There currently appears to be a start to an era where Melesism is creeping into the Ethiopian polity. It is a worldview mainly consisting of and articulated in the person of Meles Zenawi. It is an ideology that Meles persuaded his comrades in the ruling Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) to espouse.

To the frustration of the neoliberals, Melesism believes in the largess of state machinery to transform the nation. He inherited and became the custodian of the all powerful and paternalistic historical Ethiopian state. Equally and to the dismay of his student movement era colleagues, this ideology also wants to build an economy based on the liberal values of private sector involvement in the operation of the economy and the respect for the private ownership of property. However, his desire to maintain the status quo, whereby his party remains as a dominant force in Ethiopia, unchallenged and unbeatable in elections for decades to come, is a nightmare for his opponents.

A system of single party dominance in an environment of multiparty democracy and a supremacy of the state in running an economy in a space where the private sector has room to manoeuvre, as in South Korea, Japan, or Mexico, has a name in Ethiopia, revolutionary democracy, a la carte EPRDF.

As such, the worldview of revolutionary democracy is not a new invention of Meles, although there is not that much literature available on the subject. But it draws its origins from the socialist camp and has, hence, evolved into what has now become a social democratic world outlook, particularly dominant in Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden, a country which Meles often says he would like to emulate.

Much of the discourse on revolutionary democracy was held in the early 20th Century within the embrace of social democracy or in the camps of democratic socialists. Before the overwhelming global ascendancy of the new right or neoliberalism after the end of the cold war period, proponents of democratic socialism believed in the gradual and evolutionary triumph of socialism over capitalism. This is in contrast to their other friends who believed that revolution in a radical transformation of society, under the vanguard leadership and Marxian dictatorship of the proletariat, was needed to achieve an egalitarian society.

What, perhaps, makes revolutionary democracy, as advocated in Melesism, different from traditional social democracy is its beliefs in a market based economic system and pluralism in political governance. It aspires to register speedy and sustainable economic growth, create a moderately friendly environment for businesses, and ensure the stability of the nation. Contrary to democratic socialist views, it aims to create lilywhite capitalism down the road.

The question has always been how this could be possible without creating a socialist authoritarian state where dissent is not tolerated. Creating a political environment that favours an incumbent in electoral contests for decades, without infringing on political rights as espoused under liberalism and rigging these elections is where Melesism has been challenged. For the revolutionary democracy idealist in Ethiopia, who argues that political leaders should stay in office much longer than a single five-year term to accomplish what they may have started, it is possible to win elections and stay in power for decades.

Thus, it is no surprise if Meles was surprised, as he said he was, by the events of last week. Despite the cynicism of his critics, the results of last Sunday’s national elections on May 23, 2010, turned out to be spectacular in many ways to many of the groups who care to take an interest. For the Revolutionary Democrats, it surely was a comeback with a vengeance from their humiliation in 2005 and a vindication of what Melesism has been advocating since then. That it is possible to win elections in an overwhelming landslide and without necessarily acting as amateurs in rigging the elections during voting and counting days, was evident this past week.

Procedurally, the elections last week were phenomenal. Voter turnout was high, nearly 32 million of the 37 million people eligible to vote registered, a number larger by 5.5 million voters compared with the one in 2005. Over 90pc of those registered voted last Sunday, according to the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE), a federal agency in charge of managing electioneering in Ethiopia whose organisational capability earned rare praise from international observers.

Candidates, numbering 2,174, were fielded for Federal Parliament and double that figure for the regional councils, representing close to 63 political parties registered under the board. This figure was up by 15pc and 19pc, respectively, when compared to the elections in 2005. Although diminished due to the incumbent’s lack of appetite for live transmission, unlike five years ago, candidates running on the platforms of these various parties debated nine times on policy issues from foreign policy to the rule of law and economic issues. It was broadcasted on national TV with little trimming and few cut-outs.

Of course, this was an election no different from its predecessors in accusations and counteraccusations of foul play by the contending parties. The board received 204 complaints from these parties. Forty-five of them were based on harassment and threats directed at candidates and supporters. Ironically, both the incumbent and its challengers logged complaints of such a nature. Ninety of those complaints were resolved at the level of the forum created by contending parties, after the board directed the issues there.

The process of casting votes was conducted in peaceful manner. It was monitored by observers from domestic associations and the European and the African unions. Nearly all polling stations were watched by EPRDF representatives, while representatives from Beyene Petros’s (PhD) Forum for Justice and Democratic Dialogue (FJDD) were in attendance at half of them. Hailu Shawel’s (Eng) All Ethiopian Unity Party (AEUP) sent its representatives to 20pc of the polling stations where European observers monitored.

