It is the politics, stupid!
The notion of economic development should not be divorced from analyzing the nature of the state, the market and community structures into account. That oft-made distinction made between the workings of the economy and the state is deceptive. The issue should be recast asking one basic question, “How does the workings of the State in Africa promote or hamper economic development?”
The debate about the role of the state in a capitalist economy is at the centre of many academic, policy and political debates. Those who vouch for Keynesian style proactive role of government in policy, planning and regulation were quite unpopular beginning from the late 1970s through the 80s and 90s.
The recent financial meltdown and economic crisis has however brought them back to the limelight. The developing world cannot turn deaf ears to these debates for they frame the policies, programs and strategies of International Financial Institutions, notably the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Two economists epitomize the debate about the role of the state in the economy: Richard Musgrave, the father of public finance, and Patrick Buchanan, one of the architects of Public Choice Theory. Richard Musgrave argues that the state “is not the mercantilist court designed to protect and enrich the prince, who may draw on his subjects as part of his domain.” Nor is the state “an organic unit wherein the individual is absorbed in the ‘whole’ or as benevolent dictator who knows and meets the wishes of his subjects”. Rather, the state should be viewed as “an association of individuals engaged in a cooperative venture formed to resolve problems of social coexistence and to do so in a democratic and fair fashion.”
Fundamental are these problems of social existence, that Musgrave does not see them as aberrations from a ‘natural’ state of the market where production is mainly driven by the principles of demand and supply. Asserting, the importance of providing ample room for the state to be involved in economic ventures, Musgrave outlines three major domains of state involvement. These are 1) macroeconomic stabilization, 2) the redistribution of income and 3) the provision of public goods and services.
Public choice theoreticians distrust the role of the state in the economy and emphasize limiting the role of the state. This is not to argue that public choice theoreticians denounce the functional importance of the state .They recognize the ‘protective’ role of the state to its citizens. The problem is “when we move beyond the boundaries of the protective state into what we might call the productive or transfer welfare state.”
The idea of the state involved in producing, selling or heavily subsidizing private goods to the public is very ‘paternalistic’. According to Buchanan, “non-discriminatory practices will be dominated by the discriminatory action of officials, if the state is given more freedom to engage in such activities”. Even more, rent seeking and excessive budgets become the norm.
According to public choice proponents, increased state involvement would create and enlarge expensive bureaucracies that end up becoming inefficient. The inefficiency could be rectified if one has “effective competition among governments.” These notions are clearly influenced by the trailblazing article of Tiebout (1956) who first advocated for a market of local governments.
While learning from the policies and practices in the West is imperative, a direct application of these theoretical models to the African context would be misleading. The private sector is underdeveloped and it is difficult to speak of an industrialist or corporate class of the continent itself (otherwise ties with global capital accumulation are rife in the continent).
The African state has internal fault lines that have made it weak, and patrimonial in many instances. The boundaries are carved out of arbitrary colonial contours; ethnic and religious diversity undercut the notion of civic citizenship; and it lacks a democratic social contract outlining (in practice) how power should be accessed, checked and balanced.
More often than not, national politics is featured with ‘patron clientelism’ i.e. the politics of ‘big men’ and ‘small boys’ that students of African politics refer to as ‘strong men’ politics (Jackson and Roseberg). The same holds true for the local tiers of administration that Wunsch and Olowu (2004) aptly refer to as “the mere extensions of the central government into the field.”
To conclude, politicizing economics is important. The notion of economic development should not be divorced from analyzing the nature of the state, the market and community structures into account. That oft-made distinction made between the workings of the economy and the state is deceptive. The issue should be recast asking one basic question, “How does the workings of the State in Africa promote or hamper economic development?” Tweaking Clinton’s famous quote, “It is the politics, stupid!”
