Why I See a Glass Empty
Mao was a well-read and articulate man. So is Meles Zenawi. It is clear though that they also share a lot more traits including massive, massive, massive incompetence.
In 1976 China had an extremely incompetent government. The communist party was the playground of a brutal dictator and his corrupt and equally brutal accomplices. The country was mainly agrarian with millions of peasants living as serfs for a tyrannical state. The industrial sector was value-subtracting. The state’s suspicion of dynamism stifled innovative networks. Higher education was rotten; pushing back the frontiers of knowledge with research and study was ruthlessly discouraged. Social mobility was closed for hundreds of millions of people who had little connection with local and national officials of the communist party. Then luck struck.
Mao died. His replacement was one of the most pragmatic and effective leaders of the past century. Deng Xiaoping dismissed the conventional notion that authoritarianism could not exist with economic development and social dynamism. In fact, he regarded the latter as key to legitimizing authoritarian rule. A host of changes were introduced. The stagnant communist party was gradually opened for young, well-educated and dynamic Chinese. Strong-man leadership was substituted by collective leadership. As Tim Beasley argues, accountability of officials increased as the number and power of the Chinese selectorate increased. In the 1980s, thousands were sent to top universities in Western Europe and America to learn the ways of the developed world. They studied the hard sciences, administration, economics, law and- contrary to the conventional assumption- humanities. Those who returned to their country were given prestigious civil service positions. The quality of higher education had improved dramatically. Little by little research institutions and think tanks started to mushroom. At the end of 1970s, there were only a handful of them. By 1990, hundreds of institutions were established. Chang Li pins down such rapid growth to three trends. First, the emergence of collective leadership in the communist party prompted officials to seek advice for their policy from quasi-independent policy groups. Second, China’s fast integration with the world economy demanded input from specialized experts. Third, the proliferation of interest groups which were established to influence government policy increased the value of research institutions. These reforms coupled with a selective free trade policy created a very dynamic and communicative society. Pre-1976, China shunned information technology. The new China embraces it quite enthusiastically. Whether all these could lead to democratic reforms, as some have argued, is to be seen. But there is no question that today’s China is very different from Maoist China.
Compare this with today’s Ethiopia. The ruling party is absolutely dominated by a strong-man who eschews collective decision making. Policy is made by a very narrow circle of officials with virtually no accountability. The party co-opts elites as a mechanism of reducing opposition to its rule. But the privilege of getting perks aside, the co-optees have little role in policy making. Independent research institutions barely exist; what used to be robust groups like the Ethiopian Economics Association were run to the ground. Outrageous fabrication of national data is manifestly prevalent. Connection to corrupt, ethnic-based networks, not innovation and hard work, is the short-cut to business success. Free-spirit and creativity is discouraged in cadre-infested higher learning institutions. Ethiopia has one of the poorest telecommunications infrastructures due to the government’s fear of a networked transient society. And as in Mao’s China, Ethiopian peasants remain serfs on land owned by a brutal and paranoid state.
Mao was a well-read and articulate man. So is Meles Zenawi. It is clear though that they also share a lot more traits including massive, massive, massive incompetence.
Abiye,
As always your observation has put things in perspective. I for one buy all the premises of your article. To add some more to it. China’s rise to its today’s dominance was made possible partly because Chinese nationalism was used as an important ingredient to motivate the mass. The case in point was Chinese Engineers who have sworn allegiance in other developed countries literally stealing science, technology and state secrets to help the development of their country. I remember reading way back about Chinese Engineer who stole some sort of Nuclear secret from USA(It was Los Alamos research facility-http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/030699china-nuke.html). I am not suggesting stealing some other country’s state secret is good and justified but this shows how Chinese people were mobilized to lift their country out of the wrenching poverty the country was in. Zenawi abhors nationalism and no country has developed with out a sense of national honour and vision.
My friend, the glass would really be half empty only if you are putting your money on Zenawi. I hope you agree with me Ethiopia’s destiny and Ethiopians future solely lies with Zenawi OFF the helm. He has dabbled in all sorts of political and economic mismanagement, if not mischief, and all he has proved so far is his massive incompetence and total inability to move the country an inch forward.
Let the discussion be Ethiopians can, would and should do to help a transition to a peaceful and democratic government and create institutions and mechanism to make Zenawi the last dictator in Ethiopia’s history.
Write more articles that will help us refocus, do more and more to help the country pull out of the deep and muddy ditch it is in. I see utter confusion even with those who don’t bank on Zenawi.
SaMa
Its funny u mentioned Ethiopian Economics Association; hmmm I hope u haven’t forgotten their data collectors filling up questionnaire sitting in AA. Talk about incompetence here! Some times, I feel like ‘we’ are given [created] the opportunity & we make it easy for Meles by destroying it.
As usual, enjoyed reading u Abiye.
Abiye if you are for present Chinese Communist Party your differences with Meles IMO, is very minimal. More over, I think Meles is more like Deng Xiaoping than Mao. The only similarity he has with Mao is being the founder and the theoretician of their respective party. Meles has learned from the mistakes of Mao. Remember “EPRDF don’t repeat mistakes” :-).
