Teshome Abebe
A visionary leader must offer a story “that builds on the most credible
of past syntheses, revisits them in the light of present concerns, leaves open
a space for future events, and allows individual contributions…” –H. Gardner
Those
who study artificial consciousness have determined that there are three
essential conditions that must prevail to make machines simulate humans:
experiencing emotions; awareness of the environment; and recognizing change.
But how do we know when change has successfully occurred? What markers do we
look for that signify change?
Background:
In
2016, Roy Suddaby and William Foster outlined four standards of change in an
entity:
a)
Change as fact: Here, the focus is on structures and operations, and the “brute
facts” of reality. In this instance, the impetus for change is generally
“exogenous” and takes the form of “environmental jolt”. It is said that change
occurs when an entity passes from one state to another state adopting new
structures and operations.
b)
Change as power: In this second case, the focus is on power, i.e. the
differences in power of the various coalitions within the entity, and its
allocation. Change occurs when the balance of power between opposing forces is
altered.
c)
Change as sense making: This third aspect of change is its acknowledgement of
the past and the critical role of selective memory in reconstructing the past
to create a credible history. It is about ‘invention’ rather than ‘discovery’.
The marker here is a significant change/shift in meaning or cognition within a
social group.
d)
Change as rhetoric: Finally, the fourth aspect of change employs the strategic
use of the past to deliberately manipulate it for strategic purposes. Here, we
recognize change when the entity’s narrative and associated practices have
taken a new form. Change in this sense is, therefore, highly subjective.
Having
attempted to provide the reader a framework for evaluating change, I now turn
to the main aim of this piece: the presentation of an alternative paradigm for
the administrative regions of Ethiopia. The reader is challenged and encouraged
to review the entirety of the proposed changes in line with the standards of
change presented above, and to make an informed judgment as to their
appropriateness given the extant conditions in Ethiopia today.
New Proposed Administrative Regions:
In
a study titled “Proposed New Ethiopian Government Administrative Boundary
System for Unified Nation Building”, Engidashet
Bunare and Shiferaw Lulu present a
compelling piece of work. * Engidashet is a water engineer, and Shiferaw a hydro
geologist. In the interest of full disclosure, I have had brief communications
with both, and can state that they both have a desire to continue a national
dialogue on their proposal cognizant that there may be gaps in their analysis
of the issue. They are, however, convinced, as I am, that their proposal
deserves a thorough and complete review, and eventual consideration for
adoption by the powers to be.
Hydrological Physical Regions:
Engidashet and Shiferaw (2018) (ES hereafter),
conclude that the modern history of Ethiopia (before the Ethno-language
federation) indicates that the administrative regions combined: a) historical
events, and b) employed physical and geographical boundaries. Furthermore, they
state that Ethno-language has never been a criterion, and that each
administrative region had included a number of ethno-language societies.
ES argue that
while administrative regions can be organized based on some uniform criteria;
on functional criteria (this is a scientific point of view); and on an
administrative efficiency criteria (this can coincide with the other two), most
useful for economic development purposes are functional areas and
administrative regions which combine places characterized by strong degrees of
interdependence and strong complementarities.
As a consequence, after a thorough
review and ingenious and deft analysis, they propose hydrological physical
regions as an alternative to the current ethno-language federation. They argue,
persuasively, that the changing paradigm has the potential to enhance
development and integration of the Ethiopian people. Having reviewed numerous
historical records, adding new information, and even amassing new granueral
level of details in some of that information, they propose eight river basin
states as the new administrative regions of Ethiopia.
The recommended eight river basin
states would comprise:
1) Abay Basin
State
2) Awash,
Ayisha and Denakil Basins State
3) Baro-Akobo
Basin State
4) Genale-Dawa
Basin State
5) Tekeze and
Mereb Basins State
6) Wabi-Shebele
and Ogaden Basins state
7) Omo-Ghibe
Basin State, and
8) Rift Valley
Lakes Basin State
ES have put
together neatly, skillfully, expertly and incontestably a worthwhile study that
has the potential to move Ethiopia away from arguably, the heap of failure that
ethnic federalism has become for Ethiopian unity. The destructive, injurious
and, at the very least, troublesome federalism may not have been completely
ruinous or fatal. But it has been devastating to the nation’s unity.
