For far too long now, the camp of Ethiopia's opposition has been synonymous with sloganeering, unable to produce coherent and a clear ideological platform that distinguishes it from the ruling party. The only exception to this rule was a green-coated electoral manifesto put out by the CUD during the run-up to the May 2005 national elections. It indeed resembled some sort of platform to rally supporters to vote, although it was still far from being called an ideological foundation of a political party.

In more ways than the ruling party, the opposition camp has been in disarray when it comes to articulating the role of a state in a society.
 

Even those who adored released leaders of the CUD were in total confusion over this issue, judging from the series of public statements they had been giving: Brehanu Nega (PhD) was very much into what he described "consensual democracy" - whatever that really meant - while his close associate, Befekadu Degife (PhD) was fond of social democracy. Listening to Hailu Shawel (Eng.) or Lidetu Ayalew was a different story with their subscription to liberal democracy. Only last year, Beyene Petros (Prof.) came up with a new political party that contains "social democratic" in its name.
 

Hardly are many of the opposition parties faithful to their claimed ideology, judging by their recent behaviour. They rather tend to be populists in their approach, trying to impress a reluctant public through their rhetoric instead.
 

Inflation is tearing through the budgets of Ethiopian households and is an issue deserving attention both from the ruling party and any opposition worth its name for it is pressing nature in the lives of so many in both rural and urban Ethiopia. Nevertheless, the manner in which the opposition has chosen to voice its stance is no less disappointing than the piecemeal approach the governing party has been taking over the past two years.
 

If the ruling party was to become interventionist in its bid to fight inflation, it should hardly be surprising for a political force that openly preaches the need to build a developmental state. It is also a group with a very strong far-left history, only leaning to centre-left economic policy prescriptions after it assumed state power in the early 1990s.
 

The opposition claims to have stood opposite to this, at least in its idiom. In practice, it is seen far more leftist in its recommendations of what to do with the raging inflation that interestingly is stabilising in the past quarter, according to consumer price index (CPI) by the Central Statistics Agency.
 

The first party to recommend policy measures against inflation was Lidetu Ayalew's the United Ethiopian Democratic Party (UEDP-Medhin). It urged the government to increase wages, in a bid to offset the inflationary burden of the urban poor.
 

Last Thursday, August 30, policy prescriptions offered at a press conference in Ras Hotel, by Temesgen Zewede's CUDP, calling for the state's strong hand in the economy was just a follow up. Interestingly, both are no more than much of the same state intervention that has been offered by the Revolutionary Democrats.
 

The populist demand put forth by these opposition parties comes from groups who claim to uphold liberal economic thoughts, a stance much needed at this critical time when policymakers must sustain the impressive growth registered in the last four years.
 

The break from this represents an ideological crisis that the opposition has not been able to pull itself out of for some time now. More of this type of incoherence will only add legitimacy to criticisms that opposition party leaders are merely against the ruling party and do not have a clear picture for the future of their own.
 

Failing to form a party platform that people can support from both a rational mindset for well thought out ideas as well as the emotional appeals that creep into political discourse too often, will harm both the opposition strength as well as the country as a whole that should benefit from an informed public discourse.
 

This, frustratingly, is what was seen from both Lidetu's and Temesgen's parties over the past few months. The government's latest decision to increase wages to the civil service or adjusting pension does not make it anymore right.
 

The latest in the saga of opposition parties dancing to the tune of Revolutionary Democrats' ideological rhythm comes from the CUDP. The seven-point recommendation from CUDP last week could have come from the ruling party itself, judging by philosophical leanings; it strongly calls upon the state to stick its finger in the workings of market forces. It begs for the state to intervene in the economy, in far more proportion than it really should, and vaguely in the case of calling for temporary solutions to house rents.
 

What more mockery of liberalism could there be by CUDP than calling for the state to intervene in the contractual relationships of landlords and tenants? Should not this be left to the market to decide on the basis of demand and supply? Are not landlords free to ask what is worth their property and what the tenants are willing to pay? Should not the recommendations be policy moves and incentives in helping the private sector expand real estate affordable to all income groups so that increased supply puts rents on check?
 

While this is certainly an area causing woe amongst the city's populace, it is irresponsible to join the voices of complaint demanding solutions to a problem and neglect to offer concrete solutions.
 

The message from the CUDP should be seen as mere political manoeuvring in trying to advance a populist agenda that would resonant with city-dwellers under intense budgetary pressure. Offering immediate household budget relief sounds great as is placing responsibility to fix problems on bureaucracy which gives a sense that someone will handle the problems. But when the policy prescriptions are deeply analysed, they come to nothing more than a short-term injection of purchasing power for consumers that will eventually come back to haunt the economy with additional inflationary pressure.

Many of the CUDP ideas stimulate an already overheated demand. This demonstrates that this party and others in the opposition camp fail to appreciate, or at the least, incorporate the findings that the current inflation is largely demand driven, unlike in the past where drought and subsequent famine caused supply-side constraints, hence inflation. In fact, this is what separates this period of rising prices from the past such as the 23.5pc annual inflation seen in 2003 that was caused by a supply shock.
 

Formulating policies with this finding in mind is the responsible move for opposition parties which are meant to have alternative policy prescriptions; instead of shoving the same old government interventions into the mix.
 

Though unclear, the CUDP and UEDP positions appear to advocate some form of price controls, as well reductions on public utilities bills; difficult propositions considering the government's administrative infrastructure and disaggregated market to regulate. If this is the proposal behind the vague statements, a clearer picture of how to implement them is in order.
 

Indeed, there is blatant information as well as human and financial resource restrictions inhibiting the opposition camp from conducting research on various social and economic concerns to be used in policy formulations. There is yet to emerge a single opposition party with its own team of think-tanks. If these barriers are prohibiting the opposition camp, this should be addressed as a priority. If it is sheer incompetence, as we suspect the case is, the opposition camp is failing on one of its most important duties - offering alternatives to what the governing party claims to implement.
 

Interestingly, there is a glimmer of hope shining from the debris of CUDP's list of recommendations that largely betrays the party's own and publicly declared ideological oath. It proposes lifting the duties on imports of cereals. Taxing basic food commodities is an irresponsible source of income in a country that has huge number of its population food insecure and with glaring income inequalities. These duties that raise prices on the end user hit the lower end of the spectrum more severely as 60pc of consumption in Ethiopia is dedicated to food.
 

Facilitating cheaper grain imports by removing the five per cent duty and 15pc VAT is positive, though imports would still be a more expensive consumption choice as Ethiopia's grains have been shown to come to market at far cheaper prices than those from both the rest of the world and Africa. Though not elaborated, it is a welcome policy recommendation when domestic production does intermittently fail to meet demand.
 

Reducing duties aside, opposition parties' suggestions for a campaign against inflation are no more encouraging than the spotty interventionist measures Revolutionary Democrats have been able to muster. What the opposition demands from the government may garner support from many, as few would reject indirect handouts. But they are far from researched and potent policy instruments to tackle inflation.
 

It is troubling that the opposition has not been bold enough to seize the opportunity to advocate some of the more macroeconomic policy shifts that would quell inflation, and thus be able to provide more incentive to a government thus far unwilling to entertain such sobering measures.
 

The strategy of the opposition camp seems to be to criticise and propose measures in line with the EPRDF's centre-left ideology and thus hope that if adopted, they could take credit for delivering action by influencing government policy. Until the opposition camp begins to be more consistent to its ideological flirtation with liberalism and produce policy recommendations accordingly, it is unlikely for it to deserve to be granted the label of strong opposition.