Mesfin Mengistu,EDUP-Medhin Executive member

Mesfin Mengistu is chairman of the parliamentary Public Accounts Standing Committee. His committee is primarily tasked with making sure that government expenditure is implemented properly.

An executive member of the Ethiopian Democratic Unity Party (EDUP-Medhin), Mesfin is highly critical of the opposition parties and the mistakes they made in the post-2005 election period.

Bruck Shewareged interviewed Mesfin on the recent election and related issues. Excerpts.

The opposition parties in Ethiopia are in disarray. Their poor showing in the latest election shows that they are in pretty bad shape, although they had three years' respite to regroup and reorganize themselves following the 2005 election. What went really wrong with them?

This is an important question. To begin with, we have to ask ourselves, thin question: "What is our reading of the problem?" The problem among Ethiopian opposition parties is the reflection of the problem which afflicts the process of building a democratic order in the country. There seems to be a narrow interpretation of the situation. Fingers are pointed at this party or that party or the leader of that party for doing this and that; and we seem to have totally lost a good understanding of the problem. The focus should be, I think, on why there are divisions within or between parties.

Many say that the absence of a strong opposition party is one of the problems that hinder the building of a democratic order in Ethiopia: I totally agree with this notion.

Why do we really need a strong opposition party? It is not just because we wanted an opposition party. Some people want a strong opposition party which can sweep away the ruling party, EPRDF, from power. These people fail to grasp the fact that EPRDF is also a stakeholder in the formation of a democratic order in Ethiopia. They believe that the removal of EPRDF from power is a prerequisite to build democracy in Ethiopia.

On the other hand, there are those who strive towards strengthening the democracy which has already been set on track. These people work within the constitutional framework. I'm one of these people. If you try to see the political situation in light of this, you can say that there is no strong opposition party.

Why would that be the case? The answer is that there is no political and social behavior in our society that can accommodate a party which wants to conduct a peaceful struggle. In the past, much of the support that used to go to opposition parties emanated from the grievances that people felt towards the ruling party. And some of the very people who bitterly complain about the absence of a strong opposition party are the ones that proved to be obstacles for the creation of a strong opposition party.

How come?

Consider how the media used to operate in the past. The modus operandi of the media, the press especially, created a lot of problems for political parties. The majority of the press, instead of looking towards the future, dwelt on reactionary concepts bordering on racism.

They contributed towards creating an extreme political line and they insisted that opposition parties must follow their line. This is the result of their conviction that the current government is illegitimate.

And there are those who blame opposition parties for not doing enough. But these people couldn't identify what kind of support these parties needed? And they were not willing to extend their support.

This, I think, is the result of elitist political culture. Politics and elite arrangement is not unique to Ethiopia. It is found everywhere. Over the years, the elitists developed this notion of grabbing power from the government, and reaping the benefits thereof. Their worry is not about transformational change that benefits the country.

Why have opposition parties failed to come to terms with each other? Why don't they have institutional approach? And why did EDUP-Medhin opt out of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy?

We have to address one basic question. "Is a democratic order going to be built together with EPRDF or without it?" This question has also got to do with giving EPRDF a recognition.  

For many years, there were different forces that want to remove EPRDF from power forcefully. They failed. Then "peaceful struggle" was put on the table. These forces do not really have the will to engage in peaceful struggle. And the sad state of the opposition is that those who follow peaceful political struggle and those who want to use force are found in the same camp. What you call opposition in Ethiopia is the sum total to all these forces.  

There has been a struggle between extreme and moderate forces. In fact, it is this confrontation that defines the nature of the politics.

Opposition parties in the diaspora want the toppling of EPRDF in a very short period of time. But it is obvious that as the process of the building of the democratic order matures, these forces will be marginalized.

Are you implying that they are desperate enough to try anything to topple the government right now?

Yes, they want to do it right now. What should be noted is that opposition parties that are locally registered cannot simply topple EPRDF. The conditions on the ground do not allow these parties to fulfill the wishes of the extremes.

Unfortunately, however, the extremists in the diaspora, have great influence on the local moderates.

But they are far away. How can they manage to exert complete influence?

The first reason is the money. They support them financially. The second is that the extreme forces in diaspora used to control the media outlet here. So extreme ideas were entertained in some of the newspapers even though they were not ideas of the parties.

You're saying that the diaspora have more influence than the parties who were operating here? Is that what you're saying?

Exactly. They have influence over foreign-based Amharic radio programmes also. Practically, they have control over media outlets. That's why they can have influence.

