Ethiopia�s
Challenge is our Challenge
Ghelawdewos
Araia, Ph.D.
May
7, 2011
Great
things are achieved by guessing the direction of
one�s century1
Giuseppe
Mazzini
These days, some Ethiopians
entertain the idea that the last two decades are
EPRDF�s moment, not the moment of the Ethiopian
people in general and the opposition in
particular. This is a pessimistic and parochial
view of history. Every moment in the making of
Ethiopia�s history is the moment of all
Ethiopians regardless of the type of regime in
power. Moreover, Ethiopians should not wait for
the powers that be to render miracles and or
furnish the socioeconomic and political needs of
the people; the latter in fact should be proactive
and deliberate its own agenda in the total
liberation of their country. They must transcend
the current political skirmish tainted with
ethnocentric psychology that could ultimately
undermine not only the sovereignty and
independence of Ethiopia, but also its very
survival.
Out of the chaotic Diaspora
Ethiopia seemingly discussion forums, two recent
essays that stand out are Professor Mammo
Muchie�s �Revisiting Ethiopiawinet� and
Professors Aklog Birara and Getachew Begashaw�s
�A Mission to Attract Diaspora Funds.� The
former was addressed many times by many Ethiopian
scholars (including myself) but Mammo came up with
additional flavor and new vistas in critiquing the
prevalent ethnic politics in Ethiopia, and I will
only supplement his ideas and constructively
engage his thesis in this article. The latter,
without doubt is topical and timely but other
Ethiopian economists, including Professor Seid
Hassan, also addressed the central theme of their
essay. I will further explore the parameters of
development agenda in Ethiopia in its
comprehensive and broader political economy
dimension, and not only in its macroeconomic
synthesis.
I am in full accord with
Mammo�s critique of
�the mistakes of our generation� but I
would like to add that our generation has indeed
paid a heavy price, not only for its dogmatic
assertion of leftist ideologies and belittling its
own Ethiopian wisdom but also for being patriotic
and for being at the forefront in striving to
change Ethiopia for the better. It is true that
the Ethiopian Student Movement (ESM) during the
reign of Emperor Haile Selassie had exhibited
excesses with respect to the question of
nationalities in Ethiopia; the movement had gone
beyond self-determination of nationalities to the
right of secession of the latter and this, to be
sure, was a theoretical conception carbon copied
from Stalin�s �Question of Nationalities�
blueprint. It was dogmatic on the part of the
students, but it was not aimed at deliberately
dismantling the Ethiopian polity. Now, the EPRDF
has officially installed the right of secession of
regions/nationalities as it is clearly enshrined
in Article 39 of the present Ethiopian
constitution. This is a problem superimposed on
Ethiopians; it is Ethiopia�s challenge, but it
is also our challenge. In the final analysis, it
is we, Ethiopians, who should (as one unified
people) correct the mistakes of the EPRDF.
On the other hand, although
there were excesses among the ESM militants and
extreme measure was taken by the EPRDF with
respect to the question of nationalities, we must
also acknowledge that there was national
oppression in Ethiopia. I have cited in one of my
previous works Bahru Zewde�s thesis of comparing
the denial of national oppression during the ancien
regime to the lack of knowledge of Ethiopian
history. There is nothing wrong in recognizing the
achievements and pitfalls of Ethiopia; the
question is how to go about and overcome major
socioeconomic, political, and cultural problems
challenging Ethiopia. That is our challenge.
Moreover, we Ethiopians have
one major challenge in regards to ethnic politics.