Interesting that you mentioned the public choice theory as a normative theory of the size of government. It is more of an explanatory theory that a prescriptive one and it should remain so. You also admitted, if not for an incomplete reason, that this theory has no place in Ethiopia or even in many European democracies where the elements of the political system like parliamentary democracy and tightly regulated electoral financing and relatively cheap elections are safeguards against government captured by private interests. The right lesson from public choice theory is not that we should have smaller government but that we should have the right institutional safeguards against private interets capturing governments decisions. It is not that government should not regulate but that appropriate safeguards should be there to ensure that regulatory decisions and government programmes are oriented by public interest considerations.
I have appriciated some articles posted by the same writer before but now I am going to be naive .
First of all, for the average reader this is a boring article . May be because I am a science and technology guy or may be I did not see the importance of publishing such an article for the average guy.I dont know.
But I know this, a good writer always writes thinking the level of the audience or the reader. Recently, president Obama made a public speech for the people about the gulf coast oil disaster and I was surprised by the report from different organizations like CNN that the speech was written for a 10th grade level person. The issue that I want to raise by my last point is that it is possible to measure what we write interms its suitability for the level of the majority of the readers.
Actually I have seen this issue practically in the acadamic environement also. In Ethipia, a professor tries to show his knowledge of a subject matter by presenting things in a more sophosticated way, where as most of the professors that I have seen in the US try to understand their students first and present the subject matter in a way more suitable for the student.
I am done!!!
I concur with Merew in that we should not be blinded by theoretical abstractions. Though I am trained as an economist and political scientist, I believe that the hallmark of a good scholar is her ability to explain ideas in ways that could reach as many audiences as possible.
That said, Derese appears to have fallen victim to conventional paradigms with regard to the state in Africa. Practically all scholars in the west tend to dismiss the African state as being neopatrimonial wherein formal institutions have little, if any, effect in shaping public life. That abstract term ‘democratic social contract’ is often uttered from the same places which brought about slavery, colonialism, fascism and nazism to the world. No doubt that Africa’s performance in both the political and economic spheres have been extremely discouraging. This, however, should not be viewed as something inherently African.
I reckon your question ‘how does the working of the state promote or hamper economic development’ is a bit too general. Resource rich Equatorial Guinea may have little to share with resource poor Rwanda. Colonial legacy in Uganda is certainly different from that of Senegal. We can even find significant differences among countries which share similar colonial history. Algeria’s very violent independence is quite different from Cote D’Ivoire’s attachment to France.
My point is that we might gain better insights if we narrow the question further. I suggest we ask how the different regime’s in Ethiopia fared when it comes to promoting or hampering economic development (or perhaps more specifically economic growth).
Dear Mulugeta,
your inkling about public choice theory and its emphasis on having the right institutional safeguards about government decisions is very important..
See the debate is not whether the state has a role or not in economic development but rather how involved it should be?!! on that score, I believe, citizens should have the ultimate verdict to approve or disapprove of policy regimes that they consider are not helping the economy-helping the wellbeing of citizen! thats why i say IT IS THE POLTIICS!! The question i have for you is , ” how do you have the right institutional safeguards against private interets capturing governments decisions?” I would love to hear an economists viewpoint on this! May be Douglas North et al have something to tell us?
Dear Merew and Michael
You are right, the text is a bit dense for an average reader and could be boring..will improve it next time. My intent however was to convince people not to confuse them (‘ke libe new gobez’). But you guys came up with some tough issues for an article like this..LOL!
I agree with Michael’s point that my treatment of the State in Africa could be too general! Yes there are variations betwen Ugandha, Rwanda Ethiopia Angola etc.. But there are striking similiarties as well.. The lack of a robust private sector, the role of the state as the the major employer, the rampance of patron clientilistic ties between officials and entreprenurs, are all attributes that make these states exceptionally similar!! In fact, they look more similar than different.. So I argue treating them via their similarities could help us see the role of the state in economic development.
