Commentary 

Develop Eritrea and Avail Freedom, Justice and Prosperity for the Eritrean People

By
Ambassador Andebrhan Welde Giorgis
 

The Eritrean people fought so hard and sacrificed so much in the pursuit of independence. In waging the triumphant war of national liberation and upon achieving independence, the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) reiterated its programmatic commitment to develop Eritrea and ensure freedom, justice and prosperity for the Eritrean people. This objective was shared and ardent hopes entertained by Eritrea’s freedom fighters, the Eritrean people and many international friends of Eritrea. 

The inability of the prototype postcolonial African state to deliver development, emancipation and wellbeing for the great majority of the African peoples remained a cause of deep frustration and general disappointment for pan-Africanists like Abdulrahman Mohamed Babu and Africa historians like Basil Davidson. Following “so many political, social and economic shocks” that afflicted independent Africa, such pan-Africanist friends of Eritrea envisioned Eritrea leading the way to the future of Africa. They had expressed optimism and high expectations of a triumphant Eritrea blazing the path to the successful future of Africa. 

In the aftermath of independence there transpired considerable official talk about turning Eritrea into an “African Singapore”. During the second half of the 1990s, virtually every ‘who is who’ in the Government of Eritrea and the ruling People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) visited the small island portcity state on a study tour to observe the modus operandi of the Singaporean model, witness its achievements, and learn from its experience. In those days, there was much excitement and anticipation in the air, sustained by enthusiastic statements of senior government officials and propagated by considerable coverage in the local media. 

It is of course possible to envisage the construction of an affluent state that combines both democratic and developmental features and independent Eritrea had a unique opportunity to become such a state. The state, after all, is a social construct created, sustained and defended by people. Subsequent to the adoption of the National Charter and the formulation of the Macro-Policy paper, the Transitional Government of Eritrea proclaimed its intention to follow the Singaporean model. Embedded in the pride and self-confidence of having waged a triumphant war of independence, there prevailed widespread belief, high hopes and great expectations within the EPLF that effective emulation of Singapore’s successful development strategy would turn Eritrea into an ‘African Singapore’.  

A consensus had evolved among the leadership and senior cadres of the EPLF and a pledge made that an independent Eritrea would be a developmental state committed to rapid, balanced and sustainable economic growth and societal progress. Since the second congress in 1987, the EPLF had abandoned its adherence to the ideology of ‘scientific socialism’ and commitment to the tenets of a command economy and proclaimed its intention to establish a democratic state with a mixed economic system after liberation. Accordingly, following independence, the adoption of the National Charter, the drawing up of the Macro-Policy paper and the ratification of the Constitution of Eritrea confirmed the Front’s loyalty to the ideological shift signalled in 1987 and the transitional government’s commitment to a developmental state and an affluent society within the framework of a mixed economy.  

As a general rule, a developmental state is a pragmatic rather than an ideological construct. In a strict sense, it espouses neither capitalism nor socialism, but a brand of a mixed economic system. A mixed economy combines elements of the capitalist and socialist systems. It allows the operations of private enterprise and centralised economic planning, enabling market forces and government regulation to coexist and work together to promote rapid and sustainable economic development. 

A functional mixed economy operating under the auspices of a developmental state charts a path and implements a plan of development somewhere between “a free market capitalist economic system and centrally planned economic system,” or “a plan-rational capitalist system, ‘conjoining private ownership with state guidance.’” A developmental state could, as in the experience of the “Asian Tigers”, create and regulate the “seamless web of political, bureaucratic, and moneyed influences” that structure and determine the content and pattern of economic life in a market driven economy. 

The hallmark of a prototype developmental state is state intervention in the economy that fosters strong partnership and effective coordination of the public and private sectors in the service of rapid and sustainable development with social justice. A developmental state is typically, but not necessarily or invariably, authoritarian. Experience furnishes four criteria that distinguish the developmental state, whether democratic or authoritarian, often exercised with a streak of benevolence to foster the public good, from all other state types.

These integral criteria are: first, the formulation of clear development objectives; second, the establishment of functional institutional structures to pursue the stated objectives; third, the pursuit of meritocracy and competence in public service; and fourth, the effective delivery of improved public wellbeing, a higher standard of living and an enhanced human condition for the majority of its citizenry.   

Singapore is strategically located at the tip of the Malay Peninsula. Its population, comprising mainly of ethnic Chinese, Malays, Indians, Peranakans, and Eurasians, is also multiracial and multi-religious. At the time of its independence in 1965, Singapore had no natural resources, no adequate water supply, no defence capability, no unified national identity, and no promising prospects. It had tense relations with its much bigger and more powerful neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia. Its redeeming feature lay in an enlightened leadership committed to meritocracy and dedicated to effecting rapid economic and social transformation, forging a strong national identity and building unity in diversity through the protection of minority rights. 

