The only opposition party MP speaks

Girma Seifu—a member of Unity for Democracy and Justice (UDJ) party, which is a member of MEDREK, a coalition of eight different parties—was the only opposition party candidate who managed to secure a seat in the May 2010 national elections in Ethiopia. The following is an excerpt of the interview he had with Ethiopian Reporter, a local newspaper:  

Reporter: Do you consider yourself unlucky to be in parliament when no one from your party made it there?

Girma Seifu: Of course, no one prefers to be alone. If you are asking me about getting things done in the house, I see nothing different this time because the ruling party has always been the majority in the house. Of course, in cases where decisions require two-third votes, it might be possible to influence the outcome and make a difference. However, when you have a number of seats in parliament you have an advantage in that you would have members in parliamentary standing committees, which oversee the activities of the executive body. It is obvious that I can not be in each and every committee; hence, it is a loss when you see it from this angle. But as far as the legislative process is concerned, it does not make a difference whether you have a single seat or seats that fall a little short of majority.

Reporter: Do you think that there is a chance where the ruling party’s MPs debate on issues, irrespective of their political loyalty? 

Girma Seifu: Based on the situation currently prevailing, it is unlikely. I do not believe that these MPs would actually have the courage to debate on issues even if they hold a view that is different form the party line. I am not even sure if the discipline of the ruling party allows a room for such things.   

Reporter: Some members of your party say that you do not represent them in parliament. What do you say to that?

Girma Seifu: I am aware that such opinions exist out there; however, so far, we are just working on building trust. Medrek is a coalition of different parties. And it is still working on narrowing the gap between its members on some issues. Under such circumstances I would not be surprised if these diverse parties in the coalition do not  have absolute confidence in each other. We all know the programs of each and every party in that coalition. So, as I come from UDJ, they might feel that I am not representing them well. But how to go about the concern, i.e, what mechanisms can be employed to narrow the gap, is where we differ greatly.

First and foremost, I would try to represent my constituency. Then through that I would also try to represent my party. As an MP, I have to balance my responsibilities to both. Aside to these, I have individual rights as an MP. For that matter, the constitution states clearly that MPs are accountable to their constituency, the constitution itself and their conscience as human beings. Nowhere does it say that they are accountable to their political parties.

Reporter: You are the only opposition representative in parliament. Apart from the parliamentary support group that you have, how do you gather issues and concerns that you would table at the house? Do you do the research yourself?

Girma Seifu: Aside from the parliamentary support group, which, by the way, is organized as a sort of a shadow parliament where as much as possible a lot of people are represented, I have an office at my constituency that enables me to be aware of the concern of my voters. Unlike other MPs I have tried to come up with a medium through which people can reach me. It is not only about the issues that are to be tabled at the house that I could be approached but also the relevant government bodies regarding the particular problem in my constituency. Any resident of my constituency can come to the office and contact me. I am also thinking of developing a website that makes me more accessible. In my view that is what an MP could do at the end of the day.

Reporter: You say that you will not be involved in any form of ethno-centric political agenda. However, we know that some of the parties in MEDREK have ethnic agendas. Is it not, thus, difficult for you to work with them?

Girma Seifu: It is not difficult. It is how you play the game actually. If someone has unanswered ethnic issues, the question is how to go about it. It should not be about snatching whatever you feel that you deserve as a people; it should be about joining the whole and striving for the common good and get it in the process. Whenever there is an issue, you should not just demand the solution. You should be part of the solution yourself. As a political ideology, I believe in fighting for individual rights and it is a fact that group rights, including ethnic rights, will be well addressed in the process. When you stand for individual rights it is not logically possible to infringe ethnic rights. However, the converse might not always work and that is why I do not endorse ethno-centric groupings.

Now, the good thing about Medrek is that we have come together to discuss the differences that I just talked about. Our program puts it eloquently. It says inasmuch as we respect individual rights, we also give due consideration to group rights as well. By default, individual rights are inclusive of group rights. But as the trust between the member parties of Medrek was not strong we decided to put both in Medrek’s program. I think this is the main deficit in our constitution. Though the constitution should belong to the citizens of the country, it actually belongs to ethnic groups. If something belongs to everyone, it actually belongs to no one. According to the constitution, I, for example, will not be represented as long as I am not part of a group. I am not saying that constitution does not exist but just that it has some deficits. 

The rest of the interview: here.