The adage "politics is dirty" is not our byword for politics is essential for the advancement of a society. But we do not believe that politics is "hallowed" or that politicians are "blessed" fellows without whose "divine intervention" the world will not be saved.

We must accept that allowances should be made for politicians to err because as humans they are liable to make their share of mistakes. Of course, there is a line beyond which they cannot proceed.

Although parliamentary debates are not forums for and of the "blessed", whether we like it or not, there are bound to be incidents which may seem to flout political decorum but are permitted. It is to be granted that there is a line which is drawn in consideration of the august stature of parliament and the fact that it is an institution which embodies the will of the people.


The actions which are allowed or the line which is drawn are not enacted as law and as such cannot be explained or defended in terms of rights and duties. Rather, they are grounded in morality, tradition and the honor due to parliament.

The exchange of heated words during a question-and-answer session following Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's report to parliament last week was a major topic of discussion for the public. Public opinion on the matter can be summed up as follows:

"Prime Minister Meles, don't be too cross! And opposition parties don't debase yourself!"

This does not mean that the Prime Minister did not have a reason to get cross. It is inevitable that on an occasion where both the ruling and opposition parties try to outdo each other, particularly when it occurs in the backdrop of an intense election campaign, words which are lies, defamatory, disdainful, hateful or mediocre can be bandied about. These may prompt the person at whom they were directed to evince anger.

However, the leader of a nation is not an ordinary person. He has to be a person who checks his emotion in the face of things that may make him angry, laugh or proud. There are a certain set of rules of behavior and conduct which apply only to him.

One of these rules is that he should not get cross in public. Prime Minister Meles lost his cool on a couple of occasions during last week's parliamentary session. If he were not a leader, he would be excused to be even more angry at the things that were said to him. But as the leader of a nation, he is expected to rein in his feelings and be calm, cool and collected.

Coming to members of opposition parties, it would not be fair to accuse all of them of all sorts of failures as they are not made from the same mould. Some speak without giving a thought to what they say or the prerequisite knowledge. There are those who are cunning. Others either prefer to keep quiet or, on the contrary, believe that they are not engaging in politics unless they rail against the ruling party.

We do not condemn all of their mistakes; they too err like every one else. However, some of the things they say or do cannot be excused as simple mistakes. The substance and presentation of their thoughts and ideas is so woeful that the public is asking whether they are fit to govern a country and understand what is going on.

It is not only the Prime Minister or MPs of the ruling party who should know, monitor and analyze the state of the economy and propose solutions for problems. If opposition parties campaign on an election platform that they can manage the economy better than the ruling party, they too must be able to do these things. In this regard, they could and should have taken advantage of last week's parliamentary session, which was aired live, to come prepared and use it effectively for election campaigning.

The reality, however, was far from this. Opposition parties did not do their homework. Apart from trashing prime Minister's report, they did not present a better alternative that had substance.

There is an important thing that political parties should always keep in mind unlike fans of sports teams whose motto is: "Give us victory, however you do it". Supporters of political parties are discerning and closely examine whether the parties vying for their votes are capable of leading them. They are won over by a reasoned argument and position, not by a lowbrow philosophy. Any one who may have been temporarily enamored of such a philosophy will abandon it the moment they wise up.

Both the ruling and opposition parties need to campaign on a platform that they have greater respect for the public, that they will strive to enrich its culture and traditions, and that they will present a better argument and alternative.