I am writing
this brief note as a rejoinder to Professor Messay Kebede’s article titled as
“Meles’s Political Dilemma and the Developmental State: Dead-Ends and Exit,” (as
posted in http://addisvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Meles-political-dilemma.pdf)
and do so without overshadowing the points that Professor Messay has made and
without repeating them here. My rejoinder stems from two perspectives:
1. That
the ideas advanced by Professor Messay represent “out-of-the-box” thoughts, and
I strongly believe that such bold “out-of-the-box” thoughts encourage
discussions, which in turn could (hopefully) open the door for new thinking and
new approaches/paradigms. I call upon other intellectuals, concerned citizens,
opposition party members and their supporters, and even the ruling party
members and its supporters to come up with new ideas of this kind (of their
own), and/or entertain them, all geared towards the emancipation of Mother
Ethiopia and the well-being of its people.
2. That,
as I argued and stated elsewhere (see, http://ethiomedia.com/accent/yes_to_democracy.html, http://www.abugidainfo.com/?p=5578,
for example), “…if the last 18 years that Ethiopia has been under the EPDRF are
any witness, this country is neither in a position to mimic these countries (that
is, Southeast Asia) and bring about measurable economic change, nor is the
political and economic phenomena of Ethiopia comparable to those countries…” In
that specific article, I listed, using a few references, particularly the
extensive study made by the World Bank, the common practices of those
particular countries. In short, the common policies and practices of those
countries included, among other things: a) Shared
Growth which encouraged all citizens to cooperate with the ruling parties
and which raised everyone’s hopes thereby encouraging them to work hard. In
contrast, Ethiopia is engulfed with a highly discriminatory system that is
dangerously widening the income gaps between the haves and the have-nots, the
major beneficiaries being EPRDF leaders and regional kingmakers. The others
are: b) Increased accumulation of human capital; c) Rapid accumulation of physical
capital; d) Rapid growth of manufactured exports; and e) Targeting Specific Industrial Policies and Avoiding
Rent-Seeking; f) Stable Macroeconomic Environments.
None
of these are being replicated in Ethiopia, nor does Mr. Zenawi’s highly corrupt
system fit “Developmental State” that was applied Southeast Asia. What is
created in Ethiopia is a rather peculiar (opaque) rent-seeking and highly
greedy system which has completely stifled free enterprise and freedom, where
the TPLF owns and operates numerous key business sectors, the sole
beneficiaries being party leaders and their followers, including the members of
the military leadership.
One
more point is in order here: As I understood from the segment of his analysis that
deals with the “Developmental State”, I do not believe, as some readers may be mistakenly
inclined to think, that Professor Messay believes Mr. Zenawi’s “Developmental
State” theory and practice is either the “preferred” method to other
alternatives or the panacea for Ethiopia’s ills. I, for one, do not believe
that authoritarian systems, particularly as exemplified by the practice of Zenawi’s
“Developmental State” ideology and practice, do a better job
of promoting economic growth and stability, for the empirical evidence testifies
otherwise.It is just that, given the
political and economic circumstances and realities that Ethiopia is in, one
cannot jump to the “Promised Land” without understanding these realities and creating the
necessary conditions for the transitions.
