Boycott of alms by followers of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church (EOTC), following the erection of Ato Gebremedhin’s (formerly Aba Paulos, aka Aba Diabilos) statue in Addis Ababa, has forced priests and bishops throughout the country to rebel against the TPLF cadre who clams to be patriarch. Last week, several bishops who are members of the Church’s administrative decision making body (the synod), after weeks of arguing and debating, voted to dismantle Gebremedhin’s statue. Gebremedhin has refused to sign the minutes that contain the decision, and instead this week he went on a tour to various monasteries in Ethiopia to find statues of religious leaders to make a case that he is not the first to have a statue. He has also scheduled a trip to Egypt to find statues of religious leaders. His paid supporters have begun distributing a petition against the synod’s decision.
Meanwhile, EOTC followers continue to withhold alms until the statue comes down, drying up the Church’s income. There is also a strong movement within the church leadership inside the country, led by Abune Samuel and many others, to oust Gebremedhin, who is being accused of grave misconducts such as maladministration, corruption, nepotism, and behavior unbecoming of a patriarch.
Almost every year there appears to be some ritual around the Ethiopian Sports Federation in North America (ESFNA) of creating a dust up, on issues big and small. I have always found myself on the side of the Federation and defended it to the best of my ability. I did so, like many others, largely because I respect ESFNA as one institution that has survived multiple intra-community rancors to become the only long standing good Ethiopian Diaspora institution we ever succeeded in creating. None of the controversies ESFNA faced so far however, rise to the magnitude I am observing now around the accusation that it reversed its own democratically made decision to invite Birtukan Mideksa as its official 2011 guest of honor. Unless we do a reasoned and civilized discussion and solve this impasse and if we keep digging our heels on all sides, I am afraid this one could end up being the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Already, I came across some Ethiopians who are planning on a huge cultural festival in Washington DC during the same week that ESFNA’s is to be held. We will be making a tragic mistake if we hurt this long standing organization by either diminishing its usefulness or break it up altogether. A good part of the responsibility sits on the Federation. The suggestion that the debate is driven by tabloids, as the recent statement from the Board states, underestimates the community’s knowledge and concerns. We all know a widespread wave is developing. Let’s reverse it.
I assigned myself the role of a shimagille and took some time to do some research to look at the facts before making any accusation or suggestion. Like a good shimagille, I will put the facts as I see them, and in the best traditions of our Shimgillina, I will make my suggestions for a remedy in clear language. I will keep an open mind to be corrected and informed if I am mistaken. I want ESFNA to be stronger and live longer and I want to keep supporting my Maryland teams every year. Far more importantly, I also want the events ESFNA holds annually to be, enjoyable, lively and live up to its motto of “bringing Ethiopians together”. Holding the annual event is not an end in itself. Nothing may stop the Board from holding the Atlanta event in 2011, but it is possible that it can hold it without “bringing Ethiopians together”.
I have tried to straddle both sides of the argument without flunking the facts and the substance. I see a lot of over explaining of the problem from both sides of the argument. But more often than not, the explanations veer way out of the core issue of contention and confound the misunderstanding even more. ESFNA’s official press releases and statements were more of defensive and fail all tests of our past experiences with it. It is not helping us, its supporters, or itself. Some accusations against the Board and its members were in many cases over the top and, in my view, should be replaced with more reasoned debate.
One thing that I clearly came to understand as I tried to study the problem is that all the members of the Board are admirers of Birtukan Mideksa as a person, particularly as a young woman, who made sacrifice to fight for freedom and justice in our tormented country. I have found out that even some among those who are accused of being on the side of the decision to reverse her invitation are her admirers. A good number of the members of the board may not be politically minded but all of them are patriots who love Ethiopia and admire what Birtukan did and the inspiration she has become for a generation of Ethiopians, particularly the women of our country. In fact, all the members of the Board believe they are contributing their share to mitigating the divisive policies of the dictators who divide and rule our country and people. The reference by some individuals on the media to some board members as stooges of the ruling regime is off the mark and should stop. If anything, this kind of accusations pushes innocent Ethiopians away from the community mainstream. It is important that we stop trashing their names and services. We should not lose sight of their contribution even when we have to criticize them harshly as I do right here. ESFNA’s board members are like every one of us, members of our community, who love their country and the freedom of our people, and whatever problem that they have are problems that each of us have as members of the community. They make mistakes. End of story.
