After his party won a vast majority of seats in Parliament, the PM shared his views on international issues, his admiration for voters, and his desires for the future of electoral politics in Ethiopia with reporters.
Prime Minister Meles' Post-Election Press Conference
Q. In light of the elections of 2008 in which the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) won more than 99.9pc of the seats and again in this most recent election in which the EPRDF won 99.9pc of the seats, is there a clear shift to a course in which there is a one party state in Ethiopia? It looks very clearly that Ethiopia is turning away from multiparty democracy and adopting a Chinese model of government, what is your response to that?
It depends on how you define a one party state. My understanding of a one party state is a constitutional arrangement which does not provide for contested elections and which does not provide for parties with differing ideologies to compete. In an environment where there are a multiplicity of parties competing for the same votes, but one party more or less habitually getting the majority, you can have what we sometimes call a dominant party system. That is what we had in Sweden and Japan for decades. Some people would consider that as a one party system, most would not. In the case of Ethiopia, you have a constitutional order which explicitly guarantees the right to organise, and, as you know, there are more than 60 parties in Ethiopia now, and I suspect that we will continue to have perhaps more than 10 parties in the future. Whether the EPRDF will continue to win the elections the way it has won the recent elections, nobody can say. This time we have gained an overwhelming majority of votes from the population. We have no regrets, and we offer no apologies. Next time around we may lose part or all of our seats, nobody knows. But there is no possibility of a single party system emerging in Ethiopia, because of the constitutional order.
Q. It seems like what is considered the modern opposition is wholly disenfranchised now. Are you not worried that this will [encourage] extremist groups like the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) and [that] popular support will go to them, since there is no room for the modern opposition to win parliament anywhere in the Ethiopian political system.
The way you approach the question is rather intriguing. We as a party have no way of determining the outcome of the elections. It is up to the electorate to determine the outcome of the election. If the overwhelming majority of the population votes for the EPRDF in an election of the type that we had this time, which is recognised as a legitimate and credible one by everybody with a sense of justice, that does not in any way signify that a moderate opposition has no space in Ethiopia. It simply indicates that at this particular moment the people have voted in a certain way. Next time around, who knows? The manner in which the question is raised seems to indicate that it is within our hands as a government to decide how many seats the opposition should get. As to whether the extreme opposition will fare better, I do not think so. As you probably know, the WSLF has signed a peace agreement with the government. Having tried extremism and grown tired of it, they have come to the conclusion that extremism is not the way forward in Ethiopia. Soon we will sign an agreement with the major faction of the ONLF. Again, that would seem to prove that extremism has no place in Ethiopia.
The reason we have a completely peaceful election and postelection situation now is not because the opposition has gone out of their way to be peaceful, it simply is because the population has said enough is enough, we will not have any violence. As long as the population has taken that firm position, the only space available in Ethiopia will be for legal opposition.
Q. The EU has suggested that the speech you gave during the rally may have breached the code of conduct. Your critics have said that it was arrogant and irresponsible. What is your take on that? Also the EU criticised the conduct of the election and the US also came out with a very strong statement. For a country dependent on foreign aid, can you reassure the donors that your party’s conduct has not put a chink in your relationship?
By the time I spoke at the rally, very nearly all of the seats had been declared provisionally by the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE). In any case, I did not say we had won this many seats. I simply said that based on the preliminary report by the NEBE, it is very clear that we have a very clear majority. There is nothing in contradiction to the code of conduct of the parties in what I said. I was very careful about it. The feedback I get from the average Ethiopian about the speech was that it was a very good speech, one which was focused on reaching out to the opposition. It did not focus on the EPRDF’s overwhelming victory. It declared that this was not a victory of one party but of the political process in Ethiopia, and so on. So the average Ethiopian takes it very differently from those who appear to be in the mood for declaring the grape sour.
As to the statement by the US, people are entitled to their opinions, perhaps not to their facts. As far as I know, the main problem the US has is not the process of the election per se; it goes beyond that. It is the environment even before the election was started and the outcome of the election, not the process.
