Three years ago, the Revolutionary Democrats suffered a humiliating defeat in Addis Abeba, after they lost 137 out of the 138 seats at the City Council to the fledging Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD). Salt was added to this great, political wound when all of the 23 seats that the capital had in the federal parliament went the CUD.

What were the implications of this? Two different interpretations were given for this scenario: The CUD leaders and their supporters believed that displeased Addis Abebans preferred them over the incumbent for they represented an alternative to the status quo; while the Revolutionary Democrats felt that the voting public was protesting over the mistakes they had made during the first decade of their rule.  

Following this unprecedented development in the Ethiopian political history was the derision of the electorate. In the midst of electoral violence - bloody as it was - the majority of those voted into office to govern the capital committed the cardinal political mistake of abandoning the city government, thus paving way for the formation of a caretaker administration whose chief, Brehane Deressa, was rightly predicated as having to play the role of firefighter. Despite being judged from such a narrow mandate, his administration seems to have been effective as things have cooled down enough to allow the government to stage another round of local and by-elections, only three years after the death of nearly 200 people and the mass detentions of tens of thousands of people across the country.

 It would hardly be surprising if people should feel that these elections were held in the traumatic shadow of the past. The recent elections, however, can hardly be described as being as unprecedented as those in May 2005. If there was anything unusual about the elections two weeks ago, it was the statistics: According to the National Electoral Board (NBE) over half a million more people had registered nationally for these elections than the previous ones, this represents two-thirds of the 30 million eligible voters in the country. Even in Addis Abeba, the figures were stunning, 200,000 more voters than before had registered.
 

There has been no time in the past where an incumbent has fielded nearly four million candidates; an astronomical figure as opposed to the less than 100,000 candidates put forward by all the 30 plus opposition parties combined. No other place depicts this turn of events better than Addis Abeba, the all-powerful epicenter of resistance to the Revolutionary Democrats’ rule.

The incumbent had candidates running for all of the 29,700 seats in the 99 kebelles; these were contested by only four independent candidates as no members from the opposition political parties took up the challenge. For the 10 districts, the EPRDF had fielded 2,970 foot soldiers as opposed to the 28 candidates from the opposition; this was even slashed to 21 after the Oromo Federalist Democratic Movement (OFDM) withdrew itself from the elections in the second week. The opposition bloc should obviously be blamed for not showing interest in grabbing power on local administrative levels. Even though they faced electoral obstacles engineered by their political rival, it is clear that they would have made no significant difference to the electoral profile as they entered the race with one runner to every 40 candidates fielded by the incumbent.

The ironical turn of events at the city council is striking, to say the least. In sharp contrast to what happened in May 2005, the Revolutionary Democrats have proved to be a different political animal, scooping 137 of the seats there and leaving only one seat in the hands of the CUD, now chaired by Ayele Chamiso.

Revolutionary Democrats argue that this development has no resemblance whatsoever to the Treaty of Versailles. In 1871, France was forced to sign an agreement after its war with Germany; not only did it concede some of its borders such as Alsace and Moselle, but it also paid five million Francs to its adversary. It had no choice but to agree to German troops remaining within its borders until this concessionary payment was paid in full. The historical irony was that 48 years later, Germany was, in turn, forced to sign another treaty in Versailles (France), effectively ending the First World War in 1919. Germany and its allies had to agree to accept full responsibility for causing the war, disarm, make territorial concessions as well as pay compensation to France and its supporters.    

Revolutionary Democrats would not want the nation to equate the local political scenario to the case in Versailles 89 years ago, but the similarities are unbelievably remarkable.

Nevertheless, unlike in the past, neither the results of the votes, nor who might have won these votes is being disputed now. What is being questioned is the incumbent’s belief that it has won a “landslide victory” as many, including those in the diplomatic circle, are very skeptical of this “landslide” assertion, for they believe that the voters’ turnout was not as high as the 90pc plus the NBE claims there was. Unfortunately, there is no other authoritative agency other than the NBE to certify these figures; and it is sad that the electoral body has not recovered from the severe bruising that its credibility has suffered since its inception.