Dear Michael
I am not arguing the above mentioned attributes of the African state are “inherently African’ There were times where states in Europe, North America and Asia have had similar attributes or phases for a number of historic reasons!! Hence the nature of the African state can change given some rational, constructive and instiutional action is taken by its owners-the people themselves!!
Michael
You said that formal inistituion have little to do with the public life in Africa. You need to explain how is that so more further. Your statement is not intutive since I see the public is predominantly dependent on governments for their life, including the highly populance farming sector. Practically no or little decent jobs other than jobs offerred by government. The economic progress is highly hampered since the private sector has no capacity to effect changes in public life.
If there is a common denominator between the three regimes in Ethiopia over the past several decades, it is the fact that all of them were largely unsuccessful to bringing about meaningful economic progress. Despite its limited achievements in introducing a semblance of modernity to the country, the landed-aristocracy of the Haile Selassie regime were never in a position to structurally reform the economy.
The military regime was infact more interested in distributing poverty rather than encouraging private initiatives to capital accumulation. Its days were marked by intensive and violent insurgency and counter-insurgency conflicts. It is no wonder then that the level of average income in the country at the final days of the regime were actually lower than it was when it had taken power.
EPRDF’s record in this regard is a rather mixed and noisy one. There seemed to exist a general agreement about its lacklustre economic performance until the first few years of this decade. In line with the general trend of African economies, Ethiopia’s economic has registered considerable growth in the past five years or not. This rather over-played growth story, however, should not conceal the fact that the country’s economy showed little structural change. Nor should it be overstated given the fact that some African economies were growing well before the Ethiopian economy did. Additionally, growth spurts are not new phenomenon in that in the 1960s and early 1970s about 16 countries in Africa were among the fastest growing economies in the world. That did not prevent later collapses as the economic growth of those countries was fuelled by commodity prices. It is one the Ethiopian economy passes one rocky terrain (such as a severe drought) without suffering significant contraction that we give EPRDF at least a B+.
One explanation as to why states (used interchangeably with government here) produce inefficient policies is because policies that promote growth could be the antithesis of those regimes. The case of privatising land ownership in Ethiopia might be indicative of EPRDF’s determination to stay at the helm of power even if its economic costs are tremendous. By the assertions of this theory, Ethiopia’s inability to bring about development is because economic growth (or the reforms needed to achieve it) are likely to lead to regime collapse.
Or, is it possible that, as Messay Kebede argued in his book “Meaning and Development” what we require to defeat poverty is ‘convert the desire for material betterment into the thrust for profundity”? After all, what Messay says is true and that wealth does not bring happiness, why bother at all? Help me here!
Dear All,
I am of the opinion that scholars usually shy away from analysing formal institutions in Africa. I am sorry if Oda misunderstood me because I believe, and in contrast to assertions of western scholars, the state in Africa is not just a tool for distributing benefits.
I also realise Derese’s point that African states has a lot of similarities. My argument is that it is extremely exaggerated by the scholars. Let me give you one example. Sometimes in the early 1990s, the American economist introduced what is now popularly called the ‘African Dummy’ in econometric studies of economic growth. In layman’s terms, it meant that, even if we make everything conceivable similar, capital invested in Africa returns less payoff. A dollar spent in cambodia promotes economic growth there more than what a similar dollar fetches in, say Zambia. Anyways, this African exceptionalism became an accepted wisdom even after Anke Hoffler’s work showed that it was only an artefact of model specification.
Michael
Consider me as your “dummy” variable, since I’m life scientist who may not bring any change in the economist thinking. But, I’m pragmatic and try to see things as realistic as possible. You compared the three regimes, HS, Derg and EPRDF in economic development, and concluded that no difference among the three in bringing about economic structural change.
Without sounding defender of HS, I beg to differ with your conclusion about HS time. I argue that was the only time Ethiopia showed meaningful econoimc growth (althought cut short). For the first time in Ethiopian history, not only industrial economic zones middle class were created, a class that was not existing before. Middle class should be the engine of economic growth and big sturctural chande in the society. No meaningful progress were made since the downfall of HS in terms of economic growth.
