|
OPPOSITIONS DURING
EPRDF ETHIOPIA
PART I: POLITICS AND DEMOCRACY
By Mathza, (Originally posted on
March 25, 2004)
G: Attacks on the Leadership
Some writers are hate-mongers. They are rude and crude. It is unbecoming
of them to resort to insulting, name-calling and demonizing the government
and its officials. When criticizing opinions expressed by others they
attack the messengers instead of the messages. In the process they end
up exposing and discrediting themselves. Some are so vulgar they resort
to addressing government officials by “esu” instead of the
traditional “esachew.” Bizarre as it is, ‘former terrorists’
is the latest label given to the current leadership by the chairman of
EHRCO.
Many slanderous remarks have been made regarding the educational qualifications
of the leadership. According to the oppositions, the leadership is not
educationally qualified to administer the country. They purposely forget
that most of the latter were university students before they joined the
liberation fronts. Many of them were awarded degrees from the Open University
in the United Kingdom. Others are working for their degrees. The Prime
Minister was recently awarded an Honorary Doctorate Degree by a Japanese
University. This is the second doctoral award he received. He has non-academic
awards and prizes, the latest being the one by the Rotary International.
These are achievements many of those who deride the EPRDF officials could
probably not have accomplished while administering the country plagued,
as is, by myriad of complex problems. In fact, unlike those cyber warriors
and oppositions, the government officials are better qualified and fit
because of the combination of their experience during the armed struggle
and over twelve years in administering the country. They are as dedicated
now as they were during the struggle to uplift the well being of the people.
None of the oppositions can match the commitment of EPRDF and its affiliates.
In view of all these, the leadership, on the contrary, should have been
congratulated instead. It is sad to note that the writings of the oppositions,
particularly those who hold Ph.Ds, do not reflect the educational sophistication
that their degrees are supposed to indicate. They are unprofessional and
full of prejudices, lies and exaggerations. Some of them are professors
at colleges and universities. One wonders how the schools continue to
employ such unprofessional and unscrupulous professors to teach (probably
misinform) their students!
The oppositions are so jealous, frustrated and intimidated by the intellectuality,
capability and incorruptibility of the Prime Minister that they find it
virtually impossible to measure up to him. These impressive qualities
of the Prime Minister are well known by the international community, particularly
by the Bretton Woods Institutions.The former chief economist of the World
Bank, the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, for instance, lauded the intellectual
attributes of and characterized the Prime Minister as “an impeccably
honest man ... with personal integrity.” In their frustrations the
oppositions resort to despicable character assassination: name-calling,
baseless accusations and outright lies. The following are examples of
outrageous statements against the person of the Prime Minister and reflect
the nature of the accusers, the pathological liars and persons devoid
of conscience who are unashamed to insult the intelligence of the readers:
• ”The Meles regime is deliberately giving a blind eye to
the ravaging pandemic, because it is part and parcel of his administration's
agenda to see to it that the youth of Ethiopia are extinct.”
• “... he[Meles] tried to fun (sic) hatred between the people
of Tigrai and the rest of Ethiopia,...”
• “Meles has passed state secrets, detrimental to Ethiopia’s
efforts to dislodge Shaebia from the occupied lands...”
• Ridiculed and dismissed dialogues conducted between the Prime
Minister and other high officials and some of the oppositions and civic
society (university staff and students, business community, etc.),
• “[Meles] a favorite candidate for the post of ‘World’s
Most Evil & Traitorous Man, ...’”
• “Mad or bad, Meles is more menacing than Sadam & Osama.”
• “...[Meles] under great pressure from Shabian leaders and
western enemies to systematically divide and destroy Ethiopia.”
• “Meles is the anti-Ethiopia,”
• “Meles is not only genuinely incompetent but also utterly
idiotic,”
• “ruthless dictator who is intentionally starving millions
of his own people...”
• "Meles is negotiating to sell the Arc to the state of Israel,"
and
• Meles conspired with the enemy to hurt his people.
Some of the above outrageous statements relate to Eritrea. They go to
the extent of accusing him of being an Eritrean agent, implanted to destroy
Ethiopia and benefit Eritrea at the expense of Ethiopia. What a horrendous
fabrication! Whether they admit it or not the Prime Minister is serving
his country with utmost concern and diligence. He is a person who takes
action with the future prospect of the country in mind, not for immediate
or short-term political gain as the oppositions or for that matter some
other heads of government do. His government's policy towards Eritrea
and the Eritrean government was forward looking. His intention and motive,
it seems, were to undertake activities that could eventually lead to some
kind of association between the two countries. Among the strategies he
used was to create conducive environment by implementing an exemplary
democratic governance and making tangible progress in sustainable political,
social and economic development (waging war against poverty, ignorance
and backwardness) -- one of the reasons for diverting military expenses
to development from day one, immediately following the fall of the derg
regime. He, apparently, believed that success in these coupled with maintaining
amicable and fraternal relationship with Eritrea could herald closer relationship.
