The week was a milestone for Ethiopia, which remains in a long struggle to instil multiparty democracy, sometimes in the hardest ways. For the populace, a sizable portion of whom live under the misery of poverty, this was a time to elect their representatives.

In a country where informed political discourse has been a life of a privileged few, there are many who count this milestone as an achievement in itself. With the release of preliminary results, the governing party, the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), seems to have won in a landslide, whereas the opposition, including big names in the nation’s political scene, is defeated with a mathematically irreconcilable margin.

In view of the pre election predictions that were pointed out by different political analysts, some self-proclaimed as such, the result was the topmost probable scenario.

Some, including the New York based Human Rights Watch (HRW), attributed the results to the ever narrowing political space since 2005, a systematically repressive political vehicle of the governing party, continued oneness of the state and the governing party, and silencing of dissenting voices. Ruling party officials, on the other hand, praised the victory as a result of their hard-fought war against poverty, illiteracy, economic stagnation, poor healthcare provision, insufficient infrastructure provision, and policy impropriety. But, beyond these reasons, the overall process made it obvious that the nation is trapped in cappuccino politics, where the substance rises only after the hoopla settles.

One of the major characteristics of cappuccino politics is the “trading fear” game.  Parties seeking to get elected gamble on the fears of the common people. The one who can scare the hell out of the voter the most gets elected. As in any other developing country, especially African ones, this very tactic was employed both by the governing as well as the opposition parties. Both the EPRDF and the opposition has been vigorously utilising this tactic.

The former portrayed a busted country if the opposition camp were to win, while the latter claimed that the governing party is “the biggest evil.” The voter was left to choose from the two scenarios of scare, a national existence under question and a house on fire. It seems that the public preferred to fight the fire rather than risk its existence.

The opposition camp seems to have been caught with its head in the clouds, as it could not comprehend its own defeat. Yet, unarguably, the future of this toddling democracy depends on what they decide, after all.

Another characteristic that was brought to light as the dust began to settle was the fact that the play was between a lion and a rabbit. In such a perplexed political culture, the rabbit pretended to look like a lion, while the lion failed to recognise the benefit of taking care of the rabbit. A fair feeding relationship would help to keep the harmony of the food chain, just like spirited opposition would help to inculcate good governance.

The opposition parties were constantly accusing the governing party of intimidation and harassment. The governing party, on its side, was constantly asserting the accusations as fabricated lies and futile rhetoric. During the campaigns, all these processes made it crystal clear that the opposition has little leverage to act upon.

The weighty governing party campaigned so well that it was able to reach out to all sects of the society, while the opposition parties were only able to reach out to just a fraction of the country. The resources spent by the parties for their campaigns are clear evidence, in this regard.

Even on the policy front, the opposition failed to present strong and technically viable alternatives. The governing party has done good damage control by avoiding economic policy and management as a title of electoral debate. Even on those debates that the opposition parties might have outwitted the governing party, they failed to throw a strong punch. At the end of the day, the rabbit has only received lip service from the lion, though the play could have been predicted to end hilariously at the outset.

After all, that is cappuccino politics. The coffee just pretends to overwhelm the milk.

One other characteristic of this kind of politics is its spiral dynamicity. As it is difficult to judge to what extent the contrasts of the milk would be affected by the coffee, no one but the voters could be sure about the assumptions attached their the votes. Hence, the whole thing might not be there after a month, or a year or so. That is the very nature of human beings, no different when it comes to Ethiopians.

The continuum of voters’ feelings ranges from hopelessness to anticipation, from stipulation to proclivity, and from love to abhorrence. The people have spoken and their voices shall be heard. But, no one can guarantee that the people will speak similarly next time.

One thing has become obvious in this election, though. The people are able to evaluate the offers presented to them, even if they are a choice between two kinds of scares. We witnessed that the five years of relentless work by the governing party, organising grassroots support, can never be weighed against a three-month campaign by the opposition parties.

The big guys in the opposition camp were hopeful that their social status and acclaimed political experience could stir things up to turn the air in their favour. Yet, the wind blew in a different direction to throw them off of the horizon. The total and complete victory of the EPRDF in the elections might be attributed either to its achievements or to the lack of a viable alternative. The whole thing will be clear, only after the dust settles, as this is typical with such politics.

Some would argue that we might miss the very brief but intellectual Parliamentary sessions that we have had in the past. Others attest that the big looser is the governing party, as it has lost spokespersons of public opinion. Still others argue that we might be sliding back to one party state. Similarly, others proclaim that this is a “moment of strategic silence” for the opposition.

It is only the public that can define which will hold true and which will be falsified. But it seems that we have reached that defining moment to agree on where we want to go as a nation and how we will reach that place. Overhauling the culture of our politics is the first place to start the walk. In doing so, both the governing as well as the opposition parties shall join hands and cross fingers, looking at the bigger picture rather than issues at hand. It is only then that our politics will grow less chaotic and our nation more prosperous.

Who would not crave a taste of that anyway?