Ethiopia – Donor ?Good Governance’ Rhetoric vs. Democratic Governance

May 23, 2006 — “There is also consensus among the development community that Ethiopia, under this Government, has made progress on several key human development fronts — malnutrition, numbers of children going to (and completing) primary education, child survival, etc. — which cannot be allowed to be rolled back. Finally, our collective assessment is that the Government’s commitment to poverty reduction and broad-based growth remains strong.” ( Ishac Diwan, May 17, 2006, Ethiomedia).

1. Introduction
The Network of Ethiopian Scholars (Scandinavian Chapter) is alarmed by the way the donors inadvertently contribute to worsening the political situation in Ethiopia. NES protests in the strongest terms against the regime and those allied to it for being totally irresponsible and myopic by letting the situation spin inch by inch out of control. We are deeply worried that our country may be plunged into a dangerous situation by the sheer short sightedness and arrogance of the regime not to permit dissent, criticism, pluralism as variables that can contribute to a vibrant democratic environment in the country, as long as the situation is not under its direct and indirect control. Those who praise its authoritarian or managerial commitment to implement the donor sponsored PRSP papers (Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers) and refuse to stand firmly on the side of democracy and the people too are contributing to its arrogance.

2. Democratic Governance is NOT to be confused with ?Good Governance’

It is welcome to hear Mr. Ishac Dawin saying that the World Bank is still holding on withholding budget support to the Meles regime. It is worrying, however, that the donor group evaluates this regime in being good at work on poverty reduction and meeting the Millennium Development Goals (hereafter MDGs). The quote above from Mr. Ishac Dawin is explicit of the positive donor political evaluation despite all what has transpired in the post election period over a year now demonstrating that the regime has been nothing but brutal and repressive by derailing what emerged as a vibrant democratic experiment in the old life of this old nation.

The oft heard donor argument that the regime in Ethiopia is interested in or committed to poverty reduction does not suffice to exonerate its many misdeeds against the democratic will of the people. Sooner or later, poverty eradication without a foundation in democratic governance will unravel. Only democratic governance and not what is often sold as ?good governance’ provides the necessary condition for doing away structurally poverty at the root. The difference between democratic governance and good governance is significant. The donors go for what they call ?good governance’ and stress very often authoritarian managerial ability such as: capacity to repress a people to keep law and order with authoritarianism, technocratic ability to implement donor-local elite negotiated agenda such as the so-called poverty reductions strategy papers and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). As long as a regime controls the people and is willing to follow the foreign policy of the major donors, it can even qualify for special ally status. This has been the way the so-called ?new generation leaders’ have been selected in Africa, not how democratic they are to their people, but how ?good’ and receptive they are to the donors. It is the donors that dubbed them as ?new generation leaders’ and not their own people! None of them are qualified as ?new’ for practising any form of democratic governance. It is their volunteered ?commitment to poverty reduction, economic growth and support to global security interests’ that have been considered for their qualification. And they have been feted and given generous budget support despite the fact they have been violating human rights, repressing the people and violating the rule of law and basic freedoms.

In some cases for ?good governance’, donors recommend what they call civil society oversight over the state. But the sort of civil society that gets invited or selected to do the oversight is loyal to the regime and makes often inconsequential criticisms. It has been used to forestall real participation by the appearance or form and not the content of real popular participation and inscription of people’s interest in the state. Loyal civil society is often recruited to legitimise authoritarian action by undemocratic regimes and injures real democratic progress by postponing the participation of the people under the guise that they have representatives that are assumed to carry out oversight over the state regardless of whether the agents such as NGOs from civil society represent constituencies or not.

Standing for, and qualifying for democratic governance is a wholly different conceptual matter vis a vis standing and qualifying for good governance. The opposite of good governance is bad governance. Good and bad in relation to governance connotes degrees in capacities to govern. That ability can be with or without democratic accountability and legitimacy. It connotes degrees of effectiveness and capacities based on criteria that may or may not include democratic dispensation.

The opposite of democratic governance is either non- or/and anti-democratic governance. This explicitly factors in democracy as the bedrock for measuring the effectiveness and capability of governance. This is not thus a semantic quibble. It relates to a substantial way by which donors frame the politics and economics of the governance of the development process.

