|
|
Africa
commends the Ethiopian election
The African Union Election Observer Mission produced its preliminary
report on Wednesday, three days after the election on Sunday, with a
statement issued at the AU Observer Mission Secretariat on May 26th.
The monitoring team, headed by the President of Botswana, Sir
Ketumile Masire, could hardly have been more experienced, including
as it did prominent individuals and civil society members from many
African countries including Egypt, Kenya, Libya, Senegal and South
Africa. Its preliminary assessment was very clear: Ethiopians had
been able to vote in freedom at the polls, the polls had been
“excellently organized with conditions allowing voters to freely
express their will”, and the Mission “recognized that 2010
Ethiopia's legislative elections reflected the will of the people.”
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE AFRICAN UNION OBSERVER MISSION ON THE
ETHIOPIA LEGISLATIVE ELECTONS OF 23 May 2010
Introduction
In response to an invitation by the government of the People’s
Republic of Ethiopia, H.E. Mr. Jean Ping, the Chairperson of the
African Union (AU) Commission to send an Observer Mission to
Ethiopia for the country’s legislative elections, a Mission was
constituted and deployed from the 16 - 28 May 2010.
The deployment of the Mission is in keeping with the AU Declaration
on the Principles Governing Democratic Elections in Africa, adopted
by the Heads of State and Governments of member States in July 2002.
The Principles, among others, affirm that democratic elections are
the basis of authority of any representative government; and
constitute a key element of the democratization process and,
therefore are essential ingredients for the rule of law, maintenance
and promotion of peace, security and stability in the continent.
The AU is committed to ensuring that the momentum of the ongoing
democratization process in Ethiopia is sustained and further
enhanced. As such, the overall objective of the AU Mission to the
Ethiopia 2010 Legislative Elections was to uphold this mandate. The
Mission is in the process of preparing a detailed independent and
impartial assessment report that will cover various aspects of the
electoral process in accordance with AU Guidelines and the relevant
laws of the Republic of Ethiopia.
Composition of the Observer Mission
In keeping with the tradition and need to make its Observer Missions
as diverse and representative as possible, the AU Mission to
Ethiopia is drawn from among Pan-African Parliamentarians, National
Parliaments, high-level officials of Election Management Bodies,
prominent individuals, ECCOSOC and members of the Civil Society from
various African countries.
The AU Observer Mission is composed of 59 Members and is led by His
Excellency Sir. Ketumile Masire, the former President of Botswana,
and has been on the ground from 16 – 28 May 2010. Members have been
drawn from Botswana, Cameroun, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana,
Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mauritius,
Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sahawari Republic, Sierra Leone,
Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, The Gambia, Uganda, Zambia
and Zimbabwe and include parliamentarians, high-officials of
national election management bodies, former ambassadors, prominent
individuals, and members of civil society.
Mission Activities
The observer mission was preceded by a pre-election assessment
mission. The Pre–Elections Assessment Mission in Ethiopia was
conducted by a team of 4 independent persons between the 8th to the
13th of February 2010 in Addis Ababa. The purpose of the assessment
mission was to determine whether the atmosphere was conducive for
the holding of elections and also make the logistic necessary
arrangements for the mission. The pre-election assessment mission
also met with different electoral stakeholders.
Before deployment, the observers had a two-day briefing session
where they were briefed by various electoral stakeholders, namely,
the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE), political parties,
civil society organizations and the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP) in Ethiopia. The purpose of the briefing session was
to learn about the country’s electoral process from different
perspectives, and to identify areas or aspects of the electoral
process that should be evaluated more closely in order to determine
the credibility and legitimacy of the electoral process. The
briefing also afforded the observers an opportunity of assessing the
level of access to the Media by political parties, all in an attempt
to gauge the level of democratic space accorded to the key actors to
express and articulate their programmes and policy proposals to the
electorate.
After the briefings in Addis Ababa, the AU Observer Mission deployed
its 59 members, a total of 24 teams to all the regions and Addis
Ababa City and Dire Dawa administrative areas. The Mission deployed
5 teams to Addis Ababa City (Addis Ababa region), and the rest of
the teams to the following regions; Awash and Asaita (Afar); Bahir
Dar and Gonder (Amhara); Asosa (Benishangul-Gumuz); Dire Dawa (Dire
Dawa); Gambela (Gambela); Harari (Harari); Nazreth, Ambo and Jima (Oromiya);
Jijiga (Somalia); Awasa (Southern Nations, Nationalists and People’s
Region; and Mekele and Aksum (Tigray). This provided the Mission
with the opportunity to get a representative sample of how the
elections were organized and conducted, and how the votes were
counted, tabulated and declared.
