PRESS ENCOUNTER WITH PM HIGHLIGHTS
DIRE NEED FOR NEW VISION FOR ETHIOPIA
By Genet Mersha | September 30, 2009
gone unnoticed. Owing to that, the prime minister has encumbered himself
with expectations.
People wonder whether he has a new vision for the country. No surprise, for
a while the foreign press also seemed unable to control their eagerness to learn
of the country’s prospects and future direction, if any. Clearly, they have been
looking for something huge from a person who could observe his quarter
century in power by 2015/16.
Hence, Ato Meles walked into pressroom in the afternoon of 16 September,
already his second encounter with the press in September alone and
suggested, “Shall we start!” As a person now empowered to look as far away
as seventy months at a glance, the gathering expected him to shed light on
everything. Whereas it is not easy to tell how much the press got, at least, the
prime minister was generous with his time, if not with his candour, patience
and the much-sought vision for the country that he has ruled with an iron hand
for the past eighteen years.
Consequently, a simple summary of that press conference is that there would
be no change in the coming seventy months in the politics, policies and
TPLF/EPRDF governance practices. In that sense, what the premier has put
on the table is more of the same, including his perspective on the 2010
election, which his party is certain to win, and in the politics and policies of
post-election Ethiopia that it would rule, possibly not with the same
undiminished authority and strength.
The only certainty is that there would be total cleansing of the house, with the
rise and fall of several individuals; at least he has confirmed that much. In brief,
the impression one can glean from the press is strong puzzlement why
government could not see the reality they observe daily both in the capital and
out there in the country. This became manifest subsequent to questioning by
the VOA and IPS journalists following their attempt to pin down his reaction
regarding the report of the International Crisis Group (ICG) (“Ethiopia:
Ethnic Federalism and Its Discontent).
Ambience, substance and expectations
In response to questions from local journalists and members of the foreign
press, the prime minister discussed extensively specific issues pertaining to
Ethiopian politics, the economy, peace and security in the Horn, and the
country’s relations with other countries, especially with the US. One could see
that Ato Meles was never short of answers, even when he had nothing new or
concrete to say.
Language and instinct have been his potent tools to gloss over knotty political
and economic problems or fend off slippery grounds. At times, he shot back
questions at his questioners, a case in point being the above-mentioned two
journalists, growling whether their points were a question or a debate in
response to their offer of examples to amplify their points. He cannot stand it
when his view is not taken as the last word, even if he has made habit of
repeating ad infinitum the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their own
opinion’. On September 16, he got away with shooting back questions on two
occasions jolting everyone in the room to subdued giggle realizing the brink
was closer than they thought.
His stamp of authority over press conference is usually characterized by
habitual resort to citing data. It gives him latitude to display authority, while
overstretching meaning and implications of subject under discussion. At times,
his world of cause-and-effect-relations seems narrower with his attribution of
all the ills of society to his opponents. To all of them, he appends a descriptive
suffix of sorts “and their international connections.’ This applies to the
opposition at home, the diaspora, insurgents and leftovers from the previous
regime and finally to poverty. It is a long list for political cleansing. All said and
done, however, Ato Meles has hardly come across as much as he would have
liked to show everything is under control, except that it is not.
This conclusion does not belie the importance of his bi-monthly press
conference. It has become an indispensable inlet into the thinking of the top
TPLF/EPRDF leadership and the policy directions of the government. In brief,
it is the best yardstick by which to gauge the thinking and actions of the
regime. It is also good indicator of how much the regime learns from time to
time and corrects its mistakes, although none is seen to date.
Unfortunately, in a country where division is deepening, poverty worsening
and popular disaffection too naked for evasion, it is never clear where one
policy measure begins and the other ends. Nor is there any indication, if at all
there are interconnections. Consequently, nowhere do the failures of
government, especially its lack of vision, become more apparent than in this bi-
weekly press conference, where even defensiveness lacks cover.
Admittedly, this article is sprinkled with a touch of frustration. This is because,
since the prime minister began this biweekly conclave with the media in late
March or so, there was hope that, at some point he would use it to articulate
coherent policy lines. There was also expectation that he would be compelled
to use it to convey policies and actions that would help or aim at breaking the
logjam in our complicated and dicey politics—the root of the country’s
journey to a political dead-end. In that sense, it is disappointing that the job of
his highly paid British media consultants is limited to designing propaganda, not
assisting the transformation of Ethiopia.
Let it be known, more than anything the nation is eager to see an end to the
worsening of human conditions, especially in times of high economic growth
and great achievements that government claims. One last hope now is that
government and its British consultants may summon courage and re-examine
steps taken so far in October in London in their mill of assessments against
benchmarks of progress and see things through their proper lights.
Among other things, the meeting would evaluate the impact of this new media
approach and chitchat over progress on the fashionable business reengineering
exercises. This latter one has become an end on its own, instead of a means to
an end. Nobody seems to give a hoot to outcome, for instance, in government
offices, it being an exercise divorced from the central concept of delegation of
authority and accountability at all levels within the bureaucracy and in
individual offices. Briefly put, the consequence is that, if the expected outcome
is efficiency, it is not showing. If it is accountability, it is non-existent. If it is
productivity, the wherewithals are lacking. What then is the value of such
forum, which only serves government to justify its policies, practices, likes and
dislikes? Mere empty propaganda to hungry people? The same doldrums to
the young aspiring to own their destiny?
The point here is that the nation is hungry for a new vision and a new
approach. The starting place is action and vision that would heal the
polarization that since 2005 has divided the country, thereby eroding the very
fabric of Ethiopian society, both at home and abroad in our communities. The
country has witnessed enough of the constant triumphalism of power in the
midst of overpowering fear, deepening national and political dissonance,
continued suppression of rights, organizational capriciousness and
fragmentation, recurring hunger, mass wretchedness, rising foreign and
domestic debt and desperation of the human person. The other side of this is
empowerment and enrichment for the politically well connected. A case in
point is made by the investment promotion video featuring an Ethiopian
American businessperson, who returned to the country after nearly three
decades now glorifying how efficient the Ethiopian system is to do business
with utmost speed if one has the right connection!
At this point, there is not evidence worth citing to highlight improvements in
human welfare and citizens’ sense of security. Foreign Minister Seyoum
Mesfin seems to be fully cognizant of that. However, his strategy is to look for
an untidy heap of justifications to exonerate government from its
responsibilities. Therefore, for the consumption of the 64th session of the
United Nations General Assembly, he has chosen to marshal a gamut of
excuses, as follows,
Inevitably, judgement gravitates towards the fact that not anyone side has won
in the past eighteen years. Much as important infrastructures are to the nation’
s development, the mere invocation of expansion of road networks, rising
buildings and the power projects in progress or number of schools have
proved inadequate to feed the constantly rising number of hungry people or
heal broken spirits and strengthen loosening ties. If infrastructures were the
only yardstick or goal in a political system, capitalism with its efficiency and
immense creativity would have not been accused of disregard for human
conditions.
On the other side of the equation, listen to Robert Mugabe’s jabberwocky on
CNN’s Amanpour that was re-broadcasted on 27 September. Mr. Mugabe
shamelessly prides himself with the success of his democracy, human liberation
and increased food production, in a nation where his rule cannot accept
election results. The country has been known for some time now for record
holding hyperinflation since the French Revolution, societal disintegration, for
his rule repression and the squalor he has forced on the people and the evil
that pushed that wonderful country closer to the gates of hell.
In fact, it should not come as a surprise that Ethiopians are now asking why so
many of the successes the TPLF/EPRDF has been claiming have not touched
their lives. It is human to wonder why so much folly and unrewarding toils!
The signs are that, not far is the moment of reckoning when the search for a
new vision that would put citizens and the country’s interests first becomes
everyone’s preoccupation. That is the only thing that would redefine politics in
a healthy way. Going forward, it would render governance and institutions
responsible, honest and interactive, and efforts toward national development
everyone’s responsibility. Perhaps in most unexpected ways, this forthcoming
election may send the right message to the people.
This writer is convinced that only government is better placed to get the ball
rolling in that healthy direction, lest the alternative is unthinkable. If there is
political will, everything is possible. If not, consider an over-loaded train
heading downhill in the example of the following…
Government would treat the 2010 election much in the same
way as it did in 2005
It is understood that the forthcoming election has already become a topic of
serious conversations between Ethiopia and other governments. It is a sign of
the international community’s concerns whether this time around Ethiopia
could pull it off by organizing a truly free and fair election and reap its benefits.
That concern is getting stronger, as the time draws closer. The haggling over
everything is just beginning, especially whether to open up public space that is
now taking toll, casting more doubts by the day. Everything, literally
everything, including presence of foreign observers, which government is
itching to pick and choose in its own way, is likely to drag the process further.
What government does is to distract attention from the substantive issues of
the economy, democracy, social issues and peace and security.
of the questions that were asked in the September 16 press conference and
are of interest to Ethiopians and the international community have not been
answered.
