The international community has solemnly and rightly declared that:

These provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not only affirm the fundamental and natural right of all people everywhere. They do also express the deepest aspirations of the Ethiopian people, who have, during the last three decades, endured numerous hardships and paid so many sacrifices in blood and tears to realize their fundamental right to self-rule and self-determination.

As the Universal Declaration makes clear the essence of freedom and democratic governance is the unfettered right of the people to choose their leaders in open, genuine and fair elections. Without a credible election, it is impossible to locate the leaders who enjoy the most trust and support among the people and are therefore entitled to govern. Nor is it possible to create a stable and enduring basis for the peaceful transfer of power among contending groups who aspire to rule.

At the present historical juncture in Ethiopia, conducting a credible election is the only true and tried method to test whether it is Meles Zenawi or his opponents who have the confidence of the Ethiopian people.

To some, repeating these truisms about the value and significance of a democratic election in Ethiopia may appear trite. Given Meles Zenawi’s failure to brook a credible opposition and his demonstrated tendency to invoke “democracy” only as a convenient ploy for concealing his authoritarian rule, however, these truisms bear repetition because they serve to expose the fundamental illegitimacy of the current government’s claim to rule from the moment of its inception to the present day.

It will be recalled that when Mengistu Haile Mariam’s dictatorship fell fourteen years ago the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (“EPRDF”) headed by Meles Zenawi thrust itself upon the populace not as an expression of the will of the Ethiopian people but by sheer force of arms. That the new rulers lacked a massive deficit in popular legitimacy was made evident by the fact that on the day they moved to occupy the country’s capital city its residents erupted into an unprecedented and spontaneous uprising to defy the new rulers.

International backers of the new order, primarily the US government, recognized that to stabilize the country Meles Zenawi had to undertake a few essential steps. At their behest, he publicly professed commitment to uphold democratic rule. The US also encouraged the new rulers of the country to establish a transitional government broadly representative of the country’s diverse political and ethnic groups, to be followed by democratic elections a year later so as to form a more democratic government. Herman Cohen, the then Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, gave the impression that the US government seriously intended to follow through with its stated commitment when he uttered the famous and unforgettable words “No Democracy, No Aid” on the occasion of the ascendancy of Meles to power. These words, uttered in the context of the end of the cold war and the concomitant spread of democracy in the most unlikely places, seemed credible at the time. Moreover, coming as they did from the lips of the highest official of the US government in charge of African affairs, most Ethiopians were willing to believe that the full faith and credit of the American government stood behind these words.

Regrettably, they have not yet been honored and have remained so far just that-words with no deeds or policies to match them. Notwithstanding Meles’ lofty promises of democracy and American declarations of support for a democratic transition in Ethiopia, the credibility of the process in general and elections in particular came unstuck at the very earliest moments in the so-called transitional process.

Following the recommendations of the US, EPRDF organized and held local and regional elections in June 1992. These elections should have validated the ostensible goal of achieving the promise of a democratic transition in Ethiopia. Instead, the EPRDF demonstrated its inability to play by the rules of the democratic game on a level playing field. As a result, virtually all groups, including those which had participated in setting up the transitional government in the first place, began complaining that the EPRDF was engaging in violent activities, in flagrant violation of its stated aim of holding free and fair elections.

Bitterly disappointed by the behavior of the ruling party, the Oromo Liberation Front and the Southern Ethiopian Peoples’ Democratic Coalition – both of which had played a major role in the initial stages of the transitional process- withdrew from the government and the electoral process, vehemently protesting the government’s actions.

Foreign observers have confirmed the widespread belief that the 1992 elections were severely flawed. At the time, they correctly reported that the elections were marred by massive fraud, intimidation and violence. As a result, although EPRDF emerged as a clear victor in what essentially proved to be a one-party election, for the overwhelming majority of Ethiopians, the fraudulent and highhanded behavior of the ruling party further confirmed the view that it would never risk losing in a credible election.

Much the same can be said of the 1995 and 2000 national elections. Although the government has used these elections as it did the 1992 election to proclaim its right to rule the country, the Ethiopian people have really never consented nor assumed a duty to obey the incumbent government. How could they? The regime’s promise of free and fair elections proved meaningless in the absence of an effective legal framework that guarantees citizens to exercise the right to vote free from unreasonable or arbitrary governmental restrictions and discrimination.

