Prime Minster Meles Zenawi's Letter to the Editor of the Ethiopian Herald
Part I

Easy to remove the garbage that has covered lumps of truth

Dear Editor,
I am writing this letter in response to the “preliminary statement on the elections’ appeals process, the rerun of elections and the Somali region elections” of the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU-EOM). As this is the first time in my entire political life that anything is being published in my name, the letter is likely to come as a surprise to you and your readers. Allow me, therefore, to briefly explain why there appears to be a break in tradition.

I have, in the past, never felt the urge to publish anything in my name. My party has the tradition of publishing materials that explain its views on all issues of relevance. As your readers might guess, I normally agree with those views and therefore had nothing interesting and/or different to say. Hence, I had neither the rationale nor the urge to publish anything in my name.

Party publications, however, take time because every word has to be agreed upon by the relevant bodies. That is of no consequence in normal times. But the situation we are in today requires prompt response. A statement that requires immediate and considered response has been issued. The statement has created outrage across the nation. I feel I have an urgent and interesting message to those that have been outraged by the statement. I feel the normal party response is too slow to address the urgent requirements of the day. Hence, the break in tradition.

Some of your readers might wonder why I wrote this letter in English. The answer is rather simple. The statement of the Observation Mission which I will be quoting extensively is written in English. If I were to write this letter in any other language, I would have had to translate the quotes and run the risk of being accused of misquoting or mistranslating the statement. I could not and did not want to take that risk.



                                   Big Lumps of Truth.

The statement has come as a great surprise to me. I had expected that the statement would have very few if any nuggets of truth, and, if any, that these would be buried under so much garbage that it would be virtually impossible to excavate them. As it turned out, the statement has some big, really big, lumps of truth in it, and it is relatively easy to remove the garbage that has covered those lumps of truth. While I was expecting a huge garbage damp all I got was newly started garbage damp that was unable to bury the truth. The letter cannot but therefore start by identifying and highlighting the lumps of truth in the statement.

The head of the EU-EOM has nothing new to say about the electoral process up to and including polling day. She is full of praise of that phase in the process and in any case no one I know has seriously contested the fact that the first phase of the process was an exemplary democratic process by any standards. The statement focuses on the investigations into alleged electoral malpractice in the vote counting and tabulation process and that is where I too, intend to focus.

The EU-EOM says the following on page three of the statement:

“The election administration (sic) has set up a complex system to investigate and address election complaints in a tense political environment, thus offering the political parties a mechanism to sort out disputes by peaceful means. That mechanism in itself is a very positive development (emphasis in the original), which should be improved in the future taking stock of lessons learned with (sic) the practice this time.”

I would fully agree with the EU-EOM on this. The mechanism that was set up to investigate complaints with the agreement of all concerned parties was indeed a very good mechanism that provided for a peaceful solution to the disputes with respect to the elections. It was the appropriate mechanism for an environment that the EU-EOM characterizes as tense. The system designed for previous elections could not work in the new environment of tension, and a new system that can work in such an environment had to be designed with the agreement of all the concerned parties.



Furthermore, the EU-EOM says on page three of the statement, that :

“In procedural terms, the work of many, thought not all, Complaint Investigations Panels (CIPs) observed went according to the Terms of Reference, at least as long as observers were present.”

Further down the page the EU-EOM re-asserts the same point by saying:


“....The CIPs worked in general in accordance with the terms of reference....”


Thus according to the EU-EOM, not only was the mechanism a good one but also one that in general operated on the basis of its terms of reference.


On page 4 and 5 of the statement the following is said:

“In (sic) many occasions, the EU observers reported that opposition parties presented their cases based on poor evidence, inconsistent testimonies weak arguing (sic) The fact that in some constituencies opposition parties withdrew from the CIPs without presenting their case or before the end of the examination of the case was detrimental to the final recommendation given by the CIPs to the NEBE”

Whether the fact that in some instances the opposition parties boycotted the process that they had signed up to and that according to the EU-EOM the CIPs worked in general on the basis of their terms of reference and that the referred to boycott was detrimental to the recommendations of the CIPs is a matter of opinion. That the opposition parties’ cases were based on poor evidence, that the testimony of their witnesses was “in consistent,” to put it mildly, and that their arguments were weak is a matter of record, and I fully agree with the EU-EOM on the matter.


