POLITICAL CRITIQUE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ETHIOPIA

By: Ghelawdewos Araia

The current political climate in the Horn of Africa and in particular in Ethiopia and Eritrea, vis-a-vis the Hague verdict on the border demarcation and delimitation, without doubt has enmeshed Ethiopians who do have serious concerns about the sovereignty of their country. This rather obsessive political culture engendered as result of the Ethio-Eritrean conflict, however, must be understood in the context of an historical duty and not lethargy or waste of time as some cynics would like to tell us. It is in this spirit, therefore, that I like to entertain some ideas, provocative in nature, to stimulate discussion among Ethiopian circles.

I will critically examine the prevailing political scenario and reinforce my arguments by some philosophical underpinnings, but also focus on issues of development that are extremely crucial and that need serious attention despite the overarching political themes that we cannot avoid even if we want to.

While discussing contemporary Ethiopian politics, I like to invite (rather challenge) the various Ethiopian groupings and websites to be objective to the extent possible and also to broaden their scope. The purpose and mission of these websites should not be limited to criticizing, exposing, and attacking the Meles regime; they should also consider important social, cultural, historical, and even entertainment issues pertaining to the Ethiopian society as a whole. Moreover, they should entertain the historical significance of Ethiopian unity and liberate themselves from their ethnic enclaves. At this juncture, even those organizations that bear the name 'Ethiopian' for their respective associations are practically ethnocentric.

Criticizing Meles and the EPRDF for partitioning Ethiopia along ethnic lines while organizing on the basis of ethnicty is contradiction in terms. It is for this simple reason that I have appealed to the well meaning conferees in Washington DC on January 12, 2002 (hosted by the Tigrean International Solidarity for Justiceand Democracy) to find a Pan-Ethiopian organization. They responded in applause and that was a comforting jesture.

As such, I have no problem with ethnic affiliations provided they do not undermine Ethiopian unity that may even end up in psychological obtusness of appaling proportions, and ultimtely result in hypertrophic and cranky political satire. The latter is pathogenic politics that cannot be diagnosed and cured easily because once ethnicity reaches a saturation point, it degenerates into a frightening district and village levels.

While I observe some problems of political discourse in the Ethiopian diaspora and the Home opposition, I also want to critique contrasting views of both opposition and pro-government elements. In due course, I shall substantiate my thesis by furnishing examples and these are by no means intended to boost someone's morale and exhibit enemity against the other. It is simply an attmept to examine antidotes in the realm of politics.

The contrasting views in current Ethiopian politics are best exemplified by the stances of Dr. Negussay Ayele and Dr. Solomon Enquai. Since the outbreak of the Ethio-Eritrean conflict, Dr. Negussay has been prolific and has written brillinat articles, one of which is the recent essay entitled "Ethiopia and the United Nations Organization: Making, Unmaking, and Remaking of Boundaries." Negussay Ayele's articles are cogent, educational, and informative and I salute him for defending the sovereignty of Ethiopia consistently. However, I have a big question for him. What would be his position on the murderous regime of Mengistu Haile-Mariam whose legacy is the slaughter-house in modern Ethiopian history? I have yet to witness his standpoint on the Derg in writing.

At the other end of the spectrum, Dr. Solomon Enquai tells us (in his article, "Where Have the Feeding Camps Gone") that "there are no feeding camps and there will be none in the future as long as the EPRDF is leading this country." This of course is an incredibly parenthetical statement from a learned man. I personally don't think that the EPRDF itself would make such an absolute claim unless it is meant to generarte false impressions and cyncism tainted with theoretical implausibility. The vestiges of famine and permanent hunger that encounter Ethiopians at present can be overcomed only by a development package that is holistic, and not by the white paper and proclamations of a party and/or government.

In between the above contrasting, and yet controversial, views we find literatures and commentaries that try to mingle sympathy and wit with obscure politics. This position is mostly fostered by two opportunist groups, one intellectual, the other ignorant--the sublime and the ridiculous.

While the intellectual opportunist writes wittingly and consciously to enhance the image of the powers that be, the ignorant echos the former's postures without understanding its sinister implications. Both, however, do have a common ground: Passion for power that they may never acquire (Lam Ale'chin Be'Semay Wetet'wa'nim Alay).

A most able writer and educator by the name Allan Bloom once charaterized opportunist intellectuals as in the following: "the philospher wants to know things as they are. He tells the truth. That is an intellectual virtue. He does not love to tell the truth. That is a morale virtue. Presumably he would prefer not to practice deception; but it is condition of his survival, he has no objection to it." Here, the author's message is abundantly clear. He is trying to tell us about sychophants that shamelessly bow before authorities in exchange of some fringe benefits.

