The Board of Directors of the African Development Bank has approved a USD 1.5-million grant from the Sustainable Energy Fund for Africa (SEFA) to support the Nigerian Government’s implementation of Phase 1 of the Jigawa 1-GW Independent Power Producer (IPP) Solar Procurement Program. This approval reaffirms the underpinning principles of the Bank’s New Deal on Energy for Africa and its commitment to developing renewable energy and increasing energy access on the continent.
At full 1 GW capacity, the program will assist the government to achieve its national goals of reaching 75 percent electricity access by 2020 and electrifying unserved and underserved areas, particularly in northern Nigeria where access rates are lowest and increasing the share of renewable energy in the energy mix to 30 percent by 2030.
The approved SEFA grant will support the completion of outstanding technical and feasibility studies and the design of a masterplan for the entire program site. Subject to the outcome of the technical and feasibility studies, the Bank will provide additional support to the government in the form of funding of a transaction advisor to design and launch the competitive IPP procurement. The government has committed to de-risking the program through the provision of land and common facilities including transmission facilities.
Commenting on the project, the Bank’s Vice-President for Power, Energy, Climate and Green Growth, Amadou Hott, stressed that the approval solidifies the Bank’s commitment to Nigeria in resolving the chronic power shortage and ensuring increased access to sustainable and cost-efficient power. He added: “It is important for us to deliver a seamless implementation and provide necessary support to the government to conduct an effective IPP procurement process.” An intergovernmental team led by Rural Electrification Agency of Nigeria will be the implementation agency for the grant.
African Development Bank approves USD1.5 million for Jigiwa on-grid IPP solar power procurement program
Capitalism and Political Participation
For the first time in human history, a system that can be called capitalist is dominant over the entire globe. Such a system is conventionally defined as consisting of legally free labor, private ownership of capital, decentralized coordination and pursuit of profit.
One does not need to go far back into the past, or to have a great knowledge of history, to realize how unique and novel this is. Centrally planned socialism was only recently eliminated as a competitor. And nowhere in the world can be found un-free labor playing an important economic role, as it did until some 150 years ago. Such is the hegemony of capitalism as a worldwide system that even those who are unhappy with it and with rising inequality whether locally, nationally or globally have no realistic alternatives to propose.
“De-globalization” and a focus on the “local” is meaningless because it would do away with the division of labor, a key factor of economic growth. Surely, those who argue for “localism” do not wish to propose a major drop in living standards. Forms of state capitalism, as in Russia and China, do exist, but this is capitalism nevertheless in which private profit motive and private companies are dominant.
Increasing inequality of income, however, undercuts some of capitalism’s mainstream ideological dominance by showing its unpleasant sides which is the exclusive focus on materialism, a winner-take-all ideology, and disregard of non-pecuniary motives. But since no ideological alternatives currently exist and even less, political parties or groups to implement them, the hegemony of capitalism looks pretty unassailable. Of course, nothing guarantees that it would look like that to the coming generation, for new ideologies can be invented. But this is how it looks to a reasonable observer today.
One of the most basic principles of democracy is the notion that every citizen’s preferences should count equally in the realm of politics and government. A key characteristic of a democracy is the continued responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens, considered as political equals. But there are a variety of good reasons to believe that citizens are not considered as political equals by policy-makers in real political systems.
Research findings shows that wealthier and better-educated citizens are more likely than the poor and less-educated to have well-formulated and well-informed preferences and significantly more likely to turn out to vote. They are much more likely to have direct contact with public officials, and much more likely to contribute money and energy to political campaigns. These disparities in political resources and action raise a profound question. In a political system where nearly every adult may vote but where knowledge, wealth, social position, access to officials, and other resources are unequally distributed, who actually governs?
One aspect of political inequality is the disparity between rich and poor citizens in political participation. Studies of participatory inequality seem to be inspired in significant part by the presumption that participation has important consequences for representation. Inequalities in activity are likely to be associated with inequalities in governmental responsiveness.
Meanwhile, statistical studies of political representation have found strong connections between constituents’ policy preferences and their representatives’ policy choices. However, those studies have almost invariably treated constituents in an undifferentiated way, using simple averages of opinions in a given district, on a given issues, or at a given time to account for representatives’ policy choices. Thus, they shed little or no light on the fundamental issue of political equality.
