Prime Minister Meles Zenawi hit a new low this week by publicly declaring 'We deserve Aid' in an interview with British TV Channel 4. We felt so embarrassed by the statement that we thought this was a good opportunity to distance the Ethiopian people from it while attempting to understand exactly what he meant by it. This statement seems like it was a Freudian slip from the ‘Bon Vivant’ of The Economist, albeit a slip that exposed what appears to be a spoilt beggar.
In common English the word ‘deserve’ is used to imply reward for some earned achievement that one is worthy of. What exactly does the prime minister believe he has accomplished to deserve aid? Could it be the achievement of drowning us into more poverty than when he found us a decade and a half ago? The number of people declared to be in need of food aid outpaces population growth implying that the Prime Minister may have a point. Young people in urban areas are increasingly unemployed and demoralized and this may also have added to his accomplishment. Maybe he deserves more aid simply because he has made us so poor that we are now chronically dependent on aid to maintain both our wealth and our poverty.
The Prime Minister may be talking on a totally different dimension however. In this scenario he believes that he deserves aid because there is some service, unknown to us, that he has rendered for those donating the aid. If this is the case, it will be impossible to find direct evidence for it and we need to look for indirect ones. One of Meles’ strongest international supporters has been the Prime Minister of the UK Mr. Tony Blair. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi was a prominent member of his ‘Commission for Africa’ that was shunned in most African capitals as a newly packaged colonial program based on aid. The Economist mentioned his ‘exemplary’ contribution to this commission, shedding some light as to what he may have meant when he said that he ‘deserves’ aid.
Whatever the origin of Meles’ absurd comment, we know a few things about aid in Ethiopia that are worth mentioning here. The first is that aid is obtained in the name of poor Ethiopians but is for the most part controlled and absorbed by the EPRDF and aid donor interests. It is difficult to say if this is simply a cozy arrangement that has evolved into being organic or an explicit undeclared contract between the beneficiaries. The second is that neither beneficiary is willing to give up the money or each other at this time. This has been made amply evident by the silence, and at times quite support, that the donor community has given to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi despite his atrocious governance of the country.
We know that Ethiopia is in great need of aid. But the only aid that we need is one that has a possibility of passing on to the people. Not one that recreates Mobutu. Of all the possible ways in which Ethiopia could be aided, the present arrangement represents the worst format by encouraging crony behavior and unnecessary military spending to weaken the national defenses and strengthen ‘mercenary’ type forces. People have observed the various types of weapons that were turned against them in Addis implying misguided aid. Prime Minister Meles may believe that he deserves aid either as a viceroy serving a few masters who have a say over western tax-payer money, or because he has impoverished us. But we disagree. That is what the elections clearly showed.
In common English the word ‘deserve’ is used to imply reward for some earned achievement that one is worthy of. What exactly does the prime minister believe he has accomplished to deserve aid? Could it be the achievement of drowning us into more poverty than when he found us a decade and a half ago? The number of people declared to be in need of food aid outpaces population growth implying that the Prime Minister may have a point. Young people in urban areas are increasingly unemployed and demoralized and this may also have added to his accomplishment. Maybe he deserves more aid simply because he has made us so poor that we are now chronically dependent on aid to maintain both our wealth and our poverty.
The Prime Minister may be talking on a totally different dimension however. In this scenario he believes that he deserves aid because there is some service, unknown to us, that he has rendered for those donating the aid. If this is the case, it will be impossible to find direct evidence for it and we need to look for indirect ones. One of Meles’ strongest international supporters has been the Prime Minister of the UK Mr. Tony Blair. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi was a prominent member of his ‘Commission for Africa’ that was shunned in most African capitals as a newly packaged colonial program based on aid. The Economist mentioned his ‘exemplary’ contribution to this commission, shedding some light as to what he may have meant when he said that he ‘deserves’ aid.
Whatever the origin of Meles’ absurd comment, we know a few things about aid in Ethiopia that are worth mentioning here. The first is that aid is obtained in the name of poor Ethiopians but is for the most part controlled and absorbed by the EPRDF and aid donor interests. It is difficult to say if this is simply a cozy arrangement that has evolved into being organic or an explicit undeclared contract between the beneficiaries. The second is that neither beneficiary is willing to give up the money or each other at this time. This has been made amply evident by the silence, and at times quite support, that the donor community has given to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi despite his atrocious governance of the country.
