No poll has been conducted on election 2010 to date, not even by the
little read English weeklies, which have broader leeway than the
closely-monitored (by the state) Amharic newspapers. But whether
sanctioned or prohibited, this would have been inconceivable if
pre-2005 newspapers were around. Defying the EPRDF (and paying the
price), so passé for existing newspapers which have been massively
rejected by the public, as their circulation numbers sadly show. But I
read them.), was in fact the raison d’être of existence for pre-2005
newspapers. Needless to say, this election would have been much more
engaging had they not been illicitly banned. (Hopefully, their absence
will in the future be partially redressed by Ethiopian radios and TVs
on ArabSat.)
With these nostalgic thoughts in mind, a group of journalists teamed
up to do what would be the first poll of this election season. Be
warned, however, this is by no means a scientific poll; our
limitations are obvious. But we are confident that some semblance of
truth could be revealed, if only by way of a larger margin of error
than is usual for scientific polls.
The first hurdle we had to cross was picking sample respondents on the
basis of specific statistical criteria. Alas, it was a trial test we
failed before the go. Ethiopia is a relatively large and diverse
country; a nationwide reach requires an extensive network (because
phone interviews are impractical). So the imperative was to scale down
to Addis, which was logistically and economically feasible.
Respondents were then selected on the basis of ethnicity, region and
class. Unfortunately, through no fault of ours, we were unable to
enlist as many Muslims and females as we had wanted to.
The second task was to frame the questions. We were adamant that they
should be fair, unbiased and offer a balanced set of choices. That
needed a series of meetings and hours of debate, but we finally did
agree on a set of questions, which were reviewed and endorsed by
several notable public figures. The questionnaires were then finally
distributed to respondents, who were instructed to fill them out
immediately after each airing of the debates between political parties
on state media. But by then two debates had already taken place, and
so only seven of the nine debates were to be gauged.
But first, we inquired which issues matter most to our subjects, and
the results were surprising and familiar at the same time. We asked
our respondents to list the top five issues that matter most to them.
Leading the field by far is inflation, with a whopping 77 % listing it
as their top concern. Then came jobs scarcity, 65%. Democracy stood at
third place with 62%. The issue of Ethiopia’s outlet to the sea still
figures prominently at fourth place, almost two decades after the
secession of Eritrea, with 57%. ( Most participants were between the
ages of 30 to 40.) Ethnic division, for which the EPRDF is mostly
blamed, came at fifth place with 53%.
The questionnaire asked the respondents to rate the parties on a scale
of 1 to 10 (1 being total failure, 10 being excellent – except for
negativity where the reverse holds) for:
knowledge and experience of issue
composure and discipline of debaters
honesty and sincerity
negativity
oratory
There was room for remarks next to each rating space, and many of them
wrote their impressions.
There were a total of nine debates until May 14, a week before the
elections. The topics were: democracy and pluralism, federalism and
decentralization, education, health, good governance, human rights and
rule of law, agriculture and land ownership, foreign policy, urban
development and industry, and infrastructure.
On Education, the EPRDF (which was represented by two people, including
the Education Minister, Demeke Mekonen) scored an average of 5 for
knowledge, composure, honesty and oratory of its debaters. But it
scored a high 8 on negativity, which is bad (The lower the score for
negativity the better). It’s overall performance was just below the
mean. Medrek (which was represented by a veteran of the Education
Ministry, Asrat Tase) too scored an average of 5 for knowledge, but
was rated at an average of 6 in other areas. In the crucial
negativity index (most respondents strongly disapproved of excessive
disagreeability and hostility) it stood at an impressive low of 3,
enabling it to pull ahead of the EPRDF in this debate. But on the
bottom of each questionnaire is a question that reads, “How do you
rate this debate?”, and gives three alternatives: exciting, average,
dull. 52% of the respondents marked dull, 21 % average and only 17 %
exciting.
(For lack of space I will be detailing only the results of Medrek and
EPRDF— the two largest political organizations competing in this
election. The full survey will be published as part of a book on the
election at some point in the future.)
