Institute of Development and Education for Africa (IDEA)

webmaster@africanidea.org

Beyond the Millennium, Beyond Illusion and Cynicism, and the Challenges of Development

Ghelawdewos Araia

September 20, 2007

The Millennium or year 2000 in Ethiopia was celebrated with utmost gala music, dances, and holiday festivities from Jimma to Mekelle. Some Ethiopians, in the Diaspora, opposed the Millennium and dismissed it as TPLF or Woyane propaganda ploy. The opposition ranging from the run-of-the-mill elements to the most “sophisticated” elite Ethiopians, however, was unable to envision that the New Year celebration (with or without a seating government) is at once a secular and spiritual holiday for Ethiopians. In fact, the spiritual dimension of the New Year (Kudus Yohannes) is observed every year, not just by Ethiopians but also by Eritreans who share same religions, cultures, and languages with their kin in Ethiopia. It is simply unfathomable that some Ethiopians harbor illusion and were unable to make distinction between the Ethiopian genius of inventing a calendar (hence new year celebration) and a presiding government.

Beyond the Millennium celebration, however, Ethiopia has a more critical function to undertake that I will address in this paper. Beyond the illusion and cynicism, what Ethiopians should do is challenge the government of Ethiopia (more specifically the Meles regime) on matters of governance, justice, education and health, etc. while at the same time live up to the challenges on issues surrounding the development and transformation of Ethiopia. If Ethiopians are indeed sincere and serious (there is no doubt there are many of them) about the welfare of their people and prosperity of their nation, they must be ready to face the challenging needs of their country. Therefore, their first mission should be to unite their forces and create a powerful inertia and momentum for their political agenda, instead of espousing a divisive and disempowering function and consume themselves in flagrantly counter-empirical (hence counter-productive) worldviews and political affiliations. At this juncture, Ethiopians are too divided to close ranks against a perceived or real political force that could potentially wrought damage to the Ethiopian socio-political fabric. If this trend continues, Diaspora Ethiopians could play only a presumably peripheral role in Ethiopian politics. If at all, they will create an insuperable stumbling bloc to their seemingly vivacious “task force” mission and simply create havoc to the internal dynamics of their respective parties. Ethiopians must understand that it is in their best interest to unite their rank-and-files, confront the “political enemy” in unison and share the mammoth burden of development together. Only then could they make a major impact on contemporary Ethiopian politics and subsequently transform Ethiopia for the better.

In order to face the challenges of development, thus, Ethiopians must recognize at least the following:

That the theory and practice of development is stupendous; it is a multi-dimensional puzzle and requires methodological rigor coupled by intellectual acrobatics (if you will) that would, in turn, employ multivariate analysis. By this, I mean Ethiopian intellectuals who are committed to the development of Ethiopia must dissect and systematically analyze many independent variables that directly or indirectly affect the Ethiopian social and political milieu.
Once Ethiopians begin to “surgically operate” on their larger society with methodological rigor (and in method there is everything as Shakespeare said a long time ago) they must be able to discover, identify, and correctly interpret the puzzle pieces that affect present day Ethiopia.
In the development march, Ethiopians should harbor no illusion with respect to the unforgiving political landscape. Ironically, some Ethiopians who are benefiting from the status quo may resist change and transformation in order to maintain their vested interests, not the interest of their nation or their people. In light of this reality, thus, Ethiopians as a whole must exhibit altruism vis-à-vis murky waters and should not expect to mirror their development agenda in limpid waters.
Ethiopians also should not harbor illusion that the present government of Ethiopia will bring about fundamental change. Here a quick caveat is imperative: I am neither implying nor cynically suggesting that the current regime is neither interested nor engaged in change. I would argue, however, that the regime would not be able to transform Ethiopia given the condition of Ethiopia itself and the complex global scenario, which for the most part impedes rather than promotes development. I will extrapolate this in some detail later. In the meantime, I would like to urge Ethiopians (especially the professionals and intellectuals) to fill the gap where the government (the present and the future) is unable to do so.

Before we can answer questions surrounding development, we must first dispel misconceptions pertaining to the broader pattern of development and transformation. We must first recognize the absence of conducive climate for development in Africa that otherwise prevailed in Europe (incipient capitalism and beyond), Japan (the Meiji revolution of 1868), China (1949 to present), and South East Asia (the Tigers and other newly industrialized countries –NICs-). Inherent in all the above historical developments is the ‘locomotive of history’ that propelled the respective societies for transformation, a prime mover that served as an impetus for industrialization, in spite of cultural idiosyncrasies and different experiences. In brief, the collective leadership in the societies mentioned above was endowed not only with commitment and vision, but also most importantly with ‘transformative agency’. The latter important ingredient lacks in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa and has nothing to do with individuals but with historical and socioeconomic development, sometimes purely accidental.

The conceptual argument with respect to the lack of transformative agency does not automatically dismiss efforts made by a [the] government such as the EPRDF regime. The latter, in fact, has brought about some changes in infrastructure, rural electrification, and the creation of schools and higher institutions of learning. We cannot deny its achievement, but we are historically obliged to critique the overall condition of Ethiopia under EPRDF so that Ethiopia, in the long run, find herself on the right track and at least enable itself in catching with the NICs.

Now we must proceed in an effort to figure out how we can emulate the NICs and realize a transformative agency that can overhaul the Ethiopian economy in the 21^st century.

