|
Last week’s unanimous passage of HR2003 through the
United States (US) House of Representatives reveals
two opposing strategies on the part of the ruling
party and CUD; the latter new, the former
disappointingly much of the same. Less telling is
the bill itself, which, although reflecting rather
limited first-hand knowledge of events within the
country on the part of the foreign lawmakers,
impetus from rather one-sided viewpoints and more
symbolism than substance, remains a progressive and
well-intentioned piece of legislation primarily
owing to its flexibility.
Following the title of the bill that has languished
for two years in House committees, “Ethiopia
Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007”, the
forward looking efforts spearheaded by Congressman
Donald Payne (D-NJ) seek to promote valuable changes
within a country inching along a long road towards
good governance. While even the ruling EPRDF admits
the process of democratisation is by no means near
to closure, the supporters of the bill are correct
that the pace of reform is not up to par;
international pressure from the ‘leader of the free
world’ can help this along.
Considering the hindrances to developing quality
legislation, HR2003 is surprisingly balanced in its
package of promoting democracy while allowing for
rather limited foreign interference internally.
Tellingly, the bite to this action is the
conditionality on non-humanitarian portions of the
around 300 million dollars in aid Ethiopia receives
from the US annually; a big sum for a country
disturbingly aid dependent.
While Ambassador Samuel Assefa (PhD) claims tying
money to internal political developments represents
meddling in domestic affairs, concern for human
rights in a country with a poor record according to
domestic accounts as well as international watchdogs
such as Human Rights Watch is exactly the type of
leadership a superpower should show. Contrast this
with resource hungry China that has shown a lust for
the riches of countries with poor governance and a
knack for propping up regimes with investment that
indirectly wreaks havoc on the lives of receiving
countries’ citizens.
Berhanu Nega’s (PhD)
testimony on the House floor concentrates on this
critical issue juggled amongst national officials as
well as leaders of the international organisations
emerging as more powerful entities in the
globalising world. He voiced discontent with
particularly the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
the World Bank in their system of credit for being
unresponsive to calls for accountable and
transparent governance. The CUD top brass correctly
pointed out the tight linkage between a responsive
democratic government and economic development in
his support for the legislation referring to a
recent Wall Street Journal article.
When credit and other aid originates in such a
substantial portion from international sources and
winds up in the hands of an unresponsive government
or is controlled indirectly by it, to what extent
can it be expected to trickle down to the people who
need it most and promote equitable and sustainable
economic development? This places a degree of
responsibility and power in the hands of the
international community that the US is correctly
exercising in HR2003.
Berhanu’s testimony smartly sticks to his area of
expertise as former head of the Ethiopian Economic
Association: economics and the financial
implications of HR2003. Though filled with positive
rhetoric about promoting an independent judiciary,
supporting human rights and developing a strong free
press, caveats few freedom supporters could argue
with, the financial changes the bill would bring are
limited. Its symbolic weight in the democracy it
promotes is welcomed though.
Similarly, Bertukan Medekssa focused primarily on
the judicial aspects of the legislation following
her experience on the bench of the Federal First
Instance Court. She correctly pointed to the House
members in attendance to the knowledge sharing and
aid package that would help to promote independence
and professionalism in the courtrooms that currently
do not have the respect of the populace they are
meant to protect.
The rule of law has no chance to prevail as the
guiding force in a country where judges are
appointed on the basis of political allegiance as
opposed to qualification in the words of Bertukan.
She correctly emphasises the importance for
development of a respected and qualified judicial
branch that can fairly sort out the conflicts that
will arise as the economy transforms into the
property rights protection regime it should quickly
aspire to.
The carrot should look quite appetising to the
Ethiopian government in its two-year 40 million
dollar offering that would bring expertise and a
closer relationship between the countries’ practices
of law.
Sadly, however, the extremely limited official
response solely heard from Ambassador Samuel fails
to publicly recognise these positive aspects. The
government stance refuses to acknowledge the
progressive aspects of HR2003 and chooses to focus
what it sees as irresponsible meddling in internal
affairs from legislators thousands of kilometres
away influenced by special interests. The government
has a case in that the promoters of the legislation
do not represent all sides of the political
spectrum, but if the Prime Minister were asked if he
supported democracy building I suspect he would
reply in the affirmative.
The limited and negative official utterances by the
forces in power rather seems to be calculated on the
Bush Administration’s opposition to the bill, as he
chooses to focus more on the military interests in
the choice of Ethiopia as the ally to help promote
his version of stability in the Horn of Africa. The
choice of lines by the ruling party is wrong not
only because of the extensive lobbying the CUD has
done for HR2003 with the democratic frontrunner,
Senator Barrack Obama (Ill) in the elections just a
year away and where the republican president enjoys
some of the lowest approval ratings in US history,
but more because the bill is symbolic, has little
actual impact and opposition could be construed by
international observers as signs of undemocratic
rule.
The CUD’s strategy to gain foreign allies in its
attempts to portray itself as Ethiopia’s democratic
bastion party is politically savvy. It is only from
outside the borders that these recently released
prisoners could make some of the bold statements
they made on the House floor. Moreover, if there is
any official reaction in the form of repression, the
opposition leaders can say to the US ‘I told you so’
and show that freedom really is repressed in
Ethiopia.
The symbolic political manoeuvring appears to be
more aptly played by the opposition party in this
case. The ruling party rather seems little concerned
by the legislation outside the country and with
little in the way of domestic repercussions. The
spirit of HR2003 is positive and it should be
recognised as a chip in the rocks impeding progress
to Ethiopia’s achievement of a real democracy.
|