Look at some of his associates: Dr. Eleni(ECX) and what is his name the Health Minister Adhom? as an example. My guess is if he finds more intellectuals who are for strong Developmental State concept he will include them in his team. However, not many intellectuals are coming out with similar concepts. Dr. Berhanu [Ethiopian Economics Association]is as far as I know a Noe-liberal and the association he created can’t be any different.
I am not, Dan. I was making a claim that the glass isn’t even half-empty(which is China). I am a post-Rawlsian liberal through and through. If that is what neo-liberalism means in your book, I have no problem to be identified as one. But at Columbia University, I heard Meles using neo-liberal and nightwatchman state as one and the same. That is libertarianism. So what is neo-liberalism? Since the 1920s, that term has been used to smear opponents. It has been used by fascists, nationalists, conservatives etc. EEA under Brehanu was not a libertarian group. That means you and Meles have different interpretations of neo-liberalism? Again, what really is neo-liberalism?
Abiye, Meles used the term neo-liberalism to refer to the economic theory that advocates an economic system where the state is a mere protector of individual property, person and life without any proactive economic role except provision of public goods (the nightwatchman state). Any problem with such use of the term?
Mulugeta,
That is close to a libertarian state(the minimalist state of Rand, Nozick, Hayek, Von Mises etc). That is my confusion with neo-liberalism. If Meles is saying a neo-liberal state is a minimal state, there is no minimal state in our planet and he must be flogging a straw man. If he was referring to a state which gives value to the role of property rights, freedom of contract, open markets, monetary stability but also involves in redistribution of wealth to ensure some sort of equality(depending on the kind of egalitarian ideal that the state accepts) without acting as a development agent, that is a liberal state. These are significant differences in philosophy, politics and economics. I would like to know what people mean when they use the term neo-liberal. Otherwise, it just becomes a term for something you don’t like.
Actually he is not flogging a straw man. You are right that there is no minimal state in our planet. But there are people and institutions which are underpinned by the ideal to establish a minimal state. He is referring to the international financial institutions whose policy prescriptions are underlined by a commitment towards a minimal state. He was not attaching a commitment to property rights and freedom of contract. Again there is no state in the world that gives sacrosanct status to property rights and freedom of contract. The only difference that I see between neo-liberalism and libertarianism is their focus the letter in the social and political sphere and the former in the economic sphere. Otherwise they are united in their belief of individual rationality and capacity to choose.
Well, the fundamental underpinnings may be similar, but their interpretations are different even in economics. Three years ago, I read Ronald Dworkin’s “Is Democracy Possible Here?”. He started with with fundamental values that most Americans(conservatives and liberals) can agree on. He chose two principles- personal autonomy and individual responsibility – and interpreted wedge issues in economics, politics and social affairs based on those fundamental principles. He offered that his interpretations could be consensual. After working through intricate and dense arguments in each issue, you know where he reached? Liberal answers!!! I could hardly contain my laugh. This is to say that saying x and y are fundamental principles may not mean a lot unless we interpret them and design a system based on the interpretations. Egalitarian liberals, for example, claim that the capacity to choose cannot be realized in a non-welfare state. Libertarians go mad with any mention of the “w” word. These differences have big implications not just in the political sphere as you alluded, but in economics too. Again, my call is for conceptual clarity so that we know what we are referring to and where our disagreement lies.
If your interpretation of Meles is correct, I guess the neo in neo-liberalism is entirely unnecessary and he should never use the “nightwatchman state” as a substitute term. Then the debate can begin.
Abiy
Very interesting article again but I have to admit you lost us in your reply to Dan. And I don’t understand why you wanted to go to such lengths to explain yourself for someone who is obviously a Meles apologist. Seems the guy is an expat who, as the saying goes wants to ‘poke our wounds’ without either understanding the situation or because he is somehow associated with the system.
Returning to the main point though. You said that in 1976 luck struck for China when Mao died. I think you are not implying anything here and I want to ask the following. Short of wishing the death of our ‘beloved’ young, and healthy leaders what is it that we can we learn from China?
I said China was lucky because it is rare to get a competent autocratic ruler taking power when an incompetent dictator dies. The death of Mao was half of the story of China’s luck.
If your question is what our authoritarian leaders can learn from China, my reflexive answer is that at least in short term the “dictator’s dilemma” theory is not a grundnorm(or anything similar to that). Negotiating dictatorship with a dynamic, communicative society is not impossible. As a man committed to political freedoms though, I would hope as a nation we limited our lesson just to the economic policy that brought spectacular growth.
zenawi is a charlatant. Many confuse Oratory with competence. it was the same kind of oratory which put Mengistu to power in the Derg.
Abiy,
I never thought I would quote Rush Limbaugh but unlike him I hope the PM succeeds.
This article seems throwing a red meat to the future hopefuls to be Prime Minster of Ethiopia one day.
In my view, what the future PM needs to do to robustly grow the economy of Ethiopia like that of China:-
1. Transform a weather-dependent agriculture to a large scale irrigation-based farming
2. Invest on the youth (i.e. Improve post secondary education)
3. Expand service sector
4. Open up the market! (Private investments while Gov’t facilitates with business-friendly policies)
Did I mention with or without “western type of democracy”….
Lastly, Abiy, this seems you are throwing your hat to a potential future candidacy to this same position…. Good luck pal.
Regards,
Feven
It seems that it is Dr. Feven that put solution for the glass to be at least half full.