Clearly the board has mangled its decision making process big time. In fact, I was ashamed to find out that they didn’t even follow elementary procedures of parliamentary democracy when they decided this controversial case. This cannot happen even in private clubs let alone a public nonprofit organization. That this kind of careless disregard for basic procedure happens in America makes it even more damning. Many of the board members are intelligent people and should know better. There is a sound and legitimate procedure we follow everywhere for changing any decision involving collective responsibility. The board has simply stampeded all civilized discourse in this case. To its credit, the Board does not deny that this unspeakable thing happened. The problem it is in now is that it is trying to correct a mistake by another mistake.
In my view the problem is solvable without a lot of legalism and lawyering. The suggestion that the Federation will violate its 501(C3) status if it invites Birtukan is the lamest of all the excuses I heard and read about. I have been a director of a 501(C3) organization for over three years and know how it works. The only time you will violate your 501(C3) status is when you endorse the political view of a partisan political organization of the United States. I suggest that everybody drop this dishonest crap from the argument.
The only plausible argument to exclude a political partisan Ethiopian or a US politician, for that matter, could be only if the bylaws of the Federation clearly state that it will not make political personalities its official gusts. Only then would the argument not to invite Birtukan or reconsider the decision to reverse her invitation will have any merit for debate. But even then that would not prohibit inviting Birtukan as a former prisoner of conscience, that Amnesty International, other human rights groups, the UN and even the government of the United States so declared. Strangely, the bylaws of ESFNA are not on its website. I haven’t read it. But multiple members of the Board told me that that is not clearly stated in the bylaws either. By removing its bylaws from the website, the Board is looking like it has something to hide and should post it at its earliest convenience. Transparency disinfects many things. Moreover, that there were precedents of inviting partisan politicians to speak at ESFNA events, though, in my view, not substantively pertinent to this argument, kills the nonprofit status excuse. I have confirmed from some members of the board that the Board has changed its decision to invite Birtukan after some emotional confrontations took place right after the voting ended and Birtukan was elected and some Board members have already left the hall. It is one thing to reconsider a decision through a normal procedure of submitting petition and reconvening a meeting for reconsideration at a later date, it is another to reverse it simply because an impassioned quarrel occurred right after the decision and some board members have felt the need to quell it. I wouldn’t be surprised if such a decision is made in Ethiopia where it routinely happens, but in America? Com’on!
Another credible argument from the side of those who are for reversing the decision is that her invitation will open precedence for inviting politicians from every political side. One Board member rhetorically asked me what would stop the board if some day it decides to invite Abadula Gemeda or Bereket Simon to be gusts of honor by securing a majority vote. The most reasonable response one could give to this argument is that, yes, if Bereket or Abadula touched our hearts by doing some magnificent things for our people and merit our gratitude they can be invited. If, for example, Abadula stands up to Meles and demands that the thousands of Oromo political prisoners rotting in the jails be released and succeeds in bringing redress to the plight of these citizens, I will consider him a good humanitarian deserving being a guest of honor. If I am a board member I will vote for him. I mean this sincerely. As long as he or she shows a demonstrable achievement that can make us proud as Ethiopians and solves some problems, anybody can be invited in recognition of the specific contribution they made irrespective of what political position he or she holds.
Nobody is arguing that Birtukan be invited as a guest of honor simply because she is a favorite opposition leader or millions of Ethiopians love her for her globally admired sacrifice for our people. The center of the contention is that her invitation which was decided by a majority vote of the members of the Board is reversed unlawfully. We are given this amazing excuse that the people who nominated and seconded her nomination withdrew their nomination after the vote was counted and Birtukan’s election was announced and some board members have already left. I understand they did it to avoid a serious and impassioned conflict that erupted in the meeting hall. That is the truth. But we have to agree that this is a very primitive way of making a collective decision. It is shameful to say the least. We have enough of this kind of things in Ethiopia to be ashamed about: why add one here where we live in freedom? Do you remember when Kenyans were saying, “This is not Ethiopia!” when Mbeki stole their votes in 2006 and went out to fight back to reclaim their votes? We should understand that we have a country where people were massacred demanding that their stolen votes be appropriately accounted for. Wasn’t ESFNA’s condemnation of the 2005 massacre one of its shining moments?
