The stern debate over migration continues to engulf global politics, especially in developed countries. So sensitive is the issue that many politicians do not express their views; several rather choose to leave it just for broad remarks.

The recent restriction of 60 technicians of Ethiopian, the flag carrier of Ethiopia, not to leave the country has brought that same debate to Ethiopia. The restriction, enforced by the Immigration and Nationality Affairs Department, was a typical case of conflict between national interest, corporate interest and the right of individuals for freedom of movement unless restrained by the due process of law. Though the case is peculiar in some sense, it warrants that the political economy of migration is something the Ethiopian public discourse has overlooked, though not completely.

In contrast, the political debate on migration is one of the determinants of election results in countries like United States, United Kingdom and Japan; and even emerging economies such as China are not immune of such concerns. Falling along the lines of the continuing debate on migration are the irreconcilable differences of political right and left. While one stands for unrestrained movement of labour across national borders, the other advocates for conditional movement. Accordingly, as one looks for systemic solutions for migration, the other recommends legal restrictions on it.

Closer, the Revolutionary Democrats remained liberal on migration. This stand has bought them considerable political capital, especially from the educated section of the population. Amongst their most admired measures is the abolishment of the exit visa regime of their predecessors.

Their stand on migration has extended even to neighbouring countries. Their gracious efforts of hosting refugees from the war-torn countries of Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea, which has given them adequate diplomatic leverage in organisations such as IGAD and AU, could substantiate the claim. Their political will to cooperate with organisations like UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) has obtained them respect in the international arena.

On the other hand, most of the opposition parties lack articulated policy alternatives on migration. They even fail to voice their views in ostensibly opportune times of election campaigns and parliamentary debates. As a result, events similar to the restriction of technicians at Ethiopian fail to initiate the required debate about immigration, brain drain and freedom of movement.

Political rhetoric aside, data from the IOM in 2010 shows that almost three per cent of the world population, 192 million people, live outside of their place of birth. This implies that one in 35 people, in this world, is a migrant. Alarmingly, cross-border migration maintains growth at an annual rate of 2.9pc.

The anecdotal, confusing and sometimes conflicting evidences available on brain drain in Ethiopia also show the same trend. Conservative estimates show that over 35pc of Ethiopians going abroad for studies do not make it back home. The Gallup Potential Net Migration Index, which measures the ratio of adult population that wish to leave their country, also puts Ethiopia on the list of highest potential adult losing countries. As per the index, 46pc of the adult population, or 14.4 million people, wish to leave the country permanently.

As it happened, the technicians restricted are found to be of those Ethiopians who wish to leave the country. The fundamental reasons for their dispute with the airline relate with intracompany income inequality, rate of salary increment and recognition of contribution for company.

The technicians’ grudge started with the 15pc salary increment, much lower than the increment provided to pilots, who gained a 35pc increment. The increment of duty time by one hour and standby time at airports by two hours has made the salary increment insufficient, claim the technicians. The prevailed inequality in income between technicians and pilots has also aggravated the conflict, taken as a proxy measure of recognition. Had they not been restricted, they had negotiated to work for Jordan and Gulf Airlines. Despite the fact that the number of the restricted technicians is a little over one per cent of the total employees of the airline, their departure would considerably affect its business operation.

Company officials, however, claim that the increment is not a final one as the airline would strive to bring the salaries of all its employees up to international standards. Certainly, the unsettled debate is a showcase that sometimes corporate objectives and individual interest might contradict. What is to come out of the case would, however, depend on how the conflicting parties handle the case.

Though the Ethiopian case is peculiar in some sense, it warrants the explosiveness of migration politics in the country. Although, the Revolutionary Democrats have for so long been liberal on migration, it had only been postponing the debate. But, failure to take considerate decisions in cases of disputes such as the case of these technicians might take the debate into a new a phase.

From legal point of view, such cases happen not because Ethiopian laws restrict free movement of labour, but because legal interpretation is a subjective matter different from mathematical calculations. For instance, Article 32 (1) of the Ethiopian Constitution proclaims that any Ethiopian or foreign national lawfully in the country has the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. This constitutional provision also underlines the right of Ethiopians to leave the country at anytime they wish.

The unquestionable legal status of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which promotes free movement of people, is also affirmed in Ethiopia under constitutional Article 9 (4).

To the dismay of constitutional conservatives, as the technicians’ case show, the implementation of the constitutional articles might confront conflict of interest. Hence, as indicated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the follow up decree to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, sometimes making a good balance out of conflicting interests might be necessary. Cases which threaten national security, public order, public health, or rights and freedom of citizens are some cases in which concessions might be necessary.

Cognizant that high urban unemployment, low wages, widespread poverty and limited professional development opportunity prevail in the country, migration of skilled labour would continue to challenge companies such as Ethiopian, and the economy at large. Factors like cumbersome bureaucracy, inefficient public service delivery and corruption would even worsen the problem.

The economic and political reality of the country would affirm that placing restrictions would not be a solution to curb migration of skilled labour, neither would be sliding back to wholesale conservative politics. Even worse, such an action would affect the economic development of the country. Any restriction on migration would directly affect the remittance revenues of the nation, which was over 377 million dollars in 2010, growing by half from the previous year.

Indirectly, restricting migration would hamper the technological, knowledge and business exchanges that it could bring to the country. Cultural and lifestyle exchanges that may help to rectify harmful practices and develop own culture could also be restrained with restricting migration. Beyond all, however, the rights of individuals to experience their freedom of movement would be restrained. This, in one way or another, would progressively erode the aspiration of this country to build a system governed by democratic values and the rule of law.
 
In light of that, like any other corporate as well as policy decision, disputes like the Ethiopian technicians’ case would require to strike a good balance of costs and benefits. Yet, considering that some cost elements could be national in context, striking the balance might not be an easy task at all.