It is clear that the deep concern about the range in the political spectrum is the major commonality between the ongoing elections in Addis Abeba and that of 2005. HowEthiopiawill handle this issue much depends on the lessons it has gained from past experiences.
There has never been a moment where the political spectrum was as overstretched as in the national election of 2005. The excessive size of the political field proved to be an unduly granted one.
What was the expectation of the Revolutionary Democrats, allowing the incompetent opposition not only to enjoy the widened spectrum, but also to stretch the spectrum as much as the latter wished?
By then they must have known that a viable political choice to replace them and take on the role of government, was not available.
Were they daring enough people to submit power to the opposition, whose insides were marred with conspiracies?
The undeservedly stretched range of the spectrum was abused by the opposition to the extent of infiltrating and penetrating the most delicate state organs, so that they would not tackle the unrest that the opposition was contemplating in its quest for power.
It was one of the few moments that the Revolutionary Democrats betrayed their strong pragmatic culture. Their national responsibility was not to turn the nation into a democracy, but rather, to build it.
Amazingly, though, the spectrum was so wide that the urban dwellers voted for a political opposition, which they were denied the opportunity of knowing well. Had they been well informed of the choices before them, especially facts about the inside workings of the opposition, the result of the election would have been much different.
Citizens were denied access to the truth about the opposition, despite the fact that the spectrum was unlimited. The opposition figures were also intimidating media personnel not to publish news stories about their internal problems.
They were only hiding their weaknesses from the electorate, as well as doing their best to forge the true identity of the incumbent too. Finally, the smear campaigns of the opposition, on both choices that were presented to the electorate, paid off, in terms of gaining votes.
Indeed, democratic elections have a better taste than what we experienced in 2005. By then, what we enjoyed was the taste of a disfigured democratic process, due to the fault of its actors.
One of the root causes of the failure was the unduly stretched political spectrum, whose actors, especially the opposition, were inexperienced on how to properly utilise the process. They were, rather, experienced on how to abuse it for the various ill-motives of groups behind some of its figures.
These reasons were also the real factors that later divided them. They were appearing under the disguise of democratic actors, while, in fact, they had a hidden agenda to abuse the democratic aspirations of the electorate.
It was well known that a disrupted election process could not have delivered democracy to the fair nation.
Are there still people who would argue for a democratic election, which entertains political actors misdirecting the national democratisation process with their inexperience and malicious intent?
Rather than presenting a political choice, the opposition consistently remained a political critic, from the beginning to the end of the process, delivering almost nothing to the consolidation of democracy.
The skeptic electorate that witnessed the flawed political processes of 2005 can no longer be carried away by fraudulent tactics. Its past experience has left it with a deep-seated mistrust of political actors, particularly those who appear under the guise of either the political opposition or nationalists.
I believe this maturity of the electorate is one of the lessons acquired from past elections, especially those held in 2005. Given the magnitude of the mistakes of the political opposition, whatever cost they may pay is much less than what they really deserve.
The unduly widened spectrum allowed the opposition’s campaigns, which were full of fallacious arguments, to reach the electorate unanalysed and magnified beyond capacity. The inexperienced electorate was not hesitant in internalising everything that the opposition side uttered, as there was no active analysing institution or independent body that was conscious enough to understand the consequences of the opposition’s inappropriate behaviour.
Given the costs of the wrongs that the election brought to the nation, one should conclude to act with caution towards the culprit – the range of the political spectrum, rather than wasting resources on a futile exercise. Currently, inEthiopia, democratisation efforts need to focus on building democracy’s prerequisites.
Until this job is done, the past experience of the nation proves the need to opt for a narrow political spectrum, especially in times of election, both local and national. Otherwise, there will be no guarantee that power will not fall into the hands of the thoughtful ones.
Leave a Reply