On health, the result of the EPRDF is quite mixed. It was represented
by the Minister of Health, Dr Tewodros Adhanom. Perhaps on account of
the articulate delivery by the Minister, the EPRDF scored above
average on knowledge and experience, an average of 7. Redwan Hussien,
EPRDF’s star of this election season, earned good marks for his
oratory. But he also devastated his party by his visible
negativity — which earned the EPRDF a whooping average of 9. In other
areas, they garnered an average of 6. In contrast, the calm bearing of
Professor Beyene, who represented Medrek, was given high marks, an
average of 7, in all spheres (the quality of health care, which was
stressed by Beyene, resonated with many respondents); save that of
oratory, for which the Professor earned only 5. This was a battle that
the EPRDF could have won (by way of its avalanche of statistics and
reasonable record) if only it was capable of showing a little bit of
humility. It lost because of the way it delivered its message (who
likes a bully?) rather than on substance.
On good governance and human rights, Medrek fielded Gebru Asrat, whose
oratory had completely escaped him on that day. This was duly noted by
the respondents, who gave him only an average 3 for oratory and
composure. But that was compensated by high points for honesty and
knowledge, an average of 7, and significantly for negativity, an
average of only 2; the lowest in this poll. The EPRDF, on the other
hand, was perceptibly belligerent, yet again represented by the fiery
Redwan Hussien, who characteristically earned high marks for his
oratory, but an embarrassingly low one for honesty, an average of 2.
(Not surprising, considering the issue.) EPRDF’s lingering high rating
for negativity, another average of 9, was inevitable; this being the
one issue where it was clearly on the defensive. This was one debate
the EPRDF should have lost heavily, but it was to escape relatively
unscathed by the opposition. Lidetu Ayalew, who represented his party,
EPD, also earned high marks for his oratory and composure, but he did
more damage to the opposition than the EPRDF, according to several
comments by the respondents. The debate was marked as exciting by 24%,
average by 33% and dull by 43%.
On Foreign Relations, in which Medrek was represented by Seye Abraha,
Medrek scored its highest points. In knowledge, composure, honesty and
oratory it averaged an impressive 8, and on negativity a low of 3. The
EPRDF by contrast, chiefly represented by Arkebe Ekubay, whose
expertise on foreign relations is at best murky, clearly lost by
registering an average of 3 for knowledge, composure, and honesty.
Thanks to Redwan, it scored an average of 8 for negativity; but also a
respectable 7 for oratory. The EPRDF lost heavily to Mederk in this
debate, a fact that is acknowledged by its members and sympathizers.
41% marked the debate as exciting; it was average for 38% and dull for
21%, the lowest in this survey. The debates on land ownership, urban
development and infrastructure were areas in which Medrek was also
rated higher than the EPRDF, its negativity and shrill denunciations
of the opposition losing it the favor of many respondents. But the
significant result of those surveys were the percentage that rated
them as dull: 54% for urban development, 56% for land ownership, and
44% for infrastructure. No debate was marked as exciting by a
majority. “Many people I know did not watch the debates,” wrote one
respondent.” The EPRDF may have stolen the thunder from the debates
by overruling live transmission, but it has also become a towering
symbol of its bullying tactics, inviting a backlash from voters. It
will remain to be seen next week if voters will punish it for its
impertinence, and if their votes will be counted fairly.
But, please, don’t hold your breath in the meantime.
BRIEF NEWS FROM ETHIOPIA
Medrek denied rally permit
The bid to repeat the massive turnout by the public in support of the
opposition in 2005 on the last day of the campaign season by Medrek
was struck down by the Addis Ababa administration, which is led by
Corporal Kuma Demeksa, by refusing to issue a permit for a mass rally
at Meskel Square for the coming Sunday. “It would have been a turning
point for this election,” said a member of pundit. Medrek has now
applied for permit to hold a rally inside Addis Ababa’s stadium, which
has a maximum capacity of 30,000. A decision is pending as this
article is being finalized. Other parties have booked a final series
of public meetings in halls around the city.