The moderate forces have always known that the way of extremists could not take the country one step foreword. They have tried many times to follow the right path. And if you oppose the views of extremists, you are immediately labled as an EPRDF ally. But, unfortunately for the moderates, there is EPRDF on the other side. So they are stuck between extreme forces and the EPRDF.

Another problem with the extremists is that they believe that all opposition forces should be included under one party. That is when we can build a strong opposition party. That's their view. That is, a monoistic approach or view has a lot to do with our culture.

But this view creates a lot of problems. I think, this view could also be the result of the public's concern about national unity or the lack of it.

But isn't that a legitmate concern?

It is. But the diversity must be considered also. There could be different opposition parties. If you want to put all of them into one party, it will, in fact, endanger the unity of the country. You have to recognize that there are different views exist.

For instance, there are politicians and parties that believe that Ethiopia's primary problem is the nationality question. There are others who oppose it. Mind you, ethnic-based parties that have the nationality question as their main item of their agenda, and multi-ethnic parties who oppose this view, were trying to work together. This created its own problem. You can't expect them to become one, just because they oppose the EPRDF. This is one important point.  

The second important point is, "Do opposition parties have a clear-cut policy to address Ethiopia's problems?" Do they have a clear policy on national unity?

There are two important areas which opposition parties must have a clear view on. One is, as I said earlier, national unity and the second is democracy. There was confusion on these issues. On national unity, so much has been said but the problem worsened over the years, instead of subsiding.
If national unity is a serious issue to be addressed, and if it is one that the public is anxious about, how come all the parties, including the ruling party, failed to come up with an answer to assuage the public's fear?

If you look at this from one perspective, the problem has got to do with the ruling party. EPRDF defines the question of nationalities as the most important problem in Ethiopia. On the other hand, opposition parties do not have a clear-cut view on the issue. Some of the opposition parties like the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Party (EPRP) and Meison at one time debated the ethnic issue three decades back. But now they try to present it as something introduced by EPRDF.

Opposition parties must have a stand on whether this is the result of interaction within Ethiopian politics or something brought about by EPRDF. Refusing to recognize the issue will result in prolonging the problem. It doesn't solve the problem. It is not the ruling party only that believes that ethnic oppression exists in Ethiopia. Some of the opposition parties who wage struggles against EPRDF are truly convinced that the problem exists.

But, it doesn't mean that all people in different ethic groups want separation. We have to see, yet, a party that says, "In diversity, we can maintain unity." What's their problem to do that?   

Some of them fear that addressing the problem legitimately, openly, will aggravate the situation. In this regard, our party, EDUP-Medhin, has taken one step forward. It tried to address it in its programme. During merger talks between our party and the All-Ethiopia Unity Organization (AEUO), a difference of opinion surfaced on the issue, i.e, whether language should be the main factor in determining the borders of the regions? Of course, later AEUO accepted our views, and we, together with two other parties were able to form the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD).

Can't that be taken as a positive step i.e, to accept reality?

I think, parties must not always be forced by situations to change their views. They must also anticipate what the future holds. Because most of them lack good interpretation of the situation, they are usually forced to face reality and change position later.

When you come to democracy, some of the parties used to boycott elections on the ground that participation will only legitimize EPRDF. So they boycotted the 1995 election. Participation in the 2000 election had also its own cost for some of the opposition parties who participated in the election. One of the issues that dominated the pre-2005 election period within the opposition camp was whether they should participate in the election. Of course, they decide to participate at last. At least, at the time, moderates overcame the extreme forces. Later the extremists turned the table back.

Our agreement was that CUD was hijacked by extremists in the post-election period. Those who originally opposed CUD's participation later became advocates of participation when they realized that the party had gathered mass support. The extremists want the CUD to win the election and remove the EPRDF. But at the same time, they don't want CUD to assume power independent of  their approval or participation in the government. CUD was stuck between these forces and EPRDF.

Big pressure was put on CUD. As I mentioned earlier, these extreme forces had big influence on the media. CUD faced at the time a serious problem. Sadly, CUD left its own moderated trajectory and adopted a more serious extreme stand. This was the real problem. We wanted the CUD to stick to its own path.

We wanted to extract concessions from EPRDF. We won Addis Ababa and secured significant number of seats in the federal parliament. Having this as a back-up, we felt we were in a postion to secure more concessions. We didn't want to simply topple the EPRDF.

