I have been motivated to write this letter by two recent statements made by the authorities of the Ethiopian government. One was made by Mr. Fesseha Tessema, Charge d’Affaires of the government to the United States and the other was made by Mr. Bereket Simon, the former Minister of Information, now special adviser and assistant to the Prime Minister. Both authorities, using different forums at different times, claimed that the Carter Center has declared that the May 2005 election …represent a quantum move forward in democratization for Ethiopia and that the election has been won by the incumbent government. The Charge d’Affaires made this statement while responding to a question by Congressman Chris Smith during the hearing in the House Sub-committee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Relations hearing on “Ethiopia’s Troubled Internal Situation”, March 28, 2006. The special advisor made his statement when he appeared on the Voice of America’s program “Straight Talk Africa.”
Hence the objective of this letter is to ask for clarification. A clarification that, I hope will make significant contribution to deeming the result of the May 2005 parliamentary election in Ethiopia legitimate or illegitimate. The Center is one of the very few institutions/organizations that utilize a reliable and credible team of observers. It is therefore no wonder that The Carter Center is invited by many countries to give their elections credence and ergo legitimacy.
I would like to seize this moment to commend the Center for the noble and lofty works it has been doing since its inception in 1982. The Center’s unmitigated support for the establishment and advancement of democracy, protection of human rights and civil liberties and many other pertinent global issues are eloquent testimonies of the former U. S. A’s president’s commitment to improving democracy among nations.
The president’s interests in Ethiopia dates to his time in the White House. The Cold War was then the prism through which both superpowers made their international policies. Both powers which regarded their competitive and antagonistic relationship in a zero-sum-game where the loss of one is regarded as the gain of the other and vice versa. Hence there is no denying the fact that many developing countries had suffered from the effects and consequences of their policies. In
this regard, I should not hide the dismay and disappointment felt by many of my compatriots in President Carter policies towards Ethiopia on the eve of the 1978– Ethio-Somalia war. Since it is not the purpose of this letter to explore his policies of the 1970s, suffice it to say these policies had a very deleterious effect on the socio-economic and foreign policy choices of Ethiopia.
According to the Center’s report, the president’s recent interest in the Ethiopia, however, is traced to the late 1980s when he intervened on behalf of the International Red Cross and the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees and managed to convince former dictator Mengistu to allow food, water, and medicine to be delivered to Sudanese and Somalian who were in camps in Ethiopia. This interaction between them helped Mengistu to trust Mr. Carter and agreed to let the latter negotiate peaceful settlement between the Ethiopian government and the Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front (EPLF) late in 1989 and 1990s. According to Mr. Carter it is during this time that he “…became acquainted with Meles Zenawi, the leader of Tigrayan revolutionaries..”
Thus, one can say that former President Carter is not new to Ethiopia and Ethiopian politics. His most recent involvement in Ethiopian politics was during the May 2005 parliamentary election when his Center was invited by the Ethiopian government to observe the election along with the Africa Union (AU), the European Union (EU) and many others.
The report by the Center indicates that it has been involved in “…35 elections in 26 countries..” The report by the Center also indicated that “… as observers we independently assess the quality and credibility of elections and seek to detect and deter fraud . Professional groups have developed methodologies to determine whether minimum international standards are met. In doing so, they can bolster the legitimacy of the outcome.” (Carter Center 30 Jan, 2005). Regarding the 2005 election in Ethiopia, the Center unequivocally stated that its observation was guided by international standard. “….The Carter Center observation has been conducted according to international standards for non-partisan election observation and is in accordance with the Declaration of Principles for International Observers” (ibid P.2)
In contra-distinction to this, however, the European Union presents an international standard that is complete and holistic. The European Union Election Observation Mission ( EU EOM) in its “Preliminary Statement On The Election Appeals’ Process, The Re-Run of Election And
The Somali Region Elections, August 25, 2005″ notes:
“The EU EOMs assessment is made against international standards notable among which is
Article 25 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966, ratified by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, where eight democratic principles are established: periodic elections; universal and equal suffrage; right to stand for public office; right to vote; secret ballot; genuine elections allowing for free expression of the will of the people.” (page 2).