That such an approach was leading to some thing in that direction was
indicated when, at a press conference in 1996, President Isayas himself
hinted at the possibility for confederation. The Eritrean Ambassador in
Ethiopia was more specific in stating that political integration was the
goal and that “forming an independent state was never the ultimate
goal of our long struggle.”
“Meles Zenawi's Uneventful Visit to the UK” and “The
Prime Misery Met Humiliation In London” are among the titles of
articles that appeared in the internet following the official visit of
the Prime Minister to the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister conducted
fruitful discussions with Mr. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, and other
high ranking officials of the host country and obtained pledges for substantial
assistance. He lectured on “New Partnership for Africa's Development”
(NEPAD) at the Royal Institute of International Affairs and met Members
of Parliament and leaders of the business community as well as the Ethiopian
community. If there was anything that the above titles and their contents
have accomplished it is to expose the utter imbecilic nature and avalanche
of lies of the authors, to say the least.
Logical reasoning does not seem to work with most of them. They think
it works in one sense though. They reason: when something goes wrong in
the United States the government official, say the President, concerned
resigns; Meles is a government official; Meles should therefore resign
because, in their view and which they want us to believe, he is the cause
for every thing that goes wrong in Ethiopia. It is, as economists say,
comparing apples and oranges. The conditions under which the two leaders
work are, to say the least, totally different. The American President
has at his disposal and command a democratic system that, for all practical
purposes, works smoothly and efficiently. The civil servants working under
him are educated, well trained, well compensated and virtually all of
them dedicated. They are equipped with and supported by the latest state-of-the-art
administrative system and information technology. A good part of the work
is simplified and routinized which minimizes misinterpretation and mismanagement.
The situation in Ethiopia is just the opposite. The leadership works under
adverse circumstances using inadequate and weak public service. Mostly
illiterate (under 60%) population, an economy based on subsistence agriculture,
grossly inadequate resources, an evolving system of administration, underpaid
civil servants (most of them, especially at the lower level lacking adequate
understanding of work and responsibility), high rate of unemployment,
sabotage by disgruntled elements, disruptive separatists and oppositions,
some traditions and attitudes that work against change, last but not least
pervasive and ubiquitous corruption with roots in tradition are among
the constraints that any Prime Minister in Ethiopia has to deal with.
In the Ethiopian context, since failures, mistakes and wrongdoings could
be caused by any or a combination of the above and other factors at different
levels of the government hierarchy, it may not be justified to put all
the blame on the Prime Minister. Besides, this would definitely involve
changing the Prime Minister so often that government administration would
be paralyzed because of instability and lack of continuity. In any case,
it does not make sense to hold the Prime Minister for responsibility at
the same level of that of an American president. This would assume that
the government is operating on the basis of an American model and standard
which we all know is not. Following strictly the American model does not,
obviously, seem and cannot be practical in developing countries, such
as Ethiopia, at such an early stage of democratization.
H: Other Criticisms
The criticisms emanating from the oppositions are not limited to those
referred to above. Since the oppositions label the government, for their
political expediency, as the source of all evils in the country, the criticisms
are too numerous to consider here. Samples of the most important additional
ones are dealt with below.
Corruption is one of them. There is no denying that there is corruption
in Ethiopia. No country in the world is immune from corruption, not even
the United States where corporate greed and scandal, for example, seems
to be relatively widespread. It is a matter of degree: in some countries
it is high; in others it is low; still in others, some where in between.
Ethiopia ranked 92nd among 133 countries, the latter figure representing
the most corrupt country. In the words of an article in the Addis Tribune
titled “Restructuring Addis Ababa’s Management System”
“In our country corruption has been systemic and hence difficult
to detect and punish.” The oppositions say “in Ethiopia, the
only wholly successful modern industry is the theft of cash from businesses,
aid funds, government coffers, etc.” To its credit, unlike the previous
regimes, the current government is trying to fight corruption and is seeking
the involvement and support of the people and religious organizations
in its endeavors. To this end, an anti-corruption campaign is in progress.
The commendation that Ethiopia received from the United Nations Convention
against Corruption for its anti-corruption efforts is proof to the progress
already made. The Convention “listed [Ethiopia]as one of the countries
that has achieved commendable results in the struggle against corruption.”
A national survey on corruption recently conducted confirmed how pervasive
corruption is and proposed that the government “launch the anticorruption
campaign more vigorously.” It should be recalled that the former
Prime Minister is in prison serving time on corruption charges. Other
high ranking government officials and business people have been detained
and are undergoing trial. It is bizarre but true that some oppositions
are attacking the government for taking action to detain people alleged
to be involved in corruption. This is damn if you do damn if you do not.