The sustainability of democratic capitalism is already a different question. Note first that these two words – democracy and capitalism – were not often combined in history. Capitalism in the absence of democracy has been a common feature throughout history. This was the case not only in Spain under Franco, Chile under Pinochet, or the Congo under Mobutu, but also in Germany, France and Japan. It even occurred in the United States via the exclusion of blacks from the body politic and in England with its severely limited franchise based on ownership of property at levels sufficient to include only the elite.
Thus, it does not take huge leaps of imagination to see that capitalism and democracy can be decoupled. And inequality can play an important role in that. It already does so by politically empowering the rich to a much greater extent than the middle class and the poor. The rich dictate the political agenda, finance the candidates who protect their interests, and make sure that the laws that are in their interest are voted in (not in our country).
The American political scientist Larry Bartels finds that United States Senators are five to six times more likely to listen to the interests of the rich than to the interests of the middle class. For the poor, there is no discernible evidence that the views of low-income constituents had any effect on their Senators’ voting behaviour. Both democracy and the middle class are being hollowed out.
In effect, it is not for nothing that since Aristotle, and more recently since Tocqueville, the middle class was seen as the bulwark against nondemocratic forms of government. It was not by some special moral virtue, embodied among the “middlemen,” that a person who has, for example, ceased to be rich and become middle-class would suddenly prefer democracy.
It is simply that the middle class had an interest in limiting the power of the rich so that they would not rule over them and of the poor so that they would not expropriate them. Large numbers of a middle class also meant that a lot of people shared similar material positions, developed similar tastes and tended to eschew extremism of both the left and the right. Thus, the middle class provided for both democracy and stability. All of this is under attack by rising inequality. The middle class in Western democracies is today both less numerous and economically weaker relative to the rich than it was 20 years ago.
On Pseudonyms of Ethiopian Literature
It is normal than exception to relate using pseudonym as a prelude for rampant ‘censorship cultures’ in Authoritarian regimes where freedom of press is substantially restricted from effectively exercising. The fact it is humane to consider our ‘faculty to press’ made us to impress more for the freedom of press. The socialist Ethiopia was known to publish novels through hard rules of censorship. Censorship was a deliberate effort to subdue Literatures for a given popular ideology. For that matter, Totalitarian regimes required full compliance of the literary content with those tenets of socialism. To get the literary genie out of totalitarian jar, the adaptive capability of the literary camps led also unidentified publisher house. In general the problems of exercising freedom of expression and conscience in totalitarian environment are multifold. Moreover, we also see so many publications are found without mentioning date of publication. It is an irresponsible move to have an undated publication with unknown publisher since neither comparison nor referencing/indexing would be possible in undated publication.
Ever since, we had so many books with pseudonyms and unknown publisher due to various reasons. Against this backdrop, the defunct Kuraz Printing press – a state owned press during Ethiopian socialist regime, was historic enough whose editorial board appeared to publicize books of many through skewing the mandatory censorship net towards encouraging authors. Also ‘Addis Zemen’ was popular to have a literature corner for novella and book critique. And mostly debates on literature were showcased in a pseudonym through using gray fields of their editorial policy. Indeed, no one can miss how the society felt indebted for those editors in chiefs.
However, the use of pseudonym is yet unabated. However our justifiable myopia has led us to neglect as to why peoples still pay attention for considering ‘pseudonym’ for writing. Once a scholar called Hortense Calisher’s article dubbed ‘Portrait of a Pseudonym’ found out that, authors apart from political safeguard may indulge themselves for ‘pseudonym’. In such endeavor, they may escape their friends and relatives from knowing what they wrote. Also, they may have the golden rule of thumb workable for authors as they initially are advised to bore their books forward and appear publicly after the reputation of their product is maintained. It will also negotiate the rift between author’s personality and professionalism. Indeed the only limitation of employing pseudonyms, it’s uncertainty for book critique forums to make remain pseudonymous. Provided that the public event can’t help to disguise the identity of authors as the author of the book under critique ought to reflect, unless defend the book.