When the Carter Center declares that its observation of Ethiopia’s election was conducted according to international standards, it is logical to assume that the Center is also bounded by the criteria clearly articulated and enunciated by the EU EOM herein quoted above. It also means that if both EU EOM and the Center apply these standards to evaluate any and all elections, they should, more often than not, reach the same conclusion. It stands to reason that if they reach different conclusions somehow, then there is a flaw in methodology thereby rendering different interpretations of what takes place. This suggests observer error bias . If on the other hand both parties are present and make similar or the same observation and apply the same international standard objectively, then they should reach the same conclusion. It is my contention that this principle is governed not only by the number of polling stations but also by the number of observers to watch and be present at all. If the number of polling stations are as many as 34,000, as was the case with Ethiopia, then ideally, both the Center and the EU EOM need to have that many observers to do justice to the task of observing. If however, one of the two has more observers than the other, then the one with more observers will have a better understanding of the theater or of the drama than the one with less observers.
The Carter Center reported that it had deployed 50 international observers from 17 countries (including Argentina, Canada, France, Liberia, Rwanda, South Africa, Sweden, the United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) to seven regions as well as the special administrative regions of Dire Dawa and Addis Ababa. (Carter Center Sept. 15, 2005) The Center also hasten to add that “…Due to logistical constraints , Carter Center observer teams were deployed to largely urban areas. Coverage of the more rural areas of the country was limited .” On the other hand EU EOM reported that it “…followed campaign development from its headquarters in Addis Ababa and through 26 regional 2-member teams of long term observers. On Election Day, May 15th, more than 200 observers were deployed including a delegation of 9 members of the European Parliament. In total the EU observers visited 1034 poling stations in all regions of the country.
Since these two observer teams claim to have deployed their inspectors to the various regions, then it is logical to ask what has been their findings? How similar and or different are their findings? and what conclusion did they reach?
The Carter Center reported that “….Irregularities in procedures were observed, but many of these were relatively minor, particularly in Addis Ababa. More serious irregularities were seen in other part of the country, including instances of failures to check identification cards and of underage voting. Our observers received and in some instances were able to confirm credible reports of election-day and post-election intimidation and harassment. In several constituencies at the polling station level we found evidence that ballot boxes had been improperly moved, were improperly secured or that party agents had been barred from polling stations or not allowed to watch the entire count..” The Center recounting what its observers witnessed in Hossana, Soro, and Bure said “…Officials were not checking ID cards or voter cards, and crowds became agitated with the poor management of the process….In Soro its observers witnessed a large number of underage voters, There also were unconfirmed reports of vote buying. In addition the bags that the ballots were delivered in were opened one day before voting commenced …” (C.Center 19 May 2005)
Expressing his frustration the former president indicated his readiness “…to declare Ethiopia’s election illegitimate if he had reason to believe that they were marred by widespread irregularities.”
According to Anthony Mitchell, CBS News, Associated Press reported that “ Ethiopia’s electoral board appears to have lost control of the vote counting for the May 15 legislative polls, European Union election observers said the EU might have to make a public denunciation of developments to distance itself from the ‘lack of transparency, and assuming rigging’ of the vote…The national Electoral Board does not seem to be in control of the counting operation by the Constituency-electoral Committees and limits itself to passively receive the reports from a limited a number of constituencies…” The report chided former US President Carter, who had led
a 50 election observer delegation, for undermining the electoral process by “ his premature blessing of the elections and early positive assessments of the results.” The report concluded by warning the Ethiopian government. It said “….Unless there is drastic reversal toward good democratic practice, EU will have to publicly denounce the situation….Otherwise, the EU jointly with ex-President Carter will be held largely responsible for the lack of transparency, and assumed rigging of the elections.”
