|
Ethiopia has witnessed a series of bills authored by
the incumbent that could have a profound impact on
daily life. One of the most controversial bills that
has come as a great surprise for those with vested
interest is the one meant to regulate the
activities, charities and civil society
organizations or non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), as they are fond of being called.
In the aftermath of the discussion between Prime
Minister Meles Zenawi and representatives from the
civil society organizations, much has been said
about the bill by the media. At best, it has been
scrutinized in terms of its effect on the political
space in the country, and how the government is
becoming authoritarian through its latest bills; not
to mention the useless argument and mockery over the
numbers involved in the bills.
This can be attributed to the dominance of political
journalists who are naturally inclined to give a
political twist to various issues; it could also be
due to politicians invited by these journalists so
that their political voices could be heard louder.
Nonetheless, a lack of brilliant journalists and
writers in this golden age of economic journalism
has deterred the public from seeing the issue from
an economic point of view.
It is obvious that Meles’s administration was not
clear, nor had it been quite articulate on the
economic policies and ideologies that govern its
rule, particularly in the first 10 years of its
assumption of power. The EPRDF in this period was
very skeptical on various reforms suggested by
multilateral organizations, such as the IMF and the
World Bank, as well as its development partners. It
stemmed largely from an absence of clarity.
Though the ruling party was not very clear about to
what to do with the land issue, which could be seen
as a symbol of the incumbent’s stubborn ideology,
the fact that it was very skeptical on the land
reform raised by the multi-lateral organizations has
helped it to retain the existing land policy.
The last seven years or the “renaissance periods,”
as the Revolutionary Democrats would love to call
them, have opened a new chapter on the ideological
clarity and strength of the party that leads the
government. This period begins after the crisis
within the TPLF, which is the senior and the
strongest partner in the ruling alliance: the EPRDF.
The developmentalist state formula to development
has emerged as a sole sacred path to the growth of
the country then, and now is being fully
articulated.
Meles was profound
about the developmental state prescription to
Ethiopia in his August 2006 speech to the Africa
taskforce, comprised of world-renowned development
economists and researchers who met at Manchester
University, in the United Kingdom. Since then, he
has made it clear that his party has chosen the
developmentalist state model of development for
Ethiopia.
His speech confirmed that this ideology has begun to
show results, and it indeed is the best alternative
to growth. However, the points he underscored to
show the results that he argued for were not all
political. They were not measurements of good
governance; they were not even figures that showed
the number of votes given to his party in the
election undertaken a year earlier. Rather, it was
the successive high economic growth measured in GDP
and scored in the previous three years.
A
very careful view of these developments would give
us an important clue about the whole idea of
developmentalist ideology in the Ethiopian
particular fashion. They tell us one basic thing:
All the bills that are already in place and in the
legislative machinery, or the bills that are going
to come out in the future, are all authored - and
will continue to be - with the economy in mind.
Anyone with a good understanding of the
developmentalist state theory practiced by the
ruling party would not be surprised by the bill
introduced to regulate NGOs. And for one who is a
proponent of the ideology, it is obvious to see how
thoughtful the authors are.
What is most crucial to the developmentalist
ideology is continuity of policy. The proponents
believe that continuity of policy is very important
in order to realize a progressive economic growth.
Once we understand that this can materialize only if
the government stays in power for so long, the
latest bill about the civil society organizations
can be seen as a move to get a broad social support
base, as the government is in a desperate need to
win elections and continue to be in power. Thus, it
is able to pursue its economic agenda effectively,
for the bill surely narrows the political space.
For a governing party, which pursues this ideology
with full energy and clarity, it would be very
difficult to fully democratize; the ideology itself
has inherently undemocratic elements.
Though Meles strongly underlines that this is a
developmentalist-cum-democratic state, I strongly
believe that the government is not as democratic as
it is developmentalist. It cannot be. It mostly
gives lip-service to democracy, while its most
important focus is on the economy. Its worries are
achieving higher economic growth, and on how to
crush the quagmire of poverty.
The latest bills, and others expected to come out in
the near future, are all indications that the
government is starting to use both carrots and
sticks to effectively pursue its economic agenda,
which is characteristic of a developmentalist state.
Admittedly, the developmentalist state paradigm of
the incumbent has started to show us remarkable
achievements on the economic front, which has gained
it international recognition.
The challenge to the oppositions and critics of the
administration is to convince the public that other
alternatives to development could bring even more
achievements on the same front, without compromising
democracy. This undoubtedly requires more than the
usual cry, and of course, should be in the unique
Ethiopian context. |