That is why we still have pseudonyms who appear publicly as household name. Thus far, Tertiyos ze Vatican, Douglass Petros, Ashenafi Ze Debub, Adonis, Yohannes S, and many more are on still on the air to seem timeless pseudonyms . Unconsciously, much of them remained to be household name. Thus far, biographies were released. Several novels were authored, poems were chanted, numerous foreign book were translated using pseudonyms. Notwithstanding the public ought not be confused with the identity of the Pseudonymous authors, after revelation of who had really wrote those products, the literary camp has got sense of the power of arguments. For instance, ‘Douglas Petros’ were revealed to be Getachew Belete-the former president of Ethiopian Authors association. On various spot of interview he shared the benefit he got as fallacies were kept aside momentarily once the author keeps his identifier. In his memoire, he kept how his debate along with Ashenafi Ze Debube was provocative on the Amharic paper ‘Addis Zemen’ displayed the debate. Although, up until recently, the later didn’t exposed his real identity even after the debate exercise.
By way of concluding, pseudonyms are grounded in ‘cultures of secrecy’, and need for taking refuge for pursuit of impersonal argument, apart from the iron laws of censorship under authoritarian regimes. Significantly, Ethiopian literatures showcased ‘pseudonyms’ for various ends on which we can have the chance to ponder. HOHE Awards is mindful of authors with pseudonyms to reveal themselves from hiding place and engage on praise and critique of their product. Good day!
(This article is contributed by HOHE Awards. HOHE Awards started in 2017, is an annual award presented for an author of a distinguished book possessing notable literary merit and critical perspective and illuminating important contemporary issues)
REVISIT ETHIOPIA’S DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT STATE MODEL (Part 2)
Last week I posted an article (CAREFUL WITH WHAT YOU FANCY) to caution people not to easily embrace economic liberalization before looking at the available evidence. A dear reader felt the article was confusing. Well, to be fair, he may be right.
In the few words that follow, I’ll give it another try.
But first, let me share a not so crazy thought. It’s about the state of politics in Ethiopia. I see a “series of confrontations” in store within EPRDF coalition…and chief among them with the PM. Call it a hunch…who knows!
It’s hard to imagine that things have settled quickly within EPRDF after such a bitter infighting and the last minute defection of Demeke Mekonen from ANDM. I sense there remain lots of angers in certain corners of TPLF over the election of Dr. Abiy. In any case, I cannot imagine anyone attempting a coup, at this moment, particularly as long as the Doctor persists on his single agenda – that of making Ethiopia strong, prosperous and unified country.
Now let me take on the overwhelming task of clarifying my message:
When it comes to liberalizing the economy in poor countries there is far more downside risk than potential upside. In short I was defending the developmental state model in the era of globalization.
By the way criticism of the developmental state comes from two corners. One is the neoliberal position that criticizes the effectiveness of the developmental state model itself. It argues that developmental state was not an important factor in East Asian development and the adoption of industrial policy would in fact be detrimental to developing countries. The second critical position concedes that a degree of achievement was indeed attained by the developmental state in the past, but contends that the developmental state model is no longer a viable option today, that this policy is no longer feasible.
Frankly, EPRDF’s developmental state model has delivered in many areas – the economy, access to education, infrastructure, poverty reduction; obviously this did not simply happen. The state played a critical role in this rapid expansion, what many question is the level of embezzlement, theft, rent seeking and cronyism that lied at the center of the system. That’s the one reason, and perhaps the main reason, why the model failed to live up to expectations.
That’s why in the wake of the recent leadership change, we hope to move towards a revised, more inclusionary, more transparent and accountable, much less directly interventionist developmental state system.
Indeed, this is an opportune time to reflect on the type of developmental state that’s more suitable to Ethiopia. First, we should all accept that the era of authoritarian developmentalism is no more an option. The hegemonic ruling party that can control many things but not everything is out of favor. Today citizens have let it be known they have less appetite to tolerate the costs, for instance in terms of human rights abuses, restricted political participation, corruption, theft and incompetence. The people of Ethiopia want to discuss now ways to root out corruption, the pace of liberalization to adopt, the role of political parties and the possible contribution they could make, not only to democracy-building, but to promoting developmental state and relevant aspects of good governance.
I still feel that EPRDF, despite its current organizational weakness, ideological stagnation and shrinking social support, has still force aplenty at its disposal to launch this reform TOGETHER (emphasis) with opposition parties, civil society, professional associations and other stakeholders.
Not a pretty option for many, particularly in the Diaspora, I admit.
But what we have here is a rare glimmer of hope. We can at least agree on a renewed developmental state model which would be inclusive, participatory and nationalist, a developmental state which maintains stability and accountability for economic development and pursues economic reforms, including integration into the global economy at its own preferred pace.
Developmental states do not appear overnight; and Ethiopia may still take years to grow into the right democratic development state.
