Wednesday, April 1, 2026
Home Blog Page 3656

Omo Valley tribes present cultural treat for Ethiopian

0

By Tatiana Rokou

Ethiopia is known to experienced travelers for its history of humanity, unique animals, ancient religious sites, dramatic scenic vistas, diverse special events, world renown cuisine, and internationally recognizable music, dance, and art.
Despite all these riches as a destination, one other element makes Ethiopia an important top choice for experienced travelers-its ethnic tribes located in the Omo Valley in southwest Ethiopia along the Omo River.
There are eight different tribes in this region whose population approaches 200,000. They have lived there for centuries.
The Omo Valley is a classic Ethiopian destination, featuring some of the characteristics anticipated by visitors to Africa, which includes tribal customs and lifestyles not related to other cultures. These tribes find unique ways to express their artistic impulses.
Five of the tribes-the Karo, the Mursi, the Suma, the Dassanech, and the Hamer-have retained their own customs and traditions over the centuries. The Suma and the Karo are experts at body painting, using local clays and vegetable pigments to trace fantastic patterns on each other’s faces, chests, arms, and legs. All of this is just for fun with the designs created by the artists who are trying to compete and outdo other tribal members.
Desale Mitiku Asfaw, CEO of Grand Holidays Ethiopia Tours, says, “Safaris to the Omo Valley are one of our most popular elements in visits to Ethiopia. All of our guests are fascinated to experience tribal culture and meet members of these friendly, unique communities in our country. It goes without saying that this part of our tour product generates some of the best photography and videos, becoming a warmly remembered part of any visit to Ethiopia.”
Mitiku Asfaw cited five tribes as great examples of the experiences awaiting travelers. “Our visitors embrace the tribes enthusiastically. The Mursi, Hamer, Dassanech, Suma, and Karo tribes are among the most popular.”
Here is some background on each.
The Mursi, are the most celebrated residents of South Omo, are a distinctive group of pastoralists. They are known for their unique decoration item, the lip plate. Mursi women wear a circular clay plate in their lower lip. The bigger the plate, the more the woman is valued as a marriage partner.
The Hamer display an elaborate and diverse selection of body decorations, including ornate necklaces, ankle and wrist bangles, beadwork, and leather.
The Dassanech live on the shores of the Omo River and inhabit Kenya, Sudan, and southern Ethiopia. They are known for their unique hair buns.
Both the Suma and Karo tribes are masters at body and face painting, which they practice daily. Before any rituals or dances, they paint their faces and bodies and those of their friends, using colored soil, minerals, plant pigments, flowers, white chalk, and black charcoal. Men are also decorated with red clay hair buns.
Mitiku Asfaw concluded, “No trip to Ethiopia should miss this cultural bonanza. We respect the tribes and offer this part of our experience in a way to honor and learn from their traditions.”
(Travel Daily News)

ARE YOU CERTAIN?

0

‘To be uncertain is to be uncomfortable, but to be certain is to be ridiculous. There is nothing certain, but uncertain. If we begin with certainties, we shall end in doubts; but if we begin with doubts, and are patient in them, we shall end in certainties.’ (A Chinese proverb)