Many of you here with your comments are simply going around the bush. I assure you that the majority of Ethiopians care less about neo-liberalism or neo-conservatism; Mao or his successors; China or West.
“It’s all about the Economy, Stupid!” … You recall James Carvilles famous qoute?
Take that – Abiy.
Bitew,
You know Ethiopians we like always to see half empty glass.
Abiy, with his platform ANO, instead of focusing on the green shoots the country is witnessing he is consistently bashing the numbers coming out not only from the Govt but also from international organizations such as IMF & World Bank.
Let’s only hope people like Abiye, who read a lot and climb to the top of a ladder of education, know how to compromise and work with their rivals. Then and then only will our country see the real progress.
I look forward a virtual-summit on “The Future of Ethiopian Economy” by the educated diaspora. That may result a positive and a tangible change
Dear ANO admins and readers –
Yonathan, a guess here at ANO, has raised an interesting topic, i.e. to have a virtual-summit regarding “The Future of Ethiopian Economy”. What do you think?
I personally have been always interested in participating in such conversations that yield a positive change. I believe that we all want to contribute to our country in a civilized manner.
Fellow readers, to do so we can start by submitting a one page abstract (pdf)on these general topics of ( I know they are broad topics but that way we can get all walks of economists)-
1) Microeconomics and macroeconomics
2) Agro-economics
3) Private Business and investment
4) Government policies
Please send your one page abstract as a pdf attachment via email to
Once submitted you will be notified the date and time of the virtual-summit.
Regards,
Dave
ps thanks Abiy for provoking this sleeping giant (educated Ethiopian diaspora/elite).
Man that analysis is weak. If you do remember “the three world theory” you wouldn’t write this garbage. Besides those people who had been under the so called were better off with that system than the one we are practicing at this time. When you spew about comptencey don’t forget kleptomniac behavior of the capitalists
Imitation of western ideas and philosophies were popular in the 70s in Ethiopia. Somehow that was seen as a sign of modern and advanced thinking. The generation of Melese is known for phrasemongering. Endless mouthful words they throw around. Words they do not understand. Basically solganeering. Melese may be reading books but his understanding of these books is no more than monkey see monkey do kind of mechanical understanding. It does not matter what he says neolibralism, developmental state etc. His eyes are on ethnic based domination of the nation. The real ideaology that drives melese and his group is the premordial thinking of ethnic domination. The derg talked endlessley about marxist ideology but vast majority of its cadres did not understand what that was. It is the same here. The ideology TPLF advances publicly is not understood by the vast majority of its members and supporters. They are not there for the public face but for the real mccoy which is ethinc based domination and getting as much of the pie for their group.
It is impossible for a real intellectual to defend TPLF. For one thing they are very anti intllectual. That part of their nature is organic. No real person with commitment to truth can defend TPLF. That is why for the resources they have and the number of years they stayed in power, they attracted very few intellectuals. They are defended in the diaspora by people who have no training or understanding of elementary logic. To try to coin the ideology of TPLF in terms of a well established ideology or principle is missing the true nature of these people. They are ethnicists the other face they put up is skin deep and to attract foriegn aid.
Bizu bizu,
Bless you God. YOu just said it all precisely.
Abiy, in ur article you stated “what used to be robust groups like the Ethiopian Economics Association were run to the ground”. I dont think this is a correct statement. It may be true that the association passed difficult times after Dr. Birhanu and Dr. Befekadu joined the opposition. It is also true that Dr. Birhanu has contributed a lot for the association and helped the establishment of the research wing (though he is not a founding president as some wrognly think). Thanks to the effort made by its members and leadership(including past leadership like Dr. Birhanu) it has now its own building and has also opened three regional offices. It has also increased its activities in terms of research, training and conference. The association is still a robust group. If anything, it has become more robust, i think. This may not be central to your article but i think it is goog to be careful when you make such statements.
Abiye:
I think it is of no use to draw a comparison between Meles and Mao. (Oh yes I know their first name begins with a letter “M”).
Mao was an ardent communist. He was committed to this ideology until he dies. In the process of ruling under the dicta of Marxism, he ended up killing millions of Chinese. That was sickening!!!
Meles is a simple opportunist. He would do and say anything to get by the day. They say he was an Albanian style communist (don’t ask me what an Albanian communism looks like, lol). He then tried to be a champion of Western style democracy. (Remember what Clinton said about him and Isayas?!) At the same time he (Meles) tells you that Revolutionary Democracy is the right way forward. At one point he even came up with Bonapartism and rent-seeking to confuse us. In 1993 E.C. he told us that the country was on a very WRONG track for 10 years!! He said the political and economic playfield was dominated by one ethnic group. As if we didn’t know?! He then began to talk about developmental state. Last year we heard him saying the country had been walking “aramba ena kobo” before 1997 E.C. Now he is talking about “growth and transformation”. Five years from now he would come up with yet another tale of his. That’s for sure!
My point is that Meles’s governance does not need that kind of high level analysis. I must say I am enjoying your treatise though.