Preliminary
Observations
1. Campaigns
Even though the official campaign period was still on by the time
the AU mission arrived in the country, due to late deployment, they
were unable to observe the campaigning. Nevertheless, some of the
political parties that the AU Mission observers met expressed
dissatisfaction with the general political environment in which the
elections were being organized. They alleged that they had not been
accorded equitable (media and physical) space and freedom they
needed to campaign. However the AU had no way of verifying the
allegations.
2. The Preparedness of the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE)
The briefing by the NEBE on the 17th May indicated that the
Commission had been professional in its handling of the process
leading to the elections and in accordance with the law. It was also
evident that the Commission had put in place the necessary
mechanisms to ensure that electoral materials were distributed to
the polling stations in time to enable the people cast their votes.
3. Polling Day Observations
All the AU Observer Mission teams deployed in various parts of the
country reported that the polling stations visited opened at 6.00
a.m. as is required by the law. The electoral materials were in
place and not tampered with. The polling station opening procedures
were observed. In all the polling stations visited the full
complement of the election staff were deployed. The election
officials were adequately knowledgeable and established procedures
were followed. The Mission also noted that there were 5 public
observers in all the polling stations. The candidates of ruling
party had on-site representatives in almost all the polling stations
visited by the AU teams, while in some polling stations candidates
of opposition parties had no on-site representatives. Domestic
observers were also present in almost all the polling stations
visited by AU teams. Apart from the AU mission, the European Union
observers were also present in the various parts of the country.
Voter turn-out was remarkably high, with long queues of voters
reported as early as 5.30 a.m. in some areas. In some of the polling
stations where the AU teams observed there were substantial number
of spoilt votes. The teams also observed that the canvass ballot
boxes used were not voter-friendly; the size and the opening were
too small. The ballot papers lacked adequate security features. The
voters roll which is hand-written could be open to possible
manipulation. The (manual) voters’ card, lacked adequate security
features. The uniform application of counting procedures and the
enforcement of existing laws was observed to be lacking in some
polling stations. The atmosphere was peaceful throughout the
country.
Recommendations
The code of conduct for campaigning should be strictly observed.
There should be adequate voter and civic education before Election
The ballot box should be improved upon in order to meet
international standards.
The ballot papers should have security features.
The voters’ register and voters’ card should be improved to prevent
possible manipulation.
There should be an enabling environment for increased civil society
participation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the African Union Observer Mission to the Legislative
Elections in Ethiopia concludes that:
The overwhelming voter turnout indicated outstanding mobilization
and sensitization by the NEBE, political organizations and other
stakeholders.
Conditions existed for voters to freely express their will.
The Ethiopian Legislative Elections were organized and conducted in
accordance with the constitutional and legal provisions and the
rules and regulations governing the conduct of elections in the
country and were largely consistent with AU guidelines and standards
for the conduct of democratic elections.
It is recognized that 2010 Ethiopia’s Legislative Elections
reflected the will of the people. The AU Observer Mission
congratulates the people of Ethiopia for their peaceful conduct and
active participation in the electoral process.
Issued at the AU Observer Mission Secretariat, Addis Ababa, 26th
May 2010
******************
top |
|
The Ethiopian Election and Democratization in Ethiopia
On May 23, almost all of the 32 million registered voters in all
parts of the country took part in an historic event, Ethiopia’s 4th
national elections. The turn out, huge by any standard, amounted to
some 90% of registered voters casting their ballots in a free,
transparent and mature manner in 43,000 polling stations throughout
the country. It was a clear demonstration to both Ethiopians and the
outside world that the Ethiopian people were determined to own their
destiny, to chart the course they want their country to follow. The
election, and its peaceful and credible outcome, clearly showed both
the capacity and readiness of the electorate to participate in such
elections and its insistence in controlling the democratization
process, choosing only those prepared to serve the interest of
further deepening of democracy in Ethiopia.
