Political Stability
The reason why the nation has to be democratized might sound puzzling for most of us. Because, except getting rid of some unpleasant practices like being exploited by one ethnic group, or not having a voice in what is taking place in the nation, or not getting equal share from what is being generated through the existing economy, or lack of equity in what is taking place in the country where everyone is not allowed to be equally productive etc, we might find it difficult to see any immediate ramification. The fact of the matter is what are mentioned above are very essential ingredients of a democratic system, because to have equal participation in the generating of the nation’s resources and after that being benefited equally from the benefits the resources avail are key to get ahead in every society, even more so for a starting out third world country like Ethiopia.
The reason why it is so is there is an unprecedented dependence on outside assistance in order to be able to run the nation adequately, which has to come into existence because the nation is not yet self sufficient in most of the things it is doing. To make things worse natural catastrophe like draught is visiting the nation frequently.
If we go back and revisit the nation’s history, except for one terrible natural disaster that took place in Wollo region, we can say the rest of the nation was somehow better off than it is now even if we cannot deny that the system was a mixture of feudalism, monarchy, touched with the arrival and introduction of democracy, capitalism, and the market economy. We might not have to attest the existence of feudalism and monarchy in the old system, but most of us might say where was the democracy. We can indicate that the parliamentary system was the first major sign of democracy, because it was the parliament that was the lawmaker of the nation and the democratically elected members were from the whole part of the country.
The only difference was the parliament was instrumental for the monarchy that was dependent on the parliament to come up with what is essential for the various regions of the nation. There were no political parties because the nation was united and was represented by the monarchy, which means there were no visible political differences, even if there were a few pockets of resistance, like what was taking place in Eritrea. Yet, the key here is every part of the nation was represented by those who were residing members of the various regions that had a first hand access to what was taking place in those regions.
That is what democracy really means where every region is represented by someone who has got the endorsement of that region to represent it, because the region is fully aware of the fact that whatever is needed in the region will be addressed according to the ability of the nation through their representatives.
When we ask about the market economy, it was better than any era, especially the Derg era where a central planning did everything in the nation. Such a system had been proven not to be the best method of availing what any nation needs and many nations, including pioneers like Russia had left it behind and they are showing an unprecedented advancement, at a much better rate than they would have achieved in a planned economy. There are other East Europeans and Asian countries that are showing a much better result after they abandoned their planned economy system and embraced the market economy. Even nations like China, even if they have the central planning system in place, a big number of companies are making their own decision in what to do and it is the market that is deciding whether what they are doing is viable or not.
There was a similar working condition in the nation before Derg introduced communism that staunchly upholds central planning. The administration that usurped power from the Derg, EPRDF is a little bit different because it was ethnic based, and those who are member of the TPLF party had been the ones who had been making the major decisions. This kind of a system is even worse than the central planning, because in the case of central planing the only problem is, the job of running the economy will become very difficult, and the outcome will be shortage of all kinds of consumer goods and services like it used to be witnessed in most of the communist countries. There was a proof that the quality of the goods produced had always been poor. When we talk about resources allocation, even if there was not disparity, there was waste. However, in spite of all the shortcomings, it was the overall nation that gets the benefit, it was not one group or sector.
But when the central planner and decision maker is made up of one ethnic group that makes a small percentage of the population, the form of the government system that we will be speaking about is going to be an oligarchy. In this kind of a system the group or the ethnic group, in our case, tends to give unprecedented priority to its own interest. Even if it is not widespread, such a problem might be in existence in the country, and different groups had different takes on what is taking place in the nation. No matter how it is interpreted, when such a group is running a nation where their number is few, in order to continue, they should introduce democracy at one point so that the whole nation will be participant and beneficiary of whatever is taking place in the nation.
The system that goes hand-in-had with a democracy is market economy, where there will be a private sector that will be allowed to thrive so that it will be in a position to alleviate the problem that is in the country, which is mainly a shortage of goods and services. When we say one of the major problems of the country is poverty, we mean there is no means of producing enough goods and service in the nation so that eliminating the shortage created by the lack is possible.
When there is a private sector that is producing those goods and services to avail them for the public use, in the process it can benefit itself, and that could be secondary when compared with the purpose it serves. The same process will create employment, the most effective means of fighting poverty. When there are a big number of people working, the government will also start being benefited because its tax base is going to be wider, and it is going to include various businesses and individuals who are employed by these businesses. Moreover, when the government has more spending power it has the means to work on improving the method of conducting business in the country creating an environment where starting and running business will be increasingly easy. We can go on saying that this kind of business activity will not be limited to the local inhabitants only, and those from outside, with their own capital and know how will be interested to participate, because it is going to be worth their while. Expanding on this kind of positive and prosperous outlook as we know it is possible.