I have addressed this issue several times in the
past but I don�t mind repeating myself over and
over again for the sake of dialogue and discussion
of current events in Ethiopian circles. I strongly
believe that ethnic politics in Ethiopia, though
initiated by the EPRDF, was also exaggerated and
practiced by Ethiopians in the Diaspora, and this
troubling phenomenon is reflected in the way
Ethiopians are organized along ethnic and even
sub-ethnic levels. If indeed Ethiopians in the
Diaspora love their country and aspire to
transform Ethiopia for the better, they must find
a pan-Ethiopian organization or pan-Ethiopian
parties (not just in name but in composition as
well) that could unify the people and come up with
a solid Ethiopian agenda. To date, we don�t have
it and what we have instead is vanishing
solidaristic vision; a vision of unity that our
forefathers entertained and practiced in the past.
This is the challenge of the present generation;
it cannot be left to the ruling party in Ethiopia
as if it is an EPRDF problem only.
What I agree with Mammo�s
characterization of Ethiopian nationalism or Ethiopiawinet
is the fact that Ethiopian nationalism has
historical foundations. I would like to address
the myth perpetrated by anti-Ethiopian elements in
regards to the evolution of the Ethiopian state.
The enemies of Ethiopia wanted to portray the
country as a fictitious polity and/or an
artificially constructed socio-cultural entity.
This argument is not only devoid of historical
analysis and logical (rational) synthesis, but it
also negates Ethiopian nationalism that actually
evolved out of a long state formation (from
antiquity to present) historical process that
really constitutes the Ethiopian nation.
Therefore, Ethiopian nationalism is not an
abstract ideal but a reality born out of the state
formation factor already mentioned and out of
resistance against foreign forces. Tewodros,
Yohannes, Alula, and Menelik fought not as
Gonderies, Tigrayans, or Shewans, but as
Ethiopians.
While I appreciate Aklog and
Getachew�s macroeconomic analysis of Ethiopia
and why it �is not conducive� to invest in
Ethiopia today (the exact opposite of the
Government�s claim of
�10 reasons to invest in Ethiopia�), I
am of the opinion that the complex Ethiopian
scenario requires a more comprehensive political
economy analysis.
Aklog and Getachew�s
article is aimed at educating Ethiopians abroad to
being extra cautious about the April 9 and 10,
2011 Ethiopian Government delegation-led town hall
meetings in 14 North American cities. I don�t
mind the authors critical scrutiny of the
Government�s intention to grab �Diaspora
funds� (as the title of their essay insinuates).
But most of the Diaspora opposition that
participated in the conference did not follow the
two professors footsteps. On the contrary, those
that were in the conference halls and their
colleagues who were outside and were protesting
and calling names to the conferees, had aimed at
disrupting the meetings at any cost. A good
example of this protestation was the action taken
by the Diaspora opposition in the Washington metro
area and in effectively paralyzing the Growth and
Transformation Plan (GTP) meeting.
Ethiopians, of course, have
the right to participate and support the GTP or
participate in the conference and oppose it, or
even completely oppose and derail its objectives.
Whether we like it or not, however, the GTP
could be one challenge to Ethiopians. I would have
preferred the Diaspora to have joined the
conference rooms in all 14 locations and
participate in a civil way and challenge the EPRDF
delegation on its turf. The opposition groups
should have challenged members of the delegation
not in the form of clutters accompanied by noises
but by clashing ideas.
It would have been wise for
the Diaspora Ethiopians to use the very platforms
employed by the EPRDF delegation by bombarding
them with questions and effectively inundating
them with challenging or alternative strategies to
transformation, instead of simply disrupting the
meetings. This kind of action and attitude reminds
me of an incident that took place at Addis Ababa
University (AAU) in the early 1970s. A group of
students were gathered at the entrance of the New
Arts Building of the Sidist Kilo campus of the
University; they made me curious and I joined
them, and although I arrived in the middle of a
heated debate, I instantly got the gist of the pro
and con exchanges. The debate was on whether
students must go to the Asmara Exposition or not.