In a summary of the election, the EU EOM expressed its disenchantment over the publication of results and their handling of the same by the Election Administration, the government and political parties, especially the EPRDF. EU EOM observed that these practices, taken as a whole, are seriously undermining the transparency and fairness of the elections. The authorities also risk increasing the scope for manipulation and consequently putting in doubt public confidence in the process (EU EOM preliminary report P. 2)
Regarding post elections situation and particularly the issue of viewing the 380 complaints and investigation process, both the EU EOM and the Carter Center have made, more or less, similar observations. In this regard, I have taken the liberty to communicate their findings in their own
words.
Carter Center observers attended 14 of the 44 Complaints Investigation Panels (CIPs) that conducted the final phase of the complaints resolution process….
Carter Center observers saw little evidence of effective use of established complaints procedures in the polling stations observed. The NEBE reported that the ruling party did avail itself of this system. But opposition parties appeared to have difficulty navigating the complaints process. Some opposition complaints were dismissed due to a lack of information or evidence. In other cases, the complaints were not addressed by the relevant local authority. Ultimately the established complaints resolution process did not prove effective for many of
the cases.
The Center’s overall observation is reflected in the following five points:
Inconsistencies in the application of rules for the admission of evidence and witnesses
Credible reports of intimidation of witnesses
Apparent partisanship on the part of NEBE presiding officers
Intentional delays on the part of opposition parties
Withdrawals from the process by the opposition parties, resulting in decision being taken in their absence
The EU EOM preliminary observation which was issued on 25 August 2005 is corroborated by the findings of the Carter Center which was issued on 15 Sept. 2005.
The EU EOM report noted thus:
In procedural terms, the work of many, though not all, Complaint Investigation Panels (CIPs) observed went according to the Terms of Reference, at least as long as observers were present. However, the overall process has not satisfied the state’s obligation to provide an effective remedy for complaints, for two reasons:
The complaints investigation process took place in the context of serious violations of human right and freedoms, namely of opposition leaders and suspected supporters. This undermined the opposition’s ability to participate effectively in the process, independently of their competence to argue their case: material evidence was unobtainable because detained or fearful witnesses were unable to testify, and in one case, an important witness was killed. The climate of threats and intimidation was maintained throughout the complaints investigation process. EU EOM observers reported cases, where militia, police or armed forces were present around the location of the hearings. Also opposition witnesses were arrested before or after
they testified in front of the panel
Questionable CIPs impartial arbitration. While the composition of CIPs seemed adequate… de fact there was no level playing field: the ruling party was generally represented on the panels by important members of the local society, including state officials such as judges. This increased confusion between the roles of the state and EPRDF and exacerbated the atmosphere of intimidation including of members of the election administration….Although
the CIPs worked in general in accordance with the Terms of Reference, the trend emerged of a 2:1 majority for the ruling party
Regarding its quantitative findings about the CIPs’ recommendations EU EOM reported:
— EPRDF was involved, either as complainnant or respondent, in complaints filed in 36
constituencies out of the 38 observed. The recommendations issued by the CIPs in 35 out of the
38 of observed constituencies have upheld the ruling party’s claims. That accounts for almost 92% of the observed recommendations….
— 27 out the 28 recommendations affectinng the EPRDF as respondent have upheld the ruling party requests. This means that 96 of the complaints filed against EPRDF have been rejected.
What does the EC EOM report say about the complaints filed by the CUD and UEDF?
In that regarding the report which indicated that:
— CUD was involved in 27 complaints, either as complainant or respondent. In 24 cases the recommendations issued by the CIPs have gone against CUD demands. This accounts for almost 89% of their complaints.
— UEDF was involved in 11 complaints, either as complainant or respondent. In 8 cases the recommendations issued by the CIPs have gone against their requests, accounting for 72% of their complaints.
— On the whole, the CIPs made recommendations against the opposition parties in 80% of the complaints in which they were involved. On the other hand, CIPs made recommendations for EPRDF in 87% of the cases…. ( For more of this discussion please refer to EU EOM report)
Based on the reports of how these two institutions evaluated the May 2005 election, we shall examine their conclusions. The EU EOM consistent with its mandate and terms of reference concludes as follows:
The EU EOM regrets that the 15th of May post-polling day irregularities, delays and opacity of the counting and aggregation of data, plus the subsequent flawed handling of complaints and re-runs of elections in some constituencies, and the poorly organized electoral process conducted in Somali Region, did not live up to international standards and to the aspirations of Ethiopians for democracy, clearly manifested by the record number showing up to case their votes on 15 May….
