comparative assessment of decentralization in africa: ethiopia desk ...

The above evidence results from the decentralization drive at lower levels, which enabled theestablishment of organizations such as public organization/mobilization offices at woreda leveland the structures of kebeles and sub-kebeles. However, caution is again merited with regard tothe active participation of civil society, with Tesfaye (2007, p. 141) noting more reservationsabout the functioning of the KETB, calling them ―more of a failure than a success‖ and notingthey are characterized more by ―excessive control than empowerment.‖Despite the contradictory evidence and conflicting approaches to the question of civil society inEthiopia, we may conclude that civil society involvement in decentralization continues to be aweak link, as noted in this section and above in Section 2.3 on ―social accountability.‖ Civicinstitutions in the country are fragmented, with weak coordination towards joint goals. They lackmanagerial capacity and experienced and flexible leadership (Dessalegn, 2002). There istherefore a need for individual organizations to engage in debate, to forge common agendas, andto work towards enlarging the political space. Government efforts to build capacity in civilsociety (through the National Capacity Building Program) could be a useful entry point in thisregard, on the condition that stakeholders facilitate substantive debate and critiques rather thanreinforcement of existing political channels.Media and the PressThe situation surrounding media and the press in Ethiopia is tenuous. Again, the differencebetween de jure and de facto rules becomes significant. According to legal frameworks, access toinformation is relatively open. Freedom House (2010) notes that recent laws nominally preventgovernment censorship, for instance. However, the reality is more worrisome: the proclamationon press freedom also leaves loopholes that allow the government to restrict reporting that maycompromise national security or defame the government. In a dominant-party system, thisconstitutes a substantial exception that can result in considerable self-censorship.The press situation is complicated by the predominance of government-run and party-affiliatedmedia sources (cf. International Research and Exchanges Board [IREX], 2008). Whileindependent news sources are permitted, economic realities prevent the emergence of substantialcompetitors; this is true both in print and broadcast media (with the latter largely restricted toradio). Internet access is largely unrestricted, but available only to the few. There is access toforeign sources of information online, with the important exception alleged by some journaliststhat certain opposition websites hosted abroad may be blocked. With regard to television, thestate-sponsored channel dominates and private Ethiopian television is essentially non-existent;international transmissions are available, but can be accessed by relatively small numbers ofpeople, typically in the largest cities. The Media Sustainability Index scores Ethiopia a 1.35 on ascale of 0 (worst) to 4 (best), characterizing Ethiopia as an ―Unsustainable Mixed System‖—neither entirely anti-free press, nor nearing a sustainably free press (IREX, 2008).3.3.4. THE DONOR ARENARelations between the Ethiopian government and the donor community have been strained onquestions of governance, despite considerable interactions between donors and the Ethiopiangovernment, and despite Ethiopia’s reputation as a favored country for donors throughout muchof the period since the fall of the Derg. On governance issues, the central government has beencritical of international efforts to modify or reshape patterns of authority in the countryETHIOPIA DESK STUDY 25