We know that Ethiopia is in great need of aid. But the only aid that we need is one that has a possibility of passing on to the people. Not one that recreates Mobutu. Of all the possible ways in which Ethiopia could be aided, the present arrangement represents the worst format by encouraging crony behavior and unnecessary military spending to weaken the national defenses and strengthen ‘mercenary’ type forces. People have observed the various types of weapons that were turned against them in Addis implying misguided aid. Prime Minister Meles may believe that he deserves aid either as a viceroy serving a few masters who have a say over western tax-payer money, or because he has impoverished us. But we disagree. That is what the elections clearly showed.
10 comments:
Strong opposition must be based on ideals and clear understanding of the current state of affairs in the country, not on threatening the functions of the country's institutions which are partly financed by Aides. Had there been due attention to details as how government institions in the country are being run, the points in this posting would have been difficulty to make and required an extensive work. I am not pro-EPRDF or implying absence policy related problems. But, Let us not make Meles and his government the mere source of our problems and deny the possibility that he is just part of the problem.
Dear yyyyy,
Your point is well taken that the comments should be aimed at the administration and not the instituions that make use of Aid.
However, we sense that in Ethiopia's case because most of the institutions are designed and built by Aid related interests and a government that is, by choice, totally beholden to them, there is a fundamental problem that requires correction as early as possible.
In other words the institutions need to fundamentally change their constituency base from that of international donors to domestic pressure groups [business, ethnic, etc...]. Otherwise no government, whatever its policy, will be able to use them for real development in the future.
I would say there are many factors behind the way institutions are designed and being run than the government's sole Aid related interests. We have to take into account all the questions to see the other factors as well. We do not even have solid soft infrastructure supporting the private sector to become vibrant and strong enough to finance government institution. Accurate understanding and description of this absence requires consideration of some factors by itself.
Dear yyyyy,
You made an important point about Ethiopia's inability to collect revenue from domestic sources. But the problem is much deeper than that. If you consider the government's choices with regard to central banking or military operations for instance it becomes obvious that it has positioned itself more like an outsourced management company than a government.
There are functions that need to be carried out by national institutions and many of these have been compromised due to the continued dependence on aid. It is very likely that when all the infrastructure you speak of is developed it will not be able to serve the interests of domestic business and the populace at large.
I understand that the policy under which the central banking system operates and its impacts to the current state of the country's economy as it relates to the private sector could be considerable.
But, can we say the private sector is functioning as it should with in the boundaries of current standards and limitations? Have we ever looked into this in a way which is free of laxity and true concern with causes?
For instance, despite sources of financing of military operation,their expenditure falls on the aggregate demand side of the economy which is positive either to the private or govt sector.
I also understand the Aid based financing and conditions that come along with Aid. However, there is human element (both in pvt and govt sectors) which will always be there regardless of the party in power, and without considering the essential characterstics of this element, I do not understand how one could think of functioning systems that would support growth.
Dear yyyyy,
We agree with you on the importance of central banking on the private sector, and more dramatically to a government's ability to stimulate or control the economy at large. The way it is initially structured is extremely important to a country's economic potential.
Ethiopia's private sector is still embryonic and will very likely get wiped out if it has no legitimate voice within government. EPRDF businesses will survive on crony relationships but they can not make up Ethiopia's economy. This would represent something very similar to Egypt's stagnant economy but even less stable due to the ethnic nature of EPRDF's businesses.
The military is increasingly reflecting a colonial force that depends [financially, morally and logistically] on sponsors who need local forces to do their regional dirty work. We believe the colonial nature of this force will continue to be felt by common Ethiopians in the future.
Interesting discussion...
yyyy - when you say the military's expenditure falls on the aggregate demand side of the economy and this is "positive either to the private or govt sector" I would have to disagree on the positivity and significance of such expenditure.
First, I think most of the demand that the military sector creates is going to be spent outside the country (training, planes, parts, bombs, machine guns, bullets etc which are all capital intensive and none of which is produced locally). There is of course residual local expenditure (primarily food), but this is by no means sufficient to become an engine for growth. There is really little local demand that the military creates. The fuel oil expenditure itself to sustain the military is bound to be quiet significant (considering the military probably pays the already subsidized price this is infact a negative on the aggregate economy because it inflates the country's demand without actually paying the full price for it).