It has not been easy to arrive at this stage, and there have been
many obstacles. There has been baggage from the sad events in the
aftermath of the 2005 election; everyone made every effort to ensure
there should be no repetition of those dark days. It was because of
this that the incumbent party and the moderate elements of the
opposition decided to join in an election code of conduct, through
which the politics of hate and violence could be removed from the
political playing field and avoided. The people in general clearly
indicated their desire to rid Ethiopia once and for all from the
scourge of such politicking. The ground was laid to hold an election
without the old baggage so long associated with Ethiopian politics.
That, in itself, was an impressive and remarkable achievement.
Equally, media air-time allocation and the balanced approach
maintained by the country’s print media shows just how much progress
the media has made, playing its own critical role in educating the
public about the policy alternatives of contending parties and
creating awareness among the electorate.
It was against this background that the voting took place last
weekend. The preliminary results were made public by the National
Electoral Board the next evening, clearly indicating the preference
of the Ethiopian people. The NEB demonstrated a remarkable
achievement in organizing and monitoring the election, showing an
ever-growing capacity to deal with the sort of intractable
challenges that are inevitable in a country as huge as Ethiopia. Its
work is highly commendable but it also reflects the distance covered
in strengthening democratic institutions like the NEB.
The importance of the developments was underlined by Prime Minister
Meles when he delivered a speech to an immense crowd that gathered
in Mescal Square on Tuesday, fully reflecting the mood that the
election had demonstrated, the undeniable achievements registered by
the Government and the future hopes for the flourishing of democracy
in Ethiopia. In his speech, he also indicated the course the
Government and the ruling party intended to take in the coming years
with regard to the further consolidation of both the democratization
process and the strengthening of democratic institutions in
Ethiopia. It was an impressive performance, demonstrating the
respect of a victorious political party towards those who had
loyally competed and lost, emphasizing his appreciation for the way
the elections were held, the participation of the population, the
sense of responsibility demonstrated by everyone, making the
election a real demonstration of Ethiopia’s commitment to democracy.
Above all, his words of respect for the decision of those who had
not voted for the EPRDF, and the readiness with which he offered to
engage and consult the losing parties in all major national issues
in the future, is a real departure from the previous methods of
politics in Ethiopia.
The outcome of this, the 4th national election, will undoubtedly
help Ethiopia stay on course to consolidate further the democratic
and economic gains achieved so far, and the people of Ethiopia’s
efforts, as rightful owners of their own destiny and their own
democratization process, to usher in this new era of Ethiopian
renewal and renaissance. Democratization in Ethiopia is not without
its adversaries, even if they are often ignored. This is why “A Week
in the Horn” has concentrated in recent months on the theme of
‘ensuring the integrity of the elections’. It is by overcoming the
challenges posed by these enemies that this election took place
peacefully and tranquilly.
*****************
top |
|
The Ethiopian election and economic development
The economic changes that have occurred in Ethiopia since 1991 could
hardly be more marked. The government rapidly dismantled previously
centralized economic institutions, introduced continuous economic
reforms and transformed the centralized economy into a
market-oriented economy to be dominated by the private sector. It
rapidly became clear that there was a strong link between election,
democracy and freedom on the one hand, and modernization and
economic development on the other. This has been especially obvious
during the last few years as the economy has really taken off with
double-digit GDP growth. This is closely linked to the fundamental
human and democratic rights provided in the Constitution including,
of course, economic issues
In pursuit of these rights, the Government embarked on an
agricultural-led economic development growth strategy, specifically
targeting the rural poor. Pro-investment legislation encouraged the
broad participation of the private sector, with former state-owned
enterprises privatized. The Government left trade and business to
the private sector while focusing on the development of basic
infrastructure and social services. The private sector now dominates
the economy. During the period between 1992/3 and 2007/8, the
Ethiopian Investment Agency and regional Investment Offices licensed
nearly 35,000 investment projects with an aggregate capital of just
under 500 billion Ethiopian birr. Of this just over 52% came from
the domestic private sector, and no more than 7% from the public
sector. The remaining 41% came from foreign investors. Paralleling
the average 11.5% in real GDP growth 2003-2009, the growth in the
value of the agriculture, industry and service sectors amounted to
10.8%, 10.1% and 13.0%, respectively. The service sector is now the
dominant element of the economy, overtaking the agricultural sector.
