Why I See a Glass Empty!

[EEGA9]

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.

BY ABIYE TEKLEMARIAM | 10 NOVEMBER 2010

57 COMMENTS

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.