Here is the problem. If the intention of the board was to avoid a political person from invitation, it erred when it let the nomination stand in the first place and we wouldn’t have been in this argument. The decision was legal and binding whether some liked it or not. What the Board does since then is trying to solve a mistake by another mistake. By so doing the members of the Board are disrespecting the community and themselves.
I have no problem with the Federation of accepting the controversial Sheik’s funding. God love the Sheik and add more money in his pocket for that. The only problem I will have is if he demands some sort of a quid pro quo and the federation decides to engage in that. He has every right to support or fund the federation and hold any political view he wishes. The quarrel over this rich man’s funding of ESFNA, we have had so far, is a useless argument as far as I am concerned. But the Board should be reminded of a big hole in its repeatedly stated position. The rich sheik, a self admitted activist and financier of the ruling party in Ethiopia, is sitting as a permanent honoree of ESFNA. This will be hard to stack up what the rationalization of some Board members to revoke Birtukan’s invitation. Are we watching a double standard?
Some Board members are telling me that “ESFNA survived many controversies before and will ride out this one too.” I see this one to be more difficult to ride out without fixing the impasse.
My suggestions:
1. Reinstate the invitation of Birtukan and diffuse the widespread anger in the community and avert an impending danger to ESFNA’s survival as a respected organization. Acknowledgment and invitation of Birtukan can be made by referring to her as a former prisoner of conscience declared by International Human Rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, including the government of the United States. Her invitation should not state or relate to her being the leader of UDJ. If avoiding political personalities in the future is the issue, amend the bylaw carefully and apply it as of 2012 and make the decision on the same minutes Birtukans reinstatement is made.
2. ESFNA cannot live in a bubble, completely separated from the social, political and economic realities of our country. That was why it had to take the appropriate and honorable step of condemning the massacre five years ago. The public participating at ESFNA events does not participate because it is a soccer fan. The Board, I believe, understands there is more to ESFNA than pure soccer. I am not suggesting that it become a political activist organization. But nothing should stop it from expressing its position on violations of human rights in Ethiopia, war and peace, poverty, corruption and the like.
I trust that the members of the Board will do the right thing and continue to “Bringing Ethiopians Together” and more closer to one another with every passing year.
The World Bank has recently released an “updated” report (read here) on its activities in Ethiopia. The 2010 report, which seems to be a poorly edited rehash of the 2007 report, states that since 1991, the Bank has committed $7.6 billion in Ethiopia mainly for the “protection of basic services, health services, the fight against HIV/AIDS, productive safety nets, food security, and roads. Such massive assistance is allowing the ruling Tigray People’s Liberation Front (Woyanne) to use the money it collects from the people of Ethiopia in the form of taxes and tariffs to buy weapons of repression.
At the conclusion of its 2010 report, the Bank states that its project has helped improve the lives of 70 million rural Ethiopians, not least among them are children who now have access to services denied to them before. If that is true, why do over 80,000 Ethiopians, including children, in the capital city Addis Ababa alone eat trash to survive as the video below shows? Why do over 46% of Ethiopians (according to a recent survey) want to migrate to another country?
The $7.6 billion the Bank spent in Ethiopia has not contributed to improving lives. The only thing the Bank developed is the pockets of the ruling class and the bellies of its staff in Ethiopia who live a life of luxury and excess while tens of thousands of children sleep in the streets of Addis Ababa right outside their 20,000-birr-per-month rented villas. If the $7 billion has been properly used, there would be no child in Ethiopia who eats trash to survive. If there is a government that is elected by the people, Ethiopia does NOT need the World Bank’s money.
The appearance and speech by superstar Ethiopian athlete Haile Gebreselassie at the ruling junta (Woyanne/EPRDF) conference in early September, had caught many by surprise. Throughout his career as an athlete, Haile has tried to distance himself from the Woyanne regime, as all the other star Ethiopian athletes. So what has caused him to show up at the ruling party’s conference now? The answer is not shocking or surprising.
According to Ethiopian Review sources in Addis Ababa, Meles Zenawi’s wife Azeb Mesfin (commonly known as the “Mother of Corruption”) and her business partners are going after Haile’s {www:enterprise}s with demands for partnership.
For a long time Haile has been heavily investing in real estate development and this year his new five star hotel in the town of Awassa was {www:inaugurate}d. The 4-story, 150-room hotel was built at the cost of 200 million birr. Haile is also preparing to build 200 condos in Addis Ababa on 40,000 square meters of land.