However, if there is a catch, it is that unless there is a stable political atmosphere, it will not be good for the local entrepreneurs, let alone for those whom we are anticipating to be attracted from outside to take part in what is taking place in our community. The end result will be even if we might not eliminate the nation’s dependency on outside aid, at least it might be possible to bring down the high level of dependency. It might also save us from the serious problems the nation is facing currently, where it will be hand-tied to even bring security problems under control, simply because some donor group is going to withhold what it was donating without examining the fact that the government could be forced to take security measures on a daily or weekly basis if needed, and all it takes is for someone to organize and foment unrest in the nation.
Therefore, when we are lauding democracy, it is not only that we do not want some ethnic group that everyone sees with dread, either because of its incompetence or distorted outlook to take power again, because we all know what will happen; the nation will plunge back into backwardness that we cannot imagine. What will prevent this from happening is to follow the course that the present government is following and work hard on the power sharing aspect of the whole system, because every region will have to particpate and be benefited equally. This kind of measure will contribute to the stability of the nation ushering an environment where democracy will thrive. It is only then the whole nation can work together and be in a position to keep any dissatisfaction at bay. If there is no interest group among those on power that want to retain power to tend to the interest of one sector, there is no reason why democracy will not thrive.
This kind of problem is not only directed at TPLF. There could be other groups whose function and representation should be examined too, because how about in the name of democracy the government is made up of an oligarchy of one or more groups that are not representatives of the whole nation, or they lack acceptance. If that is why there is still a dissatisfaction and unrest in the nation after a democratic election, and if that is what the European donors are looking at why not they say so, because if they are supporting only one political party like CUD that represents one region of the nation that is less than one-forth of the population, it would make them look bad.
As a result, to bring back a system that was working, side by side, with the monarchy back into the nation, we might have to do some weeding, and if it is not done on time, it is the public that will suffer. If such problems are prevalent in the existing administration, then the route to follow will be to work on the representation issue and if all regions are equally represented, at least the key ingredient that we are looking for to bring stability in the nation will be there. Bringing stability at the barrel of a gun is impractical, because as we can tell from what happened to the Derg regime, if the economy falters to the point of no return, avoiding putting down arms might not be possible.
The reason why it is so is there is an unprecedented dependence on outside assistance in order to be able to run the nation adequately, which has to come into existence because the nation is not yet self sufficient in most of the things it is doing. To make things worse natural catastrophe like draught is visiting the nation frequently.
If we go back and revisit the nation’s history, except for one terrible natural disaster that took place in Wollo region, we can say the rest of the nation was somehow better off than it is now even if we cannot deny that the system was a mixture of feudalism, monarchy, touched with the arrival and introduction of democracy, capitalism, and the market economy. We might not have to attest the existence of feudalism and monarchy in the old system, but most of us might say where was the democracy. We can indicate that the parliamentary system was the first major sign of democracy, because it was the parliament that was the lawmaker of the nation and the democratically elected members were from the whole part of the country.
The only difference was the parliament was instrumental for the monarchy that was dependent on the parliament to come up with what is essential for the various regions of the nation. There were no political parties because the nation was united and was represented by the monarchy, which means there were no visible political differences, even if there were a few pockets of resistance, like what was taking place in Eritrea. Yet, the key here is every part of the nation was represented by those who were residing members of the various regions that had a first hand access to what was taking place in those regions.
That is what democracy really means where every region is represented by someone who has got the endorsement of that region to represent it, because the region is fully aware of the fact that whatever is needed in the region will be addressed according to the ability of the nation through their representatives.
When we ask about the market economy, it was better than any era, especially the Derg era where a central planning did everything in the nation. Such a system had been proven not to be the best method of availing what any nation needs and many nations, including pioneers like Russia had left it behind and they are showing an unprecedented advancement, at a much better rate than they would have achieved in a planned economy. There are other East Europeans and Asian countries that are showing a much better result after they abandoned their planned economy system and embraced the market economy. Even nations like China, even if they have the central planning system in place, a big number of companies are making their own decision in what to do and it is the market that is deciding whether what they are doing is viable or not.
