Irony prevails across political spectrums, wherein extreme viewpoints fuel rivalry. As politics is a continuum, ideologies often override conciliations. However, whenever it overlooks reason, the irony results in confusion.

So confused is Ethiopian opposition politics that political parties emerge, split, merge, and pass on almost daily. They remain weak, saturating the political scene with lopsided rhetoric, unchallenged policy measures, and uncontested propaganda.

With the parties failing to forward alternative arguments on issues of public interest ranging from the cost of living to doing business and onto social security, they settle for playing a blame game. Failing to articulate their stands, they go to bed merely opposing and comfortably.

Governing is an art that demands a series of compromises. Beyond rhetorical statements, it requires character to lead. As far as this character embodies the energy and determination as well as ability to innovate and govern, it would be reflected in each argument.

An aspiring opposition member should exhibit this characteristic, even among her opposition. If he understands the responsibility of governing, her arguments would be substantiated with facts. His arguments would be accurate, while she fuses responsibility with accountability.

The Ethiopian political scene has been challenged by character poverty since opposition politics has became increasingly specious, individualised, and uncoordinated. Divided along sectarian lines, the parties serve special interests. Haunted by animosity, their arguments are often unsubstantiated.

They take opposing as a duty, not a vocation, leading them to settle for unproven policy alternatives. Lacking the ability to strike optimal balances amongst alternative policies, they prefer to capitalise on public resentment or historical loopholes. On occasions of strong policy debate, they opt for archaic issues and even when they get it right, they contradict themselves.

They claim to be liberal while supporting subsidies. They claim to be social democrats while they favour tax relief for the rich. In most cases, they lack a clear philosophical drive in their arguments.

Still consisting of the Old Garde, they leave no space for the youth.\

Capitalising on their weaknesses, the EPRDF remains the only functional party on the political scene. Snatching agendas such as national unity, Abyssinian patriotism, and Nile hegemony, once opposition strongholds, from the opposition, the ruling party has successfully transcended conventional ideological barriers.

As it expands its political base, it has crowded them out of their comfort zone. They apparently enjoy the art of opposing more than the prospect of possibly governing.

On the inflationary economic situation, the opposition bluntly opposed undertakings such as the credit cap. Some even advocated for a wage increment, knowing that it could fuel inflation.

Under the litmus test of fiscal policy, they shockingly failed to identify a possible source of the money to pay for it. So incomplete have their proposals been, they forfeit on both political and technical fronts.

Coordination remained their nightmare, though they sometimes enact the drama of forming coalitions. Lacking strategic vision, coalitions often fracture.

At the heart of it lies the deeply entrenched poverty of character. Signified by a concerted vision to govern, the temperament to lead is an essential quality for an aspiring chief. Not only do Ethiopian opposition parties lack such a vision but their leaders are also unadventurous.

The prevailing socio-cultural conditions are unfavourable for democracy. Compounded by this narrow political space, the opposing side has become so comfortable that they find themselves in the quagmire of facing extinction.

To the dismay of ordinary Ethiopians, listening to reasoned debate remains a luxury in this global era of innovation, technology, and ideas. The marketplace of ideas is crowded with Revolutionary Democracy and its sectional interpretations.  

Crying fool of public disappointments has rather became the model of doing business of opposition politics in the country, as it aggrandises its every little achievement.

Although ideas are the lifeblood of partisan politics, less is said about more in Ethiopian opposition politics. This poverty of ideas accompanies the poverty of character. Even in opportune times such as election campaigns, opposition parties focus less on innovative solutions than historical events. They campaign with indolence, indicating that they might govern with passivity.

Unable to rise above their conventional barriers, the representation of opposition parties in the legislature went down to one in 2010.

Meanwhile, global politics has changed significantly, with the ruling party going far to adopt new policies and strategies aside from building its human capital. Exposed to the changing world order, from financial crisis to climate negotiations, it has amassed considerable political experience, which would help it capitalise on its competitive advantage.

By contrast, Ethiopian opposition parties failed to partake in the discourse about global issues. So long as they turn a deaf ear to undertakings such as accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), carbon trading, and transnational resource development they would remain on the defensive and diminishingly so.    

Noting the huge discrepancy in the demand and supply of political alternatives, establishing vibrant opposition politics is essential. This could only materialise if a culture of logical discourse prevailed. Certainly, this would require more than merging and forming coalitions.

What it takes to oppose is similar to what it takes to govern; opposing with clarity to govern by consensus is the untravelled road.