The interest of Ethiopia’s friends can be gauged by the vast increases in the
last three years in their funding of research to election-related issues, especially
in countries of the Horn. Unlike before, two specific reasons drive interest
why the international community should pay serious attention to the
organization and conduct of free and fair election in Ethiopia in 2010.
The first is the desire to see how much the government they have been bailing
out has learnt from its mistakes in the 2005 election. It would be recalled that
that election had been cause for the loss of hundreds of young lives throughout
the country. Tortures have been inflicted on survivors, long prison sentences
imposed on many, some of whom, such as Judge Birtukan Mideksa, continue
to languish in prison to this day. Equally destructive has been the ensuing
polarization of Ethiopian politics, which to date, without a doubt, has
hampered national consensus, trust, and confidence in government. Not a
single individual, officials or institutions have been held accountable for this
horrendous crime—not by the national courts and not by the highly politicized
system of international crime. For Ethiopia’s partners, this press conference
has afforded them opportunity to see if government is moving in respect of
democracy from words to practice.
Moreover, implications of the election related problems are not limited to one
area or Ethiopia and Ethiopians alone. The international community has shared
with us, and is continuing to do so, by providing funds to help reform
institutions for better governance as basis for democracy, although entrenched
interests have hijacked the processes and the outcomes. Through the
provision of project and ‘indirect budgetary support,’ efforts have been
underway to help flicker in the country the distant rays of democracy.
The World Bank’s Protection of Basic Services (PBS) was borne as a
response of many bilateral donors through multilateral channels to minimize the
fallout of the election, which today has become a significant part of regional
budgets. PBS goals have been to scrape off impenetrable poverty and its
disabling conditions, even though most of the beneficiaries are government
sponsored civil societies. The funds were provided against the backdrop of
disruption of governmental activities and aid flows on account of state violence
and fraudulent practices during the election that forced some donors to
withhold temporarily direct budget support.
It did not stop there. Many partner countries have also opened their doors for
several hundreds of Ethiopian refugees. Many fled their country fearing for
their lives owing to election-related violence and/or political vendetta and
disruptions of life. In spite of all these efforts, five years later much of the tide
has not been reversed, as Ethiopians continue to flee their country and
distance themselves from government.
A journalist raised the question of protests and violence control during the
forthcoming election. The prime minister’s response was a firm no; it would
not repeat. He based his assumption on the adequacy of preparation of law
enforcement officials and equipment and gears provided. Even then, while the
admission of guilt is evident, the ambivalence of this response is unmistakable.
The said preparation and control seems to portray violence as single
directional, as if the only culprit in town is the opposition. One can assume that
this time around the state and the ruling party could keep in check the security
forces by not giving them the shoot to kill order, as they did last time. Recall in
this connection that, in the morrow of the 2005 election, the prime minister
told President Carter that he would not be in any position to control his own
supporters if rallies and demonstrations were permitted, according to Mr.
Carter’s interview in Addis Ababa after talking to Ato Meles. Therefore,
downplaying the politics of violence now by zealous state and regional actors
and ruling party activists may be analogous to an encouragement given by an
owner of recently acquired wild lion to a neighbour not to worry or be afraid
of the beast.
The second reason for the focus of international attention on the coming
election is the very scrutiny invited by the prime minister’s ascendance on the
global scene to advocate justice for Africa. For many, the prism they hate to
part with is the hard and fast rule that charity begins at home. Hence, there
would be many taxpayers in the international community that would pressure
their governments to ensure that the prime minister dispenses justice to his
people.
They expect him to create conditions for the full exercise by citizens of rights
and freedoms to form a government of their choosing. In translation, this
means, the ruling party needs to go beyond the cosmetics and learn to desist
from detracting its opponents’ legal activities, or pressure the electorate by
threatening to withhold entitlements such as food rations, or endanger their
jobs, if they do not vote for it.
Government-Opposition blames and counter-blames risk
relegating country’s interests
For the first time in his political career, Ato Meles acknowledged that the
much-publicized disruption of meetings of one of the major opposition parties
in August in Adama was the work of members of his party. In that connection,
he pledged that it would not repeat. It does not matter whether the impetus for
his response comes from the wide dissemination of the typicality of the crime
or the fear of it being evidence of the shadows threatening the coming election.
Irrespective of what compelled him to step up to the plate, it is an encouraging
step. Unfortunately, even following this latest press conference, the opposition
have been crying foul louder. They say the government is continuing its usual
practice of arresting opposition members, especially promising candidates.
Already at the press conference, a thing or two were clear. Despite this
positive step regarding harassment, the danger cannot be glossed over, if the
pledge by the prime minister becomes no different from cherry picking of
violations/crimes. In other words, what experience is showing is the fact that
government/ruling party do not lift finger to stop many other violations/crimes
in different parts of the country. For the next several months, the standard of
denial would be to remind the nation at every turn, ‘you know it, and we take
actions, as we did in the Adama case.’ For many, this pretence brings to
memory Robert Mugabe/MDC’s unity government, which has set Mugabe
free to reduce MDC’s majority in parliament by throwing some of its
members in Harare prisons. In Ethiopia’s case, this latest charge by the
opposition now stands as a test of the prime minister’s pledge to end all
harassments by members of his party.
Do the opposition tell lies, for instance, when they claim now 480 opposition
members have been arrested? If so, government has the opportunity now to
prove its innocence. The onus is on it to come out with evidences showing the
said individuals are not in its custody. Ato Gebru Asrat, Chairman of the
Forum for Democratic Dialogue in Ethiopia (FDDE), told the Sudan Times
on 23 September, “As of today our party has received a list of 250 opposition
members jailed in Oromyia region and another 230 in the Amhara region.” It
is implied that the arrests are aimed partly to intimidate voters and partly to
disable opposition parties. A new element now is its use to pressure the
opposition to drop their demand to include other issues in the negotiations on
the code of conduct. The ruling party sees a major pitfall in that.
What is the ruling party’s argument? That very question was presented to the
prime minister during the press conference. However, in his response he chose
to focus mostly on the independence of the election commission and neutrality
of the nine members that he picked out of the 25 on whom, he said, all sides
have agreed. He then proceeded to dismissing the opposition as motley of
Mengistu loyalists pointing thereon a finger at their “international connections”,
which he did not elaborate. Briefly, his response on the matter is, “Those
parties that are apparently concerned about harassment are not concerned
enough to participate in devising that code of conduct, which is designed to
put an end to it if it exists or prevent it from happening. My feeling is that the
intent of some of these individuals is not to contest and participate in any
meaningful way in the election, but to try and discredit the election process
form the start.” This is the true predictor of the fate of the forthcoming election.
The opposition countered that by saying they do not see a meaningful outcome
of the negotiations on the code of conduct, as proposed by the ruling party.
They want the inclusion of issues of freedom of expression and movement to
campaign around the country without fear, restrictions or attacks and stress
the need to end intervention by security forces in election-related matters.
What is the government’s problem here?
Already even foreign and Ethiopia observers have foreseen such problems the
opposition claim. For instance, the ICG report worries, “The next federal and
regional elections, scheduled for June 2010, most probably will be much more
contentious, as numerous opposition parties are preparing to challenge the
EPRDF, which is likely to continue to use its political machine to retain its
position.” This has infuriated government, since it came from the ICG. No
wonder, government is now determined to present it to the people as posing a
threat to the country. In truth, a number of Ethiopian experts have also argued
in the same tone. To date, that has remained their point of separation from
government position.
Those in power need to realize that continuation of such practices and political
shenanigans would not serve the interests of the ruling party itself. This is more
so especially if they are serious about the goal of the next election being free
from intimidation and harassment and if they want to convince the Ethiopian
people and the world community its conduct is on a level playing field. If at all,
the basis of availing justice to all those in need of it is guided by some cherry
picking of harassment to expose and harassment to close eyes to, it would
backfire. This in view, it is up to government to reassure the nation with
concrete actions that it need not surrender to fears carried forward from 2005
or question whether the country is ready for fair and free election. People
need reassurance and encouragement that they should vote for their own
individual interests.
Is Ato Meles’s confidence about the economy warranted, or
a permanent election ploy?
The prime minister exudes optimism about the Ethiopian economy, although
reality and many citizens and foreign observers do not agree with his
assessment. As far as citizens are concerned, in the past government pledges
and statistics have promised them the sky and the moon, even when inflation
has been in double-digits for over two years now, food prices are
skyrocketing and the danger of drought has been imminent and crushing. For
fact check, look around to see what the common person is confronted with on
a daily basis.
Ato Meles is now claiming that, at its worst, the economy would grow in
2008/09 by 9.2 percent, if not 10.2 percent. The question why economic
growth numbers are barely impacted by the huge number of adverse factors
the country keeps on experiencing, especially in the last eighteen months, is
becoming a miracle of epic proportions. Ominously, poverty alleviation is no
longer government priority, the evidence of which is its rampant increase in
both rural and urban areas. In a country with high unemployment, many
people have already lost their jobs. Drought is ravaging parts of the country.