On page 5 of its statement the EU-EOM says:

“On the contrary, in most cases, EPRDF evidence was better substantiated; their CIPs representatives were better prepared and their witnesses (often members of the local administration) more impressive.”

Again, one cannot disagree with the facts as presented by the EU-EOM and as are available in the records of the CIPs. The EPRDF’s cases were in “most instances” based on substantiated evidence and the testimony of its witnesses was not “inconsistent”. No wonder the EPRDF won most of the cases!

In summary, the EU-EOM states (i) that the complaints mechanism was a good mechanism given the tense environment (ii) that the investigations were in general carried out according to the procedures (iii) that the opposition parties did not present substantial evidence and their witnesses were inconsistent and (iv) that the EPRDF substantiated and argued its case, well. These are facts with which I am in full agreement.

Ordinary mortals would conclude on the basis of the above mentioned uncontested facts that the complaints investigations process was in general conducted well and that based on the evidence of the EPRDF and the opposition parties, it would be natural that the EPRDF would win most of the cases. Not so says the EU-EOM. But we shall come back to this later. Let us for the moment continue to excavate the lumps of truth in the report.

The EU-EOM says the following about the re-run of the elections on page 7 of its statement.


“their findings about the polling process were generally positive (emphasis in the original). Their overall assessment of the process has been rated as good in 64% of the cases and very good in 24%. The rules were implemented according to the electoral law and the reruns took place in a peaceful and orderly manner”

I would rate the reruns at a significantly higher level than EU-EOM has done, but even if we take the conservative ratings of the EU-EOM, the re-runs would satisfy international standards and would clearly be considered as free and fair elections.

Having put such big lumps of truth about the complaints investigation mechanism and the reruns of the elections, the EU-EOM comes up with a conclusion that is clearly contrary to the facts that it has itself presented as outlined above and says the following on page 9 of its statement:


“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 reruns of elections in some constituencies, and the poorly organized electoral process conducted in Somali (sic) Region, did not live up to international standards and to the aspirations of Ethiopians for democracy.”

I shall focus on assessing how the EU-EOM came to such a conclusion which contradicts the facts that it has itself presented. In doing so I shall limit myself to those issues that relate to the EPRDF and the major opposition parties i.e. the complaints investigation mechanism and the re-run of elections. I will do so not only because I am not adequately informed about the elections in the Somali Region but also because the elections in that region have been of marginal impact to the outcome of the election at the national level and to the dispute between my party and the main opposition parties.


What has it got to do with the investigations?

The conclusions of the EU-EOM as relates to the complaints investigations, as it were, stand on two legs. The first leg has to do with the context of the investigations while the second leg is related to the investigations themselves. Let us deal with them one at a time.

On page six of the statement the EU-EOM says:


“The context of the complaints process was marked by on-going high tension in the country and stalemate between the government party (sic) and the opposition. This was aggravated by the handling of the June disturbances by governmental forces, in violation of human rights and the citizen’s rights enshrined in the Ethiopian constitution”

One can rightly challenge the conclusions of the EU-EOM with regards to the June disturbances. But that would take us away from the main point. Let us instead focus on the impact of the “tension” on the investigation process.

The complaints investigation mechanism, as the EU-EOM says on page three of the statement, was a very positive development intended to address complaints “in a tense political environment”. The very object of designing the system was to come up with a mechanism that can work in such an environment. It is such a system that the EU-EOM finds not only acceptable but also “ a very positive development”. But that of course is the EU-EOM of page three.

Three pages later the EU-EOM comes up with a radically different view. On page six, it states that the very fact that the complaints investigation mechanism operated in an environment of tension related to the elections and the June events meant that the context of the investigations was such as to make the process one that did not live up to international standards. A mechanism that was specifically designed to work in an environment of tension is invalidated because it continued to work in an environment for which it was designed i.e. one of tension. May God save humanity from observers with such perverse reasoning!

On page six the EU-EOM further states that:

“Tension was exacerbated by the fact that, since polling day public demonstrations were banned and media openness ceased, with the official media back under tight control and spinning (sic) of the ruling party and opposition parties denied access to them. Also journalists were intimidated and arrested. The government, in the meantime, rejected (sic) to agree on a code of conduct for the free and responsible operation of the media. The governmental control of state media compromises (sic) the credibility of electoral process since May 15....”