Getachew Beshahwred
How appropriate that we shall start with a Chinese proverb at a time when the Chinese presence is prevalent across every sector and every aspect of life in Ethiopia.
‘There are only two things certain in life, death and taxes.’ (Benjamin Franklin) This is probably because he did not meet any of the current tax evaders and tax ‘advisors’.
Back to China, during the Communist years when the means of production was under the ownership and control of the ‘proletariat’, and the mantra was, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’, the Chinese economy was fully centrally controlled, vastly inefficient and poor.
Chairman Mao and the rest of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party were certain that Communism would cure the economic and social ills of the country. Those who opposed the Communist Party, its principles and programs were harshly dealt with. Hundreds of thousands were purged or killed. Even when the evidence showed the contrary, the leaders were convinced that their way was the only way. They were certain.
However, with a large and growing population and a stagnant & poor economy, China had to change. They were no more certain that pure communism was what they thought it would be. Hence, in 1979 the Chinese Government started to implement a free market economy and opened the economy for foreign investment. However, it avoided large scale privatisation of State-Owned Enterprises. Only small-size local firms were privatised. Many of the biggest companies in China are still state owned. According to a 2019 World Bank report by Chunlin Zhang, in 2017, Chinese State-owned Enterprises contributed 23.1% of GDP.
Since the beginning of the reform program, the Chinese economy has been one of the fastest growing economies of the world. The World Bank described the Chinese economic growth as ‘the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history.’ This Chinese model is officially called the Socialist Market Economy which is effectively a mixed economy.
The Chinese are now ‘Certain’ that their socialist market economy is the best way. So far it has worked for them. However, though they are certain about their economic model, the Chinese have also been very good at adopting to changing world economic and political situations. Now a days, they are critical players in world economics and politics. They changed and developed their economy because they abandoned their certainty about the virtues of Communism.
During the same period, and especially during the years of the Cold war, in the West; governments, politicians etc. were certain that the cure for the world’s economic and social ills was the Private sector and hence privatisation. They believe that the market should be owned and run by the private sector and governments should set the rules (Soft rules, or Soft-touch regulation, Gordon Brown), and only intervene when the market fails, as it did in 2008 with a loss of Hundreds of billions of dollars and pounds to the tax payer.
As a result, in the 1980’s and 1990s the UK government under Mrs Thatcher sold off a number of state-owned companies to the private sector. Mrs Thatcher and her ministers and advisors were convinced that private ownership would bring competition, efficiency and wider share ownership. They were not listening to anyone who differed with them, because they were certain.
It is evidently clear that there is no direct relationship between ownership and efficiency. Instead the biggest determinants of efficiency are competition and management. But Mrs Thatcher was certain that private companies were more efficient than state-owned companies.
The Thatcher government was also certain that privatisation would lead to more direct investment by the new private owners of the former publicly-held companies. However, in many instances this turned out not to be the case. The new owners, especially in the water industry chose to borrow rather than invest their own money. This resulted in huge interest payments and a real increase in prices to customers. Of course, benefits to executives and dividends to shareholders were increased too.
The government was also certain that privatisation would lead to increased shareholding by the masses. However, once again this is not now the reality. Many of the former publicly held companies are owned by institutional investors some of whom are owned and controlled by foreign governments.
Worse still some of the privatised companies rely on huge government subsidies, and there is huge dissatisfaction with their services. As a result, the Labour party has now made the renationalisation of Rail, Water and Energy companies as well as British Telecommunications (part of) and Royal Mail as its official policy.
Once again, the problem here was the absolute certainty of the policy makers. There was no room for doubters or for those who suggested alternatives. Those who did not support Mrs Thatcher’s hard-line policies were considered week or ‘WET’.
Generally, when one is certain one starts not to listen. They would ignore the facts and the experts even when the evidence show they were wrong. In fact, they would try to bend the facts to suit their narrative. For instance, in the Brexit debate some are certain that the only way for the UK to survive is within the EU. On the other hand, the hard-line Brexiters are certain that the UK would be better off completely outside the EU preferably without a deal. This is against all the evidence that shows, the UK economy, outside the EU, would significantly slow down, and UK’s influence in world affairs would significantly diminish. They do not listen, because they are certain.
The Ethiopian government supported by the World Bank and the IMF has embarked upon a huge privatisation program apparently without significant public consultation. There is no problem with the idea or the plan itself. Privatisation, in some selected sectors can work as long as it is done in a considered way and with the right market regulations and regulatory bodies. However, the problem would be if one thinks privatisation is the solution that fits all, because it does not.
The World Bank and IMF whose decision-making body is dominated by Western Countries do believe and are certain that Privatisation is the best way regardless. That is their view, advice and in fact probably their loan requirement. There is no problem with that. It is their view which they are entitled to have.
It would be then up to the Ethiopian government to choose what is best for the country. It should consult wisely and widely and consider all options. There are some indications that the government is listening, as it apparently did with ‘Golden Share’. On 4th December 2019, it was announced that the Council of Ministers approved a draft legislation authorising the government to own Golden Shares in the soon to be privatised publicly-held companies. Please check out my article on Golden Share; Capital, 4th November 2019.
As always the devil is in the detail and I will return to this topic in the coming weeks.
Learning from the mistakes of others (A clever man learns from his own mistakes, but a wise man learns from the mistake of others), the government should continue to listen and chart out a unique way for Ethiopia and avoid the trap of certainty. The Five ‘C’s of decision-making suggested by the Industrial Society are: Consider, Consult, Crunch, Communicate and Check, in that order.
‘I have lived in this world just long enough to look carefully the second time into things that I am most certain of the first time.’ (Josh Billings)
By the way what is the correct preposition that comes after certain? Is it; about, of, in, to,……?
Are you certain?