More people are turning to begging, while the number of food aid dependent
has increased significantly, although government does not admit it.
Disruption of power supplies has disabled many enterprises. Even when
power is available, most factories and industries operated at less than fifty-
seven percent capacity, by admission of government statistics. Bankruptcy-
related impoundment of properties by banks has increased and the sales of
seized properties have become new sources of enrichment to those connected
politically and by other ties. At the same time, the infant manufacturing sector
has been the worst hit by the lack of operating capital, foreign exchange and
entanglement by back taxes that government is now demanding prompt
payment.
The country’s exports have been hit hard, the evidence of which is the terrible
foreign exchange shortages that had shaken even the prime minister, forcing
him to take possession of the properties of some coffee exporters. In a
number of speeches and press conferences, he spoke clearly that the country
was in crises. Not so much comforting to the premier, but his Minister of
Trade and Industry Girma Biru by the end of May reported that Ethiopia
would face a shortfall of a billion dollars in 2009, out of its targeted $2.5
billion in export revenues. The interesting part of this story is the inability of
government to control imports, which have grown four-fold.
On top of that, Ethiopia has been arming itself for possible war in the north.
Since its withdrawal from Somalia, it has been carrying out intermittent
missions into that country. For several years now, lack of political settlement
for the conflict in the Ogaden and the insurgency in Oromia has hardly silenced
Ethiopian guns. All the weapons used in these theatres are imported with
scarce foreign exchange. Even US military support is counted as foreign aid.
Ethiopia is an agricultural country, although through the years it has remained
net food importer. The question then is how is it that not any of these negative
factors have any implications on the country’s GDP growth, I mean, GDP
growth figures?
Let us say, the prime minister is right. However, what is the meaning of high
GDP figures when even civil servants find it increasingly difficult to support
themselves and their families? It is good that there is growth, roads are being
built and power generation installations are creeping up. Nevertheless, the
lives of ordinary people are becoming more and more unbearable. How could
the regime see criticism of its neglect of the immediate needs of the people as
politically and ethnically motivated hostility? This is not to deny the
intractability of the problem. Nonetheless, why is corruption rampant amongst
those in its ranks? Why is it that some or most of its agencies and officials are
incapable of delivering? Is it not time to see the need for change of policies?
In this connection, it is instructive to recall, what Mahbub ul Haq, the
respected Pakistani economist, wrote in 1971, “We were taught to take care
of our GNP as this take care of poverty. Let us reverse this and take care of
poverty as this will take care of the GNP.” Nearly forty years later, several
mainstream economists have now turned in droves to the truism of Haq, Sen
and many visionary human beings. Just in the past week or so, it was headline
news when Joseph Stiglitz urged the abandonment of “GDP fetishism”
(Economist, Sept 25). He articulated this view speaking in his capacity as
chair of the commission President Sarkozi appointed to look into
Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. The
commission, composed of 25 prominent social scientists, several of them
Nobel Prize winners, emphasized in its report,
The question to the prime minister now is why does the IMF not share his
optimism? If indeed it is sympathetic, its latest report does not show it, not for
now, not even beyond 2012. It writes,
As regards, foreign reserves, Ato Meles is saying, “there is adequate room for
optimism.” Elementary economics would have liked this optimism to be based
on the country’s capacity to produce for its imports and earn the requisite
foreign exchange. Ethiopia’s foreign exchange level now shows some
improvement. This is not because of new earning capacity in the country, but
because the funds provided in the form of aid and some of the grants are
deposited in the National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE). Of course, there is nothing
wrong with that as short-term strategy to ameliorate crunches in times of low
international reserves or in the face of aid inflow volatility.
In the past, reviews were undertaken in the international financial institutions to
see the implications of aid on developing countries. In the case of Ethiopia,
similar study was carried out in 2004 recommending improvements in trade
policies, strengthening legal and regulatory environment, institutions, and trade-
facilitation services, in order to encourage greater integration into the world
economy and increased foreign direct investment (IMF, Projecting the
Impact of Increased Aid on Economic Growth). The report’s conclusion is,”
Resource windfalls in developing countries can lead to a dissipation of
resource wealth and even negative growth [without such measures]. This
reinforces the importance of aid being delivered within a policy framework
supportive of the efficient use of the additional resources.” In the current
Ethiopian economic environment, it is less likely that these conditions have
been fulfilled. Nevertheless, temporarily the IMF may see advantages on the
limits forced on imports and expansion of government expenditures and taxes
not being lowered. Given the reality of deteriorating human conditions in the
country, however, either hording aid money, grants or loans in the national
bank is a solution for the long run, since the country’s ability to tackle poverty
with economic expansion is completely curtailed.
The prime minister has asserted in the press conference that by the end of the
year inflation would go down to single digit. In other words, he has taken it
upon himself to extend the time from July, in his earlier forecast, to end of the
year now! So what even if it goes down in the current policy environment?
Furthermore, he claimed that, other than coffee growing areas, the prospects
of the rainy season is good and that there would be higher agricultural
production. Is the meaning of this, according to that forecast, the country
would see another year or two of terrible decline in coffee exports and further
foreign exchange squeeze?
Is this all a sign of policy haziness, problem of communication or constancy of
the country’s reality, or evidence of EPRDF’s failure? I fear that, every time
the government resorts to unspooling the oft-cited GDP data in the midst of
such terrible declines, it may be stocking the wrath of the people the
consequences of which cannot be predicted.
Prime minister resorts to dismissal of opponents, instead of
battling their ideas
There has always been tension between Ethiopia and the ICG. This is because
the government sees the ICG as pain on its neck, or, at its worst, as Eritrea’s
agent. However, portraying it as Ethiopia’s enemy is a gross
misrepresentation. The fact of the matter is that the ICG’s job is to follow and
report on causes of conflicts and dangerous tension spots. Thus, in the case of
Ethiopia it has focussed on the democratization processes in the country, the
2005 election, the war with Eritrea, the invasion of Somalia and relations with
the Sudan.
The reports on those issues were not without merit, although government does
not agree with them. For instance, ICG was one of the first international
entities to express disapproval of Ethiopia’s intervention in Somalia. Its
experts testified in the US Senate holding that view. They criticized the Bush
Administration for egging on the country into invasion.
In its report of last February, in article entitled "Somalia's Slim Hope", ICG
wrote,
Is not this borne out by the reality we now know? Surprisingly, the charge and
pillory the prime minister has heaped on the ICG during the press conference
began with the words it “has cried wolf once too much against Ethiopia.” Ato
Meles tried his best to portray the Group as Ethiopia’s enemy, instead of
addressing himself to substantive issues by isolating things that he thinks are
wrong or false in the current report. He accused the Group of being
determined “to pursue its objective of undermining alternatives to the paradigm
its financiers are hell-bent on imposing on everybody.” Even this, he tried to
exploit to rally other developing countries to his cause. So much for
TPLF/EPRDF diplomacy!
What is not clear is which financiers are hell-bent on undermining his
government? For all we know, he is enjoying the support of most of the
Western world as well as China and India.
The prime minister could have come across better by refuting the report on
factual and intellectual grounds. Sadly, he preferred to engage in hostility and
ad hominem, that has taken too much from him as head of government. What
was under attack was not only the report, but also the institution, for that
matter on erroneous information. As if Ethiopia’s own colossal and
multifaceted problems are not enough, the fact that Ethiopia’s leader chose to
invite the ill will of those many international opinion-shaping personages is
unfortunate. Clearly, this does not serve the interests of the country nor reflect
on him positively as leader of the country. Ethiopia needs more friends today
than enemies, especially out of people who are known to harbour no bad
intentions towards the Ethiopian people.
ICG’s funding sources
As to the ICG’s funding sources, the prime minister has it wrong from A to Z.
He may not have been informed or perhaps considers sixteen foreign
ministries as mercenary of sorts—12 of them from Europe, one from North
America, two from Middle East and one from Asia. They were amongst ICG’
s funding sources for 2008-2009. Moreover, nine development agencies of
partner countries that support Ethiopia’s development efforts have funded the
ICG in 2008-2009. In addition, twenty-five international foundations, some of
which have dealings with his government have funded operations of the Group
during the same period.
The ICG board is comprised of important personages with significant
influences in global affairs. In both the past and the present, many of them
have been known as good friends of Ethiopia, irrespective of type of
government, including for their sympathy toward the TPLF in its humble days
in the trenches. Ato Meles dismissed their report as not being worth the cost
of the paper on which it is printed. Interestingly, by his own admission, he has
not even read it. What this harsh and hotheaded judgement has done is a great
disservice to the country’s interests.
It is important to say that many find the report’s assessment realistic in many
areas. It does not mean everything is right. Surely, the ICG view of linking
election and conflict may be exaggerated. Even then, it should not have
invoked such vehemence. After all, was the prime minister not in a similar state
of mind especially between February and April when the country’s exports
crumbled and the national bank’s vault was naked?