Recently, Meles Zenawi’s {www:puppet} mayor of Addis Ababa, Kuma Demeksa, who is a close ally and business partner of Azeb Mesfin, has ordered the confiscation of the land that has been leased to Haile. Apparently, his company, Haile & Alem Real Estate, is competing with other companies who have Azeb as partner.
The reason Kuma gave for confiscating Haile’s land is that construction of the planned condos has been delayed. Haile said that he was unable to start construction because the Addis Ababa City Administration, led by Kuma, would not demarcate the land for 4 years after it was leased to him.
It is to protect his business interest against the Mother of Corruption that Haile has suddenly appeared at the Woyanne conference, according to observers.
This paper is based on a 2-week visit to Ethiopia in September 2010, under the auspices of USAID. I have framed it as an observer’s report, with the purpose of conveying, especially to younger USAID economists, some aspects of how one incorporates economic analysis into the process. The paper should be read keeping this underlying purpose in mind.
The single overarching guideline to good economic observation is to work within, and to constantly keep in mind, a sound theoretical framework. Dealing piecemeal with each separate element that one observes, and coming up with a separate plausible ad hoc explanation for each one, is the opposite, indeed the enemy of professionalism. What makes economic analysis such a powerful tool is its capacity to fit the separate pieces one observes into a coherent whole.
An Expectation of Dutch Disease
The particular feature of the Ethiopian economy that first struck my mind was the fantastic excess of imports over exports. In fact, exports in recent years have accounted for less than a third of the annual flow of foreign exchange available to the country. Starting right there, it would be wrong for the observer to conclude that this “trade imbalance” was a problem that somehow was in urgent need of correction. Rather, this imbalance is the consequence of two separate factors — large inflows of foreign aid and emigrant remittances, each of which provides the country with more foreign exchange than its exports. In recent years these non-export flows of foreign exchange have been supplemented by significant and increasing amounts of foreign direct investment.
All this places Ethiopia in that group of countries whose economies have had to adapt to huge inflows of foreign exchange. This syndrome, as is well-known to economists, typically leads to the phenomenon that we call “Dutch Disease” — a sharp appreciation of the domestic currency, rendering the dollar quite cheap, in real terms. Obviously, this is a natural, supply and demand result. When the supply of anything experiences a large and rapid expansion, it is perfectly natural that its price (in real terms) should fall. If the nominal exchange rate is fixed, the fall in the real price of the dollar takes place via a rise in the internal price level, predominantly of nontradable items (house prices, rents, local wage rates, restaurant meals, local transportation costs, etc.)
Tradables prices are held in check by the fixity of the exchange rate. With a flexible exchange rate it would be possible for the full adjustment to be reflected in a fall in the local-currency price of the dollar (the nominal exchange rate). But this rarely occurs in practice. Often, the authorities in a flexible-exchange-rate country will take steps to keep the nominal price of tradables from falling, so that in those cases as well, the appreciation of the real exchange rate comes from a rise in the internal price level. Sometimes, the adjustment is split, coming partly from a fall in the nominal exchange rate and partly from a rise in the internal price level.
The phenomenon of Dutch Disease has been widely observed in countries experiencing massive inflows of foreign exchange. Notable cases include The Netherlands (at the time of the discovery of oil and natural gas under the North Sea, from which Dutch Disease got its name), El Salvador (from foreign aid and remittances), Russia in recent years (from oil and gas discoveries), several Latin American countries in the late 1970s and early 1980s (from large inflows of capital), others in the 1960s and later (from a boom in the world price of coffee and other export commodities).
Thus there were good reasons to expect a similar result in Ethiopia. But — and this was our first surprise — the data showed no evidence of the sort of real appreciation of the currency that we associate with Dutch Disease. Moreover, day-to-day observation of prices in the local economy tended to confirm the judgment that Ethiopia was not suffering from the case of Dutch Disease that we had good reason to expect that we would find… [continue reading]
Last week, it was quietly announced that the official wholesale ban on distance learning educational programs in Ethiopia has been lifted. In August 2010, the ban was imposed out of the blue “because of quality concerns”. According to one report[1], following six-weeks of “negotiations” between education officials and distance learning service providers a settlement was reached in which providers reportedly agreed to create a curriculum that places more emphasis on science and technology and establish a trade association to oversee quality assurance. Education officials are expected to undertake stricter supervision and monitoring of distance learning institutions. The training of teachers and health care workers, and apparently legal education, will be reserved exclusively for public higher education institutions under the political control of the regime.
