All eyes, hearts and minds were in Addis Abeba, the centre of power for Ethiopian decision-makers, this past week. As the world convened for the Third Financing for Development (FFD) Conference, a successor to previous events held in Monterrey, Mexico, and Doha, Qatar, in 2002 and 2008, respectively, Ethiopia’s ruling elite were busy hosting their over 6,000 guests.
In the bigger context of the development debate, the Conference was pivotal in crafting a resource emblem for the upcoming Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 goals and 104 targets waiting for decisive downsizing at the United Nations General Assembly in September. These goals, replacements to the ending Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), will give guidance to policymaking in developing countries for the next 15 years.
Higher expectations and massive participation means the hosts had a lot to do to make the convention a success. By and large, the EPRDFites have succeeded, even if the success came at the expense of an almost complete stall in mobility for the residents of the capital. Thanking the residents of the City for all the inconveniences they shouldered would not be enough!
The success, however, has also to do with the rather strategic approach the ruling elite followed in diffusing their objectives into the whole debate, by way of organising their own tailored opportunities in the plethora of side events, and aligning themselves with Africa in the whole debate. The side events focused on domestic resource mobilisation, infrastructure development, industrialisation, sustainable energy development and agriculture obtained sufficient attention from participants. This, of course, is not to mention the subpar performance of some of the officials in explaining the positions and achievements of their government.
If one is to account the weight of the approaches in light of the outcome document, dubbed the Addis Abeba Action Agenda, however, it is the alliance the EPRDFites opted to forge that was strategically effective. The Common Position of Africa, which the ruling EPRDFites agreed to, was successful in terms of setting the record straight when it comes to the needs of the continent. It is partly due to this united effort that the whole world opted to shift away from the traditional aid focused debate, although the final outcome largely remains traditional, towards domestic resource mobilisation, trade, foreign investment and smuggled asset recovery.
As if to stick to their roots, however, the EPRDFites were seen ardently arguing in favour of country ownership. The stance, which closely resonates with the Revolutionary Democrats, entails giving the independence of policymaking to individual countries. If at all, donors need to channel their resources under the development strategies recipient countries have designed and use the resource frameworks crafted by the latter. In simple terms, this could be translated into direct budget support.
Ever since they came to power in 1991, overthrowing the bloody military dictatorship, the EPRDFites have been advocates of policy independence. It was this very stance that took them to a disagreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) immediately after they assumed power. Whereas the IMF pushed them to open their markets, including finance and telecommunications, for private investment, as precondition to gaining access to tailored windows of loans from its wealth of resources, the EPRDF, especially their respected policy mind, the late Meles Zenawi, resisted the push.
Their resistance seems to have paid off, at least in view of their Developmental State Theory. Thanks to their protectionist stance, they now have both the resources and leverage over much of the local economy, to the disappointment of the advocates of small state, not to mention the complete monopoly their state-owned enterprises enjoy in certain sectors. This same belief seems to have become a key pillar in their international arguments ever since and hence no surprise that they stood their ground on the latest debate over the post-MDGs development agenda.
Now that the issue of country ownership is widely recognised within the Action Agenda approved by the UN member states, both the government of Ethiopia and those of all other African countries are faced with the reality of proving themselves to be credible and legitimate.
In the eyes of donors and other players within the development sphere, the whole issue boils down to how much the governments that have been vying for policy independence, are committed to being accountable to their own citizens. Hence, the fulcrum is set to balance ownership with accountability.
The Addis Abeba Action Agenda, a 31-paged, 134-point document, puts huge burden on the shoulders of governments of developing countries, in the form of accountability. Going beyond aid means states ought to create modern and flexible tax regimes, attractive investment environments, transparent trade financing systems, less hierarchical institutional arrangements, pragmatic leadership culture and effective incentive structures. At the base of all this lies the social contract that states get into with their citizens at the start of each electoral cycle, to be furthered through continuous public participation.
If there is anything that stands in the way of the African governments, it is the democratic deficit under their feet. Political pluralism in most African countries, including Ethiopia, is so scarce a commodity that unquestioned hegemony has become a common governance system. Hence, legitimacy is largely an imposed character. It would not be realistic to expect governments to have the consensual social contract, essential for developmental accountability, in a situation where the democratic deficit is expanding with each day.
This means the targets of inclusivity, non-exclusion and equitable distribution included in the Addis Abeba Action Agenda, and even more boldly in the SDGs, would be endangered. Not least, there would not be any relevant, effective and credible accountability structure to see whether the commitments signed could be serving their purpose.
Therein lies the challenge for the Revolutionary Democrats. As much as their persistent advocacy of country ownership has to be recognised, their laxity and passivity regarding accountability, leaves much to be desired. Their complete control of the political space in the nation will certainly play against the goodwill they obtained in the latest conference, as it relates to the issue of accountability.
The job for both the EPRDFites and other ruling elites of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) is, therefore, to translate the leverage they have obtained in the latest Financing for Development Conference to workable national development and resource mobilisation frameworks that not only fill the social and economic infrastructure gaps in their countries, but bring about benefits to their citizens in the form of an expanding set of freedoms.
Correcting the biases in the economic and political structures they oversee could be a starting point. After all, no resource mobilisation effort, be it domestic or external, can be sustained without having a political economy that equally serves all citizens of nations. Similarly, it is impossible to think about enhanced resource mobilisation without a consensual social contract founded on effective practicing of democratic rights.
Hosting a successful global event and staying under the limelight is one thing. But living the days under the very commitments of the global event is another thing.
The government has a lot to be proud about. After all, hosting over 6,000 international delegates coming from various corners of the world was not an easy task. Even more challenging was mediating an agreement between conflicting interests, such as between non-state actors and states, between developed and developing nations, and between states and multinational institutions.
Yet, the toughest job remains back home, within the very political economy they oversee. Realising development, not just growth, in a way that is sufficiently inclusive, demands mobilising resources from various sources. But it does not end there. It also entails putting the people at the centre.
Filling the democratic deficit and creating an effective developmental accountability structure will be essential. Now that their guests are gone, only to reconvene in New York in September, it is better for the EPRDFites and their African peers to start cleaning their kitchens.
Leave a Reply