Recall that in early May he told Africa Confidential about the worrisome link
between the country’s economic performance and the danger to a peaceful
election. That open concern or admission of serious challenge is the first of its
kind I know from his regime. Bearing this in mind, what is wrong if the ICG
reached the same conclusion the prime minister had spoken publicly when
international reserves dwindled to a few million dollars for six weeks? It
should not go without being said that, what the ICG report highlights, is
continuing concerns of the Ethiopian people.
Ato Meles is not concerned, as he makes us believe, about ICG’s financing
sources or its mission, or the alleged Eritrean influence being politically and
morally repugnant. To him, indeed it is the conclusion of the report about the
forthcoming election that got his government hitting the roof. In a statement
attacking the ICG, the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry has revealed what is
troubling the government, as follows.
Help me out here! What is wrong, if the ICG calls for power sharing between
government and the opposition in a country where political polarization and
repression is cutting society asunder? Government could have simply
dismissed the report making seasoned arguments, if it has one. In the
circumstances, it has forced upon itself the speculation what spooked Ato
Meles and his foreign minister is ICG’s revelation of TPLF’s unyielding
determination to monopolize power in Ethiopia. Of that, counselled by
experience, the ICG writes the truism, with which every Ethiopian agrees, as
follows,
Move beyond blame to a new vision
The Ethiopian government gives the impression of being persecuted by the
ICG. If at all it is, it could have ended it by turning its attention inward and
addressing its problems with a new vision. Unfortunately, the government is
bent on exploiting the fear of terrorism, the crises in Somalia and Sudan to put
itself as an intermediary and peacemaker in the like of Egypt in the Middle
East, which commands a lot of influence and the foreign financing this brings
along. Ethiopia hopes to replicate that in the Horn of Africa. This posture
would help the government to put the ring on the nose of the international
community as the indispensable peacemaker and terrorism fighter. Review
carefully, what Ato Seyoum Mesfin told the General Assembly a few days ago,
If the threat of conflicts in Ethiopia itself is a lie, consider the following. In
submitting performance report his office on 12 June, Commissioner Workineh
Gebeyehu, chief of the federal police, informed parliament that within ten
months of fiscal year 2008/2009 (six months already in 2009), twelve ethnic
conflicts had taken place in different parts of the country and hundreds of
people, including policemen, had died. Not only this, on 13 July 2009, the
Ministry of Federal Affairs issued a statement informing the public that in a
country that has passed through centuries of religious tolerance, religious
conflicts are now threatening public safety and order. Many such conflicts
have claimed several lives in different parts of the country. Why the need then
for vain attempts to block efforts [if indeed it could] to report on such
worrisome signs that experts see as telltale signs of future conflicts.
Uniquely troubling is the question the prime minister has not elaborated; this is
why the ICG should want to undermine the unity and stability of Ethiopia.
Why would members of the board, as responsible international citizens that
are responsible for the publication appearing in their names, look for handouts
least of all from Eritrea or some millionaires who could not find good cause or
a place to park their millions? Are not some of them partners in foundations
that provide funding to the Ethiopian Ministry of Health to help in the fight
against malaria and early childhood diseases?
No doubt, all said and done, they would come back and say this article is a
defence of the ICG report or the organization. Rest assured it is not. I am
reading the facts, analyzing them, and agreeing where they have addressed the
problems and disagreeing where I find nonsense conclusions. Read for
instance the following.
Since it is true, I agree with the first two sentences above. However, I find
troubling their build up to a conclusion in the third sentence that the 2005
election crisis has to do with ethno-nationalist rebellion. By extension, the
implication is that the next election would be marred by ethno-nationalist
rebellion. I do not agree with that. It is a false early warning that misreads the
situation. It is possible that fury of the people may get a chance to express
itself, especially if something unjust happens during the election. Moreover,
that sentence would also contradict ICG’s own reading of the situation,
wherein it has stated in the same report,
In the light of this, Ato Meles should realize that to date his entire approach to
politics is dictated by self-interest, showing serious shortcoming. It is time he
became willing to articulate a new vision for the country, instead of aiming all
the time at escape goats for all his policy-induced problems.
Conclusion
The time is calling for a new vision. That must be a vision that helps cast fear
out of the lives of the people and help them focus on their daily lives in
freedom and dignity. Only free people know how to express freely what they
need and go about getting it. So far, the past eighteen years of Ato Meles
have only shown preference to imposing fear that has been stifling citizens. If
the problems of democratization of the country were dealt politically, aiming at
building national consensus, today things would have been much different and
easier. The country would have been in a better position to ensure its stability
without terrorizing citizens and impairing national development with wrong
policies.
TPLF/EPRDF has now lifted itself to a status of OPEN SOCIETY! If true,
government dedicated to the cause of the people should not be intimidated by
them. It should have no interest in suppressing the fundamental human rights of
the people that already are recognized by the country’s constitution. Judges
need to be able to practice their profession in line with the constitution to
afford justice to the common person, ensue full respect to fundamental human
rights and civil liberties. The country needs a new beginning with no political
prisoners. There are no better actions than these to mobilize Ethiopians
toward a new vision and a common goal of national salvation. Only a
government with a new vision could take Ethiopia along such a dignified path.
Anyone side rejecting this does it at its own peril. Ethiopians, both at home
and abroad, are tired of the endless accusations and senseless blame games
sand counter-blames that have proved sterile through and through. What is
astonishing is, in spite of all its actions and restrictive legislations, the
government has not become the winner, although it continues to hold onto
power by the force of arms, imprisonment and disappearances and heightened
militarization of civil society and, at times, bribery to ensure maintenance of the
status quo.
Admittedly, in view of the country’s stubborn problems of human and
institutional deficiencies, the task is not easy for any government. However,
anyone with a better vision and willingness can change the direction of history
in Ethiopia and help improve the lives of our citizens. All that it takes is winning
the hearts, minds and respect of all the people with a newer and better vision.
I decided to write this piece, not to accuse the government or disparage its
politics or policies. I felt a few things needed to be said now, especially after I
watched video of the 16 September press conference by the prime minister.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to speak truth to power to encourage
introspection and rational thinking to help common sense to prevail.
In the months ahead, the country heads into another difficult chapter, not in
terms of the fait accompli, but in search of meaning and more answers, better
wisdom and a new vision to a challenging future. The prevailing policy and
mindset has no place, given the changes in public thinking that has clearly
shown its disaffection. Order is borne of disorder and, it seems now, the
international political and economic environment is favourable for that change
the people are seeking in earnest.
DIRE NEED FOR NEW VISION FOR ETHIOPIA
By Genet Mersha | September 30, 2009
- In the wake of his ‘involuntary
anointment’ as chief executive of the
state and the ruling party, Prime
Minister Meles Zenawi has once again
shifted to a high gear with a new five-
year term securely under his belt.
Although his decision was not
unexpected, the 360 degrees shift of
from the spring, winter, summer and
gone unnoticed. Owing to that, the prime minister has encumbered himself
with expectations.
People wonder whether he has a new vision for the country. No surprise, for
a while the foreign press also seemed unable to control their eagerness to learn
of the country’s prospects and future direction, if any. Clearly, they have been
looking for something huge from a person who could observe his quarter
century in power by 2015/16.
Hence, Ato Meles walked into pressroom in the afternoon of 16 September,
already his second encounter with the press in September alone and
suggested, “Shall we start!” As a person now empowered to look as far away
as seventy months at a glance, the gathering expected him to shed light on
everything. Whereas it is not easy to tell how much the press got, at least, the
prime minister was generous with his time, if not with his candour, patience
and the much-sought vision for the country that he has ruled with an iron hand
for the past eighteen years.
Consequently, a simple summary of that press conference is that there would
be no change in the coming seventy months in the politics, policies and
TPLF/EPRDF governance practices. In that sense, what the premier has put
on the table is more of the same, including his perspective on the 2010
election, which his party is certain to win, and in the politics and policies of
post-election Ethiopia that it would rule, possibly not with the same
undiminished authority and strength.
The only certainty is that there would be total cleansing of the house, with the
rise and fall of several individuals; at least he has confirmed that much. In brief,
the impression one can glean from the press is strong puzzlement why
government could not see the reality they observe daily both in the capital and
out there in the country. This became manifest subsequent to questioning by
the VOA and IPS journalists following their attempt to pin down his reaction
regarding the report of the International Crisis Group (ICG) (“Ethiopia:
Ethnic Federalism and Its Discontent).
Ambience, substance and expectations
In response to questions from local journalists and members of the foreign
press, the prime minister discussed extensively specific issues pertaining to
Ethiopian politics, the economy, peace and security in the Horn, and the
country’s relations with other countries, especially with the US. One could see
that Ato Meles was never short of answers, even when he had nothing new or
concrete to say.
Language and instinct have been his potent tools to gloss over knotty political
and economic problems or fend off slippery grounds. At times, he shot back
questions at his questioners, a case in point being the above-mentioned two
journalists, growling whether their points were a question or a debate in
response to their offer of examples to amplify their points. He cannot stand it
when his view is not taken as the last word, even if he has made habit of
repeating ad infinitum the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their own
opinion’. On September 16, he got away with shooting back questions on two
occasions jolting everyone in the room to subdued giggle realizing the brink
was closer than they thought.