Democratic governance is based on people’s choice. It centres people and their real and effective presence or participation in Government directly or through their legitimate representatives. Good governance centres elite capacity to govern and manage economic growth. It focuses more on the economy and security rather than politics and democratic development in a country. In democratic governance, legitimacy comes from people and society and not external donors. Democratic governance stresses political capacity based on people’s voices and choices and not authoritarian managerial and technocratic ability to employ authoritarian methods to deal with poverty. Democratic Governance shuns authoritarianism and celebrates democratic accountability to the rule of law and human rights and the protection of basic freedoms. The major donors have been often lukewarm to democratic governance and quick to prefer and advocate what they describe as ?good governance,’ in the form of what they often describe as capacity building.

We think that donors such as the World Bank should support democratic governance and should not confuse what is known as ?good governance’ with democratic governance. For example, the World Bank country director for Ethiopia, Mr. Ishac Diwah buys into this good governance rhetoric of the donors by claiming that: “Our collective assessment is that the Government’s commitment to poverty reduction and broad-based growth remains strong.” (May 17, 2006, Ethiomedia). What does broad- based growth mean when the regime has been known to use narrow ethnic- based loyalty as part of its strategy for resourcing economic growth in the regions?
Has Ethiopia or for that matter indeed much of Africa is on target to meet the MDGs? According to a 2005 report by the IMF and World Bank, the prospect that the MDGs would be met by 2015 appears dim. So what does it mean when a World Bank official claims that the regime in Ethiopia is committed? Committed to bring what? Why that Ethiopia is is still a food-dependent economy? How can a country be sovereign truly when it begs the most essential matter of all-food for the people in a country that has enough arable land to feed not only itself but even much of the Middle East? What kind of economic management and capacity has this regime? We know it has a capacity to kill, but to create economy and food security after 15 years in power, that we have not seen, much as we would like to.

One of us recently attended an international conference on Knowledge for African development. There was a lot of talk about economies like Ethiopia’s entering the cut-flower market. The weird thing about it is that a lot of the East African economies are involved in this cut- flower business. The source for the cultured seed for the flowers comes from Holland. Delegate after delegate from the regions and donors was talking about how these economies are on the move and the example of success that was bandied about is cut-flower. What is interesting is that large arable land is devoted in all these regions to this business and the seed producer has the last laugh creating many sources for production thus creating reduction in prices prompting each economy to increase the volume of production. Is this sensible economic management? Whatever happens to African regional integration when economies not only compete for the same markets on primary commodities, but also on value added manufactures? In Ethiopia who benefits from this trade and who owns the cut-flower business? That is yet another matter donors do not see before they praise a regime that is intellectually and politically and morally c self-crippled by its own actions against Ethiopia and the people.

The story of the regime’s commitment to poverty reduction is no different from the failure to meet MDGs. Even if this donor assessment of the regime’s assumed commitment to poverty reduction were to be taken at face value, commitment to poverty reduction should not be used to deny commitment to democracy. In fact if a government is not able to resource self-reliantly poverty reduction, deploy institutions, put in place systems and incentives, and implement policies based on democratic legitimacy, there is no doubt the commitment to poverty reduction would end up being shallow or even misguided. It is to be disingenuous by donors to repeat the commitment of the Meles regime to poverty reduction while watering down the much needed donor understanding and resolute stand on the side of the people that revealed their own agency for democratic governance on May 15, 2005 so splendidly. It is not simply enough to praise tyrants who kill and exonerate their dictatorial sins for their subservience to ideas for poverty reduction that is doomed not to lead to an irreversible eradication of poverty from Ethiopian soil by launching a simultaneous white revolution (milk production) and green revolution (agricultural food production) in the Ethiopian country side. Deep democracy is the necessary foundation for the eradication of poverty in Ethiopia by creating the legitimacy to undertake the much over due green and white revolutions in the world of the Ethiopian country side.

Donors must understand that poverty reduction by itself does not make the regime democratic no matter how much this is repeated in their rhetoric. The distinction between ?good’ and democratic governance remains critically important conceptually and in relation to the implications to policy decisions and implementation strategies. To overlook the distinction is tantamount to fighting democracy itself in Africa under the guise of fighting poverty. Dyed in the wool tyrants like Meles are tolerated when they must be fought and told off in no uncertain terms for violating democracy because they are assumed committed to poverty reduction (mind you not poverty eradication!) Unfortunately, the donors are trapped by their own discourse of preferring to subordinate democratic governance to the regime’s gratuitous claims of commitment to poverty reduction and meeting the MDGs. This donor argument does not stand up to critical scrutiny, and unfortunately makes their feeble stand against tyranny to be politically, morally and intellectually susceptible.