Equating Melese with Mao is partially right as both are dictators.But diametrically opposed when we come to see their feelings and commitment towards their country.Chairman Mao never given away an inch of his land to his enemies unlike melese who accomplised with the enemy and worked hard for the illegal secession of Eritrea and his immediate recognition of the Eritrean secession to which had no constitutional mandate since the occupying TPLF force itself had no legitimacy to endorse.So how come one by any measure compare Melese with Mao in terms of safeguarding the integrity of ones national bounderies ? look how the legacy of Mao’s Nationalism still continue to haunt the present day communist party of china by way of adamantly claiming for the lost former chinese territories like Hong Kong and some islands from japan..Though Mao was a dictator and dislikes “bourgeoise” intellectuals,and killed quite a number of them in the 1966 cultural revolution,still he is rembered as the great leader of the chinese people.What about Melese ? is he really articulate ?does he deserve to be articulate because he talks the same thing again and again ?ofcourse he appers to be a theoretican in his own right for EPRDFITES as the adage goes “in the country of the blind a one eyed man is a king”Whatever the case Melese by no means equate with Mao rather he is equivalent to POL-Pot of Cambodia.
Aynu and Tazabiw,
I compared the two in a limited sense – incompetence masked by their rhetorical skills and vast information base.
derb,
That was a funny comment. I have no idea what you are talking about. I like the buzz words though :-) “the three world theory”, “kleptomniac behavior of the capitalists”. Please next time,argue with some substance :(
Abiy
You still owe us an explanation about nationalism here!!!
I remember reading Kissinger and his very first encounter with Mao and Chou En Lai right in the aftermath of that rift between Khurschev and Mao..Nixon summarized the Chinese mindset as nationalist through and through…..!! Deng Xiaopeng’s reforms come in no other form but an extension of that nationalist fervour to see a propserous and mighty China!!It is that political conviction that translated itself into investment in industrialization, technology, higher education etc…. It is the same ideological currency that makes the chinese sleep with all kinds of strange bedfellows!!At least they used to select their friend’s during Mao’ times ( the Chinese never considered Mengistu as a socialist for instance. Never was he invited for an official visit! In contrast they considered Nyrere’s CCM as a true communist party)So the competence you talk about derived its essence from a nationalist conviction. should we expect the same level of “competence” from the premier or the EPRDF? Wouldnt that be comparing apples and oranges?
Can a government that is not nationalist be competent? Is competence a function of nationalism among other things? I don’t want to mix causation and correlation. The argument that you raised was mentioned in Paul Collier’s latest book. I felt then as now that no serious cause-effect relationship was established. That is why I limited myself to policy level competence. One can see what Mao and Meles lacked and what Deng possessed here. Having said that, no inference should be made from my article that if Meles had aspired to create a dynamic society in the absence of nationalism, he would achieved what he wanted. May be nationalism is a key ingredient to creating that. What I wanted to say was even at the policy level, he has been utterly incompetent.
I love Abiye’s debate with the sensible guy, may be weyane or weyane leaning, Mulugeta M. Ayalew.
Unlike Dr. Feven, I don’t need to quote Rush Limbaugh. melese won’t succeed, but he has already cooked all the data to declare his aid driven looting, a highway to become billionare like his partner alamudi, as ‘success’. Dr. Feven your kicker is funny and I want your wish to succeed.
Let me explain your highness.
When mao formulated the three world theory. At that time chin was in across road. NDR didn’t hit the target. Under the 3 world theory Mao divided the world into 3 catagory.
1= classical imperialism
2-socio-imperialism
3-the third world nations
According to his formula “China has to choose one of the imperialism for its development. When he define the socio-imperialism; socio-imperialism is a new comer in the arena. it came after all the imperialist seats are taken. SI is very agressive and ruthless. It does every thing to find a seat in the Imperiasist arena. The solution for china is to be allay with classic Imprialism. That was the time many of his comerads though he has amnesia. His wife and his daughter among them. DiengX was on his side. DX successfuly put china under classical capitalism. The rest is history.
About the klptomniacs klptocratics if you live in the west, unlesss you are dumb or dead brain it is in your face. Check how they are dystroying the middle class. Worthless places like Ethiopia are made to destroy themselves. This is simple fact.
I agree with Bizu Bizu who understood Meles well. Meles is a person who can only be classified as an evil ignorant man-like animal, suffering from huge inferiority complex. He may pretend reading books only to mimic others like a parrot without real understanding the subject matter. You cannot compare him even with Mao who generated a lot of original ideas (which may be good or bad) that had/have influences on other societies out of his own country. It needs a thinking brain and originality to do this. What did Meles do? Let alone influencing others, does he know what he is doing everyday except responding by instincts like animals. As animals flock together with their own kind instinctively, he formed his own narrow ethnic group for survival and self defense. That is what hyenas, lions, elephants, etc. do. Does this require reading or even a human brain? Obviously, not at all. That is what Meles is capable of doing and has been doing for the last 20 or so years. He is simply a cruel wild animal with little barin which has developed the art of mimicking others like parrot for the sake of survival. Please don’t expect anything better from him. Comparing him with Mao is unjustified and unfair to Mao. The aim should be to remove this incapable subhuman cruel best.
Zelalem
This is definitely not your forum. People are discussing here about Ethiopia’s future, not to show their hate-mongering attitudes, ok. Come up with your solutions other than your insults!