A senior US diplomat, several weeks ago, told our diplomats in Washington that if the opposition parties were to lose seats in the upcoming election, quite a few people in Washington would be very angry. Clearly quite a few people in Washington were more interested in the outcome than the process and the environment than the election activity itself. Here again, they are entitled to their opinion.
The facts are stubborn and the opinion of the Ethiopian people is ultimately what is decisive. We value our relationship with the US. We believe it is a mutually beneficial relationship and we are eager to maintain it. But clearly we are not a protectorate and the US has no illusions about that.
The US has every right to use its tax payers’ money as it sees fit. If they feel that the outcome of the election is such that they cannot continue our partnership, that is fine. We are very grateful for the assistance they have given us so far and [we will] move on. But if there are people who believe that as soon as assistance from this or that country ceases, Ethiopia will starve to death, then they have no idea as to how this country is managed.
Q. Your speech during the rally seems to me that it had two parts. One was on your relationship with western powers such as Europe and the US. There appears to be a tug-of-war between your government and these forces. There are many who claim that your statements or recent move in relation to these countries is driven by some kind of paranoia? If that is the case, what do you think is the source of that paranoia?
We are not paranoiac about anybody or anything. Why should we be? We have an excellent relation with the European Union, and we will continue to have that in spite of the fact that, in this case, their [chief] observer allowed his political opinion to interfere with the task at hand. That is very unfortunate, but that is not the end of history.
There is no reason to be paranoiac about the US in any shape or form. Indeed, quite the contrary. We have a multifaceted relationship. Not all of the facets are ideal, at this stage. Some are going well, others are not. With regards to governance and democratisation, for instance, we in Ethiopia believe that the democratisation of Ethiopia is purely and exclusively an Ethiopian affair. Foreigners cannot and should not try to be kingmakers in this process. They should not try to be the ultimate arbiters and players in that process. At times, some people in Washington moved dangerously close to the line of distinction between partnership and one that goes beyond partnership. This created some tension in the past and in the recent past in particular. I think we will discuss and resolve it.
Q. This is not your first election to win; there have been three other elections. But this time you have said in your speech that you would reach out to the opposition. You have never done that in the past. What has changed you or your party this time?
Everybody grows up and learns lessons from their experiences. Time has passed, and we have learned lessons. The most important reason is the extraordinary attitude of Ethiopians who voted for the opposition. Across the board, it was made very clear to us that those who voted for the opposition, nevertheless, wanted the opinion of the majority to be respected and everything to go peacefully.
Some sympathisers and members of some of the opposition parties were putting themselves in danger in trying to disarm some of these opposition members who were coming to the polling stations with hand grenades. People went out of their way to ensure peace and tranquillity, not just those who voted for us but those who voted against us. We are reaching out to those who voted for the opposition more than reaching out to the opposition itself. We believe we are simply following their lead, their maturity, [and their] magnanimity. We saw in their attitude what we believe is something we should emulate and we are trying to emulate it.
Q. There is a joke circulating in Addis Abeba, [and] I would like to repeat it, if you allow me. The question is what is the similarity between a sports car and the Ethiopian Parliament? The answer is that they both have two seats, which means that the opposition has two seats in parliament. How do you foresee a parliament with a nearly complete majority of the EPRDF, [where] there is no debate, whatsoever, and your government is passing legislation after legislation? Would it not be more interesting to cover your party’s congress rather than Parliament, when you see it from the outside?
Whatever the number, there will be representation of the opposition in Parliament. There will be debate based on these two seats you mentioned. But more importantly, Parliament has a constitutional task, which it should fulfil in a manner that serves the interests of the constitution and of the ruling party. That is its authority of oversight over the executive. It is in the interest of the Constitution, the citizens, and the EPRDF that Parliament carries out very strict and critical oversight over the executive. Because we know what happens when complacency creeps in. We want to keep everybody on their toes, and we believe that Parliament will keep the executive on its toes. That should make Parliament as lively as ever, in addition to the two seats you mentioned.
Q. Could you please comment on the opposition’s rejection of the results? They were calling for a fresh election saying that there was no level playing field. The EU and the AU report also say the same thing.