Doing the Right Thing
When I wrote my commentary “Ethiopia: Indoctri-Nation” this past September[2], I argued that the wholesale ban of private distance learning programs by “directive”, or more accurately by bureaucratic fiat, was a flagrant violation of the governing law known as the “Higher Education Proclamation No. 650/2009” [‘Proclamation’] and the constitutional property rights of the providers. I demonstrated that the responsible regulatory agency known as the “Higher Education Relevance and Quality Agency” (HERQA) could only “revoke accreditation” of private distance learning institutions which fails to meet “minimum standards” on a case-by-case basis following a fact-finding and appeals process. It does not have the legal authority to impose a wholesale ban.
The reasons reported publicly for the “negotiated agreement” lifting the ban are not convincing in light of the provisions of the Proclamation. HERQA has broad regulatory authority to “ensure the minimum curricula quality standards”. It does not need to “negotiate” its own legal authority to demand accountability and observance of standards from substandard providers; it could simply commence de-accreditation procedures against them. Instead of imposing a wholesale ban, the prudent and sensible thing for HERQA would have been to notify distance learning stakeholders of deficiencies, consulted with them on remedies and instituted stricter accountability and quality control measures with increased oversight and monitoring. Those who fail to cure deficiencies within a reasonable time could be set for a “de-accreditation” hearing. Inexplicably, HERQA officials and the political bosses in charge of education acted rashly and arbitrarily in August; now they have been forced to turn back the clock because the total ban has proven to be impractical and irrational to implement and has made the ruling regime in Ethiopia the laughing stock of higher education throughout the world.
As I have demonstrated in my commentary referenced above, the blanket ban on distance learning was wrong because it imposed collective punishment on all members of a group without an opportunity to be heard and a fair determination of the facts. The ban also unfairly smeared all distance program providers in the country as sub-standard, and maligned the leaders of these institutions as scammers in light of comments by officials which insinuated that the “purpose [of the providers] was to collect money” and not provide legitimate educational services. It is impossible to imagine that all distance learning providers in the country are so deficient in quality that they needed to be shut down at once. If that were true, it would be a sad commentary on those officials responsible for education in the country for allowing such institutions to function as they have for so many years. Imposing the ban in August was wrong; righting that wrong by lifting the ban now (assuming that it is actually lifted and is not merely a public relations gimmick) is a testament to education itself: “All humans make mistakes, but only the wise ones learn from them.”
Lessons Learned
Educational bureaucrats and their political bosses in Ethiopia could learn a few lessons from the blanket ban fiasco. First, it is important for them to incorporate the principle of the rule of law in their official actions. Simply stated, they could act only to the extent that they have constitutional and statutory authority. They cannot act arbitrarily or abuse their power because they occupy a political position. The ban was manifestly the result of lack of knowledge or willful ignorance of the applicable law by officials in charge of educational policy-making and implementation. Had these officials familiarized themselves with their governing Proclamation, it would have been self-evident to them that they have to follow the prescribed de-accreditations procedures and could not impose a total ban. They need to institutionalize and practice the principle of the rule of law as part of their bureaucratic culture which will help them perform their duties with high degree of accountability, transparency and efficiency.
The second lesson to be learned is that to avoid the type of mindless and irrational policymaking, the political bosses in charge of education should establish a standardized notice-and-comment process before proposed regulations are implemented. By publicly announcing a proposed rule change in advance, impacted institutions, groups, communities and members of the general public would be given an opportunity to provide input and share their views on their special circumstances. They could also provide policymakers data and analysis to help in the formulation of policies that are balanced, efficacious and likely to be implemented successfully. Such a process avoids hasty consideration of issues, premature and uninformed judgments, embarrassing decisions and obviates the need for the futile pursuit of impractical policies as evidenced in this ban.