And yet they have the audacity to allege that the current Prime Minister
himself is corrupt. Does such a charge make sense? Can they prove it?
No doubt, they would have done so had they had the slightest evidence.
The ever devastating and progressively worsening drought engulfing larger
areas each time it occurs at shorter intervals (the current one covering
up to three consecutive years) and its effect on worsening poverty is
blamed on the government. The oppositions would have us believe that the
culprit for the disaster is the public landholding. How does the mode
of land ownership cause drought? Are they telling us the ever chronic
drought could have been averted had land been under private hands? Why
are they mute in regard to the phenomenal climatic change which is causing
havoc in many parts of the world, including Ethiopia? They disregard the
fact that Ethiopia has been suffering from periodic droughts for centuries.
And Ethiopia happens to be one of the countries in Africa where the arid
area is increasing at a fast rate, thus contributing to the recurring
drought occurring at decreasing time intervals and for longer periods.
Areas where drought was minimal or absent are now experiencing it. Does
not the high rate of increase of population contribute to the deteriorating
environmental condition, to the reduction of agricultural productivity
and therefore to the vulnerability of the people to drought? In light
of these increasing vulnerabilities how ludicrous can the oppositions
get! They, apparently, think that such nonsense could advance their politics.
Some concerned individuals, both Ethiopians and foreigners, raise the
legitimate question why the effect of drought is severe in Ethiopia compared
to other countries. The answer includes: high population growth, costly
wars and lack of peace for many decades fuelled by separatists and oppositions,
governance (which oppositions referr to as ‘bad governance’)
evolving from a feudal system, overwhelming land degradation, abject poverty,
lack of resources (including lowest donor development assistance) and
evolving from a feudal system . Some of these are peculiar to Ethiopia;
others apply to other countries but at manageable levels.
Another of the accusations labeled at the EPRDF is private businesses
cannot compete with party affiliated companies. The excuse given is that
the latter companies benefit from government favors. Ethiopia Amalgamated
Ltd. (EAL) could serve as an illustration of this. According to a recent
article on the company that was posted on Walta Information Center, it
appears that the company has gone through a devastating experience brought
about by government institutions. On the other hand, from first hand information,
the writer knows a private company which won bids twice competing with
party companies. The manager of the company said that he never noticed
or experienced the alleged favors. Anyway, to urge Ethiopians to boycott
goods and services provided by EPRDF-affiliated companies as well as pressuring
company employees to give up their employment is shocking. How can one
even conceive the idea of a boycott that could render idle scares resources
in one of the poorest countries in the world? Why do some oppositions
cry foul when local entrepreneurs or individuals invest in states outside
their own? Is it not because of lack of resources that the country has
revised its investment code a number of times to attract foreign investment
in a highly competitive world? By the way, the New Investment Promotion
Program which became operational is expected to encourage and facilitate
joint domestic/foreign investment ventures. Already 40 joint venture projects
are being promoted with the assistance of the United Nations Industrial
Development Organization (UNIDO). A more investor friendly bill aimed
at improving the bureaucratic bottlenecks of the Ethiopian Investment
Authority, including the provision of one-stop shop service, is pending
presentation to the House of Peoples' Representatives. A bill amending
the commercial registration and business-licensing proclamation passed
by the House of Peoples' Representatives is, among others, intended to
promote trade and investment in Ethiopia.
The economic and social consequences of boycotting EPRDF-affiliated companies
will obviously and certainly be disastrous. Unlike many African countries
the lions share of investment is fortunately owned by Ethiopians. Why
does one, in his right mind, want to destroy this situation which is the
envy of other African countries? To say the least, it is madness, pure
and simple. Another serious consequence is the likely change of the attitude
of donors. The good will that the government has established with donors
will certainly suffer. The donors will say no assistance to a country
which renders its productive and service assets useless. How can donors
convince their tax payers to continue to assist the country? It is apparent
that the idea of boycott is suicidal for Ethiopia. In any case, if there
is truth to the allegation a solution should be found whereby each and
every company in the country would have equal chance to compete freely.
The development of capital market which could facilitate diversified ownership
and cross investment may be one of the solutions.
Boundary with Eritrea is hottest topic of the day nowadays. The oppositions
accuse the Prime Minister of losing some land, particularly Badme, to
Eritrea (although Ethiopia is reported to have registered net gain, 10%-15%
of the disputed land) after a decisive military victory. They seem to
be justified in this; apparently something went wrong; it looks that some
errors made by the EEBC need to be corrected. The government made efforts
to convince the EEBC to correct the errors. After taking time and exhausting
its attempts, not acting in haste -- what a responsible government should
do -- the Prime Minister by his 19 September letter requested the UN Security
Council to help solve the impasse related to the dispute on the border
demarcation which he said was in “terminal crisis.” He called
for the setting up of an alternative body to rule on the contested areas.