Getachew Beshahwred BA (Dist.), MBA, BFP, FCA, Cert CII, PMP is the Managing Director of GB & Co Ltd, Chartered Accountants and Management Consultants, London. Getachew can be contacted at getachew@gbandco.co. GB and Co, in association with the Chartered Insurance Institute, London and the London Institute of Banking and Finance provides Executive Training for Insurance and Banking personnel from Ethiopia. The training is done either in London or Addis Ababa. Contact Getachew for further details.

Russian Oligarchs

Mainstream media reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s August 2019 interview with the Financial Times understandably attracted lots of attention. It seemed that just about everybody felt the need to respond. Many commentators have focused on President Putin’s intentionally insulting comments regarding migrants, as well as his “end of multiculturalism” statement.
Still others seized on what President Putin said with regard to Russian oligarchs. Asked if there are oligarchs in Russia, Putin boldly claimed that there were none. He said “We do not have oligarchs anymore. Oligarchs are those who use their proximity to the authorities to receive super profits. We have large companies, private ones or with government participation. But I do not know of any large companies that get preferential treatment from being close to the authorities”.
His statement is, of course, in manifest contradiction of the facts. Andreas Umland, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, Kyiv stated that the names of the richest Russians are not a secret, and almost all of them are in one way or another linked with the state, and often with President Putin personally.
Caroline Freund, in her book “Rich People, Poor Countries,” shows that in 2014 63% of Russian billionaires’ wealth came from dubious sources such as privatization schemes, mineral resource wealth, which is almost always connected with state-given privileges, and outright political connections. In comparison, the equivalent figure in Latin America is only 8.8% and in OECD countries 4.2%.
Thus, President Putin’s statement is wrong factually. Yet, in a different sense, it contains some truth. According to Andreas Umland, the term oligarch can be applied to two different types of powerful rich people. The “Putin oligarchs” are billionaires who “serve” at the discretion of the state. As a Russian commentator once said, they should all consider themselves to be temporary custodians of their wealth.
If and when they fall from grace with the regime, they could be stripped of their assets either through dubious legal proceedings or, if needed, more forcefully by being imprisoned. The original kind of “President Yeltsin-type oligarchs”, who “popularized” the term, were different. These oligarchs owned the state. The state essentially existed only at their discretion.
At the peak of their power after President Yeltsin’s reelection in 1996, which they had helped him win, in the deal that led to the infamous “loans for shares” trade, the oligarchs effectively controlled President Yeltsin as well as practically all of the levers of state power. Branko Milanovic, the Presidential Professor at the City University of New York stated that since the oligarchs also jockeyed for power among themselves, with some being allied with the military, others controlling natural monopolies, and a third group having their own media, Russia at the end of the 1990s was a country on the verge of civil war.
In fact, it stood not so far from where Libya stands today. Under that “regime,” life expectancy fell from 69 to 64.5 years – the largest decline in life expectancy ever recorded in peacetime. It was today’s United States opioid crisis multiplied by a factor of ten or more. Branko Milanovic noted that Russia was a country that was ruled, to borrow Mancur Olson’s terminology, by roving bandits. What President Putin accomplished through reining in these roving bandit oligarchs was to create a system of stationary bandits.
Their wealth depends on proximity to the state. As with every stationary bandit, they have more of an interest in the strength of the state and the welfare of its population simply because their welfare is more closely intertwined with their own. It is in that sense that Putin’s oligarchs represent an improvement. Since foreign commentators do not necessarily have to live in countries on whose democratic records they write, they are often wont to confound the two types of oligarchs. But for people who have to live under the two alternative regimes (i.e. roving or stationary bandits), the choice is rather simple.
It is a choice of living in a state of incipient civil war. Hence, on any given day, you do not know what might happen to your children in school, where you could be randomly beaten up in the street, abducted by different private militias or evicted from your home by one mafia today and another tomorrow. Of course, the same things can happen under the centralized kleptocratic regime such as President Putin’s, but there these things happen with a certain “logic” and “order.” Differently put, under President Putin, punishment is exacted for political disobedience and the rules of conduct are well known.
According to Branko Milanovic, in the system of disorderly roving bandits, punishment can be meted out randomly, or can be done for entirely different actions or reasons, some of which may displease one baron/bandit but not another. Under a chaotic system such as President Yeltsin’s, violence can come from any direction, for any reason and at any time.
To the outside observer, the system of random violence might seem more democratic. This is because foreign observers are exempt from it, as indeed foreigners were exempt during Russia’s “decade of humiliation.” There are indeed alternative centers of power in competition with each other. There is also freedom of speech. One media empire owned by one baron may well attack the media empire owned by another baron. There thus appears to be political life, despite the absence of the rule of law, rampant corruption and physical insecurity.
The system of stationary bandits is monochromatic by comparison, but for people who live under it, it is more predictable and much safer. It is no surprise that most ordinary people will prefer stability over chaos, predictable violence over random violence and some administration of justice over none.