To be sure, if the education officials had followed a notice-and-comment process, not only would distance learning service providers, teachers, students and their parents and others have had the opportunity to contribute positively to the policy process, the officials themselves could have spared themselves public embarrassment, avoided wasting time negotiating something the needed no negotiation and quite possibly avoid legal challenges to the ban. A notice-and-comment process also promotes accountability, transparency and public engagement in the policy process consistent with the prescription in Article 12 of the Ethiopian Constitution (Functions and Accountability of Government) which provides: “The activities of government shall be undertaken in a manner which is open and transparent to the public.” What better way to practically implement Article 12 than instituting an open notice-and-comment process?
A third lesson to be learned is that in higher education it is vital to maintain ongoing consultations with the stakeholders. Higher education is not the military high command where random and arbitrary orders are given to be followed unquestioningly. Having served in a leadership position in higher education strategic planning and implementation and overseen the development of a specialized distance learning program, I know it is counter-productive to even consider imposing bureaucratic control on curriculum, faculty, staff, students and administrators. Systematic and ongoing consultations with stakeholders are essential for a successful distance learning program design, planning, implementation, evaluation, maintenance and improvement. Quality concerns in distance learning are not limited to “ensuring minimum standards” as it seems to be the concern of educational officials in Ethiopia; there is the whole other area of student achievement and learning outcomes which can be tackled only by identifying student needs, problems and barriers students encounter in obtaining educational services. Without a comprehensive approach, the efforts to ensure minimum standards in the long run will amount to nothing more than window dressing.
The need for ongoing consultations with stakeholders needs emphasis. When HERQA suddenly announced the ban, distance learning providers, teachers and students at these institutions were shocked to find out that such a catastrophic policy had been made without even the courtesy of notice, let alone consultations with them as stakeholders. Molla Tsegaye, president of Admas University College, expressed shock and dismay when he learned about the ban: “We did not expect this. As stakeholders in the sector, we should have been consulted before all this.” Consultation is a process in which the concerned parties confer to share views, exchange ideas and give advice. Negotiation is a process in which the parties have issues which they seek to settle in a formal agreement. Both the providers and the educational bureaucrats and their political bosses are presumably on the same side. They are both manifestly interested and committed to educational quality and student learning. Consultations, not negotiations, are more appropriate and efficacious to increase program quality and student achievement. If Ethiopia’s distance education providers are collectively failing in providing quality instruction, they should be presented with the data of sub-par performance and engaged as stakeholders to develop guidelines for best practices.
The fourth lesson to be learned is the need to de-politicize education. Education bureaucrats and their political bosses should respect principles of academic freedom in higher education and let students, faculty members, scholars and researchers have the freedom to teach, learn or communicate ideas without being targeted for repression, job loss and other retribution. Higher educational institutions, and schools in general, should not be places of indoctrination for the ruling party’s true believers. The legal, teaching and health professions should not be the exclusive domain of public institutions that are funded and completely controlled by the regime and its top leaders. Academic merit and freedom, and excellence in instructional quality should be the governing principles for higher education in Ethiopia, not party membership, party loyalty or party influence.
The fifth and most important lesson for the political bosses that orchestrated this fiasco is to publicly come out and say, “We made a mistake. We messed up. We acted rashly and without forethought when we imposed a wholesale ban! We will consult stakeholders in the future and solicit input from the public to ensure a transparent process; and we will act only to the extent that we have authority under the law.” There is nothing more important for the public than to have officials taking ownership of their mistakes. No reasonable person would disagree with efforts aimed at weeding out diploma mills and fly-by-night operations. No one would protest efforts aimed at protecting the public from educational fraud. The solution to these problem is not to throw out the baby with the bath water by imposing a total ban on distance learning, but to remove the rotten apples from the barrel. With the un-banning of distance learning, stakeholders, bureaucrats and their political bosses could begin a new chapter and go beyond setting “minimum standards” to setting a “gold standard” of best practices in distance learning not only for Ethiopia but also the African continent.
Reflections of an Education “Neo-Liberal”
In the interest of full disclosure, I must confess my own predilections and preferences in higher education having spent much of my professional life in the university environment. I proudly advocate a laissez faire approach to higher education. That makes me an educational “neoliberal” (a word often used pejoratively by some benighted dogmatists, which I simply define as one who believes in a totally free marketplace of ideas undefiled by bureaucratic and regulatory vulgarity) who upholds the individual’s right to choose his/her own educational program and professional career. Well, get a load of this: “Hell, Yeah! I am an Educational Neo-Liberal and Damn Proud it!” As a “neo-liberal”, I believe in freedom of inquiry and thought. I am always willing to entertain new ideas with inquisitiveness and fascination, not fear and anxiety.