Second, the labor force the military ties up probably affects productivity in rural areas negatively.
Third, the opportunity cost of the military expenditure is very high. In addition to the military's role to keeping the likes of meles in power, the several million dollars that are spent on it is diverted from education, health care, clean water etc...all which would have built up the social capital inside the country. The article does say we need aid that gets to the people, this sort of aid helps meles now but doesn't help the country in the long/short run.
In western countries Military expenditures are good for local businesses, but I doubt that is the case in Ethiopia.
Dear Tazabi
I understand the importance of continued effort on the Govt. side to help the private sector grow through policy changes and creation of favorable business environment. You said that the pvt sector was still embryonic, and I think that is right only when you see it for what it is now. But, why don’t we dare to face the constraints in the process of searching for what it could have been? How could we reasonably anticipate what would do if there was a policy change with out considering failures on both sides?
As the nature of the military force, there must be transformation to independent military and law enforcement force and, I think, that requires process, not radical change which would create dangerous vacuum. I do believe a political change that essentially considers EPRDF as a partner would expedite that process. This change can only be achieved by a strong opposition to which not public temptation, but clear understanding of the country’s political, economic and social problems is , with beliefs rooted in compromise, synergy and love, Not hate, destruction, violence and threat.
Dear Tirusew
You’re right that my assertion was broad in categorizing the military expenditure on the plus side. However, we are not sure how much of the military budget is being spent on training, bombs, tank, etc, and we do not even know the level of the national budget going to the military. I did not say anything about the sufficiency of the residual local expenditure to growth; I just said it had positive impacts. The fuel expenditure and possible double impact of paying subsidized price is theoretical right, but we have to answer some question of its reality as it relates to the referent of our discourse. Because we have to see the presence of major military operations in the country and their spending on fuel, etc
The productivity of the rural areas: we have to see the composition of the military force to see where the military is recruiting from? How about the many unemployed of Addis and other urban areas joined the military during Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict? And, I am not sure if it is possible to argue that the poor productivity level of the rural areas is due to insufficient work force.
The opportunity cost of the military spending can be justifiable only when we know how high it is and how much of it could be avoided. It is obvious that some of the spending would be there, whether Meles is in power or not. And, we do not even know the nature of military force the country must have given its geographical location and situation it is in, and the problems with the current one as opposed to that.
Dear yyyyy
You have raised pertinent points and we have enjoyed the dialgue with you. However, we find that we have to disagree with the gist of your assesment.
Primarily, EPRDF can only be used as a partner in Ethiopia when it has political legitimacy, an area in which it lacks considerably. The only other option is to try to obtain military legitimacy as it is doing now. But that choice doesn't lend itself well to the creation of partnerships.
As you say, we may lack detailed information about Ethiopia's economic and military policies and reality. But Ethiopia has turned into one of the most externally influenced countries in Africa and we have sufficient information on the overall framework of what guides Ethiopian policy to have a good idea of where the country is headed.
Moreover, lack of information can only be a call for more investigation, not an impulse towards supporting, an obviously failed, status quo.
Thank you for your contributions.
Dear Tazabi
I understand the purpose of your postings and, I think, many do, but that would not bring about change by itself. It is encouraging and organizing people to support that necessitates the toughest task which is clear and comprehensive understanding of causes. The information we disseminate should serve our purpose well and must cover all aspects of our problems, for deficiency in so doing would inevitably trivialize our purpose. I believe that unless we consider and decide to face this difficult and yet essential task, nothing can be achieved by taking one side of our problems and holding EPRDF responsible for all kinds of our problems, and this was the gist of my assessment. As I you have stated there was lack of information, but what we have to understand is general picture of the “overall all framework what guides Ethiopian policy” does not show the standards, limitation and constraints involved with the making of that framework.
As I said in my initial posting I am not pro-EPRDF and diverting support to EPRDF is not my intention at all. As the political legitimacy of the current government is concerned, that depends on agreed source of legitimacy that its practicality is justifiable in the current situation of the county. By partnership, I mean working together with EPRDF to diffuse the current tension, avoid loss more lives and create productive environment to everyone. For instance, the two hours dialogue between Meles and the opposition party members joined parliament few days before could be best example for the sense I used the word partnership.
Post a Comment