Adopting a brand of ‘guided democracy’, the government of Singapore instituted an efficient, accountable and transparent system of public administration and civil service based on meritocracy. It devised and implemented a services-based and export-oriented development strategy conducive to the participation of domestic capital and the inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI) and expertise; and built a modern service sector led by banking, financial, and port services. In addition, it established strong state enterprises with skilled personnel and competent management to provide infrastructure for public utilities and services; expanded high quality tertiary education to generate the knowledge and skills needed to develop a modern economy driven by ‘high-tech’ sectors; and promoted free trade, cordial relations, and peace with its neighbours. 

By 1984, nineteen years after its independence, Singapore had achieved remarkable economic growth with low inflation and full employment; come out of impoverishment into prosperity; overcome communal strife and attained domestic tranquillity; cultivated cordial relations with its neighbours; and evolved into a significant player in the promotion of regional cooperation, security, and solidarity. The Singaporean economy has continued to grow significantly, creating wealth and providing the population with one of the highest standards of living. In terms of GDP per capita measured in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), Singapore has become the wealthiest country in the world, with its official foreign exchange reserves standing at US$ 506.4 billion as of August 2024. 

At the times of their respective independence, there existed enormous dissimilarity between Eritrea and Singapore in terms of the sizes of territory and population as well as in terms of resource base and racial diversity. The circumstances were more favourable for Eritrea. The adoption of the Singaporean political, economic, and social model could possibly have enabled Eritrea to capitalise on its comparative advantage and easily duplicate Singapore’s successful experience in nation-building, state construction, and economic development. 

In retrospect, however, the transitional government’s infatuation with the Singaporean model seems to have been nothing more than a publicity stunt propagated for public consumption. For the Government of Eritrea clearly lacked what it takes to implement such a model successfully, most notably political will, leadership quality, functional institutions, accountable and transparent public administration and finance, meritocracy and competence in the civil service, etc., to transform Eritrea into an African Singapore. It is a sad commentary, indeed, that the Eritrean government has abandoned the promise of a democratic state and a mixed economy and, instead, instituted an authoritarian security state and a dysfunctional coupon economy that has engendered widespread impoverishment. 

In concise terms, the vision, objectives, principles and values enshrined in the National Charter, the Macro-Policy paper and the Constitution of Eritrea conferred upon the transitional government the necessary legal instruments, economic guidelines, and political legitimacy to enable it to transform Eritrea into a free, democratic, and developmental state. The triad of political, economic and legal frameworks provided the young government with the key policy guidelines and normative standards it needed to pursue the goals of nation building, state construction and socioeconomic development. In the beginning, there were high hopes and great expectations that the promise of a bright future would materialise through efficient performance of the functions of state and actual delivery of a higher standard of living and a better quality of life for the Eritrean people. 

More than thirty-three years post-independence, it is quite rational, objective and fair to assess that the present Government of Eritrea has failed miserably to follow its own script and make effective use of the prescribed policy instruments to develop the country and emancipate the people. Basic human needs and social services like foodstuffs, housing, running water, electricity, healthcare, education, transport, communications, etc., are either lacking or deficient. Eritrea’s cities, ports and towns, with their dilapidated buildings and ruined streets, are in a state of utter decay. Sadly, Eritrea today is a dismal story.

It is thus quite legitimate and imperative to criticise the Government for failing to develop the economy and provide for the basic necessities, raise the standard of living, improve the quality of life and uplift the human condition of the Eritrean people. It is indeed a bitter historic irony that a once progressive revolutionary movement that successfully fought to liberate the land and the people against overwhelming odds has, post-independence, atrophied and proved unable to establish and build a functional state capable of delivering freedom, progress, and prosperity for the Eritrean people. Despite the lofty promises embedded in the three documents and the great expectations and high hopes they generated among the Eritrean people and friends of Eritrea, the reality on the ground shows the dismal record of a dysfunctional state whose actual practice has diverged from its stated policy in every domain, with disastrous consequences for Eritrea and the Eritrean people.

Although Eritrea has missed considerable opportunities for rapid and sustained development during more than three decades of independence, not all hope is lost. With change and stable transition to a constitutional government, it would be possible to revive and pursue the vision of democracy, progress and prosperity encapsulated in the National Charter; the objectives of development, equity and prosperity embedded in an updated macroeconomic policy framework; and the aspirations for fundamental freedoms, basic rights and justice inscribed in the Constitution of Eritrea. I believe it is still possible, like in the 1990s, to envisage and work to realise the construction of a new Eritrean state committed to the pursuit of development and the delivery of freedom, justice and prosperity for the Eritrean people à la Singapore. 

However, making this belief a reality requires that the new post-transition government must have enlightened leadership; be constitutional; introduce an education system that builds competent human capital; institute medical services that ensure a healthy citizenry; formulate clear development objectives; establish functional institutional structures capable of achieving the formulated objectives; cultivate unity in diversity; pursue meritocracy and prioritise competence in all spheres of public administration and civil service; and deliver basic needs and essential social services that enhance the standard of living and uplift the human condition of the majority of the Eritrean people.