The facts, as opposed to the conclusion of the EU report, do not suggest that there was no level playing field. The conclusion does say so, but there is little fact in that report to show that. The AU report does not say that the playing field was not level.
Q. They do talk about intimidation, which they were not able to verify.
That is what the EU said. They said that there were tonnes of allegations from both sides, but none of it is verified. If one is to conclude that the playing field was not level on the basis of unverified and unverifiable allegations, that would be quackery, not observation. If we talk about the facts, the EU also said that the media coverage was broadly fair. There is always a theory about the advantage of the incumbent, but that is everywhere.
The call for a fresh election is completely unjustified and clearly contrary to the laws of this country. The opposition has every right to contest the results in a court of law, based on specific evidence. If they can prove that 50pc or 100pc of the seats were gained unlawfully, then it would be up to the court to decide whether there should be a re-election for specific seats or a re-election in general. To call for a re-election based on allegations that [are] unproven and improvable, even by the observers themselves, would be taking the issue a bit too far. My hope is they will keep their activities within the limits of the law and direct their concerns to the legally constituted body with the proper mechanisms for redress.
Q. Do you envisage any prosecution against opposition leaders whom you allege to have provoked violence before the poll?
The past is behind us, although we have tonnes of evidence to be able to take certain people to court. We have, nevertheless, decided not to do so, out of respect to the electorate. Our main intention was to prevent violence. Thanks to the civility of the people, there is tranquillity and peace across the nation. We are not going to prosecute anybody on the basis of what they did during the campaign, but that does not mean that they get a blank cheque for the future. We expect them to behave according to the law in the future.
Q. The OPC is saying that hundreds of their supporters and members are being imprisoned in Oromia. They say that two were shot dead by a policeman in Oromia Regional State. The opposition parties are saying that this marks the beginning of a crackdown on them in Oromia in order to prevent them from protesting the results. Could you respond to that?
As far as the allegations of the death of two people, the incident happened in two different parts of Oromia at different times. The first instance was on Sunday evening. Some people tried to storm and take the ballot box. They failed in taking the ballot box, but one person died. In another instant, they succeeded and destroyed the ballot papers. Fortunately, they destroyed the ballot papers after they had been counted, and the results were posted outside of the polling station. There were several organised attempts on Sunday, [May 23, 2010], evening in the remote rural areas. Unfortunately, one of those resulted in death. In the second instance we are checking as to what the police were doing. Apparently, they were trying to arrest some people for some crime committed. We are investigating the case. If the police acted outside of our guidance, they will be held accountable.
Widespread imprisonment is not happening; it is fiction. It will not happen, for one simple reason, we respect noble people. Among others, it is members of this organisation who took risks with their lives in disarming some other members of that organisation who had come to polling stations with hand grenades. It would be absolutely stupid for us to repay these people with viciousness. It is solely out of respect to them that we are not detaining their leader. It is stupid for us to leave their leader aside and detain these people to make sure that the postelection scenario is as peaceful as it has been.
Q. There have been reports of row between your government and The Netherlands Government over an alleged interference of The Netherlands Government in Ethiopia’s electoral process. What is the latest you have on that?
I would not characterise the communication between our Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) and the Dutch Embassy as a row. There were some disagreements as to whether ambassadors and diplomats should observe the election or not. And the guideline by the government was that they should not.
There were some reports that some embassies were violating this decision by the government. The foreign ministry talked to those embassies and indicated to them that it would not be welcome for them to contravene the guidance set by the government with regard to observation by diplomats. Other than that, I am not aware of any other dispute with any embassy here or anywhere else.
Q. You have stated previously that this would be your last term. Is there any possibility that your party will ask you to remain for another term? In that event, what would your response be?
The EPRDF has made a very clear and public commitment that the old generation of leadership will retire and retire completely by the end of this coming term. There is no possibility that this decision will be reversed. I have been tasked to oversee this transition period.
Q. You have talked about reaching out more ever to those who voted for the opposition. What kind of concrete steps are you are planning to take?