I vote for Derese Getachew’s comment; Abiye, you owe us an explanation on Mao’s qualities on top of being wel-read and articulate. How this two dictators use their reading and oratory is quite different. You somehow equate this melese – the looter – with Mao. he ain’t have the code of honor Mao shoulders. Abiye, you should have mentioned the stark difference between these two dictators on the issues you have compared. Where the heck is our Xiaoping? Mao saw the likes of Xiaoping in his circle. melese surround himself with opportunists and incompetents.
This article is a dissapointment like so much else about Addis Neger.
What Abiye’s article reveals is an abysmal ignorance of Chinese politics and history. I can understand that you can get away with superficial and ‘lite’ analysis like this amongst your usual audience and fans, which is even more saddening. Please read more before you try to make these meaningless comparisons and asinine generalizations.
The Chinese Communist Party under the leadership of Chairman Mao initiated a land reform program that gave land to hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants, built up an impressive industrial and scientific base (remember China developed nuclear power and weapons and a space program in the 1960s!), and for the first time in a hundred years (since the Opium wars) restored Chinese pride and stood up to Western Imperialism in the Korean war. During this period of time, the living standards of hundreds of millions of Chinese were improved (life expectancy, standards and access to health care facilities, nutrition, income etc).
The Cultural Revolution itself (for which Mao and the CCP are often criticised) could arguably be interpreted as a admirable attempt to level the socio-economic and political hierarchies which still persisted in China decades after Socialism had become the development path of the PRC and also an attempt to further democratize a political system and return political power to the Chinese peasants and workers.
The restoration of Capitalism in the PRC after 1976 and the rapid economic growth acheived hence owes a lot to the socio-economic progress completed in earlier decades under the “incompetence” (your words) of Chairman Mao and the CCP. What is also saddening is that many people are either uninformed or choose to ignore the costs and the negative aspects associated with the resoration of Capitalism in the PRC.
MaLeMa,
You peddle one of the greatest lies of world history here and call me ignorant for not accepting it? Yes, I have read Chinese history very well. But unlike you, my reading list was not dominated by official party booklets. Growing up in EPRDF’s Ethiopia, I had the misfortune of repeatedly listening to the myth that you presented as history. It is not just an official CPC line, but a line that EPRDFites were indoctrinated with since the days of the armed struggle. So much for your insight.
The Chinese economy when Mao died had three basic features: (1)Dismal agricultural output; (2) heavy-industrial sector that creates negative value; (3) gigantic scientific projects which gave a superficial sense of great achievement but were sad cases of resource mismanagement. Deng inherited an economic mess and a citizenry demoralized by years of repression(the campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries, rectification movement etc) and famine(the great leap forward, cultural revolution) under Mao’s rule. The cultural revolution destroyed the economy, china’s schools, heritage, social capital… And you call that a socio-economic progress? If I am abysmally ignorant for interpreting that as incompetence, ignorance surely is bliss. Or may be you are just projecting.
Abiye
I still don’t see any semblance between Mao and Meles both in rhetoric skill and informational base. History books say that Mao was a prolific writer and orator; he was a great poet; he even had his own philosophical treatises. I doubt one can say the same thing about Meles. I agree with you that Meles is grossly incompetent. But, as far as I am concerned, his incompetence is plain and simple. It is not masked by rhetoric skill or vast informational base. We are seeing it day in day out.
Meles is different from Mao but I agree he is incompetent. I guess a good leader should be a good forecaster and strategiest. I have a BIG PROBLEM with people who say he is intelligent ( usually coming from people with less standard for themselves and others.)
The style of ruling by TPLF is trial and error and lost opportunities that could have been a turning point for Ethiopia and legacy for Meles personally.
What is happening in Ethiopian is the usual misfortune (like Dergue kidnapped a genuine revolution to what it was). It was simply unfortunate they are ruling Ethiopia!
Because first and foremost you can’t have people with a chip on their shoulder in their personality to rule a family let alone millions of people. As a result they have a narrow perspective to the problems and solutions. ( in their case evolving primarily on ethnicity)
But I think he is coming around…
Meles seems to have his peace with ‘Ethiopia’ and he is focusing on development but came some 20years late.
Sup abiye,
The story idea was good as an idea.Though Abiye started it out as a comparative analysis, in my vain view at least the causation was cut short….lack of propositions,similarities and differences, measurement benchmarks and inductively analytical conclusion would have made it a robust article.
What i read was a natively starting literature review that suddenly ended up with a deductive similarity analysis and conclusion.
That being said i appreciate that you raised the topic and relentlessly argued your position and view in the forum the whole day.As a young man of middle 20s , i knew little about Mao and when Meles was equated to him by most,I always wanted to know Mao and this brief gave me a glimpse of him.
Comparing Mao and Meles is an insult to the people of China. Mao has made a world history. He united China. Please stop making such childish comparisons. You are insulting China and the supporters of Mao Tsetung. Meles could not even be compared to Mengistu or to local leaders like Birhanu Nega, Hailu Shawel. Meles might be compared with Robert Mugabe or any other african leader. Please remove this article!
Who is Meles? What does he think and what does he speak? It took us some time to know who he is But now we know what he is going to say and even we know what he thinks at a given moment.
I do not want to write more about Meles because he is not worth of any thing. For sure, Meles is not a Marxist-Lenninst or a Stalinist. If one is a Marxist, one would work for the unity of a given coountry. One would not fragment a society or a country Stalin built the Soviet Union and worked for the well being of the population. Mao also made China what it is now.
