Dear Editor,

I am a regular reader of the online version of Fortune. Often, I find your columns interesting. I admire “Editor’s Note” for, among other things, its balanced view, quest for truth, and professionalism.
 

However, your editorial headlined, “Ethiopia’s Political Landscape Full of Surprises” [Volume 8 Number 614, April 20, 2008], was uncharacteristic of the column. It lacks one of the interesting parts that hooked me to it: The quest for truth and trying to get to the bottom of a story. There were two claims by your editorial that sound fishy.
 

What the writers of the editorial witnessed on Election Day and the sample visits results are hard to reconcile. At one point it reads: “On the Election Day, April 13, at 11.00am, there were no long queues of people waiting to cast their vote - not even the whole day. In fact, the capital looked more like a ghost town, particularly in the afternoon as a huge number of youth and Addis Abeba’s elite chose, instead, to indulge in their passion and watch the European Premier League game between Arsenal and Manchester.”

After a few paragraphs, the editorial claims: “. . . sample visits conducted by reporters from this newspaper in Addis Abeba, Adama (Nazareth) and Awassa confirm this claim as each of the kebelles that they sampled had a turnout of between 70pc to 80pc.”

This contradiction begs for more questions than your desire to explain what was going on: Why did your observation and sample visits give two different accounts? Shouldn’t you comment on why there were these discrepancies? Could you not have given a brief explanation about the kind of sample visits you conducted?  Even after accepting the claim that more than 70pc went to the polls, you did not go far as to probe the reasons why these people went to the polls? Your editorial starts with a series of questions: “. . . whether or not there were choices, why didn’t voters demonstrate their protest - if they still are protesting - by shunning away from polling stations? Shouldn’t voters display their displeasure with the EPRDF ­- if they are displeased - not only by voting for another party but also by boycotting it; and embarrass its leaders? Are voters sending a signal that their confidence in the electoral process has been restored?” After all these questions, the column excluded most of the possible reasons, by choice, because of your mysterious knowledge of Ethiopian politics and deducted that the most likely reason the residents of Addis Abeba elected EPRDF was because of its accomplishments after the election in 2005.
 

”Understandably, the Revolutionary Democrats worked hard and invested so much to grab these votes by appealing to voters to consider their track record in attempting to fulfill the provisions that people are desperately in need . . .”

I expected the claims to be substantiated with convincing arguments; your editorial fell short on that.

Reading from other sources and talking with my own friends and families in Addis Abeba, I understood that many went to the polls out of fear of the threat the government made to deny social services if they did not participate in it.
 

Having lived for more than 12 years under the EPRDF, I could not rule that reason out.

I am afraid these types of reports strengthen views held by many that your paper’s connection with the EPRDF still directs its views.