3. The Primacy of the Ethiopian people’s wisdom over Ethiopia’s Politicians!

Politics and politicians have been a cruel burden breaking the backs of the otherwise genial and kind Ethiopian people. Unless there is a new democratic politics and new democratic politicians, Ethiopians might be better off left to fend for themselves. Strangely enough at a time of unbearable crises the Ethiopian people have been able to tower over all the diminutive, vindictive and cruel politicians that unfortunately have managed to impose themselves on them using the gun or foreign support. Why such a gentle people fall prey to such politicians that create unspeakable horrors blighting their lives is indeed one of the inexplicable tragedies of the Ethiopian people.

We must celebrate the fact that whenever there has been a breakdown of the state, the Ethiopian people have demonstrated that they could govern themselves. Recall that in May 1991 it is above all their collective self-discipline that carried the day and preserved the peace and stability after the defunct military regime fled. It is the quality of calm composure by the people at a time of extraordinary crises that remained embedded as a distinguishing hallmark of the time; not the violent take over by the current killer rulers; or the hasty and disorderly retreat by the ex- military regime that abandoned Ethiopia to its fate. Were it not for the gracious goodness of the Ethiopian people, the country could have degenerated into horizontal violence. The credit that this danger was prevented must go entirely to the tried and tasted mettle and historical good sense of the people of Ethiopia. It is mainly the people who were able to keep peace and stability before, during and after the current ethnically self-defined and driven armed group imposed itself on the population and the country. It is now a shared perception and even belief that on May 15, 2005 the people chose, voted and expressed voice to make the opposition win and the regime lose the election! Since the case has not been empirically verified and the regime blocked this opportunity to verify empirically the claim by the opposition it has won this election; this issue of election malpractice has become the central issue of the post-election saga or crises.

4. Guard possible underestimation of the people!

During the May 2005 election, the Ethiopian people showed both opposition and the current rulers something they both did not seem to have expected to witness naturally for different reasons. The people voted largely for the opposition and dented the arrogance of the current regime by crushing its expectations and throwing it into a disappointment that finally drove it into violence and murder against the people. May 15, 2005 brought out the freedom and agency and what a people can be capable of when they are exposed to debate in order to help them to making informed choice. It is this critical achievement that the Ethiopian people reached and attained that Ethiopians everywhere from any walk of life must always celebrate.

NES believes that the current regime entered into the election knowing full well that it has no intention whatsoever to relinquish peacefully power through the ballot box. It never for once expected that it would lose. It believed that the opposition was disunited to convey a message that can be heard by the public that can defeat it. The people revealed that they can be discerning and proved remarkably their democratic will by a massive turn out and voting for the opposition with such convincing numbers. The regime did not expect to lose; the opposition did not expect to win. The regime hurried to announce victory to put up a brave face and cover up its loss of face. The opposition was slow to announce the victory it had won. The post election precipitated a crisis fuelled largely by the disappointment of unfulfilled expectations by the main culprit that rained tragedy on the people of Ethiopia, namely the current regime itself.

5. Accusations of rigging still remain difficult to clean up!

In South Africa, the ambassador representing the Meles regime flatly claimed that the election of May 15, 2005 has been nothing but free and fair that has been confirmed by EU, Carter Centre, AU and the Ethiopian Government. But any person who read the EU-EOM and the Carter Centre’s report cannot condone the Ambassador’s position. In fact as all the independent observers can attest, the aftermath of the election was marred by riggings and accusations of fraud. The regime failed to clear up this allegation. Both the perception and reality of election rigging persisted in the eyes of the public, the opposition and independent observers. Far from trying to respond constructively to the demands of making above all the integrity of the election process paramount, the regime played divisive power politics and began to embark on the dangerous course of violently violating the human rights of the electorate. It is and remains the primary culprit for the worsening turn of events and subsequent developments in the country.

We have now reached a dangerous situation where the people, the opposition and the country are losing hope of peaceful democratic change, and unfortunately armed struggle is brewing everywhere owing principally to the belligerence and arrogance of the regime and the foreign friends that back its misguided policies.