The decision by the government of Ethiopia and EPRDF to launch this electoral process with international observation and unprecedented openness was a courageous and bold move…Ethiopia is not the same as before May 15 and cannot be run in the same way as before May 15…
The Carter Center observation reads thus:
The Carter Center’s assessment of the elections suggests that the majority of the constituency results based on the May polling and tabulation are credible and reflect competitive conditions. However, a considerable number of the constituency results based on the CRB and CIP processes are problematic and lack credibility. Within the universe of seats impacted by the complaints process, many of these lacked sufficient evidence to warrant challenging the result….
In this context, it is important to note that the CRB/CIP processes were ad hoc mechanisms to review electoral complaints, and that the prescribed legal recourse to challenge these decision is via an appeal to the High Court. It is incumbent upon dissatisfied political parties to file appeals to the High Court in an expeditious manner in those cases where they feel there is credible evidence. If parties decide not to file court appeals, the NEBE’s announced results should be accepted as final and legitimate. The Carter Center stands ready to assist Ethiopians and observe any other electoral processes as appropriate.
It is baffling, disheartening, and very disappointing to see a very respected Center like you’re the Carter Center reach a conclusion that cannot be defended by the standard you pledged to be governed by. Moreover, with only 50 observers deployed in only 7 regions, largely urban areas and also attending only 14 of the 44 Complaints Investigation Panels how in the world you reached that conclusion cries out for explanation. The Center’s conclusion begs the question what international standard was used to reach such a seemingly inaccurate conclusion. Consciously or otherwise, the Center’s conclusion has contributed a great deal to the chaotic situation that bedevils Ethiopia. Its conclusion has “legitimized” a very tyrannous government that kills its own people with impunity and without any compunction. No one needs to remind the Carter Center why elections are conducted in any nation. Democracy means that sovereignty belongs to the people and that power resides with them. Through voting, people not only give legitimacy to the government but also affirm their readiness and obligation to obey the laws.
This underscores their paramount right to be governed by their consent. It goes without saying that elections are also intended to hold officials accountable for their actions and decisions during their time in office. Does the Carter Center expect the people of Ethiopia to be governed by
a government they did not vote for? How should Ethiopians be expected to obey the laws of an illegitimate government? The people of Ethiopia do not believe there is a sinister intention on the part of the Center. But they are dismayed and astounded by this observation.
In 1992 in Guyana when there arose serious controversy between major opposition parties and the government regarding “ the independence of the election commission” the former president and the Carter Center managed to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of both sides. In 1989 when dictator Noriega tried to rig an election in Panama, the former president exposed that dastardly intention and act. (Carter Center 30 Jan. 2005) When asked about his opinion on the 2000 US presidential election, he is quoted as having said that he has no doubt in his mind that Gore had won. He did not hesitate to characterize the process as having “failed abysmally” and the Supreme Court as “highly partisan.
But when the dictator of Ethiopia expelled, despite Mr. Carter’s appeal, the observer teams from the National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute, and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, and also when Ethiopian observers were disqualified by their “own government” the former president and the Center chose to be silent. No condemnation or protestation. The Ethiopian people deserve an explanation.
I am sure that the Center is fully aware of the fact that the Mr. Kamal Bedri, the head of NEBE, is also the Chief Justice of the High Court of Ethiopia. And for the Carter Center to advice the opposition to challenge the decision of NEBE in the High Court, before Kamal Bedri, must be regarded as the most insensitive cynicism of the century. Has there ever been a time when the Center, since its creation in 1982, encountered a scenario where the entire leadership of a party is incarcerated by a government to which the Center gave its blessing? The Carter Center is among those very few organizations that have decided to condemn Ethiopia to tyranny. Ethiopian history will never forget such miscarriage of justice.