Although the constitution guarantees citizens the right to vote, the regime’s practices belie its existence in fact. The ruling party has for all practical purposes nullified the right by continually engaging in the killing, harassment, and intimidation of political opponents or their supporters. Government employees are fired from their jobs or denied social services for voting for the wrong party. Peasant farmers and tenants of government owned housing are treated in similar fashion for voting their consciences as well. Farmers are evicted from their farms, as are tenants from government owned housing.

Even more seriously, the government continues to engage in a worrisome and egregious pattern of human rights violations. This is not a fit occasion to detail the many abuses and human rights violations to which the Ethiopian people have been subjected by the EPRDF-dominated regime. Suffice it to refer the reader to the numerous human rights reports, including the latest US Department of State Annual Human Rights Report, that have repeatedly called the government on its consistent behavior of human rights violations.

The latest and undoubtedly the worst human rights violations occurred in December 2003 when, according to a number of international non-governmental organizations, members of the government’s army killed hundreds of innocent Annuak in the Gambella region, raped 138 women, and displaced as many as 51,000 of them.

The international community, including the US embassy in Ethiopia, subsequently called upon the regime to bring the perpetrators to justice. Although the government responded by appointing a commission to investigate these atrocities, to date the regime does not appear to have taken any further steps to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Human rights watchers and the Ethiopian opposition have deplored these crimes against humanity and the culture of impunity that the regimes slow and ineffectual response reveals. The regime’s foot dragging and lukewarm response is incommensurate with the urgency and the vigor the situation warranted. It is in keeping, however, with the worst practices of the regime to bide its time in the hope that the matter will be forgotten or overlooked as the international community becomes distracted by more pressing concerns elsewhere.

This is not language of cynicism but rather the concrete expression of the lessons borne out of our bitter experiences of the past fourteen years. We have observed to our dismay that the authoritarian origin of the government of Meles Zenawi invariably predisposes it to violate first the people’s human rights and then to respond to outcries of foul by promising – typically at the urging of friendly governments- to establish a commission of inquiry to look into the matter. This pattern has been repeated so many times that it defies credulity to expect justice from the regime for its complicity in the crimes committed in Gabella.

We know from our experience that at the end of the day nothing will come out of international calls for justice via government-appointed investigative commissions. To cite only some of the well-known examples, reference may be made to the call made by both the European Union and the US government to investigate the massacres that were committed in Tepi a few years ago. Similar tragedies have occurred in Awassa, Wellega, and other places for which the incumbent regime is responsible.

Yet, the Meles regime has never been held to account. It has not even faced as much as a mild expression of international disapproval – if not opprobrium or sanction- for its misconduct. Instead, Meles seems to have been rewarded financially and diplomatically, offering him no incentives to mollify his intransigent behavior and the authoritarian proclivities of his government.

The World Bank, IMF, the European Union, and a variety of bilateral donors have poured millions of dollars into his coffers, though little noticeable improvement in the lives of the common man, woman and child in Ethiopia has occurred under his rule.

Grinding poverty still grips the country. Devastating famines, even greater and more widespread than under the Derg, continue to claim an untold number of lives. Disease and especially the AIDS epidemic still stalk their lives. Diplomatically, the recent choice of Meles as a member of the much-touted Blair “Commission for Africa” indicates that the international community either doesn’t know about his numerous nefarious deeds or has chosen to ignore them in the service of realpolitik and expediency.

Against this background of governmental impunity and the massive problems of credibility the elections so far held in Ethiopia reveal, opposition parties of all hues and colors have joined their voices and forces, as a condition of their participation in the upcoming election in May 2005, to demand that the boundary line between politics and electoral administration be scrupulously observed.

The key institution ostensibly entrusted to police this line of separation is the National Election Board. The character as well as the composition of this body is critically important for it can determine whether the May 2005 election will be a source of peaceful change or a cause of serious political instability.

We cannot emphasize the crucial importance of ensuring the credibility of the upcoming election and the impartiality of the election management body. Unlike in previous elections, the populace awaits the upcoming election with heightened anticipation and euphoria. The public demands change. It has made this quite clear wherever members of opposition parties have gone to meet the public in town meetings. In meeting after meeting, the public has indicated its desire for Meles to step down. They have said often and everywhere that five more years of misrule, ethnic division and massive unemployment especially for the young are too long to endure.