The current regime does not care about anything except to stay in power to complete ?poverty reduction and meet MDGs’. As a minority regime, it fears one person one vote as the apartheid regime in South Africa used to do. The only way democracy can come peacefully is for the international community to take democracy seriously in Ethiopia and support the opposition and the Ethiopian people, not the current regime’s abuse of democracy, the people and the opposition. The donors must not rupture commitment to democracy and commitment to poverty reduction and meeting MDGs, if they wish to be politically, morally and intellectually sensitive and consistent.

This means the international community must be firm and principled not to placate the regime by ignoring the 90 % voting population that turned out to vote on May 15, 2005-indeed a day worthy to be called the Ethiopian National Democracy Day, a time when the democratic forces have redoubled their commitment to super ordinate the democratic will of the people., and reverse the dangerous dictatorship that continues to violate the peoples will.

In order to assist the democratisation process, NES has called May 2006, the Democracy month. (See Ethiomedia). Ethiopians throughout the world have never been so united as today to promote democracy. THEY HAVE VOWED NEVER TO GIVE UP UNTIL THEIR COUNTRY HAS ACHIEVED WHAT IT NEVER HAD IN ITS LONG HITORY- sustainable democratic transition.

Unfortunately, Meles remains belligerent and intransigent and pursues a destructive course failing to heed to the world wide popular protest against the rigged election that has not been possible by him to clear up. He continues to rely on repression to subdue the protest against the rigging of the election. Having embarked on a violent course in the first place, the Meles regime shows no sign for a dialogue with the people and the opposition.

Today it is indeed a scandal that the regime can put in jail the popularly elected mayor and appoint a care taker mayor. This betrays and signals its intention to keep the entire elected opposition leadership in jail indefinitely. The international community must condemn this. Not to do so, means to leave the opposition no option, but to pursue armed struggle. This will be indeed a shame. It may be too late now to reverse the dangerous course. NES believes there may be still a last chance if the international community can act without delay and in unison. All donors united can act by sending a clear signal to the Meles regime to respect democracy above all other concerns.

Concluding Call!

– To get the prisoners released immediately and unconditionally by condemning the farce that the issue for their incarceration is legal and while it is political;
– For the regime to account for all those that have been killed before, during and in the aftermath of the election especially the rural and urban youth that have been indiscriminately targeted for carting away into make shift camps and remain un accounted.
– For the regime to agreeing to submit to an international inquiry to clear up all the violent actions against the people and the opposition;
– To call on all the armed and non-armed opposition groups including the regime or elements in it that are willing to enter into a negotiated approach to shape Ethiopia’s future, to come to a roundtable and deliberate in all inclusive conference to settle a shared way out of the crises;
– And above all to recommend for a national transitional broad based authority as a prelude to bring about democratic transition by facilitating a process in which all the relevant forces play with a rule of the game and institutional system that they have all put voluntarily their signature to.
– To condemn the regime for trying to fix the problem of democracy through consultants rather than engaging openly and honestly the opposition and the people in order to build mutual trust and confidence to move the country’s democratic aspirations forward;
– Bring the national election date much earlier than 2010.
– Build group rights on the foundation of individual right and citizenship and not the other way round; build self governance on the foundation of shared democratic governance with rights and the institutional separation of powers enshrined in a democratic constitution that is freely negotiated combining the pillars of individual right in relation to the Ethiopian Union state with self-organising, self-defining, self-recognising, self-expressing and self-determining communities living in varied circumstances, contexts and environs in Ethiopia.
– Understand the significance and importance of democratising Ethiopia for stimulating the larger democratisation of Africa
– Donors to stop patronising Ethiopia with shenanigans of good governance when they should be explicit and strong in supporting the people’s choice and voice for a democratic governance, indeed a democratic renaissance in Africa.

We call on EU, USA, World Bank and others not to relax sanctions, but to strengthen it in order to forestall the violent option and promote the democratic option to shaping Ethiopia’s future.

Finally donors must support democracy if they are sincere in meeting the MDGs and poverty reduction. They must support the people, Ethiopia and the world wide democratic movement. All praise must go to those who deserve it- and that are none other than the wise people of Ethiopia!

Professor Mammo Muchie, Chair of NES-Scandinavian Chapter
Berhanu G. Balcha, Vice- Chair of NES-Scandinavian Chapter
Tekola Worku, Secretary of NES-Scandinavian Chapter

Contact address:
Fibigerstraede 2,
9220- Aalborg East,
Denmark
– Tel. + 45 96 359 813 or +45 96 358 331,
Fax + 45 98 153 298 ,
Cell: +45 3112 5507
– Email: [email protected] or [email protected] or [email protected]