His stamp of authority over press conference is usually characterized by
habitual resort to citing data. It gives him latitude to display authority, while
overstretching meaning and implications of subject under discussion. At times,
his world of cause-and-effect-relations seems narrower with his attribution of
all the ills of society to his opponents. To all of them, he appends a descriptive
suffix of sorts “and their international connections.’ This applies to the
opposition at home, the diaspora, insurgents and leftovers from the previous
regime and finally to poverty. It is a long list for political cleansing. All said and
done, however, Ato Meles has hardly come across as much as he would have
liked to show everything is under control, except that it is not.
This conclusion does not belie the importance of his bi-monthly press
conference. It has become an indispensable inlet into the thinking of the top
TPLF/EPRDF leadership and the policy directions of the government. In brief,
it is the best yardstick by which to gauge the thinking and actions of the
regime. It is also good indicator of how much the regime learns from time to
time and corrects its mistakes, although none is seen to date.
Unfortunately, in a country where division is deepening, poverty worsening
and popular disaffection too naked for evasion, it is never clear where one
policy measure begins and the other ends. Nor is there any indication, if at all
there are interconnections. Consequently, nowhere do the failures of
government, especially its lack of vision, become more apparent than in this bi-
weekly press conference, where even defensiveness lacks cover.
Admittedly, this article is sprinkled with a touch of frustration. This is because,
since the prime minister began this biweekly conclave with the media in late
March or so, there was hope that, at some point he would use it to articulate
coherent policy lines. There was also expectation that he would be compelled
to use it to convey policies and actions that would help or aim at breaking the
logjam in our complicated and dicey politics—the root of the country’s
journey to a political dead-end. In that sense, it is disappointing that the job of
his highly paid British media consultants is limited to designing propaganda, not
assisting the transformation of Ethiopia.
Let it be known, more than anything the nation is eager to see an end to the
worsening of human conditions, especially in times of high economic growth
and great achievements that government claims. One last hope now is that
government and its British consultants may summon courage and re-examine
steps taken so far in October in London in their mill of assessments against
benchmarks of progress and see things through their proper lights.
Among other things, the meeting would evaluate the impact of this new media
approach and chitchat over progress on the fashionable business reengineering
exercises. This latter one has become an end on its own, instead of a means to
an end. Nobody seems to give a hoot to outcome, for instance, in government
offices, it being an exercise divorced from the central concept of delegation of
authority and accountability at all levels within the bureaucracy and in
individual offices. Briefly put, the consequence is that, if the expected outcome
is efficiency, it is not showing. If it is accountability, it is non-existent. If it is
productivity, the wherewithals are lacking. What then is the value of such
forum, which only serves government to justify its policies, practices, likes and
dislikes? Mere empty propaganda to hungry people? The same doldrums to
the young aspiring to own their destiny?
The point here is that the nation is hungry for a new vision and a new
approach. The starting place is action and vision that would heal the
polarization that since 2005 has divided the country, thereby eroding the very
fabric of Ethiopian society, both at home and abroad in our communities. The
country has witnessed enough of the constant triumphalism of power in the
midst of overpowering fear, deepening national and political dissonance,
continued suppression of rights, organizational capriciousness and
fragmentation, recurring hunger, mass wretchedness, rising foreign and
domestic debt and desperation of the human person. The other side of this is
empowerment and enrichment for the politically well connected. A case in
point is made by the investment promotion video featuring an Ethiopian
American businessperson, who returned to the country after nearly three
decades now glorifying how efficient the Ethiopian system is to do business
with utmost speed if one has the right connection!
At this point, there is not evidence worth citing to highlight improvements in
human welfare and citizens’ sense of security. Foreign Minister Seyoum
Mesfin seems to be fully cognizant of that. However, his strategy is to look for
an untidy heap of justifications to exonerate government from its
responsibilities. Therefore, for the consumption of the 64th session of the
United Nations General Assembly, he has chosen to marshal a gamut of
excuses, as follows,
- We have had Mr. President, yet another challenge to our development and
to the effort we have been making to deepen the process of democratization
in our country over the last eighteen years. This has to do with the less than
conducive international economic, and, I might add, political environment
that we have to operate within. What we have faced, on both scores,
economic and political, has been lack of tolerance to diversity, to policy-
space experimentation and to independent thinking. Unjustified
conditionalties abounded, both for economic and political reasons, either
because of objectives growing out of market fundamentalism or because
we dared defend ourselves against unjustified aggression. Ethiopia’s first
real attempt at economic development coincided with the period when
market orthodoxy made the role of the state anathema.
Inevitably, judgement gravitates towards the fact that not anyone side has won
in the past eighteen years. Much as important infrastructures are to the nation’
s development, the mere invocation of expansion of road networks, rising
buildings and the power projects in progress or number of schools have
proved inadequate to feed the constantly rising number of hungry people or
heal broken spirits and strengthen loosening ties. If infrastructures were the
only yardstick or goal in a political system, capitalism with its efficiency and
immense creativity would have not been accused of disregard for human
conditions.
On the other side of the equation, listen to Robert Mugabe’s jabberwocky on
CNN’s Amanpour that was re-broadcasted on 27 September. Mr. Mugabe
shamelessly prides himself with the success of his democracy, human liberation
and increased food production, in a nation where his rule cannot accept
election results. The country has been known for some time now for record
holding hyperinflation since the French Revolution, societal disintegration, for
his rule repression and the squalor he has forced on the people and the evil
that pushed that wonderful country closer to the gates of hell.
In fact, it should not come as a surprise that Ethiopians are now asking why so
many of the successes the TPLF/EPRDF has been claiming have not touched
their lives. It is human to wonder why so much folly and unrewarding toils!
The signs are that, not far is the moment of reckoning when the search for a
new vision that would put citizens and the country’s interests first becomes
everyone’s preoccupation. That is the only thing that would redefine politics in
a healthy way. Going forward, it would render governance and institutions
responsible, honest and interactive, and efforts toward national development
everyone’s responsibility. Perhaps in most unexpected ways, this forthcoming
election may send the right message to the people.
This writer is convinced that only government is better placed to get the ball
rolling in that healthy direction, lest the alternative is unthinkable. If there is
political will, everything is possible. If not, consider an over-loaded train
heading downhill in the example of the following…
Government would treat the 2010 election much in the same
way as it did in 2005
It is understood that the forthcoming election has already become a topic of
serious conversations between Ethiopia and other governments. It is a sign of
the international community’s concerns whether this time around Ethiopia
could pull it off by organizing a truly free and fair election and reap its benefits.
That concern is getting stronger, as the time draws closer. The haggling over
everything is just beginning, especially whether to open up public space that is
now taking toll, casting more doubts by the day. Everything, literally
everything, including presence of foreign observers, which government is
itching to pick and choose in its own way, is likely to drag the process further.
What government does is to distract attention from the substantive issues of
the economy, democracy, social issues and peace and security.
- Recognizing that, the
government conversation
has become full of
promises for fair and
free election. At the
same time, as signal to
foreign observers,
especially the prime
minister of late has
ratcheted up attacks on
alleged foreign
interference in the
internal affairs of the
country.
of the questions that were asked in the September 16 press conference and
are of interest to Ethiopians and the international community have not been
answered.
The interest of Ethiopia’s friends can be gauged by the vast increases in the
last three years in their funding of research to election-related issues, especially
in countries of the Horn. Unlike before, two specific reasons drive interest
why the international community should pay serious attention to the
organization and conduct of free and fair election in Ethiopia in 2010.
The first is the desire to see how much the government they have been bailing
out has learnt from its mistakes in the 2005 election. It would be recalled that
that election had been cause for the loss of hundreds of young lives throughout
the country. Tortures have been inflicted on survivors, long prison sentences
imposed on many, some of whom, such as Judge Birtukan Mideksa, continue
to languish in prison to this day. Equally destructive has been the ensuing
polarization of Ethiopian politics, which to date, without a doubt, has
hampered national consensus, trust, and confidence in government. Not a
single individual, officials or institutions have been held accountable for this
horrendous crime—not by the national courts and not by the highly politicized
system of international crime. For Ethiopia’s partners, this press conference
has afforded them opportunity to see if government is moving in respect of
democracy from words to practice.
Moreover, implications of the election related problems are not limited to one
area or Ethiopia and Ethiopians alone. The international community has shared
with us, and is continuing to do so, by providing funds to help reform
institutions for better governance as basis for democracy, although entrenched
interests have hijacked the processes and the outcomes. Through the
provision of project and ‘indirect budgetary support,’ efforts have been
underway to help flicker in the country the distant rays of democracy.