The stakes are thus much higher now than they have ever been before. Because the stakes are so high, violence could ensue from the failure or reluctance of the election board to insulate itself from the incumbent government. Despite the stakes, however, there is nothing to give us confidence that the election board will be impartial.

First, the Prime Minister himself handpicks the top officials of the board. Not unexpectedly, the constitution which was crafted to suit his own purposes vests him with the sole authority to appoint these officials. Because they are beholden to the Prime Minister’s party, these officials and their staff at all levels view it as their solemn duty to do everything possible to guarantee victory for their employer.

Additionally, their self-interest in assuring the continued tenure of their jobs requires them to do the party’s bidding. The conduct of the election board in the recent expulsion of election monitors from the United States and the European Union confirms what we have always known: that the board lacks the integrity and credibility to administer an impartial election.

The credibility of the May election should not be the concern of the Ethiopian people alone. The international community has, or should have, a moral and security stake as well. An international community that subscribes to the norms of governance enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments should know that no system of government is better at protecting human rights than one which rests on the will of the people “as expressed in periodic and genuine elections.”

In his second inaugural speech, President Bush spoke glowingly and movingly about the benefits of freedom and democracy for all people. He is right to give such an emphasis as a core element of his foreign policy. We welcome and embrace his message on democracy and human rights and fully expect the government of the United States and others in the international community to act consistently with the message. In particular we request that they urge Meles to allow the Ethiopian people to express their will in the upcoming elections in May.

We also wish to remind the international community that to sacrifice these moral values in the pursuit of realpolitik is shortsighted and wrongheaded. Such a strategy of accommodation of authoritarian rule not only makes the claim of support for democracy ring hollow. It also feeds the intransigence of the group holding power and strengthens its resistance to change at a time when the country is demanding change. Furthermore, it leads some in the opposition to believe that peaceful change is not possible, and to encourage them to pursue violence to achieve their political objective.

Let us recall that it was the failure of the ruling party to abide by the rules of a democratic election that drove the Oromo Liberation Front underground or to seek a military option. Had the US stood by its warning of “No Democracy, No Aid” that Herman Cohen thundered in 1991 when it observed the fraud and violence involved in 1992, 1995 or 2000, the political environment in Ethiopia would have been much different from what it is today.

It is also well to remember that if EPRDF rigs the May election or otherwise nullifies the people’s will, preventing the Ethiopian state from the edge of the abyss on which it is now poised will prove to be a challenging task fraught with so many grave consequences. The lack of democratic institutions and fraudulent elections are common factors among nations that have succumbed to terminal crisis.

In Ethiopia’s case the Meles regime is determined to sustain its authoritarian grip on state power by all undemocratic and heavy-handed means possible. To turn the tide of popular support for opposition forces, as demonstrated in massive and successful turn out of Ethiopians during mass rallies and town hall meetings throughout Ethiopia’s various regions, the regime’s cadres and security forces are resorting to repressive and intimidating measures against candidates of the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF) and other opposition coalitions and parties as well as their supporters throughout many regions of Ethiopia. The recent measure taken by the regime in expelling US election observers such as NDI, IRI, and IFES- groups with long and credible experience in monitoring elections elsewhere in the world – and the barring of local civic groups from observing the May 15 national election under flimsy pretext is yet another testimonial to the Meles regime’s truly undemocratic colors.

The failure of Somalia as a state and its degeneration into a base for terrorist elements should be a useful reminder of the greater level of complications that can arise in the region if Ethiopia fails as a state. Meles may pretend that he is indispensable to the US fight against terrorism, and some in the international community might see in him a useful ally. This is a non sequitur. It stretches credulity to believe that a regime which rests on the narrowest political base and is surrounded by an opposition with much stronger political bonds among the population can really be relied upon as a credible ally. In the long term as well as the short term the United States is better off in a world with governments that enjoy the support of their own people than those which have little more to count on than outside support and their willingness to use brute force and deception to maintain their rule. Meles’ regime is such a government, and as such has little or no staying power.

Finally, we call upon the international community to send election monitors to the May election to evaluate its genuineness and fairness. We also call upon the Meles regime to desist from barring or expelling election monitors not to its own liking. If Meles really believes that he enjoys popular support, what does he have to fear from the presence of international monitors or a democratic election?

United Ethiopian Democratic Forces

April 27, 2005