Following the EEBC rebuttal the Prime Minister declared the EEBC is “null
and void.”
Obviously, on hindsight, because of his earnest desire to turn back to
his focus on development, he erred as a human being. He signed the Algiers
Peace Agreements and agreed to the inflexible mandates of the Boundary
Commission which stipulated boundary decisions to be made on the basis
of colonial treaties and applicable international law. So did President
Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair erred in respect of the preemptive
war on Iraq based on threat of weapons of mass destruction that, so far,
proved not to have existed. His government, apparently, assumed that,
Ethiopia, as both the victim and victor and as a result of being in a
position to impose its conditions on Eritrea to sign the Algiers Agreement,
would be rewarded with its claims. Of course, as the Prime Minister he
should be held responsible, even if he has been misled by those on his
side dealing with the border issue. There is, however, no faultless human
being on earth. This being the case, the Prime Minister, or any one else
for that matter, including President Bush, should be judged by the net
overall achievements, i.e., the positives minus the negatives. In his
case, the positives overwhelmingly outweigh the negatives. In any case,
why do some of the oppositions go out of their way to embolden the Eritrean
government, the EEBC and other external enemies by echoing their blah
utterances and making damaging statements supportive of them, some considered
crucial to the security of the country? This is in stark contrast to the
intensive campaign Eritreans are conducting in the Western World in support
of their government in regard to the boundary issue. Obviously, the oppositions
are doing this, instead of following the example of the Eriteans, to score
cheap political gains, with the full knowledge that what they do and say
have grave consequences against the interest of the country. Why are they
quite now after having pressured the government not to accept the EEBC
ruling? Does not this show that they are deceitful and have no interest
in what happens to the country?
One of the complaints incessantly made by Ethiopians on the working of
the EEBC was the lack of field visits by members of the Commission. Such
kind of a visit was effected with respect to the UN Cameroon-Nigeria Commission
in February this year. The mission met with authorities, traditional chiefs
and the people in the disputed area. With such a precedent, Ethiopian
could, probably, be in a stronger position to demand for similar treatment.
During the Ethio-Eritrean war the government showed maturity and diplomacy
by not resorting to foul languages used by the Erirean government and
Eritrean writers which still continues unabated. It, however, failed to
counter the profusion of propaganda emanating from the Eritrean government
and Eritreans, propaganda characterized by lies and exaggerations. As
they say ‘action speaks louder.’ This is the strategy the
government, apparently, adopted which, on hindsight, proved to be an inappropriate
policy and wrongly interpreted as a weakness by the rogue state of Eritrea.
It is surprising that the oppositions failed to criticize such policy.
They probably did this on purpose. As a result of such government’s
weakness and oppositions’ silence, Eritrea garnered undeserved favorable
coverage in the world news media during a good part of the war. The world
got the wrong impression that Ethiopia was the aggressor and tiny Eritrea,
the victim. It is possible that this could have emboldened the Eritrean
government to persist in its belligerency and conflict which could have
been avoided.
Let us try to be candid. Why are the oppositions piling up all the blames
on the present government as if its predecessors had nothing to do with
the Eritrean problem. Was not Emperor Menelik who conspired with the Italians
and emboldened them to occupy the Ethiopian territory the latter named
“Eritrea”? Was not he who was responsible for the legacy of
the problematic boundaries? Did not Emperor Haile Sellassie’s government
commit blunder after blunder alienating the Eritreans? Was not the goodwill
that Eritreans had towards mother Ethiopia squandered? What about the
Mengistu regime? Has not its Red Terror alienated the Ethiopian people
and its rigid and brutal military solution rendered the Eritrean people
to rally behind the EPLF? Did not these make the situation in the country,
including the then province of Eritrea, untenable? Did not Mengistu get
rid of General Aman Andom (an Eritrean), popular among the armed forces
and the then Chairman of the Derg, who was on the verge of finding a peaceful
solution to the Eritrean problem? Have not these and his mistreatment
and wanton killing of members of the military worsened the fighting spirit
and morale of the forcibly conscripted and mostly ill-prepared unwilling
to fight militia and soldiers? Was not due to this and the nation-wide
lack of support for the Derg regime that rendered many audacious and self-adulating
Eritreans to continue to claim that they single-handedly (as if other
liberation fronts did not play crucial roles) defeated the largest army
in Africa? In a nut shell, the current government, as inheritor, has,
unfortunately, to deal with all the mess and complications left behind
by all its predecessors.
(To be continued)
Click the sections below to read previous postings of PART I
Introduction
A: Ethnic-based
Federalism
B-D: State
Land Ownership, Human Rights, Democracy
E-F: Governance,
Support of the People
|