The problem with DERG and EPRDF, when they were supposed to add on what was achieved, they couldn’t even maintain what HS produced let alone provide any meaningful economic progrss. The three are not comparable at all. It used to be upward movment during HS now in the last 30 years it is all down the hill.
Oh Boy! Have we moved away from the current crisis in our country to re-visit an economic debate that has been around for the last decade? What is even more discourging is, are we becoming so board… for lack of unity in the opposition camps…… that we choose to turn our attention to some esoteric academic subject/literature with very little relevance to the current dire situation in Ethiopia…I.e the ascendance of one man rule. Label me anything, the other day I read about Mr. Eskinder Nega writing about re-running election or something of that sort as if the election was free, fair and open. Today, you folks with a lot of followers are side tracking the issue for such a subject. Are we going to discuss “Bonapartism” the next time around?! Please let us focus on the critical issues facing our citizens and our country. God/Allah bless Ethiopia & its children!
This kind of seemingly academic argument trvializes the issue of governance in Ethiopia. The problem in Ethiopia is not ideological difference between parties and groups. The difference between the opposition and EPRDF is not ideaological. Simply the fight against EPRDF is a fight for democracy not a fight for a some sort of idoelogical supermacy. It is as basic as freedom versus slavery issue. Those who are opposed to EPRDF are fighting for freedom. This kind of argument presented by the author here seem to consider EPRDF’s rule as a form of valid government system. EPRDF has no ideology other than to stay in power by whatever means necessary. EPRDF is not represented by any of the ideologies presented here. Simply it is a bunch of criminals runing a government. There is no ideology in that
Oda,
I admit that there were promising situations in the HS period for growth. Unfortunately, it never took-off in a sense that the growth become self-sustaining. According to the PENN World Tables, a long series of macroeconomic data prepared by the University of Pennsylvania, Ethiopia real GDP per capita between 1950 (the earliest year for which data is available)and 1974 (the year Derg came to power) did not even double. Not only that we were still consuming 88% of our national income. This is why I consider that period as a lost opportunity. Had the turbulent 1970s turned out to be different, in which revolutionary transformation was replaced by evolutionary changes, we would have seen a different Ethiopia now. Anyways, I fully understand that you are entitled to your opinions.
Tazabi,
Believe me EPRDF has a clear ideology! Ideology is used to describe shared belief of a group of people. Playing the ethnic card as much as possible so that TPLF (the elites from Tigray) remains in power! Whether it is controlling the economic lifelines of the country or the military or the bureaucracy, the ultimate objective is one: divide-and-rule! In my vocabulary, this is ideology.
The author of the article (if at all Oromo as he claimed once) seems to be in the first degree (level) of Oromo political evolution. We like it or not all Oromo individuals and institutions do pass through this evolution process, unlike Dr Negasso Gidaada’s backward evolution move from the fourth level to the first level. Here is the Oromo political evolution:
- first level of the evolution is that of those who do support unitary Abyssinian Empire (AE) as Oromo in Habesha organizations like AEUP, EDP, EPPF, EPRP, G-7 and UDJ are doing (they deny the existence of Oromia and do cry about only Imiye Ethiopia). The author seems to belong here;
- second level of those acting like OPDO, who do claim to be Oromo and believe in the existence of Oromia, but do accept and adore Abyssinian rule over the Occupied Oromia (OO);
- third level of those acting like OFC, who do claim to to be Oromo and demand Oromian Autonomy (OA) at least within Ethiopian UNION;
- fourth level of those acting like ULFO and do claim the unconditional Oromian Independence (OI) in a form of an independent Gadaa Repubic;
- fifth level of those searching to foster the Oromian UNION (OU) planned by AFD, i.e a union of independent nations in the Horn which brings all Oromo in the Horn (in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, Kenia and Tanzania) together.