The World Bank’s Protection of Basic Services (PBS) was borne as a
response of many bilateral donors through multilateral channels to minimize the
fallout of the election, which today has become a significant part of regional
budgets. PBS goals have been to scrape off impenetrable poverty and its
disabling conditions, even though most of the beneficiaries are government
sponsored civil societies. The funds were provided against the backdrop of
disruption of governmental activities and aid flows on account of state violence
and fraudulent practices during the election that forced some donors to
withhold temporarily direct budget support.
It did not stop there. Many partner countries have also opened their doors for
several hundreds of Ethiopian refugees. Many fled their country fearing for
their lives owing to election-related violence and/or political vendetta and
disruptions of life. In spite of all these efforts, five years later much of the tide
has not been reversed, as Ethiopians continue to flee their country and
distance themselves from government.
A journalist raised the question of protests and violence control during the
forthcoming election. The prime minister’s response was a firm no; it would
not repeat. He based his assumption on the adequacy of preparation of law
enforcement officials and equipment and gears provided. Even then, while the
admission of guilt is evident, the ambivalence of this response is unmistakable.
The said preparation and control seems to portray violence as single
directional, as if the only culprit in town is the opposition. One can assume that
this time around the state and the ruling party could keep in check the security
forces by not giving them the shoot to kill order, as they did last time. Recall in
this connection that, in the morrow of the 2005 election, the prime minister
told President Carter that he would not be in any position to control his own
supporters if rallies and demonstrations were permitted, according to Mr.
Carter’s interview in Addis Ababa after talking to Ato Meles. Therefore,
downplaying the politics of violence now by zealous state and regional actors
and ruling party activists may be analogous to an encouragement given by an
owner of recently acquired wild lion to a neighbour not to worry or be afraid
of the beast.
The second reason for the focus of international attention on the coming
election is the very scrutiny invited by the prime minister’s ascendance on the
global scene to advocate justice for Africa. For many, the prism they hate to
part with is the hard and fast rule that charity begins at home. Hence, there
would be many taxpayers in the international community that would pressure
their governments to ensure that the prime minister dispenses justice to his
people.
They expect him to create conditions for the full exercise by citizens of rights
and freedoms to form a government of their choosing. In translation, this
means, the ruling party needs to go beyond the cosmetics and learn to desist
from detracting its opponents’ legal activities, or pressure the electorate by
threatening to withhold entitlements such as food rations, or endanger their
jobs, if they do not vote for it.
Government-Opposition blames and counter-blames risk
relegating country’s interests
For the first time in his political career, Ato Meles acknowledged that the
much-publicized disruption of meetings of one of the major opposition parties
in August in Adama was the work of members of his party. In that connection,
he pledged that it would not repeat. It does not matter whether the impetus for
his response comes from the wide dissemination of the typicality of the crime
or the fear of it being evidence of the shadows threatening the coming election.
Irrespective of what compelled him to step up to the plate, it is an encouraging
step. Unfortunately, even following this latest press conference, the opposition
have been crying foul louder. They say the government is continuing its usual
practice of arresting opposition members, especially promising candidates.
Already at the press conference, a thing or two were clear. Despite this
positive step regarding harassment, the danger cannot be glossed over, if the
pledge by the prime minister becomes no different from cherry picking of
violations/crimes. In other words, what experience is showing is the fact that
government/ruling party do not lift finger to stop many other violations/crimes
in different parts of the country. For the next several months, the standard of
denial would be to remind the nation at every turn, ‘you know it, and we take
actions, as we did in the Adama case.’ For many, this pretence brings to
memory Robert Mugabe/MDC’s unity government, which has set Mugabe
free to reduce MDC’s majority in parliament by throwing some of its
members in Harare prisons. In Ethiopia’s case, this latest charge by the
opposition now stands as a test of the prime minister’s pledge to end all
harassments by members of his party.
Do the opposition tell lies, for instance, when they claim now 480 opposition
members have been arrested? If so, government has the opportunity now to
prove its innocence. The onus is on it to come out with evidences showing the
said individuals are not in its custody. Ato Gebru Asrat, Chairman of the
Forum for Democratic Dialogue in Ethiopia (FDDE), told the Sudan Times
on 23 September, “As of today our party has received a list of 250 opposition
members jailed in Oromyia region and another 230 in the Amhara region.” It
is implied that the arrests are aimed partly to intimidate voters and partly to
disable opposition parties. A new element now is its use to pressure the
opposition to drop their demand to include other issues in the negotiations on
the code of conduct. The ruling party sees a major pitfall in that.
What is the ruling party’s argument? That very question was presented to the
prime minister during the press conference. However, in his response he chose
to focus mostly on the independence of the election commission and neutrality
of the nine members that he picked out of the 25 on whom, he said, all sides
have agreed. He then proceeded to dismissing the opposition as motley of
Mengistu loyalists pointing thereon a finger at their “international connections”,
which he did not elaborate. Briefly, his response on the matter is, “Those
parties that are apparently concerned about harassment are not concerned
enough to participate in devising that code of conduct, which is designed to
put an end to it if it exists or prevent it from happening. My feeling is that the
intent of some of these individuals is not to contest and participate in any
meaningful way in the election, but to try and discredit the election process
form the start.” This is the true predictor of the fate of the forthcoming election.
The opposition countered that by saying they do not see a meaningful outcome
of the negotiations on the code of conduct, as proposed by the ruling party.
They want the inclusion of issues of freedom of expression and movement to
campaign around the country without fear, restrictions or attacks and stress
the need to end intervention by security forces in election-related matters.
What is the government’s problem here?
Already even foreign and Ethiopia observers have foreseen such problems the
opposition claim. For instance, the ICG report worries, “The next federal and
regional elections, scheduled for June 2010, most probably will be much more
contentious, as numerous opposition parties are preparing to challenge the
EPRDF, which is likely to continue to use its political machine to retain its
position.” This has infuriated government, since it came from the ICG. No
wonder, government is now determined to present it to the people as posing a
threat to the country. In truth, a number of Ethiopian experts have also argued
in the same tone. To date, that has remained their point of separation from
government position.
Those in power need to realize that continuation of such practices and political
shenanigans would not serve the interests of the ruling party itself. This is more
so especially if they are serious about the goal of the next election being free
from intimidation and harassment and if they want to convince the Ethiopian
people and the world community its conduct is on a level playing field. If at all,
the basis of availing justice to all those in need of it is guided by some cherry
picking of harassment to expose and harassment to close eyes to, it would
backfire. This in view, it is up to government to reassure the nation with
concrete actions that it need not surrender to fears carried forward from 2005
or question whether the country is ready for fair and free election. People
need reassurance and encouragement that they should vote for their own
individual interests.
Is Ato Meles’s confidence about the economy warranted, or
a permanent election ploy?
The prime minister exudes optimism about the Ethiopian economy, although
reality and many citizens and foreign observers do not agree with his
assessment. As far as citizens are concerned, in the past government pledges
and statistics have promised them the sky and the moon, even when inflation
has been in double-digits for over two years now, food prices are
skyrocketing and the danger of drought has been imminent and crushing. For
fact check, look around to see what the common person is confronted with on
a daily basis.
Ato Meles is now claiming that, at its worst, the economy would grow in
2008/09 by 9.2 percent, if not 10.2 percent. The question why economic
growth numbers are barely impacted by the huge number of adverse factors
the country keeps on experiencing, especially in the last eighteen months, is
becoming a miracle of epic proportions. Ominously, poverty alleviation is no
longer government priority, the evidence of which is its rampant increase in
both rural and urban areas. In a country with high unemployment, many
people have already lost their jobs. Drought is ravaging parts of the country.
More people are turning to begging, while the number of food aid dependent
has increased significantly, although government does not admit it.
Disruption of power supplies has disabled many enterprises. Even when
power is available, most factories and industries operated at less than fifty-
seven percent capacity, by admission of government statistics. Bankruptcy-
related impoundment of properties by banks has increased and the sales of
seized properties have become new sources of enrichment to those connected
politically and by other ties. At the same time, the infant manufacturing sector
has been the worst hit by the lack of operating capital, foreign exchange and
entanglement by back taxes that government is now demanding prompt
payment.
The country’s exports have been hit hard, the evidence of which is the terrible
foreign exchange shortages that had shaken even the prime minister, forcing
him to take possession of the properties of some coffee exporters. In a
number of speeches and press conferences, he spoke clearly that the country
was in crises. Not so much comforting to the premier, but his Minister of
Trade and Industry Girma Biru by the end of May reported that Ethiopia
would face a shortfall of a billion dollars in 2009, out of its targeted $2.5
billion in export revenues. The interesting part of this story is the inability of
government to control imports, which have grown four-fold.
On top of that, Ethiopia has been arming itself for possible war in the north.
Since its withdrawal from Somalia, it has been carrying out intermittent
missions into that country. For several years now, lack of political settlement
for the conflict in the Ogaden and the insurgency in Oromia has hardly silenced
Ethiopian guns. All the weapons used in these theatres are imported with
scarce foreign exchange. Even US military support is counted as foreign aid.
