The challenges of AU election observer missions
The May 2010 national and regional elections in Ethiopia were interesting in many ways and also contained a lot of lessons. The Prime Minister admitted immediately following the announcement of the provisional results, that the ruling party never expected such a sweeping landslide victory for the ruling party. Landslide victories in an election are of course not unknown in the development of the democratic process in Ethiopia: one recalls the sweeping electoral success that the opposition had in Addis Ababa in 2005. Had the opposition not declined to take over the city administration in 2005, Addis would have been ruled by the opposition since 2005 without as much as even two seats for the ruling party.
It is not only the ruling party that was surprised by the results of the May 2010 election. The opposition was equally surprised: They never thought that the electorate would reject the opposition with such vehemence. There is nonetheless a need for a caveat here. As the Prime Minister said in an interview following the election, a landslide now does not necessarily preclude another disaster for the ruling party at the next election. As the Prime Minister said, it is only dedicated work and commitment to promoting the interests of the electorate that would guarantee success in elections to both the ruling party and the opposition. There are also lessons to be drawn from this latest historic election in Ethiopia; not only for Ethiopians but for the AU and its member states. This is in relation to the activities of the AU election observer mission.
Let there be no confusion on one important matter - the credibility of the AU observer mission. The former President of Botswana, the chief of the AU observer mission is an honourable man, and always has been. The almost eighty observers of the AU mission came from diverse backgrounds and were drawn from governmental as well as civil society organizations. There is absolutely no ground for casting aspersions on the credibility of the AU verdict on the May 2010 elections in Ethiopia. The AU observer mission's conclusion on the election was that it indeed reflected the will of the Ethiopian people.
It is not necessary to dwell on the fact that some have tried to attack the credibility of the AU pronouncement on the latest Ethiopian elections. But one general suggestion can be offered: the negative reaction to the AU statement on the Ethiopian elections is a product of either arrogance of the characteristic variety or partisanship. But what is most interesting about this latest Ethiopian election as it relates to the AU observer mission was the amount of pressure that the mission had apparently come under, from various sources, to get it to abandon ownership of its own assessment. A close scrutiny of developments surrounding the May elections reveal that there were indeed efforts made by various groups and personalities to sway the opinion of the AU observer mission's verdict away from the factual and one based on the examination of the process, towards the judgmental, based on considerations that have nothing to do with the facts on the ground.
The lesson to be drawn from the May 2010 election as far as the AU observer mission is concerned is that the Mission has indeed proven its mettle and has made Africa proud. Additional lessons for AU observer missions in general: vigilance and commitment to principles.