The appointment by a government to a public office entails a very heavy responsibility. It is not the same thing as serving as the CEO of a private company or president of an NGO. The head of a private company or NGO is accountable to the owner or the board of directors. Although it may be argued that a government official is accountable to the government which appointed him, he is ultimately accountable to the public in so far as the government answers to the public.

A government official, therefore, is duty bound to serve the public loyally, honestly and with integrity. The public installs a government in office so that the latter can serve it. Likewise, an elected government appoints an official so that he can serve the public. No more, no less. An official of a government who claims to be populist has the responsibility of maintaining the highest standard while serving the public.

If officials of the Ethiopian government were asked to raise their hands if they believed they are serving the public loyally, honestly and with integrity, how many of them would raise their hands confidently? How many would do so with hesitation? How many would be motivated by fear of the loss of their jobs if they were not to raise their hands and thus cheat themselves and their country by raising their hands? And how many would have the courage to admit the truth and refrain from raising their hands?

We leave the answer to the conscience of the officials themselves and the on-looking public. That said, it is doubtful whether even half of them can honestly raise their hands. We are not saying that there are no officials who can lay claims to serving the public. But neither are we saying that all of them do serve the public for there are some who do not have any concept of what public service is.

Why is it important to emphasize the obligation of government officials to serve the public honestly and with integrity? It's not because we fear that failing to serve the public is not good for the conscience or psychological well-being of government officials. After all, our agenda is the welfare of the nation and its people, not whether they are conscience-stricken or not. Neither is it the belief that God will not approve if government officials do not serve the public honestly and with integrity. God has his own way of dealing with what He does not approve of and does not need our advice. We are not concerned with what fate awaits officials in the afterlife.

The reason why it must be emphasized is that the nation and its people are bound to suffer, and democracy, justice and development will not be realized if officials do not practice good governance. This is why we demand of our officials to critically evaluate themselves, to ask themselves the following hard-hitting questions and provide the answers.

If I were to have knowledge, backed up with substantiating evidence, that a certain individual or organization was flouting the laws of the country, would I act within the law to stop him and bring him to justice, thereby discharging the responsibility entrusted me by the public and the government or would I be corrupted by the offers of a criminal to give me cash, buy me a house, buy my wife a car, pay my children's school fee etc to cover up his crime, prevent police investigation or prosecution and in general pervert the course of justice?

If two individuals facing the same problem or injustice were to come to me, would I treat them equally or would I go out of my way to assist the one who bribes me and rebuff the one who does not?

If two investors were unable to repay their bank loans, would I ensure that the necessary legal measures are taken against both or would I hasten to foreclose the property of one but do anything I can to prevent the same thing from happening to the other? If these same persons failed to develop plots of land they leased from the government for investment purposes, would I give orders for the land of one to be repossessed and for the other to be left alone?

If a person whose personality and private views I dislike or whose political outlook or the views of the party he belongs to are different from those of my own or my party's were to come to me seeking redress for those of my own or my party's were to come to me seeking redress for those of my own or my party's were to come to me seeking redress for the injustice the suffered, would I do what I can to protect his rights and help him get justice no matter what type of views or personality he has or would I send him away just because his views are different from mine and add to the injustice he is already facing?

Do I truly believe that irrespective of differences in religion, ethnic background, economic status or political views, everyone is equal before the law or do believe that even though all people are equal some are more equal than others?

Even if I am not corrupt, do I keep quiet when certain powerful criminals break the law in fear that they will have me beaten up, smear my reputation or threaten my carrer? Or will I have the resolve to defend my nation, my people and the constitution without fear for my personal safety?

 Government officials need to evaluate themselves by answering truthfully the questions raised above. The questions, by no means, are exhaustive. They are just illustrative. The important thing is that officials must act as protectors of the public and refrain from serving as instruments for corruptors, criminals, rogues or the rich. They need to inspire confidence in the public that they are committed to defending its rights.

Presently, the government is devising a system whereby the asset of officials is fully disclosed. This is commendable. Nonetheless, given that the mechanisms to conceal the ownership of cash and property will inevitably advance even more, emphasis should be attached to appointing officials who can serve the public loyally, honestly and capably.