Being Black At Miami Art Basel

In 2007 I attended my first Miami Art Basel, the largest art fair in the western hemisphere, and though I thoroughly enjoyed the overwhelming experience, best defined as serious sensory overload, it was clear to me that African artists were still absent from the US art scene. Frankly, I travelled to suss out the status and trajectory of fine art from Africa. I learnt a lot, met some interesting folks and took lots of notes and photos. I felt that one day it would be important to narrate my “dare to think big attitude” confident that the art of Africa and Ethiopia in particular would be of interest and value to art aficionados in the blue chip art world. By the way, the usual yet brilliant, namely Ethiopian artist, Julie Mheretu and Nigerian, Yinka Shonibare had several works proudly displayed by cutting edge galleries.
For art lovers in Addis, let me give you a snap shot of what Miami Art Basel is like. Imagine the Sheraton Addis Art Show and Addis Foto Fest combined and on super steroids in a 5600 square meter facility with 7meter high ceilings and a security system equivalent to that of the Whitehouse, with all the mega stars from film, fashion, music and lots of moguls with deep pockets and Don Perignom flowing all in a sizzling Miami Beach setting. Whew! Admittedly it’s also a big beach party. I had invitations to private parties, one for famous African American painter Kehinde Wiley who was commissioned in 2017 to paint a portrait of former President Barack Obama for the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. Kehinde is also the founder of Black Rock in Dakar, an aritsts’ residence that opened in Spring 2019. Yes, watch for this trend, they are coming home and bringing the buyers with them.
Back to Basel and the current status of Black art. Atlanta based, Sonia Wignall, is an Afro-Cuban cultural writer who states in www.cadaonline.us, “In 2018, it is said that the dominance of black art at Basel caused some to question whether it was indeed Art Basel, or “Black Basel”. Almost every gallery, museum and exhibit carried a portion of black art as a prominent masterpiece to compliment and bring rhythm to the overall exhibit. This was not always so.” Sonia goes on to say, “The culture of the people of the African Diaspora is coming into an age of global interest and honor, beyond naked poor people, and children with swollen bellies. It is the culture that is on exhibit. It is the power, rhythm and the sensuality of the culture that can be seen in the art. It is almost as if the world has become so entranced with the art, that the yearning to capture it is now all but consuming the global art marketplace, and consequently rocking the art market to its core.”
However, New York Times John Eligon, who mostly documents the nuances of America’s struggles with race, writes, “At a time when black creators are being celebrated as much as ever – from Hollywood to the fine arts – some are raising the question of whether black people are truly the main beneficiaries of the culture they produce. That theme is at the center of an exhibition opening on Wednesday in Miami, outside of the official Art Basel program, bluntly titled “Who Owns Black Art?” But Eligon goes on to touch on other issues that in my mind help us address the economic and social side of Black art. “In one sense, it’s calling attention to the need for black people to become more active as art buyers so as not to miss out on potentially lucrative investments. In another sense, it’s about the dearth of black-owned galleries. And it also addresses underrepresentation among the ranks of museum staff, fair directors and other arbiters who have significant influence over which works and artists get elevated.”
With these sentiments in mind, myself and partner Artist Leul Merid Tafesse have invested in attending Art Basel on three occasions – 2007, 2009 and 2014. In the latter year I decided it was time to show the work of Ethiopian artists under Greater Miami Visitors and Conventions Art of Black, an initiative to promote and provide more platforms, during Miami Basel, for Black artists from the USA, Caribbean, South America and Africa. We found an incredible space, one of the oldest churches in Miami with a foliage filled foyer and block walls seemingly waiting to display the art of Desta Hagos, Daniel Taye, Merid Tafesse, Ermias Mazengia, Mathias Lulu and photographer, Birhan Tonge. During Basel, exhibitions pop up everywhere and why not a sacred space overstanding that art comes from the most spiritual part of an artist. Moral of the story is that the recognition of African creatives by others has always been a “day late and a dollar short” as the saying goes but now is the time for us to be prepared and organized so the New York Times can one day write “Africans Benefit From and Own Black Art.”

Dr. Desta Meghoo is a Jamaican born
Creative Consultant, Curator and cultural promoter based in Ethiopia since 2005. She also serves as Liaison to the AU for the Ghana based, Diaspora African Forum.