Ethiopia is an agricultural country, although through the years it has remained
net food importer. The question then is how is it that not any of these negative
factors have any implications on the country’s GDP growth, I mean, GDP
growth figures?
Let us say, the prime minister is right. However, what is the meaning of high
GDP figures when even civil servants find it increasingly difficult to support
themselves and their families? It is good that there is growth, roads are being
built and power generation installations are creeping up. Nevertheless, the
lives of ordinary people are becoming more and more unbearable. How could
the regime see criticism of its neglect of the immediate needs of the people as
politically and ethnically motivated hostility? This is not to deny the
intractability of the problem. Nonetheless, why is corruption rampant amongst
those in its ranks? Why is it that some or most of its agencies and officials are
incapable of delivering? Is it not time to see the need for change of policies?
In this connection, it is instructive to recall, what Mahbub ul Haq, the
respected Pakistani economist, wrote in 1971, “We were taught to take care
of our GNP as this take care of poverty. Let us reverse this and take care of
poverty as this will take care of the GNP.” Nearly forty years later, several
mainstream economists have now turned in droves to the truism of Haq, Sen
and many visionary human beings. Just in the past week or so, it was headline
news when Joseph Stiglitz urged the abandonment of “GDP fetishism”
(Economist, Sept 25). He articulated this view speaking in his capacity as
chair of the commission President Sarkozi appointed to look into
Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. The
commission, composed of 25 prominent social scientists, several of them
Nobel Prize winners, emphasized in its report,
- Time is ripe for our measurement system to shift emphasis from measuring
economic production to measuring people’s well-being...Changing
emphasis does not mean dismissing GDP and production measures…But
emphasising well-being is important because there appears to be an
increasing gap between the information contained in aggregate GDP data
and what counts for common people’s well-being.
The question to the prime minister now is why does the IMF not share his
optimism? If indeed it is sympathetic, its latest report does not show it, not for
now, not even beyond 2012. It writes,
- Looking beyond the program period [2008-12], Ethiopia’s macroeconomic
policy context remains challenging, given the competing pressures on
domestic credit availability from the public and private sectors, the need to
build budgetary revenues to meet spending pressures, the large trade
imbalance and the associated heavy dependence on aid flows and
remittances, the modest level of foreign reserves, and the fast build-up of
external debt levels.
As regards, foreign reserves, Ato Meles is saying, “there is adequate room for
optimism.” Elementary economics would have liked this optimism to be based
on the country’s capacity to produce for its imports and earn the requisite
foreign exchange. Ethiopia’s foreign exchange level now shows some
improvement. This is not because of new earning capacity in the country, but
because the funds provided in the form of aid and some of the grants are
deposited in the National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE). Of course, there is nothing
wrong with that as short-term strategy to ameliorate crunches in times of low
international reserves or in the face of aid inflow volatility.
In the past, reviews were undertaken in the international financial institutions to
see the implications of aid on developing countries. In the case of Ethiopia,
similar study was carried out in 2004 recommending improvements in trade
policies, strengthening legal and regulatory environment, institutions, and trade-
facilitation services, in order to encourage greater integration into the world
economy and increased foreign direct investment (IMF, Projecting the
Impact of Increased Aid on Economic Growth). The report’s conclusion is,”
Resource windfalls in developing countries can lead to a dissipation of
resource wealth and even negative growth [without such measures]. This
reinforces the importance of aid being delivered within a policy framework
supportive of the efficient use of the additional resources.” In the current
Ethiopian economic environment, it is less likely that these conditions have
been fulfilled. Nevertheless, temporarily the IMF may see advantages on the
limits forced on imports and expansion of government expenditures and taxes
not being lowered. Given the reality of deteriorating human conditions in the
country, however, either hording aid money, grants or loans in the national
bank is a solution for the long run, since the country’s ability to tackle poverty
with economic expansion is completely curtailed.
The prime minister has asserted in the press conference that by the end of the
year inflation would go down to single digit. In other words, he has taken it
upon himself to extend the time from July, in his earlier forecast, to end of the
year now! So what even if it goes down in the current policy environment?
Furthermore, he claimed that, other than coffee growing areas, the prospects
of the rainy season is good and that there would be higher agricultural
production. Is the meaning of this, according to that forecast, the country
would see another year or two of terrible decline in coffee exports and further
foreign exchange squeeze?
Is this all a sign of policy haziness, problem of communication or constancy of
the country’s reality, or evidence of EPRDF’s failure? I fear that, every time
the government resorts to unspooling the oft-cited GDP data in the midst of
such terrible declines, it may be stocking the wrath of the people the
consequences of which cannot be predicted.
Prime minister resorts to dismissal of opponents, instead of
battling their ideas
There has always been tension between Ethiopia and the ICG. This is because
the government sees the ICG as pain on its neck, or, at its worst, as Eritrea’s
agent. However, portraying it as Ethiopia’s enemy is a gross
misrepresentation. The fact of the matter is that the ICG’s job is to follow and
report on causes of conflicts and dangerous tension spots. Thus, in the case of
Ethiopia it has focussed on the democratization processes in the country, the
2005 election, the war with Eritrea, the invasion of Somalia and relations with
the Sudan.
The reports on those issues were not without merit, although government does
not agree with them. For instance, ICG was one of the first international
entities to express disapproval of Ethiopia’s intervention in Somalia. Its
experts testified in the US Senate holding that view. They criticized the Bush
Administration for egging on the country into invasion.
In its report of last February, in article entitled "Somalia's Slim Hope", ICG
wrote,
- Ethiopia's occupation was an unprecedented disaster. The last two years
have been among the worst since Somalia descended into anarchy in 1991,
with huge displacement of civilians, a massive humanitarian crisis and grave
violations of human rights. The Ethiopian military campaign, combined with
US bombings of suspected militant hide-outs, also set in motion a chain of
events that in mid-2008 culminated in the recapture of much of the country’
s south by the hard-line Islamist insurgent group, Al-Shabaab. They used
the Ethiopian presence to rally support from and recruit amongst those
marginalised by the transitional government, and they radicalised the
Islamist movement.
Is not this borne out by the reality we now know? Surprisingly, the charge and
pillory the prime minister has heaped on the ICG during the press conference
began with the words it “has cried wolf once too much against Ethiopia.” Ato
Meles tried his best to portray the Group as Ethiopia’s enemy, instead of
addressing himself to substantive issues by isolating things that he thinks are
wrong or false in the current report. He accused the Group of being
determined “to pursue its objective of undermining alternatives to the paradigm
its financiers are hell-bent on imposing on everybody.” Even this, he tried to
exploit to rally other developing countries to his cause. So much for
TPLF/EPRDF diplomacy!
What is not clear is which financiers are hell-bent on undermining his
government? For all we know, he is enjoying the support of most of the
Western world as well as China and India.
The prime minister could have come across better by refuting the report on
factual and intellectual grounds. Sadly, he preferred to engage in hostility and
ad hominem, that has taken too much from him as head of government. What
was under attack was not only the report, but also the institution, for that
matter on erroneous information. As if Ethiopia’s own colossal and
multifaceted problems are not enough, the fact that Ethiopia’s leader chose to
invite the ill will of those many international opinion-shaping personages is
unfortunate. Clearly, this does not serve the interests of the country nor reflect
on him positively as leader of the country. Ethiopia needs more friends today
than enemies, especially out of people who are known to harbour no bad
intentions towards the Ethiopian people.
ICG’s funding sources
As to the ICG’s funding sources, the prime minister has it wrong from A to Z.
He may not have been informed or perhaps considers sixteen foreign
ministries as mercenary of sorts—12 of them from Europe, one from North
America, two from Middle East and one from Asia. They were amongst ICG’
s funding sources for 2008-2009. Moreover, nine development agencies of
partner countries that support Ethiopia’s development efforts have funded the
ICG in 2008-2009. In addition, twenty-five international foundations, some of
which have dealings with his government have funded operations of the Group
during the same period.
The ICG board is comprised of important personages with significant
influences in global affairs. In both the past and the present, many of them
have been known as good friends of Ethiopia, irrespective of type of
government, including for their sympathy toward the TPLF in its humble days
in the trenches. Ato Meles dismissed their report as not being worth the cost
of the paper on which it is printed. Interestingly, by his own admission, he has
not even read it. What this harsh and hotheaded judgement has done is a great
disservice to the country’s interests.
It is important to say that many find the report’s assessment realistic in many
areas. It does not mean everything is right. Surely, the ICG view of linking
election and conflict may be exaggerated. Even then, it should not have
invoked such vehemence. After all, was the prime minister not in a similar state
of mind especially between February and April when the country’s exports
crumbled and the national bank’s vault was naked?
Recall that in early May he told Africa Confidential about the worrisome link
between the country’s economic performance and the danger to a peaceful
election. That open concern or admission of serious challenge is the first of its
kind I know from his regime. Bearing this in mind, what is wrong if the ICG
reached the same conclusion the prime minister had spoken publicly when
international reserves dwindled to a few million dollars for six weeks? It
should not go without being said that, what the ICG report highlights, is
continuing concerns of the Ethiopian people.
