Sending Communism Packing
The serious problem that is gripping the nation might be due to what communism brought into the country. Whichever way it is looked at it had been proven that communism does not work, simply because it relies on central planning and stifles individual’s effort. The system in the country seems that it is trying to steer away from that kind of working arrangement, but one of the key features of communism is still walking strong in the nation. There is no denying what communism accomplished in the country and it had made many landless tenants to own the land they are farming. The ownership itself is rooted in the communist doctrine where they cannot sell it or use it as collateral to borrow money. For as long as they are alive they can work on it and might pass it to their children. In a situation like this land will lose its economical value and will become a different kind of factor of production, with no monitary value for itself, but with a production value and capacity.
There is nothing wrong with that because the farmers are no longer exploited and some of them are showing good result. But somehow they are falling behind when it comes to availing what the nation’s population needs. Since around 85 percent of the population lives in the countryside and is engaged in farming, the concern now is for the 15-20 percent urbanites who are having shortage of goods despite the numerous resources they have at their disposal that should have enabled them to buy what they cannot produce in the country from outside. But that is not case as it is witnessed by the shortage and the other reality is except those who could be facing drought, the rest of the countryside dwellers do not have any shortage, at least as far as food products are concerned.
This is a typical third world problem that cannot happen in other countries. If we take the case of the U.S.A for example, it is only 2 percent of the population that is dependant on farming and they do not do it alone when it comes to feeding the nation, because there is agribusiness too that is lacking in our country. When looking at the general outcome it makes it difficult to say that communism had not been useful in the country, because it had a positive effect on the 85 percent of the population. But that does not mean it works, because if it works there should not be shortage of basic goods in the country and the standard of living of the people should have improved at a faster pace.
If a system fails to avail the needed goods for the populace there is no reason why it should not be discarded. The problem is communism is a little bit different because the way people identify and relate to it is different. Especially those who had used the doctrine to improve or change their living situation would have a special attachment to it. That is why the administration in office that is definitely made up of staunch communists will find it very difficult to discard it. Moreover, they have a considerable number of supporters who themselves give a special place to communism. Because of that this powerful cohorts would want to keep it by trying to change its facet. When the new administration went into office, it knew very well that communism had failed, not only in Ethiopia but almost everywhere else with few exceptions. China still claims to be communist but when we look at what they are accomplishing they are mixing it with market economy. If they continue like this, they have no choice other than abandoning communism soon. The administration in office when assuming power gave it a different facet and called it the “Albanian style communism”, fully knowing that this particular nation also had suffered under communism and it is backward. Then when they had to go around and solicit for aid from Western governments the administration came up with a new facet and called it “progressive democracy”, but in essence it is still communism because the most common features of the doctrine, central planning and ownership of all properties by the government are intact.
This shows the special attachment the administration in office has with the doctrine and will find it very difficult to even think of doing things that will weaken the stance of communism. All what it is saying could be lip service and the government’s intension might be to bring the nation out of the problem it is in by using a moderate type of communism. That is not going to work simply because the doctrine is defunct. At the election of 2005 any of the oppositions except CUD, which was for the most part made up one ethnic group would have tried to introduce a different system if they had wider base and a good preparation. Still there is nothing that would guarantee that in the near future the nation would be done away with communism. What this shows is the kind of attachment this particular generation that is in charge of the nation’s affair had developed with this particular doctrine and they would find it difficult to let it go even at the expense of the destruction it is sowing. They could even be threatened if they let it go simply because they are versed in the communist doctrine better than any other and they will find it difficult to start from square one.
Therefore, the solution for this kind of a problem is either the nation needs a new generation of leaders who were not immersed into the communism doctrine or there has to be a party that is made up of non-communist adherents who are capable of seeing things differently. When that is the case there is not going to be a dread toward bringing back private ownership that will create opportunity for the urbanites to engage into farming, because what was feeding the urbanites before the introduction of communism was their own effort that was snatched from them. Bringing back private ownership might have more advantages than availing the goods urbanities need. It will do good for the economy because those who have the know-how, education, and experience could be hand-tied now simply because they do not have any means of obtaining venture capital. They might own the house they are living in, or there might be a family house that they can use to obtain capital, or it is possible that they can play the entrepreneurial role and bring those who have the capital into a venture. They can build unlimited number of houses to rent and that would mean a lot of financial leverage to do other economically benefiting things.