Be that as it may, it is hard for the Revolutionary Democrats not to recognize the fact that they have won a “landslide victory” in an election that was not as hotly contested as the last one. There were hardly any electoral challenges to their policies during the campaigning period. Nor were there any meaningful alternatives given on the various platforms used by the contesting groups. Rather, the recent elections were characterized by how quiet and unexciting they were, a reflection, perhaps, of a politically disillusioned and restless public, particularly in the capital.

This despondency, however, will not stop the Revolutionary Democrats from consolidating their power on the local level. In fact, they are promising to move into full gear in order to solidify their electoral comeback not only through those who have been elected to the city government and its administrative structures, but by throwing the full weight of the entire EPRDF - beginning with its top ranking leadership – into significant development of the capital in the next two years.

In terms of policy, they have little to change, judging from what they have said during the campaign. It appears that there will be a continuation of their policies launched two years prior to the May 2005 elections. These include recognizing the key problems of the capital: Housing, under developed public infrastructure, unemployment, lack of business opportunities, and the deprivations of speedy, as well as just, civil services.

Recognition of these issues as fundamental shortcomings in Addis Abeba was right, although the Revolutionary Democrats only came to accept this reality only after a neglect of the city that lasted for the first 10 years of their rule. Neither were their policy prescriptions bad. Planning to invest nearly five billion dollars for three years - beginning 2004 –to bridge the housing gap through the construction of 150,000 low cost condominiums to address the plight of 400,000 people in the capital was a rational decision.

This, interestingly, has helped Arkebe Oqubay’s provisional administration to create jobs for tens of thousands of youth, while at the same time creating a wave of small and micro businesses across the city in the form of material suppliers, foremen and constructers. Alongside this, the city government has launched billions of dollars worth of public projects to expand the city’s road network and to finance the construction of additional school blocks in a bid to eliminate “hot seating”  (learning shifts) in schools.

If the Revolutionary Democrats overwhelming lost Addis Abeba last time, it could not have been because these policies were wrong. It could have been because they had to pay a price for their past sins and because of the grievances that cropped up when these policies were first implemented, and their subsequent failure to address them promptly.

There is every reason to expect that the new team that the Revolutionary Democrats will install in Addis Abeba will maintain these policies. It is the right thing to do. If, at all, there is anything it should add to the menu of public infrastructure projects, it should be a development project that would satiate the long established need by the city for the sufficient provision of water. Half of Addis Abeba, a city of close to five million, is thirsty for water.

The Addis Abeba Water Sewerage Authority (AAWSA) definitely requires an overhaul in its organizational structure - with all due respect to the reasonably good work it is doing so far – in order to achieve the transformation that people are crying for.
 

The Authority is capable at present of providing 256,000 cubic meters of water daily, according to a letter its managers wrote last week to a private weekly, Addis Neger. Indeed, AAWSA is doing a commendable job in trying to sort things out in the short term: It may probably add a few more wells into the network, adding nearly 23,000mts daily, while the 53 wells under development will increase its delivery by 46,000mts. These, all combined, will enable the Authority to supply close to 332,000mts, a far cry from what is sufficient for the city.

The prospect of finding a sustainable solution for the future looks grim and an effective proposal is in order. With hundreds of thousands of condos continuing to spring up in the capital, not to mention the thousands of posh houses being constructed by private real estate firms, the new team of leaders in Addis will have the problem of housing on their hands, adding to the weight of the water crisis.               

This should not, however, overshadow the real hurdles that the Revolutionary Democrats have to leap when administering the capital. In implementing their urban policies, they inflict two forms of malaise on Addis Abebans: Their utter disregard for rule of law (in particular when it comes to individual rights) and their aversion to property rights.

Whether or not they admit it, these were issues that have cost them dearly in the past; hearing them talk about dealing with them now, there is reason to believe that they have learnt a lesson and hopefully will not repeat their previous mistakes. After all, another round of elections are just around the corner.