Ato Meles is not concerned, as he makes us believe, about ICG’s financing
sources or its mission, or the alleged Eritrean influence being politically and
morally repugnant. To him, indeed it is the conclusion of the report about the
forthcoming election that got his government hitting the roof. In a statement
attacking the ICG, the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry has revealed what is
troubling the government, as follows.
- But the ICG is dangerous as a peddler of crisis. The title indeed gives the
game away, and raises a number of questions over the appearance of such
a partial document at this juncture as the run-up to next year's federal and
state elections is beginning. These doubts are reinforced by the report's call
to the Government to consider a power-sharing arrangement with the
opposition, and for the international community to put on pressure on the
Government over the issue of governance rather than emphasize support
for food security. ICG’s suggestions bear no relationship to current
actuality or to the progress made in institutionalizing multi-party democracy
in Ethiopia since 1991.
Help me out here! What is wrong, if the ICG calls for power sharing between
government and the opposition in a country where political polarization and
repression is cutting society asunder? Government could have simply
dismissed the report making seasoned arguments, if it has one. In the
circumstances, it has forced upon itself the speculation what spooked Ato
Meles and his foreign minister is ICG’s revelation of TPLF’s unyielding
determination to monopolize power in Ethiopia. Of that, counselled by
experience, the ICG writes the truism, with which every Ethiopian agrees, as
follows,
- The EPRDF firmly monopolises political representation, decision-making
and public space. The contradiction between its de facto one-party state
and its promises to deliver multi-party elections, human rights and self-
determination has been the defining trait of politics since 1991. This has
produced tensions between the government and the opposition, communal
and inter-ethnic animosities and armed conflict between ethno-national
rebels and the government, culminating in the 2005 election crisis.
Move beyond blame to a new vision
The Ethiopian government gives the impression of being persecuted by the
ICG. If at all it is, it could have ended it by turning its attention inward and
addressing its problems with a new vision. Unfortunately, the government is
bent on exploiting the fear of terrorism, the crises in Somalia and Sudan to put
itself as an intermediary and peacemaker in the like of Egypt in the Middle
East, which commands a lot of influence and the foreign financing this brings
along. Ethiopia hopes to replicate that in the Horn of Africa. This posture
would help the government to put the ring on the nose of the international
community as the indispensable peacemaker and terrorism fighter. Review
carefully, what Ato Seyoum Mesfin told the General Assembly a few days ago,
- It is therefore unlikely that the Horn of Africa will rid itself of the crisis
in Somalia pretty soon, with all the consequences of this for the work we
have in our country in development and fighting poverty and in speeding up
the democratization process. That is why, indeed, the peace process in the
Sudan, most particularly, the effective implementation of the CPA, is so
critical for us. The Horn of Africa cannot afford the consequence of failure
in the Sudan peace process. We are very close to both parties in the
Sudan--- an asset which we want to use wisely. It would be naive to
believe that the conditions of peace and stability in our region have no
influence over our domestic agenda. They do. Open societies are
manifestly vulnerable to the kind of situation prevailing in the Horn of
Africa. The mix of extremist forces and rogue states is not conducive for
the growth of democracy in close proximity [emphasis added].
If the threat of conflicts in Ethiopia itself is a lie, consider the following. In
submitting performance report his office on 12 June, Commissioner Workineh
Gebeyehu, chief of the federal police, informed parliament that within ten
months of fiscal year 2008/2009 (six months already in 2009), twelve ethnic
conflicts had taken place in different parts of the country and hundreds of
people, including policemen, had died. Not only this, on 13 July 2009, the
Ministry of Federal Affairs issued a statement informing the public that in a
country that has passed through centuries of religious tolerance, religious
conflicts are now threatening public safety and order. Many such conflicts
have claimed several lives in different parts of the country. Why the need then
for vain attempts to block efforts [if indeed it could] to report on such
worrisome signs that experts see as telltale signs of future conflicts.
Uniquely troubling is the question the prime minister has not elaborated; this is
why the ICG should want to undermine the unity and stability of Ethiopia.
Why would members of the board, as responsible international citizens that
are responsible for the publication appearing in their names, look for handouts
least of all from Eritrea or some millionaires who could not find good cause or
a place to park their millions? Are not some of them partners in foundations
that provide funding to the Ethiopian Ministry of Health to help in the fight
against malaria and early childhood diseases?
No doubt, all said and done, they would come back and say this article is a
defence of the ICG report or the organization. Rest assured it is not. I am
reading the facts, analyzing them, and agreeing where they have addressed the
problems and disagreeing where I find nonsense conclusions. Read for
instance the following.
- The EPRDF firmly monopolises political representation, decision-making
and public space. The contradiction between its de facto one-party state
and its promises to deliver multi-party elections, human rights and self-
determination has been the defining trait of politics since 1991. This has
produced tensions between the government and the opposition, communal
and inter-ethnic animosities and armed conflict between ethno-national
rebels and the government, culminating in the 2005 election crisis.
Since it is true, I agree with the first two sentences above. However, I find
troubling their build up to a conclusion in the third sentence that the 2005
election crisis has to do with ethno-nationalist rebellion. By extension, the
implication is that the next election would be marred by ethno-nationalist
rebellion. I do not agree with that. It is a false early warning that misreads the
situation. It is possible that fury of the people may get a chance to express
itself, especially if something unjust happens during the election. Moreover,
that sentence would also contradict ICG’s own reading of the situation,
wherein it has stated in the same report,
- Since ethnic mobilisation is a rewarding strategy [at the local level],
numerous conflicts, both political and violent, have been sparked by
decentralisation. These are routinely described as “ethnic conflicts”, but
they are more often the result of rivalry over state resources than of
irreconcilable ethnic differences. Many are about administrative boundaries.
In the light of this, Ato Meles should realize that to date his entire approach to
politics is dictated by self-interest, showing serious shortcoming. It is time he
became willing to articulate a new vision for the country, instead of aiming all
the time at escape goats for all his policy-induced problems.
Conclusion
The time is calling for a new vision. That must be a vision that helps cast fear
out of the lives of the people and help them focus on their daily lives in
freedom and dignity. Only free people know how to express freely what they
need and go about getting it. So far, the past eighteen years of Ato Meles
have only shown preference to imposing fear that has been stifling citizens. If
the problems of democratization of the country were dealt politically, aiming at
building national consensus, today things would have been much different and
easier. The country would have been in a better position to ensure its stability
without terrorizing citizens and impairing national development with wrong
policies.
TPLF/EPRDF has now lifted itself to a status of OPEN SOCIETY! If true,
government dedicated to the cause of the people should not be intimidated by
them. It should have no interest in suppressing the fundamental human rights of
the people that already are recognized by the country’s constitution. Judges
need to be able to practice their profession in line with the constitution to
afford justice to the common person, ensue full respect to fundamental human
rights and civil liberties. The country needs a new beginning with no political
prisoners. There are no better actions than these to mobilize Ethiopians
toward a new vision and a common goal of national salvation. Only a
government with a new vision could take Ethiopia along such a dignified path.
Anyone side rejecting this does it at its own peril. Ethiopians, both at home
and abroad, are tired of the endless accusations and senseless blame games
sand counter-blames that have proved sterile through and through. What is
astonishing is, in spite of all its actions and restrictive legislations, the
government has not become the winner, although it continues to hold onto
power by the force of arms, imprisonment and disappearances and heightened
militarization of civil society and, at times, bribery to ensure maintenance of the
status quo.
Admittedly, in view of the country’s stubborn problems of human and
institutional deficiencies, the task is not easy for any government. However,
anyone with a better vision and willingness can change the direction of history
in Ethiopia and help improve the lives of our citizens. All that it takes is winning
the hearts, minds and respect of all the people with a newer and better vision.
I decided to write this piece, not to accuse the government or disparage its
politics or policies. I felt a few things needed to be said now, especially after I
watched video of the 16 September press conference by the prime minister.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to speak truth to power to encourage
introspection and rational thinking to help common sense to prevail.
In the months ahead, the country heads into another difficult chapter, not in
terms of the fait accompli, but in search of meaning and more answers, better
wisdom and a new vision to a challenging future. The prevailing policy and
mindset has no place, given the changes in public thinking that has clearly
shown its disaffection. Order is borne of disorder and, it seems now, the
international political and economic environment is favourable for that change
the people are seeking in earnest.
| All rights reserved. |
| Ethio Quest News Together We Can Make It! |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Ethiopia's History of National Resistance for African Unity & Dignity PART - ONE PART - TWO PART - THREE |
| Ethio Quest News: For latest Ethiopian News, views, Reviews and More |
| Ethiopian Perspective Articles by Category Ethiopian Diversity Ethiopian Economy Ethiopian Politics Ethiopian Women |
| Previous Articles by Genet Mersha |
| Haile Selassie I Appeal To The League Of Nations "Apart from the Kingdom of the Lord there is not on this earth any nation that is superior to any other.... More |
