Good Governance in Ethiopia – Reflections from a Diaspora Returnee
The candid testimony of a diaspora member recently returned from Finfinnee (Addis Ababa) offers a sobering, ground-level assessment of Ethiopia’s governance landscape. Their insights provide a microcosm of the broader systemic dysfunction that undermines democratic institutions, development, and public trust in the Ethiopian state. Several key themes emerge from their account, aligning with scholarly critiques of Ethiopia’s persistent governance crisis.
1. Erosion of Social Trust and Public Morale
The observation that "everyone seems afraid of each other" and that there is "no absolute unity" underscores a significant deficit in social cohesion. Societies suffering from poor governance often see a breakdown in interpersonal trust, especially in ethnically and politically polarised environments. In Ethiopia's case, this fragmentation is partly a byproduct of ethnic federalism, unresolved political tensions, and elite competition, resulting in a society where even neighbours regard each other with suspicion.
Implication: When governance fails to promote inclusivity and equitable service delivery, citizens retreat into group identities—often defined by ethnicity, political alignment, or class—rather than engage in collective nation-building.
2. Clientelism and Clique Politics
The diaspora observer notes that “everything seems to revolve around cliques,” where access to opportunity is determined by merit and affiliation. This clientelist structure corrodes both democratic ideals and development potential. When advancement hinges on being in the “right group,” institutions lose credibility, and corruption thrives.
Implication: In such a system, governance is no longer about public service but patronage, favouring loyalty over competence and undermining accountability mechanisms.
3. Performative Progress and the Illusion of Reform
The diaspora's reflections highlight a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. While some diaspora returnees are paraded as symbols of Ethiopia’s renaissance, these interactions serve as performative exercises rather than substantive inclusion. They speak of a pseudo-reform narrative pushed by the state, designed more for image management than genuine transformation.
Implication: This staged governance creates what political theorists call “façade institutions”—structures that appear functional and modern but lack the internal logic, independence, or legitimacy to serve the public effectively.
4. Pervasive Corruption and Institutional Decay
“Corruption is everywhere,” the observer says, and even routine bureaucratic tasks require bribes. This speaks to a chronic breakdown in institutional integrity. Ethiopia’s civil service, plagued by politicisation and rent-seeking, has long struggled to provide predictable, transparent services. When institutions become extraction points instead of service providers, development stalls, and public resentment grows.
Implication: Corruption isn't just a moral issue—it’s a governance failure that directly undermines the rule of law, discourages investment, and erodes the state's legitimacy.
5. Diaspora Politics and Symbolic Inclusion
The critique of diaspora members being used as symbolic tools of the regime reveals the instrumentalisation of identity politics. While some diaspora figures align with the state to gain access and status, many do so without contributing meaningfully to governance or economic transformation. Their power is often short-lived, tied to their loyalty rather than capacity.
Implication: Symbolic inclusion, without empowerment or accountability, wastes human capital and alienates more capable and independent actors within the diaspora community.
6. Leadership Gap and Institutional Incompetence
The returnee’s most striking point may be that “the people around [Abiy] don’t belong in those offices.” This reflects a fundamental leadership crisis—where political appointments are driven by loyalty, ethnic balancing, or opportunism, rather than competence, integrity, or vision. The regime’s tendency to centralise decision-making in a few hands has created bottlenecks and enabled widespread mediocrity.
Implication: No matter how reform-minded a leader may be, transformational change is impossible without a capable and committed institutional apparatus. Governance reform must be systemic, not symbolic.
Conclusion: A Country in Masked Crisis
The diaspora observer’s reflections illustrate a country not in active transformation but managed stagnation, where surface-level optimism hides deep institutional rot. Ethiopia’s governance crisis is not just about policies or leaders—it is about a structural culture of exclusion, corruption, and distrust that resists reform at every level.
For meaningful change, Ethiopia must:
- Rebuild trust through inclusive governance and reconciliation.
- Professionalise and depoliticise public institutions;
- Break the cycle of clientelism and clique-based politics.
- Empower civil society and independent media to act as accountability agents;
- Harness the potential of the diaspora through merit-based engagement, not symbolic appointments.
Without these shifts, the gap between state rhetoric and lived reality will only widen, eroding public faith and threatening long-term stability.
This reflection serves as a valuable primary source on the lived experience of governance in Ethiopia—one that scholars, policymakers, and diaspora actors alike must take seriously if the country is to move beyond its current impasse.
No comments:
Post a Comment