Acrimonious parliament sessions come to an end for recess

The House of Peoples’ Representatives, Ethiopia’s parliament, has just last week gone into winter recess. Heavily dominated by the ruling party EPRDF, the Houses can never be charged of overly accommodating the views, recommendations and demands of a parliamentary opposition which can best be described as embattled and punch weary – what with losing on virtually any bill not forwarded by the EPRDF.
Among the more visible opposition M.P’s. is Temesgen Zewdie, vice chair of Unity for Democracy and Justice (UDJ) and a vocal and often quoted oponent of the incumbent and a highly popular figure in present day Ethiopian politics. The following piece haas been sent to Capital by M.P. Temesgen Zewdie, reflecting on the activities and background of the concluded year’s parliamentary sessions. The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the writer.

For those of our constituents who have been following the nature, and functioning of the EPRDF dominated Parliament; the break we are taking for the summer vacation would rightly appear undeserved. We meet only twice a week for half a day; even that depends on the Government's pressing interest for us to consider legislation, usually relevant to EPRDF; in its ever present anxiety to limit by law, some interest groups who might aspire for political power, or who may appear to threaten its power base, or economic interest. Otherwise, even those regular sessions would be cancelled for lack of bills to consider. One could rightly ask why the rationing of minutes for parliamentary debate, if the parliament has so little to do. It seems the greed in the distribution of minutes for debates does not arise for lack of time, rather, it is purposely done as a strategy by EPRDF to give as little media exposure as necessary to the Opposition, while pretending to maintain the appearance of parliamentary democracy at work by allocating a couple of minutes of debate time for members of the Opposition. To briefly explain the legislative process of the
EPRDF parliament, one has to understand the following steps; legislation appears in the plenary session of parliament with the permission of the Speaker, and the EPRDF dominated Business Advisory Committee, it is then directed to one of the thirteen Standing Committees, with the responsibility to craft the bill in ways that would ensure to maintain the interest of the Ruling Party. The bill returns to the plenary session of Parliament after a couple of weeks in Committee, giving it all the appearance that Interest groups had participated in a public hearing; but, in actuality, none of their suggestions would be included in the final version of the bill, one can cite recent examples of legislations on the revised National Bank law, Media, and Freedom of Information Act, and the Political parties registration legislations; where public hearings were held, and Interest groups had made numerous suggestions that were totally ignored by the Standing Committees; making it obvious that public hearings are held as a public relations exercise to give bills the appearance of participatory democracy at work in the eyes of the unsuspecting public. Once the bill appears in Parliament for a final vote, its passage is totally assured in advance, no matter, the opinion of the Minority parties in parliament. The members of the Majority vote under the watchful eyes of the Government Minister in Parliament, making it difficult to exercise any form of dissent, although article 54 of the Constitution guarantees a members accountability to be only to his/her conscience, the interest of his/her constituents, and to the Constitution; this right has never been exercised by a single EPRDF member in the last three years. Since showing any form of dissent by voting with the Opposition is not tolerated, and may even invite punitive measures, without any regard to the constitutional right of the member. To make matters worst, secret balloting is discouraged by disabling the secret balloting machine that is available in front of every members sit.
It should be noted here that one benefit among many, of a parliamentary democracy, is the debate among members, and political parties, to convince one another, and the public at large about the merits and demerits of a pending legislation, finally reflected in a bi-partisan compromise in a final vote on a given bill. In parliamentary debates, it is assumed that a member can exercise his/her constitutional right to think and vote independently, if he/she so desires without earning the wrath of the Majority party for doing so. If one cannot exercise his or her constitutional right to vote against his party line, once in a while, why would it be necessary to debate issues in parliament at all? It becomes a mockery of parliamentary democracy, when parliamentarians cannot vote their conscience, putting their Country above party line, in consideration of the National interest. The exercise of bi-partisan politics in EPRDF parliament cannot be tolerated for the simple reason that 'revolutionary democracy' must be practiced in exclusion of all other Interest groups, and in a position that would maintain dominance over all other political rivals to ensure the survival of 'One dominant party theory', no matter the price citizens have to pay for lack of a freely functioning multi-party democracy in the Country.