I have already discussed the question of the ‘developmental state’ or the ‘transformative agency’ in my review entitled Reflections on African Development: Dead Ends and New Beginnings (see www.africanidea.org/reflections_mz.html) and I will repeat myself here for the sake of reinforcing the essence of this article. In the Review, I stated, “The leitmotif of MZ’s thesis is paradigm shift from neo-liberal to a democratic developmental state.’ His work, by and large, favors government intervention in the economy and the prioritization of rural development. In the first part of Chapter I, thus, he argues, ‘government created rent does not necessarily have to be socially wasteful. It becomes wasteful only if solely self-interested maximizing individuals use it to create wealth at the expense of society and only if the state is incapable of improving on the market – i.e. there are no market failures.’ Well said, but there is a problem in terms of what currently plagues the African state. Out of the 53 African countries, it is believed that only 15 are relatively democratic and less corrupt. Actually the ‘self-interest maximizing individuals’ have virtually strangled the public purse, and thus the preponderance of the predatory state in Africa is not surprising. It has to be clear, however, that the ‘self-interested individual’ that catapulted the capitalist development in Europe is markedly different from the self-interested corrupt African officials. The former was essentially progressive (in light of overall historical development).”

It is based on my previous argument and rationale that I am now compelled to reason the absence of a transformative agency in Ethiopia. It goes without saying that there are some (perhaps very few) sincere elements in the EPRDF who could clearly envision the feasibility and impracticability of a developmental state. They are cognizant, I gather, of the prevalence of corrupt officials within the government who are taking advantage of the so-called ‘regional development’ in the context of globalization. They are also aware, I suspect, that aid extended by the industrialized nations and the financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF is systematically squandered by the same officials. The developmental state cannot be realized, let alone implement its programs, under such political morass. Given the political quagmire we are in, Ethiopian observers who critically examine the Ethiopian situation clearly understand why some progress could be achieved under the EPRDF and why revolutionary overhaul cannot take place. A good example of this scenario is the initial economic undertaking in regional states such as Tigray, Amhara, and Oromia. To be sure Mekelle, Bahirdar, and Nazareth have changed a lot and the rural area, as mentioned above, have witnessed electricity, but the development is not even and some are benefiting at the expense of others. Harar, for instance, has shown major change at the expense of Dire Dawa; the millionaires of Addis Ababa know it that their city is overcrowded with paupers, beggars, and millions of unemployed citizens; Awasa, the capital of Debub regional state, is perhaps one of the promising cities in Ethiopia and has changed incredibly but its own internal development has already been confronted by lack of vital goods and services such as sewage and garbage collection; the population of Addis Ababa has quadrupled in the last decade and the city has witnessed unparalleled pollution and congestion that could ultimately create havoc to the health of its residents (Asthma is rampant in Addis now); non-Ethiopians (ironically and curiously) are benefiting in commerce, trade, and the construction industry at the expense of Ethiopians. All these must change, but it can change only when fundamental change takes place and when Ethiopians collectively decide the fate of their country.

Development also cannot be realized in the absence of a peace dividend. Time and again, I have argued that peace is a precondition to development and it does not require a rocket scientist to figure out the inextricability of peace and development. Peace, in the Horn of Africa, however, is a rare commodity and as I write this essay it looks war is looming on the horizon. War ravaged countries may regress into the dustbin of history and may never witness the joy of prosperity and development.

Moreover, the absence of collective wisdom and input will seriously impede the development march in Ethiopia. Beyond ideological and party affiliation, the EPRDF government must, by dint of political fiat or by conscious deliverance, include the opposition and other Ethiopians, who can make a difference, in the decision making process and in the making of new and prosperous Ethiopia. Relevant to this stance of mine is the argument I have forwarded in the Review mentioned above and as it is quoted below:

“In the last fifteen years, I have argued all along that the EPRDF government needs to attract Ethiopian intellectuals and professionals and utilize their expertise and talent. So far, I have not witnessed the use of Ethiopian professionals en masse for nation building, notwithstanding the few and far in between favored officials that hold ministerial positions and other portfolios. If the Meles regime is indeed in favor of ‘educated and healthy workforce, world-class managers and professionals,’ it should openly extend its hands to all Ethiopians, especially those who are scattered all over the Diaspora. Irrespective of our differences and political inclinations, I personally like the government of Ethiopia to reach out fellow Ethiopians who are willing to contribute to the transformation of their country and the welfare of their people. I am making this kind of clarion call not for my own selfish interest, but for the sake of my beloved motherland.” (See www.africanidea.org/reflections_mz.html)

Given the above parameters and the global reality, therefore, the EPRDF, without diverting itself to the nuances of war economy, can make some reforms but could not transform Ethiopia to the level of the Tigers during its duration in power. Some of its reform could include the running of the educational sector by Ethiopians (as teachers and as administrators) and not by Indians and Nigerians although the latter could be used whenever the Ministry of Education deems it necessary. On top of this, the government must deliberately reallocate a portion of the defense budget for the sole purpose of eliminating famine once and for all. A big chunk of the national budget should also go to agriculture, health, and education. If these prerequisites are met, Ethiopia will elevate itself a little up the ladder and begin to escape from its current abject poverty, a noticeably lingering Ethiopian phenomenon. But, it will not uplift itself to the level of the NICs for obvious reasons I have underscored in this essay. Ethiopia may very well be the giant of Africa one day! Let the next generation of Ethiopians witness that reality and let history be the judge, but let us all chip in and pave the way toward that end.