Some of them were in favor of going and others
were vehemently opposed to the idea of going to
Asmara. On the opposition side was Girmachew
Lemma, a prominent student leader, and he told us
in no uncertain terms, �We should not go to Expo
Asmara, because it is tantamount to respecting the
invitation of the Emperor and celebrating the
reactionary agenda of the government.� However,
some of the students, at the risk of being labeled
�reactionary,� went to Asmara. I did not mind
the positions of both groups, but I believed then
and now that it is preferable to participate in
nay venue of any conference and take advantage of
it.
Beyond participation,
however, our challenge is to come up with some
sort of blueprint, a working paper, or a
policy-oriented document and the rest of this
essay will focus on the ideas behind this
proposal. I am of the opinion that a political
economy analysis and critique of the EPRDF and its
policies will benefit Ethiopia in the long run,
and an attempt will be made here to discuss the
contradictions that would preclude investment in
Ethiopia and I will propose alternative ideas for
meaningful investment and development.
- The
Government cannot invite Ethiopian investors
unless it has an industrial rationalization
policy that encourages or fosters competition
in the strategic sectors of the economy. The
bulk of the strategic sectors are now either
owned or indirectly controlled by the EPRDF
(TPLF, ANDM, OPDO). The ANDM and OPDO are
major beneficiaries and shareholders with the
TPLF and it is not only the latter that is in
complete control of the economy. With respect
to my argument here, I am implying that Aklog
and Getachew are wrong in consistently
mentioning TPLF and completely ignoring the
EPRDF.
- The
Government cannot claim �absence of
corruption�2 in Ethiopia when in
fact corruption is endemic that could be
likened to a metastasized cancer. There is no
need for the government of Ethiopia to hide a
major Ethiopian problem, which was in
existence as part of the socioeconomic and
political fabric long before the EPRDF assumed
power. Corruption, after all, is not unique to
Ethiopia and instead of simply denying the
elephant in the room, it is better to
acknowledge its existence and try to deal with
it. Now, the question is how can Ethiopians
invest in Ethiopia in the presence of rampant
corruption, especially in the bureaucracy?
Investors don�t want any hassle, let alone
pay extra money for corrupt officials in order
to facilitate their investment plans. Once
Ethiopia is free of corruption, there is no
doubt that the Diaspora will pump the
investment sector of the economy, ranging from
tourism and hospitality management to
agriculture, to mining and industry.
- Ethiopia
must give priority to Ethiopian entrepreneurs
over foreign investors: By this, I don�t
mean to disregard foreign investment; the
latter is equally important in the development
of Ethiopia. Foreign investment, including
foreign direct investment (FDI) would have a
positive impact on development especially if
there is no string attached to it. However, if
Ethiopia is to become truly independent from
�dependent development�, it must decidedly
give priority to Ethiopian investors and
entrepreneurs. So far, the country has been
rewarding foreign investors by turning itself
into a Mecca of land grab for agricultural
development. One of these investors, for
instance, is an Indian investor by the name
Pradeep Mannemela and according to him, his
company now has a 25-year lease in Gambella,
one of the nine regional states, and �has
plans to expand its agricultural endeavors and
may acquire up to 100,000 ht in Ethiopia��3
I
argue that Ethiopia must give priority to
Ethiopians for the simple and profound reason that
the country must ultimately stand on its own feet,
and this could be attained only if a new middle
class of entrepreneurs emerges in Ethiopia. The
GTP is perhaps meant to invite investors, but it
could not guarantee the emergence of a middle
class insofar the Ethiopian investor is fiercely
competed by foreign investors.
- Education
must be given priority in investment and
development: The government of Ethiopia claims
that �Ethiopia presently turn out more than
10,000 university graduates per year� and
currently the country has �151 technical and
vocational education and training schools.�4
There is no doubt that some progress in
education has been achieved in the last decade
or so, but the quality of education is
questionable. I have had some conversation
with some Ethiopians who graduated from
college and some who simply corresponded with
me on line, and I found it astounding that
most of these students could not write a
coherent essay. Out of historical necessity,
thus, Ethiopia must heavily invest on
technical education so that it could produce
technicians, engineers, and business leaders
(the would-be middle class that I have
discussed above), and in turn propel economic
growth based on manufacturing industries. In
this regard, Ethiopia can learn from the Asian
Tigers, and especially from Taiwan, a country
that deliberately restricted the proliferation
of universities in favor of vocational
schools.