There was a similar working condition in the nation before Derg introduced communism that staunchly upholds central planning. The administration that usurped power from the Derg, EPRDF is a little bit different because it was ethnic based, and those who are member of the TPLF party had been the ones who had been making the major decisions. This kind of a system is even worse than the central planning, because in the case of central planing the only problem is, the job of running the economy will become very difficult, and the outcome will be shortage of all kinds of consumer goods and services like it used to be witnessed in most of the communist countries. There was a proof that the quality of the goods produced had always been poor. When we talk about resources allocation, even if there was not disparity, there was waste. However, in spite of all the shortcomings, it was the overall nation that gets the benefit, it was not one group or sector.
But when the central planner and decision maker is made up of one ethnic group that makes a small percentage of the population, the form of the government system that we will be speaking about is going to be an oligarchy. In this kind of a system the group or the ethnic group, in our case, tends to give unprecedented priority to its own interest. Even if it is not widespread, such a problem might be in existence in the country, and different groups had different takes on what is taking place in the nation. No matter how it is interpreted, when such a group is running a nation where their number is few, in order to continue, they should introduce democracy at one point so that the whole nation will be participant and beneficiary of whatever is taking place in the nation.
The system that goes hand-in-had with a democracy is market economy, where there will be a private sector that will be allowed to thrive so that it will be in a position to alleviate the problem that is in the country, which is mainly a shortage of goods and services. When we say one of the major problems of the country is poverty, we mean there is no means of producing enough goods and service in the nation so that eliminating the shortage created by the lack is possible.
When there is a private sector that is producing those goods and services to avail them for the public use, in the process it can benefit itself, and that could be secondary when compared with the purpose it serves. The same process will create employment, the most effective means of fighting poverty. When there are a big number of people working, the government will also start being benefited because its tax base is going to be wider, and it is going to include various businesses and individuals who are employed by these businesses. Moreover, when the government has more spending power it has the means to work on improving the method of conducting business in the country creating an environment where starting and running business will be increasingly easy. We can go on saying that this kind of business activity will not be limited to the local inhabitants only, and those from outside, with their own capital and know how will be interested to participate, because it is going to be worth their while. Expanding on this kind of positive and prosperous outlook as we know it is possible.
However, if there is a catch, it is that unless there is a stable political atmosphere, it will not be good for the local entrepreneurs, let alone for those whom we are anticipating to be attracted from outside to take part in what is taking place in our community. The end result will be even if we might not eliminate the nation’s dependency on outside aid, at least it might be possible to bring down the high level of dependency. It might also save us from the serious problems the nation is facing currently, where it will be hand-tied to even bring security problems under control, simply because some donor group is going to withhold what it was donating without examining the fact that the government could be forced to take security measures on a daily or weekly basis if needed, and all it takes is for someone to organize and foment unrest in the nation.
Therefore, when we are lauding democracy, it is not only that we do not want some ethnic group that everyone sees with dread, either because of its incompetence or distorted outlook to take power again, because we all know what will happen; the nation will plunge back into backwardness that we cannot imagine. What will prevent this from happening is to follow the course that the present government is following and work hard on the power sharing aspect of the whole system, because every region will have to particpate and be benefited equally. This kind of measure will contribute to the stability of the nation ushering an environment where democracy will thrive. It is only then the whole nation can work together and be in a position to keep any dissatisfaction at bay. If there is no interest group among those on power that want to retain power to tend to the interest of one sector, there is no reason why democracy will not thrive.
This kind of problem is not only directed at TPLF. There could be other groups whose function and representation should be examined too, because how about in the name of democracy the government is made up of an oligarchy of one or more groups that are not representatives of the whole nation, or they lack acceptance. If that is why there is still a dissatisfaction and unrest in the nation after a democratic election, and if that is what the European donors are looking at why not they say so, because if they are supporting only one political party like CUD that represents one region of the nation that is less than one-forth of the population, it would make them look bad.
As a result, to bring back a system that was working, side by side, with the monarchy back into the nation, we might have to do some weeding, and if it is not done on time, it is the public that will suffer. If such problems are prevalent in the existing administration, then the route to follow will be to work on the representation issue and if all regions are equally represented, at least the key ingredient that we are looking for to bring stability in the nation will be there. Bringing stability at the barrel of a gun is impractical, because as we can tell from what happened to the Derg regime, if the economy falters to the point of no return, avoiding putting down arms might not be possible.
posted by Ethio-Probe @ 1:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home