Transparency rarely transpires with the ruling Revolutionary Democrats. It is a theme where their parlance differs widely from both the common man’s and the intellectual’s.
If one is to go by the books of Revolutionary Democracy, transparency seems to mean speaking what you prefer, only when you wish to have a word and the right way is under the accepted partisan principles. The fact is that what is acceptable under the centralised system of the ruling EPRDF might not always be plausible in the eyes of the users of the information.
By and large, the ruling EPRDF is a party that is secretive, largely unpredictable and hugely opaque. This nature of the Party, partly a result of its pragmatic adoption to reality, does not match the growing demand of the public for information. It also makes analyses difficult and considerably subjective.
It does not, however, mean that the Party’s attitude towards transparency has remained rigid all the way. There have indeed been areas where the Party displayed commitment to streamline transparency, at least in a certain way, in the affairs of the state it leads. One such area has been regulation of the mining sector.
This may be showcased in the initiative taken in taking Ethiopia a member of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), a global voluntary and membership-based accountability initiative that embraces states and companies. Under the EITI, states and companies working with them will open their dealings for public scrutiny. Their commitment will go as far as releasing their audited books.
Despite its critics, the EITI is widely pronounced as a step in the right direction to streamline transparency and accountability in what is considered to be a messy economic sector – mining. By showing their interest in taking Ethiopia into the Initiative, then, the ruling EPRDFites seem to have embraced part of the popularly accepted definition of transparency. Surely, it is a rare convergence.
Be it the case of the EITI or the general theme of transparency in the state, though, the ruling Revolutionary Democrats operate in an environment that is deficient of one important element – strong civil society. In the case of the EITI, and other globalised transparency initiatives to which the nation commits, the missing element is a definitive one. Without strong civil society, there cannot be effective monitoring of the dealings of the state and hence functional transparency.
The importance of the missing element is considerable if viewed in light of the essentiality of forging a culture of transparency. Lacking strong civil society organisations (CSOs), means lacking the institutional means to introduce and maintain the culture. Development processes will be one directional – from the state to the public – with no established way to bring the feedback upwards.
Such a system reduces the state’s learning space. The state will be deprived of essential feedback that can help its policymaking and governance. Keeping the connection between the state and the public will also be costly.
In their favour, the ruling EPRDFites can mention the growing number of registered CSOs. The number, according to official statistics, has seen an annual growth of 300pc. The total number of charities and societies in the country stands a little over 3,000.
This increase was not even affected by the 2009 Charities & Societies Proclamation, often considered a regulatory hindrance. Not only did most of the CSOs that were active before the law thrive, but hundreds of new ones came to the scene with largely wider programmatic interests.
Yet, the civil society space is not vibrant enough. These charities and societies work in rather limited areas. There is huge repetition of effort and lack of coordination. Inefficiency is ripe. Often, programmes are adopted in the sphere as fashions of the time rather than as sustainable engagements.
Worse is the case with issues related to rights, accountability of the state and lobbying for public interests. For largely political reasons, the latest Charities & Societies Proclamation has taken these issues out of the resourceful foreign charities and limited them to indigenous organasations. By capping the resource valve, vis-à-vis the 10pc outside resource mobilisation limit on indigenous CSOs, the law reduced the operational vivacity of the civil society sphere and its impact. It drained its energy.
It also deserted the rights sphere. The whole burden of empowering the public with the information and knowledge of their rights is left to poorly-resourced indigenous CSOs.
Understandably, the ruling Revolutionary Democrats had justifiable reasons for legislating as such. Primarily, they see that rights ought to be demanded and promoted by the public itself. Hence, the involvement of foreign agents ought to be limited.
In the same vein, they argue that operational efficiency is a follow-up to budgetary effectiveness. The focus of civil society, organisations they argue, ought to be on their programmatic engagements.
The challenge was furthered with a directive limiting the budgetary allocation of the societies. Accordingly, it has become mandatory to spend 70pc of annual expenditure on programme areas and there is much confusion about what constitutes programme expenditure.
The impact is being seen now. With the latest effort to involve the civil societies in the EITI endeavour, for instance, the intended rate of participation was not met. Subsequent meetings could not bring consensus and understanding.
Certainly, part of it has to do with the organisations themselves. They seem to not be sufficiently informed about the Initiative.
It all seems as if they are just going with the wind of financing. They lack creativity in engagement, strategies for resource mobilisation, execution, management and community participation.
Yet, the state must also take its share of the blame. The state, under the leadership of the Revolutionary Democrats, remains suspicious about CSOs. It seeks to control everything.
Complemented with the legislative burdens, the operational space of CSOs is full of challenges. This not only has limited their activity, but it has also reduced their outreach and impact. Of course, this is not to mention the bureaucratic burden they face at the different tiers of the state.
These traits of the state have made the waters for civil society all the more turbulent. Hence important initiatives, such as the EITI, are being sidelined by the CSOs.
True, these organisations have to focus on areas that would make the biggest difference in the lives of the people. But the state has to also help them assume their deserved place in the nation’s engagements.
In practical terms, this means removing the suspicion towards civil societies and creating a clear policy to empower them. It also means easing the bureaucratic burden CSOs face in their engagements.
Easing the legislative burden could also be helpful. If anything, the regulatory regime ought to be driven by a mindset of collaboration and engagement. The era of distrust ought to end.
After all, a culture of transparency cannot be built without a vibrant civil society. Having this, therefore, is imperative to globalised commitments, such as the EITI, as well as to expanding the wholesome choices of society.
Leave a Reply