There are those destined to the dustbin of history who have argued that “the neo-liberal paradigm is a dead end, is incapable of bringing about the African renaissance, and that a fundamental shift in paradigm is required to bring about the African renaissance.” I say the only paradigm shift self-serving, pretentious, narcissistic and megalomaniacal dictators could bring is to march the “Dark Continent” backwards to the Dark Ages. It was the Renaissance European universities that led the scientific revolution and became the incubators of new ideas in science, literature, philosophy, art, politics, science and religion. Closing institutions of higher learning and banning fields of scientific and philosophical inquiry were the hallmarks of the Dark Ages, not the Renaissance.
My belief is that government regulation of education rarely results in quality improvement or student achievement. The maze of bureaucratic rules and regulations imposed by governments often stifle creativity, learning and the expansion of knowledge. Africa’s “renaissance” or rebirth is in the hands of its young people yearning to breathe free and struggling to exert their creative impulses to lift the continent out of poverty and dictatorship. There can be no renaissance when an official orthodoxy is forced upon citizens and the state mindlessly meddles in the marketplace of ideas and knowledge with a heavy hand. Suffice it to say that I believe in a free marketplace of ideas (universities) where students, teachers, researchers and scholars do not have to seek knowledge under the long shadow of official censors or look over their shoulders for the thought police lurking behind every bush on campus. As to the cultural role played by private higher educational institutions, could anyone doubt the enormous contributions of private universities such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hopkins and dozens more in America’s “renaissance”?
In the marketplace of ideas and knowledge, I say keep government out. Let individuals decide what they want and need. If students feel a private distance education program meets their needs, it should be their choice and not the decision of faceless, nameless and capricious bureaucrats. It is all about freedom of choice. In a free society, every citizen can choose his/her educational destiny. If one chooses to become an educator, a lawyer, a doctor, an engineer, a chemist or train to join any other profession, it is their right to pursue it particularly when they are paying for it out of their own pockets. Only totalitarian states mandate what each citizen will learn and become.
The whole idea of state monopoly in teacher education, health and the law is deeply offensive to anyone who believes in freedom of learning and education. In my September commentary referenced above, I noted: “State-certified teachers who are ruling party members could be used to play a decisive role in legitimizing the regime and in indoctrinating the youth in the regime’s ideology.” Human Rights Watch two weeks ago supported my observation with evidence that the ruling regime in Ethiopia had misused state educational facilities for political purposes and engaged in systematic political indoctrination of students and repression of teachers. [3]
As a lawyer and educator, I am particularly concerned about state monopoly over legal education. By monopolizing the law discipline, the ruling regime manifestly intends to regulate the admission of law students and the training of lawyers and judges who will administer “justice” in the country. Such a monopoly will produce not lawyers and legal professionals who are committed to the Constitution, the rule of law, principles of universal justice and ethical standards, but robotic legal cadres committed to the ruling regime and its policies. In other words, justice will be administered by party hacks, hirelings, flunkies and lackeys with ultimate loyalty to the dictator-in-chief. I am a proud “neoliberal” in education because I believe “education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army”; better yet, the best defense against an army of ignoramuses.
Boycott of alms by followers of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church (EOTC), following the erection of Ato Gebremedhin’s (formerly Aba Paulos, aka Aba Diabilos) statue in Addis Ababa, has forced priests and bishops throughout the country to rebel against the TPLF cadre who clams to be patriarch. Last week, several bishops who are members of the Church’s administrative decision making body (the synod), after weeks of arguing and debating, voted to dismantle Gebremedhin’s statue. Gebremedhin has refused to sign the minutes that contain the decision, and instead this week he went on a tour to various monasteries in Ethiopia to find statues of religious leaders to make a case that he is not the first to have a statue. He has also scheduled a trip to Egypt to find statues of religious leaders. His paid supporters have begun distributing a petition against the synod’s decision. 
The appearance and speech by superstar Ethiopian athlete Haile Gebreselassie at the ruling junta (Woyanne/EPRDF) conference in early September, had caught many by surprise. Throughout his career as an athlete, Haile has tried to distance himself from the Woyanne regime, as all the other star Ethiopian athletes. So what has caused him to show up at the ruling party’s conference now? The answer is not shocking or surprising.