One way of reaching out would be to build on the forum that we established with the opposition parties during the campaign. I would envisage all key legislative proposals to be discussed in this forum before they are presented to Parliament. I envisage issues, such as party financing, being discussed and largely worked out in this forum. I could envision continuing debates in the media among the parties and so on.
Q. Since January 2009, what is your assessment of the performance of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) [of Somalia], how concerned are you in continuing instability in the region?
Broadly speaking, I am satisfied with what the TFG has done so far. In particular, its successful effort to reach out to Ahlu Suna Jemea, which I think was a major achievement in making the TFG more inclusive. The TFG has survived, that is a major achievement by itself.
Am I worried? Yes. We have not yet achieved full stability and peace in Somalia. It poses a serious risk to everyone in the region, including Ethiopia.
Q. When you step down as the leader of the EPRDF, how would you like to be remembered?
I do not particularly care all that much as to what happens after I am six feet under or after I am not in a position of influence or power. It does not really affect my thinking. But to the extent that it matters, and I can assure you that it does not matter much, I hope that this generation of the EPRDF’s leaders are remembered for two things, ridding Ethiopia of a particularly brutal regime that was massacring Ethiopians left, right, and centre and for initiating and kick-starting the process of the Ethiopian renaissance.
Q. There is a huge margin between the votes given to Medrek and other opposition parties. What political message does this give you?
The main thing is that all the votes given to the opposition parties added up is far from what the EPRDF got. The voters’ message here is that the EPRDF has improved. The voters are saying that they recognise the developmental achievements and the efforts made in introducing good governance.
The margin between the opposition parties is wider because the difference between the parties is also wide. Some opposition parties were despised because they were blundering from left to right.
Six months ago, I did not expect these parties would even get six votes. Later in the campaign, I heard that they began to win the hearts of some voters. They were labelled as traitors, because they acted in accordance with law and order. To change this attitude and get more votes takes some time. On the other hand, when the EPRDF gets votes from its supporters and lukewarm opposition supporters, the votes for moderate opposition parties might be fewer.
Q. Professor Beyene has never lost in his constituency in the previous elections. Why do you think he lost this time?
I think that the people are tired of politics based on hatred, vengeance, and grievances. So I think the voters are teaching a lesson here.
We won constituencies in Dessie and Kombolcha. We never won there [before]. We also won in [other] constituencies that we have not won before. This was gained because of the achievements of the EPRDF.
Q. Unless the votes were rigged, Seyee Abraha would not lose in the election, he previously said. What is your response to that?
We responded to that at the time. However, the opposition parties got votes beyond my expectations in Tigray Regional State.
Q. In your lifetime, do you perceive the EPRDF being an opposition party?
I do not know how long I will live. But unless we have made a big mess of our task, I do not think we will lose in the coming two elections. But if we make a mess of our work, I can be sure that we would lose the next election. In the previous election when the voters gave us a yellow card, we took lessons from that. So what matters is our performance.
Q. Does your strategy to try to reach out to the opposition and its members include granting a [second] pardon to Birtukan Mideksa to take part in this new kind of political discourse?
That is not part of our current plan. The imprisonment of Birtukan is used as a sort of game by interested parties to circumvent the rule of law in Ethiopia. To that extent, we will resist all and every pressure in that direction. But to the extent that at some stage in the future all the parties concerned recognise that there is only one [body of] law in Ethiopia and that [body of] law must be respected, then of course the political objective of the whole exercise will change.
Q. Can you make a comparison between the rally in 2005 and 2010?
In 2005, I did not think that the voters made a mistake. I thought there must have been something that caused the public to become that aggrieved. We made a series of meetings with the public to try to identify our mistakes and the public recognised that. I expected that we would have a good result in Addis Abeba. But it showed me how the public had excelled beyond the politicians. In 2005 we were different, but in 2010 we celebrated the victory together. When the public denied us their vote in 2005, it was not based on hatred; it was based on our performance. There is no hatred. It is [all done] purely in the interest of benefits and rights.
The unity has touched me, and I wish that we leaders would be as wise as the subjects. But the voters gave us a lease for five years. They will take it away, if we do not use it properly. In light of this, it is the democratic process that won, not the EPRDF.