The ignorant opportunist is not sophisticated enough to understand the double standard of its counterpart, but it is clever enough to appeal to the status quo by entertaining such incoherent ideas as "what is important is peace and stability, even at the cost of eroding part of sovereignty." This kind of rationale comes perilously close to embracing a new variety of dictatorship that advocates the inviability of other alternatives other than its own agenda. The ignoramus, as stated above, is clever enough to pursue and advance its class interest. So, it will rather compromise its "integrity," become rather callous, and pretends as if the world of Ethiopia is rosy and the future bright even if the reality on the ground testifies to the contrary.

The opportunists exhibit decent mediocrity (let me not be too harsh on them) and alacrity for servility without sometimes realizing that they have indeed demoted themselves to the level of mercenaries with very low self-esteem. But one thing they will never understand is that history, the force that no one can stop, has its own laws, and one fine day they will realize that the historical momentum has backfired on them.

A fine analogy that depicts mediocrity of the opportunists is to be found in the usually lucid Shakespearean metaphor. This 16th century English playwright writes in Coriolanus that "there was a time when all the body's members rebelled against the belly; they accused it." This will happen to the cynics and then the masses of people who felt betrayed will ridicule them.

Some other people who do not belong to the above category, but who were nonetheless following the Ethiopian phenomena and who were bewildered by the greatest confusion created in the wake of the Ethio-Eritrean conflict and the subsequent disintegration of the TPLF, also need to be discussed. This group is not to be blamed, for it is a victim of a political corollary that does not offer dialogue, that is not inclusive, and encourages political machinations that deliberately confuse the people. The best example of this double talk is the belated concern on Zalambessa as Ethiopian sovereign territory. Only few months ago, we were told that Zalambessa can stay under Eritrean occupation for couple of decades or more. All of a sudden, the Zalambessa tragedy has become the agony of some authorities. What a revelation!

The question of Zalambessa and Irob, however, must be examined in light of strategic non-Ethiopian interest that wants to dismantle the whole of Ethiopia. I have indicated in my earlier writings that the Zalambessa phenomenon is indeed a cover up and a deliberate distraction. The ultimate goal is to cede Dalol (rich in thermal energy, phosphate and other minerals) and other areas in Irob and the Afar area, contrary to the national interest of Ethiopia.

Even if it is not a cover up and the authorities who are now clamoring on the question of Zalambessa are sincere (I like to give them the benefit of the doubt), they are, I am afraid, like Hegel's 'owl of Minerva that flies at dusk'; meaning, they have understood the nuances of politics after it is over. They very well fit into the proverbial Ethiopian dog that barks after the hyena is long gone (Jib Ke'hede Wu'sha Cho'he).

Though we are now encapsulated in the concern for Ethiopia's national interest and are confronted by the fate of manifest absurdity that have had fatal tendency in the last four years or so, we must not loose sight of the primacy and significance of development to which I like to turn now.

Not too many Ethiopians are talking about development for the obvious reasons discussed above. Quite frankly, and justifiably so, we are preoccupied with the politics of conflict, but we should also be able to discuss important development issues within the confines of our political parameters. Both of them are complementary.

Ethiopia, like any other Third World countries, is a poor nation and development is not measured by few and far in between projects scattered in the rural areas of the country. Development should entail a holistic diversified strategy that can overhaul the national economy of Ethiopia on a sustainable basis. For example, what the Ethiopian Social and Rehabilitation Development Fund (ESRDF) is doing must be encouraged to expand its endeavor on a sustainable basis. Planting trees to enhance afforestation is not a guarantee unless there is a vigorous forest management that operates permanently. That is sustainable development.

The World Commission on environment and Development defined sustainable development as paths of human progress which meet the needs and aspirations of the present generation without compromsing the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Ethiopia, of course, must uphold the spirit of the Brundtland Report in order to successfully carry out its agriculture-led industrial development agenda. However, this grandiose development plan requires vision and commitment. Sending delegation to world conferences on development is not enough.

If Ethiopia, for instance, is going to participate in the Third African Development Forum (ADF), hosted by ECA and to be held in Addis Ababa between March 3 and 8, 2002, it ought to endorse the ECA's program and translate ADF's agenda into action. ADF's Third Conference is focused on 'defining priorities for regional integration' and includes the following inspiring themes:


Except for the last two items, the frist three cannot be realized without an enduring peace in our region. this does not mean, however, that Ethiopia should sacrifice part of its sovereignty and national interest (naivete par excellance) and come to terms with its neighbors. On the contrary, any development agenda must be preceded by the national interest of Ethiopia.