Meles is a power hungry dictator with no self-esteem whatever. It seems he has no social norms and direction. He has no love of a country which he is born and raised. He is tribalist. Meles is mentally immature, maybe with a mental age of 15. He might read but des not understand what he is reading. In short Meles is an idiot with the ability to cheat and lie. He is not subtle. The problem is he has an army and he is calling the shots!
Abiye,
Allow me to ask you one question.
Where did Deng get his “young, well-educated and dynamic Chinese” for his reforms if as the educational system was all ‘rotten’?
Even during the so called cultural revolution period Chinese education was producing well taught engineers and scientists. China had satellites playing the tune, ‘The East is Red’ and orbiting the earth. That was 1967. 1976, the year you are referring to, came ten years later.
Araia,
Our brutal dictator Mengistu Hailemariam had established heavy military industry. Don’t tell me that is a technological achievement. If any state(even a poor one) is willing to starve a big chunk of its citizens, it can undertake big technological projects. This is easy: It is all about opportunity cost.
Where did Deng get his educated people? One point we should not forget is that China started from a very low base contrary to what Mao apologists in this blog want us to believe. Change in this sense means freeing up the resources you have however small they are. You then build on that. Meles could have done the same even if he inherited an absolute mess from his lunatic predecessor.
Abiye,
Despite my disagreement with your points – you have provoked an interesting debate, so I first thank you for that.
Your depiction of China during Mao’s era is really of the mark. It is worth looking at the positive if only to take these into advice when thinking on what we need to do for Ethiopia as much as for understanding on why a -ve portrait of Maoist-China is crucial to the ideological battles going on today.
It might be worth remembering that China was divided up and put under the yoke of colonizing European and later Japanese powers and the Chinese revolution was more than just a matter of ‘economics’. It was a reversal of the shame, mass murder and theft that the likes of the ‘democratic’ British and imperial Japan unleashed on that proud civilization.
Second: the MASSIVE gains the majority of rural and urban Chinese achieved during this period is missing from your narrative. This is usually illustrated in a popular excercise comparing Maoist-China and independent India ['largest 'democracy' in the world] with China beating India on ALL human development indicators except, freedom of expression (important but not that the end of the world).
Third: the Chinese ‘peasants’ were NOT serfs – that was what Ethiopian’s in the south were during the time of H.I.M. – it is NOW [the period you hold in positive light] that rural Chinese are becoming serfs [look up 'land' 'uprising' and farmers in China]. Lastly: the educational infrastructure and R&D that is at the root of China’s current expansion was developed [including free education} during this period. To put it in perspective - when was China's space and rocket research started and when did it send it's first satellites, develop the atomic bom etc.? The present has deep and firm roots in the past.
In your comparison of Mao and Meles [not simply as individuals] but as figures representing political movements, Meles is, what my friend “Afar” says, “a charlatan”. This is on two counts.
The nature of the regime that emerged from the ashes of war and the talk ‘left’, walk ‘right’ policies of the EPRDF that has used ethnicity as tool for designing an economy that siphons massive social wealth in to the hands of a few (including non-party members) concentrates power and controls the population to continue this theft and protect their gain.
This is THE neo-liberal project [made famous in Chile through the military dictatorship of Pinochet], except it is being done by a ‘leftist’ talking regime [look at Angola or Mozambique for the cousines of such types of fake-left but reactionary regimes]. That is why Mele’s “anti” neo-liberal stance at Columbia is a fraud. He and his party are just positioning and shifting their rhetoric at a time when the financial crisis has made neo-liberal arguments sound like pro-war ‘invade Iraq advocates’ after the WMD’s were no where to be found (oops!).
Which brings us back to our beloved Ethiopia – so what is the way forward and what can the past history of China teach us about the nature of the current regime?
Arguing cause and effect in social science… Ah, the wisdom!
Half the world says Mao was a disaster and that China would have boomed decades before (like Taiwan) if it hadn’t been for communism, the other half says that China is ‘successful’ today because of each and every historical event that took place in the past, including Mao’s reign!!!
Silly, really. Obviously there’s no winning this argument. Not only that, but there’s no point. It’s a waste of time.
So what if what Mao did was for the ‘greater good’ of China? So what if Mao’s rule had some positive impact on today’s economic boom in China? So what if Stalin was instrumental in making the Soviet Union a world power? So what if Hitler made Germany what she is today? Etc.
What you all ought to be asking yourselves is if you would have been willing to sacrifice your own sons or daughters for Mao’s or Meles’ or some other ‘big cause’. The answer obviously is no.
Then, what you want is a country in which your sons and daughters can grow up in peace and dignity. And what you ought to be doing is working in your capacity to change Ethiopia into such a country.
So, enough wasting time with the social science theorizing and on to the work of building and strengthening the democratic opposition.
Dear Chrystosom
What makes you think bouncing ideas is wasting time?
And why do you chastise Abiy and all other commentors for not being on the harvest field of ” building and strengthening the democratic opposition”.
What kind of democratic opposition invites the public to stop exchangin ideas and pack up for the cause ahead!
It was the same kind of missionary zeal and herd instict that stifled much of your “democratic opposition” since the Ethiopian students movement…
We have enough people on the harvest field.we salute their efforts. We dont see why we should compromise our basic freedom to advance democratic freedom for our country…its counterintuitive
Spare us the sloganeering and good luck!!
