Ethiopian election demonstrate advances in democratization process: Carter
Sept 15, 2005 (ADDIS ABABA) — The Carter Center said the May 15 election demonstrated significant advances in Ethiopia’s democratization process, including most importantly the introduction of a more competitive electoral process, which could potentially result in a pluralistic, multi-party political system.
Depending on developments in the coming months and years, the 2005 elections could potentially represent a historic sea change in attitudes toward political power and competition in Ethiopia.
In a press conference he gave at the Sheraton Addis on Thursday for local print media and international journalists, former US President Jimmy Carter said the May 15 election demonstrated significant advances in Ethiopia’s democratization process.
Carter also said the election could potentially result in a pluralistic, multi party political system.
“Ethiopians saw and understood that public policy appropriately receives debate, that public media cover multiple points of view, that voters choices can result in the election of opposition members of parliament, and that local administration may be in the hands of a party other than the ruling party,” he said.
Magnifying the positive contributions of the election, Carter said depending on developments in the coming months and years, the 2005 elections could potentially represent a historic sea change in attitudes toward political power and competition in Ethiopia.
The election observation statement of the Carter Center touches the election campaigns during the pre-election period, the Election Day and post-election activities.
Accordingly, the Center listed out positive experiences to be drawn from the pre-election period.
The Center went on to say that the environment throughout most of the country on May 15 was calm and peaceful, and voter turnout was overwhelming, and added that there were almost no reports of problems from party agents present in the stations, although opposition party headquarters did submit a list of problems and allegations to the Center.
According to the Center’s observation, the statement said, results based on the May 15 polling and tabulation are credible and reflect competitive conditions, and added, complaints submitted on the election lacked sufficient evidence to warrant challenging the result.
“It is important to note that the Complaint Review Boards (CRB) and the Complaint Investigation Panels (CIPs) were ad hoc mechanisms to review electoral complaints, and that the prescribed legal recourse to challenge these decisions is via an appeal to the high court” it said.
The Center said that all parties should accept decisions of the Electoral Board and 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 NEBEs announced results should be accepted as final and legitimate, it added.
The NEBE is to be commended for its electoral preparations and successes in implementing the May 15 voting process, the Center said.
“The increased transparency and responsiveness of the NEBE was an improvement over previous elections. The NEBE showed remarkable flexibility and responded in an inclusive and timely fashion to the demands to replace the complaints process that had proved inadequate” the Center said.
The Center says, “It has observed intentional delays on the part of opposition parties,” and “withdrawals from the process by the opposition parties resulting in decisions being taken in their absence.”
“Given the complicated task,” the Center says, “another factor undermining the process was the time pressure facing the CIPs to complete their work,” and added, “this was exacerbated by delaying tactics and withdrawals by the opposition.”
“In several constituencies observed by the Center, opposition complainants halted work of the panel in order to subpoena an incarcerated witness,” The Center says. The Center added, “It only observed one case where a detained person was not subpoenaed and thus not able to participate in the hearing.”
“However, the Center observed two cases in which the NEBE chair issued subpoenas to call detained witnesses (both for opposition complainants), but where the complainant indicated they no longer desired the testimony of the subpoenaed individuals.
“The efforts to locate these people delayed the panels for a considerable amount of time,” the center said, adding, “Most instances of intentional delays observed by the Center were caused by opposition parties.”
The Center added that “In the majority of cases, witnesses could give testimony without fear of retribution.”
The Center noted that “Early in the process opposition advocates and panelists withdrew from the proceedings in some constituencies to protest what they viewed as biased decisions by the CIPs. According to the terms of reference, the Center says, the panel is to proceed if the party absent is the provisional seat holder, but should drop the case if the party absent is the complainant.”
As a result, unfortunately, the deliberative purpose of the panel was not possible in the instances of withdrawals.
The Carter Center acknowledges the challenging conditions under which the CIP process was implemented, and that the negotiations and agreements to undertake the CIPs provided a cooling off period in the wake of the early June unrest.
The Center says, “The process relied heavily on the good faith effort of all parties involved to stay engaged in and committed to the conclusion of the process.”
The Center says “It is important of notinge that the NEBE provided multiple opportunities for dissatisfied parties to bring forward additional evidence.”
The Center observed that “The sheer volume of complaints clogged the system and distracted the NEBE from other operational duties.”
“Looking forward,” the Center says, “It is incumbent upon the NEBE to clarify electoral complaint procedures early in the election process, and for parties to create internal mechanisms for presenting credible evidence in a timely manner within the established parameters.”
(ENA/ST)