Apart from being the ruling party, what is EPRDF's role in shaping the path of the opposition?

The problem with Ethiopian politics is, among others, the fact that opposition parties do not have detailed programmes. Their path is self-destructive. EPRDF need not to work hard to destroy the opposition parties as they will be undone by their own acts.

EPRDF perfectly knows that. I don't think the EPRDF is willing to help moderate forces to defeat the extremists.

Some argue that since EPRDF assumed power through the use of armed force, it will never accept defeat through ballot boxes, or anything other means than force. And if, as you say, it is not willing to see moderate forces win, can't extremists' view get currency amongst the public?

That's what EPRDF failed to understand. EPRDF focuses only on defeating rivals. It has forgotten that as a leader, it is entrusted with building a democratic order. Had EPRDF recognized that building a democratic order goes beyond defeating your rivals, it would have made things easier for moderates. Yes, it is a currency for extremists, a dividened, in fact. But their way is not a solution. If they want to change the political order, first they must recognize EPRDF and the constitutional order. Having an aim to topple EPRDF on one side and asking the EPRDF to concede defeat through election do not go together. But why would EPRDF hands over power while they know that you want to destroy the party.

How did EDUP-Medhin fare in the recent elections? And regarding withdrawals by other parties, what is your opinion? Is it helpful?

First, you have to see whether opposition parties can carry a successful campaign in the post 2005 election period. Were conditions conducive to this? The answer is an emphatic no. So our party was not convinced that it would perform well in the election.

However, we believe that it is necessary to participate in elections. The democratic process benefits from everyone's participation. We know that we can't field candidates in the millions like EPRDF did. So our role was just to participate. To be honest, other parties' role was in reality, participation. But they said that their expectation is beyond that, i.e, to win the election. So, if that is the case, they should have fielded as many candidates as EPRDF did.

If you fielded a few thousand candidates while your rival did in millions, and expect to win, then I must say you don't know why, in the first place, participated the election. My opinion is that all the opposition parties' role is just participation. If they say it is beyond that, I don't know what it is. When they withdraw, they anticipated what they would gain. What they're going to gain is not clear to me. I don't know.

What would you say about the ratio of number of candidates to the number of voters?

Well, EPRDF fielded millions of candidates (3.7 million). What does it mean? Had the other thirty-one parties fielded half a million candidates, at least, won't the number of candidates exceed that of voters? And if they each decided of field a million candidates each, the election will have thirty-two million candidates. What kind of election is that, especially seeing that registered voters are only 27 million. This shows that the organization of the election has a problem.

Why should we have so many kebele electees (300 for each kebele)? I don't think it is to increase the public's participation in the political process as EPRDF says. Couldn't it be to lay the foundation to control the people?

In the future, I don't think, opposition parties can afford to participate in local elections given their limited resources. This has a negative impact on the development of democracy in the country.

You were appointed as chairman of the House Public Accounts committee because EPRDF was  willing, not because you were in a strong position to extract that concession. So can you bring any change in the way the parliament functions?

Well, you can't turn the clock back. Due to the problem in post-2005 election period everyone was weakened (both extremists and moderates). We joined parliament. Even though we were in an extremely weak position, we tried to negotiate with EPRDF.

But why would EPRDF do that, when it was in a position to dictate things. In fact, some say it was a window dressing i.e, just to give impression that there was democracy and concessions. So does it really matter? Did that concession bring any real change in Ethiopian politics?

I wouldn't say that EPRDF didn't suffer from the 2005 elections. Things turned out the way EPRDF didn't expect them. So, I think that EPRDF cannot continue the way it was doing before. It wanted change. But what kind of change? EPRDF wanted a change that it can control and dictate. So, in this respect, what you say might be true.

On our part, we didn't exert influence on EPRDF when we first went to negotiation. We were not in a postion to do that. We didn't have any other choice than negotiate. That negotiation brought about some changes. For instance, some of the clauses in the parliamentary code of conduct were changed. These clauses were very restrictive. In several standing committees, opposition party MPs were included.

When EPRDF was willing to share some of the posts, it would be naïve not to accept the offer on our part. In addition, we want to institutionalize the tradition of working together. We are working on a new political culture. We are contributing our share.

In the committee that I chair, opposition parties' MPs have the right to express their concerns. Sometimes, meetings take two or three times more than the usual time to wrap up. This atmosphere is good.

EPRDF may not have another viable option than engaging other parties. If it fails to recognize that, it will be another fundamental mistake.