- Ethiopian
policy directives must be compatible with
international market forces: By this, I
don�t mean the �100 Investment Project
Profiles� that the Ethiopian government
seemingly wants to offer to Diaspora
Ethiopians. Beyond the plethora of projects,
the policy directive must necessarily and
succinctly put forth allocation of scarce
capital; energy resources and appropriate
technology; infrastructure development; tax
credits; budgetary policies and incentives;
mass education; and labor regulations. Only
when the above component parts of the policy
directive are clearly defined could Ethiopians
(and other investors for that matter) begin to
invest in their country.
- Ethiopia
must overcome patronage politics: One of the
major assets of the EPRDF that enabled it to
stay in power for so long is patronage
politics, and without the latter the ruling
party could have not easily manipulated the
power nexus and govern Ethiopia. The EPRDF, in
fact, is a patron-client network party
apparatus
and those Ethiopians who think that
only the TPLF is ruling over Ethiopia are
wrong. Wide spread patrimony (the inheritance
of power and property by family members of the
ruling elite or by their close loyal
associates) is not confined to the TPLF or the
EPRDF; it has also tentacles in the dominant
regional states of Oromia, Amhara, and Tigray
as well as in the peripheral states such as
Afar, Beni Shangul Gumuz, Gambella, and
Somalia. Because of this solid patronage
linkage, the ruling EPRDF party, through its
Ministry of Federal Affairs (MoFA), monitors
the local governance of the regions. The MoFA
literally runs the affairs of the Somali
region, for instance. However, the regional
leaders (presidents) as well as the leaders of
the parties that make up the EPRDF have also
formed their own patronage networks and hence
they govern their own constituents. By
focusing on the TPLF only, Ethiopians in the
Diaspora were unable to fathom the complexity
of the current governance in Ethiopia. Now,
the regional governors have their constituents
not only in their regions but also in the
Diaspora, very much like the TPLF has. When
the president of the Somalia Regional State
came to the United States, his supporters and
clients, i.e. the Ethiopian Somalis that
reside in Minnesota, received him like a king;
draped him with an Ethiopian flag, and chanted
and danced with him. The event clearly
demonstrates the patron-client relationship in
the Somalia region and by extension in all
Ethiopia.
However,
while patronage politics was an effective
mechanism for the EPRDF to stay in power, it
effectively alienated other Ethiopians that are
not affiliated to the EPRDF; it also seriously
undermined the democratic process that Ethiopians
thought had a chance to mushroom. Unless Ethiopia
overcomes patronage politics, meaningful
development programs could not be realized and
investors could not be forthcoming.
- The
GTP cannot take place at the expense of
democratic transformation in Ethiopia: Over
the last two decades, I have encountered
arguments on the primacy of democracy over
development or whether one is compatible with
the other. Frankly, I found the argument
frivolous because, while democracy is not
necessarily a precondition to development, it
does not however mean that democracy and
development cannot operate in tandem.
Therefore, we cannot say �lets have
development first and let democracy stay�
when we know very well that democracy is a
healthy political culture that we can all
cherish. Therefore I argue that we can
implement development agendas while incipient
democratic culture flourish simultaneously. In
this context, thus, Ethiopians must
steadfastly demand not only fundamental
democratic rights for citizens, but also
structural implementation of a democratic
system. The EPRDF is not expected to forge a
democratic system, but it can at least allow a
modicum of democratic rights such as
multiparty democracy without restricting or
alienating the opposition. If the EPRDF cannot
tolerate the opposition (as has been witnessed
in the 2005 and 2010 elections), it is highly
likely that it will not tolerate business
leaders (hence investors), educators, and
other professionals who would come up with
different ideas other than that of the ruling
party�s ideas.
