Is the Timing Right for Meles Zenawi to Go?

 

When this issue was first brought up two years ago, I was one of the very few people who talked about it. And, from my own point of view, the issues are still the same: what is  the reason for Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to leave office?  To demonstrate the democratic nature of EPRDF?  Has he performed poorly? Will his departure improve things, such as the expansion of democratic spaces and enforcement of state laws? These are examples of concerns by honest and responsible citizens. Talk about them and don’t worry about being labeled by those useless thugs as pro-EPRDF or pro-Meles.

 

The advantage of democracy is that it allows leaders to leave power voluntarily. But, democracy must also be re-branded to suit specific country situations. The South American masses in Venezuela just voted to extend the term of the current president Hugo Chavez, who has already ruled for 10 years, so that he rule as long as he gets elected. Is this a violation of the principles of democracy? Maybe. Or, it depends on who is talking. What is clear is that – considering that freedom of autonomous choice is one of the core principles of democracy – we are forced to acknowledge the fact that Venezuelans have believed that Chavez respects and cares for them.  Another example is Russia about which some still write how this country has backslid to authoritarian rule under Vladimir Putin, yet this man remains popular among ordinary Russians. We have actually entered an era when scholars and practitioners from every discipline are debating if the priority should be lifting humankind out of miserable conditions of poverty or spend another century trying to universally apply a neo-liberal version of democracy with state power rotating among self-centred educated elites in the name of elections and democracy. I know those of you who are genuinely concerned would appreciate the contribution of my previous pieces which tried to show that democracy without strong and visionary leadership is meaningless, and therefore, anyone in Ethiopia vying to seize state power should be put to the test of leadership.

 

Whether we like it or not, Meles Zenawi has worked his way up throughout the years to emerge one of the powerful and vocal personalities representing Africa. Instead of leaving his post as a prime minister, he can use his experience and international connections to promote Ethiopia’s image and help international investors and opinion makers gain confidence in terms of trade, tourism, diplomacy and cultural exchanges. I know people have once before challenged me on this kind of argument, arguing that EPRDF could only demonstrate its democratic nature when its leaders leave office voluntarily. This is true. But at issue here is also the interest of the general public, especially when nobody knows who Meles’ successor is and how on earth that successor is supposed to establish himself/herself as a leader of a complex party apparatus in just a short period of time. When you have a weak governing party plus weak and warring opposition parties, the result could be poor governance. And the losers are your poor relatives.  I certainly would have thought differently if  Meles’ departure could result in the building of a momentum for the movement of opposition parties. They are instead being fragmented and destroyed by their own contradictory internal dynamics. The suggestion here, therefore, is that Prime Minister Meles serves another term and goes by 2015. 

 

I recognize the importance of criticisms of Meles and EPRDF`s leadership in general. In particular, the political behaviour of EPRDF people is unpredictable and continues to irritate us, as we saw in the recent re-arrest of Birtukan Mediksa. The problem is that most of the criticisms are so politicized that they do not tell us the whole story. For example, how much should EPRDF get blamed for the ongoing food insecurity in the country? Since the 1990s, on the advice of international agencies, mostly UN agencies, the rural development policies of many governments including EPRDF’s have been focused on supporting smallholder farmers. This approach was not questioned until the recent global food crisis, the question being the extent to which small farmers are capable of producing surpluses to feed growing urban and affluent populations, given the increasing complexity of production constraints like land scarcity, resource degradation and high cost of inputs. Today we talk about government leadership in mass production of food crops (through large scale farming), non-farm income sources and rural industrialization.  Other tasks also remain formidable. For example, in Canada, on average it may cost US $100,000 to build 1 km of a rural road in five days. In Ethiopia, the average cost of building 1 km of rural road could be up to US $2 million and it could take several weeks. In Canada, people earn money and then spend it to stimulate the economy. In Ethiopia, people earn money and, after spending a bit, they keep the cash in their pockets or bury it. As the Reporter rightly noted, most of the money in the country does not get circulated and so it has no impact on the economy. You can promote cognitive changes by making people aware of sanitation, nutrition, health, transportation, saving, investment, leisure and other issues, so that they can consume (buy) manufactured goods and services. But these take time. You cannot force people to change their way of life.  This is what I mean when I say that critics, while legitimate, do not tell us the whole story. We can also help by sharing innovative ideas and approaches for responding to emerging challenges and opportunities.

 

 

Getachew Mequanent

Ottawa, Canada

February 2009