The question yet to be answered is how many of the Oromo individuals and institutions did finish their evolution process? I know there are some who already have completed their evolution, but tactically make the rhetoric of the lower levels of the evolution. But still there are some who still are convinced to live and move at their lower level of the political evolution! Which one is that of the author? The compelled ones, who do consider the lower levels as tactical goal or the convinced ones, who do accept the lower levels as their strategical goal?
As you said EPRD might have an ideology But mind you, the ideology whether economic or political, can not be analysed interms of conventional libral,marxist….political/economic thoughts. Those who are trying to analyse (I am not sure whether deliverately or naivly) the behaviour EPRD in terms of well know politcical and econimic philosophies, they trap themselves and get confused.
If any one see the history of TFPL, the core of EPRDF,there have been changes from Orthodox Marxism to free market capitalism then to developmental state.
If you see in detail the economic politcies,the political philosophy even the constitution (Let me give you one example, Harari is a region with a polulation of 30,000 but Sidama with a population of over 3m is not). I can carry on listing all sorts of inconsitencies.
In simple terms what EPRDF has done, and currently doing is not out of any ideological stances, rather every move, every action is to stay in power forever.
I see thematically dissimilar kinds of comments.It sounds as if most don’t know what to comment.Me too. Cause you know,Derese,albeit ,you wrote a sensitively brilliant literary argument with originality,very hard it becomes to grasp your main message.
You delved on more than 4 topics on this article from sociological normative and explanatory to Keynesian Economics and Musgrave’s public finance and policy.
By the dusk,i seem to analyse the article spins around the issue/level of state’s involvement in national economies:“How does the workings of the State in Africa promote or hamper economic development?”
With my little empirical and second hand knowledge about the case in most cases,what is factually happening is the later.It is hampering it.
I was recently reading Moeletsi Mbeki,brother of Taboo Mebeki, is a political economist and the deputy chairman of the South African Institute of International Affairs.He wrote enough on the stuff.This is what he had to say in his 2005 piece ”Economic growth in Africa, as in the rest of the world,depends on a vibrant private sector. Entrepreneurs in
Africa, however, face daunting constraints. They are prevented from creating wealth by predatory political elites that control the state. African political elites use
marketing boards and taxation to divert agricultural savings to finance their own consumption and to strengthen the repressive apparatus of the state.Peasants, who constitute the core of the private sector in sub-Saharan Africa, are the biggest losers.”
Dersse , his view is my view too.
Michael
Thanks for allowing me to stick to my opinion. But, my statement is a undeniable fact not opinion. We have not learned from our experince since many have formed opinion with distorted fact and propaganda campaigns.
Any development have to be seen under the right context and evaluated as such. The evidence you provided, the growth has not doubled, is not strong enough to discredit the growth during Imperial period.
Dear Alamirew
I admit that the article was too ambitious and a little dense. I said that while replying to Michael and Merew both of whom raised this issue. In one sentence, i was arguing that the role of the state in economic development should be discussed in the Ethiopian context.I was saying the attempt to discuss the economy separate from the workings of the state is NOT constructive. I am totally with you on the comments of Mbeki and the role that the private sector should play in promoting economic growth in Africa!
Michael and Oda
I jsut wanna say thank you for the civil and repspectful engagement you two have, even though you dont necessarily argue on every issue! As i always say, we need to have more readers like you-CRITICAL and CONSTRUCTIVE!
Dear Walfidhaa
Obboleseko, Anii oromoo dhaa..Addanis Affan Oromonis baye neghaledhaa..Articli kuun topicinsaa ken oromo question mittii..wayyeen kana raatii wel meriaanuu chubun mal kabaa??Obboloeseko kun belesaa kebemo? I know you have plenty of issues to contribute on the state and economic growth..so let us engage on the topic at hand. Addan Oromoretti, jarssonni wa toko jedhuu..”Dubin Habullu” Anis isa jedhaa..”Dubin Habullu’
Here is a tale of three countries to elucidate my point. The period was the early 1950s when our country symoblised black freedom. It was a period when the growing anticolonisation struggle in Africa and elsewhere was gathering momentum. It was a period when Ethiopia sent troops to Korea under the auspices of the UN to thwart communist aggression from the North. It was also a period when the a bipolar international system spearheaded by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. heralded the cold war.
