Since coming to power in 1991, the ruling elite have been testing their spatially differentiated development strategies. As a result, we have been witnessing easily discernible development gaps between rural and urban areas.
Until 2005, the elite had no specified urban development strategy. Their approach was rather shaped by the centre-periphery dependency theory. If one is to go by this theory, urban centres are dependents of the rural periphery.
Economic, political, social and cultural transformations could be successful only if they obtain the support of the rural society. Urban centres are considered as freeloaders to the hard-working, politically loyal, subsistent and smallholder farming communities of the country.
It is only after the heavily contested and fairly democratic election of 2005 that our ruling elite started to realise the necessity of having a comprehensive urban development strategy.
The foundations of this policy happen to be small and medium enterprise (SME) development, infrastructure renovation and expansion, real estate development and the revitalisation of the services sector. Though the strategy sparked hope in the hearts of the forgotten urbanites, the road to concrete benefits remains daunting.
Urban poverty, housing, access to public transport, sanitation, health care provision and unemployment have continued to put a strain on the urbanites.
What makes things worse is the lack of good governance, committed leadership, competent bureaucracy and public participation in decision making. Complemented with the excessive politicisation of public disappointment, the problem is compounding with each day.
The ruling elite claim that they stand for the poor. Though there is some truth in this claim, the development process is not as fair as the outcomes.
No achievement in education, primary health care and infrastructure development could tell a story about how the results are achieved. Scores of public disappointments surrounding the tactless urban renewal program of Addis Abeba could be mentioned as examples to the lack of public participation in the development process of the nation.
What makes the case a typical policy gray-area is the politicisation of any dissent raised by community members. Even after 24 years of staying on power, our ruling elite are not candidly committed to consulting the public, taking their concerns into account and treating them without any political favouritism.
What instead dominates is the manufacturing of fear, the trading of paranoia and the distribution of labels. It all happens while our fair nation is singing and dancing about its transformation.
For whom is the transformation for if is not for the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, the elderly and any other vulnerable sections of our society? What is the transformation about, if not about citizen empowerment, participatory decision making, accountable governance and equitable development?
Our transformation song involves lyrics about building capacity and good governance. It mentions expanding infrastructure and promoting equitable economic growth. Amusingly, it even talks about engaging the population in the development process, forming strong partnership with private investors and establishing a decentralised administration.
As has been the case for the last 24 years, still our song is filled with popularised buzz words like ‘poverty reduction’, ‘decentralisation’, and ‘community participation’. The fundamental question that needs to be answered, however, is – how is it all being done? How fair is our development process?
As if process does not matter, we are witnessing roads being built without preparing alternative routes, slums cleared without properly relocating the community, education expanding with less concern to quality and numerous other reforms undertaken at the expense of quality in service delivery.
Within all of this, nevertheless, we see the benefits that trickle down reducing over time. A large chunk of the benefit remains at the top tier of the income ladder.
As Warren Buffet, a mogul in global financial markets, once said – “In development, the process is as equally important as the proceeds”. That is why our transformation song shall take a new turn of treating the process as equally important as the intended outcomes.
It is only then that urban development could happen fairly, equitably and inclusively. If not, we may continue to have economic growth, but with no equivalent development.
Leave a Reply