21-1-2012
Tedla Desta
The
New Year has popped in jammed with fascinating news items. It kicked off with the
joyfully astounding announcement of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) to a
tragic one that took the lives of five tourists in Ethiopia’s remotest region,
Afar and a car accident in the North. This tragic horror, committed by whoever
is sinfully insane, was preceded a day before by a news item that gave a good
blow to the Meles Zenawi Administration. Human Rights Watch (HRW) said that the
Ethiopian government was forcibly moving tens of thousands of indigenous people
in the western Gambella region from their homes to new villages under its
“villagization” program. It said that these population transfers were being
carried out with no meaningful consultation and no compensation and was despite
government promises to provide basic resources and infrastructure. The relocations
have been marked by threats and assaults, and arbitrary arrest for those who
resist the move. Human Rights Watch produced the study after it interviewed
over 100 residents affected in the first round of the villagization program in
Gambella and found widespread human rights violations at all stages of the
program. A villager in Abobo Woreda,
said in an interview with a HRW researcher,
We were told, “If
somebody refuses, the government will take action”—so the people went to the new village—by force.
This and many other research reports, press releases and advocacies
were open to the elements from HRW in relation to human rights issues in
Ethiopia. All the publications were, by the judgement of this writer, pro human
rights, liberty, justice and democracy. These reports have been able to shade
lights into what is happening behind the so called “developmental state” of Ethiopia
and the glittering buildings of Addis Abeba. In such a time when, all forms of
free media and communication have been blocked in Ethiopia creating a condition
where both the insiders and outsiders have become unable to communicate and
voice what is untold, the reports and statements by HRW are godsend for the millions
of voiceless Ethiopians. This internationally reputable organisation is doing a
favour to the millions of voiceless Ethiopians by producing cross cutting
research reports and leveraging the international community to stand with the
powerless and look at the truth than mere strategic interests. The Meles Zenawi
regime has always been meddlesome of the HRW reports than any other organisation’s
or countries annual reports. In the aftermath of the 2010 Ethiopian National
election, the regime forced the city dwellers to demonstrate against HRW in
Meskel Square. I remember watching an old lady holding a placard, stuttering to
pronounce Human Rights Watch properly and shouting “HRW stop meddling in our
politics”. How many of those in the
march knew what HRW does and what it really did?
Response
Like always, the Meles administration responded to last
week’s report by HRW by calling it an “ideological campaign” against the
government. Meles becomes a revolutionary democrat when he likes and
developmental democrat when it pleases him. Thus now he is a developmental
democrat who is being “attacked” by the neoliberals.
The Ministry of Federal Affairs in its response to HRW’s
report said this,
These persistent and unfounded
allegations of HRW based on its neo-liberal ideology will not deter Ethiopia
from pursuing in its development path.
The statement also said the hostility of Human Rights Watch
emanates from the market fundamentalism ideology advocated by neoliberals which
Ethiopia does not accept. Following the
2005 election, the Meles regime had two distinct enemies that it continued to
savagely do violence to. These are neoliberals and rent seekers. The Ethiopian government
had always argued against HRW’s reports by saying that they are
“Newoliberalsit” campaigners who waged warfare against the “Developmental Democracy”
Ethiopia. In short, HRW aspires to change Ethiopia into a newoliberal state,
they say.
In
line with the above outlook, a very recent EPRDF file called “The Strategic Significance of Election 2010”
states,
Though
rent-seekers of our country took on this confusion from their manipulators and
fanned it after the election, this confusion had been widely spread by the
fundamentalist neo-liberals prior to the election. In this respect the
statements issued by the major proponent of this campaign, Human Rights Watch,
before the election and on the morrow of the election can be taken as typical
proofs for this. Moreover, one can easily guess that the conclusion of the EU
Observers is the result of the pressure exerted by these fundamentalist
neo-liberals. The attempt of the officials of Human Rights Watch to speak to
and coax the leaders of the EU Observers is a public secret. So it should be
underscored here that the campaign involved many actors, including the Human
Rights Watch, and our rent-seekers who joined the band wagon late is an
integrated one and would further be consolidated in the future to belittle the
democratic victory of the people.
The
file further continues and attests that HRW and the Eritrean government have
been working to create a copycat of Darfur in Ethiopia’s eastern region, the
Somali Regional State. This is with regards to the 2007 reports by HRW
regarding alleged “genocide” and human rights abuse in the Region.
As is well
known, the high expectation of forces such as Shaebia and the Human Rights
Watch as well as local anti-peace forces to create an Ethiopian Darfur by
consolidating anti-peace forces as never seen before and by simultaneously
conducting wide campaign in the name of human rights concentrated on the
problem in Somali Regional State. Their strong wish and expectation that the
situation in the state would get out of control and become a huge problem
similar to Darfur in the Sudan proved futile.