Significantly, general Government spending, both recurrent and
capital expenditure, has shown substantial growth in the last five
years. The former has grown by an average of over 13% and the latter
has averaged over 30% growth. With the expenditure policy of the
Government focusing more on development of infrastructure and
service facilities, capital expenditure made up 53% of total
expenditure in 2008/9. One major element in this has been investment
in power-generation capacity. The Government inherited a capacity of
350MW in 1991. Production is now over 2000MW, and the plan is to
reach 10,000MW in the next five years. The road infrastructure has
expanded throughout the country; education and health services have
registered a marked record of achievements; there has been a
significant expansion of fixed telephone, mobile and Internet
services; social welfare dimensions of development, including life
expectancy, child mortality, literacy and other issues have shown
similar advances.
The Government’s current vision is to achieve the Millennium
Development Goals by 2015, and bring development up to the level of
a middle-income country in order to eradicate the daunting challenge
of poverty and improve people’s livelihoods. This needs accelerated
and sustained economic growth. This is why it has implemented
enormous development efforts in major sectors of the economy. The
continued double-digit growth in the last few years indicates that
Ethiopia is on the right path to meet these development objectives.
The Government is now in the process of developing a new five year
development plan, focusing on large-scale industrialization,
large-scale commercial farming, the expansion of micro- and
small-enterprises, and the creation of a strong developmental state
with increased accountability.
All these achievements since 1991, particularly in the last decade,
can be attributed to the democratization of Ethiopia, a process
which has also strengthened the unity of the country. The success of
these elections will certainly deepen democratization further, speed
up economic development in Ethiopia and ensure greater unity. The
speech of Prime Minister Meles on Tuesday signposts the promise of
the future.
*****************
top |
|
The
positive impact of the elections on regional peace and security
The Horn of Africa, beset by a multitude of challenges, needs more
than ever before stable and strong governments to maintain and
sustain regional peace and security. The existence of legitimate
governments with a clear mandate from their people is critical.
Inevitably, elections are the most important instrument to ensure
the holding of political power by governments which can contribute
largely to the maintenance of peace and security within their own
specific countries and within the sub-region. There’s no doubt that
these elections in Ethiopia will enable the government to continue
to consolidate Ethiopia’s internal peace as well as peace and
security in the sub-region.
The results of last weekend’s vote guarantees Ethiopian's positive
and active contributions to the collective effort of maintaining
peace, security and stability in the Horn of Africa and on the
African Continent in general. What appears to be the re-election of
the ruling party will further encourage the critical role Ethiopia
already plays, as current chairman of IGAD and as a country with
significant influence in the region, in addressing the issues of
Somalia, the peace process in Sudan, and the regional threats of
terrorism and extremism which continue to pose such a danger to
regional peace and security. Ethiopia, together with members of IGAD
and in collaboration with the international community, currently
exerts every effort to assist the two parties in the Sudan to
address in good faith all aspects relating to the referendum with a
view to ensuring a peaceful implementation of the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement.
It is obvious that Ethiopia has been playing a very critical role
for peace and stability on Somalia and for national reconciliation
there. Together with the other IGAD countries, Ethiopia has
continued to provide vital support to the TFG in all areas so that
the internationally recognized government will be able to protect
itself from the onslaught of terrorists and extremists, not all of
whom are Somalis. The result of the 2010 elections will enable
Ethiopia to continue this effort which is so critical for the region
and for Africa as a whole, and even for the entire international
community.
In light of the ongoing struggle between the democratic forces and
the supporters of extremism in our region, the 2010 elections
represent a major victory for the former.They underline the
importance of holding elections that can establish democratic states
which will genuinely contribute to the promotion of peace and
stability. Ethiopia’s elections follow the elections held in the
Sudan last month and show the increasing democratization of states
in the region, though unfortunately the one very obvious exception
to this remains Eritrea. The Sudanese election created a better
understanding between the parties over the need for the full and
expeditious implementation of the CPA and the referendum due in
January. There’s no doubt that these successful and peaceful
elections, in Ethiopia and in the Sudan, will strengthen the
maintenance of peace, security and stability in the Horn of Africa.
*****************
top |
|
The
international reactions
The elections were closely watched by Ethiopia’s partners in the
international community, and after the declaration of provisional
results indicating a landslide victory for the incumbent, a number
of statements were issued, by the EU Observer Mission, by the
European Union and the US as well as by the African Union Observer
Mission. In a press release on May 25th, EU Commission
Vice-President and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy, Lady Catherine Ashton, described the elections as
“an important moment in the democratic process in the country”.