“So, enough wasting time with the social science theorizing…”
[spoken like an engineer] but you yourself are theorizing my friend … and your view of the world pushes you to advice us to discount history, as if man is anything but a historical being.
So where does a democratic opposition take us .. Uhuru? What is the vision that will resolve the accumulated pain and aches of our society? Do you think Ethiopia is a blank slate upon which one can hoist ‘democracy’?
What about those, inside and outside Ethiopia, that have an interest in keeping this ancient land fractitious, poor and fighting? Can we ignore these things and simply pretend that there are no conflicting political interests in Ethiopia?
So, if Meles and company leave this weekend will Ethiopia’s problems be resolved? What’s the plan?
Perhaps we need to think, talk, argue, learn from others and organize … but then again that’s just my theory.
derb,
Here we go, now you are arguing with “substance” LOL. I’m sorry.
The only difference… Mao was not shallow, narrow, tribalist “Gotegna” Mesafenet like Meles. Mao was a poor teacher & a nationalist. He loves his country Chinia. That is why he formed a united front with Kumentag to fight the Japanese imperialism. On the contrary, Meles and Sebhat hate Ethiopia. The formed with alliance with Arabs and Western imperlalism to destroy Ethiopia & Ethiopiawenet.
Abiye, I admire your determination to bring a “sane” discussion on Ethiopian politics, which as you know is marred by senseless accusations and name calling otherwise. Whenever I read people like you, I rest assured that we have a hope as a nation. Sanity is what we lack these days when it comes to discussing political issues in Ethiopia.
Coming to the main point, I completely agree with Bizu Bizu.
What Meles does with these presentations, such as the one at Columbia, is all about trying to be seen by the West as being knowledgeable just for its own sake. He has profited from that as we all know. He uses these tricks only for a foolish political reason: to stay in power. So far he has succeeded. He thinks he is the smartest on the Ethiopian political landscape. There is no such thing as being the smartest when all that he has to do is to gag and destroy all his opponents by all imaginable means. Otherwise the system he single handedly crafted for Ethiopia is nothing more than what Bizu Bizu perfectly described. That is all! Nothing more!
As much as they make sense, the issues that you are raising should be placed and used in their proper place. They cannot be used to analyze the Ethiopian situation. It is like using the wrong formula to find a solution for a problem. Meles does not believe in anything except staying in power no matter what. As much as he says he is a passionate believer of revolutionary democracy and defends it so fervently, believe me he will grab another ideology if it serves one purpose—staying in power– without even caring about what he just said. He very well knows that as much as he stays in power, he is empowering some segments of the society, who are flourishing under our eyes. I am not sure why we are not openly discussing this than quarreling on these conceptual and theoretical issues, which is proper only in other contexts. What happened over the last 18 years? Who has benefitted from the political system? Who has more resources to thrive in business, education and other aspects of life? Who controls the financial machinery in Ethiopia? Who controls the military, the security, etc? Who is controlling the bloodline of the country? I hope in answering these questions you would not venture into telling yourself that there are Hailemariams, Abadulla’s in power and thus the system is egalitarian. These are people who have given away their conscience (or do not understand what to be a free human being is) and I find it difficult to believe if they believe in what they do unless they are in denial.
So, let’s talk about the real issues. I don’t think we have the luxury to grapple with issues like this.
Abiye, could you please define ‘incompetence’ and give just two examples why Meles should be considered ” massively, massively and massively incompetent”?
Should I copy and paste the last paragraph? Or depriving the country of innovation and dynamism, making policy without consultation, sapping energy and free spirit out of institutions of higher learning, being suspicious of new information technology, faking data, crowding your cabinet with ministers with a track record of incompetence…are these all evidences of competence? If you think that is what he does to stay in power, you are absolutely trapped in the disproven dictator’s dilemma argument. Yes, dictators can competently deliver the goods for their citizens without losing their power in short term.
His entire economic record, from 1991 till 2010, is poor. Especially low, low agricultural productivity. Next famine will result in 30 million on aid. All this even with huge amounts of development and humanitarian aid. Summary here:
http://www.enset.org/2010/09/ethiopias-trends-compared-with-some.html
If my tracing is correct, Abiye was made to write this article provoked by a certain commentator named Yonas on Mesfine’s post on Growth and Transformation Plan. Yonas accused Mesfine for failure to see the half full glass in the latter’s analysis of the government tabled plan called GTP. We owe to the commentaries because although much of them were trivial, on their commending side, have become able to yield this article by Abiye.
Therefore, I am indebted first to Abiye for initiating the issues around which several people commented this way. I must also thank those commentators who have grappled with the themes in a better sophistication. Readers like me benefit from the commentators earlier knowledge of history, political theories and ways of arguments and persuasion.
Like many of the commentators on this particular point I am attracted to the comparison made between the 1970s China and today Ethiopia in general. No less significant points are also raised as subordinate themes under the topic. Meles compared to Mao, educational undertakings, think thanks like the economic association, nationalism are few of them.
The idea around Meles’s quality in particular deserves additional points. It is not uncommon to find fan of Meles and serious critics here. To his admirers and devotees Meles is extra ordinarily excellent, principled, astute, scholarly, high keyed speaker bla bla. To his critics he is illogical, rigid, fearful, insecure etc.