Then, We Ethiopians enjoyed an average income which is 5% that of the US while the Koreans had an income level which was 12% of that of the U.S.
Fast forward to 1974, we then commanded 4.5% of the average income in the U.S. While we blew those years to become 25 times poorer than the average U.S. citizen, the Koreans actually improved their income to 15% of U.S. average income.
The story of our regress does not end there. By the time the DERG’s killing machine run out of gas in 1991, on average an Ethiopian had an income level which was 2.7% of U.S. income. In those days when we were self-destructing, the Koreans were building ships, textile factories, etc. Their impressive performance could be summed up by the fact that they now commanded 42.7% of U.S. income.
Then comes 2007. We must have hit a rock bottom for we now have an income level of 2.7% of that of the U.S. The Koreans now boast an income level which is 55.6% of the richest and most powerful country in the world.
One of the most influential growth economists, Robert Solow, once gave us some consolation when he theorised that eventually poor countries will catch-up with the level of income in the rich ones. At the going rate, our convergence to the U.S. must be measured in terms of light years. Now, we are playing catch-up games in the fourth division with the likes of Rwanda and Uganda. By the way, does anyone know that when EPRDF assumed power Ethiopia had a better income to Uganda only to be reversed in the last two ‘glorious’ decades?
The subject is a good illustration of the confusion our society is going through to figure out where to start addressing the problem of the nation.
Before any measure or theory is applied the definition of a state, governance, institutions, private sector must be addressees in the African context.
We are in habit of accepting a state as a ruling regime that run over the previous regime led by individuals. Governance defined as a spontaneous decision of leaders of a regime to sustain power and corruption. Institutions defined as individuals under a cover of an interest group uncountable to any one. Private sectors define as the regime’s élites running loss to amass wealth through corruption and extortion.
On the top of that there are groups prepared to run over the existing regime to redo the same thing in the name of ideology, ethnicity, religion and the rest.
Until we understand to the complexity of the behavior, motives, formation of groups who form or aspire to form a regime and who is behind them in the African context the chances we will solve the problem is non existance. What we will be left with are intellectuals who exercise their knowledge to generate literature because their profession demands it and the rest of us tagging along to agree or disagree depending our knowledge, petty interest and sometimes fantasy.
Let me repeat what I said above by example; there is no State in Ethiopia but TPLF regime. There is no governance in Ethiopia but TPLF’s decision. There are no institutions in Ethiopia, but TPLF controlled agencies. And there is a private sector which consists of the majority of farmers, traders and service providers held hostage by the regime’s cronies from operating freely.
The question is, are we going to form a state, institute governance, establish independent institutions and unleash the private sector to their potential?
Any thing else is prolonging the misery of the people.
The discussion will be productive if we go back to the basics to find quick resolution to the ever ending poverty and criminality of regimes.
For now that we have put aside the lierature on the role of the State for economic development (in the so-called 3rd world countries, & to make the discussio more producative, let us examine what Mr. Meles has said in an interview (awate.com, ca 2008?) about the Eritrean oppositions, which also has much relvance to the current politial situation in Ethiopia.
Ironically, his response for the call
to focus or go back to the basics for Eritreans (is simillar to the critical issues facing our country) & to find quick resolution “to the ever ending poverty and criminality of regimes” can serve as starting point as suggested above by (guest:11:57 pm).