- Transformation
in whose interest? I will answer this question
in light of the welfare of the Ethiopian
people, the ultimate source for the
development of Ethiopia. Is the GTP of the
EPRDF going to benefit the multitude poor of
Ethiopians? Is it going to salvage the
famine-stricken Ethiopians? Is it going to
solve the chronic unemployment in the country?
Is it going to change the livelihood of the
rural Ethiopians for the better? Is it going
to trickle down to the one million plus
beggars and aimless young Ethiopians in Addis
Ababa? Is the GTP accountable to the national
government or to the regional governments as
well? If Ethiopia is willing to open up and
learn from other countries experiences, it can
uplift itself like the Asian Tigers, China,
India, Brazil, and Botswana did. Compared to
China and the Tigers, India and Brazil are
still considered as poor Third World
countries, but because they have visionary
leaders and open democratic systems, they have
scored tremendous achievements in development
in just two decades. China too is a Third
World country, but it made spectacular
achievement in economic development and
managed to liberate more than 400 million
people from poverty. But the most important
success story of the Tigers, China, and also
Japan is their ability to install egalitarian
socioeconomic and educational systems. In this
regard, the Tigers, China, and Japan have
surpassed even the Western democracies. Can
Ethiopia surpass (or has the potential to) its
Horn and/or East African neighbors?
Transformation in whose interest? If it is for
the welfare of the Ethiopian people, it is
worth investing; if it is meant to enrich a
neat circle of nomenclature bureaucrats, it is
not worth it.
By
way of concluding, I like to address a development
strategy that Ethiopia must pursue. The
market-oriented approach to development was a
failure and yet Ethiopians at home (the government
and the opposition) and in the Diaspora still
adhere to the liberal agenda without critically
examining the Ethiopian situation in the context
of globalization. The so-called market policies
pursued by many developing countries, in fact,
exacerbated economic and development crisis in
these countries. Ethiopia is no different from
these developing nations and on top of the wrong
strategy, the focus on cash crop, which is now
frenzy in Ethiopia, would ultimately damage the
national economy although it may have a short-term
advantage in garnering hard (foreign currency).
The obsession with cash crop is part of the
liberal agenda and simply emulating the latter
could be a recipe for disaster.
What
Ethiopia needs at this juncture are visionary
leaders who could lay out holistic development
strategies and policies of a mixed economy type.
Above all, the leaders should be able to address
poverty, inequality, illiteracy, appropriate
technology, dependent development, environmental
degradation, and unequal partnership in global
trade. A comprehensive development strategy could
genuinely transform Ethiopia for the better, but
it could be realized only if we Ethiopians, or
more specifically our leaders, begin to envision
the distant future because as Mazzini aptly puts
it, �Great things are achieved by guessing the
direction of one�s century.�
Glossary:
TPLF:
Tigray People�s Liberation Front
EPRDF:
Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Party
ANDM:
Amhara National Democratic Movement
OPDO:
Oromo People�s Democratic Organization
Notes
1.
Giuseppe
Mazzini was Italian leader in 1848. The maxim is
taken from World Politics by Charles W.
Kegley, Jr. and Eugene R. Whittkopf, St.
Martin�s, 1999
2.
Investing
In Ethiopia: 10 Reasons to Invest in Ethiopia,
Ethiopian Embassy, view www.ethiopianembassy.org
and see Item #1, �Stable Economic Environment�
3.
Addis
Fortune, Vol. 11, No. 545, October 12, 2010
4.
Investing
in Ethiopia, Ibid, p. 3
All
Rights Reserved. Copyright � IDEA, Inc. 2011. Dr.
Ghelawdewos Araia can be contacted for educational
and constructive feedback via g.araia@africanidea.org
|
