Anyone who
has read the latest Human Rights Watch investigative report on land grab (yemeret neteka ena kirimit) in Gambella
under the title “Waiting for Death” should have no doubt that the governing
party is callous and does not place value on human life. The people of Gambella
who are being moved or relocated “forcibly” are citizens and humans who deserve
fair treatment like any human being on this planet. It is their citizenship
that is being robbed from them and from their children by repressive ethnic
elite that has aligned itself with loyal domestic and foreign investors such as
Saudi Star and Karuturi. Shouldn’t this latest report on social, economic,
cultural, political and psychological violations of citizens in Gambella and
other regions wheresimilar occurrences
are taking place enrage and mobilize us? If such violations do not lead to
convergence, what would? My plea to the reader is this. Land and water resource
transfers to domestic allies and foreign investors in the name of development
that do not show immediate and long-term benefits to the people of Ethiopia,
and especially to so called indigenous or local inhabitants and at an immense
cost to citizens is a travesty. This, in itself, should compel us to close
ranks and cooperate and collaborate for justice and freedom.
I want to start this commentary with a
rationale of why I am doing a series on ethnic based political organization and
governance—the current well-crafted geopolitical architecture of the
TPLF/EPRDF. It seems to me that each and every one of us who believes in the
enormous potential of our country of origin and its diverse population has a
moral obligation to identify and articulate the reasons why Ethiopia is still one the five poorest
countries in the world with a per capita income in 2011 of US$350 compared
to the Sub-Saharan African average of US$1,070. As important, we are obligated
to reflect on why and what type of change we would like to see in Ethiopia that
will serve and benefit all Ethiopians left out by the so-called economic boom
since the thwarted elections of 2005. I have suggested that if we want to see
change, we must overcome minor differences, agree on a minimum agenda and
deliver for the Ethiopian people. The time for action is now and not tomorrow. Eshie
nege (yes tomorrow) will not advance the cause of peace, national
reconciliation, justice and the rule of law and the sovereignty of the
Ethiopian people. It will prolong the agony that ordinary Ethiopians face:
hyperinflation, unemployment, human flight, human rights violations. In short,
it will perpetuate disenfranchisement.
Those of us outside the country possess the
knowledge, diversity of experience, financial and material resources and
technical tools to advance change if we are committed, willing and ready. I am
not at all convinced that we are there. If we were, we would have contributed
immensely in advancing the process of change by supporting grassroots and
home-based individual activists, civic organizations and political parties that
advance a common national agenda and or force others to do the same. These
series of articles are intended to provide conceptual underpinnings or reasons
behind the current disenfranchisement and powerlessness felt by the majority of
the Ethiopian people regardless of ethnic or religious affiliation, gender or
age.
Powerlessness and resource mismanagement
Have you
ever asked yourself or your friend or anyone why the TPLF/EPRDF led government
gives away millions of hectares of the most fertile farmlands and waters basins
for literally nothing and for up to 100 years to domestic allies and foreign
investors? Have you ever posed for one second to reflect on the long-term
implications of these national resource transfers for this and coming
generations? If land is “green gold,” why would any government grant it for
almost nothing as if it has no social, economic, psychological, security and
political value? What system allows for this to occur and why? Let me summarize
a few fact contained in my latest book, “The
Great land giveaway: yemeretneteka
ena kirimit” and link it to the ethnic elite architecture that allows this
to happen without challenge. Why is there no challenge? It is because ordinary
people are denied their fundamental right to vote for and elect their
representatives and leaders.
In April
2011, the Reporter newspaper presented an investigative piece on land grab and
validated that the Federal Government has slated, promised or granted “3,638, 415 ha” of the most fertile
farmlands and water basins, primarily to foreign investors from 36 countries.
The same article noted that regions had turned over another 2,000,000 ha of lands to the Federal
Government to allocate as it sees fit. A break down by Ato Wudineh of the
Reporter showed that 1,149,000 ha of
these giveaways are in Beni-Shangul Gumuz and 1,800,000 ha in Gambella, among the poorest regions in the country.