For example, asked about the oppositions..& to evaluate their performamce… Ato Meles, to his credit, provided two quick resolutions: ‘The mission of the opposition….is to remove the government & let the people make their choice on any of the pending issues..recipe, form of government ..that is for the people to make the final decison on…it is a bit academic of the opposition to quarrel on how to form future government.
His second & more insightful resolution goes as follows “…the oppositions appear to be at a lose as to how to bring about a government change…they see..the people who fought….so bravely..are now avoiding being so valiant…& are in desperation, engaged in an exodus….something new for the E political culture & experience….I wouldn’t be surprised if people felt bewildered by what is happening to the E people: WHY are they not fighting back? WHY are they fleeing their country?…..a new understanding of what is happening in E is required…..I hope, over time they will come up with proper explaination….how best to bring about change in Eritrea(Ethiopia!!)”. Yes, it is the politics, stupid…..but what we have is much less…ethnic divide & rule…if we can’t see the missing link..UNITY….. we will be going around the circle….perhaps back to the future!!
Ato Balcha lost me when he refers Melse’s statement to make his point. I do not know what he is thinking. It sounds like the customary Ethiopian tradition of praising a person in power until they go down, or possibly more. Precisely this kind of attitude is what got as in trouble in the first place.
Melse kind of ‘leaders’ must be told over and over again they are noting but common criminals by all. They should be told they can not shoot their way out of their criminality; end of story.
With all due respect to Ato Balcha, refering to what Melse said about the opposition “insigtghtful resolution’… to his credit…”, paramount appeasing criminality.
Never quote someone who speaks with both side of his mouth to lift his status more than where it belongs. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said let us go back to the basics.
Character matters, legitimacy matters, honesty matters… We still did not learn criminals can not be role models and can not be legitimate
no matter what.
The sooner we agree the better we will be.
The call for the Unity of the oppositions, doing away with the TPLF/eprdf’s ethnic politics of divide and rule, leveling the playing field for free, fair and open election, independent institutions, neutral army, (what has been referred as 8 conditions), independents court, etc have been the core of the message in the spirit of going back to the basics.
Indeed, Honesty, charecter and legitimacy, do matter and have no disagreement/qualm with guest’s point of view. What is lost in the message, perhaps was not made very clear, however, was that exactly what Meles recommends to the Eriterian oppositions are some of the steps necessary or that can be used or applied to our cause. This has nothing to do with praising …or appeasing criminality.
If we “can learn” from anyone including Meles how to get rid of another tyrant …his “insight ful”! recommendations can also end his own regime. His comments about why they are not fighting back?….why are they fleeing their country? ….Are some of the basic questions we also have to find some explaination for. Please let us put our eyes on the PRIZE….i.e the unity of all the opposition groupes…. in order to bring freedom and justice… as well as to put an end to one man’s rule from the soul of our nation. God bless Ethiopia & its children who scatterd to all corners of the World!
Walfidaa,
OLF never evolved in to any thing worth talking about but I noticed you evolved in to talking about democracy. Unity crowed seems to irritate you the most and make you feel you have noting worth to offer.
Is your beloved OLF democratic? Do not expect people are stuck against any thing like you. Evolve in to something you can offer solutions, it has been too long.
@walfida
Unfortunately I cant read oromiffa and I missed the conversation between you and Derese. Nevertheless it is easy to see that once you get something in your head you have no need for anything else. First you came up with a division of the Ethiopian political community into three (I am not sure if I remember it correctly but with lots of WXFs and TXFs etc) and you concluded there is no other alternative to that and the only way we can dialogue is if we agree to this structure. And now you came up with this funny theory of evolution and want us to file behind you. Remember I would respect your thoughts only when you respect mine. Otherwise if what you expect us to do is agree with whatever you propose then there is no need for dialogue. That, my brother, is better and faster done with the gun.
Aite Teshome,
are you severly hit by the evolution theory? Of course you (if you are Oromo) are still in the first level! You need to develop further! If you are a non-Oromo, you are just like a stone who can never evolve!
