|
The highly controversial issue in the Ethiopian
electoral politics, the allocation of airtime for
contesting parties during the time of campaigns,
finally has a deal agreed upon by the ruling party
and another 64 political parties after a three-day
round of intense negotiations, disclosed sources.
The 10-page agreement, incorporating 12 articles,
was made late on Friday afternoon, January 1, 2010,
by the incumbent Ethiopian People's Revolutionary
Democratic Front (EPRDF), the Ethiopian Democratic
Party (EDP), the Coalition for Unity and Democracy
(CUD), the All Ethiopian Unity Party (AEUP) and
another 61 parties that have recently signed on the
electoral code of conduct.
Two negotiators from each of the four parties and an
additional four negotiators delegated by the 61
parties have been negotiating inside Parliament up
at Arat Kilo, inside the hall where the standing
committee on defense often meets, according to these
sources. The Forum for Justice and Democratic
Dialogue (FJDD), which claim’s to be the largest
electoral front against the Revolutionary Democrats,
was not a party to this deal, sources told
Fortune.
Its leaders have boycotted all negotiations, and
deals, so far reached by the other political parties
in the contest for the national elections.
The latest agreement includes a requirement that
airtime and newspaper space in media houses under
public ownership be allocated to each party taking
part in the 2010 national elections, based on a
formula proposed by the liberal democrats, the EDP.
The ratio agreed dictates that a party's use of
media airtime and space would be allocated on the
basis of the number of seats it has in parliament
(55pc), and the number of candidates it will field
to the elections (20pc), while the remaining 25pc
would be equally shared with all parties, Fortune
learnt.
This formula was a middle ground from what the
Ethiopian Broadcasting Authority (EBA) had
originally proposed, also and accepted by
negotiators from the EPRDF and the CUD. It had
suggested that the ratio should be 60:30:10; the
first for the number of seats a party command in
parliament, followed by the number of candidates
they field.
This was rejected by both EDP and AEUP; negotiators
of the latter had proposed a formula that was
30:10:60. AEUP had argued that the largest portion
of the allocation should be divided equally by all
parties, while 30pc should be for the number of
seats a party has in parliament.
However, all the negotiators declined to make public
statements to Fortune in fear of violating an
earlier agreement that they ought to give a joint
press statement.
These negotiators have yet to enter into one of the
thorniest issues on the use of media. They have
sharp differences on the modalities of transmissions
when they will conduct policy debates. Live
transmissions of such debates have dramatically
changed the face of electoral politics during the
past election. However, the incumbent is not
comfortable to let unscripted, unedited, live
transmissions of debates air, for fear of a repeat
of the 16-round of debates transmitted live in 2005.
The debates during the previous election were
characterised by lapses, unverified allegations and
counter allegations as well as statements directed
at the character of the debaters.
Negotiators of the other parties strongly insist
that debates should be transmitted live this time
around, too. They cite the electoral code of conduct
signed among the various parties to address the
incumbent’s concerns of debate discipline.
"I feel that this is an area where we all will stand
firm on our respective positions," said a leader of
one of the contending parties, asking for anonymity. |