Ethiopia also may participate on the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development that will take place in Johannesburg from August 26 to September 4, 2002. Among plethora development issues in relation to sustainability, the Johannesburg conference may reflect on Agenda 21, and it would be time also for Ethiopia to rexamine itself whether it has realized the Rio de Janerio Declaration on Environment and Development and the Statement Principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests (June 1992).

The third item, namely, 'infrastructural development' of ECA's ADF will also be the central theme at the international conference in Monterry, Mexico in March 2002. The World Bank has already been advocating that "more funds must be allocated to provide infrastructure for the poor and meet basic development goals." The Bank contends that 900 million people in rural areas of developing countries "live without reliable roads" and don't have access to markets, jobs, and clinics. Additionally, as per Nemat Shafik, VP of the Bank, 92% of the people in Sub-Saharan Africa live in darkness, i.e. without electricty.

Ethiopia should seriously consider the primacy of infrastructure as a precondition to development as a whole and also as a vehicle to rural development in particular. If indeed Ethiopia's development policy is 'agriculture-led industrial development,' priority must be given to the rural areas, and it goes without saying that infrastructure is singularly important to realize the country-led strategy.

The strategies for Ethiopia's development, as mentioned above, must not be limited to few catalytic factors. Per force, it must come in a package. The best example of such a package is forwarded by USAID's Global Development Alliance (GDA). Although the GDA is in its infancy and formative period, th model tries to address issues of poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, natural disasters, conflict, democracy, and governance via "creative approaches and new technologies." Ethiopia can consider and formulate policies based on the GDA's model; after all, all issues addressed here pertains to Ethiopia.

One of GDA's issues, 'environmental degradation' (this is not originated by the USAID; UN specialized agencies have dealt with it on a number of occasions), for instance, is highly relevant to the Ethiopian reality and it must be seriously addressed. Consequently, issues surrounding cash crops as opposed to food crops need to be resolved. Incidentally, both crops could be complementary but food crop must be given priority.

When the National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE) exclaims that "the agriculture-led development strategy would play an important role in balancing the trade deficit by increasing the agricultural items produced for export," (WIC, 2/25/02) it is implying the export of cash crops such as coffee, and not really about the millions of poor farmers who constitute the bulk of the Ethiopian people.

By contrast, Bekele Shiferaw, who studied the soil degradation at Anjeni (East Gojjam) and Andit Tid (North Shewa) contends that "a preferred policy option in the short-term is supporting low cost technologies that provide short-term benefits to poor farmers." Bekele employed a farm-level model to study economic incentives, and based on the Soil Conservation Research Project (SCRP), he estimated "the intertemporal effect of measured levels of soil erosion on crop production." And based on his empirical studies, Bekele warns us that Ethiopia's "increasing vulnerability to famine suggest that the loss of food production potential would have enormous consequences, both in the long and short-term."

While addressing the problem of soil degradation, Bekele suggests a solution pertaining to soil conservation. "Biological methods may directly contribute," he says "to enhancing soil fertility while also curbing soil erosion, and may also provide other useful products (fuel, food, feed)."

The rural development initiative in Ethiopia, therefore, must seriously address the problem of soil erosion. The Anjeni and And Tid problems are actually replicated througout Ethiopia and if Ethiopia undertakes a massive project in countering soil erosion, then we can say the country has successfully laid the corner stone of rural developmemt, and then and only then can Ethiopia claim that it has thwarted or to some extent overcomed the nightmare of famine.

Finally, the problems of democracy and governance, which are also part of the development package, must be resolved irrespective of differences in political ideology, party affiliation, and/or alternative paths to development. Good governance must be able to accomodate different and opposing views, and in the final analysis it must necessarily exhibit transparency and accountability to ensure genuine democracy. But good governance should not be limited to a universal flux of sloganeering or be trapped in a conceptual framehouse. It should be a material force.

Put in plain language, "good regimes have rulers dedicated to the common good, while bad ones have rulers who use their positions to further their private interest," as Aristotle aptly put it a long time ago. The wisdom of Aristotle is not only relevant to modern political economy, but it has unmistakeably foretold the intircate connection of politics and economics, with out which no development agenda can be contemplated and/or implemented.


[Opinions in this article are solely that of the writer.]


TO GO BACK