As to my observation I found no sufficient reason to take Meles as colorful speaker and intelligent even by African standard. He can not be compared even with Samora Machel of Mozambique, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, Amilcar Cabral of Guinea. To be true he is an exceptionally pragmatic politician. His shrewdness has no match. He quadruples whatever eschewing quality that Haile Selassie has while digging your grave. His mischief and tricking nature is unimagined.
So why is he perceived as scholars by some? Answering this question entails us to revisit why the EPRDF’s collective leadership crew made him its spokesperson. This is I think because he proved himself effective than his compatriots. According to Tesfaye Gebreab, Aboy Sibihat abdicated his position affirming that Meles has become source of most of the idea of the front. Indeed whether Abay Tsehaye and Tewlde Mariam regarded, as Professor Gebru mention it, “theoreticians” it was Meles which communicates the ideology of the front. His quality shaped his role in the coaching of the cadres. That is why recently Col Eyasu boosted putting a bold statement as to the absence of fighters who did not feel Meles’s indoctrination ointment.
His magnanimity ever rose after the cleavage in the EPRDF. With this event, Meles floated himself purging the possible contenders. So now he is surrounded by person like Tewodros Adhanom and Haile Mariam. The first did not hesitate to declare his working with Meles as blessing. Hailemariam, who seize two ministerial posts with portfolio simultaneously, also does not see any thing wrong to publicly speak that he is dependent on Meles. This is understandable from the traditional Ethiopian politics point of view. Accruing such kind of sycophant allegiance is not the kind of respect a competent leader obtains. Mao despite several hard feelings he has caused in his country has a unique caliber in analyzing his country’s revolution, and the atmosphere he created in galvanizing the people towards achieving it. In the mean time the promotion of Chinese nationalism put the Chinese case incomparable with the Ethiopian Meles. So given the trend it may appear reasonable to compare the 1970s China with the current Ethiopia. But in effect it is not too much to realize that Ethiopia is far more in the astray now than what China was by then.
Therefore, the question is, whatever Meles’s status is with in his party, was he the best candidate that this country could have as its leader? I do not think so. If Mao’s incompetence is asserted then Meles is worse than Mao. Indeed no better event marks his incompetence than his shrewd marginalization of those with potentials. Think of Meles’s idea minus his enforcement mechanisms. How much persuasive are they?
Regards
Kaltesewachihu,
You’ve misunderstood me and I wasn’t clear. My points were meant to be:
1. Usually discussions around issues such as ‘Is Meles like Mao?’ aren’t very useful.
2. Even discussions such as ‘Did Mao’s reign contribute positively to China’s economic growth today?’ are indeterminate not so useful, given narrative fallacy, etc. You just can’t prove one way or the other. Perhaps you’d learn from the exercise, though?!
3. Those who say that Mao/Communism was good for China ought to sit and reflect. Mao/Communism killed tens of millions. It’s all very well to sit here comfortably today and say Mao/Communism strengthened China, but what about those tens of millions? Would you have been willing to sacrifice your kids for such a cause, that was my question? If I told you that if Meles could kill a million Ethiopians, he would make Ethiopia into a First World country, would you take the deal? As I bystander, or would you offer yourself as a victim?!
4. Going on from 3)… When we have debates like this, we should be careful of not falling into two fallacies. One is the narrative fallacy where in hindsight we attribute today’s situation to nearly whatever took place yesterday. And then automatically assuming that if history had been different, today would have been worse. The second is conflation. What is ‘China’? it’s an abstract concept. Saying Mao was ‘good for China’ is meaningless. Exactly whom was he good for. Not for the millions suffered and dead. He was good for x, but bad for y.
Well, Abiy, I guess the discussion’s not so useless after all!
Afraid of losing our way to the main spot, I would say FEW don’t understand what Abiy is talking about. As he portrayed it time and again, Mao and Meles are compared slightly with their ‘massive incompetence’. Indeed, they don’t have other resemblance.
If Meles is to be evaluated, it might be against pebbles. Full of arrogance and Ignorance! Boastful rascal and hooligan! Totally, he is empty. He is a man feeling strong while engulfed with faction of illiterates, rent seekers and claptraps. He hates erudite comrades. I can’t find any dynamism and compassion inside of him. Had we got a leader who turned at least some gaffes away from Ethiopians the predecessor Mengistu mounted (if any), I would have been satisfying.We better stop weighing this dim witted ‘man’ against others honoring their country, especially Mao. Meles is the worst pathetic and dreadful leader of Ethiopia so far.
Sound like a feudal yourself ! The worst leader of all time? Well you are comparing someone who is still leading a country to long time tyrannts who had passed away after slaughtering their own people for political gains. Let’s just wait and see where he is gonna be slated into! Is that fair? Let’s talk what we can do, for now, in terms of saving this nation without getting it into an ever ending civil war!
Abiy,can you please stop this kind of worthless article?Even my grand mom knows the substance of Meles.inferiority complex,opportunist,tribalist,corrupt,egocentric,…but,you comparing with Mao?funny!!!
one question:what is the difference between somali pirates who hijack ships and ask for ransom and Meles who takes 80 million people as hostages for ransom(western aid)?