Experts estimate that by 2015, the amount of lands given away will reach at
least 7,000,000 ha. Smallholders farm less than half an acre and support a
family of at least 6 persons. Ethiopian smallholders are the backbone of the
national economy. Studies show that 4/5
(75 percent) of smallholders manage to produce and feed the bulk of
Ethiopia’s population from 12,000,000
ha. In other words, smallholders are the ones that feed millions; and not
large foreign owned commercial farms. Imagine what smallholders could do if
there was a deliberate policy to help them modernize their farms; if they had security to the lands they farm and so on. Karuturi
of India and Saudi Star of Saudi Arabia and other Middle East sponsored
countries are the lead beneficiaries of the largesse. This is why Karuturi
calls Ethiopia’s fertile farmlands “Green gold.” Access to land defines power.
In current Ethiopia, it firms such as Karuturi and Saudi Star and loyalists to
the TPLF and its allies that have power.
Here, I
will not dwell on the pros and cons of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in
commercial farms in Ethiopia except to provide two examples showing that the
policy is utterly flawed. First, the government argument that these transfers
will generate substantial employment for Ethiopians does not hold. Research by
the Oakland Institute, Grain and others shows that each ha of land grant or sale or lease generates 0.005 employments.
It means that the government would have to grant millions of ha to generate
employment opportunities for thousands. Making matters even worse, Karuturi
wishes to bring in and employ Indians to farm Ethiopian lands. Second, the
government’s rationale that giveaway—that lacks preconditions or favorable
conditions for Ethiopia and the Ethiopian people will bring in new technologies
is not based on facts. Here is the problem. The country’s domestic investors
with monies are doing everything within their power to take their capital out
of the country as do officials with money. The indicator is massive illicit outflow
that I have discussed in detail in earlier commentaries.
Why is there
massive capital outflow from one of the poorest and capital starved or
deficient countries in the world? I suggest that national investors do not
trust their own government. They do not have confidence in the future. They are
essentially voting with their monies against the regime. In other words, they
do not trust or have confidence in the future of the economy. If they did, they
will invest domestically and boost employment and productivity. On the other
hand, large-scale commercial farming for Karuturi, Saudi Star and others is lucrative.
Profits can me made relatively quickly and proceeds taken out of the country.
Foreign investors have little incentive to spread technology, modern management
practices and know-how to Ethiopian smallholders or the domestic private
sector. Why would they create national competitors when they can dominate the
large commercial farming sector for up to 99 years? Capitalism does not work
that way whether it comes from China, India or Saudi Arabia. Third, the
government argument that Ethiopia will achieve food self-sufficiency and food
security through FDI is not borne by facts. Karuturi said over and over again
that his firm is under no obligation to set aside sizeable quantities of the
produce for the domestic market. This will not change unless the government
changes the conditions in favor of the country and its starving millions.
These
three examples lead me to pose a question to the reader. How is it possible for
these flaws in government policy that undermine potential ownership of the
means of production by Ethiopians and national productivity for Ethiopians to occur?
Let us ignore my own research and findings that are documented in my latest
book and look at what foreign observers say how this happens. In her “The Great
land grab,” Rene Lefort highlights the following themes on the subject.
Land
defines citizenship
Land is a
source of power, wealth and corruption
Land is
used as a diplomatic leverage
These are
among the reasons why the TPLF/EPRDF led government is the “world’s champion of
land grab.” Have you ever wondered how a regime that claims to adhere to
Revolutionary Democracy becomes a prime
champion of unfettered capitalism? Have you ever wondered why a government
leadership that accuses the private sector of rent seeking behaviors becomes the
largest rent seeker in the country’s history or of any forward looking
government in the 21st century? “They gave the land and we took it.
This is green gold” did not happen by chance. It happened by invitation. Political
elite does not invite a foreign guest to take away prime property without a
motive. Here is one irony the reader needs to consider.
