I see developmental state as a system of controlling the macroeconomic planning in which policies are formulated to protect national interests, regulate import-export of goods, taking austerity measures if necessary, etc. In simple terms, the state intervenes – regulates and plans the economy of a country. For this purpose the developmental state apparently employs the state bureaucracy with a strong command on the economy as compared to the free market economy. Compared to this is the Western regulatory oriented economy where regulatory agencies enforce a variety of standards of behavior to protect the public against market failures of various sorts, including monopolistic pricing, predation and other abuses of market power. The difference is that the developmental state that is manifested in south Asian countries, mainly China, S. Korea, Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, and Indonesia intervenes more directly in the economy; developmental states can pursue industrial policies by controlling the economy through bureaucracy, while regulatory states generally do not. There is also a third category of Latin American countries where municipal control predominates.
For me all of these pursue a certain type of control. However, as long as state authorities are given de jure authority to intervene into economic activities, there is a venue to delve into rent-seeking systems. Hence, it seems that your approach inclines to justify the authoritarian policy of TPLF/EPRDF that enriches a certain fragment of the people and alienates the great majority from the game. For me asserting that ironically justifies the dictatorship of Meles and his accomplices. Your article indicates that Meles has a vested interest for power and his cronies’ interest is wealth. That is true; however, that is not the whole truth. I agree with Professor Tekola that Meles has also a vested interest of wealth that he acquires directly and more indirectly through his close relatives and a handful of political partners. Professor, I emphasize the point that the values of loyalty, unity, dutifulness, meritocracy, and the drive to learn are lacking around the Meles and his cronies’ circle.
You know that Meles and his accomplices employed shrewd and often disloyal means to ascend to power and elongate their reign. Moreover, they have never fulfilled their promises to the people other than manipulating all means of gripping to power and elongating it. The dictator has carved articles of discord through his rubber stamp parliament instead of unifying the nation state. He betrayed territorial boundaries of the country and its historical sea port that is a key element in the national economy; he manipulated two big wars to strengthen his power. These dictators seek and create pretexts to hold on to power and the very idea of developmental state will be a good excuse. Hence, the idea of developmental state cannot promote any good governance or development other than creating favorable situations for Meles and his cohorts to claim further reign and for their regime to stay on power.
However, the parameters that have been observed so far indicate that the Meles led regime does not promote Ethiopia’s national interests. On the other hand, there is no standard that justifies that a developmental state per se is perfect, nor its authoritarian rule guarantees popular interests. Also, there is no major scenario that exemplifies the TPLF/EPRDF regime to be a promoter of Ethiopian national interest and I cannot see any reason why we give a chance for the people to depend on such a regime. Hence, the safest way of state rule is a democratic one. Therefore, Meles and his cohorts should not be given another green card to grip on to power while they destroy the fabrics of the Ethiopia.
