The Collateral Damage of the May Elections

If you have any patience left in you, to still read the state-owned English daily, The Ethiopian Herald, you cannot help but notice an interesting column on its third page. It is named, "Opinions, Views and Facts". The first two have nothing new in particular. The last part - the one that refers to facts - is quite ironic.

Take, for instance, the latest debacle this column has with diplomats of the European Union, a.k. by cynics as European Union Democratic Forces (EUDF). A writer by a suspected pseudo-name alleged at The Herald that Chief EU Observer, Ana Gomes, who as an EU parliamentarian is believed to earn more than 100,000 euro and additional allowances and benefits, made a deal with CUD chairman, Hailu Shawel.

According to this allegation, she is to get 20pc of the financial contributions coming from the Diaspora to the CUD, in exchange for her agreement to produce a ****ing report against the ruling party.

Whether this allegation holds water is up to the editors of the state daily, who are good at in pointing fingers at the private press for its irresponsible behaviour, to substantiate. Nonetheless, this particular column at The Herald seems to have a reputation of being inaccurate, albeit its claim on "Facts".

A couple of weeks ago, this very column had published a piece that alleged Hailu Shawel is in the same party with those who have allegedly murdered the family of his wife during the former regime. The writer was implying, although not factually, that Hailu's wife is a granddaughter of Emperor Haileselassie Interestingly, it is his daughter-in-law who was born to the granddaughter of the Emperor.

Such remotely far from the truth allegations are becoming rampant at the state media these days. Leaders of the state media seem to kiss good journalism goodbye, for it is the political factor that weighs much heavier than the credibility and integrity of the public media as an institution. They are now dealing with an already repulsed, if not disgusted, set of viewers, listeners and readers, sceptical of buying anything stated by the state media machinery.

True, the opposition camp has also been busy, relentless and consistent in attacking the state media as a stooge to the ruling party.

In fact, the state media has been one of the three institutions - the others being the electoral board and the judiciary - that have become collateral damages of the electoral dispute. It is they who have been made the victims of relentless attacks by the opposition parties that had apparently joined the electoral fray with the full consent to work within these institutions however defective or weak they might be at this stage.

They are systematically attacked by the opposition parties, while their integrity and professionalism is constantly undermined from within by the administration that was supposed to uphold their values to society. Worse is when they are being constantly undermined, if not destroyed, by the very forces that are claiming to be fighting for democracy.

Yet, nobody seems to notice - or rather care much - that these are state institutions, indispensable for the building of a free, open and democratic society.
The state-owned media have never been professional, ethical or vibrant. Historically, these institutions had always been the propaganda arms of the various ruling interests since they came into being almost half a century ago. This was taken for granted in the past.

In a democracy, the media, regardless of their ownership, are expected to be non-partisan, objective, professional, balanced and responsible.

The ruling party in Ethiopia has done little or nothing to alter the traditional role of the media. In practice, nothing much has been changed since the military regime. In fact, the state media's partisan nature has become more evident than ever before at critical times such as during the recent elections and the post-election developments.

It is one thing for the incumbent to refuse, although illegal, to make the media accessible to the opposition parties for reasons of fear on how the latter may behave. It is, however, a completely different matter to make the media lose credibility in the

eyes of the public due to unprofessional, unethical, irresponsible and one-sided reporting and commentaries.

The state-media can remain under the control of a governing party. But, they can also be made to serve the interests of the nation and promote the objectives of democracy without undermining their credibility and professionalism. The incumbent has miserably failed to democratise the state media and this has a boomerang effect on its own policies and activities. Whatever the state media say these days is regarded with a high dose of scepticism, if not disbelief. It is simply because the standard and performance of these institutions has plummeted, particularly since the elections.

The brief period of superficial liberalization right before the elections was when
opposition parties were allowed to use the state media for campaigning. It has now totally vanished. In its place, the traditional and well-entrenched role of the media as state watchdogs disguised as "editorial policy" took over.

State media managers often talk about editorial policy whenever they are criticised for their sloppy performance. Editorial policy is a general framework and cannot be responsible for lack of professionalism or integrity. An editorial policy that discourages professionalism and journalistic ethics should be rejected because it would ultimately undermine the principles of impartiality, responsibility and balance upon which a free and democratic media, and by extension, a democratic society are built.

Likewise, the opposition parties are attacking the justice system, as being another instrument of the ruling party. Their leaders argue that it is useless or a waste of time to go to the courts to appeal against alleged electoral infringements.

Nowhere is the ambiguous attitude of the opposition parties more evident than in their approach to the justice system. On the one hand, they attack the courts as being partisans and refuse to make use of these institutions to seek legal redress. On the other hand, they sign agreements recognizing these institutions and pledging to work within them.

This ambiguity has proved fatal not only for the opposition parties whose sense of trust is being undermined. It is also hurting the judiciary that is being made to lose credibility in the eyes of the public. Nobody in his right mind would deny the fact that the courts in Ethiopia are not fully independent like their counterparts in the developed democracies.

However, it would be gross exaggeration to conclude that the courts were set up to serve the incumbent or that they have never tried to protect their integrity under difficult circumstances. If the opposition is serious with its appeal to fairness, it should have a fair, unbiased or unprejudiced look at these institutions.

The other institution that has become the target of attacks by the opposition parties is the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) that was constitutionally established as the sole authority for organizing and managing elections in this country. Like the justice system, the NEBE is a relatively young institution. It was set up little more than 10 years ago at a time when multi-party politics in Ethiopia was in its infancy.

The opposition parties have joined the electoral contest with the full knowledge of this fact and with the consent to work with the institution, despite its shortcomings. It is, however, one thing to fight to make it a fully independent body, while it is quite another matter to question its very raison d'etre at this stage or reject its authority whenever its decisions do not favour their interests.

If the opposition parties are only good at attacking the state media, the justice system and the national election commission, and the ruling party clever in undermining their impartiality and integrity, there will be little or nothing left to maintain a credible relationship and dialogue within society and among the various interest groups.

It is legitimate to criticize these institutions. Nonetheless, it is irresponsible to work to undermine, if not dismantle, them. The outcome would be administrative chaos and political instability.

How come there is hardly anyone both in the ruling party and the opposition ready to realise that the value of these institutions is at stake?
It takes the work of generations to build institutions, which are pillars of an open and

democratic society. These are some of the key institutions that help sustain the functions of a modern and democratic state.

It is necessary to criticize and reform them, and make them more in tune with the demands of democracy and a free society. But, it would be a serious mistake to undermine them both from within by the incumbent and from without by the opposition parties in their zeal to submit them to their respective partisan interests.

Gebrelekuskus's situation has transgressed from "disoriented" to "clinically hallucinating". He no longer distinguishes the difference between what is governement propoganda from a substantiated criticism against the government.

Ankasa Doro aka
Shewerara Gundan