It seems to me that the EPRDF is bent on the understanding that it has to possess political power for times to come as a reward for “toppling down” the Dergue. The Front is flawed in this understanding for many reasons. By the time the EPRDF toppled down the Dergue regime, the latter was little more than a scarecrow; it was we the people who hated the Dergue enough and pulled the legitimacy and support out from under the regime because of its repressive nature. The Dergue was doomed to its fall since its inception because of its nature; its moment of birth marked the commencement of its death to be culminated in its final fall down in 1991. Thus the EPRDF does not have to anchor all its electoral and other maneuvers on this flawed assumption.

Again, even if it might be argued that the EPRDF has played a key role in the downfall of the Dergue, it should not think of rewarding its supporters with fruits of rigged elections. It can legitimately decorate its war veterans and give them some lump sum so that these people can start to live a decent life that their contribution justifies without the need to engage in ungodly acts. However, real victory in the Ethiopian context is not defeating in battle just another godless dictator in the long line of dictators that trampled on the country. Real victory lies in winning the minds and hearts of the people of the country which none of the Ethiopian governments did in the past even if EPRDF, unlike previous Ethiopian governments, is bent on creating an island of oppression in a world abounding with liberty and freedom. When a government holds the rein of power because it is the free choice of the people that is a pathbreaking victory capable of ushering in a new era in the country’s history. It is only such a victory that would break the cycle of violence that consumed the thoughts and energies of generations. EPRDF has played to the long-established bloodletting tradition of Ethiopian governments and for that it will go down in history just like another oppressive government despite claiming and trying to carve out a unique historical place for itself. This is amply demonstrated by its lack of willingness to embed democracy as the political culture of the polity and its utter lack of good faith. Again I have reasons for saying this.

EPRDF rejected the most legitimate question of the opposition to amend the existing electoral system. Without many details first-past-the-post (plurality) electoral system that the EPRDF has opted for is totally unfair in a deeply and bitterly divided country such as Ethiopia. It fails to mirror the country’s diversity and give minimum representation to dispersed minorities in the country such as the poor, the disabled and thinly spread and tiny ethnic minorities. In deed this electoral system is basically Anglo-Saxon. U.K. is more or less homogenous and the U.S. has committed untold of racial discrimination against its African American community and other racial minorities using this electoral system to dilute minority votes through gerrymandering.

In his 2004 Report to the parliament the Prime Minister has emphasized that there is no reason to change the existing electoral system of the country because it is an electoral system that is at work even in the most developed Western democracies such as the U.S. and the U.K. What makes the U.S. and the U.K. good examples when it comes to our electoral system whereas our infamous corruption procedural and evidence law is copied from Hong Kong and amended based on the law of Thailand and our new draft press law is based on principles gleaned from Indian press statute? This amounts to blood transfusion without checking the compatibility of the blood type.

Another example of the lack of good faith of the EPRDF is manifested in the new directive issued to exclude many potential election observers from the field. This is a politics of bad faith backed by its legal counterpart, cancerous legal positivism. This is the juncture where one wants to exclaim, “Woe unto you lawyers…” Many of the NGOs, which have already incurred many costs in many terms, cannot be excluded from the electoral process without showing the moral bankruptcy of the government. The articles of association of the NGOs may have some catchall phrases that may enable them to monitor elections and engage in other activities generally compatible with a civic society. But even without such catchalls that usually attend legal documents the government’s move to exclude an important actor of democracy from the electoral process lays bare the bleak and myopic view of the government about democracy.

To add coal to the fire, the EPRDF came up with a prohibition of electoral campaigning in religious places, which is another manifestation of the lack of good faith. I think there is a very good article on this issue on ethiopiafirst.com for net surfers, but it can never be overstated that this is tantamount to hitting below the belt for the opposition. The religious places are the last of the strongholds where we can aspire to speak and hear ‘the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth’; I don’t think it is the countless podiums that the EPRDF uses that are the true fountains of (the) truth.

State and church should be separate in a secular state, but no constitution in the world provides that people and church should be separate. Even if we are formally secular it does not mean that we are atheists; we have a long tradition of theism and interweaving of faith and politics. For Ethiopians religion is not just a drawer stuff we use once a week on Fridays or Sundays or whatever religious day one may conceive of. It is very much an essential part of our day-to-day life probably more than it is true of the U.S. where a secular state is not equated with lack of tolerance for anything religious. Put otherwise, God is not unconstitutional and contrary to a secular state. But why did the EPRDF try so hard to divorce religion from politics except for the fear of losing elections through effective campaigning?

Another electoral bungle is the deportation of three American groups promoting democracy allegedly “because they were not properly accredited.” Under the Immigration Proclamation No. 354/2002 (Articles 8 and 5) failure to secure proper accreditation does not ground deportation. If these groups failed to secure the required accreditation, they cannot take part in the observation of the electoral process and that settles the matter. But insofar as their entry visa remains valid (other grounds of deportation do not apparently exist) their deportation on lack of accreditation is contrary to the immigration law and good faith politics. This instance shows how far the government may go to assiduously hide its electoral maneuvers from the international community.

Overall, EPRDF has combined many tactics to perpetuate its dominance on the political landscape of the country. It is not the loss of elections when the latter are “free and fair” that is lamentable; it is rather the loss of hope and faith in the system that is really heart rending and bone breaking. One cannot hide for eternity behind the aura of legitimacy and democracy that a written constitution may bring about; we know full well that the FDRE Constitution is a check that bounces. By now it is pretty clear that the EPRDF is committed to little if any of the constitution.