The problem is if the government does not want to visualize these advantages for various reasons, one of them being the members are sympathizing with communism, it will make it difficult to discard the doctrine. Particularly, it is possible to say Derg did what it did with a good intension, because it had more than 85 percent of the population on its mind when it took all those measures that were damaging for a few privileged class. On the other hand, it is possible to say all it wanted to accomplish was to take the means of production from those who were running things and then put itself and its supporters in power. But now those who are in charge are said to be more acute business people than politicians and the fact that there had already been communism in the country when they took power will enable them to tie the hands of their adversaries, because except people who are in the private sector and are merchants or service providers, those who are earning salary are living from hand-to-mouth no matter what kind of money they make. They are the ones who will be vulnerable when all means to get ahead is controlled by the government in the name of communism and could be systematically handed out to the cohorts of the administration.
The solution for this kind of problem is the government in office would have to do something to change the economic situation in the country and make it easy for the urbanites to have other source of income, such as rent or agricultural income. Especially the agricultural income is attractive simply because without selling agricultural products it will not be possible to make money. It was this kind of process that was feeding urbanities. Urbanites driven by profit motive will go out and flood the market and people will go back to pay the price they are used to. It is not only that there could also be a lot of employment created, as the number of the unemployed is very high in the urban centers.
This will be a very good platform for parties that are out to serve the whole nation and win the next election, without making their priority tending for the interest of one particular ethnic group. People can keep closed eyes on TPLF, which is an ethnic based party because they know they are not ready as a nation to take charge of their own affairs and run it democratically. This does not mean parties based on ethnic groups should not be formed, but for no reason at all should be given total control of the nation simply because they will make their own interest their priority. This route is better than trying to drive the government out of office by the use of arms because it might not be an easy task. The existing fragmentation among the various ethnic factions also will not allow the coming together of the whole nation and take charge of running the nation. However, there is no reason why the government in office should not loosen its grip on the economy of the nation, because what they are doing is not really alleviating the shortage that could cause their downfall. The only solution is to avail those needed goods, and one way of doing that might be to empower the urban dwellers to tackle their own problem.
There is nothing wrong with that because the farmers are no longer exploited and some of them are showing good result. But somehow they are falling behind when it comes to availing what the nation’s population needs. Since around 85 percent of the population lives in the countryside and is engaged in farming, the concern now is for the 15-20 percent urbanites who are having shortage of goods despite the numerous resources they have at their disposal that should have enabled them to buy what they cannot produce in the country from outside. But that is not case as it is witnessed by the shortage and the other reality is except those who could be facing drought, the rest of the countryside dwellers do not have any shortage, at least as far as food products are concerned.
This is a typical third world problem that cannot happen in other countries. If we take the case of the U.S.A for example, it is only 2 percent of the population that is dependant on farming and they do not do it alone when it comes to feeding the nation, because there is agribusiness too that is lacking in our country. When looking at the general outcome it makes it difficult to say that communism had not been useful in the country, because it had a positive effect on the 85 percent of the population. But that does not mean it works, because if it works there should not be shortage of basic goods in the country and the standard of living of the people should have improved at a faster pace.
If a system fails to avail the needed goods for the populace there is no reason why it should not be discarded. The problem is communism is a little bit different because the way people identify and relate to it is different. Especially those who had used the doctrine to improve or change their living situation would have a special attachment to it. That is why the administration in office that is definitely made up of staunch communists will find it very difficult to discard it. Moreover, they have a considerable number of supporters who themselves give a special place to communism. Because of that this powerful cohorts would want to keep it by trying to change its facet. When the new administration went into office, it knew very well that communism had failed, not only in Ethiopia but almost everywhere else with few exceptions. China still claims to be communist but when we look at what they are accomplishing they are mixing it with market economy. If they continue like this, they have no choice other than abandoning communism soon. The administration in office when assuming power gave it a different facet and called it the “Albanian style communism”, fully knowing that this particular nation also had suffered under communism and it is backward. Then when they had to go around and solicit for aid from Western governments the administration came up with a new facet and called it “progressive democracy”, but in essence it is still communism because the most common features of the doctrine, central planning and ownership of all properties by the government are intact.