Today, the
state or shall I say, the governing party is the dominant land lord in the
country. Recent changes in urban land legislation indicate that the leadership
is determined to alienate Ethiopians from private ownership of wealth and
wealth making assets such as urban and rural lands. It does this while granting
millions of ha to domestic allies and foreign investors. These transfers and
ownerships are effective forms of privatization for a selected few; and
deprivation for the vast majority of Ethiopians. This is why Lefort argues that
land “defines citizenship and is a source of power and wealth.” She explains
rightly that the reason why land grab is so easy in Ethiopia is because of the
preponderance of the TPLF ethnic core elite over politics and economics.
“Ethiopia is de facto ruled by a “monolithic party-state.” This “monolithic
party-state” is the TPLF core ethnic elite. It is these elite that make land
farm colonization by invitation possible and doable. Land is the single most
important source of political, financial and economic power in Ethiopia today. “Most
of what was left over (after graft, corruption and giveaway) has been pocketed by little oligarchy under the
protection of the merged party state.” This “oligarchy” is now pronounced and
pervasive throughout the country, consuming billions of birr in administrative
expenses through the Federal system.
Alarmed by
the dispossession of Ethiopians, an Indian Economist told Al Jazeera that “foreigners
have more power than Ethiopians” in their own home country.Ordinary Ethiopians are both “powerless” in
terms of policy and decision making; and are helpless in terms of access to
economic and social opportunities. Power
has shifted dramatically to both ethnic elites and to firms such as such as
Karuturi and Saudi Star.
I suggest
then that the ethnic based political and administrative system that divides and
pities Ethiopians among one another facilitates these national resource
transfers with unprecedented ease; to powerlessness; and to the transfer and ownership
of other pillars of the economy by small ethnic elite and foreign investors. In
the 21st century, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) does not operate
by itself. It requires the support and protection of government officials. The
reader would have to question the tiny ethnic elite that rule the country by
force whether it has an appreciation of the long-term implications of these
giveaways that emanate from poor, repressive and discriminatory governance. What is clear to me and many detached foreign
and domestic observers is this. By any definition, governance under
“monolithic” ethnic elite is exclusionary in its political, social and economic
manifestations. The TPLF has virtually merged party, state ethnicity into one.
Its economic policies and programs lean toward monopolistic practices and group
and individual interests with affinity to the ruling-party.
As a
result, this type of governance has prevented and will continue to impede fair
and democratic competition. In assessing ethno-nationalism and the alliances
that helped it to succeed, the ruling party’s current cohort of non-Tigrean
elite and foreign supporters may not care deeply enough to leverage their
considerable financial, material and diplomatic powers to break monopolistic
practices. It is largely stability they want. This is especially true for
foreign governments and investors.
The
reality of existing strong relations between the leadership of the ruling party
and its cohort of global supporters has placed the burden of peaceful change
toward pluralist politics and genuine devolution or decentralization of power
to civil society, communities, ordinary Ethiopians, domestic opposition groups
and the Ethiopian people a whole. Those of us outside the country can do a
great deal to build the capacities of these grassroots groups within the
country. In the long-term, the nurturing and strengthening of a pluralist,
inclusive and indigenous political culture could only come from the experiences
and contributions of the Ethiopian people and their supporters. This view is
hardened by the fact that, ethno-nationalism and ethnic federalism have
survived for 21 years with no end in sight leaving no room for being lax in
pursuing multiethnic and unified politics.
Despite
this need for convergence among opponents to the regime, there are still two
opposing and contrasting schools of thought: those who do not see much hope in
peaceful change argue that the only option the ruling-party understands is armed
struggle or violent change; and the second school that argues that peaceful and
nationwide struggle has not been explored, developed and used fully. I believe
in the latter; but see the merit of why some argue and defend the former. They
key is to arrive at a shared understanding of the problem; come up with a
national agenda for change; and initiate actions. Simultaneously, those of us
on the outside can do much more than we are doing on the diplomatic front.
