is, the process of voting is observed to be discriminatory even in announcing the candidates of the contesting parties in each constituency.
The electoral board has so far achieved all sorts of pre-planned activities in all the constituencies in good time but it could not reveal the names of the candidates until the time of writing this article, thus, hampering the political programmes of some parties. Blue Party, the relatively young party, seems to be winning the hearts of the electorate by the conspicuous pressure it faces from the Board trying to barricade every loophole the party tries to access the youth.
Politics aside, the country’s current economic situation makes the ruling party vulnerable and so far the issue has not been raised as important for debate. The big and relevant question with respect to the economy, many argue, is who pays the loans of the country as long as the setting is based on a free market economy.
It is no secret that we had got rid of a centrally planned economic system. Presently, however, except for small, informal enterprise, the country seems to be transforming into a party-owned monopolistic oligarchy, which, in effect, means a move from the socialistic approach to some kind of militaristic industrialization, comparable to the Egyptian industrialization over the last 30 to 40 years.
Any country that aspires to rapid economic development should aspire to proceed in a much more participatory spirit so that the destiny of the country is in the hands of all its citizens, despite differences in their political opinions, creeds, religions and ethnicities. We should not be deluded by our own rhetoric.
We have to listen to the discontented citizens. Our police and security forces are not only expected to safeguard us from burglars, pick pockets and shop lifters. They have a duty to keep us safe from office holders who rob our resources through corruption or bribery.
Quite a lot of money is wastefully spent on ceremonies and awards of all sorts. There needs to be serious follow-up on squandering public money on allowances and partying that opens loopholes for embezzlement.
We hope the coming days of the debate programmes may provide us with contentious debates on issues that really matter. Of course, this matters only if the election process is still open for genuine competition.
Leave a Reply