This shows the special attachment the administration in office has with the doctrine and will find it very difficult to even think of doing things that will weaken the stance of communism. All what it is saying could be lip service and the government’s intension might be to bring the nation out of the problem it is in by using a moderate type of communism. That is not going to work simply because the doctrine is defunct. At the election of 2005 any of the oppositions except CUD, which was for the most part made up one ethnic group would have tried to introduce a different system if they had wider base and a good preparation. Still there is nothing that would guarantee that in the near future the nation would be done away with communism. What this shows is the kind of attachment this particular generation that is in charge of the nation’s affair had developed with this particular doctrine and they would find it difficult to let it go even at the expense of the destruction it is sowing. They could even be threatened if they let it go simply because they are versed in the communist doctrine better than any other and they will find it difficult to start from square one.
Therefore, the solution for this kind of a problem is either the nation needs a new generation of leaders who were not immersed into the communism doctrine or there has to be a party that is made up of non-communist adherents who are capable of seeing things differently. When that is the case there is not going to be a dread toward bringing back private ownership that will create opportunity for the urbanites to engage into farming, because what was feeding the urbanites before the introduction of communism was their own effort that was snatched from them. Bringing back private ownership might have more advantages than availing the goods urbanities need. It will do good for the economy because those who have the know-how, education, and experience could be hand-tied now simply because they do not have any means of obtaining venture capital. They might own the house they are living in, or there might be a family house that they can use to obtain capital, or it is possible that they can play the entrepreneurial role and bring those who have the capital into a venture. They can build unlimited number of houses to rent and that would mean a lot of financial leverage to do other economically benefiting things.
The problem is if the government does not want to visualize these advantages for various reasons, one of them being the members are sympathizing with communism, it will make it difficult to discard the doctrine. Particularly, it is possible to say Derg did what it did with a good intension, because it had more than 85 percent of the population on its mind when it took all those measures that were damaging for a few privileged class. On the other hand, it is possible to say all it wanted to accomplish was to take the means of production from those who were running things and then put itself and its supporters in power. But now those who are in charge are said to be more acute business people than politicians and the fact that there had already been communism in the country when they took power will enable them to tie the hands of their adversaries, because except people who are in the private sector and are merchants or service providers, those who are earning salary are living from hand-to-mouth no matter what kind of money they make. They are the ones who will be vulnerable when all means to get ahead is controlled by the government in the name of communism and could be systematically handed out to the cohorts of the administration.
The solution for this kind of problem is the government in office would have to do something to change the economic situation in the country and make it easy for the urbanites to have other source of income, such as rent or agricultural income. Especially the agricultural income is attractive simply because without selling agricultural products it will not be possible to make money. It was this kind of process that was feeding urbanities. Urbanites driven by profit motive will go out and flood the market and people will go back to pay the price they are used to. It is not only that there could also be a lot of employment created, as the number of the unemployed is very high in the urban centers.
This will be a very good platform for parties that are out to serve the whole nation and win the next election, without making their priority tending for the interest of one particular ethnic group. People can keep closed eyes on TPLF, which is an ethnic based party because they know they are not ready as a nation to take charge of their own affairs and run it democratically. This does not mean parties based on ethnic groups should not be formed, but for no reason at all should be given total control of the nation simply because they will make their own interest their priority. This route is better than trying to drive the government out of office by the use of arms because it might not be an easy task. The existing fragmentation among the various ethnic factions also will not allow the coming together of the whole nation and take charge of running the nation. However, there is no reason why the government in office should not loosen its grip on the economy of the nation, because what they are doing is not really alleviating the shortage that could cause their downfall. The only solution is to avail those needed goods, and one way of doing that might be to empower the urban dwellers to tackle their own problem.
posted by Ethio-Probe @ 7:13 AM
0 comments