One can argue as to whether the ban on demonstrations in Addis-Ababa for two months increased the tension throughout the country as the EU-EOM alleges, or whether it helped to give the country a breathing space to manage the tension, as almost everyone else including much of he diplomatic community in Addis, believes. But again ,that would take us away from our topic. The question is what has the ban on demonstrations got to do with the investigation?

A ban on demonstrations in Addis Ababa does not prevent any one from presenting his/her evidence to the CIP’s or from giving testimony to it. There is nothing in the procedure of the Panels which allows for the absence or presence of demonstrations to be regarded as relevant evidence in the investigations of alleged malpractices in counting and aggregating votes on May 15th and few days after that. The investigations are about these alleged malpractices and not on the impact of the ban of demonstrations on the tension in the country. So what has the ban of demonstrations got to do with the investigation? Nothing!

One can also contest the validity of the assertions of the EU-EOM with regard to the media. But that would take us too far from the real agenda of complaints investigations. The election campaign had ended before May 15. All observers agree that during the election campaign all parties had fair access to public media. Just before polling day, electoral campaign through the public media ended as is the accepted practice everywhere. After May 15, the issue at hand was to investigate complaints. Such investigations cannot be carried out through media campaigns or debates. It could only be carried out by investigative panels based on evidence presented to them. But such ordinary logic is beyond the EU-EOM. If access to public media is denied to the opposition then the investigations must be flawed, they declare. But what has access to the media got to do with the investigations? Nothing!

One last point, while we are at it. The EU-EOM alleges that the government refused to agree on a code of conduct on the utilization of the media. That is a lie. The government was not and could not be part of the negotiations on the code of conduct. The negotiations were between the parties. As such, the government was in no position to accept or reject the code of conduct.

As we move on through page six of the statement, we find the following:


“Furthermore, the ruling party passed after May 15th new regulations affecting the conduct of parliament business (sic) and the role of opposition parties in it, and also impacting in (sic) the governance of the municipalities throughout the country, namely in the capital. Those regulations adopted without consultation with other parties which have gained seats in parliament in the electoral process, do not help promote the minimal confidence that democratic parties must build in a functioning democratic system.”

Let us start with the facts. The EU-EOM does not appear to have made its mind as to whether the laws passed affected all municipalities or was limited to Addis. In one part of a sentence it talks about “municipalities throughout the country”. In another part of the same sentence, it talks about “namely the capital”. There is no legislation that affects the governance of all municipalities during the period in question. That is quite simply a lie!

The EU-EOM is more careful with its arguments than with its facts. It is not saying that passing such legislation was illegal or that the content of the legislation was undemocratic. It did not do that perhaps because it knows that it would be laughed out of town, if it did so. What it finds objectionable is that the out-going parliament passed legislation before its term ended but after the elections without consulting parties that have gained seats in the incoming parliament whose term does not begin until early October, three months after the said legislation was passed. Any one who has a passing knowledge of what outgoing parliaments do until the very day their term ends would find the argument preposterous. But that is not the main question. The main question remains what has it got to do with the investigation?

The investigations are about alleged electoral malpractices that are alleged to have taken place on polling day and soon thereafter, and are carried out on the basis of evidence about these allegations. The investigations are not about the future workings of the parliament or the municipality of Addis. So what does this perfectly normal process of legislation have to do with the investigations? Nothing!

One of the legs on which the EU-EOM conclusion on the complaints investigation is supposed to rest is the context of the investigations. It stands on the relevance of the contextual factors selected by the EU-EOM to the investigative process. I have shown that the factors have no relevance whatsoever.

The fact that there was tension in the country throughout the investigative process does not invalidate the mechanism because the mechanism was designed with the tension in mind. It’s very raison d’etre is to work in such an environment. In any case, the EU-EOM cannot in one and the same statement declare that the mechanism was a good mechanism designed to work in an environment of tension and at the same time declare that the mechanism does not meet international standards because it operated in an environment of political tension.

The rest of the contextual factors have no relevance, whatsoever, to the investigative process. Indeed, they remind me of the famous Tina Turner song. What has love got to do with it? What indeed have they got to do with the investigative process? Nothing! The criticism by the EU-EOM of the complaints investigation process based on contextual factors has no leg to stand on because the contextual factors selected by it have no relevance at all to the investigations. The EU-EOM now stands on one leg, that of the investigations themselves to which we shall now return.