Both the ballot casting and vote counting processes were declared to be satisfactory in 66pc of the polling stations, while the remaining were described as poor. No domestic or international observer has so far come up with reports of rigging or systematic irregularities of these elections during or after the polling date. The toughest criticism from European observers came in the form of an imbalance during the campaign period between a highly resourceful and dominant EPRDF and its poorly financed, fractured and incoherent opposition.

Nonetheless, it was such a process that ushered in electoral victory for the Revolutionary Democrats in a landslide nature. There were only two candidates from outside of the sphere of influence of the incumbent who managed to win their contests by our press time. One, Asheber W. Giorgis (MD), a candidate on a private platform contesting for election down in Bonga, Oromia Regional State, claimed that he was more of an EPRDFite than his challenger, Brehane Adelo, secretary of the Council of Ministers.

It is too good to be true to think that voters who voted for the opposition alliance in an overwhelming manner five years ago now went in droves to all but the opposition, at least in Addis Abeba. Even the EPRDFites found it beyond their earlier expectations of a maximum of 70pc of the votes.

Indeed, voters have sent strong and clear messages both to the incumbent and its opponents. It is time for both parties to take stock of events last week, in a manner that is beyond the usual rhetoric and emotions.

There could be various reasons why the ruling party was voted into office this time, to the extent that it was. One is, of course, that its leaders responded to public discontent and dissatisfaction over their conduct prior to 2005. Not only have they swelled the size of their membership, though commitment is questionable, they have also engaged in dialogues and consultations with the populace before enacting and enforcing their policies. Their leaders came down to earth from their perceived arrogance and contempt to hear what the average guy has to say.

They capitalised on their positive performance on the economic front, and their many infrastructural undertakings were pleasantly visible to many of their voters. Contrary to their overconfidence in 2005, they staged very aggressive campaigns that seemed to leave no room to chance. Oiled with over 30 million Br in campaign contributions from businesses, the EPRDFites adorned cities and towns with their posters, banners, placards, key chains, hats, T-shirts, jackets, and watches. Never before was the incumbent so visible and overwhelming in its electoral campaign.

If there was an imbalance on the level playing field, it was evident during the campaign period, to the extent that it looked like a match between a team in the major league and one in the minor league. No opposition contender managed to get close to the overriding presence of the incumbent prior to polling dates.

Nonetheless, voters did not simply respond to what the incumbent did during its campaign. In the same manner they punished the EPRDF in 2005 for its arrogance and poor performance, they punished the opposition parties for their failures since then. Many voters were disappointed by the lack of leadership and the subsequent fracture seen within the opposition camp, they said. The opposition was too weak, disorganised, and jumbled to be trusted to run the business of this country, they decided. The dynamics within the opposition over the past five years failed to present to voters hope. Many now regret the opposition’s lack of foresight in its decision not to take its parliamentary seats after the 2005 National Elections. Many voters felt betrayed after the prices they paid on behalf of the opposition.

And yet, the FJDD, a.k.a. Medrek, an electoral vehicle of eight opposition parties put together two years ago, performed incredibly better than other opposition parties that had a history and foundation. The gap between the incumbent and Medrek in their results was as revealing as the one between it and other opposition parties, such as the AEUP and Lidetu Ayalew’s Ethiopian Democratic Party (EDP).

It is here that there are clear messages from voters, both to the incumbent and its opponents. Voters want the opposition to put its house in order before awarding them with their votes. But the unexpected performance of Medrek in the polls last week shows that there still is a large number of voters who remain as discontented as they were five years ago, due to the ruling party’s shortcomings in area of the rule of law, including double standards in the delivery of justice and its belligerence toward accountability.

For such voters, the EPRDF often represents a power that is arrogant, on whom the laws of the land do not apply. Meles’s appearance at a rally last week at Meskel Square, to address his supporters, was one such case where many thought that he violated the code of conduct that he signed, promising not to declare victory before the NEBE did. While the double standard is evident in his administration’s allowance of his supporters to rally, while it denied such rights to those who supported his opponents.

To his credit, his statements at the rally were conciliatory and statesmanlike. He held out an olive branch in a gesture of accommodation and moderation. This was never seen before over the past 19 years.

It is good, it is positive, and it gives hope. The opposition should pay him in kind.