In a 2010 article on the EPRDF
website titled “Revolutionary Democracy: A fitting Worldview for economic and
political development in Ethiopia”, Adal Isaw shows his own and his party
opposition to liberalism and newliberalism in a Lenisit undertone as such,
Revolutionary
democracy rejects the philosophy of aggrandizing the individual as if he or
she, by uncoordinated design, is the source of economic and political
development. Political and
economic development is the result of a planned collective effort, not the
result of a spontaneous interaction of self-seeking individuals. For all these aforementioned reasons
then, revolutionary democrats are cognizant of the fact that the arduous work
to build a middle income democratic Ethiopia will be nearly impossible; one, if
and when it is based on a liberal worldview that favors the unfair and
controlling economic and political interest of the Western world; and two, if
and when it is based on economic and political philosophy that exaggerates the
inalienable rights of a self-seeking individual.
In
a similar manner, Meles Zenawi in a recent academic paper titled ‘States and Markets: Neoliberal Limitations
and the Case for a Developmental State’, 2012 contained in a book titled ‘Good
Growth and Governance in Africa: Rethinking Development Strategies’ and
published by Initiative for Policy Dialogue scrutinised the “theoretical
and conceptual limitations of neoliberal paradigm and the need for Africans
states towards becoming developmental”.
Echoing Joseph Stieglitz’s market fundamentalism and anti-neoliberalism
concepts, the 34 page paper by Meles bashes
neoliberalism as an ideology that 'fosters rent seeking' and lauds 'his' Developmental State Paradigm that “accelerates growth and
limits socially wasteful rent seeking''. Last month, Head of
the Government Communications Affairs Office (GCAO), Bereket Simon in
his interview with Tefera Gdamu of Ethiopian Television said "The mother
of all problems in Ethiopia is rent seeking."
Generalising and arresting local
opposition and critics under the umbrella of “rent seekers” and foreign and
Diaspora based critics as “fundamentalist neo-liberals” has become the game of the day. In this century, when
the war of ideologies has died out, EPRDF/TPLF is now up in hostilities with
its own ideological ‘enemies’ – the neoliberals.
Definitions
With the academic and political
debates and arguments held aside, let’s read what the definitions of these chunk
words mean. Many
writers agree that Neoliberalism originates and shares aspects of liberalism
which as to the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) is a political ideology which
is “[f]avourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms
tending in the direction of freedom or democracy”. Neoliberalism is a modified
or revived form of traditional liberalism, [especially] one based on belief in
free market capitalism and the rights of the individual” (Oxford English
Dictionary, 1989a). Libertarianism on
the other hand is typified, as its name suggests, by a remorseless concern for
liberty above everything else, especially economic or commercial liberty,
coupled with a corresponding de-emphasis of other traditional liberal purposes
and values such as democracy and social justice. This sets libertarians apart
from many earlier classical liberals such as Smith and Tocqueville who, while
they vigorously advocated quite extensive economic liberties, also acknowledge
the validity and legitimacy of other concerns.
Neoliberalism
promotes the ownership of the economy by the private sector than public or
reduced state interventionism. Its policy proposals such as mainly of removing
large deficits, redirected pro poor and growth public spending, trade
liberalisation, privatisation of state enterprises, deregulation and similar
others has gained momentum with many international organisations and countries.
Rent-seeking generally implies the extraction of
uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity. The origin of the term refers to the gaining control
of land or other pre-existing natural resources. In the modern
economy, a more common example of rent-seeking is political lobbying to receive
a government transfer payment, or to impose burdensome regulations on one's
competitors in order to increase one's market share.
The
above definitions are not conclusive and broad enough; however they can give
some clue about the terms and their relationship. Now putting the above
academic definitions on the plate, let us assess what HRW really does. We do
this by directly reading what HRW does and its missions are;
Human Rights Watch
HRW is one of the
world’s leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention
where human rights are violated, it gives voice to the oppressed and holds
oppressors accountable for their crimes. HRW’s rigorous, objective
investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for
action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For more than 30 years, Human
Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for
deep-rooted change and has fought to
bring greater justice and security to people around the world, according to the official website of HRW.
HRW Mission
Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people
around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent
discrimination, to uphold political
freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring
offenders to justice. We investigate and expose human rights violations and
hold abusers accountable. We challenge
governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect
international human rights law. We enlist the public and the international
community to support the cause of human rights for all.
Be a neoliberal
Since writing of his “African
Development: Dead. African Development: Dead. African Development: Dead Ends and New Beginnings”, Meles and his apostles started to utter the
words of development, transformation and growth as the primary goals and
missions of the government while sliding from their initial Revolutionary
Democracy ideologies, human rights, democracy and freedom mantras. They
squarely put the failure of African economies as the responsibility of
“neoliberals, rent seeking and neoliberalism”. As can be comprehended from the
above paragraphs, there is no single line or connotation that evidences HRW is
a neoliberal institution or campaigns it taking it as its mission. In spite of
this, the Meles administration prefers to label the rights group as a
neoliberal organisation albeit it is rarely that we hear entities or persons
tagged a “neoliberal” like we habitually say a “liberal” or “libertarian”.
Therefore,
if defending and protecting human rights, upholding political freedom, protecting people from inhumane conduct in
wartime, bringing offenders to justice and challenging abusive governments is
neoliberalism as the Meles’ love to hallucinate it, why not Ethiopia be a
neoliberal nation and we also be neoliberals? Yes if human right was abused, injustice
prevailed and repression reigned with the developmentalist state paradigm as we
are witnessing now, why not we be Neoliberals?
Yes
Neoliberals of the world Unite!