I support this new idea because ES have put
forward an attractive, agreeable and obliging proposal. Nothing about their
work is trifling, frivolous, piddling or superficial. Progressive and national
parties should place it in their platform or principles and policies—their
party’s planks.
It is worth supporting because on
one hand, no one can stop indefinitely the drive to “human unification”, and on
the other hand, because the economic role of government is not just the
allocation of economic power but also one of focusing on stability. This
proposal would lend to the stability of the Ethiopian state, and help address
the clamor for unity.
Furthermore, where as the current
ethno-language federalism has focused on inequality, disparity, dissimilarity
and unequal development as the goal of policy, the new proposal would, I
believe, provide a reliable means of restoration of the nation; a return, a
renewal, the rehabilitation and reconstruction, the refurbishing, if you will,
of the state under a new federal arrangement.
It would help make the land the
sanctuary of the Ethiopian people—a sort of sacred place, because it would be
claimed collectively and not just by a select group. It would help get rid of
the sorrow, dejection and melancholy and even oppression people have felt with
the current ethno-language arrangement.
It would help eliminate the current
apartheid system by making one’s residence adjustable, adoptable, not fixed,
free and unattached. It would unfasten the person from a specific piece of
land—the height of individual freedom!
Trade and enterprise would blossom
as specialization matures. Commerce between regions would bring people
together. It would help overcome one of the inherent difficulties created by
ethno-linguistic policies: isolation. The ensuing competition between regions
would be to excel in what they produce, consume and/or trade, rather than as
rivals and antagonists as is the case today.
If Ethiopia were to achieve some of
its dreams for its people, it must choose an Ethiopian path as opposed to the
ethno-language path, a foreign concept borrowed by seemingly half-educated
elite, unconstrained and unconcerned of the limits of geography or of their
wisdom. Today, we observe that the results of that endeavor have come home to
roost.
If the collective goal were good
government that serves the people instead of the ethnic politicians, this new
proposal would be a good start. The Ethiopian people have witnessed the
legerdemain, the deceit, and the trickery of their ethnic politicians over many
decades. They have observed the ethics, conduct, morality, decency, integrity,
goodness or overall dreadfulness of their politicians. The people have seen
that ethno-language federalism had meant the usurping of their independence,
sovereignty, and autonomy and converting it to a license to steal and abuse.
The proposed federal arrangement my not change that completely, but it would
not serve as an excuse for dreadful and hideous acts by ethnic politicians.
I concede that this piece might
inflame or even arouse emotions; it could incense, and irritate some, and
disturb others because it violates the narrative they may have been married to.
Others might rejoice, exult or even revel it because it highlights one of the
first real alternatives to the current federal arrangement.
I concede further, that the framers
of the current federalism would have difficulty with the ES proposal
because they had committed themselves to a very specific idea—ethno-language
federalism—and would find it even more difficult to back down. If that were to
be the case, they have, by their own actions, made things worse for they would
have lost the freedom of movement of ideas.
Finally, the ethno-linguistic
federalism is by its nature susceptible to continuing problems of instability
as ethnic politics pits one group of Ethiopians against another. There would be
no end to it. This has the real danger of sniffing out whatever little market
economy there is. From an economic development point of view then, resources,
good governance and institutions are indeed very critical. But so is geography!
Teshome
Abebe, Professor of Economics and Professor Laureate, is a former Provost and
Vice President, and may be reached at: teshome2008@gmail.com.
For Further Reading and Map Exhibits:
*Proposed
New Ethiopian Government Administrative Boundary System for Unified Nation
Building”, Engidashet Bunare and Shiferaw
Lulu, August 2018. Borkena.com/
Roy Suddaby and William M. Foster,
“History and Organizational Change”, Journal of Management, Oct. 20. 2016.
