In Africa, as in much of the developing world, the administrations of elections - far from being free and fair - have become a murky business sending chilly effects on particular incumbents. The possibility of staying in power can no longer be taken for granted, and those surviving the storm usually come out from the episode with their legitimacy to rule seriously undermined.

Elections in Africa have proved to periods of great uncertainties and anxieties the general public as evidenced by the rotten elections in Nigeria last year, the completely non-competitive parliamentary election in Djibouti a few months ago, in the bloodiest electoral aftermath in Kenya, and currently by the ongoing controversy in Zimbabwe where the presidential election results are still a big secret to the voters. No group controlling political power in any African country that is willing to cruise on the electoral tide is certain of its ability to avoid the unpleasant possibility of being ousted from office by popular vote.

The Revolutionary Democrats in power in Ethiopia are far from such threat this time around: having recovered from the wounds they suffered from the electoral crises following the May 2005 national elections, they have now fielded the largest number of candidates (close to four million) that a political party has ever registered in the nation’s political history for the parliamentary by-elections and local elections which begin today.

The figures are impressive, a third of Ethiopia’s population (26 million) is expected to go to the polls today and next Sunday, to choose among 4.5 million candidates for about four million seats at the local, regional and federal level. These elections will allow the ruling party to field its candidates in every seat across the country in sharp contrast to only half a million candidates which the non-threatening opposition parties combined together has managed to line up.

This number, however, has been significantly slashed following the withdrawal from the elections altogether late last week by one of the main opposition parties in Parliament, the United Ethiopian Democratic Forces (UEDF). Its leader, Beyene Petros (Prof.), alleged in a news conference that today’s election is a “farce-drama”.

Not surprisingly, these elections too have begun with tense controversies, thus are marred by disputes. It began with the decision by the main opposition party in Parliament, the Ethiopian United Democratic Party (EUDP-Medhin), not to contest to take the biggest prize, the government of the Addis Abeba City Administration, over an issue of principle as opposed to allegations of irregularities and intimidations made by others.

Its leaders argue that it was not be fair to their party, which had won a significant number of seats in the capital during the national elections back in May 2005, were willing to claim their victory.

This is only a reminder of the ugly chapter in Ethiopia’s contemporary politics where nearly three years ago 198 Ethiopians lost their lives as a result of electoral disputes that put the nation on a difficult political course to date. The now fractured electoral alliance, the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD), had overwhelmingly won all the 23 seats the capital has in the federal parliament and all but one in the 138-seat city council.

The decision CUD leaders made not to claim their seats in Parliament led to painful consequences, including the formation of a caretaker administration in Addis Abeba. This was when those who willing to enter the city government, spearheaded by EUDP,  struggled to fill a quorum that could have led them to takeover the city administration. They did not.

EUDP argues that the current elections in the capital should rather be by-elections to fill up the seats unclaimed by those who won them three years ago. There should be no reason why those elected to the city council then and who still are willing to reclaim it should be penalized for their undoing has a point. Nevertheless, EUDP’s thinking that this is a good enough reason not to contest the city council now is a political miscalculation that unfortunately has opened up the electoral field to their opponents.

Add to this the latest decision by the UEDF to drop out of the whole electoral process, alleging not only that electoral officials blocked hundreds of thousands of their candidates from registration, but also that those contesting in the elections were harassed and intimidated by ruling party cadres. As a result, 20,000 of its candidates will not be in the show today. This is a great loss to the electoral process.

The fact that these allegations have strongly been denied both by electoral officials and ruling party leaders as “baseless” should hardly be surprising.

However, a U.S. based human rights group, Human Rights Watch, which also claims to have carried out a two-week investigation of the allegations in western parts of the country has said that it found evidence to support the claims by UEDF. The rights group warned that the noticeable absence of these opposition parties from the electoral contest leaves “a rubber stamp on the EPRDF’s near-monopoly on power at the local level”.

Indeed, the Revolutionary Democrats are out to massively control power at the local levels across the country. In a political environment where many urbanities are into the mood to talk more about the Obama-Clinton head-on fight, if not about the soccer game between Arsenal, Manchester or Liverpool rather than  their own elections, the issue is not only a matter of who would be winning. It is obvious that the ruling party will concede, despite the number of political party leaders who are contesting, that they are only in the elections for the mere sake of for the sake of participating.

This electoral contest is not far from being a battle among political parties. If anything, it will be an opportunity to see whether or not the voting public has recovered from its electoral shock three years ago and has begin to believe that there is still something worthy in practicing citizen rights and duties.

Despite the allegations that the ruling party used its usual maneuvering in pushing people to get registered, one million more people have taken cards to vote today than did in 2005. Should this election be measured by the size of the registered voters, those running the electoral show may have reasons to feel good about their work. Nonetheless, the real test comes today and next Sunday, and will be reflected by the number of people who will turn out to vote.

What percentage of those already registered will indeed line up in front of polling stations today? Will this country be able to see another dramatic and moving scene of voters getting up at 5:00am and crowding polling stations from dawn to dusk, forcing electoral officials to extend the closing time by hours? Will voters display the same remarkable level of enthusiasm as seen three years ago? In the absence of international observers, some of whose involvement last time contributed so much to fuel the fire, and major opposition parties left, will voters feel confident about the legitimacy of the process and feel at ease to cast their votes?

These are some of the questions that will be hanging in the air when the nation goes out to vote today. Rights groups and opposition leaders are very skeptic: Human Rights Watch said these elections are now “too late to salvage”.

This is echoed by Bulcha Demekssa (MP-OFDM) who said “democracy is stillborn in Ethiopia”.

In a way, these elections are more of a referendum on the electoral process as a whole and on the ruling party in particular. The size of the voters’ turn out and their behavior will have a lot to tell as to whether or not the Revolutionary Democrats have recovered from their bruised legitimacy to govern this country. They have been working hard on it since their rude awakening in May 2005; today and next Sunday will be yet another opportunity for them to measure how popular or undesirable they are in the eyes of the Ethiopian people. This will be yet another opportunity for them realise how much they have made the tide change over the past few years.

As was proven during the last national elections, there is indeed no better way than holding regular elections - open, transparent and competitive - to see whether or not a group’s hold onto power is justified.