Mesfin,
where is your problem? It is clear that you are moving at the first level of the Oromo political evolution, just as almost all who have been habeshanized are doing. Actually, Obbo Leencoo Lata is one of the very few Oromo, who has completed his Oromo political evolution. He is the promotor of Oromian (biological origin) Union = Horn (geographical origin) Union = Kush (according to Hebrew) Union = Kas (according to old Egypt) Union = Ethiopian (according to Greeks) Union. That is why Oromo scholars started to talk about a “paradigm shift” and even Habesha scholars are trying to join them. It is not bad that at last one of the leaders of the Habesha dominated unitarist parties (Dr Berihanu) is ready to come to Oromo conference of OSA and discuss with Oromo. By the way, the topic of the upcoming OSA-conference is really good! “Rethinking the Urgency of Paradigm shift for Democracy, Human Rights and Social Justice in the Age of Intensified Globalization.” But what do the concerned people mean by “paradigm shift”? Shift of Kaayyoo or shift of Karaa to the Kaayyoo? At which level of the Oromo political evolution are the panelists and participants moving? We like it or not, all Oromo individuals and Oromo institutions do pass through certain evolution process from level one to level five, unlike Dr Negasso Gidaada’s backward evolution move from the fourth level to the first level. Here is the Oromo political evolution:
- the first level of the evolution is that of those who do support the unitary Abyssinian Empire as Oromo in Habesha organizations like AEUP, EDP, EPPF, EPRP, G-7 and UDJ are now doing (they deny the existence of Oromia and do cry about only Imiye Ethiopia). Are panelists like Dr Berihanu and Oromo like Birtukan Midhagsaa, Yaqob Likkie and Sofiya Yilma Dheresaa not moving at this level?
- the second level of those acting like OPDO, who do claim to be Oromo and believe in the existence of Oromia, but do accept and adore Abyssinian rule over the occupied Oromia. Of course Oromo like Junedin Sadoo belong here.
- the third level of those acting like OFC, who do claim to to be Oromo and demand Oromian Autonomy at least within Ethiopian UNION. Are panelists like Jawar and Oromo like Dr Merera and Obbo Bulchaa not moving at this level?
- the fourth level of those acting like ULFO and do claim the unconditional Oromian Independence in a form of an independent Gadaa Repubic. Is there any one from such the pro-ONLY-Walabummaa without a possibility for a UNION of independent nations of the region in the conference? Are Oromo like Obbo Jaarra Abbaagadaa, Galasa Dilboo, Dhugaasaa Bakakkoo not moving at this level?
- the fifth level of those searching to foster the Oromian UNION planned by AFD, i.e a union of independent nations in the Horn which brings all Oromo in the Horn (starting from those in Egypt to those in Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, Kenia and Tanzania) together. I think people like Professor Mohammed Hassen and Prof Assefa Jalata are moving at this level! Surely Obbo Leencoo Lata and Daud Ibsaa belong here.
The question yet to be answered is, how many of the Oromo individuals taking part in Oromo politics and the Oromo institutions they do represent did finish their political evolution process? I know there are some who already have completed their evolution, but tactically make the rhetoric of the lower levels of the evolution. But yet there are some who still are convinced to live and move at the lower level of the Oromo political evolution! Which one iof the positions (compelled or convinced) is the position of each panelist and participant of the conference in particular and that of the Oromo politicians in general? The position of the compelled ones, who do consider the lower levels as their tactical goal because of the compelling political situation or the position of the convinced ones, who do accept the lower levels as their strategical goal based on their political conviction?
Wey welafida
what a trajectory are you into?
Never seen a man with such a motive hard to articulate.It seems that you are here with a very vague agenda of Oromo/Tigray color and rejuvenation of multiplicity .That won’t work at all. The room for such a thought is over…we don’t tolerate that.Unity in Diversity will uphold thereof….This sort of shifting kaleidescope has no place in the Ethiopian Oromos struggle.