Ethiopia’s postponed elections: ruling in the interregnum

The COVID-19 pandemic has its first electoral loss in Africa after Ethiopia announced the indefinite postponement of preparations for the general elections for members of the House of Peoples’ Representatives (parliament) and Regional Legislative Councils, originally scheduled to on August 29, 2020.

The 2020 elections in Ethiopia are expected to be the freest, fairest and most competitive since the unfortunate 2005 elections, which ended with post-election violence, the arrest or exile of opposition leaders and journalists, and a general strengthening of authoritarianism. .

There is hope, but also anxiety, that the 2020 elections may similarly herald a combination of authoritarianism and worsening anarchy and instability.

A welcome postponement

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the timing of the Ethiopian elections was more a consequence of a constitutionally mandated five-year parliamentary term than its suitability. The current constitutional mandate of Parliament ends in September 2020, forcing elections to be held no later than August.

The date of August fell in the middle of the rainy season in large areas of the country. This meant that the reconstituted National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) needed to carry out preparations, all aspects to be undertaken from scratch under a new electoral regime, amid disruptive rains. In a country with about 80% of the rural population and only a small fraction of the roads to all seasons, this was a Herculean task even under the best of circumstances.

Crucially, the timing would have been detrimental to the preparations of opposition parties that have suffered years of political oppression. These parties not only need to comply with the new registration requirements, but must also develop and promote their political platforms, recruit and train members, and establish the presence of the constituency.

Many opposition parties therefore opposed the August date, which clearly favored acting Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and his newly created Prosperity Party, in view of his control of the apparatus and state resources. The August date could have seriously undermined the freedom and fairness of the elections, and therefore the legitimacy of the result.

When the COVID-19 pandemic landed in Ethiopia, and federal and some regional governments imposed restrictions, NEBE preparations stopped. Therefore, it quickly called for consultations with representatives of political parties to update them on developments, the various scenarios and the possible need for postponement, which was widely supported.

However, this welcome postponement raises thorny questions regarding its constitutional and legal basis and, crucially, the country’s governance between the end of the term of the current parliament (and government) in September and the date of the next elections, which are still is to be determined.

Lack of constitutional regulation

While the broad political consensus and demands for a free and fair election may confer legitimacy on the postponement, it cannot be used to dispense with constitutional legality.

Neither the constitution nor other laws foresee and regulate the possible delay of the fixed elections for the parliament. Therefore, it is not clear which entity, if anything, can postpone the elections and under what circumstances.

Local elections, which are not constitutionally regulated, have been postponed controversially and repeatedly by decision of Parliament, not NEBE. NEBE, therefore, cannot postpone the general elections and its announcement to suspend the preparation of the elections should be seen as an input to the final decision on the fate of the election date.

In the absence of a constitutional amendment, which is practically off the table, the only possible justification for postponing the elections appears to be part of the measures in a state of emergency. Although the dissolution of parliament offers another possibility, it is anticipated in relation to the early, not delayed, holding of elections.

It has been suggested that declaring a state of emergency simply to justify postponing elections is inappropriate and sets a dangerous precedent. While the conclusion of this sentiment is pleasant, the premise is not.

Elections are not a one-day event. They are a cyclical process that requires continuous preparations. In the Ethiopian case, the upcoming elections are for all practical purposes an inaugural election under a reconstituted NEBE and new electoral regulations, including for the registration of political parties.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted preparations for the elections, as well as normal livelihoods. Accordingly, although there may be differences in the appropriate measures that can be taken in an emergency state, it cannot be denied that an emergency exists. Although this emergency is expected to end before the formal end of the current parliamentary term, the damage to electoral preparations has already been done and the postponement of elections is a necessity, not simply a convenience.

The state of emergency declared on April 8 by the Council of Ministers does not describe any specific measure, but rather allows the executive to flexibly determine the necessary measures. However, while the details require quick and adaptive responses that Parliament cannot easily provide, considering the importance of the elections, the decision on the postponement should be made by Parliament, rather than left to the government.

Unfortunately, Parliament approved the emergency declaration on April 10 without any measure related to the postponement of the elections. The detailed measures that the Cabinet subsequently announced do not similarly mention the elephant in the room. If the postponement of the decision on the issue of elections is intended to strengthen commitment and consensus between the parties, including on governance in the interregnum, this must be clearly communicated. Otherwise, avoiding the problem only opens up space for unproductive disputes.

Governing in the Interregnum

Whatever the constitutional disputes, the postponement of elections is a practical reality. A more valuable and productive debate would be to focus on how the country should be governed between the end of the current parliament’s mandate in September 2020 and the new election date, which according to a NEBE proposal could be as late as February 2021, assuming The COVID-19 pandemic will be under control sooner rather than later.

The absence of regulation on the possible postponement of the general elections means that we are in the dark regarding the modality of governance in the interregnum. If the experience of postponing local elections has anything to do with it, things will continue as usual, that is, the ruling parties at the federal and regional level will continue to exercise full governmental powers. The ruling parties will probably seek to follow this path. The emergency declaration that postpones the elections can also be seen as a concomitant extension of the life of the current parliament and government.

However, given the legitimacy deficit in parliament and the current government, as a result of the unfair, unfair and uncompetitive elections of 2015, insistence on business as always would be inadvisable.

Another possibility is the establishment of a provisional government. Although the Constitution does not expressly establish it, the provisional government has been recognized in the pertinent norms and regulations of the parliament in relation to early elections, where the parliament dissolves with its own consent or for not establishing a substitute government after a vote. successful without trust in a coalition government.

In such cases, the elections must be held within six months after the dissolution and, in the meantime, the government will carry out the daily government and guarantee the organization of new elections, but it will not be able to promulgate new proclamations, regulations or decrees, nor You may repeal or amend any existing law.

However, a caring government assumes the absence of parliament and would be inappropriate in cases where parliament still functions. In any case, the consequences of the emergency will require swift political responses, as well as continental and global cooperation to contain the damage to the Ethiopian economy. A provisional government would not be fit for purpose.

Towards a ‘consultative’ government

It is suggested that Ethiopia should move towards a consultative government for the interregnum where the government would continue to govern, but should formally convene and consult the leaders of the opposition parties on the key political decisions that may be necessary during the interregnum.

In this sense, the consultations that NEBE carried out with political groups before announcing the suspension of the preparations for the elections and the cancellation of the electoral calendar, as well as the consultations that Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed made with the leaders of the political parties of the Opposition provide a useful basis. to build on The proposed advisory government would strengthen what has been started.

In addition to providing a viable way out of the constitutional and legal conundrum, the practice of consultative government during the inter-term could generate a more collegial and cooperative spirit among political contenders. Such a spirit is critical to reducing the chances of post-electoral instability and violence and resurgent authoritarianism.

It should be noted that the parliamentary appointment of the seven members of the State of Emergency Investigation Board, which is the key accountability mechanism for the duration of the emergency, has been carried out in a hasty manner, including only members of parliament and the ruling party, and apparently without consulting opposition groups. This exclusive approach contradicts the advisory governance model presented in this article, as it is necessary to lay the foundations for a genuine balance between democratic competition and cooperation.

The proposed advisory government should not be confused with a transitional unit government, which would require opposition groups to formally assume government positions. This has been rejected by the government. In any case, the negotiations and preparations to form such a government would probably take longer than the duration of the interregnum.

Finally, although the main focus of this piece has been on the federal government, all the problems and proposed solutions also apply to regional governments. AS

Editor’s Note: Dr. Adem Kassie Abebe is a Program Officer in the IDEA International Constitution Building Program. He can be contacted at [email protected] or [email protected]