Almost all
foreign development experts agree that Ethiopia needs structural and policy
reforms if it wishes to accelerate economic productivity, increase employment
and incomes and reduce poverty. None that I am aware of suggests that Ethiopian
can advance its reform agenda through continued civil unrest, polarization,
dissension and civil wars. Experts believe that the non-peaceful route to
policy and structural reforms will be a costly option in multiple ways. One
does not have to dwell on the subject and contribute to the tradition of
quarreling elites. Ethiopians do not deserve continued repression and violation
of human rights. The country paid a heavy price in its development efforts as
consequences of civil turmoil, insurgencies, terrorism, instability, civil wars
and bad governance. The notion of continued conflicts to achieve a democratic
transition is debatable at best and reckless at worst. So is continuation of
the status quo under a single ethnic-based minority ruling party? Conflicts are
not likely to create a democratization culture and the infrastructure that will
accommodate competing interests. The option ignores vested interests that have
emerged over the past two decades, including members of the TPLF/EPRDF. Ethnic
elites allied to the EPRDF have a vested interest in the status quo. They must
be persuaded that the current system is not in their best interest long-term. We
must reach out to them and suggest that “gursha” or whatever is left over is
not the same as the real thing. More critical, we must show that the people
they represent are left out of the development process. Leaving them out is
trouble.
There is a
further point the reader should keep in mind. Conflicts and instability are
enormously costly. I will provide one example of using the depletion of human
capital as a consequence of ethnic and other forms of conflict in Africa to
strengthen the deliberate de-institutionalization by the TPLF core argument I
advanced in my latest book. During what is called the era of Dictatorship of
all sorts in Africa and the “Lost Decade of the 1980s,” more than 100,000 of
the most talented and well trained Africans left their countries and
immigrated. Some countries have not recovered from the social capital loss.
Ethiopia’s Diaspora started during the Socialist Dictatorship and expanded
under the TPLF/EPRDF dictatorship. Today, this dictatorship sees the Diaspora
is a potential threat and opportunity. It has a well crafter program to
de-mobilize the Diaspora, penetrating faith groups, enticing some to invest in
a country full of corruption, nepotism and bureaucratic hurdles where merit and
hard work do not count.
In sum,
ethnic based governance and conflicts are enormously costly for the country and
its people. Continued conflict will not nurture peace and national
reconciliation in the medium and long-term. On the contrary, conflicts and
ethnic polarization will perpetuate animosities and ethnic based hatreds that
the society cannot afford. Conflicts will also strengthen the determination of
the ruling-party to prolong a single party state and will make the country more
and more vulnerable to external threats. It will keep the country poor.
The
question then is whether or not the ruling-party has shown any willingness and
readiness to move forward with free, fair, open, transparent and competitive
elections and gain the confidence and trust of the Ethiopian people. If one
believes in option one–a peaceful election is possible–one needs to assess
the preconditions for success. One would also need to define what the election
will be about. Elections are not simply about going through the motion of the ballot
box and winning. It is about building the infrastructure and institutions that
will make the Ethiopian people masters of their own destiny. To have real
meaning, any election must allow debate and discussion on fundamental policy
concerns, including the type of federalism the country needs. The future must
result in real change in culture and attitudes. Here is why opponents need to
collaborate much more now than in the past; and leave aside the bitterness and
quarrel that be devils them.
I am not aware
of the ruling-party’s readiness to allow public debate of policies. Even if it
does not, the democratization process must continue and political leaders and
supporters must find innovative tools to strengthen institutionalization.
Debates and other instruments must debunk the myth that ethnic-federalism is
pluralist or democratic. When Ethiopian citizens see democratic alternatives,
as was the case in the 2005 elections, they will respond and take charge. This
will put the ruling-party on the defensive. The more defensive it is the better
for the democratization process. This requires a new and post ethnicity cadre
of political and social leaders who believe in a unified and democratic
Ethiopia that will accommodate everyone’s interest. Ethiopian centrality will
not survive without accommodating the hopes and aspirations of all its diverse
citizens. It is political wisdom 101 to accept this notion. A bunker mentality
on any side will not help the country. It is being clueless to timeless wisdoms
such as one from Charles Darwin who had said, “It is not the strongest of the
species that survive, or the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to
change.”Political wisdom is readiness
and willingness to change. It is political parties and leaders who respond to new
requirements and changes who will make a difference.