Welcoming “the peaceful conduct of the elections” Lady Ashton
congratulated the Ethiopian voters for “showing their commitment to
this process with high turnout.” She recalled the EU’s long
relationship with Ethiopia, and reiterated its readiness to work
with Ethiopia to address any challenges that might be encountered
and “to further deepen relations with the government and peoples of
Ethiopia.”
The African Union’s preliminary report, as detailed above, hailed
the voting as the true expression of the will of the Ethiopian
people. It declared the process as free and fair but identified some
minor irregularities which it can be expected to elaborate in its
final report. The EU Electoral Observer Mission has also issued its
preliminary findings. It details a number of largely accurate facts,
appreciating the high voter turnout and the seriousness with which
the people of Ethiopia take the process of elections. It rightly
describes the peaceful and calm conduct of the election and the
competency and professionalism of the National Electoral Board. It
describes the allocation of air time among political parties as
largely fair and further points out that the secrecy of the vote was
respected. Party agents and domestic observers were present in the
majority of the polling stations it observed.
Overall, the report bears witness to the commitment of the peoples
of Ethiopia to the ideals of democracy. On the other hand what the
report also does is to get into a political interpretation of the
overall democratization process in Ethiopia. Based on a specific
judgment which has been a source of controversy between Ethiopia and
some of its partners for a long while, the report suggests “the
electoral process fell short of certain international commitments,
notably regarding the transparency of the process and the lack of a
level playing field for all contesting parties.” The only evidence
for the former appears to be the lack of a national voters’ register
thought there are easily available registers at local levels. The
lack of a national register is certainly something that might be
improved but it can hardly affect the credibility of the entire
process seriously. With respect to the lack of a level playing
field, much of the comment in the preliminary report appears to be
mere anecdote. The report even appears to suggest that elements in
this include the fact that the EPRDF was better organized than the
opposition, that the VOA was supposedly jammed, that some major
opposition figures had left the country long before and that the
opposition was badly divided. It is difficult to see exactly what
this has to do with observation of the election. Observers are not
academics to theorize on the various aspects of the Ethiopian
democratization process. They should remember their mandate, an din
that regard there is no doubt that one can claim that the report
itself hardly measures up to international standards.
Despite the largely minor irregularities identified, the election
ought to be seen by Ethiopia’s partners as a watershed in the
country’s democratization process. The African Union, for obvious
reasons, is on the right track if only because it keeps away from
unnecessary political value judgments. Ethiopia, of course,
appreciates the interest shown and support extended by those
partners who are constructively engaged in strengthening its
democratic institutions and deepening its democratic processes and
governance. It sincerely hopes that the success of this election
will facilitate greater support for the democratic processes in
Ethiopia. Democracy is an organic process that needs to be nurtured,
and is grown from within, not imposed from without.
*****************
top |
|
Ethiopian elections and Eritrea
There was a certain asymmetric coincidence about the voting for
Ethiopia’s fourth round of national and federal elections on May 23rd
and Eritrea’s celebration of 19 years of independence on May 24th
without having held a single election. It is incidentally
symptomatic of the Eritrean regime’s interest in reality that it
gets the date wrong: Eritrea’s formal independence came in May 1993,
after the referendum, not in 1991.
This coincidence of timing aptly sums up the difference between the
two states, one of which has devoted the last 19 years to
establishing a democratic government, steadily devolving power and
authority from central to local government within a representative
federal system; the other has concentrated on removing any and all
vestiges of democracy and on establishing the most highly
militarized and centralized dictatorship in Africa. President
Isaias’s ambitions have not been limited to Eritrea itself. He
continues to try to make Eritrea the leader of all the violent-prone
non-state actors in the region. His aggressive foreign policy,
forcing conflict at various times on Sudan, Yemen, Djibouti and
Ethiopia, as well as regularly interfering in Ethiopia, Djibouti,
Sudan and Somalia, is well known. Eritrea has consistently armed and
supported organizations involved in armed struggle and terrorist
practices in Ethiopia and Somalia. These efforts and its attack on
Djibouti in 2008 is why the UN Security Council, following requests
from IGAD and the AU, finally sanctioned Eritrea last December.
In his latest anniversary speech to the people of Eritrea, last
Monday, President Isaias repeated his challenges to the Security
Council’s Resolution 1907: What are the accusations against Eritrea
all about? Who are the accusers? Who is the arbitrator or judge?
