Government Must Respect the Constitution Unconditionally

Contradiction has become the latest addition to the compendium of traits with which Revolutionary Democracy is expressed with. Policy actions taken by one branch of the executive is seen disproved by the measures of another. Arguments over the actions are equally variable.

What happened with the taxation of undistributed dividends is one such contradiction, which remains in the public memory. Interpreting the law uniquely, officials at the Ethiopian Revenues & Customs Authority (ERCA) circulated a letter for businesses to pay tax on divideds, even if they didn’t distribute them. This decision even intended to collect back tax in arrears.

Eventually, first the minister of Finance & Economic Development (MoFED) – often known for his passive stance – and then the Prime Minister denounced the measure as inappropriate. They took the ball back to its original place, although they preferred to employ a rather diplomatic tone. As it happened, the argument of the businesspeople about the impropriety of the measure prevailed.

As if there is a determination from the side of the EPRDFites to embrace contradiction as an essential element of their policymaking approach, a similar event unfolded with the latest decision by the government to ban employment travel abroad, predominantly to Middle East nations, for approximately seven months. The Revolutionary Democrats attributed the ban to their revitalised effort to fight human trafficking.

But it was only before three weeks that the newly appointed president of the federation, Mulatu Teshome (PhD) – an EPRDFite from the Oromo Peoples Democratic Organisations (OPDO) – declared, in his state of the union speech, that the government will follow a rather thoughtful approach to fight human trafficking. Nowhere in his speech was banning such travel mentioned as an approach.

Certainly, the EPRDFites have shown an enhanced resolve in fighting human trafficking. It has only been around nine months since they established a high-level council, chaired by the ultimate Deputy Premier Demeke Mekonnen, aimed at improving public awareness about human trafficking and bringing traffickers and their grassroots recruiters to justice. Creating a similar council at regional and local levels has been undergoing ever since.

At the core of the revitalised effort to fight human trafficking lies the paradox of tells about the country. One of the stories comes from the EPRDFites and constitutes the rapid growth of the country. Improved public service delivery, enhanced access to social services, better environment for conducting business, an incredible leap in infrastructure development and political stability are parts of this story.

In contrast, the story from international institutions, which records and studies illegal migration, shows that Ethiopia is still one of the utmost sources of illegal migrants. Thousands endure the pains, hassles and costs of deserts and oceans to migrate to the Middle East and Europe. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of these migrants die before they reach their dreams.

Others join the tide of migration legally, through personal communications or employment agencies. Even if they face fewer hassles than their illegal counterparts, what they face in their host countries is often not wholly different. They might well be forced to live with physical and mental abuse.

Indeed, the two stories contradict. But, so do the declarations of Mulatu and the latest action.

Despite the good intentions within the latest action, it also brings another monumental contradiction involving the Constitution. In Article 32, under the rights to freedom of movement, the constitution rightly states that any Ethiopian has the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence, as well as the freedom to leave the country at any time they wish.

No restrictive condition is included in the constitutional provision. If one is to go by the Constitution, therefore, freedom of movement is an unconditional right bestowed to citizens by law. There is no doubt that the latest action by the EPRDFites is thus against the very constitution they so often claim to stand for.

There might be political and economic excuses given for the action. Obviously, even these would be arguable.

For the Revolutionary Democrats, almost all migrations out of the nation have an economic purpose. Behind their reasoning lies a belief that the political sphere of the nation is accommodative.

Critics, however, claim otherwise. There are still many political migrants, who leave the country for fear of politically-motivated imprisonment, or so their claim goes. Political monopolisation forces many to leave the country.

Whichever line of argument one accepts, the latest action of banning employment travel could not help to redress the problem. After all, a disproportional magnitude of the problem lays closer.

Even if the economy is witnessing rapid growth, for about ten years now, employment creation still lags behind the demand. Whilst average urban unemployment stands at 27pc, annual employment creation is only around one million.

An expanding public sector, which continues to crowd out private enterprises, is worsening the problem by limiting the operational space for individual entrepreneurship and business development. Resources, required to improve the business environment, are being used by the state for engagements that replace private businesses. Hence, the absorption capacity of the economy is continuously decreasing.

Monopoly remains the typical characteristic of the political and policy spheres under the ruling EPRDFites. Tolerance to dissent stands at a very low level. What seems to get the attention of the government is only what is palatable to the political philosophy of Revolutionary Democracy.

Hence, there is still ample disappointment within the public about the narrowness of the political space. No doubt that some of it might even turn to hopelessness and a decision to leave the country.

Of course, the channels utilised by people to go out of the country may vary. Whereas some choose the legal means, others go for the illegal approach.

Persuasion by illegal traffickers plays a significant role in the latter. If global experiences also apply to Ethiopia, these trafficking cartels extend from the border to the grassroots level. Their instruments of influence are so localised that the youth will easily lose hope in the potential of employment and success in the country.

Inarguably, human trafficking ought to be fought hard. Traffickers and recruiters ought to be brought to justice. As Mulatu rightly stated in his speech, the fight ought to be managed thoughtfully.

Banning travel, however, even for one day, is not justified – constitutionally, economically or politically. If anything, it will only enhance the demand for illegal trafficking and further the problem.

Rectifying the immigration system and restructuring the consular service provisions at the embassies in the Middle East could all be done without transgressing the constitutional right of citizens. It only requires unequivocal political resolve to avoid loopholes, strengthen regulations, streamline accountability and enhance integration.

It, therefore, is better for the EPRDFites to avoid the contradiction between the presidential declaration and their latest executive action by giving the Constitution its due. Every action to fight human trafficking can be possible without crossing the constitutional red line.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.