What is its legal authority? Why has Eritrea’s right to self-defense
not been respected? The answers have, of course, been widely
publicized and are, indeed, self-evident. The evidence supplied by
the Sanctions Committee and by countries in the region has been
detailed, undeniable and incontrovertible. This didn’t stop
President Isaias claiming that what he called the “naďve and
contemptuous practice” of the resolution was shameful. He returned,
as usual, to his favorite topics: Ethiopian responsibility for the
border conflict, and US responsibility for the problems of Somalia
and the creation of turmoil in other countries; conspiracies and
hostilities aimed against Eritrea by everybody else. In a submission
to the Security Council earlier this month, the Eritrean Government
blamed Somali warlords, Somalia’s immediate neighbors in particular
Ethiopia, and the US for the situation there. Unsurprisingly,
perhaps, it ignored Eritrea’s own involvement and made no reference
to Eritrea’s active and continuing responsibility for arming and
supporting extremist and terrorist organizations in Somalia.
The Eritrean statement contrasted sharply with President Ismail Omar
Guelleh of Djibouti’s briefing to the Security Council on May 19th.
He detailed Eritrea’s complete failure to respond to the Security
Council’s demands for Eritrea to withdraw from Djibouti territory
and Ras Doumeira. He pointed out that Eritrea had embarked on a
systematic attempt to destabilize Djibouti through the training of
infiltrators to carry out sabotage against infrastructure and urban
areas. President Ismail made it clear that Eritrea remained entirely
unswayed by any Council actions so far. He urged the Council to
“grasp the wider implications of Eritrea’s intransigence and
increasing violence.” UN Secretary-General, Ban ki-Moon, is expected
to report to the Security Council on Eritrea’s compliance with
Resolution 1907 within the next few weeks.
Eritrea has made no sign of any move to change its policies. There
has been plenty of evidence of continued Eritrean efforts at
destabilization in Ethiopia. Eritrea has not been content with its
long-standing military, logistic and financial support provided to
various organizations committed to violence, teams of saboteurs and
terrorist have also been dispatched across the border into
north-west Tigray to plant dozens of land-mines or explode bombs in
Humera and other towns in the region. The most recent of these
efforts to try and disrupt the elections was a bomb in a bar in Adi
Daro with five killed and 20 injured. Eritrea’s role in trying to
encourage opposition to the election was underlined by its
organization of what was rather generously called the “Oromo, Ogaden
and Eritrean communities in Germany and neighboring countries” which
has just issued a statement attacking the election. This was
particularly ironic considering the millions of Oromos and Somalis
in the Oromo and Somali Regional States who turned out to vote on
May 23rd.
Ethiopia’s successful and peaceful election on May 23rd,
whatever criticisms might be made about the conduct of the process,
should be seen within the context of a region in which the
violence-prone, one-man rule of Eritrea consistently attempts to
destabilize not just Ethiopia but the region as a whole, repeatedly
acts as a ‘spoiler’ in Somalia, has gone to war with Yemen, Djibouti
and Ethiopia, and quite deliberately continues these policies in
face of condemnation from the UN and the international community.
The record is undeniable and unequalled.
There is a very clear ideological divide between the elective
processes of Ethiopia and the centralized one-man rule in Eritrea.
This is one reason why Eritrea has been so determined to try and
disrupt Ethiopia’s elections. The contrast between the two is very
obvious. Speaking on Tuesday this week, after the preliminary
results were known, the Prime Minister stressed that the EPRDF had
been given a mandate by the people. He spoke of respecting the
decision of those who did not vote for the EPRDF as well as those
that did; the EPRDF recognized their right to participate and to be
heard. He said the government that the EPRDF would now establish
would serve all in an equal manner. And he pledged that it would
work “by consulting and involving” all parties on all major national
issues, as long as they respect the Constitution and the laws of the
land.
The contrast with President Isaias is instructive and illuminating.
President Isaias’s views can be summed up by his comments that “a
constitution has nothing to do with the formation of parties”
(Eritrea’s constitution has of course never been implemented), and
that he did not expect any other parties (than his own PFDJ) to
appear in Eritrea in his lifetime. He first expressed these views
publicly over a decade ago. He hasn’t changed his mind. Nor has he
allowed Eritrea’s policies to alter to any significant degree.
********
top
|
|
|
|
|
|
